Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/01/1975 JOITN FRAME • £DEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1975 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor D. W. Osterholt, Joan Meyers, Billy Bye,Wolfgang Penzel and Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad;City Attorney Harlan Perbix; Planner Dick Putnam; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Marty Jessen; Engineer Carl Julie; Belinda Vee, Recording Secretary 1 •INVOCATION PJ.F1rE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AGENDA I. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, Page 735 DUNE 24, 1975. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Area A of The Preserve Commercial Plan(continued public Page 746 Jlearing), request for PUD concept and Development stage approval of office, commercial and multiple uses; and preliminary plat approval. Area A is located west of the Gelco Office building, south of West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. B. Utility service for portions of The Cove subdivision abutting Page 759 on Beach Road and Beach Circle, I.C. 51-277. C. Edes Amoco Station, rezoning request from Rural to Highway Page 760 Commercial for a service station. The site is located south of Crosstown 62 and between Shady Oak Road and Highway 61. D. Parkview Apartments, by Eden Lake Corporation, request for Page 761 rezoning to RM 2.5 from Rural and preliminary plat approval for a 45 acre apartment development located South of Chestnut Apartments and east of Mitchell Road. III. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS A. Report of City Engineer 1. Right-of-way purchase from Mr. Oscar Erck, T.H. 169 upgrading project STR 74-3-09, I.C. 51-266. Page 804 2. Temporary traffic signal for the Homart Center. Page 814 IV. NEW BUSINESS. - - i V. ADJOURNMENT. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: . Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager chi SUBJECT: Council Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, July 1, 1975 DATE: June 27, 1975 I. Correct, approve and file minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, June 24, 1975. II. A. The Preserve is requesting that the Council continue this Public Hearing to August 5. II. B. Notices have been sent to the benefitted properties in the Cove subdivision. The Council might,after hearing from the proponents and opponents, wish to order this construction by resolution. II. C. Enclosed in your Council packet is a letter requesting the Council to continue this Public Hearing to August 5. II. D. Notices have been sent to the affected property owners in the area. Enclosed please find the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation reports for your review. If the Council has questions relative to the assessment policy relating to the Parkway assessments, Mr. Jullie and I will review those prior to Tuesday evening. III. A.1 We have included for your consideration on this agenda the right-of-way purchase from Mr. Erck. Mr. Erck is facing a deadline on an option for relocation which expires prior to your July 8th meeting. Therefore, we request your consideration of this purchase Tuesday evening. III. A.2 The enclosed memo outlines the urgent request of The Hamad Company. The legal question of whether this procedural arrangement requires advertising for bids will be discussed with Mr. Perbix and he will speak to this question Tuesday evening. RKU:ip UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1975 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor D. W. Osterholt William Bye Joan Meyers Sidney Pauly Wolfgang Penzel COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad City Attorney Harlan Perbix Planner Dick Putnam Finance Director John Frane Director of Community Services — Marty Jessen Engineer Carl Jullie Recording Secy. Belinda Vee INVOCATION: Given by Ms. Barbara Coleman, President of Jr. & Sr. United Methodist Youth Fellowship, Eden Prairie Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: William Bye — Absent I. SWEARING IN CEREMONY OF JOYCE HOLTS AS PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER City Attorney Harlan Perbix administered the oath of office. Mayor Osterholt briefly summarized Ms. Holte's qualifications and stated every public safety officer on the Eden Prairie staff wrote a letter to Officer Hacking recommending Ms. Holte for the position of public safety officer of Eden Prairie. II. MINUTES A. Minutes of the Board of Review meeting held Thursday. June 5, 197). Delete Clifford Johnson's name from list of taxpayers appearing before the Board of Review. Meyers moved to approve minutes as published and corrected, Penzel seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 135 I t Minutes —2— June 24, 1975 II. MINUTES (Cont'd.) B. Minutes of Re,ular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 10, 1975. Pg. 2, II. C, correct "grievences" to "grievances". pg. 4, Para. 1, delete "what the County", insert "the two lanes". Pg. 7, Para. 1, Insert "Mr. Feerick" prior to "Suggested". Insert "He" prior to "Stated". Insert "he" after "Also,". Pg. 7, Para. 2, Insert "from the staff" after "cooperation". Penzel moved to approve the minutes as published and corrected, Pauly seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. C. Minutes of Board of Review meeting held Thursday, June 19, 1975. Penzel moved to approve the minutes as published, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. III. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Readily! of Ordinance No. 302, Eden Prairie Health Center by Methodist Hospital, reouesting ?Ill) Development Stare aoproval and rezoning to OFC District for the construction of a medical office building. City Manager Ulstad presented and stated all documents order.are in Perbix cuments are in the nameof the oSLPy stated Corporationwhicheisoaffiliated with Methodist Hospital. Meyers moved to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 302, Penzel seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. IV. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND CO1°l1UNICATIONS A. Petition from property owners regarding the Eden Prairie Ring Route received i•.ay 30, 1975. CityManager Ulstad stated the petition represents about 46,E of assessable property. He said notices were sent to about 100 property owners about an informal meeting to be held on June 19, 1975 — about 30 people attended. 13' .4s • Minutes -3- June 24, 1975 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) A. Petition from property owners... • Ulstad stated a letter was sent to Council members about the points discussed at the meeting and suggested the property owners attend the meeting this evening if they • wished to do so. !I Mr. Paul Anderson stated his and his father's objection to the Ring Road has been long standing and presented copies of letters dating back to 1973, which were sent to the Council,stating their objection to this project. He stated they felt the Ring Road was premature at best and not necessary at worst and stated their objection to the method of assessment. He said they want the Ring Road project stopped and do not support the concept. Mr. Don Peterson, Eden Land Corp., stated they have submitted a letter clarifying their position. They do support the basic concept, but not the assessment policy or assessment boundaries. He suggested cancelling project now and work on a segment at a time as additional funding is obtained. Mr. Carpenter. stated it is unpleasant for all concerned and he is not against the concept, he is against the cost. He said we should start anew and seek agressively to obtain additional financing. Also, it would be difficult to sell the land with this type of assessment against the property. Mr. Lee Johnson, The Preserve, said they did not sign the petition and they do support the concept, but it is the future potential levy that concerns them. He said commitments have been made and things have to be carried out because of them, but suggested the City take a more active and hardline attitude towards widening the base of the assessment. He also suggested forming a committee including some Council members, staff members and property owners to work on proposals to bring to the Council to solve this matter. Mr. McGraw stated they did indeed endorse the concept, but not the 95;'.f5$ split assessment. He said he was grateful to the Council for stopping the road and that they were having trouble selling land now and this threat made it even more difficult. • Mr. Hanson presented copies of letters from Rosemount that had been sent to the Council dating back to June, 1973 stating they did not support the method of assessment being proposed at that time. 131 • • Minutes -4- June 24, 1975 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND CO3.44UNICATIONS (Cont'd.) A. Petition from property owners... Mayor Osterholt stated he would like to make a brief statement without relinquishing the chair. He said t— we have to address ourselves to four points: (1) The need to re-evaluate the necessity of this road both for the community and the shopping center due to open in the fall, (2) Timing of the project - is it needed now, (3) Financingg, and (4) Assessment Policy. He suggested the staff and attorney prepare some recommenda- tions and alternatives to this whole project and address themselves to the four points mentioned. Meyers suggested the staff and attorney look at the possibility of staging of project - would it be feasible to build it in bits and pieces. Ulstad stated the crux of the problem is financing and said the staff could have a report to the Council in about 30 or 45 days, but requested they not be limited to that time for the completed report. Penzel moved the matter be referred to the staff and City Attorney for their recommendations and alternatives addressing themselves to the four points mentioned by Mayor Osterholt, Iieyers seconded. I:eyers, Pauly, Penzel and Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. D. Request from John Suback for a six-month extension on his liquor license. Penzel asked I;r. Suback if he had received financing and he stated he had not. Penzel then stated it would seem less expensive for Mr. Suback if he reapplied for the license when he does have financing. Penzel moved to deny request for continuation of liquor license for six-month period, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "Aye", motion carried unanimously. C. Reouest from John Crouch, Attorney for Modern Tire, to have the Council reconsider their action for a mini sector study for the ;,109 area; request for variance to permit tine construction of a 50'x 100' adaition to Modern Tire's present building; and reouesting the Council to set a oublic hearing for rezoning from Rural to Highway tomnercial. City Manager Ulstad explained the three requests for re-toning, mini-study of area and variance. 