Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 09/02/1980
AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( TUESJAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 19$/ 7:31 PM, CITY HALL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Mayer Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY STAFF: City Manager Roger K. Ulstad, Finance Director John D. Frane, and Joyce Provo, •Recording Secretary INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RILL CALL I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HENNEPIN COUNTY ISAR, OF COMMISSIONERS, ANI REFER PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL III. AIJOURN MEETING EDEN ►RAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1981 Immediately follearing Reusing & Redevelopment Authority Meeting COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayer Wolfgang Penzel, lean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger K. Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enter; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Bob Lamlert; City Engineer Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretory I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ANS OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 19i1 Page 2100 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request to set a Public Hearing for Lake Idlewild for October 7, Page 2123 1 98$ • --- B. Request from Joseph Dolejsi to set a Public Hearing for October 21, Page 2124 1981, for rezoning of 1 two acre lot from Rural to R1-22 • C. Resolutions for new MSA mileage designation (Resolution Nos. 8O-171 Page 2125 and I721-- --..�_-------- --- U. Set Public Hearing for October 7, 1990, for vacating excess utility Page 2126 ease ent iii $1,maic Hil's Alb Addition7IM solition No. 81-1691 74 • City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,September 2, 1980 E. Final plat approval for Northmark 3rd Addition (Resolution No. Page 2130 80-170) • F. Final plat approval for Neill Woods 1st Addition (Resolution No. Page 2133 80-167) G. Final flat a roval for The Preserve Center 2nd Addition (Resolution Page 2135 No. 80-174) H. Final_plat approval for Mill Creek 7th Addition (Resolution No. Page 2137 80-17) I. Request to set a Public Hearing from Minnesota Industrial Tools, Inc. Page 2139 project for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for September 16, 19B0 J. Resolution No. 80-176, for appropriation of MSA funds for improvementsPage 2148 on T.H. 169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Timber Creek PUD by B-T Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Page 2000 Development approval on 150 acres of land for single family and multiple residential, park land and open space uses. Located north of Duck Lake Trail, West of Co. Rd. 4, and south of Townline Road 1 (Resolution No. 80-151 - PUD, and Resolution No. 80-159 - E.A.W.) Continued from August 19, 1980 B. Bryant Lake Center PUD & Lakeridge Office Park Rezoning. Request Page 2150 for PUD Concept approval of office and commercial uses on 31 acres, rezoning from C-Reg. to Office for 7.7 acres, preliminary plat approval, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of Co. Rd. 60 and north of I-494 (Resolution No. 80-161 - PUD; I Resolution No. 80-162 - preliminary plat; Ordinance No. 80-23 - rezoning, and Resolution No. 80-163 - E.A.W.) C. Rezoning to Rural in Southwestern Eden Prairie (Ordinance No. 80-22) Page 2217 D. Neill Woods 2nd Addition by The Preserve. Request to rezone 2 Page 2224 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 4 lots. Located south of Neill Woods. (Ordinance No. 80-21) E. Proposed Communications System (Cable TV). - I) Minnesota Cablesystem, Page 2231 2�Northern Ceb}evsion, and 3 Teleprompter Cable T.V. F. Utility_ and street improvements on Industrial Drive, 1.C. 51-288 Page 2232 (Resolution No. 80-166) G. 1981 City budget Page 2237 V. PAYMENT Of CLAIMS NOS. 2932 and 3103 Page 2238 VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Human Rights & Services Commission - No Fault Grievance Process Page 2241 City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,September 2, 19B0 VII. PETITIDNS, REQUESTS & CDMMUNICATIDNS A. Request for a Kennel License from Mr. & Mrs. Renier (continued from 8/19/80) B. Rest from Grant Sutliff appealing Board of Appeals & Adjustments Page 2242 decision regarding House Moving Permit M80-18 VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Attorney C. Report of City Manager D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Southwest Trails Association Snowmobile Trail Sponsorship Page 2243 Request - Earl Sickmann and Gary Carl E. Report of City Engineer 1. Change Order No. 1, I.C. 51-255, improvements in Cardinal Creek Page 2250 1st Addition Consider amendment of Joint Agreement for Suburban Rate Page 2254 } Authority (Resolution No. 80-168) 3. Consider bids for Valle View Road/Dell Road Phase II improve- Page 2260 ments, I.C. 51-325D - G (Resolution No. 80-165) 4. Change Order No. 1, I.C. 51-367 for additional storm sewer in Page 2263 1 Ducf<'Lake Vista 5. Gradingjermit for property north of Co. Rd. 1 and 1/2 mile Page 2266 west of Co. Rd. 4 F. Report of Finance Director 1. Receive the Housing & Redevelopment Authority Plan 2. Report on vote counting equipment Page 2267 IX. NEW BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT. UNAPPROVED HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES Unapproved TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980 7:30 PM, CITY HALL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath HDUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY STAFF: Acting City Manager Carl Jullie, Finance Director John D. .Frane, and Jean Johnson, Recording Secretary INVOCATION: Given by Mayor Penzel ROLL CALL: Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel present; Osterholt and Redpath absent, I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Penzel called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. II. DESIGNATION OF CHAIRPERSON & VICE-CHAIRPERSON. MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to designate Mayor Penzel as chair- person and Sidney Pauly as Vice-chairperson. Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted aye. Motion carried. III. RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION AND REFER TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION: Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded to receive the comments of the Planning Commission, set a public hearing for September 2, 1980 whereby the School District & County may meet with the HRA & to refer the plan to the City Council subject to a further report on September 2, 1980 of any comments of the school district and/or County. Motion carried unan- imously. IV. ADJOURN MEETING Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 PM. Motion carried unanimously. • 1 UNAPPROVED EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980 7:40 PM COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Sidney Pauly; Dave Osterholt arrived at 8:10 PM, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; City Engineer and Acting City Manager Carl Jullie; and Jean Johnson Recording Secretary. I. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF MERIT FROM PRESIDENT CARTER THROUGH THE AMERICAN RED CROSS TO STUART FOX, MIKE ROGERS AND JAMES BERGSTROM Mayor Penzel introduced Mr. Gene Borochoff, American Red Cross, who proceeded to outline the circumstances&life saving actions which lead to the nomination for Certificates of Merit for Stuart Fox, Mike Rogers and James Bergstrom. Mr. Borochoff then presented each recipient with a framed Certificate of Merit and a pin. Director of Public Safety, Jack Hacking stated that this is the 6th such Certificate of Merit presented to a City employee within the past 3 years. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS IX.O. 2. Regrest to advertise for bids for grading & seeding Hidden Ponds Park & Creekwood Park; IX.D. 3. Reauest to advertise for bids for construc- tion of the Community Center & to schedule Tuesday, September 30, 1980 as a Special Council Meeting to review bids; IX.D. 4. Round Lake Treatment & Restocking Program; IX.E. 1. Final plat approval for Braun's Estates TRes. 8O_1601; IX.F. 3. Res. 8D-153 declaring costs to be assessed & ordering pLeparation of proposed 1980 Special Assessment rolls & setting hearing date for September 16, 1980. Item IV. A. was changed to read as follows: IV.A. Request to set a public hearing for the Redevelopment Plan proposed by the HRA as well as the Eden Prairie Tax Increment Financing Plan & District for September 16, 1980. MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to approve the agenda as amended & published. Motion carried unanimously. III. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, HELD TUESDAY,AUGUST 5, 1980 Pg. 3, B, 5th para., strike onerous and insert thereof'onus". MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Council meeting held Tuesday, August 5, 1980, as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. J101 • City Council Minutes -2- Tues., August 19, 1980 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request to set a Public Hearing for the Redevelopment Plan as proposed by the LIRA as well as the Eden Prairie Tax Increment Financing Plan & District for September 16, 1980. B. Approve plans and specifications and order bids for sewer and water improvements along T.H. 101 north of Valley View Road, I.C. 51-386 (Resolution No. 80-154) C. Approve plans and specifications and order bids for street improve- ments in Elie sp Mitchell Heights 4th Addition, I.C. 51-353A (Resolu- tion No. 80-156) D. Approve plans and specifications and order bids for utility and street improvements in Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition, I.C. 51-383 (Resolution No. 80-157) E. Resolution No. 80-158, approving election judges F. Request to set a Public Hearing for September 2, 1980 for the 1981 City Budget G. Request to advertise for bids for grading & seeding Hidden Ponds Park and Creekwood (formerly IX.D. 2) H. Request to advertise for bids for construction of the Community Center and to schedule Tuesday, September 30, 1980 as a Special Council meeting to review bids (formerly IX.D. 3) I. Round Lake Treatment & Restocking Program formerly IX.D. 4) J. Final Plat pp roval for Braun's Estates (Resolution No. 80-160) (for- merly IX.E. 1) K. Resolution No. 80-153, declaring costs to be assessed and ordering pr par_ation of proposed I98D special assessment rolls and setting hearingiate for September 16, 1980 (formerly IX.E. 3) MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to approve items A - K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Feasibility Report for Tax Increment Financing (continued from August 5, 198D MOTION: Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded, to close the public hearing and J take no action in light of Item IV.A, Motion carried unanimously. B. Federal Revenue Sharing Funds Finance Director John Frane explained that federal requirements state that a public hearing be conducted in order to designate use of funds. lie reconenended the funds he used for public safety purposes as has been done in the past. City Council Minutes -3- Tues., August 19, 1980 { Penzel inquired if funds could be used to assist in construction of elderly housing units. City Planner Enger replied funds from C.D.B.G, have been reserved for such use. Penzel asked if audience had questions or comments. None were raised. MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to designate the use of 1981 Fed- eral Revenue Sharing funds for public safety purposes. Motion carried unanimously. C. Timber Creek PUD by B-T Land Compaq. Request for Planned Unit Development approval on 150 acres of land for single family and multiple residential, park land and open space uses. Located north of Duck Lake Trail, West of Co. Rd. 4, and south of Town- line Road (Resolution No. 80-151 - PUD, and Resolution No. 80-159 - E.A.W.) Mayor Penzel noted the August 14, 1980 letter from the proponents wherein a continuance to September 2, 1980 is requested (letter read & attached as part of minutes). Joe Morin, 15820 So. Eden Drive, distributed a resident report dated August 19, 1980. MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to continue the Deer Creek PUD public hearing to September 2, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. Penzel informed the audience all individuals would be renotified as to the continuance. D. Thorn Creek Place PUD by Minneapolis Retail Meat Cutters & Food Handlers Health and Welfare Fund. Request for PUD Concept approval for office, commercial and multiple residential uses on 60 acres. Located north and west of Co. Rd. 39 and east of U.S. 169-212 (Resol- ution No. 80-152) MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to table this item until 8:30 PM as the proponents were absent. Motion carried unanimously, 8:30 PM, After Item VIII. A. John llban, Howard Dahlgren & Associates, presented the Thorn Creek Place proposal outlining the location, utilities, parks and open space, surround- ing uses, noise impacts, soils, vegetation, access points, and proposed uses of office and commercial. He stated first phase development of office, raquet club and a parking ramp is anticipated in the southern portion. City Planner Enger reviewed the Planning Commission's review and approval of the request noting the commission recommended deletion of staff report recommendation .5 regarding introduction of more housing. City Council Minutes -4- Tues., August 19, 1980 Community Services Director Lambert reviewed the Parks Commission's review and approval noting they recommend an additional recommendation for a trail easement. Penzel asked if the proponents concur with the commissions' recommendations. Mr. Uban replied affirmative. Mr. Uban believed that if the northern road connection is made and cost becomes a burden for the uses proposed, they would request additional building near the north boundary. Penzel suggested the southern loop road to Valley View be constructed with first phase development. Uban expressed their preference to construct the loop road when the res- taurant is built. Gary Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, requested that all future right of way for Valley View Road improvements come from the north side. City Engineer Jullie stated that 66 feet of right of way exists, 17 feet is being requested from the north side, and a total of 100 feet is desired. He added that the 17 feet being dedicated is anticipated to suffice for turn lanes to serve the new development. Frank Smetana, 7680 Smetana Lane, stated his opposition to the proposal. Marilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, felt the development proposed is too dense. The Planner noted that ordinance allows 30% building coverage and the request is for approximately 16% coverage. MOTION: Cdstrom moved, Osterholt seconded, to close the public hearing, adopt Resolution 80-152, and direct staff to draft a Developer's Agree- ment per the recommendations of the July 3, 1980 staff report as modified by the commissions, and that: 1. the loop road to Valley View be con- structed with first phase development, 2. the necessary right of way for Valley View Road is obtained, & 3. the northern road connection is assumed feasible and should be made as required by traffic densities as per the City Engineer's recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAINS NOS. 2757 - 2981 MOTION: Pauly moved, Penzel seconded, to approve Payment of Claims 2757 - 2981. Roll call vote: Edstrom voted aye, Pauly voted aye, Penzel voted aye. Motion carried. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMI•IISSION None Osterholt arrived. 210L1 City Council Minutes -5- Tues., August 19, 1980 VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS Don Chmiel, NSP, explained their difficulty in acquiring easements from the adjoining property owner as outlined in the August 13, 1980 letter. Chmiel requested changes in the Developer's Agreement to: 1. revise the location of existing 345KU line approximately 300' south placing it South of W. 78th Street next to Rosemount Engineering's entrance; 2. Have a 1982 deadline instead of 1981 to berm and landscape the site due to additional precausions needed to go over a sanitary sewer line. Edstrom asked if Rosemount Engineering has been contacted and reacted relative to the revised tranmission line location. Chmiel replied they first wanted to receive Council approval prior to contacting Rosemount. Pauly inquired if placing the line on the south side of W. 78th Street posed any safety problems and how much lower the ground is. Chmiel replied no danger exists and that the ground is 10-12 feet lower and would therefore require a taller tranmission structure. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Penzel seconded, to approve the requests to change the benning and landscaping oate to 1982 and the revised location of the tranmission line contingent upon Rosemount Engineering's agreement • to the revised location. Motion carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members A. Councilwoman Pauly presented a resolution outlining a joint planning effort between Carver County and the Cities of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and requesting planning funds from the Metro Council. MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 80-164. Motion carried unanimously. B. Mayor Penzel 1. Spoke to invitation from League of Minnesota Municipalities to attend a meeting on Wednesday, August 20, 1980. 2. Spoke to invitation from Eden Prairie Lion's for the annual golf day at Dahlgren. 3. Informed members the Metro Council Chairman would be present Thursday, September 4, 1980 at St. Louis Park City Hall for questions and convents. B. Rport of City Attorney None 210S • City Council Minutes -6- Tues., August 19, 1980 ( C. Report of City Manager None D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Hidden Ponds Park Plan Mayor Penzel read an August 19, 1980 letter from the Paulsen's requesting the City to install a fence to protect their property and orchard,adjacent to the park, from trespassers. Director of Community Services Lambert reviewed the park plan stating: the majority of trees depicted do exist, the Parks Conmission unan- imously approved the plan, and perhaps trespassers could be discouraged by berms and plant material. Discussion took place regarding the cost and effectiveness of a berm with plantings versus a chain link fence, and the unique conditions of this park/landowner situation in that the owner derives livelihood from the orchard. MOTION: Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded, to approve the general park plan and request the staff to return with a report on type, cost, and placement of a positive boundary control. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of City Engineer 1. Final plat approval for Braun's Estates (Resolution No. 80-160) This item was moved to Consent Calander (IV.J.) 2. Receive feasibility report for storm drainage improvements in Sutton 1st Addition, I.C. 51-370 Resolution No. 80-128JCon- tinued from 7/15/80 City Engineer Jullie briefly reviewed the report and Mr. Sutton's response and stated alternatives could be investigated. • MOTION: Osterholt moved, Pauly seconded, to continue the item to September 16, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Resolution No. 80-153, declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed 1980 special assessment rolls and setting hearing date for September 16, 1980 This item was moved to Consent Calander (IV.K.) 4. Consider bids for improvements on Anderson Lakes Parkway, including park—site ggradinq, I.C. 51-341 TResolution 80-155) MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to adopt Resolution 80-155 and a+ard the bid to low bidder Shafer Contracting Company in the amount of S499,722.80. Upon roll call Pauly voted aye, Osterholt voted aye, Edstrom voted aye and Penzel voted aye. Motion carried. t F?.'r City Council Minutes -7- Tues., August 19, 1980 5. Change Order No. 4, I.C. 51-326, Dell Road realignment and agree- ment for right of way City Attorney Pauly spoke to the change order and revisions. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to approve the Change Order and authorize signatures. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Purchase agreement with Tudor Oaks Condominium Project for sale of City property abutting T.H. 169 south of Schooner Boulevard Mayor Penzel asked City Attorney Pauly to speak to the sales process followed. Pauly responded that sales of excess property does not require a bid process and can be offered to adjoining owners. Pauly then summar- ized the Purchase Agreement conditions. City Engineer Jullie stated the land was offered to adjoining owners due to difficulties of development and access unless developed in conjunction with other land. Osterholt stated his objection to the process followed and he did not see any clear benefit to the City. Penzel concurred with Osterholt and expressed opposition to certain conditions in the purchase agreement. Michael Contact, Tudor Oaks representative, stated they wish to acquire the land to develop in conjunction with other property. Discussion took place regarding agreement contingencies and the ab- sence of a current appraisal. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to refer the item back to the staff for a 1980 appraisal and to direct ABIO to submit a PUD amendment application. Motion carried unanimously. F. Report of finance Director 1. Clerk's License List Penzel referred to petitions in opposition to the Kennel license. Mrs. Renier presented a new petition in which some individuals who opposed the license have now reversed their objection after having a Kennel license explained to them. She added that they will not re- place whichever dog expires first and they have fenced in their rear yard to prevent roaming. Mr. LeRoy W'ickstrom, representing Mr. Ruegemer (on vacation), sug- gested Reniers & Ruegemers meet to resolve some of the complaints. '4:1� • City Council Minutes -8- Tues., August 19, 1980 • Edstrom stated he had been contacted by Reiner A Ruegemer, neither of whom could attend, and suggested due to the absence of Mr. Reiner and Mr. Ruegemer, the item be continued. Pauly suggested the community service officer involved be in attend- ance at the next meeting. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to continue the Kennel license to September 2, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. Pauly suggested a new name be applied to the Kennel license as many residents misunderstand the purpose of the license. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to approve the Clerk's License List with the exception of the Kennel license which is con- tinued. Motion carried unanimously. X. NEW BUSINESS Edstrom introduced Mr. John Glogovick who is running for Council. XI. ADJOURNMENT Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded, to adjourn at 10:08 PM. Motion carried. • • } 1 bar ( I RESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL ON THE TIMBER CREEK DEVELOPMENT Date: August 19, 1900 Prepared By: Joseph J. Morin with the support of citizens representing six neighborhood communities. 2109 : 4. FORWARD This report deals with the rights of citizens in the seven neighbor- hoods surrounding the proposed Timber Creek development to have additional parkland dedicated in this area beyond that already re- quired to be dedicated by the developer. The report* was presented to the Eden Prairie Planning Commisssion on August 11, 1980. The Planning Commission ruled that it did not have the scope of authority to decide the issues presented in this report because they could only consider the parkland requirements of future residents • of the proposed development. The Planning Commission advised us (the residents of the seven neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development) to "take your fight to the City Council. We are not presenting this report in order to "fight", but only wish to present our case. The Planning Commission was too narrow in the scope of its authority to deal with the rights of the citizens of seven neighborhoods. We hope that the City Council is not too broad in scope to consider the rights of these citizens. We fear that we are being told that we must give up our rights to our neighbor- hood parkland so that the entire city can be served by bigger and better parks in other areas of town. If this is indeed what we are being told, we strongly object to the f, message. We even more strongly object to the concept implicit in the message, that citizens can be told that they must give up their rights for the good of the state. *NOTE: This version of the report differs slightly from that presented to the planning commission because the statistics have been updated. 2110 INTRODUCTION ( This report represents the majority opinion of the residents of the neighborhoods described as Edenview 1, Edenview 2, Nottingham Forest, County Road 4, Kurtz Lane, and Paradise Valley. It also contains information about the opinions held by residents of the Coachlight Manor/Trumpy Homes development area. The residents of these neighborhoods are dissatisfied with the park plan proposed for the Timber Creek development. • We recognize that the park issue is only one of several important planning issues under consideration, but this issue is of extremely high importance to the residents in the area surrounding the develop- ment who will be served by facilities in the development area. • The Purgatory Creek area, abundant with wildlife and natural beauty would be forever lost as natural wilderness parkland if the planned development occurs. If we are not heard at this time, our right to have this wilderness parkland will also be lost. HISTORICAL ENTITLEMENT The neighborhoods affected by the proposed development are the pioneer residential neighborhoods that first provided the tax base for Eden Prairie. The tax base increased as the area grew, but parkland was never secured. The townships did not foresee the need in these neighborhoods to provide what is being provided today in communities • that are being developed. The residents were told to go play in • the fields, and this suited them fine because the fields and wood- lands were beautiful. The fields and woodlands are disappearing now; and the neighborhoods are becoming closed pockets, isolated from the natural open parkland they once enjoyed. These neighborhoods had provisions for parkland in their original covenants. For example, two mini-parks were proposed in the Kutcher Development Covenants for Edenview 1 and Edenview 2. Edenview 1 had lots dedicated at the east end of S. Eden Drive and at the west end of N. Eden Drive. Edenview 2 had lots dedicated at the end of S. Lund. • These parks were not accepted at the time because the town of Eden Prairie was unwilling to accept maintenance responsibility. As the pioneer development community, we would expect the planning commission and city council to be especially sensitive to our rights. We are entitled to due process in the serving of the compelling in- terest of the community. Specifically, we are entitled to the same consideration given other neighborhoods in satisfying our need for • recreational facilities. The cash park fee system was instituted for the purpose of providing parkland for neighborhoods such as ours. Past city council members have been sensitive to our inequities and have made attempts to provide parkland for us in the past. However, the need for suPport from the City Council has never been as critical as it is now. The last bond referendum in the fall of 1979 showed a plan which included acquisition of parkland in what is now the Timber Creek development proposal. This plan (and funding) was passed before the original Timber Creek development project was even submitted. Strangely enough, the areas defined as parkland in the bond ref- erendum now also appear as parkland in the Timber Creek proposal. The developer is required to provide this amount of parkland anyway for the future residents of the development. Therefore, the present residents of the surrounding neighborhoods will be deprived of their rights (which were guaranteed long ago) if this proposal is passed. The original Timber Creek proposal (February 1980) was rejected on the basis that the park situation was not well addressed toward tax paying citizens of a community which dates back 20 years. It is the feeling of these citizens that the basis of that rejection was well founded, and that the only change to the rejected proposal has been the insignificant addition of a few more access, points. We believe that the park situation is still not well addressed. We believe that we are entitled to more parkland area. It is more than just an issue of entitlement that concerns us today. We are also concerned with our social responsibility as citizens to make the proper decisions in preserving our bountiful natural resources. We would like to preserve the entire area; but if this is impossible, let us at least try to preserve the most beautiful sections. We are fortunate that these sections are the ones most used by children and adults alike for nature study, walking, jogging, and even bicycling in the summer... and for sliding, cross country skiing, and snow shoeing in the winter. We have the responsibility to include some human feeling for the people who now use and love this area, along with the other relevant factors in making a proper decision. We have a responsibility to preserve some of the area for children not yet born, and for those future residents of the new development. RESIDENT/PARK BOARD COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTIES Unfortunately, we have not had effective communication with our Park Board. The Park Board staff did not solicit citizen input during the planning process, and reacted defensively when input was provided during the June 16, 1980 Park Board hearing. Thirty-five residents attended the June 16, 1980 hearing because one local resident distributed flyers throughout the neighborhood. No one else was even notified of a meeting. Residents are not informed of meetings and are not notified of major shifts in planning policy. For example, of the 35 people attending the Juno 16, 1980 meeting, not one person knew that a major shift had taken place in the park planning system depriving this community of the more than 18 acres of parkland originally planned by the Park Board. No public hearings were held, and no public notices were re- ceived by the residents. 