Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/03/1989 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1989 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas 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 Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12 1989 Page 2646 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Eden Prairie Soccer Club Proposal Page 2658 B. Policy on Cancellation of Refunds Page 2665 C. Mini Rinks/Skating Rinks Page 2671 D. Willow Park Improvements Page 2679 E. Community Center Membership Policy Change Request Page 26B4 F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 34-89 to Regulate Snowmobile Page 2326 Operations G. Lease for Winter Storage of Public Works and Parks Maintenance Page 2685 Equipment H. Grading Permit for Proposed Expansion of Jubilee Church Page 2688 I. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration Page 2689 J. Final Approval for $5,985,000 for Multi-Family Housing Bonds Page 2690 for prairie VilTage Apartments-Merlin terling Ponds) Resolution No. 89-2I3 K. Clerk's License List Page 2699 City Council Agenda - [ - Iues.,Uctooer S, I989 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (Continued from Septemer 12, 1989) Resolution No. 89-199 - Approving 1989 Special Assessment Rolls B. SHORES OF MITCHELL. LAKE by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Page 2700 Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of residential development. Location: South of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell Lake. (Ordinance No. 37-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-210 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 89-211 - Finding of No Significant Impact for EAW) C. SCHROERS PUD by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Page 2744 Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 129:8 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to,R1-I3.5 on 8.2 acres, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 77 'single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.E acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie City limits. (Resolution No. 89-215 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution No. B9-216 - PUD Concept for Schroers PUD; Ordinance No. 4D-89-PUD-8-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-217 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 89-218 - EAW Finding of No Significant Impact) D. NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE by New Horizon Child Care. Request for Page 2793 Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on approximately 2 acres, and Site Plan Review on approximately two acres for a day care center. Location: North of Prairie Center Drive, east of the Arby's restaurant. (Ordinance No. 38-89 - Rezoning) E. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning District Page 2810 hinge, from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.6 acres into one lot, Site Plan Review of 5.6 acres for construction of a 73,367 square foot office warehouse. Location: 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. (Ordinance - No. 39-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-212 - Preliminary Plat) • V. PAYMENT Of CLAIMS Page 2822 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. RED ROCK SHORES by Scenic Heights Investment. 2nd Reading of Page 2832 Ordinance No. 13-89, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 22.97 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Red Rock Shores; Approval of land Alteration Permit for Red Rock Shores; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-214, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 13-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. • 22.97 acres into 20 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-89- Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-214 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,October 3, 1989 B. Final Plat Approval for Red Rock Shores (located east of Eden Page 2933 Prairie Road and south of Scenic Heights Road (Resolution No. 89- 206) VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Three Appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committee for T.H. 212 C.A.C. 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. Oirector of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources F. Report of Oirector of Public Works r 1. NSP Undergrounding proposal Page 2936 G. Report of Finance Oirector XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. AOJOURNMENT { AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DCTOBER 3, 1989 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas 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 Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND DTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12 1989 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Eden Prairie Soccer Club Proposal B. Policy on Cancellation of Refunds C. Mini Rinks/Skating Rinks D. Willow Park Improvements E. Community Center Membership Policy Change Request F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 34-89 to Regulate Snowmobile Operations G. Lease for Winter Storage of Public Works and Parks Maintenance Equipment H. Grading Permit for Proposed Expansion of Jubilee Church I. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration J. Final Approval for $5,985,000 for Multi-Family Housing Bonds for Prairie Vil a e Apartments (Sterling Ponds) Resolution No. 89-213 K. Clerk's License List city council Agenaa - - iues.,uctooer 3, 1989 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (Continued from Septemer 12, 1989) Resolution No. 89-199 - Approving 1989 Special Assessment Rolls B. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of residential development. Location: South of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell Lake. (Ordinance No. 37-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-210 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 89-211 - Finding of No Significant Impact for EAW) C. SCHROERS PUD by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 129.8 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.2 acres, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie City limits. (Resolution No. 89-215 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 89-216 - PUD Concept for Schroers PUD; Ordinance No. 40-89-PUD-8-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-217 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 89-218 - EAW Finding of No Significant Impact) D. NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE by New Horizon Child Care. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on approximately 2 acres, and Site Plan Review on approximately two acres for a day care center. Location: North of Prairie Center Drive, east of the Arby's restaurant. (Ordinance No. 38-89 - Rezoning) E. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change, from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.6 acres into one lot, Site Plan Review of 5.6 acres for construction of a 73,367 square foot office warehouse. Location: 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. (Ordinance - No. 39-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-212 - Preliminary Plat) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. RED RDCK SHORES by Scenic Heights Investment. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 13-89, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 22.97 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Red Rock Shores; Approval of Land Alteration Permit for Red Rock Shores; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-214, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 13-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 22.97 acres into 20 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-89- Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-214 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,October 3, 1989 B. Final Plat Approval for Red Rock Shores (located east of Eden Prairie Road and south of Scenic Heights Road (Resolution No. 89- 206) VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Three Appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committee for T.H.. 212 C.A.0 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. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources F. Report of Director of Public Works 1. NSP Undergroundinq proposal G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT F99 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, City Engineer Alan Gray, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Mayor Peterson absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: • Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. City Manager Jullie explained to the audience the procedures to be followed fur the assessments and the types of deferments available. II. PI1ALI(1_11EARING$ A. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-102, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements in Hidden Glen 3rd Addition. Dietz presented the Council with a revised copy of the assessment roll and noted the changes made. The project consisted of sidewalk, bikeway, storm sewer, and street improvements on Dell Road and in the Hidden Glen 3rd Addition. The project was 100% petition and, therefore, would be assessed over a 5-year period at 8.5% interest. The total final cost of the project was $233,311.00, the City share was $10,898.00, with the net assessment of $222,413.00. 117 lots were to be assessed at $1,804.68 per family unit. A special provision for sanitary sewer along Chennault Way resulted in a special assessment of $296.46 for 38 lots. Tenpas asked what property was being assessed $9,624.76. Dietz replied that 2/3 of the property belonged to the Tom Thumb Store and the other 1/3 belonged to the Especially for Children complex. city council Minutes 2 September 12, 1989 There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the assessment roll fur Project I.C. 52-102 as revised and published. Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-110, Street improvements on Golden Triangle Drive south of West 74th Street. Dietz reported that Project I.C. 52-110 consisted of watermain, storm sewer, and street improvements on Golden Triangle Drive from W. 74th Street to W. 76th Street. Hoyt Development had graded the site and the City had installed the street and storm sewer. This project did have a feasibility study done; however, Hoyt Development had requested that property be assessed on a per acre basis. The project costs were $84,494.00 to be totally • assessed. The interest rate was 8.5% for 10 years. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the assessment roll as published for project I.C. 52-110. Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-129, Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and Street Improvement in Wyndham Crest Addition. Dietz reported that the project consisted of utility and street Improvements in the Wyndham Crest Addition. The total costs for the project were $252,516.00. The project • was 100% petition and would he assessed over 5 years at 8.5% interest. The project consisted of 24 lots to he • assessed $10,521.50 per lot. Dietz presented the Council with a letter from Burl Corporation objecting to some of the costs for the project. Dietz referred to item No. 2 in the letter, • which stated that the developer was not aware of Change Order #2. Dietz explained that the work was done in 1988 and that the developers representative was on-site during that time. The work was necessary due to poor soil conditions, the work was completed by the subcontractor, and Dietz believed that the costs were legitimate. Dietz referred to Item No. 3 of the letter, additional $7,000. Dietz stated that $3,000 was for pavement repair of the wearing course due to the poor soil conditions. The project was not complete at this time and Staff G1(r) City Council Minutes 3 C ptember 12, 1089 estimated an additional $4,000 in costs. Dietz noted that in order to be ready for this Special Assessment Hearing the costs needed to he gathered by August 1, 1909 and, therefore, the unfinished work was an estimated figure. Dietz noted that $7,000 represented 3% of the tots) costs of the project and believed this estimate to be reasonable. Dietz referred to Item No. 4 of the letter, debris on the site. Dietz stated that discussions had taken place with the developer over the last 4 years regarding this item. The debris was probably left by a previous owners. Dietz noted that if the City were to refund the costs incurred by Burl Corporation, the City would be responsible for the cost:,. Dietz recommended approval of the assessment roll as published. Harris asked Dietz to explain the discrepancy between the contract amount referenced in the letter and the costs being assessed. Dietz replied that the original bid excluded the change order and added that a total feasibility study was not done for 100`t petitioned projects. Anderson asked Dietz if this was the area just off the floodplain. Dietz replied this was the wooded knoll. Tenpas asked Dietz if the estimates for Item No. 3 in the letter came In lower than expected would the City refund the difference to the developer. Dietz replied no. Dietz added that over $2,000,000 had been assessed to the total project in this area and believed that the estimates would be within $1,000 of the actual costs. Anderson stated that it was difficult to estimate the actual costs when poor soil conditions were present. Tenpas asked if an alternative would be to delay the assessment of this project until next year. Dietz replied it would he assessed at an additional 8.5% interest if the project were not assessed this year. There were no comments from the audience. MQi N: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the assessment roll as published for Project 52-129. Motion carried unanimously. D. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-131, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements on Hamilton Road. J%tO`t L' City Council Ilir ites 4 ^epteml:er 12, 1'181 Dietz reported that this project was for storm sewer and street improvements on Hamilton Road to serve the Claredon Industrial area. The project was designed to improve the drainage in the area and the road improvements were necessary due to the severe road deterioration. The total costs of the project were $340,025.00. The feasibility study had estimated the project at $353,000. The project was to be assessed over 20 years at 8.51 interest. The method of assessment had been discussed at the time of the feasibility hearing and it was determined that front footage would not be equitable because of the different shapes of the lots. Another alternative which had been considered was an assessment on a per-lot basis; however, this was questioned because of the varied lot sizes and uses. It was determined that an equitable assessment method would be on a per-acre basis. The assessment was for 21 .71 acres at $15,622.14 per acre. A letter was given to the Council from MacDermid Incorporated requesting that a front footage method of assessment be used. City Engineer Alan Gray pointed out the parcel as requested by Councilmember Harris. Pidcock slated that the City had received several complaints about the Starkey Labs property and the drainage problem in this area. Gray replied that the City's consultant had contacted the property owners in the area after the flood and the owners had reported that there was no building damage, but the parking areas were flooded. Gray added that part of the improvements was to raise a portion of the Starkey Labs parking lot and to add a storm sewer going into the pond. Dietz stated that there was a provision for prepayment by November. 15, 1989. Rick Stumpf, General Manager of MacDermid incorporated, believed that the assessment should he on a front footage basis. Stumpf had requested the Council's consideration of this method as part of a letter to the City. • Anderson asked Stumpf if he believed that the business had • more or less benefits than the amount of the assessment because of the road improvements. Stumpf replied that if the front footage of his business were larger, it would create more usable land and this was the basis on which he had concluded that front footage would he more equitable. Dietz replied that the test of the equitability of an assessment was if the assessment was equal to the increased value of the property. Dietz added that the City did prefer a front footage basis whenever possible; however, in this instance the Starkey Labs property would be assessed for 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire project and Dietz did not believe this to be equitable. City Council Minutes 5 September 12, 1989 There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the assessment roll as published for Project I.C. 52.131. Motion carried unanimously. E. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-132, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Watermain Improvements on Franlo Road from Prairie Center Drive to Grier Lane. Diet7 reported that the properties on this project were rectangular in shape and, therefore, a front footage method of assessment had been used. This was the final project for the utility and street improvements on Franlo Road between Grier Lane and Prairie Center Drive. This was a feasibility project with estimated costs of $330,633. The final costs for the project were $350,152, which was approximately $20,000 higher than anticipated. The City share would be $11,079 with a net assessment of $339,073. Dietz noted that there were several properties guided for commercial development and that these properties would be assessed $117.33 per front footage for the streets and drainage. The project would be assessed over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Dietz explained the special assessment policies utilized on this project and how they affected the assessments. The total of the 1995 and 1990 columns on the assessment roll could not exceed $15,000 and any assessment in excess of $15,000 on a homesteaded property would be deferred with interest until the time of development. Dietz noted there were 4 homesteaded properties which were affected by the newly adopted special assessment policy. Pidcock asked Dietz if the $15,000 figure was only to be used as a guideline. Dietz replied that the $15,000 was part of the policy adopted by the Council and added that the City needed to be consistent with this figure because other projects would be coming up in the future. Harris asked Dietz what property was being assessed $50,549.07. Dietz noted the triangular piece of property on the map and added that the frontage used for calculating the assessment for this property had been reduced by 50 feet for assessment purposes because only .9 acres faced the road with an additional 1.6 acres which was behind the triangular piece of property. All public improvements were completed in this area. Staff believed that without the improvements the entire parcel could not be developed. Tenpas asked how the property was currently guided. Gray replied the triangular portion of the property was guided city Council Minutes E September 12, 1989 Low Density Residential and the portion hehind the triangular section was guided Neighborhood Commercial. Tenpas then asked if the triangular portion could be changed to commercial use. Dietz replied that all of the properties to the west of Franlo Road were guided for commercial development. Lee Johnson, owner of the property being questioned, reminded the Council that this was not a 100`6-petitioned project and added his objection to the street costs. He believed that even though there were mitigating circumstances for the high cost of the street, Johnson stated the cost was at least twice what it should have been. Johnson questioned the assessment method used and added that he could not afford to pay $5,000 a year plus interest on this parcel. Johnson stated that he could only utilize approximately 200 feet of the road. Johnson said there was a guard rail placed on a portion of the road and his property was actually 30 feet below the road. Johnson believed that he would have to construct a road parallel to Franlo Road in order to be able to use it. Johnson did not believe that this parcel was being treated equitably. He would like to develop the parcel as high density residential to provide a buffer between the residential area to the south and the movie theater to the north. Pidcock asked Dietz if the cost of the road was twice what it should be. Dietz replied that the road costs were high; however, he did not believe they were twice what they should have been. Dietz added that the sanitary sewer estimated costs were $30.00 per foot and actual costs were lower. The water cost had been estimated at $27.00 per foot and had come in at $19.49. The street costs had been estimated at $78.00 per foot and the final costs were at $98.34 per foot, which was higher. The bid had accepted with more costs being proposed for the street than the sanitary sewer, which he noted was not always the case in the bidding process. Dietz noted that the Johnson property did not have the benefit of sanitary sewer. He added that with all of the other parcels the costs had averaged out due to the higher street costs, but lower sewer and water costs. Dietz stated that the guard rail was necessary on the Johnson parcel. Anderson asked Dietz what benefit Johnson would derive from the guard rail or a retaining wall. Dietz replied that the City's policy was that the road was to function as a total unit and the guard rail was necessary for the road as a whole. The end result was that all of the properties would he assessed for a portion of the guard rail and retaining wall. Tenpas asked Dietz to explain the bid process. Dietz City Council Minutes 7 September 12, 1989 replied that in most instances the sanitary sewer portion of a bid was lower and the street portion of a bid was higher. The bid accepted for the project was the best bid for the project, but it had presented a higher sanitary sewer portion and a lower street portion of the bid. Dietz noted that the Johnson parcel was the only property which did not receive the full benefit of the bid as proposed. Tenpas believed that Johnson was being penalized because of the way the bid was proposed. Dietz replied that the street improvements were estimated at approximately S45,000 for this property and the final costs exceeded this amount by approximately 10%. Tenpas asked if it would more equitable to defer a portion of the Johnson assessment until the time of development. Dietz replied that other properties similar to the Johnson property would then ask for the same consideration. Anderson believed that the Johnson property was a unique situation. Pidcock asked if there was a building on the property at this time. Johnson replied no. Anderson asked if a portion of the assessment could be deferred. Jullie replied that the sewer and water portion of the assessment could be deferred. Tenpas then asked what the amount of that deferment would be. Dietz replied $8,361.21. Charles Alesener, 8561 Franlo Road, stated that the homesteaded parcels were being assessed for a commercial • road which was 4 inches thicker and 4 feet wider than a typical residential street. Dietz replied that Franlo Road was a collector road and had been constructed to collector standards. Tenpas believed that because this area was zoned residential, but in the future would be developed as commercial, it would he fair to defer as much as possible • until development occurred. Anderson asked if this project had to be considered as a whole or if the project could be assessed on a parcel by parcel basis. Jullie replied that the assessments had to be consistent. Tenpas concurred with the City's position to build the road as commercial at this time, hut believed that it was not fair to assess the residents who still had homes in the area for a commercial road. Lee Johnson believed that the project should be assessed by the affected frontage with some type of a deferment allowed. He believed that the amount of his assessment City Council Minutes 8 September 12, 1989 would exceed the value which he would recieve. Blesener concurred with the City's approach to develop the road as commercial, but did not believe that the current homeowners in the area should have to hear the burden. Blesener said that he would he pleased if more of the amount of the assessment could be deferred and encouraged the Council to reconsider the $15,000 cap figure. Blesener said that the road design was proper; however, he did not need this type of a road at this time. Chuck Pufahl, 8560 Franlo Road, stated that at the feasibility hearing all of the residents had stated their objections to the road. He added that some of the people affected were elderly and could not afford this type of an assessment. Jullie explained to Pufahl that a special deferment was available for senior citizens. Dietz stated that the range in the past for rebuilt roads was between $12,000 and $18,000. The City had determined the $15,000 figure as a moderate figure based on past assessments. Anderson stated that many of the same residents were at the feasibility hearing expressing their concerns and believed that hardships were present in some cases. Anderson asked what the alternatives would he. Jullie replied that there were deferments for senior citizens and the sewer and water portion of the project could be deferred. Blesener believed that the hardships being placed on the young families just trying to survive were just as important as those of the elderly. Dietz reexplained the present deferments being proposed. Harris stated that this was a difficult area and proposed to defer the water portion of the assessment for the Johnson parcel. There were no further comments from the audience. tTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to defer the water portion of the assessment for the Johnson parcel No. 14- 116-22-43-0010 in the amount of $8,361.21. Tenpas asked how the other vacant parcel would be handled and if the City was going to penalize those with homestead parcels for a commercial road which was not necessarily needed at this time for their purposes. City Council Minutes 9 Soptt:mber 12, 1989 Anderson stated that he did not believe a $500 per year assessment to be excessive for a residential parcel. Tenpas then asked about the other vacant lot. Pidcock replied that the other vacant lot had received the benefit of the costs equalling out between the sewer, water, and the street, and the Johnson property was unique because it had received that same benefit. Jullie explained that there were State Statues which governed what could be deferred and what could not. He added that there was no legal mechanism available to defer the street assessment; however, because the Johnson parcel was unique the water assessment could be deferred. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to defer the water and sewer portion for parcel No. 14-116-22-43-0003 in the amount of $8,347.95 with interest until development. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the remaining portion of the assessment roll as published, with the above exceptions noted. Tenpas stated that he would like to defer a portion of the 1990 column for the four homesteaded properties. Jullie explained that the sewer and water portions had already been deferred and to defer any other portion would require a policy change. Motion carried 3-1. Tenpas voted "NO". F. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-133, Storm Sewer, Watermain and Sanitary Sewer in Legion Park Plat. Dietz stated that this project was for the utilities in the Legion Park Plat and was 100% petitioned. The project costs of $155,036.00 were to be assessed over a 5-year period at 8.5% interest. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the assessment roll as published. Motion carried 4-0. G. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-147, Watermain Improvement along County Road 4 and County Road 1 east of Cedar Ridge icy City Council Minute's 10 Srrptember 12, 1989 Estates and west of Staring Lake II. Dietz reported that this project was for watermain improvements along County Road 4 and County Road 1 east of Cedar Ridge Estates and west of Staring Lake I1 . The project was to be completed prior to the beginning of school this year, which had been accomplished. Dietz noted that the City share of the project was significant at a cost of $276,619. The net assessment was $227,353 to be assessed at $18.92 per front foot. Dietz stated that at the feasibility hearing the owner of the large pie-shaped parcel had requested and exception due to the shape of the lot. Staff had averaged the lot dimension from front to back and reduced the assessment from 170 feet to 119 feet and had determined a 121-foot frontage on the second pie-shaped lot. Dietz noted that the exclusion policy was also available on this project The large developable single family homesteaded lots were assessed at a maximum of 175 feet, with the balance to he deferred until the time of further development. Tenpas asked how the benefit was determined. Dietz replied that this was the Fairfield Subdivision with contained approximately 300 acres. This project would connect to the watermain from County Road 4. Tenpas then asked why the Wagner property was being assessed higher than other parcels with the same benefit. Dietz replied that the Wagner property was next to the watermain and would not accumulate the high costs to get to the water connection as the other properties. Diets noted that Mr. Wagner had written a letter of objection to the assessment. Pidcock asked if the Wagner property would be dissected with the proposed Scenic Heights Road alignment. Dietz replied that a portion of the Wagner property would be taken as right-of-way; however, the asse_sment would immediately increase the value of the property and MnDot would he required to pay the increased price for the land. Stephen Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated the he had asked that the exit ramp from Highway 212 he extended as far as possible. He believed that his property would become fragmented by the proposed road. Wagner believed that it would be best to make the water connection from Endicott Drive. He did not helieve that his parcel was being treated equitably and believed that the Silk property would have the same benefit as his property. Wagner stated that he was very concerned about the disparity. He added that he wanted to pay his fair share, but he wanted that share to be equitable. Robert Brown, 8701 Eden Prairie Road, believed that he was City Council Minutes 11 September 12, 1989 being assessed for more frontage than he actually had. Dietz replied that the property was registered as being 141 feet. Brown stated that the frontage was 100 feet. Diets asked Brown to come into the office for further investigation into the discrepancy and it would be adjusted if necessary. Jeff Wendt, 8691 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he was being assessed for 109 feet and his abstract stated 107 feet. Dietz asked that Mr. Wendt contact the City offices and an adjustment would also be made if necessary. Anderson asked Dietz exactly how this discrepancy would be handled. Dietz replied that these two parcels would be deferred until the final hearing on October 3, 1989. Pidcock asked if the Wagner property could also be deferred for further study. Jullie replied that it could be deferred to the October 3, 1989 final hearing. Dietz concurred that the 3 parcels should be deferred and Staff would come back to the Council with a recommendation on the Wagner property. Tenpas asked if any portion of the Wagner property was undevelopable. Wagner replied that the road alignment did not work well with the layout of the home. Wagner believed that the Tandem and Fairfield developments were the sole beneficiaries of this project. Anderson stated that all of these items would be taken into consideration. There were no further comments from the audience. MINN: : Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to exclude Parcels Nn. 20-116-22-11-0003, No. 20-116-22-11-0004, and No. 17-116- 22-44-0013 from the assessment roll at this time and to determine the assessment at the October 3, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the remainder of the assessment roll for Project I.C. 52-147 as published. Motion carried unanimously. H. Special Assessments, T.C. 52-149, Wat:ermain Improvements along County Road 1 vest of Staring Lake Parkway and east of Staring Lake II. Dietz stated that this project was for the installation of watermain on Pioneer Trail vest of Staring Lake Parkway to City Council Minutes 12 septemher 17, 1989 LaRivicr Court. The costs were slightly higher than the feasibility study projected. There were no comments from the .audience. MQTIOSI,: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the assessment roll as published for Project I.C. 52-149. Motion carried unanimously. I. Special Assessments, Supplementals. Dietz noted that the supplemental roll could be approved with the exception of the two water assessments deferred on Project I.C. 52-132. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the Supplemental Roll as published with the exception of the two deferments noted on Project No. 52-132. Motion carried unanimously. • MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 89-199 approving the Special Assessment Roll with the exception of changes made to be incorporated into exhibit A. Motion carried unanimously. III. NEW BUSINESS IV. AflJQURNMENT MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to adjourn to a closed session to discuss litigation related to the proposed expansion of the Flying cloud sanitary landfill at 10:15 PM. Motion carried unanimously. The closed session adjourned at 11:40 PM. • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: September 13, 1989 SUBJECT: Equipment Storage Facility at Flying Cloud Fields The Eden Prairie Soccer Club is presently storing equipment in the concession building at Flying Cloud Fields. Their club is expanding and they are in need of more storage facilities. The Soccer Club originally asked the City for additional storage space, but the City cannot accommodate their needs. The Soccer Club has proposed to expand the concession/storage building at Flying Cloud Fields at their own expense. The work will be under the supervision of a licensed contractor and will appear as one construction according to John Parrington's memo dated July 11, 1989. Staff has asked the City Building Department to review the attached plans. The Building Department has Or requested more specific details concerning, method of attachment, footings, wall and roof framing. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department staff also have aesthetic concerns as well. Recommendations are as follows: 1. Siding at the attachment point should be staggered to disguise the addition. This treatment would avoid the visible addition line where the siding ends and starts in a straight line. 2. The entire building should be painted, so all of the siding matches. 3. The Eden Prairie Soccer Club should reshingle the building, if matching shingles cannot be found. The building is now 8 years old and the shingles, although, probably in good repair, have faded and will be impossible to match. The design of the building could also be revised so instead of a continuous building the addition would be staggered. Some of the above measures may also be needed, but the match would not be as critical since the continuous line of the building would be broken. Staff recommends initial approval of this plan based on Building Department approval and aesthetic concerns addressed in this memo. BPC:mdd EDLN r- k A 1 I-t 1 E S O r C E R CLUB MEMORANDUM y( )TE: July 11. .198g TO: Laurie Helling; Athletic Coordinator FROM: John S. Farrington; President EPSC SUBJECT: Equipment Storage Facility The Eden Prairie Soccer Club (EPSC) presently support two hundred and eighty eight (288) players of school age in sixteen (16) boy's and girl 's soccer teams. In addition, we provide equipment for three (3) adult teams, each of eighteen (18) players. Our needs in the past have been small for housing equipment at the end of our season, and we have been fortunate to have storage space Pallocated to us by the city. However, as we continue to grow, and also rovide adult needs, our needs have expanded. recently requested if more permanent accomodation for equipment ' arage might he provided by the city to find that there is no accomodation available at this time. Therefore, I am requesting that the EPSC be granted, at our own cost and under the supervision of a licensed contractor, to extend the concession / storage building with the same roof line towards the driveway (easterlly) at the Flying Cloud Facility. The building will appear as one construction, having a passageway into the existing accornodaticn on the left, addition on the right. We would like to receive your permission soon, as our season completes at the end of July, at which time we must take down the goal nets and store prior to the school needing to install theirs. Also, we neeed to store corner posts, training equipment along with tournament equipment. Thanking you again for all your excellent work in helping us provide a safe and drug free environment for our young people of Eden Prairie. LC • •r# x N`r Z F. 400 ( a g w A oMOB in —__________ [—,—,7 § R"gaG) „fAA oa 11.1 M5 VP M•• 0 . y-_ i y �a0N ir—s\hl 1.4 i t f_ Lt1_-.--_._.s- a IM-v_-..M.—E...,M......M....U.__M_I Q.—____41_____. i1 [ 3i•• $I =61ig l *W,•,NNK0,g,•.,0go.n. a5 . p IIIIIIJI7tJ a I � g. v Age y . • r• a w 1 to a $ A W — M A ---� N r I p dl . C a T:3 4 ri 3 0 M M 1 y F.w xa, n o t .�. 0 a k ti f • 4 H e .... ...,,. . . 4. City 1)f Eden Prairiepm C' lices �rt.'L y ji,t%b__Executive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344.3677• Telephone(612)937.2262 �•'•'�•�•- • {' �. j hEl`1ORANDLM TO: - John Parrington; President EPSC FROM: Laurie Helling; Manager of Recreation Services DATE: July 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Flying Cloud Equipment Storage Facility On Monday, July 17, I discussed your memo requesting equipment storage at the Flying Cloud Youth Athletic Fields with Bob Lambert; Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. We are both well aware of the growth of your program, and the need for additional space to house your equipment. rWe are willing to consider your proposal to extend the concession/storage building with the sane roof line toward the driveway at the Flying Cloud Facility. However, we request that you submit a copy of the architectural plans as well as the site plans for this project. We will then have the City Park Planner, and Building Inspections Department review these plans. The EPSC would need to comnit to painting the entire building, matching the paint. If your plan is able to tie the equipment storage area into the rest of the building, we see no reason why this project could not be implemented. The Metropolitan Airport Commission would need to be informed of any additions. If you have questions, please give me a call at 937-9894. cc: Bob Lambert; Director of Parks, Recreation & natural Resources ( , •i ( 'FT 0 I._ 1 _ . . -- - I _ . . , 4- i PC61. .1.-C-)Csji&.t.l _ I • • _ --- _.. 4 • ._.________. -1 . V k • # ,F.,•.4.T -I 1 4 -i . . i 1 ( 1 _____________._.__________ Architects du'Monceaux Assoc. kora*•Plow.•Irdititonialpten •„.1,-,f -,,tga 44 i: .2, 0,, ,•'-‘,"...-.-..2.7 N40.1410•0.UN HUY 4043141144 • :i 1 j A I 4 11 • 144a1b� _...._. _ _... ._ 0Als1 BV 1 l i..______ j Id of plaatd • i i 3 i 3 a ( • vt ter`. + A UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. a NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -2- 2. Eden Prairie Soccer Club Proposal: Expansion of Flying Cloud Equipment Storage Facility Refer to memo dated September 13, 1989 from Barb Cross, Landscape Architect. A request was received from the President of the Eden Prairie Soccer Club, John Parrington to expand the concession/storage building at Flying Cloud Fields at their own expense. After review by the City Building Department, several concerns were noted. The club plans to expand the building to the east which will not present a problem. Staff is asking, however, that the new addition matches the present building and meet all other requirements of the Building Department. Cook asked how large an addition is being added. Cross said the addition would be 10 x 20. Cook asked if the addition would be very close to the road. Lambert said yes, within about 8 feet. Cook felt the proximity of the building to the road should be a concern because of the possibility of kids running out into the road. Lambert said this facility is used mostly by adults. Karpinko asked on which side the door will be located. Lambert said the door will be on the south side. MOTION: Cook moved to recommend approval of the addition to the storage facility at Flying Cloud Fields, but - that a railing, walkway or whatever is necessary be added for safety reasons. Karpinko seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. AG)614 PE!L"MDUD TO: Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission and Eden Prairie City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services DATE: September 13, 1989 SUBJECT: Program Cancellation and Refund Policy Our office staff registers thousands of Eden Prairie patrons each year at the Eden Prairie Community Center for the various programs our department offers the community. Throughout the year the office staff hears numerous reasons why a patron needs to cancel out of a program: death in family • serious injury or hospitalization ▪ child has tubes in their ears . child is signed up for the wrong level Many patrons request a full refund when they cancel out of a program. hider what condition or situation (if any) should a patron be refunded? Our current cancellation and refund policy reads: • CANCELLATION: Classes with insufficient enrollment will be cancelled and payments refunded by mail. • REFUNDS: For all cancellations, there will be a service charge of $3.00. If the fee is less than $3.00, service charge will be the total fee. In addition to the $3.00 service charge, refunds will be prorated according to the period of time passed in the activity. No refunds will be issued after me-half of the session is completed. If an activity is cancelled, a refund will be issued. The Eden Prairie School District Community Education cancellation and refund policy reads: • CANCELLATION: Classes with insufficient enrollment will. be cancelled and payments returned or refunded. . REFUNDS: There will be no refunds after a class has begun. Participants who notify us that they need to cancel prior to the first meeting will have a $3 service charge deducted from the class refund. Staff recommends that the City of Eden Prairie adopt the same refund policy as the Eden Prairie School District with one addition: • Once the program has started, refunds are only given for medical related problems on a pro-rated basis (mist have a doctors notice). { Recently an intern, Angie Zunker, from Shoreview surveyed surrounding Parks and Recreation Departments to determine their policies for programs and trips. Attached for your information is a copy of this survey. If this proposed change in policy is approved, staff recommends instituting the new cancellation and refund policy this winter when the winter brochure comes out. The office staff will be asked to refer patrons who have questions or concerns regarding our refund policy on cancellations and transfers. Patrons will be referred directly to the Recreation Manager with the exception of skating lessons, which will be referred to the EPCC Operations Manager. cc: Tom Eastman, EPCC Operations Manager Connie Peters, EPCC Lead Secretary SURROUNDING PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS CANCELLATION POLICIES FOR PROGRAMS AND TRIPS Arden Hills: 633-5676 - If the party cancels before the class starts a FULL REFUND is given. - If the party has gone to one or more classes then a refund is given on a pro-rated basis. ** Have no set policy - every case is different. Blaine: 784-6700 - If the party cancels before the class starts or after the first class a FULL REFUND is given. - No refunds are given after the first class unless the participant has a medical related problem. If this occurs the refund is pro-rated. Trips: A refund is given only if a replacement is found. Brooklyn Center: 561-5448 - If the party cancels 24 hours before the class starts all except $3 is refunded. - If the party cancels after the first class all except $4 is refunded. - If the party cancel anytime laterthan th first class they have to talk with a program supervisor to determine if a refund will be given and how much. Brooklyn Park: 424-8000 - If the party cancels before the class starts all except $5 is refunded. - No refunds are given once the class has started. (there are some exceptions - must talk to a program supervisor if they insist on a refund) Columbia Heights: 788-1697 - If the party cancels before the second class a FULL REFUND is given. - If the party cancels after the above time no refunds are given unless they have a medical related problem. Trips: Refunds are given only if a replacement is found. Eden Prairie: 937-8727 - If the party cancels before the program starts all except $3 is refunded. - If the parks and recreation department cancels the program participants get a full refund. - If the class was less than $3 then a different refund is determined. Edina 927-8861 - If the party cancels before the program starts a FULL REFUND is given. - If the party cancels after the first class all except $5 is refunded. - If the party cancels after the first class due to a medical related reason a full refund is given. Fridley: 571-3450 - If the party cancels before the first class a FULL REFUND is given, otherwise no refunds are given. (this is not strictly enforced - if the party is very upset they give them a refund) Hopkins: 935-1788 - If the party cancels 2 working days in advance of the class a FULL REFUND is given. - Once the class has started refunds are only given for medical related problems on a pro-rated basis. (must have a doctors notice) Maplewood: 770-4570 - If the party cancels 1 working day before the class starts a FULL REFUND is given. - If the party cancels before the second class all except $1 is refunded. - If the party cancels after the above times a refund is given on a pro-rated basis only for medical related problems. Trips: A refund is given only if a replacement is found. Mounds View 784-3055 - If the party cancels 24 hours in advance all except $2 is refunded. - After the first class no refunds are issued unless the party has a medical related problem. (then refund is pro-rated) New Brighton: 633-8906 - If the party cancels before the second class all except $1 is refunded. - If the party cancels after this date no refunds are given unless it is a medical related reason. Then the refund will be given on a pro-rated basis. Trips: A refund is given only if a replacement is found. Plymouth: 559-2800 - If the party cancels before the class starts all except $3 is refunded. - Once the class has started refunds are given on a pro-rated basis only if the party has a medical related problem. Trips: If they cancel prior to the day of the trip all except $3 is refunded. White Bear Lake 429-5371 - Usually give refunds whenever the party cancels unless the class is half over. * Have no strict policy. YMCA 483-2671 - If the party cancels before the class starts a FULL REFUND is given. - Once the class has started refunds are only given if the party has a medical related problem. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -8 • - VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Policy on Registration Cancellation Refunds Refer to memo dated September 13, 1989 from Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services. Helling said that recently staff felt it was necessary to review this policy. There has been some inconsistency with the cancellation and refund policy. This was based on the information received from a survey of surrounding communities. Staff is requesting that the City use the same policy as the school district and that is that refunds be given only for medical problems on a pro-rated basis with a doctor's statement, if staff makes an error in registration or if the date of the class or its content changes. Karpinko asked why refunds should be given for medical reasons after the class has already started. Helling said she feels it is important to keep this clause in, as some classes are quite expensive and if it is the intent of the person to register for the class, refunds should be given for medical reasons. Cook felt that trip refund terms should be added to the policy. Helling said that this is already included in the program advertisements. MOTION: Cook moved to recommend approval of the revised program cancellation and refund policy per staff recommendation. Karpinko seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. • • • • � .. xJ.. •• 1, a�OaiU MEMORANDUMgr TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resource DATE: September 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Mini Rinks/Skating Rinks Attached is a memo dated April 26, 1989 providing background into the location and maintenance of mini rinks and skating rinks. At the May 1, 1989 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting, the issue of mini rinks and skating rinks was discussed at length with the recommendation that it brought back to the Commission in the fall, so that they would have a better understanding of the two proposed mini rinks at Wyndham Knoll Park and Carmel Park. The area of concern that was raised by the Commission involved the mowing and flooding over existing wetland vegetation at these two neighborhood parks. In addition, the staff has reservations about flooding of wetland areas where water fluctuation could cause heaving and air pockets under the ice sheet. Both of these neighborhood park wetland areas serve as storm drainage retention areas and have outlet pipes which allow excess water to be drained into adjacent areas. If the water level climbs during a winter thaw due to the introduction of water from adjacent streets, this would cause the ice to bubble and crack causing rather serious problems in the maintenance of the ice surface. As a side note to this maintenance problem, the park maintenance staff maintained a pond adjacent to the Crestwood Terrace area and a truck fell through the ice during the maintenance operation and resulted in major damage to the truck. Due to this experience, staff is rather hesitant on recommending that we flood pond area where this potential fluctuation in the ice surface can open up cracks and lead to other serious damage to vehicles. When all the factors related to mini rinks are considered, the staff would recommend that the mini rinks for Wyndham Knoll Park and Carmel Park be placed on the infield area of the baseball/softball fields. The staff makes this recommendation with the realization that the following factors will be present as long as the mini rinks are there. These are: 1. The turf area from the parking lot to the rink will be of a lower quality due to the winter exposure to frost penetration, plowing damage, and freeze out from the ice sheet. 2. The rinks will not be located adjacent to the parking areas and this will make them less desirable for people during days of high winds or cold temperatures. 3. As in previous experiences with mini rinks these will be a low priority in terms of maintenance (i.e. flooding, and snow removal). The neighbors of these two areas should be informed of this, so that there are no misunderstandings as to the frequency that they can expect their rinks to be maintained. During the 1989-90 skating season the staff will continue to monitor the mini rinks for usage and keep track of costs, complaints, and additional restoration costs that may occur due to the use of these rinks. This information will be forwarded to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission next spring. • 26U MEMORANDUM C TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resource DATE: September 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Request to Flood Preserve Homeowner's Association Pond Attached is a copy of the January 6, 1989 memo requesting to flood a pond located on Outlot C of Amsden Hills 2nd Addition. Following discussion with the City Council, this request was dropped but the Council requested a report as to the suitability of utilizing pond sites for tentative neighborhood mini rinks. It is the general consensus of the staff that utilization of ponds is a very risky and expensive proposition for maintaining skating rinks. This is due to the fact that equipment necessary to maintain the ice is too heavy, in most cases, to put onto the pond; therefore, most of the work is done by hand. An additional consideration is that most of these ponds are utilized for storm drainage and the pond levels can fluctuate with intermediate freeze thaw conditions in the winter that would introduce water off of the street storm drains into the pond causing the ice to buckle and heave. Another concern with the Preserve Association pond is that is not on property owned by the City and, therefore, the appropriate authorization and waivers would have to be secured to work on and maintain the mini rink. While it is true that many neighborhoods take it upon themselves to clear snow and flood ponds on their own, it seems that when the City takes on such a responsibility that the neighbors expect a high level of service and excellent skating conditions. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that these ponds are extremely difficult to maintain and require an extensive amount of hand labor to maintain them. Coupled with the experience of having a truck fall through the ice on a pond several years ago and cause extensive damage to the truck as well, as time loss from use of that vehicle; the staff would recommend that we not maintain mini rinks of this type on ponds where the water depth is in excess of 1' or where the City does not own the property. SAF:mdd CF MEMORANDUM C TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Irttt� DATE: January 6, 1989 SUBJECT: Request to Flood Preserve Homeowner's Association Pond Councilman Tenpas has received a request from residents in the vicinity of Amsden Way and Anderson Lakes Parkway for the City to flood a pond area for a skating rink. The pond is located within Outlot C of Amsden Hills Second Addition and is owned by the Preserve Homeowner's Association. The neighbors have apparently removed some of the snow on the pond and would like the City to flood the pond in order to allow skating. The request is for a single flooding. The nearest skating rink is at Preserve Neighborhood Park, nearly a mile away. In order for staff to initiate this project on private property, we will need authorization from the City Council, authorization from the Preserve Homeowner's Association Board of Directors, and a liability waiver from the C hat the City wll acceptoliabilitysforeany accidentsHeoer'sA that ssoc�may occur due to themaintenanceiof this skating pond. It should be noted that it is highly unlikely that one flooding will provide a satisfactory skating surface, and staff would not recommend initiating this project unless the City plans to continue flooding until the ice is at a safe skating condition. The City should also decide at this time whether or not we are going to maintain this as a public rink for the remainder of the season ie. removing snow and continued flooding, etc. There is safe access to the pond from the east and west, as the pond fronts on Amsden Way to the west, and there is an outlot between two homes on the east that would provide pedestrian access from Garrison Way to the east. There has been no trail developed within that outlot; therefore, there may be a r with adjacent property owners allowing children to walk to that pond P rough the outlot, as it unsigned and has never been used as a trailway. through Staff would recommend that if Council authorizes maintenance of this skating rink, that the use of the rink be monitored through the remaining part of the skating season to determine if this pond should be a designated skating rink for future years. BL:mdd ails .� firMEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: April 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Mini-Rinks/Skating Rinks In January the City Council discussed a request related to flooding a pond for use as a neighborhood skating rink. The result of that discussion was to evaluate our rink areas and recommend guidelines for new rinks. At the present time, we have seven skating facilities which have warming houses and skating facilities. On the attached map you will notice the existing facilities and their corresponding service areas, (either 1/2 mile or 1 mile) . The gaps in the service areas are indicated by proposed locations ("P") with their service radius area in dashed lines. Based on the guidelines of our Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan, skating rink service areas should be 1 mile in radius for neighborhood parks and 1/2 mile for mini-rinks. rTo best serve the community, the staff would recommend that skating facilities be located on park property for the following reasons: 1. Access - The park crew would be able to access the area for flooding and maintenance purposes without need to secure an , easement. 2. Liability - Damages that occur due to flooding, maintenance or use of the facility would be solely the City's since it is on City property. 3. Grading/Damage Repair - Many times it is necessary to block the natural drainage of an area to hold water for ice build up and typically in the spring there is a certain amount of damage due to plowing, driving over thawing ground in February, as well as removal sand from grass areas. Damage of this type is common and repaired each year in our parks. At the present time, it is estimated that the number of man and equipment hours to maintain a mini-rink are as follows: . Dry Ground 180-200 hours per season . Marsh or Pond 200-220 hours per season The staff recommends that mini parks with a wind shelter can be established and maintained on several existing parcels of parkland, however, because of past experiences with these type of rinks the need must be voiced by a neighborhood group before such a rink is established. Ar To maintain mini rinks the staffs best cost estimate is approximately $1,000 per rink. Wile additional manpower is not necessary to implement and maintain these type of facilities the staff also feels that a program of need, use, and maintenance costs associated with these type of rinks should be tracked and monitored to evaluate their cost effectiveness. Due to previous experiences with mini-rinks (without warming house facilities) the staff found that skating interests was often high for a couple of years, but seemed to wane after 3-4 years. At the present time, the staff has received requests from the Wyndham Knoll Park, Prairie East and Carmel Park neighborhoods for a mini-rink for the 1989-90 skating season. At the present time, the plan is to provide these rinks and monitor their usage. Should additional requests be submitted it is recommended that they be evaluated on the basis of location (proximity to other rinks using the attached map), accessibility, costs, and land ownership to evaluate how effectively they will serve the needs of the citizens requesting such a facility. In addition, if we establish mini-rinks and the interest and usage of them wanes substantially it may become necessary to discontinue their operation. SAF:mdd • " '-• -PARKS WITH SKATING AND HOCKEY FACILITIES ' MU rill - 411144,PIVAIM irt ileinkt � � `' t� i l.P� �_ ' ¢ �:M lYftI 1 aiiI� i rovisell ,jk 41 :t .-i�•� , i , r 4kil � AaV `o1.! � , , i.x N la_ a � pe '.'1 ••,‘..,..1, ,,,,,...,,,,„,.. " - itill' lir ' e''' 0. -..;/-1 '-'1; --..,..,-.. . .4 I. ✓ \ . Rift Jil� � ,. _ , ... ," i;. va � ftsfini, —LII .III �.- �_:{ia , ne ►fir ''. • 41/ r w " Jilut '. - _ - -wy � k- i. •� �mo gri ivi-we-;, •_, vh- .. --- A.....____-_„..... it .• .,,,r,:,,,,,„,„„.„..›,_,,,,‘„ , .A...„..,,,- ..-0- • Ilan. ,... -4-0,,,,..twivit-bi ...r. ,11,4,-„,„„„ ., . Ai.. ., 1 P:iismi mar--ofogotiog . , ;" NI y ��� :��.— t;�~ .fja , ►r} rah `F prrill.,114 .-y-Aimarivorifirttqtraire � � , . to ,L z� .,,. . I:i1P11"i01,4116111"LIMINI ,i) :_lr._ �g -.�. eM141Ux.,.. „:„,,,„4,„ _` ® rt, '7z4--i•imm matgial4 !. Agi At.,,,timmiplulipr., , �� ii idi o,i, L a��- i ��L��I� � .,w� _ � fit- .. +14. �ti soi� '■� ' %7~i• ram )3. 1 • 411 LkNalisr ire 11 A AraAllillialilailikS11.11 ! ��� r, . Ilt 1__----, _ �M I , Key E = Existing facility P = Proposed facility Large circles servi Facility includes a building, ce a one mile radius. e . free skating and hockey rink. Small circles service a one half mile radius. Facility includes a free skating and wind shelter. a(on UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -13- 1. Mini Rinks/Skating Rinks Refer to memo dated September 14, 1989 from Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources. Fox said that the commission looked at the requests from Wyndham Knolls and Carmel in May and decided to postpone a decision until a later date. Staff has discussed this issue and feel that the best locations for these rinks is on the ballfields. MOTION: Cook moved to recommend proceeding with • flooding for mini rinks on ballfields at Wyndham Knolls and Carmel. Mikkelson seconded the motion. On call for discussion, Karpinko asked how residents will be notified. Lambert said that a letter will be sent to the neighborhood. He added that the rinks will be flooded on a trial basis. The motion passed 4-0. MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THRU: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks Natural Resources Recreation & FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect 1 DATE: September 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to Willow Park Willow Park has been in the process of development for years, as fill from the construction of Valley View Road and from construt- ion of the apartments was used to raise the grades of the park. During the summer of 1987 the park was graded and seeded. A small parking lot holding about 8 cars, a play area, a ballfield, a tennis court and a small picnic area were facilities incorporated in to park plan. Soils at the park were tested and found to be unsuitable for pavement. Material was brought in to the site to surcharge the parking area and the tennis court. The surcharge is done settling and is now ready to be removed. A playstructure was installed in the spring of 1989, sand has been placed around the structure, but not enclosed with timber edging. The picnic area has been planned for the top of the small hill C- under several oak trees. Cutting the vegetation and stairs to the top have never been undertaken. Our thispark job in acrews timely fashion.enough order to have the the work completed this job must be contracted out. Five companies were contacted and asked to submit quotes. The contract will include: removing the surcharge material from the tennis court and parking area, and reshaping this material into berms. The berms will be spread with topsoil stored on site, timbers will be installed along the play area for edging, and a staircase to the top of the hill will also be installed. In addition, class V base rock will be installed 6" deep for the parking area and one tennis court and 5" for the pathways. The summarized quotes are as follows: COMPANY REMOVE SURCHARGE & CLASS V LIMESTONE BASE TOTAL SHAPE BERMS, TIMBER FOR PARKING LOT, 1 TENNIS EDGING & STA RS COURT & WALKIN PATHS Perkins Landscape $9,298 Finley Bros 11,960 $4,560 $13,358 Hartman Excavating not broken down no bid _,1__ n Ingram Excavation no brokendown $nobi1 no bid no Wally Ebertz bid no bid no bid no bid no bid CStaff recommends Perkins Landscape Contractors to do the work at Willow Park in the amount of $13,358. Money for this project will come from cash park fees. BPC:mdd • PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS • ( ( 5531 Eden Prairie Road Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343 PrUPUSal (612)935.6419 1••• ts•4. 67.3i- To et\v\ o as,42„..k. ---oiotten..)- _ _____.!"16,AD. dv*, 1)1- _______ _417; .0-e&.''e.4,. jett •pl..it _____Uil"... 14 IA..:( r••-•1 0100410.4 Datil Oa 0,1.01 W.Wetly propos.I.lornIth In monotone.ran erreCalc.110,4 Ware a,oft Ilneened page..eV nolorlel arc)leap niKenary 10 Complete IS.tallearIng 4609-C g;lb ititt.tnr-„. ‘.44..e....V..."../... liva0t-4,2,;,..e 42.„.„.., C.,3 0.4A- (4- -Nak 1...;.1 4'hied . , .1. r,,... • ts P‘i.›.dri -1-$.c40101 415 oLe --t-{,A;-A cou.01-. 5."'" 4, ,G-4(Aw.- 4. ( Lf.p, S,,,, Ir-4,5 0 '' . 0 4 L.,-,,4 __ cp" - ...) ., 04,. o >4— L7,S,„ , 4 1 00 id fast. ..‘. • ; __ _________._ii2Lag i .t. Allawlerial IC gwarialloN.IA ea•••Cille0 AC mi.la.0 be corm..in A went. mare novo,accanang or vs..,erection An,eornsbon or ae.e.an own WO A.A..e.ti above•,..cna epeuneetiona in*.entra oak...II M...oft Wes imam ....., =:::f......-"=1=::°:::::::::::::::"TIVr= NON,ITN er,•.•ul INV be o _.,.. bemoan.a.'roomer,neural.Ow weekere OM IOC C 00000 a by wo•beten's Marmon• 11401 scc M.*Min ,,!orb/Tr..Mance 1,_ 11 Acceptance of froposal—The o•Clothed anew epecaleetene and contellen..re..lirecteN en. Or....ONO TINI N. 1 1 ".4."- ...dna I.do Me ma.NI monad.Nyibent ball b.made.4 outlined.01,10. ILO.. of Acceptant.. .A. I • - •.,. 1. . i • •, • . . I. • A 6W)- . • -,, . . - i 4�e Proposal ...N. l el 1. Pepe TC-89-257 FINLEY BROS.ENTERPRISE tL TENNI$WEST LTD. NV Boer Neal MMrwtonk.,MN 55345 (61Z 9338272 .wMO••c euwtnee r0 City of Eden Prairie MI` 8-31-89 STOW p` Willow Park 6 Wyndham Knoll 7600 Executive Drive Gn.«wre•NO aw 0001 rp.....•rrM Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 Above noted parks w.GxnEGr awle0..t•ve Barb Cross 8-89 Pill I�0`.01° Bradley • 937-2 w•xw meer•re I..« nn•new .w..uw.u•for 26 2 Willow Park 1. Move approx. 4,100 c.y. surcharge from Parking Lot a Tennis Courts. Place material into burin. .. .. • 2. Place approx. 700 c.y. top soil from on site burms. 3. Construct treated timber steps. ( approx. 35 ft. ) • Total Willow Park Bid ••• _$11,960.00 Wyndham Park 1. Install 5 x 6 timber edger around Tot-Lot. 2. Install 4" Class S2 limestone path from Parking Lot to Tennis Court and Parking Lot to Tot-Lot._ Total Wyndham Park Bid ••• -• $2,600.00 • • • deft..often. 00.0 .aM W0N.W.e na«•KI eowr lu•I NYIbrW.wen ne O Omer "4 ft...NM ypNl IW.OeraI.01W If Vey eN NN MN b 111W , pay Menge.km often the own.toyeln«pleft N.anemia,E0 ft.O11MGNNr«i pd.«.y.,been eftl,yb eft. .«YI«nv Wne1.M.�N., «•uen dowdy erMlwn•.me.p..w cow IN..«Nrn Me e« e.pIle.wwwafted.weel pea « eorN•leNN•weftlac wafted.el g4.Ye lrern llraorr.«wgn . wpw.enwwl..WMIW exemehe"ww.w.lewewe/w.M «ew nwwbn..eel..•.ne.gn.w bydem.«w New..,Mw M.w«eWww•bw. lwpowyN eft who poda::W ww.e.n In.Mv rwr,w • 1r propose e«e..101Wn1M n, ,l0'Me MOW—CedieleleIn.e<areenee who..oe..pe«11k.s.n..I$IIl .INn at: Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty ewwwrwW.0..'w... emus a 14.560 OQ • Cash on completion ' • Put due amoe.11..m subfsel to.wale.thaw. %par month 08 f ww.le ewwr woe mee•esewe M wen I.ft rowed..le•wwwwr newwe .N . anew*,w..mw•wwN«•woloro. Mrww xw«w.ywewvw•w 4...I.r. •.. n u.u..wM•.w.ww,ww.. www.,r•u.•wimam wnur. . « +•Mom www•M..•,nw•.4ne.w u•••w.ww..www.a«r,• NO w.,w.w.Y mummy w.w.w. Mau' M 10 ys ..Nee<...r.Y ww.ww.c.••.rlr r..ww wwgr.w by roll NN IN wOele b... Arnptanrr of Yawata-11w mete sleet.•.•el.e.ewee ww...w ew MIlsI«,M.rre.le lab,awww.Yea en...NeedN %le•Ilmde ft waft ... Maar air i Sa.e.�Ma _ . Ha rtni a i ;t- 1600 Arboretum Blvd. P.O. Box219 ail Excavating Inc. Victoria,Minnesota 55386 • ii 612/443-2211 September 12, 1989 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ' Attn: Bill Bradley I r I i BID I PROJECT: Willow (Park �1 "I r ;„ !;I 1.1. Grading Sub-grade Fine Grading • • Tennis Court Parking Lot Driveway , Pathway ' Timbersteps ' Timbers for the Playground I,. Note: All soil stays on site • i ,•Start Date will be 9-18-89 :1 j ' • ;Bid Price: Lump Sum $23,151.00 i I, PROJECT: Park II on Dell Road -Eden Prairie Timbers on Playground ` I , I•' !,. , � 1 ; Rock ` Haul fill on Site "� •Ij I. • I' I I Bid Price: Lump Sum $1,292 00 orized i9 ature • »Iq•,,I. DATE •.I ,,I 1I,:r.,I K1�: . . _-I, ,,gal iyi .l. . . .•1;.1:.1 •1 .. • • • MUNICIPAL COMMERCIAL I—__ I , • RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT•LANDSCAPING •ALL TYPES OF EXCAVATING&GRADING � t I�""•+t; w UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -10- 1. Willow Park Improvements Refer to memo dated September 12, 1989 from Barb Cross, Landscape Architect. Cross said that this park has been in the process of development for several years. it was graded and seeded in 1987. Soils were found to be unsuitable for pavement so material was brought in to surcharge the parking area and tennis court. It is now ready to be removed. A playstructure was installed in spring and sand has been placed around the structure, but not enclosed with timber edging. A small picnic area is planned; however, the City crews do not have enough time to complete the work. Bids were received with Perkins Landscape submitting the low bid. MOTION: Cook moved to recommend approval of the Perkins Landscape bid of $13,358 for completing the work at Willow Park. Richard seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. go3 1 . PT_K R N TO: Parks. Recreation and Natural Resources Commission T RU: Bob Lambert. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Tom Eastman, Supervisor of Operations DATE: July 24, 1989 SUBJECT: Community Center Memberships Staff has become somewhat concerned over the revenue brought in this year from Memberships. Although there is no reason to be alarmed the numbers show we are behind our projected figures. As of May 31st we have sold $22,472 in Memberships. Our projection for years end is $55,000. This leaves us with $35,528 to reach that goal. Sales should pick up in the fall, but staff has reservations about whether the goal can be reached. As an incentive to the public, and a way to increase Membership sales, staff recommends offering free Racquetball to our members. Presently we charge members $2.00/hour per person to play Racquetball. And to kick this new program off, have a promotional campaign in early fall, running ads in the local papers, mailings to past members and program participants. This would be an inexpensive campaign that should get some results. As of June 30th members played Racquetball 629 times. At b2.00/hour we have brought in $1258.00 from members in court rental. It costs $125.00 for an adult resident to buy an Individual Membership. To recover the $1258.00 that might be lost the remainder of the year, we would have to sell a little over 10 Adult Resident Memberships. A person paying $125.00 would have to play over 30 times a year to break even based on the resident non-member fee of $4.00 per person. The Community Center Membership now offers free open skate, open swim, lap swim, and fitness center. Most private clubs offer free racquetball with their membership fee's. • - Staff feels this would be a good program to offer to the citizens, while also helping us reach our end of year revenue goal. d I - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E. Director of Public Works DATE: September 28, 1989 RE: Lease For Winter Storage Attached is a copy of a proposed lease agreement with Kurt Klingelhutz which would provide a 45 x 60 foot storage area in a building that he owns in Chanhassen. The agreement provides for six months storage at a cost of $1,000.00. In years past, we have stored summer equipment in the stable at Bryant Lake Park, the old buildings on the Northrup King Research site and various other locations as space was available. However, this year we were unable to find any type of "low cost" storage space within the City of Eden Prairie. The location in Chanhassen is the closest site we were able to find and it appears that it will suit our needs adequately. The security at the site is as good as other locations that we have utilized in the past. Also, as with other locations that we have utilized in the past, no particular insurance is available for loss of this equipment, since we are self insured for the first $50,000.00 of loss. In summary, we have an absolute need for additional winter storage of equipment and the only issue has been where that storage might occur. Based on our search, this location in Chanhassen is the best available. Unless instructed otherwise by the City Council, we will proceed with the lease agreement as attached. EAD:ssa 9.4 LEASE AGREEMENT ����//,, This lease agreement mdde and entered into this 5"-` day of bse , l9Bq , by and between Kurt Klingelhutz, (hereinafter re erred to as Lessor), and T11¢.0 o1Ede,,/ t e. (hereinafter referred to as Lesseel. WITNESSETH: 1. PARKING. That Lessee shall be entitled to the use of indoor parking space(s) for the purpos of seasonal storage of (Awe) egorp. o.. Rtrk) ¢fore. "0.finer G'i eilrne, C d', P1os 0c-4// rnoukit ¢ ., on the premises of the Lessor in Chanhassen, Minnesota. Lessee agrees that such use shall at all times be subject to the regulations and restrictions which the Lessor may from time to time find it necessary or advisable to establish. 