131 • • • Minutes -5- June 24, 1975 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) C. Request from John Crouch... • City Attorney read a letter from Air. Crouch to the City Council dated June 23, 1975 which he had just received. Mr. Crouch appeared before the Council to state they would like to do the construction this summer and did not want to wait until a mini-study was completed. He requested a variance so they would be able to build. Attorney Perbix explained it is a non-conforming use and under the Ordinance, the Council does not have the power to grant a variance for the building to be enlarged. Mr. Crouch stated the building and proposed addition would meet all requirements if it were re-zoned. Mr. Ulstad stated the study would take from 30 to 45 days • and cost about $150O. Mr. Crouch stated his firm would be willing to pay their share of the study cost. Penzel moved to authorize staff to undertake a mini-study subject to participation by applicant in the cost and subject to 45-day time limit, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 4 A. Report of City Engineer 1. Registered Land Survey for Dorenkeriper property along-, the accrueo right-of-way of Crestwood Terrace. Mr. Dorenkemper stated he is being requested to donate one-third of his land in order to enable him to sell 30 acres. Also, the City is requesting half of the best piece, and this is not fair. Engineer Jullie explained the requested dedication and said he didn't think it would hurt the buildability of the lots. Attorney Perbix explained his letter concerning the road, but stated he had not reviewed the other considerations. Pauly moved to refer matter to City Attorney for report at July 8, 1975 Council meeting, Penzel seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Fenzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. Minutes -6- June 24, 1975 V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND CO!4MISSIONS (Cont'd.) A. Report of City Engineer (Cont'd.) 2. Gravel Mine License Renewals. City Manager Ulstad stated the staff is still nego- tiating with Mr. Pearson of the B & R. Rock Co., but suggested the Council approve the other four licenses as requested. Penzel moved to approve licenses as presented in memo dated June 6, 1975 and delete B & R Rock Co., Pauly • seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. Penzel moved that the Council request the Park & Rec. Commission to submit definitive recommendations regarding gravel mining permits and their fee schedule to permit appropriate amending of existing Ordinance prior to renewal of any of these licenses, preferably before the end of this year, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel, and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 3_ Ri ht-of-wa urchase from V. Gordon Smith Compan up'ra ng projec I. - : Engineer Jullie explained the purchase and responded to questions by Council members. Mr. Schwartz appeared before the Council to state his option to purchase the property ran out two weeks ago, but would be extended to tomorrow morning. He requested the Council approve the purchase. Penzel moved to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the right-of-way purchase agreement as reco- mmended in the Engineer's memo of June 19, 1975, Pauly seconded. On a roll-call vote, Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried • unanimously. 4. Right-of-way purchase from Frank Pobuda, T.H. 169 upgrading project STic 74-3-09, I.C. )1-2bb. Engineer Jullie responded to questions by Council members concerning the purchase agreement. Meyers moved to approve the right-of-way purchase agreement as recommended in the Engineer's memo of June 19, 1975 for $30,000 and to include $3000 for relocation of the garage by owner, Penzel seconded. On a roll-call vote, Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. Tip 4' Minutes -7- June 24, 1975 V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND CON IISSIONS (Cont'd.) • A. Report of City Engineer (Cont'd.) 5. Petition from Edenvale, Inc. for curb and gutter and final bituminous surfacing on the following streets: Project STR 75-3-04: Edenvale Blvd., Woodhill Trail, L Woodland Drive Project STR 75-3-05: Martin Drive, Commerce Way, Corporate Way Mr. Peterson of Eden Land Corp. appeared before the �. Council to explain their request for the City to complete these streets and assess it back to their property to be paid for in a three-year period. He said it would not be possible for theca to complete the streets this year and they are in bad shape. Engineer Jullie explained the necessity of getting the final bituminous surfacing on these streets this year as the streets will be ruined if delayed any longer. He said Project 75-3-04 would cost about $100,000 and Project 75-3-5 would cost about $135,000. Penzel moved to approve Resolution No. 1006Afor Project STR 75-3-04, approving this street project and waiving the public hearing and order plans for specifications and bids, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. Penzel moved to approve Resolution No. 1006B for Project STR 75-3-05 calling for a public hearing on August 5, 1975, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unani- mously. 6. Petition from Rusted Co. for lateral server extension for Creekrood :,states :.nd Aaaition, Project SAN 75-1-05. Mr. Bonner explained they will pay for the easement to allot: them to connect to the interceptor and thus make use of the flow of gravity. Meyers moved to adopt Resolution No. 1007 receiving 1001, petition waiving the public hearing, ordering the improve- ment and preparation of plans and specifications for Project SAN 75-1-06, Pauly seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 141 • • Minutes -8- June 24, 1975 • V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND C0MMISSIONS (Cont'd.) A. Report of City Engineer (Cont'd.) • 7. Final Plat of Mill Creek 4th Addition. Meyers moved to adopt Resolution No. 1009 approving final plat of Mill Creek 4th Addition, Pauly seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 8. Change Order No. 2, northeast area sanitary sewer trunk, Barborassa & Sons, Inc., I.C. 51-2b4. • Engineer Jullie explained reasons for Change Order. Meyers moved to approve Change Order No. 2, Penzel seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 9. Receive feasibility report on utility service for The Cove subc+ivision, ''rojects SAN 74-1-20 & WTr't I.C. 51-?77. Penzel moved that Resolution No. 1000 be approved receiving the feasibility report and setting the public hearing for July 1, 1975, Pauly seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", • motion carried unanimously. B. Report of Planning Director 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Update. City Manager Ulstad submitted report for review and stated Planning and Zoning would like to review it and then have a joint meeting with the Council to discuss the report. Council members discussed and decided to have a "work session" to review matter before joint meeting set for July 15, 1975 at 7 PM. 2. MCA .ORDINANCE City Manager Ulstad stated this could be discussed at the same meeting for the Comprehensive Guide Plan set for July 15, 1975 at 7 PM. TO. Minutes -9- June 24, 1975 V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND CO!4MISSIONS (Cont'd.) C. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Recuest to secure anpraisal on Miller Brothers property at h.itchell Lake. Penzel moved to authorize Director of Community Services to secure appraisal on Miller Brothers property as outlined in his memo of June 18, 1975, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 2. Presentation by Alden Keiski - need for additional • fields for youth snorts. Rev. Keiski appeared before the Council to state his dissatisfaction with lack of field space and mainten- ance of current fields. He stated the softball field was beautifully groomed and chalked while their fields did not receive the same attention. Mrs. Doris Jurgens asked why the softball teams have all the fields over at Round Lake. Mayor Osterholt apologized for the problems and inconveniences and stated City Manager Ulstad will see some action is taken and you will be informed. City Manager Ulstad explained some of the maintenance problems have been due to all the rainy weather. 3. Schaitberger Option City Manager Ulstad explained the interest stated on the option was in error, it should be 6;s, not 55�• Penzel moved to receive report and note correction, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 4. 1976 Grant Application for Federal LAWCON and State Ratural Resource Funas. Penzel moved to approve Park, Rec. and Natural Resources Commission recommendation for grant application per the Director of Community Services memo noffJunee , 1975, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, l Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. Minutes -10- June 24, 1975 V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND CO1"MISSIONS (Cont'd.) C. Report of Director of Community Services (Cont'd.) 5. Picnic Pavilion Report. Mr. Jessen stated the architect, Mr. Ovick, would explain the project. Mr. Ovick presented the project plans to the Council and explained the cost, layout, structure, possible future expansion, etc. Council members discussed the design, cost, size, need of fireplace, restroom and kitchen facilities, future concession stands, future explansion, etc. Penzel moved to receive report and instruct staff to advertise for bids with alternatives per the memo of June 18, 1975 by Director of Community Services, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. D. Report of Public Safety Director 1. Resolution No. 1004 desi7natinr Public Safety Director to be official applicant for reiriburseraent funds for basic train_n,- oi" _'eacc Officers due to 2,aen Prairie for Steve Gei-,er and James Clark. Penzel moved to approve Resolution No. 1004, Pauly seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. E. Report of Finance Director 1. Resolution 11001 appointing Election Judges. Penzel moved to approve Resolution No. 1001, Meyers seconded. Ideyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 2. Payment of Claims Nos. 6738; 6908; 6933-7052. Meyers moved to approve payment of Claims Nos. 6738; 6908; 6933-705'', Pauly seconded. On a roll-call vote, Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. • • Minutes -11- June 24, 1975 V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMISSIONS (Cont'd.) E. Report of Finance Director (Cont'd.) 3. Clerk's License List Pauly moved to approve Clerk's License List with no licenses being issued until back taxes due are paid and direct staff to send a letter to the Eden Prairie Legion Club reminding them of the rules governing club licenses, �Ireyers seconded. Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. 