HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/02/1975EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 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 Frans; Director of Community
Services Marty Jessen; Engineer Carl Jullie;
Belinda Vee, Recording Secretary
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AGENZA
I. PUBLIC HEARLNGS
A. Area A of The Preserve Commercial Plan, 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. (continued public hearing)
B. Parkview Apartments by Edenvale, Inc., request for rezoning
to RM 2.5 from Rural and preliminary plat approval for a 45
acre apartment development located south of Chestnut Apartments
find east of Mitchell Road. (continued public hearing)
C. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, requesting PUD
concept and preliminary plat approval for office and
commercial land uses, The site is located northwest of the
new Ring Road and U.S. 169 intersection.
Page 761
Page 958
D. Eden Prairie Family Recreational Center by Eden Development, Inc.,
requesting rezoning from 1-2 Park to Community Commercial for a Page 982
21 acre site north of T.H. 5 and east of Edenvale Boulevard.
II. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Report of City Engineer
I. Consider Bids received on August 14, 1975 for sanitary sewer Page 941
lateral service on Beach Road and Beach Circle, the Cove
Addition, Project SAN 74-1-20, I.C. 51-277. (Res.No. 1022)
Council Agenda -2- Tues.,9/1/75
II. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS (Continued)
B. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Eden Prairie Stables - Building demolition.
2. Change Order 4f2 for Picnic Pavilion at Round Lake
Page 998
Page 1000
Park end payment to Willard Eggan.
C. RePort of City Attorney
1. Report on DrYant Lake Park "roadway",
D. Remit of City Manager
1. PreliminarY Draft of the 1976 City Budget.
III. NEW BUSINESS.
N. ADJOURNMENT.
Page 1005
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 28, 1975 .
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Don Sorensen, Richard Lynch,
Norma Schee, Joan Meyers, Roger Boerger,
Richard teerick, Herb Fosnocht
Richard Putnam, Jean M. Egan
13. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, requesting concept plan and
preliminary plat approval for office and commercial land uses. The site
is located northwest of the new Ring Road and U. S. 169 intersection.
A continued public hearing.
The planner highlighted the staff report and stated the Area G proposal
is consistent with the MCA Plan He added that services S the City staff
supports the in/out access proposed, but does not support the large retail
use contained in the plan.
ymatelel decreer that all future development within Area G would be
evaluated by the City as Methodist's rezoning request in Area F.
Loren Galpin said The Preserve staff would like the revised Area G Plan
approved as is and,if a lege retail use is considered,a specific plan for
such a use would be submitted.
Schee inquired what would be done regarding protection of the eastern •
facing slope. The planner responded the staff suggests the use on that
parcel be worked into the slope as well as possible.
Meyers suggested; 1. staff review the cash in lieu of land dedication ,
2. a written agreement should be secured between the landowners
before final concept approval regarding recommendation # 4 in the staff
report, and 3. the freestanding buildings sited along 169 should be more
flexible to make use of shared .parking if...possible. •
Lee Johnson said the feasibility study, presently underway and to be
presented on August 12, would define the road location and assessment.
•
Sorensen inquired if The Preserve epvisloped the pedestrian crossing
as an overpass. Lee Johnson replied that The Preserve does not.
The planner suggested the location for a pedestrian connection could
be indicated as in Area 1' and the corresponding assessment would be
worked out.
Motion:
Boerger moved, Schee seconded, to recommend approval of Area G's
concept plan and preliminary platting subject to recommendations
1 -3 on page 8 of the July 22, 1975 staff report, 41 4 as amended and add 556
4. That the Preserve work with Bermel/Teman to coordinate
the connecting street and grading plans, defining construction -
timing and method , financral commitmente aright-of-way •
alignment dedication all of which shall be agreed to In writting prior
to final plat approval.
5. Should the freestanding commercial along 169 not be used as Class 1 or II
restaurants,*then said structures should be grouped.
6. That it is envisioned that an above grade pedestrian system
will connect Area G with the adjacent Homart Community Commercial
Area, at such time as land use and pedestrian demand are present,
in keeping with established City policy without implying any
specific financing method.
The motion carried unanimously.
* as defined in the July 22, /975 staff report
cIpplOvUu
7:30 PM City Hall
STAFF PRESENT:
9513
Pod. Proi. No. I State Prof. No. PRELIMINARY PLAT Of PRESERVE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLAT THREE FOR THE PRESERVE 0920 tRANLO ROAD CORR /MAORI; WNW Ci)amw
devaEopment gen Area G
q60
/
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED
LAND DEVELOPMENTS
DATE: 7 - 24 - 75
DEVELOPMENT: Preserve Commercial Center Plan Three Area G) L.D. NO. LD -75 -P -04
LOCATION: Northwest of intersection of Ring Route & Flying Cloud Dr.
REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS
Ord. # 286
ZONINC AGREEMENT: Preserve Center Add. RES. #.
DEVELOPER: The Pregerve
ENGINEEPIPIJOZTER: Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Inc.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: Preliminary Plat, Utility Plan, Grading Plan, Profiles
PROPOSAL: P.U.D., Preliminary Plat
1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid yes
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
CI. Manning Commission Public Brij. 7-28-75
e. City Council consideration
f. Wat6rshed District
3. Type of Developlwnit
Commercial
4. Environmental assessment OY impact s Latoment required par Environmental
Impact Policy Act of 1973:
N. A.
5. Present Zoning
6. Proposed Zoning Commercial
Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? vas
List variances required & setbacks that apply:
Ann. 1",,q7 ,et.nd
7. Project Area 17.3 acres Density
. 8. Public open space and/or cash dedicatio
n
Refer to Plannor'n Tinrevrt 7 -72-7C
Private open space Refer to P3.anaRtLE-CeDgrt 7-22-75
Trail systems & sidewalks Refer to Planner's Report
Range of lot sizes Refer to Planner's Report 7-22-75
9. Preliminary Building Plans Refer to DevelqPnellt_ElAn
10, Representative Soil Borings Not Submitted
11. Street System
A. Access to adjoining properties 0.K, Service through dev1enpmentL.froli
Ring Road to Bermel-Teman Properties
R. Type, Roadway (Back to Back of Curb)
Private .
driveways, no
24 '
parking
Post no parking signs
Leading to Cul de sacs 50
28.
(not over 1000') &
minor residential
Cul do ones 100 78 (no island)
120 98 (with island)
Thru Residential (collectors)
& Cul do !,i,CS
-over 1000' 60
32 Proposed
- 3 -
MSA 70
44
Proposed
Parkway 1 00 28 divided
Fire Road
12
Pathways 32 6
Street grades-max. 7.5%, min.
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 Dedication
of Ring Road Right-of-Way 'Required
D. Street Names - try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional
names on (nil de sacs having eight or less lots.
• Check list of existing street names. . Required
E. Private parking lots-86-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design
Required
P. Street Signs-Developer or City installs Developer
12. Parking: (See Ord.
13. Utility Systems:
A. Sanitary Sewer
#141) Proposal conforms to Ord. # 141
8" San. to be installed by developer
1. Service Detail to be determined pending final design
2. Service to adjoining property System to be desitned to provide possible
extension to properties north of proposed development
B. Watexmoin: 8" System loop to be installed by developer
1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) OA •
2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Fire Inspector to review
3. Valving
Subject to approval final design
4. Compliance with fire code Fire inspector to review
5. Service to adjaceet property System to be designed to provide possible
extension to properties north and West of proposed development. Looped
System will be required.
943
- 4 -
C. Storm Sewer & Grading Access to.existing_System_Available—Onesi
t
e
_
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
required.
1. Sediment control plan Required - Subject to Watershed Approval
2. Skimping & grit control for commercial parking lots Required
Watershed District to review and approve
3, Positive outlet for drainage pondsRequired
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal proposes Max. Cut 35 - Max.
P
i
l
l
2
0
'
5. Arrows showing drainage Not Submitted
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties Required
6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water
for ponds
Required in final design
7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Required
8. .Sod drainage swales and steep slopes Required
9. Flood plain encroachment No
10. Watershed District approval
Required
11. DNR approval N.A.
D. Natural Gas & Telephone
Underground required
E. Electric (underground)
Required
14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Required
15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MHD or Henn. Co. if abutting a
State or County Hwy.
