Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/04/1982 AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982 6:OD PM, CITY HALL ICIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, George Bentley, ` Dean Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Larry Simenson, Fred Baumann, Stephen James, Marcia Lockman, Jeanette Mika, Robert Norberg and Barbara O'Grady HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION STAFF: Human Services Coordinator Jan Flynn and Director of Community Services Bob Lambert I. ROLL CALL • II. CALL MEETING TO ORDER III. DISCUSSION ON GENERAL DUTIES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES Page 687;- `s OTIMIISSION IV. ADJOURNMENT. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982 Immediately following Joint City Council/Human Rights & Services Commission • 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; Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 1 I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Ir JI. MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 20, 1982 Page 682, B. Sjecial City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 27, 1982 Page 689 City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,May 4, 1982 III. CONSENT CALENDAR • A. Clerk's License List Page 690. f B. Resolutions appropriating Municipal State Aid Funds for Improvements Page 691 on TH 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway_I_C. 51-341 A & 6 (Anderson Lakes Parkw. -(Resolution Nos. 82-87 & 82-88) C. Contract Amendment k2, Lake Eden Park Project, I.C. 51-341, KO1 Page 694 D. pprove plans and specifications and set bid opening for May 27, 1982 Page 699 at 1D:00 AM for Martin Drive Drainage Iin rovements, I.C. 52-007 -(Resolution No. 82-89) E. Approve plans and pecifications for Schooner Blvd. (SW quadrant of Page 700 -------- -- - -- MCA Road Improvements)_and set bid opening for June 11, 1982 at - 10:00 AM, I.C.] C 51-398 (Resolution No. 82-96) F. Approve_plans and specifications for Schooner Blvd. (NE quadrant I-494 Page 701 ypass construction for MCA Road improvement and set bid opening for June 11, 1982 at 1:00 PM, I.C. 51-308A-TResolution No. 82-97) G. Resolution supgortina nomination of Cummins-Grill House to National Register 702 Resolution No. 82-85Y Page H. Appr oval of Restoration Committee Page 703 I. Final plat approval for Timber Lakes Townhouses 3rd Addition (Resolution Page 704 No. 82-98) _. J. Request from I.T.T. Schadow for MIDB's in the amount of 52,000,000.00 Page 719 (Resolution No. 82-79, amending final Resolution No. 82-55 passed on March 16, 1982) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing_to consider feasibility_ of storm sewer and street improve-Page 720 Punts for Ontario Blvd. and adjacent properties, I.C. 51-2988-(Resolution No. 62-93)-- — ----- - B. DEER CREEK PUD &_1ST ADDITIDN RFZDNING by Ruscon-Hom_es, Inc. Request for Page 721 Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 26 acres, rezoning of 19 of the 26 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for first phase development, construction of 68 single family detached homes, and preliminary plat approval upon the entire 26 acres. Included in the Public Hearing will be the consideration of the granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable to the R1-13.5 District for: lot size, density, lot width, lot depth, and sideyard setbacks. Located south of Morgan Lane and Sorrel Way, and east of Mitchell Road (Resolution No. 82-81 - PUD, Ordinance No. 82-08 - rezoning, and Resolution No. 82-82 - preliminary plat) C. LORFNCE ADDITION by K P Properties_, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Page 741 . Development approval of residential on 32 acres, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 single family homes on 16 acres and from Rural to RM 6.5 for 56 attached units on 8 acres, preliminary plat approval over the entire 32 acres, variances for: lot size, lot width, setbacks, and density and approval of an Environmental Assessment. Worksheet. Located north of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution Nn. 82-83 - PUD, Ordinance No. 82-09 - rezoning, Resolution No. 82-84 - preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 82-86 - EAW) City Council Agenda - 3 - Toes.,May 4, 1982 D. Public Hearing to consider feasibility of Golden Ridge Drive Improve- Page 771 ments, I.C. 52-008(Resolution No. 82-91) k E. Public Hearing to consider feasibility of Kilmer Avenue and Atherton Page 772 y Utility Improvements, I.C.52-013 (Resolution No. 82-921 F. Consider revoking variance granted_by_the Boarl_g_lp±ppeals & Adjustments Page 773 for a_roperty division on Sunnybrook Road (Eckert) Resolution No. 82-94 G. Public Hearing to consider the feasibility of connecting_existing Valley Page 682 View Road to proposed Valley View Road at Topview Acres, I.C. 51-340A V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 1493 - 1707 Page 777 VI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Plan approval of Vally View Road (County Road 39) from Washington Avenue Page 782 to 1/2 mile West, I.C. 51-335(iesolution No. 82-90) g 8. Red Rock Lake 3rd by_James L. Simons. Request to preliminary plat the property zoned R1-22 into 4 lots. Located north of the northerly Page 7B3 terminous of Summit Drive and adjacent to Red Rock Lake, 15607, 17603, 15601, and 8701 Summit Drive (Resolution No. 82-80) C. Request from Mr. Lyman Olson regarding_retaining wall and grading Page 789 adjacent to his property at 7360 Scot Terrace VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager 1. Proposal from City of Richfield for Joint Radio Communications Page 795 Services C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of City Engineer 1. Consider alternate street names for Schooner Boulevard (Ordinance No. Page 796 62-1 D) 2. pprpve_plans_and_specifications _for Valley View RoadJSchooner Boulevard JNW auadiantof MCA land improvements) and set bid opening for June 11, 1962 at 900 AM, 1.C. 51 340A (Resolution No. 82-95) Page 797 IX. NEW BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT. 1 A MEMORANOUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jan Flynn, Human Services Coordinator DATE: April 29, 1982 SUBJECT: Joint Meeting of City Council & Human Services Commission - May 4/82 There will be a joint City Council and Human Rights and Services Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 4, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. • South Hennepin Human Service Council Representatives for Eden Prairie, Mary Hayden and Rosemary Oysinger, as well as Gerry Beckman, Oirector of P.R.O.P. (People Reaching Out to People), have been invited. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss comments, concerns, and suggestions on the relationship between the Commission, the City Council-City of Eden Prairie, and South Hennepin Human Services Council. Oiscussion and/or clarification of each groups role as well as the role of the Commission as an advisory commission to the City Council in relation to Resolution # 81-14 and in matters dealing with South Hennepin Human Service Council and projects they fund. The Human Rights and Services Commission looks forward to the opportunity to interact with both the Eden Prairie South Hennepin Human Service Council Representatives End the City Council members. cc: Mary Hayden Rosemary Dysinger Gerry Beckman • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 81-14 RESOLUTION DEFINING RESPONSIBILITIES DF THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND SERVICES COMMISSION RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF HUMAN SERVICE PROPOSALS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie,by adoption of Ordinance No. III, has established a Human Rights and Services Commission for the purpose of advising the City Council on matters pertaining to human service activities, programs and facilities, and WHEREAS, the human Rights and Services Commission, in cooperation ' with the South Hennepin Human Services Council, and the cities of Bloomington, Edina and Richfield, is conducting a Study of Human Service Needs in South Hennepin County which includes the following broad areas of human services: a. child/adult protection b. personal public health c. senior programs d. chemical dependency • e. youth services ( f. mental health g. information/referral and coordination h. community/public education and prevention financial/emergency assistance/welfare j. mentally/physically handicapped k. transportation (for special populations) 1. child care/day care m. housing (for special populations) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie does recognize that the Human Rights and Services Commission shall be involved in reviewing all proposals regarding the development of and/or funding of activities, programs and facilities pertaining to but not limited to the above mentioned areas of human services, and for making recommend- ations to the City Council. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prai ie this 3rd day of - Febnuary 1981. (I/ ;—/-;;;;7! "gang 1. P nzel, Mayor ATTEST: air d Franc), Clerk • SEAL 407Fi UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dean Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Direc- tor Chris Enger, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Community Services Bob Lambert, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Councilman George Bentley PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: all members were present I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: VIII. A. Set Special Meeting of Council and Human Rights and Services Commission for 6:00 p.m., May 4th; VIII. B. Excavation Permit for Edenval e; VIII. C. Resolution Regarding Grill Property; 11 VIII. D. Request from John Reedy; VIII. E. Update on Landfill Expansion. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 6, 1982 Page 3, just before the Ist Motion para. add: "There were no questions or comments from the public regarding this proposal." Page 5, para. 4, line 1: replace "of the building of berms along Shady Oak." with "and its effect on the berms along the roadway." Page 7, G., second line of Motion: change "of" to "for" Page 8, VIII. A. 1., line 2, add after Carling: "as Minnesota's Small Business Person of the Year." MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 6, 1982, as amended and published. Motion carried with Tangen abstaining. ir • CYg ' 1 City Council Minutes -2- April 20, 1982 B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 13, 1982 MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 13, 1982, as published. Motion carried with Tangen abstaining. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Award Tennis/Multi-Use Court Bids for Staring Lake Park and Hidden Ponds Park C. Approve plans and specifications for Westwood Industrial Park, I. C. 52-015, and authorize bids to be received May 27, 1982, at 10:00 a.m. (Located west of Baker Road and south of County Road 62) -(Resolution No. 82-71) D. Approve plans and specifications for Mariann Drive, I. C. 52-017, and authorize bids to be received May 27, 1982, at 10:00 a.m. - (Resolution No. 82-74) E. Approval of agreement with Hennepin County for Mitchell/Baker connection, I. C. 51-3408 (Agreement #PW 05-49-82, Co. Proj, No. 7915) (Resolution No. 82-72) F. Approve plans and specifications for City West, I. C. 52-025 and authorize bids to be received May 27, I982, at 10:00 a.m. (Resolution No. 82-73) G. Final plat approval for Overlook Place (located west of Creek Knoll Road and north of Pioneer Trail) - (Resolution No. 82-75) H. Request from Canterbury Restaurant, Inc. (Chester's) for a liquor license. Located at 7765 Mitchell Road - removed from the Consent Calendar to immedi- ately follow the Public Hearings (after IV. E.) I. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 82-05 rezoning Sheraton Inn to C-Reg-Ser and approval of Developer's Agreement, 5 acres located south and east of Eden Road and west of Glen Road. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to remove item H, Request from Canterbury Restaurant, Inc., from the Consent Calendar to immediately follow the Public Hearings for further discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Tangen expressed his displeasure with the smaller spaces for cars as spelled out in the Developer's Agreement with Sheraton Inn. He stated he will continue to voice his opposition to smaller parking spaces. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve items A - G and item I • on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. (,gg cL City Council Minutes -3- April 20, 1982 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. .LAKE EDEN CARRIAGE HOMES by Zachman Homes, Inc. Request to rezone and pre- i5'minary plat 8.7 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 which land is part of the Edenvale South Planned Unit Development (PUD 73-11.) Included with the zoning are vari- ances for setbacks and the use of wood as an exterior material. Located north of Anderson Lakes Parkway and east of Darnel Road (Ordinance No. 82-06 - rezoning; and Resolution No. 82-51 - preliminary plat) Continued from April 6, 1982 Steve Ryan, spokesman for Zachman Homes, Inc., said he had met with Lake Eden area residents' representatives and an agreement had been reached as to the color of the siding. He noted the parking had been revised and there are now 202 spaces as opposed to 148 in the original plan; 41 of these are "expansion stalls" and will be constructed if and when the need is realized. The Darnel acess was redesigned to create a 140' separation between the public street and the private street and eliminates the conflict with the Daluge driveway. Edstrom asked if anyone has addressed the question of turning lanes on Ander- son Lakes Parkway. Director of Public Works Dietz said there could be room for turn lanes, if they are necessary; there is as much flexibility as one would need. Tangen inquired as to whom is responsible for deciding when expansion spaces are necessary. Planning Director Enger said the Developer's Agreement provides for this situation in two ways: either the owners of the property would provide for the additional parking when they felt it necessary or the City would sign the adjacent streets to force the construction of additional parking. The in- clination would be fur the homeowner's association.to take care of this situation on its own. Willard Daluge, 8785 Darnel, feels the interior road should be a cul-de-sac. He expressed concern as to how snow removal would be handled because the in- terior road will be a private road. Michael Furst, B693 Darnel Road, noted much of the access to homes in Ridgewood is via Darnel Road. He expressed concern that this development might be marketed in a sale/lease back manner in which event they would not be necessarily owner occupied. He asked that the plan be looked at very carefully and be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study. Bob Lamoreaux, 8905 Darnel Road, asked about the need for a variance when the wood siding turned out to be aluminum. Enger explained that under Ordinance 135 the City has been advised by its Attorney that it is most appropriate to detail the variances. It was thought from looking at the plans that the siding in this project was wood; the variance is not so much specifically to wood but to anything other than brick. Furst stated at the last meeting it was said in order to qualify for this type of home a $50,000 annual income was necessary. He said this was incorrect, it would be more like $35,000. City Council Minutes -4- April 20, 1982 Dick Feerick, 6518 Leesborough Avenue, said he has watched Ryan's presentations and the manner in which he has worked with City Staff and neighborhood residents and wished the record to reflect that Ryan has done a fair and honest job. Lamoreaux asked how the expansion parking funding would be set up. Penzel ex- plained how a homeowner's association works. Lamoreaux said he would hate to see "No Parking" signs along Darnel Road. Barb Hopson, 877D Darnel Road, further questioned the internal parking. Penzel said those things included in the Developer's Agreement are legally binding. Ryan went on to explain the types of financing which might be used noting Zachman is attempting to facilitate first time home buyers through creative financing. He stated the al;iminum siding to be used is supposed to be main- tenance free for forty years. Ryan explained the pros and cons of the various alternative access points on Darrel Road and the reason for the point selected. Edstrom asked where snow will be "stored." Ryan said on the east side of the development at the end of driveways so it will melt towards the pond. Furst related methods of financing with which he was familiar. Terry Mahoney, sales manager for Zachman, said the methods of financing they use are used in other areas of the country. Redpath asked if it should be the concern of the Council; it is an issue the Council has not concerned itself with in past developments. Furst expressed concern about srow being dumped near the pond. Dietz explained this pond is really just a pot hole and was intended to be used in this manner as a silt trap for waste water. The storm drainage system drains into this ponding area. Sam Hopson, 877D Darnel Road, would like Zachman to install a privacy fence along the property line which separates his property from Zachman's property. Ryan said Zachman would be willing to remove the berm and put in a privacy fence. Hopson said a fence would keep children from playing in his backyard. MOTIDN: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Drdinance 82-D6, rezoning 8.7 acres from Rural to RM 2.5. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to draft the Developer's Agreement incorporating comments and recommendations included in the Staff Report of February 17, 1982; and those comments made this evening including a provision for additional parking, consideration of on-site dis- posal of snow along the east side of the development. The question of a fence along the northerly lot line is referred to Staff for appropriate action prior to 2nd Reading of the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Tangen noted the developer has made a good attempt and has made every effort he could to appease everyone. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 82-51, approving the preliminary plat of Lake Eden Carriage Homes, Motion carried unanimously. // 1(H•' e. City Council Minutes -5- April 20, 1982 B. Feasibility Report for Martin Drive Drainage Improvements, I.C. 52-007 ( (Resolution No. 82-64) - continued from April 6, 1982 Director of Public Works Dietz spoke to the expansion of the project whereby a pipe would be extended south of Martin Drive. This would increase the cost from $327.16 per acre to $1319.16 per acre. Dietz said he felt this would deem the project not feasible. Dietz showed yearly cost summaries, as re- quested by the Council, for several properties. Redpath asked that the same problem not occur on the property to the south as has occurred on the Lane property. Dietz said the City had not received any easements for the ditch on the Lane property; easements will be insisted upon on the Equitable property. Dick Kast, Metro Machine, 8001 Wallace Road, read a letter from his company's attorney in which he expressed an opinion on the assessment in regard to benefitting properties. City Attorney Pauly concurred that it all comes down to a matter of benefit. Jack Humphries, representing Equitable, felt there is only one benefitting property owner and that is the petitioner. He stated the problem is a result of the parking lot having been built too close to the ditch. Bentley noted the water that goes though that ditch comes from adjacent sites, The size of the ditch is necessitated by th.- upstream flow of water. The problem rests with the amount of water that has to flow through there and that comes from lots other than those immediately adjacent to the ditch. M. E. "Skip" Lane, petitioner, added that the ditch is also a safety hazard, Pauly stated one of the theories in assessing upstream property owners is that, while they may have natural rights to have their waters flow down hill, the fact is that by developing their properties it usually results in a greater flow of water flowing down hill than that to which they have a right;and therefore it is appropriate to find benefit to those upstream property owners. MDTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 82-64, ordering plans and specifications for Martin Drive drainage improvements, I. C. 52-007. Motion passed unanimously. C. PAX CIHRISTI ADDITION by Pax Christi Catholic Community_, Request for Planned Unit Development approval or n"� Multiple residential, open space and a church site upon a total area of 40 acres, and preliminary plat approval to divide the 40 acres into 3 lots. Located north of County Road 1, south of Purgatory Creek and east of Creekwood and Pleasant Hill Cemetery, (Resolution No, 82-69 - PUD; and Resolution No. 82-80 - preliminary plat) Jim Hill, representing Pax Christi Catholic Community, introduced Father Tim Power, Bill Herbert, and Dick Feerick. Hill spoke to the proposal and the requests before the Council. Feerick also addressed the proposal, City Council Minutes -6- April 20, 1982 Planning Director Enger noted the Planning Commission had discussed this pro- posal at its March 22, 1982, meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval of the PUD concept subject to the conditions contained in the March 18, 1982, Staff Report as well as the additions noted in the Minutes of the March 22nd meeting. The motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat was defeated by a vote of 3-2. Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this proposal at its April 5, 1982, meeting and had recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the March 22, 1982, Staff Report and further conditions as outlined in the April 5th Minutes. Edstrom asked what moving the wetland would entail. Lambert said they are proposing to move it further to the west by about 50 feet. Penzel stated he has a problem with the rationale for a density transfer from a church site and wondered what justifies this sort of transfer. Hill said The Preserve had shown 250 dwelling units and some commercial on this site in their plan. The City's Guide Plan shows this as low density residential. Penzel said that might have been The Preserve's concept but it had never come before the Council with that plan. Enger said the City has not had a situation like this in the past. Feerick said they are in no way proposing a certain number of units, but rather they are showing what might be done and what type of density might be considered. They also are attempting to try to tie together a difficult piece of property. Penzel said he remains uncomfortable witn the density transfer situation. Bentley said he could go along with PUD concept approval at this time but does not see justification for the density transfer. Steve Hill, 9559 Woodridge Circle, one of two or three Creekwood homeowners whose property would be affected said he agrees with the overall use, but expressed his concern with the density. He stated he is unclear as to what will happen to the wetland -- would not like to see it any closer to his property that it presently is. Jim Hill said this is not a protected wetland; it was suggested this wetland could be used as a tradeoff whereby by moving the wetland west, a portion of the eastern part of the wetland could be used for housing. Don Bell, 9561 Woodridge Circle, stated the wetland in question is a settling basin for Purgatory Creek. Steve Hill noted the grade of the wetland is such that moving it west could not be accomplished without significant regrading. Feerick said they had expressed their willingness to work this out with the neighbors, Redpath asked if any thought had been given to building the church on the middle lot and putting housing on the lot abutting Pioneer Trail. Father Power said they would have problems with parking if the church were not built on the flat portion of the property as they will need about 4 acres for parking because their sanctuary will seat about 1300 people. ('.)14 a City Council Minutes -7- April 2D, 1982 Don Redinius, 9524 Woodridge Circle, said it seems that Creekwood residents are faced with high density residential proposals on all sides of them and must come before the Council to voice their opposition. Bentley said it is no longer economically feasible for developers to build low density single family housing as was the case just a few years ago. Redinius asked that diligent planning be used and noted that the Hillsborough and Orin Thompson developments south of Creekwood are selling well. Tangen stated because of the terrain single family may not be feasible. Pat Bell, 9561 Woodridge Circle, asked about the extension of Homeward Hills Road and upgrading of County Road 1. Penzel said there is no known improvement planned for County Road 1 at this time. Homeward Hills Road has no improvements scheduled, but the plan is to have it extended concurrent with Phase I of con- struction of the church. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 82-69, approving the Pax Christi Catholic Church Planned Unit Development amending the Guide Plan. Motion carried unanimously. MOTIDN: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to defer action on the preliminary plat until there is a request to rezone the property. Motion carried unanimously. D. YEAR VII. C. D. B. G. Transfer funds from Project 009 to Year VIII Cummins- Grill House Restoration (Resolution No. B2-59) City Manager Jullie stated action on this resolution would shift $10,000 from year VII to year VIII for reroofing of the Cummins-Grill House. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 82-59, requesting Hennepin County to transfer C.D.B.G. funds from Project #009 to Year VIII Cummins-Grill Restoration Site Improvement. Motion carried unanimously. E. TITUS ROAD VACATION north of West 78th Street, (Resolution No. 82-76) Director of Public Works Dietz explained the property owner is asking for this vacation in exchange for temporary easements which are necessary for the Schooner Boulevard project. The owner feels the vacation of Titus Road will give the owners more flexibility in planning their site which is presently platted but unzoned. Bill Herbert, attorney for the Pension and Profit Sharing Trust of Independent Millwork Incorporated, owners of the property, said they are unwilling at this time to commit to a connection between West 78th Street and Leona Road. They do realize that this is a probability when this parcel comes before the City when developed. Edstrom asked the purpose of the temporary easements. Dietz said they are needed for grading and slope easements. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing, and to adopt Resolution No. 82-76, calling for the vacation of Titus Road north of West 78th Street. Motion carried unanimously. v i City Council Minutes -8- April 20, 1982 III. H. Request from Canterbury Restaurant, Inc. (Chester's) for a liquor license. Located at 7765 Mitchell Road. Penzel stated the City has a total of 12 liquor licenses presently available. The concern is that this number will not be adequate for future development since five have already been authorized. Redpath said he felt it unfair not to issue a license to a business which has been in the community for a few years when one might possibly be issued to a restaurant just beginning. Tangen asked if there will be any other establishments in the community wanting a liquor license in the near future. Several possibilities were named. Penzel noted this is one of the few circumstances where personal judgement is permitted. Strict application of the Ordinance is not the governing issue on whether or not to grant a license. City Attorney Pauly stated the liquor statutes provide for 12 licenses up to 20,000 population and 18 licenses up to 40,000. A special census can be taken if need be prior to the 1990 Federal census. Tangen expressed concern about future licenses; but stated he would not like to see this license denied as it would be discriminatory. Edstrom agreed and noted since there is a provision for a special census there are fewer restraints. Bentley related concerns expressed to him by residents including that granting this license would eliminate a family-type restaurant; the proximity to Kinder- Care should be considered. Bentley said others should realize the Council will be closely watching the types of businesses requesting licenses in the future, MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to grant approval to the request from Canterbury Restaurant, Inc. (Chester's) for a liquor license, Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 1270 - 1492 MOTICN: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 1270 - 1492. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen, and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading. of Ordinance No. 82-07, rezoning City West Phases 1 - 3 to Office . and 41proval of Developer's Agreement. Located east of new shady Oak Road (County Road 6T and south of Crosstown 62 and west of US 169/212. Penzel asked about the change in the Developer's Agreement of the building height. Planning Director Enger stated it was raised from 70' to 80' due to elevator penthouses, etc. City Council Minutes -9- April 20, 1982 Penzel noted that even though this development is not within the Schooner Boulevard assessment district the developer is voluntarily willing to con- tribute to the assessment district an amount of not less than $100 per acre. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to give 2nd Reading to Ordinance No. 82-07, rezoning City West Phases 1 - 3 to Office. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the Developer's Agree- ment dated April 15, 1982, with the two changes as shown on page 3. Motion carried unanimously. VII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Resorts of Council Members Penzel - 1. Reminded Councilmen of the April 29, 1982, Tree City USA • Recognition which will be held in the Governor's Reception Room. 2. April 27, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. there will be a Special City Council Meeting to discuss Chapter 12 in the codification process. B. Report of City Attorney There was no report. • C. Report of City Manager 1. Authorization to purchase computer equipment City Manager Jullie spoke to the April 7, 1982, memo to the Council from John Frane, Finance Director, addressing the need for a computer. Discussion followed regarding compatibility and expansion of the system. Frane explained the Hewlett-Packard computer would have a combination computer terminal/computer/word processor capability and is compatible with the operating software of the Logis system. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to authorize purchase of a CRT terminal/computer, letter grade printer and cable, disk drive and cable, and programs. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Camp Indian Chief Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to his memorandum of April 15, 1982, in which he outlined the action which might be taken regarding the Camp Indian Chief proposal. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to proceed with discussions with Hennepin County and MARC regarding Camp Indian Chief. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -10- April 20, 1982 E. Report of City Engineer 1. Plan approval of CSAH 1/18 Intersection (Resolution No. 82-77) Director of Public Works Dietz outlined the proposed improvements at the CSAH 1/CSAH 18 intersection which include the signalization of that intersection. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 82-77, CSAH 1/CSAH 19 final plan approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Plan Bulldozer (Resolution No. 82-78) Director of Public Works Dietz spoke to his memo of April 15, 1982, in which Plan Bulldozer, a disaster relief or emergency situation plan, was detailed. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 82-78, authorizing and directing Mayor and/or Manager to execute "Plan Bulldozer" disaster relief contract with Associated General Contractors of Minnesota. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Preliminary Report on rerouting of Valley View Road at Topview Acres Director of Public Works Dietz addressed the rerouting of Valley View Road at Topview Acres and the three alternates proposed by RCM in a letter of April 12, 1982. Further discussion included discussion of a fourth alternative. Penze1 stated the reason for reconsideration of a route in this area was due to a petition from the Topview Acres residents expressing their concern for access for public safety vehicles. Redpath noted at one time residents had petitioned to have no access. John Reedy, 7262 Gordon Drive, said most Topview Area residents had presumed the discussion on the access was to be decided when and if the decision as to where Schooner Boulevard would go was made. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to consider the rerouting of Valley View Road at Topview Acres at the May 4, 1982, meeting. Motion carried unanimously, VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Set Special Meeting of Council and Human Rights and Services Commission for 6:00 p.m., May 4th MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to set 6:00 p.m., May 4, 1982, as the date and time for a Special Meeting of the City Council and the Human Rights and Services Commission. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -11- April 20, 1982 B. Excavation Permit for Edenvale Director of Public Works Dietz explained the reason for the excavation permit as outlined in his memo of April 1, 1982. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to grant the request for a land alteration permit from Equitable Life (Edenvale.) Motion carried unanimously. C. Resolution Regarding Grill Property City Manager Jullie said he had received a call from Vern Lang who is representing the estate of Mildred Grill regarding her bequest of $10,000 to the City for the restoration and maintenance of the Grill House. He asked the City to pass a Resolution indicating its intent co restore the house. City Attorney Pauly wondered about the legality of such a request. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to look into the matter. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request from John Reedy Penzel called attention to an April 20, 1982, letter from John Reedy rep- resenting the Eden Prairie Athletic Association (copy attached) requesting one free family membership to the new Eden Prairie Community Center to be used as a door prize at the Athletic Association's Pancake Breakfast to be held May 8, 1962.Bentley said his only concern is that if this request is granted it would set a precedent. Reedy said the Eden Prairie Athletic Association is actually five youth organizations (Grils Athletics Association, Baseball Association, Basket- ball Association, Soccer Association, and Football Association) which are conducting a joint fund raising effort. He further explained 1,700 youth are served and one of the qualifications is that he/she be a resident of Eden Prairie. Tangen asked if this was to be considered an annual donation. Reedy said it is a "one shot deal," but he would not be averse to coming back in a year to request a similar donation. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to donate one family membership to the Community Center to the Eden Prairie Athletic Association to be used as a door prize at its May B, 19B2, fund raiser. Motion carried unanimously. • Bentley asked that this be looked at over the course of a year's time and if the situation is going to be abused then it will not continue. Tangen said he regards it at a one time situation and he will not support all comers. (28— } City Council Minutes -12- April 20, 1982 E. Update on Landfill Expansion �. City Manager Jullie stated he, Gene Dietz, Chris Enger & Rick Rosow had met with representatives from Hennepin County, Woodlake Sanitation, Minnesota State Department of Health, and the Pollution Control Agency on April 15, 1982. The City•showed slides of the landfill which had been taken recently. There was discussion of the permit process, environmental assess- ment worksheets, and environmental impact statements. The Council discussed the fact that all the information received comes from Browning Ferris Industries; the role of the PCA; the role of Hennepin County; and the role of the Metropolitan Council. MDTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to review • whether or not a mandatory or discretionary EAW is required. Motion carried unanimously. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to adjourn the meeting at 12:02 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION April 20, 1982 Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mayor: As we have discussed, I respectfully request your recon- sideration of our request to the City to provide one free family membership to the new Eden Prairie Community Center. As you xnow, several of the youth associations from our community have banded together for a joint fund raising effort. The pancake breakfast scheduled for May 8, 1982 at Mr. Steak is envisioned as the first annual such event. The facilities have been graciously donated free of charge by Mr. Steak. Door prizes total- ing near $1,000 market value have been donated by various businesses. Many residents have donated countless hours organizing and selling tickets. Now we need to secure your assistance in obtaining a raffle prize. The representatives of the five youth associations who founded this joint fund raising concept, decided that a free membership to the new community center would have the broadest community appeal. If the winner of the family membership has already joined for 1982, then the membership would be granted for 1983. This truly represents a community effort. We view this joint fund raising concept as the youth association equivalent of the United Way. I don't believe that there should exist any concern over the worth and contributions made by these programs. We presently serve approximately 1,700 youth in Eden Prairie. We appreciate your past efforts benefitting these programs and look forward to your continuing support. Eden Prairie Girls Athletics Association Eden Prairie Baseball Association Eden Prairie Basketball Association Eden Prairie Soccer Association Eden Prairie Football Association i I UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1982 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dear Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Director of Public Works Eugene Dietz, Planning Director Chris Enger, and City Attorney Roger Pauly ROLL CALL: all members were present I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following item was added to the Agenda: IV. Resolution No. 82-98 for Mildred Grill Estate. Item IV. Adjournment was changed to V. Adjournment. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. ( 11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES LICENSE FOR SEARS STORE AT EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER Tangen expressed his reservations about the potential proliferation of these facilities throughout the community. It was noted that the license fee ($150 per unit) is probably substantial enough to discourage such proliferation. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the request by the Sears Store at the Eden Prairie Center for a mechanical amusement devices license. Motion carried unanimously. III. CODIFICATION - CHAPTER 12 ON SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (PLATTING) The Council reviewed the draft of Chapter 12. Staff noted several changes as directed by Council members. Review of Chapter 12 was completed. City Attorney Pauly submitted memos regarding Chapters 7 and 9. Staff was directed to incor- porate the additional data into those Chapters. The next meeting (post draft conference) was set for 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 25, 1982. IV. RESOLUTION NO. 82-98 FOR MILDRED GRILL ESTATE City Attorney Pauly presented a draft resolution for Council approval which has been requested by the trustees of the estate of Mildred Grill as a condition for release of $10,000 to the City for preservation and,maintenance of the of the Grill House. -r City Council Minutes -2- April 17, 1982 MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 82-98, regarding the use of monies bequeathed by Mildred Grill. Motion carried unani- mously. V. AOJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. • 4 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST May 4, 1982 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Condor Corporation Roger Friedell Construction Ruscon Homes, Inc. Wheeler & Associates, Inc. Windsor Development PLUMBING Plymouth Plumbing, Inc. HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING D. J.'S Heating & Air Conditioning ( MECHANICAL GAMES Randy Aksamit (Warehouse Deli) TEMPORARY BEER LICENSE Eden Prairie Lions Club (Schooner Days) These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the license activity. 94.,1 Pat Soiie, Licensing Clerk • (o9U 6 , MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works DATE: April 29, 1982 RE: Appropriating State Aid Funds EC. 51-341A & B The two resolutions included in the Council agenda are to finalize the State Aid portion of the improvements at T.H.159 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Similar resolutions were passed previously but were based on estimated cost. These resolutions are identical except that the final costs are shown. The resolution for 51-341B has been increased to $20,444.37 from the original appropriation of $20,00D. The resolution for 51-341A has been increased to $62,975.40 from the original appropriation of $49,069. All other State Aid paper work has been accompli:.hed on these projects with the exception of these final resolutions. Therefore, 1 recommend the resolutions be adopted as proposed. EAD:sg • May 4, 1982 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-87 APPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENT ON T.H.169 I.C. 51-341A WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Eden Prairie to participate in the cost of a construction project on T.H.169 within the limits of said municipality; and WHEREAS, said construction project has been approved by the Department of Highways and identified in its records as (S.A.P.) 181-107-02, I.C. 51-341A. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we do hereby appropriate from our Municipal State Aid Street Funds the sum of $62,975.40 to apply toward the construction of said project and request the Commissioner of Highways to approve this authorization. APPROVED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 4, 1982. Wolfgang N.Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • 4;92 May 4, 1982 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOT„ RESOLUTION NO. 82-88 APPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS TO T.H.169 and ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY, I.C.51-3418 WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Eden Prairie to participate in the cost of a construction project located at T.H.169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway within the limits of said municipality; and WHEREAS, said construction project has been designed by the Department of Transportation S.A.P. 181-010-06 (S.P. 2744-39), I.C. 51-341B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we do hereby appropriate from our Municipal State Aid Street Funds the sum of $2D,444.37 to apply toward the design, construction, and right-of-way acquisition of said project and request the Commissioner of Highways to approve this authorization. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 4, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk I to /� { { MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager �, FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services `— DATE: April 28, 1982 SUBJECT: Contract Amendment No. 2 - Lake Eden Park Project Lake Eden Park Development was a part of a construction contract for the improvement of Anderson Lakes Parkway. Lake Eden Park was a difficult grading project due to the low marshy condition of the soils and therefore finished grading and seeding had to be delayed until the soil conditions were dry enough to support seeding equipment without leaving ruts. Unfortunately, the Contractor was required to wait beyond the prime seeding time to obtain these dry conditions. They . d provide seed and mulch as per specifications. However, City staff did not approve the seeding t" results. l After negotiating with the Contractor to finish this project, staff agreed that the City would pay for the weed spray, fertilizer and seed and the Contractor would furnish all the labor for applying the spray, disking, dragging and reseeding. Total cost of the Contract Amendment No. 2 is $3,675.91. . BL:md ( S 011 • I ( CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 ( I. . 4 TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT 51-341, 51-360, KO1 ANDERSON LAKES PARK, HOMEWARD HILLS ROAD, LAKE EDEN PARK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA April, 1962 BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. 2829 University Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 The following work shall be added to the contract for furnishing and installing the following items: SCHEDULE E (K01) LAKE EDEN PARK Item Estimated Unit No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount ( 1 Seed, Special Mixture Pound 747.6 . $ 3.23 $2,414.75 2 Fertilizer, 12-12-12 Ton 1.88 $325.00 $ 611.81 3 Weed Spray Acre 8.32 $ 45.00 $ 374.40 4 Roundup Spray Acre 4.23 $ 65.00 $ 274.95 Total Additions Schedule E $3,675.91 Original Contract Amount $506,147.69 Total Previous Change Orders $ 6,424.90 Total Additions Contract Amendment #2 $ 5,544.91 Contract Amount To Date $522,117.50 Description and Location of Work The above itemized work is located in Eden Park north of Anderson Lakes Parkway at Preserve Boulevard. The work shall be performed in accordance with the specifications and as outlined in the attached fetter dated November 17, 1981. All work shall be completed by June 1, 1962. • 611J ( ( Schedule E (Additions) Items 1 thru 4 - Due to failure of portions of the seeding to establish a turf, the above quantities reflect the cost of materials for reseeding the required areas. All additional costs required to perform the work shall be the responsibil- ity of the contractor. • Contractor: � � Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. ', -)ci�- Title Date Engineer_ Ze Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc.( —Title ,; . _ Date / 0-2- - City of Eden Prairie: City Engineer _ Date • 6°1(P •-- — 2I— r•uv-E M a l I. _� I pi rr... -0.,../ jr.......ett i 0 . . , �—I 71 DEC PI NN1NG •, `] 1____,. . 1",,, PUE IAII(JN �C[L �C _ _ �I,.J�_ARCt,, I�E{E BENNEII. RINGROSE. WOISYEIO JARVIS. GARUNER• INC. • 2629 UNIYERSIIY AVENUE 5E • MiNNEAPOL15. MN 55411 • PMONE 612I?5NOB /1/J•/S/ PIJsG d,.1.✓6K 77.-p M.e November 17, 1981 7 S IS O. �• t/1".. n B George Mattson Shafer Construction Shafer, Minnesota 55074 RE: Lake Eden Park Turf Establishment Dear George: I would like to summarize the compromise that was reached at our arbitration meeting • with the State in regards to re-establishing turf on portions of Lake Eden Park in Eden Prairie. (" After the new weed growth has emerged in the spring, the lower park area will be sprayed with a broadleaf weed control and the upper park area beginning at the westerly end of the parking lot will be sprayed with Roundup. After the spray manu- facturer's recommended elapsed time before seeding has transpired, the landscape contractor will prepare the entire upper park area and necessary portions of the lower parking area for re-seeding. The preparation, as a minimum, shall consist of discing and pulverizing the soil to loosen it and to prepare a smooth surface as necessary for re-seeding. 1 The seed mixture, as originally used, will then be placed at the rate of 120 lbs./ acre, mulched, and disc anchored. The mulch shall be straw. A fertilizer of 12-12-12 composition shall be placed over the entire park area at the rate of 300 lb./acre. The basic cost responsibility will be the payment for materials by the City and the performance of the work at no cost by the contractor. The estimated amount of reimbursable costs include: Area of Unit • Item Coverage Unit Quantity Price Alnount Seed 6.23 acre Pound 747.6 $ 3.23 • $2,414.75 Mulch 6.23 acre Ton 12.46 $150.00 $1,869.00 Fertilizer 12.55 acre Ton 1.88 $325.00 $ 611.81 Weed Spray 8.32 acre Acre 8.32 $ 45.00 $ 374.40 jr Roundup Spray 4.23 acre Acre 4.23 T8D T80 pes. WNW APOLIS CHEYENNE / DENIER 0 7 0 Mr. George Mattson November 17. 1981 �_ Page 2 After you have had an opportunity to review this, please contact me with any comments you may have and I will process a Supplemental Agreement. Thank you. Sincerely. BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. Garyj:619 Erickson, P.E. GJE/dh • 1 . • i • May 4, 1982 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-89 • RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS • WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: • I.C. 52-D07, Martin Drive Drainage Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEPEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: • 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office. • 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The adver- tisement shall be published for 2 week(s), shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be opened at 10:00 o'clock A.M. on Thursday, May 27, 1982, and considered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, June 1, 1982, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 4, 1962. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL ' John D. Frane, Clerk • May 4, I98Z i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA . ` RESOLUTION NO. R82-96 • RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS • ANO SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIOS . SCHOONER BLVO.(S.E. QUADRANT OF MCA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS) • WHEREAS, the City Engineer, through Rieke, Carroll, Muller & Assoc. has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit:. • I.C. 51-398, Schooner 81vd.(S.W. Quadrant of MCA Road Improvements) • . and has presented such plans and specifications to the•Council for approval. • NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City engineer's office. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The adver- tisement shall be published for 2 week(s), shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be opened at 10:00 o'clock A.M. on Friday, June 11, 1982 and considered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, June 15, 1982, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and • filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to • the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 5, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL . t .. • John O. Franc, Clerk '100 • May 4, 1982 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-97 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ' SCHOONER BLVD. (N.E. QUADRANT I-494 • BYPASS CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the City Engineer, through Bennett Ringrose Wolsfeld has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: • • . I.C._51-308A, Schooner Blvd. (N.E. Quadrant I-404 Bypass Construction for MCA Road Improvements) • • • . and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The adver- tisement shall be published for 2 week(s), shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be opened at one o'clock A.M. on Friday, June 11, 1982,and considered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, June 15, 1982, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and . filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 4, 1982. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • • !• John D. Crane, Clerk '• '7ol 3 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-85 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE NOMINATION OF THE CUMMINS/GRILL HOUSE TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES WHEREAS, the Martin Grill house was built in 1879 by John R. Cummins, an early settler of Eden Prairie and a renowned horticulturalist in Minnesota, and WHEREAS, the wishes of Martin and Martha Grill were to have their home preserved as a historic site, and WHEREAS, in 1976 the City of Eden Prairie purchased the Martin Grill • house, and WHEREAS, in 1979 the City Council authorized a feasibility study for the preservation of the site, and in 1982 authorized the Eden Prairie Historical and Cultural Commission to proceed with the establishment of a Preservation Committee to prepare plans for restoring the Cummins/Grill house, and WHEREAS, the Cummins/Grill house meets the National Register criteria of significance in the areas of agriculture, architecture, and settlemeni:, and WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the State Review Board by the City of Eden Prairie for nomination of the Cummins/Grill house to the National Register of Historic Places, and WHEREAS, the State Review Board will be considering the nomination of the Cummins/Grill house at its May 27, 1982 meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie supports the nomination of the Cummins/Grill house to the National Register of Historic Places. ADOPTEO, by the Eden Prairie City Council this 4th day of May, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk SEAL: . -7O a MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sandra F. Werts, RecreNi•'I y ervisor DATE: April 28, 1982 • SUBJECT: Establishment of Restoration Committee At the March 16, 1982 meeting, the City Council authorized the Historical and Cultural Commission to establish a nine member committee to work towards the restoration of the Cummins/Grill house. At their April 1, 1982 meeting, the Commission discussed the committee and made the following motion: Brill moved to recommend to the City Council that the following people be appointed to serve on the Restoration Committee: Carol Hone, Jim 8rown, Dick Lynch, Mike Eames, Mona Finholt, Jeff Nolte. Bruce Brill, Maggie Schmidt and Ann Wilson. Richter seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SFW:md • • • • • • { May 4, 1982 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ) • RESOLUTION NO. 82-98 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF TIM8ER LAKES TDWNHOMES 3rd ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Timber Lakes Townhomes 3rd Addition has been sub- mitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin- ances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: • A. Plat Approval Request for Timber Lakes Townhomes 3rd Addis approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated April 27, 19B2. B. Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. I waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described, in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 4, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Johns Frane, Clerk • 7011 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: David Olson, Engineering Technician DATE: April 27, 1982 SUBJECT: Timber Lakes Townhomes 3rd Addition PROPOSAL: • The developer, Richard Miller Homes Inc., is requesting final plat approval of the Timber Lakes Townhomes 3rd Addition. This is a 21 unit townhome addition (RM 6.5) located east of Timber Lakes Drive and is a replat of part of Dutlot B, Timber Lakes, in the north 1 of Section 17. HISTDRY: The revised Mitchell Lake PUD 75-04 (now known as Timber Lakes) was approved by the City Council on December 2, 1975, through Resolution #1065. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on May 2, 1978, per Resolution #78-89. Zoning to RM 6.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on May 21, 197E, per Ordinance #326. The final plat submitted for approval conforms with the approved preliminary plat. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of Ordinance #93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All utilities and streets installed in conjunction with this plat will be owned and maintained by the Timber Lakes Homeowners Association. PARK DEDICATION: • As required through the Rezoning Agreement executed M'ay 21, 1976, a cash contribution in lieu of land in the amount of $250 per living unit will be paid by the developer upon issuance of building permits. ' 7OS . Pg 2 - Final plat Timber Lakes Townhomes 3rd BONDING: All utilities and streets within this plat will be privately owned and maintained; therefore, bonding will not be required. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Timber Lakes Townhomes 3rd Addition, subject to the requirements of this report, the Rezoning Agreement dated May 21, 1976, and the following: 1. Receipt of fee for City Engineering services in the amount of $630.00 DLO:sg . • • 70( si r?)(-1r • TEST Z@T iL R.. 1. „__ ___I I.•, . nR - .F ;, cr :::::::::::,::::,::::::::::.::::-:::::::::::s ti 6 • • •.•.• •. . . I I. ••.::::.::. ...:::ii.i .:.•::::•:.:.iijm:..:.ii.::::110 Or4 „ wilwffrb, .. • ',.,HLL LAkE .,A � (•.• HLL LAK' • • •.•.•.•.•.•. . , cm ifGL. .•. . . \I ' ' : . O: o bl..L\, ::........:.....:..:.::.:..„....:-.:.:..:.:,:.:.::41101 ..:...:.:..-..: atailliv oir9. • ii 7..ili.:::. .: •:.Hi:::::•:::.:i.::. 1140*11‘1°. 2. : : : : : nor=;µ /, C._.- /A im c• • ''I= oo'11( Noi : STREET NAMLS 1N dRE / NAMES. iZEFEED TO IN J`� f�Ez.oNING, RGK�eMi-N7, h.t 4/z'i/ �m fhru 711' Jr TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: April 29, 1982 RE: Final Approval M.I.D.B.'s I.T.T. Schadow - $2,000,000 I.T.T. received a final approval in March 1982 for their project. They have renegotiated the terms of their loan and are asking the City for final approval of the amended resolution. The City attorney's office has reviewed the final documents. JDF:bw 4/29/82 • , 1 1 °1 • • May 4, 1982 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-93 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONTARIO BLVD. & ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 6 day of April fixed the 4 day of May, 19 82 as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements. I.C. 51-298B, Ontario Blvd. and Adjacent Properties for storm sewer and street 'improvements • • • WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 4th day of May, 19B2. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered. 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement, with the assistance of Rieke, Carroll, Muller & Assoc. ADOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • i 1 '1aa • Minutes - Parks, Recreation $ unapproved Natural Resources Commission -2- April 19. 1982 MEMBERS ABSENT: Austin Boulay and Jerry Kingrey B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals a. Deer Creek Lambert reported there were no significant park issues in this proposal so the proponent was not asked to be present at this meeting. Anderson asked what the responsibility of the owner is in terms of the type 3 wetlands on this site. Can grass clippings and leaves be dumped in wetland for example? Lambert said the Owner must maintain the wetland (control erosion, etc.). The City has no ordinance to cover dumping of grass clippings, etc. NOTION: Jessen recommended approval of Deer Creek Development proposal per Staff recommendation. Breitenstein seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. • 19! approved Planning Commission Minutes -1- April 12, 1982 MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath • t A. DFER CREEK POD R 1ST ADDITION REZONING, by Ruscon Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 26 acres, rezoning.of 19 of the 26 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for first phase development, constructioncnvol 64osingle family detached homes, and preliminary plat entire 26 acres. Included in the public hearing will be the consideration of the granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable to the R1-13.5 District for: lot size, density, lot width, lot depth, and sideyard setbacks. Located south of Morgan Lane and Sorrel Way, and east of Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. The Planner stated that this item has been continued from the March 22, 1982 Planning Commission Fleeting because of changes which were needed. Bill Dolan was present to give the presentation. Dolan, Koehnleihn, Lightowler, Johnson, Ltd., stated that the bubble on the interior road has been changed to meet the staff report requirements and stated they will conform to all the requirements in the report. He introduced Marshall Oakes of Ruscon Homes. Oakes gave a brief slide presentation on the home models and stated that no two alike homes will be directly next to each other. He also showed slides of the existing site and stated that they are trying to save as many trees as possible. Bearman asked the price range. Oakes replied from $54,900-$63,900. • The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/8/82. Torjesen asked if the change in the inner road makes more lots. Dolan replied yes there will be 68 lots rather than 64 as listed in the report. Bearman stated that the Fred Karp letter dated 3/22/82 should be made part of the minutes. • Bearman asked what guarantee will the City have to keep the prices of the homes down. Oakes replied that he would be willing to sell 90-1D0% of the project before building on the property to keep the house costs the down. The Planner Stated that the finished floor, area ratio would be kept at 1100 sq. ft. initially. Mr.'Larberg, 114212 Kensington asked how these homes will be financed. Oakes replied they will finance them through their own plan. Fred Karp, 14192 Westridge Drive, stated he felt that not enough visual barrier was between his lot and the proposed homes. The Planner felt screening was not as important between single family homes.versus multiple and single family. Arthur Weeks, a detailed landscaping as eat shouldbe required. r planting trees. The Planner replied that Mr. Ryan, 8948 Neill Lake Road stated he felt the plan was good and needed. approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 12, 1982 Marhula stated that there is a need for a transition between the 13,500 sq. ft. lot size and the 7,000 sq. ft. lot sizes on the back property line. Four lots are shown on the preliminary plat backing onto 1 single family lot in Ridgewood. And stated he was unsure if the proposed transition would be good and stated a better transition could be made. The Planner commented that the Deer Creek site has quite a different grade change from Ridgewood which would place Deer Creek much higher than Ridgewood. He stated that the small lots fall within the medium density residential requirements. Sutliff stated he was concerned with the lot sizes. • Bearman stated he felt the plan was good and needed. Marhula agreed. • MDTIDN 1 Marhula moved to close the public hearing on the Deer Creek PUD and 1st Addition Rezoning. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MDTION 2 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD request for Deer Creek dated 2/26/82 revised 4/7/82 as per the plans and the staff report dated 4/8/82 changing motion #8 into two separate motions (the last half to be #13 as listed below). 13. The lot lines for lots 8-12, Block 1 be redesigned to average out the lot frontages. 14. Block 3, Lot 2 be platted as a road connection to the south. 15. No doubles to be constructed on Lots 1-5, Block 3 single family only. 16. 5' wide concrete sidewalk be placed along the east/west road. 17. 5' and 10' sideyard setback variances be granted and less than a 90' mean width and lot size variances also be granted. • • Also that approval be clarified that PUD approval (with variances) for phases I and II be given excluding the exception; that an inventory of the existing trees be completed with plans as to the location for the-trees that will be replaced. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 MaFfula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for first phase development as per the plans dated 2/26/82 revised 4/7/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-1. Sutliff voted no because he felt the lot sizes are too small. MDTION 4 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 4/7/82 as per the plans and the staff report dated 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-D. MDTION 5 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the variances re- quested for: lot size, density, lot width, lot depth, and sideyard setbacks as per the plans dated March, 1982 and the staff report dated 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -1- March 22, 1982 MEMBERS ABSENT: Torjesen & Hallett �D. Dr R CREEK. PUD & 1ST_ ADDITION REZONING, by Ruston Homes, Inc. iiequest for Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 26 acres, rezoning of 19 of the 26 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for first phase development, construction of 64 single family detached homes, and preliminary plat approval upon the entire 26 acres. Included in the public hearing will be the consideration of the granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11, • Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable to the R1-13.5 District for: lot size, density, lot width, lot • depth, and sideyard setbacks. Located south of Morgan Lane and Sorrel Way, and east of Mitchell Road. A public hearing. The Planner stated that he has been working with the Engineering Department and they came up with a site line problem at the point of access onto Mitchell Road. No staff report has been done at this point. Bill Dolan is present to review the proposal but no action is expected at this point. Dolan, Koehnlein, Lightowler, Johnson, Ltd., reviewed the proposal. The original' site plan was approved for four-plexes to be constructed by Orrin-Thompson Homes. First reading was also given. However, Orrin-Thompson pulled out and now the property is vacant. The new developer will be Ruscon Homes. The smallest lot will be 7000 sq. ft. and the largestwill be 26,300 sq. ft. The average width would be from 55' to 70'. He introduced I4arshall Oakes of Ruscon Homes. Grading is needed for the street which will ultimately end up connecting Old Farm with this development. The large trees and sonic pine trees will remain. There are two ponds on the site and storm drainage will go to them. Oakes stated that Ruscon Homes is dealing with the future of single family homes. He stated that 95% of people cannot afford single family homes these days. These homes will be standard homes. There are 21 different variations of homes with no two colors next to eachother. No colors will be beyond 11 shades of earthtones. The price is no more than townhouses or condominiums. Bearman stated that with 64 units designated in Deer Creek 1st, an additional 35 units in phase two, and an exception on 26 acres, which would be 3.9 units/acre, if the exception is added in for housing, the density could end up being close to 5 units/acre. The Planner stated that the Guide Plan designates this property as medium density residential. It will be small homes on small lots ranging from the upper 50's to the upper 6D's. The price per square foot is the same as a larger house. The price is lower because there will be small homes on small lots. Bearman stated that medium density residential allows clustering and stated that no totlots roadn. The randner statedied that a he felt theiplanlk wouldl run through the site to work well. • Bearman stated he would rather see clustered housing on this site. Gartner stated she felt that small homes on small lots would work well. III Sutliff asked if there are minimums for snow plowing on cul-de-sacs. The Planner replied yes and stated that that will be worked out with the Engineering Department. fat, approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 22, 1982 Marhula stated he felt that small houses on small lots would work well and asked the sideyard setbacks. The Planner replied 5 and 10'. Marhula expressed concern regarding the minimum lot size along the southern boundary along Ridgewood West which are 13,500 and 14,000 sq. ft. lots. Sutliff asked the number of approved four-plex units in the original plan. The Planner replied 152 units and stated that the density of this proposal is similar. •Fred Karp, 14192 Westridge Orive stated he was concerned with the lot depth and stated he would like screening between the homes on the southern boundary and Ridgewood West. He stated he liked the single family rather than clustered. Tom Ryan, 8948 Neill Lake Road, felt that the plan was good. Eric Weeks, 8789 Sycamore Court, stated he was concerned about the number of trees and asked where the road terminates. Dolan replied Anderson Lakes Parkway. Weeks stated he likes the small lots and had concerns regarding the small lots on the Ridgewood West boundary. • Oakes stated that at the next meeting slides will be presented showing the homes. MOTION • Gartner moved to continue Deer Creek to April 12, 1982 for a staff report.' Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0. 12S MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission PRC01:' Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services • DATE: April 15, 1982 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Deer Creek 1st Addition PROPONENT: RuscOn Homes, Inc. • REQUEST: PUD approval on 26 acres and rezoning to R-13.5 for 20 acres and preliminary TlONON: approval.Fast of Mitchell Rd. and S. of Morgan Lane wag . . - RACKnROUND: Sce Plan_np, Staff Itet ort Hated_, PARK AND RECREATION PLANNING CONCEILNS 1. Type of development: Single Family Residential 2. Number of units in residential development: 64 units on 20 acres 3. Number of acres in the project: 26 acres under PUD 4. Special recreation space requirements: DOrkm arks: Located east of Red Rock Neighborhood Park • 5, Adjacent to any existing or proposedp �1/11 pr_o idP infreas.ed.Jlcmand_fo* fa 'lities on the n. Affecs nn the park: • f neighborhood park. 4 6. Need for a mini park_no 7. Cash park fee or land dedication? Coshfark Fee - a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount based on existing Ordinance will total: $20,800 •b. If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated isNJA _ C. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property,total N/A and will be paid prior to dedication. Ir_l1) .1 l,' r Y TS1 eCt to provide B. accesstto Anderson ial:esedIark.'ay tau:u tfo ncigl n.fiOotdllpark. 1 p a. Type of trails s ideli' • b. Construction klateria1 cperetf' C. Width of trail S feet d. Party responsible for construction developer e. Landownership of trail location:(dedicated, purchased, ROW) ROW NA'NRALL KCSOUIICG Pi:I-.S.1 RS'A'I'IOV CMCCINS 1. Site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site? Natural amenities of the site include 2 existing ponds, as well as scattered hardwood trees throughout the wooded • area located in a the center the site. •llie grading! plan reserves the p�tsads and dlc.. 2. Host significant E g =haul,{ hrr,.c1.r_a,_iGl ' • The most significant grading occurs along the western alil;nment of the cast/west .through street. • 3. Significant vegetation on the site includes: See Planning Staff Report under SITE CHARACTER. 4. The site grading plan indicates preservation of: The two wetlands are preserved as well as the majority of the pine trees. S. Adjacent to public waters: The southern most pond is a type 3 protected wetland. a. Affect on waters: This pond should be preserved by a drainage and preservation casement. Re:FCRENCE❑If.CK ' • • 1. Major Center Area Study: N/A • • 2. Neighborhood Facilities Study: The Red Rock Neighborhood Park will serve this residential area. 3. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A • 4. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A • 5. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A 6. Guide Plan: The Guide Plan depicts this area as medium density residential. • 7. Other: nEco?r1ENPAT1osS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: • 2. Planning Commission Recommendation: Thn Punning rnmmissinn rerommended approval of this project as per the Planning Staff Report dated April 8, 1982. . 3. Community Services Staff Recommendations: The Community Services Staff recommends approval as per the Planning Staff Report dated April S. 1982. • 4 og'? STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 8, 1982 • PROJECT: DEER CREEK 1ST LOCATION: East of Mitchell Road and south • of Morgan Lai:e APPLICANT: Ruscon Homes, Inc. FEE OWNER: T.G.C. Development REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept approval of residential on 26 acres 2. Rezoning to R1-13.5 for 20 acres for first phase development of 64 lots 3. Preliminary plat approval 4. PUD variances: a. lot size • b. setback 5' & 10' side c. density d. minimum lot width BACKGROUND Deer Creek was submitted as an 80 acre PUD with first phase rezoning for 152 quad units on 14 acres back in the Summer of 1980. The Council approved first reading of Ord. 80-19 on August 5, 1980. This was to be an Orrin-Thompson project, but Orrin Thompson did not develop the land, some of the reasons being: public street construction and connection to Mitchell Road with first phase. On March 17, 1981 the Council accepted the owners withdrawal of the preliminary plat and first reading of Ord. 80-19 and agreed that future development would include the provision for Anderson Lakes Parkway within the boundaries of the proposal. Council also agreed that first phase development could access via Morgan Lane. The previous site plan is attached as figure 1 for reference. the Guide Plan illustrates this site as medium density residential. The single family plat is at 32 units/acre, 64 units on 20 acres. • SITE CHARACTER The soil report submitted with the previous quad proposal noted areas of swamp deposits and poor soils. These areas should be excavated and back- filled with granular soil. Staff Report-Deer Creek page 2 The site has moderate rolling topography with slopes ranging from 10-15%. Woods of predominently elm and boxelder occur in the central portion of the site. Ash and maple trees are interspersed with elm and boxelder. Small stands of pine occur around the two ponds and north of the existing house located on outlot A. The developer has agreed to preserve the majority of the pines around the two ponds and relocate those removed to the back lot area of lots 8-16, adjacent to Ridgewood West. The developer should also preserve the pines north of the existing home and the significant ash and maple on the site. The southern pond located within the site is a Type III Wetlands and its preservation has been requested by the DNR. Staff recommends the wetland area bewteen lots 16 and 17 be included in a drainage and preservation easement. No construction should occur on this easement. SURROUNDING LAND USES To the north are Old Farm Quads and Burning Tree Club Apartments and future condos; to the east is the proposed single family Deer Creek 1st Addition second phase; to the south are Centex single family lots (see figure 2 for location of existing homes); and to the west is an area approximately six acres in size which is proposed as medium density residential and an existing single family home on outlot A. Across Mitchell Road is the 17 acre neighborhood park. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Instead of doing a medium density quad or townhouse residential project upon this site, the proponent is requesting single family detached with variances for lot size and setbacks in order to achieve a higher density than strict adherence to the R1 2 unit/acre requirement. This type of a request lowers the cost of each lot and when done in conjunction with 800-1000 sq. ft. homes 'produces, an affordable package for single family home buyers. Variances Lot sizes range from 6,325 - 20,000+ sq. ft. Lot size from 13,500 sq. ft. Lot width at setback line ranges from 55-80' Minimum lot width from 90' 5' setback from garage to side lot line; 10' setback from any living space to side lot line Sideyard setbacks from 10-15' Density of 3.5 units/acre Density from 2 units/acre • These variances can be granted through the PUD process applied for by the owner. The five lots created, lots 1-5, Block 3, because of the relocation of the east/west street to the north 145', are larger than the remainder of the plat. Staff has been informed the developer may wish to request RM 6.5 zoning for duplex construction on these lots. Staff recommends against Five different model plans are proposed and each model plan has 2-5 different exterior treatments. Because the small home types will be placed on small lots and occur in close proximity, Staff recommends that at least two different facades or models occur between like units and that like units not occur directly across the street from one another. Also, because the City is entertaining the request to lower the lot size requirement, the developer should be required to construct homes no larger than 1000 sq. ft. in size so that the intent to provide moderate cost housing is achieved. Otherwise, a 1400 sq. ft. house at approximately $90,000 & the lot cost would produce housing at $100,000+. Staff recommends redesign of lot lines abutting existing Ridgewood single family so that no more than two Ruscon lots abut an existing Centex home (see figure 2). Also lot lines for lots 8 and 12, Block 1 should be rLdesigned to average out the street frontages in the final plat. Cecause multiple mail box locations around a cul-de-sac is a maintainance problem, Staff recommends mail boxes for lots 8-11 be consolidated to one location on the cul-de-sac island (see figure 2). UTILITIES The storm water plan will require modification. Catch basins every 300 feet are required and drainage should be directed to the southern pond instead of the northern pond. The southern pond outlets to McCoy Lake and will not require overland drainage, as occurs from the outlot of the northern pond. All utility plans; water, sewer, storm water, etc., will be subject to detailed review and approval by the City Engineering Department prior to final plat approval. Drainage easements, as required by the City Engineer, must be depicted on the final plat. TRANSPORTATION The 64 units of single family detached will generate approximately 500 trips/day. This is half of the trips the quad proposed would have gener- ated. The major east/west collector street has a 60' ROW as requested by City. This collector will connect to Mitchell Road and eventually to Anderson Lakes Parkway. City Staff has had discussions with Centex regarding multiple on the Ridgewood West property to the south and because of this and for neighbor- hood access, Staff reconmends that connections between Deer Creek and Ridgewood West be planned. Figure 2 illustrates where a connection could be made in the Deer Creek 1st Addition. This roadway location is platted as an outlot and will be dedicated to the City when a revised Ridgewood West plat is approved and a final road alignment determined. Prior to second phase approval, the City Staff will review the necessity of having concurrent Anderson Lakes Parkway construction. If Besides the Mitchell Road and future Anderson Lakes Parkway accesses, the project also accesses to Morgan Lane. The site plan depicts a five foot wide concrete walk along the north side of the east/west collector street. Location along the north side will serve the single family and the future multiple to be located on the area labeled 'exception' ')3 0 Staff Report-Deer Creek 1st Add. page 4 EAW An environmental assessment worksheet was approved in 1980. This single family project will produce less traffic and will not adversely affect any municipal services and falls within the parameters of that original EAW. CASH PARK FEE Cash park fee payment will be paid at time of building permit issuance. RECOMMENDATIONS • •The Planning Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following: 1. Areas of poor soils are to he excavated and backfilled with granular material. 