Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/15/1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ' DAY, JUNE 15, 1982 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, George Bentley, Dean Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Cart J. Jutlie; 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 H. Penzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meeting .held Tuesday, May 18., 1982 Page 1017 B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May_25, 1982 Page 1018 1,1. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Set Public Hearing for Vacation of Media Lane and Utility_Easements in CNR Golden Strip for 7:30 PM on July 6, 19B2 B. Approve Metropolitan Waste Control Commission application for Technology Page 1019 Drive Sanitary Sewer System, I.C. 52-010 Ffesolution No. 82-137) C. Removal of Webster House in Staring Lake Park Page 1020 D. Change bid date for City Services Project from June 15, 1982 to June 25, 1982 at 2:00 PM E. Request to approve advertisement for bids for County Road 1 Bike Trail - Page 1021 Highway NI69 to Homeward Hills Road F. "No Parking" restrictions on Mitchell Road from Scenic Heights Road to Page 1022 T.H. 5 (Resolution No. 82-148) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Vacation of Easements on_ Lot 1, Block 2, Starring Lake First Addition Page 1023 Resolution No. 82-144) B. Public Hearing for Feasibilily Re ort of Street Improvements for W. 76th Page 1024 Street (West of Washington Avenue), I.C. 52-031 (Resolution No. 82-13B) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,June 15, 1982 • C. BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS Irevised2by G & D Enterprises. Request to Page 1025 rezone 6.3 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 and preliminary plat approval to construct a 4-story building with 152 apartment units. The property is part of The Preserve PUD 70-04 and may include granting of variances. Located south of Preserve Community Center Barn and North of Neill Lake (Resolution No. 82-129 - PUD Dev.; Ordinance No. 82-14 - rezoning; and Resolution No. 82-130 - prel. plat) D. LEE DATA CENTER by Rauenhorst Corporation. Request for PUD Concept for Page 1060 industrial and open space on 36 acres, rezoning of approximately 20 acres from RM 2.5 to I-5, preliminary plat approval of 36 acres for 1 lot and 3 outlots for the construction of a 200,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, and possible variances. Located south of Shady Oak Road, East of US 169/212, and north of Nine Mile Creek (Resolution No. 82-131 - PUD; Ordinance No. 82-15 - rezoning; and Resolution No. 82-132 - prel. plat) E. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS by Metram Properties Coma . Request for Page 1086 Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low density residential to medium density residential and park/open space uses, PUD Concept for 22 acres of residential and 43 acres of park/open space/ROW, rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for 3 single family and RM 2.5 for 218 condos, preliminary plat of the entire 65 acre site, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located north of Bryant Lake, south of proposed Crosstown 62, and East of I-494 (Resolution No. 82-133 - POD; Ordinance No. 82-I6 - rezoning; Resolution No. 82-I34 - prel. plat; and Resolution No. 82-135 - EAW) r. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 2153 - 2429 Page 1125 VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. GOLOEN STRIP 2ND REPLAT BY CondonLNaegele Realty Company. Request to Page 1131 replat the Golden Strip 2nd, consisting of approximately 48 acres located north of Hwy. 494, south of Smetana Lake, and east of Hwy. 169 (Resolution No. 82-136 - prel. plat) VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 82-11, rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 for Page 1140 I6 acres for Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition byGustafson & Associates and developer's agreement — — — B. Resolution No. 82-146, establishing Public Hearings for the Page 1155 implementation of a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Edenvale Apartments 9 IX. REPOR1S OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members I. Appointment of 1 Representative to the Human Rights & Services Commission to fill an unexpired term to 2/28/83 (Continued from 6/1/B2) 2. _Appointments of officials as designated in Resolution No, 82-126 as Page 1163 follows: Councilmember/Director; Alternate Councilmember/Directorz Administrative Appointed Director; and Administrative Appointed Alternate Director to the Joint Powers Commission (Southwest Suburban Cable Commission) • City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,June 15, 1982 B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Bryant Lake Park Master Plan Page 1165 E. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Award Contract for Kilmer Avenue and Atherton Way Utility Improvements, Page 1166 I.C. 52-013solution No. 82-139) 2. Award Contract for Mitchell Lakes Estates 2nd Addition Street Improve- Page 1167 ments, T.C. 52-D30 (Resolution No. B2-140) 3. Award Contract for Mitchell/Technology Drive, I.C. 52-01D (Resolution Page 1168 �. No. B2-141) 4. Pollution Control Agency Indirect Source Permit (Resolution No. 82-149) Page 1169 5. Award Contract for N.W. Quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Valley Page 1171 View Road, I.C. 51-340A (Resolution No. 82-142) 6. Award Contract for S.W. Quadrant of Prairie Center Drive, I.C. 51-398 Page 1172 Resolution No. 82-147) 7. Award Contract for N.E. Quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Valley Page 1173 View Road, 1.C. 51-308A TResolution No. 82-143T F. port of Finance Director 1.'Clerk's License List Page 1174 X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT. s June 15, 1982 , { CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN CQUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-149 RESOLUTION ASSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PCA INDIRECT SOURCE PERMIT WHEREAS, the proposed Major Center Area improvements require an Indirect Source Permit from the Pollution Control Agency (PCA); and WHEREAS, certain stipulations are being proposed on the Indirect 'Source Permit by PCA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The City of Eden Prairie accepts the proposed condition of the Indirect Source Permit to be issued by PCA that stipulates the City of Eden Prairie will acquire certain residential properties at the end of Leona Road if the homes do not sell as commercial property. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Frane, City Clerk • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 18, 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 Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Ser- vices Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Eug,:ne A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Councilman Edstrom arrived late. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following itLms were added to the Agenda: IX. C. I. Meeting with PCA and IX. E. 3. Twin City Christi,a.n Homes M.I.D.B.'s. — MOTiON: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II: MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council/Human Rights & Services Commission held Tuesday, May 4, 1982. Motion carried with Tangen abstaining, III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Volunteer Firemen's Retirement B. Motion to approve the new Precinct boundaries and Resolution No. 82-114 establishing_polling places C. Edenvalm Industrial Park 6th Addition by Richard W. Anderson. Request to replat Lot. 4, Mock 2,Edcnvale liidustriai ark 4th Addition and Lot 8, Block 1, Eden- vale Industrial Park 4th Addition into 5.9 acre lot to he called Edenvale_ Indus_ trial Park 6th Addition. Located at the northeast end of Conanerce Way-Pe-solu- tion No. 82-110 - final plat) • /3) y , City Council Minutes -2- May 18, 1982 D. Clerk's License List • E. Receive feasibilityreport for West 76th (west of Washington Avenue) and set Public hearing for 7_302..m., June 15, 1982, I.C. 52-031TResolution No. 82-104) F. Ajprovejlans and specifications for Mitchell Road and Technology Drive Im- provements and set bici opening for June 11, 1982, at 1:00 p.m., I.C. 52-010 (Resolution No.82-105) G. Approve Ilans and specifications for Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd Addition (west of SuaerAmerica) and set bid opening date for June 11, 1982, at • 2:00 p.m.., I.C. 52-030 Desolution No. 82-106) H. Ajaprove_plans and specifications for Atherton Way and Kilmer Avenue Utility Improvements and set bid opening for June 10, 1982, at 10:00 a.m. (Resolu- tion No.82-107) I. Set Public Hearing for Vacation of Easements on Lot 1, Block 2, Starring Lake First Addition for June 15, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. J. Approve MWCC permit application for Sanitay Sewer construction on connection with Valley View Road/Prairie Center Drive, I.C. 51-340A Resolution No. 82-108) K. Approve Final Plat for Wooddale Baptist Church (Resolution No. 82-117) L. Receive 1007 petition for Lorence 1st and 2nd Addition Improvements and author- ize plans and specifications be prepared (Resolution No. 82-112 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve items A - L on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hold Public Hearing for vacation of easements in Cardinal Creek 1st and 2nd Additions JResolution Nos. 113, 115 and 116) 1) CARDINAL CREEK 4TH ADDITION Iby Cardinal Creek Associates. Request to replat Outlot B and Lot 4, Block 3, Cardinal Creek, 1st Add., and vacate the utility and drainage easements (Resolution No. 82-101 - plat) 2) CARDINAL CREEK 5th ADDITION by Gregory D. Gustafson & Associates. Re- quest to replat Lots 1D and 11, Block 2, Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition and vacate utility and drainage easements (Resolution No. 82-102 - plat) Director of Public Works Dietz said the purpose of this vacation is to accommo- date a relocation of certain lot lines within Cardinal Creek 1st and 2nd Addi- tions. Dietz stated the easements are not needed for utilities in the area and would cause title problems in the future if not vacated at this time, /n11 • i�. City Council Minutes -3- May 18, 1982 Councilman Edstrom arrived. The request relating to Cardinal Creek 4th Addition would: a) replat Lot 4, Block 3, and Outlot G into one lot and create a new easterly utility ease- ment; b) replat Lot 3, Block 2 to create a new Outlot B as a pathway location along its easterly side; c) vacate the eastern utility easements on Lot 4, Block 3; and d) vacate the eastern utility easement on Lot 4, Block 2. (Lot 4 was replatted as part of the 2nd Addition and the utility easement was never vacated.) Outlot B (future asphalt path location) was conveyed to the City as per the requirement within the Developer's Agreement. Prior to the combining of Lot 4, Block 3, and Outlot B, the City will have to convey Outlot B to Cardinal Creek Associates. This combination will provide • a wider lot desired by the builders. The pathway originally designated to be constructed upon Outlot B is proposed by the developer to be moved to Lot 3, Block 2. The request relating to Cardinal Creek 5th Addition would: a) replat the common lot line of Lots 10 and 11, Block 2; b) vacate the east side lot line utility easement of Lot 11, Block 2; and c) vacate the west side lot line utility easement of Lot 10, Block 2. Planning Director Enger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed both vacation requests at its meeting on May 10, 1982, and had recommended approval subject to the recommendations contained in the May 4, 1982, Staff Report and action of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the requests at its May 17, 1982, meeting and had recommended approval with the following condition: that the 10' trail easement be cleared, graded, and filled to the back of the lot line. Greg Gustafson, developer, spoke to the requests. Tangen asked if the Parks. Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had any recommendations regarding the dedication of the trail easement. Lambert said it only addressed the utility easements. Redpath said it was his recollection the Topview residents did not want a trail easement through that portion. Tangen thought there was a trail easement to the south at one time because it might be needed in the future. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 82-101, approving the preliminary plat of Car- dinal Creek 4th Addition including the provision for a 10' trail right-of- way. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to continue action on Resolution No. 82-102, approving the preliminary plat of Cardinal Creek 5th Addition, to June 1, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. • City Council Minutes -4- May 18, 1982 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Penzel, to continue action on Reso- lution No. 82-113, vacation of drainage and utility easement, (Lot 10, Block 2, Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition and also Lot 11, Block 2, Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition), to June 1, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 82-115, vacation of drainage and utility easement, (Lot 4, Block 3, Cardinal Creek). Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 82-116, vacation of drainage and utility easement, (Lot 4, Block 2, Cardinal Creek now located over a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition.) Motion carried unanimously. B. CARDINAL CREEK 3rd ADDITION by Gustafson & Associates. Request for approval of a preliminary plat and rezoning from Rural to Rr1 6.5 for 16 acres for construction of 1 tri-plex and 17 duplex buildings of the property which is part of Cardinal Creek BUD 72-01. Included in the public hearing on the proposed rezoning will be the consideration of granting of variances pursuant to Sec. I1, Ord. 135 from the provision of said Ordinance appli- cable to the WI 6.5 District. 16 acres located east of Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition and Nine Mile Creek and west of I-494 (Ordinance No. 82-11 - rezoning, and Resolution No. 82-100 - preliminary plat) Ron Krueger, representing the proponents, addressed the request. He stated grading will have to be done in the center of the site. As many trees will be saved as is possible. Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission had reviewed this pro- posal at its April 26, I982 meeting and had recommended approval of the prelim- inary plat and rezoning subject to the conditions outlined in the April 21, 1982 Staff Report, and other conditions as stated in the April 26, 1982 Planning Commission minutes. Director of Public Works Dietz said there is concern about adequate flow of water in the area; this was discovered while flushing the water main which serves this portion of Cardinal Creek. One method of alleviating this situation would be to loop the system. Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the proposal at its May 3, 1982 meeting and had voted to approve the request subject to the conditions included in the April 21, 1982 Staff Report and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Bentley asked about the water problem. Dietz explained it is not a question of water pressure, but one of volume at a certain pressure. City Manager Jullie indicated a more thorough analysis will he made and this will be further checked with the Fire Marshal. • )�r � City Council Minutes -5- May 18, 1982 Penzel asked about looping to the north. Dietz said that is in the plans for the future. Greg Gustafson explained ownership to the north and how looping might be accomplished through the portion of the property under his ownership/control. Kevin Kuester, 13124 Cardinal Creek Road, said he is concerned about the one large tree which would be in the center of the roadway. Gustafson said they hope to have the road split around the tree -- they will first see if the tree is healthy as it was damaged by lightning a couple of years ago. It was noted that this particular tree is an oak tree and should be saved because there are many elms in the area which are being lost due to Dutch elm disease. Oscar Miller, 6521 Baker Road, said he owns some of the pr>perty to the north. His concern was about the traffic which would be generated by the duplex units over an easement through his property. Gustafson said the easement would not be used at this time. Penzel said this situation will change in the future as more development occurs -- the easement will be Used at some time in the future. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue this item to the June 1, 1982, meeting of the Council. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 1708 - 1937 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 1708 - 1937. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom (abstained on #1872), Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried. VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Flying Cloud AirLort Advisory Commission_ - recommendations to change termin- ology in Ordinance No. 78-36, Ordinance establishing the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission of Eden Prairie. City Manager Jullie noted the May 6, 1982 Memo from the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission to the Mayor and Council outlining the reasons for the change. He said the proposed change will help insure representation by resi- dents and still provide the possibility for representation by FTC which is presently the only major business at the Airport which is not a member of the Businessmen's Association. Les Lewis, member of the Flying Cloud Airport Commission, said the Commission desired to retain the term "Airport Businessmen's Association" and to add the following: " to consist of at least one member to represent the Metropolitan • Airports Commission, no less than two members representing the Flying Cloud Businessmen's Association to be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council and four members at least three of whom are residents of Eden Prairie and represent the comuunity's interest." (()i'/ • City Council Minutes -6- May 18, 1982 Bentley felt it was discriminatory to say that only members of the Business- men's Association could he on the Commission. Penzel said perhaps the word "Association" could be deleted. Lewis further explained the rationale behind the proposed change. He said the main reason for the change was to make cer- tain there were three members who were residents of Eden Prairie. Bentley said he disliked seeing restrictions placed on whom could be appointed to a commission; he did not like the fact that it restricted membership to members of the Businessmen's Association. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Penzel, to approve the recommended change in Ordinance 78-36, Ordinance establishing the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission in Eden Prairie. Tangen said he was comfortable with the Ordinance as it presently reads. • He questioned whether the number of Eden Prairie residents should be 3 or • 4. Redpath stated the ultimate decision as to appointees rests with the Council; past and present Councils have taken this into consideration when making appointments. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Penzel, to strike the words "Businessmen's Association" and replace them with "businesses." Amendment to the motion was defeated 1 - 4. Edstrom said he favors four Eden Prairie residents as representatives as opposed to having airport connections; he will support the motion: VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried with Bentley voting no. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Edenvale Land Alteration Permit Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing Eden Land Sales, Inc., addressed the reasons for the request. Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission would review this request at its meeting on May 19, 1982. Staff finds the request acceptable. Director of Public Works Dietz said it comes down to a question of aesthetics. He said the borrow material is necessary for Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road projects. Krier showed pictures of the area and renderings of how the area will look once the grading is completed. Tangen expressed concern about mass grading in the area; he would like some idea as to what future use of this area might be as well as a time table as to when things might happen. Krier explained there would be a period of time necessary to stabilize the area after the grading has taken place. It is the intention of the developer to begin market- ing the property for development right away. S bl� • • City Council Minutes -7- May 18, 1982 Bentley expressed concern about the approach used in the case. He would like to see specific proposals before mass grading takes place. Penzel said it appears to be a question of timing. Krier explained the demand for dirt is now. The developer wants to borrow based on a finished product. They desire to have a salvageable piece when they are through. Krier stated the hill is being eroded and cannot be built on as it is. Penzel asked Enger what the procedure might be with the Planning Commission. Enger stated there are two possibilities: 1) the Commission could act on the request at its meeting on May 19th and then it would be before the Council on June 1; or 2) the Planning Commission may feel there is not enough information available and might continue the request. • Tangen asked if there had b'en a commitment by Edenvale for fill for the park site to the north of this property. Director of Community Services Lambert said there had been an oral commitment by Mr. Peterson. Tangen said that by allowing this borrow the City is in essence giving away the fill for the park site. Lambert concurred. Redpath asked if the amount which the County needs is included in the 25,000 cubic yards under discussion. Krier said the County's needs would be above that. Penzel asked how many cubic yards would be involved to do the whole works. Krier said about 300,000 cubic yards. Tangen said :re is concerned with the view from the east of this hill. He would not like to see it destroyed prematurely. Penzel suggested that only enough borrow be taken out now to meet current commitments. Tangen asked if it would be possible for Staff to draft such an agreement. Dietz asked if this would be for 25,000 cubic yards or for that plus the additional 100,000 cubic yards needed by the County. City Attorney Pauly said a written permit can describe the area to be excavated by elevation and coordinates and a map can show in three dimensions the specific area. Dietz said Krier can show this by contours. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to allow removal of material up to 125,000 cubic yards of which 100,000 is to be used for Baker Road and 25,000 for projects outlined by Eden Land Sales, Inc.; there is to be no removal of material from the eastern slope; the crown of the hill is to be preserved; no excavation is to be done below the elevations proposed in the exhibit shown this evening; the western slope is to be terraced; and the necessary fill for the tot lot to be constructed in the northern part of Edenvale Park is approved. Motion carried with Edstrom abstaining due to a client relationship with one of the beneficiaries. VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 82-06, rezoning Lake Eden Carriage Homes from Rural to fill 6.5 for 64 townhouses and developer's agreement. Northeast cor- ner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Darnel Road. IOI,/ � , tl 4 • City Council Minutes -8- May 18, 1982 Penzel called attention a letter from Sam Hopson, 8770 Darnel Road, in which • he noted his concerns. Edstrom asked if Steve Ryan, Zachman Homes, had seen Hopson's letter. Ryan said he had but had not discussed it with Hopson. Ryan said they are willing to plant barberry and 6' - 8' evergreen trees which should deter children from entering Hopson's backyard. Redpath asked if Ryan would be agreeable to a two-year bond covering the plantings. Ryan said that is a part of the Developer's Acreement. Hopson said he thought Ryan's suggestion regarding the vegetation was a good one and he would be willing to accept that. Penzel said the City Council is committed to the concerns expressed in Hopson's May 17th letter. Willard Daluge, 8795 Darnel Road, said there will be 32 - 64 vehicles per day which will be coming out onto Daniel and will adversely affect his property. Agnes Deluge, 8795 Darnel Road, said she thought there should be a cul-de-sac within the development which would eliminate the Darnel access. Penzel stated the Council takes into consideration all comments and concerns and, based on the legalities, takes action. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to give 2nd Reading to Ordinance No. 82-06, rezoning Lake Eden Carriage Homes from Rural to RM 6.5 for 64 townhomes. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: T•angen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the Developer's Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. Ryan noted they would like to have snow removal not limited to disposal on the east side of the property but also included would be the ability to have the snow trucked off the,sit�. B. 2nd Reading o f Ordinance No. 82-10, considering alternate street names for Schooner Boulevard MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to give 2nd Reading to Ordinance No. 82-10, changing the street names in the Major Center Area. Motion carried with Penzel voting "no." IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. !Appointment of 1 member to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission of Eden Prairie to fill an unexpired term to 2/28/85 The names of Jean Bitter, John Luce, and William Stanley were placed in nomination. Upon tabulation of the ballots Jean Bitter was selected to serve on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. )Di 1 I • City Council Minutes -9- May 18, 1982 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to cast a unanimous ballot for Jean Bitter. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Penzel - a) announced that South Hennepin Community Services will conduct a tour at noon Friday of the new Parkview West facility; and b) a letter had been received from Ernie Alexander of Emily, Minnesota, asking the Mayor to proclaim Friday, May 28, as "Dance for Poland Day" in Eden Prairie; the purpose of which is to raise funds for the purchase of Minnesota canned meats and other high pro- tein Minnesota foods to be shipped to Poland for distribution to the needy. • • MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to instruct the Mayor to proclaim Friday, May 28, 1982, as "Dance for Poland Day" in Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager 1. Meeting with PCA City Manager Jullie noted he, Chris Enger, Roger Pauly, and Larry Hicks (Donahue) had spent about four hours this afternoon in a meeting with the PCA. The major portion of the meeting was spent discussing the volumes involved and the permits which have been granted. City files indicated 3100 acre feet were available in the kettle while the PCA has used the figure of 3800 acre feet. As of July 1, 1981, 2752 acre feet of waste had been emptied into the landfill. If the City added an additional 356 acre feet to its 3100 figure - the 356 representing the volume which the PCA stated they authorized to provide better drain- age via the top slope - then 704 acre feet was available as of July 1, 1981 or 1.5 years. PCA suggested it was more reasonable to use the 3800 acre feet figure or 3.2 years. PCA stated it would like to use these figures to formulate a permit. If this is not done, the environ- mental review process will take too long and the existing problems will not be mitigated. PCA said 8FI would be willing to do an EIS. PCA said it will send the City a draft of the permit amendment. Council discussion centered on methods of procedure. Edstrom asked if a problem were to exist, how would the City go about finding it particularly since the hydrological data will take nine months to study. Enger said he thinks there is a problem now with the ground water. He and Hicks and other Staff members had walked along the landfill and had found areas which are questionable. Jullie said the amended draft from PCA should be available to the City in about one week. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to instruct City Attorney Pauly to take appropriate action once the draft amendment is made avail- able. Motion carried unanimously. 1 • City Council Minutes -10- May 18, 1982 C. Report of City Attorney There was none. D. Report of City Engineer 1. Approve Final Plat for Lake Eden East (Resolution No. 82-109) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 82-109, approving final plat of Lake Eden West. Motion carried unani- mously. • 2. pj)rove_plans and sLecifications for Public Safety, Public Works and Parks & kecreation buildings and set bid opening for June 15, 1982, at 10:00 a.m. lResolution No. 82-111T Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed plans and specifications for the public safety, public works and parks & recreation buildings. Bentley asked that, in the future, the Council be given plans of buildings under consideration by the City. Penzel said highlighted excerpts of the plans would be acceptable. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 82-111, approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of Finance Director • 1. Proposals for Insurance Finance Director Frane addressed his memorandum of May 13, 1982, in which the insurance proposals were outlined. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to accept the proposal of the New Horizon Agency for the umbrella policy and the M.E. Lane Agency for the balance of the insurance. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request from Burdell Wessels Finance Director Frane noted an April 13, 1982 letter from Corporate Risk Managers, Wessels company, requesting to provide insurance services to the City. Frane recommended the Council engage this firm to review and make recommendations in the areas of coverages, deductibles and pre- miums. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to accept the recommendation of Finance Director Frane and to engage Corporate Risk Managers, at a cost not to exceed $1,000 to review and make reconmmendations in the areas of cover- ages, deductibles and premiums. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. joiq City Council Minutes -11- May 18, 1982 3. Twin City Christian Homes MIDB's Finance Director Frane explained this was before the Council because previous Council action had requested its return once the financial feasibility report was received from the accountant. Bruce Farrington, President of Twin City Christian Homes, was present to answer questions as were Clayton Stranlie and another representative of Miller Schroeder and other parties connected to Twin City Christian homes. The concensus of the Council was to take no further action. X. NrW BUSINESS . There was none. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adjourn the meeting at 11:44 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. • 011 IDS. May 17,• 1982 MAY 17 1902 • Wolfgang Fenzel, Mayor City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mayor Penzel: As a member of the Lake Eden Homeowners Association and an Eden Prairie voter and tax payer, I would like to express my feelings and most ser- ious concerns over the Zachman Homes project on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Darnel Road. Of more concern than the project itself, is the manner in which members of the City Council and the City Planning Commission have allowed Zach- man's representatives, Mr. Steven Ryan in particular, to continue to manipulate and insult the intelligence of various L.E.H.A. members, while we attempted to express our viewpoints (however emotionally or unprofessionally) on issues which are certain to affect our property • values, privacy and other convenience factors. When concerned citizens ..ore allowed to spook to '-he issues which ooncerne0 them, Mr. Pvan was granted free reign to negate, minimize, dodge and' in some instances, demonstrate his amusement at our sincere concerns. Mr. Ryan has without doubt done his job well and accomplished his goal (one which I suspect was motivated by more than his humanitarian desires to providing housing for the unfortunate victims of our economy) . He has dazzled the City Council and Planning Commission with slides, statistics (favorable to his interests) and various other highly per- suasive "sales tools." Mr. Ryan's series of well prepared presentations could not have been adequately disputed unless one happend to be in the real estate profession or equally proficient in the art of verbal gym- nastics. Mayor Penzel, it would seem obvious even to the casual onlooker, that Zachman Homes interests do not go beyond the construction of low cost investment/rental housing, which will yield a measurable profit to their organization. I have not seen any voluntary efforts on the part of Zachman Homes to protect or enhance the property adjoining or sur- rounding their project. If this were of any consequence to Zachman, the project would have been built elsewhere, or the buildings would have been upgraded to a level more condusive to an upper, middle in- come neighborhood. Your allowing this low cost investment/rental development in our neighborhood of $100,000 plus homes is a discredit to the standards maintained by the residents of our area. Zachman's • development will prove to be as .such of an ammenity to the Lake Eden Addition as Wi.ndslope is to The Preserve. Of course, we were reminded of our best alternative to this problem at the first Public Hearing held by the City Planning Commission. The Chairperson of the Commission (I do not remember this candid person's fl /,,, Mayor W. Penzel Page 2 • name) informed us that she, a former resident of The Preserve, was "very lucky" to have sold her home soon after being faced with the same situation (Windslope). How fortunate for her that uprooting her family and financing a new home was within her capabilities. Good score for i:achman however, as it illustrated the futility of our efforts, and it became evident that Zachman had already got what they wanted and the rest was academic. It was never possible for us to stop the project from going up. Granted, the change of color scheme was a victory for us. I do find it odd that it was such a big issue, but perhaps Mr. Zachman or his planners have unusual tastes, not to mention their desire to keep the project cost efficient. It makes me wonder if volume discounts or an excess inventory of gray sideing may have been a factor in the difficult resolution of this objection. The trees, landscaping, berms and privacy fencing still appear to be unresolved. I would hope that we will end up with as much land- scaping, berming and/or fencing as is necessary to block this project out of immediate visual range. Mr. Ryan persists in insisting that our yard area will not become a thoroughfare for children who reside in these units. Mr. Ryan, with some confidence (anti 1 hesitate to think of how he personally can make such assurances), states that there will be few, if any children in the complex. Unless he incorporates birth control into the by- laws of the project's homeowners association, I fail to see how he can make these commitments. At the final Public Hearing, I addressed the subject of a fence along the southerly border of my property. Mr. Ryan interpreted the request for a fence as a substitue for landscaping - - it was my intention to suggest the fence in addition to the landscaping. Mr. Ryan appeared to he less than receptive to my request. What bothers me is if Mr. Ryan double talks his way into putting up a privacy fence in lieu of landscaping, then I must bear the financial burden of putting in trees or whatever, to detract from what may be mistaken for a miniturized version of the Great Wall of China. It is this simple, I do not want to see these units, and I do not want residents of these units having walk-over access to my backyard. I know Zachman will not finance a forest, but I do expect a recogniz- able effort to be made which includes both trees and a fence. The most important issue we still challenge is the project's access on Darnel Road. You were informed that the City Planners Office had promised the Daluges that this would not happen. Your remark was "you should have got this in writing". Now that we have twice estab- lished the attitude of the members of the City Planning Commission, we now ask for, in writing, that an access onto Darnel WILL NOT cause the following. 1. Headlights from the Darnel exit directly hitting the windows of surrounding homes. (Mr. Ryan was less than thorough - somewhat /4ti r 7 .0 Mayor W. Penzel Page 3 unusual - in his presentation to move the planned driveway by only a few feet. Coming straight out, the headlights would not hit the Daluges house directly, but they would light up the remainder of the neighbor- hood as the cars turn. Further, Mr. Ryan was not informed as to the candlepower of headlights, but I can assure you, a direct beam is an annoyance and irritating even at long distances.) 2. A safety problem as a result of parked cars. Children will be in full view of motorists using Darnel Road from the time these child- ren leave the curb until they cross the street enroute to the school bus stop, the ball field, friend's homes, etc. 3. The driver's of vehicles exiting the project, making the unlikely impractical decision to turn right to reach Anderson Lake Parkway. 4. The traffic noises of vehicles entering and exiting creating a constant disturbance to the present residents of the neighborhood. 