Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/15/1983 EIEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tit 1Y, FEBRUARY 15, 1983 7:31 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Finance Director John Frane; Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of Community Services Robert Lambert; Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Councilman Richard Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • ROLL CALL ' )10 I. PROCLAMATION. PROCLAIMING FEBRUARY AS HEART MONTH IN EDEN PRAIRI_- Page 79 • II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS • III. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESIAY, FEBRUARY I, 1983 Page 80 • TV. CONSENT CALENDAR • Page 81 A. Clerk's License List B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 11-82, Approval of Developer's Agreement Page 83 for Sunrise Kno is and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-12, Approving Summary of 6rdinance No. 11-82, and Ordering the Publication of Said Summary for Sunrise Knolls. 21) unit apartment building in the northwest corner of Rowland and Shady Oak Roads. C. Approval of Developer's Agreement for Eden Prairie Partnership PUB Page 92 and-reTiminary Platting (Resolution No. 83-37). 27 acres Industrial and 3 Single Family lots located in Southwest quadrant of County Road 67 and Chicago NW Railroad. D. 2nd Reading_of Ordinance No. 4-82, Approval of Developer's Agreement Page 1O1 for Cherne Contracting, and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-31, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 4-82, and Ordering the Publication of Said Summary for Cherne Contracting_ Office Building construction south • of W. 78th Street and west of Cabriole Center. E. Change Order for Staring Lake Park Shelter Page 131 F. Request for Council to approve amendment to Contract 7789 for trail Page 133 development at ay.nt Lake RegioraTPark G. Final Plata roval for Norman Industrial Park (east of Industrial Page 135 Drive and south of CSAH 67) Resolution No. 83-35 H. Approve plans and specifications and authorize bids to be received Page 138 for Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition Improvements (Resolution No. 83-36) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,Fcbruary 15, 1983 1. Request for Public Hearing by McGlynn Bakeries for consideration of Municipal Industrial Develoifunt_Bonds in the amount of $9//,111.10 for March J. Set Public Hearing for Tax Increment District No. 4 for March 15, 1983 Page 139 v. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing for the removal by contract of Diseased Trees on Page 143 Private—Property (Resolution No. 83-30T B. Red Rock Ranch by Robert. Mason Hnmcs. Adoption of Resolution No. Page 155 83-32, Approving Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low to Medium Density Residential , Adoption of Resolution No. 83-33, Approving PUB • Concept Review for Mixed Residential Land Uses on 159 Acres for 581 units, and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-34, Approving Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of Red Rock Lake, west of Mitchell Road and south of Pheasant Oaks. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 6156 - 6311 Page 222 vi I. REPORTS OF ADVISORY CO i[4IS SIGNS vni. ORDINANCES Y. RCSOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Udieance No. 1-S3,_elating tc, the Regulation, Licensiag Page 56 and Use of Grooming Devices -- — B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 9-S2, Araroval of Developer's Agreement Page 227 on i?ocdlawn Paighs anu raoet,on of kesoiuticn No. 83-11_Anorovine_ S.mruery of Oruinar i, 9-R?, ?,nd Ircierinn the Publication of Said Sui`aar v for ' ccila:rn li,tihtt. 139 Residential units in the southwest corner of Tuonline ;.nd Uuck Lake Roads. IX. PETITIONS, RE ESTS & COM'rIICATIONS A. Resolution No. P2-?61, regarding request from Hennepin County to Page 244 enforce parking restrictions at Lion's Tap (formerly Lyon's Tap) Continued from 11/16/82 B. Metro Council staff presentation regarding EiS process for Flying Page 247 Cloud Sanitary Landfill X. APPOINTMENTS • A. Board of Appeals & Adjustments - Appointment of two (2) members to serve three-(3) year terms commencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 B. Building Code Board of Appeals - Appointment of two (2) members to serve three (3) year terms conanencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 C. Development Commission - Appointment of three (3) members to serve three(3) year terms commencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,February 15, 1983 D. Flyin_g_Cloud Airport Advisory Commission of Eden Prairie - Appointment of two (2) members to serve three (3) year terms commencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 - 1 appointee to be a Flying Cloud Businessmen's Representative and 1 appointee to be a citizen representative) E. Historical & Cultural Commission - Appointment of three (3) members to serve three (3) year terms commencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 F. Human Rights & Services Commission - Appointment of three (3) members to serve three (3) year terms commencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 G. Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission - Appointment of three DImembers to serve three-7—Year terms commencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 H. Planning Commission - Appointment of three (3) members to serve three (3) • year terms commencing 3/1/83 and expiring on 2/28/86 XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & CD?'MISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members • 8. Report of City Manager • • C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Planning Director 1. Discussion on proposed ordinance for interim uses in the Major Center Page 248 Area E. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Grading request at S.E. corner of 78th Street and Prairie Center Page 252 Drive XII. NEW BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT. 1 3 CITY OF CLINTON Clinton, Minnesota 56225 f February 1, 1983 FEB 41a3 Dear Fellow Minnesota Mayor, i doubt there is one of us who does not have a friend or relative who has undergone heart surgery. When I began as a volunteer for the American Heart Association, Minnesota Affiliate over ten years ago, open heart surgery was con- sidered a risky procedure and now it is commonplace--all because of research and knowledge which has been, in part made possible through the American Heart Association. As State Heart Fund Chairman this year, I would like to issue a personal request to you to proclaim February as Heart Month in your city. The local Heart Fund publicity chairman will be calling on you to issue this proclamation; I would hope that you would honor that request. Governor Perpich has proclaimed • February as Heart Month in Minnesota and I would like you to do the same in your community as well. In this time of cuts in government funding for programs and • research, public contributions for this worthy cause are even more important. Surely the least we can do as leaders in our community is to encourage support of the Heart Fund. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely /06-11-6 /., 26'6°-;(-1 Dave TorgerIon Mayor, City of Clinton, Minnesota State Heart Fund Chairman American Heart Association, Minnesota Affiliate "19 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1983 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson, Geor, Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director o Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Sec- retary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: all were present I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: VIII. A. 1. Set date for joint meeting with School Board; VIII. A. 2. Discussion of long range plan meeting; VIII. A. 3. Discussion of Representative Sidney Pauly's memorandum of February 1, 1983, regarding 212/TH 5; and VIII. D. 2. US Olympic Hockey Tryouts. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE CITY CDUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1983 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to table action on the Minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, January 18, 1983, so they might be redrafted to indicate the discussion which occurred. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Approval of plans and specifications for TH 169 between Leona Road and Valley View Road as prepared by Mn/DOT (S.P. 2745-24) (Resolution No. 83-26) C. Approval of cooperative agreement with Mn/DOT for TH 169 improvement between Leona Road and Valley View Road (S.P. 2754-24) (Resolution No. 83-27) D. Approval of cooperative signal construction agreement with Mn/DOT and Hennepin County for TH 169 Project (Resolution No. 83-28) '�D City Council Minutes -2- February 1, 1983 E. Approval of specifications for water meter bids and authorize bids to be re- ceived on February 24,1933, at 10:00 a.m., I.C. 52-044 (Resolution No. 83-29) F. Resolution No. 83-25, authorizing the sale of Tax Forfeited Lands MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve items A - F on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ORDINANCE NO. 1-83, RELATING TO THE REGULATION, LICENSING AND USE OF GAMBLING DEVICES (Continued from January 18, 1983) City Manager Jullie spoke to City Attorney Pauly's memorandum of January 27, 1983 in which the changes as directed by the Council at its January 18th meeting were addressed. Jullie also noted his memorandum of January 28, 1983, in which he discussed gambling license fees. Penzel questioned the nine day length of a temporary license. City Attorney Pauly said no specific definition was provided and that is open tc revision; he said the length of the temporary license should be defined. Redpath said he would like to see it at three days. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to amend the Ordinance to limit the length of a temporary license to three (3) days. Motion carried unani- mously. Bentley asked if there are limits as to whom might be granted a temporary license and for what specific devices. City Attorney Pauly said the distinc- tion in a temporary license only goes to the type of organization which may obtain one. John Bergan, 8705 Bentwood Drive, felt the reasons for a gambling ordinance were shallow. He noted that the Eden Prairie Foundation, Lions club and such have seemed to raise quite a bit of money without gambling. He did not think it was justified to allow the Legion to have gambling to expand their building -- if they are unable to raise funds for those improvements in more legitimate ways then it is too bad. Passing this ordinance is the easy way out; other organizations will want the same thing in future years. Tom Wilbur, 9781 Archer Lane, concurred with Bergan's comments. He stated he is not in favor of the gambling ordinance. James Berry, 12901 Valley View Road, stated he is pastor of New Testament Church. He said his church is against this ordinance; the numbers feel it is wrong. He said they feel money can be spend in better ways. There are other ways in which money can be raised. "We are stewards of God's money and using money in this fashion is not correct)' he said. �0 a, City Council Minutes -3- February 1, 1983 Greg Arrington, 1818 Haeg Drive, Bloomington, said he is in favor of the ordinance. He felt that each person had a right to spend the money he had in the way he wished. He felt this should not be looked at from only a religious viewpoint. No one was forcing people to gamble or take part in the games offered. He felt this would be good for the community and would also provide revenue to the community. Redpath noted this ordinance would allow pull tabs but not gaming tables; this will not be a financial panacea for the City. Bob Finnerty, 5019 43rd Avenue South, Minneapolis, said he is a legislative lobbyist for the gaming field. He said he was present to answer questions which might arise about the types of devices under consideration. George Kelley, 4709 Drew Avenue South, Minneapolis, said he was present to represent New Testament Church and his Lord. He stated the problems which have been created as a result of gambling. Cindy Miller, 7425 Scott Terrace, said she cares about people and that was the reason for her presence. She said people are motivated to gamble due to greed and laziness. She quoted from the Bible to substantiate her statements. Bergan said not passing the ordinance would not make things any worse than they presently are. Passing the ordinance would be of no benefit to the community. David Price, Pastor cf Crosstown Baptist Church, said the City is setting the climate for what is to come. More and more of this type of thing will be brought into the City. Bentley said the American Legion is an honorable organization. The issue before the Council is an emotional one and does not affect a lot of people. He noted that not everyone can become a member of the Legion; he did not see where the number of members will increase because of this ordinance. He said this activity is allowed in surrounding communities and people from Eden Prairie can now go there, if they so desire. He said he did not feel this ordinance would corrupt the morals of the community and he would support passage of the ordinance. Redpath said morality cannot be legislated. He stated this issue had been blown completely out of proportion because of the word gambling. Penzel said as a public official he felt charged with the responsibility of setting an example and for having a set of principles by which to live. He felt gambling would have a negative effect on family life; he did not feel this type of operation was appropriate for Eden Prairie. Tangen said he had given this a great deal of thought and had spoken with several people about the ordinance. He said he had not heard much from the people from the Legion. He said at this point he could not support the ordinance. SDI City Council Minutes -4- February 1, 1983 Anderson said he has a great deal of concern about video games in this community and about what is offered on television. He said at the age of 18 people are deemed by the State to be adults and at that time have the right to chose what to do and what not to do. Based on this fact, he said he would support the ordinance. Redpath said he found it interesting that he had not received any calls from the people he knows in Eden Prairie -- those he considers to be friends and would call if they felt a concern about the issue. Del Beckman, 10720 Woodwatch, submitted a petition (see attached) which had been signed by approximately 150 people in support of the gambling ordinance. Bentley said he could not understand the argument that the moral fabric of Eden Prairie would be destroyed because of this ordinance. He noted that this was a matter of free choice -- a local organization would be allowed the opportunity to offer these devices to its membership. Penzel said he felt his freedom of choice was being limited by this because his views were being taken as irrational. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to give 1st reading to Ordinance No. 1-83, relating to the regulation, licensing and use of gambling devices. Motion carried with Tangen and Penzel voting "nay." MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. B. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 80-10, AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED FEBRUARY 29, 1980, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR RYMARLAND CAMP 3rd ADDITION, FOR 11 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.4 ACRES. Located east of Highway 101, south of Hidden Ponds 2nd Addition. (Ordinance No. 3-83, amending zoning, Resolution No. 83-10, approving preliminary plat.) City Manager Jullie stated official notice of this public hearing had been published and notices had been mailed to property owners. Rich Sathre, Sathre-Bergquist, addressed the proposal. Also present was Milton 0. Quam, proponent. Planning Director Enger said this item had been returned to the Planning Commission for its review of the request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance on the original Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition. Originally, he noted, the Planning Commission had recommended the preliminary plat be approved. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the Development Plan and Zoning for Rymarland Camp 3rd Addition at its January 24, 1983, meeting subject to the recommendations of the Staff report dated December 21, 1982. G0, City Council Minutes -5- February 1, 1983 Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Connission had reviewed this item at its January 17, 1983, meeting at which time it recommended approval as per the Planning Staff Report of December 21, 1982. Bentley said it appeared to him that the Planning Commission had now been allowed to grant a density change in a previously approved plat. His con- cern was that the possibility would now exist that this would open the door for other developers to come forth with similar changes. Redpath questioned what the City would get in return for not having a swimming pool, park, or open space in this area. Lambert said the City would now get additional cash park fees. Anderson asked what would happen to the land if this change were not allowed. Enger said the land would probably revert to the City one way or another as the homeowner's association had been dissolved. Anderson asked if the City would have any use for the land. Lambert said it would not. Anderson noted the Council did not have much of a choice. Penzel wondered if the City should condone such an action; the precedent is frightening. Enger recalled a similar situation with Centex at Ridgewood West. Tangen said there is something unique about this site. The amenities that were there proved to be a detriment rather than an asset. Should the Council prevent something good from happening! It is time for the Council to recognize the problem. The Council has not heard from the immediate neighbors about this item so he concluded they did not feel threatened by the action. Penzel said the reason the Council has not heard is because there is no longer a homeowner's association. Anderson expressed concern about whose obligation it is to maintain the obligations of the homeowner's associations. He asked whether or not the City can allow them to deteriorate. City Attorney Pauly noted the City can require certain things as required by the zoning ordinance. Milton Quam said he has about 23 acres in this area and he is not asking for any greater density than is required by the zoning ordinance. Tangen said then density is no longer a question. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance 3-83. Motion carried with Penzel voting "nay." MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 83-10, approving the preliminary plat of Rymarland Camp 3rd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 10 • City Council Minutes -6- February 1, 1983 MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to amend the Developer's Agreement to allow for a new site plan. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 5824 - 6055 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 5824 - 6055. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were no reports. VI I. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of Assistant Weed Inspector MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to appoint Wes Dunsmore as Assistant Weed Inspector. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Set date for joint meeting with School Board Penzel said John Lobben had suggested March 8, 19B3, at 7:30 p.m. as the date for the joint meeting with the School Board. All school board members will be available on that date. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to set March 8, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. as the date for the joint meeting with the School Board. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Discussion of long range plan meeting MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to set March 22, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for a special meeting of the City Council at which time long range plans/goals will be discussed. Mo- tion carried unanimously. 3. Discussion of Representative Sidney Pauly's memorandum of February 1, 1983 Penzel called attention to Representative Sidney Pauly's memorandum of February 1, 1983, in which she asked that a joint meeting of the mayors and city councils of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie be held to discuss maintaining pressure for 212 along with the proposed repair and mainten- ance of TH5 as well as the official map and related transportation con- cerns. Sip -I- City Council Minutes -7- February 1, 1983 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to set February 22, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. at the Chanhassen City Hall as the date, time, and location for a meeting of the City Councils and Mayors of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. This meeting will be for the purpose of discussing the official map and related transportation concerns. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager 1. Award bids for 1983 Modular Rescue Vehicle City Manager Jullie noted the summary of bids which were included in Director of Public Safety Hacking's memo of January 27, 1983. Redpath asked if the ambulance which is now provided in the City by Hennepin County would be moved out of the City when this vehicle is purchased. Hacking said the rescue vehicle is not an ambulance and would not be staffed by emergency medical technicians; the ambulance will remain in the City. Tangen asked how this purchase was budgeted. Jullie said the 1982 budget included $26,000 towards the purchase with the remainder to come out of this year's budget. Anderson asked how this vehicle would be used in an emergency situation. Hacking explained this vehicle would be used to "hold" accident victims who would be awaiting ambulance service. It would also be used in other emergency situations. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to award the bid for a res- cue truck to Road Rescue Company for $52,449.00 with a discount of $1,652.14 if the amount is prepaid for a total cost of 550,796.86. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. A representative of H.A.R., Victoria, said he had never seen a bid written "so tight" and he felt that to be unfair. He did not feel there was much difference in the mechanical equipment which was bid. C. Report of City Attorney City Attorney Pauly addressed his memorandum of February 1, 1983, in which he discussed the state of legal services rendered to the City. Included with the memorandum was a Summary of Legal Services Rendered to the City in 1982. He said he would be willing to answer any questions which might come up as a result of this memorandum. • City Council Minutes -8- February 1, 1983 D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. City's Refund Policy City Manager Jullie explained the change as outlined in Director of Community Services Lambert's memorandum of January 27, 1983. Director of Community Services Lambert said the change would authorize the Finance Department to issue refund checks upon can- cellation of registration without prior Council approval on the Claims list. The claims, however, would appear on the following regular Claims list. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the refund policy as per Lambert's memorandum of January 27, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. 2. US Olympic Hockey Tryouts Penzel called attention to the memorandum of February 1, 1983, to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager from Charles Pappas, Manager of the Community Center regarding the United States Olympic Hockey Tryouts. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the request of the Olympic Hockey Team to rent the Community Center Ice Arena for regional tryouts for the 1984 Olympic Hockey Team on Saturday, April 16 and Sunday, April 17, 1983, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. . The proper notices shall be posted to alert those who would be using the facility at that time. Motion carried unanimously. IX. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:37 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 20 The following item(s) referred to in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held February 1, 1983, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk: 1. Petition regarding gambling ordinance. 2. Roger Pauly's memorandum regarding Legal Services Rendered in 1982. 3. Memorandum from Sidney Pauly, State Representative, regarding meeting with City Councils and Mayors of Chaska and Chanhassen. 4. Memorandum from Charles Pappas regarding United States Olympic Teem Tryouts at Eden Prairie Community Center. a. CiTY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLLRK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LiST February 15, 1983 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.j HEATING & VENTiLATiNG • Apex Mechanical Bade Construction, inc. A-Ok Plumbing & Heating Bar-F.tt Construction Berghorst Plumbing & Heating Hans Hagen A. Binder & Son, Inc. Kingdom Builders Centraire, Inc. Metro Metals, inc. Climate Engineering Opus Construction Consolidated Plumbing & Heating Power Consultant Corporation Crontrom's Heating & Air Conditioning Ryan Development, inc. Del Air Conditioning, inc. Shelard Companies, inc. Farmers Heating & Cooling, inc. J. B. Swedenborg Fredrickson Heating & Air Conditioning W. J. White Co. Halls Heating, inc. Hayes Contractors CONTRACTDR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Horwitz, inc. Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning Crest investment Corp. Metropolitan Mechanical G & E Builders Rouse Mechanical Glocke Enterprises George Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning Hogar Construction Southside Heating & Air Conditioning Jarip Builders Superior Contractors, inc. Ruscon Homes, Inc. Thompson Air Conditioning Company Trumpy Homes, inc. Ray N. Welter Heating Co. Wenzel Plumbing & Heating PLUMBING GAS FiTTER A-OK Plumbing Apex Mechanical John Adelmi.vrn Plumbing A-OK Plumbing & Heating J. L. Bjorlin Plumbing A. Binder & Son, inc. Carlson Plumbing Centraire, Inc. Consolidated Plumbing Climate Engineering Company Dependable Well Co. • Consolidated Plumbing Doc's Plumbing Co. Cronstrom's Heating & Air Conditioning Hayes Contractors Del Air Conditioning, inc. Hopkins Plumbing Farmers Heating & Cooling, inc. Horwitz, inc. Fredrickson Heating & Air Conditioning Ivan C. Lanars Hayes Contractors Larson Plumbing Horwitz, inc. Metropolitan Mechanical J & H Gas Services R. J. Miller Plumbing Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. Murphy Plumbing & Heating Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors Penn Plumbing Rouse Mechanical Plymouth Plumbing, inc. George Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning Ri Don Plumbing Superior Contractors, inc. Rivard Plumbing Thermex Corporation Schnapp Plumbing Ray N. Welter Heating Co. Shore Plumbing & Heating Wenzel Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Solberg Plumbing Sunrise P1u„hing, Inc. SCAVENGER Thompson Plumbing Co. Wenzel Plwing & Hating Roto-Rooter 21 } CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST page two ILITY INSTALLER VENDING Thompson Plumbing Company Dircon Enterprises • Edenvale Golf WELL DRILLING Laserdyne Corporation Mark's Eden Prairie Standard Leuthner Well Co. Preserve Rexall Drug Viking Pioneer, Inc. WATER SOFTENER -- — SOLICITOR Corners Soft Water Co. Leland Kottke (Concessions) CIGARETTE Minnesota Cablesystems Southwest (Cable (V) Edenvale Golf Mark's Eden Prairie Standard Preserve Rexall Drug • TYPE C FOOD • PDQ Food Store TT pe B Food Store Mark's Eden Prairie Standard PDQ Food Store RETAIL CANDY Morrow's Nut House PDQ Food Store Preserve Rexall Drug These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. 1f T /+ r t c_c_ Pat So lie, Licensing CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Sunrise Knoll ORDINANCE NO. 11-82 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZDNING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIDNS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PRDVISIDNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESDTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and placed in the RM-6.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RM-6.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be and is amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 198 , entered into between Edward A. Sieber and Mary A. Sieber and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. 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 19th day of October, 1982, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of 198 . Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: • i John D. Fran, City Clerk 1 PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 198 SUNRISE APARTMENTS Described as: THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 22, LYING WEST OF COUNTY ROAD # 61, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • • . EXHIBIT A cy /.Z•d i Sunrise Knolls • DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1982 by and between EDWARD A. SIEBER and MARY A.SIEBER,tenants in common, hereinafter referred to as "Owner"and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", • • WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from Rural to RM 6.5 • approximately 2.3. acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described to as "the property", and WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property to construct thereon a 2 story apartment building with an aggregate of 20 apartment units. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance 11-82, Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and mainten- ance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall develop the property in conformance with the material dated B/17/82 reviewed and approved by the City Council on 10/19/82 and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Owner shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the property in any other respect or manner • than provided herein. • 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and obser- vance by Owner at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. • • • 75 Developer's Agreement-Sunrise Knolls page 2 3. Prior to the 2nd reading of Ordinance 11-82, Owner shall: A) Convey to the City by Warranty Deed that part of the property shown as Rowland Road right-of-way on Exhibit B. Owner shall not grade, construct, nor permit any grading or construction upon said right-of-way. B) Convey to the County of Hennepin by Warranty Deed that part of the property shown as Shady Oak Road right-of-way on Exhibit B. Owner shall not grade , construct, nor permit any grading or construction upon said right-of-way. C) Submit to the Planning Director for review and obtain the Planning Director's approval thereof of a detailed landscaping plan including , but not limited to:. at least eight(8) 4-5 foot high evergreens(at time of planting) along the west side of the building as depicted on Exhibit B, and berming and landscaping along the • property's southern boundary. • 4. Prior to the issuance of a permit for any building upon the property, Owner shall: A) Submit to the City Engineer for review and obtain the Engineer's approval thereof detailed utility plans. B) Submit to the Community Services Director for review and obtain the Community Services Director's'approval thereof of a location for and design of a totlot structure to be constructed by Owner upon the property. Such plan shall include,but not be limited to: grading and seeding of totlot area and design of barriers along the north and east sides of the totlot area. 5. Owner shall not construct, nor allow others to construct any outdoor lighting structures used for lighting purposes which are higher than 14 feet. Such lighting structures shall be equipped with cut off luminars. • • {{• 6�O Developer's Agreement-Sunrise Knolls page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. • . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1982 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Mlle, the City .tanager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. • Notary Public OWNER* . cr,41...e-eL4Y174._,&21 Edwa)rd A. Sieber STATE OF MINNESOTA) 7/( .'ti6: t_—.<: /iLt SS. Mary A. Sieber COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The�aoregoing)instrument was acknowledged before me this 'O day of w ... f4 , 1982 by Edward A. Sieber and Mary A. Si;�e ear, tenants Th common. ✓�/ /f/A a — ,,..,.."-- Notary Public 1,c,-,"'',N BURTON A. THIEM nl I.'•,.'.N GOI.NTY ,\ NOTARY I`u11LIG•MINY.0 SOYA My comm.IIIION rs ,r .NY AUG.2:1.I0U7 .(el • ti111 1;1.0 I`•% h. • match line • , I 1 !` �; • i ) —i / _ is \ / I '. - Jevergreens-r- -7*---..---.::7---. --,.,0-- -F-- , :,, , \ i i i 41\) ,c\/ 1 1 �‘p I .$ • : O �A, Rowland Road ,�� �� V ` I right-of-way \x' ' • o ' Shady Oak Road t ) ti, it 1r‘I I 1 I ! •- .r� 5 is right-of-way , r ' I \, , \ f:te, `\ i \ V , '.. \ ( \, ` \I- :7_1, v, --____,I, ii ,, , - r 4 \ /N. ttOr ` � u; I .- • ..,.i.-...:‘ .---'•-11 :-'.-;•--Y/e•` •=c \ .t• ;,,,,,\:,.. 1 ' " i • -•••••• ',1••",..*,• . \ , )\ -s• \ . • , ....-• 1 •••,. \.,• \. .1.1.1:0,...•;,_... , ,. , . , . I i ‘I I, /I,. •\ . \\\C .ii (*.-.,, -, ,,-,‘.;-•,,.N,-, , \s, lik ..7r. k. . t . .1,----,• ,s.-.., - ,-- --..... I //,. . ',°\P \\\ ,.., .'/,' , - , , . - n, L., ,s i:-41-t 11,;1:5-.;.. ....NNIIV\ •••.• . .*\\ '''‘ . / . i 1 • EXHIBIT B 77 Aug. 17, 1982 Sunrise Knoll CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-12 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 11-82 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11-82 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 198 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance 11-82, which is attached hereto, is approved; and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance 11-82 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED BY the City Council on , 198 . Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: ti t John D. Frane, City Clerk cin The following is the full text of the City of Eden Prairie Ordinance No. 11-82, which was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on , 198 . Following the text of the Ordinance, the Developer's Agreement, which is incorporated therein by Section 5 of the Ordinance, is summarized. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESOTA Sunrise Knoll ORDINANCE NO. 11-82 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and placed in the RM-6.5 District. • Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RM-6.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be and is amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 198 , entered into between Edward A. Sieber and Mary A. Sieber and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. 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 19th day of October, 1982, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of 198 . Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 198 . 90 Summary of Developer's Agreement: Sunrise Knoil Developer will develop the land as described in Exhibit A which is attached to and incorporated in the Developer's Agreement. In addition, the Developer's Agreement provides for: 1. Developer's warranty of title to the land. 2. Submission to the City Engineer of a development plan for the land. 3.a. Conveyance of Rowland Road right-of-way to the City. 3.b. Submission to the City of proof that the condition of title of property conveyed over to the City is such that it will vest good and marketable title in the City. 4. Conveyance to County of Hennepin of Shady Oak Road right-of-way. 5. Submission to the Planning Director of a landscape plan. 6. Construction and maintenance of a totlot area. 7. Construction of a light structure no higher than 20 feet. 8. Payment to the City of first three years' lighting fees. 9. Application of the Developer's Agreement to transferees of the land. 10. Notice to the City's cable franchise. 11. City's remedies in the event that Developer violates the provisions of the Developer's Agreement. 12. Developer's commitment not to oppose rezoning if Developer fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months. • 13. Submission to the Watershed DisLrit.t of storm scwcr construction plans. Developer to follow the rules and regulations of said Watershed District. Notice: A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED BY the Eden Prairie City Council on , 198 . • • 91 • -EP Partnership (Norman Ind. Pk) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1983 by and between Norman L. Undestad, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as • "City", WITNESSETH: • WHEREAS, Owner has applied to the City for Planned Unit Development Concept approval for development of approximately 32 acres situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof,(the property); and WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property to construct thereon • industrial uses and 3 residential lots, and maintenance of open space area; and • adopted Resolution Nc 82-191 approving the nwnQr's •. WIIERLAG, City has auuN�w cw.�s�un approving Planned Unit Development pursuant to the Code and Resolution No. 82-192 approving the preliminary plat. NOW THEREFORE , in consideration of the City adopting Resolution Nos. 82-191 & 192, Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated Dec., 1982 reviewed and approved by the City Council on Aug. 17, 1982 attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Owner shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. CO. I/ti • PUD Agreement-Eden Prairie Partnership page 2 • 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Owner at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Concurrent with street & utility construction, Owner shall construct an B foot wide 4 inch deepstrenoth asphalt path upon a Class V base;vithin the right-of-way and roadway,sidewalk and utility easement, and south of the .• driving surface of Edenvale Goulevard. as depicted on Exhibit B, and as per the specifications of the City Engineer. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit to build upon the property, Owner shall , and cause others to, submit to the City Planning Cemmission and Council rezoning and development plans and receive approval thereof. Such plans shall include , but not be limited to: a) building site plans. • b) grading plans c) utility and storm water plans d) preliminary landscape plans,including but not limited • to planting of evergreens upon the the berms located along the property's south and southeast boundaries as depicted • on Exhibit B and as per the specifications of the Planning Director. e) designation of a preservation easement approximately 250feet x 550feet as depicted on Exhibit B. f) design and designation of truck access for lot 1, block 2, to Carlson Drive only. • 5. Prior to any work upon the property, Owner shall construct Edenvale Boulevard commencing at the property's east boundary west to the property's western most boundary. Al ternately,Owner shall submit 100'1 petition and17 year assessment period for said construction. If Owner chooses to execute the 100, petition, Owner waives all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota State Statute Sec. 