2. A preservation and drainage easement must be platted around the wetland between lots 16 and 17 and dedicated to the City. 3. Prior to second phase approval, staff will decide on the necessity of having concurrent Anderson Lakes Parkway construction. Owner agrees to assume his 'fair shard assessment for the parkway improvement. 4. Accordinr to the development plan submitted, at least two dissimilar fac- ades or models occur between like facades and no similar facades are con- structed across from each other. 5. Owner must contact City and Watershed at least 48 hours before any site work. 6. Detailed utility plans be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval before final plat application. 7. Developer must preserve all possible pines around the two ponds and relocate the pines removed to the back lot area of lots 8-16 adjacent to Ridgewood. 8. Final plat must not depict more than two back lots abutting existing Ridgewood West back lots and the lot lines for lots 8-12, Block 1 be redesigned to average out the lot frontages. 9. Cash park fee be paid at time of building permit issuance. 10. No more than 1100 sq. ft. finished floor space/unit to be constructed initially. 11. All lots be rezoned to R1-13.5. 12. Mail boxes for lots 8-11, Block 1, be consolidated in one location as depicted on figure 2. JJ:ss 131 4- • AL J , ."- , 4 k*S3). till • • . G ''' 1‘‘ ' CM V'� � ./• L7�aY : ' ,.. . \ _ U. ,'.-..,,%, i E 4 ,.-,- ris . 0•.% . __% 0 = , Nig 1 .___.. .,,,x __, ( • .. _ . \ ' ..... - -, ,- -we v irs. , - .. .. . re . 1 0 •.*y(. . W Na • gon ‘04 1 c-1 it,211 p . • ,"\t,4., .. . ,l 6 {, i . . I. 2 NM"- 1 , a • an- ii-.1. . _ „ sr , , _ ,,, .,. ,,.._ . . • . , , ir ___ i , , • . 1 Is _ _ _. ..i . . .., . . ii. ii j i I- 12�. ...- , - -- ,1s- _— - mitchell" road — _ .' s ( ; • % /, ,—' r • ------ HI 6N Sri m I m • r i t a vo b • 2 .-- .a s I-n 1 I I i f— \ F r i a i D o_ 1----�'-fJ V :• ' V... n irr� V-- - �t- ? •• a / , a ; ` ` 1 I/ -� •0 ' ` �? � N ' ` n � i N F s �© — ' F r.• T .• b4i, w ,' us--!--- �.• 'a FW A a- I •a f: T:; ) _ rr- 1`..1I� Z • .-4--- - m ''m w x o -- '�{f i i .•-� `—0fit !` r N s' 4 \ m,• m Cf , , _. ,...1, „,,..._,$,,), A 4 ' -j -- I • 1- it i - ." .,, r .N • —';7 "'--,� FIGURE 2 March 22, 1982 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission We are writing as residents of Ridgewood West whose property adjoins the proposed Deer Creek development, proposed by T.M. & Grace Carmody, and Ruscon Homes, Inc. We have reviewed the proposal and architectual layouts, and have listed our concerns below. The Deer Creek proposal indicates that three lots would adjoin our one lot. To provide for a more effective transition, we ask that the Deer Creek property adjoin- ing our lot be of similar width. The Deer Creek proposal indicates their lots which adjoin our property are approximately 120 feet deep. Our property is 179 feet deep, on the west side, and 200 feet deep on the east side. To provide for a more effective transition between developments, we ask that the Deer Creek property adjoining our lot he a minimum of 150 feet deep. Since Deer Creek will be a more densely occupied development than Ridgewood West, we ask that a visual barrier of trees, hushes and sodded earth berms be provided . as a transition area between developments. _ We are hopeful that the city of Eden Prairie will review in close detail the quality if of homes and the integrity of the builder to ensure a quality development which will serve to increase and not decrease the market value of property in neighboring developments. We thank you for your interest and ask your cooperation in protecting our investment. Sincerely, Qciap 2- . Frederick P. and Janet L. Karp 14192 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota • '131-1 DEER CREEK ....,.. ?4 f , , , : ,UNIT TYPE( • with PHASE TVA L [ , ___ ______ 1 • r-dd ' -,_--ilj 1= J BLocK 1 ,. • . . ' 1 • 1 1_.-1 1 19 1[9.7 ••. ' . • ., , . ( • „ 10.1 , L,, -0, "I ,ii. ' _El 0 .K_ * ,.'• • .. A.',1 , ET-3 cx '7", tifbiria,.1 -1-0%--7-1 -dirA...11 --211, I • I '- : I ' i ' l'.. - K . - - Pond - 1 "1 "d A A C 3, , I . 1 . ; i is:. 1 1 ... / . . . .1 y ; l. RA gr,i ss, 1 , , I - ,. ii 0 j ss ,.... , ‘ / • I 1 • i I i i • ,-• A'"---'- - - . '--- : I L 0 .-'-'1 r i • .... ... i , 1 ,. . - r ' -i----- '-—---4r . , . . . •• / igiqa ti.,,c.sIZIU--E biZ• . . i '? 5 , i Ruscon Homes INCORPORATED !!!!—7630 WEST 145TH STREET APPLE VALLEY,MINN.55124 AREA CODE-612-432.2044 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE MARCH 5, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION Tta' WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RUSCON HOMES, INC. respectfully requests your consideration of a lot size variance and/or change of ordinance and to include a five foot and ten foot side yard setback, as it"pertains to Deer Creek Addition, as detailed by the engineers. RUSCON HOMES is a Minnesota Corporation. Its' principals have previously been doing business as American Concept Homes, Inc. and Phillips Planning Service. RUSCON HOMES was formed approximately four years ago to provide "affordable" housing to middle income families. The company extensively participated in..the 1.11A 235 program and completed building of approximately 41 homes in the seven county metropolitian area. Through that recent period floor plans and exteriors were designed with a maximum of quality maintaining some high standards making use of interior square footage advantages •to achieve this goal. It was determined that this type of housing was tremendously desirable to its inhabitants and that The overall desire for smaller square footage and more efficient homes is a trend for the future. RUSCON HOMES, since the participation in the FHA 235 program, has been firmly entrenched in the building of homes for modest income family with continual improvement and variety. It is our contention that present high interest rates and subsequently as interest rates lower, housing costs will obviously rise requiring buyers to continually qualify within income limits. Future outlook for the majority of buyers to own a single family home will remain difficult as substantually increased costs will tA(w r�_ r. no •-• .. .. ..or .. j take up the gap o. ,he present high interest rater Energy costs will most SCON definitely bo another consideration as we look at new homes sizes. RU ch as aME arge has put extensive effort into designing affordable type structures, of split entry and split level homes with better use of square footage. variety 000 square foot home completed, and Essentially, an occupant may start with an 800 to 1, then have the ability to expand into the lower area, doubling the living space, as dictated by family needs. We feel that we are providing exterior designs previously found only in more ..expensive models. It is our goal to complete a controlled area both with a variety of design and a color variance. Presently we are planning an exterior color choice offering ten to eleven earthtone colors only, ranging from the light to dark. All homes would include a double attached garage, variance of roof lines and styles that have proven pleasing to buyers tastes and overall appearance to a development. the many clients that we have It has been our experience that the average income of000 to approximately $�'�0� worked with over the past .few years ranges from $24, buyers in this income range has been primarily annually, The available housing for �Y _ homes or townhomes and condominiums. National statistics indicate that single f eoly that preferred by more than 75% of all potential buyers and we definitely agr it is the more desirable alternative and moreover is as possible to accomplish as it relates'to costs as is a multiple dwelling. It is, of course, necessary to achieve a somewhat greater density in a development, to accomplish home prices from $54,900 to $65,000. Again, we request your consider- ation of this project and look forward to its successful completion. ,sincerely, ,tUSCON HOMES, INC. and its Directors. • • 1. fi3/7 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-82 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT • OF DEER CREEK BE IT RESOLVED•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Deer Creek PUD & 1st Phase Rezoning + dated 2/26/82-rev. 4/7/82, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall and amended as follows: 11_ • • is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the ' day of _, 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL lAX Deer Creek PUO CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA / RESOLUTION 82-81 4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEER CREEK 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 Deer Creek PUD is considered a proper amendment to the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Ruscon Homes' request for approval for residential and recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council, and . WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 4, 1982. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Deer Creek 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 dues grant PUD approval as outlined in the application material dated 2/26/82 revised 4/7/82. 3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated April 12, 1982. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL QQ 1;_1 • • ^ N •1 07 ? w r waN n c ;s a 3 _mOa• aa aN " amoa ^ pOa ?; � f G mv N jaO ^ o ^. aGn In O. a In O N r 2.O °, m m In In m a ,o a oo p a a cr a I., O- O a vl a a 14 ^ pMO a V Po n a m ,3N ^ g. ^ n? a ^ m ° p aa < p °i D c ,.^ in a ,n . 3mamm3 . mamO =o O 0 n O to r m 0 co in - in p a O , , 0 ^ c ° J. 0 a r 0 a 7 • m a O o c o.•O < VI3 `• n p w `' a cn c a 2'•O N w 3 a m a 7 w O^ a c • 0 < O w G ,o p O m a • a G 0 Oi w p - w O a ^ O a w m w a m 2 S m w ^ O ~ 7 O S m c - aM O o . a l0 2 w ... p, 0 m 2 0 G " a N O •- 7o � 0 7. o a ao0o m ° a � " arnua wo 0 •a.4N c f ^ r a n < a w O , a te a O `D G CD m . o D a m p. a a O m 2 w ,. O 2 7 ; w 2 3. In a G o N w a 0 ^ < O S ., o M cp a m m c, m 7 3 0 a 0 r a, a - m a m o a, m w m G a n - wn In m G acn 'C3 �' 7 0 3 a In m m ^ a" LAol r0 °' O a .. . m °, j w n G •. ^ m. W N^ N a a M •▪ an. In -• w o O n w O_ O "C a 2 u, G .: n G m a w cu 7 o 7 a 3 '-• Fs' o < V a' a Imo•• G a a^ co a p N o.O O n S O 2 O a a acp O Ga6 ^ N _ • a C ^ cu C m < 2O O W • O IA o 2 .... p m p °O p in In o a a ES u n in a' n7 • a to row . O n a S 0 -p a ,.,D w m ' c0 IO - O O w w Nm a 7'' 0, D CD .. In a ( n7 .„.3 7 Oow 7 a V• maN an Qm CO O co N0p ^ Ja a is, a'. n p w O w a n O m m a N -C W •• 7 < caV7ma . 0 c p p O. S F a9no o a a o p o, 07 7 o NO N., 7. G CO i'., 2 m a a 0, a in rn 7 CTa 3. 6 a N m �. w O x. ^ `. p n m a.~ a w w n w ^ m C O a la 7 • m ; IJ a �o N Ian a m N N W 7 6 a D. - c a 2 0 3 m O m N 2 V O a m . c NN .. 7 .n w a G 7.' 7 O o r-• a . N p 2 < ID o al a •O 7 a a a ro a m w a s cr. G m a in ^ .O o a O a a m a al a z cn m a .� . '0 m IO m l CD 7• m n2 3 ., � vi2 '" 0 0 20 7a ^ c<p a °' a7 a o 0 O V,,O p r ,O o^ a 0 a 7' 7 2 a EV CD (0O CO p 7 m a 0 a V, m 0 2 • o w G n ^J w 7 ` O O a 3 w ,n m m n m 1r • (p'J a 'A r IA ^ V p• .T m N— m a O m a a °�j G 3 n ^ 1 IG to ' 2' O O m P.' p n a O- m O ,, a •cp cn � •o w o a a I^ O O o , 7 ! m a cn p a '" 3 0 w ,� In a 1° w m a ,C' N a m -. ID In cr m m r 4.2 CD N n •' crop N`O O• a N 3 n m rn O a CD L., a 0 In j a G in o op y, ^ m 0 n a a w l0 a j.`c O w ... c .-j i a O G w 7 a m m .. o. U to m (f a °' m m m 7 p 1 a w w ^ w in ,a a w O m a y a a n f w a t a a m c 3 w n m a 7 V, ..1 O - m a :T a O m M m 3 N .. a N m 3 in n O O ? a ^ w I. m a V a a m ^ .. :T G CA n m c m a 0 7 w Q w a 3 ^ o a O g. m ,- w a a N 5 a 0 w In ro w a 2 N'° -. m G O 0 a `y w m G 0 cn 0 c., w a Iv ^ N ..... S in cn 3ma ^ 3rnova, m \ma • 00mO- aaam` z a w w a s r O V, . (0 w IV 7 a 7 w a •< . O^ FL,' 1^ M 0 a w o G n - N O O C m 3 -n y w J ,L w n a ro Iron pp • rD 7 m a a m fp 0 7. 2 j MU' a s a W (a m O a cn n IJ a a a .. a ,o N G a a 0, • a 2 av „ w ^ m. p cna J O a a w • m `` 2 7 w UD a W w m m m ,,] f a _ r In ` m a = 'z { G m i a a n 3 p (1 fi ✓. In w (; a 0 w f O N w a !, m n 1 O 1 n fi 1 a ,., G. S nl ,,, 1 i 7 y IU!) • • • Minutes - Parks, Recreation $ unapproved Natural Resources Connnission -3- April 19, 1982 HEfl CRS ABSENT: Austin Boulay B Jerry Kingrey b. Lorence Addition Lambert introduced Don Peterson, present on behalf of the proponent K. P. Properties, Inc. Peterson located this single family and multi-family residential project south of Valley View Road, northwest of Round Lake Park, north of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition. • Peterson said the northeastern portion of the site will be used for multi family residential and the southern part for single family. The single family homes arc planned to be priced from $65,000, with lot sizes a minimum of 75' x 130'. The developer has discussed the plans with TF,E Construction (Eden Prairie firm) and feels they do quality construction. The developer plans to do extensive landscaping and berms to buffer single family from multi family. Peterson said if a tot lot is required, the developer recommends it put on the southwestern edge of the multi family units rather than across }fames Way on the western portion of Round Lake Park. He stated that there is a holding pond of approxi- mately 4 feet in depth on that end of Round Lake Park, and it could be dangerous to have a tot lot nearby. Lambert said that the wbstcrn portion of Round Lake Park is presently mowed a few times a year, but he recommended it be maintained further with perhaps an open play area and a totlot to serve the neighborhood park needs of the residential develop- ments west of Round Lake. Lambert feels the developer should be aware that if the tot lot is put near the multi family location, there could be complaints due to the close proximity to neighbors--the City had this experience on another site and ended up removing the tot lot. • Jessen and Anderson questioned whether a sidewalk is necessary on Park Place. Eliminating that sidewalk would help keep cost of homes down. Lambert said a sidewalk along Park Place is • consistent with City policy and follows Staff recommendation. MOTION: Breitenstein moved to recommend approval of Lorence Addition per Staff report including a tot lot either on development property or City property. Friederichs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. -i41 } �1- approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 12, 1982 MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath C. LORENCE ADDITION, by K P Properties Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 32 acres, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 single family homes on 8 acres, preliminary plat approval over the entire 32 acres, variances for: lot size, lot width, setbacks, and density and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Lo- cated south of Valley View Road, northwest of Round Lake Park, and north of ROund Lake Estates 2nd Addition. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Don Peterson was present to give the presentation. . Peterson reviewed the location. He Introduced David Williams, builder for • the condominium portion of the site. He reviewed the surrounding land uses and stated that they have placed the higher density toward the north of the site. He introduced Gary Nelson, the builder for the single family portion of the site. Mr. Lorence will remain living in his house, phase 1 will be condominiums. Felt that moderate priced housing is needed in Eden Prairie. David Williams, David Williams Construction Co., gave a slide presentation and stated that he felt the buildings would look better without sidewalks. There will be two 4-unit buildings on the site. • Peterson stated that they would like to keep the lot size below 8500 sq. ft. The price range for the condos would be from the 'ow 60's to 70's. Greg Nelson, stated that they have pre-sold three homes with construction to begin May 1. All the homes are constructed with 2 x 6 versus 2 x 4's. There are six different floor plans. Prices will start at $64,900 which will include the real estate commission and a suitable allowance so people can afford to make the payments. The smallest square footage would be 768 sq. ft. which would be priced at $64,000 with a double car garage. The houses will be tuck unders, split entrys and ramblers. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/8/82. Sutliff stated that he would withdraw from discussion because of possible business conflicts. Marhula was concerned with placing multiple directly across from single family units. The Planner stated that if the project is developed all at once, there would be no problems. Peterson stated that it will be all ownership units. The Planner stated that the condominium on Lot 1 faces Valley View Road and has two sets of four car garages.facing the existing single family homes. The lots abutting onto Valley View Road are Burman was concerned with the amount of traffic to be generated. The Planner stated that Valley View Road will handle approximately 12,DDO trips as it exists today. The single family would generate approximately 410 trips/day with the condominiums generating approximately 380 trips/day. -_- _ Planning Commission Minutes -7- April it, rinc Bearman asked if this project conforms to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planner replied yes. Bearman asked the price range. Nelson replied from $64,000 to $100,000 which `. includes points and real estate commission. Peterson stated that they would like to save as many trees as possible. Bearman expressed his concern of placing multiple next to single family and asked if the single family homes have garages. Nelson replied yes. Torjesen stated he felt that changing the Guide Plan for this project was not in the best interest for the City. The Planner explained that because of economic conditions, the trend in housing is leading to multiple. He stated that he felt this site is a good site for this proposal because of the services and amenities that ara provided surrounding it. Eujene Peterson, 7460 Hames Way, expressed concerns that the residents are not ready for development of this type and felt that traffic could become a problem. Peterson stated that they could lower the price by eliminating the single family and having only multiple but felt that having both would be best. Torjesen expressed concern in regards to the lot sizes, if they should be used for medium priced homes. - Gartner stated that she felt that the single family homes should conform to the f ordinance requirements. Marhula felt that an overall transition was provided. Peterson stated that he felt that all single family lots would not sell. He also felt that this is a good site for medium density housing. Bearman stated that he did not see any other guarantee to have the smaller homes other than the fact of limiting the floor area ratio to 1100 sq. ft. Eugene Peterson stated he felt that more multiple on the site would be good. Marhula stated that the Commission is to look at the site design and if it provides the transition between the existing large single family homes and the surrounding uses. He felt it did but had concerns about the multiple. Bearman turned the chair over to Torjesen. MOTION 1 Bearman moved to close the public hearing on Lorence Addition. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained because of possible business conflicts. MOTION 2 Bearman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD request with variances for Lorence Addition as per the plans dated March, 1982 and the staff report dated 4/8/82 with the following additions: 13. Any approvals of ND designation for Outlots A, B, and C, be witheld pending a specific land designation. 14. Landscaping plans including berming and screening for the entire site be annrnvrd by the City Planner prior to City Council review. approved •., Planning Commission Minutes -8- ' April 12, 1982 . • 15. That the existing site problems on Lot 1, Block 2 be worked out prior to City Council review. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained. MOTION 3 Bearman moved to recomnend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 single family homes on 16 acres, and from Rural to RM 6.5 for 56 attached units on 8 acres as per the plans dated March, 1982 and the . staff report dated 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Hallett seconded, motion carried 3-2-1. Bearman, Hallett,Marnula voted 'aye', Torjesen and Gartner voted 'no' and Sutliff abstained. Torjesen and Gartner voted no because they did not believe the developer had submitted information that illustrated that the smaller lots would be utilized for homes within a middle income category as set forth in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. DISCUSSION Nelson explained that included in his price was about $4,000 of interest rate buy-down and a real estate commission. • MOTION 4 of the preliminary plat Bearman moved to recommend to the City Council approval for Lorence Addition as per the plans dated March, 1982 and the staff report dated if 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained. MOTION 5 Bearman moved to recommend to the City Council finding of no significant impact on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Lorence Addition. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained. • 1Ug moio ANnUM O: • Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Rob Lambert, Director of Community Services • DATE: April 15, 1982 SUBJECT: nevclopment Proposal Check List • PROJECT: Lorence Addition PROPONENT`. P. Properties, .Inc. REQUEST:PUD Amendment of the Guide Plan from low density residential to medium density resiilentriT-for rezoning FTon1-117 iiRT33 for 47 TamiTy Tonics on lb acres and JlP+RASdRX-to R�1 (i,5 for 5(.Jl_ttach_cdSmi1son 8 acreansl_prpcL] nii,nary plat approval. nnrr TTTnn� 'il sT• oniVlllei View n:tcd:' Lake l:ntates !i9iUr ddition:!rk, north of Round • PARN AND RECREATION P1.ANN INC. CONCERNS 1.•Type of development: Single Family and Multi-Family Residential 2. Number of units in residential development: 103 3. Number of acres in the project: 4. Special recreation space requirements: Construction of a Tntlnt Arra. • 5. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks: This a ea 's adjssnt to R_qund Lake Park. • westa.. Affect,q` the p„•1 T is del'el�nm It w ] incrgo5cdpJflands for development of sldeoi ound �.a e— art.. 5. Need for a mini park: There is no need for a mini-park within the development,_ 7. Cash park fee or land dedication? The cash_park fee will be required. a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount based on existing ordinance will total:$29,275 b.• If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated is N/A c. Existing 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 trailsLai stin^ trails adja.Cent tb Rn11111._91i 1;t11C)' View Road and frames Way. Proposed 'trail from f lanes Nay to the trail around ound Lake 'as well as a sidewalk proposed on the north side of Lorencc Way and the cast and south side of Park. P1. from 1.orencc Way to flames Way. a. Type of Trail: Sidelcalk for nizdr''•tri•itl_.as_s'nll hi rvrlr/prdrstri aq across trail from 161ries way to the. Round,,Lake trail. Sidewa1k w,,il be 4' thick concrete. c. histh of trail 111Cjtt_ilttit1'1;I1> iicylQ_tPiOlt:J11�?S ._1Llt1;_atC liase with a 2" asphalt mat. Sidewalk will he 5' j Pedestrian/bic ice will be b'. d. Party responsible for construction ie1'Cloper c. landownership of trail location:(dedicated, purchased, ROW) ROW for the sidewalk. Easemen'- and City park for the access trail. NATItL\I, grsnin:Ci PRESERVATION CONCERNS • I. Site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site? N/A . 2. Most significant grading on the site:N/A • • • • 'NS • • 3. Significant vegetation on the site includes: N/A 4. The site grading plan indicates preservation of: N A This site is near but not adjacent to Round Lake. 3. Adjacent to public waters: a. Affect on waters: Changing this land use from agricultural to_residential should improve water quality in Round Lake. emim:u: :eck • • 2. Major Center Area Study: N/A . 2. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Round Lake Park will serve the recreational uses of this neighborhood. 3. purgatory Creel. Study: N/A • a. Shoreland Management Ordinance:As there are no lots fronting on Round Lake, this development does comply with the City Shoreland Ordinance. S. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A • 6. Bride plan This development requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan that indir ttec this_arta as der, ity area. 7. Other: ••. m co`At6AT>TIONS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: 2. •Tianning Commission Recommendation: The Planning. Commission recommended 1nnrnva] of _ Lorcnce Addition as per the Planning Staff Report dated Anril 8. 1982. 