4. Sale of Farm Buildings - bids opened June 24, 1975. Mr. Frane explained that no bids were received for the buildings. F. Report of City Manager 1. Selection of 3 citizens to Committee of Growth Council by Mayor and Council. Ken Pierce, Paul Brown, Pete Lochsheider, Mr. Dresser, Mr. Carpenter, Clark Kispert and Marge Woodhouse were suggested to be sent to the Chamber of Commerce for their selection. • 2. Selection of 5 citizens for Task Force Committee to co-oraina e plan design of st:immin:- and ice facility for City of Aden Prairie and School District No. %Y=. Council members discussed regarding what a citizens committee is meant to be. Mayor Osterholt will talk to a School Board representative about this. Meyers moved to continue to July $, 1975 Council meeting, Penzel seconded. Motion carried unanimously with Meyers, Pauly, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voting "aye". VI. NL1 BUSINESS Pauly - Geological Survey - Prof. Walton coming to Eden Prairie with grad. student who would like to work here this summer. Penzel - CIP Brochure VII. ADJOURNMENT Pauly moved to adjourn, Meyers seconded. Meeting adjourned at 12107 AM. 7'15 . Approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- -APri1 14, 1975 D. Area A of The Preserve Commerical Plan, request for conceptual approval for office, commercial and multiple uses, and preliminary plat approval. Area A is Iocated west of the Gelco Office Building, south of W. 78th Street and north of Anderson Lakf Loran Galpin , Development Concepts, said no staff report has been possible yet - because the Preserve is trying to work out land sale conditions and the supper club use has been withdrawn until they do further work with Les Blacklock . Galpin then illustrated where walkways will be constructed from the -offices to the restuarant and said if needed a walkway can be placed along W. 78th Street Instead of through the project. • Sorensen noted that the plan did not have a double lane exit. Galpin said it is not planned, but there will be 3 lanes out on the east side. • • - •approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- - April 14, 1975 Sorensen asked what type of signage would be proposed. Galpin responded that signage has not yet been addressed. Meyers asked what the walking distance would be from Gelco to the family restaurant. Galpin estimated the distance to be about 1500-1600 feat. Meyers asked if the single family residents have been contacted. Galpin said they have had contacts with the residents, but the residents have not attended meetings. Motion: Schee moved, Meyers seconded, to refer the item to the staff for a report. The motion carried unanimously. • • • 146 approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- • March 24, 197: • C. Area A of The Preserve Commercial Plan, request for conceptual approval for Office, Commercial and Multiple uses, and preliminary pi at approval. Area A is located west of Gelco Corporation Office Building, south of the W. 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. The planner reported that the staff review is not complete , but that they received the March 17th preliminary staff report from Mr. Enger to the Park & Recreation Commission noting the concerns of the supper club , the setback from Anderson Lakes and the architectural treatment — on the site. Mr. Hess addressed the question of the supper club at the north end of the marsh and the recommendations of the Park & Recreation commission not in favor of the supper club. He pointed out that the desirability as an unique " wildlife blind " .permitting controlled observation consistent with the goals of Anderson taxes Part. He expressed a concern over the proposed design of the structure along the lake as expessed in Mr. Enger's staff report and agreed they appeared massive. He said changes in the - design could be accommodated at the time of development stage application. Motion: Boarger moved, Lynch seconded, to ask the council to set a public hearing for Area A's Commercial Plan for April 22, 1975,before the City Council. The motion carried unanimously. The commission asked the staff to have a report ready for the next planning commission meeting on April 14th. .approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 10, 1975 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS, A. Area A of The Preserve thmmercial Plan, request •for conceptual approval for Office, Commercial & Multiple uses and preliminary plat approval . The planner announced that the Preserve Commercial Plan would be presented for both the city and the public on March 20, 1975,at 7:30 PM at the Vo-tech School. - Loren Galpin.presented the preliminary plat and conceptual land uses- being requested for Area A of The Preserve. The conceptual uses include offices,a motor lodge, and restaurants. Gain stated that 18 of the86 acres will be for scenic easement. Galpin said the area around Anderson Lakes would have limited access. Sorensen asked f#a path would be constructed along 78th Street to the Ring Road. The planner replied affirmative. Sorensen then referred the item to the staff and Park & Recreation Commission. 747 • A RffiTAURANT ON THE SHORE OF ANDERSON LAKE? A Naturelistts Opinion by Les Maddock During a five-year search for a "permanent» hame.site, my wife Frances and I had the regarding experience of edisooveriag" the rich oonoentration of natural amenities surrounding the Thin Cities. As a amber of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Open Space to .the Metropolitan Council for two years, and as a two..y arr member of The Metropolitan Park Reserve Hoard, I gained further knowledge of the natural riches of our metro area. As a consulting naturalist, I have done studies for the Hennepin County Park Reserve District on four of its parks, the cities of St. Paul, ' Richfield and Maplewood, !MCA and Scout camps, goverment and private agencies, totaling more than.thirty such works throughout our area. So I hope you will agree that I have some qualification when I state that the Anderson Lakes area is one of the richest in both variety and quality of wildlife habitat. The combination of shallow lakes, marshy shores, marshes, grassland, brash land and hardwood forests provides habitat for most sdIrflife that is native here. We have recorded i74 species of birds around our home on Anderson Lakes and a long list of native ' mammals. This Easter morning(March 3O) with the temperature at minus two degrees F. our dog barked her"something's out there" bark. I dashed to the windows, expecting to see perhaps a oross-countw skier, and sag a big, handsome coyote. Just sixty feet from the windows. 1y1 A Restaurant on the Shore of Anderson Leket Page 2 Shorty after we coved to the Anderson Lakes. nearly 23 years ago. we realised that we "owned" something very. nil special. Almost immediately we experienced a feeling of guilt. Who should have the right, we asked ourselves. to "own" (be wards over) beautiful lakeshore. to treat, or mistreat. that fragile habitat as we saw fit. and to exclude all others from the lakeshore experience. So we decided to offer our land, ate price the bgyer would estab- lish, to whichever goverment agency would preserve it in its natural k state, and to work toward establishing the entire Anderson Lakes area as a nature.oriented park. • Shortly after wort arrived here. we began to have frequent visits from real estate agents wanting to buy our land. One day a big helicopter hovered for a long time just over the water between our two points. The - next day an agent of a largo real estate firm Gamete see us. He said his company wished to develop the land surrounding the Anderson Lakes. starting with our two points. He told us the whole concept hinged on our land; how much did we want for itt We told him that we would not sell that land for development, but would sell for army offer from a government body who would preserve the land as a natural park. He said everyman has his pride. — How mucht We turned him dorm. We had twenty-oight.dollars in the bank and no assured income. That was in 1956, when I started freelancing. There were a masher of threats to the nature-park concept through the years; a warehouse on the north shore, a dump in Neil Lake (the firm wished to fill in Neil Lake, then develop where The Preserve is todp), • manufacturing on the north shore, a tractor test site oaths north shore etc. A Restaurant on the Shore of Anderson Lake? Page 3 Many people from throughout the Twin Cities area helped stave off natnre.olobbering development and tried to get a nature park established. They attended countless meetings, wrote many letters to editors, gave unselfishly of much time and money, urged congressmen to make funding available, hired an attorney. One young man went to almost every house in town getting signatures against industrial Boning on lake shores. George Rice of WCCO-TY did four editorials encouraging the preservation of Eden Prairie's natural beauty. Several times an Anderson Lakes nature panic sewed imminent. The Hennepin County Park Reserve District actually received a federal grant eoanarksd for the Anderson Lakes. The Metro Open Space Plan had the Anderson Lakes number one priority in.the metro area for several years. ♦ coalition of Metro. Hennepin County Park Reserve, Eden Prairie and Mioomington almost put together a package. Finally, Eden Prairie and Bloomington started buying land at what eeemd the last moment before development and inflation made such par. chases impossible. • The Anderson Lakes Park is considerably wailer than many of us would have wished. But it is happening and it is good. When it began to look as if there was a possibility of same of the original park concept being salvaged, f Preserve booms* interested in the land along the west side of the lakes. The Preserve stated that their wish was to live with nature. to keep enough wild ea that deer could continue to move freely from their wintering grounds in the Minnesota • 7 SO • • A Restaurant on the Shore of Anderson Lake? Pap 4 River Valley to the Anderson Lakes and maintain a comfortable presence here throughout spring, summer and fall. Waterfowl nesting grounds at Neil Lake would be preserved, and even enhanced, and a broad strip of dedicated land along the Anderson Lakes would be honored. • During this get-aoquainted period, I vas called by a Minneapolis newspaper and asked what I thought of The Preserve as a neighbor to the - proposed Anderson Lakes Park. I answered honestly that I felt The Preserve sealed sincere in.their wish-to preserve the natural amenities and wildlife habitat. This little conversation was used in a front page story proclaiming my endorsement of the Preserve. Some people said I had been used. I countered that it was time to either fish or cut bait. The park was going to be neighbor to suaeons,. better it be someone who professed to want similar ends to ours. • So the oity and The Preserve have voiced together to achieve those ends. The Preserve because 13.vinit ELUL Ram is what they're selling. • and the city because its people, and people in the surrounding area, • should have the right to see a representative bit of the natural scene • stall doing its thing. • By and large. things are larking out. I hurt when the•Basswoods forest was committed to development, and the original 250 foot dedication has become unconfortably narrow in some parts. But it has been beauti- fully broad in others. I was pleased when 3hs Moorings (that name vas ominous in a waterfowl refugel) was added to'the park.