5. Traffic delays at the stop sign located at the intersection of Darnel Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway. 6. The vast majority of Zachman homes residents deciding NOT to use Anderson Lakes Parkway as their primary point of exit or entrance. What do you think Mayor Penzel? Surely it would be reasonable to have Mr. Ryan put all of this in writing. Mr. Ryan is so confident of his "feelings", points of logic and findings from other similar Zachman ventures, that he presents them as facts to the City. He should have no objection to making these assurances in written form. Perhaps you would ask why such an assinine request? As I have just stated, Mr.. Ryan has already given these assurances, verbally at every hearing to date, with the possible exception of ##2, and since we know what can happen "if you don't get it in writing", it really isn't such an assinine request is it? Or how about considering another option. Inform Mr. Ryan that we do not care what he does with his snow; we do not care how many cars he can park inside the confines of the property; or what happens in the future based on the devine wisdom of his homeowners association - - just have him instruct his staff to replan this project where entrance to and exit from is accomplished on Anderson Lakes Parkway only. It is my hope that you can see the merits of our wanting to protect our secluded, single family dwelling environment as much as possible. We ask your help and the support of the members of the Council in prevent- ing this investment housing from detracting from our neighborhood. Since it must be a part of it, we would like the complex "isolated" to a reasonable degree by adequate landscaping and appropriate traffic flow. Much of this letter states my feelings on not only the issues, but my impressions of how they were handled - or mishandled. What is done with the land between my property and the project is, of course, of little consequence to anyone but me. The problem of the exit onto /OI,/ 'A • • d Mayor W. Penzel Page 4 Darnel Road, however, is of great importance to almost every resident in the immediate area. The vast majority are opposed to the location of this exit and support its relocation to Anderson Lakes Parkway. If I have been unable to convince you in this most lengthy letter that we still have valid concerns, could we please arrange a meeting of our Association and the appropriate members of the City Council, in the absence of a representative of Zachman Homes? Thank you for your time and consideration. • Very truly yours, Sam L. Hopson 8770 Darnel Road cc: Mr. Murray Blair, President Lake Eden Home Owners Association • -Mr,-Stevan-Ryan • -Zae-hman-Homes • - • • • • /o/'j `� UNAPPROVED MINUTES • SPECIAL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1982 6:00 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, Chief Building Inspector Wayne Sanders, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Codifiers Rodger Jensen and Lori O'Reilly ROLL CALL: All members were present I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the Agenda under IV. New Business: A. Discussion on Schrieber Bill and B. Payment of Fees for Codification. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the Agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. REVIEW OF INSURANCE PROPOSALS The Council reviewed Finance Director Frane's memo of May 19 regarding insurance proposals. Agents representing the M.E. Lane Agency and Transcontinental Brokers, Inc. were present and addressed the Council regarding their proposals. Mr. Lane explained the reasons for the reduction from his previous quotation which resulted from discussions with the carrier about the initiation of safety programs which resulted in reduced premiums. Staff indicated that the bids were essentially equal and that the dividend payment could vary substantially in any event. Also, Staff indicated the M.E. Lane Agency has provided excellent service in the past and that the previous Staff recommendation of award to the M.E. Lane Agency still stands. Mr. Frane indicated that the study by Mr. Wessels, insurance consultant, recently authorized by the Council will review the City's insurance program and make appro- priate suggestions for changes prior to the next request for insurance proposals. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, that the Council not reconsider its previous action on May 18th regarding insurance proposals, except to approve Mr. Lane's reduced premium quote per letter of May 20, 19B2. Motion carried unanimously. III. POST-DRAFT CONFERENCE ON CODIFICATION Council and Staff 'reviewed suggestions, concerns and questions from Rodger Jensen and Lori O'Reilly, codification consultants. Appropriate changes were made as directed by the Council. Chapters 1 through 10 were approved for final drafting by the consultants. The Council set the date of June 29, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. for 1 /0IS • City Council Minutes -2- May 25, 1982 the post-draft conference for Chapter 11 and any required changes for Chapter 12. A target date of August 3, 1982, was set for adoption of the Code. IV. NEW BUSINESS • A. Schreiber Bill City Manager Jullie advised the Council that certain property owners have inquired about utilization of the recently passed Schreiber Bill for acquisition of portions of their properties which lie within the TH 212 corridor. Council directed Staff to bring this to their attention in the near future together with a recommendation concerning designation of this corridor westerly to County Road 4. B. Payment of Fees for Codification MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to authorize payment to Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc. in the amount of $5,375. The balance • of the fee ($5,375) to be paid upon Council adoption of the Code. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. V. ADJOURNMENT • The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. by unanimous consent. 1 • 10101 June 15, 1982 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ' HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-137 RESDLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT APPLICATION WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed on Technology Drive requires a connection to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) interceptor system; and WHEREAS, the proposed connection conforms to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Sewer Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to submit an application for "Permit for Connection to or Use of Commission • Facilities" to the MWCC. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 15, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk • /019 • • • MiMORANDIN TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission 111RU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services' DATE: June 2, 1982 SUBJECT: Request for Removal of Webster Mouse in Staring Lake Park In 1971 ,hen the City acquired the Webster property on the north side of Staring Lake ('ark, the City agreed to allow Mr. Webster to continue to ccupy the premises • until December 31, 1974. In 1976, the Director of Community Services sent a letter to Mr. Webster allowing him to continue to use the property for $150 per month subject to a 6O day termination notice by the City. The City has continued to allow Mr. Webster to rent the property feeling that the house provided some security to the Senior Center. It has become obvious . that the house does not provide any security and the deterioration of the house and the surrounds.:; grounds have become an eye sore to the entrance of the Senior Center. Staff recommends providing Mr. Webster with a 60 day notice and to remove the ' house and adjacent buildings as soon as possible after Mr. Webster leaves the property. Staff would then suggest moving the security gate to the Senior Center out to Research Road and providing a fence on either side of the gate that would • restrict automobile movements around the gate. This action would provide better security for the Senior Center, would eliminate the eye sore of tie house, wrecked cars, etc. and would clear the area for the bike trail and cross country ski trails that are being proposed for construction in 1983. BL:md . . • 10620 1 t • • Mi i(tt:\NDUlt T0: Mayor•and City Council - 1URU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Steve Calhoun, Park Planner • DATE: June 9, 1982 • SUBJECT: Advertise for Bids for Bikeway/llikeway (from US 169/212 to homeward Hills Road) Staff requests permission to prepare plans and specifications, as well as advertise :aid receive bids for the County Road 1 Bikeway/llikeway (from US 169/212 to Homeward hills Road). This project will include • grading, placement of rock subbase and revegetation of disturbed areas. The City will be installing the 2 inch asplalt mat. This project would be advertised in the Eden PrairierNews Juneh2ue 4C9 and d !ull. 1 19s2 Bide ':n,.,1d he opened 3viy 14 and F Council on July 20 for approval. Funds sfffor rstthis s project es ect•arep derive • from the 1979 Park Bond Referendum. 'cost 530,000. • SC:md ' i 1 i • 1 .S. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. R82-148 Relating to Parking Restrictions on Mitchell Road S.A.P. 181-104-04 from Scenic Heights Road to Trunk Highway 5 in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 15th day of June, 1982, by the City of Eden Prairie in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City": • W'TNESSETH: WHEREAS, the "City" has planned the improvement of MSAS 104 (Mitchell Road) from Scenic Heights Road to Trunk Highway 5, and, WHEREAS, the "City", wili be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improve- ment of said street, and, WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum strds as f ase previously adopted for such Municipal State Aid Streets and that approval proposed-construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must, therefore, be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions, and, WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be necessary prerequisite to the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid Project in the "City", has been determined, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: That the "City", shall prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on both sides at all times. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzei, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • / (77. June 15. 1982 . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82- 144 UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2 STARRING LAKE FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain utility easement ' described as follows: An existing 10 foot wide utility easement running across Lot 1, Block 2, Starring Lake First Addition approximately 130 feet southwest of the northeast lot line. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 18, 1982, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, the public utility companies, namely Northwestern Bell, Minnegasco and Northern States Power have indicated no interest in said utility easement; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easement is not necessary and has no interest to the public, therefore, shculd be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESDLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said utility easement as above described is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice Of completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 18, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • • June 15, 1982 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. R82-138 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR WEST 76th ST. • (WEST OF WASHINGTON AVENUE) WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 18 day .of May, 1982,fixed the 15 day of June, 1982, as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements. I.C. 52-031, Street Improvements to West 76th Street West of Washington Avenue 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 15th day of June, 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF [DEN 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 June 15, 1982. • • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • Tan D. Frane, Clerk • • la.2y • • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath A. BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS (revised), by G & D Enterprises. Request to rezone 6.3 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 and pre- liminary plat approval to construct a 4 story building with 152 apartment units. The property is part of The Preserve PUD 70-04 and may include granting of variances. Located south of Preserve Community Center Barn and north of Neill Lake. A public hearing. The Planner stated that this item had been reviewed by the Commission on March 22, 1982 and the Commission recommended denial with a 3:2 vote. The proponent has made revisions and resubmitted for review and approval. The original plan did not go before the City Council. Beaman stated that the letter from Richard M. Smith of Miller Construction dated May 3, 1982 should be made part of the minutes. Richard Smith stated that Mr. Steve Ludwig of Miller Construction was also present. He stated that the building will consist of 152 units. He addressed the concerns which were raised at the previous meeting when the project was recommended denial. He also addressed a petition received from surrounding homeowner's at the March 22, 1982 meeting. He stated that the original parking will be made green space with parking to be placed parallel to the tennis courts. He also reviewed an agreement made with the Preserve homeowners at the time they moved in regarding the Preserve recreational facilities. He stated that trash compactors will be on the lower level of the garages and stated that the noise level in the garage will be reduced by placing six small units around the building instead of one. The buffer between Ridgewood Condominiums and the site will remain as is. The building will be four levels, elevators, with underground parking. The present tax base of the property is under $9,000 and expects it to rise to $150,000 upon completion. The Preserve has agreed'to complete all pathway systems in The Preserve which will be in a form of a bond. Larry Peterson, The Preserve, stated that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had previously stated that the path on the south side of Neill Lake should not be black-topped. The Commission then agreed with the Parks, Recreation and Nat- ural Resources Commission recommendation. Smith stated that the cost of construction for parking will be split half and half between The Preserve and G & D Enterprises. The Planner stated that at the previous meetings held, the major problem was the massiveness of the building. Ludwig stated that they have selected a dense structure which is consistent with the ordinance, 4 stories tall, garage under the building, and stated that by constructing a building of this magnitude, more green space can be provided. He also reviewed the site lines. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 5/20/82 and stated that the previous staff report dated 3/18/82 was also included in that report. He stated that preliminary review has been received from the Watershed District. He stated that there are more units in The Preserve than 400 but stated that 400 represents a majority of units in The Preserve. 102c Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 24, 1982 • Marhula asked how the idea of a marina came about. Peterson replied that some original Preserve plans showed a marina on Neill Lake. He felt it was important to provide that for the residents. Hallett asked if usage is allowed on the lake and if so, if motors are allowed. The Planner stated that the Department of Natural Resources designates Neill Lake as a natural environment lake which has more restrictions. The Lake was largely man-made and swimming would not be allowed or the use of motors. Hallett then asked if public access will be provided. Peterson replied that a pathway around the lake will connect to City pathways. Torjesen asked what will be the access for 0utlot F and the access for the proposed parking on 0utlot F. Ludwig replied that paths will access to 0utlot F, and there will be an easement across the property to the parking lot. Bearman asked when the homeowner's documents were originally designed. Peterson replied in 1976. Sutliff asked if the single family dwelling on Parcel E would remain. The Planner replied yes. Sutliff asked what percentage of the townhouses which were proposed have been built. Peterson poirted out proposed and existing townhouse-attached units on an updated Preserve Plan. He stated that all single family lots have been built. Sutliff asked the width of the building on Section AA from wall to wall. Ludwig replied 65'. Sutliff asked the pitch on the roof. Ludwig replied approximately 4/1L. lie then asked the height between floors. Ludwig replied 9'. Sutliff asked the elevation of the club house. The Planner replied 820 and rises up to 828 at the north side of the building. Sutliff stated he was concerned with the height of the building from Neill Lake. Bearman asked the usage for Parcel A. Peterson replied that that has been sold to the people who own the land next to it and they are hoping to propose a 30-36 unit building (combining both the land next to Baypoint Manor and Parcel A). Bearman asked the usage for Parcel B. Peterson replied it will serve as part of the parking with the rest of the land being dedicated. Bearman asked if a detailed landscaping plan will be reviewed by the City Staff. The Planner replied yes. Beaman stated that a revised parking plan should be submitted because the dedication of the parking lots are not shown on the plan or in a written form. Bruce Carlson, 894B Neill Lake Road, asked if the fire access on the east side of the site with the knock down barrier, will be used as an access for the recreational facilities. Smith replied that it will be grass covered with an extension from the parking lane to serve the pumps. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 24, 1982 Peter Beucher, 8982A Neill Lake Road, asked if there will be any access to the apartments from the north side, if there will be a common hallway down the length of the building, and felt that people will park in the common Neill Lake recrea- tion parking facilities. Smith replied yes, there is access to the north and yes there is a hallway down the length of the building. He stated that for the people that will live there, there will be a garage included in their rent. Bearman stated that the parking lots for the recreation facilities will belong to the Preserve Homeowner's Association and it is up to them to place restrictions on them. Ludwig stated that the entrances on the back side of the building are only for the apartment renters and the renters will have a key themselves to get • into the parking lot. Visitors will have to ring a buzzer to get in. Cheryl Van Horn, 8940 Neill Lake Road, stated that she felt that there is no real access for people in the Preserve to get down to the lake and felt that the views of the people who live there already will be lost. Smith replied that the amenity from the pool to the lake will remain open and 17 acres of the building will obstruct views. - Peter Beucher asked the distance between the club house and the rear of the building. Smith replied 75' and from the stairway it is 55'. Tom Meyer, 9000 Neill Lake Road asked if the ground by the lake can be used. Smith - replied it can be used for recreation but it is not suitable for a building. '10TION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Hallett seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 --- Tartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of Baypoint Manor Apartments development plan of The Preserve PUD as per the staff reports dated 3/18/82 and _ the letter dated 5/3/82. Marhula seconded. DISCUSSION Sutliff asked the amount of land to have earth work done. Smith replied between 12-15%. Ludwig stated that the building occupys 12-15%, the majority of the site would have some earth work)however the east, side will remain as is. Bearman stated that placing garbage compactors inside the garages is not shown on the plan and asked that it be added. Gartner and Marhula agreed. Torjesen asked that additional parking should be placed according to the plans dated 5/24/82. He also clarified that The Preserve does not have to black top - the path on the south side of Neill Lake as per Parks, Recreation and Natural --: Resources Commission requirements. Gartner and Marhula agreed. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning 6 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 and 2.2 acres from Rural to R1-22 (for the existing farm house only), as per the plan dated 3/15/82 and the letter dated 5/3/82 based upon the staff report dated 5/20/82 with the same additions as listed in Motion 2. Marhula seconded. MY/ Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 24, 1982 DISCUSSION Sutliff asked if Parcel F is included in the rezoning. The Planner replied no. Motion carried 6-0. • MOTION 4 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 3/15/82 for 6 parcels on 17 acres based upon the 5/20/82 staff report with the same additions as in Motion 2. Marhula seconded, motion carried 6-0. • • • ' (z I, Il ''i'e‘'r'. =-. = j3 . h '; „ i , ..,, rsa rt le"! V. j 2,. , 1 ,� O. .+r r f ' 11 (A.t 1 r '' R 1 °a,3i }, 1 4 1 ( i 1 C;7• 3J'1;a r s' I 1 ,\ ' M ilia 'SJt ;41 ,� \ i' S tQ 'a 1 J 1' { si 1 � �)i r a N. 5�.1 i• (_ I + i ' I 11 ' r': 't 4, _y s D,,,., c.,,,.• -,I I;sl,."1:,,-., , .: ' l. , t r,} • • • t � � } I.i"j .1 .1 i , I i'4 i •'t f M- ij r I f ti: s 9 1 t �• I.I i e`� 1 -,;,,, 11 ' `4 f f' lid a ) 1. . ,, i r;1 3 3 7;,',1 ' E.t-t t -y /''1 1I ' ;G Y+ '',-, • } !t:e a tvk 1 :t .i ,,, ', . 3 iL313.je 41 1 b a : F , ' ti , ••ij tl /0, 6) :,, , • -.; • . • A..dt.OOOOOOOOOOO PaLt V., r• ,, __ _ _ ... __.____--r-----\.). /1 • \-, / I in-1 1-1 r--) -7 1:, Hid...a:em..M fr. 'I, ...';'''•• •• ) ' m...„2(0.'''•'',..---..---__I i I_ i' •L--i I -J ) • .,-, \<,.' ;:"1-',.4.7.7.... ....„.. _J-" ./ • \ \ ... ' UNIT V NNNNNN 1 ID. POOL ),......,__.--, .............. .....„. 1110 . /PROPOSED A PARTMO NTOTOD4 ‘ c..S TO;t17:."6.,,/7,1 ,,.,,,.. ".•''""""•'..” \ ' \ ...Zola,. \ •..t.x.....7 i i.- •• IIIIIV,A., \ : v,,,::::„,x' _........\-.. ..,„.....,..X:4;54.., •,,.1. s;,, / I I /„:.7:---7,14,:471".1.04,4-.. „„-C,:.,. \• tr\'_,,,',%,`'4----i,je..,•,t1'-' ,-'-'44...'","":' ;' —li_-.{..'-----77- 2'_'_!IL:itrii117 ,7*--- -_-- -....,\.\,,-.;•:'-r -\ \' ''' ---„'; : v;.,-,.!„ --•.,--.-:._-(,,,,,,--...., _ -----1---r:- .. _ ''.;`).. ',,e,\(, , .. \ ('-' i II ,,,L. ..\:•Y)-. I• . •.1------t'il-1111ITILt<-; :i . -.. '. \':::. '-'-: .„,.,,„1, '-----, ' ._ ...!,-‘.•:'•-•::- :1- qt.,--... --- ' ,„ '...---\--:,-• /;. ; .,ow n••di;qh:::.,:`... '''f2.\. '..,'; ''VI l',..-',...."..;',..:;',.. ,.•-' r, ,I' :\ ' -''''/:. .'....lr\:'''''"r..-.•.,.,'".''',,..:-.. , --.),t-,-N.',_'../.''-'..!,,.":...,....:: 1 I r•.t.. . .,, I.../......,''-r,- ,,,._ 'N-''-'---.-!..7 '<,,.....,,,:;:\,_‹).04:' , (,..2,:.4.;,•:':::..„,‘ '.7 -- ----- --,-.-4 .•. -, _ ••./;• ,.:'?7. a,',;`... -/ -f.',.... .. - . •;‘,• •.. ..... - -',-("F:.2)„,),../ (i,(-52/' ••. • • '• ; '!• ‘, otz . .,.. . 1 zr .?•:: , iiee..e..... •:•." - 1 --------------.--;•••.,_ _‘''''.••• s''' ...''.. . • • ....';4.0 ,N. , '4, 1 --..,,, ,•..,• L.:________'...7,,...„,.. .... ,.... ..._. _...... ...,. ,..••• ., \l ......•..----- : I.AK•1/1.•“110111•.1•• 1. -.............---...... •. I ,r' NOTES :..u.'•'.••..'. BITE PLAN r•••••......... 1 MO.11.01• • me 10,1 t PROM • TOPOGRAPHY I • •LIMAN= 1 •.........V 0.1, :=:=VI.r•A•am. 1 . 1 . I . / . . . • 11. ...I..1!17 i • . . - ..,,.. . 1 _ .fi 1 1-111:112j1 . . • GAY POINT MANOR 1 I /0&) • '„Ii. ',Pm ''. .'ti..V.I. 1 . . • • . . • .: '•"•-.......... i . . • •••••••0101.... . . •-----.-.—„•.,....1.1,•,..,„tm .1 .•...1,.,,,,,,, ../1 . . z .." . )' 1 f : - ,1 ---'7.--------/ /1 iT .._. i •••10•1.A A ' '1 , • ,A.k. •." ...F.,..: . ;, .1 , ! . ..,.,5;;;;-';—*:--11(—. .a..i..7--.,.' _.. .- • . \ .,---,<- -- — . - .--(------F-4.—• .. .:\ . -. —. . • , • 100.1,00•1. ‘ \ ____ '....; 4.] ;X..., . I ' I \ , , I • ..' li• S, \ 1. I ) : ••••.....101:-.1.0-0•• — '.• .. / ./\,•.\\\• t 1 • i '':r•1........ — 't .,tfit,7"" /,,„I • , . . ,i -11— • '..1\' / ' • • , ,,L) r--, - i ---.,- I (\1. /1,:" . _., ':'' 1 ''.1:i.?:'In i i '1"2-.-----'''''';'"•'' wr-- . . .1 i• , •, 1. "---- ..:-...„, ..T.- __• \ I • i ),• •,.. . . ! • NN- , -----.—_,...............Nt.4, -- lo I , , ----...1.. .. . '. si N i • ... . s • • . ••,,,,,,,... --"1 . . • •••,, ., ; . . 0,1•10./../...AN• ........ ., 1 DMVID.OPMEINT DATA . •- . B•IT0 PLAN ••••••161.0 •••1001...• 01,0000 Owl •A•.•••.. A.POn•0“, \. • •Aacat.0 ••1::::;::: . .,... •••c•I.• • 11•10,1372 OP/ •••••‘•..• IriT0i'T.-.751 . 1•••••••• •00...01.10 00.8 1.0 C•8.•1,0 Ea., 01..141 0.01 MONTH 0.10,••$01/ 17.•• 4•1000 .. ,. .10M01•••••••.• . 0.•••••000•V• IDE, • •• 10.1 001.2 ••••010.• .• LUMEN° ?•••• .0.• . — --.--- • .—...—• OM • . -.I. 1.••1101 000.1.1 .. —— 001600114At.1•••.....,..••• 1.0.41.....0.• 01.......eini••••• . ArA•1••••••r• •,./L•p go ........T. I.40.1000 S• •••-•-- WWI'S,.4....•• ....... 11,10•0•• •10.407O Or -- OA..LINN ----- ••.••••• 11.1.1,•70 On --- 0.0.00,170.1•V 0.11W•01, ( ••••013,...••••• l•••••••1 •••••••• .17.••••• ••••••• 0•••••••••• —..—••00.0%.••••••• • ••••••••••• Ol.10,40•• ••0•VIA1.14• Ana SP VA.10000,10,••••• ••.••••• , '%:,••••1. , I ' [ i ,—_---„.=----- -- .....—.----- ---.--- I • DAY POINT MANOR , ' 11;:i'9 -Illia lir-:.; I •••••••••.••••,00.01, • • " . /031— ... • I `i 1 • i. N ; ' 1 \ 1, 1 1 ya ft r 1( kitrs ,. . P , cF� /' 1 a , , l l -� f) 4 i t 1 • r��, a%` r " + c_ � �( II 1 ,~ 4— t l 1 1 -.. • 1./.fA:1iuCS.,1NU :•\ L.II'1:Vi.nN _ • Y f W 1.1,ti,,LIJ('lv,ff,NI1 (%(ZL!I.SI31.:ND(4•w r4..., t /i,v,.t,n• a. u•• \.% • :hrt..•. - - ft i • approved -2- March 22, 1982 Planning Cormission Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT: Torjesen & Ilallett Mark Omlee, 6661 Beach Road asked if the residents will he renotified. The Planner stated that a significant change is expected at the next meeting and that the Commission would probably continue the item. At that point residents would be re- notified and it would be republished. MOTION Marhula moved to continue Bryant lake Condominiums to April 26, 1982. Gartner seconded, motion carried 4-1. Retterath voted no. B. BAYPOINT_MANOR APARTMENTS, by G & D Enterprises. Request • for approval of rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 and prelim-: unary plat the property which is part of The Preserve Planned • Unit Development. Included in the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat will be the consideration of the granting of variances, pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the . provisions of said ordinance applicable to the MM 2.5 District. Located south of The Preserve tennis courts and pool, and • north of Neill Lake. A continued public hearing. • The Planner stated that there is a revised plan, Larry Peterson submitted a letter dated 3/22/8? and Steve Ludwig also submitted a letter dated 3/17/82 which they reviewed: A staff report is also included. • Ludwig, Miller Construction, stated that the smaller building has been eliminated and one story has been added to the large building to have lh2 units. The parking 1 garage under the building has been extended 5' on either side of tine building. There are 16 detached garages and two-way traffic has been provided under the • building. Mother fire separation wall has been added in the building. The exterior will be of non-combustible siding. The project is within all City requirements and the eastern portion of the site where the small building was will remian zoned Rural. Peterson reviewed his letter dated 3/22/82 and stated that the total number of living units originally anticipated in The Preserve was 4400 and now it is less than 1900 • units. Bearman asked that it be made part of the minutes. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 3/18/32 and gave a brief slide presenta- tion. He stated the building will he similar to Castle Ridge. The eastern portion should be retained as Rural and designated as permanent open space. He reviewed • the surrounding uses and stated a 7,000 population is expected throughout the entire • Preserve. The section of Anderson Lakes Parkway where it is only 24' wide will be improved and stated it will be able to handle the traffic well. Sutliff asked the overall height of the building, and what the ordinance allows. The Planner replied the building will be 45' which the ordinance allows. Beaman was concerned that the landscaping plan did not have trees depicted in the parking lots. Ludwig stated that there are no existing trees but trees will be • planted. Bearman also expressed concern for the screening of the parking lot from { the lake and stated he would like to see a detailed landscaping plan depicting the entire site. He also asked where the dumpsters mill be located. Ludwig replied e t they are depicted on the grading plan and they will he located within the parking lots and will be screened. 11 10B3 approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 22, 1982 Bearman asked how close the closest point of the building is to the lake and what the Shoreland Management Ordinance allows. Ludwig replied 250'. The Planner replied the Shoreland Management Ordinance allows 150'. Gartner asked what could be done to stop the developer from coming back and requesting construction on the eastern portion which will remain Rural. The Planner stated that the land could be dedicated to the City or the Homeowner's Association and if it would be permanent open space, it Would be stated in the Developer's Agreement. • Marhula asked who would own the eastern portion. Peterson replied the Developer. Ludwig stated that they would like to decrease the density on that portion of the site and return in the future for development. Gartner asked who owns parcel A. Ludwig stated it does not belong to Miller Con • - struction. Marhula asked if the short road access between parcel A and the development will be made longer. Peterson stated that it will be an access to another site. The Planner replied it will end in a cul-de-sac with two private drives entering into it. Jack Higgins, 8940 Neill Lake Road, was concerned about his views of Neill Lake, the traffic, and stated that when he purchased his unit he was told by the Preserve that that area would ha a recreational area and submitted a plan depicting it. Bearman asked that it be made part of the minutes. •nc Alex Banks, 8843 Basswood Road was opposed to multiple in that area. • Pete Boucher, 8982A Neill Lake Road was concerned for the upkeep of the recreation facilities after renters move in. Bruce Carlson, 8948 Neill Lake Road felt that placing this project around the rec- reation area would be too congested, concerned with the site lines, and the Ridgewood views which will be obstructed. He also asked what will be done with the office and garage presently used for the office. Ludwig replied that is undetermined at this point but could be used as an office. Bearman asked if the house has an interim use permitted on it. The Planner replied no. Jim Sager, 8988A Neill Lake Road asked for the location of the recreation facilities Ludwig pointed the pool, tennis courts, etc. out. Mr. Dushergan, 8982 Neill Lake Road asked how people will be kept from taking the recreational facilities over. Bearman replied the Homeowner's Association would handle that. Diana Paul ing, 108D5 Northmark Drive was concerned that the views of Neill Lake from the recreational facilities will be destroyed. Wayne Miller, 8982 Neill Lake Road was concerned for the safety of children and On. asked why this site was chosen for this type of development. Peterson replied The Preserve thought it was a good site for it and it is the last site available in The Preserve for multiple. • tr� LI approved Planning Commission Minutes =4- March 22, 1982 • Mrs. Fundingsland, 10765 Northmerk Drive was concerned that the back parking lot for the recreation area will be lost and felt that this parking was needed. _She asked the color of the buildings. Ludwig replied brown. Karen Morris, 8948 Neill Lake Road felt more parking is needed and felt that cars will end up parking on Anderson Lakes Parkway. • Bearman asked how many cars can he parked at the recreation area after the site • is developed. Peterson replied 30-35 cars. Jim Horn, 8910 eill Lake Road asked what the Planning Comission does. Beaman explained the Planning Commission's responsibilities. • Horn asked if this plan is consistent with the overall Eden Prairie Guide Plan. The Planner replied yes. • MOTION 1 • Gartner moved to close the public haring on Baypoint Manor Apartments. Retterath seconded, motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2 Gartneer moved to recnr•mend to the City Council denial of the Baypoint Manor Apartments request. Retterath seconded and stated she felt that there is too much density in this area of The Preserve and that there should not be a la,-ge apartment building between '•.•P the recreation center and Neill Lake. Gartner said that inrurnatiun presented by residents showed that there had been misrepresentation of the use of this parcel to many buyers, by The Preserve, and that this revised plan contemplated even wore units than the first plan seen by the Conanission. Motioncarried 3-2. Marhula and Bearman voted no. Beaman asked that the Miller Const. letter dated 3/17/82 and the • Preserve letter dated 3/22/82 and the Preserve Street Address plan be made part of . the minutes. • C. PAX CHRISTI ADDITION, by Pax Christi Catholic Community. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of 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 Co. Rd. 1, • south of Purgatory Creek, and east of Crcekwood and Pleasant hills Cemetery. A public hearing. The Planner introduced Mr. Jim Hill representing Pax Christi Catholic Community. Hill introduced Pastor Jim Power, Bill Huber and Dick Feerick. He reviewed the location of the site, there will be 126 condominium units they are asking for a density transfer and stated that since the proponent is donating parkland, they felt that cash park fee is unreasonable. A rough plan for the condominiums has been worked out and they will fit on the site. • The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 3/13/82 and gave a brief slide presen- • tat ion. Oaks located in the ravine should be retained, a considerable amount of • a1 grading is needed on the knoll, it is hard to envision 126 condominium units in the center Of the site, and the southern 12.6 acres are needed for the church. He stated that a limit could be placed on the condominium parcel. Number 2 of the staff report 2nd line, after the word 'and', should read 'remain as permanent open space. Pax Christi wants to petition for the Homeward hills Road improvements nr+rdpd. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: June 9, 1982 RE: BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS This week we discovered that the notice to surrounding residents (465 households) regarding this project listed the Planning Commission, not the City Council as the body meeting Tuesday, June 15. Also, in checking the legal notices in the paper, we found out of the three mailed, that this notice was not published on June 3. State Statute 462.357, Subd. 3. Public Hearings states, "No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall he published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least 10 days prior to the date of the•hearing." A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission with the notice published in the paper eleven days prior to the meeting. The City Zoning Ordinance 135, Subd.19.4 states, "No amendment shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the Village Council." Adoption of the change would not be accomplished until a second reading of the ordinance. Therefore, we would suggest that the Council hold the public hearing Tuesday evening (because notices were mailed to that effect) and if so disposed, grant a first reading of the Zoning Ordinance. The public hearing can be continued to July 6, 1982 for the second reading. Notification of the zoning public hearing can be published on June 24 prior to the possible second reading of the ordinance which is 13 days prior to the meeting. In this way, the ordinance and statuatory requirements will be met, but yet the Council, residents, or developer will not be inconvenienced or unnecessarily delayed. CE:JJ:sh to • 111 IOIIASDIRI TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services • . DATE: June 2, 1982 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Ray_Point Manor Apartments PROPoxixr:G ft D Eliteripri SOS • REQUEST: PDD Development plan rezoning G_preliminary plat approval from Rural to RM2.5 • LoflnOE: South of Anderson lakes Pkwy., north of Neill Lake, just west of the Preserve Recreation Area. - _._ — BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Repot Dated: . PARK AND Rf('.RIATIOV PLANNING CONCERNS 1. Type of development: Multi-family residential 2. Number of units in residential development: 152 3. Number of acres in the project: 12.2 • '4. Special recreation space requirements_Totlot area should be constructed for this apartment complex. • S. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks _— a. Affect on the park:___ -- 6. Need for a mini'park: No. • 7. Cash park fee'or land dedication?jcilllex — a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount based on existing ordinance will totals_JA 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. B. Adjacent to existing or•proposed trails: to a proposed tr_ail cQnn ctiOn_aLLn .the north shore of Neill Lake. • a. Type of trails Pesic_•trian/8icycie_ b. Construction llatcrial Asphalt e. Width of trail 6 feet d. Party responsible for construction Developer • e. Landownership of trail Iocation:(dedicated, purchased, BOW) Homeowner Association NATURAL RLSo1TIlff rlirTrRVATIOl ('o'CfRSS 1. Site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site? 111e major tree y o1?Q u_c_utS on the eastern portion of the site and the trees will not be distruhed by this development proposal. 2. Host significant grading on the site: The most significant grading occurs in the northwest Sortion of the site where the elevation of 824 will be taken down to 812. • • if 0 • 3, Significant vegetation on the site includes: The 'nature pines around the existing house are .ignilicant_:ci'etltieIUQfl_this site ans_Wi11 c_pre.grlLeSi. 4. The site grading plan indicates preservation of: See above S. Adjacent to public waters: This proposal is adjacent to Neill lake • a. Affect on waturs2l;e increased amount of hard surfaced area will increase the rate of runoff. RMPFAi vcr cam: • a Major Center Area Study: Major Center Area Study shows this area as-multiple residential. 2. Neighborhood Facilities study__The Preserve Neighborhood Park and the existing Homeowner Association recreation facilities will provide services for this development_ 3. Purgatory Creek study_ N/A 4. Shoeeland Management Ordinance: See Planning Staff Report dated March 18, 1982 Page 3 IIEICilT OP BUILDINGS 5. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A G. Guide Plan: See Planning Staff Report of March 18 page 1 7. O:her: RI:COMMLSnSTI OSS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: 2. Planning Co-uaission Recommendation: On P 24, 1982, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Ray Point Manor Apartments Development Plan of the • Preserve PUD as per the staff reports dated 3/18/S2 and 5/20/S2 and the letter data SrVg2 3. Community Services Staff Recommendations: Community Services Staff recommends approval of Raypoint Manor Apartments PUD and rezoning and preliminary plat approval as • March 18 and May 20 Planning Staff Reports and the letter of May 3, 1982. As this is the last significant unzoned property left for the Preserve to develop, the City should obtain a date certain when all the trail commitments by the Preserve will he completed and a bond that would cover the costs of their smilnityeJi lhutsilat_datc. hellldlt_lul Li&d th_ihe t,ndust_+_ndiup that if the commitments aren't met by the specified date, the City will cash the bond and complete the projects. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission . FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 20, 1982. PROJECT: BAYPOINT MANOR APTS (REVISED) 152 units, 4 story REFER T0: March 18, 1982 Staff Report Revised material-3/15/82 plan, 5/3/82 letter BACKGROUND In fchriiary, 1982 the application was for 150 units, 36 units in one building and 114 units in a second building. This proposal was before the Planning Commission on March 8. The item was continued to March 22 for a staff report. (report attached) • • At the March 22 meeting, a revised plan for one building with 152 units was reviewed. At this meeting the developer did not commit to not dev- eloping the site upon the house site as multiple. A recommendation for denial passed 3:2. (attached) The following is the listing of recommendations contained in the March 18 staff report and how the revised plan responds to the items. I. The eastern platted lot, where the 36 unit building was removed, should remain zoned Rural and remain as permanent open space. • The revised plat depicts this area as Outlot E, 2.2 acres. The house will stay as a residential structure as outlined in the May 3, 1982 letter. The site has access to Anderson Lakes Parkway via an easement over Outlot A, RLS 1402. Staff recommends that this parcel be zoned R1-22 because it is less than 5 acres in size. The staff also recommends that a restrictive covenant to the City be drafted outlining the site's permanent use as a residential site. 2. Parking provided is two spaces/unit and is consistent with the City's parking ordinance. Ilowever, additional property is available if parking becomes tight and additional parking should be provided in this event. This item remains the same. 3. The bituminous pathway on the north side of Neill Lake should • be completed through this property by the proponent. As per the May 3, 1982 letter attached to the revised plans, The Preserve will commit to completing this path. 4. Looping of water mains is to be accomplished by the proponent as requested by the City Engineering Department. Looping of water must be done and should he submitted to the � J� „r;n,• to rntindI annroval. • • • Staff Report-Baypoint Manor Apts. Revised page 2 5. Fire access road should be a secondary access and may he of a gravel nature. This is provided in the revised plan. 6. The proponent must obtain approval for the variances of height from the Shoreland Management Act from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This item must be applied for by the developer. • 7. The detailed utility and street design will be subject to • review and approval by the City Engineer. • Utility plans should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Council approval. 8. The City and Watershed District must be notified at least 48 hours before any site work. All rules and regulations of the Watershed District must be followed. Preliminary review and approval has been received from the Watershed District. In addition to the above conditions and commitments, the revised plan in- cludes the following: • A. Copy of The Preserve residents' understanding regarding ' multiple construction upon this site. B. Dedication of three acres, Outlet F, including a small morraine and and ballfield area to be improved by The Preserve, adjacent to Neill Lake to The Preserve's Homeowner's Association. And dedication of Neill Lake itself and the pump used to control the Lake elevations. C. The Preserve voting rights turned over to the Homeowner's Association. D. The Preserve will dredge a marina and construct a small dock on Neill Lake for the Homeowner's Association. E. A preliminary landscaping plan and sight line drawings from Anderson Lakes Parkway across the site to Neill Lake. (The landscape plan may require additional plant material and berming to screen parking from the lakeside. A detailed final plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to permit issuance. • i0(10 • Staff Report-8aypoint Manor Apts. Revised page 3 • RCCOMMNIOAT 101�S The f'f,nnin, Staff would recommend approval of the plan dated 3/15/82 with the attached letter of 5/3/82 for zoning of six acres to RM 2.5 for 152 condos, rezoning of 2.2 acres from Rural to R1-22 for the existing single family structure, and preliminary plat approval of six parcels on the entire 17 acre site contingent upon the following: 1. That The Preserve complete the following: ?. bituminous pathway around Neill Lake not only through • • this property but wherever in The Preserve the pathway is not completed around the lake; b. dredge a marina and construct a dock facility on Neill Lake. A performance bond should be posted to guarantee construction; c. dedicate to The Preserve Homeowner's Association: 1) Neill Lake and pump to control elevation, 2) Outlot F; d. commit to time when The Preserve's voting rights will be turned over to the Homeowner's Association. 2. That the developer commit to do the following: a. install a construction fence east of the proposed building between parcels D and E to protect the existing trees on • parcel E; b. construct internal pathway system to connect north to the recreational facilities and south to the Neill Lake path. 3. Submit detailed utility plans including looping of water lines to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Council review. 4. 'Receive approval from the DNR for the construction of the building prior to applying for a City building permit. 5. Receive final Watershed District review and approval. And notify Watershed and City at least 48 hours prior to any site work. 6. Rezone Parcel E, 2.2 acres which the house is situated, to R1-22. In addition, a restrictive covenant to the City outlining Parcel E's single family use be submitted to the City Attorney for review and • approval. JJ:sh • • soul • STAFF REPORT • TO: Planning Commission • FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: March 18, 1982 SUBJECT: BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS LOCATION: 11111 Anderson Lakes Parkway APPLICANT: G & D Enterprises • FEE OWNER: The Preserve REQUEST: 1. PUD Development Plan 2. Rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 3. Preliminary plat approval BACKGROUND This 12.2 acre parcel is made up of Tracts B, D, E & F, and part of Tract H of the original Preserve PUB. This area was designated in the original 1970 Preserve PUP as mid to high density residential (5-40 units/acre) and as the location for the Village Center. The Village Center was to encompass commercial shopping uses and recreational uses. Originally, The Preserve Village Center was to have extended all the way south to Neill Lake. The 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan illustrated the majority of The Preserve as low density residential. This was amended, of course, by the 1970 Preserve PUD which planned for an ultimate population on The Preserve of approximately 15,000 occur•ing in 44D0 units. It is now projected that The Preserve will reach approximately 500D people in 2200 units. The 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts the western two thirds of this parcel as RM 2 or residential of up to 17 units/acre. RE UEST • The original request, from G & D Enterprises r•was for 150 apartment units occurinq in the two buildings, one small 36 unit building on the eastern portion of the property, and the balance of the units occurinq in a large three story apartnent building on the western two thirds of the project. Because of representation and expectations that there would be some amount of open spice south of The Preserve Recreation Area to the lake, and because of severe topographic and vegetative site restrictions on the 36 unit building site, the proponent has revised his plan as follows: the 36 unit building has been completely rlliminated and the vegetation and slope occurinq on that portion of the site will be preserved at this time. The larger building occurinq originally on the western portion of this site has been slightly redesifined utilizing different construction methods to allow a four story building. The majority of the parking is still under- ground underneath the building with only 16 cars having to be provided separate garages on the site. • • • Staff Report-8aypoint Manor Apartments page 2 • The eastern access to the project can now be down graded to an emergency vehicle access only and primary access to the large building can be taken from the west from a road which intersects Anderson Lakes Parkway and is an extension of Central Way. The larger building occurs on a flat site and will require very little grading. The first floor elevation of the building is depicted at 830.5 as compared to the Ridgewood Condominiums first floor elevation of 844, " 14 feet higher. . EXISTING SITE CHARACTER • Presently at the east end of the site an older home exists and it has been •used as The Preserve Office for many years. Also located upon the property is a garage building and related small farm buildings. The horse barn had been located on the western portion of the site and was removed years ago after The Preserve decided horse activities were not economically feasible. Surrounding uses are: to the north are The Preserve Recreational uses of a conmmnity center, tennis, pool, and bathhouse, to the east are two multiple residential developments of Ridgewood Condominiums and the Neill Lake Apartments, to the south is Neill Lake, and to the west is the approved but yet unbuilt site of Preserve Condominiums. Ser figure 1 for surrounding uses. SOILS STting of the building and parking corresponds to the soil types on the site. The buildings are placed upon soils which have fair bearing capacity and the parking is located upon soils which have poor shear strength and are not as suitable for building locations. TOPOGRAPHY The property's high elevation of 842 occurs at the eastern end of the site where the 36 unit apartment is proposed. The western part of the site has a high elevation of 824. Both sides decrease in elevation to 812 at the south end adjacent to Neill Lake. VEGETATION The manor tree vegetation on the site occurs on the eastern slope and should not be disturbed by construction of the larger building on the west portion of the site. TRAFFIC 150 units of apartments will generate approximately 900 trips/day. These trips will enter onto Anderson Lakes Parkway in a location where the existing traffic count is about 3000 trips/day. The addition of 900 trips will not exceed the road design of the parkway which can handle 600-700 trips per lane/ peak hour or 12,000 ADT. Anderson Lakes Parkway at the Baypoint Manor access point is 32 feet wide. West of the access drive the parkway is 34 feet wide; and cast of the access drive it narrows down to 30, 28, 26, and even 24 feet wide for a short dis- tance just west of the Prairie Village Hall. The highest traffic count along the parkway occurs between Garrison Way and Co. Rd. 18. • • • Staff Report-Baypoint Manor Apartments page 3 • Not all traffic will flow the entire length of the parkway. Trips going north via Preserve Blvd., or south via Franlo Road will only use the park- way a short distance and not be concentrated near Co. Rd. 18 where the highest parkway trips occur. As Preserve projects which are approved but not yet completed are occupied, more auto trips will be added to the parkway. It is estimated another 2000 trips/day will be added. These trips will occur throughout the parkway and if 60Z use the parkway west of 1B, another 1200 trips would be added. . The parkway as constructed can brindle the future Preserve residential develop- ment except in a short segment just west of the Preserve Village Center which needs improvement. PEDESTRTAi SYSTEMS .The original proposal which included the 36 unit building on the eastern portion of the site required relocation of a pedestrian pathway that came across parallel to the slope and led to the pool. This pathway was to be relocated in the original proposal as shown on the original site plan however, this pathway may not have to be relocated under the revised plan. As part of the ob'igation of The Preserve, the proponent will assume the responsibility fc. completing the pathway through this site that is a part of the overall pathway around the lake system. SHORFIAND h1Atr'AGEPENT ACT Eden Prairie has adopted a first reading of an ordinance of the Shoreland Management Act which required 150' setback from the normal ordinary high water mark of ileill Lake. This proposal meets the requirements of the Shoreland Management Act in all instances except for height. Because of the consolidation of the units on one portion of the site at this point, • the height of the buildings is now 45 feet which is consistent with our Zoning Ordinance, but exceeds the Shoreland Management's by 10 feet. Since this ordinance has not been officially adopted, the proponent will have to work with D)IR on this variance from their State Statutes, but the staff believes that the solution presented is a more palitable solution and is more desireable from the lake frontage. SUMMARY The f'tinning Staff believes that the revised plan dated March 15, 1982, which illustrates construction of a four story 152 unit apartment building on the west two thirds of the 12.2 acre site south of The Preserve Rec- reational Area is consistent with the original Preserve PUD and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan for the following reasons: 1. The proposal now provides for a physical and visual open space con- • nection between the recreational focal point area of The Preserve and . Neill Lake as was originally contemplated in the PUD. • • 2. The number of units and type of units proposed is consistent with the original Preserve PUD which projected 4400 housing units of all different • economic and social strata. The Preserve's final housing unit count will be approximately P'.2U0. Because of this reduction in total units, the recreational facilities originally planned for twice as many people will more than acconmodate the residents planned. q(/ • • • Staff Report-Baypoint Manor Apartments • page 4 3. The proposal is consistent with City Ordinance and with the 1979 Com- prehensive Guide Plan. RFCOMMrNDATIONS The {Manning Staff would reconmend approval of the PUD Development Phase, preliminary plat of two lots, and rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 for the western lot subject to the following: 1. The eastern platted lot, where the 36 unit building was removed, should •. remain zoned Rural and remain as permanent open space. • 2. Parking provided is two spaces/unit and is consistent with the City's • parking ordinance. However, additional property is available if parking becomes tight and additional parking should be provided in this event. 3. The bituminous pathway on the north side of Neill Lake should be com- pleted through this property by the proponent. 4. Looping of water mains is to be accomplished by the proponent as requested by the City Engineering Department. • 5. Fire access road should be a secondary access and may be of a gravel nature. 6. The proponent must obtain approval for the variances of height from the Shoreland Management Act from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). • 7. The detailed utility and street design will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. The City and Watershed District must be notified at least 48 hours before any site work. All rules and regulations of the Watershed District must be followed. • • • CE:ss ' 3 VAC- ..) 'dILS v,' NIIILR / I 1 uJCorroHlll n (/ 5!''S YJI`.T bl CI n1.4A1N r 1 ,1 1 1 7 I S Sl CI OUII A.(NI'.UTAO,.. • , • I - � • ' I e 1 , Illy 3, 1(182 I 'r r c City of Idcn Pr uric `I 8950 I:d:'n prairie Road r 9 �?r(1 } r . . Eden Prairie, MN 5539 i • Attcutiea Curls linger, ( h ty P1 uuncr 1'I have ION 1c:.cd the Minutes of the i`!ond•iy, Mauch 22, '_952, plawuing < Commission AkUting and specifically tried to isolate the various objections to our proposed 1 Ii tnu.nt. project." There via, a concern from the resident of the 20-unit condominium as well somc•of the. rcsiden •; that. viewed the e,lster"ly building 1':e proposed as a'ste line o1 unction for a clear view of the lake. To solve this problcuI, ue hale eliminated the smaller building 1•ludl was located on the eastern boundary of our pmopoerLy and have idIcatcd the area aro',nld the .1o)d farm house to be left as is with a goa irautcc that no future development ;: would occur in this particular area. ,Mr. Walt. Voltz, one of the developers, plans to update this facility awl use it as his primary residence. h ' eliminating one building, ewe have increased the proposed single building to show a four-story structure in place of the original three-stony building. structure will now contain 152 apartment units. The height of the building, the set back frclln the lake, the traffic flow all comply with the of Eden Prairie rectui rcrlents and we feel by leaving the original farm house SLS.is,,with no future plans for development, we will solve the objec- •'tions to the site line anal density on the eastern portion of our property. There Were a number of people i,ho objected to the construction of any type of facility south of the community building and I have a.ttached a cop) of the application for membership in the preserve association, which specifically states, "the common properties specifically do not include the horse barns, the riding stables, or any of the property south of the community building and swimming pool to and sounrou(lding Neill Lake, all of which property is owned by the developer who is permitting temporary uses seen thereon which ,'my be terminated at.vly time at the sole discretion of the developer." 'I` 'These application memberships were signed by the residents as they obtained • membership in the preserve association and we have, in our file, several hundred signed copies of this understanding. 1.' • 1 ( I 1 City of I den PI ur1c " ';, I am also attaching a copy of the Rider to Purchaser Agreements for the sale of residential lots in the preserve, Lden Prairie, Minnesota, which was signed by each individual builder at the time the lot was purchased. I_eall • • your attention specifically to paragraph three which again alludes to the "area south of the community building and indicates this land to be owned by• • • the developer, who is at this time permitting temporary Use of the areas for :recreat.ienal f icilit.i .s and noun ul open spaces. To count tract the objection'of eliminating the areage along Neill Lake,,we have dedicated a large parcel of land, approximately three acres, around the • •''marina and we: plait to dedicate this acreage to the preserve homeowners' ;� -.is.5association for their future development of this area as an expanded recrea- i.,; tional facility. In doing this, we have minimized the acreage around the • fans house and again we want to reiterate that no future development will be accomplished on the residential farm site which will, again, open up the • eastern area of our property for expanded eecre.at tonal,facilities. I thought your staff report adequately handled most-of the other problems .and questions including traffic, vegetation, pedestrian systems, etc. and '• I saw very, few objectioaa to the factual documentat ion that you had presented. addition to th contribution of recreational space granted by G F, D Enter:' prises, Larry Peterson of the preserve association has agreed to the following additional items which would be granted after our facility has been approved. I. 'Neill Lake itself would be dedicated to the preserve homeowners' associa • 2..'The voting rights for the preserve homeowners' association would be turned over by Lariy.Peterson and his group to the preserve homeowners' associa Lion 3 Larry Peterson and Minnegasco as planned unit developers agree to dredge the marina and return this area to an acceptable condition before conveying •.this to the preserve homeotsncrs' association: 'They also indicated they - •would be willing to construct a small dock for the homeowners' association's . .,-use in,the. marina area, • _ 4' .'The pump used to control the lake elevation.of Neill Lake would be dedicated •'+ ` to the homeowners m eowners' tissociati.on ':•' • r 4,. 5. L Peterson and his group will al:,o agree to complete the pathway •system tm oughout the preserve and to insure this being done, they will . post a performance bond of sufficient size to accomplish this endeavor. By leaving the original farm house and the small tract of land on the eastern • side of our property, we eliminate the need for destruction of the retaining walls, mature trees, and walkways which are presently in place. There will be additional walkways added to create a traffic flow from the border of•N•eill., Lake through our project to the existing recreational facilities. 1 , /r 1, • t :.t City of Edon Pr uric Nay 3 1962 Page 3. • R rl i • In so :'lary, (ltr.is, it +pa)ean; Larry Petcrrson and Ilinncl isco have always' • intended this area would he developed and we feel a little uncomfortable by finding ourselves in the middle of those residents of the preserve who want this area to he Ieft unt.ouchcd, cui(lcvelolxd, and open. As you. }mow, the laid cost of this porticnlar parcel is extremely high and unless we can •;racconudate 152 tuiits in the project, the feasihility stud), will not work. 1e also ip,rcciatc the need for ilfoidIblc }tensing in Eden Prairie to permit acct.; Iodations for those cemp•uiics con-Iiderittg plant (:xpansion or relocation in:the Et::en PI'airie y:;it•l:ct.` At the present tine, the \'::can)' rate i•s extremely low and I am sure that you have found nn;jor corporations recon- srderr.nf locations because of the present lack of alforclab]e housing. t •`15e look {or,gard 7t g a representation to the 1'i.mning Ccnnnission 1`feudu.rs • ":•`:`oti May 2.Ith and if you have any specific questions or if we can offer ' "additictal information •in.the mean'time, please feel free to contact our • oflice - t Sna crely, JIt1 11 'vII L1 l.it IX'1iI ut:13O\, INC\1RIbiv1I Cll • ItJiltnil id. Smith ` Ik.tc loi,,,cnt Con ultant c 1 r n losu7 es a f R cc Larry Peterson " • :, G i 7 Enterprises 4 I I i 7 ..� ' t •r r, �v I r �,•! , •, t 1 • • • ' 1 t + Ir II .1 7 •I I+ t , It i�I ` •• 1 t/ I f • • APPLICATION • FOR I•iLHBERSHIP IN THE PRESERVE ASSOCIATION A Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation The undersigned herewith applies for membership in The Preserve Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, and acknowledges that • at the time of the signing of this membership application form, the following is true: 1. The undersigned is the fee owner of a lot in The Preserve as the word "Lot" is defined in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated May 16, 1972. ("Declaration") as amended by the Eighth Supplement dated December 31, 1975 ("Eighth Supplement"). 2.' The undersigned has received a copy of the Articles and By-Laws of The Preserve Association and has read the same and is acquainted with their terms and has received a copy of the Declaration and the Eighth Supplement end understands that the Declaration as amended is a muniment of title recorded against all residential property located in The•Preserve. 3. The undersigned has received a copy of the Information Brochure in the form approved by FHA and/or VA and has read the same. • 4. The undersigned represents and agrees that he has relied upon no oral representations by any builder and/or salesman and/or employee or lunteer of The Preserve Association or developer concerning"the purchase of his property and that all his rights in relationship thereto and in relationship to his membership in The Preserve Association is determined by his purchase agreement and conveyancing documents, The Declaration as amended, the Articles and By-Laws of The Preserve Association and this instrument. 5. The undersigned understands that the principal common properties of Itie Preserve Asuciitiun cun.ists of mid are limited to Lhe pool, the tennis courts and the community building as the same are now constructed and exist at The Preserve and that the developer has no further obligation to expand upon these facilities. The common properties specifically do not include the horse barns, the riding stables or any of the property south of the conxnunity building and swinuning pool to and surrounding Neill Lake, all of which property is owned by the developer who is permitting temporary uses seen thereon which may be terminated at any time at the sole discretion of the developer. 6. The undersigned will pay when due the annual assessments as determined by the Hoard of Directors of The Preserve Association, which are at the time of signing this membership the annual amount of S . Dated: , Block • • Addition 101U� ( • l • 11 RIDER TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE SAI.IE (IF usllittl'!'1AL LOTS 1 • IN T•IIC PRESERVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA The undcrnigned, who arc also signatories on the purchase agreement • to which this instrument in a rider, hereby agree that the purchase of the property described en the attached inrt•charu agreement shall be upon the following covenants, eunditioua and representations in addl.tl.on to those net forth on the purchase agreement, to-wit: 1. That buyer is acquainted with the Declaration of Covenants, • Conditions and Restrictions dated Hay 16, 1972, recorded May 111, 1972, as Document No. 1031312 with the Registrar of Titles and recorded June 7, - • 1973, as Document No. 4020970 with the Itegloter of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and is further acquainted with and has read the terms . • of•the Eighth Supplement and Amendment to the foregoing Declaration dated , December 31, 1975, recorded May 19, 1976, in the office of the Registrar of Titles as Document Nn. 1175966 and in the office of the Register of Deeds as Document No. 4207722 as the same has been approved by FHA and VA and agrees to,accept the property being purchased by him subject • • thereto. ; • 2. That buyer has received and read a copy of the Information • Brochure, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws concerning The Preserve Association and agrees that he is purchasing the property described in the purchase agreement banned upon the written provisions only of the . purchase agreement to which lbla rider is attached together with the foregoing Declaration as amended and tha Information Brochure, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of The Preserve Association, and buyer • agrees that no oral statements have been made inconsistent with the foregoing, and that buyer Ls not purchasing the property in reliance upon any oral stalnnnents but only upon the foregoing Identified written agreements, documents and this instrument. . 3. That buyer acknowledges that he knows as a fact that the principal common properties owned by The Preserve Association, of which he will become a member upon closing upon the purchase of the property . ' - described on the attached purchase agreement, consint of and arc Limited to the swimming pool, the tennis courts and the community building, all • contiguous and legally described as Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey Mo. 1395-and Tracts C and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1402. . The cnmmnn properties of The Preserve Association specifically do nor • include the horse barns, riding stables and other land lying south of • the above-described property to and surrounding Neill Lake, all of which property is owned by the developer who is permitting temporary use as , . • seen thereon which may be terminated at any time at the sole dlcretlon of the developer. . • • ' ' 4. That buyer will, upon becoming a member of The Preserve • ' Association, execute its standard membership application form and paY the annual dues from time to time as determined and assessed by tho Board of Directors of The Preserve Association, which annual dues are at • the time of the signing of this instrument the sum of $ • • Dated: • Lot •• , Block Add It Len • • i 1 100 7 1982 Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District Z Aa S3 ' • ---c • 0950 COUNTY ROAD G4 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343 ` g April 8, 1982 l Mr. Chris Enger City Planner • City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road . Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Bay Point Mannor Development: Eden Prairie • Dear Mr. Enger: ' The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley- • Purgatory Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the Bay Point Mannor development in Eden Prairie. The following policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable for this project: 1. ' In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit • will be required from the District for this project. Accompanying this permit application, a detailed erosion ' control plan outlining how sedimentation is to be controlled, both during and after construction, must be submitted to the District for review and approval. • 2. The plans show that buildings are to be constructed adjacent to Neill Lake. In accordance with District criteria, the buildings must have basement or first floor elevations set at a minimum of 2 feet above the calculated 100-year fre- quency flood level of Neill Lake, which is elevation 813.0. 3. A detailed utility plan must be submitted to the District • for review and approval. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at 920-0655. • Sincerely, glyr ber C. Obermeyer • ARR ENGINEERING CO Engineers for the District RCO/gs • c: Mr. Frederick Rahr Mr. Frederick Richards Mr. Steve Ludwig✓ lad The reserve March 22, 1982 Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Baypoint Manor Deer Planning Commission Members: The other day I received a copy of a letter dated March 17, 1982 from Miller Construction Co. to yourselves, regarding questions raised by residents and planning commission members at your meeting on March 15, 1982. The purpose of this letter is to add my thoughts and respond to some of the concerns as best I can. 1. A question about traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway is certainly justified but as the developer we feel that potential problem will be resolved by the city and its residents when they decide if the Parkway should be expanded to 4 lands on land that has alreaej been dedicated to the city. 2. One of the planning commission members wanted to see the original Preserve Concept that was approved. I will have that with me for the meeting on March 22. 3. Another question had to do with the original Ridgewood plan and Preserve Condo phase 3 plan. Those I will also bring to the meeting on March 22. 4. Questions regarding the recreational facilities being able to handle the increased number of residents is certainly very valid and I will attempt here to satisfy those concerns. First of all, as mentioned before, The Preserve community was planned to have up to 4,400 living units when completed. It will instead have less than 2,000 units. The recreational facilities built and paid for by the developer were intended to be supplemented by city park facilities built on land dedicated to the city. This has been accomplished in the Nesbitt Park area to the north. A very im- portant concern not brought up at the meeting has to be the cost of supporting The Preserve Homeowners Association facilities once the developer is out of the picture. For the past 8 - 10 years the developer has had to subsidize those expenses because the H.O.A. dues could not cover them. This we have done willingly because we had agreed to that in the beginning. In meeting with the H.O.A. IO2 11111 Anderson Lakes Parkway,Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 • (6121941.2001 • City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission Page two • executive committee, and reviewing the budget for 1982, it appears as though their income will cover their expenses. Included in their income forecast however is $5,000.00 from selling outside memberships. In addition to that revenue, they of course get:the traffic that goes with it. To sum this up, before this letter gets any longer, we the developer, and the executive committee of the H.O.A. feel the addition of more living units in The Preserve area will not overload the facilities, but is in fact necessary to . produce the revenue necessary to support the facilities now and in the future when the relatively new equipment will need major repairs or replacement. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and having the interest to help us in completing The Preserve Development. Sincerely, THE PRESERVE OF EDEN PRAIRIE, INC. iv/e--- Lawrence R. Peterson Vice President and General Manager • LRP/jb cc: Chris Enger, City Planner • Mike Wilwerding, President H.O.A. • • • • • • t E MILLLN COMPANIES,INC. :' 3335 WEST SI GERMAIN • PO.IIOX 1220 • ST.CLOUD.MINNESOTA 55301 . 612 251J109 March 17, 1982 • • Planning Commission City of Fdcn Prairie • . pEden Prairie, MN 55343 _. Elf viin i �j .RE: Baypoint Manor • r `"t Dear Planning Commission: • This letter is a response to several of the items presented ' as concerns at the public hearing for the above referenced ' project. 1. In regard to the adequacy of parking for our structures • the site plan provided for a total of 2.1 stalls per • unit exceeding the ordinances 2/unit requirement. 2. Some parking used by the community center is being • removed. This was discussed with the executive board of the Preserve Homeowner Association. They have options of providing additional parking should it be required. However parking requirements should decrease with the completion of our project because with the income from these additional units to the association it will not be required to sell member- ships to individuals outside the Preserve as the • association does now. . 3. The Physical Plan of the Preserve including sewer, water, roads, tennis courts, and pool were designed for a planned 4400 living units. The ultimate quantity will he 2200 units. . 4. The plan for the Preserve has the highest density . housing near the community center and adjacent to . Andersen Lakes Parkway in order to limit congestion . ' and vehicle travel within the Preserve. Our plan is consistent with this original concept. S. Provisions for Tot lots was discussed with the executive . board of the Preserve Homeowners Association and they . • recommended against them. We would be happy to install • them if the city so desires. • 6. All roads within our development arc 24' wide to provide IUD., I for safe travel. 77Te entry road on the eastern part of our site is so configured to protect existing trees. • • .� r •,.) ,� , -,, • f Planning Commission ( March 17, 1982 . Page 2 Due to the difference in elevation between the road , and the adjacent condominiums and our planned landscape • the impact should be minimal to the condominiums. 7. Trash dunpsters are intended to be screened. This • ' in conjunction with their isolation by the hill • • • ' • from tlke Ridgewood Condominiums should make them quite unobtrusive. 8. The parking garage will be ventilated at several • points along the south side of the building. . 9... Our buildings exceed.; code requirements for handicapped • design, in fact, other living units and motel facilities we have constructed receive positive comments from • handicapped occupants. • 10. Elevators are to be provided. 