3. fiumunity Services Staff tecommendations_COmmttnity Services staff recommends approval as per the Planning Staff Report of April Sth. • STAFF REPORT • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Calhoon, Assistant Planner THRDUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 8, 1982 • PROJECT: LDRENCE ADDITIDN LOCATION: South of Valley View Road, northwest of Round Lake Park, and north of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition. APPLICANT: K P Properties, Inc. FEE DWNER: James Lorence REQUEST: PUD amendment of the Comprehensive Guide Plan from low density residential to medium density residential for re- zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 single • family homes on 16 acres, rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 for 56 attached units on 8 acres, preliminary plat over the entire 32 acres, and variances for: lot size, lot width, setbacks, and density in the R1-13.5 zone. BACKGROUND • This site has been zoned Rural since 1969. The City Guide Plan depicts this area as low density residential. The current surrounding land uses are to the north, railroad right-of-way 1D0' wide, to the south an existing single family plat, to the northeast a community church currently under construction, Eden Prairie High School, Eden Prairie Community Center and Round Lake Park, and the land to the west is currently Rural, designated low density residential. REQUEST P Properties is requesting: PUD development stage for Phase I and II, preliminary plat for the entire project, rezoning for Phase I to RM 6.5, and rezoning for Phase II to R1-13.5, and preliminary platting for 47 single family lots and B multiple lots (for 56 attached units). • EXISTING SITE CHARACTER The existing land use is Rural. The entire site has been under cultivation. The present owner of the land will retain ownership of the only house on the land and will continue to live there. Soils The soil is mainly comprised of Esterville sandy and Heyder sandy loam. These•soils are typically 10-12 inches thick found over coarse sand or loamy snad. These soils have a moderate hazard to erosion but are con- ducive to development if carefully handled. 1y3 Staff Report-Lorence Addition page 2 ,It Topography_ The site consists of open undulating plowed farm land east of the tracks and south of Valley View Road. There are no slopes over 5% on the site, except for the side slopes for Valley View Road and the railroad tracks. The area west of the tracks was completely graded in 1981 to slope towards the new storm water retention pond constructed by the City. V_ecetation There iss very little vegetation on the site except for the trees adjacent to the existing home which will be retained. There are some existing trees located on the railroad right-of-way which are not considered significant . by staff. Water • A complete storm sewer system was installed in 1980 and 1981 by the City with storm water retention ponds located both on the west boundary of the site, and directly east of the site. Existing Buildings One home exists within the project area and will be retained on its own lot by owner, James Lorence. ORDINANCE RE(1(II Ri MENTS hT e proponent is requesting single family on an average 10,500 sq. ft. lot, with setback variances. The proponent is making this request in order to provide smaller housing on smaller lots as middle income housing. To assure this cost of homes, initial finished floor area should not exceed 1100 sq. ft. This shall apply to all single family lots in Blocks 2, 3, and 4. The lots adjacent to Round Lake and the southern subdivision, are according to Ordinance and act as transition lots. Therefore these will not receive any variances. When multiple housing lots to the north are examined, staff finds that all of these do not meet the City Ordinance requirement of 6500 sq. ft./unit. However, when the number of units is compared to the gross acres, we arrive at 6900 sq. ft./unit or more than the City Ordinance requirement. Density Total density for this project is to be 3.15 units/acre (based on gross. acreage). Setbacks City Ordinance requires single family lots to have a 30 ft. setback on the front and 10 and 15 ft. on the sides, with 20 ft. on the rear. A few of the single family lots do not follow the frontyard setbacks and they must be adjusted to do so. They are second addition Block 2, lot 14 and lot 15. The developer is requesting sideyard setback variances of 5 and 10 feet, on all lots in Blocks 2, 3, and 4. Staff Report-Lorence idition page 3 • Parking for the attached units is according to City Ordinance, which is two spaces for each unit with one of those being in a garage. Additional landscaping will be required in order to effectively screen the outdoor parking spaces. Additional landscaping will be needed on the rear property line of the multiple housing units, thereby providing a visual break/buffer between the two land uses. This plan is subject to City approval prior to issuance of the building permit. See figure 1. Staff feels it is very important to establish an overall home owner's association as part of Phase I in order to maintain maximum care and appearance of the manor home grounds, in a coordinated fashion. Grading, Draina_Ce, Utilities, and Roadways See attached Engineering memo dated 4/7/82. Transportation The major collector road that will be serving this development is Valley View Road, which is designed to carry 12,000 daily trips. There is adequate capacity in this collector road to handle the additional traffic from this subdivision. The proposed Lorence Way, starting at Names Way and running to the west must be fully extended, to the west property line and posted with a sign • stating 'temporary dead-end'. Sidewalks will be required along the north side of Lorence Way and the east and south side of Park Place from Lorence Way to Hames Way. The sidewalk shall be concrete 5 feet wide and 4 inches thick. Item mace Staff requests that a 20' wide outlot on Names Way be dedicated to the City thereby providing a trail connection to Round Lake Park. Within the outlot boundaries a 6' wide asphalt trail is to be constructed. Staff also requests a totlot structure be provided on City parkland according to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommendations. This outlot is located in the second addition, Block 1, between lots 3 and 4. The trail shall be built by the developer and extend from Haines Way, east to the existing trail in Round Lake Park. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the PUD amendment from low density residential to medium density residential for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 single family homes on I6 acres, rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 for 56 attached units on 8 acres, preliminary plat over the entire • 32 acres, and variances for: lot size, lot width, setbacks, and density in the R1-13.5 zone subject to the following recommendations: 1. Sidewalks shall be provided on the north side of Lorence Way and the east and south side of Park Place, and shall be 5 feet wide concrete. 2. The developer shall dedicate a 20' wide outlot between lots 3 and 4, �[ Block 1, second addition to the City. ! 3. The developer shall provide a 6' asphalt trail from Names Way, through the previously mentioned outlot to the existing asphalt trail around Round Lake. 4. Variances be granted regarding sideyard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet for Blocks 2, 3, and 4. 7Ua Staff Report-Lorence Addition page 4 5. Finished hbuse size shall also be limited on Blocks 2, 3, and 4 to 1100 sq. ft. initial finished floor area. 6. Landscaping and additional screening shall be required and subject to approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permit. 7. An overall homeowner's association be established in Phase I for the multiple housing to assure continuity of maintenance. 8. The developer shall extend Lorence Way to his westerly boundary and post a 'temporary dead-end' sign. 9. Revisions of lots 14 and 15, second addition, Block 2 to allow front- • yard setbacks of 30'. 10. The City and Watershed District must be notified at least 48 hours before any site work. All rules and regulations of the Watershed District shall be followed. 11. The detailed utility and street design will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 12. Cash park fee shall be paid at time of building permit issuance. • • SC:ss . • • -lSD I • MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave Olson, Engineering Dept. THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: ' April 7, 1982 SUBJECT: Lorence Addition - preliminary review (plans dated March, 1982) GRADING AND DRAINAGE A contributing drainage area of approximately 11 acres lies westerly of the site entering the project through the low area located on lots 4 and 5, Block 4. Additional storm sewer may be necessary and the possibility of providing storm sewer access to the area must be addressed by the Developer. Drainage calculations will be necessary prior to plan approval. UTILITIES AND ROADWAYS The development plan indicates the need to open cut into existing Names Way to install utility services. The developer will be responsible for restoration of the roadway and the cost of this work must be included in the Developer's performance bond. Additional charges or additions in the utility plans may be necessary (manholes, hydrants, gatevalves, & etc.). The developer and his engineer must review the plans in detail with the Engineering Department prior to approval. • DO:ss • fcl .-.— •. . , . . . N. . . - .. . I . • . ;I-)i•- ‘ .•.--. . •• .. ..i. • •,- • • t . .. . . • • 4. r.'7' • • ••.. ••••... li .11/'/.1 ilj 01-1:1 ft'i 1 . • ,,-r-' ''',I..-i,',:•, . ...' 111.-'411 ii il ii,3,*"..d it'll° • • \ Y:97 ‘..... ....,`,... Q,* .,,.,_,.•,. i" N.. .. . , . •••. .:' •—•-‘- itii . • • 1 71 ... ;ID. ,•,..,-....j) -... (,,,o)- .• . . . • \ • -.1-; 1 II.- \ ' . ADDITIO AL LANDSCAPING R (WIRED .\ ‘‘ -...,• \\ ..... ...i i__., :. „. • 0 \\ \ ...,,, • • .. •,,`, , •.z.i.,iiL, ... •41 , • • . • .. . . r •••.\' • ' ,Oi.•-,' 14 Wide . . . , iNN:::: - . r i PI ANT 1 1ST . • . • • SYN WAN COWIN KANE . 1111 3 1114.3.Ils 1 . •. .. . . Cu 15• CU 0 Co i1111111is• I.....k.1.•. . ' . IL 3 GD 10 II. ?. L.111. 1....1 1...I.. , • • • NA 4 11111,11.11 I A•11 . I NI. S 1.100...P.n... • IA 2 1....11.1.1.1.....v...., SA 10 i4111.61 41.11....ty..... 11.1 4 01111. Ad ill iglfrl It.. . RC 1 11.1.1.....1.C...1. (, . . ......-.. , • . DAVID A \,/* ILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION SCALE 1".=30' . . 11)RENCE FIR5T p\pprrioN fig\ /Apip-4-1,17T. n /...: . . 1. • • MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL ' ENVIRONHEN1A1. ASSESSMENT WORKSHIEET (EAW) ff AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS • DO NOT WRITE IN THiS SPACE E.R.# NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (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. SUMMARY A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) 1gNegative Declaration (No EIS) ❑LIS Preparation Notice (EIS Require B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION 1. Project name or title Lorence Addition 1st & 2nd —. 2. Project proposer(s) K P Properties, Ihc. ' Address 7025 Mariann Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 — Telephone Number and Area Code ( 612 ) 937-2352 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information 'on this EAW: Chris Enger Telephone (612) 937-2262 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location City Hall, 8950 Eden Prairie Road Telephone (612) 937-2262 Hours 8:OOam-4:3On' 5. Reason for LAW Preparation • tgMandatory Category -cite (`� Petition D Other MEQC Rule numher(s) (b)(uu) l 50 or more residentT nits part within a shoreland area. • • 11)3 • C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY 1. Project, Location • County Hennepin City/Township name Eden Prairie Township number 116 (North), Range Number 22 East or 1Jest (circle'. Section number(s) 8 Street address (if in city) or legal description: 2. Type and scope of proposed project: Residential development of 56 attached units in Phase I, 47 single family units Phase I1, for a total of 103 residential units. 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) June 1982 • 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) Nov. 1985 5. Estimated construction cost N/A 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 Zoning & plat approval Riley-Purgatory WD Land alteration permit Pending EQB Finding of no significant impact 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?X NO YES UNKNOWN 717 II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION k • A. Include the following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project.(attached) 2. An original 8'; x I1 section of a U.S.G.S. 7'z minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrannle sheet name. (Ori<jinal U.S.G.S. sheet must be maintained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other LAW 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 entire site is used as Rural and had been under cultivation until 1981. • • • 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban developed 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) 0 acres b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland 10 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 0 acres A. Rural vacant 33 acres i. Cropland/Pasture land 25 acres e. Designated Rec- j. Forested I acres reation/Open Space 0 acres 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. Round Lake lies approximately 400 feet easterly of the east boundary • of the site. '1S 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.). Phase I will consist of 56 units of residential condominiums located in 8 separate buildings. We expect 16 units under construction in • 1982 and about 20 units in 1983 and 1984 respectively. Phase II consists of 46 vacant single home lots and one existing home. We anticipate 5 units built in 1982 and about 70 in 1983 and 1984 • respectively. Grading equipment, etc., necessary to prepare the site and install utilities will be used. 2. Fill in the following where applicable: ' a. Total project area 32.6 acres g. Size of marina and access N/Asq.- -or- channel (water area) • Length miles h. Vehicular traffic trips generated per day ADT b. Number of housing or • recreational units 103 i. Number of employees 900 c. Height of structures 20 ft. j. Water supply needed 31,5OOgal/, Source: City • d. Number of parking . k. Soild waste requiring I50 ton:, spaces 378 disposal e. Amount of dredging 0 cu.yd. 1. Commercial, retail or • industrial floor space 0 sq.ft f. Liquid wastes requir- ing da ing treatment 9 / III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently X NO YES exceeding 12%? 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, X NO YES or sinkholes? ir 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. . . 15C, . 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. +' • No septic systems needed - all-services municipal. Soil type is 100% sandy clay loam with Ood'foundation'support. 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: .2' c'n cu.yd. grading 24,ccccu.yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? 10 % 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 20 % 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Existing storm water retention ponds will be utilized and will be supplemented with haybale dikes where necessary during construction. The entire disturbed area will be seeded or sodded after completion of construction. Rules and regulations of the watershed district • will be followed. • B. VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following f" vegetative types: t Woodland 2 % Cropland/ 94 % Pasture Brush or shrubs 0 % Marsh 0 % residential Grass or herbaceous 0 % Other yard 4 % (specify) • 2. Now many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 0 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 Common Ones.) No If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. • !J r • 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? NO x 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 NO YES 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish habitat? X NO 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 DNR is presently stocking Round Lake which is located feet from this development. • 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, X lowland, or groundwater supply _. 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 f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- X section of water bodies on or near the site 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? % 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.)? Existing storm water retention ponds have already been constructed and assessed for handling of proposed runoff. Volume reduction was part of the design criteria for these ponds. • 4. Will there be 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 X YES 5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the 10-20 feet site? '151 • 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. None other than residential sewage. 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? N/A 5. If the profilepdepthttos or waterntable, andaproposedadepth ofttach formation on soil disposal. N/A • 1Sq • F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 1. Will the activity cause the elimination of any gases and/or particul- YES ates into the atmosphere? NO X If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the ap- proximate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. Grading of the site may cause erosion of particulates into the air. Watering of the site will control wind blown dust. • 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or op X ation nES of the project? NO If yes, describe the noise source(s); specify decibel levels LdB (6 and noise/vibration. • Normal construction of residential buildings and earth moving equipment will generate noise between the hours of 7 am - 5 pm. • 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. None • • • G. LANO RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any 'of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production or currently in such use? NO X YES If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. About 75% of the site has been under cultivation as crop land until 1981. It is an urban location and city water and sewer is available and assessed against the property. 2. Arc there any known mineral or peat deposits on the site? X NO YES If yes, specify the type of deposit and the acreage. 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? X NO YES . Complete the following applicable: • a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) • Estimated Peak Oemand • Annual Hourly or Daily Anticipated Firm Contract or Type Requirement Summer Winter Supplier Interruptable Basis? Resid. gas 1,300,000 kwh 6,000 kwh 5,000 kwt_ Hinnenasco Resid. elec. 6,000 mcf 70 mcf 63 mcf N.S.P. b, Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. None c. Estimate annual energy distribution for: space heating 57 % lighting 10 • air conditioning 70 % processing 8 % ventilation 5 % d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. 1101 Buildings will be built to meet or exceed energy requirements of the building code. Two x six exterior walls are planned. • e. .What secondary energy use effects may result from this project • (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc.)? Community facilities are very close to this site thus it should • minimize energy requirements for, recreation, shopping, schooling, and religious activities. 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)? NO X YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. Round Lake Community Park is adjacent. Eden Prairie Conyunity Center, within 4 mile. . • High School and Grade School within mile. Project will not affect these facilities adversely instead it conforms to the anticipated development plans. I. TRANSPORTATION • 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc.)? X NO 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). Access is well provided by existing road systems of Valley View Road ' (a east/west collector) and ', mile from Co. Rd. 4. 2. Is mass transit available to the site? NO X YES 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? Mass transit is available approximately one mile from site. No further development of mass transit is planned. • • J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES' I. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive plans? If nut, explain: NO X YES It corresponds with residential designation on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing zoning and change requested. Existing zoning of Rural must be changed to Residential RM 6.5 and R1-13.5 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? X NO YES If yes, explain type of development and specify any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. • 3. How many employees will move into the area to be near the project? N/A _ How much housing will be needed? N/A 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 31,500 qal/da yes • Wastewater treatment 31,500 qal/da yes Sewer 2,800 feet yes Schools 90 pupils yes • Solid waste disposal 12.5 ton/mo yes Streets 0.56 miles yes Other (police, fire, etc) planned yes If current major public facilities arc not adequate, do existing local plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this one project and its associated impacts? Facilities are adequate. • 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program reviewed by the EQC? X NO YES If yes, specify which area or plan. 7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or disposal of potentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids, on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes,Npoisons, YES etc? 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. None III.OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. V. FINDINGS The project is a private ( ) governmental (g) action. The Responsible Agency ' (Person), after .consideration of the information in this EAN, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is (_) is not( X ) a major action. State reasons: 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 EAN to 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. i%S 2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An US 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 11EQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the MEQC can specificaliti authorise limited construction to begin or continue. If Ye-LT—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 • Carl J. Jullie; City Manager Title Date B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed to all points on the official EQC distribution list, to the city and county directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question iIi.J.4 on npaige 11 of the CAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the W which is sent to the EQC. C. Billing procedures for E C 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 Minister or the Office of State Register--(6I2) 296-8239. Lorence Add. PUD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-83 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LORENCE ADDITION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDING THE GUIDE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of Ordinance I35 provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City, and WHEREAS, the Lorence Addition PUD is considered a proper amend- ment to the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on K P Properties, Inc.'s request for approval for residential and recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council, and " WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 4, 1982. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Lorence Addition PUD, being in Hennepin County, Min- nesota, 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 3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated April 12, 1982. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • • • • • 1 1 • J • DESCRIPTION OF PUD • • . .-.The West; Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8. Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota, , lying South of the 120.00 foot wide abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago- Milwaukee-St.Paul & Pacific Railroad, EXCL,PT: . The South 430;0Q feet of the East 340,00 feet of said West Half, Also, ,EXCEPT e,. .The 'right-of-way of the present Chicago-Milwaukee-St.Paul & Pacific Railroad and Also, ' EXCEPT • • That part of said West Half described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8; thence northerly on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 49 • minutes 04 seconds West along the east line of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 914.55 feet to the point of beginning I of the land to be described; thence South 34 degrees 49 minutes 48 . seconds West, a distance of 136,89 feet; thence northwesterly, a distance of 54.28 feet along a nontangential curve, concave •to the Northeast, having a radius of 1834,86 feet. a central angle of 1 • degree 41 minutes 42 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 46 degrees 06, minutes 03 seconds West,.a distance of 54.28 feet; thence South44 degrees 44 minutes 48 seconds West; a distance of 35.00 feet; thence northwesterly, a distance of 83.22 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 1869,86 .feet, a dentral angle of 2 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds . and the chord of said curve bears North 43 degrees 58 minutes 42 seconds West,,a distance of 83,19 feet; thence North 42 degrees 42 minutes 12 seconds West 'a distance of 528.77 feet to the south right-Of- way line of said Chicago.-Milwaukee-St.Paul & Pacific Railroad; thence North 61 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds East along said south right-of- way line of the Chicago-Milwaukee-St.paul & Pacific Railroad to the southerly line of said abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago- • Milwaukee-St-Paul & Pacific•Railroad; thence easterly along said Southerly•line of the abandoned right-of-yay•pf the Chicago-Milwaukee-St,Paul & . Pacific Railroad to safu`east line of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence South'0 degrees 49 minutes 04 seconds East along said east line of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter to the point of' beginning.. This tract contains 34.00 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to any and all easements of record. • • • GY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-84 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LORENCE ADDITION BE IT RESDLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Lorence Addition dated March, 1982 , 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. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John U. Frane, City Clerk SEAL 969 Lorence Addition EAW CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ( HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-86 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR LORENCE ADDITION A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, The City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a public hearing on May 4, 1982 to consider the Lorence Addition request, and WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 32 acres of land in northwestern Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Lorence Addition request and did recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no significant impact. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for Lorence Addition because the project is not a major action which does not have significant environmental effects and is not more than of local significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADDPTED , this _ day of , 19B2. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL r . }. - r / �' --- April 18,1982 NOTICE OF PETITION To: City of Eden Prairie j We the undersigned do hereby make known our objections to rezoning of the Lorence Addition as proposed by K. P. Properties Inc. and recommended by the Eden Prairie Planning Commission for Planned Unit Development (PUD). We the undersigned strongly feel that this project as proposed would not be in the spirit of the community. We further request that the City Council return the proposal to the City Planning Commission for further study with docummented input from the community. NAME ADDRESS PHONE . 1. 7-'1''. k.-- I?.4.-0.. _ .7../-4:' ./74,4tS ii-•°,1 9.1 y .7r/5( 2. r__.-7 Wiz: ..�./•,1,Jy„ _- 9s7-I'(.zi 3. .. 'F'%4i;__ ---...�'4 ic., .. tr,;d�,. ,, _ 9J71J--r9' 5. - . 4-, L11L3 6.4L_ �14L£1rwe_ -mil`-c 27_3_ 6. ,./-r:ti Q LL _ Cc/4„.....,� ,, '?'/1-.5-R 2j_ 7. ��z77- _ ( 2,, ie; -- .,a, /� o-'_ -2 .. 9. .: l 1C � ,1 i 3 s vz 10. .1'7 tt ti°<. � 7�ca l r d:�i_ ��4 9 s 7--.z Too 11. 12. 4l ,{� lG3y�'_ .▪ xlLLfec c,, f3 � ,11/8s- 13. Jf l«ric--/1'v'__124- -.e&, i.l�v-1•i>- 7/ _6.. 1 4. -1,::e-(:.4 'F. 1r�Rc " ,J• ,c • 15. /1L1 .',4_) < L..,t. . /M/L< 4:Cw a..,a_ 1 _- 9. �1 WI 4,r 1 rr, v .sU,c�.. 4.3y� �,is_Y 17. -L 4./ 2.//..J�4 �s2 tJ1 i� ,_�.,,/:i/'1��r� 1.. J' 7L/�1>- 18 tg Ltt)i//tc2. „ „ /,it'G:+a/�r.if.4!/c<u_' -,_/,- _-- f?y-,.� 20d,'0- w(- _C�w..4 i5c54 U., v.• ' ! 1.31=9L9a-- 21. .1?,,((.7.Lma _-. 2',-,}'a -Tu ,,r_.:1r.ti L E_-'n�'2cius `1-17_16 r1 22. . .!.n. 'c• ,2e, 7JAL ' _LC --�r 5 99y_.L.S6 . 23. _ .. .....C/•-,- .,, ,,,trs' O..y<,.,...1;c, ,� 24. �r,,i 1I' 11yaLy"i.- -../Y 5/1.?.wu.,,z6.7.1.'1.__.---=i. '? iL_ 25. t�.�t r�-, 1 < c-u.slc LCt- _. .. `-11x�3iL 26. . .a.X __ILL3!11_frr ct</-C1.1 -_ _Z/ u 6 a . 27. /..k.-6--‘,,-,-,-__ILL, �...,,-, . 411- ..,_ �9J`l _`alr 1 , , .,� _�_,2i-2L'L:- 28. .:‘,_ _a r41 , _..,,,/7.f. Gy 1A. '/*i t ;i i Yi 7_L.,/5 29. atzi d41.4L zi'_•_.i.-." '' yl o_E ;t..�14c� _9 2 T h9 30. ' , ._ ' " '/ / "� ., 31. /..4 ( "' - 7 -1_31-tE,‹ S. 33 ?1 s1 Kiz t,ti = � - 34. J ,'«� -{-, r $ e it r./1- ,: 91 _, -7 ,- T c35. r,%tar�((-1:. ._1cc ...�- Py. �jILL ,c i 17 _cf f 36. l: <c rc,./ 1/c� . dYl1-2/ice �'/s..(/)w',l) _ L.y�,.4_ 37. _•\(A- k u ;,, `_ ye/.._./( --x( _ _- ct3Z/�3.c. 38. , ,.,( l -G1t.c - -1c,.176 49 usCF'dyt CLI--_ Ir 1736 • ya 40. ,a_i / _____ .-2o,,- r- LlCu-Yr� �,r-2 - 1 April 18,1982 NOTICE OF PETITION To: City of Eden Prairie ( We the undersigned do hereby make known our objections to rezoning of the Lorence Addition as proposed by K. P. Properties Inc. and recommended by the Eden Prairie Planning Commission for Planned Unit Development (PUD). We the undersigned strongly feel that this project as proposed would not be in the spirit of the community. We further request that the City Council return the proposal to the City Planning Commission for further study with docummented input from the community. • NAME ADDRESS PHONE . p er✓ u!lh��_ Teo do d/ 9ay-va19 2. .�1w4;!-C'-u�.._Arc c),ds ‘, 4ay-v.31f 3. k3_s/•S170 7 5,' . JJi.l5.-.)-L=i�l/ c',Z</..-- c/31-/ 7. c1 i 1• :1/l1 8. f r✓ir-n-_--7) vr21-- /r '/ 10 c(_{ I.3` 5- 11 r._ 41? .,, alof 13. _ .f.±�L. C- ,zti's''- --1L t_•.Jie.rand+-e n.. 14. L r .7�r:..41---J1�5'.�LE rrt�<tIc nrL j3%_1�T9 16. 17. . ' � rs� ../f;6?5. -- ' _—%iY_--K` 19. 20. __...' -- 21. 22. - --- 23. ---- 24. - - -- ...--- - 25. -- - --- -- - -- 26. 27. 28. ... - --- --- 29. --- 30. 31. - - ---- --- 32. - ---- 33. 34. --- 35. 36. - ------- 37. 38. 39. 40. v April 18,1982 NOTICE OF PETITION To: City of Eden Prairie (, We the undersigned do hereby make known our objections to rezoning of the Lorence Addition as proposed by K. P. Properties Inc. and recommended by the Eden Prairie Planning Commission for Planned Unit Development (PUD). We the undersigned strongly feel that this project as proposed would not be in the spirit of the community. We further request that the City Council return the proposal to the City Planning Commission for further study with docummented input from the community. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1. /„t '- 4-�,,_1%U� U,„.a-_. 93,-?Y .r 2. T_ Ct. -,�..�. / c>� L4. llt= 5'c - -«_7-.�y��= ri 4. . - 71`i,/,LL,/,_J_i\J /3-1-1`/ei-i - 5. ..'-, .e{ od•:;'...,�-. ,.y c,,_c_,, y.)'� ,a.59..2 6. L/ (-.. *}- -230�j74-0--h-Q<m_ r C1 %37 -Z 41 7. £L. Lc-,-(c 73oI -Zt./.4 e4,64,-- 917-;a&V-Y 8. ` I i� ,,,.? 73 c` lih., .:- ( �-- 1 s 7_1.7 YY_e 9., r .�'Ly±..�^ -2.3o Fz I-t, ;r-cL 1l2.. /.4 10. ic . ,,:e$J.)-- 3/j f,../ ['od.rc _ �.`3�h14C=� 1 1.`.7!� t _ 73/7 ? T/&r.->� _ 957-- �•- 12. ;,,) . .1-t 7-).) . r...�l 1�;,_ C, 7�7, yc, �3. 13. : , N:LKLl`7 ,. -.23 _.�-r,..,kl,.� c,r _._ fJ3Z. v__ -.3 1 4. .ir.'r� 0 lv.(V.I.,t l i`t 1 a i-:,.�,Lj... l.w. tJ;-j-2 S`l l 1 5 .if.�._s..11j.1�1r t}'.1- 'l3 H( Ii cc ,(c i s / ( -- f_3 j 15 7._ 16 Y ,,,.,.�r-_2 ,/�f. & 6.,<- ___ 3'L v3 �' 17. . . .7' 4-* ram-L-�.CA 7- _._ _--Z' -L3k? 18. rr2 7345__f..4,.l.1,i c,-:.C, 737-A3s3 19. i�.0, _.i _" ., • 20. L C' ,- 2,.73.E _ t............4.L.,--1�57.27(e 21. .( 6 ,(1./(fy4i-i' - 135q F2....1 e'i..-C.etze, 37-27L1 22. _,V,.Yi4' Ly �.1_ .7.J J f n .�'L� ee ze'7 p;7 & - 23.�,=7- ,2-,;3 , ..: 1,ele,-..(a.c de_o,,__-- 31.�L- . 24. / ., fC- ./ 3_(r!- f /-G (z,..Z ....__ 7-S- 25. ),!., ,,-. 2..3 26. ..,,,,ALA-Le-9 tj'./<w.,:tis1 1'5.9/12 ' u Y bcc__kcL. - _9i'1• 2'ij_L 27. ./3w, 71-4t„,-a .-r, %..1'1!i 'tU-<}L_.c,,✓leit 9 1_Z, 2 . 28. '' ,.,- ./,,,,,1,LZ 1,_*it .i.-..,4d �- - �j`.Zz_Y�'S3.. 29./,�i4 .. �c.r -a4 -.vi;i ryl_.C .. <5. ' r-u�I✓ _e3z y 2 30. f .,,c L`�^ - 3r 5/ �iU_-74-6-i t_ C22ff' f�`2_�.�.79 31 Yf.,c . .i,_ c 1' 32. %a ?-r ,?z, rz--lfeff_`-.,,,�1., _1 7-d-z-Z 4i 33. _(� / , t ,cLC7 rJ f f _JL_z JL_--L 3� ) �Ywz �f- '.i-/ xL.>L -z ''191,F :rs1t�: ,.c��- �5�1>5,. 35-- .-,t - ),iac7{_ , j, i✓2 c.,-.ter/' ^ _ j.37_=L.b.�..py, 36U•iyc. I•y:r' t, •,.'�,•rt --73-,y--J_'1 .LL&�.t, C L L:�-L%j 7 . .:C 3.: 37 ;:,i:cl:l; z-4.u:zit'. 71// c11.ZZeit1__.ef�_-- 607=.: LYE` 38. _1;, -„/ .,4 .f,.; ..> 71.�: l;_ec, 9 i_ ems i 39. ,(:.�fu.,.�.-. f��5,,��hf 7,r'?G /�•.+_^.-tCl.�,._lr `�.f_7 ;_s�.: S'10 40. -,, 44�..,�__ ;;hf /;c!,_, C-,----- -c t?- zsxr April 18,1982 NOTICE OF PETITION To: City of Eden Prairie We the undersigned do hereby make known our objections to rezoning of the Lorence Addition as proposed by K. P. Properties Inc. and recommended by the Eden Prairie Planning Commission for Planned Unit Development (PUD). We the undersigned strongly feel that this project as proposed would not be in the • spirit of the community. We further request that the City Council return the proposal to the City Planning Commission for further study with docummented input from the community. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1. :i z! l .<0 2d a.IcJe4(1Lo°- 9 LC r•s l 2. _ �. - ,. _G)!i J1ii iri/ N y-73`IG 3. ;;1 ,_ • _76‹>_.6 , V V-3T '/se- 4. 5. iduy 9»- Ni u 6 8. ,}�,�- .-�_1.� --��5'";' '-` `7 I.; ' i.7 7:L,S 7 9. ',A,V6\ !)-c.- 1_ve>- `l a2,k.:_FSt1 11. �a/', J/���Lr _.. _..71 G0 _1ZIr E'r=) y1� • ` - _ - 13. _ .,%ts:02.saL.Z. :40 ��'_/-o�ake� 9S7 .47.1/77 14. __._,gyp 15. L1l �++� _ ^/ __Zfa.$C.!±-v „ - Yc37 ._.2,868 16. i 17. 18. �,, .� i53� E� 37-/`t 7Ss 19. i1 _ Aka_ • IT 93 20. 21. --- - - 22. 23. 24. --- 25. 26. 27. 28. --- --- -29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. - 35. .- - ----" 36. ---- 37. 38. ---- 39. 40. April 18,1982 NOTICE OF PETITION To: City of Eden Prairie We the undersigned do hereby make known our objections to rezoning of the Lorence Addition as proposed by K. P. Properties Inc. and recommended by the Eden Prairie Planning Commission for Planned Unit Development (PUD). We the undersigned strongly feel that this project as proposed would not be in the spirit of the community. We further request that the City Council return the proposal to the City Planning • Commission for further study with docummented input from the community. • NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1. �.t.. 73'7/d 7A.,(.4'el0w.(.A.4.. �[3 1-iY/1 2. lrye , 2,.�., " v --- 3. _ 4�11�ti ,ir> _- -16YY F,L-�, � _�� � , - , . �t 9..3 7.13 Ps 5 1 5. jL�V�'� _ 11Y1J .4cct- F1 • 7, u[/t4( L� J/ /�z-CU( ce ,)C rue)Ke".t %ri, '/.�z`L 8. _ 0-4 7A. /� ec,c, �Y V, rw k/ 23./-/Jr3 r 9. _ L _....__._---.����� s..)Kv,Est 10. _ v�� .�,�7,ti<� -.._��-c�-�t� LL_�l 937• z3£t1 11. ..�% Z4 _._[Sad c 1._i.?� U:�•r:1(CI pS7-Z, �.J 12. _;[' �/'i/1/��'c JLc /l'✓ � 4�.�Wit'._ 13, .- s.t.e.,-Jc4,r �r. nlex _._ /4/ {1�.[c., -L) sJ 9-7-. 53' 14. . x, 1 .,„ /it,/ 15. _1S-i-arzl11G 1„Itan+2.2,111 _tall lruJ1o,f_zus_A_tL_7Qd_-_-�:d:7: 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. ---------- 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. - -- 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. I 6. - - ---- . 7. -- -- ---0. ____ , April 18,1982 NOTICE OF PETITION To: City of Eden Prairie (4 We the undersigned do hereby make known our objections to rezoning of the Lorence Addition as proposed by K. P. Properties Inc. and recommended by the Eden Prairie Planning Commission for Planned Unit Development (PUD). We the undersigned strongly feel that this project as proposed would not be in the spirit of the community. We further request that the City Council return the proposal to the City Planning Commission for further study with docummented input from the community. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1. .1,u jcC1...,_ g5,,,i_Lai PASwt q?A- (D2c 2..t.r,:_f...„-f„.-,... fe.,,r.........k.,,........'....'-',r4,.;a..j_ ..z.< ,..,: f' - ..;;-....:7-.v.-,--,c,/ 4 .`..4?2,-2_ .-- 7/44 Lf1 1.G,- 24/ .. _ci 93Y-GLL---- /1"([•ii!I.•1tG[�. , 1GC!.(!!/ L,. i_ e -----y_ {/•/rlL---- 6. . )4- ,uw1 ��.r.�l' 7G L__ k 'r 9 31 : - 7. . . i %, ' \'\4\v . s U,, 1-1.1:1-1 1 -- 8. r;r ' iii4T ..+. 7G-21.c.L_r:r,-t LL" ,,_J -'2s7-2�1/2 -.._ 9. /45,- ., 4 Ail, Z'Y! 4lc:l r<' L _._,_ 7 s'7r`r 10.- J/ A� /i��.�t..� f _ ,,.: c%r'„� a,, T- y , 5.,90 - 1 1. Y.)y.<'C.',-Q_..( ./;/(`1!.J. ;* ',, LLi.z-lr 4.7r.-.1. _._--Y77 _y/1j-_ 12. _k-:t..-t.G4. a '%.44/ ✓�Z1...11, dLnu `J'7-Sici_/ 13. / } '-(' ���,,.�,��_ r, <k r , 14. L_ffY� - -Zit:..c . _7� /_CL�4 1,: 61-_,/�_. _ `7.3_,--_- /a_ 15. _ } cl .-- --475/1-_A:l r.e, - e-- ' -- 7/3 16. t.J.ul, 3: F..-.)c(.:..L4 _._..71!0-(-cz1i:.-i ,-_1.0 -l_3_..Y-L•_7__6 17. c . . - d4 �w. - . 7s 4c_. - :-t,.ro- ,-4t ri 1.. - ? 'fG- 18. .0 1ti..ilre d n,mJ :1l03_P . 1, 1. ____.93f<�V-(, 19. 4,n... '/c r- .r!••. z' 3 VAT/lUL.[_K=4-AAA_--rL1'/ 1G.S" 20.104...AGr:ti r�,ce_7l L3 la_ok'rtu✓Xsrss._- 9;,/ . 21. f,/ien:c4_ Xv4X/t, 1.fLY.9_� •-c*c,A,__ `?.24- /751_ 22. z./. iityrr _,,di yrl--_�"-frfur Lry 9_a'1_l25? 23. nhtiur-A 4Q __./ !'%T__75,, ..As2e Var ,_ 93y-22' - 24. ,e.0.1 cM.,o/, }. .. _is�vri.f,&iau. ---- [4�3G_Qszs 25. /rlQ✓,. 9'.44, igat re' /;f /Y 5l....,5.14mZ.- - -._�'' -�g1S� 26. '; ✓-. :'�' 11�' <. y/��, .. a(, ),. (f.'31/_L/l 27. `" rp, 7 J 1A.. tiALS4_r _- 91Y=90y�-- 28. .. cc-„.�,.A P-- _ 7"y;TA. (.1<�. 9A-16Y)2- 29. l.;? k ----7/c2,� r./s 9 __�- - /�s, - 30. _ i<4.- 04r,�' -7/aa C) 'L fr' L a.7_ __ 31. 44' L h J&d/i - 7a7t11,-c'vi Z c°S1f,;,1-r i L1 S'i 7- 32. . Lrr= '".__ 7>!f__-1 ' ,J /r , Z.tY _,. 33. ." 2 ' L. -_7//es,1('LL•,C.t.z ..`fi - erei/l0 34. ivxa! 'a(' ,, - ( 35 i�1-11 ..J(fut.---._...71.43.L_Lc-i'.._cJ41.mij--- - 6131_1Sl<(. 36. ik.1<ta 70_Tn«-,!E.cc d, 37.( 1 ;4,-1, l(_ 71Qa._PtcnKU-i�,� --437 ,)j.`1y 38. Lc.1.l.-<,./� 1, 7 ._T/,),) .e 1a ua.-1 3---n--P2 19Y 39. __'�,,..ii j. �.1-t-�. -_2! l"_-l.cwwku ..k__Li_ 1�•y's. 40. -f�-f.,�L771 t.t:.,1..�' _70 5 q i e z :-t �� 911- S'3.S it i, 0 • May 4, 1982 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO.R82-92 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR KILMER AVENUE AND ATHERTON WAY • WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 6 day of April fixed the 4 day of May, 1982 as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements. I.C. 52-013, Kilmer Avenue and Atherton Way Utility Improvements • • WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 4th day of May, 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered. 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 4, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John 0. Frane, Clerk • • • 1 7 May 4, 1982 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-94 REVOKING BOARD OF APPEALS ANO ADJUSTMENTS #82-5 WHEREAS, Robert J. Eckert filed a variance request with the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for a 3 lot subdivision; WHEREAS, the variances requested were from lot size in a Rural Zone, dividing 3 lots without following Ordinance 93; WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and said Board granted the requested variances; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie has held an y additional public hearing and has reviewed the circumstances leading to the variance being granted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie finds said variances to be inconsistent with the zoning, subdivision, and planning goals of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO, that the City Council of the City of . Eden Prairie hereby exercises its statutory authority and revokes variance B2-5 as granted on March 1B, 1982, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. AOOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 4, 1982. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk _- r , ` • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE v ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS . • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING VARIANCE RGQUEST . Q 82-5 • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: • . 14OT10E IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments will,meet at the following time and place: . 7:30 P.M: Mar. 18 82 . • Thursday, 19 . ' ' At the Eden Prairie City Hall • 8950 Eden Prairie Road,55343'. to review and consider the variance request # 82-5 ,submitted by • Robert J. Eckert for property located at 12645 Sunnybrook Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 . The request is for a variance from Ordinance #135 Sec. 2. requesting a variance from the required mininium of five acres per lot in a rural district. Written or oral comments relating to this variance request will be heard at this meeting. Said variance application is on file for public review • at the Building Dept. at Eden Prairie City Hall. • • City Of Eden Prairie • PUBLISH: March 4, 1982 ' BUILDING DEPT. , • • '4 . . AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS 7:30 City Hall THURSDAY MARCH 18, 1982 Chairman-James Wedlund BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Ron Krueger, James Dickey Roger Sandvick, Richard Lynch Building Official-Wayne Sanders BOARD STAFF: Recording Secretary, Barbara Anderson. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL I, MINUTES A. Minutes of Jan. 21, 1982 regular meeting. Decision: B. Minutes of Feb. 18, 1982 regular meeting. Decision: {-,.VARIANCES A. Request #82-5 for a variance from Ordinance.#135 sec. 2, submitted by Robert J. Eckert, located at 12645Sunnybrook Eden Prairie. The request is for a variance from the required mininium of five acres per lot in a rural district. Decision: ;/97��L',4! fT_ B. Request #82-6 for a variance from Ordinance #135 sec. 2, submitted by The Sheraton Inn, located at Lot I Blk. I Eden Glen. The request is asking to have the maximum fl. ratio at .458, Ord. is .4. Requesting to have the maximum bldg. height at 45ft. on the NW portion and 53'8' on the SE portion. Requesting to have parking setbacks at 17.5 instead of 35ft. De c i s ion: 7 c. Request #82-7 for a variance from Ordinance #135 submitted by Goodwin Builders Inc.. Located at 6904 Jeremy court. The request is for a variance from the rear yard setback of 20ft. • OTHER BUSINESS • IV. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager I,I FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works DATE: April 1, 1982 RE: Administrative Split of Part of RLS 751 Request by R.J. Eckert Attached for your review is a copy of a proposed lot division on the south side of Sunnybrook Road west of Homeward Hills Road. The first sketch shows approximately 81i acres to be divided into 2 tracts of 3.8 acres and 4.5 acres. Eventually, it would be proposed that Tract A would be divided into 2 tracts, one 3.8 acres and another of 0.75 acres. To date, Mr. Eckert has taken this concept of a lot division to the Board of Appeals and has "received a variance" which would allow the division. The Board of Appeals granted this "variance" over a recommendation by Mr. Sanders of a division making not more than 2 lots of approximately 4± acres each. 1 The purpose of submitting this information to City Council is to obtain a direction on how to proceed with this lot split. There would appear to be the following possible methods of resolving the question: A. Override the Board of Appeals and deny the lot split. In this ' situation, the petitioner could probably go through the formal platting and zoning procedure and it would eventually come back before City Council. B. After reviewing the information contained herein, the Council could authorize the City Engineer to proceed with administrative land divisions of the parcels in question. It is my recommendation that Process A above be adopted by the City Council. In addition, I would recommend that the City Council, by simple motion, indicate to the proponent that a formal application for platting and zoning would not be received favorably. Sunnybrook Road has long been a source of maintenance problems for the City. Additionally, past attempts to install sanitary sewer, watermain and a permanent street have met with resistance. It would appear that approval of the lot split as proposed by Mr. Eckert and subsequent installation of 2 more wells and septic systems will only strengthen that resistance. EAD:sg • '1'l I. May 4, 1982 STy- OF MINNESOTA CI`is JF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 1462 VOID OUT CHECK (20.0 1493 RALPH KRATOCHVIL Instructor-Weight lifting 475.0 1494 STAR & TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER Subscription 14.9 1495 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN Insurance 8,265.6. 1496 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE Insurance 1,156.6 1497 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. Insurance 1,691.8 1498 BLUE CROSS INSURANCE Insurance 783.0 1499 HMO SERVICES Insurance 524.1 1500 MEDCENTER HEALTH PLAN Insurance 2,347.£: 1501 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Motor vehicle registration 5. 1502 ROBERT STILES Refund-Dog obedience 23.0. 1503 VOID OUT CHECK 6.E 1504 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 3,3,5586.£:. 1505 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Wine 1506 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Wine 528.E 1507 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Wine 1,800. 1508 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 561. 1509 PAUSTIS & SONS Wine 365.7 1510 MIDWEST WINE CO. Wine 1,546.? iy MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,233. 11 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 644.1- 1513 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 17,261.1 1514 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Payroll 6,866.' 1515 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE Payroll 101.E 1516 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT Payroll 4D.0 1517 GREAT•WEST LIFE ASSURANCE Payroll 2,090.r 1518 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS Payroll 73.` 1519 P E R A Payroll 12,382.: 1520 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOPKINS Anderson Lake Parks 3,OOO.i 1521 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOPKINS Anderson Lake Parks 33,881.' 1522 CLARENCE E. JANKE & LORRAINE JANKE Anderson Lake Parks 80,518..1 1523 INSTY-PRINTS Printing-Senior Citizens Center 67.' 1524 AMOCO OIL COMPANY Fuel-Street Maintenance 9,013." 1525 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE March 1982 Sales Tax 7,127.t 1526 P.O.S.T. BOARD Fee-Police Dept. 40., 5.1 1527 hINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF P/S Motor vehicle registration ,323 1528 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS Liquor 2,323., 1529 OLD PEORIA CDMPANY, INC. 1530 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 1,346.36.: 1531 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor , ., 1532 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VETERINARY Service-Animal Control 72 45 1533 ALDY GRAPHIC SUPPLY, INC. Supplies-Engineering Dept. 26.; 1534 STU ALEXANDER Mileage 1535 ALLIS-CHALMERS Cyclinders-Water Dept. 780., 15( _, AhtEl,ICAN AMERICAN DATA PRODUCTS Pens-Police Dept. 55.` NATIONAL BANK Service 25. .,1533 EARL F. AND(RSLN & ASSOCIATES Signs-Comm 144.unity Center 35. 1539 BARBARA B. ANDERSON Service-Board of appeals meeting 435. 1540 RON ANDERSON Wire new squad cars 1541 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS, INC. Service-Lake Riley 300. a —i-i7 'age two iay 4, 1982 I54c B R W Service-Eden Road, Mitchell Rd & W 78th 52,866.46 Street, City West Streets & Utilities, Shady Oak, Schooner Blvd- W 78th Street to Valleyview Road 5.72 1543 BERGIN AUTO BODY Equipment repair & parts 3 315. 2 1544 BEST & FLANAGAN Legal service-Schooner Blvd. Book-Liquor Store Preserve 9.95 1546 BEVERAGE MEDIA, LTD. 6,269.23 1546 BLACK & VEATCH Service-Water Treatment Plant 5.00 1547 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Service 225.00 1548 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH COMPANY Keys-Police Dept. .50 1549 GREG BONGAARTS Mileage 17 1B.00 1550 BRADLEY :XTERMINATION COMPANY Service-Water Oept. 55 1551 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Service-Highway 5 & Schooner Blvd 511.30 Lock repair-Fire Station 235.99 1553 BREDEMUS HARDWARE CO.1553 ANDREA BROCH Racquetball instructor 102.00 Film 9.OG 1555 BROWN PHOTO Film-Park Planning 16.27 1555 BROWN PHOTO 1556 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO. Pen set, tape-Engineering Dept. 37.8537.85 1557 BUSINESS FURNITURE, INC. Bookcase-Finance Dept. 261.34 155B BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor Stores Expenses 9.3E 1560 STEPHEN CALHOON Socket, Valve-Water Dept. 48.31 1560 STEPSOON THERMOPLASTICS9`9 1561 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal ad 1229.9.1, 1562 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE, INC Equipment repair & parts 6l.9- l COLUMBIA TRANSIT Service-Senior Citizens 151„ COMh1UMITY PROMOTIONAL SERVICE Ad-Liquor Stores 195.n, 1565 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. Blueline, tape, tacks markers-Eng. Dept. 872.6 metal locator-Sewer Dept. �. 1566 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC, INC. Supplies-Water Dept. 179.6 102.7. 1567 DALCO • Cleaning supplies MARYDOLLIVER Refund-Exercise classes 50.0 156B YVONNE DORHOLT PRIINTING Office suPPlies Refund-Exercise classes 50.01 1570 1570269.0 1571 BARBARA A. DUNBAR Refund-Swimming classes 10.51 4.0.6 1572 EAST AREA FENCE & SUPPLY CO. Portable dog kennel 6 1573 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS DISTRICT Service1,419.0 0_ 1574 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO, INC. Equipment parts Hockey official 66.0'- 1576 FAN ESS 1576 FARMERS STEEL CO. Pipe, tubes-Park Maintenance 83.1; Refund-Exercise classes 16.0`. 1577 MARILYN FOURRE 1578 FRANK REFRIGERATION Equipment repair-Water Dept. 40•g,: 1579 VOID OUT CHECK 469.E' 15B0 FRANZ ENGINEERING REPRODUCTIONS Reproductions-Engineering Dept. .E 1561 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Radio repair & parts 511 511 ' 1582 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Radio unit-Community Center 3.5E 1583 GLEN LAKE BAKERY, INC. Expenses Refund-Exercise classes 50.Oi: 1584 SUSAN GLUCK 1585 SUSAN GRADY Refund-Exercise classes 14.G Refund-Dog Obedience 15.0 W.W. ,gRS MAUREEN GRIMESair 6.2' 11 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. Equipment re p'0—, JANET HARRIS Refund-Swimming classes 12,G` 72.0 1589 HEALY SPRING COMPANY Equipment parts50.(:, 1590 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE Fee-Police Dept. 4,065.I: . 1591 DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAXATION Taxes • 77Y Page three May 4, 1982 1597 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT-HENN CTY. Radio repairs 823.4C^ 1E( HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Equipment supplies 174.7: 15h4 JOY HERRINGTON Expenses 5.7t 1595 HOPKINS PLBG. & HTG. CO. Service-Water Dept. 32.0!:. 1596 HAL HOUGHTON Basketball official 52.0; 1597 VIRGINIA HUHN Refund-Exercise classes 25.00 1598 IMPERIAL, INC. Screws-Water Dept. 69.2 1599 INT'L ASSOC. OF ARSON Fee-Fire Dept. 25.0. ' 1600 INT'L SOCIETY OF FIRE SERVICE Dues-Fire Dept. 30.0,. 1601 LINDA JANDA Refund-Exercise classes 21.00 1602 JEAN JOHNSON Mileage 22.4(: 1603 DAVID KELLY Supplies-Community Center 2.Of 1604 G.M. KELLY CONSTRUCTION Refund-Building Dept. 30.0' 1605 KENNEDY SCALES, INC. Equipment repair 94.5` 1606 KENNEDY TRANSMISSION WEST INC. Equipment repair & parts 73.1% 1607 GWEN KILIAN Refund-Exercise classes 25.0C 1608 SANDRA L. KLOSSEN Refund-Exercise classes 50.0. 1609 STEPHANIE KOENIG Refund-Swimming classes 12.00 1610 LAHASS MFG. & SALES Utility tray for Building truck 41.0, 1611 M.E. LANE, INC. Insurance 6.0C 1612 MAGGIE LASESKI Refund-Exercise classes 13.4;:. 1613 LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY CO. Paint-Park signs 105.7. 