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of amounts, or the procedure used by the City in levying the assessments and hereby release the City, its officers, agents and its employees , from any and all liability related to or arising • out of the levying of the assessments. 93 • PUD Development Agreement-Eden Prairie Partnership page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • • by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA)• SS. • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1983 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota muni- cipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. • Notary Public UNDESTAD INVESTMENT C MPANY /701 -/t't by STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Thg foregoing instrument was acknowl,kged before me this day of �.� 1933 4_ -llcera,cl,C/97d�_.,1>�the ate,,-,,-ei'� pf Untit s-Wt i-rtre5ttttet� • ,..r...,.+.++.............+......,� oft, PAMFIA J.EATON ht NOTARI'Pl!BUC•MINN[sOTAn ` 2 COUNiY /v/l MY IYU lU t y rrtj� � qL • • • • • EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • All of Tracts B,C, and E, of Registered Land Survey # 1095, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • • • • • • EXHIBIT A IT t el 1::::',1 7,1/I 1 /?I'.In.e I C:`"7• -•,•71.1 I • • if 1.7 Lie u ir *—iii il hW...0(L.i k...) i r if '1.,.. PIP?. 4 -4 ‘4'-‘ 4"i . . .. • . :•.1 .- • • I •-•.....7, •,...$ . . ' . • I/ . • • • ... 1 .. • soi ••• "fie,. 1,,ti,' CORDON R. COFFIN CO.,INC. ."` / /7 • ,i ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS rv* .• i • i LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA . r ',*..' / / A ' 4, • • • • ... '' i • • '••••• , * . ..II..r...6r.k.a........6....•:”r...wri, • ..... ..t/10 . . 'S.; .' . ". CIII rt 0 • . .SCALE IN ' FEET ' L.,•-' / / : ',. ••••.• .4 r . ., ,DENOTES IRON MONUMENT • ..•.• / s '...,s k- . / s ss , ..4 2 BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUME° .\., • : .•••:.:, •'' -. ‘• S'• • / , \ k 14.1 - / " • 4'.. q I;) v Y 0 -.. ... in v, CC ".• „ / $ 5 ' N.:• : iii ,;.. .., ,,,. • ..-4 o '.4.-... '. ,......../...-•"/ ''/ C -ie.:4.. •, 43.,- t•, !•-i.2 ct ,,„ /./ '1, : . , ''''. .i .3 kj ;,r) 4." . ..,,.4‘.. e, ..., ..::# ..,, • :.,‘• <,./ 3 ft, •• , ."• SO ..,. ,4,/, , •;•::', ,i:-.e.*:• "..•.:.V . „•4 _.! EVA 4.„, •— ..,!:: ••••....“-,:!••• .:' DOUL ...... / , ' , •• ,„2 X: ..' \,:`,:':'' ,,•'. " ,./ ; ... .. .,,e. 1.:.•• /,'4.-Y"Asi / • g; 3 • 4:,'•• :,". • ^ 0-. 1/,31 C.,. • Z4I 0 L! et,IVALE • • 1,•,:', ._ , : i, st- •,,.. . '--..,,,, • •:".. ; . / / a. ti ... .6, -.,•:.:,. %,,,...,...,,, ,..., 1' .4 •,t•4 / ;:. ‘ —,o_.4 ,,,,,,ille i•,•:! Aro.,owl I..I.:.if e........14.4 AA...IA.• •.. f...1-:,...0.1,,O's.:;:.',. . .1. ' /' '••• •••• ,. s. s,, i . •"ti,dtti'4,44• 2 :"•'..:,,,. j'AV 1 et• 444 `••,„..„ i / ,i. • ' ' r• ro I . te• • • , ...,;160-01 3 ...: • ; i ' it:."..:;..:.;%;::.;•.:4;;;21.,::;;;;;D"' ' '..t.Z..0., ,." -iS ':'' I • '0..,----:'•"'.CO' -40 42'1,,414,' • 77;;Elr ..sirr. L •.. , 1. I ; :•,".••' —`44triiiiirst".-- NW corner of • ,...• •„• Ponderosa Hills . • 1.• i / • ; :* ..- ••.:- t.: . * ,,' ..,...•.1^,:. ,.;,,,—, Nu, , I / ; .. ,..,..... . 4 • .. 0, i•-°. . : • i,.. • I•iii L.,•• / ....'' . - " / +. '. 401. ..-- - - • • , ... I: c •-•., . 444 asphalt path . t E evergreen plantings . • %.• • m9 preservation easement area .. ... .... .-.-., ::::....,:',7::::..--• . . •: , .. .-;: •:':-..:,... , • EXHIBIT B %, Dec. , 1982 9 4, • Eden Prairie Partnership Supplement OWNERS SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN . UNDESTAD INVESTMENT COMPANY AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of (5/- _, 1983 by and between FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK, a National banking association organized under the laws of the United States, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", For and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Resolutions 82-191 and 82-192 for Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat approval of property owned by Owner, described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as "the property", as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1983 by and between Undestad Investment Company, and City, Owner agrees as follows: 1. Owner agrees that it will not develop the property in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the above described Developer's Agreement. In the event that Owner transfers the property, Franklin National Bank • agrees to obtain an agreement from the transferee stating that the property shall not be developed in a • manner inconsistent with the above described Developer's Agreement. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, successors, heirs, and their assigns of the property. • • Owner's Supplement-Eden Prairie Partnership page 2 OWNER: by Tol Allen , resident STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) • The f regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 day of 4.�; , 1983 by Tom Allen the resident of -ranklin N iola Bank,on behalf of the corporation. ■/V MAMAV✓JJ•A YNMM; *la EaVERNE 1.CHRISTY. tiNOTARY FUBLIC ubl" 11EPINErlN COUNTY •My Commission Expires April 23.19di • • NINVWW,AVVVvwW ww.wvvvvvvoN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • • by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1983 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Carl 'J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • • 9'� CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.83-37 WHEREAS, A. The owners of that certain land described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, have applied for rezoning of land by removing it from the Rural District and placing- it in the I-2 District and R1-13.5 District by adoption of Ord. 82-21. B. The application for rezoning was considered by the Planning Commission of the City at a meeting on July 12, 1982. C. Notice of a public hearing on the application before the Council of the City of Eden Prairie was duly given and a hearing thereon was held on August 17, 1982. BE IT RESOLVED, that the application for rezoning and proposed Ord. 82-21 shall not be and is not adopted on the basis of the following findings and for the following reasons: Preliminary design plans on building type, use of buildings, parking required, proposed building & parking elevations, and building elevations had not been submitted for review as required. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on this _day of 1983. ATTEST: Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Franc, City Clerk i 94) r . . DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL TO BE REZONED FROM RURAL TO 1-2 INDUSTRIAL PARK TRACT I DtSCRIPTION The South 250.00 feet of Tract C of Registered Land Survey i, No. 1095, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying adjacent to the North line of Kings Forest Addition to Stevens Heights, • according to the recorded plat thereof. , £ I ' . t TRACT II DESCRIPTION ` (! II• That part of Tract C of Registered Land Survey No. 1095, i Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southeast of the following described line. Beginning at a point on the East line of said Tract C ' '` of Registered Land Survey No. 1095, distant 700.00 feet ,j North of the Southeast corner of said Tract C of ' .11 Registered Land Survey No. I095, said Southeast corner F ( also being the Northeast corner of Ponderosa Hills II' • according to the recorded plat thereof; thence South- .1, 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. : ,;i ,l i 1t (. I . I EXHIBIT A • i • f CI,TY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Cherne Contracting ORDINANCE NO. 4-82 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL DF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance, (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the I-2 District and placed in the Office District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, removed from the I-5 District and shall be included in the Office District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are, amended • accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation," and Section 11.99 entitled, "Violation a Misdemeanor," are hereby adcpted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated , 19S3, entered into between Cherne Contracting Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. { Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective frcm and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden • Prairie on the 5th day of October, 1982, and finally read and adc•;ted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on t'e day of 19B3. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: tin D. Frane, City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of — _, 1983. _ /0f 1 • REZONED PROPERTY • All that land lying north of a line described as follows: Commencing at the centerline of the right-of-way of Old State Highway No. 5 (as per Document Numbers 4221072 and 135O870), and the West line of the East 615 feet of said Government Lot 7 thence South in a straight line parallel with and 615 feet West of the East line of said Government Lot 7 a distance of 560 feet to the point of begining of the line to be described: thence West in a straight line a distance of 691 feet, more or less, along a line parallel with and 560 feet distant from the cen- terline of the right-of-way of said State Highway No. 5 to a point 560 feet South of the centerline of the right-of-way of said State Highway No. 5 and 14.7 feet West of the West line of said Government Lot 7. Hennepin County, Minnesota • • • • ' 1 i • • • • { ptp Jo DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this day of 1983 by and between CIIERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City". WITNLSSETII: WHEREAS, the Owner represents and warrants that it owns fee title to 17.43 acres of land free and clear of mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances, located in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, and more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "Property", and WHEREAS, the Owner has applied to the City to rezone from I-5 Park to Office a portion of said Property representing 7.83 acres more or less as described in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "Rezoned Property", and WHEREAS, the Owner desires to develop the Rezoned Property by constructing thereon a corporate office building of approximately IO3,OOO gross square feet and related improvements as depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City's adopting Ordinance No. 4-82, the Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development and main- tenance of said Property as follows: 1. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the Property, the Owner shall dedicate that portion of the Property depicted on Exhibit C. Such dedication shall be made by Warranty Deed in form substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit_O. a. The Owner shall deliver an opinion addressed to the City by an attorney, and in a form applicable to the City, as to the con- dition of the title of said dedicated property or in lieu of a title opinion, a title insurance policy insuring the condition of said dedicated property or interest therein in the City. The condition of the title shall vest in City good and market- able title, thereon free and clear of any mortgages, liens, encumbrances or assessments except: (i) conditions of the deed to protect and maintain the property in its natural state; (ii) rights of the public and of the state in and to that part of the real property lying below the natural high water mark of Anderson Lake; and (iii) that portion of the property which is a result of fill or accretion. 103 1 Developer's Agreement Page 2 • b. The Owner agrees to construct a barrier of either dense land- scaping or fencing for the purpose of preventing physical intrusion onto said dedicated property. This barrier shall be designed by owner and submitted to the City staff for review. Owner shall obtain the approval of City staff of said design plans prior to construction of barrier; however, the barrier need only be constructed if and when there is a need for the barrier due to people walking within said dedicated property. This need to be reasonably determined by the Director of Community Services of the City of Eden Prairie. 2. The Owner shall develop the Rezoned Property in conformance with material dated June 23, 1982 reviewed and approved by the City Council on October 19, 1982 and attached hereto as Exhibit C sub- ject to changes and modifications as provided herein. The Owner shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the Property in any other material respect or manner than provided herein. 3. The Owner shall reasonably protect the eastern wooded hill against erosion during and after construction. The Owner shall provide retaining walls for all slopes greater than 11/4:1. The Owner shall sod all slopes greater than 3:1 after construction. 4. The Owner shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Watershed District for review and approval and the Owner shall follow all rules and recommendations of said Watershed District. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Rezoned Property Owner shall submit an application for variance for building height to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Variance approval must be received by the Owner prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The nunber of parking spaces to be constructed initially does not conform to requiri,ncnts of the City Code, Chapter 11, Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3H 4. Proof of parking is provided by grading of additional areas for parking, with hard surfacing to be completed by Owner if and when the City of Eden Prairie determines the amount of parking is not adequate. 7. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Owner shall submit to the City Engineer for approval two copies of a development plan (14 _ 100 scale) showing existing and proposed contours, preliminary alignment and grades for sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer, 100 year flood plain contours, ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, and arrows showing direction of storm water flow. 8. The Owner shall, prior to issuance of building permit, provide written notice of the development contemplated by this Developer's Agreement to Minnesota Cablesystems Southwest, 10210 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344. rU1 Developer's Agreement Page 3 9. If the Owner fails to proceed with this agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, the Owner for itself, its successors, and assigns shall not oppose rezoning of said property to I-5 Park. 10. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against the Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property herein described. 11. The Owner acknowledges that the rights of the City to performance of obligations of the Owner contemplated in this agreement are spe- cial, unique and of an extraordinary character; and that in the event that the Owner violates or fails or refuses to perform any covenant, condition or provision made by him herein, the City may be without an adequate remedy at law. The Owner agrees, therefore, that in the event he violates, fails or refuses to perform any covenant, condition or provision made herein, the City may, at its option, institute and prosecute an action to specifically enforce performance of such covenant. No remedy conferred in this agree- ment is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy. 12. Any term of this agreement that is illegal or unenforceable at Taw or in equity shall be deemed to be void and of no force and effect to the extent necessary to bring such term within the provisions of any such applicable law or laws, and such terms as so modified and the balance of the terms of this agreement shall be fully enfor- ceable. 13. Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit, Owner shall pay to City fees for first 3 year street lighting (public streets), engineering review, and street signs required on West 78th Street abutting Property. 14. All debris and soil caused by construction on the Rezoned Property shall be removed by Owner from West 78th Street abutting the Property at least every two months, (or within one week from the date of any request by City), during the period commencing May 1 and ending October 31, of each year, until such time as such streets and improvements therein are accepted for ownership and maintenance by City. Prior to City accepting streets and improve- ments, Owner shall have restored all boulevards according to the obligations contained within Pdrayraph 15. IoS • Developer's Agreement Page 4 • 15. Within 20 days of installation of utilities and street curb in any portion of the property (if said time occurs between May 1 and October 31 of any year) Owner shall sod (secured within a minimum of 2 stakes per roll of sod) that part of the property lying bet- ween said curb and a line 18+ inches measured perpendicular with the curb or in lieu of said sod, place a fiber blanket with seed approved by the City (secured with stakes a maximum of 6 feet apart). Either sod or fiber must be placed upon a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil. The topsoil shall be level with the top of the curb at the curb line and rise ," for each foot from the curb line. Owner shall maintain the sod, fiber blanket, topsoil, and grade until such time as the streets and improvements in the property are accepted for ownership and maintenance by City. 16. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities, concrete curb, gutters, sidewalks, streets and other public utilities ("improvements") to be made and constructed on, within, or adjacent to the property and dedicated to the City shall be designed in compliance with City standards by a registered professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All of the improvements shall be completed by Owner and acceptable to the City Engineer and shall be free and clear of any lien, claim, charge or encumbrance, including any for work, labor or services rendered in connection therewith or material or equipment supplied - therefore on or before the later of, 2 years from the date hereof or _ , 19 . Upon completion and acceptance, Owner warrants and guarantees the improvements against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of two (2) years following said completion and acceptance. In the event of any defect in materials or workmanship within said 2 year period, warranty and - guarantee shall be for a period of three (3) years following said completion and acceptance. Defects in material or workmanship shall be determined by the City Engineer. Acceptance of improve- ments by the City Engineer may be subject to such conditions as he may impose at the time of acceptance. Owner, through his engineer, shall provide for competent daily inspection during the construc- tion of all improvements. As-built drawings with service and valve ties on reproducible mylar shall be delivered to the City Engineer within 60 days of completion thereof together with a written state- ment from a registered engineer that all improvements have been completed, inspected and tested in accordance with City-approved plans and specifications. lob Developer's Agreement Page 5 17. Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall: Submit a bond or letter of credit which guarantees comple- tion of all improvements within the times provided, upon the conditions, and in accordance with the terms of Paragraphs 15 and 16 above, including but not limited to, a guarantee against defects in materials or workmanship for a period of two (2) years following completion and acceptance of the improvements by the City Engineer. The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the estimated construction cost of said improvements, subject to reduction thereof to an amount equal to 25% of the cost of the improvements after acceptance thereof by the City Engineer, and receipt of as-built drawings. The bond or letter of credit shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the City Engineer. The Owner's registered engineer shall make and submit for approval to the City Engineer a written estimate of the costs of the improvements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) /U7 Developer's Agreement Page 6 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1983 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal cor- poration on behalf of the corporation. • Notary Public CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION by A. atcliffe, Pre6)dent STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4th day of February. , I983 by G. A. Ratcliffe, President, Cherne Contracting Corporation, a Michigan corporation, on behalf of the corporation. 1C10E M.tiEr:.N cOi:FY 2$< lit^.hE!•IN C,GAEY My Comrrass;nn bp!as 6 1.9,19e6 > -- -"---------' 1 KV NW fWW�VN.V.1Vi 0.,A'WW• NO y Pub l i c • tl I0 exectuir ABS1 R:.CT That part of Government Lot 6, Section 13, Township 116, Range 22 described as.follows: Cor::cncing at an intersection of the East line of Government Lot 6 with the Southerly line of y So. 494; thence West 11.0 feet; thence Southerly 250 feet to a point 14.7 feet West from raid East line; thence South parallel with said East line to Southerly line of Coverneent.Lot 6; t'ieare Fast to East line thereof; thence North to beginning, EXCEPT that port of Government Lot 6, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right-of-way line of for-.er State Highway No. 5, no-a designated as West 78th Street, and the cast line of said Government Lot 6; thence hest along said Southerly right-of-way line, a distance of 11 feet; thence South in a straight line to a point in a line drawn parallel with and distant 250 feet south of said southerly right-of-way tine, which point is distant 14.7 feet west of the east line of said Government tot 6, measured along said rarnilel line; thence East along said parallel line to the cast line of said government lot 6; thence North along said east line,of Government Lot 6 to the point of beginning. • • GOVERNMENT LOT 7 ' ABSTRACT rORTION Description fr-'a Certificate of Survey dated February 20, 1980 and revised February 26, 19a0, by Minnesota Valley Surveyors and Engineers. This desctiution differs from Document 4SS6471, filed Ap: 15, 1980, in that it defines the liignway Title Documents 4721072 and 1350870 for Highway 5 and Document 3360895 for Highway 494.and shows those lines on the survey. t,', All that part of Government Tot 7, Section 13, Township 116, Range 22, lying South of the South • boundary line of Old State Highway No. 5 (as per Doe. No's. 4221072 and 1350870), and lying West of the East 665 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, and situat in Wennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT that part of Government lot 7, Section 13, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right-of-way line of forcer State Highway No. 5 (as per Doc. No's. 4221072 and 1350870), now designated as West 7Sth Street, and the west line of Government Lot 7, thence Fast along said southerly right-of-way line, a distance of 89 feet, thence South in a straight line to a point in a line drawn parallel with and distant 250 feet south of said southerly right-of-way line, which point in .85.3 feet east of the west line of said Cnvernr.ent 'et 7, measured along said parallel line; thence West along said parallel line to the west line of Government Lot 7, thence North along the west line of Government Lot 7 to the point of beginning. • COt '!ENT LOT 7 PORTION CERTIFICATE NO. 600629 The West 50 feet of the East 665 feet of that part of Government Lot 7, lying South of State Highway No. S in Section 13, Tositship 116, Range 22. Subject to casv1wIlla of tecotd. '09 "EXHIBIT B" REZONED PROPERTY All that part of parcels shown on Exhibit A attached hereto which lie north of a line described as follows: Commencing at the centerline of the right-of-way of Old State Highway No. 5 (as per Document Numbers 4221072 and 1350870), and the West line of the East 615 feet of said Government Lot 7 thence South in a straight line parallel with and 615 feet West of the East line of said Government lot 7 a distance of 560 feet to the point of begining of the line to he described: thence West in a straight line a distance of 691 feet, more or less, along a line parallel with and 660 feet distant from the cen- terline of the right-of-way of said State Highway No. 5 to a point 560 feet South of the centerline of the right-of-way of said State Highway No. 5 and 14.7 feet West of the West line of said Government Lot 7. { ) /10 - • .... I, n'uloz:." 2- . . • , I. • '. ----- -•-- --- N TERSI ITT BHARAT NO :V... . . ._, :..... ..-:.'--:!-- : : -..- . --'7-*;. --- :___ • ..-;: '---.:::' .--- -Z:77—'----:.--,-7,:. - •....:'-.... •. . ,....„„, .:::.-- . .... • ----:-----.: . :"-. .-...77';','"----- ....... : . . ---:-:::- 3. 4 -:-':----'----- s E R c CI.-- .. . ii,..,_-:;1:...';''.,..\(17.'.."-1%.327-,::4kr-1-"^••-•—•.- . [..,,v.. I i:1, . ;;!:,.•',I' 1;.•',.;•' — - ;...-:' -?.,. 6iOry west-of E.line 1-1,11- iI, ,-,:,', '.. Ili,! A-1_1_ 11,r_y_,,:I It:: ,--1.; •of iNri of See.:1 .. ''-',::-:•:'...:.::'•I' - ..-..' ';., li;•,'', ! 1•-•2• c: • 12-'p•-,--,..r. •• .--, ...,:r1 ," .. , ! ,, : . ,_ ;.:',•.:::.:::L• .... . .....? . 1 v: ,,, ta , _ :?, , „..1, f/ •ti .. ;...7 i: -• '/ ' - ..... , ' :!‘ 1H-:‘,,'..-- ::-::'(P-% ' ', 1:7:‘,-..!. '''''l'i"",,r, ;(.fis..... 1.1'-ra'--::.").'1..!.!-"jr:;; -',/, '.,'" - •'.,.'/ C. •,_ ...._:•''...--,-;\',:'4 'i' '''''''',:::•:', --:•:'-i'..- ;:,.:,1':',,,•;''i'y'i"•'' • 1-.-i. - ?,•:.,,, .:. - 'Fc;....: -. V.:47---;› i..;,. ..,.:1,•;;:j ' .' i f-..., '' /ff ,/:,:‘,, I, ---s,7,•,,..::r.,, ,:/ .--;'::::•1.-7,,,-,_:',.....'',E.,...!..i [-: :1-,?.----',. ,:4 ,,c . \ . • , /7)/ -4". „\ •s".,i F, ,..i'j,),-,--:',':',1.:....;•:,. .."/ . .7 •- : ::;;;‘ ',;`::''''',:;:k i , ,'''. -.::`,1:::s7". -.......'"I •I '.: s, -_ ,.: '• NS,i.-1 ‘.:'1'`':.' •••,-.SF i.'4-- :I. :-..;) ' •-i,t1.-,:t,,':-.!",, ..- ,. „s;, ...:-.---:, %, , ,w ••••• IL'`‘c:--.,L:5'' 2';‘: .'.': . r,,.-.''.'r!..`-. .:1.1 1 ...'''..:,‘: •'1 '• '...• ..--; L'''' ‘. , m a .6,.. ,7.,[....,- ----`,_-',:.; 7-:'..•.)..,;;;,, . i-..: ,' i....:-...., ! , ‘.,..____,",....1 t'"` ..,:*'. ;:-=.,:,- --•'•-!'.,,- '.'•.•'.' ,-..c,.i , 'NI_.-,-_-__,\? . , ''.. 1;,--Q:-.. -.X.-:r7.-i;---)7.': ; .;%::.,.•:.',.". ,I .. 'i,... . ____....../,,,•:, i . .'':. , .‘;''-. ..''.....;'•:....... -.1-'' ' •• 1 •iii1 I I 111 1 i l',11 ' .:.... --- 1 • '' „-- , / .1 : :/ .- .N••• :••,...:,-- ,i. :::::. '::. - • • . • ' —,/ / ....--.--,17"----:-• I ,,• i :! tI; •!'. / ..,/";.-5:::-',, ... .., ' ) '., : , I 1 .....-- \:•ri ' (.., . .... . ( ...,,,...„ _•_••- •--.......-_-_-_ __-____.---- 'ill:, ...- .\,........,..), • yi ....,/ ..-. ..\ .. ---;--,,' ! / ..---*- •. ANDERSON L A r.I: • -li 7-) . .,.. ---• _,.. 9' ,•' I. .. !I " 1 ; , ; ::::.:...--..•1.,-.• t • tt, .. i; ,- ,, .. ...•,-, : ., ! 6,. a , 1(. .///, . - i-- ..:) ,,i: • ,,..--...--'...:‘,.-f.• j,1/ AcitC,.c I,..!'. • ,,-.....,,---.." 1; :, .. ); /..'" . (--‘1.1,v_ )C-1)1( ‘/1-il'1. ; , ., , I i i I 1, ... , 4., ,,, I • \ ‘\ ''T' /• •\\ I ;',1 —_7 ''.,\\ -)1:; I •.00u E-4.-c rc_l'i-; 1 : ',..; r ^A c A.;-I (:Q C.7_1 i•—• t I, .,!:, . "EXHIBIT D" WARRANTY DEED This Indenture, made this day of , 1983, between Cherne Contracting Corporation, a corporation under the laws of the State of Michigan, Grantor, and the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, of the State of Minnesota, Grantee, WITNESSETH, that in order to enhance and preserve the natural beauty of the area, Grantor hereby transfers and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, all of the tract of land (the "Land") lying and being in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota described as follows, to-wit: All that part of Government Lot 7 lying west of the east 665.00 feet thereof and the east 14.70 feet of Government Lot 6, all lying south of Old State Highway No. 5, per Document Numbers 4221072 and 1350870, all in Section 13, Township 116, Ranye 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of Old State Highway No. 5, per Document Numbers 4221072 and 1350870, and the west line of the east 14.70 feet of said Government Lot 6; thence South 0 degrees 37 minutes 37 seconds East, on an assumed bearing, along said west line a distance of 1400.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 52 degrees 21 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 500.00 feet; • thence on a bearing of East a distance of 55 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of Anderson Lake and there terminating. • { -1- 112 1 Together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, to Grantee, its successors and assigns, subject to the conditions hereinafter stated, Forever. The above-described parcel comprises approximately 1.72 acres. This conveyance is made upon the following conditions: (1) That the Grantee shall maintain the Land in its natural state as an open space area; (2) That no building, facility, equipment, fencing or structure of any kind shall be placed, erected, maintained or permitted thereon; (3) That the Land shall not be permitted to be used as a picnic area, playground, swimming area or swimming pool or for any other use which is incon- sistent with the maintenance of the Land in its natural state. Provided, however, that other uses may be permitted only upon the prior express written approval by Grantor, its successors or assigns. Should Grantee, its successors, or assigns desire to utilize the Land for purposes other than the maintenance of the Land in its natural state, it shall first make written appli- cation therefor to Grantor and shall submit with such application, detailed plans and specifications for the proposed improvements or changes, together with a statement of the purpose for which such improvements are to be used or changes are to be made and the manner in which the requested use will be regulated and policed by Grantee. If Grantee should use, improve or change the Land or permit the same to be used in contravention of the conditions stated herein and without the prior written approval of Grantor, then and in that event this transfer shall be void and the fee title and all rights of possession of the Land shall revert to Grantor, its successors or assigns. -2- If Grantee receives from Grantor written permission for certain changes in use of improvement of the Land subject to terms and conditions as to the manner of use or type of improvement, and if Grantee fails to observe and comply fully and faithfully with those terms and conditions, then and in that event the fee title and all rights of possession of the Land shall at the option of Grantor, its successors and assigns, revert to Grantor, its successors or assigns sixty (60) days following the date upon which written demand to comply with the aforesaid terms and conditions is made by Grantor upon Grantee, and upon the failure by Grantee to remedy fully its breach of such conditions within such sixty (60) day period. The conditions set forth herein shall be perpetual and shall bind the Grantee and its successors in interest and shall inure to the benefit of Grantor, its successors and assigns. And the said Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, does covenant with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that it is well siezed in fee of the Land and premises aforesaid, and has good right to transfer and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free from all encumbrances, except for (i) rights of the public and of the state in and to that part of the real property lying below the natural high water mark of Anderson Lake; (ii) that portion of the property which is a result of fill or accretion; (iii) other encumbrances, interests and reservations of record which • do not materially effect the intended use of the property. And the above granted Land, in the quiet and peaceable possession of Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, subject to encumbrances, if any, herein-before mentioned and the conditions herein stated, the Grantor will Warrant and Defend. 4 S -3- • IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be exe- cuted in its coporate name by its President and its Secretary and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed the day and year first above written. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION By Gary A. Ratcliffe Its President By Audrey K. Hower Its Secretary • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of_ , 1983, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Gary A. Ratcliffe and Audrey K. Hower to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the President and the Secretary of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the cor- porate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said Gary A. Ratcliffe and Audrey K. Hower acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. • 1 -4- Il�� • Cherne Contracting CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-31 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE e4-32 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4-82 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1983; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the sumnary of Ordinance 4-82, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance e1-82 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof cf publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 • days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on , 1983. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: • y0 ,lohn D. Franc, City Clerk /l( The following is the full text of the City of Eden Prairie Ordinance No. 4-82 which was adopted and order published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on October 5, 1982. Following the text of the Ordinance, the !veloper's Agreement, which is incorporated therein by Section 5 of the Ordinance, .s sunmarized. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Cherne Contracting ORDINANCE NO. 4-82 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, AWPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance, (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the I-2 District and placed in the Office District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, removed from the I-5 District and shall be included in the Office Oistrict, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City ode, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 8, shall be, and are, amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation," and Section 11.99 entitled, "Violation a Misdemeanor," are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated , 1983, entered into between Cherne Contracting Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. 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 5th day of October, 1982, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the -- day of , 1963. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: i John D. Franey City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __ ___ day of . 1963. ll'I Summary of Developer's Agreement: Cherie Contracting Office Developer will develop the land as described in Exhibit A in accordance with Exhibit B , both of which are attached to and incorporated in the Developer's Agreement. In addition, the Developer's Agreement provides for: 1. Developer's warranty of title to the land. 2. Conveyance of 10% of the land to the City and submission to the City of proof that the condition of title of property conveyed to the City is such that it will vest good and marketable title in the City. 3. Construction of a landscape barrier if need for such barrier is determined by the Community Services Director. 4. Protection of the eastern wooded hill during and after construction. 5. Submission to the Watershed District of storm sewer construction plans. Developer to follow the rules and regulations of said Watershed District. 5. A variance for building height to he reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 7. Construction of additional parking spaces if determined necessary by City. B. Submission to the City Engineer of a development plan for the land. 9. Notice to the City's cable franchise. • 10. Developer's commitment not to oppose rezoning if Developer fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement in 24 months. 11. City's remedies in the event that Developer violates the provisions of the Developer's Agreement. 12. Application of the Developer's Agreement to transferees of the land. 13. Payment to the City of the first 3 year's lighting fees. 14. Construction of improvements in accordance with the City's regulations. Notice: A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on , 1983. John D. Irene, City Clerk Wolfgang It. Peniel, Mayor • C11LRNE 1 SINCE 1918 • CIII:iixi CONFR1CTI\C; CO1n'ORATION POST O F F I C C B O X 9 7 5 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 53440 TCLCPIIONL 9A4•2050 G. A. RATCLIFFE PR,AIna.T ANLA LOPE 012 TwX 019-5)0-2786 • February 4, 1983 Mayor Wolfgang Penzel City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mayor Penzel: It is my understanding that the 1.72 acres of land which we are conveying to the City under the terms of our Developer's Agreement in lieu of cash park fees will subsequently be conveyed by the City to the Hennepin County Park Reserve District to be included in the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. We commend the efforts of the City and the Park Reserve District to establish this area as a wildlife refuge area and we are pleased to be located adjacent to this Park. We find, after reviewing our development plans, that we are in a position to dedicate to the City an additional four acres of land as shown on the attached sketch. We would be happy to convey this land to the City as a gift without consideration with the understanding that the City would see that this land is also incorporated into the Wildlife Park. Should the City be interested in accepting this gift please advise. We would plan to transfer the parcel to the City shortly after we have begun construction on our office building. Sincerely, Ratcliffe Pr. dent GAR:lg F qt i MINNI I.HOIIS 0,II<[•,,,,wAS.,INO104 A INUT SOUTH (/ / •HPHICATION n1ANi P,0 SON eO?.IPONMOOD,r,CS00.N..93. • 1 ' . " • •••••. .. . - --•• ______—-- -- - , • • ..... .. •34..... • - '7",-:............ . 1 e• .......... . .... ••• — .....- ..• .. - --_ :._"__•_—_-—_ _ _.._. - . _ ._ • . --- _ . _ _ _ _ 1 .-- - - -"-- - ;--- - .-:•-: ........-..--7:— . . ---7.77.7--,. - ---- • - • .. . .. .,...._ : ::....... .............-- .." • . ... . •,----- a. „a, ...... ...: ........ - . . • " - --".... j ... ..„.....„ . ........: ' •.:-.,... . . ---• - I 7 1- 1-1-ti..-i -- t.I 7 ;-. •••-_,•'-•:.---*.,_-.,i ,-'•••lf-,•;;;;.;-4,7---i---------."-,-•:;•.1 i . ::.• ..•g',.,,I,i ri 1 Lz , .. ,-•:•:::Li,;f:•-7,-:4.-.---,- i:V,,Lf_.,...---'-..'.6..:-.:;.:"?.:V...1-7.,1 :. / , '....... 1 i • ;....-.:1_ :::'•,'1.1 :,-,.=?•--.:.._ .-; . -1 , .••- %.:1%, 's ,I J .:••• .-- i ..,.,,,,. --c•DELL ,9 • ... \ 07. -.1-: :1 . ----'•—• •11 "1 . 7..... I `e''.:!.., , • -W. ".1.• .:101 • C-1-•;_ri)-(7:1!" .•'s ',•,:' c: ', • 1":, . -::••"' r •:•.•.::.:. '..1, ,:_r. V,4 :1',.., ,• ;1 A Led • • .[-• j•••••11.:•..•11:::74:_i .,tti....: • : - •__ .- • ,..-7.:.),......,.r,..ri:T.:4.f,..11t41 _,!1. ..../ ; ...... -:'_,, :::::./::•-''''' -....,•".' 1...