HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/03/1982 /)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
'IESOAY, AUGUST 3, 1982 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: v Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, George Bentley, lean
Elstrom, Paul Relpath ani George Tangen
COUNCIL STAFF.�AJ , City Manager Carl J. Jullie; City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Finance Director John Frane;
Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of
Community Services WI Lambert; Director of
Public Works Eugene A. lietz, ani Recording
Secretary Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Mayer Wolfgang Penzel
I. ACKNO'WLEP.CMENT OF PARTICIPATION IM "NO FAULT GRIEVANCE PROGRAM" Page 1487
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
III. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1982 Page 1488
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 82-18, adpktinq Chapter 11 (Zoning) Page 1310
of Codification & 138E
{ B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 82-17,_rezonind_.385 acres from Rural Page 1489
to Rl-ls.5 for construction of one (t) single family home, Gustafson
Rezoning by Paul R. Gustafson. Located across from 9635 & 9629
Bennett Place.
C. Authorization to advertise for bids for construction of County Page 1491
Road 1 West of County Road 4 Bikeway
D. Clerk's License List Page 1492
Set Public Hearing for vacation of Sanitary Sewer Easement on Lot
2. Block 2, LeParc,for 7:30 PM, August 17, 1982
F. Change Order No. 1., Public Safety Building Page 1494
G. Change Order No. 2., Public Safety/Public Works Building Page 1495
H. Receive petition for improvements to Homeward Hills Road between Page 1496
CSAH 1 and Sunnybrook Road, I.C. 52-033. and authorize preparation
of feasibility rjgort (Kesolution No. 82-195)
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. TAX 1NCREMWNT FINANCING DISTRICT FOR EDENVALE APARTMENTS (Resolution Page 1300,
No. 82-174j_Continued from July 0, 1982 1387A &
1496D
B. REQUEST FOR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR BROTHERS-iN-LAW INC. dba Boardwalk Page 1497
Restaurants, Inc._cforrner_l Brothers Restaurant at Eden Prairie Center
City C'i cil Agenda - 2 - Tues.,August 3, 1982
C. KINGS FOREST by Centurion Company. Request for Guide Plan change Page 1498
of approximately 70 acres from low to medium density residential,
Planned Unit Development approval of 31 single family and 153
townhouses, rezoning of 15 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 and 33 acres
from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary plat approval over the 70 acres,
possible variances from the R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 Districts, and approval
of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located west of Baker Road
and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods,-and east
of West 66th Street's easterly terminous (Resolution No. 82-187 -
Guide Plan change; Resolution No. 82-188 - PUD; Ordinance No. 82-20 -
rezoning; Resolution No. 82-189 - preliminary plat; and Resolution
No. 82-190 - EAW)
O. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP byUndestad Investment Company. Request for Page 1561
a Planned Unit Development Concept approval for industrial uses on 32
acres (27 acres of which is zoned I-2), rezoning from Rural to 1-2 for
approximately 5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots,
possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of County Road 67 and Chicago Northwestern Railway (Resolution
No. 82-191 - PUD; Ordinance No. 82-21 - rezoning; Resolution No. 82-192 -
preliminary plat; and Resolution No. 82-193 - EAW)
VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 2954 - 3161 Page 1607
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 1-82, adopting the City Code Page 1611
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report City Mana_cer
C. Report of City- Attorney
D. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award contract for West 69th Street and Vicinity- Drainage
Improvements, I.C. 52-104 Resolution No. 82-196)
2. Award contract for Mitchell_Lake Estates 2nd Improvements,
I.C. 52-026 Resolution No. 82-19-71
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT.
1
•
•
TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THRU: CARL JULLIE-CITY MANAGER
FROM: JAN FLYNN-HUMAN SERVICE COOROINATOR
DATE: JULY 29, 1982
SUBJECT: EXPLANATION OF THE NO FAULT GRIEVANCE PROCESS
On Friday, July 23, 1982 the Eden Prairie Human Rights and Services Commission
received a Certificate of Commendation from the Governor of Minnesota and
• the State Department of Human Rights for their participation in the No Fault
Grievance Process.
The purpose of No Fault Grievance Processing is to encourage early informal
resolution of disputes stemming from actual or perceived unfair discriminatory
practices. This procedure provides an opportunity for human service agencies
and local comnissions to act informally on behalf of grievants in the
voluntary resolution of such matters through No Fault Grievance settlements
during the first four months preceding the jurisdiction time limits for
filing a formal charge of discrimination with the Minnesota Department
of Human Rights.
The advantage of No Fault Grievance settlements for the grievant is receiving
definite benefits, with a minimum of delay, in an informal setting. In addition,
resolving the matter without filing a formalized charge to the state level
minimizes the possibility that a reprisal action will be taken against the person.
If attempts to resolve the matter at the local level fail, the grievant has
the right to file a formal charge of discrimination with the State Department
of Human Rights.
To become involved with the No Fault Grievance Process our local Human Rights
and Services Commission members had to take a two part training program
through the State Department of Human Rights, and work cooperatively
with the State Department in cases and record keeping.
Presently three Commission members, Larry Simenson, Chairperson of the Commission,
Jeanette Mika, and Bob Norberg are trained and working with cases in the
city of Eden Prairie.
��1111
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1982 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dean
Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen
COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Assistant
to the Planner Jean Johnson, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary
Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: all members were present
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: IX. B. 3. Consideration of the Purchase
Aoreement for the Schultz property; IX. D. 4. Eckert RLS: IX. D. 5. Sunnvhrook/Creek
Knoll Road Connection; IX. D. 6. Railroad Transportation Agreement for Crossing at
County Road 67; and IX. D. 7. Hennepin County Agreement for Signals at Valley View
Road.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Agenda as amended and
published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 29, 1982
Page 2, para. 1, line 5: add the following after "is available: "and that
West 70th Street be constructed as necessitated by development to the east."
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Minutes of the
Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 29, 19B2, as amended and published.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 6, 19B2
Page 10, item VII. A. 1., para. 1: change "met with representatives" to "spoken
with a representative".
Page 10, item VII. A. 1., para. 3: change: "are determined." to "would be deter-
mined if an Ordinance were drafted."
A
4
City Council Minutes -2- July 20, 1982
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Minutes of the
July 6, 1982, Regular City Council Meeting as amended and published. Motion
carried with Redpath abstaining.
11I. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approve plans and specifications for revised Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd Addition
Improvements, I.C. 52-030, and set bid opening date for 10:00 a.m., August 3,
1982 (Resolution No. 82-182)
8. Final plat approval for Lee Data Corporation (Resolution No. 82-161)
C. Final plat approval for 8ryant Lake Center 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 82-180)
D. Change Order No. 1 for Westwood Industrial Park, I.C. 52-015
E. Change Order No. 1, Well Collector line project, I.C. 51-354
•
F. MIS PUD Developer's Agreement
G. Award bid for County Road 1 Bike Trail
H. Clerk's License List
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve items A - H on the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 8AYPOINT MANDR APARTMENTS (revised) by G & D Enterprises. Request to rezone
6.3 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 to construct a 4-story building with 152 apart-
ment units and from Rural to R1-22 for approximately 2 acres for existing single
family structure and preliminary plat approval. The property is part of The
Preserve PUD 70-04 and may include granting of variances. Located south of
Preserve Community Center 8arn and north of Neill Lake (Resolution No. 82-129 -
PUD; Ordinance No. 82-14 - rezoning; and Resolution No. 82-130 - preliminary
plat) - Continued from July 6, 1982.
8ecause everyone was familiar with the proposal, there was no formal presentation.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing and
to adopt Resolution No. 82-129, approving the development of PUD 70-04 of The
Preserve.
Edstrom asked Bentley to restate his objections to the proposal since Edstrom
was not present at the meeting when Bentley noted them.
•
i�QQ 0-
City Council Minutes -3- July 20, 19B2
Bentley said his objections were: the size of the building itself; its location
in relation to the Preserve Center; the location of the parking; the provision
for expansion parking in an area which is currently green space; and the fact
that it is a very large building. Edstrom said for a long time people have been
aware that there would be high density in that particular area. Bentley said
he had no objection to multiple dwellings being built on that site, but this
density bothers him. There are a number of large buildings in a small area.
VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried with Bentley voting "no."
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to give 1st.Reading to Ordinance
No. B2-14, rezoning 6.3 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 and approximately 2 acres
from Rural to R1-22. Motion carried with Bentley voting "no."
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. B2-130,
approving the preliminary plat of Baypoint Manor Apartments. Motion carried
with Bentley voting "no."
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to instruct Staff to draft the
Developer's Agreement taking into consideration comments and recommendations
from the Staff Report dated March 1B, 19B2, and those of the Planning Commission
and the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission; special consideration
should be made to save the large oak tree to the east of the building; and the
marina is to be constructed concurrent with this project. Motion carried
unanimously.
Dale Wenkus, 8706 Leeward Circle, an architect and a resident of The Preserve,
said he concurs with Bentley's concerns. He felt that very little of The Pre-
serve has been built according to the original PUD concept. He felt the total
image or concept of The Preserve is gone. He felt the issues must be addressed
from an aesthetic viewpoint; density should be discussed, but aesthetics are
of major importance. Because this is the last area on Neill Lake, he felt it
would be a good location for low density/townhouse type units. He noted this
was probably not offered for this type of housing because the market is not
demanding that at the present time. Penzel stated one of the most difficult
issues to address is that of aesthetics. The Council has been advised that
. is the one issue that cannot be utilized as criteria because it is "in the eyes
of the beholder" and it is not a matter of law. The original concept of The
Preserve, he noted, placed the high density uses near the recreation facilities
because these uses would be in most need of such and would be of most benefit
to those residents.
Richard Smith, developer and architect, said that building a building today
for aesthetic reasons is secondary to the performance of the pro forma package.
You cannot build a building unless it functions. He stated more than one year
had been spent in meeting with residents of The Preserve and representatives of
the City so that a feasible project might be packaged. He felt the proposal is
a good one and will be an amenity to the City and to The Preserve.
Redpath said he has felt that the greatest number of people should enjoy the
amenities; apartment buildings usually end up next to railroad tracks, freeways,
etc. There will now be two buildings in Eden Prairie which have amenities.
City Council Minutes -4- July 20, 1982
B. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT FOR EDENVALE APARTMENTS (Resolution No.
82-174) - Continued from July 6, 1982
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue this item to the
August 3, 1982, Council Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
C. CHAPTER 11 (ZONING) OF CODIFICATION (Ordinance No. 82-18) - continued from
July 6, 1982
City Manager Jullie reviewed what the process is regarding Chapter 11.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing, to
give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 82-18, and to note receipt of the Planning
Commission's recommendations regarding Chapter 11.
Tangen said he would like to see consideration given to new technology in the
area of private waste treatment systems. The City might well be able to incor-
porate this type of technology particularly in areas where the topography warranted
it -- to preserve trees, hills, slopes, etc.
Edstrom said now is the time to address the new code and to worry about the
changes at a later time.
City Attorney Pauly noted that the text referred to in Section 1 of Ordinance
82-18 refers to Chapter 11. The material contained in Chapter 11 was most re-
cently studied on June 29, 1982, by the Council.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to direct Staff to look into the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and to report back to the Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. EDENVALE 15th ADDITION by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States.
Request for development stage of the Edenvale PUD 70-04, rezone 17 acres from
Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary platting of approximately 106 townhouses, and possible
variances from the RM 6.5 District. Located north of Edenvale Boulevard, east
of Edenvale 11 and 14 Additions. (Resolution No. 82-176 - PUD; Ordinance No.
82-19 - rezoning; and Resolution No. 82-177 - preliminary plat)
Penzel called attention to the petition from Edenvale residents which had
been distributed to the Council prior to the meeting. It was noted this
petition was about four months old and substantial changes had been made in
the proposed development since that time.
Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, spoke to the proposal. He
showed slides of sight lines from existing areas to the proposed site and
drawings of cross sections.
i
4
City Council Minutes -5- July 20, 1982
Assistant to the Planner Johnson stated this item had been considered by
the Planning Commission at its June 28, 1982, meeting at which time it
voted to recommend approval subject to the conditions contained in the
June 23, 1982, Staff Report.
There was no report from the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
because this is part of the Edenvale PUD.
Harry Picha, 6649 Birch Island Road, said he is concerned about the big oaks
along the property line. Krier said these would be saved. He said he does
approve of the fence which will be built along the property line. The fence
will be a 5' board-on-board fence.
Bert Hassel, 6827 Woodhill Trail, expressed concern about the trees. He also
asked that a four-way stop sign be placed at the Woodhill Trail/Edenvale Boule-
vard intersection.
Bentley asked when Edenvale Boulevard would be extended to Birch Island Road.
• Redpath said Edenvale Boulevard should be completed now. Methods of assessing
such an improvement were discussed. City Manager Jullie said a petition had
been received requesting this extension and this is presently being reviewed
by Staff; a feasibility study will be made.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and
to adopt Resolution No. 82-176, approving the development of PUD 70-03 of
Edenvale. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: tdstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance
82-19, rezoning of 17 acres from Rural to RM 6.5. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Penzel, to adopt Resolution No. 82-177,
approving the preliminary plat of Edenvale 15th Addition. Motion carried unan-
imously.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to draft the Develop-
er's Agreement including the recommendations of the Planning Commission; the
recommendations of the Staff Report;and the concerns expressed this evening re-
garding the oak trees, the fence along the Picha property, and the extension of
Edenvale Boulevard. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to direct Staff to see what can
be done to Birch Island Road to provide safe access, on a temporary basis, to
this area. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 2715 - 2953
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Payment of Claims
Nos. 2715 - 2953. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel
voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -6- July 20, 1982
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were no reports.
VI I. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Preliminary approval for Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of $7,000,000.00
for G & D Enterprises (Baypoint Manor Apartments-) and authorizing a Public
Hearingon a Housing Program for the City of Eden Prairie (Resolution No.
82-170) Continued from July 6, 1982
Richard Smith, architect and developer, addressed the request. He noted
Knutson Associates would handle the bond sale. Art Peil, Knutson Associates,
was present to answer questions. He stated the actual bond sale will be
conducted by Newman and Associates of Denver; Knutson is working on the letter
of credit which will allow G & D to get an "AA" bond rating from Standard
and Poors.
Redpath inquired whether any Section 8 subsidy would be included in this
project. Peil said there would not be; 20% of the units will be reserved
for lower rents, but this will be handled internally.
Edstrom asked if this will be a private placement. Peil said it would be.
Penzel asked if there are statutory limitations towards the issuance of
these bonds by a municipality. Finance Director said there is none on the
total amount a municipality may issue.
Tangen asked if this project was similar to the Edenvale project which the
Council had recently approved. Frane said it is similar, but the Edenvale
project used financing which involved applying for HUD tandem funds.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 82-170,
granting preliminary approval for Housing Revenue 8onds in the amount of
$7,000,D00.00 for G & D Enterprises (8aypoint Manor Apartments) and author-
izing a Public Hearing on a Housing Program for the City of Eden Prairie.
• Bentley stated he would vote "no" on the motion because he has a basic
dislike for the concept of housing revenue bonds. Redpath said the Council
has committed itself to affordable housing in Eden Prairie and this is one
way of providing such housing. Edstrom noted the government has made this
program available to municipalities; other cities are using it. Penzel said
industrial revenue bonds are another subsidy and not entirely different --
both are businesses. 8entley said he would prefer to see zoning, PUOs, etc.
used as tools to provide affordable housing. Bentley said he felt jobs were
provided for a long term when industrial revenue bonds were issued; this is
not the case with housing revenue bonds.
VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried with Bentley voting "no."
City Council Minutes -7- July 20, 1982
•
B, Resolution No. 82-175, Supporting Landfill Disposal Abatement
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No.
82-175, supporting Hennepin County's Landfill Disposal Abatement Pro-
posal. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request South Hennepin Human Services Council for funds
City Manager Jul lie spoke to the memorandum of July 14, 1982, from Jan
Flynn, Human Services Coordinator.
MOTION: 8entley moved, seconded by Redpath, to appropriate funds to
the South Hennepin Human Services Council as outlined in Flynn's memorandum
of July 14, 1982. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen and
Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
•
B. MTS Systems Corporation Mat by MTS Systems Corporation. Request for Develop-
ment Phase approval of PUD 80-40-PUD, including preliminary plat approval
of 159 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way and approval of an Environ-
mental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of TH 5 and east of Mitchell
Road. (Resolution No. 82-178 - preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 82-179 -
EAW)
John Worrell, 8rauer and Associates, spoke to the request. Also present
were Paul Strand, MTS, and Barbara hiller, Magnetic Controls.
Oiscussion on location of proposed Anderson Lakes Parkway and the manner
in which it would be assessed or how purchased led to questions regarding
the general policy on roads. Oirector of Public Works Oietz said nothing
is pinned down; however, one landowner is working on a petition now which
would lead to a feasibility study for Anderson Lakes Parkway. There is no
timetable at the present time. The availability of State aid funds is not
known either.
Edstrom asked what would happen if System "D" were selected for TH 212.
Redpath said he was sure that would not happen during his lifetime. Further
discussion on the TH 212 issue was deferred to later in the meeting under
Agenda item IX. 0. 2.
Bentley asked if there were any specific development plans for the sites.
Strand said plans depend on the state of the economy. Strand said Magnetic
Controls has purchased a piece of property which has not really been defined;
consequently, FITS is requesting plat approval so this might be accomplished
and the purchase might beconsummated.
MOTIDN: Tangen moved, seconded by 8entley, to adopt Resolution No. 82-178,
approving the preliminary plat of MTS Systems Corporation. Motion carried
unanimously.
City Council Minutes -8- July 20, 1982
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 82-179,
finding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for MTS a private action and
does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. Motion carried unani-
mously.
C. BOUTEN DENTAL LAB by Robert C. Bouten. Request to extend the time limit
to operate a dental lab as an interim land use in a Rural District. Lo-
cated at 8460 Franlo Road.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to grant an extension to
Bouten Dental Lab for an additional three years to operate a dental lab
at 8469 Franlo Road.
Tangen said he felt the interim use should not be for a specified period
of time and the motion should state the use can continue until zoning in
the area is designated; this in view that the area might be zoned in the
time prior to that designated by the extension.
Robert Bouten, 8460 Franlo Road, stated a specific time period is easier
to deal with from his point of view. City Attorney Pauly outlined alterna-
tives open to the Council.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
D. Administrative split of Lot 5, Block 2, Eden Heights Addition (16401 Hilltop
Woad)
City Manager Jullie spoke to the request by Bill and Karen Reitherman
to allow an administrative split of Lot 5, Block 2, Eden Heights Addition.
Director of Public Works Dietz outlined the property on a map.
Edstrom said he was against this because the property is in an area which
does not have City sewer and water.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to proceed
with the administrative split of Lot 5, Block 2, Eden Heights Addition.
Motion carried with Edstrom voting "no."
E. Request from Richard W. Anderson, Inc. to lower berm between Shady Oak
5th Addition and Lee Data Corporation
City Manager Jullie stated the request had been reviewed by Staff and
it was felt the berm could be lowered without creating any problems.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve an amendment
to ADI's Developer's Agreement calling for a new stipulation regarding
lowering the berm between Shady Oak 5th Addition and Lee Data Corporation
taking into consideration landscaping which might enhance this change.
Motion carried unanimously.
•
City Council Minutes -9- July 20, 1982
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
vi
A. Reports of Council Members
There were no reports. e
B. Report of City Manager 1
1. Agreement for Financial Consultant Services
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the agreement
with Ehlers and Associates, Inc. for financial consultant services.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Approval of Addendum No. I to Eden Prairie/Richfield Dispatching
Agreement and appointment of ex-officio member to the Management
Committee
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve Addendum No.
1 to Eden Prairie/Richfield Dispatching Agreement. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to appoint George Bentley
as ex-officio member of the Management Committee. Motion carried
unanI"iously.
3. Receipt of 1981 Audit Report
William McCue, representing Fox, McCue & Murphy, Certified Public
Accountants, reviewed the 1981 Audit Report. Also present was
John Fox of Fox, McCue & Murphy.
Questions regarding specific funds, statements, and balance sheets
were answered by McCue and Finance Director Frane.
McCue said Eden Prairie is in good financial condition; it is diffi-
cult to compare Eden Prairie to other municipalities because of its
growth. The special assessing area will need continuing attention
because of the number of projects and the costs involved.
Bentley said he would like to see Staff report on the issue of internal
control and what progress is being made in this area. n.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to receive the 1981
Audited Financial Statements and Other Financial Information. Motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -10- July 20, 1982
4. Consideration of the Purchase Agreement for the Schultz Property
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the purchase
agreement for the Schultz property subject to final approval by the
City Attorney. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen
and Edstrom voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attorney
Redpath noted there were people in the audience who were present to
support a gambling license for the American Legion Club. He said
Legion clubs in surrounding communities do have such licenses and he
would support such a license for the Eden Prairie American Legion --
funds derived from this would be used for a building fund as well as
to support civic projects.
City Attorney Pauly reviewed the requirements in the State statutes.
If such a license were to be granted, the City would have to draft
an Ordinance which would incorporate the State statutes.
Edstrom asked who would participate in this activity. A member of
the American Legion said it would be members and guests.
Penzel said he had problems with this philosophically. He would like.
to have information from the Public Safety department before proceeding
further.
Edstrom said he is philosophically opposed to having anything funded by
gambling proceeds.
It was noted that none of the "games" under consideration has anything
to do with bets on sporting events.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue consideration
of this item to allow Public Safety time to review it and to get more
specific information on what is proposed. Staff is directed to look at
what specifically must be done before such a license can be granted.
Tangen asked if there had been any public input regarding this. He would
like to see this go before the commissions for their review. He would also
like to see the citizens of the community have an opportunity to speak about
the issue.
Redpath said the connotation of legal gambling regarding this is too
strong. Bentley said he did not feel the potential for evil was great.
VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
)µ 0 I,
City Council Minutes -11- July 20, 1932
•
D. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award contract for West 76th Street Improvements, I.C. 52-031
(Resolution No. 82-183)
MOTION: Redpath moved seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution
No. 82-183, accepting the bid for I.C. 52-031, West 76th Street
improvements. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen
and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
2. Discussion of T.H. 212 Corridor Alignment
City Manager Jullie reviewed the Schreiber Bill which provides funds
for purchasing right-of-way for highways. He called attention to
the July 15, 1982, memorandum to Gene Dietz from BRW regarding the
"Analysis of the Proposed Trunk Highway 212 Alternative Alignments
Through Eden Prairie as they Impact Development and Transportation
• Patterns."
Discussion centered on the impact of the alternative alignments on
the adjacent properties. Tangen felt a decision on a specific corridor
should be made so the adjacent property owners will be able to proceed
accordingly. Edstrom agreed. Bentley questioned the general availability
of the funds provided for by the Schreiber Bill. Penzel said he thought
the C'ty should proceed with all due haste.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Edstrom, to instruct Staff to
develop guidelines for selecting a cooridor, developing a time frame,
and setting a Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Edstrom said the felt it important to pick the right corridor from the
standpoint of traffic. Tangen said he agreed and the decision might
also have an impact on the interim type improvements which might be
made on Highway 5.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Penzel, to continue the meeting beyond the 11:30
p.m. time limit. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for construction of Valley
View Road west of CSAH 18, I.C. 51-335 (Resolution No. 82-184)
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No.
82-184, Valley View Road improvement agreement with Hennepin County
DOT. Motion carried unanimously.
•
t
If
•
City Council Minutes -12- July 20, 1982
4. Eckert RLS
Director of Public Works Dietz noted problems which have come to
the attention of the City regarding percolation tests.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to deny the Registered
Land Survey on the Eckert property on Sunnybrook Road. Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Sunnybrook/Creek Knoll Road Connection
Director of Public Works Dietz stated the State has agreed to
connect Sunnybrook Road with Creek Knoll Road for a cost in the
vicinity of $1,000 to $2,000.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Sunny-
brook/Creek Knoll Road connection. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Railroad Transportation Agreement for Crossing at County Road 67
Director of Public Works Dietz spoke to the agreement.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No.
82-185, license agreement with Chicago and Northwestern Transportation
Company. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Hennepin County Agreement for Signals at Valley View Road
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No.
82-186, CSAH 4/Valley View Road Signal Agreement with Hennepin County
DOT. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel
voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
X. NEW BUSINESS
City Manager Jullie noted he will speak at a Chamber of Commerce "Eggs and
Issues" Seminar on Wednesday, July 29, 1982, on "The Status of Road Projects
in Eden Prairie." Bentley, on behalf of the Chamber, invited the Council to
attend.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Penzel, to adjourn the meeting at 12:01 a.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
I
The following items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk as
attachments to the July 20, 1982, Minutes of the City Council:
1. Letter from Toney Westerhaus, 8470 Franlo Road, in support
of Bouten Oental Laboratories. (VIII. C.)
2. Letter of July 19, 1982, from Robert Morehouse to the Mayor
and City Council regarding the Schultz property purchase agreement.
(IX. B. 3.)
3. Memorandum dated July 15, 1982, from BRW to Gene Oietz. (IX. D. 2.)
4. Petition to Eden Prairie Planning Commission and City Council re:
Proposed Zoning Change, Outlot D Edenvale 3rd Addition. (IV. 0.)
.
ti
ICY 1 L
Gustafun
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESOTA
Ordinance No. 82-17
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING
DRDINANCE ND. 135
THE CITY COUNCIL OF 1HE 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 R1-13.5 District.
Section 2. The above-described property shall be subject to all
of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Fden Prairie relating
to the R]-]3.5 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 6 _ day of Jul_, 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.
Tang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the.__ day of , 1982.
•
/4/0
•
I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED GUSTAFSON PROPERTY •
That part of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 26, Township 116 North, Range 22 West
of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County,
• Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said
Section 26, distant 1409.93 feet southerly of
the northeast corner of said Section 26; thence
southerly, along said east line, a distance of
120.00 feet; thence westerly, deflecting to
the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a
distance of 140.00 feet; thence northerly,
deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds a distance of 120.00 feet; thence
easterly, deflecting to the right 90 degrees
00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 140.00
feet to the point of beginning.
•
EXHIBIT A
•
MEMORANDUM 1
4
TO: Mayor and City Council 4
T11RU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 1
FROM: Stephen Calhoun, Park Planner
DATE: July 29, 1982
SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise for Bids - County Road 1 Bike
Trail from County Road 4 to Cedar Forest Road
Staff requests permission to advertise and receive bids for the westerly
extension of the County Road 1 bike trail, this includes grading and trail
base. The City Street Department will do the actual paving. The trail
will begin at County Road 4 and continue west to Cedar Forest Road. This
trail will be entirely within the County right-of-way. The project will be
advertised August 19 and 26, bids will be due August 31, 1982 and will be
presented to the Council September 7 for approval. Funds for this project
are provided for in cash park fees. Estimated cost for grading and base
is $15,000.
SC:md
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IWgI •
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
•
August 3, 1982
CONTRACTORS (Multi-Family & Comm.J PLUMBING
Arkay Construction Co. Hoff Plumbing
Maertens•Brenny Construction Co. Widmer Brothers, Inc.
• Stiglich Construction Co.
SCAVENGER
CONTRACTORS (1 & 2 Familyj
— —— MA Scavenger
Craftsmen Industries
Gerold Bros. Construction, Inc. WELL DRILLING
Hastings Building Co., Inc.
Heritage Builders Bohn Well Drilling Co., Inc.
North Star Services
Twin City Insulation REFUSE HAULERS
GAS FITTER MCS REFUSE HAULERS
METRO DISPOSAL
Apex Mechanical
Smith Heating & Air Conditioning
Dale Sorenson Co.
HEATING & VENTILATING
Apex Mechanical
Smith Heating & Air Conditioning
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
•
Pat Solie, Licensing
•
r
1
I
CHANGE ACc ER �7
AR i11111 :T K
ORDER CONTRAC.IOR b(,]
AU, DOCUtAtNr G701 oltlrR
PKOJI_CT: Eden Prairie City Services CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 1
(name,address) City of Eden Prairie
City Hall,8950 Eden Prairie Rd.,Eden Prairie,MN 55344
10 (Contractor)
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 475.1
r Arkay Construction Company CONTRACT FOR: $2,345,300.00
620 Notth County Road 18,Suite 189
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427
L J CONTRACT DATE: June 29,1982
You ale directed to slake the following chanecs in this Contract: .
Furnish the two(2)mechanical chases for the Pistol Range as described in letter
from Arkay Construction Co.to InterDesign Inc.,dated July 8, 1982.
—Reference: Arkay to InterDesign—July 8, 1982
Jack Hacking to InterDesign—July 19, 1982
• Change initiated by Eden Prairie.
The original Contract Sum was $ 2,345,300.00
•
Net change by previous Change Orders $ -0
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was Si 2,245,300,00
The Contract Sum will be pnueased) xbrouxxxld%xax*a(00(x`kby this Change Order . . S 7,147.00
•
The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be S 2,352,447.00 •
The Contract Time will be>t>:1c0cxxx!rzd:xxx0(aaiZ (unchanged) by
( )Days.
The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is unchanged. •
r•
•
InterDesign Inc. —__--_. Arkay Construction Co.. ._. --- City.of Eden Prairie
CONTF:AC1(1R OWNER
A`409 Willow Street 620 No.County Rd. 18,Suite.189 8950 Eden Prairie Road __. ..
Address _ --- Address Address
Minneapolis,MN 55403 Minneapolis,MN 55427 Eden Prairie,MN 55344 _.__
B y Rile C, By
try - V 00•
Robert Lamb art
DATE July 20,1982_ DATE July 20, 1982 —DATE —•- - 1982 _
Ark 110(('MINI c:ol • c 11A\(.r OkDtk • AI.Ril Vr'011,1r1()N • AIAT: • ' 1970 • 1HE OM I•At,t
AMI(ILAN IN.,111 it ill A((11111(.1S.1;35 NM-5(rRA ME,NW,1YASI(IN(,ION,D.C.Z0006 I i L1 1.
Tom' •
JACK HACKINDiktuoii orG - j(� I T
•
PUBLIC EA.LTY 4 1
r-�� EMERGENCY
• POLICE AND FIRE
7905 MITCHELL RD./E DEN PRAIRIE,MINN.55344 16121 544 951I
• PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE
I6121937.2700
July 19, 1982
Mr. Robert Lambert
InterDesign, Inc.