1614 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC. LP records-Community Center 114.6' 1615 LOGIS Service 2,258.E 1616 MPH INDUSTRIES, INC. Radar units-Police Dept. 1,089.0 16?' MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. Equipment parts 303.3: l( ROBERT MARTZ Expenses 165.0 16iy MAXI-PRINTS, INC. Print trail maps-Community Services 20D.0 1620 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT CO. Oxygen 28.2, 1621 MERIT PRINTING Envelopes 621.O[ 1622 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Mobile radio 42.5` 1623 METRO PRINTING INC. Forms-Police Dept. 62.0;' 1624 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY Oxygen-Fire Dept. 57.5" 1625 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL Sewer Service charges 50,574.E 1626 MIDLAND PRODUCTS COMPANY Concession supplies-Community Center 427.H 1627 MIDWAY FORD COMPANY 4 New Squad cars 36,872.C' 1628 LYNN MILLER ' Refund-Exercise classes 25.0 1629 MILLER/DAVIS COMPANY Forms-Assessing Dept. 17.9 1630 MINNESOTA CHAPTER IAAI Dues-Fire Dept. 10.0.( 1631 MINNFSOTA FLEXIBLE CORPORATION Equipment parts 34.7(' 1632 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Service 6,946.0- 1633 MRPA Softball registration 864.0 . 1634 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC Service 34.2` 1635 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT Table-Park Dept. 7,25D.0' 1636 MODERN TIRE CO. Equipment repair & parts 81.4(: 1637 R.E. MOONEY & ASSOCIATES Paint-Water Dept. 293.8:. 1638 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION Pens-Water Dept. 95.4' 1639 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. Electrical supplies-Police Dept. 145.74 164D NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE Service 216.9: 1641 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK OF MPLS. Service 688.f'.' 16" CURT OBERLANDER Expenses 92.0( 1, O'CONNOR & HANNAN Legal service-Tax Increment 112.5( 1644 O'CONNOR & HANNAN Legal service 59,866.5 . 7) 9 Page four May 4, 1982 164 STEVEN M. OLSTAD Mileage 8.38 1646 SUSAN OVERSTREET Refund-Chess classes 24.00 1647 PATCO COMPANY Strobe light-Park Maintenance 175.00 1648 PETTY CASH/PUBLIC SAFETY Expenses 15.49 1649 PHOTO QUICK Slides-Fire Dept. 2.95 1650 TIM PIERCE ASSOC. INC. Service-Schooner Blvd. 3,225.0U 1651 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT CO. Equipment parts-Water Dept. 96.OG 1652 POMMER MFG. CO., INC. Hockey trophies 65.0C 1653 POWER SYSTEM Air hoses-Street Maintenance 146.77 1654 PRAIRIE DFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. Office supplies-Community Center 241.1? 1655 PREST COMPANY Equipment parts 1,751.73 1656 ROSE PRIEVE Refund-Exercise classes 25.00 1657 CHARLES PUFAHL Hockey official 253.0C 1658 PUMP & METER SERVICE, INC. Equipment repair & parts 67.00 1659 RAPID COPY, INCORPORATED Liquor ID cards 126.31 1660 ANDREW RICHARDSON Refund-Swimming classes 8.75 . 1661 JAMES RICHARDSON • Drafting pens-Engineering Dept. 40.0C 1662 R C M Service-Ontario Blvd. 2,582.8 1663 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES Equipment parts 14.85 1664 DORIS A. ROCKWELL Refund-Scuba classes 252.01' 1665 RUSCON HOMES Refund-Building Dept. • 100.0. 1666 KATHY SCHUMACHER Tests 50.0(' 1667 KATHERINE SEMPLE Community B'nk director 150.0' 1668 W GORDON SMITH CO. Oil-Street Maintenance 44.1( lE( CURT SOLIE Service-Building attendant 9.0 16,,, SON OF A PRINTER, INC. Printing-Police & Historical Cultural Center 247.7 1671 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING INC. Ads-Liquor Stores 169.9: 1672 STATE TREASURER 1st Qtr 1982 Building permit surcharge 2,158.3- 1673 STATE OF MINNESOTA Tests-Police Dept. 60.0; ' 1674 PETER STOKES Refund-Exercise classes 15.5C 1675 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CO. Equipment repair & parts 1,087.4< 1676 SULLIVANS SERVICES, INC. Service-Senior Citizens Center 5D.O 1677 SUTPHEN CORPORATION Equipment repair 119.E 1678 TIERNEY BROTHERS, INC. Lettering machine 721.9: 1679 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS Construction paper-Community Services 17.9` 1680 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE, INC. Gas-Community Center 142.8 1681 VAN WATERS & ROGERS Chlorine 651.6( . 1682 VICTORIA GAZETTE Ads-Liquor Stores 30.0 1683 WAREHOUSE DELI Refund-Beer license 10.0' 1684 MARY WARREN Refund-Exercise classes 7.7` 1685 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Equipment parts-Water Dept. 3D.D:. 1686 WEAVER ELECTRIC CO., INC. . Service-Community Center 130.7' 1687 NORTHERN STATES POWER Service 17,839.0 1688 EUGENE A. OIETZ Expenses 150.1: 1689 ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION CO. Service-Staring Lake Park & Red Rock Park 5,306.6 1690 JOHN FRANE Expenses 161.8' 1691 TOM EASTMAN Expenses 36.8'. 1692 JEFF ELWELL Expenses 81.2;. 1601 CARL JULLIE Expenses 18.7, 1 MINNESOTA RESCUE & FIRST AID Conference-Fire Dept. 50.0' lc,_ TFRRON PRELIPP Refund-Tennis classes 5.0 1696 HUBERT SCHULTZ Refund-Tennis classes 21.C'; 1697 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING INC. Legal ads 1,558.4 ' 1698 ROBERT STIKES Refund-Tennis classes 5.0: Th1 I. • • Page five May 4, 1982 / ZIEBART OFMINNESOTA Refund-Tennis classes 5.00 1700 170. I TROPPUndercoating-Building Dept. 169.0C BA 1701 VOID OUT CHECK Motor vehicle registration 9 75 1702 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF P/S Firefighters name signs 260.00 1703 HARVEY CLARK 153.2LC 1704 CHRIS ENGER Expenses 90 37,1 .Di- 1705 MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION Service-Community Center 90.D 1706 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF P/S Motor vehicle registration 31.5G 1707 CARRIE TIETZ Service TOTAL $534,393_0- • May 4, 1982 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-90 APPROVING OF PLANS FOR VALLEY VIEW ROAD (CSAH #39) FROM CSAH #18 to APPROXIMATELY 1/2 OILE WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation has prepared plans showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades and cross sections for the improvement of (Valley View Road from CSAH #18 to 2 mile west, Project No. 8055; WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has reviewed the plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie finds the plans to be consistent with the road improvements proposed in Development District #1 for an Economic Development District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said final plan: be approved and that the Hennepin County Department of Transportation be requested to proceed to the construction phase of the project. FURTHERMORE, the City agrees to provide enforcement for the prohibition of on-street parking on that portion of CSAH #39 included in said Project No. 8055. ADDPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 4, 1982. • ^ Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • • Zz Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1982 HALLETT ARRIVED LATE. A. RED ROCK LAKE 3RD, by James L. Simons. Request to preliminary plat the property zoned R1-22 into 4 lots. Located north of the northerly terminous of Summit Drive and adjacent to Red Rock Lake, 15607, 17603, 15601, and 8701 Summit Drive. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Ron Kruger, representing Jim Simons was present to give a presentation. • Kruger stated that they want to move the lot line over to meet with the required sideyard setbacks so that another lot can be built upon. - The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/22/82 and stated that the City will have right-of-way in front of four lots. All lots will have public road access and stated that he would recommend approval of the replat of four properly con- figured lots. Sutliff asked if the road is a standard cul-de-sac and stated that Lot 2 will end up with 30' setback. The Planner stated that sewer and•water will be placed in the road right-of-way and the road will be finished to City standards. Marhula stated that Lot 1 will have approximately 70' from the property line to the front of the house. The Planner stated that they have the entire right-of- way on Lot 1. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Red Rock Lake 3rd. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-D. • MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Red Rock Lake 3rd preliminary plat dated 2/19/82 as per the staff report dated 4/22/82. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. 'a3 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 22, 1982 SUBJECT: RED ROCK 3RD ADDITION, Replat of part of Gov^mment Lot 7, Sec. 21, 4 lots • into 4 lots (replatting of side lot lines) •BACKGROUND The area was zoned R1-22 back in 1969 with the adoption of Zoning Ord. 135. Following zoning, administrative divisions were applied for to plat off • building lots of 22,000+ sq. ft. (see figure 1). A construction error placed the home on proposed Lot 1, 15607 Summit Drive directly upon the lot's side lot line. A setback of 15 feet should have been used. Therefore, the need arose to shift the side lot line of the lot and correspondingly shift the other 3 lots so all lots maintain adequate lot size and adhere to the 15' side setback requirements. The house upon proposed Lot 1 is owned by Mr. Simons and he is presently constructing a new house on proposed Lot 2. The other home/lot owners Dredge and Carlson have agreed to the side lot line shifts. Lots in this area are not served with municipal sewer and water. When utilities are extended and the street hardsurfaced, the City will request dedication of the road right-of-way. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • The area is properly zoned for the proposed plat, the lots meet the require- ments of the R1-22 District, and all lots have been constructed upon. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the proposed plat for Red Rock Lake Third Addition (figure 2). JJ:ss ) ' 4 .. , 4 r ' . eiam.01.1.1..1.1.76.7.-.411.7•7'`.. . r 7.3 .54 41 Alt5. I,4." 1 1:9.4, Aie'ro.{ • t°/..:f.—•----DRIVE -z-- •-"*":1,I . .-, 4•4e) -MEADOW VALE ,,, •4., , .• ..., z zo, . ' •ro •":i.f e ••...i 1 1 it I ,;lc 1'1 3.•Sv ' ! 1, • .• tx 3.• 13 . , •,:- ... •,.: . ei•.„ . ;NI 0 ' ,..Pc* A , ,...,... .7.t.. .1.....4.... 2 1..1. .;• 4.:1 0 ,:: : c:` 7.•-• C' I "' /r„, 1 1 . 4 ---.„.,0-, '.,,, .,, 1 ...., ". ,-.. • •• o 7t `• ";j1.1"-?: T.-1-4- 1 -"-- -l•---:'--ri- -,: .-.1 C'r.:57-,. ...1. Y '.. •••',:ft: Z 0,,,_, •1.•<. :-.. ..1 , er- -, -, . . ...••• 4,4 a •-, -., ,., • m ,.,-, IV , I .-.., 3.•(..,,,. 0 ,.17)en t „Z,.. - Li A .,;., Iii.1 L. t-,..%16 ', ,.' .16...•' !.:„ ii— :4 '. . 11,'• •'''J., %..., .....o• '" ,,,.bt•.4.1' . , rt ..1-''.1 \NI'. .‘,.. "t•... 1".. ... ;IA. o - <4.bet . , ! ,. 'kf)•,...° 1 Ajit , , _-.r.,,. .,,, ...) ' 2. k,..::. .e:- 2' 0 ::, ,.... - ,‘A .••c';',-- . ;,';`.. .lif::. %.,.' •i .___ .,__ — te ..T..,Ct. RE&.'- -oAR-' 49`-'-:-..-,7-::',---.7.---.--.."'°-..-ii ...",..z.,„ ,... ",--;• K .•- ,.. .: °,„.,, ...t. •••• 71 -, '• I .2! '",'i•`: ii.3' ;;;.....k z _., ...•.. ' 1/1 ''' . • . i..s,II• , I AI ' L t.•• 7' b. ... .I...„ ..‘•••' ,...., I r. ''• ,••'o S•'.•:.;..,51,1, 1 tb - • : %.,) ../ „1/4,v., U,1 ...11 r. r, ',,, 44 7", '. • ... r-i • 17.7.-_ ;,. ", I 0.'....,,,,,• .:.--74::::),.,,, -.." ••••.. t s„ --- ,- -: •••-•_„. ri - -s .r.... ..- V. ^. • . . ; 1., T,. -i"" 4• ?- ,' ..-- 1-, ' 11‘ „.' t'1,4 ; f,,7.71.•••, 71 •• ,...,,,, , v••••., .11 co •1, 1, , .3 :•3 ' :9 C2•• • . . , .... -3 3 rc; ( '" cii - .,a ! •33 • 140:16 ,•-tt,.., ;'''" Z :;,4:2, , /1-• •%., %, stl, ; -, --.... rri ^N •I . ......1 ... I.N '.I. •'• IA 47. ,..., •,;; • ....." • • • e.. • ' ••TT___ •••••I .;,....; •-...:.n F::.:„b' -.:' ,y.:...., .7...4-.%. . 7.-4 :; 2'4: . ......_____,:lim...._:, - .;:......... 7 N .... ,,_„.(J1 , .., /...,..,-,.;77_, ._...,.,. • . • . ):• ..'t :,!;.. .•, ,5 u+Imir,. i,„,.--'•\ N .: . - 1..,.. . 1.. c'•s CA '1.' `" •''' :.%t. •• .2, • s-, • , '':.`• ;:- I • :i; ii,-, ';,;t:..i'-‘,.›. .:11:.,--'7. :,-\,- ' . • .' . , • . -: •-• /r'_\: ,,:.: .0 C) l' ..• 4 C0_, : .1 . ' .., ' " `.-' 1, — .,141.14i1',..e-.•• , V 1, .1 • ::.77. ' . s...I".' I^ • 4 ,. X. ". 1.1 'Il ... _ . • . & ;.e:•.1 I „,„0't..... 0 :,. - • — ,.i.....,.l.. •• ..7....; 1,)c•il:i\.0o‘o.01,6,N CA? 0=rr r>. .., • 0:.'s . . - -....._.,, N.cr) .-I n ••• ....... ' - ...,s 'I .• ... _ -• ' .\ . • (4,. . ' \\ ,\ N NI 1 )•s , 3 1 . , . i ), J . • FIGURE 1 I 71:0 , I 1 • .. • ,. 1 ('.i • • . ( - M10 - .. / . 7.,y• / / / ,•,/,/ . .. . I It. ' . -/ • • :,0,51. . - //I/ .. . • , 7. .'/ . ••' ////,/ /f(( .• a% '''-'c •,/ bs, W 1- =IMF :,-„, 1...•_ti J/ 73.9! 6.\\ 1 V4 �r�/ i ' F'/L� t SUMMIT \� ry. • • N pRiVE �`„ a., I w, j I �` rzo _1 62.0 / N I D .IN -� 1 yy.o 9s.o. %�4� j diii. '1 / ). „/ /. ro 1. t /n oN r • S�,/////ij '� ' I/ 'i7ii (11 ,/. I G iogsr°N 3 /// . 0 � i -ate ° /r % 1 IN • \ 0/2 ".,12/.- /'P/' / • y : `\. � \ Ng , /�/ � ... / . • N N • TA r nicl .. . . . . • • • N�IT4:i, FIGURE 2 , NoIAjT m ^ 0 m n f1;�nl�l!n T 0 .7) � March 16, 1982 City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ' Attention: Planning Commission Re: Platting Parcels 4070, 4080, 4090 and 4020 Gentlemen, • I am submitting this letter along with the required Land Development Applications. They have been signed and completed by Thomas Carlson, Dorothy Dredge and myself. The changes are needed to obtain a registered platt for parcel 4070, parcel 4080, parcel 4090 and parcel 4020. The reason for these changes are to make parcel 4090 a buildable lot. The changes are also needed to make parcel 4020 a lot that conforms to today's requirements for legal set-banks. The house on parcel 4020 was built 20 years ago frcm stakes that were misplaced. It was only after a recent official land survey was made that these changes were brought to my attention. They should be ccmpleted to meet the requirements set forth by the City of Eden Prairie today. • ^ Thank you, James L. Simons • • 1�1 1 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE . HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-80 OFSOLUTIREDARDCKKVLAKE ING TTHIRD AD IT ONHE Y PLAT BE IT RESOLVED•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Red Rock Lake 3rd Addition dated 2/I9/82 , 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. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of , 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL -7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie C9� SUBJECT: Lyman Olson request for City's assistance DATE: April 29, 1982 Mr. Lyman Olson is the owner of a duplex at 7350-60 Scot Terrace. He has asked to be placed on the Tuesday, May 4th Council agenda and is requesting that the City assist him in resolving a dispute between he and the owner of the property (Dr. Moussa, absentee owner) abutting directly to the west. The dispute arises from excessive grading work apparently authorized by Dr. Moussa on his property and lack of proper retaining walls resulting in the potential for a serious erosion or a cave-in to occur on Mr. Olson's property. The grading work by Dr. Moussa is in violation of the building permit and we are in the process of issuing a complaint against him. It should be noted that Mr. Olson is also in violation of his permit because he filled 3' along the rear of his property which has aggravated the situation. Back in December '81 an agreement was reached by both parties which involved construction of a tiered retaining wall system as shown on the attached drawing. All costs were to be paid by Dr. Moussa while Mr. Olson was to allow four feet of Al encroachment onto his property in lieu of the 3' of improper filling he completed on his property. The problem now is that Dr. Moussa apparently refuses to perform and has told Mr. Olson (he claims) that he will let the house go back to the mortgage company if forced to complete the retaining wall. We have advised Mr. Pauly's office of this situation and I have requested that Roger be prepared on Tuesday evening to advise the Council as to your options for consideration. I have suggested to Mr. Olson that he should exhaust all of his options for legal action and then come to the City if all else fails. Attached are various letters and pictures submitted by Mr. Olson. CJJ:jp Attachments 1nQ • DWIGHT D.CHINNOCI< ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O.CC:153226 • MINNEAPOLIS,61INNESOTA 55419 • �, (OrrICE-C703 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD) • • TELEPHONE:(517)P20-7154 • • December 23. 1980 • • • Mr. Ahmed Sonbol • . 1420 Fairlawn )lay Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 Dear Mr. Sonbol: • • Mr. Lyman E. Olson, who lives at 7360 Scot Terrace in Eden Prairie, has indicated to me that you are beginning construction on a dwelling unit directly behind his house at the above address and has expressed his concern that if a retaining wall isn not taken built to support his property or other s'imilarprecautions lre recn or other mishap t he may suffer damage due to a cave—in, er ( arising from the lark of support of his property. I have advised him that all property o:-ncrs have the right to support from adjoining - property, and if this support is taken sway there is liability • resulting from all consequential damages. . ' Therefore, please be advised that in the eure on vent thatt Mr. Olson suffers any damages as a rd lt of a willfbelliable andrweart to will look to proper support for his land, you you for reimbursement of any such damages. If you have any questions concerning this please feel free to contact myself or Mr. Olson at any time. . ... Very truly v ex,,( Dwight D. Chinnock DDC/as . , . -)an r•••rl 1i. , 1 . .r.. I. r.,,. \1.,: •r. • c Saaem ' Rtr 3• sum: 2(e • STET%AR 1131'ILI)ING 9a74—ll043 • ( 6925 NICOLLET AVENUE • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55-I.'3 • fi)' 1166-3609 ON NFRS: VOLLlA\' V STU',ART �f.��acffe: 7%, Pi;1:3' October 2, 1981 TO: Lyman Olson, Ahmed Sonbol, Ezzat Mousse 25 Y!3' FROM: Pill Stewart As you know, a dispute has arisen concerning two adjacent building lots in Stewart Highlands, Eden Prairie, and involves placement of houses on the lots, retaining, walls, etc. I have given this matter considerable thought because we wanted the project to be successful with as little dispute as possible, even though there are quite a large number of owners and renters to be considered. • In this specific matter between Lyman Olson and Ahmed Sonbol concerning the placement of a retaining wall, I really do not see how I can be of much assistance in this instance. It seems to me that it should be settled between the two parties • as they work to iron out their differences. I think it would be a good idea for the three of you to make an appointment to sit down together and exchange opinions and views and work toward a mutually acceptable solution. Each of you has mentioned the idea of sueing the other party, but I have learned over a period of 50 years that suits are usually great for the attorneys and those who may be involved in surveying, or whatever. The suit process is normally protracted, costly and can be rather "messy"; takes time and energy; and, in my opinion, not worth the possible benefits, if any. So, it is my suggestion that you sit down together and work out a peaceful solution. Kindest re ards, IS/cwart • Fofrr,de•rs LnJ ()nn.nr • I)perators. for .,S y,•a::. t 1',ppr. At,1 'lI Slnret, .1d•,!, Radio nn CITY OFFICES/8950 EOEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344-2499/TELEPHONE(612(937.2262 i r October 29, 1981 Mr. Lyman Olson 7360 Scot Terrace Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 Mr. Olson: An inspection has been made by the Department of Inspections of the pre- mises generally known and described as 7350-7360 Scot Terrace in the City • of Eden Prairie, which you own and have under your control. We find that an error has occurred in the grading of the property. I will explain the error in order that you may remedy the situation. The survey of your property dated Dec. 6, 1978 shows an elevation of 892.5 at the northwest corner and 890.8 at the southwest corner. The building permit was issued on January 8, 1979 using these corner elevations. The grade at the rear lot line has been raised by the addition of fill. Section 7004 of the Uniform Building Code states in part: Hazards Sec. 7004."Whenever the building official determines that any existing excavation or embankment or fill on private property has become a hazard to life and limb, or endangers property, or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel, the owner of the property upon which the excavation or fill is located, or other person or agent in control of said property, upon receipt of notice in writing from the building official, shall within the period specified therein repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment so as to elimi- nate the hazard and be in conformance with the requirements of • this code." The present elevations are approximately two and one half feet higher than those elevations on the proposed plan. I hereby require that the above situation be corrected within 10 days of the date of this letter or I will submit this matter to the City Attorney for legal process. Sincerely City) of Eden Prairie / fl.t17iu eal(41, -- • Wayn Sanders Building Official WRS/bd cc: Dwight D. Chinnock d, / J• / • / r l r � ; "r" ;'" �' f rrIi 4 w� .ice l !,, .yam 1 . 1 y ,.....i II I • .')93 • I De.c. { 9� - -- 7` / /Lleefiy q • Ec/ei, f'r4irieProposed fieto ir► Wq r Wa �s ergs c 4;3,s ec/at'^3�s 'arip Qy� ��3 6Qco7` r^a e Or: �ztzat /`7o4sssa Arm Cr -IyAer A ,E. O/soy ..04, Pt^,0o j1cla F/tI/E ih s CoA tac tc?�' �.� D/.Soh Oat F'�" 94r.Q Ch ihhacA Att.atiot, 0Isoh 's Res 7360 R e s. 73.5- Sc ot 1err Ce . /3Qgf';pe 1_31 New t ' .ries 4 — Treated wt1A Cretso r' 11:161 G°I'? 8" Mid e sqjld ■ G ' G ravel Etv •ef Said mi h.,/ ■ ' f GrOVel • r 6 '7qq MEMORANDUM ( 0: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie C99-- SUBJECT: Richfield/Eden Prairie Joint Radio Communications DATE: April 30, 1982 The attached letter of April 16, 1982 and the Memorandum dated April 29th from the Richfield City Staff describe the proposed joint radio communications program for the Public Safety Departments of our two cities. As the Council is aware, up to this time the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office has provided our dispatching services. Due to heavy user-demand and also staffing and management philosophy, the level of service provided by the County has not met our expectations. Also the County Board has recently indicated that there will be direct fees imposed (amount unspecified) •for all "non-emergency" calls which they handle. For these reasons we have pursued the feasibility of sharing communication services with the City of Richfield, whose management philosophy and operational capabilities appear to suit our needs very well. The essential elements of the joint communications proposal are as follows: 1. The system will be a "shared" system, rather than merely a contractural arrangement. Eden Prairie will share equally in decision making relating to costs, staffing, performance review and management direction. 2. Richfield has recently updated its computer-assisted communications equipment, however some modification will be needed to incorporate service for Eden Prairie. Eden Prairie will not be charged for any presently existing Richfield equipment, but all modifications needed to the sole benefit of Eden Prairie will be our responsibility. Mr. Ward Montgomery, Communications Engineer, is nearing completion of his feasibility study which will specify the equipment modifications necessary. 3. Estimated costs to Eden Prairie: A. $25,000 - 45,000 for non-recurring cost for equipment purchases and modifications due in 1982. (Funding to come from General Fund surplus plus recent $10,060 bequest from Mildred Grill estate). 8. $30,500 for recurring costs due in 1983 ($10,000 may be deferred to 1984). C. The formula for determining recurring costs to be based upon 50% prorated according to population and 50% according to assessed valuation. D. For 1983, 30% of the total recurring costs will be charged exclusively to Richfield because of benefits accruing only to them by having the dispatchers available at their City Hall. This percentage will be subject to review prior to cost sharing determinations for future years. 145 Mayor and City Council - 2 - April 30, 1982 4. Timing: It is intended that the merger with Richfield be fully operational by December 15, 1982, which is the projected start-up date for the metro area 9-1-1 emergency call system. Timely decision on our part could save rerouting costs for telephone lines. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended -that the City Council receive this memo and attachments thereto and that staff be directed to proceed with preparation of a draft joint powers agreement with the City of Richfield for joint radio communication services. • CJJ:jp Attachments (. A 7gSq • II *Lai • ■ April 16, 1982 MCI MTr Captain Keith Wall N Eden Prairie Department of Public Safety 7800 Mitchell Road N lf'? Eden Prairie, MN 55344 0 a Dear Keith: �I . O 0 For the past several months we have been dealing at (A a rather specific level regarding the possibility of Will a) Eden Prairie and Richfield joining in a consolidated = communications system. The time has now come to bring = the discussions nearer to finality. As you are aware, Mr. Ward Montgomery is nearing completion of his engineering report regarding what actions would he in order to extend the Richfield system to service • Eden Prairie. This report will contain specific .INUM recommendations and budget estimates for implementation. The other major aspect of the decision facing your = community is that of "recurring charges" for partici- e pation in a shared system. Attached to this letter WIBM ill' you will find Richfield's initial proposal regarding a co potential cost sharing mechanism and analysis of the possihlc costs to be shared. Please review it with Q Director hacking and other City Staff at your earliest _ convenience so that we may continue negotiations that will bring us closer to a final decision. co >11111 ,r By way of background, it is my impression that general 6. agreement has been reached on the following items.: wtsmi fl. * That the proposed system will he a "shared" system rather than one whereby Hen Prairie 01MUM O merely contracts with Richfield for service. 