- It was at last proof (in the dollar language that most people live with) that the highest • and best use Alir the most beautiful land is to kmjfcibgt lga forever. for the enjoyment, education and appreciation of all of the people. A Restaurant on the Shore.of Anderson Lake? Page S I appreciate the acceptance by The Preserve for the need for a fence, upon learning that the wildest part of the nature center will be nursling right up against The Preserve all along the fence, but would disappear as an enattai able dress if the public were allowed to walk freely anywhere they wished. As presently pad and being developed. residents of The Preserve end visitors to the Major Center will enjoy the best of two worlds. They will live and do business in the finest of urban situations, and yet be happily aware of wild nature nearly. Overhead flights of waterfowl, visits of songbirds, squirrels, ohipmunks, raccoons and pheasants to backyard feeders, and daily appreciation of wild scenery prvmiasan extremely high quality of life. Preserve residents and business people will be just a few shut.. from the picnic area and the nature center entrants, closer than any other area residents. Preserve school children will be only about five minutes by bus time from nature-center trails. Just recently, in the minutes of a nesting of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Board, Fran and I read that there were plans to establish a parsing area on the flood plain in the northwest arm of Anderson Lake. � I Alarmed. we have since learned of plans for a supper club on the tiny point out into the marshy end of Anderson Lake from W. Filth Street. The presence of orttaila documents an annual high water mark ttg#rt against W. 78th Street, both east and west of that point, and minimal dedication frvm all shores would leave little usable space, if ear. A Restaurant on the Shore of Anderson Lake? Pag• 6 Any road to service the site would necessitate marsh fill. • Hy old friend Don Hess called and told me more abow$The Preserves wishes for a supper club on the point. A small club is envisioned. with parldng for less than one hundred cars, with a low-profile build- ing near the water facing southeast where customers could vim waterfowl through large windows. No one would be allowed between the club and the shore. i I can certainly sae wad'The -.Preserve could get excited about such a project. But I see problems. and will itate them here. . i.•, There is reasonable space for passage of shore.following -wildlife everywhere else in the nature center. This bottleneck would discourage deer from the shore route around the lake to the north shore. 2. The grassy point provides excellent nesting habitat for pheasants and ducks. Fire, or other occasional treatment. will be necessary to keep it a prime nesting site. 3. There would.have to be occasional dragline work to maintain open water in front of the restaurant. Whether this weld be auwoomplided with nature center or private funds, there would be problems. The wishes of the manager-naturalist and those of the restaurant would very well be at odds almost constantly. The supper club would probably want a bubbler to keep waterfowl in front all winter; the nature center may want all waterfowl to migrate. The supper club may wish to feed huge amounts of grain to attract as man birds as possible; the nature center may dia. courage feeding or may want only token feeding at a nature center blind • A Restaurant on the Shore of Anderson Lake? Page ? for display purposes. The potential for this type of conflict is probable, not aere?y possible. 4. The entire Preserve is gaining in quality of life by being adjacent to the nature center. lto one objects to that. But there would almost certainly be objection to.a private club being given a front row seat at a public nature center. with public funds operating the program that attracts the wildlife. Either the club would have to be given permission. plus direction. on necessary changes in the marsh for such a program, or else the nature center would be responsible for those changes. In either case the public should object. 5. .Where continuous perfomaanos according to exact rules must be followed for hoped.for results, an agreement between a private owner and a public body is a very unreliable vehicle. • What if.the club owner.says he (or she) must expand or go bankrupt? What if the managem.naturalist says that tip clubr s feeding program must stop because it is adversely affecting the desired nature center wildlife program? • There will be new club owners and new manager-naturalists in future years. There is no assurance that agreements made today will be agreeable to, or be realistic for, Suture owners and nature.°suitor personnel. • 6. The public will be viewing the nature park wetlands.forest scene daily from I-494. fret W. 78th Street. from the Ring Route and from the • A Restaurant on the Shore 0 Anderson Lake? Page 8 Major Center. The presence of a private comercial enterprise within that scene, with its signs, roads,parking areas and buildings, all a jarring invasion of the invaluable northwest as nesting area, would be a considerable degradation compared to the natural scene. The agreement between The Preserve and the City of Eden Prairie has always emphasised careful avoidance of any construction (or even occupation) of land near the lakeshore. A mutual understanding of the pals of both parties has resulted in some reasonable give-and-take in lqing the fence line along the west shore. But oertainly those sue rules, bent to the limit, could na aceemaodate mz disturbance of this tic; north shore point. The severe invasion of wildlife land and water, the destruction of nature in foreground scenery (no matter how carefully it is done) must be, liar the many aforementioned reasons. unacceptable. I am convinced that the concept of a comfortably broad band of shoreline refuge will wodc to the benefit and enjoyment of all, if a broad enough wild corridor is kept between the Anderson Lices Park and the Minnesota River bottoms. • The potential is here for a national model for an urban-wilderness complex. Let's not rock this beautiful boat. oc Harty Jeseen, Director of ComaunitY Services . } . City of Eden Prairie Unapproved Minutes - Park& Recreation Page Four Commission March 17, 1975 B. The Preserve 1. School/'Park Plan (Cont'd) Garen said he thought there had been a pathway down through the section. Jessen said this also had been included in the Anderson Lakes Concept Plan. Jessen felt the buffer area was a problem. Hess said it was more difficult for people who are buying homes to relate to a park rather than a commercial area. Penael inquired whether they had brought this to the school district. Hess answered yes and that be has time frame on this school and when it is needed. Jessen felt that it would provide adequate neighborhood facilities, but he asked the Commission to consider how good they will be. He said the question is where that North boundary line should go, and whether is it adequate for that section. He added that they didn't say it won't work but is there a better way. MOTION Choiniere moved to accept plat shown with the addition of fencing to be provided by the Preserve,along with a workable berm, next to the homes in the two areas discussed to protect future buyers. Kingrey seconded and,the motion carried with a vote of Art, with Anderson and Garens casting the dissenting votes. Anderson asked whether it would be workable. Jessen said the berm would work, but did not feel a chain link fence vas very desirable. Choiniere sees it as a compromising situation and people should know it is there. 2. Area-Commercial Plat} Mr. Loren Galpin, of Developement Concepts, Inc,presented the Preserve Commercial Center, Area A for NE section plan, for the purpose of discussing park and open space with the intention that on the 25th they will continue hearing before the City Council. He said of the 268 acres of MCA area, 36 acres are in scenic easements. They have met with Watershed District, Planning Commission, and Council. Basic criterea was Anderson Lakes Wild Life habitat. People intrusion is not allowed in this area. Choiniere asked What provisions were being made for run off on the parking areas. Galpin said they had met with Watershed District people and Barr Engineering on this and will take their recommendations on this. Kingrey asked how much land was dedicated. Galpin said there was 50% dedication by the private developer, which is in a write-off to the Preserve. In this way the City and private owner get what they want and the owner can write it off. 7 G4 . Unapproved Minutes - Park & Rec. Page Five Commission Parch 17, 1975 • B. The Preserve 2. Ares-Commorcial•Plan (Pont'd) Galpin presented the idea of a high quality Supper Club, with a distinctive view of a natural wild life habitat to be located in the small 1.5 acre area on the northwest corner of the land. He added that the Preserve does not intend to encroach on flood plain area or nesting areas in building this restaurant. Kingrey asked what use was intended for the land in question. Jessen — answered that in a field study that Lea Blacklock did for the city, he highly recommended that this area be used for a wild lire corridor and deer corridor. He felt it would enhance the whole conservation space. Hess added that the Preserve people did not feel the Supper Club would disturb the wild life in any way. Anderson wanted to know whether we had the means of control after it has been sold. Panel said if it is adopted as a revision of the Preserve's PUD approved by the Council. It it does not meet with this concept, we would have a legal basis for denying it, even though it might involve a hassle. • Jensen commented that he had met several times with these people and they are in good shape with the Anderson Lake basic concept. He added that pedestrian connections should occur along W. 78th St. The only conflict is the node in the northwest corner. The pros and cons of the proposed supper club were discussed. Panel felt it would be a good thing if it were done well. Hess commented that he knew Mr. Blacklock well and said Blacklock wishes for a wild life blend and a supper club could fit-iniD that idea. He suggested • using the liquor license to control it. Andersonmaa • made motion to follow recommendation of Staff report of March 17, 1975, excluding the bu51Mng of a supper club. Garens seconded and the motion carried with Fenzel abstaining. Anderson asked Hess to continue his inquiry into the supper club idea. C. ritchell Lakes Estates Jessen requested postponing the presentation because of the lateness of the hour. The parties present were in agreement. III. RDC01d- NDATIONS AND REPQRTS A. indoor Facilities Retort (Add'l information) Mr. John Cvetnic reviewed report presented at the last meeting and presented new information in response to questions put forth by the Commission members. He said that Shakopee's bond issue was defeated, with the otherissue of a Municipal Services Bldg. passing. They felt the reason for this was that Shakopee's was a single arena, not a proposal for a multi-purpose facility. 