1409 Willow Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
Dear Bob:
At your request I discussed the addition of the two mechanical
chases for the pistol range with Carl Jullie and it is our
decision that this ithm should be included in with the
contract for the total sum of 57,147.00.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
• Jack Hacking, Director
Fire and Police Divisions
c
0
e/r ARKAY CONSTRUCTION CONMPANY
�. GENERAL•CONTRACTORS
July 8, 1982
1
I
• i
i
1
9
1
InterDesign, Inc.
1409 Willow St.
Minneapolis, MN. 55403
Attention: Robert Lambert
Subject: Eden Prairie City Services Building
Gentlemen:
We propose to furnish the two (2) mechanical chases for the pistol
range complete with footings, poured concrete walls, masonry,
grating and frames between column line A & 0, both ends for the
total sum of $7,147.00. This does not include any mechanical,
electrical or painting work.
Very truly yours,
ARKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY •
•
6..1":"4"-•----,..,_‘ C. r9-'__
William C. Rose
Vice President
WCR:bcp
(
CPO NORTH COUNTY ROAD 1 8•SUI rE 189•MINNEAPOLIS.MINN 55427• PHONE:544-33-:
1,.i1/.i'. E; .1110.1111M
ORDCR CoN.11:Ar)UR ;<
EIIII) [)
A/A DOC-1 ',1CNI 6701 01)It1;
PROJECT: EDEN PRAIRIE CITY SERVICES . CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 2
(Caine,address) City of[den Prauie
City'fail,}i9S0 Iden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
TO (Contractor)
ARCIIllICT'S PROIICT NO: 475.1
Arkay Construction Company CONTRACT FOR: $2,345,300.00
020 North County Road 18,Suite 189
Minneapolis,MN 55427
j CON I RACT DATE: June 29, 1982
You are(lire(ted to make the following change,.in this Contract: •
1. Increase the Vecder Root Card System to a 1,000 transaction memory.
(Requested by Owner.) Add: $ 543.00 +
2. Eliminate one(1)Gun Locker.
(Requested by Owner.) Deduct: 225.00 —
3. Eliminate composition tile in Rooms 7,23,27,30,and 34.
(Requested by Owner.) Deduct: 560.00 —
4. Delete Flammable Waste Trap and related Vent Piping in
Maintenance Building Truck Wash. Deduct: 1,070.00 —
(Fo meet Code.)
REFERENCES I etter from Arkay Const.to InterDecipn,dated 7/19/R2. !No. 1 above)
Letter from City of Eden Prairie to" ,dated 7/21/82.
Letter from Arkay Const.to Inter Design,dated 7/19/82. (No.2 above)
Letter from " " " " "
" (No.3 above)
Letter from " " " " " " . (No.4 above)
Letter from Ilorwitz,Inc.to Arkay Const. " 7/14/82. (No.4 above)
•
•
The uriginat Corr;ract Sum\vas $ 2,345,300.00
Net change by previous Change Onlers S 7,147.00 ,
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order sell S 2,352,447.00 •
The Contract Sum well be }1NYKxxi/ Icier rrascd`Xxx.XXxxotft by this change Order. . . S 1,312.00
The new Contract Sum Including this Change Order sill he $ 2,351,135.00
The Contract Time will be XXXXXXXk3(Xx,X k run,hanged) by ( )Days.
The Dale of Completion as of the dale of this Change Order therefore is unchanged. •
InterDesign Inc. Arkay Construction Company--...-_ City of Eder.?rlirie
Aer I�ICj res'lt:A(.1oR OWNER
140„rA illow Street _- —_ 620 No.County Rd. 18,Suite 189 8950 Eden Prairie Road.
Address Address Address
Minneapolis,MN 554 Minneapolis,MN 55427 Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Rh�irrt Lamb(tr.R William C. Rose,V.P.
[Alu July 22, 1982 twit July 22,1932 - _ !Mil _ -1982,
sic nnrUsli\1 C.'O1 • (V(A'(;i 01:1111( • AI.KIt 1,0 11)',nrr•. • AIce • 1'.,I( • 1111 O't PA(
AsriKr(A,In Slr1(r11(11 AKC11rlt(15115 hl\1'\(rRA s0.1 '•1'. s\AS)ri\r.lrr\',
1ZI1).>
% ri 1� AR KAY CONSTRUCTION CO11/1PANY
! GENERAL CONTRACTORS
•
July 19, 1982
•
InterDesign, Inc.
1409 Willow Street
Minneapolis, Mn. 55403
Attn: Bob Lambert
Subje ct: Eden Prairie City Services
Gentlemen:
We propose to increase the Veeder Root• Card System as per the
attached description from Hale Fluid Systems for the sum of: •
Subcontractor's price $470.50
Minnesota State Tax 23.52
494.02
Arkay's Contractor Fee 10% 49.40
Total $543.42
Round off $543.00
We regret this price is only valid untl July 28th, although,
at an increased price this change can be accomplished at any
later time. Therefore, please phone the writer if this work is
to be accomplished by July 28th and then follow with a written
change order. -
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
/ARKAY CCOONN TRUCTION COMPANY
l/t/ L4.„ C .
William C. Rose
Vice President
WCR:dw
02O NOHT I 1 COUNTY ROAD 1 t3 •SUITE 1 B9 t MINNI AI}OI IS.MINN 5542 7 • PHONE:544.334-i
IUa)-A
•
Er.••,
Y OFFICES/895[I HEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EOEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 2499/TELEPHONE 16121 931.2262 � i�--T
v d,e_, giet_ #0:15Z Oz.
• f
July 21, 1982
Bob Lambert
Interdesign
1409 Willow Street
Minneapolis, Minn. 55403
Re: Deduct Alternates Numbers 10 & 14
Dear Bob:
As per our conversation last week, we do not wish to accept deduct alternates
numbers 10 & 14. In other words, we wish the contractor to install the air
and water lines in the large equipment storage area as per the base bid. Also,
we wish to have the contractor install the fuel inventory system with the •
•
exception that we do want to install the memory unit which would allow for
1,000 transactions to be recorded.
The status of deduct alternate number 6 is still unresolved. Please contact
public service directly regarding the flag pole.
Sin 'J/2Z �iZ
Mu. -p tsg1 '/ram
lei ��,� y�e
Eugene A. Dietz, P.E. • 1
Director of Public Works s 7)• YFt
EAD:sg T ,�J�
•
ARKAY CONSTRUCTION UCTION COiVIPANY
/ 'NV GENERAL CONTRACTORS +`
July 19, 1982
InterDesign, Inc.
1409 Willow Street
Minneapolis, Mn. 55403
Attn: Bob Lambert
Subject: Eden Prairie City Services
Gentlemen:
We herewith credit the above job for not furnishing one Gun
Locker, deduct $225.00.
Please incorporate this in the next change order. We have
proceeded on this basis.
Very truly yours, •
ARKAY CONST
UCTION COMPANY
•
William C. Rose, Vice-President
WCR:dw
•
rpp.
yyP
6PO NORTH COUNTY ROAD 1 C3•SUIT G 1 139 c MINNEAPDL IS.MINN 55427• PHONE:544.33.1 1
A ' I
/ ,‘\'‘ / L%tc Ay E'::(:.1 Eri"17 II Cri.[i:1 RI i-...;kl M 1'2 IX N Y
GENERAL CONTRACTORS I
/•- ,... ._:A
,-.
July 19, 1982
InterDesign, Inc.
1409 Willow Street
Minneapolis, Mn. 55403
Attn: Bob Lambert
Subject: Eden Prairie City Services
Gentlemen:
If we do not put down composition tile in Rooms 7, 23, 27, 30, ,
and 34, as per your note of July 15, 1982, deduct $560.00.
Please incorporate this in the next change order.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
ARKAY CO7TRUCTION COMPANY
W3lliam C. Rose
Vice President .
WCR:dw
(
F.20 NC)1 T i-i COUNTY 4 (DAI:) 1 0 I SUI 1 I: 1 r0 6 WNW Ar3(')i .MINN 5127* PHONE:54.1.334 i
I .
— .
/\!,•,:b)
ARKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
_____(
" GENERAL CONTRACTORS
1
7
July 19, 1982
i
InterDesign, Inc. '
1409 Willow Street
Minneapolis, Mn. 55403
Attention: Bob Lambert
• Subject: Eden Prairie City Services
Gentlemen:
We propose to delete the Flammable Waste Trap and related Vent
Piping in the Maintenance Building Truck Wash for $$1,070.00.
If this is to be done please incorporate this in a change order
immediately.
Very truly yours,
ARKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
William C. Rose
Vice President -
WCR:dw
Encl.
1
62O NORTH COUNTY ROAO 1 F3•SUITE 1 E39 e MINNEAPOLIS.MINN 555.12 7• PHONE 544.334
lqO
r�
[PLO19VI1t�^�, iflC.
mechanical contractors
EStnblishod to 1918
5000 North County Road 18,M nneanohs,Minnesota 55428•16121 533 140L
4
July 14, 1982
1
) •
•
Arkay Construction Co.
620 North Highway 18
Suite #189
Minneapolis, MN 55427
ATTENTION OF: Mr. Bill Rose
SUBJECT: Eden Prairie City Services
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
We propose tc DELETE one (1) Flammable Waste Trap and
related Vent Piping in the Maintenance Building Truck
Wash.
DEDUCT: -($1,070.00)
ONE THOUSAND SEVENTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS
Yours very truly, -
HORWITZ, INC.
r \Jude H. LeClair
)JHL:gcp
t .
•
1'a�S
August 3, 1982
I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. R 82-195
a
• RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING
FEASIBILITY REPORT FQR HOMEWARD HILLS ROAD
BETWEEN CSAH 1 and SUNNYBROOK ROAD
I
1
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make
the following improvements;
'x
I.C. 52-033, Homeward Hills Road Improvements between CSAH1 and
Sunnybrook Road 1
d.
1
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the 1
improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer
for study with the assistance of Rieke, Carroll, Muller Assoc.
i and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to
the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council
in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasi-
bility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 2, 1982.
I
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL 1
1
John D. Frane, Clerko
4
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA •
( PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
•
To The Eden Prairie City Council: , •
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
(General Location)
•
g Sanitary Sewer -Extension of Nomewsrd_iil] Road.Nnr.th-
X Watermain ward from Pioneer Trai.-(CQ.unty Road_ltl) •
• X Storm Sewer through Pax Christi and WelteLyx.opPrtiec
X Street Paving (See Legal and Property Bounjy Maps) in
• Other North 1/2 Section 26, Eden Prairie
Street Address or Other
Legal Description of Names of Petitioners
Property to be Served (Must Se Pro erty Owners)
N= Sec 26, T.116-R,-22--- �•2i«?iZ 41t+t / —e! d_t4%e�
See Legal v_ J\ 7,,
The petitioners herewith indicate their willingness'to'pay their fair share of improve-
ments in and through their property for this project. The property owners desire to
review the feasibility study after its completion and before ordering of plans and
specifications for construction. It is requested that the study address the manner
of payment and assessments. The study should determine the best manner to provide
sewer service as the Welter property already has sewer lines along, the creek and
through their property to Pioneer Trail.
(For City Use)
Date Received _JUC_l 2y/982..
Project No. T•C•.SZ- o d3
Council Consideration ,4uGusr ,Z19$Z
t4� F
,
, ••
..:-,-PN
• -/ , t _ '7:. . Vivi r••••a
- --".",v4;' -1 ---- : 4
2..,-;-!-_.4,•':r- - •-• '4 v.:;.3
-'4.. : -•.,•:, il'.•.e.,11•
a,
! ti .. ,I ' t • 1•31')-.--- ' :
r' i - .-' ' ••••• ''-'..-. 14[I ;3. ..\1• <
'2'65 ::, 2 .• - . " • ittiii, .2.,;It...":‘,--...:••• '2
-`6.: , i - -.' 1- ''''':::''':,-..._--- °•,':',::,,:',. < -
• . ;;' ''.),-1"s'i”--. •-• -- • •',,,,..'.:i.`,04,-- ,
I .54:s ''...F' '•:'.,-.*: '''•---,, ll•r!-*;i- ; •- ':-!';-.0, ;-‘r.
,...,. ..t.r,:,.,' •''',, .,:,-:':. .4'.s, :. r ':-. ."; C")'
'U 1.„, ;.,-4..:: :;/- '....•-7;;'''::-.,\.::1"'.1-,,). it.!
1'.,C.,, , X..•";,.• -•4-',‘'i-2,LtiCi../ior;AL 5,,,4i',--;-..•'
"'c.;.•.'::,:',.;V: :'-i".-• 'i. •-•-r---;:;:::. '...,T...
s -......, • . 2. ••,,,,--:-. .-,-,,- ' _,...,'‘. i 1
.-:1
4. ----, _ _...__—
-17177.-727'UT.--.17\-.• •12':'-;-t '2 2'r!''-' :c It ' •
't, ,•••.-,'..2::'..2.•;''',/'•'2••-•''21'/II••t. r.-,: ;.:',..=',... , l;',---'-.4,',-:-. 1
,,*V--. F.-... i
\'',1?"1 r;' ,'1".''''."!! 1 if
,,, .. • . , .",.4-'2.2, ./Q -2 6'.
•••"'-'-'2‘"". '-)2-"•-•'..2'
J.--„ --)
Vt'5.:. .1 •'7.2-2,. .:f.„ •':-. -)if '••1,,..• /i•I''' .%.
'' '1,1•\. '1:i '•••• '..'; —--.'—I Z t•%..1-V
1' a r\)
si
----..;„...4:];_l ii,,,,....1▪ -'“ xl.,ir.',..-:: ci,••6:1 2,222 2t2..:
2
'''''''-'2 ••‘•_''f.L.2,12-fj'L::__. ..• . ..
, . ,..:::::',. .
,. .,-..-.1 n„ 1 i_ I, t •• ; i it,r11
-" ,- -.1. ,- • - 0 - (>
• i- •,,z '.- =i,
1 iii 1 • \ i!! i' .-
-I-1 .„ _,,'6,040,..,...., vm.p.„,,.1,,..,,,,,......, -..3.... .,
.//...„...,?>------/ :iii •....i
-i- % • ':', r
r ;:::: I 1 •
E •
•'': .%.
/.---.7 ., _ ---_.. l'' .e• I
f'. .,..,,, S ,•,{.', Fi. •
I r\)
•:',;, :. ',. .---. ';',.1,'-..,.,.-'',/ '.-., : r\)
. . ,..
• •-k • - :5••. ,i• ...„. 2I 6. 2\ .
•••\'k'S.N.:7•Cs: ::52,t.2, ' - . '.•. .., •.2(r .
''''...21"2\•,4,. ,\•• ••:t. /,/. z,
•••,•$,,,,•::5::;,,:,.::--• 'V. / ,„, /
.,,i:,.2, ..:,\;,,.,.....N.ss.z.,,,y,2:,;,•• fry,,..: .„A \ _ _ . , .• - c t
• 2
•
.10"........162.......26222.4
I I
•12' . -
20 ,....: • t (
/ ) /619 - — ----
Itia! P,
•
DESCRIPTION: That part of the NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 lying E of W 110 ft. thereof and
that part of W 110 ft, of NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 lying N of S 324.57/100 ft.
all in Sec. 26 T116 R22 thereof except Road; subject to restrictions 1
and/or easements of record, if any.
AND
Tract B of RLS No. 1032.
•
•
•
•
{
►L�AI c,
•
{
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: July 30, 1982
Re: Edenvale Apartment Project
The estimated tax increments in the plan are $206,000. The proponent
is asking the City to consider approving a TIF plan which would provide
the project with $100,000 per year for 10 years under an Interest Rate
Subsidy Program. At the end of 10 years the owners would pay the HRA
$500,000 in return for the Eden Prairie Community's support. The HRA
could use the money to support any project allowed by law.
The excess increments of $106,000 could be retained by the HRA, invested
and used to support other projects, housing or otherwise; or they
could be returned all or in part to the taxing districts which would
have received them. However, this is a side issue which can be determined
at a later date.
Is $500,000 at the end of 10 years a good or bad deal? It depends on how
you look at it.
From the point of view of potential profit to the owners made possible
by a public contribution of $1,000,000, then $500,000 looks small in
comparison.
By looking at it and concluding that the project would not be built
without the subsidy then the City is getting 174 rental housing units
which it needs and the $500,000 is a return on the Community's investment
at a 13.7% annual rate.
•
/4/ 9c °
To: Mayor and City Council
From: John D. Frane, Finance Director
Date: July 30, 1982
Re; Edenvale Apartment Project
There are three hearings scheduled for the purpose of considering an
Interest Rate Reduction Plan using TIF financing for Edenvale Apartments.
1. The first Council hearing and resolution 82-174A deals with the
establishment of a HRA for the City. If the Council passes the
resolution then it could appoint itself as the HRA and choose a chairman
• and a secretary.
2. The HRA meets to consider guidelines and criteria to regulate
implementation of an Interest Rate Reduction Program for Edenvale
Apartments. (R 82-174B/HRA 1)
3. The HRA meets to consider approval of the Interest Rate Reduction
Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the project. (R 82-174C/HRA 2)
4. The second Council hearing deals with consideration of the guidelines
and criteria to regulate implementation of the Interest Rate Reduction
Program.
5. The third Council hearing and resolution 82-174D deals with the
adoption of a tax increment financing plan and designation of a tax
increment financing district for the project.
The Council could proceed with the first hearing, adopt Resolution 82-174A
and appoint the HRA members and staff. The second and third hearings
should be continued, the staff and proponent's counsel are revising
the details of the plan. The proponent will speak to the project.
/ ' 9 6
RESOLUTION NO. a'/VA
RESOLUTION AS TO THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, Housing Committee
has recently concluded a study on the availability and need for housing, both
ownership and rental, in the City of Eden Prairie,and has released the Eden Prairie
Chamber of Commerce, Housing Committee Report, dated as of January 8, 1982
(the"Chamber Report");and
WHEREAS, the Chamber Report concluded that Eden Prairie's single most
important housing need is to alleviate the shortage of rental housing, as evidenced
by a 100% occupancy rate of existing rental units;and
WHEREAS, the Chamber Report determined that, as of March, 1981, the
City of Eden Prairie had 751 units of rental housing of which only 455 are market
rate rental apartment units, posing an ever-increasing problem for the City's
businesses and industries as they compete for employees in need of permanent or
temporary rental housing;and
WHEREAS, th.; Chamber Report has further found: that construction of
new rental housing is virtually impossible due to high interest rates; that housing
needs for blue collar workers, clerical workers, singles; and temporary occupants
. have not been accomodated; and that the City of Eden Prairie needs unique
financing arrangements to attract money into the residential housing market;and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has adopted, as of July 26, 1979, the
Amendments to the Housing Chapter of the Metropolitan Housing Guide, in which
it defined the City of Eden Prairie's fair share of area wide need for low and
moderate income housing opportunities ten-year goal to be a range of 760 units to
1,900 units;and
WJiEREAS, published notice was given in the i Al tR 4)^'t' /'JE W
on G /d fl , 1982, as to the matter of the establishment of a Housing and
Redeye opment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, said
published notice being incorporated herein by reference;and
WHEREAS, by motion of the City Council, the public hearing with respect
to the matter of the establishment of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of Eden Prairie was continued until the July 20, 1982 meeting of
the City Council of Eden Prairie, and was further continued until the August 3,
1982 meeting of the City Council of Eden Prairie;and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was held on said matter on August 3, 1982,
pursuant to said notice and the council having heard all persons, objections and
recommendations relative thereto and having fully considered the same;
/ ' F
4
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, safe, and sanitary dwelling
accomodations 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
��96 &
TO: CHIEF JACK HACKING
•
•
THROUGH: CAPTAIN KEITH WALL
FROM: SGT. LES BRIDGER
SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
DATE: July 27, 1982
We have completed the record checks and background investigation of
all the principals listed on the application submitted by the Brothers-
in-Law Incorporated who later submitted a certificate of name change
'to Boardwalk Restaurants Incorporated. A letter dated July 15, 1982
from the law firm of Burstein and Douglas verified the name change
and indicated that the principals, articles of incorporation and by-
Laws remain the same.
The location applied for is currently being occupied by the Brothers
Restaurant. The above applicants have similarily applied for liquor
licenses at the current sites of the Brothers Restaurants located in the
regional shopping centers in Maplewood and Burnsville. Further investi-
gation and contact with Officer Thomas Kelly (890-4100) of the Burnc-
ville Department of Public Safety and Officer Thomas Hagen (770-4500)
of the Maplewood Police Department revealed both had recently completed
an extensive background and records check of the principals involved with
this application. The result of their findingswere shared with me.
Record checks and other sources find no negative comments which might
be directed toward the above listed principals.
gi
I1J Q1 1'
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
IN SUPPORT OF AN
APPLICATION FOR ON-SALE OR SPECIAL CLUB
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE
Part I - General Information
Directions: This form must be filled out in duplicate with typewriter or by
printing in ink. If the application i_ ,.y a natural person, by
such person; if by a corporation, by an officer, thereof; if by
a partnership, by one of the partners; if by an unincorporated
association, by the manager or managing officer thereof.
1. Name of applicant (name of individual, partnership, corporation or association):
The Brothers-in-Law, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
2. Name under which applicant will be doing business (name of restaurant, hotel
or club), business address and telephone number:
Full Name The Brothers-in-Law
Business Address 2138 Eden Prairie Center Phone 941-5524
en rairie,
IF BUSINESS IS TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER A DESIGNATION, NPJE OR STYLE
OTHER T1iAN FULL INDIVIIUAL NAME OF THE A'PLICANT, ATTACH A COPY OF
THE CERTIFICATE, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 333, MINNESOTA STATUTES,
CERTIFIED BY TrIE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT.
3. Type of applicant:
Individual Partnership
XX Corporation Association or other
k. Type of license applicant seeks?
XX On Sale Special Club
5(a). If applicant is an individual, state full name., residence and business address
and telephone numbers.
Fuli Name Not Applicable.
Residence Address Phone
Business Address Phone
(A ^art II - Personal Information form must be filled out and attached for
this individual.)
t
Ntrii
t
•
Residence Address Phone
(A Part II - Personal Information form must he filled nut and attached for this
individual.)
6(a). If applicant is a partnership, state full name, residence and business address,
telephone numbers, and interest of each member of the partnership.
1. Full (fame Not Applicable. Interest
Residence Address Phone__
Business Address one
2, Full (lame Interest `4
• Residence Address_ "hone
business Address _ °hone
3. Full 'lame Interest
Residence Address °hone
Business Address Phone
A. Full 'lame. Interest
Residence Address Phone
Business Address 'hone^
(A "art II - 'ersonal Information form must he filled out and attached for
each of these individuals.)
(b). Me managing partner will be: Not Applicable.
(c). The full name, residence address and telephone rnirher of the manager, proprietor
or other agent in charge of the partnership's ;.ra•:{sos to be licensed.
Full Name Not Applicable.
Residence Address Phone
(d). The interest of each partner in this business
(A Part II - Personal Information form must be filled nut and attached for this
individual.)
IF THE APPLICATION IS FOR A PAPTUERSIII", ATTACH A TRUE Ce"Y OF 111E
PARTVERSIII' AGREfnCVT AND A C'1PY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TRADE NAME
UNDER PROVISIONS Pr CHAPTER 333, :Il!Y;ESrTA STATUTES, CERTIFIED BY
THE CLCRK OF DISTRICT COURT.
.')(a). If the applicant is a corporation or association, give name of corporation or
association, Eden Prairie address and phone nu.+hrr, and I•r~ne office address and
phone n.incer. ItH 'f L
•
•
State of Inc.
Flame The Brothers-in-Law. Inc. or Assoc. Minnesota
Eden Prairie Address 2138 Eden Prairie Center "hone (612) 941-5524
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Home Office Address 754 Twelve Oaks Center phone (612) 473-7315
Wayzata, MN 55391
(b), The full names, residence address and telephone numbers of all officers of said
corporation or association.
'resident Charles R. Schwartz
2917 Sequoia Court
Residence Address Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone (612) 894-7799 _
Vice President
Residence Address Phone
Secretary and Treasurer Sherman Richter
2200 Oregon Court
Residence Address St. Louis Park, MN 55426 °hone (612) 545-1301
Treasurer
Residence Address Phone
(A Part II - Personal Information form must be filled out and attached for these
individuals.)
(c). The full names, residence address and telephone number of all persons who singly
or together with their spcuse and his or her parents, brothers, sisters or children,
own or control an interest in said corporation or association in excess of 5;;.
1, Full Name Charles R. Schwartz Interest Fifty (501 `+
2917 Sequoia Court
Pesiderce Address Burnsville, MN 55337 "hone (612) 894-7799
2, Full Name Sherman Richter Interest Fifty (501
2200 Oregon Court
Residence Address St. Louis Park, MN 55426 °hone (612) 545-1301
3, Full 'Jaee Interest 2;
Residence Address Phone
4. Full (Jane Interest
Residence Address Phone
(A lcrt II - Personal Information form must be filled out and attached for these
individual;.
id). The full names, residence eddress and telephone number of the manager, proprietor
or other agent in charge of the corporation's or association's premises to he
liceo ed,
-3-
Iu fl • 1
•
Full dame Joel Ross Lalley
18424 Ridgewood Road
Residence Address Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone (612) 474-4707
(A Part II - Personal Information form must be filled out and attached for this
individual.)
IF THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION, ATTACH A
TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT
AND 3Y-LAWS AND, IF A FOREIGN COR°ORATION, A CERTIFICATE OF AUTIIORITY
AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 303, MINNESOTA STATUTES.
v(a). If the applicant is a club, name of club Not Applicable.
date :hat club was first incorporated
place of such organization ; present number of
menbers ; the full names, position, residence address and
phone number of all officers, executive committee and board of directors.
1. Full Name . Position
Residence Address Phone
2. Full Name Position
Residence Address ^hone
3. Full Name Position
Residence Address Phone
4, Full Name 'osition
Residence Address Phone
5. Full Name Position_
Residence Address Phone
6. Full 'lame Position_
Residence Address Phone
7. Full Name °osition
Residence Address Phone
0. Full Name `- Position_
Residence Address Phone
9. Full Name Position___
Residence Address Phone
ulR�ll -4-
10. Full Name Position
Residence Address ______Phone
(A Part I1 - Personal Information form must be filled out and attached for each
of these individuals.)
(b). The full name, residence address and telephone number of the manager, proprietor
or other agent in charge of the club's premises•to be licensed.
Full Name
Residence Address Phone
(A Part II - Personal Information form must be filled out and attached for
this individual.)
IF THIS APDLICATION IS FOR A CLUB, INCLUDE A TRUE CODY OF THE ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS.
THERE MUST BE SUBMITTED A SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE CLUB HAS DEEM I'l
EXISTENCE FOR MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS AR, IN THE EVENT THAT THE A°°L1-
CANT IS A CON RESSIONALLY CHARTERED VETERANS' ORGANIZATION, IN EXIS-
TENCE FOR HO?E THAN TEN YEARS PRIOR T1 JANUARY 1, 1961. THE STATEMENT
• SHALL DE MADE GY A PERSON WiiO HAS PERSONAL ICHGWLED;E OF THE FACTS
STATED THEREIN. IN THE EVENT THAT Nn PERSON CAN MARE SUCH A STATEMENT,
SATISFACTORY OOCuMENTARY PROOF MAY NE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT of SUCH FACTS.
9. State the exact legal description of the premises to be licensed.
(Applicant must also submit a plat plan of the area showing dimensions, location
of buildings, street access, parking facilities and the locations of and
distances of buildings, street access, parking facilities and the locations
of and distances to the nearest church building and public school grounds.)
Eden Prairie Center, legal description on file and of record
within the Register of Deeds Office and City files. Floor plans
were previously submitted within the application for license
for The Brothers Restaurants, Inc.
10. Now arc the premises classified under the Village of Eden Drairie zoning
ordinance? Commercial.
11. State full name, residence and business address and telephone numbers of owner
or o:,ners of the building wherein the licensed business will he leeatoc!, if
owner is other than the applicant.
Full Name Homart Development Co.
44th Floor;—Sears rower
amixbuscocAddress Chicago, IL 60684 Plume (3I2) 875-0144
Business Address Phone
Full Mame ---___-
Residence Address "r_
!'hone
Business Address
'S' 149i e •
•
•
12. Where building is owned by other than applicant, state in summary conditions of
lease arrangement - term of years, monthly rental, etc. (A true copy of the
lease shall be attached.) Lease on file. Assignment to applicant
will be filed upon receipt.
13. If building is owned by individual applicant, partnership, corporation of
association, state:
(a) Date purchased _ (b) Mame and address of person;
purchased from
(c) Purchase price $ ; (d) Amount of down payment $
(f) Who currently holds mortgage?
(g) Amount of Contract for Deed $ (h) Who currently holds
Contract for Deed? _
(i) Term of Mortgage
(j) Term of Contract for Deed
(k) Rate of interest on Mortgage
(1) ?at: of interest on Contract for Deed
(m) State the rate at which Mortgage and/or Contract for Decd is being
liquidated
(n) Are the payments on Mortgage and/or Contract fnr Decd up to date?_
14. State the amount of the investment that the applicant has in the husieess
premises, fixtures, furniture, stock in trade, etc. and attach supporting
proof of the source of such money.
See attached Exhibit A.
•
15. Give full nave, address, telephone number and the nature of the interest, amount
thereof, terns for payment or other reir"bursenort, of all persons, other than
the applicant, who have any financial interest in the business, buildings,
premises, fixtures, furniture, or stock in trade. (This shall include, het not
be limited to, any lessees, lessors, mnrtgagcns, mortgagors, lendnrs, lien
holders, trustees, trustors and persons .,ho have• co-signed notes or otherwise
loaned, pledged, or extended security for any indebtedness of the applicant,
but shall not include persons owning or controlling less than 5:1 interest in
the business, if a corporation).
See attached Exhibit A.
-6-
IF THIS APPLICATION IS FOR PREMISES EITHER PLANNED OR UNDER
CONSTRUCTION OR UNDERGOING SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION, THE APPLICATION
SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SET OF PRELIMINARY CLANS SHOWING THE
DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PREMISES TO DE LICENSED. IF THE PLANS OR
DESIGN ARE ON FILE WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT DF THE BUILDING DEPART-
MENT, NO PLANS NEED BE FILED WITH ME APPLICATION.
16. State the floor number, general area, and rooms where intoxicating liquor is
to be sold and consumed.
(Applicant shall attach a floor plan showing dimensions and indicating number
of persons intended to be served in the dining rooms, and indicating and
identifying all other rooms and other areas where intoxicating liquor is to
be sold and consumed.)
2138 Eden Prairie Center
For further information, see floor plan attached to Liquor
License Application for The Brothers Restaurants, Inc.