-? '.1:.)il'1...1'. if -..• . *:'5 i •:..e 4-7.--:•-•-:-.:,--$.1 17,•. r' .1-15,.::-.-_,.--,ft,..-.,-, i •i 2-7,/,!;_=---;-_-,s,s-tig.'7' "•;;:-'--"Ii,?7'-'7-7,--',:;.:',7P.f<,77:.,,,S:1;7"'',-;:';', ...i?-'i'r: .i''.% \ ' '. I ' './r/-1,r .-1,7-%`:.:;:;:,.,,.A...:,-;1,7:4 1.--.15'•-:.-„:. .;a-_,.. .,3-"-% "-'::::::_,it',;el..4-...„...,L 1..... •:. 1 1 <y4 _•:.,.., '.1::,,<Y•1',•:-1-...:.-;.,",..,.--,..;1-,1.:t,:-.J;;-_-,j:',Iii c,:t..-7.7-„r.,:.ri,i4,...,•-t:, ;,.. \--,. .. , /...b„--- -,t,, ',,:tn%;•..s,•,,,::.,:.:;;;,7•4,•-•%.;__,.•_-_:.'.:,.,,,-,-:---__::-/: "7, ''../..i--;-.1 IV', '‘. •- .•. •' , I Zi/ ........, •-1 -.,?..).:...L•r_i__,.....—:.,_.,_!...„----,1.I t-i,7,',:-.7-77,.•<-1 ------7,7:•-;.7:..,!.,-;v - ‘,....‘ • • Ii // •/ .'.. •‘,"'77.1--... '•;,.'S': -C:''r.-4'--_1"'":", .7`••17:-:, ''''':-..e• - t ''''',.^/'''..—.. • %.. / •.. \1"•\''.... ;.7,i- `,:‘.):4,..I.L5,1,j,_i- , 1,...1 i'.PT,Iti.7.."1--t7".L ' i 1 ':', ...,_• NN ...../: ' ! '‘...)§0 ‘''':-..,.::r.i...7.73,... .,, ,. i :.: . - -:•': ..-_,. • '"1 \ \ . _ I . . %....L.'.;\:::.:"7-7:7‘7,:•'' •-7-,-,-;"::-;_-N., ',';'...:. ;f:".R '• •i .... f tt/110LE ("CATE ". '. .. . . %., • ',:c.isi:77.- ,./7•-----.7.'T''.--..'!;-7.‹,1:.,•,r'..., t ' I.1 ''.', / .';• . 1 • • • 1 :,!!I 1 i t•1 i ‘ "....` in's, ‘'':',.' . 1 - ,.:.,.::.:.'• .:•:' ). :. ....-;,:,::.;:... . ,,.::;•' !:.____, .L. I • I ..."4,,.;"...,,,,,„.::\'.:,:,;A:..7:.:::; ..7'... -:.::::..i: I --"..—1,111,1-5V.tiP1' 1 :// ',\•••-•:ND.:1.•I........i.:;:-: :.•:•/.• ...'• .••• • ./.- ,'• .• : •.. '., .y., - -•.( .,....-:.-••—•..:.., ,... ,.• 1 t .f.,-, : I/ t e•-•\,.* .::,-.% i. :- , ... " ,," e ;,7 •z-,-, .' •' •7:i Ili 0,-.‘" %,rz' ..- ...' : •' ,.: . %.: • : .. . .•; 1.,_,-%.,- -. 1:;.',:'. / 'i.::-/ ( A dZk, ,'' . .. 1;'';•i.1 . .-1 t • i ;',.,:•'... .' . ... . 4 t a. L, _...........,........._.::::...-•' •,t ..._- •, 1i,,,I.,, ... 1,1..., 1 .••\\ / •-•:.,:) ( .-•--->, -1.16 - \ '.• '-"' i . . .-1--1:1.''.. .<:;: • ....*' 1-••• .1 .2. -0.:,-- ;M. • '•/: % 1 . s..: -)*, . 6•:::•.!*...e.•:/: ..-7..-.-.7....-..":::: i 1 1 - F. : i : , : ..../ n... :• .f..,,;,//.•1; .1, ..., _._:.., •••• ...-,..:•:,f1:,/, 1.e 5- o.c.rtS , •-- ,--;- '. ‘1, '';'-..\.-^`•--1 . ..:••- •••"!.-.'1,.. . / "-•,----N '•\) , -) . .--..,'.--.:' 2,24 act.<.1 t ; ,..., i) r r:...,-r-r-....:•-.,-;.-.•:.• --- \ • - • 4, 7',.....1.•;.K.; ../...,..."--'/ r lir iir III ) : (,. ----•—• i,. ,. ,, ,,, r, . 1 paapeSC o (.1.F-T i. 1 0.../• , —'1-02. ts 0-4 5 ; I .• ,; : . i.• ,, ' .1 ; ,'? PARse,Deo I u.-rfaiV . r i. (EDE A.1 ea Ata.1...- f , 1 ......\ • " t::-vet..pa s. t „ I 1(.2tRy,k..ri- / 0 ____________-", _________...--- - - - - - - -- --- — ------ ---- - - - --- I. GIFT PARCEL (2.21 acres) !• All that 'part of Gov't. Lot 7 lying west of the East 665.00 feet thereof and.the Fast 14.70 feet of Cov"t. Lot.6, all lying south of Old State High/0 Ko. :5; per Document Numbers 4221072 and 1350870: all in Section 13. Township ' 116. Range 22. Hennepin County, Minnesota. described es follows . Co..-.ancing at, the intersection of the south line of Old State Iiighway'Ve. 5. . • per Docent Numbers_4221.072 and 1350870. and' the west line of the Fast 14.10 feet. • I of said Government Lot 6; thence South 0"degrees 37 minutes 37 seconds East. on an assumed bearing, along said west line a distance of 1400.00 feet to the-point of beginning; thence Korth 52 degrees 21 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 156.00 ' feet; thence North 41 degrees 17 minutes 44 seconds Vest a distance of 191.12 feet, more or less, to a point on tic nest line of the East 14.70 feet of. said Gov't. l.ot' • 6 distant 238.90 feet northerly from the point of beginning; thence North 31 degrees . 22 minutes 00•seconds East: a distance of 529.00.feet; thence North 65 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds test a distance of 310.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the west line of the,East 14.70 feet of said Gov't. Lot 6 distant 820.00 feet northerly from the point of,beginning; thence South 0 degrees 37.minutes 37 seconds East along said west • line a distance of 820.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 2.21 acres. GIFT PARCEL (1.85 acres) • All that part of the West 50 feet of the East 665 feet of that part of Goverment Lot 7, lying South of State Trunk Highway No. 5 in Section 13. Township 116, Range 22 according to Torrens Certificate No. 6C0629 and that part of Government Lot 7 lying west of the East 665.00 feet thereof and south of Old State Trunk Highway No. 5, per Document Numbers 4221072 and 1350870, all in Section 13, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of Old State Trunk Highway No. 5, per Document Numbers 4221072 and 1350870, and the west line of the East 14,70 feet of Government Lot 6 in said Section 13; thence South 0 degrees 37 minutes 37 seconds East, on an assumed bearing, along said west line a distance of 1400.00 feet; thence North 52 degrees 21 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 500.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 4'degr.•es 26 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 440.50 feet; thence South 63 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 274.96 feet, more or less, to a point on the east line of the West 50 feet of the East 665 feet of said Gov't. Lot 7 distant 770.92 feet southerly from said south line of Old State Trunk Highway No. 5; thence • southerly along said east line a distance of 200 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of Anderson Lake; thence westerly and southwesterly along said shore line to a line which bears'East from the point of b ukinning; thence on a herring of hest a distance of 55 feet, more or less, of the'point of beginning. Containing 1.85 acres, more or less. _:• Hennepin County Park Reserve District 3800 County Road 24•Maple Plain,Minnesota 55359•Telephone 612-473-4693 I- PARK RESERVES February 10, 1983 BAKER CARVER CROW HASSAN ELM CREEK „YLAND LAKE. LAKE REBECCA MARK.'HANRE,AN Mr. Carl Jullie, City Manager REGIONALPARKS City of Eden Prairie C.EAF"LAKE' 8950 Eden Prairie Road COON RAPIDS DAM Eden Prairie, MN 55344 EAGLE LAKE f:SH LAKE .AMESW AIL KE' Re: Cherne Property - Anderson Lakes Park Reserve MCDICINE I.AKE SPRING LAKE' Dear Mr. Jullie: SPECIAL USE AREAS BAKER PARK GO.F CocR'`R The District has received a letter, dated February 2, 1983, CLEARY LAKE GOLF CO'ASE' MYLAND HILLSSK AREA (attachment #1) from Bob Lambert requesting District comment NOERENBERG MEMORIAL for a February 15, 1983 City Council review of the Cherne TRAILCORRIDORS Corporation development proposal. This letter will serve as NOHTH.,ENND''.N TRAIL a narrative response in anticipation of a District presentation "HER PARKS with appropriate graphic materials for the February 15th meeting. t;AlASAC OLAN0 Y.-0000SEC.,ASE ISLAND As background, the City of Eden Prairie and District has 'E,;oc HENNL>.� previously addressed the Cherne property in the "Transfer i""°`"0'" Agreement for Anderson and Bryant Lakes Parks." Section 3.6 of that Agreement stated, "The City shall use its best efforts to BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS acquire, by dedication or donation, Parcel No. "1" . . . and WLLIAMBARBEAU to transfer this parcel to the District." The portion of the CHAR Cherne property to be acquired for park purposes has been M'."NEnRULs defined by the City, based on a previous "Blacklock Study" WILLIAM E.GENTRY VICE CHAR and includes approximately 53 percent of the total parcel. NEW HOPE JUDITHS ANDERSON Pursuant to the agreement, the District has felt it was BLOOM'NG ION SHIRLEY A BONINE the City's intent to secure this property and deed it to the MAPLEPLA.N District for public park purposes. The City has continually AMELIA M DeMUSE represented the importance of the "Blacklock line" and the M'.NNEAROI.IS CHARLFSR PwI importance of protecting the natural conditions surrounding oRONO Anderson Lakes. Now, the City proposes that only 33 percent MALCOLMD REID of the site be dedicated to the District and that a large TONKA BAY peninsula of private ownership be allowed to intrude to the shore DONALDCRINGHAM IMINNEAPeI of Anderson Lakes (see map). Further, we understand the owner �,� RAYMOND N SFAGREN wishes to develop said area as a private employee "picnic area" "l'NEA°D'•` while the City would prohibit a picnic area and almost all ANNE MARIE SOLENSKY recreational uses on the District's dedicated share of the property. M!NNEAI,LIN PHYLLIS CRIMmNS STE NE RSDN KINN(AP0o, Park Reserve District staff has reviewed the site and agrees with the City's previous position that the "Blacklock boundary" fTONFRIONCM is a legitimate and important factor in protecting Anderson Lakes S.),( N,CA:`E.N'N SFCRE'Ah,le'Hr P0AR0 and retaining this property in a natural state. The District urges the City to make whatever efforts they can to acquire this property as per the original City plan. 3 /0') Mr. Carl Jullie February 10, 1983 Page 2 With regard to the City's request that the District pay $11,350.00 to the City for lost "in lieu of cash park fees," we see no basis in the Transfer Agreement for such a request. We also anticipate that Metropolitan Council Parks and Open Space staff would not be receptive to such a payment. Additionally, the Park Reserve District objects to the conditions Eden Prairie intends to place on the deeding of the dedicated Cherne property (attachment #2 details such conditions). We particularly object to condition #2, page 2, prohibiting a fence. The enclosed letter from City staff (attachment #3) proposes to release Cherne (and adjacent owners) from a requirement to fence the property boundary and suggests the District build one as necessary. In summary: 1. The District strongly encourages the City to use its best effort to acquire that portion of the Cherne property defined by the "Blacklock line," and as identified in the Transfer Agreement. 2. The District contends that the City should require Cherne Corporation and adjacent owners to fulfill the agreed upon fencing requirement. 3. No legal basis exists for paying the "in lieu of cash park fees." The District feels the original boundary for the park is an important element in protecting the natural state of the Anderson Lakes area and should not be usurped for a private development impacting directly on the shore area of the lake. The acquisition as originally proposed by the City will provide the greatest benefit to both the Park Reserve and the City of Eden Prairie. Very truly yours, • W. Christian, Director D partment of Administration JWC:af Enclosures j. 123 Attachment No. 1 CITY OFFICES/8950 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE.MN 55344 2499/TELEPHONE 16121937 2282 t':11....,,,,,r,' , .-47-4 Gi'"] February 2, 1983 s Clif French, Superintendent Hennepin County Park Reserve District 3800 County Road 24 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 RE: Cherne Contracting Parcel - Anderson Lakes Regional Park Reserve Dear Clif: As you are aware, Cherne Contracting Corporation has made application for rezoning their parcel on the north shore of Anderson Lakes. Approximately 50% of their property had been shown in the Anderson Lakes Regional Park Plan for future acquisition, and as you pointed out in your September 14, 1982 letter, the City agreed that it would "use its best efforts to acquire by dedication or donation that portion of the Cherne property, identified as Parcel No. 1 and transfer this parcel to the District". In the City's initial negotiations with Cherne, the City requested the developer to dedicate a large portion of his property and to pay the cash park fee to the City. You indicated in your September 14 letter that the District's interpretation of the transfer is that the City should secure the dedication of this property (and transfer it to the District) prior to securing any additional payments to the City. The City has negotiated further with Cherne Contracting Corporation and they have agreed to dedicate 10% of their property in lieu of cash park fees and to give as a donation an additional 23% of their property. This 33% total dedication will still not comply with the original boundary as depicted as Parcel No. 1. However, this boundary does relate very well to the parcels adjacent to it and still allows the developer reasonable use of his property. In attempting to live up to our portion of the bargain and use our best efforts, the City had to agree to give up approximately $11,350 in cash park fees. By giving up this request of the developer, the City was able to obtain one-third of their property; however, the City is no longer an imple- menting agency and this negotiation represents a loss of $11,350 to the local park system. As the City interprets the agreement with the District, the City will be reimbursed for any local funds that are invested in the regional park system. The City Council will be reviewing this proposal at the February 15, 1983 Council meeting. I would appreciate if you would reply with your opinion whether or not you agree with our interpretation of the agreement and if you ' feel the dedication line was satisfactory. /2 Li Clif French -2- February 2, 1983 I look forward to hearing from you prior to February 10 (the deadline for our Council packet information). Sincerely, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Robert A. Lambert Director of Community Services RAL:md • • Attachment No. 2 Together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto . belonging, or in anywise appertaining, to Grantee, its successors and assigns, Isubject to the conditions hereinafter stated, Forever. The above-described parcel comprises approximately 1.72 acres. This conveyance is made upon the following conditions: (1) That the Grantee shall maintain the Land in its natural state as an open space area; (2) That no building, facility, equipment, fencing or structure of any kind shall be placed, erected, maintained or permitted thereon; (3) That the Land shall not be permitted to be used as a picnic area, playground, swimming area or swimming pool or for any other use which is incon- sistent with the maintenance of the Land in its natural state. Provided, however, that other uses may be permitted only upon the prior express written approval by Grantor, its successors or assigns. Should Grantee, its successors, or assigns desire to utilize the Land for purposes other than the maintenance of the Land in its natural state, it shall first make written appli- cation therefor to Grantor and shall submit with such application, detailed plans and specifications for the proposed improvements or changes, together with a statement of the purpose for which such improvements are to be used or changes are to be made and the manner in which the requested use will be regulated and . policed by Grantee. If Grantee should use, improve or change the Land or permit the same to be used in contravention of the conditions stated herein and without the prior written approval of Grantor, then and in that event this transfer shall be void and the fee title and all rights of possession of the Land shall revert to Grantor, its successors or assigns. -2- If Grantee receives from Grantor written permission for certain changes in use of improvement of the Land subject to terms and conditions as to the manner of use or type of improvement, and if Grantee fails to observe and comply fully and faithfully with those terms and conditions, then and in that,event the fee title and all rights of possession of the Land shall at the option of Grantor, its successors and assigns, revert to Grantor, its successors or assigns sixty (60) days following ;he date upon which written demand to comply with the aforesaid terms and conditions is made by Grantor upon Grantee, and upon the failure by Grantee to remedy fully its breach of such conditions within such sixty (60) day period. The conditions set forth herein shall be perpetual and shall bind the Grantee and its successors in interest and shall inure to the benefit of Grantor, its successors and assigns. And the said Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, does covenant with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that it is well siezed in fee of the Land and premises aforesaid, and has good right to transfer and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free from all encumbrances, except for (i) rights of the public and of the state in and to that part of the real property lying below the natural high water mark of Anderson Lake; (ii) that portion of the property which is a result of fill or accretion; (ii-i_).."14 or-encumhrnnres-, interests..and_r:eservat-ions^vf'4`'is'c 'd—whZh_ ,, And the above granted Land, in the quiet and peaceable possession of Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, subject to encumbrances, if any, herein-before mentioned and the conditions herein stated, the Grantor will Warrant and Defend. -3- ,OCT 8 hment No. �c�tr�� CITY OFFICES/9310 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 553442499/TELEPHONE I6121 937 2262 October 6, 1982 J Clif French, Superintendent Hennepin County Park Reserve District 3800 County Road 24 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 RE: Cherne Contracting Parcel - Anderson Lakes Regional Park Reserve Dear Clif: At the October 5, 1982 meeting, the Eden Prairie City Council reviewed the • Cherne Contracting Corporation Development Proposal for a corporate head- quarters office complex to be constructed on the north shore of Anderson Lakes. As you are aware, by the information provided in my September 15, 1982 letter, the City has been negotiating with the Cherne Corporation regarding dedication of the southern portion of their property to be included in the Regional Park Reserve. Through the "use of its best efforts" the City was able to acquire 33% of the Cherne property to be dedicated to the Park Reserve District via a warranty deed. The City accepted 10% of the property in lieu of cash park fees and an additional 23% as a gift to comply with the regional park goals of protecting the north shoreline. As you are aware, the Blacklock line would have taken 53% of the site; therefore, the dedication line will fall well short of the original Blacklock line. We have requested the Cherne Corporation to provide a legal description and map of the line agreed to at the Council meeting last evening. The Hartfort Company, Gelco and the Bachman Anderson Company (now the Cabriole Building) were all required by a Developer's Agreement to con- struct either a 6' high chain link fence or a vegetative barrier equal to a 6' high fence to ensure protection of the shoreline nesting area from human intrusion (basically office workers during noon hours, etc.). The City made the same requirement of Cherne Contracting Corporation; however, it was pointed out that neither Ilartfort, Gelco or Bachman Anderson had installed this vegetative barrier to date and there didn't appear to be any problems with human intrusion on the lakeshore. The City Council requested that City staff inspect the area to determine if there was a problem with people walking down to the shoreline from any of those office sites and agreed that if there wasn't a problem, perhaps a vegetative barrier would not he necessary. City staff will make the requested inspection, but would also suggest that the Park Reserve District consider a boundary fence in this location if the Park Reserve feels there is a problem. If a boundary fence is installed I would expect that each of the office complexes would screen the fence from their buildings through landscape plantings that eventually might be the vegetative barrier requested. • / Cb Clif French -2- October 6, 1982 As soon as the City has received a map and legal description of the ded- icated portion of the Cherne property, we will forward this information to your office. The City will request the deed be transferred directly to the Park Reserve District. If you have any further questions regarding this property dedication, please feel free to contact me. ., Sincerely, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Robert A. Lambert Director of Community Services RAL:md • Lz9 • .N to et: 4 i. •III •! . o � 0 I • �11 ''•0 • ., O I.- CZ U = ' • i O . rt 0 _i • 1. ' a O $ r t� \ 111) �`v • z / ` \ �\ . j ."j \'•\ /•• W \ • 7 \\i "..'41<' \'\.. - N' % ti' el . . • V Y :Z r . jA • ii : . • •.. C.:--- • • • • u : ' �i•,4` r• l E `• • o i Je• •.\' • P. ••• ei__-J : : . . • ..., > , • . • \•`•• O E LI�.J • • •' ••• . .• i !„1 ` 1 • • • 1 / . • MORTT in., .• .7'. i e MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services g4_ DATE: February 9, 1983 SUBJECT: Change Order Staring Lake Park Shelter Attached is a copy of the proposed Change Order for the Staring Lake Park Shelter which reduces the final costs of the building by $200 and will require the City park crew to paint the security screens, and to do touch up painting that was previously unsatisfactory on some of the doors of the facility. With the acceptance of this Change Order, the City will approve the final payment of the Staring Lake Park Shelter. BL:md • • • • 0 CONTRACT NO. 7789 FIRST AMENDMENT TO GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEtiCITY OFE METROPOLITAN EDEN COUNCIL PRAIRIE The parties hereto agree that the grant agreement they entered into on the 30th day of December, 1977, by and between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Eden Prairie, relating to the development of recreation and open space trails in Bryant Regional Park, shall be and is hereby amended in the following particulars: • • Article 7, Paragraph a, Duration, is amended to read as follows: a. Duration. The period of grant award specified herein shall commence on the execution of this agreement and remain in force and effect until October 19, 1982. At that date, all allocated grant funds which have not been expended or otherwise committed by contract, shall revert to and become part of the Council's Parks and Open Space Fund and may be reallocated or expended by the Council for other park and open space acquisition and/or development purposes. Except as amended hereby, the provisions of the above-referenced contract shall remain in force and effect without change. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment tooabeyof executed by their duly authorized representatives on this 19 . METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By ugene ranc�ett, xecutive Director CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE Approved as to legal form and adequacy: By DintX% X Mayor Office of Staff Counsel By UMW): City Manager • CZ433A i 1�1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Service DATE: February 9, 1983 SUBJECT: Amendment Extending Contract #7789 for Trail Development in Bryant Lake Regional Park In December of 1977, the City of Eden Prairie entered into a grant • agreement with the Metropolitan Council for development of recreation trails in Bryant Lake Regional Park. The City completed a portion of the trail development, but did not complete the full development of the trail system due to the pending transfer of the park to Hennepin County Park Reserve District. The original grant agreement had an expiration date of December 31, 1978. This was extended in 1979; however no action was taken to extend it beyond 1979. This error was discovered when the City submitted a close out document in 1982. Therefore, as a matter of proper procedure, the' City should approve the extension of this contact until October 19, 1982, that is the date that all allocated grant funds which have not been expended or otherwise committed by contract shall revert to and become part of the Council's Park and Open Space Fund. The City will have to reimburse the Metropolitan Council approximately $32,500, which was the amount of unexpended funds on this trail project. BL:md • /33 CONTRACT NO. 7789 FIRST AMENDMENT TO GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE�+CITYE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PRAIRIE The parties hereto agree that the grant agreement they entered into on the 30th day of December, 1977, by and between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Eden Prairie, relating to the development of recreation and open space trails in Bryant Regional Park, shall be and is hereby amended in the following particulars: • Article 7, Paragraph a, Duration, is amended to read as follows: a. Duration. The period of grant award specified herein shall commence on the execution of this agreement and remain in force and effect until October 19, 1982. At that date, all allocated grant funds which have not been expended or otherwise committed by contract, shall revert to and become part of the Council's Parks and Open Space Fund and may be reallocated or expended by the Council for other park and open space acquisition and/or development purposes. Except as amended hereby, the provisions of the above-referenced contract shall remain in force and effect without change. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment tooabeyof executed by their duly authorized representatives on this , 19^. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By Eugene Franchett, Executive Director CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Approved as to legal form and adequacy: By °NAM= Mayor Office of Staff Counsel By $NOWNIXIIV City Manager • CZ433A /9)u . February 15, 1983 CITY OF Ea h CO2NTY, MIh'd O1A RISOIUTION ND. 83-35 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT DF NORRAN INDUSTRIAL PARK • b:N1.R,.AS, the plat of Norman Indust r•ial Park has hcon sub- mitted in the canner required for platting land •iuder the iden Prairie Ordinance Coe and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had tierundcr, and 1:NERFIS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the ieculatiOnS and roquirc nt5 of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin- ances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat Approval Request for Norman Industrial Park is approved upon compliance with the recor:rendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated February 8, 1983. • B. That tLe City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for their use as required by V.SA 462.368, Subd. 3. c. That the City Clark is hereby directed to su,ply a certified copy of this Resolution to the cnrars and Sobdiviid;:r5 of the above n::6.ed plat. D. That the Mayor and City 1';r.aycr are hereby authorised to Execute• the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- pliance with the forec.ing provisions. ADJiIFD by the City Council on February 15, 1983. Wolfgang H. Pln7e1, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frame, Clerk CITY OF [DEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager (mil FROM: David Olson, Engineering Technician gx 0 DATE: February 8, 1983 SUBJECT: NORMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPOSAL: The developer, Undestad Investment Company, is requesting City Council approval of the final plat of Norman Industrial Park. Please be advised the plat name conflicts with the existing Norman Addition and Norseman Industrial Park Addition and should possibly be changed. The plat contains approximately 32 acres to be divided into 5 • industrial lots, 3 residential lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1) and 3 Outlots. The area is located in the North ', of Section 3, east of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and north of Ponderosa Hills and Kings Forest Addition to Stevens Heights. HISTORY: Planned Unit Development Concept approval for industrial and residential use was approved by the City Council on August 17, 1982, per Resolution 82-191. The prelimininary plat was approved by the City Council on August 17, 1982, per Resolution 82-192. Zoning of the property, except for Outlot C and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, was approved by the City Council through Ordinance 135. Rezoning of the areas not covered previously must be accomplished prior to the issuance of any building permits for these areas. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution on February 15, 19B3. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: The developer will submit a 100" petition requesting installation of all municipal utilities, roadways, and walkways within this plat. The petition must be submitted prior to release of the final plat. Additional easements will be necessary to properly cover the utilities. ( These easements will he shown on the plat where possible and will be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to release of the plat. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. l3(O ., Final Plat - Norman Industrial Pal-k -2- Feb. 8, 1983 Outlots A, B and C will be retained by the Developer. BONDING: The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Norman Industrial Park subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Execution of the Developer's Agreement. 2. Receipt of 100% petition for utilities, roadways and walkways, and the necessary 5% deposit. 3. Receipt of additional utility easements as required by the Engineering Department. 4. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of $4,066.20 (9 lights). 5. Receipt of cash deposit for street signs in the amount of $140.00. 6. Change plat name. DLO:sg { 13c February 15, 1983 CITY OF FDI.N PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-36 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer, through Rieke, Carroll Muller Assoc., has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-042, Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition Utilities and Streets • and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file fur public inspection in the City Engineer's office. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The adver- tisement shall be published for 2 ':cek(s), shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be opened at 10:00 o'clock A.M. on Tuesday, March 29, 1983, and considered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, April 5, 1983, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and acco:apanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 15, 1983. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL - ---- - ------- --- ----...--------- John D. Thane, Clerk i3S • TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frane DATE: 2-10-83 RE: Tax Increment District #4 Tax Increment District #4 is the new bank on the Carpenter Property at the northwest corner of Prairie Center Drive and Highway #5. Attached is the plan for T. I. F. #4. 043 • SECTION VI. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT'DISTRICT NO. 4 The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota has heretofore established Development District No. 1 pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A, as amended, and did adopt, on March 30, 1982, an Amended Development District No. 1 Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Development Program"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. A. Statement of Objectives. See Section I, Subsection B of the Development Program. B. Development Program. See Section I of the Development Program C. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment District No. 4. The following parcel located in the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota: PIN Property Description 10-116-22-44-0003 Lot 1 Block 1 Minnesota Tree D. Parcels in Acquisition. It is anticipated that the City will acquire parcels located within Development District No. 1, but not contained within Tax Increment District No. 4. These parcels will be acquired through tax increment financing, in part from tax increments accruing form Tax Increment District No. 4. As the City acquires said parcels, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 4 will be modified to reflect the acquisitions of said parcels. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired at a future date: (1) The City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of the tax increment financing plan; and (2) Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. E. Development Activity in Development District No. 1 for which contracts have been signed. The following contracts have been entered into by the City of Eden Prairie and the persons named below: (1) Buesing Bros. Trucking, Inc.: $968,835.22; starting August 1982, estimated completion February, 1983. Partial work on the Prairie Center Drive/1-494 underpass and connection from W. 78th Street to Valley View Rd. Grading, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, bituminous surfacing, bridge, ramps and traffic signals, 0.64 miles. (I.C. 51-308A) ///il (2) Shafer Contracting Co.: $3,782,476.18; starting November, 1982, est,jmated completion October, 1984. Partial work on the Prairie Center Drive/1-494 underpass and connection from W. 78th Street to Valley View Rd. Grading, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, bituminous surfacing, bridge, ramps and traffic signals, 0.64 miles. (I.C. 51-3O8A) (3) Minnesota Department of Transportation: $165,757.18; starting December, 1982, estimated completion July, 1934. TH 169 from W. 78th Street to Valley View Rd. Bridge widening and widening TH 169 to four lanes. 0.06 miles. (I.C. 51-3O8B) (4) Richard Knutson, Inc.: $1,998,716.88; starting August, 1982, estimated completion October, 1983. Valley View Rd.-Mitchell Road to Menards & Prairie Center Drive to TH 5. Grading, curb and gutter, storm drainage. Sidewalks and bituminous surfacing. 1.37 miles. (I.C. 51-34OA) (5) Hennepin County: $143,239.99; starting July, 1982, estimated completion July, 1983. Baker/Mitchell Rd. connection. Grading, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and bituminous surfacing along new alignment of Mitchell Rd. from Valley View Rd. to Baker Rd. 0.85 miles. (I.C. 51-34OB) (6) Northdale Construction Co. Inc.: $2,413,090.60; starting August, 1982, estimated completion Dctober, 1984. Prairie Center Drive TH 169 to TH 5. Grading, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and bitiminous surfacing. 0.85 miles. (I.C. 51-398) (7) Hennepin County: $449,781.40; starting April 1983, estimated completion June 1983. Valley View Road from Washington Ave. to 0.5 miles west. Grading and widening existing road and traffic signal at Washington Ave. (I.C. 51-335) F. Other Specific Develiornent Expected to Occur within Development District No. 1. The City has given approval for the construction of two banks, a 152-unit hotel, a condominium office project, an office building and two town office projects. It is anticipated that additional private development of commercial, industrial and residential projects will occur. Of the above development anticipated in Development District No. 1, only one of the two banks as described in Subsection C above is in Tax Increment District No. 4. G. Budget for Tax Increment District No. 4. See Section I1, Subsection P, page 2-9 of the Development Program. H. Bonded Indebtedness to be Incurred. It is anticipated that $22,875,000 of bond indebtedness will be incurred with respect of Development District No. 1 of which $18,000,000 in general obligation tax increment bonds were issued in 1982. I. Sources of Revenue. It is anticipated that the major source fo revenue will be provided through the issuance of general obligation tax increment bonds with a total of $22,875,OD0 anticipated to amortize costs in Development District No. 1. Bond sales will be staged in this project and based on availability of tax increment. A first stage issue was sold on March 2, 1932, in the amount of $IB,0OO,OOO. /u/ s 3. Estimate of Tax Increment from Tax Increment District No. 4. The most recent assessed value of Tax Increment District No. 4 is estimated to be $5,400. The estimated captured assessed value of Tax Increment District No. 4 at completion is estimated to be $390,20D. K. Duration of the District. The duration of Tax Increment District No. 4 is expected to be ten years. L. Estimated Impact on Taxing Jurisdictions. The estimated impact of Tax Increment District No. 4 on the taxing jurisdictions within which Tax Increment District No. 4 is located is as follows: DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IMPACT ON TAX BASE Original District District Assessed % of Future % of Entity Tax Base Value Entity Assessed Entity Hennepin County $7,114,542,800 $5400 .0D01% $395,600 .D056% I.S.D. #272 204,176,469 5400 .0026 395,600 .193E City of Eden Prairie 211,846,135 5400 .0025 395,600 .1867 I.S.D. #287 4,452,866,219 5400 .00D1 395,600 .0089 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IMPACT ON MILL RATES Current Potential Mill Rate Mill Rate Taxes Increase (2) Hennepin County 28.451 (27) $11,102 .002 I.S.D. #272 49.981 (48) 19,503 .096 City of Eden Prairie 20.018 (19) 7,811 .037 I.S.D. #287 1.119 ( 1) 437 .000 Other (1) 5.569 ( 5) 2,173 .000 104.537 $41,026 (1) Other taxing entities include the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, Watershed District, Metropolistan Council, Metropolitan Transit Commission, Park Museum, County Park Suburban, Hennepin Regional Railroad. (2) Assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of a Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. /l a • • MEMORANDUM T0: Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Stuart A. Fox, City Forester ��F DATE: February 3, 1983 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Removal by Contract of Diseased Trees on Private Property The staff has made several attempts to have the affected property owners remove their Dutch elm dieases trees. To date the procedures have been as follows: 1. Original notification - summer of 1982. Card gives the tree numbers, diameters and date tree(s) are to be down - 20 days after marking. 2. Second notification letter sent to property owners (copy attached). 3. Date set for Public Hearing - January 18, 1983 Council Meeting • 4. Public notification of property owners published in Eden Prairie News February,91°1982. Letter also sent to property owners in- forming them of the February 15, 1983 public hearing. A complete list has been provided with the estimated removal costs. These costs are based on $9 per diameter inch of tree, the average bid price for the summer of 1982. Some of the property owners on the list have contacted the staff regarding the removal of their trees and staff will continue to work with these property owners. However, many have not complied with City Code Section 9.62 (Ordinance #77-36). In past years every attempt to allow the homeowners has been exercised by waiting until April 1 to take down the trees; however, this has caused several . problems. These include soft ground making removal difficult without expensive restoration and road restrictions which prohibit the large trucks from hauling on residential streets. Staff recommends the Council require abatement of the trees on the attached list by Resolution No. 83-30 with removal to begin March 1, 1983. SAF:md • • /43 November 2, 1982 • Dear Landowner: As you may recall, your property was inspected this past summer for evidence of Dutch Elm Disease and Oak Wilt. Shortly thereafter you received a notice, pur- suant to the City's Tree Disease Ordinance No. 77-36, to removb the diseased tree(s) so detected not later than 20 days after receipt of said notice and to Verify thereafter with the City that such removal had been accomplished. To-date our records indicate that the diseased tree(s) on your property have not been removed and so we now urgently request that you make arrangements to complete such removal not later than December 15, 1982. If removal is not com- pleted by this date, it will be necessary for us to recommend to the City Council that they order the trce(s) to be removed pursuant to Ordinance No. 77-36. The terms under this procedure are: 1. A public hearing will be conducted by the Council and the removal will be ordered. 