Yes - T.H. )69-212 ( M.D.H. )
16. *List special s e i;esni r ntn levied and pending Trunk Sewer & Water ( deferred )
$35, 985.; Ring Road - $5,877.55; Ring Road Storm Sewer - $91,378.74;
Pending: Neill Lake Storm Sewer - $ 37,950.; T.H. 169-212 improVement
-
$
6
1
,
0
0
0
17. Re-zoning agreement required
Yes
Developer's Agreement required
Yes
Title Abstract for Attorney's review
* Parcel e 5625 - Includes portion of parcel located south of Proposed
R
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
( Total Area Assessed.- 24 acres )
4344
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
REFER 70 :
Planning Commission
Dick Putnam, Planning Director
July 22, 1975
Area C; of The Preserve Commercial Plan
The Preserve
Concept Plan approval and preliminary platting for
a commercial development in the northeast quadrant
and 169/ Ring Route intersection
1. Preserve Commercial Plan, pages 25-29,graphics 22,
22a and 23. ( pre. distributed )
2. Market Analysis for Retail and Office Commercial
prepared for the Preserve ( pre. distributed )
3. Jack Anderson Asso. , traffic report Preserve Area G. (attached)
4. Park & Recreation Report 5-575(attached)
5. Revised Plan 6-1-75 ( attachirid )
6. Engineer's Report dated 7-29-75 ( attached )
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
MCA PLAN COlvIPATIBTLITY
A. Plan Compatibility .
The Major Center Report , on pages 81-85, discusses the land use potentials
for Zones 5 and G In which Area G is located. The Plan states on page 82;
"The 100 acre upland bordering old 169 and bounded on the
west by the slope to the flood plainoffers a direct relation-
ship with the Homart Regional Mall site. The scattered
vegetation end rolling land character should provide for
relatively easy commercial development. The Northern States
Power casement, 165 feet wide, runs north/south through
this area provides a site planning constraint combined with
the location of the Ring Route. Restrictions on the Northern
States Power easement will limit the construction of the
major buildings within that easement and would allow parking
and rend uses. This 100 acre area offers a groat deal
of flexibility In its use of regional service, office and
institutional , traneit station , and housing. "
Staff Report-Area G of The Preserve Corn. Plan -2- July 22, 1975
The Plan recognized the need to plan detailed road, uttlfty and land
use parcels with the landowners as development occurs. On
page 82 the Plan states;
".
• . . The area Is provided with an internal road system
that may need revision to better serve The needs of a
commercial center."
The land uses, road pattern , and development timing is consistent with
the Major Center Area Plan.
B. Plan Elements
1. Land Use
The land uses proposed on the 17.3 acre site for Area G are within
the Major Center commercial, office , service categories and
, community- commercial such as . the „proposed
super market. Table 1 lists the acreage , proposed land use,
parking, square footage, and coverage of the lots within the
Area G plan.
TABLE 1 : Revised Arca G Concept Plan
Lot .,Illock Aerns Land Use Etlelq.ScL.Ft. Est. Perktim 4
111, 1.1 3.5 of Vinst 32,000 178/space
1.2,3 1.5 ietail/off 9,700 125/space
02, L 1 6.0 I el:ail/mar . 38,560 144/space
I. la (L) ) res./le -tad •,000 13 0/..3pa cc
L2 2.6 retail/off 17,000 130/spece
1.3 1.9 bal,k/off 0,400 150/space
L4 .8 t estatara in: 7,000 175/space
1.5 1.0 rest/retail 7,000 110/spece
* street light-of- way 2.02 at.
Total 19.32 126,600
17.30 *1'326,600
* parking ratio computed based on x sq. ft. of gross
bulidioj psi '.J ia-i sp,c0
** building to acreage per:centego is about 17%
176,690 sq,,ft )
--755-,528 sqJt. itC1111.1 total
91,4
Staff Report-Area G of The Preserve Corn. Plan -3- July 22, 1975
The Area G plan proposes a potential of 3 free standing restaurant
sites along 169. At this time the type and specific size of the
restaurants Is not known. The planning staff would suggest a rating
system used by St. Louis Park in Ordinance No. 1258 which classifies
restaurants by their function. The fullowing explains each of the
restaurant classes
Restaurant Class I: A sit-down restaurant with on-sale liquor,
serving food to its customers while seated at tables. Personalized, printed
menus are used and the food is served on multiple use utensils. There may
be some take-out service but the food is not previously packaged.
Restaurant Class II: A sit-down restaurant without on-sale liquor
but otherwise providing the services of a Restaurant Class I.
Restaurant Class III: A cafeteria which is a sit-down restaurant.
Food is selected by the patron while going through a serving line. The
patron takes his food to a table where it is eaten. Multiple use utensils
are used. There may be some take-out service but the food is not previously
packaged.
Restaurant Class IV: A fast food or drive-in restaurant that does
not permit eating outside on the premises. This restaurant specializes in
foods prepared or nearly prepared in advance and which are sold directly
to the patron at a counter and not served by a waiter. The food is often
partially packaged before the order is taken. The food is essentially
served packaged or served in single service materials (paper or plastic).
The patron may have the option of eating inside the building or off the
premises.
Restaurant Class V: A fast-food or drive-in restaurant that allows
eating outside on the premises. This restaurant provides the services of a
restaurant Class IV but also includes eating outside of the building on the
premises.
n•n
Staff Report-Area G of the Preserve Corn. Plan -4- July 22, 1975 •
For the Area G site , based upon the Preserve Commercial Plan, and
Objectives of the Major Center Plan, the 3 sites proposed for restauran
t
s
would be for Class 1 & 2 freestanding restaurants, and the Class 3 &
4 restaurants, normally known as cafeterias and fast foods would
be prohibited unless grouped in a unified building or site plan.
Class 5 restaurants, the drive-in type, would be prohibited in the
Area G plan.
The Preserve Commercial Plan has established a site near Anderson
Lakes and the Ring Route for the Class 3 and 4 clustered,specialty
food restaurants . The intent of the Area G plan is to provide for
freestanding family type Class 1 and 2 restaurants.
The supermarket and shop uses would be a direct competition with the
Homart Neighborhood Center proposed just east of 169/ Ring Route
intersection. It is likely that if 1 of these centers is constructed the
other may change its use. At this time the City has approved the
Homart Neighborhood Center in concept, but no detailed development
plans have been submitted. The Preserve's location for a super mark
e
y
shopping center may be more marketable_ due to lower land cost for
immediate development as it is detached from the regional mall site.
Four sites are illustrated as office, institutional, or retail and border
the Bennel property to the north. The combination of two of the sites
together would be an option if a tenant desired a larger space.
Flexibility of the transportation system and the natural features would
permit such future modifications.
C. Circulation
The attached Jack Anderson Traffic Analysis provides detailed Informat
i
o
n
relative the to trip generation , turning movements, and circulation patt
e
r
n
s
to the site. The internal road system has been negotiated between th
e
flannel, Temen, and Preserve landowttes and conforms with the
engineering requirements developed by Howard Needles for the Ring Ro
u
t
e
.
Also, the State Highway Department has approved the design for 169
and in - out access to 109/212. The Area G,site will be well served
with ptiiic roads on 3 sides of the site and the • proposed 70 foot
right-of-way running north/south under the NSP easement. To complem
e
n
t
this a F;y:th.!M of easements with private loads provide joint circulation
between ihe sites and the public roads.
Staff: Report-Area G of The Preserve Corn, Plan -5- July 22, 1975
Pedestrian and bike circulation systeMs are not as well defined and
need further definition during the development stage planning. Connection
to the Homart Center at the Ripo Poute / 169 intersection is advisable
for bikes and pedestrians connecting north/south to
the Bermel property. Likewise, a north/ south system connecting
the freestanding uses along 169 to the north of the Homart entrance
through the Bermel / Teman properties is recommended. At the
north nomad • entrance a connection to the Homed pathway system
linking to the future 3rd or 4th department store would be made along
the earth berm, The City has placed
heavy emphasis upon non-vehicular movement systems for internal
site mobility as well as total Major Center connections with surrounding
residential areas.
D. Open Space
The Area G Plan retains the tip of , the slope along the
Ring Route which extends north through the Bermel/Teman /Kelly and
Feeders properties. This area proposed in the Major Center Plan is
to be retained as a natural wooded hill side Potential office,
institutional, or retail use may be built adjacent to the
hillside with a parking structure accommodating the grade
change. The Park & Recreation Commission recommended
that more of the hill be retained in the grading plan, much as
the Gelco Office Building was built on the side of the hill
to retain more of its natural character.
The remainder of the site is developed in urban uses a roads, parking,
building sites, and setback green space. The ability to create pleasant
urban scale open space in conjunction with the building clusters
and the pedestrian bikeways to the site will enhance the urban
environment and will be consistent with the remainder of the Major Center
development,
E. Site Plan Elements
1. Grading._
The proposed grading plan will alter the existing site signficantly.