17. What permits required by the Federal government by the Laws of the United States
have been applied for or issued for the premises? In what name were these
applied for or issued and what is the nature of the permit?
None at the present time, however, at the time of appropriate
application, any permit will be issued in the name of The
Brothers-in-Law, Inc.
IC. What permits or licenses required by the State government by the Statutes have
been applied for or issued for the premises? In what name were these applied
for or issued and what is the nature of the permit or license?
See response to 17 above.
19. Arc any real estate taxes, personal property taxes, special assessments, other
financial claims of the Village of Eden Prairie delinquent or unpaid for the
premises to be licensed? None If "yes", give details.
20. Is the premises located within 1000 feet of any public school?
(This distance is as measured in a straight line from the parcel or lot upon
which the busincrs to be licensed is Iocafed to the nearest point of the
parcel or lot upon which the public school is Iocated.)
No. •
21. Is the prcriisos located within 1000 feet of any church?
(This,distinct is as measured in a straight line from the parcel or let upon
which :hc business to be licensed is located to the nearest point of tha
church huilding.)
No.
-7-
•
22. If the premises is a hotel, is there a dining room, open to the public, with
a minimum floor area of 900 square feet?
Not Applicable.
23. If the premises is a restaurant, is there a minimum floor area of 1200 square
feet for dining, open co the general public?
See floor plans previously made of record within the office
of the City Clerk for Eden Prairie.
24. Name, residence address, business address and telephone numbers of three persons,
residents of (Hennepin County, of good moral cl;.ur ,actor, not related to the
applicant or financially interested in the premises or business, who may be
referred to as to the applicant's character.
1. Name Paul Kunin
4310 West 25th Street phor.e(612) 927-7775
Residence Address Minneapolis, MN _
5001 West 80th
Business Address Minneapolis, MN Phone(612) 835-7292
2. Name David Cleveland •
Residence Address 'hone
1801 Riverside Avenue (612) 34 3�05
Business Address Minneapolis. MN ^i;ene
55454 �--
3. Name Sam Burstein
3300 Gettysburg Avenue South
Residence Address St. Louis Park, MN 554B26 -9028
"hone
Phon-7-7612)93346-9505
STATE CF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Charles R. Schwartz being first duly swore, upon his oath
deposes and says that he is the person who has executed the hove_ application
end that the statements made therein are true of his nr Ile e a het of
Signed Li • ti
Charle . Schwartz
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,5�/ _day of a �/� 1982
` Q 4
Notary Public, County
Ily commission c.:,ires 19__.
NN'MM
F,WILLIAf`"�
�` S`„t NOTARY PUBLIC
\1)� HENNEPIN(:
NEN:- My CommiNwn EN,,.
EXHIBIT A
RE: Application--Liquor License
The Brothers-in-Law, Inc.
Applicant entered into a "package" transaction with
The Brothers Restaurants, Inc. for the purchase of three
locations of which this municipality is one. Although there
were some internal formulas used for arriving at the overall
package price, they are not indicative of the value of each
store due to the various aspects taken into account.
The overall package price was $770,000.00 which was
obtained through the following sources:
(a) $600,000.00, personally guaranteed, from
Gelco Equipment Leasing Company, for a period
of five (5) years payable at the rate of
$15,540.00 per month for sixty (60) months,
with the first and last two payments payable
on closing; and
(b) $170,000.00 pursuant to a five (5) year,
personally guaranteed, installment note in
favor of The Brothers Restaurants, Inc.,
payable at the rate of $3,000.00 per month
following date of closing.
In addition, Messrs. Schwartz and Richter are investing
the sum of $100,000.00 obtained from personal funds.
•
•
qq1
MEMO _
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: July 28, 1982
RE: W. 66TH STREET CONNECTION,
KINGS FOREST
Please note that the Planning Commission's action taken July 12, 1982 on the
Kings Forest proposal was discussed on July 26, 1982 under II. APPROVAL OF
JULY 12, 1982 MINUTES. After listening to the tape, the motion will remain
as reflected in the July 12, 1982 minutes.
Also, under V. OLD BUSINESS the Commission discussed the importance of City
road connections.
•
William Bearman, Planning Commission Chairman, intends to be at the Tuesday
City Council meeting to answer questions of the Council.
JJ:sh
t.
�. E
•
ILHE
Una p,ro. d
Planning Co"uission Minutes -4- July 26, 198?
MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Gartner
11. APPROVAL OF JULY 1.2,_1982 M1NU1ES
Question was raised to the vote on Page b, 'vote on Amendment #2'.
This will he listened to on the tape of the previous meeting.
Marhula stated that if the motion vote
tststands
asos is, heiowould like it
down for the record, that he pFov
MOTION
Torjesen moved to continue the approval of the minutes to the August 9, 1982
meeting for the correct vote on page 6, Vote on Amendment P2. Retterath
seconded, wotion carried 6-0.
All other corrections have been made._
V. OLD BUSINESS
Sutliff stated he felt that when the Planning Commission is looking at
road connections in projects, the Commission should look at the connection
as it affects the entire City. He felt that an open roadway system is
very important. Bearman agreed.
Marhula expressed concerns that an alternate access should be provided in
a neighborhood rather than only one access point.
Hallett stated he felt that it is the people's choice where they want to
live and stated that he felt that the people can be over-protected.
7orjesen stated he felt that there are two ways to consider road connections
when a project comes before the Commission: 1) deal with the neighborhood
and its lifestyle, etc.; 2) recognize that all kinds of neighborhoods feel
the same way about living their own way. He felt that looking at Eden
Prairie as a whole is important, but the concensus of the neighborhoods
should be considered. The neighborhood's image should also be considered.
Bearman agreed, but stated that the City has legal liabilities and stated
that Public Safety needs more connecting through roads so they can serve
the City better.
Marhula stated that he felt that in the Kings Forest request, the West
66th Street connection might not have had very much of an effect on the
area, but stated he felt that the residents would have found it to be a
benefit. He stated that connecting one road can take traffic away from
another.
Bearnan stated that after looking back at the vote on Amendment €2 of Kings
Forest, it ends up in favor of no connection, he would like to hold another
public hearing. Johnson suggested a public meeting might be more appropriate.
Torjrsen stated that that might he more useful.
•
•
I40it
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1982
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
B. KiNGS FOREST, by Centurion Company. Request for Guide Plan
change of approximately 70 acres from low to medium density
residential, Planned Unit Development approval of 31 single
family and 153 townhouses, rezoning of 15 acres from Rural
to R1-13.5 and 33 acres from Rural to .RM 6.5, preliminary
plat approval over the 70 acres, possible variances from
the R1-13.5 and RA1 6.5 Districts, and approval of an Envir-
onmental Assessment Worksheet. Located west of Baker Road
and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods, and
east of West 66th Street's easterly terminous. A public hearing.
Bastyr reviewed the originally proposed plans and stated that the Hennepin County
map has been found incorrect in the location for the school. The new plan increases
the unit count from 185 to 205 units - 199 multiple and 6 single family.
Johnson reviewed the staff report dated 7/9/82 and stated that the density has not
changed from 2.9 units/acre. She stated that staff supports the connections of
West 66th Street and St. John's Drive.
Hallett asked if St. John's Drive will be a knock-down barrier. Johnson replied
staff supports a through road.
Marhula asked if the Kings Forest/St. John's connection is a private street. Johnson
replied yes. Bastyr replied that variances would be requested.
Bearman asked if the connection meets the existing grade. Johnson replied that
it would go down to match.
Sutliff stated he had concerns regarding the roadway connection to St. John's Woods.
Marhula expressed concern regarding a potential dead-end.
Bearman asked the length of the north/south road through Kings Forest. Bastyr
replied 700'. Bearman recalled that the ordinance allows 500' and asked if that
is correct. Johnson replied yes.
Gartner stated she felt that it would be too long of a cul-de-sac. Bastyr replied
that it would be a temporary situation.
Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford, stated he felt that the West 66th Street connection
would be unnecessary and stated he is opposed to it.
•
Hanley Anderson, 6581 Manchester, felt that the cul-de-sac is too long and asked
if the proposed multiple could be changed to single family. Marhula stated that
placing single family there will create more traffic in the neighborhood. He
supported the loop road and stated that if it did not get built, the road would
become a 500.-700' long cul-de-sac.
it r\,r\ ..
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 12, 1982 •
•
•
Torjesen stated he could not see the need for two road connections and stated he
was not pursuaded that Kings Forest needs two western accesses.
Bearman stated he felt that traffic would travel to Baker Road because it would
be quicker.
Marhula stated that this plan could be approved with the provise that the cul-de-
sac will not exceed 500'.
Bastyr asked the Commission, (if they are acting on the original plan) to act on
the preliminary plat that it either be looped to Eden Prairie Fartnership or
looped back.
Johnson stated if police or fire needed to get to the site without the West 66th
Street connection, it would take them longer.
Bearman stated he felt the road connections are needed.
Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford, stated he was opposed to the road connection
and asked that a roll call be taken. Bearman stated the Planning Commission
makes a recommendation to the City Council and suggested that the residents get
together and write a petition and submit that to the City Council.
Dick Sathre, 6511 Manchester Lane, suggested a break-down harrier be placed at
the West 66th Street connection point.
Retterath expressed her concerns regarding the need for accesses and stated she
felt that the road connections are needed.
Hanley Anderson stated if the West 66th Street connection was made, residents
would travel through the neighborhoods to get to the PDQ Store.
Hallett stated he felt that the West 66th Street connection was not needed, and
stated he likes the road ending up in a cul-de-sac.
Louis Kenny, 6617 Manchester Lane opposed the connection.
Bearman stated that he felt that the overall loop road back to Baker would never be
built.
Phil Mauer, 14202 Manchester, stated he felt the Planning Commission was over-
reacting to the Police and Fire Chief reports.
MOTION 1 •
Marhula moved to close the public hearing on Kings Forest. Torjesen seconded,
motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan change from low to medium density residential as per the original plans dated
3/24/81 and the 6/25/82 staff report and the 7/9/82 memo with the following change
to the 6/25/82 staff report:
1. The St. John's Drive connection should be eliminated and maintain
the road as a private road with a break-down barrier constructed.
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 12, 1982
DISCUSSION
_AMENDMENT
Torjesen moved that West 66th Street connection to the west be eliminated and
that development cannot occur beyond phase one before a connection is made to
the west. Once a connection is made to the west, either the entire loop road
must be completed to Baker Road or the developer can extend 5D0' beyond that
connection.
Marhula stated he would prefer to vote on the two items separately.
Torjesen withdrew his amendment.
AMENDMENT #2
Torjesen moved that the West 66th Street connection to the west be eliminated.
Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff stated that Kings Forest Road does not have to go through. at this time if
there is a secondary connection.
Marhula stated that the original motion (motion 2) says that Kings Forest will
extend through the property.
Vote on Amendment #2
Amendment carried 4-3. Sutliff, Retterath and Bearman voted no.
AMENDMENT #'3
Hallett moved that all lots be eliminated 500' south of the east/west connection.
Gartner seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen stated he intended to vote no because 22 lots will be lost.
Vote on Amendment 113
Pnendinent failed 3-4. Bearman, Sutliff, Marhula and Torjesen voted no.
AMENDMENT #4
Hallett moved to allow the developer to make up the density he would be loosing by
the elimination of the southern 22 lots except the six lots bordering the property
line. Torjesen seconded.
DISCUSSION
Marhula stated he felt it might be difficult to place more units in the approved
section of the plan.
�jJZ 1
J:.apprcerrd
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July )2, 1982
•
•
Vote on fa:ieni.ient_ '4
'Amendment failed, 2-5. Hallett and Retterath voted aye.
AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL MOTION 2
j'arfiula scaled he would add allowing a temporary road not to exceed 500' length of
the temporary cul-de-sac. Torjesen accepted the change.
VOlE ON ORIGINAL MOTION
Motion carried 4-3. Retterath, Beaman and Sutliff voted no. Retterath voted no
because she felt the West 66th Street connection, is needed. Sutliff agreed.
Beanr,an also agreed with that, and stated that he felt that the only portion of
the site that will be developed will be the first phase and the rest of the site
will sit undeveloped.
1.10110N 3
I'arhula moved to reconrnend to the City Council approval of the Kings Forest PUD
Concept as per the original plans dated 3/24/81 and the 6/25/82 staff report and
the 7/9/82 memo with the same additions and/or changes in motion 2. Torjesen
seconded, motion carried 5-2.
MOTION 4
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from
Rural to R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 for 31 single family and 153 multiple as per the
original plans dated 3/24/81 and the 6/25/82 staff report and the 7/9/82 memo with
the same additions and/or changes as in motion 2. Sutliff seconded, motion
carried 5-2. Retterath and Beaman voted no.
MOT I ON 5
Rarhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated March 24, 1982 as per the original plans and the 6/25/82 staff report
and the 7/9/82 memo with the same additions and/or changes as in motion 2. Sutliff
seconded, motion carried 5-2. Retterath and Beaman voted no.
MOTION 6
Marhi,la moved to forward to the City Council the EAW finding of no significant
impact. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 7-0.
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1982
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett & Liz Retterath
C' KINGS FOREST, by Centurion Company. Request for Guide Plan
change of approximately 70 acres from low to medium density
residential, Planned Unit Development approval of 31 single
family and 153 townhouses, rezoning of 15 acres from Rural
to R1-13.5 and 33 acres from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary
plat approval over the 70 acres, possible variances from
the R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 Districts, and approval of an Envir-
onmental Assessment Worksheet. Located west of Baker Road
and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods, �•
and east of West 66 Street's easterly terminous. A public •
hearing.
The Planner referred the Commission to the staff report and the letters from
Captain Wall and the Fire Chief supporting through roads.
Len Thiel, Centurion, 15500 Wayzata Blvd. , stated that they have met on three
occasions with the neighborhood.
Ron Bastyr, McCombs-Knutson, stated this is a 70 acre site, he noted the surrounding
uses of Kings Forest school, residential, and St. John's townhouses. They removed
three strPets previously planned to connect: Fr•a.iklin National Bank connection West
66th Street, and St. John's Drive. Access is proposed as a loop street from Baker
back to Baker Road. Next to St. John's will he single story brick homes, with
separate garages, and entrance. The other units are two story townhouses of
brick and cedar, with attached and detached garages with separate entrance and
patio. Plan includes a 22 acre park which acts as a buffer, open space and
floodplain. The red and white oaks southwest of St. John's will be preserved.
Ron Bastyr felt the road plan responds to existing residents' requests. Cul-de-sac
at St. John's south border would have knockdown harrier. He reviewed the staff
report recommendations stating he agrees with items: 5-10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 20;
disagrees with items 4, 11, and 18; and has neither a positive or negative feeling
about items 1-3, and 16.
The Planner reviewed the staff report recommendations. He then referred to a
Hennepin County drawing, delivered today, for additional right-of-way. He
suggested the proponent dedicate 17' additional right-of-way, and proponent and
County should negotiate on amount of curve dedication.
Purposes for planning connection of streets are: Public Safety survelliance and
efficiency, emergency response, street maintenance, school bus efficiency, and
utility connection.
The Planner recommended that Black Cherry Court should be the western border of
phase one otherwise too many units would be on a 75D' long temporary dead end
street. He also reco::mo.nded multiple driveways 25' in length from garage to
curb whether street is public or private,and additional outside spaces are needed.
He believed a number of Basswoods will be lost and suggested a tree survey prior
to Council review so preservation of trees and construction limits can be assessed.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 2B, 1982
The Planner noted that Forest Hills School is located approximately 25' from the
property line. This would mean one half of the road right-of-way from the City
property is not possible. The desireability of single family lots looking into
the school loading dock and encroaching in floodplain may not he desireable and
if unbuildahle, could he combined with Outlot A and units credited to the multiple
portion. Staff suggested totlot in the northeast area. If dedicated land is used
in a density transfer, the units are not exempt from the cash park fee. To conform
to the Slioreland Management Ordinance, buildings must be 150' from the creek.
Sutliff asked if St. John's Drive is a public or private drive. The Planner replied
St. John's Drive is public and the other roads in the development are private.
Torjesen asked if the road adjacent to the school always has been in the City plan.
The Planner replied approximately 9 years ago West 66th Street was viewed as a
through street.
Torjesen inquired if the proponent must give up significant area for road right-
• of-way, and if the City could give land to the developer for lots.
Bearman questioned if the City would build West 66th Street without development
here; and because of single family glut on the market, perhaps other road
connections would be important - not West 66th Street. He believed each road has
significant factors for connection and no single connection will serve the area's
transportation circulation.
Bearman suggested the single family east of West 66th Street be eliminated,
West 66th Street conneL t to proposed Kings Forest Drive, but not continue to
Baker, instead direct it northeast to Forest Hills Road.
Torjesen noted that the single family east of West 66th Street also is sandwiched
between the school land and the proposed dedicated Outlot A. He stated his
concern that residents want private neighborhoods but our problem is to develop
a viable plan, while maintaining some privacy for neighborhoods.
Bearman believed enough meandering roads exist now, and stated he would not want
to hear of a life lost because of extra minutes of travel time.
Torjesen asked if 25' on drives can be designed without unit loss. Bastyr re-
sponded yes noting it may eliminate some more trees.
Bastyr stated that phase one to the creek not to Black Cherry Court is important
because of the amount of street to be constructed and he noted the density is
only 2.6 units/acre.
John Palm, 6389 St. John's Drive noted they have less break-ins because of their
single entrance and slower traffic. He objected to connection to Kings Forest
Drive. Presently there is a 'T' turn around at south end of St. John's Drive.
He also objected to connection because of street name difference and problems
they lay have with through traffic. He said he would be willing to have a
breakdown harrier at the south end of St. John's Drive.
i oc
{
a prt.
Planning Cosmission Minutes -4- June 28, 19,
Hanley Anderson, 6581 Manchester Lane, did not want the West 66th connection
because of impact on their neighborhood.
Dick Sathre, 6511 Manchester Lane, stated they have not had any problems to date
with emergency access and did not want West 66th Street connected.
Jan Anderson, 6591 Manchester Lane, stated that children have to cross Baker Road
and Holly Road which are busy. This project will add more busy streets. She was
opposed to connecting streets.
•
Louis Kenny, 6617 Manchester Lane, felt that a cul-de-sac would be safer then a
through street. He was opposed to the West 66th Street connection.
Gloria Allen, 6700 Canterbury Lane, did not feel that West 66th Street needed
a connection and felt that the loop would be adequate for safety.
Marhula asked the trip circulation expected on West 66th Street if connected. The
Planner replied it basically serves the neighborhood - it would not be designed
as thoroughfare to any attraction, i.e., shopping.
Dick mess, 6627 Manchester Lane, felt the continuation of West 66th Street could
be a thoroughfare to the Edenvale area.
H. Anderson, 6301 St. John's Drive, stated he felt that the trips will be going
to the Shopping Mall.
Sutliff suggested that the City could request the surcharging of West Cardinal
Creek Road concurrent with phase one. The Planner replied that it would be a
good suggestion.
Torjesen stated he would like to have staff and the developer negotiate the
road locations and connections discussed tonight.
Marhula stated he supported the idea, but felt that action could be taken on
phase one tonight.
Thiel stated he was surprised to learn that the school is approximately 25' from
the road.
Bastyr felt that the proposed single family would be marketable and did not want
to lose any units.
MOTION
Torjesen moved to continue the item to July 12, 1982 in hope of the City and
proponent being able to resolve in regards to item 11 of the staff report and
the road connections. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
�JU�a
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 9, 1982
PROJECT: KINGS FOREST
BACKGROUND
We have been working with the developer regarding revisions to Kings
Forest Addition. You will receive copies of the revised plan Monday
evening.
Briefly, the plan illustrates continuing Kings Forest Road westerly
through the Eden Prairie Partnership property. The Staff feels this
is critical.
The second change is the elimination of 26 single family lots on the south.
side of the project, north of Forest Hills School. The Staff supports
this change as a real improvement to the School/Park.area. The additional
open space created would be dedicated to the public,
Since single family lots zre being eliminated, the developer is replacing
them with clustered attached single family on the western portion of the
project. There will, however, be six single family lots left to back up
to existing single family along Manchester Lane.
The direct extension of West 66th Street out to Baker Road past Forest
Hills School, will be eliminated in the alternate plan, and replaced
with a more indirect 'T' connection up to Kings Forest Road.
Total multiple family units would increase from 153 to I99 and single
family decrease from 31 to 6 for a total net increase of 21 units,
increase in gross density from 2.62 units/acre to 2.93 units/acre. There
would be an additional increase of approximately 5 acres of open space.
There would be an elimination of about 1400 lineal feet of roadway. All
in all, there would be more open space, less road, and units more eff-
iciently served.
There would be 134 units east of the creek and 71 units west of the creek.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the revised development plan
dated 7/9/82, request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low to
medium density residential, rezoning of 199 units, approximately 38
acres, from Rural to RM 6.5 and rezoning of 6 lots, approximately 5 acres,
from Rural to R1-13.5; preliminary platting for I99 attached single family
and 6 detached single family; and approval of an EAW subject to the
following:
•
Memo-Kings Forest page 2
1. The alternate development plan is recommended for approval.
2. Units east of the creek would constitute phase one, but the creek
crossing subgrade must be installed with road construction of phase one.
3. Other items as recommended in the 6/25/82 planning staff report.
CE:sh
•
•
I .J�
•
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: June 25, 1982
•
PROJECT: KING'S FOREST
LOCATION: North of Forest Hills School,
west of Baker Road •
APPLICANT AND
FEE OWNER: Centurion Company
REQUEST: 1. Change of Comprehensive Guide
Plan for 70 acres from low density
residential and open space, to medium
density residential and open space;
•
2. PUD Concept approval of 184 units
(31 single family, 153 multiple
family) on 48 acres and 22 acres of
open space;
3. Rezoning 14.8 acres from Rural to
R1-13.5 for 31 single amily lots
and rezoning 32.6 acres from Rural
to GM 6.5 fcr 153 attached units for
a total gross density of 2.63 units/
acre and a net density of 3.83 units/
acre;
4. Preliminary platting of 262 lots for
153 attached units, garages, and com-
. mon area; 31 single family lots and,
Outlot A (to be dedicated to City);
5.. Approval of an Environmental Assess-
ment Worksheet finding of No Sig-
. nificant Impact.
•
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN
The Guide Plan shows the floodplain in this area as open space and the
balance as low density residential.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
The project is bordered on the northwest by proposed industrial, and on
the southwest by single family, on the south by Forest Hills School Park,
and on the northeast by St. John's Woods townhouses. The project is
. bordered on the east by Baker Road and the project surrounds on three
sides, the Crosstown Baptist Church.
The proposed plan: 1) saves the majority of the floodplain; 2) borders
the existing single family and school/park area with single family lots;
3) borders St. John's Woods, and the church and industrial areas with
multiple (at 4.7 units/acre).
The project is separated from the industrial areas by grade changes (bevies)
of about fifteen feet in height. Additional landscaping is proposed to
reinforce this buffer. I
Staff Report-King's Forest page 2
TRANSPORTATION
Tic:cess to the site initially will be from the northern entrance to Baker
Road only. This access is generally located acceptably to the County, but
a detailed access permit will be necessary. The developer proposes to con-
struct 134 units (units east of Nine-Mile Creek) with one access only.
From Baker Road, there would be a dead-end street 1000 feet long. Twelve
units would take access from private drives from the end of this dead-end
street and fourty-five units would take private drive access from the
public road at a point 750 feet west of Baker Road. The total loop street
which would serve the entire development is approximately 4,100 lineal feet.
It is of concern that 72% of the project (134 units) is proposed to be
built on 24% of the total street. This leaves fifty units (28%) to pick
up 66% of the street. While approximately 50% of the 1800 feet of the south
leg of the loop will be an obligation of the City and School ''istrict,
there is still a considerable expense in street construction that is not
being proposed concurrent with the majority of the development.
Since the market for reasonably priced townhomes is probably stronger than
for custom single family lots, the ultimate timing of this final loop
connection is questionable.
A better balanced first phase, more proportional to.only one major access
would be the construction of the two clusters of units closest to Baker
Road (units served by Red Cedar Circle, Aspen Lane and Wood Duck Lane),
and the small cluster of units served by Hickory Court. Construction of
these units would comprise approximately 50% of the proposed 153 multiple
units.
Completion of the road system, north to St. John's Drive is important.
St. John's Drive was platted to continue to the south as a fifty foot
right-of-way. St. John's Drive is a standard City street with curb and
gutter and has no driveways backing directly out onto it. Setback variances
were given, however, ranging from twelve to twenty feet to the right-of-way
line. The units are a minimum of seventy-five feet apart with the road
running between them. _This dimensioning situation can be duplicated in
the King's Forest plat to allow for this planned road connection to take
place. Although significant additional through traffic will not occur,
the connection is important from a public service and neighborhood cir-
culation standpoint.
The public street could then extend 500 feet further west of the inter-
section of St. John's Drive and the proposed King's Forest Drive.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan clearly shows an east/west road through this
project from Baker Road west to Cdenvale Blvd. Connection of this road
should be made and could provide the second access necessary for the
balance of the multiple units. In the event that the road has not been
extended from the west in time for second phase construction, the balance
of the loop road would have to be constructed or a connection south and
west to West66th Street would be applicable. Connection of the proposed
King's Forest Road, east to west through the site would require 180D feet
of road, but would serve 151 of the total 184 units. The balance of the
loop road would be built with the development of the single family lots
or the road could be extended first clown to West Ci?h Street and later cast
to Baker Road to serve the balance of the single family lots.
•
Staff Report-King's Forest page 3
To summarize:
1. St. John's Drive should extend as a public street, down into
this development as originally planned,
2. There should be a continuous east/west road connection as shown
in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
3. West 66 Street should be connected as originally planned.
4. Phase one development should consist of no more than 50%
of the multiple units without a connection: a) west to
Edenvale Blvd; or b) south and west to W. 66 Street; or
c) looped south and east back to Baker Road.
The alignment of the southern leg of the loop road, (proposed West 66th Street)
contemplates dedication of only one-half of a sixty foot right-of-way.
However, the Forest Hills School Building is within twenty-five feet of
the property line,Wiich Hakes this realignment necessary for the road in the
area of Lots 16-21, Block 3. This realignment will require shifting of
several lots eighty feet to the north which may bring them in conflict with
the floodplain.
PARKING
The n�tiple units proposed are basically two types: 1) larger buildings
with six, ten, eleven, or twelve units, (two story units), with an average
of one and one-half garages per unit; 2) single story units, two, three,
four, and five in a cluster with double car garages for each unit.
For the units with one garage space, an additional exterior space will
have to be provided above a single driveway in order that the single
car garage may be counted as unobstructed as required by our ordinance.
The units with double garages and double driveways are in conformance with
our ordinance.
•
Other than driveway parking, no additional guest spaces are provided
anywhere on the development plan.
fn no case should a unit have less than a twenty foot long driveway from
the garage to the street or private lane. This will insure that at least
one car length is possible in the driveway.
All parking shall be screened from the proposed King's Forest Road.
The first duplex south of King's Forest Road on the west side of Black Cherry
Court should be reoriented so that its driveway does not face into the
intersection.
SITE CHARACTER•
Nine Mile Creek traverses the center of the site from northwest to southeast
and takes up almost 50% of the site with floodplain.
There is a large glacial moraine which projects from the north into the
center of the project; it is the extension of the high knoll west of St.
John's Woods. The Vegetation Analysis, included in the Development Brochure,
clearly delineates the vegetation type. Because of the proposed grading,
the majority of the basswood stand will be destroyed, however, most of the
oaks will remain in tact.
Staff Report-King's Forest • page 4
The site is generally lower than Baker Road and a 6% slope on the north
leg of the loop road will be required several hundred feet to the west.
The area to the north of the Crosstown Baptist Church will be generally
filled between ten and fifteen feet. This filling is done in order to
allow the housing clusters adjacent to St. John's Woods to adhere closely
to existing grade. Some retaining wall work may be necessary west of the
northern housing cluster in order to preserve the oak trees.
Filling will be done in the floodplain in order to accommodate many of the
single family lots, and parts of the multiple family clusters off of:
Hickory, Black Cherry, and Blue Heron Circle.
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT, FLOODPLAIN
Floodplain is being filled to accommodate the single family lots on the
southern portion of the project. Additional fill will be required if
lots are retained in the area north of the school as the road alignment •
shifts.
Floodplain is being filled to accommodate the road crossing of Nine Mile
Creek and the attached housing clusters on either side of the crossing.
The percentage of total floodplain area to be filled was not supplied
by the developer and has not been determined.
The floodplain is at. an COG elevation at the northwest corner of the
property and drops two feet in every 500 feet toward the southeast corner
of the property at Baker Road to an 875 elevation.
Outlot A is the floodplain area south of King's Forest Road (proposed).
The floodplain area north of the road is to be retained privately
as open area. The City should be given a trail easement across this
Lot 20, Clock 1.
The single family lots along the creek side of the loop road are not in
conformance with the minimum width of the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
The Shoreland Management Ordinance requires a 120 foot minimum width.
These lots are 90 foot minimum width.
In addition, there is a 100 foot minimum setback. Some of the lots north
of the school may not meet this setback. Lots 16-21, Block 3 may ultimate-
ly have to be eliminated, because of:
1. Conflict with the Shoreland Management Ordinance setback.
2. Conflict with, and amount of fill in, the floodplain.
3. Conflict with the road alignment which should shift
approximately eighty feet north.
4. Visual conflict with the back of the school.
•
Staff Report-King's Forest page 5
If these lots were eliminated, their area could be platted as part of
Outlot A, which would provide an open space connection between the
school and the creek valley, and would provide a buffer area from the
residential area to the school. In addition, with 2400 feet of Shoreland
on the south side of the creek, with twenty lots remaining, the average
gross width.per lot would meet the ordinance.
The multiple units meet the 50% ratio of building to shoreland length
specified in the ordinance, but several units are within 100 feet of the
creek. Since the minimum setback for attached dwellings is 150 feet,
the plan will have to be modified.
PARKS AND TRAILS
There should be a five foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed in the
right-of-way of the loop road.
A totlot should be constructed somewhere centrally located to the multiple
units east of the creek.
The number of residential units proposed is 2:63 units/acre which is
higher than the two unit/acre maximum in the low density category. That
is why a medium density designation is being sought. However, in a
straight density transfer, open space which is created may be privately
held. Since 22 acres of open space (Outlot A) is being conveyed to the
public, some density bonus is reasonable. Since 31% of the land is being
dedicated to the public, a 31% density bonus, (in light of a well done
land use plan) is reasonable. This would amount to 31% of 2 units/acre
for 70 acres, or 44 units, bringing the total to 184 units.