16 ' I • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1006 RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT ON PROJECTS SAN 74-1-20 and WTR 74-2-20 • WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City Council on June 24, 1975, recommending the following improvements to wit: Utility lateral service for portions of The Cove Subdivision NOW, TNaxrr'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within the said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to M.S.A. Sec.t 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated total cost of the improvement as shown ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 24th day of June, 1975. • David M. Osterholt, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • AN 241975 June 20, 1975 • City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Mn. 55343 Dear Sir: Mr. William Edes, who is on the public hearing agenda . for July 1, 1975, requested that I ask you to continue his matter until the August 5, 1975, meeting. He was unable to handle this item of business before leaving town yesterday. Please send him a copy of the August 5, 1975, agenda to inform him of the scheduled time. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, • • • 740 . _ • • Planning Commission Minutes -6- 'approved 7:30 PM City Hall May 22, 1975 B. Parkview Apartments, by Eden Land Corporation, request for rezoning to RM 2.5 from Rural and preliminary plat approval for the 45 acre apartment development located south of Chestnut Apartments and east of Mitchell Road. The planner reviewed Mr. Enger's staff report concerning the modifications to the original plan made by Eden Land Corporation. The staff report recommends denial of the project as modified, consistent with the previous BRW staff review because of the large grading areas, similar building types and inappropriate commercial land use. Mr. Lyle Landstrom then explained in detail their concerns relative to the staff reports of BRW and Mr. Enger. He indicated that the phase 1 development did not signicirmatly alter the natural site and that the grading required was necessary to develop the site as planned. He then explained how they had looked at St. John's woods, Hirsch Townhouses, and Milicreek, and had observed similar grading situations, yet, the projects have been wall done. He believed the buildings, as proposed, could accommodate grade changes by off-setting and stepping the units. Mr. Landstrom then explained the need to build units of this type to qualify for a 221 D-4 F.H.A. program. He indicated that the reduction in the garages, the economies of two story construction and other features of the project were required to build under the federal program. The planner indicated that the Edengate project, which was a semi-litimry unit, also qualified under similar financing through T.H.A. and that other types of developments, including townhouse, could be built, Jack Henning, the potential builder, indicated his interest in constructing the project as proposed. -741 • Planning Commission Minutes -7- ,approved 7:30 PM City Hall May 22, 1975 • He said economies and the unique plan compliment units existing in Eden ' Prairie and compete with other projects of lower rentals. Mr. Henning _. believed that the 3/4 to 1 garage ratio and guest parking provided was reasonable and necessary to make the project successful. The project would appeal to younger families with a lower to moderate income and that, in his opinion, the plan respected and preserved the qualities of the site. Don Peterson, president of Eden Land Corporation, addressed the question of assessments, stating that the convenience center and multiple-family housing were required to develop the site, given the assessments. The planner asked if the assessment for the parkway should not be spread over the entire 60 acre PUD that was submitted and approved by the City in 1972, rather than exempting the 14 acres to the west of this site from the parkway assessment. Mr. Peterson did not know if this could be done but was not opposed to that action. Peterson indicated that by moving the East/West Parkway it would not signficantlY alter the usability of the sites and that they would still request commercial at the corner of Chestnut Drive and East/West Parkway. Mr. Peterson said that Eden Land was interested in gaining approval of the first phase 128 units and the convenience center site and general density approval on the remainder of the property at this time so that they may begin financing and construction. A resident living in the Atherton Townhouse area expressed concern about the project&recommended that it not be approved as outlined in the staff reports Alternate 3. ACTION: (Motion 1) -Fosnocht moved and Boerger seconded to recommend to the City Council that the Parkview Apartment Project requesting RM 2.5 zoning from Rural be denied based upon BRW staff report and the May 19 staff review. Boerger, Fosnocht, and Sorensen voted in favor of the motion and Feerick abstained because he was not convinced something could not be done with the plan. (Motion 2) - Boerger moved and Feerick seconded to recommend to the City Council that they consider the assessment policies for the old Shelter PUD of approximately 60 acres, so that the parkway assessment may be equitably spread over the benefiting properties as originally presented to the City of Eden Prairie. • • The thotion passed unanimously. 7G� • } • ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT • SUBJECT: PARKVIEW PATIO APARTMENTS SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council has ordered construction of the East-West Parkway from Chestnut Road to Mitchell Road. Final determination of the • parkway alignment is now under consideration during preparation of plans and specifications by Brauer and Associates. It is possible to adjust the alignment of the parkway westerly, such that the west right-of-way line would touch the northwest property corner of the Parkview project. This would reduce the severance im- pact and yet maintain the integrity of the open space and buffering within this area as approved under the Chestnut Apartment project. Movement of the parkway alignment easterly is not recommended because excess grading and encroachment into good building sites would occur. The proposed special assessments for the parkway should not be con- sidered as a mandate for development to occur west of the parkway and north of Chestnut Road. The front foot assessment method proposed for the East-West Parkway project is merely a convenient method of assigning benefit to the lands served and does not mean the develop- ment must occur immediately adjacent to one or both sides of the parkway. The road and utility systems within the project area will be sufficient to sustain a higher density development as proposed in the Parkview Apartment plan. The Engineering staff will continue to monitor and review this land development project in accordance with the attached checklist, our "summary" ecklist and the usual procedures and standards applicable. • Carl J. lie, E. City Engi ear • CITY OF 111 PRAIRIE CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED •• LAND DEVELOPMENTS DATE: 4/2/75 DEVELOPMENT: Parkview Patio Apartments L.D. NO. LD-75-P-07 LOCATION: Proposed East-West Parkway & Chestnut Dr. REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS — ZONING AGREEMENT: Mitchell Heights P.U.D. RES. 4. 505 DEVELOPER: Eden Development, Inc. ENGINEER/PLANNER: Landmark Planning & Engineering DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: Informational booklet, Development Plan, dated 3/7/75 Preliminary building plans PROPOSAL: The developer is requesting PUD Development Plan approval and RM 2.5 zoning • 1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid 3/28/75 Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District Yes 2. •Processing Schedule: a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary 4/28/75 b. Park & Recreation Commission • c. Human Rights Commission d. Planning Commission Public Virg. 5/22/75 e. City Council consideration 5/13/75 f. Watershed District 4/2/75 • 3. Type of Development Apartments 4. Environmental assessment or impact statement required per Environmental Impact Policy Act of 1973: Not required for this project • • P, f 5. Present Zoning PUD 72-2 6. Proposed Zoning RM 2.5 Multi-family residential Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes List variances required & setbacks that apply: None requested . 7. Project Area 45.4 acres Density 9.3 units per acre (424 units) 2.9 acres to be dedicated in N.E. corner 8. Public open space and/or cash dedication of project Private open space Trail systems & sidewalks See Planning Report 5/7/75 Range of lot sizes N.A. It( 9. preliminary Building Plans Submitted , 10. Representative Soil Borings Borings not submitted. General soils analysis found in Info. booklet 11. Street System A. Accegs to adjoining properties East-West Parkway and Chestnut Drive a. ME Roadway (Sack to Back of Curb) a Private pa 24 Internal roadway system • enays, no parking Post no parking signs Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28. (not over 1000') & minor residential Cul de sacs 100 78 (no island) 120 • 98 (with island) • Thru Residential (collectors) & Cul de sacs 32 Chestnut Drive over 1000' 60 • NOTE: Realignment of East-West Parkway will be necessary to conform to previously planned alignment by City of Eden Prairie yd ,._ ..,_... .,sue MSA 70 44 Parkway 100 28 divided East-West Parkway- Fire Road 12 Pathways 12 6 Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5% _ Concrete curb & gutter required, Deep strength asphalt design Required _ •C. Check City's comprehensive street system. Developer builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication East-West Parkway through site D. Street Names - try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional names on cul de sacs having eight or less lots. Check list of existing street names. Use existing names E. Private parking lots--B6-12 conc C&G andRequi reddept Two spaces/D Un min. per Ord. 141 F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs Developer 12. Parking: (See Ord. #141) 967 cars (2.3 cars/unit) conformas to Ord. #141 13. Utility Systems: A. Sanitary Sewer Available - extension by developer required - 1. Service Detail As required 2. Service to adjoining property Adjoining property has no proposed services from the development site. - B. Watermain: Availably - extencton by developer required 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) n le 2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Additional information required 3. Valving Additional information required 4. Compliance with fire code To be reviewed by building.inspector 5. Service to adjacent property No services proposed to adjoining properties 146 C. Storm Sewer & Grading 174c! be installed by developer 1. Sediment control plan Storage basin 2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots not submitted 3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Additional information required 4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Additional information required _- 5. Arrows showing drainage Not shown on proposed grading plan Accc...'sdate drainage from adjacent properties Additional information required 6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water for ponds Not submitted 7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Additional information required. 