11. We are a:aintaining as many of the existing mature trees . • as wecan. A list of large trees saved and removed • is attached. We have been successful in the past in preserving existing trees on our construction projects. 12. 111e baked enamel siding on the end walls of the building is durable and attractive material. It is more expensive than wood and was selected for it's architectural contract with the other materials on the building and durability. • • Sincerely, MILLER COMPANIES INC. . - e=l • • . . • •Steven Ludwig Architect • • ( Y IOSS • IIIUrUtaU January 20, 1982 .. • • Dear Preserve Resident:. On Thursday, January 28, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. a meeting will be held at The Preserve Center to review a proposed site plan for apartment buildings in The Preserve. I am enclosing a map of The Preservo with the site identified. • The primary purpose of the meeting is to give Preserve • • • residents the chance to review these plans prior to their. being submitted to the city for zoning approvals'. At this meeting the proponent will discuss building design, unit size, pricing, etc., and I will be there to answer questions that may come up having to do with the development.and how • it fits into the overall Preserve plan.. Hope you can attend the meeting because your thoughts and comments are appreciated. Sincerely, • THE PRESERVE OF EDEN PRAIRIE,, INC. • • • Larry Peterson '1 Director of Marketing E LP/'b Enclosure • • • • • Hit/ Antharnn I ALRC ParkwA,, Prim+PrAIrja MlnnArnIA.cc 44 • /6171 441-2(101. -... Baypoint Manor PU! t Development CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESDLUTION 82-129 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 70-04 OF THE PRESERVE 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 Baypoint Manor Apartments PUD is considered a proper •amendment to the Preserve PUD and the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Baypoint Manor Apartments PUD Development and considered Miller Construction's request for approval for development and variances and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 15, 19B2. NOW THLREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Baypoint Manor Apartments development of PUD 70-04, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally des- cribed as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as outlined in the application material dated 3/15/82. 3. That the PUD Development meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 24, 1982. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • 10SC) 1 • Tracts B, D, E, F, and part of H south of an extension of Tract A, along the 503.45 foot radius curve, all of Registered Land Survey No. 1402, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • • • EXHIBIT A Ila • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ND. 82-130 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Baypoint Manor Apartments dated March 18, 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 e I i John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL a IVA Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -1" May 24, 1982 • MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath C. LEE DATA CENTER, by Rauenhorst Corporation. Request for PUD Concept for industrial, rezoning of approximately 20 acres from RM 2.5 to 1-5, preliminary plat approval of 36 acres for 1 lot and 3 outlots for the construction of a 200,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, and possible variances. Located south of Flying Cloud Drive, east of US 169/212, and north of Nine Mile Creek. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Bob Worthington of Rauenhorst Corporation was present to give the presentation. Worthington stated that Mr. John Lee, president of Lee Data was present also. He stated that this property was approved as Michelangelo Gardens in 1980. It now is proposed for a 200,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse complex to be the headquarters for Lee Data. The site will be subdivided into 3 outlots. Outlot A, 9 acres, will remain open space; Outlot B contains a portion of floodplain and will remain open • space; Lot 1, Block 1, 20 acres, is the site for the complex. The construction of a road from Flying Cloud Drive to the southern property line will be completed in two phases. The first phase will be 250' within the site and end in a cul-de-sac • and the second phase is expected within 2-5 years will be completed when the need arises which will extend to the bottom of the site. The building will be constructed of precast panel wit' brick and reflector glass. A lunch room will be developed in the south corner of the project. The back portion of the site will be for manu- facturinq.In Comparing this project with the approved Michelangelo Gardens' traffic will be much less. More than 50% of the site will be preserved. Felt the berm on the east should be preserved and stated the knoll on the north will remain to identify Lee Data. The knoll on the south is wanted to be saved for screening purposes. Mr. John MacKenzie, Project Manager is also present. Lee Data is presently located in Eden Prairie. Rauenhorst will lease the building for 15 years and then Lee Data will have an option to purchase the property. Mr. Lee stated that Lee Data is presently located approximately one mile north of this site. They design and produce computor terminals which are sold nation-wide. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 5/19/82. He stated that Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th is on the east of the site which had a requirement of con- structing a physical buffer - which has been done. Residential will be lost on this site. He was concerned with the site plan as it relates to the site. Six acres of trees will be removed. Staff contemplates there is a portion on the south which could be developed for high density residential. He suggested that at a minimum that the surcharging for the road which would lead down to Thorn Creek get underway. An inventory of trees should be taken. An EAW had been pre- pared for Michelangelo Gardens and this project was compared to it and found to be very compatible. Cash park fee of $.1400/acre for the area to be zoned is applicable. Gartner asked why Outlot A and B are outlots. The Planner stated that they might be able to be built on in the future. They presently have poor soil conditions. Hallett asked who owns Outlot A and B. Worthington replied that they are owned by Rembrandt presently. Rauenhorst is entering into a purchase agreement with Rembrandt and Lee Data will have an option to purchase the property then. He stated that they have no intention to build on Outlot A or B. 4 Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 24, 1982 Torjesen asked the reason for eliminating housing on the site. Worthington replied that on the south, development would have to extend into wetland and stated he felt there are more appropriate sites in the City for residential. Hallett stated that no matter what is developed on this site, some trees and hills will be lost. The Planner replied yes. Sutliff asked if construction of the road will be similar to Menards. The Planner . replied yes. The Planner stated that if the Commission would like residential on the southern portion of the site, the road would have to be constructed immediately. Sutliff asked if there is a possibility for a road coming down the eastern property line. The Planner replied it is possible. Peter 8eck, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren, representing ADI stated ADI owns the property to the east of the project which is called Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th. In 1979 ADI came before the City and a requirement was placed on them requiring them to construct a berm which would shield ADI's industrial from Michelangelo Garden's residential project. ADI has completed the berm. The Owners of the pro- perty (Lee Data site) had cormitted to continue West 70th Street. ADI was pro- hibited to have any loading docks on their western side of their project. ADI has constructed a berm of approximately $15 million. Construction of West 70th Street was promised at time of approval. If the bcrm is removed, it will give ADI enough room to build loading docks along West 70th Street. Sam Figelstein, Attorney for Rembrandt, stated a variance has been requested by ADI and ponding, the berm, road access, etc., were requirements of the City of Eden Prairie. The berm was to be paid half by ADI and half by Rembrandt. Rembrandt had a bill of $3D,000. He suggested that they are two separate matters. Ile stated that if there are any questions between Rembrandt and ADI, it should take place out of the room (public hearing). Peter Beck stated he felt that this problem needs to be solved. Sutliff asked if it is possible to relocate Flying Cloud Drive, and stated that if possible, it should be looked at. The Planner stated it is possible. Torjesen stated he felt there were a lot of unanswered questions and felt it would be useful to give an indication on the land use question. Sutliff stated he would like to see an extension of West 7Dth Street to Flying Cloud Drive, access to the Thorn Creek property, and the Braun's property. He felt that road access is important. Marhula asked the status of the Michelangelo Gardens PUD. The Planner replied it had been zoned RM 2.5. Marhula asked if there was a developer's agreement. The Planner replied yes. Hallett stated he would like to see Lee Data stay in Eden Prairie but did not like the hills and trees to go. Gartner agreed. Marhula stated he liked the plan but had concerns.. He felt that if Thorn Creek is industrial, the road should go through. He stated that there are some problems which need clearing up. r ! • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 24, 1982 Torjesen felt that once a property is gone through and zoned, it becomes a guided use for the property. The burden is on the developer to consider changing. He stated that he felt regardless of the decision, resolution of the road is necessary. Sutliff asked how much time would•be needed to improve the site plans. Worthington replied that construction of West 70th Street down to Flying Cloud Drive relates to what is affordable. It is a business decision. Lee stated that they have commissioned Braun Engineering to do road configurations. The soil engineers told them that this is the most cost effective way for the road. . He stated that a final grading plan has not been developed and stated that is more economical to leave the road where it is. Cheryl Zitzelberger, Secretary for Rembrandt, stated that Rembrandt and ADI has never had discussion regarding a holding pond or West 70th Street. When they were the developers for the land, they explored where to put the road, did soil tests, and stated utilities are currently along 169 and stated that surcharging had already been done. Rembrandt gave ADI an easement to travel on and off their land and stated she felt Rembrandt had been very open with ADI. Lee stated that Lee Data is a fast growing company and stated that they need the project resolved by January 15, 1983. Torjesen stated he felt it is very important to decide the land use issue. The Planner stated the Commission should make a land use decision if comfortable. Formal action could be taken tonight and resolved by the June 14 meeting and the proponent could go before the City Council on June 15. Worthington stated that a developer is currently looking at the property to the north, whith he hopes to bring to the City within 30 days to make the 70th Street extension possible. Some of the cost would then be mitigated. MDTION 1 Sutliff moved to close the public hearing. Marhula seconded, motion carried 3-2. Gartner and Torjesen voted no because they felt the project needed more study. MOTION 2 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of a PUD Concept for approximately 16 acres of industrial and 17 acres of private and public open space as per the May 19, 1982 staff report and the plans dated 5/7 - revised 5/14/82 excluding the residential. Hallett seconded, motion carried 3-1-1. Gartner abstained and Torjesen voted no. MOTION 3 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council rezoning of approximately 20 acres from RM 2.5 to 1-5 as per the plans dated May 4, 1982 and the May 19, 1982 staff report subject to the continuance of West 70 retoly , Flying CloudDrive and street access to the south (Thorn Creek property). Hallett seconded. DISCUSSION lorjesen asked what the 20 acres consists of. Worthington replied Lot 1. Torjesen asked if all 20 acres are to be Industrial. Worthington replied yes. /O6 • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 24, 1982 Hallett asked if the proponent dedicates Outlot A and B to the City, if the developer still must pay cash park fee. The Planner replied the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission could look at that as a possible alternative. Torjesen stated he intended to vote no because he felt that there are too many loose ends for a concept, platting and a land use question: He felt the plans should be studied further. Gartner agreed. Motion carried 3-1-1. Gartner abstained, Torjesen voted no because of questions. MOTION 4 • Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat on 36 acres for 1 lot and 3 outlots as per the plat dated May 13, 1982 and the May 19, 1982 staff report subject to the continuance of West 70 Street to Flying Cloud Drive and street access to the south (Thorn Creek property). Hallett sec- • onded, motion carried 3-1-1. Gartner abstained, Torjesen voted no. • /0l I81108.4E UM • TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: June 3, 1982 • SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Lee Data Center • PROPDNENT: Rauenhorst. Corporation • REQursT: PHD Concpct Approval for and industrial and private park and floodplain uses. Rezoning from R.4 2.5 to 1-S for approximately 20 acres. Preliminary plat approval LocA'rlac, ol__unr_1at__ads dhroal_r s• _run lot LOCA•i1O.v: last of III v. 1o9/212, south of Flying Cloud Dr. • RACkttoUND: See I irsin^ Staff Report flit ri: ' PARE AND Ii:CIttA1l ON PLANNING CONCSRVS 1. Type of development: Proposed is a 2,000 sq. ft. office/light manufacturing building for Lee Data. N/A 2. 'Number of units in residential development: 3. Number of acres in the project: IA 4. Special recreation space requirements: None • s. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks: No N/A a. Affect on the park: • 6. Need for a mini park: No • 7. Cash park fee or land dedication? Cash Park Fen a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount based on existing ordinance will total: $28,000 • b. If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated ill/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 trails: Proposed sidewalk adjacent to Flying Cloud Drive • • a. Type of trails Pedestrian b. Construction Material Concrete 5 feet c. Width of trail d. Party responsible for construction Developer e. Landownership of trail location:(dedicated, purchased, Row) Rood ROW NATURAL.REWURCE PRESERVATION CONCERNS 1. Site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site?See Planning Staff Report page 2 • 2. Most significant grading on the site:The most significant grading is approximately a 23 ' foot cut on the high hill toward the center of the site, the location of the . office building. • /oil 3. Significant vegetation on the site includes: A variety of mature deciduous trees. The majority of the vegetation is mature oaks. • 4. The site grading plan indicates preservation of:See Planning Staff Report page 2 under SITE PLAN 5. Adjacent to public waters: Nine-Mile Creek Floodplain abutes into the southern portion • of the site. a. Affect on enters: Impervious surface will increase the rate of runnoff into Nine-Mile Creek. REFERF\CC CHECK • .1. Major Center Area Study: N/A • 2. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A 3. Purgatory Creek Study_ N/A — 4. Shoreland Management Ordinance: This project exceeds the minimum lot size, width and building set hack required on under the General Development and Water categories of theShorcland Management Ordinance. 5. Floodplain Ordinance: 6. Guide P:un_ThcGnido Plan illustrates this si.i.e as high density residential or industrial. 7, Other: RECOAPR:NDATI ONS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: 2. Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 24, 1982, the Planning Co1m fission recommended approval of the PUD Concept for approximately 16 acres of industrial and 17 acres of private and public open space and approval of the rezoning of • approximately 20 acres irom 1:s1 2.5 to i-S, as per the plans o?lily 4, iI S and the May 19, 1982 staff report subject to the continuance of West 70th Street to Flying Cloud Drive. The P1:nlninp Connni ss ion also recommended approval of the • preliminary plat on 36 acres for 1 lot and 3 outlots. • 3. The Community Services staff recommends approval as'per the May 19, 1982 Planning Staff Report. • o/ 65 • • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 19, 1982 PROJECT: LEE DATA CENTER • LOCATION: 36 acres south of Flying Cloud Drive and east of US 169/212 OWNER: Rembrandt Enterprises APPLICANT & FEE OWNER: Rauenhorst Corporation (purchase from Rembrandt Enterprises) REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept for industrial and private park and floodplain uses; 2. Rezoning from RM 2.5 to I-5 for approximately 20 acres of the 36 acre site; 3. Preliminary plat approval.of 1 lot and 3 outlots. BACKGROUND The Guide Plan illustrates the site as high density residential or in- auctrial. In the Fall of 1980 the buildable portion of the 36 acres, approximately 20 acres,was zoned RM 2.5. The development plan approved was for 272 condo units and was called Michelangelo Gardens. (see figure 1) The site is bordered on the west by US 169/212, the north by Hanson Auto Salvage and 1-2 zoning, on the east by I-5 zoning of Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th, and on the south by Nine Mile Creek. Across Nine Mile Creek is the Thorn Creek proposed development. (see figure 2) SITE CHARACTER The western and south portions of the site are characterized by poor soils associated with lowland areas. The eastern and north portions are characterized by hilly topo, 860-880', and woods. Two isolated tree stand areas also occur near the center of the property. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS l-5 District: Proposed Lee Data: 5 ac. min. lot size 16 acres 300' min. width/depth 600+ feet Setbacks: 75' front 350+ feet 30' sides 45+ feet 25' rear 45+ feet F.A.R. 30: 1 story 17Z Max. 50Z multiple 30;,.>(first phase) 40' max. height • /�� 24 feet • Staff Report-Lee Data Center page 2 Parking: 200,000 sq. ft. 260,000 sq. ft. 1st Phase • Total 200,000 sq. ft. @ 3 sp/1,000=600 spaces 260,000 sq. ft. @ 3 sp/1,000=780 spaces or as per use 60,000 office @ 5 = 300 future required parking must be • 80,000 manuf. @ 3 = 240 determined after the use of the 60,000 Wareh. @ 'z = 30 60,000 expansion is known. • • 570 Spaces Provided 614 With future W.70th Street to the north , the setback to parking should be 37.5', or )? of the required 75' front yard setback. The north parking area is not setback the required distance from the 35' road right of way. SHORE_I AND ORDINANCE The project exceeds the minimum lot size, width, and building setback • required under the General Development Waters category of the Shoreland Ordinance. Impervious surface coverage maximum is 305 within an abutting lot of Shoreland Area. The site plan illustrates 2K; coverage 1st phase and 26% 2nd phase. SITE PLAN The grading proposed will entail removal of the highest hill on the site, 906 elevation, for placement of the building. The cut for the building ranges from 5-23 feet. Grading will remove mature oak trees which presently exist. To compensate for this loss, the developer should submit a tree inventory to the City Staff illustrating the type and size of trees to be removed so the City Staff can determine a replacement formula.(replacement formula i;i11 probably be replacement of trees caliper inch for caliper inch(ne less than 41). The first phase building and parking displace about 6 acres of trees. In comparison, the Michelangelo plan displaced about 8 acres of trees. The Michelangelo plan retained the 906 hill but cut the hill on the north end and south ends of the property. The parking lot immediately to the north is shown with cuts of 2-10 feet. This parking lot is cut into the south side of the northern most hill. No retaining walls have been depicted, but if grades exceed 2:1, a re- taining wall plan should be submitted with the landscape plan. Outlet A, 9 acres, is proposed as open space future parking and extension of Flying Cloud Drive paralleling US 169. Part of it is zoned R11 2.5. Outlot 8, 7 acres of floodplain, is not included in the requested rezoning and may be dedicated to the City. It is zoned Rural. Outlot C, future W. 70 Street, is platted 35' wide across the top of the property. West 70 Street, in the Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th Addition, occurs 16.5 feet north of Outlot C. See figure 2. Outlot C should be platted for future road and utility improvements subject to City Engineer's deterriination of an alignment between this site and the Hanson Auto site. This street was labeled West 73 on the site pl.`n7 and should he corrected to West 70 Street. Outlot C should be dedicated 4o the City as right of way. • • .Utility plans will be .,jest to City Engineer's review .id approval. It will be necessary to loop the water service through the site. Views of the building from the west (US 169) and south will be of a two story brick/glass office type structure. Low berms and plantings can be used to screen the proposed parking from public roads. • The docking facility is situated on the north side of the building adjacent to side lot line of Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th. Grading in this area in- volves ten feet of cut. Originally this rise in topo was retained and in the Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th Addition it was required that the land feature be preserved as a buffer between the residential project. If both sites are industrial • FUTURE EXPANSION Future expansion of parking in the northwest corner of the site falls in Outlet A which will not be zoned 1-5 with Lot 1, Block 1. Therefore, no • expansion in this area can occur until a future request is reviewed and approved. Also future expansion of the building north over 111 parking spaces and relocation of the spaces further north should not occur until future detailed use, parking, and grading plans are submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Holding approval of 2nd Phase develop- ment will allow City to evaluate parking/use ratio)possible future need of a parking ramp, and prevent unnecessary grading. • The Planning Staff still believes some residential should be planned on this cite hPcause both high'density residential and industrial are shown on the Guide Plan and Thorn Creek to the South has potential residential. Staff recommends the PUD Concept be revised to illustrate residential along the south portion of lot 1,(fig. 3). TRANSPORTATION Based upon the first phase parking of 616 spaces and using 2'I trips/ vehicle, the project will generate 1,540 average daily trips. Based upon 400 employees expected with the first phase 1,000 ADT's would be generated. Michelangelo Gardens would have generated about [,c0o ADTs. Rauenhorst proposes to extend Flying Cloud Drive from its present terminous 450 feet further south. This road extension will extend 150 feet south of the Lee Data entrance drive and will have a temporary turn around. The alignment of Flying Cloud Drive through this property in the Michel- angelo Gardens project was diagonally - from the northwest corner to the center area of the south property line. Rauenhorst prefers aligning the road parallel to US 169/212 for approximately F00 feet where surcharging has already occured, then southeast to connect to the point at the south boundary where the road will abut Thorn Creek. (see figure 2) The area of • the road alignment from US 169/212 to the south property line has not been surcharged and will require surcharging. Flying Cloud Drive's extension from this site south through Thorn Creek is unknown at this time. Another access point in and out of this site is future West 70 Street. The site plan illustrates 35 feet of right-of-way of the total 70' ROW abutting the property's northern boundary. The other 35' would come from the Hanson Auto Salvage site at time of development as noted under 'Site Plan'. It is recommended that another entrance to this large project be investi- gated for circulation and safety purposes. This could occur from the northern n,r1,in' are; to 'future West 70 Street, or from the southern most • Staff Report-Lee Data Center page 4 Therefore, since West 70 Street and Flying Cloud Drive's extension south to Valley View Road will not be completed at time of developpment of this site, Flying Cloud Drive north is the only access point. The 1,540 ADT's gen- erated can be handled by this access point which gives connection to US 169 and Shady Oak Road. Rauenhorst should submit detailed soil information and borings to the City Engineer fur review and approval for Flying Cloud Drive and West 70 Street extension. The City Engineer should determine a specific alignment and construction schedule for both roads prior to issuance of any building permit. TRAILS • A trail is desired along Flying Cloud Drive according to the future trail • map. Details of this system should be worked out with the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. EAW An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared and cleared on this site in 1980. The Lee Data development will have less traffic generation, require less tree removal, and will not have a significantly different affect compared to the CAW approval todate. • CASH PARK FEE Cash park fee of $1400 per acre for the 20 acres zoned I-5 will be required at time of building permit issuance. • RECO_f•f•i_FNDAT IONS The Planning Staff would recommend appr•ova,l of the Lee Data proposal con- tingent upon the following: 1. The northern parking area•, first phase, be setback a minimum of 37.5 feet from the north line of Lot 1. 2. A detailed landscaping plan, including a tree inventory of trees to be removed, a retaining wall along the north parking lot,and preservation of existing trees in planting islands in the northwest parking lot, be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 3. Detailed soil information he supplied to the City Engineer so that road alignments for Flying Cloud Drive and future West 70 Street can be det- ermined. In addition, owner commit to construction of both roads as per the City Engineer's specifications. 4. Another entrance drive either off of Flying Cloud Drive or future West 70 Street be submitted to City Staff for review prior to Council action. 5. Future expansion plans for building or parking return to City for site plan review and/or zoning approval. 6. Detail utility and grading plans, including looping of water service as included in this report, be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to permit issuance. • /00 • Staff Report-Lee Data Center page 5 7. Project drainage and storm water be reviewed and approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 8. 0utlot C be dedicated to the City as road right-of-way. 9. Developer meet with staff and the property owner to the east to develop a grading and landscaping plan which meets with the approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director. 10. A revised PUD Concept be drawn depicting future residential along the southeastern portion. • 11. Cash park fee payment be made at time of building permit issuance. 12. A trail / sidewalk system be worked out with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. JJ:sh • 1070 • .. , 1 r .j _i ram..-`•! •..•....iCF- • [ I,f • o Ii 1.___-_____--_„,,„.. ------:-----L.- -------3 CP..-P. -LL,-1--------------17,.......C. .:.: ; 7. .C.'--..=,.:.____,..3.f.Tr_:7-::!--:.CLITL:---1. 0.1"..1==____9_:12:2„.....,....___, ,i........... .14, "..,.,..,... ...‘..,..,,......._.__ III "+11, 1 U' ( r 1' llli � n .�1� y I _ 1'/r u'. tlI. -�� +° �• • ' ' j.Golf p .‘,`� �' ,. , + _ (( [ • 3 L \L•Ot 2 ', t- • • - . . it OZ.11.21.- n 1 J' \ Lot,1.. \ i I I to r• I I' :\• .7\ 1 . -- • 1 • 0( ) 'a' ,�`'�`'`' .�i)--P1. 1.\\.', N'' ce. 1 b II .Y iov7n1,p11`c �‘,\' 1 \ • 0 • 1. ( r:S ; c .mow P� -- pa[.a0C?s` �- tl o _ dnc�oc�c� V. 7 •µ • • _ �, scale: 010 10Q 300 n0 • . l^Ill lrlr�iii 11 l,?.ol • 1 • •• FIGURE 1 1 , -_ ... Q • %.'' �/ 73 33 ii -,,, n Woodda1 ' I , kith.IN I-2 PRK Z' v _ Baptist Ch. /�PI- ''' I 1 Shay 1 ' �� 2 0 .f.; ls' Site _4: F�'�i: f'od 1 is ` -- :i'i - �:'1., '1-22. JI,L,:.,_.:iit..7,1a.n,:,,;:,:n'.71.9 �'�'`Auo Salvae1 -:_1 „--, _ � W.7 test. L _ , ii -( tl • I- ` .-.*,It "1 -22' _4 II:I'. .1 Proposed : - .. I-5 \\c;: _ a 1( t 1 '- .._ ( ; fee Daia-v`,,-- ,k F 1, - -. L' Shady Oak Ind. 7f �, \� �,�` P •' : Park 1- 5 Add. '~`rJ- �a� � ;(` all z ned I-2Pk r‘ ...._S ...---. . :.\\..,^ -- -..-_ ---- - :.1.......,.'N.:::_ -:,1-,:_:::_,_\:_.. -A . _ . _ .. _ _,..p:,......:,.. , . ..\. . / ..I'r' it - ' Brauns • ij\'rY ' Aiy -, I 7 -----\ L------ r—`" • ., - / shorn _ . _ 79 0 / C eek 2 11-8 ✓ 1 PRK C-REG / w. - t __ C REG .,/ • j/77-1 � i3-1`�` I�TT , • C-REG irj1ji1 l {-j C-�'� ;•_ _. M,�==:- ..__ 4iT� stii3l:l _, ,�Ij, �•e-r-I 35r..-_-..T _ 7_ 242 t 3-'77- 4 / :%1—'1 13?4,,1 + u` 15 PI:-!`."��;.FeC. ,,,-9 �l ! '�fii'i )076, FIGURE 2 ' . : __N...........t\Q-- . - 1 .., • • • - 0+ e ''.1 •o .,.iI • -7.'''' ! i ' - -•%\---1 • / ,..• . ' Ck .• 4. ! ki ISO --• . . • OWING ADJOINING OVINEIFIS111P AND LAND USE.: - ..17------A_________.... ...:____‘1•1 /...1 -...,..._ ..i a• ' ... •''',.. H ',/ /•;,,..06,0 _.--_— ,.4_ — — — - . - --- - - • . 4A, ......:-: 4--..1 •;, I', ...- -•. . . tI) /' .i.' .. :.' z,-. ,/,,,' ,t •ii III .4) ::4:1 -,.... /.• •,," „,‘. . " i , o . . kt..........4. f , , , .• 43.• , !4 0) % i?1 eelAkb • .1 A•thlki:i, , .6. ,,,• l,4 ...;I.1"..).-t...• t..-Ii. JIR Lyn! HA AISEAI - f....TA L 7 /No vs r.,:.. • 0,..,_. ',.. ... .'"7.'' •1" ,' '..4.4 A vros. PART5 - ——- - . • ",. /1 '';,•-'11-,, r'r) .., i ,•t•,„:--• ,...,,,,••.. i". " . . 911.,ilL":4';‘"--.-"-,,...,. — • ..'It"."''-'• ---1--.:!---...'-':,',.• .,"5"'''''-''''.."".... Vr*I'• '-'7'.7zilv-4'er"ii.Y.r: .1 "rsia•A•fleolar;Tv. 1 i - I: .1 :. - L•11.11.101 ...0 /ark....., , ....., . • . . • . 1 _,• .1„ •• ,4:: • ' i . • . INDUSTRIAL . 11 1 . . (I) 1 .. . sputlot A ... • 1 ,, •_ ,(... ., . .....„...... 4- , ,....„ a.--, ,.,.,. •.., : , ,•,........,, _ . • .. , ---:. • ! 2 , • A ; . . • I . i . , •..\,,,,, 1 t41.*::-._ , . •.;:z-,_..„ p• -......--.. : ••„.. I ° ----7-- ---1 . \ **** " • ••• •OOOOOOOOOOOOOO••• as , 1 (s) I , ,?..!! ‘ I ...i, 1? C . ' 1 I I . I •t i, , 0 0) 4.? • 1 Outlot B \ RESIDENTIAL ....,._... ---- c.) C—:--• -- --P--:::- .. ° _I. __ _ _ _ _ .. . . ..,••••••••*;•"•••••••••••••••••••••0••••••••••••,••••••somee...•••••••••••••• •-,—.....-.....•e........•••,•••*,••••••••Gm .1 \ COrpc F.• !' . • , ‘. I i . : • I I • ...--. ' /4/NAMA POL.'S igrAr C -,-riRs 967) ,—.71 • I ..:tt 3 ' t • . FIGURE 3 ' 1 OOOOOO ..... , 1 ;. .....L......--A - - \....)/TT:.."--=7:--: •i".**I.1*r.11 —. 07 3 / / . LEE DATA CENTER PUD CONCEPT PLAN • PREPARED FOR LEE DATA COMPANY EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA • PREPARED BY • RAUENHORST CORPORATION BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA • MAY 14, 1982 /O24' • 1. Project Identification • A. Ownership: Rauenhorst Corporation Purchased for: Lee Data Purchased by: Raucnhorst Corporation • Nature of Title: Land Development and Construction Corporation B. Developer: Rauenhorst Corporation Nature of Business: Developer and contractor of several major industrial Parks and Business Centers in Minneapolis, • Milwaukee, Chicago and Phoenix. • Involvment: Intention on this project is to construct and provide parking for a 200,000 square foot office/light manufacturing building for Lee Data on the *36 acres comprising the site. • The facility will be owned by Rauenhorst and leased to Lee Data on a long term rental agreement. Lee Data will use the . building to assemble and distribute remote computer terminal units. C. Fiscal Resources: Rauenhorst will provide all necessary interim and permanent financing needed to underwrite development of the facility. D. Development Method: Rauenhorst will plan, design, develop and • build the entire facility for Lee Data. Streets and utilities will be petitioned for construction by the city with assessments paid for by the developer. E. Development 'Timing: The initial phase will consist of 200,000 square feet of office/manufacturing space for Lee Data. The 200,000 will be ultimately expanded to 260,000 within five years. F. Critical Public Decisions: All necessary utilities except for storm sewer are available to the site. An overall drainage plan is being designed for the site and extension of storm sewer will be dealt with through that plan. Access to the site, conservation of wetlands; drainage, and extension of utilities are the most critical public decisions for the site. The access will be provided extending the existing frontage road at 169-212 which cul de sacs north of the site into the property to service the project. Ultimately the access will be extended through to Valley View Road providing north south access to the multi-family units programmed south of the site. 2. Plan Area Identification • A.B.Identify Boundaries/Project Area: Site is * 36 acre parcel located in Eden Prairie lying north of Nine Mile Creek and east of Highway 169-212. It is bounded by the Hanson property to the north and Anderson property to the east, Schoenfeld property to the south and Highway 169 to the west. (Sec Exhibit 1.) C. Regional Relationships: Highway )69-212 are regional arterials that connect this site to other major business, housing and regional activities within the Twin Cities area. The regional access enjoyed by the site makes it prime industrial and business: location within the region. l07c • 71 . /' 1 1 !\ 1I.w EXNIDIT 1 ;• . 1 •., 1 1 I 1 iI ,l 1 ,1. • .,, 4.1 ' --r-i-:---71 /, • • • .i 1.1" i . •.. ',di ..,..../ . 17 -.. . -..,../ ''...4 3. '1)\: I I il. ! • • i • .; -. 77 ot . srJt.TI•F,.JIwY I.f R j I / \ -�, l_.- . . OFFICE;it , - �''�'�` '�• ' I • .J71 .-- : �`•\ , - — :\•: 1 !`. I .!Co44,,'.�..•`:.!•1 2ic`\`c•„L 1•5 PRR '' ,t.).,..r.`•,• • • r112 f• ''� \ •I. • . i. ' 1 1�{ •''i t' .2 ZPRII 1.211" II. :i1^ ,;'. • ,! �f•',i1 1•, Dt. I. .._-1 1 - 1I 1.. �FF171.\, , .:771 •_�.,rr.r�••.10•0 177.7"N > `I,Ii'P`• 1 ' ' • 1~�I� ,: �1,7I 1✓ .1 .14 Pmc -r4��S•:i- c. • • � 11• \I\ .�,• • • "• `Ric J .. ._ _.._ ,• I.I :r.1,• c l� L% �. ` `- /••.�•7 ,3 1 1"1 ':-3242 1-'11)S I1,;^•,I•..•• • 1. �,r . .l� I . ,•'r ,�,i''. 11 ) . `......;, 1,,,3,fir�.��\` •,r,� • ''. i° .7. -• • . -i ).; / PUD ',:. /P (:.I )\ • — 72•2 1 .•�•1):'r.••� _. -L 70 3 �• I. { • N� ,) I I / • . ..4•, .t 1 M,•,1! P�1�,✓ 2!1/�:• \,I,.1... • • S .f r.l v,\ 1 • • Page Two. D. Existing Land Use/Occupancy: Property is presently not in use and has no occupancy. E. Zoning:Property.is presently zoned RM 2.5 (multi-family) Residential. F. Guide Plan: Eden Prairie guide plan has this property directed toward medium-high density residential and industrial uses. (See Exhibit 2.) • G. General Analysis: Much of the property along the west and southerly boundaries are non-developable properties having extremely poor sub soil condidion and being located in the Nine Mile Creek flood • • plain. The remaining portion of the property located on the • north and western boundaries of the property is gently rolling to hilly and has healthy cover of mature oak stands that should be preserved. Property is immediately adjacent to industrial uses to the north and east, and planned residential uses to the south. The site lends itself to the extension of a high quality, en- vironmentally sensitive corporate setting for a high tech business such as the Lee Data Company. 3. Plan Project Area Analysis • A. Topography, Slopes: Westerly portion of site abutting 169 generally flat at a topography of e60 feet. Along southern border topography ranges from 840 feet to 850 feet. This is the Nine Mile Creek flood plain area. The remainder of the site in the northeasterly portion of the site is a rolling hilly area with topography ranging from 860 feet to 890 feet. Slopes are generally moderate but in some areas they do get steep. D. Soils: Soils on the westerly portion of site along 169-212 are very poor having 5-7 feet of good soil over up to 30 feet of unbuild- able soil. The southern portion of the site is in the Nine Mile Creek flood plain and is also unbuildable. The remainder of the site is rolling and wooded and is suitable for development. Soil tests have been done and will be provided if required. C. Vegetation: Vegetation on the site exists predominantly on the build- able portion of the site. it consists generally of small trees/ shrubs, and mature stands of oak trees. D. Water: There is no standing or running water on the site. The south- erly border of the site is in the flood plain of Nine Mile Creek. Being at the very edge of the flood plain, the site is dry and can be walked through. E. Photographic Analysis: None F. General Natural Ecological Analysis: Generally the development of the site will respect and respond to existing contours of the site; preserve the existing stands of mature oaks; and not disturb natural habitat existing in the flood plain area; and respect land forms such as knolls and slopes that enhance the natural setting for the facility. 0,77 • EXHIBIT 2 • I : /— kl- : -717111, --r- r i ,.:. 111-7---, „,1 1 1, _J„, ''. . 