• Since the open space is being utilized for a density bonus, there is still
a park obligation. Therefore, the cash park fee is applicable to this
project.
VARIANCES
Variances required by this development and possible through the PUD procedure
are:
1. Exterior material variance to allow wood.
2. Zero lot line setback variance for attached dwellings.
3. Minimum lot size variance from the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum
for the attached units.
4. Front yard setback variances for the units along Red
Cedar Circle (St. John's Drive extended) from thirty
feet to fifteen foot minimum.
RE.COMirNDATiONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of: I) the Comprehensive Guide
Plan change from low density to medium density residential; 2) the PUD Concept
plan approval for attached and detached residential and open space; 3) the
rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 14.8 acres and from Rural to RM 6.5 for
32.6 acres; 4) the preliminary platting of King's Forest; and 5) finding of
No Significant Impact subject to the following:
•
Staff Report-King's Forest page 6
1. St. John's Drive should be extended to the south as a public road.
2. West fth Street should be connected to the west.
3. King's Forest Road (proposed) should be connected to the west (Edenvale
Blvd. extended).
4. Development from the Baker Road northern access should not exceed 50%
of the proposed multiple units prior to a connection to the west or
the completion of the loop to the south and east.
5. No driveway shall be less than twenty-five feet in length from garage
to edge of private or public roadway.
• 6. Parking shall be provided and screened according to ordinance.
7. The multiple area west of the creek will have to be redesigned to
accommodate the east/west road connection.
8. The construction limits shall be clearly denoted in a drawing prior
to Council review indicating trees to be removed and trees to be
saved. Approved construction limits must be fenced in wooded areas
prior to construction to preserve all trees expected to be saved.
9. Floodplain line shall be clearly depicted on the grading plan prior
to Council review and percentage of floodplain encroachment given.
10. West 65thStreet on the southern border of the project must be realigned
in the area of the school to resolve conflicts.
11. Lots 16-21, Block 3, should be removed and platted as part of Outlot A.
12. A five foot wide sidewalk must be constructed in the right-of-way of
the loop road.
13. A totlot must be constructed centrally located to the multiple area east
of the creek.
14. The driveway for the duplex off of Black Cherry Court should be realigned
away from the intersection.
15. The cash park fee is applicable to this project.
16. Access to Baker Road shall be according to Hennepin County. Additional
right-of-way for Baker Road shall be platted adjacent to Baker Road opposite
Cardinal Creek Road and shall be dedicated as required by the County.
17. Filling in the floodplain is subject to review and approval of the
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Erosion and sedimentation control
plan must be submitted.
•
I1)1 t
•
Staff Report-King's Forest page 7
18. Project must be modified to conform to Shoreland Management Ordinance.
19. Detailed review and approval of utilities plan by the City Engineering
Department.
Additional catch basins and storm sewer will probably be required,
spacing is not according to City standard.
Looping of all waterniains is required, including private streets.
A street 'lighting plan must also be submitted to Engineering Depart-
ment.
Private streets must be bonded for a five year period. Curb and gutter
is required on private streets as a part of the drainage plan.
PO, The following variances shall be granted pursuant to Ord. 135, Sec. 11:
a. Exterior material variance to allow wood.
b. Zero lot line setback variance for attached dwellings.
c. Minimum let size variance from the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum
• for the attached units.
d. Front yard setback variances for the units along Red
Cedar Circle (St. John's Drive extended) from thirty
feet to fifteen foot minimum.
Ct:sh
•
j
June 25, 1982
TO: Chris Enger, City Planner
FROM: Ray Mitchell, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: New Kings' Forest Addition
I have reviewed this project with Phil Mathiowetz, our Fire Marshal. It is
our feeling that it is imperative that the streets at West 66th Street and
St. John's Drive be connected. The connection of these streets would allow
proper access for emergency vehicles. If the streets are left dead ends,
emergency vehicles could be unduly delayed and the impending results could
lead to unnecessary property loss or a tragic loss of life.
•
Also, dead end streets provide a greater hazard to emergency equipment,
emergency personnel and bystanders due to the fact that neither of the proposed
dead ends have adequate turn-around facilities for our vehicles. This means
that trucks must be either backed in or out of an emergency scene. This
could lead to unnecessary damage or injury.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Phil or me.
1
1
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WORKSHEET
1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
ANO NOTICE OF FINOINGS
•
I DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
E.R. 0
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
Iestimated.
. I. SUMMARY
A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON)
1 X Negative Oeclaration (No EIS) EIS Preparation Notice
1 — (EIS Required)
IB. ACTIVITY IOENTIFICATION •
1. Project name or title: KINGS FOREST
1 2. Project proposer(s): Centurion Company
Address: 742 Twelve G7acs%enter, 15500 wayzata d1vd., Wayzata
Telephone Number and Area Code (612) 475-1700 MN 55391
I 3. Responsible Agency or Person: City of Eoen Prairie
Address: 8950 County Road 4,coen Prairie, MN 5534.)
Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for
further information on this EAW:
• Cnris Enger, Oirector of Planning, City of Eden Prairie
Telephone: 612-937-2262
4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available
for puolic inspection and/or copying at:
Location: City Hall, City of Eden Prairie
Telephone:6T2-937-2262 Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Monoay through Friday
5. Reason for EAW Preparation -
X Mandatory Category - Cite _ Petition _ Other
' MEQC Rule Number(s): MEQC24-B.1
C. ACTIVITY OESCRIPTION SUMMARY'
1. Project location
County Hennepin City/Township name Eden Prairie
Township T7o.—116 (North), Range No. 12 West
East or West (circle, Section No(s) 3
Street Address (if in city) or legal description:
I
1 Is1 I
1
Legal Description •
I
1 ,
C .
I
1
I
(SEE ATTACHED)
• •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i 2 I`.)
2. Type and scope of proposed project:
Single family attached and detached units, totalling 184 units
spread over 70 acres. Also, one park area to remain untouched as
a natural environment park
3. Estimated starting date (Month/Year) August, 1982
4. Estimated completion date (Month/Year) August., 1963
5. Estimated construction cost $2,0OU,UJU
6. List any federal funding invoiveo 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)
State MWPCA - Sewer Extension Required, not
yet applied for
State Dept. of Health - Required, not
Watermain Connection yet applied for
Local Nine Mile Creek Watersned, Pending
Local City of Eden Prairie
- Preliminary Plan Pending
- Final Plan Required, not
yet applied for
7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a
federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy
Act? X No Yes Unknown
II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
A. Include the following maps or drawings:
1. A map showing the regional location of the project.
2. An original 8-1.2 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute,
1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries
and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrangle sheet name.
(Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be maintained by Responsible
Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution
points).
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.
3 'tilt)
9.
•
Currently the site is void of structures. The property has not
been actively farmed in the recent past. Adjacent to the
northeast corner, west southwest corner, and southeast corner,
single family development has occured all in Eden Prairie.
2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are:
•
a. Urban developed - acres
b. Urban vacant - acres
c. Rural developed - acres
d. Rural vacant 70 acres
e. Designated Recrearion/upen Space • 25 acres
f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) 20 acres
g. Shoreland 177 acres
h. Floodplain 30 acres
i. Cropland/Pasture land - acres
j. Forested 15 acres
3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the
site, particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams
witnin 300 feet.
Nine Mile Creek traverses the site.
C. Activity Description
1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development
(if any), operational chaffdctelistics, and major types of
equipment and/or processes 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).
Development Method - single family attached and detached units
are proposed for the property. Park area is proposed as a
. natural environment park and consists of approximately 22.6
acres.
Development Timing - It is the intent of the owners that site
gtaoingoegin during the 1982 construction season. Utility
construction is anticipated in 1983.
Dccupancy of the area and actual building construction would take
place over a three to four year period as the market dictates
sale of the units.
2. Fill in the following where applicable:
a. Total Project area 70.0 acres or miles.
b. Number of housing or recreational units 184
c. Height of structures 30 feet.
d. Number of parking spaces N/A .
e. Amount of dredging None cubic yard.
f. Liquid wastes requiring trealment 58,880 gallon/day.
g. Size of Marina and access N/A squareTeet channel
(water area)
4
;r
1
1
h. Vehicular traffic trips generated per day 1090 ADT.
:1 , i. Number of employees . N/A .
j. Water supply needed /S,6UU gallon/day.
Source: City of Eden Prairie
k. Solid wasTe requiring disposal 430 tons/year.
1. Commercial, retail or industriaT—floor space N/A
square feet.
III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
1 • A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY
1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently
1
exceeding 12%?
No X Yes
2. Are there other geologically unstable involved in the project,
such as fault zones, shrinkswell 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 :aduce potential adverse impact.
Required measures to reduce adverse impacts resulting from
development of slopes include:
1
1) Tne erosion and sediment control plan will be submitted in
accordance with Watershed Policy.
2) Existing trees and brush or shrubs will be preserved where
possible to prevent erosion.
3) Revegetation will take place after grading is complete.
4) Sediment control devices will be placed along slopes where
erosion and sediment potentials are high.
4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual
septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the
project.
1 The major soils encountered on the site consist of the Hayden
Clay Loam, LeSueur loam Kingsley complex and the Salida coarse
sandy loam. Existing drainage ways consist of organic soils.
In areas where construction of either roadway or buildings is
anticipated, the peat material will be replaced with suitable
foundation materials.
There will be no individual on-site septic systems as a part of
the overall development. The proposed development can be
considered compatible with the soils in the area.
1 1.
I
I
5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be
Idone:
100,000 cubic yard grading.
IWhat percent of the site will be so altered? 24 %
1 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 26 %
1 7. Wnat steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and
I • after construction?
See Hydrology Section D-3.
B. VEGETATION
I •
1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the
following vegetative types:
1 16 % Woodland
38 % Brush or Shrubs
24 % Grass or herbaceous
—b—% Cropland/Pasture
{ 11 % Marsh
0% Other (specify)
I2. How many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any?
3 acres
3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique
I botanical or biological significance on the site? (see ONR
publication The Uncommon Ones).
1 No Yes
If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be
1 used to reduce potential adverse impact.
N/A
1 C. FISH AND WILDLIFE
1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish
management areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site:
1 X No Yes (!'
2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and
wildlife on or near the site: (see DNR publication The Uncommon
Ones).
X No _ Yes
1 t
I
3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish habitat?
INo X Yes
1 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.
Birds and small animals will have their habitat temporarily
j • disturbed, forcing them to seek alternate shelter during the
construction of the site. It is the developer's intent to remove
as few trees as necessary for the construction of the buildings
and roadways, allowing for a minimum amount of interruption of
J1 the wildlife in the area.
D. HYDROLDGY
1. Will the project include any of the following: If yes, describe
type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts.
No Yes
.1 a. Drainage or alteration of any lake,
pond, marsh, lowland or groundwater
I supply.
X —
b. Shore protection works, damss, or
dikes. X
1 c. Dredging or filling operations. —X-- _
d. Channel modifications or diversions.
e. Appropriation of ground and/or
surface water. X —
I f. Other changes in the course, current
or cross-section of water bodies on
or near the site. X
2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious
• surface: •
I 7 %
1 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.)?
1) On site storm water retention areas.
I 2) Hay bales or filter fence will be placed on steep slopes and (:
around catch basin inlets as needed.
3) Revegetation will take place in the disturbed areas after
grading is completed.
I
4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year)
ifloodplain by new fill or structures?
No X Yes
s
1 7 'ram?
J
1
5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the
site?
0 feet in the marsh areas.
5 feet in the Northeast section.
10 feet in the Northwest section.
y Note: All depths are approximate depths to seasonal high
J groundwater table.
E. WATER QUALITY
'1. Will tnere be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary
1 sewer or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater?
1 X No _ Yes
If yes, specify volume, the concentration of pollutants and the
water body receiving the effluent.
N/A '
2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is
planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants in
the wastewater.
N/A
1 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.
N/A
1 4. What measures will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts
identified in questions 1-3?
1 N/A
1 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on
soil profile, depth to water table and proposed depth of
disposal.
1 N/A
1 F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
A 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gas and/or
particulates into the atmosphere?
No X Yes
a 8
I Ica'
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.
The residential units planned for the site will not be
significant stationary emission sources. Therefore, traffic
generated by the development will produce the majority of the
gaseous and particulate emissions attributable to the site. The
hydrocarbon (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (N0x) emissions are key
components in the complex chemical reaction which forms
photochemical oxidants such as ozone. This reaction involves the
mixing of chemicals from air movement and exposure to sunlight.
As a result, the total HC and NOx emissions primarily affect the
region as a whole rather than concentrated sites. Carbon
monoxide (CO) has a direct impact and can be specific to a
localized area. Transportation sources contribute a relatively
small portion of the particulate emissions in the region so the
development will have a negligible effect on the regionwide
particulate levels.
The increase in traffic due to the site will have a negligible
impact on the total emission of HC and NOx for the region. No
violations of the federal ozone standard have been recorded at
any of the monitoring stations in the Twin Cities Area fror.; 1976
througn the latest data reported in 1978 according to the "Air
Quality Control Plan For Transportation" dated January, 1980.
The plan also anticipates significant reductions in HC emissions
between 1977 and 1987 due to the current transportation plans,
the expected changes in travel characteristics, and the eventual
replacement of older, unregulated vehicles by vehicles meeting
the current federal emission standards. NOx emissions are not
currently considered an air quality problem in the Twin City
Metropolitan Area and the NOx emission levels are projected to
decrease for the same reasons as the HC emission level decrease.
The highest CO levels in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area are
generally concentrated in densely developed Minneapolis and St.
Paul CBD's. The concentraiton of CO in the region is anticipated
to be significantly reduced between 1977 and 1967 due to the
transportation plan, the expected changes in travel
characteristics, and the change in the vehicle fleet resulting
from the replacement of older vehicles by vehicles meeting more
stringent emission standards. The following three maps of the
current and projected carbon monoxide to occur due solely to the
change in the vehicle fleet. Additional reductions will be t-
realized by incorporation of the transportation plan and by
changes in travel characteristics.
The area containing the WOODLAWN HEIGHTS site has, and is
projected to have, very low concentrations of carbon monoxide.
In 1977, the site was in the lowest category of carbon monoxide
concentration. Projections for the region for 1982 and 1987
indicate that this site will remain in the lowest category.
9
I 4.
I
Map 1 •
I
J
I
I
1
l
(SEE ATTACHED)
1
1
1
.1
;i
j
J
I`
10 l i ^'
Map 2
•
I
l
(SEE ATTACHED)
a
I
1
3
'1
�� 1;; .-1
Map 3
. i
(SEE ATTACHED)
12
2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or
operation of the project: .
No X Yes
If yes, describe the noise source(s); specify decibel levels
dO(A), and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures
to reduce the noise/vibration.
During the construction phase of the development the operating of
construction equipment and the conducting of construction
activities will be confined to the hours from 7:00 AM to 5:00
PM. The noise reduction effects of the natural topography,
natural vegetation, construction berms, constructed houses, and
limited construction hours will be adequate to achieve acceptable
noise level conditions during the construction phase.
The residential land use in the development will not be the
source of significant noise levels. This land use is compatible
with the surrounding areas which consists of residential
developments to the north, east, and south and scattered
residences to the west.
The primary source of noise generated by the proposed land use
a:tivities will he due to vehicular traffic. However, the impact
of the additional traffic generated by the site is not expected
to significantly increase the vehicular noise in the area because
it will be confined to low speed local traffic. Therefore, no
problems are anticipated with excessive noise.
3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or
reouced air quality (hospitals, elderly housing, wilderness,
wildlife areas, residential developments, etc.) are in the
affected area and give distance from source.
There will be no significant air quality and noise impacts on the
• site for the reasons explained in Sections F.1 and F.2.
G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY
1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry
production or currently in such use?
X No Yes
If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of
marketaole crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use.
N/A
2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on the site:
X No Yes
13 15'q
If
N/A yes, specify the type of deposit and the acreage.
J
3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand?
No X Yes
Complete the following applicable:
a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, oas, coal, solar,
etc.).
(see next page)
b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site storage.
J N/A
c. Estimate annual energy distribution for:
space heating 67 %
air conditioning %
ventilation 5 5 % •
lighting .3 %
^� processing 20 %
d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or
equipment incorporated into this project.
1) Solar Collectors
2) Landscaping
3) Building Sitting
4) Total Energy Management
e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this
project (e.g., more or longer car trips, induced housing or
businesses, etc.)?
This development is not expected to induce any significant
71 amount of commercial development since it is located near
regional and neighborhood shopping centers and near to major
employment centers. Therefore, no significant increase in
trip lengths are expected.
H. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local
recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and
scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)?
X No Yes
14 1 7,
I
•
o•
N
o
o m
L N
U.0
D
H•i
.0 0
C
C O. E C
7
O 7 H -
O H •,1 C
F+ t� 7
▪ C
•- C
L.M
N O
++ U
co H N
o. m
..-1 rn
• L./'-'a a)
++ a a C
C7
a v) z f
_ f
a
• H z NO
z n
C (VC
ID o••1 x a
E 3 3 \
N H Y z
• O
H ON
> N N
N H E n
• 7 7 IA
O(f)
2
2 b
� Y f
• C) o o
N N 0
E CO ti N •-4
CO
(NI
NC
ct
r)
y
N
N
a
CY
?. H
N U
N a N N
W /- W (.9
i3
If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected
by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce
adverse impacts.
I. TRANSPORTATIDN
1. Will the project effect 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 capacitites, average traffic
speed and percentage of truck traffic (if highway); and indicate
how they will be affected by the project (e.g. congestion,
percentage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (ADT),
access requirements).
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 oe affected by the project (e.g. congestion,
percentage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (ADT),
access requirements).
The average weekday trips and the AM and PM peak hours trips
which will be generated by the site were projected. The trip
generation rates used for each of the projected land uses were
obtained from the manual of Trip Generation published by the
Institute of Transportation engineers and are presented in Table
1. The ITE manual provides the results of numerous studies of
vehicle trips entering and exiting various types of land uses for
the daily total and for the AM and PM Peak hour periods. The
total number of additional trips generated by the development is
shown in Table 2. These trips were found by multiplying the
number cf dwelling units of each type of the appropriate trip
generation figures from Table 1.
The ITE manual trip generation rates may need adjustment to avoid
over estimation of the additional trips actually generated by the
site. This over estimation can result because the rates in the
ITE manual are based on driveway counts made at each of the land
uses studied. The driveway counts made at each of the land uses
studied. The driveway counts did not identify the types of trips
and the impact of the factors (such as increased transit and
paratransit, higher fuel costs, and flexible working hours) which
affect local travel behavior. Each time a vehicle entered or
exited a driveway it simply was counted as an additional site
generation trip. Therefore, these projected values likely
overestimate the actual number of trips which will be generated
since these factors can total to account for a reduction in the
number of vehicle trips generated by fifteen to thirty percent.
•
16 111 .^
Table 1
Trip Generation Rates
Single Family
Detached Home Townhome
Average Weekday Trips 10.0/dwelling unit 5.1/dwelling unit
AM Peak Hour Trip Enter •0.3 0.1
- Exit D.6 0.5
Total 0.8 0.5
PM Peak Hour Trip - Enter D.7 0.4
- Exit 0.4 0.2
Total rII • 176
c-
Source: Trip Generation by Institute of Transportation Engineers.
17 r
•
•
Table 2
Total Trip Generation
• Single Family
Detached Home Townhome Total
•
Average Weekday Trips 310 780 1090 •
AM Peak Hour Trips - Enter 9 15 24
- Exit 19 77 96
Total 2$ 92 1211
PM Peak Hour Trips - Enter 22 61 83
- Exit 12 31 43
Total 92 123
18
1 '
Tne existing street system serving the site, Duck Lake Road and
Townline Road, are believed to have sufficient capacity to handle
the additional traffic generated by the development. Duck Lake
Road is designated as a collector and Townline Road is designated
as a minor arterial. These classifications are aimed at serving
just this type of development.
There will not be any heavy commercial vehicle traffic generated
by the development.
Access will be via one curb cut located on Townline Road and two
on Duck Lake Road. The proposed location of the curb cuts are
shown in the site plan included.
2. Is mass transit available to the site?
1 _ No X Yes
The site is not directly served by the Metropolitan Transit
Commission bus service currently serving the area. However, both
regular line bus service and express bus service is provided by
Route 67 which passes near the site at the intersection of
Townline Road and Highway 101. Express bus service to Downtown
Minneapolis is provided by Express Route 53J which passes to the
south of the site along West 78th Street. Park and ride lots are
located nearby at West 78th Street and Hignway 101 and West 78th
Street and Mitchell Road.
3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are
planned to reduce adverse impacts?
Provision will be made for adequate space for possible future bus
related road improvements which would be coordinated with the
Metropolitan Transit Commission if a route is created to pass
along either Townline Road or Duck Lake Road.
• J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES
1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional
comprehensive plans?
No X Yes
If not, explain:
N/A
If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate
existing zoning and change requested.
Existing Zoning - Rural
Proposed Zoning - Residential Planned Unit Development
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
1
19 J �
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.
N/A
3. How many employees will move into the area to be near the
project?
N/A
How much new housing will be needed?
N/A
4. Will the project induce development nearby -- either support
services or similar developments?
No X Yes
If yes, explain type of development and specify any other
counties and municipalities af:ected.
The development is not expected to induce any significant
development of support services. Since it is located adjacent to
existing residential development, it will utilize these existing
services.
5. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to
handle the project and any associated growth?
(see following page)
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?
6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or
part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive
plan or program reviewed by the EQC?
X No Yes
If yes, specify which area or plan. t.
N/A
7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage,
release or disposal of potentially hazardous or toxic liquids,
solids on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive
wastes, poisons, etc.?
X No Yes
20 I')ljln
f U
CO
O.
C,
»»»
11.1
4-
4-
1 •
ID '' + f U)i
$- O)T 0) 3 O••-1
d 0 0 0-I- f
o
000N�0 1,1 CO
W �O CO `(Nj
H 0
D M CO N
0 nU\
a
Cr
Cr
C
D
2
C)
W
.M) ^i t„
C O) O)
Q1 Vi H
E pO •.i
U) in () U)
O) 0) O) -1
U U H O O)
i ..y y U
> > G) •-1
H H H y -1
U) VI 10 n
U U 3 ti;+iv
•^I •.-1 H 4' H O•O N H
O)4 N O••t Q) Ql
j 77 CO co CU 0 O a'4'
d a 3 CV)t.nll)VIO
.1
1 •
If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and
any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental
impacts from accidents.
1 N/A
8. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement
of the facility require special measures or plans?
X No Yes
If yes, specify:
1 N/A
K. HISTORIC RESOURCES
1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or
on federal or state historical registers?
X No Yes
2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric
or early settlement been found on the site?
X No Yes
Might any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be
affected by the activity?-
X No Yes
3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain
any impact on them.
N/A
L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
•
Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have
been identified in the previous sections.
1 III. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts that have not been described before.
IV. FINDINGS 1
The project is a private governmental X action.
1 The responsible Agency (person, after consideration of the information
in this EAW, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following
findings.
22 1')3t;
1
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 effect7T7
State reasons:
3. (for private actions only.) The project is _ is not _of
more than local significance.
State reasons:
•
V. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION
Note: A Negative Oeclaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not
officially filed until the date of publication of the notice in the EQC
Monitor section of the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of the EAI—
to the—EQC constitutes a request for publication of notice in the EQC
Monitor..
A. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the
Responsible Agency or the Responsible Person identified below.
Based on the above findings, the Responsible Agency (Person) makes
the following conclusions. (Complete either 1 or 2).
1. X NEGATIVE OECLARATION NOTICE
No EIS is needed on this project, because the project is not
a major action and/or does not have the potential for
significant environmental effects and/or, for private actions
only, the project is not of more than local significance.
2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE
An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project
is a major action and has the potential for significant cr
environmental effects. For private actions, the project is
also of more than local significance.
a. The MEQ Rules provide that physical construction or
operation of the project must stop when an EIS is
required. in special circumstances, the MEQC can
specifically authorize limited construction to begin or
coainue. it you feel there are special circumstances
in this project, specify the extent of the progress
recommended and the reasons.
23
•
b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted:
(month) (day) (year)
(MEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted
. within 120 days of publication of the EIS Preparation
itiice in the EQC Monitor. If special circumstances
prevent compliance with this time limit, a written
request for extension explaining the reasons for the
request must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.)
c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible
Agency(s) or Person(s)):
Signature
Title
Date
B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW
were mailed to all points on the official EQC distribution list,
to the city and county directly impacted, and to adjacent counties
or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed
action (refer to question III.3.4 on page 9 of the EAW). The
affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is
sent to the EQC.
C. Billing procedures for EQC Monitor Publication
State Agency ONLY:
Attach to the EAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 form (State
Register General Drder Form -- available at Central Stores). For
instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Officer to the
State Register or the Office of the State Register -- (612)
296-8239.
. 24 I I:A>j
'... \ .:
• a
2
. Z
O
F-
U
O
• J
j
1
W
1 Q Q \..)/jI Y J°I1 m a o . 1
- e-- ' III..-- 1 a
zll Y �� .
w
` y Jw
dam. l' wV .j /
.- ON - 02! OD Z� . ; N
V.
E ,.. \ i E
4.1
1 W m
1 cri
,,ti, j
8
srnp-7ls Z /' 3
1
1
t1 L. .
i
15C1 ! J
I
i . . .. . . ... .._.. ..... .-. .... . _ ._ . _ . _ _ . . , •
I i
I '
4
I s)
1
0 IS
I ^
1.4..... „ . " '; -.-,:.:. .11.1--il.:••....._..7"...:?"'',.I.:it,"1."..k-ck!:,;;;"...=\::V.1::4,-.... ..." .7.•rct‘-:1".1•• i
1 ..,. . :„ .:.• .:.,:-..t•Q.. .'iri15)..,..",.; ',., '.1.:As;•‘-i i --.--k..1-..r.;; -77.,
,, •:,... ... p,-„....: - ..,-7.:::.:-,,,,.:1 1.l','-,'., , ..,,,'"'''......1:',..:-..-.. ..,: ‘,..',..:...3•','.1.
.,.-........,"'t 'a
1 'I''''- V••••::... ,,...,..,.., :'-`1'...1 .:-.'2:'7"...i.",;::-i ...It::it: * ).?,7"7. %":',.'\.4.1\ 4'-4,71 c'•:
...--i".!. f. : ,, ',..,!,1 -7, ..V..,.., .. ;,.1 , s t:::. 4... I- ...-,7:.• :. - 1 _ • . ) ...,1
.., i
;4Y-';'-''' - ' ",..f 7..'..* ....'.•: -:'''' , '-ri''N, 1.,-.A.7.-/..f'', 7,1'117i 7i 71,-•;,..,j" • ,.i.:, ......1
1 .-:Ite.lx/. . :•.:..-1.,,..." '-•'.:•,....,- L.,',..5''' -' 7_L..-----.. •_.._'•_,L.I. .L.:
.t, .,,!•,;, ,,. . -... '...
N.,• .., . 8 .4.,' .• %... ,...-1. -y1 i \ . 7.,----, 4.
I
1 4 ..;7..•,tZ.L''',',•!.. 14.il ' . '''r • i le \
;. .\4‘•2. ..'.. \ I....7.... .. N...V.:97.
--.4.--z
2 0
U.'
i . ..ii. ,, . -.::,„.,. '.• \ .- '' ,....: !tli il 1
,—''-'1 "---....--r: • ' 11 N..:...'‘..' s**':'." 3 2;
>N
' . • it ' .1 ; .:
• '', ... ••• ; Fr! ... )4 .
, -0 •
i zrJr .
A I... •f
: .•1 ..
...O.,•.. Z 1 i V
i,..
ri 1
.1
-4 :: 1 I
o- .....• it 1
ll 1 crl
. .-•
•+,
LI
. 1 I
i :• i 1 t
i• .
1 •
. '.,..'',,,,:, 1,r,::--•-.--:..f.,-,::;iii.._-,:s - • ts..\::VM-.1,,......1:"'"1;'-•,...i...1'1:f..
, -
...
.1.3A f
N4111
111.'s
:6:4:itiAtull•II
•I
.r:
ili i •
71 , ' II 1 ..,•11.1.?,7.? ....Ir.; -
i ...y.-,....,i . .. , ,,.. t.
1m
1 L'I I
-T-. ,.----i. ;.--, ', . ,,--• --.- 1{ ., i..,:,.321't
c:..•..__f(e(2' -
•li i--?-3' C.'`"•-'n'' ,...... e.e'' A/4 ! l''',1.,, •
•:/,/i..:".',.;. .I,
, . .
I!,
7:1
'
' I
.,._.,
....1 . "
II—.71
• 1;is 'li ____
i
1 •
_
1
..... .
..1. 4y
/// ..
I Z
0
CI..,--
...;t.
f 1
22 S 6%0
..::.:•\ /
:'a ..--.':',.. / 01/•°' a 1 I.
1 i Z W
A si
R ' 111 .tLfi
! :
t i
, -....,
.-, , •. .*
. .1. C
. ;!1 •.:. ....-• 11
.
I. ...' ' .
/
.-",.. ...
',.. 1.`, '. s 1 1
I I 1 '-
'-i--- \,-.2 , :.
•
I : e -:,-- a i
I . 1 .
I I
/ ,I „
' 0
..,,.. )-
...' d LA.
1 '
1 I • ,
I
,! • ‘•
.-A,.
I
to
it i iil. ' 'N.
N • • -''.
I I , ,.!
8,
1-'•— _.............-;..- -:7-/, .
•
, ..,,_______ f. N .
,.-,........,
^
' .,•' fi`iI r-14-
'
------
'
1 ''.%lc.I r .
I 11
k it
I.
; II
• i
1 4 to
if
II I t t i II it i
I i s
I 1
ii
_ ._ -
- 1
i t
t 11
p i
' -...J..
I 1--I
,0 stt
t)
'•,- -,-------.,-...