2. TERM. The term of this lease shall be from month to month commencing on Nov. I , /569 and continuing with automatic monthly renewal unless 30 days written notice in advance is given by either party to the other of intent to terminate this lease. h, ,, 3. RENT. The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor, for t reonttal of the space(s) agreed to in this lease a monthly rate of , payable in full in advance for the first four months with the balance payable upon removal. Lessee agrees that regardless of the term of the lease he will pay the Lessor rental at least equal to four months rent. Lessee further agrees that the above rental fee only permits him to access the leased premises at delivery and final removal. If Lessee desires access at any other time, he agrees to pay the Lessor an access fee of $5 per visit, plus any snow removal costs. 4. RIGHT OF ENTRY. Lessee agrees that the Lessor shall at all times have the right to enter upon the premises for any purpose, and at his election to make any reasonable and necessary repairs for the protection and preservation of the premises, but nothing herein shall be construed to require the Lessor to make the repairs, and the Lessor shall not be liable to the Lessee, or any other person or persons, for failure to make the repairs, or for damage or injury to person or property caused in or by the making of the repairs, or the doing of • the work. 5. RELEASE OF LESSOR'S LIABILITIES. The Lessee further agrees that the Lessor shall not be liable for any damage, either to person or persons or property or the loss of property sustained by the Lessee, or by any other person or persons due to the demised premises or the building of which the demised premises are a part, or the equipment, fixtures, machinery in or upon the same, or the areas, sidewalks or streets adjoining or appurtenant to the same being or becoming out of repair or defective, or due to the happening of any accident, or due to any neglect or act of the Lessee, or any Lessee or occupant of the building, or of any other person, persons or corporations, or by the • ` bursting of pipes, or by the use or misuse of any instrumentality or agency in or connected with the demised premises or the building of which it is a part, or occasioned by day nuisance made or suffered thereon or therein. 6. LESSOR'S LIEN. The Lessee grants to the Lessor a lien upon all personal property of the Lessee in said premises during said term to secure payment of the rent payable hereunder, and does agree that no such property shall be removed from said premises without the consent in writing of the Lessor while any installments of rent are past due, and during any other default in the conditions hereof. 7. RULES AND REGULATIONS. Lessee agrees to abide by such rules and regulations as may be reasonably promulgated by Lessor for the safety of the premises, including removal of any batteries, non-attached gas tanks, or similar devices. 8. VIOLATIONS. If any of the terms, conditions or covenants of this lease on the part of the Lessee to be kept and performed, shall be violated, then the Lessee does hereby authorize the Lessor to cancel and annul this lease at once, and in such case, and in case the Lessee refuses or neglects to vacate the premises upon the termination of this lease by notice to Lessee, does authorize and empower the Lessor to enter and to remove all property therefrom and to use such force and assistance as may be necessary to recover at once full possession of the premises and further agrees to pay Lessor any reasonable storage and removal costs in connection with the above. 9. NOTICES. All notices, demands, consents, requests or elections which may be or are required to be given by one party to the other, shall be in writing, and addressed as follows: TO LESSOR: Kurt Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 TO LESSEE: 7r7"6 y 19U7.E:E:�� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES hereby have caused this lease to • be executed in duplicate the day and year first above written. LESSOR: KURT KLINGELHUTZ BY ..G���dASigned LESSEE: By Signed Pal Printed - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeffrey Johnson • DATE: September 28, 1989 RE: Request for Early Grading Permit by Jubilee Church T.J.U. Construction, Inc., on behalf of the Jubilee Church, has requested City Council approval of an early grading permit to begin soils corrections for a proposed building expansion at Jubilee Church. The Church proposes to construct a 3,000 square foot addition on the west side of the building for future classroom space. The proposed expansion must undergo the Site Plan Review process, as per City Code, consisting of review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Because of the impending cold weather, the contractor has requested that he be allowed to make soils corrections around the proposed addition. This would involve the excavation of a 4-foot wide by an 8-foot deep trench around the footings area of the expansion, stock piling the excavated soils, importing and compacting suitable soils through the excavated areas. Recommend approval of Jubilee Church's request for early grading permit with the understanding that the contractor shall proceed at his own risk since this work will be done prior to any site plan approval and this approval will not prejudice any future decisions the City Council will make regarding the Site Plan Review process. Please refer to attached plan. JJ:ssa • \ a8963 `; �✓ 'J � �20"0/9k. .....": 53 \ G ' Cj \ 360q�, 9r6.7 /i o [r��3o-oA �� \ \ �997.0 �\ Tp�#9o874...✓9/3.0 7747 '=4.a 9047 0 /4"NS,I' \ 0 \ 8830 8844 \ 48877,... \ 18"Rsex Vocte8 N •-.. N.83.4 dd/3 Bqc c 883.5 \ `\ 883 i coi,gr \ \ \ 0~ \ \_ \ -N ' N �/Q\ Be/3 887.'i �1.4 RP EL "'ad7^2 4�'QO 889.9• V Va i Y 08"ElM Rec.B✓rf0. G 879.5 \ .88/.? *88/, 1 / \\ No,*0, i i 7.-------21, 44;;*,, 8 i ee, / / / 8898 scwcr `� 1 Wall\ t �1�-�I� d80. ;88,2 Occ ovc 0t.1544 �j j1 M 88/4 1e 881 5 B8\° 889.a .v4crw4y 8894',, 6UI L.P1N�A171'1-1'ION • , g aet 4:. 89/O i`i r-IN, i�'l.rG, fill. v. 0 SB11.p" aa1?'"7" 8888 do. egmava ONV"87 %I. 879 7 AlgUilli s A 8895 WA1 �•hEi t1 "a �t2. 8: I e 8877 8899 UI�f�Ihl4' :GeAsliaN PI M IiN1ON5 e�9 1�1 4G H FiW l`i/, 1^pi.8 . ^ ,888.9 .- . VE 51,vj1 iJIG� �.*1't21P �, ACV NP GG �01-fl..MINLOL)yyJrAvIN 1T '` e� '� FC46P, LNG. WA t2r ry�Ya�,� W Ip'rGJ0!/ e i�. d� `,p 88a= 8822e89i 88998890 :VP. PA-re.H AS 12 a, D, , 3 t: "Iii� ll• avo./`.. 888 2 ': r> t7 8 l'liRt•:1•: Bear %B0\ Wat r w4 '� NcW GONG, WA ia'- 1 Few- To y �e8 2. 1 rar , TdN of WAk14- 1 \\ \ \ \ \ c \ \ \ %)(I'1 G,pNG. W, I.K.- V iz N1AIN 4/ \ \ \'r1,, \ •88z3 877 7 N \ A �06 \ �o \ r \ \ I \ \ \ \ a86.6 e7a7 \ \ 878.4 88\7 \ 85.4 \ 878 9 \ ....o --s- 44 . tENc r " \ \ BB i.�( ` _ d76.5 ' 876.7 817 7 �^2�3M4vLE \ 878, \ �i__ 8765.875.8 766 21 � tan I / :a3-, i_.._'6,s.0 `L. ' 876.6 2"N44cc 876.9 \2"Naoca :790., \ __w \ N ;_a_az \ \ t __a I: �11.0 M IN uOt.i- • N \ N `\ \ foAvINv1 To.12-5;s1A1tiT. . _ \ \ \ I i-,. I absgA . _ /c.0 c 10 W o-F secs Q 7F4\ MEMORANDUM X TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gail Leipold, Chair, Human Rights & Services Commission THROUGH: Natalie Swaggert, Director of Human Resources & Services SUBJECT: Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration 1 DATE: September 29, 1989 As indicated to you in our joint meeting held in August, the Human Rights & Services Commission would like to create a special event in the community that goes beyond the activies that occur in our schools. The Commission has reviewed the activities that have been held in Bloomington and those that will occur in other neighboring communities this coming January. We are recommending a community celebration co-sponsored by the City and School District. Our current plan is to hold an event on Sunday, January 21, 1990. The event would be billed as "Eden Prairie's Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration...A Sharing of Our Ethnic Diversity." It is likely to take the form of a buffet meal consisting of representative foods from many of the ethnic heritages from the corners of the world represented by individuals in our community. It is our plan to raise some money in order to keep the cost of the advance sale tickets to a minimum so that anyone can afford to attend. At this time the Commission wishes to know if the City Council will lend its support to this event by allowing the Commission to proceed with its plans. 2,679 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE STATE OF MINNESOTA ( 'f RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (STERLING PONDS PROJECT) SERIES 1989A AND SERIES 1989B; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY THE ISSUER OF A LOAN AGREEMENT, BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND TRUST INDENTURE AND CLOSING DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND APPROVING THE FORM OF CERTAIN ANCILLARY DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer") is a municipal corporation and political subdivision, organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota (the "State"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), at the request of Prairie Village Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Company"), the Issuer proposes to issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project) Series 1989A in the aggregate principal amount of $5,490,000 (the "Series • A Bonds") and its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project) Series 1989E in the aggregate principal amount of $495,000 (the "Series B Bonds") (collectively the Series A Bonds and Series B Bonds being referred to herein as the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company for the purpose of paying in part the cost of financing, acquiring, constructing, improving and equipping the hereinafter defined Project, including the payment of interest on the Bonds for no longer than one year, funding a reserve and paying certain other costs in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Project shall consist of an approximately 112-unit multifamily housing rental project to be initially owned by the Owner and to be located within the corporate boundaries of the Issuer (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, issuance of the Bonds for the development of the Project will be in furtherance of the purposes of the Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), a public hearing with respect to the Project and the issuance of the Bonds in the principal amount of $5,750,000 was held on December 13, 1988, after proper publication of notice thereof, in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Code; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has been advised by the Company that costs associated with development of the Project have unexpectedly increased since the aforementioned public hearing date and has requested that the Issuer increase the principal amount of the proposed Bond issue from $5,750,000 to an aggregate amount of $5,985,000; and WHEREAS, such increase is in an amount equal to less than ten percent (10%) of the amount originally approved at the aforementioned public hearing by the Issuer; and WHEREAS, there have been presented to this City Council of the Issuer: (a) the proposed form of Loan Agreement dated as of October 1, 1989 (the "Loan Agreement") between the Issuer and the Company; (b) the proposed form of Promissory Note dated as of October 1, 1989 (the "Note") from the Company to the Issuer; (c) the proposed 2 form of Trust Indenture dated as of October 1, 1989 (the "Indenture") between the Issuer and National City Bank of Minneapolis, as trustee (the "Trustee"); (d) the proposed form of Regulatory Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement") dated as of October 1, 1989 among the Issuer, the Company and the Trustee named therein; (e) the proposed form of Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement dated as of October 1, 1989 from the Company to the Trustee; (f) a form of final Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the "Official Statement"); and (g) the proposed form of Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") among the Issuer, the Company and Dain Bosworth Incorporated (the "Original Purchaser"); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA THAT: Section 1. The Issuer shall provide the loan to the Company pursuant to the Loan Agreement by deposit of the proceeds of the Bonds with the Trustee, which proceeds will be disbursed by the Trustee in accordance with the provisions and conditions of the Indenture and Loan Agreement. Section 2. Subject to the receipt by the Issuer at the time of delivery of the Bonds of the approving legal opinion of Leonard, Street and Deinard, as Bond Counsel, in a form acceptable to the Issuer, the issuance of the Bonds in substantially the form set forth in the Indenture is hereby authorized and approved, subject to the following: 3 (a) The Series A Bonds shall be in the aggregate principal amount of $5,490,000 and the Series B Bonds shall be in the aggregate principal amount of $495,000 or such amount as may be hereafter approved by Bond Counsel to further the tax exempt status of such Bonds. The Bonds shall mature, subject to prior redemption, as provided in the Indenture. (b) The Series A Bonds shall be in registered form and bear interest from the date of delivery to the Original Purchaser at the rate of 10.0% per annum payable semiannually. The Series B Bonds shall be in registered form and bear interest from the date of delivery to the Original Purchaser at the rate of 10.25% per annum, compounded semiannually, and payable with respect to any principal of the Series B Bonds when such principal is paid. (c) The Bonds shall be originally dated as of the date of delivery to the Original Purchaser. (d) The Bonds shall be subject to redemption as provided in the Indenture and the forms of the Bonds. (e) The Bonds shall be sold to the Original Purchaser in a private sale for the purchase price set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. Section 3. The forms and provisions of the Loan Agreement, the Note, the Indenture, the Regulatory Agreement, and the Bond Purchase Agreement be, and they hereby are approved and the Issuer 4 shall enter into the Loan Agreement, the Indenture,the Regulatory Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement substantially in the form of each of such documents presented to this meeting, but with such changes therein as the officer or officers of the Issuer executing such documents shall approve, such execution being deemed conclusive of such approval of any such changes, and the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver such documents and the City Clerk is (to the extent required by the forms of such documents) hereby authorized and directed at the request of Bond Counsel to affix the seal of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota to attest to such documents. Section 4. The forms, terms and provisions of the Bonds, in substantially the forms contained in the Indenture, be and they hereby are approved; and the Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds, the City Clerk of the Issuer is hereby authorized and directed to attest the Bonds and each is authorized to deliver the Bonds in the forms contained in the Indenture, but with such changes therein as the officer of the Issuer executing the Bonds shall approve, the execution thereof being deemed conclusive of his or her approval of any such changes. The seal of the Issuer is hereby authorized and directed to be affixed to or imprinted on the Bonds. The signatures of the Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk and the seal to be affixed on the Bonds may be facsimiles. Section 5. The distribution of the Official Statement in substantially the form presented for this meeting, with such 5 changes and completions thereof deemed necessary by the Original Purchaser and its counsel which do not create, state or suggest any liability or obligation of the Issuer not contained in the Bonds, the indenture, the Loan Agreement or the Regulatory Agreement is hereby authorized; provided however that it should be understood that the Issuer hereby disclaims any liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the Official Statement. Section 6. National City Bank of Minneapolis in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota is hereby appointed as the initial trustee, registrar, authenticating agent and paying agent for the Bonds. Section 7. The officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute in the name and behalf of the Issuer any other documents and certificates necessary to the transaction described above and copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and other officers of the Issuer are further authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Original Purchaser and Bond Counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Issuer relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them. Section 8. The Bonds, together with interest payable thereon, are special, limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely as 6 provided in the Indenture. The Bonds and the interest payable thereon shall never constitute the debt or indebtedness of the Issuer or the State or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any provision or limitation of the Constitution or statutes of the State, nor shall anything contained in this Resolution or in the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement or the Indenture or any other instrument constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability of, or a charge against the general credit or taxing power of, the Issuer, nor shall the breach of any agreement contained in this Resolution, or any of the above-mentioned documents or instruments, impose any pecuniary liability upon the Issuer or a charge upon the general credit or taxing power of the Issuer. Section 9. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not effect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. Adopted: October 17, 1989 Mayor City Manager Attest: City Clerk 7 Councilmember moved for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. Councilmember seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called,the vote was as follows: Aye: Nay: The Resolution was adopted by vote of the members of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, State of Minnesota. CERTIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • I, , City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City on October 17, 1989. } City Clerk 9 9,01 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST October 3, 1989 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING Lantto Building & Development, Inc. J. L. Bjorlin Sjtje's Pannekoeken Huis Restaurant Figner Plumbing Company T.J.U. Construction, Inc. Lundgren Bros. Plumbing Northland Mechanical Contractors Prairie Plumbing Company CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) GAS FITTER Accent Real Estate Everlasting Homes, Inc. Diversified Mechanical Services Michael Hayes Homes, Inc. Northland Mechanical Contractors Stephen Longman Builders Willette Refrigeration Htg. & Air Cond. Eric S. Loosbrock Construction Metro Custom Homes, Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING W. J. Construction, Inc. Diversified Mechanical Services Erickson Heating & Air Conditioning Northland Mechanical Contractors, Inc. • These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. at o ie, Licensing ,26a9 ;. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Mike D. Franzen, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Executive Summary - Shores of Mitchell Lake Residential Project DATE: September 28, 1989 Background This project was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1989. The Planning Commission identified eight major issues to be addressed by the developer including development intensity on the lakeshore, excessive tree loss, too many cul- de-sacs, providing road connections to adjoining properties, mitigation of noise on Highway 5, provision of sidewalk trails and open space, project phasing as it relates to road connections and project phasing as it relates to the southwest area plan. 1. Shoreland Ordinance The Planning Commission felt that the initial plan depicted considerable impact on the lakeshore and directed the proponent to either revise plans to be in strict compliance with the shoreland ordinance or to develop an alternative plan, despite variances, that would accomplish the same objectives and provide a benefit to the City. The plan was revised along the lakeshore to include the dedication of approximately 5.72 acres of land along the wooded points to the City. This preserves a considerable portion of the lakeshore in its natural state and helps reduce the tree loss from 50 to 22%. This was considered as a tradeoff for the shoreland variances. The revised plans for the Shores of Mitchell Lake were closer to meeting the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance as compared with the Western Bay and Timber Lake projects on the east side of the lake. 2. Tree Loss - Tree Preservation The Planning Commission indicated that a 50% tree loss along the lakeshore in the wooded areas was not acceptable and that the plan should be revised to be consistent with the 26% average tree loss for residential projects in the City with tree replacement. The plans have been revised for larger lots along the lake, use of shared private drives, and careful positioning of large building pads which reduces the tree loss to 22%.. 3. Cul-De-Sacs The Planning Commission initially indicated that there should be valid reasons for the 13 cul-de-sacs proposed within the project. The plans were revised to make two cul-de-sacs into through streets which provides access to adjoining properties to the south and west of the project. Six of the cul-de-sacs are justifiable because they are adjacent to Highway 5, Mitchell Lake, or steep slopes prohibiting connection. The remaining cul-de-sacs in the interior of the project are shorter than the maximum 500 foot requirement allowed by City Code. ;l'7cA 4. Road Connections to Adjoining Properties The primary access to this site will be from an east/west roadway extension from Dell Road/Highway 5 intersection. This would be constructed concurrent with the upgrading of Highway 5. The current plan reflects two additional access points to adjoining properties. Street E provides a connection point to the Tandem piece to the west. Steet D was initially a cul-de-sac but has been revised to a through street. These two additional access points help distribute traffic better in the neighborhood and provides for additional emergency vehicle access. 5. Highway 5 Noise Mitigation The Planning Commission directed the proponent to conduct a noise assessment study along Highway 5 and provide the necessary mitigation levels necessary to meet PCA requirements. The plans have been revised to depict a series of berms and a fence along Highway 5 which meets the PCA requirements. 6. Sidewalks and Trails Sidewalks and trails have been provided along all street frontages within the projects with the exception of the short interior cul-de-sacs. There will be trail connections from the cul-de-sacs into the City park areas on the two wooded points. 7. Project Phasing The Planning Commission was initially concerned with the construction of too many homes off of a one mile long dead end cul-de-sac. The phasing plan prepared by the developer limits the number of units in Phase 1 to 55 lots. A portion of Street B would be constructed as a permanent street. A temporary gravel road would be constructed along the remainder of Street B to 82nd Street southwest of the project. This provides a second access which would be used primarily for emergency vehicle access. Construction traffic would be required to utilize the improved street. The use of the temporary road would be predicated upon a maintenance program acceptable to the Engineering Department. Additional lots would be possible once a permanent street connection is made through adjoining properties to Dell Road. 8. Southwest Area Phasing The southwest area phasing study identifies that no more than 25D lots should be permitted in Sub Area 1A until the loop road is completed between County Road 4 and State Highway 5. The southwest 'area phasing study identifies certain improvements to be completed but did not identify the controls the City should utilize to ensure that these improvements occur. An alternative which would treat all developers and landowners in area 1A fairly would be to allow portions of each site to develop. The number of lots for each development would be derived by taking the land area for each developer in area lA as a percentage of the total times 25D units. For the U.S. Homes project this would mean a total of 10D units. The southwest area phasing plan identifies the following improvements to be completed in area 1A, including: 77C0Q A. Full intersection access at Dell Road and Highway 5. This intersection is expected to be substantially complete in late 1990 - early 1991. B. Upgrading of the intersection of County Road 4 and Highway 5. This intersection is expected to be substantially complete in September 1990. C. Improvement of the Heritage Road/Highway 5 intersection. D. Extension of trunk sewer line approximately 1,000 feet southest of the Fairfield project. E. Extension of trunk water main along the north side of Highway 5 to this site. This will occur concurrent with Highway 5 upgrading. The upgrade of Dell Road/Highway 5 intersection, and the County Road 4/Highway 5 intersection should be completed prior to Final Plat approval. Extension of sewer and water to this site should be completed prior to the release of the Final Plat. The plans in your packet reflect all of the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the project. MDF:mmr:SMLRP a70C 8 f PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, September 11, 1989 7:30 FM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive • • I V. qUEI,zQPJlENT PROPOSALS A. SHIRES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board • 'I.nniny Commission Minutes 2 September 11, 1989 of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Work sheet Review on 94.8 acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a residential development. Location: South of State Highway 45 and west of Mitchell Lake. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that the developer had revised the plans in accordance with recommendations presented at the previous meetings. Jack Buxel, representing the proponent, stated that a shared driveway would be used for the two lots on the point resulting in approximately a 40% tree savings. MnDot had approved the plan to construct a berm approximately 8 to 10 feet above the building elevations with additional landscaping. One lot had been eliminated from the northern cul-de-sac. A fence would be constructed along Highway 5 to mitigate the noise. The fencr: would be designed with staggered heights. Ruebling asked what the fence would be made of. Buxel replied 1 inch material without gaps. Hallett asked what type of wood would be used. Buxel replied a treated material. Hallett asked if the fence would be visible from Highway 5 and added that he was concerned about the appearance of the fence. Franzen replied that a portion of the fence would be visible; however, the proponent could use plantings to mask the appearance. Hallett asked if Staff would be working closely with the proponent regarding the fence. Franzen replied that Staff was requesting additional details regarding the fence design. Franzen added that if the fence was to have no gaps, it would require special construction. Hallett recommended a decorative fence, yet have it be unobtrusive. Sandstad stated that he was more concerned about the sound impact than the appearance. Sandstad believed that the regulations called for a 2 1/2" thickness. Buxel replied that the Company which had conducted the testing, TWin City Testing, had indicated that a minimum requirement was 1 inch without gaps. Sandstad did not believe that it was practical to accomplish the sound mitigation with a 1 inch fence. Buxel added that the proponent wanted to create an attractive fence and would work closely with Staff. Sandstad recommended the use of a thicker wood. Franzen stated that Staff had asked for a PCA Review and added that the whole EAW would be reviewed with careful attention given to the noise issue. Buxel stated that a temporary gravel road would be ;loI "l.uning Commission Minutes 3 September 11, 1989 constructed for emergency access which would connect to the existing street. The proponent was requesting that the temporary road be barricaded and only used for emergency vehicles. The road would have to he plowed in the winter. Ruebling asked Johnson if he had reviewed the Staff Report and concurred with the recommendations. Johnson replied that he did not believe that the final plat approval was the appropriate method to assure proper scheduling and flow of the project. Johnson believed that City control should be through the building permit or occupancy permit process. Johnson requested clarification on the number of lots left in Phase II. Johnson stated that he did not want to be dependent on Tandem to develop their project before he had access to his project and, therefore, asked if the permanent street referred to in the Staff Report was 34th Street. Johnson further believed that if the final plat approval was used to determine the number of homes allowed, a time lag would he created. Hallett asked Franzen if Staff was comfortable with access from 184th Street. Franzen replied that there were two possible routes for the road system; if Dell Road was paved the development could access from 184th Street or the other alternative through the Tandem Development. Ruebling asked if Dell Road would have to be paved prior to using 184th Street. Franzen replied yes. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. A tree replacement plan needed to be provided, the fence needed to be decorative and unobtrusive, a maintenance program for the temporary road should be determined with the Engineering Department. Further clarification on the timing of_Highway 5 needed to be established. Franzen stated that the City Council had given the direction that the Southwest Study or the improvements of Highway 5 should not prohibit the review of projects; however, the Council had not yet determined exactly how the number of units would be established. Ruebling asked if the upgrading of County Road 4 and Highway 5 would take another year to complete. City Engineer Alan Gray replied that the intersection would he accomplished in a phased construction process, with only one lane provided in either direction through this: construction season and also next year's season. Bye concluded then that 3 items would be added to the Staff recommendations; 1) Fence design, 2) PCA Review, and 3) Maintenance agreement for the temporary road. Sandstad asked If the other Commission members considered Planning Commission Minutes 4 September ii, 1989 it appropriate to specify the height of the fence. Ruebling believed that the details uhould be worked out with Staff. Ruebling asked if the City Council would be looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the appropriate approach to determine the number of units allowed. Franzen replied that he believed the Council would make a determination after hearing comments at the public hearing for this project. Franzen added that Staff believed that it would be easier to work with 3 to 4 developers rather than individual homeowners. Ruebling stated that he would concur with the Staff recommendations on the number of lots allowed and the Final Plat method of control. Ruebling asked Gray who should be responsible for the temporary road. Gray replied that the City would prefer that the developer accepted the responsibility. MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MgT_ OL Z: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MR-USHOT for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres, with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a residential development to be known as Shores of Mitchell Lake, based on revised plans dated September 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 9, August 11, and September 8, 1989 with the following additions: 1) The design of the fence shall be reviewed by and comply with the PCA Standards as intended, 2) Developer work with Staff regarding the aesthetics of the fence, 3) Maintenance of the temporary road shall be that of the developer. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 3: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MR-USHOT for Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, three outlots, and road right-of-way, for residential development to be known as Shores of Mitchell Lake, based on revised plans dated September 6, 1989, • subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 9, August 11, and September 8, 1989 with the following additions: 1) The design of the fence shall be reviewed by and comply with the PCA Standards as intended, 2) Developer work with Staff regarding the aesthetics of the fence, 3) Maintenance of the temporary road shall be g Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 11, 1989 4 that of the developer. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 9: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MR-USHOT for a Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Shores of Mitchell Lake, part of a phased action Environmental Assessment Worksheet, based on revised plans dated September 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 9, August 11, and September 8, 1989 with the following additions: 1) The design of the fence shall be reviewed by and comply with the PCA Standards as intended, 2) Developer work with Staff regarding the aesthetics of the fence, 3) Maintenance of the temporary road shall be that of the developer. Motion carried 4-0-0. Hallett asked Johnson when he expected the first home to be built. Johnson replied that he would like to have the first home completed by next fall; however, that would depend on the utilities being extended. Hallett commented that he appreciated the changes the proponent had made along the lakeshore. Bye also commended the proponent for the willingness to work with Staff and the Planning Commission. t� l PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, AUOtUST 14, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7680 Exe`utive Drive A. SHQ,i2ES -nF MITCHELL LAKE, by Mr. U-SHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1013.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Platting of 94.3 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres as part of a 450 acre ph-.or=,ed action E.A.W. for construction of residential development. Location: South of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell Lake. A continued public hearing. Lee Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that a _ tree inventory had been completed with the significant amount of trees in the southern area of the project, along Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 11, 1933the shoreline, and adjacent the existing homes. The : project would total 175 lots. Jack Buxel, representing the proponent, stated that the southern tip of the parcel would be proposed as a City Park. The proposed lots would he 125 feet wide and would meet the Shoreland Ordinance setback requirements. With the lots as proposed there would he 1 lot per 41,000 square feet of lakeshore. The lakeshore homes would be constructed by multiple custom home builders and the internal loop would be constructed by Orin Thompson Homes. The majority of the landscaping would be along the northern portion of the project adjacent to Highway 5 and along the western boundaries. Buxel noted a discrepancy between the number of tree loss calculated by Staff and the proponent's figures. Twin City Testing was in the process of completing a sound study. Franzen reported that the following items needed to be addressed prior to City Council review: 1. Protect more trees. This could he accomplished with a shared driveway and one loss lot on the wooded point. 2. Modification to the tree replacement plan. 3. The noise study should be complete and plans modified to comply with recommendations to mitigate noise adjacent to Highway 5. 4. Phasing of the project limited to 50 homes for • Phase I with a temporary loop road for emergency vehicles. 5. Apply for shoreland and street frontage variances. Anderson believed that there were too many issues yet unresolved to approve the plan at this time; specifically the sound mitigation and the adherence to the Tree Replacement Policy. Buxel replied that an agreement between the proponent and Staff could be worked out prior to Council review on these items. Anderson believed there was a significant impact on the trees. Johnson believed that the number of trees which would be lost would he less than what Staff had projected. Franzen replied that the burden of proof regarding the amount of. tree loss was on the applicant. The calculation of tree loss was determined jointly by Planning and the City Forester. Franzen recommended that the grading plan be revised to show that more trees could he saved. Buxel replied that the proponent would provide the extra detail as requested by Staff. Rucbling asked if the revised plan would include the recommendation for the shared driveway. Buxel replied yes. Anderson asked the proponent's position regarding the mays Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 14, 1989 phasing of the project as proposed by Staff. Johnson replied that the sewer connection would be coming from the south. The project would begin with the construction of the custom homes along the lakeshore. Johnson added that the numbers could be held at 50 lots; however, he would prefer the project begin with 72 lots. An east/west service road would he constructed by MnDot and grading would be required for the street and the sewer. Johnson added that he would prefer not to be dependent on another developer for road access. Anderson asked Staff to explain the rationale for the limit of 50 lots. Franzen replied that Staff was concerned about too many lots at the end of a 1 mile long dead end cul-de-sac. He added that a temporary road to 82nd Street could provide emergency vehicle access; however, this plan had not been reviewed by public safety. Anderson believed that the noise impact and possible mitigation measures could affect the entire development. Johnson believed that it was not appropriate for the number of units to he limited by the Final Plat. He added that financing was based on the Final Plat and, therefore, the project could not move forward without Final Plat approval. The street projects could phase in with the development proposals. Scenic Heights Road and Dell Road needed to be petitioned for now. Johnson believed that the number of units should be determined by occupancy. Hallett believed that the plan was not ready for City Council review at this time. Dodge concurred. Anderson stated that he understood the proponent's concern about the road right-of-way with Tandem. He said that properties could be split to obtain financing. Anderson was concerned about the possible need for plan revisions after the noise study was completed. Buxel replied that the noise study would only affect 7 lots, with the main concern being the elevation of the cul-de-sac. Franzen replied that the number of lots affected could not be determined until the noise study had been completed. Buxel stated that if the plans changed significantly the proponent would then have to come back for further review. Ruebling stated that the noise study could require the lots to have greater rear-lot setbacks. Johnson replied that he believed that the mitigation could be accomplished by raising the elevation of the berm. Buxel concurred that the issues regarding the noise mitigation dealt with berming and elevations. Franzen stated that the maximum slope allowed for a berm was 3-to-1 and that the statistical data was not available at this time to make a determination on what would be required. Franzen believed A'70 C Planning C ,mmis•,ion Minute5 4 August 14, 1989 that the worst case scenario would be that r lots would be lost and yet the project would still maintain 3 cul-de- sacs. Ruebling asked how long it would be before the 2nd Reading by the City Council as it relates to the timing of Highway 5 improvements. Franzen replied the Fall of 199n. Ruebling asked if anything would begin for another 12 to 18 months. Franzen replied that the Highway 5 and Dell Road intersection needed to be improved before construction could begin. Johnson's interpretation of the Southwest Area Study was that turn lanes were necessary on Highway 5, but the controlling factor was the installation of the trunk watermain along Highway 5, which occur concurrently with construction. Johnson added that he would like to begin work in the spring of 1990. Hallett stated that he was pleased to see the proposed park area in the southern portion of the parcel. Hallett asked if a trail system would connect to the City trail system. Buxel presented the plan for the trail system connection. Hallett believed that it would be important to require that the trail be marked immediately so that potential buyers of the lots would know that a trail would be adjacent to their lot. Hallett concurred that the tree replacement plan needed to be resolved, the sound testing completed, the possibility of a shared driveway for the two lots investigated, and phasing determined. Dodge stated that Public Safety needed to review the temporary access being recommended by the proponent. Ruebling stated that the Phasing of the project needed to be resolved because of the sewer connections. Anderson asked if sidewalks had been considered on the internal loop street. Johnson replied that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had not " recommended sidewalks in this area. Ruebling asked how long a continuance would be necessary to resolve the issues noted by the Planning Commission. Buxel replied that he believed 2_weeks would be adequate. Franzen believed that in order to allow enough time for Staff review of the new information and to resolve all the issues prior to returning to the Planning Commission the continuance should be scheduled fur the September. 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0. aooy D Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 10, 1989 B. EHnRES O TC FMIHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to he reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres for construction of residential development. Location: South of State Highway 85 and west of Mitchell Lake. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that the proponent was present tonight to update the Planning Commission on the changes which have been made to the plan currently and to receive input from the Planning Commission on further recommendations and/or direction. The new plans being presented were not available in time to be included in the Commission's packet or for Staff to make recommendations. Anderson arrived at 7:45 PM. Lee Johnson, presented the revised plans. Johnson stated that after meeting with the Parke, Recreation & Natural Resources Staff the plans had been revised to show the dedication of two sections of property to the City. The first parcel was located on the north slope of the wooded knoll of the northern bay. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Staff had indicated that it would like to have the southern bay of Mitchell Lake enclosed to create a park. A grove of trees located on the edge of the southern bay would provide a natural barrier between the subdivision and the park. ` The lot widths would vary in some areas from 120 feet to 150 feet. Johnson commented that some of the lots on the other side of the lake had 90-foot lot widths and; therefore, believed that the 120 foot lot widths should be considered adequate. The revised plan depicted that 150-foot setbacks could be maintained. The subdivision had been reduced by 3 to 4 lots. A path was shown which would have a major north/south connection to existing trails. The roads v.•r,, reconfigured to reduce the number of cul-de-sacs rry1I17...;• Sandstad asked if the Street marked as "D" vas han0.1 City Staff recommendations. Johnson replied that street had been reconfigured to eliminate a cu1-a.•- i still provide a connection to other development:: .7. future, based on Staff recommendations.. Fell asked how long the cul-de-spec marked s, •t " . , 0e J C Planning Commission Minutos 3 July 10, 1989 1 Johnson replied that the cul-de-sac would be approximately 550 feet long due to the significant grade change in this area. Franzen noted that the major changes pertained to the lakeshore. He .added that Staff had not received the plans in time to review the new road configuration. Franzen believed that one of the question for the Planning Commission would be how the City would benefit from the lakeshore revisions. Franzen believed the revised plan to be a better development of the lakeshore. The significant tree Loss had been in the area which would now become part of the park and; therefore, the tree loss would be reduced to approximately 26%. The average density would be one unit per 44,000 square feet. Ruebling asked what the dimensions of the smallest lakeshore lot would be. Johnson replied the smallest lot would be approximately 210 feet by 150 feet. Ruebling asked how much of drop-off there was between the plateau area and the lakeshore along portions of the shoreline in the southern area. Johnson replied that the drop off was up to 14 feet in some areas. Ruebling then asked how large the park area would be. Franzen replied that the total between the two sections of property to be dedicated to the City would be approximately 5 acres. Franzen noted that the dedication of the property would be for a passive recreation area and for lakeshore protection. Fell commented that he would have liked to have seen the revised plan in the Commission's packet. He added that he was not comfortable giving a proponent recommendations for further changes or to comment on the present changes, after only having seen the plan at the meeting. Sandstad asked what had taken place regarding the noise • level study. Johnson replied that noise level readings had been taken; however, a grading plan had not been completed which could affect noise levels. Bill Kinney, 17651 West 78th Street, stated that he owned the corner property to the north of the proposed subdivision. He said that he understood the need for a trail; however, he was not happy that the trail would be almost at his back door. Kinney said that he had always enjoyed the privacy of the property and was concerned about the location of the trail. Anderson asked Kinney if he would prefer to see the trail along the lakeshore. Kinney replied that if the only choice was between a trail along the lake and a trail as presently proposed he would prefer the present propO5,al, Sandstad asked what the distance would be between the slog Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 10, 1989 Kinney home and the plolloeed trail and if any Screening was present at this time. Kinney replied that the distance between his home and the trail would be approximately 100 feet and there were some trees and screening on his property. Sandstad asked if consideration could be given to provide a landscape buffer between the trail and the Kinney property. Kinney stated that he did not object to the project and added that he believed the proponent was actually dedicating some of the prime lakeshore property to the City. Bye recommended that Mr. Kinney's comments regarding the trail be given to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Staff and Commission. Bye stated that she believed that the changes presented tonight had improved the plan; however, she was not sure that this was the best plan. Sandstad believed that the proponent was heading in the right direction. Ruebling stated that the variances had not been clearly J addressed yet and added that clear justification for the variances would be necessary. Ruebling requested that Staff include information on how this project compared with other projects on the lake. Johnson stated that the noise issue and the staging were also yet to be resolved. MOTION: • Dodge moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue the public hearing to the August 14, 1989 Planning Commission • meeting, pending receipt and Staff evaluation of revised plans from the proponent as discussed at this meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 12, 1989 • • • E. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres for construction of residential development. Location: South of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell Lake. A public hearing. Lee Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that the project would develop in three stages, with the 1st phase proposed for approximately 45 units to correspond to the construction of the service road for Highway 5. The 2nd phase of approximately 90 units would close the loop back to Dell Road. Johnson proposed that construction and grading be in conjunction with the Highway 5 improvement project. Jack Buxel, architect, explained the topography of the proposed site, noting that there were no soil problem areas defined. Buxel then presented the tree inventory plan. The project was designed to have three distinct marketing levels of homes based on the topography of the land. Buxel presented that piano noting specifically the lakeshore portion of the project which depicted 18 lakeshore lots, 9 lakeview lots, and 5.5 acres to be Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 12, 1989 dedicated as a City Park, A tr'+.rl was drop oed to connect the park to the south and the park to the north. Five foot sidewalks were also proposed for some sections of the internal loop system. Buxel noted that an issue raised by Staff was the number of cul-de-sacs throughout the subdivision. He explained that the three cul-de-sacs in the northern portion of the project were due to the location of Highway 5, several of the cul-de-sacs could become through streets; however, several lots would be lost. Some private roads could be used in lieu of the cul-de-sacs. Buxel noted that a second issue of concern by Staff was the amount of grading necessary. A chart was presented to depict the buildable areas of the lots. There would be extensive grading on 4 lots; however, Buxel did not believed that the grading would come close to the 50% tree loss estimated by Staff. He added that Staff's concern had been that the builders and homeowners would want additional grading. Buxel believed that the phasing of the project should not have to wait for the full extension of Dell Road. Euxel stated that a noise impact study was being completed regarding the northern lots along Highway 5. The proponent was prepared to lower the knolls, berm and landscape to help mitigate the noise levels; however, the noise could not be completely mitigated by these measures. Johnson stated that neighborhood meetings had been conducted. He added that Mr. Kinney was not in favor of the northern cul-de-sac in its present location and noted that there was a possibility to use a private road in this location. Johnson believed that it was important for this road system to blend in with the southern road system. He believed that the proposal did-fit in with the City's • Comprehensive Guide Plan and the Southwest Area Study. Johnson further believed that the proposal addressed the desires of the City, would be a great addition, and that a sincere effort had been made to develop an excellent project. Franzen reported that 6 issues affected this project. 1. Shoreland Ordinance. The proponent needed to reduce the impact to the lakeshore by having fewer lots, consideration of private roads for the points, and adherence to the Shoreland Ordinance. 2. Tree loss. The City was concerned about the preservation of trees and with the larger building pads, the tree loss would increase. The use of 1 private roads could be used to decrease the tree loss. 3. Cul-de-sacs, The direction from the City Council dlci • Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 12, 1989 was to discourage unnecessary cul-de-sacs. 4. The Southwest Area Study. Franzen stated that the Southwest Area Study had addressed the need for road improvements in this area before significant development occurred. The purpose of the study had been to make reviewing plans for this area easier. He added that at some point there would have to be a loop system hack to Dell Road and questioned how the second -access would be developed. It could be possible for the loop to come through the Tandem development. 5. Noise Mitigation. Franzen reported that the noise levels merited a noise assessment study. 6. Sidewalks and Trails. The new area needed to have sidewalks and trail connections made. He noted that a trail connection had been proposed. Bob Eckers, 18230 West 82nd Street, stated that he had already paid to have the Dell Road upgraded several years ago and was concerned about the proposed construction traffic. Eckers believed that the project should wait until Highway 5 was completed. He noted that Dell Road was only 33 feet wide. Eckers also noted that this project would take 3 to 4 years to develop and was concerned about the construction noise never ending. Glenn Fristed, 17247 West 78th Street, stated that the Shoreland Ordinance was based on DNR classifications and believed that the requirements should be upheld. He would like to see a screening requirement added and the high water mark setback requirement met. Dodge stated that her main concern was the phasing of the project. Johnson replied that the access to Highway 5 needed to be vacated and the new road was proposed to be constructed next spring. The grading for the road system would begin this fall. Johnson added that occupancy of the homes would be timed with the completion of the infrastructure and the connection to the trunk water. 90 lots would be proposed for the second year and the third year would consist of the infill of the lots. Johnson believed the connection to Dell Road needed to go to 82nd Street. Dodge then expressed a concern regarding the Shoreland Ordinance. Hallett was concerned about the size of the lakeshore lots. The original plan by the City was to have a trail along the lake. Hallett believed that there were too many homes planned along the lake and the building pads were too small. Hallett further expressed a concern regarding 44% of the lakeshore land being dedicated for public use ( and yet there was not public access to the lake at this time. Hallett believed that the City should receive something in exchange for the variances. 1lo • Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 12, 1989 d1_leblin9 Stated that he did not See a reaeon to reol•aosify from an environmental to a recreational status. He believed that the intensity along the lakeshore needed to be spread out. Ruebling was concerned about the relationship of this project to the phasing of the Southwest Area Study. He added that this area was developing faster than projected by the study. Ruebling recommended a chart to outline milestones of the project. The Highway 5 noise issue needed to be addressed and sidewalks and trails needed to be further defined. Ruebling believed that a significant trail system was needed along the lake - possibly not the entire lakeshore. Anderson believed that too many cul-de-sacs were proposed and was generally not in favor of the plan. Fell stated that the phasing of the project was important and would like to see something in writing. He believed that the Shoreland Ordinance should be maintained. Fell added that the plan needed a lot of work. Sandstad concurred with the concerns of the other commissioners. Sandstad asked how many of the developments in the City have met the Shoreland Ordinance. He asked for some background information. Bye stated a concern about access to the area from only one location. She concerned that access to the lake was needed. Bye stated that a lot of time had been spent on the Southwest Area Study and believed that the City should work within guidelines. Dodge stated that the project did not deserve a denial. Fell believed that the proposal should be sent back to the proponent. Alan Gray, City Engineer, stated that it was Important for MnDot to have a graded roadway to these lots and to keep the Highway 5 project on track. Gray believed that the projects were worth working on at this time and that the plans would fit In with future road alignments. Gray noted that there was a possibility that the developers could construct the roadway and be reimbursed by MnDot with right-of-ways. Gray added that this could be possible at least for the northern portion. Johnson said that the lots were originally proposed at 40,000 square feet. The southend of the lakeshore was being proposed for the city park with a public access. Johnson noted that the proponent had tried to give some ( lakeshore trail and some off-lakeshore trails. We traded parkland. Johnson believed there should be plenty of • opportunity for this type of development. • • d�lIl Planning Commission Minutes 15 ,7une 12, 1989 Hallett replied that the Planning Commission was not comfortable with the plan as proposed. Hallett believed that expensive homes would be placed on small lake lots. Bye stated that major revisions would be necessary before the Planning Commission could approve the proposal. Johnson replied that he had not anticipated approval or denial tonight. Ruebling asked if the eastern development met the Shoreland Ordinance. Franzen replied that that portion of the lake had been developed prior to the Shoreland Ordinance. Uram added that Weston Bay was the latest development and the lot sizes had been restrictive because of the shape of the property; however, the west side of the lake should meet the Shoreland Ordinance. The commissioners referenced comments and concerns to the following issues: 1. Shoreland Ordinance. Ruebling believed that the Shoreland Ordinance should be adhered to as It currently exists. ( Bye asked if there would be any trade offs for the shoreland variance. Hallett commented that he would only favor variances if • there would he trade-offs for possibly additional park land. Hallett preferred a trail all along the lakeshore and believed that too many lots were located on the points. Ruebling asked if Miller Park would have any affect on the classification of the lake. Franzen replied that there would be restrictions on the motor size allowed on the lake. • Hallett was concerned about the potential for problems later with the homes facing the park. Bye believed that the proponent should adhere as much as possible to the Shoreland Ordinance. She did not want to see excessive tree loss and also believed that the building pads were too small. Ruebling stated that 25 of 30 lots had building depths less than 70 feet. 2. Cul-de-sacs and roadways. Bye believed that some private roads should be looked at to save more trees. al/A Planning Commission Minutes 16 June 12, 1989 r t?ueblitiq concurred with the staff report regarding the cul-de-sacs. Fell believed that the short cul-de-sacs were acceptable; however, the longer ones should be looked at further. Dodge stated that the cul-de-sacs along Highway 5 made • sense to allow greater setback for noise mitigation. Bye commented that more detail was necessary regarding the phasing of the project and the road connections. Sandstad believed that the noise assessment for the property along Highway 5 was important. 3. Trails and sidewalks. Bye believed that this was a safety and a transportation issue and that sidewalks should be provided along at least one side of all streets. The Commission concurred with this recommendation. )10TION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Standstad to continue this item to the July 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0. zJ13 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. 8 NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -2- A. Shores of Mitchell Lake Refer to memo dated September 15, 1989 from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources and staff reports dated June 9, August 11 and September 8, 1989. Jack Buxell of Mason Homes was present at the meeting to review the proposal. The site is located south of Hwy. 5 and west of Mitchell Lake. It is characterized by steep slopes dropping to a particularly low point in the southwest corner. Soil is sandy loam and the areas south and west of the site are undeveloped. There is a probable noise problem with the upgrading of Hwy. 5. Buxell said that preservation of the lakeshore UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -3- was the main concern. The developer plans to dedicate 3.95 acres on the south peninsula and a 1.82 acre outlot on the north peninsula to the City. The developer is asking for a variance on the size and width of some lots in the development. The lots are in three tiers. Most impact on existing vegetation is in the east. The developer has changed the plan to use a shared driveway for two homes in order to lessen the impact on existing trees. They have also reduced the plan by one lot. An 8' berm and a fence of varying heights will be on the Hwy. 5 side of the development. Cross said that staff had two major concerns when this development was first proposed. They were preservation of the shoreline and a bike trail from Miller Park north to the underpass at Hwy. 5. Staff suggested the developers consider donating an open space trail corridor along the entire shoreline of Mitchell Lake within their subdivision to protect the shoreline and provide a pedestrian trail. In this case, all homes would have access to the lake, homes that abutted the trail corridor would not have a restricted lot size and the City would accept that land in lieu of cash park fees. The developer was not interested in this arrangement. A number of solutions were considered. The developer is now proposing to dedicate 5.97 acres of land in lieu of park fees. The land is on both peninsulas and will protect the majority of the significant trees on the site. Cross added that this would protect the significant trees on the site. Staff looked at the peninsulas, both of which are heavily wooded. The lower point of the peninsula would be very important to Miller Park. The trail system will be adjacent to the road from Miller Park to the Hwy. 5 underpass. The trail should continue to the west thru Tandem Corporation's area. Richard asked if staff was comfortable with the lot size and variances that will be required. Lambert said that staff's concern was not only to protect trees, but also to have the same "feel" on both sides of the lake. The lots north of the southern peninsula have 100' setbacks and no trees will be removed. Oaks will be maintained on the northern side of the north peninsula. Richard noted that in the August 11 staff report, average tree loss was at 23%, but tree loss on this development is 30%. He asked if a provision could be added when } the average is exceeded, that more trees are required to be replaced. m1ri UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -4- Lambert said that the City has a tree ordinance that determines how many trees have to be replaced. Lee Johnson commented that tree loss on this site is only at 22% since the shared driveway was added. Cook asked if this development was based on the level of the lake at the present time. Lambert said yes. He added that raising the lake level eliminated the possibility of a trail along the lake. MOTION: Richard moved to recommend approval of Shores of Mitchell Lake per staff recommendation. Mikkelson seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. ( ( STAFF REPORT TO: PI ann i ng Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 8, 1989 PROJECT: Shores of Mitchell Lake LOCATION: South of Highway #5, west of Mitchell Lake APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: U.S. Homes REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. 3. A phased action EAW on 450 acres. 4. Shoreland and street frontage variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. 5. Flood Plain Review. Background r ' 1 1 r .---it -1 Ri4.3,5,,---.,_..% _ - ,,,,,., ..---3",,... 1- ! .,. This is a continued item . ..._ August 14, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission directed the j , 7 proponent to revise the plans R1-22 Pt according to recommendations in the Staff Report in the following areas: ' _dams _Rt.- 2 ! ! 4,4- ti 2 tree preservation, tree replacement, _ i r'-' noise assessment and mitigation, and • 0 } project phasing. _,•-••4•-••-•I , • •v•••*•••••$ ., - , . . Tree Preservation ! :.:*:••••:4.44 "-'e'(:7-'44‘„... . V..........."4 . :• V... 1:- ••••••••••‘ The previous Staff eport •• • • ., • • •• •.• w i Tr ptt , 1) I k.A..A.,.,•,•••• ..•••• recommended that three lots be —•-•-•-•'••••••. 873 consolidated to two lots with a !PROPOSED SITE ,,.. shared driveway on the wooded point -, ••••••••• ••*•1 to preserve more of the trees. ••••••••. " ••••••••.. Within this area, it was originally . . .......VAW. L estimated that 90% of the tree loss •••••••••-• ••••••••••• 1 •••••••••••• (4. would occur. The site plan has been •••••••••••• L,Airt ••••••••••••• . revised with a shift in lot lines ••••••••••••• !. • ••••••..t.".•..4!"..t.•4..•01,...i -•-•.1„, •• I •." i i g7Il AREA LOCATION MAP r C Shores of Mitchell Lake 2 September 8, 1989 and a common driveway for two of the lots. One lot has direct access off a public street. Although the number of lots remain the same, the repositioning of the house pads (which have been increased from 50 to 70 feet in depth) and the meandering of the shared private drive through the wooded area saves an additional 414 inches of oak trees as compared to the previous plan. Overall tree loss was originally estimated at 30%, or 1,506 inches. Tree loss has now been estimated at 22%, or 1,092 inches. Tree Replacement Tree replacement, based on 22% tree loss (1,092 inches), would be 320 caliper inches. These trees should be placed along the proposed noise berms adjacent to Highway #5 as a visual buffer and to further mitigate noise. Noise Assessment and Noise Mitigation A noise assessment study has been completed by the developer which identifies the noise levels and the proposed mitigating measures. Eight to ten-foot berms together with fencia,j is proposed along Highway #5 right-of-way as noise mitigation. Project Phasing The previous Staff Report recommended limiting the number of units to 50 for Phase 1, with a temporary road connection which would provide for better internal circulation and emergency vehicle access. The proponent has submitted a revised phasing plan which proposes 55 lots as part of Stage 1, Phase 1. Street B would be constructed to cul-de-sac 4 and a temporary gravel access road would be constructed along the remainder of Street B to 184th Street southwest of the project. This provides a second access which would be used primarily for emergency vehicles. All construction traffic would be required to utilize Street B (bituminous surface) for access. The use of the temporary road would be acceptable to the Engineering Department predicated upon a maintenance program for the gravel road until the street is made permanent. Stage 2 of Phase 1 could proceed predicated on a permanent street connection through adjoining properties to Dell Road. Southwest Area Phasing The Southwest Area phasing study identifies that no more than 250 lots should be permitted in sub-area lA until a loop road is completed between County Road #4 and State Highway #5. While the study identifies certain "mile posts" •it did not identify the controls the City should utilize to insure that these improvements occur. Three alternative ways of addressing phasing were discussed in the previous Staff Report. The alternative which would treat all developers and land owners in area 1A fairly would be to allow portions of each site to develop. The number of lots for each development would be derived by taking the land area of each developer in area IA as a percentage of the total times 250 units. For the U.S. Homes project, this would mean a total of lOD units, 55 units for the Tandem project, and 95 units for the balance of the acreage within area IA. This site is within area IA of the Southwest Area phasing plan. Development in this area is predicated on the following: C (- Shores of Mitchell Lake 3 September 8, 1989 1. Full intersection access at Dell Road and Highway #5. This intersection is expected to be substantially complete in late 1990-early 1991. 2. Upgrading of the County Road #4-Highway #5 intersection. This intersection is expected to be substantially complete in September of 1990. 3. Improvement of the Heritage Road/Highway #5 intersection. 4. Extension of trunk sewer line approximately 1,000 feet southeast of this project from the Fairfield project. 5. Extension of trunk watermain along the north side of Highway #5 to this site. This will occur concurrent with Highway #5 upgrade. The upgrade of Dell Road, Highway #5, and County Road #4 intersections should be completed prior to final plat approval. Extension of sewer and water should be completed prior to release of the final plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for rezoning of 94.5 acres from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5, preliminary plat of 94.5 acres into 175 single family lots and 3 outlots, a finding of no significant impact for the EAW based on plans dated August 11, 1989, and September 8, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated August 11, 1989, and September 8, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide a tree replacement plan based on 320 caliper inches. The tree replacement should be concentrated along the noise berm and fencing along Highway #5 right-of-way. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Final Plat approval for this project shall be limited to 55 units. 4. Stage 2, Phase 1, may be final platted for an additional 45 lots predicated upon the construction of the remainder of Street B and permanent streets through adjoining properties to Dell Road. 5. Second Reading and Final Plat approval should not occur until the following improvements have been completed: A. Upgrading of County Road #4-Highway #5 intersection. -.s. B. Upgrading of the Dell Road/Highway #5 intersection. 6. Final plat release is predicated upon the completion of the following improvements: Al 19 C Shores of Mitchell Lake 4 September 8, 1989 A. Extension of trunk watermain from Highway #5 to this site. B. Extension of trunk sewer main south of this property to this site. 7. Concurrent with street construction, construct all required sidewalks and trails where shown on the Attachment C. 8. Approval of the rezoning and the preliminary plat is subject to Board of Appeals approval for shoreland and street frontage variances. gvo C STAFF REPORT 1,, TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 11, 1989 PROJECT: Shores of Mitchell Lake LOCATION: South of Highway #5, west of Mitchell Lake APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: U.S. Homes REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 94.8 acres into 172 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. 3. A phased action EAW on 450 acres. 4. Shoreland and street frontage variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. -1 t Background ` ,..� i Y This is a continued item from the )( June 12 and July 10 Planning •Commission meetings. The Plannin ^\ _/ � ... Commission �...,. "• son identified the following R1-22 = Pl. issues : _ 1 1 _ (1) Shoreland Ordinance; (2) Tree —dada : 2 •i ..1._ •I Loss; (3) Cul-de-sacs; (4) Southwest •��i Area phasing and improvements; (5) �•i!i!6 �0 Road connections to adjoining e�j�j;•;j;••••••, !'' properties; (6) Highway #5 noise • 1�1�i�•�i�i�••i•� v` mitigation; (7) Sidewalks, trails ' ••,#.•,•,•,•,•ii•, � and park dedication; (B) Project 0A40,������i����., r L �` phasing. j ��i�i���1����������•. '� 1 ♦•••11••i�. 873 ` 1 Shoreland Ordinance PROPOSED SITE �►�. • 14. •••••••.,0,.