2. The City will hire a tree removal contractor who will complete the • removal and disposal of the marked tree(s) on your property. • 3. All costs thereof will be billed to you and payable to the City within 30 days. 4. If payment is not received, the total amount plus interest is added as a special assessment on the following year's tax statement for your property. Whenever possible we wish to avoid this cumbersome process and so your full cooperation by removing the tree(s) promptly will be most sincerely appreciated. Your immediate attention to such removal will also help protect other trees in the community which, as we know you will agree, add significantly to the property values and natural beauty of Eden Prairie. If you have any questions or if removal is already completed, please call my office at 937-2262, ext. 48. Thank you. • Sincerely, ;36.utki-Ot.'41)4. Stuart A. Fox City Forester SAF:and - . ..1 N N • •.. 1 .••1 01 C In :0 0 h F. F. F. -I jC I U 01 F. 01 4-,- F. W O F. 0 T 01 G ..1 0) x O 0 O O F. u O [-..-1 1-. 0 I. E. IO ow cepb• C C..) • 0-• I.. C ..1 In .n C.M CO u.c I):. .a Mes+sn_n•.-. .. • 01 •F-' 0 0 0 CO F-N O. O 0 .. 0 ~ C+ 0WVN In 0 N O 0 N 0 IA ' 0 4.... .O N N In .-I .O of - N 11 .4 N in W V) M V) .A V) V) 411 4•4 IR IR cm N N N N N N Oil OilN aD aD aD OD N Co Co 6 W \ .O rn Co - _ _ \ M CO N .. N .r .-1 01 1-1 N L]ti N N 1'- CO N CO Co so U) W W .. M 'V et .. .r N N M 1-1 v. OND N en .. .•. C N .14 g C C 'C O. •r 41 C I.0 4--N In � � � N6 t^ Of N ) Of Net 17 1 0 •0 V. O O Ni en .00 N 0 0 SI. 0 ?C O O O C O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O -coo O O V O V I O N O N O V1 O O O N 1 ,- 'U I . I I 'Cl '•'• I 'C I O''O I •C.y b rd I 1 oZ C.. F.V. V V.N .-1.O C N In O N Of 0 N 0 N 1� 0 et 0 .+ M N 4. O •II U.. N N N CI N ON 0. O ^• ON 0 •R • M e.. I-1 I N I N G 1 1 1 ♦✓ 1 I.) i 44 1 N I 4, I 41,� I I I 1-I 0 I. N 0 N 0 N N N 0 N 0 N 0 NI 0 N 0 N 0 N N N 0 0 LI .4...1 N...1 C N N NN.: CC1..1 EN.-1 EN.-1 EN.-1 EN...1 E N N IN.4 U U C 1 I 4+ I I I CI CI CI C I C I I C7 .9 . ,C. ^V .O W .D ... .J ^^ O ^.0 D ^.0 W ^..0 0 ^ C W 0 1 0 1 . N .7 - N•0-... N .- M .In H r N. - In .-1 V .-1 N 4-, .•1 .•I t I CC {... O.-, . M r .1 C .-1 y .1 C.-. .. C I CI I 1. I I I .-1,,CC I ....0 I .01 I ,-1.0 IC I I I •N M CO U.•CCOU.• .. In CO C:V3 Co U in CO N CO U1 VI CO U In CO In In M CO]C C) -o .. I. u ...4 F. CO Ot In U «1 v1 C) In C N oq cl o a.C • 0 .) 9-4ut N F. • U 0 08 F4 W N k Io • • M O N In N N N .. In 7. 0) 1. 0 O CC NO OI •• u C M • N C N O C V. 0) u F. E 117 C 01 H ') O . 02 1. b C ar - _ Co 4 .C. .. T1 Co •Y F. II 1.- F' /yt/J cl u▪ v cif • Ul W F. U • .E. N Un O 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 ul U O M N Cf, CO M 0 O N -1 -0 0 CO 00 P.,U dJ to h •a VI tR vi M 0 VC U> 0.4 N N N N N CO Co CO N Co Co CO W X ,Q O .... to 0 M Q r. A� N 1 I I 10 I 'U 14 II N .••1 N Q M N O O ..'.I a •1 .'•1 f 00 Ul _• W W .-i sO 0 • fHy .ti h �D h CO 01 O� ..y 0 r.' sO MO .••. VI•••• 0 M • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 ,0 p 0 O O 0 00 0 CC. • o 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 01 I I O 0 N I 0 xC.. I N • to NK N N N CO NQ Q""1 QQIn 2 NQ'"M MMCO Q N N Q CI. Q Q R CN I N O t1 1-I 0 N M N 0. N N 4+ N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 6 N 0 a) N N 0 N N..-I N .) N�7 N.) N.--I - N 0 X NI ,•,•1 I 1 • I • I • I • I U N I 00 N.--1 I 41 '0 '0 . '0 • .• IO -• sO •• • 1 C) 1 COO . .••1 . :4 :4 M • M • .-1 N) .-.M ,• .-1 N n) • • .•I .-1 I. .•a •,. .••..-I"I. U -N~ .ti - .••1 • .--I M` .-1 .••I.-1 •I I ti r I ti CO M co C.M m .I .• I h CO^I — C) In .,1,I • IO M CO M Co M Co M Co I C^I COy Q L. `• I .-1 Inm> FCoom2 .-1 Nm • •.0 N d _• Q x .1 • U .e to o a CO • •,-, 4O 0 M N Q U• • N M >, • 7. •> •a) 0 7,N N N C) y In :+ • .•.-. • I. > N >In C .I O Q G CO • W ,0 a) < ❑ I.. c _ a m .I 0 • o c m ° 0 N N a. o is o 4.I!Z. >,."1 •0 O CIO0 17<. Cam.. el a) 0 03 1_S 0 W Q 3 C ,._7 O E p..� OV In 0 0 N .-. .-I 0 Q'0 N n Q... Q 0 • N 0 0 N W .••1 "O W N N V) CO 00 CCI 01 I••I` N .N • U • 4+ 0 C) C)N G 6 41 O W U H .0 x 0 I.. V C)- H ri CC CO 7 I _ CO e. CO .11 CO .0M Co tt! .+ 41 C) ••.0+ CO NtO Go I. ,d 0O - 7 G u O )•I ° O a) Ai& l; 0 O .•) C U U I) U H - '0 a) C C V _ O >+ so .- 7 a) .D.. .0 V) H {• N n H H 0 'O 41 H a C)•.I U U > 0) W •O a)T a)•O •U•U /a v :..0 C C 0 a E c~„Ci 7 o O 10. 0j•; U 91. of.'V e..o.^ F* V Hi. O..I Ir.. : 0 v) C'LLar 1')L'1 __1yfdl — •F.. O O 0 O O co 0 O in 0 V)0 0 .D M . N 000 0 N -O vi d0' M in It)U Nv to w . w in co. s9 !' V) V) Vf V) V) V? d' N V 4) V) V) 0 N N N N N N N IL)µ) N N Ni CO 00 N N 00 co 00 co 00 00 N I* X CO CO 00 \ \ CO CO \ \ \ \ \ CO \ \-I \ 00 N) \ \ 0 in ' in Q 4 N Ni •"I N V N N .'I Ni N M \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 \ \ NN- N a0 OO 0) N N N CO .D ... co W to 0 d' .+ in .+ M 0N .7 M ••1 N V . U) co at C . N vl 0 M O O 'C 'i b W •C) M •4• C C Q to U O O T V iJ aJ d T •.I •.I ✓ h u) ..r) -0 C C V) V) vi d 0 H.-1 ...D •.+ 0 to 0. .-I - M 0 O C In N 0 N C in T).-1 7) O 0 0 0 .)I O x O .C C O 0 V) 00 0 .0 C C O 'CO 'U O 0 0 a 0 0O u 1 I I D O O 0 4-0 O Q O Q . ,d, v .Z I a l U I N a1 M V VI H H'O 1 O V O)I-N V H V N HMM V U U C toI .. VN .'+ .0 ' 'O N '•� )" 0 O L C 0 7 U I of n n .-+ N 4-N N M C M C 1 I U I aJ I IJ I V N ' . 1 N 4) n I 4)._^. I N 1 N N N a ✓ N O.•N O^f'1 0..N N 1 0 a)N 0 O l N Q N U N N.•. N.7 r.N...) nN ._) n l OD) U N N N .7�.N.]•..N }N Y 1 ) O I C l c l .D cc cc I N 3. 1 1 4) I 41 .D '0 O•0 0 so .9-.0 .99' .•-I— M • .D 'D • a).o ...0.D 0 O.D 0 0 .-. .-I N T..V^.J.--I V'O.-I • C •in .•1 N V N U.'• V'O .'•.'•M " V C1. - I,91 H 99 H I 04 C 04 iv .. (:.•I n.••I M n .. 44 n I I ..at I .o n I n In • I I .. (t I .. O I = O 17 C) V 0 Oa 0 MmL mU to00LC ccco N00 in cc)UCT OS.CTO"r_ •'I .. .-I C .. ell .-I • > a) M a d In 0 0 •M O 7 in 'O C In MI�+V) OO V In in W CI •-.1 • n O In 'O In ccco C 4) co a) 0 'V II)2 C>: W 7 In .-I C U 'O .7 C •'I 9.4 C t� C) 00 • - _ m N•� $.1 . a a) X . 0 In O N QL o c u `� v) o 0) a • ni C:: >.In S.•.I 4) 4) w H .L n 0 H C O 0 In ,• t N 7 '0 00 n .i Z 0 �j o. 0 n to C C co co C W c. N•n .. 0 •-I a) 0 VO C C C V1 • 0 V 0 C C 000 N .0-I C M >. O.d in N 41 O n In a0 .D in V'.. Q V'O CO N V) V 1 -I.D V .-I .-IN N Z N W u ai H 0 • CC 'V tO 0-100 F. 0 U H C) 0 0'o aJ 0 4 V) . D n V) ••'I °' .3 ; i .V ) '04 d .0 C 0. a) 4.1 ' co c o 44 . a1 V. C 0 C 0. ') Fx. In c Eno00o wm 4, b Q E n '". ..I Ca n H n 0. 0 Ca 'O n 0 N Ai l ' n u.-I .ter N c •.4 .•I n 0 �`l l F_N F N 0 m ~r a • • O O N o Y o H Y an3 Z b 0 ca W -CS0 b CA 0) o0 0 G O F U H 00 . '..1 F 1- • ; , ; in ::; : jI : ; 111 c0 CO n n an W N N in en en .a N O) to M '7 N .. a an M N L enN ft ..! ld W O11) 4 .i W W r, ,.I•,-, 'O et V/ Q ry' N UI UI y (-+ ,�j 0 0 OO ~ M O > M 'O n O — O .i• O > p .+ O C O Y O)1. Y.. Y O O O '1 In I 'O O N O 1n 10 p •.i O .^I I 1 b O O N 1] I I M ti dM K.'� M e{YJ V COOS M M'O .-•I CI' M�C ti 7 I U •N 0) M H M - N .0 !V Q 1 I 1 I. 1 In I Y 7 1 Y. NOj0 N O O N O A F N p'J N O'7 N N 0 0. N VI ...) 3 1 I 0. N .-)UHQ N..3 C N .-) F I 1 ; .-) ) H O .O O I 1 F ^)U 1 1 .�•I si) so -�O Y 0 ^•.I .- Y C'.D ^M t0 ^ ' N C]O .p ti .N1 M > .-I..1 '0. V .•i .n .•a ti N'O N.O "I .-i N'O W 1 b Y r-1 F '-I.•i O ri O I I") • ..I O v 7 .- 0 0 7 0 I ..• 1 .-I IN O CC 1 r1O I .i O `D Nm< .•i G ,OF 4 —M co X V)0 .—.. V GO+7 c0 Y TS OI C) > 0 0 0 N v 0 3 1. 'd n Y in > O.+ N H M a1 M y ..1 L e7 Y C M O 7) y L In Y X rn M 0.N aM N } H C 0 Y C J N b .N O • � 'O ..1 V)F. .o )On ld • 0 -C'-COO H N ` 0 0 .0 0 0 a0I F (V 0) Y ^a) 0 co VI X K .O•I O F O 4. 0 . .o X U 0 t N d F,I 'fl..I ,0 > H Y O c0 O O U F i .) O O U to G. W m c Y '� m > '-I ^aS F CO N 3 0) 0 p t� 0 O N C 0 N `fl M C 0) N P. �, .0..I H N NI 0 ' .N-1 M 1n CO -• .0 .0 Y (N 0 ~ ~ 40 43 .r 4 r-1 .ti .1 G.` •.i H Y 7 ' U 6 C0 H in 0) Y . In 0) YI C 0) G F .1 U F. 0 m 0, W W U 0 N n,. N F. U M •) > j 0) - 0 '0 tSQ z C = Y ~ u. tn a. W e i E3. .0 �) m - . F. ro .C+ C .+ .' In 0) 0) 0 F. w 0) v F 4 .� Ioil �c n a fao + 7 0 0 I:./ .. '-0 v) ZO1. a I. 4/ v G W J. Ca •O U 0 C. p 0 0 0 • (-. 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 N CO CCA In 0 N vl O N O I-- 0 (n 0 W U Co O^ •-4 M v! N to V) V! N) 00 ~ 49 .•I , a .n ' N N N N N N N N N Csl N CO N 04 CO CO Co - - CO Co \ CO CO CO \ M M 6 CO 0 .N..I .i 0 ..•1 . r CO \ p .... N N N ro ,gyp N w N rn at I' N N• .. to su N M .-1 In N N .-1 ._. •ye C • 0 .N .-1 N 0 -4 d 0 0 V .4 C 0 6 Wco 0 '0 0 1 ~C W W at . 0 b 'O 'O a v. U ' 0 C C n 3 0 .� - - .0 . <N •r+ 0 0 .O N N NN u 0 N O . U 0 N0 -0 0 000 0 N w ? 0 0 <0 F? O 00000AO C. O G O > N00 K0A0 et 0 ..M OH 1 .•I I I I I i I ~ � M I)N V) •� N Co N Co .-I N en CoN NL M.,U NU O -I X I Tr N N N I V)N Co Co Co M 19 1-1 I 4••• O N I N I .�N V N 4.0" �ti N ,..1, I I N�'C I NV 14.T NI 0.-] N N 0 e N V N C N O• N 0N N N 0 C N 0 C N 0 C U V .-] I I IJ tiN..7...N I-. IQ 1 ... . N .- F 1 N I ti 1 � ..:� � I U N..7 O N..) C N..7 J I .•I I — 0 Co - U + ' U Co )-Co w F. ^ F D.• C N4 . U . - N C••N •-i • . Cos!C. Co (= r V A I ti C . I-, I 5 C I . H .-I . ti t .•I r. I C I R ^ Cm•0I Co - F- NWstCoX - N N on Co Co N Co 5 - O 0., .c N 7 — N N N to > )n al Le" ...1 " .Q In 0 V)u'. •• • Co 0 O •0 o N 0 • • > 0 al >¢ Co O0 > 0 �+ 6 •O V 0 < ! Co 0 0 10 In Co F 0) '0 < . 0O Co . Z - > m C co ..a 6/ CO C N U A r, . eff eo ..I q y U..1 i N F 0< 0 •'0 0 N O . d ..1 Oa 4J G A ~ N y .r-1 .. 1 5 NI., O C 6 O 0N -IF. If UCU Cot CO •.I X .. )4 0 o ii)) ._ rn Co N O 0 F 00 •9 C ••I N .••I In Co In= CO Co C - •-', 0 CoW 0 ..4 N N t ..000 at ,C) Q) CO .I .�.1 so o to i N Co .••I ,0 e. 0 ' U T 0 0 4, V .0 p V In I. ^� 'U U C 14 ' N1 .'O U. C)- 0 .. 4 CO 0 - 4. IA 8 .+. = U 0 0 .. . 0 IA .. X 0 CO ^ O C0 ~ No C n0 d .0 O C N N 0 .0 •I U CO 0 ..I w n u� m U U 0 0 C) H 01 H • C H 0) In •^+ 0 HI.) N r ..r: I. C1 F •O 01 t L 7 N 0) I tl G . H U • 5 0 C ,. .3, I v U - •7 r N �e N a.- en � ti. •F 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 N N Ni N 0 co 0 N N N V)0 `t' 7 M o0 co N. M N .•o. co tU U M yr to 49 to v> w w v> Q N N N N N N N N W tIJ o0 00 N N Co co Co Co Co Co \ \ co Co M .\.1 co Cn \ \ �C CK Co N N CT N N N .+ .r N C]`.f+ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •t• CO 10 N co N N 10 r co N co CT u.) M N N N co V 00 ."I N N N 00 0 0 0 C •ri ..1 ..I .4. 00 to . b .V .VN tL "O Q Q Q •.I CL Q 00 •V d. C •V d. '0 W •V 0 . M F N .•I M C •-I 0 M H.1. C••'I 4 N ^.O 0 U. 0 M T' O N O 0 O M O N O 0 ^'O 0 0 O C O O 0 0 O O 41 O ..'O O C,) O 3 N 1 In 0 I I In I N I In 1 I I I I .-y 1 V M N C)•t .-I M .-1 N N•0 N M Z M V M V N N.-1 d' M N M H M 0O+-I N M N- 4•••,I O ,I M H I 0 d' I I U I .n I 1/1 I IC I H I I 4-I 7 N 41 C 1 N rV 41 N V=N 41.-I N 41 N • F N N 0 0 N 0 Y Ni N N 0 N 0 N 0•-I N 0 C N < Ni N.-1 U I ..1 N 1 1 ..1 o I ..1 .U1 I .-.4 ...1 r' C.) 1 I .... to 1 .�•1 r. ^.4- ^0..-.. • U IO 1O ^In ) IO ^%^ a e-1 . C I N H I I ('..• I >. I I C I 1 I .r.. •I 0 -I 0 I N I, .-1 0.y.-I ...-1.V0 O.'t o N M m Y m Cs. N .-I .-I co F N W 0 N m C:) m L'N 0 V)V 0 00 0 V) O 0 • .r ^ to O: CO >N O: •-1 C 0. r 0 ...1 0 4 ^ 3' {�.I 000 4+ N N .ti ..I H OO...I ..Oi •V 1+ rCIqq N K Q C] 4+ H C 0. >. O O: 0 U a C O C tn O. 'E ai .0, ° IHa 0 .... It z Pr, .. 0 ^ '0 ° . u o•c > > 0 > I. Id ,I VD U tL CO Zr. 0 4 V .•-1 0 0 0 0 It .r 0 O N IA CO N O O N M N 0 N '0 > V IA CO C 0.. ,I •-1 0! •N W ttl Z •V >. 7 Id x Vpj -O 0 0 xF+ N H •-I 00 U V) al N C > •.I 0 LI N N .a N •O C 0 al S ..1 S 0! C to 0 0 U •.I II f H 07 0 0 W N 0C ...0U CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-30 RESOLUTION ORDERING 711E REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES WhEREAS, the City Council fixed the 15th day of February 1983 for a Public Hearing on the proposed improvement to remove diseased elm and oak trees from private lands, and WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement have been notified and notice has been published by law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 2. The City Forester is authorized to advertise for bids for removal of said trees. (See attached list of properties) ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 15th day of February 1983. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. France, City Clerk SEAL: • 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Notice is hereby given that the City Council will meet Tuesday, February 15, 1983, at 7:30 O'clock P.M., at the City Hall located at 8950 Eden Prairie Road for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the proposed assessments for the removal of Dutch elm diseased trees. The properties to be assessed are described as follows: Township 116, Range 22: Section 1 Crosstown Industrial Park 2nd Addition Block 1, Lot 1 Property ID Number 1-116-22-24-0002 'Property ID Number 1-116-22-24-0003 Section 2 Bryant Lake View Estates Block 2, Lot 1 Bryant Lake View Estates Block 1, Lot 1 Section 3 Kings Court 2nd Addition Block 4, Lot 2 Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition Block 2, '.ot 14 Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition Block 2, Lot 1 Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition Block 2, Lot 5 Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition Block 2, Lot 9 Cardinal Creek 1st Addition Block 3, Lot 1 Cardinal Creek 1st Addition Block 3, Lot 2 Cardinal Creek 1st Addition Block 3, Lot 3 Cardinal Creek 1st Addition Block 3, Lot 4 Cardinal Creek 1st Addition Block 4, Lot 4 Cardinal Creek Ist Addition Block 4, Lot 22 Kings Court 2nd Addition Block 4, Lot 3 Kings Court 2nd Addition Block 4, Lot 4 Property ID Number 3-116-22-13-0001 Section 4 Woodland Addition Block 2, Lot 8 . Woodland Addition Block 2, Lot 35 Birch Island Acres Lot 16 Kutcher 1st Addition Block 2, Lot 4 Section 5 Chatham Woods Block 3, Lot 6 Chatham Woods Block 5, Lot 3 Chatham Woods Block 7, Lot 9 Chatham Woods Block 5, Lot 10 Chatham Woods Block 4, Lot 7 Chatham Woods Block 2, Lot 4 Property ID Number 5-116-22-11-0001 Property ID Number 5-116-22-41-0002 Valley Knolls Block 4, Lot 2 Coachlight Manor Block 2, Lot 2 Coachlight Manor Ih Block 2, Lot 3 Section 5 continued Hightrail Estates Block 4, Lot 17 Property 1D Number 5-116-22-13-0005 Property ID Number 5-116-22-44-0001 Section 7 Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition Block 4, Lot 1 Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition Block 4, Lot 2 Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition Block 4, Lot 6 Property ID Nwnber 7-116-22-41-0001 Property II) Number 7-116-22-42-0001 Property ID Number 7-116-22-43-0001 Property ID Number 7-116-22-44-0001 Property ID Number 7-116-22-14-0001 Maple Leaf 8th Addition Block 2, Lot 11 Section 8 Heritage Park 1st Addition Block 2, Lot 3 Section 9 Meadows 2nd Addition Outlot A Meadows 2nd Addition Outlot C Section 10 Auditors Subdivision 225 Lot 4 Topview Acres 2nd Addition Outlot 1 Forest Knolls 2nd Addition Block 2, Lot 5 Edenvale Gth Addition Block 2, Lot 12 Section 11 Topview Acres 3rd Addition Block 3, Lot 10 Topview Acres 3rd Addition Block 4, Lot 5 Section 12 Property ID Number 12-116-22-34-0004 Section 14 Registered Land Survey #168 Tract A Auditors Subdivision 335 Lot 8 Registered Land Survey #687 Tract A Property ID Number 14-116-22-24-0001 Property ID Number , 14-116-22-22-0001 Property DI Number 14-116-22-43-0001 Irk, • • • Section 15 Property ID Number 15-116-22-42-0001 Property ID Number 15-116-22-33-0001 Property ID Number 15-116-22-34-0001 Property ID Number 15-115-22-43-0001 Section 16 Property ID Number • 16-116-22-43-0006 Property ID Number 16-116-22-43-0007 Property ID Number 16-116-22-13-0002 Property ID Number 16-116-22-13-0005 Property ID Number 16-116-22-33-0001 Section 17 Property ID Number 17-116-22-41-0001 Section 21 Red Rock Lake 2nd Addition Block 3, Lot 2 Eden Hills 1st Addition Block 2, Lot 15 Eden Hills 1st Addition Block 2, Lot 3 Section 23 Meadow Park Block 2, Lot 3 Property ID Number 23-116-22-43-0005 Section 24 Olympic Hills 2nd Addition Block 2, Lot 8 Section 27 Property ID Number 27-116-22-12-0006 Property ID Number 27-116-22-13-0003 PUBLISH EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS: February 9, 1983 • • ') It CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE `l HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-32 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, the proposal of Robert Mason Homes for development of Red Rock Ranch for mixed residential uses requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 150 acres located east of Red Rock Lake, west of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks be modified from Low to Medium Density Residential. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , 1983. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: Thn D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL /55" • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-33 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RED ROCK RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ' WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Red Rock Ranch PUD is considered a proper amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Robert Mason Homes' request for PUD approval for Red Rock Ranch and recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council; and, • WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February 15, 1983; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: • 1. The Red Rock Ranch 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 revised application materials dated December 13, 1982, and supporting material dated December 2, 1982 and January 6, 1983. 3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated January 1D, 1983. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , 1983. WolfgangH.. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: min D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • • //1., CITY OF. EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-34 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FDR RED ROCK RANCH, A PRIVATE ACTION, DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on February 15, 1983 to consider the Red Rock Ranch proposal of Robert Mason Homes; and, WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 150 acres of land located east of Red Rock Lake, west of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks in Eden Prairie, and, has been revised to lower density; and, WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Red Rock Ranch proposal of Robert Mason Homes and did recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet with revised lower density finding the project of no significant impact; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Red Rock Ranch proposal of Robert Mason Homes, because the project is not a major action, does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more than 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 , 1983. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: ohn D. Frane, City Clerk • /5 'v • MINNESOTA ENVIRO','•1kNTAL QUALITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSPSSMFNT WORKSHEET (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) XX Negative Declaration (No EIS) EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Requir, B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION 1. Project came or title Red Rock Ranch 2. Project proposer(s) Robert Mason Homes, Inc. Address 14201 Excelsior Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55343 Telephone Number and Area Code (612 . L 935-3486 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this EAW: Chris Enger Telephone 937-2262 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location Eden Prairie City Hall Telephone 937-2262 Hours 8:00-4:30 5. Reason for EAW Preparation Mandatory Category -cite Petition Other IJ DC QC Rule number(s) 1 XX -1- /a C. ACTIVITY DFSCRIPTION SUMMARY 1. Project Location County Hennepin City/Township name [den Prairie Township number 116 (North), Range Number 22 East or West (circle) Section number(s) 21 Street address (if in city) or legal description: (See attached) • 2. Type and scope of proposed project: Residential development on 150 acres containing up to 525 attached and detached housing units. Streets and utilities will be extended according to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan over the next ten years. 3. Estimated starting date (month/year)_ Suring, 1984 4. Estimated completion date (month/year)_ 1994 5. Estimated construction cost $1.4 Million Development/$50 Million Retail Sal Price 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) VA/FHA Subdivision approval Upon completion of City Eden Prairie PUD approval, zoning, platting, Pending EAW and grading/building permits Riley/Purgatory Watershed permit-grading Pending Creek Watershed District EQB Environmental Review Pending 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 • /59 II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION A. Include the following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project.(attached) 2. An original 8', x 11 section•of a U.S.G.S. Ti 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 LAW distribution points) attached. 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures including significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc.) attached. 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. B. Present land use. . • 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. The Red Rock Ranch site is currently used for crop production on a lease basis. Over half of the site is rural vacant. The site is surrounded by unattached home subdivisions. The site has over 5000' of Red Rock Lake shoreland subject to the Eden Prairie Shoreland Management Ordinance. • • 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban developed n acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) 8 acres b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland 18 acres c. Rural developed_0 acres h. Floodplain 1 acres d. Rural vacant 150 acres i. Cropland/Pasture land 116 acres e. Designated Rec- j. Forested 23 acres reation/Open Space 0 acres 3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. Red Rock Lake (71 acres) abutts the proposed site. McCoy Lake (10 acres) is 200 ft. from the site. Staring Lake (150 acres) is across Research Road approximately 100 ft. from the site. • ICO -3- 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 project is a large scale residential development. Residential units . are planned for construction over the next 10 years. The site will be developed with street, grading, and utilities installed in phases beginning in 1984. Construction of housing units requires further City approvals as detailed plans are prepared. Red Rock Ranch will be a residential neighborhood comprised of a variety of housing styles. Earth moving equipment common to residential development will be utilized. • 2. Fill in the following where applicable: • a. Total project area 150 acres g. Size of marina and access 0 sq. -or- channel (water area) Length N/A miles h. Vehicular traffic trips b. Number of housing or generated per day 4,200 ADT recreational units 525 i. Number of employees 0 c. Height of structures 30 ft. j. Water supply needed 150100 gal/ Source: City d. Number of parking 4/single & town- k. Soild waste requiring • spaces house unit disposal 1,000 ton 2,5/condo unit e. Amount of dredging p cu.yd. 1. Commercial, retail or industrial floor space 0 sq.f. f. Liquid wastes requir- ing treatment 150,000 gal/da III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently NO X YES exceeding 12%? • 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, NO YES or sinkholes? x 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. Portions of the site exceed a 12% grade. The rolling character of the site will be a value to the future residential units. Erosion control plans will be required by the City and Watershed District, consistent with Watershed policies and the City Shoreland Ordinance. /6,1 • • 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. The soils are well suited for residential development. The sandy character- istics of the soils assist in road and utility construction while the com- paction and strength characteristics are favorable to grading and building foundations. City sewer and water will serve all units. • • 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: 325,000cu.yd. grading3?5,000u•yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? • 65 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 15% 7. What steps will he taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Street and utility construction will be phased with building construction beginning after phased site grading is completed. On-site retention ponds will be built at the beginning of the project with runoff contained on-site. Soil erosion management plan will be implemented after approval ,by the City and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. • B. VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types: Woodland 15 % • Cropland/ 57 X Pasture Brush or shrubs 2 % Marsh• 6_X Grass or herbaceous 20 % Other XX % (specify) 2. Now many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 6.acres 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNR publication The Common Ones.) If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. The site was evaluated for endangered fauna and flora by the DNR (Minnesota Natural Heritage Program). Their results indicated no endangered plant or animal species within the proposed site. IG� . C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuair'ies near or adjacent to the site? _X NO YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish or wildlife on or near the site? (see DNR publication The Uncommon Ones). X NO YES 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish habitat? NO X YES 4. If yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habi tat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. Red Rock Lake in the past has been stocked by the DNR. The lake has since gone through Winter kills and the majority of fish remaining are rough fish. DNR will restock the lake when a public access is implemented and funding is available for the City to purchase an aereator. Upland birds and animals will be displaced in stages as the site is graded and developed. Waterfowl use of the existing pond, new sedimentation ponds, and the lake is expected to continue. This will also be true of small mamals whose habitates are located near water. D. HYDROLOGY 1. Will the project include any of the following: If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. • NO YES a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, lowland, or groundwater supply X b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X c. Dredging or filling operations X _— d. Channel modifications or diversions X e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water X A surface ponding system will be built to retain runoff. 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?15-2Q% 3. That measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? .Runoff will be diverted to on-site oonding across where natural filtration and settlement of sediment will occur. Natural grass and wood slopes will be retained to reduce runoff from the developed sites. The sandy soil characteristics will allow percolation of runoff at a high rate. • 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain by new fill or structures? X NO YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance NO YES 5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the site? Adjacent to lake 2.5 ft.--Upland 10-25 ft. 2.5 feet /6? -6- • • E. WAi ER QUALITY 1. Will there he a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? g_NO YES If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and -ace- 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. N/A 3. Will any sludges he generated by the proposed project? X NO YES If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method of disposal. • 4. What measures will he used to minimize the volumes or impacts identified in questions 1-3? • N/A 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. N/A • 1(4 -7- • F. AIR QUALITY MD NOISE • 1. Will the activity cause the elimination of any gases and/or particul- ates into the atmosphere? NO X YES • If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices'or measures to be used, and specify the ap- proximate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. During site development and home construction, equipment emissions will add gases and particulates to the air from grading and construction traffic. After construction work is finished, normal air quality typical of several residential areas will prevail. If necessary, watering will be required to contain dust upon the site. 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 [d8 (Aj , and noise/vibration. • During construction the 10 hour period (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) heavy equipment will generate dB(A) levels exceeding residential standards. Due to site size (150 acres), the noise level exceeding standards will be within the site boundary. MAXIMUM dB(A) EQUIPMENT AT MACHINE RANGE AT 250 FEET • Scraper B0-115 64-100 Bulldozer 88-105 73-90 Motor Scraper 78-96 63-81 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. Residential neighborhoods are adjacent to the site. A. Cedar Ridge, Summit Drive, and Village Woods border the site west and north. • B. Staring Lane and Sunrise Circle border the site to the south and have lots of 300 to 500 ft. deep. G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY • 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry prodduction X YES • or currently in such use? —- NIf yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. Corn and soybean are planted on about 75 acres with about 25 acres in grass/hay. The sandy soils reduce the production/acre from prime land yields. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on.the site? x NO YES If yes, specify the type of deposit and the acreage. • • • 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? NO x YES Complete the following applicable: • a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) Estimated Peak Demand Annual Hourly or Daily Anticipated Firm Contract or T e _Requirement _Sinnmer -_Winter Supplier Interruptable Basis? Electric 3.4 Million KWH 2.4 KWH 1.6 KWH NSP Firm Contract Gas 68,000 mcf 656,250 cf G56,250cf Minnegasco Firm Contract • b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. None • c. Estimate annual energy distribution for: space heating 45 % lighting_.__ air conditioning 30 % processing 5 • ventilation 5 % • • d. Specify any major energy conserva tion systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. Potential exists for solar or hioh-tech environmental fuel systems due to the higher cost of residential units to be built. The site's location near employment, shopping, etc., will reduce trip length. e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc.)? The location is convenient to work, recreation, and shopping which make Eden Prairie more self-contained than most suburban communities. Multi- family units planned will be substantially more energy efficient because of codes, size, and attached construction methods. H. OPEN SPACE/RECERATION 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)? NO _X_YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. • Staring Lake Community Park-the residential development will provide park users (park plan attached). Red Rock Lake Park-(Proposed as part of development) Will provide public. access to the lake and allow DNR to improve the lake for fishing, etc. No • access currently exists. I. TRANSPORTATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc.)? NO X YES If yes, specify which part(s) of the system(s) will be affected. For these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed aid 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). The project will complete a vital City collector street system, Mitchell Road, through the site. The 4,200 ADT will mainly use TH #5 to connect to the Metro Freeway System. TH #5 is above capacity during peak hours. 2. Is mass transit available to the site? NO X YES On TH t5 about 3/4 mile north of the site 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? Development in central Eden Prairie is close to all city services. This location will reduce the trip length to these daily service centers. Transit service with rideshare, employee van pools, or community shuttle will be available as the density of the area and community increase. The city bike/pedestrian trail system will be incorporated into the project which will provide the option for non-vehicle travel. • • . J. PLAalUG, E.ACD USE, CU)''1INITY SI RVICES I. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive plans? If not, explain: X N0 ____YES The Eden Prairie Guide Plan indicates low density residential. The proposed project indicates a 2-3.5 unit/acre range. If a Toning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing zoning and change requested. Rural zoning, requesting PUD approval and future zoning of R1-13.5, RM-6.5 and Public • 2. Will the type or height,of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? _ NO X YES If yes, explain type of development and specify any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. With the addition of attached units (townhouses, manor homes, etc.) to a site . with existing large lot detached housing adjacent, buffering between housing types providing a suitable transition is planned. 3. Pow many employees will move into the area to be near the project? N/A How much housing will be needed? 4. Will the project induce development nearby--either support services or similar developments? X NO YES If yes, explain type of development and specify any other counties and munici- • palities affected. The scope and size of the residential project will not by itself induce growth of new support services. The 525 untis will contribute to the business of services. 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 150,000 dal/da Yes, City treatment Wastewater treatment 150,000_ cjal/da___Yes.„City_sanitarysewer Sewer 30,000 lineal ft. Yes,_C ______sewer�.__ Schools 350 Evils Yes, Eden Prairie Public School Solid waste disposal 80 __ton/mo _ __Yes, Fly_in�c_Cloud Landfill • • Str-e_ets 30,000 lineal ft. Yes, Local streets Otherlpmlice, fire, etch Cit y Services 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 trunk sewer system is more than adequate for this project from MRS 1 trunk which connects to the Purgatory interceptor. The Blue Lane Treatment Plant has planned expansion liter in the 1980's which will coincide with the project's growth. /67 • 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions CIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program reviewed by the LQC? X NO YES If yes, specify which area or plan. • 7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or disposal of potentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids, on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisons, etc? X NO YES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. • 8. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the facility require special measures or plans? X NO YES • If yes, specify: K. HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal or state historical registers? X NO YES 2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early settlement been found on the site? X NO YES Might any known archaeoligic or palcntological sites be affected by the activi ty?*(SEE NOTE BELOW) X NO YES 3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any impact on them. L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have been • identified in the previous sections. The project will provide an outlet for Red Rock Lake and connect it to Purgatory Creek through a chain of ponds and lakes. This will improve the quality and flood potential of Red•Rock Lake. This connection is desired by the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. III.OTHER MIlIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. Development of Red Rock Ranch during the 1980's will provide residential growth consistent with all metro, state, and city plans. The "filling in" of the Red Rock neighborhood by this project will complete a neighborhood in central Eden • Prairie. *The site was reviewed by both the Minnesota Historical Society and the DNR Heritage Program. The Historical Socity reveals that time site offers no known historic, architectural, archeological significance. The Heritage Program has reviewed the site by computer analysis and found no sensitive ecologic areas. An on-site review is pending. /� 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: The project's size of 525 units phased over 10 years is consistent with proposed and existing public services and within an approximate density range of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. The project does ( ) does not ( X) have the potential for significant environmental effects. • • State reasons: The careful consideration of the sites natural features, neighborhood considera- tions and environmental review and permit process will not produce harmful environmental effects. 3. (For private actions only.) The project is (_) is not (_) of more than local significance. State reasons: • IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed until the date of publication of the notice in the EQC Monitor section of the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of the EAW to the EQC constitutes a request for publication of notice in the EQC Monitor. A. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible Agency or the Responsible Person identified below. Based on the above findings, the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete ' either 1 or 2). • 1. _X NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE —No EIS is needed on this project, because the project is not a major action and/or does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and/or, for private actions only, the project is not of more than local significance. • /70 2. __ EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for significant environmental effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than local significance. a. The MEQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the • project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the IILQC can specifically authorize limited construction to begin or continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this project, specify the extent of progress recommended and the reasons. • b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted: (month) (day) (year) (MEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 120 d_ays of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the EQC Monitor. If special circumstances prevent compl iance 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.J.4 on page 11 of the LAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is sent to the LQC. C. Billing procedures for. EQC Monitor Publication State agency Attach to the LAW 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 Resister or the • Office of State Register--(612) 296-8239. _i' 0 0 • APPROVED MINUTES • EDENPRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND'NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1982 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COMMISSION I•_EMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, chairperson; Gary Gonyea, — — Harty Jessen, Jerry Kingrey, Jesse Schwartz COMMISSION MEi19ERS ABSENT: Pat Breitenstein, Marge Friederichs COI .IISSION STAFF: Bob lambert, Director of Community Services OTHERS: Mark Weber, Eden Prairie News I. ROLL CALL • The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by chairperson, Richard Anderson. - II. APPROVAL_OF AGENDA MOTION: Kingrey moved to recommend approval of the agenda as published. Jessen seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. III. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 1982 MOTION: Jessen moved to recommend approval of the Minutes as published. Gonyea seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Kingrey abstained. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners - None B. Reports of Staff I. Develo_pment Proiosal - Red Rock Ranch Lambert stated that the Planning Commission, at their last meeting, returned the plans to the developer to rework the density figures. Therefore, Staff recommends this Commission not make a recommendation as the plans may change considerably. However, Lambert suggested the Commission go over the pertinent issues of the park, trail and road. Lambert noted that the boundaries of the park will not be detenuined at this point, only the size of the park should be a minimum of 4 acres to offer public access for small boats. Lambert said he doesn't feel a final decision on the trail can be made until the plans are submitted, but there could be a connection from the north shore of Red Rock Lake to Staring Lake. i'la 0 Minutes - Parks, Recreation & . approved Natural Resources Coxnission -2- 15 November, 1982 Jessen said he favors Mitchell Road as it is shown in the Guide Plan. Also, the trail or greenway corridor cannot be determined until the final platting and zoning occur. He added he hopes the developer will comply with the Shorel ine Management Ordinance. He also said he favors the park to be closer to 6 acres in size. Kingrey said he feels the park should be smaller than presently shown. Also, he feels it should be clarified that there has, as yet, been no comaitoient to motorized boat access for this park. Resident KenMulder, 8855 Mitchell Road is in agreement with realigning Mitchell Road. He expressed concern that no more silting occur in McCoy Lake. Putnam said the Watershed District has reduced the size of drainage • pipes from the lakes around McCoy. This should help McCoy maintain its present state. MOTION: Jessen moved to offer the following comments to the City Council: This Commission's desire that the developer comply with the SkorelIne Management Ordinance; the expectation there will be a greenway corridor and trail system adjoining Red Rock and Staring Lake Trail systems; that this Commission favors realignment of Mitchell Road as a minor collector, and the road around Staring Lake be a parkway-type minor collector. Also, the proposed park at the southwest end of Red Rock Lake be in the range of 4-6 acres in size, and that the park be dedicated to the City in lieu of cash park fees, with the last phase, but if the density is greater than 2' units per acre there should be a dedication of land plus cash park fees. Kingrey seconded the motion and it carried unanimoulsy. A 10 minutes recess was taken at this time. 2. City Council Meeting of November 2, 1982 • Lambert reported on the City Council actions of November 2, 1982. Anderson said he is very optimistic about the City raising more funds for the restoration of the Grill House. lie noted the Eden Prairie Foundation has already committed money for it and they are approaching corporations within the community to donate money. Jessen suggested the City begin investigating the purchase of the Boyce property. He said it is valuable to the park system because it lies between Staring Lake Park and the Grill House. He said if the present owner, Boyce, wants to continue to live there another 12 years or so that would be all right, but he feels the City should try to acquire it before too long or it will become out of reach • financially. • 113 U 0 • • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING C0tIISSION • Monday, January 10, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: HChairman allett, Dennis lMarhula, Grant. Sutliff,iam Beaman, a Gartner, Robert Hakon Torjesen STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call • I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Sutliff, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried-6-0-0. II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 27, 1983 MINUTES Motion was made by Sutliff, seconded by Gartner, to approve the minutes of the December 27, 1982 meeting as presented. Motion carried--4-0-2 (Chairman Bearman and Marhula abstained) III. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. • IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes. • Original Request: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres for 600-1,00D units Revised Request: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from law to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land • uses on 150 acres for 581 units A continued public hearing. • i• /'1u © 0 . fanning Co:anission Minutes • . -2- January 10, 1983 • Staff reviewed the reqeuest of Robert Mason Homes for approval of the Red Rock Ranch proposal and reviewed the Staff Report of January 6, 1983 with the Commission. Dick Putnam, representing the proponent, presented slides depicting the character of the land on a site by site basis. Mr. Putnam explained the proponent had taken part in the preliminary discussions with the existing residents abutting Site I. They had expressed interest in blending the back yards of their deep lots in with the Red Rock Ranch proposal. The lots abutting Site I were 400 ft. deep on the average. Mr. Putnam stated .that this was the reason for showing the cul-de-sacs for this site as extending into the abutting properties. Mr. Putnam also reviewed the site vegetation, slopes, drainage, existing roads, and surrounding lakes within the slide presentation. Planner' [nger reviewed the following revisions as proposed by the proponent: a. Site J, adjacent and south of Red Rock Lake, has been changed from a condominium site of 10-15 units per acre to a single family detached site of 32 units on 12.5 acres. b. The lakeshore park has been reduced from 6.3 acres to 3.8 acres, and the configuration has been changed by the develo- per as understood from direction from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. • c. Site B has been changed from 3.5-6 units per acre to 8.5 units per acre. d. Site C has been changed from 8-13 units per acre to 8 units per acre. e. Site D is still proposed as condominiums at 9.7 units per acre. f. Sites E and F were proposed for 4-8 units per acre and are now proposed as 3.6 and 3.5 units per acre respectively. g. Site G has been changed from 4-8 units per acre to 4.5 units per acre. h. Site H has been changed from 8-15 units per acre to 8 units per acre. /75 0 0 r�• • gyring Commission Minutes -3.. January 10, 1983 • i. Site I has been changed from duplexes to single family detached. • j. Site K has been changed from 4-8 units per acre to 4 units per acre.. D1SCUSS103 Gartner questioned whether the City would bear the financial burden for sewer and water until the proposed property and the surrounding undeveloped property became developed. Planner Enger stated that this would be the case. Sutliff questioned the capacity of the trunk sewer extension that would be necessary to service this project--would the trunk sewer only service this proposed development, or would the trunk sewer have the capacity to service more land in the general area. Planner Eager explained that it was possible to extend the trunk to service a much greater area. He stated that this would be a Council decision which would be made based on the feasibility study prepared by the Engineering Department. • Planner Enger reviewed the development in terms of the roadways proposed. It was recomnended by Staff that the central spine road must be connected with a loop to the north and then east to Mitchell Road with Phase I, or the road must be completed to County Road #1 for purposes of public safety access. Planner Inger added that Staff recommended the connection of the central spine road to County Road #1 for any development past Phase I. It was also recommended by Staff that the neighborhoods to the west and south eventually be connected by roadways to the proposed Red Rock Ranch development. Marhula questioned whether the roadway connection between Sites J and K took place on property controlled by the proponent. Mr. Putnam responded that it was not property controlled by the proponent. Marhula questioned whether it would be necessary to condemn the property needed for the roadway. Mr. Putnam stated that the proponent would try to negotiate the matter first. Planner Enger reviewed specific recommendations for each site within the proposal regarding density, adjacent and surrounding uses, and the development framework of the City. Marhula questioned which sites would he included in Phase I of the development. Mr. Putnam responded that Sites C, D, and portions of A, E, and H were proposed for inclusion in Phase I. Marhula questioned Mr. Putnam as to approximately how many units would be included in Phase I. Mr. Putnam responded that it would range between 200-250 units. lie added • that it should be noted that Phase I included a great portion of the multiple residential sites proposed in Red Rock Ranch. 1% 0 • Planning Coruission Minutes -4- January 10, 1983 Mr. Putnam.asked for clarification as to the timing necessary for the connection of the loop roadway from the central spine road to the north • and then east, connecting with Mitchell Road. Planner Enger stated that it • would he based upon the location of the development completed as to when • the roadway would be needed. • Marhula questioned whether enough developable land existed within Site C • for purposes of construction of the type of buildings proposed. Mr. Putnam stated that at least two-thirds of the site was developable, while • the rest of the land of this site supported slopes, therefore, there should be adequate land available on the site for development. • • Marhula questioned why Staff had recommended a density of 2-3.5 units per acre for the sites which were adjacent to existing single family • residential instead of the 2.5 units per acre allowed by the current ordinance. Planner Enger stated that the lands adjacent to the proposed development had been developed at a density of less than 2.0 units per • acre. The ordinance change to 2.5 units per acre was a recent one. Since 2.0 units per acre was the density range for the development of the surrounding, existing neighborhoods, the transition should be adequate to buffer from the lower to the higher density. 2.0 units per acre would be the lowest end of the range, not 2.5 units per acre. • • Torjesen stated that he did not feel the proponent had presented adequate justification on the sites adjacent to single family for an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan at this time. He added that, while adequate justification may exist for the change to the Guide Plan, none had been documented for Planning Commission review. • Torjesen stated that he would like to have documented, by the developer, the canner in which the proposed project meets the criteria for justification for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Torjesen stated that he did not agree with Staff's recommendation that the density for the peripheral sites adjacent to the existing single family could he developed within a density range of 2-3.5 units per acre. He stated that a maximum density of 2.5 should he allowed for the peripheral sites to assure proper transition. Planner Enger explained that there are basically three types of buffers or transitions: 1) Distance, whereby two different uses are separated by greater distance; 2) Visual buffer, whereby two different uses are separated by a thick grove of trees, or a • • hill; and 3) Land use, a gradual increase of density to act as a transition between low and high density for example. Planner Enger stated that if the proponent could prove adequate transition by either method from the existing single family neighborhoods surrounding the site, that the City might consider the granting of a greater density for the site. Torjesen stated that he was in agreement with the Staff that the proponent rr) • 0 • 0 • Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 10, 1983 • • • should be responsible for presenting the rationale for allowing a greater density in those areas adjacent to the existing single family. He pointed out that in none of the documentation presented by the proponent to date had this rationale been presented for Planning Commission review. Torjesen added that, as with the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change, • it would be up to the proponent to prove the rationale for such a difference in density. • Torjesen stated that he would prefer to see the higher density, and, therefore, the change, if any, to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, take place within the center of the site, to allow for adequate opportunity to • provide transition between the existing and proposed uses. Chairman Bearman stated that, historically, when the City has reviewed a Planned Unit Development, it has been a case where there have been "trade- offs" between the City and the developer in order to provide the best plan • possible. For example, if the City would allow for greater flexiblity in the development of the land, the developer would deed a park area to the City which, perhaps it would not have obtained otherwise. Chairman • Bearman stated that he did not feel that a 3.8-acre park would he an adequate "trade-off" for a development consisting of 150 acres overall. • Mr. Putnam responded that the park had been designed based upon the recommendations of the Director of Community Services along with the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. He stated that he had offered a larger park for the area; however, it was explained to him that the City had adequate park facilities in the vicinity and did not • need the larger park. Chairman Bearman asked if Robert Mason intended to build all of the homes on the site. Mr. Putnam responded that Mr. Mason would build the single • family in the areas adjacent to Red Rock Lake. However, the rest of the lots would be sold to other builders. Mr. Mason intended to maintain control of the builders as to the final development. Chairman Bearman asked Mr. Putnam to explain the types of controls Mr. Mason would have over the other builders. Mr. Putnam stated that there would be covenants • and restrictions placed upon the land development at the time it was sold to the other builders. Gartner questioned which areas would be built upon first. Mr. Putnam stated that Mr. Mason would like to start building in Area A along the Red Rock Lake frontage area first. He added that it would be necessary for • the streets to be completed to that point prior to any construction of homes. Planner Enger stated that if Area A was built upon initially, due to the location of the homes, it would be required that the loop road to • the north, then east, connecting to Mitchell Road would be necessary with • the initial construction to allow for adequate access for public safety purposes. The cul-de-sac ending in Site A would be over 3,000 ft. long if the loop road was not constructed. Planner Enger added that a large • 17$ • 0 0 Planning Connission Minutes -6- January 10, 1983 • • amount of the multiple units could be constructed without the construction of the loop road, thereby still allowing the development to proceed. Mr. Putnam pointed out that, in order for this project to begin, it would • be necessary for approximately 1,000 ft. of Mitchell Road to be completed, also. lie stated that the proponent had already made initial contact with the land owners to the north and east of the site regarding the loop road back to Mitchell Road. While no decisions had been reached, it was proponent's intention to continue negotiating with Mr. Sioffert and Mr. Butler regarding the matter. Gartner stated that she was concerned that the three-acre park was not adequate in terms of rationale for the higher density, nor did it provide for adequate land from which to make a density transfer to the remainder of the site up to the point of 581 units as the developer was requesting. Also, she stated that she did not see the necessity for connecting the adjacent neighborhoods, i.e. Coral Lane and E. Staring Lane neighborhoods, to the Red Rock Ranch development. Chairman 8carman asked for questions from members of the audience. Mr. Ken Molder, 8855 Mitchell Road, stated that he was representing residents on the east side of Mitchell Road, and that their concerns centered around the status of the gravel road. They would request that the roadway he paved, or that traffic be rerouted to keep the traffic from being routed past their homes. Chairman Bearman reviewed the procedure for petitioning improvements with • Mr. Molder, stating that, regardless of the development proposed, the residents east of Mitchell Road could petition for the street to be improved to eliminate their problems; the extension of sewer and water to the area would increase the probability of road improvement. Mr. Molder stated that the residents of the area were also concerned about the "chain of lakes" concept with respect to McCoy Lake. Mr. Molder asked if there had been any precautions taken to assure the preservation, of the ecology of the lakes. Staff responded that the Watershed District would review this matter in detail with recommendations back to the City regarding maintenance of the ecology of the area. Mr. Gordon Fox, Corral Lane, stated concern for the amount of traffic which would be going past his neighborhood once this development began. • He stated he did not feel it was necessary to connect his existing ' neighborhood with the proposed development. Mr. Larry Langen, Corral Lane, questioned the time frame for the project. Mr. Putnam staled that projections were to begin Phase I in 1934 by • requesting a feasibility study by the City Engineering Department !79 0 • • • 'lancing Commission Minutes -1- January 10, 1983 • • • regarding the sanitary sewer and streets. Construction would begin in 1984-85 and on through the 1990's. Gartner questioned whether the proponent agreed with the Staff Report • recommendations regarding Site B. Mr. Putnam stated that there would be no problem complying with the Staff Report recommendation for Site 8. Me added that the manor homes look more like the large lot single family homes proposed for Site A, but simply have more units. Torjesen stated that he felt it would be more appropriate to consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan change only for those areas in the center of the site and to have the peripheral areas of the site, plus Sites A and J remain as designated in the current Comprehensive Guide Plan. MOTION #1 Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Sutliff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried---6-0-0 MOTION ,P2 • Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Sutliff, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low to medium • density residential for 150 acres subject to the recommendations of the • Staff Report of January 6, 1983 for the Red Rock Ranch proposal of Robert • Mason, based upon the revised plans of December 13, 1982, and the supporting material dated December 2, 1982 and January 6, 1983. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 03 • Motion was mode by Marhula, seconded by Sutliff, to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land uses • on 150 acres subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1983 for the Red Rock Ranch pi•uposal of Robert Mason, based upon the revised plans of December 13, 1982, and the supporting material dated December 2, 1982 and January 6, 1983. Torjesen asked that recommendation f2 of the Staff Report be amended to insert the following words at the end of the sentence within the second set of parentheses, "in addition to satisfying item 01, above." The other members of the Coa:nission agreed. Motion carried--6-0-0 • Planner Inger stated that the amended Environmental Assessment Worksheet, • o 0 Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 10, 1983 • based on the revised plans of the proponent, would be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review at their January 24, 1983 meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS None. • VI. NEW BUSINESS • VII. PLANNER'S REPORT • None. VIII. • ADJOURNMENT • Motion to adjourn was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. • • • 5 E jI CS 0 ed,„„).:41. efrYWYkl-44- 7707/e,,,,- P /98Z • • • • • A. RFD ROCK PJ CH, by Robert Mason Homes. Request for Guide Plan change from low to medium density residential, PUD Concept review for approximately 600-1,100 residential units and park upon 150 acres, and approval of an Cnvironnental As rsscnt Worksheet. located cast of Red Rock Lake, west of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks. A continued public hearing. The Planner stated that this hearing had been continued for one month, and that the Staff report was included in the Commission's packets, covering the Guide Plan change rc.lucst. He noted that at the last meeting, the Cor:aission had requested Staff to break up review of the project into two main topics: Guide Plan change and PUD. The Planner rcvie. cd the Staff report dated Nover.,ber 5, 1982. Sutliff stated that he felt the main road should be developed at one time in its e,.lirc y. The RI rrer rcplied that the City Staff would like to see the road built in it; ec'.ir •ty in Phase 1. /72. _ C� 0 • • Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 8, 1982 harhula asked if the PUD could be built without the City bringing trunk serer to the site. The Planner replied that the project could not be built without the City extending trunk sewer. Marhula stated that he was concerned with several issues: traffic congestion on TH 5 and Mitchell Road; needed sewer extension; overall density; PUD lay-out; parks; and the density transfer. He added that he felt that it would be premature to act • on the project to change the Guide Plan with the plan as presented. Torjesen stated that he agreed with Staff's conclusion in the Staff report that adequate justification for the Guide Plan change had not been presented. • • Idarhula asked why the population estimates for Eden Prairie had been reduced from • • 1970's. The Planner stated that the Metropolitan area population trend had dropped and the number of people per unit was lower than expected years ago. • Putnam stated that he felt that they should sit down with all the department heads at once to discuss the project. He stated that after a meeting held with department heads, they would like to hold a neighborhood meeting to formulate a revised plan to return to the. Commission in a couple of weeks. He asked Staff to address the PUD. • Putnam stated that Robert Mason Hcmes plans to build in 1984 or 1985. He stated that they are in the planning process now and stated that the locations for single family, etc., are in the locations that the residents wanted from input that had taken place at the neighborhood ma.tetings that the proponent held. He stated that 1,100 units will not he built, rather a range from 600-1,100 would be used. He stated that he felt that the Metropolitan Council controls were more and more strict every year and the City had to protect their own interests. The Planner stated that the Staff had Eden Prairie's best interests in mind when reviewing a project. He stated that a conclusion listed in the brochure submitted • by the proponent stated that the Metropolitan Council would have no problem with a Guide Pan change. He stated that he felt that there would be some problems based upon correspondence already received from regional agencies. He stated that the unit range was very general, in fact giving the developer a blank check. Torjesen stated that he felt the issue was whether or not to change the Guide Plan. He stated that the proponent had to make a case for the change which he felt should be done before Staff addressed the PUD. He added that he felt the Commission should • choose one of the recommendations as listed in the Staff report: denial or return. Putnam stated that he would prefer a continuance. The Planner suggested continuance for one month or closing the public hearing without the ref iling fee. He stated that, if closed, the public hearing could be republished and reiaailed to the residents, which would give the developer more time to come up with reasons to change the Guide • Plan. Mike McGraw, 15640 Pioneer Trail, stated that he was concerned as to the placement for Mitchell Road as it affected his property. • • I03 F'lahning Co:,r,iission Minutes -3- Nover,ber 8, 1982 Ken Linde. en, 15901 Corral Lane, was concerned with the high density being placed in the middle of low density housing which already exists. Richard O'Griin, 15109 Cedar Ridge Road, commended the Staff report and stated that he :ss concerned regarding the park issue. Greg Hart, 900 F. Sunrise Circle, stated that Mr. Putnam stated that they had held neigh,hurhood meetings with his neighbors, and ridded that neither he nor his neighbors had been notified. Gartner stated that she Lad attended the neighborhood meetings, and stated that the • residents were opposed to the density. • M01ION Gartner moved to close the public hearing and return the proposal to the proponent. Hallett seconded. • DI SCUSS I ON• Torjesen stated that he felt that the wording as listed in the Staff report dated November 5, 1982 in the second alternative should be incorporated in the motion. Putnam stated that he would prefer continuance rather than closing the hearing to save paying the f.'e again. The Planner stated that the request would be republished and remailed to residents, but peyment of the fee would not be needed. Torjesen stated he felt that continuance might be better to let the developer address the Guide Plan change. Marhula stated that if the hearing rras closed, the proponent could return at any time he wished versus continuing the project for months. Sutliff asked if an amendment could be made to make a decision by the end of the year on the project. Gartner stated she would rather vote down the motion and make a new ' one. .___ ON_ MOTION Motion failed 2-4. Retterath and Gartner voted aye. MOTION 2 Marhula coved to continue the project to the first meeting in December, which would be the 13th. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION • ' Torjesen asked that the wording "in order for the developer to address the Guide Plan change with sui'port for the change" be added to the motion. 1.larhula and Sutliff agreed. VOTE ON MOl10N 2 • Motion carried 6-0. /f[f �•'� r, approved p}arming Could ssion Mire .s -5- �! • October 12, 1982 • 0C.�JRIO ROCK RANCH, by Rohert•11ason Howes. Request for Guide ' Plan change from low to medium density residential, PUD Concept review for approximately 800-1100 residential units and park upon 150 acres, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. located east of Red Rock lake, west of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks. A public hearing. The Planner stated that this is an informational meeting for input to Staff and • the proponent from the Cocriission and residents. Randy Trevalia, of Robert Mason Homesuud Dick Putnam and Jim Ostenson of Tandem Corporation were present to give the presentation. . Trevalia stated that Robert Mason Homes has owned the property for approximately 15-20 years. He stated that neighborhood meetings have been held to familiarize the residents'wit.h the project. Putnam gave a slide presentation reviewing the location, an aerial photo, examples of projects constructed by Robert Mason Homes, surrounding parks, open space, streets, grading and slopes. The Planner stated that the Guide Plan shows the density for this site up to 2.5 units/acre which would he a total of 315 units on 150 acres. He stated that the density is very important for many reasons; water capacity, roads, etc. He . stated that the area is not currently served with sewer or water. • ' Gartner was concerned for who would he assessed for the sewer trunk, and asked if the City pays for it., will it add to the City's debts. The Planner replied ' yes, it would add to the City's debts, and that an assessment district had not yet been determined. Gartner asked if the house or Red Rock Lake have scenic easements or dedication of lakeshore proposed as on the northeast shore of the lake. The Planner replied no. Marhula stated he had concerns that he felt that Research Road improvements are being put aside in this plan. He also stated that the City should look more closely into which road (Mitchell Road or the road through this project) should be the collector road south to Co. Rd. 1. • Torjesen stated that he felt that the burden for the need for a Guide Plan change should be sho,n in the best interest of the community at large. Sutliff expressed concern regarding the number of cul-de-sacs proposed with such a high density proposed. The Planner stated that it may be possible to eliminate some cul-de-sacs in the future. Gartner asked if the EAW was reviewed by the City Council. The Planner replied yes. - Gartner asked that the Department of Natural Resources' publication on wildlife be available for the Planning Commission at the next meeting that Red Rock Ranch is discussed. Ken frickin, 15610 Corral Lane, President of the Homeowner's Association, stated some major concerns; density and the potential road connections. He also stated that he objects to the Guile Plan change requested for site J (the condominium site south of Oct, Rock Lake). He also submitted a petition and asked that it be made part of the minutes. a © 0 • ,approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 12, 1962 • Gail Liepnld, 15466 Village Woods Drive, asked where the current tarred path on • the north end of Red Rock Lake will lead and if it will continue around the lake. The Planner replied the City's park plan shows the path connecting from Mitchell Lake down across the northeast side of Red Rock Lake over to the north portion of Staring Lake and also shows a connection up to Red Rock Park. There are no definite plans to continue the path around the lake. That would be up to the • Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to discuss. • Dick Ecklund, 10356 Balsam Lane, stated his objection to the multiple family and stated his concerns that Mitchell Road is heavily travelled now and also the density. lie stated that he felt that too many people will be crowded in one area. Bill Edes, 8641 Red Oak Drive, asked why an outlet to the lake is needed when there are no inlets. Putnam stated that the outlet would be a small pipe of 8-12" set at the lake elevation today. The Watershed District has required that. Edes asked if the overflow water would be used to fill the ponds. Putnam replied no. Putnam stated that when the trunk sewer goes in, the cost is assessed to certain areas. lie understands that the area affected would go up to the Siefert property. The develovoeit would occur in phases and so would the assessments. Eventual ly, • • everyone will have to pay. Jack Varmeavortel16031 Summit Drive, stated he would like the Planning Commission to question why the Watershed is requiring the outlet. • Larry Lange, 150?8 Corral Lane, asked the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission's recnendations. He felt that both commissions should discuss the project at the sane time. Hallett and Sutliff agreed. Marhula stated that looking at the details of the PUD prior to the Guide Plan change • may be getting ahead of ourselves. lie stated that the input will be beneficial and • that the Commission is not making a decision on where the pathways will be. The Planner replied that the request is for a PUD Concept as well as a Guide Plan change. • • Sutliff asked if this falls under the Shorel and Management Act. The Planner. replied • yes. Mr. Olson, 9(130 W. Staring Lane, stated he felt single family hones should abut existing single family hales as a transition. Nancy Hedlund, 9010 Mitchell Road was concerned with the density. • Donna Hart, 9061 E. Sunrise Circle, asked if this request has been reviewed in the aspect that it lies under the flying Cloud Atnptrt ap not proach the zones. Ice zones e r Noise replied that it is under the flight pa tte en, would be a concern. l Hallett felt the density is too high. Gartner felt that density is too high and stated that having Mitchell Road go • farther cast fur the main traffic should be reconsidered. Tire Planner stated • that that 'would it a major item for the Staff to work on. lie suggested because of the need for the Park and Recreation to nje and the number of questions to Gr la, an ..:re�f, continuance for one c nt.h. U 4 . approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 12, 1982 Gartner agreed to the one month continuance and stated that the road system should be worked on. The Planner agreed. • Gartner asked if the De;,artment of Natural Resources has looked at filling the low areas other than the lake. The Planner replied that they are concerned with floodplain, and public waters. • • MOTION • Gartner moved to continue Red Rock Ranch to the November 8, 1982 meeting with intro- duction of this project to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Hallett seconded, motion curried 5-0. D. EDi:N PRAIRIE P_UBl.NG LIBRARY, by Hennepin County. Request to rezone 2.5 acres from Rural to Public and preliminary plat approval of approximately 10 acres, to construct a • Hennepin County Library facility. Located in the southwest corner of Schooner Blvd. and Preserve Blvd. A public hearing. • The Planner introduced Earl Johnson of Hennepin County who was present to give the presentation. Johnson stated that Mr. Smith, Hennepin County Library Staff was also present. He stated that the site is 2.5 acres, utilities are available, the library will • be constructed in 1984. Phase one consists of 6,000 square feet with off-street parking for 50 autos; Phase two is anticipated to be constructed in 1981 which • consists of 4,000 square feet for a grand total of 10,000 square feet of library space. The Planner stated that the site plan is general at this time and that, Hennepin County will have to return to the Planning Commission in the future for site plan review. He stated that he expects the site to be developed at an elevation range of 635 to 888. He reviewed the staff report dated 10/8/832. Sutliff asked the amount of impervious surface coverage. The Planner replied 75%. • Gartner asked the square footage of the existing library. Mr. Smith replied 1700 square feet. • Gartner asked why concrete for the sidewalk is recommended versus black-top. The Planner replied that when Prairie Center Drive is completed a concrete sidewalk will be on both sides of the road. Hallett asked why Hennepin County was suggested not to pay the cash park fee. The Planner replied that because it is a governmental body providing a public • a public community service. • Gartner asked if any similar libraries are constructed. Smith replied the Mostonka library in Mound. He stated that at total construction, the library will be very similar to the Hopkins library. • Dale itonkus, 8t/06 leeward Circle, asked when Preserve Blvd. will be upgraded. The Planner replied there are no current plans for upgrading Preserve Blvd. City Council Minutes 0 -10- SF.J;:mber 21, 1982 . Redpath asked if there would be a way for Pearson to work with Hello (the adjacent property owner) to have a road going north out of the Pearson property through the Ilelle property and onto Valley yiew Road. William Pearson,-Prior Lake, said he had talked to Hello about a road. He reviewed chat had happened about the storm sower the City put through his property and into his pending area. He said he had wanted to build a cul-de-sac at the end of Smetana Lure so the school buses could turn around -- this was turned down by Smetana. He stated the reason they built the road they are using which necessitates the use of a short portion of Smetana Lane is because of the work they are doing for the City on the ring roads. lie felt the bid price could have to be raised because of the extra hauling costs if they are not able to continue to use the route they are • now using. Redpath said idle had proposed a north-south road through his property • and he suggested Pearson check this out with Helle. Bentley said the Council is not interested in making it more difficult for • Pearson but the Council is concerned with safety. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to instruct Staff to get together with Pearson and Hello to see if a north-south road can be worked out. Motion carried unanimously. • • Marilyn Heath, 7065 Smetana Lane, said she supported the Council's coconents. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue the meeting past 11:30 p.m. • Motion carried unanimously. Request from Robert for Red Rock Ranch CAW approval (Resolution No. 82-2:ii' B. ' ity Attorney Pauly noted the regulations of the Environmental Quality Board have been revised and that under those new regulations an environmental impact statement would be required. tinder the old regulations the local conanunity determined whether or not an environmental impact statement would be required. The Environmental Quality Board Staff has indicated that City Council action • this evening is appropriate and there will be no legal obstacles. Director of Planning Enger further outlined what the past procedure had been. He said this project has been "in the hopper" for a long time and the Council will not be asked to proceed in this canner again. The proponent has said they arc willing to prepare an environmental impact statement should the City • determine one is necessary. . Edstrom asked if the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had re- viewed this. Director of Community Services Lambert said they had not. Eager noted that the environmental assessment worksheets will now be shorter but most proposals will call for an environmental impact statement. In the past two years, had the new regulations been in effect then, the City would have had to complete 26 c:nvironc,ental impact stetsnts. City Manager Jullie stated the new regulations will discourage area-wide planning. • City Council Minutes O -11- • ` ember 21, 1982 Tangen said if assurances can he made that an environmental impact state • - went could come at a later date if necessary, then be would support this. • { MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 82-231, finding the environmental assessment worksheet for Red Rock Ranch a private • action which does not require an environmental impact statement; and to in- clude the letter of September 16, 1982, from Robert H. Mason to the Mayor and City Council Members in which he stated he would be willing to prepare • a voluntary environmental impact statement after full City review should the • Council find it necessary. Pauly said he could not assure the Council that the letter would be enforce- able. . - • Enger said be felt the City has many other controls which might be implemented. He did not think there are environmental impacts and there is no need, in his • opinion, for an environmental impact statement. Dick Putnam, spokesman for the proponent, said they would be willing to do an environmental impact statement should one be deemed necessary. VOTE ON idO1ION: Motion carried unanimously. C. Request from Golf Vista residents renar_diastreet address change City Manager Jullie addressed his memorandum of September 17, 1982, to • {` the Council which addressed the problem. 