The western hill will be cut 25-30 feet and the low area under
the NSP easement would be filled 10-12 feet to permit building
sites . Thin extensive grading is due the grade and alignment
of the Ring Route which has a 20 foot cut through the hill and
Staff Report-Area G of the Preserve Corn. Plan -6- July 22, 1975
fills the low area under the power easement. Also, the
narrow hill adjacent to 169 offers little buildable area
with a 20-30 foot slope.. The staff believes the grading
required on this site , due to road alignment , land use
location, and natural conditions is not typical of that
expected throughout the Major Center Area.
• ..-0.1 z, fi',.-:._____,_-_-,°_...J0 • _ -•.-..":--:.;•*'----'—'-,-;pr"--:---.--;,-,, T1
vir ,T,,,, i ui:‘:1 n ,‘,r,-,„,;:,,.;;,,,,.). ,.„ • wr 1 .,'.. . "',',. ,,Ki•:•,..,'---;- 5.4-4....!..._...--;,...:.•":!L", • -y-r- T:K-..-__-_,--:,7•-.1-,.:
,
It'll f• •t. • 'ot
i t A I
:
//
A
Mt •
2Sti
Staff Report-Area G of The Preserve Corn. Plan -7- July 22, 1975
2. Landscaping
The level of landscaping illustrated on the plan is conceptual
and depicts the use of the parking lot vegetation to define
curb and barrier areas , and the plantings in the court
yard and building areas. In addition to the landscaping
•concept , parking lot trees similar to that used by
Nomad should be incorporated in all development plans. Like-
wise, earth berming screening and other landscaping techniques
should be utili7.ed for buffering the parking areas from the major
roadways.
3. Setback.,Sidcyard Requirements
The setback, side yard requirements will be flexiblle to accommo-
date the planned land use package: thib'ivill enable joint use of drive-
ways, parking areas, and stting of buildings in relation to public
streets to 'achieve the desired effect from the public aril
private developers standpoints. The function of -setback-s
•relative to the public objectives and that of the private owner
shall be used as a determinant of actual .distance , instead Df
a required distance.
4. Parking_
The parking ratios for individual uses will be calculated from the
best available information that the City and private developer a
can put together at the time of development approval . Joint use
of parking If it can be proven that adequate space will be available
for those using the common parking facility will be permitted.
No parking will be permitted on public streets or driveways serving
mere than 1 property. The parking required may be underground,
ramp , or at-grade parking.
5. :Urban Design
Review of the development proposals will take into account structural
design, site amenities, site relationships to other-cues , and
detailed urban design elements such as; walkways, lighting, land-
scaping& pedestrian facilities that affect the overall success of the
Major Center environment and the use proposed.
911
• Staff Report-Area G of The Preserve Corn. Plan -8- July 22,1975
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The planning staff recommends approval of the PUD Development
Stage and Revised Ar ea G Plan as depicted in the following
sketch and Table 1 acreage breakdown .
(.1zurztxrril:•;vv.ic. re..rt`a
We G
2. That all development applications within Area C be processed
as rep.onIng requests and evaluated based upon the Revised
Area G. Plan of the Preserve Commercial Plan and according to
the recommendations of the July 22nd planning staff report
and the July 24th engineering report.
3. That the 17.3 acre site be approved for preliminary platting consis-
tent with the plat dated 4-17-75 and the Revised Area G
Concept Pin.
4. That the Presorve work with Bennelneman to coordinate the
connecting street and grading plans.
DPAIne
g'101
13
.approvc 2
Planning Cc ,mmis:-..ivn Minutes -3- July 19, 1E.75
D. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, requesting concept plan and
preliminary plat approval for commercial and office uses. The site Is
located northwest of the 169/Ring Road intersection. A continued public hearing.
Loren Calpin reviewed Area G's location, road access, soil- conditions and
possible 8 parcels. He stated that the road system has been worked out
with Mr. Eermel" who owns the property to the north of the site. Expected
uses within Area G were cited as; institution, bank, office, shops, and
restaurants.
The planner inquired about the large retail facility that was part of the initial
plan. Galpin replied that a large retail facility is still an alternative u .se .
The planner felt the City may desire to divert large retail establishments
away from the MCA periphery and that it would be addressed in the staff report.
Motion:
Schee moved, Boerger seconded, to continue the public hearing to the
July 28th meeting end to direct the staff to submit a report at that time.
The motion carried unanimously.
I napproved
Minutes - Park & Rec. Page Six
Commission
Bay 5, 1975
C. Heveloement F .rosal Review
1. Preserve Plat Two (Cont/d)
Choiniere asked about water treatment, "salt and chloride" specifically.
Gelpin answered that the Nine Pile Watershed District dictates bow this
is to be handled. They would meet the standard presently set, and
work with Barr Engineering and the Watershed District to insure clean
water in Anderson Lake.
Choiniere questioned the bikeway/hikeway paths. Gilpin said the inten-
sity of the development determines When there is a need for the paths.
Jensen referred to the Staff Report recommendation of BMY 5, 1975
concerning the trails.
Choiniere asked what type of barrier they were considering as an ade-
quate wildlife barrier. Galpin answered that it would be a combination
of earth forms with thorny plantings. Be added that a small fence
behind the planting would keep the domestic animals out and would not
be visible. Be emphasized that they vented to make the barrier as
natural is possible.
NOTION
Choiniere moved to accept the Recommendation as outlined in Staff Report .
of Nay 5, 1975 for Plat Two, areas B,C, and D. Helmer seconded and the
motion carried unanimously.
2. rreserve Area G
Galpin presented Preserve Area 0 to the Commission commenting that Sill
would be needed for any type of development in the future. He said the
oak trees on the site would be preserved.
Jensen suggested that the Commission review it with our only concern
being the minimizing of grading and consideration of bike trails.
NOTION
Helmer moved to approve recommendation of Staff Report of May 5, 1975,
regarding grading and bike trails. Choiniere seconded and the motion
carried unanimously.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Park & Recreatiori Commis*sion
FROM: Chris Engel-
THROUGH: Marty lesson
DATE: May 5, 1975
DEVELOPER: Preserve
Presented by Development Concepts
PROPOSAL: Area•G
The concerns of the Park & Recreation Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
-
mental impact of Area G. The following excerpt is from the MCA Report
developed by a citizen's task force in 197
3
,
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
regarding the land in which Area is loc
a
t
e
d
.
ZONE 5 & 6
Zones 5 and 6 are grouped together in consideration
of
the natural characieristics due to their geographical
proximity in one sector of the freevvay interchange.
SOILS AND LAND FORMS
The land forms of Zones 5 and 6 may be identified i
n
three distinct areas. They are: the upland plateau, th
e
steep slope to the west of the plateau of approximate
l
y
50-60 feet in height, and the low flood plain Wei: of
Purgatory Creek to the west. The plateau area, cut o
f
f
in three directions by freeways or flood plain, is fla
t
t
o
gently rolling terrain with well-defined drainnne areas
.
Approximately half of the upland area has loam soils
o
f
0-6% slopes which are well suited for urban develop
-
ment. The remaining 50% of the upland area is of loam
soils of 6-12% slopes and pockets of drained organi
c
soils and wet mineral soils. Around these pockets o
f
lowland soil exist hands of erCKilie send of 6-18% slope flood plain. The mid and nor
t
h
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
which present sneCial considerations for development, have three distinct drainage swales -which have been cut
from the highland to the low flood plain area. Develop-
ment upon the northern slopes would be extremely
difficult due to the 20-40 percent slopes and the he
a
v
y
vegetation. The southerly slope is more gradual wi
t
h
5-15 degree slopes with limited vegetative cover. Sp
e
c
i
a
l
development types suites to hillside locations wou
l
d
b
e
required in the southerly area.
—
•-.
70;47:5
bwicand
Werriain ....
DZZ
I ZONE6 1
The slope west of the plateau ranrses from an elevati
o
n
of 50 on the north to the high elevation of 000 approx-
imately midway down the slope. The norther ly slop
e
i
s
extremely steep with grades of 20-40 percent slope.
The soils in this area are lOarlis of 18-35 percent slo
p
e
s
.
The mid and souther ly end of ihe -slope are gentler
degrees of slope with learns of 8-20 percent slope dom-
inating. The entire westerly slope is dominated by t
h
e
steep heavily wooded character to the north, and to
t
h
e
south near 169 the more gradual sloping area to th
e
—41 17q
Ti
Staff Report-AreaReport-Area G -2- May 5, 1975
The main contradiction between the goals of the MCA Report and the
proposal of Area G seems to be the degree to which the proposed buildings
will fit the site. As shown in the MCA Report, the steep wooded slopes
and the vegetation tip which protrudes into this area were shown to be
significant " special development types suitable to hill side locations
will be required in the southerly area. "
I \R\ I
1
,....ezir,.:--;-7-...------Nsfia.
ti„....44,......4,0 go-k...,,,-• v' VW/,',7
* ,/
k‘, ......,'"eetnr;) rl ' ;V
:iy
I p--
••••n_,,,....,4",101.,-,..,...