„,...?' ...;`-' --------
'
.,,.0-
I 2\
k•••\ ,...,„ :—
i •-1 L Au
\c'ec , , - . ....1
.\\ , 11 ,
•I i t ;
i.i
I di,
\..z., 4 li 'I i
!, \ 1 3...j1 • : II
t •
•
P I I
I r:At'4„
-- s
s
.
s . i •
, ! •,t
.. ..1 j
Et I
r
.
i 7
1,
!I
,•::":",t,%;.1..; •1 . . 6
1 "••c- ____.,is , ,
.,
CPI 3,Iff Me*..-
/
I , 1
--7
------
,
/ / 5 I 7:,'le V.::.. ! i \,'•
/ /
[ /
, 1
r
1 1
1151-1
,
_...........j_---ii.
_______
--______
it
I —___.
I
1
6
g Fept.
.,..1
',.
., . • •• : -........., iz.:::,....;..,"..-,•:.:.; 'q...:!,:-i--.Av;3-,:-,.\•:..17.: ,-,. .. "..--t.c:., i_ I I
4.1-: --. ..,.. . -1...14-' -.-,4111.. -4'41,4.6(N-,,. .‘ i -: - ••••::-‘°,1..: • : )s-t-u) ' -•••• i'i''- • , r•-'''•t ..
":.."'': i' • I .."\''..."4- 7- 1 jk...1-i, 24._..,
(._ 1 .... .. .., .,4'eli-. , :.1%.••,....,,, , .i, tr. ...- .. :, .:.
I ...- i -•,.• • -.... . •• .-..- I -•- v4.--•:-.,• 1..,..- 2\-- • 1 g:.,-.1
•• . ..,•••••,,, , ....... „.• ! gs:••,. ,-:-1: ..-."-r.i. - ,•L -iz-•,- •f, I
`' -,..<''..- • •,- •,,. ii•••,', .,,:.:7-..t, :::jcp'.• f" .
I . 1!c •1'4 ;•4.- ,;.;...4:2.:, ,._ : _ •.''./ 1 -
" 71.Locoox —•-. 5
2 I--
:\.,.r.' , !.,... 0.;,:.i‘... • 1 .,. ! ,,,,\ 0•
•41i - ',.,...... '....
- •:k".---.-.-
' .>
i? 01
2 11.
.
N Z;
i> ..., . C 3
2
: i V\ •••• 1,, • Y •'el:V.;
%
i I I
i• /‘'4'
\ ‘C •"t? 2(
1• s.liti;;••E
1 !h..
., „. \ .. .i. .„. —71
_ ,
•.:i
zi•..
\II
It'
t 1
1 •••
....
.. 1 1.• ..fi: 5 .
'II 1 1' 'NI);;1:P','
....:.--•.:
..
. : .' -;.:,' .1
N
:II
t I!
I (f\\ (
4.1 1 l':'
N
\ , P
16.4
. 1 x i\
• (
\
.. 1
A I
..:
I --., . i-, ;
• •N •:: f
•
1 eF ONX1 li .
..
I• • ." A ,; '•;•••.". ...-: v
II ;— r... ..r • •• II
..)
!,1 ,
1 -.1 - :'1 j.- - --1' •
-- ••• ,r" ,•-.,4, .:., 71 i'' Z. . i I
. — — '1. ..,''...••I
1 (....
I • •. ... t I .71' i''''''•-; ki
.. ,F,,,,g•-,0=.,....
, ..•
i .
_ . I
I
)13(114 ---
,
1
.:i4.,,,,. : .,_._..,:::.1.:,....:....:....,::....: ...!.....,1::;s. .,. :..:.li's.::::-.
a
1 6
D°
L,. Q
.1 ,,,:: .7t• `•.. '..4.??...:. S.::;"..:.•:,..:":V is-7-'`:11..7,. ....:``.. :,:.:.f- '7! . .-..:6:,1:.....,I '..7.71:
.L........ .,
i--..\t.':::. :,'''.---.,.% ':7 ``:;- ..:3';'',...'I-:;.:4±.A t'..1,-;c;'-'s \:1' '''' • t.1:.:
:I t4'ci• ''' '•'..frt4is'it': ;s " ',. ',.•'>/, 711/11•1311..,1... a
3 1.i,
.....• , 1 i• .0 LE•, \ ' : ‘ ./ I
#ul i
.5 CY.t
I ...
1 N• .• . '.. .:::
::.11111161+. 1411,1';' ---74
z 01
5 U.
Zi .
N 1
Z1 • F .....
"••••••..-,_ .1:.:::• .'.'.; •. • fi 9,
"------\\ •
..,
•,Y, ti.7,,.; cl
i•
. . ,
4: \
••%-:,. „
-, •
1 L I( g
I . I•••••
t it
1.1 .• t, \" .,
••••. a ( :11
e• lel A 1 ..; if.: . ,-• • ; gi!
i . •.xe-
t i i vi.,-Ln.m.1 1.
at
1!, 1
a §
7 I
• -'•; i Iii
--.)
: . 7 6
• 2 :11 i .- Li
i IVIII a I
fi lid
:
A3M:11
,
1 • ! — I '.•';'
I 0 I
I '''. i •1:
•
'11 I lit I I
"
F :
. ---". 7.,•:"-.;"-•. .1, F1'Fl? ''''''
• - " • — i
lip , at4i !if ;
1! :
.
J
III i
---.....„ .- :...1 • „„., ',,
....... !(4- 4l, . ' -......7--*.*
/
:7 7' • i i
1 :.... • 4,ii,„ .
'' ' ,.:.• .311 t .1
1 ''•. '1 i 1 1
c...
•••••••. f• t'_, L'"F.:.5 1' ..•
tt• /,., .1i!
ill-61
1 C.7.5 ::]0'44-''.--.• 1.1 . v 4
I '
] •'.. /4'1.i I I I
I
1
I
] I I; '' 1
t---;I
11.,tIS I' I
11 If .
,..................f
1 1
Iy,1 .or._^^17t7...7.1^.•.:h:rr.T c::rzR.1v+rre0"1,74eLAT.u►LItase.l._r...».. .z.rvIL_'r-.-a:a.-.:..�-...:cr..r�uce:`s..
17J.1 OJ1 £ i111'1 s..r�.r `�;�i..lwrr..orss.yaan4a,t.0 as
,l r(r,.`•, .•lu•:..°..••al LV,
•a�ll0,,6 0 00(1-5(r A,.•Jwo0,.`+'I..D
Iii
a r•1l !(I { ,t
p 4 ;
{µ K
- K . / / (:W
�1 �!t :mil; -S 3:'. g ., e'is ik ,
,, `
• - ,'' is v F+�' ' ♦.. �``f
-tY.4 i-� 1i.- •\' 4y.1, � J fil fly} ,-
r '/ v. :+i
*)."/ : i •
;.. •: .•ry e �• - ..
i . . 1� \ �� •ra` • b
1 _ >- v- � : ,
•
• so
:17- ii..tb:44 k .3 .
2
...... - . , 0,6 -,t. 3,:--- ' C €
- i. • elf;V� �a 6.•'*�• '- , I i
a G� r�Rs��l�• r l? II T n ,O
g. 2
�: _ " � 7 . ,I I li ,
u.ar:.�..,..wa,«t:sa..u::,nw.-H.rx..,...mr. aa.sy- 'wca.+r.......t ;,.....-..•r.....„......
7-r
/.. .i..
4„,k--2.--,-;-:-•=-.7-.) .2__.=_C_-:,...---=,-' __,_ .\...-.•-:.-,_•.__!' :'' 'c' et
•---1 - ,==-.------"---7-,—'.--•-.\--- ----*-7...=-._, I--Q
/ ..fri--- . ....-'7...._ . i i zi 3
— ---N...___3 ---, ----- - 1-. --in. 6 4
/ A ic-\
/ ,, c • , , ,7„.-1
2 - i, ,..m• -
/ / , i i - , - .
( t.----?... ‘, ! , , ,... .: . /.. ....
\\ // ,
\ ., / ,/ 1 \
__/ I ,,2 !..1
\ \ !
> • , \ `L., •,__ _.
/ , z.'..
- 1 ,•- z •
I .
I I
I - . _ , - \\\4- ---- , • •-'--.4_ '! •.--,. 0't"
_ ---__:____---- --•.,_
- - ,
• ,, .
I I
I • 2
1 I ,
_ ,.-----:••1 , _
-..-
-•-:--
_.... • _ w
!It
I i \ . ,,- ,_--
ffi
10.
I I 1
I 1 ‘
--....,,__ 1 ....,_ _
: 1
' ',
•
. Vr \---:__, .-..-..-- -
_-
-- -‘ ,- :I I
;'•
•II
I II I
I i
I _
----7- --AL--.-•.--z. .:.
-., —,i ,...... :11
•t I
--' --CT— •' t i ta4,
• . 11
All
! I ,
,...#
1 / .
. .
• 1 - I _A\ < 1 i ill
I
\ --- •
I ' ---....,--
.--
' -\''-----.....---...,-,::' ,' \ ' i
.----, CZ-
•i„ - /' ...!.. t
Ill e
111 .
,1
I \ \ ,
--- --•-(---,,-\___--. f---''''''. 7
1 -= , .\ \„.-- / .._ . _. I\
- „:-.... ....... •
. .
. ..
i.
v4ii
. , - / ,--\ . ,___. . . .
'. ,.......-
. .
i , \P ' i 17. \f \ :
II tt ,.....,, -___
' •
1 ' \.) \ \ ' , . . . , .., .
I —
'--t.
i I I
i • •-• * a ,
I
\ ...
\ \ • • • • • _ ,
,,---
1 te.,,:.
• . • ,/- .
\,•\.
-t-,..._
._. _
.. .,
_,.
1._..
/ / ', - ' ,--- . . . \\ , •
,
I / ,
---
1 --- 4mmiroonl
I
I . _.• __ _ d.,1
1 ,
! i. •,
z
}A.: ..a,•____-_—_)'‘ _ -.,____ ._,-...i ' _,.,_.,', i,K',?-,1 ,Q
,,,,,________. 7,-,,...--f-± -_:,-_,_ --_-_._ ----z-r--;--- --- •—•-•-•-.. .1 L Si 0
//• ' ' ‘._10. <S.t,--\, -
1 / .,/j---.• i„. . ' ....„,
-:-.......... . 7• ,. >:,-- ( ---,•• •i 2%).,1 /7 AT;I . .)
• #• i •
/ /. /--,', • ) ):.0....'-,-',N-—1 , ,--''' ..' • ' .
,1 , ,./ „, .,. •
.( \•• -, ) . ) I
,\,// 1 ,,,,,. „ , 1 , , \ , , ,\‘‘t ••__, _
I ,
/ , ,, , • NI ,.., •
\ / ,
....._....„ V
, r-..., ,., ••>\ \ ! ..,
,,\ 1 \ k •-:7-___.— , / , -.. ,)L
• • N- Jo - - -: • ,• , . - -1-•-.—'•-t 4..
I 1
\ -". , '. V..; . : . 7-• ; ict i
I (
0 •\;\ 1 :, '\Os j.=.---.: , ' —, -7.Th,r\1 9 .
\I il 1 ' ei 3 \ ...— ' . 1 t.,i .,5 4.1.•
•
' .: , ,..( EG ,• , I .___Sr..,,,-,...r.,—,,,..' Z_,,Z i I
- ••.• S' -.N. 'r ,s-r`,------ .1' _ ,...,
I
I i 1
!
,,,,,,,.._!____//
• •...,:.. v-z=i
I vt . I
1 i 1k \L)
-—/ •--(,) -- - - -I-7, ;.1.
i 'v• i . •• _--- w--• N ) -_ ,..-.......-..... 5,1
.. • '•1
-1 9
I I 1))11 1111 1
Y:7--
t I 1
I I !!!!:•11 11$1; I I •*. '. 1\i". • 1 ‘..._,-_—__J -_ t-- k gi!
' .4••••-•‘....1..!...; I 71:: ' :'---/.7'', -,-...
: t
I 1 1.31:;!; WI !...,
I 1110.11 I If
11
J1:3! ' lii3 SJ '• • - '-\,---, '` i , ---
1111111)::11/ it i C/7 \ - li */1 \--;.- :- NI'
AU I
.1
-I . ••, • ------.
silinl... 4'. i i ,,., !, • ' • •.f ,‘ ,),-.,--,
i . /---_--- r \
1 ‘ . ,‘• ----4.:7,. !'• 1 !N . ----1- % ( '
I
1 \ .: ."'''• --....
.-
qi
1 t --"i: '
--- \ ---- - '' .. -k-----•7\
, , \t • 1.1 •
, ...f
, , 113,-7__... - -- --•,H...`:--1 . / /' t-
TI.
1 \ \ -N.
.._..-- 7 - - - ', r', r _ —5-:
— — r----) is\:...._— :,, • -,, , ! II
\ \ -',, i,\...._ ,...„„ . i • I , ( 77 ( ( 1
-—''• -s-\\. 1 I
,\ ,.. ,,, ,--:, / -------_--N• - • .___../ ,. .ii .I' ) ' 'H
1 ..." ! . I •i I\ . : ...-.\I .:;Al' ." .' -- •\'V\ ; ....'........• .
til\\ k,_. -....... ! 1 i, , ,‘ ,,,.•./.\\ .,\\\, k •1 , s. ,. .,. ,.„\\\, . , i i • • ‘, 1 ‘,
• i ' ' .../
1,-; - . , ,6 ,\, :-.:,' ‘,*\ ) , 1 • •
. I • .• , ! 11'..•
1 ', ' i'' y'\\ , s\ \' •1 i • ' i K 1 •. .1
w ,
___j '-'11,2:, ..,,\,i\\\\...:Y . 1\\ N *.T.,,,-.,.. -\ .0--/\77-), \ :. • '
1 if k, --- . ,..,_. • .. \\\\,
7 / i •ii ____,,_, ,,, ......,
) 1' \ \ , ., • .1 , , _ ts -,-. .\
. 1
1
1 , 1;•-•.ul
._.A
1 ,
t
:,
' :7
' •
I
I
1 I 1
- -
I
.1 eg g g ilt •
I i 1 Vo g 3
P / 1 i V4 ' .11 .1! i Ile ill 11
/ , ' %I Ni i % I l! I ;II li
I / , \k4Aat, .. .
• .•. -••,,,,.
'• -----ka--sr—-44---•---
`1.: A f-••-.1-___L_—:-....-4--.......„,---.., ill 1 i • I;
1:1§ I/
iii
:f
i". .--'-,./., g I1--
'4'-1_,,„__i_2, ! , g--:,••;,‘,1 • 4 40 4
e ui i
• i I
ik. g \,.,\• 7-77:::I
, 4
1 I '
I . . , \%
se• ,,..,.."
‘k, ' •4>,.s
.,-.'-,
.,
„
I
1 Y. f .•`,....
1 I, , .../
I *i\l/ 1./ ''''....•
\.• C j *...,.. . ±:•:} 1 i'....!, 7
-•- -,4
s s
1
I 2
i V • f.• -. '••4.,,'
•i•si r.i - ,•.:
1 I
I I
...0i.r.i.
I . i
eill
, ....-------.—i
I I,
i
1, 7,,,,,, E : . .:
.. ._.....,_ 1---,
..,,„
tl
I . -.i,.'':ict ' !g) ---. t.--'i • .. .i----,
ill
I • N ;-,,ti- ._!.__ 4‘',,,,,, _ .-r' 'f ..
4 -I
.\ .,s,...,,> i . •--1-, ,,,i'.'..; h --i AI 4
s.ss„--, il •,• , •9•4"'",,
r ' ,,r.'",,'",r_'*'i., ' ,1'1,. a •"'"• ge ;4" i ft : ._.. - •'; r:
,
•::,,';>:>.,, V,:ss>' r 'i c",--z.:;.• ' '..---";" •,, N• " i
1 N . \ -,"?‘ '';'"":'''' ____._. ,.......,tr_i..../ -1....,! 1
•,.)e'' ‘Z\\s! l'*‘1---14---14'51b0- 3.-- 9.1/ i - I !* 1
.1':•• ''.
- P'<';'. ; ,'''. •,-.1 C.,• .,,. i 7::
"I c - ---:',:_! ''''.:-...-:-.? h,... ' ''1,.. -.1 / 4 -':.:
\ ' -4,.. /• .4 \ r':.;------.1!I:-,..-',:: ---.'----:7--*::7-.•.,-0. i i
- * °''—';• '- ./4V.1.- : -----i ---- ""rA -----:-.:i 1...7.7"';7.7:
L4 I g ' 1:11 .1t.::" i E-.-7:71Y:1 1 E_::'.'.! i': -:-','-•-.
:,.. _-.:ii•I i---- --:-..-
It• ..S.:',.273-_;.--i Z..'r...11, i ....:,1 .-..--. --:::: ! I-1.•
1 1.. ; ..;...,7 r.5,<.)_%-_-_-1 i_
‘n.g, ..T.,...;..__,.,
1 I 1 t 1 § ' •ti.'
! '• I
/ / -. ..... . • .
/
/
•
.4
i — - - --- ----------- - , - -.---
t., , ---- --—- ---- - - -
- ----
I I i 1 1 i i
i , ....
.. i
, : ' 1 I! - - ) . , -_reT?00 Is :1
3•V.H,i 0. -*-----r."' 1-
A;
' ,iWt, .1 it J'' . ---c3., 7.- ---- ... ..:• . ....... 7',:ti
14.12.•- /•-.._, 3
1 ;:11;4,11 a
I'iiii et ; . • --- ---4:,---- 4-- • -• - •-/---
// ;('.-"'-''''N N."--- • '''t r,\ '''.-- ' 1 '! (. !• ..Q
, / 7 \ ,-:=3. .,-,e.,--i , ' ' . ''.'"... •• Z
/ /7 ,, • ,,ri•-.,„:„2 , ! ,, , .• 'I 1\',..
c ‘ ii I ‘ \\ s n'1 1 •,-,.-. 771
1 \ /
\ /// ,
/ ,1
, .7
, , „ \
\ , 1 . .„ , ,
>
,. .: )
, - % • \ \ .---
.
, , .. .. . \
/ ,,,,,,,,-.< ... , . ( - : :
'
1 ,,---...it.,--s „:. _. _ .. :-..;,.:.,_ ..,. , i
1, .r v, ••• /„.. , ' , ' .-----,-, ' i
I . ' '-'-'-r-tN--r\/-',/,--,„-
1 ,,,\\ --..‘_-_--il-- -' --'''''' '''.\ .‘ . ' ' \\.'1. \ a•
1 1 . ,,,,\ ....._
i It 1
Cs\--‘,....: , --, - ‘,....yc,‘, ;•,,,,„\, • °. \\\\\*.l\ '' '
I, ,..,,
, ,'. .. %';'.• r- ---.----'-, e--7 2 •
-1 I !,' 1 '• . 3 N \•4,4.' ' '' . - --) ) '. \4,.'4--.1_._ !,•-;_47:7 • 3-1 1
s
.--,',.;-_, '-":' ! \ .- -•-, 4. '',' i.!
I I
- •••'\.!'
•I'.Z?:‘1'`' ' - :__
Ni''''-'4• .!'. 44,,--: - ! 4 4.-- ! -
",. •i 4
I A ' 'Cl') : ' Q
Q
,...
• - ' --,'
• ' ....,•;",••• •,-.., '''..,... /-----,... :. I
I ,
1
\ Y
,
_.: :,--) ' ik\..p, \,:ii, , ..,:. ,•,1_,.....-;............ ..i-------__- ,e,!!
_•,.
1 ' % I b • 0 -----:_d' 4-•,- -
,,`-;:--.t:•- ; 1 .,
•,,,i
'1 I 1
i
, „ -,,,,,,,,. ,--",i, I `,. g i
. . -...A' .;-:;,-.,.. -. -. - • tY, - v'-, 'z,--4 :-,41 - ---•-i ki..41
• 'i-..._,,,,•-.,
i ''eS.:•.‘..-,,,w, - i --''')_ 1_4: .,,'... .1
AN U' • - ) 1 • -- Ni'A
,--------,.. --, ) •.:-:),, --/- -.--,---,4 0 i c --c .'-,--------- .1,, N.L...,.. • -7--, -
•:.
,.se,-„. \\..,,"..a4.-!...',..-ii,,t ,.73..„i' s,, f ( 4-: ,..--).:,,i,..1 • . ..1 ,
1 I , ,/...f"- -,.,\. , 4-..}'i4 .s.,-. -4,:,,_ ,.:•••-_.c \ ..,_>,_.,,„ ,• , - ,_
hi
1 \\ •..1.- „s\\..,-,/,..c.-",i --E,z-ii .).-,,,,,,rc,,-,,,-,-5..2., i,•,.i 1 , ,, --- ; --2_-
, e,r.--‘ r , ,., -r,-- `•••••-•.: ,1,...) -i,'"-.., --.l ' '...„. . i . ; • ' :li I
•i:
\ \ P 1..ks'-'2i.13\.'""''''''‘..6.,--:'-'''---- ': 2.-" .-•4 I'--F''', ‘, • i ~ -4 "'•'' '
\ \(-----,-; (....,,, ,-..-,7-z,-.-ret-,,-Ill-:1 i.._ 4.,...z. -,--;,„:..i/..„,. ,,, ,,,,,,, .4:-,,,,. ,,,,
,
' 0. • 0 ( / -,— • • ' i'il I
-I • ,c; .L., -
II \ 4;. N".).,.•,,-:;,•2,'-:':,-,,:...2)v I,r-S._-.;.-,..I.L-•A,.-:1ii z',.._J:.,96__)•7
'.=. •-i. ..--'-.....-.','..':•-,_-----_-__-_._—_:-.4:,1--1-(-.1•:..*;L-...'•":;;-'-„.-'-:„i;,-4.-;--„' -.I--,}::. \k•\NN../.,:-,-„-i;1--., ,v.,,;,i,..! . • ' ' - ti ‘..,i-4-'1-s''''•=
. 0c3' ,*4---1-, ,-.-fi,--:'_it \:., .. .1-•
. A t
LILLii
• • • °•''N'15 4 i.t.\41-.1, it• '
••1 ','...t.:,".6:',V_...3_4,. •,' '
1 - ''• ',,,:i7.-.'0?:•..1".2,::-Lt..... ''. ''\ ''..). ' , - 0-T3C.,,,
1 '. '...;ki',/,,cr,4'Z't••' \\.\.., ., V
) , 4.-{I'Z 1.2,1.,I , \\ . \...,\ ,., I •,--N.../"\‘ • • -.(>•V-4 r 2, • " • ' ' ,
, . 1
_._,
—-, ,__:1.—_ \ . N t..1 f -.•• cl -,„x>• ,-
/ , ..‘,......_:..1 Li \\ ) (,), t. . _.,.„''....'',s,c\.4' ,,,,,,:71.,;•;.....-. ' 1. I
/ / 1 '
`I / / l'-i'.,() ' .I
_
_22j
--- . -------.---------
.-1 -- -- - - -- - - - - •---- --- ---- ---
I I -- --
Iil 1 :1 j!hlil . i .•1
,, 1 \, • .1 z
i '4,t--;---"'"- --;-- -== ---, - ,,,..-e•,- - --,--, '...--.----.: "''I ^CI
,.•,,; i I *I'7\-3 _.:... V-7"---\
1 j • •, I.I,
111i \••••-_,+ II''''' }.'.2 k...''....7.-"--. '
/ / ,/''---'.\'\ / ''t ' -'\N
i / / '
, , ...,.., t 1-,•7- i '• ...!
, I ( ' ,.: ! 5
rr''',:-..;-,:( I
\ ///
\ \.,/• / / I \ • ..I . N,_ 11 ...
\ I ! •C..,4:44.1:?
; -
-.. , , \
\ • x I
— , \
,
\—)\ s \---::„,-----
, \..,
) , , \-\.„._,, ... . I:
i 1
t I-C-------,1—")
\ '\•-c t_____ \\\ ' I
_ . _ , / ,,, , \s, \ i c-•-‘ ri
\s '".•-•.‘ Li--3 i,
1 o
-4 .-, ,'-‘ , - -?'.--=----- eL'• Z 2:
II I : C-23
0 \<"1 N. ' \ \_,) • s.„•.,..._,,1 'i,,,....:.7. ? jj:
li I — ')., • /'-Z , ..--. , --, : . g
11 I C)'• :
0 \*k,j f,, 4 •
1 I t, &, i / , • , -71 I
i I ‘
i 0 i/IQ
I I --
1 t '4 -1-. --,--!tj.'. )-`- ' .:11 i I• 0 •---,...:41 --_...-•-• 1 ,- .1.,
1 , 1•0 ',.-_,_ 1,„ :1 j I
I _ ,-.7. ..,..
-_.__:_ , .
.,-,<."°'*(‘,11: fis•\ •1 0 ,...- ,-.......
L ) --' 1 ' ' hi'Ali,,
N— ' AL/ ir • A
' 0 , ';.QZ....`;' ,,. (?. -• ' •' 1. .A --' 4i:
I • f (\,—Li —- 0..,....„:...„.5 DT.- I•",„..--,,,,,.. ,c...;„---., 1.--•--,1;i . „:„....:\1 I
' \ ,,,, ,-.4„o• •.: fut.:, ,,•••••,,,,,, s • K.: 0 jii- /.2__
, ' 1.%,„., ir'. .. ..":-.•.-1'.,, ..k. 7,:t '`-'9(-'.j . ' --- 7 . , . II!\ \ . ,..,..k.:„..< .._,...4 ..___-_,...p.,_.,`,..,41, ,.!_z•,..,i ....t.", 6 Lst .."---,21 I ......, or,.. il
• :!t;
\ ,, ,,/ "----:,) - _,- ..,",' '1'." -:°:-..,P.: 4,--:,.>•: 0 ' i ----2_3 — •
,.,. .
_.,. .,-4 -;---,.., • .7: , ,_...,, -
si i i. \,-----,-.---:- 1:-;,1,.. \\ .10 i n •
1 : :••: •.:ii---11_.;i --;-?\ \ (-7.
II ' \-s --14-r;'.-1,t, \ \ . 0e3
La..:
,1 I':1(''\-'-'?•f--''''' ;4•L'Ij \\ \ ' . • . 0 A „....j
.-4 LI i 4,--,T— . 0 Qc\, • L.,-k -'-
1 ''\{'')i/c:i.'.rit \ \ \ • ---, — i , .1`7 • ,
4,
) ' t. --I 11 ' (.) . __ `' , - \\ ' • I'll
—7 / t - - '.
1.1 / / .
---
i -
l - . _ ____. •-•
'/ —_ — ............. ,
1
1S �/ /�\ Z
j I�, Ili I'i i ,l p.
1 1+)IIUI h..1 I g11.,im,i 1 1i,I
liv)—
I
7; • Q)
I \ ' V�
co • � oal . r
v., o f / '.rt•\♦
i ii 1 4- ' • - ,
! i 1H2IL
� ot
:3
al 1
f II °s- -4.
1 1 I '\i'-'''.: \,-
L.:(c.CD...7.1., . '... .. :.0 : .3<7.5 c:It,:-.44r-:-- 11\\'\\r"'-' i.ir ,
/j�/ 1[ ' • I'~ I i •
\ ,�\ ji�:•:' • --e ..•
\ /� ll ' 116
` .
\ \ .'•„t L....--
1$ ;t--:-,:,-;___:_ ,. - .1ill I C\ ..J T a I �{ '
11
I i I.1 ,' ,{
-1Nyj3 •
,i-'12,..,7, j ft. u-.
1\ ,i-. -.,-, ,,,,i4,- ,,, • .441A$ge., g '
ti
I Imo' Q ` , J'' 4 � � l C 1
i
1 I V
i
, : .
__ .,..„..
___,_ ,.,.±.
. _ _
_ ___:, elk;
f i
( ''1://AW.
--i---,
J 0 Z a3�6 j
a
rr , a i Li I-1
— a a a 2 2—
. i ; I _ a ri : dr._ i
r
a CI
Z a L=. i'
, i 1 i t, i
I L a `7 a • a
1 a � 8
/1 i ,,,I.....: 1--A ILA II--
,# 1 i Li[4-1 I
\ �.� , r ,v [ ___j\ ''V
J V
ja1
a
r 6a a
1 - 17i 1 C-
I 1 i 3� a _
1 H
3
I t, --- ' --I o
^� a
I v , ;1
' , n i 7r J di.i. , . .
, L2 3-711 4 I 1 I
1 b rr.
I Lli_i_i_i_yi
I,
f3
1 e.%
.1 L 1t;f3 ./
1
T
PARK LANE r
t..
Three bedroom town home.1376 sq.ft.
lEE i 0___-..."1_,. _� __-� r
12.6`X 19.6"
`
GAP:;E +.,,E i;
APP..E 5 1� I
I !
Lower Level —_— ---J ,
rr
t
u'3'x9D
I II
IIIIII�ILLJJJIII /.-- 11- Ob;'-.�
., —. 1 0----,
t 0
ILI74'xi a'•6'
-
1 L,r r
,, 12.2-x 04D.- . r..
ss_
,JY\/ f
Upper Level
I')',tl
. i
SAN SIMEON f
Two bedroom town home=1324 sq.ft. C
1
`
'• I
u
i •_ -,SAC _ I I I J r
j _ - ' _._
1 <\": .
• I
l
CJ r.
.. l 1 ,ii" -Di ; .
1 -0..99''x9.J-
-xbE,h^E4E AP._ES
Lower Level i
1
: I
�. 1 0 tQ1 -
r— I
1
.. . ;Ir•9'x 9'•0' 1 [,
I
6. 1 L y
I
i18'•9'x I0'•4 I� �1,
Fri [ti.,-; -1---
,..a ..r�' '�,;.e.?=`�.:..=..I..r ate. tt .,
Upper Level
i
Kings Forest
Amendment
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 82-187
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Compre-
hensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"), and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for
review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has reviewed the Plan and has required
modifications thereto, and
WHEREAS, the proposal of Centurion Company, Inc., for development of
attached and detached residential units and open space uses, known as
Kings Forest, requires the amendment of the Plan,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Eden Prairie
hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 70
acres located west of Baker Road and approximately ; mile south of Townline
Road be modified from low to medium density residential.
ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
, 1982.
• i
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
1
1
V
Kings Forest PUD A
CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 82-188
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE KINGS FOREST 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 Kings Forest PUD is considered a proper amendment to
the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on
July 12, 1982 and considered the Centurion Company's request for approval
for residential 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 August 3, 1982.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Kings Forest 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
3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated July 12, 1982.
ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
, 1982.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
•
•
It-CAL O:.SCrt1F1]ON
•
The West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3,
Township 116, Range 77, except that part of the West Half of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 3, described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence rest along
the south line of said Southwest Quarter to the southeast corner of said West
Half; thence north along the cast line of said West Half distant 682.55 feet;
thence deflecting to the left 3] degrees 30 minutes distant 193.8 feet; thence
south„esterly 640.0 feet more or less to a point in the west line of said
Southwest Quarter distant 493.5 feet north of said southwest corner; thence
south along said west line 493.5 feet to the point of beginning. Also except
that part thereof lying east of the westerly line of County Road No. 60, and
Together with: the South Half of the east 75 rods of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 3, Township 1)6, Range 22, and
Together with: the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and that part of
the Nest Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 22,
lying northwesterly of County Road No. 60, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except
the following:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the West
Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township I16, Range 22,
described as follows: Comaencing at a point on the west line of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, a distance of 16.5
feet north of the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed hearing of north along the west
line thereof a distance of 1289.25 feet, more or less, to the northwest
corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3;
thence southeasterly along a curve concave to the southwest, having a
radius of 573.68 feet, a central angle of 30 degrees 1.4 minutes 70 seconds
and a chord hearing of South 75 degrees 35 minutes 11 seconds Fast, an arc
distance of 302.17 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 60 degrees 28
minutes 01 seconds Fast, •a distance of 47).05 feet to a point of tangential
curve to the right; thence along said curve, having a radius of 479./3 feet
and a contra) angle of 27 degrees 24 minutes 45 seconds, an arc distance of
229.52 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 33 degrees 03 minutes 16
seconds Fast, a distance of H0.48 feet to a point of tangential curve to
the left; thence along said curve, having a radius of 499.69 feet and
central anole of 64 degrees 03 minutes 34 seconds, an arc distance of
559.40 feet to a point of tangency; thence North 82 degrees 48 minutes 10
seconds Fast, a distance of 70.00 feet to a point of tangential curve to
the right; thence along said curve, having a radius of 264.5 feet and a
central angle of 54 degrees 30 minutes 44 seconds, an arc distance of
25).65 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 42 degrees 41 minutes 06
seconds Fast, a distance of 45.74 feet more or less to the northwesterly
right-of-way line of County Road No. 60; thence southwesterly along said
right-of-way line to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and
)6.5 feet north of the south line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 3; thence westerly along said parallel line to the point
of beginning, Henospin County, Minnesota.
EXHIBIT A
•
•
•
•
• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE '
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 82-]89
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
• OF KINGS FOREST •
BE IT RESOLVED•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
• That the preliminary plat of Kings Forest
. dated , 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
•
155C) •
1
Kings Forest EAW
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 82-190
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR KINGS FOREST A PRIVATE ACTION DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on
August 3, 1982 to consider the Kings Forest proposal, and
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 70 acres
of land in northcentral Eden Prairie, and
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing on the Kings Forest PUD request and did recommend approval
of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no significant
impact.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council
that an Environmental Impact Statement is not .ecessary for Kings Forest
because the project is not a major action which does not have significant
environmental effects and is not more than of local significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED, this day of , 1982.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
•
4
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1982
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
A. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company. `,
Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval
for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is
zoned I-2), rezoning from Rural to 1-2 for approximately
5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots,
possible variances from the 1-2 District, and approval of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and
the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A continued public hearing.
Johnson stated that revised plans have been submitted and Mr. Geoff Martin and John
Shardlow of Howard Dahlgren & Associates were present to give a brief presentation.
Retterath asked if rezoning is being requested along with the preliminary plat.
Bearman replied yes.
Shardlow reviewed the revised plans and changes that have been made. He reviewed
the landscaping plans and stated that they are proposing to increase the buffer
from 100 to 150' at the eastern most property line. 'He stated that the proponent
would like to stick with the original plan with the buffer change with the
industrial loop road to the north.
Johnson reviewed the staff report dated 7/8/82. She showed the proposed road
locations for the site (as shown on the Guide Plan) on the overhead projeci.ur.
She stated that if the road goes through, two lots would have to be readjusted.
_MOTION
Gartner moved to reconsider the PUD Concept plan. Torjesen seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett agreed to reopen the PUD Concept plan.
Motion carried 7-0.
Gartner asked who pays for the signalization at the railroad crossing. Johnson
replied that in most cases the State has money available to help and that a
petition would be submitted. Gartner asked if the intersection would be on-grade.
Johnson replied yes.
Shardlow stated that when he originally came before City Staff, he was told that
the through road was not necessary. He stated that at the last meeting, the
Commission voted on the concept and since then they had made very costly changes.
He stated that they will have to proceed to the City Council with the original
plan.
Torjesen apologized for the unclear direction.
Shardlow then stated that he was unaware that Kings Forest Drive needed
connection through Eden Prairie Partnership.
•
/metal .
Undppro,..,
Planning Co.:;mission Minutes -2- • July 12, 19ft
Bearman expressed his concern that with the original plan, if the road connection
• was made, different platting would be necessary. He then asked if the collector
road Does through, would there be a problem placing two buildings on the upper
right portion of the site. Shardlow replied that it is a very difficult area to
develop effeciently.
Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford, was concerned that the southern most building has
now added a loading dock and stated he felt that something other than industrial
should go on the lot if the collector road goes through.
Ron Bastyr, McCombs-Knutson stated he was concerned with the transition between
the industrial and his proponent's request for Kings Forest which is next to this
site. He stated that they would consider placing a joint buffer there. Shardlow
stated he felt that a transition could he worked out.
Johnson stated that a buffer between the industrial and single family would absorb
some of the noise.
Torjesen asked if there was another way for a transition between industrial and
single family. Johnson replied that other transitions are going from single
family to medium density to industrial.
Bearman stated he felt that large trees and open space is the ideal buffer.
Dick Sathre, 6511 Manchester, stated that residents that live by the inner
corner are pleased with the buffer and stated that with a 150' buffer, they are
still in the floodplain and stated he would like to see a 200' buffer. He was
opposed to the collector road and stated he likes the plan as is and stated he
wants his seclusion.
Hanley Anderson, 6581 Manchester, felt that the two proposals (Eden Prairie
Partnership and Kings Forest) are interrelated and stated that he would like to
see a total plan of both projects put together. Bearman stated that they are
two different public hearings. He then asked Mr. Bastyr and Mr. Shardlow to place
their plans adjacent to each other.
Gartner stated that she felt that if she would have seen Kings Forest at the
first meeting when Eden Prairie Partnership was reviewed, she would have felt that
the road should go through.
Hanley Anderson stated he does not like the road going through.
Wayne Gilbertson, 6580 Leesborough, asked where truck traffic will go. Johnson
replied to Birch Island Road. She described the median location which would direct
truck traffic.
Torjesen stated he felt that the appropriate motion at this time would be to continue.
the project.
Bearman stated he felt that the roads are needed. .
Shardlow stated that a recommendation given to him by staff was to amend the Comp-
rehensive Guide Plan. He felt that the project had not been processed as an amend-
ment. /5.4I7.lI•
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes • -3- July 12, 1982
Marhula stated that he felt that the ordinance needs updating and that.Shardlow
expressed good points.
Johnson briefly reviewed the Comprehensive Guide Plan change review process.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the PUD Concept and plat
approval because the plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
(road connection). Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
/6(2
approved
Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1982
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman and Dennis Marhula
( B. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTN[RSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company.Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval
for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of wihch is
zoned I-2), rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately
5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots,
possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of •
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and
the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that this item had been continued from the May 19, 1982 meeting.
Revised plans have been submitted. He stated it is questionable if residential
' will work as a transition. Staff has looked at accommodating a residential
through street in the site and stated it can be done with medians. The amount of
peak hour traffic will not be high, even if Edenvale develops to 1200 units.
Birch Island Road will someday be upgraded. The street will be similar to a resid-
ential through street. He stated that John Shardlow and Geoff Martin were present.
He reviewed the staff report dated 6/11/82.
Shardlow felt that the most important issue to discuss would be whether Eden
Prairie wants the collector road going through the site or not. He stated that
no extension of Canterbury Lane is proposed. He reviewed the site lines and
the berms. He stated that if the Planning Commission did not feel they could
take action tonight, the proponent requests that the item be tabled at least
two weeks.
Hallett asked if there is a planned use for Outlot C. Shardlow replied no.
Sutliff felt that the proposed use of the land south of the collector road would
be spot zoning.
Retterath asked the zoning of Outlot C. Shardlow replied that everything that is
being requested for development is zoned I-2.
Hallett stated he was concerned with the 50' setback on the side of the site.
Retterath asked if the proponent could build now with the exception of the southern
5 acres. The Planner replied that they would need platting.
Hallett asked if trees are being removed to construct the building. The Planner
replied that approximately 50' wide of trees are being removed.
Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford Road, stated he di,.: not want the collector road
to go through.
Dick Sather, 6511 Manchester Lane, stated he did not want the collector road
to go through and that he did not want Manchester Lane made into a through road.
Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, stated he was uncomfortable looking at the
building.
Robert Hoel, 65Ib Manchester Lane, was also opposed to the collector road.
ipproved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 14, 1982
Wayne Gilbertson, 6580 Leesborough Avenue, was also opposed to the collector road.
Hallett stated he felt that there would be advantages to have the collector road
and felt that Canterbury Lane should not go through. He was pleased with the 250'
buffering zone for the homes on Stratford.
Ciecyl Wyman, 6560 Leesborough Avenue, stated he wanted more buffer area added.
Sandvick stated he would like to see a different use on the southern five acres
such as office. Shardlow stated that from a planning standpoint, office will
have windows looking back at Sandvick's property. The wall towards the resid-
ential is planned to be landscaped very extensively and will be built specially
for transition with the homes.
Sandvick stated he was concerned with the traffic noise. The Planner replied
that the site will generate approximately 200 average daily trips.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Hallett seconded, motion carried 4-1.
Sutliff voted no.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD as per the
Proposed Development Plan dated 5/13/82 and modifications as listed in the 6/11/82
staff report without the collector road and eliminating numbers 4 and 6 of the
staff report. Torjesen seconded, motion failed, 1-4. Gartner voted aye.
MOTION 3
Gartner moved to reopen the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 4
Gartner moved to return the plan to the developer for modifications to be made
prior to returning the proposal at the July 19, 1982 meeting. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen stated that the developer should be given direction as to what changes to
make.
Shardlow asked that the Commission be polled to find out reasons for the failing
vote on Motion 2.
Hallett stated he supported staff recommendation on the collector road and would
like to see a 75' setback of the industrial to the west of the residential area.
Sutliff stated he felt that the collector road should go through because Eden
Prairie should not develop in isolated pieces. He stated the road would serve as
an east/west road from Baker Road to Valley View Road.
Gartner stated she did not feel the collector road was necessary.
Torjesen stated that he was not pursuaded that the collector road was necessary.
Retterath felt collector roads are necessary. Public Safety needs access and
felt that there are too many unanswered questions for this project.
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 14. 1982
Sutliff stated that if a road connection was made, the land to the south of the
road should be residential.
Hallett asked if The Planner could have other information regarding railroad
crossings, collector roads, etc. ready for the Commission at the July 12. 1982
meeting. The Planner replied yes.
MOTION 5
Torjesen moved to return the project to the developer with direction to modify
the plans without the collector road going east. Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION (!.
Hallett asked that a 75' setback be provided between the two residences and the
developer's to work with the neighborhood be added. Torjesen replied ok.
Gartner stated that if agreeable, why not approve the plan with the 75' setback.
tonight. Torjesen withdrew his motion.
MOTION6
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD as per the
Proposed Development Plan dated 5/13/82 and modifications as listed without the
collector road, deleting numbers 4 and 6 of the staff report, and adding the 75'
setback. Gartner seconded, motion carried 3-2. Sutliff and Retterath voted no.
MOTION 7
Gartner moved to return the preliminary plat to the developer for modification
prior to zoning as per the Staff report dated 6/11/82 as amended by motion 6, and
continue the item to the July 12, 1982 meeting. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 8
Gartner moved to return the zoning request to the developer for modification as
per the staff report dated 6/11/82 as amended by motion 6, and continue the item
to the July 12, 1982 meeting. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
•
154aC .
approved
Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1982
MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen
' A EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company.
Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval for
industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is zoned I-2),
rezoning from Rural to 1-2 for approximately 5 acres, prelim-
inary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots, possible variances
from the 1-2 District, and approval of an Environmental Assess-
ment Worksheet. Located in the Southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and the Chicago Northwestern Railway.
A public hearing.
Bearman asked why rezoning is being asked for at a concept stage request. The Planner
replied that this is a unique situation because the majority of the site is already
zoned for Industrial. There is no staff report at this time because there are some
problems which need to be worked out. He introduced John Shardlow and Geoff Martin.
Bearman asked that the letter from John Shardlow dated 5/14/B2 should be made part
of the minutes.
•
Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren & Associates, stated that Franklin National Bank owns the
property and would like to sell it to Mr. Undestad (they have a purchase agreement).
27 of the 32 acres are zoned Industrial. He gave a brief slide presentation depicting
the location of the site and the surrounding land uses. The site will be of office/
warehouse uses. Held a neighborhood meeting on 4/22/82.
The Planner stated that no staff report had been compiled but stated that the Compre-
hensive Guide Plan contemplates industrial north of the collector road with residential
to the south of it. He suggested placing multiple family residential or small office
residential in character such as Lakeridge Office Park on the southern portion of the
site rather than industrial. He also suggested preserving the buffer entirely or
providing a strong visual barrier between the buildings and the property to the south
of the site.
Sutliff asked the distance between the Bury property and the back property line. Martin
replied approximately 300'.
Hallett asked the size of Outlot C. Shardlow replied 11 acres and stated that the
proponents have talked with the Bury's and they asked if it would be possible to buy
more land. Mr. Undestad and Mr. Bury are discussing it at present.
Hallett asked who owns Outlot C. Shardlow replied Franklin National Bank. •
Marhula asked if Undestad is the developer? builder? Shardlow replied that he is
• the acting developer and has an option to buy the land. He also might build and own
some parcels on the site.
Bearman expressed concern that the collector street will not go through the project.
He stated he felt that if the street went through, the southern portion of the site
could be developed for something other than industrial. He asked if any buildings
are ready to be built. Undestad stated that he has plans for two buildings which
would be ready to go once they receive final approval from the City.
• approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 19, 1982
Bearman asked if the property were rezoned to I-5 instead of 1-2 if there would be
better control for berming the site. The Planner stated that I-5 would have larger
lots, larger front yard setbacks, and would be easier to screen. Bearman stated he
would like to see a sketch showing I-2 vs. I-5 zoning.
Bearman asked if the proponent could have just replatted the site. The Planner re-
plied yes as one large lot.
Sutliff asked about the crossing of the railroad tracks. The Planner stated it would
be •at grade.
Sutliff asked if ADI's road and this project's road are in conjunction. The Planner
replies ne, ADI's is.to the east of this road. Sutliff stated he would like to see
a road map in conjunction.
•
Hallett expressed concern with a 100' setback on one side and 50' on the other for
the amount of berming possible.
'Dick Sather, 6511 Manchester Lane, stated he liked the buffering but would like
Manchester Lane continued.
.Tom Striker, 6540 Leesborough, was concerned that the hill behind his house would
be taken away which serves as a buffer for him.
Mrs. Hoel, 6510 Manchester Lane, wanted the hill and trees saved, and stated h r c•
opposition to the project. Shardlow stated that the trees on the hill will be saved.
koger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, felt that a 100' buffer was not adequate and
.was concerned with the elimination of the collector street.
Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford Road, stated that he has seen changes since the
neighborhood meeting, but stated they are not all the same.
Jerry Wolf, 6600 Canterbury, was concerned with the berming. •
0iris Peterson, 6714 Canterbury, was concerned with: types of buildings to be built,
what will be stored on-site, and stated that his previous home was by industrial
uses and was broken into three times in the daylight hours.
Roland Wyman, 6560 Leesborough Ave., stated he would like the 50' setback increased
to 75'.
Richard Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, stated that when' he moved into his home, he
was told that Canterbury Lane would not be continued to a through street and voiced
his concern for adequate buffering.
Shardlow stated that after the neighborhood meeting the plan had added buffering,
but he had not changed the slides yet. He then showed the added buffering.
Melma Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, expressed her concern for the noise to be gen-
erated and also the berming.
Sutliff asked to see elevations where Birch Island Road would be in conjunction with
this site.
MOTION
Retterath moved to continue the item to the June 14, 1982 meeting. Gartner seconded,
motion carried 6-0.' 10.3-1
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: • Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: 7/8/82
PROJECT: EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP
BACKGROUND
This item is a continued public hearing from the June 14, 1982 Planning
Commission meeting. The Planning Commission acted upon the PUD request
at that time, but continued the preliminary plat and rezoning request
subject to revisions in the development plan.
Included with this report is the revised preliminary plat.
RECOMMENDATIONS •
1. Recommend platting of an east/west through road as recommended in
the staff repurt of G/11/82.
2. Recommend no rezoning at this time. Final site plans on Outlot C
and the lot north of Manchester Lane, for actual proposed buildings
would be required before these lots could be rezoned.
3. 75' landscape and grading buffer east of southwest lot must be
reinforced with an additional row of evergreens.
4: Cash park fee would be applicable to this project, because of the
long established heavy use of park facilities by industrial employees
•in leagues, etc.
5. All lots would require individual site plan review by the Planning
Commission prior to building.
CE:sh
•
Ii )lAtuttI ,
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commissidn
FROM:' Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: June 17, 1982
SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List
PROJECT: Fden_ nirie ldriRetship
PROPONENT: Undestad Investment Co.
REQUEST: PUD Concept approval for 32 acres of industrial, preliminary plat approval for
6 industria ht moots ena rezoning 7-1T.5-acres lromlluraT to 1-2 Park
-77
LOCATION:_U r_tjl1J. ,1?nnderpsa...W1i s Addn_,_i ast of Payer RrL cout}: of 87 rrnce.tnwn &
east of the Lnicago Northwestern Railroad.
.BACKCRouNin Sec I'lanning_.taff Report Dated:
• PARK AND RECREATION PLANNING CONCERNS •
I. Type of development: Industrial
2. Number of units in residential development: N/A
3. Numb'er of acres in the project: 37
•
4. Special recreation space requirements: None
•
S. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks: No •
a. Affect on the park: N/A
6. Need fer a mini lurk:.. MQ---- ---'-----
7. Cash par]: fee or land dedication? Cash Park Fee
a. If Cash park fee dedication, amount based on existing ordinance will'total$36,764
. •b. If park land dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated is N/A
c. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property total N/A
and will be paid prior to dedication.
8. Adjacr t to exisLLtt�pg or jronnscd trails: 8' asphalt bikeway along the south side of the
east�r;est COIIeCtOP YOatl.
. a. Type of trails pede,trian/hike .
b. Construction material asphalt _
c. Width of trail 8 feet
d. Party responsible for construction Developer
e. Landownership of trail location:(dedicated, purchased, ROW) ROW
NATURAL RrsOuRCr. PRESERVATION CONCERNS •
I. Site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site? The majority of the wooded in the
southern portion of the site would he preserved within the buffer zone.
2. Most significant grading on the site:
•
1(1/
•
3. Significant vegetation on the site includes: The wooded area along the southern boundary
of the site. •
•
4. The site grading plan indicates preservation of: N/A
•
S. Adjacent to pob)ic waters: Nino-Mile Crppk
a. 'Affect on waters: See Planning Staff Report
REFERENCE aufCt
1. Major Center Area Study: N/A
2. C•.i.nhborhood Facilities Study: N/A •
S. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A
•
•
4. Shoreland Management ordinance: See Planning Staff Report page 3
S. Floodplain Ordinance:See Planning Staff Report page 3 —.
•
b. Guide planJJhe Guide_Bdr dePscts an east/welt collector with residential to the
south and industrial to the north. •
7. Other:
RECO}t•6\DAT1O5S
1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project:
General ni;iohborhood opinion is opposed to the industrial adjacent to the
residential and are also opposed to the east/west collector.
2. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
proposal without the east/west collector.
S. Coo.nunity Services Staff Recommendations: Recommends approval of this plan as per the
June 11, 1982 Planning Staff Report including the east/west collector. Cormunity
Services staff fee]_thlt_the pedestrian/bicycle trail connections are important
fnr the sula_seasnns listed in the Planning Staff Report regarding the proposed (.
, collector road.
•
STAFF REPORT •
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning •
DATE: June 11, 1982 •
PROJECT: EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP
LDCATION: South of 62 Crosstown, west of Baker
Road, east of Chicago Northwestern
Railroad, north of Ponderosa Hills
Addition
APPLICANT: Undestad Investment Company
FEE OWNER: Franklin National Bank
REQUEST: PUD Concept approval for 32 acres of
industrial, preliminary platting for
32 acres (6 industrial lots and 3
outlots), rezoning of 5.5 acres from
Rural to I-2 Park (industrial)
COMPkEHENSIVt GUIDE PLAN •
Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts an east/west local collector
road across the southern portion of the site. Residential is shown on
either side of this road, with industrial to the north.
ZONING
The entire property (with the exception of 2.7 acres in the southwest
and 2.9 in the southeast which are zoned Rural) has been zoned industrial
for years. The parcel has been land-locked which has,of course, impeded
• .its development. Access is now being provided from the north by a public
road improvement which was petitioned for by the property owners in the
area.
•
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The owners of this property have been well aware of the City's land use
designation for well over a year, and in fact reflect that concept in
figure 2 of the development brochure, (this figure shows access to the
• industrial area via a cul-de-sac and a residential collector through the
southern portion of the property). (,
• The current developer has proposed a 100% industrial land use (in addition
to requesting significant reduction of the existing Rural buffer areas).
After more detailed review of the site, it seems• unlikely that residential
use of any significant portion of the site would work. The impact from
existing industrial areas and the railroad tracks would be very hard to
mitigate.
• r.){./$
•
Staff Report-Eden Prairie Partnership page 2
The Planning Staff felt that if the plan was approved as 100% industrial,
tying in to a residential street with industrial traffic was not desireable.
However, after the initial presentation to the Planning Commission, staff
was directed to again study the feasibility of the residential collector
street. We have evaluated the street again with the Engineering Department
and the City Manager and feel that it is highly desireable to preserve this
east/west residential connection. Following are reasons for connection to
this road:
•
• 1. Eden Prairie has a long standing problem of local circulation
throughout the community. Individual neighborhoods are isolated
• and create a "you can't get there from here" situation. Iso-
lating each neighborhood concentrates traffic on a few roads
(such as County and State arterials). Utilizing these regional
road systems for local trips (and in place of local roads) un-
necessarily impedes through traffic.
2. This local collector road is designated on the Comprehensive
Guide Plan. This was done to plan a local Eden Prairie Road
network.
3. This road can be designed as a minor collector or simply a
neighborhood through road. The road would start at Valley
View Road in Edenvale (as Edenvale Boulevard) and end at
Baker Road. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the
road will be designed to discourage long through trips.
4. The intersection in this project with the north/south
industrial road can be designed to preclude industrial
traffic to or from the east, through the future residential
area.
5. The connection of the road has no adverse impact on existing
neighborhoods, and would be very beneficial to existing and
• planned residential areas.
• 6. Energy and time would be saved for all types of delivery
services, mail, police, and fire safety, school bus routes,
and City maintenance crews (snow plowing).
7. The east/west road can be designed as a positive buffer
between the residential area to the south and the industrial
to the north.
8. At total development, peak hour traffic on this east/west road
would be approximately 180 trips. This is very low for a collector
road, but high enough to reinforce the need for connection.
After a visit to the site, it became more apparent that strong buffers were •
area.
needed between the single family area and the industrial
The developer has submitted a revised proposed development plan and an
alternative "B" development plan. The revised proposed development plan
does not include a residential collector, but does preserve the southern
250' wooded buffer area.
/��t1 .
•
•
Staff Report-Eden Prairie Partnership page 3
•
•
FL00DPLAIN AND SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
The Development Plan would require 20% fill in the Nine Mile Creek floodplain.
The majority of this fill would be done adjacent to the railroad tracks in
a reach of the Creek already visually impacted. The area east of the
Creek crossing would be kept more in its natural state. The floodplain filling
is not in an area designated as public waters, but would require approval of
the Watershed District.
The project as proposed is in conformance with the Shoreland Management Act.
PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed development plan does not provide a residential through street
or residential buffer. The preservation of the southwestern 250' is a
definite improvement, however, no specific proposal has been made for
buffering Outlot C. The industrial building north of the 250' buffer still
will have a very poor impact on the residential area to the east. While
this might be mitigated somewhat by landscaping, a much more compatible
• land use would be office.
•
RECOMMENDATI ONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Development Plan B,
(residential through road and single family lots north of Manchester Lane).
Included as apart of this PUD would be:
1. Development standards as submitted.
2. Designation of the 250' wooded area in the southwest corner as a
permanent buffer zone.
3. Extensive landscaping to buffer eastern side of industrial building
lying north of 250' buffer zone. •
4. East/west residential road to be designed-as a positive buffer between
the industrial and residential area.
5. Developer to work out buffer to residential property to the east and
road alignment, prior to preliminary platting.
• to two
ingle
ly
s
6 Three
ints to orderbe tocallowdadequatesdepth forigradet north
change •
up to east/west road.
7. Berming to be provided along residential lot as shown in Figure 1.
•
B. Outlot C berming to be planned for positive screening of industrial
area.
9. Lot adjacent to railroad and north of east/west road to be redesigned
to provide enlarged frontage on north/south industrial road, eliminating
access to residential street.
/570
•
• Staff Report-Eden Prairie Partnership page 4
•
( 10. All industrial buildings•.to have site plan reviewed by Planning Commis-
sion prior to Building permit issuance.
11. Revised grading plan, illustrating road grading, individual lot
grading, and all berming and screening be submitted with revised
preliminary plat.
12. Cash park fee would be applicable to this project.
The preliminary plat should not be approved at this time, but should be
revised to reflect the above conditions and returned to the Planning
Commission for review. No rezoning prior to revised plans.
•
CE:sh
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
/5-7! •
•
. .
s • ,
-. ., . . .
• • • .
-
. . . . '. .•• I. • ' .1 :
. I 4...•. • • .,• • 4 4
. . . . .
,,-• •••:• 1 i1 . r z.: . •, ,,. - . ..f:. ... . . I
. / 44 — /. i .) . I
I-I •
,.',N, •: I• I••'‘
. . .
• . • •'.7:*.',. •• r,,,-..-,:r:,:. ;‘,....,--1 • • • •,!...-/ _ •, . w,
• ........... • , ...—..1 I...."• •••4.1 .11 .• . •
•
4 • . . ; / .!. ••• % ti• Creek cross it.
, .. nil:. . Doi-::• ron • /..sso:,''. ' . - ;' ,• •••• • ‘, ' ' land fill to. ':/ - : i reviewed by
, :•ild P:in-iirig Ccir..:itaits
:...•, . . ,• •. , ii Watershed Dis
•
4 . S., iii:rin. .....;e,-.I.••...0,e..••••••
. . i .
• •
" ..:.
. . . .'.."2: .:17_2 %.-s. •• .... /..,.Kol./11V ,A '... ...,:zy . i. •
•
. L I . . ' • .A .
* * . . .7 4,-*'•- /I'' • :
., • • • .• /,•,. • . , • be designed t•. • ...,7 , ,/ ' , preclude indu-
• .
• reveloprne nt Flan 13 ---:.• • - /., '2.,2(V.., v , 1 trial traffic
•
•
' 1 the east.
•
- 4•1 ••••••
• 1 / ‘ ' .
. . .
• I .
. • . Lot to be redesigned fr.. ---/ /I', •: •
to eliminate access ,(7-----•, -...=:.•,..,./ /I.\ •.A.. . ./ ,
eep y ui 1 di ng
4 to residential street7 t( •;•:.=..-,-,• • /
. --,,:••••••••-•:• _y•• r•V :... . .
- i site summary
i - 'F-i---::'".::':: .•
- 1 ird151631' c•••••.06••••6 6 396. QIN n ". "'" .11 .,,, j) i J / / ,r,/ liCoordinate (t%
v.. 4•.,ft .. at 574 PC /t .•,...., / 4/ ' ,'''',.2y---..i V connection to
. 3
, ic..w• 377 a.
• i Unt::.s.c,,Ated 195. ,• ":41...',..,,...0<;•..' ''"<__//;/i r ,,/
, • ! , ,• .....-.."---. .
iSit160 famt'y, a 92 aC •7 71 as: •''(r.:\>•....:•.....;:z../........1 • / ,.....", /..I—--••••••••••
A • . • lotal um ae / ' `...... 0 L-...-9./ ,N,L1.---- b—
. • • 1, -,1 0.„0 ., ...., , ,-., ., _ Keep road hin•
• • • •. .
/ft; ----\-- --• • • - s' -::....:•,e- /".:1/•• ':-..;-:-.,1 (920'-) as bin
• . • --' •••%-- --.....) ,• .
.. . .7 ""•••e"--(:--.-j___\,..-.1-."'---':....j:.;•'• 11,1 ' ,),,. hange 3 lots
•• ; 1-----SS.„,-..s.--------- - --••-•-•,........-2.t.z.-;-:-:---:-:,-'7.----1-,----- 2 lots to all. .
• • • :Additional bermin I . '`"----„_---\-1----- • N; . \ .,. 1_20 10 p maximum grade.
L to block view west./;., •-•-'t / 1:,.. .........t../ , ,.. ••----:1; •-; • . '
if.•,-, ..-.,. li 4.,_,,.,._r-•.;•1\ ,...\-_--;i: •,--_-__Iii.,1 --. ' • .
k .
'. I••';.".,":.:.-1 ',I PO-isTh;l4 .•• ,_.-- T-1 I •
• //:',' . ' ''',// (i_ofificb is' ' ' . • "i• •
• • -
. ./C.'". /_.......J. 1 0 nd r /- ..-.-.••(' ‘.----1 —1
z--.• I i • b i
' ../..,••;',/-, ;/.(----jtise 7 i • i
,-..!•(-- --•••-ii. ---/
• ,••••.- , • ,, ....„,,_, /---•:•_-_ ' .. Provide extensive
.;
.
•e.: ':...:h:" c /ti ... ,-..- ; ;.j . 1 'landscape buffer.
/ •. •
---•
Berming and, :.• ....•j .7.• I: /
landscap __•_!..—...C./.......--:-- •— Designate•as per-
plan. r1 ,--1 Ii ! a I • i., manent buffer. •
•
•
' • '. " .1--J i--J.
lj i 1:_—_-1—"J..47.: I :L I ./ • • • •
• • • •
. .
-... . •,. . . .
• I
-1...-•....1..•.1-,,...,"...-\-; ....:),?•.:..i..1r. A.,••',.... .