110110N: P.edpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to allow the residents of Golf Vista to keep the house numbers which they now have and to acknowleye the name of their private street at Vista Court. It should be noted the • name of the street which provides access to Vista Court is St., Andrew Drive and not St. Andrew's Drive. St. Andrew Lutheran Church will con- tinue to use Valley View Road as its mailing address. Motion carried unanimously. Bill Wright, 7240 Vista Court, thanked the Council for allowing the • • residents to continue to use the present numbering system. . • D. Petition to complete trail construction in prairie East 7th MO11ON: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the 100% petition • to construct a 6' wide bituminous trail per 08 of Prairie Cast 7th Addition Developer's Agreement of February 20, 1979. Motion carried rfranimously. c, d 1 ic9 0 •, 0 • • MEMORANIIUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Rob Lambert, Director of Community Services ' • DATE: January 28, 1983 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Red Rock Lake PROPONENT: Robert Mason Homes REQl1PST: Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low density residential to medium density and 1'UO Concept Review from mixed residential laud uses on a 150 acres for 581 units. LOCATION: South and cast of Red Rock Lake, north of County Road 1, west of Mitchell Road. • PARK ANO RLCREATION PLANNING CONCERNS: 1. 'nape of development: Residential 2. Ntnnber of units in residential development: 581 units proposed 3. Number of acres in the project: 150 • 4. Special recreation space requirements: Special recreation facilities may be required on certain phases of the multi-family reside proposals. Recommendations will be made upon review of rezoning requests. 5. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks: This parcel is adjacent to Staring Lake Community Park. a. atfStaringtlakeaCommunitys tParktanda 1Red developed Neighborhoodfor Parkfacilities • increase. 6. Need for a mini-park: There is a need for an access park on the south shore of Red Rock lake. cating 7 fee or a'{densityctransferSanditospaycth1eecashgpa l the lake rkfees. sed on sting nance a, If cash parkl: fee odedication,ite120(init,000 using stafftrecommendations will total: Approximately for densities. b. If parkland dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated is: Approximately 4.3 acres l�lo) 0 • • 8. Adjacent to exisiting or proposed trails: A transportation trail is proposed adjacent to the minor arterial. A sidewalk would be required adjacent to the streets and ultimately to the northern property line in ordcrto connect to the trail along the north shore of Red Rock Lake. The sidewalk would also be required along the loop street, as well as to the street that would connect the neighborhood to the south. a. Type of trails: Transportation trail adjacent to the minor arterial. All other trails referenced arc pedestrian trails. h. Construction material: Asphalt for the transportatiop trail. Concrete for the pcdestrain trails. c. Width of trail: 8' for asphalt, 5' for concrete. d. Party responsible for construction: Developer e. Landownership of trail location (dedicated, purchased, ROW): Right-of-Nay or dedicated trail easement. • NATURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION CONCERNS 1. Site grading plan considers natural amenities of the site? This PUD Concept Plan only shows a rough grading plan; however, this plan does take into consideration the amenities on the si te. 2. Most'significant grading on the site? The most significant grading appears to be 10' cuts on the southern portion of the site. 3. Significant vegetation on the site includes: Significant vegetation on the site occurs on site A and site G. .Refer to Planning Staff Report dated January 6, 1983. 4. The site grading plan indicates preservation' of: The preliminary grading plan indicates preservation of the majority of the trees on the site; however, each rezoning request ❑nd the final grading plan should be reviewed at the time of rezoning request to ensure preservation of wooded slopes, especially along the lakeshore. 5. Adjacent to paahlic waters: This site is adjacent to Red Rock Lake and directly across Mitchell Road from McCoy Lake and Staring Lake. a. Affect on the waters: As this site develops, the rate of run-off will increase into these adjacent lakes. This will be controlled somewhat by the proposed ponding system. RFITIO 5CE CUECK 1. Major Center Area Study: N/A 2. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Facilities at lied Rock Neighborhood Park will provide the g,:anme field space to serve this neighborhood. Facilities at Staring Lake Park will also provide some of the large open space require- rents of this neighborhood. The proposed access park on Red Rock Lake will provide public access to that amentity. IQ 0 .- 0 -3- • 3. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A 4. Shoreland Management Ordinance: The Shoreland Management Ordinance does apply to this development proposal. S. Floodplain Ordinance: The Ploodplsin Ordinance does apply to this develop- ment proposal. 6. Guide Plan: The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this area as low density residential. The request is for a change to the Guide Plan'to medium density residential. See Planning Staff Report dated January 6, 1983 for rationale to approve that change. RECOMl•D Ni):ATlONS 1. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or • opposed to the project: The Eden Bills Neighborhood has a petition dated October 12, 1982 opposing any road connection from that neighborhood to the Red Rock Ranch proposal. 2. Planning Commission Recommendations: The Planning Commission recommended approval as per the January 6, 1983 Planning Staff Report recommendations. 3. Community Services Staff Recommendations: The Community Services Staff recommends approval as per the January 6 Planning Staff Report with the following recommendations regarding park size and shape and trails: 1. The park size and shape as depicted on the revised plan dated December 13, 1982 is not adequate. In the revised plan the location of the minor arterial was moved further to the south in order to retain the approximate same acreage of the park, the developer simply made it narrower, The width of this park is critical, not only for the development of the park, but also for the future management of this park in relation to the adjacent land uses. City staff is recommending a configuration that would provide a 450' shoreline within the park and a minimum width 200' back from the shoreline of 400'. This ronfigumation would be more in line with the original pro- posal submitted by the Community Services staff. These minimum widths are necessary in order to provide screening and buffering from adjacent future residents. 2. The trail system should be provided by the developer as previously stated in this report. An 8' asphalt hik eway/bikeway on the north and west side of the minor arterial and a sidewalk system adjacent to one side of the loop road and connecting to the trail along the north shore of Red Rock Lake. 3. As rezoning requests arc reviewed for each portion of this development, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission should review the need for interior trail systems and possibly tot lot facilities. • 4. The small triangular portion of this site that protrudes into Staring lake Park on the cast side of Mitchell Rd. should be dedicated to the City prior to final plat of the 1st phase. lq s 0 0 • -4- On page 2 of the Planning Staff Report dated January 6, 1983, the Planner indicates that the developer is not in accord with the staff recommendations regarding dedication of the access park as part of the rationale for increasing the density on this site. Me Community Services Staff concur with the Planning Staff that the developer should provide the City with rationale for increasing the density above what has been planned for in the Comprehensive Cuide Plan. Providing open space and access to the major amenity of this development is one of the reasons suggested by the Planning Staff for Commissions and the Council to approve the request. park the wouldprovide some additional amenities By dedicating this developer that would help provide facilities to serve the increased numbers that this dcvcloiecnt would generate. This park will he the only boat access to the lake and the only access to what is the main attraction of the subdividion for approximately 95% of the future residents of this subdivision (only about 30 units out of 525 will have actual useable lake frontage). This park will be one of the major selling points to the 95% of the homeowners who wouldn't have access to this lake without this park. Staff would estimate that S5-90% of the users of that access park will be residents of this subdivision. Ri.:rid • • • • • ' C • 3 • • • { /g 0 0 STAf F RI PORT T0: Planning Commission • Ff20t4: Chris Luger, Director of Planning DATE: January 6, 1983 • PROJECT: Red Rock Ranch APPLICANT & FEE OWNER: Robert Mason Homes LOCATION: South of Red Rock Lane, north of County Road #1, west of Mitchell Road, and cast of County Road #Y4 ORIGINAL REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low density residential to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres for 600-1,100 units REVISED • RI 0 ST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low density residential to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres for 581 units. REFER TO: Original Development Brochure Revised Development Plan Dated December 13, 1982 and December 2, 1982 Staff Report Dated November 5, 1982 Background The Planning Commission viewed a general presentation of the Revised Development Plan at their December 13, 1982 meeting and referred the item to Staff for review and recommendation. Rationale for Amending the. Con}nehensive Guide Plan 1. The ability to have a variety of housing opportunities has long been a goal in the City overall. It can also be a worthwhile goal on an individual site basis if: a) The maxir.u.un density proposed for the site is planned to fit in both with surrounding land uws and the supporting City frann-:ork, i.e. roads, utili- ties, open space, services. lull 0 0 Planning Commission -2- January 7, 1983 Red Rock Ranch b) The plan proposed works well on the site (topography, vegetation, etc.) and is a site plan which provides ample space between units, proper building orientations, etc. In the November 5, 1982 Staff Report, we indicated that the unit range, 600-1,100 units, did not fit the criteria above. The Revised Plan, 581 units, we believe is still above an acceptable range. Staff would recommend a range of density of 2.5-3.5 units per acre or 375-525 units. The reduced density range would still allow a tremendous variety of unit types: large lot single family, cluster single family detached, townhouses, manor homes, and condominiums. 2. The development would create a park and public access to Red Rock Lake. The developer is not in accord with Staff recommendations on this point. The development is most advantageous to the City if a park of the proper size and shape is given to the City as part of the PUD. If the park were given to the City, it provides rationale for a density transfer and a density bonus. The normal obligation of Cash Park fee would still apply. The developer continues to propose that the park be acquired by the City with Cash Park Fees collected from the project. 3. The development would make the connection of Mitchell Road south possible. Revised Plan The Revised Plan (December 13, 1982) is different from the original plan generally as follows: a) Site J, adjacent and south of Red Rock Lake, has been changed from a condominium site of 10-15 units per acre, to a single family detached site of 32 units. Site J is 12.5 acres. b) The lakeshore park has been reduced from 6.3 acres to 3.8 acres, and the configuration has been changed by the developer as he understood direction from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. c) Site B has been changed from 3.5-6 units per acre to 8.5 units per acre. d) Site C has been changed from 8-13 units per acre to 8 units per acre. e) Site D is still proposed as condominiums at 9.7 units per acre. f) Sites E and F were proposed for 4-8 units per acre and are now proposed as 3.6 and 3.5 units per acre respectively. g) Site G has been changed from 4-8 units per acre to 4.5 units per acre. h) ,Site H has been changed from 8-15 units per acres to 8 units per acre. I9r- 0 0 Planning Conerrission 3- January 6, 1983 Red Rock Ranch • • • i) Site I has been changed from duplexes to single family detached. j) Site K has been changed from 4-8 units per acre to 4 units per acre. Staff recommends that the sites adjacent to existing single family (Sites E, F, I, and K) all be within a density range of 2-3.5 units per acre (anything over 2 units per acre must illustrate appropriate buffer and transition treatment). In addition, Site B should he returned to the original range of 3.5-6 units per acre. Deve1 oymentRoad and Uti 1 i ties Framework Trunk sewer must be extended to the site approximately 4,000 feet from the east in order to develop. This would be a City project which could be initiated by a petition of affected property owners. If the trunk were extended to the center of this project • as proposed by the developer for Phase I, all of the unplatted property south of Village Woods Drive to County Road #1 could be serviced by a trunk. Current policy would place a trunk sewer assessment of $2,350 per acre on all non-homesteaded property. Homesteaded property would be assessed when sewer laterals served their areas. Mitchell Road would also have to be upgraded for approximately 1,500 feet in order to begin the development. In order to develop Phase I of the PUD, Staff recommends a complete loop system back to Mitchell Road, or the completion of the minor collector road through this project down to County Road #1. Development past Phase I n•:ould require continuation of the minor collector south to County Road #1, even if the loop road was provided for Phase I. Road System 1. The central spine road must he connected with a loop to the north and then east to Mitchell Road with Phase I, or the road must be completed to County Road #1. 2. The central spine road must be completed to County Road #1 for development past Phase I. 3. Road connr'ction to the south from Phase I could he made as proposed. The final connection to County Road #1 through E. Starring Lane would not be made until serer is extended through the Starring Lane neighborhood. 4. Connection from this development to Corral Lane could be made as one of the alternates illustrated following page 19 in the original development brochure. The proponent does nut control the land necessary to make the connection to Corral Lane. The connection should be made in the future for inter-connection of neighborhoods, and to provide two ways out of Corral Lane. The connection should not he made in such a way as to encourage the short-cutting of the County f Road #1 /County Road ;4 intersection. Connection would not be made until the extension of sewer into the area and reconstruction of the roads. 146 •• Planning Cuianission -4- January 6, 1983 Red Rock Ranch • • 5. The minor collector running through the site should be aligned directly with County Road PI south of County Road rl. 6. No units would access directly to the minor collector road. 7. Right-of-way requirr;•ents would be determined during feasibility study for the central road, but could not be less than 66 feet. The road would also not be less than 32 ft. in width and at least have a bikeway on one side. Park • Part of the rationale for increased density would be the conveyance of the park as part of the Park Dedication requirement. The Cash Park Fee would be paid at the time • of building permit for each unit. Additional private open space and trails as part of the PUD which would enhance the • quality of life for the residence should also be incorporated throughout the develop- ment. Trails as proposed by the developer and private homeowners' association open space should be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission and specific reconciendations made to the City Council. The Parks Commission will also review the size and shape of the public park. • Development Plan Detailed Site Plans Site A Site A contains the most severe slopes on the site and also most of the site's major vegetation. Site A is also impacted by Red Rock take which virtually surrounds it. The peninsula of Site A narrows very significantly and is best characterized as a very narrow, steep ridge surrounded by water, and covered with trees. Development of this peninsula area will be very difficult because of these natural constraints. Setback standards to the lake should not be varied, but front yard setback standards and City road standards for a short cul-de-sac at the very end of the peninsula, or a private road, may be considered with very large lots as a method of preserving slopes and trees in the future. Site B Site B is basically in the center of the development and bordered on the northeast by land not owned by the proponent. This land lies directly south of the Butler Homes single family development known as Pheasant Oaks and a development type and density consistent with large lot single family should he selected; therefore, Site B should • be returned to the original range of 3.5-6 units per acre rather than the 8.5 units per acre suggested by the developer. • Site C Site C is bordered on the north by the central read. The northern third of the site is low, the central third of the site is a steep slope, which should be preserved, • leaving the developable area as a plateau on top of a hill. The density range as • suggested by the developer is acceptable as this site will require a clustered /97 • 0 0 Planning Commission 5_ January 6, 1983 Red pock Ranch • development approach in order help preserve the amenties of the site. Site D Site D is proposed as a higher density and is depicted schematically as a occurring around a pond as the amenity area. Site D is divided from Site F, which occurs to the south by a slope and major emphasis will have to be placed in transitioning carefully between the higher density of Site D and the lower density of Site E to the south. Site E Site E is in the center of the site lying on the southern boundary and occurs at a high point on the site. Development on Site E will occur on top of the plateaus and the transition to Sites II and D to the north will be via slopes. Site E should be in the development range of 2-3.5 units per acre. Anything over 2 units per acre on Site E will have to be evaluated against criteria of how well it fits on the site, how well it transitions to the south to the existing neighborhood. Site F Site F is bounded on the south by one single family home and commands views overlooking Starring Lake. The transition to the single family area to the south is very important and the density range for Site F should also be 2-3.5 units per acre. Site G Site G occurs on the side of an east-facing hill and is sparcely wooded by Oak trees. Site G is acceptable as a townhouse site in that this type of building, if not over- he ite and um protectionn oft theo trees. Dens allow cityY range nonnf Site G as proposed bythe sloped nature of t the sdeveloperraofr 4.5 units per acre is acceptable. Site H Site H is bordered on the north by a proposed park area and the central road and on the south by some of the lower density proposed development and a portion of vacant single family lend directly to the south. Site H is fairly developable in terms of topography; however, it occurs much lower than the lower density site to the south- er eat and,e succssfullyfore, a accomnodatei8iunitsapertacn must be cre for multipleded for in family attached.for Site H Site I Site I as proposed is acceptable. The site is depicted as single family detached as it occurs between a proposed single family area to the north, Site J, and existing single family large lot to the south. 1ti 0 b 0 • Planning Cunnission • 6- January 6, 1983 Red Rock Ranch Site J • Site J occurs on the south side of Red Rock Lake and is bounded on the northeast by the proposed park and on the west by a vacant parcel. Site J has been modified to single family detached use from condominiums. Site J contains about 50 feet of topographic variation from the south sloping down to the north to the Red Rock Lake elevation. However, approximately 20 feet of this elevation difference is taken up • very close to the lake in a steep slope tint will occur in the Shoreland Management • setbacks from the lake. Nevertheless, Site J is en open site and must be carefully developed in order not to infringe on the visual character from Red Rock Lake. The large lot proposal is a way of accomplishing this. The road system will require special study in order to reduce excessive grading. Site K Site K occurs along the west side of the existing Starring Lake neighborhood and will be a difficult site to develop because it will also be bounded on the west by the central minor collector road. Site K is a narrow site, and the most feasible method of development seems to be several short, possibly private cul-de-sacs to clustered single family ho:lees. An adequate buffer between this higher density area (2-3.5 units per acre) is necessary. Recnm:nendatines • • The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low density residential to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review • for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres based upon the revised plans dated December 13, 1982, and the supporting material dated December 2, 1982 and January 6, 1983, subject to the following: 1. The maximum gross density on the site available would be within a density range • starting 2.5 units per acre and not exceeding 3.5 units per acre or 525 units. • Density over 2.5 units per acre would be substantiated on a site-by-site basis • according to the overall PUD and balanced against the goals of: a) providing • open space; b) providing a higher quality of life than otherwise possible; c) • providing a variety of housing opportunities; d) providing an innovative approach to the land and a higher quality site plan than otherwise possible; • and, e) excellent transitions between existing and proposed land uses. 2. The sites adjacent to existing single family (Sites E, F, I, and K) all be within a density range of 2-3.5 units per acre (Anything over 2 units per acre must illustrate a;yrrnpriate buffer and transition treatment). In addition, Site B should be returned to the original range of 3.5-6 units per acre. 3. The central spine road must be connected with a loop to the north and then east to Mitchell Road with Phase I, or the road must be completed to County Road ;l. The central spine road must be completed to County Road nl for • develop: nt past Phase 1. 4. The road connection to the south from Phase I could be made as proposed. The b 0 Planning Cormission -7- January 6, 1983 Red Rock Ranch final connection to County Road #1 through East Starring Lane would not be made until sewer is extended to the Starring Lane neighborhood. 5. Connection from this development to Corral Lane could be made as one of the alternates illustrated following page 19 of the original development brochure. The connection should be made in the future for inter-connection of neighborhoods, and to provide two ways out of Corral Lane. The connection should not be made in such a way as to encourage the short-cutting of the County Road #1/County Road P4 intersection. Connection would not be made until the extension of sewer into the area and reconstruction of the roads. 6. The minor collector road running through the site should be aligned directly with County Road #4, south of County Road #1. 7. No units would access directly to the minor collector road. 8. Right-of-way requirements would be determined during feasibility study for the central road, but would not be less than 66 feet. The road would also not be less than 32 ft. in width and would at least have a bikeway on one side. 9. Park size and shape should be determined by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission and the park property should be conveyed to the City as part of the PUD as a partial density transfer with the Cash Park Fee being assessed to the entire project. Additional private open space and trails as part of the PUD should be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. 10. No approval of this PUD Concept shall constitute, or in the future require, approval or formal establishment or designation of a Planned Unit Development District, zoning or subdivision by the Council of the land which is the subject of the PUD Concept Review. 11. Individual sites returning for PUD District Review, zoning and platting would be evaluated against the following criteria, but not limited to this evaluation: a) Encourage a wore creative and efficient approach to the use of land in the City; b) Allow variety in the types of environment available to the people of the City; c) Encourage more efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled common open space through the distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible; and, d) Provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the provisions of Chapter 11 and Chapter 12, while at the same time preserving the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants. ,2o 0 . , , . i. : () i ---- o „,.....,.. . . .. ,..• ...................„,.. i • .., • :, • , !. • ,,r„ . _ , , I, t ' '' ..-,::- -.::t.-s •• '..• '.41 / J I + t---- ..-,-- .. . 1. .� �.r. r ..f I �� Y 7 + 1 o J • tt • p:. L J� ' .1 \,,., \ , J C,. ...\\ o 11;r `.�it •, \ r J • ro 111 i. : a L/. ``/. \l f l ' - k... \ , ..., .,, vt, ...., r ; i- •,, ;,..• , .....„.„.„ :.. 3 -,;) ,'., 0 %,c-;-,,j •; . ' ; ..,--. -D,I,,' . '••.'s ' "'( ' -y , \ i 2c)► F [ ) STAFF RLPORT T0: Planning Commission • FROM: Planning Department • DATE: November 5, 1982 • PROJECT: RED ROCK RANCH • APPLICANT AND .• FEE ONNER: Robert Mason Homes LOCATION: South of Red Rock Lake: north • of Co. Rd. 1, west of Mitchell Road and east of Co. Rd. 4 REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low density residential to medium • density residential and planned unit • development concept review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres for 600-1100 units. BACKGROUND • At the Planning Commission's request, review of this request will be divided into: 1) Guide Plan Change; and 2) PUD Concept Review. Guide Plan Change • The 19/9 Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this entire 150 acre area as low density residential. At the time of adoption of this plan, Eden Prairie's lowest density residential zone with sewer and water was the R1-13.5 • District. This district allowed two units per acre maximum density. The City has recently updated and codified its ordinances and the R1-13.5 zone has been changed to allow up to 2.5 units per acre maximum density. The developer is requesting that the Guide Plan he changed from low density residential to medium density residential. Medium density residential would allow up to 10 units per acre. The developer is proposing a very broad range of possible units of 600-1100 units in his planned unit development concept. In a Guide Plan change request, it is incumbent upon the developer to adequately illustrate how the City could he developed better Lhrourh a modification to the plan. if an adequate case cannot be made for the change, the Guide Plan should not be changed. • • • • ao2 • O 0 Staff Report-Red Rock Ranch page 2 Paraphasi ny from the developer's coninents and informational brochure, we are able to find the following reasons he puts forth in support of a Guide Plan chanrc: 1) This development would provide a variety of housing, both in style and economic opportunity. 2) This development would respond to an expected future marketplace. • 3) This development would create a 6 acre park and public access to Red Rock Lake. 4) This development would make the extension of trunk sewer possible. 5) This development would make the connection of Mitchell Road south' to Co. Rd. 1 possible. We need to examine these points one at a time: 1. Al though the proposed unit range (600-1100) would allow the developer tremendous flexibility for a variety of units, the question of whether a project of this density (4 u/ac - 7.3 u/ac.) fits on this site is really more key. 2. Response to the marketplace cannot he the sole reason for changing a Guide Plan. As we know, the marketplace swings daily. It is important for the City to respond to long term trends not four year cycles. a. Land and homes are generally getting more expensive, although the rate of change over the last 10 years has been signi ficantly greater than the long term trend. b. Number of households is increasing while number of persons per househol d is decreasing (4.1/unit 1970, 2.97/unit 1980). c. Population projection for Eden Prairie has decreased (100,000 - 190,000 ultimate 1970 est. 60,000 - 90,000 ultimate 1892 est.). The City's current Guide Plan is much more specific and plans for a high amount and mix of multiple family to single family. While some additional medium and high density areas may be • needed in the overall City to accommodate long-term trends, whether it is apprepriato on this site will be explored further in this report. 203 t . . . .. (..) . .• Staff Report-Red Rocn-Ratich 0 page 2a • • . ... •• • ....... • ,,,,...,,,-..-,..:„.•—•.:....:,,.-2_••':::-,-:-,_-.-__..z.r.!.•:-..,-.-.L.-..,\----;'.:'3'..74.-4.,..',."—T.,:•17.-.77,-'\--",::—.'.'..''''r"-". Vi'''..V. .m.r.,- c-7.(,.•.. :I" .v --.1.':-:-.1.-c,..,,... ...i.":-..z...,-,/}4 ...,:....---,-/ • t! .. / ':; / i-•.1'.'''',-.:-.1-‘".•.,Vi .. ,', ‘, ..,;...,; . :, ..,/:rs .,7.1 .,,e5•:,1 ,l.t'-.1 ..:5•! / '.,'•-•",../..-..7-si•p,., .. ..,_.„....1,„st•R . .,. ,, is,-,._•t: ' i ' /-•!....',. ...:, , !(:),•••,-;"-•',-.ri-7 ,..=.`,.'."••• ''" :,, •.. i • s.„,. .. : A , ,„ t..- ,,.`i.---4 •,. ,, ••••.--,•;. r-)-c:1 jr•-.71' t ‘'.:•-"\--'' • .c\i• ,- •• - ••"1"'\\•,,4, --' •1 t • '- -.- ' 1 -.c.-• -- --I .. ir-,,t... •••, •• .....-;• ••-.. •-- :•• ---, .•:•• / • 7,\ ..,• .... ! : • . 4.. . . .., , ... !. e ••. , . 1 " , 4%% -• ,' • .• ''-n•-,..,:-.'-...,•';••,.!.. ' 7.' :: • ••••,. -,, , 0 •/ ' ' „ •-:• t•-••••,, .---'• - • • F.:" ::7' : •,e, -..•"..-.• ••1•-'"---- - ''•v: _,-:t •. • •• •,,----- •...........•. 40•c...c o. ; ,••-.--•••-• \.s.,,.:•••-1 ••••.. ;,•, ,. , ..• :•••,, - r.' . ::•-,-,-:''''''-'C'ci.l.t.e:i:''' ,.• • I <\V'-,-I'-'...,;..... -.•"-•,.. ..i-•'7;:,..• ' , :'","‘•.V •• -: 0 . ,.i ..•• - q ---; . -•••`!:-.---.'cill-‘,;"; ,.• ‘,..,- -.-.,.•.•,..-•—••• -7,•, ... .••• ( EL.\..r.• 2 ,•.1/4.••'•--,,.-. ..:••• . . ,..:..1. ,.....„:, .•°''•'....'.41t.,••••:.1.,'.••'•: -' \J ' 1 - ••.'•,•_..r.°..:..‘. • •:.• 'i.4,,,, 41''L1.i•wU./:Iv1.(p°•.-.*,**•'1.7- .1'.Z.)....,.\\•:'',:`i':,•.V••••••.,'4•.I'),:‹•.',•.0'.','ir'••'°-,.'•:'".':'•:,.7'.'•.•°..-(.•`--'.1••,'.-'••').'•"."._ti.i-i----•.-.),-,.:-\ ,•°•'.'.'''0:.°.-,.'',°.-•c:'.I-,,.::.n,,•••rt (i..•-C. ..i'p. lt l i . c i -" f5N ) ' en gt•e...•-•S xFP.''5•'.'...••.•••• '• .', •:."Ilk '.. . • ''''' lu'' •••_._:;.-...!.::',•,,,,,,./. ,,;',:.%•"•'.c, ..":.'1 'i'..,.-''';'.. . i'... ::•:''.••,•=',.:.:".•:.•,..:"....') .:',/..i.",,.. ";;;') j . :'....;;---'7,t•)!''s: •- .•', L !"-,i-:•. ;..:,•!,.,-:- .... -. -:--",-..:-...... ,..:... _ .. . .. f . ,- ,6--.'•-. ,:1;`F7-.:::11 Vir'..'''' C.7...':',.......''.......--‘i.• , . . I . ••--- ii...,,<,. s..,,.,.....,.......... •• --_,-• .•:I-j,; ...1....)_._.,........;;,;-,,..•...1...% •-----,--.,i- . ----,.,- •=.::::"..,',.,.,.-ii --...!7:1 ,,,•,,,,,•,,,:4;•-c'.• . *-rill"---.1,_.•17?-• . . • . . . ' • J . . . . _,...... . .• __ • . • ., • ) IT_• r-,,,,nc„,,,,,,,, g'-'..\, ,i(r r .,, .., q„2 .....;p,ii% 6-, 0 .,„.__,,, ,...:) i , s..... il 1 il 11-) ,if ‘1....:.:1 ,t.4f/ \-- . LI 11 ..) ii Lji . Zt.:- • -' L •t• I 26L1 1 (� • Staff Report-Red RoS)anch page 2b • / /`I I 1 S�_� . / l;f. Y I _L_ e'y - -ii- 1-1,•':!!.).P., .0. i i ., .°I1L-:;:'71----,,,J.,,i,31___:._:_....„.„1-1-3C-2_,),ii ',I.'_'..,,,;1.1.../.:.,,,i1",,..:/,:fci..,!1,.1,11',,1, \(‘‘,L1(:r7..,:......_}., \7. I II"'j c --) 11._i.1) A' -1 ‘ • LAND USE I � , 1 O ... .- O IIIMINIALY fCNOOI (OM..51fCIAl r�� cc:::aN I I I,DVSiIIAI J© ,UNION HIGH SCHOOL S ,.V011,i DAtINO M w':N.M i"".." '(V' lINOL NILN,CNOOL . ..., IO F Ili( 11A1ION y I 1 ' fYNLII uMur �i r t I L IlULCY •/ (. nLK 1 O('` OVA II PULIIC 'b awCN 1 Y I i 9 d i r, ,:.. y \c'd L..:. l:. I ; (20c • 0 0 Staff Report Red Rock R neh page 2c :ia ....s t::r .i ti.+''. )•' I ► j J _ j? vL scn.�y • /ram/Iy/� � r. .� �'` ` �17 •1•t.1J�, t- . • 3- i " i U /1 i I. :•• kLLCL�l.kkkkLCL�SL{r{•t! :1 F�7t�� 'f j ( 1 , ..� -. 1.-... eery• - E it FI"E;;i^Cu.2a. r 1 n 1.11:%1t3 LAND USE PLAN EXHIBIT A �.v dcc.i; residential P 'put•'n,cp%i sa::r.ffx��.ti:1.;.a:•r. C_ t:.t:'£. '•1ii:D' I "y _J + •d'urdtc;:r,3ary 1,. {Yi.o •.:,. 1,urk 1d ( CS •c:ly£ -:c5, [" ,9 •I' tic y r n ial r F •frc s 'ca ' Li SE/VT:c cc,,..:.ry vac oLor':::I school 0 •cfficc , E •e.::,._.,,,:y tcf.xJ Id •i;-.:.. al • EC lsc'c?x . _ "— .n: c5,o:dc-;nrrscul __ 1'.0•h-r.:,c;:rtcanly CC •a,:n:-..,:.y c:,:n:crdJ r , 0 •qa:::.i t:: ::c.c;,_n S,:: ,I.I.O.A. „____ ^• •rr;;.rIcc.nr,.cial SIJO RI:LAt•:D MA AG'_c LNT CL ASSi=1CATION kL •n:.La.J r•rc::_rr'.7.t;1 c:;A:r ftD •rcc'rc:.;lln o;:n:•_:1;r.•-Iter -,1- 19^0 IRANI.,P03I'AiiO`J PLAN • •priacirol crloral ---• •inicrnl:d,,lo r.;lcrial -- •ntinor atle+ial •colkcclor • 1 LJ. a�'i j/ I:'Li`� Li lI `11/ _`1 l2 `11 11 1:i ;'L 11 11 1 P-s, r."L 1 1m n j • Staff Report-Red Rock Ranch page 3 • 3. The method of accomplishing the 6 acre park has not yet been agreed to by the developer. Staff feels that the park should be dedicated in a density transfer and possible density bonus, while the developer believes cash park fees assessed to the project should be used to acquire it. 4. Extension of trunk sewer into this area at this time is advantageous mostly to the developer. The City has no pressing need to open up more land to sewer at this time and in fact bonded debt of the City would be increased to accomplish this and the Mitchell Road extension. 5. The connection of Mitchell Road to Co. Rd. 1 is important. However, the overall Coranunity benefit would be mostly i in the future. The more direct connection of Mitchell Road straight south to Co. Rd. 1 is actually more impor- tant to the residential area to the north. The Comprehen- sive Guide.Plan recognizes the need for both of these roads as Minor Collectors. The Minor Collector status of the road through Red Rock Ranch is necessary to serve that neighborhood. The developer is proposing phasing of this road from north to south. Developing in this way would put the traffic burden of the entire development on north Mitchell Road, already over-burdened at TN 5. Where does the support come for the developer's request of 600-1100 units (4 - 7.3 u/ac.)? The 1968 Guide Plan illustrates this area as single family (2 u/ac.). Our current Guide Plan shows low density (2.5 u/ac.). The Red Rock Sector Plan shows the southern part of the area as 2 u/ac. and the balance at 2 - 4 u/ac. The 1963 Guide Plan and the 1971 Red Rock Sector Study were done during periods when population expectations were twice what they are today. What land uses have changed since the Red Rock Sector Plan and the 1968 Guide Plan? 1) The single family neighborhoods to the south and west existed at that time and today remain the same; large lot single family development ( .'2 ac. - 2 acres) at less than 2 u/ac. 2) The single family area north of the lake and the site is develop- ing at 2 u/ac. 2o7 .//.. i ., I.. .. K.. .I 0 I ,(- / - . , ---i .1 • _____:.._i_-_..i ::__ ..- ...2.)4i 71 1 , 1 - 5. ' ',,..ibluji -_ •.----------- ._-.1".) .! J., i;i n ; i .1.-7/9.:,',,',-,./..-,F,. 1:t!':‘,Sli-,-, .-:',1;: ' I ..., . ,I I ..( ,:A4,i1 ,,..•. .-., . .N .1 1 ] :t)\-I....:1i•'7..1:1::.:1....' (', . I . 1 . *..'1:. !-----. n.:4' j.f, ' \ j'-.:'.-4./N 1':;(tj',II 4 ,::...,'. <;','/1 0 ZI..,•1. .\,:1:;.1,1.4'ciV\s='i'11 C -..1.T.. . <,:I.(4; :-. n ;! ')T1.-/i. . ....- 11] ji . .' i_j ",,,, 10\''. ;--,;. ., ..(\, -Z iv) _ . :-- "------ ,..!,1.;,'.; .. --..'1.-r-.c' . - </).:.• ';''::.--ir .:' , ,-.i.1) ",...1 j..::' C...,7.:•1..;,.. . ,. • ‘.-\...re---7.- • ( . , '•..•. - ___, 11V • \,, ,, , . : : .• : 2 -I-- -;: ).•/--- -,:iv_, ,i-A• „..,,. -..„: ..r/r. : - • - ._fill...,i."r_ '. ::'-..4..L-1i-(r.0,A,-:..-.."\.•,L,i\\'•-.- .1- _,__C_,"_L.,.,."_„___ t__._... i11,73-7;1(.)•.i7..,- .,..fAiA _ \ 3 \ ' •,,... . -- 1 '0-0 1 i': ----...< j ii sif f_i --i:. ; ri, .-- V: i 9 - --'. I ?! 1 li'-'--- -,?' :-.! , ....s/ i -.4„,' .. .i _.[-_:1 / / -..,;,-, / 'E ( ' ---,...-• - -\\- ' •.........‹........ •\ ',./ l'/' .. . . , . .. . • )// •Z‘ . . . . . .. - • .. .. ---- ----- -------— ---------- ------ --- — '. - . . . .--.7-• __________;._ ______I_L____ ---, -:_-.-1-_---.:. , •.._ - • . ....:..-t,a 1 . F LY i k G C CO ti : : 1 ...!._ ;. aor k 1 ft P o I t 7 : . , . 0 0 • • Staff Report-Red Rock Ranch page 4 • 3) The Hipp's area in the southwest corner of Scenic Heights and Mitchell Roads developed only a second phase as townhouses, • the rest finished as duplexes, all together less than 4 units per acre (compared to a 5-15 u/ac. range in the Red Rock Sector Study). 4) Atherton Townhouses, Chestnut Apartments, Burning Tree Apartments, and Old farm Quadraminiums, have all been built on the east side of Mitchell Road around Chestnut Drive, averaging Tess than 8 u/ac. • 5) Deer Creek single family homes are being built east of Mitchell Road at 3.5 u/ac. rather than up to 10 u/ac. as shown in the current Guide Plan. 6) The Centex, Ridgewood West area will include low density single • family, clustered single family, and condominiums at a gross • density of 4.5 u/ac. in an area shown as 5-15 u/ac. in the Red Rock Sector Study and up to 10 u/ac. in the current Guide Plan. It appears from a historical perspective that not only is the trend in regional population down, but in this immediate neighborhood also. The higher density area in the Red Rock Sector will occur on either side of • Anderson Lakes Parkway. There are reasons for this: 1) the area is bordered on the north by industrial, on the • east by several hundred acres of floodplain, and existing • land uses to the west and south gradually transitioning to higher density. • 2) Anderson Lakes Parkway is planned as a Minor Arterial, a roadway ultimately expected to handle more traffic than a minor collector road. 3) This planned medium density area is in the center of town, very near commercial facilities. What does 600-1100 units mean to the City Service framework? 1) The Park System in general is adequate to handle the additional units. Public access to Red Rock Lake with this number of units in close proximity would require some limitation of lake use, especially by power boats. 