••• "^, This site abuts Mitchell Lake. Mitchell Lake is classified as a ���i♦♦♦ •♦. ♦�11/1•1t�♦ Natural Environmental water accord- �i�1��•••••••�•i••1",••i L a ec ing to the current Shoreland ���••�������� Ordinance. The Shoreland Ordinance '���,�•��•��•�•�♦���•�•��04, requires a minimum lot size of J i • 2 •Jai AREA LOCATION MAP ( ( Shores of Mitchell Lake 2 August 11, 1989 40,000 square feet, 150 feet of width at the building setback, 150 feet of width at the high water mark of the lake, and a 150 foot setback to building. Planning Commission was concerned with the impact of the proposed development along the lakeshore and did not feel that the trade-off of open space/trail for smaller lots was acceptable. The Commission indicated that the project should either comply with the Shoreland Ordinance, or if a revised site plan with variances was presented, there should be compelling reasons for the variances, an overall benefit to the City, and that the plan with variances would be a better utilization of the lakeshore than if no variances were considered. The site plan has been revised with three fewer lakeshore lots. Shoreland variances are requested for lot size, setback, width at the Ordinary High Water Mark, and width at the building setback. In exchange for the shoreland variances, the developer is proposing the dedication of two outlots to the City for park purposes totaling 5.77 acres along the lakeshore. These outlots are located on the wooded points of the lake and preserves more of the existing trees than the previous proposal. Although none of the lots meet the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement, there is an equivalent density within the shoreland area of one unit per 41,000 square feet of land area. There is 24.38 acres that can be classified as shoreland and 26 shoreland lots. Fifteen of the 26 shoreland lots meet the 150 foot setback requirement. Eleven of the 26 lots have a 100 foot setback. The average setback is 125 feet. Five of the lots with the 100 foot proposed setback have a 100 foot park area between the rear lot lines and the lake. Six of the lots at the 100 foot setback, (Lots 8-18, Block 3), preserve a 30 foot wide strip of steep slope and oak trees along the lake which help screen the houses. Seven of the 26 lots meet the 150 foot width requirement at the high water mark. The average shoreland lot width is 143 feet. If the total lakeshore including the land to be dedicated to the City is divided by the number of lots along the lake, the lakeshore per unit would be 242 feet. Three of the 26 lots meet the width requirement of 150 feet at the building setback. The average width at the building setback is 130 feet. If the land to be dedicated to the City is added to the lot widths, the average width would be 162 feet per unit. The chart below compares the Shore of Mitchell Lake project with the Timber Lakes and Weston Bay projects on the east side of Mitchell Lake. Project Average Lot Average Lot Average Building Average Lake Size Width Setback Shore Per Unit Timber Lakes 23,600 sq.ft 100 ft. 75 ft. 138 ft. Weston Bay 28,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 150 ft. 110 ft. Shores of 33,000 sq.ft. 130 ft. 125 ft. 242 ft. Mitchell Lake C Shores of Mitchell Lake 3 August 11, 1989 Tree Loss The expected tree loss on the previous plan with building pad depths at a minimum of 70 feet for lots adjacent to the lake was 50%. The revised site plan which plans for larger lots in the wooded areas and the dedication of 0utlots to the City reduces the tree loss to 30% or 1506 caliper inches. This is slightly higher than the average tree loss for 32 residential projects with tree replacement at 26%. Tree replacement would be 600 caliper inches. Building pad areas proposed for Lot 8, Block 2 and for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 3 are small. A larger building pad area can be provided for Lot 8, Block 2 by adjusting the lot lines on Lots 1-7 to add width to Lot 8. This would not be possible for Lots 1,2, and 3. With a 100 foot setback from the lake, the building pads proposed at a 50 foot depth are too small and it can be expected that the homes will be much larger and multiple variances requested on these lots in the future. Since 90% of the tree loss occurs within these 3 lots, it is recommended that these 3 lots be combined into 2 lots with a shared driveway. Cul-De-Sacs The current City policy is to minimize the use of cul-de-sacs and to connect neighborhoods. Cul-de-sacs should only be used where it is not technically possible to extend through roads or where the connection of through road would result in considerable alteration of the land, extensive tree loss, or encroachment into creek, wetland, or lake areas. Six of the cul-de-sacs appear justifiable because they are either adjacent to Highway #5, Mitchell Lake, or there are steep slopes. Two cul-de-sacs have been eliminated which provides access to adjoining properties to the south and west along Street D and Street E. The cul-de-sacs in the interior of the project are shorter than the maximum 500 foot requirement allowed by ordinance. Southwest Area Phasing Improvements This site is within Area 1A of the Southwest Area phasing plan. Development is limited to 100 lots in this area prior to the upgrading of the intersection of County Road #4 and Highway #5 and predicated also on the following improvements: 1. Full intersection access at Dell Road and Highway #5. 2. Improved access at Heritage Road at the north side of Highway #5. 3. Extension of trunk water main along the north side of Highway #5. 4. Extension of trunk sewer line approximately 1,000 feet southeast of this site from the Fairfield project. The upgrading of the intersection of County Road #4 and Highway #5 is expected to be under construction this fall. The construction of the remainder of Highway #5 west to the City limits which also includes the Dell Road intersection is not expected to begin until March of 1990. The water main extension Highway #5 is to be constructed concurrent with Highway #5 upgrading. The extension of sanitary sewer from the south will require a petition from U.S. Homes and property owners to the south. ac)a3 ( ( Shores of Mitchell Lake 4 August 11, 1989 Road Connections to Adjoining Properties The primary access to this site will be from an east/west roadway from the Dell Road intersection. This would be constructed concurrent with the upgrading of Highway #5. The plan has been revised to provide two additional access points to adjoining properties. Street E provides a connection point into the Tandem piece to the west. Street D was initially a cul-de-sac but has been revised to a through street. These two additional access points will help distribute traffic better in the neighborhood and provide for better emergency vehicle access. Phased Action EAW The City is initiating a phased action EAW for all land area bounded by Highway #5 on the north, Mitchell Lake on the east, future #212 on the south, and Chanhassen to the west. Each of the projects within this area including U.S. Homes, Shroers PUD, or the future Tandem project would not trip any mandatory EAW categories, however, if these projects are grouped together, the total number of housing units projected at 850 would be a mandatory EAW. This EAW is important considering that all of these projects will impact Rice Marsh Lake, Mitchell Lake, and other natural features including slopes and trees. Major infrastructure improvements are required to be extended service to this area including Dell Road and trunk water and sewer main. The revisions to the site plan which reduces tree loss along the lake, is a better development of the lakeshore than the previous plan and the environmental impacts on natural features has been reduced. The U.S. Homes project is adjacent to Highway #5. Since the homes on the northern portion of the site are at a higher grade than the roadway, these homes will be impacted by noise. A noise assessment study has been completed by the developer which identifies the noise levels, however, the mitigating measures have not been identified. An 8 foot berm and tree plantings are proposed as mitigation. Depending upon the results of the noise study, the berm may be either increased in height and/or additional trees planted, or homes will have to be set back farther from Highway #5. Project Phasing The phasing plan as proposed is a two phase plan. Phase I is 72 units and Phase II would be 100 units. Until access to the Tandem project along Street E is developed in the future, all of the lots within this proposed project would be off a one mile long dead end cul-de-sac. The phasing plan should be changed according to Attachment B which would limit Phase 1 to 50 units. This would also be predicated upon a temporary road connection between Street C and Street B. This would be similar to the loop road requirements for Fairfield and Boulder Pointe. No additional units should be allowed until Street E is connected through the Tandem project back to Dell Road. Southwest Area Plan Phasing The Southwest Area Phasing study identifies that no more than 250 lots should be permitted in Sub Area 1A until a loop road connection is completed between County Road #4 and State Highway #5. While the study identifies certain "mileposts" it does not identify the controls the City should utilize to insure that these improvements occur. The following are alternative ways of addressing phasing: A72u C C Shores of Mitchell Lake 5 August 11, 1989 1. The City could choose to approve all projects in area 1A and rely upon building permit control to limit the number of lots within the area. However, historically this has been difficult to achieve even on small projects. The City would be working with many homeowners and builders as compared with a few developers. 2. Phasing could proceed on a closest to the road improvements basis. This would suggest that all land in the future Tandem project (172 units plus neighborhood commercial) should develop first because it is adjacent to the Dell Road Highway 5 intersection. This would mean that approximately 80 housing units would be remain for the next closest parcel. 3. Another way to phase development would be to take all of the land area in 1A and allocate units on a per acre basis. Since there are approximately 250 acres of land inside the MUSA line within Area 1A, the allocation would be one unit per acre. This would mean 95 units for the Shores of Mitchell Lake project, 56 units for the Tandem project, and 99 units for the balance of the acreage. The first alternative would be difficult for the City to monitor and enforce. The second alternative gives preferential treatment to one developer although it does promote orderly growth. The third alternative treats all developers fairly by allowing a portion of their sites to develop. This was the same approach used for the Fairfield and Cheyenne Place projects where only the first phase of both projects were allowed to proceed to final plat. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat depicts 11 lots which do not meet the minimum street frontage requirements per Code. These include Lot 9, Block 1; Lots 43, 44, 45, 53, and 59, Block 4; Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, Block 3; and Lot 3, Block 9. By shifting lot lines, the variance for Lot 9, Block 1 and Lot 58, Block 4 can be eliminated. Consolidating Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 3, into 2 lots should provide a 55 foot minimum street frontage for Lot 3. A variance would still be required for one flag lot. The variances for Lot 9, Block 3 and Lot 3, Block 9 seem reasonable because they are corner lots. The house would face the street that has the longest street frontage. Corner lots currently require a 100 foot minimum frontage on both frontages. There may be some merit for variances on Lots 43, 44, and 45 because they are on a sharp curve. Things to consider would be providing the requiring 85 feet at the building setback and the large size of the lots. Lot 53, Block 4 is on a gradual curve and the plat should be revised to adjust lot lines to meet the minimum 85 foot frontage requirement. Sidewalks, Trails, and Parks The Park & Recreation staff has completed a preliminary review of the project and is recommending sidewalks, trails and land dedication as shown on Attachment C. There may be additional recommendations as part of the final report to the Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Conclusions How this site develops is dependent upon the Commission's recommendation with regard to development of the shoreland, internal phasing, and Southwest Area phasing. Shores of Mitchell Lake 6 August 11, 1989 Revisions to plan along the lakeshore are better than the previous proposal with the dedication of approximately 5.72 acres of land along the wooded points to the City. This preserves a considerable portion of lakeshore in its natural state and helps reduce tree loss from 50-30%. This may be a trade-off for the shoreland variances. In addition, the project with variances are closer to meeting the shoreland ordinance requirements than the Weston Bay and Timber Lakes projects on the east side of the lake. The lotting pattern along the lake should be revised according to Attachment A to preserve more trees and provide for large pad sizes. Until a loop road connection is made along Street E through the Tandem site to Dell Road, -de-sac. T minimize the number sofwlots on aicul-de-sac,oandnemtoileprovide forlong deadbetter end ulinternal circulation for the residents and emergency vehicle access, the phasing plan should be changed according to Attachment B. This would limit the number of units to 50 and require a temporary loop road connection. This would be the same requirement as the Boulder Pointe project with regards to the extension of the Mitchell Road collector through the site. The Southwest Area phasing plan identifies mileposts to be achieved, however, no specific controls were identified for achieving those ends. Although there are several ways of controlling development in Area 1A, alternative 3 which allows for units to be allocated on a per acreage basis is reasonable and fair to all landowners. Staff Recommendation The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for rezoning of 94.5 acres from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5, Preliminary Plat of 94.5 acres into 172 lots and 3 outlots, a finding of no significant impact for the EAW based on revised plans dated August 11, 1989, subject to recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 9 and August 11, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review proponent shall: A. Modify site plan according to Attachment A to provide for larger pad sizes and to preserve more trees. B. Modify the tree replacement plan to provide for 600 caliper inches of tree la h sitelan revisions forfewert�lots�andaaosharedunt adriveway.y e Tree treplacement should be concentrated between the homes and Highway #5 as potential noise mitigation. C. Provide the results of the noise assessment study and make necessary revisions to the site plan for mitigation. D. Modify the phasing plan according to Attachment B limiting the number of lots to 50 and include an internal temporary loop road connection. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. aia(0 Shores of Mitchell Lake 7 August 11, 1989 B. Provide detailed storm water run-off utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. C. Dedicate to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and mortgages the two outlots for park purposes along Mitchell Lake and the outlot for the trailway connection to Highway #5. 3. Final Plat approval for this project shall be limited to 50 units. 4. A second phase of this project may be final platted for an additional 45 units predicated upon the construction of Street E through the Tandem property to Dell Road. 5. Second Reading and Final Plat approval should not occur until the following improvements have been completed: A. Upgrading of Highway #5. B. Upgrading of County Road Highway #5 intersection. C. Upgrading of the Dell Road/Highway #5 intersection. D. Extension of trunk water main from Highway #5 to the site. E. Extension of trunk sewer main south of this property to the site. 6. Construction of all required sidewalks and trails where shown on attachment. 7. Approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat is subject to Board of Appeals approval for the shoreland and street frontage variances. alai • 'IN 1 ...1) .,... . ..,rt.fn' A w • .w •.w•r..0 _,../+OUfIR. 111111111111111 ° r r ,H- D .--- 3.- —. ...., ,—.....-- ,,,,, .. 4,...,. ,, .3...„. ,..—.,..... . ,.....,..,...1., ,.....--, ,",i1....; u -. _ i7.3...___.•.:L.2...c...„1 .1.2, 114 r•,. „•�� u MITCHELL LAKE , 1 ,... 1 ,..„... .—, 4.7/.... ...„.,..-.:\\,. ...# t t 'r P i _ i_. ,—mbe.„„;-. i ,„.„ ,.... ...,. „- . . i At! �`f T�+\t. '-T-ir Nwff— `\ 'r ' wwRi /� j _ " ,.. �\ N O l . r two lots 1'yJ � jam\ Y. i v. , _ii_ i w i+'t1 910S1 YTWOI ig in. w ' r \ „t ./�` r °� THE SHORES OF WOW.LAKE ' .ram iii , _ :I rl L r� r A71:4 r.... 1P DIVOCIU i I ��norc t, I ' + �UAYNARY, y: DATA Revised Lotting Patten ;ii : .:- -N'... M •~ '�. .IY.14 ro ti r Attachment • etA� •°iAw.' ° ,. A ��.w°Rrs..v,i'i..u:i us 9,%0 16 ,.ouws roam. . Y 1 Illam malh. .eft 1 t 8 foot trail - ,.,,N..0.1111111 A JIIIi jlltiillii, o , ow .... .r ` �{g1T101 A ii, ° r , i a.0 T , _����i�"r , I / rw .aCi' I•_ r.yA uo ] fitt �1.r w ygni ,,,, �1. r O. err ��J , -r i" . 'f L ' MITCHELL LAKE TT ` � u � �' � ] LAIHMCII'MAC' i ,....."'s.' V,/ l'••.1:717,*,:,....m?,....: :-:)) Ar - , ' . Parkland °• b \ RRR000 •. , . _ _ w 11 wa0W � . . 1 '� r. .�r: -.�. T r r,..� . _ 1474. ` --]_ ]]7" •• • r •/,•IA61910LL YT.AOI i.K• Sr" rtn1 a ._ ♦ �. I�'w \ �� -•�]� •a/ r.\/ '� „y � THE SHORES Of "'O„1] \ AYTI]1E11 LAKE taiAIk -�r.. . �.."r•�/ � p ark lana *.: root frail rS ..,uij\ ._ 0.1313.1.MO warm aurlor c M-A/USIiOT I`\ // ri -._____,__. MAT PREUMINARY. yl Parks and Trails -4'TA{s] r.,11 i Itul.,y, �i W� yr.� " I.]I1.11 AO• • . Attachment1 .,y.]�,y :� .,y.... C �" ii• �"'� `�IL"eons ° u c a. Ar1.W ii ^^ SC 'OWN OYCa]O,N.LL i ( STAFF REPORT t. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 9, 1989 PROJECT: Shores of Mitchell Lake LOCATION: South of Highway #5, west of Mitchell Lake APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: U.S. Homes REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. 3. A phased action EAW on 450 acres. 4. Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. _ ,,,, au!!r ..;::. Background .- . .:_.,�. Since this site is large with many ` '� ' complex issues, the first meeting i �\ r P will be for presentation by the R!'-2 2 developer. There should be a discussion of the issues identified —dia —; 1 2 : _;__ �' in subsequent sections of this -co report and direction by the Planning 4 + Commission. At a future meeting, '♦♦♦♦♦♦♦••��•�♦♦♦♦v • based upon input and direction by • ♦•••♦♦�•♦♦♦•��•♦•• the Planning Commission, Staff will : ♦••i••♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�44 `: prepare a detailed report with ♦�♦♦�♦♦♦♦Q> t ,•••••••�•�•�•♦4 M I i8 61 t t recommendations. •�•�•�•�•�•�•�•.•��, r- f ♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦♦♦. 873 `r+ The Planning Staff has identified !PROPOSED SITE i... the following issues: ♦♦♦•♦♦♦♦•^••;‘ •♦•♦♦♦♦••♦♦♦♦•♦•• 1. Shoreland Ordinance. ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�t.1, 1' 2. Tree Loss. ♦••♦•♦♦i#♦♦♦♦••j•jam♦. 1 3. Cul-de-sacs. • I• ♦�♦i♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦i♦i#i♦i♦i♦i I, "r 4. Southwest Area PhasingIm ♦♦•�•••♦•�•♦•♦•♦•••♦•♦♦♦♦v provements. 4.♦♦• 5. Road Connections to Adjoin ♦-" ing Properties. i J i e y 0 AREA LOCATION MAP C O. S. Homes 2 June 9, 1989 6. Highway #5 Noise Mitigation. 7. Sidewalks, Trails, and Parks. Development Request The development request is a rezoning of 94.5 acres from mostly Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5. The site plan depicts the subdivision of 94.5 acres into 175 lots, at a density of 1.85 units per acre. This density is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for Low Density Residential and the densities used in the Southwest Area Phasing Plan for determining infrastructure needs such as road, sewer, water, and storm sewer. Shoreland Ordinance This site abutts Mitchell Lake. Mitchell Lake is classified as a Natural Environmental Water according to the current Shoreland Ordinance. This means that the minimum lot size should be 40,000 square feet, 120 feet wide at the building setback, 120 feet of width at the High Water Mark of the lake, and a 150-foot setback to building. None of the proposed lots meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance, but rather a negotiated tradeoff is proposed for a combination of open space/trail and smaller lots. Approximately 6 months ago, preliminary discussions began with the City Staff with regard to the Shoreland Ordinance and if it would be possible to develop lots at less than the ordinance requirements. The City's initial reaction was that the western shore of Mitchell Lake should develop in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance (refer to Bob Lambert's memo on the Shoreland Ordinance) and that a trail corridor should be implemented along the lakeshore in accordance with the City's trail system plan. City Staff also expressed concern about the preservation of the oak hardwood areas along the shore of the lake. Through a series of meetings over the next several months, a compromise plan was reached whereby lots would be a minimum of 20,000 square feet along the lake, with 100-foot setback. As a trade-off for lots less than the Shoreland Ordinance requirements, the City in return, would gain approximately 5 acres of land dedicated along the lakeshore and a trait to be constructed within this area. At that time, it was felt that proceeding with the development in this manner would be a better development of the shoreline and provide for more protection of the natural features than if the Shoreland Ordinance was adhered to. After reviewing the detailed grading plans, at the time of submission for Planning Commission review, it became apparent that the proposed development along the lakeshore was not preserving the trees and edge of the lake as originally expected. The grading plan depicts 45-50 foot deep building pads along the lake and in the wooded areas. These pad sizes are small and it can be expected that the homes built would be larger. Even with a 100-foot setback from the lake, building pads proposed at 45 to 50 feet and depth, are too small and it can be expected that the homes will be much larger and multiple variances will be requested on a lot by lot basis in the future. A Staff survey of building permits issued within the last two years for lots in scenic areas along Purgatory Creek, the Minnesota River Bluffs, and Red Rock Lake, indicate that the average pad depths are 60 feet for houses in the $200,000 to $300,000 range and 70 feet in depth for houses greater than $300,000. Since many of the 45-50 foot pads are at the proposed 100 foot setback, there is no room for expansion without ( ( U. S. Homes 3 June 9, 1989 requiring additional Shoreland setback variances. There are several ways of reducing the impact of development along the lake shore. These would include: 1. Developing the project consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance. 2. Plan for larger but fewer lots with 70 foot deep house pads in the shoreland area. 3. Use of a private road on the points to increase building area outside the shoreland setback with some reduction of lots on the two points. Tree Loss And Building Pad Sizes The tree loss as calculated by the developer, is estimated at 33% which would be an acceptable tree loss based upon the current tree policy. However, the tree loss is calculated based upon building 45-50 foot pad depths. A Staff survey indicates that building pad depths should be a minimum of 70 feet for lots areas adjacent to the lake. With larger pad sizes and additional grading, it is expected that tree loss could increase to 5D%. Alternatives for reducing tree loss would include: 1. Compliance with the minimum requirements of the Shorel and Ordinance. 2. Provide a 70 foot minimum pad depth in the Shoreland area with larger, but fewer, lots. • 3. Use private roads in the wooded areas with some reduction of lots on the two points. Cul-de-sacs The current City Council policy is to minimize the use of cul-de-sacs and to connect neighborhoods. Cul-de-sacs should only be used where it is not technically possible to extend through roads or where the connection of through roads would result in a considerable alteration of the land, excessive tree loss, or encroachment into creek, wetland, or lake areas. The three cul-de-sacs adjacent to Highway #5 could be a through street; however, this would create additional lots facing Highway #5. The use of cul-de-sacs keeps houses farther away from the Highway and provides more room alongfthemlakeacan be or n of views and noise. The cul-de-sacs eliminated through the use ofs private troads nprovided d onto hthee re nis a sufficient turn-around at the end to accommodate emergency vehicles. Cul-de-sac 3 in the center of the project can be made into a through street. There are no significant features that would be altered in this location. Cul-de-sac 4 along the south portion of the project should be changed into a through street to provide a connection into the property to the south. Southwest Area Phasing Plan This site lies within area 1B of the Southwest Area Phasing Plan. Development is limited to 100 lots in this area prior to the upgrading of the intersection of County Road #4 and Highway #5 and predicated also on the following improvements: U. S. Homes 4 June 9, 1989 1. Full intersection access at Dell Road and Highway #5. 2. Improved access at Heritage Road at the north side of Highway #5. 3. Extension of a trunk watermain along the north side of Highway #5. 4. Extension of a trunk sewer line approximately 1,000 feet southeast of this site adjacent from the Fairfield project. The upgrading of the intersection of County Road #4 and Highway q5 is expected to begin this summer. The construction of the remainder of Highway q5 west to the City limits, which also includes the Dell Road intersection upgrading, is not expected to begin until March of 1990. The watermain extension along Highway q5 is to be constructed concurrent with Highway q5 upgrading. The extension of sanitary sewer from the south will require a petition from U.S. Homes and property owners to the south. In addition to the construction of the Dell Road intersection, Dell Road will have to be extended to the south and include a roadway extension from Dell Road to this site (see Attachment A). A feasibility study for the extension of Dell Road is currently underway and should be completed within the next 6 weeks. Road Connections to Adjoining Properties The road extension to the southwest corner of the site will eventually loop back to Dell Road. The Engineering Department has indicated that this road should extend to the south to Dell Road rather than looping back immediately to the west. In addition, cul-de-sac 4, should be made into a through street connection to the south. The proximity of these two roadways is close and they should be spread farther apart to provide for better distribution of traffic. The south loop road connection to Dell Road will not occur until the adjoining properties develop, meaning only one access would be provided to this site. The number of homes to be built should be limited until this connection is made. Highway #5 Noise Mitigation The City is initiating a phased action EAW for all land area bounded by Highway #5 on the north, Mitchell Lake on the east, future #212 on the south, and Chanhassen to the west (see attachment B). The U.S. Homes project, or the Schroers PUD by themselves would not trip any mandatory EAW categories; however, if these projects are grouped together and added to what is expected to develop with the Tandem site and other undeveloped property, the total number of units projected at 850 would require an EAW. The EAW is important, considering that these projects will impact Rice Marsh Lake, and Mitchell Lake, and other natural features including slopes and trees. Major infrastructure improvements are required to be extended to service this area including Dell Road and trunk sewer and watermain. The U.S. Homes project in addition to environmental impacts of developing along the Lakeshore, will be impacted by noise from Highway #5. The homes on the northern portion of the site will sit at a higher grade than the roadway. Because of the change in grade and limited setback area, it will not be possible to construct a noise berm and noise mitigation would have to occur with plant materials. Tree replacement as part of tree preservation policy could be mass planted in this area to provide a noise barrier. It is recommended that the developer conduct a noise Al C U. S. Homes 5 June 9, 1989 assessment studyfor the proposed houses along Highway #5. This is similar to the noise assessment done for the Cardinal Hills project adjacent to Highway #494. Sidewalk, Trails, and Park Dedication The City's Recreational Trail system identifies a need for a trail along the west shore of Mitchell Lake. The plan as proposed provides for a trail with some exposure to the lakeshore. An 8 foot trail connection will be between an underpass on Highway #5 to the north, and to the future Miller Park to the south. In addition, there should be 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks along one side of all roads within the project. CONCLUSIDNS How this 94.5 acre site develops is dependent upon City recommendations regarding the Shoreland Ordinance, tree preservation, cul-de-sacs, road connections, Highway 5 impacts, trails and sidewalks. Shoreland Ordinance The Commission should consider the impacts of the development on the lake shore and decide if the lake shore would best be developed in strict compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance or if there is an alternative site plan, despite variances, that would accomplish the same objectives and provide a benefit to the City. Tree Preservation The Commission should first determine the impact on development in wooded areas which is contingent upon what size of homes are to be built. If the amount of tree loss is not acceptable, the Commission should indicate if adherence to the Shoreland Ordinance would preserve more trees or larger lots with larger pad sizes and private roads. Cul de Sacs The Commission should consider if there are valid reasons for the 13 proposed cul- de-sacs. Road Connections The Commission should consider how much of this 175-unit project can develop before a southerly loop road back to Dell Road is constructed. The phasing plan identifies three phases of 45, 9D and 40 units respectively, however no time frame has been identified. Highway 5 Impacts A noise impact study is needed for lots on State Highway #5. Mitigation for noise impacts can be accomplished by increased setbacks, berming and tree plantings. Trails And Sidewalks The Commission should recommend the extent of trails and sidewalks needed to serve the subdivision. ��rrtt��}} ofiJL4 ( ( , 1 \ , ,, \\ , -11 , 13 ) i : I .... \k‘4. i (...._.....- Ksg i• .14.. Pl. ..... c v : 1 ..- r —0 rs 1 ' ) K i 1 , 1 • _,„,,,,„, ...........- _".....---..: m 1 \ 405 :I: t 1 r 111 ......,. , ) ...... .... 1 ...._ i ...... ...i.„--..-,.., Of , ..... -T, 1-,..c.-:•:., ?Z-CiltI. N ....., .: i . ! 1 , • R1 L ' t 114:74 41 A. [ I 1:i--- s• i ... . • ... ''' ,,k - ,A--N,..I. \ i -\\• ...-g)r-;3: 1., ;,. „,._ __...,' .- - .-- :-,- . \,- — ,_...,..., s:S!.\\ ' ,...1. ,A. . . ,,--..'A.' -4 ‘\\. Pi\h, • •., --__ Ur-.23 ..1` •- ---wr- ,‘.. ) '. ' ' Dell oad And Si Access , Pg ' , : -/'''"TA. '" - :11.1.--; mi \ 0t•-• /2.1,0, /* ... ?, 3 - ),: 3)corf 3,,,-„, •..... -,,,-,,,,:. , .f Attachme t\A ''‘ ‘f."-tl,-= : 23 • a 9 fiRM-6 5-, .,"---'' ,. ( (.,:i. ..,,V,..- : : . \\; '1 \ij :\''..\ 1 ) \. 74,Av..: Alt,.- ),G1+A.Nli4M29e.Q /';''.. ---1.-i-.'-'--; RM .i)-r zr. Z. / ,,------ 5 I, , ,.. ; (_..,. ..., • .., :, • : , -,..<i_,,m ,_, ,-; ,, ,__/. , , , 2_ , , )IN /"-). ri . ----_I- -- -- - ti If 3-MrIgt 4 ; . N i� d rn N a IS i......\ ' ...ti/ ?i. �O C N \\ i `y_ R V = g essEss. -.», -_ppm_:�.�.._ - :it . I r \tC : 11.:41..."..!.:.r-1: ,„71 i-t1/41, '\ , �,� i �y N. s\ '., , F. .... . / , Phased Acti n Eaw Are . . tov -33 Attachments 21 � , .4 AA� — __ = - - '�` ARM fi.v .r v MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources DATE: September 15, 1989 SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to the Planning Staff Report for "Shores of Mitchell Lake" The Parke., Recreation and Natural Resources Staff have reviewed the Shores of Mitchell Lake proposal by US Homes and have two major concerns: 1. Protection of the shoreline along the west side of Mitchell Lake, especially the two wooded peninsulas. 2. Construction of a pedestrian/bicycle trail from Miller Park north to the underpass at Highway 5. In the initial meeting with the developers, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department staff suggested the developers consider donating an open space trail corridor along the entire shoreline of Mitchell Lake within their subdivision for the purpose of protecting the shoreline and providing a pedestrian trail connection from Miller Park to the underpass under Highway 5. Staff suggested several reasons the developers might wish to con- sider this recommendation: 1. This would provide all residential homeowners within their subdivision immediate, direct access to Mitchell Lake, thereby increasing the value of all lots. 2. Homes that abutted the trail corridor would have the advantage of being on Mitchell Lake, but would not be restricted to 40,000 square lots, as well as other restrictions placed on shoreland lots according to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 3. The Comprehensive Park and Open Space System Plan recommends a trail corridor along the lake from Miller Park north to the underpass at Highway 5 on page 60: "Additional parkland is desirable along the west shore of Mitchell Lake from existing parkland, north to State Highway 5 with a trail system to the underpass at Highway 5." 4. The City would accept that land in lieu of park fees. The developers made it very clear that if the City wanted that strip of land, the City would have to pay for it, and it would be t._ very expensive. After the developers rejected the recommendation, staff attempted to negotiate a compromise that would protect a significant portion of the lakeshore and accomplish a north/south trail from Miller Park to the underpass at Highway 5 with a portion of the trail thelocwas a aresult ted along e proposal to dedicate lakeshore. After var100 wide strip al months of oofaland between the two points of the peninsula and allowing an 8' wide bicycle trail to the lake within this 100' setback for approximately 500'. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department staff thought that this plan might be a satisfactory compromise toward meeting the goals of preserving the shoreline and providing a trail system connection from Miller Park. In the agreement for dedicating the 100' strip of land and constructing the trail, the developer was to be allowed to reduce the setback from 150' to 100' and reduce the 40,000 square foot lot size requirement. Upon review of the grading plan and lotting patterns, and tree inventory during on sight inspection, it became apparent that the staff would have been better off not attempting to negotiate for the path along the lake. The path only followed a short distance of the shoreline and the vegetation on the two peninsulas would have been decimated when large homes were constructed. The Planning Commission reviewed the first proposal and requested the developer come back in 30 days with a revised plan that addressed concerns of the Commission and staff including preservation of significant vegetation on the two peninsulas and consideration of the redesigned pathway system. CONCERNS: 1. NORTH PENINSULA: The north peninsula is an old pasture area that is covered with large mature white, red and burr oak, basswood and birch. Staff would recommend a plan that would allow for the preservation of the majority of the trees on this peninsula, even if that required setback variances from the lakeshore on the southern side of the point. 2. SOUTHERN PENINSULA: The southern peninsula has many significant ,r oak and basswood located along the southern 500' of the peninsula. If the City Council requires conformance to the Shoreland Management Ordinance and a minimum 80' wide building pad, there is no buildable site within the southern 500' of that peninsula. If the Council would accept a 30' wide build- ing pad, there are two buildable sites within the southern 500' of that peninsula. The major impact of any development on that southern peninsula would be the view from the park of large residential homes right across the bay, and the environmental , impact of docks and cluttered beaches, as well as vegetation removal around the perimeter of the lakeshore. The southern bay of Mitchell Lake is relatively small and the City should take whatever means are available to preserve that lakeshore in public ownership, so the entire perimeter of the southern bay is left in its natural condition. This will eliminate many future conflicts with private property owners from what will be a very busy park. 3. TRAIL SYSTEM -Obviously, the preferred alignment for the trail system would be to follow the shoreline the entire length to Highway 5. Due to the topography and existing vegetation a satisfactory trail corridor width would require only 30-50' the majority of the length of the shoreline; however, this is only feasible if the water elevation of Mitchell r The developer has provided m existing aake is not rfutud profiles ture water elevations. If the outlet to Mitchell Lake raised 12", as is proposed, it is clear that a trail along the shoreline is not feasible without moving the trail to the top of the ridge line. If the water elevation is raised, City staff would not support a trail along the shoreline in back of these homes as there wouldn't be a significant elevation difference and natural vegetation screening these backyards from the trail. RECOMMENDATIONS• Upon consideration of the concerns addressed by City staff relating tolprotection noof the e shoreline hHighway5 that Mlerrelinproviding a trail system from provides lake, the developer has provided what the arks, Recreationto andhe Natural Resources Department staff believe is an acceptable alternative. Staff recommend approval of "Shores of Mitchell Lake" contingent upon the Planning Staff Report and the following: 1. The developer dedicate the 3.95 acre outlot on the southern peninsula and the 1.82 acre outlot on the north peninsula in lieu of park fees at time of final plat. 2. The Developer construct an 8' wide asphalt trail as per City specifications from Miller Park north to Highway 5 right-of- way concurrent with the adjacent residential street construction. Design and location of the trail to be approved by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources and the City Engineer. 3. Staff would further recommend that the 8' trail extend along the north side of the cul-de-sac extending into the north peninsula to the end of the cul-de-sac. 4. Require completion of the pedestrian/bicycle trail system within the development as shown on the attached plan. t Staff is recommending this trail alignment in lieu of the trail along the lakeshore, as it is apparent there is a choice between a trail along the lakeshore and raising the lake level. Staff supports raising the lake level the 12" recommended by the Public Works Director, as that 12" will have a significant effect on improving the health of Mitchell Lake, as well as Mitchell Lake Marsh to the north. The depth will improve water quality for all types of recreational use and will improve the lake ability to maintain a fish habitat. The increased water depth in Mitchell Lake Marsh, north of Highway 5, will be the difference between providing a 60 acre waterfowl production area or a dry bed slough. BL:mdd 'nor fFgr IA llilliJll 0 '---,,..... :„.._ w._3 i ,.. ;•%`•••11?: 1,,,, as..„1, . 'y.o PJ• I�1JMIi�0U5 DATI- m 1',1a. �F ljl \. " if •'w i MITCH LL LAKE 7T-i- y• r (,w^'id\\.`.,,,,, u' ".'f uuwau swat / 1,''-'. i':. C ./4. \--"r4/: i-\‘'- _if w . _ . .� �: i • In 1 ...1r� w„' �_ ..V _ ri, �r�/,/(''LAMMAS fETUCK r•••• LT • • '�� „ '/:'. ,'� r "`� THE SHORES OF • ,r... 6 .. , .. e \ u MIT!}HEuIAKE. • ek •r. • .. " • • • 01041 MY - CKVE10EIt 1' .. y KT-42.CT , 61 ca kkI.L_ ma _ a \ M-R/USHOr ./ PRELIMINARY. PLAT QATA• i 1Oi1.rw •"W.: ....a " u� a u y .KaIA Wa...a •.w .. UM PYb -.1 ..t . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-210 RESOLUTIDN APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE FOR MR-USHOT BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Shores of Mitchell Lake for MR-USHOT, dated September 27, 1989 , consisting of 94.8 acres into 175 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of October, 1989. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • oc!i Z ;�" CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-211 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, A PRIVATE ACTIDN, DOES NDT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on October 3, 1989, to consider Shores of Mitchell Lake proposal of MR-USHOT; and, WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 94.8 acres of land located south of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell Lake in Eden Prairie; and, WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Shores of Mitchell Lake proposal of MR-USHOT and did recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding the project of no significant impact; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Shores of Mitchell Lake proposal of MR-USHOT, because the project is not a major action, does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more than local significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk XPU3 = r Planning Commi::_;iun Minutes 5 September 11, 1989 B. SCHROERS_,PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 31.4 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.E acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.4 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 20.6 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.8 acres, Preliminary Platting on 129.E acres into 76 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.E acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie City limits. A continued public hearing. Bye stated that it would be the goal of the Planning Commission to come to a decision tonight regarding this project. Don Patton, representing the proponent, stated that the developers had been through several Planning Commission meetings and had worked with Staff to make the necessary changes to the plan as requested. Patton outlined the requests being made by the proponent. The EAW Reports had been submitted for review. The proponent was requesting ,Ar)L/q Planning Commission Minutes 6 g"a teml:er 11, 1983 the City's support in recommending to the Metropolitan Council a 16 acre trade and a 16 acre expansion of the MUSA Line to allow for the development of Phase I of the proposed project. Patton stated that transition had been an issue along Dell Road and along the Chanhassen border. Patton noted that it would be difficult to provide a berm along Dell Road because of the pond and that negotiations were underway with Datasery for berming along the Chanhassen border. He added that Datasery was currently considering an expansion and a proposal being considered was to provide a common berm in lieu of two separate berms. Patton believed that building permits or occupancy permits would be a better method to determine the number of units allowed rather than the final plat method. Patton requested that the Planning Commission grant approval of the zoning requests. He added that a grading plan had not been submitted because of the question of the dimensioning of the lots ; however, the proponent would continue to work with Staff on this issue. Uram reported that the Staff Report addressed several issues with a focus on the request for the MUSA Line expansion. Uram noted that the proponent had tried to make the necessary changes for the PUD request and had been advised by Staff not to make further plan changes at this time. Staff recommended that the platting and zoning requests not be approved until the MUSA Line expansion had been addressed. Uram reviewed the Staff Recommendations outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report. He noted that ,all of the recommendations were based on the Planning Commissions acceptance of the MUSA Line Change. Uram reported that there was a 120 day deadline on the Preliminary Plat request and added that the only way this item could be continued would be if the proponent were to request an extension. Ruebling asked the status of the feasibility study for Dell Road. Gray replied that 4 alternatives have been developed for Staff's consideration, an assessment method needed to be addressed, and there were wetland complications. Gray believed that the study would he completed within one month to six weeks. Gray added that there was enough flexibility in the proponents proposals to be able to come to an agreement for the road alignment. Ruebling then asked if the assessment method being considered would provide for the construction of Dell Road without development occurring outside the MUSA Line. Gray replied that a large portion of Dell Road was being constructed to provide access for this proposal and the Tandem parcel. He added that Dell Road did not need to be extended all the way to Highway 212 at this time. Hallett questioned if the MUSA Line expansion had been • substantiated by the proponent. Planning commission Minutes 7 September 11, 1989 Sandstad believed that the MUSA Line expansion was not appropriate at this time. Dick Feerick stated that the proponent had met with Strgar-Roscoe to look at the Dell Road alignment and assessment method. The proponent recommended the assessment method outlined in the Southwest Area Study. Feerick stated that the Metropolitan Council was waiting for City action regarding the MUSA Line expansion. He said that the proponents had been making every effort to stay within the Southwest Area Study guidelines and believed that justification for the expansion was the extension of Dell Road and to allow for the use of this parcel of property. Ruebling was concerned that the Metropolitan Council would not favor the land trade because a major portion of the land was not developable due to the right-of-way for Highway 212. Ruebling was also concerned because no guarantees had been received from the property owners of the land to be traded. Feerick stated that the developers had met with Ken Balich, which was one of the property owners involved in the land trade. Feerick said that he had not been told that the Metropolitan Council would not accept a land trade and added that he believed that the land trade would be given reasonable consideration. Patton showed the Planning Commission the area which was developable and stated that he believed this was a viable project which would provide the City with the land necessary to construct Dell Road. Patton said that the proponent would continue to work with the property owners involved in the trade. Uram stated that the recommendation for a MUSA Line expansion would need the City's support to be considered by the Metropolitan Council. Uram noted that Staff had requested letters of transference from the property owners involved in the land trade, but had not received them at this time. Ruebling asked Uram if he had misunderstood the Metropolitan Council's criteria. Uram replied that the City would not have answers until it presented the proposal to the Metropolitan Council. Ruebling believed that the criteria had stated that property to be used for road right-of-ways was not considered as developable property by the Metropolitan Council. Bye stated that the property may have been considered as developable at one time, but because of the Highway 212 proposal it was no longer considered developable. Uram Planning Commission Minute.% 8 September 11, 1989 replied that the City did not know if the property would be considered in a trade. Bye believed this would be a precedent setting issue for the next several. years. Hallett believed that the MUSA Line expansion had not been justified. Sandstad was concerned about the lack of written commitments from the property owners involved in the trade. Bob Bjorkland, representing the proponent, stated that the property owners wanted to know the Planning Commission's position before making written commitments. Biorkland recommended that the written commitments be a condition prior to City Council approval. Feerick believed that the proponent had worked with Staff and Director of Planning Chris Enger to provide a viable project. Feerick stated that Enger had believed that there were benefits to the MUSA Line change and had presented those benefits in the Staff Report. Feerick believed that the proponents would be able to accomplish all of its goals and also believed that they had the knowledge and experience to justify the MUSA Line expansion to the Metropolitan Council. Uram stated that the Staff Report had been written as a performance report and if the developer could not accomplish these requirements, Staff was not recommending approval of the project. Patton requested that the Planning Commission review the benefits to the City outlined in the• Staff Report. Bye asked the proponents if they would be willing to agree to an extension for consideration of the Preliminary Plat. Patton replied that they would not. Uram stated that the Planning Commission needed to consider if the benefits outweighed the possible complications presented by a MUSA Line expansion. Ruebling asked if it would be possible to get statements from the property owners involved in the trade on a contingency basis. Franzen stated that letters transferring the rights of development were all conditional and contingent, the land owners would retained the right to develop if the land were not approved for a trade. Feerick requested clarification on the Planning Commission's request. Bye stated that the Planning Commission would have preferred to have seen written documentation from the property owners involved in the land trade. a Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 11, 1989 Bye stated that she was reluctant to approve the MUSA Line expansion because it was not a full 32 acre transfer. Bye was concerned that the Planning Commission was being asked to advise the City Council on items which it had only been told would occur. Hallett commented that the proponent had the right to proceed to the City Council with or without the Planning Commission's approval. MOTION 1: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of BDD Partnership for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line for the Schroers PUD development proposal based on the findings as follows: 1. The property involved in the land transfer was part of the right-of-way for Highway 212. 2. Other areas could be developed without the further extension of Dell Road. 3. Concern for the amount of time and effort required by City Staff to proceed to the Metropolitan Council. 4. Precedent setting issue. 5. There was approximately a 5 year supply of land within the MUSA Line yet to be developed. 6. No written documentation had been presented to substantiate the 16 acre trade. 7. Leap-frog development outside the MUSA Line would be encouraged. 8. The Planning Commission supported the recommendation of the Southwest Area Study to limit the number of units in Subsection lA to 250. Ruebling stated that he believed the above reasons logical and appropriate for a recommendation for denial. Bye stated that she could not support the project 100%. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 3: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres. Motion carried 4-0-0. • Planning commi::slon Minutes 10 September 11, 19R9 MOTION A: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.2 acres with waivers. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTl ON 5: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.7 acres and from R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 6: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for Preliminary Plat of 129.8 acres into 76 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Motion carried 4- 0-0. MOTION 7: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for Environmental Assessment Worksheet review on I29.8 acres. Motion carried 4-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 14, 1989 { B. SCNRou.s PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres, Site Plan Review, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 76 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city limits. A continued public hearing. Mike Black, representing the proponent, stated that the new plan for the alignment of Dell Road supported the expansion of the MUSA Line. Phase I of the project would require sewer connections to be completed. Black believed there would be a benefit to the City for the MUSA Line expansion. The inclusion of this parcel would facilitate the construction of Dell Road and the sewer line connections. Black stated that the proponent was willing to review the Phasing of the development. The project would consist of 31 acres to be developed as R1-9.5 and 98.7 acres to be developed as R1-13.5 lots. The density would be 1.6 units per acre. 52 homes were proposed for Phase I. Black said that the proponent would continue to work with Staff on the proper road alignments. Black noted that Rice Marsh Lake was classed as a natural environmental area. The 18 lots on Rice Marsh Lake were not considered lakeshore lots. The proponent was proposing 150 foot setbacks and had 'planned for the additional oversized house pads as recommended by Staff. A public green space area would be provided along the lakeshore, the lots would not directly abut the lakeshore. • Transition for the property to the north and Dell Road was still being negotiated. The proponent was continuing negotiations with Datasery regarding the construction of a common berm and landscaping. The 170 foot minimum depth for the lots to the north may not be able to be accomplished per the Staff recommendation, but the proponent was continuing to work on this item. Don Patton, representing the proponent, stated that Datasery was conducting a feasibility study for a proposed expansion. The concern was that two berms would trap water and cause drainage problems in the area. A low area along Dell Road was making the berming difficult in this area. Patton said that the architectural diversity would meet the Staff recommendations. Uram reported that currently being proposed was a 16 acre Z119141 Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 14, 1989 trade and a 16 acre expansion of the MUSA Line. The trade would include land designated for the right-of-way of Highway 212 and may or may not he considered developable by the Metropolitan Council. Eden Prairie had a 7 year overage of land to be developed and, therefore, the Metropolitan Council might not consider the land trade and expansion favorably. Uram noted that the proponent controlled property in Subarea lA and would transfer the development rights to the parcel outside the MUSA Line. Staff could continue to review the transition to Dell Road, but some type of commitment from Datasery should be obtained to substantiate the transition to the north. Uram stated that because only Phase I was being platted at this time shoreland variances would not be necessary at this time, but would require review when the remainder of the lots were platted. Anderson asked Staff if they concurred that the MUSA Line expansion would facilitate the construction of Dell Road and the sewer connections. Uram replied that it would facilitate the development of Dell Road; however, Dell Road did not need to be extended at this time. The Dell Road feasibility study had not been completed and there was concern about the location of the curve on the southeastern property line. Ruebling asked if the extension of Dell Road was only needed to serve this development. Uram replied yes. Ruebling then asked if the expansion was necessary for the sewer line extension. Uram replied that Staff was not concerned about a sewer line extension across undeveloped property. Feerick stated that US Homes did need the extension of Dell Road and added that the proponent would accept the alignment determined appropriate by the City's consultant. Dick Nowlin, an attorney representing the proponent for the MUSA Line expansion, presented a letter to the Planning Commission outlining the analysis used for the MIJSA Line expansion. Nowlin believed that an expansion of the MUSA Line was possible. The land supply within the MUSA Line was not being used up and, therefore, he said that a land trade would require the support of the City. Nowlin noted that the proponent would also have to have land to trade. The justification for the MUSA Line expansion was the additional assessments obtained to construct Dell Road and the sewer line extension. Nowlin did not believe that it would be possible to support more than a 32 acre trade at this time. Nowlin explained to the Planning Commission other possible ways to allocate the lots in this area equitably. a7U9I Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 14, 1989 Feerick stated that the proponent was ready to petition for the Dell Road extension. Anderson asked for clarification on Nowlin's theory for the allocation of lots for the area. Nowlin replied that the number of allocated lots needed to be above 250, a surplus should be maintained because full development of the platted lots would take place over several years. Feerick stated that Mr. Brauer had indicated there could be 400 lots which could be platted. Uram stated that 1200 lots were platted currently in Eden Prairie which were not developed. The City needed to determine a fair and equitable way to allocate the lots. Uram added that a unit per acre limit had been considered. Ruebling asked if this would be controlled through the building permit or final plat process. Uram replied that the final plat method was a better method for the City to maintain control. Nowlin believed that the number of lots allowed to be developed could be administered through a better method. Anderson believed that there was a significant question as to whether the 16 acres along the right-of-way for Highway 212 would be permitted in a trade. Uram replied that the City would not know until it made a proposal to the Metropolitan Council. Nowlin added that the recommendation would require support from the City. Dodge stated that she would prefer a land trade to a 32 acre expansion. Dodge then asked what the disadvantages would be to the City for an expansion. Anderson believed a precedent would he set. Ruebling stated that he did not have a problem with an expansion, but questioned the probability of the Metropolitan Council approving the expansion. Nowlin replied that he believed that a trade and expansion request could be accomplished without negative affects to Eden Prairie. Hallett asked where the acreage would come from to be traded. Nowlin replied that the proponent had 3 possible options from property owners. Hallett stated that he would not support an expansion; however, he would consider a land trade. Dodge questioned if the Planning Commission needed to forward only an approval of the request for a MUSA Line amendment or if the entire plan needed to be approved. Dodge stated that there were still several unanswered questions regarding the plan. Ruebling asked if an approval for Phase I was necessary for the proponent to • alU9c Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 14, 1989 proceed to the Metropolitan Council. Feerick replied that • with a land trade he believed that the MUSA Line amendment request was possible. Feerick added that the site plan issues could be worked on while the MUSA Line amendment request was being presented to the Metropolitan Council. Uram believed that the project should be kept together as a complete package and the issues regarding the plan should be addressed. Anderson asked Staff what they would need from the proponent to proceed regarding the transition issues. Uram replied the City would need a letter from Datasery or the property owner which authorized the proponent to grade on their property. Hallett questioned Staff's rationale for having the proponent continue with further plan changes, without approval or denial of the MUSA Line amendment by the Metropolitan Council. Uram believed that a complete package would be better received by the Metropolitan Council. Franzen added that the justification provided by the proponent to substantiate a MUSA Line amendment was to facilitate the extension of Dell Road and the sewer line connection, which could be illustrated with a completed plan to show to the Metropolitan Council. Black stated that a recommendation from the Planning Commission would allow the proponent to proceed to the City Council. Black requested consideration of some • leeway regarding the 75 unit limit for Phase I and regarding recommendation No.5, the proponent would expect a credit for the park dedication. Anderson stated that he would like to see the proponent consider sidewalks on all roads. Anderson further believed that the proponent was not ready to proceed to the Council at this time. Black replied that the proponent would like to proceed to the City Council while continuing to work with Staff. Ruebling asked the proponent if the transfer of development rights as recommended by Staff was acceptable. Black replied that the Southwest_Area Study and Subarea 1 were somewhat general. Ruebling believed that the Southwest Area Study only included areas within the MUSA Line and that allocation would be on a unit per acre basis. Feerick stated that the proponent would work with Staff on the unit per acre basis. Nowlin believed that a derision should be based on the whole Southwest Area Study concept rather than just Subarea 1A. Ruebling believed that the issue of R1-9.5 housing needed to be addressed and if the proposal was using the 81-9.5 housing as intended by the City. Dodge believed that R1- • a1U9 Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 14, 1989 9.5 lots needed to be justified as starter homes. Feerick stated that the proponent believed in the project and believed it would benefit the City. Uram stated that there were still significant issues which needed to be resolved. Hallett asked when the Dell Road feasibility study would be completed. Staff replied approximately 2 months. Dodge stated that more information needed to be obtained from Datasery and the sidewalk issues also needed to be resolved. Hallett recommended that a square foot limit be placed on the footprints for a R1-9.5 lot. Franzen replied that the City Code was restrictive on floor area ratios. MUTTON: Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the Ceptember 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 10, 1989 II C. scHRn R"a PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 129.8 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-12.5 on 8.2 acres, Site Plan Review, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 10, 1989 Prairie city limits. A continued public hearing. Mike Black, presented the revised plans. The plan had been changed to have approximately 60% of the project zoned R1-13.5 and approximately 40% of the project zoned R1-9.5. The plan had been reduced by 3 lots, leaving a total of 86 R1-9.5 lots and 134 R1-13.5 lots. The roads had been realigned to accommodate 50'x70' building pads along Rice Marsh Lake. The buffer and screening to the north was still being negotiated with Data Sery and the City Staff of Chanhassen to have a joint effort between this project and Data Serv. A minimum of 150 foot lot depth would be provided on the lots to the north. The entrance islands had been eliminated. Black believed that the seven remaining cul-de-sacs could be justified. The subdivision road system consisted of 3 north-west streets, 3 east-west streets and 1 loop street, which Black believed provided adequate traffic circulation. Black stated that the proponent would abide by the recommendations of the Southwest Area Study regarding the alignment of Dell Road. The plan depicted 100 foot right- of-way for Dell Road. Black stated that additional property could be provided for right-of-way dedication. Sandstad asked Black about the drainage issues along Dell Road. Black replied that the Corps of Engineers had an existing wetland that would be protected. Sandstad noted that the plan did not depict the area as a ponding area. Uram added that the City Engineering Staff had not made comment on the plans at this time. Dick Feerick, proponent, stated that legal counsel had been obtained to address the MUSA Line issue and to provide a report as to the status of.the Metropolitan Council. Feerick added that the proponent was still looking at the alternatives of either an exchange of property or a request for an amendment to the MUSA Line. Feerick introduced George Scherers, owner of the property for over 45 years. Scherers stated that he had purchased the property in 1946 and had met with the Metropolitan Council regarding the property over a year ago. Scherers stated that he did not understand why these two parcels had not been able to use the sewer and develop these parcels. Bye explained that the philosophy of the City and the responsibility of the Planning Commission was to provide an orderly development of the City and yet allow the property owners to develop property. Bye noted that several agencies were involved in this process because of the MUSA Line. Bye added that the City tried to balance the needs of everyone. g'751 Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 10, 1989 r Bandctad commented that it w.la not an ta5y t35i: to provide long term planning. Anderson asked Uram if there was any benefit to the City by the reduction in the right-of-ways. Uram replied that the standard right-of-way was 50 feet in residential areas. Bye believed that the two main issues to be addressed were: A) the MUSA Line, and B) the proposal itself. Bye requested more detail on the phasing of the project. Fell asked if the property would be considered in the Southwest Area Study. Uram replied that Staff believed that if the project were to be approved, the number of lots to be developed would be governed by the recommendations of Phase I, outlined in the Southwest Area Study. Uram added that 250 total units would be allowed to develop in this area. Anderson asked what type of sidewalk system would be provided. Black replied that sidewalks would be provided along the perimeter of the development and along the lake corridor. Fell believed that the MUSA Line and the projects affect on the Southwest Area Study needed to be addressed. Patton stated that the MUSA Line had originally proposed to have the sewer trunk run along Mitchell Lake, this was • not the eventual outcome. Currently, connections were necessary from outside the MUSA Line to provide service for area within the MUSA Line. Patton added that he believed that the sewer trunk needed to be accommodated. Dodge stated that she would like a consensus on the MUSA Line issue. She believed that the MUSA Line was to be • used as a tool for the City to control its growth as predicted by the Metropolitan Council for the year 2000; however, the City's predictions for growth appeared to be more accurate and several things had changed since the • location of the line had been determined. Dodge also believed that if the MUSA Line was changed that the area should be included in the Southwest Area Study and that due to the newness of the study, the study should be revised at the developers expense. Ruebling believed that the issue of the relationship of the project to the Southwest Area Study should have priority over the MUSA Line issue. Ruebling believed that the project if approved should proceed along the guidelines of the Southwest Area Study. Ruebling stated that another major concern was the possibility of the request for variances. Ruebling questioned if more R1-9.5 Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 10, 1989 could be justified for the area, how vas the City of Eden Prairie progressing toward a balance of development, and how many more R1-9.5 developments did the City want to approve. Anderson stated that his concern was the number of R1-9.5 lots with R1-13.5 homes constructed on them. Ruebling understood that based on the infrastructure the City had approved, projects had already been approved by the City Council to cover the 250 unit limit set by the Southwest Area Study. Uram replied that at this time only 1 house had been constructed in the approved Cheyenne Place subdivision and only 2 houses in the Fairfield subdivision. Ruebling then asked if the numbers of units was going to be controlled by the issuance of building permits. Franzen replied that the control of the number of units would be through the Final Platting process. Anderson noted that no totlots had been provided for the subdivision and that a sidewalk system would not be available in all directions. Bye concluded that the following issues needed to be resolved: 1. The proponent provide a good defense for the MUSA Line change. 2. The projects relationship to the Southwest Area Study be specifically defined. 3. Specific requirements of the project be addressed after issues 1 and 2 had been resolved. MOTION: bodge moved, seconded by Fell to continue the public hearing to the August 14, 1989, Planning Commission meeting pending City receipt and evaluation of revisions to the plans as discussed at this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 16 June 12, 1989 r'. :5CHFu RS PUD, Dy BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line nned to o include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Development Concept on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit valuers, Development District Review on 129.8 acres, vithand Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on. 8.2 acres, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment worksheet Review on 129.8 acres for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city limits. A public hearing. Fell and Anderson left at 11:15 PM. Mike Black, representing the proponent, stated that the project would consist of 223 lots on 129 acres. proposed vere 130 lots along the 3 perimeters of the property proposed for R1-9.5 zoning with 93 lots to be zonedR1- 13.5. Seven cul-de-sacs would be positioned throughout the subdivision. Black stated that berming and landscaping would provide a buffer to the north. Two trail(� and bikepath��along o wouldns Dell Road. Variances wwould bed requested. Planning Commission Minutes 17 June 12, 1989 due to the Shoreland Ordinance. Black stated that the proponent had met with the DNR and in principal had agreed that protection of the natural environment would be provided. A buffer of open space would be provided along the lakeshore. 