2112- At the June 16, 1980 meeting, attended by 35 residents, the Park Board rejected the original staff proposal on the basis that priority ( whould be given to the present residents (over future residents) on the park issue. The primary concerns expressed earlier in this report (entitlement, a wilderness park concept, extent of responsibility) were discussed. A secondary concern was expressed that more attention should be given on how to access this area. At the conclusion of the meeting the developer agreed to meet with the residents to draw up a plan which would be endorsed by the resi- dents. A number of people signed up, and a list was provided to the developer during a gathering after the meeting in the parking lot. The developer then agreed to organize the meeting to draw up a plan with the residents. The developer did not have the meeting which we agreed upon, and a second Park Board hearing was held on July 7, 1980. Only one resident was notified, and it was too late to inform the neighborhood people. The residents wonder why at least the 35 persons attending the first meeting were not notified, since a sign-up list (on a yellow pad) of meeting attendees was circuited by the Park Board staff. Consequently, only about 4 or 5 residents attended the July 7, 1980 meeting. Op- portunity for discussion was quickly closed and virtually the same plan, previously rejected, was passed. The Park Board said that the citizen's concern was access to the park, and that this was now ade- quately addressed. This conclusion was reached even though access was only a secondary concern. (One Park Board commissioner who did not attend the meeting where the plan was rejected voted to pass the proposed plan. He pointed to a stack of documents before him and commented that he was adequately informed to vote. He made the statement even though approved minutes of the meeting had not yet been issued, and were not issued as of August 3, 1980.) The primary issues were ignored. There was no citizen input to be evaluated by the Park Board Commis- sioners. One Commissioner expressed concern for the cash fee paying community west of the staff proposed park in the southwest corner of the proposed development even though no one from adjacent neighbor- hoods ever attended the meetings or requested representation. This commissioner motioned to vote against the wilderness parkland concept proposed by 35 active participants at the June 16, 1980 meeting.. . 35 people representing six neighborhood communities. .. 35 people en- titled to due process. We have since learned that the vast majority of the Coachlieht btanor/Trumpy Homes area residents actually prefer the wilderness parkland concept. PUBLIC PETITION As a result of the communication failure with our Park Board, the residents had a meeting and organized a petition drive. We wanted our voices to be clearly heard and understood. The petition reads as follows: 21i j -74 PUBLIC PETITION ( We, the undersigned, hereby petition the city of Eden Prairie to dedicate the northeast corner (approximately thirty-five acres) of the proposed Timber Creek development as undeveloped wilder- ness parkland (except for woodchip trails). This area is bounded by Purgatory Creek on the south, townline road on the north, existing de- velopment on the east, and the low side of the hill (known locally as "Dead Man's Hill") at some distance beyond an existing trail on the west. We propose that the entire 15 acres now dedi- cated by statute as parkland be allocated to the northeast corner park, and that the city purchase the additional acreage needed to complete the above description with funding from the cash park fees. We further petition that access be allowed only from walking trails, bike paths, cross country ski trails, or walking type bridges across the creek and marshland. NEW DEVELOPMENT - FLOODPI,AIN PAR]: PETITION AREA* It MwJC■D, '4 ' IL-L 1 3' t 1 ZY.`• ..\ vy �1. It }e K 1 iI .t ..,/ . Y� (V;,..z.'';'. 1 lyli r. * �__. " Imo., [7"'� _. ' " • Y r 'Map denotes general location (not to scale) ..:1l4 4 ( Copies of the signatures were presented to the Planning Commission during the meeting on August 11, 1980. The originals are presented to the City Council this evening. The results to date are as follows: o 336 signatures o Over 325 "voting age" signatures o 212 households have signed the petition o 12 households did not want to sign the petition o 62 households have not yet been contacted Of the 12 households who did not want to sign the petition, 4 cited increased taxes as a reason, 1 had no reason, 3 were professionally involved, 1 preferred tennis courts or adult facilities, 1 preferred ballfields over the wilderness parkland concept, and 2 supported the wilderness parkland concept but wanted a larger buffer zone between their homes and the planned townhouses and condominiums. The results from the Coachlight Manor/Trumpy Homes neighborhood is significant because the petition calls for re-allocating approximately 5 acres of proposed parkland from the southwest corner to the north- east corner (Rick Murray of B-T Land Company told a committee of residents that B-T Land Co. would be willing to re-allocate the pro- posed southwest corner parkland to the hill area in the northeast section). There were 34 signatures from this neighborhood, 29 house- holds were contacted, 1 did not sign because of taxes, 2 were pro- fessionally involved, and 2 supported wht wilderness parkland concept but did not want townhouses and condominiums nearby. The residents of this neighborhood would give even stronger support to the wilder- ness parkland concept if the development plan showed single family units in the southwest corner and townhouses and condominiums moved more toward the center of the development. This would be more fair to the builder in the Trumpy homes area since property values would tend to fall with condominiums nearby, would tend to rise with a small park nearby, and would remain stable with other single family dwellings nearby. In summary, approximately 78% of the households comprising the seven neighborhoods have been contacted; and of these, 95% have signed the petition. We believe that this represents overwhelming endorsement by the citizens of these communities. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions drawn in this report are as follows: 1. The residents have historic entitlement to the parkland described in the petition. 2.<I I') 2. Additional parkland beyond that already contributed by the developer should be purchased by the City from the funds ac- cumulated from cash park fees and the last bond referendum. Funds originally allocated for park development and maintenance could be re-allocated toward acquisition of the parkland on the basis .that a natural wilderness parkland would incur little or no development or maintenance costs. 3. The wilderness parkland concept has the overwhelming support and endorsement of the citizens of the community. A. During the weekend prior to the August 11, 1980 Planning Commission meeting, the citizens of six neighborhoods gathered together to discuss the issues, drew up a petition, had it published, went out and gathered 309 signatures, and produced this report. We believe that the intensity of this effort is almost as revealing as the results of the effort. The people are very seriously con- cerned, and very intimately involved. tlt :i1IL ,/j/mod a- -Ceti'-c h: �7L) a'L,-ie.-e) 4711-,1<, al & - � //7Ze /.2ZOa. /27,1/222-;L-G!".ezej-S-e,c. � • 7/// /j Z m ' ./ • 2J 1 7 • • ( August 14, 1980 Dear Eden Prairie Council Members: . As next door neighbors, we thoroughly disapprove the • granting of a kennel license to E J Renier. The dogs' barking and whining at any and all hours of the day and night is unbearable. Our sleep has been disrupted nearly every night. It is necessary to keep our bedroom windows closed be- cause of the horrible stench from the kennel. The kennel slab is being hosed down to remove the dog droppings, some of which end up in our yard, resulting in a soggy, grass- less area on our property. The entire situation is not very pleasing to the eye. Attached is a list of Holly Road neighbors who disapprove 1. of granting a kennel license to Mr. Renier. Your consideration of this unpleasant matter will be app- reciated. I wanted very much to discuss this matter with you in person at the August 19 meeting but will be away on a long ago planned vacation. Sincerely yours, LafwrcC nce DER 9 r U j ��-N • • ( We, the undersigned. neighbors, very much disapprove of E J Renier---13859 Holly Road---obtaining a kennel license. , ,,,,-,.., _ /8s< /I , _� t � l , ,l C/,,4,b_,. 137?3 c�M`-//,- 4 /3913- #0 � C_j � �'�,�- ______-1 ,may n /T^.- "'Lt_ ` l(gin/ /3 9'vs-N v. '�`Q, 4, ...„ ,..„7. ..,__,,, 7.2,6-ef:-.f sort7T__, AI q 1,5-- 06 Lset�c,- .(„,� - /3 995 �` fl d_�s� i 2/ _ 13a�� �,4-er Pei. _ Y u 11 "r�am, -�,,-o / 3 7 s' 4-e v Our principal objections are the barking of the dogs and running through the neighbors yards. • 2119 V August 15, 1980 In view of the fact the three dogs now owned by the Renlers are Y . retained in a 6' high chain link fenced kennel attached to their garage and that they have recently fenced their entire rear yard with an additional 4' high chain link fence to prevent the doss from leaving their yard and due to the fact that they h^ve no intention of breeding dogs and have agreed not to do so. We do not object to a kennel license being issued to them on an ennu::l basin so none of the present dogs have to be destroyed. Name Address Date . 2tf4,.—al Ilelos-t40.04.0.-..(.. Oa' . ._.-).e....e/I-e-.4 ..ee....0.1, ‘fozir,,,44„..4,027 a .",,,r-- . ke..1.- .4954:24(...<2..Z 6ei(r......,),,e/ f..Ar• , c_.. ( ---t Q L -.„ 6 I a`f .os .y M e—r S'" etin.,6),;401 6?,2,4PAs_/vi.</1 ,R,D ef-/i— • 7 7 3 c ,%j-...'-.".4� � . i, ,) -i 7 4.-:,,,iA i ;-.?,,,,i.. ..,,, i/da,..4,_. ,7e, f_/6 , )1a t (AA'el."^ ( .:triAl'‘i G; 7 7 O ,(i-z-L---.02 6j, Y-f 5--. ,__,,'// e dad ' .e.i. 1��/�.�1` •" 8//4 I f t • /� -/,/.ft . p:.,,,,,Itit, K,,,, 4 /0 s )-/,/ _227 P-x 2 1�.C1 r ,Ll Ll4„ r ?.12G ( - We, the undersigned neighbors, very much disapprove of E J Renier---13859 Holly Road---obtaining a kennel license• .-.? /3855- ) / . /3 9 IS /dam' z ^, v/izrz. - I3 1 1�f�` - kle- _.:__(2_-:7__-__ Jf__ /_{/a y� . 1 . #406 - --7j__/..2., , 9ige" */ 1J7,5---6--'ffg-C, gl-l - .. e_ - jram-_ 138 / c ec , c jaa, 6 &eae4_,n-„,1—_ 13?ss ,(J1 1 Rd. u g____Ci.1) ji/a_e_d_a __, Our principal objections are the barking of the dogs and running through the neighbors yards. • • 2 2-I' . B-T LAND COMPANY 1055 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD WAYZATA,MINNESOTA 55391 16121 4738511 August 14, 1980 Eden Prairie Mayor and City Council Members City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55343 • Dear Mayor and City Council Members: This letter will serve as our request for a continuance on the August 19, 1980 City Council meeting until the September 2, 1980 City Council meeting. We feel this continuance is necessary to provide us with time to create and prepare a conceptual buffering plan for the western boundary of our Timber Creek proposal. We feel this is necessary in light of concerns raised at the August 8, 1980 Planning Commission meeting as the tyro dissenting votes were both cast because they felt the proposed condominiums on our western boundary may be too close to a potential single-family area. In the park land located in our southwestern corner we feel that there is sufficient buffering through the park dedication land from the existing single-family area which abuts our property at that point. We feel that by the use of landscaping and berming that the open space farther • to the north on our western boundary can effectively be buffered by berming and landscaping within our current proposal. We feel that our plat conforms with your City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, your City's Comprehensive Thoroughfare Plan, and your City's Comprehensive Utilities Plan, has a unanimous recommendation from your City Park Comnission,and has a positive recommendation from your City Planning Commission that this concept plan should be approved. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, • B-T LAND COMPANY • Rick D. Murray • Vice President RDM/lg • " 1?2-- • SUITE 1141-ONE APPLETREE SQUARE • BLOOMING ION.MN 55420 TELEPHONE.612/B54-6400 V La! Sake AU6 27 tgt COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT August 26, 1980 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Gentlemen: On behalf of Land'Sake, Inc. and it's Lake Idlewild Office Project, I am requesting a Public Hearing and City Council approval of the following at the regular September 16th City Council meeting: 1) P.U.D. Concept for 6.7 acres of townoffices. 2) Rezoning from Rural to Office District for Phase I. 3) Preliminary Plat and Development stage approval for Phase I. Resp tfully ubmitted: tti1J)T s W. He )erg Pr .sident Z12-: • AtHC,Uyl 22, iN NOAUG 2 8 1980 TO: Mayor And City Council of Eden Prairie SUBJECT: Pr,brminary Plat and Rezoning Hearing Request (Sec Attached Maps) Property !Jeu'ifica'ion Number: 06-116-22230001 Joseph Dofc•jsi (Fee Owner)and Joseph K. Dolcjsi hereby utques` 'he scheduling of n Public H;oarhog on October 21, 1980, for 'he purpose of rezoning from RURAL to R1-22, and considering a prelimincry pia' one io'subdivision,(Approzima'ely two acres.) con- 'aiming an existing home;rnnd, within 'he Hidden Glen Subdivision, We will be • af:;?ca,ing before the Beard of Appeals on Scp'c mbar 18, 1980, and the Planning Com- mission on September 22, 1980. A hrlef bacLLround s'a'emcn' is provided'a acquaint the Mayor and City Council with on e,plana'ion for 'his request. Th.• prc,pt rfy which we request to divide is a 95 acre parcel of land which bus beer r:ren,gd nod for mod by 'Ire Dc+lojsi family since 1958. The land has situnted on on home which for many years was ron'ccf, After several disappointing rers'er ,xi. r Josry;h Dolejsi iiLed his son Joseph K. Doiejsi, 'o liv.-' in and main'oin 'I„• lu: •,.',.,::I, which he did Leminnina Scp'cmhor 19/0. stated, 'ho house is an old,, form hcarre and rrt 'b,r,rl,-.'ruc-uroll; ro.rr ri err. r irryraccros•:,'r:. Daring July of ,. yt,r, ('..r..i;r,,rr ( ,oaul!•l, a loe 1 -_, rr_ :•h•r ,i 'I.,t>I.'ai,r rt 1,,1 If, .ioeol <1^irr.r,,• r rc ,' .,f r.-. :. (} N',, e. r\t,. Crm,d, t ,,.hn,'ed 'i,,. I,r.,,.:. in!. ..'. r. i'.c•lf 'o rr ,r1d••ii,•.,t. Vdi'n s'II inln•r .:'i,�n,a:,ir,.n;...,. ter, i.,..."n r , .�I , • • U•r j, nod Jo.0oh K. Dolrjsi mo tile'.alis of 'his hnu;^and two a m ,o lhI •'', eo;r,f el'ain'Itle un,101,rs of,'Iin finunc-ino Ii .ir ' ,;,{ :f I I II l,rlr of, my t i in,o fcrnoc, , vo'er s.i n•, .,. 4 I n.sihf ,,far inn r‘f !ivim t r.pacct onci rara•,t • i Tl,r• l,roposoti ,.:�hciivision wtu Inyc_•:f out in,.Bch a manner a. 'n cr:nfnrrn witi, fc,"ir.n ,.• r;rl nr'sv;,,h•. ,Is prnpn;ed by oar) Ihrl-irn Glen Cnncep. Nen wf,ir:h ,ec.•ivrri Con,-,f,' 'f'provol fry 'I ' Pdon P,c,irie Coon,-iI in 'Ire fall of 19;917_achntan f-Iornes Inc.) Ti a e• v, i u r ne ,I if r tot anal arzorrino arc ornwed, is dtrr 'o lock e i 1.' f ir c t,hlr rood. This so,ior:c- is requested so a, eo' to divide a u,n'i•u a - 25 r • }, r. l h.) 1, e,I'h, tsl,ieft i owrx-d by Josephluulejsi. Applien',on has I,r•n mode !�. 'hr, .,:,inn•, 'o be I,,•nrd 1,y 'he flown;of Appeols mt S,'p'ernire, Ill, 1`180. flats:,' .fvi it -lily sru,s'inns should arise regarding 'his mower or if 'Thar ore any i ,iarma'inn tvi,ich are tr:aoi,c•d in 'h, schedi,tliny of 'hI5 ,r•:_n=C•.' to, J:'.,ph Dof�•jsi )o�r-ph K. galui'.i 90.15 lIllry 1af.r 11,1. C,.1.l5-192r.:J A•.r. t;',...•.f l.�;,n 1'r,,irir, Mn, frle•n Prairie,, N.in. (612-1381-c')01) ? 12(I MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 27, 1980 SUBJECT: New MSA Street Designations i.. ��- Under the MSA Rules and Regulations, cities are allowed to designate:up to 20% of their total local street mileage as Municipal State Aid routes. An- nual money allotments are then accrued to each community based upon the estimated cost to improve such designated routes and also upon the population of each community,. Of the total MSA funds dispersed, 50% is spread on the basis of money needs and 50% is based on population. At this time Eden Prairie is allowed to designate an additional 8.12 miles of MSA routes based upon the 20% formula, plus certain changes in the align- ment of some existing MSA routes. These changes, plus the new designations are shown on the attached map and are described in Resolutions No. R80•-171 and R80- 172 respectively. The locations of the new designations are schematic only and these alignments would be refined prior to any construc- tion. Recommend approval of Resolutions No. R80 -171 and R8D-172. CJJ:kh Attachment • • 12 � �J • ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R80-172 . • A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW PORTION TO MUNICIPAL STATE-AID ROUTE SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that the • roads hereafter described should by designated as Municipal State Aid Streets under the provisions of Minnesota Laws of 1959, Chapter 500; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that the roads described as follows, to wit: MUNICIPAL STATE AID Beginning at the junction with the • Street No. 102 Interchange Distributor Road (approximately Preserve Boulevard one-fourth mile north and one-fourth mile west of the southeast corner of Section 14, • Township 116 north, Range 22 west); thence southerly approximately one-half mile to the junction with Anderson Lakes Parkway (approximately one-fourth mile south and one-fourth mile west of the ' northeast corner of Section 23, Township 116, Range 22 west); a total distance of 0.52 miles and there terminating. MUNICIPAL STATE AID Beginning at the junction of Interstate Street No. 112• - Highway 494 and Hennepin County Road 60; Valley View Road thence westerly aPp;oxi,aately two tenths mile; thence southwesterly approximately three-tenths mile; thence westerly approximately one-tenth mile to the junction with Schooner Boulevard (MSAS II]) (approximately one-fourth mile west and three tenths mile north of the southeast corner of Section 10, Township 116, . Range 22 west) a total distance of approx- imately 0.62 miles and there terminating. • • • 2l2 • • MUNICIPAL STATE AID Beginning at the junction of Scenic Street No. 114 Heights Road (MSAS 105) and Hennepin Scenic Heights Road County Road 4; thence westerly approximately one-fourth mile; thence west southwesterly approximately eight-tenths mile to the junction with • Dell Road (MSAS 113) (approximately one- fourth mile west and one-fourth mile • north of the southeast corner of Section 18, Township 116 north, Range 22 west) a total distance of approximately 1.05 miles and there terminating. MUNICIPAL STATE AID Beginning at the junction of Dell Road Street No. 115 (MSAS 113) and Hennepin County Road 1; Dell Road thence southerly to the junction with Trunk Highways 169-212 a total distance of approximately 0.95 miles and there • terminating. MUNICIPAL STATE AID beginning at the junction of Scenic Street No. 116 Heights Road (MSAS 105) and Mitchell Mitchell Road Road (MSAS 104); thence southerly • approximately one-half mile; thence south southwesterly approximately one mile to the junction with Hennepin County Road 1 (approximately three- , tenths mile west and five hundredths mile north of the southeast corner of Section 21, Township 116 north, Range 22 west) a total distance of approxirately 1.51 miles and there terminating. • MUNICIPAL STATE AID Beginning at the junction of Homeward Hills Street No. 117 Road and Hennepin County Road 1 (approximately, Homeward Hills Road one-half mile east and one-fourth mile south of the northwest corner of Section 26, Township 116 north, Range 22 west) thence • northerly to the junction with Anderson Lakes Parkway (approximately one-half mile east and one-tenth mile north of the southwest corner of Section 23, Township 116 north, Range 22 west) a total distance of approximate) 0.90 miles and there terminating. be, and hereby is established, located and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Highways of the State of Minnesota. • BE IT FUR.T11EN RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to for,iard two cN•tilied copies of this resolution to the Commnissioner of High;uys for his cnnsid ret.ion, and that upon his approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof, that same be constructed, improved and maintained as Municipal 212313 • • • State-Aid Streets of the City of Eden Prairie, to be numbered and known as the above numbered Municipal State-Aid Streets. ADOPTED by the City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • • • • L124.)-c- • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.R80-171. A RESOLUTION REVOKING ESTABLISHED MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of,Eden Prairie that the roads hereinafter described should be revoked as Municipal State Aid Streets under the provisions of Minnesota Laws of 1959, Chapter 500; NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that the roads,described as follows, to wit: MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET NO. 102 Beginning at the junction with County Preserve Blvd. State-Aid Highway No. 1 and the west line of Section 25, Township 116 north, Range 22 west; thence northerly approx- imately one-fourth mile; thence north-- • westerly approximately three-fourths mile; thence northeasterly approximately three-tenths mile to the junction with East-West Parkway, thence northerly ap- proximately one-half mile to the junction • (approximately one-fourth mile north and one-fourth mile west of the southeast corner of Section 14, Township 116 north, y ,. • Range 22 west) with the Interchange Dis- tributor Road (S.E. Quadrant) for a • total distance of approximately 1.80 miles and there terminating. k ' MUNICIPAL STATE AID Beginning at the junction of Interstate Street No. 112 Highway 494 and Hennepin County Road 60; Schooner Boulevard thence westerly approximately four-Lenths mile, thence southwesterly approxirately two-tenths mile to the intersection of Valley View Road* (MSAS 110), and Schooner . Boulevard (MSAS 111), a total distance of approximately 0.63 miles and there ri terminating. • .r 712)50 • t be, and hereby are, revoked as Municipal State Aid Streets of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Highways of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Highways for his consideration. ADOPTED by the City Council on 19 • Wolfgang. H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MEMO ' TO: Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council • THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE; August 28, 1980 SUBJECT: Vacating Excess Utility Easement Area Olympic Hills 4th Addition • In September, 1974, the City received an easement from Hennepin County which was at that time the owner of the property now platted as Olympic Hills 4th Addition. Recently, during a title search for one of the lots in said 4th addition, it was discovered that the City's easement totally covers several of the platted lots as shown on the attached drawing. Accordingly, the owners are requesting vacation of this easement. We have checked our files and have found that the easement width was intended to be only 35 feet rather than 350 feet, as actually recorded. Since the final plat of Olympic Hills 4th dedicates all the easements required by the City for streets and utilities, the 1974 easement document is no longer necessary and therefore it can be vacated by the City. Recommend adoption of Resolution No. R80-169, setting the hearing date for October 7, 1980. CJJ:kh Attachment 21.2 • Sept. 2, 1980 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ( HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ) RESOLUTION NO. R80-169 RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING FOR VACATING UTILITY EASEMENTS IN • OLYMPIC HILLS 4TH ADDITION WHEREAS, it is proposed to vacate certain drainage and utility easements which are no longer needed and which are legally described as • • follows: • Quit Claim Deed Dated September 25, 197E , Filed April 23, 1975 Book 75 of Hennepin County Records,, page .14137258 Consideration $1.00, etc. A permanent easement for utility construction and maintenance purposes, over that part of the • following described tract: That parcel of land partly in the SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 and partly in .NW 1/h of SW 1/Il Section 25, Township 116, Range 22, bounded as follows: • . Beginning at a point on North side of the road leading to Chaska from Fort.Snelling where said road intersects with the. line on Easterly side of NW 1/4 of SW 1/h; thence Northerly in the direction of said line a 619 feet to a stake; thence Westerly about 630 feet to a stake on a Northerly side of said road; thence Southerly along said road to place V of beginning, which lies Southwesterly •of a line drawn parallel with and 350 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning nt the intersection of the Northeast line of said road with the East line of said Northwest Quarter of. the Southwest Quarter; thence run Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of County Road No. 1 for a distance of 640.0 feet and there terminating. Also a temporary easement for utility construction purposes over that part of raid tract which lies Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 100.0 feet Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at the point of beginning of the last described line; thence run Northwesterly • along said Northeasterly line for a distance of 700 feet and there terminating. Said temporary casement to expire August 1, 1975. . State Deed Tax Exempt. igr.nture recites: The County of Hennepin • 212'1 Resolution No. R80- 169 - 2 - September 2, 1980 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. A public hearing shall be held on the 7th day of October, 1980, at the Eden Prairie City Hall to consider the vacation of said • easements. • 2. The City Clerk shall give property owners legal notice of such hearing as required by law (2 weeks published and posted notice.) ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie,City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk IL ......1 1 ••,...1".., ......-• 11“,“ ittsal 0,1/14-II I SCALE IN FEET i i;:?",1://XX)• L ri.f.,,,,,,,1 ',.........,,,l - ,tove, r1411.1.01.411,1 t,o1r1r.1,./4.141 .I I 0 IC 0 200 300 1 r ,, ( Q ,r I• .1!1' 1 .4 ) _ _.L .. i I i I i „ , • ,01 '41 _ —.., , I ,,510.',o-•• ",•;:-;s. '' . n,, \•?,,,..,‘:„.,. . . // '..1,,', , '.`\ i2 .4„',.../,\ l''''',. '. -'• ',)') \,,•%, ,:•72v "..,?' , '-', .: `c.", , `-:' 1 •C, /.. '\.--,), ','.);• ', , •• .0.-i.:)---":" -,, ., . 1 ,41'0 '').' \ ':.. '") -• I.-1/:if.-; :-f-').,,` tl) 14) ,) q .s' :),... , ,...-:•'‘',;',.:3)'•. `.",,::---- i 1 ' 1 . ,,,),. i 1V^',,i' ' , 9 ''-•'‘, ,,,. ;W.4'): .... r .4, as.-,13'• ,`',.',`, I . , , .\.„..... •.,, .-st,''''i,..,, 4, ''.,.4.i're+ . •t..) ,‘.." -..,.;N,..''‘ '. • , •--"*. ,., ‘`\;1,., . ;'. ' . '`, F '"•>/ „A If., .< ---';''6 '''..1‘..",...1;,:..`- ... 'A . - .4 )G' -'''•.` ,,, '''- ' •'- ', 1)) , „'..%;\ •\--'') ,,(' ,.s.,,t`q..‘ ,A •\''':,,,,, ''.',, n-,..- •". ,Y‘• et, "P ):',',.1,\.".;- .),0 )'')''•N''' ,s' • "'`,..: V.- , 14 '' k;'4' ' ( '1;• ' ' '../. S.:. 'N, ..1.. 6••,::;‘`,\,-•• c•r; . 1 (,','..',,::;!•',,..'''- ','<''•,•... ';',..-; ,., ;1=2 ` •; 15 ‘'" ,!'I - :-.5. •.1.••• '. ;-•--.' ••'•' •/.--':.`1.-..rn's''../'''.•;:::.''1, '''' 1 : flie‘..4"+ I fl•:...t; . C ,-.••., ••••.••: :.•.•!'••, ;/, ''“.1-•:7-:::.......-!......,L.,--- ,., •.'•..r. '.!.1...."k,,;,,n`-ii, - ,-•:,' .,. " ,,,:---7---7I 1/i ,, 1 I I ,!•'21" 1••••-;..,,, ` t,',k•,;;;,,,If•I- • '6''s ...,;.,'4-= /..—..-1.-7'---,-7-,---,—.-7.1 1,,,:1 1-',-`,, ,, .„,,,,;E''''' ,i -1:,..1.,;.-:.1. 1,,,.. ',' L._,,......13.....1—/---• r",''.2\ 's: (111'!40111'%"••, ...„, , ' '' 7.)77-7,,, : i. i I'',.t_......._:2- -7-77--.-- 1'N,.N:.„;4, .,....1..', .0 i",.- , ..!.......-I—:-=--,•-•.:.----- '1'-- 1 1'I I . 0::„...E__L-3-,';',...,"...c'l '' '' ' . ' /i. .4 : i• 1.....;.::-L`..1-.'-- 1-;;•:=---- 1 rii..-7,:i 1 1 -,' --t"ou"' ..1 .- '--,.., ‘,: • ...-• ..--,-----,-.-7-1.. i .: 1_,:: .,-.y.; __—,---;----,-;-7‘. :,.,!-,1 I j,_____:.1,4 .-:,,••':-. ,,5'.',7,.. ••' -:, , -•!-•-,--,„.:77 , ; •,i 4, I 1,. )_,,___..,,,..-.T, , ,,,. .! i ,,- 3......,...._.___,..,.-r--;Nr: •;,If...:i. 1.'i - :,•.1, ,,,:„,.,r/,),..--;:,...,, d ... „ ..:,•;,-„ ; ii ii_ii.,,,,_•t___-_-. -FT--. .1 .yv.. , . _._ , ., IN , .....1 H.. , N , .. .,. „,,, ..; ; ; 1 _ ._ .....i.__. ; 1..\I ,. . 1I 1 ..• •\.\\;•.1 1•,;, , ...• 1___--1,---,-1 in-c' ' . :. -.• -,-_L----—,--- 1 1 ,1,,-, 19 N • ' ,' ' • ‘‘ - 1 I 11 I I' ' ----•. . ,- • . •--.7.,--7-• • i 1 -.. s,-. ';';•,... . - • •,..-..•.• • • -,,•-•;• ‘•. •,...._.'-,—I- '---11 ;. i ;;•1 . -. , 7,',.•• .... \ . ',' ''‘,"'Nr:L. !,•-'.-•—i /,' 1 1, ;/ •:• •,,, • ... •'•.''...2•1',...., ‘, '\ N 1.---,T—i I .,;•;'.4/ s'•-•- ' '' ,• ' ' i N ' - — / - ''' '? - , '• ' '-'2.•••••.; ••••;'••••••-••••::-... . •;.,••••.•--1 ;' •••••••; — •,"-!'; • 7;-; , , -... .', ,,,,)..1•-• ; ... ,,/,•.,k i.-• ; • ; 1 N '-.• ' •,',. ,..- NNNN 2 3 . :., . , ,.. . • ,i.,. - .. .--:-..... ; • .. • Sept. 2, 1980 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. R80-170 ' ' A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF NORTHMARK 3RD ADDITION • }} ' 1 WHEREAS, the plat of Northmark 3rd Addition • has been sub- . mitted in the 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 ordin- ances 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 Northmark 3rd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated August 26, 1980. 8. Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 43, Sec. 8, Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- • trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. • E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- • E pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on • l4offgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • Jofrn U. I iI ane, Cleik— • 2 I (:) PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Northmark 3rd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement, and the following: 1. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of $787.20. 2. Receipt of fee for City engineering in the amount of $1,500,00. ‘CJJ:kh _ • .2 1 3 I • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager • FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer OATE: August 26, 1980 SUBJECT: Northmark 3rd Addition • PROPOSAL: The developer, the Preserve, is requesting final plat approval of Northmark 3rd Addition. This is a residential multiple plat ✓ consisting of 17 buildings each containing 4 living units. The plat is located west of Northmark Addition, north of Westwind Addition and east of Preserve Boulevard. Outlot A will be owned by the Homeowners' Associa- tion and will be used as a pathway and buffer area. HISTORY: The oreliminary plat was approved by the City Council on June 3, 1980, per Revolution No. R80-I00. Zoning to RM 6.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on July 1, 1980, per Ordinance No. 080-15. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on • July 1, 1980. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: The requirements for the installation of utilities and streets are covered in the Developer's Agreement. Lot 1, Block 1, will be covered by a drainage and utility easement. The additional right-of-way necessary on Franlo Circle at its connection to Preserve Boulevard will be conveyed through a separate document from the • Preserve Homeowners' Association. The documents necessary for these easements will be required prior to release of the final plat. • The developer has requested the street name Franlo Circle, as shown on the plat, be changed to Scotch Pine Court. Existing street names that may conflict are Pine Bluff Court and Scot Terrace. The engineering staff will further review this with the developer prior to release of the final plat. • 2 I?,l '-. