HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/04/1984EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Paul Redpath & George Tangen
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assitant to the City
Manager Craig W Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly,
Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director
Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert
Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A Dietz,
and Recording Secretary Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 1870
B. Approve and authorize submission of Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 1871
for •artici ation in the Urban Menne in Count Communit Develo -
ment B ock Grant program for Fe eral Fiscal years 1985, 1986, 1987
(Resolution No. 84-226)
C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 53-84, amending City Code Section Page 1731
11.70, Subd. 3. A. & Subd. 5. E. regarding non-accessory signs,
including violations and fines, appeals & variances, especially
with respect to campaign signs
D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 56-84, amending City Code Chapter Page 1746
L Section 9.40, Firearms Regulations
E. Final Plat, Rvmarland Camp-Kurver's Addition (Resolution No. Page 1878
84-2gT
City Council Agenda -2- September 4, 1984
F. PRAIRIE KNOLL, by Hestia Homes, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
No. 102-84-PUD-8-84, zoning district change from Rural to RI-9.5,
approval of Developer's Agreement for Prairie Knoll, and adoption
of Resolution No. 84-228, approving Summary of Ordinance No.
102-84-PUD-8-84 and ordering the publication of said Summary of
Prairie Knoll. 54 single family residential units on 24 acres.
Location: northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Edenvale
Boulevard.
Page 1890
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CITY CODE AMENDMENT to Section 11.70 to regulate signs at the Page 1889
Flying Cloud Airport, 1st Reading. (continued from 5/15/84)
B. Fall 1984 Special Assessment Hearing (Resolution No. 84-219) Page 1680
(continued from 8-28-84)
C. Request for Multi-family Housing Bonds in the amount of Page 1893
1:6,000,000.00 for Eames Partnership (Resolution No. 84-225)
(continued from 8-28-84) /pi Af '141 d
D. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount Page 1894
of $1,675,000.00 for Reynolds Printing (Resolution No. 84-223)
reontinued from 8-28-84)
E. VALLEY LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, by GSB Investments. Request for
Page 1895
Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Low Density Residential and
Undesignated to Office/Industrial; zoning district change from
Rural to 1-2 for 4.4 acres for a 50,000 sq. ft. office/industrial
building (with variances); and preliminary plat of 10.63 acres into
one lot and one outlot. Location: east of Prairie Center Drive,
south of Valley View Road, along the northwest shore of Smetana
Lake. (Resolution No. 84-235 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
from Low Density Residential to Office; Ordinance
No. 103-84 - rezoning; and Resolution No. 84-236 - preliminary plat)
F. LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Comprehen- Page 1905
sive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial;
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment; zoning district change
from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial (with variances), and pre-
liminary plat of 7.29 acres for service uses (retail, 200-seat
restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and gas station/
convenience store.) Location: southeast corner of Shady Oak Road
and City West Parkway. (Resolution No. 84-229 - Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial; Resolution No.
84-230 - Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of City West PUD;
Ordinance No. 104-84 - rezoning; and Resolution No. 84-231 - prelim-
inary plat)
City Council Agenda -3- September 4, 1984
G. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Page 1936
zoning district change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately
three acres and preliminary plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single
family lots. Location: north of Burr Ridge Lane, south of
Purgatory Creek. (Ordinance No. 105-84 - rezoning and Reso-
lution No. 84-232 - preliminary plat)
H. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Page 1952
zoning district change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres,
and preliminary plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: south of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive.
(Ordinance No. 106-84 - zoning and Resolution No. 84-215 - pre-
liminary plat)
I. BLUFFS EAST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Page 2001
zoning district change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.63 acres, and
preliminary plat of 9.63 acres for 29 single family lots.
Location: west of Franlo Road, south of Lee Drive. (Ordinance
No. 107-84 - zoning and Resolution No. 84-234 - preliminary plat)
J.. FEASIBILITY REPORT for Eden Road and Singletree Lane, I.C. 52-011. Page 2006
(Resolution No. 84-240)
K. TREANOR ADDITION by Guy K. Treanor. Request for preliminary plat Page 1671
of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development. Loca-
tion: 16135 Valley View Road. (Resolution No. 84-214 - prelimin-
ary plat)
L. T.E.F.R.A. HEARING on the Thomas Hotel IDR Project in the amount Page 2009
of $9,170,000.00 (Resolution No. 84-237)
IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 15718 - 15829 Page 2014
V.- REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Woodpile Ordinance Page 2018
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. CSAH 62 (Crosstown) Plan Approval (Resolution No. 84-239) Page 2021
VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Master Plan and Recommendation Page 2022
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1984
continued to
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Paul Redpath & George Tangen
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig W. Dawson, City Attorney
Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane,
Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of
Comumnity Services Robert Lambert, Director of
Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Karen Michael
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Development Commission - Recommendations on Municipal Industrial
DiVilopment Bond Guidelines.
VII. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of member to the Human Rights & Services Commission
for a term to expire 2/28/87
B. Appointment to the Minnetonka School District Advisory Council
(indefinite term)
X.- REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
D. Report of Finance Director
1. Clerk's License List
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1744
Page 1866
These icenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
September 4, 1984
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
Eide Construction
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
Hestia Homes, Inc.
PLUMBING
Berqual Plumbing & Heating
William L. Gadtke Plumbing, Inc.
3.2 BEER ON SALE
Masterpiece Pizza, Inc.
TEMPORARY GAMBLING - RAFFLE
Eden Prairie Historical &
Cultural Commission (Sunbonnet Days 9-9-84)
Pat Solie, Licensing
18'10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 84-226
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1985, 1986, 1987.
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in
effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 10378, for the purposes of
qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to terminate the Agreement and execute a new
Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 40424, to reconstitute the Urban
County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant program.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and
the County, County Contract No. 10378, be terminated effective September 30, 1984,
and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County
Contract No. 40424, be executed effective October 1, 1984, and that the Mayor and
the City of Eden Prairie be authorized to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City.
The question was on the adoption of the resolution, and upon a vote being duly taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and,
the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON SAID RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF
SEPTEMBER, 1984.
ATTEST: CITY OF
BY
Wolfgang HC—Penzel
ITS Mayor
Ja-r1 D. Frane, Clerk
Contract No. 40424
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the
CITY OF Eden Prairie , hereinafter referred to as "COOPERA-
TING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units
of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 471.59; .
WITNESSETH;
In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and
conditions.
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this
section have the meanings given them:
A. "The Act" means the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, Title I, of Public Law 93-383, as amended (42 USC 5301
et.seq.).
B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated
pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part
570.
C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County
which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical
to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to
each Agreement.
E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the
document bearing that title and submitted to HUD for authori-
zation to expend the entitlement amount and which is developed by
the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the
Community Development Block Grant Program.
F. "Planning Area" means one of the various regions of Hennepin
County as defined in the Citizen Participation adopted for
purposes of the Act by County by Resolution.
The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR
570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a
part hereof.
II. PURPOSE
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY have determined that it is desirable .
and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY qualify as an Urban
County within the provisions of the Act. This Agreement contemplates that
identical agreements will be executed between COUNTY and any city or town
In Hennepin County which does not qualify as a metropolitan city under the
Act in such number as will enable COUNTY to so qualify as an Urban County
under the Act.
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOP-
ERATING UNIT to cooperate in undertaking, or assisting in undertaking,
community renewal and lower income housing activities, specifically urban
renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out
these and other eligible activities which will be funded from annual
Community Development Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1985, 1986 and 1987.
III. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the
effective date of October 1, 1984, and terminating no sooner than the end
of program year thirteen (XIII) covered by the Statement of Objectives and
the Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount approved by HUD
subsequent to the effective date. This Agreement is extended automatic-
ally for each subsequent three year program period unless written notice
of termination to be effective at the end of the three year program period
Is given by COOPERATING UNIT to COUNTY following the same schedule as the
notification of opportunity to be excluded. COUNTY shall provide written
notification to COOPERATING UNIT of the opportunity to be excluded and
terminate this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall be terminated at the end of the three year program period
-during which .HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County
under the Act.
This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their
respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and
executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the
office of the Hennepin County Administrator, and in no event shall the
Agreement be filed later than September 14, 1984.
IV. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to
undertake and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain
projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for
funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in
the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services
specified in this Agreement.
2
COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows:
1. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established
schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed
form, an annual request for the use of Community Development
Block Grant Funds consistent with program regulations and
Urban Hennepin. County program objectives.
2. COOPERATING UNIT will use all funds received pursuant to the
Agreement for each annual program within eighteen (18) months
of the approval by HUD of the basic grant amount. Expenditure
period extensions shall not be permitted, except in cases
where the funded activity has been initiated and/or subject
of a contract to execute between the COOPERATING UNIT and a
vendor.
3. COOPERATING UNITS will take actions necessary to accomplish
the community development program and housing assistance
goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing
Assistance Plan.
4. COOPERATING UNIT will ensure that all programs and/or
activities funded in part or in full by grant funds received
pursuant to this agreement will be undertaken affirmatively
with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportu-
nities for minorities and women. It will in implementing all
programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount
comply with all applicable federal and Minnesota Laws,
statues, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights,
affirmative action and equal employment opportunities.
5. COOPERATING UNIT will participate in the citizen participa-
tion process as established in the Urban Hennepin County
Citizen Participation Plan.
B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
I. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate
reviewing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements
and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant
amount under the Act.
2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible,
technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING
UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for
funding.
3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERA-
TING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to
HUD for accomplishment of the community development program
and housing assistance goals. The parties mutually agree to
cooperate fully in the preparation of the Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds to qualify for receipt
of the basic grant amount.
3
4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree
to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs
funded pursuant to the Agreement provided that COUNTY shall
receive reimbursement for costs associated with operating
local housing rehabilitation programs, the amount of which
' shall be established on an annual basis.
5. COUNTY shall, as necessary for clarification and coordination
of program administration, develop and implement Administra-
tive Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations and HUD
administrative directives.
The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable
requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal
and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant
amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate
COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under
the Act, including the development of applications pursuant to 24 CFR
570.300 et.seq.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be
allocated as follows:
A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10%) of the total basic grant
amount for the undertaking of eligible activities.
B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by
COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the following
formula for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make
requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation is
for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding.
Each COOPERATING UNIT shall use as a target for planning purposes
an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant
amount as the average of the ratios between:
1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all
COOPERATING UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of
poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS.
3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT
and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING
UNITS.
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio
Involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice.
It is the intent of this paragraph that said planning allocation
utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth
in 42 CFR 507.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon
data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such
data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data
furnished by HUD.
4
icOS
In the event that any COOPERATING UNIT cannot commit, expend,
does not apply or cannot qualify for a community development block grant,
or a portion thereof, COUNTY will reallocate the unexpended or unallocated
grant funds to a Countywide Discretionary account. The reallocation will
include funds pursuant to Article IV paragraph A. 2. of this Agreement.
COUNTY will retain ten (10) percent of all funds placed in the Countywide
Discretionary Account to help defray the administrative costs associated
with planning and administering the Countywide Discretionary reallocation
process.
COUNTY will inform each COOPERATING UNIT of the Countywide
Discretionary account balance and will provide the opportunity to COOPERA-
TING UNIT to make request for use of all or a portion of the funds.
VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS
Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the
Implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon
receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form and Hennepin
County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation.
All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for
payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities
funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury.
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other
records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and
Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit
reports required of the COUNTY to be prepared therefrom and to permit the
tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure.
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records
and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all
reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal
officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no
event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of
program income resulting from activity implementation. COUNTY shall
perform all audits of the basic grant amount and resulting program income
as required under the Act and Regulations. Program income derived from
activities funded in total or part from the basic grant amount received by
COOPERATING UNIT shall be returned to COUNTY for inclusion in the
Countywide Discretionary Account, except that income generated from
approved revolving account activities dependent on the return of said
income, shall remain with the activity.
5
Upon proper execution, this
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
Agreement will be legally
valid and binding. By:
Chairman of its County Board
And:
Assistant County Ittorney
Date: August 15, 1984
Oeputy/Associate County Administrator
ATTEST:
tlerk of the County Boaf'd
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: CITY OF: Eden Prairie
BY:
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
, 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper
County official haviTirsigned this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to
be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
Its mayor
Assistant County Attorney
Date: And:
Its City Clerk
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant
to:
Plan A Plan B Charter
September 4, 1984
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
'HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
. RESOLUTION 84-238
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
RYMARLAND CAMP KURVER'S ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Rymarland Camp Kurver's Addition . has been
submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prai
r
i
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceed
i
n
g
s
h
a
v
e
been duly had thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Rymarland Camp Kurver's Addition
Is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the
City Engineer's report on this plat dated August 28, 1984.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the
above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on September 4, 1984.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
Itrig
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: August 28, 1984
SUBJECT: RYMARLAND CAMP KURVER'S ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
The developers, Frank Kurvers, Melvin Kurvers an
d
R
o
s
e
m
a
r
y
S
m
i
t
h
,
have requested City Council approval of the fina
l
p
l
a
t
o
f
R
y
m
a
r
l
a
n
d
Camp Kurver's Addition. This addition is a sing
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
plat located south and west of Rymarland Camp 2n
d
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
a
s
t
of T.H. 101 in the South 1/2 of Section 7. The pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
consists of 2.0 acres to be divided into 5 singl
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
l
o
t
s
.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on July 10, 1984, per Resolution 84-165.
Zoning to RI-13.5 was finally read and approve
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
n
August 7, 1984, per Ordinance 47-84.
Resolution 84-188 summarizing specific conditi
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
the proposal was adopted by the City Council on
A
u
g
u
s
t
7
,
1
9
8
4
.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through
t
h
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities and streets will be install
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
in conformance with City standards.
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication shall conform to the requiremen
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
City Code.
BONDING:
Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the
C
i
t
y
C
o
d
e
.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Rymarlan
d
C
a
m
p
K
u
r
v
e
r
'
s
Addition, subject to the requirements of this re
p
o
r
t
,
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
8
4
-
1
8
8
and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $65.0
0
.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount o
f
$
4
6
8
.
0
0
.
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $15
0
.
0
0
.
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
DLO:sg
cc: Ron Krueger & Kurvers
181i
Prairie Knoll
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -84-PUD-8-84
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 THE CITY 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 Planned Unit Development 8-84-
R1-9.4 District (hereinafter "PUD 8-84-R1-9.5").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 1984, entered into
between Hestia Homes, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's
Agreement") and that certain owners' supplement to the Developer's Agreement, dated
as of , 1984, entered into between MRJ Partners and the City of
Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Supplement"). The Developer's Agreement and Supplement
contain the terms and conditions of PUD 8-84-R1-9.5, and are hereby made a part
hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 8-84-R1-9.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan
of the City.
B. PUD 8-84-R1-9.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 8-84-R1-9.5, are justified
by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 8-84-R1-9.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement
that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a
complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. 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
Planned Unit Development 8-84-R1-9.5 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 are amended accordingly.
. ago
Section 6. 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 7. 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 7th day of August, 1984, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of
September, 1984.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
Exhibit
Legal Description
The South 400 feet of the West 600 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter, Section 9, Township 116, Range 22, and the South 600 feet of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 9, Township 116, Range 22, except the
south 312.8 feet of the west 208.5 feet thereof; and except the east 150 feet of the
west 708.5 feet of the South 160 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter, Section 9, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
g o'
Prairie Knoll
PUD-8-84-DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1984, by
and between HESTIA HOMES, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
'Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied for Planned Unit Development District Review
and Zoning District Change proposing that certain land be removed from Rural
District and placing it in the PUD-8-84-R1-9.5 District, with variances, and
preliminary platting of approximately 24.0 acres for Prairie Knoll, located north of
Valley View Road and west of Edenvale Boulevard, situated in Hennepin County, State
of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof and hereinafter referred to as "the property:" and,
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City to develop the property as 54 single
family units;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance # -84-
PUD-8-84-R1-9.5 and Resolution #84-167, Developer covenants and agrees to
construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows:
1. Developer shall plat and develop the property in conformance with
the materials dated August 14, and 23, 1984, as revised, reviewed
and approved by the City Council on August 7, 1984, and attached
hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof, subject to such changes
and modifications as are provided herein. Developer shall not
develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other
respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
e.
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Concurrent with the final plat, Developer shall dedicate Outlot A to
the City for park purposes, as depicted on Exhibit B.
4. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall:
A. Submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of grading plans, including preliminary grading of
the property adjacent to Valley View Road for bike trail
installation, slope stabilization, sewer, water, and
drainage plans for the property, including storm sewer
extensions required to eliminate back yard ponding areas.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements
listed above in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto.
B. Submit to the Director of Community Services, and receive
the Director's approval of plans for a five-foot wide
concrete sidewalk on the property, as depicted on Exhibit B.
Upon approval by the Director of Community Services,
Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those
Improvements listed above in accordance with Exhibit C,
attached hereto, concurrent with Phase I development of the
property.
C. Prepare and execute proper scenic easement(s), for the
property as depicted on Exhibit 8, in a form acceptable to
the City.
D. Enter into an assessment agreement with the City to cover
the all costs with street and utility construction of Valley
View Road along the south boundary of the property.
5. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, City shall execute a
deed in favor of Developer for that portion of the property as
depicted on Exhibit B.
6. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property
within the construction limits as approved by the Director of
Planning. Developer shall place snow fencing at the construction
limits within the wooded areas prior to any grading upon the
property.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and
within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size,
type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or
greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level. •
Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer
g e
shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's
approval of a replacement plan for all trees removed, damaged, or
destroyed outside of the construction area. Developer further
agrees that said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species,
diameter inch for diameter inch (i.e. a Red Oak 12 inches in
diameter may be replaced by three Red Oaks four inches in diameter).
The trees used for replacement shall be no less than three inches in
diameter.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
7. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of, an overall development plan, keyed with each
specific unit type, such that no two substantially similar units
shall be located directly across, diagonally across, or directly
adjacent to each other.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
construct, or cause to be constructed, units upon the lots according
to above approved plan.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall provide to the Director of Planning and receive the
Director's approval of homeowners' association covenants and
restrictions which provide for mutual easements required by the zero
lot line concept. Said covenants and restrictions shall also
provide, but not be limited to the location and placement of fences,
hedges, architectural controls relative to building additions and
color treatments, and restrictions for outdoor storage of equipment
and recreational vehicles.
9. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of floor plans, unit types (elevations), color
schemes for the structures, a phasing plan, and a landscaping plan.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
construct, or cause to be constructed, those plans listed above.
10. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District at least
48 hours prior to grading, or tree removal, on the property.
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT
TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
HESTIA HOMES, INC.
AND THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1984, by
and between MJP Partnership, a Minnesota partnership, hereinafter referred to as
"Owners,TM and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Resolution #84-167
for a preliminary plat approval and Ordinance # -84-PUD-8-84 changing the zoning
of the property owned by Owner from Rural to R1-9.5-PUD-8-84 as more fully described
In that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of
1984, by and between Hestia Homes, Inc., and City, Owners agree with the City as
follows:
1. If Hestia Homes, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners,
their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
4. Owners agree to enter into an assessment agreement with the City to
cover the costs of construction of Valley View Road along the south
boundary of the property, prior to release of the final plat by the
City.
MJP PARTNERS
Whael Pohlen, Partner
Prairie Knoll
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 84-228
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE -84-PUD-8-84 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. -84-PUD-8-84 was adopted and ordered published at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
4
t
h
d
a
y
o
f
September, 1984;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ED
E
N
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. -84-PUD-8-84,
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 Ka. -84-PUD-8-84 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 , 1984.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -84-PUD-8-84
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERT
A
I
N
L
A
N
D
F
R
O
M
O
N
E
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DES
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
L
A
N
D
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 A
N
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
1
.
9
9
,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north of
Valley View Road and east of Edenvale Boulevard, known as Prairie
K
n
o
l
l
,
f
r
o
m
R
u
r
a
l
District to PUD 8-84-R1-9.5, subject to the terms and condition
s
o
f
a
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives
t
h
e
f
u
l
l
l
e
g
a
l
description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane
/s/Wolfgang H. Penzel
City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1984.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the Ci
t
y
C
l
e
r
k
.
)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
MUNN:
Mayor and City Council
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
August 31, 1984
Proposed Amendment to Flying Cloud Airport Signage Ordinance
DATE:
SUBJECT:
At its meeting of August 28, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
changes to the Flying Cloud Airport Signage Ordinance. The Planning Commission
voted in favor of recommending approval of Version 2, attached, of those proposed
for review. The only difference between the two versions is that the Version 2
includes the language defining "wall area"--Version 1 does not. This language is as
follows:
"Wall Area is computed from the floor to the roof times the visible
continuous width including windows and doors of the space occupied by the
sign owner."
The memorandum from the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission is attached, along
with the version of the ordinance recommended for approval. Mr. Bob Gartner will be
available at the meeting Tuesday night to discuss the matter with the Council.
S.
1:::(1-
i
BUSINESS SIGNS •
The major effort of the subcommittee has been directed tow
a
r
d
t
h
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
workable code for the 12 businesses presently licensed by
t
h
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
Commission to operate at the airport. The businessmen re
a
d
i
l
y
a
c
c
e
p
t
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
Eden Prairie sign code for commercial businesses when appl
i
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
and the adjoining sides of their buildings. However, th
e
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
unique in that a large part of their business occurs with a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
o
n
t
h
e
.
side of the buildings facing the runways. The businessmen
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
signs for this side of their business. This gives rise to
f
o
u
r
(
4
)
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
present code as follows:
.' The maximum area of a wall iign oh the wall facing the
r
u
n
w
a
y
m
a
y
b
e
4
0
0
square feet instead of the 300 square feet maximum applica
b
l
e
i
n
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
districts. This deviation is considered necessary as the a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
a
r
e
o
f
t
e
n
at the far end of the runway when reading the sign. This di
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
s
m
u
c
h
greater than usual autobusiness distances.
2. The sign may be 30% of the wall area instead of the 15% lim
i
t
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
ordinance. This in keeping with the larger reading distanc
e
s
.
3. The.sign on the wall facing the runway be permitted to be
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
h
a
n
g
e
r
doors. The present code is interpreted to define that are
a
a
s
r
o
o
f
o
n
s
o
m
e
hangers and all roof signs are prohibited.
4. A commercial free-standing sign be permitted on the r
u
n
w
a
y
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
building in addition to the free-standing sign on the st
r
e
e
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
s
i
d
e
of the building.
TO: ' .. Mayor and City Council
( 10M: Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission
.BACKGROUND
This memorandum contains the Flying Cloud Airport
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
Commission's
recommendations of the revisions to the sign ordinance f
o
r
t
h
e
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Flying Cloud Airport. It is the desire of the Metropolitan
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
the signs at the airport conform to the City's sign ordin
a
n
c
e
.
T
o
t
h
i
s
e
n
d
a
n
A
d
Hoc subcommittee of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Comm
i
s
s
i
o
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
formed to
study the sign ordinance, evaluate the sign needs of
t
h
e
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
recommendations. Three members of the Flying Cloud Busin
e
s
s
m
e
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
o
k
part in the subcommittee and the entire Association reviewe
d
a
n
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
d
r
a
f
t
.
The recommendations consist of changes to the sign ordinanc
e
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
Flying Cloud Airport and the City of Eden Prairie. Ther
e
a
r
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
from the existing sign regulations. The Flying Cloud Air
p
o
r
t
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
believe these deviations to the present sign code are w
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
aspects of the airport businesses and do not endanger, anno
y
o
r
d
i
s
t
r
a
c
t
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
.
MAC SIGNS
In addition to the business signs the Metropolitan Airpo
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
t
e
n
d
s
t
o
erect signs to aide the public in locating airport faciliti
e
s
:
8.
1
t .
1. Area Directional Signs: Two signs, located in parking areas adjacent to
Flying Cloud Drive (U.S. 169) and to Pioneer Trail (County Rd. 1). Each
sign would contain a map of the airport, identify gate entrances and
businesses. These signs would Meet the requirements of the Area
• Identification Signs in a commercial district.
2. Gate Identification Signs: One sign at each of the 7 gates. The signs
would Identify the commercial businesses, and the addresses served by the
gate. These signs are equivalent to the institutional signs in Multiple
• Residential RM Districts and would be required to meet the same code
requirements. .
•
. Building Identification .Signs: These —11gns would be required to meet the
. same requirements of building identification signs in the Multiple
• ! Residential RM Districts. .
OTHER SIGNS .
Ml other signs would be forbidden...
SUMMARY •
The full commission has reviewed and endorsed these recommendations. We have hot
discussed the enforcement of the sign ordinance at the airport nor the legalities of
• the recommendations. . . .
We have prepared two draft versions of the ordinance changes for your detailed
consideration. Version 1 is for insertion into the ordinance without modification
( ) other provisions of the ordinance. Version 2 is for insertion if the wall area
definition is revised to permit signs above the roof line.
a.
• VERSIOU 2
.)
•
Modify Section 11.70., Subd. 2., subpara
g
r
a
p
h
2
7
,
"
W
a
l
l
A
r
e
a
"
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
D
e
l
e
t
e
the word "line" in the two places it a
p
p
e
a
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
b
p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
.
T
h
e
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
subparagraph to read '27. "Wall Area" i
s
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
r
o
o
f
t
i
m
e
s
, the visible continuous width includin
g
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
d
o
o
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
p
a
c
e
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
b
y
,he sign owner. • •
Insert the following in Section 11.70.,
S
u
b
d
.
4
.
,
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
:
of paragraph I and immediately before S
u
b
d
.
5
:
J. Airport Public District (Flying Cloud).
1. Wall. Signs are only permitted on build
i
n
g
s
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
that are commercially licensed by
t
h
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
'
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
Commission:
A. Walls not facing runway: The total are
a
o
f
a
l
l
w
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
s
on any wall of a building shall not exc
e
e
d
1
5
%
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
l
l
_ area_ off that wall wilen said wall_area does not exceed 500
• square 'fedi. lben saTd surface eta
e
x
c
e
a
s
b
u
d
s
q
u
a
r
e
feet, then the total area of such wall s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
75 square feet, plus 5% of the wall a
r
e
a
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
5
0
0
square feet, provided that the maximu
m
s
i
g
n
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
a
n
y
wall sign shall be 300 square feet. W
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
computed individually for each tena
n
t
i
n
a
m
u
l
t
i
-
t
e
n
a
n
t
'building based on the exterior wall a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
s
p
a
c
e
t
h
e
tenant occupies.
B. 'Will facing runway: The total area o
f
a
l
l
w
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
. not exceed 30% of the wall area of that
w
a
l
l
.
T
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
total sign area shall be 400 square fe
e
t
.
W
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
. . be computed individually for each
t
e
n
a
n
t
i
n
a
m
u
l
t
i
-
t
e
n
a
n
t
butlding based on the exterior wall a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
s
p
a
c
e
t
h
e
• tenant occupies.
•
Free-standing Signs: Are permitte
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
o
f
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
commercially licensed by the Metropoli
t
a
n
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
T
w
o
free-standing accessory signs shall be
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
site, providing one of the signs is o
n
t
h
e
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
facing the runway. The total area of e
a
c
h
s
i
g
n
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
8
0
square feet. The maximum height of fr
e
e
-
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
2
0
feet. .
3. Area Identification Signs: Only the Metr
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
C
o
m
n
i
s
s
i
o
n
are permitted to erect these signs, one
s
i
g
n
p
e
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
a
r
e
allowed, provided the total area of an
y
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
8
0
square feet and a maximum height of 20
f
e
e
t
.
4. Gate Identification Signs: Only the Metro
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
are permitted to erect such signs. On
e
s
i
g
n
i
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
t
e
a
c
h
gate. The sign shall not exceed 32 squ
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
m
u
s
t
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
a height of 10 feet.
S. Identification Signs:. Only the Metropolitan Airport Commisi.ion are
permitted to erect such signs. One ide
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
g
n
o
r
s
y
m
b
o
l
- per building not greater than six squa
r
e
f
e
e
t
i
n
a
r
e
a
,
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
s
u
c
h
' sign is attached flat against a wall
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
.16
6. Other signs not permitted.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: August 30, 1984
RE: Preliminary approval Multi-family Housing Bonds-Eames Apartment Project
$6,41118,000 - Resolution No. 84-225
This project consists of 108 rental units and is located west of
the Edenvale Golf Course and north of Valley View Road and is
zoned RN 2.5. The project cost is estimated to be $7,134,700.
