HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/07/1975 V
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
•
TUESDAY, OCTOBIII 7, 1975 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor D. W. Ostorholt, 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 Franc; Director of Community •
Services Marty Jossen; Engineer Carl Jullie;
Belinda Vee, Recording Secretary
INVOCATION PLEI4 E OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL
I. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 11, Page 1113
1975 AT THE VO-TECH SCHOOL.
JJNUTES OE THERM-Dup. COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 23, Page 111E
1975. Vt
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued 1975 Special Assessment Public Hearing. Page 1127
B. Bituminous overlati on Rilc_y Lake Road, Proleet STR 75-3-13, Page 1135
I.C. 51-281.
C. #169 Min;-Sector Study* report by Brauer &Associates. Page 1140 &
1047
D. Modern Tire & Energy Systems Rezoning, request for rezoning Page 1053
from Rurr:l t:Inc,EPtriel for tlw: :Modern Tire (9051 Flying_
Cloud Drive) and Eper,y Systcmis (9025 Flying Cloud Drive.)
E. Prairie Lawn &Games rec,ueat by Stanley Ringed to rezone Page 924 &
approxirr>;telx' 1 torn from Rurr:1 to Commercial for a lawn and 1143
garden store. The site is located north of T.U. 5 across from
Fuller Road's interacction with 1.13. 5.
F. Hustad Off•ice/Indur,tritl/Pesidr. ttial PUD, request for PUD Page 1151&
cencejit plan artprov::l", ..nd rezoning from Rural to CFC for the 1016
office portion of cna MID. The site is located north of County
Road 1, east of Crook Knoll Road, and west of 169.
Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,October 7, 1975
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
G. Olympic Hills Phase III, request for PUD Development approval, Page 1174
rezoning (RM 6.5) and preliminary plat approval for 34 units on
approximately 15 acres.
H. Area 5A, The Preserve, request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 Page 1193
for 51 lots on approximately 18 acres. The site is located on
Franlo Road, south of the east/west parkway and east of Olympic
Hills to be called Amsden Hills.
I. Parkview Phases 2 & 3, reconsideration of the densities in phases Page 1202
2 and 3 of the Parkview PUD as contained in Resolution 505.
III. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request by W. Gordon Smith Company (Jesse Schwartz) to Page 1204
install a retail gas pump in an Industrial.Zone, 7920 Wallace
Road.
B. Request by Northwestern Bell for underground cable easement Page 1205
across the City Park dedicated by Zachmen in Village Woods
1st Addition.
C. Request by George M. Hansen Company to conduct the 1975 Page 1208
Audit of the City of Eden Prairie (communication dated 8/28/75).
IV. REPORTS or OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
•
A. Report of City Engineer
1. Consider bids received on October 2, 1975 for Bituminous Page 1212
Overlay on Riley Lake Road, Project STR 75-3-13, I.C.
51-281.
. 2. Final plat approval for St. John's Wood 6th Addition. Page 1215
3. Communication from Hennepin County regarding Bitucni'taus Page 1213
Overlay on Birch Island Road South of County Road 67.
B. Report of City Manager
1. 1976 City Budget.
2. Report from School District 272 to expand buc$arage.
IA
-
Council Agenda -3 - Tues.,October 7, 1975
C. Report of Finance Director
1. Improvement Bond Sale.
2. Clerk's License List, Page 1219
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. pTOIIRNMENT
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 11, 1975 7:30 FM, Vo Tech School
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William Bye
Sidney Pauly
Wolfgang Fenzel
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad
Recording Secy.Belinda Vee
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT'S MASTER PLAN
Councilman Penzel opened the Public Hearing and introduced
Mr. Tom O'Brien, a consultant to the MAC, who explained the
plans for Flying Cloud Airport. Mr. O'Brien stated the P'AC
is planning to upgrade Flying Cloud from a utility airport
to a transport airport, however, this did not mean large
aircraft would be using this field. The plans are to expand
Flying Cloud, but still keep it in this general category. He
stated the MAC wanted to get citizen imput and this was the
reason for the public hearing.
O'Brien stated they would extend two of the run-ways under
Alternative A-1, the East-West run-way would be extended from
3200 to 4100 feet and the North-South run-way from 2700-3100 feet.
He briefly explained the various alternatives and stated that A-1
had received a lot of favorable comment. He said the business-
men favored Alternative B-1, but expressed an interest in A-1.
O'Brien stated the MC has not made a decision as yet and they
want the opinions of businessmen, citizens, Council members and
Planning Commission members.