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and Member of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 26, 1980 SUBJECT: Neill Woods Addition PROPOSAL: The developer, The Preserve, is requesting City Council approval of the final plat of Neill Woods Addition, a single family residential plat consisting of 22 lots located southerly of and adjacent to Neill Woods 2nd Addition and easterly of and adjacent to Meadow Park Addition. Outlot A will be owned by the Homeowners' Association and will be used as a pathway connection to Neill Lake. HISTORY:The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on June 5, 1979, per Resolution No. 79-108. Zoning to R1-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on July 3, 1979, per Ordinance No. 79-16. The Developers Agreement referred to within this report was executed on July 17, 1979. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: The requirements for the installation of utilities and streets are covered in the Developer's Agreement. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's Agree- ment. RECU[?11[NDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Neill Woods Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement ( and the following: 1. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of $984.0O. 2. Receipt of fee for City Engineering in the amount of $660.00 Sept. 2, 1980 • CITY Of EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA , • RESOLUTION NO. R80-167 . A 'RESOLUTION APPROVING_FINAL PLAT • • OF NEILL WOODS ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Neill Woods Addition has been sub- . mitted in the 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 ordin- ances 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 Neill Woods Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated August 26, 1980. _ B. Variance i`s herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- ti • trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. • -" D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified-copy 1 of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- pliance with the foregoing provisions. 4 ADOPTED by the City Council on { 4 y JG—of fgang H. Penze1, Mayor 1 ATTEST: SEAL { John U.l rare, ti ea :, 1 4 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ( ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and Member of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: • Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 26, 1980 SUBJECT: Preserve Center 2nd Addition PROPOSAL: The Developer, The Preserve, is requesting City Council approval of the final plat of Preserve Center 2nd Addition. This plat consists of six lots intended for the construction of double dwelling units. Outlet A will partially be replatted with Neill Woods 2nd Addition, the remainder of the Outlet will be owned by the Homeowners' Association to be used for a pathway connection to Neill Lake. Lot 1, Block 2, will be combined and replatted with a portion of Lake Heights Addition at a later date. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on August 21, 1979. Zoning to RM 6.5 was finally read and approved on October 10, 1972, in conjunction with the Greenward townhouse project, per Ordinance No. 188. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on August 7, 1979. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximimun time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. All other variance requests are covered in item #6 of the Developer's Agreement. UTILITIES AND STREETS: The requirements for the installation of municipal utilities and streets are covered in the Developer's Agreement. • PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding requirements are covered in the Developer's Agreement. RICOMMINDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Preserve Center 2nd Addition, subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of $393.60. 2. Receipt of fee for City Engineering services in the amount of $810.00. 2 11,.E Sept. 2, 1980 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. R8O-174 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT . • OF PRESERVE CENTER 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Preserve Center 2nd Addition has been sub- mitted in the 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 ordin ances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: - A. Mat Approval Request for Preserve Center 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated August 26, 1980. • B. Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the •approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final ( plat as described in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on Wolfgang It. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. t-i-ane, Clem 2i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 28, 1980 • SUBJECT: Mill Creek 7th Addition PROPOSAL: Rusted Development Corporation is requesting City Council approval of the final plat of Mill Creek 7th Addition. This addition consists of a 6 unit townhouse cluster and common area. This is a replatting of OUtlot B, Mill Creek 6th Addition. HISTORY: The Mill Creek PUD concept plan was approved by the City Coun- cil on March 27, 1973, per Resolution No. 668. The preliminary plat was approved March 27, 1973, by the City Council through Resolution No. 669. Zoning to RM 6.5 was approved by the City Council April 10, 1972, per Ordinance No. 135. The final plat now submitted for approval conforms with the approved preliminary plat. VARIANCES: A variance from City Drdinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be neces- sary. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer have been installed and approved within the development. Concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving will be installed in accordance with City standards. PARK DEDICATION: No public park or open space dedication is required under this platting. BONDING: The City will not be responsible for roadway or utility maintenance within the plat, therefore no additional bonding will be required. RE.CO ENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Mill Creek 7th Addition, subject to the contents of this report and the following: 1. Receipt of fee for engineering services in the amount of $180.00. CJJ:kh �./ . • Sept. 2, 1980 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA . • RESOLUTION NO. R80-173 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT • OF MILL CREEK 7TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Mill Creek 7th Addition • has been sub- mitted in the 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 ordin- ances 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 Mill Creek 7th Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated August 28, 1980. B. Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. I waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final f plat as described in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358. Subd. 3. • D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a-- certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- • pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on • Wolfgang. H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk { • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Frane DATE: August 29, 1980 • RE: M.I.D.R.'S Minnesota Industrial Tools Project - $1,000,000 Richard Cohen and Gerald Portnoy propose to construct a 43,000 square foot office warehouse building on part of the "Hells" property at a cost of $1,288,000. The building would be 60% leased to Minnesota Industrial. Tools, Inc. which is owned by the Cohen family. The property is zoned I-2 which is proper for the intended use. A public hearing could be scheduled for September 16, 1980. JOF:bw 8/29/80 • .JAI • (, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA • Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name - Messrs. Richard W. Cohen and Gerald A. Portnoy b. Business Address - c/o Minnesota Industrial Tools, Inc. • 15755 - 32nd Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 • c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor- ship, etc.) - Partnership to be organized. d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota. • • e. Authorized Representative - Mr. Richard W. Cohen - 553-3250 or f. Phone - Mr. Gerald A. Portnoy - 332-3413 • • • 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: a. Mr. Richard W. Cohen . Mi.nnrsota Industrial Tools, Inc. 15755 - 32nd Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 b. Mr. Gerald A. Portnoy G S B Investment., Inc. 1924 Midwest Plaza Building c. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -1- r L/O -.c • 3. GIVE I3IIJEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC: A partnership consisting of Messrs. Cohen and Portnoy will be organized to own and operate the Project. Approximately 60% of the Project will be leased to Minnesota Industrial Tools, Inc. , a corporation controlled by Mr. Cohen, with the balance of the space,approximately 17,000 square feet in size, to be leased to unrelated tenants until such space is needed by Minnesota Industrial Tools, Inc. • 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT - A 43,400 square foot combination office- warehouse building. a. Location and intended'use: West 74th Street off of Washington Avenue South. Legally described as the East 250 feet of Lot 1, - • Block 1, Norseman Industrial Park 3rd Addition. b. Present ownership of project site: Iferleiu and Boryhild Belle c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: R. J. Ryan Construction, Inc. (, Ore Apple Tree Square Suite 1141 Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 Telephone - 612-854-2310 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: Land 3.4 acres $ 275,000 Building 43,300 square feet $ 924,500 Equipment $ -0- Other financing fees, $ 88,750 construction 'period interest, • legal fees and other soft • costs Total ---- -2- i`I I . 6. BOND ISSUE - C a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $1,000,000 b. Proposed date of sale of bond - October, 1980 c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - 30 years d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - The bond will be placed by Northland Mortgage Company with an institutional mortgage lender yet to be determined. e. Name and address of suggested trustee - N/A f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser - Financing commitment cannot be obtained until passage of preliminary resolution. g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - Interim construction financing to be provided by institutional lender yet to be determined. h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - All project costs in excess of bond financing to be provided by Applicant in form of cash equity contribution. 7.. BUSINESS PROFILE OF APPLICANT. a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No • b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? • i. Before this project: None • -3- ii. After this project? Minnesota Industrial Tools, Inc. presently employs in excess of 50 persons. It is anticipated that the other tenants of the Project, yet unidentified, will employ an additional 25 persons. c. Approximate annual sales - 1980 annual sales for Minnesota Industrial Tools, Inc. is estimated to be $12,000,000. d. Length of time in business Minnesota Industrial Tools, Inc. has been in business for 33 years. in Eden Prairie None • • e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? • Yes. Omaha, Nebraska, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa.• f. Are you engaged in international trade? No. 8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "re]eated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. - None. • • -4- 1 q 3 if. • • b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. None. • • c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial development revenue financing. None. • d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused industrial development revenue financing. • None. • e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. None. • • _g_ • 2.1q4 • • • (. ... • • 1. If Applicant has been denied industrial development revenue financing in any other city as identified in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the namc(s) of appropriate city officials who • have knowledge of the transaction. None. • 9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: Mortgage Broker: a. . kteE_fil 7tN'''rT"Ir) . Northland Mortgage Company 6600 France Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement) Institutional mortgage lender yet to be determined. • i. If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project, submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner of Securities. • • • -6- i • b. Bond Counsel - Marvin C. Ingber and �. Mackall, Crounse & Moore 1000 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 • c. Corporate Counsel - Stanley V. Schanedling and Stacker, Ravich & Simon 1500 Midwest Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 d. Accountant - Harold Gillman and Klane, Gillman & Schechter 3033 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 ' 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: . a. Construction start - September 22, 1980 ' b. Construction completion - January 15, 1981 ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The undersigned Applicant. understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. Applicant ill--2-- ---g. -44-. _ -vy Applicant • August 27, 1980 • Date -7- • • 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a. Property is zoned - '�-?. �'��- , b. Present zoning =i's (is not) correct for the intended use. c. Zoning application received on for which is correct for the intended use. d. Variances required - • • City Planner • -8- 2ly`] MEMO • TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 28, 1980 SUBJECT: Resolution No. R80-176 The attached resolution is required by MN/DOT in order to release State Aid 1 1 construction monies in the amount of $49,069 to be expended for the widen- ing and channelization work along T.H. 169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway. Recommend approval of Resolution No. R80-176. ( CJJ:kh g d 4 y • • Sept. 2, 1980 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R80-176 ( APPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL STATE-AID FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON T.H. 169 I.C. 51-341 WHEREAS, It has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Eden Prairie to participate in the cost of a construction project on T.H. No. I69 within the limits of said municipality, and WHEREAS, Said construction project has heen annrnved by the Department of Highways and identified in its records as (S.A.P.) No. 181-107-02. (' NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That we do hereby appropriate from our Municipal State-Aid Street Funds the sum of $49,069 dollars to apply toward the construction of said project and request the Commissioner of Highways to approve this authorization. APPROVED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL John D. Crane, Clerk 210. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -1- August 25, 1980 Members absent: William Bearman • A. BRYANT LAKI CENTFR POD & LAI:ERIDGE OFFICE PARK REZONING. Request by • Hustad Development Corporation for PUD Concept approval for office • & commercial uses and preliminary plat approval; and Ryan Develop- E ment inc.'s request for rezoning of 7.7 acres of the 31 acre PUD and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located South of Co. Rd. 60 & North of 494. A public hearing. The Planner reviewed commission action from previous meetings and stated that the proposal has been revised. He introduced Wally Hustad, Hustad Development Corporation. Hustad stated that they are looking to create an office park with variety. He felt 1 that small scale buildings along Valley View Road and that the townhouse office concept is important. He introduced Tom Ryan, of Ryan Development Inc., and Dick Putnam, of Hustad Development and also Rick Sather, Engineer. Bearman arrived at 7:48 PM. Putnam stated that around the pond they are planning to have office buildings with underground parking spaces. Where the northern part of the site becomes narrow, there I are 4 to 6 story buildings planned adjacent to 494. He went over the circulation of, the site and stated that there is a loop raod which connects the two cul-de-sacs. He introduced Rick Sather, Engineer for Hustad. Sather covered the utility aspects of the site and stated that most of the change in the elevation of the site will be preserved in the development plan. He also stated that the utilities need public sewer and water. He also covered storm drainage. f - Putnam introduced Tom Ryan, of Ryan Development. Ryan went over the impact that Bryant Lake Center/Lakeridge Office Park would have • on other sites. He stated that the project would be heavily landscaped. He stated that the buildings are to be owned by the owner/user. He felt that the model shows that this project is low-scale and low density. • • Retterath relinquished the chair to Chairman Bearman at 8:12 PM. The Planner reviewed the 8/22/80 staff memo. He also stated that the plan has been • revised in detail. A loop road has been added and the eastern area has been shown • in detail in torms of future development of office or commercial uses. He also • stated that this revised plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Sutliff asked whet the current limit for the height of buildings is. The Planner replied it is 3(1' in Office District of the Zoning Ordinance, however, the M.C.A. PUD contemplates multiple story buildings. Bentley asked if the request for Phase I includes the loop road in rezoning and the plat request. Putnam replied yes. Bentley also inquired about the width of the loop road. Putnam replied that it is 28' and that they are looking at it as a private road with public use. • Bentley asked if the Normal Orrlinanry High Water Mark of Bryant lake extends into • the Southern marsh urea. The Planner replied he would have to check. • • 1y� 1 Unapproved Planning;Corunission Minutes • -2- August 25, 1980 Bentley asked what the impervious surface coverage allowed under the Shoreland Management Act is, and what it was for the property being zoned. The Planner replied that the impervious surface coverage allowed in Shoreland Area is 30% and the coverage for the property being zoned is 60% Hustad stated that 60% of impervious surface is not high, the zoning ordinance allows 90%. Levitt stated that he felt the model appeared to have more impervious surface coverage than 60%. • Levitt asked if construction limits could be set for grading of Phase I and Phase II. The Planner replied yes. # Sutliff asked how much more grading would be needed if the loop road is added. • The Planner stated that it would be 1 acre. Sutliff commented that he felt that the loop road should go in when Phase II is built. Putnam stated that they would like to do as little grading as possible in Phase I. He also stated that to put the loop road in Phase I, more grading would be required. Retterath asked if there would be enough room to get a fire truck through the parking lot when it is full. The Planner stated that yes, there is enough room. • Bearman asked if the engineers have looked at this project. The Planner stated they have looked at it only on a preliminary basis and that they have not found any major problems. Bearman asked about the landscaping. The Planner stated that on the original staff report he commented that there was to be additional berming and that plant material should be enlarged. Bearman asked if there is an erosion control plan in Phase I. Sather replied that the Watershed would require one. • Motion 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the PUD & preliminary plat request. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. • Motion 2 Gartner ineved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD Concept dated 6/]6/b0 as revised based upon the staff reports, 7/25/80 and 8/22/80 with th e following additions: 1. That no grading will be done until rezoning and platting is approved. 2. Grading will he limited to the 7.7 acre small office proposal and loop road. 3. Construction limits must be set and fenced in the field. 4. That portion of the site within the Shoreland Area must be developed in conformance with the Shore land Management Act. 5. That the revised PhD he attached to the original. fetterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. 1��� • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 25, 1980 Motion 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the first phase rezoning of 7.7 acres from C-Reg to Office based upon the plans dated 6/16/80 and the staff reports of 7/25/80 and 8/22/80, seconded by Retterath with the same additions as in Motion 2. DISCUSSION Bentley moved to amend the motion; that the loop road be constructed in conjunction with Phase II of Lakeridge. Sutliff seconded, motion failed 2-5. Retterath, Bearman, Gartner, Torjesen, & Levitt voted nay. • The original motion was changed with the following addition: 6. Than an erosion control plan be added. The original motion carried-7-0. Motion 4 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 6/16/80 based upon the staff reports of 7/25/80 and 8/22/80 with the same additions as in motions 2 and 3. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. Motion 5 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. • • 2.1)J • • Minutes--Parks, Recreation and Natural unapproved Resources Conmaission -6- August 4, 1980 Members absent: Richard Anderson V.B.1.o. Bryant L::?<e Center/Iai:o Riche Office park Dick I'ulaccc vac present representing livatad. Development. I1r. 1'utuan,a did not have a plan to chow the Corsaicsion and asked that any action he po:;tponed to the August 18, 1930 meeting. lie said that the Planning Coi;eisnion denied their proposal at the lust meeting because the grading wan too extensive. Huctad Development i;:, therefore, putting together a moatel which will • chow how the cite will bo graded. Resident John Wilkie, 7221 Willow Creek Road, said that the Hustad people met 0.th residents on July 1, 1930, and he is pro:cntirg a letter from the neighbors to the parks, Recreation &natural Resources Commission dated July 14, 1930. '1'anl2en accepted the letter and ar:i:cd that at copy be mailed to Commissioners before the ncrt meeting. 73reitcnctcin moved to recommend that this item be L postponed to the next meeting, August 18, 1930. Van;tetcr seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. • • 21t;11 } i Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 28, 1980 Members absent: William Bearman & Liz Retterath A. b'RYHIT IARE CENTER PINT AND LAKER]DC,E OFFICE PARK Rr:70NiNG. Request for Pl1U Concept approval of office & commerical uses on 31 acres, rezoning from C-Reg to Office for 7.7 acres, preliminary plat approval, and app- roval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located South of Co. Rd. 60 & North of 494. A public hearing. The Planner stated that this item is continued from July 14. He introduced Dick Putnam, representing Hustad Dev. Inc., Mr. Dan O'Brian, and Tom Ryan, representing Ryan Dev. Inc. Putnam went over concerns raised at the July 14, 1980 meeting and revisions to the plan. He also stated that a loop street will be made through the parking lot. Grading would not be done over the entire 30 acres at this time. He pointed out that the "T" intersection will be adequate. Dan O'Brian, architect for Tom Ryan Development, stated that there will be 14 condominium office buildings which will range from 3900 to 930D sq. ft. He stated that the right-of-ways will be expanded to meet Engineering Department's require- ments. They will modify setbacks for parking to comply with City ordinances and will modify the signage to comply with Ordinance "261. Tom Ryan discussed the density of the site. He stated that the floor area ratio is 24%, the building coverage is 40% less than is allowed and the impervious site coverage is 25% less than is allowed in the existing ordinances. The Planner stated that the July 24 transportation report totals between 22,000 to 25,000 trips a day on Valley View Road. He stated that the transportation numbers on the July 22, 1980 transportation report are not accurate. The Planner felt that a loop road other than going through a parking lot would be desireable. He stated that the zoning ordinance allows 150,000+ sq. ft. F.A.R. compared to the 77,000 sq. ft. proposed. He stated that wood is not an approved material for com- mercial, industrial, office buildings under the zoning ordinance and asked the commission to consider the durability and maintenance of wood. The Planner also reviewed the parking. Sutliff stated that the road access intervals do not meet the 660 ft. standard for the Ring Road. The Planner stated that a couple of the accesses would become less than full access in the future. He also stated that a "T" intersection creates• less demand on that road as compared to a full intersection. Bentley stated that there does not seem to be any progress toward connecting the cul-de-sacs. He also felt that since these cul-de-sacs are not connected, people would have problems finding the addresses that they wanted to reach. Ryan stated that there has been some progress. He also stated that the first traffic report stated that there is no need to connect these cul-de-sacs. Ryan stated that the road setbacks and requirements have to be met. Putrasr stated that he felt that people would not drive in one way to get out through the other way and there is no over-riding reason for the loop road. 2 1'i') • Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 28, 1980 Bentley asked what the lennth of the cul-de-sacs was and what the distance between s t. nd f. ( 600n P r ns ft. andthedistanced that betweenirthee est twocul-de-sac is betweeniG000ttof700l the east is ft. The Planner stated the reasons why the cul-de-sacs should be connected: maintenance, • fire and police protection, and circulation. He also stated that the County feels that the loop road would be beneficial. Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that the PUD Concept stated that the • . project will be 40" commercial use, and he doubts that the use would be compatible with other uses. The lights, noise, traffic, etc. would be obtrusive to the neigh- boring single family areas and should not be.included. Bentley asked if the site is currently zoned commercial. The Planner replied that i it is zoned corrnrercial regional and stated that commercial regional is for a major shopping center. Phylis Olson, Golden Ridge, asked what the tax rate is. The Planner replied that he did not know what the tax rate is. i Joe Harding, 7060 Willow Creek Road is concerned about the view to the site from the north. O'Brian replied that the view is limited. y a 4 Levitt asked if this area was within the shoreland ordinance. The Planner stated that it is not. ( Levitt asked how many acres will be graded at tnis point. Putnam answered that they 1 li would grade 4 this year and 4 more next year. Torjesen asked if there is any realistic way to use this site except with 100% grading. Putnam said that ultimately the entire site would be graded, but that they would return for zoning approval on each site only with,a specific site plan. Sutliff asked about the use of wood. O'Brian stated, cedar, redwood, a fiberglass roof would he the materials and stated that the park itself will have a Building Owner's Association. Torjesen stated that he has no problems with wood or with driving through the park- ing lot. He has a problem with the land use and intensity of the land use. 9 Kay Gardner, Willow Creek Road, is concerned with everything looking the same. gg Putnam feels that if the City wanted to make this area single family, townhouses, etc., they should have decided that when the freeway went through. They are d operating on the assumption that the City wants development. Torjesen con:nented that across U.S. 169 from the project is the Meat Cutter's project having only 1b7; building coverage. 1 Motion_ 1 9 ( Bentley moved to close the public hearing on the PUD & preliminary plat. Gartner e secondhd, notion carried 5-0. 211569 Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 28, 1980 l Motion 2 Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the PUD as per the staff report of July 3, 1980 for the following reasons: 1. The concept is too general. 2. There is too much grading. 3. There is too much density. 4. The cul-de-sacs are not connected. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0. Motion 3 Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the rezoning from C-Reg to Office for 8 acres (Lakeridge) based upon the plans of June 16, 1980 and the staff report of July 3, 1980 with the same reasons as in Motion 2. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0. Motion 4 Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the preliminary plat dated 6-16-80 as per the staff report of July 3, 1980 with the same basis as in Motion 2. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0. Motion 5 Bentley moved to table the E.A.W. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0. 