. The Planning Commission will review site plan and zoning at its
September 10th meeting. The bonds will be a public offering with a
guarantee. The hearing is a planning type hearing wherein the
Cbuncil finds the project to be in conformance with the housing section
of the Guide Plan (like Edenvale Apts). Resolution No. 84-225 is
included for your consideration. This transaction is not part of the
City's "Cap".
JDF:bw
8/30/84
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Housing Revenue Bonds
Under Chapter 426C, Minnesota Statutes
1. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name - Eames Apartments Limited Partnership
b. Business Address -7J i M. 1h ALI 7/44n+.1,04
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprie-
torship, etc.) - limited partnership
d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative - Mr. David Ames
f. Phone - (612) 222-1800
2. NAME(S) ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
General Partners:
a. David Ames
220 West Minnehaha Parkway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419
b. Tri-State Development Corp. No. 2
-t?
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC:
Real estate development
Primarily multi-family rental and for sale units
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
a. Location and intended use:
Eames Apartments will consist of a total of 108
rental housing units, including 40 one-bedroom units
and 68 two-bedroom units. .22,61 of the units will
be specifically designed for occupancy by the physically
handicapped. No less than 22 of the 108 units (20%
of all units) will be rented to, or if vacant, held
for rental by, persons of "low and moderate income"
(that is, 80% of the MUD median income for the
statistical area in which the City is located).
b. Present ownership of project site:
c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor:
Architect: Fo..:/eAr 1,4t..4242 2•IAC.
Contractor: 70 de 4/.pcto
-5. ESTIMATED PROJECT FOR:
Land
Building & Equipment
Other - Legal and
Underwriting Estimate
Debt Service Reserve Fund
TOTAL
6. BOND ISSUE -
oo o
$ S: zi 20 0
$ 252,500 (estimate)
$ (estimate)
t 3 `4 la 1/43
'
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $6,000,000
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - Voue",454,/08t ,
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities -do yeAt-S
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds -
Piper, Jaf fray & Hopwood Incorporated
e. Name and address of suggested trustee -
f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser - None at this time.
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available -
Integral to this proposed financing
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in
addition to bond financing - None.
7. BUSINESS PROFILE OF APPLICANT
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No
b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
i. Before this project: None
During this project: 7 construction
workers
After this project?
C onsite resident
managers/maintenance personnel
c. Approximate annual sales - N/A
d. Length of time in business?
In Eden Prairie? N/A
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so where?
N/A
f. Are you engaged in international trade?
No
9-2-0
8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OR HOUSING REVENUE BOND
PROJECT(S):
a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other housing or
industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant
is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities
or a "related person" within the meaning of Section
103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code-,
raffq Paleo A,.1.:4.1),:e,4711 ,
$40.0,0,30
b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested
industrial revenue development or housing bond
financing.
c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has
before any other city for industrial development or
housing revenue financing.
owed
d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused
industrial development or housing revenue financing.
,u0Jvcf
e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant
has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in
which final approval authorizing the financing has been
denied.
iuomb
f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development or
housing revenue financing in any other city as identi-
fied in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial
and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have
knowledge of the transaction.
ove 4,0
J9. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF:
a. Underwriter (If public offering)
Piper, Jaf fray & Hopwood Incorporated
Suite 800
733 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If Private Placement)
See (a), above
c. Bond Counsel - Dorsey & Whitney
510 North Central Life Tower
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
d. Corporate Counsel - IN 1KQL)
) N\N. <;s4o1
e. Accoutant - G o,n i S .A.%14‘visc.... 4 OlS4:2" a , 0.0 a.-..\\...
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - tc,mr
b. Const r uction completion - th A42.,t4 \tiff.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The undersi g ned Applicant undertands that the approval or
disapproval by the Cit y of Eden Prairie for revenue bond
financin g under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, or adoption of
a pro g ram thereunder, does not expressl y or by implication
constitute an y approval, variance, or waiver of an y provision or
requirement relatin g to an y zonin g , buildin g , or other rule or
ordinance of the Cit y of Eden Prairie, or an y other law
applicable to the propert y included in this project.
EAMES APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Applicant
By 4=1
A general partner
B/ f/84
Date
11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROGRAM, AND GIVING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL TO A DEVELOPMENT AND ITS FINANCING, UNDER
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMISSION OF THE PROGRAM TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the Municipality), as follows:
SECTION 1
Recitals and Findings
1.1. By the provisions of the Act, the City is
authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell revenue bonds
or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or
more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries,
which revenue bonds or obligations shall be payable solely
from the revenues of the development.
1.2. The City has developed a housing plan and,
after holding a public hearing thereon after notice published
at least thirty days prior thereto, has adopted the housing
plan and submitted it for review to the Metropolitan Council
and has received its comments.
1.3. The Act provides that the City may plan, ad-
minister and make or purchase a loan or loans to finance one
or more developments of the kinds described in Subdivisions
2, 3, 4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, upon adoption
of a program setting forth the information required by Subdivision
_6 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, after a public hearing thereon,
and upon approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
(the Agency), as provided by Section 462C.01 of the Act, on
the basis of the considerations stated in Section 462C.04
of the Act.
1.4. This Council has received a proposal that
the Municipality finance a portion or all of the cost of a
proposed multifamily housing development under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 462C (the Act), consisting of the acquisition of land
and the construction and equipping thereon of an apartment
building containing approximately 108 rental housing units
together with parking and other functionally related and subordi-
nate facilities (the Development), to be located in the Munici-
pality on the north side of Valley View Drive, between Edenvale
Boulevard and Mitchell Street, adjacent to the Edenvale Golf
Course. The developer and owner of the Development will be
Eames Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited
partnership (the Developer).
1.5. The City has caused to be prepared a program .
with respect to the Development and its financing (the Program).
At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on August 28, 1984,
in accordance with the Act and Section 103(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, on the proposal to undertake
the Program and finance the Development, all parties who appeared
at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their
views with respect to the proposal to undertake the Program
and finance the Development, and interested persons were given
the opportunity to submit written comments to the City Clerk
before the time of the hearing.
1.6. The Developer has requested that the City
issue its revenue bonds in one or more series pursuant to
the authority of the Act in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $6,000,000, to finance all or a portion of the
costs of the Development, and to make the proceeds of the
bonds available to the Developer for the acquisition, construction
and equipping of the Development, subject to agreement by
the Developer to pay promptly the principal of and interest
on the bonds.
1.7. The City has been advised by the Developer
that conventional commercial financing is available to pay
the capital costs of the Development only on a limited basis
and at such high costs of borrowing that the scope of the
Project and the economic feasibility of operating the Development
would be significantly affected, but with the aid of municipal
financing the Development can be constructed as designed and
its operation can be made more economically feasible.
1.8. This Council has been advised by representatives
of the Developer and Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood Incorporated,
of Minneapolis, Minnesota, that on the basis of information
available to them and their discussions with the Developer
and potential purchasers of tax-exempt bonds, the Bonds could
be sold at favorable rates and terms to finance the Project.
1.9. The full faith and credit of the City will
not be pledged to or responsible for the payment of the principal
of, or premium or interest on the bonds.
SECTION 2
2.1. On the basis of the information given the
City to date, it appears that it would be desirable for the
City to issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of the
Act to finance the Development in the maximum aggregate principal
amount of $6,00G,CGC.
2.2. It is determined to proceed with the Development
and its financing and this Council hereby declares its present
intent to have the City issue its revenue bonds under the
Act to finance the Development. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
however, the adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed
to establish a legal obligation on the part of the City or
its City Council to issue or to cause the issuance of such
revenue bonds. City retains the right in its sole discretion
to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the
Bonds should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof
determine that it is in the best interest of the City not
to issue the Bonds, or should the parties to the transaction
be unable to reach agreement as to the structuring of the
financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the
documents required for the transaction. All details of such
revenue bond issue and the provisions for payment thereof
shall be subject to review and approval of the Program by
the Agency and may be subject to such further conditions as
the City may specify. The bonds, if issued, shall not constitute
a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any
property of the City, except the revenues specifically pledged
to the payment thereof, and each bond, when, as and if issued,
shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest
thereon, is payable solely from the revenues and property
specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any con-
stitutional or statutory limitation. The bonds must be issued,
delivered and paid for within 12 months of the date of this
resolution, unless such expiration date is extended by resolution
of this Council.
2.3. The Program is hereby approved, and in accordance
with Section 462C.04, Subdivision 2 of the Act, the City Manager
and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to cause
the Program to be submitted to the Agency for review and
approval. The City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney and
other officers, employees and agents of the Municipality are
hereby authorized and directed to provide the Agency with
any preliminary information needed for this purpose.
2.4. Pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Section 462C.07
of the Act, in the making of the loan to finance acquisition,
construction and equipment of the Project and in the issuance
of the bonds or other obligations of the City, the City may
exercise, within its corporate limits, any of the powers the
Agency may exercise under Chapter 462A, Minnesota Statutes,
without limitation under the provisions of Chapter 475, Minnesota
Statutes.
2.5. The Developer has agreed and it is hereby
determined that any and all direct and indirect costs incurred
by the City in connection with the Program and the Development,
whether or not the Development is carried to completion, whether
or not the Program is approved by the Agency, and whether
or not the City by resolution authorizes the issuance of the
bonds, will be paid by the Developer upon request.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Eden Prairie this 28th day of August, 1984.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted
and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: August 30, 1984
RE: Preliminary approval M.I.D.B.'s - Reynolds Printing - $1,650,000
Resolution No. 84-223
Reynolds intends to construct a 30,000 square foot building and
employ about 50 people. The site is in the 100 acre Equitable
P.U.D. which still needs site plan approval and platting. It is
unknown when Equitable will apply for its approvals. Reynolds
is anticipating 100% financing on the land and building, however,
they are also purchasing $1,000,000 in equipment. The sale will be
public with a guarantee. Resolution No. 84-223 is included for
your consideration. This transaction is part of the City's "cap".
JDF:bw
8/30/84
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name -
b. Business Address -
Reynolds Printing, Incorproated
7071 Shady Oak Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship,
etc.) -
Corporation
d. State of Incorporation organization - Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative - Robert Reynolds
f. Telephone number - 944-3066
2. NAME CS) AND ADDRESS (ES) OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDER (S) OR PRINCIPAL(S):
a. - Robert Reynolds
b. Richard Reynolds
C. James Reynolds
d.
e.
f.
9-
-1-
iggki A
GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC:
Commercial Printing
Printing Catalogs - Advertising Brochures
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
a. Location and intended use: Valley View Road A Circle
b. Present ownership of project site; Equitable Life Insurance
L. Names and addresses of architect, engineer and general
contractor:
The Design Partnership - Investment Services Group: Anthony Feffer
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
Land
Building
Equipment
Other (Legal & Financing)
$ 460,000
$ 1,015,000
$ 200,000
TOTAL $ 1,675,000
6. BOND ISSUE
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $1,460,000
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - December 1, 1984
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - Up to 20 years
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - Possible purchase/purchase
agent (tentative or subject to) Juran & Moody, Inc.
e. Name and address of suggested trustee -
First Trust Company of Saint Paul
Corporate Trust Division •
East 405 First National Bank Building St. Paul, MN 55101
f. Copy or any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser -
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - none
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing - none
7. BUSINESS PROFILE
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? Yes
b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? 35
i. Before this project? 3 5
After this project? 50
Not finalized at this time
-3-
c. Approximate annual sales - $3,000,000.00
d. Length of time in business
7 years
in Eden Prairie
7 years
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? no
f. Are you engaged in international trade? no
8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): none
a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial
development project(s) in which the Applicant is the
owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a
"related person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6)
of the-Internal Revenue Code.
-41-0
b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested
industrial development revenue financing.
Eden Prairie
C. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before
any other city for industrial development revenue financing.
None
d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused
industrial development revenue financing.
None
e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant
has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which
final approval authorizing the financing has been denied.
None
f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development
revenue financing in any other city as identified
in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial
and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who
have knowledge of the transaction.
None
9. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF:
a. Underwriter (If public offering)
Juran & Moody, Incorporated
400 North Robert Suite 800
St. Paul, MN 55101
uirrP 1-&-7-70 1. tA CAulPf
b. Private Placement Purchaser (/f private placement)-
i. If lender will not commit until City has
passed its preliminary resolution approving
the project, submit a letter from proposed
lender that it has an interest in the
offering subject to appropriate City approval
of the Commissioner of Securities.
By
Date 2/2•71 0/4
b. Bond Counsel - Dorsey & Whitney
2200 First Bank Place East
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Joseph C. Gonnella
c. Corporate Counsel - Wyant & Morgeson, P.A.
680 Northland Executive Office Center
3500 West 80th Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
d. Accountant -
Walker & Company, Incorporated
Certified Public Accountants
7025 France Avenue South
Edina, MN 55435
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - December 1, 1984
b. Construction completion - May 1, 1984
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or
disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development
revenue bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute
any approval, variance, or waiver or any provision or requirement
relating to any zoning, building or other rule or ordinance of the
City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property
included in this project.
A.AL 011,bL.
pplicant
RESOLUTION NO. bl—doLa
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE
OF REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES,
CHAPTER 474, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A PROJECT
THEREUNDER; GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND MAKING AN
ALLOCATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT AND AUTHORI-
ZING AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY TO THE MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the Council) of
the City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
City), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act), has
found and declared that the welfare of the State requires
active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of
economically sound industry and commerce through governmental
acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted
lands and areas of chronic unemployment; has authorized
municipalities to issue revenue bonds to finance, in whole or
in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, improvement and betterment of projects,
including any properties, real or personal, used or useful in
connection with a revenue producing enterprise engaged in any
business; and has authorized municipalities to enter into
"revenue agreements," as defined in the Act, with any person,
firm, or public or private corporation or federal or state
governmental subdivision or agency (the Contracting Party)
providing for the payment by the Contracting Party of amounts
sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of
and interest on the revenue bonds.
1.02. It has been proposed that the City issue its
revenue bonds, pursuant to the authority granted by the Act, in
an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,675,000, or such
lesser amount as may be necessary, to finance costs of
acquisition of land within the City and the construction and
equipping thereon of an approximately 30,000 square foot office
and production facility (the Project) to be owned by Reynolds
Printing, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the Corporation). The
Project is to be located on a parcel of land in a proposed
subdivision located on the south side of Valley View Road
between Mitchell Road and Schooner Boulevard in the City. The
Corporation will agree to pay the City amounts sufficient to
pay promptly the principal of and interest on the revenue
bonds, and will agree to cause the Project to be completed.
.7t1-
1.03. The City has been advised that conventional,
commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is
available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of
borrowing that the scope of the Project or the economic
feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly
reduced, but that with aid of municipal financing, and its
resulting low borrowing costs, the Project can be constructed
as designed and its operation is economically more feasible.
Section 2. Public Hearing.
2.01. As required by Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b,
of the Act, this Council held a public hearing on the proposal
to undertake and finance the Project. Notice of the time and
place of the hearing, stating the general nature of the Project
and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds to be issued
to finance the Project, was published at least once not less
than fifteen (15) days nor more than thirty (30) days before
the date fixed for the hearing, in the official newspaper of
the City and a newspaper of general circulation of the City. A
draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota
Department of Energy and Economic Development, together with
all attachments and exhibits thereto, was available for public
inspection following the publication of such notice at the
place and times set forth in the notice.
2.02. All parties who appeared at the public hearing
were given an opportunity to express their views with respect
to the proposal to undertake and finance the Project. This
Council has heard and considered the views expressed at the
public hearing, including the written comments, if any, filed
With the City Finance Director/Clerk before the date of the
hearing, and the information submitted to the City by the
Corporation.
Section 3. Approvals, Allocation and Authorizations.
3.01. On the basis of information given the City to
date, and the views expressed at the public hearing, it is
found and determined that the Project furthers the purposes
stated in Section 474.01 of the Act, and that it would be in
the best interests of the City to issue its industrial
development revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to
finance costs of the Project in an amount not to exceed
$1,675,000 (the Bonds).
3.02. The Project and the issuance of the bonds for
such purpose are hereby given preliminary approval. The Bonds
shall not be issued until the Project has been approved by the
Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, as
provided by the Act, and until the City and the Corporation
have agreed upon the details of the Bonds and provisions for
their payment.
3.03. The City is an entitlement issuer within the
meaning of Minnesota Laws 1984, Chapter 582 (the Act). As
such, the City, to retain its unused allocation for 1984, must
submit a letter of intent and an application deposit to the
Department of Energy and Economic Development on or before
September 1, 1984. The allocation of $1,675,000 of the City's
unused allocation under the Act to the Project and the Bonds is
hereby approved, and the Mayor, City Finance Director/Clerk or
such other appropriate officer of the City is hereby authorized
and directed, upon receipt of the amount of the application
deposit from the Corporation, to submit on behalf of the City a
letter of intent and the application deposit required by the
Act to the Department of Energy and Economic Development to
retain such allocation for the Project and the Bonds.
3.04. If the Bonds are issued and sold, the City will
enter into a lease, mortgage, direct or installment sale
contract, loan agreement, take or pay or similar agreement,
secured or unsecured, satisfying the requirements of the Act
(the Revenue Agreement) with the Corporation. The amounts
payable by the Corporation to the City under the Revenue
Agreement will be sufficient to pay the principal of, interest
and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the
same shall become due and payable.
3.05. The Corporation has agreed to pay directly or
through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in
"Connection with the Project whether or not the Project is
approved by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic
Development; whether or not the Project is carried to
completion; whether or not the Project is carried to
completion; and whether or not the Bonds or Revenue Agreement
and all other operative instruments are executed.
3.06. The adoption of this resolution does not
constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will
issue the Bonds as requested by the Corporation. The City
retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from
participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds should the
City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that
it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds
or should the City, Corporation or any other parties to the
transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and
conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction.
-3-
3.07. In accordance with the Act, the Mayor and City
Finance Director/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Department
of Energy and Economic Development for approval. The Mayor,
City Finance Director/Clerk, City Attorney and other officers,
employees and agents of the City, in conjunction with Dorsey &
Whitney, Bond Counsel, are hereby authorized to provide the
Department with any preliminary information necesary for this
purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and
assist in the preparation of such documents as may be
appropriate to the Project.
3.08. The City will cause the Corporation to comply
with all of the provisions of the Act, including Section
474.01, Subdivision 8, thereof, in the issuance of the Bonds
and the financing of the Project.
3.09. All commitments of the City expressed herein
are subject to the condition that the City and the Corporation
shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions
of the Revenue Agreement, the Bonds and of the other
instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds and their
issuance and sale by December 31, 1984, and that the Bonds are
issued, sold and delivered on or before such date. If the
events set forth herein do not take place on or before
December 31, 1984, this resolution shall expire and be of
no further effect.
Section 4. Special Obligations.
In all events, it is understood, however, that the
Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal
or equitable, upon any property of the City except the Project,
if it becomes the property of the City, and from the revenues
received from the Project and property pledged to the payment
thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This resolution shall be effective immediately upon
its final adoption.
-4-
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
1984.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Finance Director/Clerk
(SEAL)
-5- )C19
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 84-235
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 GSB Investments, Inc., for development of Valley
Lake Business Center for Office use 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
10.83 acres located west of Prairie Center Drive, and south of Valley View Road be
modified from Low Density Residential and Undesignated to Office.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 4th day of August, 1984.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
v
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #84-236
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY LAKE BUSINESS CENTER
FOR GSB INVESTMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Valley Lake Business Center, for GSB Investments, dated
July 23, 1984, consisting of 10.63 acres into one lot and one outlot, a copy of
which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions
of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and i
s
herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of
, 1984.
Wolfgang H-Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Iihn D. Frane, City Clerk
GEIMER & RICE
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
William C. Grimm,
John D. Rice
imet D. Coat
Of Counsel
Man O. Dram
Suite 610
Shttard Tower
Wayzata Boulevard at County Road 18
Minnealrok Minnesota 65426
Telephone (612)545.8000
Cable: EXCEL, Minneapolis
August 23, 1984
G/S/B Developments
7632 Washington Avenue South
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-3794
Attention: Mr. Jerry Portnoy, President
RE: Valley View Road Easement
Our File No. - 84-3368
Dear Mr. Portnoy:
We are counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Gary Kostecka. They have
consulted us regarding your proposed development of property
adjoining their homestead to the west and the effect of that
development upon their easement for access to their homestead
premises. I have reviewed a document prepared by Du'monceaux
and Associates called a schematic design landscape plan. If
this is the final design, I will consult with Mr. and Mrs. Kostecka.
regarding its acceptability and will make certain recommendations
to them. While the intended access for the Kosteckas to their
homestead is not clearly indicated, they would expect that the
access across the ten foot sod strip will be provided at the _
If
present location and that said access would be bituminous pavement
of the nature provided on the driveway entrance to the property.
If you will please give me a final drawing that conclusively
indicates this, we could then discuss with particularity the
nature of any changes you might desire in the Kostecka's existing
driveway easement.
We look forward to working with you on this matter.
Yours very truly,
GEIMER & RICE
kl
. cc Eden Prairie Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 10, 1984
PROJECT: Valley Lake Business Center
APPLICANT: Jerry Portnoy
OWNER: Ross and Pauline Petersen
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Undesignated/Low
Density Residential to Industrial.
2. Preliminary Plat of approximately ten acres into one lot and
one outlot.
3. A Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park, with variances for front
yard setback and amount of office allowable.
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan ident-
ifies a Low Density Residential land
use for this site. The Guide Plan
depicts surrounding future land uses
as regional commercial, office and
open space.
The site lies immediately south of
Valley View Road adjacent to Smetana
Lake. Approximately 6.2 acres of
the site will be dedicated as an
outlot to the City, leaving
approximately four acres of land for
development.
The site slopes in a southeasterly
manner from a high point of
elevation 890 adjacent to Valley
View Road to the ordinary high water
mark elevation of 833.1 at the
shoreline of Smetana Lake. Due to
an elevation difference of over 30
feet on site, provisions of the
Steep Slope Ordinance will apply.
There is a significant amount of
PROPOSED SITE
N\''t
;IN4elef.
' ' • a - I "1".'"*.--*
Ot' 'AREA LOCATION MAP"
Valley Lake Business Center 2 August 10, 1984
natural vegetation on site consisting primarily of box elder,
e
l
m
,
a
s
p
e
n
,
a
n
d
cottonwood. There are a number of scotch pine and norway pine, whi
c
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
intends to transplant and incorporate into the landscaping plan. T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
t
w
o
1
8
-
Inch oaks and one 24-inch oak tree that will remain protected
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
construction area.
Smetana Lake is a Natural Enviornmental water and provisions of
t
h
e
S
h
o
r
e
l
a
n
d
Management Ordinance will apply. Requirements of the Shorelan
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
e
t
Ordinance include a 200-foot building setback from the Natural High
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
r
k
o
f
the lake and a maximum impervious surface restriction of 30 per cent.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
Is requesting that the building be allowed to be constructed within 1
0
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
t
h
e
Normal Ordinary High Water Mark. The proponent intends to retai
n
,
a
s
m
u
c
h
a
s
possible, the existing natural vegetation between the building and S
m
e
t
a
n
a
L
a
k
e
t
o
serve as a visual buffer. Most of the trees which would be b
e
l
o
s
t
d
u
e
t
o
construction will be relocated on-site. The proponent will not ha
v
e
a
n
y
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
between the building and the lake. The Code would allow parking to o
c
c
u
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
5
0
feet of the Natural High Water Mark. The sight section provided by
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
illustrates how this proposed natural buffer will work.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
The proponent is asking for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change f
r
o
m
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Residential to Industrial. Staff believes that the development
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
i
s
a
n
example of a new building type. The building will be office and o
f
f
i
c
e
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
designed to accommodate 75 per cent office. The clear height will b
e
t
w
e
l
v
e
f
e
e
t
i
n
the one-story portion. The two-story portion of the development co
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
1
7
,
0
0
0
square feet of pure office space overlooking the lake. The bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
constructed entirely of brick and glass. The parking ratio is at
f
o
u
r
s
t
a
l
l
s
p
e
r
1,000 square feet of building area and 70 of these stalls (35 per
c
e
n
t
)
a
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
the building. Service facilities are completely screened from S
m
e
t
a
n
a
L
a
k
e
a
n
d
;Valley View Road by the building which will be constructed i
n
a
l
e
t
t
e
r
"
C
"
configuration, with a narrow opening facing the eastern side of the
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Considering the high percentage of office in this development, and
a
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
works well on this site, the Commission may wish to consider amendi
n
g
t
h
e
G
u
i
d
e
P
l
a
n
to an office classification.
Site Plan
The site plan involves the construction of approximately 50,000
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
f
building area on 4.4 acres of land at a floor area ratio of 0.26. The
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
be a combination of one and two-story elements with a two-story
o
f
f
i
c
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
facing Smetana Lake behind the natural tree stand that is proposed to
b
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
s
part of the landscape plan.
The proponent is requesting a front yard setback variance from 50 t
o
3
5
f
e
e
t
.
T
h
e
35-foot front yard setback would be similar to what is permitte
d
u
n
d
e
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
zoning. The proponent is asking for this variance in order to keep t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
s
far away from Smetana Lake as possible and yet provide for screen
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
areas from Valley View Road. Staff feels that the request for setba
c
k
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
i
s
reasonable provided the proponent can provide for effective screen
i
n
g
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
areas from Valley View Road. This will be addressed in the landscape
p
l
a
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Access to this site will be by driveway off Valley View Road. This driveway
Valley Lake Business Center 3 August 10, 1984
entrance is located opposite the proposed east entrance to the
W
i
l
s
o
n
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
Center. This access should be made available as a joint access to
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
the the east when it develops.
Parking, if based on 75 per cent office, 12.5 per cent service, and
1
2
.
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
warehouse, would require the provision of 209 parking stalls. Parkin
g
,
i
f
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
50 per cent office, 25 per cent service, and 25 per cent warehouse,
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
168 parking stalls. The proponent is providing parking at a ratio o
f
f
o
u
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
per 1,000 or 206 parking stalls. 136 parking stalls will be provide
d
o
n
g
r
a
d
e
a
n
d
70 parking stalls will be provided in structured parking.
• Architecture
The 50,000 square foot high tech building will be constructed prim
a
r
i
l
y
o
f
e
a
r
t
h
tone color (brown to dark reds) mason-laid face brick, and bronze
t
i
n
t
e
d
g
l
a
s
s
around the perimeter of the entire building. Proponent has indicate
d
t
h
a
t
r
o
o
f
t
o
p
mechanical equipment will be screened with a material architectura
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
with materials proposed for the building. The proponent has provided
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
show the relationship between the building, Smetana Lake, Vantage's O
f
f
i
c
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
and the Wilson Learning Center Office. It appears from the sight
l
i
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
rooftop mechanical will not be visible from Valley View Road, Wils
o
n
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
o
r
the Vantage Office Building. Proposed landscaping, distance between
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
a
n
d
building materials surrounding rooftop mechanical equipment, wi
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
effective screening. The proponent should provide details of the b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
to be used to screen the of rooftop mechanical, to Staff for review.
Grading
A significant amount of grading work will occur on-site. Up to 18
f
e
e
t
o
f
c
u
t
w
i
l
l
_be necessary in some areas of the site in order to provide balance m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
f
o
r
f
i
l
l
elsewhere on site. A 2/1 slope is proposed on the southern side
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
however it is a relatively short slope of about 20 feet in length
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
visible from Smetana Lake because of the retention of the natural v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
the proposed grading area and the lake. Proposed grades adjacen
t
t
o
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
Road in the northwesterly portion of the site will be at 3/1 sl
o
p
e
.
A
n
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
control mat, relocated vegetation, and new plantings, will • stabi
l
i
z
e
t
h
i
s
s
l
o
p
e
.
There are two retaining walls proposed in the southeast corner o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
w
h
i
c
h
will be approximately five feet in height. The retaining walls will
n
o
t
b
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
from Smetana Lake due to the amount of vegetation in front of it.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
should provide details of the proposed retaining walls for review
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
o
w
s
structural soundness and type of material proposed.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection
t
o
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
sewer and watermain in Valley View Road.