•a !•11 :1I
.1.. • •-•—•••••-• 1.• 11.:• 1 •411 1: .,..,
• ,•• _L--;---- 1,-, •
• i . ..
. • . . a'
... ll) ) - - •' ._. .•- • ••••
• . .. ._................ 1
• HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
Iepon9DfAT[D
CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE G R O V E L A N D TERRACE
• MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 56403
Olt•1Tt•1610
•
6 July 1982 •
•
William Bearman, Chairman
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 •
' 'Dear Chairman and Members:
On 14 June 1982, the Eden Prairie Partnership received Concept Approval
from the Planning Commission for their Industrial Planned Unit
Development. The approved proposed development plan includes a loop
road which serves six office-warehouse sites. Preliminary plat
approval and rezoning were to be given upon completion of the following
conditions:
1. The plaposed 50 foot buffer be expanded to 75 feet;
2. The buffers should be worked out with the neighbors prior to
Preliminary Plat approval;
3. A revised overall grading plan should be submitted which
includes the proposed grading of Outlot C, buffers, and
individual lots; and
4. A revised Preliminary Plat should be submitted.
•
The attached Preliminary Plat, Site, Grading, and Planting Plans have
been revised to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations.
The 50 foot buffer on the east side of the southern-most site has been
expanded to 75 feet. The hill which buffers the views of the Wymans,
Strikers, and Ryes to the existing industrial uses to the north will
be graded to strengthen its function as a visual screen. The peak
elevation of the hill will be extended into a berm to the south within
the 75 foot buffer strip. The berm will be planted with a mixture of
evergreen and canopy trees and shrubs to provide year-round screening.
The Striker residence is more directly influenced by the development
of the southern-most lot. Mr. and Mrs. Striker have reviewed the
proposed buffer treatment and have expressed to us their satisfaction.
))
). i
/
•
William Beaman, Chairman
and Members of the Planning Commission 6 July 1982
City of Eden Prairie Page 2
The site plan for the southeast lot has been revised in an attempt to
satisfy the requests of Mr. noel and Mr. Sather, neighbors to the south.
In the previous plan the building was located along the 100 foot
buffer line with parking on the north side. The south wall of the
building will be bermed to within four feet of the top edge. This
solution would have required extensive grading on the east and south
side and the removal of some existing trees. In the revised plan the
buffer has expanded from 100 feet to 150 feet on the east and angles
to 100 feet on the west side. The building is located on the north-
. west portion of the site and parking is located to the east. A planted
berm located along the buffer line will screen the parking and building.
This solution is more effective than the previous plan because it will
require less grading, save more trees, and move the building from 100
feet to 180 feet back from the south property line.
A few of the adjacent neighbors were concerned that rooftop utilities
would be visible and the noise produced would be annoying. The
developers have agreed to incorporate in the PUD Agreement that all
air conditioning units and other disturbing rooftop utilities shall
be located on the ground away from residents.
The attached revised grading plan at a scale of 1"=50' illustrates
road grades, berming, and individual lot grades as requested by the
City staff. The Preliminary Plat also illustrates revisions in lot
configurations and buffer easements.
Throughout the course of this project, the Eden Prairie Partnership
has agreed to work out any reasonable screening and buffering solutions
with the neighbors and staff. The solutions illustrated in the revised
plans are the result of collaborative efforts between the developers,
staff, and residents and we feel are reasonable compromises between all
parties.
We will be in attendance at the 12 July meeting to present the revised
plans and answer any questions regarding the Eden Prairie Partnership's
proposed Industrial Planned Unit Development.
S. el ,
• Ge ff�Mar-tin
Lands.apt Architect/Site Designer
enclosures
I 1 '
•
• HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
iNCOAOOaAtLD
CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE G R O V E L A N D TERRACE
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55403
612•377-3536
7 June 1982
William Bearman, Chairman and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members:
As you will recall, we appeered at your 19 May meeting representing
the Eden Prairie Partnership and presented their proposed 32 ± acre
industrial planned unit development. The following key issues were
discussed at that meeting and the item was continued until your 14 June
meeting.
The Planning Commission members and several neighboring property owners
expressed concerns reyardirg the proposed development. Both Chairman
Bearman and Commissioner Marhula expressed concern about the decision
not to provide for the residential collector street as called for on
the Comprehensive Plan. The bulk of the other concerns which were
raised were focused on the development of three areas along the
southern and eastern boundaries of the property, and the adequacy of
proposed buffers in these areas.
Since the 19 May meeting, we have discussed this matter with City staff.
Although they will clearly want to elaborate on their position in a
•
staff report, it is our understanding that they favor the following
solution:
1. No residential collector.
2. Single family residential off the end of Manchester Lane.
3. A small office building in the southern-most lot (east
of the Bury exception).
We have met with our clients to discuss this matter and they have
agreed to some significant plan modifications to respond to the various
concerns. However, they remain very concerned that the staff
recommendation leaves the issue of the collector street at least
•
1j/)
William Bearman, Chairman and
Members of the Planning Commission 7 June 1982
City of Eden Prairie Page 2
potentially unresolved. With the time period of their purchase agreement
on the subject property running out, the Eden Prairie Partnership is
concerned about the prospect of another collector street-related
continuance.
As we view this development, its future will involve a variation on
one of two scenarios. These two scenarios are simply:
1. development which accommodates the residential collector
street as shown on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan,
and
• 2. a development which does not include this collector.
As is so frequently the case in such decisions, there are advantages
and disadvantages to both scenarios. The paragraphs which follow
include a brief discussion of these problems and opportunities and a
statement of the developer's position regarding both scenarios.
SCENARIO 1: Development Without Residential Collector, Proposed
Development Plan
At the 19 May meeting, the residential collector was discussed
and it was explained that both adjacent neighboring property
owners and the developer of the property to the east of the
Franklin National Bank property (Centurion Homes) are strongly
opposed to this collector. Although our original plans
accommodated this roadway, at an initial meeting with City staff,
we were directed to provide access to the entire development
off a single looped industrial road.
This street system is preferred by the developer and is shown
on the proposed Development Plan which has been submitted for
your review. The area which is most directly affected by this
decision (whether or not to include the collector street) is
the area just north of the Hoel residence and Sather home and
the stubbed section of Manchester Lane. The proposed Development
Plan proposes:
1. no extension of Manchester Lane,
2. the provision of a 100 foot setback and buffer yard,
3. the preservation of the land form and the commitment
to design a building into this parcel,
/j)/D
•
William Bearman, Chairman and
Members of the Planning Commission 7 June 1982
City of Eden Prairie Page 3
4. the retention of the existing trees in this area, and
5. the addition of new landscape materials to enhance the
natural buffer.
Both alternatives propose the same solution for the southern-
most lot including the 250 foot rural zone strip, and Outlot
A. Therefore, it is appropriate to discuss these areas in
the context of the proposed development plan.
Southern-Most Lot, 250 Foot Rural Zoned Parcel. Clearly, the
most valuable natural area on the entire 32 acre parcel is the
' heavily wooded area at its extreme southern border. The
previous plan proposed a 100 foot setback in this area, a
considerable encroachment into the woods and the removal and
destruction of many valuable trees.
The proposed development for this area calls for a 42,800
square foot office/warehouse building (a reduction of 17,200
square feet of building from the previous plan) on this
southern-most lot. The proposed plan provides the entire
250 foot wooded, rural zoned portion of the lot as a buffer
area. This change greatly improves the buffering and screening
of the proposed use from the most difficult adjacent lots.
Every attempt will be made to increase the proposed east-west
setback of 50 feet in the actual development of this parcel.
However, given the grading and drainage complications on this
site, the developer is hesitant to commit to a greater setback
at this time. The developer continues to extend the offer to
all affected neighbors to work with them to identify and
• implement the best screening and buffering plan for their
unique situation.
Outlet C. The southern border of Outlot C is predominantly
unwooded. The proposed plan proposes access to the site from
Li. ort with no extensi ,^ of Canterbury Lane. A 100 foot
setback`to any activity is proposed along with a screening
planting and an agreement to reforest the area over a reasonable
period.
L•
SCENARIO 2: Residential Collector Provided
The Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan shows the extension of an east—
/7 7
William Bearman, Chairman and
•
Members of the Planning Commission 7 June 1982
City of Eden Prairie Page 4
west residential collector street across the Franklin National
Bank property. The proposed function of this roadway
(residential collector) has serious land use and site planning
implications when routed through an industrial park.
The solution which appears clearly intended by the Comprehensive
Plan is to use the residential collector to provide the northern
border of the residential neighborhood. This basic neighborhood
design concept is evident in the majority of the planned cities
in this Region. Consistent with this design would be the
extension of Manchester Lane to connect with this collector. It
is evident that at least some extension of this roadway was
understood at the time the plans for the Ponderosa Hills
Subdivision were approved, since it was stubbed and not cul-de-
sacced.
If the City decides to require this residential collector, it
is the Eden Prairie Partnership's request that the Planning
Commission recommend Concept Approval, and Preliminary Plat
Approval for Development Plan B. This plan proposes a
cul-de-sac at the end of Manchester Lane and three single
family Jots (average lot size 0.92 acres). It is the developer's
position that this transition is reasonable with the collector
street proposed. However, we feel that if the collector is not
extended, the 100 foot setback and retention of existing trees
proposed along with the Proposed Development Plan is a better
solution for both the neighbors and the developers.
CONCLUSION
Copies of this letter and prints of both development plans have
been sent to each adjacent property owner. We would, therefore,
like to once again express our willingness to meet with and
discuss the unique buffering and screening requirements of each
individual property. The Eden Prairie Partnership has once
again assured us that they are committed to any reasonable
screening and buffering solution. We will be in attendance at
your 14 June meeting to present the revised plan and answer any
questions which you might have regarding the Eden Prairie
Partnership's position. k.
Sincerely,
Joh Shardlow
cc: Norm Undestad Thomas Allen, Franklin National Bank
Lloyd'Peterson Adjacent Property Owners
•
May 19, 1982
Christopher M. Petersen
Carolyn D. Parsons
6714 Canterbury Lane
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Sirs:
This letter is in comment to the proposed use and rezoning of land
entitled Eden Prairie Partnership Industrial PUD.
We applaud Undestad Investment Company and Howard Dahlgren Associates for
an aesthetically pleasing proposal in terms of screening and landscaping
the industrial park. However, we are opposed to the proposal for the
following reasons:
1) There is potential for a large increase in noise pollution for
the adjoining neighborhood. Although Undestad has assured us that
the industrial park will be used for "warehousing", the type of
warehousing has not been described. If it is intended for use as
a distribution center, then there will be semitrucks arriving and
departing at all hours of the day and night. A compromise guarantee
that the trucks would only have access to the industrial park during
daytime hours would be unenforceable and easily ignored after the
park opened. Additionally, there may be noise 24 hours a day due to
refrigeration or air conditioning units in the warehouses. The
proposed landscaping will visually screen the industrial park, but
will have minor impact on noise reduction.
2) There is potential for an increase of crime due to the close
proximity of the industrial park to a residential area. In addition
to greater accessibility to the homes, there would also be much more
convenient routes for removing property from the homes. The park
would also provide greater opportunity for loitering and "casing" of `-
homes.
3) There is potential loss of resell value to residences in the area.
This would be due to the previous two reasons plus the loss of aesthetic
appeal to the lots. Although tastes do differ, it is assumed that
most potential homebuycrs would prefer a view of an undeveloped woodsy
lot to a warehouse.
•
-2-
l Although every landowner (and developer) certainly has the right to
use his land, we feel that the welfare of the current residents in the
area must first be considered. As such, we see no benefits to the
proposed industrial park and numerous detriments as previously outlined.
As former residents of several rapidly growing communities, we have had
the unfortunate experience of watching several well-meaning communities
grow into sprawling urban messes. We don't want to see this happen to
Eden Prairie. We see no reason for an industrial park to be placed so
close to a residential area. •
We urge the planning commission not to approve zoning of the currently
undesignated zones to I-2.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Petersen
Carolyn D. Parsons
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION •'
320 Washington Av. South u l
u Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 \_•s
HENNEPIN
935-3381
May 18, 1982
Mr. Chris Enger
Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
•
Dear Mr. Enger:
RE Proposed Plat - "Eden Prairie Partnership - Industrial PUI1'
CSAH 67 SE Quadrant of Chicago Northwestern Railway
Section 3, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No. 1021 •
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review
of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found
it acceptable with consideration of these conditions:
-To help limit the number of access points onto CSAH 67 and to provide the
minimum safe distance of approximately 150 feet between the railroad crossing
and the street intersection, the developer must use the westerly access point
previously approved by Hennepin County for Westwood Industrial Park as stated
in the August 19, 1981 letter (Attachment 1).
-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,
James H. Wold, P.E.
Chief, Planning and Programming
JM ILr :p1
Attachment
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opporlunity employer
c!)
• HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
INCOAPORrtCO
CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE GROVE LAND TERRACE
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55403
• 612•377.3b35
14 May 1982
William Bearman, Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
ATT TION: Chris Enger, Planning Director
' RE:Eden Prairie Partnership Proposed Industrial Development
Dear Chairman Bearman and Members of the Commission:
Enclosed for your review is a copy of revised site sections and a
survey prepared by RCM, Inc. which locates all trees within the
proposed 50 foot buffer yard, along the eastern edge of the
southern-most lot of the Eden Prairie Partnership development. This
survey also locates all of the trees 20 feet into the adjacent resi-
dential lots and the first floor elevations of all of the homes
located in this area. The revised sections incorporate the information
contained on this survey.
Please be'advised that section e - e' has also been revised following
a site inspection and discussion with the abutting land owner, Mr.
Sather, 6511 Manchester Lane. The revised grading and landscape
concepts for this area will allow much of the existing dense
vegetation to be retained and the proposed building to be screened
in a more effective manner. This approach to the handling of this
area was suggested by Mr. Sather, and we have sent a copy of the
revised drawing to him for review and comment.
Clearly one of the most sensitive areas on the entire 32 ± acre parcel
is the densely wooded 250 foot strip along the extreme southern-bor'der
of the property. This area contains many valuable oak trees, as well
as other hardwood and softwood species. The land is currently zoned
Undesignated. k.
We have discussed the future disposition of this portion of the
property with our clients and City staff. We all agree that it would
Pc?
William Boatman, Chairman
Members of the Planning Commission - 14 May 1982
City of Eden Prairie Page 2
be truly a shame to remove the trees in this area for industrial
development. However, as you know, this is valuable land and cannot
simply be taken for public purpose without some reasonable financial
consideration. The following table summarizes the area of land which
is currently proposed to remain permanently undeveloped to protect
Nine Mile Creek and the associated wetland.
PERCENT
AREA OF TOTAL
Outlot A 1.16 acres
Outlot B 3.0 acres
SUBTOTAL 4.16 acres 13%
•
Undesignated Area 1.95 acres 6%
TOTAL 6.11 acres 19%
The 4.16 acres contained in Outlots A and B already account for 13
percent of the total acreage in this development. As this table also
illustrates, the addition of the 1.95 ± acres in the area zoned
"Undesignated" would increase this to 6.11 acres, or 19 percent of
the gross acreage of the project.
We have discussed this matter with our clients. In addition to their
fundamental financial concern, they have raised a number of practical
concerns as well. For instance, if this entire 250 foot strip were to
remain undeveloped, how should it be platted, and who should ultimately
be responsible for it? It is highly unlikely that a proposed developer/
operator of an office/warehouse would be interested in also purchasing
a two acre private park. It's clear that this area is a natural
amenity for the abutting neighborhood.
Residents who attended the informational meeting on 22 April stated that
they enjoy the natural character of the area and the buffer which it
provides from the nearby industrial area. If it were to be retained,
it would clearly be to serve this public purpose. Therefore, even if t.
the City were to determine that this area should not be developed as
a passive park, it would fall under the definition of "public purposes"
as it is addressed in the State Legislation addressing public
dedication. It should also be noted that this same Statute addresses
the preservation of stream beds and wetlands as also serving the same
William Bearman, Chairman •
Members of the Planning Commission 14 May 1982
City of Eden Prairie Page 3
public purpose, and therefore, some consideration should be given in
this regard for the land contained in Outlots A and B.
In summary, the Eden Prairie Partnership acknowledges that this
southern-most section of their proposed development contains valuable
natural features and should be protected. They stand ready to
negotiate any reasonable scenario to accomplish this objective. The
plan which has been submitted continues to propose the retention of a
100 foot buffer strip, which we are confident would successfully
accomplish the objective of visually screening the proposed development.
We have discussed a number of these issues with Chris Enger and we
agree with his conclusion that a subsequent design review of
individual sites should be attached as a condition of approval. We
have understood the need for this type of review from the beginning
and due to this need we agreed to represent•Eden Prairie Partnership
only on the condition that they process their project as a Planned
Unit Development. It was also in recognition of the difficult
relationships which exist between the subject property and adjacent
single family lots that we had an informational meeting with these
neighbors on 22 April.
At the informational meeting we presented our preliminary concept and
extended the offer to work with each of them to develop and implement
an acceptable landscape buffering solution for each of the unique
situations. It should be noted that although our clients may sell
some of these individual lots for development by others, the Eden
Prairie Partnership has agreed to undertake all of the necessary
rough grading and the planting of all necessary buffer yards before
any development occurs on the property.
In conclusion, this 32 acre parcel poses many complicated issues which
must be addressed in the development review and approval process.
Throughout our planning and design of this development our clients
have expressed a willingness to comply with any reasonable conditions
of appro"al. We look forward to attending your meeting on 19 May to
make a full presentation of the Eden Prairie Partnership proposal and
to working with you in determining the proper settlement of the impor-
tant issues which lie ahead.
Sincerely, c.
Jo . Shardlow
P cipal Planner
cc: Thomas Allen, President Norm Undestad
Franklin National Bank Undestad Investment Company
2/8/77
June, 1982
•
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORI:SHEET (EAW)
AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
E.R. #
•
NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to provide
information on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the
project requires an Environmental impact Statement. Attach additional
pages, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. Your
answers should be as specific as possible. Indicate which answers are
• estimated.
I. SUMMARY
A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON)
•R Negative Declaration (No EIS) l J EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required)
B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION
1. Project name or title Eden Prairie Partnership Industrial P.U.D.
2. Project proposer(s) Undestad Investment Company
5001 78th Street West
Address 1045 Southgate Office Plaza, Bloomington. Minnesota 55437
Telephone Number and Area Code (612 ) 831-1289
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 EAW: Chris Enger Telephone (612) 937-2262
4. This RAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in-
spection and/or copying at: Location 8950 Eden Prairie Road
Telephone 937-2262 Hours 8am-4:30pm
5. Reason for EAW Preparation
XX Mandatory Category -cite • O Petition E'Other
MLQC Rule number(s) 24 (bb)
at least 175,000 sq. ft. industrial space
C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
1. Project location
County Hennepin City/Township name Eden Prairie
Township number 116 (North), Range Number 22 East or West (circle one),
Section number(s) 3 Street address (if in city) or legal description:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
- , -
2. Type and scope of proposed project:
32 acre office/warehouse industrial park with 303,000 sq. ft. of space.
3. Estimated starting date (month/year) Fall, 1982
4. Estimated completion date (month/year) Fall,1984
5. Estimated construction cost Complete costs are approximately $22/square foot
6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed
from each unit of government and status of each:
Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval Status
(federal, state, or Federal Funding
regional, local)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PUD Development Plan Approval Submitted for Approval
-Planning Commission & City Council Building Permits Will be applied for as
necessary
NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Watershed District Permit To he submitted after City
approvals
MINNESOTA DNR The requirement of a permit from the DNA will be determined
when specific designs for creek rehabilitation are known.
7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS
be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act? NO YES UNKNOWN
•
II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
A. Include the following maps or drawings:
1. A map showing the reyiu,ial location of the project.
2. An original 8'2 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 71/2 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 subject property is presently vacant. Immediately to the north and west
are existing industrial uses. A Chicago-Northwestern Railway borders the
west property line. Single family residences exist along the south property
line and the land is vacant to the east.
2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are:
a. Urban developed 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) 0 acres
b. Urban vacant 26.5 acres g. Shoreland 7 acres
c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 5.64 acres
d. Rural vacant 5.5 acres i. CroplancVPasture land 0 acres
e. Designated Recro- 0 acres j. Forested 3.0 acres
ation/Open Space
•
2 ' j
a
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.
Nine Mile Creek is located in the northern portion of the site.
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 plan includes six office/warehouse buildings ranging in size from 40,000 square
feet to 58,000 square feet with a total of 303,000 square feet. A loop road will be
extended from County Road 67 to the north to Birch Island Drive to the west. Combined
access poirts between adjacent lots provide access for trucks and service vehicles to
the loading dock areas. Loading docks are situated internally to screen all industrial
activities from single family residents and through traffic. Landscaped buffers of
100 feet and 50 feet are provided between the single family homes and office warehouse
uses.
Development staging is as follows: Mass grading, road construction, and utilities are
•
(SEE ATTACHED PAGE)
2. Fill in the following where applicable:
a. Total project area 32 acres g. Site of marina and access 0 sq. ft.
or channel.(water area)
Length 0 miles h. Vehicular traffic trips
generated per day 2,070 ADT
b. Number of housing or
recreational units 0 i. Number of employees 364-436
c. Height of structures 18 ft. j. Water supply needed 4,500 gal/da
Source:
d. Number of parking
spaces 485 k. Solid waste requiring
disposal 250 tons/yr
e. Amount of dredging 0 cu. yd.
1. Commercial, retail or
f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space 303,000 sq. ft.
ing treatment 0 gal/da
III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY
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 site is characterized predominantly by lolling topography with old field vegetation.
The majority of the slopes, range from 6-12% with 0-6% slopes located in low pockets
and slopes over 12% located randomly around the perimeter of the site. A pocket of
peaty muck will be filled in the southwest portion of the site and graded to
accommodate development. Buildings on the cast portion of the site will be built and
step down slopes to minimize g..uu,ileg. A retaining structed ll in htheemade
south central portion of the srt'e where a cut along the side of the hill wi
to accomod ate the loop road.
•
4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic
systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project.
The majority of the site consists of Burnsville Sandy Loam with a large pocket of filled
land in the central portion of the site. These soil's have good bearing capacity for
foundations according to Hennepin County Soil Survey.
5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done:
100,000 cu. yd. grading 77,000 cu. yd. filling 66 4
What percent of the site will be so altered?
6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 2.5:1 or 40%
7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and
after construction?
During construction straw bales will be staked in strategic locations to direct and
slow water run-off and minimize erosion. After final grading all slopes will be
seeded, mulched, and overlayed with a biodegradable mesh. Slopes in buffer areas
will be planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees. All subject to approval of Nine
B. VEGETATION Mile Creek Watershed District.
' 1. • Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following
vegetative types:
Woodland 9.3 % Cropland/ --%
Pasture
Grass, Brush or shrubs 73.7 % Harsh 17 t
Grass or herbaceous -- % Other Y
(Specify)
2. How many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, it any?1.15 acres
3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique
botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNR publication
The Uncommon Ones.) .x NO YES
if yes, list tine species or area and indicate any measures to be used
to reduce potential adverse impact.
•
C. FISH AND WILDLIFE
1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage-
ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? X NO YES
2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife
on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncommon X NO YES
Ones.)
3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish NO X YES
habitat? Some wildlife habitat will be altered in that the grassland and
portions of the woodlands will he developed for office/warehouse uses.
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.
Animal and bird species associated with sandy environments will be
displaced by construction. The buffer area around the site and
Creek Conservancy Area can provide habitat.
4
D. HYDROLOGY
I. 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, marsh, NO YES
lowland or groundwater supply __ E
b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X
c. Dredging or filling operations _._ E
d. Channel modifications or diversions __ _IL_
e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water - _X_
f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- x
section of water bodies on or near the site
•
2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 42 %
3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run-
off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sedirent, oil, gas, etc.)?
The proposed office/warehouse development should have normal urbanizing surface run-off
characteristics. The urbanized portion of the site will drain into street with curb
and gutter and ultimately into storm sewers at various points. A sedimentation pond
has been provided to collect sediment from run-elf before it enters Nine Mile Creek.
4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain X YES
by new fill or structures? ND
If yes, does it conform to the local £loodplain ordinance? NO X
YES
5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on 5 feet
the site? According to the County Soil Survey, the depth to
ground water is usually below five feet in areas with a sandy loam soil and within a
E . WATER QUALITY foot of the surface in of process ty muck orcooling water,, sanitary sewage
1. Will therew be a dischargetwater body or to groundwater? X NO YES
If others, pecif waters to any of pollutants and the
If yes, specify the volume, the concentration
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 discharge of waste water to the treatment plan will not contain any toxic,
corrosive, or unusual pollutants.
3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? NNO YESIf yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method
of disposal.
No sludges will be generated by the proposed project.
•
S —
4. What measures will be used tp minimize the volumes or impacts identified
in questions 1-3?
5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile,
depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal.
The property will not include a landfill.
F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates
into the atmosphere? N0 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 approxi-
mate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the
• emission control measures or devices.
Emissions from construction equipment will occur during building stages.
•
2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation
of the project? N0 X YES
If yes, des--=^^ `he noise source(s); spocif_y decibel levels [dD(1.1], a
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 following table shows decibell levels at the machine and at a
distance of 250 feet. (see ATTACHED SHEET)
3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or
-reduced air quality-(hospitals,elderly housing, wilderness, wildlife
areas, residential developments; etc.) are in the affected area and give
distance from source.
The minimum distance between a proposed loading dock and a single family home is 300
feet. In all cases, the warehouse buildings and a densely planted buffer strip will
separate single family residents from loading docks after completion. During construct-
grading will be done up to the southeastiproperty
line. Thee estimated closestted time
resid
perfor is
G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY will be minimal.
1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production
or currently in such use? X NO YES
If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop
or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use.
No portion of this site is currently in use for agriculture or forestry production.
2. Are there any known t.ineral or peat deposits on the site? NO X YES
-
If yes, n;aci`y the tyre of deposit and the acre ate.
A 1.97 acre depression of peaty muck exists in the west central portion of the site.
•
•
-
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 ncily) Anticipated Firm Contract or
Type Requiresrent Sumner Winter Supplier Interruptible Basis?
Electric 25,000 kwh/mr NSP Interruptible
Gas 60 billion cf Plinnegasco Interruptible
• b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage.
None
c. Estimate annual energy distribution for:
space heating 40 ♦ lighting 20 t
air conditioning 45 5 processing 5 •
ventilation ]0 i
d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment
incorporated into this project.
The buildings proposed arc sited to provide opportunities for incorporating passive
or active solar energy measures. Buildings to the east are to be built into the hill
or bermed.
•
e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project
(e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc)I
H. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or
open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails,
lake accesses)? NO X YES
If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the
project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts.
A quasi-public open space (flood plain area) area is located approximately 350 feet
to the west of the property across the railroad tracks. The proposed development will
not have any adverse affects on the open space.
•
• I i
— 7 —
•
•
H. 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. ror
these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and
percentage of truck traffic (if highway)] and indicate how they will be
affected by the project (e.g. congestion, percentage of truck traffic,
safety, increased traffic (ADT), access requirements).
Automobile and truck traffic will be increased on County Road 67. Most traffic
will be enroute to and from Interstate 494 which is one-half (1) mile to the east.
Of the estimated 2100 ADT all will travel Co. Rd. 67 then disperse to Baker Road
off 1-494.
2. Is mass transit available to the site?
X NO YES
MTC Bus service is provided along County Road 4 - 3/4 mile to the west of the site.
3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to
reduce adverse impacts?
•
•
•
J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES comprehensive
1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regionalNO X YES
plans?
If not, explain:
The proposed plan is a detailed sketch illustrating development of land use transitions as
proposed in the comprehensive plan.
•
• If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing
zoning and change requested.
Currently, of the total 32 acres, 26.5 are zoned I-2 (Industrial Park) and 5.5
acres are zoned as Rural. The 5.5 acres would have to be rezoned from Rural to
I-2. •
•
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.
The character of the existing industrial uses bordering to the north and west of
the site is that of an old-style industrial development with
Sextexterior
rl rfunscreened
storage of heavy equipment, and building materials.
the
buildings are plain concrete block or metal and surrounded by unpaved, dusty
parking lots. The single family residences to the south are well established,
middle- to upper income homes on lots averaging 22,500 square feet. .
(see ATTACHED SHEET)
•
•
-
3. How many employees will move into the area to be near the project? N/A
How much new housing will be needed? N/A
4. Will the project induce development nearby--either support services
or similar developments? NO
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 4,500 ± gal/da I yes
wastewater treatment 2,250 ± gal/da yes
sewer 2,600 ± feet yeS
schools ?'.ONE pupils yes
solid waste disposal 20 ton/mo yes
streets .33 miles yeS
other (police, fire, etc) yes
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?
The City of Eden Prairie is planning to extend a sanitary sewer line through the site
which is to be constructed this summer.
6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part
of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or
program reviewed by the EQC? X NO _YES
If yes, specify which area or plan.
7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release
or disposal of ;otentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids on
gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisions,
etc? X NO YES
If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures
to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents.
B. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement
nt of the
facility require special measures or plans?
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? XNO YES
• Might any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected
• by the activity? NO YES
3. List any site or structure identified in.1 and 2 and explain any
impact on them.
•
•
L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have been
identified in the previous sections.
III. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse impacts that have not been described before.
•
I•
. •
- 10 -
•
•
V. FINDINGS
The project is a private ( ) governmental ( X ) action. The Responsible Agency
(Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors
in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings.
1. The project is ( ) is not ( X ) a major action.
State reasons:
2. The project does ( ) does not ( X ) have the potential for significant
environmental effects.
State reasons:
3. (For private actions only.) The project is ( ) is not ( ) of more than
local significance.
State Reasons:
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION
NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed
until the date of publication of the notice in the EQC Monitor section of
the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of the EAW to the EQC constitutes
a request for publication of notice in the Eg_C_Monitor.
A. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible
Agency or the Responsible Person identified below. Based on the above findings,
the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete
either 1 or 2).
1. _'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 �� ;�
•
2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE
--An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a
major action and has the potential for significant environmental
effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than
local significance.
a. The F9:QC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the
project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances,
the .MEQC c n specifically authorize limited construction to begin or
continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this
project, specify the extent of progress recommended and the reasons.
•• b. Date Draft LIS will be submitted:
(month) (day) (year)
(MEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 120 days
of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the EQC Monitor. If
special circumstances prevent compliance with this time limit, a
written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request .
must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.)'
c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) or
Person(a)):
Signature
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Title
Date
B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed
to all points on the official EQC distribution list, to the city and county
directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be
directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question III.J.4 on pace 9
of the EAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW
which is sent to the EQC.