215"7 • Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 14, 1980 Members absent: Matthew Levitt C. BRYANT lARE_MITER PUD R LAKERIDGE OFFICE PARK REZONING, Request for PUI) Concept approval of office & cou;wercial uses on 31 acres, rezoning from C-Rrg. to office for 7.7 acres, preliminary plat approval, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located South of ( Co. Rd. 60 & North of 494. A public hearing. • • Bearman stated that he is unhappy about the graphics being iillegjble in the brochure. ' Mr. Putnum, dusted Development Corp., introduced Tom Ryan and Dan O'Brian. He • reviewed the project location, steep slopes, general off/com uses in PUD, orien- tation, and surrounding uses of:KRSI, Super Valu, and Condon-Naegele. He said first phase rezoning will be grading of 8 acres for three buildings and the site will be restored as per watershed requirements. Mr. Ryan stated that they build resorts, commercial/industrial & townhouses. They want to develop an office park with ownership of common areas by association. Dan O'Brian, architect, stated that the buildings would.lrange from 3800 - 9000 sq. ft., floor elevations would vary from 870 - 895, the buildings are designed to be residential in bharacter with wood exteriors with brick trim and sloped shingled roofs. Mr. O'Brian then reviewed the signage proposed. li ( 'he Planner reviewed the staff report recommending additional material be submitted. Retterath asked how high buildings would be. M•lr. Putnum estimated to the 925 -930 • ft elevation. Retterath questioned, out of the 7.4 acres, what is the existing highest elevation. • ( Putnum replied that maybe 9I0 - 915 ft. Retterath asked is the estimated 85% - 95% grading for the 7.4 acres or total site. Puinuni replied that it was the overall site. • Y( Retterath inquired about the vegetation, Putnum answered that it is grasslands, few oaks, elm and cottonwood. • Bearman inquired as to why the cul-de-sacs are not looped. Putnum answered that • you can drive through the parking lot,to reach either cul-de-sac. Braman inquired about the total amount of land covered by buildings and parking. O'Brian stated that 607 will be of impervious surface. Bearman felt that there are serious difficulties with this project. He believed sight. lines should be submitted, and revisions to the internal street system. • • John Wilke, 7221 Willow Creek Road, distributed a letter and read same.. - -ion Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that he agrees that the uses should be fur office and some grading will occur. He helloved the submitted plan would create a macs of buildings with little green space visible and recommended that a single' larger ()trice use would be more appropriate. Motion i'.,,rla:r moved to continue to July 28, 1980 Planning Conmiission meeting. Sutliff �.r�unrricd, motion carried 6-0. JZ TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Roger K. Ulsted, City Manager ' , fR0'1: Sandy Worts, Recreation Su}nr r, r) DATE: August 20, 19E0 SUBJLCT: Bryant Lake Center/Lakeridge Office Park The I r!:s, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the Bryant Lake Eentcrr/Lakeridrua Office Park proposal at. their meeting on August 27, 19CO. The following recommendation teas made: Motion: The Parks, Recreation and natural Resources Commission recomec!ndc denial of the Bryant Lake Center/Lakeridoe Office Perk proposal on the basis that it does not conform to the Shorelend Management Act with regards to the amount of impervious surface allowed. The large amount of impervious surface may have an edverse impact on the delicate structure of the adjoining Bryant Lake marsh, These issues have not been addressed at this time. The motion ins made by Tangeir and seconded by Pond. 1t carried b-1, with Johnson voting nay. SW:md MEMORANDUM M ( TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: July 31, 1980 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List . PROJECT: Bryant Lake Center/Lake Ridge Office Park PROPONENT': liustad Development Corporation and Ryan Development Inc. REQUEST: 1'UD Concept approval for office/commercial uses and preliminary platting of 7.4-Tofs and stet xigTit-o -r:ay ey Hustad Development uT rezonrn4 of 7.4 acres from C Regional District to Office District with lot sizes, seiliaiI, parTTng, di Sigma„e variances as a part oFi1i PUD Dovioojincnt Stage ] A;i'mSiU Approval by Ryan Development Inc. LOCATION: South of County Ron oU and northeast of 1-494 entrance ramp. BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report CHECKLIST: I 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) no Affect on park: N/A I l 2. Adjacent to public waters? no Affect on waters: N/A 6 3. Adjacent to trails? Proposed 8' asphalt bikeway along County Road 60 9 1 Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) Bike Asphalt Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime) 8 City 1 Width: Party Responsible for construction? right-of-way Landownership: (dedicated, density 'tradeoff, etc.) commercial/office Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial) City trail :system Where will CASH PARK PEE go? (what neighborhood) Need for a mini-park? no -2- 1, S. REFERENCE CHECK: a. Major Center Area Study: n•his isolated_pocket is a minor land fo3'nUa the total Major Center Area, but may prove of significance to the quadrant." "This site is ideally stilted for his„hwavL(:nnmercial use, office or selected free standing commercial facilities." b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A c. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A e. Ploodplaln Ordinance: N/A f. Guide Plan: 1979 Comprehensive Plan shows this area as regional/commercial g. Other: G. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A • I 7. CAS11 PARK FFL'•?jUc cosb pail; fee applicable at time of building prrD% t g1sa11 be paid. 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or i against proposal: Neighborhoods ne orally op_goLeti to this develop:n=11 9. Number of units in residential development?___IvA Number of acres in the project? 31 acres Special recreation space requirements: N/A _ II! 10. STAFF RECO>.^.•!ESIATIONS:_lhe Compitv Services stiff recocniends ijp.p.1--1'ALLLthe,_ POD Conceit and the request for rezoning from C-Rag to Office IristrIct subject to the Chinning Staff recommendations in both the July 3 Planning Staff memorandums regarding this proposal. •} TO: Planning Cer,:aission [R0;1: Chris Lager, Dirot teu' of Planning 1'COJLCF: DRYP.iNT 1101 CL[dl[-P/IAKLRIDGC OFFICE PARK LATE: August ?2, 1920 ItEFLP, 110: 1. Planning Staff reports; July 3, July 20, Aug. 2?, 1980 2. Proponents original brochure, new site and jradin'l I,lens included in August 25 I'I;ur,iu 1 COmnissiou packet, dusted letter dated l,rnit:�t; 19, 1900 i LACKC 0MD • TYic; Pl:nrir:g Corruinsion reeo=end at their July 28, 1980 meeting, denial of Bryant Lake C:::rtnr/Lt�keriege Off ice Park fur the following reasons: 1. The concept is too general. 2. There is too much grading. 3. There is too much density. 4. The cul-de-sacs arc not connected. the proponent has revised his plan to take these items into account. Additional planning has ball done to give a more specific P.U.D. Concept., ln-iivid- uel buildin.; areas have been identified and a preliminary develcaraent conc;pi iic,s been prpared. This concopt is reinforced with a two foot contour gradinet Ilan rather than the m,;,ss (trading diagrz.m originally proposed. The new trutiing plan illustrates that the site c;:n be treated ouch more sensitively than originally in- dicated. To aannprish this, the proponent.. has ufill:--ed walkout buildings, drive under lullitin end two level h,rri.inrt nibromim to aces date grade changes in the site. Tire site till still n.'ed to ho r,uloa. fat, the multi-level variety will be preserved and accentuated by Ilia plo.ce:.+rat of structures as shown. Alth, yh the .O,A illustrate; this cow.opt of multi-story hutldin<ts, dad this odlc.o t is tn...e i , in ! .',jor CC; ever Area r.0.D. it she:iiei not he ooc s:rry tear the rineir.q r,, .ri�.si�+n to focus an as an issue until a rezoning regud t for a spc'jfic ;r,iilding van he revic,ded on it's n:dn r,writs. lit e1- ,:irt , t0, Pl; ,�trirt,, Ce'nriis':ion refers to pertains to the 7.7 acre Lake- 1' CI,r• ,,,,oni nip ...,.�trr-•t. lC-%�' - • • rler: ?—iir a et b,d'e fester/ 4 later idge t.'-i ic:e Park -2- August 22, 19h;0 Altl eu;h le a ct!r 1-iin degree this may be individual perception, the following points may pulp clarity the question: 1. Ordinance No. 135 allows 3O:: building coverage; Ehis project is almost half of that. 2. the buildings are not multi-story. 3. The buildings are small in scale and the total building mass is broken up exl.ensively l,y [lie individual huil,lin9 design and siting. 4. the pro{.-uneAt will adhere to all exterior boundary setbacks. 5. Parking for Phase I will he provided according to ordinance. If it can be clronstr<,ted that less parking can he provided with Phase II and still be adequate, tic project could proceed as proposed; if not, floor area rust he re- duced in the .ecx d please to bring it into conformance. The City has nit r'vireed the toi,nheusr./office park approach previously, and first density or a in.., er of smaller buildings rather thtin one large bpi ldinq ciey scan greater. hilts the context of the act P.U.I;. Concept plan, the scale of this first project d,,e, not seem as dense as it did when compared to bare land. The cul-de-sac': have I L--ci; connected with a freestanding loop road as requested. The M.C.A. r;aport illustrates a mix of regional uses on the overall site, including office office and cnr, erical. The 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts the area as Regional Ca�„ -rc ial. for this reason, the Planning Commission should he gui;Lod in their review of the P.U.O. Concept plan proposal of cesaercial or offica on lb: eastern pecttoii of th:i site. They are consiston t with adopted City plans. The Planning Crxmcission will of course review any proposals for rezoning in the future on a cure specific site plan basis. It is important to rr. o'sd':r that the eastern half of the Ilustad parcel has an ad- hitinn.,l parcel ai !.separate is;nr'r'Thip belvxc'n it and Malley View Bond. the use of this S&.iloenfeld:r por(ol will ultimately be the visible one, not I!ustad's. Rehr.n rUi'1110t;S lhr rciemTends that. the Planning Cer'nmic.ion recom and approval of ccr;,p ; Ian; t ,r [irv;;ut ial.t C,,nter , n:airied and =uh,'iitl,d for the ;'mAission Public Hearing, suh;i,c:t to the iollua;inp: 1. Th,.' rovi,:o,i gradirq Man shall hr utilized as a guide for future site pi; rs Ohd CP. Peildinq height,: (!epirted are nu t. specifically approved, but raiher•, the concept nr viii1 -,t.ry I nildinq;. Rove' w iii ;^;ic-ii huilr'ing will be based upon its own r acit of the tit:: o' a re'uvl ig 'TWA. 1)G Memo--Lli en;t Lake Center/ Lakcride Office Park -3- August 22, 1980 3. The to;;Tf;rary western vecess to Valley View Road should be reviewed with each new rezoning request to determine its adequacy.4. Streets, storm sewer,.., sidewalks, sewer and water, within the P.U.D. shall meet ¢ 1 City Lnpicater•ing standards. The Planning Staff rccor fonds that the Planning Commission reco:r^rend approval of the Rezoning and Preliminary Platting of the 7.7 acre Lakeridge Office Park area subject to the following: 1. All external boundary setbacks shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 135. 2. Phase I only shall be final platted. Parking for Phase II shall be according to ordinance. Prior- to final platting of Phase Ti the proponent shall submit information to the City to document the parking adequacy. It is not the in- tent of this reco! cndatioa to have additional parking spaces squeezed into the site to meet ordinance. If in the judgement of the City ample parking would be provided if Phase II were huilt as proposed, the 5 spaces/100O sq. ft. require- ment may be modified ,accordingly, if not, Phase II building square footage ;crust be reduced to a proper ratio to allow 5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. 3. Landscaping and signaiiye must be according to ordinance. (- 4. Cash park fee. 5. Storm sewer and grading to he reviewed and approved by Nine-Mile Creek Water- shed District prior to construction. CC:ss r�. • • MEMO TO: Planning Coremission FROM: Chris Fnoter, Director of Planning • PROJECT: BRYAi1T LAKE CEUTER/LA[FRIt)6F OFFICE PART: DATE: July 25, 1980 The follrwirq items are in response to concerns raised at the July 14 Plan- ning Cann.ission meeting: 1. They will adhere to City Ordinance setbacks around the periphery of the Lakeridge Project. • 2. Site sections have been prepared. i• • 3. Host d Development, Inc. has submitted a traffic analysis of the proposed • intersections, by BR8, consulting engineers. 4. Parking for phase 1 of Lakeridge will be provided at 5 spaces per 1000 square feet as required by ordinance. This will he utilized as an exam- ple for subsequent phases which will not be given final plat approval 3. with less than 5 parking spaces per thousand if it is not clearly dem- onstrated in the rirsL phase that 5 spaces per thousand is more than necessary. 5. The tel:porary road connection to Valley View would he constructed by Itustad's with turning radius' subject to City approval. The final • connection to Valley View for the western access requires cutting down of a hill in Volley View Road to improve site distances. This improve- ment would most likely have to be under taken by the developer. • 6. The Floor Area Ratio proposed is 24':; with TOP building coverage. The ordinance allows SOP F.A,R. with 30'P building coverage. The site imorrvious surface coverage is GOP as compared to approximately f>O`" if the use were built to ordinance maximum. 7. The zoning ordinance does not allow wood as a building material for an office use. lhis, is probably due to the high importance required of • wood and ;h^ cne:rxru practice of utilizing office huildin,u as a tax write down Ii vi!.tu nt. and Him selling the property. lids is a condition which ,haulm be carefully considered by the Planning Commission, B. The new iraF fic information submitted indicates a higher percentage of the trr:fiic: iicinit from the cast than from the west because of the pop- ulation ,lisl.rihutir+n. • It would mat ruocd sense, (as has hren accomplished by Super Velu on the uvriil ',idr of tel Vici.), to hive a loop lett,!eun the ta-+o access points to olio,/ Fier.ibiilily in distribution of peek line trips. The current pro- pne.;.1 relies noon a cconectinru between the two cul-de-sacs, through the z►G'� • Demo -2- July 25, 1980 the middle of a 90a ,angle piirking area. The ability to circulate through the site uniLeded by vehicles backing cut would be an asset to the project. RE_CO' U'r;S: If the Planning Ccn:nission feels that the developer has adequately responded to concerns raised, a recommendation to the City Council for approval is in order. If major concerns have not been answered to the Commissions satisfaction by the developer, a rec:oaiiac_ndation to the City Council for denial is in order. CE:ss ! G STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enter, Director of Planning DATE: July 3, 1980 APPLICANT: Ryan Development, Inc. FEE OWNER: Mrs. W. Wheaton REQUEST: Rezoning of 7.4 acres from C-Reg District to OFC District with lot sizes, setback, parking, and signage variances as a part of the P.U.D., Development Stage Approval. PROJECT LOCATION: South of Super Valu Headquarters south of Valley View Road. SITE PLAT The site plan will require revision to acconanodate road R.O.W. changes in the F overall P.U.D. GRADING The design of the project enables the buildings to be built in two plateaus. Although the ridge line running north/south through the western portion of the side will be moved easterly, the basic elevation character of the site will be preserved. SETBACKS Setbacks recommended along Valley View Road are 50', however, since one half (;,) of R.O.W. for the read will be given by this development, no additional R.O.W. need is anticipated. The OFC District requires a 35' setback to structures and parking. The parking areas do not meet this standard. The buildings do not meet the 35' frontyard setback either. PARKING Proposed 368, Required 389. Additional parking is not possible without com- promi_.ing tire lanes. No documentation provided to support variance. SiGNAGE Ordinance Permits: Proposed: • 1 sign/bldg not to exceed 50 sq. feet 2 signs/bldg. along V.V.R. 1 Area Identification Sign not to exceed 50 sq. feet 2 signs ea. 40 sq. ft. ( 1 tenant sign/tenant wall area/not to exceed IY wall area OK Maximum height fr estand sign B' (2 signs, 20'-10 signs 10' ( 5 signs, 6' Maximum area directional sign 32 sq. ft. 21 sq. ft. Staff Report -2- July 3, 1980 ADDRESSING No private lanes should be named, all addressing would come oil of public streets. LANDSCAPING Additional planning for berming and landscaping would be necessary prior to building permit issuance to properly screen the parking areas from the cul-de-sac streets. • RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request for rezoning from C-Reg to OFC District subject to the following: 1. The plan should be revised consistent with the overall P.U.D. revisions to provide proper R.O.W. widths. 2. All front yard setbacks to public streets shall be no less than 35'. 3. Signage must conform with Ordinance 261. 4. Private lanes must not be named, all addressing will be from City streets. ( 5. A revised landscape plan must be submitted prior to building permit is- suance screening parking areas from public roads. 6. Parking must be provided according to ordinance. 7. Condominium documents, and easement agreements must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. CE:ss 7. 2.)(06 I STAFF RFPORT TO: ' Planning Commission ( FROM: Chris Eiger, Director of Planning 1 DATE: July 3, 1980 1 APPLICANT: llustad Development i FEE OWNER: Mrs. W. Wheaton Al REQUEST: P.U.D. Concept approval for Office/Commercial ( uses and preliminary platting of 24 lots and t street R.O.W. ) PROJECT LOCATION: South of Super Valu Headquarters south of Valley View Road. 1 1 1 1 Current zoning - C-Re not appropriate for proposal. Proposed uses - Office, Retail Service, Restaurant Major Center Area Designation - Highway Commercial/Regional Service/Regional 1 Office k • 1979 Comprehensive Plan - Regional Commercial i i P.U.D. coisi tency with City plans - The P.U.D. proposed is fairly general, showing definite office area as the first phase, and office lots surrounding it on the south and west sides. The two 1.0 acre commercial lots (1 and 2) seem delicate, but lots 3 and 4 are to be either commercial or office. I Roads - circulation and access - Access into the site is gained from two cul-de-sacs from Valley View Road. The 1,estern cul-de-sac is 700 feet in length and is proposed to loop back in some fashion to Valley View Road. It is opposite Super Valu's cast entrance. The western cul-de-sac is 400 feet in length and is proposed as a permanent cul-de-sac. It is offset from Super Velu's west entrance by approximately 300 feet. Hennepin County finds the eastern access acceptable, however, the western access is unacceptable. The County does not include the upgrading of Valley View Road in its current five year plan. Provision of access to the property lying west of the site would also help to consolidate access to Valley View Road and help preserve its carrying capacity. Without a public road connecting the two cul-de-sacs, circulation through the situ will be through parking lots. R.O.W. widths for the public street are shown at 60' with 45' street width within them. A normal City street within a 60' R.O.W. would he 32 feet wide. This would allow 14' of boulevard on each side, which is required for side- walk and utilities. The first, phase office development provides for an internal pedestrian system, (nrehtrhly vie'.,weilks along City streets) to connect. the uses. This would he .,msistrnt with the goals of the P.U.D. listed on page 3 of the development hroenoen. M1r_ July Report -2- Ju y 3, 1980 PIIASING AND GRADING Phase 1 of the P.U.D. (Lake Ridge Office Park) is actually divided into two construction phases, the first three buildings to start this year. However, grading of the entire P.U.D. according to the mass grading plans seems to be anticipated at this time. The site is very steeply rolling from a high point of 928 to a low point of 852, a total of 76 feet in grade change. The finish grades on the site would range from 852 to 900. The mass grading plan creates flat sites at differing elevations. Sites are mostly either 10-20' fill or 10-20' cut. The entire site would be graded. No specific building plans are available beyond the • first please. • P.U.D. IDENTIFICATION The designation of the entire 30.9 acres as Bryant Lake Center, with the first 7.4 acres designated Lake Ridge Office Park is confusing. Partic- ularly since the land surrounds and abuts two other ownerships. PRELIMINARY PLAT Without a specific development plan, approval of subdivision of lots beyond the Lake Ridge Office Park is premature. Subdivision should occur based upon more specific development information. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff recommends approval of the P.U.D. Concept subject to the following: 1. Road R.0.W. must he provided in width as required by the Engineering De- partment. 2. Sidewalks along both sides of the public street shall be provided. 3. The western access shall be realigned to coincide with Super Valu's western access. 4. Access to the property to the west shall be provided. 5. Grading for the first phase only shall he permitted at this time, sub- ject to review and approval by the 9-WWile Creek Watershed District and City Staff. G. Grading of additional area will be reviewed as more specific development infornitine is supplied. 7. No variances area granted as a part of the P.U.D. Concept approval. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the following: 1. Cash park fee is applicable at the time of building permit issuance. ,a j'j�� Staff Report -3- July 3, 1980 2. R.O.W. shall be platted as required by Engineering Department. 3. Road R.O.W. and lots 6-21 only shall be platted at this time. CE:ss • 1'"j I • July, 1980 MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMNNTAL ASSESSMENT l•:ORKSHEET (EAW) AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS t DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R. # NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to provide infonaation on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the project requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Attach additional -pages, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. Your ansvars should be as specific as possible. Indicate which answers are • estimated. I. SUMMARY A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) • XX Negative Declaration (No EIS) El EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) is B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION 1. Project name or title Bryant Lake Center - Lake Ridde Office Park ' 2. Project proposer(s) Hustad Development Corp. & Ryan Development, Tnc. Address 12750 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, MN & P.O. Box 598 Grand Rapids, MN • Telephone Number and Area Code (612 ) 941-4383 &' (218) , 326-8587•- ' 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of-Eden Prairie Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 . Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this EAW: Chris Enger • Telephone (612) 937-2262 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location 8950 Eden Prairie Rnad, Eden Prairie, MN Telephone (612) 937-2762 llours8 a.m.-4130 p.m. 5. Reason for EAW Preparation F) hndatery Category -cite DPet.ition O Other .. Rule number(c) bb Construction of wore thin 250,000 sq: ft. of off/com. C. ACTIVITY 1)1:.`Ci1PT1O'd •`'.UMMARY 1. l'ioject location County);i''II'i';hip City/Township name Eden Prairie Township ember 116 (North), Range haler 22 East or West (circle one), Section nulsl-er(s) 11 Street. address (if in city) or legal description: 7 112- - 1 - • 2. Type and scope of proposed project: Office/Commercial Development of 30.9 acres located within the Eden Prairie Major Center Area, a public planned regional center. ( 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) October, 1980 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) January, 1987 5. Estimated construction cost in excess of 20 million dollars G. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed • from each unit of gover:ulnt and status of each: *NO Federal Funds Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval Status (federal, state, or Federal Funding regional, local) • City of Eden Prairie .land use-zoning approvals pending E.A.W. Findings E.Q.B. E.A.W Review pending Nine Mile Watershed District Grading and erasion control - to be reviewed in August DNR Water discharge to Bryant Lake to be reviewed 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?X ld0 YES UNKNOWN II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION A. Include the following maps or drawings: • 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original P; x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 712 minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. 'Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be main- tained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution points.) 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including • significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc). 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. 13. Present land use. 1. Dricily describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. The site is not used for any use - vacant - the land to the south and west is I—494 right-of-way, land to the north is the Super Valu Corporate Office, and east of the site, across Valley View Road is Bryant Lake Wetland. 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of.the site that are: " a. Urban developed 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, VI 1.4 acres • • b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shorel.mnd 6 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 0 acres d. P.ural vacant 29.Sacres i. Cropland/Pasture land 0 acres e. Designated Recre- 0 acres j. Forested 0 acres at.ion/Opon Space - 2 - 2 f'1'� , „ ... . • . • I i It - • . • • . . • . ---1] ••• '''-'" ...... ...-.- 1' ...."'-' 1 4'4.-4:- • •1 I, _ . '..",.... 1PL)I ..• '.. . - 1.:ir,i• -(. .....-. -...... .i7r.:-. -r.6.. -1.;:*.! .:',:*i::.17 '. ! I . . --7: 114.3...' li ,.,..-.:-..-•!::.-, . . ........ E.,-..i.?;...,....;•;,..1...,:.,...... I ,.... ‘,7 pt 1 .. ,... ... ''....f-j..,....:'„./:)., .-- _/:....... f:',-) E.-7: 5:••-•'"' Ili . . ,. .........,-4-.7 ,.(1, . " : " " 1 • ' .1" 1"" II'''''X'4* - .-"."." ---- --" ::.:*a,: . .., . 1 . • : • .. . i 1 ! -ft••••• ',,.7... ; . --... . ..:.:„,-- , .-- . .. . -,,,-...- -.....-..- ,,..,. • . . . . • . . • • . . . . ;..,.. . . . ,.. . .... . _ . • 'CO X �l> , it.iG ( / . . EDE MINN• r ' I.MI Tp JU JC lI S 1CP M1 1W •H 2 W. R 21 W. /1 NW� r(( )t ,,NT 01 25 44 MI TfJ l?04(J Il (NII,' ( .1 i.54 ' ' r `'t 13, /Ili ,� , ) 1 �.� 1 � —r -• • .ct 17 r�'// 76 > ` it, ' .i , �' (J1\ �" a... Jr tit -�.. ;. 4 1.J) "') ! 1 � '7 .. 1 ( ,, .16 >j .Q Sour 1 ; _ 1 7. . 17.2,4 0 A.24 C� 1 ,� 17,� 17 w 17 V A U ii '� 1 a =17'�, 1. 1 • i — - I i 17 1 YLi FJ' r�l �' '� ✓ t7'.. 5 L ``1 \�� 4 ?Cc,. 7 i. / t2 12 77 ,�y lie L t9%L' L-2 i i �� t7 �� tl �) \I � 1 �r ��( C1 i, • 51 ` P' II c ._.. 1/ /1.1 J l a ,-.F..n C '(/717 . :i 3 N,1 i %.\j 7 4Fin IVY/ • if • + t. 1 ram( jJ , ` Iil:r 1 La: 1 /W �� :: L i 'C ,I 2 '"s,:`1 \ '":\' \ (' ' 8 ) 24 i j' �'.., tl lij•. ., .'d , ( , '.: . ' ',,,,s`• :(./1)2•W ' i't-,_, - ,,t;\A r,\'''' / )C, ' • i 1/ -� ,.1,r,/ /, � 9 '7 1Y����)��'flj' L i 1 f ll\\ (1t .1ti 2 • 1 • 11 . ' n \ 1 9 , r 1 41l ' ti J • i 1/ -:- ( -))'- ,\ " r 1 (l �./ a t 1 - f1< ` r r• •s / _� 1.' rr �: � _ �,• '.v J '�.r/ � �1'1t1, ., ,'/.C7, • 113 '�' 1 c ( r Acy�-,i ' ,_ , V� t' ' ft'1t%� 4 0 "7",i• • . . . lt.....1 f,........1 L—.4 L..._4 t—.:.,11 L....a .....me ........... , __... • , .! ' • ' i , ; • ., , i: . • \ k . _ . ' • ( ' •, .: . \%\\ .-;... Fi . ' . • . _ 1 • 1 Z i • ( '.e. ''\ o . . . . .• \\ ' •. A z . , 1 • . . I. ...•... 4. • . I { 1 ;• .. 1 ( o• • . . ' . • , .) '•.\ ! •,.. - .., ‘ . . - , . • . . I 11 ' c \ ' D i -I .— ••- • • . . . • ip ! 7.‘ , • . %$' ....I, ,.. k,, • .. —• .., • . • , ••• ••• / I I.. ‘ • i.., ,,---„,,... i , ( -_-----1_,...,..) --• :,...... _.. -.. ,..:•A\ ..: . . \ 1 ,, i 0 , ' A ''' 1" '.—A-."=:,,I.\ •,!':1 -.--,—.'7'!.,-0 -\A;\ , i , . 0 .....v Q, -.1.---....._-,. .,-..12.:,,,,-,2.7?,,,,;•;,:Ny,.• ,.. . (' v - • 9. .-_-_,4 _I ,F.,...r,,s„k.\. '0 ":(/‘. ._.__--><_,, . :::1-4>,„.ks, .; ; . 1 ` / / , ; ,I'g-c. , ,— .,., • • •,-!,i, • • • - , 4 i t '.!• .f.'.3 - • , / ; i , :' ‘, </' , "--P ,/\.• F---7;ir:;4__..._.— . , , ; i' c ,, 's ' '—‘ s,",:::.v,,77:‘---;•-,?/,,,,' :::'''),/,';',:t'.i. , 1 . i I , , • i i ii •I, z . f, .. \c,-.<7:-.,5N,' •'--,,---'',A.- ..,"•'-07.1. ! ,' - t, , / , 0 . ...,„.,4 ._ - .., ,\•,,,,,,..,-•-,,, .„,_4.1-4....,-..0 I , v J.-, , • \vo .. . -'.'...,'''y',,,,V,,. !•,,... ..6 2.',4 , ,!..' I 1 :I , , ''••,'":•,•..'!, • ...tiS; I..c.:,,,(- -,4> l•....„.:., . ra% ,, i' .:'.•>,.1,, ‘:;',..'-71. '\\'.. ' 1,.'A.- -` •4'e..,,;,/f.' WN4)''.--- 1 \ _I 1,,;;;-2.--,-;`,, \I \- /: -__L-'-'e'---:''`'?*.'\\,.<)%,/--.-N-T, •-, .'. ; 1 , gt i':.--•',..-g''': ' 1 i'l ' . ..-„.)--,----7--..,*.-=',--1..' .2. i \ — ' .r../ I ii i. • ... '-(__.....- -": :-A-:.- ,.--IC - -''' , , . * . g -',...4"''...',-;',f. ' 1. . 'c•-• ''‘ . ._... ,„ .3: .-.4•--, - ---- I I r , , . ' - r --.,..' • ,I',„-,...-;.:7 t ft' . • s „ 1 I i 6--;'. • ...---' / . .,. 1 1 ;IT:i I 77. • '•-•:,•eN \ s '' \ A ''' . `. ., •, , , ... \ /".1 :i 1 :u.:..,.-- —!!c: ,,,,,,,,,,f'•,r :1 0 \ • Li' .: \ , , •• • t Li .)\'• '\-\ ,•• 7 :.,,-N, -i I,f,,1,, i • , II: • i' f i 1 ' - , . - . .... . .... _ . ,. .. . f • 3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, i particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within p 300 feet. j Bryant Lekeiis located north of the site across Valley View Road. ( C. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any), operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- 1 cesses to be used. Include data that would indicate the magnitude of the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc). Bryant Lake Center is an office/commercial project beginning with Lake Ridge • Office Park on 7.4 acres and 77,000 sq. ft. of office space. The Lake Ridge project is the first phase of total project. Upon review and approval by the , City of Eden Prairie, other office or commercial phases will beginning the I ultimate office and/or commercial sq. footage.will not exceed 500,000 sq. ft. The total project will take 7-10 years to complete. 2. rill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 30.9acres g. Size of marina and access N/A sq. ft. or channel (water area) Length --- miles h. Vehicular traffic trips { generated per day 6300-7450%DT b. ]lumber of housing or recreational units N/A i. Number of employees 3000+ c. Height of structures 30 ft. j. Water supply needed 1,500s00(bal/da i 6: .it' rRFt'1i;SeSt' 1170.soft. Source: Municipal d. Nuhrber of pausing spaces 2400 k. Solid waste requiring disposal 70 tons/yr e. Amount of dredging N/A cu. yd. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space {45 0 00(11g. ft. ing treatment 1,500,000gal/da III. ASSES 5i!EHT OF POTENT I Al. ENV IFONMENTTL IMPACT A, SOI h; Ai5) TOi't)Gi:APHY 1. Hill the project be built in an area with slopes currently XXYes 12b? No Yes 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the peniect, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlandli, or sinkholes? NO XX YES L 00 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any m .un,res to be uecd to reduce potential adverse impacts. The site has 20-30.` slopes that wit.] he modified to allow office/commercial building sites. The slopes provide the opportunity for multiple story build- inqi with at grade access to two or more floors. Because of the sites location surrounded by freeway or arterial roads adverse impacts from erosion will be contained within the site. Peat or black soils will be excavated to provide L stable building or road sites. : It r ;. 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systcms, and ditching, if these are included in the project. The Lester & Hayden soil groups comprise the majority of the site and are well suited for office/commercial development. City sewer and water are provided to the site. 5. Estimate the totil amount of grading and filling which will be done: cu. yd. grading --cu. yd. filling 90 What percent of the site will be so altered? % 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 20-25% 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? On site siltation ponds will be used to trap and hold sediment during and after construction. A soil erosion control plan will be worked out with the iiine Mile Watershed and City to project the wetland areas near the site. In addition, the development plans will be reviewed by the D.NR. to determine if a permit is required. ll, VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following veyctative types: Woodland 0 4 Cropland/ 0 % Pasture Brush or shrubs 20 % Marsh 5 % Grass or herbaceous 75 % Other 0 % (Specify) 2. ifow many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? --- acres • The site grading will remove most existing scattered emergent trees. 