The majority of storm water run-off will sheet drain overland acro
s
s
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
areas into catch basins which are connected to two proposed storm s
e
w
e
r
p
i
p
e
s
t
h
a
t
will outlet into Smetana Lake. The proponent should provide detail
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
m
water pipe outlets for review. The outlets should be designed t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
o
amount of siltation flow into Smetana Lake, and should not be visu
a
l
l
y
o
b
t
r
u
s
i
v
e
.
The proponent should provide a detailed tree inventory within
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
construction limits of the storm sewer pipe construction area for re
v
i
e
w
.
1.1.1/
Valley Lake Business Center 4 August 10, 1984
Landscape Plan
The proponent has submitted a landscape plan which shows retention of a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
stand of vegetation adjacent to Smetana Lake, transplanting of vegetati
o
n
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
areas on site to avoid loss material of plant material due to con
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Proponent supplements this with additional plantings. The size and ty
p
e
o
f
p
l
a
n
t
materials proposed is acceptable. Code requires that parking areas be sc
r
e
e
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
public view. The proposed parking areas will be between 10 to 20
f
e
e
t
b
e
l
o
w
adjacent grades on Valley View Road. Because of the change in elevation
,
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
of the proposed parking areas will be difficult. Staff would rec
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
h
a
t
additional coniferous trees be planted in the proposed front yard s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
i
n
c
e
overstory trees will not provide for effective screening year-round.
Traffic Impacts
A 50,000 square foot building can be expected to generate approximately
6
2
5
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
trips per day, if the building were entirely office. Vehicle trips gen
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
upon the proposed breakdown envisioned by the proponent for 75 per cent
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
w
i
t
h
12.5 per cent warehouse and 12.5 per cent manufacturing would be 530
t
r
i
p
s
.
S
t
a
f
f
expects that the majority of trips will be attracted towards the in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
Valley View Road and US #169. Valley View Road is proposed to be upgr
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
U
S
#169 to a distance of 200 feet beyond this site. The improvements
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
f
o
u
r
lanes with a median and free right-turn to north US #169 at the inter
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
U
S
#169 and Valley View Road. From that point, the road will narrow from
5
2
f
e
e
t
t
o
a
30-foot, two-lane road. Curves will be flattened and site vision dist
a
n
c
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
improved by regrading. The proponent will be dedicating additional ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
o
n
the north side of the site.
Lighting/Signage
The proponent should provide lighting and signage details for review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Chan
g
e
f
r
o
m
L
o
w
Density Residential to Industrial or Office, Preliminary Plat of ten acr
e
s
i
n
t
o
o
n
e
lot and one outlot, and Rezoning of approximately 4.4 acres from Rural t
o
1
-
2
P
a
r
k
,
with variances, based on plans dated July 24, 1984, and subject to the fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
1. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed erosion and storm water runoff controls to the
Watershed District for review.
B. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans and
sewer and water plans for review by the City Engineer.
2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading. 1401
Valley Lake Business Center 5 August 10, 1984
C. Stake the grading limits with a snow fence and submit a tree
inventory of trees to be removed during building and utility
construction.
0. Modify the landscape plan to provide for screening of parking areas
from Valley View Road.
E. Submit details of proposed retaining walls, lighting, and signage
for review.
Proponent shall obtain front yard setback variances for parking from V
a
l
l
e
y
View Road and shoreland setback variances for the building from Smetana
L
a
k
e
from the Board of Appeals.
"
Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 13, 1984
F. VALLEY LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, by GSB Investments. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and
Undesignated to Industrial; Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2
for 4.4 acres for a 50,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building (with
variances for the Board of Appeals); and Preliminary Plat of 10.63
acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: West of Prairie
Center Drive, south of Valley View Road, along the northwest shore
of Smetana Lake. A public hearing.
Mr. Gerald Portnoy, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the
Commission, explaining the concept of the building as 75% office, 25% other
uses.
Mr. Greg DuMonceaux, representing proponent, reviewed the site features and
development characteristics, including the treatment of the lakeshore area.
He pointed out that the access to Valley View Road had been planned to
provide a joint access with the property to the east at such time as it
would develop, as Staff had requested in their early review of the site.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
evaluating the request.
Torjesen asked how many residential uses remained in this area. Mr. Portnoy
listed four properties in the vicinity, noting that this entailed
approximately 35-40 acres of property.
Marhula asked about the dimensions of the slopes toward the lake. Mr.
DuMonceaux responded that the area would be graded with 3/1 slopes.
_ Marhula asked if the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive
- - Guide Plan and other uses in the area. Staff responded that, in their
opinion, it would be consistent.
Johannes asked if it was the City's intent to limit other uses within the
structure to 25% of the space. Staff responded that it was not--this was
proposed by proponent.
Torjesen asked what types of uses there would be for the future of the
remaining residential parcels. Staff responded that this area would
gradually transition from Low Density Residential to more intense uses over
time. The proposed use was considered compatible with this.
Mrs. Pat Kosteka, 10805 Valley View Road, owner of the property to the east,
and acting as representative for the Smetana families in the area, stated
that this site was one of high visibility in the area. She stated that she
and the families she represented felt the uses in the area, and in
particular on this site, should be office. Mrs. Kosteka also expressed
concern regarding drainage in the area as it would affect her property and
the driveway easement she had for her property on the eastern boundary of
the property proposed for development by proponent.
Mr. Portnoy responded that he fully intended to maintain the driveway
easement for her property. He added that the drainage for the area would
Improve with the development of his site.
Ci
Planning Commission Minutes 13
August 13, 1984
Mrs. Kosteka stated that there was a great deal of devel
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
,
making it undesirable to maintain a residential use in
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
S
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
d
that the construction in the area had become more than a
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
e
d
that her family no longer wished to live in the area on
a
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
b
a
s
i
s
.
Torjesen stated that, if it was determined that it was
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
to maintain a residential use in the Smetana Lake ar
e
a
,
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
u
s
e
h
e
preferred would be office.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula,
t
o
c
l
o
s
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of GSB Investments fo
r
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
G
u
i
d
e
Plan change from Low Density Residential and Undesign
a
t
e
d
t
o
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
b
a
s
e
d
on written materials dated July 23, 1984, and plans St
a
f
f
-
d
a
t
e
d
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
0
,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Re
p
o
r
t
d
a
t
e
d
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
0
,
1984.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of GSB Investments f
o
r
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
change from Rural to 1-2 (with variances) for 4.4 acres
f
o
r
a
5
0
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
office/industrial building, based on written materials d
a
t
e
d
J
u
l
y
2
3
,
1
9
8
4
,
and plans Staff-dated August 10, 1984, subject to the re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
Staff Report dated August 10, 1984.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained)
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of GSB Investments for
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
o
f
10.63 acres into one lot and one outlot for
a
5
0
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
office/industrial building, based on written materials
d
a
t
e
d
J
u
l
y
2
3
,
1
9
8
4
,
and plans Staff-dated August 10, 1984, subject to the r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
Staff Report dated August 10, 1984.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained)
Chairman Bearman stated that his reason for abstaining
w
a
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
.
'
S.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 84-229
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 Landmark Northwest for development of Landmark West
retail use 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 7.29
acres located south of City West Parkway, and east of Shady Oak Road be modified
from Office to Neighborhood Commercial.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 4th day of August, 1984.
Welfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
Igo-5
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #84-231
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LANDMARK WEST,
FOR LANDMARK NORTHWEST, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Landmark West, for Landmark Northwest, Inc., dated May
18, 1984, consisting of 7.29 acres for service uses (retail, 200-seat restaurant,
health club, fast food restaurant, and gas station/convenience store), a copy of
which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions
of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is
herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of
, 1984.
•Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
TAT D. Frane, City Clerk
ct,
( 91 1
REGARDING: REZCNING CITY WEST PROPERTY
The proponents planning representative has stated on two
previous occasions that there is no other land in the
immediate area suitable for commercial development.
After many lengthy meetings, City West was given zoning
for a well conceived, planned development. Now changes are
being requested to conioranise that plan.
There are other pieces of property in the innediate area
that are being affected by develoiment. The Uherka property
will be influenced by the Crosstown Extension, ,cutting off
its access and taking of a portion of its land to the West.
Utilities are going to be extended through the Uherka property
to serve the Carrel project. A road is going tote put through
the Uherka property. Its location was not dictated by the best
location for future 'development of our property but because
it would line up with the City West Parkway.
We again say that the Uherka property is not best suited for
residential use. There are natural buffers to the west and
south.
This relatively large piece of property oust he given consideration
In the "total plan" for this area and we think this has not yet
been accomplished. he feel that the proposed City West commercial
development is inproperly conceived. 44,(7Lidet.A.
cj 011 Ittht Wiatie,/
•
••
••
6401 Shady Oak Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
August 8, 1984
RE: Landmark West Proposal
Members of Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Sirs:
• We want to be on record as opposed to the changes sought by Landmark West
for development of the 7.29 acres located at the Southeast corner of Shady Oak
Road and City West Parkway. We live across the road from this area.
We question the need for serivce uses in this area, since there is an
abundance of retail establishments, restaurants, fast-food businesses, gasoline
stations and convenience stores within a five-minute drive of this location.
We also ask that you keep faith with the assurances given to us when the
Comprehensive Guide Plan was established. At that time, we were told that a
buffer zone would be between our family residential area and the office/commer-
cial development East of new Shady Oak Road. Now we are seeing and hearing not
'Dimly the construction of buildings within a few feet of Shady Oak Road but a
'dramatic increase in traffic as well. The buffer, zone is rapidly eluding us,
and we ask you to help preserve what is left of it.
We are also dismayed at the plan for the Ruzic property, across the road
the other direction from our house, which would permit medium-density housing in
a low-density area, and thus contrary to the Guide Plan.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan gave all of us some idea of what to expect and
how to plan our affairs for many years to come. It seems to be under constant
attack by outside developers who seek to make big bucks and fast bucks at the
expense of those of us who seek to enjoy our homes and the serenity of our
neighborhood. If their smooth-talking public relations persons can continue to
persuade our city officials to make unlimited changes, there will soon be no-
thing left of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
We ask that you leave the Guide Plan intact and deny Landmark Northwest's
request for service uses in this area.
Sincerely, a,,e-eee-A
Wayn6 A. Kinion
1g1
(
Honeywell
June 28, 1984
Mr. Michael D. Franzen
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Rd.
Eden Prairie, MI 55344
Re: Landmark Northwest
Dear Mr. Franzen:
The following comments are submitted on behalf of Honeywell Inc.
as owner of property adjacent to the subject's proposed City
West Retail Center.
It is our belief that some reasonable support services as dis-
cussed by the proponents at the June 18, 1984 Planning Commission
hearing would be in order for the City West office users. We,
accordingly, would not oppose the various amendments and changes
of zoning being requested.
We do feel, however, that as a condition for approval, the overall
esthetics of the project should be of the highest quality with
landscaping and architectural uniformity for all buildings de-
signed to overcome the image of a strip retail center. A positive
,move would be control of signage for the fast-food restaurant and
service station from pylon type to ground level monument type framed
by appropriate landscaping. A requirement that the service station
have the capability to winter jump-start cars would, in fact, be a
type of service to City West that a service station should provide.
It was pointed out that the station operator has great latitude to
conduct business in a manner different from other Super-American
stations.
Regarding traffic and access, we do not feel qualified to speak on
that matter.
We appreciate the opportunity to forward our thoughts on the pro-
posed development.
Sincerely,
E. S. Hughes
Corporate Real Estate
ESH:es
HONEYWELL INC., HONEYWELL PLAZA. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55400, TELEPHONE 01218705200
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
WW5UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: June 8, 1984
PROJECT: City West Retail Center
APPLICANT: Landmark
FEE OWNER: Anderson Development, Inc.
REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to C-Regional;
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Zoning District Change
from Rural to C-Regional Service for 7.29 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 7.29 acres into 3 commercial lots
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan identi-
fies an office land use for this
site. The Guide Plan depicts sur-
rounding future land uses as office
within City West and Medium Density
Residential to the west across Shady
Oak Road. The City West Planned
Unit Development identified an
office use for this site, not to
.2x0ed 120,000 square feet. The
Commission has reviewed several
development requests in City West,
including a 228-room hotel, O'Neill
Office Building, Primetech Park, and
the Ryan Construction project. The
Primetech and Ryan projects are
currently under construction.
The site is located in the extreme
northwest corner of the City West
development, south and east of City
West Parkway, and east of Shady Oak
Road. It is a relatively level site
with no significant massing of
vegetation. The only exception is
an existing 108-inch diameter
cottonwood tree, which the proponent
intends to retain as part of the
overall development plan. There is
existing berming and planting along
City West Retail Center 2 June 8, 1984
Shady Oak Road, which was installed by Anderson Development, Inc. to screen uses
from Shady Oak Road and provide a buffer from adjacent future Medium Density
Residential land uses.
The proponent intends to construct a retail center of 56,400 square feet, to include
a two-story, 24,000 square foot health club, 27,000 square feet of retail space in
three separate buildings, a Burger King fast-food restaurant, and a Super-America
service station. The proponent is requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan change from
Office to Commercial. The proponent is also requesting an amendment to the approved
Concept Plan to allow for retail usage, a rezoning from Rural to C-Regional Service
and a preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into 3 lots. The retail buildings and the
health club will be located on one parcel, with the Burger King and Super-America on
two separate, one-acre lots.
Staff initially met with the proponent in early April to discuss the appropriateness
of a commmercial retail center in an office park and site design criteria to be
considered as a guideline for development. Staff suggested that the amount of
commercial retail development should be appropriate in scale and include uses which
provide goods and services for the businesses and employees of the City West Office
Park, such as restaurants, health club, office supply stores, and barber/beauty
shops. Staff also suggested that the development plans take into consideration the
following:
1. The site plan should take full advantage of views across the ponding area to
the east of the property.
2. All buildings on site should be unified through common architecture and
building materials.
3. Provide an internal circulation system which minimized traffic conflicts.
-
4. Provide a landscape plan which screened parking areas from public roads and
provided for common plant materials to visually tie related uses together.
The landscape plan should also modify the existing berm and plant materials
along Shady Oak Road.
5. There should be an internal pedestrian circulation system to link uses on
site, and connect to the proposed walkway system around the ponding areas as
identified in the City West Planned Unit Development.
6. There should be a cross-access between this site and development sites to
the east and south.
7. There should be an overall signage and lighting program.
Architecture
The proponent has submitted exterior elevations for the retail buildings, fast-food
restaurant, and Super-American gas station. Primary building materials are
different for each type of use. Retail buildings are proposed to be constructued
primarily of decorative block, glass, and metal panel. The Burger King Restaurant
will be constructed primarily of facebrick and wood. The Super-America gas station
will he constructed primarily of brick, glass and metal panelling. Staff recommends
that the architecture be coordinated using similar roof lines, facade treatments,
City West Retail Center 3 June 8, 1984
and building materials. Primary building materials should be of mason-laid
facebrick and glass.
When viewed from Shady Oak Road, the retail buildings will appear as a long, one-
story mass. Though front building elevations indicate subtle projections in
building elevations, which attempt to break up the overall length, the building
could benefit from additional two-story elements.
Landscaping
A landscape plan has been prepared depicting the type, size and arrangement of
proposed plant materials. While the amount and size of materials are generous, the
berm and plantings along Shady Oak Road have not been modified to be consistent with
the materials proposed for the retail center. The existing berm is stock piled
dirt, not seeded, with a considerable amount of damaged or dead plant materials.
Anderson Development, Inc. constructed this berm as a condition of a developer's
agreement. Staff suggests that Landmark and Anderson Development, Inc. work in a
collaborative effort to provide for common landscape planning.
Site Plan
A total of 56,000 square feet of building area is proposed, which includes a 24,000
square foot health club, 27,000 of retail space, a Burger King Restuarant, and a
Super-America gas station. The primary building orientation is towards Shady Oak
Road. The long and linear store frontage and extensive wall signage program is
characteristic of a strip commercial area. •
The overall floor area ratio is .18. The floor area ratio on a lot-by-lot basis is
0.7 for Lot 1, 0.07 for Lot 2, and 0.22 for Lot 3. The site plan meets minimum
front, rear, and side yard setback requirements for building on all lots. Interior
Iot:line setback variances for parking will be necessary between Lots 2 and 3.
Staff has concern with the overall appearance of this site as viewed from Shady Oak
Road. Since this is one of the prime entrances into the City West Development, the
site should have a high quality office and business image. A gas station and a
fast-food restaurant may not be appropriate, even if building materials and
elevations are unified in an overall scheme with the balance of retail buildings on
site. Fast-food restaurants and gas stations are sometimes located within the
retail buildings. Staff has observed this situation occuring in the Ridgehaven Mall
in Minnetonka, where the Hardee's Restaurant leases out the space within a retail
building, and the Super-America station in the Eden Prairie Care Care Center.
Traffic Impacts
The proponent has submitted a preliminary traffic analysis for the City West Retail
Center, which indicates that a total of 7,400 daily trips would be generated from
this development. It should be noted that this traffic analysis includes the parcel
to the east of this site involving 16,300 square feet of office (CRC proposal)
because that development would be sharing a common access onto City West Parkway.
The City West Planned Unit Development identified approximately 120,000 square feet
of office space for this area. Based upon standard trip generation rates at 12.3
spaces per 1,000 square feet of office area, a total of 1,480 trips was expected.
The City West Retail Center will generate approximately 6,000 additional trips per
\/_?,
City West Retail Center 4 June 8, 1984
day more than the original proposal. The original City West Planned Unit
Development was expected to generate a total of 13,000 trips per day. The study
does, however, indicate that the commercial trips would be spread out throughout the
day. Nevertheless, there will be a significant increase in P.M. peak hour of about
400 trips over the original office uses planned for this site. The study indicates
that the increase in P.M. peak hour trips will increase the overall amount of
traffic exiting onto City West Parkway of about 7%.
The study also indicates that the additional P.M. peak hour entering trips to this
site may require the double left turn lane from the north on Shady Oak Road at the
northern entrance of this site. This suggests that the development will be
attracting a considerable amount of through traffic into this site.
Access
There are three access points proposed to this site--a northerly two-way driveway
access utilizing the existing median cut in the City West Parkway, a right-in only
to the Super-America off City West Parkway, and right-in/right-out proposed along
Shady Oak Road. The one-way driveway access to the Super-America site and right-
in/right-out access off of Shady Oak Road were not planned in the City West
Development.
The purpose of the City West Parkway was to provide internal access to each site
with primary access points to Shady Oak Road at two locations. Since the purpose of
the retail center is to serve the tenants of the City West Development, Staff
questions whether the driveway entrance off Shady Oak Road is necessary since right
and left turn movements can be accommodated at the intersection of Shady Oak Road
and City West Parkway. The right-in entrance to the Super-America site is
unnecessary since primary site access is only 100 feet further to the east. In
addition, due to berming and plantings along City West Parkway, this entrance will
be difficult to see and may cause a vehicle to brake suddenly to negotiate a turn.
This will cause problems for following accelerating vehicles.
Internal Circulation
Internal circulation has been improved from an earlier submittal. The Burger King
and Super-America site are sharing a common driveway. Though this concept has been
used successfully in other developments, there will be a problem with traffic
circulation because of the orientation of the pumps on the Super-America site. A
vehicle parked at the southern-most pump can extend into the common driveway and can
potentially restrict a free-flowing movement into the Burger King site.
The main circulation route in front of the retail buildings should be unobstructed.
Perpendicular parking in front of the building can create traffic problems since
this driveway will be the most heavily utilized access into and out of the site.
Staff would recommend that the parking stalls be removed from this location.
The proponent is providing cross-access to sites to the south and east of the
property. The location of the access to the eastern site is too close to the
Intersection and may be a traffic movement problem when trying to negotiate two
turns within a short distance.
A
City West Retail Center 5 June 8, 1984
Parking
For a mixed use commercial development, Code would require the provision of parking
spaces at a ratio of eight spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for
retail uses, one parking space for every three seats in the restaurant, and ten
spaces for the gasoline station. City regulations do not identify parking
requirements for health clubs. A total of 370 parking spaces are provided on site.
244 spaces are needed for the gas station, Burger King, and retail space. 126
parking spaces would remain for the health club at a ratio of 5.26 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Staff feels that total site parking is
adequate.
The southern most parking area is a large expanse of hard surface area. Though
planting islands are proposed within this area, Staff feels they should be increased
in size, and planted with larger shade trees in the 4- to 6-inch caliper range.
Grading
A minimal amount of site grading is proposed since the site has been previously
graded and filled as part of the City West development. Storm water run-off will
sheet drain across parking areas into catch basins, which will connect to an
underground storm sewer system.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be extended to this site by connection to existing sewer
and water lines in City West Parkway.
Signage
Building elevations indicate an extensive use of exterior wall signs. In addition,
there are identification signs proposed at both entrances to the site. Staff feels
that one identification sign on City West Parkway would be appropriate.
Since the retail center is intended primarily to serve the employees and businesses
of the City West Office Park, Staff questions the necessity •for a large and
extensive exterior signage program. The exterior signage program appears to be
intended to attract through-traffic along Shady Oak Road.
Pedestrian Circulation
Though the proponent intends to connect to a planned walkway system along the
ponding area, but no specific access points have been identified. Staff feels that
this system connection is necessary in order to provide for pedestrian access to the
offices throughout City West.
Conclusions
The extensive wall signage program, increase in average daily traffic flow, double
left-turn lanes on Shady Oak Road, and proposed right-in entrance off Shady Oak Road
suggests that this development will be relying upon through-traffic for a
considerable portion of potential customers. This suggests that the retail center
may be providing more retail space than is necessary to serve the tenants of the
office park. Commission should decide based on the extent of issues identified in
City West Retail Center 6 June 8, 1984
the Staff Report including image, architecture, building materials, building
orientation, landscaping, access, and circulation, if the development is appropriate
in scale, and if a substantial argument has been made for changing the Comprehensive
Guide Plan from Office to Commercial.
Although, in theory, a limited amount of retail space with uses intended to serve
primarily the employees and businesses of the City West development would be
acceptable in terms of a compatible land use, the extent of unresolved issues would
suggest that an appropriate office retail land use relationship may be physically
difficult to achieve on this site. Perhaps with further consideration of site
development guidelines previously identified in this report, an acceptable
commercial/office land use relationship may be possible.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend either of the following alternatives for consideration by the
Planning Commission:
1. The Commission could recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Office to Commercial, zoning from Rural to C-Regional
Service, and a Preliminary Plat, subject to the recommended plan amendments
Identified in the Staff Report; or,
2. The Commission could return the development plans for revisions based upon
recommended plan amendments identified in the Staff Report; or,
3. The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request for Guide Plan
Change from Office to Commercial, zoning from Rural to Commercial Regional
Service, and Preliminary Plat based on issues and problems identified in the
Staff Report.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 10, 1984
PROJECT: City West Retail Center
APPLICANT: Landmark, Winnipeg, Canada
OWNER: Anderson Development, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Commercial.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.29 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Low Density Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial.
4. Preliminary Plat of 7.29 acres into three lots.
Background
This is a continued item from July
23, 1984. At that meeting, the
_proponents made a presentation to
the Planning Commission to sub-
stantiate a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change. The Commission requested
the proponent to further define the
site plan, landscape plan, and arch-
itectural elevations of the build-
ing. Planning Staff was instructed
to have the proponents traffic study
reviewed by the City's Consultant
Engineers, for the upcoming meeting.
Staff was also requested to review
sites within one mile of the City
West Development and to determine
whether any other suitable sites
existed within this vicinity for the
use. Attachment A shows the area
within one half mile and within one
mile of the City West area. Staff
has concluded that there are no
other suitable sites for this use
within a one-mile radius of City
West. I •s'.''" 11,
,t4. AREA LOCATION MAP
City West Retail Center 2 August 10, 1984
Site Plan
The proponent has made some major changes in the site plan. The total square
footage has been reduced from 56,400 to 50,830 square feet. There have been some
changes in the percentages of certain types of usage. The health club has been
reduced from approximately 24,000 to 20,000 square feet. A daycare center of
approximately 3,200 square feet has been added. A sit-down restaurant has been
increased in size from approximately 6,000 to 9,500 square feet. Remaining retail
space has been reduced from approximately 21,000 square feet to 14,476 square feet.
Square footage for the Burger King restaurant and the Super America gas station has
remained the same.
There have been some changes in building orientation and locations on site. Instead
of three long and linear buildings, located on the extreme eastern edge of the site,
there are now four smaller buildings with open space between them to allow for views
Into the ponding areas. This also makes the appearance of the project much smaller
in scale. The fast-food restaurant has been relocated from the center portion of
the site to the southern portion and connected to the health club by a canopy to
give it an identity as part of one of the main retail buildings.
The birdseye perspective illustrates how the site plan has been modified to take
advantage of views across the pond by beginning to develop conceptually, plans for
use of the outdoor spaces between the buildings and between buildings and the
ponding area. The sit-down restaurant and fast-food restaurant will have outdoor
seating areas. The east elevation of the sit-down restaurant shows a glass front
which would allow view of the ponding area. Where service doors and blank walls
face the back of the building, additional landscaping is proposed to soften that
exterior. The proponent should develop more detail for these areas. This should
be done at a larger scale and should identify materials proposed for decking, paving
- patterns, and foundation plantings to supplement the mass planting plan.
Traffic
The City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed traffic projections updated by the
proponents Engineer and concur with the findings included in a memo from Strgar-
Roscoe dated August 10, 1984. The conclusion is that the change to retail
commercial will not change any anticipated level of service for any of the Shady Oak
Road intersections. Further, if Honeywell, to the north, develops at the same
intensity as City West, no intersection will exceed level of service "D" in the most
critical peak hour. The inclusion of retail as a part of this office park area will
actually decrease the a.m. peak hour trips by 187 trips.
Access and Internal Circulation
The proposed access off of City West Parkway has been shifted approximately 50 feet
to the east to allow for greater space separation between Shady Oak Road and this
entrance. The right-in/right-out access on Shady Oak Road has been relocated from
the center of the project to the southern/western corner of the site as a shared
access with the second phase of the Ryan project. The right-in access to the Super
America station is still proposed. This was originally proposed to alleviate
traffic pressure at the main access into the center where there were anticipated
traffic problems due to a number of driveway entrances into the retail center and
the site to the east. However, since those problems have been solved through a
City West Retail Center 3 August 10, 1984
different internal circulation pattern, and a median which restricts left turn
movements into the site to the east, Staff feels that the right turn entrance into
the Super America station is unnecessary at its own separate location. The right-in
can be incorporated as a free right turn lane as a part of the intersection with
City West Parkway. The free right turn lane should be carried as an additional lane
to the internal circulation road up the service station's western entrance. (See
Attachment fl)
The main circulation route has been relocated from in front of the buildings to the
western edge of the site. This allows vehicles to come further into the site before
having to make a decision for a turning movement. A protected lane is provided in
front of the buildings with the exception of ten parking spaces in front of retail
building "A". Staff would recommend that these ten parking spaces be eliminated and
converted into an outdoor plaza space to be consistent with the traffic and
pedestrian circulation patterns developed in areas in front of the other buildings.
Staff expects that there will be traffic conflicts at the intersection of Super
America entrance and the proposed two way driveway movement into the major shopping
center parking area. Staff would recommend that the driveway entrance into the
shopping center parking, opposite the service station entrance, be eliminated and
converted into green space and parking.
The proposed day care building does not meet the minimum rear yard setback
requirement for ten feet. Staff feels there is adequate room on site to modify the
building footprint such that a variance would not be necessary.
Architecture
The buildings have been changed in form and exterior treatment. Instead of three
long and linear buildings adjacent to the ponding area, there are now four smaller
buildings. The buildings now take on more of a residential character with steep
rooflines. The primary building materials will be mason-laid face brick, glass and
metal panel. However we do not know the specific colors. The proponent should
indentify color choices and submit samples of the building materials for review.
The site plan indicates that there are three Kiosks proposed. The proponent should
provide details of the Kiosks for review.
The site plan shows a trash area on the north side of the retail building "A".
Staff would recommend the trash area be enclosed as part of the building.