8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes Required 9. Flood plain encroachment Areas below elev. 825 10. Watershed District approval Necessary III 11. DNR approval Necessary D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground required E. Electric (underground) Required 14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Information not submitted 15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MHD or Henn. Co. if abutting a State or County Hwy. Not required 16. List special assessments levied and pending Improvement Years Total Amt. Ann. Prin. Interest 5627 Trunk sewer & water 1973-92 52,638.30 2,631.92 6.6 58T0 Lateral sew & water 1974-93. 65,125.85 3,256.29 6.6 . 6123 Str. Imp. and Stm Sew. 1975-93 22,105.47 1,163.45 6.6 (Chestnut) 17. Re-zoning agreement required Yes Developer's Agreement required Yes Title Abstract for Attorney's review - 16. (continued) Pending East-West/Mit. Rd. STR S Util. (except lat. water) 90,991.00 (Council ordered 4/8/75) • • 761 'STAFF PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger THROUGH: Dick Putnam?},'- DATE: May 19, 1975 PROJECT: Parkview Apartments APPLICANT: Eden Land Cor. LOCATION: East of Mitchell Road at the end of Chestnut Drive • REQUEST: PUD Development Plan approval for the entire 45 acres and rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 for the first phase. • Mr. Don Peterson of Eden Land Corporation and Lyle Lindstrom the architect for the Parkview project, have both met .with the City staff and discussed the concerns of the BRW report and those expressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson has decided to request rezoning only on the first phase of the project ( 128 dwelling units . He desires concept approval of the number of units allowable on the remainder of the site. The planning staff indicated to Mr. Peterson that plans should not be made for the remainder of the site based upon the identical building type as proposed in Phase I. A concern in the BRW report was the inability of the building type to adapt to the topography. Mr. Peterson has submitted a new plan for the first phase that shows spot elevations so the city staff may evaluate the grading necessary. He also illustrated in the revised plan that for a 16 unit building there was the ability to split the building in half and stagger the units up slopes. There also exists the ability to accommodate a 4 foot change in grade in the front of the garages and in front of the units. However, after evaluating what these flexibilities mean given the rolling topography, it is evident to the planning staff that this is far from the best building type for this site if preservation of natural grade features is important. The developer in this case chose to adapt to the topography by taking median point elevations for building pads and filling on one side and cutting on the other side to make a flat pad. �tt 714 Planning Staff Report -2- May 19, 1975 Most of the building that occurs on the site occurs on slopes in • excess of 10%. It is very difficult to build a 16 unit flat building that is nearly 50 feet in width and 180-280 feet in length on a rolling topo with slopes in excess of 10%without requiring — significant grade work. In addition to the building pad locations there is also the consideration of the larger area of parking needed • to support the apartments. Some of the parking areas occur on 12% slopes with the remainder of the spaces occurring on 8-10 % 'slopes. 1 _ • Utilizing the standard of .75 enclosed spaces/ 1 dwelling unit, the planning staff feels is inadequate based upon the fact that 1/2 of the enterior parking is supplied directly infront of the garage . doors . This of course is a common practice in single family homes where each household has a private driveway. However, the congestion and general " bad appearance " of having 104 cars parked out infront of the garages with an additional 104 cars occuring directly across the driveways, cancels any merit that may be gained from • parking in front of garages. If parking is not allowed infront of garages in this plan to gain adequate parking,more of the green space would have to be encroached upon. Therefore, it seems logical to assume a mix of building type through this area (of 128 units }, utilizing some tuck - under units , some walkout units and some at-grade units as proposed, would not only; adapt more readily to the topography, provide a more interesting appearance, create less building coverage, but would also help alleviate the parking infront of garages by providing • additional spaces elsewhere. Pathway Location Again as mentioned in the BRW report , the •pathway locationmeandering through the project does seem rather tight and the problem of people feeling like they are encroaching upon others outdoor private space would occur. The developer recognizes the tightness of the pathway but can do little more than move one unit to alleviate the tightness. •If the project were to be approved the pathway should be constructed by the developer and should be at least 8 feet in width of a deep strength 4" blacktop design. All the criteria of the Hikeway/Bikeway Task Force Report should apply to this trailway. • • • • Planning Staff Report -3- May 19, 1975 Convenience Center In addition to the rezoning to RM 2.5 , the developer is also requesting approval of the convenience center located in the north- - west quadrant of the site immediately adjacent to the parkway. As stated in the erriineering staff report , the realignment of the parkway to the west would " reduce the severance impact and yet maintain the integrity of the open space and buffering within this area as approved under the Chestnut Apartment project." The inclusion of the convenience center in the developer's proposal eliminates any buffer and puts a differing land use closer to the Chestnut area. This should not be considered without detailed plans for buffering submitted by the developer to the City for approval. The problem is that there is very little .room remaining for buffering between the convenience center and the adjacent dwellings. { Recommendations The Planning Commission has the following choices as to a decision on the Parkview project . 1. Approvo the first phase of the Parkview proposal shown by the developer for rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 and give PUD Development Stage approval to the remainder of the site. 2. Approve Phase I rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 and reaffirm the PUD Concept approval for the other phases. (the number of units should probably not be stated, but rather ranges of density referred to , such as;low, medium and high). Also, the developer should not make plans according to the current proposed building types for the other phases of the site. 3. Deny the project for the following reasons ; a. the large amount of ground coverage b. ex tensive grading needed to adapt the site to this type • of unit. c. problems with parking areas occurring directly infront of garages and the lack of additional areas for parking. d. inappropriateness of the convenience center in the location shown when compared with the buffer that should occur in the'area. e. constriction of major pedestrian and bikeway corridors by surrounding units. The planning staff recommends Alternative 3, denial of the project for the reasons listed. C£/j me • k c • . '••'• • • • . • • • approved Planning Commission Minutes 4.. -6- May 12, 1975 • E. Parkview Apartments, request by Eden Land for PUD Development Stage approval and rezoning to RM 2.5 in accord with the Mitchell Heights PUD Concept approval. - The planner reported the Bather-Ringrose-Woldsfeld ( BRW), report recommends — denial of the project because of the building type, excessive grading, the number of units, :the •road alignment and it does not conform to the Redrock Plan. ' • Peterson said they are willing to discuss the parkway alignment depending on the assessment policy. He said the 2.2 acre parcel in the northwest area due to high assessments it is not suitable for multiple use . He then suggested .approval•:of the first phase and the density and unit type of theother phases could - be handled in the future. He felt the type of unit proposed is very marketable in Eden Prairie and the area is capable of supporting a community commercial center. Discussion followed relative to the distribution of assessments over the project area. Mr.T."Stundahl , Berton, said he and otherresideats strongly oppose the project and are concerned that a "jungle'of apartments" are developing in that small area of the City. • Fosnocht inquired why 1 parking spaceiri is not proposed. Peterson said the project has 3/4 spaces in and such a ratio is considered proper for a rental project. •Peterson said the PUD was approved- at 10 units/acre and the project has 9.2 unttR/ acre. ' Meyers expressed the concern that the grading is excessive and the project appears to be slab buildings . Motion: Fosnocht moved, Meyers seconded, to continue the item to the May 22nd Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously. • • • • . 