3. Arc there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNR publication The Tincor.non ones.) 'XX NO YES 1— i-Ti:3T.. peciee or area.and indicate any measures to be used • to reduce potential adverse impact. C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1. Are their any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? NO XXYES Bryant hake 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DMZ publication The Uncommon XX NO YES 3. Will the project alter or eliminate'wildlife or fish ^NO XXYES habi Lit? 4. If yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. Urban devclopm,nt will displace small animals and upland birds which may currently inhabit the site. 2 i'T • • • D, IIYDROLOGY • 1 1. Will the project include any of the following: If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures t.o reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, NO YES lewlaa&or groundwater supply XX b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes XX c. Dredging or filling operations XX d. Channel modifications or diversions XX • e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water XX • f. Other changes in the course, current or cross • - section of water bodies on or near the site XX 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 60-70% 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off and/cr treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? A sediment pond will be constructed along with a skimmer and tank outlet structure to discharge to Bryant Lake. Watershed and City review approval will stipulate the actual design and construction to be installed to adequately treat and reduce pollutants. 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain ay new fill or structures? . XX NO YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? NO YES 5. what is the approximate minimum depth to 9r"g=fil On site 3-5 feet the. site? E , WATER QUALITY 1. Will there he a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? XX NO YES If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the water body receiving the effluent. • 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is planned, identify nil' toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutant.: • in the wastewater. NONE 3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? XX NO YES If yen, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and sethod of disposal. • 4. What rr_asures will be used to minimize•the volumes or impacts identified in questions 1-3? • • • 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. r. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE • .1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates • into the atmosphere? NO XX YES If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the approxi- mate amounts for each emission (at the source) both With and without the emission control measures or devices. The grading of the site will produce temporary dust and exhaust emissions from heavy equipment. The ultimate office uses will produce emissions of: heating, air conditioning, and auto exhaust. These emissions will not be above the normal for such urban development. 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation of the project? NO XX YES If yes, describe the noise source(s); specify decibel levels [d3(A)), and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/vibration. Construction grading and building construction will produce niose and vib- ration. These impacts will be of shortduration from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Just about one month total time. The nearest homes are about 1/3 mile north east across Bryant Lake day dBA (L50) 65 dBA (Llp) 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or reduced air quality-(hospitals, elderly housing, wilderness, wildlife areas, residential developments, etc.) are in the affected area and give . distance from source. The nearest homes are in the Willow-Creek area north east of the site across Bryant Lake or about 1/3 mile. • G. LAND RESOnnai CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production • or currently in such use? XX NO YES If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. 2. Arc there any known iincral or peat deposits on the site? NO XX YES If yes, sTf'cify the tyi< of d-zpn•;it and the aesoace. The two low area, of the site have peat deposits that of about four acres with depths of 3-7 feet. .° i 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? NO XX YES Complete the following as applicable, 4 I a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) j i Estimated Peak Demand h Annual (hourly or Daily) Anticipated Firm Contract or Tyne Beguireae•nt Bummer Winter Supplier Interru;ptible Basis? I Therms 0,000 Electric 700.000 Therm>!_,Q�si !berms N.S.P. Firm 28,000 18,000 Nat. Gas 90,000 Thorns Therms Therms P1innegasco Interruptable • 1 i b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. None proposed • t c. Estimate annual energy distribution for, t space heating 60 • lighting 10 t air conditioning 20 ti processing 5 • ventilation 5 % • d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. Passive solar design in first phase of Lake Ridge, with potential for direct . solar systems in later phases due to excellent southern exposures. e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project • (e.g. more or longer car trios, induced housing or businesses, etc)'? The development o; an office employme'itt of shopping area will attract auto or futan•e transit trips. Location of employment in the Major Center Area of Eden Prairie will increase housing demand in the area, but such impacts are planned for by local and vetro plans. H. el'EN srncn/taxra.nTlot 1. Are there• any deoinnated federal, state, county or local recreation or open :Taco ;cro+s near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, late accesses)? NO XX YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the project.. Indic. to any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. Bryant 1,:he/City Perk Some buildings 011 bo visible from Bryant Lake and storm water. 171 • N. TRANRPORTATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc)? NO XX YES If yes, specify which part(s) of the system(s) will be affected. For these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and lercentage of truck traffic (if highway); and indicate how they will be affected by the project (e.g. congestion, percentage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (ADT), access requirements). Development of BLC will contribute to traffic on Co. Pd. 60 and to the existing and future access ramps to I. 494 8 169-212. Ring Road System for PICA, when complete will accomodate high traffic generating uses. y, mat, transit available to the site? XX NO YES une mile south on 169-212 with downtown express service. 3. what measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? As ridership demand warrants the City will work with the tlTC to identify and improve sites. J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES Tonal comprehensive 1. Is the project consistent with loCal and/or reg NO _YES plans? If not, explain: If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing zoning and change requested. C-Regional Commercial existing zoning; requesting DEC for first phase. 7. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? XX NO If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. As existing and surrounding properties are vacant, the building will change the character. As properties develop, it will be consistent with future anticipated uses. • 2_I - _ n _ 7 f 4 3. Now many employees will move into the area to be near the project? undetermined NO Now much new housing will be needed? 4. Will the'project induce development nearby—either support services i or similar developments? If yes,explain type of development and specify any other counties and municipalities affected. The project is part of a large regional center area in Eden Prairie. Bryant Lake Center is a consistent development within this planning area and could induce more development. 5. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? . Amount required Public Service for project Sufficien a Aeity? Planned Proposed water 1,500,000 gal/da {. wastewater treatment 1,500,000 gal/da X sewer 1,000 feet X ) schools N/A pupils solid waste disposal 7,000 ton/mo X streets .23 miles X • • other (police, fire, etc) N/A X _ If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this one project and its associated impacts? Public facilities are planned for high capacity service. 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program reviewed by the EQC? XX — If yes, specify which area or plan. . 7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or disposal of potentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisions, etc? XX NO YES l • If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures . to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. 21'M — 9 • 0. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the facility require special measures or plans? XX NO YES C If yes, specify: • • K. HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal or state historical registers? XX NO YES • 2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early settlement been found on the site? XX NO YES • Might any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected by the activity? XX NO YES 3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any impact on them. • L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have been identified in the previous sections. • The noise generated by the surrounding freeways is a reason for non-residential use for the site. III. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. • • 4 . • V. FINDINGS ( The project is a private ( ) governmental (XX ) action. The Responsible Agency (Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors in Mina. Reg. NEQC 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is ( ) is not ( XX) a major action. . State reasons: j S 1 3 2. The project does (�) does not (IL) cant i have the potential for significant cnvironmont.tl effects. • State reasons:' . 3. (For private actions only.) The project is ( ) is not .( ) of more than local significance. . State Reasons: t IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION . NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed - until the date of publication of the notice in the EQC Monitor section of the Minnesota Statc Reni.e.ter. Submittal of the EAW to the EQC constitutes a request for publication of notice in the EQC Monitor. A. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible Agency or the Responsible Person identified below. Rased on the above findings, the R•:,n3snsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete either 1 or 2). • • 1. * NEGATIVE nGc1 NATION NOTICE No EIS .is needed on this project, because the project is not a major action and/or does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and/or, for private actions only, the ; project is not of sore than local significance. l - 11 - .2-1 2. EIS 1' l'A1JaION NOTICE An LIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for significant environmental effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than local significance. a. The IZQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the y.L:,2C caispec.ifically_ authorise limited construction to begin or continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this project, specify the extent of progress roconnended and the reasons. • b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted: (month) (day) (year) (MEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 120 days of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the EQC Monitor. if special circumstances prevent compliance with this time limit, a written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.) c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) or Person(s)): • • Signature Roger K. Ulstad, City fanagetTitle Date B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed to all points on the official EQC distribution list, to the city and county directly imhacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question III.J.4 on page 9 of the YAW). the affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is sent to the EQC. C. Billing procedures for ITC Monitor Publication State agency Attach to the EAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 ONLY: form (State Register General Order Form--available at Central Steles). For: instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of the State E:gi:ter--(612) 296-B239_ 12 — —/�„ LD-80-PUD-11 BRYANT LAKE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 80-161 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BRYANT LAKE CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND rAND1NG THE 1968 GUIDE PLAN ANO THE MAJOR CENTER AREA PUD WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of Ordinance 135 provided for the Planned Unit Development ( PUD ) of certain areas located within the City, and • WHEREAS, the Bryant Lake Center PUD is condsidered a proper amend- ment to the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan and the Major Center Area PUO, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing of Hustad Development Corporation's request for PUD approval for office and conenercial uses and recomnended approval of the PUG Concept to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on September 2, 1980. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Bryant Lake Center PUD, being in Hennpin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD approval as out- lined in the application material dated May 30, 1980. 3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning Comnission dated August 25, 1980. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this �day of 1980. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: ----John John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL •itr� ( R Parcel 1: c -- i t! That part of t:he Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 116, 1 Range 22 lying Southerly of the center line. of County Road No. 60, formerly County Road No. 66 and lying Northwesterly of 11 the center line of State Highway No. 169-212, formerly State Trunk Highway No. 5, as said center line is doscrlbed in nook l 1054 of Deeds, page 23 i 1T ;N! that part thcr of d scribed as beginning at the Southeast' corner of said Section 11 thence Northerly along the East line of said section (assumed to bear North 0 degrees 7 minutes 47 seconds East) a distance of 1368.42 feet; thence South 77 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds West, 1078.72 feet; thence at a right angle Northerly 164 feet - to the highway right of way line as described in nook 3660 of Mortgages, page 175; thence at a right angle Easterly along said right of way ,line 362.92 feet to a point: of curve in said right of way line,' thence Easterly along said right of way } line, being a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 1745.86 feet, 362.88 feet to an angle point in said right of way line, said point being the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence douthwcsterly along last described curve 216.3 feet; thence North 51 c3grees 34 minutes 52 seconds West:, 138.97 feet; thence North 38 degrees 25 minutes 8 socon,ls Last 130 feet; thence North 55 degrees 34 mi_nuter; 52 second.; 17ect:, 393.61 feet; thence South 3ti degree, 25 minute; 8 seconds West, 226.42 feet-; thence North 51 degrec5 34 mii,nte.f; 52 seconds, West, 536.3 feet; thence North 38 degrees; 25 minutes 8 seconds East., 313.97 foot to the Southerly line of County Road No. 60; thence Easterly along said Southerly Line. 51.26 feet to at; .intersection with the right of way line described in said 1t-iok 3660 of Mortgages, page 175; thence along runict right of way line South 33 degrees 4 mint: :as 4 seconds East, a distance of 1.18.98 feet to a point; thence Southeasterly along said right of way line to the actual point of beginning and except the• right of way of U.S. Highway Number 494 as described in said Book 3660 of Mortgages, p.lote 175, in Book 2604 of needs, page 203, and in Hook 68 of Hennepin County Rerordn, page 3753705 all in office of bc•rjit.tor of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The West boundary line of that part of the above premise:. lying between the center lino of County Road No. GO and the Northerly line of U.S. Highway Number 494 is marked by Judicial Landmarks sot pursuant to Tor.rens Case No. 16745, accerdieg to the Dover'tn;"nt. Survey thereof. EXHIBIT A 2.1 f`C CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNPEIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 80-163 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR BRYANT LAKE CENTER.A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on September 2, 1980 to consider the Bryant Lake Center proposal, and WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 31 acres of land in northeastern Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Connission did hold a public hearing on the Bryant Lake Center PUD request and did recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no significant impact, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Fnvircnrnantal Impact Statement is not necessary for Bryant Lake Center because the project is not a major action which does not have significant environmental effects and is not more than of local signifi- cance. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED, this day of , 1980. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Franc:Tay Clerk SEAL k • r ..; ri r! [ rri fiQ;-)tr,_ If a la t I . 1 • taTU:A., 19, 1980 . . • . Eden Prairie Plannin; Commission .. Re: tevi.sed Bryant, Lake (fiter/ . , Lake Ridge Of rice Park Plan Oar fi eta have aske•1 to be recon::idere, by the commission for our Bryant. Lake Center/Lake iiid,r Office Project. We have attempted to respond to the concerns of the Commission in the areas of auto circntl at I on, r,':din , more defini.tior. of future develonnent areas(office/commercial) ani. subject, lines from nearby properties. Perhaps tile Meat uni ful tool for explainiug the overall plan and • fan iruia,d. upon the sites appearauce is a stork or 111ZIOS:il18 model. lq.! have preperA a 1" , ad' scol e model of the site based upon the Tadin id Si for the sit, ,-eveloped a:; office. The two site plans . , . attachc are prol.h.duary concepts roc the sites dhvelopmente Please 710t.' I:10 di le riot-:: 011 the eastern 1/3 of the site. in place of multi-slory office. imiluiti,., a specialty :Mopping center, and, two ' . other comr to i Z11 Urd a are illustrated. The site gradine,, streets, etc., are cot, clian,;yd significantly by the land use alteration. The Lhinf.1 :Av.: more definite concept. plan:: for the sites ultimate It ae provides a better framehork upon which to evaluate the specific developi:,eiil, propu;u1.1. for Luke Ridge Office Park. concern tvi::, It,, automobile c i rcuilation between the east ond. •weilt, cul—ii.-.:..,cs. Wii are includinr, a loop road connection i,etween the iiil-di•-;:oci; lire' will provide acce.,,. I.n Lite iiittio: bli:i‘:b buil,iilt zi.',:i:IC,nt 1 l) I /,'it, 'rue road connection hi reasiele and will be iiriorporuhed in the I inaL plan. .:. . . , . . , 12750 PIONI.IIIR TiYilL,1:ET_Il PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343 (612)941-4383 • Prairie 11 in Commision 'devised itryaat, Lato: dnet.,:rjlotte ilinc Office Park Plan qt. • th, mat, dirricult is:as to deal with is the concern about viero from tAte eyistin,t ho:nea in Willow Creek, located cast of hryant Lake. Our rCklit CC t:] have prepireh site line studies, which illustrate the ;:istance:, from cxiating homes to our property and the fact that most. of our eoatera commercial/office area is behind the i acres owned by Cr'. hetioud Also, we hope the model and concept. plans illtntraLc that. the elevation variation of the site and lart:scaping wilt make our project, fit with the character of the alen Prairie Najor Cer,ter Area. he halievw that the proposed devolop,lent wol be en attrac— t-Iv:: nei:jthor to the :come locate' about f.,/10 of a mile east of the site. "."%e 21.as, alo-tel Ijeve reinforcei our commitment to the Lake coacent eroposel by nyh:1 Develor..ment, Inc.. The one and t''0 Or." tall ArdettIrCti will provide :Lae visual and marketin,.; variety we feel the alte need , as sell. as complement, the canter portion of the site. Therefore, the Lake Ridge Office concept remains as it was originally propor.cd. The project. does appear different because of its coaLext raid ; to Li: an I•rOlitt 1131;i ruts re ;'evelopment. ' •ot,;;;;, ;: prt,::,11t. 01.11• i11111:1 rid 1,, lip:y Cc answer que:,tions. • • Than: you for year consideration. tiincercly, • • At (..S\ Dick Putnam Ilustad cv,lopmeat, Corporation • 2.0 • .or. Prairie 1'lann in, Comai e.;i un a^.vi:.ed brynet Lake ',:Hater/Lake li sc Office Park Plan • t'erh:i a Lh• soul difficult is:;ii to deal with is the ConCurli ubait; vacs, from the existing burr:: in Willow Creek, located cast of Bryant. Lake. Our architectu have prepere( site line studies which illustrate the f'ictoncec; from existing uu•; homer to our property and the fact that most. of our o:r::tern commercial/office arca is behind the 5 acres owned by lIr. ;;cioen,trltcr. Also, we hope the model and concept plans i1 untratc that the elevation ation variation of the site and laltiscaping will make our project fit with the character of the Eden Prairie l a jar Center Area. We heli.cvu that the proponec' development will be en attrac— tive nci;;bon to the noon locate:.about 4/10 of a mile east of the c,itc. nit ,la n ^cr 1 have reinforced°d our commitment to the Lat:, 0 ^c'•.: c.c ce at', :c,i os by :Van liovolojinent, Inc.. The one and t:o story y c.wall .,t.uctur c.ns will provide tine visual and n«rketiuj var.i.ety, at: reel the site need , ns well an complement the cneter portion of the site. Therefore, the Lake Ridge Office concept remains as it was originally proposed. The project does appear different because of its context taxi rr.1•t, t, ..;i;., to tie :..moon„iii return c-,w:a.orment. nl. • o ;'ci,,anicawill ,,r•e:+wilt etc r ;il:ar c. hi id hn 11:+1*ry Lu :i;cc;for ttue:.I i.on::. • T'cu.nl: you for your consideration. tincorel.y., Dick Putnam '.luntad ? evel.opment Corporation • r tip 1, !:`.'.""\7 MEMORANDUM L_1L Cur .l I Id.,,m Aup,4,GmEEN,prANc. l[c'urlE • TO: Chris Enger jPlanning Director ! City of Eden Prairie • h FROM: Ralph Clare V)C. F. DATE: July 24, 1980 1 SUBJECT: Bryant Lake Center Busted Development Corporation : 1 . Additional analysis of the proposed development has been made in response to questions asked by you following submittal of URW's memorandum of July 22, 1980. I This analysis is summarized below: • J. Traffic forecasts. Forecasts were made for traffic volumes on County Road 60 after full dnvelopcicnt of both the Bryant Lake Center and Super Valu property. C Trips to and from the Super Valu property were estimated on the following basis: Land Use Trip Rate Daily Trips Office, 160,000 Sq.Ft. 12 Veh. Trip/ 1: ' (Existing) 1,000 Sq.Ft. 1,920 1 Office, 160,000 Sq.Ft. 12 Veh. Trip/ (Future) 1,000 Sq.Ft. 1,920 [ 1 Multi-Family Residential 6 Veh. Trip/ 600 Units D.U. 31600 TOTAL 7,440 l'' 1 Trips on County Road 60, exclusive of trips to either Super Valu or Bryant Lake 1; Center, are Used on on analysis of a metropolitan, year 2000, trip assignment. i This L..ignmcht spewed 4,400 trips par nay on County Road 60 exciusIno of trips loaded Id en the zone which includes the 11 Super Valu properly and Bryant Lake Canter. t' F. u. �..mta,.x.yrrr.a'�:tu:r.E�Ea►►ar.rr�a - <'_ yv [.Alin 111,r;t'.i J E Nl,5 I Il JAI1,5J'.C4101,1 tI llrf, 78:9 EI,i'VI It,IIY AVE S E MINIIEAVQIIS.MS:h1 II P,VSI yl,,l It41V`11 Memorandum July 24, 1930 Page Two the forecasted volume un County Road 60, after full development of the two areas, are as fol lows: West of 'West Super Vale Entrance 7,200 ADT East of East Super Valu Entrance 14,800 ADT Traffic Car,city et Entrance to Bryant Lake Center. P.M. peak hour forecasts wore prepared for this intersection after full development of Loth properties. A cc,:acity analysis was made using the following roadway characteristics: County Road 60 Combined right turn and by-pass • lanes on both approaches, approach width = 24 feet. Entrance roads from Two lane approach, approach width = Super Vole and Bryant 24 feet. Lake Center The forecasted volume was found to be 67% of the service volume at level of service C. Therefore, this intersection is expected to operate satisfactorily after full development if the combined right turn and by-pass lanes are provided on both approaches on County Road 60. The approach volumes at the west entrance to Bryant Lake Center are slightly loss than those at the east entrance. The volume/capacity ratio at this entrance are found to be .40 compared to the 0.67 at the east entrance. It was assumed for this capactiy analysis that a by-pass lane would be provided on the "s westbound roadway on County Road 60 and that a right turn lane would be pro- vided on the eastbound roadway. If a by-pass lane were not provided at the west entrance road, the V/C ratio would be 0.77. Er}.ect d hrw r loLie.nt Stage When Signal Will be. Warranted. The need for a signal ai the e, _.i entr,nc:e• to Bryant Lake Center eopenas on the staging of develop- ments of this site and the Super Valu property. Which land uses develop and on which parts of the sites these developments recur will effect the need for a signal. However, if both sites develop at the same rate and the proposed land uses are developed in the proportions as planned, a signal wi I I be warranted at approximately cue-half of the full development. left Turn_•, iron Wont Ilrvani Lake Entrance. The forecasted peak hour volume for ihis r+rrvr miam is vehicles; per hour. The approach volaaar: on (:mealy Road b0 is 810 vehicle.> p^r four lrrim loth direction:. The: ft.rnu;rl on Uniform Tr•atf is (ontrolInovi.'o•: lists the warrants for •sirnali.:,-idea for interrupiiun of con- linnous tr ail is t', dvnid oxcef;live delay or rrrz:rrd to baffle oitario.1 or crossing ;i r,rjor ;1rrr 1. TheTho warrant fur one land approaehc; in tots the major or minor +.trivet•. is 750 vehicles pccr our on the wajor street, total of both alr; or,:he!:, and 7'r vehicles per hour in the minor street, ono direction only. To uicot the warrant for a signal thoco volumes must cr:.ciir for eight hours during the nvrr,w ricy. if the warrants are not mot, traf tic can usually bi: accom- modated satisfactorily without a signal. 2. 1^iJ Memorandum { July 24, 1980 Page Three The forecasted volumes at the west entrance road would not meet the warrants for a signal. Although the 810 vehicles during the peak hour is higher than the 750 required for the warrant it is not expected that the hourly volumes would exceed 750 for 8 hours. Therefore, it is expected that the 50 vehicles forecasted for the left turn out of this entrance road would find acceptable gaps in the traffic stream on County Road 60 to permit safe entry. The average gap in the traffic en County Road 60 would be 17 seconds and 6.7 seconds in the eastbound and westbound traffic streams, respectively. - At times there would be some delay to vehicles waiting to turn left as it would be necessary to wait for an acceptable gap in the approaching traffic. Howovcr, this is a low volume movement, only 50 vehicles per hour in the peak hour. it is expected that sufficient gaps will occur to accommodate the forecasted turning rovenent. The amount of waiting time required at this intersection would be approximately the same as would be required to wait for a green light if the intersection were signalized. !".�'�i' l \`'1.�"T`^,`i J0n e_+`1 rT'-( (.ili c Ceb--Alf-a, SHEET NO. , Zi a�..'i n.`I ''0a Ill MADE BY_R_.__ DATE JOB NO. 0 CHECKED BY DATE SEC.SHT,NO. CALCULATIONS FOR • 0 O l . th`}Tn et .9 4.1 4. non r g L. 2 2 VI11 N J `Y V w 0 o D t` rJ 0 A Q I i 0 '1 ( v cu D"� it d -V\-> 42 el N 3a� p m • 4 M 0 pi I . 7M e e k a O IL TJ A M .0 m I Is 6 Tt, rpc:1/01.Yr LAY.E CE'kyr,,a i .417.','"r)777 SIIEET NO, 1 i L.AL,:r:..4:-x\jj MADE BY P.\'DC- DATE 7• CHECKED BY DATE SEC.SHY.NO CALCULATIONS FOR 1 1 to .• t_.4 • 1-• 3 2 4)-1 2 0 vl i) ty cr 1 • LI3 t!'—'4, 'IT r)" • ct 7—`) cO a 0 6 c'f‘co›.• M 1 U./ l'' -/- d• 5 , 0 0 1 L, cr 2 -1 w . • .-.. --1 i Y 0 . in • 7"ci 3 tli -ce cil O. J g• , —4 N Cl, s NI —J t.1 Col I Ct la M.) ; . Q. n re—j ' lb3 4.--. ' ( 11 V o . , Ir ro , a , -1) sl' tv • - r .. 2ik.-...!L' --. ..... _..-. . . i _.-.. l4. 2 � 11 i_,� fILL)I Jl J PW:NIr;;;1 t MA•Lil(),IIAI IpN:Lr1�IN[En+N3rARCnIff.CTUIIE • July 22, 1980 • Mr. Chris [nger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: • Enclosed is one copy of BRWTs Technical Memorandum on access and circulation for the proposed Bryant Lake Center in Eden Prairie. Data for this study was obtained from the PUD report for the development and a preliminary plat furnished us by the Hustad Development Corporation. • If you have any questions regarding this study, please call. Very truiy yours, • BATHER-RIUCROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. 644 • Ralph D. Clare Associate RDC:aw • • cc: Dick Putnam Les Weigelt • • INtril li In4i.nl�`f 11 p1!.111.f)JA/111S r:Antm n 1NC 2n.11.1NIVEN'iIIY AVE SE-!` MINNI7Mt1;IS UN 15414 PNONL 612t379 MI6 1 • TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM • ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS + ' Bryant Lake Center Edon Prairie, Minnesota • • • Prepared For: HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ( 12750 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie, Minnesota Prepared By: BATHER, RINCROSE, WOLSFEID, JARVIS & GARDNER, INC. 2829 University Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 • July 21, I9B0 • SUialMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • An office and commercial development is planned for the Bryant Lake Center located south of County Road 60 between I-494 and U.S. 169/212. The access 4 and circulation pion for this development has been analyzed relative to Its suitability for the given site conditions and proposed land uses. Conclusions regarding access aro as follows: • The proposed Intersections on County Road 60 will have adequate capa- city to accommodate the forecasted traffic volumes. • No traffic operation problems are anticipated with the intersections as proposed. I • Adequate distance, approximately 380 feet, would be provided between the west entrance to Bryant Lake Center and the west entrance to Super Vaiu. No problems due to conflicts between vehicles using the intersections are anticipated. Vehicles turning left at these intersections would be coming from the directions away from the opposing intersection so vehicles would not be stored between the two intersections. • • The 44-foot width for the two streets, as scaled from the preliminary plat, would be adequate for the anticipated traffic demands. Conclusions regarding circulation on the Bryant Lake Center are as follows: f •-The proposed two streets would provide adequate access to the proper- ties within the Center. •Emergency vehicle circulation from one on-site street to the other could be accommodated through the parking area connecting the two streets. • There would be a minimum need for traffic, other than emergency vehicles, to circulate from one on-site street to the other. Therefore, a public street connecting the ends of the cut-de-sac, to create a loop road, is not considered necessary in this site. I i `A- 1 • • CONTENTS • PAGE • SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • 1 INTRODUCTION 2 PROPOSED LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENTS 4 • ANALYSIS OF ACCESS 6 Intersection Capacities Intersection Operations and Relationship to Other Intersections Sight Distance Property Width Requirements ANALYSIS OF ON-SITE CIRCULATION 7 • • j " . 