2) The school system is tax supported and grows as the community grows. No adverse impact is expected. 3) Public Safety grows with the population; this area is in close proximity to services and if correct street systems, and water mains are implemented, no adverse impacts arc expected. (209 0 0 Staff Report--Red Rock Ranch oaae 5 4) Sewer extension would increase land available for development, not necessary at this time. This would also increase Eden Prairie's bonded indebtedness. Because of the large increase of units and subsequent sewer usage over Eden Prairie's adopted Guide Plan it is questionable v./ether this development would be approved as a Guide Plan change by the Metropolitan Council, • without using up sewer allocation for other project . 5) The transportation system would be adversely affected b) this project as proposed. The phasing of Mitchell Road from north to south would place the entire burden for this development on the Mitchell Road/TH 5 intersection. Anderson Lakes Parkway will help, but should largely be instituted for the units as planned in the Guide Plan. We have received convents from the Pollution Control Agency and iinOOT that an Indirect Source Permit will he required by this development if it contains over 2000 parR.ing spaces. The area of concern is the congestion on TH 5 at Mitchell Road. The more congestion, the poorer the air quality. It is obvious, that for a community that had been counting on US 212 to alleviate the congestion problems of through traffic, 1H 5, and US 189 need imncdiate improvement in the future. Although the City is taking steps to improve the situation (Valley View Road, Mitchell Road, Technology Drive, Homeward Hills Road, Anderson Takes Parkway, 62 Crosstown (County)), these improvements will be necessary for the areas already re- flected in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • What does 4 - 7.3 units over 150 acres compare to? Density is something difficult to visualize. Two of the best examples to use as a yardstick would he the City's oldest PUD's, Edenvale and The Preserve. Both of these PUDs are substantially larger in area, and both contain cos.nercial or industrial areas. For purposes of comparison we have summarized statistics on only the residential portions of these PUDs. Edenvale was planned in 1970 for a total ntmeb.r• of expected housing units of approximately 3,100 on 550 acres excluding their industrial and commer- cial areas, for a planned density of 5.6 units/acre. Evidently because of market conditions, Edenvale has developed only 1035 units to-date. Total development of Edenvale is not expected to exceed 5 units/acre. The Preserve is easier to evaluate because it is nearer to completion. The Preserve residential area was planned in 1910 for 5000 units on about 700 acres, for a total expected density of about 7 units/acre. About 1800 units have been built to-date in The Preserve with projects • already approved to an ultimate of 2531 units on 100 acres or 3.6 units/acre. P.10 0 • page 6 Staff Report-Red Rock Ranch • • SUMMARY The developer has not established adequate justification for a Comprehen- sive Guide Plan change. The range of units requested is too broad, and even yl'past or end present the pol{icytor planity as relateslrto th is is area. The range by any I of density is high compared to existing development in the area. Increase • in units over those proposed in the Guide Plan has not been planned for in the overall supporting framework of the GoidePllan, espe mberciallyotrans- • portation. The project mould require the City to debt not necessary at this time. Fxtcns ion of a new trunk sewer to open essary at up additionalhas 1735i1vacant lots currentlyential land is ot edeveloped b{utsnot�rbuilte. liupone tY currently• and a large inventory of residential projects in sewered areas not yet. built. The City is ngrupnwithly involved existingin a developeent ander of oproviding projects a geared toward catching up ,int. frame- work for Guide Plan designated development. The developer's phasing plan for Mitchell Road from north to south, magnify the burden upon existing Mitchell Road. The general PUD contains only ?9" single family (by area) and this large lot single family is not used to transition from existing large lot single family to higher densities. The deveiop:aent is completely out of character with the surrounding resid- ential development. PGCOVI•1FVDfITIONS • The Planning Staff recon:nends one of the following alternatives: 1. Denial of the request for Ccmprehensive Guide Plan change from low to medium density residential. • • -or- 2. Return the request to the developer in order to allow him the oppor- tunity to substantially reduce the number of units possible and adequately substantiate any change to a higher density than shown in the Compre- hensive Guide Plan. The PUD Concept, ouldrbecodified fied accordingly, • and provide for an appropriate to higher density. CE:sh �r� • 0 0 mFMORA,:DID] TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: October 22, 1982 SUBJECT: Red Rock Ranch Preliminary Review Enclosed in your packet is information on the application for a Planned Unit Development titled Red Rock Ranch submitted by Robert II. Mason homes. Due to the sine of the proposal (1S0 acres) the natural amenities on and adjjcent to the site, previous plans relating to the area in regards to trail corridors, etc., staff has requested that the Developer provide the Concnission with a preliminary review of the proposal at the November 1, 1982 meeting, so the Commission may list the concerns and issues that must be addressed by the Developer and by staff. This proposal went before the Planning Commission last week and was continued for 30 days. The Planning Commission requested that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission review this proposal and make recommendations regarding park issues prior to returning to the Planning Concnission. Some of the park and recreation issues that should be addressed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission arc as follows: 1. More detailed information from the Developer and the Watershed District is requested regarding the drainage system outlined from Round Lake to Mitchell Lake, through Red Rock Lake and eventually to Staring Lake. 2. Will this proposal meet the Shoreland Management Ordinance, and if not, idly not (rationale?) 3. The Eden Prairie Guide Plan depicts this area as low density residential which is now considered two and a half units per acre. the Developer is requesting a Cuide Plan change from low to medium density residential with a PUD Concept for an approximate range of 800-1100 units of multi and single family and park uses. Some of the rationale that can be considered for accepting a Guide Plan change from low to higher density residential includes providing open space, parks and recreational facilities, as well as a mix of housing types. This concept plan proposes high density residential directly adjacent to single family and medium • density residential directly adjacent to large lot single family existing homes. Although, the concept plan shows general "blobs" of development tunas, there is no specific reference to the rationale for high density directly adjacent to single family homes and what type of open space and screening would separate these land uses. 4. Tie Con.:>,insirrn mast also determine if the five to six acce linear park adjacent to lied Pocl. Lake is a :efficient amount of open apace to be dedicated to coc.pew•atc for an increase of •125-72S units more than was planned for this area when reviewed during the Guide flan Update process. 212 A • 0 0 -2- S. The neighborhood park to serve this area would be Red Rock Neighbor- hood Park. Also, Staring Lake Community Park would provide larger passive use facilities to serve this area. Trails leading directly to those facilities should be provided. The five to six acre park adjacent to Red Rock Lake is neither a neighborhood park or a community park, it is merely an open space arca that will provide public access to Red Rock hake. Staff would estimate that 90% of the users of that park site will be from the development being proposed. With all of the multiple family residential being proposed, those people will be looking for recreational facilities and open space areas within their im:cdiate neighborhood. Staff would suggest the developer consider development of facilities such as multi-use courts, • tennis courts, tot lot structures, etc. within the multi family residential development proposals that are homeowner owned and maintained. 6. The Eden Prairie Guide Plan has always depicted a linear open space system that would generally connect the Middle School to Red Rock hake and eventually extend to Staring Lake Community Park and the Purgatory Creek trail system. 'Ibis development proposal allows for the connection of that trial system, but directs the paths from a linear open space system to sidewalks adjacent to neighborhod streets and the proposed asphalt trail adjacent to Mitchell Road. Considerations of the possibility to maintain a more direct route with the pathway system adjacent to the natural features that attracted the first planners to suggest the linear park system should be discussed. Those features include: McCoy lake, Virgil Seifert's pond, and the marsh extending to the east from Red Rock Lake. 7. The developer has indicated that the first phase would be single family homes in the northern portion of the site, staff feels it is important to extend the road to the park and that the park be dedicated with the first phase. 8. Me Shoreland Management Ordinance requires lots fronting lakeshore to be a minimum of 120 feet wide with a 100 foot setback for the residential unit. Multi family residential units must be setback 150 feet from the normal ordinary high water mark. 9. The developer suggests that the park would be dedicated to the City with the value of the land credited against the cash park fee. Staff would suggest that it would he the case if this site was to be developed low density residential; however, as one of the rationales for granting a Guide Plan change, the developer should be responsible for dedicating cone open space (for instance in a straight density transfer 6 acres of land could allow the developer 18 additional units over the 375 that would be granted to a low density residential site). The developer is not looking for a density transfer because lie is requesting a Guide Plan change; however, the rationale is still the sane when a developer is requesting an increased density in an area planned for low density. There should be some rationale for changing the Guide flan such as dedication of open space and provision for recreational facilities as previously mentioned. The developer is offering no "dedication" with his proposal. 213 • - x Red Rock Ranch EAW CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE _ HENNLPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-231 - A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR RED RDCK RANCH A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a meeting on Septec,ber 21, 1982 to consider the Red Rock Ranch LAW, and WHEREAS, said developr.ent is located on approximately 150 acres of land in soutlrcentral Eden Prairie, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for Red Rock Ranch 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 21st day of _September_______, 9 'f , i/ ,c(see. , yl fgan' ji. (ienzel, Mayor ATTEST: • 1 .J ; D. fi-rrr City Clerk .1SEAL I i i • i i C_ r \, F.,c z, cc". .z- s- S 3 e.4„.. atil.t.,-...6 ei_z g,,..,,..,...1 C , d.,t ..t.-4.17., '1_r_ip..0-4,1-;7"••/-,•^I Cy til' qtez.-to---,. ,i7.:- •-;--)",-,tt-(-2, (1--.4-s -Q,;-"--d----,,,-P-7---.--7 r,.... --)--,-61 .,...c.,-.1.,,,A-i,4 Jv}' { r (y� r -'ps--v",--. •).AAQVim- A ...4 ...l *4. Q ..f i.,(_ ,(r21 D..i 3 a.Ld-0...4.-4_,-1-,-u.^"•4- 7;.1 r` .�.,.ti ...l.FJ'j tip. ,^,7., ,, 1 U 1 f I,' //n d/t AA 6:..) . ,,,, --' ," --/ ../ r/ . (-M /:/ta,,,t_V A.i. ()=-.---LA -.,,,,,,,,--t c--7_,,..).4_, ./r. c._..... /7)1 A d-1,,-,.\ 7--'1( i,./'• . r.4_.,-1 1-(= -2 1'a e-- le e- ..1,-1-rj.0-,„_,. Ilix_76,1:.(j/ -2./ - � � .Q-�- ^l` ..c1._/L a-«<I, Q L 2•0 sib '`i �t� X-f/��n2r� 1 /. / - 0...g.„____:-"r j Kt- it.,-,—L,?..c.,.., - ..e4,it.--,(6-c-.-7 irl ---Xl? --/.4.-1. ---/-t-?V ‘ ,r L?/ / : a.1 �� i l • . 0 0 • October 12, 1982 City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road . Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 . Dear City Officials: • The Robert Mason Homes, Inc. development plan for the Red Rock Ranch property shows alternative roads • connecting proposed Mitchell Road to Corral Lane. As attested to by the. signatures attached to this '. letter, the residents of the Eden Hills neighborhood (Cedar Ridge Road and Corral Lane) are opposed to ' • a connector road. The heavy traffic potential is not consistent with the established character of the neigh- borhood. We request that .the city honor the wishes i of this neighborhood. • Sinerelyj, , ,/ ' };en Fricke, President Eden Hills Association • • • ) I(. The ;onC Lo:-. r c.:7rs of the Ed ':j•� r.e'i '�i Ci:boncc,od • ore o],yc.;,•d to conn.•ctin( Corral L:.ne the proposed ritcl.ell Food: ,. • Name Address 1• e-/.l.!--t,t.-,J-- /-.STD/ 6'/a(-,/?,('/ram'_ . 2. -2)41 •.r..._.•,,: - /5 7c 2 �',-:t.a Yt.w 3. l-J>,I,.� •`':i(t,L.L. IC;11 t'L.-�taL' '''-,.:u• 4. �p;/.-.. ,. .. /,;: C. .a•, (..,:t_ . 6. r''-;:.';- )1, ^ � 1 5-S1.-Jft' A N`tip ;�. 7. 1.'1:A..... ,:-/;,ti✓ - 1S'//'1 ('[i&r. i•-,lt 7-, ,c.,-,ec 8. -vt tom_ 1. ��:�4, V�`1C'\ C:.hl\1` �,cCrc ��•r • / 9• s- /:.Q/: �/.(.c'Cli,,C,✓L ' /S')/,)' (i"n4, ,�,,7 ,\ • • • 10. -„;.. _ �T.1`t'. • , ,.S-%: - _' -e- ]1: _ j. •, - . � •.. � ( t- -•- am 'z�I 7/7 --' ' , ti • ' I- ' 12. % �% -3C __•c/.r /\/ di.- J13• , i .-1: L. ,;'. ... . Cr . /2. ! • • � , 11i. .:Y,�, . Dp � , /Jr,...,../....:/--' ',,- r / • 16. i 5 7// i„t, Ay,%, r c� i,s.' 18. -)'a4,././if. 1 - /, 7°J. (-,e,— i-f.7(k /c11 �9 1,' /-1'i. (,..5� /5 ) of,-,,�,: 1< 'S '/(i, l 20. [1.-1 ,.,.. l_: .. .. ...� , 57,, r_ <.:_1--t i.S- �- ,.- 1 - /-S /,7 C°:-C-,._ , ,�y,� d 21. -,-...0 �' . , \ :') /; 'if -�--- -i-'--ice 26. 21 27 _,-,._ •....:.----,,_ :rfc.• -r• c:C. '.F 28. ✓ri:_-i!,..(,.;- ,r;"rc^ ('•�.,'..' ,c-,o'cE C'J 6,7. . 29 1 -4. ( _ _,/1 i�Pc; ..:r.-_t G:.--er: FV t. Gr: 30. t1A.`. /l1i-.A F1 ') i _i I ^c.: r)V)•J. `w:// 31. )1,.i_-_� .iu_:i i ,:''0I C:a. I:,,J 1- �•• -�;'�_�- /-(--- _ - �• .0 --.,'. 34. �1;;;; ��.,/„„., I,i .•i /-, - 35• ?`,,,. c,, .•i,,'i! / (/t (' ,.('7—,7 ,: / . 211 . 1 ......- -i---- 1 . (7). . The follu :nc, 1:olia.owners of the Edun PA( ) neichborhooa . are opposed to connectinc Corral Ine to the propored • gitchell Tiond. . . . . . ; • Bane AddEt.,q . • /./ . 'i..-..5,7 tr.'', ?•.„'''.a Rd -- i 36.cy.,-a•.-y -// )7' V..-' /...,'??:/%",../ 4 67PP -. .-'17:..1-4.:.t . 4 ` 38. ././.,.:e/._,,,let ../• Of.j.1,1:.— ;I )7 C ci ez,teLi/ •/-42 J j 39. j.“--We:—a.. -;2,-,/, /-5-6/g /-r.— . 140. 1(00 IL -').„(f+/ klcib on./ 1.8...R.t, / !-//, 41. ///„:„ '-/..-;,-ri::,, A' 42' .1/}:""4-1-?,; *4- A:.c.(.1Y-1,-1 i S-6/0 (170/`....W)n•-•/.1..4.--e- 43, ._ „v.1,, c • .....c.k.c...... , ;., • /5 iv (;::-1,24_ .. ..-- :::::."%7 ),4._,J./..././....e rt. a i(,,,,--7- s jca'ae 45, (;j_.-4..-/...r....,<,,...e—,: ,.....---.(y---:-4...---i /s-73 7 116.(//. Xi,(J....J/7 lb-737 A4 Cder 4f): 'ed.. 10 CP; .7 6, 7 A • . /5 51 7 CL-1...4,..--, -1--c---c., 1-r". . 49. • P ' , 50 . 51. • 52. . . . 53. . 54. 55. 55. 57. 58. 59. 60. • 61. • : 62. i 63. . i 64. 65. 66. 1 i 67* • 68. . 69. 1 , 70. . . . . . z 21? 1 1 _-. 0 -.) r / k...-,,,0 1 i_t_il_w_a_/4 (te ‘,..„, ...„._ • ) - c 3 d z.)-•...s . . c-P,,....., .1.(.,../e.(_te-e to ;Cit.- /1). g.,..,../. ,....o. ,e. / -7:0 * ,'. C"' -C-,- -f•1-r,"-1''''1./--,":..•/'7:', G''''.-, 7/17.14' 0.9 g/ illy , f .-/...c,ri ..,' i y ' .Z- ? ii -i - --/ _ —--, 7 e, 4.--rd, ..e, L/ .7 e,, ..(.-- ....e ,./ 74, ---/7_,.. 7 • -7-, / 2-1 .--- ---t- -e7e-• ,t.../C,C../_4„-• .C •ire'Lc i.'-i. 0","-'-,-7;;-- ,...#..- •-t'l.„A-;....,:‘-----e..2_,, -7.,/-„ ,. . 7/,/ 1 . , /,---- ....2. z .4,-.e_. —‘_,._ ze.,i ._c_.-ce ( • ...,e . , - -1 (12-L-41- '''-- j•i--'47--'-Va 7-6' 1.., crit-41 ( p ,..r-c-itc r,Q_ccf"re' .7.7 C:..d.2_6:--4,---,-- -- c-,-,-, , rk-,i / ji-i, ,,,,e ef ,11.- __ .,g ,,,c 1-,t. C .W--.- I..) li I.c...1( -i-it-v ‘ (.) 7--( - -'5 r •C., _t-1---e- c'--- el_ „1-4-C...4.-I--,-1--i-/- /, I ----1-c 1--(---' -e ,-.)-4, ,-," i ) ( ti. -0 1-€/r Y•e .A "--( t/ .-{t_c.-.. -1)_)_c -,-;•LA:-6'<--4 -,t- 4-1 II"e-•) ,,(7-f2_ 1,,.--e.77,-.,,;17,7,C.),--7 0-1 „Cie ,(,..„.. ... ,.... /5,, 7-.(. I (7 - 4 --e 1At (7 , -/ ;c ( ./. zf -7 h7yT C(S.L - „ . i.„L-< -,-... (...C,.-,P-'"O'-'' ( , .4-14_0-t.-,.]1.1 --e.. i it.,),A.,-,,x,,12- .,:-(-Z .:-.:,i i • : LC •-i,e._< 1•,,.,,,,_6_co..,,,,, c.,-, >. t- ( 0 5 ./-i. ,',-.. - A '•1-c-' 'kf-- -4---) -c-1•:4--rir:;4,Cr, )1,• , .. 4 _ kJ. 'f*IL- li---A.--/6 !t- ‘-- , --,'--' •-• - ' r V • / 0/ II- 6(1-,' k ..'_—,11--/-c---1-4-- - )(- ,7,i,—f- f_. C- ct-f -,(:/...t- (i-f<•;— / / L- i . i f '•(',..- , .: e. I. i ... .4 i, i 7' 's i .- 7 •,/-c-(._- - ,,,‘. .../.. ..-• di.-'. (--,,--,.' , j. r ,..(;) , 'i I.,/4 I: —1 1,t r 1 il i A. ••/-,- ' , • • ../ 1 _k 0_, , , (..;Lc- -- . ,/,11:: .i.-i --,,:_,-c-- ,c i`-,/./r" if :- i P / , . 2 ,: , \ , ( . . ,r (..( (3^. t-.:: , . ., ',7..'(-. ... ...,c/ _ 0 1l,1 i lA. (. �„k.,�,�-,,--� �.�i/"�L�-�`-tom �L�(c-(l'I�c .%j',�� , ,.. / ,vt_7 4` c L�-, '0.,, _c ti« C'/�' c� ziw ,.4 vc--=C1 eCj 6 6,,,/ _A/1-A.,L1X,(-• :IV e(ee ,, ,j—A.Z-t_h_i_f---,/7 r_t_ e__, .1,A. , ii, 0 - • , C _ ,..---, ,.%4 --4---'-'—el C .A.1,,1 a, , eV ......"ip . ( 220 I • M.B. ' 1 -1 _:Pi REALTY ,, ,;.. ''Service First Succeeds First" ti.. SINCE 1918 MI Uhl!?Ltrt(`KCH U CORPORA IE OFFICES 1014 C.._cls;or Ave,W. • Hopkins,MN 55343 October 4, 1982 612938.7031 E.MINNFAPOIIS. Mr. Chris Enger, City Planner ST.LOUIS PARK OFF ICE Eden Prairie Planning Commission • 6010 Hipnn-ay 7 • • S+.Loins Nth,MN 55416 Eden Prairie City Offices 612929.5511 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. LAKE A SINNETONKA Or FICE Eden Prairie, MN 55344 243:5 Smithtown Rd. Excelsior,MN 55331 Dear Sirs: 612-474,0844 C WEST OFFICE 1014 Excelsior Ave.W. We, as owners of 210 acres on a line west of Hopkins.MN 55343 County Road #4 and south of County Rd. #1 and 612935/581 north of the railroad tracks, due herein wish • SOUTHWEST OFFICE to be placed on record as being in favor of 16546 Eden Prairie, 5 the petition for the change of Guide Plan Eden Pr,iris,MN 55344 g 612.937.1667 as related to the attached notice. We have had t.NORllHWI ST orFICE the opportunity to examine the submitted plans 1455o-28th Ave.N. and we consider and appreciate the planned p!yrnaim,ftr.55441 method of development. 612.559,2552 I'COMMERCIAL, 'VESTMENT DIPAR1MENT The owners are R. C. Leaman of. Hiltonhead, .014 Excelsior Ave.W. South Carolina, Leander J. Mason of Hopkins, E Hopkins,.'N 55343 Minnesota, and Herbert A. Mason of Shorewood, 612938 rt81 Minnesota. • Sincerely, FEATURING: BUYER DROTECTION PLAN /1 ,/�•/Yf�,r"--.--l.-c-y�-- Protects you trorn major!ever!tills �v�"`_v 1 -. aver you buy SELLER FROTEICTION PLAN Herbert A. Mason • Protects you(Mile you sell THE MOVING MACHINE A National Maniple L rslmq System Enc l: 1 ' THE SELLERS SECURITY PLAN An Eq.aly Advance.11uarantee Sate Plan NATIONAL REFERRAL NETWORK CONTRACT FOR DEED SLRVICES MORTGAGE I ENDING INSURANCE SERVICES Ebb Ilk Al1 Sl AIL tt1 CIA1IS15 • IN All t.0 STATUS, Japan 8 Ar:,balis 22,1 FEBRUARY 15,1983 ?-" VOID OUT CHECK 42170.73- VOID OUT CHECK 66.13- 5382 VOID OUT CHECK 51.OD- 5940 VOID OUT CHECK 468.65.- 5975 VOID OUT CHECK 10.00- 6056 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST #272 FEE PAID TO CITY IN ERROR 32.00 6057 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST #272 ART SUPPLIES-REC DEPT 34.13 6058 HENN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 130.00 6059 PETTY CASH EXPENSES 8.95 6060 0 & P CONTRACTING EST #5/KILMER AVE & ATHERTON WAY 5456.34 6061 MCGLYNN BAKERY THRIFT GRAND OPENING-STARING LAKE PARK SHELTER 17.64 6062 COMMERCE-CENSUS/DATA USERS SERVIC CENSUS MAPS-PLANNING DEPT 13.50 6063 TITLE SERVICES INC LAND-EDENVALE PARK EAST 42170.73 6064 CUSTOM CABS DUPLICATED SLIDES-COMMUNITY SERVICES 71.20 6065 WILD MOUNTAIN SKI AREA EXPENSES-SKI TRIP/FEES PAID 572.00 6066 GRIGGS COOPER & CO LIQUOR 3243.75 6067 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR 672.08 6068 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC WINE 1251.16 6069 EAGLE WINE CD WINE 137.84 6070 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO WINE 637.67 6071 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 900.01 6072 CAPITOL CITY DIST WINE 199.88 6073 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 166.80 6074 MIDWEST WINE CO WINE 661.90 6^75 MINNESOTA UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENT 775.00 ' SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES FEBRUARY RENT-LIQUDR STORE/PRESERVE 2920.12 t. i WENDY BURNS-CARLSDN INSTRUCTOR-SKATING/FEES PAID 126.50 6078 ANDREA BRDSCH INSTRUCTOR-RACQUETBALL/FEES PAID 96.00 6079 ROAD RESCUE COMPANY 1983 RESCUE VEHICLE-POLICE DEPT 50796.00 6080 STATE OF MINNESOTA-DEPT OF P/S MN MOTOR VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAWS-P/S 261.00 6081 RALPH KRATOCHVIL INSTRUCTOR-FITNESS CLASS/FEES PAID 74.80 6032 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 1996.37 6033 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR 2623.03 6084 MIDWEST WINE CD WINE 912.70 6035 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 512.80 6086 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 1940.42 6037 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 89.84 6038 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC WINE 1560.63 6089 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 83.13 6090 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 350.09 6091 OFFICE PRODUCTS CALCULATOR-ENGINEERING OEPT 90.00 6092 AMOCD OIL COMPANY UNLEADED GAS-STREET DEPT 8347.18 6093 WENDY BURNS-CARLSON INSTRUCTOR-SKATING/FEES PAID 9.20 6094 MATHEW HEDBERG REFUND-KARATE 27.00 6095 MATTHEW LEHNERTZ REFUNO-KARATE 27.00 6096 MICHAEL LOUIS REFUND-KARATE 27.00 6097 JACOB MUELLER REFUNO-KARATE 27.00 6093 DAREN STUNTMAN REFUND-KARATE 27.00 6099 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 402.00 6'00 ACTION RENTAL CENTERS EQUIPMENT RENTAL-CITY HALL REMODELING 31.00 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MOPS-LIQUOR STORE/PRESERVE 8.65 b1u2 AMERICAN PUi1l.IC WORKS ASSOC DUES-P/W & MANAGER 157.00 6103 EARL F ANDFRSEN & ASSOCIATES INC TRAFFIC SIGNS & STREET SIGNS 599.05 6104 CYNDI ANDERSDN REFUND-SKATING 8.00 88516.58 .1 2'er S 6105 VOID OUT CHECK 6' ' JERRY ANDERSON REFUND-SKI TRIP 4.00 . ARTSIGN MATERIALS CO PEN/SHADING FILM-PARK PLANNING 117.80 6108 ASPLUt;O COFFEE CO COFFEE-COMMUNITY CENTER 78.0D 61D9 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO INC ELECTRONIC IGNITION-EQUIPMENT MAINT 56.14 6110 WILLIAM BEARP;AN REFUND-VARIANCE/BUILDING DEPT 50.00 6111 GRANT BERGSTROM VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 80.0D 6112 V GAMES•BERGSTROM EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 280.0023.62 6113 BEST & FLANAGAN EASEMENT-ARBDN GLEN 6114 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON SERVICE-PURGATORY CREEK OUTFALL 10101.92 1.92 6115 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH COMPANY KEYS-PUBLIC SAFETY 6116 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING SERVICE-ARBON DRIVE/CARDINAL CREEK 1066.10 6117 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 582.5% 6118 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC CHAIRS-PLANNING DEPT 445.00 6119 BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 65.55 6120 CSL PROPERTIES REFUND-SEWER BILL 218.98 6121 CAPITOL ELECTRONICS INC REPAIRS-RADIO SYSTEM 43.50 6122 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER -OIL FILTERS/BATTERIES/EXHAUST PIPES/WIPER 998.1E BLADES/HEADLIGHTS/FAN BELTS 6123 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REFUND-1982 ANIMAL CONTROL COSTS 1044.36 6124 CITY OF CHASKA REFUND-1982 ANIMAL PATROL COSTS 120D.84 6125 YOLANDA CLARK REFUND-SWIMMING 12.00 6126 COPY EQUIPMENT INC HUMIDIFIER STAND-PLANNING DEPT/PENS-ENG 79.D5 6127 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 68.74 6I28 CURLE PRINTING COMPANY INC BUSINESS CARDS-PLANNING/ASSESSING/BUILDING 124.00 6129 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-FIRE & COMMUNITY CENTER 212.39 '' DASCO INC FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 53.76 MICHAEL OENT REFUND-SKATING 11.D0 6132 EUGENE DIETZ JANUARY EXPENSES 151.00 6133 DORHOLT PRINTING/STATIONERY OFFICE SUPPLIES 521.18 6134 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU REFUND-VENDING MACHINE LICENSE 15.00 6135 EDEN PRAIRIE HEATING & AIR COND REPAIR FURNACE AT ROUND LAKE WARMING HOUSE 151.92 6136 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHDOL DIST #272 SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 245.87 6137 CITY OF EDINA JANUARY TESTS 85.00 6138 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC APRON/EAR PLUGS-WATER DEPT 61.60 6139 JON B ELVY BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 24.00 614D EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEMS INC REPAIR RED LIGHTS 51.20 6141 FEED-RITE CONTROLS INC SULFATE/POLYPHOSPHATE-WATER DEPT 5305.20 6142 JUDY FIELDS REFUND-SKI TRIP 5.00 6143 FINANCE MANAGER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORMS 458.00 6144 FIRE SAFETY & COMMUNICATIONS CORP HELMET LINERS-FIRE DEPT 5B4.54 6145 FLYING CLOUD OIL CO DIESEL FUEL/FUEL-HISTORICAL CULTURE 3343.90 6146 JAN FLYNN JANUARY MILEAGE 55.75 6147 G & K SERVICES TOWELS-PARK MAINT/WATER & LIQUOR STORE #1 68.68 • 6148 GLW DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 126.95 6149 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR & PARTS 385.24 85.24 6150 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 21.63 6151 GOODIN COMPANY PIPE INSULATION-WATER DEPT 6152 W W GRAINGER INC TIRES & WHEELS-PARK MAINTENANCE 54.10 6153 STEVEN GUST REFUND-SKATING 24.00 6154 JACK HACKING EXPENSES 16.77 5 SHIRLEY HIANSON SEC'L SERVICE-CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 63.75 u..6 CHRIS HARTFORD BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 16.00 6157 JIM HATCH SALES COMPANY INC SHOVELS-PARK MAINTENANCE 90.03 28995.54 22.3 6158 HENNEPIN COUNTY/GENL ACCT DIVISIO NOVEMBER BOARD OF PRISONERS 1570.00 F"9 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE DUES-POLICE DEPT 25.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 45.00 6161 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CHIPPER RENTAL-FORESTRY DEPT 1074.90 6162 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT/HENNEPIN CTY RADIO RENTAL-PUBLIC SAFETY 155.27 6163 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER WASHERS/OIL/SHOVELS/OXYGEN 106.43 6164 NANCY HOLEWA REFUND-SKATING 11.00 6165 HENDRICKSON BROS INC SERVICE-REMODEL CITY HALL 130.00 6166 MICHAEL HOHNQUIST HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 48.00 6167 HONEYWELL INC CIRCULAR CHARTS-WATER DEPT 103.54 6168 HOPKINS DODGE SALES INC GAS PEDAL/REPAIR DOOR-EQUIPMENT MAINT 139.53 6169 HOPKINS PARKS CO PUMP/FLOAT/LIGHTS/FUEL FILTER 162.00 6170 IDENTI-KIT COMPANY INC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM-POLICE DEPT 360.00 6171 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #112 REFUND ICE TIME-COMMUNITY CENTER 450.00 6172 1NTERDESIGN INC SERVICE-P/S & P/W BUILDING 2419.75 6173 I B M 3 TYPEWRITERS-POLICE DEPT 2628.0D 6174 F F JEDLICKI REFUND-UTILITY INSTALLER LICENSE 50.00 6175 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY LUMBER-CITY HALL REMODELING 144.85 6176 KARULF HARDWARE INC -LOCKS/WASTEBASKET/BOLTS/STEEL PIPE/VACUMN 786.62 -BAGS & BELTS/LIGHT BULBS/KEYS/ELECTRICAL -OUTLET/DOG COLLAR/HAIR DRYER/HACK SAW/ -FUSES/MAILBOX/TAPE/SPRAY PAINT/CLAMPS/ -SALT/H.AMMER/TOOL BOX/WEATHER STRIPPING/ -DUST PAN/BROOM/BATTERIES/SHELF BRACKET/ SCREWS/DRILL BIT/CAN OPENER/DRILL 6177 JOSEPH KASID BASKETBALL DFFICIAL/FEES PAID 132.00 '"R KERRY KELLY REFUND-CALLIGRAPHY 12.00 CRAIG KERSHAW REFUND-SKATING 6.17 6160 KLEVE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT REPAIR-CITY HALL 70.00 6181 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE 161.69 6182 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER CHAIN/PAINT/SWITCH/PIPES-WATER DEPT 260.66 6183 LANDCO EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS-LOG LOADER 9.30 6184 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD DECEMBER LEGAL SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DR 1202.55 6165 BEVERLY LARSEN REFUND-SWIMMING 7.50 6186 ALLEN LARSON EXPENSES 17.23 6187 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE-FINANCE DEPT 40.0D 6188 LEEF BROTHERS INC DUSTMOPS/RUGS-JANUARY SERVICE 61.4Q 6189 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC L/P ALBUMS-COMMUNITY CENTER 64.50 6190 LIMNOLDGICAL RESEARCH CENTER ROUND LAKE STUDY 500.00 6191 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR TRACTOR CHAINS-PARK MAINTENANCE 485.14 6192 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS-STREET MAINTENANCE 19.18 6193 MARKS EDEN PRAIRIE STANDARD REPAIR FLAT TIRE-POLICE DEPT 6.50 6194 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC JANUARY TOWING SERVICE 70.00 6195 MCKAY FLOOR COVERING CARPET-REMODEL CITY HALL 35.00 6196 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 28.21 6197 MERIT PRINTING ENVELOPES-CITY HALL 603.75 6198 METRO FOUL CO: MIINICATIONS INC PAGING RENTAL-PARK/WATER & STREET DEPT 57.46 6199 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL CONTRACTO REPAIR SUMP PUMP-WATER DEPT 628.95 • 6200 MIDLAND PRODUCTS COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPL I ES-COMMUNITY CENTER 210.15 6201 MIDWLST TRACTOR INC TREE SKIDDER RENTAL-FORESTRY DEPT 2250.00 6202 MINNEAI'OLIS STAR & TRIBUNE EMPLOYMENT AD-SEWER DEPT 115.10 ( 3 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 2/4/83 17487.48 ..•.u4 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 2/4/83 7B21.03 6205 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 2/4/83 71.50 4284434 224 6206 INTERNATIONAL UNION OPERATING ENG DUES-PAYROLL 62/4/83 15 532.0032.0 1 6 PERA PAYROLL 2/4/83 40.00 6"too MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT PAYROLL 2/4/83 108.00 6209 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE 3 2108.00 6210 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL L BRACKETS-FIRE DEPT 202.44 6211 MINNESOTA FIRE INC AIRSERVICE 1023.79 62123 MINNEGASCOA DUES-FINANCE DEPT 10.00 6213 MINNESOTA MFDA 28.00 6214 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL LIQUORS STORE CONFERENCE-LIQUOR STORES 6215 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND INC WALL TILES/EPDXY/TROWEL-COMMUNITY CENTER 655.16 0.OU 2 6216 MINNESOTA POLICE & PEACE OFFICERS DUES-POLICE DEPT 2 20.00 6217 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSN DUES-PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 360.00 6218 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSN REGISTRATION-REC DEPT 345. 0 6219 M-V GAS COMPANY FUEL-SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER 6220 MODERN TIRE CO 14 TIRES & WHEEL ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINT 1008.87 6221 EARL MORE BUILDING SUPPLIES-SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER 84.79 6222 MOTOR PARTS SERVICE INC SPARK PLUGS/VALVE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 41.37 434 .3 6223 MOTOROLA INC RADIO PAGERS-PUBLIC SAFETY 0 6224 MUNICIPAL ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT REPAIR RADAR-POLICE DEPT 102.110 . 6225 MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC DUES-FINANCE DIRECTOR 65.00 00 6226 MURPHY PLUMBING & HEATING REFUND-GAS FITTERS LICENSE 10.00 6227 SUSAN MUSSELMAN REFUND-SELF DEFENSE 122.50 6228 0 E MYHRE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1813.04 6229 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE 7.64 6230 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE SERVICE 1683 8613.14 F'z1 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK OF MPL 80ND PAYMENTS 2072.00 2 OFFICE PRODUCTS DISK DRIVE-ENGINEERING DEPT334.49 6233 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC CHAIN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE .49 6234 PEC-DIVISION OF DYTEC/NORTH COMPUTER PRINTER RIBBONS 3284. 0 6235 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING CO POP-COMMUNITY CENTER 6236 PERBIX HARVEY & THORFINNSON SERVICE-METRO CONTRACTING 392.009 . 0 6237 CONNIE PETERS MILEAGE 20.75 6238 JAKE PETERSON REFUND-SKATING 25.05 PARTS 6241 PITNEY RAKES 6239 PETTY CBOWEPUBLIC SAFETY EXPENSESFOR COPY MACHINE-COMMUNITY CENTER 72.25 6241 POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO SNOWPLOW LAMP-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 73.24 6242 POWER PROCESS EQUIPMENT INCORPORA PUMP PACKING/TOOLS TO REMOVE PACKING-WATER 173.61 6243 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC ELECTRICAL SERVICE-REMODEL CITY HALL 1514.504.50 6244 PRAIRIE OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 343.8 6245 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC DICTAPHONE-MANAGER 6246 CHUCK PUFAHL REPAIR ZAMBONI-COMMUNITY CENTER 142.00 4 .00 6247 JIM PUFAHL BROOh1BALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 242 00 6248 R & R SPECIALTIES INC ZAMBONIE MACHINE BLADES SHARPENED/HOSE 6249 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULL ER ASSOCIATES I -WOODICE-S W LE PRAIRIE INDUSTRIAL PARK/ARBONN GLEN/DUCK TER /LAKE WEST 18527.2': -ROAD FEASIBILITY REPORT/CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION/VALLEY VIEW ROAD 6250 SARAH RING REFUND-SWIMMING 3 96 319.3 6251 ROAD RUSCUE INC CIRCUIT BREAKERS/SWITCHS/OXYGEN CASE-FIRE 12.31 6252 SAILOR NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 3.50 REFUND-SKI TRIP 423.5 l '54 SAID SARENPA PORTABLE RESTROOMS 55 SATELLITE SALENTINENE$TRIE$ INC HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 96,0(� + 6256 MIKE REFUND-SWIMMING & SKATING 25.0. 6256 KURT SCHNAPP 175977431 22> I REFUND-VENDING & CIGARETTE LICENSE 87.00 6 SERVOMATIONHAKEE CORPORATION SQUAD CAR REPAIR & PARTS 4390.80 6259 CHARmAYN FORD INCI SUPPLIES-KIDS KORNER 3.98 6259 W GORDE SMITHTHTCO OIL/GREASE/HEADLIGHT/ANTIFREEZE 426.68 6261 W GORDONO CO REC DEPT 7.99 6261 SON OF A PRINTER INC PRINTING- 43.1 6262 SOUTH HENNEPIN HU•1AN SERVICES COU SERVICS E-SLNIOOROR BREATHALYZER-POLICEIS5 DEPT 33.10 6264 DON RBANICHER GUNS INC PAREPAIR SQUAD CARS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 528.64 6264 SUBURBAN CIiEVROLET CO 50.DO 6265 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC REFUND-UTILITY INSTALLERS LICENSE 6266 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-RESEARCH ROAD & HISTORICAL CTR 100.00 6267 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE/PRESERVE 56.65 6269 TERNEYD SEWEROH S INCR REFUKROYNMACHINETY TAPE-PARKER PLANNINGE 90.45 6269 TIERNEYTBROTHERS INC REFUND-SELF DEFENSE 22.50 6270 PAUL SONh1PLUt REFUND-UTILITY INSTALLER LICENSES 50.00 6271 THOMPSON FITTEISG CO VALVE/HOSE/SEAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 55.50 6272 TRUCK OUTFITTERS UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 709.15 6273 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED REFUND-UTILITY INSTALLER LICENSE 50.00 62745 UNITED HAPLR & CEWNC LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 294.90 6275 UP NORTH PLASTIC INC 143.92 6276 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 6277 VIKING LABORATORIES INCORPORATED CHLORINE TEST TABLETS-COMMUNITY CENTER 2548.20 6278 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY 50 METERS-WATER DEPT 72.50 6279 WENZEL MECH REFUND-HEATING PERMITS 6280 WESCO LAMPS-PARK MAINTENANCE 128.5D 118.71 c'q1 MARY JAN WHEATON INSTRUCTOR-CROSS COUNTRY SKI/FEES PAID 61.00 00 2 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS SKATING RINK SIGNS-PARK DEPT 6283 ZIEGLER INC GRADER WINDSHIELD-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2692 262.6662. 6 6284 ARKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY EST #7-P/S EST lib-CITY BUILDING 924.55 6285 8ARBAROSSA & SONS 6286 PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS INC EST lr7-TECHNOLOGY DRIVE & MITCHELL ROAD 56475.33 6287 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO INC EST-PA p1-DRIPRAIRIE LS/HAMMERS/SAWS/WRENCHES/SOCKET 3271.82 6288 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO SET/TOOL CABINETS-FIRE & POLICE DEPT 6289 TWIN CITIES CHAPT-YOUNG AUDIENCES YOUNG AUDIENCE CONCERT-REC DEPT 80.000 0.0 58 6290 BRADLEY NYLANOER REFUND-SEWER & WATER BILL 3534. 3 6291 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY RENT-L/SRK PRAIRIEG VILLAGE MALL 84.80 6293 MASLA CINSURANCE 560.82 6293 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE 519.70 INSURANCE 6294 HMO SERVICES INSURANCE 19.7 6295 BLUE CROSS INSURANCE INSURANCE 381 6296 MEDCENTER HEALTH PLAN 117.90 INSURANCE 6297 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN INSURANCE 8981.811633.73 6298 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC 6299 JOHN FRAME 5 8 JANUARY EXPENSES 15 .8 6300 MINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION DUES-POLICE DEPT . 0 42079898 $2340929.75 ( 7 7I. 1 • Woodlawn Heights . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 9-82 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, RidTdVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTII':R, AT"_NDiNG THE LEGAI. DeSCRIPTIOi1S OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING, BY REFERENCE, CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY rROViSiONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance, (hereinafter; the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly 'initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the R1-9.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-9.5 District, and the 1agal descriptions of land in each District referred to in the City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 13, shall he and is amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions 4pplicablc to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 .ntiFled, "Violation a Misdereanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's AUrecane,t dated as of , 198 , entered into between Ruscon Hones, Inc. and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section G. 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 2nd day of November, 1982, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular e,eetiiig of the City Council of said City can the day of 1983. • lJolf�any H.. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk "UDLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1983. 