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 - 09/01/1981
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SDAY, SEPTLMGER 1, 1981 Immediately following Joint City Council, Development Commission & Planning Commission Meeting COUNCIL. MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, George Bentley, Dean Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Finance Director John Frane; Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; City Engineer Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1�81 Page 1B47 III. CONSENT CALE14DAR A. Clerk's License List Page 1860 B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 81-04, changing the street name of W. 168th Page 1861 Avenue to Chatham Way in Chatham Wood C. Resolution No. 81-180 for Community Development Block Grants Year Page 186", VIII, TX, and X Participation D. Award bid for irrigation system at Round Lake Park Page 1369 �3 E. Change Order for Community Center Page 1869 F. Change Order for Round Lake Park Shelter Page 1873 G. Award contract for Valle Place Offices Project, I.C. 51-409 and Franlo Page 187 Road Improvements, I.C. 51-33I Resolution No. 81-183 H. Agreement with MnDOT to remove temporary signals and install permanent Page 1879 signals and related street im rovernents at the entrance road to Hennepin County Vocational Technical School on TH 169 (Resolution No. 81-184) I. Resolution declaring cost to be assessed and ordering reparation of Page IPX; rp oposed 1981 Special Assessment Rolls and settin a hearing date for 7.30 PM, SSeptember 22, 1981 (Resolution No. 8 -185 J. Reschedule puhlic hearin .on feasibilitL of drainage improvements, Page 1881 vscinitL of W. 69th Street and Washington Avenue, I.C. 52-004, to September-15s 19 T at 7:30 PM7Resolution No. 81-1bb) , City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,September 1, 1981 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AUTUMN WOIISbDennis J. Truem i. Request for rezoning of 13 acres from Page 1882 Rural to RM 6.5 for duplexes 46 units) and 29 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 38 single family lots, and preliminary plat approval. Located east of TH III and south of Rymarland Camp.(Irdinance No. 81-15 j and Resolution No. 81-173) 8. SUND UIST AIDITION by Nils Sundquist. Request to rezone 21 acres from Page 1897 Rural to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 37 acres into a 13 acre outlot and 46 duplex lots for duplexes (92 units). Located in the southeast corner of Baker Road and Valley View Road. (Ordinance No. 81-16 and Resolution No. 81-174) C. OVERLOOK PLACE by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to rezone Page 1913 approximately It acres from R1-1.i.5 to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 31 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and East of Yorkshire Point.(Ordinance No. 81-17 and Resolution No. 81-175) D. COR PUB AMENDMENT 1�y Karl F. Peterson. Request for a revised PUB Concept Page 1930 approval to utilize 4.21 acres for office use with variances for parking, sideyard setback and a lot with no public real frontage. Located in the southwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 and TH 5 behind Superamerica. (Resolution No. 81-176) t E. CITY WEST by Richard W. Anderson. Request for PUB Concept for office Page 1937 and commercial upon 87 acres, rezoning of 26 acres from Rural to Office, preliminary plat approval with possible variances, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of Shady Oak Road and south of Crosstown 62. (Resolution No. 81-177 - PqD; Ordinance No. ` 81-18 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 81-178 - Preliminary Plat; and Resolution No. 81-179 - EAW) F. Re uest for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of gage 1992 Vq©0 —0,000.00 for ITT Schadow) Project. Resolution No. 81- e) 1. +` V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 8091 -8271 Page 2005 VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Human Ri4hts & Services Commission - Study of human service needs Page 2109 in South Hennepin VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Re ueq st from Weis Development Corporation for an additional 12-month Page 2012 extension on the Masters Condominiums project B. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Review of the Smetana Lake Traffic Study Page 2016 prepared for the City of Eden Prairie by Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. '.II. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BIARIS &,COMMISSIONS_ A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Attorney City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,Se►te4er 1, 1981 C. Report of City Manager 1. Receipt of 198.1-82 City Budget D. Report of Director of Community Services i 1. FOXJET Swim Team Pre ep sal Page 2135 E. Report of City Engineer 1. Resolution approving plans and specifications for the improvement Page 2039 of the 1-494 CSAH 18 interchange, State Project No. 2785-190, 207. (Resolution No. 81-166) Continued from 8/18/81 2. Consider resolution rescinding Resolution No. 352, restricting Page 2046 home construction until public im roveme is are constructed - Nic. olson property on Vale Road.(Re ution No. 8 - 67 Continued rem S/ 8/8 3. Protected left turn lanes vs. right turn lane/bypass.lane Page 2641 IX. NEW BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT. AGENDA ff JOINT CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION & PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 6:00 PM, CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dean Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Tim Pierce, Joseph M. D. Adams, Bill Behrenbrinker, Kent Barker, Robert Hanson, Donald Opheim and Roy Terwilliger PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS. Chairman William Beaman, Virginia Gartner, Bob Hallett, Dennis Marhula, Elizabeth Retterath, Grant Sutliff and Hakon Torjesen CITY STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Planning Director Chris Enger, City Engineer Eugene A. Dietz, and Karen Michael, Recording Secretary I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER I1. DISCUSSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S REPORT ON HOUSING COSTS Page 1840 I11. DISCUSSION ON PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS IV. NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT. 1 RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION / REGARDING DEVELOPMENT COSTS 1. WHEREAS, the Development Commission has received and discussed the Development and Housing Status June 1981 and other reports generated by City Staff, and WHEREAS, the housing costs are projected to continue to rise drastically, and WHEREAS, the percentage of people capable of affording the typical single family home is becoming smaller and smaller each year, and WHEREAS, it is important to the people of Eden Prairie to continue development in both residential and industrial-commercial in order to continue with a stable tax base and reduce trunk utility debt, WE RESOLVE THAT: Higher density be allowed in residential development and the two units per acre requirement be rescinded; The City Council and Commissions keep the benefits to the community as a whole in mind when considering Development and/or rezoning and not be swayed to deny by pressure neighborhood groups; 1 ` To continue with the present policy of granting Developers the right to improve land through special assessments; To continue the process of Industrial Revenue Bonds for owner/occupied buildings; and That the City Council and Staff continue its action to complete Schooner Boulevard in its entirety because this is critical to future development in the Major Center Area. ADOPTED by the Development Commission this 29th day of July, 1981. _ ? - T' Pierce, Chairman evelopment Commission DEVELOPt•:E1T AND HOUSING STATUS — June, 1981 The report to the City Council dated 4-13-78 and entitled "Associated Land and Development Costs', has provided the basis for evaluating the effects of recent inflationary pressures on the development of 1::1 and ',:he construction of housing in Eden Prairie. A close analysis of the current data indicates that the nation in general and Eden Prairie in particular are entering an extremely critical period of time when demand for housing is on the increase and the supply is be— coming less affordable. The increase in family income is not keeping pace with the increase in the cost of housing. In the past decade incomes have doubled and the cost of owning a home has quad— rupled. The cost of heating a home has likewise risen 4001/'o. The median family income in Eden Prairie during 1980 was $23,600. At today's rates this income would allow a family to purchase a $62,000 home and carry a $49,G00 mortgnge, j that is if the family had a $13,000 do%%n payment. According to recent Multiple j Listing Service data the present median sales price of a home in Eden Prairie is $103,000• Today a family buying this home, with a 2d1. down payment of $20,600 would need a $60,000 an:ival income. This means that the median priced home in Eden Prairie has risen at a compoiuided rate of 18;5 over the last 3 years compared with 14.6// for the general metropolitan area. }folding this present rate of increase constant the following will be the median cost of housing in Eden Prairie for the next 5 years. Year Average Cost 1982 $121r500 ( 1983 143,500 1984 169,200 t 1985 199,700 1986 235,E With interest rates presently averaging 16% and unlikely to be substantially reduced over an extended period of time, affordable housing, as we have known it, will be passing out of the American dream. If income requirements follow the expected path of housing costs a look at income 1 requirements to purchase the median priced home in Eden Prairie would resemble the following figures (assuming 20p down payment). Year Average Cost PITI Income 1982 $121,500 $1,391 $ 67,000 1983 143,500 19741 84,E 1984 169,200 2,005 97' 1g85 199,700 2,372 1 , 00 1986 235,600 2,750 132,000 The average price of a lot in Eden Prairie in the past 3 years has risen from $1.6,000 to $26,000, There is presently market pressure to reduce inventory and as a result lot prices have stabilized. But at today's cost of financing improved lots, which varies between 20 and 25 , the price of homesites will likely follow or exceed the percentage increase in housing. If lot price increases average 18N per year the following will be expected lot prices in Eden Prairie for the next 5 years. Year Lot Price 1982 $3o,680 36,200 i9a4 G2,750 1985 50,1+00 i 1986 59,480 s Taxes on lot inventory improved in 1978 and unsold in 1981 have quadrupled from $200 to $800. At this rate taxes alone will add nearly$10,000 to the price of an unsold lot over a 5 year period of time. If the cost of taxes and money is not reduced we are more likely to see the average lot in Eden Prairie range between $70,000 and $80,000 by 1986. The most urgent message coming from the marketplace today is that people's expectations must be reduced to conform to present day realities. Size must be made smaller, extras eliminated, amenities reduced and diversity expanded. j Estimates for the 1980's indicate that 80%of the dwelling units will be built j for 1 and 2 person households. Already in 1977 family composition in this country shorted that only 13141 of households conformed to the traditional image of working husband, housewife mother and children under 18 years of age. Today 60s of all households have no children under 18. Housing in the 80's will not receive the attention from the federal government that it enjoyed in the 70�s. As a result, capital markets, as presently structured, will not be able to accommodate the demand as household formations expand faster than the population. Qr.� gob 74 vv ry r P ^ FF i S. as d c�! 0 IN { 9:y rya �; '� o +•�1 � � � ' � 4 CF- ea Ol GIN -0 CPI Now p, ca oa f' ��" �+ v � Si a c �a .m i w I to , o O` :n n M �" ?ti ti' Elf Cep as u� cNa do �9 l ". Cro in Ca 4� I p i4 I O ns O O pad I21 .,. v �+ I tr fit► N CP,Ca 40 � ie tat OWN 1 •o yj is o D To V i; N E3 A W Iin I d wt VIn 44^ kA M w vi twr w CID 00 Z V �p wI pU-�o� N�q,+ j p GAl C4 V hp&► o v 1 0 M m N a 2 N aC+ O �+.0 a C 1 O 0 O C :t ' =7 cY -h r► N � 1 O 'O D N 7 O .w in N 0— S 1 N O -� Z �S;• N O .n -1 1 C N S O G] J cu c r► o c► 0 i rt r+ Y7 0 Q. IOO = ICY to m i -h •Y O O' C O _ mRol 1 m O fL =3 'O 'S -S N 1 N N J m w m 3 ; 1 f _ 'S 10 v N � LA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I: 4A 4A !A 4A 1 r ►+ I- . 4A 1 4A M CD tT O O w 1 V N N O O O •P M)W 1 UI N N 4+4 N N -4 --< 1-+ O O O O UI 1 O O O N O O m - O C) O O O UI 1 O O O QI O O C O- O O 1 a 1- 4A r a m-,O T o n Via. o m 3 _ Im c o 1 S o mju3 11 a o w z o o v m ror m c `* _ v M o Sm-h 1 v 3 0 3 C. o tDs �. i a mz1 1 n ;a i no m 1 N 1 In 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 O 1 N to N IO O Ut (11 1 O IO Q m O O 1 ,Y 1 1 r. 1 O 1 t+ 1 1 4A 1 1 Y 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 ShS'� I1. m / In 1 In o c i oo r In r« I 1 1•F 7 rt 0 7 ID M o a - - O Cn 1 a J, r0. IC I N ?7 fS a s In -1 4 a. -S O O-+. L7 1 .1'1i ' a 1 n m t J• 9' c C O •,� i 10 rt 4o'p Z 1 N ? -1 N w aJ M N a s 00 1 c N 1 IDn 'S rtN o 'S rtmo 0U-d Z 1 toN N O fOG 1 'S n a 7 n Jao n Joo —CDm In 1 •• < 1 n ?• m -e a J� .�* 1 M •v 1 w• o rr 1 1 rt a -S •c a s -.•c 1-+ m 1 7 iv CD 1 -S _ H 1 < I to O i m o i 1 fD a 1 rt 1 a 0 1 1 a 1 k V1 1 1 1 N i tS� I 1 fD I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 � 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1// IA to 1 Mkn 1 tJl (Ln0 AA OON OON AN 1 �tO 1 CD 38 S2 N N •P W O •P w 0 W OD I N N N GJ 1 \ UI UI tn00- M00 W W 1 N O ` A j -ail'all to _..V\I CI a V. n a rr I CD 'a V .NO .NO.NO N N i � M I� i o aS' y r+rr r* o 1 3• a 'h'1l 'h'1l 1-•tJl 1 '7 1 r1•rr rr r1• rr r o0 0 11 i -b-b Q 1 m N .-.A ^A 00 1 O 0 1 1 N W 1 40, I 4+ 1 I g �• 140+O 1 I OCD CA 1 1 I O'Il 1 1 I a N 1 I mC+ 1 I i 1 1 � � 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 fS I � a � I N 1 = I � 1 1 tJl N A N N A I N Y f to O O to O O O 1 O I O 0 0 O 1 1 r Q 1 rt --I 1 1 •- 1 `o` 1 o - 1 I 1 I 1 i I I � i I � 1 1 1 i i A i 1 vml rn i o i m i /•' i 0 m to q i o N 1 rt r 1 1 'm 1 r c 1 a rn o f _ 1 0 uli 7 1 1 I � N N <:.. Z i i i Ln N i os o i i i r o 1 NO 1 1 1 1rn*} M _ 1 N fD O 1 1 t VI N t to Ol 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 aD 1 1 i i o i n i —*0 �=o i i n i o i o° � a i i � i � i �•� ° I� t 1 1 ^I 1 1roO 0 C3 • 1 1 1 to 1 ill O t to L 'O 1 1 1 1 •�+.^1 1 1 1 O 1 O I 1 1 / Lat 1+o� I 1 1 N 1 �•� 1 1 1 IG 1 N I 1 1 to 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 I S 1 I 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i a I 1 1 t r 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 t o N 1 N W N 1 .P 1 ►+ 1 N 'q 1 1 1 1 fD 1 IT In N N V 1 O 1 1 w O 'S 1 N O O O C77 1 O 1 4%•P 1 O O 1 0 0 O O O ; O ; O ; O Or 1 t 1 I r 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 J I 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 N 1 I 1 1 t UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL p TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1981 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dear i Edstrom, Paul Redpath, and George Tangen COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger Pauly, City Engineer Gene Dietz, Assist- ant Planner Jean Johnson, Director of Communi Services Bob Lambert, Community Center Manager Chuck Pappas, and Recording Secretary. Karen ; Michael INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members. present I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: VIII. A. Penzel - Airport Commission Letter; VIII. D. 3. Riley Lake Park; immediately following the Consent Calendar: Design the Flag— Contest. Delete item III. L. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. B1-IO, rezoning lot 1, block 1 fror R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for 1 duplex, Lake Trail Estates by Swenson & Schwartz had pre- viously been given a 2nd Reading. Change Resolution No. on item VIII. E. 3. from 81-171 to B1-168. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 19B1 Page 7, 4th para., line 1 - under item 2.: change the word "made" to "required to make prospective homeowners". j MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Bentley, to approve the minutes of the f August 4th Council Meeting as amended and published. Motion carried with Edstrom and Tangen abstaining. lY�l� City Council Minutes -2- August 18, 1981 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Request for authority to advertise for bids for Flying Cloud Concession Stand C. Accept bids on Round Lake Playground Structure D. Temporary construction and slope easement from City of Eden Prairie to Tudor Oaks Condominium Project for construction of Castlemoor Drive Resolution. No. j 81-164 i E. Approve plans and specifications for Bennett Place improvements and authorize bids to be received Se tember 10, 19II1 at 10:00 AM I.C. 52-001 Resolution No. 91-165 F. Request from ITT Schadow to set Public Hearing for September 1, 1981 to con- si er Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $2,000,UUU j G. Request from Town & Country Claim Service, Inc. (Bryant Lake Center - Lakeridge Office Project), to set Public Hearing for September 15, 1981 to consider Muni- cipal Industrial Bonds in the amount of $306,000 H. Award contract for Eden Road Improvements, I.C. 52-005 (Resolution No. 81-171) I. Final approval of Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Wilson Learning Corporation in t e amount of 50,OD0 Resolution No. 81-170 t J. Final approval of Munici al Industal Deve lop riment Bonds for Minnesota Supply in t e amount of 800,000 kliesolution No. 81-169 K. Final a roval of Munici al Industrial Development Bonds for Anderson Lakes Ltd Project Cabriole Office Buildin in the amount of 400,000 Resolution No. 81-163 L. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 81-10, rezoning Lot 1, block i from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for 1 duplex, Lake lrai.l Estates by Swenson & Schwartz - deleted ue to previous Council action. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve items A - K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried with Bentley abstaining on item I. DESIGN THE FLAG CONTEST { Director of Community Services Lambert displayed the three designs which had i been selected by City Staff and from which the Council was to select a winning design. i City Council Minutes -3- August 18, 1981 Penzel stated a fourth consideration would be the present City flag which had been presented to the City by a developer about ten years ago. ( MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to retain the present City flag but to award the $25 prize money to the design which included prairie grass as well as the "EP" letters, submitted by Scott Thompson. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TIMBER CREEK by B-T Land Company Request for PUD Development stage approval, rezoning from Rural to RM6.5 and R1-13.5 and preliminary platting of 94 single family lots, 120 townhouses, and 108 quadraminiums with variances. Located north of Duck Lake Trail -and south of 62nd Street. (Ordinance No. t 81-12 and Resolution No. 8)-158) 3 Jack Lynch, BRW, reviewed the concept plan that was approved in 1980 and { the current plan which he said are basically the same. I Assistant Planner Johnson stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this at its June 22, I981, and July 13, 1981, meetings and had recommended its approval subject to the recommendations contained in the Staff Report dated June 18, 1981; and with the recommendation that Townline Road be upgraded to a collector road. Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the request at its July 20, 1981, meeting at which time it recommended approval as per Staff reports and with the added recommendation that park land be transferred at the time of rezoning. Penzel asked City Engineer Dietz about the Duck Lake Trail/County Road 4 intersection. Dietz replied intersection improvement will be necessary at some point and should be scheduled into the capital improvements program, however, the total impact of this development will not be known for while. Penzel said he would like to see improvement of this intersection be made along with Phase I of development. Redpath noted the church on the corner and development further to the west have also added to the problem. Dietz explained the church has dedicated right-of-way so a 900 intersection can be provided for at this intersection. ? Jerry Kimmel, 6610 Rainbow Drive, said that someone must take the responsibility for the Duck Lake Trail/County 4 intersection. He also feels that the new inter- section which will access County Road 4 on the west side from the single family j area in the proposed development will be a dangerous point. Johnson explained IR Hennepin County had responded to inquiries regarding this development and had i approved the location of that particular intersection -- they do recommend that l right-in and right-out turn lanes be a part of the system. Edstrom said thought a should be given to providing left-turn lanes also. Dietz said a by-pass lane will be required for left-turn storage. City Council Minutes 4- August 18, 1981 Mike Reuter, 6602 Rainbow Drive, wondered if there would be a semaphore at County Road 4 and Duck Lake Trail. Dietz stated that is a possibility, if the warrants are met. Reuter also questioned the density transfer policy. Penzel explained that the density, overall, in this development will remain at 2 per acre. The density transfer is used to protect slopes, floodplains, scenic easements, and other amenities while permitting landowners to utilize their property. Edstrom asked City Attorney Pauly's opinion on whether he has had the oppor- tunity to look at the problem of staged dedication of park land. Pauly said the problem is one of enforcement. From the City's point of view, the greater security would lie in having the dedication up front. The City could request documents be filed which would indicate what must be done and at what phases of development various parcels are to be dedicated. Rick Murray, B-T Land Company, said homeowner's documents will specify future annexations and will reference the entire plat. Pauly felt it would probably be best to have an agreement between the present fee owner and the City which would in effect put a cloud on the property but would protect the City's interest. Bentley wondered if a future Council could arbitrarily change the action of this Council. He would prefer to see the park land dedicated all at one time. Pauly said that a municipality can down-zone someone's property. It would seem that a city would be compelled to abide by the stipulations made. Penzel asked what would be the approach used to assure this usage. Pauly said it would have to be found in the Developer's Agreement. Murray stated that it would not be financially possible for B-T Land Company to dedicate all the park land at one time up-front. Bentley asked for clarification as to when Townline Road will be up-graded. Dietz said if the County is not willing to do something, then the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka will have to go ahead. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the public hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance 81-12, rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and 111-13.5; and to instruct the City Attorney to draft a Developer's Agree- ment and dedication schedule outline. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 81-158, approving the preliminary plat of Timber Creek. Motion carried unanimously. MOTIue of ON: Moved by Trail/County Roade4�interrsection to seconded by sthemCity Engineer, to refer efor s hu further uck Lake study. Motion carried unanimously. B. Edenvale 14 by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the US and Equitable Life Mort a e and 12ealty Investors. Request for revised PUD Development stage approval, rezoning from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for approximately 15 of the 24 acres, and preliminary plat approval of 30 single family lots and 56 duplex lots with variances. Located NW of Edenvale Blvd., SE of railroad, and north and west of Woodhill Trail. (Ordinance No. B1-13 and Resolution No. 81-159) City Council Minutes -5- August 18, 1981 Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering Company, representing Edenvale and Equitable Life, spoke to the proposal, He said that the (, new developer has taken on all the responsibilities of the earlier develop- er of this property. Their intention is to create a cul-de-sac at the northwest end of Kurtz Lane near the railroad track. This cul-de-sac would allow emergency vehicles to get through but the barriers would be of a height to discourage other vehicles, Assistant Planner Johnson said this matter had been considered by the Planning Commission at its June 22nd and July 13th meetings, A motion to approve the preliminary plat failed. Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had considered this at its August 3, 1981, meeting and had recommended approval subject to the recommendations contained in the Planning Staff report dated June 18, 1981 and Lambert's memo dated July 30, 1981. Tangen asked if there is to be a totlot or a totlot structure in this area. Lambert replied there would be a totlot structure at Edenvale Park. Penzel said he was pleased to see that the request made by the Kurtz Lane residents north of Edenvale 14th had been responded to and that the developer had decided to cul-de-sac Kurtz Lane, He said he thinks Edenvale Boulevard should be extended to Townline Road; but that should be worked out with the developer and not directly tied to this proposal. Julie Schmandke, 6527 Kurtz Lane, expressed concern about Birch Island Road connecting with Kurtz Lane. Birch Island Road is now a dirt road and that discourages through traffic, Cliff Thompson, 6559 Kurtz Lane, sees no advantage to continuing Kurtz Lane. even for emergency vehicles, Stan Mustanski, 6832 Woodhiil Trail, wanted to know the estimated dollar value of the proposed duplexes, Krier said they would be approximately $75,000 per side or $150,000 for an entire unit, Steve Cherne, 6931 Raven Court, asked that Valley View not be upgraded until Edenvale Boulevard is extended. Tony Hirt, 6533 Kurtz Lane, stated the railroad crossing at Kurtz Lane is a private crossing. It is his feeling that a permanent solution to the Edenvale traffic problem should be addressed, Penzel said that the Guide Plan shows a crossing at this junction illustrating that road systems must be tied together, Pete Izmirian, 6540 Kurtz Lane, asked that a feasibility study be done regarding the roads in the area, I I City Council Minutes -6- August 18, 1981 Fred Curtis, 6500 Kurtz Lane, agreed that Edenvale Boulevard be extended but had questions regarding the knock-down barriers at Kurtz Lane and the �. railroad crossing. Penzel explained the barriers are of a height that would be knocked down by an emergency vehicle but would damage a car. B.O. Hassel, 6827 Woodhill Trail, expressed his concerns. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance 81-13, rezoning from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for approximately 15 of the 24 acres including all the suggestions contained in Staff reports, the extension of Edenvale Boulevard in 1982,and a feasibility study of Kurtz Lane, Motion carried unanimously, MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Revolution No, 81-15q, approving the preliminary plat of Edenvale 14th Addition, Motion carried unanimously, C. WOODLAWN HEIGHTS by Lyman Lumber, Request for PUD Concept approval, Located in the southwest corner of Townline Road and Duck Lake Road, (Resolution No, 81-160) Dick Knutson, McCombs Knutson Co_ was present to make a presentation, He stated that the ownership of 20 acres in the southwest corner is cloudy, They are willing to pay the assessments on this 2D acre piece, Assistant Planner Johnson said that the request for preliminary platting had been withdrawn and that only the PUD Concept approval is requested this �. evening. The Planning Commission had reviewed the request at its July 13th meeting at which time they moved to recommend its approval subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report of July 10, 1981. Director of Community Services Lambert reported the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this at its July 20th meeting and recommended its approval per the terms of the Planning Staff Report. i Penzel inquired about the upgrading of Townline Road to Duck Lake Road, Jullie explained any upgrading would be based on a petition request for a feasibility study from the abutting property owners. 1 Penzel wondered about the validity of a density transfer on land not owned by a developer. Jullie said since the developer is willing to pay for the assessments and other specials assessed against the property, this would be a special consideration. Penzel called attention to the letter from Minnetonka residents expressing their concerns. In regard to the extension of the blacktop on Townline Road, Jullie explained it would be appropriate for the two cities to work together to extend the blacktop if the County does not do so, Paul Hladky, 6381 Duck Lake Road, would hate to see the wetlands disturbed, IX5� City Council Minutes -7- August 18, 1981 Don Jacobson, 6345 Duck Lake Road, questioned the 20 acres being used for { a density transfer. He also does not feel the property owners on the east side of Duck Lake Road should have to pay for the upgrading of that road. Jacobson said the marsh area contains water most of the time. He also said that the blacktopping which has been done on Townline Road has created more traffic on that road. Bentley said that one thing which should be looked into before any further upgrading of Townline Road is done-is the existing road pat- tern -- particularly those from the north, Edstrom inquired as to whether or not our Staff has discussed this proposal with the Staff from Minnetonka. Johnson said they are aware of this project as materials are exchanged between the two cities, MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 81-160, approving the Woodlawn Heights Planned Unit Development and amending the Guide Plan and the Major Center Area PUD, subject to the recommendations contained in the Staff Report and satisfactory resolutia, of the 20 acres under question. Motion carried unanimously, V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 7815 -'8090 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve Payment of Claims Nos, 7815 - 8090. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen, and Penzel voted "aye," Motion carried with Edstrom abstaining on Claim No, 7973, VI, REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Plannin Commission - Set date of September 1.: 1981, 6:00 PM, to meet jointly witTi—the ity ouncil and Development Commission, MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to set date of September 1, 1981, 6:00 PM, to meet jointly with the City Council and Development Commission. Motion carried unanimously, B. Deve_loomment Commission - Report regarding the Economic Development District anT?N increment Financing for Road Improvements Tim Pierce, Chairman of the Development Commission, spoke to his memo to property owners dated August 7, 1981, and a follow-up memo dated August 13, 1gB1, These memos, to the property owners in the Major Center Area? addressed the Economic Development District and Tax Increment Financing for improvements. Pierce reported that response to the information had been positive, The Council +,. thanked Pierce and the Development Commission for a job well done. Gary Hyde, Feeders, Inc, said this appears to be an excellent solution to a knotty problem, Whatever, the hurdles are, they must be overcome in favor of the effort, MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt the recommendations of the Development Commission pertaining to the Economic Development District and Tax Increment Financing for Improvements, Motion carried unanimously, . 12�53 City Council Minutes -8- August 18, 1981 VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS_A COMMUNICATIONS A. BURNING TREE CONDOMINIUM PLAT b Burnin Tree Corporation. Request to pre- 1-iminary p at 12 acres into ots 5 & 7 acres zoned RM 2,5. Located at 14000 Chestnut Drive (Resolution No. 81-162) Assistant Planner Johnson spoke to the request. The first phase has been built as apartments; due to financing, the second phase will be built as condominiums. NOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution 81-162, approving the preliminary plat of Burning Tree Condominiums. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request from Sever Peterson to appeal the Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision regarding a variance fora deck in Creekwood MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Tangen, to grant a variance to Sever Peterson for property located at 9391 Creekwood Drive. The variance is for a side yard setback from 10' to 6', Motion carried unanimously, VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members Penzel - Airport Commission Letter: Penzel called the Council's attention to a memo from the Flying Cloud Airport .Advisory Commission regarding the Lockheed Jet Star, owned and operated by F.T.C., which is in violation of Ordinance 51. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No, B1-181, requesting MAC to promptly enforce Ordinance 51, and to communicate to MAC the feelings of the Council in this regard. Motion carried unanimously. Bentle - Spoke to the problems incurred by the Public Safety Department with a party house" located across TH 169 from F,T,C. headquarters, Bentley was called to personally view the situation this past Saturday night/Sunday morning and found it almost beyond belief, MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to refer the matter to the City Manager and City Attorney for appropriate action, Motion carried unanimously. . 1. Appotn tment of 1 re resentative to the PlanningCommission to fill an un- exp1re erm o The names of John Golle, Dennis Marhula and Marcia Lockman were placed in nomination, MOTION; Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close nominations, Motion carried unanimously, { I City Council Minutes -9- August 18, 1981 Upon tabulation of the ballots,Dennis Marhula was selected to serve on the Planning Commission. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to cast a unanimous ballot for the appointment of Dennis Marhula to the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Appointment of 1 repr_esentative to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Re- sources Commission to it an unexpired term to 2-2 -8�2 The names of Austin Boulay and Allen Upton were placed in nomination. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously. Upon tabulation of the ballots, Austin Boulay was selected to serve on the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to cast a unanimous ballot to the appointment of Austin Boulay to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Tangen requested that current letters of interest only be considered when making appointments to the various Commissions. B. Report of City Attorney There was no report. C. Report of City Manager 1. Report on building on parcels under 5 acres in the Rural area City Manager Jullie referred to a memorandum of August 5, 1981, from City Attorney Pauly regarding the°Issuance of Building Permits for Con- struction of Single Family Detached Dwellings on Parcels of Less than 5 Acres." The conclusions reached were as follows: 1. An owner of a parcel of land consisting of less than 5 acres presently and at the time of adoption of Or- dinance 135, situated in the Rural District is not en- titled as a matter of right to a permit to build a single family dwelling on the parcel, 2. The owner is entitled to a permit if adoption of the ordinance has deprived him of all reasonable use of his land, iZ5`� City Council Minutes -10- August 18, 1981 3. The burden of proof that he has been so deprived is upon the owner. 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments is the appro- proiate forum for determination of the facts in each case and their application to the rules. Edstrom asked if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments vetoes a var- iance request can the proponent appeal to the Council. Pauly said yes. Edstrom asked whether or not an opponent would have the same right of appeal. Pauly said there are not adversary parties as such, but he felt that the Council would have the authority to act. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to accept the recommendations as outlined by City Attorney Pauly. Notion carried unanimously. 2. Resolution No. 81-172, calling for a Public Hearing for creation of Development District No. 1 and Economic Development District for September 15, 1981 City Manager Jullie introduced William Fahey, Jim Reyer, and Dick Graves who were present to answer questions regarding the Resolution. MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. B1-172, calling for a Public Hearing for creation of Development District No. 1 and Economic Development District for September 15, 1981. Motion carried unanimously, MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Edstrom, to authorize City Attorney Pauly, in his discretion, to appeal to the Minnesota State Supreme Court the order of the District Court dated August 10th relating to the Tax In- crement Financing case. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Special Council meeting for consideration of the 19B1_-8�2 City Budget and Public Hearing for Special Asessments for September 22, 1981 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to set a special Council meeting for consideration of the 1981-82,City Budget and Public Hearing i for Special Assessments for September 22, 1981, at 7:30 p.m, Motion carried unanimously, D. Report of Director of Community Services 1, Request from the Hockey Association of Eden Prairie (HAEP) Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to the request from the HAEP regarding moving the present Forest Hills warming house to the Middle School rink for exclusive use by the Hockey Association and construction of a new warming house at Forest Hills School, 66 City Council Minutes -11- August 18, 1981 Larry Anderson, representing the HAEP, spoke to the demand for rinks in Eden Prairie -- both for hockey and free skating. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to move the present warm- ing house in use at forest Hills School to the Middle School for use by the Ilockey Association of Eden Prairie and to construct a new warming house at Forest Hills School. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Red- path, Tangen, and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to extend the meeting beyond the 11:30 p.m. time of adjournment. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Community Center Capital Outlay Director of Community Services Lambert referred to the Budget and Capital Outlay Request which had been submitted to the Council prior to tonight's meeting. Community Center Manager Pappas was available to answer questions re- garding the various expenditures. City Manager Jullie explained that the $95,000+ request would be reduced to about $50,000 because some money has been set aside for furnishing the Center. MOTION; Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the Budget and Capital Outlay Request as outlined in Lambert's August 6, 19819 memorandum. Motion carried unanimously. The Council asked that the original estimates be included with the items as they are bid. 3. Riley Lake Park Director of Community Services Lambert addressed the problem of access at Riley Lake Park. He stated that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the proposal last evening and had re- commended its approval. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to realign Riley Lake Road at an estimated cost of $34,639. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen, and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. Homeowners in the Riley Lake Area will be notified of these pending improvements. 1 fir] City Council Minutes -12- August 18, 1981 E. Report of City Engineer 1. Resolution approving plans and specifications for the improvement of the I-494/CSAH 18 interchange, State Project No. 2785-190, 207 Resolution No. 81-166) Penzel suggested that approval be contingent on Washington Avenue exits onto CSAH 18. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue this item to the September 1, 1981, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Consider resolution rescindinq Resolution No. 352, restrictinq home construction until public improvements are constructed -- Nicholson property on Valley Road Resolution Now City Engineer Dietz spoke to the Nicholson request. Mrs. Nicholson stated that several of the lots in the same area as her lots have been sold and/or built on since this Resoltuion was j passed. Edstrom wondered if an inequity was being created. The question of City sewer and water not being available in this area is a consideration since quite a few lots could be built on and would possibly create problems with the well water and septic tanks. Nicholson said that at least one piece of property had been subdivided since 1970. Jullie explained that that had been an administrative land division. The particular lot in question has not been built on yet. Tangen felt a true inequity had been created and questioned administrative land divisions. MOTION: Tangen moved,seconded by Edstrom, to defer this matter to Staff i to come up with a recommendation as to how to handle this issue and sub- sequent issues of this nature. This matter will be deferred to the Sep- tember 1, 1981, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. I Bentley asked that a map be included showing what land is available. Edstrom requested information as to the cost of sewer and water in this area. 3. Award contract for Sunnvbrook Road In rove^:ents I.C. 51-381 Resolution No. 81-1G9 MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to accept the low bid of $115,973.85 by Kenco, for the Sunnybrook Road Improvements. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen, and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously, City Council Minutes -13- August 18, 1981 j' IX. NEW BUSINESS C. There was none. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 1 t � - I,: i g f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST September 1, 1981 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family) James F. Johnson HEATING & VENTILATING B & C Heating & Air.Conditioning PLUMBING Loren Brown Plumbing Ray Peterson Surma Plumbing Co. C SOLICITORS LICENSE Steve Kurr Erik Johnson These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the lice jed activity. Pat So tie, Licensing Clerk February 3, 1981 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 081-04 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE STREET NAME OF WEST 168TH AVENUE TO CHATHAM WAY IN CHATHAM WOOD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: The street name West 168th Avenue from Whittington Walk to Townline Road (West 62nd Street) within the plat of Chatham Woods, is herein changed to Chatham Way. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of (; Eden Prairie this 3rd Day of February, 1981,. and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 19 G gang,H. !Penze Mayor ATTEST: SEAL ff- Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 81-180 WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 90441, for the purposes of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to terminate the Agreement and execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 10378; BE IT RESOLVED, that the current .Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 90441 be terminated effective September 30, 1981 and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 10378, be executed effective October 1, 1981, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. The question was on the adoption of the resolution, and upon a vote being duly taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and, the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON SAID RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS { - - DAY OF 1981. Wolfgang H. enzel, Mayor ATTEST: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager SEAL lc�d Contract No. 10378 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", and the CITY OF Eden Prairie hereinafter referred to as "CITY", said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS I For purposes of this'Agreement, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "The Act"means the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Title I, of Public Law 93-383, as amended (42 USC 5301 et.seq.). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to-the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD"means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Community"means any city or town in Hennepin County / which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical 1 to this Agreement. E. "Strategy" means that portion of the Community Development Block Grant Application entitled "Comprehensive Strategy" and which is developed by the County in conjunction with cooperating communi- ties pursuant to the Regulations. F. "Planning Area" means the various regions of Hennepin County as adopted for purposes of the Act by County Resolution 80-10-820. The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR $70.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. I1. PURPOSE y CITY and COUNTY have determined that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY qualify as an urban county within the provisions of the Act. This Agreement contemplates that identical agreements will be executed between COUNTY and other cities and towns in Hennepin County which do not qualify as metropolitan cities under the Act in such number as will enable COUNTY to so qualify under the Act. The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and CITY to cooperate in undertaking, or assisting in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing pursuant to community development block grants as authorized by the Act and the Regulations. III. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period comencing on the effective date of 3ctober :, 1981, and terminating no sooner than the and of program year ton (X) covered by the application for the basic grant amount approved by HUD subsequent to the effective date. This Agreement is extended automatically for each subsequent three year program period unless written notice of te:mination to be effective at the end of the three year program period is given by CITY to COUNTY following the same schedule as the "opt out" notifications requirements established by HUD. COUNTY shall provide written notification to CiTY of CITY'S right to "opt out" and terminate this Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to "opt out" date. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated at the end of the three year application period during which HUD withdraws its designation of Hennepin County as an Urban County under the Act. i This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of ,. j CITY and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the CiTY in the office of the Hennepin County Administrator, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed ilater than September 10, 1981. IV. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES i CITY agrees and will undertake and attempt to carry out within the term of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist CITY in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. A. CiTY further specifically agrees as follows: �) 1. It will in accord with a COUNTY established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, a Three Year Community Development Plan for program Years V1II, IX, and X I which principally benefits low and moderate income persons i in accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 570 subpart D(570.300 et__.__s�ee and the strategy as the basis of the t annual granunding request. 2. It will submit to COUNTY, to a prescribed form, as appropriate for program Years VIII, IX, and X an annual program for implementation of the Three Year Community Development Program for use of the allocated basic grant funds. 3. It will use ail funds received pursuant to this Agreement for each annual program within twenty-four (24) months of the approval by HUD of the basic grant amount. Expenditure period i extension may be approved by COUNTY, upon CITY submission of a revised activity implementation schedule, e.g., a program amendment. r 4. It will take actions necessary to accomplish the community ! development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan. 5. It will ensure that all programs and or activities funded in part or full by grant funds received pursuant to this agree- Pent will be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair 1 housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It will in implementing all programs and or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with all applicable federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and j regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities. 6. It will participate in the citizen participation process as established in the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. It shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, all necessary application documents, including the " Urban County Housing Assistance Plan, for a basic grant amount under the Act. Such application shall, to the maximum extent feasible, consider the actions taken by CITY in support of the Comprehensive Strategy, Housing Assistance Plan goals, together with citizen participation, the Act and any other ' ! relevant Minnesota and/or Federal statutes or regulations. i In setting such priorities. COUNTY will consider the previous I performance of CITY in the expenditure of funds received under \_ the Act in order to fulfill COUNTY'S responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. 2. it ;hall provide. to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to CiTY in the preparing and submission of the grant applications. 3. it shall provide ongoing technical assistance to CiTY to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the Community development program and housing assistance goals. + The parties mutually agree to cooperate fully in the preparation of the Application for a basic grant amount. In such preparation the parties will follow the provisions of the Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan as stated in County Resolution 80-10-820 and any subsequent amendments. 4. It shall upon CITY'S request agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to this Agreement, provided that an amount equal to 7% of the funds allocated by CITY to such activities shall be retained by the COUNTY for reimburse- ment of administrative expenses associated with the CiTY'S local housing rehabilitation grant program. CITY and COUNTY agree that COUNTY shall establish reasonable time schedules for the submission of the Three Year Community Development Plan for Years VIII, I% and % and appropriate annual plan implementation program by CITY to COUNTY to insure such timely submission and to protect the rights and interest of CITY and other cooperating communities. COUNTY shall communicate such time schedules to CITY. The parties mutually agree to comply with ail applicable require- ments of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY'S responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Art, including the development of applications pursuant to 24 CFR 570.300 et. seg. V, ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allocated as follows: ! A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (100) of the total basic grant j amount for purposes of defraying its costs associated with program planning and administration. This does not include special costs incurred in assuming subgrantee project implementation responsi- - bilities such as total housing rehabilitation grants. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be allocated by COUNTY i to CITY and other cooperating communities in accordance with the following formula for the purpose of allowing the cooperating communities to plan for the application. This amount is only an estimate and is not guaranteed by the COUNTY. i The CiTY and each cooperating community shall use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of r the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: . i 1. The population of CITY and the population of ail cooperating communities. 2. The extent of poverty in CITY and the extent of poverty in ail cooperating communities. 3. The extent of housinq overcrowded by units in CITY and the extent of housing overcrowded by units in all cooperating communities. 4. in determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. it is the intent of this paragraph that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth 1 i 1 �8�5 in 42 CFR 507.102(b). The COUNTY shah develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished such date independently y no duty andassu l assumes no liability he COUNTY s for any errorso ina the rdata- furnished by HUD. in the event that CITY cannot commit, expend, does not apply for or cannot qualify for a community development block grant, or a portion thereof, COUNTY will within 60 days of the annual grant approval date, conduct a public hearing to reallocate the unexpended or unallocated grant funds to a Planning Area Contingency account. The reallocation will in- clude funds pursuant to Article IV paragraph A. 3. of this Agreement. COUNTY will inform each participating community of their Planning Area's Discretionary Grant account balance and will provide the opportunity to CITY to make application for all or a portion of the funds, All requests for Planning Area Contingency account funds shall be submitted according to a IOUNTY established application process and in a form prescribed by COUNTY. VI. SPECIAL_PROVISIONS Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent or otherwise modify or abrogate the right of CITY or COUNTY to submit indivi- applications for dcurnfunds does not receive des Ignation as anban county under the Act. CITY and COUNTY mutually agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other from any claims, losses, costs, expenses or damages resulting from the acts or omissions of their respective officers, agents and employees relating to activities conducted by either under this Agreement, the Act or the regulations. ? in the event there is a revision of the Act and/or Regulations which would make this Agreement out of compliance with the Act and/or ` items necessay artto bringsthe will Agreement this int Agreement compliance�d renegotiate those Both parties understand and agree that the refusal to renegotiate this Agreement will result in the effective termination of the Agreement as of the date it is no longer in compliance with the Act and/or Regulations. ViI. FINANCIAL MATTERS i Reimbursement to the CITY for expenditures from implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form Hennepin County Warrant Request, ;. and supporting documentation. - ' 7 All funds received by the COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to the CITY for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under.the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. CITY and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the COUNTY to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. CITY and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matt-rs covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no nlncumea period of less than three years from the last receipt or program resulting from activity implementation. COUNTY shalt perform all audits of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. All program income from activities funded in total or part from the basic grant amount received by CITY shall be returned to COUNTY. lick� COUNTY shall make returned program income funds available to CiTY by increasing the generating project budget. C CITY, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 19 and pursuant to such approval and the proper County offic a'�Ts Fiav7—ng signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the pro- visions herein set forth. f Upon proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MiNNESOTA Agreement will be legally valid and binding By .. a nnan of its CZR4757oar And ilyWiN County Administrator Assistant County Attorney Date: &/0 !J ATTEST: Deputy County Auditor� Approved as to execution: CITY OF Assistant County Afforney By is Date: And is CiTY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: t . I �'r"n1C an Starter -- - I Ul0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City-Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Stephen Calhoon, Park Planner i DATE: August 27, 1981 SUBJECT: Round Lake Park Irrigation System On Thursday, August 27, 1981, the City received, opened and publicly read the bids for installation of the irrigation system at Round Lake Park. The following bids were received: Aqua City Irrigation $14,800 Aqua Engineering, Inc. 14,824 { Sprinkler Systems 15,980 1 Natural Green, Inc. 17,485 Staff recommends that the project be awarded to Aqua City Irrigation for $14,800. All work is to be completed by October 20, 1981. Funds ._ for this project are derived from the 1979 Park Bond Referendum. Staff estimated this part of the irrigation system (installation of underground pipe and sprinkler heads) to be approximatley $20,000. Staff would also like to bring t) the attention of the Council that NSP has quoted a cost of $11,500 to-bring three phase wiring underground from County Road 4 to the well and the park shelter. SC:md I 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Servicerpe--- DATE: August 28, 1981 SUBJECT: Community Center Fire Protection Change Order In July of this year, the City Council authorized a change order for fire,protection not to exceed $25,000. City staff has finally received all of the costs for this change and request approval of this project. The proposal request indicates a cost of $5,027 for extension of the 6" water service inside the building; $532.00 for the installation of a standpipe riser in the southeast corner of the _ arena;and $22,978 for the sprinkler system in the area. There is also a proposed cost of $3,590 for sprinkler systems to the pool equipment room, the regrigeration system mechanical room, Zamboni room, the hockey team locker room and the figure skating club locker room. Staff recommends approving the first three items, but deleting the fourth item at this time. This extension can be provided in the future for approximatley the same amount of money. Total cost for the first three items is $28,537. As part of the previous fire protection plan, the City had provided a plaster ceiling over the bleacher area in the ice arena. This is not needed if the arena has a sprinkler system, therefore, Magney Construction has quoted a credit of $9,200 for eliminating the plaster ceiling. The net cost to the City for the fire protection package is $19,337. BL:md SmIkYlQloltor Associates Architects S.C.Smiley.EA.LA. 102t LaSalle Avenue Englnssrs J.11.Glollac A.I.A. minaeapotts,Mmnesola 55403 Planners P.Y.Leiaerman,A.I.A. 6121332.1401 Interior Designers Q.R.Nyberg,A.I.A. August 27, 1981 Mr. Robert Lambert City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Re: Eden Prairie Community Center Comm. No.: 8002 { Dear Mr. Lambert: Enclosed is copy of quotation from Magney Construction for credit to delete the plaster ceiling over the Bleacher Area of the Ice Arena in the amount of $9,200.00. This is in conjuction .with the proposed sprinkling and should be credited against the sprinkler Change Order to give you a true cost for the fire protection change. We will write a separate Change Order for the credit when the total package is approved by the City Council. Please call if there are any question. Sincerely, SMILEY GLOTTER ASSOCIATES . XRCuY ERC:ln G 18�� GENERAL CONTRACTORS I f 2724 FERNBROOK LANE•MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 1� ,f L C { I, � 1 i[LI►M0Ne (�IS)SSt•SS�i CONSTRUCTION CO. August 17, 1981 Smiley Glotter 1021 LaSalle RE: EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER Mpls., Mn. 55403 Dear Pete; In,receipt of your letter dated August 11, 1981 regarding the deletion of the plastered ceiling at the bleacher area in the hockey rink the credit due is $9200.00. Also, your field report dated July 29, 1981 item #7 is eliminating an overflow scupper. If you would like this removed please issue a memo stating that this would be an extra to the contract. If you have any furthur questions regarding the above, please contact me. Sincerely, David Brellenthin DB/rl COMMERCIAL �A " C INDUSTRIAL _.. _ ........,...._. nc.....,u..,av_cum 4VrL - .. VROPOSAL AO CHITECT Q r uQUESY CON('TRACTOR Q IFIEL AIA OOCUWNT C709 OTHER t PROIcCT: PROP05AL REQUEST NO: M-6 m Inac,ajd,"s) Eden Prairie Comm. Center Eden Prairie, Minn. OWNER: City of Eden Prairie• DATE: ' August~13, 1981 TO: IConuaclor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: r Rainbow Mechanical 8002 7241 County Road #116 CONTRACT FOR: • Hamel, MN. •55340 Mechanical Work :. L. J CONTRACT DATED: OC t• 1, 1980 Please submit ,. i:emized quotation for changes in Ih•: Contract Sum and/or Time incidental to proposed rnodo,c • iwns to the C.Mract Documents described herein. THIS 15 NOT A CHANGE ORDER NOR A DIREC'fl•JN TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK DESCRIBED HiR(IN Description: N%,at-dm,-Pv0n or.he Work) 1. Install 6" water service from existing water main to zamboni room complete with street shut-off as.'shown on attached drawing. P':pe shall terminate 6" above the building floor with a 6xI1, 8 hole CIP flange properly I ( two-holed. Pipe shall be installed plumb and level , rodded and clamped as per NFPA. The pipe shall be test- ed and flushed. Test Certificates shall be provided as per NFPA. All work standards and methods shall be as per original contract documents. Amount $ 5027.00 2. Provide and install standpipe riser in South East.' corner of arena as shown on attached drawing. Pipe shall terminate above bottom of bar joist in arena for i future connection to sprinkler system. This work was authorized on a time and material basis to avoid delay AUachrneN :�W1Sd 1'dl.C,t i,o,rLr�,chmdu,)ra.. Amount 532.00 3. Provide and install approved sprinkler Sys teii in arena as per attached drawing. System shall connect to standard provided in Item #2 o-P this Proposal Request. Amount 22978.00_ 4. Provide alternate price to extend sprinklers to rooms designated on drawing. Amount 3590.00 ARCHI'(CT: BY: f MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: August 28, 1981 SUBJECT: Round Lake Park Shelter Change Order Attached is information for Change Order #4 and Change Order 05 for the Round Lake Park Shelter. Change Order #4 is a request by staff for the City Council to consider providing a modification to the concession stand at the Round Lake Park Shelter that would provide a concession window to the interior as well as to the exterior. As previously indicated, staff feels that this concession stand could be operated as a substation of the concession stand at the Community Center during the winter months, as well as during the summer season. The City could also offer concession services to groups that are renting this facility, generally from mid-May through mid-October. Cost for this change order request is $4,032. The final change order for Round Lake Park Shelter, Change Order #5 included three items. The first item is a proposed addition of 12' to the concrete deck that will face Round Lake. The existing deck is 20x52 feet. Staff would recommend expanding that deck to a 32x52 foot deck. Approximately 4' of the existing deck is under the overhang and required for pedestrian traffic to and from the concession stand. Staff would recommend putting several picnic tables on this deck for the convience of the users of the concession stand and therefore feel the deck should be extended. The original contract called for the Contractor to extend water and sewer five feet from the building, because at the time of the contract staff did not know when the water and sewer would be available from Luther Way. Water and sewer has been extended from Luther clay to within approximately 40' fo the building. The cost to make the connection is $2,855. The final change is brought about due to the decision to irrigate Round Lake Park ballfields. Due to the size of the pump required for irrigating those ballfields three phase electrical is required. This required a modification in the panel. Staff also requested the engineer to provide electrical panel modification to handle . the possible future lighting system for the ballfields as proposed earlier this year, as well as lights for the parking lots. Total cost of the i modification of the electrical panel and wiring is $1,500. Total cost of Change Order #5 with the 7% profit for the General Contractor is ( $5,972. BL:md �g�a OWNER ❑ � IIEY Gl0TTEFT A;SOCiAII CHANGE ARCIUIECT C[J� O AHCII' :1S E u/t, F'l ORDER COI14TRACToR Q tfy11 lA5',t llC OM AtFWUE 61231111 FIEED ❑ MINNEAi'(Xi', MiNNESOtA 5 t AIA POCUM[NT C701 OTHER PROJECT: Eden Prairie Park Shelter CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 4 (name,address) City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road August 14, 1981 TO (C nlraclor) Eden Prairie, M14 55343 ,, ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8002-D Jordahl Construction Co. CONTRACT FOR: All Construction 16340 Dayton River Road Dayton, MN 55327 L J CONTRACT DATE: March 16, 1981 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: All work necessary for,Owner requested concession stand modifications as outlined in SGA memos dated July 13 and July 15, 1981. ADD: Masonry $ 400.00 Steel $ 427.00 i Hollow Metal $1105.00 Hardware $ Tile 58.00 Paint $ 95.00 Millwork $ 235.00 % Plumbing $ 445.00 Elec. $ 475.00 crrpentry $ 465.00 Gen. Req. $ 200_00 TOTAL 402 .00 plaiUC7: Accordian Door Q 270.00) Subtotil $3751.00 7 M P&0 $.281.00 TOTAL 4032.00 S 149,775.00 The otir;inal Contract Sum w,is . . . . . . . . . . . • • . $ 5,150.00 Nei r nge III, previous Change Orders . . . . . • ' • . • ' ' . ,, , , • $ 154,925.00 ? the r ••t att Sum pnor to this Change Order was. . r I IIe l.,niract cum will be (increased) 17 LtC�i]S31 IcxlutJWNSbY this Change Order. S 4,032.00 ; . S 158,957.00 i The nets Sum indud-rig this Change Order will be . . . . . . • . ' the Contr.t' '.nne will be by the Da it r' 'iplction as of the dale of this Change Order therefore is [;milt) :;tt tc r P.ssociatts Jordirl•,Construction , .City—af."dcn-P=al} i t•n t - -- -- -- cu•.tl:s<ina _fit��i� Ed,�n Fr�iric_ . ':-Illn Avc. „____ ]6ti9Q__Aayt4lLRoTd Aadcs — — - si Address r ( , Da to , ?^1 327 Eden Prair c,_ MN . BY .!](/G_l Y _(5�l nAIE CHANGE OR N'RECT O ORDER CONTRACTOR ❑J FIELD ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER ( PROJECT: rden Prairie Park Shelter CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 5 (name,address)City of Eden Prairie 8950 rden Prairie Road August 25, 1981 TO (Contractdrlacn Prairie, MN 55343 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8002—D rJordahl Construction Co. CONTRACT FOR:All Construction , 16840 Dayton River Road Dayton, MN 55327 L CONTRACT DATE: March 16, 1981 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: All work necessary for the following owner requested modifications: 1. Extended concrete deck 12'-0" $1,200.00 2. Hook up for water & sewer (See attached Mech. proposal) $2,855.00 3. 3 phase Electrical addition & modifications (See attached Elec. proposal) $1,500.00 Sub-total $5,555.00 7% P & O $ 417.00 Total Add 5,972.00 The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 149,775.00 Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . • • • • • • ' • • • $ 9,182.00 The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 156,957.00 The Contract Sum will be(increased),(c3is�Ot U (unchanged)by this Change Order. . . $ 5,972.00 The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . $ 1G4,929.00 The Contract Time will be tsnctrascdtXdl eretnedi (unchanged)by ( J Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Smile�G_lotter. Associates _Jordahl Construction Co. City of Eden Prairie 4�S��tS'.E11aSa1l.e Avenue T6 IY6'Tay River Road k �,rb Eden Prairie Ron,; Address Address Address Minne�p Li IN 55403 Dayton, rIN 55327 Eden PrairieBy By , MN 5534 Fly- OAT i-1 DATE DATE ONE PA(.t AU 170 • Ts1E ; WNER PROPOSAL AO CHITECT n REQUEST FIELD fa f1EED (] AJA DOCUhifNT C709 OTHER' ( PROJECT: PROPOSAL REQUEST NO: (name,addreis) Eden Prairie Park Shelter OWNER: City of Eden Prairie DATE: 26 August 1981 TO: (Contractor) ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 80111 r Jordahl Construction Co. 16890 Dayton Road: COITRACT FOR: Mechanical anti Dayt, •, Minn. 55327 Electrical Work 1 - LAttn. ycott J CONTRACT DATED: ! Please submit an itemized quotation for changes in the Contract Sum and/or time incidental to proposed modifica• lions to the Contract Documents described herein. �. THIS IS NOT A CHANGE ORDER NOR A DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK DESCRIBED HEREIN. Description: M..uee a.,a anon nr,he Walki ELECTRICAL: ' Under this change the Electrical Contractor will provide and install the € following additional equipment: New Electrical Panel B, current trans- former cabinet, 30 meter socket, and.'100 amp, 3 pole fusible switch for j pump. Install original Panel A at new location where shown on attached pl.in. (Sheet EC-11 Feed original Panel A from New Panel B. Main 225 amp C.B. from panel A may be moved to Panel B to feed Panel A at Contractors option. Stub out empty conduits below grade, cap and mark location as shown on attached Plan Sheet EC-1. Install size 0 copper ground to water piping at street'side of water meter. Itemize material and.-labor. TOTAL ADD Aitae�unoRtl:-,MM-,«,therwnT.,T,h+R m;:.o'i•,ns]rm�om MECHANICAL: Install 11;" copper water service and 9" sanitary sewer from existing 4 locations to connect to city water and sewer services. 'these services l are located approximately 45' south ,west of building. Provide water shutoff valve per requirements t.r city. Itemize material and labor- calculations. TOTAL ADD ( r ARCHITECT! r By: Iq� AIA 011(t•AtN' C.'04 • I. r,i .1. ,1.. .1.1... ., 1'r lu r, . . .. . P.y, . ,Iq -. . r,\I 1'r' ,., PTa.)C\_ F3 TO 611- A IEDI kQl- 1 N SUk'_�ACG M0001-CD PAN��- „ +A A 400 AMP , 2 P O -C M A,t N ('' -, AI-XD 7-7.5 AM?. 2. PO--G G.E, TD 1=6E.D ;c iGu�AL PAar\r. A. Tvo'b t✓ANEI- YD KA�G (2p) vJE:r 1T�( S\mil G PDT E �;PAC.G`� t=D'k.. Ft�'U4:.G USG, FU�rNAC-E T>ZA�•1Si'ceMEr: cAc�:INc.�" I �-.,� .�... —WA'�E2. MT2 O NEW DISGoQwG.CT Fop- PUMP „ —2y2 w 3�410 Co.Vvv 1 i GP'-IGINAL TELE:- 3Uu A 10ka e;oX - —NEW PA4F-fL B I Yj C Ms'rY SNC t �� ELEC. ROOri M PLAIN � 1�-4 S O.L.TIAW , 26E`S-EA.Z/LW�'S�300 MCOI T14W AWM. PANEL A t+-- - -►- �-� e.MnT Y p.Jj' E;G Wv4 raC'A.DC_. CAN>¢ MAG'K I lJC:ar 1 pN 64'. ,a.-GAS'E oNa� DIAGRAM- Jr.,,• O.I�r,. .ull.ny rn�iiar.. .nl {I.,n..Iln i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ( RESOLUTION NO. .R81-183 RESOLUTION .ACCEPTING BID FOR VALLEY PLACE OFFICE PROJECT, I.C. 51-409 AND FRANLO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 51-331 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: I.C. 51-409, Valley Place Office Project I.C. 51-331, Franlo Road Improvements bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to i Richard Knutson Inc as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Richard Knutson, Inc, j in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of 168,705.35 in accordance with the plans and 1 specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file e in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on oligang 11 I'enzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk /��� SUMMARY OF ENDS I.C.51- 331 I.C. 51-409 DESCRIPTION: BIDS OPENED: August 27, 1981 10:00 AM CONSULTING ENGINEER: Rieke Carroll Muller Associates Inc. CHECKED BY: BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL AMOUNT Richard Knutson, Inc. 5% $168,705.35 0. & P. Contracting, Inc. 5% $176,780.98 Brown & Cris, Inc. 5% $177,862.20 Hennen Construction Co. 5% $1.84,816.00 * Northdale Construction Co., Inc. 5% $191,122.20 Burchville Construction, Inc. 5% $197,762.15 Ideal Enterprises, Inc. 5% $197,895.55 * ` Randall Contracting, Inc. 5% $204,092.25 G. L. Contracting, Inc. 5% $206,146.70 * Nodland Associates, Inc. 5% $208,872.00 Progressive Contractors, Inc. 5% $210,468.05 Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. 5% $220,872.50 i * Denotes mathematical error corrected. �iyCi/JAY t -CR7/,WA76 ODo.00 The undersigned recommend award of Contract to: Richard Knutson, Inc. as the low t responsible bidder for this Improvement Contract. C Consulting Engineer W-uve �Diet,4, f Director of Public Works/City Engineer Ix'I`d� ' 1 August 27, 1981 F MEMO i ( TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager v� ` DATE: August 27, 1981 RE: Signals at Intersection of T.N. 169 and North Entrance to Hennepin County Vo-Tech School The Council agenda includes a resolution approving an agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and the Minnesota Department of Transportation which would remove the temporary signal installation at the above captioned intersection and provide a permanent installation. Briefly, the following is a list of features that will be contained in the finished project: i 1. The entrance to Creek Knoll Road will be removed and a j cul-de-sac constructed; 2. The entrance to the Vo-Tech School just north of Sunny- brook Road will be closed (a wooden barrior will be erected and an emergency entrance will be maintained); ( 3. Concrete median will be constructed; 4. The northern entrance to the Vo-Tech School will be relocated to approximately 150 feet north of the existing location and be constructed with two out- bound lanes separated by a median from the one inbound lane; 5. T.H. 169 will have a left turn lane and two thru lanes going northbound and a left turn lane, two thru lanes and a right turn lane southbound; the second thru lane in both directions merge. to one lane over a distance of approximately 1500 feet in each direction; 6. The signals to be installed will be the fully actuated type; and 7. The agreement indicates an aooroximate price of R91,4nn,00 The City and the State will be required to provide an equal share of the cost (11.63% each) and the balance will be from Federal Aid Funds. City Manager Jullie will be discussing the project with the head of the Vo-Tech School and may be able to secure a portion or all of the City's share from that source. i Sept.1., 1981 j a CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RBI-184 T.H. 169/VO-TECH ENTRANCE SIGNAL AND INTERSECTION AGREEMENT WITH MN/DOT WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minne- sota has prepared plans, special provisions and specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No. 5, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 169, within the corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie, from 200 ft. So. of Creek Knoll Road to 200 ft. south of Research Rd. and seeks the approval thereof: NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within said corporate limits of the City, be and hereby are approved including the elevations and grades as shown and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in grade occasioned by said construction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the cor- porate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway, to be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any crosswalks on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL ,Sohn D. Frane, Clerk c MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL f AGREEMENT NO. 60516 i BETWEEN - THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA TO t _ !_ Remove the existing temporary and install a permanent Traffic Control Signal and Street Lights and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 169 at the North Entrance to the Hennepin County Vocational Technical School in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. t S.P. 2744-32 F.P. F 005-2(61) Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVPBLE AMOUNT ENCU•iNERED Cite of_1:.3en Pr��irie $11,267.61 None -- Otherwise Covered -IMP) THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter 'i referred to as the "State", and the City of Eden Prairie, t hereinafter referred to as the "City", WITNESSETH: i WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is justification and it is in the public's best interest to install a is permanent traffic control signal and street lights and signing and 9 remove the existing temporary traffic control signal on Trunk Highway No. 169 at the North Entrance to the Hennepin County Vocational Technical School; and , WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the traffic control f signal and street lights, signal removal and signing work is a eligible for 76.74 percent Federal-aid Funds; and WHEREAS, the City and State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of said traffic control signal and street lights, signal removal and signing as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The State shall piepare the necessary plan, specification and proposal and shall perform the engineering and inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set forth. Such work as described immediately above shall constitute "Engineering and Incpcction and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 60516 -1- a ( 2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials and equipment rental required to complete the work, except the cost of providing the power supply to the service pole or pad shall constitute the actual"Construction Cost" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 3. The State with its own forces and equipment or by y - contract shall remove the existing temporary traffic control signal and provide a permanent traffic control signal and street lights in accordance with State Project No. 2744-32 on Trunk Highway no. 169 at the North Entrance to the Hennepin County Vocational Technical School. Participation in the Construction ( Cost is 50 percent State and 50 percent City of the amount remaining after the Federal-aid participation. Estimated Construction Cost for said work is $91,400.00 which includes $11,400.00 for State force account work. City's share is 11.63 percent. State's share is 11.63 percent. Anticipated Federal-aid share is 76.74 percent. 4. The State shall install or cause the installation of overhead signing and shall maintain said signing all at no cost to the City. 5. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in writing by the State, the City shall advance to the State an amount equal to its share of the cost based on the actual bid 60516 -2- i price and the actual Federal-aid Share plus the estimated cost for State force account work plus 6 percent of such amount for the City's share of the cost for Engineering and Inspection. 6. Upon final payment to the Contractor and computation of the City's share for the work provided for herein, that amount of the funds advanced by the the City in excess of the City's share will be returned to the City without interest and the City agrees to pay to the State that amount of the City's share which is in excess of the amount of the funds advanced by the City. 7. The City shall install or cause the installation of an adequate electrical power supply to the service pad or pole including any necessary extensions of power lines, and upon completion of said traffic control signal with street lights installation the City shall provide necessary electrical power for j its operation and shall maintain the street lights at the cost and expense of the City. 8. Upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 3 hereof: the State shall maintain and keep in repair the traffic control signal except for relamping, cleaning and painting, at its cost and expense, and the City shall relamp, clean and paint the traffic control signal at its cost and expense. 9. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of the 60516 -3- t City and any and all claims that may or might arise under the worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of { said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated {� herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility of the City. The State shall not be responsible under the Worker's Compensation t Act for any employees of the City. 10. All timing of all traffic control signals provided for herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except with the approval of the State. 11. Upon execution by the City and State and completion of the aforesaid work this agreement shall supersede and terminate the maintenance and service provisions for Trunk Highway No. 169 at the Vocational Technical School North Entrance contained in Agreement No. 597431.1 between the parties dated April 30, 1980. All other terms and conditions of Agreement No. 59743M shall remain in full force and effect. 60516 -4- mg F i CITY OF rDEN PRAIRIE APPROVED AS TO FORM: j By _ City Attorney Mayor (City Seal) By City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPAP.TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By - Dostrict Engineer. Assistant Conanissioner Operations Division Dated APPROVED AS TO FCRM AND EXECUTION: DEFAIiTI•fEld7' OF ADDIINIS7'RATICN By Special rssistant Attorney -- General - State of Minnesota Dated 60516 -5- IE')9C- RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie enter into an agreement with the State of. Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to-wit: Remove the existing and provide a permanent traffic control signal and street lights and i signing on Trunk Highway No. 169 at the North Entrance to the Hennepin County Vocational Technical School in accordance with the terms and condi.t•ions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 60516, a copy of which was before the Council. { t HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers } be and hereby are. authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. i i CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Eden Prairie I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of. the City of Eden Prairie at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , •1981 , as shown by the xinutes oof said meeting in my possession. City Clerk (seal) I g f� CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE September 1, 1981 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 81-185 RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE �. ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF 1981 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND SETTING HEARING DATE WHEREAS, contracts have been let for the following listed improvements and the total project cost, including expenses incurred, or to be incurred and the City's share, exclusive of that assignable to City property, are established as follows: AMOUNT TOTAL CITY TO 8E PROJECT COST $) FUNDS($) ASSESSED ($) (See attached Exhibit A) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. The cost of such improvements to be specially assessed are hereby declared to be those as set forth above. 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be assessed for each improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. A hearing shall be held on the 22nd day of September, 1981, in the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessments. 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessments to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing.. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of record of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penze Mayor ATTEST: SEAL l GX(� I i �.N C •-+ A w >,o -1fi 9 N •-+ --4.a w v 3 N N .. O N N .. 7m .h, 77O7 wzwh wO =mm c+w "(Dr+w - E aa"I a< o �•i i waao Oo = 0 n c)m m i+m o m rr a m rt ar' n, S^S �• ^1 w S Z 7 m w rt N N O N �} w N N�c v O .+ J -h S.++ w w o i+w ov- o wo swK N s ONT A Sa ro i a •-.o o s i �o mac o w aN w c+� -ham A3 w c 3 �w a E w o F N C. 3 + .n r c m r m •v .p Z (A ».rD N r, N w m N oo N w N a w x a^S -� < f7 -s ryry v, a a i m 00 n EhE 7c •O 7cp m 0 D 0 OO.1•• F O Z w m a - •t, 3 .�"I < • 7 ^1 O m Z C N N O m c+ N O N mow ry �•w N ^S O a m m C 3 F w O H Aca C, w l Z ' Z a. w oaw -c w �m0- rn�•NF a � w 7cw0 OwN m �•.+�+ d•v Z<< Na m �� m -s � w S a •a m w o -.•�n .-s v m -s rn9 w N m� Nm ao;aZ ia7 w � 7 hw -9F moK 7�. . N ai+ OaSO < a3 7 i00 N N ws {G a m 06 Z c< _ T m � � a + a V m an o -Lrl + 64 N V N W A r O N V V w N 01 O U) P kO N m n N N 3 m N i i i i W V ja W V N Cif 01 N C .. r i 1 iA pp C M a A ?Ln CIO N r 00 yl ko C O 0000 rn 00 o m m Ln N m v i to c v rn 33 cn O a am m K d m 1+a � N t6 N a - '+ f7 d= O 3 f7 = O � f7 i.D '+ C 1 7 0 '+ C) a m M '+ m (D 0 a J a c v _C a 1 7 7 fD lG 1 O fD IG I a a I 6 fD a 1 p w E w 7E w 's fD w lew C. N fD 01 t fD N C1 3 fD N C1 7r> > Ln a fD A rn .v3 �a N as m (+ N a N + ov a ma 's s =r 1+ a � a m c.o (D a i m 15. `+ + m S 1+01 a 1Nr o a o 1+ 1+011 N 7 d m 'Y XrNryo 7 rh m . m VI Ian N 1'f 3 a'i 3 w c+'i m Js ro •a n�.a a o f m • Ic o -s- �.z. � -. z. o 0o a� o alp (D ' I m� orm 1 fD f+ 1 s VI i I C O b9a ce4i, coo fn a � r w o A o to o V) ,4A /.T co to w n S - r m a =1 CA 3 rn _ 3 m N 1 1 1 1 < co O O O O C O I j a o i c z W Vl A ? to 01 O OD O to O co A OD to O Oo (T A to rn N N rn N i. c I I .L i 0 O Z n rD d a rD N 6 ro It d v � a w J `" ~ a o r� 14 �� �w r<pa J �rra r'co m w > > w K w to M W 0 m i > >•r�o K ro r�o K O co N oo co m cwp 11 AD N fro w O.C rr N w n N ro N n Z O a 'S ro a rn cn m w = rho oWm � d nwr�o rt w n a x n o.: a n = ct Now nN0 -5 tort I.w < � -J f .�+m n,z `+ o n < Le+ r<o 2 rn rt typo .rp,+z w Drr'o N,o M -S a N 3 N n< Z N W ...•o �•O �• 7 pr rp 7 O < < r O n w <w o rn w CAC Ln,Tt N M D m rn N O V Wcn r C7 X o-r = J V 00: A A N r W m 3 rn 2 0 0 o O O T c i i r i r 0 N i i o <n to w tp N Z W 01 CT 1O V N O Ln O V N N m D N N rn m rn O • E; I I co ao v o, m a F F r+ c -o w'ar+� n a0 n -3 o3 K r m '< m m m 'D a K's m ;+ -s r+3 m r OO - Oae+ mC+ -s w a m F < a < a J <w a J m 1•+ n w w 3 tp z m In s V a s e a m n w z a m w� w m 3E w o-"�� Iw < n = m m m -i Z o w ko T m a e+ m w F -s D m r+ m v, K-s m N -fi« a m COO, c 0 w m r w a F w F � m F s z a m a m m <o m m o_ a �a vDi a: a. io M a a F m rlw+w Nw F F -i7 a N c -s C+ c e+a a w F r+ Inr+m 0 -s r+ O x w m 3 m r+ s m m r+ m m z a a -s -s w K r+ K o� (A w In = a • a s eo IA IA L rn 0 o a N N m N O N m = w o Ul D W rm N D Ln 3 m z N 1 1 1 O O O 1 I 1 I t M M tq : N V+ 69 N co co O .p W N M W N 01 N N O N W m O Cl O O V N V N O N O O V 4J1 4J1 w O N September 1, 1981 t a CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA t RESOLUTION NO. R 81-186 ' RESCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING I.C. 52-DO4 i WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the . City Council on August 4, 1981, recommending the following improvements to wit. he of I.C. 52 DrainaStreetgbetween v ements in t vicinity h Washington Ave. and Shady Oak Rd. Street NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to M.S.A. Sect. 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated total cost of the improvements as shown. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 15th day of September, 1981, at t 7:30.P.M. at the Eden Prairie City Hall. The City Clerk shall give published' and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as required by law. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk I�81 August 27, 1981 MEMO . TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager DATF: August 27, 1981 RE. Drainage Improvements, Vicinity of West 69th St. and Washington Avenue, I.C. 52-004 The agenda contains a resolution which would reschedule the public hearing for the feasibility of the above captioned project to September 15, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. The feasibility report as prepared estimates the construction cost at approximately $34,500.00. The owners of the LeParc Industrial Park have applied for a building - permit on the parcels immediately adjacent to this drainage improvement area. It may now be possible to route drainage through their property (`with their consent), thereby creating the possibility of a substantial cost savings. We will explore this possibility in more detail and we hope to speak to this issue at the rescheduled public hearing. ( Minutes-Parks, Recreation & UNAPPRDVED Natural Resources Commission August 17, 1981 MEMBERS ABSENT: Kingrey b. Autumn Woods James Hill presented the proposal for rezoning 29 acres from Rural RL-13.5 and 13 acres from Rural to R146.5. Preliminary platting of' 38 single family lots and 46 duplexes. MOTIOr: Jessen moved to approve the Autumn Woods proposal per Staff recommendations and. locating rear lot line off railroad bed. Schwartz seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ira approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 10, 1981 ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. D. AUTUMN WOOD, by Dennis J. Truempi. Request for rezoning of 13 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 46 duplexes and 29 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 38 single family lots, and prelim- inary plat approval. Located east of TH 101 and south of Rymarland Camp. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Truempi and James Hill, architect, are present to give a presentation. Hill reviewed surrounding land uses and the location. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/6/81 and gave a slide presentation. Sutliff asked if Dell Road encroaches into Chanhassen. The Planner replied yes. Sutliff then asked if all roads will be rough graded until sewer and water are available. Hill replied that the road will be constructed in phases but that the road will not continue into phase III until sewer and water are available. Sutliff stated that he was concerned with the driveway width for the double bungalows on cul-de-sacs. { Hallett asked if the City has delt with Chanhassen regarding Dell Road. The Plan- ner replied yes. Torjesen asked if the lots next to the railroad are being combined into 2 lots at the suggestion of the City. The Planner replied yes to save woods. Torjesen then stated that if the only reason for 2 lots was because of the width, he would like 4. The Planner went on to explain that if the proponent makes 4 lots, they will have to go before the Board of Appeals and further stated that it should not go above 2 units/acre. Mr. Segner, 20 Hill St., Chanhassen, stated that he was concerned with water run-off going onto his property. Susan Staufer, 7500 Chanhassen Road,Chanhassen, stated that she was also concerned with water run-off and the traffic to be on 101. The Planner stated that the State Highway Department will have to issue a permit stating if the entrance onto 101 is possible and if a turn lane is necessary. He went on to explain that for phases I and 11, 400 trips are expected to be generated onto 101 which is expected to travel N and E. Bev Cronk, 18895 Pheasant Circle, stated she was concerned that traffic will go into Hidden Ponds 2, and further stated that she believed that when Rymarland Camp was approved, it was dependant upon sanitary sewer and waiter. She went on to explain that the water pressure in Hidden Ponds 2 is very bad and asked if sewer and water is in Dell Road now. The Planner replied no. ( Cronk then asked the price range. Truempi replied the duplexes would range from $65,000 - $85,000/dwelling unit; the single family would range from $150,000 - $300,000. He went on to say that they are constructing a road for the new water tower. 15Y? approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 10, 1981 Linda Schmitz, 19055 Deerfield Trail, asked if the trees between Rymarland Camp and the site will remain. Hill replied yes. Torjesen asked if the proponent will start construction without adequate water. Truempi replied no. a Torjesen asked what will be constructed up to Dell Road (before Dell Road is completed). Truempi replied the twin homes will be built. MOTION 1 Sutliff moved to close the public hearing on Autumn Woods Plat. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from ! Rural to RI-13.5 and RM 6.5 as per the 7/2D/81 plans and the 8/5/81 report with the following changes and/or additions to the staff report:. 8. Prior to final plat submission, the developer meet with the City Engineering Department and submit revised storm water, drainage and street name plans as requested herein paying particular attention to the surrounding land uses in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. 9. No building permits be requested for lots within phase 3 until such time as ( sanitary sewer is available for all roads. 11. That double car garages for each duplex unit be required. Gartner seconded. I DISCUSSION Gartner asked that 'No building permits be issued until adequate water is provided to service phase 3' be added as N12. Sutliff and Beaman agreed. Retterath then added that she would line "No similar structure be next to or across from each other' be added as N13. Sutliff agreed. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the plat dated 7/20/81 as per the 8/5/81 staff report with the same additions and/or changes as listed in motion 2. Retterath seconded, notion carried 6-0. nrlk�1;>ernra TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROtd: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services - DATE: August 13, 19111 ' SUTOLCT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Aut;jmn I 0dr, - -- -- PROPL7NEAT; Dennis J. Truempi 7lF.Ql1CST:_Jts;z_Qp¢�,2.ac.i�. s�xsm RUSal 1tT:-_]. .s�.n.�l .��r. €?-�m Fur,�l..to RM 6.5, Prelitmil�a lattang of si.n� f }t1l�i3'Ytsd �am46'�ii�p)lidi i.on and west LOCATION: 7�;as o_u ik Htgh=a�101�.�_ 0.__.1..s��---�-=— ppf DF11 rrtoad. BACFGRP7SU: lee P1,n"In. Stiff Report Dated: PART:AND RECIMAT10N 11LANRING CONCERNS , I. Type of dcvclopmentI Residential 2. Number of units in residential development: 84 3. Number of acres in the project: 42 4. Special recreation space requirements: No S. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks: Hidden Ponds Park is located northeast of this site on the cast side of Dell Roa . a. Affect on the park: Additional users will increase demand for services at that ark 1 6. Ncod fir a mini park: NO 7. Cash'park fee or land dedication? Cash Park Fee a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount based on existing ordinance will total: $2 3,850 b. If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated is N/A C. Bxisting or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property total N/A and will be paid prior to dedication. 8. Adjacent to existing or proposed trails: Proposed bi.Cycle/pedestrian path along the abandoned r�ilroad ricbt-o -t�aX lo�atcd between Rymarland Camp 2nd and this site. A. Type o trails rcyc i' de• rian b. Construction material This will eventually be an asphalt trail c. Width of trail B feet d. Party responsible for construction City City e. Landohnership of trail location:(dedicated. purchased, R011) y NATIMAL RLSOIIRCF. PNI SCRVAT709 COSCCR\S I. Site grading plan considers natural amrnitics o[the site. See Planning Staff Report page 2. !lost significant grading on the site: 3. Significant vegetation on the site. includes: The eastern half of this site is heavily aood.4.s7_��Y_uLC.mAP1C• oa1L,3nd_h�Sswood. 4. The site grading plan indicates preservation of: See Planning Staff Report page 2 S. Adjacent to public eaters: no a. Affect on waters: RErr.11:NCF CIIL'CK 1. Major Center Area Study: N/A 2. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Hidden bonds Neighborhood Park will serve this rve]onmcnt -- 3. Purgatory Creek Study,: N/A . 4. Shorcland Management Ordinance: N/A S. Floodplain Ordinance__ 6. Guide Plan: Depicts this area as low density residential. 7. Other: I i. 11LWPDIL•NDATI OSS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: The Planning pp 2. Planning Commission I:econmicndation: 9 Comonission recommended approval of this proposal as per the August 6, 1981 Planning Staff Report. 3. Community Services Staff Recomendations_Conmunity ServiCes Staff recotmnends approval as per the August 6 Planning Staff Report. i IpK� STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 6, 1981 PROJECT: AUTUMN WOODS APPLICANT: Dennis J. Truempi OWNER: Annie Pirha REQUEST: Rezone 29 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 and 13 acres from Rural to RM 6.5. Preliminary platting of 38 single family lots and 46 duplexes. BACKGROUND The City's Guide Plan illustrates this site as low density residential. It has been zoned Rural since 1969. To the west of the site is TH 101 and the Chanhassen border, to the north is Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition single family, to the south is the railroad and Chanhassen industrial, and to the east is proposed Dell Road. SITE CHARACTER The eastern half of the site is heavily wooded with mature maple, oak, basswood, etc. This corresponds to the proposed single family lots and will create high amenity lots as is evident in the heavily wooded portions of Rymarland Camp 2nd. Minimum grading for streets and utilities will preserve the majority of trees as has been accomplished in Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition. The western half is open land with a slope from the north to the south. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS_ All lots, both single family and duplex, meet or exceed ordinance require- ments for lot size and the overall density is 2 units/acre. Two single family lots, 19 & 20, Block 2, do not meet the requirement of 150' depth adjoining a railroad. In order to minimize grading into tine slope, the developer did not design the required depth. This type of a variance will have to go to the Board of Appeals for approval. i 1 3. Lot 9, Block 1, is an oversized single family lot. Staff has been informed that the developer, Dennis Truempi, intends to build his home there. Since ( the developer is self-employed, staff strongly recommends he be fully aware of home occupation conditions and limitations as outlined in Ord. 135. No setback variances are requested and none should be necessary as all lots meet or exceed minimum lot size requirements. Although only one enclosed garage space is required per unit,for the duplexes and the staff recommends 2 per unit in order to minimize on street parking. Staff Report-Autumn Woods page 2 t SITE PLAN hie grading plan does not significantly alter the existing drainage patterns on the site. The developer should contact the railroad company and receive approval of ditch drainage adjacent to the tracks. Prior to final plat approval, the following should be submitted to the Engineering Department: a. outfall elevations for ponds in Outlot D and Lot 1, Block 4; b. additional information on the drainage course northeast of the site; c. Street name changes for Autumn Woods Trail and Autumn Woods Lane; d. Realignment of Dell Road at the railroad. Since sanitary sewer service is not available to phase 3 at this time, no building permits will be issued until it is installed. Division of the duplex lots along a proposed common wall location is not depicted upon the plat. Engineering and Planning Staff recommends that this be done on the final plat so that each individual lot does not have to request a division. Outlot A is being reserved from platting into a lot until joint develop- ment and property lines are determined with the existing single family lot to the west. However, the long outlot parallel to Autumn Woods' northern boundary is owned by the City as a trail. Extension of this trail past outlot A will have to be taken into account by the developer. Bordering the north of this site is an abandoned railraod bed which was dedicated to the City at time of the Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition platting. A trail bed exists in this area but has not yet been hardsurfaced by the City. Access to this trail is gained off of Kristie Lane. As outlined in the submitted'material, "There will be three different floor plans, each floor plan having three different exterior elevations. With nine different options as to exterior design, no two exteriors will be built adjacent to each other or across the street, providing for a mixed neighborhood of exterior design." The staff supports the variety of duplex home styles as outlined,and suggests variety in floor plans, elevations, and garage placement also be included. TRANSPORTATION The street system layout connects to the existing Kristie Lane from Rymarland and intersects into Dell Road (presently under construction) according to City planning. Access and sight lines of Autumn Woods with TH 101 is subject to review and approval of the State HicJhway Department. They recommend a free right turn lane ffor north bound traffic be installed. Staff Report-Autumn Woods page 3 ( The western connection of this major trail with TH 101 occurs within this plat. Staff recommends the developer construct an B' wide asphalt path adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1's western side and along the north side of Autumn Woods Street to TH 101 (see figure 1). TH 101 is designated in the County bike trail system plan. CASH PARK FEE All lots will be subject to payment of cash park fee at time of building permit issuance. Presently the amount is $325/single family and $250/ duplex unit. To.lot construction does not seem to be necessary because of the location of a park east of the site. RECOMMENDAT TONS Planning Staff recommends approval of the Autumn Woods plat and zoning contingent upon the following: 1. Final plat depict division of each duplex lot into 2 lots. 2. and intersection f a 10 n lane as reco y the h edState Highway Department, 3. Construct an B' bituminous path within outlot A and along Autumn Woods as depicted in figure 1. A. All lots be subject to cash park fee payment. 5. Grading and utility plans be received and approved by Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District. 6. Developer must utilize a variety of floor plans for both the single family and duplex development as outlined herein. 7. Developer receive approval from the railroad company for the drainage course shown along the railroad ditch. g, Prior to final plat submission, the developer meet with the City Engineering Department and submit revised storm water , drainage& street name plans as requested herein. i 9. No building permits be requested for lots within phase 3 until such time as sanitary sewer is available. 10. That the developer receive minimum lot depth variance for Lots 19&20 from the Board of Appeals or redesign the plat to meet ordinance requirements. JJ:ss NOitM 1iPh I _fT_Att_�_ NIGIIWAY �_NO ,'�J CJI.L I r•L i r 13 IM CL \ :; , vi. i '�.®., �,•'' ,.1•pit 1'' t .I � ��•J. t:, t 1 CA a 1iC�l` (✓/f' �.�'i --• s a�� ✓'m`v .+ l.,.ti\+.. i tv �A•�/_`ti r,t ' � P G '1G�'•• X: 1 i ti t 1 :1' 1 i is �n � T`� ,,.� ��.. r •A.. \"t,� 1:..... jam....:i .. O ?si CO 1t? �1-i t• C Ail, jailicsR.Hill, inc VOLLINIIIAIIY PLAT PL AV,IsGA10(NCI'm,VICCONSULTA,VT. i„ 01 NN19 J 711111Np) '/� • •1t......r.,.I /n,r•..ix,..rr r.11l,..,OIr.1.00 ...'� i...•..: •...,.�,..INN I,.v.\r,t.. ...,n.�N.;..n,\,.�, .. 1 ` . I t*�HNt�9 Minnesota �Q Department of 'n-anslx>rttation r District Five ( F 5801 Dululh Street �Of Golden Valley, Minnr,Sola 55422 (612)545.3761 August 11, 1981 Mr. Chris Enger . Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 In Reply Refer To: 315 S.P. 2736 T.H. 101 - Plat Review of Autumn Woods Located North of the C.M.St.P. & P. RR and East of T.H. 101 in Part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 116, Range 22, City of Eden Prairie Hennepin County Dear Mr. Enger: 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 develop- ment with consideration of the following comments: - An entrance permit will be required for the proposed ; access to T.H. 101. The developer will be required to construct a right turn lane as a part of the street development. We assume access to all the proposed lots will be provided from the development streets only. i - We anticipate State daytime noise standards adjacent to T.H. 101 will be exceeded. The development should be planned in such a way that the effects from this are minimized. We suggest the use of building set backs, use of local topography or establishment of earth berms be investigated. It should be noted Mn/DOT will not provide any type of noise attenuation for new develop- ments adjacent to trunk highways. An Equal Opportunity Employer Chris Enger August 11, 1981 Page 2 As we have suggested before on T.H. 101, the city should require the developer to set aside additional right of �- way for apossible future improvements. In the past we have suggested an additional 27' be platted for this purpose. If you have any questions in regard to the above comments, please contact our District Layout., Research and Development Engineer, Mr. J. $. Katz, at 545-3761, ext. 150. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sinc rely W.'M. Crawford, E. I` District Engineer I' Cc: j Charles Weaver Mike Reiter i I I_ r, drnn lload Addition 7-20-81 I'rriric, MN J.R.H. DEVELOPER: Dennis J. Truempi (Contract Purchaser) 0326 Hiawatha Ave Eden Prairie, MN 55343 937-1500 BUILDER: Trumpy Homes 8326 Hiawatha Ave Eden Prairie, MN 55343 937-1500 FEE. OWNER: Richard S. Ryshavy and Mabel R. Moran, Gwardians of Annie Picha REQUEST: Rezoning from rural to RM-6.5 and R1-13.5; and preliminary plat approval SITE DATA: 42.13 Gross Acres 84 Dwelling Units; 2.0 DU/GA Single Family 20.50 AC 38 DU. Twin Homes 10.70 AC 46 DU. Outlets 4.25 AC - Row 6.60 AC - TOTALS 42.13 AC 84 DU. Single Family (Lots 7-15 Blk 1; Lots 18-26 Blk 2; Lots 1-13 Blk 3; Lots 1-7 Blk 4) Average Net SF 2.3,500 Minimum Net SF 15,000 Twin Horses (Lots 1-6 Blk 1; Lots 1-17 Blk 2) Av(,rage Not SF 20,260 (2 DU) j Minimum Net SF 15,000 (2 Du) i j 1 IBg3 }'np,e 2 /Autumn Woo(l:; Addition GI-111:RAL: The proposed site consists of 42.13 gross acres and is located adjaceni to the City of C),anhassen on the west, south of Rymer]and Camp 2nd art�ii+:i.on and north of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul. and Pacific Railroad The parcel is now rural; the proposal i.r; to r•czonc 13.35 AC RM-6.5 to build 46 DU of twin homes and rezone 28.n AC R1-13.5 to build 38 single family homes. The existing zoning adjacent to the site is multi-family (apartments) to the west, Ri-13.5 to the north, industrial to the outh, and rural (unp slatted) to the erect. The proposal for rezoning is consistant with the existing land use in that the request for RM-6.5 zone will be adjacent to apartments and industrial; whereas, F1-13.5 requested rezoning will be adjacent to the existing 111-13.5 on the north. Although the request is to build one and two family residential homes, the total number of 84 dwelling units are computable with the existing, residential community having a dens_ty of two dwelling units per acre. Access to the site will be from existing State Hwy. 107 and Dell Road. Entrance permit for Hwy. 101 has been applied for at . MnDot. Sanitary sewer and water is available from the Rymerland 2nd Addition to approximately half the site; the remainder of the site would have future access to sanitary sewer from the east. Drainage of the site is to the southeast, with a small part draining to the west which is smaller in acreage than what now flows to the west. The plat is designed to take advantage of south facing homes, the existing topography, and the existing tree cover. Trumpy Homes has had numerous calls for south facing lots; Autumn Woods will provide the opportunity to design solar homes for the buyers. MARKETING: Trumpy Homes will be the builder, of the one and two family )come. in Autumn Woods. It is anticipated that the single family home will he from 1200 to 3000 SF at a price range of $100,000 to $300,000; ) the twin home:, will be from 900 to 1100 p S)' at a price range of $ 5, 000 the city schedule for utiliti o 80,000. 1)cpendiug on t es in our proposed ' ould like to start a twin model home this, fall first phase, Trumpy Home: w s for sales and construction of the first phase. There will be 1.1ir-ce differcnt floor plains, each floor plan havinr three diffcrcnt Cxtcrior ele""ores. With nine different options as to exterior dc::ign, no two exteriors will. be built adjacent to Cach oi:har or acro:cs the.. :;trect., providing for It mixed neighborhood of exterior dcsirns. Page 3 Autumn Woods Addition l Schedule: Autumn Woods is anticipated to have three phases (additions) to complete the project in 1984-85. Developer requests the City to install utilities for the first phase (see attached drawing) and gravel the streets prior to this winter; the first phase will be graded if approvals are obtained. In that the initial construction is minor, it is hoped that the city can add our utility ertenti.ons to an existing city contract. The second phase will be developed in 1982; the third phase I would be platted and developed when the sanitary sewer is extended from the east to serve the parcel (1982-83). • i i r { Il9`J CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0, 81-173 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AUTUMN WOODS 8E IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Autumn Woods dated 7/20/81-rev_8/27/81 a copy of which is on file at the City Hall and amended as follows: r is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein I approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor Join D. Frane, City'Clerk SEAL 1�9� Minutes-Parks, Recreation & APPROVED Natural Resources Commission August 17, 1981 MEMBERS ABSENT: Kingrey a. Sundquist Addition Lee Johnson was present to request rezoning of 24 acres from Rural to R14 6.5. Preliminary plat of 37 acres into 46 duplex lots (92 units) and 12 acre outlot. MOTION: Jessen moved to approve Sundquist Addition proposal per Staff recommendations. Breitenstein seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. I�97 approved Planning Commission Minutes -1- August 10, 19B1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath B. SUNU UIST ADDITION, by Nils Sundquist. Request to rezone 20 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 37 acres into a 13 acre outlot and 46 duplex lots for duplexes (92 units). Located in the southeast corner of Baker Road and Valley View Road. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Lee Johnson was present representing Mr. Nils Sundquist. to give a presentation. Johnson reviewed the location, surrounding land uses, grading plans, road location, access, stated that the proposal meets Ord. 135 requirements, and that Outlot A will be dedicated to the City. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated B/7/B1. Bearman stated that a letter from Mr. Dan Smithwich dated August 7, 1981 was received and should be made part of the minutes. Sutliff asked if Outlot B will have access to the future park. The Planner replied yes. Sutliff then stated that he would like to have Outlot B added to recommendation #7 of the staff report. Retterath asked if the outlot will be part of the road if the proposed road is lined up to Baker Road. Johnson replied yes. Retterath asked what is classified as 'similar units'. Johnson replied the facade. Gartner asked about landscaping. The Planner gave a slide presentation of the site. Gartner asked if 2 enclosed garages will be required for a dwelling unit or duplex. The Planner replied dwelling unit. Retterath asked the type of units, the price range, and if there will be any smaller units. Johnson replied the units will be similar to Stewart Highlands, they will range from $7D,000 - $80,000, and stated there will not be smaller units. Torjesen stated that he had concerns regarding access and overall circulation. The Planner stated that if permanent access was provided onto Valley View Road where the temporary access is planned, there would be no problem. He further stated that it is important to have the southern connection made. I Torjesen asked if there is appropriate distance between the temporary access and the Valley View Road/Mitchell Road intersection. The Planner replied he would check. Johnson stated that he felt that continuing the inner road to intersect with future Mitchell Road would be a benefit. j Sutliff asked if the roadway would be put in across another person's property. The Planner replied yes. l�9`G approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 10, 19B1 ( Bearman asked if the Guide Plan shows this site as park, if the site is buildable, and asked The Planner to answer the questions in Mr. Smithwich's letter dated B/7/81. The Planner replied the southern portion is designated as park, the site is build- able, and The Planner stated that he had talked with Mr. Smithwich, and that he expects his question to be addressed in a feasibility study (connection to Stewart Drive), the cost will be determined at an assessment hearing; or paid by the benefitting property owners. Bearman asked the time frame for future Mitchell Road. The Planner replied that that is up to the County. Bearman stated that he would like to see a permanent connection to Valley View Road. Bearman asked if a lot is subdivided, what guarantees the builder to build according to requirements and asked how the City can protect against builders 'over building'. The Planner stated there are no guarantees, however, the building inspectors check for requirements. Torjesen asked if the inner road could end up in a cul-de-sac. The Planner stated that he felt that it was important to have it connected. Bearman stated that he received a letter from Mr. Bruce Johnson dated Aug. 10, 19B1 which should be made part of the minutes. ( Betty Colston, 7215 Topview Road, stated she was concerned with the amount of traffic to be generated by this development. The Planner stated that approx- imately B00 trips are expected when development is completed; 80% of which is expected to go NE; 70% of that is expected to go E on Valley View Road; the balance would be expected to go S on Valley View Road. Once new Valley View Road is completed, old Valley View Road will be terminated at the connection of Topview Road and Valley View Road which is expected to be completed within the next two (2) years. Mr. Miller, 7120 Gerard Drive, stated he felt that the setbacks should be increased in case a turn lane was required to get into Sundquist Addition. Ed Pilch, 7320 Stewart Drive, stated that he felt that there are too many uncertain- ities to this project, and stated that he felt all roads should be completed with the completion of the project. i Gartner asked how easily it is to change the lot lines for the units if the builder j decides to place the building at a different angle. Bearman replied that would go y to the Board of Appeals. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the Sundquist Addition Plat. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 as per the plan dated 7/27/81 and the 8/7/Bi staff report with the following additions and/or changes in the staff report: 2. No similar units (more than the facade has to be changed) must be constructed adjacent to each other. approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 10, 1981 ( 3. A minimum of 2 enclosed garage spaces be constructed per dwelling unit. 4. The common lot line division be depicted upon all lots on the final plat. 6. No construction shall occur until sanitary sewer service is available. 7. That outlots B and C be depicted as a permanent easement for traffic and trail purposes. 10. Excess soil from grading be available for City use as per Community Service 1 Director's recommendations. 11. That there be a permanent access as opposed to a temporary one. r. 12. That a road must connect to Stewart Drive. -' i . Retterath seconded. DISCUSSION .m Torjesen stated that he felt that a permenent access to Valley View Road rather than a tem• porary one. He also stated that the continuation of the inner road be 'stubbed in' for future access to Mitchell Road. Gartner and Retterath agreed. Retterath asked that staff and Mr. Johnson get together to discuss screening. ( Gartner stated that she felt that Smithwich should not have to pay for of the road. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 7/27/81 as per the 8/7/81 report with the same additions and/or changes as listed in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. 1900 II!�xn:n:aunl TO: Parks, Recreation And Natural Resources Commission VON: Bob Lambert, Dirertor of Corwunity Services DATE: August 13, 1901 SUDJ1:Cf: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Sundquist Addition PRpIbsLNT: Nils Sundquist ItLQULS1':Rezoning of 24 acres from Rulral to RM 6.5. Preliminary plat of 37 acres ihto 4G duplex lots �i2 unite and72 acre OutZOt. IACAT,ON iez.4.U.4jlS��ta11eY taad,--west--047., BACRCRDUM): See Planning Staff Report Datcd. PART.AnD IdiCI;I;,T1.0N PLANNING CONURNS 1. Type of development• Residential 2. Number of units in residential development: 92 ' 3. Number of acres in the project: 37 acres 4. Special recreation space requirements:none ' S. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks:Edenvn�R=st I sated immedia lv aouth a. Affect on the park:. Av lt.g_� �pl:?IDent is comolp.t:dLLb_Qr_C-_ViJJ bQ—Xd i i nal { 6. Need Uoi asarr�e pfor.aneig)tborhood park developed to serve that neighborhood. 7. Cash'park fee or land dedication? Cash Park Fee a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount based on existing ordinance will total: $23,000 b. If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated is 1 2.3 C. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property total Not a separate and will be paid prior to dedication. parcel. B. Adjacent to existing or proposed trails: Park access trails from V.V. to the north and from Stewart Dr. to the east. Itikewa Bikewa a. Type of trails y� y b. Construction Material Asphalt c. Width of trail 8 feet d. Party responsible for construction nnypinpprj e. Landomtership of trail location:(dedicated. purchased. FY1)_dedicated ' i NATURAL R(S0III1M 19tf.SIIRYATIO" CONCP.IL15 1. site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site. N/A 2. !lost significant grading on the site: The most significant grading occurs on the east and northern boundaries all within an existing cultivated field. 3, Significant vegetation on the site includes: N/A N/A 4, 71,c site grading plan indicatCS Preservation of:-- S. Adjacent to public waters: No a. Affect on watersa_ N/A IaTI.IZCNCI: CIII:CK 1. Major Center Area Study__ N/A 2. Neighborhood Facilities Study: This neighborhood will be served by the Edenvale East Neighborhood Park 3. Purgatory Creek Study' N/A 4. Shoreland management Ordinance: N/A S. Floodplaiu ordinance-: N/A S G. 6uae Plan: The Guide Plan indicates this site as low density res.idrntial. See PT�nni n�,Gt 3�f F'C�>nrt -- 7. Other RGCO:ti•11iMD:1T]OVS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: 2. Planning Cosmission reco=cndation: The Planning Commission recommended approval as per the Planning Staff Re oor of August 7, 1981. 3. Community Services Staff Recommendat ions:The Community Services staff recommends approval as per the Planning Staff Report of August 7, 1981 with the following addition: 11. That the developer construct 8 foot asphalt walkways in Outlet B and in the southeast corner of Outlet A form Stewart Drive to the major portion of a - a the out1Qs. T1LCs�_Pdth_lo�e�gn�t.rtict�d_and�ipved_it t_he time of construction t paving of Stewart Drive. 