1 INIRODUCTiON { A planned unit development, Bryant Lake Confer, is proposed on a parcel located south of County Road 60 and between 1-494 and U.S. 212/169 In Eden Prairie. Proposed land uses In the 30.9 acre site are office and commercial. . A report on ihls development titled Planned Unit Development: Bryant Lake Center/lake Ridge Office Park has boon prepared by Busted Development Corporntiun. This report shows preliminary plans and proposed land uses for the silo. The data in the referenced report servos as a basis for the access and circulation analysis reported In this memorandum. Access to the site is from County Road 60. Initially two entrances are planned into the site. A third entrance and the completion of a loop road throu;h the site is being considered when the eastern portion of the site is developed. For this analysis it is anticipated that County Road 60 will be Improved to a 4-land urban arterial street and that the planned ramps from County Road 60 to the north on 1-494 will be constructed. The purpose of this study is to analyze the access and on-site circulation proposed for the Bryant Lake Cantor. PROPOSED LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION The preliminary plat for the Bryant Lake Center, included in the Planned Unit ( Development (POD) report, Is shown In Figure 1. Trip generation forecasts were prepared using typical rates for various land uses. Following is a tabu- lation of the proposed land uses and the forecasted trip generation for each of the parcels shown on Figure 1: Trip Generation Floor Rate Land Area Area (Trips/ ADT Parcel Use (Acres) (So. Ft.) 1,000 S.F.) 1 Office Park 7.7 77,700 12 930 2 Rostaurani/Comm:rcial 1.0 13,000 20 260 3 Rostaurani/Commercial 1.0 13,000 20 260 4 (a) Office 1.6 34,000 12 410 (b) Commercial 1.6 20,000 20 400 5 Office 2.8 60,000 12 720 6 Office 2.1 45,000 12 540 7 Office 1.3 28,000 12 340 8 Office 1.4 30,000 12 360 9 (a) Office 9.3 200,000 12 2,400 (h) Cnc,,prclal 9.3 121,000 30 3630 iota! (a) 26.2 M 6,220 (b) 28.2 7,440 i. For parrots 4 and 9 two optional land uses are considered; (a) office and (b) camm�rciai. The trip generation for boihs types of land use wire calculated. r : 2 - r , C _ /is= R I \ a,1 i/„ it 8 i:II: e ,; (, . ,•.,- \ s \,A 21iEs1s . i i \ ' ' , ` tit -` v\ a.♦ ? it .: // • • •\, ) 1.. '� 4 •�\ ..;\,\\ ti`-G}� 1 T ,. ` , ''.—.,a. i 1 •. i: ; , :1 ; \N t ,,r _ ,, 4.,i , ,ifs Z11 Z'f / I 1117 - ' I 1' ;1y-\� \. ... , , , --,---,-,, .f i 'li ,2,I•i,J 1.\, 4,.? —. / i i '1 7 I 1 ' ' I'"ji. ,r,r.`>?7' - rd.-,&A'il0 , s , ... . ? '1 1 , 6,4.1 , \ ,...,,I.,_i 1,.._ '6 .0 i ; . . •\, -,t. i.;.,...,. .„., .,,,-..„tliji i ° I f .s 7 © ti --- F • 1 , ,n .C- \\ w il t i(. ( . © a .\ / • A • For parcels 2 and 3, shown as restaurant/commercial use, a typical value for trip generation for small commercial use would be 30 trips per day per 1,000 l square feet of floor area. This rate was reduced to 20 trips per day to account for walk-in customers from the near by offices. If parcels 2 or 3 wore used for restaurant use the trip rate would be higher than shown for these parcels but the floor area would be much loss than the 13,000 square feet shown in iho previous table. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENTS The probable distribution of trips to and from the Bryant Lake Center was • determined from en analysis of the population distribution in the :euthwest part of the Twin Cities area. This analysis showed that 79% of tho trips to the site would mast likely come from the east on County Road GO. The remainder, 21%, would come from the west on County Road 60. This is based on the assumption that the ramps from County Road 60 to 1-494 are completed. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were determined from the daily trips by using typical peak hour factors for each type of land use. The factors used are from data found in the previously listed reference jj Following are the factors used: Peak Hour as % of Directional Distribution Daily Trips AM PM Land Use AM PM In Out in Out Generai Office 19% 18% 84% 16% 17% 83% Commercial 4% 11% 50% 50% 50% 50% i• ,, The daily and peak hour trips forecasts are shown In Figure 2. • LI Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers • 4 - ; } 4 g3g 8 AVFRACTE DAILY TRAFFIL ( 2C0 •• scil ci,UtAwATev TRLF • `I AR 2 c o rorc -Y 60tAR.LG: NENN. CD. D.O.T. 1 1 (5000) ( f300_ �� I500 1 H y 200 c POD 400 ,---> 1500 NI C.O. RP. 490 , R. �' 4 WEST EAGT TRANCE; 144-E • PEAK Hwuc- `CRAPS ( _LAST ENTRANLE C20�---3 [2 03 y 1 ,1 r N O PS. N A.M. , P.M. • Go•••• 5111: cAnAt AscP TRIPS [100]••••YEAR 2.00o Fc(AST FALTGAZE TO t aK HOLH A.M. PEN.: F1000 ; 8't' CS ADT. p..M. f'E.AK FpUR : 10(o of A,E7T. ( • DIRECTIONAL_ %'L.AT • 50ft0 FVCTuRE 2 DAILY AND PEAL( HOUR TR.AF1 1L FOR- A **TS _ 4 ANALYSIS Of ACCESS Ij Tho proposed occess to Bryant Lake Center was analyzed relative to the following elements: o intersection capacities o Intersection operations and relationship to other Intersections �. o sight distance o roadway width requirements Followiny is discussion of each aspect of the analysis: Intersection Canecities - Both the east and west entrances would operate much below capacity, even during the peak hours of tho day. The east entrance would serve the highest traffic volumes in and out of the site. The volume forecast for this entrance is only 40% of the volume that could be accommoda'ied at level of service C. At this level of service traffic flow is stable and, assuming this intersection is signalized„few vehicles would need to wait for more than one signal cycle. Level of services C is considered very adequate for urban street design. ti The west entrance would serve fewer trips than the east' entrance and • therefore the volume/capacity ratio would be even less than the .40 { found for the oast entrance. Intersection Operations and Relationship to Other Intersections - The planned west entrance to Bryant Lake Center is approximately 900 feet east of the future north bound in-ramp from County Road 60 to 1-494 and approximately 380 feet cast of the west entrance to the Super Vale site. This Super Valu entrance is presently a T-intersection and it is proposed that the west Bryant Lake Center entrance also be a T-intersection. Based • on the traffic volumes expected and the distance between the two Intersection, 330 feet, no traffic operation problems are anticipated. In addition, there are only three turning movement conflicts at a T-Intersection, but a 4-way intersection has sixteen conflict points. The higher the number of conflict points within an Intersection, the greater the probable accident potential. Two of the major reasons to "Iine-up" T-intersections are not present In this situation: o One reason to lino up intersections is to prevent vehicles going between Bryant Lake Center and Super Yalu sites from making two turns. Very few vehicles aro expected to travel between the sites. - 6 - • o A second reason is io eliminate Inter-locking left turns. Because the entrances are located such ihat the left-turns to the Super Valu site approach from the west and left turns to,the Bryant Lake Center approach from the east, no conflicts will exist. if the Super Vale entrance was located to the east of the Bryant Lake Center enlrunco, this would be a problem. If either of these situations existed, the T-Intersection could present traffic operational problems. Sinht Distonce - There is an existing crest in County Road 60 approximately 180 foal cast of the proposed west entrance to Bryant Lake Center. This crest would restrict sight distance at the entrance. Plotting this exit profile shows that • the driver of a vehicle entering County Road 60 from the entrance could see an approaching vehicle from the cast for a distance of 250 feet. For a speed of 40 141t1 on County Road 60 this sight distance would equal four seconds. A minimum of eight seconds sight disience should be provided; therefore ii is proposed to cerslruct a temporary efitrence to County Road 60 at the west entrances to the Super Vdlu site. When County Road 60 is improved in the future the grade could be fluItoured at the existing crest so that adequate sight distance would be pro- vided for an entrance at the location shown in the preliminary plat. 3 Roadway Width Requirements - The forecasted traffic volumes on the two streets proposed in the Bryant Lake Center only require one lane in each direction for moving traffic. However, at the approach to County Road 60, two lanes should be provided so that left and right turning vehicles would have separate storage lanes. ibis could permit right turns to be made without being blocked by vehicles waiting to make a left turn onto County Road 60. Also, at the entrance to the parking lots there will be considerable turning traffic. It would be desirable to provide sufficient roadway width so that there would not be inter- ference between the turning vehicles and traffic deciding to continue past the entrance. The site plans included the PUD report show roadway widths of 44 feet. This roadway width would very adquately accommodate the traffic movements expected on those two streets. ANALYSIS OF ON-SITE CIRCULATION The vehicular circulation on the Bryant Lake Center site must meet the following needs: .o 'Access to properties o Emergency vehicle movements Thn two proposed streets on the site are initially planned to be cul-de-sacs. The easterly street is planned to be continued in the future as a loop through the eastern portion of the silo to form a third intersection with County Road 60. Coed access to all of ihce properties; will be provided by the two proposed streets. The east c'ntrnnco would servo an estimated 651 of the /rips into the site. Across tine entire south side of 'the parcel 1 (the Lake Ridge Office Park) there is a parking ,+roe. Access 1n this area Is provided from each street. This parking area would a I r.se vomit the rvwcenint of emergency veh i c ios f rem one street to the other so that adequate circulation for emergency vehicles is provided. • There would be little need for ordinary vehicular traffic to move from one of the sheets to It,() vlher; ihornfore the lack of a public street eennec- tlee IUt.:von 'the 'two col-de-sac Is nut expocled io be a problem. 7 - I e „t CSnp4 . 0 MillilCSo1u n , _ IV! Of 'I•riinsportaliOn L I)I-irii11 r> /ep 20.75 \t7. Lilac Drive oF Tttt:`' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. 0312)64n:1761 I. July 18, 1980 . 1 Mr. Chris Enger, Planning Director City of .Salem Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 , In reply refer to: 315 SP 2785 Ttt 494 Plat review of Bryant Lake Center P.U.D.-Hustad Development Corp. in part of Section 11, Township 116, Range 22 in the NE Quadrant of 1-494 and TH 5 • Eden Prairie, Hennepin Comity Dear Mr. Eager: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance (' with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following common t s: - 'i7te preliminary grading plan indicates Lot 4 will be filled to an elevation of 880. The existing contours shown on the plat indicate an elevation of 873 at our right of way line. - It appears that this will cause water to be ponded on our right of way. The proposed plan should be revised to avoid this. Please contact our District Hydraulics Engineer at 545-3761, ext. 126 to resolve this problem. - Because the plat abuts Co. Rd. 60, we suggest the plat he submitted to the Hennepin County Department of Transportation for review and comments if you have not already done so. if you have any questions in regard to the above comments, please contact our Layout, Research and Development Engineer Mr. J. S. Katz at 545-3761, ext. 150. Thank you for ;,our cooperation in this matter. Sinr�rel h. M. Cr:r.'1'ord, P.E./ Di::trlet. Engineer L' cc: Cntrla'a Maven, Metropolitan Council 14ibe Reiter, Hennepin County Surveyor's Office Doug rintt:.on, Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation An Equal Opportunity Employer • Mr. J. P. Wilkie Vice President ( Willow Creek Association 7221 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie, ntl 55344 • July 14, 1980 • Planning Commission City of Pden Prairie, MN 55344 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 To whom it may concern.: On Tuesday, July 1, members of Hustad Development Corporation were kind enough to meet with residents of Willow Creek to discuss the planned unit development for Bryant Lake Center and Lake Ridge Office Park. During this meeting, the Hustad group outlined their plans for • the 30.9 acre site. After reviewing Hustad's plan and examining the property, the residents of Willow Creek asked that I write you to express the unanimous con- r cerns of the residents regarding the Hustad plan. First, we appreciate and understand that this plan falls within the ring-road and major center area. Thus, the plan is based on city ordinances designed for the major center area. Residents of Willow Creek feel that the city should be sensitive to the environment now existing around Bryant. Lae. Up until this time, Bryant Lake has • strictly been a residential environment with homes existing on two sides of the lake front. The residents are concerr.ccd that the density levels allowed by the city for the site including the Lake Ridge Office • Park arc not compatible with the overall lake environment. We understand the needs for a major center area and do not dispute the city ordinances related to this area. However, since the Hustad property is positioned so strategically in relation to Bryant Lake, we request that exceptions be made regarding the density allowed on this particular property. • • Page six (6) of the Hustad plan states that, "The building sire, parking, and trips are based upon the maximum allowable F.A.R. in ordinance 135". Thus, the developer is planning on maximum P.U.D. land use statistics. The residents feel that these plans are not in keeping v.'i.th the overall lake environment and that a reduction of between a minimum of 25% and a maximum of `.ion should be implemented in both the allowable square feet • of buildings and ;parking places required. Our concern is the bonding • density on this property and its impact on the degree of contouring and • gi:acling required on this site. • ..a) • Planning Commission Page - 2 July 14, 1980 • We feel that the Menard's site just across the freeway from the • proposed site is very unattractive in regards to the grading and contouring done. We do not want to see this type of change in the natural slope which we all have to view on a daily basis. Further- more, the Ryan Development. Plan for the Lake Ridge Office Park is, in our opinion, too dense. We would like to see the same reductions in building space and parking for the Ryan's site, as for the overall property. Our essential concern is that the priorities that the city has out- lined for the major center area arc in conflict with the Bryant Lake environment that the Hustad property is part of. Essentially, we have a situation where a residential area is adjacent to the major center area on this particular site. Thus, we request that the objectives of the major center area he modified in keeping with the Bryant Lake environment. We do not feel that this request would severely impact the development. Because of our sensitivity to this site and any proposed development on it, we request that a planned unit development be denied to insure that the developer's plan can be reviewed on a lot by lot basis by the city. We feel that it is premature to grant an overall development concept when the construction will not be completed for a minimum of 10 years. Finally, we want to reiterate our understanding for a major center area. Our request for reductions in density plan for this site are only related to our concern that the site be developed in keeping with the Bryant Lake Community. We greatly appreciate your consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, J. P. Wilkie Vice President/'•Pillow Creek Association JPW:plg Ryan Development,Inc IrTh rN r .. ,r GENERAL CONTRACTORS & DEVELOPERS EDWARD C.RYAN JULPieseleM 1 3 N THOMAS P RYAN ����FFFF Vice Pre$idenl July 10, 1980 Mr. Roger Ulstead, City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: LAKE RIDGE OFFICE PARK - WHEATON PROPERTY Dear Mr. Ulstead: Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, I would request that you ask the City Council to set a public hearing (, on August 5, 1980 for the purpose of rezoning the above property from C-Regional Commercial to Office. Thank you. Very truly yours, RYAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. Thomas P. Ryan Executive Vice President • TPR:pkj r0 P.O. COX 596 GRAND RAPIDS, MtNNESOTA 55744 • PHONE 218f22¢-8587 .. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �{ 320 Washington Av. South ( f Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 .9 HENNEPIN W._ 935-3381 0 July 10, 1980 Mr. Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: RE Proposed Plat - "Bryant Lake Center PUD" CSAH 60 between TH 169/212 u FAI 494 Section 11, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 845 Review and Recomandations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: -For future upgrading of CSAH 60 the developer should dedicate an additional • 27 ft. of right of way making the right of way 60 ft. from the center of CSAH 60. • -The easterly proposed access meets the minimum sight distance requirements for the posted 40 mph and must be constructed directly opposite the existing Super Valu easterly entrance. -The westerly proposed access opening to CSAH 60 - as shown does not, under existing conditions meet minimum sight distance requirements for the posted 40 mph. Until CSAH 60 is upgraded and sight distance is improved the developer nrust construct the access directly opposite the westerly Super Valu drive and construct a temporary frontage road to the proposed street. This frontage road must be outside the new right of way. -Any now access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit. See err Traffic Division for entrance permit forms. -All pr-o;aosed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit, prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and land- scaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Mr. Chris Enger - 2 July 10, 1980 -The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. t 3 Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. G Sincerely, H . 41• L✓,t o am2s H. Hold, P.E. Chief, Planning and Programming JF"W/LDW:pj .: 12- - . ( . 1 . ( i • 1 1 i 1 1 1 • i .;. 1 . • I ‘ . I .. i 1 1 . . i ! ] , . 1 _ i . 1 ( A •-i : 3 0 m a-trt t --ic --.—cct ,D • i . • F..(ji r (D CD i • ..I."'"‘''''''' ...4.rn 1 1 7J ! 0 i 1 .1, rn t, f;E. ?.i. i,...-.: ‘3 • c & ....1 . . I . . . . t r . 1 • :1 7 •7117,1.1:1.i:'i • j, . 11itHI' ITl'!-' ;IT 1 z • Ilk .I.,: • !I 1,:;.r-7-.!-7.---1,.r,-71i 114:7---ir.---',.--'.. 1 I i__.:1„...._J I Li__ I'Lli 11111H ' " HitHI Ilh ..1..r‘ t-I[ F i • .% . , k 1 1\3 , ______ 0 Ii..=r... -,,.....„ . i m . 0 - Z i0 ,,.... . 0 4 H 1 r . > 'u (t) . 1.1.... - r.... . _ 'Tr-7117 0 ____=__-"_•-if,11 . i .e.... . . t . . .. ... . ... . ... . . - .. . . ,. ; . i ( 4 . , 4 I i ( • 9.. ) 03 (1 PA , ,i•1::'•' •'I,il,,i;,.ili 1 1 1 . ........ . 4 Q r i 1'1 0 1 I `1', • lit..... . • . A ' .A . (I) . • • . ) , z 1 . ..:1 . I , • inn om, 1 r, „r„-;„ E A • .. . • I . i . . • i - ! . 3 k . • 4 V_±...Nt.Q.1...._.C.Oae,__ 1._ 1 ,-- ...-...-Th ...."---'-•"--l'...."..---....--2:f....)- ,. 4 , A 0 „...ch . . , 1 I t 1— m ____....._ Z rs,,r- -,-7."'.3----1 • 1 i ic,•3 — 1 I 1 i-,t . t 1 - . . ,ii- 1.0_ 1 73 ._—. — > ' . j . , Z i'•A -,, i. 1 _ 0 2 : 1 , M I 1: gl 1 i,'-', `-• 4 t . • ks••••, , .%1 1 0 1") \ ; , ..4 : 1 ... Z • '.- , i ' , , i t . , . • ?•;7_ICI . i. i'-• -- I It •,.- it,t - • _ . . .._. - , . . ._ ., -. , , . . ., . .,.•, . . , . , -., ,.. . .. . . . . 1 ._ - f, . . _ . ...____..,.................. . _.„.. ., ( \ --J .<5,1.. . 1 , . . li. ) . -4 / • ' . 4 , . . 4 3 . /: ...3 • ' 1 .k : ___\---5"------------- ,,.\-' ' \ .• ,• ..----------------- --3 .s . , . . _____------- • • • " - • :: ---- J • • . . . . . . - • . ' . . i • •. . 1 CAGN.1-14.7‘-:E PLAN ! . . . . . • . . . . . . . . ; ,7 • .. r . , . .. . ... . ... . ....... . . ................— . . 22-15 I . - — , ..... . ,.. . . . . . . . . . -- .- ; -• -,, -- . .-. .. .,..' , . . . .... , k ... c..) .. ..-• t. :' ,..., t._. :it ..) ,.sj t'i l.1 CI ll: ••• !,,. 4,1 (CI • t•-• •••,4 ...- -11-1 • I., .., 1‘.) 4- N) 1-• C.) 1-' .41, CD N..) U. 1-` 1 a 40 CD r‘) .).1 CO C..., l.:.) C) (..) k/1 C) C) \C) 0 IV I.-. L.) I.) CC 0 (...) ;11 ;11 II L I 3. C•$ C-4 CD 1-1 :•Lt h.. l'-'CD C) .rt .,.,. cre Ott c) c) •.-, :,. :: :1 () i.... 45 9 1.1 11 rt. '.1) ;1 1-'' u) 0 ,i 0 C) 11 CL '. .1. $.:, 5 :I 9 0 I.: Ca L'.', 0 II ...3- ti Cl''Cl '..* 0 c.). .s $i 11 , i-- r: ;-1 LI li V) c-1- C7' • (1) 0 f-, .' % '... .... *C.1 'CI C) 1`.. ;D ..-). " 0 :a rD 0 . ,-. a, 0 a, (/ .-.: () 0 0 ",-. 0 • c: ,I .:. 5' f., 11 11 • 0 C1' 11 (3) :5" (1) CI Si :1 ', r-- "13 P. t-3. 0 :it TJ (3 ,t ,. M, 1 t il.' 11 C) ID 01 (1 CD 0- 'r- o IS .$ 1,1 CD (r) LI) IL-, CD ;,c • 1 '). CI" i :-. CC) 0 0 (-./ ,$ cx, ((1 c-) Ni' 0 _, 1.; 1.1 ;1) 0 C) :3- 0 l'-' 1--. •1: :3 LC, :5-• (D 0 (T) 1--, 0 "C -• 't/ '0 L.; C)., CI ' 0 ,1 •• ' . h.' 1. I.a ;1 :T: ../ 34' ta (4.1 C.) IS c_, CD () 0 0 1-- '4 ta It CC) .1 0 1-. 'XI 'It :1 C' ..rs 11 is, Z )1 I-- • 14 c.) 9 II Cr) , '-h ',... c•-• . cn 1-3 ii c'} :T 0 0I.. ..$ m I :/1 ',11 Cr' I,' ',. -•L. •LI Ili 0 .11 111 1--3(T., :, r.) t-,"4.1 Ca .4):,•• 141 ( z) '", C4 t 0 C,',t.: t 71 CC )-•• vi 'i t1 C' I-i V) C (11 ,-$ LI) CC .) C) ./) 0 a c s et, ti .1 '5 9 0 ct CC C 0 40 c•-• CT :I At C') 44‘ 'C ,-1 Cr 0. .1 :1 .1 ,t. ,.-- 0 1- 0 9 :" :1 $$ .0 c: 11 0 x ID LI, ''t 0 ,: • ..-5'e 3 (17'CS 0 I.e. C.: C. :3 '1, 0 0 ".'' . :3 L: r- ,, C) , 11. 'D ti CD 11) (Cl if) 1---'r.:. L.' 0 :5 '2:1 -'C' " •.: CC I- 1. C) ...•-$ Cl 11 CC) ft,,41 -. ca 1--'r in I-, o M (;1 :, ;i t, ,- 0 CC c) c.. ,-, ,-..'. ,-o -,..- ci, i•-• EA CD W V) C,. C) C'. Cl :3 •Ul 0 m ,t, 1-•• ,t) ilt r..) 10 'LI 't.1 ct CD ct t, m •••., tn 'r• 1, '5 CC i 0. C1) (D 0 SD .ti CC tit •It ''.) I.-, I , 't, (11 •.CD C) ‘); r C) 0 .1 1--, :31 o ;.) I' 0 0 H1 31 Cr. Ul CC' (/5 CI" '3 54- C- •:3 4 CI .L.. r. m m' o' := C-' C H SI :`-':1 CD C) C) i: ,- C-1 I-. (,) (CC ct n tit t 1. .11 0 C' [1 :5 :1 CD '11 '' '''S LI ''i,‘: D• , CC U', 'X, :3 Cl CC) • H II H /4 ri. ',..1 M ID I-' 0 CC') . CD 0 /•' 0 '31 .• e• I, CI 1.. N:5 C') .1 r t. 0 . 1"I"' .1 ,) :1 .0 'D C' (I) '-i L. 0 t). ... • , .$) 1' N.) N) \., ,..n ‘,.,‘ 0, )-. I-. I-' rr, t.--, N, CC) i-. N) to - ; I = ...i ,) = •s, I C) C) li. k../ r : 1,1' Icx) I-, n .$ ,,r 1 4- CC' It t;.. `.... Sr `,-, tli t.T1 '-••.., tti ''C t• 'm Cl () - I.• 1-• Ili I Ca) till C -VI 4c, 1,, -r- 1.• • o ,1 -.: 1,.. c.-- to : It, It! z• t 11 CI '41 ' tIl It' ti.1 t'.1 '(I 4) 4.• tit . 0 C'' UI 01 • ct • • •4:.`' ..' ')'''''•'', -- ''+. . t•- .- .",, ".•t ...::;.- ,,,,h.:,• '41,-....',,to-V,,.V.:.t1,,, „...t.'4...,.-„,11,44114,..1,,,,t o.riot.+.411,1041 irx ativaneavx_ . . " ', , • i..- ; '' .,-•.-..7 c.!I.. :1.....,1,-..-...... '....;i i-L‘,.... :-i-i, ki t / RYAN D,.--.:11ELC.)PflitENT INC. , , „ Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1980 Members absent: William Bearman & Liz Retterath D. R1.70RIN%, TO RURAL IN SOUTHI-!ESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE. The Planner stated that the area is recommended for rezoning in the western area of the ccui;,uuity. Levitt asked what is allowed in the rural zone. The Planner replied agricultural use and residences on 5 acre lots or larger. Jim Vohs, Crestwood Terrace, agrees with rezoning. Bob Blatt, Pioneer Trail, asked if there was a long range plan. He does not under- stand the changing. The Planner replied that although the land may ultimately be utilized in part for industrial, because services were not accurately available to the area,. the 1979 Guide Plan recommended zoning back to Rural. Motion Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council rezoning of the properties listed in the July 28, 1980 sonic to Rural District. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0. • • MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner . THROUGH: Chris finger, Director of Planning DATE: July 18, 1980 SUBJECT: Rural Rezoning in Southwestern Eden Prairie At the request of the Planning Corrmission and pursuant to Subdivision 19.2 Initiation, a public hearing regarding rezoning of these properties has been properly published with notices to affected and surrounding landowners mailed. At time of adoption of Ord. 135, in 1969, the properties were placed in Plan Study District by the City Council. Again during 1970, 1976 and 1977 in response to the undetermined 212 alignment and the absence of utilities. Although these properties had underlying zoning of I-Gen since 1969, the land has been utilized mainly as agricultural or left vacant. Neither I-Gen or Plan Study provide for Rural uses, i.e., agricultural, or single family homes on 5 acres or more. The Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan Update contains the recommenda • - ( tion that the existing I-Gen zones, on either side of the Nl & St, L Rail • - • road between Co. Rd. 4 and Lake Riley, be rezoned to Rural. • Research on court cases regarding'down zoning suits' indicate that if no substantial physical improvements have been made in conjunction with a zoning district, a property is not considered 'down zoned'. Sewer and • water is not available, (outside Metropolitan Urban Service Area, MUSA), • and the land has been cultivated for crops, therefore no physical improve- ments fur industrial purposes have been made. Rezoning to Rural will eliminate the yearly task of reinstating Plan Study and conforms to the Guide Plan without restricting property owner's rights to apply for uning when sewer and water is available and development desired. Portions of the land are indicated for industrial so such applications for • rezoning will comply with the Guide Plan and may be feasible after review and approval by City. Until then, the Rural zoning will allow agricultural pursuits and single family homes on 5 acre lots or larger. RECOt1MEN ATIG?1 In ir,plooni.aiion of the Guide Plan, the Planning Staff would suggest the • Planning Cer:-aicsion recommend to the City Council rezoning of the attached described properties to Rural. • JJ:ss • • 1f --- -`11 1 fJ- ? -- 1i1 ? l� 4 ti E <?� RI �? �yri j 3 .J`t.'. -- a' I " .:i I l r T '_/ it � TL U J It l :_Ii:2_,? Id_?. RI-2 \`.� %"��tui't►> 141t.}�13f�� C ,I, II• p c1a.�t U fi•. 1 j• 1 32G 1 t ✓rrGN4ii w�` Y V r'4.-j � lfrt. 4., 6.5 i' F.,/ 1.t-i A4 .1 , i r� \1, 1326 • 1 .Y 2h1:65 ,�_ v+rr.r .w t ram.++..+.G.. � - — r FILICiAL � I, •de -rs ti ,;,/r f/ l 1 'i\ — 0/ f � 145-341 l ,, 7 5 7 •,�.. S 1. �{� P.S. 77f+3 _ \ ;-\ f4fP J1/ 31,1 �1-- i � J _ 20 Il l�/ ` �� I J 3111/ t -..20 13- ' P - 77 43 t 145 341 '"--- 1I19'1 6, r'`P.S,, 7 T 43 1145-341 � I r i. 1 --) ///t„. 7 ,3 7 ,,,,,,=1:.',3/::-..' 77-43 145341 41 \ O:1'41°'.\-k'-i-- A-:- -- - - \‘\ P S " 7 • 1 i 19 lT t: L ';r 341 145 .'tII/ uli li IJ 4 ,. /743� P.',- V I t •••. 1Rl•e;',. r"..."'r. l AREAS UNDER 1i � g CU.ISI DI.RAT IC `._,�-�ir11.1r-"'�' ItflU;11t1G TO 1 r • • Trert: 1. All that part: of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, lying Southeasterly of the Southeasterly right-of-way line of Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. 3 •f d i Tract: 2. • All that part of the Government Lot No. 5, Government Lot No. 4, the Southeast Quarter of. the Southwest Quarter: and the Southeast: Quarter of Section 17, Town- ship 116, Range 22, described as follows: Beginning 4 at Lhe Southwest corner of Government Lot No. 5; thence 4 North along the West line thereof distance 1100 feet; thence Paslerly parallel with the South line of the said Govern eat: Lot. No. 5 to a point 750 feet Northwesterly • of the Northwesterly. right-of-way line of the Chicago & • Northwestern Railroad as measured at right angles to the said Northwesterly right-of--way line; thence Northeasterly to a point- on the North line of the said Southeast Quarter said point being 400 feet Westerly of the Nor::iw-ss1 corner of the Northwest Quarter of the said Southeast Quarter; thence Easterly to the North- westerly right--of-way line of the Chicago & Northwestern • Railroad; thence Southwesterly along the said North- westerly right-of-way line to the South line of the said. Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Westerly :.long Lhe South line of the said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot No. 5 Lo the point of beginning. Tract 3. All that part of the West: Iial.f of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said West: Half; thence Easterly along t:he South line of said West Half to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with centerline 1150 feet Southeasterly of the Southeasterly right-of-way line of the Chicago & Northwoste:n Railroad; thence Northeasterly along the last mentioned parallel line to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 274 feel Westerly of the Past line of said West Half; thence Northerly along the last mentioned parallel line distance 75D feet;' thence Easterly parallel with the North line of the t:gathwest. Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 17, distance 200 feel; thence Northerly parallel. with the East limo of said West Half a distance • of SOO feoI:; thence Westerly parallel with North line of (tie Po thw.ect Quarter of t.ha Southeast Quarter of ' said Section 17 to the Southeasterly right-of--way line/ • • 1. 1' 1 of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad.; thence Southwesterly along the said Southeasterly right-of-' way lino to the hest line of the said hest ITalf; thence Southerly along said West line to the point of beginning. Tr., t.4. • . A11 that: part of the Northeast and Southeast Quarters of Section 19, Township 116, Range 22, lying North- westerly of the Northwesterly right-of-way line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad excepting there from the Westerly 550 feet thereof. Tract 5- A11 that part of the Northeast Quarter and the North- west Qo:; :1cr of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 116, Range 22, lying Sputhea,terly of the Seathca:;1 erl.y. right•-of-way line. of the Chicago and Nori.ht::Oleon Railroad. Tract 6_ All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 116, Range 22., lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of County Road No. i. Tract 7. All that part of Government: Trot No. 3, Section 19, Township 116, Range 22, and the Northwest Quarter of the Nartheast Quarter of Section 30, Township 116, Range 72, lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of- way line of County Rood No. 1 and Southeasterly of the Seathe:e:;l orly right:-of--way line of the Chicago & . hort:h'west:rrn Railroad. Tract R. A11 that part: of the Southeast'. Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 1.16, Range 22, lying Snutheash•rly of the Srsntheaalorly right:--of.-way line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. 9'rn0 I. '1. _ Ail 1.1nit part: of the Northwest: Quarter of Section 20, 4 Township 116, Rouge 22, lying Nor'LhwesIoriy of the Norlhc. aIo,-1.y right--of-way line of the Chicago & North;o.:I rn Railroad. f . .--- '. . - • - . 1 . • ) • • I ) (. • 1 • 1 Tract 10. _ . . .. All: that part of the Northwest Quarter of the North- ' • east Quarter of Seclion 20, Township 116, Range 22, I .1ying Northwesterly of a line drown uarallel with and 1150 feet Southeasterly of the Southeasterly right-of-way line of the Chicago and Northwestern• Railroad. . _ • . . . Tract 11. . All that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, lying Southeasterly of the Southeasterly right-of-way. line of the Chicago and -. Northwestern Roalroad and Northeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and 1150 feet Southeasterly of the .: said Southeasterly right-of-way: line, together with • all that part of the West 1100 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of. said Section lying f7,euthe:ist-rly of the Southeasterly right-of-way line of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. ... 6 ' Tract 12, . • . All that part of the West 1100 feet of the Southwest .. . : Quarter of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, lying Northerly of the Northwesterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 1. . . . . Tract 13. All. that part of Government Lots No. 1 and No. 2, . :. Section 30, Township 116, Range 22, lying Northwest- erly of the Neuthwc.sterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 1, Southeasterly of the Southeasterly right- of-way line of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad •and Northeasterly of the following described line: beginning at: a point on the centerline of the Chicago . -. and Northwestern Railroad, said point: being 1030 feet . • Soulinsysterly of the North line of Government Lot No. .. . 2 as measured along the center line of said railroad; • thence Southeasterly at right angles to the center line of said railroad to the Northwesterly right-of-way line of County Read No. 1 and there terminating. .,.. . .. . . . . • 0 / .) • . , . . 2 d..2..:. -• . .' • • July 29, 1980 • Mr. Wolfgang H. Fenzel Wit Mayor of Eden Prairie City Offices 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 - Dear Mr. Mayor: lj 4t. h N� Because my property is located within a rezoning area, �, 7i1 1 was personally notified of a Public Hearing to be �4 l 7' held at 7:30 Pi'! on Monday, July 28, 1980, in the City f41 J ,. Ir t Hall Building. �b V Al!,3' 1,Lt�fr Many people showed up for the hearing. In fact, there tr A was standi.mg room only. Very small room, hot and stuffy. )t/ The Planning Commission's agenda had the rezoning in t6"' •c `,ki Southwestern Eden Prairie listed as the last item to be 4h 1. 4 A y considered. In view of the all public interest that �.� Cfri was Boor pl.rninp. At 8:30, people started to leave as f, p they were still discussing the first item "IV" for which no public hearing was scheduled. At 8:45, we also left and went home. I would have thought a little considera- Ajl' tion would have been in order to deal with the item of primary public interest first, not last. I still do rot know what rezoning has been proposed for my property. Will you please have someone advise me vliat the proposal is all about and what effect it will have on my taxes, if any. Thank you, E. G. Bellcrive 8050 Timber Lake Drive • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 .GB:j lq cc: Mc. William Beaman-Chairman, Eden Prairie Planning Commission, Edcn Prairie City Pall, 8950 Eden • I'r.iirie hood, Brien Prairie, Efinrse ota 55344 Planning COmmission Minutes -7- July 28, 1980 Members absent: William Dearman, Liz Retterath C. NCIII 1:00DS 2'rND ADDITION, by The Preserve. Request to rezone 1.3 acres • tro:. Pura' to RI-13.5. A public hearing. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated July 23, 1980. He also introduced Lee Johnson, representing The Preserve. Lee Johnson stated that it consists of 4 lots on 2 acres. Bentley asked if the lots are single lots. Johnson replied yes. Motion Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council rezoning of RI-13.5 for Neill Woods 2nd Addition as per the staff report of July 23, 1980. Gartner seconded, motion carried, 5-0. (. 2i2.t } T j STAFF RIPORT TO: Planning Commission • FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning PROJECT: NEILL WOODS 2ND ADDITION APPLICANT: The Preserve REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 for 2 acres of property subdivided into 4 lots and a street R.O.W.. ggr LOCATION: West of Neill Lake and South of Anderson Lades Parkway DATE: July 23, 1980 • BAC}:GPihr D: • In Novcer of 1978, Universal Land Corporation applied for rezoning and platting of 22.10 acres of land South of Anderson Lakes Parkway in Lake • Eden South. The project was called Lake Heights Addition, and was approved for preliminary platting of 29 single family lots and 2 lots containing a total of 32 townhouse units. The first reading of the zoning ordinance was also given and the Stuff was instructed to draft a development agreement • prior to the second reading. The agreement has been drawn, but the propon- ent refuses to sign it because it includes the requirement to pay the cash park fee. Lake Heights Addition was to obtain access from the northeast via Preserve Blvd., which was to come through Preserve Center 2nd Addition. Preserve • Blvd. was to continue South and serve Neill Woods Addition and ultimately Meadow Park Addition. • Universal Lard has now sold the R.O.W. and Preserve Blvd. and all land east of it to The Preserve. In order to proceed with Neill Woods, The Preserve would like to have final platting, road dediicat.ion and zoning for lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, which they have purchased from Universal Land. The Preserve does agree to pay the cash park fee on these lots and ordinances, .The lots are in conformance with the existing preliminary plat, • REC{r'7•1ENhA1 I Ohl;• • Planning Staff reconmrnds approval of the rezoning of 4 lots proposed by The Precrve, as Neill Woods 2nd Addition subject to payment of the cash park fee prier to building permit. issuance and a review and approval by the Riley-Pur- gatory Creek Watershed District. Public street access must occur prior to • or concurrent with hour construction on.those lots. • Cf:cs • • —i=1 1ij._.:. -., , ; / / •E ) •. .,-':.----/,', /% tt ___„ y off\ \�--11 1 .� ',I f 1 \/ / // J ir,_; ;I. . .. .. /1 / • •f.,7 • "•, .. ( nr.- i• c I/ Di .:".... • . . n . 1,\.� / E 1— • \ I`a —- -ra.' .--r "C'-�-,„' -%r ' `I r 1 t• `_",CD �.e' i. 1 —-- .--''�~ ,1 '�V 'HT • .1.1 J/ ..--1 `' m • • 'p` •1 i ir 1 `1, L.I.1 . ,', .'...•s','‘.1...1-7. V 1 11.1 , il'7—, ; ,,,' / 2. , % .N .•\ • r, 1 1 w ' .`. 1 — ,,— \ }`l -i ! J iI r i :'i'' • $' s F 1. \IFI ' `\, \ ,1, , 1 „ Lil \ J 1 \\ 0 Signs for future . ., / '1• (f� \ multiple _, 1 \ • — — —5'5" concrete — f)irt r I1 _'\_ 1- • - ,\ 1;. .— 1 1�. 1 . — ---c.' . 'i i. . t e m gy m r (� ` � , . /:/ ' I- �f.�`., `"• h , tI J• Li 1 �7 I ' , £ • as L[•C(t k' 'c� rw' ` J � _ • isU / / t ' } _ , ?O - • / l 't^ Y Y I.:1 1 1 v ._J •1,;, JjM d,..„,...it . ./.il.,' ..ii,.. t••:•••• ' \. ' `1 � Iv L_ La v • !! . . . • Cc, .'• 1,,. itgL,..IGPINI2 . July 22, 19Sj ,'. Edon Prairie City Council 1,&./n Pr,Fr Fr P I don i!p.:, .20.1A i si cm City of (.1,-!.t1 Pro irit. :2.9S0 Edct. .'r...tirw t'den Prairie, t..IN 5.'3364 • -. Attention: Mr. Chris Enger - ... City Planner Ladies A Gentlemen: - The Preserve, as Fee Owners, is requesting R13.5 zoning and plat oppreva] for 4 lute (Neill Woods 2nd Addition). Attached are location and plat wps. This property was given preliminary plat approval on February 6, 1979. .. . We have purchased the property to facilitate and expedite Preserve Lonlevard eou..trnc_fion between our. Preserve ?nd Addition and our Neill Wocnis AddiLioA Jnd to provide continoity in oi,inership, de:,ign review .. and Preberve AsIwciation Mmber!:.hip for the lots that back up to Neill Lake. .,. The lots meet. all 14k- requirements of Ordinance 135 and your prompt and tuvorat.la conjuor,c1,..n is requested. . . Very truly years, .. . , . THU. PPHFPVE . . -,- ;/ ,...`s, •T':' ,,,,, . • •,,c-7,4„..J.2,..-..-..,....„1-,......,* /{ ..•../ •.• ,,,,,,, ,, 4 Lee v., Johct-cot, Vice Pre!JdA.1 - 1-ng-,r:eering .. . iII;.1,li•;ik to•. „ ., . . . , . '.' . . . , . :. '. .-.. . .. .. -1 4,........,7 .— • III I Awl,r.con 1 1 fa':..P.rw.iy,E,lie.,)Priiirio,/1.1;titiota Lib,344 . f072194,1-..700/ . .....,.......... .,_.. ,., :. ,.., - . ,. ... .... , . . _ . ,..„., 1 1 - ;t‘. ------ , 1 k . ,.... - — 101, .r 1-,...., I ,L.•1...........4 T',t C .., t . 0 ; •.,•,,g.....‘.."*....?t Na AW . • .. .., , Z'y ...., ''''•'1/42'‘. - , . , -..pjô ,,". ,4„--• , el ,e,•:\• -`,- , ...... -:,.....?;-- . . \_ ... . ._... N _ • • , I( i`,...k.::;t;41 1.1 k.,t.....,'‘,..,‘,..4.7.0 ' "i ---•:',,,--. • •.- ,..:.,r'kJ-.%.,.,'6,.,'L r'W.r 1 ( , ' - . . - , . • 6 6•66-i....-,+ I ! i 1 / ' 4, ,. , ' ." 'I ',A I A....i.,•ri A I.- , 1 , , I • , , r . • ... \ ' , • i '-• ' , \ \ : '' / '' ''-' ' . ..- • 1 'I. , 1 I r k ,' .. • ; . , \ f 1,7.1 \ • • ' . ' % ' ; ' • . ' • % s ) ,i ,• 1.\ , / \ ;, 1. I V . • , 7‘,. , J' "Irl'i • I;'i ' 1 0 ,1 (...) .1;r"'-' 112+.wr...e.).ir'l yr I.-) • ,,,...,,...--, .L. L.v...., 1.. 1,............A.,......, 1.,,,c„.• • • ‘ i .. I''f I ' 11111 Anil.r 111 L.1,. l'.g•I A Iv r,:rri 1-`1}.,111 f.:tr,Ti ”1,1 1.)HI t 0.12/ 141 .0,11 .. 7-22-'ao \ ' ' „ . 7 1 , , , ,, . . ... N !...L 1,'.‘00DS 2i1D Ar)51-10ii 1 I--- .-6.- C • . •, , <.:,.- .... ... I ,,, ',it:it_ , • .t C'''''' . ,ts) ,.„ . , • . ,1•, ',... e. ..I t ,. ...., ... . S..t .. "'" „..• . . . , • , , S i. I ,.. . '.- 14,759:..t. .. •t,t., • •_. / .•. . , . " • `1),• 15,7,47 s.i. ;.:1 Total Site: 2.00 ac. • , . ., ._ \,, ,. ,,,,„ • I ..... , „ ..":, , .. • - ,.. . . 1S,372 t..1. — I - ,:': -• . . ,..', i 1 ' (.) .I,• ,i I ',.. '•• ''. 14,6•442 ..1. Ci3 , • ,' f ', '. ;' ,' , , '.7.' .: ; . • • e'. • .:,• • I • , ....- til.L Ii ,INC, - C.,.'..J1. Ht.',b.Ji,:t.A\0.SO, ' c.min jt.,n,1...i4 . • I . ., . .. _.__--.... .......... .-.........-.. ...-- .........-...-- , --i ''.,ji•1 ---- . . 1 7 c thcL. rescruc July 17, 1930 Mr. Chris Enger, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Chris: We have purchased the Outlot A of the Meadow Park Addition and - are incorporating it into the Neill Woods plat. Per the Meadow Park developers agreements, lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Block 2 are only partially subject to the park fees. For ease of record keeping I would suggest that lots 10, 11 and 12 be subject to the entire p,rk fee and lots 8 & 9 be eliminated from this fee requireaent. If this is agreeable please sign below and return a copy for our files. Very truly yours, THE P SERVE ee W. Johnson Vice President - Engineering LWJ/jl Enclosure • agreed: `r-------- /V • ity of Eden Prairie ( 11111 A,;rkrsun I.;t t i',;rl:raay,Edon Prnriu,Minnesota 55344 • (8121941-2001 • MEMORANDUM TO: The City Councils of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield FROM: Adrian E. Herbst DATE: July 21, 1980 • SUBJECT: Suggested format for public hearing of the City Councils The regulations of the Minnesota State Cable Board require that the franchising authority conduct a public hearing on the proposals for the franchise of a cable comounication system. Because each of the cities are the franchising authority, they will be conducting the public hearing in accordance with their own schedule and furnishing notice to the public in accordance with the procedure of the City. In accordance with the adopted schedule, each of the cities and the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission contemplates that the public hearings will be conducted by each of the City Councils during the month of August, 1980. Mr. Ralph Campbell, Secretary for the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, will be contacting each of your managers to help coordinate the scheduling of these public hearings. The purpose of the public hearing is to afford an opportunity to the public to present their view points on the proposed cable communication system and the City Councils will be receiving the information from all interested persons. It is not the purpose of the public hearing to make a determination as to the selection • of a proposal or applicant. • � , 3I • • • Sept. 2, 1980 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNE.PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R80-166 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS (I.C. 51-288) • WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adapted the 5th day of August, 1980, fixed the 2nd day of September, 1980, as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements: I.C. 51-288, Utility and street improvements on Industrial Drive WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 2nd day of • September, 1930, NOW, TItERLFORE, BE IT RESOLI!ED BY THE CITY COUt;CIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered (and amended as follows.) 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and speci- fications for the making of such improvement, with the assist- ante of Rieke Carroll Muller Assoc., Consulting Engineers. ADOPTED by the City Counci of the City of Eden Prairie on • Wolfgang H. Pei7iil, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk r - MAYOR ADD CITY COUNCIL: Please insert the attached revised pages 8, 9 and 10 of the feasibility report given to the Council on 8/5 for the Industrial Drive iriproveme:nts, I.C. 51-288. : CJJ • • • jry XX� l . t , :2 i • • '' proposed project. Discussion with the watershed district reveals • • that iin oveunt plans for the ditch do not exist in the forseeable future. furthermore, most of the watershed lies in Minnetonka, a • fact that would render assessment procedures ineffective. Therefore, it is recemme ded that drainage improvements be limited to local needs at this time. A comprehensive project, perhaps administered by the watershed district, could be developed in the future. r B. Credits Currently, Industrial Drive has a 4" bituminous surface approximately 24 feet wide. Also, the south end of the pavement is drained by a combination of 24" and 18" storm sewers. Both the storm sewer and pavement were installed by Midwest Asphalt in approximately 1968 entirely at their expense. (At the time of these improvements, Midwest Asphalt was ocred by Northern Contracting.) At the last meeting with the property owners, a general consensus was reached that Midwest Asphalt:/ Northern be given credit for providing the existing improvements. It • is reconmrended that Midwest/Northern be given a total credit of $20,000 for property under their control. The credit would be offset by • assessing the amount against the remaining properties on an acreage basis. No precedent is available for this kind of assessment. The basis of • the credit is an attempt to recognize the benefit conferred on the area by a particular property owner. The amount of the credit is a judgement based on the following factors: 1. Normally, a pavement is designed for a 20 year life. 2. The existinn pavement has given service for 12 years to adjacent owners. • • 3. The storm sewer, althou,h undersized, is the only functional outlet for the south end of the project. • 4. 1he identical existing improvement, if installed today, would probably cost in excess of $150,000. • 5. Although Midwest/Asphalt paid the entire first cost, they undoubtedly • received a trx benefit as well as being the primary beneficiary to the project. 8 , , 1 6. The sum of $20,000 is not the exact value of the existing improvement, but it attempts to provide a fair value to Midwest/ Northern without creating an undue hardship on the other area property owners. The resulting assessment occurring because of this credit is $1,821 per acre (10.98 Ac.). The credit is apportioned to the Midwest/Northern property on a 50/L0 basis at the rate of $1,144 per acre ($10,000 ;8.74 Ac.) for Midwest Asphalt and $2,717 per acre for northern Contracting ($10,000 3.68 Ac.). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Some of the assessment methods incorporated into this report do not follow the standard procedures normally used in Eden Prairie. However, at meetings held with property owners on two separate occasions (5/9/80 and 7/8/80), these methods were discussed and were not found to be objectionable. Due to the large lots serviced by the proposed project, the assessment per lot is rather high. This is aggravated by the cost of money (capitalized interest assumed at 8%). However, there is no particular reason to expect the price of the project to either remain constant or decrease. Therefore, the cost of the improvements shown are at their least expensive price ever. If this project were simply a matter of convenience, its feasibility might be somewhat limited. However, the problems that have been encountered with the septic systems and wells appear to firmly influence any analysis of the project. The improvements go well beyond the realm of convenience and are certainly a necessity in several cases. The project is feasible and will benefit the properties involved. It is therefore rcconsnended that the project proceed. 9 r • �.i !, O 4 4 1, c-> t', 0 C) 4 <n 0 Cl O Cl O IC) O o O C) O CTg o, <', 0) .n m •r In 1.u . I. ., IfN .r to V 111 W M I , In !. 10 m 41 N .• . . N .• N . N . .w V Ir M CO N 1N.,U 0 01 C) n 0 0 0 0 O O O Cn 0 O O O o 0 it I h. N CU V 1D U C) ro .4. 34 .` i 1� ♦ 10 ro In 1 i c0 .w . LO n w N L a 'C 4' O IT ^ O o O O pp O O O 4 O o 0 4 i a. W . V N CVCV0110. N CT V 1O CO L 11 Cu o in M• 0, M V V L0 N '. CO 10 CO 0.1 OC 11.4. ^ N 10 N • • "') O O O O O N O O O o O O O o 0 0 4 0 h N com V M O N N 0+ M 1n N N 1- rt I�..�C, to V I. m V 10 Ul N O) V V N — 10 .-1 1 1 N - u n O '. O N N 13 r) C ✓L "o o . 4 N o 0 o O o 0 0 o O o o 0 0 n o I o p Ic} . _ m 1fl O CT 0, CT 0O m e0 O N 01 0 N 10 V V M N N O N 10 co 10 , co V , J :[♦�n N N M V CO CO M V In N '• LT M N h 1n m L n -a,V} 03 w a0 Y 1/1 c,..2 L r�l0 n• 0 0 O O C) O C) 0 O O O CD CO O C) m LL O �" r✓1i0'1 0.1 V Uw W '. .. to N W CT O 1 am v) r. 0 C m I �-. .. N N '. V .• V N N •• Ir N 1 1 1 I I a t 0 ....l _I rZ In JI1` N ..V0 m Li K'1-3I-01 • Y q.-• a d 01 L I./ -' ....1 `ro ._ .-N m 10 10 o h. O N 1n 0 0 I O), O O O V 1N v 0) 10 10 O N 1n CO C) CO LI m CO 1� 1n N Cl) O 0 1n co .0 vNi M N LI)•co O. H Cv.1N .-1 '• lV V .. .. .r N. '. M .w1 a CO O• M M N L LO } N Y f 1 CVY 01I- '� - vai LO 0IG 72 C . ) R) . N U LV 0) O O V I ; )I 4 1 1 L 0 LL or • ^• r'• 10 ^ ^ .• I 1 1 1 1 1 4 LL no a H 0 1-' C+a O L O N Ci'u�) N 1'C M t0 N CO 10 '• Ul kV N5 !n IO O V In O 0I.0 a q 1r L1 ,L, m N 10 0 m m 0 :.:} m ul CO O Io , CI^• 0 Cl 0 •• 0 N O N O O 0 C) .• U !L) 10 .-4 O N ••}..6 'CC)a L f O,a- v 0 O C m 0) 1) CC I'. 0C. C' CI C L _ - - Y C '. C 1) .�- C C c-C),)))) O) C1 0 G a O O - II) in0 .0 C 0 L t) f: O U A UL , a 1n 1 1.1 L i L-.C) 0...�-) a G a L i C .0 .0: 03 Y w.>1 a n 0 - L� L A m C1 G .1..: 1 n.a p. a - C O C Y 6�P_ C:r 1.1 R L. L. C N i.`--1 1,. 11 0 C. G T L I-, .1 L O i s C i ❑ f L. o i S .l..t. ••, •) .1 .- , 1: LL 6 CO m o 01 M .y In ,c, Lv 1vv 0 CV C u V. 41 0 •O N N N. :Z1 Pi IN N N M I-.n 1 a Cl �` N N y to10 (.i.•12)O.4C 11 rt M rl rl M 01 rt rl M 1) //rl M !•'1 1l 141 A M M M M J i ."(fin Sr!ptcrol,wr 2, 19,..0 a 71' 1,711 1 :i .. .i;c'cw-1' :,..c: ;,,17 i N-,(1 ,.L. ..111,.-r,.',,r1 as f(;111i1L,;s: ll 2l11 \101O 1-11 C111(.!', $ (601.. ., c'l ( ?. /...,•l' l;i. 1'1:12 ilc711 :'l l,1 .11(.,',AP,Y Craft suppl i/,',-C,ctiioi. Citi.:(2ns 27. 1 i 11". 1,'';': Payi-ol I 13,0111:l. . .11l1V.illY PLiyrol 1 (11'. L1'l 1 I', 1) l"-,,V I I l 1',,,,',1',1l IS l'ityrol I l'oyi-o 11 1,Th 4 . -..„ 27,.:7 I' 11. il A Llyi-ol I 9,97.I. 11 Pc dc.,.. (Ai:icor:-.; 1 iceNse fce I 0'.. .,.... 7'.113 [I). 1111t1 111) 1,. `.1.,...; i:.1, Liquor 1,/l.lb. 2-...,30 1.17 17 r',l.,'',. 1(l1-l''; 211, 11',C. liquor 41,1. 11171 91.1. 1-.1.i tic 411. 271.7 1111,11, iil. Ill r 1 it 1,111,S, I29. Liquor 1,317. 2233 (111 -;1..111,, CI,l-1,1:11i I: l,r Li,., 1110. l.iquor l)l,ll. "1.11:,l24 ,10111ll,011 1:1111 (lit Wine .105. 11::l; 11l111,,l1l1l,il111.1;11,1 1'i,(1,[1,lli1-1G CO. Wine 6.1f,.[, 2'::'i-, P.11131 S 1:,.', ':11i'l",', Stipp'.ir.,s-Liquor st.ol'c. 00 2l-21/ 7V.1l11S J. 1717 l;a 11 1 ,.l 111 F. S1l407S 1!.,t pay,-,..,-,[it to gl-;Int. c:csolii•tit 15,171. ... 2113 111,111,1 1.1117' Ill',,',..1,.1,1 1'lll C.'-‘., 11.1C. Pour 141. 21'l, COl1/1,--1",',.., 1:O.1•[1 .1--. 11;11.'i LI 11'lC. Mixes 4l1. „. ITI'lll Ill.1,111 l.(1[1[l;,, co. l'iixc!s 4111. l; ',..;[-..•!1 (l".+,lY t".. 7271.17 Ili..ii71ul-sc pot Ly cash-Sui:',..lor 1)1 ,,,,,r-,undf lo, 3317 llillil,', 71; 50111:71 L1:l 1 Pll il CI ll 1 i[oci cloi-;;Isi t. 1,0,l 1. 71,+3 ,1,',11H,11; 11_,l11, l.", 'i, :Sl.71 I 1l,11101 CO. liquor 1,11 . '..',23 HI. 11111i ll'l, ::: llo:: CO. i.iqu.ol.• "1,' ..1.-) C1.0 1:1,:I 1, t107111', 111,(1. Liquor 1,['1, ,-, ;;,[;‘,-,-, 61,10 fl, C.,1.',1;1,ll ll al., 11:C. liquor - 7 11,1;111i 01;111;'.1litr1 i ,,l,:..1,Ill , Co. Wilt° „.‘,. 111111 (111Y ll111. al. W i 11,.-? . 2:11.1l11.l 1111,....1 llE; l'.111i ['0. 'Wino. I 7 '. '...'l',l ,1,,''';71,,3i fuel 8,2,1:. 7.111 (.7111:-l.1,'11171 (1.,1 ill 1,11,,11.11i July stlr,,--, 7 t:e lox . ,t)3(1 1 (l 1 1'1,111, 1, i 0 l'osts-Fr1; 3t 1,[11,:l 1.1.111:i I l', 11:1l ' l,.,,1.1;'.171". I loin iri'l (p'.,,,,,e1-i:t y P.,', 4 I;i kk-,,,,ly !,,,,•,::,, ',',','.,:,',',L,1; Po.;trh.lo Sri ,;1- Ci i i i7t.r,', 116r,i cir.,I ciiwn•-i;i ty [L-,11 [ 1.,1 Sur',i r c: 17'.,. i:l.'• ; 0',1,P .:.....', : i .•.;Tn..: r.()•;)'. •.,.1,71 I 01' L!,';.i: l,.•,',,,.1,',..2, 1,171, Si 11r,SI l'.1 0•: t Sp;-od,-.,.t-r t, - --1,:l ire ;',!.H Ixocut:iv': 11,:tiol 1 d.,,' 7-1 1 . , 1;1;'. l.' 'I, , l)(,r,,,i -.,',.-ls',--0 1- II c.1[...onl. 11 '{ Llt,l, ',li. IL-41., 1 iyi:!1 Y '... :1- 1',,:,-,.:::;,Irli 101:171 •;1'..,' ' INi. .1i71 c.;,..71:h"1-Fil-, (l..., t :[.',. " ', 11 1',, 0 -1,. .''. ,. . ,'• ,i'11.:',i o, l'Hc,tr 1-1-,:wir ..-.....•1,.,,,cr-I'dr): Ott. , [,',1',- .1:',. 1. ".' , 1 l',14'1.,..•.,,, C,,,1 iv.•1 y,l,..:lior C i I 1L,n-, ,o ,1. 1„ .11.',1,1,1 •-ll 71,.;0 171, . . , . . -.-..---.- . - . ._ - • . - , i 1 i ...t,":1.‘r , 1,Y:.!..1 .: ( ..o • •,•i CH-,' .i.'.',H;';'.•!!.:, 1;;c, Suppl ies-!•nqineoriroi dypt 112., 50., OG ice :,u;,;Jiiec 3.. i I)C•,'..:Y. '.!' , R.V::.,:Thil •I, 1„•;!)INry Leqc.I sury ice 6,1/?. .1. 1 r,ity,p1,1r.t. trec:s 7). :.... ?,.. ..., DO,..i.:f.,:..:::.:..-,, *.;t4L ()i I roads 2,1ci?... - row! .".'!, i:ii.,;.,. If. 1:i;:i ti,i...",i'.I:"'.‘J Landf i 11 fire 14?.. ::- 2,-...."--r; ,, W.,,,Hcr ,.212 Cus todial se)vice A c I eanin,; supplies 1,1;.;'..... ,.. : k.13 Concrete IC!()cis li 2. f I%VC.. Si,i 110 ...,"•Y, 11 ... Jacket, pant..., bout::- :ater dept 1'31. :. .!..,!.1 FA:..,11MIJ C '..".'.:,!...ii :::'...l.iTild.S Tests 25. •.: (..,-.1.,i‘...,,:.., ;',.. Sul fa te-Ua t.,.:1' dOpt 2,7°C .......:-3 Ci 1".,.,..‘,'... L.C;;.'.1.`,,C.,, ;'.. Ii'.C. Ego i p;Ilot repTii 1' & parts 76.: 601'.1,,.i; rtC...I'i,I. ;•;',.!i'....',-1 14tpl ace 1)o:;,,.(r-Po?ice d,;;p1:. 79. ..:. s.....,.-.) G:'.f.K.,S 1;;D!..61.1j;.1.. '•-i.1'.' CIS Service 7. 13 GlIV.:,',.',; II ill.'.1.R. Cr,,';';',;:'{ I NC. . Repair furnace-City Hall 27.• '.. :51-;47 Jr;(:!; II/CK I,,, Expenses 7. 30:,3 flrO'Pl,-r,1',',dY 1„r,ul;,!:,:f T co:Tmy Poi nts-S:..rect dept 7?, ..,7:.,..) 1111'.',:',,T17', TC1,..:::. Ci ',,ER Rep.;in t old pol iCC. Ca r-fr i re dept 11:6. . ?:'..'...-.1 II i f..' :': ...'.:',..1.!..1,,S, I i,..,,.. Ccr:olete porch-S,:-.ri jar Ci tizens 8.,41;',.",.' ..'',;.,..1 Iln:'!.Y.:Lt.i I I.,... 1;::',',.:,..L,C1A1. SI.RVICES Repair air cw.,pressor-Water dopt 103. :. !V.'. ',.'.I I Ir.C., Ch....rt.F..-'.1a Ler dept. 141. '"-..1 03c'}',1'..,., ir..;1!,.1 SPLI;', INC. Printin9,-Seni or Citizens .'...'::'...'4 COY J.-::.:.!.(1'; Varnish door-Plannin9 cS2pt 3:',.-,5 ,1,1,3 i.'!,,.....,,o% WI loage 5. .'.. .i.:...i KI‘i',J,:i 1°C C;ii,',....,F:',r, INc.. July chai-jas-hrushrs, bat',:arie„ tape-lire 29.• ' ".'..'57 RI i VI i'.'.',;ti,i; i,ti 1.:,):;;)1 I IONING INC. Air conditioner rep;,1 r Y. pa r Ls-Ci ty 311 1 1 IS30 Inst roc tw.-Son ior Citizens '..,./. ,'.... '..‘.7.'.:9 U.E. I."..%i , INC.. Insurahce 42,.... ",,,..•.60 I/WC, PAJLY IC (2..(I.fl;WION, LTD Leja.I services 1,7. '.,1 101;I S Service U.-•.',. :':, -....,::::. II 3) r.;,,r P.I'Lli.:,'„1!..r, CFNIFN Paint-Park dept 10tL .: ..:•,-3 11 ;', 1 r' :0 SI:•:•I Y ',:(I., INC. Fuel p.,:p.,p-1(;uipli.2nt maintenance 14 :,..,:.i 1WS.;1:',. Ii I:',''.17 1.:,.perr;es 132. .',..'•.) I',10,-'' !fl: i."..1)1i) Equip:,..-2nt rep.1ir & p.rtts ...',,, IS,, h,".a.' .,', :::....:.,c.' i,-:TO 011 CO. Refund for re2onin9 i--..pplictaion IdV. ',.• • ..',..7 III'I— ;....":. i,!, ,-;....,..,.. '..:S, 11;1..".. Service ..,.. .,, 1•''.. : ' '.:I;'..',i',.'. ',.',(.. For dopt ,.9 .,'.. .. ) '.)' :,'..! :.'.., ,. '.1' 1 '''.':v.- .i 1c;'; 111.!,.:I.,t op 1U, '.'•. . ....• Service ,"i,.. ... .•.i. Su1ii:1.ier,-1:ater de;)t II';. , • r..::.L .. I i. ;. S t roe i 1 HI.I..,.., rya i r i a V.1 cf,.. rrive 3',-1. •• . 01°C CI. Sc.ry i:-.'c' , i:.".,:'1 .. .. I : Se ry i ce '6. '', ' i - '• ,; ". 1: s'.,.; ,y l'Co.i:,‘1.. ;').1 ice dept. ,':'.. 't' ; -..H. i..,, 1.o...-01,!-, '• f . ', .•.:','., :-;::..:',' IT.;n;in,-; of d 1 rof.1.(n v . , . . I'i- ; '.'.1‘; t..`,1;‘., ,.. t-'..'.'.1 0'. t L3 r.,))...,,• (i0t1' rrr.i i r Sf Cd '..'. -{. ‘J. :: ... ::';':, L. I... . :0,1 V i i.'-(:1:,:.1 .1:d :, J0+; :';'..• L.,:..-,!, Y.'';',J .',.. 'CC IC is C',:ii vcr.y 27f...• :,,: :.- ... . . . .. .„ , ...,. • thr,.!v Rebuild electric planer, sho,:."',{s-Pal ice delft . Co. An uid-Strect e( )t VIOLS Pedal i f t -I tor dept. Piay.p tal parts P1,10Y 100 Ice ciewe praduc tf3-r,'2C dept 5`.-..0J. • ' LeT F(r,O) Equipnr:nt. rep3ir & puts 122.: {) h1 Slid) Fxpenses 100. Mounted chlorine leak dotoctor, glass tube varea;r2:ter--Water dupt 3S-2/2 Will:P, PROP!!{:17, Pipe-Cty Rd kf,-,way 2M3. : 3,293 VLS1 USnAPPI.‘i (0Mi'X;Y Pods-Stree t dept. IGI. ilFROY 1.2,(F,TORATIGN Set-vice 806. 30P tc .e bc. Equipr?nt repair & puts 207., 3n5p Expenses 1{11.. • 1727 Expenses 102., UOCLI.Y Ill 1 cage 90. Mileage 100. 3100 Paint-Park dept 230. 3101 MAR: Mileage SO. 3192 V{1{ -17,- Sf' F: SCRVICF Mainteninice *uppl ins-Park dept I • . v"-- 3 1 OF C1.NS Con f ldi pg dept 145. TOTAL • • • • •. „ • . „. : . . . '.1.'(); Myu 1“iiy.:tif. 11!3toil, City 1,1,in-litiLA ii lie Fly Oil iieouto Homan Rights and :tin Nn.ahit • ttupt,EL"I': No l'aidt Grievance Process • The Stale i Pighte has istiteted ONO Fault Cott:van:tut Ploceetii In which t1::31 iiiun 20ht0 conimisstion; are ohciouiened to port The Eden l'ement PHhis and StoYIL!es Cor.nr.iion hos oar:jelly itonsichr:,i this 01:1):., tunic; find h., scoidiitj your authorization to proctrial. In Maroh, Susan tafieteon, luiaiie Stipa'visor for the State Depottniunt of liuman Pighte, not v.tith the Commission to doscribe the No Fault (Irlevence Process and to enriv,rer quesiione horn the Commission. Too questions that. 1:CF.Ii.litIOCI aficr thie meeting-yore too ritimhst of coses have originated in Edon Prairie in the past, ,,ice.1 woith' individtial Commission ammihors be lioble in Illihue arisiny, out of their partioiration in Fie No roan Grievance Pcociess. A list of ca;oi; oricjratinq In Eden Pia irie between January 19/8 and Nlarch 1890 mar; i,te.1 from the Floe repertmerrt of Ilueran kiolits. The Commission telt coriti,orrolle with the potentiol time oammiltmeint required if Liity were to prooens • Ices than sin C3:;e:.; por year (as this woo the number of cases on file for the lost two ye-ns), The (:: s on of liability was addlessnd by the Attorney Ocrimol's Cdfier at the rmymtel of IL'. 1,1ina (.:01111111F.S1011. the esifionFe viitis that itecaose. Corotti—oon mciebet min 110 considered to be `ot.iicitrir.the C.ity Council oan riefeml ont ihdenirity the Tho Eden Unman !Lights and (Na vices, Commission would he pioteetod th, rt,coot11101 Tielninii :ion:done. ar • tni;! otly iin .ntwoy to certify lecal iionenissicin !lc:miters v.tho rlloinoIiiet No 101111 Ctrioy-inoe Preesee. ;,1y1,-.1c:is of 111: h"dht'' P1'12,11,-'d to .11'..11.1011 • . . • ee C 47 August 27, 1980 c TO: Eden Prairie City Council FROM: Cr:tit N. Sutliff Subject: HOUSE MOVING, PETITION #M80-18 As a resident and taypayel in the City of Eden Prairie, I am asking the City Council is review and deny the decision of the "Board of Appeals and Adjustments" concerning the relocation of a second house in 1980 to the "Duck Lake Vista" development. By a vote of 2-0-1, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments agreed to the establishing of an older home development in Eden Prairie. The current occupied sites consist of four homes, (3 built on site - 75% and 1 move-in - 25%), by moving a second house to this location brings the move-in per- centage to 40Z of the current sites developed. To further the question of moving houses to new locations, the action of raising - transporting and lowering of a structure is a severe strain on ( the structural members of any building. Not only will this occur on this house, but the current building codes also require -- major structural changes for eggress and energy conservation. The first hone was allowed to be moved into Duel: Lake Vista with some modernizing but. the eg}.ress code was not cnvoked. I, question the feasibility of saturating an area with moved-in housing. The first house abutts my property, the second proposed move-in is • approximately 400'r:.: beyond the first. with the close proximity of my residence to so many relocated dwellings, dons this increase the taxable value of my hey,._? Does the location of the new high school hinder new construction or can we expect to see more housing moved into Duck Lake Vista? I therefore request a denial of Petition VMN0-18 aid any future requests of moving houses into the Duck Lake Vista Development. • Respectfully, i) ,( a ''''.t(, --'S, A4,./;1' „ (Grant N. Sutliff 7070 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Thank you for tail a?, time to consider my concerns rehatint? to Lhe trend of establishing an "Old Neighborhood" in a "Now" development area. 7.i. I . I .10: it: or ..iid City Council TliitT. It'i'.er it. (II"ittH, (:i ty Ilaritititir rit0iil: Colt to.,!ii,i t, Dirccilm. of CriTininiiti,-. Services ., MT ti.: Aittitii,t .d), l'td..0 . . . - ( P61.: 'tout Ir.,..i'tt. I-oils Assoc ititit,n rett"writ. L. . At, tile it! ;'.". Ill, 1900 t.ioet in"; of 1.iyi Paris, Ilticreatien at!.1 it itio-j,,i, tt,,,,,...::,-,-., •'.:. I,.,,. t H., p.,:ii,ii.i iitn I..i lot! itt provide CI citi:it LOU, /11111:11V:111 1'1111 17.' to 1 t„: ..tii,-,cv ot the "Outliwest Ii I"; .r41,1'.111(.1 to Lou nront, Or di ti:‘. titre., i,:; I,"iiiii -, itti tilt. t:0;ierii,"-,ion t hat wcre in ott eratmco titicitit'd : ... to latair the :it)iiiii"e't,t *trails Association propot"al. • Three iii,;ilid.F. tel 1.1111 Elitin Prairie Spowdri Flit-it's Shottriottile flu!) tit.,re it at t.c.;.;::.:•,. wilt In. (Oily Curl, the representative of the Soutir.i.,etit. ..i. Tout In At ). la..itt . The S.riti"lirt,i•i.1 Tiit t'i , itk..,micialitm is siroly at ortt,anitt_atiori c-ii.i!C:ir,-,.,-:d .: of eitiiii t.he.,.:.ini he I liits ill 1111.1 sticiiits.ist, iiietro itroa 1"tit riiii,it•ltiiiei! ti,eir oii"ii trail systr.ris arid would lii:e to ,in in their trail citt it. t.',i i."ii Illy coim:',;:t wi lii ciidner siiit,,,,i,-Itii le [roil; i.,ysic....it tic." itt. t.e. „. tI. ord.tr t o 101'ii,it stair! c -tivit and aid moiwii for inart.inti 1.1iii-, tr....!I .... 