50 foot building pads would be used with the exception of 10 lots which required larger building pads. Sanitary sewer would be provided by gravity flow to two connections to the main interceptor. Black presented the grading and landscaping plans. Black also reviewed the proposed phasing of the project. Dick Feerick presented the Planning Commission with a handout regarding the MUSA Line change request. Feerick believed that there was tremendous potential for development in this area. Feerick stated that the proponent planned to support the infrastructure. He believed that there was sufficient justification for the MUSA Line change. Timing of the proposed development was important and Feerick said that the proponent would like to begin grading on the property yet this year with proposed occupancy of homes in 1990. Feerick stated that the proponent supported the trail system and was proposing to contribute a significant amount of land for the system. Uram reported that the MUSA Line change would only expand i the area by 16 acres: however, the total change would be 32 acres. Uram stated that approximately 100 acres would remain outside the MUSA Line and therefore, it could be possible to have requests yearly for MUSA Line changes. Another issue for the Planning Commission to consider was the recently completed Southwest Area Study. Uram noted that this project would be outside the study area, but was adjacent to Sub Area I. This project as proposed would be one of the largest R1-9.5 zoning area in the city. The average size for building pads were recommended at 70 feet deep; however, 8 lots as proposed currently would only have 50 foot building pads.. Uram believed that a cul-de- sac in the southeastern portion of the project would have a severe impact on the heavily wooded area. The proposed project would require 32 Shoreland Ordinance variances, with the proponent Justifying these requests by a 30 acre dedication of property to the City. Uram believed this would be an opportunity to provide a trail along the lake. The two main issues to be considered by the Planning Commission was the MUSA Line expansion and if this project should be subject to and included as part of the Southwest Area Study. Sandstad complimented the proponent on the inclusion of the trail along the lake. Sandstad did not believe that the southwest Area study could be ignored regarding this proposal. Ruebling believed that based on the Staff recommendation Planning Commission Minutes 18 June 12, 1989 thr exchange of acreage for the MUKA Litih Change Should trn 32 acres. He added that the proposal would definitely have an impact on the infrastructure proposed in the Southwest Area Study. Ruebling was concerned about the amount of R1-9.5 zoning and questioned how much more R1- 9.5 housing was needed in Eden Prairie. Hallett stated that R1-9.5 should not he allowed in the southwest sector because of the traffic. He added that he would favor R1-9.5 lots only if restrictions were placed on the square footage of homes put on the lots. Hallett believed that if the MUSA Line were changed now it would constantly be challenged. Patton explained the original rationale for the MUSA Line In its present location and the proposed exchange of property. Hallett replied that he did not see the exchange of property as a problem; however, he believed it would create a snowball effect. Dodge believed that the Metropolitan Council would not consider a MUSA Line change without an exchange of property. Bye was concerned about considering this project at this time because of the amount of work which had gone into the Southwest Area Study and the fact that the study was only 9 months old. Bye further noted that this area had been consciously omitted from the study. Bye believed that it would be 5 to 6 years before the southwest area was completely constructed. Bye concurred with Commission Hallett regarding the R1-9.5 zoning issues. Feerick believed that R1-9.5 zoning still had a purpose in the city. He noted that the City Council had assured developers that the Southwest Area Study was only a framework. Feerick noted that the proponent could work directly with the Metropolitan Council or could work with City Staff. He added that he would prefer to work further with City Staff. Ruebling believed the issues to be the following: 1. The Southwest Area Study. 2. Shoreland Ordinance variances and the proposed trade offs. 3. Appropriate transition to the north. Ruebling stated that R1-9.5 lots had a tendency to be not deep enough to provide an adequate transition and was concerned about the transition to the industrial area tot he north of this proposed development. Lee Johnson stated that the proposed section of Dell Road needed to constructed with the infrastructure to follow. Planning Commission Minutes 19 June 12, 1989 f —1 He believed that everything would tie together in an acceptable fashion. Johnson found it to be illogical that the interceptor sewer vent through this property, which was outside the MUSA Line, and could not be developed. Ruebling Stated that the Dell Road assessment would be part of a feasibility study. Gray stated that a feasibility study for Dell Road was being prepared which would provide more accurate information regarding the alignment of Dell Road. He added that the City needed to consider the assessment method and the financial implications to the City. Patton stated that the proponent was trying to work with Staff to help improve this area. Bye stated that she would prefer to re-evaluate this project after the Dell Road feasibility study had been completed. Dodge believed that there was merit in the MUSA Line change. Dodge added that she would like the project incorporated into the Southwest Area Study. Hallett believed that further review of the project should not occur until the feasibility study was completed. Franzen noted that Staff would know more about the Dell Road alignment in approximately 30 days. Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to continue this item to the July 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with the direction of the discussion to address the appropriateness of the MUSA Line change and the phasing of the project in relation to the Southwest Area Study. Motion carried 5-0- n. n5 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -4- 2. Schroers PUD Refer to memo dated September 14, 1989 and staff reports dated June 9, August 11 and September 8, 1989. Don Patton of BDD Partnership was present at the meeting to review the proposed development. The site is located north of Rice Marsh Lake and east of the Chanhassen- Eden Prairie city limits. Patton said that both the MUSA line and the Southwest Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study were considered in the development. Three major changes have been made in the plans. The 50' street shown on the site plan has been changed to a 60' street, the first phase of development is for 76 lots on 31.4 acres and the developer will dedicate 13.75 acres to the City. Average lot size on this site is 45,750 sq. ft. The developer agrees to construct sidewalks within this development, but is requesting a partial waiver of cash park fees in lieu of land dedication. The developer does not agree with staff's recommendation to construct a bituminous pathway down to the lake, but feels the DNR would prefer wood chips or rock. There will be only 84 caliper inches of tree loss on the site. Cross said that when the proposal was first reviewed on June 9, August 11 and September 8 by the Planning Commission. Their discussions were on the following issues: comprehensive guide plan change and the MUSA line expansion, the Southwest Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study, the R1-9.5 zoning district, the Shoreland Management Ordinance requirements and the transition between single family lots and the Chanhassen Industrial Park to the north. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. a NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -5- For these reasons, the project was denied at the September 11 Planning Commission Meeting. The primary reasons for denial were the lack of justification for the MUSA line expansion and no letter to acknowledge transfer of development rights for 16 acres. Cross added that the City will be looking for 10-15 acres of flat land to be used for a neighborhood park in this area. Cash park fees are needed to purchase land and develop the park. The developer wants to dedicate a 30 acre parcel of land to the City, but staff feels it is not appropriate to take the land in lieu of cash park fees. 15 acres is underwater and will not be usable as parkland and the remaining is useful for a trail corridor, but not a neighborhood or community park. Dell Road will be the major connector street in this area and the City has been requiring both 5' sidewalks and 8' bituminous paths. In this development, staff is recommending requiring sidewalks on all streets that are not culde-sacs. Grading and tree loss on the site is minor, but there is a park in Chanhassen on the west side of this development. It is felt that a trail in this area will make a nice link to this park. Lambert said that it was identified eight years ago that the land on the lake should be preserved. Preserving shoreline for public use should be the most important factor. If the commission wishes to reduce the cash park fees in lieu of land dedication, that would be reasonable, but he cautioned that the City will be $900,000 in the red in cash park fees in the future and the City will need park fees from this area to acquire and develop the neighborhood park to serve this area. In addition, the developer is not willing to construct a trail. Lambert said that the DNR did not have a problem with an 8' bituminous trail around Mitchell Lake Marsh and he recommends that the developer should be responsible for this portion of the pedestrian system. If it would be located within the 100 year floodplain, the DNR may not approve a bituminous trail not would he. Patton said that this proposal will be going to the City Council on October 3. He said he feels that the next park bond referendum will pass so cash park fees should not be of as much concern. He added that the reduction of cash park fees should be considered. Cook asked how much land the developer will donate to the City. Patton said the total will be 29.5 acres. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REc. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -6- Cook asked how much of the land would be usable. Patton said about one-half would be usable land. Patton added that he feels constructing a trail above the sewer connections would be an excellent idea. Lambert agreed. Richard asked where the neighborhood park would be located. Patton showed its location on the site plan. Mikkelson said that on the land that is undevelopable, tennis courts and a playstructure could be added rather than ballfields, etc. He added that this would tie in directly with the park in Chanhassen. Mikkelson asked if the commission should decide what type of a compromise should be made on cash park fees and said that he does not feel comfortable doing this. Dick Ferrick asked if this decision could be made by the City Council. Lambert said he would rather have the developer make a proposal to the City Council. Patton agreed that the City needs cash to build parks, but would like to propose a 30% reduction in cash park fees and a credit on the pathway. Cook said he sees no justification for credit on the pathway. Patton agreed to construct Whatever type of pathway the DNR would approve. Lambert agreed that the City would obtain the necessary permits for the pathway. Mikkelson asked if other developers have been required to build a path. Lambert said yes. MOTION: Richard moved to recommend approval of the Schroers PUD with a reduction of cash park fees by 6100 per unit and require the developer to build the pathway along the marsh area. The City will accept the donation of land by the developer. Cook seconded the motion. On call for discussion, Patton asked what would happen if the DNR did not allow a bituminous path to be constructed. Lambert indicated the City would only require the type of path the DNR would approve. Karpinko asked what the cost difference would be. Patton said costs are about the same for an asphalt path as for a woodship path. 1/ t i)(DO I ` UNAPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 -7- Lambert said that it should be the City's responsibility to get the permit and the developer's responsibility to construct the path. The motion passed 4-0. ( STAFF REPORT 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Don Uram, Assistant Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 8, 1989 PROJECT: Schroers PUD LOCATION: North of Rice Marsh Lake, east and south of Chanhassen/Eden Prairie city limits, south of Trunk Highway #5 APPLICANT: BDD Partnership REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line to trade 16 acres and include an additional 16.2 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.2 acres with waivers. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 129.8 acres into 76 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. 6. Environmental Assessment Worksheet review on 129.8 acres. 7. Shoreland variances to be reviewed by•the Board of Appeals. Background CMAMM.ESCM 4 41 This is a continued item from the .e„.e, ,�.e�.,4,4,....... August meetin 14, 198The P Planning Commission lanning Commission �11�♦•II. •,•11.1111�•1•,•` 9. .♦ �♦ 11•1�1#♦ the continued proponent item additionalorder tiae allow to �1•1••j11 ••��•1.1•���••�•� _._�__..._T - --- the �._-- provide substantiation for the MUSA .1111 #♦• ♦* 1••.4 line change, the R1-9.5 district, 1111. PROPOSED SITE ♦14, i i provide for an adequate transition ►�11:1A.��.1A.,b�11,A,414.4 ...,,,:; i Chanhassen, ireviseialinternal road ►�.i'.i1111111.#41♦111•♦•1• 11•114 prel4 iminary to makerevisions in the .••V.1+♦.•,•..1�.1:;:1:j \— III' �11�111j♦11F1����1111•` 1 i e.i AREA LOCATION MAP c (— Schroers PUD 2 September 8, 1989 MUSA Line Request The proponent's current MUSA line request is for a 16-acre trade of land they represent, then control within the MUSA line, together with an addition of 16 acres through a MUSA line change. Although requested on several occasions, the Planning Staff has not received a written commitment from the underlying property owner authorizing trade of development rights for the 16-acre MUSA line. For a complete description of the request for MUSA line change Planning Commission should refer to Staff Reports of August 11, 1989, and June 9, 1989. In 1986, the City requested a MUSA line change from the Metropolitan Council but withdrew their request after receiving a negative Metropolitan Council staff recommendation. It would make little sense for the City to make the same request to the Met Council again. Although the current request from this proponent for a MUSA line change does not meet any of the criteria for a MUSA line amendment established by the Metropolitan Council in their Metropolitan Development Investment Framework, it differs from the 1986 City request in the following ways: 1. Since timing is a very critical part of the MUSA line, the fact that this request occurs almost 4 years later is a significant change from the original request. 2. The original request was for 169 acres. If the proponent is able to obtain authorization for 16 acres of the 32-acre request as a MUSA line trade, his request would be for a 16-acre addition to the MUSA line. Since this request, if granted, would create an island out of the properties lying outside of the MUSA line directly to the east of this parcel (approximately 20 acres of property), the island parcels should be included in the request to Met Council making the effective size of the request closer to 36 acres. However, 36 acres is only about 20% of the original 169-acre City request. 3. The original offer from the Schroers property to dedicate a sewer easement free-of-charge for the placement of the Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer is no longer available. (This was the primary incentive for the original request). 4. The city has developed land more rapidly since 1986 than was anticipated at that time. This has decreased our available developable land supply; however, not to a level which meets the M.D.I.F. criteria for change. 5. Highway #5 reconstruction is currently underway. 6. There is a phasing plan in place for the entire southwest area which was not contemplated at the time of the 1986 request. 7. Leapfrog development is currently occuring beyond this property in Chanhassen. 8. The alignment of the northern portion of Dell Road in this area is fairly well defined at this point and would occur partially outside of the current MUSA line. C Schroers PUD 3 September 8, 1989 Potential City Benefits to a MUSA Line Change Although the current proposal by this developer does not meet the criteria established by the Metropolitan Council for a MUSA line amendment, it is probable the reasons for the MUSA line change which may be acceptable to the City of Eden Prairie, will not be the same as reasons acceptable to the Metropolitan Council. None the less, the City should consider at this initial stage what is in their best interest. With that in mind, following are potential benefits of this MUSA line change to the City of Eden Prairie: 1. It could allow for a logical phasing of the development framework for Area IA, supported by assessable development. 2. It allows enough developable land on the west side of Dell Road for a traditional assessment of Dell Road. 3. It allows for the provision of additional R1-9.5 lots in Eden Prairie which would provide a wider range of housing than is available currently in Eden Prairie. 4. The developer is proposing development in the area closer to Trunk Highway 05 and foregoing development of land further south which they currently control, therefore requiring less public utilities extension at this time. MUSA Line Conditions The following conditions should exist in order for the City to consider a MUSA line change: 1. Consideration for a MUSA line change should not create further traffic or demand for public services prior to completion of additional adequate capacities by all these systems (i.e., Trunk Highway 05, major watermain, sewer, Dell Road). Nor should the change accelerate the timing or need for these projects beyond current plans. 2. Inclusion of additional area within the MUSA line should not unfairly impact developable properties currently located within the MUSA line. 3. Inclusion of additional land within the MUSA line should be of a unique nature so as not to set a precedent for further MUSA line amendments. 4. The City should be comfortable with the proponents Planned Unit Development Concept in order that a MUSA line change is not made or a plan which is not supported by the City. 5. The developer must have authorization to trade at least 16 acres of his total 32-acre request. A full acre-for-acre trade is preferable. MUSA Line Incentives The developer could consider proposing incentives which would benefit the City of Eden Prairie: 1. Since right-of-way for Dell Road would probably not impact all properties in the southwest area equally, dedication and rough grading of the right-of-way through the proponent's first phase would be of benefit to the City and other property owners. C C Schroers PUD 4 September 8, 1989 2. Developing at a time schedule which would not strain supporting infrastructure or be premature would be a benefit to the City. 3. Support of the findings of the Southwest Area Study and adherence to the recommendations would help the City implement these. 4. Agreement by the proponent to adhere to and support the findings of the Stragar-Roscoe feasibility study for Scenic Heights and Dell Road would help smooth the implementation of these recommendations and help the City and developing properties in the southwest area. Southwest Area Study The current schedule and timing of improvements that bear on the development timing on the southwest area are as follows: 1. The improvement to the intersection of County Road #4 and Trunk Highway #5 is scheduled for substantial completion by September of 1990. This improvement is necessary as a condition of development beyond 100 units for all of the southwest area. There are currently 142 lots approved in the southwest area. 2. By August of 1990, there will be enough lane improvements in the vicinity of Dell Road intersection with Highway #5 that a small amount of construction traffic for general grading of subdivisions would be possible in the area with final platting of lots still subject to a safe access substantially complete at the Dell Road/Trunk Highway #5 intersection by late 1990. 3. Trunk sewer and water for the area immediately available to this subdivision would occur in late 1990 or early 1991 and would be a condition of release of final plat. 4. The Southwest Area Study made a recommendation for establ ishing a threshold of 250 units maximum development in Phase lA prior to continuation of Dell Road and Scenic Heights easterly over to County Road #4. The developer has submitted a petition for improvements to Scenic Heights and Dell Road to the City. However, this does little more than to ask the City to study the feasibility of these improvements and order the improvements in. It is not an agreement to pay for the improvements nor does it establish control over the complete right-of-way. The City currrently has a feasibility study for these improvements underway and only 100% petition would be of more benefit to the City at this time. BDD Partnership has requested that the 250-lot limit be raised to 375 lots. Since all of these lots would occur off one access from Highway #5, and since the City engaged the services of a professional traffic engineer to make recommendations on the total number of units that safely would be served from a single access to Highway #5, there is no substantiation at this time for a 50% increase in the cap number of lots adjusted by a study. However, at the time that approval of 250 lots is reached, the City could re-evaluate the conditions which led to the original 250- lot recommendation to ascertain whether that number should be increased. The purpose behind the Southwest Area Phasing Study was to assure that improvements would be phased with development and that improvements not greatly preclude development in a way which would actually push development into an area. C C Schroers PUD 5 September 8, 1989 Planned Unit Development Concept Generally the discussion of the entire Planned Unit Development Concept have revolved around several factors in the plan: 1. How the shoreland lots were treated and their development pad sizes as related to the setbacks to the shoreland and the result in tree loss. 2. The road system, number of cul-de-sacs, pattern of through roads and internal circulation and the pedestrian system. 3. The lots occuring along the northern section of the property adjacent to Chanhassen's industrial area and what transition was being provided by the developer between the industrial land and the single family land. 4. Relationship of lots to Dell Road and the buffer technique utilized. 5. The number, location, size, and character, of the R1-9.5 lots. Current Status of PUD Concerns 1. The shoreland lots and their pad sizes have been discussed in previous Staff Reports and the current PUD Concept meets with recommendations made by City Staff. 2. The road system and the road right-of-way widths have been revised according to City Staff recommendation. Sidewalks have been added to the plat along a central internal loop road; however, recommendations from the Community Services Staff, which suggested a sidewalk along one side of each internal street which was not a cul-de-sac have not been met. Additional sidewalks are necessary along Road 0, C, and 8. 3. The proponent has suggested a 4 to 6-foot high berm as a transition to the industrial land from the single family lots in Eden Prairie. City Staff recommends that a transition equal to the berming which has been in place for years between the Hartford Office Park and the Northmark single family neighborhood lying to the south within the Preserve be utilized. Currently the lots are 155 feet deep. With the reduction of the right-of-way width of Street B by 10 feet, lots could be increased to 165 feet and with the decrease of lot depths in Block 3 (lying to the south of Road 8) an additional 1D feet could be added to the transition lots giving a total of 175 feet of depth. This 175 feet of depth allows for; 30-foot frontyard setback, up to a 40-foot deep building pad, a 30-foot rear yard and 75 feet of area to build a 1D-foot high berm. The 10-foot high berm would have a 3:1 slope and a 10-foot top and would allow the planting of plant material and/or fencing to complete an opaque screen between homes and the industrial park to be built in the future in Chanhassen. 4. The lots adjacent to Dell Road have been addressed with a buffering plan. 5. The appropriateness of R1-9.5 lots in this area has been the subject of much discussion. Although it may not be possible to provide affordable single family housing in Eden Prairie, providing a lower end for the single family Schroers PUD 6 September 8, 1989 market in Eden Prairie which would not be out of reach of middle income single family home buyers is still desirable. To this end, the difference in lot price between the R1-13.5 lots and the R1-9.5 lots should be substantial. Large homes are built in the R1-9.5 district when the lot is wide enough to allow a large home perhaps with a 3-car garage, and/or the lot size is closer to R1-13.5 than it is to R1-9.5. The proponent could make small revisions to his preliminary plat which would assure that the R1- 9.5 lot sizes were under 10,000 square feet close to 70-foot frontages. The side yard setback requirements in the R1-9.5 district are 10 feet less than they are in the R1-13.5 districts. Consequently, the same size home could be built in the R1-9.5 district as is in the R1-13.5 district with the lot being 10 feet narrower. For that reason, the differences in the R1-9.5 frontage and the R1-13.5 frontage should accentuated. Summary and Conclusions The developer has provided some substantiation for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment which would include a MUSA line change. However, more could be done and more could be offered by the developer. The Planning Commission may feel more benefits should occur for the City in order to support a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. The Planned Unit Development Concept is general enough that the Planning Commission could recommend approval of the concept, subject to the MUSA line change, if they are in agreement with the design. The rezoning request should not be approved prior to approval of the preliminary plat. If the Planning Commission is in general agreement with the Planned Unit Development Concept, the preliminary plat should be fairly close; however, the preliminary plat has not been redrawn according to the suggestions in this Staff Report and a detailed grading plan has not been done for the most print drawings that you have received. Therefore, it would be more valuable to give the •proponent direction in the preliminary plat with regard to the size and dimension of the R1-9.5 lots and the number and location of R1-9.5 lots. The depth of lots adjacent to the transition area and the treatment of the Dell Road right-of-way with regards to grading and right-of-way dedication. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MUSA Line If the Planning Commission feels that the proponent has provided adequate substantiation for the MUSA line expansion and trade and adequate assurances for conditions of the change which would benefit the City of Eden Prairie, appropriate action would be to close the public hearing and recommend approval of the MUSA line trade for 16 acres and MUSA line for 16 acres subject to the plans dated August 28, 1989, the Staff Reports of August 11, 1989, and June 9, 1989 and the following recommendations: 1. Request for MUSA line change approved only if combined with at least a 16- acre trade as part of the 32-acre request written authorization for the trade must be received by the City before review by the City Council. `7L C C Schroers PUD 7 September 8, 1969 2. MUSA line change predicated upon development in a manner which helps facilitate orderly development in area lA of the Southwest Area Study. 3. Right-of-way for Dell Road should be dedicated and rough graded as a part of development of Phase I. 4. The 250-lot cap recommended in the Southwest Area Study should be adhered to. This development would utilize its proportionate share of lots from land which this proponent controls within area 1A. The developer must obtain written authorization for use of this right from the underlying land owner prior to review by the City Council. 5. The developer must adhere to the platting and construction schedule as recommended in the Southwest Area study. No final platting of lots prior to the completion of the improvement of the intersection of Trunk Highway #5 and County Road #4 (expected in September of 1990) and prior to substantial completion of the Dell Road/Trunk Highway #5 intersection (currently expected in late 1990). No subdivision construction prior to left turn lane improvements on Trunk Highway #5 to Dell Road (currently expected in August 1990). Final plat not to be released until completion of watermain and sewer construction south of Trunk Highway #5. 6. PUD Concept plan must be revised to include: A. The transition between the single family lots, along the project's northern border, and the industrial area in Chanhassen must be made through the use of deep lots, berming, fencing, and plant material. The depth of the lots should be 175 feet. The berm should be at least 10 feet high, and be heavily planted with an equal mix of 6 to 12-foot evergreens. 8. The cul-de-sac of R1-9.5 lots adjacent to Dell Road should be redesigned to meet the R1-13.5 minimums. ' C. Remaining proposed R1-9.5 lots should be between 70 and 75-foot frontages (except for corner lots, which can be 90 feet). lot sizes should be between 9,500 and 10,500 square feet. D. Sidewalks should be included along the side of each road except for cul-de-sacs. Dell Road would have an 6-foot trail and a 5-foot sidewalk. 7. Approval would be subject to the findings and recommendations of the Strgar/Roscoe feasibility study. 6. Approval subject to approval of the Metropolitan Council. 9. Approval based upon 16-acre trade and 16-acre expansion. A change in this request would be treated as a different request which would require review by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission feels the proponent has not provided adequate substantiation for the MUSA line expansion and trade, appropriate action would be to recommend denial of the request. G1,r)6 fJ/ C C Schroers PUD 8 September 8, 1989 PUD Concept If the Planning Commission feels that the Planned Unit Development Concept is generally in accordance with their direction and wishes, the appropriate action would be to recommend approval subject to approval of the MUSA line change and changes as suggested in this report. Environmental Assessment Worksheet If the Planning Commission concurs with the request for MUSA line change and Planned Unit Development Concept Review, the appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no environmental significance. Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Action on zoning and preliminary plat should be deferred at this time, with the plans being returned to the proponent for revision subject to the suggestion made in this report and the reports of August 11, 1989, and June 9, 1989. Revisions should be made in the Preliminary Plat as recommended under the Planned Unit Development Concept section of this report to address the issues of; 1) transition, 2) sidewalks, 3) R1-9.5 lot size and width, 4) revised grading plan, 5) provision of an architectural diversity plan. 234q STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 11, 1989 PROJECT: Schroers PUD LOCATION: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen/Eden Prairie city limits. APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: BDD Partnership REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line to include an additional 32.2 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres. fi 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.2 acres with waivers. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 129.8 acres into 76 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. 6. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres. Background This is a continued item from the June 12 and July 10 Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission identified the following issues to be addressed by the developer: (1) Comprehensive Guide Plan request to allow for a MUSA line expansion of 32.2 acres; (2) Southwest Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study and improvements; (3) R1-9.5 Zoning District; (4) Access/Circulation; (5) Shoreland Ordinance; and (6) Transition C Schroers PUD 2 August 11, 1989 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change/MUSA Line The 1988 MDIF states that "when a local government requests a change in the staging in its Comprehensive Plan by either adding more land to its Urban Service Area or changing the Urban Service Area boundaries, the Metropolitan Council will use the following principles and procedures" (See Attached MDIF). In summary, these are as follows: 1. The Met Council will not agree to expand a local Urban Service Area unless there is demonstrated regional need and adequate capacity in the Metropolitan sewer and highway systems. 2. The Met Council will consider land trade proposals involving vacant, developable land adjacent to the Urban Service Area provided Metropolitan systems are not adversely affected. As indicated, the Met Council will not agree to expand a local Urban Service Area unless there is a demonstrated regional need and adequate capacity available in the Metropolitan sewer and highway systems. The proponent has stated that the MUSA line change will consist of a 16 acre expansion and a 16 acre trade. The trade area is part of the Highway #212 right-o-way and may not be considered developable by the Met Council. Because of this, the Planning Commission must be comfortable with a 32 acre MUSA line expansion. Although the City is not actually the "initiator" of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment, it is necessary that the City act on the proposed change. According to the State Statute, it is required that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council must make a recommendation to the Metropolitan Council before the Met Council will review the proponent's plan. The Planning Commission must decide whether the proponent has provided adequate justification for the MUSA line expansion. In making this decision, the Commission may wish to consider the following questions: 1. Is there an overall benefit to the City by expanding the MUSA line? 2. Is there a need to expand the MUSA line? Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study The Schroers PUD is located outside the MUSA, however, is adjacent to area 1A. The planned major development constraints and parameters for area IA include the following: 1. No more than 100 lots each be permitted in areas 1A and 113 prior to completion of currently programmed improvements to County Road 14 and State Highway #5 intersection. 2. The extension of water main along State Highway A5 and north on Dell Road to existing trunk water main from water tower should be prerequisite to any development in area 1A west of Mitchell Lake. • a-n I C C Schroers PUD 3 August 11, 1989 3. The improvement of the Dell Road/State Highway #5 intersection should be prerequisite to any grading and construction in that part of area IA west of Mitchell Lake. 4. No more than 250 units should be permitted in area 1A until a loop road connection is completed between County Road 14 and State Highway #5. Currently, the major limiting factors in the development of this property is the Dell Road/State Highway #5 intersection and the 250 unit limit in development prior to the completion of the loop road between County Road 04 and State Highway #5. The timing for the upgrading of the Dell Road/State Highway #5 intersection is currently scheduled to begin in 1990. If the Planning Commission feels that this project be considered part of area 1A, the following are alternative ways of addressing the phasing of development: 1. The City could choose to approve all projects in this area and rely upon building permit control to limit the number of lots. However, this has been difficult to achieve even on small projects. In addition, the City would be dealing with many homeowners and builders as compared with a few developers. 2. Phasing could proceed on a first come/first serve basis, closest to the road improvements. This would suggest that all land in the future Tandem project (172 units and Neighborhood Commecial), should develop first because it is adjacent to the Dell Road/State Highway 05 intersection. This would mean that approximately 80 housing units would remain for the next parcels to develop. 3. Another way of phasing would to be to take all of the land area in area 1A and allocate units on a per acre basis. Based on approximately 250 acres of land inside the MUSA line within area 1A, a one unit per acre allocation is calculated. This allocates 95 units for the Shores of Mitchell Lake project, 56 units for the Tandem project and IOD units for the balance of the acreage. In order to be fair to all land owners', the Schroers PUD could be developed by transfering the development rights for the number of units from property controlled by the proponent to the proposed 32 acre expansion outside the MUSA line. Approximately B5 acres are controlled by the proponent within area lA and could be transferred. The first alternative would be difficult for the City to monitor and enforce. The 2nd alternative gives preferential treatment to one developer, although it does promote orderly growth. The third alternative treats all developers fairly by allowing a portion of their sites to develop. This was the same approach used for Fairfield and Cheyenne Place where only the first phases were allowed to proceed to final plat. In order to enforce alternative 3, an agreement between the proponent and the City would have to be reached and recorded with the development of this proposal on the proposed timing for any future development. PUD Concept The Schroers PUD includes a total of 129.8 acres located west of Dell Road and north of Rice Marsh Lake. The current proposal is for a phased development of 220 lots at a gross density of 1.69 units per acre. This is a reduction from the previous proposal of 3 lots. The zoning district breakdown includes a total of 86 lots on /)()) C C Schroers PUD 4 August 11, 1989 31.1 acres zoned R1-9.5 while the R1-13.5 District contains 134 lots on 98.7 acres. The current proposal depicts the dedication to the City of approximately 29.5 acres adjacent Rice Marsh Lake and approximately 3.1 acres for Dutlot A. Because this property is located outside of the MUSA line, any further development of the property beyond Phase I will require additional changes to the MUSA line. A phasing plan shall be submitted and agreed upon by the developer, the City, and the Metropolitan Council for the remaining portions of the property. Phase I Development A Phase I development of approximately 32.2 acres and a total of 76 single family lots is proposed. The density of Phase I is 2.38 units per acre which is consistent with the Low Density Guide Plan designation. The plans depict a total of 52 single family lots zoned R1-9.5 and 24 lots zoned R1-13.5. The previous proposal depicted a total of 59 lots zoned R1-9.5 and 18 lots zoned R1-13.5. Phase I will require major infrastructure improvements including the Dell Road extension, trunk water main extension, and the Dell Road/State Highway 05 intersection upgrading. R1-9.5 Zoning District The Schroers PUD proposes a total of 86 lots zoned R1-9.5 on 31.1 acres. The R1-9.5 Zoning District was originally intended to provide affordable starter housing for future residents. Recently this zoning district has allowed the developers the opportunity to provide large inexpensive homes on small lots thereby defeating the original intent. The Planning Commission must make a decision as to whether the R1- 9.5 Zoning District is still appropriate for use in providing affordable housing. Also, is it appropriate in southwest Eden Prairie and is the size of the R1-9.5 District as proposed appropriate (See Attached Memo). In addressing this issue, the proponent has reduced the number of R1-9.5 lots from 130 to 86 which is a reduction of 44 lots. They have also' decreased the amount of acreage from 48.5 acres to 31.1 acres for a reduction of 17.4 acres. The overall gross density of the R1-9.5 Zoning District remains at 2.77 units per acre. Access/Circulation Development of this property requires extension of Dell Road south of State Highway 05. The feasibility report currently studying alternative locations for Dell Road has not been completed. However, the location of Dell Road is acceptable with the exception of the curve along the eastern boundary. The final location of Dell Road will be based upon the feasibility report. Dther access concerns previously mentioned included: 1. Cul-de-sacs Al, A2, and D1 should be continued as through streets. 2. Intersections with Dell Road shall be re-examined and coordinated with the development of the adjacent properties for proper spacing. 3. Internal street system shall provide for smooth traffic movement through out the subdivision. C Schroers PUD 5 August 11, 1989 In response to these concerns, Staff recommends cul-de-sac Al be connected to Dell Road and the northern connection eliminated. This allows for an intersection alignment with the Tandem property to the east and provides the opportunity for a hierarchy of streets within the subdivision. This is accomplished by providing a 60 foot right-of-way and a 32 foot street for streets Al, D, E, and F, and reducing the right-of-way and street widths for all other streets to 50 and 28 feet respectively (See Attachment A). Shoreland Drdinance The previous Staff Report indicated the number and types of variances requested for development adjacent Rice Marsh Lake. These variances are required due to the dedication of approximately 30 acres adjacent the 0.H.W. mark which allows the City control over what occurs adjacent Rice Marsh Lake. The proposed plan also indicates 7D foot building pads adjacent Rice Marsh Lake which involved the relocation of loop road also increasing the lot sizes adjacent Rice Marsh Lake. The Planning Commission may consider the dedication of the 30 acre outlot as substantiation for future variances. These variances are not currently required because the property is not being platted. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 953 within the northwest corner of the site to a low elevation of approximately 877 adjacent Rice Marsh Lake. The property is gently rolling with the primary slopes toward Rice Marsh Lake. With the exception of the outlot areas, the entire project site will be graded with complete development. The current proposal is to grade Phase I only which is adjacent to Dell Road. Existing elevations in Phase I includes a high point of approximately 930 along the southern portion of the project to a low point of 898. The entire Phase I area will be graded with maximum cut and fill amounts including approximately 23 feet of cut from the high point within the center portion of the site and various amounts of fill ranging from 2 to 1D feet. Drainage and utility easeMents will be required over all ponding areas. Transition The lots along the east and north property lines abut Dell Road and the industrial park within the City of Chanhassen. The Staff Report dated June 9, 1989, recommended that the plans be revised to depict additional lot depth in conjunction with berming and landscaping as a transition to these areas. The current plans depict a 4-6 foot berm centered along the north property line and minimal landscaping. Because it is uncertain whether the proponent will be able to grade on the adjacent property, the plans shall be revised to depict a minimum 6 foot berm along the rear of the lots adjacent the north property line. In order to provide additional room for the berm, building pads, and yard areas, the lots shall be increased in depth by a minimum of 20 feet to 170 feet. No changes have been made for a transition to Dell Road. As a transition to Dell Road, a comparison with the Fairfield project which required transition to County Road A4 is feasible. The transition from Fairfield to County Road 04 was accomplished by a lot depth of approximately 160 feet deep with a berm ranging in height from 6-10 feet. This berm was also supplemented with mass plantings (Seekn Schroers PUD 6 August 11, 1989 Attachment B). Staff would recommend a similar transition be made on this project site adjacent to Dell Road. A landscape plan has been submitted which depicts a total of 225 caliper inches of deciduous trees and approximately 105 caliper inches of evergreen trees to be planted within the first phases of the project site. A majority of these plantings would be adjacent to Dell Road and the industrial park to the north. Utilities Sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer service is available to the site. Proposed sanitary sewer will be looped through the project with two connections made to the existing Lake Ann interceptor. The Southwest Area Study indicated that a water main shall be extended along the north side of State Highway #5 to Dell Road and extended southward. It is anticipated that this water main would serve Phase I and be installed with the construction of Dell Road. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected throughout the project site within ponding areas with ultimate discharge into Rice Marsh Lake. Detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for the entire project must be submitted for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. Architectural Diversity Plan In all R1-9.5 zoned areas, an architectural diversity plan is required. This plan keeps specific unit types to each lot so that no two units would be alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other. Prior to Council review, an architectural diversity plan shall be submitted. Pedestrian System/Open Space In a memo dated June 9, 1989, from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Department, Staff recommended that sidewalks be included on all streets within the subdivision with the exception of the cul-de-sacs. It also recommended a 5-foot concrete sidewalk and an 8-foot bituminous trail be included along Dell Road. Plans have been revised to include these items with the exception of a complete sidewalk system on Street D. The plans shall be revised to complete the extension of the sidewalk along Street D. Phased Action EAW The City is initiating a phased action EAW for all land area bounded by State Highway #5 on the north, Mitchell Lake on the east, future Highway #212 on the south, and Chanhassen to the west. Each of the projects within this area including the U.S. Homes project, Schroers PUD, and the future Tandem project would not trip any mandatory EAW categories, however, these projects are grouped together. The total number of housing units projected at a 85D would be a mandatory EAW. This EAW is important considering that all these projects will impact Rice Marsh Lake, Mitchell Lake, other natural site features including slopes and trees. In addition, major infrastructurel improvements are also required to extend service to this area including Dell Road and trunk water and sewer main. ''nc Schroers PUD 7 August 11, 1989 Conclusions The two primary areas of concern with this project include the MUSA line expansion and the Southwest Area Phasing Plan. The Planning Commission must make a decision regarding the MUSA line expansion. The Commission should consider the following in making their decision: 1. Has the the proponent provided adequate justification to substantiate a MUSA line expansion? 2. Is there an overall benefit to the City by expanding the MUSA line? 3. Is there a need to expand the MUSA line? Finally, to be fair to all landowners in area IA, phasing should be on a unit/acre basis. Since this site is not in area IA, development rights could be transfered from property controlled by the developer within area 1A to the first phase development of this proposal. The property owner's permission will be required as part of any approvals on this site. Staff Recommendations If the Planning Commission feels that the land uses as proposed are acceptable, and that the Guide Plan change to allow for a MUSA line expansion has merit, one option would to be to recommend approval of the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the MUSA line to include an additional 32.2 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 9.5 on 15.7 acres and from Rural to RI-13.5 on 8.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 129.8 acres into 76 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres, based upon revised plans dated July 28, 1989, and subject to recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 9 and August 11, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: • 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide an agreement transfering the development rights from property controlled by the developer within area IA for the development of 76 lots outside the MUSA line and the Southwest Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study. 8. Provide an overall phasing plan for the remaining property indicating the timing for future MUSA line expansions. C. Revise the plans to depict the extension of cul-de-sac Al to intersect with Dell Road. Street widths and rights-of-way shall be revised per Attachment A. D. Revise the plans to include 170 foot deep lots adjacent the industrial park to the north. Provide a minimum 6 foot high berm on the rear of the lots for a buffer to the industrial areas. E. Revise the plans adjacent Dell Road to include a minimum 6-foot berm and mass plantings for screening (See Attachment B). gnw c Schroers PUD 8 August 11, 1989 F. Provide an architectural diversity plan for the R1-9.5 lots. G. Complete the extension of the 5 foot sidewalk along the east side of D street. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Final Plat approval for this project shall be limited to 76 units. 4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing. 5. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Insure compliance with the architectural control policy. 6. Second reading and Final Plat approval should not occur until the following improvements have been made: A. The upgrading of State Highway #5. B. The upgrading of Dell Road/State Highway #5 intersection. C. The extension of trunk water main from State Highway #5 to the site. If the Planning Commission feels that the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to allow for a MUSA line expansion has not been substantiated and that the project is not consistent with the recommendations of the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study, then the appropriate action would be to recommend denial. • • • i iw ; a . f • • \-- • `__.u, .F-, ' i lose Street n '�Y'_<J`ViRii4t, . i a 4 eI dime. s•-•......, ,A51t4e,,,".•s ,:p 6 ,,,,, 00. ;4'"' ,6.14 4 "i 1 QQi i /r //. a ��' 7e7: I ''.;k.'4.1:4 •1=ispi‘kt*;1"::": Cit ..r: `��'=�� L1� /�� a-. .. 1„,,,i, ty NW.. W' " ..: rt :•., Alloy Aar:i: IIM-1.1 / ..g a t� �� 4..` „ram/• w r- 0/ lip ..XiX.' ••• \'',441111 +rem 1 — I"-- .^e' 1 A -- -------- r .r ' . .t.-• .. • 111I111I11IIlu1I111 • wwPlb4sar rm 60' R.O.W. • - rll.7rw�w l�l imiNrome r!,/P MT 1rMP N 0NiNrommil IMP M.MVP,11.0•17 lIIPP NIT--' '' 32' Street .*I..+..nwwr91IIIP+w .............. _4�I n w l7w�*w ..%Mr1.0..�.w..rw•.....v...- ■�nlwwa�w my...anow slew,mrw ...,_-..... ........ a�000cc. - .. __:..----.. Wm* ,,, � I. �• ATTACHMENT A P \ • , 1. IP ♦.v _;4 A� v f‘eMypgd 7a l /�:\III.\,��%i -?'r. .2:-.) ..1. .,... .0? rl '. i\VA,� I Il ° ri F G.SE° . l' 4t1*.,.,1.#..A,,.i,,::,.3."'4.,.`.)"_,-.;,4..1...,e:.;'•',..%'•..•-.\l\I i\n\11I1‘wI\1RIi1 1l 1XWl,litktn't ixL--n.;..:..., ink','.,.(•.-0'.1,:..•\I:10;V4•i l`l1.l•...ik.-.4s",-',,3:s.0 0,'.:..,V)'.,7. 11 �seG yac i / 1 S':• 4• ,• .,,'--k -:.-s.''k,"1ii Q ' 2.....--- • • o / \-. ar t�• ` wip A 111 .: R \. C n i1 \ �(y_1\ t,..r ,.i... ,: \ w,,x-',;,,,,,,,,:,14k4ok.9. 144 1 1a a "� 1.‘...-o.,\:if:1.:1*:::7:4;:11."--1.22' �1�r.w,lira" — cif woo Ploi t \ 4- iiki::, . \ �Clr.. • 1 '� 7 111t\ ' 1�111• ^f l.11l l\ '�r,�� cc 1.1 .11'i l',1 11 i FF" P .\�1NS V �\1 1 ,/,l , s, .2 t 1 v;� 11• R�� �p ° 1 'n', it` ATTACHMENT B ZZ V ,, "fir 11 fi412k& to% illikt lb ;'\ '�/S _I i I \ \\ wAd ( C STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 9, 1989 PROJECT: Schroers PUD LOCATION: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie City Limits APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: BDD Partnership REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 129.8 acres with waivers. 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.2 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 129.8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. 5. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres. 8ackground This property is currently desig- nated on the Eden Prairie Comprehen- `"""""s"" vv• Lowsive Density ResiGuide dential for VeandmePublic 1s ,...1111..j1..1.111..1.. Open Space. Of the 129.8 acres ►1�1�11I•�j11���•••• 11•1•11• located within this project, approx- 1�1����1•��1��1•1��•A..j14 r Tr ---, imately 30 acres adjacent to and �11 1 • 111�1 I�Q•1♦v.v.{ ' within Rice Marsh Lake preserve- 1.1. PROPOSED SITE ��! I dedicated to the City for tion purposes. ;*Ay.� �1�A....�A£_�i I <�..-,r$; ••'11411•1��.w1♦4V• Since this site is large with many '�!�••i••i111••••,%�1•�••• •111` complex issues, the proponent has .�4.,•.�.�`���••••1•� 1jv agreed to appear before the Planning .4,-+.1.•A1.�11.j� Commission at two meetings. s. The 1 1♦ 1• first meeting will be for a ►`:����j��1j1111a presentation by the developer and a ►�e�•�1,1•j•�••4 1•.•.�_�L� AREA ,LOCATION MAP a��G Schroers PUD 2 June 9, 1989 discussion of the issues identified in subsequent sections. Based upon the input and direction given by the Planning Commission, Staff will prepare a detailed report with recommendations for the second meeting. Executive Summmary The Planning Staff has identified the following issues: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan request to allow for a MUSA Line expansion of approximately 32.2 acres. 2. Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study. 3. PUO concept and overall project phasing. 4. R1-9.5 Zoning District. 5. State Highway #5 and Dell Road intersection. 6. Shoreland Ordinance. 7. Grading, house pad sizes, and tree loss. 8. Transition. 9. Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 1D. Sidewalks, trails, and public open space. 11. Variances. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change MUSA Line Expansion The proponent is requesting an expansion of the MUSA Line by 32 acres. This includes a trade of 16 acres inside the MUSA Line (which would not be developed) in exchange for 16 acres currently outside of the MUSA Line. The other 16 acres are "expansion acres" only. In response to the construction of the Lake Ann interceptor through southwest Eden Prairie, the City proposed a 169-acre MUSA Line expansion to the Metropolitan Council in 1986. The primary purpose of the expansion was to facilitate approximately 4,D00 feet of free sewer easements for the MWCC. The 169 acres requested for addition included the Schroers property north of Rice Marsh Lake. The Metropolitan Council's Staff report dated May 29, 1986, concluded that: 1. The amendment does not meet the standards for an addition to the MUSA according to the draft MDIF Metropolitan Area Service area procedures. 2. The amendment is contrary to the Lake Ann Sewer Facility Agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Eden Prairie. 3. The amendment is inconsistent with the Water Quality Management Policy Plan. 4. As an alternative, the City could consider a land trade that would result in no net change to the MUSA Line. grWCI Schroers PUD 3 June 9, 1989 Based upon these conclusions, the Metro Council's Staff made the following recommendations to the Metropolitan Council: 1. That the Met Council find the proposed Eden Prairie amendment to be a substantial departure from regional sewer system plans and contrary to the Lake Ann Sewer Facility Agreement between Eden Prairie and the Metropolitan Council. The amendment should be modified or withdrawn. 2. That the Met Council find the proposed Eden Prairie amendment to be inconsistent with the draft Metropolitan Development Investment Framework Procedures for increasing the size of the urban service area. 3. That Eden Prairie consider an exchange of land area if it desires to have this area included within the MUSA Line. In a memo dated May 29, 1966, Chris Enger, Director of Planning, requested that the City Council authorize him to withdraw the amendment to the MUSA Line expansion. This authorization was granted and the amendment withdrawn. The 1988 Metropolitan Development Investment Framework (MDIF) states that "when a local government requests a change in the staging in its comprehensive plan by either adding more land to its urban service area or changing the urban service area boundaries, the Met Council will use the following principles and procedures. In summary, these are as follows: 1. The Met Council will not agree to expand a local urban service area unless there is demonstrated regional need and adequate capacity available in the metropolitan sewer and highway systems. 2. The Met Council will consider land trade proposals involving vacant, developable land adjacent to the urban service area provided metropolitan systems are not adversely affected. As indicated, the Metropolitan Council will not agree to expand a local urban service area unless there is demonstrated regional need and adequate capacity available in the metropolitan sewer and highway systems. Although the proposed expansion is only 16 acres, it will be the responsibility of the proponent to provide adequate justification to the City and Metropolitan Council for the MUSA Line expansion. The Planning Commission may wish to consider whether a MUSA Line expansion is appropriate at this time. An alternative to a MUSA Line expansion is a land trade involving vacant developable land adjacent to the urban service area that the proponent currently owns. In addition to the 16 acre trade currently proposed, the proponent may consider an additional 16 acre land trade in order to develop the first phase of this project. Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study The Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study was authorized by the City in March, 1988. The intent of the study was to provide a factual and practical basis for the approval of development plans in the southwestern area of the City and to enable such approvals to be rendered in an orderly and efficient manner. The sequence, or phasing, that development within the MUSA Line might logically follow was carefully studied. The process of determining the most orderly and effective a�g� f C Schroers PUD 4 June 9, 1989 phasing for development was complex. Briefly, it involved superimposing all the individual infrastructure systems and determining key constraints, or parameters, for development. It was determined that the Development Phasing Area (study area within the MUSA) could be divided into five sub-areas defined by these key constraints and parameters (See Attachment A). Phasing for development in that part of the study area outside the MUSA Line was not specifically addressed but was assumed to occur at some future time after the five sub-areas have substantially developed. The Schroers PUD is located outside the MUSA, however, is adjacent to sub-area 1A. Major development constraints and parameters for sub-area 1A include the following: 1. No more than 100 lots each should be permitted some areas lA and 111 prior to completion of currently programmed improvements to the County Road #4, State Highway #5 intersection. 2. Extension of watermain along State Highway #5 and north on Dell Road to existing trunk main from water tower should be prerequisite to any development in sub-area lA west of Mitchell Lake. 3. Improvement of the Dell Road intersection with State Highway #5 should be prerequisite to any grading and construction in that part of sub-area lA west of Mitchell Lake. Currently, the major limiting factor in the development of this property is the State Highway #5 and Dell Road intersection. The timing for the upgrading of this intersection is currently scheduled to begin in 1990. The Planning Commission must make a decision as to whether this property should be developed prior to those properties within sub-area IA located to the east of this project and whether any development should occur outside of the Study Area prior to the substantial development of the five sub-areas. PUD Concept The Schroers PUD includes a total of 129.8 acres located west of Dell Road and north of Rice Marsh Lake. The proposal is for a phased development of 223 lots at a density of 1.72 units per acre. In addition to a comprehensive Guide Plan change to allow for the expansion of the MUSA Line by 32 acres, a 1st and 2nd Addition rezoning to R1-9.5 and RI-13.5 is requested. Overall, a total of 130 lots on 48.5 acres will be zoned R1-9.5 and 93 lots on 81.3 acres zoned R1-13.5. The proposal also includes the dedication of approximately 30 acres adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake. In addition, because the property is located outside the MUSA Line, any further development of the property will require additional changes to the MUSA Line. A phasing plan shall be submitted and agreed upon by the developer, the City, and the Metropolitan Council for the remaining portions of the property. Phase I will require major infrastructure improvement, including Dell Road extension, trunk watermain extension, Dell Road and Highway #5 intersection upgrading. In addition, this project and the Shores of Mitchell Lake and the Tandem project will total 850 units. The Southwest Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study requires Dell Road and Scenic Heights to connect when this area exceeds 250 units. The phasing plan must limit the total housing and incorporate these improvements. Oi 0� C C Schroers PUD 5 June 9, 1989 R1-9.5 Zoning District The Schroers PUD proposes a total of 13D lots zoned R1-9.5 on 48.5 acres. The RI- 9.5 Zoning District was originally intended to provide affordable starter housing for future residents. Recently this zoning district has allowed developers the opportunity to provide very large and expensive homes on small lots thereby defeating the original intent. If the PUD concept is approved, the Schroers PUD would have one of the largest concentrations of R1-9.5 zoned lots within the City of Eden Prairie. The Planning Commission must make a decision as to whether the R1-9.5 Zoning District is still appropriate for use in providing affordable housing. Also, is it appropriate in southwest Eden Prairie, and is the size of R1-9.5 district, as proposed, appropriate? Access And Circulation The development of this property requires the extension of Dell Road south of State Highway #5. A feasibility report currently studying alternative locations for Dell Road will take approximately six weeks to finish. The proposed location of Dell Road is acceptable, with the exception of the curve along the eastern boundary. Dell Road shall be redesigned to begin the curve beyond the five acre parcel located to the east of the project site. Other access concerns include: 1. Cul-de-sacs Al, A2, and DI should be continued as through streets. 2. Center islands within all streets shall be eliminated. 3. Intersections with Dell Road shall be re-examined and coordinated with the development of the adjacent properties for the proper spacing. 4. Internal street system shall provide for smooth traffic movement throughout the subdivision. 5. The internal street system must meet standard radii based upon a 30 mile per hour design standard. Shoreland Ordinance Rice Marsh Lake is designated as a Natural Environment water, and requires the following for lots abutting with public sewer and water: A. Minimum lot size - 4D,ODO square feet B. Minimum lot width a building line - 150 feet C. Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Mark - 150 feet D. Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Mark - 150 feet Of the 18 lots classified as abutting Rice Marsh Lake, which includes Lots 5 - 18, Block 4, 4th Addition and Lots 2 - 5, Block 5, 5th Addition, the following variances have been identified: 1. Seventeen of the 18 lots do not meet the lot size requirement. 2. Fifteen of the 18 lots do not meet the minimum width at the building line. In addition, a Staff review of homes constructed in scenic areas adjacent to woods, arAu Schroers PUD 6 June 9, 1989 fi• lakes, creeks, has indicated an average building pad depth of 7D feet. Df the eighteen lots proposed adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake, nine would not meet the minimum setback from the Drdinary High Water Mark if a 7D-foot building pad is used. As previously mentioned, the proponent will be dedicating Outlot B, which contains 30 acres. As substantiation for the requested variances, 15 of the dedicated acres are located above the Ordinary High Water Mark and all the lots are non-riparian. The Planning Commission must make a determination as to whether the dedication of approximately 3D acres is an acceptable trade-off for the granting of approximately 32 variances. If not, an alternative would be to meet the requirements of the Shoreland Drdinance. The Planning Commission must also give direction for building pad depths. If a 70-foot building pad is recommended, the plans should be revised to reflect the relocation of the roads in order to allow greater lot depth adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 953 within the northwest corner of the site to a low elevation of approximately 877 adjacent Rice Marsh Lake. The property is gently rolling with the primary drainage toward the lake. There is an additional ponding area located in the southwest corner of the site at an elevation of 878.5. With the exception of the outlot areas, the entire project site is being graded. As indicated in the Shoreland Drdinance section of the report, 70 foot building pads are necessary to meet market expectations next to Rice Marsh Lake. Fifty foot building pads are shown. Other areas in which building pad sizes should be increased include those lots abutting Dutlot C. A revised grading plan indicating increased pad sizes should be submitted. Transi tion The lots along the east and north property lines abut Dell Road and an industrial park within the City of Chanhassen. In order to provide a transition from the single family homes, additional lot depth, in conjunction with berming and landscaping, should be considered. The provision of additional lot depth may cause the relocation of roads in these areas. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation regarding the appropriate buffer in these areas. Tree Loss A tree inventory has been submitted for the 1st and 2nd Additions, which indicates a total of 84 caliper inches of significant trees on-site. The proposed landscape plan depicts approximately 235 caliper inches of deciduous trees and approximately 1D5-21D caliper inches of coniferous trees. The majority of the trees will be used for screening purposes from Dell Road and the industrial area within Chanhassen to the north. An examination of the aerial photographs for this site indicates a substantial stand of trees within the 5th Addition. Based upon the proposed grading plan, tree loss appears substantial. A tree inventory for this area should be submitted for Staff review. C C Schroers PUD 7 June 9, 1989 Utilities Sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer service is available to the site. The proposed sanitary sewer system will be looped throughout the project with two connections made to the existing Lake Ann Interceptor. As part of the Southwest Area Study, it was indicated that a watermain shall be extended along the north side of State Highway #5 to Dell Road and extended southward along Dell Road. It is anticipated that this watermain would serve Phases I and II. The proponent shall provide a plan indicating all off-site utilities which are proposed with the development of this site. Storm water runoff is proposed to be collected throughout the project site within ponding areas with ultimate discharge in Rice Marsh Lake. Detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for the entire project must be submitted for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. Architectural Diversity Plan In all R1-9.5 zoning areas, an architectural diversity plan is required. This plan keys specific unit types to a lot such that no two units would be alike side by side, opposite or diagonally across from each other. No architectural diversity plan has been submitted for the project. Prior to detailed review of the first phase, an architectural diversity plan shall be submitted. Pedestrian Systems/Public Open Space Please refer to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Department memorandum, attached as Exhibit B, for detailed information regarding this issue. Environmental Assessment Worksheet The City is initiating a Phased Action EAW for all land area bounded by State Highway#5 on the north, Mitchell Lake on the east, future Highway #212 on the south, and Chanhassen to the west. The U. S. Homes project or the Schroers PUD, by themselves, would not trip any mandatory EAW categories; however, if these projects are grouped together and added to what is expected to develop with the Tandem site and other undeveloped properties, the total number of units projected at 850 would require an EAW. The EAW is important considering that these projects will impact Rice Marsh Lake, Mitchell Lake and other natural resources including slopes and trees. Major infrastructure improvements are required to be extended to services area including Dell Road and trunk sewer and watermain. CONCLUSIONS After presentation by the developer, the Commission should discuss the issues that are identified in this report and provide direction to the City staff and the proponent. In summary, the major issues identified are: 1. The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to allow for a 32-acre MUSA Line expansion--An alternative to the proposed 16-acre trade and 16-acre .l addition to the MUSA Line would be a 32-acre trade. 2. Overall development phasing beyond the MUSA Line--A phasing plan for the remaining 100 acres in regard to future MUSA Line expansions shall be submitted and agreed upon. m / a�/�t0 Schroers PUD 8 June 9, 1989 3. Development outside of the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study Area--Should this parcel be allowed to develop prior to the sub-areas identified in the report? 4. The appropriateness of the R1-9.5 zoning proposed--Does the R1-9.5 Zoning District provide the opportunity for starter housing, and is it appropriate in southwest Eden Prairie? 5. Building pad sizes, grading, and tree toss--In order to meet market conditions, 70-foot building pads should be provided. A tree inventory for the entire site shall be submitted to thoroughly evaluate the project. 6. Shoreland Ordinance variances--Does the dedication of a 30-acre outlot offset the need for 32 Shoreland variances? Staff Recommendations If the Planning Commission feels that the land uses as proposed are acceptable, and that the Guide Plan change to allow for a MUSA Line expansion has merit, but that the site plan would benefit from changes to improve the overall internal road system, the impact on adjoining land uses and the impact on existing site features, one option would be to return the development plans to the proponent for revisions and additional information. If the Planning Commission feels that the Comprehensive Guide Plan change to allow for a MUSA Line expansion has not been substantiated, and that the project is not consistent with the recommendations of the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study, then the appropriate action would be to recommend denial. Cr'' a = W i s7.7L_-__Nwr --.—.. _.__lam_ _-�- '-- --�l� l /) l M/TCHELL \r\\ _ \ // / \ E# 1`D�$t` �f l[ • 1 A LAKE�e%+ i� NI { f ArAftSH 'ie ' -:LAKQ�,!� ; : I . N7ERCEP7 �C 1' �� l— � • •OKI ,,��s! �i"J • v••*•vae: n RED \/ �- l F t ROCK/ _ 2AB. ' \.\ _ B •�1_U� LAKE \ll ---i KE �'� / SCHOOL 1. \�� I / ' war ---� f RAMC I�w"'7‘ ._._,-.x i L_---- I_�0. • � , PIONEER V Ip —� ii C dKE' > g co M �� 1 �I, H. J�iiIII11Ai �: • ,rit_ 2 B 10 • --.,.•...ter' Y < Is �f t1f • E :�z of fiVC }k a < t a L �h t \\ 1\ r ?G,� is ::::... ::::: 4 • U.S. .....:: ::' ., ........... ... ... ie�f NWY`�� NO .::t ::{i`i,;.}.:. : : :i::?i: :•}ii:Y.i'i: _ o Eoo Joao EVELOPMENT 161) SUS-AREAS `` ► �E BRAUEN GROUP,INC ' .EN$NOOE{{$$OC.,INC SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE I=H�"�'9 ' NA LSONIORPPELLWER �`DEVELOPFAENT PHASING STUDY • • Ol$ON INC �� ATTACHMENT A C C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: June 9, 1989 SUBJECT: Preliminary Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Staff report for Schroers P.U.D. The Parks Recreation and Natural Resources staff have reviewed the preliminary plans for Schroers P.U.D. We have the following comments: We understand that the 30 acre Outlot B will be dedicated to the City. This will make an excellent addition to the park system, but cannot be used as land in lieu of cash park fees. Fifteen acres of the outlot is marsh land and is not usable, the other fifteen acres is a linear parcel and is not suitable to provide the needs for a neighborhood park. The City requires the cash park fees to purchase usable parkland or to develop park land purchased by a future referendum. The City is looking for a ten to fifteen acre parcel to serve as a future neighborhood park. Roughly, it will be located at the intersection of the 212 frontage road and Dell Road. I have attached a plan to show the tentative location. This site will accommodate neighborhood park facilities such as.athletic fields, tennis courts, play structures and a small parking lot. The internal circulation system of this P.U.D. is awkward because there is no hierarchy of streets. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Department is therefore recommending that a five foot concrete sidewalk be installed along one side of each street except cul-du-sacs. A five foot concrete sidewalk and an eight foot bituminous trail should also be installed along either side of Dell Road. The eight foot trail should be on the east side of Dell Road with the sidewalk on the west. Staff has contacted the City of Chanhassen to determine the possibility of linking open space systems. The north side of Rice Marsh Lake on the Chanhassen side is predominately wetland but they do have a small park with a ball field, parking, a tot lot and a picnic area with a shelter. An eight foot bituminous trail through Outlot B will provide a nice connection to the Chanhassen park. BPC:cbn ��� ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: September 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to Planning Commission Staff Report of June 9, August 11 and September 8, 1989 for the Schoers PUD This project was reviewed a number of times at the Planning Commission. it is a large project encompassing 129.8 acres, located north of Rice Marsh Lake and south of Highway 5. The focus of the Planning Commission discussions were the following issues: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan change and the MUSA line expansion. 2. The Southwest Eden Prairie Development. Phasing Study. 3. The R1-9.5 zoning district. 4. The Shoreland Ordinance requirements. 5. The transition between the single family lots and Chanhassen Industrial Park to the north. At the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, this project was reviewed and the request was unanimously denied. The primary reasons for the denial were: lack of justification for the MUSA line expansion and no letter to acknowledge transfer of development rights for 16 acres. The above issues are important planning issues that have been addressed by the Planning Commission. The review of this project by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission should not focus on the above issues, but rather on the following concerns: 1. Park dedication vs cash park fees. 2. Pedestrian and bicycle transportation system. 3. Grading and tree preservation. PARK DEDICATION VS CASH PARK FEES: The Comprehensive Park Plan that was adopted earlier this year has identified general locations for neighborhood parks. The area to the south and east of this proposed development is one of the targeted areas for a neighborhood park. According to the Comprehensive Park Plan, the City will need to acquire a 10-15 acre parcel with enough area to accommodate typical neighborhood park facilities such as a small parking lot, tennis courts, athletic fields and a playstructure. A map showing the proposed location for the neighborhood park has been attached. Cash park fees from development, are used to purchase and develop parcels of land suitable for neighborhood parks. Cash park fees are especially important when bond referendum money has not come through to purchase these large tracts of parkland. The proponent is planning to dedicate the 30 acre Outlot B to the City. This would make an excellent addition to the park system, but the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department staff recommends it not be used as land in lieu of cash park fees. Fifteen acres of the outlot are marshy and not usable. The other 15 acres is a linear parcel and is not suitable for the kinds of activities a neighborhood park needs. The City would be happy to accept the dedication of Outlot B as substantiation for the variances that will be needed as the other phases are platted. Many of the proposed lots as shown on the overall plan do not meet minimum lot size, minimum lot width, or setbacks from the ordinary high water mark. The developer can keep the 30 acre parcel rather than dedicate to the City, but if this is the case, staff would recommend acquiring a trail easement along the north shore line of Rice Marsh Lake, where the trail is shown on the plan. Should the proponent choose to extend the lot lines down to the lake edge, staff would recommend enforcement of the Shoreland Management Ordinance, as well as a trail easement. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: Dell Road will be the major collector street in this area. Staff has recommended a 5' concrete sidewalk on the west side of Dell Road with an 8' bituminous trail on the east side. This will be consistent with the trail system already established along the existing parts of Dell Road. There is no clear hierarchy of roadway systems within this development, so staff is recommending a 5' concrete sidewalk be installed on one side of every road that is not a cul-de-sac. In other development projects, the City has required the developer to install the trail along the lakeshore. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department staff would recommend to the Commission that the proponents of this development also install an 8' bituminous trail running along the north shore of Rice Marsh Lake, as shown on the plans. Staff has contacted the City of Chanhassen to determine the possibility of linking open space systems. The north side of Rice Marsh Lake on the Chanhassen side is predominately wetland, but they do have a small park with a ballfield, parking, a totlot and picnic area with a shelter. This 8' bituminous trail through Outlot 8 will provide a nice connection to the Chanhassen park. . GRADING AND TREE LOSS: A-.tree inventory has been submitted for the first and second additions, which indicate a total of only 84 caliper inches of significant trees on site. The property is gently rolling with the primary drainage towards the lake. Tree loss on this site due to grading will be minimal. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department staff recommend approval of this project based on the staff reports from the Planning Department and this supplemental memo. a�a , Schroers PUD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-215 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("plan°); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, the proposal of 8DD Partnership for development of the Schroers Planned Unit Development for development of property outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area for single family residential use requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 32 acres located north of Rice Marsh Lake, south of Highway #5. east of the Eden Prairie-Chanhassen border, be modified to allow 32 acres to be included within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area on the City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of October, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ,2.79214 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #B9-216 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF THE SCHROERS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR BDD PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Schroers PUD Concept by BOD Partnership 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 October 3, 19B9; NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Schroers PUD by BDD Partnership, 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 Concept approval as outlined in the plans, as revised, dated September 26,1989. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of October, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor • ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Z:7928 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA RESOLUTION 989-217 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SCHROERS PUD FOR BOO PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of the Schroers PUD for BDD Partnership, dated September 26, 1989, consisting of 129.8 acres for construction of a single family residential development, 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 3rd day of October, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 1 2192e CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-218 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WDRKSHEET FOR THE SCHRDERS PUD, A PRIVATE ACTION, DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on October 3, 1989, to consider the Schroers PUD proposal by BDD Partnership; and, WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 129.8 acres of land located north of Rice Marsh Lake, south of Highway #5, east of the Eden Prairie- Chanhassen border; and, WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Schroers PUD proposal by BDD Partnership; NOW,Minnesota, that EanF RESOLVEDORE, BE IT Environmental Impact Statement is by the inot necessary for ty Council of Ethe Schroers PUD proposal by BDD Partnership because the project is not a major action, does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more than local significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk 21920 4 Planning Commi5810n Minutes 10 ^entemher 11. 1 Ro C. NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE, by New Horizon Child Care. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on approximately 2 acres, and Site Plan Review on approximately two acres for a day care center. Location: North of Prairie Center Drve, east of the Arby's restaurant. Gene Peterson, representing the proponent, presented a prototype model. He stated that the proponent had worked closely with Staff and concurred with the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. Franzen reported that the Staff Report had been written approximately 10 days prior to tonights meeting and had recommended a continuation of the project; however, since that time the proponent had made the revisions necessary to meet City codes. Staff was concerned that the exterior material to be used and the color selected would be compatible with the adjacent buildings. Franzen stated that if the proponent could pick up on some of the red and cream colors the plan would be acceptable. Additional conifers should be added to buffer the site. Franzen recommended approval of the project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 11, 1989 Peterson stated that the colors for the exterior of the building had been worked out and presented samples to the Planning Commission. The proponent concurred with the Staff's recommendations. Hallett asked if Staff was comfortable with the colors being presented tonight. Franzen replied yes. Sandstad asked if the drive would connect to Arbys. Peterson replied no and added that Staff had recommended that the drives not be connected for safety reasons. Bye stated that there could also be a stacking distance problem if the drives were connected. Franzen reported that the Police Department had reviewed the plans. Peterson stated that New Horizon was developing one of the first Kid's Clubs in a regional shopping center. Bye asked if this facility would replace the daycare located inside the Eden Prairie Center. Greg Tilsch, representing Homart Development, replied that the facility inside the center would be the Kid's Club offering care on an hourly basis for the shoppers in the center. Tilsch stated that it was important for the new daycare to be completed outside so the Kid's Club could begin operation prior to the holiday season. Bye stated that it appeared that all the issues had been resolved. Ruebling asked if Staff was comfortable with the plan as presented tonight. Franzen replied that he was comfortable with the verbal approval after seeing the color samples; however, if the Planning Commission was not, it would be appropriate to continue the item for two weeks. Hallett believed that it was important that all the issues be resolved to Staff's satisfaction prior to City Council review. MOTIQN 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTIQ4_Z: Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of New Horizon Child Care for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review on approximately two acres for a day care center, based on revised plans dated September 7, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the a-hy Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 11, 1989 Staff Report dated September 8, 1989. Bye asked the proponent if it was clear that all the issues needed to be resolved to Staff's satisfaction before proceeding to the City Council. Motion carried 4-0-0. ac)as ' UNAPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. a NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Sept. 12, 1989 3. New Horizon Daycare Refer to staff report dated September 8, 1989. Cross said that a sidewalk will be located around the development. MOTION: Mikkelson moved to approve.New Horizon Daycare per staff recommendation. Karpinko seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. • 219G STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 8, 1989 PROJECT: New Horizon Daycare APPLICANT: New Horizon Daycare FEE OWNER: Homart Corporation LOCATION: North of Prairie Center Drive, east of Franlo Road next to Arby's REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on approximately 2 acres 2. A Site Plan Review on approximately 2 acres for the construction of a 5,8D0 square foot day care center. Background C -Tr U This site is currentl p�' Y guided 4 C3ltSE :� Regional Commercial. The 1973 C'REGSEFi �\, �,OFC Planned Unit Development for the ; i , i.F LL y ; ` Homart center depicted this site for E ',• :`? � ,RI _2 ,::-. ' a combination of commercial uses and I (OFCs_ i 1' as a heavy vegatative buffer zone I 4+ .. PM: t li I} i (See Attachments A and B). Part of CREG-SE' 11: W� 1.,, ((1�, this site is currently zoned Public. ■ ° , Surrounding land uses are Lund's _,,•,y ; I g�/ OFC Center, Arby's, Firestone, and the C=R[-(,r4.c / -HW Eden Prairie Shopping Center. 4:11p / Site Plan 4 p-HWNfc, RE4 Sg r � / -- The site plan depicts the con- r .� struction of a one-story 5,880 ,. PROPOSED SITE square foot day care center at a _�' Base Area Ratio of .07. The siteEt, N. ". Q,\ plan depicts a future building :` expansion of approximately 2,000 r > F� additional square feet. The Base ''. ;` Area Ratio with future expansion • •UB i � � would be .09. The Code would allow , , , up to a .2 F.A.R. in the C-Reg-Ser CzR?G• ' --- .0 Zoning District. • •'C-REG-Sz•tn. —•i Building and parking areas meet the --i MI ��. ',� ,•� -K i �[[- RM-2.5 61, ,. /AM? AREA LOCATION MAP x19? New Horizon Daycare 2 September 8, 1989 minimum setback requirements according to City Code. A total of 28 parking spaces are provided which meets City Code. When the Arby's project was approved by the City Council, an overall conceptual plan (See Attachment C) was presented for review and comment. The concept plan depicted the site adjacent to Arby's developing with a 50 foot setback to parking and structures along Prairie Center Drive. This 50 foot green area would be retained as a permanent buffer zone. The area to the east of the project was to remain undeveloped as a permanent, heavy vegetative buffer zone. The site plan as proposed encroaches into the 50 foot setback area along Prairie Center Drive. The outdoor play area, fencing, parking, and trash enclosures encroach within the 50 foot setback area. (The requirement for a 50 foot setback and heavy vegetative buffer zone was a trade off for allowing development on the west end of the site.) Since the construction limits for the daycare are smaller than the concept plan, encroachment into the 50-foot setback on Prairie Center Drive can be mitigated by a larger permanent green area to the east. The Site Man Ordinance requires separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Sixteen (16) parking spaces are provided adjacent to the building with a sidewalk in front so children would not have to cross traffic. Access Driveway access to this site will be off the internal mall ring road east of Arby's. The location of the driveway is acceptable in terms of the proximity to the intersection of the mall entrance road and the mall ring road. Sight vision distance is adequate in both directions. Internal access was originally envisioned to include a cross access between the sites to eliminate a dead end situation on the Arby's parcel. At the time the through connection was contemplated, office and commercial uses other than day care were envisioned. The use of this property for day care presents conflicts with maintaining this cross access. The attached memo from the Police Department indicates that a connection would create a quicker road for drive-thru customers cutting through the New Horizon lot adding to the potential of motor vehicle versus pedestrian accidents. For these reasons, the cross access will not be constructed. This change would be consistent with provisions in the Site Plan Review Ordinance which requires safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access. Architecture The site plan ordinance requires compatibility of construction details, materials, textures, and colors, with other structures and uses in the vicinity. The New Horizon architecture as proposed is for a shingled roof with wood lap siding and brick. Arby's is a brick, stucco, and metal, flat roof building. The architecture of the daycare could be revised to be compatible with many commercial projects within the vicinity. Due to the pitched roof, the daycare could use the same color shingles as the library. In addition, since this site is immediately adjacent to Arby's, the exterior walls could be constructed with the same colors and exterior materials. Although the building elevations do not indicate the type of brick or colors, the proponent has agreed to the following: • New Horizon Daycare 3 September 8, 1989 1. The daycare will be constructed with the same color brick as Arby's. 2. The shingles will match the color of the shingles on Hennepin County Library. 3. The fascia will be painted a cream color to match the color stucco on Arby's. 4, A redwood strip on the fascia will be stained to match the red color of the metal panel on Arby's. Site Grading The site is relatively level and minimal grading will be required to prepare the pad for the day care center. A berm will be created on the Prairie Center Drive frontage to screen the parking areas to City Code. The balance of site outside of the construction limits for the daycare will not be graded. Landscaping The amount of landscaping required for this project is based upon a caliper inch requirement based on building square footage, screening of parking areas, and the creation of a heavy vegetative buffer zone according to the 1973 P.U.D. Additional landscaping in the proposed buffer zone east of the day care is needed to meet the intent of the P.U.O. buffer zone. Ten additional 6-foot conifers or 2-1/2 inch shade trees are recommended. The landscape plan should utilize the same plant materials as the Arby's site. Since the landscape plan relies heavily on the use of plant materials for screening and buffering, an irrigation system is recommended. Signs A pylon sign is proposed along the Prairie Center Drive frontage. The sign should be located at the same setback as the Arby's sign on the adjacent parcel. The sign should be constructed with a single pole and materials compatible with the building. The sign should be a maximum of 20 feet in height and 80 square feet in sign surface area. Sidewalks As part of the overall sidewalk system plan for the area, there should be a 5 foot wide sidewalk constructed along Prairie Center Drive from its present terminus at the Arby's site over to the mall entrance drive off Preserve Boulevard. There should be a connection between the day care center building and this trail system. These sidewalks are shown on the site plan. Lighting The Site Plan Ordinance may require other conditions and criteria that are reasonably related to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the community. For this reason, it is recommended that pole lighting be installed in the parking lot. The attached memo from the Police Department indicates reasons for having parking lot lighting. The site lighting should be consistent with Arby's. Although the site plan does not indicate parking lot lighting, the proponent has agreed to install two light poles adjacent to the parking areas. a199 New Horizon Daycare 4 September 8, 1989 Traffic The traffic study for Arby's indicates that 137 p.m. peak hour trips remain for future development of vacant land owned by Homart. The daycare is expected to generate 121 p.m. peak hour trips based on an 8,000 square foot building. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Regional Service and a Site Plan Review on approximately two acres for the construction of a 5,800 square foot daycare center based on plans dated September 8, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated September 8, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide samples of proposed exterior materials and colors for review. 8. Revise the landscape plan to add 10 additional conifers or shade trees within the proposed buffer area east of the daycare center. Landscape materials should be consistent with Arby's landscaping. C. Modify the site plan to provide for parking lot lighting. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 8. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal. C. Provide samples of exterior materials for review. 3. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. 4. Concurrent with building construction, construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Prairie Center Drive and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk connection between this sidewalk and the daycare center. 5. Since the landscape plan relies heavily on the use of plant materials for screening and buffering, an irrigation system is recommended. 9,700 C ( 41 ir cz 4 0 0 (Alb,144 S', ‘ ,1 ..... .. 1_, .• ///,i/, 'i i :i., =It • .r , k... L.y - ,? • 4.-, . 5 ,/ \ 111/47f \.,4 Ar/Ai , ,/ P '1 A' M • ‘.!, \141;OP .,,:3,IL 41r I , .. . .V/1/ .. ' ' 41P .. '.(‘" f•?,,•,,I.,v, - ,..,/-, " ,,,, •- ' ........... ,01, 44 ‘gt ,.. .11,.........".. .\''',‘' ' ' • jr., .- ..r...*# , ........." , -,,r 1,,, f Ar 4 A V. Nit,.."---- \ ....I , , \ -.. I (I) ) 1 \ ,,,,,,,,, : l' ');----- i .:4;;.;''' 'f sPt,•,,:.,''' -,,,4 • .4- /..., . /„;••• -j.,,,,.., i . • . , - i•/- 4- •,•' • , - ....,,,,,..., Nue ii, • ,.1 ...,:::::?:,V::;.5, :,:.:.. 41 ' tt *,:::•WW:i.:;...OAF::; i ° 1 i ,/ .1.4- -...:- --,.*:*;;:::*:.:*:?..... -:::::•::,. "I, • ' I k 0\411'1%laggiU.:':IP'i 2 iiiiinlit b •-•.- 1 ..............!..... pde_ve.op _.. k,\ , ,©hemall© silt .... .. _ • .. • . .. . . ifio . - - Attachnielif:A', (_ 1. . _...:, .::::::::.:::21E r <. V R i a. I I 8 /...:;::.:::::,:::,:kit''''::'-'s,s,....*::..'-.:., 3 I"---:";:„.. ...:,..y....:\:•., .::::::::::sm:.:,..,... , \ ri p, / --2 •�1� ZY54�'•aM1kai t Ji ,//,11 .,.`p' .f.".•./P,r 7Q{ • ti.:. Y: .M1t M1 N gyp, "' .;,. -•::v.ifili ig.. / .:-71' ,, ' O‘I y„. t kr M1,j.�: -N t1 r r•ri r» st.1. (S(tt 411 t}y . 7 �111 \-...-.-.7%. ,i.'''...;::.....:-:::42.:.::;'.:. --, \ N,‘ /..•ti'lk l'ti.s . sti ‘> ' • ,:::;,,,..7/..,7-4,:•. ...-1.-- ,„.411T:,:lh..,:,.......til,. A c.:.. 1 :,% }rr• t• 7 1,1 ` .tt}'•tyt�i ii ti i'ti} :{` g� 1 ✓ t 1 t}ilihi�i r'} �, _... ,..,,.?•`.iiiitt{ .4A t i}• i:ts;^}i1{i{:{i}ii}}t:{.1 }iN•{h�} ^:............:.... , •"'» ,U • st.1t1.}oitl1yy•«.. .1:i11tifit::."µ r 11Mt :! 5 in(- 1 a tin 0 ... Q , co a302' A achment B 7r-1 . ,173;vi , , ..:....„-------------:-,,,,....%,,. , , , ,,,,,.. 8----------...N\\v 1 . .1 , ,...r5 49 A ) / //' . ' V # / / ' /u . . , . ri I , . r , , /, 11 ..„,‘,, r y ��F4� IS; ti t.. : 1 \ r 5 I ; \ tc_ I 1 __::1 R .'\---)coNcYf 1 Arrpa.rirATPt.r4N I 2T� • PRELIMINARY „ A, �. J ;IV®° ARCHITECTURE OE TT 41NG OSE, NCLSFELD JARMS GARDNER WD • TISESNER SOAVE • MO DAM STREET SOWN•MNINEAPOLIS MN 5MIS•PHONE 612.0700700 MEMORANDUM MA Lt DATE: July 14, 1988 :1 TD: Mr. Michael Franzen, Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 F: FROM: Nancy L. Heuer, PE William Troe RE: Homart Fast Food Restaurant Traffic Study Background Based on a request by the City of Eden Prairie, BRW examined the trip generation from a proposed development adjacent to the Eden Prairie Center ring road. The following memorandum documents the results of the analysis. The development, proposed by the Homart Development Corporation, is a 4,500- square-foot fast food restaurant. The proposed development is located adjacent to the Eden Prairie Center, which is located in Zones 5 and b of the Major Center Area. In past trip generation studies in the Major Center Area involving ' changes to the assumed land use, the particular parcel being examined would be-- , allocated a portion of the total trips being generated in the zone proportional to the area of the parcel in relation to the area of the zone (i.e., if the par- cel covers 20 percent of the zone, it would be allocated 20 percent of the trips). For this analysis the trip generation of the area located within Zones • 5 and 6 will be the basis for comparison, because this entire area has been developed by the Homart Corporation. Instead of determining the number of trips that in the 1985 study would be allocated to a parcel the size of the proposed site (3.46 acres), the number of trips generated from the particular parcel were compared to the total additional allocation of trips for the zones 5 and 6. • Should there be some additional allotment of trips for zones 5 and 6 after the existing development trips are estimated, it would be up to Homart to determine how the trips would be distributed across the undeveloped zones. MINNEAPOUS DENVER PHOENIX a40u P PRELIMIN dR Y Mr. Michael Franzen i July 14, 1988 ri r Page 2 In the 1985 Major Center Area study, it was assumed that zones 5 and 6 would be developed as a combination of retail commercial, office, and restaurant pro- perty. The study also found that the trips being generated in the Major Center Area in the Year 2000 would have to be reduced by 20 percent in order for the ultimate street system to handle the projected peak hour traffic volumes. Trip Generation Estimates The ultimate trip generation from the 1985 traffic study, for zones 5 and 6, is documented in Table 1. TABLE 1 ULTIMATE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE Units Daily Daily Peak Hour Peak Hour Land Use (1000 S.F.) Trip Rate Trips Percent Trips Office 30 12.3 369 14.0% 52 Restaurant 5 164.4 822 6.4% 53 Commercial 1,049 35.0 36,715 7.4% 2,717 Bank 25 125.0 3,125 8.0% 250 1,109 41,031 3,072 With 20 Percent Reduction 32,825 2,458 The estimated trip generation of existing developments in zones 5 and 6 and the Eden Square development (an approved 83,500-square-foot commercial development), based on the 1985 traffic study trip rates, is documented in Table 2. In addi- tion the table also includes trips generated from the proposed fast food devel- opment, based on the 4th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual rates. As the table shows, the number of trips being generated from zones 5 and 6 with existing developments, Eden Square and the proposed development exceeds the 1985 study trip generation of 32,825 daily and 2,458 peak hour trips for the same area. It should be noted that even without the Eden Square and the proposed development trips, the estimated remaining trips generated from existing devel- opments exceed the 1985 study allocation for zones 5 and 6. GUOs If Mr. Michael Franzen PRELIMINARY July 14, 1988 (• Page 3 TABLE 2 EXISTING AND COMMITTED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PLUS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Units Daily Daily Peak Hour Peak Hour Land Use (1000 S.F.) Trip Rate Trips Percent Trips Office 36.00 12.3 443 14.0% 62 Restaurant 3.74 164.4 616 6.4% 39 Commercial 850.50 35.0 29,768 7.4% 2,203 Bank 25.50 125.0 3,188 8.0% 255 Target 100.00 70.1 7,010 5.4% 379 Proposed Rest. 4.50 632.1 2,844 5.3% 151 915.74 41,025 3,089 Note: Trip Generation for Proposed Fast Food Restaurant Reflects 4th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual Rate - In the 1985 traffic study, the trip generation rate for the 100,000-square-foot commercial increment in Zone 5, was estimated to generate trips at 35 daily trips per 1000 square feet. Since the study was completed, the 100,000-square- foot increment has been developed as a Target store. In the current update of the study, the trip generation rate for the parcel occupied by the Target store is being modified to reflect the rate for a discount retail store. This change II doubles the estimated number of daily trips being generated and increases the peak hour generation by 46 percent. Table 3 documents the trip generation of zones 5 and 6 with the Target store generating at the regional shopping mall rate as assured in the 1985 study. As it shows, the daily and peak hour trip generation with or without the proposed restaurant development would still exceed the 1985 study generation. TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION REFLECTING MODIFIED TARGET TRIP RATE Units Daily Daily Peak Hour Peak Hour Land Use (1000 S.F.) Trip Rate Trips Percent Trips Office 36.00 12.3 443 14.0% 62 Restaurant 3.74 164.4 616 6.4% 39 Commercial 850.50 35.0 29,768 7.4% 2,203 Bank 25.50 125.0 3,188 8.0% 255 Target 100.00 35.0 3,500 7.4% 259 Proposed Rest. 4.50 632.1 2,844 5.3% 151 915.74 37,515 2,969 Note: Trip Generation for Proposed Fast Food Restaurant Reflects 4th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual Rate. Rate for Target is the Commercial Trip Rate. 21064 C PRELIMINARY Mr. Michael Franzen July 14, 1988 Page 4 Trip Generation Summary Based on the above trip generation comparisons, it would be expected that with or without the proposed fast food development, zones 5 and 6 would be generating more trips than allocated in the 1985 traffic study for the Major Center Area. In the peak hour of travel the existing plus Eden Square trip generation would exceed the 1985 study allotment by between 360 and 480 trips depending on the generation rate of the Target store. Thus, a reduction in existing trip genera- tion of between 15 and 19 percent would be needed to meet the 1985 study alloca- tion. With the proposed fast food development, the estimated trip generation will exceed the area allotment by between 511 and 631 trips in the peak hour. Thus, with the fast food restaurant the daily trip generation would need to be lowered by 21 to 26 percent in the peak hour. NH/jkf g709 a _ , , . (7 (7 T j[p��� RANSPORTATION �. �F�Ui'11 T ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE BENNETT WADS€, WOISPEIA. AgNIS. GARDNER INC • THRESHER WARE• 70O THIRD STREET SOUTH • MMNEAPOUS MN 55115•P50E 512/3700700 paiggeliMINENEENIMIL MEMORANDUM DATE: July 22, 1988 I i TO: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie i 7600 Executive Drive A Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I l FROM: Nancy L. Heuer, P.E. I RE: Zone 6 Fast Food Restaurant Driveway Location I As requested by the City of Eden Prairie, BRW has reviewed potential driveway locations for the proposed fast food restaurant located south of Eden Prairie 1 Center. Proper driveway locations are dependent on the circulation needs of the development; however, the following general conclusions have been reached: I • o Access to the site should not be provided to/from the driveway connection 1 between Prairie Center Drive and the shopping center ring road. ,I o The driveway to the parcel should be located a minimum of 150 feet from the '� centerline of the inbound driveway connection between Prairie Center Drive j and the ring road. This would provide a reasonable distance for the dri- vers of vehicles turning right from the driveway connection to assess traf- fic conditions at the proposed entrance and make necessary speed adjustments. This location would also place the proposed entrance at approximately the location of the access aisle to the Sears' parking lot. Curb radii should be designed to allow relatively free movement into the site. , o It is recommended that the parcel driveway be placed approximately 200 feet i or more from the centerline of the inbound driveway connection between Prairie Center Drive and the ring road. This location would provide addi- tional stacking distance so that the driveway to the parcel would be less i. likely to be blocked by vehicles waiting on the east approach to the drive- way connection/ring road intersection. c ci o The entrance and exit could be either adjacent or at separate locations and, if possible, should be aligned with existing parking lot aisles. 3 NH/lpm MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX C. August 22, 1989 TO: Mike Franzen FROM: Molly Koivumaki SUBJECT: Plans for NEW HORIZON The following items are recommendations for security for the proposed NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE CENTER. 1. No connection allowed between the ARBY'S parking lot and the NEW HORIZON lot. Reason: The section designated to be connected is actually an extension of the drive-thru lane. If connected, the possibility exists that a driver exiting the NEW HORIZON lot may drive enter the drive-thru lane going the wrong way. Such a connection would also create a quicker exit route for drive-thru customers as they would cut through the NEW HORIZON lot. That situation would add to the potential of motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents, etc. The ARBY'S lot is confusing as it presently exists, adding the connection would only make it more so. 2. Install pole lighting in the parking lot. Reason: There is presently only one pole fixture near the proposed area. That is in the southeast corner of the ARBY'S lot. Any illumination from this fixture into the NEW HORIZON lot would be cast onto the southern most parking spots, those furthest away from the building. The proposed wall units do not cast enough light to adequately cover the parking lot. Consider that in this situation, parents and children will be moving from the lot into the building at times of the day when there is no natural light, such as early in the morning or in the late afternoon (winter time). Poor lighting may create the potential for drivers not being able to see small children. Also, snow and icy conditions will be more difficult to maneuver without adequate lighting. Consider too that if NEW HORIZON needs to be evacuated due to a fire or other hazard, the children and staff may have to retreat to a dark parking lot. This would be especially dangerous with small children and infants. 3. Install the following security hardware: a. Aluma-Guard on the front door b. Latch-Guard on all other exterior doors c. Security hardware (panic hardware with deadbolts) d. Wide angle viewer (peep hole) on delivery door ash ( ( STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 8, 1989 PROJECT: Tech 10 LOCATION: West of Golden Triangle Drive, north of 74th Street APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Hoyt Development Company, Inc. REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 5.6 acres into 1 lot. 3. Site Plan Review. Background r ,:4 .�i, `x 1-2- This site is currently guided for , t,'\ °A"1 Industrial land uses. Surrounding !f f 0 5« i I ` • properties are also guided for ' '��- \-.i;;�„"1 `-�' :i I Industrial land uses. Currently, 'y,�-3 �.-. " P this site is bounded by vacant °`- '4 L .• property to the south, west, and :k i v% , . 1 24 north, and Golden Triangle Drive to �` ! the east. The proponent is re- 7' `Ar I' ' *"z . questing the rezoning of li i� a ►� +approximately 5.6 acres to allow for - • I • 'i T`x`�,:• ':< the construction of a 73,367 square '` • it.:.:.: .., :�" foot industrial building. ./' f.' ".4r Site Plan/Preliminary Plat / !— 1* '•• :;�:: n ,'E 0- ,: The site plan depicts a 73,367 OFC '• : ' • .. • 1 -a z .. , ,7 square foot building being con- �" •x•• e structed on a 5.6-acre site. A Base "'PROPOSED SITE -- D' ; Area Ratio and a Floor Area Ratio of ' --- 30% has been calculated. The . \\ ,,- proposed building meets the minimum . requirements of the I-2 Zoning ,\ F._4 District which includes a minimum of / :�F+• • ' �� '.' a 5D-foot front yard setback, B . sideyard setbacks of 20 feet, and a in ;° =`1.*1 rurrtt41,„ �1 1 - rear yard setback of 25 feet. \` 'Tft., ', •��., rat jyt I AREA LOCATION MAP, n C C • Access/Parking Access to this site would be provided by two driveways off Golden Triangle Drive. The northerly-most access point is designed for one-way traffic which allows for the use of the loading facilities along the north building elevation. A loop driveway has been provided around the building which allows for parking on all sides with a connection made to the southern access point. The southerly driveway measures 32 feet in width. This driveway must be reduced in width by 2 feet to meet the Code maximum of 30 feet. The specific uses within the building have been designated as 7,200 square feet of office space and 66,012 feet of warehouse space. Based on these figures, a total of 70 parking stalls are required. The site plan depicts a total of 90 parking stalls provided for this site. A proof-of-parking plan has been submitted which indicates an additional 16 parking stalls on-site and 104 parking stalls off-site. The developer should submit a floor plan showing actual use of the building so that parking is provided as required according to Code. The proponent has provided documentation to indicate that the tenant currently employs 52 people. The number of employees is expected to increase gradually in the future. It is anticipated that 106 parking stalls on-site will be needed. If this square footage was divided equally between office, manufacturing, and warehousing, as is a standard way of figuring a spec building, 22I parking spaces would be required. If the building is approved as proposed, it's use will be severely restricted in the future. Grading The present topography on this site will range from a high point of 904 located in the southeast corner of the site to a low point of approximately B38 on the west property line near the flood plain area. Portions of this project site have been previously graded with the mining operation and with the construction of Golden Triangle Drive. The plans indicate that the entire project site will be graded. The finished floor elevation of the proposed building is located at the 55 foot elevation and will require a cut of approximately 50 feet off the high point. Approximately 10 feet of fill will be required adjacent the west property line to allow for the construction of the parking areas. There is some encroachment into the flood plain area which will require DNR, Watershed District, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval. It had been anticipated that the hill along the south property line will be removed with the development of the property to the south. Utilities, Water, and Sanitary Sewer Services Utilities, water, and sanitary sewer services are available to this building by connection made to existing utilities located within Golden Triangle Drive and along the north property line. Overall storm water drainage on the site is to be located in catch basin systems on site with ultimate discharge into a wetland area along the west property line. Prior to building permit issuance the proponent shall submit detailed storm water run-off and detailed erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. • ►► ( ( Tree Removal The tree inventory and grading plan indicates that there are a total of 654 caliper ; ., inches located on the site and adjacent the property to the south. One hundred percent of 478 caliper inches of oak trees on the site will be removed with the development of this project. In calculating the overall tree loss, the proponent has submitted an overall tree inventory for the entire Technology Park area. A total of 1,564 caliper inches of significant trees have been saved on the hill located adjacent to Nine Mile Creek and a total of 2,149 caliper inches of significant trees still remain on the properties located west of Golden Triangle Drive. The overall grading plan which has been submitted by the developer indicated that there would be a total tree loss of 1,644 caliper inches or 44.2%. Based on these figures and the current tree preservation policy, the proponent is required to provide 968 caliper inches of tree replacement with the overall scenario. The proponent has submitted a landscape plan which indicates a total of 724 caliper inches of plant material. The building, based upon the square footage of 73,367 square feet, requires 459 caliper inches. The 265 additional caliper inches can be credited toward tree replacement which would leave a total of 7D3 caliper inches to be planted on the adjacent parcels. The landscape plan is designed primarily to provide screening from Golden Triangle Drive, the property to the north and Nine Mile Creek to the west. This is accomplished by the use of a series of 8, 10, 12, and 14-foot evergreens along the north property line and the substantial use of significant lowland vegetation along the western property line. _ Architecture The building has been designed as retangular in shape and measuring 240 x 310 feet. The building contains 73,367 square feet and is 22 feet high. The primary building materials includes pre-cast concrete panels and glass. A three-color color scheme has been proposed. These colors will be submitted prior to Council review. There are three semi-trailer dock doors along the north building elevation and two overhead doors proposed on the west building elevation. Loading facilities are proposed to be screened by natural vegetation. The building is designed strictly as industrial with the exception of the south elevation where the substantial use of glass gives an office type appearance. The rooftop mechanical equipment units are proposed to be screened by a metal panel color to match the building. Pedestrian System There is an 8-foot bituminous trail constructed along the west side of Golden Triangle Drive. Lighting The proposed lighting will be the same as used in previous Technology Park projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park ' E' " ' on 5.6 acres (Preliminary Plat and Site Plan,Review), based upon plans dated August'_= .:: 23 and August 24, 1989, Staff Report dated September 8, 1989, subject -to ..tom "n:. following conditions: ..�; . a$ C C 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide an actual building floor plan so parking requirements can be applied according to City Code. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit an overall storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plan for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit an overall storm water run-off and erosion control plan for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 4. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed.Distsrict at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing. Any trees inside or outside of the construction limits will be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis. 5. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 1 a813 ? MEMO • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 19, 1989 RE: TECH 10 TREE REPLACEMENT This project was continued from the September 11, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, to allow the proponent and Staff the opportunity to review the tree replacement requirement and landscape plan for the proposed Tech 10 project. Since that time, Staff has recalculated the amount of significant trees which would be lost with the development of this project and the project directly to the south. The previous Staff Report included a total of 173 caliper inches of significant trees located off site. This resulted in a 44.3% tree loss and a tree replacement requirement of 968 caliper inches. The recalculated amount is a 41.5% tree loss which equals a tree replacement requirement of 813 caliper inches. The proponent has agreed to provide a total of 813 caliper inches of tree replacement on the Tech 10 project site and the property directly to the south. It was agreed that the tree replacement distribution would be on a 1/3 basis (268 caliper inches) for the Tech 10 project and a 2/3 basis (545 caliper inches) for the property to the south. In addition, Staff has also reviewed the landscape requirements based upon the height of the proposed building. The proposed building contains 73,367 square feet and would require a total of 229 caliper inches of landscape material per City Code. However, the building is 22 feet in height which would be classified as a two-story building. The landscaping section of the City Code states that "a single-story building in excess of 20 feet in height shall be considered a two-story building for the purposes of determining a total gross square footage." This requirement is designed primarily to achieve landscaping which is appropriate in scale with the size of the building. Because the building is only 22 feet in height, which is standard for an 18-foot clear-height building, and based upon the large amount of tree replacement being placed on the site, Staff determined that doubling the amount of landscaping would not be required to achieve scale with the building. Because two feet is 10% in excess of the 20-foot height requirement, Staff recommends that 10%, or 23 additional caliper inches should be required. Based upon these figures, a combined total of 520 caliper inches of landscape material for the building per the landscape code and tree replacement is recommended. The proponent has indicated the change on the new landscape plan. In addition, 10% of the plant material shall be 41 caliper inches in size as required for a two-story building. The landscape plan depicts 68 trees which are 41 caliper inches in size. Finally, concern was also raised regarding the screening of the loading facilities. The loading facilities are oriented away from Golden Triangle Drive and screened with 57, 10-foot evergreens. It is anticipated that adequate screening has been provided. With the resolution of the tree replacement, screening, and landscaping requirements, Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 8, 1989. Hoyt Development Iu COMP A N Y 5555 WEST SEVENTY EIGHTH STREET �1) EDINA, MINNESOTA 55035 812.901-8200 February 22, 1989 Mr. Donald Dram Planning Department THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2499 e RE: TECHNOLOGY PARK X Dear Don: Please be advised that we intend to make major revisions to the plans for Tech X. Therefore, please withdraw our request for preliminary plat and site plan review at Monday's Planning Commission Meeting. We will furnish you with the revised plans in the very near future. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, • t B � yt Presi•en BAH:klc r +' ...n,..>w01M+M1!......yY:►.....,.r ..:,•..w+'w+�" "' '9"dru«- • v R0)5:. • �s s 4 ' DEVELOPMENT # CONSTRUCTION * MANAGEMENT.wit INVESTMENT Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 11, 1989 D. TECH 10, By Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change, from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.6 acres into one lot, Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres for construction of a 73,367 square foot office warehouse. Location: 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, presented a slide presentation to orient the Planning Commission to the topography and vegetation as it currently exists. The access to the project would be from Golden Triangle Drive. Loading docks would be located on the north side of the building, the office area to the south, with a manufacturing and warehouse in the middle of the facility. Ruebling asked how much of the vegetation would be removed from the hill. Smith replied that all of the vegetation would be removed as well as the hill. Smith added that the wetland vegetation would provide screening for a portion of the building. Smith presented slides which showed the green space provided by Hoyt Development on some of the current projects in the Technology Park area and added that Hoyt Development was very careful in establishing adequate setbacks and green space areas. A berm would be constructed along the east portion of the property. Parking would be allowed along the east, west, and southern sides of the building. The building would be approximately 73,212 square feet with approximately 7,200 square feet to be used for office space. The building had a designated tenant which would employee 52 individuals. 90 parking spaces would be provided with an additional 106 proof-of-parking spaces to be provided on the property to the south. There would be mass grading on the site with large amounts of fill to be removed from the site. The total tree loss was estimated at 654 caliper inches. Staff recommended that 968 caliper inches be replaced. The plan shown to the Planning Commission had more trees on the site than what Hoyt Development was comfortable with. DNR permits would not be necessary because the storm water discharge would drain above the high water mark. Permits from the Army Corps of Engineers were necessary. The exterior of the building was to be constructed of precast concrete, off-white in color, bronze anodized windows, and three loading docks on the north side. The roof top units will be screened. Smith stated that Brad Hoyt did not believe that the total a$r� Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 11, 1989 screen wall of evergreens was necessary to screen the loading area to the north. Brad Hoyt stated that the corner of the lot would be 380 feet from Purgatory Creek. He had a long-term lease signed with a tenant for the space. Hoyt stated that he and Mr. Cherne were now in agreement regarding the alignment of the road. Hoyt believed that this tenant would provide an appropriate use for the property because of the light trucking dock use. The tenant also had a light parking space requirement. Hoyt stated that he could not agree with the trees Staff was requesting to be replaced on the site. The cost of the trees today was approximately $100 per inch and up. Hoyt could not see the benefit in screening a blank wall. Hoyt estimated the cost of the 14 foot trees proposed along the north end of the building to be approximately $600 each and believed this to be excessive. One-third of the site would not be disturbed by the development. The tree replacement was being doubled due to the City's view of the building as a two-story complex. Hoyt stated that the building would not be visible from Valley View Road. Hoyt believed that there was an economic penalty because of the two-story designation. He added that the landscaping costs as proposed would be equal to 10% of the building costs. Hoyt stated that when he left the hill in place as requested by the City, he had not only left a wooded knoll, he had left $1,000,000 worth of land. He added that the hill would have to come down because the parcels on either side of the knoll were 50 feet lower. Hoyt stated that he could not go along with planting trees just to be planting trees with no purpose. Hoyt believed that Hoyt Development had done more than its share in preserving the trees. Sandstad asked why the office space was not facing the street. Hoyt replied that the tenant's operation necessitated the building to be laid-out the way it was currently designed. Franzen reported that the Staff Report recommendation for approval of the project was based on adherence to the Tree Replacement Policy and, therefore, would not recommend approval at this time if the proponent was not in agreement with the City's policy. Ron Krueger, representing the proponent, asked if the Planning Commission would grant approval contingent upon the Tree Replacement Policy issue and landscaping issues being resolved prior to review by the City Council. Ruebling asked Franzen to comment on the 22 foot height. Franzen replied that when the Landscape Ordinance had been developed, Staff had taken examples of several different XI() Plruiing Commission Minute. 14 September 11, 1989 projects throughout the City and determined that 1 inch of trees should be required for every 320 feet of building space. Staff believed that anything above 20 feet in height should be required to have additional landscaping to mitigate the bulk, height, and mass appearance of the building. Franzen did not believe this a point which was negotiable. Ruebling concurred that the building would be tall and massive in appearance. Franzen added that consideration had also been given to change the setback requirements to 100 feet. Hoyt stated that he was not asking to be exempt from the ordinance. Bye asked Hoyt if he would agree to the 459 caliper inches proposed. Smith stated that he had added additional trees above the 459 caliper inch requirement. Franzen stated that the trees could be replaced on other Hoyt properties. Hoyt believed that he had paid enough already on the entire parcel and added that he had already reforested approximately 80 acres. Hoyt noted that this policy had come about well after the Technology Park Project was underway. He stated that he had saved the hill on the east and did not believe that he had to save all of the trees. Ruebling stated that the Tree Replacement Policy had been designed to prevent reckless destruction of the trees. Hallett believed that the proponent should not be exempt from the City's policy and added that the trees could be distributed on other sites. Franzen stated that the Staff recommendation was based on giving the proponent credit for the trees on the hill and for the land dedicated to the City.' Franzen said that landscaping was not the only possibility to screen the loading docks and if the number of trees being required could not fit on this parcel then the trees could be planted elsewhere. Ruebling asked which figure was correct; 459 or 968 caliper inches. Franzen replied that because the building was considered a two-story building the requirement for tree replacement doubled. • Hoyt stated that 0% of trees had been lost on the other 60 acres already developed. He believed that the development would be attractive as proposed. Hoyt noted that in the past he had not requested variances for reductions in green space and had been a responsible developer. Sigmund Helle, 2124 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul, owner of the property to the north, asked Hoyt how he knew that a future building would screen a portion of this building. Helle stated that as owner of the property to the north he V 1 Planning Commission Minutes 16 September 11, 1989 development should not place a hardship on another adjacent development. Hoyt stated that as a developer, you do not always know what will be developed adjacent to your parcel. The loading docks had to be placed somewhere, this was an industrial park area. The doors to the loading docks were actually facing west and not facing the street. Hoyt stated that negotiations had been completed with the tenant based on this particular layout of the building. Hallett believed that the proponent should be required to meet City ordinances and screen the area adequately for the Helle property. Hallett recommended that the project be continued for two weeks to allow time to resolve these issues. Hoyt stated that timing was critical. Hoyt added that distance In itself was considered a buffer. Hoyt stated that he did not have a problem with providing approximately 90% of the screening. He said he would adhere to all the City ordinance; however, the Tree Replacement Policy was not an ordinance and was only a policy at this time. Hallett recommended that the project be continued for two weeks and published for the October 3, 1989 City Council meeting, which would be the meeting it would have appeared on the Agenda had it been approved tonight. Hallett believed that there were enough unresolved issues to warrant a continuance. Bye concurred with Hallett and stated that the Planning Commission would like to have the opportunity to review the plan revision prior to Council review. The Planning Commission's direction to the proponent were to address the parking and screening issues. MoTIgN,: Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue this item to the September 25, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and publish for the October 3, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Park Planner DATE: September 29, 1989 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to the September 8, 1989 Planning Staff Report Regarding Tech 10 The Planning Commission approved this project unanimously at their September 25th meeting. Specific issues that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission should be concerned about are: GRADING Portions of this project site have been previously graded with the mining operation and with the construction of Golden Triangle Drive. The present topography on this site ranges from a high point of 904', located in the southeast corner of the site to a low point of approximately 838' on the west property line near the floodplain. This represents approximately 70' of grade change on the site. The grading to accommodate the proposed building will be massive. At one point a 50' cut off the high point is needed and approximately 10' fill will be required adjacent to the west property line. With this grading, there is some encroachment onto the floodplain area, which will require DNR, Watershed District and U. S. Army Corps of Engineer approvals. TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT This project is part of an overall Planned Unit Development and tree calculations have been taken over the whole PUD. The calculations show that 41.5% of the trees are being removed for development. The percentage of trees lost is much higher than in other developments, but because of the severe topography changes due to the mining of the area and the grades set for Golden Triangle Drive, little can be done to save the trees. The proponent has agreed to satisfy the requirements of the tree replacement guidelines and will provide 268 caliper inches for the Tech 10 project and 545 caliper inches for the property to the south. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS An 8' bituminous trail is constructed along the west side of Golden Triangle Drive and should be extended across to the property. 2g101Q FLOODPLAIN AREA ir This development parcel is part of an overall PUD development. Small parcels in this PUD have been developed over the past 4 years. The developer agreed to dedicate the Nine-Mile Creek floodplain to the City when the original PUD was proposed. The City would eventually like this site for trail purposes to connect to the Smetana Lake trail system. At this time, the City has not received any dedicated floodplain area. Other parcels within this PUD have yet to be developed, so it is not critical to obtain the floodplain at this time. However, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission may want to clarify the developer's intentions for the floodplain area. Staff would recommend approval of this project based on the September 8, 1989 Planning Staff Report and this supplemental report. BPC:mdd 2 208 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-212 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TECH 10 FOR HOYT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Tech 10 for Hoyt Development Company, dated September 22, 1989, consisting of 5.6 acres into one lot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of October, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Opal OCTOBER 3.1989 54330 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERY 274.00 54331 PATRICIA H FUKASAWA REFUND-FOR WATER USAGE BY CITY PERSONNEL 10.00 '. r -4332 SIMON LADDER TOWERS INC -FINAL PAYMENT-LADDER TRUCK CHASSIS-FIRE 130304.00 DEPT 54333 CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBER 16.00 54334 MN RECREATION 5 PARK ASSN CONFERENCE-PARKS & RECREATION DEPT 390.00 54335 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 1978.90 54336 PLAN TO GET OUT ALIVE -VIDEO CASSETTE-FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES- 59.70 FIRE DEPT 54337 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 54338 JOE GLEASON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 54.00 54339 STATE TREASURER LICENSE FEE-SEWER DEPT 15.00 ' 54340 HORNET FOUNDATION INC SCHOOL-SEWER DEPT 260.00 54341 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL SCHOOL-SEWER DEPT 125.00 54342 V010 OUT CHECK 0.00 54343 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 54344 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 54345 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS 26.50 54346 MINNESOTA BOARD OF AGING CONFERENCE-SENIOR CENTER 30.00 54347 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 1166.30 54348 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 536.00 54349 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AUGUST B9 SALES TAX 20375.87 54350 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION -CITY'S SHARE OF CONTRIBUTION-STATE AID 10000.00 CONSTRUCTION 54351 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERA SERVICE 55.25 54352 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 46.75 54353 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 337.09 S4354 JULIE ABRAHAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 16.25 1355 JOYCE ALLEN REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 22.00 64356 KAREN ANDREWS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 54357 MARY BERGER REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 7.00 54358 NANCY BERGER REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 7,00 54359 KATHLEEN CRUGNOLA REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 12.00 54360 LYNDA DE WARD REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 46.00 54361 BETTE JOHANSSON REFUND-MN ORCHARD TRIP 2.00 ' 54362 MATT JOHNSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS ' 46.00 54363 SANDRA KNAAK REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00 54364 MICHELLE KNEELAND REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 30.00 54365 AGATHA PECZALSKA REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 19.00 54366 TERRY PUNSWICK REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 46.00 54367 TRAM NGUYEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 26.00 54368 LESLIE SCHNEIOER REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 22.00 54369 JUDITH SCHWARTZ REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 15.25 54370 DAVID STEVENS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 46.00 54371 NANCY WEINBERGER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 9.00 54372 LINDA HAMMES REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 30.00 54373 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AUGUST 89 FUEL TAX 382.80 54374 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 15.00 54375 SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 410.00 54376 KATE GARW000 EXPENSES-MUNICIPALS 40.50 54377 MNAF'A CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 30.00 54378 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-FIRE DEPT 326.40 54379 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 21868.25 '380 MEXICAN VILLAGE EXPENSES-COUNCIL 33.02 ,381 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 186.00 /8979683 aC:;',r, OCTOBER 3.1989 54382 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 194.76 54383 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 9/1/89 1503.92 � 4384 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 9/1/89 4346.00 . .,4385 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG SEPTEMBER 89 UNION DUES 961.00 54386 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 9/1/89 25.00 54387 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 9/1/89 1638.00 54388 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 9/1/89 28560.04 54389 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA OCTOBER 89 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 99.00 54390 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 9/1/89 243.50 54391 ANTI VEHICLE CRIME ASSN MN CONFERENCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 60.00 54392 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO 25 BLADES-PARK MAINTENANCE 190.00 54393 ROSER'S SERVOCE -ALTERNATOR/STARTER/GENERATOR REPAIR- 248.27 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 54394 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS/DIESEL FUEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 12737.02 54395 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE 678.62 54396 STEVE STENSGAARD AWARDS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 286.20 54397 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 33.Q0 54398 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 3310.82 54399 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 27430.80 54400 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 18.99 54401 R G MODEEN INC PAINTING RESTROOMS-POLICE BUILDING 225.00 54402 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 46.75 54403 DIANE SCHEID REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.90 54404 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 9/15/89 1598.00 54405 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 9/15/89 10819.76 54406 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION I86.00 54407 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 9/15/89 54359.97 G4408 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 9/15/89 4783.00 409 GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY SEPTEMBER 89 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2619.18 .4410 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 194.76 54411 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 9/15/89 1503.92 54412 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 9/15/89 32.00 54413 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC SEPTEMBER 89 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 13942.30 54414 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 9/15/89 25.00 54415 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 9/15/89 & 9/1/89 1000.00 54416 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE SEPTEMBER 89 DISABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM 2519.63 54417 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 9/15/89 28121.76 54418 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN SEPTEMBER 89 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 25483.40 54419 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 9/15/89 246.50 54420 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PROPERTY TAXES FOR PARK 3810.40 54421 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PROPERTY TAXES FOR PARK PROPERTY 14446.52 54422 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1011.05 54423 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 16324.28 54424 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 15453.23 54425 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 302.43 54426 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 6038.55 54427 PRIOR WINE CD WINE 3193.52 54428 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 7218.03 54429 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX 1899.65 54430 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING DEFENSIVE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 98.00 54431 CANTEBURY DOWNS TICKET OFFICE -CANTEBURY DOWNS TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES 55.00 PAID 54432 GINA MARIA'S EXPENSES-COUNCIL 26.51 ' 433 MCPO A CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 25.00 434 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA N A BOND PAYMENT 33750.00 33393894 OCTOBER 3.1989 54435 BILL OLSON -BLACK DIRT-TICONDEROGA TRAIL-HOUSING 155.40 REHABILITATION PROGRAM -4436 CITY OF WEST ST PAUL CITY'S SHARE OF MUNICIPALS BANQUET 96.25 4437 TREASURER FMAM FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 93.75 54438 A TO 2 RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 53.00 54439 ABBOTT PAINT & CARPET COMPANY PAINT/PAINT SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 345.22 54440 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 1394.77 54441 AIR POWER EQUIPMENT CORPORATION FILTER PADS-FACILITIES DEPT 30.00 54442 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 14.00 54443 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO 2 VIDEO TABLES-SENIOR CENTER 444.00 54444 AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION CPR TRAINING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 52.00 54445 AMERICAN HEAT VIDEO PRODUCTIONS I VIDEO CASSETTE-FIRE DEPT 29.95 54446 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS-COMMUNITY CENTER 35.52 54447 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET NAME PLATES/SIGNS-STREET DEPT 970.83 54448 ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY -DONATION-PET PROTECTION PROGRAM-ANIMAL 500.00 CONTROL 54449 ARMOR SECURITY INC LOCK REPAIR-FIRE STATION 55.00 54450 ARTSIGN MATERIALS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-PARK PLANNING DEPT 121.17 54451 B & S TOOLS -SPINER HANDLE/SCREWDRIVER SETS/HOSE REEL 1819.65 -& HOSE-$253.00/HACKSAW/WATER PUMP PLIERS/ -PLIERS/PUNCH/RATCHET WRENCH/WRECKING BAR/ -SAND PAPER/IMPACT TOOL KIT-$243.50/ -TOOL CABINET-$684.00-WATER DEPT/WRENCHES/ HAMMER-EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 54452 BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD & HERITAGE WATERMAIN 2200.00 54453 GWEN BARKER -EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 60.05 CULTURAL COMMISSION 4454 BARTON SAND & GRAVE CO BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 5.00 455 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC BATTERIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 232.58 4456 JOHN BENSON GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 180.00 54457 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL 717.00 54458 BEST & FLANAGAN LEGAL SERVICE-HWY 212-169 EXTENSION 200.00 54459 RIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 79.00 54460 BIG A CHANHASSEN -SWITCHES/U-JOINT/BRAKE SHOES/TEMPERATURE 1971.37 -CONTROL/SEAT COVER/HITCHES/BRAKE PADS/ -FILTERS/TAPE/PAINT SUPPLIES/GASKETS/WIRE -HOLDERS/GREASE/BEARINGS/TIE RODS/DRAG -LINKS/BRAKE PARTS/SOLOERING TORCHES/ -CONDENSOR/POINTS/CLAMPS-WATER DEPT/ EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 54461 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 161.28 54462 LOIS BOETTCHER MUNUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 61.88 54463 BOFFIN LIMITED PRINTER-ENGINEERING DEPT 199.00 54464 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC REPLACE SPRING-FIRE OEPT 154.85 54465 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-HAMILTON RD 1693.70 ' 54466 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC LANDSCAPING MATERIAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 250.90 54467 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC JULY & AUGUST 89 WASTE DISPOSAL 2776.60 54468 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 44.40 54469 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC 4 JIB CRANES-WATER DEPT 2383.99 54470 BUTLER PAPER COMPANY XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 746.76 54471 CARDOX CORPORATION CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 431.22 54472 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 852.50 54473 CARLSON SYSTEMS INC -SPRINKLER SYSTEM REPAIR-HAMILTDN ROAD 876.00 IMPROVEMENTS .74 THE CHAMOIS SHOP PLASTIC POLISH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72.00 2256059 OCTOBER 3.1989 54475 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY -LEGAL ADS-BLUFF RD STREET & UTILITY 243.00 -IMPROVEMENTS/COUNTRY GLEN STORM SEWER & WATERMAIN 54476 CMI REFRIGERATION -GEAR REDUCER & KIT/AUGER BUSHING/GASKET- 667.55 COMMUNITY CENTER 54477 COMPUTER PLACE COMPUTER REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 134.50 54478 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC MICROFILMING-ENGINEERING DEFT 1203.42 54479 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT/FIRE DEPT 521.50 54480 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-PLANNING DEFT/ENGINEERING 216.59 DEPT/METAL LOCATOR-SEWER DEPT 54481 CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE 2ND QUARTER 89 SERVICE FOR BATTERED WOMEN 2000.00 54482 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC SEPTEMBER 89 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 560.00 54483 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 68.81 54484 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 231.67 54485 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY OUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 4995.05 54486 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC PRINTING-SENIDR NEWSLETTER-SENIOR PROGRAMS 311.52 54487 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FACILITIES 728.81 DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 54488 DAN & DAN'S MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING-WINTER FLYER-COMMUNITY CENTER 224.75 54489 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO TOPS/WATER LIDS-WATER DEPT 414.70 54490 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE/EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 50.32 54491 DAY TIMERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES 19.53 54492 BILL DOLNY DIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 90.00 54493 DONALDSON COMPANY INC DUST COLLECTOR BAGS-WATER DEPT 1396.88 54494 DPC iNDUSTRIES INC CHEMiCALS-WATER DEPT 3678.70 54495 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT/TEEN WORK PROGRAM/ 174.39 -SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT/YOUTH TENNIS/ ADULT PROGRAMS/OUTDOOR CENTER 4496 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 96.58 54497 PAULA DUNNUM AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 125.00 54498 ECDLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIVISION SEPTEMBER 89 SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 121.50 54499 CITY OF EDINA AUGUST 89 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 178.00 54500 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 600.00 54501 ELK RIVER CDNCRETE PRODUCTS GASEETS/CULVERTS-DRAINAGE CONTROL 1035.27 54502 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC JACKETS-SEWER DEPT 36.30 • 54503 CHRIS ENGER SEPTEMBER 89 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 200.00 54504 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-ENGINEERING DEPT 8.90 • 54505 FAIRVIEW BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT 49.00 54506 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEFT 904.20 54507 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES 6 TENNIS NETS-PARK MAINTENANCE 570.00 54508 FLOYD SECURITY -4TH QUARTER 89 SECURITY SYSTEM-LIQUOR 398.00 STORE 54509 FOUNTAIN PLACE APTS REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 400.20 54510 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIOUDR STORE 564.61 54511 FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS INC -MARKING PAINT-FACILITIES DEPT/SNOW & ICE 165.30 CONTROL 54512 JOHN FRANE SEPTEMBER 89 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00 54513 FRANKLIN DENESEN INC -INSTALL ATTIC INSULATION-TICONDEROGA 608.00 TRAIL-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM 54514 LYNDELL FREY MILEAGE-PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 91.75 54515 SUNNY L FULLER BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 18.00 54516 FUTRELL FIRE CONSULT & DESIGN INC -SERVICE-SPRINKLER PLAN REVIEW-BUILDING 569.85 INSPECTIONS DEPT 1517 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO CARD CABINET-ENGINEERING DEPT 63.00 -4518 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 99.00 2507435 OCTOBER 33.1989 54519 GOLD KEY SECURITY REKEY LOCKS/KEYS-LIQUOR STORE 59.00 54520 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC AUGUST 89 SERVICE 170.00 1521 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC AUGUST 89 SERVICES-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1814.67 . ,4522 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1625.80 54523 W W GRAINGER INC BULBS-WATER DEPT 28.58 • 54524 ALAN GRAY AUGUST 89 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING OEPT 200.00 54525 GREENKEEPER INC -LAWN SPRINKLER REPAIR-HAMILTON ROAD 661.70 IMPROVEMENTS 54526 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-DESK-$139.20-POLICE DEPT 244.04 54527 LEROY GRYTING MILEAGE-RILEY LAKE BEACH 113.00 54528 GUNNER ELECTRIC COMPANY -ELECTRICAL WORK-TICONDEROGA TRAIL-HOUSING 780.