Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 01/19/1988
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1988 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Sue Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENTATION OF LETTER OF RECOGNITION PLAQUE TD RON FUNK AND RDBERT MJOLSNESS FOR 10 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE POLICE RESERVE UNIT I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, December 1, 1987 Page I (Continued from January 5, 1988 B. Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, December 22, 1987 Page 14 (Continued from January 5, 198T III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 4-88, amending City Code Section Page 3317 5.37 y amending Section 5.37, Subd. 5 which defines the word "Peddler" B. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 9-68, amending City Code Sec. 2.05, Page 19 Subd. 3 Relating to the Payment for Attendance of Meetings y the Mayor and Council C. Set Special City Council meeting for 5:30 PM on Tuesday, February Page 20 L 1988 at City Hall for the purpose of interviewing candidates for boards and commissions D. Set Board of Review meeting for Thursday, April 28, 1988 at 7:30 Page 21 FR- E. SHADY OAK RIDGE 3RD ADDITION (AKA Shady Oak Ridge 2nd Addition) Pa a 23 by Joe Ruzic. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #59-87, Zoning District 9 Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.19 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 2.88 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Shady Dak Ridge 3rd Addition; and Approval of Resolution No. 88-12, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 59-87 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 3.08 acres into 4 single family lots. Location: West of Old Shady Oak Road, north of Rowland Road (Ordinance No. 59-87 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-12 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,January 19, 1988 F. 1st Reading of Ordinance #1-88, Amending City Code Chapter 2 Pa e 30 Section 2.11, Subdivisions 3 and 4 Which Set the Time Period for 9 Council Review and Citizen Appeal for Board of Appeal Actions. G. 1st Reading of Ordinance #2-88, Amending City Code Chapter 7 Page 31 Section 7.01, Which Updates Reference to 1987 State Traffic Law. H. 1st Reading of Ordinance #3-88, Amending City Code Chapter 12 Page 32 Section 12.03, Subdivision 17 Which Updates the Definition of Subdivision, and Section 12.40 which Deletes Old Language on Types of Subdivisions for Which City Can Require Parkland Dedication. I. Wyndham Knoll Special Assessment Agreement Release Page 33 J. Bluffs West 5th Addition Special Assessment Agreement Release Page 36 K. Final Plat approval for Shady Dak Ridge 2nd Addition (located Page 39 north of Rowland Road and west of Old Shady Oak Road) Resolution No. 88-17 — — L. Final Plat approval for Gopher Lane Addition (located north of Page 42 Pioneer Trail and west of Staring Lane) Resolution No. 88-18 M. Approve plans prepared idy Hennepin County for a traffic control Page 45 signal system at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive with County State Aid Highway 39 (Valley View Road) Resolution No. 88-20 N. Approve cooperative construction agreement with Hennepin Page 46 Count for construction of a traffic control signal system at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive with County State Aid Highway 39 (Valley View Road) Resolution No. 88-21 D. Approve plans prepared idy Hennepin County for improvements to Page 55 County State Aid Hi hway No. 4 between Westgate Drive and Terrey Pine Drive (Resolution No. 88-22) P. Approve cooperative construction agreement with Hennepin County Page 56 for improvements to County State Aid Highway No. 4 between Westgate Drive and Terrey Pine Drive Resolution No. 888-23T Q. Approval of Eden Prairie Senior Center Change Order No. 6 Page 71 R. Lot 1, Block 1, Shady Oak Industrial Park 6th Addition Special Page 77 Assessment Agreement Release IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BLUFFS EAST 5TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development Corporation. Page 80 Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 17.68 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 30.1 acres into 34 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast of Meade Lane extension, west of Franlo Road, northwest of Antlers Ridge extension. (Ordinance #7-88, Rezoning; Resolution #88-14, Preliminary Plat) City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,January 19, 1988 B. CREEKVIEW, by Brown Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept on 78.22 acres, Planned Unit Development Page 150 District Review on 78.22 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6D.15 acres, Preliminary Plat of 78.22 acres into 93 single family lots and 2 outlots. Location: South of Bluffs East 4th Addition, north of River View Road. (Resolution #B8-15, PUD Concept; Ordinance #8-88-PUD-1-88, PUD District Review and Rezoning; Resolution #88-16, Preliminary Plat) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 206 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce for City Council's support for Developers' Forum Page 207 B. Petition from Residents on Topview regarding storage in side/ rear yards Page 210 VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Approval of Request for Proposal for Updating Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Plan Page 222 2. Adaptive Recreation Program Services Agreement Page 226 F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director 1. Clerk's License List Page 241 XI. NEW 8USINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1987 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Sue Anderson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: X.A.1. Discuss Parking of Boats, Campers, and Recreational Vehicles; X.A.2. Fireman Calls Discussion; X.B.5. Report on Selection Process of LRT System for Hennepin County; X.B.6. Update on Downtown Planning Process; X.B.7. Authorize Bids to Refurbish Fire Engine No. 1 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business, as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 1987 The following changes were made: Page 3, paragraph 2, line 1 and 2 shall read: Harris said she felt it was worthwhile to pursue all available options. Page 3, paragraph 3, line 5, word 4 shall be: role. Page 4, paragraph 2, line 1 and 2 shall read: Harris said the Staff addressed the options and their investigation determined recommendations for the City. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 3, 1987, as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 2 December 1, 1987 B. Resular City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 31 1987 —' The following change was made: Page 10, paragraph 3 starting Harris again asked...,shall be deleted in its entirety. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 3, 1987, as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Human Rights & Services Commission recommendation for Senior Community Services request B. Authorize permit application for connection to MWCC Sanitary Sewer Interceptor for Fountain Place Apartments (Resolution No. 87-319) C. Authorize execution of Department of Natural Resources License to cross public waters for Fountain Place Apartments (Resolution No. 87-320) D. Change Order No. 2 Homeward Hills Road, I.C. 52-033A E. Change Order No. 1 Hidden Glen 3rd Addition, I.C. 52- 102 F. Approval of License Agreement with Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company for construction and maintenance of a 15-inch watermain crossing railroad property on Valley View Road G. Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of supplemental 1987 Special Assessment Roll and setting hearing date for December 15, 1987 (Resolution No. 87-314) H. Final Plat Approval for Fountain Place Apartments (located north of Columbine Road and west of TH 169 (Resolution No. 87-315)I. Authorize preparation of a feasibility study for drainage improvements on Hamilton Road, I.C. 52-131 (Resolution No. 87-317) J. Terex Loader "buy-back" K. Receive 100% Petition for Utility Improvements for Legion Park Addition & Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications, I.C. 52-133 (Resolution No. 87-321) MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to approve Items A-K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 3 December 1, 1987 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EASEMENT VACATION 87-10 VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER LOTS 1 1 3 AND 4 BLOCK 2 RAVEN RIDGE (Resolution No. 87-318) City Manager Jullie reported that notices of this public hearing were sent to owners of surrounding properties and utility companies, and published in the November 11, 1987 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Reasons for the vacation of drainage and utility easements relate to a replatting process over the affected lots. MOTION 1: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to close public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 2: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to adopt Resolution No. 87-318 effecting the vacation of easements. Motion carried unanimously. B. ROGER'S BODY SHOP by Roger L. Lindeman. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 1.68 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 1.91 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of an auto body shop. Location: Highway #169 across from the Hennepin County Vocational Technical School. (Ordinance No. 44-87 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 87-249 - Preliminary Plat) continued from September 15 and October 6, 1987. City Manager Jullie reported that this public hearing was a continuation from September 15 and October 6, 1987 at the request of the proponent. The two issues that remained unresolved were the provision for a roadway and the sanitary sewer system. Ron Krueger, representing Roger Lindeman, stated proponent seeks zoning district change from Rural to I-2 Park on 1.62 acres and Preliminary Plat of 1.93 acres in order to construct a vehicular body repair shop. Proponent wishes to provide a septic system for treating sewage because the nearest sanitary sewer hookup available was 1300 feet to the north and would require a pump to access the sewer due to elevation differences. The best access for sanitary sewer was through the William's property to the east, which was not yet developed, and to the Meadow Park Subdivision, again 1300 feet away. Krueger illustrated on the plat that the property was located on the east side of Highway #169 and across from the entrance to the Hennepin Technical Center. The roadway issue affects access to the proponents' property to the north and two private residential properties to the south, as well as a future road extension to the Williams' property. After two City Council Minutes 4 December 1, 1987 months of working with Staff, proponent plans a 24' driveway to access the property. This solution was satisfactory to affected property owners. The right-of-way would be included in the plat and a shared driveway would be constructed. The owner of the affected property would be required to sign a special assessment agreement for the future roadway and public utilities. Enger reported that Planning Commission reviewed this item at its August 10th and 24th, 1987 meetings and recommended approval of the project with conditions on a 5-0 vote, that access to property and lack of sanitary sewer utility be worked out. Bentley affirmed that the roadway would be a private drive in an agreement until a road was built by the City. Dietz reported that the property lines accommodated a road right-of-way, but until a functional need for the road arises it was cost-prohibitive to build. This area does have potential for a future roadway. Bentley inquired as to reason for I-2 zoning in that a body shop was not considered industrial, but rather commercial; and reminded Council and Staff that I-2 does not allow outside storage, and if this was approved it would be inconsistent with City Guide Plan. Anderson inquired if facility can be used without car wash, toilet and sink. Dietz responded that car wash would be prohibited until sanitary sewer was in place. Anderson asked Staff if the City allows development of property before services or develops when the demand was there? Dietz further commented that Modern Tire has been in operation for some time with a septic system, and Williams Mini-Storage operation was 3000-4000 sq. ft. and has a 1/2 dozen employees and use of septic system has been sufficient. Bentley expressed concern of commercial use in an industrial zone. If the City continues this pattern, the City Guide Plan should be amended. Mayor Peterson commented that given the nature of the work, he would rather see it in an industrial area. MOTION 1: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 2: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 44-87 for Rezoning. Motion carried 4-1, Bentley opposed. '( City Council Minutes 5 December 1, 1987 MOTION 3: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 87- 249 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 4: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, Council conditions, and specifically prohibit car wash until sanitary sewer was in place on this property. Motion carried unanimously. C. SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by Joe Ruzic. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.19 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 2.88 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.08 acres into 4 single family lots. Location: West of Old Shady Oak Road, north of Rowland Road. (Ordinance No. 59-87 - Rezoning and Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 87-292 - Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing was sent to owners of 9 surrounding properties and published in the November 18, 1987 issue of the Eden Prairie News. The proponent seeks Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.19 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 2.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.08 acres into four single- family lots. Ron Krueger, representing Joe Ruzic, reported that the property under consideration was located on the west side of Old Shady Road north of Rowland Road, and that proponent requests a replat of four lots zoned in 1986, and to accomplish the plat without future variances, the addition of 0.19 acres was required. Enger reported that the Planning Commission heard this item at its November 9, 1987 meeting and recommended approval of the proposal on a 6-0 vote. Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended approval of the proposal with the inclusion of the proposed sidewalk. MOTION 1: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 2: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 59-87 for Rezoning and Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 3: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to adopt Resolution No. 87-292 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 6 December 1, 1987 MOTION 4: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried unanimously. D. JENKINS ADDITION, by John Jenkins. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.61 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.61 acres into 2 lots and one outlot. Location: North of Research Road, south of Ridgewood West. (Ordinance No. 60-87 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 87-312 - Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this public hearing was sent to owners of 68 surroundings properties and published in the November 18, 1987 issue of the Eden Prairie News. The proponent seeks Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 5.61 acres into 2 lots and one outlot. Jenkins property was north of Research Road and east of the Starrwood Addition. Platting of this property would result in having all of the property on the north side of Research Road and east of Purgatory Creek being platted. Enger reported that the Planning Commission heard this proposal at its November 9, 1987 meeting and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote. This was not reviewed by Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Frank Cardarelle, representing Mr. & Mrs. John Jenkins, set forth the request for rezoning indicating the size for Lot 1 was 29,743 sq.ft. and 33,567 sq.ft. for Lot 2. Proponent met with neighbor Robert Dehlor regarding the sight line and his concern of his view of the lake being blocked. Cardarelle stated trees and slope would remain in their original state. Anderson inquired about partial road and if it was public. Cardarelle responded that it was a private drive and would serve two homes. Anderson asked Staff if City has an agreement with Centex Development and those east to leave slopes and trees in natural state. Pauly stated it could have been accomplished by incorporating it into a conservation easement, and that such an easement could be used on the Jenkins subdivision. Dietz cautioned Council regarding a conservation easement, noting that utilities are going to come through on Research Road and there has to be a space for this. Anderson then asked Dietz what he would recommend. He replied possibly a corridor to identify lots from the legal description, and areas where there are not too many trees, could be incorporated into developing the conservation easement. Cardarelle asked if 50' easement was a problem. l,^ City Council Minutes 7 December 1, 1987 Peterson asked if this matter could be formalized. Dietz replied it could be a blanket easement for utilities on each lot line. Robert Dehlor, 8810 Knollwood Drive, expressed concern that with a 30' high home, his view would be obstructed. Cardarelle explained that sight lines indicate he would view the lake over the top of the roof. Bentley requested that similar language used for Starrwood be stated for Jenkins Addition that occupancy permits be issued only after the plan was in place for Research Road upgrade and eventual blacktop, and that such road upgrade be in process. The existing road was not satisfactory for building permit issuance. MOTION 1: Harris moved, Pidcock seconded, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 2: Harris moved, Pidcock seconded, to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 60-87 for rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 3: Harris moved, Pidcock seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 87- 312 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 4: Harris moved, Pidcock seconded, to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 38861 -39149. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING FEBRUARY 1988 AS "EDEN PRAIRIE LOVES ITS KIDS MONTH" (Resolution No. 87-322) . MOTION: Pidcock moved, Anderson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 87- 322 proclaiming February 1988 as "Eden Prairie Loves Its Kids Month." Motion carried unanimously. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS None City Council Minutes 8 December 1, 1987 VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS None IX. APPOINTMENTS A. City Manager Julie reported that a vacancy to the SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION for a Commissioner from Eden Prairie would exist in January. The Commission meets at 7:30 PM on the third Thursday of the month for 2 hours or less. An Eden Prairie residency was required. Pidcock placed George Bentley in nomination, and Bentley replied affirmatively. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to appoint George Bentley as Eden Prairie Commissioner to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission effective January, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Bentley: Discussion on Firefighters' Pay Benefits Bentley asked City Manager Jullie how often Fire-fighters were paid, and are police officers paid extra for responding to a fire when they are already on duty. Jullie responded firefighters are paid every six months, and police officers do receive extra pay for responding to fire calls when they are on duty. Bentley requested further discussion on the issue of police officers already on duty receiving extra pay for firefighting duties. He requested this be placed on agenda for discussion in the future. Peterson stated the salary review does not address that issue but the City can include it at that time. 2. Anderson: Discussion on Storage of Boats, Campers and Recreational Vehicles not in accordance with 5' lot line easement. Anderson expressed concern over 5' easements on lot lines and how owners of boats, campers, etc. have these items parked in their yards six months of the year covered with sightly blue tarps. They block other residents' view. City Manager Jullie stated Staff would look into code and would issue report on how extensive the problem was and would put this item on the agenda in the future. City Council Minutes 9 December 1, 1987 B. Report of City Manager 1. Set Special City Council Meeting City Manager Jullie reported that the City Council desires a Special City Council meeting to discuss the Final Report of the Residents Advisory Committee on City Administrative Offices which it received at the last Council meeting. A meeting in January or early February was suggested. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to direct Staff to set 7:00 PM Wednesday, January 13, 1988 as the date for Special City Council meeting to discuss Final Report of the Residents Advisory Committee on City Administrative Offices. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Safety Department Changes City Manager Jullie stated it was requested that the Council authorize the uniform changes and utilization of the terms "Police Department" and "Police Officer" as recommended in his memorandum of October 1, 1987. He reported that these changes would be made with the understanding that the City was not changing its philosophy of providing courteous, responsive, and caring service, but rather simply making superficial changes which would be appreciated by the officers. Bentley responded that after looking over the request and talking with a number of residents, it does make logical sense to make motion of name change. Pidcock expressed reluctance of change in view of the lobbying effort years ago to name it Public Safety. Peterson stated that in 1987 it makes very good sense to change the name. Anderson stated that for a great many years everyone has been happy with Public Safety Department. He has some regrets about the change and was concerned that the name change could possibly change the reputation. It would have a different connotation. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to authorize the uniform changes and utilization of the terms "Police Department" and "Police Officer" in lieu of Public Safety Department and Public Safety Officer. Motion carried unanimously. 3. City Manager Salary Review Peterson reported that the City Manager's last salary adjustment was made on January 1, 1987. The City Manager 9 City Council Minutes 10 December 1, 1987 has respectfully proposed to the Council consideration of step salary increases which would bring his salary to $68,000 by July, 1988. Harris stated after hearing the pay equity study and how the City was in good standing, it definitely reflects on the performance of the City Manager, and thus recommended a 5% increase in City Manager's salary. Pidcock concurred with Harris' recommendation. Bentley stated that the proposed increase was only 1% more than what Harris was suggesting, and was not terribly significant but it's more the principle. He further stated he would prefer not seeing the motion changed, but duly noted the argument fair and equitable. Anderson stated he was comfortable with either increase. Peterson stated this discussion should be placed during the process of salary review. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve salary adjustment for City Manager in the manner of step salary increases to bring salary to $68,000 by July, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Per Diem for Council Members City Manager Jullie reported that several Council Members have inquired about a per diem compensation for City- related business meetings outside the City. A policy has been drafted for Council Member consideration. Mayor Peterson delayed discussion on this issue until next Council meeting. 5. Report on Selection Process of Light Rail Transit (LRT) System for Hennepin County Janet Leick, Administrative Assistant of the Bureau of Public Service for Hennepin County, distributed a booklet and reported the background of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) to present 1987 Legislature removing 1985 prohibition of expenditure of public funds on LRT to encouraging development of comprehensive LRT system plan. The corridors strongly being considered are the northwest through Hopkins and the southwest through Eden Prairie and Chaska. Eden Prairie has two representatives on the HCRRA Advisory Committee, City Planning Commissioner Doug Fell and City Councilmember Jean Harris. Leick reported the urgency at the moment was the possible abandonment of the Chicago and Northwestern Line through Eden Prairie. The HCRRA could purchase the track for the southwest corridor if it became available. /0 City Council Minutes 11 December 1, 1987 The City of Hopkins hired a consutlant in 1984 to do a study in preparation of LRT corridor. The goal of the HCRRA was to finalize their best recommen- dation and present it to the people. This would be stage one of a twenty year plan. Bentley inquired why this LRT was being fast-tracked. He added that the Council had not been approached prior to this presentation, and was now being asked to consider an LRT corridor without any previous study in a very short time period. Leick responded that the planning process was extensive and it was the feeling that the abandonment of the rail line brought additional focus to the southern alignment for a corridor in stage 1. She apologized if it looked like they were putting the City in an awkward position and offered all the assistance and help the City needed in evaluating this presentation. City Manager Jullie responded that Staff had not had much opportunity to review the details needed to make recommend- ations. He said that the City needs the accurate facts before it can evaluate the concept. Pidcock inquired if Eden Prairie area was diverse enough for the LRT, if transit feeder systems were necessary, and if adequate park and ride space had been considered. Leick responded that the bus system was an intricate part of the LRT. It would provide transportation to the park and ride spaces. Anderson stated the rail lines through Eden Prairie may not be abandoned and available to purchase in the future. He was concerned about the ability to expand roads and high fees to park downtown. For these reasons, LRT should be thoroughly evaluated now. Doug Fell, HCRRA Advisory Committee person for southwest corridor representing Eden Prairie, reported the the committee has been operating on the premise that they all want the southwest area in the first stage to be the viable powerful corridor. Fell inquired if railroad was not abandoned could the LRT share time on the line. Leick responded it was possible but very complicated and doubted if they would consider that avenue. Peterson inquired if traffic would flow in both directions AM and PM enabling University neighborhood to work in southwest area. Leick responded affirmatively. .'I City Council Minutes 12 December 1, 1987 Bentley stated he felt slighted from the County that they have not made more of an effort to get in touch with Eden Prairie City Officials. Pidcock stated her interest in the concept was positive. Peterson thanked Leick for presentation and stated the position of the Council has been heard and was clear for her to take back to the County Officials. He then thanked Fell and Harris for their work on the Southwest Metro LRT Advisory Committee. 6. Update on Downtown Planning Process Chris Enger, Director of Planning, reported that the goal for downtown Eden Prairie should be reviewed so when Council and Staff talk to residents the same concept statement was heard. City was considering perhaps an informal small downtown area, perhaps a town square plaza that circles a downtown park, developing elements of a main street mixing shops and offices. He stated they are at a plateau of what they have done and further discussion was needed to continue strategic planning. Peterson thanked Enger and stated the council appreciated the update. Peterson instructed Pauly to research specifics in order for Council to know standing when further discussion was initiated. 7. Authorize Bids to Refurbish Fire Engine No. 1 City Manager Jullie reported that Fire Engine No. 1 recently sustained $10,000 damage from an accident at Highway 5 and Mitchell Road, and discussions with the manufacturer have yielded opportunities to improve the fire fleet. Fire Chief Johnson in detailing the possibilities for repairs and refurbishment of pumpers proposes a trade-in of Engine No. 4, an older piece of equipment, and the use of $20,000 budgeted for refurbishing that engine be applied to the $50,000 estimated cost to refurbish Engine No. 1. Refurbishing Engine No. 1 was contemplated for 1989 but in light of the repairs now necessary considera- tion was to repair and refurbish Engine No. 1 and remove Engine No. 4 from service. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to authorize the preparation of specifications and advertisement for bids for the refurbishment of Engine No. 1 with the trade-in of Engine No. 4. Motion carried unanimously. i2 City Council Minutes 13 December 1, 1987 C. Report of City Attorney None D. Report of Director of Planning None E. Report of Director of Community Services None F. Report of Director of Public Works Dietz informed Council of plans for ground breaking ceremony for Chain of Lakes, and inquired interest in attending event. Council responded affirmatively interested and to advise them of time and day. XI. NEW BUSINESS None XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adjourn at 10:27 PM. Motion carried unanimously. /3 SPECIAL MEETING EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1987 4:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, and Finance Director John Frane ROLL CALL: All members present. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM. All Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Anderson who arrived at 4:25 PM. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Bentley moved, and Pidcock seconded, to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 - 0. II. APPROVAL OF SALE OF $5,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER AND SEWER BONDS (Resolution No. 67-334) Finance Director Frane introduced Bill Fahey of Ehlers and Associates. Mr. Fahey noted that interest rates in the municipal bond market had come down over the past few weeks. This trend was evident in the bids received and just opened by the City. The Finance Director presented affidavits showing publication in the official newspaper and in Commercial West of the notice of sale of $5,000,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1987 of the City, bids for which were to be considered at this meeting as provided by the resolution of the City Council adopted November 17, 1987. The affidavits were examined and approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the Finance Director-Clerk. It was reported that five sealed bids for the purchase of said bonds had been received from the following institutions at or before the time stated in the notice. The bids, having been opened and tabulated by the Finance Director-Clerk as provided in the notice of sale, were then publicly read and considered, and were all found to conform to the notice of sale and the terms and conditions of sale and to be accompanied by the required security. A summary of the bids received follows: Net Net Bidders Interest Cost Interest Rate Clayton Brown & Assoc., Inc. et al $4,883,362.08 7.4710 Dain Bosworth, Inc. et al. 5,089,740.42 7.7667 Cronin & Company, Inc. 4,904,423.75 7.50326 Norwest Investment Services, Inc. et al. 5,021,501.45 7.68237 Prudential Bache Capital Funding et al. 5,128,452.85 7.8460 /6( Special City Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,December 22, 1987 Mr. Fahey said that the bids were very favorable and strongly recommended the bid by Clayton Brown & Associates, Inc. et al. He noted that the proposed resolution named American National Bank of St. Paul as the registrar for the bonds, and that the Council could name another registrar during the term of the bonds. Councilmember Bentley stated that the interest rate for these 20- year bonds was markedly down from the market indices of a week or two earlier. Mr. Fahey said the demand for tax-exempt bonds far exceeded the supply in the market earlier, and further stated that this demand was much higher now than market experts generally expect at this time of year. Mr. Fahey believed that interest rates achieved on this sale would be more like those given for Al- or AA-rated municipalities. Mr. Fahey suggested future discussions with Council about refunding some high-interest debt that the City issued a few years ago. Bentley moved and Pidcock seconded the adoption of Resolution Number 87-334 relating to the details of the issuance of the bonds and awarding them to Clayton Brown and Associates, Inc. et al. per the terms of its bid. Motion passed 4 - 0. III. ORDER TO CORRECT HAZARDDUS CONDITION ON SEAVALL PROPERTY City Manager Jullie introduced the item and deferred to City Attorney Pauly to review progress on the matter. Mr. Seavall and his attorney were present. Before Pauly began his presentation, several Councilmembers men- tioned schedule conflicts they would have if this matter were fully discussed this evening. Pidcock asked Pauly how long the discussion would take, and he estimated 45 to 60 minutes. Pidcock suggested postponing consideration fo this issue to another time. Harris wished to have additional background information on the case and/or a staff presentation at the beginning of that meeting. Harris moved and Pidcock seconded that a special meeting be held to consider this matter at 4:45 PM, Monday, December 28, 1987. Motion passed 4 - 0. Bentley left at 4:25 PM. Anderson arrived at 4:25 PM. IV. OTHER BUSINESS A. Appointment of Legislative Contact for AMM Anderson moved and Harris seconded that Mayor Peterson be appointed the City's Legislative Contact for the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM). Motion passed 4 - 0. Anderson requested briefings of these activities during Council meetings. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM. Ti!: 0 '11 r TI • mEr-1 z Jr, Or. I. , Dr- 1;IF C.:0f_Jr0(:"1 'Pr I 1F.r.(1 ',:", 1 Pr- "I id 1.1 iE: L. ."::'„) ; ,sor. /-- ;NY I ( /(0 • BID TABULATION $5.000.000 Genera►Obligation Water&Sewer Revenue Bonds City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota SALE: Tuesday.December 22. 1987 AWARD: CLAYTON BROWN& ASSOCIATES,INC. RATING: Moody's"A" BBI: 8.01% COUPON NET INTEREST COST NAME OF BIDDER RATE YEAR &RATE PRICE CLAYTON BROWN& ASSOCIATES.INC. 6.00% 1989 $4.883.362.08 $4,902,000.00 Chicago,jllinois 6.20% 1990-199► BLUNT.ELLIS&LOEWI. INC. 6.90% 1992-1998 7.4710% Chicago.Illinois 7.00% 1999 GRIFFIN.KUBIK.STEPHENS&THOMPSON.INC. 7.10% 2000 Chicago,Illinois 7.20% 200► 7.25% 2002 7.40% 2003 7.50% 2004-2008 CRONIN& COMPANY,INC. 5.40% 1989 $4.904,423.75 $4.920.000.00 Minneapolis.Minnesota 5.60% 1990 5.80% 1991 7.5032% 6.00% 1992 6.20% 1993 6.40% 1994 6.60% 1995 6.70% 1996 6.80% 1997 6.90% 1998 7.00% 1999 7.►0% 2000 7.20% 2001 7.30% 2002 7.40% 2003 7.50% 2004 7.60% 2005 7.70% 2006 7.75% 2007 -2008 { Ehlers and Associates,Inc. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tl-ti-7 I�'1 (BIT 3394291 NAME OF BIDDER COUPON NET INTEREST COST RATE YEAR &RATE PRICE NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES.INC. 5.50% 1989 $5,021,501.46 $4,907,500.00 _Minneapolis,Minnesota 5.75% 1990 2AN&MOODY,INC. 5.90% 1991 7.6823% t.Paul.Minnesota 6.10% 1992 American National Bank&Trust Company 6.25% 1993 Dougherty, Dawkins,Strand& Yost,Inc. 6.40% 1994 M.H.Novick&Company,Inc. 6.60% 1995 IN ASSOCIATION WITH- 6.75%0 1996 6.90% 1997 PIPER, )AFFRAY&HOPWOOD INC. 7.10% 1998 7.10% 1999 Minneapolis,Minnesota 7.25% 2000 THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ST.PAUL 7.40% 2001 FIRST NATIONAL BANK DF MINNEAPOLIS 7.50% 2002 Minneapolis,Minnesota 7.60% 2003 Robert W. Baird&Company,Inc. 7.70% 2004 Craig-Hallum,Inc. 7.E0% 2005 Marquette Bank Minneapolis,N.A. 7.90% 2006-2008 DAIN BOSWORTH,INC. 5.60% 19B9 $5,089,740.42 Minneapolis,Minnesota 5.80% 1990 $4,910,000.00 MILLER SECURITIES, INC. 6.00% 1991 7.7867% Minneapolis,Minnesota 6.20% 1992 MERRILL LYNCH CAPITAL MARKETS 6.40% 1993 Chicago,Illinois 6.60% 1994 KIDDER, PEABODY& COMPANY,INC. 6.75% 1995 hicago,Illinois 6.90% 1996 7.00% 1997 7.10% 1998 7.25% 1999 7.40% 2000 7.50% 2001 7.60% 2002 7.70% 2003 7.80% 2004 • 7.90% 2005 8.00% 2006-2008 PRUDENTIAL-BACHE CAPITAL FUNDING 5.75% 1989 $5,128,452.85 Chicago,Illinois 6.00% 1990 $4,905,000.00 SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS,INC. 6.20% 1991 7.8460% Chicago, Illinois 6.40% 1992 SMITH BARNEY,HARRIS UPHAM 6.55% 1993 &COMPANY,INC. 6.70% 1994 Chicago,Illinois 6.85% 1995 DEAN WIT TER REYNOLDS,INC. 7.00% 1996 Chicago.Illinois 7.15% 1997 First Tennessee Bank, N.A. 7.30% 1998 7.40% 1999 7.50% 2000 E 7.60% 2001 7.70% 2002 7.80% 2003 7.85% 2004 7.90% 2005 7.95% 2006 8.00% 2007-2008 yr ORDINANCE NO. r'l-rp AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SEC. 2.05, SUi3D. 3, RELATING TO THE PAYMENT FOR ATTENDANCE OF MEETINGS BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. In addition to the above, the Mayor and each Council member shall be paid a-reaonable-sum-fer-each-dap-plus-the (an amount determined from time to time by the Council for attending special meetings of the Council and other meetings involving City business and) reasonable expenses incurred while-trat+einry-entside the-city-en (while attending to) business of the City. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code" is hereby adopted in its 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 , 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1988. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie C� SUBJECT: Interviews for Appointments/Reappointments to Boards and Commissions DATE: January 11, 1988 The Council should set a special meeting to interview applicants for the City's boards and commissions. We are recommending Tuesday, February 9, 5:30 PM. Dinner will be provided to Councilmembers at 5:30 PM with interviews beginning at 6:00 PM. Interviews will be conducted in the Council Chambers. Both the Eden Prairie News and Sailor will run an article in two consecutive issues regarding these appointments. Joyce will be providing you with letters from those interested as soon as they are received. CJJ:jdp A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. JullieC SUBJECT: Board of Review OATE: January 11, 1988 The attached letter from the State Department of Revenue describes changes which affect the date for the local Board of Review. It is recommended that the Council set the date of Thursday, April 28, 1988 at 7:30 PM for the Eden Prairie Board of Review meeting. CJJ:jdp Attachment 2r .¢Tlrsii 44 h'WCO JAN 4 1988 441 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 December 30, 1987 • TO: COUNTY ASSESSORS FROM: RALPH A. PAVEK, Manager Information Section Property Tax Review Division SUBJECT: LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW, COUNTY BOARDS OF EQUALIZATION The 1987 Legislature made changes which affect the dates for Local Boards of Review and for County Boards of Equalization. The changes are effective with the 1988 assessment. First, Local Boards of Review will meet between April 1 and May 31 in each year. The old time period, before the change, was April 1 through June 30. In addition, county assessors must notify clerks on or before February 15 of the dates set for the various Local Boards of Review. The old date was April 1. • For County Boards of Equalization the amendment changes the time period for their meetings to the last two weeks in June. In 1988 County Board of Equalization will meet beginning June 17 and through June 30. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. RAP:vh (612) 642-0479 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 59-87 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the R1-13.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of January 19, 198B, entered into between Joseph Ruzic, an individual, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. 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 1st day of December, 1087, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 19th day of January, 1988. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 23 ZONING DISTRIC1 AMENDMENT & PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBIT A That part cf the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly cf a line drawn parallel with the East line of said Southeast Quarter cf the Northeast Quarter frcm a point on the . South line cf said Scutheast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 334.05 feet westerly frcm the Southeast corner of said Scutneast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter described as follows: Commencing at the point cf intersection of said parallel line with the Scuth line of said Scutheast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 3 degrees 07 minutes 46 seccnds West, alcng said parallel line, a distance of 482.95 feet to the point of beginning cf the land to be described; thence continuing Ncrth 3 degrees 07 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 818.77 feet to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 2; thence North 88 degrees 35 minutes 02 seccnds East alcng said North line a distance of 234.46 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of Old Shady Oak Road; thence South 1 degree 36 minutes 58 seconds East, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 15.78 feet; thence scutherly a distance of 156.39 feet along a tangential curve concave tc the West, having a radius of 1493.43 feet, and a central angle cf 6 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds; thence Scuth 4 degrees 23 minutes 02 seconds West tangent to last described curve a distance of 59.85 feet; thence southerly a distance of 124.96 feet along a tangential curve concave to the East, having a radius of 429.16 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 41 minutes 01 seconds; thence Southwesterly, a distance cf 295.15 feet along a ncntangential curve ecocave to the Southeast, having a radius of 191.73 feet, and a central angle of 88 degrees 12 ninutes 03 seconds, the chord cf said curve bears South 27 degrees 24 minutes 50 seconds West; thence South 16 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds East, tangent to last described curve, a distarce of 2f1.22 feet; tnence Souti 73 degrees 16 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 131.09 feet tc the pcin• cf beginning. REZONING That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section '2, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying westerly cf a line drawn parallel with the East line cf said Scuteast Quac'ter of, the Northeast Quarter from a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter Jistant 834.05 feet westerly from the Southeast corner cf said Sc.theast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter described as fellows: Commencin3 at the point of intersection of said parallel line with the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence cn an assumed bearing of North 3 degrees 07 minutes 46 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 482.95 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 3 degrees 07 minutes 46 seccnds West a distance of 290.00 feet; thence South 41 degrees 15 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 72.00 feet; thence • South 11 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 128.95 feet; thence South 18 dugres 39 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 115.29 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. 2 ; Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1988, by and between Joseph Ruzic, an individual, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.19 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 2.88 acres, and preliminary plat of 3.08 acres into four (4) lots and one outlot for single family residential development, said acreage all situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #59-87, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated October 20, 1987, reviewed and approved by the City Council on December 1, 1987, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to submit to the City proof of ownership of that portion of the property which is being rezoned from Rural to R1-13.5, located along the west side of proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 4. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of, a revised grading plan which provides for a maximum of a 3-to-1 slope on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, as depicted in . Exhibit B, attached hereto. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit C, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. 5. Concurrent with street construction on the property, Developer agrees to construct a five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along the south and east sides of Shady Oak Ridge Road, in accordance with City specifications, and subject to the conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of any grading on the property. 8. Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said measures. Developer agrees that said protective measures shall include, but not be limited to: A. Grading shall be confined to that area of the property within the construction limits. B. Snow fencing shall be placed at the construction limits of the property prior to any grading upon the property. C. City shall perform an on-site inspection of said protective measures on the property by the City. Developer shall contact City for said inspection. Developer agrees that defects in materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures shall then be determined by the City. D. Defects in materials or workmanship, if any, shall be corrected by Developer. Developer agrees to call City for reinspection of the implementation measures, and to receive approval by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance. ac 9. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall have the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District establish the 100-year flood plain elevation of the area west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer agrees to submit such information to the City and to - follow the requirements regarding construction adjacent to a designated flood plain as provided in City Code, Chapter 11, including that all levels of all structures must be located at an elevation at least two (2) feet above the designated 100-year flood plain elevation of the property. Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-12 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 59-87 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 59-87 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 19th day of January, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 59-87, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 59-87 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on January 19, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 59-87 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of Old Shady Oak Road, north of Rowland Road, from the Rural District to the R1-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of , 19BB. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) ORDINANCE NO. 1-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.11, SUBD. 3 AND SUBD. 4: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.11, Subds. 3 and 4 are hereby amended to read: Subd. 3. Decision by Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Within sixty (60) days after Ihp1 filing of a request for a variance [o] ei: an appeal from an administrative order or determination, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall set a date for hearing thereon and shall hear such persons as wish to be heard either in person or by agent or attorney. Notice of any such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of hearing to the person or persons who file the appeal or request and in the case of a request for a variance to each owner of property situated wholly or partly within 500 feet of the property to which the variance relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can be determined by the City Clerk-Treasurer from records available to the public. Within a reasonable time after a hearing the Board shall make an order deciding the matter and serve a copy of such order upon the appellant or the petitioner by mail. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall provide for a record of its proceeding which shall include the minutes of its meetings, its fi dings and the action taken on each matter heard by it including its final order.fittings decision of the Board shall be final until the later of the expiration of the 15 day period provided for in Subd. 4 or completion of review by the Council] Subd. 4. Review of Appeal. (1) The Council may elect to review any decision of the Board within ferty-five (46)C 151 days after that decision has been made; or a decision may be appealed by the appellant or petitioner within 15 days by filing with the City Clerk-Treasurer an appeal to the Council from the decision of the Board. (2) The Council shall at its next regular meeting after the filing of an appeal from a decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, set a date for hearing therein which shall not be later than sixty (60) days after the meeting. Review shall be made upon the petition and all the files, documents and records of the proceedings of the matter. The City Clerk-Treasurer shall make a permanent record of the disposition of all appeals to it from decisions from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Section 2. 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 , 1968, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1988. ATTEST: f City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1988. ORDINANCE NO. 2-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 7.01 Is AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 7.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 7.01 is hereby amended to read: SEC. 7.01. MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 169 AND 171 ADOPTED BY REFERENCE. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, or in Chapters 6 and B of this Code, the regulatory and procedural provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169 (commonly referred to as the Highway Traffic Regulation Act) and Chapter 171, as amended through Laws 1983 [98p, are hereby incorporated herein and adopted by reference, including the penalty provisions thereof. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 7.99 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 , 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 19B8. { ORDINANCE NO. 3-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12.03, SUBD. 17, AND SECTION 12.40, SUBD. 1. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.03, Subd. 17 is hereby amended to read: Subd. 17. "Subdivision" - Aie �i�rieion--of a�eioeI of - n into- o-or-more let -vr-)e'oe•1&--bfr--ely—meene One-ludi e l A,nerfi'egietered---lend-eur-veye--aad oorfveyanoeby-netee--end both 1e. [The separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of divided interests necessitates the creation of streets, roads or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof. As used in this section the term "subdivision" does not include separations 1) creating cemetery lots; or 2) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary.] The term includes resubdivision and when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided. Section 2. Eden Prairie City Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.40, Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read: Subd. 1. The owner of land being subdivided for treeident^fe-;coxmeroiadl ittd+xstria) yr-z the --uses,- yr-as a p1 ed uM devcloptne„t ++tricky-itreitxfeee r-esidential-r--oo er-oial--and-i�ndustr-i-alp-.usa.,---or any-oombination.-.thereof shall dedicate to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds or public open space a reasonable portion of the land up to 10% thereof, as determined by the City to be in the public interest and necessary for such uses. 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 , 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1988. RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of January 19, 1988 FACTS 1• A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated May 6, 1986 , was executed by and between the City, Joseph Dolejsi and other persons which Agreement was filed as Document No. 5132205 with the Hennepin County Recorder on July 18, 1986 The Agreement related to the property described therein as: All lots in the Wyndham Knoll Addition Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 33 Page -2- f 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated May 6, 1986 filed with the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 5132205 on July 18, 1986 This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, A Municipal Corporation BY: Gary D. Peterson Its Mayor BY: Carl J. Jullie Its City Manager 3y Page -3- k STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Gary D. Peterson and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd. 230 Suburban National Bank 300 Prairie Center Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 #7--RELEASE.0 I RFR/01-14-88 J) RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of January 19, 1988 FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated December 10, 1986 , was executed by and between the City, Argus Development, Inc. and others which Agreement was filed as Document No. 1803187 with the Registrar of Titles on February 11, 1987 . The Agreement related to the property described therein as: All lots in the Bluffs West 5th Addition Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3(p Page -2- 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated December 10, 1986 with the Registrar of Titles as Document No. 1803187 filed February 11, 1987 on This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, A Municipal Corporation BY: Gary D.Peterson Its Mayor BY: Carl J. Jullie Its City Manager { 3'7 Page -3- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1988, by Gary D. Peterson and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd. 230 Suburban National Bank 300 Prairie Center Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 #7--RELEASE.C1 RFR/01-14-88 '3U CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JANUARY 12, 1988. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on JANUARY 19, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician / � DATE: January 12, 1988 SUBJECT: SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION PROPDSAL: The Developer, Joseph Ruzic, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Ridge 2nd Addition. Located west of Old Shady Oak Road and north of Rowland Road, the plat contains 7.6 acres to be divided into eleven single family lots, one outlot and right-of-way dedication for roadway purposes. Dutlot A contains 2.3 acres and contains Mr. Ruzic's Homestead. Outlot A should be designated on the final plat as a platted lot, as homesteads are not permitted uses of outlots. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by City Council November 4, 1986, per Resolution No. 86-271. Second reading of Ordinance No. 54-86, changing zoning from rural to R1- 13.5 on 5.4 acres, was finally read and approved by City Council January 20, 1987. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed January 20, 1987. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd. 2.A, waving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. STREETS AND UTILITIES: All municipal utilities, streets and sidewalks will be installed in conformance with Eden Prairie standard specifications and City Code. Construction plans for utility and street improvements have been approved and Phase I (northern half) is under construction. Prior to release of the final plat, Developer must bond for the second phase of the utility improvements. LID Page 2 of 2 SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION January 12, 1988 PARK DEDICATION: Requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding shall conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement requi rements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Ridge 2nd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of street fee of $239.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee of $1,894.00. 3. Receipt of engineering fee of $480.00. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 5. Revision of plat to designate Outlot A as a platted lot. JJ:ss cc: Joe Ruzic Ron Krueger & Associates CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-18 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF GOPHER LANE ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of GOPHER LANE ADDITION has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for GOPHER LANE ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JANUARY 12, 1988. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on JANUARY 19, 19BB. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk [12 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician .;- DATE: January 12, 1988 SUBJECT: GOPHER LANE ADDITION PROPOSAL: The Developer, Patrick Bauer, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Gopher Lane Addition. The plat is located west of East Staring Lane, north of Pioneer Trail and contains 1.72 acres to be subdivided into three single family lots. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council June 2, 1987, per Resolution 87-141. This property was zoned RI-22 in November of 1969. There is no Developer's Agreement covering this project. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd. 2.A, waving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal water and sanitary sewer is not available to serve this project; however, with the construction of the Red Rock Sewer Interceptor, trunk sanitary sewer would be available to serve the area sometime late this year. A public improvement project would provide for the extensions of sewer and water throughout the neighborhood, as well as street and drainage improvements. No project is scheduled at this time, but with the impetus of a neighborhood petition, or Council decision to extend utilities, it is possible for such a project to be underway within 2 years. As assessment policy for trunk sewer has been established for properties within the service area of the Red Rock Interceptor. That policy is to assess trunk sewer benefit at the time of connection, rezoning or determination of lateral benefit. The amount would be at the prevailing i�� PAGE 2 OF 2 JENKINS ADDITION JANUARY 12, 1988 rate at the time of assessment. The future trunk assessment will be calculated 0.50 acres at $520.00 plus 1.22 acres at the per acre rate prevailing at the time of assessment. The $520.00 for the first 0.50 acres has been prepaid. If assessed in 1988, the trunk assessment for this property would be computed as follows: 1.22 Acres X $2,850.00/Acre = $3,477.00 PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to City Code. BONDING: Bonding requirements shall conform to City Code. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Gopher Lane Addition subject to the requirements of this report, City Code, and the following: 1. Receipt of street lighting fee of $307.00. 2. Receipt of engineering fee of $250.00. 3. Submit a revised development plan. JJ:ss cc: Patrick G. Bauer Cardarelle & Associates { CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-20 RESDLUTION APPROVING PLANS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY ND. 39 (VALLEY VIEW ROAD) WHEREAS, Plans for Hennepin County Project No. 8728 showing proposed traffic control signal installation at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 39 (Valley View Road) and Prairie Center Drive within the limits of the City, as a State Aid Project, have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said plans be in all things approved, as corrected, and that the City agrees to provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on- street parking on those portions of said Project No. 8728 within its corporate limits. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on January 19, 1988 Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk U�J CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-21 RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 39 (VALLEY VIEW ROAD) WHEREAS, Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 for participation in the construction of a traffic control signal system at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 39 (Valley View Road) and Prairie Center Drive, as Hennepin County Project No. 8728, has been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said agreement be in all things approved and hereby authorizes its Mayor and City Manager to sign Agreement No. PW 81-49-87, Hennepin County Project No. 8728. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on January 19, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk //v Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 County Project No. 8728 County State Aid Highway No. 39 City of Eden Prairie County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION ANO OPERATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 _, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, It is considered mutually desirable to install a traffic control signal system at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive with County State Aid Highway 39 within the City limits; and WHEREAS, The City has expressed willingness to participate in the construction and operating cost of said signal; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. SEC. 162.61, Subd. 1 and SEC. 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I The County will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid Project No. 8728, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such -1- Y„i LJ-7 Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 bidder according to law in such case provided for counties. The Contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. II The County will administer the Contract and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of Eden Prairie shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall oe issued at no cost. Electrical inspection fees shall be not more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. IV The City shall install, or cause the installation of an adequate three wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the controller cabinet at its own sole cost and expense. The City shall also provide the electrical energy for the operation of the traffic control signal to be installed at its own sole cost and expense. V The City shall reimburse the County for its share in the construction cost of the -2- N L Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 contract work for said project and the total final contract construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in the Division of Cost Breakdown in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. The estimate of the total cost for contract work for the project is Seventy Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($70,000.00). It is further agreed that this estimate is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work on said project and that the unit prices set forth in the Contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. VI In addition to payment of the City's proportionate share of the contract construction cost, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to fourteen percent (14%) of the City's share for traffic signal construction, it being understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all engineering cost incurred by the County in connection with the work performed under this contract. VII Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, the City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety percent (90%) of the estimated City share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. Said estimated City share shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans. The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion -3- y9 Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 of the project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this project. VIII The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request. IX All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. X The City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signal; however, nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signal may be directly involved in an emergency. -4- 21 `o Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 XI Upon completion of the work, the County shall maintain and repair said traffic control signal at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County, at its expense, shall maintain 110 volt power to the line side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles for the integral street lights. The City, at its expense, shall maintain the fuse, the luminaire and the wire to the load side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles for the system. XII It is further agreed that the County shall not be responsible or liable to the City or to any other person or persons whomsoever for claims, damages, action, or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the City as provided for herein; and the City further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance hereunder by the City. It is further agreed that the City shall not be responsible or liable to the County or to any other person or persons whomsoever for claims, damages, action, or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the County as provided for herein; and the County further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance hereunder by the County. -5- cl Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 XIII It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XIV The provisions of M. S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. �2 Agreement No. PW 81-49-87 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: Clerk of the CountyBoard By. Chairman of its County Board Date: Date: And: Upon proper execution, this agreement Associate County Administrator will be legally valid and binding. and County Engineer By: /�/w ---� a?, Date: Assistant County Attorney Date: / L — Z - RECDMMENOED FOR APPROVAL Approved as to execution By: By: Director, Department of Transportation Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: S3 � �o iN x x I n W F .,.g 4 �n H u r - O 8 ¢� I O H W H r in' „, 7: ;!E aa IW_„. o f H o c u 4 F.F Fi `6 _5 -_- --- - r 5 t1D 8 6 I F E h J. 8 2 w tL ; a I. F g 4 gm gaU� N .] Ea , 1- a 4 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-22 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS PREPARED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 4 (EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD) BETWEEN WESTGATE DRIVE AND TERREY PINE DRIVE WHEREAS, Plans for Hennepin County Project No. 8I22 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades and cross sections for the reconstruc- tion of County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) along with a traffic control signal system at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) and Wagner Way, within the limits of the City, as a State Aid Project, have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said plans be in all things approved, as corrected, and that the City agrees to provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on- street parking on those portions of said Project No. 8122 within its corporate limits. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on January 19, 198B. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk c-, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-23 RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 4 (EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD) BETWEEN WESTGATE DRIVE AND TERREY PINE DRIVE WHEREAS, Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 for participation in the improve- ments to County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) which includes a traffic control signal system at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) and Wagner Way, as Hennepin County Project No. BI22, has been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said agreement be in all things approved, (as amended to include additional sidewalk) and hereby authorizes its Mayor and City Manager to sign Agreement No. PW 7D-49-87, Hennepin County Project No. 8122. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on January 19, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk C Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 County Project No. 8122 S.A.P. 27-604-08 County State Aid Highway No. 4 City of Eden Prairie County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County and the City have been negotiating to bring about the improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 4 between 616 feet south of Terrey Pine Drive and Westgate Drive (Engineer's Stations 164+79 to 192+00) as shown on the County Engineer's plans for County Project No. 8122, which improvement contemplates and includes grading, drainage, bituminous surfacing, traffic signal system and other related improvements; and WHEREAS, The above described project lies within the corporate limits of the City, and WHEREAS, The County Engineer has heretofore prepared an engineer's estimate of quantities and unit prices of material and labor for the above described project and an estimate of the total cost for contract work in the sum of Six Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Eight Dollars and Twenty Cents ($656,938.20). A copy of said estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and -1- Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. SEC. 162.17, Subd. 1 and SEC. 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I That the County or its agents will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid Project No. 8122, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law in such case provided for counties. The contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. II The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of Eden Prairie shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The City agrees to grant highway easements to the County over those lands owned by the City that are a part of the required right of way for said Project No. 8122. Said easements shall be granted at no cost to the County. The County or its agents will acquire all additional rights of way, permits and/or easements required for the construction of said project. 2 Of2 Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 The final cost of all additional rights of way, permits and/or easements required for the construction of said project plus all costs incurred by the County in acquiring said rights of way, permits and/or easements shall be apportioned 50 percent to the County and 50 percent to the City. The right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all acquisition costs including, but not limited to, any and all damages occurring to any person or persons, including private utilities, in relocating or removing or adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken and within the present right of way; or damage in procuring such right of way, whether such damage is caused by the County or the City in the performance of such contract with respect to the improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 4 as shown on the plans for County Project No. 8122. The County will periodically, as parcels are acquired, prepare and submit to the City itemized accounts showing right of way and acquisition costs incurred by the County. The City share of said costs shall become due and payable within thirty (30) days after submittal. The estimated right of way expenses described herein are indicated in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. IV The City shall reimburse the County for its share in the construction cost of the contract work for said project and the total final contract construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in the Division of Cost Summary and Division of Cost Breakdown in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page 1 of this agreement is an estimate of the -3- 4 Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 construction cost for the contract work on said project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. V In addition to payment of the City's proportionate share of the contract construction cost, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the amount computed as the City's share of the said contract construction cost for roadway construction and twelve percent (12%) of the City's share for traffic signal construction, it being understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the County in connection with the work performed under this contract. VI Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, the City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety percent (90%) of the estimated City share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. Said estimated City share shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans. The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. -4- q Al lo/ Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this project. VII The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request. VIII All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. IX The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five (5) years after completion of the project for any service cuts in the roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in this project for any installation of underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities. X It is agreed that the City shall, at its own expense, remove and replace all City owned signs that are within the construction limits of this project. GI Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 XI Upon completion of the project, the County, at its expense, shall place the necessary signs and the City, at its expense, shall provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on-street parking on those portions of County State Aid Highway No. 4 constructed under this project recognizing the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Hennepin County. Any modification of the above parking restrictions shall not be made without first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Commissioners permitting said modification. XII It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, all concrete sidewalk and bituminous bicycle path included in said improvement shall become the property of the City and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by the City at its own expense. It is further understood that neither the County, its officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the City for any claim, demand, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the hereinbefore described sidewalk and bituminous bicycle path maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement by the City, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the City for the performance of said work; and the City agrees to defend. save and keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, actions or causes of action and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees, and to� Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) arising out of negligent performance by the City, its officers, agents or employees. XIII The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall not be more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. XIV The City shall install, or cause the installation of an adequate three wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the traffic control signals and integral street lights included in the contract at the sole cost and expense of the City. Further, the City shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said traffic control signals and street lights at the sole cost and expense of the City. XV The City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signals, however, nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signals may be directly involved in an emergency. -7- " �3 Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 XVI Upon completion of the work, the County shall maintain and repair said traffic control signal at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County, at its expense, shall maintain 110 volt power to the line side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles for the integral street lights. The City, at its expense, shall maintain the fuse, the luminiare and the wire to the load side of the fuse in the base of the signal poelses for the system. XVII It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, damages, actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. XIX It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way (DLI Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XVIII The provisions of M. S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. -9- C1.3-4 GS Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board Date: Date: And: Upon proper execution, this agreement Associate County Administrator will be legally valid and binding. and County Engineer By: Date: 9tstant County Attorney Date: / z — e- - / RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Approved as to execution By: By: Director, Department of Transportation Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: f0/V oommoccooeooma..00moomm00000m00000000p00000000mor000000oomo of No 4 Ula N p n n 1ry H H N .n yr �n ✓.. ✓.Imo. N.N. 0000 N Nor .n en ./, m✓. 00 N 00000000000.000000.000000000000000000000000000.00000000000 0(...00000 F O o 4 u V,v. 0 0 m m 00 0 00 00-4 i 000000 V. ✓. m 00 000 ✓n ..N ✓n 0 ✓n 0 00 00000000 F WON N. WFo o F.. ..o u o ..a .. I 4 N y .. , .. T.Z r...3 0 n m .4 .4 vm a no m nee ..m •. .. tom. .. ..m N 7 g. n b m p w F .! I .4 22 4 •I I W • •V J O F F F F F V F.. .... 4NF VI 4.W W 4.F U W p p •p • F. WW - WW LaW ^F F 4. p WF>n>F-WF p KW mW W }}~- 1}ZZZ ZZZJZZWu U UU U V W0N N• Z N a • E6 00p00000 44 44t4 : 44 oa • 0 ap IL4F 4FZZ Z ZZ W • -V •FFFFFF0FF 0W W Z..Z Lao W ZZZW Z • •ZLi WZ •F .0 m0 00 CI 0 00 .00 -1 . 0 cc JJ J J J J J o J UVU U o JJ J J J J J N o a n o J J J V J to • 443 I a 6 O a 4.0 J W O O F a N .. o a 4amI O 00 m F S W p-4 W V 4 V Z p Hp 0UZ1 W W W W Ou X a Z J I Z a W X O Z W WI p p" Om Om V V F FF. w 1•,1Z 0 f W W N-a Y .. U W Z J F.^.'t I W 4 . O..x n..J 00 mm p W 4 o Z FIF p a m(H ..I W..pp4 OF o mW pp T.WW CI O W Z V-.T.L O F. Z. Z Z Z> I.V p 0 i W 4 a V 4 USxi� 4 4 6z O a p -ia -Z VVUJ�[6 . W-> - W O a S V i W O a - .. ..4 6204 N a 4 m Fa F 0 a a i.O W O W 6t vl >N W W v1 F N I O .0 u> O to O-W c W n J 3 •,,3 p M- N Z a F[ 4 � F I H .0 V Z 4 .30 F. S a W >a O p O 3 J a 'p J} 4.1 • F. Z> O 4 a W a ti>a a 3 4 6 4 004 F 0 F z a of a4•.x .'X4 s22 ,a >>ha coo a ..0 a a a p'n Z -- V c.i. .. 22 a s m W m m O u a p- O } p. p • V>x p[ 00 F co s FOX... I W 0 0 W W N X W 4341 - 0 4 Z > - V > p p J w Z F x vl p..4 3 p 1F. K W i w F 0.333Z Om F F O V U r J V J 3 6 4 4.N J a Z O Z J W Z F>p ..W 4. F'a F F w W W i W.aC 4 4 S U V 4 m Z 4 4 a.204 J o 4v01.0.40.44. sto 4 xY,4 to W 4o•rla 64 a n V UZ F FT.L.. �n m..p>W a l 2 4 Z L 302,0a a 0422 L s cn L'W �. .W a 4 4 W F O a p U F F U .. W O w Ow W S O W S 4 X Om J m U'W o? I..;IZ W T>• . L V U F 0 4 W O O W W .Z.. W 4 U m i a N S to a n u W u u u 1 - a-. 0 4 4 F Z L'F n O 6..W F Z ........0.4..3 W u W 0 a 0 O O D U 6 41 F F F 4 V W Z W O vl V W U V F 4 4 V 00 U V dam 3�l L m W s F O V 0 O O 6 W L W>W W V V V s L W W s 0 4 W Z 4 F Z 2 2 4 4 L 4.".Z O Z V Z.0.W W N F.Y a O J F V a V.F F.V Z F U a S W U L a 'I 4161 W W W W U Z 4 a >V-. . .. s J to V U x V V 4 F a u m a s Z Z J Z F W W Z u u a 1 V W Z W J N s~m m>>' >>>>Z O s p...I:2 J L..W L.4 m 4 s a x a Y V. F F F Z F 4 V..m a V i O W ..S 4 4 m m I 0 00000.2 V a W U a 0'W W p a p=S a a n 0 0 vl 2 O F F V m U V O Z W a a F a U If..W �I L 22222322 a F J U F> F 4 Z Y S 4 W e J.I J a Z Z Z V 4 h Z Z F Z a J a J p J W Z 104,4 V U G .....41414240 01,/NO3 o 4 a w,p..2•0 0 3 a s --..CC 4¢0.0 0 0¢u.Z...m ll O, .0..4.0.1.. 0 02 O i. •1000 f• o C3 .2 ( ) I 7 W O o U H N 0 2 + V 2 S n id IY o F.4 m O m 0. 2 ry W n N O Vr 00 .n a N O o h N N U N N N N• ..1 N • Z• w Z W .0000• 00, N N a w 2 T W ❑ H of W tn N H a H 'am a O r r❑ 4 U N C ry F W O U 4 0.0 F4 'a F n nn m . . . 0. • F a 24 4 o N 2 .._ m w O N id H ❑H a O idmaama ao o tn 4 N S(G 4 OU o I a W N O T • H 4 .+H0 0 00 0 TH W 3 U H. v K 0 w H a NN a h >. U. V CH N .n V.. 1 aaao H. 0 .. U❑ H N... 14 H r 1 1 a a I n 4 o a O <H N m H V Zm H x.t T v H U 'a - a 0 0 0.a o w n o+ ❑ z a N OH N Z <4 , U O U P. F V h. Z H O a F • X 0 T H N N 0. O a U� 2 FF'+H. I loot H W an W 4. h. Z. a 1+❑ 0.Zr 0. 00 4 4 Z >0T.O •.L Lu T H R 4 .0W. a an d.l d 4 H .Oi 4 4 E. 0 W>. Ma XI. F H F Z a .0 y O U ❑3 L"T 3 0.43. ❑❑ Wm 44 a° N ow t 4,4 2 i4.4 F 4 m❑ 0.V 1.1 m 4 44 c tn a.3 .0 m q 2 43 H H V 0. i Z Z cL H N O m O O O vl in N F 4 w T U U h. O V P.W Z w H W U. • F❑43 a H r+ F H d T T w m }. F Z. 0 OM z m> uo U F 7 W 4 Z N H O Z❑ .. ❑E.0. ..a a a U ao 14. O. AWH Z N 4 N 0 0 'a 4 a 0.0>...4Z40 T U 0 o 4 V 4 a m U V W 31 3 ..H 1. H O >F ❑ x x- .. 00 ..4 '.4.• Zt.>.o ff-a❑ S S 4 t i w 01. W 4 m m 4 T 0 4 H H > m 3 m❑E.U W R 0 Z 4. 0 S m U jw I HE.m 0 0 w 00 0 ZidAM OHUUhl 14 3 3'a u o a s 4 4. W .3 m w w w w 4 0 H N Z o HUH U NFU W H O 0 a 0 m F pp m 4 K O x OTT 141' F - E.4 ,..1./L.U..04.7t a: o` IFFi°z4 • m cm 'I W aUr U F.m giC ta -irrill 100 m 0 CO CO VD 01 N CO o 0 m 8• -i r.-•o r .r 01 in v o in ui ui 01 R 100 .-1 v'N NN 01 10m 0001 .r-1 CO O O01 r NN CO v.O ill ` .1 .-1 •"1 N v' in 10 N N CO N VT VT VT N VT VT VT VT VT f( [Q] CTm mill 0010 1O O v.CO N_-----_— V m O N m N m 011001 .-1 OO 0 10 CI%•%.i•v IllN O r CO mNm 0101Ov 011D r-1 10 01 OCN 0 ul rn m N.ti O N CO N m in N r v. 1 p •-1 ..i re V r en r N r 1 N VT VT N N Vr en 01 N N VT VT N C O 0 8 N CO V• 01 OO NO v Ul 0 O .. r.-i ul CD ri CD* .I.r o CO o u�i v v ~ 0000 000 0 0000• 0000 000 O 0000 00 CD 0 z m•0 i m•L f l l n•0•N• r m O r v O nOr 01 vv r 010100 NN m NOO m m C '0.ti N N In • M ul- .-Ir .rkbo r vm,rrn.i '-1 .y ,.y .4 .-1 N N 1O Oill V 0 Vt N N N VT N N VT I aa o00 000 o.O 0 0 0 0 p • � 0E int O 0100 N1 0 0 in NlD l O 0 Nlfl J,4O l. �ll CV CON + a V'O .i in 01 mN NQ W to. N O v N v d 'O O•O O• 0•0• O O O 8 Em 1 i.Zy�j l*l rn m o N m m 10 m rn rD. w O.r 10 O01 o I---, O r 0 N N VT N• GL 0 0 . m m m 0 a,g L r ill N LC1rn I CD . W[�+,+ 4. .r m.r m.y m „myQ., O LO i OiCO xxx xxx xxx K �-! NOO UlO _ • ® 0 .y.,.-1 .-1.,CO- N CO m O ill O1 r 01 0 10 v'I.-.r Iv 10m ulUl .7 y z V v'in1" FV m m CO j UU 1 £ U U�1 . (� N m 0 .gy p V in 1100 CO H ~~ m 91 N Q M d m N w he 0 [� y (70] pD pD xCO Li nn'I * .,6. n ^ n n n I I I I v. .ti 1 I I g 1 I I �� (V N m CO H -1 10 O M ��•m. ,1,, a V /_vn' V V W 1 0000 0 0000 0 c)N nui N • �Z ^ .rn OZO o U UN..+vN in S .1 a yr yr 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 oNLin Ln N Mr 0 0/4 on�.�-1. CAN Ni Lfl UWr.4cN in P. '" C • �•+• o0o0 Z �GI�vOi00LI) 0 • il z fa]o000 4 (yQQ� 41G40000 NO W 0.@ H In In In In CO •0.] kl FUv N I O 0 0 0 0 0 O N o O 0 0 00 CD N N 1N 0 0 v 0 0 v O-N NZ «]F F o.i rn in CA ¢y1 p4,4 on 1-N on 0, 0 Z •C.q F E.OU CNN lfl V) m u . = Cal h F w B o000 • F F Calo 0 0 0 O 1+U.n r oin U E y H N N N N Faa _im 6• W S >� BN N O m E+H10n O pa~ F 4 d 41 E. 0W E.m yH U ,yy, a Z Z 41 H H H aaa 0 V) ao w • «] 0 0 Cl) mm0ii .. 6 00 w as ti ua r °, W W E I N N Z yw a0;60 H ,00C 0 aa0 E N'Ts E. 5 O 0 aaF•. m Nor. til tE-• U C. 22 ��-1UU E. N > > O\W a+ 90 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services -At— DATE: January 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Eden Prairie Senior Center Change Order No. 6 The original plan for improving the lower level of the old City Hall for a Senior Center included a kitchen area. The estimated cost was approximately $60,000 to extend the plumbing, venting, electrical, and to install all the applicances. The City applied for Community Development Block Grant Funds for that portion of the project and was denied the grant; therefore, the kitchen room itself was left unfinished in the original contract. Staff have requested the contractor to provide a bid on extending the plumbing to that room, painting the ceiling, etc. The City park maintenance crew could then complete the painting of the walls and installing some cabinets and counters in order to make this room usable as a kitchen for accommodating potlucks, etc. similar to the use the Seniors made of the kitchen in the old Senior Center. Change Order No. 6 is for $912, which includes the cost to extend the plumbing to this room, paint the ceiling, wood floor covering, eliminate a folding partition and wall and extend new oak door jams as requested. With this change order the Seniors will have immediate use of the kitchen area, and plumbing will be in place when funds become available for completion of the kitchen as per code for providing hot meals. The original contract sum for improving the lower level for a Senior Center was $34,231. The net contract sum after all change orders is $34,212. Staff requests authorization to approve Change Order No. 6. BL:md r '►I •• cwTs' ARCHITECTS LC44Cp OG ilfQaSJIT44GJd 7520 Market Place Drive EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 DATE 1/4/88 08715 (612)941-4822 ATTENTION Bob Lambert TO City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Senior Center 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 WE ARE SENDING YOU 'Si Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: O Shop drawings ❑ Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications ❑ Copy of letter 62xChange order 0 COPIES SATE NO. OESCRIPTION 4 12/15/87 6 Change Order #6, signed by Contractor 6 Architect THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval j For your use 0 Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution 0 As requested ❑ Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints O For review and comment 0 ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO file SIGNED: Paul Strother a.,0101 '�z It enclosures.ro not.0 noted.kindly notify uo at once. CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER l Eg A(A DOCUMENT G701 ARCHITECT (20 CONTRACTOR FIELD 0 • OTHER 0 PROJECT: Eden Prairie Senior Center CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 6 (name,address) 8950 Eden Prairie Road TO(Contractor]den Prairie, MN 55344 INITIATION DATE: December 15, 1987 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8715 Enqco Contractors CONTRACT FOR: General, Mechanical 1979 Radatz Avenue & Electrical Construction Maplewood, MN 55109 L _J CONTRACT DATE:October, 1987 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: 1. Extend plumbing into Room 106. 2. Paint ceiling. 3. Extend wood floor to include area covered by Room 105. 4. Eliminate folding partition. 5. Eliminate west wall. 6. Eliminate door installations. 7. Re-use existing doors and hardware in masonry openings into future kitchen. P. Extend oak jambs as requested. (As outlined in Enqco Construction letter of 12/8/F17) Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith,including any adiustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original(Contract Sum) )was $ 34,231.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ (912.00) The(Contract Sum) prior to this Change Order was $ 33,319.00 The(Contract Sum)XX9< t7tlf p4H4yAyAS'7o4 will be(increased)(}Eiw57Sif ila1DfaefiXMgdEy[ by this Change Order $ 893.00 The new(Contract SumINR:iggiatiONigfiRincluding this Change Order will be $ 34,212.00 • The Contract Time will be N1EaII'1FYSCLlX8RXXG1(Odl(unchanged)by ( 0 )Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is December 4, 1987 • ^/pn� Authorized: t cf4' C1rz1wa, Sr1//011-4/1/ )1)fl:', /-r&nj, 604/TPJ1Grc25 A ffc'Aarket Place Drive COYEBACTOR2AP _T A ACE OWNER Address Address`"�� Address Eden Prairie, M"7 55744 BY C `s+CJsl �_. BY �Yte..va.CJ C rt�. BY DATE I 1,175 DATE /2 2 7/f? DATE AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANCE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIM • OD 1970 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORRKK AVE.,N.W,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 G701—1978 CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER ARCHITECT [� Al";DOCUMENT G701 CONTRACTOR (81 FIELD 0 OTHER 0 PROJECT: Eden Prairie Senior Center CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 6 (name,address) 8950 Eden Prairie Road TO(Contractor)Eden Prairie, MN 55344 INITIATION DATE: December 15, 1987 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8715 Engco Contractors CONTRACT FOR: General, Mechanical 1979 Radatz Avenue & Electrical Construction Maplewood, MN 55109 J CONTRACT DATE:October, 1987 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: 1. Extend plumbing into Room 106. 2. Paint ceiling. 3. Extend wood floor to include area covered by Room 105. 4. Eliminate folding partition. 5. Eliminate west wall. 6. Eliminate door installations. 7. Re—use existing doors and hardware in masonry openings into future kitchen. 8. Extend oak jambs as requested. (As outlined in Engco Construction letter of 12/8/87) Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith,including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original(Contract Sum )was $ 34,231.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders S (912.00) The(Contract Sum)sgemysmjcitareectox prior to this Change Order was S 33,319.00 The(Contract Sum) will be(increasedX}BWICOBLUMNAK893.00 by this Change Order S The new(Contract Suml E F', Including this Change Order will be 5 34,212.00 The Contract Time will be niscoSEMXTtleommeci) (unchanged)by ( 0 )Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is December 4, 1987 Authorized: C( urf CR11 t2c1 TVUKsty EA)1.c.o /-,c AJ• GcA,TP/tc'rcRl ARCHITECT p 752E "l:trket T'1.'tr i Drir', CPyyl/ TO RZfI(a/1%Z /LVE OWNER Address Address Address Eden Prairie, MN 55344 M �PLC: 1 5-&—/ BYE 8Y -21:„_aiq BY n i DATE I— - a x DATE h.I Z.q/P7 DATE AIA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIAS • m 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Or ARCHITECTS,1715 NEW YORK AVE.,N.W.WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 G701—1978 CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER • ARCHITECT LA AIA DOCUMENT G701 CONTRACTOR E FIELD 0 OTHER 0 PROJECT: Eden Prairie Senior Center CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 6 (name,address) 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 INITIATION DATE: December 15, 1987 TO(Contractor): r ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8715 Engco Contractors CONTRACT FOR: General, Mechanical 1979 Radatz Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 & Electrical Construction L J CONTRACT DATE:Cctober, 1987 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: 1. Extend plumbing into Room 106. 2. Paint ceiling. 3. Extend wood floor to include area covered by Room 105. 4. Eliminate folding partition. 5. Eliminate west wall. 6. Eliminate door installations. 7. Re-use existing doors and hardware in masonry openings into future kitchen. R. Extend oak jambs as requested. (As outlined in Engco Construction letter of 12/8/87) Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature or the Cdntractcr Indicates his agreement herewith.including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original(Contract Suml tetLecttsktrtst)was $ 34,231.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ (912.00) The(Contract Suml kextrgrmrIC6JroKr. prior to this Change Order was S 33,319.00 The;Contract SumIxCxxametntttaemoniwo will be(increasedikkiCEAWEXKPUE by this Change Order $ 893.00 The rew(Contract Sum) ,€€€€Eg including this Change Order will be $ 34,212.00 • The Contract Time will be forte sedx1rktotaxec) (unchanged)by ( 0 )Days. The Date or Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is December 4, 1987 pp_� � Authorized: CLA.,irS 07`t�oss e-d"(/h cf.4 EIJ, C En.1 L-oxiTfAccUS ARCHITECT co IRA CTOx OWNER ','rl '.,nr1•r ,�t t,l,r nr;••� l9,.lc/ 1_AIiATZ AVE Address Address Address 7don Prairie, tiN 55344 MAPS woo Py M N 5 r0q 6Y C. 0 BY A'l�lGj_tc•v� 7 BY 0OATE I- 3- DATE I L9/1",7 DATE AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIAe • rfl 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.1735 NEW YORK AVE...N.W.WASHINGTON.D.C.20005 G701—1978 ' • CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER owNER ARCHITECT ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ • OTHER ❑ PROJECT: Eden Prairie senior Center CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 6 (name,address) 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 INITIATION DATE: December 15, 1987 TO(Contractor): ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8715 Enqco Contractors CONTRACT FOR: General, Mechanical 1979 Radatz Avenue & Electrical Construction Maplewood, MN 55109 CONTRACT DATE:October, 1987 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: 1. Extend plumbing into Room 106. 2. Paint ceiling. 3. Extend wood floor to include area covered by Room 105. 4. Eliminate folding partition. 5. Eliminate west wall. 6. Eliminate door installations. 7. Re—use existing doors and hardware in masonry openings into future kitchen. 8. Extend oak jambs as requested. (As outlined in Engco Construction letter of 12/8/87) Nor valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith.including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original(Contract Sum) If_44tKEI? £' )was S 34,231.00 • Net change by previously authorized Change Orders 5 (912.00) The(Contract Sum) e , ,• . prior to this Change Order was S 33,319.00 The(Contract Sum) ,. will be OncreasedXXIalOilanaLSChlfda by this Change Order 5 893.00 The new(Contract Sum) including this Change Order will be..• S 3 4,212.00 The Contract Time will be Mitte 0RNX3 Ot6Xt tJ (unchanged)by ( 0 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is December 4, 1987 Authorized: C IUj`_> Cf�.•O,s...r;Qj.pp(_w„i_AJH,C.;) C CA%, LuA.TRAGrrgS RL NTRA� R A I��,li(�!.tark,'t Pl.�co Drive 7' �ADA7T Ar.Yre OWNER Address Addresst� Address - r'Ir.n Prniiri,,, D'T S7144 /`�tilF--C-ws;itpMN r/; r( 7o•//1 BY f �^�-v BYlG-Guc.-c/ ( , Y BY DATE I' -8`d DATE J 7/Zq /S 7 DATE Am DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIA4 • e 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS.1735 NEW YORK AVE.,.N.W,WASHINGTON.O.C.20006 G701—1978 (V RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of January , 1988. FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated August 16, 1979, was executed by and between the City, Richard W. Anderson, Inc., and other persons, which Agreement was filed as Document No. 4517588 with the Hennepin County Recorder on October 31, 1971. The Agreement related to the property described therein, a portion of which has been replatted as Lot 1, Block 1, Shady Oak Industrial Park Sixth Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota ("Property"). 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases Lot 1, Block 1, Shady Oak Industrial Park Sixth Addition from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated August 16, - I Page -2- 1979, filed with the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 4517588 on October 31, 1979. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, A Municipal Corporation BY: Gary D. Peterson Its Mayor BY: Carl J. Jullie Its City Manager Page -3- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Gary D. Peterson and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd. 230 Suburban National Bank 300 Prairie Center Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 #7--EP.RL.0 RFR/01-14-88 19 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #88-14 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS EAST 5TH ADDITION FOR HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Bluffs East 5th Addition for Hustad Development Corporation, dated November 12, 1987, consisting of 3J.1 acres into 34 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, 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 19th day of January, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk r�/1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services Yo DATE: December 30, 1987 SUBJECT: Bluffs East 5th At the November 17, 1987 Council meeting, Wallace Hustad requested the City to continue this item in order to return to the Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and address the issue regarding sidewalks. Mr. Hustad met with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at the December 7 and December 21, 1987 meetings. At the December 7th meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission continued the item, and requested staff to provide all of the background information regarding previous staff reports relating to the Bluffs East PUD. All of the information provided the Commission is attached to this memo, as well as the minutes of the December 21st Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting. To summarize the issue, when the City Council approved the Bluffs East PUD, the motion was to approve the subdivision as per the Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommendations and reports of the Planning Staff and Community Services Director. The problem was that the recommendation for sidewalks from the Planning Commission was different than that of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission (the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission met after the Planning Commission and recommended sidewalks as per the map attached to the May 1st staff report). What further complicated the issue was that the developer petitioned the City for installation of the street and utilities, which were subsequently installed in 1987 without the sidewalk. On the pages immediately following this memorandum are three maps. Map number 1 is the map showing the sidewalk approved by the Planning Commission in their review of the Bluff's East PUD and the 4th Addition in April of 1966. Map number 2 is the map showing the sidewalk and trail system reviewed and approved by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission in May of 1966. Map number 3 depicts the sidewalk as approved by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission on December 21, 1987. BL:mdd Q� \I I 'ON .QlIds '• I I K;G. ��Jr A 1 � , _ __... L,:� V��—I • i i i .i C Lin /./ . .., co a. I , - �Jr� r0 �.�.I:Ie-- C 6. Z - akaiLdti"!I----1 tii 404- 411P-14131 I _ li\\/ i-1.2__- /' \;,: it\liz,r,: (13 U. () . 1-•,.\• 4 1,46L—q--,, ct :LA U. Z ir -: It t4 ) 44 )litkii -\ :,kg 00 EllI ((.' �• 11;r��Rti`Y A i 71 �•�, i _ oI .:11. J � pW L• v�_I `� �_...� __ `y-1 12)*5-:•'4111:-- M71pN f E _ / / /,, , tli 'i.'' lit :.,,,. r C a _, n S \ I,D I a V! _ �,� - ,: ke !: i�✓1 • 1.,,,,, 2 .L...... , ..,.. ,. 0) „ 2.,..,.,1,-,..,,, ., : ,::2':f • .,;',,1 k i T ., un„ 011It, ,'/�tl1l c i .IL't 1 i 1 1 I1I 1�II 1111II.1 • _ p .!. • i f i 1., ... ;4_ Cj ti I�1 � �.i4III'I �e 1 .r -------- r Ir 1 `l3 G r roe _ o, -— CZ ......... II a ,— f. 0 �1' >. 2// \�-' ; / I LL ca 1 "2/ A...BN, ,;*.' 'r--',`--.- . :._.1°_,. ,;,1EE___-_-_,1 c Alla as * co CY3 LL ( ),/_\. IL_ , 1011.- 4 6 _)• �•'' > 1 0 < _1L_____j 0Fi' 2 ry -tise s1 p3,A,■.M.au■i■ r---- - -it. t• " IN -- i r-- ;it:: 0. , lib 411* 1/1 In c , All' _. ;,i li, ,. i II, 0' /- / elf CJ Ilk110, r41041 tg oil 2 � r r r �' j!'! i y,, - �'��` Op1"r . am, I S _1$0 ;Ii E° 'ei 1 _ - pa 1- ' �: _ . o .. 7 u ) 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services -ice` DATE: December 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Bluffs East 4th and 5th Review of Previous Reports, Minutes & Recommendations At the December 7, 1987 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting, Wallace Hustad told the Commission members that the City had never required a sidewalk along Bluff Road, and that the City had "changed the agenda" for the Purgatory Creek valley. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission continued the item to the next Commission meeting, and requested staff to provide copies of memorandums and reports relating to the Bluff Country PUD regarding recommendations and approvals for sidewalks, trails, etc. Attached to this memorandum are copies of reports and minutes relating to the Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions. This memorandum summarizes the reports and actions of the Commissions and Council in chronological order. e APRIL 11, 1987 PLANNING STAFF REPORT APRIL 25, 1986 PLANNING STAFF REPORT The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the Bluffs East proposal in May, after the Planning Commission approved the proposal as per the Planning Staff recommendation. MAY 1, 19B6 - MEMORANDUM FROM BOB LAMBERT SUBJECT - BLUFF COUNTRY PUD Lambert recommended requiring dedication of land in lieu of park fees in order to assure preservation of two scenic overlooks, as well as important access points to the creek valley. Lambert also noted that Outlot A of Creek Knolls was approved in 1972 subject to land dedication of 100' on both sides of Purgatory Creek and a scenic easement on the steep slopes. Community Services Staff recommended this land dedication be transferred prior to any further final platting within this area. Under the trails and sidewalks section, the Community Services Staff recommended, among other sidewalks and trails, item 2-b "Along the south side of Bluff Road and County Road 18 westerly the entire length of Bluff Road." Two maps were attached to that memorandum that indicated the proposed location of the trail system, as well as the proposed location for land acquisition. MAY 5, 1986 - MEMORANDUM FROM BOB LAMBERT SUBJECT - BLUFF COUNTRY PUD After walking the site with the developer, the Community Services Staff recommended revising the access to Outlot A "via a 30' wide trail easement between Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 off Bluff Road. The trail should be a 6' wide asphalt trail extending to the middle of the saddle between the two knolls." "The Community Services Staff would recommend the City either require dedication of the entire 51 acre outlot and the construction of the access trail as described in lieu of park fees for the Bluff Country PUD, or require that the developer dedicate the trail easement areas and construct the trails as described, and pay the park fees if the developer is interested in donating the property as a gift." "If the property is donated as a gift, staff would recommend requiring a scenic easement on the steep slopes and putting a restrictive covenant on the creek corridor for 15 years. The covenant would restrict trail construction along the creek corridor during that period of time in order to determine if it would be damaging to the environment and would cause a policing problem." MAY 5, 1966 PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING - MINUTES "Hustad said they had met with their attorney and the developer intends to dedicate open space to the City." "Lambert said he feels there should be a rim trail (sidewalk along Bluff Road) and that permanment knoll should be acquired for public use. A fifteen year restrictive covenant would ensure that no trails would be built along the creek for that amount of time." "Lambert again reviewed the major issues which are preservation of the creek valley with close monitoring during construction and later; park dedication - the developer will pay cash park fees and the City will require a trail easement; trails and sidewalks - an B' asphalt trail will be constructed on the west side of Franlo Road, 5' concrete sidewalks will be added on one side of the east/west road opposite the Franlo Park entryway, along the south side of Bluff Road from County Road 18 west the entire length of Bluff Road, along the south side of the extension of Meade Lane to Franlo Road, along the west side of the north/south road that connects the southern most cul-de-sac in the Creek Knolls development to Franlo Road and along the short cul-de-sacs leading to the scenic overlooks." "Hustad commented on the gift of land to the City. He said this is the second time the Brown's have done this and he feels that a precedent has been established. He added that some type of trust must exist between the City and the property owners involved." "Lambert recommended that the plan be approved with the following conditions: Changes on the trail and sidewalk system - trail easements between Lots 3 & 4 off Bluff Road and west from the Brown site and construction of a trail to Lot B. The trail can be either 6' asphalt or 5' concrete, but it should be hard surface. These scenic easements should be required on steep slopes with a trail easement and a 15 year restrictive convenant, which would require the City to wait before any trail along the creek could be constructed." MAY 20, 1986 - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4' "Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation and Natural • Resources Commission reviewed this proposal at its meeting on May 5, 1986 and that the Commission was concerned about the preservation of the creek valley, park dedication or cash park fees, trail easements, and the trails and sidewalks in the project." "Lambert reviewed the proposed trail system in the project and noted that the proponent had proposed donating the creek valley property to the City as a gift. He said the staff recommends the City agree to a restrictive convenant on the creek corridor for 15 years to restrict trail construction along the creek valley. He further noted that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended approval per the recommendations of the Community Services and Planning Staff." Page 8 "MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to direct staff to prepare the Developer's Agreement per recommendations of staff, the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and with attention to the concerns by area residents regarding grading and storm water runoff." "Anderson expressed concern that the Developer's Agreement should include the scenic easement with a trail easement for the creek valley. The following discussion determined that this issue would be covered by the recommendations from the Community Services Staff and the Parks Commission." VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. WEEK OF NOVEMBER 23, 1987 Bob Smith of Hedlund Engineering, representing Wallace Hustad, indicated to Lambert that Hustad did not want to put in a sidewalk in Bluffs East 5th Addition along Bluff Road because there wasn't one installed in Bluffs East 4th Addition. Lambert pointed out that one was required in Bluffs East 4th Addition and, that although the City may have made a mistake by not constructing it with street and utilities, the rationale for the need for the sidewalk remained. If Mr. Hustad wanted to attempt to convince the Commission and Council that the sidewalk is not necessary, he could be scheduled to present his case to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and then to the City Council. Mr. Hedlund then formally requested that Mr. Hustad be put on the next Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission agenda. Lambert agreed and drafted the December 1 memorandum outlining the request as he understood it. DECEMBER 2, 1987 At the request of the Planning Staff, Lambert prepared the December 2 memorandum outlining the background of recommendations on the Lower Purgatory Creek Area. DECEMBER 7, 1987 - UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Hustad indicated the City never required a sidewalk along the entire length of Bluff Road and submitted a map dated (in red ink) for 4/11/86 indicating this was the last document approved for trail systems. Hustad also implied that the requirement for a "sidewalk" between Lots 13 & 14 to Outlot A is new, and that the City has broken all its promises regarding the Purgatory Creek valley by approving the grading to the Phillipi property and to a proposed plan for the Wilke property. The Commission continued the item requesting staff to provide copies of the reports • and minutes of the meetings affecting that sidewalk system, and staff recommendations regarding the Purgatory Creek valley. APRIL 11, 1986 MAP OF SIDEWALK DRIGINALLY PROPOSED AT PLANNING COMMISSION & SEPTEMBER 1987 BLUFFS EAST 5TH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP "FIGURE 2" Also, attached is a reduced copy of page two of the Bluff East 5th Addition Preliminary Plat maps submitted to the City by Hedlund Engneering Services Incorporated prepared for Hustad Development Corporation. It should be noted that this plat map showing the Bluff Country PUD Concept Plan phased diagram and proposed zoning indicates a sidewalk along the south side of Bluff Road the entire length from County Road 18 westward. It also shows a sidewalk or trail loop between Lots 13 and 14 of phase 2 as per the May 1, 19B6 staff recommendation; therefore, it is obvious this plan with the latest revision date of September 1987 supercedes the April 11, 1986 map submitted by Wallace Hustad to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission on December 7, 1987. PURGATORY CREEK STUDY - USE MANAGAEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Attached is a copy of the use and management recommendations for the Lower Purgatory Sector of the creek. SUMMARY Sidewalk Adjacent to Bluff Road The Community Services Staff recommended a sidewalk along "the entire length of Bluff Road from County Road 18 westward", because: a. This was the sidewalk that provides access to the entry points to the Purgatory Creek valley, and b. The City policy on sidewalks recommends a sidewalk on one side of all "thru streets" and .along streets that provide pedestrian access to neighborhood parks or other trail systems. The reasons for recommending the sidewalk in 1986 have not changed, however some of the circumstances for ease of trail installation have. The requirement for the sidewalk wasn't specified in the Developer's Agreement and was, therefore, missed when streets and utilities were installed. Now the installation of the sidewalk requires extension of utility stubs across undeveloped lots and disruption of landscaping, etc. across four developed lots. The developer only remembers the Planning Staff Reports regarding the sidewalk commitments and recalls the Council approving the plan as per the Planning Staff Report. The developer also points out that the City installed the streets without the sidewalk and several people have purchased lots without knowledge of a sidewalk requi rement. COMMITMENTS TO PURGATORY CREEK City staff recommendations regarding Purgatory Creek have always been to preserve the creek valley in its natural condition and to reserve the option for constructing a ' trail adjacent to the creek whenever possible. The City has negotiated preservation of the creek valley thru density transfers, scenic easements and thru gifts of property frori developers. The City has not been 0" able to require dedication of land through ordinance, other than recommending land in - lieu of park fees, which would have obtained a relatively small portion of the valley. City staff did agree that "if the property is donated as a gift", staff would recommend a scenic easement on the slopes and a restrictive covenant on constructing a trail along the creek for 15 years. The Council approved the Bluffs East PUD subject to staff recommendation and that a sencic easement and trail easement be filed on the property. All the property committed as a gift in Bluffs East PUD was donated earlier in 1987. No scenic easements or restrictive covenants have filed to date; however, the City will file a restrictive covenant that will restrict the construction of a trail adjacent to the creek until June 2002. Other creek property that has been promised as a gift, but that has yet to be donated includes: 1. 100' on either side of the creek in the outlot of Creek Knolls - (1972) 2. Bluffs West Outlot A 3. Bluffs West Outlot I 4. Bluffs West 4th Outlot A 5. Bluffs West (remainder of) Outlot D As the Purgatory Creek Study notes on page 6-28„ in the chapter on use and management recommendations, under the Lower Purgatory Creek Section: "Overall this section offers the best opportunity of the entire watershed for a lengthy nature-hiking trail." "To blend with the stream considerable flexibility should be incorporated in the trail layout, rustic crossings would be constructed of on site materials and . installed at selected sites." The Community Services Staff would recommend that a nature trail along the creek be a mowed trail with woodchips in some wet areas, approximately 6' wide. The residents should be notified as early as possible of the City's intention to construct a trail someday in the future, with signs at potential trail heads. The trail should not be constructed until the City can manage the creek valley trail through proper trail maintenance (regular mowing and clearing of the path) and proper management (restricting motorized vehicle access at trail heads, and regular patrolling of the trail by park rangers). The developer has suggested that the City resolve the issue of a trail in the creek valley now. Staff agrees that if the Commission and Council intend to install a trail in the creek valley someday in the future, residents should be put on notice as soon as possible. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend that the City approve Bluffs East 5th Addition subject to: 1. The developer construct a sidewalk along the west side of Bluff Road from Meade Lane south to Red Fox Lane and along the north side of Red Fox Lane from Bluff Road east to Frdnlo Rodd. 2. The developer agree to construct a 6' asphalt walkway on a 30' easement between Lots 13 and 14 and the hard surface trail to the scenic overlook as per the attached map, concurrent with street construction. The City will be responsible for constructing the trail connection across the creek valley to Branching Horn. This trail will be completed in 1988. BL:md �9 C STAFF REPORT , C I `TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 11, 1986 PROJECT: Bluff Country PUD LOCATION: West of County Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo Road APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Wally Hustad REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 186 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.15 acres with variances for street frontage. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 38.15 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 186 acres into 72 single family lots and nine outlots. Background The Planning Commission � F=_� i, ,1 previously 1-13,5 ♦ t �. reviewed, at the January 24, 1986, •:r.�r� and February 21, 1986, meetings, a �=', � 7r`,71410� �" "',_ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ,- �' Concept for this area, which %,_ �*411�::� �i consisted of 172, R1-13.5 lots; 75, �F �•�� R1-9.5 lots; and, 140 multiple � **AWOL, family units (385 total). The .1��.i®0 ��� �obb „'.,� `, hearing was closed at the March 10, ��� `h x; _ 1986, meeting, since the proponent k>• 'i 9' , � was preparing •RI-13 '`� k til‘�.� pde Unin a completely onciped v RI-135 ° �. ��,r � Planned Unit Development Concept, �, `�1•, ;>� ,�.� and since issues related to PROPOSED SITE " ►�transition, traffic, circulation, --' ��--- ,► '?1 1F cul-de-sacs, street frontages, den- sity, lot sizes, and architectural , control, were yet to be resolved. AREA "I "" /y A LOCATION MAP go ( (- Bluff Country PUD 2 April 11, 1986 Pud Concept Review The new PUD compares with the previous PUD according to the following chart: Total Open Space R1-13.5 R1-9.5 Multiple Total Units Gross Acres Acres Lots Lots Units Lots Density Previous PUD 186 51 172 75 140 3B7 2.1 New PUD 186 51 202 43 140 385 2.1 The density and total units are comparable with a major change in the number of R1- 13.5 lots which has increased by 30 while the number of R1-9.5 lots has decreased by 32. Minor Collector The need for a minor collector to serve this PUD has been stated in previous Staff Reports due to the total number of units and to provide an understandable street pattern in the area. The PUD provides for a minor collector looping Franlo Road back to County Road #1. This makes sense since the traffic study indicates that when the loop is completed that 75% of the site generated traffic would utilized this road and 25% using Bluff Road. affic - Phasing The phasing plan for the PUD is tied to the traffic study. Phase 1 through 3 can utilize Franlo Road and Bluff Road without affecting the capacity of the intersections or require improvements such as turn lanes and/or signalization. The study does indicate that the Bluff Road/County Road #18 intersection would be at level of service C; however, the increase in traffic through the intersection from the PUD is only 2%, since the major increase in traffic at this intersection would be due to an increase in "background traffic" on County Road #18. This means that the PUD could be built through Phase 3 without requiring the minor collector connection back to County Road #1. At Phase 5, the traffic study recommends that the Franlo Road intersection be signalized or the loop road completed. The loop road should be completed concurrent with Phase 5 to more evenly distribute traffic and provide a third access point for better internal circulation. As the PUD develops, Bluff Road (unimproved) will see an increasing amount of traffic from 200 cars per day at Phase 3, to 900 cars per day at full development, yet the area along Bluff Road in the PUD is part of the last two phases of the project, meaning traffic would utilize a dirt road until 1995. Until the last phase is developed, a temporary lift should be put on Bluff Road where noted on Attachment A and be completed concurrent with Phase I development. Prior to Phase 5 development, the exact location of the intersection of the minor collector and County Road #1 must be determined. The second part of the traffic study is not complete (but will be done before Council review). It will analyze "e County Road County Road #18 intersection and the location of the minor collector more detail. The traffic consultant has indicated at this time, that in all likelihood, due to traffic increases and County plans for upgrading of County Road y' C Bluff Country PUD 3 April 11, 1986 e'8 in the future, the minor collector should be located farther west. Attachment B -,ndicates that the minor collector can be technically moved farther west just before the pond. Otherwise the collector would have to be on the other side of the pond. In this location, sight vision on County Road #1 is poor and would require a realignment of County Road #1. The traffic study indicates that off-site traffic to the north of County Road #1, which is guided Multiple Family and Commercial will contribute more traffic effecting the location of the minor collector than trips from the Bluff Country PUD. Each phase of the PUD must operate with a loop road connection to avoid long, dead- end cul-de-sacs, provide better internal circulation, and better emergency vehicle access. Phase 2 boundaries must be revised to indicate a road connection to Meade Lane or Franlo Road. See Attachment C. Transition Transition in the previous PUD included three areas: adjacent to the park, the proposed multiple family outlot, and lots south of Bluff Road near County Road #18. Lots adjacent to the park have been changed from R1-9.5 to R1-13.5 lots meaning larger and fewer lots adjacent to the park. Transition in the multiple family outlot was related to density and architectural style. The outlot can be medium density but with contingencies that include a density base of five units per acre with additional density possible subject to a detailed review of site and architectural plans and based on performance criteria ,which would include: I. The plans must show sensitivity to existing land forms and vegetation. 