\\\\
......... . - ...,;, 1 1 % ...i.,4,i).;,.....„:„....L., -............
,... -.
.',..;q
sake
44rte-C
Sito area Ifiact
;
I
nrc,
•^4.17,1fireUT.47
mot=-1--1
*SEM
ecraxi.
ce=o;:a2 pr.tra
The Von Prnivie, PR:),;(.7-V-7N-,7Z7Q.4 Incoeseta
oevern coric-13: c„,por.,bork
.1e111.0,Aluto Wm.rule-Lawitreres
laro.
7:272-ei
915
' Staff Report-Area G
P1,11,1
73-
fil51
.t.j ,t,'I.'i ,, ,
m"-\-\\\---i7"fk.),IC,::-/71--1 .,1 .2/j-j:`',1*..i..,..;1):- „
1,7.-,--^" ,.,ri 7_ _...._-T__
1 •r'9- 1/. , i ,,,:-.) 1 ,,,..c.,....,., „....„4:, .L....,.r, .,-...,:.7.,
\
,,,,..i-,.....,;.3.„...,...);;.3--:::„--.:r.l.hr ,..,........7,--,..,-.:i' i.,:,,,,-, i --,\...', "-:,,--,,,r,, \
..e.nan•
May 5, 1975
Site am. Di rtei
In looking at the cross sections for The Preserve's concept and the footnotes
regarding grading, it does seem that a considerable amount of grading is
being done to the hill to develop buildable pads. Although, the Preserve
is taking off the back , or the east side of the slope, and preserving the
western side of the slope ( the heavy vegetated cover ), one cannot help
thinking that the result might be the same as the Warner's Home Care
Center at the intersection of Highway 7 and 41 in Excelsior.
Since a goal listed in the MCA for this area is, a building type which would
be more adaptable to the slopes , it seems this concept was studied and
discarded.
The only other concern a -priicable to the Park & Recreation Commission would
be the provision of trails in the area. In looking at the uses proposed it
does appear that this entire sector, Area G, is serviced oriented with a
number of restaurants utilizing the area. Therefore, pedestrian or bike
use within this area generated between uses in this area would seem to be
s.sail. However, some type of pedestrian and bike draw . will probably be
exhibited from the shopping center and the surrounding land uses. Therefore,
pedestrian and bike access to this area should bo insured at the intefsections
of the Ring Route and 169 and the northern access with 169/212.
Recommendations
Recommend that the Park & Recreation Commission recommend to the Planning
Commission and City Council approval of this project contingent upon adequate
modification and dip/ay by Development Concepts and The Preserve that
building types for the eastern facing steep slopes will be more adaptable to
the slope rahter than merely creating flat building pads.
CE/jme
9%9
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 28, 1975
B. 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.
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 for2 story patio apartments at 9.2 units/acre and detached gara g es.
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 ,project 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 economically feasible.
Meyers felt cash in lieu of dedication should be considered since the project
had only 3 outdoor courts for 900 projected residents.
Sorensen referred the request to the staff , Park & Recreation and Human Rights
Commission for recommendations.
fi PUBLIC HEARINGS.
C. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, requesting PUD Concept Approval for retail,
financial/office, restaurant and office uses and preliminary platting of Area G .
Area G is located north of the Ring Road and 169/212 intersection.
Mr. Loren Galpin presented the 18 acre proposal. He cited the 2 major features
as the hill on the west and the drainage to Neill ' Lake. Galpin stated that
no building can occur under the power lines and some of the soils in the area are
not buildable because there is 18-20 feet of peat. He said they are asking for
a grading permit so the fill can properly settle before building begins.
1.. Schee felt the einginner should address the degree of grading proposed.
- Sorensen referred the item to the staff and Park & Recreation Commission for
recommendations.
-,---
977
\,j /A jack Anderson Associates
./-\,,, 3 TRAFFic ENSINEERII'M CONSULTANTS II
1.ei.V(Illittooll Aknn ..IItr kbeeiin ttaali ••••nnnnnn ;), 55110
April 13, 1975
Mr Loran Galpin -
Development Concepts Corporation
7900 Xerxes 'Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota, 55431
Subj: Traffic Report, Preserve Area G, P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
I
N
-
O
U
T
Access to T.H. 169 and the Eden Prairie Ring Road
INTRODUCTION
This report presents a preliminary geomet
r
i
c
l
a
y
o
u
t
(
F
i
g
1
)
and traffic operations analysis of propos
e
d
I
N
-
O
U
T
a
c
c
e
s
s
provisions on T.H. 169 and the Eden Prair
i
e
R
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
.
The purpose of the additional access prov
i
s
i
o
n
s
i
s
t
o
provide better traffic circulation for sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
s
i
t
e
s
within the Area G development.
The basic layout and T.H. 169 traffic cou
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
from the Minnesota Highway Department pre
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
s
t
u
d
y
recieved from the MHO District 5 office
o
n
4
/
9
7
5
.
F
i
n
a
l
design plans for this project are not yet
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
distribution. Operational speed on T.H. 169 was assumed
to be 45 miles per hour.
In addition to the MHD 1975 traffic volumes,
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
from the preserve Area G was developed. Ta
b
l
e
A
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
the trip generation from individual sites
w
i
t
h
i
n
A
r
e
a
G
.
Trips generated within Area G were assigne
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
access points on the basis of an assumed d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
p
-
roach based on the current market distribu
t
i
o
n
(
F
i
g
.
2
)
.
The current market shows a strong bias tow
a
r
d
1
-
4
9
4
,
r
e
s
-
ulting in a very heavy left turn movement
a
t
E
d
e
n
R
o
a
d
.
However, this is predicated on full devel
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
A
r
e
a
G
in the 1975 forecast year. Also, market d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
f
t
s
in subsequent years are to be anticipated
,
s
o
t
h
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
for this left turn may be substantially o
v
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
d
.
Thus,
the traffic analysis is biased toward a w
o
r
s
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
is not likely to develop.
The traffic analysis indicates none-the-l
e
s
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
-
posed additional IN-OUT accesses can be a
c
c
o
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
adversely affecting traffic operations in
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
.(612)426-5777•
973
1
- 2 -
STUDY PERIOD
Trip generation and analysis of traffic operations was
made for the PM peak hour period, consistent with the data
provided on the MHO layout. The PM peak hour period is
considered to be critical, and other hours of the day
would experience lower traffic volumes. Traffic signals
were assumed at the Ring Road, Eden Road, and 78th Street.
EDEN ROAD INTERSECTION
Due to the heavy market bias toward 1-494, the analysis
indicated that capability for two-lane left turn operation
should be designed into the traffic signal to accommodate
traffic leaving the Preserve development. This recommend-
ation does not take into account additional traffic that
will be generated from development on the north side of
Eden Road. However, probable development staging and future
'market shifts may obviate this need. Geometric revisions
do not appear to be warranted.
PROPOSED IN-OUT ACCESS ON T.H. 169
At the proposed IN-OUT access location, 625 feet north of
the Ring Road intersection, the demand for right turning
movement is light. Again,as the market distribution shifts
this demand would tend to increase somewhat. The question
is, "What effect will these right turning volumes have on
traffic operations between the OUT ramp and the Ring Road?".
The answer lies in the analysis of traffic signal phasing
at the Eden Road intersection, and the gaps in traffic
created by the signal operation. The analysis indicates
that 42% of the signal time would be allocated to movements
that would preclude traffic from proceeding south on T.H. 169.
Thus, some 400 to 500 vehicles per hour could enter south-
bound P.M. 159 without conflict during this period.
Since the forecast demand is only 56 vehicles (See Fig.1)
it is concluded that no appreciable effect can be antici-
pated.
YIELD or STOP control is recommended, however, because the
access demand would reflect random arrivals while the traffic
signal at Eden Road would produce queued traffic without
safe gaps. YIELD or STOP control would insure that enter-
ing traffic would wait for the signal gaps.