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 54529 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-THE COVE/HAMILTON RD/PIONEER 36672.20 -TRAIL & COUNTY ROAD 18/DRAINAGE STUDIES/ -BLUFF RD/COUNTY RD 4 & PIONEER TRAIL -WATERMAIN/CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/STARING LAVE PARK 54530 YVONNE HARDENS CONFERENCE-SOLID WASTE MANAGMENT 125.00 54531 JIM HATCH SALES CO LONG HANDLED SHOVEL REPAIR-PARK MAINT 100.54 54532 DENNIS HAUGEN -CITY WATER HOOK-UP & PLUMBING SERVICES- 2995.00 HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM 54533 HEIMARK FOODS CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 136.08 54534 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 43.00 54535 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 388.00 54536 HENN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VER!FT.CATIONG 48.15 54537 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -2ND HALF 89 PROPERTY TAXES-MORE HOUSE/ 2147.70 -HENDRICKSON PARCEL/IDLEWILD LAKE ADDITION A538 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE-HIGHWAY 5 IMPROVEMENTS 131973.66 539 HENNEPIN PARKS -NOERENBERG GARDEN TOUR-SENIOR PROGRAMS/ 15.00 FEES PAID 54540 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 700.00 54541 HERZOG PETROLEUM MOTOR OIL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 579.10 54542 D C HEY COMPANY INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINT 46.17 54543 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -SOLENOID/INSTALL TANK VALVE/FREON/ACRYLIC 523.85 SHEETING-COMMUNITY CENTER 54544 HOME COMPANION ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 279.00 54545 TRANSPORT CLEARINGS OF TWIN CITIE FREIGHT CHARGES-ENGINEERING DEPT 98.20 54546 HYDRAULIC SERVICES INC HYDRAULIC CYLINDER REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT 94.02 54547 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 4272 -ROOM RENTAL-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/BUS 1592.85 -SERVICE-DAY CAMP & NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH -PROGRAM/COOKING UTENSILS-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 54548 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 251.91 54549 INSTY PRINTS OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 22.50 54550 INTEREX CORPORATION -EXIT SIGNS/CAUTION SIGNS & TAPE- 132.56 FACILITIES DEPT 54551 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -SEPTEMBER 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE 285.98 DEPT 54552 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT 172.87 54553 JOHNSON CONTROLS -4TH QUARTER 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 955.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 54554 KAMAN BEARING & SUPPLY CDRP MOTOR-WATER DEPT 1604.00 54555 SCOTT KIPP MILEAGE/EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 7.40 556 TAMERA KLEIN EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 306.92 18799345 OCTOBER 3.1989 54557 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER -ROPE/CHISEL/TAPE MEASURE/CLEANING 34.33 SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 54558 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC -AUGUST 89 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 12580.21 LANDFILL ,4559 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY BINDER SETS/BOOKS-WATER DEPT 163.14 54560 LAKESIDE FUSEE CORP FREIGHT CHARGES-POLICE DEPT 53.84 54561 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD MAY 89 LEGAL SERVICE 16659.44 54562 BOB LANZI EXPENSES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 52.09 54563 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MEMBERSHIP DUES-MUNICIPAL AMICUS PROGRAM 365.00 54564 LEEF BROS INC -COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/MATS- 168.40 LIQUOR STORE 54565 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR FILM-FORESTRY DEPT 27.60 54566 LYMAN LUMBER CO PLYWOOD/TREATED TIMBERS-STARING LAKE PARK 255.00 54567 ROOERICK MACRAE GARDEN PLANTS-OUTO00R CENTER OPERATIONS 32.50 54568 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING-STREET MAINTENANCE 100.00 54569 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 16.52 54570 MENARDS -TIMBERS/LEGS/HARDWARE/TABS-HISTORICAL & 63.25 CULTURAL COMMISSION 54571 METRO PRINTING INC PRINTING FORMS-POLICE DEPT 1846.00 54572 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS AUGUST 89 SAC CHARGES 44970.75 54573 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS OCTOBER 89 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 154033.51 54574 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 4691.84 54575 HERMAN MILLER INC -PARTITIONS/CONNECTORS/RECEPTACLE CIRCUITS/ 1653.06 WORK STATIONS-FACILITIES DEPT 54576 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 115.91 54377 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS PRINTING FORMS-SAFETY DEPT 136.25 5457B MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP -SEPTEMBER 89 PAGER SERVICE-WATER DEPT/ 133.50 POLICE DEPT s4579 MN CONWAY FIFE & SAFETY -30 BRUSH COATS-$I8O0.00/EXTINQUISHER 1B97.50 RECHARGING/0 RINGS/PULL PIN-FIRE DEPT o4580 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 658.80 54581 MINNESOTA WANNER CO 2 FOAM INJECTORS-FIRE DEPT 138.40 54582 RAY MITCHELL DUNK TANK RENTAL-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 50.00 54583 MODERN OFFICE 2 FOLDING TABLES-KIDS KORNER 171.90 54584 WM MUELLER & SONS INC SAND-PARK MAINTENANCE 25.48 54585 NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION CENTE BOOK-ADULT PROGRAMS 2.00 54586 NATIONAL IMPRINT CORPORATION FORMS-FIRE DEPT • 128.29 54587 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-POLICE DEPT 23B.28 54588 GREGG NELSON TRAVEL INC CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 342.00 545B9 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 65.60 54590 NOBLE & ASSOCIATES INC AUGUST 89 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 3441.04 5459I NORTH K,ILBRIDE OPTICIANS SAFETY GLASSES-FIRE DEPT 302.00 54592 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-CHASE POINT ADDITION 579.60 54593 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 1095.50 54594 NORTHWOOD GAS CO GAS CYLINDERS-STREET MAINTENANCE 19.00 54595 PAPER WAREHOUSE -TAPE/TABLE SKIRTING-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 16.65 COMMISSION 54596 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INC -COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY-HUMAN RESOURCES 152.40 DEPT 54597 PERSONNEL POOL -SERVICE-PARK & RECREATION DEPT/PLANNING 661.60 DEPT 54598 MARK PETERSON -EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 1.79 CULTURAL COMMISSION 54599 PITNEY BOWES INC -4TH QUARTER 89 POSTAGE METER RENTAL- 102.75 POLICE DEPT 24824272 OCTOBER 3.1989 54600 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 54601 PORKORNY COMPANY PAINT REPAIR KIT-FACILITIES DEPT 21 45 54602 PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION -REPLACE ROOF-WESTGATE TRAIL-HOUSING 21.45 2430.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM :4603 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -INSTALL RECEPTACLES/REPAIR RESTROOM HAND 830.05 -DRYER/REPAIR FIXTURE/REPLACE BALLAST/ -REPAIR HAIR DRYER-FACILITIES DEPT/ COMMUNITY CENTER 54604 PRENTICE HALL SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 54605 J A PRICE AGENCY INC 6 116.01 BOILER INSURANCE-WATER DEPT 62.00 54606 QUALITY ROOTER INSTALL LAUNDRY TUBS-LIQUOR STORE 54607 QUINLAN PUBLISHING CU INC SUBSCRIPTION-PLANNING DEPT 168.8 54608 R & R SPECIALTIES INC 68.81 -ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED-ICE ARENA- 96.60 COMMUNITY CENTER 54609 RADIO SHACK CORDIADAPTOR-POLICE DEPT 54610 REAL ESTATE GRAPHICS INC PRINTING-GRAPHICS-ASSESSING DEPT 5.30 95.00 54611 JACKIE REMATA TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 35.00 54612 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN CASH REGISTER TAPE-LIQUOR STORE 94.27 54613 RICHFIELD BUS CO -BUS SERVICE-STATE FAIR TRIP-SENIOR 150.00 PROGRAMS 54614 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-HIDDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION/GOLDEN 21381.01 -TRIANGLE DRIVE EXTENSION/WYNDHAM CREST/ -MITCHELL/RESEARCH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS/ -MITCHELL ROAD PAVING & UTILITIES FEASIBILITY STUDY/COUNTRY GLEN 54615 RIVIERA FINANCIAL SERVICES -RECHAY.GEABLE FLASHLIGHT BATTERY PACKS- 72.00 SEWER DEPT 54616 ROAD RESCUE INC FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 441.88 `4617 PAUL ROGERS TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 618 TIM RONHOVDEP TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 14.30 14.30 .;46I9 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/AQUATICS 186.82 SUPERVISOR 54620 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 54621 TiM SATHER EXPENSES-FIRE73.82 DEPT 73.82 54622 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE 467.55 54623 KEViN SCHMiEG -AUGUST 89 EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS 200.00 54624 SEARS DEFT/SAFETY DEPT/FACILITi'ES DEPT -TOOL CHEST-$204.88/SCREWDRIVER SET/PLIERS/ 724.88 -MECHANICAL TOOL SET/MULTI-TESTER/HAMMERS/ -CORDS/LEVEL/WRECKING BAR/BOLT CUTTER/ 54625 SEELYE PLASTICS INC HACKSAW-SEWER DEPT PVC HANDLES-WATER DEPT 61.95 54626 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 928.39 54627 SEXTON CIS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 54628 SHAKOPEE FORD INC TRAILER WIRING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51.25 00.00 54629 STEVEN R SINELL SEPTEMBER 89 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 200.00 54630 MICHAEL SKARP LIFEGUARD INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAiD 00 54631 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP SCRAPER/FILE SET-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1 35.37.80 54632 TOM SOPCZYK MILEAGE-HUMAN SERVICES DEPT 00 54633 SOUTHTOWN PLUMBING INC PLUMBING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 20.3.73 54634 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSI 4TH QUARTER 89-CABLE TV 54635 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/HAPPENINGS- 3250.00 2786.90 COMMUNITY CENTER 54636 STATE TREASURER AUGUST 89 BUILDING SURCHARGES 637 STRETCHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EC! -GUN HOLSTER/MAGAZINE HOLDER/TRAFFIC VESTS/ 6642.55 ' -MEASURING TAPE/TRAFFIC WANDS/SIGNAL/ 4343186 Ryas -SIGNAL MOUNT KIT/GRILL CONVERSION KIT- POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 54638 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC -JULY & AUGUST 89 SERVICE-DELL RD/SCENIC 9623.68 HEIGHTS ROAD STUDY 54639 MICHELE SUNDBERG CPR SLIDE TRAY-FIRE DEPT 12.99 4640 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC WASTE DISPOSAL-OUTDOOR CENTER OPERATIONS 84.32 .4641 NATALIE SWAGGERT -CONFERENCE/SEPTEMBER 89 EXPENSES-HUMAN 377.66 RESOURCES DEPT 54642 TARGET STORES PHONE ANSWERING MACHINE-COMMUNITY CENTER 99.99 54643 VAL TRADER AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 100.00 54644 TRESTMAN MUSIC CENTER SHEET MUSIC-ART & MUSIC 299.65 54645 TURF PRO INC SERVICE-MOWING-FORESTRY DEPT 425.00 54646 TURF SUPPLY CO GRASS SEED-PARK MAINTENANCE 3160.00 54647 TURNQUIST PAPER CO PAPER TOWELS-FACILITIES DEPT 213.60 54648 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GLOVES/OXYGEN/LENSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 88.18 54649 TWIN CITY TESTING WATER SUPPLY SLUDGE TESTING-WATER DEPT 900.00 54650 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICEES UNIFORMS-WATER DEPT 125.90 54651 USA TODAY ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 34.00 54652 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 199.04 54653 VESSCO INC CONNECTORS/AUXILIARY YOKE-WATER DEPT 1036.86 54654 VF INDUSTRIAL FINISHING REFINISH POLICE VAN-POLICE DEPT 1150.00 54655 VICOM INC -SEPTEMBER 89 WIRE MAINTENANCE-COMMUNITY 7.00 CENTER 54656 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-POOL OPERATION 620.80 54657 VIKING PRESS INC -PRINTING-SPRING & SUMMER BROCHURES- 11523.67 RECREATION SUPERVISOR 54658 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT 114.60 54659 KEITH WALL SEPTEMBER 89 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 208.00 54660 WATER PRODUCTS CO -250 5/8X3/4 100 GAL METERS-$11472.50/ 19857.40 -250 COPPERHORNS-$3275.00/SWIVELS/2 2" -1000 GAL METERS-$910.00/MAIN VALVES/ -EXTENSIONS/CLAMP/50 100 GAL REMOTES- -$900.00/GENERATOR/130 PVC PIPE GASKETS- -11333.80/NUT & HOSE SPANNER-WATER DEPT/ DRAINAGE CONTROL 54661 WATERITE INC -REMOVE/REBUILD & REPLACE CHLORINE 590.60 CYLINDER-POOL OPERATION 54662 WELCH CASEY & FORSMAN REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 100.00 54663 WEST WELD LEATHER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 254.91 54664 LEE WHITBY -SIDING & GUTTERS-WESTGATE TRAIL-HOUSING 6800.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 54665 MARIE WITTENBERG -EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 7.35 - CULTURAL COMMISSION 54666 WOOD N NAIL INC -CONCRETE & CARPENTRY WORK/INSTALL ASPHALT 9052.97 -DRIVEWAY/GUTTER & DOWNSPOUTS-NORTH EDEN DRIVE-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM 54667 YOUNGSTEDTS INC WHEEL ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 119.90 54668 ZAHL EQUIPMENT CO -BRASS COUPLINGS/BRASS DUST CAPS-WATER 217.21 DEPT 54669 JIM ZAIC EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00 i 54670 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE -FIRST AID SUPPLIES-STREET MAINT/COMMUNITY 154.10 CENTER 54671 ZIEGLER INC -SEALS/GASKETS/BEARINGS/REGULATORS/ 1929.75 -THROTTLES/CYLINDER KITS/CORES-EQUIPMENT 1 MAINTENANCE 950421 1 e )1 QQ i I 54672 KAY ZUCCARO AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 53321 VOI0 OUT CHECK 45.50 53883 VOID OUT CHECK 45.00- 54240 VOID OUT CHECK, 76.64- 54280 VOID OUT CHECK I79.73- \ 1281 VOID OUT CHECK 253.73- , .4284 VOID OUT CHECK 14678.02- 54301 VOID OUT CHECK 678.00. -1567880 286.00 $1104824.15 1 e % DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL. 7 23958.41 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 3522.40 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 62585.16 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 30954..39 22 STATE AID CONST 10000.00 71 FARE: ACOUIST & DEVELOP 10847.95 UTILITY BOND FUND 4184.97 39 E36 FIRE STATION CONST 171370.79 44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 9481.53 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 465.00 48 82 G 0 DEBT-P/S & P/W 7 750.00 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 199192.42 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 200.00 7.3 WATER FUND 56746.04 77 SEWER FUND 200562.87 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 4150.00 87 CDBG FUND 22856.22 11104824.15 an! Red Rock Shores CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 13-89 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 R1-22 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 R1-22 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 3, 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 October 3, 1989, entered into between Scenic Heights Investment, a Minnesota general partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie. 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 20th day of June, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of it GS), i Exhibit, A Legal Description Page 1 of The North 450 feet of the South 850 feet of the West half of Government Lot 1, Section 16, Township 116 North. Range 22 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, and the West 2 rods of the North 108.50 i feet of the South 400 feet of the West half of said Government Lot 1, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County,Minnesota. Also That part of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 16. Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian which lies East of the West 33.00 leet and tying Westerly of the line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North fine of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 distant 88.00 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1;thence Southerly to a point on the South line of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 distant 74.00 feet Easterly from the Southwest corner of the North 108.50 feel of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 and said line there terminating, according to the United States'Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County,Minnesota. The South 400 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 16,Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,according to the Government Survey thereof, except the West 33 feet of the North 108.50 feet thereof and also except that part of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1, Section 16, Township 116,Range 22, which lies East of the West 33.00 feet and tying Westerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 distant 88.00 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1; thence Southerly to a point on the South line of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 distant 74.00 feet Easterly from the Southwest corner of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 and said line there terminating. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as follows: Commencing at a point in the centerline of County Road No. 4 distant 520.74 feet Northwesterly from the intersection of said centerline with the South line of Section 17; thence Easterly a distance of 330 feet along a line which if extended would intersect the East line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter at a point distant 517 feet Northerly from the Southeast corner thereof to actual point of beginning; thence Northerly at right angles a distance of 150 feet; thence Westerly at right angles a distance of 368.25 feel to the centerline of County Road No. 4; thence'Northwesterly, along said centerline, a distance of 51.7 feet, more or less, to an Intersection with a Ilne running parallel with and distant 200 feet Northerly from the previously described line drawn from the point of commencement through the point of beginning to the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and there ending; thence Easterly, along said parallel line,a distance of 691,4 feet, more or less, to a point 294 feet Westerly from the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence Northerly at right angles a distance of 220 feet;thence Easterly at right angles a distance of 306 feet, more or less, to said East line thereof;thence Southerly, along said East line,a distance of 420.6 feet, more or less,to said point distant 517 feet North from the Southeast corner thereof; thence Westerly 10 said point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of County Road No. 4 and a line running parallel with and distant 200 feet North of a line drawn Easterly from a point in said centerline distant 520.74 feet Northwesterly from its intersection with the South lino of Section 17 to a point in the East line of Section 17 distant 517 feet Northerly from the Southeast corner thereof and there ending;thence, Easterly along said parallel line, a distance of 691.4 feet,more or less. to a point 294 feel Westerly from said East line;thence Northerly at right angles a distance of 220 feet;thence Easterly at right angles to East line thereof;thence Northerly, along said East line, to the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence Westerly, along North line thereof, a distance of 361.18 feet;thence South,parallel with said East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,a distance of 300.feet;thence West, parallel with the North line thereof, to the centerline of County Road No. 4; thence Southeasterly, along said centerline,to point of beginning,according to the United States • Government Survey thereof. Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22. described as follows: Be-ginning at the Northeast corner of Section 20: thence South along the East line 828.3 feet: thence 'West and parallel to the North line 300 feet: thence North and parallel to the East line 498.3 feet; thence on a tearing South 80 degrees and no minutes West to the centerline of the Eden Prairie Road: thence Northwesterly along said centerline to the North line of Section 20: thence East along the North line 777 feet to point of beginning, except the Easterly 300 feet, as measured along the North lino thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota. (914• 1 Red Rock Shores DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 3, 1989, by SCENIC HEIGHTS INVESTMENT, a Minnesota general partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 8.22 acres, R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 3.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 22.97 acres into twenty (20) single family lots, three outlots, and road right-of-way, with variances reviewed by the Board of Appeals, all said 22.97 acres situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #13-89, and final plat Resolution #89-206, 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 June 15, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 20, 1989, 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. Concurrent with and prior to release of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to provide the following: A. To the City, conveyance of Outlots A and C, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said Outlots A and C shall be a��s conveyed to the City free and clear of any liens, mortgages, or encumbrances. B. To the City, conveyance of a permanent easement for street purposes at the northwest corner of the private property situated within the Scenic Heights Road right-of-way, as depicted in Exhibit 0, attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. To the City, dedication of the necessary right-of-way within Outlot B, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, for extension of Scenic Heights Road through said Outlot B at a width of 66 ft., as depicted in said Exhibit B. Said 66 ft. shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, mortgages, or encumbrances. D. To Hennepin County, dedication of 17 ft. of additional right-of-way for County Road #4, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said 17 ft. shall be deeded to the County free and clear of any liens, mortgages, or encumbrances. E. To the City, conservancy easements for all land located below the Ordinary High Water Mark (O.H.W.M.) elevation along the rear of Lots 1 - 9, inclusive, Block 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said easements shall be shown as "drainage easements for conservation purposes" on the final plat. Said conservancy easements shall be represented as a "drainage easement for conservation purposes" on the final plat for the property and shall also be represented in written form as depicted.in Exhibit E, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Developer agrees to file said written conservancy easements on the property with Hennepin County and provide proof of filing of said written conservancy easements to the City prior to release by City of any grading permit on the property. F. To the City, a 20 ft. wide easement along all of the property adjacent to County Road #4 for future installation of a walkway along the east side of said County Road #4, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. G. To the City, a temporary easement, and a permanent easement for storm sewer facilities connection from Red Rock Drive to Red Rock Lake located between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, or in an alternate location as approved by the City Engineer. 4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of: A. Plans for streets, inclusive of Scenic Heights Road, sanitary sewer inclusive of a permanent lift station, watermains, irrigation systems, 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. B. An executed special assessment agreement with the City which establishes that the Developer agrees that the property shall be assessed for sufficient costs to cover construction of public streets and utilities to service the property within the existing portion of Red Oak Drive abutting the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property and prior to issuance of any permit for construction, or other development activity on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of an agreement which provides for the following: A. A stipulation that all construction vehicles employed by Developer and others shall utilize the access route depicted in Exhibit F, attached hereto and made a part hereof, including, but not limited to, any vehicle utilized by contractors for utilities, contractors for streets, any vehicle utilized for delivery of materials or supplies, and any vehicle utilized by home builders. Said vehicles shall not utilize Lake Shore Drive, nor Summit Drive. The only portion of Red Oak Drive to be utlized by such vehicles shall be that as depicted in Exhibit F, attached hereto. The only portion of Meadowvale Drive to be utilized by such vehicles shall be that as depicted in Exhibit F, attached hereto: B. A stipulation that all sales agreements for all lots on the property shall contain a provision requiring that all future owners of property shall also abide by item A. above, regarding access for any construction vehicles. 6. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property and prior to issuance of any permit for construction, or other development activity on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of a cooperative construction agreement with the owner of the Red Rock View Addition, south of the property, for construction of streets, grading, and utilities within the proposed Red Rock View Addition and providing that the construction of streets, grading, and utilities for development of both projects may be coordinated and completed at the same time. azM"? 7. Concurrent with street and utility construction on the property, Developer agrees to provide for individual access to public sanitary sewer and watermain within Red Rock Drive to the existing houses on Lots 2, 5, and 9, Block 2, and on Lot 4, Block 5, as depicted in Exhibit 6, attached hereto, as part of the construction of said utilities. Within twelve (12) months of completion of said public utilities, or at such time as the existing private utilities fail for said existing houses, which ever occurs first, Developer agrees to connect the existing houses on Lots 2, 5, and 9, Block 2, and Lot 4, Block 5, to public utilities as provided above. Developer further agrees to submit to the Chief Building Official and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of plans for demolition and/or removal of existing wells and septic systems on the property servicing said Lots 2, 5, and 9, Block 2, and Lot 4, Block 5, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said demolition and/or removal shall be performed only in accordance with the approved plans. Prior to demolition or removal, Developers shall provide to the City a certified check in the amount of $1,OD0.00 for each lot to guarantee the restoration of the property to grade. City agrees to return said certified check to Developer after the demolition or removal on the property is completed and after it is verified by City that the well and/or septic systems have been properly removed or demolished, and that the property has been restored to grade. B. Concurrent with street and utility construction on the property, Developer agrees to install a barricade at the northern terminus of Scenic Heights Road. Said barricade shall be constructed to City standards and specifications at the sole expense of Developer. 9. Concurrent with street and utility construction on the property, Developer agrees to construct the following: A. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Scenic Heights Road, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. B. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Red Oak Drive, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer dewalks accordance agreeswith theattermsdand�conditionshoflExhibiton be C, attached hereto. 10. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to install a temporary dead end sign at the temporary terminus of future Scenic Heights Road, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. g73� Exhibit A Legal Description Page 1 of 2 The North 450 feet of the South 850 feet of the West half of Guvernment Lot 1, Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian. and the West 2 rods of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400 feet of the West half of said Government Lot 1, according to the United States Government Survey thereof,Hennepin County,Minnesota. Also That part of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian which lies East of the West 33.00 feet and lying Westerly of the tine described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot I distant 88.00 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1;thence Southerly to a point on the South line of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 distant 74.00 feet Easterly from the Southwest corner of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 and said line there terminating, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County,Minnesota. The South 400 feet of Government Lot 1,Section 16,Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the Filth Principal Meridian,according to the Government Survey thereof,except the West 33 feat of the North 108.50 feet thereof and also except that part of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1, Section 16, Township 116, Range 22, which lies East of the West 33.00 feet and tying Westerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 distant 88.00 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1;thence Southerly to a point on the South line of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot 1 distant 74.00 feet Easterly from the Southwest corner of the North 108.50 feet of the South 400.00 feet of said Government Lot I and said line there terminating. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as followst Commencing at a point in the centerline of County Road No. 4 distant 520.74 feet Northwesterly from the intersection of said centerline with the South line of Section 17; thence Easterly a distance of 330 feet along a line which I!extended would intersect the East line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter at a point distant 517 feet Northerly from the Southeast corner thereof to actual point of beginning; thence Northerly at right angles a distance of 150 feet; thence Westerly at right angles a distance of 368.25 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 4; thence Northwesterly, along said centerline, a distance of 51.7 feet, more or less, to an Intersection with a line running parallel with and distant 200 feet Northerly from the previously described line drawn frog) the point of commencement through the point of beginning to the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and there ending; thence Easterly,along said parallel line,a distance of 691A feet, more or less, to a point 294 feet Westerly from the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;thence Northerly at right angles a distance of 220 feet;thence Easterly at right angles a distance of 306 feet,more or less, to said East line thereof;thence Southerly,along said East line,a distance of 420.6 feet. more or less,to said point distant 517 feet North from the Southeast corner thereof; thence Westerly to said point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as follows: Beginning al the intersection of the centerline of County Road No.4 and a line running parallel with and distant 200 feet North of a line drawn Easterly from a point in said centerline distant 520.74 feet Northwesterly from its intersection with the South line of Section 17 to a point in the East line of Section 17 distant 517 feet Northerly from the Southeast corner thereof and there ending:thence,Easterly along said parallel line,a distance of 691.4 feel, more or less, to a point 294 feet Westerly from said East line;thence Northerly at right angles a distance of 220 feet thence Easterly at right angles to East line thereof;thence Northerly,along said East 9 line, to the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence Westerly, along North line thereof, a distance of 361.t8 feet; thence South, parallel with said East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,a distance of 300.feet;thence West, parallel with the North line thereof, to the centerline of County Road No. 4; thence Southeasterly,along said centerline,to point of beginning,according to the United States • - Government Survey thereof. Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Npreleast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22. described as f,llove: 8 etnning at the Northeast corner of Section 20: thence South along the East line 828.3 feet, thence West and parallel to the North line 300 feet; thence North and parallel to the East line 498.3 feet: thence on a hearing South 80 degrees and no minutes West to the centerline of the Eden Prairie Roadr thence Northwesterly along said centerline to the North line of Section 20, thence East along the North line 777 feet to point of beginning, except the Easterly 300 feet, as measured along the North _line thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. f• • • • ago DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C I. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Watershed District for review and approval. Developer shall follow all rules and recommendations of said Watershed District. II. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the property required by City Code in effect as of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $72D.00 per unit. The amount to be paid by Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent that the City Code is amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the property. III. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within twenty-four (24) months of the date hereof, Developer, for itself, its successors, and assigns, shall not oppose rezoning of said property to Rural. IV. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against owners, their successors, and their assigns of the property herein descri bed. V. Developer represents and warrants that they own fee title to the property free and clear of mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances. VI. Developer acknowledges that Developer is familiar with the requirements of Chapter 11, Zoning, and Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, of the City Code and other applicable City ordinances affecting the development of the property. Developer agrees to develop the property in accordance with the requirements of all applicable City Code requirements and City Ordinances. VII. Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall pay to City fees for the first three (3) years' street lighting on the public streets (including installation costs, if any, as determined by electrical power provider), engineering review, and street signs. VIII. City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any building, structure, or improvement on any land required to be subdivided until all requirements listed above have been satisfactorily addressed by Developer. IX. Developer shall submit detailed watermain, fire protection, and emergency vehicle access plans to the Fire Marshall for review and approval. Developer shall follow all the recommendations of the Fire Marshall. X. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City to performance of obligations of Developer contemplated in this agreement are special, unique, and of an extraordinary character, and that, in the event that Developer violates, or fails, or refuses to perform any covenant, condition, or provision made a2�� herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law. Developer agrees, therefore, that in the event Developer violates, fails, or refuses to perform any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its option, institute and prosecute an action to specifically enforce performance of such covenant. No remedy conferred in this agreement is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy. XI. Any term of this Agreement that is illegal or unenforceable at law or in equity shall be deemed to be void and of no force or effect to the extent necessary to bring such term within the provisions of any such applicable law or laws, and such terms as so modified and the balance of the terms of this agreement shall be enforceable. XII. Developer shall, prior to the commencement of any improvements, provide written notice to Rogers Cablesystems Southwest, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, the franchisee under the City's Cable Communication Ordinance (80-33) of the development contemplated by this Developer's Agreement. Notice shall be sent to Rogers Cablesystems Southwest, 801 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55411. gna ff:gE:: The Private Property Exhibit D 1 • 1,1'1 /.--\\1—: ,, / ii \ • 1 2 " IVIIIL' \.\*S,Q' ' I ) vi I . Ij...) ' ' ,, I !,-. ,\ — ,. : i , I i ' ,,,Ii'••• ' I \\ . ''',1. ( :4•...e.1--..._,...,..... 1 I ,...ejt( '1-c.--"•:.'"--,:„.. .0...3.... ,,....'i \ -7- a 1 1,f ,. , -:..; .„ ,i ,, i \t,, , _ _ -----„, / \ . Iv ( .• ". ; 1 \\ 1 - ---,....„„,_ , p_ • \ • - -• \ _ z-.---.—• *; ... ;;\ \ s, - r, , ..• . -_, •, \\,, 4,:i; .. ,, \ " ,'•,1 :!, \,;\ _,\•\ IV -__,J 4‘. rf ,'.. , ,,,, 1,• i ,I , , . . , • s! s,. \, ..., \41,10, .k ,,'. ?,/,,,, 1 1.7. ::‘,.....„.....„-.7, 11 • A ,, s , 7—.\ —;;.,.., " ,,. ... _014," ;is:1.-i j •: ,.. 7%-,-F1., - , ••, \ ,, ,.di y .1:: ; 7 \ ' - 'Eahmr- . /,.. k• ‘ . ___ ., .... I,- p,- ,, __,„ ....„ i .0.- ....„,,,,..... z Z-Z. • r-ri ., • A‘ gi y,.. .!„..s....,,,„..... :., _,.„./... ram„iip,i_is ill . ,,, i .X-'7.;-e- • -,."---=-;-:-'/-:_:;....--:,:,--,`"'• .-1 4•1.4 '-' 11',ill . ' ,,roi , .;,-... .) '--;-:--:-.-.--3,:z.' 4t,..„fr ..404, ... iii b4. 0 ‘ th.:4) it:1..4\ ., 1 .< 2 ,K-o- . , ' , kik . "a % ‘, ''N, 1(6 . tt // L, / .. g,A i w . -`..- ', ' , -.,..4 % _ _,-, i / ...i L.....4 .. ,\\ .4,1„,....... __ .., / 7, • ----•,.. st•Logn:". --'' s, A ). ....,,km, _ _.. ,tri , 3-111, • iit(l‘k . ..; ' ---- \It..-*Vir ' ,I, <4;‘,"ib•t.,,,,_.12, Ilk i , . • , - 4.I \ '. .• 2141•44,14*"4*- i4C . ' 4 -‘-----, i.• ••• '''',. A* 2 •••" ---., &, ',`‘ __,„..alip•ALtverav;i6grA .4 .Alit,: :.. itt ...... 1 :.--: . / ' \\,-.), 'MINVW4A 'c - 1,,• , . ., ,,4*.?:4:.:v:,,, , !1 '•-.• § • .W-;-...--•••',..\'- mi/et iiii:t• 6., rimsib. - ..-.....-4 ,.. „?.. :7--pastAyovii.-oria-4e,z7Fcal. i . Is• . • .,... ,;_$,, ..,“ \.\ \,.. .,,•,_. ,,„,„.. /, 11 A (1 If i ‘ Il , '--- ,,- -111." 'A, :',1( :-•,,:! .1.1. 1 -1 O / 17, s‘. — ii ;I, • .---, .i 0 i 1111'.;i. '10., „.... --2.:•••• \ R.E' ' 1e21 ., __._ , ' —..1:, t `, • .:... 7/, , i • II / , 14 • i 6-- •` ,., , F. 1 \I 1 Piiii • . . .., i fn. , . .-..,...1. ..• 1 ttil ( '' Y. ) / .'''' ,. fr- ' .._ Exhibit E CONSERVANCY EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE made this day of , by and between and , hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City". WHEREAS, are the fee owners and is the contract purchaser of the real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as: (Insert LEGAL DESCRIPTION here) WHEREAS, is the fee owner of the real property legally described as: (Insert LEGAL DESCRIPTION here) and WHEREAS, Grantors have platted said property into a subdivison entitled and WHEREAS, Grantor and City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to City a conservancy easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation, and to prohibit certain acts destructive thereof, over a portion of the plat legally described as: (Insert LEGAL DESCRIPTION here) NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. Grantor hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to City and its successors and assigns an easement in, under, on and over the Easement Area (hereinafter referred to as the "Conservancy Easement"), and City hereby accepts the Conservancy Easement. 2. The Conservancy Easement is granted and accepted subject to the following terms and conditions: A. The Easement Area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition. No trees, shrubs, or other vegetation shall be removed from the Easement Area without the prior written consent of City. B. No building, road, sign, billboard, utility or other man- made structure shall placed in the Easement Area without the prior written consent of City. C. Grantor assumes the obligation of maintaining the Easement Area, subject to the provisions hereof. D. No trash, waste or other offensive material, soil or landfill shall be placed upon or within the Easement Area without the prior written consent of the City. E. No change in the general topography of the Easement Area landscape, including but not limited to excavation, dredging, movement or removal of soil, shall be made without the prior written consent of the City. F. The duration of the Conservancy Easement is perpetual. 3. This agreement shall bind and insure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns. 4. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of City now held or hereafter acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the Easement Area. (NOTARIZED SIGNATURES OF PROPERTY OWNERS HERE) 4 CONEASE Exhibit F :i:i:i:i:i:i::i:,.:X ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION ROUTE • r.. f I Niz •,. , " 1.-\\,.— ,.,,, • ,. ii NI li\ / f\. \ Il V/ lt, \ f//: c ; i I i , , \ . 'kl, iL.:.,-,-). CNC ' ' '3',1,•:r- >i 7i1 •C'd- 1.•it ,....y . t 1 , \,, t , ?,.. , t - • 4 - I \\\,.., ., -Th........ ., . 1 irt•, , _,. 1., ; .-- -,• .,„ k-•,-,N , ..,... I lit - , - ; • ''.11,(7 1 :i! '.,Lit, , __---:::.:..-7,-......... ...;•'.. I' \,1 t 1 „\ . \ -- • ' ...A::::- \c;:filkterr: 117,/ 01 ii ii,L. 4i- k, - .,, ,i, iliiz if- , ' .,1 ,.% V ' ` I ' IV' - ___,...j ' 1 • 1 Itz, / / / ! , , „., Wiii*Ilia- ' "''•-•! 1. ..0- \N \•1,' i ,I, -A, £: ',/ .....olp - .. , _L..... '. s. •\\k\ : .. . . --,....,;;;;;.,... !fr r - , . . - ci' ,:7_,..,.. •,,,:,-,zi.-..----.,._ri?. ..\-,' drirallAkale 4P 1 1 la t i 1\011 i _ht. t/".1 ,:"-vr-/:,./•?..- ----..... ._ , • l t eliii II 1 Ilk 0 ‘, r.,,,,:•- ., . .„._,im,i,..,..1,*_ 11.1,1 96:.' i 1 , , oi,;,,.1 ,,' ;14, i ,‘, • ••• • 41 / ; . , , , .,,, ‘•,,, 4,,, . ) ..1.--- /,111,VeltHire, . ,•", / / / / ; 1. / ';' ' • '. . 104274,',.,1 . 'we/P.),; ;1_ ,‹. \ ' 4 • :7 \4, T.., .,,, ..t,,,ilt,... ..... -L_-.....,, . i s iy,•,4.-, 41,1111)1 t 1 , . . _ .. g ' • at .\ ": 4,1P. .4.viliwiik ::• . , ' - AwAr ',ft sjik, • .4..itio,"Vitt 4k a --I 3 ;.•1 1 l. • ...,„„..,. , N..\, ;:, .. 1. ,,,,„ „,.....-,—.. tk ,•04....,,, ,,... • .0 0° I i - \.,.., 11,00.,:irii-cAriAr riZz-#1.-.. ,.,- , -. '-•.. • ,„,- .4,,„_, )c, ....; \.• .___. ii ..,„ 4 //1 , ,,.;,,,..,..._4.,) , , .• N.:._, - , . 4).00 sei•NN, [ ,. n 7 i i 1 •,c‘,, ; , , ‘7,/ ,,), /,__N • \.4C, i • N- _ 37 'I- -• o'''°. ;1/fr %b.. • ,.: . \ t l-\\ ‘.. • 7/ -- if ' ,, t\::2 ', •••••-,.. ,//177;7,"., -.1.7,1 , _ 4.. • fi i i / td ''. / li'' (1 i.. • , eTtli& - •••,. .... 6.- „ , , I, I _.--1. . , ..,.. ._ ._ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , I989, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public SCENIC HEIGHTS INVESTMENTS By Its STATE DF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by the of Scenic Heights Investments, a Minnesota general partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Red Rock Shores APPLICATION FOR LAND ALTERATION PERMIT RKA 08313 06-23-89 1. APPLICANT: Name William Gilk (owner) Address 8415 Eden Prairie Road Tel. (Day)941-6104 (Night/Weekends) Contractor Performing Work Unknown Tel. (Day) N/A (Night/Weekends) N/A _ Signature of Applicant 2. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF EXCAVATI R GRADING WORK PROPOSED (ATTACH PLANS) See attached grading plan (06-23-89) . Estimated construction period is 07-05-89 to 10-01-89. Per the City Council approval of the rezoning, the land will be used for single family residences. 3. CITY CODE SECTION APPLICABLE X (11.55) MINING OPERATION AND LAND ALTERATIONS REGULATION (SEE REVERSE) • (11.45) FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE OTHER 4. REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED • X CITY CDUNCIL PLANNING S ZONING COMM. 1C #;i"AWATERSHED DISTRICT PARK S RECREATION COMM. PLANNING DEPT. D.N.R. • BUILDING DEPT. M.P.C.A. CITY ENGINEER 5. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. SEE CITY SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING COMPACTION AND SURFACE RESTORATION OF STREETS IF PERMIT INVOLVES WORK IN CITY STREETS B. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY GRADING WORK. C. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. as e D. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE REASONABLE MEANS TO CONTROL DUST AND SHALL TAKE ACTION TO CONTROL DUST WITHIN 4 HOURS UPON NOTIFICATION BY CITY ENGINEER. E. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EXISTING ACCESS AND HAUL ROADS IN A SAFE AND CLEAN CONOITION. PERMIT HOLDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COSTS OF STREET CLEANING NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THIS WORK. F. FLAGS, FLARES, SIGNS, OR BARRICADES SHALL BE ERECTED TO PROTECT TRAFFIC AND PERSONS AT ALL TIMES. (DAY AND NIGHT) G. STREETS MAY NOT BE CLOSED TO TRAFFIC UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT. H. APPLICANT MUST PRDTECT ALL EXISTING UTILITY INSTALLATIONS. 6. SPECIAL CONDITIONS DF APPROVAL A. HAUL ROADS S.. tx.;d;11 A B. BONDING C.c C S• rTiEA; / 7A .•:;� C. FEE (SEE FEE RESOLUTION) D. COMPLETION DATE E. NUMBER OF WELLS ON SITE METHOD AND FIRM WHO WILL PERFORM CAPPING (ALL WELL CAPPING IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT). F. OTHER 5 A-k-h,t;t A "Any grading, filling, removal of soil, cutting of trees or vegetation, or other land alteration other than as provided in this permit and the plans submitted as a part hereof is expressly prohibited and a violation of the City Code." 7. PERMIT APPROVAL AND AGREEMENT Approved by the City of Eden Prairie By Date The undersigned Permitee understands the terms and conditions of this permit and all applicable City Ordinances and herein agrees to perform such work in conformance thereof. By Date a7u9 • I EXHIBIT A LAND ALTERATION PERMIT RED ROCK SHORES 1. The scope of this permit shall include all grading on the property as described in and in accordance with the grading plan dated June 23, 1989, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, and, with respect to the grading for building pads, excavations for lowest floors, and other related grading, the grading plan dated May 11, 1989, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof. 2. All construction vehicles employed by Permittee and others shall utilize only one construction access to the property from County Road #4 at its intersection with future Scenic Heights Road, as depicted in Exhibit C, attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Access"), and no other. Such vehicles shall include any vehicles utilized by contractors for utilities, contractors for streets, any vehicle utilized for delivery of materials or supplies, any vehicles utilized by home builders, and any vehicles utilized by consultants or designers on behalf of Permittee. 3. Permittee shall allow for others developing the Red Rock View Addition, as depicted in Exhibit C, attached hereto, to utilize the Construction Access for the proposed Red Rock View Addition, so that only one construction access shall exist for both developments. 4. Permittee agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the Construction Access. 5. Prior to grading, construction, or other development activity on the property, Permittee shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain the City Engineer's approval of an executed cooperative construction agreement with the owner of the Red Rock View Addition, south of the property, for grading the proposed Red Rock View Addition and which provides that the grading of both projects may be coordinated and completed at the same time. 6. Permittee shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, removal or cutting of trees on the property. 7. Prior to any grading on the property, Permittee shall submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the Director's approval of, a tree replacement plan for 462 caliper inches of trees in accordance with the following: A. The tree replacement plan shall show the location of the replacement trees. B. Replacement trees shall be planted in one or more of the following areas on the property: 1) Restoration area including steep slopes. 2) Outlots or common areas. a�co Page 2 Red Rock Shores Land Alteration Permit 3) Buffer zones between different land uses and/ur activities. 4) Project entrance areas. C. Replacement trees must be no less than the following sizes: 1) Deciduous Trees - No less than three (3) inches in diameter. 2) Coniferous Trees - No less than eight (8) feet high, provided however, on steep slopes (i.e. greater than 3:1) deciduous trees may be two and one-half (21) inches in diameter and coniferous trees may be six (6) feet in height. D. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species shown on the following table: Deciduous Trees Norway Maple - Acer platanoides cultivars - 'Cleveland' Red Maple - Acer rubrum cultivars - 'Northwood', 'Firedance' Silver Queen Silver Maple (seedless) - Acer saccharinum 'Silver Queen' Sugar Maple - Acer saccharum cultivars - 'Green Mountain' River Birch - Betula nigra Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis Green Ash - Fraximus pennsylvanica cultivars - 'Kindred', 'Newport', 'Bergeson', 'Marshall's Seedless', 'Patmore', 'Summit' Ginkgo - Ginkgo biloba (male only) Honeylocust - Glenditsia tricanthos inermis Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus. Ironwood - Ostrya virginiana White Dak - Quercus alba Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor Pin Oak - Quercus palustris Northern Red Oak - Quercus rubra American Linden - Tilia americana Littleleaf Linden - Tilia cordata cultivars - 'Glenleven' and 'Greenspire' Redmond Linden - Tilia x euchlora Coniferous Trees Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea White Fir - Abies concolor European Larch - Larix decidua Black Hills Spruce - Picea glauca 'Densata' Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra d 7l Page 3 Red Rock Shores Land Alteration Permit { (Coniferous Trees continued) Ponderosa Pine - Pinus ponderosa Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris White Pine - Pinus strobus Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis Colorado Spruce - Picea pungens F. Replacement trees shall be planted no later than November 1, 1990. G. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted shall be removed and a new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of the removed tree. Planning shall occur not later than the first fall or spring following such year. Trees planted in place of removed trees shall consist of nursery stock trees. Permittee shall provide security for the performance of its obligations to comply with this paragraph and paragraph #9, below. The security may consist of a bond, letter of credit, cash or escrow deposit, all in such form and substance as shall be approved by the City Manager. The amount of the security shall be $42,000.00 The security shall be maintained at least for one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted. Upon a showing by the Permitee and such inspection as may be made by the City, that portin of the security may be released by the City equal to the estimated cost of the trees replaced and which are alive and healthy at the end of such year. Any portion of the security not entitled to be released at the end of such year shall be maintained and shall secure the Permitee's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which are not alive or are unhealthy at the end of such year. Upon completion of the replanting of such trees the entire security may be released. 8. Permittee shall implement erosion control measures and adequate protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where grading is not to occur, and Permittee shall obtain City approval of said measures. 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 within the wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property. C. Permittee shall request City to schedule an on-site inspection of the protective measures on the property. A�� Page 4 Red Rock Shores Land Alteration Permit E D. Defects in materials or workmanship as determined by the City, shall be corrected by Permittee and approved by the City prior to commencment of grading on the property. City approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as the City may impose at the time of approval. E. Permittee shall provide security for the performance of its { obligations to comply with this paragraph. The security may consist of a bond, letter of credit, cash or escrow deposit, all in such form and substance as shall be approved by the City Manager. The amount of security shall be $11,000.0D. 9. Permittee has submitted to the Director of Planning and obtained the Director's approval of a tree inventory of those trees within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, which are not planned to be removed by construction on the property as approved by City, indicating the size, type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level. If any trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area, Permittee shall, prior to issuance of any building permit for the property; Submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a ! reforestation plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the replacedstbyction similarrea. Said tree speciesan andhall thatithecate treeshat usedhe forrees shall be reforestation shall be no less than three inches in diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by the Director of Planning, using a diameter inch basis, according to a cross sectional cut through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Permittee shall implement the approved reforestation plan. The security described in paragraph 7., above, shall also secure Permittee's I obligations under this paragraph 9. 10. Permittee shall not, and shall not allow others to, bury trees, stumps, brush, or construction debris on the property. 1 I 1 1 ags5 Exhibit C 't :i:i::.::i:i:i:.i: ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION ROUTE momm.: RED ROCK VIEW ADDITION I •.• ,. 1 :' t t C.S.11.- .2:AN' 1`..' 1 ' / . I ':.' .'.. :,'....:,..,,, .4,,.,-s•(\ '. ' i ,,-2, ;Pii....2•:......: l i ,i ., j.\ ) ; . . , It- ",.-,i->-!..I**,,.- ..., .4,0,.... "...,:li i A i , •..-....,- 54-, .... .00.000'... It Ill 44‘` . ...1/ li' ' 1 )• , , ,,'',A.144100$0**.t. ' ZE4't- 7 ' 1 ,—,'7 ., ?.?.:ir------'<-- --.....-.-4-•:. 00,04040441410i4,.- -....013PN.. ..., ( , .1. . . , \ ...., , . ..... .:.:,.. 04,,.$0 .., 4'0• 1 ... n i .• • '4'. ' ' ' • :::1KWAVS•ikli;t0,4114. ti A,.'I----1,----.:-..., 1r t 44 004***$40•00\4* s - - '. jer/ .--: 1 — ":. ,, -. :\*- 44‘00.4,4%Wak s'k /. ` A,Afilt \ opt ‘ N r.kAt.sym ! .„ // i vir ....._. ., , ; .• i iy.,. .../..._....., . 11. .. , •; :0_0_ e .:......,. .. t :, r 1IJ _Atsmp , .. , 1.-3.... k„NI / ./ 'lis,.. A kit 1.• 4 , • ,\ : t A.• ...., ,, _., .i., \M‘ . .V. ./....KSPillibi ...,... .11'4:4„. __.. ... A ,C ::..... r ,., ...\ ,...ii ...-7,-.,......... mew ,... i; b • 1 g 1 II / jjj . -\\‘''\‘ '. ' V 44:2i.:4.1.'—' .1,./7 • 41::.,11 ) is p --- .r=-; • _ iia.‘„.... ..,,---.),,,,„.„,:.. .. A ! , , 1-;,14,7.,tv.,:v-tfeispr-4, 1. •„ ,, <.!\ , . • : "",lons --,„.- goi t iir --. •-•1/111144:::. n . • .., g '‘ • .. .. 14.1440Z1 a 1_,:...'' 1 \t4A4 .,./0 N. A .. • I „ , .. _• ,_ „,,,,........„,..„....._.,. . 1 _ ..... _ ,.• ,. 4, \ .teC a,\ _ , . ,.. ': • IF, 1". 4,74111 ' :41,0, \\.\.,• ."-1111111,0„„.0."... lk 14113 .: t?' ‘. a .. • o .<, i . .i(__ .,, ' ,---- lit.),4 P,A)//70,74 , tOf 1,,,,, If A r;• . 9 5-7- -.• Ifrhkik '46—......,444140'. • • • \'''' -,,-, ., ,M11,1000P20,„, ..._001%.00.- / ,.-/./../" „Rt.,: ‘ i / \ ""..', 7 ' k .17 It : .\ ‘, , ..„„isiiiiiiti , •- 1 ' ',,...-----C‘^ 1 tl •0 ....:..,.. V 's - . , A ep +0 i . ..: a k f i `,..,,,/ j • ' 1 ' 24:00 II ..• III I :''N'! AL •, , . \ 1 ' •i '.... / ko \(‘ V ; \'; l' Pr -•.-- 00011.1 1011}fr • j .. :11'/.::/ \ \ 1 i_._.., ., 4 -----, • , , : ,0 ,_ -„•:.- • • - ( '• ' . 0/ _ •:.i'' , • 214 . ,.0-4.:4 .,. ; \ .• •---.„ II / 'n /. l.'s 5\ ) , \ 1 • .1. ..‘a.• , • ••••••- • / •J s, I, / .1 64 I.///1. /ILL s il '' I ?'. . .: • ii V., / .0 bi • .NI 1 .% k El It II a . 1) I 1 . i • _.,,.-1--, • " , • ...4 i •''— )'.I • g BAr . Red Rock Shores CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-214 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE -89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13-B9 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of October, 1989; 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. 13-89, 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 non-pareil, or six-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. 13-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph 8 herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on October 13, 1989., Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: ass Red Rock Shores • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 13-89 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 ADDPTING 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: Sum�mar_ This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of County Road #4, west of Red Rock Lake, north and east of Lakeshore Drive, from the R1-22 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 , 1989. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) g3Sto 1 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E. Director of Public Works DATE: September 28, 1989 RE: Grading Permit for Red Rock Shores Enclosed in the Council Packet is a copy of the proposed grading permit for the Red Rock Shores subdivision, which includes exhibits describing the conditions that would be imposed. As per our discussions at Council Meeting, the issue of environmental damage and subsequent tree replacement require- ments are a part of the land alteration permit process. Accordingly, most of the exhibits to the proposed permit deal with tree replacement items. Also, included in your package of information, is a memorandum from Stuart Fox, City Forester, that summarizes his investigation of the site and the signifi- cance and importance of replacing the vegetation destroyed through the grading process. The grading plan that was submitted by the proponent for the land alteration permit is dated June 23, 1989. This grading plan does not show grading on some of the individual lots as was shown on a previous plan dated May 11, 1989. Through our review of these grading plans, the Staff recognizes that proper grading can be accomplished and provide for adequate drainage, etc. However, at this time we do not have an ultimate grading plan of the entire site. While we understand that the Developer will not be grading each of the individual lots, it is clearly contemplated that they will be graded during its development and building process, therefore it is imperative that we have a grading plan that shows how the grading will be accomplished as a guideline when reviewing individual plans for housing permits. In other words, a master plan has to be devised so that each piece will fit correctly in place as the project develops. In summary, Staff recommends that the land alteration permit be approved subject to the exhibits as attached and prior to release of the permit: Receipt of a final grading plan for the entire site, (to be approved by the City Engineer) including individual lots, in conformance with the grading plans dated June 23 and May 11, 1989. EAD:ssa a�s� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources] DATE: September 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Woodland Evaluation of Proposed Red Rock Shores Subdivision INTRODUCTION: In April of 1988, I put together a paper on the value of trees/forest lands (see attached copy). In that paper, I brought forth a number of ideas regarding the value of trees, in particular, urban forested areas. In the text of this paper, I cited that people tend to place trees into one of three categories; that of sensory, instrumental or symbolic. Trees, as sensory features, would include the treed landscape, ornamental value, sound, and/or visual screening; all of which tend to soften the hardness of the urban setting. Instrumental values of trees include the shade they provide, protection of the environment (soil, slopes, etc.), fruits, shelter, and recreation. For a tree to have symbolic value, it is generally regarded in light of some recognizable feature such as affiliation with a particular neighborhood, ie. "Kings Forest", or social when specifically planted to improve the character of a neighborhood that lacks trees. Following that statement, I went on to evaluate in much greater detail the uses and benefits of the urban forest. When looking at raw woodlands, the most common things that come to peoples minds is their aesthetic value as far as their natural beauty, or their wildlife value for the animals and birds which they provide homes, cover, and food for. However, one cannot forget the important benefits that trees provide in climate improvement. The benefits that trees provide for our benefit include the production of oxygen, the reduction of wind turbulence, the interception of rainfall for preventing erosion, the addition of organic material to the soil, and the ability to trap airborne particles such as dust and pollen. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF RED ROCK SHORES WOODLAND AREA; In consulting the soil survey for Hennepin County, the woodland soils for the Red Rock Shores site are of the Esterville series, which makes them fairly well drained soils of sandy loam material. Native vegetation for these particular soil series includes former prairie grass, as well as thin stands of oak with underbrush. According to the County soil survey, Esterville soils have low availability of moisture due to their shallow depth. Root development is confined to the surface and immediate subsoil layers and the fertility level is generally low. az,Y The site index for trees found on this particular series is between 45 and 55 for members of the oak family. Site index indicates the height that a tree would attain at an interval of 50 years of age. Meaning on this particular site, you expect oak trees to attain a 45 to 55 foot height at 50 years of age. Also noted in the information from the soil survey is that plant competition on these particular soils is moderate and woodland areas would include extensive brush and under growth. The wildlife habitat potential of woodlands on these soils is rather low for upland game such as pheasants, rabbits and squirrels, but does provide moderately good habitat for big game animals such as deer. TREE SURVEY OF RED ROCK SHORES: In order to provide a comprehensive inventory of the wooded area in the Red Rock Shores Subdivision, it was necessary to first ascertain exactly how much wooded area was on the site. Utilizing information provided by the developer, which showed the tree line of the woods in area "A", I was able to calculate the total wooded area in this particular portion of the site as being 5.2 acres. In order to inventory the trees contained within this particular area, it was necessary to first, calculate what percent of the area should be sampled and second, select the best inventory method to use to tally the total number of trees and diameter inches within this particular woodland area. Based on experience and recommendations from the U. S. Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, a 20% random survey was selected to take the inventory of these trees. Basically, to do a random survey in this area you would establish sampling plots of a known size throughout the woodland area in an attempt to inventory the widest and most complete diversity of trees within the area. Since the area was 5 acres in size, a 20% random survey of the site meant the inventory of 10, one tenth (1/10) acre plots throughout the area. These sample plots would be located along a traverse line that would run through the central interior of the wooded areas in an attempt to stay clear of any man caused influences such as lawns and driveways that have been cleared in at least two portions of this site. One additional note is that the locations of the tenth acre plots were determined in the office prior to going into the area, so that we were not biased or influenced by the trees we saw. On September 8, 1989, Wayne Estenson and I went to the Red Rock Shores site and conducted a 20% random survey using tenth acre plots to accumulate inventory data. A one-tenth acre plot has a radius of 37.2 feet. A center was established for each of the ten plots and a tape measure stretched out to the correct distance and an arch swung in a counter clock wise direction. All trees of one inch diameter or greater were counted noting the particular size and species of the tree. This inventory took approximately three and one half hours to complete. Once the data was gathered, we returned to the office and totalled all the data that we had on our inventory sheets. The totals for this inventory are as follows: TREE INVENTORY TOTALS No. of Trees Over 1" Total Diameter inches Buckthorn 735 1,561" Hackberry 43 286" Boxelder 37 197" Basswood 22 263" Elm 5 29" Black Cherry 9 62" Bur Oak 36 429" Red Oak 7 52" Green Ash 3 14" Ironwood 8 45" Sugar Maple 63 264" 968 trees 3,202 dia inches Based on the tree inventory totals, there are approximately 970 trees over one inch in diameter with a total of 3,200 diameter inches on a one acre parcel of land within these woodlands. General field observations that were made during the inventory process included noting that the cover type for this area was quite diverse depending on which portion of the site we were on. The major tree present throughout the entire area was bur oak, but depending on which area of the site we were on the understory portion included either buckthorn, sugar maple, hackberry, or boxelder. In addition, a number of large elm stumps were noted indicating that several large elm trees have been removed from the site in previous years, most likely due to Dutch elm disease. There were also indications that there had been some human impact on the areas as evidenced by numerous broken bottles, numerous tree stumps (non elm), piles of debris, and old fence lines that we crossed. The additional inventory data sheet attached shows the breakdown of trees five inches and larger. This data is shown on an inventory sheet used by the U. S. Forest Services, North Central Experimental Station. This tally form indicates that there are 111 trees over 5" in diameter with a total number of 1,131 diameter inches. If you break it down even further the total number of significant trees, as defined our Tree Preservation Policy as those trees over 12 inches in diameter, is 32 trees for a total of 539 diameter inches. When you take the total tree/diameter numbers gathered from the tree inventory and project them out in the other direction to estimate the total number of stems and diameter inches for the 5.2 acres, you come up with 5,034 trees (over 1") with an accumulated diameter total of 16,650 inches. If you look at the significant trees over twelve inches in diameter, the totals would be 166 trees with a total of 2,803 diameter inches. 