0 This sharing concept will apply to costs, O decisions, management direction and review �D of performances. • * That Richfield will provide extensive II on-site training to its communications staff in the unique geography, governmental structure, police and fire operatingphilos ': ophies and other pertinent matters relating i telephone:669.7521(612) '19S6 an equal opportumly employ., • • • Captain Keith Wall • - April 16, 1982 Page 2 • to provide full service to the Eden Prairie Public Safety Department and the community as a whole. • • * That the proposed merger would occur on the date that the 9-1-1 system will become operational for the metro area (scheduled • for 12/15/82). • • • * That a firm decision on whether to merge or not merge can be reached not later • than June 1 , 1982 in order to permit equipment ordering, installation, operator training, 9-1-1 modifications and other matters prior to cut over date of December • of 1982. • * That there will exist a "Joint Power Agreement" between the two cities govern- ing this proposed arrangement and that the • • implementation of this merger would fall • • under the purview of a full User's Board representing top management from both cities • and Departments and that the User's Board • be supported in its work by a Technical • Operating Committee representing Police and Fire management staff and operational • personnel from both Departments, including communications personnel . * That the Richfield Administrative Services A Division Supervisor (myself) will serve • as the chief operational manager of the shared communications system and he respons • - ible for carrying out the specific and general directions of both the User's Board and the Technical Operating Committee. Apart from the above general agreements, there appears to have been general agreement on operating styles and philosophies and all that remains is formalization of the above referenced items in contractual or "Joint • Powers'' language and document:: as well as specific agreement on recurring charges and system modification r costs. { ?95C • Captain Keith Wall • April 16, 1982 Page 3 Again, please review the attached proposal regarding recurring charges at your earliest convenience so that we may continue our negotiations in light of the fast approaching decision date of June 1, 1982. i believe that in order to meet a June 1st deadline, the decision package must be submitted to the two City Councils not later than May 14th. Please contact me if there are any qustions, and we will look forward to discussing this proposal with you and your city leaders on April 21st. Sincerely, Paul D. Linnee, Supervisor • Administrative Services Division ' Richfield Department of Public Safety 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 /11 PDL:lkm Attachment cc: Director Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Director Jack Hacking Karl Nollenherger Carl Julie A • • 1. • l950 • .( • Omen t '4\c""D \-710, ‘,.. C�i,a i pia h., ;Ica. • ) ,.' •„ J4:) 'g .._),..s#1 COST SHARING PROPOSAL FOR SHARED PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. FOR DISCUSSION. April 16, 1932 I i 16-C, PROPOSED RICHFIELD/EDEN PRAIRIE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM COST SHARING FORMULA AND STRATEGY Gl%' Currently, the Richfield Department of Public Safety operates its own Emergency Communications System consisting of a number of base radio stations, satellite receiver stations, radio control consoles, telephone systems, recording devices, state and local computer support systems, full time Public Safety Dispatchers, part-time Communications Aides and Community Service Officers and selected other staff personnel trained in communications. At the present time, Richfield assumes all of the costs of supporting this system. Based on 1982 budnet figures and projected 1983 salary figures, these costs can be estimated for 1983 as follows: 1. 4 full-time dispatchers (7,424 available manhours assuming full use of vacation, holiday, comp and sick leave) 3 @ Step 6 @$1,554/mo ('82) 1 @ Step 3 @ 1,321/mo ('82) . '82 total: $71,796 + 8% for '83= $77,540.00 *There are 8,760 hours in a year. Based on one operator on duty at a time, the 7,424 full time manhours leave a balance of 1,336 manhours which are covered by part-time relief persons who are usually similarly trained Community Service Officers. 2. Health insurance for 4 FT dispatchers $93.00 x 12 x 4= 4,464.00 3. Dental insurance for 4 FT dispatchers $10.00 x 12 x 4= 480.00 4. Uniform allowances for 4 FT dispatchers @ $215.00 x 4= 860.00 5. PERA contributions for 4 FT dispatchers 0 5.5% of $77,540= 4,265.00 6. FICA contributions for 4 FT dispatchers @ 6.7%, of $77,540= 5,195.00 7. Worker's Compensation for 4 FT dispatchers @23C/$100= 178.34 Full time subtotal: $92,282.34 Calculated hourly rate for putting one full time person in communications center for one hour is $12.52 per hour. 8. 1,336 C.S.O. manhours in Communications for dispatch relief - 8,745.00 shifts (not counting lunch/dinner breaks) at $6.06/hr '82 average plus 8 .' for 1983 9. 2.5 hours per day by Communications Aides in Connnunications, - 5,620.00 includes data entry, dinner breaks, dispatch assisting etc. at I982 average of ;5.70/hr plus 8" for I983. Part-time subtotal: $14,365.00 Calculated hourly effective rate for putting one part- time person in Communications for 1 hour is $6.3')/hour �Q� F IT i •iiii',1‘i) (I UnJAl ►j.1(J 10. Projected (based on NW8 contract) 9-1-1 recurring charges for 3 trunks, ALI and ANI, printer and modems $12,741.00 11. Projected recurring charges on 3 seven digit emergency back-up numbers (866-3333,4,5) for 1983(We currently have 2,268.00 four numbers, but plan on dropping at least one soon after 9-1-1 proves operational) 12. Projected recurring charges on six non-emergency lines for 4,536.00 1983 (866-5061,2,3,4,5,6) 13. Projected recurring charges on two non-published out only 1,512.00 dispatch phone lines (866-7619 and 869-9370) for 1983 14. Projected maintenance charges on consoles and base stations 1,500.00 for 1983 based on time and materials (estimate based on 1982 experience to date) 15. Projected maintenance agreement charges for Dictaphone 4000 900.00 master recorder and 2 "Call check" recorders for '83 16. Projected recurring charges for maintenance agreement on 190.00 2 Simplex time clocks and 2 Simplex numbering machines for 1983 GRAND TOTAL RECURRING COSTS $130,294.34 The above figures reflect the projected total I983 costs for running the existing Richfield (only) Emergency Communications system based on an average of slightly more than one operator on duty per shift 365 days a year. In reality, the mechanics of the scheduling process allow for the assignment of two full time dispatchers during peak periods on Friday and Saturday nights from 2300- 0200 hours and training requirements mean CSO's spend somewhat more than the 1,336 shift hours while full time dispatchers are in training. Assuming the merger between the two Departments, there would be an addition to the above figure for data processing costs. In the above calculations, none of Richfield's data processing costs are included because none of the unique Richfield applications would be shared. However, discussions have revealed that Eden Prairie would be interested in obtaining base level data processing support consisting of the generation and entering on a daily basis of Initial Complaint Cards for each call for service from the public as well as Patrol Generated Incident Cards for all significant patrol generated activity. Also, one time entry and subsequent as needed update of computerized "Storecards" (business key holder and response information for police and fire calls) would also he desirable. Finally, monthly data reports generated from ICR's and Patrol Generated cards would be desirable. Based on these assumptions. the incremental costs for providing these features to Eden Prairie would be as follows: ICR unit cost: 5t per record for generation and entry. Each ICR accounts for 1.1 records in computer on average and we project 1,000 cards per month for 1,I00 records x 5t x 12 months $660.00 -19;C7 Patrol Generated Cards Unit Cost: 5C per card $720.00 for generation and entry. Each card represents 1 record. Estimate 1,200 per month x 5e x 12 UU "Storecards": Original entry of 800 businesses by Aides taking an estimated 32 hours at $5.70/hour for the Aide and $7.00 for computer time. Each of the 800 businesses accounts for 3 records for a total of 2400 records on disk. 32 hrs x $5.70= 182.40(*) 32 hrs x 7.00= 224.00(*) Disk storage of 2400 records at .005/record/me 144.00 Monthly report generation @ average of $200.00 2,400.00 (*) Non-recurring one time charges. Total DP recurring: $3,264.00 TOTAL COSTS SUMMARY: EPPSD SHARED RECURRING RICHFIELD ONLY_RECURRING EP ONLY RECURRING NON-RECURR: $125,758.34 $4,536.00(**) $3,264.00 $406.40 (**) Richfield's six non-emergency phone lines COST SHARING FORMULA: A generally agreed upon cost sharing formula for services such as those that are herein proposed is based on population and assessed valuation of the communities involved. Sume argue in favor of basing cost sharing on system usage or system access but neither of these is accurately predictable and create problems in developing budget figures in the municipal budgeting process. They also tend to encourage minimirinq system usage so as to keep costs down, which is counterproductive to the purposes of a communications system. Therefore. it is being proposed that we examine a cost sharing formula that is • based in part on population and, in part, on assessed valuation of the two cities. One of the more common mechanisms of computing this formula is to arrive at a total pot of costs to be shared, dividing that pot into two halves and then applying one of the halves to a factor representing each communities proportion of the Lotal population of the two cities and applying Lo the other half a factor representing each communities proportion of the total assessed valuation of the two communities. A sample of this system would go as follows: CITY A CITY B TOTAL Population: 25,000 45,000 70,000 Percentage: 36% 64% 100% Valuation: 175,000,000 250,000,000 425,000,000 Percentage: 41% 59% 100% 150,000 = 75,000 COSTS TO BE SHARED: $150,000.00 2 POPULATION HALF: VALUATION HALF TOTAL CITY A: 75,000 x .36 = $27,000 + 75,000 x .41= $30,750 $57,750 CITY B: 75,000 x .64 = 48,000 + 75,000 x..59= 44,250 $92,250 TOTAL: 75,000 + TOTAL: 75,000 $150,000 Now that the mechanics of the cost sharing formula are understood, one must determine what costs are to be shared and to what extent. We have seen that without Eden Prairie, Richfield's projected costs for running its Emergency Communications system in 1983 will be about $130,295. Obviously, not all aspects of the services that add up to this amount will be mechanically available_ to Eden Prairie. For ex- ample, Richfield cannot handle Eden Prairie's walk up traffic. We probably would not answer the EP non-emergency phone lines (except after 2400 hrs); eiter EP's stolen articles; assist. Eden Prairie clerical and record keeping functions and a number of the other X factor items that Dispatchers do because they are in the building and nobody else is. As a result of this, it would not seem appropriate to have Eden Prairie share equally in the total costs of operat'. the communications center. How much of this total that should not be shared is subject to great conjecture because no method exists to assess exactly what portion of a dispatcher's time is spent doing things for Richfield that could not be done for Eden Prairie. For sake of discussion, we propose that an arbitrary figure of 307, of communications services be deemed. not generally available to Eden Praire for mechanical and operational reasons. Consequently, this leaves 70;' of the total cost available to be shared by the two communities. Carrying this process out another step, we see from the preceding page that some of the costs are deemed to be subject to sharing, some are Richfield exclusive, some are Eden Prairie exclusive and some are Eden Prairie one time data entry costs. This breaks down as follows: SUBJECT TO SHARING: l';125,758.34 EP TOTALLY PAYS 3,264.00 (Recurring) EP TOTALLY PAYS 406.40 (Non-recurring) . �1 By applying the preceding figures to the earlier discussed cost sharing formula as well as the arbitrary 70 figure previously covered, we see the following: (The following Population and assessed valuation figures were obtained in the - fall of 1981 and are subject to modification as further information is developed) RICHFIELD EDEN PRAIRIE TOTAL Population: 37,851 Population: 18,000 Population: 55,851 Pop. Percent: 68% Pop.Percent: 32% 100% Valuation: $201,479,358 Valuation : $20I,000,000 Valuation :$402,479,3! Val. Percent: 50% Val. Percent: 50% 10Dn; SUBJECT TO SHARING: $125,758.34 x .70 (70%) =S88,030.84 APPLICATION OF FORMULA: 88,030.64 = $44,015.42 2 • POPULATION HALF VALUATION HALF TOTAL Richfield: $44,015.42 x .68=$ 29,930.49 + $44,015.42 x .50= $22,007.71 =$51,938.20 ® Eden Praire:$44,015.42 x .32=$ 14,084.93 + $44,015.42 x .50= $22,007.71 = 36,092.64 TOTALS: $ 44,015.42 + 44,015.42 =$813,030.84 Eden Prairie's derived Share = $36,092.64 per year for 1983 Eden Prairie's exclusive share 3,264.00 per year for 1983 GRAND TOTAL EDEN PRAIRIE RECURRING COST FOR 1983: $39,356.64 In conclusion, one can see that a large amount of judgement has been applied to the development of this proposed cost sharing basis. It must be remembered that these costs account for a continuation of the services available now at Richfield without any added personnel costs whatsoever. If this manning level proves inadequate at any time during 1983, the User's Board will have to consider increasing manpower in either the part-time or full-time categories or both and the increased cnsts for this increase would have to be shared as well. Regarding the judgement applied to determining the 70 portion of the total costs subject to sharing, this is subject to discussion. The component parts of the total are also subject to discussion as is the method, timing and frequency of payment. Please review this proposal thoroughly and the City if Richfield stands ready to IIdiscuss any and all aspects with the City of Eden Prairie. 19`, a • MEMORANDUM • • DATE: April 29, 1982 • • TO: Captain Keith Wall • FROM: Paul Linnce SUBJ: Update on cost information for merged communications. • 1. Approximately two weeks ago, you received a letter from me in which I set forth several proposals, including a proposed cost sharing formula and mechanism and a projection of the 1983 total recurring costs for operating the Communications Center. As you recall, the 1983 recurring costs were projected to he in the vicinity of $130,000.00. Further, it was suggested that only 70% of that figure should be subject to sharing. Still further, it was forwarded that the sharing of this balance figure should he done on the basis of a formula that levied each community proportionately based on population and assessed valuation. The resulting calculations from • the above proposals indicated a projected 1983 Eden Prairie re- curring cost of approximately $39,000. II 2. Several months age, your City retained Mr. Ward M. Montgomery to conduct an engineering study of the feasibility of and cost project- ions for extending the current Richfield system to Eden Prairie. 1 spent several hours last Friday (April 23) meeting with Ward and reviewing the draft of the report he will be submitting to you. iie. is out of town this week, but I have had further phone contact with him. It appears as if the final report will he in your hands not later than ;jay 14th. in the interim, based on my conversations with Ward, I am now in a position to provide some fairly good working estimates as to the capital expenses necessary prior to the day of • the switchover. Detail of these projections follows, but by way of summary, several comments must he made: 1 . I have provided two estimates for each category of expense. One is for the list price of parts and materials , where they can he established, and the other is our hest stuess of what • the most favorable pricing we could hope to ohta n would he. in each e :I;c, I specify what must happen in order for us to ohtain the hest price. • 2. Some of the cost factor: arc somewhat out of our control. For example, any modifications necessary to the Bloomington water tank at Rich Road and Normandale Rd. are unknown at this time [such as increasing support for the roof of the tank or erecting a ' -hack" at the site). I -1 • gy -19J 1 • CAPITAL li IJIPMI'.NT COST PROJECTIONS: UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL LIST LIST BEST BEST 1. Change Fl Transmit/Receive $164.00 $3608.00 $81.81 $1,800 elements for 22 El'PI) mobiles. Commentary_ 'o gget[lie "best", the county must permit us to obtain and have them install "remanufactured" crystals rather than GE factory and we must round up enough • crystals to send in to be re- .manufactured prior to Day I. 2. Change Fl Transmit/Receive 117.00 2925.00 80.00 2,000 elements in 25 EPPD portables. Commentary: Same as for mobiles. 3812.50 3,812.50 3. All modifications necessary to make Richfield paging system compatible with EPPSD pagers on police and fire channels without any 2 pagers having same codes. • Commentary:. Based on a detailed verbal quote from Capitol Elec. (Motorola shop) on 4/28/82. 4. Change Fl Transmit/Receive 164.00 2788.00 81.82 1,391 .0' elements in 17 LP FD mobiles. Commentary_ These arc EF Johnson Transeiim 11 radios and we are assuming the GE price. In order to get the "best" the same scenario would have to apply as with GE mobiles. 5. Change Fl Transmit/Receive in 14 117.0(1 1989.00 80.00 1,120.0" FED Portables. Commentary: Same as police port. 6. Modify EPPSD base station at 7900 500.(1(1 50O.n+ Mitchell Road to he: VI : 151.205 'f/R (New fire main) F2: 154.295 T/R (Mutual Aid) F3: 155.790 T/R Sow police main) Commentary: 'loslly labor plus the addition of one receiver. 1- -j'n l-- UNIT TOTA1. UNIT TOTAL LIST LIST REST BEST 7. Install 2 complete police and $4,000 $8,000 $2,800 $5,601) fire satellite receiver sites. 1 near Flying Cloud and 1 on the new Dell Road water tower. • • Commentary: This could be hard. Tor ilie-"hest" to occur; we • would have to get Motorola to sell us 2 channel satellite units at the same price they • bid them to us for in May, 1980, plus whatever across the board price increases they have had in the intervening 22 months. • We have assumed 25% here and based on some conversations ' with Motorola, our assumption that they might just extend these prices was met with the comment, "It would not he unreasonable • to ask us to do that.". 8. Obtain and install new 100W 4,800 4,800 3,450 3,45U Motorola MICOR tone controlled fire main base station at the Bloomington tower site. 1 Commentary: Same argument as above. This unit is needed as our existing fire main hase is • DC current controlled and you cannot control a DC control base station at a remote site, as this one would be. The fire main currently in use would become the new fire standby station and be located at Richfield making is DC yontrollable. 9. Relocate main Police base to 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Bloomington tower site. Can he done as this is not a DC controlled base station. Commentary: Mostly lnhor and some modiTications to unit. -----------_----�__--- —.-•--_- TOTALS: $30,922.70 $22,173. NOTE: The above figures assume day I operation on a simplex (not repeated police channel and a simplex fire channel . They also assume that no changes (or at least no changes costing anything) would he male for Police Ch2 and Dire Ch 2 in 01' mohIles And portables. They also do not inclOde any Of the site dove lopmcnt or tower ii'Sts for what ever needs to he dime for a tower :it the )Bloomington site. -3 • Now, if the decision is made to implement a repeated no] ice dispatch channel, and if we are succesful in obtaining the previously discussed 1 mobile/portable only talk-in channel, additional costs would be in- curred. These arc: Modify 25 RPSD mobiles on El Transmit LIST: $3500 BEST: $]700 Modify 30 RPSD portables on El Trans. LIST: 2100 REST: 1500 Added cost for converting RPSD main L]ST: ]800 BEST: 1800 police base into a Repeater base. Modify old RPSD fire standby to be LiST: 2100 PEST: 2100 repeater control station to enable control of repeater in the event of phone line fault to Bloomington site. TOTAL TO ADD REPEATER: LIST: $9500 BEST: $7100 Finally, the matter of site development and tower structure at the proposed Bloomington water tank site needs attention. This is hjhl� speculative at this time. We have received verbal approval from tl e Bloomington Cit) Manager to use the site, but until we get a close look at the site, it is unknown whether or not the roof of the tank would support the guyed 60' tower we would install or whether or not the 11 underground mechanical "room" at the site would he adequate for housing the transmitters/receivers for the site. Nevertheless, my hest guess at this early date would he that site development and a tower would cost between $2,500 and $4,000. CAPITAL COSTS SUMMARY: REST POSSIBLE COSTS WORST CASE COSTS Mobiles, pagers, $22,173.50 $30,922.50 bases, etc. Adding repeater 7,100.00(*) 9,500.00 Tower work 2,500.00 4 ,000.011 TOTALS: $31,773.50 $14,422.50 (*) An argument could he made that that portion of the $7,100/9,500 attributable to changing Richfield mobiles/portables to access the repeater proposed should he Richfield's rests since it would not he mandatory for Richfield to change but if they wanted to take advantage of the repeater they could change. 1f this argument sells, the $31,773.50 would reduce to $27, 1-3.50. Further, if the decision is made to star simplex (non-repeated), the $31 773 so .11 101Id go down to $21,673.5I) This is the figure I would use if 1 were you of this time, since Ic lair's 1,nntc that r.7 «ell •�ucce0,1 at getting i rope'lier .roll; to any event , it i-: not. mand:i iarc for li;y I operdtirnr". Iiiriher'more, I would use the `'Rest ease" figure J • because I) I am an optomist on matters such as these and 2) I believe many of the needed events will fall in our favor, if not all of them. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION From the preceding, you can see that the capital costs should be in the vicinity of $25,000 for a non-repeated system. Earlier we established that the 1983 recurring costs should he in the vicinity of $39,000. This would mean a total of $64,000 from Eden Prairie to get up and runninl. and pay for the first year's share of operating the system. Based on our prior discussions, we have agreed that there is a potential for agreement on some sort of first year reduction in Eden Prairie's recurring cost share, in consideration of the extraordinary first year start-up costs. Further, we have agreed that d framework for discussion exists around the potential for a cost deferment option for Eden Prairie for a portion of the first year recurring costs. Therefore, Richfield proposes the following cost arrangment: For capital start up: EDEN PRAIRIE PAYS APPROX. $25,000 For 1983 recurring : EDEN PRAIRIE PAYS $30,500, of which $20,S00 is due and payable in quarterly installments during 1910 and $10,000 is due and payable along with the regular first quarter of 198.4 payment. For 1984 recurring : The cost sharing formula based on population and assessed valuation will apply. Finally, a caveat must he made clear. Rased on earlier discussions, the 704. figure of the S130,000 total used for budget purposes is now, and can only be an estimate. he and you will not know until almost the end of 1983 whether or not this is an equitable formula for either City. fhcre mur.t he ,agreement that ;It: , I r. i" .:iii t' t I, le lost iota and discussion prior to finial i` inp . .,"t arran:,m, nt for 1951 . • Richfield would be comfortable with a Kati, aerutrint charge to ' Eden Prairie of $56,S00 with the :Ihovc ,leis Fred nawment :rhe,liile. with the under:tantiiop that the IiEst noar of aetnal rnrrations will pivo us a better opltnrt initw to anal... tlt•• actual proportional utili :tlinit of the combined ,:: stem between ur two 'Mill 'ition... The r ,tlt•, of thin analysi, can be the b:rHs: (,,r 0,1ahlt bin" a en't'e ai nra+ uiJ'"r ^yui + .i! In htop,,a t I,0n:11 , , :t •ha i it fornnil:1 f r l,a° 1 n,.} .,I, r,ln •it ,.,• i •. 5 `( Hopefully, the• preceding information will meet your needs at this stage. I must stress again the speculative nature of a numl•.cr of the identified capital costs. One never really knows for sure how much the,te things will cost until orders are placed and/or firm specifications are prepared for the items/work in question. This is not to say that we: will not succeed it getting the prices quoted, it is only to say that no person could guarantee today that these or any other prices will he obtained. Please feel free to contact me if there is anything else that I can do to assist you in this process. I am looking forward to moving ahead on this project with you and your staff. cc: Karl Nollcnhergcr Tom Morgan Jack Hacking Car) Jullie • i 9 I -6- May 4, 1982 it CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 82-10 ORDINANCE CHANGING THE STREET NAMES IN THE MAJOR CENTER AREA BE IT ORDAINED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The street names within the Major Center Area shall be changed as follows: Schooner Blvd. to Eden Prairie Center Drive Valley View Road (from I-494 to 8aker Road) to Wm. Wells Lane Valley View Road (from 8aker to Mitchell) to St. Andrews Drive First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on May 4, 1982, and finally read, adopted, and ordered published at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the 18th day of May, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: ' SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 96, yl • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO, R82-95 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS • VALLEY VIEW ROAD/SCHOONER BLVD. • WHEREAS, the City Engineer, through Rieke, Carroll Muller & Assoc. has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: • • I.C. 51-340A, Utility and street improvements for Valley View Road/ Schooner Blvd. and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NDW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office. • 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Constructidn Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The adver- tisement shall be published for 2 week(s), shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be opened at 9 o'c•iock A.M. on Friday, June 11, 1982, and considered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, June 15, 19B2, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and • filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADDPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 5, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. frane, Clerk