Parking
The proponent is providing a total of 312 parking spaces at a ratio of approximately
six spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Current City parking
requirements for a mixed use facility of this size would require parking at a ratio
of eight spaces per 1,000 for retail shops, one space for three seats for restaurant
facilities and ten spaces for a service station. The current City Code does not
Identify parking requirements for day care centers or health clubs. The proponent
has provided parking for the day care center at a ratio of eight spaces per 1,000
and for the health club at a ratio of three spaces per 1,000. Staff feels that the
parking provisions for these facilities will be adequate. Based on these parking
asumptions, Code requirements for the balance of uses on site, would be 288.
City West Retail Center 4 August 10, 1984
The proponent has indicated that based upon their parking studies t
h
a
t
5
.
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
per 1,000 square feet of retail space would be adequate for a mi
x
e
d
r
e
t
a
i
l
u
s
e
development of this type. 5.5 spaces per 1,000, approximately 83
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
a
l
l
s
would be needed, or 35 parking spaces less than if figured at eight p
e
r
1
,
0
0
0
.
Eliminating the first driveway entrance into the main parking a
r
e
a
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
provide an additional five parking spaces on site. In addition, t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
i
s
providing 24 more parking spaces than the Code would require. Th
u
s
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
total surplus of 64 parking spaces. Since the parking lot is a ver
y
l
a
r
g
e
a
r
e
a
o
f
asphalt, the excess parking spaces could be converted into plan
t
i
n
g
i
s
l
a
n
d
s
t
o
provide green areas to break up the parking mass and could also s
e
r
v
e
a
s
p
r
o
o
f
o
f
parking areas. Surplus parking spaces could also be used to incr
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
zone necessary between the retail center and the proposed residen
t
i
a
l
m
e
d
i
u
m
l
a
n
d
uses to the west of this site. Staff would recommend that this prop
o
s
e
d
b
u
f
f
e
r
z
o
n
e
be increased to a minimum of 35 feet. This should allow adequate r
o
o
m
t
o
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a berm at least five feet high.
Parking provided for the gas station is eight spaces in excess of
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
o
d
e
would require. Staff would recommend that this be converted into g
r
e
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
b
e
designated as proof of parking area.
Landscaping
The proponent has submitted a landscape plan which identifies the t
y
p
e
,
s
i
z
e
,
a
n
d
quantity of plant materials envisioned for this project. The type and
s
i
z
e
o
f
p
l
a
n
t
materials is acceptable. There is a mixture of caliper sizes and
t
r
e
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
s
ranging between 2-1/2 to 4-inch caliper for shade trees and between
6
a
n
d
1
2
f
e
e
t
for the proposed coniferous trees. The proposed buffer zone along
S
h
a
d
y
O
a
k
R
o
a
d
should be increased from 15 and 25 feet to a minimum of 35 feet. Th
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
l
o
w
for a berm of at least five feet in height. Additional planting isl
a
n
d
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
introduced into the parking areas to break up the overall space.
The landscape plan should also provide details of proposed founda
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
around the retail buildings and the outdoor spaces between the bui
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
f
o
r
those areas adjacent to the pond.
The proponent has indicated to Staff that the trail and landscaping
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
ponding area will be constructed with the buildings.
The proposed planting island in front of the gas pumps for the Super
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
should be increased in width to a minimum of 10 feet and sup
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
additional plantings to provide for a more effective screen.
Signage
The proponent has done some additional work and refinement on the
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Conceptually, there will be an extensive wall signage program. Staf
f
f
e
e
l
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
proposed location for the wall signs are an architectural element
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
The signs proposed for the Burger King and Super America station s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
In a similar fashion. The roof sign of the Burger King should be r
e
m
o
v
e
d
.
A pylon sign is proposed along Shady Oak Road. The proponent shoul
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
of this sign for review.
. City West Retail Center 5 August 10, 1984
The proponent should develop an overall signage program with details and submit
f
o
r
Staff review.
Lighting
The proponent should develop and submit an overall lighting program for review
w
i
t
h
specific lighting details.
Conclusions
If the Commission feels that the proponent has substantiated a comprehensive g
u
i
d
e
plan change, Staff would recommend approval be subject to the following:
1. Relocate the right-in access off of City West Parkway to the Super America
station, to be a free right-turn lane as part of the intersection with City
West Parkway.
2. . Remove the first access into the major parking area.
3. Remove parking in front of building "A" and convert into a plaza area.
4. Provide additional planting islands within the parking area.
5. Provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer zone along the western border of this
site. Proposed berm height should be a minimum of five feet.
6. Convert the excess parking spaces provided (64) into green space to be used
as proof of parking areas.
;7. Provide samples of proposed building materials for review. Indicate
proposed color spectrum for glass, brick, and metal paneling.
8. Provide site planning details of proposed outdoor spaces which includes the
plaza areas in front, in between, and facing the ponding areas for review.
Details should include materials proposed for paving patterns, decking, and
foundation plantings.
9. Provide an overall signage plan with details for review. The roof sign for
the proposed Burger King should be removed and relocated on the wall of the
building in a similar manner to other proposed wall signs. The proposed
signage program should develop a consistent size and lettering program.
10. Provide an overall lighting plan with details for review.
11. Obtain a variance from the Board of Appeals for the total number of parking
spaces provided.
• 12.
All buildings must meet the minimum ten-foot rear yard setback requirement
for commercial zoning.
• 13. Increase the proposed planting island in front of the gas pumps to 10 feet.
14. Convert eight parking spaces on the gas station stie to proof of parking and
utilize this additional space for green area.
tqc:^
City West Retail Center
6 August 10, 1984
15. Building materials shall consist of mason-laid face brick, metal paneling,
and glass for all buildings on site.
16. All rooftop mechanical elements should be screened from public view.
Proponent should provide details of proposed screening for review.
17. Cash Park Fee would be paid at time of building permit issuance.
18. Notify City and Watershed at least 48 hours in advance of grading.
19. Obtain access permits from Hennepin County.
20. Coordinate southern access with Ryan Development.
1 7.:;--
tlaW11-1. stes 4-cne
use Ja-kin ,,A
pv‘ile O LaIndmayrk/Cii -ki
"'"I I Wesi
.,,,JtvE., •
roIc gioto
-rugo .
198.67
• woramel. raws•N•0•0014,..
• RETAIL'
4,920 SF ,
I/RE410/V. *
• •
///;,,
,50Ae.cc./.41i
CAS '
,STA.
3,348 SF
ArThnitlEr-
'S," • 707//1 Iwo LANE/1
NM Tit 19 \
C. LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Comprehen-
sive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Commercial; Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment; Zoning District Change from Rural to
Neighborhood Commercial (with variances for the Board of Appeals),
and Preliminary Plat of 7.29 acres for service uses (retail, 200-
seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and gas
station/convenience store). Location: Southeast corner of Shady
Oak Road and City West Parkway. A continued public hearing.
Mr. John Uban, representing proponent, reviewed the requested Guide Plan
change. Mr. Paul Dahlberg, architect for proponent, reviewed the revised
elevations and site perspectives for the project. He pointed out that the
rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened with a parapet wall.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 13, 1984
Mr. Dahlberg stated that signage would be all of a similar type along one
signage band across the top of the building with thirty-inch high lettering.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report evaluating the revised request.
Torjesen asked about the requested variance from the required number of
parking spaces within such a shopping area. Staff responded that, based on
other shopping areas within the community, 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of
gross floor area was an adequate amount of parking for the development.
Proponents were showing 35 spaces beyond this ratio.
Marhula asked about access to City West Parkway at the northeast corner of
the site. Staff responded that there would be a curb cut and median cut in
this location for this property and the property to the north of City West
Parkway in the future.
Torjesen stated that he felt the proposed change to the Comprehensive Guide
Plan was still the major issue. He stated that the letter received by the
Planning Commission from the Uherkas, property owners to the west, stated
opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change. He stated that
he felt the question before the Commission should be whether this project
was good for this neighborhood and the overall community, not whether it was
good for City West by itself, as any use in this area would have an impact
on the surrounding properties. Torjesen stated that he felt the
Comprehensive Guide Plan was a document which should only be changed with
good reason, not something which should be changed easily, or without
adequate support and consideration for the impact upon the surrounding
properties.
Chairman Dearman stated that he felt the Comprehensive Guide Plan could be
changed, if there were a compelling reason to do so. He asked proponents if
they had discussed the design framework with their potential users. Ms.
Beverly Ahern, representing Landmark, stated that this had been discussed
with them and that future tenants would be agreeing to maintain a cohesive
design framework throughout the development. She added that this would be
part of their contract with the future tenants.
Ms. Ahern stated that the Burger King would be a new style of store, which
would be tried at this site, aimed at the office lunch crowd. Its design
fit well within the framework proposed by the Landmark proposal.
Chairman Dearman asked if there would be an association which would control
maintenance and upkeep for the property. Mr. Richard Martin, Winfield
Development, future owners of the project, stated that these controls would
be exercised by his firm as owners.
Chairman Dearman asked if the hours of the various tenants were known. Mr.
Martin responded that the hours of operation were not known at this time.
Mr. Stan Hughes, Honeywell, owners of the site to the north, stated that
Honeywell was generally in support of the proposal. He suggested that the
gas service station on the site be more of a full-service station, rather
than a residential type station. He pointed out that there would be need
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 13, 1984
for car-starting in an office area such as this. Mr. Hughes stated that he
was concerned about the location of the access drive and the future median
cut. He stated that it was not known to them that this median cut had been
established as to location and asked that his firm be included in any future
discussions on this matter.
Mr. Uban stated that he would contact Honeywell directly to coordinate as to
the access and median cut to the satisfaction of all property owners.
Hallett asked that Staff, also, include Honeywell in any future discussion
of access in this area. Staff stated that they would.
Hallett asked if the future operator of the service station had considered a
full-service operation. Ms. Ahern stated that he had, but that no final
decision had been made at this time.
Torjesen asked what would happen to the large cottonwood tree on the site.
Mr. Uban responded that they had had the tree inspected and found that it
was not a healthy tree at this time. He stated that any efforts to save the
tree would likely be fruitless in that the tree's life expectancy was only a
few years at this time.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change and
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment from Office to Neighborhood
Commercial for Landmark Northwest for 7.29 acres, based in revised plans
dated August 7, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports
dated June 8, and August 10, 1984, and to add the following conditions: 21)
Developer shall prepare a design framework manual for the property to be
part of the overall approval and developer's agreement for the property; 22)
Honeywell, property owner to the north, be included in any and all future
discussions and decisions regarding the access and median cut in City West
Parkway; 23) The City forester be asked to review the condition of the
cottonwood tree on the site and report back to Planning Staff as to its
condition.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Zoning District change from Rural to
Neighborhood Commercial (with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals) for 7.29 acres for Landmark Northwest for service uses, based on
revised plans dated August 7, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the
Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 13, 1984
Staff Reports dated June 8, and August 10, 1984, and to add following
conditions: 21) Developer shall prepare a design framework manual for the
property to be part of the overall approval and developer's agreement for
the property; 22) Honeywell, property owner to the north, be included in any
and all future discussions and decisions regarding the access and median cut
In City West Parkway; 23) The City forester be asked to review the condition
of the cottonwood tree on the site and report back to Planning Staff as to
Its condition.
Motion carried-5-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of 7.29 acres into one
lot for Landmark Northwest for service uses, based on revised plans dated
August 7, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
June 8, and August 10, 1984, and to add the following conditions: 21)
Developer shall prepare a design framework manual for the property to be
part of the overall approval and developer's agreement for the property; 22)
Honeywell, property owner to the north, be included in any and all future
discussions and decisions regarding the access and median cut in City West
Parkway; 23) The City forester be asked to review the condition of the
cottonwood tree on the site and report back to Planning Staff as to its
condition.
Motion carried--5 -0-0
1°0-6
u. • —LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Compre-
WITifve Guide Plan Amendment from Office to C-Regional; Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment; Zoning District Change from Rural to
C-Regional Service (with variances for the Board of Appeals) for
7.29 acres for service uses (retail, 200-seat restaurant, health
club, fast food restaurant, and gas station/convenience store).
Location: Southeast corner of Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway.
A continued public hearing.
The hearing for this item was continued from the June 18, and July 9, 1984,
Planning Commission meetings to this meeting. The continuations were to
allow proponent time to prepare additional information required for
evaluation of the project by the Commission and Staff, as well as to make
n C '2,1
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 23, 1984
revisions in architecture, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and
general consistency and coordination with the other approved uses within the
City West Planned Unit Development. Of key importance was substantiation of
the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change for the property.
Planner Enger stated that upon initial review of the traffic information,
there were inconsistencies found which needed to be rectified. He stated
that Staff would require additional time to review these conclusions with
the City's consulting traffic engineer before making recommendations on the
land use change.
Staff added that the following information had still not been prepared by
the proponents and would be required for Staff to make a detailed review of
the project: detailed architectural development of the building elevations,
a landscape plan for the entire site with details for the plaza area as it
related to the building and ponding areas, and lighting and signage plans
which included complete overall signage and lighting details for the entire
development.
Mr. John Uban, Howard Dahlgren and Associates, representing proponents,
reviewed their substantiation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from
Office to Corrinercial to allow the proposed usage of the shopping area. He
reviewed the goals of the City's Guide Plan which this project would serve
in this location.
Mr. Paul Dahlberg, Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson, architects for proponents,
reviewed the revised architectural and site plan features for the project.
Torjesen asked what amount of reduction had been made in the project in
terms of square footage. Mr. Uban responded that the project had been
-revised from 56,000 sq. ft. to 49,000 sq. ft., which was approximately 10%.
Torjesen asked what the size of the office area would be which would be
serviced by this commercial development. Mr. Uban responded that there
would be approximately 1,500,000 sq. ft. of office use serviced by this
project.
Torjesen questioned whether it might be more appropriate for the uses
proposed within this project to be located within the lower level of one of
the office buildings, such as had been done in other large office
developments in the vicinity. Torjesen asked if there would be another site
in this area within which these uses could be located. Mr. Uban reviewed
several other vacant sites in the area, stating the reasons why these sites
had been eliminated from consideration.
Torjesen asked Staff whether this use could have been located within the
commercial area at the south end of the City West Planned Unit Development.
Staff responded that this area had been guided for Regional Commercial usage
and had projects approved for the area which fit the Regional Commercial
designation, such as the hotel and an office building. The uses proposed by
Landmark would be more of a service nature.
Torjesen expressed concern for the amount of change taking place in the City
West Planned Unit Development area. He stated that he felt the residents of
the area had counted on the City maintaining a particular posture regarding
O
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 23, 1984
the uses approved at the initial public hearings on the City West
development. However, many of the uses which had been approved originally
were being changed based on a buyer's interest as opposed to sound planning
reasons. He stated that he felt the residents looked upon the Guide Plan
with a sense of security as to what would be developed in the area and that
he could understand why some of the residents would feel that the City had
let them down by allowing changes in the approved Guide Plan uses for the
City West area.
Chairman Bearman stated that his primary concern with the project was
traffic as it related to circulation and volume based on the proposed usage
of the property.
Johannes stated that he felt there was a need for these uses in this
vicinity. He added that he, too, was concerned about traffic, but that he
had no objection to the overall concept proposed by proponents.
Torjesen asked how and why the traffic study had changed from the previous
review of the project. Mr. Uban responded that changes had been made to
reflect the actual uses approved within the City West development and the
actual users known for the Landmark site, as opposed to use of general
categories. The information with respect to Shady Oak Road and the
Crosstown Freeway had not changed.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt much traffic would be drawn to the
service station as there was not another service station within several
miles of the site.
Mr. Charles Mills, a future tenant of the Primetech area within City West to
the south, stated that he felt the proposed uses were necessary for this
area. He pointed out that he currently was a tenant of another development
-within Eden Prairie, but that services for his business were all outside of
the City limits. For example, he stated that he must travel to Edina for
office supplies, Hopkins or Bloomington for lunch with clients, etc. He
stated that it would save him a great deal of time to have these services
located so close to his future business location. Mr. Mills added that, in
his opinion, more traffic would be created if these uses were not provided
within City West as it would require businesses like his to travel outside
of the City more to obtain necessary services.
Mrs. Wayne Kinion, 6401 Shady Oak Road, had several questions about the
Landmark development and the overall City West Planned Unit Development.
These included; 1) why there had been a change from high density
residential to commercial for this site; 2) how a buffer could be
incorporated between her rural property and the commercial development of
the proponents; 3) why additional restaurants would be needed when the hotel
within City West would likely have more than one restaurant; 4) why the
additional services proposed would be necessary when Eden Prairie Center,
which, in her opinion, was underutilized, was only three miles away and had
these uses. She also questioned what use would be allowed on her property
in the future.
Mr. Uban responded to the question regarding restaurants stating that
typically restaurants in hotels had been found to service their patrons,
\
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 23, 1984
only, and some weekend customers, but generally not the surrounding office
uses. He responded to the question regarding the fact that many of the
proposed uses existed within the Eden Prairie Center by stating that the
center was three miles away. Ten uses such as this were proposed within the
City's Comprehensive Plan to be located in various places in the City.
Chairman Bearman responded regarding the proposal change from High Density
Residential to Commercial for the site. He stated that the Commission had
not yet approved any change in the Comprehensive Plan, but that developers
could propose anything to the City, with justification. The Commission,
Council, and, of course, surrounding residents, would have an opportunity to
review the project as proposed.
Chairman Bearman explained to Mrs. Kinion that her property was guided as
Medium Density Residential, which was the use shown on the Comprehensive
Guide Plan for her property.
Mr. Uban added that there would be approximately 5,000 employees within the
1,500,000 sq. ft. of office space to be developed in this area, all of which
would be needing restaurant facilities. He pointed out that the restaurants
were different types including a sandwich shop, a fast-food restaurant, and
a "white table cloth" restaurant.
Torjesen stated that he felt the question of transition between the rural
use of the Kinion home and the proposed commercial development was a valid
one, which should be addressed.
Mr. Ken Beirsdorf, representing Len and Betty Uherka, 6301 Shady Oak Road,
asked about the impact of this use on the Uherka property. He stated that
he felt the use could possibly be located on the Uherka property, if it
proved to be inappropriate for the City West area. Mr. Uban stated that it
, would be more of an inconvenience for the employees of the City West area to
be crossing Shady Oak Road for the services to be provided in the project,
and would likely be more of a traffic problem s as well, if located there.
Marhula stated that he had no general problems with the development as
proposed. He stated that he was concerned that this area was part of a
Planned Unit Development which seemed to be changing with each final
proposal. He pointed out that he was unsure whether any of the plans
approved for the site had been based upon the original Planned Unit
Development approved for the property.
Gartner stated that she felt the services proposed were needed in this area.
Johannes agreed.
Chairman Bearman stated that he was still concerned with the traffic for
this project. He asked that Staff review other sites within the area which
might fit this use, and report back to the Commission as to any
possibilities.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to continue the public
hearing on this item to the August 13, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to
01)-1-
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 23, 1984
allow proponent adequate time to submit additional materials to Staff for
detailed review of the development.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 9, 1984
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LANDMARK WEST. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendme
n
t
f
r
o
m
i
Office to C-Regional; Planned Unit Development. Concept Amendm
e
n
t
;
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service (
w
i
t
h
variances for the Board of Appeals) for 7.29 acres for servi
c
e
u
s
e
s
(retail, 200-seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant
,
a
n
d
gas station/convenience store). Location: Southeast corne
r
o
f
Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway. A continued public hearing.
Proponents had asked for postponement of this item to the
J
u
l
y
2
3
,
1
9
8
4
,
Planning Commission meeting to allow more time for the neces
s
a
r
y
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
in the plans.
MOTION:
Notion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to postpone consideration of
this item to the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
-
4.
August 30, 1984
The Honorable Mayor and Council MeMbers:
REGARDING: REZONING REQUEST OF LANDMARK NORTHWEST FROM OFFICE
TO COMMERCIAL
At the Planning Camnission Meeting, the proponents planning represen-
tative has stated on two previous occasions that there is no other
land in the immediate area suitable for commercial development.
After many lengthy meetings, City West was given zoning for a
well conceived, planned development. Now changes are being re-
quested to comprardse that plan.
There are other pieces of property in the immediate area that are
being affected by development. The Uherka property will be in-
fluenced by the Crosstown Extension, cutting off its access and tak-
ing of a portion of its land to the West. Utilities are going to be
extended through the Uherka property to serve the Carrel project. A
road is going to be put through the Uherka property. Its location
was not dictated by the best location for future developmnt of our
property but because it would line up with the City West Parkway.
We again say that the Uherka property is not best suited for
residential use. There are natural buffers to the west and future
surcharge road to the south.
Cur relatively large piece of property must be given consideration
in the "total plan" for this area and we think this has not yet been
accomplished. This is the time before you act on the landmark North-
west development rezoning request to carefully study alternatives
and possible uses of all the surrounding land.
Re pectfully submitted:
7
VjgA-14fr/
LEONARD UHERKA Borrt UHERKA
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #84432
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION,
FOR THE BLUFFS COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluffs West 3rd Addition, for the Bluffs Company,
dated June 25, 1984, consisting of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots, a copy of
which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions
of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is
herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the
, 1984.
day of
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
"
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City C-14,7*
TO: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Bluffs West Area/Drainage
DATE: August 8, 1984
Recently, a number of questions have arisen regarding the finalization of
drainage in the Bluffs West area in the vicinity of Homeward Hills Road and
Riverview Road. At its meeting on August 7, 1984, the City Council requested
that a study be made of the storm sewer system in the area and that this
Information be available for Council consideration prior to the second reading
of the Bluffs West 4th Addition.
I have asked the consultant for the proponent to begin to outline the drainage
system in the Bluffs West area and to prepare for a meeting with me to discuss
the potential solutions. At this writing, I would venture to say that the
solution will have to consist of a storm sewer pipe to the fringe of the
Minnesota River. The routing and number of pipes and sizing is the potential
'subject of discussion.
I would suggest that the Bluffs West 5th Addition could be handled in a
similar fashion to the 4th Addition in that, no final approval from City Council
would be forthcoming until the solution is agreed upon and available to the
Council for consideration.
Therefore, if the developer wishes to proceed without knowing the final costs
- of the ultimate solution, it would seem reasonable to let him do so. Please
Insure that any recommendations forthcoming from the Planning Commission
acknowledges this situation and makes those approvals contingent upon solving
the drainage problems in the area.
EAD:sg
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Servicerat-
July 12, 1984
Community Services Department -Staff Comments Regarding Develop-
ment Proposals Scheduled for July 16, 1984 Meeting
. BLUFFS WEST 3rd ADDITION
Attached, for your..review, is the July 7, 1984 memo from Mike Franzen, Senior Planner,
.regarding the Bluffs West 3rd Addition proposed by the Bluffs Company.
This 20 lot subdivision abuts Purgatory Creek; however, the developer has proposed
dedicating a 4.3 acre outlet between the development and the creek. The 4.3 acre
Aputlot will connect with City owned property to the northeast and northwest of this
property along Purgatory Creek.
The Community Services staff recommend approval of Bluffs West 3rd Addition subject
to the July 7 Planning Staff Report, and in the configuration shown on Attachment A
of that report. •
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
TWUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 10, 1984 )
PROJECT: Bluffs West 3rd Addition
APPLICANT/ The Bluffs Company
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of approximately 14.3 acres into 19 single
family lots.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for
approximately ten acres.
Background
This item was pre'viously reviewed by !
Pl.prrr7 BLUFFS WEST 3
10, 1984 meeting. Commission re- I
turned the development plans to the
proponent for revisions based upon 1
recommendations identified in the
July 7, 1984 Staff Report, in-
cluding: 1). Revising the site
plan-to preserve the natural ravine
in 'the center of the site. 2).
Provide a detailed tree inventory in
order to evaluate the extent of site
impacts caused by road location and
building sites. 3). Revise the
proposed drainage plan to utilize an
existing storm drainage system in
Burr Ridge Lane south and east of
this site.
Site Plan Revisions
The proponent has revised the site
Plan in a manner previously
suggested by Staff in the July 7,
1984 Staff Report. The use of two --
cul-de-sacs has allowed for more of 1
the existing natural features to be
preserved through a larger pre- I AREA LOCATION MAP servation easement area.
nirrzg •
BLUFFS WEST 4th'
"VViTig-fr6:sotl`-4(
BLUFFS WEST 5th"
r d
n
Cl
Bluffs West 3rd 2 August 10, 1984
The extension of Burr Ridge Lane is proposed in a northwesterly direction off of the
existing cul-de-sac, and will not require additional right-of-way to be obtained
from the owner of Lot 8 and will not interfere with the existing sanitary sewer lift
station within the right-of-way.
Lot sizes vary between 13,500 and 38,750 square feet with an overall average lot
size of approximately 21,700 square feet. Lot 16 and 17 do not meet the minimum
street frontage requirement of 55 feet for R1-13.5 zoning. Staff believes that the
lot lines can be adjusted so that this minimum frontage requirement could be met.
Provisions of the Shoreland Management Ordinance will apply for Lots 6, 7, and 8,
since they are located within 150 feet of the normal ordinary high water mark of the
creek. Lots must be a minimum 13,500 square feet, have a minimum width at building
line of 120 feet, a minimum width at the ordinary high water mark of 120 feet, and a
minimum setback from the normal ordinary high water mark of 100 feet. All of these
lots meet these minimum requirements with the exception of Lot 8. Lot 8 is
currently 105 feet in width at the building line. Staff believes that the lot lines
can be adjusted on Lots 6, 7, and 8 because of the large amount of area between
proposed building pads such that this minimum requirement can be met.
Tree Inventory
As previously mentioned in the last Staff Report, Staff thought that any development
within the transitional area will result in some tree loss, but the impacts could
not be determined without the benefit of a detailed tree inventory. The tree
inventory provided by the proponent indicates that there are four major species on
site including oak, elm, ash, and birch. Within grading limits there are
approximately 200 trees of which roughly ten percent are dead. The dominant tree
types are birch (85) and oak (60). The proponent has indicated that of the 200
tote twelve-inch diameter trees, that approximately 50 would be lost due to roadway
construction, approximately 100 lost due to site grading leaving approximately 50
trees which would be saved, if a mass grading plan were implemented. The proponent
has indicated that each lot will be custom graded at that more trees will be
retained. In addition, because of revised grading and a larger preservation
easement area, an additional 40 twelve-inch caliper trees will be saved than if the
original plans were approved. The ravine in the center portion of the site is also
being preserved, and although the tree inventory is not detailed within this area,
Staff would expect that the number of twelve-inch caliper trees preserved in this
area would outweigh the loss due to construction within the proposed grading limits.
Staff believes that the revised development plan submitted by the proponent
preserves more of the existing natural character (topographic and trees) than would
be possible under the previous development plan.
Storm Water Runoff
The previous storm water runoff plan indicated a water runoff flow in a
northwesterly to southeasterly direction along proposed Burr Ridge Lane which would
require the construction of a storm sewer pipe down to Purgatory Creek. It was
suggested by Staff that the proponent should look at ways of directing storm water
runoff to an existing storm sewer system which runs between Lots 8 and 9 south of
the site. This has been accomplished along the extension of Burr Ridge Lane.
However, Phaeton Drive will drain in a northerly direction into a series of catch
.1t1 LIO
Bluffs West 3rd 3 August 10, 1984
basins connected by a twelve-inch storm water pipe to Purgatory Creek in the
northcentral portion of the site. Water cannot flow to the south since invert
elevations of the catch basins at the intersection of Phaeton Drive and Burr Ridge
Lane are at elevation 824 and 825. This would require that invert elevations in the
cul-de-sac of Phaeton Drive would have to be at a minimum elevation of 829. There
would also have to be a minimum three and one half to four feet of soil above the
invert elevation meaning the elevation of the road would have to be a minimum of
832. To accomplish this would require more site grading and tree loss.
A detailed tree inventory and a detailed grading plan will be necessary in order to
evaluate the impacts of the proposed storm sewer pipe construction on the existing
slope and vegetative cover from the proposed grading limits down to Purgatory Creek.
Appropriate erosion control measures should be provided at the storm water pipe
outlet to minimize erosion and siltation deposits into Purgatory Creek.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for preliminary plat of 14.3 acre
s
Into 19 single family lots and a rezoning of ten acres from Rural to R1-13.5 subject
to plans dated July 16, 1984, revised July 16, 1984, and based upon recommendations
of the July 7, 1984 and August 10, 1984, and subject to the following:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify preliminary plat to provid 55-foot minimum street frontages
on Lots 16 and 17.
B. Adjust lot lines of Lots 6, 7, and 8 so lot 8 will be a minimum of
120 feet at setback line.
2, Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, erosion control, sewer, and
water plans for review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Stake the construction limits with a snow fence.
C. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
D. Lots along the creek on slopes will require individual grading and
restoration plans and a bond to assure compliance.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 7, 1984
PROJECT: Bluffs West 3rd Addition
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: The Bluffs Company
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of approximately 14.3 acres into 20 single family
lots and a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for
approximately ten acres.
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan ident-
ifies a Low Density Residential land
use for this site for up to 2.5
units per acre. The Guide Plan also
depicts surrounding future land uses
as Low Density Residential.
This site is located within the
Sunnybrook and Riverview sectors of
the Purgatory Creek Study Area.
That study identified a total area
to be preserved and managed along
Purgatory Creek which is divided
into two parts, a conservancy area
and a transition zone. The con-
servancy area is a flexible line
defined by specific site conditions
which would include topography and
vegetative cover. It is a zone in
which no building is to occur.
Behind the conservancy area is a
transition zone in which development
may occur pending a careful review
of visual and physical impacts on
trees and the steep slopes. The
preliminary plat indicates the
conservation area running at an
elevation of approximately 810
through the site. The balance of
the area outside of the conservancy
area is identified as a transitional
zone according to the Purgatory
Creek study.
Bluffs West 3rd 2 July 6, 1984
The site is marked by extreme grade changes along the western and northern borders
of the site in the conservancy areas. The entire site is heavily wooded with a
mixture of hardwoods including elm, ash, cherry, cottonwood, and oak. There are
many specimen oak trees of 12-inch diameter or greater.
The development requests of the proponent include a replatting of Lots 1 through 4,
Block 14, Bluffs West, west of Idlewild Drive, and a replat of Lots 5, 6, and 7,
Block 15, in the southeast corner of the site. All of these lots are currently
zoned R1-13.5. The balance of the site, representing approximately ten acres, is
zoned Rural.
Provisions of the Shoreland Management ordinance will apply because of the proximity
to Purgatory Creek. Lots 6, 7, 8, Block 2, since they are located within 150 feet
of the normal ordinary high water mark of the creek, must be a minimum size of
13,500 square feet and 120 feet wide at the building setbacks. These lots meet or
exceed Shoreland regulations.
Site Plan
The developer proposes to subdivide approximately 14.3 acres of land into 20 single
family lots at an overall density of 1.4 units per acre. All of the lots within the
subdivision meet the minimum requirements for R1-13.5 zoning. The subdivision of
this parcel of land will require the extension of Phaeton Drive and Burr Ridge Lane.
The extension of Burr Ridge Lane through an existing cul-de-sac will require that
the proponent obtain approximately eleven feet of right-of-way from the current
owner of Lot 8. There is an existing house on this property.
Though the developer is complying with City policy of no development within the
conservation area, grading in the transitional area will result in a considerable
amount of tree loss. A portion of the ravine in the center of the site will be
filled to accommodate the extension of Burr Ridge Lane.
The natural lay of the land suggests two potential building areas, one on either
side of the ravine. Using two cul-de-sacs in a manner suggested by attachment "A"
Is an alternative way of developing the site which Staff believes would require less
grading and save more trees. Staff believes that the developer had considered
developing the site in a similar manner but proposed the looping of Burr Ridge Lane
to comply with current City policy for through streets.
Any site development in the transitional area will result in tree loss. A detailed
tree inventory would make it possible to more accurately evaluate the extent of site
impacts and may suggest an appropriate road location and lotting arrangement.
A preservation easement line is indicated on the preliminary plat. The proponent
should file preservation easements with the deeds to each lot.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by extension of existing
sanitary sewer and watermain lines in Burr Ridge Lane. There is an existing
sanitary sewer lift station at the end of the existing cul-de-sac on Burr Ridge
Lane. The proponent should provide the City Engineer with calculations stating that
this lift station will be adequate to handle additional development within this
area.
Bluffs West 3rd 3 July 6, 1984
The total site presently drains to Purgatory Creek. Storm water run-off from the
proposed street system will be directed toward catch basins and flow throug
h
settling tanks and a proposed storm water pipe along a ravine towards Purgator
y
Creek. A detailed tree inventory and a more detailed grading plan will be necessar
y
In order to evaluate the impacts of proposed storm sewer pipe construction on
existing grades and vegetative cover.
There is an existing storm drainage system running between Lots 8 and 9 south o
f
this site, which carries storm water run-off from Burr Ridge Lane down toward
s
Purgatory Creek. Staff would recommend that the storm water drainage plan be
revised to eliminate the need for additional storm sewer pipe construction towards
Purgatory Creek in order to minimize the impacts on the Bluffs. It is Staff's
understanding that the reason for additional storm sewer pipe construction is a
problem with trying to drain water to a higher elevation within the cul-de-sac on
Burr Ridge Lane. Storm water could be directed towards this existing catch basin;
however, it would require substantially more fill in the southeast corner of the
site. Perhaps development of this site in a manner similar to the alternative
suggested by Staff, could direct storm water towards Burr Ridge Lane and utilize the
existing storm sewer connection to Purgatory Creek.
Conclusions
We do know from initial discussions with the proponent that every effort will be
made to preserve the greatest extent of trees possible. The City Forester, Stuart
Fox, has indicated that the entire site is covered . with a mixture of hardwoods with
many oak trees of a twelve-inch diameter, or greater, size. Without the benefit of
a detailed tree inventory, it is difficult to determine the extent of potential
Impacts of this development on site. Perhaps the detailed tree inventory would
suggest a different lotting arrangment or street location.
Topographic information indicates that there are two buildable areas on either side
of the ravine. The development alternative suggested by Staff, is one way to
minimize impacts in the transitional area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend that the development plans be returned to the proponent for
revisions as recommended in the Staff Report and provision of a detailed tree
inventory for review.
wfr
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
V. DEVELOPMNT PROPOSALS
A. Bluffs West 3rd Addition
Refer to staff report dated July 7, 1984 and memo dated
July 12, 1984 from Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services.
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION August 6, 1984
-2—
Lambert reported that this area is located along Purgatory Creek
and that the developer is proposing to dedicate a 4.3 acre outlot
between the development and the creek. This would connect with
City owned property to the northeast and northwest.
Motion: Baker made a motion to recommend approval of the Bluffs
West 3rd Addition as per staff report. Cook seconded the motion
and it carried.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 13„1984
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres
and Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots.
Location: North of Burr Ridge Lane, south of Purgatory Creek. A
continued public hearing.
Mr. Lloyd Erickson, engineer for proponent, reviewed the revised plans for
this development with the Commission. He stated that approximately 200
trees, twelve inches in diameter, or greater, would be removed with road and
housing construction on this site.
Planner Franzen reviewed the Staff Report evaluating the revised project.
Chairman Bearman asked if there had been a right-of-way established for
Idlewild Drive in the past. Mr. Erickson explained that this right-of-way
would be vacated with this new proposal.
Marhula asked if any existing cul-de-sac right-of-way would be abandoned
with this plat. Mr. Erickson responded that there would not. Marhula asked
If Lot 9 of the plat was subject to review under the requirements of the
Shoreland Management Ordinance. Planner Franzen stated that it was not.
Torjesen asked if any variances were being requested. Planner Franzen
responded that there were not. Torjesen stated that he was concerned about
other potential "pieces" of this area which may have similar problems of
access, such as this project did in its original form. Mr. Wally Hustad,
Jr., proponent, stated that he was not aware of any others under their
control.
Mr. Erwin Templin, 11311 Burr Ridge Lane, questioned the ability of the
developer to provide adequate erosion control while the lots were being
built. Staff responded that it had been determined that the best way to
handle this would be to require individual grading plans for each lot at the
time of building permit issuance, along with a bond guaranteeing proper
performance by the grading contractors for each lot.
Mr. Templin asked if this development would be comparable to the Deerfield
development. Mr. Hustad responded that the homes would be in a similar
price range to those of Deerfield.
Mt. Templin added that he had spoken to the owner of Lot El at the east end
of Burr Ridge Lane. Originally the road for the project had been proposed
to create a through-street out of the cul-de-sac on which his lot was
located. The revised plan, without the through-street, was satisfactory to
the owner of Lot 8.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0 ICO
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 13, 1984
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Zoning District
change from Rural to RI-13.5 for approximately three acres for Bluffs West
3rd Addition, based on the revised plans dated July 16, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 9, and August 10, 1984.
Motion carried --5-0 -0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Preliminary Plat
of 14.3 acres into 20 single family residential lots for Bluffs West 3rd
Addition, based on revised plans dated July 16, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 9, and August 10, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 23, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Stan Johannes,
Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
Robert Hallett
Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBER ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Schuck, to amend the agenda to the
following order under Development Proposals: A, 8, F, C, D, E.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
- None.
III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres
and Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots.
Location: North of Burr Ridge Lane, south of Purgatory Creek. A
continued public hearing.
Proponent had requested postponement of this item to the August 13, 1984,
Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to revise the plans for
the area. Staff notified the property owners immediately adjacent to the
project by mail of the proponent's request.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public
hearing for Bluffs West 3rd Addition to the August 13, 1984, Planning
Commission meeting.
Motion carried-76-0-0
C. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres
and Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots.
Location: North of Burr Ridge Lane, south of Purgatory Creek. A
public hearing.
Included in this week's packets are the plans and written materials for the
subject project, along with the Staff Report evaluating the request.
After presentation by the proponent, report by the Staff, questions by the
Planning Commission, and comments from the audience, appropriate action
would be as follows:
Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing proponent, reviewed the site characteristics
and development features of the site with the Commission. He stated that
the Shoreland Management Ordinance requirements had been taken into
consideration with respect to setbacks from the creek. Utilities existed in
Burr Ridge Lane adjacent to the project. Mr. Knaeble stated that the
project would require filling of the ravine as proposed by proponent.
However, Staff had suggested an alternative plan, which proponent was
considering, and which would not require the filling of the ravine. Mr.
Knaeble added that there would be no grading done within the conservancy'
area of Purgatory Creek. Due to the fact that the site was densely wooded,
Staff had also requested a tree inventory of the property to determine how
many significant trees would be lost with construction of the project. Mr.
Knaeble stated that the tree inventory had not yet been completed.
Planner Enger stated that, due to the great amount of trees and the severe
topographic changes on this property, a cul-de-sac type development was
/9-cv
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 9, 1934
preferred and would preserve many more of the natural site features in this
area. He added that Staff had suggested changes to the storm water drainage
plan for the property as well. Of key concern to this property would be the
restoration of slopes, particularly along the ravine.
Marhula asked if the proposed road alignments of Staff would interfere in
any way with existing homes or lots in this area. It was determined that
they would not.
Mr. Erwin Templin, 11311 Burr Ridge Lane, expressed concern for the erosion
which was already taking place in this area. He stated that there were
three lots which were currently being built upon and for which erosion
controls had not been provided during construction, resulting in much dirt
and fill washing into the ravine and across the backyards of some of the
existing residents. Mr. Templin asked if it was possible that the developer
could exert more control over the builders in situations such as this.
Mr. Wally Hustad Jr., Bluffs Company, stated that there was little control
that a developer could exercise over the builders once the lot was sold.
Planner Enger stated that it would be possible for the City to require the
developer or the builder to post a bond prior to grading for purposes of
providing restoration for such development. The Commission concurred that
Staff should check with the City Attorney as to an instrument that would
make this possible.
Mr. Mark Thompson, 11202 Burr Ridge Lane, stated that he had been told upon
purchase of his home that Burr Ridge Lane would not be a through street. He
stated that he had paid a premium for his lot due to the fact that it was at
the end of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Thompson pointed out that even if the road
were to be continued through, there would not be enough room between his lot
and the lift station located near him to put a fifty-foot wide road and
right-of-way.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public
hearing to the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, to allow
proponent opportunity to revise the plans per the recomnendations of the
Staff Report dated July 7, 1984, and to provide a tree inventory for Staff
review.
Motion carried--5-0-0
/9-c/
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #84-233
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION,
FOR THE BLUFFS COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluffs West 5th Addition, for the Bluffs Company,
dated June 25, 1984, consisting of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots, a copy of
which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions
of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is
herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of
• • 1984.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
"
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
1 (K2,
12155 Riverview Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
August 22, 1984
Mr. Gene Dietz: Planning Commission: City Council
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Sirs:
There are several major concerns regarding the proposed Bluffs
Fifth Addition and I would appreciate careful review of these
questions and the answers in writing.
Did Bluffs One and Two have comprehensive water-shed studies
prior to development? If so, who did them? Why did they, and
why do they still have drainage problems?
If I understand Mr. Dietz correctly, the current water-shed study
for the City is being prepared by the same firm that is employed
by the Hustad Corporation. This is preposterous, unethical, and
totally unacceptable!
The recent deluge of rain sent water rampaging down the streets
of Bluffs One (I did not investigate Bluffs Two), flooding the
Brown Farm Circle intersection. Significantly, in contrast, there
was a four-inch-wide trickle on West Riverview Road for just a few
-yards, moving slowly toward the North-South center with no pooling •
of water anywhere.
If the natural absorption area of the proposed Bluffs Fifth is
removed and replaced with such a great number of houses, drive-
ways, and streets, the run-off will be enormous. The water will
move west as already indicated by Hustad's engineers. Without
very careful and complete control, thiE flood of water could turn
a large part of our property into a swamp.
Mr. Hustad tells us that he is just a developer: he relies on
other people to resolve problems; he just digs. If the Bluffs
Fifth .Addition is developed without a permanent and conscientious
escape route for the run-off, will the City of Eden Prairie be
liable for damage to our property? If not, who will?
If Bluffs Fifth were developed as presently proposed, the nearby
Bluff residents would suffer considerable damage to their proper-
ties, both in value and aesthetically. At the other extreme,
the Hustad Corporation would profit substantially. Since the
. Hustad Corporation will be the only ones to benefit from this
Sincerely,
;
Mr. Gene Dietz: Planning Commission: City Council
August 22, 1984
Page Two
development, shouldn't they be required to assume all costs,
including the cost of a permanent escape route for run-off
water? If they are not in a position to do this at the present
time, perhaps Bluffs Fifth is premature.
Will Bluffs Two ever be finished? Giant concrete drain tiles
and badly eroded excavations for "will-be" roads, which erode
the west end of Riverview Road, lie there year after year. Old,
rusty machinery sat around for years. These eyesores makes a
dangerous playground; including the very steep and deep water-hole
in Bluffs One.
This kind of land development seems poorly-planned and unprofes-
sional; and certainly, it is undesirable. Hopefully, there are
citizens making decisions for the City who have good taste, a
respect for the inherent beauty of Eden Prairie, and some regard
for the present Bluff residents.
Kate Laseski
kl
cc: Hustad Corporation
r'41,1 I
10541 Riverview Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
August 23, 1984
Mayor Penzel & Members of the Council
Chairman Bearman & Members of the Planning Commission
Mr. Carl Julie, City Manager
Mr. Gene Dietz, City Engineer & Staff
Mr. Chris Enger, City Planner
Mr. Mike Franzen, City Planner
Eden Prairie City Hall
8990 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Bluffs West 5th Addition
It has come to our attention that RCM Associates Inc., the same
firm retained by Hustad Development Company, is also doing the watershed
study recently ordered by the City Council involving the Bluffs West area.
It is our understanding that the study is to evaluate what has been done in
tile past with Bluffs I and II and plan for the future. The RCM Company is
the very company that engineered the present system of slough holes. Clearly,
there exists a conflict of interest. In order to assure unbiased assessment,
a different, independent engineering firm that specializes in hydrology must
be used.
This proposed development is within some 200 feet of the pre-
cipice of the Minnesota River bluff. It is an area very prone to erosion
and sensitive to wildlife. We believe that the very high density proposed
for this area will greatly reduce the natural absorption and damage the
surrounding properties if adequate provisions are not made to control sub-
stantially increased runoff.
Presently, we have no serious runoff problems in our immediate
area, and feel very strongly that we should not be forced to pay for any
solution to problems created by the existing and proposed Hustad develop-
ments. In other words, if Hustad's developments create problems, the
Hustad's should pay for them - they profit from the developments. This
also holds true for bringing in city water and sewer. We all have our
own systems and therefore should not be forced to pay for any improvements
to service their development.
Another issue that concerns us is no transition" from higher
density, smaller lots on the north bordering Riverview Road, to sur-
rounding existing homes on parcels of land from two to many acres. Mr.
Hustad keeps telling us that there is no designated builder. He has never
referred to "custom builder" or "custom homes" as he did in the Bluffs III
proposal. This leads us to conclude that this will be a "quick-buck" sale
to a non-custom builder. Will $70,000 and $80,000 homes be built on these
lots like in their Bluffs East project? If so, the value of our home and
all the other surrounding homes will be greatly reduced. Mr. Mike Franzen
•.)
Page Two
August 23, 1984
of the Planning Department stated that the City has no control over the
type and price of homes that can be built on the proposed sized lots.
Doesn't this City afford any protection to existing, adjacent homeowners
and taxpayers? The only way to effectively control the value of the homes
to be built is to increase the size, ergo the cost, of the lots.
Additional issues which need to be resolved are "left-overs"
from Bluffs I and II. There are areas of bad erosion, eyesores created
from pipes, trash, debris, machinery, culverts, etc. Further, the existing
holding ponds are an "attractive nuisance" posing a "clear and present
danger" to the neighbors, particularly the children. Who is responsible?
Shouldn't the Hustads clean up problems they created in one project before
the City allows them to walk away and move on to another? The taxpayers
of the City of Eden Prairie should not be forced to pay for the blight
and mistakes of any development company, including Hustad's, and/or their
consultants and engineering firms. Therefore, a bond or escrow fund must
be established so existing home-owners and the City have access to funds
to pay for problems that occur from development.
Too, lest the matter be overlooked, the Riverview Drive right-
of-way should not be disturbed. But if it must, it could as well be re-
linquished to property owners and taxpayers on the outer side of the right-
of-way instead of to the inside as proposed.
We do not completely oppose the development of the adjacent
area. We do not oppose the availability of city improvements for those
who want to use and pay for them. We do not oppose Hustad's par se.
Rather, we oppose the existing proposed development of this small area
at the expense and apparent disregard for the existing homeowners and.
taxpayers. Land "use" can not be ignored. Just because a proponent seeks
"only" a zoning change with no variance(s), does not mean that it is an
appropriate or desirable use of this land.
Sincerely,
E enJ.
Charles A. Koshenina
cc: Hustad Corporation
JAMES DIE1141XDS, M.D.
10530 WEST RIVERVIEW DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 55344
August 13, 1984
Eden Prairie Planning Commission, et al
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Objections to proposed street plus easement width and location
changes for West Riverview Drive and East Riverview Drive in
the proposed Bluffs West 5th Addition.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
•The East and West Riverview Drive street plus easement proposed
change in width from 66 feet to 50 feet along with the resultant
proposed change in the location of the streets East and West
Riverview Drive will prevent and eliminate any possibility for a
limper transition between houses in the proposed Bluffs West 5th
Addition and existing homes across the streets East and West
Riverview Drive.
The existing houses to the north of the proposed Bluffs West 5th
Addition on the north side of Riverview Road will enjoy and have the
benefits of a transition of a street plus easement width of 66 feet,
whereas the existing homes facing the proposed Bluffs West 5th
Addition along East and West Riverview Drive would be demoted, de-
graded and depredated to a street plus easement width of only 50
feet and, in addition, suffer streets moved closer to their homes.
Certainly, it must be obvious to all concerned that the across the
street separation or distance between houses to the north and south
of Riverview Road would be more spacious, airy, and desirable than
the across the street separation between houses opposite one another
along East and West Riverview Drive.
This proposed change in East and West Riverview Drive street plus
easement width and location is patently and grossly unfair,
c'l
/Eden Prairie Planning Commission, et al
1/ Page two , August 13, 1984
unreasonable, and contrary to established sound planning and transi-
tion principles and should be summarily rejected out-of-hand.
Sincerely,
•••n••n•nmy
DAM WATEM DIEM
10530 WEST RIVERVIEW DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 55344
August 13, 1984
Eden Prairie Planning Commission, et al
'City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Objections to proposed street plus easement width
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
changes for West Riverview Drive and East Riverview Driv
e
i
n
the proposed Bluffs West 5th Addition.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Referring to my official survey, the city at present own
s
6
6
f
e
e
t
•of road and easements along East and West Riverview Dri
v
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
East and West Riverview Drive existing dirt road is ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
18 feet wide and centered equally between said easements.
The developer wants to change the street plus easement
t
o
t
a
l
w
i
d
t
h
to 50 feet and escape with 16 feet of "free land" frontage all
around his property. This is unfair to the existing home
o
w
n
e
r
s
o
n
the other side of East and West Riverview Drive and it a
l
s
o
n
e
g
a
-
tively changes the status of our property and its worth.
As of now, the dirt road is 18 feet wide and if fairly m
a
d
e
i
n
t
o
a permanent road it would be widened evenly by 5 feet on
e
a
c
h
s
i
d
e
.
As the homeowners are responsible for land down to the r
o
a
d
a
n
d
must maintain it, such land becomes, in effect, part of
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
-
owners' front yard." We situated our existing house on
o
u
r
l
o
t
and landscaped and sodded with the idea that at most we
w
o
u
l
d
lose 5 feet of it in the future. Now the developer want
s
t
o
m
o
v
e
the whole road south, change the easement (and take the
1
6
f
r
e
e
feet) and, in effect, move the road 13 feet toward our house
and
take 13 feet of what is, in effect, my "front yard." I think that
this is grossly unfair. It makes more land for the deve
l
o
p
e
r
t
o
increase his density of housing, and is, in effect, mak
i
n
g
m
e
i
n
-
voluntarily contribute to what I object to.
I propose the street plus easement total of East and We
s
t
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
: Drive should be left at 66 feet, as the neighbor's houses and our
:len Prairie Planning Commission, et al
'laze two •
4";1gust 13, 1984
house are all landscaped and situated on their lots according to
this original street plus easement distance and road location.
If the city wants to give (vacate) 16 feet of free land, instead
of the developer getting it, how about giving it to the neighbors
on the other side to maintain a reasonable transition.
Riverview Road is 28 feet wide and has a 66 foot street plus ease-
ment total. Therefore, anything other than a street plus easement
total of 66 feet for East and West Riverview Drive will give the
property owners and families situated on those two streets an
inferior transition to the proposed Bluffs West 5th Addition as
compared to the the transition that the neighbors have along
Riverview Road. Please treat us at least equally and reject the
street plus easement total width proposed decrease for East and
West Riverview Drive.
1
Sincerely,
24d. ,deadet,it..W€.0,
Mks. Gayle M. Diehl
• GliD /mj
irk)
c dAfte•rt 441 nsc 'me", t 14' 40 czi eue I opeo, s-n 501 t‘xi5i.124:5A d to; dc RolIP Q8 pekma Scat" pos a-1 horncouwerts pitopeosy hove— T. `Vetv /Aac.h /0 &er
PLASTIC AND ITCCOMSTRUCTIV( SURGERY
TELEPHONE: 1012) 554.1511
AND ASSOCIAT 0 POST T RAUMAT IC
DIAGNOSTIC DENTISTRY
JAMES J. DIEHL, D.D.S., M.D., LTD.
SUITE 1393
ONE APPLETREE SQUARE
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420
July 2, 1984
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Objections to the proposed Preliminary Plat change and density
change in Tract H Bluffs West 5th Addition.
Dear Mayor Penzel:
In 1979 when my wife and I were considering buying an unimproved
lot in Eden Prairie (Lot D in the June 1954 Brown Riverview Heights
Plat - copy enclosed), we were shown that 1954 Plat and such a plat
was given us to give us the tone, density, and location of future
development in the neighborhood. We purchased Lot D (in the 1954
Plat) in 1979, based upon the reasonable assumption that the 1954
Plat was proper planning for the area and future development was
fairly and properly represented in that plat of our neighborhood.
Then, based upon the same reasonable assumptions, we built our home
on Lot D (10530 West Riverview Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota) in
3.982 and currently reside at that location.
Now there is a request to completely and dramatically change that
1954 Plat to a Preliminary 1984 Plat (copy enclosed) which would
result in an astounding increase of over 50 percent in the number
of houses in that same involved area.
A detailed map showing all of Eden Prairie clearly demonstrates
that the Bluffs West 5th Addition is in a rather unique topographi-
cal location. It is not, repeat not, in a central location in a city
standard grid street system which allows traffic to enter and exit
in four directions. The Bluffs West 5th is, as the name implies,
a Bluff area with no traffic capability to leave or enter to the
south because of the Minnesota River and Nature Refuge along the
Minnesota River. The Bluffs West 5th, because of topography and
its peninsular shape has no way to have traffic directly enter or •
leave the area from the east or west. Only a steep, winding, nor-
now road road gives restricted and dangerous traffic egress and ingress
from the cast after first going north through the residential
neighborhood.
or:r.2-
T he Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Page two
July 2, 1984
Only the north direction allows traffic to enter or le
a
v
e
t
h
e
B
l
u
f
f
s
West 5th, and even this route is only a two-lane stree
t
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
only be reached by traffic from Bluffs West 5th travel
l
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
the residential area immediately to the north before r
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
Homeward Hills Road. Therefore, essentially only a ro
u
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
north through a residential area will ever service the
B
l
u
f
f
s
W
e
s
t
5
t
h
.
Increasing the density in the Bluffs West 5th will on
l
y
e
x
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
e
an already serious traffic flow problem and present a rea
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
risk to life and limb to children, joggers, pedestrian
s
,
a
n
d
m
o
t
o
r
-
ists alike.
The 1984 Plat for Bluffs West 5th with its over 50 pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
in the number of houses in the area means:
1. More traffic and much much more traffic when teenager
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
.
2. More congestion.
.3. More noise.
4. Greater risks to children.
. 5. Less open space.
6. Less airiness.
7. Less lot size to park cars, vans, campers, pickups,
b
o
a
t
s
,
recreational vehicles, and yard and garden equipment.
S
o
m
e
of this stuff will be more likely to end up in the str
e
e
t
o
r
semipermanently "on display" in the driveway or in the
y
a
r
d
next to the driveway.
The 1954 Plat showed sound, reasonable, clear planning
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
-
borhood, not only currently but into the future. The
1
9
8
4
P
l
a
t
i
s
unreasonable, unsound, and is a menace to the neighbo
r
h
o
o
d
c
u
r
-
rently and in the future.
On a personal note, kindly observe that the 1984 Plat
d
i
r
e
c
t
s
a
street (Covington Drive) to empty or exit directly , in front of an
existing house - namely mine on Lot D in the 1954 Pla
t
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
totally unacceptable. I never, never, never would have built a
house, having two young children, ages 4 and 7, as ou
r
s
a
r
e
,
a
t
t
h
e
exit of such a street. Please see my wife's detailed
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
this matter. Of course, I cannot move my house but fairness and
reason, as well as justice, demands that Covington Dr
i
v
e
b
e
m
o
v
e
d
,
as it can be easily done at this stage. On this poin
t
I
c
a
n
n
o
t
c
o
m
-
promise, norwill I, regardless of future time and litigation.
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Page three ...
July 2, 1984 •
•
For the above discussed reasons and others, you highly skilled pe
r
-
sons in this field must realize that it must be generally agreed
that the proposed preliminary 1984 Plat for Bluffs West 5th is
poorly conceived, and if executed the significant density increase
will present hardships, inconveniences, dangers, and hazards to n
o
t
only the new neighborhood (Bluffs West 5th) but also to the exist
-
ing neighborhood.
We must have development and progress but cannot neglect fairness
,
safety and reason. Let the developer install a sanitary sewer sys-
tem if he wishes, but justice demands that the developer not in-
.crease the density to the levels indicated in the 1984 Plat and
that he not exit Covington Drive to the south as he has proposed.
Respectfully you
s J. Diehlt D.D.S., M.D.