The OUT demand contains some vehicles that desire to turn
left at the Ring Road. This traffic must cross two lanes
to reach the left turn lane. There is then the question
of adequate distance to accomplish this maneuver. It is
noted that the left turn lane is 500 feet loeg, and that
left turn demand is low, such that the maximum number of
vehicles likely to be stored in the turn lane would not
occupy more than 150 feet of the turn lane. This would
leave more than 300 feet of distance to accomplish the
maneuver. With little or no interference from through
- 3 -
traffic this would not be a form
i
d
a
b
l
e
t
a
s
k
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
in that traffic forecasts are no
t
o
r
i
o
u
s
l
y
i
n
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
,
i
t
is appropriate to look at availa
b
l
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
problems occur. Specifically, alternates for the
3
4
vehicle component of the OUT mov
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
.
In the event that this 34 vehicl
e
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
g
r
o
w
to problem proportions it would
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
t
o
prohibit this movement because al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
r
e
a
v
a
i
l
-
able. Eitler the Eden Road inter
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
d
(at some expense to the already c
o
n
g
e
s
t
e
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
e
r
e
)
,
or the Ring Road access could be
u
s
e
d
.
It is emphasized
that these alternatives are avail
a
b
l
e
u
n
d
e
r
a
h
y
p
o
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
l
situation that does not appear to
b
e
e
v
e
n
r
e
m
o
t
e
l
y
j
u
s
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
RING ROAD
A modification in the design of
t
h
e
f
r
e
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
f
r
o
m
southbound T.H. 169 to westbound
R
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
i
s
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
Figure 1. This modification was made to fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
a
n
.1N-OUT access to the Ring Road s
o
m
e
4
0
0
f
e
e
t
w
e
s
t
o
f
T
.
H
.
1
6
9
.
Since the MUD layout configurati
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
r
e
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
would necessitate YIELD control,
t
h
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
e
n
t
a
i
l
s
no change in traffic operations.
The modification provides for be
t
t
e
r
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
b
e
t
t
e
r
mototist understanding of the si
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
light on this portion of the Ring
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
n
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
problems are anticipated in the
2
8
0
f
e
e
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
points. As with the previous dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
R
o
a
d
traffic signal, queuing of westb
o
u
n
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
large gaps in the traffic stream
t
o
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The analyses of forecast traffic
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
effects of market redistribution
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
the proposed IN-OUT accesses can
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
s
a
f
e
l
y
and without comprimising the leve
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
T.H. 169 or the Ring Road.
In the event that traffic forecasts are grossl
y
i
n
e
r
r
o
r
,
options are available to remedy
a
n
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
that may arise due to the presen
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
I
N
-
O
U
T
access facility on T.H. 169.
Recommendations are made for spe
c
i
f
i
c
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
a
t
access points, and for two lane l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
left turns out of the Preserve Ar
e
a
G
a
t
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
R
o
a
d
intersection.
930
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
8950 COUNTY ROAD 04
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343
p.
April 7, 1975
Mr. Richard Putnam, Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Re: Preserve Commercial Center - Plat 3
Dear Mr. Putnam
The engineering advisors for the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District
have reviewed the plans for the Preserve Commercial Center - Plat 3 as sub-
mitted to the Watershed District by the City of Eden Prairie. The following
Watershed District policies and criteria are applicable to this development.
1. A grading and land alteration permit application for Plat 3 and
Plat 4 have been submitted to the WatIrshed District. A sediment
control plan must be submitted showing how erosion and sediment
will be controlled. A portion of the site is tributary to the
Neill Lake storm sewer system. The sediment control facilities
on the Neill Lake system could potentially be used to control
erosion from this portion of the development if provisions are made
to maintain the appropriate settling basins along the Neill Lake
system. The remaining portion of the development is tributary
to the Purgatory Creek major center area flood plain. Thin portion
of the project site includes a steep hill which will be particu-
larly sensitive to the impacts of land alteration. Due to the
size of the development and the sensitivity of many portions of
the development to erosion, it may be necessary to only alter a
portion of the development at one time.
2. Under 10-year frequency runoff conditions, the energy grade line for
the storm sewer system at the junction of the 72" RCP and 48" RCP
is approximately at Elevation 843. Provisions must be made to
either store excess runoff from the Plat 3 area without damage to
the developed portions Of the project or to pass the project runoff
downotream. The 100-year frequency runoff event should be evaluated
in terms of damage potential.
ifyou have any questions about the Watershed District's comments on
this project, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Allan Gehhard
DARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineer for the Diatrict
AG/au
cc: All Managers
Mr. Vrederiek Richards
Mr. William Wiedenbacher gat
approved
Planning Commission Minutes
July 28, 1975
D. Eden Prairie Family Recreational Center, by Eden Development, Inc.,
requesting rezoning from 1-2 Park to Community Commercial for a 21
acre site north of T.H. 5 and east of Edenvale Boulevard.
The planner stated the Eden Development
Incorporated's request is foracommunity shopping type use and should
be located in a geographical area of the City as illustrated on the
1968 Guide Plan. The planner further stated the proposal is inconsis-
tent with the Edenvale KID and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Sorensen requested the staff submit information on traffic counts for
Industrial vs. Community Commercial at the proposed recreational
center site.
Mr. Peterson said it would be possible to meet the recommendations
withinthe staff report regarding construction if the proposal is approved
on the requested site. Peterson stated that a strong market exists for
recreational uses and traffic flow during peak hours would be less
for the recreational center than if the property were developed under
Industrial. Mr. Peterson felt the property in the MCA is not ready
for development at this time because of the unavailability of roads and
utilities.
Meyers inquired which specialty foods are being considered;and suggeeted
some restaurant uses could better utilize the view of the open space
than a bowling alley.
Peterson replied restaurants such as; McDonalds,Poppin Fresh, pizza
shops,an icecream shop, etc., are being considered.
Sorensen asked if the specialty foods uses could be clustered. Peterson
said it could be attempted.
Lynch asked what the watershed district's response is todate. Peterson
replied that he has meet with the watershed district representatives and
it will be considered at the watershed district's next meeting.
Boerger asked if a zoning category other than Community Commercial
is possible. The planner said the proposal could also request Regional
Service zoning.
Feerick suggested the bowling alley use be separated from the other
family recreational uses because of the possible liquor license. Peterson
felt such a redesign would be possible.
Meyers asked what became of Edenvalets petition for the extension
of Valley View to the Ring Route. Peterson replied that they would
like to see Valley View extended and assessed back to the benefitting
property owners, but such a decision must wait until the court appeal
Is handled. 912-
Feerick questioned the viability of the MCA under the present
circumstances. He believed the concept is good if it can be made
to work..
Meyers felt the MCA Concept is not yet completi7 tested, and granting
of regional uses outside of the MCA would mean the City would compromise
it:planning prin ciples.
The planner also felt the MCA Concept is viable and development is
occurring in the MCA.
Eden Prairie Family Recreational Center, Cont.
Motion:
Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to recommend to the City COuncil denial
of the rezoning request from 1-2 Park to Community Commercial for the
Eden Prairie Family Recreational Center by Eden Development, Inc., for the following reasons ;
I. The proposed land uses at the corner of T.H. 5 and
Mitchell Road are not consistent with the Comprehen-
sive Guide Plan for the City of Eden Prairie.
2. That the rezoning request from 1-2 Park to Community
Commercial is inconsistent with the Edenvale Planned
Unit Development.
3. ' That Eden Development, Inc., consider comparable
sites located within the Eden Prairie Major Center Area
along the new extension of Valley View Road adjacent
to the Ring Route with access to Highway 5.
4. That the proposal is actually for Regional Service use,
rather than Community Commercial.
The motion carried 5:2 with Boerger and Feerick voting nay.
9E6
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED
LAND numommrs
DATE: July 22, 1975
DEVEL0314ENT: Edenva le Recreational. _center
L. 0. DO.
LOCATION: Northeast corner of_tche31____"..„_11„.
#
5
REFEREECE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS
zorm; AGREEMENT: PUD 70-4 RES. #.
DEVELOPER:.
Eden Development Inc.
ENGINF.E.11/PIANNI'.1Z: Landmark Planning and EngillggNAD2
DOCUN2NTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: Rezoning application
PROPOSAL: Rezone from 1-2 Park to C- Comm, Approve Prppose0. Develogocnt
.1. Land Develovnent application filed and filing fee & deposit paid Ygs
Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District
Yes
2. Processing Schedule:
a. Planning a Zoning Commission Preliminary 7-14-75
b. Park & Recreation Commission
C. Duman Rights Commission
d. Planning Commission Public Drg. •
c. City Council consideration
r, Watershed District
3. Type Of Development Recreational Center a restaurants
4. —Environmental asscs:.ment or impact statonent required per Environmental
impact. Policy Act of 1973:
9zq
-2-
5. Present Zoning I-2 Parl-
6. Proposed Zoning
r -CONN
Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? ---No
List variames required & setbachs th
a
t
a
p
p
l
y
:
None requested
7 .. Project Area.