1 d.:______• Li_ i \ _____.....R. .m.::.., /j1 if) \.L.s.,,,_,1_,___I .1 I \\I -1 icrl ' . i • IV 1 I i---• -.-1:. ..i " :'... . :-• i': —• \/_y\--T :'`••- , t t .-t ar ' � � �. '°7;��� Q` 4�' '-,�: 7 ti,(5,) i,.., ; ,......, i J, ,, /. ??3, .., __.,._ ., ,,...„..,. -4;r-cs, \,v. „...„-,;'...,---, 4-. - A.,_......_ \ t ,. ‘,.. .(...,...)/ ,c, ......1_ \ 1 ,,,..i.......,:i ----b.'•.-- !.. ,,,,---\\ . --- -- -A-1— •' •-‘ ..--:i'",'"‘..--„ i/,' 0 __ .---;1-7.)/1 RIVI -"'•,.., ,..71---.\., ; p ! ... ,? ,,,,,,,., ....„_: -L-__ _ AT 4,1—.., .... ., ..)e..?' ; \) \•\\\-i.,,,,);;' ),,, L.::,-7.... _ —7./ j(3 .1.2,:::. .\\ v- 1 , \\.., 1--.11 I) 1 s). if j , - s, i_. ;,„7: -.,.\-,./...L.:.:_ , i ,..i: __ s,,H I, ,•., Vojk1C,7, pi..;.,:ih..• ,Di.-,:_-,,f2t1...';',.\- —17,---i P- .ma's o.h•.:1,. +" �q : J (; I—1 J (f \RC ! T\' ....f.JJ 1b „,, 'r Page Three. 4. Plan Proposal A. Goals: 1. To provide a high quality corporate office/manufacturing facility to meet the expanding business and employment needs of the Lee Data Company and of Eden Prairie as a community. 2. To provide'a use for the site which will be its highest and best use and will best serve the community. 3. To provide a logical extension and expansion opportunity for the office/warehouse neighborhood that is developing north and east of the site. 4. To preserve the natural amenities of the site at the same time " providing a convenient and comfortable place to work. B. Land Use: The land use for the site will be in 3 categories generally. • 1. Wetland Open Space (Outlot A): 9+ acre abutting Highway 169 • • where soils are not suited for building development will be pre- served as open space. In addition, a portion of this land will be used to extend Flying Cloud Drive into the site to provide access to the Lee Data facility and ultimately to through traffic from Valley View Road and the Meat Cutters project south of the site. The road will be constructed in two phases with the first phase serving the immediate access needs for Lee Data. 2. Floor Plain (Outlot B): This use will exist along the southern border of the property that lies in the flood plain. It consti- tutes approximately 7+ acres of site. A portion of this area • will also be used for the extension of Flying Cloud Drive. 3. Industrial (Lot 1): Appro::imatoly 20 acres of the site is suitah?, for building development and this portion of the site would be • proposed to he developed as a high quality corporate office and manufacturing facility for Lee Data which is an existing business • within the city of Eden Prairie. The overall site would have a building coverage of 15%. In addition, the extension of half of the right of way for W. 73rd Street will be provided through dedications taken from this lot. C. Transportation: The sites close proximity and accessibility to the metropolitan freeway systein via U.S. Highway 169 and 212 make it • an opportune site minutes away from the Eden Prairie Center, the Southdale Shopping Center, and the 494 strip. Immediate access to the site from Highway 169 is via the existing diamond inter- change at County Road 61 (Shady Oak Road) and then south on Flying Cloud Drive. Future access to the site will be provided by a connection to Valley View Road which is south of the site through extension of Flying Cloud Drive which presently cut de at the north property line of the Lee Data site. D. Common Area and Facilities: None E. Utilities: All utilities including sanitary, sewer, water, gas and electrical are immediately adjacent to the site and can be easily extended for service. Storm sewer is not available to the site • and a proper drainage system for the site using the existing wetlands overland drainage system has been designed to handle water run-off from the building, parking lot and road servicing '09 the site. • F. (Mass Grading: No mass grading is being projected for the site. Some excavation will occur however. ji • Page Four. G. Development Phasing: It is anticipated that the project will develop in two phases. Phase one will consist of 200,000 square feet and phase two 60,000 expansion feet that will be added within five years. H. Housing: No housing units will be constructed in combination with the Lee Data facility. The meat cutters site south of the Lee Data proposal does have housing programmed as a part of its land•use concept. I. Land Use Profile: The need to harmoniously balance this business facility with existing natural features on the site as well as the limited amount of developable land that can be committed to develop- ment make it difficult to accomodate additional uses on the site. • And, the industrial development that has already occurred on parcels: that adjoin the site on the north and cast make the proposed Lee Data use an appropriate development for this site. (Also, see 4B above.) • J. Building and Site Plan Design: The objective of the site and build- ing design is to create campus type setting for what will become • the headquarters for the Lee Data Company. Only 20 of the 36 acres lends itself to development. Within that 20 acres are some terrain features and vegetation that have to be altered to accomodate the design necessary for all the office and assembly operations that will take place within the building. The area that will he used to assemble the remote computer terminal units has to be within a large, geometrically simple structural component of the complex. To design this space in any other manner creates inefficiencies and diseconomies that create problems for Lee Data. One of the results of the need for this type of form is that a portion of the hill that runs through the site will have to be reshaped to accomodate this assembly area. But, while the hill is being reshaped to accomodate the assembly area of the building, the slope on the easterly portion of the site and the knoll on the north will be preserved to provide screening and enhancement for the building from the north and east. The architectually dramatic protion of the building will be on the west as it is oriented toward I-169. From this side, viewers will see an all brick and glass structure which will have high quality- high tech image befitting the Lee Data Company. And, efforts will be made to "notch" the office and lunch room areas into the portion • of the hill that will remain after the assembly area is constructed. K. Transit impact Analysis: Initial access for the site would be from extension of Flying Cloud Drive into the site (See Exhibit 3). Flying Cloud Drive presently cul de sacs north of the site. The present traffic flow on this road is minimal because it serves only a couple industrial users. This project would be the only additional user of Flying Cloud Drive as extended. The goal is to initially extend only that portion of Flying Cloud Drive into the site that would he used for direct access by Lee Data. Within 2 - 3 years the balance of this road would be constructed to connect in with Valley View Road. This would then give full north-south access to the site. 3. IU`LU • • Page Five. It is assumed that the 200,000 square foot Lee Data facility will generate 1,425 trips per day with all trips accessing the site via the 169/Flying Cloud Drive interchange. In our opinion, this interchange and frontage road configuration has sufficient capacity and stacking room to accomodate the added "on' and "off'peak trips • that will be generated by the site. The volume traffic impact of this facility on the interchange will be mitigated somewhat once full north-south access is provided by complete extension of 'he frontage road to Valley View Road. This will give the percentage of vehicles seeking a more direct connection to County Road 18 to the east improved access to that system. • • • • • • IQY( r I • Cc ( . I 1 g4t) ,.1 if • - / zi S}ltAt>f tilL1 • \ N u -, r . 5 ] . 1 ‘ . i . . ) y �5tir. /WtS — f • I 'IT- • r Lz,,,3 ( . l . / 1 H II p� i'•�� Z L' sp� ! • ESA t0 UPw4`,e U totD, . -1-\ /"'h•+—"'SS g" EXiiIUIT 3 '0. 1 Lee Data Center PUD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-I31 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LEE DATA CENTER 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 Lee Data PUD is considered a proper amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Rauenhorst Corporation's request for approval for industrial and open space uses and recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 15, 1982. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Lee Data Center PUD, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. • 2'. That the City Council does grant PUD approval as outlined in the application material dated May 14, 1982. 3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 24, 1982. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , I982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk SEAL /063 • The northeast quarter of the northwest quarter, except the East 165 feet thereof and except the north 16.5 feet thereof; All that part of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter lying easterly of the easterly line of US Highway No. 169/212; all in Section 12, Township 116, Range 22, according to the Government Survey thereof. • EXHIBIT A • l logy • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-132 RESOLUTION APPRDVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LEE DATA CENTER BE IT RESOLVED•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Lee Data Center dated May 14, 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 D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL • /of Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 24, 1982 MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath • B. 8RYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Company. Request for—Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low density residential to medium density residential and park/open space uses, PUD Concept for 22 acres of resid- ential and 43 acres of park/open space/ROW, rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for 3 single family and RM 2.5 for 218 condos, preliminary plat of the entire 65 acre site, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located north of Bryant Lake, south of proposed Crosstown 62, and East of I-494. A public hearing. The Planner stated that the proponent has now submitted a final plan for the Commission's review and approval. John Uban of Howard Dahlgren & Associates and Ron Erickson of Korunsky Krank Erickson Architects were present to give the presentation. Uban reviewed the location of the property. He stated that all single family homes around the lake are within 1000' from the Lake. The proponent proposes development leaving 1000' directly around the lake into park land to buffer the project. Development will occur in the northern part of the site and be medium density residential with the three single family lots remaining as is. Erickson stated that they would like to preserve as many trees as possible and stated they would like to preserve the natural features of the site. The buildings will fit into the topography. Buildings will be three stories with underground parking. He reviewed the site lines and stated that the plan is in conformance with all City Ordinances and standards. He stated that the remainder of the site will be dedicated to the City. They felt that they have addressed all of the con- cerns raised by the Planning Commission at previous meetings. He reviewed the exterior design; residential in character, pitched roof, gables, and the roof line will be brought down to the second floor. The development will blend with the surroundings. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 5/21/82 and stated that the original staff report is attached. He stated that there is one way in and one way out for all three buildings. Another fire access could bb put in, but if there was a traffic back-up at Beach Road, there could be a problem getting vehicles into the site. He stated he felt the design approach to the site is good. Marhula asked the status of the exception at the south end. The Planner replied that the small area to the west is owned by Hennepin County Park Reserve Disrict and the other area is owned by a private owner. Erickson stated that a tennis court would be placed in an open area at the top of the hill. Uban stated that restrictions would be placed on the use of the buildings. Hallett asked if the project will be marketed with the proposed Crosstown extension. Uban replied yes. Torjesen asked if there will be a density transfer. The Planner replied no. • Torjesen asked if it is appropriate to plat the Crosstown ROW exception at this time. The Planner replied yes. Torjesen asked if very little ROW is used, what will happen to the rest. The Planner ..nnl{...V i4 .will hn rin.{ir>Tnrl "n the. m,hi r //TH.. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 24, 1962 Sutliff asked if Crosstown goes through, if there is any possibility of a controlled intersection. Bearman replied yes. Torjesen expressed his concerns regarding the Crosstown extension and access for the project. Marhula stated that a few years ago a firm commitment was made by the County for construction of Crosstown. Torjesen asked if Eden Prairie has approved the at-grade access. The Planner replied yes, although a high bridge was included. Bearman asked the density of the project and stated that the plan was for less units than proposed at present. The Planner replied the density is 9.4 units/acre on the condom-'niums and that the plan was previously 19B units. • Bearman asked the length of the buildings. Erickson replied 390'-400'. Bearman stated he felt that with only one way in and one way out of the project, another access should be made. Don Poupard, 6251 Beach Road stated he would like the project to be developed as single family. He also stated he would like a berm put in between the buildings and single family homes. Erickson replied it is not feasible to place a berm there because there are existing large trees there already. Uban stated that evergreens could be placed there, and if that did not work, a wood fence could be constructed. Bearman stated he felt that screening should be put in there. Torjesen commented that all development presently around Bryant Lake has been built at a lower density than allowed and expressed his concern that this will be 9.4 units/acre. MOTION 1 Marhula moved to close the public hearing. Hallett seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low density to medium density residential and park/open space uses as per the staff report dated 5/21/B2 and the plans dated May, 1982. Hallett sec- onded. DISCUSSION Torjesen asked the maximum units/acre that could be allowed in the medium density land use category. The Planner replied 10. Torjesen asked if any other projects have been built as close to 10 units/acre. The Planner stated that most projects in the medium density residential category fall in a density of between 5 and B units/acre. More dense projects have usually fallen into the high density category because they are higher than 10 units/acre. Marhula stated that considering the entire 65 acres, this project comes to 31 units/acre. • Sutliff asked if access onto Crosstown precludes zoning if Hennepin County opposes this project in terms of developability of the project. The Planner replied yes, the developer needs access to develop this project. Motion carried 5-1. Torjesen voted no. • Unapproved Manning Commission Minutes -7- May 24, 1982 MOTION 3 {, Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD Concept plan for 22 acres of residential and 43 acres of park/open space/ROW as per the material dated May, 1982 and the May 21, 1982 staff report and the Hennepin County Depart- ment of Transportation letter dated May 20, 1982. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 4 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning 18 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 and 4.83 acres from Rural to R1-22 as per the plans dated May, 1982 and the May 21, 1982 staff report and the Hennepin County Department of Trans- portation letter dated May 20, 1982. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Torjesen asked that screening of the Poupard residence be added as a contingency. The Planner replied that a detailed landscaping plan can be directed to staff for review and approval. Gartner asked that evergreens be utilized of a size and density which would assume year round screenings. Marhula and Sutliff agreed. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 5 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated May, 1982 as pc,- the May 21, 1982 staff report and the Hennepin County Department of Transportation letter dated May 20, 1982 and screening of the Poupard residence utilizing evergreens of a size and density which would assume year round screenings and a detailed landscaping plan directed to staff for review and approval. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 6 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council the EAW Finding of No Significant Impact. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. Bearman left and turned the chair over to Torjesen. /o MEMORANDUM TC: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM:. Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: June 3, 1982 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Bryant Lake Condominiums PROPONENT: Netram Properties Co. REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change PUT) Concept Plan Approval, rezoning and preliminary plat approval. Sec Planning Staff Report. • • , LOCATION:North of Bryant Lake. west of Bryant lake Park. BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report Dated: • PARK AND RECREATION PLANNING CONCERNS 1. Type of development: Residential 2. Number of units in residential development: 218 Condominiums, 3 single family lots 3. Number of acres in the project: 65 acres 4. Special recreation space requirements: A swimming pool and tennis courts are being proposes adjacent to any existing or proposed parks. • • S. Adjacen, to any existing or proposed parks: Bryant Lake Regional Park exists to the east and is proposed to the south. a. �A'frc` U the I',T,24ie n t•S,ng_`;01. l.�ill rl,• Lmine.fEltCl.II4�S.�1S�LSLhIlutlrin ry of Rryant Lake f;n n rovLdc h fie ti i a)ose rcg na par expansion. 6. Need for a mini park: No 7. Cash park fee or land dedication? Land Dedi cation a. If Cash park fcc dedication, amount based on existing ordinance will total:, N/A b. If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated is 38.97 acres • c. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property total Information not and will be paid prior to dedication, available 8. Adjacent to existing or proposed trails: Proposed hikeway/hikeway trait thru the cnuthern • portion of the site. a. Type of trails Tiikeway/bikeway • • b. Construction Material asphalt c. Width of trail 8 feet d. Party responsible for construction City or Park Reserve District e. Landownership of trail location:(dedicated, purchased, ROW) Within the rledientpd parcel • NATURAL grsourci- rrnstnViTION cosCDrms 1. Site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site? The significant Natural amenitieq of this site include a high knoll in the cast central portion of the site. as well 2, ligas the Icn'cy Vsr tat'on to the west and to the northeast. t srn3 rcaut'gra in mi the silc: The most significant grading on the site will occur in the northern valley between • . the two western most buildings. • /0)79 • • 3. Significant vegetation on the site includes:Mature deciduous woods on the west portion of the site and the northeast portion of the site. 4. The site grading plan indicates preservation of: The majority of the wooded area is preserved thru this proposed development plan. S. Adjacent to public waters: Bryant Lake a. 'Affect on waters:lhere wi 11 be some increase in the rate of runoff; however, the major affect will be the insured preservation of the north shore of Bryant Lake. RHPGIEENCC C16Ci: • •1. Major Center Area Study: N/A • . 2. Neighborhood Facilities study: This area was not covered in the Neighborhood Facilities Study. However, intense recreational services will be provided on site, passive services will be provided by the regional part: adjacent to the development. 3. Purgatory Creek Study • : N/A 4. Shoreland Management Ordinance: This proposal meets the Shoreland Management Ordinance. • S. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A • 6. Guide Plan:Allis development proposal requires a dhange of the Comprehensive Guide Plan from low density residential to medium density residential on 17.89 acres and 35.97 acres of p:fil dedication. • 7. Other: RgCo?D1°.S'D,\TI ONS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: 2. Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 24, 1982, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change, approval of the PUII Concept Plan for 22 acres of residential and 43 acres of park and open space and approval of the re::oning from Rural to kM 2.5 on .1.5 acres and trim Rural to R1-2- as per the plans dated May 1982 and the May 21, 1982 staff report, as well as approval of the preliminary plat dated May 1982. -3. Community Services Staff Recommendation: The Community Services Staff recommends approval as per the Planning Staff Report dated May.21, 1982 with die following clarification: the required public trail easement should he an access point for residents of this development to the dedicated park area. Staff would recommend an access point in the area of the southern most tennis courts. /0 0 • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: • Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 21, 1982 PROJECT: BRYANT LAKE CDNDOMINIUMS (revised) LOCATION: SE quadrant of X-town 62 and Beach Road FEE DICER & APPLICANT: Metram Properties Company • REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan change of • approximately 65 acres from low density residential, to 17.89 acres of medium density residential, 4.83 acres of low density residential, and 38.97 acres of park dedication (balance to be ROW); 2. PUD Concept Plan approval for 218 condominiums on 17.89 acres, 3 single family lots on 4.83 acres, and 38.97 acres of public park; 3. Rezoning of 17.89 acres from Rural to Ri1 2.5 for 218 condo units, rezoning of 4.83 acres from Rural to R1•-22 for 3 single family lots, rezoning of 38.97 acres from Rural to PUB • for park purposes; • 4. Preliminary plat approval of 64.7 acres, into: 3.D1 acres of ROW, 3 single family lots, 3 condo'uinium lots, and 1 38.97 acre lot for park purposes. 5. Approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. REFER TD: Development information, May 1982; July 23, 1981 staff report (attached) • BACKGROUND The Planning Commission first began review of this item as a PUD in July of 1981. At that time the request was for 243 units with no public park open space dedication, and a considerable amount of the site proposed for develop- ment. (see figure 1) Many changes have occured in the project since then. The current plan would be a reduction of the total units (from 243 to 221), a reduction in density from 3.76 to 3.4, a consolidation of the developed area onto the northern 26 acres of the site, (1D00 feet from the lake vs. 3D0 feet), a dedication of 38.97 acres of land with 1100 feet of lakeshore to Eden Prairie, custom design of three condominium buildings integrated to the site with minimum visual impact, and a reduction of impervious surface area. The project is in conformance with the floodplain and Shoreland Management Ordinances. Staff Report-Bryant Lake Condominiums (revised) page 2 ACCESS Access to the condominiums initially would be from the end of the 62 Cross- town Highway. The access would have to be hard surface and be according to Hennepin County approval. Beach Road could not be utilized. With the construction of the Crosstown, the County contemplates realigning of the intersection of Beach Road, as shown on the development plan. Right-cf-way from this developer would assist in this, but additional ROW would have to be acquired from the property to the west. Traffic generated by the condominiums would be about 1400 ADT with a pm peak. hour of 140. Since it is anticipated that there would be a stop light at the ' ' new intersection of Beach Road, traffic into this area would be regulated in intervals during the pm peak. Since the through traffic from the south on Beach Road is anticipated to be very light, the left turning conflict into the condominium entrance would be minimal and allow for a relatively free flow situation. Site lines to the west from the condominium entrance are in excess of 300 feet. Traffic flow out of the condominium site in the morning is via right hand turns, not cross traffic. In addition, several hundred feet of stacking room within the site is available. However, final design of the Crosstown Highway/Beach Road intersection should consider a possible left turn lane and free right turn lane, because of the tight geometries of Beach Road as proposed south o` this intersection. The intersection should be able to handle much more traffic than generated by this project, it properly designed. In the event the Crosstown is not built, no capacity problem should exist, since the project would have direct access to a full diamond interchange. Capacity of I-494 and future 62 Crosstown will be more than adequate to handle traffic from this land use. SITE PLAN Except for access to the Crosstown and grading caused by the Crosstown, grading on the project is kept to a minimum. The tennis court proposed in the woods for the eastern condominium should be located on the open portion of the site. Construction limits on the west side of the western building should be 'tightened up' to preserve more trees. The area lying north of the western building, between Beach Road (realigned) and the entrance road, should be bermed rather than swaled and planted heavily with vegetation to help buffer these residential units from future Crosstown. An inventory of trees over 12" in diameter should be taken in the areas proposed for construction. Those trees, (other than elms, cottonwood, box- elder, or willow), should be replaced caliper inch for caliper inch with trees of similar species but no less than 4" in diameter. This tree replace- ment would be best utilized on the west and south portions of the site, and as a buffer to the Crosstown. SINGLE FAMILY AREA Tie three lots proposed for single family homes would be in excess of one acre each and would be in conformance with the R1-22 District. wa • Staff Report-Bryant Lake Condominiums (revised) page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning_Staff recommends approval of the Guide Plan change, PUD, rezoning and preliminary platting of the project subject to the following: 1. Dedication of the 38.97 acre area for park at the time of the rezoning 2nd reading. (2nd reading to be held no later than 60 days after the 1st reading). This land must be conveyed by Warranty Deed free and clear of any taxes, assessments, liens, mortgages, or encumbrances. 2. Dedication of 3.01± acres for road ROW at the time of final plat. 3. Both temporary and final access to 62 Crosstown must be hard surface and subject to Hennepin County Highway Department approval. • 4. Sewer and water connections for the condominiums, developer to petition immediately for extension of water service. 5. Relocation of single tennis court in northeast area, out of the woods into an open area of the site. • 6. Setbacks of buildings from side lot lines of no less than 25 feet. • 7. Detailed inventory of trees in excess of 12" in diameter on the site to be removed by construction and landscape plan for replacement of these. Replacement trees would be of similar species and would count caliper inch for caliper inch for trees removed. Replacement trees would be no less than 4" caliper. Relocation areas would be: to the west for buffer from single family, to the south for buffer from the park, and to the north for buffer from future Crosstown. . Inventory and plan to be submitted prior to 2nd reading of zoning. 8. Area north of western building should be bermed and landscaped as a highway buffer. 9. Use of wood as an exterior material allowed up to 50% of any one building elevation. 10. Overall Homeowner's Association should be set up to assure maintenance of common areas, entrance drive, and parking areas. 11. Easement for a public trail must be dedicated on west side of plat. 12. All construction limits in wooded area must be fenced prior to con- struction for protection of trees 'to remain'. 13. Watershed District must review and approve plan prior to construction. 14. Cash park fee of $55,475 would not be assessed to this project, because of the land dedication. CE:sh A c o ° O �% - _ __62-- v `r r _. _ 72ii? . , >7;:.----------- - it --\ ' - "- ' 1 . • hC � i lrvnivrn ‘,\o^O _ - 1.,. � 7.Srt `Porn 3' 4--.... .�'Ca �\� " _ _ g )r .1r G ' !\ i iiiier).\ ( ig___ , i I 0 V:n, \tj, ' , -- -- %v V ;r �� íç -P i --_ 1 \,) 19:7/:c-C3):Yi. C.*•• i i ,-^ -- ' , . ' \ &tyjcii> \,,..•,'...' l• •'..,/,90, 1 \ ) •I / % _ '. +n'?1. ri_-.ice:6.�t'�ci.e• f/ /r !, ( • _-_ (r<.. p 4 1- ,;r.,„'._Jai,,(CX,c i .Ih1ARt' lit_ _ _C • .i / GJ� .. \ �w v Sexsa fancy 7 stl \. 1 ' �• .,J'\C}o� ,�. -- :.o, Cc doinms 156�� 1 j S'L�) - .. ROW • 8 Pox 80 325 1 1 i 1 ` ' ``\ \- C__/ o. P0.-0° °O. tv P BQW(tobes�y+g€4_ 3.26 r I.\ Cr-': •. - TOTAL 243 64.10 • 0 q 376 L its/Acre Gross .�7..._ Q \` .,� C) o0 �' (. 0 CL Bryant Lake Condominiums o , Metram Properties l--.- o o • Eden Prairie, Mn. ., I. . :.. , \� ' ••• VI �•-'O 100 200 400la N L- . M'D Rh+niwr (,PM/Ul1NR I1111fIt r • M. • I• h FIGURE 1 •& ..,r>:... 1 Concept . lay/ • . i STAFF REPORT ' I. TO: Planning Commission FR0A: • Chris Inger, Director of Planning DATE: July 23, 1981 ' SUBJECT: • BRYANT LAKE CONDOi•iINIUMS APPLI''A1IT AND• FEE 01'IiIER: • P1etram Properties REQUEST: PUD Concept approval for 243 units on 64.7 acres of land for a gross density of 3.76 units per acre. LOCATION: In the southeast quadrant of I-494 and Crosstown 62 extended, bounded onntthe south hrky Bryant Lake and on the cast by )' GUIDE MAN Plan designates this property as low density The de11t ial,Com;,rehensivc Guideand eastern purtivus of the site • resident with the southern (lakeshore) • • as Regional Park. 7011INGper , acres. A but waterre would `I tie current zoning is Rural, which vroulc! allow one unit • Iavcktoeber runs broughthacrosstle494c�thcrn portion of the site, StIRR01IND1NC I ANt pSF_S Ike property to the immediate west is awned by Thelma Haynes, and has been �i„ industrial divided stoonr'62 ai dlots. furtherThe nort.harea inwt•li the nne+tconka is a is 1idevele loping-rind for park.the Cl'wT,t Regional Park (Bryant Lake Park). To the east is Iler ,epin County 1lrnnepin County has included it Although this property is privately owned, within its houndaries for intended acquisition. S!l0G1tA!J0 h;1"At,(h11�tdT_0+i01NA'�CE Lake All of the proposed t>-plexes and the southern wing of the south large • condominium building are within 1000 feet of the lakeshore of Bryant (shoreland). ,meet Lake. There arc no proposed within 150' of the. shoreline, therefore the zoning ordinance • Bryant Lake is classified as a Recreational Development on I I „1 icahlk; in im,erviuusf s lot urface tallo`+ d+1h}+ thchchurca �ndtire cltlydic�,necl t5 only is ell well under' the •lt development is in conformance with this ordinance. Therefore, lhv dcvclo{ • , -,i I ti /09s cr,;'�;,,i Al11 is proposed in the 9-D1ilc fre^.k floudplain. • • • • • Staff Report-Bryant Lake Condominiums ' page 2 • REQUEST Tlo request is for a PUD Concept plan approval which would amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan, allowing 3.76 units per acre for low density multiple rather than 2 units per acre single family. LAidD USE. AI.TFRaATIVFS There ore several different land use alternatives that are within reason on this site: • 1. Without amending the Guide Plan or rezoning, the property could be split into 5 acre lots; because of the proximity to Bryant Lake and the other large lots in the area, this seems possible. • 2. Without amending the Guide Plan, the property could be developed into • large single family lots on sewer and water, but conforming as much as' • possible to the terrain. This would probably not allow fulfillment of '2 units per acre and therefore, the development costs per lot would be very high. For this reason, this scale of development may not be reasonable. • 3. Without amending the Guide Plan, single family lots could be platted • with sewer and water at 2 units per acre. In our opinion, because of the severe topography of the site, this type of development would ruin the site. 4. Without aiccding the Guide Plan, the site could be developed with sewer and water, at two units per acre, but in a clustered fashion to respect the site.and preserve open space. It is difficult to say whether or not the direct land cost per unit can be assumed by multiple units that • would have otherwise been attributable to single family lots. • 5. The plan as proposed,(3.76 units per acre clustered), is a middle ground between medium density, (6-10 units per acre), and low density, (2 units per acre). The plan'as proposed is very low density multiple residential. • The land use issue, as you can see, is somewhat relative. Therefore, the City should, also consider the following facts: 1. Sewer and water service in this arca will more adequately protect the water quality of Bryant Lake. • 2. If the Crosstown 62 is built, this hind will be under tremendous pres- sure for commercial development. 3. Clustering of the units on the site is the least disruptive method to develop the site with sewer and water. 4. The industrial land use and future Crosstown extension north of this property could have an adverse impact on single family lots in this area. • 5. Bryant Lake has an over-riding net plus effect on the property for use as any type of residential as evidenced by The Cove and Beach Road area's development. 6. This property is contemplated for purchase by Hennepin County Park Preserve as part of Bryant Lake Park. / :)(p W Staff Report.Bryant Lake Condominiums page 3 6 • .SITE PLAN Although the site plan preserves the majority of the site as open space and at it's natural contour, .the buildings have not been designed specifically for this site, so the site must be recontoured substantially in the building pad locations. The hill on which the two large condominiums are proposed would be topped; fran a high point of 942.5 to building pad elevations of 901-905. Likewise, the entry road requires the shaving off of the southwest slope of the high (9B1.B) hill in the northeast corner of the site. . • Fill will be placed under the southern most 8-plexes to a depth of 15', •• under the plan proposed. This entire plan is, of course, an alternate to the property being purchased as park. In the event it is not purchased, the long cul-de-sac, as layed out, does allow the opportunity to connect back to Beach Road, to the west, or to Rowland Road, to the east. The four buildings along the east side of the long cul-de-sac, should be either eliminated or relocated more internally, because of their negative • visual impact on the stable area• imnediately to the east, within the park. TRANSPORTATION • immediate access to the site would come from the Crosstown at 1-494. Since a roadway is not built through the Thelma Haynes property; this seems to be the only feasible means of access. The cul-de-sac is almost 2,000 feet in length. Looping of this road would ultimately be necessary. The Staff feels that traffic volumes could be close to 1700 ADT, however, • with or without the Crosstown extension, access to I-494 via the diamond interchange will handle this traffic. ' F.A.W. • An LAU is required when 40 or more units are proposed within a Shoreland Area. An EAW has been completed. PARKS applicable to While the Planning Staff would suggest the cash park fee be apt this project, with the open space being platted into Rural outlets with scenic easements; the Park and Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will want to examine this closely. In addition, since Bryant Lake Condominiums is located within proposed expan- sion of Bryant Lake Park, Subdivision 4, of Ordinance 78-229 is included. "Subd. 4 When any proposed drainage way, park, playground, school or other public site, as depicted in the Comprehensive Development Plan, as amended, and updated from time to time, is in part or in whole within the • born dories of a propose.ol subdivision and such way or site is no�te owner shall y the City, a school district, or other governmental entity, • not submit a preliminary plat as provided in'Sectior 6 hereof for a period not to exceed ninety days from the first date on which the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviews the sketch plan, to allow the • proper governmental agency the opportunity to take action for the acquisition of spell Way or site by purchase or other method." v"r 1 • Staff Report-Bryant Lake Condominiums • page 4 RFf,O't•1Ht)AT I•ONS The Planning Staff feels that the concept of clustering housing helps to preserve the majority of the site and limit utility costs. However, the Staff does nut feel that the proponent has illustrated in a quantifiable way why density should be increased from 2 units per acre, as shown in the Guide Plan, to 3.76 units per acre. Land inrnediately west of the property is developing at very low density. Furthermore, although the grading is limited to the developed portions of the site, it is excessive because of the 'spec' buildings being proposed. Because of the increase in density • rover 2 units per acre in a low density area and the lack of architectural sensitivity to the site, we would recommend that the proposal be modified to conform to this report. • CE:ss • • • • • • • • • • . • a • HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES INS ouPON*T CO CONSULTING PLANNERS O N E GROVE LAND TERRACE • MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55A03 • 612•32,•3536 9 June 1982 Don Poupard 6252 Beach Road Widen Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: SCREENING OF VIEWS TO PROPOSED BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS Dear Don: Enclosed you will find a plan of our screening solution to minimize your views to the southeast in the wintertime. We propose to plant evergreen trees along the western side of the condominiums in the area most exposed to your home site. In addition we will plant on your • property six white pines, each six feet in height to enhance your winter setting. After viewing your site and the adjoining site to the south we found no access sufficient enough for a tree spade to plant your pines. The pines will have to be hauled in and planted by hand. For your convenience and understanding, we also have prepared three sections through your home to the proposed condominiums. Sections 1 and 3 show that the existing topography and mature oak woods with Prikley Ash understory significantly screens our proposed development. Section 2 is through the low area where we plan to plant evergreens both along the building and next to your home. We feel this is a better and more aesthetic solution than erecting a six foot fence along your property line. We will install these pines on your property at your convenience. Yours truly, •\,....61.1--(...C]pelg C. John Uban Landscape Architect cc: Vasco Bernardi, Metram Properties Company Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie Ron Erickson, Korsunsky-Krank-Erickson ( Jerry Brill, Gross, Karlins, Siegel & Brill a / . 