22-7 • Woodlawn Heights Description Rural to Rl-0 5 Northwest '.; of the northwest 'a of Section 5, Township 116, Range 22, and the Southwest '.; of the Northwest '.; of Section 5, lying north of the South 957.00 feet, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the following: That port of the West Half of the northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 22, Went, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows; Corc,.encing at the northwest corner of said west half of the northwest quarter; thence North 87 defiers 59 minutes 30 seconds East, along the north line of said vest half of the northwest quarter a distance of 950.00 feet; thence South 2 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet, to a point on the south line of the north 50.00 feet of said west half of the northwest quarter, said point being the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North 87 degrees 59 minutes 30 seconds East along said south line, a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East a . distance of 135.00 feet; thence South 38 degrees 16 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 110.79 feet; thence South 6 degrees 48 minutes OS seconds East a distance of 170.55 feet; thence South 82 degrees 14 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 213.36 feet, to a point on the west line of the east 33.00 feet of said west half of the northwest quarter; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 43 seconds East, along said west line a distance of )20.00 feet; thence South 78 degrees 14 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 110.00 feet; thence South 46 degrees 25 minutes 54 seconds West a distance of 106.55 feet; thence South 6 • degrees 39 minutes 47 seconds ;lest a distance of 196.25 feet; thence South 27 degrees 01 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 190.07 feet; thence South 21 degrees 39 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 151.42 feet:; thence South 71 degrees 56 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 74.10 feet, to the west line • of said East 33.00 feet of the west half of the northwest quarter; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 43 seconds East along said west line a distance of 55.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees 51 minutes 53 seconds West a distance of 79.79 feet; thence Worth 74 degrees 02 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 114.46 feet; thence North 43 degrees 41 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 92.23 feet; thence North 23 degrees 24 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 155.58 feet; thence North 14 degrees 17 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 175.29 feet; thence North 21 degrees 22 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 197.97 feet; thence North 6 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 99.74 feet; thence North 14 degrees 54 minutes 58 seconds West a distance of 101.53 feet; thence North 38 degrees 29 minutes 28 seconds West a distance of 138.87 .feet; thence North 8 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 111.95 feet; thence North 17 degrees 37 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 95.02 feet thence North 3 degrees 07 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 135.00 feet, to the point of beginning. • Containing 4.39 acres 1 Exhibit A , page 1 of 2 22,i • • 1 That part of the Wert Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 116 North, • Range 22 West, Hennepin county, Minnesota lying north of the north line of the south 957 feet of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter and lying southerly and westerly of a line described as follows: Co,:mencing at a point on the west line of said west half of the northwest quarter, 1127.00 feet South of the northwest corner of said west half of the northwest quarter, said west line has an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds East; thence North 89 deuces 05 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 227.00 feet; thence South 68 degrees 57 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 107.78 feet; thence North 44 degrees 57 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 135.57 feet; thence southerly a distance of 78.36 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the west having a radius of 159.21 feet, a central angle of • 28 degrees 12 minutes 06 seconds the chord of said curve is 77.57 feet in length • :and bears North 25 degrees 27 minutes 14 seconds West; thence South 11 degrees 21 minors 10 seconds East a distance• of 248.24 feet; thence South 78 degrees 1 38 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 130.00 feet; thence South 9 degrees 08 ;k • minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 169.19 feet; thence South 41 degrees 51 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 199.17 feet; thence South 63 degrees 13 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 278.39 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 88.37 feet to the north line of the said southerly 957 feet of the west half of the northwest quarter, and said line there • terminating. • Containing 9.30 acres. • • 2Zg fxhIhit. A. p,ige 2 of 2 Woodlawn Heights 12/82 1/83 1/25/83 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1983 by and between RUSCON HOMES, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal cor- poration, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from Rural to R1-9.5 approximately 59 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "the property", and WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property for construction of 139 single family residential units. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 9-82, and Resolution No. 82-244, Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated 8/21/82 reviewed and approved by the City Council on 11/2/82 and attached hereto as Exhibit f3, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Owner shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and obser- vance by Owner at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 23() 1/83 Developer's Agreement-Woodlawn Heights page 2 3. Inmiediately upon filing of the plat and prior to the issuance of any building permits, Owner shall convey by Warranty Deed to the City that part of the property shown as Outlots A & B depicted on Exhibit B. 4. Owner shall grade and seed upon that part of Outlot A depicted as tennis court and totlot on Exhibit B. Said grading and seeding shall be performed in accordance with the specifications on Exhibit 0, attached hereto and made a part hereof and in accordance with the specifications of the Community Services Oirector. 5. Prior to the issuance of any permit for construction upon the property, Owner shall: A) grant to City a preservation easement over that part of the property depicted as preservation area on Exhibit B. Such easement shall include: 1. Preserving the character of the public waters located on Outlot B. 2. restricting the grading or placing of soil upon, removal or cutting of vegetation, planting of any indigenous vegetation, or construction of any building or structure upon that portion of the property. B) submit to the City Planning Oirector and obtain the Planning Director's approval thereof an inventory and • location map of individual trees and vegetation areas to be preserved. 6. Prior to any grading or construction upon the property, Owner shall install snow fencing upon the property in a location as depicted on Exhibit B. Said snow fencing shall be maintained by Owner until the property is properly restored according to the specifications of the City Engineer. 7. Prior to the issuance of any permit for construction upon the property, Owner shall receive approval of all necessary permits from the Oepartment of Natural Resources. • B. Concurrent with street and utility construction, Owner shall construct, as per the specifications of the City Engineer, 5 foot wide 4 inch thick concrete sidewalks within the right-of-ways and outside of the driving surfaces of the streets adjacent to and within the property as depicted en Exhibit B. z31 1/26 Developer's Agreement-Woodlawn Heights page 3 9. Owner shall not construct nor permit to be constructed units which have similar front facade or floor plan and which front on the same street, unless said similar units are separated by at least two units fronting on such street having disimilar facades or fluor plans. 10. Owner shall submit detailed development plans to the City Engineer and obtain the Engineer's approval thereof. Said plans shall include but not be limited to frontage of lot 4, block 3, Phase 4, be to Duck Lake Road. 11. Owner shall not commence construction, nor allow others construction • on any homes upon Phase 3 of the property, Exhibit B, until 75% of the homes within phase 1 of the property, Exhibit B, have received final inspection approval from the Building Inspector. 12. Prior to the release of the final plat and prior to the issuance of any permit for construction upon the property,Owner shall provide bonding or a letter of credit in the amount of I25% of estimated cost or 100% of the contract cost to the City to insure completion and payment of the following improvements concurrent with Phase 1: a) Owner shall pay 100% of the cost of the following: 1) B" sanitary sewer commencing approximately 150feet north of the improved Duck Lake Road northerly to Townline Road thence west from the intersection of Duck Lake Road and Townline Road approximately 250 feet. 2) Construction of B" gravity sanitary sewer from the existing sanitary sewer manhole in Claycross Way in Chatham Woods Addition due west to Duck Lake Road. 3) Construction of a sidewalk within the right-of-way and west of the driving surface of Duck Lake Road commencing at the sidewalk's northern most terminous along the west side of Duck Lake Road north to Townline Road. 4) All of street construction for Duck Lake Road (including but not limited to bituminous pavement, curb and gutter, and storm sewer) all in accordance with the City of Eden • Prairie standard specifications for an approved residential collector street. This construction shall begin at the Northern most terminous of the improved Duck Lake Road northerly approximately 2000 feet to Townline Road. 5) Owner is responsible for sight line grading and restoration of Townlino Road at the intersection of Duck Lake Road to achieve a 30 mile per hour sight distance as set forth in Mn DOT Road Design Manual. 2 3.2 A. • Developer's Agreement-Woodlawn Heights page 4 b) Watermain 1) Owner shall construct a 12 inch DIP watermain beginning at the northerly terminous on Duck Lake Road thence north along Duck Lake Road to Townline Road then west along Townline Road to its intersection with a proposed roadway • depicted on Exhibit B as being between Block 2 and Block 4, then southerly along said roadway to its intersection with a proposed roadway between Block 3 and Block 4, then westerly along said roadway to its intersection with a proposed roadway between Block 4 and Block 5, then northerly along said roadway to Townline Road, then west along Townline Road to the west line of Section 5. 2) The City shall pay for the increased costs of oversizing this watermain larger than the standard 6 inch watermain, as mentioned in item 12.b)1), subject to the following: a) The City agrees to pay these oversizing costs at the contract prices up to a maximum amount of $37,000.00. b) The City will have the option to review the contract bid proposals prior to letting the contract. c) In agreeing to Item 12. b) 2) a), above, it is assumed that the extent of the required improvements will be limited to one(1) air relief manhole, seven (7) 12 inch gate valves and approximately 3760 linear • feet of 12 inch ductile iron pipe. c) The Owner is not responsible for providing sanitary sewer or water services to properties easterly of Duck Lake Road. d) The City shall make available to the Owner the soil boring results and the soils report on Duck Lake Road. e) The Owner shall be provided the City's assistance(technical not financial), if necessary, to obtain all the required utility and construction easements. f) City shall waive any payment from Owner for the future construction of Townline Road from the intersection of Ouck Lake Road west to the west line of Section 5. all as per the specifications of the City Engineer. 2-33 . Developer's Agreement-Woodlawn Heights page 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • • by Wolfgang H. Penzel,Mayor by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS. . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1983 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation on bdial t of the corporation. • Notary Public RU_SCON HOMES, INC. �%,r,//',-/ by Marshall Oakes, Executive Vice President STATE OE MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OE HENNEPIN) 4T e foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of �L1.,;i,�tiY_ , 1983 by Marshall Oakes, Executive Vice Pre ident of Ruscon lomes, Incy% a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.• ,;; i Nofal~y Public // 2-ii l J:.:: Ili 1 , 3 m U 13 , I1 it :_' 1 1 ' 4 / 1wi. v 1l .;,1 i 7 1 c ¢ 0 I I I 7f lilt iiii'" iinj li f d o �-�.� _.__lam • +1—"..n • ��-- i IV. A 1--..—__.f ann �..•.... i-- _ ' - — �. - -'fir,,,_ .. ' t ,., i (,,,,,Z.. .. rl ccfn[+-C.-f� <' — m% ` �1y1 h(A. tit I 1- �,k,c.Tton 5 �' 9-!II i� „i �j _i `,\ t �•S�.� a --'. ,,�r I f- mi ,n n. . C • • i .t .t I 'v 1 - I , . �,l •' 1,t ,�:.•, . e -• Loel ( .�_ __-- i l\.• `..1" .Ur4�j • Z«c 1.1 > J= U') • a m 7r� t.:- alb , .i�',:'`•:;�` I -- w . _ .1 'l '---1' . 1-----4 . ...r.t.-;-.1 . .,....".‘-..:.:.:-.:6:-..,. -. ' , 7 >. W B iv per• �! c'.. -!"• \�* f l 4 l • RK o °w iz a i j -i • ii J tK 1 l i—r— I p . .� S • id � .. IpZ } . ;:,„ I _j � 'y , ' � ` T— IS31\1S3 S1 M3Li �' o 1 Il _ l6l• EXHIBIT B ii ' August 21, 1982 � " --r-- I 17.- �; I �— ylw �1 1t``t� 1 I liri� I II it ire`^ t1 tt i-- ' '.mr NOots A & B ` _At 7- 1I LI— • Preservation Easement Area tt-'�� ` ` I z ' ,__ Sidewalks tt `\��-- A Lift Station \ "- 1 I I m 7 Snow fencing .,;1/,' ` -Ai o�?. I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MINI PARKS PART I--Turfgrass Area A. The developer shall prepare the ground surface area of the mini park by supplying at least 4" of topsoil over the finished subgrade. Topsoil shall be of the same quality or better than that of the original site and shall be capable of supporting a cultured turfgrass. Topsoil shall be raked out to a smooth finish prior to seeding. All rocks of ," and larger shall be removed prior to seeding. • B. The entire ground surface area of the mini park shall be seeded with a Turfgrass mix at a rate of 4-5 lbs. per 1,000 sq. ft. Turfgrass mix shall be as follows: Park Kentucky Blue Grass 35% Aquilla Kentucky Blue Grass 15% NY, 200 Perennial Rye Grass 25% Ruby Creeping Red Fescue 25% Variations in turfgrass mix shall be approved by Community Services Staff prior to seeding. Planting times shall be April-May, August 15-September 15, late October, or by approval of Community Services Staff. PART II--Maximum Grade A. The maximum grade of slope shall not exceed 6% over 50% of the site. • EXHIBIT D 266 Woodlawn Heights CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 83-14 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 9-82 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHER!-AS, Ordinance No. 9-82 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 198 , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary Ordinance 9-82, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. Ordinance 9-82 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on , 198 . Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 23 ) Woodlawn Heights The following is the full text of tor, City of Eden Prairie Ordinance No. 9-82, which was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on , 198 . Following the text of the Ordinance, the Developer's Agreement, which is incorporated therein by Section 5 of this Ordinance, is summarized. . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNLPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 9-82 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FDLN PRAIRIE., MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOIIIER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN • EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING, BY REIERLNCE, CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CO"MAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CiTY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance, (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the R1-9.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-9.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in the City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 8, shall be and is amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 198 , entered into between Ruscon Homes, Inc. and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section G. 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 2nd day of November, 1982, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of 1983. . Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor ATTEST:. J ohn D. crane, City Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1983. 2.3 • • • Summary of Developer's Agreement.: Woodlawn Heights Developer will develop the land as described in Exhibit A in accordance with Exhibit. El , both of which are attached to and incorporated in the Developer's Agreement. In addition, the Developer's Agreement provides for: 1. Developer's warranty of title to the land. . • 2. Submission to the City Engineer of a development plan for the land. 3. Conveyance of outlets A and B and submission to the City of proof that the condition of title of property conveyed to the City is such that it will vest good arid marketable title in the City. 4. Construction and maintenance of public improvements which are to be conveyed to the City as well as preservation and restoration of areas surrounding said improvements. Submission of a bond or letter of credit to ensure the quality of said construction, maintenance, preservation, and restoration. 5. Construction and maintenance relating to lands to be conveyed to the City for recreational purposes and a bond or letter of credit to ensure the quality of this construction and maintenance. Or in lieu of construction, submission of a 100" petition for construction by City. 6. Payment to the City of the first year's lighting fees. • 7. Application of the Developer's Agreement to transferees of the land. 8. Notice to the City's cable franchise. 9. City's remedies in the event that Developer violates the provisions of the Developer's Agreement. 10. Developer's commitment not to oppose rezoning if Developer fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months. • • 11. Construction of sidewalks as depicted on Exhibit B of the Developer's • Agreement. 12. Owner's bonding of submission of letter of credit for improvements to Duck Lake RoadlTownline Road, including street , walkway and utility improvements. 13. Installation and maintenance of snow fencing. 14. Submission to the Watershed District of storm sewer construction plans. Developer to follow the rules and regulations of said Watershed District. 15. Granting to the City of a preservation easement over the preservation area depicted on Exhibit B. And submission to the Planning Director a tree and vegetation inventory. 16. Approval of all necessary permits from the Department of Natural Resources. 17. Developer's commitment not to construct, nor permissionto be constructed, • similar units adjacent to each other. • 239 Summary of Developer's Agreement: Woodlawn Heights Page 2 18. Construction of a gravity sanitary sewer according to the specifications of the City Engineer. 19. Eeceival of the necessary permits from the Department of Natural Resources. 20. Developer's commitment not to construct upon Phase 3 until 75% of the homes in Phase 1 have received final inspection approval. • Notice: A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED BY the Eden Prairie City Council on , 1983. John D. Frane, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel,Mayor quo • • • Woodlawn Heights • Supplement • OWNERS SUPPLEMENT • • TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN • RUSCON HOMES, INC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of Feb. 08th , 1983 • • and between Lyman Lumber Company, a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, • hereinafter referred to as "City," For, in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance 9-82 and to change the zoning of property owned by Owner from Rural to R1-9.5, _escribed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as "the property," as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of Feb. 08th , 1983, by • and between Ruscon Homes, Inc., and City, Owner agrees with the City as follows: 1. If Ruscon Homes, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within twenty-four (24) months of the date thereof, Owner, for itself, successors, heirs, and assigns will not • oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 2. Owner agrees that it will not devleop the property in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the above described Developer's Agreement. In the event that Owner transfers the property, Lyman • Lumber agrees to obtain an agreement from the transferee stating that the property shall not be developed in a manner inconsistent with the above-described Developer's Agreement. • 3. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, • successors, heirs, and their assigns of the property. 2 q • . cupplement-Woodla�rn Heights ,2- • OWNER: L 1 . L i 0., . ...Lr. C.,"()A-✓7 t/' (Name & Title) STATE OF 1INNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was ackno:�'edged before me this �day of L2u_e<,�.-�--__, 1983 by � c-z-z-.2 E' ALc.c4 4z , the '��-4:s_ �c.4.� L — °f Lyman Luru yr. • p h , OO $ ;i. �cov:v worn Nola y• Public I�� 1ENiJF,L. , (21e, arfr J2 ' .`: Ay C:~0,, ::r:..•vV 2.�98< CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Ey Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor . by Carl—I:WI-lie, (tanager • STAlE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1983 by Wolfgang H. Pcnzel, the Mayor, and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corpora- tion, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 7cl9 Woodlawn Heights Supplement Sun►nary Summary of Owner's Supplement of Developer's Agreement Owner will develop the property which is described in Exhibit A in accordance with Exhibit B, both of which are attached to and incorporated in the Developer's Agreement. In addition to the Owner's Supplement: 1. Owner agrees not to oppose rezoning back to Rural if Ruscon Homes, Inc., fails to commence development in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within twenty-four (24) months. 2. Owner and Owner's transferees agreement not to develop in a manner inconsistent with the Developer's Agreement. 3. Application of Owner's Supplement to transferees. NOTICE: A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk. • 4 2y3 • 1-- DLf»,i<iMIl_Nr OF 1RAN` {'OIi1AT{ON . 320 VAI:d)irlg1Ox1 Av, Sotlih \.<< _: Hopkins, Mil]ne'soicl 553�13 933 3381 November 3, 1982 fir. Jack Hacking, Director Dr°purti,nt of Public Safety City of Eden Prairie 89161 Eden Prairie Read • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 . Re: CSAH 4 at TH 169 Adjacent to Lyon's Tap Dcar Jack: The County Sheriff's Office and our department are very concerned about the (parking hazard at the CSAH 4 - TH 169 intersection created by patrons of the I.yon's Tap. Presently head in parking is occurring on both sides of CSAH 4 it ndit.tely north of Ili 169. Thee parking arrangements were developed by the owner of the Lyon's Tap presumably without gaining county or city approval. As you are aware backing onto a major roadway is • hazardous particularly then this maneuver is being made in close proximity • of an intersection. It is our proposal to eliminate all parking on both sides of CSAH 4 except that parallel parking may be permitted on the west side between a point about S0 feet north of 111 169 to a point about 1/5 feet north of TH 169. In order to allow your department to enforce such a restriction, we request that the Eden Prairie City Council pass a resolution to this effect. The county will furnish, install and maintain tire parking restriction signs at county cost if the City Council approves the restriction. • I have contacted i'r. Bert hoItcniann, owner of the Lyon's Tap, and discussed with Trim the parking problem and our (reposed parking restrictions. Mr. Nottrir:rnn is opposed to the restrictions on the basis that it will adversely affect his business. lie also cites tire absence of accidents as an arrlument against harking regulations. I tried to impress upon Mr. 1ottermann that • • the accident potential under current conditions is high and as responsible public officials we cannot ignore this hazardous situation. fir. Nutteccami is currently in the process of developing plans for the possible relocation of CSU 4. The plan would realicn CSAH 4 to intersect with TH 169 some distance cast of the present intersection. This would ( HENNEPiN COUNTY 2y LI on equel opp.nlur illy employer • allow development of a parking lot between new CSAH 4 and the Lyon's Tap building. A cursory review of the plan by our department indicates that it may be acceptable although the county would not be able to participate financially. Mr. (lottermann's plan, if and when it materializes, would resolve the parking problem. Your favorable consideration of the proposed parking restriction is requested. Sincerely, r P •• r:J,14,414.1 . dft. Dennis L. Hansen, P. E. County Traffic Engineer DLH:de • cc: Mr. Bert Nottermann ti 16180 flying Cloud Dr. • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Doug Eidem. Sheriff's Patrol Herb Klossner Jim Hold . • 4 • A 1 • Nyy/ j • • i. Novri Ser 16, 1932 • . CI CY OF Uft:N PRAIRIE HI.I;RCPIN CNN iV, hMINN1SOCA • RISOI.UTION NO. R92-261 RLSOLUF;Ili ISI/1BI.ISIiING A "NO PARKING" ZONE 01 ESAli 4 NORTH OF TH 169/212 Y WIII RI.AS, it has been dee,,,,d advisable and necessary, for the City ', of Eden Prairie to establish a "no parking" zone immediately north of Tli 169/212, and r WHEREAS, upon receipt of enabl ing resolution the Hennepin County Department of Transportation will erect and maintain signs in said zone. • z i • NOW, THER1 LORE, BE 1 F RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council 1 that a "no parking" /one be establ i shed on CSAH 4 on both sides of the roadway j. from Tii 169/212 right of-way to 500 feet north, except the west side from 50 a feet north to 175 feet north of TN 169/212 right-of-way. i Wol Egang H. Penzel, I•tayor 3 ATTEST: SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk f 1 I. • 1 I I f i . 3 1 ?q( diitaq O o ` r G G Metropolitan Council r r'` 300 Metro Square Building '�I -.r-1 ,'l 10 Seventh and Robert Streets -� Cj� St.Paul,Minnesota 55101 \/1 , , �)�� Telephone(612)291 6359 February 4, 1983 FEB 7 1983 Mr. Carl Julie } City Manager ' City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road i. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 i F Dear Mr. Julie: ' 5 As you know, the Metropolitan Council has been designated by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board as the governmental unit to prepare the a Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Expansion of the Flying 1 Cloud Sanitary Landfill. The EIS will be prepared under the revised state environmental review rules and the process is somewhat different. The Metropolitan Council staff would like to appear before the Eden Prairie City . Council on Tuesday, February 15 to explain the process the Council will follow in preparing the EIS and answer any questions. s If you have any questions, please contact me at 291-6410. Yours truly, 6 {, � Carl Ja,t. h � enk A Environmental Planner 4 CJS/jah cc: Shirlee Smith and Ray Thron, Metropolitan Council Staff 1 Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie R , , 4 ;5. 1 1 i , . I An Equal Oprorlu<ri1y Fr,r.oyer - 1. 7C11 ' • PIZA.FT" Z_/Il JB,3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER II BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 11.41 RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND AMENDING SECTION 11.02 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER I AND SECTION 11.99 WI UCH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. • THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Section I. City Code Chapter l shall be and is amended by adding thereto Section 11.41 which reads as follows: "SEC. 11.41. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. SU11D. 1. Declaration of Policy and Purpose. It is hereby found and declared that certain lands within the City have been included within and desienated as the "Major Center Area" ("MCA") and are the subject of the "Eden Prairie Major Center Area Planned Unit Development" ("MCA-PtID"), adopted by the Council on 3u1y 10, • 1973,as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. The MCA-PUD as well as the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan contemplate multiple uses, including office uses, of the lands within • the MCA-PUD. Some of the lands intended for office use are situated in the 14-22 (Residential) or the Rural District and have dwellings situated thereon. Development of some of the lands within the MCA for the uses intended has occurred. Development of some of such land has not and may not occur in the immediate future because of time, economic and other constraints. Thus, use of lands • in the MCA have been and are in a state of transition. The development and use of some of the lands for the purposes intended may adversely affect the use of certain dwellings for residential purposes situated on some of the lands within the MCA. It is, therefore, advisable to enable the owners of lands on which are situated such dwellings to temporarily use or permit use of the same for other purposes under proper and specific conditions to ameliorate the impact of the transition of uses within the MCA. In order to • accomplish such purposes the following provisions relating to the issuance of conditional use permits are adopted. SURD. 2. Areas Where Conditional Use Permits May Be Granted. That part of the following described lands situated within either the R1•22 or Rural District may be used for those permitted uses described in Section 11.20 (Office District) hereof upon issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with and subject to the provisions and conditions contained in this section. • 7f� (here insert description of areas to be subject: to conditional use permits within Major Center Area) • SUBD. 3. Required Conditions. A conditional use permit may be granted only subject to the following conditions: A. There shall be no business or advertising sign in excess of square feet. B. The conditional use permit shall be for a period not in excess of three years, provided, however, the Council may grant a conditional use permit or permits effective subsequent to the expiration of a previously granted conditional use permit. C. No permit shall be granted unless the minimum • standards set forth in this chapter relating to lands within the Office District are met,unless a variance has been granted therefor by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. D. The Council finds the following: 1. The land subject to the conditional use permit shall abut on a public street. 2. The conditional use will have available to it an adequate and safe supply of water and shall have available and use sanitary sewer which shall adequately and safely,without harm to other lands or persons in the area, dispose of all sanitary sewage 'generated on the land subject to the conditional use permit. 3. The conditional use will not require construction on the land of, a new, or enlargement of an existing building by more than five percent of the total cubic feet of the existing building. 4. The conditional use wilt not be in conflict • with the MCA-PUD or the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. 5. The conditional use will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or arc proposed to serve the area. 6. The conditional use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent lands so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterence to development of vacant land. 2fj,4 7. The structure and site for the conditional use shall have an an earance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 8. The conditional use is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use in the MCA. 9. The conditional use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. �'.A'j °"."� dwellings-•w� t and and dwellin s will not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics. SUI3D. 4. Additional Conditions. In granting a conditional use permit the Council may impose additional conditions, including the furnishing of a bond containing such terms and provisions and in such amount as may be provided by the Council, to ensure the prevention of or the compliance with those matters specified in Subdivision 3 hereof or otherwise as the Council may determine to be advisable or appropriate to achieve the policies and purposes of this section. SURD. 5. Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit shall be in writing signed by the owner of the land for which the conditional use permit is sought. The procedures applicable to an amendment of Chapter II of the Code, including notice and public hearing, shall be required prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit. SURD. 6. Revisions and/or Changes. A. Minor revisions and/or changes in site or remodeling plans on which the granting of a conditional use permit has been conditioned may be approved by the Director of Planning if they are required by engineering or other circumstances which were not foreseen at the time the conditional use permit was approved. B. Major revisions and/or changes in site or remodeling plans on which the granting of a conditional use permit has been conditioned may be approved by the Council only pursuant to the procedures applicable to an application for a conditional use permit. SURD. 7. Cancellation of Conditional Use Permits. Unless otherwise specified by the Council at the time it is authorized, a conditional use permit shall expire if the applicant fails to utilize such conditional use permit by obtaining a building permit or otherwise within one year from the date of its authorization. • • ,1'JU • SUBD. 8. Conditional Use Permit Required. It shall be unlawful to engage in a conditional use withoug having first obtained a conditional use permit therefor." Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 shall be and is amended by adding thereto item 7a as follows: "7a. "Conditional Use." A use which is not permissible in a zoning District but which may under certain circumstances and with the application of certain conditions be suitable." Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety,by reference,as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. 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 clay of , 1983, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of ,1983. ATTEST: 3 City Clerk Mayor • PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of ,1983. • ? I • • TO: Mayor and City Council • Planning Commission • Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works • THROUGH: Carl Jul lie, City Manager • DATE: February 3, 1983 RE: Grading at Intersection of 78th Street & Prairie Center Drive (I.C. 51-398) Bids were opened in early June, 1982, for v;hat has been commonly referred to as the southwest quadrant of the Major Center Area (MCA) road system. Since • that time, some changes in the initial grading plan for the area have occurred. Al though most will agree that the ultimate grading changes would have occurred, the main problem that I have perceived is that the timing creates a potential artificial grading scheme which nay not be closely followed by ultimate site improvements. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with background information for proposed additional grading modifications in the area prior to my appearance at the following scheduled meetings: 1. Parks, Recreation and Hatura1 Resources Commission - - February 7, 1983; 2. Planning Commission Meeting - - February 14, 1983; and 3. City Council - - February 15, 1983. • • Specifically, the grading that is being proposed is at the southeast corner of 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. This property is owned by Feeders, Inc. and is also known as the Hyde Property. To date, this parcel has been the source • of soil materials for the construction of Prairie Center Drive. Almost exactly one year ago, a public hearing was held before the City Council • regarding the improvclent of Mitchell Road and Technology Drive. One segment of Technology Drive was not ordered in at that time, but was very much considered • to be an important link in our road system in the area. The staff was instructed to proceed at an early date with a project which would make the connecting link of Technology Drive between Purgatory Creek and Prairie Center Drive. This particular se ,nent of the project has some significant cost implications due to the soil conditions in the alignment as well as a crossing of Purgatory Creek. During the past year we have determined the most feasi ble alignment for the roadway and have furthermore determined that the most cost effective way to construct the road facility is to provide a surcharge which would consoli- date the underlying poor materials. The amount of material necessary to create the roadway embankment as well as an excess fill for surcharging conditions is approximately 200,000 cubic yards. Although there are two contractual nn thods which can be used to build this roadway ("!bank ent and surcharge, there are in fact three alternates that first Pg. 2 • need to be considered: 1. No build; 2. Secure soil materials from adjacent parcels; or • 3. Import soil materials. Although a no build alternate is still possible, City staff strongly recommends the construction of Technology Drive. Therefore, I suspect the main topic of conversation will be between the other two alternates which have a substantial • impact on the Hyde property. • The attached two grading plans are by no means final and are presented for information purposes only. The grading plans were prepared by Mr. Hyde's • engineer to detonatet.e that a certain volume of soil material is available • from the site. The first grading plan shows a potential method of grading • the site which would generate approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material • necessary for the surcharge and embankment construction of Technology Drive between Purgatory Creek and Prairie Center Drive. This grading plan is being referred to as the "interim grading plan" since it would drieeaccomplisled heddfirst • and is only for the purpose of constructing Technology ,i • grading plan represents a potential final grading concept (which can be modified to some extent) which shows that enough material remains on the site to perform the filling operation for the 60D feet west of Prairie Center Drive. owned by Mr. Hyde. It is estimated that the cost to move the 200,000 cubic yards of material for Technology Drive will be approximately $200-230,000. The alternate to obtaining material from adjacent property is to import the material for the roadway construction. It is estimated that the cost of ill be approximately • importing the embankment and surcharge for Technology Drive w $600,000. Therefore, the alternates indicate a potential cost savings to the City of approximately $100,000 and certainly have to be weighed against the impact on the Hyde property due to the proposed grading necessary to generate the material from onsIto. This information is very brief and I am certain that it raises a number of questions v.hich I will address at the meetings as scheduled above. However, 1 the outcome, it is necessary to make a decision regarding the project this month. If the material cones from the Hyde property, the work needs to be #. completed as soon as possible to el inn nate conflicts with the road cons truction f for Prairie Center Drive. Y. EAD:sg 1 • P q44 N. 1 2'A