2. Heavy use of landscaping to decrease the scale of the buildings. 3. Primary building materials shall be brick, and the buildings shall be residential in character. 4. The mass of the buildings shall be reduced through a specific architectural treatment such as varying roof heights and building jogs. Lot sizes north of Bluff Road were proposed for R1-9.5 zoning. The new PUD proposes lot frontages between 100-13D feet and R1-13.5 zoning. R1-9.5 Area Contigencies for rezoning to R1-9.5 in the future must include meeting all ordinance requirements, with a maximum density of 3.0 units per acre, grading which minimizes tree loss, and architectural control, such that no two units would be alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other. Mass Grading Overall site grading stays outside the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area and works with existing contours. Grading must limited to Phase 1 development only to minimize erosion and dust over the entire site. No grading should be allowed , 'tside of Phase I until detailed zoning and platting requests are submitted for _view. qa C { Bluff Country PUD 4 April 11, 1986 ':ilities Sewer and water service can be extended to serve the PUD. Sanitary sewer will be extended from a lift station on County Road #1 near County Road #18. It would be advantageous for the sanitary sewer to follow the minor collector road from County Road #1; however, the City Engineer, based on a preliminary review, has indicated that this would be the preferred route but an easement would work as well in this location. Storm water run-off is proposed to drain in two major directions; towards the pond in the multiple family outlot, and towards Purgatory Creek. The pond in the multiple family outlot currently has no storm water outlet. Storm water run-off towards Purgatory Creek will be through surge basins. Surge basins are utilized to help slow down the rate of water discharge, and limit the amount of sedimentation discharged into the creek. Concurrent with the final platting of the property, an overall master uitility plan for sewer, water, and storm water run-off, with details, must be submitted for Engineering review. Comprehensive Guide Plan Chanae to Multiple Family for the R1-9.5 Area and the Multiple Family Outlot. Commission must decide if substantial evidence has been provided to justify the change to medium density where shown on Attachment D. If this is the case, then "vproval should be based on the following criteria: 1. The density for the multiple family outlot would be with a base of five units per acre with higher densities allowed subject to the performance criteria as mentioned in the transition section. 2. Architectural control for R1-9.5 with specific unit types keyed to specific lots such that no two units are alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other. 3. All lots in the R1-9.5 area proposed for zoning must meet minimum ordinance requirements with the maximum density of 3.0 units per acre. 4. Conservancy easements must be filed concurrent with final plat for all area as shown on Attachment E. Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area At this time, the developer proposes a conservation area totalling 51 acres as an outlot to be controlled by the Homeowners' Association for the entire Bluff Country project. Outlot A of Creek Knolls was approved in 1972 subject to land dedication of 100 feet on both sides of Purgatory Creek and scenic easements. This land area has not been dedicated, or scenic easements filed. Concurrent with the final platting of the entire Bluff Country PUD, conservancy easements must be filed over all land area where depicted on Attachment E. "'dewalks/Trails The Franlo Road northern collector will be 60 feet of right-of-way. As part of road Q3 Bluff Country PUD 5 April 11, 1986 )nstruction, it should be required that a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk be provided on one side, and an eight-foot wide bituminous trail be provided on the other side. In addition, sidewalks should be provided within the PUD where shown on Attachment F in order to provide an overall pedestrian system for the area. Phase One Zoning Review All lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district except Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, on proposed Branching Horn Road, which do not have frontage on a public street and would require a variance. These lots are in the transition zone of Purgatory Creek which is a "build with care" area. These lots are heavily wooded with 12 to 18-inch oak trees. From a high point at about elevation 830 in the center of the site, the topography drops off steeply in all directions. Due to the steep slopes and heavy oak cover, a substantial amount of site alteration would be necessary to provide building pads. The area proposed for driveway access is on an existing 2/1 side slope meaning a lot of fill and retaining walls would be required. In addition, since the lots are at a lower elevation than the sewer lines in proposed Branching Horn Road, means that sewer must be pumped uphill. Since no site grading or pad locations have been shown at this time, and site grading is expected to be extensive, removing a significant number of trees and requiring retaining walls, the variance should not be granted as part of the PUD District Review and the plat revised to remove Lot 7 and 8. ,te Gradina Phase 1 Overall site grading is minimal in terms of cut and fill and follows the contours of the land. Grading in spots is extensive especially along the west side of Antlers Ridge Road. Upper portions of the rim along Purgatory Creek in the transition zone are being filled to accommodate building pads. Tree loss is minimal since it is not a heavily wooded area and grading is high enough on the rim not to disrupt the steep slope character lower on the slopes. Minimal or no grading is shown on either side of proposed Branching Horn Road at this time. This is a problem for Lots 2 through 10 which are heavily wooded and steeply sloped. The plan must be revised to show pad locations and site grading in order to evaluate the extent of tree loss and site alteration. It is clear that any development on these lots will result in tree loss. Prior to Council review, a revised grading plan for this area must be submitted which shows the extent of grading limits and the extent of tree loss. Road Access Phase I The realignment of Bluff Road creates Outlot C which blocks access to an existing lot. Concurrent with final plat, road right-of-way on Bluff Road and Franlo Road must be vacated, with the condition that Outlot C be given to the adjacent land owners. South of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, below Bluff Road, is approximately three acres ' land in the transition zone which is part of a larger 80-acre parcel to the south the overall PUD. (See Attachment G) This site is currently landlocked by proposed subdivision. Access to this area could be provided; however, the extent of u Bluff Country PUD 6 April 11, 1986 evelopable area is limited due to steep slopes and heavy tree cover. Extending a 'public road to this area with a cul-de-sac would completely alter the land character. This area would be better utilized as open space with a density transfer over the entire 80 acres much in the same manner as the Bluff Country PUD. Utilities Phase I Sewer and water service can be extended to this area. Storm water run-off is proposed to be directed towards Purgatory Creek. Two surge basins are proposed adjacent to the creek, which in concept, are used to slow down the rate of water run-off, minimize erosion, and limit siltation from entering the creek. A detailed tree inventory, detailed grading plans, and the design capacity of the surge basin must be submitted for Staff review prior to Council review. These basins must be located and sized to minimize tree loss and slope alteration. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 186 acres, Preliminary Plat of 186 acres into 72 single family lots and nine outlots, and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 38.15 acres subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated April 11, 1986, based on plans dated April 10, 1986, and subject to the following conditions: i Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the Preliminary Plat to move Lots 7 and 8, Block 1. B. Revise the Grading plan for Lots 2 through 10, Block 1, to show pad locations, site grading, and tree loss. C. Submit design details of the surge basin including capacity, construction limits, detailed grading, and a tree inventory. D. Provide a master utility and storm water run-off plan for review by the City Engineer. E. Provide a traffic study which analyzes the impacts at the County Road County Road #18 intersection and the location of the minor collector road with recommendations for improvements, if any. F. Revise the Phasing plan to include a connection to Meade Lane or Franlo Road as part of Phase 2. G. Revise the PUD Concept Plan to include sidewalks/trails where depicted on Attachment F. 2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. C Bluff Country PUD 7 April 11, 1986 B. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review, by the City Engineer. C. Concurrent with final platting, vacation of Bluff Road and Franlo Road with Outlot C to revert back to the adjoining land owners. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Stake the grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost outside of this area shall be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis. D. Submit for review, conservation easements for the area depicted on Attachment E, and provide evidence of filing before Building permit issuance. E. Submit the utility plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 4. The PUD approval for the multiple family outlot is based on a density base of five units per acre with additional density possible subject to a detailed review of site and architectural plans that are based on i performance criteria which include that the plans must show sensity to existing land forms and vegetation, heavy use of landscaping to decrease the scale of the buildings, primary building materials shall be facebrick and the buildings shall be residential in character, and the mass of the buildings shall be reduced through specific architectural treatment, such as varying roof heights and building jogs. 5. The PUD for the R1-9.5 area shall be based on a detailed review of a zoning request with all lots meeting the minimum requirements of the R1-9.5 zoning district with a maximum density not to exceed 3.0 units per acre and architectural control which keys specific unit types to lots such that no two units are alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other. 6. Construction of a temporary lift where shown on Attachment A along Bluff Road/County Road #18, according to Engineering standards with costs allocated to the developer. 7. Trails and sidewalks to be provided within the PUD according to Attachment F. Any sidewalks or trails within Phase I are to built concurrent with street construction. 8. Setbacks for all lots in the PUD must meet minimum ordinance requirements. 9� II ,----,-,------._ -__:="___--:------------=---,—. 1" --- 0 ,, •''' ,, .., - . . . • z Iliv'w - 0 I. - --.•40Nt 1.3 co I o , .4.•• 0 11______ . .„ . , /.., 4..... a) 'A IN I •-Mr&&444$1 \ 10 = IlLftw47,4 "Allt ' `.' m E ...., 0 CC Nr .,:- 4.r 4,, r•A• ____J1 -‘tg a c CU in . ,,,, 411117',:.,-5'.i..4fj';'•a•J's-' ( 1 •1 11111(1.4 .4% ' '4,`');i:'---_-.V. - -- -, :az __I -. . ..,.., „4... ...._ .... .... . ... ., L_I---_' 7----,-._ „ - . dr •---- • - , \iiidiAlil I . op. \\170-111 ,. 11.14111 1 r- I A, ,.....•A 7 ,..,..-c, / : Niii0A ;I',::',' ,- . ' •r .4firif .J-1 • ., ' .I,Il I'I'II,,., Ill r-z * Y'"'"''t 1,`,.,i'l:-i ',,,II 1 III• ___ : ,,,,,,, ,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--f 1( ) ( 1 /- I-- ---cX— ,.1 , \, ... i •• tI lib : 5L11 .•: , ,„,, / : • t: : 441 4: ! t Z .11r • ihi e i ' i -` -- : i 0 • i i •• ` -7-4 k....4 •• I r-'i ' • ' ::4,1- , r--- •,„.., 7.,;'•!•.;,it'A -- __....---- , --, L____, , , ) ,.K. ) ,.... , , .../ ,. , ,, 0 .\ ....... ...41 um wr in 71 11". 11M 71 lit 71 IIIIII IN 10111 an mar y.-.+S.c_�r t._. 1 a y —o, - �� U l ^' ' !! .I .. air ill ,Q, , . ."._ f t y >a . S ,.� + 1 F \ e Z/ ; 1 ;y , •f fl s /1A _ ' ' ' ,I�' ,4 , • , + , , SLY Ni 7 '� p �I ( \(`Y. .�4 sI (�sl t t,II re \ A ,\ l' Al CU fil a � ji i � tizl '� " I -- . _ / 4. ,f L.:...; 2,,ir,i.c,,,,,,,,•,,),',:t•'1/:•./4.''L5V;....i!,,4,_-_.\-\::::,irriri._Llij.ir.:1L.:41-,7.1,.....7.,../yil._4,1,',i(tig,•,<,..aori,,i-i-sii;••••,c,57,\/,..',ip.,,,,,,,,,i;i: ' iy_______,., YI ~ 1It „1 4 l �q 383 �': to li• i t 1 : tl>- .. , i' a{ I. I � �fCl 4 li r , q'cI ;I'lt --4 ' fi , � •19 i•, o t 7"�t c� �t,A . 7�r,ly 3 [F yri� ! it . a t l t 1 /L y S/ F 8 7,i.f_ rn 1. ,Fii ;:. 7. RK aSf Ei�'� z a�aF°[. .. �f:l N ' �, o 1\I -� < �;II I: ,,;14 ��. ,/ , 1 :,'' I ✓' ET�' lo-% 4 W D ``.' ''' ( •;,./L."''','• .7r- , :‘A•j r.777\\‘:'% ',"') i ,---1 ,v.,,.,.-,, ,,,,,,, , � • k�f V G ,f W f / YamV A - � 1�./. ii II 9? )11 . .�,a� c - — -- _ • �� jrvil, t a" = 1 t 1.' • b i,, t i�° ). a.aa /f e ,•-, ,4 . tP `a � c '; !�' a ° t ' ` G l ! r. 5`fi'a J .; " 1 i q a t ,/ cr�, /i � ,;} re al -4, ,0 .,of r�{{ _ a 77 q �� �)r�a t h> �� r f . 1 i' f/ a� � if a� 'KIT- �i�i !, �'. '� Ci ..f•-`-L• 1 a ~,. ') , �`/ 01I f if-\4 -y a �, .iI. . c i 0 0" 1 , a 'i' I t i. .. ." t tip, c ID E LL s \ 2 ' ° is./`',/ ';', ,,,• ;'.'?,.?,-.I',.- J ✓., tI a j 1 J z N I f •—�Y' y,. i,� '$$ • ,).�r▪ ��.L co W .- v° z 4� 1 ! 1 �Q ` �,-- . sea. �,t' s-' ' % �> *a ` !1 /_ 1 ! : 'X/ ,7- , r . Wit• !✓--- Q) �� 7 , II i. rl' �i ♦♦ b / t ', u 1'� a ti.4 C�c. k,r•4/ !r ,� 4 Al a �}ry ♦ ♦t♦fa�,f1 a Ff Y - �- �iy S__ � I' "� • , 1 , $ ? `�.A t▪ 1 r ,♦6♦� 't '' rr \' ./i/'-i 4: bdit4w' z Z�iI' ;,,h ; V r '� - --; l! , .�• \ , . 1 t Or'' ter- a le f .�'1¢7 i v I w m a0 YOID r 1 ..:t?. 1 ,S { N r ., t— -. /l—. jr C �� ��I cu '' ritrf. / of 17F `1 -' , 1 C 71. Imo • •• / r ✓✓✓� ✓ R�'V i y. r� Zi� �! r n; j ZS .. 71' +.. 1," `0- ►-ti, i ' la, , i I. of .jJice.. 2 l • I _ it (:' 1 1 R: 11 F't ' i` 'i E Y J 1 r iJ t I\ � f 1 I` ` c..i]l, , \. /41 it ` %}' I,m...,...r!"`' '1' jj` ..!< 1 l iv.,.? . • re,/•-~-}rigs Ili+it 1 • a 42 NIP--•1� 1`r Ja�� l� t 1, `R :+ 7� 1 aa4% ,,y ( a 'r S i 1 r' x�,l.1 �I u iy lii� s� 8 , fir , ` 0 j+rr i. �4 �,\•- -. J! 1 i 1 '/'. 02+ C; r y 4C i1 tl; ' �� s ` I �� •� ice— 'ON —-- Cily _ .. co CD CC 0 �e.^� �� 0 W � � .,, osi.14,111 , ' I. b u. / \ - !.*#p_•. .0,,-..• -4..,9•‘ ,,. W QI� LD. "��t Sao u , , :cps INTja r) /:'''; • itii". O• 2 C I slea _ Ii _ I 74.1 vs,I, II r ,' Tie lit. - --(, \ ' •1... •�.•do.t i!'n' 1 II ''qi!i;! 1.i(!; ,i ,Iti �\ • 1P ��i; 1 • I• lii cIv \ // `•• \_ ••• •�•�•• bl •• •• < ••\ ./•.* oil • !WI II ` \� ____.i , 1 ( __'tip .v' i' o D K hl, 1) : ; Z 11 isms. •.7' ` t C UL >- /1� �t� � `� . .,.i5----1 C 14u.. #$JH °� - Ilk, .,,,40-1----- ~ � a A \v \\i) U. i / i u CU V ...Till tatg .LL tillinut mil rmu 1) -:ri. 4 11,,,:;4...„.,..,-,:,V '"t.';'i. • i - L--- - - �.I �� r--10:)--L sOiffilek----. \‘\161 ' - :.. 11115 IN !►"" a f 4,- 11/1/71+11011 ,< C� . 1i,' ! 1 11 i11 ` r� o i �--r,r /. III i 1 i 1 iii ✓-4by/ G i III Ill li,: I Ihi -- � ��� .1,1,•:4111: ....11, i,y,i ''; k • \ ^r),,r--• _ ,11,iii' i:i n„i i,i�iii:iiiiil i "I CJ to < - o Q1 11. . $W! _ W Iiiill �r sn 9r u. o°rep I J ) ioa ) -,.1,---- -- Yis-- `! � 1. T1 K1�1• Q I, I ti p yt Y J�.S'F O j ~ 7j 1 ` • , 1$ ? TA L ' pi, \ ,1 ' r ed 2 i C , , 1 -. 1v1 y.aI 1 t r r„ 1 ri t t✓ 11 1 .r.cs t' M s,.., ,\1/.,/, ,,.1,',, T. :• .... , 0,„„tir,,... , .. E ...1 � � i ,,,L'.1..L./—/ 1t,a i 1 ' fir / isa ).,,,,".,-'n - J_ 2 00 CU � �I �1�, V1.\meta j lyet—k_.,,,. y eki�9 5'G • 1 ,`7 1 { a�y ._ ,.._,1 N�� 1, ��` IS,.,..• ,,,, ..,,.. ..1:1:2.,, Ili.. u .. ,.I�-• C 4�_! ,_.___ .1 ,.Sq s . ��; y , ''' - rya �� • ....,.,, ..,. ,...1,:,,,A ": 4 i ,� � r y 1 �J 1.—\ bI - ,)i ' y (,.. "f ` (`-. ;h , ,�Vy l S y11 V'1'4,4'6N 1 \1 :-p.•,{r;, ) ---�_ /031 ) C ie' • STAFF REPORT I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner TOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 25, 1986 PROJECT: Bluff Country PUD LOCATION: West of County Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo Road APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Wally Hustad REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 186 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.15 acres with variances for street frontage. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 38.15 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 186 acres into 72 single family lots and nine outlots. - Backaround ---- -- • I135„ ♦' 'i Gam''.. vided additional and revised in- .�.f '��.4. `�IK4N`, ,- , 40 formation in response to recommend- �04441, ���� ations of the April 11, 1986, Staff °�7� q\ ,•/�•', Report. The revisions are as ���♦��♦.' ���������� .40 41fir follows: r ',�♦ 4'k '�/� 4/�♦�♦�� PROPOSED SITE 414 ' * • AREA LOCATION MAP l2u Bluff Country PUD 2 April 25, 1986 I 1. Revise the preliminary plat to remove Lots 7 and 8, Block 1. The that requirement developmentfor onthe theseremoval lotsf would require was abased consideupon rable expectation of grading and tree loss which would not be consistent to development in the transition zone of Purgatory Creek. A detailed grading and access plan has now been provided for Lots 7 and 8, which shows a common private driveway and cul-de-sac. House pads have been located and grading is limited to the top of the slopes. There will be tree loss on this property; however, the heavily wooded areas on the lower portions of the slopes outside of the siltation fence will remain. Since tree loss has been minimized and appropriate access has been provided, development can occur on Lots 7 and 8, but would require a variance under the Planned Unit Development for street frontage. 2. Revise the grading plan for Lots 2 through 10, Block 1 to show pad locations, site grading, and tree loss. The grading plan indicates that the location of building pads and proposed grading will minimize tree loss on the slopes. 3. Revise the phasing plan to include a connection to Meade Lane or Franlo Road as part of Phase 2. The boundary lines for Phase 2 and Phase 3 have been modified. Phase 2 will include a connection up to Meade Lane. Lots 4, 5, and 6, do not meet the minimum street frontage requirement of 85 feet for the R1-13.5 zoning district. There is enough excess street frontage on the adjoining lots to revise the plat to meet the minimum requirement for these lots. /W MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services"(_ DATE: May 1, 1986 SUBJECT: Bluff Country PUD This staff report is supplementary to the Planning Staff Reports of January 24 1986, February 21, 1986, April 11, 1986 and April 25, 1986. The parks, recreation and natural resource issues of the Bluff Country PUD relate to preservation of the creek valley, park dedication, trails and sidewalks. PRESERVATION OF CREEK VALLEY The February 21, 1986 and the April 11, 1986 Planning Staff Reports refer to the conservancy area of Purgatory Creek. The City has adopted the policy committing to the preservation of the creek valley from the rim, as described in the Purgatory Creek Study. The City's intent is to preserve the natural character of the creek valley as this creek valley, especially in this Clocation, is one of Eden Prairie's most significant natural resources. This ceeek valley should be preserved for all residents to enjoy and appreciate. The Community Services Staff recommend the requirement of a scenic easement on the steep slopes that should be determined prior to final platting. The rim elevation varies from north to south throughout the plat, but generally follows approximately the 840 contour. There is one location where the rim naturally drops to approximately the 820 contour. PARK DEDICATION It is the recommendation of the Community Services Department that the City continue to attempt to acquire as much ownership of the creek valley as possible, especially in strategic access points. In the case of the proposed Bluff Country PUD the Community Services Staff recommend requiring dedication of land in lieu of park fees in order to assure preservation of two scenic overlooks, as well as important access points to the creek valley. Although, it is not certain whether or not there will ever be a public trail corridor along the entire length of the Purgatory Creek Valley, there will certainly be trail crossings of the creek in several locations and there will be short stretches of the creek valley where a public trail will be appropriate. The Community Services Staff believe this section of the creek valley is one of those areas. Staff recommends requiring dedication of approximately 20 acres of which only approximately 3.28 acres has been depicted as developable for lots by the Bluff Country PUD. JOG The remaining 34 acres of proposed open space could either be dedicated to the City as a gift by the developer or could be controlled by the homeowners ` association. In either case the slopes should be protected by a scenic • easement. The Community Services Staff also wish to note that the February 21st Planning Staff Report points out that Outlot A of Creek Knolls was approved in 1972 subject to land dedication of 100' on both sides of Purgatory Creek, and a scenic easement on the steep slopes. The Community Services Staff recommend that this dedication and scenic easement be transferred prior to any further final platting within this area. If 245 single family lots were approved and 140 multi-family lots were approved, the total park dedication for this Planned Unit Development would amount to $147,700. Although, this is a significant amount of park fees the Community Services Staff believe that this segement of the creek corridor is critical to the park and open space system and believe it is worth the loss of those fees. TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS The Community Services Staff recommend some sidewalks in addition to the sidewalks proposed by the Planning Staff Report. The Community Services Staff recommend the following: 1. The extension of the 8' wide asphalt hikeway/bikeway adjacent to Franlo Road. 2. The construction of a 5' concrete sidewalk along the following roadways: a. Along one side of the east/west road opposite the Franlo Park enterway. b. Along the south side of 81uff Road from County Road 18, westerly the entire length of Bluff Road. c. Along the south side of the extension of Meade Lane to Franlo Road. d. Along the west side of the north/south road that connects the southern most cul-de-sac in the Creek Knolls Development to Franlo Road. e. Along the short cul-de-sacs leading to the scenic overlooks. The Community Services Staff recommend approval of the Bluff Country PUD subject to the recommendations of the Planning Staff Report and the corrections of the Planning Staff Report as outlined in this memorandum. BL:md 103 , . . • . 11111111111 C . . -., ,----.:----..--,- ---,-J-77... i 1 •:.---- 1:1,i• ', 1.: ': ••-•...- .:. -'---`-:--4;'...'h.--,-. , D ;;, ,I / I: • • .! s ll:I r 7- ' )3.-.. • .4-, i .--••'* "•,' \ 1:6 . ,,-,,,__) , , : ; 4, , •-•- ': •• :01-- ,,,• _.,, - ,---t, . I ---m-.., , ,',.'• , 4, , .• . ' ' / ' ---J:.,..4'l,'..“ ..,,___,• .. .._,- . - ,',' >"' ' -. ' - ' .- ----=-- ' • •;'S, -----c.--.,i..r.',,.'"-/; ii: , ---.•7-1:2--i. C.' 1 ,. :.p. iln•'..,. L'-i' ...-,..•.:_1,ZA 1, ,LtV.-*•:,:y , i•••• 7 . ' ,.1‘,....„'•••'...'••4:•/,•,:•' ! . -1 I 1 `:1--1::::-.'„!-• V"-' --'---.7'-' 1' Z .- •- ' -I : ,,--- ;71. --'77. . ---47,'-'..."'Yic: i 0 i - L'..1 - .-:. •.--;/ , ,:'/:-' '-,:.' - ' • - , ' - ,. r):-.-r,: 1?.0;/' .. .::,, , C.) 0 • •\ .,:; ,:,,, ''., ,. ', ,:...tsv,$,...:----- :. :,': 4'(_ : /..\, \/ , ' ' -I :r ,, ',I.,' .s.' '' • !:'::•••41 7- '-!..-,-;-:','-',(..' i ',',\-:'\ ,. :-1-1. f-----73. •: ;-',• •:,!\\' ',1'•';. :•1 "..i.'";I:',, / la' °: r.1'' •• \ ''' :I —• • !•i •''--7--7"( - -I- --:, •.• . .... E :. . II•I7,:•, I-77I .•,(1,,-!:. ,i-i .,''',. ...,.!i •\ - ' . '' ...- . = .: . , ,,;,\',-7:-.. ,--.1 • m ,,. _--/,7*,,--st•:,--_,---, -'', C / , ,-,, _-_2_i_t- , \ 1 •:1 '•;,..'-.7- ';'---'' -T ' 7-'r ,,,,,,, .. 1 • ..„ , , ,,,,,,,, __• ..,„.--.,,.,,.. ;••• .,,,,.---, 1,1 .• , \•, .,,..., ', -,--,-;', ---t.,-‘,:5. ',.->-,.=.--"---,,-;"- ,,-rtif II _----• , .- -,',/,'-.- -,J. :•/••_1-. . , p,f1)=---•:-, -\- --- , ! •,__,_:, '__: ';.-_ , '\--;;;', 'I '7-17......_ ....., / r ' •,-1--- •"1-•,: i.•‘,1,---1 .r - I- r',* !,,i.,7--.1 :1,2- ',-'1I:,-,r/,j„. ; -; ..-...., ../•,,'..--; - ''', r,<'-'-' (..).---,1,7:-. V:•TTC1, ::-. ::: .'- ' .*:;°' ' ', •='i.:',..; ': ..',-(•';:', -1, ..\ . i-r-_7.7. ''.:•• i'.',1'• :2' \'...1 :;-;•.!`,•1 -,'-'..!' '':_'",_:'_ " ..:.'.,[_:.---:- L."17-1 ,__ . : ;./ •,.,, • .•!,:‘,.,..:- .;.1.;...,/ s;1- ‘.... , .. .,. ...,,,,,.... : / ••,:- \':,- - - '• ';_j° ., • .:.'ll". --77-•,,' -.: -: i...--- ' . ti''''• •---,iii•-ii , ,•0;" • —--. :-.,/ .; ' ..' ,, ' ..\-,--i P.,i.,‘LY• -1 .. •-, . •s‘, - ..11;3'•'.1 r"...," I:::— .' : `• ,Ni S.;' . :(-• I... --'.'''' ' •.•„'1''',‘,,?'''.,'1••••....'.•• ,., t , ..:•:,.. , .._.•,,,-,.. _: , .._, ,,.•.,.,. . : ,.., ., ,,,,,,II' li:•'•-•7---1-..--- :•-:-.., —-'•I',,, . ' ,- :Ci :; - '-i '7-'7'--'-- J''7: - Ill II ( '. ••''.-'• [r-) ' •)'' --•1r-7 I ( -;:7-:•-/ .,:.;.,4•I'l.7.,, rr ,, --.7,7•....?,•i- ___,...-. ' ,111,,,,..) '711 i i.;.', ..."-i ri ,r1....-- ,'ijI•1 ) .';.% •rr,' ,- --' ; ''!'l r'' '. '':'' ' 'III,h1 7/' i';i ii;••-'-'!, l'i ', 1;'0 ••—• 2. •, : • • ' HI' 7 7, •-.'7- ,„ .,-.. .......! , ',I LI' :,,•-." •;, '' •, ' • -. '• , Irtlii,til, 2 :.§' .f.,ii; ',.• "-, rf;1:. .% ,'Or.',, •i ti01:, :7; '':',''''' 8" ' 1 i•L' _ J' f'- I 1 IYI'..,, 'iii,,11'' •,..-;;',,, .--,•,N, '' :: --4'..--7.- -- `.;. - i ' li 'Iilli'',:;'' --" ::1 .' ''': , • ii:. - ,'''; , • I,e ri Itill 011'1:i''' ' - ' , ' 1,':,., • E '';',':1 . .._ •., •1 ,, 'Il4L ILI1,:,.._ . , ..!'s , ' I , . 1 . • ' • ,s'il , , 4. i''' ?",;',.1 I i.: , . . •i•.: L. ' •,, •,•ir, v:•,',, 'Irj ;• . ,;‘. '-' • . ., • : :•-,,i• 1, . ,, ..4. ( - ,...--..• -/. — -.--i:' - ". • -'••• - - - --- - • , ' ''':•-•,..‘•'\ -..c. . _ , •,. , v i• ••... ...' . -••,i0--;;; • .--- ' •"• /-;I,. • t . 47 107 0 A L n . . .^,// 1�t fLZ 101a1510 100w:- '.•...,f,` ...._ ". °' . ..�.:n 77', 9�`�` LLL 171l11510 -woo<I,,I i. , i, . -'rT.- - _.-- w�,s{-•1`."'_• t` +5 •�� 11 ir1 i!. 1 , Lnl•„ I i l ;n It J �, 1 �� l ft, t f V iri, ,P - ' .C i..7,, 0.5-1/4„.. ,,!;'2,-):li•-•,.ii '.:•-,,l.,77-_,,t; 1 APIIII Ae �� \ 1 t)•.)/1 .1!It; ,aim I ; Srl �� ;r =i�f,y..A•'`.ni CC}-x i \am -t » _ i '!j `� QNQ ^• }� i--. I y e'tl Syr— ��Q m m,a 1 Is Si [s• j I .' ' i Y�-' ',vv.L., aa(66).. SI En B3 E: 'a6 1111\--r)'4 --',:.,.4.? ''):-Lit-:i'.-.‘" Ij•k:"'f:',''lip 0 I I ;.J1r ••la 1 '7I • F,v., • , . o _ t 1 - ' ce le es, 40 . ',., 1 4-1• ' '''.:r'.... '''• 7 "41 l 1 'I 7+.`- r u 445 t���������I ? —,.,M r \ I r I IIqi/;1pIiI I : '\ . — IEl �� 1 HMOb s t 'Z' • I p e, I Add \` 'y.•{rif- ,. ibadM3N . -,end s J+ ydno .141.17411104111.. it �� ;�; ` .(4.4.4,4 y r;� MEMROANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: May 5, 1986 SUBJECT: The Bluff Country PUD The original recommendation from the Community Services Staff regarding the Bluff Country PUD was to require land in lieu of park fees. Staff suggested acquiring four of the parcels proposed for platted lots. Upon review of the proposed park dedication, the developer requested the Director of Community Services to walk the site and suggested a prominent knoll on the east side of the creek be dedicated for public viewing of the creek valley, rather than the knoll proposed on the west side. The Director of Community Services concurs with the suggestion by the developer and recommends access to this area via a 30' wide trail easement between lots 3 and 4, block 3 off Bluff Road. The trail should be a 6' wide asphalt trail extending to the middle of the saddle between the two knolls. This is the point where the trail will split to the south and begin transversing down hill when the trail for the creek crossing is constructed. r, The access from the west should occur adjacent to the private drive serving lot B, block 1 of the Brown farm property. This again should be a 6' wide asphalt trail that should be constructed adjacent to the private drive at least as far as lot 8. At that point, the trail can split to the north and transverse down the slope for an eventual creek crossing. The Community Services Staff would recommend that the City either require dedication of the entire 51 acre outlot and the construction of the access trail as described in lieu of park fees for the Bluff Country PUD, or require the developer to dedicate the trail easement areas and construct the trails as described, and pay the park fees if the devleoper is interested in donating the property as a gift. If the property is donated as a gift, staff would recommend requiring a scenic easement on the steep slopes and putting a restrictive covenant on the creek corridor for 15 years. The covenant would restrict trail construction along the creek corridor during that period of time in order to determine if it would be damaging to the environment and would cause a policing problem. The restrictive convenant would not restrict the City from constructing the trail across the creek valley in this location, as well as one creek crossing further to the north in the vicinity of Homeward Hills Park. This arrangement would allow the City to acquire the land and maintain the possibility of a trail along the creek sometime in the future, if that trail corridor is warranted in the future. It also gives the City a sufficient amount of time to study the impact the housing development along the rim will have on wildlife in the valley, as well as what impact a pedestrian path might have on the valley environment. BL:md APPROVED MINUTES drj EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 1986 • -3- The third issue involves trails and sidewalks. Staff recommends a 5' concrete sidewalk be continued along the east side of Dell Road its entire length and that an 8' asphalt bikeway be installed from Street "C" in Hidden Glen 2nd Addition Phase II to the neighborhood commercial center. Staff also recommends a revision to the pedestrian plan in the April 11 Planning Staff report and suggests eliminating the sidewalk along Street "F" and continuing along Barrington Drive north and east to Dell Road. MOTION: Gonyea moved to recommend approval of Hidden Glen North per staff report with the revisions as noted. Cook seconded the motion. Cook asked the location of the neighborhood park on the map. Lambert said the park is not shown on the map, but gave its approximate location. The motion passed 7-0. B. Bluff Country PUD Refer to memos dated May 1, 1986 and May 5, 1986 from Bob Lambert, qr, Director of Community Services and staff reports dated January 24, 1986, February 21, 1986, April 11, 1986 and April 25, 1986. i Lambert said that the parks, recreation and natural resources issues are the preservation of the creek valley, park dedication, trails and sidewalks. Lambert met with the developer on Monday morning and after walking through the area, changed some earlier staff recommendations. He introduced Mr. Bob Smith of Hedlund Engineering who was present at the meeting to review the Bluff Country PUD proposal. Smith showed the commission a phased diagram and proposed zoning map. The site is located on 196 acres south of Pioneer Trail, west of County Road 18 and northeast of Purgatory Creek. The plan shows low density residential land uses of 2.1 units per acre with a neighborhood park to the north, low density residential to the east and south with open space and low density and open space to the west. There was a 1977 PUD which divided the site into eastern and western sections. The western section was approved and is currently being developed, but the eastern section was not approved at that time. Smith said the key issue of this proposal is the preservation of Purgatory Creek. Smith also reviewed maps showing vegetation, road alignments, utility plans and grading plans. Mr. Hustad of Hustad Development, Inc. was also present at the meeting to review the proposed plan. The development will include both high range ($300,000 to $1/2 million) and moderately priced ($100,000 to $125,000) housing. The average lot size is 12,000 square feet. There are 245 single family and 140 multi-family lots included in the plan. ICI ..\\4 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 1986 -4- Lambert asked about park dedication. Hustad said they had met with their attorney and the developer intends to dedicate open space to the City. Lambert said that the Purgatory Creek Study is the guide that is being used for this development. It suggests being very careful about putting any trails in this section of the creek valley although plans are to make allowances for trails in the future. Lambert said he feels there should be a rim trail and that permanent knolls should be acquired for public use. A 15 year restrictive convenant would insure that no trails would be built along the creek for that amount of time. Lambert again reviewed the major issues which are the preservation of the creek valley with close monitoring both during construction and later; park dedication - the developer will pay cash park fees and the City will require a trail easement; trails and sidewalks - an 8' asphalt trail will be constructed on the west side of Franlo Road, 5' concrete sidewalks will be added on one side of the east/west road opposite the Franlo Park entryway, along the south side of Bluff Road from County Road 18 west the entire length of Bluff Road, along the south side of the extension of Meade Lane to (� Franlo Road, along the west side of the north/south road that connects the southern most cul-de-sac in the Creek Knolls Development to Franlo Road and along the short cul-de-sacs leading to the scenic overlooks. Joyer asked how the 15 year restrictive covenant was decided upon atime nd is it long enough. Lambert said that the maximum amount of years fshould restrictive covenant tOyears, but he feels 15 Gonyea asked who will police or monitor the area both during construction and afterwards. Lambert said the City has a full-time inspection department who will closely monitor development on the site. Baker asked how changes will be monitored after the grading has been done. Lambert said it will have to be the initiative of the Community Services staff and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to develop some type of monitoring system for different types of wildlife, etc. Cook asked if a scenic easement would affect the gift by the property owners. Hustad said that it would not. Hustad commented on the gift of land to the City. He said this is the second time Brown's have done this and he feels that a precedent has been established. He added that some type of trust must exist between the City and the property owners involved. �C ,� APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 1986 -5- Lambert recommended that the plan be approved with the following • conditions: changes on the trail and sidewalk system - trail easement between Lots 3 and 4 off Bluff Road and west from the Brown site and construction of a trail to Lot 8. The trail can be either 6' asphalt or 5' concrete, but it should be hard surface. A scenic easement should be required on steep slopes along with a trail easement and a 15 year restrictive covenant which would require the City to wait before any trail along the creek could be constructed. The impact of a trail should be reviewed at regular ' intervals and the appropriate cash park fees will be paid by the developer. MOTION: Baker recommended approval of the Bluff Country PUD per staff recommendation and additional conditions above. Joyer seconded the motion. Cook said that his major concern is the water drainage on the site. Lambert said that this will be reviewed by the Watershed District along with the City planning and engineering departments. Shaw asked if there is a similar drainage system in the area. Hustad said there are several, but they are not on as large a scale as this. The motion passed 7-0. VI. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS, BOARDS AND STAFF A. Community Education Advisory Council Monthly Report 1. Minnetonka Community Services Annual Report Lambert said he receives these reports from time to time since a small portion of northwest Eden Prairie is in the Minnetonka school district and Eden Prairie pays the Minnetonka school district $100 per year for community education, etc. This is an information item only. B. City Council Meeting Report - April 15, 1986 The Parks and Recreation Commission suggested that the road at Donnay's Round Lake Estates be realigned. After an aerial photo was taken and the Council saw what a beautiful area it was, they approved the realignment of the road at their April 15 meeting. The development also has nine or ten townhouses which are to he built on the west side of the pond. Since the east side of the pond is to be saved, Lambert feels the developer should not be f(' allowed to build the townhomes in this location. City Council Minutes -4- May 20, 1986 P. Resolution 86-109, regarding activities around Flying Cloud Landfill, June 1, 1986 - became item IX. A. 6 Q. EDENVALE MINI-STORAGE by Edenvale Industrial Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #17-86, Zoning Amendment within the I-2 Park District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Edenvale Mini-storage; and Adoption of Resolution #86- 94, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #17-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: North of Highway #5, south of Martin Drive. (Ordinance #17-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-94, Authorizing Summary and Publication) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve items A-0 and item Q on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unani- mously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER 3RD ADDITION, by Ryan Construc- tion. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.91 acres, Zoning District Change from I-2 Park to Office on 6.3 acres for construction of a 69,500 square foot office building. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, (e" west of City West Parkway. Continued from April 15, 1986. City Manager Jullie noted that proponents, in a letter dated April 23, 1986, have requested that their request for rezoning and PUD Amendment be withdrawn. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to acknowledge the withdrawal of the request for rezoning and PUD Amend- ment from Ryan Construction Company. Motion carried unani- mously. B. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances, on 38.15 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approxi- mately 184 acres into 72 single family lots and nine outlots. Location: West of County Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo Road. (Resolution #86-99, PUD Concept; Ordinance #24-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-100, Comprehen- sive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution #86-101, Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Ily r3 City Council Minutes -5- May 20, 1986 Wally Hustad, the proponent, addressed the proposal. Planning Director Enger stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its January 27, February 24, March 10, and April 28, 1986, meetings. Enger said that, at the April 28th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on a 6-0 vote, subject to the recom- mendations of the Staff reports of April 11th and April 25th. Enger reviewed the staff recommendations and noted that several items had not yet been completed including design details of the surge basin, detailed grading, a tree inven- tory, a master utility and storm water run-off plan, and the density base for the multiple family outlot. Enger also referred to his memo of May 14 which summarized details of the project and the issues that remain unresolved, includ- ing the question of access to the Wilkie property, utilities and road improvement of Bluff Road, and the wetland status of the pond. Director of Community Services Lambert said that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission reviewed this proposal at its meeting on May 5, 1986, and that the Commis- sion was concerned about the preservation of the creek valley, park dedication or cash park fees, trail easements, and the trails and sidewalks in the project. He noted that his memo of May 6th summarized the recommendations of the Community Services staff. Lambert reviewed the proposed trail system in the project and noted that the proponent had proposed donating the creek valley property to the City as a gift. He said that the Staff recommends the City agree to a res- trictive covenant on the creek corridor for 15 years to restrict, trail construction along the creek valley. He further noted that the Parks Commission recommended approval per the recommendations of the Community Services and Planning staff. Bentley asked about the possibilities for the sewer line and how that question could be resolved without knowing what the plans are for County Road #18 and the service road. Hustad said that the sewer line has to come from the eastern point and that development could not begin until the sewer line is available. Director of Public Works Dietz noted that a petition for a Feasibility Report for utilities in the area had been received at the last Council meeting and that the location of the proposed sewer line on the project map is probably the best location regardless of the align- ment of the highways. /I;" City Council Minutes -6- May 20, 1986 Pidcock asked what the usual procedure is to get a sewer line connection to property. Dietz responded that the Feasibility Study will determine the costs, the needs of the area and the probable alignment after which the project will proceed, with the possibility of condemnation if agree- ment cannot be reached. Redpath asked if the road connection could be made through Autumn Woods. Hustad noted that it was a possibility. Peterson said that there is a definite need for a road connecting to Hwy #1. Pidcock expressed concern about fire and police protection in the project. A discussion of the collector road followed. Pidcock asked what the projected population of the project would be. Hustad said there would be 245 dwellings with about 500 residents. Pidcock also asked about the plans for the area between the current Hwy #18 location and the projected new roads. Hustad said it was proposed to be commercial and multi-family residential. Anderson asked about the possibility of running the road adjacent to the creek rather than between houses. Hustad said that would not be economically feasible and that many of the current residents have voiced their desire to keep the area very private. A discussion followed regarding the future value of property in the area. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, expressed concern regard- ing problems on Bluff Road, including the dangerous intersec- tion at Hwy #18, the need for lighting along the road and for stop signs to regulate traffic speed, and the temporary ,lift recommended by staff. He also expressed the needs for sewer and water in the area. John C. Rosholt, an attorney representing the Wilkie family, noted that the project does not provide access to the Wilkie property. He expressed concern that the only option left for them will be a bridge over Purgatory Creek. Bentley asked if the Wilkie's had considered using the par- cel of land as a density transfer for development of their land across the creek or if an easement could be set up to allow for future access to the parcel. Rosholt said that an easement would be better than no access at all. Peterson noted that he felt there was at most one buildable site on the Wilkie property and that the concept of density • City Council Minutes -7- May 20, 1986 transfer would seem to make more sense for the property. He asked City Attorney Pauly about the legal rights involved. Pauly responded that there is no legal right apart from the provision in the City Code stating that, if a property owner is developing his property, provision will be made for the extension of a public road into the adjoining property; however, in this case extending the road would result in a cul-de-sac that would probably take up the only buildable portion of the site. Bentley said his opinion was that it would not be in the best interest of the City to put a public road there because of the potential damage to the entire scenic area that would result from possible development once there was access to the property. Peterson noted that the Wilkies could exercise the option of negotiating a private easement with Hustad. Jerry Hegge, 10015 Pioneer Trail, expressed concern about the effect of the project on the protected wetlands area by storm water run-off and the extensive grading required. He also expressed concern regarding increased traffic in the area and said he felt no further development should occur in the area until the damage done by previous devel- opers is corrected. Gerald Haas, 9955 Pioneer Trail, expressed concern regard- ing the pond and the drainage of storm water in the area. Director of Public Works Dietz said that it might be possible to work some plans for drainage of the surrounding area into the master plan for drainage of the Hustad development. Discussion followed regarding the problems created by ero- sion around the park area and drainage from the future up- grading of Hwy #18. Rhoda Haas, 9955 Pioneer Trail, presented a petition from residents expressing concerns about development in the area. (Attachment A). She noted that their entire garden was lost due to flooding problems in the area. Bentley said that he felt this concern, while genuine, was not immediately rele- vant to the project, but suggested that staff could be directed to look into the matter and report back to the Council. Mr. Briggs, 9715 Pioneer Trail, expressed his opposition to the use of his land to extend the sewer line and roadway for the benefit of the developer. He also asked how the costs of the lift station would be allocated. Dietz said - that the lift station was part of the original sewer master t)' City Council Minutes -8- May 20, 1986 plan for the area and that trunk sewer and water assess- ments are made to developers as development is approved. Dietz also said that acting on the existing petition for utilities in the Bluff Road area would result in special assessments for adjoining property owners when the utilities are put in. Redpath asked Mr. Hustad if he had talked to the Munsons and the Halversons about bringing the sewer through an ease- ment on their property without the road access. Hustad said it had been considered but that he expected the Feasi- bility Study to determine the appropriate route. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 86-99 for PUD Concept Approval of the Bluffs East 4th and 5th Addition. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 24-86 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. r MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Reso- lution No. 86-100 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 86-101 approving the Preliminary Plat of Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions for Hustad Development. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION:, Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per recommendations Of staff, the Planning Commission and the Park, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, and with attention to the concerns expressed by area residents regarding grading and storm water run-off. Anderson expressed concern that the Developer's Agreement should include the scenic easement along with a trail ease- ment for the creek valley. The following discussion deter- mined that this issue would be covered by the recommendations from the Community Services Staff and the Parks Commission. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct the City Manager to look into the matter of possible damages mentioned by some of the residents and to see what remedies there might be. Motion carried unanimously. li7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council • Planning Commission Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: December 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Background and Recommendations on the Lower Purgatory Creek Area The Purgatory Creek Study defined the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector, from County Road 1 southeast to Riverview Road. There are a wide variety of expectations on how this sector of the creek should be mananged. In order to understand the existing recommendations, it is important to review comments from the guiding document regarding this sector of the creek. Under the naturalist's evaluation chapter of the Purgatory Creek Study, the naturalist provides the following comments: "Down stream, the stream entertains a large westward horseshoe bend around a very prominent ridge. Here a flood damaged private bridge provides access to a single dwelling unit on the east side. In the past, channel straightening was conducted in this vicinity." "For the next one and half miles, the stream meanders extensively through old pastures, between moderate to steep banks and slopes. Upland hardwoods are dominated by elm and oak. Dutch elm disease has run rampant with areas of extreme mortality. Oak wilt is also present. To break the monotype there is a an occasional clump of white birch and aspen." "At several points esker-like ridges protrude into the stream course, diverting the flow. Bank slippage on opposite banks is common. Midway, too, old erosion originated from cultivation on the east. Since this was former pasture, this was expected and nature is correcting the problem. Prairie vegetation found on the ridges include amorpha or lead plant." "Being, remote and wild, this section offers exceptional opportunities for a lengthy nature trail. Unless mid-section exit sites are provided, use of this section would norms ly necessitate a half a day. Flexibility in wending the trail from bank to bank would be highly desirable. This, however, would require walkways or stream crossings." These comments indicate the impact man has already had on the creek valley in the past. Under the use and management recommendations of the Purgatory Creek Study, the naturalist offers the following comments regarding the lower Purgatory Creek Sector: "This section can be divided into two segments of importance. The upper half mile has a much less priority than the lower one and one half miles." 119 "Currently, Purgatory Creek is undergoing extensive development of the west side of the upper half mile. Drains and ravines also contribute runoff on the adjacent section. Slippage erosion on the west hank is common. Accordingly, it would be advisable to acquire these banks to control the problem. Retained nature will slowly heal these scars." "Rim acquistion of the wooded east side will preserve some character to this section and retain sufficient land for the hiking nature trail. Setback restrictions should also be enforced, which is assumed already too late on the west. The impact of Dutch Elm Disease through this section is considerable. Dense stands of prickly ash and other fruiting shrubs have already invaded these openings. Although making trail development difficult, the thickets are excellent wildlife habitat." "Downstream in the vicinity of the large horseshoe bend, rim to rim acquisition should be initiated on both sides. This should be extended the next one and one half miles all the way to Riverview Road. To protect the stream, it is significant the major ravines and gullys caused by past agriculture practices be included. Protected they will revegetate and add significantly to the acreage while providing excellent wildlife habitat. Setback restrictions should be enforced through this section." "Much of this section was former pasture having moderate to steep banks. Former slippages are healing and the channel is becoming brush choked. Currently, it presents a wild remote appearance, not associated with the metropolitan area. As in the upper section, there has been extreme mortality of elms due to Dutch Elem Disease. Here prickly ash and other desirable fruiting shrubs have formed•na tural wildlife tangles. At several points, eskar like ridges divert the stream course. The channel itself is marked by boulders and rocky ripples presenting an attractive scenic setting. Numerous springs and seeps add to the water quality." "Overall this section offers the best opportunity of the entire watershed for a lenghty nature hiking trail. Use of this section will normally necessitate a half day. Weekend use could be expected to be quite high. Mid-section exits would detract from this wild character, and should be avoided. To blend with the stream considerable flexibility should be incorporated in the trail layout. Rustic crossings could be constructed of on site materials and installed at selected sites. To prevent trail erosion and make travel more enjoyable for the greatest number of people, trail gradient should be low." When reviewing the public hearings that were held in 1976 on the Purgatory Creek Study, there were many individuals that strongly opposed any trails adjacent to the creek; however, the City Council approved the Purgatory Creek Study as a guide document for reviewing developments adjacent to Purgatory Creek. In 1986, the Director of Community Services suggested the City consider two creek crossings with trails within the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector. It was also suggested that it was important to construct a sidewalk along the west side of Bluff Road that parallels Purgatory Creek and that access from this sidewalk to the two creek crossings, as well as to permanent viewing areas, be provided with development at this time. Lambert suggested that the City consider a fifteen year restrictive covenant that would insure no trails would be constructed along the creek in the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector for that amount of time. During that fifteen years the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector would be monitored to determine the impact of development on wildlife in the creek valley, and to study the impact a nature trail would have on the • creek valley. 0.0 Lambert emphasized that it was important to acquire as much of the creek valley as possible in order to insure preservation and management of the creek valley, and to maintain the option of construction of a nature trail along the creek in the future when the City is able to maintain and patrol such a trail. Lambert indicated that at this time, he felt it was important to allow for pedestrian access across the creek valley through a pedestrian trail system. The specific recommendation from Lambert included "A trail easement between Lots 3 and 4 off Bluff Road and west from the Brown site and construction of a trail to Lot 8. The trail can be either 6' asphalt or 5' concrete, but it should be hard surface. A scenic easement should be required on steep slopes along with a trail easement and a fifteen year restrictive covenant, which would require the City to wait before any trail along the creek could be constructed. The impact of a trail should be reviewed at regular intervals and the appropriate cash park fees be paid by the developer." The motion by the City Council regarding Bluffs East PUD included the following: "MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement with the recommendations of staff, the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and with attention to the concerns expressed by area residents regarding grading and stormwater runoff." "Anderson expressed concern that the Developer's Agreement should include the scenic easement along with a trail easement for the creek valley. The following discussion determined that this issue would be covered by the recommendations from the Community Services Staff and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission." VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimoulsy. Although, the Council directed that a trail easement and scenic easement be filed over the outlots of the Purgatory Creek Valley, and a fifteen year covenant restricting the development of a trail along the creek also be filed with the Developer's Agreement, none of these documents have been drafted or filed to date. At that meeting, the developer also agreed to dedicate Outlots A, B, & C as a gift to the City. These have not been donated at this time. Hopefully, this memo will summarize the recommendations of consultants and staff regarding the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector to date. BL:md / / UNAPPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSIDN MEETNG MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1987 7:30 P. M. CITY HALL 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Bud Baker, Moe Cook, Gary Gonyea, Karen Joyer, Brian Mikkelson, Charles Shaw COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Pat Breitenstein CDMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services; Laurie Melling Athletic Coordinator I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by acting chairperson Bud Baker. II. APPROVAL DF AGENDA MOTION: Moe Cook moved to approve the agenda as mailed. Seconded by Joyer. Motion passed 6-0. III. APPROVAL DF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1987 MOTION: Joyer moved to approved the minutes as mailed. Seconded by Cook. i Motion passed 6-0. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS None V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Bluffs East 5th Addition - Review of Pedestrian System - Lambert summarized the verbal request of the developer's consultant for the City to reconsider the need for a sidewalk along the south side of Bluff Road. Lambert indicated the requirement was part of the staff recommendations and the Council approved Bluffs East 4th Addition subject to staff recommendations; however, through a staff oversight, the requirement was not included in the Developer's Agreement. The developer petitioned the City to install the street and utilities for Bluffs East 4th Addition. The engineering staff drafted the requirements for installation of street and utilities referred to in the Developer's Agreement, which had omitted the requirement for a sidewalk. No one caught the omitted sidewalk until after the street and utilities were installed. At this point, the developer requests the City to drop the requirement for the installation of a sidewalk. Wallace Hustad informed the Commission that Lambert was incorrect in his summary of Hustad's request. Hustad indicated that the City Council did not require the installation of a sidewalk as per Lambert's memo. Hustad then indicated that a number of things have come to light that concern him far greater than the sidewalk. Hustad referred to Lambert's December 2, 19B7 memo Iaz • -2- d Parks, Recreation & Natural Resourcespprov Commissionutes December 7, 1987 that references a requirement for a sidewalk access to a scenic overlook of Purgatory Creek within Outlot A. Hustad told the Commission that outlot "was at one time going to be dedicated to the City"; however, that he "cannot in good conscious dedicate that outlot to the City now because the City has broken every promise made regarding Purgatory Creek". Hustad then referred to a developer that is proposing a development across the creek who had "clear cut 15 acres of the creek valley with the City's blessings", and constructed several large ponds in the creek valley, again with the City's blessings. Hustad pointed out that all of this type of development within the creek valley is in total opposition to the Purgatory Creek Study. Hustad further pointed out that sidewalks within the creek valley were in total contrast to the intent of any trail system within the creek valley. Hustad indicated that in his opinion the City had a "new agenda" for the Purgatory Creek valley, and that new agenda had to be developed by either the Commissions or the City staff. Baker asked Lambert. if the development Hustad referred to had been before the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Lambert indicated that the development is presently in the process of being reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has not seen this proposal to date. Lambert further indicated that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the proposal for construction of the ponds and approved the grading request; however, the property owner had exceeded the grading permit a Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Pp roved by the Parks, Lambert then reminded Hustad that they had walked the proposed overlook site within Outlot A together and agreed that a hard surface path between houses to the scenic overlook would be constructed by the developer. Lambert does not have a preference between an 6' asphalt path or a 5' concrete sidewalk, but indicated it must be a hard surface path between the homes. Lambert further reminded Hustad that there was lenghty discussion about the hard surface path out to the scenic overlook and the pathway from that point would be either a mowed or woodchip path down the valley wall crossing the creek to connect to the sidewalk extension from Branching Horn. Lambert then asked Hustad to be more specific on the promises he feels the City has broken regarding Purgatory Creek. Hustad replied that besides requiring sidewalk to the scenic overlook, the City was now allowing development to occur within the creek valley. Hustad also implied that the staff was changing the commitments regarding Purgatory Creek and that the Council never required the developer to construct the sidewalk within Bluffs East 4th Addition. At that point, staff suggested the Commission continue the item for two weeks in order to provide copies of staff reports, Commission and Council meetings, as well as a sumary of the recommendations from the Purgatory Creek Study regarding the Lower Purgatory Creek area and the recommendations of staff relating to this area. MOTION: Motion by Cook, seconded by Shaw to continue this item to the next Commission meeting. ra ---- . --- ;; _________• __L._ •07 t • . • i TL-l.64rT-'s,". s1 t t.413 .. 90 •. 0C>cie-. .,..k) 4 81 / tL1" (*• .al 41ic.r y1_4i._.4 p"46-;-4slS00w"1•i iN11.1 1 E•0 , :— 1 .._.4aaa.Ug_cc7..))o.)0. jU • • ..•_,, 0 i1I4i(a L. 4 Ll. [-- (.). ar4 -ihigb,_ww lik t i. > 4 c I ,T 7,01 • ,141 V. . au;• ft ••••.,F.• f - _- -,, it, ..0‘ '- I CO _7_114 (iii.4; ''t,.•••". F. 1 . ,• IIII(1))) 1• itt,O. Al--0 A , Li,' v, \ 4,- --„,-AM.Iiiiiiiiiiii • ; . . • -- .I i'''' -I 1012 I , ,'r--.: • / - 1 47 i r-- / • .,:c 4. \ 'I/. ..wigi• .. , . ,;„11;,1 in . / ftikt1 , ii.,;!,",,,,,,",.,!,!,,,,,, ,,,, . ..;,„,,,,,i.„,,,,,,,,,,,,,... -.._. ..,,- . ,, !!! . , /0 .:-..:, •if .... \i) /---, ---.ck----• Jo .1,.! -,..... ....z___ -0-- r ; 44•wk.oi\lik.+01.• •" / : 111111 II . ..,-.:.,...:4 --1 17,1:44_21,: . I [1 • • ••I 1,l --- 1---. ,..... ----.1-4, ,,,/ 1 1• k );.,a, • L I:. -- L_ _L • .l 1. 12. II �1.. I l. '~`1=J`1 J `=v.W '' ,III . o i r \i .fir r �1 C • d! " , _ Z �� � f ro111 t .O C ' ir♦_ ! ---, ^ 1H + I - \!. x . , c i r O Lffl \ /1� P r; S ` 11 r �\ I I ter• . - i- / •"� 1� (♦ al- o �" ...e I I., 4 • _ iliA _ Nf -` • I `� a, /.,7 ... 1----....___\-_, • Lliiii 'J �' _` I `'s N _aiaa 2 avi3 • ! . /� • �/ • j17 I= i,.aJ addendum no. 6 use and management recommendations purgatory creek /12G USE and MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS for PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED VILLAGE of EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA for BRAUER & ASSOCIATES. INC. by NORMMAN R. STONE CONSULTANT 6-1 / /7^ LOWER PURGATORY SECTOR: County Road I Southeast to Riverview Road This section can be divided into two segments of importance. The upper half mile has much less priority than the lower one and one-half miles. Currently Purgatory Creek is undergoing extensive develop- ment on the West side of the upper half mile. Drains and ravines also contribute runoff from the adjacent section. Slippage erosion on the West banks is common. Accordingly it would be advisable to acquire these banks to control the problem. Retained nature will slowly heal these scars. Rim acquisition of the wooded East side will preserve some charactor to this section and retain sufficient land for the hike- ing- nature trail. Set back restrictions should also be enforced. which is assumed already too late on the West. The impact of Dutch elm disease through this section is considerable. Dense stands of prickly ash and other fruiting shrubs have already in- vaded these openings. Although making trail development difficult the thickets are excellent wildlife habitat. Downstream in the vicinity of the large horseshoe bend rim to rim acquisition should be initiated on both sides. This should be extended the next one and one-half miles all the way to River- view Road. To protect the stream it is significant the major rav- ines and gullies caused by past agricultural practisoo be included. Protected they will revegetate and add significately to tho ncre- age while providing excellent wildlife habitat. Set back restrict- 6-27 lay ions should also be enforced through this section. Much of this section was former pasture having moderate to steep banks. Former slippages are healing and the channel is be- coming brush choked. Currently it presents a wild remote appear- ance not associated with the Metropolitan Area. As in the upper section there has been extreme mortality of elms due to Dutch elm disease. Here prickly ash and other desirable fruiting shrubs have formed natural wildlife tangles. At several points esker- like ridges divert the stream course. The channel itself is mark- ed by boulders and rocky ripples presenting an attractive scenic setting. Numerous springs and seeps add to the water quality. Overall this section offers the best opportunity of the entire watershed for a lengthy nature-hiking trail. Use of this section will normally necessiate a half day. Weekend use could be expected to be quite high. Mid-section exits would detract from this wild charactor and should be avoided. To blend with the stream consid- erable flexibility should be incorporated in the trail layout. Rustic crossings could be constructed of on site materials and installed at selected sites. To prevent trail erosion and make travel more enjoyable for the greatest number of people, trail gradient should be low. Just above Riverview Road. the most important carp barrier of the entire watershed should be installed. This will control rough fish from entering the stream out of the Minnesota River. 6-28 /-0 C C STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: October 23, 1987 PROJECT: Bluffs East 5th Addition LOCATION: Southwest of Franlo Road, north of Purgatory Creek APPLICANT: Hustad Development Corporation FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 17.7 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 30.1 acres into 34 single family lots, and three outlots. Background ,{.! I *�. \°w _ 1=13.5 F ram\ ,`- � 7. .� The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts — � ( — I ROTA S this site as Low Density Res- I \\_ >,`H�,' idential. The surrounding land area r—— P ? . „. ' is guided Low Density Residential to * s the north, east, and west, and R' -13.5 15° ;;gam 7 Public Open Space to the south along Purgatory Creek. This 17.7-acre • �•...• , 4,0 site is part of the 1986 Bluff t Country PUD totalling 3D5 res- �� ,.�1��r La o.,•, i 'i•�• ' idential units on 186 acres of land I i ►�'►�-**..%. PROPOSED SITE at an overall density of 2.1 I I •�:+�� dwelling units per acre. In (- j �\ it:+ addition, approximately 50 acres are `-,; i, �r �� � �i� �i��• to be set aside as a preservation ; � i��ie,4r��� 1 area. The entire 17.7-acre site is p . 4, ` \ ►��i����t����� currently zoned Rural. \` ►•i�������..��•� _ ?.>�/ R1-13.5 ( I�`fr j R1 13.°� Preliminary Plat i'. 1:y,_ 1, • ` I 1 y FThe preliminary plat depicts the r;v. -, ,,,Z subdivision of 30.1 gross acres into = ,>:�; F„ \\ y�. 34 single family lots and three s ...,, �,'-w. '`�`'•, outlots at a net density of 1.9 1. ---( a dwelling units per acre. Outlot C, "' -� containing approximately 16 acres, will remain unzoned, for development ) 1 in the future. The Guide Plan would , AREA LOCATION MAP /2 C Bluffs East 5th Addition 2 October 23, 1987 allow up to 2.5 units per acre. Lot sizes range from 14,020 to 30,660 square feet with an average of 18,937 square feet. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district with the exception of Lot 7 and Lot 13, Block 1, which should be revised to meet the minimum street frontage requirements of 55 and 85 feet, respectively. Outlot B is proposed as a sign location and will be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Access The 1986 Bluff Country PUP was approved with requirements for a loop road connection between Meade Lane and Franlo Road, and paving of existing Bluff Road from Phase I to County Road #18. Meade Lane is proposed to connect to Franlo Road along Antler Ridge Drive. The bubble serving Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, south of Meade Lane must be designed to City standards which would require the tapering of the bubble to an eyebrow shape. In accordance with the original Bluff Country PUD Developer's Agreement, dated August 19, 1986, the proponent agreed to construct a temporary two-inch thick bituminous surface for Bluff Road concurrent with the Phase II development to be completed no later than Spring of 1988. A temporary bituminous road surface for Bluff Road will be installed with the construction of the Bluff's East 5th Addition in the Spring of 198B. The paving of Bluff Road is proposed along a new alignment to service the Creek Knolls Addition to the east with a connection made to existing Bluff Road as dedicated in fluffs East 4th Addition. Currently, the right-of-way for the realignment of Bluff Road is depicted as an easement but will be dedicated to the City when the property is platted. This arrangement is acceptable to the Engineering Department. The upgrading of Bluff Road will generate more through traffic from Franlo Road to County Road #18. Due to the increase in traffic, concern has been raised regarding the intersection of Bluff Road and County Road #18. In response to that, Hennepin County is requiring that the developer construct a by-pass lane and a right turn lane on County Road #18 as part of the improvements to the existing Bluff Road/County Road #18 intersection (see Attachment A). The proponent should contact Hennepin County regarding intersection improvement details. Grading The upper portions of this site are relatively level and sites adjacent to Purgatory Creek are very steep. None of the lots are in the Purgatory Creek conservancy area; however, some portions of the lots are within the transition area which is a "build- with-care" zone. The upper portions of two major ravines are being filled to accommodate building pads. The grading proposed is consistent with the mass grading plan of the approved Pl10. Fill in the upper portions of the ravine will not result in the loss of any significant trees of twelve inches or greater in size. The amount of fill proposed is minimal compared with the total length of the ravine. No stormwater run-off is proposed to drain into either ravine. The regraded areas along the ravine are proposed at 2/1 slopes. To help minimize erosion, the slopes should be decreased to 2.5/1 and a fiber blanket with a deep seed mixture should be utilized to help stabilize the slopes after regrading. A revised grading plan must be submitted which reflect the decreased slopes. The developer is proposing to grade only a portion of the lots primarily on the north side of Antlers Ridge Drive and Meade Lane. The lots adjacent to Purgatory r�l C C Bluffs East 5th Addition 3 October 23, 1987 Creek are proposed to be graded on a lot by lot basis at the time of building permit issuance. Our experience with lot by lot grading is that it does not work because each owner wants to grade their lot different and overall drainage plans are difficult to implement. For these reasons, all lots must be graded concurrent with street construction. The proponent must submit a revised grading plan which shows the grading of Lots 9 - 13, Block 1. Tree Replacement There are 348 caliper inches of significant trees on-site located primarily on the lots adjacent to Purgatory Creek. Of this total, 225 inches would be lost due to construction or a 60% tree loss. The tree replacement policy would require the replacement of 345 caliper inches. Prior to City Council review, the proponent should provide a tree replacement plan for 345 inches. Pedestrian Systems As part of the overall pedestrian system plan for Eden Prairie, there is a need for a sidewalk along the south side of Meade Lane and Antlers Ridge Drive. Outlot A as depicted on the preliminary plat is to be set aside for access to a scenic overlook of Purgatory Creek from a high point to the southwest of the project. The proponent has indicated that Outlots A, B and C, Bluff's East 4th Addition, will be gifted to the City with the development of the adjacent property. The developer will be required, concurrent with road construction, to build a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk within the Outlot as depicted on Sheet 2, PUD Concept Plan and Phasing Plan. All sidewalks within this project are to be constructed concurrent with street construction within City right-of-way. Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service is available to this site by connections made to an existing 6" water line and B" sewer line located with Meade Lane and Antlers Ridge Drive. Storm water run-off is proposed to drain ultimately into Purgatory Creek through a series of catch basins and holding ponds designed for the entire Bluff Country PUD. Specific issues and recommendations regarding the Bluffs East 5th Addition storm water management proposal are addressed in a memo from Alan Gray, City Engineer, dated October 22, 19B7 (see Attachment B). STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recommend approval of the request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 30.1 acres into 34 single family lots, and three outlots, based on plans dated September 25, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1987, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the preliminary plat to depict the minimum street frontages for Lot 7 and Lot 13, Block 2. B. Submit a tree replacement plan for 345 caliper inches. < < Bluffs East 5th Addition 4 October 23, 1987 C. Revise the grading plan to show grading on Lots 9-13 adjacent to Purgatory Creek. D. Five-foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along the south side of Meade Lane and Antlers Ridge Drive and within Outlot A as approved by the Director of Community Services. E. Revise the grading plan adjacent to Purgatory Creek from 2/1 slopes to 2.5/1 slopes with proper erosion control. F. Revise the grading plan to reduce slopes below the high water elevation established for the pond to within the range of 6/1 to 10/1 preferred. G. Revise the grading plan to reflect the relocation of the 834 contour elevation (high water level of the pond) beyond the building pads located on Lots 4 and 5, Block 3. H. Revise the grading plan to incorporate an emergency overflow from the pond at an elevation below proposed structure elevations on Block 3. I. Revise the grading plan to reflect an additional catch basin at the northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 4 to intercept backyard drainage. This catch basin should be connected via storm sewer to the storm water holding pond in Block 3. J. Revise the grading plan to reflect basement elevations for Lots 1 - 5, Block 3, at a minimum of 836.1, which is two feet higher than the high water elevation for the storm water holding pond. The graded elevation around the structures in Block 3 should be a minimum of two feet higher than the emergency overflow elevation provided for the holding pond. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the Cash Park Fee. B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. 4. All lots shall be graded concurrent with street construction. 5. Plans shall be submitted depicting a by-pass lane and right turn lane on County Road 18 and constructed as required by Hennepin County. 6. Concurrent with the construction of the Bluff's East 5th Addition, proponent shall install a temporary 2-inch thick bituminous surface for Bluff Road. /.3 C 71— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 L JJJJ 935-3381 TTY 935-6433 October 9, 1987 Mr. Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie • 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Oear Mr. Enger: RE: Proposed Plat - Bluffs East 5th Addition CSAH 18/1, Southwest quadrant Section 36, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 1577 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - Hennepin County is preparing a plan for future right of way requirements for the CSAH 18/CSAH 1(Pioneer Trail) intersection. The final right of way needs along CSAH 1 or CSAH 18 will not be known until that plan is completed. For information on right of way needs from the entire Bluffs East Country PUD contact Bruce Polaczyk, Hennepin County Preliminary Design. Engineer. - As part of the improvements to the existing Bluff Road/CSAH 18 intersection the developer must construct a by-pass lane (Attachment 1) and a right turn lane (Attachment 2). - Hennepin County strongly recommends that Eden Prairie not permit the connection between the Bluffs East PUD and the Cardarelle/Pemtom Development until the improvements highlighted in the letter to Al Cray, Eden Prairie City Engineer, (Attachment 3) are completed to improve the sight distance on CSAH 1. - Any revision to an existing access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Maintenance Division for entrance permit forms. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approvrd utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to. drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer ATTACHMENT A �� C C. Enger October 8, 1987 . Page 2 — The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, Oavid W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning DWS/LDW:Iw 13 . 1, ! to n a , c� W a a w a ,. F- h O i V Z Z W O 1< W Z - �V Z W Q o Q -J a 0 I N !) W < Z Q W >- V m W ' . a An I cc w a. a I- t 136 5. ui 17, r . . a . cc to_ I- 0 ' 0 • M V tkJ Z `J wo c Q W 2 h zo cc w Z I-- W -- U to . CC W Cc La V) • A - i31 • C C 75— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South HENNEPIN _FLHopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 L935-3381 T1Y 935-6433 July 28, 1987 Al Cray, City Engineer City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Cardarelle/Hustad Developments • Al: As discussed during our meeting of July 22. 1967, Hennepin County is requesting that the City of Eden Prairie pursue a roadway improvement on County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 1 immediately west of CSAH 18 in conjunction with the above noted developments. Hennepin County strongly prefers that this project reflect the enclosed plans that were previously proposed. Briefly, these plans included extending the four lane segment approximately one-quarter mile west of CSAH 18 and, more importantly, flattening the 'S' curves along this segment. The main reason we are requesting this work is that some improvement to CSAH 1 is necessary due to the new street intersection proposed by Cardarelle. Since this access location is basically 'locked in" and is potentially hazardous due to the 'S' curves and since Hennepin County policy requires auxiliary lanes for street entrances serving substantial developments where ADTs exceed 5000 vehicles per day, this plan seems a reasonable solution. Moreover, if the City's storm sewer project can be included, unit costs can hopefully be minimized while providing substantial improvements. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter and please call if there are further questions. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom �rT4cNMEN7 3 Entrance Permit Coordinator OKZ:pl cc: Frank Cardarelle Duane Herbst, Pemtom Corporation HENNEPIN COUNTY on ccuc cpponuntl errrove, �3� c c MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 2*4.- DATE: December 1, 1987 SUBJECT: Bluffs East 5th Addition - Review of Pedestrian System On November 2, 1987, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the Bluffs East 5th Addition. Attached is a copy of the October 23 Planning Staff Report that includes the comments on page 3 regarding the pedestrian systems. This recommendation indicates "There is a need for a sidewalk along the south side of Meade Lane and Antlers Ridge Drive. Outlot A as depicted on the preliminary plat is to be set aside for access to a scenic overlook of Purgatory Creek from a high point to the southwest of the project. The proponent has indicated that Outlots A, B, & C, Bluffs East 4th Addition, will be gifted to the City with the development of the adjacent property. The developer will be required, concurrent with road construction, to build a 5' wide concrete sidewalk within the Outlot as depicted on sheet 2, PUD Concpet Plan and Phasing Plan. All sidewalks within this part are to be constructed concurrent with street construction within the City right-of-way." This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation for approval of Bluffs East PUD that was reviewed and approved in 19B6. Upon approval of the first phase of the Bluffs East PUD, Bluffs East 4th Addition, the developer petitioned the City to install the street and utility system. Although, the developer committed to installing the sidewalk along Bluff Road, the City failed to include the construction of the sidewalk within the contract for construction of the street and utilities. At this time, the developer would like the City to consider eliminating the requirement for a sidewalk along that through street. The Community Services Staff recommendation is to require installation of the sidewalk as originally recommended; however, the City will have to incur additional expenses for extension of untility stubs to lots that have been terminated under the location of the proposed sidewalk. Attached is a November 13 letter from Wallace Hustad withdrawing the Bluffs East 5th Addition from the November 17 Council agenda, and requesting time to discuss this sidewalk issue with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Mr. Hustad will be in attendance on December 7 to request the Commission to reconsider its recommendation on the sidewalk. BL:md Ian) C C - M E M O R A D U M - TO: Eden Prairie Planning Commission FROM: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer DATE: October 22, 1987 SUBJECT: BLUFFS EAST 5TH ADDITION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Introduction The purpose of this memo is to outline the Engineering Division's review of the preliminary plat documents for Bluffs East 5th Addition. The comments in this memo will be directed specifically toward storm water management features which are described on figures 10, 11 and 12 of the preliminary plat submittal. Figure I0: Grading and Erosion Control The grading plan shows the development of a storm water holding pond over Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Block 3 Bluffs East 5th Addition. The need for this holding pond was identified in a overall storm sewer study for the Bluff Country PUD. This holding pond will receive storm water run-off from a significant drainage area north of the Bluffs East 5th Addition. The outlet storm sewer for this holding pond is currently under construction as part of City Improvement Contract 52-096. The design parameters for this holding pond were first outlined in a report prepared by Hedlund Engineering and submitted to the City of Eden Prairie in June, 1986. That report indicated the holding pond would have a normal water elevation of 826 and a high water elevation of 835.7 based on the critical 100- year storm event. To perform within these parameters the holding pond would require approximately 13 acre feet of storage between normal and high water elevations. Based on the capacity of the out-fall storm sewer currently under construction, studies performed by a consultant to the City indicate that the storage requirements may be reduced to approximately 4 acre feet between the normal water elevation 826 and an anticipated high water elevation of 834.1. The design criteria shown on Figure 1D indicates an anticipated high water level of 832.0. The storage volume is not indicated on the plan. The design of the pond should be coordinated with the design parameters most recently established based on the hydraulic capacity of the out-fall storm sewer currently under construction. The pond as currently shown on Figure 10 would be a wet holding pond with a water depth of approximately 4 feet when the water surface was at normal water elevation of 826.0. The natural soils in this area are very sandy and we would ATTACHMENT B ) c C Page 2 of 2 October 22, 1987 anticipate high seepage rates making maintenance of the normal water elevation difficult during dry periods. If a wet pond is proposed,a seal may be desir- able in order to maintain normal water levels. Wet holding ponds may experience weed and algae growth and develop other undesirable characateristics during the drier summer months. The Public Works Department prefers dry holding pond designs with provisions to carry low flows within an enclosed conduit system below grade. The current design utilizes 3 to 1 side slopes for the pond both below and above the normal water elevation of 826.0. Steep slopes increase the hazard of this type of facility to small children. We would recommend that slopes below the high water elevation established for the pond be flattened with slopes in the range of 6:1 to 10:1 preferred. Figure 10 indicates the 834 contour (high water level for the pond) extending into building pads on Lots 4 and 5 of Block 3. These contours need to be revised so that ponding limits are retained and the backyards and do not extend into building pads. Based on the current grading plan a blockage of the outlet storm sewer or a storm event exceeding the design criteria for this system such as occured on July 23, 1987 could result in pending elevations of approximately 840. This would result in the flooding of the five proposed single family homes on Block 3, Bluffs East 5th Addition. We would recommend that the grading plan be revised to incorporate an emergency overflow at an elevation below proposed structure elevations. Figure 11 - Proposed Utilities In addition to the storm sewer shown on this drawing we would recommend the addition of a catch basin at the northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 4 to inter- cept the backyard drainage from Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Block 4 as well as the backyards of future lots to be developed on the south side of Meade Lane as it is extended easterly as part of a future subdivision. This catch basin should be connected via storm sewer to the storm water holding pond in Block 3. • Figure 12 - Development Plan This figure shows the proposed building pad elevations for each of the residen- tial lots within the subdivision. Rear basement walkouts are currently proposed for Lots 1 through 5 in Block 3. Proposed basement elevation should be raised to a minimum of 836.1 which is two feet higher than the anticipated high water elevation for the storm water holding pond in the rear of these lots. In addition, the graded elevation around the structures in Block 3 should be a mimimum of two feet higher than the emergency overflow elevation provided for the holding pond. These criteria may make it difficult to develop these partic- ular lots utilizing rear walkout basements. ADG:ss UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Monday, December 21, 1987 7:30 p.m., 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Breitenstein, chairperson; Bud Baker, Moe Cook, Gary Gonyea, Karon Joyer, Brian Mikkelson COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlas Shaw COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by chairperson, Pat Breitenstein. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Joyer moved to approve the agenda as mailed. Gonyea seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7, 1987 MOTION: Mikkelson moved to approve the minutes as mailed. Cook seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Refer to memo dated December 15, 1987 from Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services. Lambert said this proposal was originally reviewed in November, but there was a misunderstanding on the sidewalks. The item was continued to a future meeting. After meeting with the developer, staff realizes why there is a misunderstanding. When the Planning Commission met and made a recommendation on Bluffs East 4th Addition trails, they asked the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to review it. This commission made a different recommendation for more extensive trails and the City Council approved both recommendations. The sidewalks were not in the developer's agreement and when the City installed water and utilities, the sidewalks were not constructed. Lambert said that the issue needs to be reevaluated and he suggests the alternative outlined in the November memo. Mr. Hustad distributed copies of Exhibit F which is from the April 25 Planning staff report. He said there can be a number of misunderstandings reached after reading this report relative to sidewalks. Mr. Hustad showed a site plan of Creekview which is located on 200 acres. The City made water and sewer connections from County Road 1 to Bluffs East UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 -2- 4th Addition and installed a sidewalk and trail from Franlo Road to the development. The easement was 20', not 30'. Mr. Hustad referred to the May 1, 1986 memo stating that there were five areas identified for sidewalks. They are along one side of the east/west road opposite the Franlo Park entryway, along the south side of Bluff Road from County Road 18 west the entire length of Bluff Road, along the south side of the extension of Meade Lane to Franlo Road, along the west side of the north/south road that connects the southern most cul-de-sac in the Creek Knolls development to Franlo Road and along the short cul-de-sacs leading to the scenic overlooks. Bob Smith of Hedlund Engineering said he gavea graphic to City staff which was meant to be an overall plan and phasing plan, not a sidewalk plan. He said there was no indication on the graphic that there was to be a sidewalk constructed along Franlo Road. Mr. Hustad said the memo states that City policy is to have a sidewalk on one side of all thru streets. It was the developer's plan to have this neighborhood remain quiet with very little thru traffic. He asked what the staff's definition of a thru street is. Mr. Hustad said that to him a thru street is just another name for a connector street and he is convinced that the proposal which was approved is exactly what is being implemented and should be done. Regarding the staff recommendation, Mr. Hustad said he feels a 20' easement is sufficient and that there is not a west side of Bluff Road and Red Fox Lane is not a street within the plat. City staff told the developer this name could not be used for a street. In conclusion, Mr. Hustad said this proposal is causing a great deal of confusion and the plan should be left as is. Lambert said that when the recommendation was made in May, the map supplied by the developer did not have street names on it and that is the reason he attached a map to the report that showed where the sidewalks should be located. The issues for the commission to consider are two: 1) What did they believe they approved for sidewalks in Bluffs East and 2) Have they changed their minds? The only issue left to resolve on the Bluffs East 5th Addition is the sidewalks. Baker asked how many homes will be located along the entire Bluff Road/Antler Ridge addition when all five phases have been completed. Mr. Hustad said there will be approximately 70 homes. Baker also asked where the developer intends to construct sidewalks. Mr. Hustad said their only concern is to have sidewalks for access to the parks. Baker said in that case, people would have to walk along the street. Mr. Hustad said he spoke to many of the residents prior to their purchasing lots and at least 90% indicated they did not want sidewalks. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 -3- Cook said he believes the City Council approved the map which was dated May 5, not April 11. Mr. Hustad said the Council approved the planning staff report. Lambert added that both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission reports were approved by the Council. Mr. Hustad said he believes that the two reports were different and both were approved by the Council. He added that the developer was not aware of the May report until it was mentioned by Bob Lambert. Lambert noted that Hustad was present at the May 5 meeting when the report was reviewed with the Commission. Phil Olson of 18699 Howard Lane told the commission that although he does not live in this development he, as a real estate agent, sold a couple of lots here, Lot 10 to the McCarthy's who are already living here and another to the Wietel's who will move here in May. He was told there would not be any sidewalks and represented the same idea to the buyers. After speaking with Mr. McCarthy, he would be opposed to the addition of sidewalks. Dean Luke of 10450 White Tail Crossing said that he would prefer not to have sidewalks. Baker asked Mr. Luke if he had children. Mr. Luke said his children are grown. Mr. and Mrs. Bob gtiswold of 10531 Bluff Road do not want sidewalks although they have two small grandchildren that visit them. Kevin Campion of 10365 Bluff Road said that he has noticed there are sidewalks on most of the main roads. In the year that he has been living in the area, it seems to be very quiet and although it will get busier as more development is done, his preference is not to have sidewalks here. Ruth Hustad of White Tail Crossing said that everyone she has spoken to do not want sidewalks here since the ones on the major roads are sufficient. Their major concern is when the tennis courts will be completed and trees planted in the neighborhood park. Mr. Hinderocker of 10410 White Tail Crossing said he also does not want sidewalks. MOTION: Baker moved to recommend that no sidewalks be required west of Wild Duck Pass along Bluff Road and Antlers Ridge, but that sidewalks still be required from County Road 18 west to Wild Duck Pass in accordance with Document F. The motion was seconded by Gonyea. On call for discussion, Cook said his concern is that sidewalks may be requested in the future and that it should go nn the record that real estate agents and residents have requested no sidewalks be installed in this area. Lambert said he is concerned there is a sidewalk along Meade Lane with the creek crossing access two lots to the south on Antlers Ridge. He suggests a sidewalk be extended to the hard surface trail. Mr. Hustad said he feels this is a valid request and he is not opposed to it. This amendment will be added to the motion. /4 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 -4- Mikkelson asked what staff's feelings are on the 20' versus 30' easement. Lambert said there have been some problems in the past depending on how the homes are situated and he recommends a 30' easement. The developer is requesting a 20' easement although with the 6' trail that is proposed Lambert feels it could be tight. Mr. Hustad said that as these lots are sold, the developer can be especially conscious of this issue. Cook said he feels we should require a 30' easement and a variance can be requested at the time of construction if necessary. This amendment will be added to the original motion. The motion passed 6-0. B. Creekview - Brown Land Company Mike Gair was present at the meeting representing Brown Land Company and Mr. Wendell Phillippi. As background information, Mr. Gair said Wayne Brown has been a resident of Eden Prairie for 19 years, 13 of which he has lived in Creekview. He is a subcontractor and has done about $30 million worth of grading and utility work in the past 20 years. He has done most of the work from County Road 1 to Riverview Road commonly referred to as the Lower Purgatory Creek. He is very familiar with erosion control methods, site restoration techniques and tree protection during construction. One of his most recent projects is Bluestem Subdivision and during the July storm there was no loss or destruction in this area. Mr. Brown has a good track record as a builder and contractor and has respected the Purgatory Creek area. Mr. David Brown has been an Eden Prairie resident for 23 years. He has owned land in the Purgatory Creek area during that time and has owned a commercial real estate company for the last 12 years. Mr. Gair noted that Mr. Brown is a former director of National Nature Conservancy which is an organization charged with the acquisition of natural habitat throughout the country, an amateur botanist and is interested in prairie ecology and natural systems. Mr. Brown is presently director of the Big Game Organization. Mr. Gair introduced Peter Ynaebleof Krueger Associates who is the project engineer for this development. Mr. Gair showed an aerial photo of the property which is 78.2 acres. The southern and western portions are pasture and open land and the northern and eastern portions are wooded. Mr. Gair discussed the area within the Purgatory Creek Valley. The creek valley itself has an elevation of 720 feet while the pasture land is about 100 feet higher in elevation. There is also a very prominent rim running parallel to the creek that forms the transition from the upland to the lowland. The slopes are quite severe and the only practical access is from this ravine. /4 5 Eden Prairie Plannik Commission - October 2 r 8 � 1987 - Page Fe ro C. BLUFFS EAST 5th ADDITION by Hustad Development Corporation. Request for Zoning to R1-13.5 on 17.68 acres, District Change from Rural acres into 34 sing le and Preliminary Plat of 30.1 acrea family lots, 3 outlots, and road right- Y• Location: Southeast of Meade Lane extension, west of Franlo Road, northwest of Antlers Ridge extension. A public hearing. Bob Smith, representative for proponent, presented the preliminary plat depicting the subdivision of 30.1 gross acres into 34 single family lots and three outlots at a net density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. Outlot C, a unzoned, fare. oo approximately 16 acres, will remain ,o to for development s pment in the future. Lot sizes will range feet. The lots will feet with an average of 18,937 s r from with meet the minimum requirement of the R1-e zoningoin districthave been withsththetexception of Lot 7 and Lot 13, Block3 requirements of 55 and 85ofeet, respectively.meet the minimum street ofB frontage 1, q proposed as a sign location and wil be maintained bythen Homeowners' Association. Eden Prairie Planning Commission - October 26, 1987 - Page Five r- Proponent explained the grading proposed is consistent with the mass grading plan of the approved PUD. Fill in the upper portions of the ravine will not result in the loss of any significant trees of twelve inches or greater in size. The amount. of fill proposed is minimal compared with the total length of the ravine. No stormwater run-off is proposed to drain into either ravine. The regraded areas along the ravine were proposed at 2/1 slopes, however to help minimize erosion and per Staff Report, the slopes will be decreased to 2.5/1 and a fiber blanket with a deep seed mixture will be utilized to stabilize the slopes after regrading. A grading plan will be submitted to reflect the decreased slopes. Don Uram, Assistant Planner, stated the project is consistent with the PUD Bluff Country Developer's Agreement previously approved; however, plans shall be revised in accordance with the list of recommendations by Alan Gray, City Engineer, regarding drainage in the area. Concern has been raised regarding the grading of lots adjacent to Purgatory Creek. City policy currently requires all lots to be graded concurrent with street construction. Revised grading plan shall be submitted reflecting lot grading. Acting Chairman Hallett felt the proposal has a lot of loose ends to take care of before approaching City Council. The grading proposal should be approved by Planning Commission in order for City Council to approve street, traffic, and drainage The proposal should come back before the Planning Commissionals for further review based on revised plans. The Commission should be concerned with street frontage, tree replacement, grading plan per City Engineer, and sidewalks. Fell inquired as to soil report. Enger responded that soil report indicated the area is sandy salt with very little top soil, which was the cause of the wash out in the 60's. Developer will reconstruct washed out area. Fell questioned the traffic increase on Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road, and if traffic lights are needed. Enger responded that traffic was evaluated and the Ctiy will check back on this after the project has been constructed to study warrant of a signal at that intersection. Wallace Hustad, Developer, stated to the Commission that the Developer and the City have had meetings on this project and have resolved the majority of issues. However, specific technical issues remain which require solution by the Engineer- ing Department. Eden Prairie Plannil., Commission - October 26, 1987 - Page Six Fell agreed with Staff, but feels technical review should be by the Planning Commission rather than at City Council meeting. If it can be resolved, Staff should present it to Planning Commission. Enger responded that its down to one item which is grade the creek lots now or later. Acting Chairman Hallett felt that due to the difference of opinions on this matter, perhaps Commission was comfortable with City Engineer's expertise and would depend on recommendations presented. In response to Chairman's request for audience comments, David J. Keller of 10749 Grant Drive, responded that he lives at Third Avenue and his backyard is a wet pond. He questioned if the proposal will replace it with a dry pond due to the grading. And if so, will it deal with the aesthetics in the area, as collection of debris and the rain combined are unsightly. Proponent responded that the actual pond has not been designed, but the design will respond to neighborhood concerns. Keller responded this answered his question. Upon no other audience participation, Acting Chairman Hallett (e. moved for motion to close public hearing. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Dodge to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Dodge to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development Corporation for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 17.68 acres, to be known as Bluffs East 5th Addition, based on plans dated September 25, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1987 ,and shall present revised grading plan as determined by additions adjacent to Lots 1-7. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Dodge to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 30.1 acres into 34 single family lots, three outlots, and road right-of-way, to be known • /L1 • ( Eden Prairie Planning Commission - October 26, 1987 - Page Seven f as Bluffs East 5th Addition, based on plans dated September 25, 1987, subject to recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1987, and as amended by the previous motion. Motion carried--5-0-0 1 1u9 �' ? CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA { RESOLUTION #88-15 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DF CREEKVIEW FOR BROWN LAND CDMPANY WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Creekview PUD Development by Brown Land Company and considered their request for approval for development (and variances) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on January 19, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Creekview Development by Brown Land Company, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as outlined in the plans, as revised, dated January 14, 1968. 3. That the PUD Development meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated December 14, 1987. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 19th day of January, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 6-0 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #88-16 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CREEKVIEW FOR BROWN LAND COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Creekview for Brown Land Company, dated January 14, 1988, consisting of 78.22 acres into 89 single family lots and 2 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 19th day of January, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk l51 MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 14, 1988 SUBJECT: REVISED CREEKVIEW PLANS Since the December 14, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the developer has made a number of revisions to the subdivision plans as noted in the attached letter from Peter Knaeble, dated January 12, 1988. To summarize, the following are major changes in the plan: 1. The lot on the northeast side of the creek has been eliminated. 2. There is no bridge or creek crossing. 3. The cul-de-sac has been shortened to 280 feet and moved outside of the conservancy line. 4. There are no house pads within the conservancy. The road along the bluff line has been moved 30 feet to the south, resulting in four feet less cut and saving 368 additional caliper inches of significant trees. 5. The number of lots has been reduced from 93 to 89. SHORELAND ORDINANCE Purgatory Creek is classfied as a General Development Water. The requirements for single family lots abutting with sewer and water are: 1. Minimum lot size - 13,500 square feet. 2. Minimum width at building setback line - 120 feet. 3. Minimum width of lot at Ordinary High Water Mark - 120 feet. 4. Minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet. These regulations apply if any of the lots are within 150 feet of the High Water Mark of Purgatory Creek. All the lots adjacent to the creek are beyond the 150-foot setback. SLOPE GROUND ORDINANCE This subdivision is subject to slope ground review because there are steep slopes of over 12% and of an elevation difference of 30 feet or more on the parcel. When reviewing this project relative to slope ground review, the Memo City Council January 14, 1988 Page Two Staff analyzed whether or not the development will alter vegetation, topography, or other natural resources of the land and the degree to which the proposed development will cause and/or be affected by erosion problems. The development will alter the topography and vegetation will be removed. Slopes along the creek vary between 20% to 40% and are susceptible to erosion if the natural vegetation is disturbed or if storm water run-off is concentrated in any area on the slopes. As a result of concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting with regards to excessive grading and tree loss, the Staff has worked with the developer to eliminate the lots on the steep slopes within the conservancy area and to pull the roadway, which parallels lots adjacent to the creek, 30 feet farther away from the rim to reduce the amount of grading and to save additional significant trees. The lots are planned to work with the topography with walkouts planned to match grade with no fill or retaining walls required. Prior to grading, the developer must construct an erosion control barrrier along the back of the homes to minimize erosion. A snow fence will also be required at the construction limits to protect trees to be saved. A site restoration bond will also be required to assure that the grading plan is implemented as proposed and that all disturbed areas are restored, reseeded, and reforested. Drainage will be limited to roof and backyard areas. No street drainage is proposed to drain overland on the slopes. FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE The project is impacted by the 100-year floodplain. City Ordinance requires that the first-floor elevation of the households be a minimum of elevation 721 above the 100-year flood elevation. The lowest first-floor elevation is 768, or 47 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. VEGETATION At the December 14, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, there was concern expressed by neighborhood residents regarding 20 feet of cut on the ridge line and the loss of a significant number of oak trees. The Planning Commission directed the City Staff to take a closer look at the grading plan prior to City Council review to see if there was a way in which less grading and tree loss could be done on the property. Upon a closer review of the grading plan, the Staff has found an area of a 20-foot cut along the ridge line and along a small portion of the roadway next to the creek lots. Within this area, by moving the roadway approximately 30 feet to the south, four feet less cut and approximately 350 to 400 additional caliper inches of oak trees could be saved. This was an area where Staff had initially told the developer prior to the first meeting of the Planning Commission, that the roadway should be shifted to the south to save more of the trees and to permit the developer to retain the same number of lots and would consider recommending to the Planning Commission and City Council sideyard setback variances so that the developer could maintain the same size houses and same price range of homes within the subdivision. `1‘ • Memo City Council January 14, 1988 Page Three Staff has also analyzed the proposed change by the developer to take two lots out of the conservancy area. While removing the lots from the conservancy area means that the development plans would be consistent with the Purgatory Creek policy, the house pads would be located within more heavily wooded areas, resulting in more loss of significant trees. It would be appropriate for these two lots to leave them within the existing conservancy and swap land outside of the conservancy where there are high points, views, and significant trees. SOILS There are three major soil types on the property including the Hubbard soils which is confined primarily to the steep wooded slopes adjacent to the creek, the Dakota and Dikeman soils which compromise the flat area, and the Mixed Alluvial land which is within the flood plain area. The Hubbard soils series is confined primarily to the steep slope areas on the southeast side of Purgatory Creek where slopes range between 18% to 35%. The Hubbard series is a loamy sand which are excessively drained sandy soils found usually on hills adjacent to streams. There is a severe erosion hazard and the soils are well suited to vegetation especially evergreens. There are severe building limitations on slopes in excess of 12% and run-off from streets and rooftops can cause erosion. Retaining walls and terraces are often necessary to accommodate home sites. One of the mitigating measures for development on the steep slopes proposed within this subdivision is that the walk-out elevations of the homes matches the existing natural grade on the property. Secondly, the homes are located near the top of the slopes which requires less grading and can minimize erosion. It will be required at time of building permit issuance, that soil tests be provided to demonstrate the suitability of the soils for building foundations and it will be required that the developers provide an erosion control barriers around the construction limits. Since the homes are located so high on the slopes, most of the existing natural vegetation will be retained. The Dikeman series of soils are generally sandy, loamy, soils found on outwash plains with slopes of O% to 12%. These soils have slight limitations for residential building development. These soils have good bearing capacity for building foundations. The Dakota soils series is a loam soil that is found on broad flats that are relatively level, with slopes ranging from 2% to 6%. These soils have only slight limitations for large residential developments. These soils also have good bearing capacity for buildings and foundations. The Mixed Alluvial land is along Purgatory Creek and consists of moderately well-drained to very poorly drained Mixed Alluvial soils, that typically are found on stream bottoms. Because of the hazard of flooding, the use of this land for farming and residential development is severely limited. It is better suited for recreational use and wildlife habitat. EAW An EAW is required when projects exceed 150 or more unattached units. This subdivision has 89 units. BSI /63 /U/07 7 Gu 4-6,1 butdc. zic;u_nri /c(o ? i /d ,,z, i'00l o�-zee_ ; vs` ..2:�� /,��a9w..r_ /0 7 C �-N 7 Ali I"T� "4', .1•.r• - . ., . . . ., . . S11,1 end—ad °25 3wrler Aace- letdPatrie. . I 0 1_ 5, -5"-i( • Z-6,7 _5- 6 11//aeler 4'2/G.7 /1113k. /1/0-59bL) ealY t,p0 pg,niR/L., L.) s- .,p) , tc (7),2, .1 , e 7/ 7 "‘;' ,7/A.:2•e__,Ti-c-)-7 ige,-1/z., /C//2 A-"Acte-A,,,/ -4, • 7:— • ()" • •,• „. , '61 ( ( V /1 CY I /116 / •/mdfe�d/4t L /0,3/ /ila 1 dQ4I7 Pai,eie idte v // 3d CF.-x-17 /5(0 • / /), (? (--), //7/7 6 Li Ir /6,46 /0-Lb (c) :s< ‘. \ 45 d4/45,-- /4)-21 /6.47 /0 /6 '"/ 107-_v/. 77 Robert Wilkie Suite 536 West 1660 South Highway 100 Minneapolis Minnesota 55416 January 8, 1988 Hon.Gary D.Peterson Eden Prairie City Flail 76(X)Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mayor Peterson: I am writing to urge your support for the proposed Creekview development plan by Eden River Bluffs Partnership(ERB),which will come before the council for approval on January 19,1988. My family owned and lived on this property for more than forty years. My brothers and I were raised here, and we continue to share the love and respect for this land that was imparted to us by our parents. After our father's death in 1982,we sold the family home on Riverview Road. But we held on to the remaining adjacent acreage(the site of the proposed development)because of our commitment to assure the best future use of this remarkable property. Over time it became clear that economic forces made development of the property inevitable. Since we now live out of state,we decided against attempting a development of our own,and early last year we began to consider the various offers we had been receiving,unsolicited,for some time. The most eager and attractive offer initially came from Mr.Hustad. Some time later the principals of ERB also approached us with an offer that was substantively equal to the Hustad offer. We then undertook to determine which of these prospective buyers would be most likely to deal in good faith and to preserve and protect the most desirable natural attributes of the land. Our considerations were based on our associations with Messrs. Phillippi and Brown for more than twenty years and our familiarity with Mr.Hustad's activities in the area around our family home for more than fifteen years. We also made informal inquiries in the metropolitan business community. The unqualified choice was ERB. Our own experience confirmed the high standards of integrity among the principals. Their commitment to the proper use of land is demonstrated by Mr.Brown's past role in acquiring valuable park land for Hennepin County and by Mr.Phillippi's improvements to the adjoining property. (Contrary to allegations by Mr.Hustad,the work done by Mr.Phillippi along Purgatory Creek has ored both the beauty and the utility of this valley;it reminds me of the way the valley looked when I was growing up). I am convinced that much of the opposition to the Creekview plan is emotional and is not based on thoughtful, objective analysis. We have assessed both the plan and the participants very carefully. There is no doubt in my mind that the interests of the City of Eden Prairie and the community at large will be best served by your approving this proposal. Resp y, Ro Wilkie l,,, 56 r. C.0 _r tnz ar.c:seca.r.L,- ;:nat r for ; and tr.r-y:nt of on:. .111C.: t:veffect on the no pec, cridsc toe1io-jatd oc becau_e C.'".T.ST.:^actfcr. due to tnc natu.rc. b. is great1;,- f..ncrca-scl do. tc oarsno no: le n.e tric:c fire cc,-11... -a It 'could 1.tpe vat on: vcilay cn .n=er 2. Trails of cr r.ucT, be so the habit ; for :na no cnsu::e the safLa:, of 7.0 ar.f. ocntrit:Lt;: on: fran loss r:onnot only trces thtenticnthfv no:-,- croon. •."2 a: .nfofr 7.. in car. Con3':::.^Tz.L.-c: zznc c. a 7_3 :In on of be a br.-..:-..uz•Lf..1 bran an: ,or on:-3 r....;•:.? 2 E. LC. - • 1 tr.: r.n:f..:E /5(i) < < Creek Knoll Homeowners Association 10430 White Tail Crossing Eden Prairie, Miioczota 55344 November 6, 1987 Eden Prairie Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Commission Members: A first presentation for a plat of Creek View is scheduled for Monday, November 9, 1987. The proposal is for single family lots on property owned by Eden River Bluff Partner- ship (the Phillippi group). The developers are listed as Brown Land Co. We, the Creek Knoll Homeowners Association, are against this project as it has been submitted to the City. In 1973 a study was initiated by the City to produce a plan for the entire Purgatory Creek as it passes through Eden Prairie. In 1976 City Resolution 41125 was passed by the City Council and signed into effect by the mayor. This document entitled "Purgatory Creek Study" was created for the City to use as policy for Creek corridor management. Definite details regarding soil erosion, tree removal, conservancy areas, and transition zones were addressed in this policy manual. Particular emphasis was given to the lower Purgatory Creek area. The study illustrates very clearly that this section of the creek should be given special attention. It is an area that is most sensitive to development because of the unusual topographical features and abundance of trees and natural growth according to this study. The development group is proposing a plat that has a total disregard for this Purgatory Creek Study, the city"s policy. No attempt to follow conservancy area and transition zone guidelines has been made. We as an association group are going to be very involved in this plat proposal review. We feel that studies are needed by the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the Department. of Natural Resources, and the Corps of Engineers to check this proposal as it affects the creek and its natural beauty. We intend to solicit involvement from different environmental groups. 