Density
B. Public open space and/or cash dedication pnrgatory_f_reek_grea
Private open space N
Trail systems & sidewalks ..;t7ct Shown
Range of lot sises ...A,A,
9. Preliminary Building Plan Not SNIWPAt..
t
.
e
d
_
_
_
10. Representative Soil Borings Not qllimiltc.d
11. Street System
A. Access to adjoining properties
N.A.
YYPe
Private
driveways, no
parking
Rfti Roadway (Back to Back of Curb)
24
Post no parking signs
Leading to Cul de sacs 50
(not over l000)
minor residential
Cul de sacs
100 78 (no island)
120 98 (with island)
Thru I:csielential (collectors)
& Cul de sacs
over 1080 60
32
NSA 70 44 .
Parkway 100
28 divided'.
• Fire Road
12 .
Pathways 12 6
Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5%
Concrete curb a, 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 W.A.
D. Street Names - try to conform with existing in tha. area- Avoid additional
names on cul de sacs having eight or less lots.
Check list of existing street names.
E. Private parking lots-86-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design
F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs ....ummu4iar_
12. Parking: .(See Ord. #14))_ _685 Stalls ( rnn'nrm n,. tn -1414
13. Utility Systems:'
A. Sanitary Sewer Ayajlaible_
1. .Service Detail DeterMination PendingPinl maiga
2.. Service to adjoining property N A •
B. Watennain: Available
1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture). qhfficient
2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Thr ee hydr.41.1
3. Valving Determination PeDdille fital_design
4. Compliance with fire code PFi g final design
5. Service to adjacent property
• 1 Rd.
936
911
- 4 -
C. Storm Sewer & Grading
1. Sediment control plan
Proposed
2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Proposed
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Max. Cut - 15'
'
M
a
x
.
F
i
l
l
-
1
0
'
5. Arrows showing drainage
Not Submitted
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties ILA •
6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected
h
i
g
h
w
a
t
e
r
for ponds
Not Submitted
7. Keep drainage in !gutters, not in center of street Requi
r
e
d
8. Sod drainage swabs and steep slopes Requi r ed
9. Flood plain encroachment
10. Watershed District approval Not Approved ( Refer to le
t
t
e
r
d
a
t
e
d
7
-
3
-
7
5
)
11. DNR approval
D. Natural Gas & Telephone
Underground required
E. Electric (underground)
Required
14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Required
15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MUD or Henn. Co. if
a
b
u
t
t
i
n
g
a
State or County Mwy. Abutting T. H. #5 ( Refer to MHD le
t
t
e
r
7
-
0
-
7
5
)
16. List special assessments levied and pending
TrUDI.t.2e14=-S water - $ A841 00;
Mitchell-Maker Road - S1700,9); Sewer Lateral - 2226 94, Water Lateral - 1,665.68
• . .
17. P _es-zoning agreement required y i,E,
Developer's Agrement recNired yq.A
Title Abstract for Attorney's review
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PROTECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Planning Commission •
Dick Putnam, Planning Director
July 21, 1975
Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center
Eden Development Incorporated
B1 ,L3, Edenvele Industrial Park, the northeast
corner of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road
Rezoning from 1-2 Park to Community Commercial
and approval of Development Plan
REFER TO: Brochure dated June 1, 1975 ( received 6-26-75 )
BACKGROUND
Ownership and Development Method
The property is owned by alenvale Incorporated and was rezoned to
Industrial in 1970 consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
and the Edenvale PUD. The Edenvale PLID was updated in 1973
with the subject property remaining Industrial .
The Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center proposal is similar to the
Eden PI c.•.ea Shopping Center in that it is being proposed by a developer,
Eden Development Incorporated closely associated with Eden Land
Corporation,with the final building , design, and coristruction being
accomplished by another builder or owner.
Conformance with Guide Plan and PUD
The proposed rezoning to C- Corn should fit the purposes outlined in
Subdivision 7.1.1, Ordinance 135 ,
"A. To provide appropriately located areas for retail
stores, offices, and persone.1 service establishments
patronized primarily by residents of the Immediate
area.
B. To permit development of community shopping centers
of the size and in the appropriate locations shown
on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize
adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. "
The Community Commercial category was intended for develoPment of
community shopping centers serving geographical portions of the City .
The 1968 Guide Plan identifies the commercial development concept
for the City. On page 6 of the Plan Elements Section, Ii states;
The Village should be divided Into several "communities"
by establiehing"activity centers around schools ,parks,
and commercial developments which are identifiable
focal points for community life and activity.
Tzr
Planning Staff Report-E.P.Family Rec. Center -2- July 21, 1975
There should be one concentrated regional sized commercial
center within the Village and convenient community shopping
facilities throughout the Village
The Guide Plan on page 12 of the Plan Elements Section describes
community shopping centers;
"Cl proposes community shopping and service centers for Eden
Prairie residents primarily those who will live around each
community center. Each of these centers would serve an
ultimate population of about 15,000 and would include the
typical array of community shopping and businesses , offices,
limited highway service uses , and some specialty stores
would be peimitted. "
To complement the community shopping service centers the Comprehensive
Plan envisioned a regional or major center located at 994 and 212 inter-
change. The Comprehensive Plan states;
"C2 designates the primary regional retail development
within the Village . . .
The C3 area is proposed to be a limited regional commercial
area in which the primary business is service oriented. Here
is where a bank or savings or loans building could be located
when it is desired to have a detached site. Here also would
be found the automobile dealers because of the service orienta-
tion, but also because of the large area requirement. Movie
theatres, athletic clubs, office buildings, hospital, restaur-
ants, and other such service rather than retail uses are sug-
gested
The Comprehensive Plan recognizing that it marked a dramatic change
from the previous Ordinance 8 zoning and planning philosophy states;
in the Summary of Findings, page 2 -14 ;
The 1958 Zoning obviottsly followed a " railroad ee Industry ;
highway = commercial " philosophy .
The Guide Plan stresses in the Goals and Objectives Section`, page 13;
"Controlled growth by every means available, but largely
through limitations on commercial and industrial develop-
ment and low density residential
cng
Planning Staff Report-E.P. Family Rec. Center -3- July 21, 1975
The Planning staff's review of the Eden Prairie Family Recreation
Center proposal , including its requested rezoning , its proposed
location, and its anticipated uses, indicates a regional scale or
community wide trade area for the facilities anticipated . This is
emphasized bythe site's proposed location on the primary east/west
arterial through the community - Highway 5.
payiew of the Comprehensive Plan , Zoning Ordinance, and Major
1Center Report leads the planning staff to recommend that such facilitie
be located in the Major Center Area within the
C3 Regional Service zoning district. The land uses proposed in the
Eden Development Inc., proposal are clearly stated in the Compre .-
hensive Plan and the Major Center Plan to be those associated
with the 1,000 acre MCA development serving wtdor trade areas than
just local neighborhoods.
The proposed rezoning to C-Corn in the location along Highway 5 is
not consistent with Eden Prairie's Zoning Ordinance for Community
Commercial uses , nor is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
PROCT ANALYSTS
The concept of clustered recreational and service uses is a good
concept,well suited for development in the Eden Prairie Major
Center Area, just es Hornart is a cluster of retail commercial service
and entertainment uses. The proposed cluster of recreational and
service uses is a compatible and well conceived development. Eden
Prairie and the trade area for the MCA would be well served by such
a development.
The general site layout of the Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center is
basioelly sound and meets most specific site development requirements.
Consideration of these aspects of the development plan would merit
further consideration if the site is to be located at the proposed
location or elsewhere in Edenvale.
1. Better connection of the proposed land uses to
pedestrian systems for Edenvele and surrounding
residential areas. •
2. Construction of a siltation pond and storm water
system at the development of the first phase .
3. Screening of the perimeter parking should be
given strong consideration.
4. Signage program should be developed permitting
Individual uses' identification within a unified
format.
5. Evaluate geometries of perimeter road systems
within the site to allow easy turning movements.
940
Planning Staff Report- L.P. Family Rec. Center -4- July 21, 1975
BSCOMNIENDATIONS
1. Recommend denial of the rezoning request from 1-2 Park
to C-Corn for the Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center
proposed by Eden Development Inc, for the following
reasons discussed in the July 21, 1975,Planning
Staff Report ; -
a. the pr6posed land uses at the corner of T.H. 5
and Mitchell Road are not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Eden Prairie.
b. that the rezoning request from 1-2 Park to C-Corn
is inconsistent with the Edenvaie Planned Unit
Development.
c, that the recreation center uses of specialty foods,
family restaurants, cinema, bowling, roller rink,
and health club, would increase traffic genera-
tion above the anticipated industrial use as
currently zoned .
d. that Eden Development Inc. consider comparable
sites located within the Eden Prairie Major
Center Area along the new extension of Valley
View Road adjacent to the Ring Route with access
to Highway 5.