.cc: Members of the Planning Commission
14en Prairie City Engineer
•
Ja
q
, IP "L . • . (..„„ get-.Lts.nimAsase PLAY 1-ZIVERVIEW HEIGHT t15tx 92.6..tQle Towt.r. b.'s° titemtvirs COusT7 OWLS OP 'Tut I.. it tens 0..TD•Ihr OP T Pi% S. •OL OP. ae - t. I. - Os. es -On IP.R.OM:fer e.ow . . MOTLeia. HICHOL.,,I.iC.%ITC ea tenCOstftUal fr.fP014 U It. W I..W bbtAtUb.b. Juo.t. To. -;•.; L,• : • . 1 f t:. „ ,•t • • '•-•-'" : • • l'/•St I : • ./.114"3/•:1771 . • ;••• .S.„..9 , e.-f. p 14.1 C: ),.,...,.."' . n.. 7/ f q '-.-m... .4,..,‘ --5,..,1,..„- ---,, -1 cl")--)) -...-. )7,..- /1 (?,,,..:;',,:-.-__'.-.;:- ..:. .. ....., - ....---.(--• (:! 1; C, r).1 ''..,) <I) 7 )---,`-:- -fF.Y.---7 ,---;-• -:.' :~ i !I ,..1- 'e ,, ..-Z,..-_....' -
• IL,,olko A. 0
• El,
r e •
. f.--,-;705'-_--gc_--tc-- --,----;L:-:,.„.. . 1....._""`".2 4 •
...1 , . 2 :
1
i71,. L. • I li it IA .1 ,..11, 6 k
11 • . „ .---4 1.-47.1-.....„0 //./
1.2 n21 -2.1111=i-...1iL -tg. —1 1...t.....::::(4:. ... - .
ot
••-'T 7.fN•4. LA • •
11: ••••-•VVI.K,..C4g.
ntj It•Li1lot' :11A,Fsa
e 14111 nnv t"
la Owl.. i " ........
MRS. GAYLE M. DIEHL
10530 WEST RIVERVIEW DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 55344
July 2, 1984
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: A response to the proposed Bluffs West 5th
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
-
liminary Plat
Dear Mayor Penzel:
I. Covington Drive Proposal
This street will exit into West Riverview Dri
v
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
t
o
• our property and directly into our house and
f
r
o
n
t
a
r
e
a
,
n
o
t
-onto a side area or a structureless area.
Due to the nature and sloping of our .lot, this is the only flat •
area of our lot and the area where our two chi
l
d
r
e
n
,
a
g
e
s
4
a
n
d
7, play. This as planned, is a direct menace a
n
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
c
o
n
-
dition to our small children. When we purchase
d
o
u
r
l
o
t
w
e
d
i
d
so with the sole purpose of finding a safe and
"
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
y
"
place (i.e.,—rrEtle traffic) to raise ME.- We had the June
1
9
5
4
Plat shown to us and were reassured of the abs
e
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
exiting anywhere near us due to the topography
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
its natural barriers to traffic to the South,
E
a
s
t
,
(
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
River), and West (see the 1954 Plat with "Vist
a
D
r
i
v
e
"
a
s
t
h
e
proposed street). I submit that the street sh
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
e
f
t
a
s
planned, with Vista Drive which exits onto Riv
e
r
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
Riverview Road onto a vacant lot in the one ins
t
a
n
c
e
(
a
n
d
a
n
y
-
one purchasing this lot will know this as a con
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
n
d
on the other side where it exits towards homes
t
h
a
t
h
a
d
b
e
e
n
'
built with the Vista Drive plan in existence be
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
s
e
h
o
m
e
s
were built. Also, I must emphasize the fact th
a
t
i
t
i
s
m
o
s
t
peculiar that the Covington Drive plan has the
s
t
r
e
e
t
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
where homes Already exist (i.e., running north
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
)
.
Perhaps if it ran east and west the developer
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
p
r
o
b
-
lems selling the lots at each of its ends for
j
u
s
t
t
h
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
I have stated. If streets arc to be rearrange
d
,
t
h
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
//( /
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Page two
July 2, 1984
done so in accordance with the topography so as not to jeopar-
dize existing homes, but so that they exit on vacant lots where
the purchasers of said property will have this fully in the open
before purchasing such property.
The proposed exiting of this street is not only a menace to
children (especially in Minnesota, where streets are slippery
and numerous accidents have happened when cars cannot stop at
an intersection and slid right across it - and in this case,
right into my children building a snowman), but it is also a
nuisance with headlights constantly shining right into windows -
my living room and kitchen windows, in this case.
These two considerations are bad enough, but they in turn thirdly
reduce the value of my property because of their existence.
II. Lot Size Proposal
In the June 1954 Plat, the lots in the immediate area of our
home would have been consistent with mine, and homes consistent
with mine would be built upon them. I am fully aware of the
"social benefits" of smaller lots in our economy, but these can
• be put anywhere when the original platting has not called for
. something else. Eden Prairie is just developing andhas plenty
• of roam for small lots (not like Edina, where virtually no land
exists to be developed). Furthermore, there is "social benefit i !
in having a mix of things. Eden Prairie should not become an
area of "eveiTfhing the same."
•
More succinctly, lot size other than that which is proposed in
- the June 1954 proposal will:
A. Create more traffic which is a menace to:
1. my children (and all other children). .
2. the wildlife reserve, close by (I suggest an environ-
mental impact study for this), as more cars, people,
cats, dogs, etc. will create a menace to this area and .
its wildlife which is only a few hundred feet away.
We purchased this land knowning that it abuts a wild-
life sanctuary and that this area should not be en-
croached upon up to its very edge with overbuilding and
too much traffic and population for this type of area.
Increasing the home sites from 20 (plat of June 1954)
• to the current platting of 32 home sites would do just
this. Eden Prairie has many many alternative sites for
denser population areas. Again, I stress that a "mix"
Cm
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Page three
July 2, 1984
is what Eden Prairie should have and that this area i
s
a very logical one for a less dense population, as
i
t
was platted for in the first place.
In continuation - more traffic in this area:
3. overcrowds the collecting streets (i.e., Homew
a
r
d
H
i
l
l
s
and Riverview Road, especially, the long, steep,
n
a
r
r
o
w
,
winding area of Riverview Road off of County Road
1
8
.
Th is already is hazardous and will become more so w
i
t
h
the increase in the amount of home sites proposed
a
n
d
their corresponding traffic. One can barely navi
g
a
t
e
• this road in the winter with its slippery curves,
a
n
d
with more cars, more accidents will occur. It re
a
l
l
y
would be a menace to purpose putting more traffic
o
n
this road; iiiTY1 Homeward Hills and Riverview Road
are the only exit roads from this area, this will
u
n
-
doubtedly occur. This area with its unique topog
r
a
p
h
y
that will never lend itself to traffic exits to th
e
South and to East and most unlikely to the West, but
only to the North (i.e., Riverview Road) is not at
a
l
l
suitable for a dense population and the correspond
i
n
g
traffic. It is a horseshoe and a "bottleneck" and
i
s
much more suited to a low traffic volume, like tha
t
• platted in 1954. We moved here because of this.
• The 1954 platting has a housing density that befit
s
the character and topography of this unique area.
W
e
knew that replatting occurs, but never in our wild
e
s
t
dreams thought that one would be proposed so inappr
o
-
priate to the area, let alone, approved. I canno
t
stress the fact of how inappropriate the density
p
r
o
-
posal is. This area is not a typical city"grid" w
h
e
r
e
eventually a dense population can exit in all four
d
i
-
rections. This will never be, and the collecting
streets from this area will always be congested a
n
d
hazardous and this will never be able to be remed
i
e
d
because of the unique topography of the area. As
I
said before, this area is "an out-of-the-way place
"
,
and it is so because of the topography. What is
p
r
o
-
posed is "city density" ma place that absolutely
c
a
n
not and never will be able to take it. This fact
a
l
o
n
e
,
I believe, is reason enough to deny the proposed
n
e
w
platting. The fact that the platting also made a
s
t
r
e
e
t
exit right into my driveway and front of my home
i
s
o
n
l
y
adding insult to injury. I can't believe anyone
c
o
u
l
d
approve such a plan.
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Page four
July 2, 1984
•••
Here also, I state, that besides the above c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(A. 1-3), each in their own turn will:
B. Devalue my home and all the homes in the ar
e
a
b
y
t
h
e
v
e
r
y
nature of their existence.
believe the planning commission should striv
e
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
•
character of this neighborhood, preserve th
e
l
o
w
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
topography demands and rule out such absurd
p
l
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
street to exit into an existing home's drivew
a
y
a
n
d
f
r
o
n
t
y
a
r
d
.
. Also, if such flagrant, unsound plans are
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
y
o
u
,
I
c
e
r
-
tainly wouldn't want the added insult to be
a
s
k
e
d
t
o
p
a
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
too, by having to pay sewer assessments.
Please consider this letter carefully; the P
L
A
T
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
i
s
m
o
s
t
distressing and entirely unsatisfactory. I w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
a
l
l
a
v
e
n
u
e
s
open to me to stop its approval.
Submitted in good faith,
7. c a iV.Z'21-e/
Mrs. Gayle M. Diehl
cc: Members of the Planning Commission
Eden Prairie City Engineer
.p/at-Lo 1"1..An- 0 RIVERVILW HEIGHTS Zmilaol.410101. Ter fffff 10V ID*c.I. tOtm P4Avatt Tovitvn-un litriKr_PtS COIJMTY PART or, 'Re e. ROO, or TR* W. Vs Or 7441s Is. vs or- oes,.0. OR - 7. - R. as • 0 Row 14 • molt.tt.t.. Hics.ol-v, I.e.. Vt•rt PLANK t.Q.7 4 tHG1 (512.7 6.4 . W LAY/ 4.44K A 001-4 MINNIS,RO'SA .1044W - !! 2, - 7(e-; •I i.I• " . n,;:,,C ) s. r,."2.9- L ... 4 V...,. .f. -;77,.• y .1 .., L.; (,,Ii.Th c_t: -.;,---'1 • r.c 4,-v..-i: I :; , 0, ( .> / . _._ , c.„ r-, • 3 ,,/ ( / 4`4—
an, 9"••••
.01 4
v
1"1...
os.ty .
1,4 q ., , 9,,
.1
1 .
.1:.—
1 1 :1 t11.::1/471.14t
August 23, 1984
City Council
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Council Members:
In most cities, there is property that is considered special;
usually because of the view or its proximity to a lake, river,
or ocean. This kind of property is valued, respected, and
not often misused. The Bloomington Bluffs, and many other
areas of Greater Minneapolis, have been treated kindly, pre-
serving the natural beauty and enhancing the city.
We have an area like that in Eden Prairie - the Bluffs - and
it is in danger.
Dense, lower-cost housing on small lots would not do justice to
this Bluff land. If Bluffs Fifth Addition ever is developed,
it should be done with custom homes on larger lots, in keeping
With the established homes along the Bluff Line.
Anything less will reflect on our City for years and years to
come as lacking foresight, good judgment, and suffering a deprived
appreciation of one of the finer landscapes in our City.
Sincerely,
P.S.
/ f.-
/
If we saturate Eden Prairie with dense, lower-cost housing,
where will our young professionals go when they are ready
to move up? Edina? —it F7/
- )(Li_ C ,
,
IL
?vcd.&,//
iA1_22LAtd
147;
007
17 / /12.11w-few-
//, t'lqi
c?'ae, 4:4 121-1,LE
71A) V t.b.
RA, i grdiz.:
/j1 Z4 7--9/74c
PETITION
Because the Bluffs area of Eden Prairie has be
e
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
i
n
a
m
a
n
n
e
r
which has caused erosion, unsightly outlots, and attractive nuisances which
remain unprotected and serious potential dange
r
s
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
t
o
t
h
e
y
o
u
n
g
Children in the area, and
Because requests for rezoning and replatting o
f
t
h
e
o
u
t
l
y
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
have
been submitted to the City, and
Because the citizens of Eden Prairie who are residents of this area
are concerned about their health and safety,
We, the undersigned residents of the Bluffs a
r
e
a
of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, request the City of Eden Prairie t
o
p
o
s
t
p
o
n
e
a
n
y
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
rezoning or replatting property in Bluffs Wes
t
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
sewer problems associated with the development to date of t
h
e
a
r
e
a
a
r
e
resolved and until new problems associated wi
t
h
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
t
r
a
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
are resolved.
We also request that the city engage the servi
c
e
s
o
f
a
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
engineering firm to perform the necessary stud
i
e
s
;
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
a
f
i
r
m
which has not been previously involved with th
e
a
r
e
a
'
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
NAME
ADDRESS
z h s90 egoe.edie4d gaz
//1 :021 et41.4 //S G 0 /ei -e-4- PCIL
ehrtf ,,w,-
zittLe41 I iew Avelvitw
PETITION
nMMINIIMMI.n ••n •10
Because the Bluffs area of Eden Prairie has been develo
p
e
d
i
n
a
m
a
n
n
e
r
which has caused erosion, unsightly outlots, and attract
i
v
e
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
w
h
i
c
h
remain unprotected and serious potential dangers especia
l
l
y
t
o
t
h
e
y
o
u
n
g
children in the area, and
Because requests for rezoning and replatting of the out
l
y
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
been submitted to the City, and
Because the citizens of Eden Prairie who are residents
o
f
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
are concerned about their health and safety,
We, the undersigned residents of the Bluffs area of Ede
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
,
Minnesota, request the City of Eden Prairie to postpone
a
n
y
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
rezoning or replatting property in Bluffs West until th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
sewer problems associated with the development to date
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
a
r
e
resolved and until new problems associated with further
t
r
a
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
are resolved.
We also request that the city engage the services of a
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
engineering firm to perform the necessary studies; par
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
a
f
i
r
m
which has not been previously involved with the area's
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
NAME
ADDRESS
PETITION
Because the Bluffs area of Eden Prairie has been developed in a manner
which has caused erosion, unsightly outlots, and attractive nuisances which
remain unprotected and serious potential dangers especially to the young
children in the area, and
Because requests for rezoning and replatting of the outlying land have
been suhnitted to the City, and
Because the citizens of Eden Prairie who are residents of this area
are concerned about their health and safety,
We, the undersigned residents of the Bluffs area of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, request the City of Eden Prairie to postpone any decision for
rezoning or replatting property in Bluffs West until the existing storm
sewer problems associated with the development to date of the area are
resolved and until new prohlans associated with further tract development
are resolved.
We also request that the city engage the services of a independent
engineering firm to perform the necessary studies; particularly a firm
which has not been previously involved with the area's developnent.
NAME
ADDRESS
1
PETITION
n••n ••••••••••n•••
Because the Bluffs area of Eden Prairie has been developed in a manner
which has caused erosion, unsightly outlots, and attractive nuisances which
remain unprotected and serious potential dangers especially to the young
children in the area, and
Because requests for rezoning and replatting of the outlying land have
been submitted to the City, and
Because the citizens of Eden Prairie who are residents of this area
are concerned about their health and safety,
We, the undersigned residents of the Bluffs area of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, request the City of Eden Prairie to postpone any decision for
rezoning or replatting property in Bluffs West until the existing storm
sewer problems associated with the development to date of the area are
resolved and until new problems associated with further tract development
are resolved.
We also request that the city engage the services of a independent
engineering firm to perform the necessary studies; particularly a firm
which has not been previously involved with the area's development.
TO:
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
FROM:
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Bluffs West Area/Drainage
DATE:
August 8, 1984
Recently, a number of questions have arisen regarding the finalization of
drainage in the Bluffs West area in the vicinity of Homeward Hills Road and
Riverview Road. At its meeting on August 7, 1984, the City Council requested
that a study be made of the storm sewer system in the area and that this
Information be available for Council consideration prior to the second reading
of the Bluffs West 4th Addition.
I have asked the consultant for the proponent to begin to outline the drainage
system in the Bluffs West area and to prepare for a meeting with me to discuss
the potential solutions. At this writing, I would venture to say that the
solution will have to consist of a storm sewer pipe to the fringe of the
Minnesota River. The routing and number of pipes and sizing is the potential
'subject of discussion.
I would suggest that the Bluffs West 5th Addition could be handled in a
similar fashion to the 4th Addition in that, no final approval from City Council
would be forthcoming until the solution is agreed upon and available to the
Council for consideration.
Therefore, if the developer wishes to proceed without knowing the final costs
of the ultimate solution, it would seem reasonable to let him do so. Please
Insure that any recommendations forthcoming from the Planning Commission
acknowledges this situation and makes those approvals contingent upon solving
the drainage problems in the area.
EAD:sg
o 1
-..nn.•nnn•=110..
MFMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Rnh lAmIlort. Director of Community Services...74--
..velupex anu approved oy the Planning Commission.
BLUFFS WEST 5th ADDITION
Attached to this memo is the July 6, 1984 memo from Mike Franzen, Senior Planner,
regarding Bluffs West 5th Addition. This 14.5 acre site is located south of Riverview
Road on relatively level area with scattered natural vegetation primarily of popular,
elm, boxelder and cedar.
The existing City trails plan depicts an 8' asphalt bikeway running along the south
side of Riverview Road from County Road 18, westerly to the existing deadend of River
-
view Road, then continuing westerly on Riverview Road to Highway 169. This 8' asphalt
bikeway would tic into the City trail system via the 8' asphalt bikeway on Homeward
Hills Road and eventually north to County Road 4 under Highway 169 through an existin
g
culvert. This trail system would also connect the Eden Prairie trail system to the
proposed trail system in the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge. Community Services staff
recommend the developer be required to construct the section of 8' asphalt bikeway
along the south side of Riverview Road the entire length of this development.
The Community Service i staff recommend approval as per the Planning Staff Report of
July 6, 1984 with the additional reouirement nf the 8' asOlair bikeway
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 6, 1984
PROJECT: Bluffs West 5th Addition
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: The Bluffs Company
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots
and a Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5.
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan ident-
ifies a Low Density Residential land
use for this site for up to 2.5
units per acre. The Guide Plan also
depicts surrounding future land uses
as Low Density Residential. The
site is currently zoned R1-22.
There is existing R1-22 zoning to
the south and east of the site. To
the north of the site are single
family homes zoned R1-13.5. To the
west is a single family home on a
large rural lot.
The site is relatively level with
some existing natural vegetation
consisting primarily of poplar, elm,
box elder, and cedar.
Site Plan
Wr(tW 6[
BLUFFS WEST 3ra -
Orr\ 0.71-411—.4(
1 I
3-00 ,11 • tat, .
;Z BLUFFS WEST 4thiti41:
Biuns WEST 5th.-
The site is being developed at an .
overall density of 2.2 units per
acre, with a minimum lot size of
13,500 square feet, a maximum lot
size of 18,350 square feet an
average lot size of 14,000 square --
feet. All lots meet or exceed
.requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning
district.
Abutting lot sizes to the south and
east of this site average approx-
imately 1.75 acres in size. Though
AREA LOCATION MAP
Bluffs West 5th 2 July 6, 1984
the transitional difference in lot sizes is large, stre
e
t
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
with an average street frontage of 126 feet in Bluffs We
s
t
5
t
h
A
d
d
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
1
2
5
f
e
e
t
for adjacent lots to the south and east.
Access to this site will be from Riverview Road.
East Riverview Drive and West Riverview Drive are dirt
r
o
a
d
s
a
t
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
,
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
this site and property to the east and south. Riverview
D
r
i
v
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
p
l
a
t
t
e
d
as 66 feet of right-of-way. Riverview Drive will be
r
e
p
l
a
t
t
e
d
a
s
a
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
residential street with 50 feet of right-of-way. 16 fee
t
o
f
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
to be vacated by the City. The plat shows that the pro
p
e
r
t
y
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
t
o
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
line of existing Riverview Road. 40 feet of land area alo
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
b
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
this site should be dedicated as right-of-way for Rivervie
w
R
o
a
d
.
Utilities
There is an existing 50-foot Metro Waste Control Comm
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
(
M
W
C
C
)
,
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
running along the western side of the site. Within this e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
9
0
-
i
n
c
h
s
e
w
e
r
interseptor. The development plan shows that the homes
w
i
l
l
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
this easement line.
Sewer and water service are available to this site by co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
and water lines in Riverview Road.
Storm Water Run-off
The storm drainage plan concept proposes to drain wate
r
i
n
a
w
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
through a series of catch basins and storm sewer pipes in
t
o
a
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
between Lots 2 and 5, Block 1, on the western border of
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
F
r
o
m
t
h
a
t
p
o
i
n
t
,
water will drain through a 12-inch storm sewer pipe to
l
a
n
d
w
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
From that point, water flows in a southwesterly direct
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
e
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
River. Although the total amount of storm water run-o
f
f
a
f
t
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
equal pre-development natural flows, storm water, run
-
o
f
f
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
through a 12-inch pipe and may cause erosion problems
o
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
.
Since an overall storm water run-off plan does not exist
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
o
f
the site, it is difficult to ascertain the potential er
o
s
i
o
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
-
off from the site. Staff would recommend that the prop
o
n
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
storm water run-off plan which shows how water ru
n
-
o
f
f
f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
surrounding areas will be directed towards the Minnesota
R
i
v
e
r
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
property owner to the west must be contacted and his app
r
o
v
a
l
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
outletting of this stormwater.
The storm water run-off plan also proposes to direct
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
-
o
f
f
f
r
o
m
surrounding lots on Block 3 to a low area and a catch basi
n
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
i
s
l
o
w
a
r
e
a
is not a permanent pond, after periods of rapid snow melt
o
r
i
n
t
e
n
s
e
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
,
t
h
e
r
e
will be standing water. This can be an inconvenience to
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
s
s
i
n
c
e
they will be unable to use their backyards for some t
i
m
e
a
f
t
e
r
h
e
a
v
y
r
a
i
n
s
.
A
• potential also exists for flooding of nearby baseme
n
t
s
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
c
a
t
c
h
b
a
s
i
n
become clogged or be underdesigned since a natural overlan
d
o
u
t
l
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
l
o
w
a
r
e
a
is not proposed. Staff would recommend that this pendi
n
g
a
r
e
a
b
e
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
raising the grade of this area to direct storm water run-o
f
f
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
system.
Bluffs West 5th 3 July 6, 1984
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
o
f
1
4
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
into 32 lots and a Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 sub
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the grading and drainage plan to eliminat
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
retention area and catch basin within Block 3.
B. Provide an overall storm water run-off plan for the
a
r
e
a
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
o
w
s
how storm water run-off from this site can be dire
c
t
e
d
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
e
Minnesota River.
C. Revise the Preliminary Plat to show an additional 33
f
e
e
t
o
f
r
i
g
h
t
-
of-way for Riverview Road.
2. . Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed grading, drainage, and erosion contro
l
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
Watershed District for review.
B. Submit detailed erosion control, grading, and drai
n
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
utility plans for review by the City Engineer.
C. Concurrent with final plat approval, the proponent
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
vacation of excess right-of-way for West Riverv
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
Riverview Drive.
3: Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park fee.
B. Submit lighting details for review.
I I '
26- t
BLUFFS WEST 3rd
11 1
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
TRULIGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 24, 1984
PROJECT: Bluffs West 5th Addition
APPLICANT/
'FEE OWNER: Bluffs Company
REQUEST:
1. Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 31 single family lots.
2. A Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5.
Background
The Planning Commission has reviewed
several development alternatives on
this site over the last several
meetings. At the last Planning
Commission meeting, the developer
presented two alternative plans
which utilize Covington Circle as a
cul-de-sac with access off Riverview
Drive or Riverview Road. The
following issues were also discussed
vat-the meeting:
1. Providing an appropriate
transition between the R1-22
lots to the east and south
of this site.
2. Not vacating right-of-way
along Riverview Drive.
3. Driveway access for lots
onto Riverview Road.
4. An overall storm drainage
plan for the entire Bluffs
area.
Revised Site Plan
The revised site plan, submitted by
the proponent, utilizes a cul-de-sac
Bluffs West 5th Addition 2 August 24, 1984
(Covington Circle) with access off Riverview Road. All of the proposed lots, within
the subdivision, meet the minimum dimensional and square footage requirements for
R1-13.5 Zoning. Street frontages, adjacent to the existing R1-22 Zoned lots to the
east and south of Riverview Drive, range between 100 and 150 feet. The street
frontages are comparable, if not larger in size, to adjacent R1-22 lots. Lots
abutting Riverview Road, on the north, are still platted with direct driveway
access.
Riverview Drive will be planned as a residential street with a 28-foot road surface
centered within the 66-foot right-of-way. This will allow for increased setback
area to the abutting lots. Homes on the north side of Riverview Drive will be
setback a minimum of 49 feet from the back of the curb. This distance includes 19
feet of right-of-way and 30 feet of building setback. In a similar manner, on the
south side of proposed Riverview Drive, the adjacent R1-22 lots would have an
additional 19 feet of green area between their existing lot line and the back of the
curb.
Since the initial review of the development plan by the Planning Commission, on July
10, 1984, Staff has discussed with the proponent alternative ways of developing the
site, which addressed the issues raised by the Planning Commission and the
neighborhood at the public hearing. Staff had suggested that to provide an
appropriate transition adjacent to the R1-22 lots, not only should street frontages
be comparable, but lot sizes should be increased to be comparable in size to minimum
requirements for R1-22 Zoning. Staff suggested that this could occur across the
southern tier of lots. Staff also discussed the possibility of changing access for
lots abutting Riverview Road to Covington Circle. This would accomplish two
objectives in making the project appear less dense--it would allow increased side
yard frontages along Riverview Road and would minimize potential traffic conflicts
on Riverview Road by minimizing access points. Staff understands from discussions
with the proponent, that it is possible to develop a plat with access off Covington
Circle; however proponent feels that extensive grading would be required and storm
water run-off would be difficult to handle. In addition, the proponent has shown on
the utility plan that there are existing sewer and water stubs to each of the lots
on the south side of Riverview Road. Staff has discussed the alternative of
arranging the lots with access off Covington Circle with the City Engineering
Department. Their preliminary review indicates that it would be possible to grade
and drain the lots, and that the amount of storm water run-off across those lots,
would be minimal and could be handled by a drainage system which involved some
overland swabs, storm sewer pipe, and catch basins between the lots.
While Staff feels that the revised development plan represents an improvement over
previous plans reviewed by the Commission, orientation of lots towards Covington
Circle and larger lot sizes on the southern tier of lots adjacent to the R1-22 Zone
would be a better plan. Staff recognizes, however, that these revisions will result
in the loss of five lots. (See Attachment A)
Staff would recommend any of the following alternatives:
1. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the preliminary plat of
14.5 acres into 31 single family lots and rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5
based on plans dated August 20, 1984, subject to the following conditions:
A. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
z
Bluffs West 5th Addition 3 . August 24, 1984
1. Submit plans to the Watershed District.
2. Submit detailed sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion
control plans to the Engineering Department for review.
3. Submit an overall storm drainage plan for the Bluffs area
for review by the City.
B. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
1. . Pay the required Cash Park Fee.
2. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance
of any grading or tree removal on the property.
3. Place snow fencing at the construction limits.
Or
2. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the preliminary plat and
rezoning with revisions which would include orientation of lots facing
Riverview Road to Covington Circle and larger lot sizes adjacent to the R1-
22 area, and subject to recommendations contained in A. and B. above.
) c01"
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
A
u
g
u
s
t
6
,
1
9
8
4
•
C. Bluffs West 5th Addition
Refer to staff report dated July 6, 1984 and memo dated
July 12, 1984 from Bob Lambert, Director of Community Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
Lambert reported that this site is located south of Riv
e
r
v
i
e
w
Road. The City trails plan shows an 8' asphalt bikeway
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
along the south side of Riverview Road from County Road
1
8
w
e
s
t
t
o
the deadend of Riverview Road continuing west on Riverv
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
t
o
Highway 169. The bikeway would tie into the City trail
s
v
i
a
t
h
e
bikeway on Homeward Hills Road and north to County Road
4
u
n
d
e
r
Highway 169. These trails would also connect the Eden
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
trail system to the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge. Lambert r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
that the developer be required to construct a section o
f
8
'
asphalt bikeway along the south side of Riverview Road th
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
length of the development.
Baker suggested that instead of building the bikeway no
w
a
n
d
having it deteriorate until it is used, a cash reserve be
k
e
p
t
t
o
complete this bikeway in the future as the need arises.
O r;
4pflump mpuTEs
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION August 6, 1984
-3-
Kingrey agreed with Baker's suggestion to keep the money in an
escrow account to complete the bikeway in the future.
• Lambert said that the homeowners in the area-will expect a bikeway
now since there are no sidewalks here. •
•
suggested that the_City-only grade.a trail now and that
the-escrow account be kept to blacktop the trail when it will be
used since compaction of the asphalt does not occur when it is not
• used and the trail will deteriorate.