1(0 0 C C • We are very distressed by this current proposal. We are and will remain committed to following this plan through the submission process. We expect changes to be made to achieve compliance with the Purgatory Creek Study and a plat more sensitive to this "special" area. Sincerely, CREEK KNOLL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Ito C Woody Ginkel 10430 White Tail Crossing Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 December 8, 1987 Eden Prairie Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Commission Members: I live at 10430 White Tail Crossing. My house is directly across the creek from the proposed development by Brown Land Co. of Creek View. I attended the November 9th planning meeting and have subsequently met with the developers on December 1st to review their plans and ask questions. I have built single family homes and have developed and built apartments. I would like to make a few comments about this Creek View proposal as an affected home- owner drawing on my experience in real estate development. The land to be developed is an excellent site. The proponents have engaged an architect to keep control over the quality of construction. Their efforts to achieve a residential neighbor- hood with character and style is easily seen. The largest problem with Creek View is the placement of roads along the ridge line and down in the Pure tory Creek valley. This placement has a very negative impact en the environment. Tree removal must be addressed. I as aware that there is a city policy of tree replacement for trees removed. The issue here is to look at where the trees are to be removed and why. The devel- oper's land planner states that houses will be built on the natural ridge line. This ridge line designation must be carefully looked at. The excavating company must cut in excess of ten (10) feet in some areas to construct roads by the ridge. This is in a thick tree and vegetation area. Why should all these trees be cut down to build a road? Move the road away from the ridge line. The actual house placement may be very close to the same even if the road is moved. Such a road shift would result in three changes. First, trees would be saved. Second, the development would conform more to the natural terrain in this special environmental area. And thirdly, the developers will lose some lots. The .issue of density has arisen several times. Their proposal has a less than maximum density. Please, however, don't mix the density issue with proper land usage. Don't allow unnecessary tree and vegetation destruction because the developer's proposal hae a low density/.acre. The plan to bring a private road down the hill cida 1,,`:.s is aver a gree eve in terms _,f what the Cityto dedeeme owd land use. The '.•utt.i;:g and filling that is required should ye a Verm good d.,..struetice. The ether portion of theiry plan to construct a bridge 1c7) C C across the creek and a long private drive for one single lot is ludicrous. The developers say they have no choice. This is the ' only way they can develop this lot. It may be the only way, but it most certainly is not a justifyable way. The end does not justify the means. The loss of trees and the environmental impact of such a plan only benefits the financial position of the developers with no redeeming quality for any adjacent homeowner, the Creek View plat., or the City of Eden Prairie. To approve this part of their proposal would throw sound reasoning out the door and put money in the developer's pockets. This proposal is a good example of a land developer coming into a city for plat approval requesting more than they deserve and undoubtedly more than they expect. The thoughtful and decent use of this property must prevail over a "too aggressive" land usage plan. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to build a bridge and road to service one lot. They should not put in a rcad along the ridge line that requires over 10 feet of cutting to achieve a few more lots. A compromise of their present plan is needed. Please recommend disapproval of this plan as presented and ask Brown Land Co. to come up with this compromise plat, Sincerely, Woody Ginkel /o> C C MEMO TO: Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: December 7, 1987 RE: PHILLIPPI BRIDGE/POND CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY Bridge Construction In December, 1985, a resident informed City Staff large construction equipment was near Purgatory Creek on the Phillippi property. Staff inspected and found heavy equipment and bridge sections. The caretaker. Mr. Williams, was contacted to determine the intent of the equipment on site. Bridge construction over the creek was the intent of the owner. The owner was then informed Watershed, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and City permits would be necessary prior to such work. On January 9, 1986, Bob Obermeyer of the Watershed, Judy Boudreau of the DNR and City Staff met on site with Mr. Phillippi. At this time, the creek area was inspected and photos taken. Mr. Phillippi submitted his DNR Work in Public Waters Permit Application to all in attendance. In February both the Watershed and the DNR approved the permit because the bridges did not appear to hinder the creek floodway. Following the Watershed and DNR's actions, the Eden Prairie Planning and Parks Commission, and City Council approved a land alteration permit for the bridge Construction. Pond Construction During October, 19B6, Mr. Phillippi contacted the DNR and Watershed regarding his desire to construct 3 ponds north of the creek, and spread the excavated material over the hillside to the north. Correspondence from the Watershed to Mr. Phillippi dated October 28, 19B6, stated, "Because this project does not propose to alter or disturb more than 1 acre in surface area, in accordance with Section E (2) of the District's Revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will not be required from the district for this project. Correspondence from the DNR to Mr. Williams (caretaker) dated Dctober 17, 1986 stated, "If the pond construction does not involve any alteration of Purgatory Creek below the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level (top of the bank) no DNR-Division of Waters permit will be required". '(,L1 C After receiving this correspondence from the Watershed and ONR, Mr. Phillippi proceeded with the project. Again, a resident notified City Staff that large construction equipment was in the creek valley and trees were being removed. Staff inspected and learned about the pond construction. The owner was notified that in addition to the Watershed and DNA review that City review and a land alteration permit would be necessary, prior to any further work. Mr. Phillipi made application, and the request was scheduled before Commissions and Council for meetings in November. The application was approved. I�5 I : 41-imp gll., •,, , . . , ..,.....,.. .... . „ • ...,...„.„,...„: _, . ,,,,..... :pg r ,.... ,'-• . .._,1 .:::::::. ;:.,.::.:.* .:',.f... /:.;;.,;:,-;•.',41,4.•::;:'..::). '' :,,4`j_ ,0/pc t;_;s:j., s id l'in"' Nst'1411.11 .::...::::::.,:',..:::::.,ij.:::::...7 :71,1 -/:,'-i-=',;,..?-...17.-e'..•:-.:..0".s. • „ ;.S.r. a''>,, • .. ,., . ...Lk MP :::1:....::.:...:1::::::::. ' .'''..r.0 7 g.i.;;;'. g : 1•C'r S SI al- %, /9•as, ''....". .......::::::: . • ...- .— , . E:1. /.7 . * - 4‘ "--cr.---7;;:, ::....:::........:....-......• :,.•;::_•::::t;i--.':.::::::::.:.-.•.:::' __ _ - __ _ ili —del.....::::::,-:- '7...."....1.• ;;;;;-:..:R.:-::::' . ..70,..• /4„::::• :___Et:, igi.liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3.: 1 ,._ .............::,!.....::::::::".. / =44,=4::=:=N•::•:•:•:•14 ... ,% Ail 4.11•1• -: ,. „...\ ., •ik I , i I all/1:::::::::efr:•:•:A;Veil r .7/ .. •. ,ir :,-_i ..v.....4•:•:•:•:40:•:,...4;.*:..............•••.0 sic.,..:.:.:„.:...4.4s.q.. / .. . . .. f. .• ........-..i_. ....., 1 -... ............:„...... "A . .... ...0.410$140:06w,„..,..„.„....,... tc.x.:10:44:0:1: _ , 7,(144:::::::440:::).:::::::1. :,......„ asaifr , ' c+:-::•:•:•:*::::•:.? - :•-•:•:1 it) • .m.:44140414 I u,, ........"Aim...."1= 6 0:01.:404.....14=.4 ...,,;..' ...........:. Ih.. .,.... ... ,....0,.......%.-.,,,,,..: : 7 1,:a44:041:0:?,40.21 .:.:•:•:-.., ::::::::--. o - .1; Er" :2 ..,...,.:.t.,,T.,..-.•-i. •-:•::.::.. f,.. . a a "-I 1 f(I— -4''''''''/1‘'-19' ''-', CV,.;1 ifs • :'IA.'7:!..-ts :::,, lit. • = ist. .4 ..,..-:.,:.....-: :',.r,.:.._,.:,..':::::•.:::: . \ . . "n"/ \ g7 , 9 tS. , 4'"--- _F _:K;' .4 4111dh Li,:\itrIttt ... a. .., . __v. , Eir :.._4_72.4, ,,, 11.., 16. .:1 .,. •:.,...!....;,.": ..-.....:::::-...::::::::: L ItA '".EZ4t a : ..- 4v 11144 lir ,. o.;,.. i _ -,-.---- i ,. xii ,- ;.--'-';'•4 .- W i IL -....:".-::::::::: - ',-;• , „ J VII gas ' • ..-W-V .. :1- - / .411iiwirnr. -r i ,‘,.;„:....-i-:,. ..,...-... .::::.. v-- _,--_,. ,..e:,:,-,i.„, I 1.4'. .....::::::'....:::' , ......,_...;,• :;::•::/ :.:,,1.• ',‘, ..,.. ....2%, '-;-;'::i; 1 i -'91'i?".',. •...4,,..•.4.:45.f:g!..... .. - _ ''''.0"..1.1r-';•:•.,....." ,r-,. -1--,, . rt-',-• -• ‘. . . ..,.... II i ' - ./&.•:A74!, i ,f,J 1 ' j .•-. ••„ *: .. .. ? ,,•t° ,./, ' -,.;"I`•--; .." ,. Oa .LI-,-, i •7;2." ::•......•••.:: /: •..•::•:. si /: /I ' ..:!.......... — ‘... ••••' , %,,, ,----1,.4,, .`--,•. .... 1 ....1_ •.., ... ' ''..., ----...\':----.--- ,,,-,-,i,t- 4 7.- iil P5. r----\---- --._,,,, ••,..;c:,,2„, El i_..._ ,(_•'.' ',1./( 1 i,-___ / .... ,_ ...-tx,,........i i / ..:".. / . , . ,t---- _ ..... -1 ,,,.... L 44' - --- _---.- .. ( era CITY OFFICES/7600 EXECUTIVE ORIVE/EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344-3677/TELEPHONE(612)937-2262 eder prairy=r October 22, 1987 Mr. David Brown Brownland Company 15201 Kurtz Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear David: At the conclusion of our discussion on October 20, 1987, regarding your proposed development, Creekview, you requested me to authorize publication of legal notice for your project for the November 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. As I explained at that time, and have on several occasions previously, the City Staff is working under specific direction from the Planning Commission not to publish notice for any project until all necessary information has been received. Although not all the information has been received, I agreed to take the full responsibility for the decision to schedule this item for the November 9th meeting. However, as we also agreed, the decision to publish was made on a firm promise from Wayne Brown and yourself to have all required information to our office in final, correct form no later than Wednesday, October 28th. At our meeting of September 29, 1987, Mike Franzen, Senior Planner, and I provided you with a list of items not included with information you had submitted to the City in mid- September. A copy of that list is enclosed. As you indicated on October 20th, you will take complete responsibility with Krueger and Associates to assure that all information is provided by October 28th. Since this way of processing an application is not the "norm," we agreed that, if information is not received by October 28th, your public hearing will be closed on November 9th and scheduled in the normal way once all information is received. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, CITY EDEN PRAIRIE • ( Chris Enger Director of Planning cc: Ron Krueger, Krueger and Associates Ed Schuck, Chairman, Planning Commission ( C 1. Tree Inventory (estimate on whole woods, detailed in grading limits) 2. Guide Plan Change 3. Must identify all variances, cul-de-sac length, private road, sub-standard street 4. Scale should be larger--grading plan hard to read at 100-scale, and cannot read underlying topography 5. Shoreland Ordinance--how do they meet it--150 ft. line width 6. Conservancy Zone, Transition Zone (Purgatory Creek) 7. Utility details, sizes and label 8. Property owners' signatures 9. Additional $600 for PUD and Guide Plan Change 10. Sight vision distance 11. Density 12. What are you doing for Park Dedication? 13. P. R. & utilities access permitted through PUD unless otherwise approved by Council 14. Easements to utilities across Lot 2, Bluffs West 3rd Addition 15. "Eyebrows" to Engineering standards 16. Frontages per Ordinance 17. Sloped ground information per Code 18. Rural lot size legal and variances for less than ten acres IhQj c Woody ainkel 10430 White Tail Crossing Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 January 4, 1988 Chris Eager Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Lear Mr. Enger: Attached is a copy of a letter I recently sent to Mayor Peterson regarding the upcoming City Council's review of the 'Cr_okVie.:w plat. I also sent letters to each of the council members. I've done Co to give them more time to digs. t. this information before their next. meeting. I am .,ending ihi:: to you to advise you of my thoughts and r.cornmendat.i is and for y:n.0 to be informed as well about my concerns. I look forward to the City Council meeting and the Creek View review. iincerellyy, W�IY Girt+ IM9 C C Woody Ginkel 10430 White Tail Crossing Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 D.cember 28, 1987 Mayor Gary Peterson Eden Prairie City Council 9400 Creekwood Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mayor Peterson: Brown Land Company has recently presented a plat of Creek View to the Eden Prairie Planning Commission. Recommendation for approval of this new residential community in southeast Eden Prairie was granted by the Planning Commission with some changes agreed to by the development team. Items concerning a bridge across Purgatory Creek and actual construction in the Creek bottom area (the conservancy zone) were removed by the developers. These issues were the most highly controversial and highly objectionable aspects of the original plat submission. The plat as it will be presented to you in your next City Council meeting does not include these objectionable provisions. A third issue in this plat c,£ equal importance to me .and my neighbors in this Purgatory Creek area, however, is the grading plan of this site .:is it affects the trees along the ridge line of this property. I live at 10430 White Tail Crossing which is directly across from the subject properly. I, ofcourse, have a personal interest in this proposed new development as it affects what I see and what is happening in my "backyard". I also .am concerned that a well thought out sensitive site plan be approved by the City Council. Particular attention to tree retention and environmental impacts to this special Purgatory Creek area must be addressed. Plat approval criteria must not be limited to density, lot size, and fire and safety isues. The important area.: of reasonable, wise, and environmentally sound .land planning must be carefully studied as well. I wish to make a few comments about this grading issue and its importance to this site. Lots are to be built all along the existing ridge line. Many beautiful lots are to be created in this: development. The developers are taking great care to attempt to control the architectural design of the homes that are to be built. They ; re attempting to develop a neighborhood of distinction. With those goals in mind how can they propose to remove so many trees and to grade so excessively when the natural terrain is so b•-autiful? An independent engineer has studied this plat, and his, findings reflect great cuts in many areas in order for roads to be built near the property's ridge lin . Cuts of nearly twenty (20) feet in some areas exist. TwF;nty foot cuts destroy all trees and vegetation in their 00 ( ( path as well as some distance away. Road placement is critical to this problem. Were the developers to move the road away from the ridge line even a short distance, massive cuts would not be required, trees would be saved and the natural terrain would he more closely followed. In short more of our environment would be preserved. The developers would also lose some lots from their plat. Density issues cannot supercede environmental and reasonable land planning concerns. The attorney for the development team got up at the Planning Commission meeting and in his closing remarks said words to the effect "I'm sure the grading plan is not nearly as bad as it has been shown here tonight.". My concern is that in fact it actually is that bad. Staff comments have not addressed this particular issue of cuts along the ridge line. Only one Planning Commission member said anything about her concern fur grading and nothing in the final ireommendation is made of this issue. I feel this grading issue is of great importance and must be addressed. One engineer study shows excessive cuts and the resulting unnecessary tree loss. The development team states the grading situation under thier proposal is "not that. bad". The City Staff should comment on this concern directly. I feel an outside unbiased expert should be engaged to review this earth cutting and the tree loss problem in order for you to make a meaningful and. logical appraisal of this plat.. The expense of this study (as is in the case of traffic studies) should be the burden of the developer. Please initiate such a study before you make a decision on this plat. I thank you for reading through my somewhat lengthy comments. I ask that you consider my recommendations and implement. them in your review process. I look forward to attending the City Council meeting and to explain my conerns. Sincerely, Woody Ginkel /7' . C C ,, STAFF REPORT li TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: December 11, 1987 PROJECT: Creekview APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Brown Land Company REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 78.22 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 78.22 acres with variances. 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 60.15 acres, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-44 on 4.5 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 78.22 acres into 93 single family lots and two outlots. 1 mew R -13.5 � , °R• • •. Background 8 .•--- . • The developer has been working with .�� « o.,�E Staff over the last six months prior "1 )tom to Commission review in an attempt �, r is" .4n�-R to identify major issues and resolve them ahead of time. The original ,� �' �,aw '''. plan had ten lots in the conservancy 1' area of Purgatory Creek which would ,fir.;" mac' `,`\ " \ pp. =J4 be permitted by ordinance subject to „�/f=� shoreland regulations. In addition, rrR1-13.5 ( 1I the plan had one access point to I I di R1 13.5Riverview Road and several cul-de- IA }sacs longer than City Code allows. y , *AV.. ��r,�, �:. �.,7�? Tree loss was initially estimated at 4,441,1p �',4''.4:12kll 75%. The plan in the packet is �` ( �' PROPOSED SITE `��, revised and depicts only one lot in the conservancy area, and two access .\';'' 44 '' ':�` points on Riverview Road which helps liI �`�� ' �� ` internal circulation and improves `// ,44 ...�., 944� 41 11 emergency vehicle access. All cul- :' de-sacs are to Code and tree loss, at 23%, is less than 20 other ', �--- residential projects subject to tree replacment. rr �------,_ !,z AREA LOCATION MAP c Creekview 2 December 11, 1987 This project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission at the November 9, 1987, meeting. That meeting was used for informational purposes with the developer presenting the project and the Planning Commission hearing testimony from citizens within the surrounding neighborhood. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this site as primarily Low Density Residential which permits up to 2.5 units per acre and Open Space (which is confined to the conservancy area along both sides of Purgatory Creek). Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of 78.22 acres into 93 single family lots at a gross density of 1.25 units per acre and a net density excluding the land area along Purgatory Creek to be gifted to the City at 1.5 units per acre. All the lots meet the minimum lot size requirements for the R1-13.5 and R1-44 zoning districts. Three of the lots do not have frontage on a public street. A street frontage variance is being requested for Lot 17, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 5; and, Lot 17, Block 4. These lots will have access from a private driveway. Access to this site will be by two street intersections with Riverview Road. Sight vision distance is good in both directions from these access points. Purgatory Creek This site impacts the transitional and conservancy areas of Purgatory Creek. The house pad on Lot 17, Block 4, encroaches into the conservancy area. The developer is proposing a swap of land not in the conservancy elsewhere within the project as a trade for development within the conservancy on that portion of Lot 17. The amount of land swap is equal to the amount of encroachment within the conservancy. Tree Inventory The developer has provided a tree inventory that indicates approximately 20,363 total caliper inches of trees on-site. Of this total, 4,604 inches of trees would be lost due to construction or 23% of the tree total. This compares with the average tree loss for 20 single family subdivisions, subject to tree replacement, of 31%. The amount of trees required to be replaced on the property total 1,711 caliper inches. The developer must supply a tree replacement plan prior to review by the City Council. Utilities Sewer and water service is available to this site by connection to existing facilities in Homeward Hills Road. Storm water run-off is proposed to drain through a series of storm sewer pipes and discharged into Purgatory Creek. Park Dedication and Trails The developer will be paying a Cash Park Fee on a per lot basis at the time of building permit issuance. The developer is also proposing to gift to the City approximately twelve acres of land along the Purgatory Creek Corridor. The Director of Community Services has indicated a need for an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along the north side of Riverview Road, a connection of this trail to the private road, and an eight-foot wide trail easement along this private road to Purgatory Creek. /13 Creekview 3 December 11, 1987 Traffic The amount of traffic to be generated from this project would be low in comparison to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. If the property was developed in terms of the Guide Plan at 22 units per acre, a total of 1,955 trips would be generated. This project, based upon 93 housing units, will generate a total of 933 trips. Homeward Hills Road and Riverview Road are designated minor collector roads in the City of Eden Prairie. Although traffic has been increasing in the neighborhood as each new project develops, the amount of traffic generated is within the capacity of the roadway. That portion of Riverview Road along this property will be upgraded to a 32-foot road section to be consistent with Homeward Hills Road. The feasibility study for the upgrading of Riverview Road may include the remainder of Riverview Road to County Road #18 if determined by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 78.22 acres, a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6D.15 acres, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-44 on 4.5 acres and a Preliminary Plat of 78.22 acres into 93 single family lots and two outlots, based on plans dated October 27, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 11, 1987, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Submit a tree replacement plan based on 1,711 caliper inches of trees for Staff review. The majority of trees should be oak. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. 8. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal. D. Provide an eight-foot wide trail easement to the City along the private road to Purgatory Creek. 4. Prior to any grading on the property, developer shall stake the proposed grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost outside the construction area shall be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis. Said construction fencing shall remain on-site until after an occupancy permit issued on a lot by lot basis. 5. Construct an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along the north side of Riverview Road with a connection to the private road concurrent with street construction. 17U MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner HROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: November 16, 1987 SUBJECT: PURGATORY CREEK MASTER PLAN The Purgatory Creek Master Plan was prepared in 1975 as a guide for the City to review the development along the Purgatory Creek valley. The conservancy line was developed to define an area beyond which no development should occur. The conservancy line was drawn at a large scale and generally follows the rim of the creek valley, tree coverage, and contour lines. The purpose of the conservancy line was to establish a tentative boundary of natural area that would be preserved along the Purgatory Creek valley. Generally, the Commission and City Council has required scenic easements or land to be dedicated on all land between the conservancy line and the creek; however, City Staff has, on occasion, recommended moving the conservancy line after field inspection of a proposed revision to determine what impact the revision might have on the character of the creek valley and if it was determined that the character of the creek valley would be preserved. The Parks Commission has previously recommended the Bluestem Hills 4th Addition conservancy line be modified. The developer proposed a land swap as a mitigating measure which gave the City control over more land along the creek than if the original conservancy line was adhered to. There have also been several subdivisions approved along the lower Purgatory Creek area between County Road #1 and Riverview Road with lots platted within the conservancy; however, all building pads have been outside of the conservancy. Scenic easements have been established over the conservancy area within the platted lots and the balance of the land along the creek was gifted to the City. Staff has reviewed the majority of subdivisions approved along the lower Purgatory Creek valley. The attached chart provides a comparison between the subdivisions approved along the lower Purgatory Creek area. � �C C �I i L O Ln .1-. C N N N N In C O N N N N N O) N W '- E v >- Y >- O_ >- >- CL } C N L O O 0) N 0) L L u Io > a a Lc)WO 0.1 Y 01 U 'O Y 'O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 In L 0).0 0 0 0 O in O In .-- O) 0)41 M N /M fM N N I'1 I'1 > S. O1 Q C.)U) E .t 7 u E.t 10 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 'r 0)d 0 0 N O N 0 0 O C 01 41 C•1 .-- .-I /M .-I N N .-1 •.- SL 0) CJ In 'o N 0) 4. S- O a J C 4- 0 O T In 1-- en In M 1-.. 01 ♦J ., .-1 .-1 N .-I ..-I M L 0) C .-1 a C E Id 7 c L Z 4-H '0 a) Y Q 0 >1 ct 4- C ..1 ...4 O O .--I .Ni O IO 01 > L s- e) 0) d N E C = c o Z•"U 41 4- O C C ▪ 0 0 d y N4 _- Y i 4. i 0) C V- O1 0 '0 U 0) '0 U S. L U 'O S. U 'O U U 0 •" 1 ♦J U'" 1 4-' '0 4.' 41 9 A I- C L O) -4- ,0 s In i- I 4- C 14- li 10 • .to•.- .. _i O 0 en . IO 9 Q . to . Co .-1 . V' T 41 NJ In M 01 0 N M n • n C C N ..y .--1 ..y N N .-1 O Vo 41 Q 01 01 In V 0 en IO c e N ..y ..y lO .-I 01 l0 N VI O) IO In en O lO 0 CO .-- L N • en 0 1- u Q "' .-- N Q to .--t M Q a) 41 L L IO 41 41.-. N .1-. 4-' Q to to .0 N 0) .- > C W � 0 0 =O i l0 1� N N "O O CO 3 CO 0 b L O N o 0 0 M W N t.01 0)01 to 0. 0.-Iaj O'-' 0)CO .-.0 Y_c4-•'' 4- N N T . W > MIN (r, •O r u 0.) U 4- 4-41 0) 7 4- N 41 .0 r 1- a) L 7 >, O 7 O) 0 W In i f v im° CO m� m a m C..) / a G C C MEMORANDUM TD: Mayor and City Council • Planning Commission Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services /t_ DATE: December 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Background and Recommendations on the Lower Purgatory Creek Area The Purgatory Creek Study defined the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector, from County Road 1 southeast to Riverview Road. There are a wide variety of expectations on how this sector of the creek should be mananged. In order to understand the existing recommendations, it is important to review comments from the guiding document regarding this sector of the creek. Under the naturalist's evaluation chapter of the Purgatory Creek Study, the naturalist provides the following comments: "Down stream, the stream entertains a large westward horseshoe bend around a very prominent ridge. Here a flood damaged private bridge provides access to a single dwelling unit on the east side. In the past, channel straightening was conducted in this vicinity." "For the next one and half miles, the stream meanders extensively through old pastures, between moderate to steep banks and slopes. Upland hardwoods are dominated by elm and oak. Dutch elm disease has run rampant with areas of extreme mortality. Oak wilt is also present. To break the monotype there is a an occasional clump of white birch and aspen." "At several points esker-like ridges protrude into the stream course, diverting the flow. Bank slippage on opposite banks is common. Midway, too, old erosion originated from cultivation on the east. Since this was former pasture, this was expected and nature is correcting the problem. Prairie vegetation found on the ridges include amorpha or lead plant." "Being remote and wild, this section offers exceptional o2portunities for a lengthy nature trail. Unless mid-section exit sites are provided, use of this section would normally necessitate a half a day. Flexibility in wending the trail from bank to bank would be highly desirable. This, however, would require walkways or stream crossings." These comments indicate the impact man has already had on the creek valley in the past. Under the use and management recommendations of the Purgatory Creek Study, the naturalist offers the following comments regarding the lower Purgatory Creek Sector: "This section can be divided into two segments of importance. The upper half mile has a much less priority than the lower one and one half miles." C "Currently, Purgatory Creek is undergoing extensive development of the west side of the upper half mile. Drains and ravines also contribute runoff on the adjacent section. Slippage erosion on the west bank is common. Accordingly, it would be advisable to acquire these banks to control the problem. Retained nature will slowly heal these scars." "Rim acquistion of the wooded east side will preserve some character to this section and retain sufficient land for the hiking nature trail. Setback restrictions should also be inforced, which is assumed already too late on the west. The impact of Dutch Elm Disease through this section is considerable. Dense stands of prickly ash and other fruiting shrubs have already invaded these openings. Although making trail development difficult, the thickets are excellent wildlife habitat." "Downstream in the vicinity of the large horseshoe bend, rim to rim acquisition should be initiated on both sides. This should be extended the next one and one half miles all the way to Riverview Road. To protect the stream, it is significant the major ravines and gullys caused by past agriculture practices be included. Protected they will revegetate and add significantly to the acreage while providing excellent wildlife habitat. Setback restrictions should be inforced through this section." "Much of this section was former pasture having moderate to steep banks. Former slippages are healing and the channel is becoming brush choked. Currently, it presents a wild remote appearance, not associated with the metropolitan area. As in the upper section, there has been extreme mortality of elms due to Dutch Elem Disease. Here prickly ash and other desirable fruiting shrubs have formed•natural wildlife tangles. At several points, eskar like ridges divert the stream course. The channel itself is marked by boulders and rocky ripples presenting an attractive scenic setting. Numerous springs and seeps add to the water quality." "Overall this section offers the best opportunity of the entire watershed for a lenqhty nature hiking trail. Use of this section will normally necessitate a half day. Weekend use could be expected to be quite high. Mid-section exits would detract from this wild character, and should be avoided. To blend with the stream considerable flexibility should be incorporated in the trail layout. Rustic crossings could be constructed of on site materials and installed at selected sites. To prevent trail erosion and make travel more enjoyable for the greatest number of people, trail gradient should be low." When reviewing the public hearings that were held in 1976 on the Purgatory Creek Study, there were many individuals that strongly opposed any trails adjacent to the creek; however, the City Council approved the Purgatory Creek Study as a guide document for reviewing developments adjacent to Purgatory Creek. In 1986, the Director of Community Services suggested the City consider two creek crossings with trails within the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector. It was also suggested that it was important to construct a sidewalk along the west side of Bluff Road that parallels Purgatory Creek and that access from this sidewalk to the two creek crossings, as well as to permanent viewing areas, be provided with development at this time. Lambert suggested that the City consider a fifteen year restrictive covenant that would insure no trails would be constructed along the creek in the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector for that amount of time. During that fifteen years the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector would be monitored to determine the impact of development on wildlife in the creek valley, and to study the impact a nature trail would have on the creek valley. c Lambert emphasized that it was important to acquire as much of the creek valley as possible in order to insure preservation and management of the creek valley, and to maintain the option of construction of a nature trail along the creek in the future when the City is able to maintain and patrol such a trail. Lambert indicated that at this time, he felt it was important to allow for pedestrian access across the creek valley through a pedestrian trail system. The specific recommendation from Lambert included "A trail easement between Lots 3 and 4 off Bluff Road and west from the Brown site and construction of a trail to Lot 8. The trail can be either 6' asphalt or 5' concrete, but it should be hard surface. A scenic easement should be required on steep slopes along with a trail easement and a fifteen year restrictive covenant, which would require the City to wait before any trail along the creek could be constructed. The impact of a trail should be reviewed at regular intervals and the appropriate cash park fees be paid by the developer." The motion by the City Council regarding Bluffs East PUD included the following: "MOTION: Picock moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement with the recommendations of staff, the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and with attention to the concerns expressed by area residents regarding grading and stormwater runoff." "Anderson expressed concern that the Developer's Agreement should include the scenic easement along with a trail easement for the creek valley. The following discussion determined that this issue would be covered by the recommendations from the Community Services Staff and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission." VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimoulsy. Although, the Council directed that a trail easement and scenic easement be filed over the outlots of the Purgatory Creek Valley, and a fifteen year covenant restricting the development of a trail along the creek also be filed with the Developer's Agreement, thesenone of hat meeti , the developer also dagreed ttohdedicate Outlots A, B,ave been drafted or l&dCtaso datgifte. Atottthe City.ng These have not been donated at this time. Hopefully, this memo will summarize the recommendations of consultants and staff regarding the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector to date. BL:md /79 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services Ce<V4--- DATE: December 17, 1987 SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to the December 11, 1987 Planning Staff Report Regarding Creekview It should be noted that at the December 14, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, the developer agreed to remove the request for zoning district from Rural to R-144 on 4.5 acres for the lot on the north side of Purgatory Creek, and to remove all building pads outside of the conservancy line. With this revision to the plan, the development compares to the development proposals that have been approved further north and west along Purgatory Creek, and conforms to the Purgatory Creek Study recommendations. The parks, recreation and natural resource issues relating to this proposal include: • 1. Preservation of the creek valley character. 2. Park dedication. 3. Trails in the creek valley. 4. Grading in the creek valley. 5. Tree removal and replacement. PRESERVATION OF THE CREEK VALLEY In order to follow the Purgatory Creek Study as close as possible, the City has attempted to preserve the creek valley in its natural condition below the conservancy line whenever reviewing subdivisions adjacent to the creek. This development proposes no building pads within the conservancy line and no grading within the conservancy line. The transition zone of the Purgatory Creek Study was an attempt to control the impact of development along the top of the bluff on the creek valley. Early on City staff discovered that controlling development up to the transition line was not feasible, which has resulted in the construction of large homes along the rim, which have a great impact on the experience of anyone walking within the creek valley, or viewing across the valley. This development proposes up to 10' cuts along the southern rim of the creek valley to accommodate the proposed street alignment and building pads. Although this development plan requires significant grading to even develop at 1.25 units per acre, the placement of homes on the lots as proposed will have less visual impact on the creek valley than homes that may be located further back from the rim in that location along the creek, but are not screened from the valley by wooded slopes. PARK DEDICATION At the December 14, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, the developer committed to donating, as a gift, Outlot C & D, totalling 12.64 acres, as well as the 6.4 acre lot proposed for zoning to R-144, for a total gift to the City of 16.97 acres. The developer will be paying the appropriate cash park fee for park dedication. /LQ TRAILS IN THE CREEK VALLEY The developer has offered to grade the trails within the creek valley at this time prior to donating the parcels for park and open space purposes. The Community Services Staff recognize there are some trails already constructed within the creek valley that have been used as equestrian trails. Staff believes the existing trails are sufficient and do not request any further trail development. City staff does request the developer place a public trail easement over Outlot B, the private road that extends to the proposed parkland. This will not only allow ease of pedestrian access to the park property, but will provide an access for fire fighting vehicles in an emergency. A fence should be installed at the end of the private drive that would restrict motorized vehicles from access to this park area. This could be in the form of a knock down barrier that would allow emergency vehicle access only. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding trails in the creek valley. Staff would point out that on page 6-2B of the Purgatory Creek Study, under the chapter titled "Recommendations and Use" under the Lower Purgatory Creek Sector, the naturalist states: "Overall this section offers the best opportunity of the entire watershed for a lengthy nature hiking trail." The Community Services Director has continually supported the acquisition of the Purgatory Creek valley in order to "maintain the option" of installing a trail adjacent to the creek whenever possible. City staff recommended a 15 year restrictive covenant as a condition of obtaining ownership of land further north and west along Purgatory Creek. This would restrict development of a path along the entire length of the Lower Purgatory Creek until the year 2002. The reason for recommending delaying construction of a path along this section of the creek until that time, is due to the extremely steep nature of the slopes along this section of the creek. It is important to restrict motorized vehicles from gaining access to this proposed trail system. The Communtiy Services Staff estimated that it will be approximately 15 years before development along both sides of the creek is completed and access to the proposed trail system can be secured to ensure pedestrian use only. The vision of how this nature trail should be developed should not be compared to Minnehaha Creek, but could be compared to the trail system along the lower sections of Nine-Mile Creek within Bloomington. Staff envisions a 6' wide mowed grass trail or woodchip trail that would have brush cleared 1' on either side of the trail. This is a proposed nature trail, not a transportation trail. Access points from the rim may require steps contructed of timbers, etc. in order to provide safe pedestrian access without causing erosion on the steep slopes. The trails providing access across the creek valley should be installed as soon as possible. It is not the intent to prohibit use of the creek valley during the 15 year period between 1987 and 2002; however, there will be no developed or maintained trails along the creek valley during that period of time. Wallace Hustad has suggested that the City should address the issue of whether or not trails will ever be installed along the creek at this time in order to put property owners on notice as early as possible. The Community Services Staff concur with that recommendation and request the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission to l?I make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the trail along Purgatory Creek within this section of the creek after the year 2002. If the Council approves the concept for a trail along the creek, staff would recommend the City install signs at each of the proposed trail access points indicating there is a plan for a trail along the creek after the year 2002. This should put all property owners on notice for a 15 year period and, therefore, should not be a surprise to anyone when the City is ready to construct the trail, assuming a trail is approved. GRADING IN THE CREEK VALLEY The proponent has indicated a desire to dontate nearly 17 acres of the creek valley to the City for park purposes and has committed to stay out of the conservancy area of the creek valley with this development. Grading will not be required in the creek valley. TREE REMOVAL AND TREE REPLACEMENT Twenty-three percent of the significant trees on this site will be removed with this development proposal. This compares with an average tree loss of 31% of significant trees in twenty previous single family subdivisions subject to the tree replacement policy. The developer has agreed to replacing 1711 caliper inches of trees as per City pol icy. The Community Services Staff recommend approval of the Creekview Subdivision as per the December 11, 1987 Planning Staff Report, the revisions committed to by the developer at the December 14, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, and the recommendations referred to in this report. { BL:md fA Eden Prairie Planning Commission - November 9, 1987 - Page Three MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Fell to close public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye and second by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of John Jenkins for Zoning District Change from rural to R1-13.5 for 5.61 acres to be known as the Jenkins Addition, based on plans dated October 29, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 6, 1987. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of John Jenkins for Preliminary Plat of 5.61 acres into two lots and one outlot to be known as the Jenkins Addition, based on plans dated October 29, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 6, 1987. Motion carried 6-0-0 B. CREEKVIEW, by Brown Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 78.22 acres. Planned Unit Development District Review on 78.22 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 56.15 acres and from Rural to R1-44 on 4 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 78.22 acres into 93 single family lots and 2 outlots. Location: South of Bluffs East 4th Addition, north of River View Road. A public hearing. Michael Franzen, Senior Planner, indicated that the project is completed and Staff has met with the proponents for the past six months. Staff has identified six issues: 1) development in the conservancy area of Purgatory Creek; 2) grading and tree loss; 3) improvements to Riverview Road; 4) sewer and water improvements; 5) storm water run-off and impact on Purgatory Creek; and 6) variance for three lots having access on private road. The Staff Report was not completed at this point because staff is waiting for the tree inventory. Staff suggested that the proponent use this meeting for informational purposes and explain their proposal. The proponent will return at a later date, determined by Commission, for approval/denial of the proposal. Peter Knable, Project Manager for proponent reported the project is located on north side of Riverview Road, approximately 80 �3 Eden Prairie Planning Commission - November 9, 1987 - Page Four acres, south of Bluffs East 4th Addition. When proponent formally addresses Commission, they will be requesting three things: 1) preliminary plat 78 acres for 93 lots zoning rural R1-13.5 for 56.15 acres; 2) R1-44 zone for the bigger lot; and 3) PUD for entire site. The project began in December 1986 and in April 1987 was presented to City Staff for the first time. The development consists of 92 small lots, and 1 large lot, and park corridor to be gifted to City, which is 15% of the total site. The proponent will be required to pay a Cash Park Fee of $420 per lot. The private driveway will be designed at 24 ft. wide (code is 28') which is narrower to save trees. This drive will serve three lots only and be utilized for pedestrian traffic to creek area. Variances are not required for shoreline lots and all City Engineering Standards have been met for street and utilities. The tree inventory is 95% complete, and will be completed prior to the next review by the Planning Commission. Riverview Road buffering will have many trees. This project meets the intent of the guide plan. Chairman Schuck commented that the lot density at 1.5 units per acre is lower than most, anticipating value and size of home. The lots for property and streets is realistic and within City Engineering and Building setback ordinances. The tree impact and other issues have not been thought through and will have to be readdressed at a later time. Chairman Schuck acknowledged requests to be heard in public hearing. Martha Sundberg, with Poindexter Jacobson Shomme & Harwood, (33 S. 6th Street, Minneapolis 55403) representing resident T. Mike Clark, Riverview Road, related concern on: 1) special assessments such as sewer and lighting, and the assessment procedure; 2) value of homes being built. Proponent responded that Riverview Road improvements will be assessed for each property according to use on their property. David Brown stated price of lot is $100,000 including an architect. If the buyer does not want the architect, the lot is still $100,000, and developer's architect will review the plans according to the guidelines presented within this project. Sundberg responded they would follow up with written comments before the next Planning Commission meeting. Ed Schlampp, 10901 Riverview Road, informed the Commission that the present storm sewer backing up in his property and backwashing. The City told him it happens once in a 100 years - its happened twice in 8 years. The City pitched the road and the snowplow removed it. A correction is desperately needed to r storm drains, and he feels this is a very serious problem. The /7 Eden Prairie Planning Commission - November 9, 1987 - Page Five City Engineer should talk to residents before work is done. He requested to be placed on record on this matter and to be advised of proposals in the future. He is rural zoned and concerned if he will be assessed even though he does not receive water or sewer from the city. Planner Franzen responded when the feasibility study is complete on Riverview Road and City is aware of inadequacies, this matter will be addressed. Hallett urged Schlampp to return to Commission meeting when this project comes up for approval/denial. Melanie Kremer, 10131 Phaeton Drive, spoke of her concern that the trees already cut down cannot be counted. Her property along the creek is preserve and with development her land will lose value. She is additionally concerned about the trees and wild life. Maureen Buhl, 10484 Wimbeldon Court, voiced her concern about the number of dwellings that will create more traffic in an already congested area. At present wildlife is abundant and you must drive slow through this area anticipating them. Her concern is the traffic congestion and wildlife in the area. Rick Barer, 17280 Riverview Road, questioned the planned improvements on Riverwood Drive. He is concerned with traffic-- will there be stop lights or a 3-way stop sign. He fears that the street, when paved, will become a raceway. Also, what are the values of homes being built in this area. In summation, Barer requested replacement of boulevard tree City knocked down on his property. Proponent responded that value of homes will be $300,000- $500,000. Staff agreed to investigate tree replacement. Beth Simenstad, 10255 Summer Place, concerned with preservation of the creek value and asked what does conservancy line mean. Staff advised conservancy line means no tree removal or grading below the line. Dennis Doyle, 11200 West 78th Street, (building home in area) is concerned 1) that this road crossing the creek has a 90 foot rise; 2) tree study will show what had been intended for this area and it should remain natural; 3) questions 3/4 mile road for one lot, how will utilities access this lot; 4) this is a very sensitive area and there is presently a lot of grading going on down there; 5) the amount of trees removed is out of line with city standards, and demonstrated on aerial photograph the tree mass area; 6) he asked if utilities are going across Purgatory Creek; 7) large lot does not fit in with project. Woody Ginkel, 10430 Whitetail Crossing, stated Mr. Doyle addressed many of his concerns. Besides losing his creek view, ri/C Eden Prairie Planning Commission - November 9, 1987 - Page Six as a developer himself, he is additionally concerned and wonders why proponent did not meet with the residents prior to 7 months work. Ginkel was not notified of this hearing and asked for explanation. He stated this was a beautiful piece of property and its use is extremely sensitive as a number of trees will be destroyed. Proponents responded that Mr. Doyle was correct that the driveway would be 3/4 mile and it is in line with City Standards. The small bridge crossing creek is not out of the ordinary. Water will cross the creek. Ed Sisan, Attorney for Creek Knoll's Homeowner's Association and resident, 10109 Wild Duck Pass, stated he could not talk to all the issues but is concerned that residents in Creek Knoll were not notified of this public hearing and were offended. They have no objection to the development but are concerned with the creek bottom. The Association has formalized their concerns in writing which has been received by the Commission. Helen Anderson, 11845 Runnel Circle, is concerned with traffic from new townhome construction and children's inability to cross streets safely. She was also deeply bewildered after being refused a variance of 5 feet for a permit to install a swimming pool because fence or barriers cannot be constructed within 90 feet of a conservancy line, and yet this developer can get permits to do whatever he desires in the area raping the land, while the City Office seems to be unaware of what is going on out there. City Staff responded that notification to homeowners is published in the newspaper and the Hennepin County Assessors office provides addressed labels as per sections requested. This lack of notification to some owners could be a computer error or incorrect section request. Commissioner Bye stated to residents that it is a State requirement to notify residents 500 feet from the project. It was not the commission's intention to omit them, and thanked residents for bringing this to their attention. Wally Hustad, River Bluff and Creek Knoll Developer, explained developers have followed, since 1972, the 1st plat scenic easement which is in document format and on file in Hennepin County. This plat physically states the line scenic easement that everyone has built behind it. The fundamental principle was to provide scenic sites for Knollwood use - preserve the knolls, not to build on them. In 1986, regarding PUD for approval of the east side of the creek, the City reaffirmed the convenant relationship and they again identified two basic new lines, the transition area, and the conservancy zone. There was some flexibility in the lines even in the original plan and a portion of the 1986 PUD lots are within the conservancy; lot lines can be in conservancy but construction cannot. In 1986, he platted out this area and began implementing the Purgatory Creek area. In 1987 we were before you and have committed to 1 ! (gyp Eden Prairie Planning Commission - November 9, 1987 - Page Seven the City an overlook park area which was entered into by the City and Homeowner's. This project before us, as presented, will violate the convenant relationship and we will take action to prevent it. We insist that developers adhere to conservancy line designated since 1975. Not one knoll is preserved and the transition area is used up. He and many developers are upset and he will argue this until his dying day. Responding to Mr. Hustad's concern of conservancy line, proponent reported they are following guidelines as closely as possible Kevin Moynihan, 15551 Garfield Circle, as a builder represents Lot 2 and questions 1) minimum lot size required; 2) could not see sewage and utilities crossing the creek or pumped upward; and 3) the silt fence necessary for shoreline property will only hold back so much water and feels erosion will be a big problem due to sandy soil. Proponent responded sewer will not be crossing the creek. Kelli Hueler, 11738 Tangelwood Drive, felt it her civic duty to come before the commission and speak of the bulldozing in the creek ravine and terrain. She is appalled that the City is unaware of the serious nature of this problem. Neighbors will fight tree removal. She questioned City and Commission as to whether anyone has walked the property recently and expressed they would get one big surprise. Ms. Hueler questioned if logging permits were issued in this area, as logging trucks are going in and out loaded with trees. Jim Br he City own, residents wdowndandeallowstheed hvalleyatoope thttbe torn up and lose the wildlife. Chairman Schuck addressed the Commission for questions. Commissioner Fell inquired about improved traffic handling to County Road 18 from Riverview Road. Franzen stated that Riverview Road would be upgraded to a minor collector along this project and if extended to County Road 18 people would be faced with attempting to enter traffic going 50 mph. The feasibility report should provide an overview of the road and determine if curves should be straightened and how much traffic it can safely accommodate. Fell inquired if Riverview is intended to go to 169. Franzen responded no. Fell expressed concern on long cul-de-sac in this project as it does not provide an alternative emergency access. Franzen stated this is in compliance with city code. Fell requested that public concern to the creek area must be addressed. 7 Eden Prairie Planning Commission - November 9, 1987 - Page Eight Franzen in response, stated calls were received a year ago from neighbors advising us of grading. We advised the party of the procedures to follow for permits. The scope of his work was small (1 acre) and a permit was not required. Chairman Schuck suggested that the proponent meet with residents and work issues out and take Commissions time into consideration on future proposals. Fell reiterated that tree inventory is most critical. Bye expressed her concern to developer that they had Commission over a barrel. The people have addressed this as a neighborhood meeting. The developer has without a complete project forced the Commission and residents through additional meetings. She thanked neighbors for participating with the lack of information they had. Hallett stated regarding emergency access to cul-de-sac, property owner should consider that upon purchasing land. He inquired if a trail will be constructed along creekbed, and width at the mouth of private drive. Proponent responded there would be a trail easement along private drive. There are no trails planned along creekbed. Franzen mentioned this project had not been reviewed by the Parks Commission. Chairman Schuck suggested the Parks Commission review this project prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hustad responded to question of trails along creekbed. In accordance with the study additional trails cannot be constructed as wildlife will not exist with that much activity in the area. Ruebling recounted this is a sensitive area. He is concerned about the private road dropping 100' then goes back up and suggests they look for a more efficient way to approach this problem. An investigation of what is going on down in the creek area is necessary and Commission should confirm this activity. He does not fully understand this convenant and the legaleze between the City and developers. Putting economics aside, Planning Commission could propose larger lot sizes, say 1/2 acre along creek so as to spread them out and save the slopes. These are outstanding issues and the goal should be to agree on something within four weeks time. Hallett stated he is uncomfortable with a private road to 4-1/2 acre lot. Is it possible to access from other side? How else can property be used? ISd Eden Prairie Planning Commission - November 9, 1987 - Page Nine Fell requested copies of the Purgatory Creek Study be available to review. Also proponent should address the study and put the residence questions to rest. The proponent invited the Commission to visit the site and see for themselves nothing has been done. He also requested the record show that the delay on the tree inventory was not intentional. It is delayed due to a misunderstanding on the method used in acquiring total. Chairman Schuck had to silence crowd, some residents became verbally disruptive when proponent addressed issues. Ron Krueger, surveyor (tree counter) for proponent, stated the difficulty in the inventory is due to the sea of brush in the area. Ruth Hustad stated she has seen the logging trucks carry off trees. A number of neighbors have been calling her inquiring what is going on down there. They have observed the cleared hillside and the mulch covering up grading and tree removal. Doris Brooker, Trotters Pass, stated we must approach this discussion without emotion if we hope to resolve issues. This is private land in accordance with the study. This is a sensible development, but without intent of the study, why are we here now? She expressed to Commission to be aware things are happening out there and residents want to know what and why. Chairman Schuck again called upon proponent to arrange neighborhood meeting and talk about issues. Franzen stated the the Purgatory Creek Study is available for review at Department of Parks and Recreation. Mylars can be obtained for section affecting the lower portion of Purgatory Creek. Chairman Schuck announced that when Staff Report is done, it will be available to the residents. Helen Anderson asked if present logging and bulldozing will be stopped until this matter is resolved. Chairman Schuck directed staff to check this matter out immediately. MOTION 1: A motion was made for a continuance until December 14, 1987. C. SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, by Joe Ruzic. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.19 acres. Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 on 2.88 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.08 acres into 4 single family lots. Location: West of Old Shady Oak Road, north of Rowland Road. A public hearing. l� ie Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 3 MOTION 1: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Richard Bergman for Preliminary Plat of 2.16 acres into three lots for single family development to the known as the Bergman Addition, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated November 11, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 11, 1987. Motion carried 6-0-0 B. CREEKVIEW, by Brown Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 78.22 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 78.22 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 60.15 acres, Preliminary Plat of 78.22 acres into 93 single family lots and 2 outlots. Location: South of Bluffs East 4th Addition, north of Riverview Road. A continued public hearing. Chairman Schuck spoke to Commission, Staff and Guests in reference to the November 9, 1987 meeting whereby several items were discussed in reference to the Creekview proposal. The purpose of the meeting on this date was to bring new information specifically to this project and he would appreciate the cooperation of all who wish to shed new light on the proposal. Items discussed at the November 9th meeting would not be addressed again in order to bring forth new data and any additional concerns. The Commission assured residents that Commission would weigh all the material in their decision. Items previously addressed were: 1) lots in conservancy area 2) tree preservation 3) Riverview Road 4) sewer and water implementation 5) storm water runoff 6) traffic 7) Phillippi grading, and 8) trails and easements. Mike Franzen spoke on the new developments of the proposal stating the project was continued after receiving input from concerned citizens in the neighborhood and also for Developer to provide the required information for the Staff to complete a report. The main concern was the lack of information regarding a detailed tree inventory necessary to determine if it was consistent with what the City has done in the past. After reviewing the tree inventory, Staff has submitted a detailed Staff Report which would be reviewed later in the meeting. Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 4 J. E. Brill, Jr., legal counsel for Brown Land Company and Creekview, spoke on the issue of Brown Land Company, who they are and what they are. Mr. Brown has lived on the property for 15 years, he is involved with many environmental groups. Tony Phillippi's involvement in the company is his contribution of land. He further commented that those who opposed the proposal at the meeting in November were led by Walter Hustad, who is a competing Developer who desires the location for himself, and stated he was not just a disinterested citizen. Brill continued that the property in question was private property. The owners have every right to develop it if they comply with City Ordinances and Statues. Whatever convenant Hustad entered into with the City was not enforceable with this property. He added that if the City wants to prohibit the development of this private property, it must acquire the property by condemnation. Mike Gair, of Gair & Associates representing proponent, presented a number of exhibits showing the conservancy area, transition area, open space and green space designated. He demonstrated the grading plan and the affect of the rim of the ridge. He stated that recently a bulldozer was brought in to clear undergrowth. This was reseeded and has been put back in place. He reported that proponent was seeking a zoning district change from rural to R1-13.5 on 60.15 acres. He continued that the conservancy corridor would be 12.3 acres in land, all scenic easement and no encroachment. The only exception would be the road through the creek valley which climbs back up to access the one 4.5 acre section of land. Lots are large at 150' across and depth of 215' to 300'. The rear portion of the conservancy lots would be encumbered with a scenic easement, and they meet or exceed the requirements. He quoted the Purgatory Creek Study stating for every linear mile of creek 60 acres of land would be set aside for conservancy, and approximately 250' on either side of center line of creek there would be a swath of land for open space. These two rules are abided by in this proposal. He summarized that 1) subdivision was in compliance with the Purgatory Creek Study; 2) 47% of the site unaltered, with scenic and park dedication; 3) 12.6 acres would be dedicated to public use; 4) 93 lots at 1-1/2 units per acre; 5) proposal exceeds the requirements for City Ordinances; 6) lots range from 28,000 sq.ft. to 47,000 19 I Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 5 sq.ft.; 7) sanitary sewer and water are available; 8) meets comprehensive plan expectations; 9) minor tree removal compared to twenty other plans sited in similar situations; 10) are not devastating the area; 11) 100% tree replacement policy; 12) setbacks are in excess of 200 ft. from creek corridor; 13) rim was protected and vegetation would remain; 14) analysis was a responsible and reasonable use of the property except for the 1.4 acre encroachment. Franzen responded that Staff Recommendations at this time are approval of the project based on the plans submitted for the 93 lots. A requirement for a tree replacement plan as to what type of trees would be used in the replacement program and where the 1700 caliper inches of trees would be located is to be submitted prior to plat approval. Franzen stated that in the absence of having a code, if a person took the five planners in the department they all would have a different opinion on how the property should be developed. Since there was an Ordinance and Minnesota Statues Staff was legally bound to review these projects under these circumstances. Staff approach to this project was based on current Ordinances and what was found meets those Ordinances and that was the reason Staff has recommended approval at this time. Bye asked for definition of scenic easement. Franzen replied that it was a restriction on the property whereby the owner cannot develop in anyway from this line, which means no pool, picnic area or storage shed. The land must be retained in its natural state. A scenic easement goes one step beyond City Ordinances. Anderson felt the road up the bluff was the only major problem in the proposal, and it appeared to him this could be eliminated and the problem avoided. Wally Hustad, 10470 Whitetail Crossing, requested to speak to the enormous amount of misinformation provided for the Planning Commission members. He felt it was important that the Commission deal with all information and hopes the Commission has time to hear the alternative view. Schuck interceded that the Commission has visited the proposed development site. Hustad continued that proponent has attempted to make it appear that he was a competitor with the present Developer and what he states would be clouded and biased. Hustad stated he does not have a large inventory of lots as stated by proponents legal counsel, he has developed 1500 residential lots and at present has 30 in different areas of the City for sale. Hustad pointed out that he has been ' 12 Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 6 competing with other developers and never had a problem and wanted Commission to understand that was not an issue on this project. Hustad commented that the legal questions being raised should be put aside and consider that the fact was the responsibility of the City Attorney and not legal counsel for the Developer. He specifically stated he was not against the development, that everyone needs sewer and water on the site, as well as serious changes in Riverview Road which affects his property along with others. But to personalize the concerns as a Wally Hustad event was a mis- service to the community and he requested Planning Commission to put that attempt aside, it was not appropriate discussion at this time. He continued that the property owner has every right and should develop his property and it would be foolish for him to suggest otherwise. His concern was not that the Developer not develop his property only that he develops according to the same criteria that has been consistent in that part of town, and feels that should not be a big impediment for the use of the property. Another point was that there has not been any homes in the conservancy for 15 years. Hustad demonstrated on a graphic display showing cross sections revealing the results of the grading that was proposed in this project. He continued that in all the work done in the Bluff Country area, there had never been a situation where the rim of the bluff was taken down by nearly 20 feet which was were it would be when they are done grading. Speaking to the road in the transition area, he remarked that the road location was not the critical issue but what happens to the environment when the road comes in. There would be an enormous amount of grading taking place. Hustad, responding to Staff's statement that there was a 23% loss of trees, requested Commission to look very carefully at the graphic and re-evaluate if this was a 23% loss. He further commented that the density of the woods on the site was on the top. If Developer cuts the top off the rim, it would devastate the environment not just encroaching - devastating. Regarding the feature of the plan where Developer goes down a wooded ravine, what they term as a minor encroachment, Hustad reminded Commission that in the conservancy no hard roads have been built, no bridge has been built, no homes have been built and all three of these have been proposed in this development. Hustad stated that going down in the ravine and filling 10 feet of fill from top to bottom they would have to remove 1350 yards of material to fill back in only 1000 yards when 'C Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 7 working with sand. From a grading standpoint, it would be the worst project Hustad had witnessed in Eden Prairie. He had never seen a project that suggests this kind of devastation for such a paupery reward. Why should this happen - because the Developer has some kind of need to get to another lot that someone said its not been done before but they have a right to do it? Hustad stated that for a couple of lots to destroy the conservancy, it was not in the best interest of this community. Referencing grading Hustad quoted minutes of the April 11, 1987 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Knoll whereby Mike Franzen and Chris Enger were present. Enger stated, "extending a public road through this area (that's the cul-de-sac on top where the knoll was) would completely alter the land. This area would be better utilized as open space with a density transfer over the entire 80 acres much like the Bluff Country PUD." Hustad added that City has to rely on these kind of comments from the Staff representation. Hustad's final issue was the trail grading. He stated that when the former owner was interested in selling he was asked to submit an offer. He walked the property and knew of the trails already on the property. When he took an aerial photograph he was shocked that the trails run all the way through the property and come into the pasture area, and also came up through his property. Until he had seen the photograph he had no way of knowing this had happened. A 1985 aerial photograph shows no trail through the site. He continued that the photograph was taken the same day 8 years later. He realizes Commission does not want to speak to this property because Commission does not feel it was germane, but he would like to know how the trails got through this property. Developer would be moving his pasture and horses if this project was approved and was the present zone the proper zone for that. He has rural residence use - can he make an agricultural use out of the land? Can he log 15 acres of trees off the property and possibly another acre without the City saying wait there is a problem, a serious problem? Getting close to closing, Hustad referred to a couple of documents of public record. Regarding scenic easement filed November 20, 1972, he read a portion as follows, "the easement shall be preserved in a substantially natural state, (he pointed out that the easement area was the green line - not the conservancy) no trees or shrubs cut or removed. .." He stated this gives the Commission a flavor �C1J Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 Page 8 of the restriction placed on the Bluff Country property and what was going to happen if the Developer was allowed to do what he was asking. Another item was the minutes from the April 20, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Enger stated a study had been done several years ago on whether the City should purchase property along the creek. The City designated it a scenic easement and the City would not locate a trail in the valley. Recent as May 16, 1986, Bob Lambert reviewed a proposed trail system project and noted the proponent had proposed donating the creek valley property to the City as a gift. Staff recommended that the City agree to a restrictive convenant on the creek corridor for 15 years restricting trail construction along creek valley. Hustad stated they took that as a commitment by the City that that issue would be brought up at that time and there would be a public hearing. He stated he would be happy to review this 15 years from now. He stated to the Commission, "if you are going to take property from us as gifts with scenic areas that are magnificent, we have a convenant relationship - you promise, we'll promise - you break promises, the precedent that was being set on a project like this was enormously negative to this community." Hustad could not understand the pressure to approve this project. He further commented he was not against the project, because there are densities that the Commission can approve or suggest to Developer, but have them pull the road back from the rim or at least not grade the rim down. There was no road in the Bluff Country area where the rim was graded down. He asked Commission to seriously think about the consequences. Roads going down ravines that need 10' of fill to accomplish 1000' long, bridges built across the creek to achieve something that was decided was not good for the community in the first place. Woody Ginkel, 10430 Whitetail Crossing, stated that beyond the rhetoric of attorneys and extensive planning, he was against the plat and recommends the Commission reject and have Developer come in with a new plat reflecting change to a couple of different areas. He feels the plat was too aggressive with the road along the ridge and cutting the trees. He spoke of his letter to the Commission suggesting taking the road and moving it back. Of course this would cost the Developer some lots. He then reminded the Commission their decision was the best use of land not how many lots the Developer was going to lose or gain by cutting down trees. He stated the road down the valley and the road across the creek, in his opinion, have no redeeming value to the plat nor to the City, just money in the pocket for the Developer, and the Commissions decision was not based on money in the pocket for the Developer but I Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 9 land use. He added they were talking 27% tree removal at the meeting he attended. In closing, Ginkel stated the developers legal counsel inferred the Developer can do as he chooses. Ginkel commented he had never found that to be the case when he was before the Commission. To the Commission he addressed they had the right to approve and reject the plan and ask them to replat a new plat that pays attention to the issues presented. Kelli Hueler, 11738 Tanglewood Drive, representing the Preservation of Purgatory Creek Corridor, stated they have legal counsel present but have chosen to speak for themselves. First she wanted to clarify a myth that some people think their biggest concern was dealing with another lifestyle being too close to their homes. She requested the record show that myth was absolute rubbish. She stated they are opposed to the construction of the road, and want to respond to the statements by the Developer at the last meeting and the false statements regarding permits. She continued that Mike Franzen advised Commission at last meeting that Staff had received calls a year ago from neighbors stating there was grading in process. He advised the Commission that he advised the party of the procedures to follow for permits but because the area was so small a permit was not required. Hueler stated this was false - a permit was issued. The application in her hand stated, "this was a permit for under one acre." On the permit it specifically states, "no grading, fill or removal of soil or cutting down of trees or other vegetation or other land alteration other than provided in this permit or the plans submitted hereof is expressly prohibited and in violation of City Code." Hueler continued that Mr. Phillippi wrote a letter and it stated, "the Watershed District, who has jurisdiction over the City, requires no permit as long as the project is less than 1 acre of surface soil, water and dam included and this too is a condition we will meet." Hueler directed Commission to look at the photo containing 28 acres and commented there was no less than 14 acres that that man violated the permit and City Ordinance which states 1 acre 1/10 of land. Schuck reminded Hueler that Phillippi grading was not an issue before the Commission this evening. She asked who regulates the grading, the DNR, the City and the Watershed? On November 3, 1986 the permit was approved by the Commission and she has over fifty residents who would come and tell the Commission that grading was already taking place prior to permit and all the way through 1987. Schuck again reminded Hueler this was not an issue in this proposal. Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 10 Hueler responded these facts were not discussed at the last meeting. She continued that Mr. Phillippi did not apply for a permit. It was a great concern to her and residents that the Commission was considering a proposal that the Staff originally presented to Commission as a one acre proposal which they were not able to enforce. presented a Cease and Desist Order dated March 20, 1987, stating, "Your application stated the land alteration would be limited to one acre. Upon inspection of your site reveals the disturbed area exceeds well into 7 acres and a significant number of trees and brush have been removed from the site leaving the site bare." She asked how Commission could consider approving another plat by a group of people that have told the city they would stick to the rules, told the city they stuck to the rules after they broke the rules. And City Staff has told the Commission that they did not break an Ordinance and they told the Commission they were within the City limitations and they have not been. She continued there was not truth and the residents who had been calling for a year had been provided nothing but double talk. Summarizing her concern, Hueler asks, "Now that a 77 acre development was before you, we would like to know who was going to make this Developer stick to the rules?" Roy Stromme, attorney for T. Michael Clarke of Riverview Road, stated his client was concerned about what was going on in his immediate neighborhood and the general development of southeast Eden Prairie. In reviewing the material, he looked at it as it would interrelate with the bridge across County Road 18 in the future, and looked at the future of Riverview Road. He distributed booklets depicting what the development would look like when the bridge was done. He compared it with the bridge crossing 35W and Cedar Avenue and the zoning surrounding that property and the density of business with very little residential area existing at this time. He made a suggestion that Bluff Road between Riverview become a cul-de-sac at what was now the Purgatory Creek. He felt the City should preserve the environment and stop traffic at the top of the bluff. He also commented that the City should take into consideration the impact of the housing density, the lack of shielding along Riverview Road, and upgrade to four lanes should be given further consideration. Diane Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, was concerned about the open space and trail being a fire hazard as a result of the construction of the bridge and access by more individuals, whereby creating more opportunities for carelessness when there was a tinder dry summer. She !L`J Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 11 stated she spoke with Eden Prairie Fire Chief and he stated that fires along the bluff terrify him as they are difficult to reach. She stated if the Fire Chief is terrified, what about the residents who live there. Dean Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, stated from an investment standpoint, allowing access to the conservancy area, they in Creek Knoll with scenic easements have some beautiful knolls that could be developed into millions of dollars worth of lots. If they get the same consideration as the Developer presenting this evening, he might be happy about this situation. Chip Hutton, 10339 Bluff Road, commented that he wanted to build a deck but because of a scenic easement he could not build it where he wanted and had to relocate it. His concern was that everyone who develops should be treated the same way. Marlys Lund, 10164 Trotters Path, related her concern with the intrusion into the creek valley. She hoped long term plans and guide plans were looked at, as that was what drew them to the area. Robert Griswold, Bluff Road, a new resident stated after reading the Purgatory Creek Study, they took it in good faith as this was a fact they considered. He continued that this Developer was encroaching on the conservancy and already violated the property. He asked the Commission to return the proposal and ask them to replat so as not to ruin the area. Deirdre Griswold, Bluff Road, felt the road across the creek should be eliminated as it would not serve the community. Kelly Garis, 11191 Burr Ridge, was concerned about who was responsible for the follow up of a Cease and Desist Order. Also why was there no follow up on the order issued to Phillippi. She was left to question the ability of a City Staff that was unable or unwilling to enforce these rules when there was a total disregard to City Codes. Jim Brown, 11551 Riverview Road, stated he did not oppose the development but did have a complaint about the changing of the rules. For years everyone has followed certain rules, he for one has had surplus land but could not fill it. He stated the City said no trails in the creek valley, but these people can do it. He agreed with Mr. Luke that if things are changing he would have to come back with his request. He was not going to get into an argument with the attorney on whether the Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 12 constitution states they can or cannot do this - if they do, we do. Ruth Hustad, 10470 Whitetail Crossing, read from the May 20, 1986 City Council minutes as follows: "..City will have no trails in the creek valley for 15 years." She read further in reference to when the Wilkie family attorney asked about access to the knoll on the other side of the creek, Mr. Bentley stated, "it could be used as a density transfer for development of the land across the creek." Mr. Peterson stated, "the concept of density transfer seemed to make more sense for the property." Again Mr. Bentley stated, "in his opinion it would not be in the best interest of the City to put a public road there because of the potential damage to the entire scenic area that would result from the possible development once there was access to that property." She continued that the knoll was definitely outside of the rim and how was the Commission going to tell the people that live on the other side that now the City has a new rule and would allow someone else to develop the slope when they told them to stay back on the rim. She concluded that the Planning Commission are appointed citizens and entrusted with the responsibility of honestly and carefully reviewing projects that come before them. She pleaded with them not to irresponsibly set aside the present policy which has for years governed the lower Purgatory Creek area. Hustad continued to conclude that residents in good faith believed the City when they were told this would be a very carefully protected natural wildlife habitat area, a conservancy trust area that neither the City nor the Developer was allowed to go down into to cut tress, cut brush, to build roads or construction of any type. Where no trails would even be discussed for 15 years and when discussed would be brought before the people. it was very difficult for her to believe that the Staff can work at the wishes of the Developer, and the Commission, our elected representatives, can so boldly approve this project which violates the present policy for development. She strongly recommends that Commission deny and give project back to Developer and request it be done in compliance with Ordinance and the same rules that have governed the lower part of the valley. She feels, and has heard the same from other people, the City needs to have some consistency and predictability as the rules cannot change for the whim of just any Developer at any time. Ed Vigil, 11191 Burr Ridge, expressed his desire to not be redundant, but he was a new owner and resident of Eden Prairie and feels if everyone does not obey the established rules, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 13 City would continue to have more problems in the future. He was concerned whether City Staff was qualified to understand all the issues and if his tax money was going into something that it should not be going into. John Sherman, 11171 Branching Avenue, referring to the comment from the attorney for the Developer referencing homeowners being contacted, stated he was not contacted and lives directly across from the development. He continued that they demonstrated on the drawings a tree line but there are no trees there. He hopes the development was executed in a responsible way so the topography was disturbed as little as possible. Beth Simenstad, 10255 Summer Place, understands that the Staff was recommending approval of a road that was in the conservancy where there was to be grading and removal of trees. She would like to know how City Staff advocates this plan when it appears to contradict their stated policy on conservancy line. Also she understand that they plan to put a watermain under the creek to service the lot. Does this not violate Watershed permits. Regarding tree replacement, she was aware of the size of trees and number that have been removed but if Developer replaced them with 3" caliper, how many 3" calipers were going to be replaced. She does not think 1700 was enough considering the size of trees removed. Lastly, she asks the Commission how would City monitor the tree replacement which has to be an awfully difficult task. In conclusion she requested Commission to ask the Developer to return with a better plan. Doris Brooker, 10164 Trotters Path, stated she walked the trails and saw the graded area and asks Commission to take some consideration especially the major issues of City Planning Policy. She stated the lots in question are magnificent but if approved would violate the Ordinance with the Purgatory Creek Study. She also stated she was appalled to find, not the old walking trail, but a 9' wide trail. Her home has been broken into and she hopes safety of the area was addressed as well as wildlife. She was in favor of a naturalist study being conducted prior to approval with a statement on the impact of the wildlife. Larry Griffith, 2200 First Bank Place, Minneapolis, stated the concerns of the people are real. There was no environmental study required on this project, but if there had been one required it would have determined what the impact would be. Perhaps the Commission could instruct Staff to prepare one and bring it back before the Commission. Dennis Doyle, 11200 West 78th Street, feels after walking the property there was room for comprise. It would work if the road across the creek was eliminated. 71)0 Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 14 Ed Sisam, 10109 Wild Duck Pass and attorney for Creek Knoll Association, was appalled by the counsels opening statement. The Commission had heard the peoples issues and to disregard them and say they don't exist was unbelievable. Regarding fifth amendment with private property, the association cannot inhibit them but would explain to them what Ordinances are all about and the effect zoning has. The Association feels that going across the creek totally devastates the project. The bridge going across, that's a thing to disregard - a red herring. They feel the road should be moved back to get a circular route with some of the neighbors. The Association has four recommendations: 1) require the Creekview Development to abide by the Purgatory Creek Study on an equitable basis; 2) move the road to avoid mass grading of the rim even if it amounts to loss of lots for the owner; 3) eliminate the road crossing the creek; and 4) remove the fence from Phillippi's lower Purgatory Creek plan and have Phillippi restore approximately 14 acres that has been harvested of trees. The Association was not opposed to the development of this project but they are opposed to the way it was being developed. They think Developer has every right and it was good for the community that the land be utilized in its most economic ability but this was in violation of what they feel was a covenant which was an agreement that has the force and effect of law, the policy with which the City has represented that policy. He sincerely feels that before the City tonight, the Planning Commission was charged with keeping the good faith of the people in the community. The people believe in the Commission and City and trust they would have confidence that a suit would not be filed because they cannot possibly approve this plan. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 Mike Franzen stated that Staff went back and examined the projects along the lower Purgatory Creek, and the studies indicated that in the lower portion, the 1-1/2 mile was the most critical part of the valley because it was so steep, and does not have these same characteristics any where else in the community. Staff looked at 8 different projects along the creek and how they compared with density, how much land was gifted to the City, how many lots they had in the conservancy, and what were the setbacks. Staff wanted to see how consistently this policy had been adhered to. They found some minor variations but all were in compliance a�� Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 15 with the statements that were put forth many years ago in the Purgatory Creek Study. City does have lots that have been platted in the conservancy, but this was the first project in this area that has had a house in the conservancy. There have been other houses approved in the upper parts of Purgatory Creek conservancy area. All the projects have homes in the transition area of Purgatory Creek. There was an average setback of 300'. Staff analyzed if the Creekview project compared favorably or was it abusive of policy. It compares favorable in terms with the number of lots in the conservancy area, the transition area and the setback. This was the first project that has a housepad so there was a grading proposal in the conservancy. Hallett respcnded that he would have trouble approving this road up the creek valley. He commented that in seven years on the Commission he has seen a lot of issues come before the Commission. He stated he trusts the Staff and has pride in their judgment. He continued that Staff was of high quality and he looks to them for guidance on issues. He expressed his feeling that the public should be able to access Purgatory Creek, and an access for fire was an issue. Anderson thanked the interested parties for their participation. He stated the city had a problem in this development with the lot across the creek. A person can look at the minutes of all the meetings but they don't record everything that that was said, they are all edited and memories are always filtered. All must deal with the issue now. The suggestion regarding density transfer, no one here asked them to transfer density to the other side. Developer may feel they have enough prime lots to maximize their development. Nevertheless they still have that lot and a reasonable answer would come from a compromise. He stated he believed and trusted the Staff. He supports the project and feels the trails for public space should be for public use enjoyment. Without trails City does not have that. He continued that the comment by Diane Luke who was not in favor of trails but concerned with fire hazard made a good point, that like the forests in the mountains there are fire trails that have been cut for access to the fire. The City needs the trail to access the fire. Dodge stated if Commission allows approval of this Developer, Commission would have to look at other proposals in a similar manner. Her reason for non approval was not just because its in the conservancy but does not like the idea of having that road cut through the area. Fell stated it was unfortunate that there was only one way to reach the lots on the other side of the creek. He felt it was important that the creek be available for the public aoa Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 16 not just the homeowners in the area. In light of public safety, trails would give police and fire better access. He feels very strong about having trails constructed with this project, as he surmises they would never go in if not with this project. Fell mentioned he had a problem with the area defined as a loop road when its a cul-de-sac. He feels their should be another access to connect that road. Franzen responded that the development had two good access points but he agreed with Fell that another access should be be looked at. Fell commented that traffic would be concentrated on Riverview Road and this should be addressed, and he trusts City Staff would look at these issues. Bye stated her strongest concern was about access to trails, and liked the concept of the City of Minneapolis whereby they decided the lakes were for everybody and designated them open space. The evaluation of the grading was a delicate issue and hoped there would be a compromise. Schuck reported that the Commission felt it was not feasible to approve this project and sacrifice so much for so little. There was a major issue with the trails and roadway across the creek. He then turned to proponent to come up with a solution to make the project acceptable. Brill, counsel for Developer, responded to changing of the rules. He stated rules are defined as Statues and Ordinances of the City and Developer must follow the Ordinance that was a fact. However, the Purgatory Creek was nothing more than a study. There was a resolution passed directing Staff to draw up policy, but it had never been adopted by the City or put in the form of an Ordinance. Developer comes before the City because they do not violate an Ordinance. Counsel stated that Mr. Brown and Mr. Phillippi are willing to give up the road and the lot, and would donate 4.5 acres east of the creek to the City at a time prior to plat approval. They would also pull back the road 350' from where the cul-de-sac ends. They agree to no improvements below the conservancy line and that leaves two lots that they were going to trade as a swap and they would pull the housepad out of the conservancy so they would not violate the conservancy line and there would be no encroachment on the conservancy, and they would be clean from the point of view of creek policy. They hope that this would appeal to the Commission as the primary concern was addressed here. 2\53 Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 17 Counsel does not believe there would be grading as the kind described on the bluff. A grading plan would be presented that would not be as severe as depicted. Developer hopes this would bring the project to a successful conclusion. MOTION 2: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Brown Land Company for Planned Unit Development Concept on 78.22 acres to be known as Creekview, based on plans dated October 27, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 11, 1987 and the proposed offer of Brown Land Company to donate 4.5 acres and move two housepads out of the conservancy and roadway pulled back as reflected on plat. Motion carried 6-0-0 Franzen commented that Staff would look at loop road before going to Council. Jim Brown requested clarification on the trail. It seemed to him that the proposed trail would keep the public out because there was no sidewalk and public could only go down and back up, not be able to walk along the creek valley as it was presently proposed. Schuck remarked he appreciated that comment. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Brown Land Company for Planned Unit Development District Review on 78.22 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 60.15 acres, with variances, to be known as Creekview, based on plans dated October 27, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 11, 1987, and the offer of Brown Land Company to donate 4.5 acres to City. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Brown Land Company for Preliminary Plat of 78.22 acres into 92 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way, to be known as Creekview, rased on plans dated October 27, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 11, 1987, and the offer of Brown Land Company. Motion carried 6-0-0 aoq Eden Prairie Planning Commission - December 14, 1987 - Page 18 MOTION 5: Motion was made by Anderson seconded by Schuck to recommend to Parks and Natural Resources that a trail for public use be implemented in this project. Motion carried 6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Anderson to adjourn the meeting at 10:39 PM. 20S UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987y' r _4- Mikkelson asked what staff's feelings are on the 20' versus 30' easement. Lambert said there have been some problems in the past depending on how the homes are situated and he recommends a 30' easement. The developer is requesting a 20' easement although AI with the 6' trail that is proposed Lambert feels it could be tight. Mr. Hustad said that as these lots are sold, the developer can be `V especially conscious of this issue. Cook said he feels we should require a 30' easement and a variance can be requested at the time of construction if necessary. This amendment will be added to the original motion. The motion passed 6-0. . B. Creekview - Brown Land Company Mike Gair was present at the meeting representing Brown Land Company and Mr. Wendell Phillippi. As background information, Mr. Gair said Wayne Brown has been a resident of Eden Prairie for 19 years, 13 of which he has lived in Creekview. He is a subcontractor and has done about $30 million worth of grading and utility work in the past 20 years. He has done most of the work from County Road 1 to Riverview Road commonly referred to as the Lower Purgatory Creek. He is very familiar with erosion control methods, site restoration techniques and tree protection during construction. One of his most recent projects is Bluestem Subdivision and during.the July storm there was no loss or destruction in this area. Mr. Brown has a good track record as a builder and contractor and has respected the Purgatory Creek area. Mr. David Brown has been an Eden Prairie resident for 23 years. He has owned land in the Purgatory Creek area during that time and has owned a commercial real estate company for the last 12 years. Mr. Gair noted that Mr. Brown is a former director of National Nature Conservancy which is an organization charged with the acquisition of natural habitat throughout the country, an amateur botanist and is interested in prairie ecology and natural systems. Mr. Brown is presently director of the Big Came Organization. Mr. Gair introduced Peter Ynaeble of Krueger Associates who is the project engineer for this development. Mr. Gair showed an aerial photo of the property which is 78.2 acres. The southern and western portions are pasture and open land and the northern and eastern portions are wooded. Mr. Gair discussed the area within the Purgatory Creek Valley. The creek valley itself has • an elevation of 720 feet while the pasture land is about 100 feet higher in elevation. There is also a very prominent rim running parallel to the creek that formsthe transition from the upland to the lowland. The slopes are quite severe and the only practical access is from this ravine. 2n��r • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 -5- Recently a bulldozer was used to clear out undergrowth in the ravine. In addition, the Comprehensive Guide Plan shows open space and low density residential up to 2.5 units per acre in this area and is included in the Purgatory Creek study. Mr. Gair showed a map depicting the conservancy area and transition area. The proposed plan includes 41 lots within the transition area, 27 of which are 1/2 acre or more and the remaining are an average of 19,990 square feet. There are approximately 5.99 acres of trees that would have to be removed within the transition area for development to take place. Mr. Gair showed the areas where development has already taken place within the conservancy zone and where lots are located in the conservancy zone. The only exception to what is being proposed is that the cul-de-sac will be pushed back 350 feet. This was recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gair reviewed the desirable features of this development which are that the plan as represented preserves the land mass within the Purgatory Creek Study, 45 to 46% of the site will be given as a scenic easement which is approximately 17 acres. The date for dedication will be set prior to signing the developer's agreement. The density of this property will be 1.5 units per acre which is less than the 2.5 allowed under low density designation and all lots meet or exceed requirements. Public utilities are available, the development meets the Comprehensive Guide Plan, there will be a minimal loss of trees and the developer will comply with the tree replacement policy. The setback of homes exceeds requirements. Lambert referred to the copy of the December 11 planning staff report which recommends approval. The December 17 supplementary report points out the five issues which concern the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. They are preservation of the creek valley character, park dedication, trails in the creek valley, grading in the creek valley and tree removal and replacement. Under preservation of creek valley character, Lambert said that it was pointed out that land below the conservancy line will not be develooed.and 17 acres will be dedicated to the City. Although there will be significant grading, Lambert feels the homes will have less visual impact than nther homes because of the screening. Outlots C and D will be donated by the developer, as well as a 6.4 acre lot and the developer will pay cash park fees. Regarding trails in the creek valley, the developer has offered to grade trails but staff does not require any additional trails. Staff does request a public trail easement on Outlot B which will allow people to walk into the bottom of the creek valley and allow access for fire fighting equipment. Lambert added that the City wants to acquire as much of the creek valley as possible in order to possibly construct a nature trail in the future. Mr. Hustad requested, Lambert concurred,and the City Council agreed that trails will not be built here for 15 years until access points can be controlled, that the City has staff to patrol it and that it can be maintained. There has been some discussion that this area has the n . • _s UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 -6- potential to be like Minnehaha Creek, but it has never been intended to be a park of this type but rather like Nine Mile Creek in Bloomington with a nature trail. The Planning Commission suggested a nature trail to be built after 2002 and Lambert suggests the Parks Commission make a decision now. Regarding grading in the creek valley, the developer will donate all land in the creek valley to the City. Regarding tree removal and tree replacement, 23% of the trees will be removed which compares to 31% which have been removed in the previous 20 developments that are affected by the tree replacement policy. The developer will replace all trees as per the City policy. Lambert recommends approval of the proposal, as well as the revisions made by the developer at the December 14 Planning Commission meeting. Baker asked if there is an acceptable tree replacement plan. Lambert said there is not a plan, but there is an inventory of which trees are lost and how many have to be replaced. The developer must submit a plan prior to plat approval. Cook asked the location of the 8' bituminous trail. Mr. Gair pointed out its location. Cook asked if there will be a trail on the north side of Riverview. Mr. Gair said he is not aware of any. Lambert said there will be. Mr. Hustad said he does not agree with the proposal and feels there are significant issues at stake. He has a different understanding of the Purgatory Creek Study than what has just been presented. Mr. Hustad showed a 1979 aerial photo of the Lower Purgatory Creek area and compared it to an aerial photo taken recently. He pointed out the trail that has been carved in the woods and the trees that have been removed. Mr. Smith showed a drawing which compared the homes in the area that they have developed and those proposed for Creekview. Mr. Hustad asked the commission to note where the homes are to be located which are on the slope in the most heavily wooded area. He added that they are not against developing the area, but rather in maintaining some type of consistency within the creek valley. He added that a great deal of fill will be taken from the bluff itself. Mr. Hustad said he feels this development would be devastating Mr. Gair said he does not believe there is a difference in the way they understand the Purgatory Creek Study. Scenic easements are not unlike other developments in the area. He showed a map indicating the areas of cut and fill. There will be 5.99 acres of tree loss indicated although that amount could be less. n r,� UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 Ms. Kelly kieller of 11738 Tanglewood Drive was present at the meeting representing the homeowner's association. She stated that they are not opposed to development of this area, but rather are opposed to the further destruction of the Purgatory Creek area. Ms. Huueller said the residents have received conflicting messages from staff regarding Mr. Phillippi's actions and cited several examples. Mr. Phillippi received a permit from the City for excavation of one acre to be completed within a one year period. This excavation has been going on for more than one year and on much more than just one acre. Mr. Phillippi received a cease and desist order from the City which he has ignored. Ms. Mueller said the residents believe Mr. Phillippi has violated City ordinance and added that they have obtained legal counsel and will do whatever is necessary to stop this destruction. She asked the commission to consider the matter very carefully before making their decision. Mr. Ed Cissum of 10109 Wild Duck Pass said that what Ms. Mueller said is absolutely true. When he purchased his home, he called the City to see what the plans were for the creek valley. They said it is in a concservancy zone under jurisdiction of the Purgatory Creek Study and would remain undisturbed. Mr. Cissum said this has not been the case. He added that he is an attorney representing the Creek Knolls Homeowners Association. He realizes the commission is in a difficult position, but they have the trust of the citizens to carry out what is in the best interests of the City. The residents are very concerned about the disruption of the creek valley. Mr. Cissum addressed several issues. The first is the significant grading. He feels there is no reason for such a significant cut to develop the area. The homeowners also do not want trails in the creek area. People who purchased homes in the area had expectations that the area would remain as it is. He agrees with Mr. Lambert's suggestion that trails should not be added for at least 15 years. Mr. Cissum went on the record to say that the residents do not want trails here ever. It is not because they want to keep the area for themselves, but rather to preserve the wildlife and trees. There is also a concern br the number of trees that will be removed. He believes the number will be much higher and these trees cannot be replaced. The group is asking for an actual tree count in the areas where the trees are to be removed. In closing, Mr. Cissum said the commission must do what they feel is best. Mr. Knaeble said the tree inventory has been prepared as requested by the City. Cook asked how long Krueger 6 Associates has been working in the area of tree inventory. Mr. Knaeble said they have been doing this for about 20 years. a UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 -8- Marlys Lund of 10164 Trotters Path said she does not understand where the tree inventory has been dane and what the 23% stands for since she does not know how many trees are on the site. Mr. • Gair replied that the tree loss will be 5.99 acres. He showed the location on the site plan and added that it will not exceed that which has been approved by the City. Ms. Lund said she does not understand what is 100% of trees on the site and indicated that those trees that have been counted have been marked. Mr. Knaeble said that there is a total of 20,363 caliper inches of trees on the site. Mr. Smith asked if this was an actual measurement of a survey crew or an estimate. Mr. Knaeble said it was not possible to take an inventory of trees in the ravine and these numbers were estimated and presented to the City for their approval. Mr. Hustad pointed out the existing grade of the site and what it will look like after construction is completed. He does not believe the tree count is accurate and believes an outside source should be hired to survey trees. Cook said his understanding is that Mr. Hustad does not believe Krueger & Associates is qualified to do the tree inventory. Mr. Hustad said that is correct Cook asked if the City has any requirements for a tree survey. Lambert said the tree replacement policy is 9-10 months old and it has been used in the same manner with this developer as it has with others in that the developer hires their own consultants to arrive at a tree inventory. Krueger has been involved with several of the developments. Mikkelson asked if the City forester has ever questioned Krueger's figures. Lambert said he reviews all of the surveys and he does not believe the City forester or anyone else has questioned the accuracy of the figures. Mikkelson asked if compared to other developments along the creek, how does this one compare? Lambert said it is difficult to answer since all the sites are different. Mikkelson clarified his question by asking how the grading compares with proximity to the rim. Lambert said this is as aggressive a development as they have seen in the Purgatory Creek area. Regarding the statement about the Purgatory Creek Study being a trust between the City, developers and landowners, he said it may be a trust between.'5;, the City and the landowners that live here but it is always a negotiated-.*: deal with'tne developer. The Purgatory Creek Study is only a guide and not an ordinance. Property owners have the right to develop and Viz' the City can only deny issues that exceed the ordinance although some: ;;q negotiations can be done. He cited an example in the Edenbrook area • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 which was approved by the City. In this case, the entire subdivision was within the conservancy line and it was approved. Shortly after the Purgatory Creek Study was approved as a guide, staff recognized that the best they could do was preserve land within the conservancy zone. The transition line is rarely even discussed with the developer. Lambert indicated that Hustad had complied very well with his development to date and said the aerial photo is the best description of what has happened. In some cases, Mr. Hustad's donations have exceeded the conservancy and transition lines. When this developer came in and proposed what they could legally do with only one variance request, there was not much left to negotiate. Lambert said he feels the City has negotiated as far as they can and Purgatory Creek will be maintained in its natural state below the conservancy line. He feels the character of the creek valley will be less affected by this subdivision than by the development in the southwestfacing slope because the houses will be screened by trees. Mr. Cissum said contrary to what Mr. Lambert said, a City is bound by state statutes, ordinances and contracts or covenants. He feels the trust or reliance the residents have in the City is a type of covenant or contract and the City can be sued for violation of contract. Mr. Cissum said he feels they have a solid legal argument and will see that the City lives up to their legal agreement. Ms. Hueller said if this proposal is approved, the City is setting a dangerous precedent if residents can get by with this type of activity just because there is not an ordinance to prevent it. Bob Grisvold said he is finding it very hard to accept that staff believes there will not be a difference if 20 feet of cut is done. He is concerned about erosion and wildlife and feels that an outside source should be hired to do a tree inventory. MOTION: Cook moved to recommend agreement with staff recommendation to accept Creekview development with emphasis on City monitoring of development and procedures concerning preservation of the creek valley character, park dedication, trails in the creek valley, grading in the creek valley and tree removal and replacement. Gonyea seconded the motion. On call for discussion, Mikkelson said he feels Purgatory Creek is a very important area and feels that an outside expert looking at the tree inventory should be considered. Gonyea asked who will hire the outside expert and who will pay for it. Lambert said the City could hire an independent forester and require the developer to pay for it. UNAPPROVED MINUTES c~.7! EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 21, 1987 -10- Baker said he feels there is legitimacy to what the residents have said and the importance of validity of tree inventory will be brought to the City Council. Breitenstein said she feels it should be up to the City to hire the • independent surveyor. Mikkelson asked that the motion be amended to read that an independent agency will do a tree inventory of the entire site in an attempt to confirm or deny the developer's estimated figures as presented. The motion passed 6-0. Ruth Hustad said it was not clear who would pay for the indepdndent • study. Breitenstein said it would be up to the City Council to decide. Ms. Mueller came forward to say that the group appreciated the motion and would like to receive the information received from the independent tree inventory. Mr. Hustad commented that perhaps a task force should be appointed to review the Purgatory Creek Study to avoid disagreements on trails. Lambert suggested a task force might be appointed to review the City's entire trail system. MOTION: Mikkelson moved to recommend that the Commission go on record saying that the City does plan to construct a natural trail in the creek bottom in 15 years and the City Council should create a task force to study the feasibility of the trail system. Joyer seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. VI. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS, BOARDS AND STAFF A. Reports of Athletic Coordinator 1. Season Ending Reports a. Men's 18 & Over Hockey - Fall 1987 b. Men's 25 & Over Hockey - Fall 1987 c. Co-Rec Volleyball - Fall 1987 These are information items only. Baker asked why there was a decrease in Men's 18 & Over Hockey. Lambert said he did not know. 2. Summary of December Meeting with Athletic Association Presidents This is an information item only. Staggering starting times for baseball and soccer practice at Flying Cloud Field should help traffic problems. JANUARY 19,1988 39828 AT&T COM'1NICATIONS SERVICE 104.55 39829 AT&T CINSLAER PRCIE CTS DIV MICE 111.15 1 330 EMILY B RGSTROM REFUND-HOLIDAY LLNJ-EON 6.75 A..4331 SUSAN CEKAS REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00 .3Ytu1 HERBST & TICE LTD -}U IRE RCES/ADMINISTRATION 50.00 39833 MIMEGA CO SERVICE 10765.41 39E34 KAREN I1XHEAD REFUID-SWIMMING LESEEX'S 12.25 SYtISJ CLIVIA NEWS1HUM REFIND+H_IDAY LLUJ-EON 6.75 39836 NORTHAESiLHN BELL SERVICE 160.32 39E37 NSP bEHVICE 40289.42 39838 COMNIE ST MARTIN FEFl1ND-EXERCISE CLASS 21.00 39839 THOM S ATKINSCN REFL.ND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00 39840 AT&T COMMUNICATIONS , bEHVICE 51.26 39841 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV bEHVICE 38.55 39842 AT&T bEHVICE 819.00 39843 DRJ BALL REFUNID-SWIMMING LESSONS 27.00 39844 BIRTO-ER WISH JANUARY 88 RENT-CITY HALL 15566.33 39845 DIANE LANDRY REFU'JD-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 39846 MIMEGASCO SERVICE 1024.75 39847 HOLLY NEWSO E REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 39848 NSP StHNICE 1952.99 39849 NORThAESTERN BELL bEHVICE 19.41 39850 THERESA 0'RO RKE REFLI\ID - SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 39851 CHERYL PFEIFER REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00 39852 SLPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC JANUARY 88 RENT-LIQUOR B1LHt 4574.55 39853 STEVE A WITHREN REFUWID-SKATING LFSSQNS 18.00 39854 CLRTIS INDUSTRIES INC -ftFANING SUPPLIES/KEYS/KEY MACI-TINE/COVER- 591.43 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 55 SMITH DIVING SCUBA DIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 448.00 „w856 AT&T bEHVICE 166.90 39857 AT&T CONIJNICATICrS SERVICE 52.46 39858 NORTR ES I LHN BELL HV I CE 239.29 39859 SORH I-EMEPIN SERVICE COUNCIL OERVICE-I-IOM'E PROGRAM 447.50 39860 MN DEPT CF PUBLIC SAFETY TITLE APPLICATION FEE-EOUIPMFNT 20.25 39861 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL/HRCD'EAIL-+I_tS RAID 1023.00 39862 NSF bEHVICE 371.01 39863 JAS 1 NORTH:D PROPERTIES JANJARY 88 RENT 5518.75 39864 PARK JEEP MAINTENANCE 20.21 39865 PETTY f A'-I EXPENSES - CITY I4CLL 58.12 39866 COINTERT17PS TO GO INC COLNTERTCP EXTENSION-ENGINEERING DEPT 18.60 39867 BEER W-10LESALJ:RSRS INC BEER 3234.20 39868 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 573.10 39869 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 5837.36 39870 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 14106.56 39871 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING BEER 1/v20.13 39872 PEG MIX 659.15 3Y13/3 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE MIX 221.00 39874 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 19144.10 39875 INTERATIOINAL TORS CONFERENCE-COUNCIL 416.00 39876 NATIWAL LEAGUE CF CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCIL 590.00 39877 EPRBAROSSA AND SONS INC StHVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADDITIONN 161846.75 39878 BROUN & CR I S INC V I CE-BEMETT PLACE & RI f1RS7T1 ROAD 6330.55 39879 KENKO INC bEHVICE-BLUFFS EAST 4TH ADDITION 17961.71 30 MACHTENES CONSTRUCTION SERVICE-BAKER ROAD TO RCILAND ROAD 3210.24 A31 MAX JUiNSON TRUCKING SERVICE-1987 LIME SLUDGE REMOVAL & DISPOSA 1522.50 331328931 39882 RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK StHVICE-CHAIN OF LAKES STORM SEWER 203184.57 39883 9-IAW-LLNDOUIST A 1r INC SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADDITIDEJ 155238.55 39884 WATT FORSEERG CO SERVICE-FIRE STATION #3 & #4 59175.00 39885 A & H WEIIDING & MFG CO -INSTALL HOMES FOR LOCK CYCLINCERS-I-CMEWRR 76.30 HILLS SHELTER 5E1616 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EGIJIPP 1T RENTAL-WATER DEPT 8.48 387 A[4MINNESOTA INC OFFICL SUPPLIES 1545.85 '„i888 ADMIRAL WASTE MU1T INC DECEMBER 87 TRASH DISPOSAL-POLICE DEFT 56.75 39889 AIRLIFT DOORS INC DOCIR REPAIR- MIVITY CENTER 64.00 39890 ALLIS-O- f1BERS HYDRO INC REPAIR KIT FOR VALVE ACTUATOR-WATER DEPT 113.59 39891 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL S DUES- POLICE DEPT 75.00 SYHY1 AMERI-STAR LIGHTING BULBS-PUBLIC WORKS & PARK BLDG 238.14 39893 AMERICAN TAPE ADVERTISING INC ADVERTISING-LIQUOR 520.00 39894 EARL F ANDERSOV & ASSIY' INC SIGNS/FLASHER/BATTERIES/CONES-STREET DEFT 17633.88 39895 JERRY ANDERSON HOCKEY CFFICIAL/FEES PAID 86.00 39896 ARMOR SECURITY INC KEYS-CO"MNITY CENTER 35.65 SYtri/ ASPLLND COFFEE TXT INC CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-CGTt,NITY CENTER 45.90 39898 ASSCC CF MEIHU MUNICIPALITIES DUES-1988 3147.00 39899 ASTLEFORD INTL INC RIM/W-EEL/LOCK/SEATS/PIN-EQUIP MAINT 692.98 39900 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY CARTRIDGES/FILTERS-STTEET MAINT 57.66 -WW1 BAI II_hIY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -PIFFLER (LAMPS/FLAS1�-EJRS/BLL.BS/SWITCH/WIRE 366.06 TFER'ESTAT/BAHEHIES/SIGNAL.S-EOUIPhENT MAINT 39902 PMETTE BEACH MILEAGE/EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 24.90 SriO3 BERGIN AUTO BODY REPAIR &REFINISH PICKIP-ECUIFVENr MAINT 641.02 39904 BERRY COFFEE CCMPANW SERVICE 376.00 39905 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADDITION 12671.05 39906 CITY OF BLCOMINGTON ANIMAL IM°OJND SERVICE-NOVET R 87 282.50 39907 BL.00MINGTON LCCK & SAFE CO KEYS-POLICE DEPARTMENT 31.50 39908 LOIS BOETTC}ER -PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING- E7.19 COMMJNITY SERVICES SYYV.i JEFFREY BC;RNS REFUJtD-OVFRPAYIENT UTILITY BILLING 24.94 70910 BOYUM EOUIPNENT INC GATE VALVE- SEWER TRUCK-SEWER DEPT 656.88 11 9RY4N ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK-SIHttI DEPT 1999.95 :W 912 FROCK WHITE CO SPRAYER-STREET MAINT 53.50 39913 CARLSCN & CARLSON ASfr SERVICE-ETPLOVEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 140.00 39914 DAN CARLSCN EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT 7.00 39915 CENTRAIRE INC INSTALLED PLUG & DRIER-PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG/ 371.09 39916 O-WNIASSEN LAWN & SPORTS CHAIN/SWITCH/PLUGS-PARK MAINTENANCE 101.58 39917 CHECK REFRIGERATION INC INSTALL GEPRMOTOR ASSEMBLY-CQ'FLNITY CENTE 592.65 39918 CLIMATE MAKERS INC REPAIR AIR HANDLING SYSTEM-COMMJNITY CENTE 266.85 39919 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC OORE.S/8JIEDRS/2 SPEED r'UTCR-EQUIP MAIM 535.89 39920 MIMESOTA DEPARTMENT CF REVENUE- DECEMBER 87 FUEL TAX 341.02 S Y921 CXPPUTER PLACE TWO CCMPUTERS-PONICE DEPT 3248.00 Srirl CPT CC)RP 1988 MAINTENANCE AGREEFENT-POLICE DEPT 1548.00 S`Y23 CRYSTAPLEX PLASTICS INC PLEXIGAS SHIELDS-ICE ARENA 137.50 SW24 CURTIS INDUSTRIES KEYRACK/KEY BLANKS-EQUIP MAINT 190.93 S Y925 OSTLER-MGNER COVANY OUICKLINE-WATER DEPT 4943.61 39926 DAL.CO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER & PCL_ICE DEPT 757.90 .9iV27 LORI DAM MILEAGE/SUPPLIES-R.MAN RESOURCES 22.36 39928 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESQJRCES -PER'MIT APPLICATION FEE-RILE! LAKE PARK 117.50 COMMJNITY SLHVICES 39929 DECORATIVE DESIGNS RVICE-JA&ARY 1988 49.50 39930 DEM CON LANDFILL INC DLI`PING O-IARGES-DECEMBER 87-SIHEEI MAINT 58.00 39931 EUCENE DIETZ DECEMBER 87 EXPENSES-843R DEFT 165.00 51281017 0 n Ms/v32 DIXIE PETRO-CHEM INC D-t.CRINE-WATER DENT 820.00 39933 DON EVE & SONS SERVICE/BALES-PARK MAINT 417.00 39934 DOYLE LOCK SUPPLY KEYS-PUBLIC SAFETY 81 n5 23.40 39935 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-CITY/POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY SERV 71.84 39936 DYNA SYSTEMS LAB SUPLIES-WATER DEFT 206.97 39937 CITY CF EDEN PRAIRIE LIGU R SUPPLIES-EMPLOYEE O-RISTMAS LUNCHEON 38.90 9938 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES ROUND LAKE SOFTBALL FIELD FENCING 14933.00 i /939 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN CF MIMESOT INSPECTION FEE-FIRE DEPT 21.19 39940 FLOYD SECURITY 1ST OTR 88 SECURITY SYhFEM-LIQXR STORE 376.00 39941 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIOIXR STORES 345.45 39942 LORI FREY SERVICE-SPECIAL EVENTS-COM LAITY St-/ICES 25.00 39943 LYNDFII HREY SUPPLIES-WINTER DAY CAMP PROGRAM 4.51 39944 GANTS LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP BADGES/BADGE REPAIR & REFINISHING-O_ICE 181.95 39945 GARDfER HARDWARE CD LOCKS-COMMUNITY CENTER 103.50 39946 DARRELL GEDMEY HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 122.00 39947 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 530.06 39948 GEPHART ELECTRIC BUILDING REPAIRS-CITY FALL 267.00 39949 JOSEPH GLEASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 270.00 39950 GNERER WELDING INC RUBBER SHIELDS-PARK MAINTENANCE 58.95 39951 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 61.44 39952 GUVNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -SERVICE-REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES- 304.21 PARK MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY CENTER 39953 HALTR CO LAB SLPPLIES-WATER DEPT 100.98 39954 C F HAGLIN & SONS CD Su-NICE-REPAIR COTINITY CENTER BLDG 1iEy2.6O 39955 HALE COMPANY INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR-EO_IIR NT MAINTENANCE 118.30 39956 W L HALL CCIPANY INSTALL WINDOWS-HOMEWARD HILLS SHELTER 6110.00 3`/v7 H A NCE HARDWARE LOCK REPAIR-CO'M,NT I Y CENTER 7.50 39958 HAPo•1ON GLASS DOOR GLASS-EOJIPMENT MAINTENANCE 162.54 39959 JIM HATCH SALES CO -HANDLES FOR RAKES/SNOW SHOJELS & SCOOPS 318.50 STEPLADDER-PARK MAINTENANCE 39960 HOYDEN-M RPHY EQUIPM1ENT CO POINT/H'1AFS-WATER DEPT 21.20 39961 FELLERS CARBONIC LEST INC O-EMICALS-WATER DEPT 1106.31 '62 LAURIE HELLIMi3 MILEAG= 62.50 463 HEN EPIN COUNTY OXYGEN-PARK MAINTENANCE 27.94 39964 HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH LICENSE PJ PLICATIONS-CD TINTIY CENTER 330.00 39965 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT SQUAD CAR SETS-POLICE DEPT 14408.05 39966 HETN CTY-SHERIFFS DENT MARCH 87 BOOKINI3 FEE 123.00 39967 HENMEPIN COUTNY TREASURER SERVICE-PLANNING DEPT 451.00 39968 HENNEP I N COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE-SPECIAL ASSFSSvENT REPORTS 380.85 39969 HEN EPIN rTINTY NOVEMBER 87 BOARD CF PRISONERS 1980.65 39970 D C HEY CO INC SERVICE 75.00 39971 1-OFFERS INC PAINT/BRUSHES/TAPE/-HOMEWARD HILLS BARN 39972 1-IQMISTEN ICE. RINKS INC44.15 PUMPER REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 42.0000 39973 HONEYWELL INC 4TH OTR 87 MAINTENANC-WATER DEPT 3579.00 39974 MIKE HOSTETLER HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 102.00 39975 IBM CORPCFATICN JANUARY 88 MAINTENANCE AC LENT 424.32 39976 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 BUILDINIG REPAIRS-FAMILY CENTER 429.36 39977 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 O-RISTMAS LUNCHEON-CITY HAIL 116.50 39978 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC FLOOD LIGHTS--WATER DEPT 64.40 39979 HEN EPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS SCHOOLS-FIRE DEPT 315.00 399E10 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -N OVE-1BR 87 MAINTENANCE AG 7_prICE 515.80 DEPT 39981 INTERPITIONAL qmFIETY OF ARBCRICU MEP?BERS-4IP-FC}2ESTRY DEPT 14 39982 J & R RADIATOR CDRP EQJIPNENT REPAIR-ElJIPMENT MAINTENANCE 314.13 .13 64181N5 0' b r �n 39983 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 1167.41 39984 JEHHYS FLOOR STORE SUPPLIES-CITY FALL 137.50 39985 JIMMY JINGLE SLFPLIES-COMUNITY CENTER L28.05 39986 KAY JOFNSCV EXEN[.ISE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 240.00 39987 CARL JLLLIE EXPENNES-CITY MANAGER 115.25 I39988 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE 116.00 ?89 KOKE9i AT)-L.ETIC SUPPLIES INC STEP CLOCK-ORGANIZED ATE-LETICS 77.95 .990 KOSS PAINT & WALLPAPER INC PAINT-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 257.08 39991 KRAEMERS HUE CENTER -LOCKS/TAPE/PLUG/SHOWER DEAD/f7 FANING 44.33 SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/WAiEH DEPT 39992 KUSTO1 FIFCTRONICS INC EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-POLICE. DEPT 284.18 39993 JERRY LADEN DISTRIBUTOR CFECK PROTECTOR 1988 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 135.00 39994 ROBERT LAMBERT MILEAGE 170.00 39995 LANCE 99.PP IES-LIQUOR STORES 47.70 39996 LAFASS MFG & SALES INC TOOL BOX-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 260.00 39997 M & I INDUSTRIAL S PPLY INC LUBRICANT-STREET DEPT 137.94 39998 MARTIN-MCFY_LISIEN SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 400.00 39999 MIKE MARUSHIN -AIR HAM'ER KIT/BLOW GLN/AIR HOSE/COUPLER 280.30 SET/SCREWDRIVER SET-WATER DEPT 40000 MASYS CORPORATION JANAJRY 1988 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 1075.00 40001 PHILIP MATHIOWETZ SD- 1L-FIRE DEPT 152.40 40002 MATS INC FREIGHT CHARGES-PARK MIAIMEVANCE 10.00 40003 MATS INC FREIGHT CHARGES-PARK PWINTENANCE 10.00 40004 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 260.00 40005 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 4.91 40006 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY FALL/POLICE DEPT 92.85 40007 LMCIT LIABILITY IN3JRcNCE 275.00 40008 GA8 BUSINESS SERVICES INC LIABILITY INSURANCE 1415.92 40009 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 55.80 40010 MERLINS FARMKIRE HANK SCREWS/PLEXIGALSS-HOMEU-1RD HILLS PARK 30.63 40011 MLIHU PRINTING INC DOG REGISTRATIONS/FORM-POLICE DEPT 830.00 40012 MLIHLFULITAN WASTE CONIHLL COMTIIS DELEMHEH 87 SAC O-ARGES 70270.20 { 13 KAREN MID ACL MILEAGE 53.00 '.v014 MID-CENTER FIRE INC GLOVES-FIRE DEPT 31.50 40015 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO FLATBED TRAILER-PARK DEPT 4540.00 40016 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CCNCESSICN STAND SPPLIES-CCI1LNTIY CENTER 390.67 40017 MIDAEST MEDIA AIYERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 240.00 40018 MINNEAPOLIS SPRING & BODY INC INSTALL SIEERING ARMS/TIE ROD-EQUIP MAINT 675.00 40019 M I LLAR ONE SERVICE 83.40 40020 MINN COMM JANJARY 88 PACER SERVICE-FICE & FIRE 125.00 40021 MINNESOTA CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY ADAPTER-FIRE DEPT 20.90 40022 MINUNESOTA FODDSEHVICE EQUIPMENT C SUPPLIES-ICE ARENA 5.55 40023 MINUNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-CCMLNTIY CTR/ADS-LIQLCR 803.58 40024 RG MOLIcEN INC PAINT-POLICE DEPT 195.00 40025 W1 MFl I FR & SONS INC SAND-PARK MAINTENNCE 40.86 40026 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE FILM-ASSESSING DEPT 279.00 40027 NATIONAL SCPEENFRINT SHIRTS-CON INITY SERVICES 493.00 40028 US WEST M I LIAR INC TWO Ifl I LLAR TELEPHONES-FIRE DEPT SYtT1.00 40029 NQRTILAND BUSINESS EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 65.65 40030 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR-CITY FALL 94.70 40031 CLSEN CHAIR & CABLE CO INC BINDER CHAIN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 125.70 40032 PACE LABARATCRIES INC .uNIC=-WATER PLANT ADDITION 732.00 40033 PAGENET PAGER SERVICE-FIRE DEPT 9.90 40034 PAPER WAREHOUSE SUPPLIES-COMI LAITY CENTER 19.61 9158742 40035 PATRICK & CO DOG TAGS-CITY HALL 213.05 40036 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIP CO -COUPLERS/Hf1SF COI.FLERS/9FT/BEARINGS/ 1201.08 GASKET KIT/SHIFT ASSEMBLY/PUMP-EQUIP MAINT 40037 PET CREMATION SEHVICE SERVICE 30.00 40038 CATHY PERIA MILEAGE 9.22 40039 PERSONNEL POOL OF THE TWIN CITIES TErPORARY EMPLOYMENT-GENERAL SERVICES 67.84 )40 CONNIE PETERS MILEAGE 24.75 641 PITNEY B)..ES INC C ICE-CCtt1J'ITY CENTER 108.00 40042 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING CO INC PLLfI8INS-I-IC3EWARD HILLS BARN 1860.00 40043 POM'ER CXTPANY INC PLAQES/IHuHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 396.00 40044 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC CCPPANY INC REPAIR ETERGENCY WALL PACKS-COMMUNITY CTR 153.75 40045 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -KEYS/PLASTIC/PAINT/LETTERS/SIGNS/CLUE 339.09 -CLAWS/VELCRO/EL.ECTRIC I-EAIEH/PENS/CORD/ -STAPLES/LOCK/BOLTS/BRUSHES/SCE/PLUGS/ CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 40046 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -{WSEERS/SPARK PLUGS/SCREWS/HOOKS/NUTS 171.63 -RUBBER GLCIJES/ACRYLIC/PAINT/CLOTI-ES PINS/ -SANDPAPER/KEYS/HOSE/BULBS/STORAGE BOX/ -TI-EROhETER/TAPE/PAINT/BELTS/FANCERS- COMMINITY CENTER 40047 PRAIRIE HARRDNARE -PAINT/ICE BIT/RODS/GLOVES/MASKING TAPE 416.19 -BRUSH/SCREWS/UTILTIY BLADES/PLEXICLASS/ -ROLLERS/PLUGS/SIGNS/HANGERS/STAPLES/ DRILL BIT/FILTERS-PARKS DEPT 40048 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -CONDUIT/TAPE/PLUGS/STORAGE TRAY/CLIPS 161.92 RUBBER GLOVES/PAPER PUNCH/PAINT-SEWER DEPT 40049 PRAIRIE HARDWARENER/TAPE/LOCKS/KNOB/PLEXICLASS/PAPER 334.01 -TOWELS/BULBS/SCREWDRIVER BITS/HINGES/ -DOOR HANDLES/SKILL SAW/LATCHES/SCREWS/ SANDBAGS/PAINT LEVEL-SIHtti DEPT 40050 PRINT SHACK PRINTING-SENIOR NEWSLETTER/HOLIDAY SALUTE 815.39 40051 PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATE INC SAND-SIHtti DEPT 8.64 52 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 33.96 ,..J53 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -BLADES SHARPENED/VALVE SHINS/POINTS- 120.67 AIR OLEANRER/GASKET-ICE ARENA 40054 RADIO SHACK CABLE/ADAPTER-POLICE DEPT 7.68 40055 RC IDENTIFICATIONS INC IDENTIFICATIONS CARDS-CITY HALL 202.23 40056 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN 1988 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-LIQUOR STORE 1108.34 40057 JIM RID-ARDSON SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 19.06 40058 ROAD RESf1F INC - EQLLATCR/RESICrITATOR KIT/FIRST 881.94 RESPONDER KIT/CYLINDER-FIRE DEPT 40059 ROBBINSDALE FARM SUPPLY INC CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 208.04 40060 ROGERS StHVICE CO EQUJIPhENT REPAIR/CORE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 98.00 40061 ROLLINS OIL CO OIL-SIHh.I DEPT 6034.10 40062 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 167.49 40063 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC CANDLE LAMPS pNTIY CENTER 37.80 40064 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 180.75 40065 SATFI I ITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTRCIN`1S-PARK MAINTENANCE 156.00 40066 ERIC SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 54.00 40067 KEVIN SCI-MIEG NOVEMBER 87 EXPENSES 165.00 40068 RICK SHOFJN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 33.00 40069 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO -cAu]IATOR/VA1A M-FINANCE DEPT/SMALL 937.10 -TOOLS-POLICE DEPT/MICRCI.IAVE-STREET & PARKS DEPT/JON BOAT-WATER DEPT 1669572 40070 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC SERVICE_CTJ19UNITY LEVER .Y. FIFE STATIG'J 20456.66 40071 9-IAKOPEE FORD INC -BRAKE PADS/CABLES/SPEEL'CMEiER/FLOOR MATS/ 1106.05 40072 STEVEN R S WELL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 40073 W EVEN SMITH CO DECEMBER 87 EXPENSES 171.00 OIL/DIESEL FUEL/GREASE/PELTS-EQUIP MAINT 3062.04 40074 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC FILM/BL.LBS-CONMJNTIY CENTER 4 075 SOUT}-L€ST AUTO SUPPLY INC 62.75 -AIR COI•PRESSCR/WIFtR/BRU9£S/TEI'PERATLRE 7662.75 -CONTROL/DRAIN PLUG/BRASS FITTINGS/TAPE/ -SEAT COVEN;/GRATES/SPRINGS/BULBS/ -FILTERS/BRAKES/CIRCUIT BREAKERS/ -BATTERIES/TRASH CONTAINERS/PUMP/GAS CAN/VALVES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 40076 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING LEGAL ADS 892.64 40077 SQUARE CUT CABINETS-POLICE DEPT 1159.95 40078 EM•ETT SCARK commIY BAND DIRECTOR 505.00 40079 STATE TREASURER DECEMBER 87 BUILDING SURCHARGE 5984.33 40080 GORDON STAtFF SERVICE 213.32 40081 STEAK S MANUFACTURING CO VESTS-FIRE DEPT 144.34 40082 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE SPOTLIGHT & BRACKETS/GUNS-POLICE DEPT C2Y.40 40083 STS CONSULTANTS LTD SERVICE-WRIER PLANT ADDITION 813.13 40084 SUBURBAN CHEVRO ET -CUSHION/GASKETS/FILTER KIT/ANTI-FREEZE 425.41 -41IRROR/LEVER ASFFMBLY/CABLE BRACKET/ -CABLE/BATTERY TRAY/COIL/PUMP ASSFMBLY- EQJIPMENT MAINTENANCE 40085 SUPERIOR PLASTICS CORP PIPE/O-RINGS/COLPLINIGS-WATER DEPT 210.59 40086 NATALIE SWAGGERT DECEMBER 87 EXPENSES 165.00 40087 SYNDISTAR INC FIRE PROTECTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 160.00 40088 TAYLOR SALES INC TUNE UP KIT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 139.04 40089 TENNANT COMPANY BROOM Lott/SIDEBRUSH-PARK MAINTENANCE 672.30 40090 TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO SU FATE-WRIER DEPT 40091 THOMPSCN PLUMBING 4590.43 REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 126.5050 an092 TURF SUPPLY CO I-ERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENYNJCE a 93 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN-EQUIPMENT 13 28. OXYGEN--EQJ I PM MAINTENANCE 28.3131'sX094 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT & FIRE DEPT 40095 UNITED LABORAATCRIES INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 221.00 40096 WITDG RENTAL SCRVICES221.09 UNIFORM RENTAL-CITY EMPLOYEES 1361.65 40097 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC PLOW BOUTS & NUTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 483.60 40098 IS FIGURE SKATING ASS IATION BADGES-COM NITY CENTER 40099 U S WEST CELLULAR INC 370.25 '� I� 117.49 40100 VESSCO INC -GRIT CCtWEYOR HOUSINIGS-WATER DEPT 2736.88 40101 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 40102 VICOM INC 231.69 TELEPHONE WIRE REPAIRS-PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 5.25 40103 VIDEOIRUNIX INC 1988 VIDEO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE-PC LICE 3510.00 40104 VIKDING LABORATORIES CHEMICALS-CQ,TAI\IITY CENTER 30.40 40105 VOSS ELCTRIC CO BULBS-POLICE DEPT 108.30 40106 JIM WALTER PAPERS INC XERUX PAPER-CITY HALL 40107 WATER PRODUCTS CO265.00 8 INCH RISER-WATER DEPT 89.26 40108 WESTERN DESIGN & PRINTING BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT 40109 WEST WELD 51. WELDING & SAW SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAIM 251.3636 40110 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE 40111 WESLU 37.23 COIL-PARK MAINTENANCE 170.88 40112 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS PRINT EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER 40113 KEN WURDE 78.00 1 HOCKEY OFFICIAL/rttS PAID 78.00 7527296 40114 XEROX 40115 X SERVICE RODS/SAFETY GLASSF'S-WATER DEPT 260.50 40116 ARTHLR YOUNG 105.19 SERVICE-COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY 40117 YOUVGSTEDTS INC NHFIcl ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE1 1474.0080 "o118 SUK IL YLN EXERCISE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 4 3009.0 119 ZACKS INC 40120 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE CLEANING SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 53.52 40121 FRED ZIEBOL 1ST AID SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 15. 0 40122 ZIEGLER INC -FORK LIFT SET-PARK MAINTENANCE/WIRE .44 77 -BOLTS/SWITCH/WASHERS/CRANK/BLADES- 677.44 40123 KAY ZUCCARO EOUIPMSNT MAINTENANCE 39818 VOID OUT CHECK AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 222.50 39819 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 D 39820 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39821 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39822 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 3' 43 VOID OUT CHECK 0 00 3.71524 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 sYL125 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 3' 6 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39827 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39818 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 D 39629 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39629 VOID OUT CHECK 37.86- 39784 VOID OUT CHECK 560.51- 40002 VOID OUT CHECK 5 .00- 21121E 10.00- $1101048.71 I t6o+ January 19, 1988 Cash Disbursements by Fund Number 10 GE!•ERAL 182759.50 11 LtHTIFICATE Cr INDFRT 14419.24 j 5 LIQUOR STORE—P V M 48000.75 / LICUOR STORE PRESERVE 27895.18 31 PARK ACDIIIST & DEVELOP 46205 89 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 337503.60 39 86 FIRE STATION CONSTRUCT 108124.31 51 IM'R0VENENT CONST FD 227690.15 73 WATER FUND 35509.45 77 SEWER FUND 72492.94 87 CDBG FUND 447.50 $1101048.71 �V✓ r . . — Eden Prone Chamber of Commerce 1 • Srngletree Center 11995 Singletree Lane 14141 Eden Prau,e MN 55344 Phone 612 944 2530 •► I � r Joan P Carlson President • •�• Freaenc L tloismgton First Vice President Janice F McShea.Second Vice President Galen G Vetter.Secreta:vl➢ensurer Gerald L McCoy,Past President Mai;one D F nedencns.Executive Vice President December 15, 1987 Eden Prairie City Council City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Council Member: Re: Request for support for Developers' Forum As you are aware, the Economic Growth Committee of the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce has been studying the establishment of a Developers' Forum for Eden Prairie. The proposal is now in place and embodies the following concept: 1) The purpose of the forum is to provide an informal vehicle for communication between developers and city staff and to provide an advisory committee to the city on generic city issues. 2) Membership is open to developers, builders, and planners, engineers, and other interested persons. The organizational meeting has been set for Wednesday, January 27, 1988, 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. in the community room of Marquette Bank Eden Prairie. Because there will be a time and resource commitment on the part of the city, the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce is requesting a formal endorsement of the concept of a developers forum and support through the following: 1) Support of city manager and city planner to coordinate agenda items with forum chairperson and attendance of staff as befits agenda items; 2) An assigned council member as liaison; and 3) Maintenance of the membership list and mailing of the agendas. I!!! The Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce is committed to the growth of its members ACCREDITED and to leadership;n the development of this dynamic,progressive community. .qo 7 Since Council support prior to the organizational meeting is important, I request that this item be placed on your agenda no later than January 19, 1988. I wish to invite the entire City Council to view the organization of this forum. In addition, a representative of the Chamber will be available to attend the Council meeting when this item is on the agenda. The Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce is excited about the prospect of this forum and would like your help to get it started. Sincerely, Marjorie D. Friederichs Executive Vice President MDF:ma ;b - . Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce • Singletree Center le 11995 Sinyletree Lane %VII Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Phone 612 944-2830 •) Frederic E.Hoisin ton.President r t�,� Norman P Fnederichs,First Vice President Galen G Vetter.Second Vice President John J Brand,Secretary%treasurer Joan P Carlson,Past President Marione D,Friederichs,Executive Vice President January 13, 1988 Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Chris: Some exciting things are happening for the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, and we'd like to share them with you. As a result of the activities of the Economic Growth Committee, we are organizing an Eden Prairie Developers Forum. The purpose of the forum is two fold: 1) to provide a communications vehicle between city staff and developers; and 2) to provide an advisory body to the city staff. Membership is open to developers, land planners, architects, contractors and other interested persons. For the first organizational meeting some invitations have been sent to people like yourself. We think you'll like the Forum and encourage you to attend. The first meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 27. 1988 at 7:30 a.m. in the Community Room of Marquette Bank Eden Prairie. 6640 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie. Please use the underground parking facilities and enter through the underground door. You may make your reservations by calling the Chamber office at 944-2830. Sincerely. y QEZ Marione D. Friederichs Executive Vice President MDF/ma As !!!!! the a aggressive voice of business in Eden Prairie,the Chamber of Commerce is committed to supporting ACCREDITED and enhancing the quality of growth and development in the community through partnersmp opportunities for business interests. .... a� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie G jr' SUBJECT: Storage of Recreational Vehicles DATE: January 15, 1988 The attached memo from Jean Johnson explains our research regarding storage of recreational vehicles in residential districts. We find that at least 12% of our residential lots do have outside storage of recreational vehicles. Such outside storage seems to present problems only when the vehicles are very large and conspicuous because of poor condition or type of covering. Many cities do have ordinances regulating such outside storage. It is our recommendation that the Council direct staff to prepare the draft of an ordinance for regulating outside storage of recreational vehicles incorporating the following: 1) Recreational vehicles not more than 7 feet in height may be stored in side yard or rear yard setback areas; 2) Vehicles higher than 7 feet may be stored in the buildable portions of the lot only; and 3) The maximum number of vehicles so stored shall not exceed two per lot. If a new ordinance is adopted, the City Attorney reports that most likely some form of "grandfathering" would be applicable to any existing outside storage situations. Since this ordinance would be an amendment to Chapter 11, a public hearing would be required prior to adoption of the ordinance. CJJ:jdp )u MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 4, 1988 RE: Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Districts City Zoning Code does not define recreational vehicles or regulate their placement on residential lots. Staff does receive inquiries from individuals contemplating a home in Eden Prairie, who wish to park their boat or camper on the lot and inquiries from residents objecting to the recreational vehicles. If Staff receives a complaint about a vehicle parked upon the grass in a front yard, the owner is requested to relocate the vehicle to the drive, garage, or another part of the yard. If a complaint is received about a recreational vehicle upon a driveway and projecting over a sidewalk or curb, the owner is requested to correct the situation. In Eden Prairie sees Residents own snowmobiles, smallfishi full ngboats,nelarge day of rcruisers, smallland large sailboats, canoes, pop-up campers, tow campers, motor homes, all terrain vehicles, hunting vehicles, trailers, etc. In some instances, the parking is seasonal because some boats are taken to lakes in the summer. Recreational vehicles are found parked upon driveways, in sideyards, in rear yards, under decks, and occasionally in front yards. They are rarely found in garages, because of automobile storage and because the size of some recreational units are too large for a standard size garage stall. When homes are built out to the 5 or 10 foot sideyard setbacks insufficient space may remain to store recreational vehicles on the sideyard or to manuever them to the rear yard. Steep slopes on sides and rear can also prevent some homeowners from using these areas for storage. At the end of this memo is a fictional scenario of recreational vehicle parking. r 11 t Staff did a random survey in December, 1987 of 15 Eden Prairie neighborhoods to compile information on the number of households which do park recreational vehicles outside and where they are parked. The following chart outlines what we found. Area Number of Lots Lots With Rec. Location of Rec. in Area Vehicles Vehicles Front Side Rear 1. Dellwood 90 11 6 2 3 2. High Trail 54 6 4 0 2 Estates 3. Edenvale 5th 16 3 2 0 1 Edenvale 10th 40 3 2 0 1 4. Kings Forest 55 10 5 4 1 5. Arbor Glen 49 0 0 0 0 6. Willow Creek 25 5 1 2 2 ( 7. Valewoods 49 3 1 0 2 8. Lake Trail 44 7 4 1 2 Estates 9. Eickholt/Brace's 23 6 1 3 2 Bit 10. Lake Eden South 83 9 1 6 2 11. Northmark I 28 2 1 1 12. Olympic Hills 13 3 2 1 13. Bluffs West 33 5 2 3 14. Yorkshire Point 27 4 1 1 I 2 15. Crestwood 44 7 2 4 2 212 • �.o 111111111111.11111111©11111311.11.1o'�"va�v_ •0 TO, r.. ; ,,..'4'-_. ` i' (,���/// .a �!Kw 'ice' �� A t ;#5 C ,..),, isi goo me i atjrrf E r•TCU'',L y E —"*. 7 1 'It .. Ilia mace -sme �i. / T. Ql 11 A 'Ant:„,1? r i �� F / _., ...:. .,_. '' r .17-4,,,v? H . K iniam©©mca��'o,�vv�n l I . 2 13 The count of lots with recreational vehicles may be low because this was a windshield survey done from the street and it is difficult to see the entire side and rear yards of some lots. Of the 673 lots in this windshield survey 84 lots (12%) did have recreational vehicles stored outside. A direct. comparison to the 7,000 single family lots in Eden Prairie would indicate an estimated 873 lots in the City with some type of outside recreational vehicle storage. At the end of this memo is a diagram illustrating some neighborhood scenarios. If residents were not allowed to park recreational vehicles in Residential Districts they would need to find storage space elsewhere. Some residents would apply for permits to construct storage buildings or detached garages in their rear yards to house their recreational vehicles. Staff receives approximately 20 - 25 inquiries a year about recreational vehicles storage. If an ordinance is adopted limiting or prohibiting such storage, I would estimate 100+ complaints/year would be received. This would increase the Zoning Administration case load by 40%. The case load increase annually because of infill and growth is 25%. Staff checked with the cities of Minnetonka, Maple Grove, Chanhassen, Edina, and Bloomington to learn how they are regulating recreational vehicles. Their situations are as follows: Minnetonka Allows up to 4 units (includes boats, trailers, campers, etc.) outside on a residential lot. If a unit is parked in the front yard, it is to be placed upon the hard-surfaced area. Units can also be parked in side or rear yards with no minimum setback from the property lines. All units are to be owned by the household. The Minnetonka ordinance is about 6 months old and is enforced by building inspectors in the Community Development Department. Maple Grove Does not regulate recreational vehicles in residential districts. Chanhassen Allows recreational vehicles in side or rear yards. If a vehicle is parked in the front it must be screened. The Chanhassen Planning Department reviews vehicle parking on a complaint basis. Edina Allows one recreational vehicle per dwelling unit. The vehicle is to be parked on the driveway and maintain a 15 foot setback from the street and 5 foot setback from the side property line. Bloomington Allows recreational vehicles less than 7 feet in height to be stored in side yards or rear yards. Vehicles in excess of 7 feet are permitted if they meet the building setback minimums. all i IC.-10:31 2/,:::;2 ? NEIGHBORHOOD SCENARIDS N 411111: rCN2 OP 1 Lot 1 has parked in the side yard a small camper. If lot 2 has garage space adjacent to this sideyard the parked camper will pro- bably not concern the neighbor. Y] Lot 2 has a large cabin cruiser in the rear it yard. A boat such as this may impact I . homeowners on lots 3,6,7 & 8. o 64 Lot h has parked upon the driveway a large boat which fills the area from the garage to the curb. A large boat on a driveway can dominate the 'streetscape'. The side and — rear yard of this lot could be too steep to locate the boat in the side or rear yard. gill Lot 5 has a small sailboat on the driveway. This type of storage is not the type the staff usually receives a complaint on. Lot 1D has a small sailboat in the side yard. N This can be of concern to the homeowner on lot 9 if living or dining room windows face ❑ that direction. Ji Lot 11 has a small boat on the driveway and one parked in the side yard. If the boats are well maintained complaints may not be received. al W Li Lot 13 has 3 recreational units, a fishing boat, a sailboat , and a camper. Even though the units are in the side and rear yard, they may impact the views from windows of homes on lots 9,10,17& 18. Lot 15 has a sailboat in the sideyard and a "' p hunting vehicle parked in the rear. Because the Cillri sailboat is small and a heavy stand of trees —irli separate lot 15's rear yard from other yards, complaints would not be expected. , ►�a § 19.45 8LOUMINGION CITY CODE § 19.50 or unloading or rendering a service. No more than one commercial vehicle shall be parked on or adjacent to a platted residential lot at any time except when loading or unloading or rendering a service. The word "platted" as used in this section shall include actual plats, registered land surveys, and auditor's subdivisions. (Code, 1958 § 8.09; Village Ord. No. 179. 3-16-59; Ord. No. 54. 12-18-61. renumbered to § 8.06; Ord. No. 77-47, 8-8-77; Ord. No. 78-46, 6-10-78) • SEC. 19.46. TENTS. No tents shall be erected, maintained or used in any nonresidential district unless the owner or occupant of the premises where the tent is to be placed shall first be issued a con- ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of this Chapter. (Code, 1958 § 8.07: Added by Ord. No. 54, 12-18-6I; Ord. No. 64-62, 7-20-64) I, SEC. 19.47. HEIGHT. In all residential districts, the required setback shall be increased by two feet for each foot of height of the structure over 25 feet. 'I (Code, 1958 § 8.08; Added by Ord. No. 54, 12-18-61) SEC. 19.48. EXCEPTIONS TO MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS. . (a) In districts where restaurants are allowed as permitted or conditional uses and the 'I minimum floor area requirements of the district for the principal building are in excess of 10.000 square feet, the minimum floor area requirements for restaurants is 10,000 square feet. If, however, the restaurant is included in or is a part of a principal building which meets the minimum floor area requirements of Section 19.41 of this Code, there shall be no required mini- mum floor area for that restaurant. • (b) The minimum floor area requirements of Section 19.42(c) shall not be applicable to: (1) Planned business developments, or (2) Gasoline service stations when they are included in an integrated roadside deve- lopment. (Code, 1958 § 8.09; Added by Ord. No. 64-17, 3-2-64; Ord. No. 73-53, 8-20.73; Ord. No. 74-44, 5-20-74) SEC. 19.49. EXCEPTIONS TO CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. ( When a building is sought to he erected in any zoning district by a governmental agency for the purpose of storage of chemical road materials, to protect against any adverse impact ' which might be caused by such outside storage, the construction requirements of the zoning 1 district in which the building is to he located need not be complied with so long as the pro- posed building has been reviewed by the Planning Connission and has been approved by the City Council as: (1) Necessary for environmental protection; . • (2) Not contrary to the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the building is to be erected; (3) Not having an appearance which will adversely affect adjacent uses: (4) Having the building sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adja- cent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and so that there will he no deterrence to development of vacant land. (Code, 1958 6 8.10; Added by Ord. No. 74-41, 5-20-74) ARTICLE V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SEC. 19.50. EXTERIOR STORAGE. • (a) In R__(Resi_dential) Districts - TIT -ATT ma[en als, ma amine ry and equipment shall be stored within a building or • fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining or adjacent lands, except for the following: laundry drying and recreational equipment; construction materials, machinery and equipment currently being used on the premises; landscaping and agricultural equipment and machinery currently being used or intended for use on the premises; off-street parking of passenger • mobiles and pick-up trucks; trash and garbage receptacles. 2) Major recreational equipme8,t, defined for the purposes of this Article as travel trailers, ckup campers or coaches, motorized dwellings, tent trailers, boats end boat • trailers, less than seven feet in height above the ground may be stored in any side or rear yard except when such yard is adjacent to a street. In addition to the general seven-foot • height permitted, minor portions of such equipment not exceeding four square feet in vertical cross-section as viewed from the adjacent lot line is permitted. Exterior storage of such • equipment which is seven feet or more in average height above the ground is prohibited except in the buildable portion of a lot. No major recreational equipment shall be used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes when stored on a residential lot. No such equipment shall be stored out of doors on residential premises unless it is in condition for safe and effective • performance of the function for which it is intended or can be made so at a cost not exceeding the value of the equipment in its existing state; in no event shall any such equipment be so stored for a period of more than 90 days if not in condition for safe and efficient performance of its intended function. .3 I.; t.igu .wu LuiivrZ ORO. /03/-A/ (c)' Recreational Vehicles: campers, pickups with campers or mounted toppers, mobile homes, all terrain vehicles, marine craft, camping trai- lers, and snowmobiles. Also a trailer used to . transport recreational vehicles shall itself ( be a recreational vehicle under this ordinance. • (d) Hard Surfaced: all-weather, durable, dust ( - free surfacing material. • (e) Screen: An opaque fence at least the height of the recreational vehicle and of a design, color and material similar to the house or garage to which it is adjacent. 2. Permitted Storage. ( Numerical Zoning Permitted Restrictions on Type of Vehicle Districts Location Permitted Vehicles C. (a) Automobiles; motor- R1, R2, On the driveway No restriction. cycles; or trucks, PRD 1-2 not within 15 pickups or vans feet of street under 9,000 pounds. curb and not within 5 feet of lot line. - R 1-5, In a garage or No restriction. ( PRD 1-5 other lawfully con- structed building. R 3-5, On any hard sur- No restriction. PRD 3-5 faced area. Recreational R1, R2, On the driveway One vehicle per dwelling vehicles. PRD 1-2 not within 15 ft. unit. When recreational of street curb vehicle(s) on trailer, and not within 5 the trailer and vehicle(s) ft. of the lot shall be considered one line. vehicle. R 1-5, In a garage or No restriction. PRD 1-5 other totally en- C closed, lawfully constructed buil- ding. R 3-5, On any hard sur- One vehicle per PRD 3-5 faced area. dwelling unit. (c) Commercial usage All resi- In a garage or No restriction. vehicles and dential other lawfully unmounted campers constructed buil- and toppers. ding. ( i . 11 U b• -ya /"7/42/e'rh77/CU • S1 ifj-Pred and other-wiRe in ightly arPac,_ (cl_nreventzthe_full use of residential streets for residential Parking. (dl introduces commercial advertising signs into areas where commercial advertising signs are otherwise prohibited. (el decreases adjoining landowners and occupants' enjoyment of their property and neighborhood. and (f) otherwise adversely affects property values and neighborhood patterns. IInlawfiil Parking and Storage. A.. No Person may place. store. or allow the placement or storage of ice fish houses . skateboard ramps. playhouses or other similar non-permanent structures outside continuously for longer than 24 hours in the front-yard area of residentially-zoned property. unless more than 100 feet back from the front property line. No person may place, store, or allow the placement or storage of pipe. lumber. forms. steel. machinery. or similar materials, including all materials used in connection with a business . outside oR residentially-zoned property. unless shielded from public view by an ooagye cover or fence. No Person shall cause. undertake. Permit or allow the • outside Parking and storage of vehicles on residentially-zoned Property unless it complies with the following requirements: O No more than four vehicles per lawful dwelling unit may be parked or stored anywhere outside oR R-1 and R-2 zoned property. excluding vehicles of occasional guests who do not reside on the . property. L.. Vehicles which are parked or stored outside in the front-yard area must be on a paved or graveled parking or driveway area. in. All vehicles. watercraft, and other articles stored outside on residential property must be owned by a Person who resides on that property. Students who are away at school for periods of time but still claim the property as their legal residence shall be considered residents_ on the property. d.. No person owning, driving or in charge of any vehicle with a weight classification G through T inclusive, as specified in Minn.. Stat. S168.013. Subd. le. may cause or permit that vehicle to be .parked outside or to stand continuously for rare than two hours on any property or public street within a residential zone in the city. 4, Exceptions. The prohibitions of this section shall not apply to the following. s ' CITY OFFICES 17600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE 1 EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344.36771 TELEPHONE(612)937-2262 ECIert December 17, 1987 Mrs. Bernadine Moser 7263 Topview Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Subject: Petition Letter Dear Mrs. Moser: I have received your petition letter of December 10 regarding storage in setback areas. Please be advised that the City Council has also received this petition and has directed staff to report back to the City Council on January 19 with our recommendations for any Ordinance changes. Staff will be researching this issue and looking at Ordinances from other communities to help formulate our recommendations. In the meantime, we will attempt to contact the owners of the large boat in your neighborhood to see if we can address that specific problem more quickly. Sincerely Carl J. fie City Man CJJ:jdp cc: Mr. & Mrs. Michael McCosky Jim & Janice P. Beaulieu Mr. & Mrs. Robert A. Hede Mr. & Mrs. Robert Grant Mr. & Mrs. Alvin J. Bren Susan Salzl Dee Miller Ron & Karen Oswald Larry & Grace Kleven Doris Jacobson Jeanne & Simon Root Cheryl & Robert Campbell Leonard & Lorris Barczak Geraldine Koehler z � December 10, 1987 Mr. Carl Julie City Manager Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Julie: As residents of Topview Acres in Eden Prairie, an area of single family homes, we wish to propose that an ordinance be put forth regulating the size, type, quantity and length of time that recreational, sport and miscellaneous equipment can be stored on one's property. An example of our concern is a "Lake Superior" type boat being stored at 7275 Topview Road. It is approximately 30 feet long, 20 feet high, and is covered by a bright blue plastic tarp. This is clearly visible for at least two blocks. Also, at this resi- dence there is a snowmobile on a trailer and another boat on a trailer being stored on a long term basis. Communities surrounding Eden Prairie have ordinances regulating such storage. Examples are Edina and Bloomington. Also, local areas, as the Preserve and Cardinal Creek, have restrictions governing this kind of situation. Why is it that one area of Eden Prairie has regulations and another doesn't? A city ordinance would eliminate such inequities and unify our city's appearance. Eden Prairie is developing a reputation as a beautiful and prime area in which to live. If situations like the one described at 7275 Topview Road are allowed to continue ungoverned it will foster more storage of all kinds of material. The neighborhood's appearance will suffer dramatically and property values will fall. We ask the City Council, City Manager, and all concerned officials to put foreward a definitive plan designed to eliminate this type of storage. If other city governments have had the foresight to protect their constituent's investments, ought not Eden Prairie do the same? Respectfully, )•r.f-+ /cr J - 71 L 3 ry r21!-d. 77,:aa.L 722E 4 i1127- Tam/ i 07-21;-c.w • cc: Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Patricia Pidcock, Councilmember Richard Anderson, Councilmember Dr. Jean Harris, Councilmember George Bentley, Councilmember z^o C•,(o We the undersigned agree and support the accompanying letter pertaining to storage and parking of recreational vehicles in the Topview area and all of Eden Prairie... 7233 2)-,2/v-th,-) A-ze . - 1\iZS KL461-4/1 19.03- iicu2b,.) a. k ))1,z, a i• 9, 'I ,1141' 't1 (:"a I"; ) 5f) 1-•\'` • ••- •-\ -713 ‘,4 )CT. • e j —.7 ( ,) , /) 2.29/ , 22.( MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 'Pt' DATE: January 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Updating the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide Enclosed is a copy of the proposed RFP for updating the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide. It has been ten years since the Comprehensive Park Man has been updated. City staff is recommending the City hire a consultant to lead the City through the process of updating the Comprehensive Park Nan and Development Guide. This process would include a random sample survey of the community, as well neighborhood meetings to obtain public input into this process. The estimated timetable for completion is September 1, 1988. Staff does not have a cost estimate for this project, but would recommend funding this project through cash park fees. BL:md 222 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL UPDATE THE EDEN PRAIRIE COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDE TIMETABLE: Deadline for receiving RFP's is February 12, 1988. Interview prospective candidates week of February 15th. Council to give notice to proceed March 1st. Completion of updated plan by August 31, 1988. PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST: The original Comprehensive Park Plan was included in the City Guide Plan developed in 1968. The Guide Plan was updated in 1978, at which time a more detailed Compehensive Park Plan was developed. With the rapid changes that are being made each year to the City of Eden Prairie, updating the park plan is well overdue. As the community grows, the need for park and open space systems continues to change. The City must look at the community to determine changes which will influence the updated park development plan. This will be accomplished by the completion of a survey to assess perceived needs, as well as input and comments from citizens through a series of public meetings. SCOPE OF THE WORK: To provide a bound report updating the Eden Prairie Compehensive Park Plan and Development Guide including: A. Conduct a random sample Needs Assessment Survey to determine priority needs of the park and open space system in regards to active and passive parks, recreation facilities, special use facilities, trails and historic sites. B. Update the chapters including: classification, inventory, goals, policies, and recommendations for the following: park and conservation areas, water resources, trail systems, historic sites, special use facilities, other governmental agency parks and open space, public/private recreation. C. Update the Eden Prairie Park and Recreation System Standards and provide a summary of needs for the five year outlook and ten year outlook. D. Provide a list of priorities for acquisition and development. E. Provide a funding and implementation plan. F. Provide a standardized set of reproducible, illustrative plans at 100 scale that can be reduced to fit on an 8 1/2"x11" page. 223 G. Review and update the goals and policies for park development, trail development and maintenance. The majority of this work has been completed in draft form but will need to be evaluated and updated based on information received from the Needs Assessments Survey and public hearings. EVALUATION CRITERIA: Proposals will be reviewed based on the following: A. Review of similar Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plans that have been completed by the proponent. B. Review surveys that have been completed by the proponent and the proposed methodology for this survey. C. Review of the proposed process and effectiveness for obtaining input through the neighborhood public meetings. D. Comparison of the fees to be charged for this project. E. Graphic Presentation. F. Writing style and clarity. PROPOSAL FORMAT: The proposal should include members of the project team, their profiles and relative experience on similar projects. Proposals should also include names and examples of similar projects, as well as the name of the individual in charge of those projects. The proposal should also include an explanation of how the Needs Assessment Survey will be completed, if any other consultant firms will be used in this survey process, and a detailed explanation of how neighborhood meetings will be conducted in order to obtain public input. The procedure and time sequence your firm will follow to complete this project by August 31, 19BB should be included. Explain your fees to complete this project and provide a not to exceed fee. DEADLINE FOR THE RFP's: The deadline for accepting proposals is February 12, 1988. 2 �l SELECTION PROCESS: The committee will review all RFP's and select several firms for an interview. The firm will be asked to give a brief presentation on projects of similar requirements and explain who would be working on the project and how he/she would proceed to meet the needs described in this RFP. A final recommendation will be made to the City Council. The City Council has final authority to approve or reject all applications. The proposed date for Council review is March 1, 1988. CONTACT PERSON: Project Director from the City will be Barbara Cross, Landscape Architect. Telephone Number - 937-2262, ext. 273. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: January 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agreement for Adaptive Recreation Services Enclosed is a copy of the Adaptive Recreation Services Agreement Between the City of Richfield, the City of Eden Prairie and Edina for the providing adaptive recreation services. With this agreement the City of Eden Prairie agrees to pay the City of Richfield at a rate of $25,000 for a full calendar year of recreation services, the amount will be prorated if less than a full calendar year of services are provided. The agreement also calls for a review of the services provided at the end of the year to determine if this arrangement shall continue to the following year. The recreation directors or their assigned staff persons would meet at least twice a year to review the manner in which adaptive recreation services are provided. The first document is the Adaptive Recreation Services Agreement; the second document is a Joint Powers Agreement that forms a South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board Between the Cities of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie, and Richfield. This Adaptive Recreation Board will review the adaptive recreation programs that are being provided to these four cities, and will make recommendations to the recreation staff regarding programs and services provided. The Recreation Directors or their desingated staff person will serve on this board. During the first year of this board, the Director of Community Services will represent the City of Eden Prairie. This board will continue from year to year unless the City determines to withdraw at the end of each year. The Humans Services Staff, the Community Services Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed these documents and recommend approval. BL:mdd 22(0 • 1/8/88 JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON, EDINA, EDEN PRAIRIE AND RICHFIELD SOUTH SUBURBAN ADAPTIVE RECREATION BOARD I. PARTIES: The Parties to this Agreement are the following cities located in Hennepin County, Minnesota: City of Bloomington City of Edina City of Eden Prairie City of Richfield II. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Parties to this Agreement, sometimes herein referred to as "Cities," desire to cooperate in providing Adaptive Recreation Programs and related services for disabled persons including, but not limited to, persons who are physically disabled, hearing im- paired, chronically mentally ill, learning disabled or mentally handicapped. The Parties believe that Adaptive Recreation Programs for such persons can be provided on a more efficient basis with programs of higher quality and with broader participa- tion if the Cities act jointly and cooperatively in providing the programs. It is the purpose of this Agreement to provide the framework and authority for such joint and cooperative action. This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted by Minn. Stat. S471.59. -1 III. CONTRACT PROVISIONS: In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as herein set forth the Parties contract and agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. Definitions. Section 1. For the purposes of this Agreement terms defined in this article have the meanings given them. Sec. 2. "Adaptive Recreation Programs" means recreation programs for disabled persons coordinated and conducted under the auspices of the South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board created under this Agreement. Sec. 3. "Board Member" or "Member" means a person repre- senting a Party on the Board. Sec. 4. "City Council" means the governing body of a Party. Sec. 5. "Party" means any of the Cities which enter into this Agreement and have not thereafter withdrawn from participa- tion. Sec. 6. "South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board" or "Board" means the joint powers organization created under this Agreement. ARTICLE 2. Board Section 1. The Board shall consist of the Board Members designated by the Parties. The Board is responsible for develop- ing, coordinating and conducting Adaptive Recreation Programs for disabled residents of the Cities. Sec. 2. Each Party is entitled to one Board Member. Each 2 22 2 Member has one vote and proxy voting is not permitted. Unless the City Council of any Party shall designate some other person to serve as its Member on the Board, the membership of the Board shall be as follows: Bloomington's Member shall be its Park and Recreation Manager; Edina's Member shall be either the Director of its Park and Recreation Department or, if he or she declines to serve, its Assistant Director of Park and Recreation; Eden Prairie's Member shall be its Director of Community Services or, if he or she declines to serve, its Recreation Supervisor; and Richfield's Member shall be its Recreation Program Coordinator. Sec. 3. Members serve without compensation from the Board. Sec. 4. A quorum of the Members consists of a majority of the Members. Sec. 5. A vacancy in the office of a Party's Member is filled by the City Council whose membership on the Board is vacant. Unless and until the Party's City Council fills the vacancy with some other appointee, the person serving in an acting capacity in the position named in Section 2 of this article shall act as that Party's Member on the Board. In the event of a vacancy in any office of the Board, the Board shall fill the vacancy in that office. ARTICLE 3. Officers and Board Procedures Section 1. At the original meeting of the Board and in February of each year thereafter, the Board shall elect from its Members a chair, a vice chair, a secretary and other officers it deems necessary or advisable. 3 2211 Sec. 2. The Board shall adopt and it may from time to time amend rules and regulations governing its procedures including such matters as the time, place and frequency of its regular meetings and the manner of calling special meetings. Such rules and regulations shall provide for an annual organizational meeting of the Board in February of each year. ARTICLE 4. Board Authority Section 1. The powers and duties of the Board and the limitations thereof are as set forth in this Article. Sec. 2. It shall develop, coordinate and conduct Adaptive Recreation Programs for disabled persons residing within the Cities and for non-residents where practicable and desirable. Sec. 3. It may impose reasonable charges for participation in any of its Adaptive Recreation Programs. It may make its programs available to persons not residing in the Cities and, in such event, it may impose reasonable participation charges upon such non-resident participants which are greater than the charges imposed upon residents of the Cities. Sec. 4. It shall coordinate planning for joint and cooper- ative action among the Parties in providing Adaptive Recreation Programs. Sec. 5. It may provide cooperative advertising and pro- motion of its programs within the Cities. Sec. 6. It shall coordinate and arrange for the use of the facilities of the Parties, without cost to the other Parties, whenever practicable, as locations for its programs. 4 a30 Sec. 7. It shall coordinate and arrange for the use of the staff personnel of the Parties to conduct its programs without cost to any of the other Parties whenever practicable. Sec. 8. It shall moke recommendations to the Parties concerning ways in which the Parties can assist in the providing of personnel and facilities for the conduct of its programs. It is agreed, however, that a Party's providing of personnel or facilities, or both, for programs of the Board is to be voluntary on the part of each Party. Sec. 9. It may adopt regulations governing participation in its programs. Such regulations may include restrictions upon participation in its programs where deemed necessary to equalize opportunity to participate and to avoid having residents of any one community or place of residence preempt participation in a particular program. Sec. 10. It may establish procedures for registration for and participation in its programs. In so doing it may condition a person's participation in a program upon the waiving of poten- tial claims of liability against the Board, the Parties and their officers, agents, officials and employees. Sec. 11. It may cooperate with and make use of the person- nel and facilities of institutions and agencies providing service to the disabled. Sec. 12. It may coordinate and arrange for transportation of participants in its programs. 