12. The rear lot line of l.ot 2 Block 2 be redrawn . _so that the_8' Isph.ilt walkway can be constructed completely on this site and provide access to Outlet A. It should be noted that in discussion with the developer, the Director of Community Service:: did not require that the developer move his excess soil from his site to the I.'denvale East site, but only suggested that if any excess soil were available from that site that it be provided to the City free of charge. ��)J`� STAFF REPORT t TO: Planning Commission FRCM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of planning DATE: August 7, 1981 SUBJECT: SUNDQUIST ADDITION APPLICANT: Nils Sundquist REQUEST: Rezoning of 24 acres from Rural to RM 6.5. Preliminary plat of 37 acres into 46 duplex lots (92 units) and 12 acre outlot. BACKGROUND Guide Plan depicts the area as low density residential with med-density residential on either side. Because of the proximity to this medium density, the open space to the south, and the proximity to Stewart High- lands, (adjacent and to the east), the request of duplexes in this area is appropriate. EXISTING SITE CHARACTER utlot A is an area of marsh soils. The remainder has Dickman soils which have good bearing capacity and are suitable for development. ( The site drops from the north and east down to the marsh outlot. Very little tree vegetation exists upon the site and it is presently planted in soybeans. Outlot A adjoins the Edenvale East park site. See Figure 1. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Rht 6.5 All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size of 13,000 sq. ft. No setback variances are requested and the gross density is 2.5 units/acre with a net density of 4.7 units/acre. Setback of units from Valley View Road, whether rear or side yard, should be a minimum of 30 feet. i The developer has agreed not to use the same unit type unless at least 2 dissimilar units are between. with lot sizes ranging from 13,000-18,000 sq. ft. variety of unit type is possible and should be assured in some way i by the developer. " Because of the parking problems inherent with duplexes, the Planning Staff reconnends that a minimum of 2 enclosed garages per unit be constructed and that various garage locations (tuck-under, front-ended, side located, etc.), be utilized to add to the neighborhood variety. The preliminary plat submitted does not show division of the duplex lots down the center to allow purchasing '; of a unit. Two alternatives are available: 1) Lots can be divided now and the buildings eonmon wall placed at the line; or 2) Administrative Division for each lot can be applied for after the foundations are set. The Planning Staff and Fngin- ecring Staff recoinmends the lots be divided now and care be taken to place Staff Report-Sundquist Addition page 2 SITE PLAN d Ln91neering Staff review of the plat raised the following concerns: 1. Grading revisions are needed to transition elevations between these lots and Stewart Highlands. 2. Greater lot depth for lots 22 - 29, block 1, would ease house place- ment and avoid retaining walls and unmaintainable slopes. 3. Sump catch basins and manholes will be necessary prior to storm water outfalls. 4. Sanitary sewer service is not presently available to the site. Ex- tension must be made prior to building permit issuance. The Engineering Department requires that the following information be sub- mitted prior to final plat request: 1. Revised grading plan to depict final grades which will not require extensive use of reatinaing walls or unmaintainable slopes. i. 2. Revise plat to allow greater depth for lots 22 - 29 to facilitate re- 3 vised grading if necessary. 3. Detail storm sewer design and calculations must be submitted. { 4. Proposed street names must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering } Department. 1 TRANSPORTATION Access will be via the temporary dead-ended Stewart Drive at the southeast, and a temporary or permanent access easement to Valley View at the north- i west corner. Both accesses provide connections to adjoining properties. S d, Average daily trips that could be generated are approximately 700. The plat was submitted to Hennepin County and in telephone conversations, no problems are noted. The temporary road access shown in outlot C to Valley View will handle # traffic until the street can connect westward to the new Valley View and 1 Mitchell Road intersection. See figure 1. After this future connection, the Community Services Department is recom- mending the western 25' of the outlot be retained in a permanent easement for a trail connection. Extension of the road system in the southeast corner will provide access to the southern adjoining property. CASH PARK FEE Prior to buiTding permit issuance payment of the cash park fee will be required. The City will accept dedication of Outlot A. Although usable park facilities may not be constructed in this marsh area, it does enlarge the present Edenvale East Park site. The developer has agreed to deliver excess soil from this site to the City's Fdnnvaln fact nark citn Staff Report-Sundquist Addition page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the zoning and plat contin- gent upon the following: 1. Unit setback from Valley View Road must be a minimum of 30 feet. 2. No 2 similar units must be constructed adjacent to each other. 3. A minimum of 2 enclosed garage spaces be constructed per unit. 4. The common lot line division be depicted upon the final plat. 5. That revised grading and utility plans be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. 6. No construction occur until sanitary sewer service is available. 7. That the western 25' of outlot C be depicted as a permanent easement for.traffic and trail pruposes. 8. Cash park fee be paid at time of building permit issuance. 9. Watershed approve the land alteration and storm water plans. 10. Excess soil from grading be placed at a location within the Edenvale East C Park site as per Community Services Director's recommendations. i JJ:ss b 1- �VS C Jlo •Trey ne/ .� �y � � ry�l n iiTe O • i J _' ' are a •A .. ". Go LA s m Z �% •. 1 S. p ' � I :' 1•' n 1 .S i• +- E Ji..i s w m o ZI ^i3ro STEWART. _ ' �q TE� R7� "w' T_ r Y I {:a �' %m r — 0 fir;'f i% !� iy' Iv", 'a .•,:'S.,;': n �' •�..�_. tinC• df -t3(YllfonRD�,,,' �'•+�`•"�;• m 41 „ -T.i-1 T, -IV _Hi•{1,1I ANUS �,--•�:,._�: `/`�••'r -4 a -'ln �•: �t--IS TF'NI nSF �•• ,'e r;_: Q _ •- te. �_�?v.•• \ . ^ /�? ���`gip t���.,'"� '1 ;,�.. r August .'.I, 19W. Eden Prairie City Council City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Ladies ?, Gentlemen: Attached are drawing and exhibits_ for the Preliminary flat and Rezoning request for a double bungalow development to be platted as the Sundquist Addition.. Additional information you may need in your deliberation is as follows: Fee Dwner/Develnrner - Nils F. Sundquist Box 728 6400 lndustry Ave. N.W. Anoka, Minnesota 55303 Surrounding Land Use - The land fronts on Valley View Road and lies in the south- east quadrant of the Baker Road-Valley View Road intersection. The land to the East is zoned and constructed as double bungalow (Stewart Highlands). The land to the southeast is designated Regional Commercial in the Guide Plan. Edenvale East Neighborhood park lies to the south and south of that is designated ?tedium Density Residential in the Edenvale PUO. The land to the west is designated Medium Density Residential in the Guide Plan. North of the site, across Valley View, is an old gravel pit that is desiqnated Low Density Residential in the Guide Plan. Existinq Use -• The northern and eastern portion of the site is under cultivation. The balance of the Site is low, fallow qround consisting of grasses and shrubs. The land is zoned Rural and designated Low Density Residential in the Guide Plan. The south, center of the site is shown as park in the Guide Plan. Proposed Use - -he preliminary plat. shows 40 double bungalow lots which results in a density of 2.5 OU/Ac. Land alteration is essentially confined to the cultivated nortion of the site and does not significantly channe the character of the land. The uroposed lottinq meets the dimensional and square fnntane requirements of Ordinance 135. No variances are anticipated except for the zero lot line allow- ance for attached units. We concur that the southern cutlet should he under city ownership and added to the hark open %nace. Tran,nortation - Access to the site is at the northwest and southeast corners of the sitel�he southeast access would connect to Stewart. '!rive as intended when Stewart Hiohland,; was pl,rtted. the right of way ahuts the land to the south to allor•, for future potential access to the new Valle_, View•';chonner Boulevard. ( s 1'90'1 Eden Prairie City !ounr.il -2- August 21, 1981 The northwest access is to Valley View Road. in addition there is an access point on the west property line for future use by that property or connection to the future Mitchell Road relocation. Park Dedication • Outlot A, consisting of 12.3 Acres, will he dedicated to the U ty for park open space. The development plan for Edenvale East Park shows this land as open space with no improvement. However, in the event that the City decides to improve this land at a later date, we ask that a covenant be added to the deed requiring a 150' buffer adjacent to the residential use. This buffer would be left in its natural state or excavated to create ponds or lakes. The southeast corner of Outlot A also allows for path access to the park from Stewart Highlands. in addition, Outlot 8 will be dedicated to the City for park access from the hikeway-bikeway intersection of the Valley View and Baker Road systems. Marketing - The site will he qraded to allow for a mix of rambler, split entry, tinder and at grade building types with a variety of walkout options. Lots will be offered for sale to more than one builder and each builder will offer a variety of building types and facades. Purchase documents will state that two buildings with similar structures cannot be built next to each other. Sales will be made from model units with each side of the doubles offered for sale. Lots will be subdivided at the time of final plat. Anticipated market is the younger, first hone, and older, last home, buyers. Development Schedule - Subject to the necessary governmental approvals, we anticipate site grading this fall by the developer, road and utility construction next spring and summer by City assessment, model construction next spring and home construction starting late summer by the builder. We ask your prompt and favorable consideration. If you have any questions please contact me. Respeptfully submitted, Lee W. Johnson (941-1059) LWJ:riep 190� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av, South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 •.;,� HENNEPIN 935-33$1 August 13, 1981 4. Mr. Chris Engcr Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota S5344 Dear Mr. Enger: 4 RE Proposed Plat - "Sundquist Addition" CSAIi 39 South of CSAI1 60 $ Valley View Road Intersection Section 10, Tmoiship 116, Range 22 Hermcpin County Plat No. 9S2 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review ' of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: � -For future improvements to this roadway, the developer should dedicate an additional 7 ft. of right of way making the right of way 40 ft. from the center of CSAIi 39. -Since the existing intersection of Valley View, CSAIi 60, and CSAII 39 offers below minimum sight distance and to avoid rebuilding the access point to new CS.Ni 60, the developer should constnict a peniunent access at the crest of j the hill on CSAH 39 approximately 360 ft. easterly of the CSAH 60/CSAIi 39 intersection. -Airy new access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. See our Traffic Division for entrance permit forms. -All proposed constriction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning constriction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility constriction, trail development, and landscaping. See our Maimcnance Division for utility permit forms. -The dcu-eloper ,mist restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, ( ames M. w'old, P.E. Chief, Planning and Progrwm,ing JM/LIM:Pi HENNEPIN COUNTY cc: jawes R. Bill, Inc. Nils E. Sundquist an equal opportunlNemployer 7-hl.S 16? /,r 70 / r d�d.r,�( 70 h e. /''?4-./2 Wx ,�-e t joo ,q�ro� 7� ag1�ZGn� any G/evc/afc d. Th a,7-/ d•rh E'r.r /'�eT ram:rti /J'Ir, o �lQn 71- cCJ,7n ec-p 7 /dew Ubevc/a//`'��rJ`ryeGj- 0 d 73`Ta�7`�vo fTCk/ctvrdvBi7�y PG2!T OCt/nG'v, /Nr. <Jd`l/rU'cJ n L.T'TCc7,- /f e /1e l ho ��Q�rJ 70 yr T/r�/ J'7rct� ma's Qnd SU�9EJ?J 7�7 T0lc C�jr7�y C/I� �c rl �/lclr/t LlJQ✓!cl C/o a,r i.r The Cl 7-4 ( �rv��r ry / �f hU� lam:/! )`/r.✓ C'dJ: NO Tv 64 Th O 7 61,r e i nv he q vex!'�;�+�y 7/t,r..r"- T/i�✓' /�/�!'U•c 6-e GZ��/ddi� �eiaft C'•, 7U �C JG.f„✓a-y pan ( -21 YD "s7e&la., C�r�ut 1911 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 81-174 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF _SUN0 UIST ADOITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 7. ' That the preliminary plat of Sundquist Addition dated?/27/81-revised 8/19/BI,a copy of which is on file at the City Hall and amended as follows: t is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie ! Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. j AOOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of , I 19— .;: " Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor --- John 0. Frane, City Clerk — i� 1 SEAL uUnapprove g�Planning Commission Minutes A 981 MEMBERS ABSENT:- Retterath E. OVERLOOK. PLACE, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to preliminary plat 30 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and east of Yorkshire Point. A continued public hearing. The Planner stated that the plan has been modified to meet ordinance requirements and Mr. Dick Putnam gave the presentation. Putnam, R.A. Putnam & Assoc., representing Hustads, stated that 1 duplex has been eliminated as well as the cul-de-sac. The grading plan has been changed, the units will be cut down in numbers, and the slope and'trees will be retained. The Planner stated that he felt that the project had been improved and reviewed the 8124/81 staff report. He also noted that the park has been made smaller by 1500 sq. ft. and stated that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commis- sion will review that. Hallett asked how many trees will be taken out of the site and stated that he felt that it was important to save as many as possible. Putnam replied very few will be removed. Torjesen asked if there will be any screening between the single family and multiple. Putnam replied that the hill is steep enough so that the most the owners of the multiple units would see would be the top story of the house. Sutliff asked if there will be a pathway along Co. Rd. 1. The Planner replied that there will be one in the future. Bearman asked the length of the cul-de-sac. Putnam replied close to 400'. Mr. McCormick, 9449 Woodridge Drive, stated that he was opposed to placing duplexes on this site and felt that this project is too-;dense. Putnam stated that the density is 3.9 units/acre for the duplexes. Greg Koschinske, 9379 Creek Knoll Road, stated he was also opposed to placing dup- lexes on this site. Mile Kodrich, 9450 Woodridge Dr., felt the project was too dense, and was concerned with the style and upkeep of the duplexes. Torjesen stated that he felt that the .vidth of the lot at the building line was not according to ordinance. The Planner stated that the mean width of the ordinance is 90' and agreed that some lots do not meet this. But, however, these lots are larger than those of Yorkshire Point (on the west? and some of Creekwood are smaller. He , stated that these duplexes will cost approximately $20,000 more, than the single family and have 2 garages/dwelling unit. lie stated that there are technical problems with the driveways which can be worked out. lie also stated that the side- yard setbacks are identical to those of Creekwood. Bearman stated that he felt the proponent has met the requirements stated at the last meeting, but stated he still felt the project is too dense. Iq rov d Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 24, 1981 Hallett asked if the trees can be fenced prior to construction. The Planner replied yes. Hallett then stated he would like it to be stated in the motion that the developer cannot return for rezoning these lots again. Putnam stated that when the project was originally proposed, it was more dense than now. MOTION 1 Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on Overlook Place. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the plat dated 8/14/81 on the grounds that it does not meet ordinance codes. Sutliff seconded, motion failed 2-4. AMENDMENT Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the plat dated 8/14/81 as per the reports of 8/5/81 and 8/24/81. Hallett seconded. DISCUSSION Hallett asked that fencing be required at time of development to save the trees. He also asked that the Commission strongly recommend that lots 21-29 not be returned for rezoning for doubles. Gartner agreed. Motion carried 5-1. Sutliff voted no. i, l�►u approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 10, 1981 ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ( C. OVERLOOK PLACE, by liustad Development Corporation. Request to rezone approximately 10 acres from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 32 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and East of Yorkshire Point. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Dick Putnam was present to give the presentation. Putnam reviewed the past proposals, new proposal, and stated that the existing building was previously the officEfor Hustad Development Corporation but now is vacant. (Hustad's moved to the Bryant Lake Center/Lakeridge Office Park) He introduced Mr. Wally liustad and the builder, Mr. Bob Erickson. Putnam went on to explain that the units would be priced in the mid 60's per unit with $800 a month payments going FHA. Stated that the lots which do not conform to Ord. requirements can be made to conform by the elimination of one of the lots or by making an adjustment to the totlot size. Hustad's would prefer eliminating a lot. He went over the types of units, i.e., step-up, walk-out, and look-out. Bob Erickson, the builder, reviewed the types of duplexes and stated that the floor plans will be identical while the facade will change. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/5/81. Retterath stated that she felt that 2/3 of the lots are not in conformance with Ord. requirements. Bearman asked if the original duplex proposal which the Planning Commission ap- proved previously was substantially less dense than the current proposal. The Planner replied that that is true. i Hallett asked if there was going to be three (3) structures with different exteriors. Putnam replied yes. Mr. Prom, 12661 Pioneer Trail, stated he was cpposed to putting duplexes in 4 between single family. lie further stated that he teels this is too dense. r Stewart Loper, 9506 Woodridge Cir., feels it is inappropriate to place duplexes between single family neighborhoods. John Kelley, 9576 Yorkshire Lane, stated he is opposed to the proposal, and further stated that he was concerned about the use of rental units. Tom Myers, 9539 Creekwood Drive, stated that he was also concerned for the use of rental units and opposed placing duplexes in between single family neighborhoods. Putnam stated that thP'proponent would prefer the Conunission take action rather than continue the public hearing. Hallett stated that lie approves of the use of duplexes, but stated that he would like to see revisions. MIS approved l Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 10, 1981 MOTION 1 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 as per the plan dated 6/29/81 and the staff report dated 8/5/81. Hallett 1 seconded,motion carried 4-2. Retterath and Sutliff voted no. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat request. Hallett seconded. OISCUSSION Torjesen stated that his- 'aye' vote on motion 1 was based on the assumption that the revision to be made will be in accordance with all ordinance requirements. Motion carried 5-1. Retterath voted no. j: I�I(n �. STAFF REPORT i i T0: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning y DATE: August 24, 1981 SUBJECT: OVERLOOK PLACE APPLIZANT: Nustad Development Corporation PROJECT LOCATION: East of Yorkshire Point The Planning Commission has continued this preliminary plat from August 10, 1981 after recommending approval of the rezoning from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5. The Planning Commission instructed the proponent to bring the plat into conformance with our ordinance. The plat has been reduced from 16 duplex lots to 15 duplex lots. This change allows the proposal to meet minimum lot sizes and setbacks. We would recommend approval of the preliminary plat dated 8114/81 subject to the following: 1. Park and totlot to be constructed prior to building permit issuance. 2. Lots 17, 18, 19, and 20 not be built upon until the realignment of Co. Rd. 1 is complete. 3. Lots 1, 2, 15, and 16 take access only from Overlook Place. 4. Cash park fee payable at time of building permit issuance. CE:ss Iq�� I STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 5, 1981 PROJECT: OVERLOOK PLACE APPLICANT: Hustad Development REQUEST: PUD Development Plan change, zoning from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5-, platting of 9 acres into 41 lots. BACKGROUND ON HUSTAD'S DEVELOPMENTS & REQUESTS UPON 26 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN CO. RD 1, CREEK KNOLL ROAD, & U.S. 169. See figure 1. 1975: Hustad Office Site PUD Requested PUD Concept upon 26acres for office, industrial and multiple. First phase rezoning for office on 9 acres. Approval: Zoning upon first phase office and dedication of flood- i plain with scenic easement across slope. i 9 acre office zoning 1 7.5 acre industrial concept 5 acres residential concept 9+ acre dedication i l Status: Office not built-later requested residential zoning. One acre industrial in southwest corner zoned I-2 in 1979 by subsequent owner. ' 1976: Creekwood Sin le Family & Dbl.. Requested RM 6.5 zoning upon eastern 3± acres for 9 lots to construct combination of single family and duplexes. Lots sizes ranged from 14,600 to 19,200 sq. ft. Density 2.6 u/acre. Approval: Rezoning to RM 6.5 with lot width variance to 85', 4 dup- lexes, 5 single family lots. Status: Never final platted. No construction todate (later rezoned to single family). 1978: Yorkshire Point a Request to rezone to R1-13.5 upon central 11.6 acres for construction of low-moderate cost modular housing. Lot sizes ranged from 5,800 to 16,000 sq. ft. and developer proposed to market home and lots for $39,000 to $49,000. Density 4.3 u/acre (2.9 u/ac if parkland computed). 19 Staff Report-Overlook Place page 2 Approval: Rezoning to R1-13.5 with the following variances: lot size, minimum width, setbacks, garages, density, and waiver of cash park fee. Six homes to be sold for less than $40,000 - the remainder under $50,000. Owner agreed to rough grade in Co. Rd. 1 trail, construct a 6' trail to Outlot A, dedicate Outlot A. construct totlot, and "ll. Owner agrees not to plat remaining acreage in the Hustad Office PUD area into similar sized small lots". Status: Six modular homes were set on foundations by Hart Homes, the remaining lots were 'stick-built' constructed by Zachman Homes, Inc. at a $55,000+ price. Todate, over half of the homes built without garages have added garages; some of which required Additional variances. The totlot structure has not yet been constructed (structure location was revised in Overlook Place SF plat). 1979: Overlook Place Duplexes July, 1979 Requested rezoning of 6 acres to RM 6.5 for 28 duplexes. Lot sizes ranged from 6,500 to 12,000 sq. ft. (all meeting ordinances), with variances from 90' width and setbacks required. Cormission recommended approval. 6-1, with 4 different unit types and 9 different exterior appearances. Council referred the duplex request back to the proponent for re- vision to single family with a new public hearing before the Planning Commission. 1979: Overlook Place Single Family (Includes Creekwood SF & DBL) Oct., 1979 Requested RI-13.5 zoning upon 9 acres for 29 single family lots. Lot sizes ranged from 7,200 to 17,000 sq. ft., setback variances were requested, and no garages at initial construction for 17 lots in the west half. Gross density 2.9 u/ac. Front widths 56-135'. Commission recommended approval of.the single family plat, 3-1. Approval: Zoning to R1-13.5 with lot size and setback variances. Dedication of 11,800 sq. ft. totlot and improvements. 4 Status: No construction todate. No totlot improvements. Not yet final platted due in part to storm water planning and relocation of Co. Rd. 1. 1981: Overlook Place Duplexes and Sinnle Family Hustad Development Corporation is now requesting rezoning from single family R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for duplexes; with lot size density and setback variances. The developer depicts the area as 9.9 gross acres, staff computations show it is approximately 8 acres in size, and County tax records show 8.37 acres. Comprehensive Guide Plan The Guide Plan illustrates the 26 acre area as low density single family, 2 units/acre. Staff Report-Overlook Place page 3 EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS The topo of the site drops off sharply, 3:1, on the north and east sides. This type of topo will accommodate walkout units but erosion control and stabilization measures must be installed immediately following grading to prevent soil runoff into Purgatory Creek which is north of the site. Mature oak trees are located on the eastern & northern portion. The grading plan depicts these tree areas as being saved. r The existing structure on the site is presently utilized as an office building. Division of the structure for a duplex and addition of a garage is planned. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS f RM 6.5 i r minimum lot size 6,500 sq. ft./unit 13,000 total setbacks 10:25/one side-both sides, 30' front, 20' rear minimum lot width 90' tt� The 1981 Overlook proposed plat has � of the duplex lots under 6,500 sq. S ft. and approximately 1/3 of the lots under the required 90' med- ian width. One of the single family lots is under 13,500 sq.ft. and 8 out of 9 lots do not have the median lot width of 90 feet. Undersized lots combined with widths at building setbackless than 90 feet { will contribute to a mono-character of development because only 1 } basic unit type,all with tuck-under garages, will fit the lots and ) some side setback variances will be required. _.. 1 The 1425 sq. ft. floor plan's footprint of 945 sq. ft, will cover 15 - 20% of the duplex lots (F.A.R.). 30% maximum is allowed in Ord, 135 for multiple story RM 6.5 units and 20% F.A.R. for single storied units. Larger lots would accommodate a variety of units and reduce the F.A.R. coverage allowing more open space for residents. Staff believes it very important for residential subdivision to utilize a variety of styles , including floor plans and exteriors # to prevent a 'barrack" atmosphere. This has worked very effectively in The Hipps 4th Addition. The unit styles included in the brochure have similar floor plans and only slight variation of the exteriors. The Planning Staff recommends that more variety be explored and sub- mitted for review. In order to insure adequate parking in duplex subdivisions, double garages for each unit are needed. Otherwise, cars parked in drives obstruct free movement of the vehicle in the single garage,' or excess cars are parked in the street hampering cross traffic move- ment. DENSITY The present Overlook project is 41 units upon 8.3 acres gives a density of 4.94 units/acre. The present project combined with existing uses on the entire 26 acre site, 41 units + 27 units + 1 unit + 26 gives an overall den- sity of 2.65 u/acre. The present project combined with existing uses on the entire 26 acre site, 41 units + 27 units + i + 26 = 2.19 units/acre. n r).. Staff Report-Overlook Place page 4 LANDSCAPING No landscaping between the proposed duplexes and existing Yorkshire Single Family is shown. Landscaping of multiple units is required. SITE PLAN The grading plan indicates-areas of 3:1 slopes, no balancing of the west side with existing grades in Yorkshire, overland drainage across mid-sections of lots next to Creek Knoll Road. The Engineering Department review of the storm water system raises these problems: insufficient handling of overland drainage and drainage across streets and cul-de-sacs. Also, revision of the sanitary sewer near Co. Rd. 1 is recommended. TRANSPORTATION Figure 2 illustrates the future improvements to Co. Rd. 1.and Creek Knoll Road. The County Highway Department has received the plat and is recommending development of lots 19-22 after road improve- ments ;ind lots 21 & 22 not access to existing Co. Rd. 1. Lots 1, 2, 15 & 16 front on Co. Rd. 1 and Overlook Place and the staff strongly recommends that drive access be from Overlook Place not Co. Rd. 1. Because a street 'Overlook Trail' already exists in the City, the Engineering Department recommends the street name Overlook Place proposed be changed. The proposed cul-de-sac is just under 500 feet in length and there- fore conforms to Ord. 93. AIRPORT ZONE C I i The site area is located within the C Zone of Flying Cloud Airport. 'y Residential development is allowed within this zone. CASH PARK FEE Payment of cash park fee is applicable to the project. f1NDINGS AND The Planning Staff finds the Overlook Place duplex and single family (b'4[:I.USIONS inconsistent with the approved single family zoning and platting, - — -— and the Guide Plan low density designation, and would offer the following 2 alternatives: 1. Return the proposal to the developer for revisions addressed in this report: a. Reduced density. b. Conformance to lot size, etc., requirements of Ord, 135. c. Revised grading plan. Staff Report-Overlook Place page 5 ( d. A development plan showing unit variety (other than just facade treatment). e. Revised utility plan as recommended by City Engineer. f. Change in street name. g. Landscape plan be submitted for review. 2. Recommend denial of the plan and zoning request for reasons outlined in a- item 1. CE:ss i- i - 19�� a 11',. ,l c� �I �,rt• � CD 9°23T7/1z 7 V'f^n ti N t^95/so . ..�.¢,,Q;O1al ji}il0 ��.-+�I�'.�4 n � r•fS°J � \'' • ,N't. �60, Sb`���•`I. 8 b��I9Ll i-_ r. rno •fiQ `0J ----- �J, •I`'' u}w 22R1 1�°t�•o A G .i�C Vic. /�F v _ ,�'•�try t-�1<a FI ° ��' y , y nY / sue,:��.r C C ~`•� y3"soae•opN�O•Aieeee• «� m / 1j`s '�. i (Ao� 4` ... dJ�� v :`, i�4•,.a. �'1�:t r I 1 U .� .. )r .�.•L1'. ` : --,/� „ - rj '` N �;• ' 7+ y `� 1 �,5��'�r 'let � \r1 -• I \ .�•�:J ly l��Ii..."Vl �I �n/� � I \r..J � YIN `.I 11^ f �O�i•�J L(S.v �11 lfi,Av" WC`C�!SS f �.; I t `-' �_ �\i`7.:� 17�•1 `�/'� i e �'^C+C' \t,J FIGURE 1 S®®®■ 1975 Hustad Office Site Planned Unit Development, 27 acres •••ee••eee• 1981 Overlook Place Duplex proposal, approx. 9 acres !f. �7 A • !r w PSA 10 / i ; W j f 1 -- 1 C L 0 L � I N ► O N t - �1 J w r ( FIGURE 2 I�a� August 27, 1991 To the members of the Eden Prairie City Council Dear Sirs: lie are concerned about certain aspects of the proposed development of Overlook Place. The concerns we express today are essentially the same as the concerns we expressed in September, 1979, when a nearly identical plat was presented by Hustad Development Company. Looking back at the history of the 'Proposed development of that triangle of land lying between Highway 169 and County Road 1 and west of Creek Knoll Rd, we find that this land, owned by Hustad Development, was originally zoned for office park development. In 1977 Hustad Development proposed that Yorkshire Point be platted. At that time Hustad represented that the balance of the land in that area would be platted as single family lots. Two years later Hustad proposed Overlook place with 32 double-bungalow units on 16 lots. The Comprehensive Guide Plan now illustrates the 26 acre area as low density single family development with 2 units per acre. The City Council in 1979 recognized that insertion of duplex housing between the existing single family houses in Yorkshire Point and Creekwood violated the spirit of the overall development plan for Eden Prairie. Those of us who attended the September, 1979 City Council meeting recall that the basic reason the Council rejected the proposed plan was that double unit housing did not present a proper "transition" between the relatively high density single family housing of Yorkshire point and the relatively less dense single family housing in Creekwood. We perceived at that time that density in numbers of people and vehicles to be crammed into that small triangle of land was an overreaching concern. Attending the problem of density was the availability of park and recreation facilities which we notice have been reduced in the plat before you at, this time. The Council expressed the opinion that the zoning of this land ought to be accomplished all at one time, and that single family lots were most desircable for this area. Accordingly, single family lots were approved. 1Co compelling reason has been expressed by the developer which would support the proposed double unit development; no new circumstances justify ; reversal of the Council's actions of just two years ago. Acceptance of the plat as now proposed would, we believe, constitute a de facto acceptance by the Council of "spot zoning" inimical to the interests of the community at large. Thank you for your consideration. Creckwood Homeowners (see attached list of si.,natures) �c)2; j }; ✓ ewe�`���•�' !J t ®r,-�- Alf, et ti � tiC �o Sam Pam MAC ' ` 110ETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION F U U'!.):1:JG • T:aN CITY AINPORT • r 1NNE CT;..-)7'i -- OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE(612)726.5770 f August 4, 1981 j Mr. Chris Leger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 �. Deal: Air. i]nger: We have received your notice of Public Hearing for the proposed re-zoning of CEj7orlook'-PT3�om R1-13.5 to M1 6.5. This proposed development is located approximate]:y 2500 feet from the end of Runway 27R and 1200 feet to the north of the extended runway centerline. The proposed developrent does not lie within either the A or B zones as established by the State of Minnesota Airport zoning Ordinance; the proposed development also lies outside the MN Noise Contours generated by future levels of activity on the airport. The developer and potential owner should, however, be aware that the area will be subject to aircraft overflights due to its proximity to Flying Cloud Airport. l Sincerely yours, Nigel D. Finney ~� Director of Planning & Engineering /jr cc: Jeff Hamiel x DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washingion Av. South =``'' • t Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 HENNEPIN 935-3381 July 30, 1981 3 Mr. Chris linger, Planning Director City of laden Prairi.c 8950 Eden Prairie Road ! Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Lnger: RE Proposed Plat - "Overlook Place" CSNI 1 N1V Quadrant of Creek Knoll Road Section 26/27, Township 11.6, Range 22 ' Hennepin County Plat No. 943 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: -For the reconstnnction of CSAH 1 @ Creek Knoll Road, all right of way and slope easements necessary are acquired. -Because AIn/IIOT's 111 169/212 and CSNI 1 project places the connection of existing CSNI 1 to realigned CSNI 1 opposite Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22, we recommend not developing these lots until after the connection is completed. -Access for Lots 21 and 22 must be routed to existing CS.AII 1 or to the new connection between existing CSNI 1 and new CSA)I 1. No direct access to new CSAH 1. -Any new access to a County road or revision to existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. f See our Traffic Division for entrance pennit fonnus. -All proposed construction within County right of wry requires an approved utility Permit prior to beginning constriction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage ,und utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Sec our Maintenance Division for utility Permit forms. -Tile developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les h'eigelt. Sincerely, Y1,1 di, �e"g- os M. h'old, P.E. Chief, Ilanning and Prograumiing J,NV/LIW:I,j HENNEPIN COUNTY �y� an equa,oppor(unity employer CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA i RESOLUTION NO. 81-175 i RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OVERLOOK PLACE BE 1T RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 4 That the preliminary plat of Overlook Place i — i dated 8/14/81 a copy of which is on file at the City Hall and amended as follows: I i - i i j; is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein {�{ I approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel—Mayor John-0. Frane, City Clerk i SEAL approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 27, 1981 MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath & Hallett 1 )frontage, R PUD AMENDMENT, by Karl F. Peterson. Request for a revised W Concept approval to utilize 4.21 acres for office use with riances for parking side yard setbacks and a lot with no public Located in the southwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 and TH 5 behind Superamerica. A public hearing. The Planner stated that this proposal is part of the original 1978 PUD which called for a 48 unit apartment building. He also stated that this-was amended in 1979 to a 25,000 sq. ft. office building and a 64 unit elderly housing project and that a 2nd reading had never been requested. He also introduced Mr. Paul Blais, of Howard Dahlgren & Assoc. representing the proponent. Blais reviewed surrounding land uses, access, parking, property lines and variance requests. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 7/24/81. Torjesen stated that the proposal is not in conformance with the Guide Plan. The Planner stated that the last approved project on this site was for elderly housing and offices. He also stated that the traffic generation from the approved project and this project is almost identical. He then went on to explain that the building height is lower now and that lighting is a concern. He also stated that the parking must be buffered from the residential area. { Blais stated that he agreed with The Planner. Torjesen-expressed his concern that the City has less residential zoned property versus office and commercial; this was zoned for residential. Sutliff asked where the storm sewer is located. The Planner replied in Terrey Pine Drive. Bearman stated that he would like to hear from Superamerica and asked if anyone was present to represent them. No one was present. Sutliff asked if the proponent has worked with Superamerica regarding the relocated accesses. Blais replied yes and stated that the proponent is now in the process with Superamerica to have.a written agreement drawn up. Bearman stressed the importance of having Superamerica's opinion. Beaiman stated that he was concerned that there is no public frontage for one of the proposed lots. f Beannan asked if the proponent had considered one large building. Blais replied yes, but went on to explain that usually with one building there is one owner and separate tenants. In this development, there would be one owner owning each building which the land goes with. Torjesen expressed his concern that there will be no access on the inner road for f the veterinary office. Blais replied that they would get an easement from Dr, Bonnet. Gerald Anderson, 16506 Torrey Pine Drive, stated that he was concerned with the road caning on the eastern portion of the project next to his property. He asked if his taxes would go up because of it, and who would Pay for this. He also stated 10 'approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 27, 1981 that he was concerned with the noise from the animals, the traffic on the road, and the width of the road. Blais replied that the proponent would pay for the road, and introduced Dr. Bonnet: of the veterinary office. Dr. Bonnet stated that he has had no problems with his other offices regarding noise. lie further stated that at the most, 30 animals would be present and that this would not be primarily a boarding kennel. Dearman asked Dr. Bonnet if any of his other offices are located as close to a residential area as this would be. Dr. Bonnet replied no. Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated he was concerned about the possibility of new ownership of the buildings ano the access. He also stated that he felt the Parking in the southwestern corner is dense. The Planner replied that the road is at its existing location because of plans discussed prior to this proposal and stated that they have studied the traffic; the results would be the same as an apartment building. Dearman asked if any negociations have been made regarding the medical building. Blais replied yes and further stated that they have looked at other access points, but none worked out as well. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the CDR PUD Prnendment. Sutliff seconded, niotion carried 4-0. MDT ION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Concept of office use but that the site plan be revised so that variances were not required and an access road that did not immediately border residential be worked out. Sutliff seconded.. DISCUSSION utli Sff stated that he felt there was a need to have an agreement in written form from Superamerica. t Bearman agreed and stated that he felt the land use is correct, but had problems with the road, Superamerica, and the site plan. He further stated that he had ; no problems with the land use plan but feels that the plan should be looked at , very closely. Gartner stated that she felt the plan is better suited for this site than apart- Monts but stated that she felt the traffic for Superamerica would be increased past the residential area. Bearman stated that presently Superamerica does not have a food license, and stated that when they WOUld acquire one, traffic would increase greatly. He further stated that substantial work is needed and when the proponent returns for rezoning, lie would like to see a revised site plan. Bearman then asked that, alter6 t.e roads be investigated and information from Superamerica; (if they are planning to be open 24 hours a day with a food license), be added to the staff report. Gartner and Sutliff agreed. Motion carried 3-1. (Torjesen voted nay) STAFF REPORT { TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE_: July 24, 1981 SUBJECT: COR PUD AMENDMENT APPLICANT: Karl F. Peterson FEF OWNER: Mabel Moran REQUEST: PUD Amendment; change from '25,000 sq. ft. office building and 64 units of elderly housing to 34,720 sq. ft. of office. BACKGROUND This 4.21 acre site was part of an original '1978'(19 acre) PUD which called for a 48 unit apartment building. This was subsequently amended in 1979 to a 25,000 sq. ft. office building and a 64 unit elderly housing project. GUIDE PLAN The 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan reflects medium density residential ( (which was approved in the 1978 PUD). ZONING The property is zoned Planned Study. LAND USE e, The property to the south and west is duplex, to the east is commercial and office, to the north is commercial. Because of the traffic congestion at the TN 5/Co. Rd. 4 intersection, traffic generation is an issue. Traffic projections supplied by the pro- ponent indicate 345 ADT expected from this development. This compares favorably with approximately 312 from the original 48 apartments approved and 364 from the office and elderly concept. With proper buffering between the residential and the office, the land use a can be compatible. S ROADS The western right-in, right-out in the 1979 plan has been removed and a consolidated right-in, right-out access with Superamerica on the project's east boundary is proposed, as a public street, south to Torrey Pine Drive. There will be no direct, individual site access to TN 5. There are form lots contemplated; Lots 1, 2, and 3 having frontage on public streets and Lot 4 being land locked. Access to the lots would he from the proposed public street through a private parking lot lane. The veterinary office would access directly to the public street, as shown in the revised plans, dated 7/16/81. i r Staff Report-COR page 2 The land locked lot would require a variance for having no frontage and i a sideyard setback variance to allow parking up to the western lot line. These variances would not be necessary if the property were platted as shown in Alternate 1 of the developer's brochure. The individual building owners will have to rely on the viability of a common maintenance association and access easements to protect their access. Superamcrica must close off their western access at the time the new road is opened. i SIGNAGE' This area is not large enough to justify an area identification sign, there- fore, individual signs as allowed under the sign ordinance, only, would be permitted. LANDSCAPING t Since a strong buffer must be established between this office complex and the duplexes, and since it is illustrated partially on other property, # the proponent should reach agreement with those property owners prior to j rezoning, as to where the landscaping will be placed. Since this buffer was shot-in in the 1979 plan as occurring all on this property, the proponent should prepare a landscaping plan for review and approval by the City prior to or at the time of initial zoning requests. ( All parking is to be screened according to Ordinance N178. 1 LIGHTING_ Parking lot lighting should be no higher than twenty feet, should be down lighting with cut-off lumenaires, and should present no glare or visible light source. Any wall mounted fixtures should not cause glare in the residential areas. 1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT s Screened, ground-based mechanical equipment would be most desireable, however, roof-top mechanical equipment must be completely screened with material that is architectural integral to the design of the buildings. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff recommends approval of the PUD Concept amendment dated 7/16/81 subject to the following: 1. Platting and rezoning of the property to follow. 2. Buffering to the south to be completed with first building construction. 3. Cash park fee. 4. Watershed District review and approval. 5. Superamerica closing existing access on TH 5 at time of public street connection. 6. Signage, landscaping, mechanical screening, according to ordinance. 7. Variances on Lot 4 for no frontage on a public street and western parking t iitn yard Sel.Ior4 r., tpd as part of thr i'ilt). 2 Minnesota , a )]C',17ea1'In1C:nl of Transporhalioil District Five 5801 Dul(lth Street OF sP� Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)545.3761 July 30, 1981 Mr. Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prarie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: S.P. 2701 T.H. 5 At Intersection of T.H. 5 and CSAH 4 (S.W.. Quadrant) Karl Peterson Property Dear Mr. Enger: . This proposed development was reviewed by Mn/DOT on a previous occasion. Our comments were sent to you by letter in February 1980 and are still applicable. Our main concern with development adjacent to T.H. 5 is the access points. When we reviewed the proposed development, we agreed that a right turn off of T.H. 5 to a proposed street between this property and the Superamerica property would be acceptable. We also recommended that the two entrances from T.H. 5 to the Superamerica property be closed and access be provided via the new north-south street and Terry Pine Drive. 1 Before any work can begin on Mn/DOT right of way, the developer must have an approved entrance permit. Special details for the entrance will. be recommended when the permit is approved. If you have any questions in regard to our comments, please j feel free to contact me at 545-3761, Ext. 150. Sincerely, J. S. Katz 4 Layout, Research & Development Engineer t .4n Equal Oppnrnm7y Employer t �\NNE�Iq s Minnesota Department of TransportWi011 ; ( District Five � d' 5801 Duluth Street . OF [1k Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)545.3761 February 1, 1980 Mr. Chris Enger, Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 SP 2701 T.H. 5 At Intersection with CSAH 4 Proposed Development in Southwest Quadrant CAR Investments & Superamerica Properties Dear Mr. Eager: We have met individually with Mr. Bruce Knutson, representing COR Invest- ments, and Mr. Geoff :Martin, representing Superamerica, to discuss access to TH 5 in the southwest quadrant at the CSAli 4 intersection. After t reviewing both plans we are in general agreement with a proposal to allow a right turn off of TH 5 to a proposed street between the two properties. It is our understanding the other two Superamerica entrances to TH 5 would be rensoved. It is also our understanding there would be no otheress entrance to the COP. Investments property from TH 5. Theproposed would have to be approved by the Hennepin County Department of Transpor- tation. Before any entrances can be constructed they will need an approved entrance permit from our Golden Valley Office. Specific details for the entrance will be reviewed and recommended when the permit is approved. If you have any questions in regard to this development, please feel free to call me at 545-3761, ext. 150. Sincerely, r J. S. Katz, P:Ef Layout, Research & Development Engineer JSK:bn An Gqual Opporwniry Employer CDR 1981 PUD { CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 81-176 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDING THE GUIDE PLAN 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 COR PUD is considered a proper amendment to the 1978 Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on July 27, 1981 and considered Karl Peterson's request for approval for office uses and recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council, and N ". WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on September 1, 1981. j NOW THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota as follows: 1. The COR PUD, being in Hennepin 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 outlined in the application material dated July 16, 1981. 3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated July 27, 1981. ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this day of 1981. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: f John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL 19��� Minutes-Parks, Recreation & UNAPPROV Natural Resources Conanission August 17, 1981 MEMBERS ABSENT: Kingrey V.t.o. City West Peter Jarvis of BW, Inc., was present to discuss the proposal for PUD Concept Approval for 87 total acres, Rezoning of 26 acre traot from Rural to Office District with varianoes to permit a building, up to 8 stories, of 424,000 square feet. Jarvis pointeu out that the gradinr proporal ac submitted fe not a final plan but only a suggestion. The developer is proposing a pedestrian path oystom around the 17-20 acres of open space in the center of the development. Lambert said the developer has done a good job in addressing the City concerns of preservation of the ponds and vegetation as well as the interior pedestrian system. However, Staff still is uncomfortable with the large flat spaces in parking areas around the largest building. Anderson said he is concerned with the grading on the hill at the east side of the site. Lambert added tLat even with a terraced structure as proposed at that location, the majority of the hill will be destroyed. Jarvis said there is no denying the hill will be altered but the building is planned so the top of the hill will be visible behind the structure. Anderson asked what percentage of the site is impervious surface? Jarvis did not have an exact figure, but estimated 55-60 . i Jescen asked if the entire 87 acres will be one oraaership? Jarvis said no, there will be multi-ownership and an association will be established to maintain the pedestrian ways, parking lots, eto. i MOTION: Jesnen moved to approve City;Jest based on the Community Services Staff report, and that it appears to be consistent with the Iguide Plan and Open Space Report, but this Commission is concerned with the massing of s the parking lot and this issue will be addressed at the time of final plat # approval.. This Cor.waission requests that Staff, together with proponent, develop a plan to enter the internal pedostrirua trail and come out of it i from the southeast. Schwartz seconded the motion and it carried with s Anderson opposin . DISOUIST'On': Jarvis asked if Anderson would comment on his not approving the propn:ial. Anuerson said. lie feels the planner did not consider what happens to the goad in dry years and lie also is uncomfortablo with the grading as shown. approved Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 10, 1981 E. CITY WLST, by Richard W. Anderson. Request for PUO Concept 'i;ERS for office and commercial upon 87 acres, rezoning of 26 ".i;LRS acres from Rural to Office, preliminary plat approval with possible variances, and approval of an Environmental Assess- '(-erath ment Worksheet. Located east of Shady Oak Road and south of Crosstown 62. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Peter Jarvis, BRW, was present to give the presentation. Jarvis stated that Mr. Richard Anderson, Scott Anderson, Craig Anderson, and David Bennett, BRW architect, was present also. Jarvis reviewed the location, the land use plan, physiolography, slopes, vegetation, soils, utilities, access, the develop- ment concept plan, site plan, parking, traffic, and grading. He further stated that the road located in the middle of the site on the plans was the guideline for the road that has been graded on the site now. Bennett reviewed the buildings, and stated that they will be done in earth tones. I The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/6/81 and left because of illness. Bearman stated that he felt that the request to change the Guide Plan is most important. The Planning Commission agreed to limit the discussion to the land use topic initially. Torjesen asked if the proponent has thought to use the site as designated in 3 the Guide Plan. Jarvis replied that they have looked at alternative sites which are not residential designated, but they felt that from a planning standpoint, they felt residential is inconsistent where office and regional-commercial is i best. (' Sutliff asked what will happen to the residential to the north of the site if this Guide Plan change is granted. Jarvis stated that the residential property to the north is hilly and expects it to be developed differently. Bearman stated that he would like office and commercial located in the Major Center Area where land is provided. He also stated that he felt the site should be looked at more closely. f Sutliff stated that he was concerned that there is more unused office and commercial designated land located in the City where there is not as much residential. s r Hallett stated that he was open to amending the Guide Plan but asked if that will harm the City. Bearman replied it depends upon the individual situation. ; q Warren Gerecke, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, stated that he felt that this land should not be developed as shown and stated that this is a good area for residential and felt that the Guide Plan should not be changed. 9 Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, also felt that the Guide Plan should not 1, be changed and that this type of development should be located in the Major Center Area. Alfred Harrison, 6941 Beach Road, stated he was representing the residents to the east and west of the site and stated that they are opposed to the Guide Plan change. Harold Handel, 6604 Golden Ridge Road, stated that if this project was approved, he would like a buffer placed between them and the project. Mr. Tuttle, Willow Creek Road, stated he does not want the Guide Plan to change. John Dean, 6630 Golden Ridge Drive, does not want the Guide Plan to change. �t)�> approved Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 10, 1981 Mr. Wilkie, Willow Creek Road, felt that this should be in the Major Center Area. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the City West PUD, plat, and rezoning request. Retterath seconded, motion carried 4-2. Bearman and Hallett voted no. MOT I DN 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council to uphold the Comprehensive Guide Plan Plan and denial of the request. Retterath seconded, motion carried 4-2. Bearman and Hallett voted no. Hallett stated that he voted no because he felt the public hearing should have been continued. Bearman agreed. watonn\n0�1 TO; Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission , FRom: Do Lambert, Director of Coamaatity SerYices - DATE: August 13, 1981 SUMECT: Development Proposal Check list PROJECT: City West . 17:OPDNEI.T: Richard W. Anderson, Inc,_ QUCST: PUD Concont Arnroval for 87 total acres,_Rezoning of 26_acre tract frRural to Office District with variances to permit a building, u to 8 stories of ON— RE ,000 sg. ,k Rrl_ and LOCATI0;1: t�ortheatt ,v7r tiLllt�t�She-11]nm nit-- 'h^rrle r�'d �n t SW !__i,v Shafl)� on the east by US )69/212 A.1ChGI:DL'SD; See Planning Staff Report Wted' PARK A\D RCCRI-AT10N PLn.\\1hG Co':CET42 I. Type of development: Office 2. Number of units in residential development: V/A 87 acres in the PUD. 26 acres in the ;. Number of acres in the project: --Re—zoning F, 4• special recreation space requirements: Non I i S. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks: NoL a. Affect on the park: 6.•Need for a mini*ark: NO 7 7. cash park fee or land dedication?_Cash Park Fee y. , a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount Used on existing ordin6nce will total: $36,400 l b. If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated is N/A s e. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property total N/A and will be paid prior to dedication. 1 8. Adjacent to existing or proposed trails: No " i y a• Type of trails - i b. Construction Material c. Width of trail i d. Party responsible for construction e. Landonvership of trail location:(dedicated, purchased, RM) 7 NA711RAL RFSDlllicr PRr,SPnr'%FID?!CD\CridNS ]. Site grading plan considers natural amenit ics of the site? The ma or amenity on this site are the ponds. This grading plan preserves these ponds. 2• !lost significant grading on the site: The site is mass graded with the exccntion of_ , directly around the ponds.. NO i }. Significant vegetatimi on the site includes: The only significant vegetation occurs around the ponds and between the 2 large ponds. The through roadway does cut through ITF3:�- � 4. TIle site 1,.iiinp plan inJicates prrscrvatinn of: The ponds are the most significant amenity on this site and the buildings are locSTc�c-to—fakb a7vaFage of-ilie ineservatibn RL these The nds are considered public waters. Any intrusion on S. Ad iaccnt to public w',tCr s: 1O t1)ese systems will require--IlNH—Fermit --- a. Affect on waters: With careful erosion control and control on the grading and development o �tI siEe, t�iese p—ones cotie preserve an main necTas RIif1:I'SCG CIMCK an amenity. 1. Major Corner Area Study: N/A -2. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A ' 3, purgatory Creek Study: N/A , 4. Shoreland Management Ordinance' N/A - s. Floodplain Ordinance 'N/A t 6. Guide Plan: See Planning Staff Report 7. Other: krCO?DIG\D1TIO8S 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: The neighborhood to the west has voiced some opposition to this project. 2. Planning Commission lieconmendation_On August 10, 1981 Planninq Commission recommended to the City Council denial of the request for the Comprehensive Guide Plan change as per proposed by City West. 3. Community Services Staff Recorinendations: Community Servcies staff and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission are not responsible for making recommendations on land use, but merely to evaluate proposals submitted regarding parks, recreation and natural resource issues. Community Services staff agrees with i Git�Tlanne�rc��.rding the contemplated ues requiring vast { flat areas of impervious surface for parking and building. This will completely alter—the ro}lin�tc�x qra} of the site. Community Services staff fools that although t.hc existing ponds have bec•npreserved with this proposal, the mass grading of the entire site into large flat spaces will have a dramatic affect e on this large highly visual area. Community Services staff recommends returning this request to the proponent for )rodifications as outlined on page 5 of the j August 6, 1981 Planning Staff Rcyort. h)u� �J STAFF REPORT { TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 6, 1981 . SUBJECT: CITY WEST APPLI CA14T AND FEE OWNER: Richard W. Anderson, Inc. REQU-ST: Planned Unit Development Concept approval for 87 total acres, made up of 17.5 acres of com- mercial and 69.5 acres of office. Rezoning of a 26 acre tract from Rural to Office District with variances to permit a building, up to eight stories, of 424,000 sq. ft. PROJECT LOCATION: In the northeast portion of the community, bounded on the southwest by new Shady Oak Road and on the east by US 169/212. REFER TO: July, 1981 Development Brochure; 1979 Guide Plan; Ord. 135 ( BACKGROUND The f919 Comprehensive Guide Plan illustrates Office at the very.northwest 1 corner of this piece on up to the 62 Crosstown. i z The central portion of the site, around the lowland areas and ponds, is designated as open space and; the bulk of the site along the east is desig- nated medium density residential (up to 10 units per acre). The developer is proposing a change to our Comprehensive Guide Plan that would expand the office, reduce the open space, and replace the medium {. density residential with regional service commercial. The, developer points out that commercial and office uses would be more com- patible with US 169/212 than residential. This is probably true; perhaps in this area the land use locations should be swapped, so that the residen- tial is toward Shady Oak Road and the office toward US 169/212, Let's examine the possible impact of changing the Guide Plan as proposed. 1. There would be a reduction in the amount of open space called for in the Guide Plan. 2. Land which would accoonodate up to 400 units of residential would be replaced by commercial and office. 3. Shady Oak Road would have to be upgraded tofour lanes with traffic sig- nals. Staff Report-City West page 2 4. Land uses near the project realistically would change. The 451 acres northeast of the site would also be office or commercial. The land lying to the west of Shady Oak Road would change from medium density residential to office or commercial and the low density,west of Old Shady Oak Road,would be upgraded to accommodate medium density residential. 5. We currently have approximately one million square feet of office space constructed in Eden Prairie. The majority of this space is owner occupied. However, we have given approval to over three and one-half million additional square feet of office space. A great deal of this figure may be spec space. With new offices being built downtown and with additional acreage now available in prime locations, (Met Stadium), the absorbtion rate of three-quarters of a million square feet of office space not contemplated in the Guide Plan is open to question. 6. The impact of this project on the Major Center Area should be con- sidered. s 7. The Guide Plan Amendment, if approved, must also be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council. 8. The uses contemplated will require vast flat areas of impervious sur- face for parking and building. This will completely alter the sharply (- rolling topography of the site. g. Because there are more than 2,000 parking spaces planned, an indirect source permit will be necessary from the P.C.A. i On the flip side of this issue: r 1. The property has very good access to high capacity road systems, and with sane improvements to Shady Oak Road, an ideal road system would exist for high volume, regional access to the property. This road system would not be fully utilized with housing. 2. The housing area shown in the Guide Plan is not as desireable a loc- ation, because of the proximity to high volume roads, as other places in the comnunity. Since we have a high percentage of low density re- sidential land designated in the Guide Plan, (the absorbtion of which is questionable), upgrading some of this land to medium density would seem reasonable. 3. Opus II to the north of this property and Shady Oak Industrial Park to the east, make this property a candidate for additional office develop- ment. 70NING The existing zoning on the site is Rural. TRA17F1C SYSTEMS Tlie developer is proposing a four lane, internal road to serve the property. Staff Report-City West page 3 We have met with Hennepin County Highway Department, but have not yet received their written continents. However, the County agrees that: 1. Shady Oak Road must be upgraded to four lanes. 2. Double left turn lanes may be necessary both in and out of the development at the City West northern entrance. 3. Signals will be necessary as illustrated on Figure 16 in the develop- ment brochure. 4. The parking lot entrance opposite Rowland Road should be right-in right-out only, 5. All parking lot entrances to the central loop road should be at least 300' back from the intersections with Shady Oak Road. 6. The County is considering whether or not the northern frontage road- adjacent to 62 should be right-in right-out only. City Staff is suggesting that the distance between that frontage road and the on-ramp to 62 is 325 and if distance is the problem, that the distance be in- creased, but that the road be left two-way. Hennepin County does not have any of these improvements scheduled within (' their 5 year C.I.P. We would suggest that the developer petition for the road improvements and the City Council would determine if a feasibility study would be done to determine and assign cost. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM No pedestrian system is proposed. Since Opus II has constructed an elaborate pedestrian system to help mitigate noon time use of automobiles, this pro- ponent should also develop a pedestrian system. A simple system may be to place a sidewalk along the internal loop road, with each site connecting to it. SHORELAND,_ FLOODPL_AIN, WETLANDS, PUBLIC WATERS This project does not fall within y shorel'and or floodplain area. The ponds on the property are public waters, and work within them will require a DNR pennit. EXISTING SITE CHARACTFR The site is very steeply rolling, with three small ponds in the lower pot- holes. The major vegetation on the site surrounds these ponds and is mostly aspen, birch, and cottonwood, with some small areas of oak and elm. The highest point of the site is in the northeast corner, adjacent to the freeway (950) falling from that point to 874 inunediately south and also adjacent to the freeway. The center of the site is at 926, falling off in all directions to the 890-900 level. All proposed building elevations on the site would be between 89D-910. Although the majority of the grade variation on the site is not great, the rolling topography is much of what creates the character of the site. i Staff Report-City West page 4 PHASE I REZONING Phase I and Phase 1 Expansion is located on parcels 2A and 2B, which would total 424,000 sq. ft., on 26 acres of land for a total F.A.R. of .37. The portion of the site which is not pond is utilized very intensively. The high point of the site (920) would be reduced to 900 for use as part of the parking lot. The site will be table topped to accommodate 1514 parking spaces and roughly 70,000 sq. ft. of building footprint. Front yard setback in an Office District is 35 feet; the setbacks proposed range from 20=27'. PARKING Parking required is 5/1000, parking proposed is 4.03/1000, proof of parking . to 5/1000 is illustrated on figure 21 of the development brochure. Since this appears to be a spec building, and our experience with office buildings indicates a need in many cases for 5/1000 parking spaces, and since the proof of parking cannot be accomplished in a reasonable fashion, the building squart footage should be reduced accordingly. The large parking areas allow little ability to screen, buffer, or break-up the parking with plant material. Even with the 4.03/1000 parking, and small parking space dimensions, the ( setbacks are not proper and the parking lot is squeezed. The adjacent land, west of the property, (which is residential), looks down onto this 1500 car parking lot. The addition of lights to the lot will compound the negative visual impact to the west. No attempt seems to have been made to mitigate these problems. VARIANCES REQUIRED FOR PHASE 1 Ord. #135 Proposed Front yard Setback 35' min. 20' min. f. Height Ord. N141 Posed Parking 5/11000 4.0T/ 000 W proof of prkng. to. 5/1000 1 Parking sp. dimensions 9' X 19, 8'-6" X 17'-6" Permits Necessary E.A.W. Henn. Cty. Highway Watershed D.N.R. Platting P.C.A. Metro Council RECOMMENDATIONS Tfie_T"I_iining Staff feels that the following alternatives are reasonable as courses of action on this project. 1. Uphold the Comprehensive Guide Plan and deny the PUD and Rezoning request; -or- 2. Return the request to the proponent for modification; -or- Staff Report-City West page 5 MODIFICATIONS I. Reduction of the Phase I building size to allow a significant reduc- tion in parking. Larger green areas breaking up the parking area would be an improvement. However, placement of such a large building with at-grade parking around it is insensitive to the site and creates walking distances of over 500 feet in some instances. Breaking the lot into smaller lots with smaller buildings would create more open space on the site, buildings in closer proximity to parking, and an opportunity for more closely following the existing character of the land, .2. Phase I setbacks should adhere to ordinance. Setbacks should be sufficient to allow screening of parking with land forms, 3. A pedestrian system should be designed. 4. The parking lot access opposite Rowland Road should be a right-in right-out only. 5. Parking lot accesses to the loop road should be no closer than 300' to the intersections with Shady Oak. CE:ss I �\NNE$pr4 Minnesota Departinem of Transp(ntal101l it District Five ( yd' 5801 Dl_(luth Slrcet cirTik Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)5453761 August 11, 1981 Mr. Chris Enger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 In Reply Refer To: 315 S.P. 2763 T.H. 169/212 Plat Review of City West Located in the Northwest Quadrant of T.H. 169/212 and CSAH 61 in part of Section 1 , Township 116, Range 22 in Hennepin County Dear Mr. Enger: ( 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 de- velopment with consideration of the following comments: - The report submitted with the plat discusses the need for improvements at the interchange of T.H. 169/212 and CSAH 61. It should be noted that Mn/DOT has no future plans to make any of these improvements. - Our District Hydraulics Engineer, Mr. John Boynton, would like to review a more detailed drainage plan when it is available. This will enable him to deter- i mine what impacts this development might have on our inplace drainage system. Permits will be required if any additional drainage is directed to our right of i way or if any work is done within our right of way. If you have any questions in regard to the above comments, #' please contact our District Layout., Research and Development Engineer, Mr. J. S. Katz, at 545-3761, ext. 150. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. SincLrcl�, W. M. Cral�for.d, P.E.\. District Engineer cc: Charles Weaver Mike Reiter An EqualOpparnrnit).F.wpp(oyer I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 1 HENNEPIN ffu 935-3381 August 7, 1981 Mr. Chris Enger Director of Planning } City of Eden Prairie t't 8950 Eden Prairie Road i Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 � Dear Mr. Enger: i RE Proposed Plat - "City West" CSAH 61 NW Quadrant of 711 1.69/212 Section 1, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 950 Review and Recommendations l 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: 3 ( -The following recommendations are based on the Richard W. Anderson concept plan for "City West" dated July 15, 1981. Any changes in this concept plan will require re-evaluation by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation (DOT). l -To allow for future improvements and the channelization of CSAH 61 along "City . West" the developer should dedicate an additional 20 feet of right of way, making the right of way 60 feet from the center of CSAII 61. j -The "City West" concept plan requires'a major change to the Land Use Plan for the area cast of CSAII 61. A major concern to the DOT is what the future land use will become west of CS.N1 61 between CSAH 62 and 711 169/212. I 3 -The IK7T believes that access to "City West"/Iloneywell/East of Honeywell areas should be by two major intersections and two right-in, right-out only drives. Tlic site planning for the area west of CSM1 61 should be coordinated with this two major intersection concept now being developed for the "City West/Iloneywell/ t East of Honeywell areas. -Due to the close spacing of the CSAI 62 south ramps to the south frontage road, this south frontage road access to the Iloneywell/Bast of Iloncltiwell areas slmuld be do-emphasized by extending; the median through the intersection and permitting t right-in, right-out access only. In addition, no signal would be provided at I this access point. r HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opporlunlly employer i Mr. Chris T:nger - 2 August 7, 1981 -The main northerly access to "City Icest"/11one}naell/]last cof:Honeytacll area should be by the north major access street. Also, this major street should be straightened out to facilitate the cast-west movement. Double left turn lanes in and out would he provided at the intcrsect.inn.of:this a-.trcct:and CSA11 61 along with a traffic signal. -To allow room for chinnelization and to aid in;traffir flow., 'the,driveway locations on the north and south major access atrects:should be.a minimum of 300 feet from their intersection with CSAH 61. -The south major access street to "City (Vest"ran-lie lucatedrakther opposite Flying Cloud Drive or Rowland Road. Double left turn lanes xm and out would be i provided at the intersection of this street and iCSAFJ i61 :along,with:a traffic i signal. Traffic signals will work at either location. i -To handle the additional traffic generated by "City West", CSAH 61 -must -be up- graded to a 4-lane divided street with an island for chainielization from CSAH 62 to approximately 2000' south, and from 111 169/212 to approximately 12001 :north. Hennepin County does not contemplate any additional .upgrading of fSAH 61 with County funds. The required improvements to CSAH 6l shaulil be performed now by the City and/or developer. -It appears to the DOT that Rowland Road west-of CSAH 01 Twy have to retain access i from both north and southhound traffic from CSA74:61. i { -At full development, signals will be required at the ramps from TH 169/212, the "City West" south major access street, the "City lcesV` north major access Street, and the ramps at CS41 62. No signals will be permitter] at "City]Vest" access opposite Rowland Road or at the CSM 62 south frontage road. -Any new access to a County road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning construction. See our Traffic Division for entrance permit forms. -All proposed 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 landscaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. -The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, ( .Dames M. ]cold, P.1:. Chief, Planning and Progrmianing .MV/1,M:pi cc: Deve Earner, BR1V 19�{� CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 81-178 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CITY WEST BE IT RESOLVEO by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of _ City West dated "July, 1981 , a copy of which is on file at the City Hall and amended as follows: is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. AOOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor Jahn 0. Frane, City Clerk SEAL i E CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 81-177 i A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY WEST PLANNED { UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDING THE GUIDE PLAN 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 City West PUD is considered an amendment to the 1978 - Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on August 10, 1981 and considered Richard W. Anderson, Inc.'s request I for approval for office, commercial, and open apace uses, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on September 1, 1981. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, l ( Minnesota as follows: 1. The City West PUD, being in Hennepin 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 outlined in the application material dated July, 1981, and as modified. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of 1981. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. frane, City Clerk SEAL f City West EAW CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 81-179 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMETNAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR CITY WEST A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on September 1, 1981 to consider the City West proposal, and WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 87 acres of land in northeastern Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the City West project. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for City West because the project is not a major action which does not have signif- icant environmental effects and is not more than of local significance. S BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED, this day of 1981. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL igl�a MINNESOTA LNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL tluJ 19�1 ENVIRONM(.NTAL ASSESSMLNT ►IORKSHEET (EAW) f7 AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS f DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R.N _ NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Wor'rsheet (EAW) is to provide information 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 answers should be as specific as possible. Indicate which answers are estimated. I. SUMoMARY A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) Negative Declaration (No EIS) a EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Require B. ACTT:IIVITY IDENTIFICATION i 1. Project name or title City West 2. Project proposers) Richard W. Anderson (ADI) _... ( Address 10125 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ----- 0 Telephone Number and Area Code ( 612 ) 944-6803 i 3. Responsible Agency or Person_ city of Eden Prairie — a 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) 937-7.262 _� { 1. 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location City of Eden Prairie __ ) Telephone (612) 937-2262 HoursB:OOAM-4:30K t — - 1 5. Reason for EAW Preparation Mandatory Category -cite Petition Other a MEQC Rule number(s) MCAR 3.642 (B) (1) (bb) (dd) (eel— (bb) Construction in excess of 250,000 sq. ft. (dd) Construction, any part of which is within a shoreland. (ee) Construction which generates more than 2,500 trips/hour. I C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY 1. Project Location ( County Hennepin City/Township name Eden Prairie Township number_ 116 (North), Range Number_22 East or West (circle` Section numbers) 1 Street address (if in city) or legal description: 2. Type and scope of proposed project: Development of 80 acres into 11 acres of commercial (195,000 sq. ft. bldg5) and the remainder in office (approximately 800,000 sq. ft. of bldgs). 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) Late 1981 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) Undetermined ( 5. Estimated construction cost $80-100 million 6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed from each unit of government and status of each: Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval Status (federal, state , or Federal Funding regional, local) -City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Amendment Pending Concept Plan Approval Zoning District Change (phase I) -State of MN Indirect Source Permit Pending -Nine Mile Watershed District Land alteration Permit Pending -D.N.R. Work in public waters permit Pending 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?