Motion: Baker made a motion to recommend that -the developer
• -construct the bikeway and that the City extend it 1-1/2 blocks
westward and pay for it out of road funds. Cook seconded the
:Illation and itcarried.: Kinarev opoosed.:± .
B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. A
continued public hearing.
Planning Staff had received a memorandum from Mr. Gene Dietz, City Engineer,
suggesting a course of action on the storm sewer problems in the Bluffs
area. Mr. Dietz had pointed out that the storm sewer situation must be
resolved prior to final action on any of the proposed Bluffs projects by the
City.
Staff had also discussed the right-of-way width for Riverview Road with the
Engineering Department and it was determined that 66 ft. would be adequate
as the road was not contemplated as a collector road.
Mr. Lloyd Erickson, engineer for proponent, reviewed the alternative
alignments of roads within the project suggested at the previous Planning
Commission meeting on this item. He pointed out that the design of an east-
west road through the property, as opposed to the north-south road shown,
would create many lots in need of variances for lot depth within any of the
R1 Zoning Districts. Also, drainage would not be able to be accomplished as
well with the east-west design.
Based on these findings, proponent had not revised the plans from those
originally shown the Commission at the July 9, 1984, Planning Commission.
Chairman Bearman noted receipt of letters from Mrs. Ruth Hustad, Mr. James
Diehl, and Mrs. Gayle Diehl and asked that these letters be made part of the
permanent record for the project.
Marhula asked if there had been resolution of the situation whereby the
north-south road would be located directly across from the Diehl driveway.
Mr. Erickson stated that the road and the driveway would be offset from each
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 13,1984
other. The Diehls disagreed that this would happen.
Mr. Erickson added that the proponents had reviewed the possibilities of
splitting the excess right-of-way within West and East Riverview Drives and
would split the excess right-of-way equally with the adjacent property
owners.
Chairman Bearman asked proponents If they had determined a method for
servicing the plat with sanitary sewer. Mr. Wally Hustad, Jr., stated that
there were several alternatives available. He stated that they could
Install sewer to service their plat only and pay for it themselves; or, they
could install all of the sewer and share the cost of installation with the
benefitting property owners; or, the City could install the sewer and assess
anyone benefitting.
Mrs. Gayle Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that she had several
concerns: 1) She reiterated concern that the north-south road would align
directly across from her driveway; 2) She stated that she felt the excess
right-of-way should be maintained as is in order to keep a greater distance
and feeling of openness between homes on either side of the road; and 3) She
stated that she felt the developer could provide a better transition between
the larger lots to the south and the proposed lots within the plat.
Chairman Bearman asked if the City had required a 66-foot wide right-of-way
in any other residential area in the City. Staff responded that the
standard requirement was a 50-foot wide right-of-way.
Torjesen stated that he felt perhaps it would be appropriate to maintain the
66-foot wide right-of-way in this case to keep a wider space between lots,
thereby providing a transition of distance.
Marhula expressed concern that not vacating a portion of the right-of-way
would mean that the perimeter lots of the plat would be less than 13,500 sq.
ft.
Staff stated that they had suggested an alternative plan to proponent, which
involved a cul-de-sac from the north off Riverview Road and eliminated any
other additional roads for the plat.
Mr. Erickson stated that they had reviewed such a lot arrangement and showed
the Commission and audience a sketch of the lot layout suggested by Staff.
Mr. Erickson emphasized that it was a sketch, and that the lots would need
to be check dimensionally to determine whether they fit the R1-13.5 Zoning
District requirements.
Staff stated that the dimensioned plan, along with the storm sewer drainage,
would need to be reviewed in detail prior to Staff recommendations on the
plan.
Mr. James Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that he preferred the
design with the cul-de-sac from the north. He stated that he also preferred
a 66-foot wide right-of-way for the road to allow for more distance between
the lots. Mr. Diehl also expressed concern for the proposed temporary
holding ponds for storm water. He stated that he felt they would be a
\
Planning Commission Minutes
5 August 13, 1984
hazard to the children in the area.
Ms. Kate Laseski, 12155 Riverview Road, owner of the property to the west of
the proposed development, expressed concern about the storm water drainage
for the property. She stated that the proposed plan showed all the water
running through her property. She questioned who would be responsible if
the land became too wet to be developed •because of the manner in which storm
water drainage would be proposed for this property east of her.
Chairman Bearman stated that the memorandum from the City Engineer was clear
that no development of this area should take place until a solution to the
storm water drainage had been found and implemented.
Mr. Dennis Laufenberger, 11800 Riverview Road, asked who would be
responsible for paying for sewer and questioned whether people on the north
side of Riverview Road should expect any assessments because of improvements
to this property.
Staff responded that anyone affected by an assessment would be notified of a
hearing to be held prior to the levying of the assessments. Torjesen stated
that he felt it would be a good idea for anyone in a future assessment area
to attend any meeting regarding the assessments as any assessment in their
area la affect them.
Mr. Laufenberger asked if an analysis of the traffic for Riverview Road in
the future had been done. Staff responded that the traffic had been studied .
and that it had been determined that the road was of sufficient size to
handle the added trips from this development, without upgrading of the road.
Staff added that the difference between development of the site as R1-22 and
R1-13.5 had been reviewed and it was found that there would be no
significant change from one district to the other for this property in terms
of traffic impact.
Chairman Bearman stated that Riverview Road was built for a greater capacity
that it currently had in terms of traffic. Planner Enger added that
Riverview Road was designed to handle 3,000 trips per day and that it was
currently at approximately 10% of its capacity.
Mr. Laufenberger stated that he also had a concern that, during
construction, the developer and those working for him please be aware of the
number of children in the area. He stated that construction sites were
natural attractions to children in any case, even though parents might warn
children against them. Mr. Laufenberger pointed out that there were many
young children in the area. Mr. Hustad stated that they, too, were
concerned that children would not be injured on their sites and that he
would encourage his contractors to take necessary precautions during
development.
Ms. Ellen Koshenina, 10501 East Riverview Drive, stated that she felt a
better transition should he seriously considered between the existing larger
lots and the proposed R1-13.5 lots. She stated that she worked in real
estate and felt that larger lots would sell as easily and would provide
opportunity for larger haws in the area. She added that she was also
concerned about the storm water drainage for the area and erosion control
\ C. )
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 13, 1984
during and after construction of the development.
Mr. Regis Betsch, 11941 Pendleton Court, stated concern about the storm
water drainage, also. He pointed out that currently in this area storm
water drainage consisted of overland drainage and storm water holding ponds.
He stated that he did not feel the City needed any more storm water holding
ponds in this area.
Ms. Sue O'Donnell, 11590 Riverview Road, expressed preference for the road
bed to be located in the center of the right-of-way to allow for equal
distance between homes across the street from one another.
Mr. Water Deeres, 11650 Riverview Road, stated that he felt Riverview Road
was becoming a through-street in the area. He stated that he felt the road
should be studied before it became a traffic hazard to those living in the
area to find alternatives to it being a busy street.
Mr. Jim Brown, 11551 Riverview Road, stated that, in the past, when the loop
road represented by East and West Riverview Drive was platted, 66-foot wide
right-of-ways were standard. He added that it was his recollection that the
R1-22 zoning had been approved for this area to allow people to sell their
property at that time as most of the lots were under the five-acre minimum
requirement for the Rural District minimum at that time.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the item to
the August 27, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent time to
revise the plan with a cul-de-sac from the north, off Riverview Road, and
with consideration for transitioning lots along the south border of the
property with existing lots to the south. Further, the revised plat should
require no variances from the R1-13.5 District requirements.
Staff was asked to publish the item for the next available Council meeting,
as the Planning Commission would be prepared to act on either proposal at
that meeting and to forward the item to the Council to avoid further delay
for proponent.
Motion carried--5-0-0
cn cic)
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes
2 July 23, 1984
B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. A
continued public hearing.
Proponent had requested postponement of this item to the August 13, 1984,.
Planning Commission meeting to allow more time to revise the plans. Staff
had notified the property owners immediately adjacent to the project by mail
of the proponent's request for postponement.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the public
hearing on Bluffs West 5th Addition to the August 13, 1984, Planning
Commission meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 9, 1984
E. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive.
n7--
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 9, 1984
Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development
with the Planning Commission. He stated that the storm sewer drainage for
this project would require further study.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report with the Planning Commission. He pointed out that adjacent lots, on
the average, were 1.7 acres in size whereas the lots within Bluffs West 5th
Addition were proposed to be approximately 14,000 square feet at the
largest. Planner Franzen added that the temporary ponding area proposed by
proponent could be a problem in the future to the homeowners in this area.
Marhula stated that he was concerned about the temporary storm water
detention pond. Mr. Wally Hustad Jr., Bluffs Company, stated that they had
been in contact with the property owners to the west regarding the location
of the pond on that property.
Mr. Walter Diers, 11650 Riverview Road, asked if the utilities necessary for
this project would effect property owners to the north. Planner Enger
stated that it was possible, but that it would not necessarily be so. Mr.
Diers pointed out that the only access away from this development in any
direction would be through Concord Lane and from there to Homeward Hills
Road. He stated that this would be a great increase in traffic for the
property owners on Concord. Planner Franzen stated that this development
would represent approximately 320 trips per day, and that peak period
traffic would increase approximately ten percent based on this project.
Ms. Lori Christianson, 11740 Riverview Road, stated that traffic along
Riverview Road was already a difficult situation. She stated that she was
opposed to the increased housing and that she felt the zoning should be an
R1-22, or greater, lot size.
Ms. Linda Soderlund, 11830 Riverview Road, stated that she, too, was
concerned regarding traffic.
Mr. Dennis Soderlund, 11830 Riverview Road, stated that he was opposed to
the change in zoning to this area, and that he, too, felt that an R1-22, or
greater, lot size should be used in this vicinity.
Ms. Judy Finnicum, 11710 Riverview Road, stated that since the property was
currently zoned R1-22 she felt that it should remain R1-22.
Mr. Dennis Laufenburger, 11800 Riverview Road, asked if any agency had done
a traffic study of this vicinity recently. He questioned how much traffic
was currently routed along Riverview Road and how much was planned for the
future, considering that this was the only east/west road within this area
for a large group of homeowners. Mr. Wally Hustad Jr., Bluffs Company,
stated that in his discussions with the people in this area regarding this
project they had pointed out to him that traffic was indeed a problem along
Riverview Road. Mr. Laufenburger stated that he had additional concerns
regarding the wildlife which existed in this area. He stated that he would
not want to see all of the wildlife in this area, particularly since it was
highly populated due to the creek with wildlife, displaced by this project.
Mr. James Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, presented the 1954 plat for
Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 9, 1984
this area, which he stated he had receive from his real estate agent at the
time he purchased his lot. This project showed a total of 20 lots, as
Opposed to the 32 shown by the proponent. He stated he was also concerned
that the lots directly across the street from him would be much smaller and
suggested that they be increased in size to match the property sizes to the
south. Of greatest concern to Mr. Diehl was the fact that the north/south
road coming through the center of the property would align directly across
from his driveway. He stated that this was of major concern to him due to
the fact that he had two small children, which he felt would be in an unsafe
situation should this road be allowed to be aligned in this manner. In
addition, Mr. Diehl stated that he felt the vacated right-of-way that
proponent would be receiving from the City should be split between the
proponent and the adjacent property owners on the periphery of the site.
Mrs. Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that she, too, was agains
t
the north/south road for the same reasons as her husband. She added tha
t
based on the 1954 plat presented by a real estate agent, they had paid
a
premium for their lot.
Mr. Charles Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, stated that he too w
a
s
concerned about the wildlife in this vicinity. He pointed out that the
r
e
were three major deer runs through this property and winding around th
e
adjacent properties. Mr. Koshenina also expressed concern for the amount o
f
traffic that would result from this development.
Chairman Bearman asked if Staff was aware •of any traffic studies or plan
s
for this area. Planner Enger responded that Riverview Road and its future
upgrading had not been included in the City's Capital Improvement Program,
which covered a five-year period.
Ms. Ellen Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, stated that she felt a
traffic study for this vicinity would be very important. She added that,
due to the limited alternatives for exiting this neighborhood, such a
traffic study would be important to this neighborhood. She added that she
was against a higher density proposed for this site.
Mr. Stan Moeschl, 11620 Riverview Road, stated that he was against the high
density proposed by the site. He also expressed concern regarding the
safety of children with the roads aligned as they were through this
property.
Ms. Marilyn Stofferahn, 11968 Pendleton Court, expressed concern for traffic
and for preservation of the wildlife in this area.
Mr. Regis Betsch, 11941 Pendleton Court, stated that he felt the run-of
f
from storm water in this area would be a major issue. He stated that wit
h
the development of this property, fertilizers, etc., would pollute the water
In this vicinity and potentially harm wildlife in the area.
Ms. Lorna Harju, 11770 Riverview Road, stated that she felt the north/sout
h
road through the property should be changed to an east/west road as shown o
n
the 1954 plat. She stated that she would be in favor of sidewalks alon
g
Riverview Road and other streets in this area for safety of the children,
and that, overall, she had a concern regarding traffic. She also suggeste
d
Planning Commission Mi'nUtes 10 July 9, 1984
that the density be lowered for this property.
The Commission discussed the road and traffic situations in this vicinity in
greater detail with the Staff.
Torjeson stated that he did not see a compelling reason for changing the
pattern of development in this area south of Riverview Road to a density
which was greater than, or a lot size which was smaller than, those existing
In this vicinity.
Marhula asked if the property was required to have public improvements for
sewer and water due to the fact that it was R1-22 at this time. Staff
stated that the R1-22 zone had originally been established for areas which
would not require sewer and water. However, in this vicinity, the bluffs
were a very sensitive geographic feature which would require sewer and water
for lot sizes this small.
Schuck stated that he felt the members of the audience should recognize that
.property owners had a right to develop their property. However, the
Planning Commission did have concerns that the property not adversely affect
them. He stated that he was concerned that the driveway which opened onto
the proposed public street running north/south through the property would
have such an adverse impact on the existing property owner. He suggested
that this should be changed in order to improve the development.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public
hearing to the meeting of July 23, 1984, to allow proponent to revise the
site plan per the concerns of the Commission and the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated July 20, 1984 and to deal, specifically, with the
following issues: 1) Status of the excess right-of-way shown in the
preliminary plat; 2) Configuration of the roads within the development, in
particular, orientation of the roads within the plat and those intersections
as they relate to the existing single family homes; 3) Revision of the road
frontages of the lots within the proposed subdivision as they relate to the
existing lots to assure greater compatibility; 4) Status of the future
collector plans for Riverview Road; and 5) Review of the storm water
drainage situation for the project.
Motion carried--4-1-0 (Chairman Bearman against)
Chairman Bearman stated he was against saying that he felt legally, the City
would be hard-pressed not to approve the plat as presented.
Motion carried--5-0-0
: V. NEW bOSINESS
None.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None. r‘C ‘c
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1984
B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. A
continued public hearing.
Chairman Bearman noted that letters had been received from Ellen and Charles
Koshenina, dated August 23, 1984, and from Kate Laseski, dated August 22,
1984, and asked that they be made part of the permanent record for the
project.
Mr. Lloyd Erickson, representing proponent, reviewed the revised plan with a
cul-de-sac road design off Riverview Road. He stated that, due to the
topography of the area, the road would be at a 7% grade, only slightly less
than the maximum allowable by City Code. Mr. Erickson stated that sewer and
water services were available within Riverview Road for the lots shown as
fronting Riverview Road on the revised plat. He explained that turning the
lots along Riverview Road to access the other roads within the plat would
make the lots difficult to develop. Due to the grade change in this area of
the property, slopes of 4/1 would be needed at the back of the lots, which
would be hard to maintain. Therefore, proponents preferred the plan as
presented, with several of the lots fronting Riverview Road.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report. He presented an alternative plat design to the showing larger lots
adjacent to the existing R1-22 lots along the south border of the property,
creating a transition between existing and proposed development. This would
result in the loss of one lot along the south border of the property.
Gartner asked how many lots would be possible, if the property were
developed as R1-22, instead of R1-13.5. Staff responded that approximately
23-25 lots would be possible.
Gartner asked if the Cash Park Fees for this property would be allocated to
this neighborhood. Staff responded that they would not. However, at this
time, two totlots were in the development stages, as well as a neighborhood
park of approximately 15 acres on Homeward Hills Road, just north of this
property.
Torjesen stated that he felt the overriding issue was justification for
change of the zoning district from R1-22 to R1-13.5. He stated that, while
he was comfortable with the majority of the plan as redesigned, he was
uncomfortable with the transition between the existing R1-22 residential
area south of the project and the proposed lots. He stated that he
preferred the Staff's version of this area, eliminating one more lot along
the south boundary of the project. Torjesen added that he felt the
proponent's argument for having the lots along the north border of the
project access Riverview Road was a valid one based on the topography of the
property.
Chairman Bearman stated that he had no objections to the project, as
designed. He stated that he felt the project met the intent of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan for Low Density Residential development of the
property. Chairman Beaman added that, from testimony given at previous
meetings, and from the history of the area presented by Staff, it was clear
that this area had been zoned R1-22 based on situations which had now
changed, particularly involving sewer and water availability and definitions
of Low Density Residential development and Rural zoning.
Torjesen stated that he felt the area residents had expectations of this
property being developed as R1-22, which were valid. He questioned whether
the zoning district or the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation would take
precedence in a situation like this.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt it was the Commission's responsibility
to review each project, based on its own merits, as to whether it fit a
site, or not. Torjesen stated that he agreed. Chairman Bearman stated
that, in his opinion, this project fit the site and the intent of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Mr. James Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that he preferred the
larger lots shown by Staff's design to be located across from his property.
He stated that he did not feel that developers should design projects to the
maximum limits just because sewer and water had become available to an area.
Ms. Ellen Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, expressed concern regarding
the storm water drainage in the area. She sated that she did not feel it
was appropriate for the same engineering firm to be working for the
developer and the City in a situation such as this and suggested that an
independent firm be hired to prepare the study necessary for this project.
Ms. Koshenina questioned the status of the study at this time. Staff
responded that the City Engineering Department was in the process of
gathering information now, and that the report would be forthcoming. Staff
added that the engineering firm in question was providing information, only,
to the City Engineering Department, but that the study was being conducted
by City Staff.
Torjesen stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to prejudge the
Staff, or the engineering firm involved with the project, but that it was
the responsibility of the citizens and the Commission and Council to stay
involved in the process to the point they were satisfied with the results.
Mr. Brendon O'Donnell, 11590 Riverview Road, presented a petition from the
surrounding residents. He stated that they, as a group, had four major
concerns: that a permanent solution to the storm water drainage problem in
the entire area be instituted; that a compelling reason for changing from
R1-22 to R1-13.5 zoning had not been presented by the proponent; that the
development of R1-13.5 lots would lower the value of their lots in the
surrounding area; and, it was their opinion that the only one to benefit
from the smaller lots would be the developer, that no benefit would be
forthcoming to the surrounding property owners.
The Commission disagreed with the concern regarding lowering of property
values. Chairman Bearman stated that there never been a case of this type
proven in the City. Torjesen stated that he was unaware of any situation
where adjacent properties were devalued based on a future differing
development. Schuck stated that the Cardinal Creek development in his area
certainly had not experienced such a devaluation based on surrounding
developments.
Mrs. Gayle Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that she was in favor
of the Staff's design for the plat as it affected her property to the south
of the proposed development.
Gartner asked if there would be a difference in time for the project if the
Commission made their recommendations prior to the storm sewer study being
completed, or postponed their recommendation on the item until the storm
sewer study was completed. Staff responded that the Council already taken
action such that no development of a previous Bluffs area project could take
place until this study was completed and that they were aware of the future
Bluffs area projects coming to them. Staff stated that they felt it was the
Council's intent, and that it would be Staff's recommendation, that all
Bluff's projects not be developed until the storm sewer situation was
resolved.
Gartner stated that she felt the project should return to the Commission for
review, if the storm sewer study resulted in a substantive change to the
project design. Other Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Erickson, engineer for proponent, confirmed that, as Staff had stated
earlier, their firm would only be providing information to the City
Engineering Department for the City's purposes in preparing the study of the
storm sewer. Their firm would not be making any recommendations to the City
on the matter.
Mr. Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, reiterated concern that the
developers, just because sewer and water had become available to a property,
felt they could automatically develop at the highest density possible. He
stated that he felt the property should remain as R1-22 and be developed as
such.
Ms. Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, stated that she found the process
frustrating. She stated that, based on information presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission should be reviewing the entire area, not
just this project, in relationship to the overall storm water drainage
problems in this vicinity.
Chairman Dearman responded that the Planning Commission relied on the
Engineering Staff for review of the engineering details of a development.
Furthermore, questions relating to assessments resulting from engineering
projects involving streets or utilities were dealt with by the City Council,
not the Commission. The Commission had been organized as a recommending
body to the Council on planning matters.
Mr. Darrell Dilling, 11441 Riverview Road, stated that, in his opinion, the
engineering work done in this area had been poorly done, as was evident by
the current problems being faced by the surrounding residents. He suggested
that a completely independent firm be hired to deal with the storm water
drainage plan for the area.
Torjesen stated that the question to the City on such matters was how much
money should be spent to solve a problem of this type, to what level of
perfection. He stated that the citizens had a responsibility to remain
involved to be certain that the amount of money spent would be enough to
answer the problem to the level of perfection they expected. Torjesen
stated that the political question was one of the amount of money to be
spent.
Staff stated that, at the time of development in any area, the City also had
to consider the burdens upon open property where owners were not yet ready
to develop. There was a political feeling for not placing burdens property
prematurely. Chairman Bearman reiterated that these decisions were the
responsibility of the City Council, not the Planning Commission, and that
the Planning Commission was a recommending body on planning matters, only.
Ms. Kate Laseski, 12155 Riverview Road, asked if assessments would affect
all the properties in the area. Staff responded that the entire area would
be notified of any proposed assessment and that anyone notified should he in
attendance at any meeting held regarding the assessment.
Mr. Mike Furst, 8693 Darnell, stated that he felt the Planning Commission
was a political body and that, in his opinion, it should have all the facts
available on these matters before it acted on a proposal.
Chairman Bearman responded that the Commission was not a political body,
that it was a recommending body, only, to the Council, whose responsibility
It was to make political decisions. The issues being discussed regarding
cost of a study and possible utility extensions were issues for the Council
to decide, not the Commission.
Torjesen stated that the Commission was made up of seven people who, just
like the members of the audience, were concerned about the City. They are
not elected to their positions, but appointed.
(Johannes arrived at 8:45 p.m.)
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
MOTION 2:
Move to recommend to the City Council, approval of the request of the Bluffs
Company for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres for
29 single family residential lots to be known as Bluffs West 5th Addition,
based on revised plans dated August 20, 1984, removing one lot from the
south boundary of the project as per the Staff-designed plan, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of August 24, 1984, and with the
following added conditions: 1) No development of the property be allowed
until a workable storm water drainage plan for the entire area has been
approved by the Engineering Department and acceptable to the City Council;
and, 2) Any substantive changes resulting from the final, approved storm
water drainage plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
MOTION 3:
Move to recommend to the City Council, approval of the request of the Bluffs
Company for Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres for single family residential
development to be known as Bluffs West 5th Addition, based on revised plans
dated August 20, 1984, removing one lot from the south boundary of the
project as per the Staff-designed plan, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report of August 24, 1984, and with the following added
conditions: 1) No development of the property be allowed until a workable
storm water drainage plan for the entire area has been approved by the
Engineering Department and acceptable to the City Council; and, 2) Any
substantive changes resulting from the final, approved storm water drainage
plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
Torjesen stated that he felt it was important that temporary solutions to
the storm water drainage plan, such as the temporary retention ponds
proposed by proponents of this project, be specifically disallowed in any
recommendation that would be forthcoming from the Engineering Staff of the
City. He stated that he felt a more permanent solution was necessary. .
Other Commissioners concurred.
1,c0o
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #84-234
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS EAST 3RD ADDITION,
FOR THE BLUFFS COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluffs East 3rd Addition, for the Bluffs C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
dated June 26, 1984, consisting of 9.63 acres for 39 single family lots, a
c
o
p
y
o
f
which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto
,
a
n
d
i
s
herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the
, 1984.
day of
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
PROPOSED SITE
AREA LOCATION MAP
`-t
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 10, 1984
PROJECT: Bluffs East 3rd Addition
APPLICANT/ The Bluffs Company
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 11.50 acres into 29 single family lots.
2. Rezoning of approximately 9.63 acres from Rural to R1-13.5.
3. Planned Unit Development District Review from 11.50 acres.
Background
The developer is proposing the
subdivision of Outlets D and E,
Bluffs West 2nd Addition, which was
previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission as part of a 44-acre
Planned Unit Development which
involved approximately six acres of
townhomes and 38 acres for single
family homes. A preliminary plat
was approved subdividing 44 acres
for 90 single family detached units
and 40 townhome units.
Outlets D and E were not included in
the rezoning request zoned at the
time of the previous review by the
Planning Commission since no de-
velopment plans were submitted at
that time. It was the Staff's
recommendation that Outlet D and E
be considered for future development
and proposed R1-13.5 zoning. The
large lots would serve as a
transition between the proposed R1-
9.5 zoning and land to the south
and west of the project which are
designated as low density re-
sidential. Staff also recommended
that lots to be platted in Outlet E,
2_ o Ot-
Bluffs East 3rd 2 August 10, 1984
because of their close proximity and high visibility from the Purgatory Cree
k
,
should be platted with no less than 90 feet of lot width. Outlot D should
b
e
platted in compliance with the minimum requirements for R1-13.5 zoning which mean
s
a
55-foot minimum street frontage, 70 feet at the building setback line, and a mini
m
u
m
lot size of 13,500 square feet.
Shoreland Management, Floodplain, Purgatory Creek Study
The proposal lies directly east of the lower reach of Purgatory Creek.
T
h
e
Shoreland Management Zone would occur approximately 300 feet from the center lin
e
o
f
the creek. This project is not within the Purgatory Creek Floodplain,
t
h
e
conservancy area or transition area of the Purgatory Creek study. However,
t
h
e
western portion of the subdivision to the west of Meade Lane occurs at the top
o
f
the bluffs, which drops off very steeply to Purgatory Creek.
Site Plan
The proposed site plan involves 29 lots on approximately 11.5 acres of land
a
t
a
density of 2.5 units per acre. The area to be rezoned involves approximately
9
.
7
5
acres. The site plan indicates that the lots have been platted in accordance
w
i
t
h
the recommendations of the previous Staff Report for lot sizes and lot width
o
f
9
0
feet for Outlot D and lot sizes and lot width of 70 feet for lots in Outlot E.
Grading
There is a substantial amount of grading on site. A general way of describin
g
t
h
e
proposed grading plan would be that the knolls on the site are cut between 16
t
o
2
4
feet and used to fill in the low areas on the site between 16 to 24 feet. Alt
h
o
u
g
h
this might appear as a drastic change to the existing site character of t
h
e
property, the road system seems to be planned in the most appropriate area from
a
topographic stand point.
Since the existing soil characteristics are sandy and very erosive, and with t
h
e
amount of natural overland drainage expected, each lot should be sodded up
o
n
completion of the building, at least to the back of the unit, with all slopes of
3
/
1
or greater being sodded as well. A 3/1 slope area occur across Lots 2 through
6
,
Block 1, and Lots 13 through 17, Block 2. All boulevard areas should also be sod
d
e
d
upon completion of construction of the individual units.
Drainage
Drainage in this subdivision is proposed to be handled from each lot in
t
h
e
development plan, with the majority of storm water runoff sheet draining to
t
h
e
south and west of the site. This drainage plan should be followed in order
t
o
assure that no individual homes will be adversely impacted by backyard or sidey
a
r
d
drainage. Storm water runoff from the proposed streets will drain into catch bas
i
n
s
which will be connected through a series of storm sewer pipes to a natural sink
h
o
l
e
to the south of Lots 14 and 15. Block 2. The 15-inch storm sewer pipe from M
e
a
d
e
Lane should be extended to the sedimentation basin. This sink hole has
b
e
e
n
constructed as a sedimentation pond. Since the bottom of the sink hole is 827.3
a
n
d
the overflow is at 831.3, the developer should submit storm water ru
n
o
f
f
calculations to the City Engineering Department which illustrates condition
s
o
f
overflow and direction and treatment of outfall of the pond would be treate
d
i
n
order to assure no erosion of the creek valley to the south. Staff expects tha
t
t
h
e
00
Bluffs East 3rd 3 .August 10, 1984
outfall from the storm sewer system for this residential area will be piped to
Purgatory Creek. Since future development is expected to occur south of the site
with the extension of Meade Lane, the proponent should submit details which indicate
the ultimate storm sewer plan to serve the area and submit for Engineering review.