DPAme
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
• DISTRICT NO s
/DSO NO. LILAC MUSS
MINNEAPOLIS. MINN.
July 8, 1975
Mr. Richard Putnam
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
In Reply Refer To: 315
C.S. 2701
Rezoning for Edenvale
Recreational Center
Dear Nr. Putnam:
We are in receipt of your notice of the above referenced presentation before
the Eden Prairie Planning Commission. We wish to submit the following infor-
mation in its regard:
1. Although the precise location of new DS 212 has not yet been determined,
please be advised that this proposed rezoning falls within the general
corridor 11 mits as displayed in the Corridor Location Study for Trunk
Highways 169, 212, and 41, February, 1970.
2. Some elements of the proposed development, adjacent to Purgatory Creek,
may fulfill the requirements for Department of Interior, Land and Water
Conservation (I47CON) nding. In this regard, we wish to cautionyou
that the use of this funding source, unless closely coordinated with this
Department, can cause long and costly delays for highway improvement pro-
jects.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
e4,,e etiii4efra
Carl J. Hoffstedt
Transportation Planning Engineer
co: Roger Meted/Carl Jullie
4 8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
13950 COUNTY ROAD ,4
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343
July 3, 1975
City of Eden Prairie
8950 County Road #4
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Attention: Richard Putnam
Re: Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center
Gentlemen:
At the last regular meeting of the managers of
R
i
l
e
y
-
Purgatory Creek Watershed District on July 2, 19
7
5
,
t
h
e
managers were requested to review, comment on, a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
the proposed development plans of Eden Land Cor
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
an Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center on Mitc
h
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
riparian to Purgatory Creek. The managers in t
h
e
i
r
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
review of this development plan expressed numer
o
u
s
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
about the development's potential impact upon t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
related land resources to be affected by the pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
However, the managers formally adopted a resolut
i
o
n
that (1) the district would not issue its appro
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
i
s
project at this time and (2) the district recom
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
City of Eden Prairie that it likewise not issue
i
t
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
or final approval of this project at this time,
u
n
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
until the owner of the site fully complies with
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
permits issued to it for construction of improv
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
the concurrent jurisdiction of the City and Wate
r
s
h
e
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Specifically, the managers do not believe that f
a
v
o
r
a
b
l
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
and approvals should now be issued for this proj
e
c
t
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
obviously affect the waters of Purgatory Creek a
n
d
i
t
s
f
l
o
o
d
-
plain when the property owner has failed to inst
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
for protection of these same natural resources in
.
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
with its Eden West Office Building site.
If and when compliance is demonstrated by this p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
owner of permits previously issued and approved
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
and Watershed District for the Eden West Office
s
i
t
e
,
t
h
e
managers of the Watershed District have stated t
h
a
t
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
from them about this project would then become
t
i
m
e
l
y
.
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
8950 COUNTY ROAD .741
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343
City of Eden Prairie Page 2 July 3, 1975
If you would feel that a representative from the Watershed
District should attend the Planning Commission meeting of
July 14, 1975, when we understand that this matter will be
discussed, please advise the undersigned. Otherwise, we tryst
that this letter will be made part of your proceedings.
Very truly yours,
5
Frederick S. Richer s
Attorney for Riley-Purgatory
Creek Watershed District
FSR/amj
cc: Donald R. Peterson
Carl Jullie
All Managers
Allan Gebhard
MEMO
TO:'
Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, PlanningDirector
DATE: July 3, 1975
SUBJECT: Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center Rezoning
APPLICANT: Eden Development Inc.
LOCATION: A 21 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Mithc
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
andT.H. 5.
REQUEST: Rezoning from 1-2 Park to C-Com. and approval
o
f
Development Plan.
This memo will identify questions concerning the
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Center application . The memo is not a staff r
e
p
o
r
t
,
r
a
t
h
e
r
a
• preliminary
discussion of the issues affecting the project.
The issues :
1. The land is currently zoned I7 .2 Park and was approved
in the origindlEdenvale Planned Unit Developme
n
t
f
o
r
high quality industrial development. The conce
p
t
p
l
a
n
for Edenvale was revised in 1973 and reaffirmed
a
s
a
n
Industrial park. West of Mitchell Road, Edenv
a
l
e
Industrial Park is developing with industrial o
f
f
i
c
e
,
warehouse, and distribution facilities.
2. Eden Development Inc., request is to rezone from
1-2 Park to Community Commercial. Ordinance
1
3
5
,
Section 7 describes the purposes of commercia
l
districts and special purposes of C-Cora. Dist
r
i
c
t
s
.
to be ;
" a. to provide appropriately located areas
for retail stores, offices, and personal
service establishments patronized pri-
marily by residents in the immediate area.
b. to permit development of community shoppi
n
g
centers of the size and appropriate locations
_shown on the Guide Plan according to
standards that minimize adverse impacts on
adjoining residential uses. "
The uses proposed of specialty foods, family 're
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
,
c
i
n
e
m
a
,
b
o
w
l
i
n
g
alley, rolling skating rink, and athletic health c
l
u
b
,
r
a
i
s
e
a
l
a
g
t
i
m
a
t
e
question as to the conformance of the uses with
t
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
commercial .
9 95'
Memo-Eden Prairie Family Recreational Center -2- July 3, 1975
The types of uses proposed may better be described as re3lonal service
use's described in Ordinance No. 135 as;
"b. to provide sites for businesses that typically are
not found in shopping centers that usually have
relatively large sites providing off-street parking
and that attract little or no pedestrian traffic."
The Zoning Ordinance attempts to distinguish between local convenient
community service needs & those of a larger scope which may be regional
or community scale in nature.
The Comprehensive Plan addresses itself to the purposes of commercial
uses and the types of districts established . The Plan states ;
" C-2 designates the primary regional retail development
within the Village. We believe that the Metro Council
planners will agree that the area around the 494/ 169/
212 interchange is a logical location for a regional
center. Improvement of access through construction of
a loop road system and half interchanges in all directions
Is a schematic solution to a complex problem
"The C-3 area is proposed to be a limited regional commercial
area in which the primary business is service oriented .
Here is where the bank or saving & loan building could
be located when it is desired to have a detached site.
Here also would be found the automotive dealer ,
because of the service , orientation, and also because
of the large area requirement. Movie theatres, athletiC -
clubs, office buildings, hospitals, restaurants , and
.other such services rather than retail uses are suggested. "
Memo-Eden Prairie Family Recreation Center -3- July ;3, 1975
The MCA area has been further refined through the Major Center Area
Report and its adoption as an amendment to the Guide Plan . The report more
fully details the attempts for the regional diversified centers.
The MCA Report on pages 73-77 discusses types of uses which might
be anticipated, the Report states;
"Eden Prairie's MCA will provide the exclusive location
for those uses requiring accessibility, intensity , and
interrelationships associated with regional diversifed
centers. The high capacity requirements for these
uses such as transportation'. communication, utilities,
and land use intensity will be offered exclusively within
the MCA thereby confining these regional uses in an
identifiable econanlcally served area."
This statement is a further definition of the intent of the 1968 Guide
Plan which states ;
"There should be 1 concentrated regional sized commercial
center in the Village and convenient shopping facilities
throughout the Village . " s,
The planning staff recognizing changes in circumstances may dictate
changes in plans, believes that the request for the Eden Prairie Recreational
Center may require a substantial change: in policy relating to the
exclusive location for major uses in the City. This may be appropriate
as stated inthe MCA Plan;
"The Comprehensive Plans are produced from conditions and
attitudes which are constantly changing. Plans need to be
constantly reviewed to see that they respond well to the
charges as they did with the original set of circumstances."
DPiJrae
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
REGARDING:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services/tit
Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
Eden Prairie Stable -- Building Demolition
August 28, 1975
When the City Council approved the Lease Contract for Eden Prairie
Stables on 5/27/75, authorization was received to solicit sealed bids
for purchase and removal of the three "old" barn buildings. It was
hoped that a lumber yard or someone needing old barn wood would
take down the buildingsfor the lumber salvage. The lumber apparently
is in too poor a condition to be used for this purpose, because no
bids were received.
This being the case, we have explored other alternatives to
demolition, including :
. A wrecking contractor.