—NO—YES X UNKNOWN i�SU II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION A. Include the following maps or drawings: ( 1. A map showing the regional location of the project.(attached) 2. An original 811 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 1'= 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 maintained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution points) attached. 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures including significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc.) attached. 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. B. Present land use. - 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. The site is currently vacant. To the north is vacant land and County Road 62, to the east is US 169/212, and to the south and west is vacant land with some scattered residential development. ( 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban developed 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V)5,�acres b. Urban vacant 87 acres 9. Shoreland 0 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 0 acres d. Rural vacant 0 acres i. Cropland/Pasture land 0 acres e. Designated Rec- j. Forested 8.8 acres — i reation/Open 1. Space 0 acres t y}t i 3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. There are no lakes within 1,000 feet of the site, nor streams within 300 feet of the site. Bryant Lake is about one-half mile west of the site (see figure 1). -3- S C. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any), operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- 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.). The proposed total project would consist of 769,000 sq. ft. of office space and 195,000 sq. ft. of conrtnercial space (bank and hotel). Phase I would include 424,000 sq. ft. of office space. Internal site cir- culation roads and parking would also be developed as part of the project. 2. Fill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 87.0 acres g. Size of marina and access 0 ' sq.` i -or- channel (water area) Length - miles h. Vehicular traffic trips or generated per day 13,907 ADT b. Number of housing SEE figure 114 nd 15 ( recreational units 0 i. Number of employees 50 up to c. Height of structures 100 ft.max. j• Water supply needed 400 0, 00 gal/� Source: City d. Number of parking k. Soild waste requiring spaces 3,873 disposal 14,460 ton;. SEE figure 12. e. Amount of dredging 0 cu.yd. 1. Commercial, retail or industrial floor space964,000sq.f; f. Liquid wastes requir- SEE figure 12 ing treatment 350,000 gal/da Residential debeloprnent upon 40 acres @ 10 units/acre would have a water need of 143,000 gal/day. III. ASSESSMENT Of POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently NO X YES 9 exceeding 120 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? NO X YES 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. Some of the proposed bulldings would be constructed in areas with greater than 12% slope. Techniques to minimize erosion, such as haybales and re- vegetation, will be used. Most slopes greater than 12% will remain un- disturbed. The site has some poor soils for construction characterized by a high moisture content. some soils will require modification before con- struction. j';(c 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. In some areas of soils with poor bearing capacity, buildings of over three stories will be constructed with deep footings. No septic tank or ditch construction is proposed. 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: 350,000 cu.yd. grading350,000cu.yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? 75 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 15% 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Erosion control techniques will include haybales to control erosion during i construction and revegetation after construction. Grading of steep slopes will be minimized. B. VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following ( vegetative types: Woodland 10 % Cropland/ 0 % Pasture Brush or shrubs 5 % Marsh 7 % Grass or herbaceous 68 % Other 10 %Water (specify) 2. Now many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 5 acres 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNR publication The Connon Ones.) No If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? X NO YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish or wildlife on or near the site? (see DNR publication The Uncommon Ones). X ND YES 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish habitat? NO X YES 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. The project will change wildlife habitat from old field grasses to urban vegetation. Some marshes will be preserved. This alteration will dis- place large mammals from the site. The Bryant Lake Park Area across Shady Oak will absorb some of these animals. i j D. HYDROLOGY 1. Will the project include any of the following: If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. NO •YES a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, lowland, or groundwater supply X ! b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X C. Dredging or filling operations X _ d. Channel modifications or diversions X _ e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water X _ 1 f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- �ecl:ion of water bodies on or near the site X rainage from impervious areas will be directed to ponds exis -lng on the si 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 45 A SEE figure 12 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? Runoff will be directed primarily to three on-site strom water ponds. These ponds will in turn discharge major rainfall events to the southwest of the site. 4. Will there he encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain by new fill or structures? X NO YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance NO YES 5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the site? 0-5 feet E. WATER QUALITY 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? X 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 any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants in the wastewater. There will be no unusual effluents discharged to the sewage system. 3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? X NO` YES If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method of disposal. 4. What measures 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' F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or par- ticulates into the atmosphere? NO X YES If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devise or measures to be used, and specify the approximate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. The project will generate transportation related air emissions including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and lead. To address these pollutants, the total amounts of CO, HC, and NOx to be emitted by City West development traffic per day have been calculated. Concentrations of CO and lead have been predicted for 1985 in the vicinity of the south entrance to the development. CO, HC, and NOx will be generated in proportion to the number of vehicle miles traveled. The vehicle miles traveled have been estimated based upon the number of new trips generated by City West and adjacent developments and an average trip length of 5.7 miles1/. Applying average emission rates for 1985 and 2000 results in the following daily emissions. Emissions (Kg/Day) CO HC NOx Trips/Day Mil s/Day 1985 2000 1985 2000 1985 2000 j City West 13,900 79,230 3410 1795 178 87 379 204 Adjacent 11,700 66,690 2870 1510 150 73 320 172 Development ; Total 25,600 145,920 6280 3305 328 160 699 376 , y —1/ A Summary of Travel in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Council, April, 1975. J CO concentrations have been estimated in the vicinity of the south entrance to the City West project because the intersection experien- ces the maximum traffic volumes. The procedures used is based on EPA Volume 9 "Evaluating Indirect Sources." This is a conservative procedure designed to yield worst case concentration estimates. The assumptions made in the analysis include a 1 meter per second wind, atmospheric stability class "D", an 8-hour persistence of 0.6, 10% cold starts at 20OF and a background concentration of 1 PPM. At a point 10 meters west of the south entrance, a 1-hour concentration ofi�•3 PPM and an 8-hour concentration of 4.F PPM were predicted. These values are below the Federal standards of 35 PPM and 9 PPM and the Minnesota standards of 30 PP14 and 9 PPM. ( Lead concentrations were estimated using a procedure given in a January 31, 1978 FHWA Memorandum, "Proposed Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead." In 1985 the lead concentration calculated at a point 10 meters north of Shady Oak Road and 10 meters east of the south entrance is 0.41 ug/m3. This is well below the Federal stan- dard of 1.50 ug/m3. -7- �a,UU Minnesota Air Quality Rule APC-19 requires an Indirect Source Permit for "any new parking facility, or other indirect source with an associated parking area, which has a new parking capacity of 2,000 \ cars or more." The complete City West project will have 5,000 parking spaces which will require an Indirect Source Permit. The Permit will be needed prior to beginning construction of the deve- lopment increment which increases total parking to over 2,000 spaces. 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or opera-: tion of the project? _ NO X YES If yes, describe the noise source(s); specify decibel levels IdB(A)I, and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/vibration. i Construction and traffic noise will be generated by the City West development. Construction noise will be a temporary impact and will j be generated by construction equipment operations. Traffic noise will be generated by the increased traffic volumes attracted to the development site. ' i The State has established noise standards (NPC-2) in terms of the i L10 and L50 sound levels. These are the sound levels exceeded 10% and 50% of the time, respectively. For res:dential land uses, the state daytime standards are L10 - 65 dB(A) and L50 - 60 dB(A). i State nighttime (10:00 PM - 7:00 AM) standards will not be addressed since both construction activities and vehicle movements S associated with the development will occur during the day. i The most significant traffic volume increases will occur on Shady Oak Road. An analysis of noise levels resulting from the projected I 1985 traffic volumes on Shady Oak Road was done using the FHWA traf- fic noise prediction model, STAMINA 1.01/. The model was used to determine the distance from Shady Oak Road where noise levels would meet the L10 65 dB(A) standard. The setback distance varies with the traffic volume expected. Near the north entrance to the City West development, the standard is attained 150 feet from the edge of Shady Oak Road. This distance increases to approximately 200 feet near the south access road to the development. There are two resi- dences on Old Shady Oak Road which fall within the L10 65 dB(A) noise contour. These two residences will experience noise levels in q excess of the State standard during peak development traffic periods. Any additional residential development in the area should maintain a 200 foot setback from Shady Oak Road. Construction noise impacts will vary considerably depending on the types of equipment in use at particular times and the location of the equipment with respect -to residential structures. These impacts can be mitigated by ensuring that all equipment is properly muffled and-by locating equipment as far from residences as possible. It is the responsibility of the construction contractor to assure that State and local noise ordinances are met. 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. ' There are no noise or air quality sensitive receptors which could be affected by the project. -R- �i cD G. LANO RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY E 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry Xproduction yES or currently in such use? NO a and volume of marketable If yes, specify the acreage involved, typ crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. on the 2. Ife there yes, specifynown the typeral or pet of deposit and thesacreage,site? NO X YES There are shallow peat deposits on the site. The deposits are not commercially valuable. 1 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? NO X YES i Complete the following applicable: a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) j Estimated Peak Oemand ( Annual Hourly or Oaily Anticipated Firm Contract or Tape Requirement Summer Winter Sup tier Interruutable Basis? 600 mil= Gas 182.5 billion/cf lion cf da Minne asco Fi nt+a�t 3.272 kwh Electricity 75,513 kwh/mo. da YR N.S.P. Firm C nt b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. No fuel will be stored on the site. c. Estimate annual energy distribution for: space heating 40 lighting_20% air conditioning 45 % processing___5% ventilation 10 % d. Specify any major enerny conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. There are no major energy conservation systems beyond normal insulation known at this time. e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc.)? Only a relatively small number (250) of new housing units will be drawn to the area by this development. Overall driving mileage may either be decreased or increased, but not by a relatively significant margin. H. OPEN SPACE/RECERATION 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)? X NO YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be a Tected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. j I. TRANSPORTATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems ' (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc.)? NO X 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 percentage 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). See Appendix A. 2. Is mass transit available to the site? X NO YES 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? If ride numbers warrant a MTS park-n-ride site, the City would support and request a site. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/ regional comXreNOOnsive YES ans? If not, explain:The City Guide Plan would require amendment for project approval. The southeastern half of the site would have to be changed from planned mid- density residential to regional commercial and office use (see figures & 4). If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing zoning and change requested. The Phase I site requires a zoning change from a rural to office district. 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? I X NO YES If yes, explain type of development and specify any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. The height of the proposed office will not conflict with the office industrial uses to the north and east. It could be viewed as conflicting with the existing 9 lot residential area to the south or the large lot residential and farms to the west. 3. How many employees will move into the area to be near the project? 250 How much housing will be needed? SO units 4. Will the project induce development nearby--either support services or similar developments? X NO YES If yes, explain type of development and specify any other counties and munici- palities affected. 5. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? Amount required Public service for project Sufficient capacity? Water 400,000 qal/da yes Wastewater treatment 350,000 al/ es Sewer 2,400 feet yes Schools 0 pupi.1s _ yes Solid a+aste dis osal 14,460 ton/mo yes s 0.7 internal miles Shady Oak Rd. will require upgrad' Streets after 1.2 officers/1,000 Adequate prox. Other �Lolice, fire, etc of the If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local site ; plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessarystrictly for this elo. one project and its associated impacts? On site water, sewer, and road improvements will be made at the cost of the development. The only significant off-site public street facility which will require expansion is Shady Oak Road. Water usage required will exceed the j usage if.developed as medium density residential. ! „ 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EJS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program reviewed by the FQC? X NO YES If yes, specify which area or plan. t 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, poisons, etc? X NO YES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. 8. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the facility require special measures or plans? X NO YES 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? X NO YES 2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early settlement been found on the site? X NO YES Might any known archaeoligic or palentological sites be affected by the activity? X 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. i i 11I.01"HER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. 1. Construction techniques to minimize erosion will be utilized. 2. A system of storm water ponding will be developed to reduce peak flows and s to remove sediments from water flowing off-site. i �y��J V. FINDINGS The project is a private (�) governmental (X ) action. The Responsible Agency (Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is (_) is not(X ) a major action. State reasons: i 2. The project does ( ) does not (X ) have the potential for significant environmental effects. State reasons: } 3. (For private actions only.) The project is (_) is not (_) of more than local significance. State reasons: 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 State Register. 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. Based on the above findings, the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete either 1 or 2). 1. X NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 more than local significance. 2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An EIS 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 MEQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the MEQC can specifically authorize limited construction to begin or continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this project, specify the extent of progress recommended 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 j _ Title Date B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAIJ were mailed to all points on the official EQC distribution list, to the city and county ; directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question III.J.4 on page 11 of the CAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy.of the EAIJ which is sent to the EQC. C. Billing procedures for EQC 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 Stores). For instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of State Register--(612) 296-8239. _14- �` �� APPENDIX �- ��..^� u u : UICII Ja.t .•i '1 { \fin i "f`r � �■L � s 'L;lkt ,,Y r. f \ o Lake un + Mile1 mow"`�! �••,� tk�. 1�wnlln� 11 Ito r...-,J! rM1'p p /` III L F\, Ist 1 ,, 1.'•, Irj Z as C. I /r I(( l�/ � a'�a� •� �ll l'fl lil o n L ll ak I aiNNll }}rr ti La k r Se u f h j / J�. r>f' 1 A 1 4 ROWI'md • M,rl'hP1l`�,��� ; _ .l Ott �« �ta--.�. Lake lx p d.l l 4i',ki ELiEN11P-Aj HIE �. " Red Ruck i rGe nolg � / Antler. rRice March �•,',• � � 1• c+ fe\ Lake t.� �M // a I,a Is -21 � fall/1 1 I. ke X lev' i, PuJgx,7 , r \Jr v , c.c lour.• ti-.) i f J` /mil j•` -�...� '\.__—_.%;:rl ,`\ r rR,cPGrasA I nke vp c /:Blue �r 1 La he 101 - CI'nOye U r1 + -•�� ^^ ` Ft,, let \` r _ LitkP 0 s �NN,IIE 1 NNE is.1961 Site �?.aGP ������,�;,,�►��� Location ��.;;�aw _ltd�®V � .n <.-..-. >A 17.r't�v n•J'}�� 't•t,^, '^u r ER '�l"Tr '•'Tr tT 'T I+a kc rt j�,+ ,r ! '. � +ry1{ � i _S1{,^� i�J F - e 1 �l •",J.r i .+ �II 1 r�� �;,� t`r�� "�"�f+C•0�-Y.f 1 ' Ir, C,�. �.. t ��,'-.. � '��� ;Y���r�'4 k h jl�:�„ti\41 ti r f'J� T�, 1� a^'�/,. h r•;�II �>ra,;\`.`r y.�,�\, ,.�, \C: .�,� �i r13.)r+ -R'� "J�{ J•+,! � .'Y �r,,��.�.�3.1"-1:�y f( � t { \!t ,� { ! t� a ..w '�e k� � 11 •,��'�." :.ti, ���i'..+t :5�"\ :'`�`��.N �;�,'1 ��r� r���r+tl� !. !l��t yam• / ��� 4 6'a, i.�. 4 ,�!• .`.�'r� t I r 1r r�� �"I. ��•� 1 r� ,{`" -1�,r 9 � + �{,�.. r, ``� .c j \:s. v ` l "'1'r4 C,I.3•�l � ! ( V��ry{� T .x}'+'^ y'� qlj,�J� I ?.. .4� I ;.mil.^ �+\!{ l via d' a,"..r •� � + �• f 4 1 .�i t ` ., ,....�:�:.•. .e:...;>�vLrVi.�dl�►3.��'.'+��%•.e'f.. �s LL ��Yi i:"uId a.`.kao9..4.c..:tr�i.e •� .�. Area Setting �^l�' "' ;�'s� I�r•jl••{,,.n'S'Ii �. .1 f"7!►'•r+MT'.�' •Rl 1 r• t`�"�• ID \ }Dio / J1 i r f ft F•_ ` 111 r• � { ,1� t �' � 1 RM t 1 ff - +S`` U A: . { y I M IJ }D � I. rr,rL•� 1 I) F#CA"E Existing ,.. Land Use r L17 1 Iw Guide Plan ,�s,,, • -•- •- ••• �'dal i - ,+ r r r r 77 7-1 NMI ty 72 .......... rf f 11 �„yr 1 4 y ^r- J ,. r ' r ��1�a ark: w.i,= s -•►�:..i j FWAMI 4 r• °wor«uw° nmuv°uV .MML ts.Iist 11� �L�J�1 ru IMi I":J olta, Proposed � �w »v„ ,.. Land Use «,ter" Guide Plan ..,.., n„«. Physiography M. w own 9]0-9.0 020.930 910-970 90P910 090-900 O990-990 090 LESS DRIIIN.GE 4f ! r� IO99 ILI 1 � 3 f r! , f p / Juw 79.19e f10N1E e l Slopes F]�7:7 o ea PJTDec-l:a f1fllxa-lea I RE lea OVER 1 � \00� s, AW xe,1001 now Vegetation I I II f:; .- r alior[f _.(,� �1•lP C NMx.Lx �ar �.Y[LL . �;�.y ..h ~f .. no mo �'.♦ ��'C.L[� .I'N[0 OM NO r ll'LwIY "'444���"' © i Y)M wl i Olt LO[11[ I I r F ° r `� ae+lux LLN dNOVL..• Gd i.w V��Y. .xaL � °N I e,.• I /[M CO[tOwYWO FLY S ... ' w♦ fl �. 1 .Y[NN:iN FLY O i.Y- 1 ,l o cb 1� T 'FICAN L1Y L' ADI I�1, I f1011nE� 4, Soils B.•od UW son Reports]rs/st fl v Ilk. i it �f i.: •'• . . '� I I r ♦ 1 o•od son �« `i I Typical of Edon Pralrl•Ara. f � \\ f y't Hqh Conf•VSoQ9od.i ' low R.-no c.p•Gt ,.\ 1 e.nd�br.,lulfw SON",..•,•'y., / a II JUNE 28,lost Itw µ}'l� mum v ( Utilities 1 i 1 - - w..... _ ,\ SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATEA,MAIN' `• UNDER CONSTRUCTION WATER MAIN UNDER CONSTRUCTION � •�� \ T '.. aDi k _ EXISTING ..+.- "II" SANITARY SEWER ."' -..,...""'•.'. }_ _ Forces PROPERTY OWNED BY HONEYWELL POSSIBLE NEED FOR ACCESS TO ADJACENT SITE �t9sF1�R1�llr��lM4l4�lit}�I ,. r + DOMINANT PLANT ANDT Attl A 0 LAND MASS O NATURAL.. �1 .;•,• AMENITY ) " , t VISUAL EDGE �• // VISUAL EDGE AREAOIFLEAST"••'.. CONSTRAINT' ♦ ice Jr* i 1p ACCESS ;, /' • /r , ACCESS d� �J , FIGURE 11 ( Development Concept NOTE Ot FICF A L11•FN SPACE AREA TO RE RFZONFD 70 OFC RE DION AL COMMERCIAL STIES 70 BE REZONED 70 C•REG. 1 `1 1 i i qq 7 1 1 t t 1 I y t ` e :.� 1`1 JONE Zs,lost FIGUR �' `V►;E��iA.. , �+ f I llustrative �If s ` T Site Plan ,Y •/! ,��� r+ G, 'y / THE MUNNII.RS INTIMATING AOUARE FEET OF CONSTRUCTION A PARKING SPACES ARE SIIBJt E:T TO RE AR[MENT AT IRE IIMI OF REIGNING BASED ON 11NAL SITE PLAN a t�fin, t t a t A11 • MNti.t I I Na EYt}J+ `` 1 ♦ ,.��,�, '•ti i K "� �. •.r `ref �"+y 0 r \F y I f'N'% P J a ^�sIF .uNc ze,+osF ADI k 1t1;11` ,1.1 `•�I )' I �+,�?I Ili p I 1`�� � �F._ � � i G�II �� 1� '� � i .!• n��.!' ♦�Uj E r•• d {i' i t •1 J e 1 Fl it({ `�f` } �.._H.J� 1'" WI Y / �. x V"...- *'� .+-J� Fl,�u � '. hr r a l �vr�--• ` �_,�-[a .� 1 "1 i�Y„�t, L1? I L.)e•.. � ,��, [[[ -l_r � ?� I • i L-,W' V't- �..,a+i� ° '•E r. n s. s_ ?` wl�l�.t�...�.��V ti��,� �o�.I��rJ ,', •d,'•_i � I • ¢ 1� �,�' !� r "}� �'"^'��y� � � ice( ` /�4� �.'jj Inlerlachen� Zr, `INiga �rld F �� 4 Zvi r��l.l IiI`G-�:o"=i.tja`�� $• •CountrYClub t ;r f P) I � Y 1-29 kGaF\o l .......... np1 'L-�. 1 p /^IF `,v I ?eve "_ '., -'+sa 1 L;•. r•}N •�'/ \' ° C i g\\ 1 p 3 ••: �rYz+F"wuaL�.A�� (1 / $CmOY Oak eke �r' .•� F� 31 °;�MKe._��l1 �6-. ���� -`����• �ParF.`_• h':. -��`.«-:;,�• Jti+ 1. r�\•' I ��� � I II v ia.uC«n�tn.•C6• `�-�- '1 ..li}y' .-- u'�-:t-�,1� .�r ,� \ I• PARK21 'e — f • j ( �j rm e':rnd •- n v � YI.I� I ,�, �itps� I� .:.:. ) �►� +`/ Int J I et �t .ri�11 Il a1 - III •°4« • �C"N Ir. rC aJ \1` °• �I Il+ I �� `,111 j " 1 �.♦ }r (� �°y //i?`�jN/�. la M tJu4 C ' t 169 I•ra ei P I \ S r � l II�Ik —�Fp--e. • —�'.11Cff- .��` ._ .; r f.,� � 1� i�f U•$.G.$. Map FIGURE 13 33 . _ a i J C.1 SITE ACCESS/CIRCULATION /J i In order to assess the traffic impacts of the proposed development, a detailed traffic analysis was conducted. This traffic analysis considers two conditions: . • Year 1985 - The City West site and adjacent sites are fully developed. Neither the Crosstown extension nor the Eden _ Prairie Center Ring Route have been constructed. • Year 2000 - The City West site and adjacent sites are fully developed RBoth outethaverbeeno extensionwn and the Eden Prairie constructed The analysis examines the potential traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway system, it establishes what roadway improvements are needed to provide a satisfactory level of traffic service for both site-oriented traffic and non-site traffic, and it determines the e access f is analysis consists circulation sl sts Of four steps needs serve development traff ic The traf Trip p Generation - estimate the number of trips which will be • r . generated by the proposed development. • Traffic Assignment - determine which roads will be used by trips going to and from the site. • Existing and Future Traffic Volumes - document existing traf- fic levels and estimate forecast year traffic volumes on affected portions of the area roadway system. Site Access, and Circulation Needs - identify im- • Roadway, which are provements to the external roadway system hour operating con- needed to maintain satisfactory peak identify site access and ditions in the forecast years, internal circulation features needed to provide satisfactory operating conditions when the site is fully developed. 1. Trip Generation The number of trips generated by a development is a function of the size of of the development devel developments proposedtforsC City Westties include hich offi eake place and there. The com- mercial uses. 44 Table 2 lists the proposed building areas and gives the estimated trip generation rates which are drawn from national average rates for these types of land uses.) When fully developed the City West site will generate approximately 13,900 trip ends (or one-way trips) per day and adjacent development within the triangle will generate an additional 11,700 trip ends per day. For this analysis it was assumed that the northeast quadrant will be developed for office uses in order to present the worst case condition. if the northeast quadrant is developed for residential uses, as presently Indicated in the land use guide plan, trip generation rates will be reduced resulting in fewer trip ends. TABLE 2 I DAILY TRIP GENERATION TRIP GENERATION RATE TRIP ENDS LAND USE SiZE (Trip ends per day)-2/. Per Day31 City West Office 777,000 S.F. 12.3 per 1000 S.F. 9,557 Drive-ln 8 Drive-In Tellers 150 per drive-in 1,200 Bank teller (external) Hotel 300 Rooms 10.5 per room 3,150 Subtotal 13,907 Adjacent Development f Office 600,000 S.F. 12.3 per 1000 S.F. 7,380 i (Honeywell Site) Office 350,000 S.F. 12.3 per 1000 S.F. 41305 (Northeast Site) 9 i Sub-total 11,685 Total 25,592 Table 3 lists the morning and afternoon peak hour trip generation. The peak hour trip generation is also based on Institute of Transportation Engineers data. Trip Generation. Second Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979 Trip Generation, Second Edition, Institute of Transportation Engi- neers, 1979. 3/ A trip end is either an origin or a destination. One trip end Is counted as each vehicle arrives at the site (destination) and another trip end Is counted as each vehicle leaves the site (origin). n 45 TABLE 3 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES PERCENT OF TRIPS HOUR OAILY TRAFFIC IN OUT TOTAL Morning Peak Hour City West 15% 1,730 370 2,100 Adjacent Oevelo ment 19% 1,850 350 2,200 Total 17% 3,580 720 4,300 Afternoon Peak Hour City West 16% 490 1,610 2,200 Adjacent Oevelo ment 18% 350 1,750 2,100 ? Total 17 840 3,360 4,300 2. Traffic Assignment i The traffic generated by the City West and the adjoining developments must be assigned to roads serving the site in order to identify loca- tions of potential traffic related impacts. The orientation of these new trips was estimated based on the Regional Travel Model of year 2000 travel developed and maintained by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Oepartment of Transportation (Mn/DOT). t An analysis of the forecasted year 2000 travel in and out of the traffic analysis zone which includes the City West site (TA2 851) gives the ; distribution of opposite trip ends (Table 4). The trips will use the most convenient route available between the site and their destination. TABLE 4 TRIP ENO ORIENTATION P i Trips Oriented to: Portion of Total Trips Generated Y Shady Oak Road - North 5% { County Road 18 - North 19% a Crosstown Highway - East 22% Valley View Road - East 6% 1-494 - East 17% I County Road 18 - South 4% TH 5 - West 1411 Golden Ridge Road - West 1% County Road 67 - West 6% ( 1-494 - North 6% Total 100% 46 I��� Two roadway Improvements are planned in the vicinity of the proposed ( development which will have a significant impact on the routes used by trips to and from the site. • Hennepin County is currently conducting a route location and design study and preparing an environmental impact statement for the extension of the Crosstown Highway (C.S.A.H. 62) from its present terminus at Shady Oak Road west to an existing interchange with 1-494 at C.S.A.H. 67. • The City of Eden Prairie has proposed construction of improved access In the 1-494, TH 5, TH 169-212 area which would provide improved travel times for some trips to and from the City West site. Two assignments of site generated traffic were made. The first assign- ment was made to roads available at the present time. The second assignment was made to the roadway system which will be available when the improvements described above are made. Table 5 gives the breakdown, by approach, of the site generated traffic under each of the two conditions. i TABLE 5 ( APPROACH ROUTE DISTRIBUTION ! i i Approach Portion of Total Trip Generation Under: I Route Existing Road System Future Road System ! i Shady Oak Road - North 11% 5% County Road 18 - North 19$ 1 Crosstown Highway - East 22% 22% Shady Oak Road - East 27% 6% TH 169-212 - South 204 35% i Golden Ridge Road - West Crosstown Highway - West Not. Avail. _ 12% {. d Total 100% 100% 9 3. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Existing daily traffic volumes shown in Figures 14 and 15 were obtained from the latest official Minnesota Department of Transportation traffic flow map (dated 1978) and from the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. Traffic expected to occur In the future is a combination of existing traffic, anticipated growth in non-site oriented traffic, and site oriented traffic. Traffic volumes were projected for two future years In order to assess traffic flow characteristics under two conditions: 47 a. 1985 Traffic Forecast The year 1985 traffic forecast, shown in Figure 14, is the sum of expected 1985 non-site traffic and an assignment of the traffic generated by full development of the City West and 'adjacent sites. 1985 non-site traffic was estimated by interpolating between the latest available traffic counts (1978) and year 2000 projections. b. 2000 Traffic Forecast The year 2000 traffic forecast, shown in Figure 15, is based on year 2000 traffic volume projections prepared by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation and forecasts prepared for the Hennepin County Transportation System Study. The assignment of full development trip generation to the proposed roadway system Is added directly to these forecasts. It is likely that this procedure results in double-counting of some future trips, because the forecasts theoreti- cally take future development into account. The, magnitude of the double-counting is very small, however; the difference between 1978 traffic counts and the year 2000 traffic volume projections (before i adding in development traffic) is 1,620 vehicles per day on Shady Oak Road, while the combination of the City West development and adjacent development generates over 25,000 trips per day. 4. Roadway, Site Access and Circulation Needs The final step in the traffic analysis was the determination of trans- portation facilities needed to serve the combination of site and non- site traffic at an adequate level of service. As described above, two conditions were analyzed: 1985 traffic volumes, full development, existing roadway system. 2000 traffic volumes, full development, future roadway system. a. Methodology The analysis was conducted based on the methods described in the Highway Capacity ManualJ, and includes two steps: # 1.) Assuming existing physical conditions (roadway width, number of lanes, etc.) or a minimum level improvement, conduct capacity ana- lyses given the projected yarning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes and assumed physical conditions. 1 2.) If the peak hour level of service is not adequate, assume higher level of roadway improvement until minimum�}equ ired level of road- way Improvement providing adequate level of service is determined. 4/ Highway_Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1965. I i 48 In� 1440 0 C Op f- --2700 w N , FIGURE 14 ( N Year 1985 � y,,••�•I L Average Daily Traffic II - SSSUMLS FULL SITE Of VELOVMENT a E MISTING I ITI.RNAL ROADWAY SYSTEM (10AOD)1978 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I / . l `l,0 3. N. OJT aD11 00) ---om 6300-- --- 23DO_ .. u j FIGURE 15 o. Year 2000 ' Average Daily Traffic �I ASSUMES IUI.L SITU DFVILDPNUNT •.,. {CDNST{IUC NON W CROSSlow"EXTENSION f i EDENPRAIRIL CFI/T7.R.RMGROUTE �• I I. ;� I (10,0001 1979 AVERAGE D11&V TRAfF1C , I I _ }to I 1 r ,.1 p; � l UUNE?B,1901 dill The analysis showed that the development of the City West and adjacent ( sites will increase traffic volumes on Shady Oak Road significantly over existing volumes and over future volumes without development of these sites. The need for roadway and traffic control improvements will occur as the sites are developed. The needed improvements are described below in two categories, external roadway improvements, and on-site roadway needs. b. External Roadway improvement Needs Shady Oak Road is presently a two-lane roadway with paved shoulders bet- ween the interchange with the Crosstown Highway and the interchange with TH 169-212. At the interchange with the Crosstown Highway, Shady Oak Road is widened to two through lanes in each direction, with a raised median wide enough to accommodate a left turn lane. At iH 169-212, the bridge over TH 169-212 is about 70 feet wide (railing to railing). This width will allow left-turn lanes as required. To accommodate morning and afternoon peak hour traffic flows expected with the development of the City West and adjacent sites, Shady Oak Road should be widened to two lanes in each direction from the interchange with the Crosstown Highway to the interchange with iH 169-212. A median wide enough to provide left turn lanes should be provided from the Crosstown Highway and the north access to the City West site, and from the entrance opposite Flying Cloud Drive to the interchange with TH 9 t 169-212 (Figure 16). To accommodate expected peak hour traffic flows at a satisfactory level of service, major intersections will require signalization. These are •�y the intersections of Shady Oak Road with the eastbound Crosstown Highway ramp, West 62nd Street, the north access to the City West site, the j entrance opposite Flying Cloud Drive, the southbound TH 169-212 ramps 1 and the northbound TH 169-212 ramps. The widening of Shady Oak Road should be timed such that it is completed ; i when a significant portion of the site (say 20 percent) is developed. LLLttt The signalization of intersections should be implemented as the traffic 1 demand warrants. Specific intersections wiI require signalization as the parcels served by those intersections are developed. In addition, the intersection of Shady Oak Road and the westbound Crosstown Highway ramps will require signalization when the Crosstown Highway is extended to the west. c. Internal Roadway Needs When the City West site is fully developed, the internal loop roadway will carry between 2,000 vehicles per day at the point farthest from the entrances, 9,500 vehicles per day at the north access, and 7,800 vehicles per day at the south access. In order to accommodate the volu- mes and the relatively large numbor of turning movements in and out of 53 h'19 fA0f 11D�� h _A•LANI 5 DIVIDED, IUNN LAM1.5 _ / IE fN;UAF 16 Roadway Improvement Needs I �. 1DAFFIC SIGNALS NEEDED Al HILL DFVLLOVMF.NT 1AAFFIC SIGNALS NEEDED WI11N C S A1162 IS C,NSTNUCI EU IO WEST I•I' MEDIAN `I l' 4-A8 FEET►WIDE l7'LAN_E f10ADW AY AB FEET WIVE 1 76 FEET WNIE I ' -. A-LADES UNDIVIDED tl FELT LT WOE Y S \` MI.DUIN JJW 76,1961 TURN l AWES J. ADI /-- parking lot entrances, a four-lane, 48-foot wide roadway -should be provided. At the intersections with Shady Oak Road, a median should be constructed to separate opposing traffic and to encourage smooth traffic flow. The access road which serves the adjacent sites to the north, will carry from 2,300 to 4,400 vehicles per day. A two-lane roadway will accom- modate this volume. In order to allow for turning traffic, this roadway should be 36 feet wide. These roadway needs are also shown on Figure 16. i Wi+h the recommended improvements, the traffic moving in and out of the area will encounter satisfactory traffic flow conditions. D. UTILITIES/GRAINAGE The proposed utilities plan (Figure 17), represents a preliminary layout of the recommended principal utility systems. As indicated in the plan, half of the utilities will be completed when the utility construction, currently under way along Shady Oak Road, will have been completed. The watermain system will be' deveIoped as a loop and will be Located in the primary roadway right-of-way. A second loop will be formed by a connection to the existing watermain along U.S. Highway 169/212. 4 The sanitary sewer will also be located in the primary roadway right-of- way and will connect to the existing system at the southerly boundary of the site. The storm sewer system has not yet been designed in detail, but most of the surface runoff will essentially be directed to and retained in the on-site ponding areas. Excess runoff will be channeled into the existing areas discharge system. Final drainage plans will be designed in conformance with established Watershed District criteria and requirements. The grading plan (Figure 18) delineates the proposed contours, major retaining walls, and principal undistrubed areas which will be protected from any construction activities. Every effort will be made to preserve all sensitive vegetated slopes and to minimize changes to the existing topography. { 54 1qq I 1 T0: Mayor & Council � .. FROM: John Frane DATE: August 28, 1981 RE: MIDB'S - ITT (Schadow) Project - $2,000,000 - ITT Schadow is presently located at 8081 Wallace Road. Their present facility is-16,000 square feet and they intend to construct a 12,000 square foot addition to the building and purchase manufacturing and material handling equipment. It is anticipated that the terms of the financing will be between 7 and 15 years which approximates the useful life of the equipment. Present employment is 179 persons; their employ- ment after the expansion will be 240. The property is zoned I-2 which is correct for the use. Resolution #81-182 is included for your consideration. -gin r CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA t Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1, APPLICANT: a, Business Name - International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation b, Business Address - 320 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022 ration, partnership, sole proprietor- c, Business Form (corpo ship, etc.) - corporation d. State of Incorporation or organization - Delaware e. Authorized Representative - Mr. Larry McGinnis f, Phone - (612) 934-4400 • i { ADDRESSES OT° MAJOR STOCKHOLDUS OR PRINCIPALS: 2 NA;;E(S) AND International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation has outstanding approximately 125 million Common shares and 15 million Preferred shares, all of which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. a. There were approximately 159,000 record holders of ITT Common Stock on February 28, 1981. b. ITT does not know of any person, corporation or other entity which is the beneficial owner of 5% or more of ITT's Common Stock or of ITT's Preferred Stock of all series. _1- 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC: ITT is principally engaged, directly and through subsidiaries, in five i businesses: Telecommunications and Electronics, Engineered Products, Consumer Products and Services, Natural Resources, and Insurance and Finance, t 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 12,000 square foot addition to existing facilities plus machinery and equipment to be installed in increments therein for the production of mechanical switches. a. Location and intended use: 8081 Wallace Road, Eden Prairie - Expansion to be utilized in the manufacture and housing of inventory. b. Present ownership of project site: Applicant c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: N/A 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: $ Land Construction Contracts 350.000 Equipment Acquisition and installation* 1,550,000 Architectural and Engineering 20,000 Legal 30,000 Interest during Construction -- Bond Reserve Contingencies 30,000 Loan Fees 0,000 Other Total $2,000,000 *Heating and air conditioning should be included as building costs. Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here. Manufacturing equipment, material handling equipment and related items. f 1301M ISSUL - c a. Amount of proposed bond issue - Currently estimated at $2,000,000 r b. Proposed date of sale of bond - # 12/1/81 c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - Not to exceed 20 years , d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - Northwest National Bank e. Name and address of suggested trustee - None f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser - 4, None g. Describe any interim financing sought or availably - None h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - N/A 7. BUSII;ESS PROFILE OF APPLICANT. the Cite of Eden Prairie? a. Are you located in Yes b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? i. Before this project: 179 -3- 19�)S _. ii. After this project? 240 C. Approximate annual sales - Not published as to ITT Schadow d. Length of time in business seven (7) years i I` in Eden Prairie seven (7) years e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? See t.nnual Report; ho ot.aer plants operated by ITT Schadow f. Are you engaged in international trade? Limited, as to ITT Schadow - approximately 1% of sales. S. OTIMR INDUSTRIAL DyCDLGP,1MNT PROJECT(S) a. List the name(s) and location(S) of other industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant is the opener or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a ,,releated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. See :;tomached ( t9�)(o b. List all cities in Which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. I. The industrial Development Authority of Bucks County (Pennsylvania) 2. DeSoto County, Mississippi request the Applicant has before a. Detail the status of any . any other city for industrial development revenue financing. a All approvals received 6 1. above: Bonds to be sold i 2. above: Bonds sold.and documentation in process d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused industrial development revenue financing. None e List an} 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 _J_ f. If Applicant has been denied industrial cityidentified nt in any other city revenue financing the reason(s) for the denial (d) in or (e), specify officials who and the name(s) of appropriate city have knowledge of the transaction. i N/A g, I;AL4D5 AND ADDPXSS OF: a., Underv;river (If public offering) N/A to Placement Purchaser (If private placement) b. Priv a Northwest National Bank untilhas ty i, If lender will not commit resolutionlapproin6 passed its preliminary the project, submit a letter from proposed lender that it has .an interest nter ste in the offering subject. to appropriate oval of the Commissioner approval and appr of Securities. , �G- aa,j b. Bond Counsel - King a Spalding 2500 Trust Company Tower (. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Corporate Counsel - Robert W. Beicke, Esq. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation 320 Park Avenue d. Accountant - New York, New York 10022 l0. THAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a, Construction start - September 15, 1981 b. Construction completion - December 31, 1981 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden prairie for Industrial dly Development bond financing does notorxwaiverlof any provision constitute any approval, variance, or other rule , or requirement relating tofany zoneen irie, or an building y other laNv or ordinance of the Coiorty included in this project. applicable to the Pr P International Telephone and Telegraph Cor Applicant 33y VICE PALc31d NT �fHO /9 �IATE 7Rf14SW�EK g1,3 /�� • Date -7- 11. ZONING - TO BE COtdPLETDD BY TIID CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a. Property is zonedZ- b. Present zoning (is� (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 _g_ B. (a) Tax-Exempt Bond Financed Projects: $1,000,000 Town of Clinton, Massachusetts Industrial Revenue Bond (ITT Corporation Project), Series 1979 $1,000,000 Industrial Revenue Authority of the Town of Culpeper, Virginia Industrial Revenue Bonds (Alfred Teves, Inc. Project), Series 1978 $4,650,000 The Industrial Development Board of the City of Florence Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (ITT Corporation Project) , Series 1980, Issue A and Issue B $1,000,000 Macon-Bibb County Industrial Revenue Bond (ITT CorporationProject) , Series 1979 $1,000,000 New Jersey Economic Development Authority Industrial Revenue Bonds (ITT Rayonier Project), Series 1978 $6,200,000 Pike County, Ohio Revenue Bonds (ITT Rayonier Project), Series 1979 $7,200,000 Industrial Development Authority of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia Revenue Bonds (ITT Continental Baking Company Project) , Series 1980, Issue A and Issue B $2,700,000 City of Sycamore, Illinois Industrial'Revenue Bonds (ITT Corporation Project) , Series 1978 o l t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE THE FINANCING OF A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL PROJECT FOR INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INDUCEMENT LETTER WHEREAS,the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA(the"Issuer")has been informed by officials of INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), that the Company proposes the expansion and modification of an existing industrial facility in the City of Eden Prairie,including a 12,000 square foot expansion to the existing building and the installation therein of certain structures, machinery,equipment and related real and personal property(the"Project")which the Company has indicated will increase employment opportunities in the area served by the Issuer by approximately 80 jobs and that the availability of revenue bond financing is an important factor under consideration by the Company in determining the feasibility of the proposed Project from a financial standpoint;and WHEREAS, it is estimated by the Company that the planning, design, ( acquisition, construction and carrying out of the proposed Project will require expenditures currently estimated at approximately$2,000,000;and WHEREAS, after careful study and investigation of the nature of the proposed Project, the Issuer has determined that, in assisting with the financing of the same,the Issuer will be acting in furtherance of the public purposes set forth in Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, known as the "Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act"(the"Act")and that the Issuer has the power and authority to do so;and 3 WHEREAS, the most feasible method of financing the proposed Project is j for the Issuer to issue its revenue bonds in one or more series(the"Bonds")for that purpose and for it to lend the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds to the Company 1 or to a wholly-owned subsidiary thereof to enable it to plan, design, .acquire, construct and carry out the proposed Project and to repay the loan in installments j which will be sufficient and timely to pay the principal of, and the redemption i premium (if any)and the interest on,the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Company has requested that the Issuer indicate its willingness to issue the Bonds to finance the proposed Project so that said planning, design,acquisition,construction and carrying out of the proposed Project may move forward; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has determined that the proposed Project will encourage economically sound development, will help to provide the range of services and employment opportunities required by the population of the Issuer,and I- I, will help to prevent the movement of talented and educated persons out of the State and,to areas within the State where their services may not be as effectively used,it is in the best interest of the inhabitants of the Issuer that the planning, design, acquisition, construction and carrying out of the proposed Project move forward without delay, and WHEREAS, Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Incorporated, New York, New York,has advised that on the basis of information submitted to it,the Bonds could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms in the amount required; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, and IT 15 HEREBY RESOLVED by the authority of the same, as follows: 1. The proposed Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the Issuer, subject to the approval of the proposed Project by the Commissioner of Securities and subject to final approval by the Issuer and the Company. 2. In order to indicate the Issuer's willingness to issue the Bonds to finance, in whole or in part, the planning, design, acquisition, construction and carrying out of the proposed Project,the execution and delivery to the Company of an inducement letter is hereby authorized, said inducement letter to be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A", subject to such minor changes, insertions and omissions as may be approved by the Mayor of the Issuer, I and the execution of said inducement letter by the Mayor and.City Clerk of the Issuer shall be conclusive evidence of any such approval. 3. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the Issuer will issue the Bonds as requested by the Company. The Issuer retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds should the Issuer at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the Issuer not to issue the Bonds or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the operative security documents. 4. Nothing in this Resolution or in the security documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues thereof or the proceeds of the Bonds or other funds granted to the Issuer for this purpose. The Bonds shall not constitute a charge,lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable,upon any property or funds of the Issuer except the Project and the revenues pledged to the payment thereof nor shall the Issuer be subject to any liability thereon. The bondholders shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the Issuer to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the Issuer except the Project. The Bonds shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment +, thereof. No Bonds issued hereunder shall constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. _2 . c S. The Company has agreed to pay directly or through the Issuer any 'and all costs incurred by the Issuer in connection with the Project,whether or not the proposed Project is approved by the Commissioner of Securities;whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds or operative security documents are executed. 1 6. In accordance with Subdivision 7 of Section 474.01, Minnesota Statutes, the Mayor of the Issuer is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the proposed Project to the Commissioner of Securities requesting his approval, and other officers, employees and agents of the Issuer are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with such preliminary information as he may require. 7. All commitments of the Issuer expressed herein are subject to the condition that within twelve months of the date of adoption of this Resolution the Issuer and the Company shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the security documents, the Bonds and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds are not sold within such time,this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. & In adopting this resolution, it is intended by the Issuer to take "official action" (within the meaning of Section 1.103-8(aH5) of the Income Tax Regulations)toward the issuance of the Bonds. 9. The Mayor and Clerk of the Issuer are further hereby authorized to take any and all further action and to execute and deliver any and all other documents as may be necessary to issue and deliver said proposed revenue bonds and to effect the undertaking for which said revenue bonds are proposed to be issued. Adopted this 1st day of September, I981. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA By: Ma yor (CORPORATE SEAL) Attest: ( City Clerk -3- �<r;�l September 1, 1981 t,lf' OF MINNESOTA }}tt Of EDEN PRAIRIE i'_,,NTY OF HENNEPIN 111p follol.:ing accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 7756 VOID OUT CHECK $ ( 33.00 8091 PETTY CASH Expenses 69.8,� 8092 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 50.40 " 8093 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Wine 254.61 8D94 MID'rIEST NINE CO. Wine 2,178.47 a 8095 GARY OTTERDAHL Softball official 33.00 8096 TWIN CITY CO. Liquor 411.8 8097 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 5,853.5 8098 JOHNSON BROTHERS I:HOLESALE Liquor 1,191.91' 8099 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Wine 1,601.1-1 8100 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 4,418.2 8101 HEIINEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE Expenses 5.0C 8102 EARL R. & HELEN MORE Earnest money-Park Dept. 500.0' 8103 PETTY CASH Expenses 9.61 8104 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Sales tax 7,564.4 8105 NORTH CENTRAL SECTION A14WA Conference-Water Dept. 80.00 8106 NORMANDY INN DULUTH Expenses-11ater Dept. 156.9, 8107 NORTHERN CONTRACTING CO. Easement-Industrial Blvd. 4,830.0C 8108 FRANKLIN NAT'L BANK h1PLS. Easement-Industrial Blvd. 610.0" 8 TWIN CITY PET SUPPLY CO. Supplies-Canine Unit 57•9F' 8 10 HOLIDALE CAR RENTAL Car rental-Summer Program 1,276.0( 8111 SCOTT THOMPSON Expenses 25.00 t 8112 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER COMMERCE Expenses-Liquor Store/Preserve 10.01, 1 8113 JUBILEE BOAT TRIP Expenses-Senior Citizens 238.5C 8114 GRIGGS, COOPER, & CO., INC. Liquor 2,739.5, 8115 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Liquor 1,317.8, 8116 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING Wine 370.2'.' 8117 MIDNEST MINE CO. Wine 289.6, 8118 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Nine 285.0' 8119 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 392.5; 8120 PAUSTIS & SONS -Wine 140.6C 8121 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,317.1P 8122 JOHNSON BROTHERS 14HOLESALE Liquor 1,504.7, 6123 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 2,175.4, 3 8124 HENNEPIN COUNTY RECORDER Plat reproduction-Engineering Dept. 7.0C 8125 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL Fee-Engineering Dept. 40.0: ' B126 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 17,365.5` 8127 COaMISSIONER OF REVENUE Payroll 6,004.0 8128 DEPART OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Payroll 17,674.8: 8129 AETNA LIFE & ANNUITY CO. Payroll 165.0(' , 8130 UNITED WAY OF MPLS. Payroll 46.9i A. 8131 P E R A Payroll 11,328.9: 8132 SUBURBAN NAT'L BANK Payroll 175.0 8133 A & H WELDING & MFG. Steel bar-Park Dept. 1 STUART ALEXANDER Mileage 56.7' 8135 AMERICAN NAT'L BANK Service 75.O, 8136 EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC. Street signs 1,016.3, 8137 APPLE VALLEY RED-E-MIX Blacktop 221.7`• two y 'cu,ber 1, 1981 ;ti ASSOCIATED ASPHALT, INC. Blacktop 2,407.2: 39 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS Well-Grill House 6,216.0 ni40 B R 1.1 Service-Eden Road, Dell Road, Anderson Lakes 9,507.5-• Parkway, Homeward Hills Road, Lake Eden Rd. 8141 BERGIN AUTO BODY Equipment repairs-Park Dept. 661.5" 8142 DENIS BILLMYER Softball official 110.0 8143 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON July 81 service 490.0; 8144 BORCHERT-INGERSOLL, INC. Filter-Street Dept. 66.5: 8145 BROWN PHOTO Film 237.9. 8146 BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor Stores 243.1: 8147 CASTLE BLDG. & REMODELING Refund-Building Dept. 400.0 8148 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal ads 195.5: 8149 CHEMLA14N Service 88.6•' 8150 CLUTCH & U-JOINT Equipment repair & parts 23.9!' 8151 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT Service-Hwy 5 & Mitchell Road 56.1`. 8152 ANNETTE CUMMINGS Fee-Public Safety 5.0 8153 COMPUTER ELECTION SYSTEMS Equipment repairs-Election 700.0 8154 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. Blueline-Engineering Dept. 391.3, 8155 DATED BOOKS Supplies-Street Dept. 54.5 8156 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO. Water meters 12,868.2 8157 A.B. DICK C014PANY Office supplies 225•`•' 8158 DORHOLT PRINTING Office supplies 500.7: 8159 SUSAN ELLINGSON Mileage 11.7: 0 EMPIRE-CROWN/AUTO INC. Equipment repairs & parts 73.1 ' 84 1 GARY ENGELHART Softball official 231.C" 8162 CHRIS ENGER Expenses 150.0 8163 FAIRVIE14 COMMUNITY HOSPITALS Test 25.C` 8164 FEED-RITE CONIROLS INC. Chlorine-Water Dept. 1,621.E 8165 FINN'S CAMERAS Projecter & stand-City Hall 144•£' 8166 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN. Dues-Fire Dept 45.0 8167 JOHN FOX Service-Staring Lake Senior Center 290•C 8168 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Equipment repair & parts 60.9 8169 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT Supplies-Fire Dept. 40.2 8170 HACH Chemicals-Water Dept. 15 2 : q 8171 HENNEPIN COUNTY DIRECTOR Tree debris removal 162•`, . 8172 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Fee-Public Safety 319.E 8173 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS Equipment repair & parts 45.4 j 8174 HOPKINS DODGE SALES, INC. Equipment repair & parts 92.5 t 8175 MARCIA HUTSON RN Test 25.0 8176 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER Equipment rental-Park Dept. 1.600.'' 8177 JAllERCISE, INC. Dance instructor 1,993.( 8178 BRIAN JOHNSDN Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 70•' 8179 JEAN JOHNSDN Mileage 10.E 8180 ROSEMARY JOHNSDN Expenses 100.0 8181 CARL JULLIE Expenses 27.7 8182 KARULF HARDWARE, INC. Batteries-Engineering Dept. 36.0 8183 KRIS KRYSTOFIAK Mileage 30.', 8184 M.E. LANE, INC. Notary bond-Finance Dept. 25.0 4" 15 JOHN S. LATZKE Expenses-Street Dept. 15.i b.86 LOGIS July 81 service 2,166.i, 8187 LONE STAR ELECTRONICS Antenna's-Public Safety 397••' 8188 DEBBIE LORENCE Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 3.7 8189 ROBERT N. MARTZ Expenses 167.(- 8190 DAVID MARTYN Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 51.0 three oiber 1, 1981 �,. PETER MAYOU Expenses 40.00 MERIT PRINTING Printing-PIbg. & Gas fitting permits 240.4, „ METRO PRINTING, INC. Forms-Athletic registration & Tree removal 337.0C rI 4 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL July 81 SAC Charges 14,305.5. 8195 METROPOLITAN HASTE CONTROL September Sewer Service 40,315 1. 819; MEYER BROS. OAIRY, INC. Milk-Recreation Oept. 38..0,' 8197 LON MILLER Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 27.0 8198 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Oxygen-Park Oept. 27.3', 8199 MINNESOTA CASH REGISTER CO. Cash register maintenance-Liquor Store/Preserve � 886.8 8200 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Service 704.3., 8201 M.I.A.M.A. Oues-Community Center Administration 50.0, 8202 MINI.6-SOTA STATE TREASURER Miller property-Park Oept 650.0: 8203 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER Overpayment of SNR-Park Oept 47,500.0 8204 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC Service 19'5, 8205 MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY Fittings-Public Works 8.5: 8206 EO 14ORIMOTO Softball official 22.0'. 8207 TOM NAPIER Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 8208 JERRY NEEOHAM Dog Obedience instructor 150.0, 8209 OIANE NEEOHAM Dog Obedience instructor 15 . 8210 NORTHERN STATES POWER Service 11,052.1 8211 NORTHERN STATES POWER Service 3.3 8212 NORTHRUP KING CO. Grass seed-Park Oept. 15,828.2 8213 NORTHWEST ASPHALT, INC. Service-Sheridan Lane & Hiawatha Ave. 2,152•F. 8214 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE Service 403.9 L5 O'CONNOR & HANNAN Legal Service 1,181.2 6 GARY OTTEROAHL Softball official 22.0' ' 8217 BERT PANNING Softball official 242.0 B218 PATRICK PEREZ Softball official 2 .0 ? 8219 REBECCA A. PLOWMAN Tennis Instructor 390.0 8220 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Wire well-Grill House 1,572.f 8221 PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS Retainer-Valley View Road 21,975." 9222 OAVIO RICHAROSON Mileage 18.E 8223 R C M Service-Valley View Road, Schooner Blvd, 70th 872.5' Street Improvement I. 8224 JEFF ROY Expenses 45.0 ; 133.0 8225 SATELLITE INOUSTRIES, INC. Portable restrooms y f.226 MARK SAUER Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 51.7 8227 SCENIC HILLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL Oog shots-Canine unit 43.8. 8:128 KATHY SCHUMACHER-RN Test 25.0 E?29 SIIAOYW000 TREE EXPERTS, INC. Tree removal 5,828•( P00 RUSSELL SMITH ASSOC. Service 2,500.( ?31 SOUTIRIEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH Ads-Liquor Stores 236.4 t�''32 SOLITIIW 21. EST PLUMBING & HEATING Equipment repair & parts 143.'i 8?33 OON STREICHER GUNS, INC. Ammunition-Police Oept. 8?34 SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING Service-Sunset Trails 303.7 8235 SULLIVANS SERVICES; INC. Service-Research Road 100.( 27 8236 TARGET STORES Supplies-Rec Oept. 90.' 8237 TENNIS WEST LTO. Tennis courts-Middle school & Creekwood Park 54,034.( 8238 KELLY THOMPSON Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 31 L 39 ROBERT THORSTENSON Overpayment-Building Permit 8240 CARRIE TIETZ Service-Park & Recreation meeting 52• ' 8241 TRANSPORT CLEARINGS Freight charges 28.' 8242 TURF SUPPLY COMPANY Fertilizer-Park Oept. 345.I 8243 TWIN CITY PRICING & LABEL Supplies-Liquor Store/Preserve 23.1, 8244 KA111Y UPTON Expenses 50.L Page four September 1, 1981 kii VALLEY EQUIPMENT INC. Filter-Street Dept. 39.27 8246 VOLUNTARY ACTION CENTER Expenses-Senior Citizens 3.0( 8247 KEITH WALL Expenses 7.0. 8248 BECKI WARNER Mileage 35.5.' 8249 VOID OUT CHECK 8250 HELMUT WENSHAU Softball official 264 0_ 8251 SANDRA F. WERTS Mileage 37 7. } 8252 WILCD PUBLISHING CO. Supplies-Community Services 8253 PAT WYMAN Mileage 10.01 8254 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO. Cleaner-Public Works 9D C 8255 ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE Equipment repair & parts 436.1,` ! 8256 BMX ASSOCIATION Drainage the-Park Dept. 38.6: 8257 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Service-Valley View Phase II 764.2 8258 HARMON GLASS Windshield-Police Dept 169.F: 8259 POMMER MFG. CO., INC. Softballs-Recreation Dept. 83.1; 8260 DANA GIBBS Packet delivery 455.0 339'S 8261 MARY BETH BUCKMAN Service-Happenings 8262 JAN FLYNN Mileage 50.0 8263 BOB LAMBERT Expenses 154.2. 8264 MCGRAW LANDSCAPING & NURSERY Sod repairs-Engineering Dept. 2DO.0- 8265 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS Service 131.4- 8266 REED'S SALES & SERVICE Weed eaters-Park Dept. 353.0: 8267 SUE SCHULZ Mileage 8.0- 8268 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Equipment repairs & parts-Water Dept. 5.65.3._ ° 9 JDRDAHL CONSTRUCTION CO. Service-Eden Prairie Park Shelter $5,638.C: J MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION Service-Eden Prairie Community Center 101,861.0 8271 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC. Books-Planning Dept. 25.0 8272 RAINBOW MECHANICAL INC. Service-Eden Prairie Community Center 31,770.C,: 8273 WEAVER ELECTRIC CO., INC. Service-Eden Prairie Community Center 27,9DD.C: TOTAL $568,758.G:: i i i I� I MEMORANDUM 70: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jan Flynn, Human Services Coordinator,' DATE: August 27, 1981 SUBJECT: Community Based Service Board Goals and Objectives Enclosed is a copy of the goals and objectives of the Community ^- Based Service Board,which you requested at the Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Human Rights and Services Commission on July 27,,1981. A structural diagram of the Community Based Service Board has also been included for reference. If you have any questions on the goals and objectives, please feel free to call me at 941-8336. I JF:md l . COMMUNITY BASED SERVICE BOARD / GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOAL: To implement the recommendations specific to Eden Prairie as developed by the Study of Human Service Needs conducted by South Hennepin Human Services Council. OBJECTIVES: The Community Based Service Board together with the Human Rights and Services Commission will determine the top six priority areas from the total list for Eden Prairie. (by October) To form sub-committee whose membership will consist of representatives from the following areas: city school business private . ' public student sectors in the City of Eden Prairie (by November) To include two members of the Human Rights and Services Commission as (2 of the) City representatives on the Community Based Service Board. To keep the Human Rights and Services Commission aware of the progress being made in the community. (monthly) ( To be accountable to the Human Rights and Services Commission on the 12 areas listed in the Comprehensive Study. (monthly) To obtain community input and support in the implementation of the study by holding public meetings with local organizations, churches, schools and advisory boards. (ongoing) GOAL: To insure coordination of area wide recommendations by working in conjunction with the South Hennepin Human Services Council and the other three cities in the Comprehensive Based Service Board. OBJECTIVES: To have a member of the South Hennepin Service Council participate on the Community Based Services Board. (ongoing) To have a member of the Community Based Service Board participate on the South Hennepin Implementation Task Force. (ongoing) 0IU c COMMUNITY BASED SERVICE BOARD 1 City Staff Liaison 1 SHHSC Board Member 2 Schools 2 City 2 Business - i 2 School 2 City 2 Business 1 City 1 Business 1 School 1 Business 1 School 1 City 2 Consumers 2 Consumers 2 Consumers 1 Student 1 Student 1 Student Totals: 4 Business 4 School 4 City 6 Consumers 3 Students 2a11 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 26$ 1981 RE: Master Condominium Extension Request by Weis Development Corp. (original approval April 4, 1974) PREVIOUS EXTENSIONS Year Time Extension Vote 1980 1 year (expired 8/81) Unanimous 1979 1 year Unanimous 1978 1 year Unanimous Mr. Weis, Rochester, Minnesota, has arranged for Mr. Bob Schoening, Eber- hardt, to represent him at the Council meeting and answer questions. attached: 2/19/80 Council Minutes JJ:ss 1U12 Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,February 5, 1980 A. Rp uest for an extension of the develoZer's agreement for Master's #_ tonduminiums for-1 year continued from January?.2, 1980� Penzel referred to request from the proponent to continue this item to February 19, 1980. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue the request for an extension of the developer's agreement for Master's Condominiums as per the proponent's request to the February 19, 1980 Council meeting, Motion carried unanimously. Council Minuites Tues., February 19, 1980 i A. Request for an extension of the developer's a!iree_men_t for Master's Condominiums for 1_year nfinued from February 5, 1980 Joe Weis, President of Weis Development, explained they have been''involved in the Master's Condominiums project since 1972, and it has been a very frustrating experience for them as they haven't been able to qet it off the ground. When they initially started on the project they had financing arranged s. It took them well over a year to get the project approved in its present form, and by that time in 1973 the money market was probably as horrible, if not worse,than it is today. Mr. Weis added they are actively pursuing all attempts to get the project started. Osterholt asked Mr. Weis if his company owned the property. Mr. Weis replied they are purchasing the property from Eden Land Corporation on a contract for deed and have invested money in land, architects fees, financing costs, attorney fees, etc., and have about $150,000.000 cash out of pocket in the project right now. Penzel commented he has seen some marketing being done on this property, and asked what kind of effort has been made getting the project started from that standpoint. Mr. Weis responded in August they were very optimistic about consummating a construction loan with First Minneapolis. In anticipation of that they geared up their marketing and make arrangements with [denland to set up a sales office, and the response was beyond their expectations. They took reservation agreements on something like 56 units during the period of about 3 months, and then they were not able to consummate the construction loan. They then felt they couldn't give the people any definite time when they were going to start or when they were going to have the units ready, so they ceased the marketing in October. Of those original agreements, there are still 42 of the original people that signed reservation agreements that have not cancelled them out. They were very encouraged by the original marketing i efforts. ?U13 city Council Minutes Tues.,Feb. 19, 1980 Osterholt asked how many units are anticipated. Mr. Weis replied the original plan was developed with 96 units. They have several three bedroom units in the project, several 1 bedroom and some 2 bedroom units. The 1 bedroom units were practically sold out right away. They hadn't sold over 3 or 4 three bedroom units, so the marketing people suggested the proponents consider redesigning some of the 3 bedroom units into 1 bedrooms, which they were able to do without increasing the size of the building. At this time Mr. Weis asked the Council to consider, alono with the request for the extension,- approval of increasing the number of units from 96 to 102. Mr. Weis added he has discussed this possibility with Planning Director Enger and Mr. Enger apparently discussed this with staff and they really don't see any particular problems with it. There would be requirements that the proponents increase the onsite parking because they would be increasing the number of units, which Mr. Weis stated they would be willing to do. Penzel added in this situation the Council has two separate concerns: i 1) whether to extend the agreement, and 2) the question of the change of the number of units because that affects the very basic approval that was given. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to refer this matter to the City Attorney for a recommendation on the 18-month extension. Motion carried unanimously. Council requested Planning Director Enger to make a recommendation regarding the additional units requested based upon a review of the original proposal and rationale that went into the approval of the original number of units. 2A V5'EIS DEVELOFrJENT CORP. 2r.'27 Ntiti 71 H STREET • P.O.Bur.6757 Monr ccota 55903 tohone 507/288-2041 J f August 13, 1981 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL 8950 Eden Prairie Road f Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 1 Dear City Council Members: I am writing regarding the current status of the Master Condominium project and to request an additional 12-month extension of the RM2.5 zoning granted for that project. Since I last appeared before you much has transpired relative to the site. Weis Development Corp. is now the fee owner of the property having paid off all obligations to Eden Land Corp. and the equitable people. Because of the frustrations we have had in attempting to get this project off the ground without any measurable success we have decided we would try and sell the property. Thus we have the property listed for sale with the Eberhardt Company. Presently, they are working working with two parties who are interested in construction of a condominium project on the property, either as joint venture participants with us or as purchasers of the land. The project to be built in either case would be substantially in conformance with the plans for the 96 unit Masters project previously approved by the City Council. Although the exterior design may be updated, we anticipate that the density, number of stories, total square footage, and parking will reflect that approved in response to my letter written in Feburary, 1980. If the sale to either of these prospects is consumated, both have indicated they would hope to start construction in the summer of 1982. If you wish to have one appear at your meeting when you consider this request to answer any questions you may have, please let me know. Thank you for consideration of this request. WEIS DEVELOPMENT CORP. 1 i J.C. Weis President CC: Bob Schoening, Eberhardt Company 2UI�j -1NiepPro Planning Commission Minutes ugus 1981 MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath A. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Continued The Planner reviewed Mr. Helle's letter dated 8/5/81 and reviewed the memo dated 8/7/81. Torjesen pointed out that item #5 of the staff report recommends Alternate #7 where the report states Alternate k15. The Planner stated that should be Alternate 015. Torjesen asked if there will be a bridge only or a bridge with ramps going west across I-494. The Planner stated a bridge only. Torjesen pointed out that it is important to recognize that full access is important. The Planner stated that there will be a full frontage road west of 18 and north of I-494 to Schooner Blvd. Torjesen asked how people will go north on I-494. The Planner stated that they will travel up Schooner Blve. to Valley View Road and on the on ramp. George Hoff, Herl,eiv Helle's lawyer, stated that the major problem on page 14 of the report is twofold: 1) allowing for traffic circulation for area B; 2) leaving con- gestion at the Co. Rd. i8/Valley View Road intersection. He stated that Mr. Helle is concerned that the proposal directs more traffic toward the Washington Ave./Valley View Road intersection. He stated that Helle felt that upgrading Valley View Road would be best. He suggested two ideas: 1) allow additional traffic to go to Co. Rd. 18 and Valley View Road; 2) upgrade Valley View Road to provide westerly access. He stated that he felt that a Washington Ave. bridge will run into Gelco and add additional traffic to Washington Ave. He stated that he would like the Planning Commission to provide a westerly access and cut off road in the 76th Street area. The Planner stated that the study had been initiated because Condon-Naegele proposed to have 2 cul-de-sacs - one coming from the east and one to the west with no con- nection. He stated that he felt that the frontage road is necessary. He stated that access to the entire area is a problem and suggested that full access be retained to the Washington Ave./Co. Rd. 1S intersection. fie stated that parkland is located along either side of Valley View Road but it is possible to upgrade it. He stated that when traffic is congested at one intersection, people will learn to use the easiest and quickest way out and that the study does not fully reflect this in the numbers given at the Co. Rd. 18/Valley View Road interchange. Torjesen asked if the north/south road will be built by developers. The Planner replied yes and that the Condon-Naegele road would be also. Bill Pearson, Rt. 5, Box 187, Prior Lake, stated he agrees with Mr. Helle's concerns. He stated he felt that W. 76th Street has not been looked at, that Smetana Lane will become a two (2) lane road and join into Valley View Road. He also stated that keeping the approach from Washington Ave. to Co. Rd. 18 is important. The Planner stated that he agreed that W. 76th St. could go to Valley View Road when and if Smetana Lane develops. He stated that he felt the best solution would be to have all the roads j constructed whichfigure 15 plans.He stated that the study does not preclude the up- grading of Smetana Lane. Craig Anderson, ADI, stated he was in favor of upgrading the Co. Rd. 18/Valley View Road intersection but stated fie felt that electric traffic signals are important to have. Z U l� Planning Commission Minutes -2- napprove 8/24/81 Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, stated that he felt that a iamond such as the one located at Hwy 100 and I-494 would be good. Torjesen stated that he felt that putting three (3) bridges across 1-494 in such a short distance and still not solving the problem completely, was expensive and excessive. Bearman stated that access to the entire area is a problem and he felt that no matter what was done, the Co. Rd. 18/Washington Ave. intersection will be a problem to some degree. Torjesen stated he was concerned that the City has three(3) different consultants working on three (3) different studies. The Ring Route, the Smetana Lake Sector Study, and the State's upgrading of Co. Rd. 1B/I-494 full diamond. Bearman stated that the studies have different functions. The Planner stated that the studies have been coordinated as much as possible. William Peak, Prudential Insurance, P.O. Box 709, Mpls., MN 55440, asked the time frame for the estimated traffic. The Planner replied 10-15 years. Peak then stated that he felt that the intersection of Co. Rd. 18/Washington Ave. and ROW are very important and felt that they should be dealt with first. The Planner stated that a full• diamond interchange at the I-494/18 intersection will be completed first, then the signalization of the 18/Washington Ave. intersection, and then the Washington Ave./Valley View Road intersection and rest as the developers develop their property. ' Peak asked what will be done to Valley View Road and if there will be a signal at Washington Ave. 'and Valley View Road. The Planner replied Valley View Road will continue to the Braun's area, and there will be a signal. Bearman asked if the warrants have been met for the signals. The Planner replied yes. a MOTION i Torjesen moved that the Planning Commission receive the Smetana Lake Traffic Study and forward it to the City Council notinq the reconmiendations listed on pages 31-35 of the Study, the 8/7/81 staff report, and noting the following additional items: j I. That 3 bridges within 1.5 miles of the Co. Rd. 18/I-494 intersection is not desireable. 2. Noting access at I-494 westbound is necessary. 3 3. Noting the need to keep options to have traffic move in a westerly direction, i.e., Smetana Lane, Shady Oak Road, etc. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Sutliff asked why there is no definite approval or denial. Torjesen stated that he was uncomfortable with approval or denial. Bearman stated that he felt that three (3) brides within I.5 miles is not good, but that this need was created by the bisection of the community by I-494. Hallett stated he felt that the traffic improvements recommended in the study are necessary and should be approved. Gartner stated that she was concerned for safety with the number of on-off ramps on 494 if they were added as Torjesen suggested and asked that emphasis be placed on total access onto Co. Rd. 18. Motion failed, 2-3-1. )U 1 ve Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 24, 1981 AMENDMENT 8earman moved to amend the motion stressing the importance for total access onto Co. Rd. 18, not precluding the possibility of future access for W. 76th St., Valley View Road, and Smetana Lane, and drawing attention to the bridge problem within the 1.5 mile stretch. Torjesen seconded. Motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained. i 201Y approved Planning Commission Minutes -1- August 10, 1981 ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. F. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Bearman reviewed the staff report dated 8/7/81 and stated that Mr. Helle's letter dated August 5, 1981 be made part of the minutes. Mr. Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, stated that when he wrote the letter, he did not see the additional traffic as noted on page 8 of the study. Torjesen stated that he thought the traffic as noted on page 8 of the study was 'trip-:ins'. i Helle reviewed his letter and stated that he is opposed and asked if the roads will be built for increased traffic. Bearman replied that they will be built 1 to handle more than the existing amount of traffic. Bearman then stated that he felt that it is important to let Hennepin County know that they cannot take away the access at Washington Avenue and Co. Rd. 18. Helle then stated that he does not want the road to go over 9-Mile Creek. Bearman asked Mr. Bill Pearson if Smetana Lane goes over it. Pearson replied yes it crosses aver the creek. j t Torjesen stated that he felt that the Commission cannot take action regarding the study because of needed staff and proponent input. Bearman stated that he felt that when a motion is made, that final plan be stressed rather than preliminary because he felt that a preliminary plan may take years to become completed. S Merilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, stated she realized the problems at Co. Rd. 18 and I-494. She stated that she felt that going through Smetana Lane would not be good. She suggested that there be a flexible work day so there will be 1 flexible traffic flow. MOTION 1 j Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council that no final approval should be given to the County and State Highway Departments for the upgrading of County Road 18 and the I-494 intersection until the access problems from Washington Avenue are solved and access should not be changed until that problem is solved. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 a. Torjesen moved to continue the Smetana Lake Traffic Study for input from Staff and BRW to August 24, 1981. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. I approved Planning Commission Minutes -1- July 27, 1981 4 MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath & Hallett / UEJ.,ANN LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Review of the Smetana Lake Trafficprepared forthe City of Eden Prairie by Bennett, Ringrose, ld, Jarvis, Gardner, lnc. A public meeting. The duced Dick Wolsfeld of BRW. Wolsfeld reviewed the Smetana Lake Traffic Study and went over each system alternate. Sutliff asked if a bridge across 494 to Schooner Blvd. was considered. Wolsfeld replied that the City is looking at the ring road now. - Sutliff also asked if US 169 will lbecome part of the ring road if the Schooner Blvd. underpa e not built ed s. Toesen asked if te n the was based on the assumption thath another�bridge on of twould he �bee located ea t Schooner uBlvd. Wolsfeld replied yes. Sutliff asked if the northern frontage road would be 1-way going west. Wolsfeld j replied that it would be a 2-way frontage road.' Mr. Pearson, 8680 W. 158th St., Prior Lake, MN stated lity tedathoffh talkedmp i h494 but t the State Highway Department regarding the felt that a bridge would be better. Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road stated that he felt that traffic on 169-212 would increase greatly. He thenrasied the traffic count on 169-212.i The.Planner replied south of the Center, app Y i Bearman asked the cost to build a bridge. Wolsfeld replied $60/sq. ft. Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, MN stated that he felt that the crossing of 494 by Co. Rd. 18 is very bad. Bearman asked when 18/I-494 would be upg as a full diamond. The Planner replied in the future but is currently being upgraded } Don Brauer, The Brauer Group, stated that the biggest single problem for the "Golden Triangle" is access. ment financing. The Planner replied Sutliff asked the current status of Tax Incre that he would check. MOTION 1981 Torjesen moved to continue the Smetana Lake Traffic Study to the August 10, meeting. Sutliff seconded, motion carrieo 4-0. 2f.�2U t MEMO T0: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning SUBJECT: SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY DATE: August 7, 1981 REFER TO: May, 1981 Smetana Lake Traffic Study The Planning Commission received a full presentation of the Smetana Lake Traffic Study by BRW at the July 27, 1981 meeting. Notices had gone out to affected property owners and owners present gave their veiws on the study. Property owners present included Herleiv Helle, Bill Pearson, Frank Smetana Jr., Helen Smetana, and Don Brauer (representing Condon Naegele j Realty). 1 The Planning Commission continued the item to their August 10, 1981 meeting, in order to allow staff additional time to formulate a recommendation. 9 On August 6, 1981s I met with Herleiv and Sigmond Helle, and received a a letter from them opposing an additional north/south connection to the Naegele land across 9-Mile Creek. On August 7, 1981, I met with Dick Wolsfeld, (BRW), Gary Erickson, (BRW), 1 Don Brauer, (representing Condon Naegele), Gene Dietz, (Director of Public Works), and City Manager, Carl Jullie. During this meeting, we reviewed alternatives which would preserve access for the Smetana Lake area from the I-494 and Co. Rd. 18 interchange. The following are items that will clarify possible alternatives. 1. One of the reasons for the study initially was the insistance by Don Brauer, in his proposal for Condon Naegele, that there not be a con- tinuous frontage road north of I-494, but rather a bridge across I-494 to give access. Mr. Brauer now agrees that a continuous frontage road is an important part of the system. } 2. Of primary importance to Eden Prairie is full movement access to the Co. Rd. 18/I-494 interchange. The State has temporarily closed off in-bound access to Washington Ave. (south), without permission from the City of Eden Prairie. P , The long term plan of Hennepin County is to completely eliminate local access for Eden Prairie at this point. As you can see from the traffic study, elimination of all access at this point will seriously impact the ability of this sector of the City to grow properly. 3. Because of the severe impact on Eden Prairie of limiting this access, we should fight to preserve access equal to the full access this area had to Co. Rd. 18 originally. 2021 Memo-Smetana Lake Traffic Study page 2 4. The County and State are scheduled to let the contract to improve the full diamond (18/I-494) on Sept. 25, 1981. The nature of this improve- ment is shown on figure 2 of the Traffic Study. While the improvement will help the south side of the freeway by pro- viding an east bound merge ramp to bring trips directly to a signalized intersection, it will seriously impede access north of I-494 by limiting access to `in only'at Washington Ave. The State requires final approval of a resolution from Eden Prairie to proceed with this improvement. The State should be required to commit to construction of a bridge over I-494 from Washington Ave. to preserve and restore this much needed access to a major portion of our City. 5. Although the solution (Alternate #7) recommended by BRW is not the optimum, other collector/distributor access directly to I-494 have many problems. Alternative 7 is a realistic solution. As the inter- change at Valley View and Co. Rd. 18 begins to reach capacity, Shady Oak Road will become an additional acceptable way out for the majority of the traffic, which will lead northwest. 6. Mr. Helle's concern about traffic from the Condon Naegele area, (because of the proposed connection across 9-Mile Creek), is offset if you compare Alternative 3 (which isolates the area south of 9-Mile Creek from the area north) with Alternative 7. The volumes of traffic at the Valley View/Co. Rd. 18 interchange are identical in Alternative 3 and 7; the difference is that Washington Ave is relieved under Alternative 7 and it also provides access for property north of the Creek from the south. 7. The expansion of 169 bridge over I-494 to four lanes is back in the State's program (1983). The Schooner Blvd. crossing of I-494 with ramps is back in the City's program. REOMMENDATI ONS Staff reconmends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the BRW Traffic Study and adopt conclusions and recommendations listed on pages 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the report, and item#4 of this staff report. CE:ss •LUZZ' 933.1144 l HERLEIV HELLE 6138 Arctic Way ( Edina,Minnesota 55436 August 5, 1981 The City of Eden Prairie Staff Planning Commission Council Members ; 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 i re: Smetana Lake Traffic Study by B.R.W. of May 1981 Undersigned has the following reactions, opinion and recommend- ations. S Valley View Road Alternate 1. . It has for many years been my understanding that some land owners and the City has been interested in relccating this road through Norseman Industrial Park (west of Hillger) and Bill Pearson's property and then tie it into present Valley View Road alignment at the Semtana intersection. I have not opposed this but as I understand this idea has been dropped and this road will be located on its present alignment. I am willing to go along with this. Improvement suggestion for this road leaves me confused and I will show you why. In February 1977 I requested plating and rezoning of Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition. I had the impression that the City Planner, Dick Putnam, would save no effort to persuade t City officials to deny my request. One of his moves was (with- out request from the Council) to request from B.R.W. by Richard Walsfield, a review of road plans for Lake Semtana Sector dated February 10, 1977. See Exhibit 1. Quote from page 3, center of page: Designing Valley View and Shady Oak as four-lane, divided roadways certainly is a conservative posture and will require lower land use intensities, changes in vehicle occupancy, or staggering of work hours. The real restrict- ing factor is the capacity of the interchanges; there is no value in bringing a six lane arterial with a capacity of 3,500 vehicles/hour up to an interchange that can only handle 1,800 vehicles per hour. 02 The City of Eden Prairie August 5, 1981 Page 2 Quote from page 4. Conclusion. The conclusions of this analysis from a traffic engineer- ing viewpoint is to build a relocated Valley View Road as a four lane arterial with turn lanes at majoi inter- sectins. This road should intersect at right angles with both the extended Shady Oak and the Ring Road. The specific location of Valley View is beyond the scope of this effort. If you then turn to ,page 16 in the May 181 report and read i "Alternative 1 Valley View Road" you will discover a shocking different recommendation. A number of questions go through my mind. I will just mention a few. 1. What was the purpose of the 2-10-77 B.R.W. report? 2. Why such a shocking different suggestion by the same consulting firm? . Y 3. I think B.R.W. owes me as well as the City, an explanation. 4. Is there reason for me to believe that B.R.W. 2-10-77 report was one of the major causes for Planning Commisions voting 100% against and the Council 40% against my proposal which asked for no variances whatsoever. E Under the assumption that 74th Street will be extended north to Valley View Road through Norseman Industrial Park and that 76th Street will be tied into Smetana Road I suggest that Valley View should be equally upgraded from Washington Avenue to Shooner Blvd. By doing this, cars coming from Pearson property and Norseman Industrial Park have a choice of going east or west. It should not be overlooked that cars heading west, north or east can get into freeway system by turning right at Highway 212 and Shooner Blvd. but on Valley View and County Road 18 they have to turn left. North-South Connector - Alternate 4. I am 100% opposed to have these connectors go any farther than 76th Street. Reason No. 1. The traffic generated by suggested development on the strip along 494 is tremendous. 02� The City of Eden Prairie August 5, 1981 Page 3 Total trip generation in Golden Triangle - 61,550 D.T. - 9,900 D.T. = 51,650 D.T. Total trips generated on 494 strip - 19,530 D.T. + 5,360 D.T. = 24,890 D.T. Total trips generated without 494 strip 26,670 D.T. The 494 strip generates 48.19% of the traffic volume and if you add the Viking facilities it will exceed 50%. Reason No. 2 Although every alternative 1-7, shows that traffic volume on Valley View Rd. - County Road 18 interchange exceeds capacity, still B.R.W. has the courage or guts to recommend to build a super road from 494 strip to this intersection. It will serve to nobody's welfare but owner of 494 strip. f Reason No. 3 Block traffic from 74th and 76th Street. At peak hours the outflow of cars from 494 strip will fill the whole road so cars coming from 74th and 76th Street has no chance at all (especially since they also will face a stop sign) , to get into this north- south connector before the rush hour is over. Reason No. 4 Cost. Although this North-South connector does nothing but t harm the land owner on 74th and 76th Street if extended to 494 strip, still I am sure somebody is going to bestow the honor upon us of dedicating land and paying for it's construction. i Due to the contour it will be a very expensive affair. Reason No. 5 Creek Crossing. It does require an additional creek crossing and unless mood has changed since some years ago, they should . be avoided. overload on Washington Avenue. I believe that a North-South connector from Valley View Road to 76th Street will give traffic a from these streets a choice of Washington Avenue or Valley View Road whereby no overload will occur on Washington Avenue. Drivers will always go where they get through with the least problem. 2U2 The City of Eden Prairie August 5, 1981 Page 4 Furthermore, I am no believer in cul-de-sacs, especially on industrial roads and I feel the service roads should go contin- uously from Washington Avenue along 494 to Shooner Blvd. However to prevent overload on Washington Avenue and Valley View Road - County Road 18 intersection we probably should not extend the service road farther than it is today (the Viking property) . That would keep the traffic from the development on the 494 strip where it belongs in their own territory. Then they have to n^goti.ate with the Highway Department to give them highway access tailored to their development or they have to tailor their development to fit the highway access. I-494 and County Road 18 Intersection. Due to all eastbound traffic having to make a left turn this intersection is over- loaded already. It is my opinion that the situation here is or will be the same as on 494 and Normandale Road (Bloomington). Therefore I believe a similar arrangement here should work as well as there, a full cloverleaf. Conclusion. . Improve Valley View Road to standards similar to Washington Avenue . North-South connector Valley View Road - 76th Street only Arrange road on 494 strip so they get access to 494 instead of overloading Washington Avenue, Valley View - County Road 18 intersection. Having State upgrade County Road 18 and 494 intersection similar to I-494 and Normandale Road. Herleiv Hene HH:ca 2G2 6 IF FYJD��, rtj� X PLANNI%WTnANS OATAT ION,ENGINE LA ING'ARCIAMCTURE February 10. 1977 MEMORANDUM . I y To: Richard Putnam From: •'' Richard Wolsfeld U�U Subject: Review of Road Plans for Lake Smetana Sector As. p t er your request BRW has completed an analysis of the follow- ing traffic issues in the Lake Smetana Sector: UNeed for a road to connect the Valley Vievi/Co.itd. 18 interchange with the proposed ring road. o Relationship of the road to the extension of Shady Oak to Valley View/Co.Rd. 18 interchange. e Type of road that will be required to serve the expected traffic to, from, and through the area. Location of the road between the two points. hC Analysis and the results are discussed below. Background Material The follov,,ing resource material was reviewed and utilized in the analysis: e Eden Prairie Staff Report - "Lake Smetana Sector . Study", dated June 20, 1974. o Hennepin County Transportation System Study, BRW. October, 1916. 1U23 :..,.•r,ww.nr l•r r:!n sl U U.n": 110 vun"wEIA11:.Ou:U CUINA,I."N L;.-;IA 5435 19IO1iC 6t?IUb?,ro0 (. Richard Putnam :. February 10, 1977 Page 2 ? _ Need Fo.r Ruad Connection This sector of land is extremely unique in the way if is surrounded by controlled access freeways. If the interchange of Co. Itd. 18/1-494 is upgraded, there will be only 3 ways J... into or out of the area. Connecting the access points in the most direct manner possible has the following advantages: • Provides maximum accessibility for properties within the sector in all directions. • Helps to balance the traffic loadings on the various roads. • Tends to minimize the amount of travel and turns in the area. r ( • Provides the most direct route across the sector f for any trips from outside the area desiring to y cross the area. $� Thus, the concept of connecting the access points to the area with a road system, as presented in the Composite 1974 Plan for Lake Smetana is logical and valid. a Rela_tionship_o.f Cc�n.necting_Roads_ � Figure 1 illustr'ates two possible relationships for the major connecting roads in the sector. .he traffic planning principles that apply to this situation include: 1, • hini ill i2e the .number of turns for the heaviest flow of vehicles. • Intersect the major roads at right angles. Since both schemes intersect at right angles, the primary concern is to minimize the nurbcr of li.rns. Ana'ysi5 of the cunposite g plan indicates that more traffic would have access to the exten- sion of Shady Oak than to Valley View when the area is fully developed. Therefore. Method 2 is preferred over Method 1. In eddition, Shady Oak has route continuity to the northwest, whereas Valley view ends at the proposed ring road. 1;W./( v. rt: r ,c.ca.( I;;ch,.rd Putnam ( Februdry 10, 1977 ' Page 3 a Ty1�e_of Road Required To Serve Traffic The third major issue to be addressed is the required road type !i.e. two-lane, four-lane, etc. ) to serve the traffic along the Vallev Vies, corridor. The key indicator of the size of road required is the forecasted volume. The forecasted volumes in the Composite Plan have been reviewed and found fo bs reasonable._ The key variable is the* intensity of industrial .use that- actually results; the concept of using the average value for trip genera- tion is reasonable. Using a capacity of.840-1,000 vehicles/ hour/lane for an urban arterial in BRW's opinion is a little high; 600-800 vehicles/hour/lane is more reasonable. However, if a lower capacity is .used, the degree of failure by the road syster ncreases. O-- - -- h• esigning_Valley View and Shady Oak four-lane, divided road- ' ------ - _._ _ . _... - ways certainly"_L5_._d_So.nservative_posture and wil require lower —land use int shies;chin es=ln_ ve i�i cle occupancy, or s a_ _etlr 9_ _ ggcring w— ar�hours,_.The=rear restricting factor is tie capacity-_of_ _ the interchaloes-;__there is no value in bringing a six lane _ arterial at can capacity oe 00 -- --p --^-- change that can only handle 1,h00 vehic��s"per hour- ve is es our u to an inter- A good balancbetween tfie interchange capacities and the connecting road system geometries is to design Palley View and Shady Oak as four-lane arterials with turn lanes at major intersections. location of P.oadway Within Valley View_Corrid-or The next key issue is where the required four-lane arterial roadway in the Palley View corridor should be located. Two options exist (Figure 2). • upgrade the existing Palley View • build a new road In evaluating these two options many factors should be taken in account. This report only evaluates the options from a traffic engineering viewpoint. Cxi"sting Val.l.ev_View Road is a road_ with curves of Iess_than !iph_des ion_spocd, grades in the range of 6`,_ and the road is cut into hills in many cases. All of these characteristics result-in lowering the capacity of the road. According to the "Highway Capacity Manual" published by the Rational Academy of Sciences the capacity of a roadway is reduced by the following 3 percentages for rolling terrain and lateral obstructions. a i Richard Putnam (- February 10, 1977, r Page 4 �. Factor b Re3uction' - Rolling Terrain ' 1 Lateral Dbstructions_ 15 lhus i+ Valley View were upgraded to four lanes and had rolling r. terrain and lateral obstructions, the capability to carry _ �+ vehicles would be 32% less than a roadway on lese.l terrain and no lateral obstructions. Another factor is the problem associated with mixing traffic types. A general traffic planning principle is to separate industrial/employment related traffic from residential traffic. From traffic engineering standpoint, these two factors would suggest a relocation of Valley View. ( �Dnclusions The conclusions of this analysis from a traffic engineering viewpoint is to build a relocated Valley View Rvad as a four lane arterial with turn lanes at major intersections. This road shculd intersect at right angles with both the extended Shady Oak and the Ring Ruad. The specific lucatien of Valley View is beyond the scope of this effort. Rw:ju. i O N p lu . • U � 6'�r �S n .. Q o u W Q EL 0 S/ Oa'09 Oti a. r ' a a LLJ Na4 M�l� p > W , J d 6 !, 2u31 . �r •3f�V 1+01 JNI'd SVM N w QCc cc � z O �S W U . a J j N ¢ ; ! W (� { © SOW i d > ei ab 0 W > -3ry No14NiNs`uM LJ W u) Oo h Q 7. • °�,� n: �3 w 1 . ;u�32- , !,;All MA ORI a 1 s 10 1'lannint (oi—lss�bh IROSI: hick htltltaltlt rlaiihing birector hA113: teb. 23, ih7i rlt0•II.CT: Norscman iii,Usii•tdi 1'ark 2nd Addition AI'r1.1 CAN I Mr. Belle RGQuI ST: Rezoning frolh tiatdl tb 1-2 hark 1,0C�71r\: South of Co. lldt 39 dhd west of Norseman Ind. Pk 1st Add. RI.IIA0.%-.L DOCIVIEN_TS a. Sr,et.+na take Scctor Plali i Jude 20, 1974 b. r..len Prairie Council Resbititibn V900 c. reh. 10, 1977 Memo from Rithdtd It'olsfc1d, t]itW d. I'eb. 14, 1977 letter r to 1109 Ulsttidt City Manager`�rom Mr. Hclle I];I e(r,r-]ION ]h: +c cnce c]oc,nuenis listed illtttitrcttit thh comprehensive research and anal)F-Is in drafting tht' t.uneldkibis and recommendations which fo?- lrn, it, tl:is leport. The staff wi11 not restate the facts and conclusions but - r,,;l,cr confine our disntssron to controversial issues: The I?: ::,rcr's :+•qu(0 fur l Par). zoning is consi_sttmt with the• cite Guide flan otip.in,+?l� r:'c•i ;ed in PO.", and amended in 104 ivitit the Smetana Lake Plan. ?>n• ];uniu,.ner rc nr.irl; r+qurst dots not allow for tj,e construction of a nortli/sobth r. 'oca-'('J V;]ley Viet. Inwld connecting the Co. Rd. i8 interchange with the MCA S,bUt•ilcr I;or+lctard / 212/ 169 intcr,chaugc. I.al.e Plan recogulzed the need for on atterial street as critical to -+ dctel.l :nt of the industrial land south of \'miry view Poad, the sep- :nac on of i ,,ht�-trial and residential traffic and the fired for a l+igh volume art cri:+l c ;.ncctin'-, two of the tlucc interchanges scrting the 1,000 acre sector. r.1,• hu]d fold's letter, 2110/77, concludes: liu cunrlusinus t,f this anallsis from a traffic' engineering tie,,point is to build a relocated Valley 1'i!w Road as._a_.four ]:n•c• art•.�rial._wi.t_h tunl.lt+2+es at cc+c,a or intirshctjhnS:_ This intersect at right-niit;les with both the cxtcttded `;h:nly rtal and 11ing Itnad. The spvciflc lotatloh bf Valley View I•naJ i I•," n:+ Ibr• se(,pc• of this effort." trcfci tb rig. A G 11) r� Staff Report-Sursem.uI Ind III 2nd Add -4- p ;��,✓t.� r, 1 �U-1fi;�A1• � fl��F 1r— � f - If { ; - 1 ,N . 1Fliti>:Lf Consl rust ioll of re or.t ed 1'al ley I"cw• Rnrd ould be to a normal industrial street standard as requested h� the }vopertyCoimer. Future street expansion to Bounty arterial standards would be accomplished-# the County or City when the need warrants. Fight-of-way for relocated Valley View Road should be provided by proporty owners as the I-i(perty is -.oned and platted for development consistent with the provisions of Ordinance 93. 1. The staff recommends that the rezoning and preliminary plat request I,y Mr. 1lt'11e, dated ,Ian. 7, 1977, be denied based upon its incon is- -. tcncip�wit1. the transportation nee s of the Lake Smetana Plan 2. The staff rccoaoncnds that the proponent redesign his plan to provide right-of-way for a relocated Valley View Road through the 161 acre site. up:j .2v3U MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Servicesp�— DATE: August 13, 1981 SUBJECT: Foxjet Swim Club Proposal ; Several months ago, Gary Gandrud of the Foxjet Swim Club contacted Community Services Department staff regarding establishing a swim club program at the 1 Eder Prairie Community Center. Since that time, the Director of Community Services and the Comzzunity Center Manager have met on several occasions with representatives of the Foxjet Swim Team to discuss the possibility of the Foxjet Swim Team creating a swimming program in the City of Eden Prairie and becoming 4 the Eden Prairie Foxjet Swim Club. They have submitted a proposed schedule of renting the pool from approximately 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Monday thru Friday and from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Obviously, this preliminary proposal is somewhat adjustable but it is interesting to note that in the preliminary schedule for the swimming pool 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. had been scheduled for lessons and lap swimming. The proposed program by the Foxjet Swim Club would compliment our Red Cross Swimming lesson program in that their program teaches children from 5 years ( old on up how to perfect various swimming strokes. The young swimmers must be able to pass the advanced beginner Red Cross test prior to becoming a i novice swimmer in this swimming program. The City would continue to provide Red Cross swimming lessons programs through- out the year; however, the Foxjets Swimming Club would be providing additional opportunities for young swimmers that wish to improve their swimming or to compete with other swimmers at their swimming level. The Foxjet Swim Club would become another City organization similar to the Gymnastics Club or the Hockey Association with the exception that this is already a highly organized group with two full-time employees. The officers of this club would not be Eden Prairie residents to begin with but as the club gains members from Eden Prairie, obviously, Eden Prairie parents would become involved in the organization and would ultimately be running this organization. Fees for all age group swimmers would be based on pool rental time and coaches time. These fees would all be competitive with other swimming organizations in adjacent communities. City staff has reviewed the proposal of the Foxjet Swimming Club and sees many positiive aspects of this proposal: 1. The City could expect families interested in swimming to begin organizing an Eden Prairie Swimming Club, but might have to struggle five years or more to obtain the organization and expertise of the officers running this club. This club would provide an inurkdiate well organized swim club with a very good reputation in Minnesota and with two highly qualified coaches that should attract many young people interested in swimming in Eden Prairie. _2. 2. This club will offer an immediate,additional area of opportunity for citizens of Eden Prairie to get the maximum use of this new Community Center. 3. With their projected year-round use of the swimming facilities i rental revenue of the swimming pool would increase from appproximately $3,000 to $15,000 to $17,000. Eden Prairie City staff after reviewing this proposal supports the concept of the Eden Prairie foxjet Swim Club and recommend the Eden Prairie City Council . support this concept of the Foxjet Swim Club becoming the Eden Prairie Foxjets and to authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the Eden Prairie Foxjets for commitment to rental of pool time over the next year for a fee not to exceed $20/hour. If the City Council chooses to recognize and support this proposal the City would offer this club promotional services and staff assistance similar to the services now offered other City youth athletic organizations. Bruce Teiander, President of the Foxjets, and Gary Gandrud, Board Member, will be present Monday evening to discuss this proposal with the Parks, Recreation and Matural Resources Commission. BL:md F 2r 3(^ . UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDE11 PRAIRIE: PARKS R,'C1r:hTION AND NATURAL RESOURCES C011-1:11ISSION h°.omy, AUGUST 17, 1981 7:30 P.M., CITY BALL COLSDSISSION IT dBERS PRESE"FP: Richard Anderson, chairperson; Pat Breitenstein, Margo Friederichs, Marty Jensen (late, 7:40 p•m•)o � Jesse Schwartz 001,bSISSION KM,"13ERS ABMNT: Jerry Kingroy COT51dIS,TUl STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services OTHERS PRESTT:T: Sandy Worts Chuck Pappas Steve Fifield Mark Weber, E.P. News IV. PETITT011S REC2UESTS AUD C01!1,UNICATI011S A. Foxjet Swim Club Fro cal —Bruce Telander & Gary Candrud ( Mr. Telander and Mr. Gandrud of the Foxjet Swim Team were present to discuss the possibility of the.Foxjet Team creating a swimming program in the City of Eden Prairie and becoming the Eden Prairie Foxjot Swim Club. The proposed schedule submitted schedule Jfor the swinnin ctO for renting t gpoolile oas would work woll with the preliminary outlined by Chuck Pappas. Telander also pointed out they project within 3-4 years most of the kids in the club will be Eden Prairie residents which is the intent. Anderson asked if the Foxjot Club is a private, non profit organization. Telander said yes, with 2 full time coaches on salary. MOTION: Breitenstein moved to approve acceptance of the Foxjet Swim Club proposal per Staff recommendations. Schwartz seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. .Lo�q `TENTATIVELY PROPOSED POOL SCHEDULE 1 : TIME :UNDAY MOt"UAY TIICf.l AY WELINESnAY 1111LIWInAY FOIUAY 5A'I'UNDAY f-30 00 5:30 a:30 e:on h:30 •I_0o i, 7:30 ADULT LAP SWIM —�UU 0:30 1 '-0D— 9_no $$ EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL 30:00 N io°o ADULT &TOT LESSONS y 10:30 lz:UO ADULT & TO LESSONS N 1z:oo ' 11:10 1�2 Go J 4. Thou ' ia_30 ADULT LAP SWIM 12.30 ]:00 1:OU 7.:30 D6— EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL OPEN 2:30 OPEN z:00 FAMILY 3: y : 7� FAMILY I . 3:D30 OPEN SWIMMING 3:30 / 1 4:00 SWIM 4.30 k st#$' GS sow` •,.3n 6:00 S I t I G7OU 6:30 358 _ noo OPEN OPEN FAMILY SWIM OPEN OPEN r.:30 FAMILY 9 00_ ADULT LAP & LESSONS FAMILY FAMILY 8 SWIM SWIM SWIM ADULT OPEN SWIM 1] 1o:3u ] ^ 11:30 30 • 1z:OD -s-L� 1 i0 1:00 ,2 _ —1:00 MFOXJETS' pROPOS£D PROGRAM HOURS^ a:nD 2:00 a:3n 3:UU CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA r RESOLUTION NO. 81-166 l } RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR STATE PROJECT 2785-190, 201 (494-393) FEDERAL PROJECT I-IG-F 494-4(139( 234 I494 AT C.S.A.H. 18 WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has prepared: plans, special provisions, and specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No. 393, renumbered, as Trunk Highway No. 494, within the corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie, at C.S.A.H. 18; and seeks the approval thereof; and WHEREAS, the said plans for the C.S.A.H. 18 - I494 interchange will only allow inbound traffic to the northwest quadrant of I494 and C.S.A.H. 18, therefore, requiring all outbound movements to the north and - east to be concentrated at the Valley View Road- C.S.A.H. 18 interchange; and WHEREAS, capacity deficiencies are expected to occur in the future at the Valley View Road - C.S.A.H. 18 interchange even with currently proposed improvements at that location; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within said corporate limits of the l City, be and hereby are approved including the elevations and grades as shown and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in grade occasioned by said construction contingent upon assurances by the Minnesota Department of Transportation that they shall design and fund a grade separated crossing of I494 along the approximate alignment of Washington Avenue to replace access removed by the proposed one way frontage road, at such time as development and traffic demand warrants; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway, to be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any crosswalks on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penze Mayor ATTEST: SEAL { John D. Frane, Clerk August 27, 1981 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager DATE: August 27, 1981 RE: Nicholson Property on Valley Road As a result of questions raised by City Council at the August 18 meeting regarding the Nicholson property, the staff has done some research to provide additional information. Although not an issue at the last Council meeting, Ms. Nicholson did Doint out later that the taxes on the three lots fronting on Valley Road were increased significantly in 1978 to correspond with taxes for the unbuilt lots on Hilltop Road. In fact, in 1978, the taxes were raised from about a $2,000.00 to approximately $6,000.00 and from that point on the taxes for parcels on both roads have remained equal. his. Nicholson claims that when she questioned this action by the assessing office, she was told that the lots were in fact buildable and that was the reason that the taxes would be equalized on properties fronting both streets. I have discussed this with the assessing office and cannot verify this conversation. The fact does remain, however, that the taxes were based on buildable lots. An abatement procedure exists in which Ms. Nicholson can apply to the County for a tax refund if she so desires. A question was raised regarding the cost to provide sanitary sewer service for this particular area. I have made only a cursory review of this cost and have arrived at two possible alternatives. First of all, a lift station could be constructed in the vicinity and a force main constructed along County Road 1 to Mitchell Road and Research Road to the Purgatory trunk. The length of the force main would be approximately 139000 feet and would be the significant cost factor in installation. It is estimated that the lift station and force main would cost approximately $3009000.00 and that the lateral system would be an additional cost of $2,835.00 or $3,425.00 per lot (based on the uniform assessment rates). Due to the relatively small drainage area that could be serviced by the lift station, it would be difficult to recapture the cost of the force main since the trunk assessments could be levied only for the limited service area. a An alternative to the above method would he to construct the 21" trunk sewer ) westerly from the Purgatory area trunk to intersect Eden Prairie Road somewhere between Suronit Drive and Cedar Ridge Road. The cost for the construction of this gravity sewer is estimated at $950,000.OD. Once the sewer reaches this point, it would still be necessary to install a lift station and a certain amount of force main. However, it would be possible to levy trunk assessments to cover the. cost of the gravity section. In addition to the cost for the trunk, the lift station and force main (approximately 3,000 feet) would be A11(1 Page 2 - Nicholson Property on Valley Road about $100,000.00. Therefore, the overall cost for this alternative would be approximately $1,050,000.00 plus uniform lateral assessments to each lot. At this writing, the Planning Department is in the process of preparing a map which shows the areas in Eden Prairie currently zoned RI-22 which are not served by sanitary sewer. Additionaly, this map will show the 14 parcels of property that are under five acres in the Rural zone which have riot been built upon as of yet and which have road frontage. This map will be available for discussion at the Council meeting. MEMO R { TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager DATE: August 27, 1981 RE: Protected Left Turn Lanes Vs. Right Turn Lane/Bypass Lane As a result of the discussion concerning the safety of a right turn lane/ bypass lane for the Timber Creek development project, I spoke to Dennis Hanson, Hennepin County Traffic Engioeer, to determine the merits of each. Mr. Hanson indicates that the County has a very good safety record with these installations but does not have any statistics to verify this 4 statement. As we discussed this matter further, it became apparent that the safety of the right turn lane/bypass lane has not really been questioned in the past. Whenever traffic on the main roadway exceeds 5,000 vehicles per day, they require developers to install the right turn/bypass lane. To his knowledge they have never required a developer to install a protected left turn lane with raised islands. l Mr. Hanson conceded that protected left turn lanes might be somewhat safer f but generally could not be justified unless at the intersection of two major facilities. He commented that on a minor facility such as the proposed street, Q the justification for the added expense would not be great enough to warrant the installation. He added that the Duck Lake Trail intersection would certainly qualify well in advance of the proposed intersection under discussion. , In general, they do not have any specific criteria for the installation of a protected left turn lane. As we discussed the matter further, we mutually agreed that a possible criteria might be at an intersection which in the future may warrant the installation of traffic signals. If that criteria is used, the right turn lane/bypass lane will be adequate for the foreseeable ; future in this location. The most recurring word that Mr. Hanson used in our discussion was "judgment". s Since they do not have specific warrants, he felt that engineering judgment was the only real criteria that could be used for the installation of protected g left turn lanes. A number of other factors would be involved such as the availability of right-of-way and location of other existing driveways. Although he made no commitments, Hennepin County would be willing to study specific locations which we feel might become problem areas in the future, However, they will not participate in any cost for protected left turn lanes where minor streets with limited traffic intersect major roadways. For your general information, a protected left turn lane with a raised median would require approximately a 400 foot island and a 300 or 400 foot taper in each direction - - for a total. reconstruction distance of approximately 1500 to 1600 feet. t : - 1 Page 2 Memo Protective Left Turn Lanes Conversely, a right turn lane/bypass lane, as required by Hennepin County, would require a construction length of approximately 700 feet. The protected left turn lane would require an additional paved width to accomodate the median width as well as the added cost for the concrete median construction itself. The protected left turn lane would indeed be safer, but the minimal number of cars that would occupy the turn lane in the right turn lane/bypass lane will, not create an acceptable safety hazard. The County will obviously not parti- cipate in the construction of a protected left turn facility and would not require one to be built by the developer. The remaining source of funding for such a project would have to be the City of Eden Prairie. There are a number of locations which have a higher.priority for safety and capacity improvements and I would therefore recommend that the permit requirements as imposed by Hennepin County be the criteria for the proposed intersection with C.S.A.H. 4.