764 Another way of looking at these totals is by percentage. Using the grand totals, significant trees represent 3% of all the trees on the site over one inch in diameter and 17% of the total diameter inches on the site. EVALUATING THE RED ROCK SHORES PROJECT FOR TREE LOSS: Reviewing the staff report dated April 21, 1989 from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission, the staff calculated that the significant tree loss would be approximately 1,041 diameter inches. This loss was calculated based on the grading of both the street and proposed building pad sites. In general, the major factors that the staff looks at when evaluating tree loss include: major grade changes in and around the trees; loss of trees due to building pads; and any additional public utilities such as watermains, gas, power, telephone, cable TV, and storm drainage that would utilize any lot line utility easements. (See attached memos dates August 4, 1988 & August 25, 1988, which detail construction impact.) In evaluating the loss due to building pad, the City has allowed a 10% reduction in anticipated tree loss for those trees specifically located within the building pad site. This credit is to encourage/allow for custom design and special building techniques employed by builders in an effort to save additional trees. Utilizing this anticipated tree loss data, the staff then applied it to the Tree Preservation Policy and arrived at a tree replacement calculation of 462 caliper inches of trees. The staff feels that this is a reasonable number of diameter inches to replace in lieu of the potential number of trees and corresponding diameter inches of trees that could be lost due to grading and home construction within this woodlands. To illustrate this, I have made additional calculations based on the tree inventory summary. Utilizing our initial calculations for tree loss, I have estimated that a total of 1.9 acres of woodlands would be disturbed (removed in part or total) with either the construction of the roads or future building of homes on the designated pad sites. (See attached plan.) By taking that 1.9 acre figure and multiplying it times the tree inventory totals per acre you come up with the following: Total Trees Over 1" 1,843 Total Diameter Inches of Trees Over 1" 5,664" Significant Trees 61 Diameter Inches of Significant Trees 1,024" These totals correspond rather closely with those of the staff report when looking at the total number of significant tree diameter inches that are anticipated to be lost. The one major factor that is brought out using this set of calculations is that the significant trees represent 18% of the total number of diameter inches on this particular area, and in actuality there are five times the number of diameter inches that could be lost on the site due to development without mitigation throuqh the Tree Preservation Policy. When you look at the percentage for the Red Rock Shores project, you'll notice that the 462 inches of replacement represents 45% of the anticipated significant trees to be lost on the site. An even more startling comparison is when you put that replacement figure against the total number of diameter inches lost, then the tree replacement is only 8% of the total diameter inches that could be removed. SUMMARY: Whenever the staff evaluates a proposed subdivision that includes woodland areas, it is done with the understanding that the urban forest is of high value to the citizens of this community. The uses and benefits that the trees represent to those who own, use, or observe is sometimes over simplified or ignored, but that does not reduce their importance. An evaluation such as the one was done for Red Rock shores Subdivision gives us a firm understanding of just much how plant material is contained per acre on wooded sites. In looking at the Red Rock Shores Subdivision, it is important to note that there are over 5,000 trees with a diameter over 1" on the site with an accumulated diameter total of 16,650 inches. The potential number of trees in terms of diameter that could be removed due to road and future home construction is estimated at 5,600 diameter inches, with the significant trees representing 1,024 inches of that total. Mitigation through tree replacement results in the planting of 462 caliper inches of trees back onto this site. I hope that the data and observations that have been included in this memo will give everyone a clear understanding related to development of subdivisions within woodland areas. SAF:mdd Is gG(9N PREPARED BY: Stuart A Fox April 1988 VALUE OF TREES/FOREST LANDS In 1972, the Society of American Foresters initiated an Urban Forestry Working J Group. That body put together the following statement: l "Urban forestry is a specialized branch of forestry that has, as its objective, the cultivation and management of trees for their present and potential contribution to the physiological , sociological, and economic well being of urban society. Inherent in this function is a comprehensive program designed to educate the urban populace on the role of trees and related plants in the urban environment. In its broadest sense, urban forestry embraces a multi-managerial system that includes municipal watersheds, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities, landscape design, recycling of municipal wastes, tree care in general, and the future production of wood fiber as a raw material." If we examine this statement and expand on the ideas that are presented within it, the value of the urban forest in relation to today's society, its attitudes, perceptions, and expectations become evident. Many people tend to place trees into three categories: sensory, instrumental, and symbolic. Trees, as sensory features, would include the landscape, ornamental value, sound, and/or visual screening, all of which tend to soften the hardness of the urban setting. Instrumental values of trees include the shade they provide, protection of the environment (soil, slopes, etc.), fruits, shelter, and recreation. For a tree to have symbolic value, it is generally regarded in light of some recognizable feature such as a particular neighborhood, i.e., "Kings Forest", or social when specifically planted to help improve the character of a neighborhood that lacks trees. While these three categories are simple, they do not expound on many areas of value related to the urban forest. I feel it would be helpful to examine urban trees considering the following areas: Uses and Benefits of the Urban Forest Many people in the city look to their trees for shade, beauty, and increased property values. These benefits are taken for granted but additional uses and benefits are there, many of them not known to urban residents. The first of these benefits that trees provide is CLIMATE AMELIORATION (improvement). Trees can affect the climate of a yard area by modifying solar radiation, which results in the modification of various climatic conditions. Plants can change the yard/home environment by: Intercepting summer sunlight preventing the heat up of lawns, roofs and hard surface areas such as driveways. Reducing the ambient summer temperature through loss of water (transpiration) by tree leaves. Channel cool breezes during the summer to ventilate warm areas and buildings. Shield buildings from high winds, which infiltrate poorly insulated walls or windows during periods of cold temperature. Reduce wind turbulence, especially during winter snowstorms, which improves driving visability conditions and affects snow drifting in yards and roadways. Additional wind break benefits include: minimizing wind erosion, reduction of destructive wind velocities, and improve yard and parkland conditions for other plants, people, and animals. Trees not only intercept sunlight but also intercept rainfall. A tree canopy can slow the descent of intense rainfall during a thunderstorm lessening the chances for soil erosion. Slowing runoff increases the rate of infiltration into the soil based on tree cover type, soil organic matter, topography, and intensity and type of precipitation. The second major area where trees enhance the urban environment is in the area of ENGINEERED USAGE. One of the major uses in this area is noise abatement or sound attenuation. The foliage of trees has the ability to absorb, deflect, and even reflect sound depending on the type of treeiplant, the climatic conditions, the type of sound (intensity, decibel level, etc.), and relationship between a sound source and the receiver of the sound. Plant height and foliage density are additional factors in determining the effectiveness of a plant to modify sound levels. A second area that is being studied further is the ability or the role of trees in reducing air pollution. It has been shown that trees reduce the amount of airborne particles near factories by interception, however, reduction of gaseous pollutants needs further study to draw solid conclusions. The last area of engineering usage for trees is glare reduction. Trees planted along roadways or adjacent to homes can effectively cut sun or car headlight glare making it easier for drivers to see the road during daylight hours, or reducing the nuisance glare that strays into homes from car headlights during night time hours. • Because trees are dynamic, they have wide reaching applications when you consider ARCHITECTURAL USES. Since woodlands by themselves are areas of great beauty and diversity, trees will compliment homes built within a woodland rather than detract for its design. Whether planted or naturally occuring, trees can enrich any site when you consider that they can be used to define spaces, provide screening, create privacy, and accent the style and form of any building. These uses center around a tree's color, shape, form, texture, and line; in other words, the esthetics of a tree or plant. Being dynamic, a tree's appearance changes with the seasons and throughout their lives. In addition to architectural uses, trees also have a wide variety of ESTHETIC USES. Trees and plants produce shadow patterns that constantly change throughout the day and year. The rustling sounds and sight of wind blown leaves can be a real pleasure to experience while walking or sitting. Woodland areas, as building sites, are very desirable because of the natural architectural potential to compliment any structure built within the confines of the woods. In short, trees have ARCHITECTURAL USES which include both existing and planted trees. They can be used to define spaces, for screening, to create privacy and accent lines and form of a home or building. Many of these uses center around the various esthetics of plants including their colors, textures, lines, size, shape, form, and growth rate. The role of a tree can be singular or collective since it is our perception of them which judges their effectiveness in the landscape. Since trees are dynamic their appearance changes from season to season and throughout their lives which enables us to enjoy and utilize them in our landscapes for decades. In many ways, ESTHETIC USES of trees are the same as architectural uses; however, there are many subtle additions when you consider a tree's esthetic value. First, if you plant enough trees, you can, over time, create a "natural forest." The mass planting of trees within parklands or farmland plantations can create the beauty of a woodland forest over a period of years. Additional esthetic conditions that trees give us are; the sounds created by wind blowing through leaves and needles at different velocities, the shadow patterns of trunks, branches, and leaves on a sunny day, the birds and animals associated with various trees and plants, and bring interest and beauty with flowers and fruit clusters at various times of the year. While the list of uses is rather lengthy, there are a few ADDITIONAL USES which include recreation and educational values. Trees provide places for kids to play, observe, and learn about nature. They are indicators of history and climatic events, and they can evoke memories of other times, places, or feelings, in people who encounter them. Trees have physical beauty, familiar sounds, are interesting to touch, and fragrance. It would be very different indeed if trees were not present in our cities and towns. The value and benefits of trees in the area of RECREATION and WILDLIFE have been known for many years. This is documented by the large number of urban residents who seek the woodlands and the activities and pleasures they offer. Unfortunately, too many people become dependent on the urban park for their woodland contact and don't realize the differences and contrasts that are present between urban and rural forest areas. The urban forest is especially accessable to the elderly, very young, the handicapped, and those too poor to travel outside their neighborhood or city. Combine this convenience factor with the new emphasis on health and physical activity, and parklands and nature preserves serve a rather substantial population of those living in urban areas. Use of the urban forest can be active or passive, involve structured activities or random unprepared visits and activities. In short, the uses and potential uses of a park within the urban forest is unlimited. Economic Values of Urban Trees While all the previous uses and benefits of trees are important when they meet or exceed our expectations we must realize that trees also have economic value. This value can be calculated in five different ways - maintenance cost, replacement cost, wood product value, preservation cost, and shade tree/property value. Each method can be used to establish a relative value of a tree; however, it is necessary to determine which scenario represents the best use for the tree. For example, a large oak tree 25 inches in diameter that was located in a park might cost $300 to prune every 5 years, and if it has been pruned 3 times, the maintenance cost would be $900. Replacement cost on the tree would not be feasible since the tree is too large to be replaced with one of similar size. The estimated wood product value of the tree is approximately $I,5D0 since it contains 3 veneer quality LiAgOS logs in its trunk. Value based on preservation costs for the tree would be little or none since no formal measures would be taken to protect the tree from potential lightning or wind damage. While the tree is large and magnificent it has nominal value with regard to being an asset toward the property value. Since there are a considerable number of trees in the park, it is their sum total which gives value to the property and a single tree represents only a small portion of the tree/property value. Therefore, in this example, the best use value would be the wood products value of $1,500. However, if you placed the same tree on a single family lot, with a home, it would have a different value. Appraisal Method Value Compared with Park Value Maintenance Costs $ 900 Same Replacement Costs $1,600 Higher-could be replaced with 8, 3- inch trees @ 200 each Wood Product Value $2,000 Same Preservation Costs $5,000 Higher-cost of lightning protection and cabling Tree/Property Value $9,000 Higher In this scenario, the tree has its highest value as an asset to the value of the property. This method of valuation was developed by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) which was formed by members from five agency/professions which work with trees. They included the International Society of Arboriculture, American Society of Consulting Arborists, National Arborists Association, American Society of Nurserymen, and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America. The result of their work was to establish a value for trees based on its contribution to the value of the property on which it is located. The method of valuation takes into consideration the tree specie, its condition, and location of the tree, and multiplies the percentage factor for each of these criteria times the base value of a tree based on its diameter/base value. It needs to be noted that while it requires extensive knowledge and experience of trees to apply this method properly, it is an easily documented fact that a home with a treed lot sells for a higher price than an equivalent home on a lot void of trees. Tree value to property is also recognized by the Internal Revenue Servie since casualty losses are deductible from a person's taxable income. Casualty loss of trees can include storm, fire, flood, accident, and vandalism. The test of this type of loss is that it was a loss of property due to a sudden identifiable event which results in partial or total destruction. An appraisal of the property before and after the event is usually necessary to document such a loss. The urban forest is of high value to its residents. The uses and benefits that • trees represent to those who use and observe them is sometimes over-simplified or ignored, but that does not reduce their importance. We all need to be reminded that trees are silent giants that need our care and efforts if they are to remain healthy and an instrumental part of our urban environment. We all enjoy the benefits they offer and need to be aware of their needs and requirements to remain healthy. After all, it was the Lorax in a Dr. Seuss' book who said, "I am Lorax. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. And I'm asking you sir, at the top of my lungs, unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." This is an important message that we need to remember. If we value and enjoy trees in the urban environment, they are going to need our help. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THRDUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Man D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: September 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Red Rock Shores PRDPOSAL: Scenic Heights Investment, Inc. has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Red Rock Shores. The plat is located east of County Road 4 and west of Red Rock Lake in the south half of Section 17. The plat consists of 22.87 acres to be divided into 15 single family lots, 3 outlots and right-of-way dedication for roadway purposes. Outlots A, B and C contain 4.95, 3.04 and 0.10 acres respectively. Outlots A and C will be conveyed to the City, while ownership of B will be retained by the Developer for future development. • HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on June 20, 1989, per Resolution No. 89-104. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-89, changing zoning from Rural to RI- 22 is scheduled for final approval by the City Council October 3, 1989. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution October 3, 1989. • VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed by the Developer in conformance with City Standards. Reference is herein made to specific items within the Developer's Agreement, these items list conditions to be met by the Developer prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property and are summarized as follows: a. Conveyance to the City of Outlots A and C. b. Conveyance to the City of an easement at the northwest corner of the private property as depicted in Exhibit B of the Developer's Agreement. • c. Dedication to the City of conservancy easements located along the rear of Lots 1 through 9, Block 2, and to be shown graphically on the final plat with the notation "drainage easements for conservation purposes". 0. i�3 Sc-a" eP.lCO CtsQ 111 p 1 Y 1 _ - • • s - - a v0 R ►u A ib,coinvl..,av-v,Mao uo 3 , ) S 0 Q( \ az=1 tr, N��1 �m 1 ��/ �J[ 1 ua'( 1 Q V• O JW I N r. O_ IA ex 1 1 u 1 . 2 1 a 1 1 a I 1 • 1 , 1 m> 1 cr I o$ 1 _ UZ I W W n I'm 1 m u = i Nm a N . J .N'm Y . -3 I I/ W 1 F2 N / r W J ; _ mN h W 12.H u- . N ./1 1 4U1 ¢oi.W 1 iV U> p pt tU" W I g3 el MO e. 1a 11 :'a t-J, 3N Jill i\irNJ l�`e-,l l�N-�f'O-J`.�TW1-co J • �^ IT' Z 14 w 1 W : G I Ir LL< .. 00 INNtN 0o-N N� ri • a ; l co p0 W <0. 1 • usa' N tl < , W 1 2 > Aio I OrmJ-nNOMNN NI.1`N2.7O;,Y1 e A A ± ,... O it P1 a s _ N N 1 W • N .. m F. '4 pp > au m a • 1/1 ; � ire < $ 1 Qa a aW N yu i s W FM a W mW�WOaW 00 et 1 1 1 1 Wm.m3m v W tiN amSmSNmS J A FII JJJWIJ i 'vlO .1Yy0m VF G —0 `Q 1[04.j6GN � N 0 I I I Z lJ 0- — — r4 N cb N ' - A N c�/�/ 1 1 1 1 I N � 9D1�0 ad- - � � N [A MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Enger. Director of Planning FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Environmental Services Manager DATE: August 25, 1988 SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Evaluation of Construction Sites In order to evaluate the impact that new construction has on a tree(s) it is necessary to establish some basic guidelines. While it can be difficult to be all inclusive for all situations, there are some basic criteria that will be used to determine whether or not a tree has been "saved" during the construction process. These evaluation factors include, but are not limited to, grade changes, root destruction, mechanical injury to trunk or major limbs, and root zone soil compaction. Trees which suffer the following damages, either individually or in combination with others, will be counted as lost during the inspection of a project following the initial grading, road construction, utility work and house pad preparation. 1. Grade changes of greater than one (1) foot which affect 60% or more of the root zone area. (The root zone is the area under a tree which is at and within the drip line of a tree's canopy). 2. Utility construction (sewer, water, storm sewer,_ power, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV) which results in the cutting of 60% or more of the roots within the root zone. 3. Mechanical injury to the trunk of a tree which caused major bark damage and loss (40% or more). The trunk of a tree is the stem portion from the ground to the first branch. 4. If 60% or more of the soil within the tree's root zone has been compacted to a depth of six (6) inches or greater due to construction equipment, miscellaneous construction traffic, stockpiling of dirt or parking of personal vehicles. There may be other factors that could affect the status of a tree such as disease, climatic conditions (time of year when injured) and general health prior to construction that are difficult to include as clear-cut evaluation factors. These criteria will be additional considerations when doing the tree preservation inspection of a site. • SAF:mdd a7 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Uram, Planning Assistant ��ry FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Environmental Services Manager DATE: August 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Construction Impact of Trees/Woodlands In order to evaluate how trees will be impacted or lost due to construction activity, it is necessary to consider the following: - Tree Size/Age - The larger the tree is in diameter the older it is and the lower its tolerance to major changes ie. construction damage. - Tree Species - Trees, like humans, respond differently to stresses placed on them due to construction activity. The following is a list of tree sensitivities based on personal experience: Sensitive to Extremely Sensitive Trees Oak - Spruce Black Locust Pine Sugar Maple Cherry Red Cedar Ironwood Moderately Sensitive Trees Hickory Aspen Hackberry Arborvitae Green Ash Basswood Butternut Elm Walnut Tolerant Trees Boxelder Cottonwood Silver Maple Catalpa - Grade Change/Root Loss - The dripline of a tree crown is an indicator of the minimum distance to which a tree's root system extends. The more of a tree's root system that is impacted by grading (cuts or fills) or utility trenching, the higher the chances of the tree suffering dieback or death. Grade changes also influence drainage patterns which effect the amount of water/nutrients available for a tree's usage. - Soil Compaction - Activities that increase the bulk density of soils in the root zone area of a tree are harmful. Soil compaction caused by soil stockpiles, construction equipment, and personal vehicles squeezes out pore space (passageways) in soils which are necessary for water and oxygen to reach tree roots. d�370 - Trunk Damage - Mechanical damage to the trunk of a tree destroys the transportation system of a tree. Water cannot flow upward to tree leaves and food produced by leaves is unable to reach the tree roots causing them to die from starvation. The larger the percentage of the trunk circumference damaged the greater the likelihood of dieback or death. In order to fairly evaluate the impact that a construction project will have on a woodland area, it is necessary to consider each of these factors along with any possible combination of factors. The biggest problem with construction damage is that it occurs over a relatively short period of time (1/2 to 1 year); however, the tree's reaction and adjustment takes place over several years. This adjustment can include minor dieback of branches or a steady decline of the tree's health. Factors which determine the tree's reaction include its size, age, specie, food reserves, growth rate, ability to compartmentalize the damage, time of year damaged, climatic conditions, and susceptibility to insect or disease problems. In general, but certainly not limited to, the factors which are most damaging to a tree are massive root loss and soil compaction. Therefore, when evaluating the impact of a project on trees/woodlands, it is necessary to carefully examine the soil cuts/fills, potential for compaction and root loss associated with utility and road construction. The areas of close examination, during project review, should include the front yard and building pad perimeter. These are the areas which impact the trees to the greatest extent due to root damage and compaction of soils. In general, if it appears that greater than 7D% of the root system is going to be affected, large mature trees should be removed prior to home construction. If 4D-70% of the root system is going to be affected the tree will need remedial treatment (crown thinning and root fertilization). When less than 40% of the root zone is affected the tree will normally adapt, but careful examination in future years should be done to detect any signs of decline. One additional reality involving trees whose root systems are cut during construction is their susceptibility to wind throw during summer storms. Woodland trees are usually protected by the crown mass which sheds wind in a uniform manner, however, clearing areas for roads and house pads combined with root loss increases the chances that a tree will be uprooted by a wind storm. In conclusion, the tree loss evaluation of a proposed woodland subdivision needs to be comprehensive in nature while allowing for flexibility in home site location in order to protect/preserve the character of the woodland. The best plan includes a comprehensive program of protective measures and safeguards which addresses the potential impact on the trees and realizes their requirements for growth and continued health. The reality of development today is that it is highly mechanized and costs are climbing each day. The faster that a development goes from raw land to occupied homes the lower the cost and the higher the investment return. However, in order to protect their investment, developers should include tree protection measures such as protective fencing, use of root pruning, root fertilization, and pre or post construction canopy pruning techniques to assist trees that will be impacted by adjacent construction. The preservation plans also need to be communicated to the workers on each construction site. Without communication, implementation and enforcement tree preservation plans will not work. Discussions with the staff, Commissions and City Council, combined with the requirements detailed by a Developer's aB�l • Agreement are necessary, but communication/education of the workers on the construction site is the final step to insure that trees are given the best F possible environment for continued health and enable them to survive the d impact of construction damage. SAF:mdd • • q W , 41, 1. 7{�aA �e • i ro W WW �C* t ';" cM 74 \ ! d4d I. 2 cv ip -�w , . y�'����,l'' t, ` U L. Awx " ''''1' fi''''••••••'',::-.:','' ':t•1 1 i . '.., IN, 140O1.1 `, �.. ON 1 , ., -, ^; ,\COI I1 , ar I9/. • 1 WJ .......o 1 7 , \ Co lk „y` y',j 1`\ > Q `i ce .. co ,- I k ..4 pig.,„.„... ---— v ,.. :,•;,) 1 - 1 3 ) \ .. u.1 . ,mic 1,„„.. ,/...., , . ,,, ,,,, \ o ]Cilk s it,I d d ,a • 0 • y 1. 6 BAD V% /W\0w.?/ +��11 'C i 0 `4,' .-.t. ,,...,.., ., . ,.-40,40 -1, ......, ....,...„1,',' ,,,,i, 8 i E -., - . 4 In CC % ',,," •. : it , ..--' • .1 ita.... ... - CO h i rF 0 cli •_ -n„ 4 l % l`® '79' C * ; ilk/4 r,.•;4' •::'.''',i 4. •W il 7 Y':.. ' IP """' . • ' a3 i. ��, C C. MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: June 15, 1989 RE: RED RDCK SHORES At the June 6, 1989, City Council meeting, the Red Rock Shores project was continued to allow Staff time to review a new road alignment and calculate the associated tree 1 oss. A revised plan, depicting the relocation of Red Oak Drive approximately 16/ feet to the east was submitted for Staff review on June 15, 1989. The primary reason for the road relocation was to allow Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, to meet the minimum Code requirements of the R1-22 zoning district. As a result, the building pad depths on Lots 1-4, Block 2 have been reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet. Because the average building pad depth adjacent significant natural site features is 70 feet, variances from the 150 foot shoreland setback may be requested. The relocation of the road also causes an increase in the size of Outlot C from 1,674 square feet to 4,240 square feet. Outlot C will be included with the Rogers' property at time of development. The road alignment through the Rogers' property is still in the same approximate location and no further acquisition from the Rogers' is required. The developer has previously indicated that he would be responsible for tree replacement within the road right-of-way. The proposed plan depicts a significant tree loss of approximately 223 caliper inches. Staff review has indicated an additional 139 caliper inches of significant trees which are expected to be removed as part of the road construction. The significant tree loss calculated due to street construction is 362 caliper inches. Based upon an ,overall tree loss on the entire project site of 33.4%, a tree replacement plan depicting a total of 161 caliper inches is required. Based upon this information, the City Council could make the following decision: 1. The City Council could approve the project with the proponent's agreement to replace 161 caliper inches of trees from the construction areas per the requirements of the Tree Preservation Policy with individual home owners being responsible for tree replacement as part of the building permit issuance. 2. The City Council could approve the project subject to the proponent meeting the provisions of the Tree Preservation Policy, requiring the replacement of 462 caliper inches of trees. 3. The City Council could deny the project. aT1(1 C (- MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 1, 1989 RE: RED ROCK SHORES On May 26, 1989, City Staff, including Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Roger Pauly, City Attorney; and Don Uram, Assistant Planner, met with George Hoff, proponent's attorney, to discuss the methods of mitigating tree destruction anticipated with the proposed Red Rock Shores subdivision. At this meeting, Staff presented the requirements of the policy to Mr. Hoff and discussed various alternatives. Alternatives suggested to the proponent for the development of this property includes the R1-44 zoning district. The R1-44 zoning district was designed specifically for areas in which significant natural site features occur. Based upon the current 15-lot proposal, the average lot size within the subdivision is 29,458 square feet. The R1-44 zoning district would require an additional 14,542 square feet added to each lot. A total of 10 lots could be developed if the property was zoned R1-44. It is anticipated that a significant number of additional trees could be saved with this alternative. Secondly, the proponent is requesting lot size variances for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. This includes a reduction in sizes from 22,000 square feet to 20,057 square feet, and 18,414 square feet respectively. Staff has estimated that approximately 136 caliper inches of significant trees could be saved by eliminating one lot and meeting the City Code lot size requirement. This would reduce the overall tree loss Staff has calculated from 1,039 to 903 caliper inches, thus 'reducing the amount of tree replacement from 462 caliper inches to 349 caliper inches. This amount of replacement is comparable to the 300 caliper inches of trees which the proponent has indicated he would replace, but not guarantee which will be explained further later in this memo. An acceptable solution would be for the proponent to agree to guarantee 349 caliper inches of plant material and to reduce the number of lots from 15 to 14. Finally, Section 11.55 "Mining Operation and Land Alteration Regulations" states that land alteration is defined as "...any destruction or disruption of vegetative cover covering an area equal to or greater than 10% of any parcel...". Staff has calculated that an estimated 33.4% of the significant trees on the site will be removed as part of the overall grading plan, 13.7% of which is within the street right-of-way. A land alteration permit such as that proposed requires City Council action. The approval, subject to conditions of a land alteration permit, shall be based upon the following factors: 1) "Whether adequate plans have been made for restoring the site of the land alterations once the alterations have been completed." The proponent has indicated a willingness to replace trees within the street right-of-way; however, does not want to be held responsible for individual .. lot tree replacement. C C Memo June 1, 1989 Page Two In response to these alternatives, Mr. Hoff indicated that the proponent is willing to replace any trees within the right-of-way which he removes based upon the submitted plans. Tree removal within the right-of-way and subsequent replacement would equal 189 caliper inches. This calculation is based upon the total amount of trees on the site which is 3,110 caliper inches and the percentage of overall tree loss. If the Council so wishes, because the developer is grading only that area within the right-of-way, the tree replacement may be based upon tree loss within the right-of-way which is 100%. If this were the case, tree replacement would equal 426 caliper inches. The proponent has indicated that he would transplant 300 caliper inches of trees on the project site; however, would not provide a guarantee for their survival. The tree policy states that a guarantee be submitted for the amount of trees planted on the site at I-1/2 times the cost. Since implementing the Tree Preservation Policy in 1985, a total of 40 projects have been subject to tree replacement; 24 of which have provided the required guarantee. Finally, the proponent has stated that tree replacement on individual lots would be the responsibility of the homeowner. Total tree replacement on the entire site is 462 caliper inches which could be reduced by 10% to 416 caliper inches based upon an assumption that extraordinary measures would be taken by the individual homeowners to save additional trees based upon specific home designs. Tree removal occurs on 8 lots. To enforce individual lot tree replacement, the proponent has stated that he would file private covenants on each lot where tree removal would occur stating that the homeowner is responsible for the individual lot grading and any required tree replacement as determined by the City. The following describes the practical difficulties of filing private covenants on each individual lots where tree replacement is to occur: 1. The amount of tree replacement minus the I89 caliper inches of trees within the right-of-way would be 273 caliper inches. The replacement of 273 caliper inches would have to occur on 8 lots. This would mean that approximately 34 caliper inches of trees would have to be transplanted on each individual lot, or II, 3-inch trees per lot. Because these lots are already wooded, there may not be enough room to plant 11 trees on each lot. Alternative locations for these trees has not been identified. The advantage of an overall tree replacement plan, is that the trees can be spread around the subdivision. This is particularly important in this case because of the need for screening from County Road #4 and for slope restoration adjacent Red Rock Lake. 2. Although the private covenants requiring tree replacement will be filed and each homeowner would receive a copy, as a practical matter, many of the homeowners may not be aware of this requirement until they are applying for a building permit. If the homeowner is unaware of the tree replacement requirements, a hold will be placed on the building permit until a landscape plan and surety has been submitted. At this point, the homeowner may blame the City for the delays in issuing the building permit. The homeowner is also made aware of the additional cost which would be approximately $2,000 based upon $60 per caliper inch plus the cost of the guarantee and a landscape plan for 34 caliper inches. c c Memo June 1, 1989 Page Three With this, the City Council has the information on the following alternative decisions regarding the appropriate use of the property. 1. The City Council could find that the R1-44 zoning district should be utilized in order to save significant site features. If this were the case, the appropriate action would be to deny the project and give direction to the proponent to return with a preliminary plat and zoning district request for the R1-44 zoning district. 2. The Council may also consider the elimination of one lot within Block 3 and require the replacement and guarantee of 349 caliper inches on the entire project site. 3. The City Council also has the discretion to deny the project if it finds that the proposed subdivision does not abide by City Code, Section 11.5, Subd. 7, Regulations and Requirements for Land Alterations. 4. The City Council could approve the project without the lot size variances, thus requiring removal of one lot from the subdivision, with the proponent's agreement to replace 189 caliper inches of trees from his construction areas guaranteeing planting and one year's growth with individual homeowners being responsible for tree replacement as a part of building permit issuance. • aT?? C MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 16, 1989 RE: RED ROCK SHORES TREE INVENTORY AND REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL The City of Eden Prairie, through the Tree Preservation Policy, has required the replacement of significant trees removed as a part of the subdivision process. In reviewing the Red Rock Shores subdivision, Staff has calculated a tree loss based upon the current plans of 1,039 caliper inches. The tree inventory depicted a total of 3,110 caliper inches of significant trees. The percentage of tree loss calculated for the proposal was 33.4% which resulted in a tree replacement requirement of 462 caliper inches. In reviewing the overall tree inventory and subsequent replacement with the developer, concern was raised regarding the City's requirement for the Red Oak Drive extension, and how that affected tree loss. Because of the proponent's concern, Staff calculated the amount of tree loss, based upon the original plan, dated February 10, 1989, which indicated two cul-de-sacs, in comparison to the current proposal. Using a total tree count on the site of 3,110 caliper inches, Staff calculated a range of tree removal from 787 caliper inches to 1,020 caliper inches for the two cul-de-sac design subdivision. This percentage removal ranged from 25.3% to 32.8%. A range of tree removal was calculated because the plans indicated 40 to 45-foot building pads while building pads up to 80 feet deep would reflect the current market and no individual lot grading was proposed. Based upon these numbers, the tree replacement would range from a minimum of 265 caliper inches to an approximate maximum of 445 caliper inches. The total tree replacement calculated for the two cul-de-sac design proposal would be approximately 17 to 197 caliper inches less than • what Staff has calculated for the current proposal. Because the City has recognized that individual home designs and retaining walls may save additional trees, a 10% credit may be granted for the trees located within the construction limits against the amount of tree replacement calculated. Staff recommends that a 10% credit be given resulting in a total tree replacement requirement of 416 caliper inches. Prior to release of the final plat, the proponent shall submit a tree replacement plan depicting 416 caliper inches and surety at 1.5 times the cost of the tree replacement. c- r MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: April 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to Red Rock Shores Planning Staff Report Dated April 21, 1989 This project is closely tied with two other projects, Red Rock View and Strawberry Hill, both adjacent to this site. These projects have undergone some changes since staff first reviewed them in early February. The street configuration at that time was two cul- de-sacs coming off of Lakeshore Drive. Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Staff recommended no sidewalks to be installed within the project. Since that initial review, the road layout has changed. The cul-de-sacs have evolved into a street which connects to Red Oak Drive, part of the established neighborhood linked by Summit Drive to County Road 4. These projects have generated a great deal of neighborhood interest and involvement. At a Planning Commission meeting, a sidewalk was suggested along the west side of the proposed Red Oak Drive. The sidewalk could be extended along Red Oak Drive and Summit Drive when improvement are made to the existing roads. The residents heartily endorsed this idea and have petitioned the City to improve existing Meadowvale, Red Oak and Summit Drive. Improvements to the roadways will include paving the streets and all utility work. Timing of the project is being studied and will be determined by the Engineering Department. Staff has attached a plan for sidewalks within the revised subdivision. The plan also shows proposed sidewalk locations to be constructed concurrent with roadway improvements. Staff recognizes that the trail along Country Road 4 is less than optimum due to the fact it crosses County Road 4 at Lakeshore Drive. The steep grades along both sides of the road made the crossing necessary at the time the trail was constructed. When County Road 4 is upgraded by Hennepin County, the City will have the trail extended on each side of the road. Outlot A within this project is also worthy of mention. The developer will dedicate Outlot A to the City as part of the final plat of the property. Dedication of this outlot will protect the shoreline from docks, mowed lawns to the lake edge and tree loss. Staff recommends approval of this project based on the Planning Staff Report and this supplemental report. BPC:mdd C C STAFF REPORT I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 21, 1989 PROJECT: Red Rock Shores LOCATION: East of County Road 114, north and east of Lakeshore Drive APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Scenic Heights Investment REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on approximately 13 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 15 single family lots, 3 outlots, and rpad right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background 1 CYCOM II l„ j This item was continued from the r April 10, 1989, Planning Commission "AI 1meeting, to allow the proponent time """ ,- - to make plat revisions to meet the 111 p , • ^ t `f!R1-22 zoning requirements. ,=y •07t : PROPOSED SITE; ;���`�� Because the property is currently i 1 ► ir6_ zoned R1-22 and the revised x F'a :� �?i�,S preliminary plat meets the minimum �•: ` `� requirements of the zoning district, : , !i:4 3fa. the request for a change from R1-22 %.•o:��:%'••:. to R1-I3.5 has been withdrawn. I - i'•; "-, I Site Plan/Preliminary Plat j The current site plan depicts the • \ :: r. ::. subdivision of the property into 15 0 -•.irre`o;: f _- single family lots and 3 outlots as t compared to 16 single family lots on the previous plan. Lot sizes within r- aocK: the subdivision range from a minimum =, r_- /" of 18,414 square feet to a maximum ' 1T ' of 39,506 square feet. Average lot ?1 i I' ,\, `�" size is approximately 29,458 square 7 ` feet. All lots meet the minimum �B i { j6�� requirements of the R1-22 zoning I., ' i district with the exception of Lots '4-... ,4 ., 1 and 2, Block 3, which do not meet AREA LOCATION MAP I Red Rock Shores 2 April 21, 1989 the lot size requirement and Lot 1, Block 3, which requires 100 feet of frontage on Lakeshore Drive because it is a corner lot. Variances will be required for lot frontage and lot size. Access to this site is provided by a temporary street located on the Scenic Heights Road future alignment, Lakeshore Drive, and the extension of Red Oak Drive. Shorel and Ordinance Because the property is adjacent Red Rock Lake, which is classified as a Recreational Development Water, the following requirements exist: 1. Minimum lot size - 20,000 square feet 2. Minimum width at the building line - 120 feet 3. Minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark - 120 feet 4. Minimum building setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark - 1D0 feet Due to the definition of an abutting lot, which are lots located within 150 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark, the Shoreland Ordinance affects all lots within the subdivision with the exception of Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance with the exception of Lot 9, which has an existing home closer than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. A variance will be required for a setback less than 100 feet. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 878 at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and the east property line to a low point elevation of 839.7 adjacent Red Rock Lake. Natural slopes on the site are towards the east and north. Minimal grading occurs in the southeast portion of the site adjacent Red Rock Lake due to the relatively flat nature of the project site. The majority of grading work occurs at the intersection of the temporary road and the extension of Red Oak Drive. Cut and fill amounts in tihs location reach a maximum of 16 feet of fill and 12 to 16 feet of cut. Approximately 10 feet of fill is occuring within Outlot A below the 840.5 contour elevation which is the Ordinary High Water Mark. The proposed grading plan is subject to review by the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District. Based upon the proposed grading plan and the submitted tree inventory, a total of 3,097 caliper inches of significant trees exist on this site. A significant tree loss of approximately 1,041, or 33.6%, is expected. A detailed tree replacement plan depicted 465 caliper inches shall be submitted prior to Council Review. The location of these trees shall be utilized for buffering, neighborhood entrance areas, and other group plantings as much as possible to permit planting as a part of the development of the subdivision. Utilities Because this area is currently served by wells and septic systems, public utilities ' must be extended to this site. Sanitary sewer and water service is proposed to be extended to this project site through adjacent properties. The decision to extend Red Rock Shores 3 April 21, 19B9 utilities to serve the subdivision has not been made at this time. A petition for utility and road construction must be reviewed and accepted by the City as a condition of zoning and plat approval. Utility connections will be made from the west of County Road #4, adjacent the Fairfield project and connected through Strawberry Hill Addition, Red Rock View Addition, within Meadowvale Drive, and Red Oak Drive. Gravity sanitary sewer will be able to service Lots 1 through 5, Block 2, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. The remaining portion of the site will be required to serviced by a lift station and force main. A maintenance fee for the lift station will be required to be submitted by the developer. Water service will be provided by the proposed 12-inch watermain proposed to be constructed this summer by the City west of County Road #4. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a series of catch basins in the extension of Red Oak Drive with discharge into Outlot A and Red Rock Lake. Detailed utility plans shall be submitted for review by the City Engineering Department and the Watershed District. Pedestrian Systems In order to provide a pedestrian connection between the existing and proposed neighborhoods, the plans shall be revised to depict a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of the Red Oak Drive extension. The sidewalk shall be extended along Red Oak Drive and Summit Drive when improvements are made to the existing roads. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of 19.77 into 15 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way based upon revised plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 21, 19139, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: • A. Provide a tree replacement plan for 465 caliper inches. 8. Submit a petition for the extension of sanitary sewer within Meadowvale Drive and Red Oak Drive. C. Revise the plans to reflect a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of the Red Oak Drive Extension. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. a�a C C Red Rock Shores 4 April 21, 1989 4. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, the developer should provide a bond for 465 caliper inches of tree replacement. 5. The proponent shall submit to the Engineering Department, the lift station maintenance fee. 6. Apply for and receive from the Board of Appeals, a Shoreland Ordinance variance for Lot 9, Block 2, lot width variance for Lot 1, Block 3, and lot size variance for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. 7. Street names within the subdivision shall be consistent with the City's street naming policy. 8. Approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat is contingent upon City Council acceptance and approval of the petition for roads and utilities. C C - MEMORANDUM - TO: Chairman and Planning Commission Members FROM: Alan Gray, P.E. City Engineer DATE: April 7, 1989 RE: Red Rock Shores, Strawberry Hill and Red Rock View Addition The purpose of this memo is to discuss utility service for three newly proposed residential subdivisions located east of County Road 4 in the vicinity of Lake Shore Drive. The proposed Red Rock Shores subdivision consists of 16 residential lots located on approximately a 19 acre parcel north and east of Lake Shore Drive adjacent to Red Rock Lake. Strawberry Hill and Red Rock View additions are situated southerly of Lake Shore Drive between Meadowvale Road and CSAH 4. SANITARY SEWER: Trunk sanitary sewer service for this area is provided by the newly constructed Red Rock Interceptor sewer. As part of the Fairfield Addition westerly of County Road 4 a lateral sanitary sewer was extended easterly from the Red Rock Interceptor sewer to the west right-of-way line of CSAH 4 for the purpose of providing sanitary sewer service to the Lake Shore Drive, Meadowvale Drive and Red Oak Drive area. From its current termination point in the Fairfield Addition sanitary sewer may be extended easterly across CSAH 4 and through the proposed residential subdivisions as shown on the preliminary utility plan for Red Rock Shores. The nine most northerly lots within the proposed Red Rock Shores subdivision are adjacent to Red Rock Lake and have proposed basement elevations below the invert of the extended gravity sanitary sewer. A lift station will be required for this area as shown on the preliminary utility plan for Red Rock Shores. In addition to the sanitary sewer shown on the preliminary utility plan for Red Rock Shores it is recommended that sanitary sewer be extended in Scenic Heights Road to provide sewer service to the existing home on the east side of CSAH 4 south of the future intersection of Scenic Heights Road and CSAH 4. As part of this proposed plan sanitary sewer would be constructed in a segment of Meadowvale Road and Red Dak Drive providing sanitary sewer service to existing residential homes in this neighborhood as well as the proposed new subdivisions. WATER: Trunk watermain will be extended south along CSAH 4 this coming construction season. Completion of this trunk watermain project will make lateral water available for extension through the proposed residential subdivisions. The segment of watermain to be extended from CSAH 4 within C C April 7. 1989 Page 2 of 2 future Scenic Heights Road will be 16" trunk watermain. The remaining watermain extended within the proposed residential streets may be 6" watermain provided that the system loops back to the trunk watermain on CSAH 4. STORM DRAINAGE: The Strawberry Hill and Red Rock View additions lie within a 16 acre watershed easterly of County Road 4 that drains to a small kettle hole that currently has no outlet. As part of the subdivision improvements a storm sewer outlet to Red Rock Lake from this kettle hole will be constructed. Preliminary drainage calculations have been provided and indicate that sufficient storage and outlet hydraulic capacity can be provided for this area to provide protection from storm events of a magnitude equivalent to the July 1987 storm. The remaining areas of the proposed subdivisions drain to Red Rock Lake. Lateral storm sewer is proposed as shown on the preliminary utility plan. The current outlet to Red Rock Lake from the intersection of Red Oak Drive and the proposed residential street within Red Rock Shores is inadequate and will require reconstruction as part of a City Improvement Contract or privately by the proposed developments. ADG:ssa ,% 415 ( STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning OATE: April 7, 1989 PROJECT: Red Rock Shores LOCATION: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lakeshore Drive APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Scenic Heights Investment REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 16 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background ;,rr. ' '. ''''1 �' CCOM II / This 19.77-acre site is currently / r guided Low Density Residential and j `,i `+mn ! to approximately 6.65 acres are zoned �� R1-22. The property to the south is !_._.._ �. also zoned R1-22 and developed with if a large lot single family homes. The �? � _•.� proponent is currently requesting a PROPOSED SITE, { w. a`� zoning district change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and a preliminary plat of 19.77 acres into 16 single family f :.�•'•::::.'• " ' lots and 3 outlots. I ','•,.4'�:,:': :. �� t Site Plan/Preliminary Plat I '. .. �':; �. \C ) �� - The site plan depicts the sub- � %t.'� *^ lie division of the property into 16 ` ,, single family lots and 3 outlots. i K e o . Outlot A, which is a lowland area �, I! '► adjacent Red Rock Lake, contains oeI� .. 4.95 acres, while Outlot B, to the ••- - l EMI �'o.cx:: north of the future Scenic Heights -ill .i_1::,._,:- • Road extension, contains 3.04 acres. ' '-tar--LrT'2 k Outlot C, containing 1,674 square i—=-1 I.t• L""� feet, is proposed to be combined PU 1 \ . with the property to the west at " /�,' "'� AREA LOCATION MAP 1 ' C Red Rock Shores 2 April 7, 1989 time of development. A total of 11.74 acres are proposed for development with 16 single family lots at a density of 1.36 units per acre. Lot sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 14,564 square feet to a maximum of 39,506 square feet. Average lot size is approximately 27,300 square feet. All lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district with the exception of Lot 1, Block 3, which requires 100 feet of frontage on Lakeshore Drive because it is a corner lot. A variance will be required for lot frontage. Access to this site is provided by a temporary street located on the Scenic Heights Road future alignment, Lakeshore Drive, and the extension of Red Oak Drive. The extension of Red Oak Drive will require the acquisition of approximately 6,500 square feet of the adjacent property to the west. If this property cannot be acquired, or an agreement reached with the owner to use the property, temporary cul- de-sacs will be utilized adjacent this property until a road connection can be made. Shoreland Ordinance Because the property is adjacent Red Rock Lake, which is classified as a Recreational Development Water, the following requirements exist: 1. Minimum lot size - 20,000 square feet 2. Minimum width at the building line - 120 feet 3. Minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark - 120 feet 4. Minimum building setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet Due to the definition of an abutting lot, which are lots located within I50 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark, the Shoreland Ordinance affects all lots within the subdivision with the exception of Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. All of the lots within Block 2 meet the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance with the exception of Lot 9, which has an existing home closer than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. A variance will be required for a setback less than 100 feet. Outlot A extends within 150 feet of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1. Due to the abutting lot classification for Lots 2-5, Block 1, and the desire of the proponent to subdivide this portion of the property into 5 single family lots, a total of 7 shoreland variances are required. These variances include 4 lot width variances, and 3 lot size variances. All variances within this area could be eliminated by removing one lot. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 878 at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and the east property line to a low point elevation of 839.7 adjacent Red Rock Lake. Natural slopes on the site are towards the east and north. Minimal grading occurs in the southeast portion of the site adjacent Red Rock Lake due to the relatively flat nature of the project site. The majority of grading work occurs at the intersection of the temporary road and the extension of Red Oak Drive. Cut and fill amounts in tihs location reach a maximum of 16 feet of fill and 12 to 16 feet of cut. Approximately 10 feet of fill is occuring within Outlot A below the n• 840.5 contour elevation which is the Ordinary High Water Mark. The proposed grading plan is subject to review by the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District. a�� C C Red Rock Shores 3 April 7, 1989 { Based upon the proposed grading plan and the submitted tree inventory, a total of 3,097 caliper inches of significant trees exist on this site. A significant tree loss of approximately 1,041, or 33.6%, has been calculated. A detailed tree replacement plan depicted 465 caliper inches be submitted prior to Council Review. Utilities Because this area is currently served by wells and septic systems, public utilities must be extended to this site. Sanitary sewer and water service is proposed to be extended to this project site through adjacent properties. The decision to extend utilities to serve the subdivision has not been made at this time. A petition for utility and road construction must be reviewed and accepted by the City as a condition of zoning and plat approval. Utility connections will be made from the west of County Road #4, adjacent the Fairfield project and connected through Strawberry Hill Addition, Red Rock View Addition, within Meadowvale Drive, and Red Oak Drive. Gravity sanitary sewer will be able to service Lots 1 through 5, Block 2, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. The remaining portion of the site will be required to serviced by a lift station and force main. A maintenance fee for the lift station will be required to be submitted by the developer. Water service will be provided by the proposed 12-inch watermain proposed to be constructed this summer by the City west of County Road t4. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a series of catch basins in the extension of Red Oak Drive with discharge into Outlot A and Red Rock Lake. Detailed utility plans shall be submitted for review by the City Engineering Department and the Watershed District. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approval of the subdivision would have to be contingent upon proper road extensions and utilities, which are not established at this time. Approval of the project shall not obligate the City to provide the improvements through public improvement projects. If these conditions are met, Staff would recommend.approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres, and a Preliminary Plat of 19.77 into 16 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way based upon plans dated March 31, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide a tree replacement plan for 465 caliper inches. B. Submit a petition for the extension of sanitary sewer within • Meadowbrook Drive and Red Oak Drive. C. Resolve the extension of Red Oak Drive across the adjacent property. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. h` B. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. a1ag C C Red Rock Shores 4 April 7, 1989 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 4. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, the developer should provide a bond for 465 caliper inches of tree replacement. 5. The proponent shall submit to the Engineering Department, the lift station maintenance fee. 6. Apply for and receive from the Board of Appeals, Shoreland Ordinance variances for Lots 2-5, Block 1, Lot 9, Block 2, and lot width variance for Lot 1, Block 3. 7. Street names within the subdivision shall be consistent with the City's street naming policy. 8. Approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat is contingent upon City Council acceptance and approval of the petition for roads and utilities. • gag VARIANCE #89-28 • - CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GUARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS FINAL ORDER 1E: Petition of Scenic Heights Investment (Red Rock Shores) ADDRESS: East of County Road #4 and north and east of Lake Shore Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Exhibit A VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached Exhibit B The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES X ND _) 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and Platting Code. 3. Variance Request #89-28 is herein Granted , Denied 4. Conditions to the granting denial , of said variance are as follows: See Attached Exhibit C 5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 7. This order shall be effective July 13, 1989 ; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS BY: . wow C • K/ILtauo^ DATED: July 13, 1989 azgo • • • The Non asp Wel 01 M awn a3O NM el M Won 1W a Goonem.to Lel I.Wen II.T.rwpe III Nrq Range 22 wen el M fM Pampa'aardyn,and M Wee 2 rods M tie N.M 101.50 peen of M South 400 NM a1 M Wes/hall el end Gourn•yn Las 1.acceang M I.land Swot Go eeweo Surrey wren.IMro9Pm Cauoy,a•wwwwe Also Tel pun of M NOT I01.50 loll of M Soon 410.00 heel M Gow0wemen Lel 1.Sewn I6. Township 116 North Rage 22 Won a M fan pmtepa MINA.r1.<O Lee fan M M Wen 3300 lest and Meg W.aw15 M M You described as knows: Bo9ntnng al•poet an M Neel Wm M M Soon 400.00 last a said 0.vrmwn Lot 1 dawn 16.00 Ise E41Nny from M Non.n o wlr al M SM.400.00 16.8 a said Gaoroneo Lei I;Mau Sweeny to•pow M M Sault w M M Norm 100.50 Nei of M Soon 400.00 lest el es4 G.v.n.nra LW 1 Wean 74.00 last Easier./New M Southwest ewer el M Nana 10010 lest a M Soon 400.00 lest of sad Gawraron Lel 1 see sad r Cawth a wnOLL�.accantsq se Me United Stales Gownsman Sunny See I.NMMprI The Sant a00 lest a1 Goo.wrn Lel 1.Senna 16,14.0.0 106 North.Rage 22 Wee M low floe Principal M.rden Ieweda.9 M Ow Grrrnrd Survey thereat.e.tapl M Wee 33 Net el M Non • 101.50 feet wren and eso esupt MN pan M M North 106.50 lest M M Soda 400.00 Mel a a•d Government Lai 1.S.o.w 16.Townep 116.Rage 22,when lies East a w West 3300 Net and • lying W.5MIy M a You 0sa101es1 y Ialews: Beginning at a plea an M North Yu M M Sant 400.00 lest of said Gowrrne i Lel 1 dean 61.00 fan Eases Non M NaV.e.t caner el M Soon 400.00 1..1 M said Gr004.n lst • I:thew Sweeny N a pant an M South w of I.Nrth 101.50 lest a1 M Sent 40000 • WI of said Gwrmdnl La 1 dawn 7a.00 last Faddy keen M SaMwst awes el M Neel 100.50 lest a low Sae 401001.N a said Goverment Let 1 led said led Mat duaMdrq. Thal pal of M Swpe.4 Ouann M M SaaM.s1 Ouan..•1 Seaton 17.Township 116.Rage 22. NMe.pet County.W..war0 aapia.d as balloon Commencing e a pain n low unary..M Crary Road N..a died 520.74 Mel Nowwesrly. .-. Nan Pie rw 00101 el said nnar.ne with the Souls fine alSwine 17;Owen Eaawm. distance el 330 lee stop a Me which d emended owe Wawa M En!You a M Sadn.W Garet of M Sourness!Owner a a pen Mwten 517 lest NpSe/y now M Sadwse char Wren)Ns anon pant a begin ewe;three Npnld4y M Ova angW•diwroe M 150 N.C' awn Westerly a non wade•distance M 36625lest le M Onpadn.M Cowl Road No.a: Mew NrO1.ors,along said cem ere .•chance of SIJ lest ape M 1.0.i sa nrsacron wh a lira nanng parallel wish and Mutant 200 Nei Northerly hem M previously ascribed line drawn Nap she paid of wwnww.aer through M pen of Na9etleq i M East You a star.SwM.0 tarter M M Southeast Owner led dye anew: • Whence Lanny.along said praael Ina.•Owens of 691.4 kw new or We tea pow 294 .... Isle Wes4dy Nam en Eaal Me of said Sooth tie Owner M M Southeast Owner:Map. Worthen,a rgra angles•nuance of 220 Wet/yea Easterly•1 eight angles•donnas a 305 • WL mow or Ws.1•said Easi M.pwtwel:Senn Sadeny.Wing said Eau We a askew.of 420.6 fen mow or leak lo said point distant 517 1.1 tern kem M Soupw•si mar omen. Mae Western to odd pen a beginning,according le low Undid Suva GY.ontmens Survey; Mrsal. Thal pan el M Southeast Owner at M So.writ Owner of Section W.Towwap 116.Range 22. Hennepin County.Mw u10le.described as loner • • 4egmeWq a1 ea irwro.carm M M nroela.el Canty Road Ws 4 sad a w ninny pane' with and noon 200 lest Ranh a•ley drawn Eaars New•pow in said weenie WNW • 520.74 teen Nwh esNdy Irani its nyweegn win M South Meet Section 17 se•poi in M East w M Smote 17 distant 517 Mel 1•nh.r.y Wm M Sounewt center Mona and Mat wing:pounce.Ewers Wing said prat Me•aped.el 691.4 Mal owe a lose tea pant 294 teen Wester/ken said East shy:Setae Netherty at right angles a nuance et • 220 Met:Mew Eestep n nape woes M Eau 1•w Penn*Mew.Ne•wp.sag sad Eau • w,VI me Naneast r:anr of sad SouMaa Gutter el M Soupyao Gunn..-pin. Vwsiar.y,along Nome w wren.•dwwnce el 361.16 last now Soule.Doak*.ern sad East w of owl Sa.e.4 Owner et w Sousse Owner.•nuance M 300 Mal Mow w • parallel wee Ile Non. Sa Noe Mateo'. 10 thecenterlineel County Road No. 4; • Vence SouleasteM.along sad ir1a40 10 pant of Wgmeng.artpdng te M Owed Skis Go.ernmenl Survey ertea. • • • • • EXHIBIT A a7q l d The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter .11L Section 11.02 11 To permit proposed Lot i Block 5.Lot is Bic_ t Block ith Tor S zes less than 22.Ob0 s uare feet. City Code reyutres a minimum lot size of '1F-000 square feet in the R1-22 ZorT—District o a ;t osTt li oc with lot frontage ofa�': E_ __ed k—'� City Code requires TG0' of frontage on corner ot�s, motion;on 11.50, Subdivision 6L B to permit an ex�ist_in_g residential structure 40' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Red Rock Lake.C Code requires a 100'setback from the Ordinary High Water'. Mary. • Exhibit B XWq 9. (r, Condition to the granting of variance request #89-28. 1) Variance item #1, only Lot 4, 81ock 5 is permitted less than 22,000 square feet. All other lots must meet or exceed a lot size of 22,000 square feet. 2) Variance item #2, to permit proposed Lot 2, 81ock 3 with lot frontage of 82' is not approved. 3) Variance item #3 to permit an existing residential structure 40' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Red Rock Lake is approved. • EXHIBIT #C City Council Minutes 4 June 6, 1989 IV. PCIBLI.L HEARINGS A. RED ROCK SHORES by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 13 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19.77 Acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road No. 4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-89 - Rezoning from Rural to R1-22; Resolution No. 89-104 - Preliminary Plat) Continued from May l6, 1989 Council meeting Jullie reported that changes had been made to the grading plan and the tree restoration issues. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that currently the property consisted of two parcels zoned R1- 22 and two parcels zoned Rural. The request was for subdivision approval for 15 lots with 3 variances required due to the 80-foot building pad depth requested by Staff. Smith did not believe the deeper pads were necessary because of the wider lots and the fact that shallower homes would be built on these lots. Smith noted that other homes had been approved by the City which did not have 80-foot building pad depths. He stated that the homes would be in the $25O,000 to $375,000 range. Peterson asked if the restriction was on the building pad size or construction limits. Enger replied that the construction limit and the building pad depth were the same - there would be 80 feet allowed for a home to be built. Staff was concerned about the homeowners buying the lots and then requesting variances for decks, etc. Smith stated that construction of a deck on these lots would not be allowed because of conservancy zones. Smith recommended that the building pads be between 55 feet and 75 feet and the street moved back approximately 18 feet. He believed this to be a viable solution, which would not cause any problems with the Shoreland Ordinance. Smith did not believe that the previously recommended aNy City Council Minutes 5 June 6, 1989 zoning of R1-44 would be appropriate because of the loss of an additional lots. Smith reported that the utilities would be extended from Meadowvale and Red Oak Dirves. The holding pond would have enough area; however, some grading would be necessary on the Mark Olson property, which Olson had agreed to. This plan would reduce the cost of the storm sewer. Smith noted that the Engineering Staff had briefly reviewed this plan and that by 2nd Reading the proponent would have full approval of the owner and the Engineering Staff related to the best route for the storm sewer. Smith stated that the initial grading would be for the streets and utilities within the wooded areas; outside of the wooded areas would be grading for the building pads and Scenic Heights Road, which would result in a significant tree savings. The initial grading would only result in approximately 190 caliper inches of tree loss. Mr. Hoff, attorney for the proponent, requested that his letter dated June 5, 1989 he entered into the public record. After several meetings with Staff, Hoff believed that a compromise had been reached. The proponent would comply with the tree replacement policy for those trees removed as a result of his construction activities and in addition would have the appropriate restrictions added into the Developer's Agreement. The two variances would no longer be necessary based on Mr. Smith's presentation. Mr. Gilk would bear the risk for proceeding with the smaller building pads. Hoff requested that the revised plans he approved with the minor modifications presented by Mr. Smith and that the Council accept the compromise proposal reached between Staff and Himself. Enger reported that Staff had met with the proponent and had discussed a number of methods to mitigate the tree loss at the time of construction as a result of the subdivision. The City could compromise. Enger stated that if the City Council believed that the Tree Replacement Policy could be used as a mitigation tool, the proponent would be required to guarantee and replace the trees removed at the time of construction when the streets and utilities were provided. He believed that the impact should be mitigated, but the developer believed that with restriction placed on the lots the burden should be borne by the builders and homeowners. By placing the burden of tree replacement on the property it could have an affect on the sale of the lots. The City's burden would be to the extent that documents sometimes get lost in closing and the owners could become upset when they would apply for a building permit and find out about the restrictions on the lot. Enger did not believe this to be a positive solution for the proponent or the City. Enger stated that a�s City Council Minutes 6 June 6, 1989 the proponent's new figures of 190 caliper inches of tree loss had not been verified by Staff because a new grading plan was being presented tonight. Enger believed that Staff needed more time to review this new proposal to determine the actual impact to the property. Another issue which had not been resolved was whether the utilities would be privately or publicly petitioned. Enger reported that the 80-foot building pad size was used as a practical measure for Staff to determine the impact to the property. If the proponent was willing to accept the risk of using smaller building pad sizes, it would be acceptable and it would be noted in the Developer's Agreement. Enger also noted that any hardship would not substantiate a variance request. Enger stated that the City's Tree Replacement Policy was a means approved by the City to mitigate the loss of trees due to land alteration. Enger noted that to date no other developers have suggested any difficulty in adhering to this policy. Staff believed that the subdivision of the property caused the need for land alteration and the issues related to the alteration should be dealt with at the time of development. Lambert reported that the proponent was being requested to construct an asphalt trail to connect to the existing trail along Scenic Heights Road. Peterson questioned the proposed change in the road alignment. Enger replied that he had not seen this change in the road alignment until this evening. Peterson then asked if the Council was being requested to approve the plan and trust that the issues would' be resolved by the 2nd Reading. Smith replied that the change in the road alignment had been offered as an alternative; however, the road could stay in its present location. Harris asked what the benefit would be for the change in the road alignment. Smith replied that building pad sizes could be reduced on the 3 lots with the proposed realignment of the road. Pidcock asked whether the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission had discussed any other trails in this area, especially around the lake. Lambert replied there would be no connection available. Pidcock believed that the City was trying to get trails around the lakes. Lambert replied that the trail would not connect to any other trail in the future. Anderson asked if there would be a connection from Red Oak Drive to the city park. Lambert replied that the park located at the Old City Hall site would serve this area. a$96 City Council Minutes 7 June 6, 1989 Anderson then asked how the residents of this subdivision would get to the park. Lambert replied the residents would have to go along County Road 4. Lambert replied that with the Cedar Ridge development the roads were proposed to connect to Corral Lane and Mitchell Road. Anderson stated that the residents would be able to see the lake, but would have to walk 2.5 miles to use it. Lambert replied when the land to the south of Cedar Ridge developed a connection would be made. Lambert added that a sidewalk system would be up to the neighbors. Anderson believed that the City needed to plan ahead of time. Lambert stated that this road would connect to the neighborhood to the south. Smith noted that a sidewalk which would connect to Meadowvale Drive had been recommended by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Smith added that a sidewalk would be constructed in the subdivision. Tenpas believed that the tree loss would be the same, the only difference being that the burden of replacement would now be on the homeowner. He believed that the tree loss was a critical issue and the objective should be to save as many trees as possible. The homeowner needed to be aware of the burden of tree replacement when purchasing the home if the restriction was noted in the Developer's Agreement. Enger replied that he agreed that by the lots not being graded at this time trees could be saved; however, Staff would prefer to have the tree issues resolved prior to homeowners being involved. Enger stated that with this compromise the homeowner would be responsible for a tree inventory and would have to come up with a surety for the tree loss. The Staff would be responsible for dealing with each individual homeowner. Tenpas stated that if the lots did not sell then the developer would bear the burden. Harris asked what the tree loss would be if the road was realigned. Tenpas stated that the Council was relying only on the developer's calculations at this time and believed that this should be referred back to Staff. Harris believed that the two important issues were tree loss and the variance request for the building pads. Harris then asked when the trees would be replaced by the developer. Enger replied that there was some flexibility: it could be done when the rough grading was finished or toward the end of the road construction. Peterson believed that only because the project was relatively small and that Mr. Gilk had proven to be a responsible developer in the past did this compromise made sense. He further stated that if this was a larger development the City would not be able to monitor this type of compromise. Peterson recommended that signs be posted on the lots which would be affected which clearly aVY1 City Council Minutes 8 June 6, 1989 stated the tree replacement requirements. He believed that enforcement of the tree replacement by the homeowners could be difficult. Tenpas asked how many other areas in the City would be similar to this one which needed to be addressed. Anderson believed that Staff was being asked to be responsible for the wooded lots within the City and that with this compromise the burden was now being placed on the City and not on the developer. The City would have to inspect the lots and he believed this to be a complete policy change from what was currently in place. Enger concurred with Mayor Peterson that this would only make sense on the smaller areas. Enger noted that the Council would be having the same discussions as tonight with the developer with 8 individual homeowners and did not believe this to be a practical long-term solution. Pidcock was concerned about the lack of access to a public lake from the south side of Red Rock Lake. Peterson replied that there had been a trail system program in place which identified the trails in Eden Prairie and the City Council did not have a policy which provided trails all along the lakes. Pidcock stated that Eden Prairie vas becoming crowded and she would like the residents to be able to walk around the lakes and have access to them. Peterson recommended that the City Council have a workshop session to discuss trail systems in Eden Prairie. Tenpas asked if the Tree Replacement Policy issue was totally an economic issue. Gilk replied that he believed that the homeowners and builders should have the same responsibility as the developer to replace and conserve the trees. Gilk added that he supported the conservation efforts of the City; however, this vas an extensively wooded area and the cost of providing a surety bond and replacing the trees would create a substantial financial burden. Kathy Anderson, 6420 Craig Drive, asked why two of the lots could not be combined. Peterson stated that combining lots cost money from the developers standpoint. Anderson believed that the homeowners would want the trees replaced on the lots. Nancy Nicolay, 16011 Lakeshore Drive, requested that this project not be approved until the exact road alignment had been determined. Peterson stated that the plan could be approved subject to approval of the road alignment prior to 2nd Reading. Nicolay stated that she had spent many hours working out the previous road alignment. She noted that she had an option to buy the Harry Rogers property, A759 0 City Council Minutes 9 June 6, 1989 which would be affected by a change in the alignment. Smith replied that discussions had taken place with Mr. Rogers. He noted that the realignment of the road would move the road further away from the Rogers property. Nicolay agreed that direct access to Red Rock Lake would be in the best interest of the City, but she was disturbed because she had believed that everything was final and now everything was being changed at the last minute. Peterson asked Nicolay if she believed this would adversely affect her property if the road were moved closer to the lake. Nicolay replied that she could not speak for her grandfather, Mr. Rogers. Nicolay was concerned that her yard would be used as park land. Dietz asked if the utilities would be private or publicly petitioned. Gilk replied that the utilities would be privately installed. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the public hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 13-89 for Rezoning. Pauly asked that this motion be subject to the conditions in the Developer's Agreement. Peterson stated that he would reluctantly support the motion only because a 2nd Reading was necessary. Peterson added that he was disappointed that the plan was at the City Council level and road alignments were still being negotiated and a report to the Council from Staff on this matter was not available. Anderson stated that the responsibility was on the City Council because this was officially the last public hearing. He believed that this proposal would present problems for the City in the future and because the exact road alignment had not been determined, he would not support the motion. Anderson also noted that he was not pleased with the compromise being made regarding the tree replacement policy. Peterson stated that the Council did have a road alignment and a recommendation for possibly a better alignment. In voting for the motion Peterson believed that he was voting for the alignment as presented in the Council's packet and that which was currently agreed upon with Staff. Pidcock stated that she would not support the motion until a definite agreement had been reached. a 99 City Council Minutes 10 June 6, 1989 Tenpas stated that he was comfortable with the alternative road alignment being addressed at the 2nd Reading. He believed that the tree replacement issue needed more work. Harris recommended the following conditions be part of the motion: 1) Approve the recommendations in the Staff reports, 2) Approve the compromise proposed by Staff regarding the tree replacements, 3) Proponent would agree not to make any variance requests related to the 55-foot building pad size, 4) Reach a decision regarding the road alignment, either of which was acceptable to the Council at this time, 5) Add a section to the Developer's Agreement regarding notification to the property owners regarding the tree replacement stipulations. Pauly recommended that a separate agreement be written regarding the notification of the potential buyers of the property of the tree replacement, setback, and building pad restrictions placed on the property. Gilk stated that he would be comfortable with a two-week continuance. He added that he did not want the Council to think that he was trying to push anything through. Tenpas asked if an agreement on road alignment could be reached in two weeks. Dietz stated that he could not be sure that it could be completely resolved. Pauly stated that he believed that the road realignment was done in part to avoid the tree replacement policy issue and was an attempt to get assurance from the City. Pauly noted that the City did not have to give an approval or a denial based on the road alignment. Peterson believed that there would be merit in a two week continuance and further negotiations. He noted that a rezoning issue would require 4 affirmative votes. Anderson commented that he remembered when the City did not have a tree replacement policy and did not want to go through those times again. He added that from comments he had received from the residents, they liked having the tree replacement policy. Harris withdrew her motion. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to the June 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried 4- 1. Tenpas voted "NO". agoO City Council Minutes 3 May 16,1989 411 \ • 411 B. REED ROCK SHORES by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 13 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19.77 Acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East a9Gl City Council Minutes 4 May 16,1989 Cof County Road No. 4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-89 - Rezoning from Rural to R1-22; Resolution No. 89-104 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing had been sent to 76 surrounding properties and published in the May 3, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Jullie noted that there were possible changes related to the method originally proposed by the proponent for the installation of utilities. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that various alternatives had been looked at for developing this parcel and added that the design had been changed due to the three existing homes, a problem gaining access across the • Harry Rogers property, Staff's concern that a connection be made between Scenic Heights Road and Red Rock Shores, and consideration for the neighbor's request for R1-22 zoning. Smith noted that two lot size variances were necessary due to the 80-foot building pads being required by the city, which forced the street to the west. A lift station would be needed and the storm sewer would connect to the Red Rock Lake wetlands. Smith said that the proponent was making an effort to save as many trees as possible by leaving the building pads undisturbed at this time and only grading for the street. The street needed to be brought up to the proposed grade of the Department of Transportation, which would require additional fill. Smith concluded by stating that the proponent had petitioned the Watershed District. George Hoff, attorney for the proponent, stated that he had been requested to address the issue of the City's Tree Replacement Policy. Hoff noted the proponent had had discussions with Staff on this issue. The proponent was requesting that the Council give special direction to Staff related to the preparation of the Developer's Agreement: that the Tree Replacement Policy not be enforced on this project or that the policy only apply to those trees which had been removed from Gilk's construction activity. Hoff referred to a May 16, 1989 memo from Assistant City Planner, Don Uram, which stated that Eden Prairie's Tree Replacement Policy resulted from the subdivision process. Hoff added the City was operating under State Statue 462.358, which stated that the City was given a variety of authority to undertake subdivision review and control which included the preservation of vegetation. Hoff noted the statue indicated that the only way the regulation could be implemented was by an ordinance. Hoff's understanding was C that an ordinance was not in place at this time, it vas only a policy and, therefore, he believed the City was acting without proper authority. Hoff noted that the policy referred to "actual tree loss", then later to a9� City Council Minutes 5 May 16,1989 C "trees removed". He added that the Staff's calculation was based on "trees removed". Hoff stated that the proponent had identified the trees in the roadway, building pads, and also within the wooded areas. The proponent objected to the requirement to replace trees which he would not be removing or destroying. Hoff stated that the proponent was being asked to be responsible for the trees after the lots were sold and over which he no longer had control. Hoff believed the proponent was being obligated on speculation. Hoff questioned if it was wise to have the developer allow a builder operate with impunity related to tree removal. Hoff believed that what the City wanted to accomplish was to avoid the "clear- cutting" of older trees; however, he believed what the City was actually doing was giving the builders a free hand. Hoff added that the builders and homeowners were not being held liable; only the developer was responsible. Hoff requested that the motion made by the Council do one of two things: A) Recognize the statutory infirmity and what the Tree Replacement Policy was doing with respect to the lack of ordinance authority under the subdivision regulations, or B) That the Council direct that the Tree Replacement Policy related to this matter, apply only to those areas which the proponent would undertake construction activity. Enger reported that the proponent's position related to the Tree Replacement Policy was a new position to Staff and had not been presented at the Planning Commission or Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meetings. Staff had met with the proponent, where it had been indicated that he had difficulty with the Tree Replacement Policy in general and the way in which it was applied. Staff had indicated a willingness to work out the difficulties with the proponent; however, Staff also indicated it was not within Staff's authority to waive completely a policy which the Council had used for over 30 subdivision projects during the past 2-1/2 years. Enger noted that a draft of the ordinance would be coming before the Council for adoption in the near future. Enger stated that the policy had been developed based on the direction from the Council that the City was looking for a means to protect the trees because prior to the Tree Replacement Policy very little attention had been given to saving the trees in the subdivisions after the Council had approved the project. In 1982 the Council had adopted a change in the zoning ordinance which included a R1-44 Zoning District which stated that the size of the lots were for these areas where large lots would serve to protect the woodland, hills, and wetlands. The Tree Replacement Policy was developed as a tool for the developers to use in wooded areas where they wanted to use smaller lots. Enger added the Tree Replacement Policy was designed to help mitigate the impact the subdivisions had on the a9 City Council Minutes 6 May 16,1989 C wooded areas. Enger believed that it was unfortunate that this issue was being brought forward at this late date. Enger noted that Krueger and Associates had worked with Staff and the Developers Forum in the development of the Tree Replacement Policy. He added that both the Developers Forum and 15 local developers had endorsed the Tree Replacement Policy. Enger believed the policy had been developed in concert with the development community and was in fact a fair policy. Enger clarified that the City was not requiring the proponent to use 80' building pads and added that the size of the building pads being recommended were a reflection of the current market. Enger said the 80' building pads were used as a tool to determine the impact on the property. Enger noted that there was room to compromise on the number of caliper inches which Staff believed to be reasonably taken out of the subdivision and have the proponent be responsible for a one time through basis and not into the future on individual lots. Enger believed that the City had been liberal and fair in the application of the Tree Replacement Policy and added that many of the subdivisions were seeing a much higher tree loss than originally predicted. Peterson stated that the Council did not want to begin a negotiation process with the proponent at this point and • suggested that the item be referred back to Staff to continue the negotiations. Anderson stated that the Council needed more information from the City Attorney before making a determination on these issues. Anderson added that the suggestion of R1-44 zoning being presented was a new proposal and should start back through the process with Staff and the Planning Commission. Peterson believed that if the proponent chose to change to R1-44 zoning the plan should be reviewed again by Staff and the Planning Commission; however, if the proposal were to come back as R1-22 zoning with an agreement reached between the proponent and Staff, the proposal should come back directly to the Council. Anderson stated that he would strongly recommend the R1-44 Zoning District if the City were not going to have a Tree Replacement Policy enforced on the smaller lots with the larger building pads. Anderson noted it was for exactly this type of situation that the R1-44 Zoning District had been created. aCIO City Council Minutes 7 May 16,1989 ( MOTION: Anderson moved that the proposal be referred back to the Planning Commission and direct Staff to confer with the City Attorney related to the status of the Tree Replacement Policy. Harris asked Anderson if he would consider an amendment to the Motion to consider a continuance to the June 6, 1989 City Council meeting and to recommend that Staff and the proponent continue negotiations. Anderson replied that the City had approved over 30 proposals utilizing the Tree Replacement policy and believed that if a change in the policy were going to be made or if a new plan were proposed for this project the Planning Commission should be given the opportunity to look at the new plans and/or policy. Pauly asked when the application had been made for Plat approval and noted that the City had 120 days to act on the Plat request from the date of application before the Plat was automatically approved. Hoff stated that the proponent was requesting that the Council consider the City's authority to enforce the Tree Replacement Policy and the interpretation of the policy. Hoff believed that it would be inappropriate to send the proposal back to the Planning Commission. Anderson asked Hoff why the proponent had not presented this information at the Planning Commission level. Anderson stated that the planning process started with Staff and the Planning Commission and if the proponent had a problem with the City's policy it 'should have been presented at the Planning Commission level first. Hoff replied that there had been negotiations with Staff, which had resulted in a memo which was received by the proponent yesterday. Hoff believed the issues to be straight- forward and added that further delay of the project would be money out of the developer's pocket. Peterson noted that the Council had also received the information at a late date and also somewhat of an ultimatum from the proponent, on which the Council did not wish to act at this time. Peterson added that if the developer did not choose to utilize the City's policy the project could become an R1-44 development, which would be considered a new proposal and would require review by the Planning Commission; however, if the proponent were to continue with the R1-22 zoning and be able to reach an equitable agreement with Staff related to tree replacement, the plan would not require review by the Planning Commission. a9a; City Council Minutes 8 May 16,1989 C Hoff believed that the appropriate action would be to continue negotiations with Staff, return to the Council in two weeks and if the R1-22 were denied at that time then the proponent would have the option to seek the R1-44 zoning. Tenpas believed that the results from the City's adoption of a Tree Replacement Policy were positive and added that he did not believe that enough information was available at this time to make a decision regarding this proposal. Enger stated that he wished to dispel the idea that this was a last-minute issue for Staff. He said that a section had been written in the April 7, 1989 Staff Report for the Planning Commissions review regarding the Tree Replacement Policy. Enger added that the proponent did not come to Staff regarding the difficulties with the Tree Replacement Policy until after meeting with the Planning Commission. He noted that Staff had met with the proponent last week and the memo presented to the Council tonight was in response to the proponent's concerns. Enger said that Staff had been working on this item continuously since the meeting with the proponent and as noted in the memo there was room for compromise. C MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to the June 6, 1989 Council meeting. Anderson asked if the Council was going to recommend what action should take place prior to the June 6, 1989 meeting. Peterson replied there would be negotiations between Staff and the proponent. Peterson added that based on the additional information provided by Staff at that time the Council would make a decision based on the proposal's merits. Anderson stated that he was concerned about making any decision without legal advice unless the Council had specific instruction related to a delay. Harris stated that the Council needed to be sure the Plat request would be within the 120-day limit. Pauly stated that the Council could ask the developer to waive the 120- day limit and extend the time. Pauly noted the alternative would be for the Council to take action on this proposal tonight. Hoff replied that it was not the 2906 City Council Minutes 9 May 16,1989 C proponent's intention to run the plat request past the 120-day time limit. Hoff added that a continuance for 21 days would be acceptable. Motion carried unanimously. C. CSAH 1 and 18 Area Storm Sewer Improvements. I.C. 52-123 (Resolution No. 89-92) Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing was properly published and sent to the owners of affected properties. Dietz stated that the area consisted of approximately 300 acres which currently did not have a satisfactory drainage outlet and added the City had received a petition for the project due to the new developments occurring in the area. Dietz noted that the project was very complex and had required a extensive amount of technical detail. This area was part of a Comprehensive Drainage Plan adopted by the City in 1971. Dietz stated that it had been determined since the time of that study that 34 acre-feet of storage and an outlet restricted to 20 cubic feet per second would be required. He said the City had a C cooperative agreement with Bloomington to provide storm sewer. The project was divided into east and west portions due to a drainage divide which separated the two areas. The last pond (2W) would require an easement and the installation of future lateral outfall construction and trunk storm sewer along County Road 18 to connect to the existing system in Bloomington. Dietz stated that the construction costs were in two parts: the proposed cost of the current construction for the lateral outfall would be approximately $88,000, and the costs which occurred in 1981 for the cooperative construction with Bloomington of approximately $21,000 for which the City proposed to reimburse itself now, with the total estimated cost of the entire project at $109,265. The City's share of the cost would be approximately $62,890 with the balance of $46,375 to be assessed. Dietz noted that the east portion of the project was significantly smaller than the west; however, due to the larger storage capacity on the western portion the project would be assessed half and half for the lateral assessment at $959.86 per acre plus any costs to acquire necessary easements. The trunk sewer assessment for the western portion would be $261 per acre and the eastern portion assessed at $875 per acres due to the smaller area, but an equal benefit. Dietz noted that there was a significant amount of park land in the project area as well as existing residential homes. He said that the areas of future development would City Council Minutes 10 May 16,1989 be assessed at a later date. Dietz concluded by stating that the technical design work had been completed and if the project received Council approval the bid opening would be June 1989, the construction completed in 1989. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-92 ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously. • 429a Planning Commission Mi(ces 11 April 24, 1989 the square footage added to Lot 4 due to the pending requirements. Motion carried 5-0-0. ✓D. RED ROCK SHORES, by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 15 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road $4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. A continued public hearing. Gilk stated that he questioned the wisdom of maintaining the R1-22 zoning. He noted that with R1-13.5 only two variances would be necessary; one for his home, and one for Lot 2 to allow for an 82' lot width. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that the average lot size would be 35,000 square feet. The plan had been revised to remove 2 lots. Three variances would be necessary with the R1-22 zoning; one shoreline variance and two lot size variances. Uram reported that the variances for Lots 1 5 2 were necessary due to the location of the streets, a variance was required for the existing home site setback, and a variance for the 82' lot width on Lot 2. Uram stated that the rationale by Staff was that it would be more appropriate to request these variances than to change the zoning on the entire parcel. Uram stated that Staff recommended approval of the plan based on the Staff Report of April 21, 1989. Fell asked Uram if the Board of Appeals would take into consideration Gilk's concerns regarding the variances for the two lots what options would be available to the developer. Uram replied that the Board of Appeals may not find the variances acceptable and then the proponent could drop an addition lot or request the R1-13.5 zoning. Fell asked if the Planning Commission should assume that this is the most appropriate action. Enger replied that the proponent would also be able to appeal the Board of Appeals decision to the City Council if the variance were denied. Fell stated that it appeared that Gilk was uncomfortable requesting the variances and questioned if other alternatives were possible. Enger replied that he believed the variance approach to be the most expedient and best solution for both the developer and the City. Enger added that the City Council had indicated the preference of the City was to preserve the larger zoning districts and offer variances. Sandstad asked if the developer or the City had considered the property in Block 3 as public space. Gilk replied that the area was heavily wooded and secluded because of the trees. Sandstad asked Uram if the property would be Pldnning Commission My•ites 12 ` April 24, 1989 too small for the City to consider of value for public space. Uram replied that this had not been considered. Gilk noted that part of the parcel was also zoned Rural. Ruebling stated that this would change the request for rezoning. Uram stated that the proponent was correct and the wording would need to be changed for the appropriate motions. Nancy Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, asked if the letter to Harry Rogers would become part of the record related to the road alignment. Uram stated that the letter was considered part of the record. Nicklay added that an agreement had been worked out with Harry Rogers and the City which had contingencies. Sandstad asked Nicklay if she favored this project. Nicklay replied that she did favor the project and added that was why so much time had been spent on the road alignment. 40TION: Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOT/ON: Or Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Red Rock Shores for a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on approximately 11.99 acres and accept, without prejudice, withdrawal of the Zoning District Change request for Red Rock Shores from R1-22 and Rural to R1-13.5 on approximately 8 1989, subject toa the srecommendatiions, based on s dated of the Staff Report dated April 7 and 21, 1989. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOT/ON: Hallett moved,, seconded by Fell to further recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Scenic Heights Investment for Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 15 single family lots to be know as Red Rock Shores, based on revised plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7 and 21, 1989. Motion carried 5-0-0. l a9io Planning Commission Mi .es 13 ` April 10, 1989 fr Uram reported that the Strawberry Hill, Red Rock View, and Red Rock Shores project were connected due to the extension of utilities. The water service will come from the require west anioutlet of CtonRedty RRockoad 9Lake. All. dofg the pond will are requesting a zoning district change from R1-22otocts R1- 13.5. Uram noted that each project would require separate public hearing and motions. Frank Cardarelle, representing the Strawberry Hill project, stated that the sewer had to go through the Strawberry Hill subdivision to service the other projects and that 1/2 of a holding pond was on the Strawberry Hill property. The request for a zoning change was due to the problems to meet lot requirements due to the topography of the land. Cardarelle stated that the proponent concurred with the recommendations presented in the Staff Report of April 7, 1989. He added that this property was a transition parcel with the average lot size being approximately 17,000 square feet. Some of lots were smaller and some were larger due to the topography of the land. The street layout had been approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain an adequate traffic flow. Cardarelle stated that the request for the zoning a9/I Planning Commission Mktes 14 ` April 10, 1989 change was important due to the changing times and economy, roads, utilities, and storm sewer. Bob Smith, representing the Red Rock Shores project, stated that Bill Gilk had acquired the Strawberry Hills project. Smith did not believe it to be the best plan to have the driveways on County Road 84 and; therefore, had changed the lot configuration to remove two lots and enlarge one lot. This was a transitional piece between the Blue Sky First Addition and the development to the north. Utilities would come from the Strawberry Hills project. Cardarelle, representing the Red Rock View project, stated that the proponent concurred with the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989. Cardarelle stated that if one lot was dropped as per Staff recommendations the average lot size would be approximately 24,800 square feet, which was similar to the average size in the Red Rock Lake area. Cardarelle stated that 12 to 25 % of the lots in the Blue Sky First Addition and the Red Rock Lake subdivision had front footages of 100 feet. Smith, Red Rock Shores, stated that this property was divided into four parcels, with existing homes. Smith presented two alternate proposals with the recommended Or proposal consisting of 15 lots and 4 outlets. Variances would be required for the lot with the existing home and one additional lot due to the front footage requirement. The proponent would initially grade in the streets to save trees and in addition some wetland grading would be required. Smith said that two temporary lift stations would be installed. He believed that the proposed road alignment would afford the best public safety protection. A tree replacement plan would be submitted prior to review by the City Council. Uram reported that the Strawberry Hills subdivision was a transition piece with the revised plan for 5 lots, which would meet the Staff recommendations. Staff vas concerned about the placement of the road onto the Harry Rogers property. Uram added that Staff wanted to assure that the Rogers property would remain developable. Staff recommended approval of the project based on the revised plan submitted tonight. Sandstad requested that the Planning Commission be allowed to review the revised plans before taking action. Smith stated that Gilk had just acquired the property this week and that the only change was to drop 2 lots. Ruebling asked if the Rogers property vas platted and zoned. Uram replied that the Rogers property vas unplatted, but vas zoned R1-22. Planning Commission MiCtes 16 April 10, 1989 traffic. He did not believe that a third entrance to the neighborhood was necessary. Don Harasyn, 15811 Summit Drive, stated that this area had been zoned R1-22 for several years, the existing homes are zoned R1-22 and could not see the justification for a zoning change now. Fred Purcell, 8610 Red Oak Drive, believed that the temporary road proposed with the Strawberry Hill project to the north would create traffic problems. The lots proposed for Red Rock View had small lots abutting to large lots, with the potential for small houses to be constructed on the back portion of the lots. Purcell believed the zoning should stay R1-22 for both Red Rock View and Red Rock Shores. Red Oak Drive currently had a poor design and did not want to see the road extended. The streets should be kept at a 60 foot width. Purcell wanted to see the intersection upgraded. Purcell said that the area had had water problems for 17 years and was concerned about affect of the new development. Larry Lewis, 8681 Meadowvale Drive, stated that the lots along Meadowvale Drive had front footages of 125 feet and believed the new subdivision should maintain that front footage. He said that the reason he bought his home in / this location was because of the closed road system. Lewis believed that two accesses to the neighborhood would destroy the character. Lewis supported the use of a cul- de-sac rather than a through street. He wanted the setbacks to be maintained at 50 feet. John Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Road, believed that the houses would be too close together. He added that 100 foot frontages with $200,000 homes would be too close. Hoffer believed that the proposed developments would not be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Sandra Russer, 8731 Summit Drive, stated that she would like to see the zoning remain R1-22 to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood. She believed that these three developments would destroy the integrity of the neighborhoods. Russer supported only one additional entrance to the neighborhood, because of the concern regarding increased traffic and the amount of young children in the area. Russer believed that the majority of the land in the Red Rock Shores addition was swamp land and believed that the natural swamp lands in Eden Prairie were becoming endangered. Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that his property would be affected by the Scenic Heights Road alignment and believed that traffic on County Road #4 vas substantial now. Wagner requested that Staff and the Planning Commission Mic,s 17 `i�,t April 10, 1989 Planning Commission give careful consideration to the traffic patterns in this area. Hoffer commented that he did not see where a transition was being made. He could only see smaller lots being mixed in with larger lots. Larry Moos, 8651 Red Oak Drive, asked what the City was transitioning to. He believed that the Gilk project would be a nice development. Moos was concerned about the potential increased traffic generation with the proposed extension. Moos asked how the City could control the traffic. Uram summarized the neighbors concerns as the following: 1. Southwest Area Study. 2. Drainage. 3. Right-of-way widths. 4. Zoning issues. 5. Traffic. 6. Utilities. Gray stated the upgrade of County Road #9 and Highway #5 was a MnDot project. He added that the contract had been awarded for the upgrade and should be under construction notedthis summer. Gray that this Ar developments along the westside of County Road 14 would only have possibly one to two dozen occupancies and that the upgrading of County Road #9 and Highway #5 would correlate well with the new home construction. Gray stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood regarding utilities; however, the City was in the planning process for a storm sewer project in this area, with proposed construction to begin by the end of this year. Gray added that Staff would be looking at the Summit Drive neighborhood for sanitary sewer. Gray stated that the City Council could authorize a feasibility study if the neighborhood generated interest and added that Staff was prepared to proceed with a feasibility study if the interest was expressed. Gray stated that the existing street right-of-way in this neighborhood was 60 feet and that the proposed developments were planning 50 foot right-of-ways. He said that 50 foot right-of-ways were adequate for residential streets. These streets would not be major collectors. Gray said that there would be no need for sidewalks in this area. He added that if 28 foot streets were constructed there would not be a detectable difference between a 50 foot or a 60 foot right-of-way, the street width would remain the same. acp.) N O • Planning Commission MirTvtes 18 April 10, 1989 Gray stated that it was the City's policy to eliminate unnecessary cul-de-sacs whenever possible. He believed that when Highway 212 was built and Scenic Heights Road was realigned, additional traffic would not use Red Oak Drive. Scenic Heights would be signalized and County Road #4 would become a 4-lane road, allowing for a greater capacity for County Road 14. Bill Sauro, 8750 Meadowvale Drive, asked if County Road E4 would be 4 lane south of Scenic Heights Road. Gray replied that the construction would be done in stages and that eventually County Road #4 would be 4 lane all the way to County Road #1. Gray believed the through connections were justified; however, the neighbors concerns regarding the speed of traffic were valid. Gray added that Summit Drive traffic could decrease with an alternate access to the north. He believed that the traffic would be dispersed evenly. Uram reported that the properties could be developed now as R1-22; however, the change in the zoning to R1-13.5 would force the developers to install utilities. The change in zoning would also give the developers flexibility in the developments. Uram believed that the Harry Rogers property which was zoned R1-22 would not be developed as R1-22. Currently the standard zoning district was R1-13.5. Bye asked Uram what the setback requirements were. Uram replied 30 foot setbacks within the R1-22 zoning. Uram added that the property to the vest could meet the 50 foot setbacks. Hallett stated that he was pleased to see the Strawberry Hills project drop the two lots and change the road alignment so that the driveways did not come out onto County Road 14. Hallett was concerned that the Harry Rogers property be protected to avoid land locking his property. Hallett pointed out that when utilities were installed as part of a total development package the costs could be reduced and encouraged the neighbors to consider this fact. He was pleased to see the through street going to Scenic Heights Road, and believed it would improve circulation and provide an internal route for the neighbors. Hallett asked why sidewalks were not being considered in this area and suggested that some type of trail system be established. Hallett asked Uram if there was a trail system along the lake. Uram replied no. Hallett stated that Red Rock View should be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Ruebling stated that he favored leaving the zoning at R1-- 22. He would like to see the utilities installed in this a9i(0 _i. Planning Commission Mi( tes 19 April 10, 1989 neighborhood and encouraged the developers to install them now. Ruebling said that the lot lines and setbacks should match that of the existing neighborhoods. He considered the through street a plus. Ruebling concurred with Hallett that sidewalks and/or a trail system should be considered. Fell stated that he concurred with Ruebling and Hallett on their recommendations. Fell wanted to have the opportunity to see a set of revised plans showing the layout of the 5 lots for the Strawberry Hills project. Sandstad asked Gray if the street would be curbed and paved.b Gray road ituminousand ewould have ahcurb. Grayy added wthat Red Rock Drive would a permanent. Sandstad recommended the zoning remain at R1-22. Dodge stated that the Red Rock View addition could not meet the R1-22 zoning on all the lots. Dodge asked if the setbacks could be mixed with some being 30 feet and some being 50 feet. Uram replied that Staff would recommend being consistent and maintain the 50 foot setbacks. Uram added that 3 lots would have to be removed in the Red Rock • View project to meet the 125 foot lot widths. Uram reported that on the Gilk property all of the lots on the east would meet the R1-22 zoning requirements; however, 2 lots on the west side would not and required variances. • • a9n Planning Commission 4....tes 20 April 10, 1989 • `1F• REC ROCK SHORR , by Scenic Heights Investment. • for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to onquest acres, Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 17 single family ight-of-way. Loca East oflCounty Road o#4, north oand ad reast of Lake Shoretion: Drive. A public hearing. a91� litre 4 Planning Commission Mkutes 21 April 10, 1989 '.. MOTION: It Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. item Hallett was concerned that two weeks would not be enough time for this item. Smith stated that the developer would be requesting variances on some of the lots. Van Remortel asked where the neighbors stood regarding utilities. Gray recommended the neighbors file a petition with the City to show the City Council that there was an interest on the part of the neighborhood. Gray added that a petition did not obligate the neighbors to anything, would simply start the process. Van Remortel asked if a certain it percentage of the neighbors would have to sign the petition in order for any action to be taken. Gray replied 35 percent. Gray added that a 4/5 vote by the City Council would be required to proceed with the process. He described the formal process to the residents. Sauro, asked how the City would determine if a 5 foot concrete sidewalk or an 6 foot bituminous trail would be i installed. Gray replied that it would most likely be a 5 foot concrete sidewalk. Gray added that the costs were basically the same for either system. Smith stated that the developer had had conversations with the Parks & Recreation Department and that it was not recommended to install sidewalks. Hallett stated that the Planning Commission was recommending sidewalks be installed. Motion carried 7-0-0. r (r. PETITION We, the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhood, Ar IL (including the streets of Meadowvale Dr., Red Oak Dr. and Summit Dr.) do hereby request that the road planned in the new development north of our neighborhood, end in a cuidesac as the developers originally planned, Instead of connecting to Red Oak Dr. The majority of people who built in our neighborhood did so because It was a quiet, dead-end area. We understand the need to have a second exit/entrance into our neighborhood for public safety, etc., but feel that the new road planned to connect Meadowvale Dr. to Lakeshore Dr. will fulfill that need. Extending Red Oak Dr. would offer a shortcut to Scenic Heights Rd. for residents in the development now being built west of Cty. Rd. 4 - changing the character of our neighborhood from one with no outside traffic to one with a possible heavy traffic flow. The major reason we have been given for having this connection is that culdesacs cause problems for plowing, mall delivery and public safety. Recent developments around us have numerous culdesacs, as does most of the City of Eden Prairie. One more culdesac does not seem to be inconsistent with past planning. aqw..). • • ,{ �J 'IN • PETITION 4/89 / We, the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhood, (including the streets of Meadowvale Dr., Red Oak Dr., Summit Dr.. and the east side of Cty. Rd. 4) do hereby request, for the purpose of keeping future new homes consistent with existing homes in our neighborhood,that the. planning commission take the following actions: 1. Retain the current zoning of R-22 for the proposed additions of Strawberry Hill, Red Rock View Addition, and Red Rock Shores. The residents of this neighborhood bought and built in this neighborhood partially because of the large size of the lots. The entire area has the same size zoning and it is reasonable to expect that the zoning would remain consistent. The developers who have purchased land to be developed in our neighborhood bought land zoned R-22. They should be expected to develop the lots according to the present zoning. 2. To be visually consistent with the neighborhood the frontage of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with facing lots currently on Meadowvaie Dr.--125 ft. minimum as opposed to the proposed 100 ft. frontage. 3. That the setbacks of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with current construction in the rest of the neighborhood--50 feet instead of the proposed 30 feet. It would be inconsistent with the two houses presently on Meadowvale Dr. if this is not changed. 4. We would recommend that the homes built on either the existing Meadowvale Dr. or Red Oak Dr. adhere to some of the restrictive covenants existing on the rest of the lots--such as no fences in the front yard, a minimum first floor size of 1100 sq. ft. for a 2 story home, 1300 sq. ft. for a I story home. k ( ( . . `L-7'''.--. -"------1.--- /5851 Sd-4,,f,',-t- .,-. CALtier/lAjil AM - - , g_./A. ,..ebt,402i-, 15-"ni) LI rhr),:+ nr. S i57 / .., -,-;•:.,-A," .trieK- -ait ,,,. . Tekttovip,5-402-62 A et-5-vr. }Ski 1 5.4L:v vwd-0.2"- / -P(N )3 T21 I (ThRioL.:wMr: 4// XNZ7774_,- t— a, .y7il Pt ' ecoitvoi(ea .c • , 0/,... , is-lit -- '' 5 .. \ ' W"-- 11.0., 5.m,....tr 1) 9 7 a 1 .1,..,_,,..JaAir t , Ito I J ' 11":2141",:i g-731 .0,, .•7 s. , •, 4,..„ • , 1 '., • .. gad_ ,ex,n 10A ff.4i 6 li .At . ir)-... 5 -1,,,7T,.,•,,,„...i< . . 477,k/P=.,_1,1-4. ,„..*V \•-•4-c‘NA ''' ,-..-feu: \<\\\*..\N-./. A'W - - ..... . . _. t'e-E►t►oY\ ti 4 i a1 (� eKi- a S ►Sci rr coM�,► t oI �L i, atz-stex, 9,e1710,1,3 •. • S D /.UY11t. - iK/790260"',9U) I. K -10 6 S4 Ai NA Cr h0 ZQ E,v PR/1721 E M,., C- r BCSs ko 41144 o Pa A- 6oe.1 Alma , rip. /1 l -ee.� ,C /s9/o/1is�a.-,..%-/./nr. e_,I'�� i )ki1/2"1/21.1).e-gead4tm Pt27 d g..,i c9j. --n awl .,. ge,ye 'fa d4 a, p ,L '�I'I� G f-7 // 5 h yt ��; 1230_ SuM►'1! r ,Di?, Si). M n) FirinIVOr/ 71 I d © t?. •!' .CL- r7,, encn DcwvgI D& /0. fs-, LP-1,,, /,‘,,,a Zah.SY5 1-r .1i - .ovvy, :-.- ,_/k.__ $(pso fad ask. • .=:v.r 4 a42,3 ,h.;,s .- .�. .�rwi- i ( C Petition April 7, 1989 •. We believe that street additions to the Red Rock West neighborhood are unnecessary and would only increase traffic. The current configuration of Meadowvale Dr. and Red Oak Dr. is a horseshoe which is more than adequate for snow removal and school buses, r a {�4 Av-urt 1`f 71 S ,nm�i Of , om�inJ,[l o t iV A irr..&_- _ too14 ,ti /Skl/ Sumau;. ilk_ q_ P�rl,, /575--/ .46,,,„,...Z ,9,t,. _A-.A j7 r--/- le l���/ ' 1/7 /6 73 ( -Z ,Hoke-/ 0 Semi.,, /.(7i, �swf.c/ A • ?S'-x," . Ze",......_ ../..,--,,,, ••••....C.,,,--,,se. ....-e2re.-.....__ '" — . , /14/1-1-edilei I-2 3/ ,,,,I,-,..,--../-1. ,.a_. ',.1 . :. . 15(.D), S D m••n ZT 1)g.. - f _ 45-6_0 7 ,.0 l4 io... •n /27I �� �^,2D6 ( //I 1--)7 So - L _ . d(,/0U J4 na /k IT Q t •cry.. Gl-+s�jri-arh) 21‘/ Z.- ";.r d32. ‘49:021J23i-A -dd2s . -: swi.�cv C.., /44-C tirS /I t)4 .t. _,/ �n .. A . P7I/111��..�,.G A ' c c Petition April 7, 1989 We believe that street additions to the Red Rock West neighborhood are unnecessary and would only increase traffic. The current configuration of Meadowvale Dr. and Red Oak Dr. is a horseshoe which is more than adequate for snow removal and school bus s. {v�// GGL b/6 e 0.c.1 /nkJ L A.,/ 6/ , " Z . 404 Ji %r�, liL. L. " !�. a a/ 41114P /mil%i ,/ ,�QS/ j/- A 1, �..u..a 4 ' ef G // ‘to b 4 • • C PETITION 4/89 We, the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhood,. " (including the streets of Meadowvale Dr.. Red Oak Dr. anvil � Summit Dr.) do hereby request that the road planned In Wbe 11 new development north of our neighborhood, end in a cu4dirmaie as the developers originally planned, instead of connectilma to Red Oak Dr. The majority of people who built In our ne i ghborhocce 3111m1 so because it was a quiet, dead-end area. We understamMlt1t need to have a second exit/entrance Into our neighboncomdf for public safety, etc., but feel that the new road planed to connect Meadowvale Dr. to Lakeshore Dr. will fulfill: (diet need. Extending Red Oak Dr. would offer a shortcut to Scenic Heights Rd. for residents In the development nom being built west of Cty. Rd. 4 - changing the character oS our neighborhood from one with no outside traffic to aem with a possible heavy traffic flow. The maJor reason we have been given for having this, connection Is that culdesacs cause problems for plowlnj., mail delivery and public safety. Recent developments armuna>r us have numerous culdesacs, as does most of the City o:' 2f3lsn Prairie. One more culdesac does not seem to be Inconsils+iemt with past planning. � �Ma^ _ �tesg /irn,i..M.p,,,.- 7(06( 2co DAC oe-- _ C. �-(' 87// i. .lu� /.5/OO7,v fin.. s• c ' k •; Uha k6,'l /72ed Ih• 9• II.rdw7 rAir fe. ,z iA \%. 200 S it De 10wl,1 )/(l maDoW iim. arc w. ?. rY». 8 7(I m CA oowwg D 2 • - +6. kby ) Rip b d 16. I^5 rivt 0. .060n(1(;? led e er_k_Tiz +q• anut', S("7o Re cf. f9 k D E'i ao• a.. � /l7/i.� . Ste/ • .21 41/1frefae_.643'./ Alf4b..tdee a . ..aA44,-1 st 7 11 E.-12,,_PAAA:.Ai Q . vc. i51,3 r St,mot . 0 -e 0 )1,7 rrt .19 wyylt 3%. • y7i Mifie,..4- 2“. 4/4 ASVI/Su moo+ 1st- Pd. ,c, I.c 1412, Su.nrwr -tom l'itAt air ' i i11 _ t 15151 .7r4,,f0;;7, k tAtvt. t, r fi .. 8 7 30 17 _ I 61 24 69. 4o 45 .44.. 41. qt. qv. Ott.. - St. 53. 61. 69. Gos. 'a. 65. '.5. 66. 61. 61. /O. 11. /s. Aca'l ;;;11';:iiir, .7. . ' i'•-•'•••::-"I4‘.....i ;. .,.,.,0 _ ii 4‘;,...,....„1 1::. -ti ilir.fr•-117,4-,v4 . • I:,"r-11 i.r`a i y .,..,-,,,,..___Liej' ig ;..1- ..„_,...T,,,,:....5:%:.,•......,... ILB-ii ' - 31 '.-..;' / 1 r, --m-.---s.,! !I 3 ii: i - • .k..........j. t L 4, / 411- y 1-------,A. I ,)4 ',1 • l'e 1 i' n jr., 7 1 .-. c .:-.411._..1..,L*,%. 3: .,...p e •gii,ce'jr... 1 I f I ( I/ . , . 0-.4F.r....n... t 1 . -•& _ 1.4--.. ' ,1:.'.1.: :•.':i! olki.......,r4 ey"):01 ;. 7-'-- --1, il :1•Ltt•-g•-r-1?,:; -if11. J•2 ? '' IN,/ i : =-1 ' :- /.',:!, .y• ....4• ..7%,..._...-1:-..-'t. •-- e is le .40_k—•-i....1,1 _ Ii .'1—/' '\WI. 7. .4 i ‘1\-' tc 1,12,4:::\.(17i ...:II -1,1:Al 1 • '4•7'.' .0.-1-= 4 '',.:s.. el ._1‘• i 2, ,___....5 •4 sl'..b ''.• elcii,,,,:s ..ii li. . - ,..5,., , 7______,› i,, !1 .. • s r;:i; , . : .,;;;. .11 -,.. , Pry--------,, te i \\C=1- .....1 -•!-.1!..rci ,- Its 3-j:-/. ,1 1 . .. '..'-4.K.( ) `:=-'- - i il ;-2 t;"LA , A,!Trzi.kg: - 1 4i I!.:;iriti ..' . - -..2.7 .) C:) . ifilil • FC1',, r 1 , /IL 4>.\ttk$11.,s- .('I .*-,."111 i ;f•rkt',..'i,.? .....„. < --1-_—_2e.. 4. it iii::f,11...:' l„,•,.4;41ill Pl.......\ 2 ,;111' ill, -;i li'''''l ''54:7 WI,i,l'-:-.....'4,et:,111' I • tg)\ ' 1 0.,',. 11 i'l il ;•• • ,1. t\ .'.. ',4:::;,••:., .Ir ' i \ ; ,i.d • 3 i ,, 4 tfl-' :! -..., .......-,.,IP I i d - / _ .t, :., , l', • 1.: • '''N' '''<`,.....N, •\IS ''^A•S,:_./.::4'., 6 ,,,,,fg%. 4. , .•.7 ..' • W ..1'. A .,..... •v/ ) 2,,. V. •"',...A. 'N.' I ‘,. .i ..,' 41 . •••,fi'S ....:.;iiiii r. 11 .1.'4$ !, ., i I ''‘..1.4.7 -75 f'-/';>';11..•41: t, '1, --.-fr 5 \- • :.,/ :e.:3 , 54;1.55I •..,, 5-5,„„ 4, 5 ‘.... ,Dr„ ..,...7-....v., ,:... •,,,,, . 11• -...7,_:.,::. .:3, :-.-... - "T.T.;" ;4.: ,• v..,, .. . :r, I, •,, •••.,, ::: . " .k. ?'4 • •''''‘, l'''' ' \:..;-'-'4.t 1 . 1 .....-, ,. .4., r! .;,, , i, • . ,......,. ..; 4.,,1•1 ,. . 1 1!.I „ .,, , , ,i,, ,,,4,1 11 I, ..----, 1' 'T-••••tq'. ;',. s• ‘*''',, \ 'ii10' '4 ,--,-,, (A‘ 1,.01.,,,.. •,--7x,....) ,:,,,...i---",1 --- ' e•A.,i, ...,,,..-__/..fisr."2„...141,,,,,":`17:"4/..zti ,.,, ,0,,,..z.,,,.1. •c :, ., \ '0 .=. , • i. ;--1, •, `..1.1 ,,,•'"..._,„„r P -5., •4 5 :a7t---•-7,_.....1, 1^-prevol. ...„.... -4f . !..- - ., , r'.. i'\ :g N 5-i __,-4i- If V.* ! T. .a • -- : .S 4 1. - _Vol -, 4 (i ' -, s. Fil!' .0,-.1:..ect I : ,. ,itr.'inl . IA > :'. 4. 1,' Cii ,r---21\1 z'• I .! 1 1 ... , \ 1 , ; w ,., .. '' • i''' k e • 1_____ —_, •g 1 , i • . ......8,...---.--,. •177.sp\ -7- \\\\ LI,1 '1 •r:Trs° 1 11 \%• , ) ii • i,'`,1:'1 \ - 1 .\--' 'IIi ! ' 1 J 1'1/2' /‘ sir-L"--N) l'. '';F-7. - - -• _fr.-A\._.nitrdg.t • I. I '.:). c APRIL 11, 1989 ' CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THE STAFF AND COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEW OF THREE (3) SEPARATE PROJECTS: 1) STRAWBERRY HILL, 2) RED ROCK VIEW, AND 3) RED ROCK SHORES. THESE PROJECTS ARE DIRECTLY NORTH AND WEST OF THE RED ROCK LAKE 1ST AND 2ND ADDITIONS. FURTHER, THE CITY IS UNDER STUDY OF STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER ALONG THE MWCC TRUNK SEWER LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID RED ROCK LAKE 1ST AND 2ND ADDITIONS. WE THE BELOW SIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE RED ROCK LAKE 1ST AND 2ND ADDITIONS REQUEST THAT THE CITY DIRECT A FEASIBILITY STUDY BE DONE TO INCORPORATE SEWER, WATER AND STREET CONSTRUCTION IN THOSE AREAS OF OUR ADDITIONS NOT EFFECTED BY THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECTS. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, NAME ADDRESS v.':----------%.C,- •ei '.3.'' .V_.)1.,Q,---e—L.47.: ,. )t 0.3 1 ..--&,..,,,„-,,if— •"1. • ( :Z.f\z ),__ J ' ;7 ' (244 .' 7 E7 n -� J�.-0 t,../c rk_ - J / ,1 S V�-..c.ram C titi* 1'-',:.:,\ ,,,..,.r.-7_:\i k v { 4 y �.,�,,.' /S7?c) SL ..1iLt.j 4,'t . - .2"1-. n,{c.-- ,..,\ (, C../C. (N -i ( -rc'i l• . t r; • :,•.r; . . 1/ Il. _.` L 1,it1;,-t 0J. J- .'. v.J /.1 i i`ti: -7^^ cS 71/ .1;/:.%;1] ��r2 __._._ . _.__. /,��/tib/!4`iiro; (..� '� I��31 St_ 411��j` ,. __ .. i �� ' )IC970ti•�1 /J( ,/ Si•,,,/ii• / U3. •_— PAGE 1 OF 2 AL n9 `7/� r-- --) -•.,? .j.,) .. ,:f ill ill i T ... ., 4—, '23 i: „ t.tis-I v..f,I.i _ o .! e i--,--- • / .-- - .0 • •, i ), . . • /,,•-•... -- 7-'7 /'`.,/ L,, v, ., ', •:. C.. .• : . . , 1('- /7/ ,! ,._: , -L '.. , :•-/. __. 71-' / : fri' 4 •:....- Y(.-4- i / .1 C-4k Pc_ — 5 . -).- / -- ,-/- -1-- ;; : -'= - A.. ., .:7:,,,/ (7,k• 4_, _. .._ . • .__, ,' , I •r ,, • •• , . • , -- , o r 1 L_ '. ef( i ,, i-„/L',' -c._. I I AC'--:;) I .kic, IL rk--'I i til, -- 4: i','..\[<•,- ....__ -)(.---. L., c.:- )2,& 11 c..e,-C.,-t-c-c-r_L_ li,r- - _ -) • __,_.. ..."..."‘.._-..--- . ) • '; •' I/ I', :•.... ,',.- ,,-. '...'Ll' . - - t- :: I -!') 1'1:.:-; ;f.. ':;; i I 17';•••''t:-• ;,. .‘/.',(:_ --- . 1 i ...(:•-•--i'`i--::1\ '`-'' ''.-71{ Ak-:,,,)c,:.s ..t.-- 11/4.... __ /' Hi I -7.),.,Li L(7'. ./7'cl . /1 i ,-,...i."-•\--''-'" ' /• Ct.., •:. : 2 ..0: - —e--lc •,..,:" r),,v• / // _St c,1•.3,-•:-Z- i:..•,. • .. k.,,:).-C..„•__ /__---? ,-(.'..•,_ 71;i..(/ Z , C/11-i7_ I .,(c., .. . ,‘.7-ic-C_\, -0 0_-t , •--t .....,,..;, ..., . ._ . , 7—e—4-kl) -•.. e).4 1, \...,., ••,,-e v-,.. s,„..,-toc.c. L 1 •A .__. . _ . .... • .. ._. • PAGE 2 OF 2 2q30 C ( To: Eden Prairie Planning Commission /4ror..7i„ Il999 The neighborhood we call Red Rock West, consisting of Che bermes on Meadowvale Dr., Red Oak Dr., Summit Dr. and the near thanes+ en the east side of Cty. Rd. 4, was invited to a nedgeditasUomod meeting March 30, 1989 called by Bill Gilk in rdtd:ah tt+aee developments (Strawberry Hill, Red Rock View Additions,,. and.!. Reed Rock Shores) which adjoin our neighborhood were presentad_ We were unhappy with the developers' plans and c:al.l,e,dt s. neighborhood meeting Wed. April 5. On two days notice 2h na'.n:dbtee attended. The two petitions that follow will be presenCed! Mointncy night at the Planning Commission Meeting. We need the reed of the weekend to route the petitions around the neighbcxhamdlder signatures. Also included is a copy of the attendias at mLin' meeting. These families endorse the two petitions 21-0. We expect a large turnout from the neighborhood at Mond r niehtt"s planning meeting. We ask that you consider the needs of our neighborhood. Bill Sauro 8750 Meadowvale Dr. 2131 ,:. C ( PETITION 4/89 We, the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhood, (including the streets of Meadowvaie Dr.. Red Oak Dr., Summit Dr., and the east side of Cty. Rd. 4) do hereby request, for the purpose of keeping future new homes consistent with existing homes in our neighborhood,that the planning commission take the following actions: 1. Retain the current zoning of R-22 for the proposed additions of Strawberry Hill. Red Rock View Addition, and Red Rock Shores. The residents of this neighborhood bought and built in this neighborhood partially because of the large size of the lots. The entire area has the same size zoning and it is reasonable to expect that the zoning would remain consistant. The developers who have purchased land to be developed in our neighborhood bought land zoned R-22. They should be expected to develop the lots according to the present zoning. 2. To be visually consistent with the neighborhood the frontage of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with facing lots currently on Meadowvale Dr.--125 ft. minimum as opposed to the proposed 100 ft. frontage. 3. That the setbacks of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with current construction In the rest of the neighborhood--50 feet instead of the proposed 30 feet. It would be inconsistent with the two houses presently on Meadowvale Dr. if this is not changed. 4. We would recommend that the homes built on either the existing Meadowvaie Dr. or Red Oak Dr. adhere to some of the restrictive covenants existing on the rest of the lots--such as no fences In the front yard. a minimum first floor size of 1100 sq. ft. for a 2 story home. 1300 sq. ft. for a 1 story home. 1 AV a (. Petition April 7, 1989 We believe that street additions to the Red Rock West neighborhood are unnecessary and would only increase traffic. The current configuration of Meadowvale Dr. and Red Oak Dr. is a horseshoe which is more than adequate for snow removal and school buses. a9Ufl ( 1\416F/60k Hoa) 17EE.TIMG GJED : 9Pk, S. 1989 Y Lt6 'In -1 TillAwk PL / , /SGO 7 2.4 ;t /lw/.JE5nrJa AUZfC J 87J/,finru6 �Jf lvn i 4ch_/ 7 /6vl/ 4-4-ciok, �. i/dg,-'r`'r, cv4-E2 8700 Sun,Ai r Q 2 �.-L\ 1, 76 la,o . 0,A,La.A. 4\---ii.d AA- 3to5c Qeait`c_ D,, ,e.a4e.Acti x.. A i/,2d&/6 //'. (4±#111.ct-4,/ Kvif,a.49,t4ze; ( x 70 eQ2h S ? ._. /S 7 / .21,mot �� 0 y /-li/ e . 72� g66./ /Q J 6a 4 B-, okY/74 /r&'( /.-rf-r,N,u l`.4 ir.0.1_1_, gio h-i agt d4. 1 ,;Y,/).- � 3 7I l `' ►-ReowVglt �r�� iS�sl StiM„ T ��. i��— v5� It.C30 JV%M.t..I\ bk. / c . • .d? J ''GG/,e,./p ..n,. T j a Elk 4.0 ic- 3 75-o k_ackn . 4, JOB• -- . l4i4( A ' 0, .. V u.�NAME .. tEpwwny '7' Ills _ `. ... IAM i,wN^0 .�.•• v.aruntutlT DATE Kx Knee CHECKED BY DATE �AnttlNp,Is. Sic: ,u., DESIGN DATA 4 ,Le S S . 1 1 am1 Q 5-77401.1 . i ! : .Fi'6{/_:__ ,erg ©A*% M2. : . Wa . i . : : . D ... s?,,e4-;. , ,,e4 ,100 4,-•7-7 &de— . id,t, i :,aitil- __ . Rat✓:_.fr./tom-ter .d(otsok a 7q ReAr 04.___Rr.._ a1-0. .4-Q, C clzkNrso.,t . 874:0_.: .& v�K_.Dr- ,k Nt)f \Ao F E_ctz— :_S 1t MCfl be,wyALE. Dl2,.. � J _ ANC .14or�, __. .__.: .- ,i7:___ $9 9ra'o , 130ul) 1-60;,r,1, lsact:_..6ww‘w '2,. Rob our Maims? Kidd and Aianc y Sauro 875A Pleadowva/e ,. C 1 4. a...yie ,C„ods-P.o...c; , f6t9/: `4,34) PM Ne•Rd. La i k Kck,iti :f\oos :$14st .R.d oat. A% . • rt _! ig,V6 ✓o.J. . : . iiv/....afaMwir_. de'.. /st-\ . Vv& -,s 42---c..\ . ‘c...a3a 5 -)4400w,Cr— N .per. - - .29✓A Cj . , ... PAGE .a c • HAf„Y A. ROGE►iS 91O;? EDEN PRAIRIE RD. EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 5534. t; ` -/�� /"ICI✓ LEJ�j�/ C 1/ ✓CSC M(�J 17 ki �'(..:.i' •(J1 27a/ e-d4tAia§,,€.A411. —a 9 i/i-e1,6—C,cc_f�eL G% f¢•�� /f G tea� . 4`�'y, ).t u.4z. ✓ a-6 • accx t C a.9m2D - # • ;........ . • ;"/ . ,; •- 4 ,•(),C C. ic J I • 01/11.,,,,,CA,t..et..-f . . L • . . C949 82e • . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99-206 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF RED ROCK SHORES n WHEREAS, the plat of RED ROCK SHORES 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 RED ROCK SHORES is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated SEPTEMBER 26, 19139. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. 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 OCTOBER 3, 1999. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 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: September 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Red Rock Shores PROPOSAL: Scenic Heights Investment, Inc. has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Red Rock Shores. The plat is located east of County Road 4 and west of Red Rock Lake in the south half of Section 17. The plat consists of 22.87 acres to be divided into 15 single family lots, 3 outlots and right-of-way dedication for roadway purposes. Outlots A, B and C contain 4.95, 3.04 and 0.10 acres respectively. Outlots A and C will be conveyed to the City, while ownership of B will be retained by the Developer for future development. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on June 20, 1989, per Resolution No. 89-104. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-89, changing zoning from Rural to R1- 22 is scheduled for final approval by the City Council October 3, 1989. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution October 3, I989. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed by the Developer in conformance with City Standards. Reference is herein made to specific items within the Developer's Agreement, these items list conditions to be met by the Developer prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property and are summarized as follows: a. Conveyance to the City of Outlots A and C. b. Conveyance to the City of an easement at the northwest corner of the private property as depicted in Exhibit B of the Developer's • Agreement. c. Dedication to the City of conservancy easements located along the rear of Lots 1 through 9, Block 2, and to be shown graphically on the final plat with the notation "drainage easements for conservation purposes". Page 2 of 2 d. Dedication to the City of a 20-foot wide easement along all of the property adjacent to County Road 4 for future installation of a walkway. e. Dedication to the City of a temporary easement and a permanent easement for storm sewer facilities connection from Red Oak Drive to Red Rock Lake located between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. f. City Engineer's review and approval of plans for streets inclusive of Scenic Heights Road, sanitary sewer inclusive of a permanent lift station, watermains, irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. g. An executed Special Assessment Agreement with the City establishing the Developer's portion of construction costs for public streets and utilities to service the property within Red Oak Drive. h. A stipulation that designates access routes for construction vehicles. i. The City Engineer's review and approval of a Cooperative Construction Agreement with the owner of Red Rock View Addition concerning coordination of construction of utilities and streets. The proposed street names "Kristen Court and Red Rock Drive" conflict with other names used in the City. The proposed "Red Rock Drive" should be renamed Red Oak Drive as this is an extension of the existing Red Oak Drive. The plat shall be revised to include right-of-way dedication for Scenic Heights Road through Outlot B at a 66-foot width. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication will conform to the requirements of the Developer's Agreement and City Code. BONDING: Bonding for municipal utilities and streets must be provided prior to release of the final plat and conform to City Code and the Developer Agreement requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Red Rock Shores subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following prior to release of the plat: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $1,033.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $4,374.00. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $B00.00. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 5. Revision of street names. 6. Revision of plat to include right-of-way dedication for Scenic • Heights Road through Outlot B at a 66-foot width. JJ:ssa cc: William Gilk, Scenic Heights Investments, Inc. Ron Krueger & Associates Roger Pauly, City Attorney 9.965 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E. Director of Public Works DATE: September 28, 1989 RE: NSP Proposal For Undergrounding Utilities Over the past year, Staff has been working with NSP to identify a way in which overhead utilities can be placed underground -- especially when they are in the process of reconstructing a pole line system. During our discussions with NSP, we have determined that the way in which they deal with us concerning underground installations appears to be consistent with other suburban communities. Currently, if we are proceeding with a construction or reconstruction project, NSP will bury the overhead utilities, but the City of Eden Prairie must pay the cost less a credit consisting of their estimated cost to build a new overhead system in another location. The result is often times a substantial cost and we have more often than not declined the process. As a means of compromise, NSP has researched three possible means of generating revenue to pay the cost for undergrounding overhead utilities. The attached memorandum that I wrote to Carl Jullie on August 8, 1989 summarizes those three possibilities. After reading, you will note that unit pricing is the only method that they would consider acceptable. Based on their estimates, if $1.50 were to be added to a residential customer each month and a sliding scale amount added to each commercial customer, the resulting revenue would be over $300,00O.00. By increasing that unit price by a nominal amount, the result can generate over $50O,000.00. Exhibit B of the attachment shows the two illustrations mentioned above. While it may seem that a commercial customer paying $25.00 or $50.00 per month is high, the smallest billing a commercial using 100 kilowatts of electricity would receive is in the $2,00O.0O to $3,000.00 range. You should also know that existing customers in Eden Prairie that have underground service are currently paying a surcharge of $1.50 per month for that purpose. These proposed costs would be in addition to the current payments being made. I will be available at the Council Meeting to discuss this information in more detail. If the Council chooses to proceed, the next step would be to ask NSP to prepare a draft agreement and obtain more specific details regarding the program. EAD:ssa 4,7'D - MEMORANDUM - TO: Carl Jullie FROM: Gene Dietz DATE: August 8, 1989 RE: NSP FEES FOR GENERATING REVENUE TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES On August 8, 1989 I met with Stu Fraser to discuss information NSP had prepared regarding a means to generate a source of income to allow for undergrounding of utilities. NSP identified three possibilities as follows: 1. Franchise Fee: In this situation, we would enter into a franchise agreement with NSP and the provisions of that agreement would allow for a percentage rate to be applied to their customers up to 5%. Attached Exhibit A shows that a 1% franchise fee would generate $242,000.00 while 5% would be over $1.2 million dollars. According to Frazer, implementing such a fee schedule would require a public hearing process and they would adamantly oppose it. Their primary reason is that the billing to their customers would be such that it would resemble a rate increase for which they would be responsible. Additionally, they feel that the treatment to the customers on a percentage basis would be unfair. 2. Surcharge: This method is almost identical to the franchise fee, except that a franchise would not be a part of the process. NSP has the same strong feelings against using this method as well. 3. Unit Pricing: Exhibit B shows two alternatives illustrating the use of unit pricing. If a revenue generating mechanism is to be established, NSP favors this over the other two alternatives. As shown on the exhibit, NSP has identified four customer classifications and using two different models, show that an income between $300,000.00 to $500,000.00 per year could be attained. The price per month for a residential customer is not significant, but some might feel the $25.00 per month for a commercial customer might be oppressive. However, Fraser tells me that the smallest monthly bill a 100kW customer would receive would be two or three thousand dollars. NSP would expect that Minnesota Valley Electric would be required to follow this same kind of pricing structure if we choose to follow it. They would also expect that some consideration be given to AT&T, Northwestern Bell and Cable Television. August 8, 1989 Page 2 of 2 This unit price would show up on the billing for each customer as a separate line item. NSP would be receptive to negotiating what that language says so that it doesn't put either them or the City in a negative position. New Brighton was very close to adopting a system like this. They actually had an ordinance in draft form and an agreement ready to be signed when the City decided to pull out of the project. They struggled with the problem of who paid for the homeowner cost to bury underground services ($200.00 to $500.00 plus restoration). Another problem they faced was with an older housing stock, many homes did not meet current code requirements for their electric service. An underground service installation would require that the property owners bring their electrical system up to code at an additional cost of as much as a $1,000.00 or more. Fraser also pointed out that the vast majority of our residential customers are currently paying $2.00 per month for underground service already. He wondered what their reaction might be to an additional $2.00 more or less. If we choose to pursue this matter, NSP would be willing to develop some type of long-range capital improvements budget so that it could be tied to the unit pricing structure (15-20 year range). NSP would charge us some sort of fee to implement such a system and that would come from the first year's revenue. They estimated as much as $60,000.00 to change their billings mechanism. They also indicated that they would like to impose some sort of cap on the amount of money that could be accumulated in this dedicated fund (say $5-10 million dollars). When that cap is reached, the system would automatically stop collecting until the amount was drawn down. Finally, Fraser told me that they are not interested in being a banker for undergrounding our system. If we had a major project that we wanted to do, we would have to accumulate the money or borrow the money and pay it back with this source of revenue in order for them to proceed with the work. Fraser was quick to point out that they didn't want to do any of these mechanisms, but of the three alternatives, they strongly favored the unit pricing procedure. The first step is for the City Staff to review this proposal and if we desire, they would be willing to develop the information further and put it in writing. EAD:ssa "!JO City of Eden Prairie (1988 figures) Customers: Edina Office 7,431 Shorewood Office 8,213 15,644 Total Revenues: Edina Office $14,546,501 Shorewood Office 9,645,493 $24,191,994 1% annually $241,919 2% annually 483,838 3% annually 725,757 4% annually 967,676 5% annually 1,209,595 Customer operations has informed me that a per unit charge can be programmed specifically on to our Eden Prairie customers. If this choice is selected, the charges to the various classes of customers can be decided upon to reach whatever level of revenue is desired annually. Other items such as a cap to the funds, etc. will also need to be negotiated. P.R. Carney t /err�{ ,2939 Eden Praire Illustration of Unit Prichn¢ No. Month 12 Months j7n115 Price/Unit Total No. 1 Residential 13177 1.50 237,186 Commercial Up to 25kW 1100 3.50 46,200 Commercial 25 to 100kW 577 6.00 41,544 Commercial over 100kW 126 25.00 37.80Q Total annually $362,730 { No. 2 Residential 13177 2.00 316,248 Commercial Up to 25kW 1100 5.00 66,000 Commercial 25kW to 100kW 577 10.00 69,240 Commercial over 100kW 126 50.00 75.600 Total annually $527,088 ii 6