Transportation System
Meade Lane, Grant Drive, and Lee Drive, are proposed to be constructed with 60 feet
of right-of-way and a 28-foot road surface which would allow for a five-foot wide
concrete sidewalk to be constructed along the south side of Grant Drive and Lee
Drive and along the west side of Meade Lane which will eventually connect to a
pedestrian system planned parallel to Purgatory Creek. An eight-foot wide bituminus
trail is proposed for construction by the developer along the west side of Frani°
Road. Meade Lane should be designed as a temporary cul-de-sac, consistent with
Engineering requirements and be posted with a sign which clearly indicates this road
as a temporary dead end.
Parks
There is a 20-acre park owned by the City, although currently undeveloped, on the
east side of Franlo Road, directly adjacent to this site which will provide for a
variety of recreational activities. The Cash Park Fee would be paid on each lot and
unit at the time of building permit issuance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat request to subdivide
approximately 11.50 acres of land for 29 single family lots, a Rezoning from Rural
to R1-13.5 for approximately 9.63 acres and a Planned Unit Development District
approval on 11.50 acres based on plans dated June 26, 1984 and subject to the
-foilowing:
1. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for the
Watershed District for review.
B. Submit detailed erosion control, storm water runoff, and sewer and
water plans for review by the City Engineer.
2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee on a per unit basis.
C. Post a temporary dead end sign at the end of Meade Lane
3. Upon completion of individual units, proponent shall:
A. Sod the lot from the back of the curb to the back of the individual
unit.
B. Sod all drainage swales and graded areas with slopes in excess of
. 3/1 as part of the overall site grading restoration.
E. BLUFFS EAST 3RD ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.63 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of approximately 9.63 acres for 29 single family
lots. Location: West of Franlo Road, South of Lee Drive. A public
hearing.
Mr. Lloyd Erickson, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed
development with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and
recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the request.
Torjesen asked if any variances were being requested for the project. Mr.
Erickson responded that there were none.
Marhula asked why Staff had recommended that the rear of the lots be sodded
as part of the development conditions. Staff stated that this was due to
the instability of the bluff soils in this vicinity.
Mr. Bob Ovie, 10559 Grant Avenue, asked if there were any plans for
additional parks in this area. Staff responded that there was a City park
planned in this area, which had not yet been developed.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.63 acres, based on plans dated June 26,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10,
1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Preliminary Plat
of 9.63 acres into single family lots, based on plans dated June 26, 1984,
subject to the recmanendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1984.
Motion carried-5-0-0
-2.
August 28, 1984
Honmabte Mayolt and City Counctt
City 06 Eden Paaikie
Eden P4a2ke,Minnezota 55344
Re: Extension 06 42" Stonm
PAae Centea Pave and Singtetue Lane
Genttemen:
atith the impending development 06 the p4oposed Eden Pkdikie Tennis Ctub and the
constAuction o6 Singtetkee Lane WM PhAihie Centek Wave to Eden Road at the
pubtic heaking ztage, we betieve that the extenzion o6 the 42" 4tohm zewek west
64om Pkae Centen 1J/time should be tesotved at this time.
This zewek outtet &mina StngtetAte Lane fSeAmet-Smaby and Ternan), a zmatt pakt
oi Eden Road, and a section o6 Pkaikie Centek Wave t.t.set6. We believe all con-
tn.tbuting pak.ties shoutd shau the cost. With the cuakemt pubtic heantng on
Singtetkee Lane and Eden Avenue, and the Pkainie Centek Daive pkoject AWL open
to iinat iinishing wonk, a decision to comptete the with and dietkibute the cost
can be mute at this tina.
We pkopose the 6ottow4ng ion you4 considemtion:
1. The Ctty and pupeAty ownekz shoutd ague on a bazie dezign 604
this entnance aua to the pakk ptaza oi civic centek. That de-
4n may tnvotve some open =tea, but mast ttkety witt tequike
extension 06 the 42" pipe. intZiat ptans. 04. the Tenntz Ctub
aae in the Ptann.ing Depantment now.
2. The actuat constAuction 06 the apptoved destgn (above), be in-
cluded in the Stngtetue Lane pnoject, so that the BeAmet-Smaby/
Teftan zhaae can be azzezzed wtth the ztkeet pkoject, the Paaikie
Centeit Dktve poation tnctuded tn the 6.inat coztz 6o4 that pkoject,
and a zratt pant 06 the cot z inctuded in the Eden Road aszezzment
az wett.
3. We betieve that an equttabte dat&tbution 06 costs woutd be:
a. One-thtAd (1/3) assigned to the Paaikie Centek Daive
pkoject costz. Thiz woutd extend the pipe to a point
apooximatety at the 'teat building tine 604 a typicat
mItti-ztoky building an any zite along Pkaikie Centek
Niue. Thiz woutd Leave the 6kont and side yaltds 604
tandscape devetopment tgpicatty uquined by the City.
Honoaabte Mayon and City Councit
August 28, 1984
Page 2
b. One-hati (1/2) 06 the cost bi assezzed equaty
to the Benmet-Smlby/Teman pnopeAtiez az pant oi
the cost 06 .impaoving Singtetnee Lane.
c. One-sixth (1/6) 06 the cost be assessed to the
Eden Road paojeat 04 assumed by the City az pant
06 .Lt 4 aka/1.e 06 the paAk ptaza entnance devetopment
cutz.
We ash youn considetation o6 oua ptoposat as pant 06 the pubtic heng pnocesa
on the Singtetnee Lane and Eden Road impnovememt pnojectz.
JOHN K. TEMAN
September 4, 1984
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
• RESOLUTION 84-240
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
•
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 7th day of
August, 1984, fixed the 4th day of September, 1984, as the date for a public
hearing on the following proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-011, Eden Road and Singletree Lane Streets
and Utilities.
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the Council hearing through
two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was
held on the 4th day of September, 1984, at which all persons desiring to be
heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer, with the assistance of BRW, Inc., are
hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for
the making of such improvement.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 4, 1984.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Prane, Finance Director
DATE: August 30, 1984
RE: T.E.F.R.A. Hearing on Thomas Hotel I.D.R. Project - $9,170,000
Resolution No. 84-237
This hearing is necessary because of Federal Regulation relating
to the issuance of I.D.R. Bonds because approval by the City is
over 1 year old. The hearing can be conducted in the same manner
as an I.D.R. hearing. Resolution 84-237 is attached for your
consideration. This project is not part of the City's *Cap".
JDF:bw
8/30/84
2.601
Member introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXTENDING PUBLIC APPROVAL PRE-
VIOUSLY GIVEN TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of
the City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
1. It has been previously found, determined and
declared by the Council as follows:
1.1. The welfare of the State of Minnesota (the
"State") requires active promotion, attraction, en-
couragement and development of economically sound in-
dustry and commerce through governmental acts to pre-
vent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands
and areas of chronic unemployment, and it is the policy
of the State to facilitate and encourage action by local
government units to prevent the economic deterioration
of such areas to the point where the process can be
reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of
local, state and federal funds derived from taxation,
with the attendant necessity of relocating displaced
persons and of duplicating public services in other
areas.
1.2. Technological change has caused a shift to a
significant degree in the area of opportunity for edu-
cated youth to processing, transporting, marketing,
service and other industries, and unless existing and
related industries are retained and new industries are
developed to use the available resources of the City, a
large part of the existing investment of the community
and of the State as a whole in educational and public
service facilities will be lost, and the movement of
talented, educated personnel of mature age to areas
where their services may be effectively used and com-
pensated and the lessening attraction of persons and
businesses from other areas for purposes of industry,
commerce and tourism will deprive the City and the State
of the economic and human resources needed as a base for
providing governmental services and facilities for the
remaining population.
1.3. The increase in the amount and cost of govern-
mental services requires the need for more intensive
development and use of land to provide an adequa*.e tax
base to finance these costs.
1.4. Thomas Hotel Company (the "Company"), has
previously advised this City Council that it desires to
acquire land located one-half (1/2) mile south of the
intersection of Highway 169 and Interstate 494 in the
City, acquire and construct a building thereon and
acquire and install equipment therefor (the "Project")
to be utilized as a first class hotel and related
facilities.
1.5. The existence of the Project in the City will
contribute to more intensive development and use of land
to increase the tax base of the City and overlapping
taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an in-
crease in opportunities for employment for residents of
the City.
1.6. The City has been advised that conventional,
commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the
Project is available at such costs of borrowing that the
economic feasibility of operating the Project would be
significantly reduced, but that with the aid of munici-
pal financing and its resulting low borrowing cost the
Project is economically more feasible.
1.7. This Council has been advised by a representa-
tive of The Steinberg Financial Corporation, in Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, mortgage bankers, that on the basis
of information submitted to them and their discussions
with representatives of the Company and potential buyers
of tax-exempt bonds, industrial development revenue
bonds, notes or other obligations of the City could be
issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to
finance the Project.
1.8. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds, notes or other
obligations to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of
the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improve-
ment, betterment or extension of capital projects con-
sisting of properties used and useful in connection with
a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the
Company; the issuance of such bonds, notes or other
obligations by the City would be a substantial induce-
ment to the Company to construct its facility in the
City.
2. The notice of public hearing for the public hearing
held on this date was submitted for publication by Carl J.
Jullie, the City Manager of the City, which action was taken
in accordance with the authority granted the City Manager,
and which action is hereby ratified by the Council.
- 2 - 7,01\
3. On the basis of information given the City to date,
the City reaffirms its earlier decision that it appears that
it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its
commercial development revenue bonds, notes or other obliga-
tions under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
474, to finance the Project of the Company at a cost
presently estimated not to exceed $9,170,000.
4. The City has previously given preliminary approval
to the Project on August 16, 1983 and such approval was
extended on August 7, 1984. Section 103(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, requires "public approval"
of any project to be financed with industrial development
bonds. Under the Regulations to Section 103(k), public
approval follows a public hearing and must be within one
year of the date of the 'issue. As the earlier public
approval given on August 16, 1983, it was necessary to hold
a new public hearing and reaffirm the public approval given
earlier.
5. The Project has received approval by the Minnesota
Energy and Economic Development Authority.
6. The Project is hereby given public approval by the
City.
7. This resolution is not intended to be a new pre-
liminary approval for the Project but is intended only to
satisfy the requirements under Section 103(k) for public
approval of the Project.
8. The adoption of this resolution by the Council does
not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the
City will issue any bonds, notes or other obligations as
requested by the Company. The City retains the right in its
sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accord-
ingly not issue the bonds, notes or other obligations should
the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine
that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the
bonds, notes or other obligations or should the parties to
the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms
and conditions of any of the documents required for the
transaction.
9. All commitments of the City expressed herein are
subject to the condition that on or before December 31,
1984, the City and the Company shall have agreed to mutually
acceptable terms and conditions of the revenue agreement,
the bonds, notes or other obligations and of the other
instruments and proceedings relating thereto and to the
issuance and sale of the bonds, notes or other obligations
- 3 -
and the sale of such bonds, notes or other obligations has
been closed by such date. If the events set forth herein do
not take place within the time set forth above, or any
extension thereof, and the bonds, notes or other obligations
are not sold within such time, this resolution shall expire
and be of no further effect.
Mayor
Attest:
Finance Director-Clerk
2-0 1*
SEPTEMBER 4,1984
15349 VOID OUT CHECK
15718 INSTY PRINTS
15719 MARY BETH CAMERON
15720 HOPKINS POSTMASTER
15721 CENTRAL METAL PRODUCTS
15722 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
15723 BRIANNA GRIFFITHS
15724 NICK BENO
15725 BRIAN MCKAY
15726 JAMES WILLET
15727 QUALITY WINE CO
15728 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO
15729 PAUSTIS & SONS CO
15730 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
15731 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO
15732 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
15733 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR
15734 EAGLE WINE CO
15735 HOPKINS POSTMASTER
15736 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC
15737 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC
15738 STUART ALEXANDER
15739 AQUA CITY IRRIGATION
W 4 0 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC
1 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
15742 AVR INC
15743 DENIS BILLMYER
15744 LOIS BOETTCHER
15745 ISAAC R BLAKEY JR
15746 BLOOMINGTON LOCK & SAFE
15747 LEE BRANDT
15748 BUILDERS ENGINEERING CO
15749 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY
15750 CARDOX CORPORATION
15751 CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT
15752 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS
15753 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC
15754 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC
15755 CONCRETE RAISING INC
15756 CUTLER MAGNER CO
15757 DALCO
15758 DEL-AIR CONDITIONING INC
15759 DUNDEE NURSERY & LANDSCAPING CO
15760 DUSTCOATING INC
15761 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS
15762 CHRIS ENGER
15763 RON ESS
15764 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES
FREEWAY FORD INC
; 36 MATT PURSER
15767 G L CONTRACTING INC
15768 B F GOODRICH TIRE CENTER
15769 GOPHER SIGN CO
15770 BECKY PLOWMAN HAHN
15771 HARMON GLASS
PRINT NEWSLETTERS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
REFUND-GOLF CLASSES
POSTAGE-SENIOR CITIZENS NEWSLETTERS
DOG CAGES-CANINE UNIT
JULY SALES TAX
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
WINE
WINE
WINE
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
WINE
POSTAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER
OFFICE SUPPLIES
WARNING SIGNS/HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGNS
MILEAGE
SERVICE-ROUND LAKE PARK
BLACKTOP
SERVICE
CONCRETE-DRAINAGE DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
MINUTES FOR PARK & REC COMMISSION MEETING
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
REPAIR LOCK-CITY HALL
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE-STARING LAKE PARK
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES
CARBON DIOXIDE-WATER DEPT
FILTER ASSY/ELEMENT KIT-PARK MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT PARTS-WATER DEPT
RING/SEAL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FLYWHEEL/CABLE/HOSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
MUDJACKING SERVICE-DRAINAGE DEPT
QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT
CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
REPAIR AIR CONDITIONER-LIQUOR STORE
TREES-PARK MAINTENANCE
OIL ROADS-DUST CONTROL
ADJ RINGS FOR MANHOLE-SEWER DEPT
AUGUST EXPENSES
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
VOLLEYBALL NETS-HIDDEN PONDS PARK
STARTER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
REPAIR VALVE-VALLEY VIEW ROAD
4 BOBCAT TIRES/9 TIRES
PAINT-WATER DEPT
TENNISINSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID
WINDSHIELD-SQUAD CAR
10ALk
33.00-
100.49
33.00
26.87
231.00
14911.30
6.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
263.52
383.99
1020.55
4747.02
739.00
3587.57
2945.41
580.95
800.00
982.91
426.76
27.75
115.50
3313.28
13.80
63.75
137.50
76.50
730.50
45.00
218.00
15000.00
394.60
517.37
41.80
48.79
16.96
217.48
1343.00
6988.38
275.40
132.35
58.92
2052.00
95.00
165.00
231.00
95.00
146.61
66.00
1121.48
878.27
652.43
872.00
132.57
15772 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
15773 IMPERIAL INC
15"4 KAR PRODUCTS INC
It
REBECCA KRAGH
15776 DOUGLAS LAWYER
15777 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC
15778 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR
15779 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
15780 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS
15781 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO
15782 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
15783 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
15784 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSN
15785 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS
15786 MINNESOTA TREE INC
15787 MODERN TIRE CO
15788 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO
15789 GREG MUELLER
15790 JOHN MURRAY
15791 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
15792 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
15793 STEVE OLSTAD
15794 HARRY ORTLOFF
15795 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY
15796 PATRICK PEREZ
15797 PITNEY BOWES
15798 PLAQUES PLUS INC
11-'9 POMMER MFG CO INC
M„O PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
15801 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
15802 R & R SPECIALTIES INC
15803 RADIO SHACK
15804 PAUL ROGERS
15805 ST-REGIS CORP
15806 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC
15807 DAN SHIMEK
15808 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP
15809 SNAP PRINT-WEST
15810 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC
15811 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC
15812 MONTY STUHLER
15813 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC
15814 VAN WATERS & ROGERS
15815 WATER PRODUCTS CO
15816 WATERITE INC
15817 WEED KING
15818 JOE WIETHOFF
15819 WILENSKY TRUCK & EQUIP CO
15820 XEROX CORP
15821 SUSAN E ELLIS
15822 MARK PANNKUK
1823 BEN SKINNER
'4 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS
025 ROBERT LAMBERT
FLOOR DRI-PARK MAINTENANCE
WIRE CONNECTORS/BOLTS & NUTS-FIRE DEPT
ELECTRIC TERMINAL-STREET GARAGE •
INSTRUCTOR/SAILING/FEES PAID
SNOW FENCE & POSTS-PARK MAINTENANCE
L/P ALBUMS-COMMUNITY CENTER
BLADES-PARK MAINTENANCE
STREET SWEEPER PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FORMS-BUILDING DEPT
CONCESSIONS STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CTR
BLACKTOP
MANUAL-ENGINEERING DEPT
TOUCH FOOTBALL REGISTRATIONS/FEES PAID
INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES
TREES-WATER DEPT
REPAIR TIRE/WHEEL ALIGNMENT
SWITCH-PARK MAINTENANCE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
SERVICE
SERVICE
MILEAGE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
REPAIR BROKEN SEAT-SQUAR CAR
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
COPIER-COMMUNITY CENTER
PLAQUE & KEY TO CITY
TROPHIES-SOFTBALL/FEES PAID
ELECTRICAL SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER
REPAIR TAPE RECORDER-PLANNING DEPT
ROTOR/POINTS/CAP-COMMUNITY CENTER
STYLUS FOR MUSIC-COMMUNITY CENTER
DISCING & PLOWING-RIDING ARENA
LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE
PORTABLE RESTROOMS-PARKS DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
SMALL TOOLS-STREET GARAGE
POSTERS-SUNBONNET DAYS -
EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER
ADS-LIQUOR STORES
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
GAS CYLINDER-COMMUNITY CENTER
CHLORINE-WATER DEPT
PIPE/GENERATOR COVER/VB RISER-WATER DEPT
CHLORINE SENSOR-COMMUNITY CENTER
WEED CUTTING
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
RADIATOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SERVICE
MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT
MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT
MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT
HORSEBACK RIDING LESSONS/DAY CAMP/FEES PO
SEPTEMBER EXPENSES
21.78
287.28
80.98
240.00
375.00
116.25
110.40
307.90
198.65
239.55
478.66
60.00
80.00
27.30
281.75
47.90
32.58
25.00
25.00
1326.04
82.07
7.63
237.50
55.00
437.50
2830.00
85.86
1235.00
358.75
53.50
66.03
39.90
225.00
1366.32
1812.37
37.50
168.55
25.75
60.00
68.64
125.00
126.60
483.08
971.38
93.00
651.00
112.50
171.45
1460.22
90.25
128.75
94.50
1200.00
184.50
1950712
15826 PETTY GASH
15827 J KRIS KRYSTOFIAK
15828 MENARDS
4 STATE OF MINNESOTA
921)1733
EXPENSES
MILEAGE
LUMBER-EDENVALE BLVD
IDR DEPOSIT
66.88
128.75
28.56
92393.14
$180197.78
ember 4, 1984
Cash Disbursements by Fund number
10 GENERAL
15 L/S PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL
17 L/S PRESERVE
31 PARK ACOUIST & DEVELOP
51 IMPROV CONST FUND
73 WATER FUND
77 SEWER FUND
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND
$180197.78
30761.97
14993.66
11051.60
16227.10
28.56
13995.75
95.00
93044.14
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services Department 12-'
August 29, 1984
Woodpile Ordinance
Attached is the July 10 memo from Craig Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager,
regarding woodpile regulations. The City Council reviewed this memo at their
July 10th meeting and referred this item to the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission.
The request for a woodpile ordinance was initiated by several residents in
the Summit Drive area. Prior to the August 6 meeting, the City received a
petition from 22 of the 37 homeowners living in the Summit Drive neighborhood
indicating that they do not believe .a woodpile ordinance is necessary.
This City receives 3-4 complaints a year regarding woodpiles and nearly always
is able to resolve the situation by talking to the property owner and requesting
they clean up an unsightly area.
If the woodpile is detrimental to the public health and welfare due to rodents
or because it is stacked too high and is in danger of falling, the City is able
to correct the matter with existing ordinances.
The main complaint regarding woodpiles is that they are unsightly and some
people would prefer an ordinance requiring woodpiles to be stacked in the back-
yards. In several windshield surveys fo the community, it was determined that
this type of ordinance would affect hundreds of households where there does not
appear to be an existing concern or problem.
If an ordinance were developed to provide standards for woodpiles and inspections
for rodents, etc. it would would require a full-time person at least six months
out of the year to conduct those inspections.
The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission unanimously voted to
recommend that the City Council not pursue developing a woodpile ordinance.
The Community Services staff concur with the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission recommendation.
BL:md
JULY 10. 1984
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Woodpile Regulations
A resident has requested that the City Council enact an ordinance to regulate
the size and location of woodpiles for aesthetic and public health and safety
reasons. A recently-adopted ordinance from the City of Bloomington was
Included as a model. The resident also believed that it would be advantageous
to establish such regulations now to insure aesthetic qualities and public
health and safety as future development occurs.
Outside storage of wood is a common practice in Eden Prairie. City staff
conducted a widespread survey of outside storage in 1981. Staff viewed
properties in 13 neighborhoods (both new and established) for outside storage
of such items as firewood, boats, trailers, and inoperable vehicles.
Firewood, the most numerous and widespread item, was observed in each of the
13 neighborhoods surveyed. More recent windshield surveys suggest that
outside firewood storage is just as common and widespread as in 1981.
' .Few problems have been encountered in the City concerning firewood storage.
- Staff in the Planning, Building Inspections, and Community Services
departments receive fewer than a dozen inquiries and/or complaints yearly on
the subject.
Survey of Other Communities: Regulations on firewood storage are not
widespread in the metropolitan. area. A staff survey conducted in 1981
revealed that all of the cities contacted--Bloomington, Maple Grove,
Minnetonka, Shakopee, and Woodbury--did not have ordinances for this storage.
Bloomington, Edina, Maple Grove, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, and Woodbury were
contacted in 1984; only Bloomington had adopted woodpile regulations.
Inquiries to the Metropolitan Council databank resulted only in obtaining a
model ordinance; there was no indication that any city had such regulations.
A Zoning Issue or a Public Health Issue? Two ways of approaching firewood
storage regulations appear to be appropriate. One method is by zoning in a
manner similar to that of the City of Bloomington. This approach specifies
yard setbacks and/or prohibitions for storage; conditions under which wood may
be stored in the open or must be stored in an enclosure; whether the woodpile
may be stored flush with the ground or must be raised off the ground; etc.
Zoning can incorporate standards to accomplish aesthetic objectives as well as
those of public health and safety. Enforcement would be handled by zoning
administration personnel.
Regulations regarding public nuisances and public health and safety offer an
alternative to zoning. Woodpiles caa be a fire or safety hazard if the wood
Is improperly stacked. They may also be a place for the incubation and
transmisson of disease (e.g., Dutch Elm). They can provide a home to rodents
and vermin. Should those conditions be present, the City could direc1 that
the problem be remedied or the wood be removed at the expense of the property
owner. firewood storage could be handled on a case-by-case basis and could be
incorporated into the inspection routine of Forestry division personnel..
20
Bloomington's Experience with Regulations: Bloomington adopted its ordinance
in September 1983 and gave property owners one year in which to comply with
Its provisions. Bloomington has not had an opportunity to use its zoning
provisions for woodpile storage. One requirement of the ordinance specifies
that wood must be stored six inches above the ground. Several agencies have
commented that this height will invite habitation by rodents and vermin; the
height specified should have been flush with the ground or at least 12 inches
above it.
Recommendation: Inasmuch as outside storage of firewood appears to present
few problems in the City, there does not appear to be a clear-cut need to
regulate woodpiles. Should the Council decide that establishing such
regulations is desirable, it is recommended that woodpiles be regulated as
matters of public nuisance, health and safety rather than a zoning issue. The
Council may wish to refer this item to the Planning Commission and the Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission to assess the need and
appropriate regulation for outside storage of firewood. The Council should also
conduct a public hearing prior to any final action on this matter.
utnA
August 17, 1984
A1le 2 1.9 4 .
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mayor Penzel:
Some time back I wrote you a letter regarding the problem of
"woodpiles" in Eden Prairie residential areas and the possibility
of a woodpile ordinance to solve the problem. The City Council
referred this subject to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission. One meeting was held and the commission decided to vote
against a new ordinance. The expense of having to hire new inspectors
to police the ordinance was stated as the major reason for not passing
the ordinance.
Fortunately, my neighbor Mr. Jack Van Remortel contacted me with a
solution to our immediate neighborhood problem. Jack has proposed to
relocate his existing woodpile from the front of his lot farther back
away from street level. This will improve the appearance of the entry
to homes on Summit Drive and make it more difficult for children to play
on the woodpile. Mr. Van Remortel stated he will begin moving the wood
in about 3 weeks and I have offered my assistance in the move. Needless
to say we all appreciate Jack's fine offer after the request for rules
or an ordinance was turned down by the commission.
Although this appears to settle our neighborhood problem, the concept
of a woodpile ordinance is something that the City of Eden Prairie
probably will face again in the future. Other areas of Eden Prairie have
the problem and at this time have no direction or solution on who to
contact. It makes sense to have "rules" or an ordinance in place to assis
t
these residents. In any case, thank you for listening to the problem.
Sincerely,
t aam 4d in.--
W. E. Abraham
8711 Summit Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
September 4, 1984
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 84-239
PLAN APPROVAL FOR CSAH 62 (CROSSTOWN EXTENSION)
WHEREAS, plans for Hennepin County Project No. 6839, SAP 27-662-38
showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades, and cross sections for the
construction of County State Aid Highway No. 62 within the limits of the City
as a (Federal) (State) Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That said plans be in all things approved and that the City agrees
to provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on-street parking
on that portion of said Project No. 6839 within its corporate limits.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 4, 1984.
Wolfgang H. PeTh—iii1—, Mayor
ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
zo 7-1
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services (V
August 17, 1984
Master Plan Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
Attached, for your review, is the final copy of the approved Master Plan for the
Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. This plan was submitted by Wirth Associates, Inc.
and Saunder-Thalden and Associates, Inc. and includes all of the changes approved by
the City Council.
The planners completed their contract by submitting 100 copies of the plan and re-
producible copies of the map depicting the master plan.
The City now has a plan that the City and the property owners agree would improve
property values and would make maximum recreational use of that floodplain; however,
the plan is only based on assumptions of water levels for 10 and 30 year storms. The
City will not know exactly how much usable property will be available within the flood-
plain until a study is completed that will determine the 10 and 30 year flood levels.
One of the methods suggested for funding this improvement project, called for substan-
tial assistance from the Watershed District. The Watershed District is only able to
fund the portion of this project which benefits the flood control of Purgatory Creek
and improves the management of the entire Watershed District.
-
Any ponding or altering of flood storage capacities in this area will directly affect
Staring Lake and Staring Lake Park. The Community Services staff is concerned that
a study from the Watershed District in 1983 indicated that Staring Lake was the only
lake in Eden Prairie in which water quality was continuing to decline. The City has
millions of dollars invested in Staring Lake Park and is continuing the develop that
park as a major natural resource within the community. The Community Services staff
would recommend that the City Council consider requesting the Watershed District to
jointly sponsor with the City a study that would not only determine the 10 and 30 year
flood level of Purgatory Creek in the floodplain south of Highway S, but would also
attempt to determine the reason for the deterioration in the water quality at Staring
Lake and determine if ponding such as is proposed in the Purgatory Creek Recreation
Area Plan would help to improve the water quality of Staring Lake.
If a study indicated that the development ponds in the Purgatory Creek Floodplain would
improve the water quality of Staring Lake, there is a good chance that State and
Federal funding, as well as Watershed District funding, could be obtained to develop
the Purgatory Crock Recreation Area, as those funds would be in effect improving two
major recreation facilities.
Community Services staff request authorization to approach the Watershed District with
this proposal to determine the cost of such a study.
BL:md