2. Doing it with our maintenance crew.
3. Burning the big building down.
A summary of the options follows:
. Saves all trees and other site assets. Rough grading to
match surrounding grades would be included. Three quotes
have been solicited -- Low quote is $3,400. •
2. Saves trees and other site assets. Ray Earls says it would
be very difficult to do with the machinery we have. Knocking
apart the slab in the big barn above the basement level would
be nearly impossible for our men because we lack equipment
needed. Many manhours and equipment hours would be required,
thus detracting from other scheduled maintenance programs.
Tti: mayor and City Council
August 28, 1975
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services
3. Would kill a number of trees up around the buildings -- the
trees have really grown around to "frame" the barns. Cost
(cash) would be lower but would still require cleanup work and
knocking apart the slab above the basement level. Chances
are that the fire would damage the metal reinforcement in the
slab,making immediate removal mandatory.
I recommend Alternative 1 for the reasons given above. In addition to the cost
for the contractor as shown in Chart 1, a revised electrical service should
be installed. New underground service to the house and tie stall barn has
been quoted by 3 contractors as shown in Chart 2.
CHART 1 - DEMOLITION
Contractor
Carl Bolender & Sons
Herbst and Sons
Metro Contracting
CHART 2 - ELECTRICAL
Contractor
Gunnar Electric
Minnetonka Electric
Edina Electric
Quote
83,400 (less $75.0.0
for permits)
$4,500
$7 ,930
Quote
$ 936
$ 975
$1,070
999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marty jessen, Director of Community Services Az.
THROUGH:Roger Ulstad, City Manager
RE: Round Lake Picnic Pavilion - Change Order #2
and Request for Payment
DATE: August 28, 1975
Attached is a copy of the Application and Certificate for
Payment for the Round Lake Picnic Pavilion. The total
is for $14,600 with this payment for 90% or $13,140.
The Architect recommends payment as the structure is
now substantially complete.
The additional $150.00 is for asbestos paper under the
wood shingles. When this option was selected, the
Architect anticipated no paper (asbestos or felt), thus
no add-on was identified. However, the building
Inspectors have required this addition to provide fire
separation from the flammable wood support structure to
the flammable wood shingles.
IOW
#1
Round Lake Park Shelter
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Comm. No. 7505
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. H.M. Jensen
FROM: Jack L. Ovick
DATE: 25 August 75
SUBJ: Req. for Payment
ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES
4941 SOUTH PRANCE AVRNUE
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55410
icd
Enclosed three (3) copies signed by me, the $150.00 add Change Order should
be held until approved by you or vouncil. It appears to be in order and
should be paid at your next council meeting minus the 10% retainer, $13,140
.('Which includes part of the $150.00 extra requested by Willard.)
.cos Willard Eggan
$ 150.00 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE County of. Hennepin ret change by change Orders ,State of: Minn. or as noted in Column I on G702A 13, 140.00 comndor: Willard Eggan Constr., Inc. By: 7/4 Date: 8-21.-75 Subscribed and sworn to before me this Notary Public: My Commission expires: day of ,19 1 PAGE ONE OF PAC1 APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT MA DOCUMENT C702 PROJECT: Round Lake Park Shelter (name, address) 7580 Eden Prairie Road TO (Owner) City of Eden Prairie ATTN: Jack ack Ovick ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: CONTRACTOR: Willard Eggan CONTRACT FOR: Park Shelter APPLICATION DATE: 8_21_75 PERIOD FROM: 8-8-75 APPLICATION NO: none TO 8-29-75 CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Change Orders approved rin previous rnInths by Owner — TOTAL ,,,ADDITIONS _S Is 150 • Olid 150.00 DEDUCTIONS S none Subsequent Change Orders ' Number Approved (date) i • TOTALS Application is made for Payment, as shown below, in connection with the Contract. Continuation Sheet MA Document G702A, is attached. The present status of the account for this Contract is as follows: ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM $ 144450.00 Net change by Change Orders s 1,0.00 CONTRACT SUM TO DATE $ 14,600.00 TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE $ 14,600,00 (Column G on G702A) RETAINAGE 10 $ 1460.00 The undersigned Contractor certifies that the Work covered by this Appli-cation for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by him for Work for which Previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner, and that the current payment shown herein is now due. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT $ none CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 5 13, llict-rin X, OWNER o ARCHITECT O CONTRACTOR 0 In accordance with the Contac9and this Application for Payment the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount shown above. tAmiu'ect. MCAVESCCIAlkt, (*I:ICES By: detk.. cAttu...• MA ' This Certificate is not negotiable. It is payabie only to the payee named herein and its issuance, payment and acceptance are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under their Centric A1A DOCUMENT C702 • APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT • MARCH 7971 EDITION • AlAS to1971 • THE AMERtCAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 INTW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 70006
CONTINUATION SHEET AIA DOCUMENT G702A PAGE OF PAGES 'MA Document G702, APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT, containing CONTRACTOR'S signed Certification is attached. In tabulations below, amounts are stated to the nearest dollar. Use Column I on Contracts where variable retainage for line Items may apply. ITEM No. A DESCRIPTION OF WORK B SCHEDULED VALUE C ORK COMPLETED STORED MATERIALS F TOTAL COMPLETED STORED TO DATE G(0+E+F) AND BALANCE TO FINISH HIC—GI . RETAINAGE I ' Previous Applications 0 This Application E % 1- cement work $3537.60 2,.. lumber and steele $5613.30 3- electrical wiring $451.00 4- carpenter labor $2706.00 5- Performance bond and license $403.00 6- truck crane service $360.00 Contractors fee $1573.10 4,9 • ' , L SUB TOTAL OR TOTAL $ 14,60000 __ _ APPLICATION NUMBER: ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: AIA DOCUMENT (MIA • CONTINUATION SHEET • MARCH 1971 EDITION • Alk19 • OD 1971 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 173$ NEW YORK AVE., NW., WASHINGTON, D. C. 79036 °1111111111111119111110o9Mmuffeemo....-----
CHANGE •
ORDER
A1A DOCUMENT C701
OWNER
ARCHITECT
CONTRACTOR
FIELD
OTHER
PROJECT:
Park Pavillion and
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER:
Two
(name, address)
Picnic Shelter for
Round Lake Paik
TO (Contractor) Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Willard Eggan Const. Inc.
14303 Valley View Road
Apt. 201
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 7505
CONTRACT FOR: General Construction
Including Electrical
Men Prairie' Mjnn• 55343 J CONTRACT DATE: 5 August 1975
You are directed to make the following changes
i
n
t
h
i
s
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
:
Deduot - Excavation for footing and
foundation by City
Sand hauled by City
Add
Plywood enclosure panels
above beam to eliminate
potential "bird nests"
Add
Supply asbestos paper to
roof per City Inspector
directive
Add (Net) $150.00
The original Contract Sum was
S 15,320
Net change by previous Change Orders $ — 870
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order w
a
s
$ 14,450
'the Contract Sum will be (increased) (dUara
l
t
t
i
d
I
X
O
U
c
t
i
n
g
;
e
1
)
b
y
t
h
i
s
C
h
a
n
g
e
O
r
d
e
r
,
.
+ 150
The new Contract Sum including this Change
O
r
d
e
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
14,600ju,
The Contract Time wit be Otarzsamdt3tdocrsakoth (unchanged) by
The Date of Completion as of the date of this
C
h
a
n
g
e
O
r
d
e
r
therefore is
Same
Adtvatn Prai
MA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER •
A
M
I
E
1
9
7
0
E
D
I
T
I
O
N
•
Nuke • roo • THE ONE r
AMERICAN INSE ITU IL Of ARCHHECIS, 1735
N
E
W
Y
O
U
A
V
E
,
N
W
.
W
A
S
H
A
N
D
I
O
N
,
D
.
C
.
3
0
I
1
0
6
003
ARCEITECTURAL WI=
A (119outh Prance Ave,
Aftffieapolis 55410
DATE 111 iist‘
55343 e 55343
( 0 )0010
WILLARD_EGOAli CONST. INC.. CITY OP EDEN PRAIRIE i
91450_OeuntYild.44_______
/"VMAn Prairie ri
INVOIC E
FRONTIER LUMBER and HARDWARE INC.
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
Tel. 474-5227
ik_zzLilleft
kddress
Dote
C'ty
Order No.
' a -19
ddress
),,t
SIZE LENGTH
FEET FEET PRICE AMOUNT
' AL-( 61 I ,Y '
/a A-1 e",4A42,10,."
4,
(25. -- .2 a Cac
3..at—i -)-4.44- 2L -
•
CHARGES DUE THE 10TH OF THE MONTH FOU.OWING PURCHAS
E
.
TOTAL MERCHANDISE
.1
TAX _
1 3733
Recd By
Driver TOTAL i re 04
I