14 i7U l e • STAFF REPORT TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Chris Enger THROUGH: Marty lessen DATE: May 5, 1975 • REQUEST: Rezoning to RM 2.5 and approval of Development Stage and preliminary plat. Eden Land is proposing appoximately 440 1 and 2 bedroom rental apartments. • The main condern for the Park & Recreation Commission is the recreation • dedication provisions and pathways. The population profile shown on page 18 of the developer's brochure shows a phase 1 development of 372 residents. The completed develop- ment would support approximately 900 residents according to the developer's calculations. If we follow the City's past thoughts on park systems we will see that a neighborhood park is presently 15-20 acres in size and serves 4,000-5,000 people. The cost of acquisition and development of such a park at this time is around$ 100,000 for acquisition and $ 150,000 for development ,}iringingthe total to around $ 250,000 for the neighborhood park . Since EdenLand has created a need for a neighborhood park of 900 residents, which is approximately 1/5 of the population needed to support a neighborhood park, a cash in lieu of land dedication of value equal to 1/5 of the total park acquisition and development seems equitable. Based upon the developer's figures a cash in lieu of land dedication of$ 50,000 would be needed to provide for the neighborhood park needs. However, if we take a more realistic look at the population profile of 2 persons/1 bedroom and 2.75/2 bedroom unit , the total resident population profile would be 1,007 people. This would bring Eden Land's total cost of the park to at least 1/4 of the total park cost,$62,500 . The ommi courts shown by Eden Land are desirable and needed but do not make up for the neighborhood park need, but rather act as mini-parks within the project. Therefore, they are needed in conjunction with the cash in lieu of land dedication and in conjuction to any natural systems dedication for floodplain , etc. • Pathways This area is dense and highly consolidated area, and since Eden Land is providing a convenience center on the northwest quadrant of the proposed Chestnut Drive . extension and the east/west parkway , a effective way to • get to . these services and tie into the City pathway system would be suitable locations of walkways and bikeways. The location of a whlkway • Tit - Staff Report-Parkview Apartments -2- May 5, 1975 t through the project is desirable and the crossing of the parkway can be • handled at-grade if the intersection has a stop light. This primary pathway should be at least 8 feet in width and of a black top surface material. In addition to this pathway system,a pathway should be built in the right-of- way so it is exposed to east-west parkway and shared equally in cost with the City. This would provide the necessary north-south access needed for pedestrians and bikeways. All the standardsand criteria for grade, turning radius, surface type, etc., from the Hikeway/Bikeway Task Force Report should apply to this project.. jtecommendations Recommend that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the recreation aspects of the project contingent upon cash in lieu of land dedication previously mentioned and compliance with the trailway criteria listed in the Eden Prairie Hikeway/Bikeway Task Force Report. CE:je • • ,r. . elRij PLANNING REPORT DATE: May 7, 1975 PROJECT: Mitchell Heights PUD APPLICANT: Eden Development, Inc. LOCATION: East of Mitchell Road at the end of Chestnut Drive. REQUEST: PUD Development Plan Approval and RM 2.5 Zoning. REFER TO: Development Stage Application Booklet dated March 7, 1975. Resolution No. 505• Adopted by the Village Council March 28, 1972. COMMENTS: Background - The Mitchell Heights PUD has ! been before the Planning Commission; in late 1971 and early 1972. Shelter Develop- .1 ment'Corporation, the developer at that time, received Concept Plan Approval on the 59.3 acre site for 10 units/acre or 593 units. Shelter Development Corporation also received approval of RM 2.5 Zoning on Phase 1, the 14 acre parcel adjacent to Mitchell Road, and plan approval of 186 unit P• two-story apartment clusters for Phase 1. Since that time the 14 acre Phase 1 has ' been sold to Magnum Land Corporation. • The remaining 45 acres is now under owner- ship by Edanvale, Inc. • Development Plan - As part of the resolu- tion approving the original concept plan, it was stated "that varied building types 113 • (should) be used on the later phases of the project to fit the terrain". In reviewing the present proposal there has been no attempt to vary the building types or respect the existing terrain. Grading - The site analysis graphically .— indicates a portion of the site has 15-20% slopes on which no development should occur or, at least careful site planning be used to minimize the extend of grading required on the moderately erodable soils. The • choice of a two-story, slab, on grade building, with a length of 180' to 280', does not lend itself to a sensitive site planning approach respecting the existing soils and slope conditions. • As indicated on the submitted Grading Plan 1 all the knolls will be leved and used to fill the "low areas" with a "flat" site as the result. Presently, the site is quite undulating with an overall elevation change of 45 feet + The proposed grading plans suggests a future elevation change of 15 feet ±. Redrock Plan - With respect to community forces, the proposed 424 rental units com- bined with other existing developments and proposals in the area, if left to develop as proposed appears to be in conflict with the Redrock Plan. One of the objectives of the Redrock Plan is to provide for "diversity in environment" and a "variety of densities making up the numerous neighborhoods". The goal of the Redrock Plan is not to create a single building type with similar densitities allocated • over some 400 acres * in the northwest area of Redrock. • Site Plan Details - The parking ratio of 2.3 cars per dwelling unit is below code, but, given our experience, is an acceptable 2 • '774 • • ratio. The parking spaces located in front of garages would tend to create problems of access to the garages espec- ially on the traditional Friday and Saturday party nights. It is recommended that at least .75 spaces per unit be provided in a location that does not block someone else's" garage door. There should be attractively screened storage areas for recreational vehicles provided on site. Alternatively, they should be required to be stored in the garage or off site. The pathway system through the site is in keeping with the Redrock Plan but it seems that the location is more of an after-thought. The location of a community wide path system should be separated from the higher use activity areas of individual parcels so that residents of Eden Prairie using the path system do not feel they are- intruding into someone else's yard or exterior living space. Convenience Center - The indication of a convenience center on the development • plan is not consistent with the Redrock Plan. Admittedly, the parcel is awkward. However, a slight re-alignment of the Park- way could correct the parcel fragmentation. The Redrock Plan proposes auto related • services just north of the site along the proposed parkway and commercial retail services just west of the site in the { proposed Village Center. The possibility of moving the proposed parkway westerly so as to eliminate an awkward parcel is recommended. ' 9 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend denial on the submittal as shown with the following comments: 1. The heavy concentration of similar building types of the entire area r and the inability of the proposed building type to respond to the topography of the subject site. 2. Modify the plan to provide for at least two housing types: 3 • A. Possibly some two-story • apartments as proposed. B. Some 3-6 story structures in order to reduce building cover; respond to the topo- graphy; and, create a "variety of densities making up the E numerous neighborhoods". 3. Relocate the northerly 600 feet - of the Parkway to the west in order to minimize parcel fragmentation. The westerly R.B.W. line should be approxi- mately 75 east of the existing structures. 4. Reaffirm previous locational decisions with respect to the convenience and auto service related center pursuant to the adopted Redrock Plan. i • approved Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 28, 1975 B.j'arkvlew Apartments, request by Eden Land for PUD Development Stage Approval, • and rezoning to RM 2.5 in accord with the Mitchell Heights PUD Concept Approval. Mr. Peterson informed the commission that the proposal is located in the Mitchell - • Heights PUD and had been owned by Shelter Corporation. Shelter sold the front 14 acres to Magnum Land Corporation and the remainder to Eden Land. He said his proposal is for 2 story patio apartments at 9.2 units/acre and detached garages. Mr. Lyle Landstrom, architect for the project briefed the commission on the land's rolling topography, utilities, the northeastern drainage to the low area, & the project's 4 phases. The first phase is for 120 units, the second phase will be 144 units ,the third phase (to be completed by 1979),would have 152 units andthe•projects fourth phase is a proposed convenience center. Mr. Landstrom said the project would have 2.3 parking stalls/unit. • Mr. Peterson said they have investigated alternate uses as the planner suggested, but due to the parking and assessments they are not economi ally feasible. Meyers felt cash in lieu of dedication should be considered since the project • had only 3 outdoor courts for 900 projected residents. • I Sorensen referred the request to the staff Park& Recreation and Human Rights Commission for recommendations. • 4...,k MEMO TO: Mayor Osterholt and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: June 26, 1975 SUBJECT: Right-of-way Purchase from Mr. Oscar Erck I.C. 51-266 We have reached a proposed settlement for City Council consideration re- garding purchase of right-of-way from Mr. Oscar Erck under'the T.H.-169 upgrading project (I.C. 51-266). The attached drawing shows the location of the right-of-way taking. The taking involves the total parcel and • improvements thereon. The parcel is legally described as Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision #335, Plat 56742, Parcel 5100. Richard A. Campbell and Associates completed an appraisal of the proposed taking and determined the value to be as follows: Land (11,761 sq. ft. @ $2.25) _ $26,500 Buildings 15,000 Loss of towing business 5,000 $46,500 To this amount the following would be added: Replacement housing supplement $13,800 (see attached replacement hous- ing statement dated April 7, 1975) Moving allowance 500 $60,800 • Mr.Erck will agree to accept the sum of $67,000 as payment in full for the items above described. Mr. Erck claims the additional amount is fair and reasonable because of the loss of his towing business plus the fact that his daughter who now lives with him will not be able to keep her job at the Y Cafe, which is within walking distance of the Erck home. It is recommended that the City Council approve purchase of the Oscar property under I.C. 51-266 for the total sum of $67,000. • CJJ/kh attachments 1041 • • • • February 17, 1975 Mr. Carl Julie, Village Engineer — Village of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • Re: Single Family Dwelling on Commercial Site At • 8108 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Mr. Julie: • At your request an appraisal of the above referenced property • is prepared for the purpose of estimating its market value. • Based upon an inspection of the property and consideration of • the many factors influencing market value it is our opinion • that its value is: • • FORTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS S41,500 Distribution: • Land $26,500 • • Improvements $15,000 • • The appraisal report is submitted. It contains a description of the property, a summary of significant factors affecting • its market value, and a portion of the computations employed in arriving at the value estimate. The Appraiser's Definition of Market Value, the Appraisers' Qualifications, and a Summary of Underlying Assumptions and Contingent, Conditions are also included. . This appraisal has been completed in conformance with the Pro- fessional Ethics of the American Institute of meal Estate Appraisers. Information in this report was gathered from sources • believed reliable, but it is not guaranteed. It has been a pleasure to serve you, and should you desire further assistance please call at your convenience. Cordially yours, • • Ri1ard A. Campbell, MAIf SRPA /I Robert H. Wiley, Asst Appraiser • RAC:RHW/nb • F-,_.J.