1 .4. • / %t -7:\4. •4• " ." - --, , *. .0 .'- .8 - ,1',1(.i.,1•., ..• . , • .- ere ,cfr ,1, • • 0... : CA I 1 e i 1 woor .7. I - --- I '4 " 4. Ire . A.6 • • N . ''••• :- Chi ,. L't )' i t • I i , r,4%,. , _ • A.40; • LeoliiiP \ - %6,411.14),' -------- - , / „- _ e). - -- _ I 4101, t tioar_sis ..._ ....\, _ . . -- 2! I - fr N- -- —- 4 - ------- 6%10 . 0.:_____„,i..0.0 ,_ _ ( •,, !I , /Ai,,osizrAimstauctipo •, ., \ '------- - ' i Are /P-....--414•A,/ ) -1 % / - , -e• acement Planting: 1 ' ) ( 4` // / f'• R emoved Trees , , / i 0 \ , t ' //',/ ( \ - ' -........._ • ,.' ' \ ...- ;.' I ki, -- -- --- ) / ,41 ----- ------ ..... ,„,/1 \ \ / 1 1 I \ % Peupard vfl 6'/White Pines/for Screeni g ,,I \ Resi.• - A r II , 7/. I/ • / I i \ .. _ •••••••M• 011=•• . -. ,„, / • 1, •...•...... •.• • ..., - -•• • \ ....•..... ..... •,. ) / / .4?' , / 1.4) • ' • `'.1- 4%.%%,„.. • •-•. • y ' ' / / / . .• / — J •.._ _ 7.04+1...., ...etc. , l' •. . . , ___ A\ Bryant Lake Condominiums ,---- ::) . . NORTH I 0 - log • 200, i Metz-am Properties . 1/00 1......1, 1 -I 1 4 • 4`40 1• 'W4%%$ !4' 15 375' • 0 . 10 •-eitiAlb logte 110 2 Poupard�926 ` _ ! Screening Pines 350' • 1R 3 926 :-- 92 915 Screening Pines 400' Bryant Lake Condominiums } 0 100 200 Metram Properties IIUi DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South lJ Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 HENNEPIN • I I 935-3381 May 20, 1982 Mr. Chris Enger • .Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 tden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: RE Proposed Plat - "8ryant Lake Condominiums - Revised" Future CSAH 62 SE Quadrant of Existing Beach Road Section 2/3, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 1022 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County reviev of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: -The proposed right of way dedication shown on the revised sketch plat is acceptable to Hennepin County for the relocation of Beach Road and the construction of GSA!! 62. To complete the grading Hennepin County will require temporary slope easements which have not been determined since changing the Beach Road alignment. -The proposed access to CSAH 62 via Beach Road is acceptable to Hennepin County. -No direct access from the plat to CSAH 62 will be granted by Hennepin County. -All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. -The 'developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, p. /T1 1 .i‘f ''James M. Wold, P.E. Chief, Planning and Programming JMW/LDW:pl I //'� HENNEPIN COUNTY I/O2 on equal opportunity employer • • MINNRSM'A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD ENVIRON'•1ENfAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHE:ET (RAW) AND Ndl'ICE OF FINDINGS • j • 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) 1 Negative Declaration (No ITS) EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION 1. Project name or title Bryant Lake Condominiums Z. Project proposer(s) Metres Properties Company Address 7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 315, Edina, Minnesota 55435 Telephone Number and Area Code (612 ) . 835-4111 • 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this RAW: Chris Enger Telephone (612) 937-22G2 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location Eden Prairie City Hall Telephone (612) 937-2262 Hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 5. Reason for RAW Preparation ( x!l Mandatory Category -cite I lPetition ��Other ll MEQII4 Rule number(s) (11( CC) 50 Residential Units Within C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY 1,000 feet of Bryant Lake • 1.. Project location Countyllonnohin City/Township name City of Eden Prairie Township number 116 (North), Range. Number 22 East or West (circle one), Section number(n) 2 and 3Gtreet address (if in city) or legal description: • «o 1 - 2. Type and scope of proposed project: 3 single family lots and 218 units of condominiums on 64.7 acres 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) 1982 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) 1985 5. Estimated construction cost $8,000,000 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 Prairi PUD Approval In Process City of ,Eden Prairi Building Permits Will be applied for as necessary after project approval Nine Mile Creek WD land alteration permit pending 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals arc involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?x NO YES UNKNOWN • II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION A. Include the following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original 8'1 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 71 minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be main- tained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution points.) 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc). 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. B. Present land use. 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. The site is currently used for agricultural purposes. Proposed Crosstown Highway 62 will cut across the north border and directly north of proposed Highway 62 is an approved commercial/industrial development. To the west is 1-494 and to the southwest and northwest between the site and I-494 are 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban development 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type ® IV, V) 7.9 acres b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland 30 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 8 acres d. Rural vacant 0 acres. i. Cropland/Pasture land 33.1 acres e. Designated Recre- 0 acres j. Forested 23.7 acres anon/Open Space two existing single family homes. Directly 2 - to the south is Bryant Lake and a farmstead. '/2 Hennepin County Park Reserve borders the property to the east. • . e 1 - .�.� - ) ',;! � r. ur2,'.7,111,"1/! •i• w") ••• t. .' 1. .l / `) , u ' 1 ` ( ` } LD IN- I Cr r dr 0A1. l.- fi.e` - l) Yra e, • (('// 11 \ NM/ I� , \. I fi'lc'n s'T.\; `�J., . (� / Pal . •Illy ` i� p• /yr?v,.. 1„•u l I,) e� J it n *.i r mop' —r.iY ,r1.w• . 1 t 35 r � v I ' ::1 -�36- t 1 A Pa,e 11 i / .I nt 'C.—, , .p , t,t/off*•-• •/ y t -r2,-;: L l. Mari. : I 1 i 1 ro • 1 �-- Y ti 1.. n e a t • / ,� ^ �\t 4 . �0 `� it r:run c6 t �� ✓ W,. I/ • 1I • "- \_:-1-t\ Jl,,1- "N ^, J/lr�\ L1 --Parr, � �� �' �,11� �• " /PCs' - \(�i11�, -, 6,j ,. . . \ter , ti^, ;`� ( ', �/(:• \ �`� i mow.. , 1 } �rrTulurd i 't I'' ��. \ ;'�, r"� t ii 1 !� t 6" V -ter )) n /' t -I .subject Proppel'ty� 1 d A.• \ " n.` i -1, `• Bryant Lake ,:.�l co., / /,' ,`a i •„ , • \ /" '.,Arf,-'�` ` i ''s, . 1 EDINA P i PM$75 Its 1 1 1 I��) � lA.. , 1 r �,, Gavel Pit s \1 ., .It<tiSp ' ,✓I i ll adrena /'BRAEMER PARK ' !` \, NSG / . , Gravel P,t., I :—. v` J a :_„Southh FO 'ilG •ra :,r Itotvlsn,l '',, ""N `• ,r`` �.22\2 • \' f.. . . ,•. r...•--494-- -V. T "-T - ...r:..ra G • \t ,,ff.' ;.+ -%•-,:— ,, t 1\ \1~.. ' :1 , f, I Figure 2 S�;;S 1\Ili�p '1 \1 u 1/�_� u� i ...I �l t I, •se • • t i f1 0 �[_).r �I/ �/+My • b -�• 1 (-1 - --- o_ .— A Sj ANOKA JJ xd^' o 1 j w .� 1,°a. `� U c p t 4 1 •C ......-1----- --r :�-,•.,-• . t- Sa o_,.� .i WASFflNGTON 20 ''''-`— "%1\.• --- .'':.:J44. _ . ,:':.'.'... 71 i.0 I • I Q, s? - ./ . .,, - ,„-„. "z, ,N' HE<\NEPIN , I 1 A. i Y ` 111 0 1 i 1 F'�iti Y 1 .: f f t I I (fg� JyF� �t y.� P�9iDl�b r !+ r.rt,?� �/^`Wkiit ,„..` I .I 4 . ,L.y v J tl 't Le ./v.� t I\" ' r ��1 � (i t r o J 1 �1• L /'. r ... v,, ``/ bs r y ,/'1 7 1tI \� I. ; III - l `:.-- • ........,... , \.„,,,, ,,, ,_,-v 1 V.( , ,.„... „,.......„ I - «- i~�{-' '; I- I ,Y�f- r ../� DAKOTA I .u,,,,. f ,.,�,..�, SCOT O q •�"_ ti�_i..�. _ h"-� ) I l..1 il:-\.' 7,_.........IF_ .___ 1 • y , - ‘4,,,/ , 4(.. I, A\-- **-: _,=‘i.- --,,. ..s•-', .. ..,-,::'------- -; , 1 ''t`,', -.),. ;41,r'.1- ".-/-4)- •,- ' ' - -_,,,,• .,..:.-;- --`.:2.---7'1, i,,. -'-------- .=.))//( i\-c\--- t ,-...,..;,.,-„......, I x l.•••,-, . 7,.;;;.„..1•• s....---1,...-_...::, t••,..)../ `:_r4,,.. I.,. ,,,,„_,„ \ , - t.j.:••7.1 ,___/,..:........,),•••••-7" ) f.,_,L,40'0`,„'-70....7".",_,‘ ,--"C 7,17.1.-----7'0 p:).7"7.7.7-_,/ ,..._••,: I V,1-.•,7,---c s ..., 1; --1,.....--cs•fn'' ---z..-• 't• ----''e,..,c/1,..-(- •\,',41' ). ",''s'74 I, ' ,--)1 _____,1,___(.7.7-,__,...„.t.....-., 11 it -Cr •,.. .;,-.A7S.t..,(.;3..,. ,c/..*-...!.1\,, ,;.<?,?...;V",*',4,-A ,'•:,/,,.....-i oefi.s4 D CL---"____=-=,___ __----7-7--------'A --rc)>-C-;,?.P.,:;\••It , i,y2J,'1;::,t.,6(POi Y('',\'-Zi.;-''''. ..1.:%ilk,;':';‘: !C‘:l'`:,1‘ j, --- • -- -r---------:-.):L----An dY,/1 r lit i ii,' ,. .(-, II .. .iii":;4' . isi2 ,-PT:'4‘'C;,,l' ',3•;.• ,-;,;:v, c.,,, "'...zej,-LI--\,_ ,-;,,i.'`* ( ,, ... ,.._,..f,„,-,,, - J ...._=-17-71i1) ,7,•cd 311 i' ;ii' I(-)1'? k;','.-,': ' .''', . ii..1:-7-.'%1,41 ,1 J7-11,1\'\\P)3,(1..1: V..,,,." i r ‘ I i ie __-=,:..:*:,,,,=--z, ) 1:-.::-,A -7,r• \\ rl' ' .iF, ' i,,0,,,,, 7.,,..,.,4,,,,-..,s,•,,_„ - ' :y k •X\ V .e.iti-.75,/ i /41V: , :••••••. J r \ \ , 1,J;0,-,,,'_-...-,,;-..,• ;\. . ','.5-',0 % t ,, -\ 70— -.• .tx;', 1:1 it id '''7i-t/1; ....:::11.;-,,,% I ;"`-.. il ,;.•,\Is!..1))•illel ••• Iil I 1 ri\ • e, (,...,!?, .',1, 1‘' J -- ..• ' :,: (...(,l ',', if ' • ,,t ,„ , i lif I ' 'ly••:N .4,'' csr,,. •I'i' /\). 0\77(r• '.7%,,,' ';' .,'' s---' . '',• , '.'. A-..5 1 l' 1 if z.":7".\ ) - ,.. :•\--"Wito,:` )1 : 4'f.-,...1. , ' ' . ,' ' ' ._,Z I ' I i ..i I Ir.. •0.. ......1,-4..1....J,&•-i r)i :-_,:,,(j, -0 ' • ' •• . 4,4, .. , 1,•1 i .61 1 : \\J -i.,,,,,,,i,),,,,.4;,-,7',-, ,..),":„.,,,C.1:/,'),,I>1.;_;,...;-:.:„.\:,.`..::);,.9. ,,, :..,:.,1 ., :.. • , . .,. ' l'--4:'.,`:i.:• ''6 1,%:1;"''2-".:,;-:::::.: ,', ' :._ 'L. ' .,7, : .• . , , IC6'.• -4 \:,),k •,..-J.. 7(- -1.! '...1 0 Q. ., •••• • . -. . 4, 1 II t• 0, q•-•• .., , , -.r`c• `;,-,•• •"1. • II. . ',.; ‘\ - -n-,,:., • •..., e•• ,--,s\•,..,.\•cl„,:,on,',.'•:',:...7`, > ; f,c) ' ' ":',' ".1.i L.- • 1,1„_,-,•,!_;:: in , .:-.1. i '''-- ...;<.:( • : : ' t tt 1 } A ilz, , /):C..`'1,),-'.‘,.'.; 0 ° ••I'..„ : ,.. : {‘)7;t}'v;;C.')•f•C 1 -k.'...-•:(' Z res.'' ,. .',• • I' ( :.••,s‘•) ')?,.. . 1 .(1P;cri , '',-,-'•,' ' ,/,-.. :..,.. ...._._1. • ... ( )1(""21 cr‘••!b.,,t;r- '-.=" "- ‘ •: k',-12.. . / \ ) -. •-• • i t ,..„ "\ -------::::----. ' • •••I E. r ....,:v,,..,,..:f,.... -i., v. 1..,. ,:, --, ;.,..„- „. . . ,.=.,__..,„ -. •..,.,., ._, ,),- if, ru '1 4Llti.."':•:,':z \\\, .././Hi',.' '' 1 :.:,.... •-,., ' ' .1%.n. 1.,4 ;-; (") V) • \ ‘ .,..,r .,4-f.,•., , , A •. -„. A V* , .• I 4.. IX .-:.‘'''‘'''. '. !. '1/' .14 "•. '2.-1 . 4$ .. t' .,..,<'1 '(:-../ ") 10 •••••• • r+. i '.‘4 tk(.).... . 'A, :.,):' ‘.',..''..s.'•'it"; ''...' '41 Cl- ali i''1 . .'.:' • -' :-...• :-".. • .• e .:7'.../--ii, - o 1 >"'1-‘:; \D -; ..,• ' ;.'. '.,.. '', • ,p---i-. ..‘1\': B73 ' -f.... \ '.' • ' ''' '. -.- ,c... 41,p, :,-.-- -• — j 1, 1 •-•;; In •1 0,0 ;. ' K, u , E' = : • ' W'' & ',.,k?, ,•-•i •. 11....0.4 . ,,,,4.\...4\-,. . ..- x . S \ ,1;"•-: i • 1 • '11 . i E • • • , . ...- !. / _ • 1 • • 1 1 IS ili,1-6, li . /107 ... , I:roe,* • . • --LJ \\ \ LI cl)(if __it,...)el, ;., 02,c) .50/+(90 V ......../Wdmrs..ang --:7.77"..—----——---j.____A- ('' L.s........,.,,s,.,...."./I' 0 \ — \\...._____ . lir- 7.-- ') .\\/ Mir \r, G_ ° ::::... /'Coritmercial&Industrial ------ ---_-11 1 J - os�cT6�(1",:.;1 , ,,o-di ("_= , �- _ ��' \ i --�. ( j j = ,gh Pant j. - - ---_ /( Oo o r f '( . / ,,.,,,C) . 4. . • \ . -- i• l. • Lon Views Q� ip.t.:„...,- • • o a) N I i . y b I - l� cc is. ' c1:1° :,.. , ' i: .1. 'r, Gt: L ` •— _ ° L / 04 g e T. 1 ' t I 4 ( . ' ? ,,--\ t )..;,/( iL ° o J o°i�a I I ,�,�;v .e Wetland °e °rT,0 ;`,. pQ o o j ov Bryant Lake Condominiums •�,0�.«� 6 000 6 ' oli'Vi' Metram Properties 0,Q)° ° . Eden Prairie, Mn. o ,no Inn aoo © ,, N 1 r •v� w• yt I An'.tl�Licic Pr mmcry ' ��� . 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. Bryant Lake - 199 acres is located 1,000 feet plus from the proposed structures. C. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any), operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- cesses to be used. Include data that would indicate the magnitude of the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc). The proposed POD includes 3 single family lots, 218 condominium units The 218 condo units will be in three separate buildings( 66 units/ building). 2. Fill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 64.7acres g. Size of marina and access q`50 sq. ft. or channel (water area) Length miles h. Vehicular traffic trips generated per day 1,353_G ADT b. Number of housing or recreational units 221 i. Number of employees N/A c. Height of structures 32 ft. j. Water supply needed 6540.Dga1/da Source: municipal cl. Number of parking spaces 198 out k. Solid waste requiring 198 in disposal 560 tons/yr e. Amount of dredging N/A cu. yd. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space N/A sq. ft. ing treatment 65000gal/da III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT • A. SOILS AND TOPOSRAMIY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently exceeding 12%? No X Yes 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? _NO X YES 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. The condominium buildings will be terraced into the hillsides. • • • • 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. No buildings will be located in areas of poor soils. The buildings are sited over Hayden Loam and Heyder Sandy Loam, both of which are in Building Site Group 5. The project will be severed. .See Attachment 1 for detail soil information. 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling whi.ch will be done: 55,000_cu. yd. grading 0,540 cu. yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? 16 ± % 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes 33 X 7. What steps-will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Normal erosion control measures will be used during and after constriction such as hay hales, hydro-mulching with jute mesh, and application of other appropriate plant materials after construction. Interim ponding will be provided as needed. All methods will be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. • B. VLGETA'i'lON 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types: Woodland 36.6 % Cropland/ 26.4 % Pasture Brush 'r shrubs % Marsh 12.3 % Crass or herbaceous 24.7 % Other (specify) 2. How many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 2.75±acres • 3. Arc there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncession Ones.) X NO YES • If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. C. FISH AND WILDLIFE • 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? NO X YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNR publication The X NO YES Uncommon Ones.) 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish NO X YES habitat? • 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. Fish and wildlife habitats in the project site include marsh, wood- lands, and idle opeulands., As shown on the concept plan, the majority of existing marsh and woodlands will be retained which should minimize adverse effects on tho wildlife population. /Ilu , . .. . . . . T ---------- ° AV- • 8° . ,,, . B . .... , _.. ..,- . . __ --- ,..1: i °\\ j •, ) ', r ),----",,- _____-- ,ii.blY1 or,• . I • ' , • ' 7—.1 HbE 1 ".,. • 0 , I• A - A , . ., , ,.. \--,. •CKnCi i : ; HeD . .1,.,' ' -- • '' I -' '1 ' s . . • . J', , . , %, 1 t : 41) • 4 • ',. I , •••,I ,, ',' - 1 ' ST2 41# f..ific ' s - / . I \ t,• v.\.I..I : 1,113B HdF . ) ; • ji ; ,., ,, 4,....... ;.__________I _ • ; 00 ••:i 1 •., , ( .. - I QP, 1 I I It . . • ' ,'.1 I \ - T3 - • • - ‘• ''',,i\', 1 ' Ma 0 5,.. ..2, s,.„„...„..o., il-,,som..s.AM e.,•...,,,,• ',,,• , I•. : ,. ......:..„.,i6i 8co.o._,bC, .... HcB2 r, 4 / T4 i , - HelD2 a so -An".6ParP...1%., 4 ', i\s, 1 i ,' , ' 90 ' a; -- • -•, n;... Floin4:1/.1.0.1•0l$ 1 IM PW•fl , i '' 1,..Nt. ° 0 EP , +sT Sod Barg — ° .ce)0 b . • 06 4- Ma °HdF '0 4.' 0 Bryant Lake Condominiums . 00 • . 1 00 s ... 00 . —;•;-; >,, • k '0,,/, i Mcytram Properties •1 it '. 1 Eden Prairie, Mn. 0 100 200 4 00 li menexi0=ni SeNI e. . I:Li I I I Is • . Soils . /ill IP i I 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? NO x YES Complete the following as applicable: a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) Estimated Peak Demand Annual (Hourly or nai.ly) Anticipated Firm Contract or Tyne Prouirerx•nt :;ii i',r bintcr :;unplier Interruptible Basis? 1.6 [ NSP Firm Electric 6,0001M-- 2.4 34 hlinnegasco Interruptible Gas 30,0(.lfMtcf .7`l Various Oil PEA suroliers Interruptible b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. NA . • . . c. Estimate annual energy distribution for: lighting 10 i space.hcating 42 $ li g air conditioning 36 % proceSsing 7 ventilation 5 % d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment • incorporated into this project. Energy conservation systems, heat pumps, solar equipment, etc., will be utilized if chosen by the builder or owner. c. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc)? The proposed residential project is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and will not significantly effect secondary energy uses. • H. OPEN SPACE/RECREA'P1ON or local recreation or 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)? If yes, list areas by nano and explain how each may be affected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. Bryant Lake Park Reserve borders the property on the east. Steep slopes separate the park and no road connections are planned. The impact will be of a visual nature which is min.imi...d by rot aininu e>:istin,t vegetation and adding buffer type landscaping. The Park Reserve is owned and managed by the Hennepin County Park System. ///2 — 7fi I. TRANSPORTATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc)? NO X YES If yes, specify which part(s) of the system(s) will be affected. . For these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and percentage of truck traffic (if highway); and indicate how they will be affected by the project (e.g. congestion, per- centage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (ADT), access requirements). The proposed western cul-de-sac servicing the proposed single family lots will intersect with existing Beach Road. The proposed cul-de- sac servicing the condominiums will tie into the proposed rerouting of Beach Road which will intersect with the future extension of Crosstown Highway 62. The entire development is estimated to generate 1,353 ADT. Of these total trips, ' approximately 60 ADT will be on Beach Road. If Crosstown 62 is not completed past the site entrance by time of unit occupancy, access will have to be a temporary connection to Crosstown 62. • 2. is mass transit available to the site? X NO YES • 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? Direct access to Highway 62 and I-494 will disperse and carry traffic without overloading local systems. • J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive .plans? X NO YES . If not, explain: Plans show park acquisition on the subject property. Acquisition is presently contemplated by Hennepin County Park Reserve. The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designates.the area as low density residential. If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing zoning and change requested. Existing zoning is Rural District. Requested zoning is RI- 22 and RM 6.5 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? X NO YES If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. • 1/13 - 8 - • D. HYDROLOGY ' • 1. Will the project include any of the following? If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to' reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, NO YES marsh, lowland or groundwater supply b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes 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- section of water bodies on or near the site 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 16 % 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water .runoff and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc)? The proposed developw.ent will. have normal urbanized surface run-off characteristics. The site will continue to drain via surface drainage to the existing on-site drainway and wetlands. A retention pond will be improved to intercept most water running into Bryant Lake. This syste➢ will be reviewed and approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 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 site? Areas being developed are on soils with water 0-10 feet table depths which vary from 5 feet to 10 feet. E. WATER QUALITY 1. Will. there be a discharge of process or'cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? X NO YES If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the water body receiving the effluent. 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants in the wastewater. The wastewater discharged to the sanitary sewer will be normal domestic waste generated from residential uses. { 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. /MI - 5 _ • • 4. What measures will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts identi- fied in questions 1-3? Wastewater will be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. Storm water run-off will continue to drain into the marsh area on site. Natural marsh areas do provide some natural treatment and reduce the pollution levels for urban storm water particularly with respect to nutrient balance. A retention pond will further aid water quality. Storm water plans will be subject to the review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. S. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates into the atmosphere? NO X YES If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the approximate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. During construction of the development the major emission will be wind blow dust that can occur during grading operations on site. The amount of wind blown dust should be minimized by the planned selective grading on the site and staged development. Traffic generated by the development will be the most significant source of pollutant emissions. The pollutants emitted by the vehicular traffic undergo a complex interaction process at the regional scale to form photochee.cal oxidants. Carbon ;'.onoxide is a pollutant of localized impact. When fully developed, the project is estimated to generate vehicular traffic trips at the rate of 1,35:i ADT. 2. Will noise or vibration he generated by construction and/or operation of the project? NO X YES If yes, describe the noise source(s); specify decibel levels DIL(A)J, and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce - the noise/vibration. Noise will be generated by construction equipment during the grading operation. The effect of noise on adjacent dwellings is a function of the distance between the source and the dwelling. The table attached shows decibel levels at the machine and at a distance of 250 feet. Noise associated with construction activity is of a temporary nature and should not create permanent impacts. (See Attachment A) 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or reduced air quality-(hospitals, elderly housing, wilderness, wildlife areas, residential developments, etc) are in the affected area and give distance from source. There is an existing single family home on the south portion of the site that is bordered on the east by an area to be graded. C. LAND 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. 33 acres of pasture hay of poor quality. 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. 4 sins p ATTACHMENT A • In response to F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE, 2. MAXIMUM dnA RANGE AT EQUIPMENT AT MACHINE 250 FEET Scraper 80 - 115 64 - 100 pulidozer 88 - 105 73 - 90 Motorgrader 78 - 96 63 - 81 Source: "Noise in Engineering and Transportation and Its Effect on the Community", T. Priedc, Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, 1971. • • • • • • 4 • • • �i 3. Bow many employees will move into the area.to be near the project? 0 How much new housing will be needed? • 4. Will the project induce development nearby--either support sez ices qE5 or similar developments? If yes, explain type of development and specify any other counties and municipalities 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 ' 65,000 gal/da planned expansion wastewater treatment 65,000 gal/da planned sewer — 1,800 feet sufficient capacity Independent School schools Di5trici. 272 120 pupils planned solid waste disposal 46 ton/mo sufficient capacity • streets 4 miles City of E,ien i'S irid ' „ her (police, fire, etc.) 1.2 officers/1,000 ,planned If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this one project and its associated impacts? Water main from nearby water tower to be extended through subject property. • • 6. 1s the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan oor progrOaES am reviewed by the EQB? 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 or etc.? • gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes,ye T NO YES ' if yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. 0 . III — 9 • • U. When the project has served its•useful life, will retirement of the facility reluire 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? g NO YES Hight any known archaeologic or paleontological sites he 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 coNCEms Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have been identified in the previous sections. • • IV. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. 1. Standard engineering and construction practices will be utilized to minimize the impacts on the environment. 2. Substantial open space will be retained as part of our mitigating efforts. 1 ���� • • V FINDINCS government ( A. The project is a private ( ) (1,) action. The Responsible Agency (Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQB, 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: The proposed development allows for the protection of valuable and sensitive areas through preservation of open space, control of erosion and sedimentation, and retention of overall drainage patterns. Minimization and appropriate mitigation of impact is to be ensured through the adopted policies and permitting processes of local and other agencies. • 3. (For private actions only.) The project is (_) is not (_) of more than local significance. State reasons: Thn proposed development is entirely within the boundaries • of the City of Eden Prairie and is essentially consistent with local and regional plans. • VI. 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 EQI] Monitor section. 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. - 11 • - I119 • • • 2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for significant environmental • effects. For private actjons, the project is also of more than local significance. a. The MEQIIRules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. At special circum- stances, the MI;QR can ecifically authorise limited construction to begin or continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this project, specify the extent of progress recommended and the reasons. • b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted: (month) (day) (year) (MEQII Rules require that'the Draft E]S be submitted within ]20 days of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the ISQII 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 EQII Chairman.) c. The Draft EIS will. be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) cr Pcrson(s))' • • • II. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAR were mailed to all points on the official EQII 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 111.J.4. on page 9 of the RAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the RAW which is sent to the EQII Administrator. • C. Billing procedures for EQli Monitor Publication. State agency Attach to the RAW sent to the EQR Administrator a completed ONLY: OSIi 100 form (State Register General Crier Form--available at Center Storer.). For instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Oilicer to the State Register or the Office of the State Rel;istcr--(6l2)•296-8239. • • I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and ; correct to the best of my knowledge. S IGNATDRE g Carl J. Ju11ie,City Mana2en•ITLE �I�o DATE • Bryant Lake Condos PUD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-133 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDING THE GUIDE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of Ordinance 135 • • proivded for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City, and WHEREAS, the Bryant Lake Condominiums PUD is considered a proper • amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Metram Properties Company, Inc.'s request for approval for residential and open space, and recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 15, 1982. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Bryant Lake Condominiums PUD, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD approval as outlined in the application material dated May, 1982. 3. That the PUD meet the requirements of the Planning Commission dated May 24, 1982. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL IIau I • Par 1: That part of Lot 4,•'and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 not embraced in Registered Land Survey Nos. 483 and.1000, Township 116, Range 22, except that part of said Lot 4 lying Westerly of Dryants Long Labe and lying Southerly of the South line of said Registered Land Survey No. 1000 and the Easterly extension thereof. • Subject to an easement in favor of the present and future owners successively of the S 1/2 of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 3, to maintain a road 1 rod wide extending and running across Government Lot 4 and the 181 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 2 Township 116 Range 22, the center line to.vrhich roadway is described as follows: Beginning at a point in the West line of said Government Lot 4 which point is 373.2 feet north of • • the west 1/4 corner of -said Section 2; thence North 4° 22' E. a distance of 53.4 feet; thence North 00° 35' U. a distance of 105.4 feet; thence North 22°35' E. a distance of 59.3 feet; thence North 46° 19' E. a distance of 46.2 feet; thence North 36° 39' E. a distance of 81.4 feet; thence North 5° 32' E. a distance of 110.4 feet; thence North 28° 32' E. a distance of 40.9 feet; thence North 55° 53' E. a distance of 269.3 feet;. thence North 61° 34' E. a distance of 218.2 feet; thence North 49° 46' E. a distance of 150.8 feet; thence North 52° 50' E. a distance of 179.1 feet; thence North 78° 58' E. a distance of 137.8 feet; thence South 77° 19' E. a distance of 155.3 feet; thence South 71° 13' E. a distance of 172.7 feet; thence North 88° 25' E. a distance of 84.6 feet; thence to a point in the east line of said Government lot 4, distant 86.9 feet South from the N. E. corner of said Government Lot 4, as shown by plat filed •in Torrens Case No. T4709. Said easement is solely for the benefit of present and future owners of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 3 Township.116 Range 22, and until discharged by release frnm the then owner of said last described land, said right of . way may be used by said successive owners and by those having ordinary business or social relations with them, excluding parties going to said last described land for the purpose of access to hunting or fishing grounds. (See Order 0oc No. 697096) • Par 2: The North 20 acres of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, except that part thereof lying South of the South line of the North 1/2 of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and Easterly of the Easterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 494 as set forth in Notice of Lis Pendens Doc No. 608744, and except that part thereof embraced in Registered Land Survey No. 1000, Section 3, Township 116, Range 22. Par 3: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 483, Files of Registrar of • Titles, County of Hennepin. Subject to all estates, easements or charges on the land above described of which a memorial has been entered and registered on Certificate of Title No. 485947, dated the Thirteenth day of December, 1972 issued•by the Registrar of Title , County of Hennepin, to the / grantor above named, M.L.T. Enterprises, a co-partnership consisting of• t, Robert E. Ossanna, tlargucrite A. Stirton, leadell F. Dconiconti, Pamela L. •Stirton and Leola T. Ossanna, on transfer from Certificate of Title No. 389137. Also • • Subject to an 'acts done or to be done byany � subject parties other than the party of the first part subsequent to the Gth day of flay, 1969. 11.)2 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. B2-134 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT • OF BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS BE IT RESOLVED•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Bryant Lake Condominiums dated March .15, 1982 _, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall • and amended as follows: • I . 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 I Bryant Lake Condos EAW • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-135 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a public hearing on June 15, 1982 to consider the Bryant Lake Condominium request, and WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 65 acres of land in northeastern Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Bryant Lake Condominiums 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 Bryant Lake Condo- miniums because the project is not a major act'on which does not have significant environmental effects and is not more than of local significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Oeclaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED, this day of , 19B2. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • I iI 13,11 June 15, 1982 STAIF OF MINNESOTA • Cl. OF EDEN PRAIRIE CC .Y OF IILNNEPIN • The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 2153 CEDAR LAKES FARM Fee-Senior Citizens $ 100.D0 2154 MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS Service 5,375.0" 2155 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER Registration fee-Senior Citizens 20.00 2156 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 549.0'', 2157 IIDPKINS POSTMASTER Postage-Summer brochure 592.4:0 2158 SUPPLFE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES Rent-Preserve Liquor Store 3,231.7U 2159 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL ASSOC. Rent-P V M Liquor Store 2,176.52 2160 FEDER;.I_ RESERVE BANK, Payroll 17,343.5t' 2161 •COIIISSIONER OF REVENUE Payroll 6,940.94 2162 VOID OUT CHECK, 2163 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE Payroll 19,803.? 2164 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT Payroll 40.O0 2165 ALTNA LIFE INSURANCE Payroll 101.0Y• 2166 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE Payroll. 2,225.0`' 2167 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPDLIS Payroll 73.5E 2168 PERA Payroll 12,212.11 2169 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG. CO. Wine 525.' 2170 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 676.2: 2171 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 3,290.2 2172 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS, CO. Liquor 1,856.... 3 JONOSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 698.21 „4 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC. Liquor 1,174.'. • 2175 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Tax-Liquor Store retail dealer 108.0'.' 2176 JUDY GARRISON Instructor-Gymnastics 216.0'' 2177 WENDY CARLSON Instructor-Skating 30.O.. 2178 TERRY LOVAASEN Instructor-Scuba 459.0" 2179 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. Relocation of NSP steel tower 17,164.O0 . 2180 ED. PHIILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 3,473. . 2181 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 3,197.1,E 2182 IN1ERCDNTINENTi\L PCKG. CO. Wine 737.6 . 2183 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine . 1,332.7.` 2184 JONNSOid BROILERS WHOLESALE Liquor 1,710.7, 2185 THE LIQUOR HOUSE Liquor 2.03.C:1 2186 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,168.0:. 