C,. Billing procedures for EQC Monitor Publication
State agency Attach to the EAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 •
ONLY: form (State Register General Order Form--available at Central
Stores). For instructions, please contact your Agency's
Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of the
State Register--(612) 296-8239.
: — 12 — 1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Eden Prairie Partnership
II. C. 1. planned to be completed by Fall of 1982. The sanitary
sewer installation will be coordinated with the City's plan
for installation of a line passing through the subject property
from Edenvale Boulevard to the west. This sewer line is to be
constructed this summer. Berm construction and planting of the
buffers will proceed after mass grading is completed. Building
construction is expected to proceed from the northern-most site.
II. F. 2. MAXIMUM dBA
EQUIPMENT AT MACHINE RANGE AT 250 FEET
Scraper 80 - 115 64 - 100
Bulldozer 88 - 105 73 - 90
Motor Scraper 78 - 96 • 63 - 81
•
Source: T. Priede, 1971, "Noise in Engineering and
Transportation and Its Effects on the Community",
Society of Automotive Engineers, New York
Grading will be carried out during normal daylight working
hours.
The office/warehouse development will include
architecturally designed buildings with paved parking lots
screened with berms and plant materials. All storage of materials
will be enclosed and loading docks will be screened from
residential areas by building massing. Buffer strips have been
provided for the creation of intensively planted and bermed
screened. Truck and service traffic will be directed north to
County Road 67 keeping residential and industrial traffic
separated.
•
• I� �)'1
•
• I ✓ • h ,( lc
••.. r f I .
/, .•1••y �. ` •�, .11 ��. II 9,t III' N •'.
' 'fr.:1I ✓ • 11i I;,,t, , Lob r S1 rdN'Otr1. '
( 4� 1.•7 )• p f i")I r i11 .,r \(ir 11� I ' )\ <('4''' c:. !. ,.
, 1•1 • '• f 11 t 1 of J11 �Xi : T
• 1• T
.� i ((,:6� • 'Cl '.I
i ff fldrll,,. I. • i (a1. �.J t••1 • Si4 el ul r� m
\ k •1f 111 tt i �1
a.e 1 4 .� / •{ i� _ 1 II i• .<ro gulf • ��
/ I \ 11 ,✓ . , C• �t (ilul Lake ;•C • \_ r :}r = 1 •'• ,-
• , /( • •
' � 1/ l "P' \Lam• •Il 1 e • _ •� ' j; • ? 9r\ •. ,( t� '•• am ;A ,Clc1 ake oj:i' f' .v (-'w
,r
\ .•• ... 7.)••••:-7.: ''A\. L'''''. c—(`)11' ''l' 2\i: '
•
• � , wn,nr a r�l— P \ � 1".: �1 It• \.�� •G�
•
' fi g •. 1 f J7 I• v •
� (.. • . o
`• ��. \\
,. � • _-L '—•.�•) �'• cictl c \� ••v I 1 , rt _, I
l `_.�, �, = ' Ii t ator m r� r nr" jl i a''___—_ �'I I,�,_, ___.
_ t L C - ''�' n t 'f'^�� I• \ �� -c Cam—,f� 1 I �,
-� c i'I" {, cAtl,C Inu 1nCf,el (/ •'1 0. < a(,n 1 Y,( C: I . \ l
•
-- .� ` p _ , Si �_' (w -')(1 �+ • \ •�
e9r ,iipt I a. r �•t� '.'-y' a" '�
- ',".v --T ..... ....16---.;-:•....',',''../ s.\:".:,;(1 ''',•'11'. :_f .,/i . •,•::::' V , '''', \_A\i . ,,,7•:. c.,7°) •
• -mil y▪ \� J • �/ ••� 'l • a. ) '1(' �� \ \. d .\ '` - ..
�_. �, , rULN CPItAIR • ,k ` ,� `• p k:l �C {( a (.1 1� r c�-L\i tl�� � �) tl 1 i( �1�� �1 1 gy.�"�(7/
A \ • N �A • .4 e3e 'V•.vJ
• Alir ` .: it �,nrilrl 1 th,,aatLake
— , .,\l ° y J -�; . it .11. f.
( \ \ ,; 'Golf Cows�� 7I i �e" '1 w� , c\
\� .. _ l . l an�o e i i•' V \:
too5 t vnee Cv v.CW. ' 'tl°!1)ry 1 •1 tn•� i• ' I \) 10 nf`..` \ \ :• ` 1 \c V�,� +•
•. • M1:
+ e e ...\ r '„+ :i i
.rl i �� ... r 0,.. TIV,Hr f■Y :I \ i.'7 1 ( •• (,rh • ...
• •• U �:; , ''Hopkins Quadrangle
o 1 i0
•
o1}tayl BYO.. I o..taw( 1
Q) f ri!I �� t I _--ANOKA CO. I cwu«.ua I ' ---_-
1r0! C 2. ....a,. I <.o. I ... ,..( I . ..1 ..w wxo.
w,�! I' I 1 w.,r..., I
o��y , I J��w� • .--
F 1'yr ... I�j t L,
�w(N C1 _ i (..na ti C4 «..
Er
.. • .„ , WASNI GTON CO
ss(e T <o' -r------
�..etrrea. HENNEPIN CO. • • ..I "".".1
..r I I l[1-r ` -.±,•r ..�: ca.,r I , e
•
_ I .hF ..n • 4` r
5.4010. I E'r. __I°O i.. woe . - „ I--
''�
RAM Y CO
,v�yaEi<nut.. .. ..ar I
--t- 1
. I .°,
L7I1 ......CAA CARVER CO1 ,ro 1 cw, ..,.0 c.s.. �.
1 Pa ---1- t.. OAKOTA CO .e
,.Wxt..,.N. I III I —• .. .t,•r
_._.•«[oc. i s...•..,, _-_—1 �'..P"I rw I• v(.«.�.a+ r ..... h..1.o.r
un. AL. I I'Ju.wa I
PA 7.114101
_j...ter, ,7----------'— I I -- 1'n L..,.
I I ooul..n
---L--.............
i—LT1-- ...
1.....---'} --4 1 jI} (n
I u.,w.., ...,.0.o •�.�,/ e
SUP,.'
-L J—.1
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
•
f"
•
•
... %,'
EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP f'/. . •
Eden Prairie, Minn. 7 , ':
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. I3 ' .
Land Planning Consultants _ /r';X' •
Mpls., Minn. ,.�... / .\\..' • j a
4•- /.
. o lop Zoo 400 ,,; t �/• - , .I,
tl L"i -- OUN '�;,!• ,. , ,, marsh
/r� \z ' , "Y ' ! .,
J A
Site Analysis: natural features ,. _ S_ \ • " /`' r`u... ..•
-_:. �-�
t !'t 'f \'. �'�, `_, Ieod No a WI
legend • et 4. ,,i
/ ldf �r 1^/ �
—ridge Sne — i/ . •• i_--% I • _
• 4++drainage'direction i �. r �• ; r I ` ��
„o tlighpoint elevation - f/!/• ""..J _ . 1 -" ��\,
MI MI I slopes 19Y.plus f • �� ' • >• '
• .• • sandy j I
•
loam--;<
•
peaty ,'/ , 'f i •t
muck •.. I
oak dominant) 1=•
/ eao woodlands � I•
s• -' & �_ y
f',/ '_.". \\\\ • 1,fit/r.• 1 �\ 'silty loam
/ ' %� ' oldfield. '-•\�iT:1N0CkW
1 I I i
•
4 !;
• - ::.'•.v.,- . / 'figure- 3
•
•
IG(Y) •
' • -
i •-, '
• ,,,,
• . ______-,..—...._, r_____
• . i•••' • „.••
• • I A ,,....- ,.. ,•—' •••• : s
• 11 „. .1,
EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP 1
' i•s i
• ...T71 \ 1
Eden • Prairie, Minn.
\ , . 1
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. ' •
il ._,.--- ',.'\4.1. I)
Land Planning Consultants IY.., ' _. .
.
• - .
Mpls., Minn. ,...: ' ..,,.:1 , .• '',-/x
,. -±- / 11
..::.; .. , I
0 100 200 400
....::: '''‘\ ot41017!›, .
• N • • SiC,- : `- ,, IV ,, 1 - .
,
- -: . , /7- met s•1 '
:Landscape. _Concept Plan : . .. y .--..--:: qr 4.;, _ I
y. .,,.. _,...‘ ..,....,:.....I,
. ,
• c ' i'.'• • "„''' ..' ‘.\ —."'"-T, 7-—
//-',,-:-.:.,\,,,,,,-,- /,7,-.." `,', • ' Ill
legend • • 7 : ,,,,--)1,,Nc--
„,./, .,,,:„...-.-...#
atlarate. snubs-sbpe stabomaux1 E.SCreenrc / •• ....••. • , ,L Ws, r
— retainng Wan
( 1 elletnR „eeS ----- ,, , . „,- -.,_ ,,,, i: y •,.- ,: -
• .: ./...:. ,-- :, -,A -,.5)0,I-- i.',;: r -- . .
_ • /e? 0.,-....,„ ,?.,„: , : .• '
• . /•••.r.' " ' -•-•W-':.-:•,- j ' 4 •-f/-; •1/-,;'-.; •
. ..
. I.: ' _. .4.:„.•/,-:-4---7-.-.-_.'rt,;---_--7-,-,-,-;::‘.%!
• ? ''. - --Sir '''. --:-... --.e:''.?0,----- 1\71-''', -()%4'''‘--12--- -.1' -
. i '•'•- --. 1•)--7."----r." 7--.5. f,r-- '.•
' '''n - -5- '.1i • - 1,E1 1:1, , .
7.,:, . :-•,.r; 0 --'•-9/:'.!,- .,,-)V::31_..ci_li i n- -.
-i
r --- . i., ,.. ..,-,-7.- i i
; 7 -, ;- - 1 c. LJ ' -
•
— :: ,:t• -- - :
p .-oultoi a / .,•: ,',. -0 I .
I •-• : , 7-''.z.,-,----... rl 7-1,--- , I
. - 1 '""'. 1,5,-:-: •: - •-••• ' ,
n 1 I —eiclj: 1 1 \ .1,,
-LI • I
• • ii_-_- -ntj= I
OPI:itTY 1I)1: JIFJCATION
Tracts B, C and E, Registered Land Survey No. 1095, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, together with an casement for road purposes
over and across the lhsterly 36.7 feet of the following described
premises: That part of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 3,
•Township.116, Range 22, described as commencing at a point on
the North line of said Northwest one-quarter distance 75 rode West
from the East line thereof; thence West along the North line of
• said Northwest one-quarter a distance of 19. 6 feet, more or less,
to the Southeasterly line of the right-of-way of the M & St.L.Railroad
(or Chicago and Northwestern Railroad); and Southwesterly along
the Southeasterly line of said right-of-way a distance of 490 feet;
then Southeasterly to a point on a line drawn parallel with and 75
rods West of the East line of said Northwest one-quarter which is
distant 780 feet South from the North line thereof; thence North paral—
lel with the East line of said Northwest one-quarter a distance of
780 feet to the point of beginning, subject to the rights of the public
over the North 33 feet for road purposes.'
There is also an easement for road purposes reserved to Albert
A. Carblom over subject Tract B plus a nonesclusive easement
for road purposes over said Tract B. There is also an casement
over all of Tract E in favor of Dennis D. Crawley and wife. •
•
4 •
I
•
EXHIBIT "A"
. • •
•
Ara%►.iDiv
Eden Prairie Partnership PUD
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 82-191
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
•
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of Ordinance 135
provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located
within the City, and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on
July 12, 1982 and considered Undestad Investment Company's request for
approval for industrial uses, and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on August 3, 1982.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Eden Prairie Partnership 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 POD approval as outlined
in the application material dated
3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the staff report
dated June 11, 1982 and July 8, 1982.
ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
, 1982.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
20NING
DESCRIPT1DNS
PARCELS TO BE RE7ONLD FROM RURAL •
TO 1-2 INDUSTRIAL PARK
•
1RACT I Di SCRIPT ION
The South 250.D0 feet of Tract C of Registered Land Survey
No. 1095, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying adjacent to the
North line of Kings Forest Addition to Stevens Heights,
according to the recorded plat thereof.
•
•
1RACT II DESCRIPTION •
•
That part of Tract C of Registered Land Survey No. 1095,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southeast of the following
described 1ine.
Beginning at a point on the Fast line of said Tract C
of Registered Land Survey No. 1095, distant 70D.00 feet
North of the Southeast corner of said Tract C of
Registered Land Survey No. 1095, said Southeast corner
also being the Northeast corner of Ponderosa Hills
according to the recorded plat thereof; thence South-
westerly to a point on the South line of said Tract C
of Registered Land Survey No. 1095, distant 400.00 feet
West of said Southeast corner of Tract C of Registered
Land Survey No. 1095 and said line there terminating.
TOTAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tract I & II above, and
Tract C, Reg.Land Survey 1095
EXHIBIT A
•
In
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _�_iaa
RESOLUTION
EAPPROVING
DEN RITHE
PE RELIMINARYPARTNERSHIP
PLAT
• OF
BE IT RESOLVED•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: .
• That the preliminary plat of Eden Prairie Partnership•
dated , 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. Frane, City Clerk
•
SEAL
•
1(o05
Eden Prairie Partnership EAW
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 82-193
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP A PRIVATE
ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on
August 3, I982 to consider the Eden Prairie Partnership proposal, and
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 32 acres of
land in northcentral Eden Prairie, and
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing on the Eden Prairie Partnership PUD request.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for Eden Prairie
Partnership because the project is not a major action which does not have
significant environmental effects and is not more than of local
significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED, this day of , 1982.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
•
'CV&
1
•
August 3, 1982
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OF EDEN PRAIRIE
twNTY OF HENNEPIN
The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows:
2953 VOID OUT CHECK $ (10,000.0:
2885 VOID OUT CHECK (22.0
2954 MINNESOTA UC FUND Payroll 201.Oi
2955 FALLS RESTAURANT Expenses-Teen Volunteer Program 105.0(
2956 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE Insurance 523.2:
2957 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN Insurance 8,437.4:
2958 BLUE CROSS INSURANCE Insurance 715.8:
2959 MEDCENTER HEALTH PLAN Insurance 2,591.2:
2960 HmO SERVICES Insurance 524.1C
2961 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. Insurance 1,691.8,
2962 NRPA Conference-Community Services 191.Oi
2963 WENDY BURNS-CARLSON Instructor-Skating 72.8,
296V MINNESOTA P.O.S.T. BOARD Fee-Police Dept. 6.6(
2965 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 5,037.E
2966 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 6,034.C'
2967 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 5,333.8
2968 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Liquor 2,P88.5
2969 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Liquor 762.8c
2970 FALLS PIZZA Expenses-Teen Volunteer Program 15.5ti
2971 PETTY CASH Tape-Community Center 40.17
9072 MRPA Fee-Recreation Oept. 10.0E
3 MRPA Fee-Recreation Dept. 30 nr.
z914 J. KRIS KRYSTOFIAK Expenses-Playground program 58,7E
2975 PREMIER RENT A CAR Car rental-Playground & Teen Volunteer Program 658.01.
2976 OUTOOORSMAN Ammunition-Police Oept. 39.00
2977 CEDAR LAKE FARMS Expenses-Senior Citizens 175.5C
2978 HENNEPIN COUNTY BAR ASSOC. Seminar-Engineering Dept. 10.00
2979 STAR & TRIBUNE NEWSPAPERS Subscription 14.91
2980 RIVERS EDGE Expenses-Teen Volunteer Program 133.00
2981 INSTY PRINTS Printing-Riley Lake Park 13.2E
2982 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Fuel tax-June 1982 195.91
2983 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Liquor 802.5:
2984 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,417.6C'
2985 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 3,444.1:
2986 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 250.5
2987 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 3,085.0
2988 MIDWEST WINE CO. Wine 3,323.9k
2989 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 402.21
2990 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Liquor 115.57
2991 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO. Wine 127.8:
2992 PAUSTIS & SONS Wine - 195.2(
2993 NELSON ENTERPRISES Freight charges-Liquor Store/Prairie Village Mall 14.4.
2994 VOID OUT CHECK
2995 MINNESOTA ICE ARENA MANAGERS Conference-Community Center 165.01
2996 EOEN PRAIRIE FIRE RELIEF City's share of benefits-Fire Oept. 46,656.0
.1''97 EOEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER Fee-Liquor Store 12.0,
98 RADISSON ARROWWOOD Expenses-Community Center 132.0
2999 ACCUEASE SYSTEMS, INC. Forms-Recreation Dept. 267.5(
3000 ACTION REDDY RENTS Equipment rental 40.0
3001 STUART ALEXANDER Mileage 55.0,.
3002 EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC. Signs-Street Maintenance 412.0:.
Page two
August 3, 1982
3 ARTEKA INCORPORATED Trees-Community Center 1,827.1[
. ,J4 AVIS 1981 Citation-Engineering Dept. 5,700.0
3005 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT, INC. Blacktop 7,875.0,
3000 AUTOTRAAC DIAGNOSIS & REPAIR Speedometer tests 30.0.
3007 BSN CORP. Tennis nets-Park Maintenance 148.'!-
300E B R W Service-Eden Road, Mitchell Road & Technology 62,002.0
Drive, City West Streets, Shady Oak Feasibility,
Valley View Road, Schooner Blvd., Highway 212
3009 BEACH BARBERS INC. Service-Park Maintenance 520.0.
3010 BRIAN BERGSTROM Softball official 143.0i
3011 DENIS BILLMEYER Softball official 198.0,
3012 GUNNHILD NICOLE BLACK Refund-Skating 23.0'.
3013 BLACK & VEATCH Service-Water Treatment Plant 6,281.1,
3014 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH COMPANY Service-Park Planning . 42.5t
3015 JOSEPH BOSTON Refund-Water & Sewer 437.0,
3016 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Service-Schooner Blvd., Autumn Woods 8,109.1(
3017 BARBARA BRIGHT Refund-Swimming 10.0:
3018 DAN BRYAN Youth Athletics official 110.0(
3019 ROZ BURNSTEIN Mileage 8.7!,
3D20 BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor. Stores 586.9'.
3021 JAMIE CAMP Refund-Racquetball • 24.O
3022 CARLSON THERMOPLASTICS Pipe, Adapters-Water Dept. 27.6(
3023 CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT Equipment parts-Street Maintenance 17.0.
3024 CASH REGISTER SALES, INC. Riboons-Liquor Store/Prairie Village Mall 7.4;
',I25 CHAMPIONSHIP AWARDS Park Signs 70.O
{ .6 CHANHASSEN LAWN 5 SPORTS Oil-Park Maintenance 27.','
su27 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE Equipment repair & parts 179.1•
3028 COMMUNITY DANCE CENTER Service-Exercise classes 153.7: .
3029 COMPUTER ELECTION SYSTEMS Supplies-Election 1,147.9,
3030 JOHN COONEY Refund-Skating 12.0'
3031 COPY EQUIPMENT Supplies-Engineering & Park Planning 130.0"
3032 DAHLEN SIGN COMPANY Signs-Park Maintenance 94.0
3033 DALCO Cleaning supplies 196.4;
3034 JESSICA DECOUX Refund-Creative Dynamics 6.0k
3035 A.B. DICK COMPANY Paper 225.5'
3036 DORHOLT PRINTING Office supplies• 40.9:
3037 LINDSEY ELLISON Refund-Swimming 7.0C
3038 DIRECTOR or FINANCE Labels-Election 136.1-*
3039 JAN FLYNN Mileage 52.2
3040 FOX, MCCUE & MURPHY Audit Service 3,283.9
3041 GARY G. GONYEA Expenses 111.5'
3042 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 17,351.8
3043 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Payroll 7,755.7
3044 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT Payroll 40.0
3045 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE Payroll 101.0
3046 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE Payroll 2,405.0
3047 WUNTED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS Payroll 73.5. .
304E PERA Payroll 12,717.7
3049 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE Payroll 20,111.'
1-150 GOPHER SIGN CO. Supplies-Water Dept. 448.4
i. 51 GRAHAM PAPER Xerox paper, colored paper 895.9
3052 W. W. GRAINGER, INC. Supplies-Sewer Dept. 5.9
3053 JACK HACKING Expenses 196.7.
3054 JOHN HALLORAN Softball official 25.0
3055 HARMON GLASS Windshield-Street.Maintenance 169.Yf
Page three
August 3, 1982
, KAREN IIARRIS-JAllERCISE Instructor-Exercise classes 556.00
3U:i7 HASTINGS BUILDING CO. Service-Staring Lake Park 17,775.0'
3058 SARA HECK Refund-Swimming 9.00
3059 HENNEPIN COUNTY DIRECTOR Service-Forestry Dept. 175.00
3060 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Supplies-Park Maintenance 161.IY
3061 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS School-Fire Dept. 100.0(
30G2 JOE HONERMANN Softball official 22.0(
3063 INTERDESIGN INC. Service-P/S & P/W 8uilding 12,387.9Y
3064 IBM Equipment maintenance & supplies 613.0
3065 INTERNATIONAL CONF. OF BLDG. Dues-Building Dept. 60.Ot
3066 J & R RADIATOR CORP. Equipment repair-Street Maintenance 28.O(
3067 ELAINE JACQUES Expenses 13.8(
3068 HEIDI JOHNSON Refund-Swimming 7.Ot
3D69 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION Conference-Fire Dept. 240.0:
3070 KEN JOHNSON Expenses-Fire Dept. 21.4(
3071 CARL JULLIE Expenses 56.3r
3D72 K MART Tennis balls-Recreation Dept. 7.80
3D73 JOSEPH KASID Softball official 154.0(
3074 TOM KEEFE Softball official 341.0C'
3075 KEVIN M. KOHLS Softball official 176.0C
3076 VOID OUT CHECK •
3077 J. KRIS KRYSTOFIAK Mileage 78.2r
3D78 LANDCO EQUIPMENT Equipment parts 15.2t
3079 M.E. LANE, INC. Insurance 27,868.0,
-10 LAND EQUIPMENT, INC. Twine-Riley Lake Park 25.5(
• ,1 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES L P Records-Community Center 57.'U
3082 L.O.G.I.S. June service. 4,567.1:
3083 KAREN MARTINSON Refund-Creative Drama 6.D(
3084 ROBERT N. MARTZ Expenses 154.3C
3085 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL June 1982 SAC Charges 39,550.E
3D86 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL Sewer Service 5O,574.5
3087 MIDLAND PRODUCTS COMPANY Supplies-Concession stand/Round Lake & Community 883.7
Center
3D88 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Service 391.4`
3089 MINNESOTA ICE ARENA MANAGERS Dues-Community Center 50.0' •
3090 MINNESOTA PARK & RECREATION Fees-Softball 150.0,
3091 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND, INC. Netting-Community Center 125.0'
3092 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC Service 35.0•1
3093 MIRROR FACTORY Equipment-Community Center 116.:
3094 RAY MITCHELL Expenses-Fire Dept. 110.0:
3D95 MURPHY PLUMBING & HEATING Supplies-Park Maintenance 209.1'
3096 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. Service-Water Treatment Plant, P/S & P/W Bldg. 15,556.r
3097 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. Service 20,201.b
3098 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE Service 1,133.7
3099 KEITH O'DANIEL Refund-Water & Sewer 36.0
3100 VOID OUT CHECK
3101 JIM O'HEARN-EDENVALE GOLF Instructor-Golf 1,110.0
3102 OCIIS BRICK & TILE CO. Supplies-Park Maintenance 23.0
3103 GRETCHEN OLSON Refund-Swinaning 11.0
)4 KELLY OLSON Refund-Swinuning 10.0
,,,05 D.N. ODTHOUDT Refund-Water & Sewer 10.?
3106 CHRIS PALM-JAZ.ZERCISE INC. Instructor-Exercise classes 1,803..'
3107 PERBIX, HARVEY & TIIORFINNSON Legal service 1,610.
3108 PATRICK PEREZ Softball official 187.0
3109 RALPH PEREZ Softball official ' 176.0
i',,.0
•
Wage four
Fusiust 3, 19B2
31i0 PERL SOD FARMS, INC. Sod-Riley Lake Park 2,040.0C
3111 REBECCA PLOWMAN Instructor-Tennis 1,005.DO
3112 PRAIRIE LAWN & GAROEN Equipment parts 16.20 -
3113 PRO BIKE NEWS Subscription-Park Planning 12.00
3114 CHERI PROVO Softball official BB.OU
3115 JIM PUFAHL Softball official 66.O8
3116 R & R SPECIALTIES INC. Service 17.8C
3117 CORKY ROEHL Refund-Water & Sewer 6.85
311E PAM RASMUSSEN Refund-Creative Drama 2.00
3119 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES Supplies-Street Maintenance 30.73
3120 ROBERTS DRUG Supplies-Recreation Dept. 16.87
3121 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY Supplies-Street Maintenance 2B3.1r:
3122 WAYNE SANDERS Expenses 79.67
3123 DIANE SANDRICK Instructor-Tennis 252.0C
3124. LARRY M. SCHOCH Softball official 22.00
3125 KATHERINE SEMPLE Community Bank Director 190.00
3126 SERV-A-DOCK Service-Riley Lake 1,031.72
3127 BRIAN SIEVERTSON Softball official 77.00
312E AMY SIMONS Refund-Skating • 22.00
3129 SKARNES INCORPORATED Supplies-Water Dept. 41.8C
3130 SNOWDRIFTERS SNOWMOBILE CLUB State grant fund for trail const. & maint. 1,749.0`'
3131 STATE TREASURER Second quarter B2 Building permit surcharge 5,117.9::
3132 VOID OUT CHECK
' .^'43 VOID OUT CHECK •
A SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CO. Equipment repair & parts 348.9b
3135 BRYAN SULLIVAN Service-Happenings 3O.0C
3136 G.B. THOMPSON Refund-Sewer & Water 26.8c
3137 TRI-STATE TREE SERVICE Trim trees 224.0(
313E TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO. Oxygen-Water Dept. 154.85
3139 VAN PAPER COMPANY Supplies-Community Center 350.0C
3140 VIKING LABORATORIES INCORP. Chlorine test tablets-Community Center 31.65
3141 PAM WALKINSHAW • Refund-Swimming ll•OC
3142 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Pipe-Riley Lake 89.2
3143 SANDRA F. WERTS Mileage 57.37
3144 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. Supplies-Street Maintenance 42.3C-
3145 JON WESTERIIAUS Softball official 120.0r
3146 JOSEPH WIETHOFF Softball official 154.01
3147 XEROX CORPORATION Service 1,529.2,
3148 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO. Chemicals-Community Center 39.7`
3149 ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE Tires 206.8:
315D ARMOR SECUTITY INC. Service-Senior Citizens Bldg. • 90.0(
3151 MINNESOTA TREE, INC. Trees 545.01
3152 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT Service-Community Center 80.0(
3153 RALPH KRATOCHVIL Instructor-Exercise Classes 334.5i
3154 WENDY BURNS-CARLSON Instructor-Skating 163.0,
3155 CHRIS ENGER July expenses 15O.0(
3156 KOKESH ATHLETIC & GOLF T-Shirts, home plates, supplies-Recreation Dept. 366.4
3157 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Service 1,858.8.
I .5B BOB M0REHOUSE Earnest money-Schultz property 1,000.0
.59 GARY OTTERDAHL Softball official, 44.(1
3160 TIM PIERCE & ASSOC. INC. Service-Schooner Blvd. 2,505.0
3161 JOHN FRANE , Expenses 158.8'
TOTAL )471,731_''
ORDINANCE NO. 1-82, - -
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A CODIFICATION OF ALL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN MINNE-
SOTA STATUTES, SECTION 415.021; ESTABLISHING A NAME FOR SAID CODIFI-
CATION, MEANS OF CITATION, EFFECTIVE DATE, NOTICE AND PRINTING
PROCEDURE, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA, AND TOWN OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, NOT CITED IN CHARTERS
1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, AND CHAPTER 25 OF SUCH CODIFICATION; AND,
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF.
The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie ordains:
Section 1. Adoption. All ordinances of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, and the Town of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, here-
tofore adopted, except such ordinances as are numbered and cited in
the text of Chapters 1 through 12, inclusive, and also except such
ordinances as are numbered and cited in Chapter 25, should be, and
are hereby, revised and, together with such cited ordinances,
adopted as codified in that certain document known as the CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, pursuant to authority granted
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 415.021.
Section 2. Citation. The CITY CODE may be cited as "City
Code, Sec.
Section 3. Effective Date, Printing, and Notice of Avail-
ability. The CITY CODE shall be effective on September 17, 1982.
The City Clerk-Treasurer shall cause said CITY CODE to be printed
in loose leaf form and copies thereof in a substantial quantity made
available for distribution to the public at a reasonable charge, the
exact quantity, charge, and printing specifications to be more
specifically determined by the City Council. The City Clerk-
Treasurer shall cause Notice of Availability of copies to be pub-
lished in the official newspaper for at least two (2) successive
weeks prior to such effective date, which notice shall state that
copies of the CITY CODE are available at his office for general
distribution to the public at a reasonable charge.
Section 4. Prima Facie Evidence. Such codification, known as
the CITY CODE, is hereby declared to be prima facie evidence of the
law of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
-1-
II
P
Section 5. Effective Date and Preservation of Rights and
Obligations. This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption, pro-
vided, however, that the adoption of such CITY CODE shall not affect
or impair any act done, right vested or accrued, proceeding, suit or
prosecution commenced, prior to such effective date and under ordi-
nance provisions then in effect, but the same shall survive to a
conclusion thereof. It being the express intent of this Section
that no offense committed, liability, penalty or forfeiture, civil
or criminal, under ordinance provisions in effect prior to the
effective date of the CITY CODE be in any way affected by the
adoption thereof.
Section 6. Repealer. All Ordinances of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, and Town of Eden Prairie, Minnesota heretofore
adopted and not cited in City Code Chapters 1 through 12, inclusive,
or Chapter 25 are hereby repealed.
Section 7. Penalty. Every person violates the CITY CODE when
he intentionally performs an act therein prohibited or declared
unlawful, and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced as for a
misdemeanor to not more than ninety (90) days or a fine of not more
than $500.00, or both, or, as for a petty misdemeanor, sentence of
a fine of not more than $100.00.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
day of , 1982.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
•
City Clerk-Treasurer
/ (Publication on the day of , 1962.)
-2-
t