Dr. David Breslau, a consultant to the MAC, explained the over-
view of existing facilities with regard to: (1) Topogra hy,
' (2) Soil, (3) Geology, (4) Vegetation, (5) Wildlife, (6) Water
Resources and (7) Air Resources and also the impact by Airport
e ansion with regard to: (1) Soils and Geology, (2) Vegetation, •
(3) Water Quality, (4) Wildlife, and (5) Air Quality. He stated
they recommended Alternative A-1 as the best alternative.
Mr. Robert Einsweiler, Planning Consultant, explained noise
factor. He said this is a very quiet environment and you will
notice the increase in noise much more readily. Also, he
explained noise is measured differently by various agencies.
The State looks at noisiest hour, they look at average annual
noise, and people tend to look at noisiest aircraft. The State
and Federal government are concerned about noise when it reaches
a level where it will affect health. Most standards affecting
noise are anchored in issue of health. The transport airport
1Jl
Minutes -2- September 11, 1975
I. PUBLIC HARING ON FLYING CLOUD... (Cont'd.)
would generate more noise than is presently being generated.
He explained some new jets are quieter than some of the two-
engine planes. Mr. Einsweiler said the FAA operates the towers
and navigational aids, the pilot has considerable freedom, MAC
has some responsibility and authority, but no single control,
the Metro Council has some control, City has authority to
control Land use - the mosaic has to fit together and it takes
team operation on what the operational procedures should be.
Mr. Claude Schmidt, MAC, explained any schemes involving jets
would not be totally acceptable to the people of Eden Prairie.
He stated they want to improve some things at Flying Cloud
for the safety of both Eden Prairie and the people flying over
Eden Prairie. He stated they don't set policy, but merely make
recommendations and they are recommending Alternative A-1. They
need imput from City Council and would like their wishes expressed
to them. He said if the l',1aster Plan is approved, it will go
through an orderly process of development. They hope to make
one of the East-west Run-ways primary. He said all.night-time
operations would be on south run-way and extending the run-way
to 4100 feet would bring in jets, but didn't envision a deluge
of jets.
Mrs. Norma Shee, Planning & Zoning Commission, stated she didn't
understand the book she read and is not an expert on this matter.
She said she did not understand sound monitoring. She then
presented the 7-point recommendation made by the Planning
Commission at their August 25, 1975 meeting.
Councilman Bye stated he lives about as far away from Flying
Cloud as you can in Eden Prairie and will speak as a Council
member, not as a person with a vested interest. He said he
was interested in plans that provide alternatives where one
has to accept one of the alternatives. There are a couple of
other alternatives - one is Plan 0, stay just as it is and
another is Plan Minus - that airport is less needed due to
less needed aircraft in area. Question need for airport
expansion. lie stated his concerns about potential devalua-
tion of property and loss of tax revenue. Eden Prairie is
a fast-gro-in:; area in population. lthat benefits accrue to
Eden Prairie and its'residents compared to the disturbance,
noise, dancer, loss of tax revenue and devaluation of property?•
Frankly, think it is over-balanced in disfavor of Eden Prairie.
Council members euestionediessrs. Schmidt, Breslau and Einsweiler
regarding plans for territorial expansion, level of navigational
Minutes -3- September 11, 1975
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLYING CLOUD...(Cont'd.)
aids, why second generation jets are becoming quieter, whether
drainage would put an undue load on present system and to what
extent City Comprehensive Guide Plan was considered.
Councilman Bye questioned Mr. Schmidt regarding what would happen
if nothing was done. Schmidt replied they are trying to update �—
the Master Plan which will make the airport safer and do not
think there will be any great increase in traffic and the Master
Plan does call for expansion. He further explained jets prefer
a run way of at least 5000 feet.
Mr. Stephen Magnell, 9491 Woodridge Drive, presented a petition
signed by about 1200 residents in opposition to expansion at
Flying Cloud Airport. He stated they opposed noise pollution
and did not think there would be any economical benefit to
Eden Prairie by this expansion. He said Councilman Bye presented
a position they would feel comfortable with.
Mr. Robert Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, stated his concern
about being able to identify low flying planes so they could
be reported. O'Brien explained the planes are numbered on the
side and also to take down time of day and location when
reporting a low flying aircraft.
Isr. Wallace Busted, 10525 Bluff Road, expressed his concern
over planes flying in a helter-skelter pattern instead of a
rectangular flight pattern. Schmidt explained they still do
use the retaniular pattern and that they hope to develop some
•
rules to control this type of flying.
Mr. Al Lange, Flying Cloud Airport, asked '{:What is value of
airport? The value must•be $50,00O in property taxes. Some
value in over 200 people being employed there. Some value
in baseball diamonds provided to City. Some value in open
space. There are 14 businesses located there. Value in
school organizations that solicit several times a year for
contributions. Value in reverse - there are no children
generated by airport. Businessmen have worked with the MAC
and fire -chief in trying to obtain a fire station on Flying
Cloud Airport. Safety - Hwy. 494 is safer than Hwy. 169."