2187 PAUSTIS & SONS Wine 108.$ 2188 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO. Wine 188.R• 2189 ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY Conference-Senior Citizens 100.00 • 2190 I•IEDCENTE.R HEALTH PLAN Insurance 2,784.0'. 2191 WESTERN LIVE INSURANCE Insurance 523., : 2192 BLUE CROSS INSURANCE Insurance 715.. 2193 LIMO SERVICES Insurance 524,1` 2194 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. Insurance 1,691." • 2195 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN Insurance 8,437.'1 2196 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Fee-Engineering Dept. 15.0 9]97 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 2,000.ft. 93 CUSIOR LABORATORIES Service-Park Planning 141.7 /199 MINNESOTA PARK & RECREATION Fee-Rec. Dept. 24.0; , 2200 MINNESOTA I'l K SIG h 1'.VISORS Fee-Park 11ept. r I. 2201 A & II WELDING & MFG. CO. Steel-Police Dept. 9•:' 2202 • ACCUEASE SYSTEMS, INC. Registration forms-Comuunity Center 217.V 2203 ALDY GRAPHIC SUPPLY, INC. Film, supplies-Park Planning 105.,' i 1 •s rrn.-. Page two June 15, 1982 • 2 ALL STEEL. SOCCER GOALS, INC. Soccer goals-Park Dept. 1,857.50 2::y:i ALUMIDOCK Dock-Park Dept. 4,292.20 2206 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO. Service 8.65 2207 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST Bond payment 73,597.2 . 2208 EARL F. ANDERSLN & ASSOC. Street signs, bench legs 1,209.0 2209 SCOTT ANDERSON Softball official 44.00 2210 AQUA CITY IRRIGATION Service-Round Lake Park 514.5•' 2211 MIKE ARIBISI Supplies-Rec Dept. 6.05 2212 ASPHALT INSTITUTE Service 83.20 2213 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT, INC. Blacktop 169.00 2214' ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Equipment parts 3.79 2215 BARRETT MOVING & STORAGE Refund-Water & Sewer bill 974.10 2216 BLACK & VEATCH Service-Water Treatment Plant 5,927.41.; 2217 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON April 82 service 275.00 2218 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Service-N Frontage Road T.H. 5 632.90 2219 'BRAUN NURSERY LIMITED Trees-Forestry Oept. 4,924.50 2220 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. Rock 2,663.17 2221 BUTCH'S GAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor Stores 327.70 2222 STEPHEN CALH00N Expenses 150.98 2223 CIIA000SSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER Equipment repair & parts 672.6 2224 DIANNA CHRISTIANSON Refund-Swimming classes 9.CD 2225 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE Equipment repair & parts ' 21.72 2226 JOANNE P. COLIN Refund-Exercise classes 24.00 2227 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. Vellum, hand level, screening sheets 22.0.8,; 2""9 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET, INC. Coffee-City Hall 54.4) CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO. Stamps 51.2E. 2230 CURLE PRINTING COMPANY Business cards-Engineering, Assessing, & 92.00 Community Center 2231 CUTLER-IN'C ER COMPANY Quicklime-Water Dept. 326.27 '2232 WARO F. DAHLBERG Expenses 80.0D '2233 OALCO Cleaning supplies-Community Center 210.00 2234 BETH DEAM Refund-Tennis 8.00 2235 MARSHA DEATON Refund-Exercise classes 24.00 2236 OORUOLT PRINTING Office supplies 180.91 2237 DRISKILL'S SUPER VALU Supplies • 78.93 223B TOM EASTMAN Expenses 76.10 2239 EDEN PRAIRIE JAYCEE WOMEN Ad-Liquor Stores 20.00 2240 EDEN PRAIRIE SANITATION CO. May 82 Service 145.00 2241 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS Service-Community Education 945.10 2242 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL Custodial service 1,025.19 2243 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO. Service-Civil Oefense 665.00 2244 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS Concrete, Vault-Round 'Lake Park • 4,418.78 2245 CHRIS ENGER Expenses 153.70 2246 FINLEY BROS. ENTERPRISES Service-Round Lake & Staring Lake Park, Flying 3,626.T, Cloud Fields 2247 FITNESS STORE Supplies-Community Center 30.50 2248 JAN FLYNN Mileage 58.5C 2249 FOX, MCCl1E & MURPHY Audit service 7,417.75 2250 FRONTIER LUMBER & HARDWARE . Lumber-Park Oept. 516.70 J .1 G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. Service-Water Dept., Sunnybrook & Homeward 1,926.32 t Hills 2252 GLIDDEN PAINT Paint-Park Maintenance 228.0,E • 2253 DALE. GREEN CO. Sod, black dirt 250.0:'0 2254 GROSS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Service 90.E0 2255 BETTY HAHN Refund Swimming 55.00 y Page three June 15, 1982 2 c6 IASTINGS BUILDING CO. Service-Staring Cake Park Shelter 12,150.00 IEDBERG & SONS CO. Sand 120.0•' 2c38 IENNEPIN COUNTY DIRECTOR Equipment rental-Forestry Dept. 3,368,8` 2259 IOLIDALE CAR RENTAL Car rental-Playground 658.00 2260 IOPKINS DODGE SALES, INC. Equipment repair & parts 19.91 2261 IOPKINS PARTS CO Equipment parts 88.0 2262 INC INCORPORATED Fertilizer-Community Services 216.0: 2263 JICHOLAS HOLTEN Refund-Skating classes 15.10' 2264 MPERIAL, INC. Tape, pipe sealant-Water Dept. 48.6; 2265 NGRAM EXCAVATING Service-Parks Dept. 8,354.00' 2266 NTERDESIGN INC. Service-P/W & P/S Building 21,249.3' 2267 'KARULF HARDWARE INC. Concrete, shears, funnel, tape, bug spray, 722.6`.' coffee pot, keys floor mat, bolts & nuts, batteries, paint, letters, chisel, drill, • hand cleaner, brooms, door stop, oil, strapping • tape 2268 TOM KEEFE Softball official 235.52 2269 MONA KERBER Refund-Exercise classes 24.00 2270 KOKESH ATHLETIC & GOLF SUPPLY Ionic plate, bases, swim suits, t-shirts 972.O' 2271 CHRISTINE KOZLIZKI Refund-Exercise classes 12.0C 2272 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER Vacuum, shovels, hammer, pliers 209.4` 2273 LANG, PAULY X GREGERSON Legal service 2,136.0 2274 LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON Legal service 8,230.7; 2275 LEEF BROS., INC. Service 58.e`. 2276 M.E. LANE, INC. Insurance 862.: "7 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR Equipment parts 26.7• • • 8 MAlT'S AU10 SERVICE, INC. Towing service 35.0,- 2279 MCFARLANES, INC. Concrete 62.0 2280 MERIT PRLNTING Forms-Bui lding Dept. 331.5' 2281 METRO FONE CO'SLINICATIONS Service 149.6" . 2282 ASSOCIATION OF METRO MUNICIPAL Dues 2,175.0 2283 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CDMPANY Concession stand supplies-Community Center 243.0 • 2284 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Blacktop 1,352.2,' 2285 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY, INC. Supplies-Liquor Stores 50.0:'• 2286 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Service 111•9`' 2287 MINNESOTA TORO, INC. Equipment parts • 87.3'.` 2288 MINNESOTA VALLEY GAS COMPANY Service 172.EO 2289 MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPE Trees-Park Dept. 2,110.CL 2290 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC. Trees-Community Center 1,402.5C 2291 VOID OUT CHECK 2292 MOTOR PARTS SERVICE, INC. Equipment repair & parts 246.0`' 2293 MURPHY PLUMBING & HEATING Service-Picnic Shelter 401.6,1 2294 NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MPLS. Bond payment 26,672.E • 2295 JENNIFER NELSON Refund-Swimming classes 21.'O 2296 N S P Service 4,731.r 2297 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE Service 801.9' 2298 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK NPLS Bond Payment 273,097.` 2299 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MINNESOTA Office supplies 168.6 2300 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE Cable-Park Maintenance 674.5.; 2301 PATIO VILLAGE, INC. Refund-Contractors license 15.0:" . 'I? JOYCE PAULICEK Refund-Exercise classes 22,011 ..,03 PEPSI COLA Concession supplies-Round Lake Park 514.e,' 2304 PFRBIX, HARVEY & TIIORFINNSON Legal service 140.0 2305 PATRICK PEREZ Softball official 110.c 230G RALPH PEREZ Softball official 165.0. 23D7 MARY PIETROMONACO Refund-Exercise classes 24.0;` . I I :-) A. • Page four . June 15, 1982 3 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN Equipment parts 19.40 2309 THE PREST COMPANY Equipment-Water Dept. 239.71 2310 PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATES. INC. Sand 16.10 2311 PROPANE CAR. & TURBO SERVICE . Equipment repair 40.0,'' 2312 CHRIS PROVO Softball official 44.0e 2313 JIM PUFAHL Softball official 44.0.- ._ 2314 DAVID RAQUET Equipment-Street Maintenance 12.9i0 2315 RECRCONICS Equipment-Rec Dept. 336.5'' 2316 DONNA REED Refund-Golf classes 31.0U 2317 .REED'S SALES & SERVICE Weedeaters-Park Dept. 388.60 2318 STEVEN J. RICHARDS Softball official 103.5: 2319 R C '•: Service-Westwood Ind. Park, Autumn Woods, 44,796.1:' Valley View Rd, Franlo Rd & Preserve Blvd., Schooner Blvd, 70th Street Improvements, Meadow Park, Southwest Leg-Schooner Blvd. 2320 ANN ROGERS Supplies-Rec Dept. 7.35 2321 SAILOR NEWSPAPERS INC. Ads-Liquor Stores 52.81 2322 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC. Portable restrooms 2,123.2. • 2323 VIRGIL SEIFERT Service 180.0!• 2324 SHAKOPEE FORD. INC. Equipment parts 88.3' 2325 BRIAN SIEVERTSON Softball official 99•0 2326 MRS SIRUNO Refund-Swimming classes 15.0-r 2327 W GORDON SMITH CO. Supplies-Street Maintenance 649.4: P328 BRYAN SULLIVAN Service 25.0, '9 TRW CUSTOMER SERVICE Service 98•P• .=s0 CHARLES C. THOMAS, PUBLISHER Book-Rec Dept. 11.2: 2331 TOWN'S EDGE FORD, INC. Equipment parts 9.V, 2332 TRANSPORT CLEARINGS Freight charges 49.r. • 2333 TURF SUPPLY CO. Grass seed 6,068.!:•. • 2334 TWIN CITY TESTING Tests-Water Dept. 297.0 2335 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE Gas cylinders-Community Center 77.2' 2336 VAN WATERS & RDGERS Chlorine-Water Dept. 1B3.2' 2337 VILLAGE SANITATION, INC. Service 100.0. 2338 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIPMENT Equipment parts 170.11, 2339 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Equipment parts-Water•Dept. 1,681.[' 2340 WATERITE INC. Equipment-Community Center 166.G 2341 WAYZATA LAKE & LAWN Equipment-Senior Citizens 14.�. 2342 PAUL WCIGENANT Softball official 88.0' 2343 WHEELER HARDWARE CO Rekey locks-City Hall 65.5'. 2344 JOSEPH WIETHOFF Softball official 44.0• 2345 LINDA WILSON Refund-Swimming classes 10.0' 2346 IIARY WYWAN Refund-Exercise classes 25.0` 2347 XEROX CORPORATION Service 312.1 2348 ZIEGLER INC. Equipment parts-Street Maintenance 925.i 2349 A.K. CONSTRUCTION Service-Water Supply Wells 4, 5, & 6 89,932•' 2350 BARBAROSSA & SONS Service-Water Treatment Plant 118,179.(` . 2351 RICHARD KNUTSON Service-Bennett Place 6,145. 2352 NORTHDALE. CONSTRUCTION Service-W 70th Street Utilities 12,633.0. 9353 0 & P CONTRACTING, INC. Service-Autumn Woods Addition 22,287•• • 354 PITTSRHRG-DLS MINES CORP. Service-Elevated storage Reservoir 68,412.t, 2355 PROGRmIVE CONTRACTORS, INC. Service-Valley View Road 20,294. 2356 BEER LHOL CSALLRS Beer 5,534.: 2357 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer G6.: 2358 CITY CIUB DISTRIBUTING Beer 5,493. i 2359 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO. Mix . 659. • � , fi { .Paye five June 15, 1982 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 4,421.00 2,,,,I EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO. Beer 9,073.89 2362 GOLD MEDAL BEVERAGE Mix 72.90 2363 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 359.5' 2364 A.J. OGLE CO., INC. Beer 970,31 2365 PEPSI COLA Mix 650.35 2366 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 12,938.4: 2367 CURTIS BERGQUIST Fireman calls 606.0' 2368 MICHAEL BOSACKER Fireman calls 402.00 2369 LANCE BRACE Fireman calls 410.00 2370 DUANE JAMES CABLE Fireman calls 370.00 .. 2371 JAMES GORDON CLARK Fireman calls 670.0C 2372 SPENCER CONRAD Fireman calls 600.00 2373 WALLACE L. CONRAD Fireman calls 278.0 2374 PATRICK DADY Fireman calls 350.00 23%5 • RICHARD DEATON Fireman calls 554.00 2376 MICHAEL FARRELL Fireman calls 206.00 2377 ROBERT GRANT Fireman calls 122.05 2378 JOHN HACKING Fireman calls 336.00 2379 FREDRICH HAFFNER Fireman calls 716.00 ' 2380 STEVE HAHNFELDT Fireman calls 130.0 2381 JOHN IHARR Fireman calls • 356.0" 2382 JOHN HOBBS SR. Fireman calls 244.00 2383 JOHN HOBBS Fireman calls 678.0(- 7'"4 GENE JACOBSON Fireman calls 1,058.00 3 WALTER JAMES Fireman calls 260.00 2486 DUANE JOHNSON Fireman calls 316.00 2387 RONALD JOHNSON Fireman calls 1,150.0^ 2388 MARVIN LAHTI Fireman calls 482.00 • 2389 M.E. LANE JR. Fireman calls 508.00 . 2390 BRADLEY LARSON Fireman calls 234.05 . 2391 ROBERT LISTIAK Fireman calls 716.00 2392 LOWELL LUND Fireman calls 807.00 2393 PHILIP MATHIOWETZ Fireman calls 462.00 2394 JAMES MATSON Fireman calls • 468.00 2395 BRIAN MCGRAW Fireman calls 358.0C. 2396 GARY MEYER Fireman calls 682.00 2397 JOHN MITCHELL Fireman calls 368.00 2398 MARILYN MITCHELL Secretary-Fireman 350.0) 2399 RAY MITCHELL Fireman calls 1,728.00 2400 PATRICK MONAHAN Fireman calls 240.01 2401 THOMAS MONTGO11ERY Fireman calls 674.0n 2402 BLRNARD NEUMANN Fireman calls 502.0:-. 2403 CURTIS OBERLANDER Fireman calls . 856.0 2404 JOHN PAFKO Fireman calls 618.00 2405 ERIK PETERSON • Fireman calls 266.00 2406 DOUGLAS PLEHAL Fireman calls • 882.00 { 2407 JERALD PRODOEHL Fireman calls 564.00 2408 JOHN RIEGERT Fireman calls 552.O0 19 STAN RIEGERT Fireman calls 868.00 .0 JOHN ROCHFORD Fireman calls 60G.U': 2411 MICHAEL ROGERS Fireman calls 594.C: ; 2412 NORBERT ROGERS Fireman calls 776.0u a 2413 TIMOTHY RUST ' Fireman calls 294.00 2414 CHARLES SCHAITBERGER Fireman calls 822.00 • • Page six c 15, 1982 2415 JOHN SCHEIDERICH Fireman calls 386.00 2416 HARRY SCHMIDT Fireman calls 292.Ot 2417 GERALD SCHWANKL Fireman calls 633.Oc 2418 RICHARD SEEGER Fireman calls 416.0R 2419 JOHN SKRANF:A Fireman calls 592.0; 2420 EUGENE SPAIDE Fireman calls 400.Vi. 2421 JOSEPH SORE.NSEN Fireman calls 768.00 2422 VERNON STEPPE Fi reman calls 444.0,1) 2423 BURTON BUTTON Fireman calls 650.00 2424 MARC THIELfLAN Fireman calls 884.0R 2425 RICHARD TURNER Fireman calls 116.0t' 2426 STEPHEN WHITE • Fireman calls 542.CC 2427 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage-Utility bills • •239.07 2428 JOHN 1EMAN Service-Prairie Center Drive 25,000.0( 2429 t4AXINE BRUECK . Expenses 56.10 . TOTAL $l,118,972__i • • • • • • 1 .11930 approved Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1982 MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen J C. GOLDEN STRIP_ 2ND RIPLAT, by Condon-Naegele Realty Company. • Request to_ieplat the_Golden Strip and vacate Media Lane and a 26' utility easement. Located north of 1-494 and south of Smetana Lake: A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Don Brauer of The Brauer Group was present to give the presentation. • Brauer stated that the proposed buyers are looking at a large lot on the west end (this is the reason for the vacation of Media Lane). He stated that the road will continue through the property to the east. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 1/22/82. He stated that this site had•been approved in 1976-1977 and this had been graded for development of car dealerships which will not be built. Sutliff asked if access will be eliminated onto 169 until Schooner Blvd. is com- pleted. The Planner replied yes. Brauer stated that the proposed buyer is planning to start development on the east end of the project and continue west to Schooner Blvd. Beannan asked if construction 'for Schooner Blvd. is to begin this Spring. The Planner replied yes, and stated that it is planned to be completed by 1984. MOTION 1 Hallett moved to close the public hearing on Golden Strip 2nd Replat. Marhula seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 • Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the replat dated 1/11/B2 as per the staff report dated 1/22/82. Marhula seconded. DISCUSSION Sutliff stated he was concerned that the current access at Dale Green remain until 169 connects to Schooner Blvd. Bearman asked that 112 of the staff report read: All site and development plans be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to any building permit issuance or site work. Hallett and Marhula agreed. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the vacation of Media Lane and Block 2, Lot 2, utility easement as per the plans dated 1/1I/B2 and the staff report dated 1/22/82. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Marhula asked if the utility easement of Media Lane will be retained. The Planner replied yes. Marhula then asked that 'and retain the 25' easement along Outlots A and B' be added to the :notion. Hallett and Sutliff agreed. Motion carried 6-0. 1131 • . r Minutes - Parks, Recreation 6 approved Natural Resources Commission -2- February 1, 1982 b. CNR Golden Strip Replat Lambert said this is an information item to explain why there are no cash park fees for this development (see Staff Memo of January 28, 1982. • I • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services ``- DATE: January 28, 1982 SUBJECT: CNR Golden Strip Replat Enclosed is a copy of the Planning Staff Report and a map shc•wing the proposed replat of the western portion of the Golden Strip. This pro- posal is a request for replat and vacation of Media Lane and the 26' wide utility easement. The property is already zoned Regional/Commercial/ Service and has no specific building plans. The only reason this request is brought before the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commissin is regarding the question of cash park fees on this project when building permits are requested. I have attached a copy of the letter from Richard Condon and signed by Wolfgang Penzel agreeing to giv credit for the land dedicated in the 32 acres which is not in the floodplain. Actually, approximately 30 acres was dedicated and of that approximately 71 acres is outside the floodplain. • It is questionable today, to define that property as "developable", because of the restrictive shoreline management ordinance that would not allow development within that outlot. The intent of the letter was to simply credit the value of the dedicated land against the cash park fee. Assuming the value of that land is equal to the market value of the property where buildings can be constructed, (the most recent sale in the area indicated the market value at approximately $60,000 per acre) the value of that 7- acres outside the floodplain is around $450,000. The value of the cash park fees that would have been received in this area would total about $90,000. This item is brought before the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission as an information item to indicate why cash park fees will not be generated from the Golden Strip west of the storm water ponds. BL:md z STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 22, 1982 PROJECT: GOLDEN STRIP 2ND REPLAT LOCATION: North of Smetana Lake APPLICANT & FEE OWNER: Condon-Naegele Realty Company REQUEST: 1. Replat of Golden Strip 2. Vacation of Media cane- and 26' wide utility easement BACKGROUND The Golden Strip plat is zoned Regional Commercial Service and as of to-date no specific building plans have been approved. In order to connect Media Lane, as now platted, to Viking Drive, platted in the eastern Golden Strip, two 90' turns were necessary. To alleviate these tight turns in an east/west frontage road, the replat of the Golden Strip has been submitted. See figure 1. The replat accommodates a gradual curving Viking Drive off of Schooner Blvd. eastward and paralleling I-494. Staff recommends that the curves be no greater than 12 degrees. Viking Drive is designed as a 70' ROW on the preliminary plat. The staff has reviewed this and would recommend a 60'-ROW with a 10 foot road ease- ment. Because of the additional ROW requested, and because the majority of Media Lane is bordered on one side by public owned land, and because there will be an effective ROW of 70'; the staff suggests the 60/10 com- bination for ROW. • The Golden Strip area has been graded and no additional grading is requested with this replat. As site plans and building plans are developed, the proponents will have to return for City review and approval. In the Golden Strip plat, it was requested that Outlot C be dedicated to the City. This has been done. VACATIONS A. Media Lane from 169-212 to Schooner 81vd. 8. Media Lane east of new Viking Drive. • C. 26' wide, approximately 750 feet long storm sewer easement under old Media Lane except for portion between 169/212 and Schooner Blvd. 1134 • I Staff Report-CNR Golden Strip 2nd Replat page 2 LOT REPLATTING Golden Strip(existing): Golden Strip Replat(proposed): Outlot A will gain sq. ft. from vacated road Outlot B will gain sq. ft. from vacated road Outlot C Unaffected Outlot F will gain sq. ft. from vacated road Block 1, Lot 1 road access will change from north side to south side.(Block 1. int 2% Block 1, Lot 2 road access will change from cul-de-sac to NW end to road along south side (Block 2, Lot 1) • Block 1, Lot 3• road access will be on south side (Block 2, Lot 2) RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Staff would recommend approval of the replat and road and utility • vacations subject to the following: , 1. Viking Drive be final platted with curves no greater than 12 degrees. 2. All site and development plans be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any building permit issuance or site work. 3. The final plat depict Viking Drive as a 60' ROW with a 10' easement. JJ:ss • • • • II�S . , —.._....... —. . _ __ . -— ;F2,1 1 0. .-•• 4 --.. ••• .1 c .. , 11,711 • Cr• 1 i 1 : s"-41.- • • \ C .of::.. •;%it I il(I ' ri 6 is 'e Z r% . t e..• 0'A • _ .. ! i - 1 .->.,-_, .e.. 4 03 .- g, tl —i4.," '-' ' '' •-•—• 1. g r 1 f , ''..-.—.''''..-',., :g:.,,,,, ,,,a i I 10 ••-... • ' • : t;\\\ '-\ sl b 0 ..:.. 0, ,.... ‘ ...0 z1 k•t va • .. ‘) ' •P LY— „ ti: ' St . i • i t_ .• , c 1 • 1 s r.;.34 k , I -I p A 3 •9 .. ,...1 .?,11—,. -4 , -,- ' 0 t• 4, ••• - • • . // C.") , os • , . ., 766". 1/ trOvgrs,, Q20n,, iv-.tt3..i,:, "",n>.at4..%)Z •5.1-tdI"-v4,'.r,..,'' —i '''..8,.1tl\\,• ,_.1.,,,,,:,1...i-.•,r••e.- ,*..,„.*."i..i.;•a 4 - N . . 5,s2' .• o.•«=,-X,>.xx0.- t •:j. 1,y '`,,, ,...,„- 0 941": 1 , . ....: •...,, ___...... '\ -~j •1, .( i ,ze.,.,..i. • :... •, ............„...>" y, ./ . -!----1,:r. :..0.,,y. -: r- . , .... _,_ .1 „...e.i. . ....... _es., . ,,. ,..f., ,.. \ ci „„;.',r ,..4,',../1„.11 ,,,•,..,i. 1 Orr,:; r • its.,. /0,0 'Ir i• :* i • n• .'..7*, *''' "•,. ,1 .rs,r"- ...0 g --- .' /... " /8 . 1 t.i,,' -..: ,:, 'L_...,..,._: ).iisT,' ...4 tli5 ,• ;- i' i'' . ., _1, , "•• v.A ,...,.... e.= .4:1„, 9;..„.to , I ". ' - • . . ,,,,;•,,,. ,.....,,,,,,,,.4;:;..,-., ..,:,....,,., e:f...:: ";:___,..1i,..._._:_____2___.pi,,,,. .._''',______"."':4,______' ,00k_,s.:19 1„:..... c)....E..:.•_,—,--..://: .\ , .., x otiv,,,•„, .. ...!___----i.;0. Ed ,,3 • oa_iv,...____.--. , ,—.1/ •,"4 4.,..44.9 6 ,'-__ ----_,...-,.-1 .... ' 64,04 I ...trellt-- .1.ev'Av.4 • ,,, tt ,..- r\,...,.., v. &,i, 0,. 0..1 . , a, t 1 .. -1 % ,;"' ,,:, .t' , /7 • , 0 ‘o, '•11 - .., 'Vt. '' /0,.' • -41% i ''‘ ..i, i ,_ 4''' 4• ri ' • . ' • if-',/ i i 1 :''')/4.'`•',T ', ,,'.'•-31.'" / . • , }i .;,:/ '-i, ', .2.i. • .' cii '0 It.;tr, .'". 9- ''. .;./.6"'/, :.i. • i ' ••' • ,.:•. •‘• Pt • .,,,,,,, , ,t, .,%.1 i..,,,,,, • 1 .1 :1 • (..• .1.. it • i it IN•1. t .'...t.,•t, •,j /...., ,.. ? ? c.,•;) .e) c., b; , ,.N.P......r...orp•r• . -, f i 0 • r' • -...'A.:.' • - •-- - \• A....•,, ' .0.c . i 1.. . ,c%. •.,/ / - / _ V / / . / / I)2)(0 / • 04E Sop 4 y MinrlCSOtn ec [.k;l)ilftlilcnl of TransportatiOn z l�itilrict 5 i cp 205�i No. Lilac Drive l'oF wile Golden valley, Minnesota 55,1-22. March 11, 1982 (612)5453761 Mr. Chris Enger, Planning Director City of Eden Prairie • ' 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 In Reply Refer To: 315 S.P. 2785 T.H. 494 Plat review of CNR Golden Strip 2nd Replat located North of I-494 between TH 169 and 4000 feet East in Ovtlots A, B. C. F and Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Golden Strip in the City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Enger: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments: - The plat as submitted appears to be acceptable. There is not sufficient detail to comment as to how the plat fits the existing right of way. We are assuming that sufficient right of way is being platted for the proposed interchange at Schooner Boulevard. - Although the plat indicates Media Lane is to be vacated between 169/212 and Schooner Boulevard, we are assuming access to TH 169 and Schooner will be limited to the original intersection. If you have any questions in regard to these comments, please contact Evan Green at 545-3761 ext. 119. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincere y, )724(A;AAJ/ 1l W. M. Crawford, P.E District Engineer cc: Charles Weaver Metropolitan Council Mike Reiter Hennepin County Surveyor's Office • An Equal Opportunity Employer • CNR - GOLDEN STRIP PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL (REPLAT) January 21, 1982 The attached preliminary plat proposal is, strictly speaking, simply a replatting designed to accommodate the extension of the Viking Drive frontage road. Specifically, the prelimi- • nary plat embodies the following revisions to the Golden Strip final plat prepared in 1977: • - Media Lane from O.S. Highway 169/212 to Schooner Boulevard is vacated (but a 25' utility easement remains in place) - approximately 800 feet of.Media Lane, east of Schooner Boulevard is vacated - a 70' R-O-W for Viking Drive is platted through the property, with the westernmost 600 feet coinciding with (old) Media Lane - Lot I , Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 are replatted to reflect the Viking Drive alignment • - the 750 foot long, 26 foot wide storm sewer easement in Lot 2, Block 2 is vacated since it is no longer • needed to serve (old) Media Lane In summary, the property boundaries and the proposed land uses are to remain the same--this preliminary plat is pro- posed merely to reflect the changes caused by the extension of Viking Drive. The proponent will submit plans for site plan review for each lot prior to site development in accor- dance with City procedures. I l�Y� ti CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-136 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GOLDEN STRIP 2ND REPLAT ADDITION BE IT RESOLVEO•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Golden Strip 2nd Replat Addition dated Jan. 1, 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. ADOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on the • day of 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • John 0. Frane, City Clerk •SEAL MEMO • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: June 10, 1982 RE: CARDINAL CREEK 3RD AGREEMENT Jeff & Greg Gustafson have requested that the developer's agreement be modified to rezone two of the eighteen lots to R1-13.5 for single family homes instead of RM 6.5. Their request is based upon: multiple units not being able to meet the Shoreland setback requirements, possible difficulty in obtaining Watershed permission to fill in floodplain, and the market demand for single family. Lots across the creek in Cardinal Creek 2nd are sold. Staff believes this minor change is advantageous because it will place single family across from single family, will eliminate the request for a variance from the Shoreland Drdinance and a fill permit from the Watershed. If the Council so chooses to accept this change, the staff will modify the agreement to, reflect the change, and will hold publication of the ordinance until a revised legal is submitted. The Attorney's office is looking into the request to determine if it is minor and possible to do at this stage. JJ:sh • "`IV Designated Multiple 7\ , • / • - • i_______. -.1. I . odr 8 • ....- / > 1 ../- \ ' '\ offrmr.,is i• \ / 0. • ; -- ' .," •. , ....- 1 \ .\ tot .,„,l',,,,i .;C. ,.. ,,,—.---)"i ..7 - , 'I Ii ,, e ,, •/='-- . - \-..< '', ..__, i ,, ,, 7. lb '''',' - C • ' - I I ''./ ,''':$,---t.:''..'-.':'. 0.\e, elf-- ji, AII,i :, ..../ .,.: ,.-_-...,..../ . ,,_ _------ -- 7 ; 01- 1 * -^ at7cliq I ficiek_ b - ''; ,.. -t.' l'.1 - - .- — ,„ t•J 7 • --- 1 '. -- _____-- ,-- .? " •------ .,..,Ai• ...(5- , le s • ,..Ro• _.... . ,-, , . ...\-- • - . - I V 147 -K- • ...„,- - i 1 I . ,dc,•• 1 _aingle-Pmily 1°e V----- • ..\ ,:._:,-.-:--_--"'.. n. _r-,.\ I i,, ;I . • \ . .....-re \ \ \ ../.....' .\\\rj ,.. 1 1 ,..-' \ "..\ '1.... I .44),..ILT,114..,..0 I -.-----:•!-_-7.,_..,V'.•'.C_ 4 `... .."•%\,-- \ . _,:-.-....„. , • , II: \ • .-..7.---.. .,.•_:77 • 7 \* ‘ ., \ \ • \ ..--' ‘• '--- -N, ,...... ., 4" ---•"•\ \. \lis\---- •., \ . • • \ \ . \ ! I i RM 6.5to R1 13.5 • 1 . • , IN I Cardinal Creek 3rd DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1982 by and between GUSTAFSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a . municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from Rural to RM 6.5 approximately 16 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "the property", and WHEREAS Owner desires to develop the property for construction of 17 duplex buildings and 1 triplex building for an aggregate of 37 units. NDW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 82-11, and Resolution No. 82-1D0, Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated March . 22, 1982 reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 1, 1982 and attached hereto as Exhibit 8, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Owner shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the perforamnce and observance by Owner at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. . 114. • I Developer's Agreement-Cardinal Creek 3rd page 2 3. Owner shall convey by Warranty Deed that part of the property shown as Outlots A and C, on Exhibit B, outlined in g-een to the City immediately upon filing of the plat and prior to issuance of any building permits. Owner shall not grade or permit or cause to occur any construction upon Outlots A and C. 4. Owner shall, prior to final plat, submit detailed plans to the City and obtain the City's approval thereof. Such plans shall include, but not be limited to: a. replatting of lot lines out of the floodplain; b. detailed utility plans for sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer. 5. Owner shall, in accordance with the specifications of the City Engineer, concurrent with street and utility construction in and on the property, construct the following: a. a 5 foot wide 5 inch deep concrete sidewalk with let down curb and gutter within the right-of-way and south of Cardinal Creek Road as c'r!picted in red on Exhibit B; b. a 6 foot wide 4 inch deep strength asphalt path- way commencing at Cardinal Creek Road then east and south along the back lot lines of Lots 1-3, Block 2, across Oi.stlot C and 100 feet into the City park as depicted in black on Exhibit B. 6. Owner shall submit homeowner restrictive covenants to the City Attorney and receive the City Attorney's approval thereof. Such covenants shall include but not be limited to restricting the amount of grading and tree removal allowed. 7. Owner shall be responsible for removing trees within the road right-of-way which are damaged by road and utility construction. Said responsibility shall not apply to trees that are damaged or first noticed to be damaged three years after restoration of boulevard areas. 8. In implementation of the Cardinal Creek PUD 72-10, and as variances from certain requirements imposed by City Ordinance 135, as amended, City authorizes the following: a. front yard setback of 25 feet; b. side yard setbacks of 10 feet minimum one side; 30 foot minimum both sides; c. platting of a cul-de-sac in excess of 500 feet. IIt1 . : } • Developer's Agreement-Cardinal Creek 3rd page 3 9. Owner shall not submit any future development plans including plans for watermain extension for property in the Cardinal Creek PUD 72-10, other than lands encompassed in applications todate, unless such applications include the looping of Cardinal Creek Road and water service back to Baker Road. • • • • 7 • • • • • • • The East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter, except that part thereof embraced within th of he No theastiQuarter Creek except Addition; partthe thereofSouth lying Easterly Southeast the Easterly tificate the right of way line 7 U.S. Highwayt Number the Northwest4 as set rth in Quarter1ofltherSoutheast Quarters Numbersc ed7£3s f ands: par.; Quarter, described as follows: Commgathenco the lloestealong the corner Northalane Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;to th point onf the East line of said thereof 165 feet; thence Southeasterly Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 165 feet South from the point of beginning; thence North along said East line to the point of beginning, all in Section 3, Township 116, Range 22. • • • • • • • EXHIBIT A • illy, • ;PPEL1r7,7JAUY Pi.ST ,.,4 :._.:7.772::::„..,]-:::::.:::-::.::::•::::::..::::!-::77.!..::::::..:L:-..-1.T.1::..:t:::::-...7:::::::::i-.:::..::::::.:•:::77,.-,.....::31 • CJa. . / -,.--i ,-, —r, . ----c•• \ . • vl • \ ,.. -,/ r • N. ... , . . ..... , t . 0 : .....„ ... ,. , , .. 4' ,I"---,...1 % ' gib• 2' .o S t' 1 I 1 4• s '%jam J -- ": e $ 3 I r 71 \� c\ �✓ 4 . -\ :r l 1 j t..- 1 NO;TM I \t , \C..\' ,I Ij /;?I!'% G. \ I e—.r� i \\,cb\../ \ ,\ '\. ' ''• 1 \ ;,\\ �.6 �� - \r \ 4: Y \_ice \ a • EXHIBIT B March 22,1982 .... Developer's Agreement-Cardinal Creek 3rd page 4 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE . by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1982 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal cor- poration on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • GUSTAFSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. n ` A --/— by .effreyP. Gus afson, President • STATE OF MINNESOTA) �vJ SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9 day of , 1982 by Jeffrey P. Gustafson, President of Gustafson &tes, Inc. a Minnesota corporation,on behalf of the corporation. Assoc- 'e all - -._ _. .. .-•-- -- N ry Publ i c 1 .1/BO • DEVELOPER ' S AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C page 1 of 5 I. Prior to release of final plat, Owner shall submit to the City Engineer for approval two copies of a development plan (1"=100' scale) showing existing and proposed contours, proposed streets and lot arrangements and size, minimum floor elevations on each lot, preliminary alignment and grades for sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer, 100 year flood plain contours, ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, arrows showing direction of storm water flow on all lots, location of walks, trails and any property to be deeded to the City. II. Owner shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, for review and approval. • Owner shall follow all rules and recommendations of said Watershed District. II1. Owner shall pay cash park fees as to all of the property required by any ordinance in effect as of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $ 250 Per unit. The amount to be paid by Owner shall be increased or decreased to the extent that City ordinances are amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the property. IV. Prior to the dedication, transfer or conveyance of any real property or interest therein to the City as provided herein, Owner shall deliver to the City an opinion addressed to the City by an Attorney, and in a form , acceptable to City, as to the condition of the title of such property or in lieu of a title opinion, a title insurance policy insuring the condition of the property or interest therein in the City. The condition of • the title of any real property or any interest therein to be dedicated, transferred or conveyed as may be provided herein by • Owner to City shall vest in City good and marketable title, therein free and clear of any mortgages, liens, encumbrances, or assessments. • • • • 1/80 Pie 2 of 5 Exhibit C V. A. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities, concrete curb, gutters,sidewalks,streets and other public utilities ("improvements") to be made and constructed on or within the property and dedicated to the City shall he designed in compliance with City standards by a registered professional engineer and submitted to the City Engin- eer for approval. All of the improvements shall be completed by Owner & acceptable to the City Engineer and shall be free and clear of any lien, claim, charge or encumbrance, including any for work, • labor or services rendered in connection therewith or material or . equipment supplied therefore on or before the later of, 2 years from the date hereof or , 19 . Upon com- pletion and acceptance, Owner warrants and guarantees the improve- ments against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of two (2) years following said completion and acceptance. In the event of any defect in materials or workmanship within said 2 year period warranty and guarantee shall be for a period of three (3) years following said completion and acceptance. Defects in material or workmanship shall be determined by the City Engineer. Acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer may be subject to • such conditions as he may impose at the time of acceptance. Owner, through his engineer, shall provide for competent daily inspection during the construction of all improvements. As-built drawings with service and valve ties on reproduceahle mylar shall be deliver- ed to the City Engineer within 60 days of completion thereof to- gether with a written statement from a registered engineer that all improvements have been completed, inspected and tested in accordance with City-approved plans and specifications. Prior to final plat approval, or issuance of any building permit, if no final plat is required, Owner shall: Submit a bond or letter of credit which guarantees com- pletion of all improvements within the times provided, upon the conditions, and in accordance with the terms of this subparagraph V. A., including but not limited to, a guarantee against defects iq materials or work- manship for a period of two (2) years following com- pletion and acceptance of the improvements by the City Engineer. The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the estimated construction cost of said improvements, subject to reduction thereof to an amount equal to 25% of the cost of the improvements after acceptance thereof by the City Engineer, and re- ceipt of as-built drawings. The bond or letter of credit shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the City Engineer. The Owner's registered engineer shall make and submit for approval to the City Engineer a written estimate of the costs of the improvements. B, In lieu of the obligation imposed by subparagraph V.A, above, Owner may submit a 100% petition signed by all owners of the property, re- questing the City to install the improvements. Upon approval by the City Council, the City may cause said improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs for said improvements will be levied on the property, except any property which is or shall be ded- . • I/80 }. 