10 1,...qui.,,,-...., Gilt, 01 the ctiii,•unity's local iac ,vriiilitnil.i.1 at,iicii•:-. :ii !‘;.iiit.or tilt, ,-,,,,i,t).-,1,it ion. Thin do': not i tty rite on; bill tax di)!ii,i t. or lo,...il si If it.ii...-,, nor dons 1 Iiiit iiiT:ir t.h."t iiii: 10c01 1 rtiil s,ys Lei!' well l.:, i,inot/iid within tic' City. It. i,iriply ite,tins tlot it..., Fat n .. rl'a il it' '-'1,--i.`H i," Citih trtii Is will he corlect,,d to other trails to tic ... t'titt. I i i low, lc,. 11 ririwol'iiltir-. I c) tLit.'.'lop a tri,i 1 t:yit Lei.' 1'ie.". (CI 11 ll,txr, oal .t". it ict...i.amity OH 14-101..1.,.01111e 1rililS that have h.'ion ai,,proxt If Ito 1.:1;•!,ii..h.ii-7. and ttit, acij.ra-atit. cotti.,iiii•ri.:s. 1.'iltai I,,,.-1 Ott1,-;ihii, froi." tile "lit.ttdr i it Nit, "itit ti.:iio")i It, flu)), fits' fa-int:Jct.:it! ii, ao.1 dr :trd i'i 1 ,YI L 1lVd r i 1Y ltd. il w ".1,1 yrevi.., itt;i"-ii,••eriiii" t"tii, ,e itc;,•i.", i, a, I i,t,iiii.,ityd. "Lit Ir.:. iaiiiiiii0 i.:.1"-- it ini."tecit,i It", lit to !i , Y.-i i i..," icii .iiiii C. 1 ci.,•:1 it...ii.o.i,It Cit.,;,,iiii.', it .111‘1 t.0 011' (..111.1. ;. •1:111 11. . 1 111.1-'1110r ...: , .1 .1 11,11 11111(11' it 1.11.-. pr., 111.1.1 :011, Cr.• 1.11,11,1.1 .1'. 1101 n1 110., H1 ;011 111.1..1 11,111 01 01.0 ..0,:. .111111;11, H1110.1101 ;E:1, I. 111-` 111...,1 r,'11.-0 1111 tt . 10111 .1.'.1H1. I toll ft.,. ii. ..::n.iI ii., i-i.,:ti t.,..1t Lir :ii, t '.' i.iHii-i I tri ni..H iti,r(, •.i".ii.....:.ino ,-ni .e..tiani.,„".. ,it ii..ii iiia! t i 11.10 - - 011111,010 111:1 1•"'11.1.1:11! Ii :110 1'1.'1;11..11 1.“'11 (01-1..1111 1 1....11. 111..1 1H ner 1.1: 1.,1111 1'111 10-.1 111 ' 111.111 ',p. I r:,1. CC I tip,.., ‘.." t -, 11-:.:i0,i.i..,i i:,,i.r, i'it "1.::" feted !lip pitt,t .;.il on t',iiiti.i.t. 1:" re,•;.- .. ,,,,,, ; ,i,- t i ty Ci Hi• i I t.iirim.tir titi 0,,,,IIi,,,-.1. "ii,,ili., At.i.i.. 1,1i„;:it "! '‘ i''' - '1 i '• i,i 1 0:1'.0 1 it'', iiPtirov.-:i i'l 'iritti'e t-l'id i'; t ., i., ie:t ,,,,:i. ,,,,,ii oi ii;,, i.,•01.,,,.,t I. . • '1"I :kJ . - ,......- ..-...., •. -.,.: • Awju51 25, 10 1,4.3yor Ci'4•,, of f'r 1›5j "iri‹, Rd. Edon Faair1c, a. 5b343 • Dar 11r. 1oyor: The Sp'21hc,..,,t Trail A-,sool7.tion Is a non-profit corporation - cempo'aod oi froia Edcri Pm trio, Chanhar,s-n, Lycoislor, Vicioria, Rund, Nid St. Bonifacius. The purpose of Ibis orcunian1lon 15 to deunion USno.a.t..)bile trail system In tho above arca, which is ti..,•;o and functional. Thu syt.t,r, will be built and dovolopcd by volunteer Ichor frmi our cssoclotion, and under iha Hinnasota Bupixtic,cnt of Natural Rcaourcu; Trail ;-.6.7.irA,MC"-.: ftrcyrsrn. Thu city of Eden Prairie is currently thp spori,or tor inc (1...11 Prairie Sno-Driffura Snovaobila club's trail assistraco pro,oroqi. VC or,..! r-,-;flosMiti-.1 that tho city of Edon Prairlo ;porrnor tho Southwest Trait l'o7.,.-..cikrieo Pill ihcarpor:.ta about plcvan Eller; of t1-1 Trail system. This spoasorsaIp could imposo no lioullity or coil.; -ir,o city of Edon Proirio. In hr000 hoou 'forking for so,,a than with thu cities Involved lo obtoin a f.1(!rod roralulion approving our trail system in their areas. Cocnusp olftooid tho Ming er:tc for Trail asr.P...taLca frcia SapIrmor , I'd1o:1 1-di August 15, I HiP, ran ara unable fa pet 011 tho ru.eluiiorrrr.1,t001 ri r io ocr noo,c1for a ejonror. flosoinlions fro:a I and Rinn.:trinta arn still ponding. i.e havo Inca luau a fa. 1.)1.i11, but vr nand your rpon,orship so iho cork in have nIrc,dOy Ira tars yo-fr vill not bo wastod. • . Wo oro thit yen re'a to i,"ponsar iho Southcost Trail Ast%coiPiloa o, flabctr 2, 1930 council ou.Aing. Thank you for coac,idoricj oJr rigaost. Renpootfully, 1,ory id. car! Troll Co-ordin:ctor Seut1t:ost Han I A5stor.irtion '2. . _ • r.111\10;1)1 A I/ME I i'll,./1.,110klyt 1%0.11.13 1 I I I Ica fti.n. 14, 1963 • t,ry • V.Ivr!•.oto I I 'I I , A Al 'rAllt11.1 353,00 f 011 ho Icr n1 strtIon c1 s for , 41s1.1n3 ••,17..: polci to, urd orci.ry. lhk s 1 w tor Iho .-,0111.,-.1c1-1n2 of ftrvIs-ansrs io rtlts, cotnq. d I I cr,nt city 9ovorr.,,,,nft lo sccuro pooch Out on to cOr ,i rut .1 I rdI lls-uxI) ihclr croon. Cl :. I.'7 90 I 1, $6 TwAt 5_15 00 Tin '. r,r,,To7..J rr.Thosts fords to construct VO oil los of Tiro work will to our 1 r--,11 bt.. crico, nod sign and 1,r1Of10 rolcitul oil I 11,v:: to b,.) • _ iLTJT1;1'.11 L Tool lor parkparkirro us will love to 1.,0. built or r,,s I ntr,1 1,. -1-10.1.5 lrnjtc.otr on ., _. r.yr,:I HO s?,07.n.00 I 0 II with 3 1,01:,ris unite will ::. f;10.,..11no Ito) 03 ra r,r, of pr..4.3..-,s.1 trolls. : Ili:,I; v • . . — • L u.nFwil n 1I. . t) { .. y I � __ _.� �a,-:.III i, PJ:YI • • �i_ I .L.,.. xu,r � ir :, f Ai Io /� tl ' �.: i ,! r1 5,:Cr',I IL : II I , 9 I i I 1 1 I:' 1 i I I 1:, 1.= I.' I I 1, 'JO IT 1:AY CO:XS...II: t (ily‘ of VIctor!ft City of Pr.lirlf.t Is the sonsr,rns3 clyy for U.S. TrL,11:; ells/ of , also uncloi-sithl ....d ure to iho fzIl that South Wos Trolls Association, unfl..,r hO l)up:.rliTir.at o N,Attral P.00urcan projrLi , %/II I bo nj. ,:r.c.‘„rr,obl lo tr I through our c-ily. Vta, I h.) Gty of Vcii tlgroo to the 1-ral I, but or rct-.pcnt,i'ol I l'iy for tho tor for South W.st Trails Asc..c.i.vIlon. • CITy 11V Or‘DER 0"2 DATED: J.c.ly 17, 130 2.2tr) . _ Lhe Ult.)/ of Shorewood uudert,tarid . ill IL the City ot Ldea Plairie Is thc sj orind city for the South L'ot.i 0 Atiseciatiou, ond • la!CIO"AS the City of Shorewood also uodcrslauds and a,..,ree.r. Co the fact that South West Trails Association, under the hoparirfltut. cf Is'riural Resources Grants-In-Aid proLt,ram, will he constructio ti snowmoble trail through the City of Shoret:ood. • P,!: IT Ri.7:::d21,VED, that L1.i City of. Shoret,,tood does ,t-Irce to the construction oi the trail, but assu%tes no liability or responsibility for the trail, or for South West Trails Associa',-ten. Al) PTI;I't l Ii Li ty Council of the City of Shorcwood , 2)) ..c.•-• ) (2-'7 N, ' , cn.sa I . C 0 (!11'...1 ) C, I'WO • City of --- ' und;rsfand that 4hu City of it+.,n f'r:+iri 1 Ito sponsoring city for this South Trail: A::!-vs Lion. tho Ci ly of --- _--' G.i.:o ur,dc:rst:od nod rgru to Ihi fact i-h�i South 5n i 7ra11: Asociation, tindw' 'tha tr: n"i of {i:)tura, R?sonr'ccs Cront-in-Rid proyrnm, vi I I to cons:.rust log a snc:Nmotila trail throucili our city. Itio, 'I Ii t;i ty of oeros hl-> it i i 1, but ass,ur-, r:o 1 ic:51 f ity o:' rnsponsib111 ty for Ito tra I I or fc.r Sa:rib 1,'crst Trafls Association. City Clot k 1 A • r2 /I /, ,� (1/_)..' / j MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council • THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 28, 1980 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 Cardina! Creek 1st Addition Improvements I.C. 51-355 The attached Chonge Order No. 1 in the amount of $10,509.00 is submitted for Council approval. The Change Order includes sewer and water services for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3, Cardinal Creek 1st Addition. Due to adverse soil conditions, these lots were initially excluded from the City's utility con- tract, but now are being included at the request of the developer. We are requiring the developer to submit a 1007: peition form for this additional work to be signed by all the owners of the lots to be assessed. No assess- ments will be spread against said tots 1, 2 and 3 because of the poor soils, but rather all City costs associated with these lots will be spread against all other lots in the subdivision. Recorruend approval of said Change Order No. 1. CJJ:kh Attachment • GUS'rAFSON & ADAMS.P.A. ArroIINCY11 AT 1.AW 1,111'1-IALL..1.A r,AH1. RUITA 411 111trfl,)flY P tW:-.1'Ar4ON MAIMn.u11N4TAU 7400 MITRO 11Ol1LeVARO STANI.I:\'C.Ol_SI:N...I t1... 1!IIINA.MINNCNOTA/154C, JUIIN!t.I1l'.IAN --- OP COI)NNI!I. TI:Lf!1'1(0NR 1111Lq Ra A-7L`77 HARRY OutiTArsoN .161IN 1!.\'ulf r:l.l1'li ICONA1.11 I-F'NI:LLItiO JAMI:':D.AI MINI ON.ill JUNIJ I1 August 20, 1980 Mr. Carl Julie City Engineer City of Lden Prairie 8950 County Reed 4 Eden Prairie, Minnesota RE: BROWN & CRIS CONTRACT Dear Carl: This letter is written pursuant to a request from Nancy Heuer from RCM. I hereby request on behalf of Cardinal Creek Associates that the City Contract with Brown & Cris for the Cardinal Creek First Addition be amended to include utility services for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. Due to adverse soil conditions, these lots were initially excluded from the utility plans but are now being included. If you have any questions or if you require any additional docu- mentation, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, GUSTAF N & ADAMS P. A. Gregory . Gustafson GDG/robs cc: Wayne Prown Nancy lleul'r - -• CHANGE ORDER NO. I •'1,! DATED 8120:80 PRO3LICT: Cardinal rddition ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO. 791024 OWNER: City of litien Pt• irie CONTRACT DATE: Novemher12„..1979 OWNER'S PROJECT NO. •TO: Brown & Cris, Inc. CONTRACTOR You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract: OWNER: City of E.d!.11 Prairie BY: DATE: ,• NATURE OF THE CHANGE: Provide sanitary sewer and water services to Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3. ENCLOSURES: Esti!nte of quantities end costs. / • The changes result in the following adjustment of Ccntract Price and Time: • !-,!! Contract Price Prior to this Change Order: $ 51 6,1)27_6_0_ Net (Increase)ncicW ) Resulting from this Change Order Current Contract Price Including This Change Order $ 526,536.60 The Above Changes arc Approved: The Above Changes are Accepted: PIEFT CARNCILL IC1Il.LhASSCCIA11S,INC. RUA CRIS, INC. EN:;!NEER CONTRACTOR - C DALE! (12) CNANOL 011Dtk NO. 1 CARDINAL CREEK ADDITION I.C. 51-355 RCM 791024 UNIT IIFM ULSCRIPTION _UANTITY pNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 3" PVC Forcemain 360 LF $ 7.40 $ 2,664.00 2 3" Gate Valve and Box 4 EA 219.00 876.00 • 3 Clean Out 1 LS 327.00 327.00 4 3"x3" Tees • 3 EA 69.00 207.00 5 2" Copper Watermain 330 LF 11.20 3,696.00 6 1" Copper Watermain 30 LF 7.10 213.00 7 1" Curb Stop and Box 3 EA 46.00 138.00 8 2"xl" Tees 3 EA 69.00 207.00 9 6"x2" Plug and Adapter 1 EA 81.00 81.00 10 Lightweight Aggregate 70 CY 30.00 2,100.00 Total Cost Change Order No. 1 $10,509.00 • MEMO • TO: Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 28, 1980 SUBJECT: Amending SRA Agreement • The attached letter of August 7, 1980, from the attorney for the Suburban Rate Authority, describes two items of concern which the City Council may wish to address. These are the proposed NSP rate filing and an amendment to the SRA Joint and Cooperative Agreement which would allow SRA to become involved on a very selective basis on review of-..rate setting by the Metro Waste Control Commission. It is recommended that the City Council concur with the SRA's feeling that NSP should equalize the rates of return among the various classes of customers. • and also that the Council adopt Resolution No. R80-168, amending the Joint Powers Agreement allowing the SRA to review, on a selective basis, the MWCC rate settings. CJJ:kh Attachment September 2, 1930 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COONIY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. R80-168 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO 301.N'P AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT • WHEREAS, the City of _ Eden Prairie • Minnesota has entered into a Joinand t Co op_>erative Agreement providing for the creation of the Suburban Rate Authority, and WHEREAS, the present form of such Joint and Cooperative Agreement does not authorize the Suburban Rate Authority to participate in proceedings or engage in activities involving the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Suburban Rate Authority has recommended that such organization be authorized to par- ticipate in proceedings or engage in activities involving the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, and WHEREAS, it appears necessary and desirable that such author- • ity be conferred upon the Suburban Rate Authority and that this be accomplished by the execution of the amendment to the joint and Cooperative Agreement. NOW, THHEREFORE, 13E IT RESOLVED by the city council of the • Ci t:y of Eden Prairie , Minnesota as follows: 1. The mmayor. and (Clerk, Manager) are authorized and directed to execute the Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement giving authority for Suburban Rate Authority involvement in matters relating to the Metropolitan Waste Control Corr ia:nion. 2. The city clerk is directed to file a copy of the executed Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, together with a certified copy of this resolution, with the Secretary/Treasurer of the Suburban Rate Authority. • Adopted 1980 Mayor v LAW 0 IICC'!. LLFLVERE,L.LI"L:R.PEARSON,C f:IRIF_N & DRAWZ 1100 FIRST NATIONAL 1.ANM I,,Ul 140 1'ItCOtc(N CI.NICN O''FICLS r,l,.f . ^` r MINNEAI'OLIS.MINNInhlA 55402 P.C.nnu(1r.Lw11,ro«[Rs J�I�r r ,r „ _, (I TLLLn.IONC II,rAI JJ;1•014J ?7II(�I.OtrNTi nL.t+,O vw' 71,00Nlvn LIntro,MINN ,0,0..,A30 14.2,!t8.•3t00 R IC.1AN0 J.SCNICCICR NI1 I. .1:.1,1 a 2VV JI,I1, I,wN0 , 1'C,M,1.w , <-N.L,. August 7, 1980 V I.NI„1.',`L1(.MAN Mr. Roger Uleted City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear, Municipal Administrator: This letter is being sent at the request of the Suburban Rate 1 Authority Board of Directors. 1 It involves several matters which they believe will be of par- ticular interest to you. First, your special attention is invited to the NSP electric rate filing which is discussed in the enclosed SRA Board minutes for July 16, 198D. As you will see, the company has filed for a 12 2/3 percent overall rate increase, but this increase will not be uniform among the various classes of customers. The proposed rate increase for municipalities and for street lighting will be • greater than for other classes of customers. This is justified by the company as being necessary in order to equalize the rates of return among the various classes of customers. The SRA Board has authorized a contest of some aspects of NSP's rate filing. however, it does not feel that it should resist this shift in the revenue burden (after the total authorized revenues of t.l:e company are determined). If the SRA were to • u:;dert,ike such .In effort and were succes!,;ful it would only cast a {roofer shale o_ the revenue burden upon residential, commercial and in'ustti l eltctric ratepayers within the member municipali- ties. This would put the municipality (an an electric customer) at odds with the other electric consumers in member communities. Pe ever., the SR*, Board felt: that individual municipalities might viub to e>:prc's<s their own viewpoints about the proposed equaliza- tion off, rates of retina among classes of customers. The Board ecmtet you to ice cciceried to this question so that: you stay take what.evc:r action you der:m appropriate. One way of making your 1`c'H I i en known, if you sieccci d chooe:e to do so, would be by rl} 'I::,li:i:Lp at the general hearings which the Public Utilities C. ii;mission • LAW OFFICES • L.r:P=E VCI-IE,LEFLER,F PARSON,O'B RIEN a. DRAWZ ( hir. Roger Ulstad August 7, 1980 Page 2 will hold on NSP's rate filing. The schedule and location of such general hearings is as follows: September 15, 1980 7:30 p.m. (Monday) AUDITORIUM, HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 300 So. 6th Street, Minneapolis (Hearing Examiner: Richard DeLong 612/296-8117) September. 16, 1980 7:30 p.m., LARGE HEARING ROOM, 7th Floor, American Center Bldg., 160 E. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul (Hearing Examiner: Richard DeLong 612/296-8117) September 17, 1980 2:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL ANNEX, St. Cloud (Hearing Exami- ner: Richard DeLong 612/296-8117) September 18, 1980 2:00 p.m. ASSEMBLY ROOM, CHIPPEWA COUNTY COURT HOUSE, llth St. & Washington Avenue, Montevideo (Hearing Examiner: Richard ( DeLong 612/296-8117) • September 22, 1980 2:00 p.m., BOARD ROOM, GOVERNMENT CENTER, Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 (Hearing Examiner: Richard DeLong 612/296-8117) 7:30 p.m., COMMISSIONER'S ROOM, WINONA COUNTY COURT HOUSE, Winona (Hearing Exami- ner: Richard DeLong 612/296-8117) September 23, 1980 7:30 p.m. COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING, DINING ROOM, 12 Central, Faribault (Hear- ing Examiner: Richard DeLong 612/296-8117) September 24, 1980 7:30 p.m. LAKESIDE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, CAFETERiA., Highway 8, Chicago City, MN (Hearing Examiner: Richard DeLong 612/ 296-8117) October 30, 1980 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC MEETING ROOM, CLAY COUNTY COURT HOUSE, Moorhead (Hearing Examiner: Richard DeLong 612/296-8117) A second major action that the SRA Board has asked that we submit to you is the following: . • • LAW orr{CCS LET I VI:RE,LEFL'ER,PEARSON,O HIRIEN & DRAWL t-;r. Ranger Uletad August 1, 1980 Page 3 Uve;f the last several years, the SRA Board, has, from time to time, teed ebout the need for municipal. involvement in. t:he programs of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission ("MWCC"). It .is clear that the SRA does not have the financial resources or • e;;,pe rtissz which would be necessary to conduct a detailed review • of the ccnir.ai and operating budgets of the MWCC. on the basis of information which has been presenter.' to the SRA Board by the chairman and the chief planning officer of the Metropolitan Council, it appears that the Metropolitan Council does not presently have the staffing necessary for a complete review of MWCC capital and operating budgets either. (The Metro • - politan Council does have authority to appoint the members of the NWC:C. It also issues bonds on behalf of the FIWCC and it reviews • and approves of MWCC's capital budgets. ) Recently, there have been hearings conducted by a hearing exami- ner in behalf of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on the question stion of what t dv nced sewage treatment facilities (tertiary t:zc .t::i.nt) should r required to be constructed by the MWCC. 7'te • United States Environmental Protection Agency and others have strongly advocated additional facilities costing between $700 million and $1 billion. If such facilities are required to be • constructer.', it sill, of course, be necessary to make a substan- tial. .increases in the rates MWCC charges metropolitan area com- munities. span1eiamen for both the MWCC and the Metropolitan Council have expressed disappointment at the fact that there was not more testimony from municipalities during the hearings. This has led the Yoerd or Directors of the SRA to believe that the SRA • rh,ou]d be peemitted to involve itself in MWCC rate-related issues - even if that involvement is on an occasional and highly selective basis. The Joinl. and Cooperative Agreement which provides for the Subur- ban Rate ;;:thorny does not now authorize SRA participation in • any iesees involving the nwcc. At its July l.f,, 1980 meeting, the p;c,rcr d of Directors of the SRA voted unanimously to recommend to SNA member communities marrni i-e_: that they authorize an amendment to the • .loint. and coc•,,S'otive Agreement so that the SRA can involve itself in M'W matters to the extent that the Board may from time to time authorize such involvement. • are t.hererrr•a enclosing a copy of an Amended Joint and t ,nI,s et..ivs ere msnt for the SRA. The changes in the agreement arc uuc;.q:,cor:c=t. They appear on pages 2, 11 and 12 of the : ' sr., ;;<rrL. We are elan enclosing a copy of a rt;uolution, for consideration by your city council,l., hioh would authorize the execution of the • LAW OPTICCS LtF EVFRC,LEFLER,PEARSON,O'BRIEN &DRAWZ Mr. Roger. Ul ,tad August 7, 1980 Page 4 Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement by your community. One of the enclosed copies of the Amended Joint and Cooperative Agree- ment and a certified copy of the authorizing resolution should be signed by the appropriate officers of your community and returned to us in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. It is recognised that if the amendment to the Joint and Coopera- • tive Agreement is adopted by SRA's members, there is a risk that the Suburban Rate Authority will be expected to provide a much more thoroughgoing review and investigation of MWCC activities than the SRA, with its limited resources, can provide. It will only be possible for the SRA to involve itself from time to time on MWCC matters on a very limited and selective basis. However, it may wish to act as a focal point for information about such things as PSC hearings and major capital programs of the MWCC. Under certain circumstances, the SRA Board may wish the SRA to assist in organizing the presentation of testimony about MWCC programs before such organizations as the PSC or the Legislature or the Metropolitan Council. The minutes of the April 16 and the July 16, 1980 Board meetings of the SRA are also enclosed because they provide further, more detailed background information about the two issues which are the subjects of this letter. If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, • Claytoh L. LeFevere, Attorney Suburban Rate Authority CLL:jpf Enclosures • 1 _ i _. I { August 28, 1980 Carl ,)ullie, P.E. City of Eden Prairie 89s,0 L6en Prairie Road Eden Prairie, W8 55343 RE: BIDS ON VALLEY VIEW ROAD PHASE II SAP 181-109-03 I.C. 51-325D DUCK LAKE. ROAD I.C. 51-325F TICON✓EROCA TRAIL I.C. 51-325G DELL ROAD SAP 181-108-02 I.C. 51-325E Dear Carl, Enclosed are the Tabulation of Bids and the Form of Resolution for awarding the contract on the referenced project. Following 17 ITTI is a comparison of the low bid submitted by Progressive —7q11_ Corti actors, Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota and the construction costs sub ,tied during the project feasibility stage. ,;,,ke Feasibility Bidder's roilihT Const. Cost Const. Cost ast:uciatcsinc Valley Vier,' Road $863,600 $774,356.40 H•:1,t°,"' Duck Lake Rod 87,400 93,129.85 �os Ticon is rona Trail and Dell (toad 424,000 377,115_00 Total Const. Costs $1,315,OCD $1,244,602.05 The lee: bid is 10% lower than the Engineer's construction costs as submitted in the revised feasibility study dated 10-30-79. The low bidding contractor is a reputable firm and has previously completed work in the City of Eden Prairie. Therefore, we recornnend award of the project to Progressive Contractors, Inc. Very truly yours, R. C. Pot? RIEKE CARP..OL.L MULLE:R ASSOCIATES, INC. PCP:cp ( I1tcl. • • !..;.!.112:..!•1/1,1•CY._wi enis I.C. 51-3?50 - Valley View Road Phase II, SAP 181-109-03 I.C. - DUO: lake Road I.C. 51-3256 - liconderoga Trail DESCPIPTIOm: I.C. 51-3250 - Dell Rudd, SAP 181-1118-02 BIDS OPENED: Aw.l.ust 28, 19P,0 Oh eke Carrell Muller Associates, Inc CHECKED BY: BID SECURTTY TOTAL AMOUNT Progressive Contractors, Inc. 5% $1,244,602.05' G. L. Contractin!), Inc. 5% 1,261,376.05 * M. G. Astleford ' 5% 2P0 '55 50 * Brown & Cris, Inc. 5% 1 309 44,6 26 __12L Minnesota Vailey Surfacing_ 5" 1 371 656 30 * Shafer Cont.ractina Co. 5w 1 P26 801 05 Arcon Construction Co., Inc. 5% 1,467,245.60 * C. S. McCrussan, Inc. 5% 1,526,299.30 * * Corrected totals award of Contract to Proc.iressive Contractors, Inc. a5 lowo5t r F hi biddot fot this Duprovom,nt Contract. . . Catl J. :Lillie, P.P.. Diro,:tor ii Public Work6/OitY EndinOOr „ . • CITY OF EOLD PRAIRIE HEiOLI PIN {;OLLiit1', M1N1L391A RESOLUTION NO. R-80-165 RESOLUTION ACCEPIINC B10 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advnr•tisen:^nt for bids for the following_ improvciu::ts; 1.C. 51-325U - Valley View Road Phase II SAP 181-109-03; I.k 51-3 1 -.Duel 1_:if;e.Rtrad I.C. 51-'?5G -.Ticonderoga Trail I.C. 51--'125H -Cell Road SAP fu1-10$-02 • bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Sunanary of Bids; and WHLPEAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to Progressive Contractors, Inc. as the lc.gcst responsible bidder. um, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City i•'anager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Progressive Contractors, Inc_ _ in the numb of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of S1,24t.E02.O5 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City 'Engineer. ADOiT'.I) by the Eden Prairie City Council on Siptem1er_?,_1HPC) hlTiS'i: 116-1-1pig !1 Ieni-c-P , Mayor SEAL: i r, i). • MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 28, 1980 i SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 • Duck Lake Vista Improvements I.C. 51-367 • The attached Change Order No. 1 in the amount of S14...022,110-is submitted for Council Approval. The Change Order is for additional storm sewer pipe at the westerly end of No. Hillcrest Ct. in the Duck Lake Vista subdivision. This work was originally to be done by the developer and therefore not a part of • the City's contract for the street improvements. However, there were some changes in the grading plans for the drainage pond which the storm pipe empties j into, resulting in a delay in installing the pipe. The developer will submit y a 100,' petitionform for this additional work signed by the owners of all lots to be assessed. Reconmend approval of said Change Order No. 1. 4 CJJ:kh attachenient i s d • t - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 4 { DATED • PROJECT: Sanitary Sewar, Storm Sewer, ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO. 51-361 I W tcrmain and Street Isarovements CONTRACT DATE: OWNER: City of Lden jail ie, MN May 4, 1980 OWNER'S PROJECT NO. 51-;;62,367 & 372 TO:_—_-Brorrn & Cris. Inc. , CONTRACTOR You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract: —OWNER: City of Eden Prairie BY: —_ DATE: • Nature of the Change: Additional s'oro sewer connection per attached statement The changes result in the following adjustment of contract price and time: Contract Price Prior to this Change Irder $ 153.613.90_ Net (tncreasel 44=47,e.ez,7.0-Resulting from this Change Order $__7� 072 Current Contract Price including This Change Order .. $ 167163E_30 ____ Contract Time Prior to This Order _______!Calendar Days Net (increase) (Decrcacc) Resultiny From This Change Order ___--Calendar Days Current Contract Time Including This Change Order .Same_ Calendar Days The a love c pan cs arc approved: The Above Changes arc Accepted: Enlinour --- ---- Contractor O".lF r,. Sturm ;..w•cr h fond _ _ ]5" RCP 290 L.F. @ $ 23:30 $ 6,757.00 , 6' Sump M.H. C.B. 1 EA @ 1,488.00 1,488.00 Std. M.H. 2 EA Q 715.00 1,430.00 Surge Raisiu 1 EA @ ' 403.00 403.00 Rip Rap 2 C.Y. @ 58.40 116.80 1 ( 15" Flared End 1 EA @ 243.00 243.00 " 12" RCP F:moval LS @ 127.00 1 Grade Pond LS @ 825.00 Total: $11,389.80 _Extra r:ou h Cr,.ding For Blvd. Not Included in City Contract 0 450 Dozer 4-1/2 }Ira @ $ 45.00 $ 202.50 TS-14 Scraper 1 Hr @ 80.00 80.00 D-8 Dozer 1-1/2 Hrs ' @ 80.00 120.00 Foreman 1/2 Br @ 27.00 13.50 Total: $ 416.00 y Extra Grading for Storm Sewer Pipe li D-8 Dozer 1-1/2 Hrs @ $ 80.00 $ 120.00 - TS-1.4 Scraper 4-1/2 Mrs @ 80.00 360.00 TS-14 Scraper 1-1/2 Hrs @ 80.00 120.00 0 Total: $ 600.00 Extra • Place C.M.P. Pipe at Entrance 90 L.F. @ $ 7.50 $ 675.00 Flared End 2 EA @ 91.00 182.00 Crow 6 C-]4 BNcl:hoe 4 Mrs @ 190.00 e 760.00 i i_ Total: $ 1,617.00 4 TOTAL AMOUNT $ 14,022.80 q ccanca_avos S I i 4 i J • I j . , •J 4 : ',':.--' • • MEMO TO: Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager • tR011: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 29, 1980 SUBJECT: Grading Permit for Property North of Co. Rd. 1 On August 7, 1900, the Engineering Department issued a grading permit, pursuant to the uniform Building Code, for property owned by V & S En • - terprises and located just north of Co. Rd. 1 and about one-half mile west of the City Hall. • The subject property is a 25 acre parcel with gently- rolling terrain and planted in soybeans. The request was to excavate a knoll area about 600 feet square, removing 50-60,000 cubic yards of heavy clay material. The purpose of 1..11,7) excavation is to haul the material to the Eden Prairie landfill site to he used as an impermeable barrier for methane gas control. The excavation site has no tree cover and only County and State roads are used for hauling. The permit we issued was for only one acre to he disturbed because the Watershed District has not yet approved the entire plan. The Watershed does not require a permit if the area disturbed is one acre or less. The excavators have completed the one acre area and are now shut down, but they have requested us to issue an additional permit for the remaining area. The Watershed District is scheduled to review the grading application at its next meeting on September 3rd. Assuming Watershed District approval, and unless otherwise directed by the Council, it is our intent to issue a permit • for the remaining excavation, subject to all requirements for erosion control and subject to a $5,000 bond for restoration. The property owner currently has a bond from the excavator guaranteeing restoration of topsoil and back slopes for the work done to date. The owner has agreed not to release this bond until the City Staff concurs. • We Wring this matter to the Council's attention at this time because there have here inquiries from residents and Planning Commission members regarding tie grading work and the procedures for issuance of grading permits. We will be prepared Tuesday evening to address this matter if the Council so desires. CJJ:kh • 41 TO: Mayer and Council FROM: John Franc DATE: August 21, 1980 RE: Vote Counting Equipment We have three options for the purchase of equipment to expedite the vote counting process. 1. Purchase three additional counting devices of the type we presently use at a cost of 52.600 each or a total of $7,800. These machines count at the rate of 45 cards per minute. Final election results would be available about 35 minutes after the last precinct reports in to the City Hall. 2. Purchase a device which counts at the rate of 200 cards per minute at a cost of S19,500. Results would be available about 7 minutes after the last precinct reports in, Total processing time necessary is 45 minutes for the 6 precincts. Our present two machines could { be sold for $1,300 to $1,700 each. 3. Purchase a device which counts at the rate of 600 cards per minute at a cost of $32,000. Results would then be available within 3 minutes. Resale of our present equipment S2,600 to 53,400. Assuming our population (and voters) double by 1990 the processing would look as follows with 12 precincts: 1. 45 curd per minute readers. (purchase of 4 additional counters) results available 35 minutes after last precinct reports in. 2. 200 card per minute readers. Results available about 7 to 15 minutes after th; last precinct reports in. 3. 600 card per minute readers. Results available about 3 to 6 minutes after the last precinct reports in. Re should also purchase an additional 16 voting devices at 5275 each giving us a +,ot+il of 66 units or 11 per precinct. It seems to me that. the 200 card per minute readers is the machine to acquire to up;rade our vote tabulation process. Either the 200 or 600 card machines will give print out by precinct or City totals. -,.(,1