\ c:_ ._3 .?ct February 19, 1975 Mr. Carl Jullie, Village Engineer Village of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Re: Single Family Dielling on Commercial Site At 8108 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Mr. Jullie: Regarding our appraisal report of February 17, 1975, please be advised that we are adding $5,000 to our $41,500 figure, for a total market value of $46,500. This $5,000 figure is the estimated value of Mr. Erck's wrecker and towing business and the goodwill which he had built up at this location during the past five years. We are sorry for any inconvenience this omission from the report may have caused you. Co _ lly yours ✓.��^�` ` "`✓tee Richard A. Campbell, MAI, SPPA £f ?& Q' � f � `. Robert H. Wiley, Assoc) _ Appra_e-- RAC:RHW/nb REAL ESTI+T=Ai;f7,.,%I T.. ;RD A. CA,:.;PSELL tAAt-SRA &CONSULT;ti G SERVICE 8609 LYNJALE AVENUESOUTH =NCe? tOAc: 881-6647 BLOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55420 PHONE: 6;zsa8.1221 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 335, Plat 56742, Parcel _ 5100. LOCATION ANALYSIS • The property is situated on the west side of Highway No. 169, also known as Flying Cloud Drive, directly across the street from the new Homart Shopping Center. • The neighborhood is about 60% developed. The subject use is _.y. not compatible with development in the immediate vicinity. Nearby uses include the aforementioned shopping center, and the Ring Road, which now gives this site a commercial use to be compatible with the planning in the area. • important location factors influencing market value include moderate to strong demand for properties similar to the sub- ject, because of the new shopping center. Th4e site is triangular in.shape oand damemeasure es 200.1' x 145' x �- 2 The land is generally rolling and adequately drained. The subsoil is assumed to be sound. The frontage provides suit- able accessibility and identity. Utilities available are gas, electricity and telephone. There is a 240 ft. well with 4 inch casing and submersible pump. There is no trackage. TAX INFORMATION • The reported current annual real estate taxes are $351.60. There are no special assessments of record. The reported S18e004rforethemated market mprovementsvforea1s total000 of g21,000.he land and A :.Zt • '• • • • • . _. • • • . . • . - • •r :• 14.- 4, _ _.• Erg • . • EE __ •_ 411” - • - .• 114.;••al•," • • • •••• ••• - :7:Jr • • • • • • • (It • • IR EA,ES A:Z CHARD A. CC..Pb'ELL MAI•SRA &CONSULT.NG ZERViCE SI OENCE?-ONZ:861-6847 8609 LYNOALE AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55420 PHONE: 61218ES-1221 - 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS The improvements consist of a two story older frame dwell- ing which was reportedly-constructed about 1910. The pre- sent condition is considered average. • The foundation is concrete, and the exterior is of frame siding, with asphalt shingle roof cover. The basement has a concrete floor, two laundry tubs, 2' x 8" joists on 16" center, oil forced air heat, and updated electric service. The first floor contains a large panelled living room; kit cnen with plywood cupboards, built-in Kitchen Aid dish- washer and G.E. oven; 2 bedrooms; bath, plus utility room and porch. The walls and ceilings are plaster, the floors are hardwood. The 26' x 16' living room was added in 1952. The small, unheated porch entry is located at the south side. • The second floor contains two bedrooms with knotty pine walls, slopes, Celetex ceiling, and tile floors. Other improvements consist of an old garage and a small shed, both with little or no value. • • • • • - • -5- Q • • • c.il.',ES:'-i E A ri'.,.,-,•.� RICJIARD A. CAMPBELL MAI-SRA &CONSULT;NG SERVICE RESIDENCE?HONE:&51-6547 86C9 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON.MINNESO T A 55420 PHONE: 6 t 2R.ES-122 t • • • METHOD OF VALUATION (Continued) Sale 8: Location: Eden Road and Flying Cloud Drive, • Eden Prairie (7 Acres) Sale Date: December 1973 Buyer: John Tieman Seller: Beckman. Zoning: Commercial -Sale Price: $200,000 - Specials: None Price Per S.F: .61¢ Remarks: Purchased in order to get access road to No. 169 from Eden Ave. will be developed with strip commercial. Very low ground; will need much fill. • Recap of Land Sales: • The sales comparables show a range from .61¢ to $1.37 per Sq. Ft. These sales have to be adjusted to the subject for time, ' location, size, utility, zoning, etc. Because of the fact that there is access off of Flying Cloud Drive to the site, and also considering the small size, we have estimated a square foot commercial value of $2.25 per Sq. Ft. Thus: 11,761 Sq. Ft. 0 $2.25/Sq. Ft S26,462 Say S26,500 Indicated Site Value: • • TWENTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS S26,500 • • -8- • 11) • 1 REAL ESTATE AFFR,-,ISAL , 1 RICHARD"; CA:.:P5ELL ?.Ai. A &CONS1NC>SER'V iCE t RE5iDENZE PHONE. 58144547 6609 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH BLOOM.NGTON.M:NNESOTA 55420 PHONE: 61 OM-i 221 i -- , —, — - . , FINAL ESTIMATED VALUE . 1 •-1 It is estimated that the improvements would sell on the • ` • market today at approximately $20,000. Subtracting a normal residential lot value of approximately $5,000 would leave $15,000 for the depreciated value of the improvements. Thus, the total value is as follows: Land Value $26,500 • Value of the Improvements $15,000 , Total $41,500 - . Final Estimated Market Value: FORTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE KINDRED DOLLARS ($41,500) . 4 1 • . 1, I i [ • • . 1 . , . 1 • - - , I . ' I .1 -9- 1 -- , , I • - :':-.-' la 11 - --- _ • <'A7E OF ,:AhZSC7A REPLACEMENT nDL'SINS DEPARTFEKT Lf Hick.ATS STATEMENT Of REVIEW AXNALTSIS S•?. 2744-16 (T.H. 169) Aree Code 99-481 Parcel r.A.p. Village of Eden Prairie County Hennepin • Fee Owner Oscar Erck Property Address 8108 Flyi nn Cl nur. Dri uo Eden Prairie Determination: $ 13,800.00 By: E. C. Davidoe Y/k het. Review Comments: The residential unit value was abstracted at S24,000.00 from the appraised commercial value of the subject property in the amount of SA1,500.00. The subject residence is unique in that it is an older house located in an area where much new construction of homes has occurred. There are virtually no homes comparable to the subject residence which are for sale at this time. The comp selected to compute this replacement housing supple- ment is located in Bloomington which is the next community to the east of Eden Prairie. The area in which comp #1 is located appears to be very comparable to the subject area. Comp #1 is adequate to accommodate this relocates and the supplement as computed by Mr. Davidge is recommended. • • Recommended Replacement Housing Supplement $ 13,800.00 By: C • ' %G `�i F. J. Skweres, }reJ. Sept. Comments: There is a vary apparent lack of replacement housing similar to the subject available or for sale at this time, especially in the immediate area. The comparable selected by Mr. Davidoe appears to meet all requirements for decent, safe and sanitary housing and is in an area superior to the subjects. 1 do hereby certify that the amount of $ 13.800.00 is a fair and reasonable amount allowable as a supplemental payment for replacement housing. Acquisition was in connection with a Federal-aid highway project. rfurther certify that to the best of my knowledge the replacement dwelling meets the requirements as set forth for decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and I have no personal interest in the proposed transaction nor will derived any benefit from the supplement payment. .*PPEevzr S°'// v` +•••-►�— DATE April 7. 1975 R. E. Champag , eplacement Rousing Supv. • 019 MEMO TO: Mayor Osterholt and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: June 24, 1975 • • SUBJECT: Temporary Signals for the Homart Center on T.A. 169 Since the T.H. 169 upgrading project will not even be started by the proposed August 1, 1975, opening for the Sears store in the Eden Prairie Center, the Homart Company has requested a permit from the Minnesota Highway Dept. to install a temporary signal light at the southerly T.H. 169 entrance to the Center. This temporary signal would be removed after completion of the T.H. 169 upgrading project. The Highway Dept. will not deal directly with the Homart Co. in this matter, but rather they require that the City make a request through our technical assistance agreement for the signal installation. The Homart Co. has agreed (see attached letter) to pay all costs associated with • the signal installation and will provide a cash deposit to the City in the amount of 520,000. Homart Co. requests that Collins Electric Co. do the installation work bec"u*m they completed a similar installation in a very satisfactory manner at the recently opened Maplewood Mall Center. 1 . It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Engineer to request technical assistance from the Minnesota Highway Dept. in a cooperative agreement for installation and maintenance of a temporary traffic signal as described in this memorandum at the intersection of the southerly entrance to the Eden Prairie Center on T.H. 169. CJJ/kh attachment • • g+M 1 �yF • iC3;i�u( ©�v910 li:3ii Co. II _U___I . C June 26, 1975 - • City of Eden Prairie -_ - 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Attn: Mr. Carl JUllie Re: Temporary Signals @ Hwy 169 Eden Prairie Center Dear Carl: Hasiart Development Ccupany is hereby requesting that the City of Eden Prairie proceed as rapidly as possible with arrangements with the Minnesota Highway Department for the erection of a temporary traffic signal at our south entrance on Highway 169. • This signal is extremely necessary, due to the delay in the upgrading of ' Highway 169. Homart must have a safe means of entrance and exit to the site in tine for Sears' opening on July 30, 1975. ( •Hanart is prepared to pay for whatever expenses are incurred with this con- - struction. Hanart understands that there will have to be an escrow deposit of $20,000.00 paid to the city. In the past, Homrart has entered into similar • agreements with various municipalities. We have had particular good fortune with Collins Electric Co. of St. Paul, and would like to encourage their use. on this project. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, 'AFC DFA r'1 r r CO. ,,,,,,,, k • r' - Jan C. Porter Project Manager Eden Prairie Center JCP/sm cc: J. C. Spinks Dale Hamilton WEN PRAIRIE CENTER/11401 WEST 78th STREET EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55347/151I1l IMI