6/81 page 4 of 5 Exhibit C VIII. Provisions of this Agreement shall he binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the property herein described. IX. Owner represents and warrants it owns fee title to the property free and clear of mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances, except: X. In the event there are or will be constructed on the property, 2 or more streets, and if permanent street signs have not been installed, Owner shall install temporary street signs in accordance with recommendations of the City Building Department, prior to the issuance of any permit to build upon the property. XI. All improvements including grading, seeding, planting, landscaping, equipirig, and constructing of any structure to or upon any of the property or other lands to be conveyed or dedicated to the City or for which an easement is to be given to the City for park or other recreational purposes, shall be completed by Owner and acceptance to the Director of Community Services and shall be free and clear of any lien, claim, change, or encumbrance, including any for work, labor, or services rendered in connection therewith or material or equipment sup- plied therefore on or before the later of, 2 years from the date hereof or 19 . Upon Upon completion and acceptance Owner warrants and guarantees the improvements against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of two (2) years following said completion and acceptance. In the event of any defect in materials or workmanship within said 2 year period the warranty and guarantee shall be for a period of three (3) years following said completion and acceptance. Defects in m,tcriels or workmanship shall be determined by the Director of Community Services. Acceptance of improvements by the Director of Community Services may be subject to such obligations as he may impose at the time of acceptance. Owner, through his engineer shall provide for competent daily inspection during the construction of all improve- ments. Prior to final plat approval, or issuance of any building permit, if no final plat is required, Owner shall: Submit a bond or letter of credit which guarantees com- pletion of all improvements within the times provided, • . upon the conditions, and in accordance with the terms of this Paragraph XI ., including but not limited to, a guarantee against defects in materials or workman- ship for a period of two (2) years following comple- tion and the extension of the period to three (3) years in the event of any defect during said 2 year period, and acceptance of the improvements by the Oirector of Community Services shall be 125i of the estimated con- struction cost of said improvements, subject to reduction thereof to an amount equal to 25t of the cost of the improvements after acceptance thereof by the Oirector of Community Services. The bond or letter of credit shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may he required by the Director of Com- munity Services. The Owner's registered engineer shall make and submit for approval to the Director of Commun- ity Services a written estimate of the costs of the improvements. • 1151 • 1/80 " 9/10/80 ( Page 5 of 5 Exhibit C t XII. Owner acknowledges that the rights of City to performance of obligations of owner contemplated in this agreement are special, unique and of an extraordinary character; and that in the event that owner violates or fails or refuses to perform any covenant, condition or provision made by him herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law. Owner agrees, therefore, that in the event he violates, fails or refuses to perform any covenant, condition or provision made herein, City may, at its option, institute and prosecute an action to specifically enforce performance of such covenant. No remedy conferred in this agreement is intended to be ' exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every • • other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute • a waiver of any other remedy. XTII. Any term of this agreement that is illegal or unenforceable at law or in equity shall be deemed to be void and of no force and effect to the extent necessary to bring such term within the provisions of any such applicable law or laws, and such terms as so modified and the balance of the terms of this agreement shall be fully enforceable. XIV. Owner shall, prior to the commencement of any improvements, provide written notice to Minnesota Cablesystems Southwest, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, the franchisee under the City's Cable Communication Ordinance (80-33) of the development contemplated by this Developer's Agreement. Notice shall be sent to Minnesota Cablesystems Southwest c/o Popham, Haik, Kaufman, Schnobrich and Doty, Ltd., 4344 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 554D2. • f i • • 1151 ' Cardinal Creek 3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Ordinance No. 82-11 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended as follows: The property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof shall be and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RM 6.5 District. Section 2. The above-described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of 1982 between Gustafson & Associates, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the RM 6.5 District. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 1 day of June, 1982 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1982. 115 3 That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 22, lying Northeasterly and Easterly of the following described line: beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 4, Block 1, Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition; thence Northeasterly along the North-' easterly extension of the Southeasterly line of said Lot • 4, a distance of 160.00 feet; thence Easterly to a point on the East line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 3, a distance of 1469.90 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of Section 3, and there • terminating. Containing 713726.69 sq. ft. t EXHIBIT A y 11511 NORTHLAND MORTGAGE COMPI TO: John Franc FROM: Bill Brusman SUBJECT: Progress Report on Edenvale Apartments DATE: May 27, 1982 • We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you last Tuesday to bring you up to date on the Edenvale Apartment development and to discuss in a preliminary manner our proposal for some form of tax increment financing to help assure that this development can proceed to construction yet this summer. Briefly, let me summarize the situation: 1. The developer, Z & S Development Company, has extended its option on the site until August 31st. This is the last option extension that will be granted to the developer. 2. The developer has been granted a firm commitment to provide FHA insurance for the permanent mortgage by the HUD Area Office. This firm commitment has been extended to August 15, 1982, and will expire on that date. 3. The developer has been awarded Section 8 rent assistance subsidies for twenty percent (35 units) of the proposed 174 apartments to be built. In order for the developer to retain the Section 8 . subsidies, it must be demonstrated to HUD that the project can be financed in today's market. 4. The Edenvale project was not selected for "Tandem" financing during the national lottery earlier this year. This "Tandem" financing would have made permanent mortgage financing available at a term of 40 years and an interest rate of 71A. The City Council has passed a preliminary inducement resolution to allow the 1 developer to use tax exempt mortgage revenue bond financing. We are in the process of structuring the bonds to obtain an interest rate that likely will be significantly less than the recent Minnesota Housing Finance Agency rate of 13-plus per cent. However, based on the rents that can be charged for the Edenvale Apartment project, even using a very favorable tax exempt bond interest rate, there is a substantial gap between the cost to develop the project and the mortgage that the rents can support. This gap approaches $1.5 million and exceeds what the developer reasonably can be expected to contribute to the project as equity. I ' 6600 fRANCE AVENUE SOUTH `MINNEAPOIIS.MINNESOTA 55435 a TEI PHONE 617/915.7700 "'r 73 TTES • NORTHLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY TO: John Frane May 27, 1982 • Page 2 5. Therefore, we intend to propose to the City Council at its June 15th meeting that a tax increment district be established around the housing project site and that the city pledge an amount of anticipated increased tax revenues back to the project so that the cash equity required by the developer is reasonable. The tax increment project will only he for this housing project and could be structured in one of two general ways: a. The city could sell bonds and use bond proceeds to assist the developer with a portion of the capital • costs of the project (e.g., land write-down, site improvements, etc.) or b. The city could use a new tax increment provision granted by the legislature last session to pledge the anticipated tax increase to the project each year to reduce the financing costs dLrectly. This approach is called an "interest reduction program" and would not require the city to sell bonds. We intend to bring to the City Council all of the resolutions and guidelines they would be required to enact at that June 15th meeting. If there is additional information we can supply at that meeting or before, please let me know. Our entire developement team looks forward to a continued good working relationship with Eden Prairie in moving forward on this exciting housing opportunity. Sincerely, William L. Brusman Assistant Vice President 893-7521 WLB:bas 's 115(, • • RESOLUTION NO. Y'3-// G RESOLUTION ESTABLISING THE DATE FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTERS 462.411 ET SEQ. AND 273.71-78. WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 et. seq., as amended (the "Act") authorizes the undertaking-projects, as defined therein;and • • WHEREAS,the term "project" is defined in Section 462.421, subdivision 14, of the Act to include"an interest reduction program authorized by Section 462.445, subdivision 10"; and WHEREAS, Section 462.445, subdivision 10, of the Act provides that "An authority may develop and administer an interest reduction program to assist the financing of the construction, rehabilitation and purchase of housing units which are primarily for occupancy by individuals of low or moderate income and related and subordinate facilities"; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes,Sections 273.71 to 273.78 (the"Tax Increment Act") authorizes the use of tax increments to finance a project;and - WHEREAS,Section 273.73, subdivision 8 of the Tax Increment Act defines a project,for the purposes of the Tax Increment Act,to include a "project as defined in Section 462.421,subdivision 14,"including an interest reduction program;and WHEREAS, a representative of Z and S Development Company (the "Developer") has requested that an interest reduction program (the "Project") be undertaken in the City of Eden Prairie (the "City"), and that the costs of such Project be financed by tax increments pursuant to the Tax Increment Act;and WHEREAS,Section 462.425,subdivision 1,of the Act provides that,in order develop and administer the Project the City must create in the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Ecen Prairie(the "Authority") the authority to exercise those powers contained in the Act by the adoption of a resolution(the"Resolution"); and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City of form of the Resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with a request that the City Council consider such Resolution for adoption by the City Council;and WHEREAS,Section 462.425, subdivision 2,provides that the City Council of • the City shall consider such a Resolution only after a public hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, Section 462.425, subdivision 2, provides that notice of the time and place of such public hearing shall be given by published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Eden Prairie at least once not less than ten (10)days nor more than thirty(30)days prior to the date of the public hearing;and 4 WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B, with a request that the City Council establish a date for a public hearing on the adoption of the Resolution and to authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developers; and WHEREAS, prior to undertaking the Project,Section 462.521, subdivision 1, requires that the Authority apply to the City Council of the City for approval thereof, and that the City hold a public hearing thereon after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Eden Prairie at least once not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice, attached hereto as Exhibit C, with a request that the City Council establish a date for a public hearing on the City's approval of the Project and to authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer;and WHEREAS, Section 273.74,subdivision 3,of the Tax Increment Act requires that, prior to the financing of the Project under the Tax Increment Act, the City must approve the tax increment financing plan with respect thereto,but only after holding a public hearing thereon after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Eden Prairie at least once not less than ten(10)nor more than thirty(30) days prior to the date of hearing;and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice, attached hereto as Exhibit D, with a request that the City Council establish a date for a public hearing on the City's approval of the tax increment financing plan with respect to the Project and to authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THAT: 1. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie will conduct three public hearings on (a) the adoption by the City Council of the Resolution establishing in the Authority the power to develop and administer the Project,(b) the approval by the City Council of the Project and (c) the approval of the tax increment financing plan with respect to the Project on the sixth(6th)day of July, 1982. 2. The staff of the City of Eden Prairie is hereby authorized and directed to cause the public notices, substantially in the forms of the notices attached hereto as Exhibit B, Exhibit C and Exhibit D, to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Eden Prairie. 3. The staff of the City of Eden Prairie is hereby authorized and directed to have available for public inspection in the offices of the City of Eden Prairie a draft copy of the proposed Resolution,together with any other documents or materials presented to the City by the Developer with respect to the Project. • I15�' EXFRBIT A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AS TO THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA Whereas, published notice was given in the 'on , 1982, as to the matter of the establishment of a Housin i i Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, said published notice being incorporated herein by reference; and Whereas,public hearing was held on said matter on July 6,1982, pursuant to said notice and the council having heard all persons, objections and recommendations relative thereto and having fully considered the same; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie that; the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie finds and determines that in the City of Eden Prairie, (1) There is a shortage of decent, safr, and sanitary dwelling accommodations available to persons of low and moderate income and their families. Private enterprise is unable to alleviate such shortage and to provide a substantial supply of decent, safe and sanitary housing without government subsidy at prices or rents within the financial means of persons and families of such incomes. This shortage is inimical to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the residents of the City of Eden Prairie and to the sound growth and development of the City of Eden Prairie. (2) That there is a need for a housing and redevelopment authority to function to alleviate said shortage in the City of Eden Prairie, this finding and the foregoing findings being made after consideration, amongst other things, of the need to provide low and moderate income families with housing opportunities at prices or rents within their financial means, the need to encourage the development of vacant, open and undeveloped lands, and the need to insure the sound growth,development and financial stability of the City of Eden Prairie. Adopted by the Council on the day of ,1982. Yeas: Nays: Approved Attest Mayor City Clerk 115°) EXHIBIT B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.425, Subd. 2, that the Eden Prairie City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on the 1st Tuesday in July(July 6, 1982)at 7:30 p.m. will hold a • public hearing on the matter of the establishment of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the City of Eden Prairie and shall consider, and adopt or reject, a resolution finding that in the City of Eden Prairie there is a shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations available to persons of low and moderate income and their families at prices and rentals they can afford, said Resolution declaring that there is a need for a Housing and Redevelopment Authority to function to alleviate said shortage in the City of Eden Prairie. Opportunity to be heard at said hearing shall be granted to all residents of the City and its environs and to all other interested persons with reference to the aforesaid Resolution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.425, et. seJc. (Published: ,1982 in City Clerk the .) City of Eden Prairie • Hennepin County,Minnesota • i WOO • EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that it will hold a public hearing at the City Hall, 8950 Eden Prairie Road, in the •City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota,on the 6th day of July, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. to consider the proposal for the undertaking of the Eden Vale Housing Redevelopment Project by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie, a public body corporate and politic.The Eden Vale Housing Redevelopment Project, which said project is embodied in the Eden Vale Housing Redevelopment Project Plan dated , 1982, which said Plan is on file in the office of the City Clerk,City Hall, in the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, includes an area bounded as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Eden Vale Fourth Addition to the City of Eden • Prairie, according to the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. THE PURPOSE OF SAID HEARING is to consider the above described Redevelopment Pr::jcct and Plan., the said undertakings to be carried out by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie, under the Minnesota Municpal Housing and Redevelopment Act (Minnesota Statutes, Section. 462,411, Pt. seq., as amended) and under Local Law, to develop and administer an interest reduction program to assist the financing of the construction, rehabilitation and purchase of housing units which will be primarily for occupancy by individuals of low and moderate income and related and subordinate facilites in a manner consistent with the needs of the City of Eden Prairie as a whole and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Eden Prairie. Any person or organization desiring to be heard will be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such hearing as to proposals of the Plan, whether or not specifically described in this notice, being hereby directed to said Plan on file in the office of the said City Clerk for full details with respect to the plans and project. (Published: ,1982 in City Clerk the City of Eden Prairie • Hennepin County,Minnesota a EXHIBIT D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CrfY OF EDEN PRAIRIE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON DESIGNATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie will hold a public hearing at the City Hall, 8950 Eden Prairie Road, in the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota on the 6th day of • July, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. to consider the designation of an interest reduction program as a project within the City of Eden Prairie pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 462.411 of et.se .and the adoption of a tax increment financing plan and designation of a tax increment financing district for said project pursuant to•Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 273.71-78. The proposed project area and tax increment:inancing district are as follows: Project Area: Lot 1, Block 1, Eden Vale Fourth Additon to the City of Eden Prairie, according to the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. Tax Increment Financing District: Lot 1,Block 1, Eden Vale Fourth Additon to the City of Eden Prairie, according to the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. The purpose of said hearing is to consider the above-mentioned project area and tax increment financing plan, the said undertaking to be carried out by the City of Eden Prairie and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie under the Minnesota Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act(Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 462.411, et. seq.,as amended) and the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 2783.71 to 273.78, as amended), and under local law, to develop and administer an interest reduction program to assist the financing of the construction, rehabilitation, and purchase of housing units which are primarily for occupancy by individuals of low and moderate income and related and subordinate facilities in a manner consistent with the needs of the City of Eden Prairie as a whole and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Eden Prairie. Any person or organization desiring to be heard will be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such hearing as to the proposals of the plan, whether or not specifically described in this notice, being hereby directed to said plan on file in the office of the City Clerk for full details with respect to the plans and project. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Date this day of ,1982 (Published: , 1982 in City Clerk the City of Eden Prairie TFTrnnrnin(nnnty. Minnesota _ RESOLUTION NO. 82-126 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO CREATE AN ORGANIZATION TO BE KNOWN AS THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, has granted a franchise to Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, after having participated in a joint franchising process together with Cities ,of Edina, Richfield, Hopkins and Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, the cable communications system that will now serve each of the five (5) Cities will benefit from a joint and coopera- tive effort between the Cities in terms of the ongoing administra- tion and enforcement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has revieuad a Joint and Cooperative Agreement that enables the City to participate together with the other Cities through a Joint Powers Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a joint and cooperative effort througl a Joint Powers Commission will best serve the City in terms of its needs pertaining to the ongoing administration and enforcement of the cable communications system franchise granted by it. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, in a regular meeting assembled, resolves as follows: 1. That the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, attached to this Resolution, is approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized on behalf of the City to execute this Agreement and to forward it to the City Manager of the City of Edina so that the • Joint Powers Commission contemplated by the Agreement can be organized and started. 2 11/ l�J 5 • F. Page -2- 2. That the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie approves the proposed start-up costs and the proposed method of budgeting for the balance of 1982. 3. That the following persons are designated to serve on behalf of this City as Directors and Alternates to the Joint • Powers Commission: Councilmember/Director Alternate Councilmember/Director Administrative Administrative Appointed Appointed Director Alternative Director • Passed and adopted this day of , 1982. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BY: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1 Flog • • MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and City Council TfiRU: Carl Jullic, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: . June 9, 1982 • SUBJECT: Bryant Lake Park Master Plan At the June iS meeting staff representatives from Hennepin County Park Reserve District will present the proposed Bryant Lake Park Master Plan for review by the Eden Prairie City Council. The Park Reserve District held a neighborhood resting and presented this master plan for their discussion, and gave the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission the presentation at their June 7 meeting. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended approval of the park master plan with the exception of the overnight camping. The Commission would approve a day camping program in the sites proposed for overnight camping, but agreed with the adjacent neighbors that the sites were too close to residential properties for • an overnight operation. • The neighbors and the Commission were impressed with, and strongly • in favor of the rest of the proposed park master plan. .BL:md • • • • • } i • I I(,S • June 15, 1982 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • • HENNEPIN COUNIY,•MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-139 . RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID • WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: • I.C. 52-013, Kilmer Avenue and Atherton Way • Utility Improvements ' • bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to • • • as the lowest responsible bidder. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as, follows: • The Mayor and City Manager arc hereby authorized and directed ._ to enter into a contract with ' in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of in accordance with the plans and • specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file .in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. • • o fgang H. Penzel, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Frane, City Clerk /1" • • June 15, 1982 • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-140 , RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: • I.C. 52-030, Mitchell Lakes Estates 2nd Street Improvements • bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of 'contract to as the lowest responsible bidder. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: • The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed .. • . to enter into a contract with ' in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of in accordance with the plans and • specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file .in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • t' ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Franc, City Clerk 110 • • June 15, 1982 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0. R82-141 • RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: I.C. 52-010, Mitchell/Technology Drive bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to • • as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: • The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed .. • to enter into a contract with in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. olfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ' • ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Franc, City Clerk IPA) MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works liii7 DATE: June 10, 1982 RE: MCA Road Improvements/Indirect Source Permit (PCA) • ' One of the permits that was deemed to be necessary for the Major Center Area road improvements is an "Indirect Source Permit". This permit is issued by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and deals with air pollution. The permit application has been filled out and submitted in April and should be processed with a permit approved by July 15, 1982. The details of the air pollution control permit are not a particular problem with this project. However, PCA uses this permitting process as a "lever" to enforce noise standards as well. We have one specific area in which noise standards are not currently met nor will they be met in the near future. This area is the single family homes at the end of Leona Road. .PCA has made an issue about this particular location and is going to insist that the City of Eden Prairie participate in a final solution. PCA has written.a proposed permit for the Indirect Source Permit which includes 4 a statement that the single family area at the end of Leona Road will be purchased by the City if the lots are not purchased by commercial developers. I believe that Staff and Council do recognize that this area will be commercial at some time in the future - - the question is when. I have discussed this permit at some length with Rick Rosow. Although we believe that we could avoid that particular language on the permit application, the process which would be required to delete that particular condition would be extremely lengthly and time consuming. The implication, is that all of the Major Center projects could be held up for this one particular detail. Therefore, it is Staff recommendation that we comply with that requirement and submit a letter to the Pollution Control Agency saying as much. Also included on the Council agenda is a Resolution which would commit to the same requirements. It is my intention to see if a letter will suffice and if the PCA requires a Resolution, the attached Resolution will be forwarded for their use. This is just a brief synopsis of the issue with the PCA, I will be available to • discuss it in more detail at the June 15 Council meeting. EAD:sg T June 15, 1982 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-142 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: • • I.C. 51-340A, N.W. Quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to • as the lowest responsible bidder. • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as• follows: • The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed .. to enter into a contract with in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. • ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. Jo?gang II. Penzcl, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Franc, City Clerk Ifr�� • June 15, 198Z a • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-147 • RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID . WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: • I.C. 51-398, S.W. Quadrant of Prairie' Center Drive• • • • bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received. are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS,•the City Engineer recommends award of contract to • • as the lowest responsible bidder. • • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: ( • The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed .. • • to enter into a contract with in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of in accordance with the plans and . specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file • .in the office of the City Engineer. • ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL • l John D. Franc, City Clerk 'I�� • June 15, 1982 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R82-143 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: I.C. 51-308 A, N.E. Quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to • as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed .. • to enter into a contract with in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. • ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 15, 1982. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • • ATTEST: SEAL John D. Franc, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST June 15, 1982 CONTRACTORS (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) SOLICITOR LICENSE ABJ Enterprises Pat Wilson - Farmers Market Terrific Lunch Co. CONTRACTOR ( 1 & 2 FAMILY) Aspen Realty, Inc. Crest Investment Corporation Deckworks John Muehlberg & Associates WELL DRILLING ( Hartmann Well Co. SEPTIC SYSTEMS Klingberg Excavating, Inc. GARBAGE COLLECTION Ralph W. 8right PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE • Joan Emswiler - see attached These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licens d activity. Pat Solie, Licensing 1 6 . rnfl • . „� f CITY OFFICES/8950 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE.MN 55344.2499/TELEPHONE(612)937.2262 .June 8, 1982. Joan Emswiler 6580 Undestad Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 Ms. Emswiler, This letter is to inform you that your Kennel license will be appearing before the City Council on June 15. Your immediate neighbors will also receive a letter to this effect. The meeting will start at 7:30 pm, it is impossible to give you an exact time your license will be discussed. If you have' any questions please contact me at the City Hall, 937-2262 ext. 73. Thank you, Pat Solie Licensing Clerk �I7c • CITY Of EDEN PRAIRIE ' )�rAME.W.ISQV__ 944- 14 Pt Last First Middle Telephone • HOME ADDRLSS,_1lot+ b_e. wds• Rai -gkou„:_,4re►.- MN SSy 3t._ ._ Street City State • Zip Code • Male Female_h Hair Color Gvn. Height weight 13 S Age in Years 43 Birth Date . c„L I( I 19 yl Month Day Year • • BUSINESS DESCRIPTION AND PRODUCT OR SERVICES INVOLVED • 4) _ v . t •• IF EMPLOYED, THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER • • DATE AND HOURS OF SELLING Of SOLICITING &Aui.day. I61JM-2PM a} liAettdmic SOURCE OF SUPPLY OF PROPERTY TO BE SOLD I.pc.4(I tr. " Ckt.043eir �_.__ tiy_t:el y•Te , Inner! 1 METHOD OF DELIVERY,_Co_yu.e..,teV 1;c\cs HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME, MISDEI.lEANOR, OR NON TRAIT VIOLATION? IJp (Is yes, give details one reverse side) • • LIST THE LAST CITIES OR VILLAGES, NOT TO EXCEED FIVE, WHERE YOU HAVE CARRIED ON BUSINESS PRECEDING DATE OF THIS APPLICATION. ..(Include address • and dates worked)•__Nlagifeic.Me • A•s • t REGISTRATION FEE. $5.00 SUBMIT TWO COPIES OF RECENT PHOTO 2Z x 22 (heac and shoulders). ( I AUTHORIZE INVESTIGATION OF ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS M'PLICAT' I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MISREPRESENTATION OR THE OM MISSION or FACTS CALLED FOR •SHALL BE JUST CAUSE or TILE DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED LICCNI ' k DATE lu,,,"4..__(O• _11.Y SIGNATURE_ Q�'IiGG4. *"Certificate of Insurance for Workmens Compensation or written permission from Commissioner of Insurance to self insure or a staternent.from,your• attoi*ey stating • June 10, 1982 1 To: Eden Prairie City Council From: M. Patricia W'il4on, Chairperson, Eden Prairie Farmers' M::rket Re sue at I request that the Council grant the necessary licenses and a;,grovels for the new Ed!n Prairie Farmers' Market to be loc:.tea in the soothes:.t portion • of neards' parking lot. :he market will future Minnesota-gown produce. Backeround Farmers' markets are being encouraged by growers and other groups. A principle reason is although Minnesota is a tremendous agricultural state, we import over 665 of our produce. Another way to view the situation is we export 66% of our produce dollars. A farmers' market keeps Minnesota's .dollars here to boost our economy. j, ,mother major reason that farmers' markets are being encouraged is for • consumers to have a fresh selection of non-packaged produce. If a consumer wants a bushel of beans, he or she can buy a bushel. Farmers' markets are a social and cultural evert for those attending. People of various aces mix and growers and non-growers reach hew unde:rstan- din;;F, about food production. Current Siturit.;�n During the winter of 1981-82 a meeting was held to discuss the establish- ment of farmers' markets. I atte,,ded that meeting. With the encouragement • of Bess Hum, Marketing Specialist, Department of Agriculture, I began to call people in the southwest suburban area who were vegetable or fruit growers. • About LO growers are identified for the Eden Prairie Market. On May 6 a meeting of interested .;rowers was held. Another meeting was held on May ,'O. Our next meeting is planned for June 24. Sidney Pauly was instrumental in getting us located at Menards. .Ve look forward to having an excellent farmers' market and seek your support in our efforts. • yy �S�E tr START OF RETAKE The images appearing between this point and the End of Retake target are true, accurate, and complete copies of records that previously were not filmed or were filmed incorrectly. pr6 I 1