5 Sec. 13. It may create one or more advisory committees such as a parent/professional/consumer committee to advise it in the formulation and conduct of its programs. Sec. 14. It is not authorized to hire employees, rent or purchase facilities or make other expenditures in the discharge of its responsibilities nor may it bind Parties to take any such actions, but such actions may be taken voluntarily by any or all of the Parties pursuant to City Council authorization. Sec. 15. It shall make a report of its activities to the Parties at least once each year. Such report may include rec- ommendations for amendments to this Agreement deemed desirable to enhance the effectiveness of the Board in accomplishing its purposes. Its books and records shall be available and open to examination by authorized representatives of the Parties at all reasonable times. Sec. 16. It may apply for and accept gifts and grants in support of its programs and related activities. Sec. 17. It may purchase customary liability insurance covering its activities. ARTICLE 5. Employer Responsibility Each Party shall retain employer's responsibility and liability for any of its employees who engage in the activities of the Board and/or the conduct of its programs. ARTICLE 6. Financial Matters Section 1. The Parties are not expected to provide public funds directly to the Board to carry out the purposes of this Agreement other than for the purchase of insurance as 6 2�2 provided in the foregoing Article 4, Section 18. In the event that the Parties should decide to provide direct public funding to the Board, funds so provided, as well as any other funds coming to the Board (such as user fees), shall be disbursed by the Board, as far as practicable, in accordance with the methods provided by law for the disbursement of funds by Optional Plan B statutory cities. Any contracts let or purchases made by the Board shall also conform with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of such cities. There shall be strict accountability for all funds and a report of all receipts and disbursements, by the Board, in the same manner as is required by law for the accounting of funds of each of the Parties. Sec. 2. No Member shall voluntarily have a personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in any purchase or contract of the Board. Sec. 3. Each Party assumes responsibility for its own facilities and its staff regardless of where staff services are provided and each Party shall have responsibility to insure itself against liability claims arising out of or by reason of the use of its facilities or staff in the conduct of the Board's programs. It shall indemnify and hold harmless each of the other Parties against any such claims or costs or expenses of defending the same. ARTICLE 7. Duration; Withdrawal Section 1. The Board shall continue from year to year unless only one Party remains. 7 23 Sec. 2. Withdrawal of a Party from the Board at the end of January of any year may be accomplished by the Party's filing a written notice thereof with the Board by July 31 of the preceding year, giving notice of withdrawal as of the following January 31. The withdrawing Party shall continue to be a Party to this Agreement until the effective date of such notice of withdrawal. Sec. 3. If a Party withdraws from the Board before the termination of the Board and if the Board has any assets, the withdrawing Party shall have no claim to any such assets. If the Board is terminated by mutual agreement by all of the Parties, however, any assets of the Board shall be returned to the Parties in proportion to their respective cash contributions, if any, after paying all costs connected with the activities of the Board and the termination of its affairs. ARTICLE 8. Effectiveness of Agreement This Agreement is effective on the date on which a fully executed copy of this Agreement, together with a certified copy of a City Council resolution of each of the Parties authorizing its execution, is filed with the city clerk of the City of Rich- field. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counter- parts each of which may be considered an original copy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the date duly indicated opposite their signatures. 8 „?)y CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Date: By Its By Its City Manager CITY OF EDINA Date: By Its By Its City Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Date: By Its By Its City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Date: By Its By Its City Manager 0055AA01 9 n3 1/8/88 I ADAPTIVE RECREATION SERVICES AGREEMENT PARTIES: The parties to this agreement are: CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Richfield"), a Minnesota municipal corporation, having its principal offices at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, and CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ("Eden Prairie") , a Minnesota munici- pal corporation, having its principal offices at 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344, and CITY OF EDINA ("Edina"), a Minnesota municipal corporation, having its principal offices at 4801 W. 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The parties to this agreement, together with the City of Bloomington, have entered into an agreement entitled "JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT/CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON, EDINA, EDEN PRAIRIE AND RICHFIELD/SOUTH SUBURBAN ADAPTIVE RECREATION BOARD", herein- after called "the Joint Powers Agreement". The Joint Powers Agreement provides for the joint and cooperative development, coordination and conduct of the recreation programs for disabled persons in the cities which are signatories to that agreement. The agreement contemplates that each party will be responsible for providing, at its own expense, the administrative and program personnel required for it to provide its share of the staffing for the adaptive recreation programs conducted under the Joint and Cooperative Agreement. Eden Prairie and Edina do not now have administrative personnel who can provide the services necessary to supervise and direct their adaptive recreation programs. They desire to contract with Richfield to provide such personnel subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. This agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. CONTRACT PROVISIONS: In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as hereinafter set forth, the parties therefor contract and agree as follows: 1. Eden Prairie and Edina hereby engage Richfield to provide and Richfield agrees to provide them with adaptive recreation program administrative services on the basis hereinaf- ter set forth. 2. Such services shall be provided by Richfield acting as an independent contractor by providing one full-time employee of Richfield who shall act as adaptive recreation supervisor. The person designated by Richfield to provide such services shall be an employee of Richfield for all purposes including workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, income taxation and fringe benefits. The position shall be evaluated annually to determine if it will be continued for the next ensuing year. The person engaged is hereinafter referred to as the "Supervisor". 3. The Supervisor will have responsibility for conducting a program survey and developing, coordinating and administrating adaptive recreation programs in behalf of the Cities of Eden Prairie and Edina, in cooperation with the appropriate staff members of the Cities of Bloomington and Richfield. At the end of the year the Supervisor will provide a summary report relating to the number of individuals served in various programs from each community. 4. Office space, clerical support and supplies for the Supervisor shall be provided by Richfield at the Richfield Community Center. 5. Richfield shall keep the assigned staff persons of the Cities of Eden Prairie and Edina advised of the Supervisor's activities on behalf of those cities on a quarterly basis. 6. For such services provided by Richfield to Eden Prairie and Edina during the year 1988, Eden Prairie and Edina shall pay Richfield at an annual rate of Fifty Thousand and no/hundredths Dollars ($50,000.00). If less than a full calendar year of services are provided in 1988, the items of expense shall be prorated where appropriate. One quarter of the sum payable to Richfield shall be paid to Richfield by each of the other parties on or before January 31, 1988, and a like sum shall be paid by each of them on or before July 31, 1988. Such sum is based upon the "1988 Edina/Eden Prairie Adaptive Budget" attached hereto. 7. For 1989 and subsequent years Eden Prairie and Edina shall pay Richfield on the basis of cost-sharing to be determined each year in the following manner: 2 :,3/ Each year, on or before August 1, commencing with the year 1988, -Richfield, in consultation with Eden Prairie and Edina, shall make an estimate of the total costs Richfield will incur in the ensuing year in providing adaptive recreation staff and adminis- trative services to Eden Prairie and Edina and shall notify them in writing of its estimate of such total annual costs for the ensuing year. On or before September 1st of the same year Eden Prairie and Edina shall notify Richfield in writing as to whether or not they are agreeable to the continuation of this contract for the ensuing calendar year at the costs estimated by Richfield. If the parties determine to continue the contract for the ensuing year, the payment of their respective shares of the costs shall be made by Eden Prairie and Edina to Richfield in two equal installments on or before January 31 and July 31 of the ensuing calendar year. Richfield agrees that it will provide Eden Prairie and Edina with any documentation it has in support of its proposed annual budget for 1989 and any subsequent year, showing the basis for any estimates or calculations of cost. 8. This agreement shall be effective for the year 1988 upon its duly authorized execution by the parties. It shall continue in force from year to year subject to termination by any party. Such termination shall be effected by serving mailed notice thereof upon the other party no later than September 1st of the year at the end of which such termination is to be effec- tive. 9. Termination of the agreement by any party at the end of the calendar year shall not affect the obligation of any party to perform the agreement for and during the period that the agree- ment remains in effect. 10. The recreation directors or assigned staff persons of the parties to the agreement shall meet at least twice each year to review the manner in which Eden. Prairie and Edina are being provided with adaptive recreation program services under this agreement. 11. Each of the parties agrees that it will cooperate fully and in a timely manner to facilitate and accomplish the purposes of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this 3 z�� agreement to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the date duly indicated opposite their signatures. CITY OF RICHFIELD Date: By Its By Its City Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Date: By Its By Its City Manager CITY OF EDINA Date: By Its By Its City Manager 0055AA03L04 4 a�(4 1988 EDINA/EDEN PRAIRIE ADAPTIVE RECREATION BUDGET ( (In accordance with Adaptive Recreation Services Agreement) Edina/Eden Prairie Adaptive Programmer $23,000 Community Center Manager (10%) 3,400 ARLE Committee Advisor 1,000 • Senior Clerk Typist (5%) 788 Joint Powers Board Insurance 1,430 Part Time Staff/Program Subsidies 5,000 Fringe Benefits (33%) 7,590 Office Supplies 300 Photo Copy 200 General Supplies/Staff Participation 890 Mileage 1,200 Postage 200 Printing 500 Office Rental 1,200 Transportation 600 Telephone (plus phone installation) 900 Conferences 302 Memberships 250 Office Furnishings (one-time charge) 1,250 $50,000 200 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST January 19, 1988 CONTRACTOR (MULTI_FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING Centurion Company Advanced Plumbing & Heating Donlar Construction Company All-American Mechanical, Inc. Dolphin Construction, Inc. Associated Mechanical Contractors E.D.M. Construction B & D Plumbing & Heating Hage & Company Berghorst Plumbing & Heating Hustad Development Budget Plumbing Corporation Johnson Beck Construction Elander Plumbing Koosmans Home Sales Glendale Contracting, Inc. Knutson Construction Co. Jerry's Plumbing D. J. Kranz, Inc. Nybo-Peterson Plumbing Kraus-Anderson Construction Piper Plumbing, Inc. Lovering Associates, Inc. Plymouth Plumbing Michael Mehr Building & Cont. Pokorny Company Jim W. Miller Construction Thompson Plumbing New Concept Homes, Inc. Voss Plumbing & Heating Co. Pete's Repair, Inc. Wenzel Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Quality Homes, Inc. United Properties Weis Builders, Inc. GAS FITTER W. J. White Company Advanced Plumbing & Heating Associated Mechanical Contractors CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Elander Plumbing Plymouth Plumbing Arteka Incorporated Superior Contractors, Inc. Durst & Gans Construction Thompson Plumbing Eiden Construction, Inc. Voss Plumbing & Heating Finnamore Bldg. Corp. Wenzel Plumbing & Heating Hansen Hornetech, Inc. Jyland Homes, Inc. Kaster Construction, Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING_ David Modrow Homes, Inc. Kevin Moynihan Homes, Inc. A E R, Inc. Nature's Way Air Comfort, Inc. New Space Home Craftsman Aircorp, Inc. Panel craft of Minnesota Aldo, Inc. Patio Enclosures, Inc. Associated Mechanical Contractors Reus-Bottema Construction Superior Contractors, Inc. Rolyn Properties, Inc. Wenzel Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Wicklund Builders Wooddale Builders, Inc. Worth Construction UTILITY INSTALLER Wrase Builders, Inc. Zachman Brothers Construction Elander Plumbing Glendale Contracting, Inc. 2.111 CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST page two TYPE A FOOD 3.2 BEER ON SALE Driskill's Super Valu The Nectary Jerry's Foods DRIVE-IN-THEATRE TYPE B FOOD Flying Cloud Drive-In-Theatre Synder Bros., Inc. REFUSE HAULER Snyder's Drug Stores Buckingham Disposal TYPE C FOOD R & W Sanitation Waste Management-Savage Amaco Food Shop Woodlake Sanitation The Kunz Oil Co. GAMBLING CIGARETTE Eden Prairie Legion Amaco Food Shop Canteen Co. of Minn. Driskill's Super Valu PRIVATE KENNEL (renewal) Jerry's Foods Jimmy Jingle, Inc. Robert J. Evans The Kunz Oil Co. Snyder Bros., Inc. Snyder Drug Stores PRIVATE KENNEL_Cnew) Twin City Vending Mary Maeder - see attached MECHANICAL GAMES Gina Maria's Pizza Mechanical Rides Carousel of Des Moines These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Pat Solie, Licensing 2u1 24 M E M O DATE: 12/17/87 TO: LT. BRIDGER FROM: MITCH SCHNEIDER SUBJECT: KENNEL LICENSE FOR MARY MAEDER ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND FOUR LETTERS FROM MAEDER'S NEIGHBORS. THESE LETTERS INDICATE THEIR STRONG OPPOSITION TO MAEDER RECEIVING A KENNEL LICENSE. ADDITIONALLY YDU WILL FIND A COPY OF AN IMPOUNDMENT RECORD SHOWING THAT WE RECENTLY PICKED ONE OF HER DOGS UP. I HAVE ALSO INCLUDED A COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT ON MAEDER WHICH SHOWS THAT ON II/04/87 I ISSUED WARNINGS TO MAEDER FDR FAILURE TO LICENSE HER DOGS, NUISANCE BARKING, AND UNSANITARY CONDITIONS. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT I HAD CONTACT WITH MAEDER SEVERAL MONTHS AGO REGARDING A NUISANCE BARKING COMPLAINT (SHE HAD ONLY TWO DOGS THEN) AND HER ATTITUDE WAS LESS THAN COOPERATIVE. AT THAT TIME SHE WAS ALSO INSTRUCTED TO LICENSE HER DOGS, WHICH SHE NEVER DID. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO RECOMMEND THAT MAEDER NOT BE PERMITTED TO OWN DOGS AT ALL, THEN THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT WETHER SHE OWNS FOUR DOGS OR TWO DOGS SHE IS NOT LIKELY TD ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILTIES THAT GO WITH PET OWNERSHIP. THEREFORE, IT IS MY DPPINION THAT MAEDER'S APPLICATION FOR A KENNEL LICENSE SHOULD BE DENIED. 2CII 8 {�T Receipt L`, p IZ a�_g�/ Approved CITY OF EDEN PkAIRIE APPLICATION FOR KENNEL LICENSE NAME ADDRESSJ/ A� - "/ • - ,�GL!'/� TELEPHDNE NUMBER',^/,'" " 2 2 7 9 BUSINESS NUMBER TYPE OF KENNEL (, 0 KENNEL OWNERS `2J; Ci �! ✓z"f�i __, OR OPERATORS ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND ZONING WHEREUPON KENNEL IS LOCATED. y 7 0' 5 /`.',1? ✓c r �y[% �l%` Jz lip/. • 3 / �}�;• I �/7 f'r DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE (PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS) �'i. lLf , r�{ yZ 2� WHERE KENNEL IS TO OPERATE NUMBER OF DOGS KEPT If COMMERCIAL KENNEL FEE $50.00 PRIVATE KENNEL FEE $25.00 (includes 3 individual dog licenses) DATE /// / 19 ,5 APPLICANTS SIGNATURE IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR A PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE YOU MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACRE OF LAND WHERE KENNEL IS TO BE LOCATED. ��0 x m o g, o n o n C) W -7 o D o D O G D A ' O G • _D 0 ip G j D { eCr u a o X b, G ° - { n o m 3 z N c a 3 z H o °m 3 IN z o O n 'm z o O O ... T n O T �� 3 o m O i 3 o m { Q ° m O Q ° m 9' O ° D m < o D m 13 2 r Z r Z �,,, , .j •L, 1 m 0 =.. m 1. , 0 c k0- cm m n m n m I O 3, m O z ° 31 S H o -DI g o -DI 2 O O Ft,- Z t Z < D a d D s n '.''j . ;:.), \% ei g .y.. H :14 . z N �� N 40110 I NO 77 m v K 0 D 0 D C) 77 w v 0 D 0 D C) • m a 0 a 'g D -I Q -' a k .°n n j a -4 m o. 0 { - n o - { 3 z 0 n 3 3 R1 z o ° o', 3 N z o O 0 O 10 Ill o m ^. O ° 'n < o A O v a 1 o O D .� i`` m < 9. F. G m zr j \ i0 Z m , I !vJ � � m � .��1$ � � 4 s•..,,,:.....,4 ''.....,. D ^ m �� O a N ,m I� O a, D 3 j 1 M O 3 O d rD- 70 _ D m ~� 70 m m °i r �l m n I� F N v m N O _ N 1 1 1 T. i1 i „ Da. 44 2i D o < \ y I� 1, D s '� "„ zm I �\ z d j z j z I 4,\ 1 I. 1 I i j I 1 j I 2u3 January 16, 1988 Eden Prairie City Council Members Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Council Members, I am writing to you regarding the controversial development of Creekview. As you well know, I am enormously concerned about the environment and I have taken on the landfill fight to protect it. Since Creekview will be developed on a geologically sensitive area, I have studied the files on this issue at City Hall to see what would be the impact of this development on a very beautiful area of Eden Prairie. It seems to me, both Mr. Phillippi and Mr. Brown have taken extra- ordinary measures to preserve the natural beauty of the area, and deal with any environmental problems that may arise. It should be noted that they have shown sensitivity and support for one of the worst environmental problems in the Metro area which is the pollu- tion of the Minnesota River Valley by Flying Cloud Landfill. Mr. Husted on the other hand, developed the neighborhood I live in next to the landfill and has been unwilling to help us in our monumental effort to stop the expansion. It appears very obvious to me that you can count on the developers of. Creekview to do what needs to be done to properly build and maintain the Purgatory Creek area. Please give consideration to the points in this letter as you vote on this matter January 19, 1988.. Thank you. Sincerely, Susan Varlamoff SV:dsd cc: Carl Jullie - City Manager Mr. Bob Lambert - City of Eden Prairie Mr. Tony Phillippi Mr. David Brown GISLASON. MARTIN 6 VARPNESS. P.A. Al TO17NEVS ANO COUNSLLORS AT LAW 7Eiw°F•A0KI AWN AVENUE SDUTr-r ROEIFRT W GIS.ASON MIN NE AGOLIS IEOINAI.MIN NE S:JT A 55435 TELEPr-1ONI: JAMFS T MAI-MNI JO,4J E VARr,NE SS raal MAFiLE NE H T'SCHIDA• JUAN M G,ALIO,I1 TC:E r-rTr 1F']OVkl TRtA, rOA 1ST Ar�n AiILJNAL BOAR,CN T Rini AOJDOAC, ... January 15, 1988 City Council City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear City Council Members: I write on behalf of a group of concerned homeowners from the lower Purgatory Creek area in order to formally bring to your attention a matter of great concern that has not been properly addressed and resolved in the past. It is of particular importance and significance because it relates directly to a matter that is currently before you; i.e. approval of the Brown Land Company Creekview proposal. In October, 1986, Mr. Wendell Phillippi applied for a land alteration permit to preform land alteration on property owned by him in the lower Purgatory Creek Valley. In his application, he described plans for the building of a series of three ponds in order to collect water on his property for the benefit of his horses. Mr. Phillippi represented that his plans would involve less than one acre of surface (including spoils, dam, and water) and that he had been assured by various public agencies that further permits and approvals were not required. There is reason to believe that even before he formally made application for permission to alter his property, Mr. Phillippi had begun land alteration in September, 1986. His activities included the destruction and removal of trees, the bull-dozing and significant alteration of slopes and hillsides, and other activities that run afoul of rules of the Riley - Purgatory Creek Valley Watershed District, the United States Army Corp of Engineers, the DNR, and Ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. What concerns the homeowners for whom I write is the fact that the city permitted Mr. Phillippi to do what he did and has now 1 refused to acknowledge that it had any idea that Mr. Phillippi's plans actually went far beyond what is presented in the October 9, 1986 Application. Meanwhile, stories are appearing in the local media in which Mr. Phillippi is quoted as indicating that the city had full knowledge of what he was about from the very beginning. Interestingly, neither city staff nor Mr. Phillippi is willing to now admit that Mr. Phillippi violated any of the rules and ordinances mentioned above. The truth and the plain facts are quite to the contrary and the time has come when the issue has to be fully aired and explanations given. While we are obviously concerned about the fact that Mr. Phillippi was allowed to do what he did, it is almost more disconcerting to witness the cover-up that is going on concerning what the city knew and when it knew it. On March 20, 1987, Mr. Dietz wrote a letter to Mr. Phillippi in which Mr. Dietz expressed ignorance about what Phillippi had done on his property. By then, Mr. Phillippi had altered not just 1 acre of his property and not just 10 percent of the trees on his property but had performed major land alteration including alterations of slopes and grades of the hillside and including major deforestation affecting at least 14 acres of property. Moreover, he had constructed three separate ponds which significantly changed the natural characteristics of the land. Although Mr. Phillippi may have suggested in "Pond Plans" submitted in the fall of 1986 that the total acreage involved would be far less than one acre, the truth is that the ponds alone, along with spoilage, encompass at least three and probably closer to four acres. Even though this is plain and obvious to anyone who visits the area, city officials continue to represent that (1) Mr. Phillippi had a permit to do what he did and (2) that he didn't do anything illegal. Mr. Phillippi, as you all are well aware, is intimately involved in the Creekview property and it is of more than just mild concern to us to know that the same man who represents that he plans just one acre's worth of land alterations (actually less) is involved in a project affecting 75 acres of precious natural resource on immediately abutting property. The numerous inquires to city hall concerning what the city plans to do about the problem have typically produced responses to the effect that "a cease and desist order has been issued", "restoration has been ordered", or that "Mr. Phillippi has satisfied the terms of the cease and desist order so that no further action is contemplated". The citizens of the city of Eden Prairie are entitled to answers 2 to these questions: 1. Did Mr. Phillippi have a permit to do the work that he did? 2. Did Mr. Phillippi violate any ordinances, regulations, or rules or laws in connection with the deforestation of the 15 acres of property in lower Purgatory Creek? 3. Did the city contact the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers when it became aware of the proposal that Mr. Phillippi had for the subject property? 4. Does the city agree that the land alteration that was accomplished by Mr. Phillippi constituted significant changes in the natural character of the land? 5. If you claim that a permit was ever issued, was notice of the application for a permit furnished to the citizens and was there a hearing conducted on whether the permit should be granted? 6. If not, why not? 7. What precisely does the city claim Mr. Phillippi has been ordered to do which restores the property to its former condition and corrects or repairs the damage that was done? 8. Who at city hall makes decisions concerning what the citizens are to be told when inquiries are made concerning such affairs as the Phillippi matter? 9. Was the city attorney aware of the actual work performed by Mr. Phillippi and, if so, when? 10. Why has city staff been adamant about separating discussion of this issue from public discussions concerning Creekview? Recent stories in the local media create the false impression that the dispute over Creekview is just a matter of developer versus developer in the lower Purgatory Creek Valley area. The stories that have appeared in the media deviate so far from the truth that the conclusion is compelled that misinformation disseminated by city staff is at the root of much of the confusion and distortions that abound. I personally attended a meeting with the Chief Enforcement Officer of the United States Army Corp of Engineers in his offices on January 14, 1988, and heard him say (unsolicited) that the cooperation that his office receives from city staff at the city of Eden Prairie is notoriously bad and the impression that I have is 3 that the cooperation level between city staff and legitimately concerned homeowners in the lower Purgatory Creek area is similarly lacking. A major development is being bull-dozed through various procedural hoops in total defiance cf the Purgatory Creek study but with unbridled support from city staff. It is very obvious that members of this council are ignorant of many important facts going to the merits of the Creekview project. It is appropriate to call the Council's attention at this time to a very important provision from the Eden Prairie Guide Plan which, of course, has the force and effect of law. In Section 5 of the Chapter dealing with Guide Plan Elements, the following language appears: The majority of the parks and open space areas designated in the general development plan are related to the water resources of the city; lakes, ponds, creeks, and flood plains. Preserving these areas serves many purposes, including offering water oriented recreational opportunities, providing natural flood control with the subsequent lessening of damage to property and lives, providing habitat for a wide range of wildlife and establishing corridors for bicycling, horseback riding, hiking and cross-country skiing. In short, these areas deserve protection not only for the sake of opportunities they offer to man, but for their own sake as well . . . Foremost among the designated open space is the Purgatory Creek Corridor, which meanders approximately ten miles through the city. The Creek and its adjacent lands represent a unique natural resource that merits special consideration. Purgatory, Riley, and Nine Mile Creeks, which together form the second largest component in the open space plan, are natural corridors for both wildlife and human movement which should be preserved in a continuous, consistent manner rather than through peace meal approach. When the Guide Plan was updated in 1976-1977, one of the stated objectives was as follows: 2. Incorporate into the current plan all appropriate aspects of the sector and MCA planning studies, as well as various policy statements . . . adopted since 1968. The Purgatory Creek Study represents just such a city policy. The Creekview Proposal has been presented by the developer as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) . The first step as I understand the process under the City's ordinances is the performance of a PUD 4 Concept Review. (See Chapter 11, § 11.40, subd. 1, Eden Prairie City Code.) One of the specific findings that must be made in order to justify approval of a PUD is that the proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the city. ID., Section 11.40, subd. 11.A. By the end of the city council hearing now scheduled for January 19, you will have been presented with a very thorough and alarming report by prominent and well-respected landscape architects concerning their views of the impact of Creekview on the Purgatory Creek Corridor. The highlights from the presentation to be made by Martin & Pitts Associates, Inc. include the following: 1. The predominant soil type in the involved area is Hubbard sandy loam, a highly erodible soil type . . . especially on slopes of 12 percent and more. 2. Fully one third of the proposed units are located partially or totally within these 12 percent or steeper slopes. 3. Significant reworking of the natural land form as contemplated under the Creekview Proposal bodes ill for the delicate soils and steep slopes in the area in question. 4. The proposed construction of 30 units in the transitional area represents excessive density for this delicate landscape zone. 5. The developer has underestimated the amount of grading that will be necessary to a significant degree. 6. A proposed and expanded grading limits will result in the loss of over 50 percent of the hardwood forest on the upper slopes. In addition, the loss of the oak forest is an irreplaceable insult to the natural landscape in the area. The proposed project violates the city's steep slope ordinance. It desecrates the long-standing policy of the city relative to the preservation of the Purgatory Creek Corridor as a unique natural resource, and it ignores the Eden Prairie Guide Plan. The developers who are pushing the Creekview project have many alternatives available to them short of the devastating alteration of the Corridor that is contemplated and proposed by them at this time. My clients join in the requests that have been made by other homeowners in the area, by the local chapter of the Audubon Society, and other public agencies concerning the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the Council is specifically requested at 5 this time to defer further action of Creekview until all of the facts have been property presented to the Council. Meanwhile, we await answers the questions propounded erein. e t u rs, J�mes 'T. Martin JTM/ls 6 �oTNT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY e %. ST PAUL DISTRICT.CORPS OF ENGINEERS IW' v` 1135 U S POST OFFICE 6 CUSTOM HOUSE ST PAUL, MMIINNESOTA 551011410 AIEr t N 1 9 1Yt18 /TMroN Of Construction-Operations Regulatory Functions (R88-127) Mr. James Martin Gislason, Martin, and Varpness 7600 Parklawn Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Dear Mr. Martin: During a meeting on January 14, 1988, you presented some information regarding grading activities and the construction of several ponds along Purgatory Creek in Section 36, T. 116 N., R. 22 W., Hennepin County, Minnesota. This property is owned by Mr. Wendell Phillippi. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetland areas. Our staff will be contacting Mr. Phillippi to conduct an inspection of his property to determine if his project requires a Department of the Army permit. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Bruce Norton at (612) 725-7976. Sin rely, /)--) 9 Ben A. Wopat L Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch Construction-Operations Division 1111 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ^ ROGER M t I��e� 1409 WILLOW STREET MINNEAPI) IS MARTIN MINNESOTA 55401 O.R 1617/8,1 0568 January 13, 1988 Dr.Doris Brooker Neighbors Concerned for Purgatory Creek 10169 Trotter's Path Eden Prairie,MN 55394 Dear Dr.Brooker: Enclosed Is the text summarizing our concerns in regard to the proposed Creekview Development based on our review of the drawings dated October 27, 1987 along with additional Information presented as to recent proposed modifications. This material plus the drawings presented to you illustrates our concerns In regard to the lend development proposal. Sincerely, c-641d.4/4.-: Roger B.Marlin,FASIA Marjorie P111:rt A MO6t1 1 19111:42 � LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ^ ROGER MARTIN EASIA ^ MARJORIE Pitt 45LA / 1409 WILLOW STREET MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOIA 55403 ^ 617IR11 0568 Creekvlew Development Review Following Martin&P ite Associates'review of the Creekview Development proposal drawings dated October 27,1987,we would like to state the following concerns: I t Is evident from the Open Space Corridor StUOLPithlrgatorY Creek prepared by Brauer Associates,Inc. Planners,in 1977 that the predominant soil type in this section of the creek area is Hubbard sandy loam. Our Investigations suggest that this soil type Is highly erodable when disturbed and especially susceptable to erosion on slopes 12%and over. An Eden Prairie ordinance requires permitting and careful analysis for development of steep slopes in excess of 12%. In reviewing the development proposal it is evident that 31 house pads out of 92 are located partially or totally within these 12%or steeper slopes. Working these sites for the development would potentially create erosion problems during the development process. Upon careful review of the proposed grading it is evident that major earth cutting of two Is of the site will occur resulting in cuts of over 10'and up to 20'in a few areas. in addition,excessive fills of over 10'will impact a major portion of the natural ravine and drainage swale leading down to the creek. This severe reworking of the natural land form does not sympathetically treat a site with such delicate soils and steep slopes. The drawings indicate a"Conservatory Line"and"Transitional Line"between which development would be allowed but not encouraged,in accordance with the previously mentioned Brauer Open Spare Corridor Study. 30 house pads are currently located between these lines,which In our view is excessive Impact for this delicate landscape zone. It is evident that many of these proposed sites will require more grading than suggested by the developer in order to accommodate house pads within the steep slope area. Our analysis has discovered that 13 of the 40 house pads along the rim of the site are less than Page two standard 60'x 75'size,and proposed only a 5'construction zone beyond the house pad. If we use the standard house pad size and a minimum 12'construction zone,the grading limits proposed by this development are not possible to achieve.Our analysis shows the impact of"standard"house pad and construction practice would greatly increase the grading limits of this proposed development, and that this grading would occur on the very erodable soils of the Purgatory Creek steep slopes. The resultant impact of the proposed and expanded grading limits could bring about removal of over 50%of the hardwood forest present on the upper slopes.Aside from the additional erosion potential,the developer has claimed a proposed tree loss of only 23% in order to determine the number of trees the city will require them to replace.This calculation was based on their proposed grading limits-which we have found to be unrealistic. By using the praheh/e grading limits of our analysis,the tree removal of quality hardwoods is over 50%. We disagree with the concept that the existing oak forest could be replaced with new trees.These ancient and difficult to replace species form the unique expression of the Purgatory Creek canyon rim and walls, and should he preserved at an costs. In summary,we are concerned about the following: • the severe erosion potential of the proposed environment dur Ing-and after-initial land development and specific unit construction. • the unrealistic grading limits indicated by the developer • the visual Impact of hardwood vegetal Ion loss due la the development and unit construction. • the developer's estimate of 23%tree loss as being too low. To clarify the true impact of development regarding these concerns,we recommend the pr^paretion of en Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the Creekvlew development project. \t� ti MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY AUDUBON CLUB - or, r, Box 20400,Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 rf _� } /r:• urr� January 17, 1988 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council of Eden Prairie, The Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter's(MRVAC) Natural Resources Committee has reviewed the Creekview development proposal near Purgatory Crcck, and finds that portions of this project arc in need of greater study prior to approval by the Council. We do not oppose this development, but those house lots that have been proposed on the bluff edges and down the slope of the creek valley threaten the environmental quality of this area, and arc worthy of further study in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). MRVAC has specific environmental concerns which should be addressed in this LAW and arc outlined further in this letter. MR VAC is also concerned about a closely related project on a neighboring property which needs to be addressed before project approval is granted. This is also outlined in this letter. Specific Issues to Address in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet A. Erosion potential and water quality of Purgatory Creek The proposal would bring a road or driveway to homcsitcs down the valley slope. This would result ir, large areas of grading on slopes which exceed a 10% gradient. These areas arc underlain with highly crodable sands which could easily wash down the slopes and into Purgatory Creek during heavy rainfalls. According to a Purgatory Creek study during the late 1970's, this section of creek has a higher water quality than upstream areas "...due to the appearance of innumerable springs...". These springs could also be negatively affected during a heavy rainfall, thus reducing the overall water quality of downstream portions of the creek. The greatest potential for downstream pollution would occur during the construction period. This erosion potential would remain following the completion of the project because restoration of the slope vegetation would be very difficult due to the sandy nature of the soils, and also due to the steepness of the slopes. Complete restoration of this site could require a few years. B. The existence of native prairie plant species in the vicinity Homeowners on the north and cast side of Purgatory Creek have indicated to MR VAC members that certain prairie wild flowers can be found on their properties. This indicates that these areas have never been plowed, probably due to the steep nature of the slopes. Over 99% of Minnesota's original prairie has been permanently destroyed since the early I800's, primarily in agricultural areas. Virgin stands of native prairie arc rare in Minnesota. In a 1987, legislative bill, the Minnesota State Legislature recognized the significance and importance of native prairie (details arc available from the DNR). The presence of native prairie species on the north and cast side of the valley suggests that the same may be true for the south and west side, where Crcckvicw is located. This site should be thoroughly examined by a professional botanist during the growing season to determine if any significant prairie species exist there. Particular attention should be given to the wild flower Kittentail (Bessia bullii), a species listed as "special concern" by the DNR Natural Heritage program. This species is present in only a handful of sites in the state. While it is unknown if it does exist here, the habitat is appropriate and it can be found in a very similar site along the bluffs of Nine Mile Creek in Bloomington. The city of Bloomington has recognized the value of this species and of native prairies by working with this club and the Minnesota Chapter of the Nature Conservancy in the development of a sound management plan for this Kittentail site. It is also possible that the DNR Natural heritage program's database currently has information pertaining to the presence of significant species, prairie or otherwise, for the Purgatory Creek arca,and thus should be contacted by city staff, or by the preparers of the LAW. Recent Wetland Alterations on Tony Phillippi Property Another concern MRVAC has relating to this project is the recent construction of ponds on Mr. Phillippi's property adjacent to the Crcckvicw project. Ilomeowners in the arca have shown members of our Natural Resources Committee aerial photographs of this pond project which lie within the Purgatory Creek floodplain. Also seen in these photographs was the apparent construction of a road or path alongside of Purgatory Creek connecting Mr. Phillippi's property with the Crcckvicw development. Inspection from Riverview Road by our members confirms that extensive alterations of the %alley floor have occurred. According to information we have received and from recent accounts from the Eden Prairie News (January 13, I9881,a Purgatory ('reek Watershed District permit was required if this project exceeded one acre in size. According to city records, this project did exceed the one acre size limit, and may have exceeded seven acres in area. 'fhus, a Watershed permit appears to have been required. MR VAC feels that another permit may have been required. Because a ditch was constructed which diverted a nearby spring which normally flows into Purgatory Creek,and because the project area lies within the floodplain of the creek,a permit from the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers was probably required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Before this permit could he issued, statutes require ❑ period of public comment and review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. MR VAC urges city officials to contact the Corps of Engineers District Office in St. Paul (Surveillance and Enforcement division) to dctcrminc what violations, if any,have occurred. MRVAC also intends to contact the Corps. The road or trail which was recently built along the crock linking Mr. Phillippi's property with the Creekview development does not appear on the development proposal. What is its purpose,and was it in violation of city, watershed,and Corps permitting procedures? These need to be addressed. Mr. Phillippi has indicated (Eden Prairie Ncws,01/13/88) that the grading and vegetation removal near the newly excavated ponds was intended to be part of a Bluestem prairie restoration effort. If this is indeed the ease, we would ask City staff to have Mr. Phillippi submit a project plan prepared by experts in prairie restoration and management so that this project is ecologically sound. If this project is properly planned, MRVAC could support it. We would also be happy to recommend professional prairie experts if so asked by city staff or by Mr. Phillippi. MRVAC encourages using native vegetation in development projects, where appropriate. The Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter supports development whcrc both the natural environment and people's opportunity to enjoy nature arc enhanced. A properly prepared EAW should help guide the city and the developer where this goal can be reached. MRVAC thanks the city of Edon Prairie for its consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, / 7 /71 Tim Lundahl Natural Resources Committee Chair Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter P.O. Box 20400 Bloomington, MN 55420 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 100 Capitol Square Building rs.c, 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Phone January 15, 1988 Chris Enger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Creekview Residential Development Dear Mr. Enger: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that City of Eden Prairie is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of EAWs, can be found in the Minnesota Rules parts 4410.0200 - .7800. Please contact me if you do not have access to these rules. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100, (page 13 of the rules) . Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition until the need for an EAW has been determined. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subp. 1, page 25) . 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively (starting on page 32). If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, City of Eden Prairie has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Enger January 15, 1988 Page Two 4. You are allowed 15 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision unless it must be made by a board or other body which meets only periodically, in which case you have 30 working days. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision is not made by a board. 5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five (5) working days (again, Saturday, Sunday and holidays do not count). I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EOB Monitor on . If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call my staff. The phone number is (612) 296-8253 or you may call on our toll-free line by dialing 1-800-652-9747 and asking for the Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. Sincerely, r 1 Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator �I •>> r 0• ... _ .. -. .. 17.. E. . . it .-. • - . ' r• ' ... r-. i - :,-1 .1._ ::.2 . - 1 IL 164( 2-1-'01/(/` 47//1 Z-, .,1 /6,„• A7. i r"--,te a gget-/-4.- /6 Ailt<it 1LPA Af-J4--t , \ ',..N.- \ -/Sfl;r,- )(32/f 6:qgid /0,3 ,(-1,-- 462 lei ,"741-2 ..._,...r_c...____ /b36 ./A-,t etrjev /e',Vii pc)=5-- / 2.6;w0 7-44-0/ i; • r;1-• 7.7 . z.•.• ::r vE 1111 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 0 ROGER MARTIN f ASLA ^ MARJORIE PIT2. ASLA mottiti,+::*Aehxar,cv, 1409 WILLOW STREET MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55403 ^ 612/8710588 04 sr cp January 13, 1988 Dr.Doris Brooker Imlt� c� 07 iahon- AJe, uczr D 10164 Trotter's Path f Q�, Bch �a� Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Dr.Brooker: Enclosed is the text summarizing our concerns in regard to the proposed Creekview Development based on our review of the drawings dated October 27,1987 along with additional Information • presented as to recent proposed modifications. This materiel plus the drawings presented to you illustrates our concerns in regard to the land development proposal. Sincerely, Roger B.Martin,FASLA Ma a Prtz, • semi • 111 M���(.�}' ���/ LANOSCAPE ARCHITECTS IIOGER MARTIN EASLA T. MARJORIE PITZ. ASLA art+-LV!/� �j�'^•'' 1409 WILLOW STREET L MIGNI/AP Ol15 MINNE SOTA 5h407 o 512/571 0568 Creekvlew Development Review Following Martin&P itz Associates'review of the Creekview Development proposal drawings dated October 27,1987,we would like to state the following concerns: • It is evident from the Omen Soace Corridor Study on Puroatory Creek prepared by Brauer Associates,Inc. Planners,in 1977 that the predominant soil type in this section of the creek area is Hubbard sandy loam. Our investigations suggest that this soil type is highly erodable when disturbed and especially suscepteble to erosion on slopes 12%end over. An Eden Prairie ordinance requires permitting and careful analysis for development of steep slopes in excess of 12%. In reviewing the development proposal it is evident that 31 house pads out of 92 are located partially or totally within these 12%or steeper slopes. Working these sites for the development would • potentially create erosion problems during the development process. Upon caret ul review of the proposed grading it is evident that major earth cutting of two knolls of the site will occur resulting to cuts of over 10'and up to 20'in a few areas. In addition,excessive fills of over 10'will impact a major portion of the natural ravine and drainage swale leading down to the creek. This severe reworking of the natural land form does not sympathetically treat a site with such delicate soils and steep slopes. The drawings indicate a"Conservatory Line"and"Transitional Line"between which development would be allowed but not encouraged,in accordance with the previously mentioned Brauer Open Space Corridor Study. 30 house pads are currently located between these lines,which In our view Is excessive Impact for this delicate landscape zone. It is evident that many of these proposed sites will require more grading than suggested by the developer in order to accommodate house pads wIthIn the steep slope area. Our analysis has discovered that 13 of the 40 house pads along the rim of the site are less than page two standard 60'x 75'size,and proposed only a 5'construction zone beyond the house pad. If we use the standard house pad size and a minimum 12'construction zone,the grading limits proposed by this development are not possible to achieve.Our analysis shows the impact of"standard"house pad and construction practice would greatly increase the grading limits of this proposed development, and that this grading would occur on the very erodable soils of the Purgatory Creek steep slopes. The resultant impact of the proposed and expanded grading limits could bring about removal of over 5O%of the hardwood forest present on the upper slopes.Aside from the additional erosion potential,the developer hes claimed a proposed tree loss of only 23% in order to determine the number of trees the city will require them to replace.This calculation was based on their proposed grading limits-which we have found to be unrealistic. By using the probable grading limits of our analysis,the tree removal of quality hardwoods is over SO . We disagree with the concept that the existing oak forest could be replaced with new trees.These ancient and difficult to replace species form the unique expression of the Purgatory Creek canyon rim and walls, and should be preserved et e//costs. In summdry,we are concerned about the following: s the severe erosion potential of the proposed environment during-and after-initial land development and specific unit construction. • the unrealistic grading limits indicated by the developer • the visual Impact of hardwood vegetation loss due to the development and unit construction. • the developer's estimate of 23%tree loss as being too low. To clarify the true impact of development regarding these concerns,we recommend the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the Creekvlew development project. • -v 110"11010. rr r I-'crmoa-4az z xcl QNK ...0tNooO (]H • 0 < I- 0 0 Cr. '7 a W D •-3 z co CD'0 re .-.. Co CD 0 7 O H W Ul S( CO µ 0 O.C1 C1 01 or ' N cA -- )CO S C) 7 CD� Cl O 33 ' 88 `Dr 2�7 cr 3 N O CD O. I ccr.11 (D CD C .-3 I-•[�*1 C' 'O to C r•(D 0ppq CD pzC Cr Fr1• 3 0 3 pfD, C CrO CD CD cC '4F•pN37 co ID N 1-1 01 ZHZ r-i 7 p 3 car . SS O 071 7 0-0.O. -<--t'1 b � .O ,0.,7 Do fo0 < 0 0 (D Dc 7 C N Z H [+•��]1 .�+• CO.M+•'_ CO 37 CO T. H t7 CD cr r C 0 7- y '7 •. 1.-03 (D r•H 7 D3 r•r- O D3 O N r• O(D cr N < C cr fA O t r•cr CD O D7 cr 0. 'O7 M -1 a <7 '1 S�~[�0 0. ((b D3• re(DO1 N Ir1 W M Cr O'1 VD CO (D UO1 5 S a D3 •-.1 t7 r... (a r*1 7 D3 n cc1 p CD N N G7 -+'7 7 e. O.c1-— D, O OF'N Oa 1 cr 3 CO. 'V 61 '<00 '7 a C < CO (D CO '1 7 .2 '1 I-,O ()O C:cf.•. -J Co C .. 2 I-,•CD cf. 'S M c r S 0 r• 0 N CJ CD CoCa a a (D C MO OD '1 3 0 CD ON V D) .~p S a 3 x.<'•car.B °'X •ga g R o'Cs ((DDto H a r• D) 3f U1 I-C c-r CO0 D 30 c- 3 w~7 < rHH ClCO 2� O Co CO0 ( ',�•CDD CI'< ('0 C to MO. `S - Cy 7 �crr r• - I N 7 r•'1 A ED O o. W N S'O 0-.)'1(o. M DC _ O . 3 'OS d aN UCO-. ro C 1 C DI r• pp 2D S h.. ��'� Sd(D 7 'G 3 ON N C.O.Cr I- c\, ° li r? ; 1r ',/ o t- GY ?0r ! T / s e �I� I 1 1 l..j k. I/ ''' ilir V AlrA ' O D C O � w� ,AIl__. i Iwal 'Z / r/�. � � ' , ' E .fiv 1� � w KAli444.e— � - - • steering committee C A "Steering Committee" composed of representatives fran the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District Board, the Eden Prairie Parks and Recreation and Planning departments, and Brauer & Associates, Inc., the consultant, was established to define cwp,erative goals and objectives, contribute expertise to the plan- ning process, assist in data collection and community presentations, and to actively participate in the formulation of study results. The procedure has proved useful to the consultant in review of concepts and the establishment of camunity needs. Since the product will ultimately have to be accepted and implemented by the community, systematic review and active participation is pertinent if not vital. The steering committee was composed of the following individuals: Al Gebhard, Riley-Purgatory Watershed District Don Pennie, Riley-Purgatory Watershed District H. M. Jessen, Jr., Park and Recreation Director, Eden Prairie Chris Enger, Landscape Architect, Eden Prairie Dick Anderson, Park and Recreation Commission, Eden Prairie The skills, perceptions, concerns and commitment of each is gratefully acknowledged. C purgatory 2 creek consultant C In addition to the staff capabilities of planning, landscape architecture and engineering, the study team structured by Brauer & Associates, Inc. included Norman R. Stone, naturalist and Manager of Crex Meadows Wildlife Area, Grants- burg, Wisconsin. His responsibilities included the following: . Record flora observed within the defined corridor . Establish species of fauna likely to be found within the corridor: This would include observed and evident species of fauna R• ecord general observations noted within the system: water quality, inappropriate use, symptomatic conditions which might lead to future problems, recreational vehicle use and its effect, etc. . Define creek corridor use (personal intei&retation) . Recommend trail potentials . Note unique features: habitat, specimen vegetation, springs, rock out- croppings, etc. . Recommend a management plan . Participate on the planning team and in review meetings as determined. The complete text of Mr. Stones report is included as an addendum to this report. The observations, findings and recommendations presented in this report represent the interactive results of the consultant team and the steering can- mittee structure. purgatory8 creek • preservation concept The total area to be preserved and managed is divided into two distinct parts: conservancy area and transition zone. Conservancy Area Based upon the corridor analysis a typical creek section was selected for ad- ditional evaluation. It was determined through this analysis and additional testing that an area equal to 60 acres/lineal creek mile would provide adequate protection for the resources associated within the corridor. Sixty acres/lineal creek mile is roughly equal to 250 feet either side of the creek centerline. In delineating the 60 acre concept we were not bound to a specified distance as indicated by the 250' - this is only an illustrative figure. In reality the limits of the "conservancy area" are flexible - adapting to specific site conditions, (landscape form and features). The sections illustrated below best describe the process. Topographic configura- tion may allow for the depth of the "conservancy area" sections to be only 50' on one side while the other side of the area may require 300' to achieve the desired objective. 40 ag+abni led Aran(rA crax urn An.kx 44v,Im.sd,ar. riar4,rvan rtrrod ulxd hoe**tityttlai zwtri a ai m1Mup Yrp vrmA jrr»/a;a are AOt /-- . ',<'-. i f wl,_ ,p mr Rail ao ,/ C'amkr afa6'fPpO"My mas/ark Mit fy c i b/ttniM1 MIL'soitaMrtwlanm� '°"`fan a►rvvlind t9s6OW 1'1.604" PTA Liet,p^v ^ 'rtwittcl ',cat "n�°Y°e—.orient ,w4A.1 04 .ramOw 1 * ur;u mnw TYPICAL SECTIONS purgatory creek corridor concept Transition Zone The acreage which lies immediately behind the designated "conservancy" area would be classified as a "transition" zone. The extent of this zone will vary, depending upon the extrinsic and intrinsic constraints exhibited by the particular parcel under investigation. The existing land uses will re- main, but new development will be subjected to additional evaluation by the Planning Camtission. Criteria for evaluation will include the impact of the proposal upon the system. It will be the responsibility of the developer to illustrate to the City the potential impact of the proposed use on the natural system. The developer will be responsible for the following: . Specifying erosion control practices to be instituted during con- struction (City standards). . Determining the amount of runoff created by the proposal and the disposal of said runoff. . Justifying visual alteration and encroachment. . Insuring that density (net units/acre) and percentage of coverage are in conformance with the zoning ordinance. . Conforming to other pertinent regulations. The Lower Purgatory Sector should receive special attention within this transitional zone (as delineated on the sector plan) due to the topographic configuration of the area. purgatory creek • N. • • : ' •' W^1__ r- conservancy area , : :_ - - zone vq :.' ,; i ; -- year con lour =fin'ti i t1-,'. 1 I I o s i \• /. " ° k r).l f r, .,R," 1 / L(2t57 )y \. rJ. 1•N t' i•N // i Nam, t }c{�i • "i2•►_N. ?I"we n �1-"X At,!t P'Rb-,'` +. ��''. —•''flay;e'11',i If 3, �u i t� kJi uE o 4wi�r i ' y�i I c.._ R w n .. ♦, '( i r x:, \ \` jl c ;y r ti d r a ;: �s--♦A • �--, lower purgatory - riverview sector purgatory creek • • sector analysis lower purgatory-riverview sector Environmental Setting: Natural Features: This sector is the most remote and undisturbed section of the entire Creek. The valley is well defined by moderate to steep slopes rising as much as 130' above the creekbed and by dense vegetation. The under- brush varies in density, portions becoming nearly impenetrable during the grading season. The water quality improves due to the appearance of in- nutnrable springs which add to the flaw and lower the temperature. The creek- bed gradient increases and becomes very rocky. The soils in this area are predominantly sand--severe erosion has occurred over the years as is evident by the scars on both banks. developing single family area- - /---rivervlew road upland hardwoods(elm.oak )predominate J e • scattered clumps of birch,aspen.cedar �.i;-.: ♦, \ / scattered single family ,-- steep slopes \ \ erosion scars evident h )tf �� springs -- R good water quality firm stream bed r.'..• \ _ sandy soils west �i;' ® east alluvial material TYPICAL LOWER PURGATORY SECTOR upland hardwoods-elm-soak \ entrance road hrm stream bed Igravel.rock) -mAlcreek developmnnl �1 „/narrow corridor - Iownheuse ,%#* t Jam\ • • k' sanoy soil west .. east TYPICAL LOWER PURGATORY SECTOR-UPPER END Land Use: Predominantly single family (large lot) and agricultural lands adjoin the Creek. Constraints: Factors which would limit the use of the Creek corridor for recreation or trail development inclridp severity of slope, narrow flood plain, and vulnerability of soils to erosion. purgatory creek RIVERVIEW SECTOR: Riverview Road South to Minnesota River From Riverview Road to its mouth in the Minnesota River Purgatory Creek passes through a high risk section that does not justify expensive development. Most of the section lies within the Minnesota River floodplain. An environment subject to periodic flooding and its accompaning siltation. Large swamp hardwoods provide a rather attractive setting. However, a nettle monotype dominates much of the forest floor. The upper channel is firm and scenic, offset downstream by a channel dredged, silt- ed. unstable and eroded. It is not a particularily good wildlife section. Any trail development should be on the West side to avoid conflict with private trout ponds on the East. It would appear an easement corridor or narrow R.O.W. acquisition sufficient. However for posterity, if funds are available it would be desir- able to control both banks and the mouth of the stream since future private uses may conflict. Periodic flooding will restrict use, thus extensive public usuage is not expected. Due to periodic soft muddy conditions a gravel trail would be desirable and would satisfy those desiring to walk the entire creek from its source to its mouth. Any flooding will deposit silt thus not justifing too expensive development or stream cross- overs which will inevitably wash out. Since soil conditions are extremely favorable for dense nettle the trail will normally require some cutting maintenance each summer. 6-29