He further stated he felt the expansion would benefit Eden
Prairie and that politics is a matter of compromise, etc.
I!r. Dave Rolahaw, Devar, stated he is user of airport and owner
of business. He said the asset value of the airport is that it
is a drawing card for the community, etc.
Mr. John Stuber, American Aviation, Flying Cloud Field, stated
he put first airplane on Flying Cloud Field and has been here
iris"
Minutes -4- September 11, 1975
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLYING CLOUD...(Cont'd.)
a long time. He said not to blame all low-flying aircraft on
Flying Cloud field as they come from other fields too and he
is all for identifying the low-flying aircraft and trying to
control them.
Mr. Harold Schaitberger, 12880 Pioneer Trail, questioned the
safety of the planned lengthening of the run-way as it will
bring it closer to Hwy. 169. He said he has a business on that
highway and has watched planes come in so low over it that if
a semi-truck were coming along, there would have been an accident.
Schmidt explained the lengthening of that run-way was only a
concept and would have to go through an obstruction study.
Mr. Greg Perrington, St. Louis Park, asked when the corner of
Hwy. 169 and Flying Cloud Drive will be improved. Councilman
Penzel explained it is being considered.
Mr. James Brown, 11551 Riverview Rd., stated he has seen a lot
of things come and go. What we have missed is that what is
good for General Bullmoose is good for the people concept is
gone. The people have taken over. They don't have to live
with noise that someone says they have to live with. Concerned
with people. 'that is value of airport - has a variety of values.
Effect it has on people, etc.
Mr. Don Sumner, 13720 Theresa Place, stated he was not home
when the petition was brought by and is impressed by 1200 names,
but appalled at the scare tactics used. He said he did not
think people were informed or understood and that there are
instances of closing an airport where property values fell, etc.
Mr. -James Boyce, 14350 Pioneer Trail, explained the drainage
problem that was on Flying Cloud Field a few years ago and how
he was instrumental in getting it corrected, but it was not
with the cooperation of the MAC, etc.
•
Mr. Greg Myers, Creekwood Drive, the presentation by the experts
is vague and there is panic by people who do not understand
situation. This is not acceptable - strongly urge specific
answers are obtained before a plan is accepted. Confusion
caused by talking about noise safety - noise is caused by
take-offs. Strongly suggest we see some regulations on flying
procedures, etc.
11r. Martin Grill, 13600 Pioneer Trail, stated he has been an
eye witness to planes so low that one took thetnp off a semi.
He lives close to airport and does not mind noise, but does
report low-flying aircraft and the tower has been cooperative
in controlling this.
Councilman Bye responded to comments caused by his statement
and explained his position.
lllh
Minutes -5- September 11, 1975 •
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLYING CLOUD...(Coat'd.)
City Manager Ulstad asked Mr. Einsweiler to explain how, when
nnate
no single agency has jurisdiction or authority, do yo
four different agencies or levels (FAA, MAC, Metro Council and
Eden Prairie)? Einsweiler explained he doesn't know if there is
a good answer. He stated we just have to keep talking about the
concerns and find a place where everyone is together.
_ Councilwoman Pauly stated she wanted to thank the MAC and Flying
Cloud representatives (Messrs. Schmidt, O'Brien, Breslau, Einsweiler,
• and Mrs. Suel) and Mrs. Shee, Planning Commission, for their spirit
of cooperation, etc. Council members euestioned Mr. Schmidt as to
whether the MAC would accept the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tions and he stated-he could not answer that specifically at this
time.
Bye moved to continue this Public Hearing until October 14, 1975
as he wanted to allow time for the two absent Council members _
to express their feelings, Pauly seconded. Bye, Pauly and
.Chairman Fenzel voted "aye", motion carried unanimously. .
A recess was called for about ten minutes.
• II. MID-TERM CENSUS
City Manager Ulstad explained the mid-term census and how it
would be of benefit to Eden Prairie in terms of more State and
Federal funding. Finance Director France had estimated the
census would help Eden Prairie to qualify for about S20,000 to
$24,000 additional state aid. .
Pauly moved to authorise the City Manager to sendletter to
initiate the census, Bye seconded.. Bye, Pauly and Chairman
Penzel voted "aye", motion carried unanimously..
III.ADJOURNMEMT .
Bye moved to adjourn at 10:28 PM, Pauly seconded. Bye, Pauly
•
and Chairman Pennel voted "aye", motion carried unanimously and
meeting adjourned.
Iar
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES
•
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 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 Ulstad
City Attorney Perbix
Planner Dick Putnam
Director of Community
Services - Marty Jessen
Engineer Carl Jullie
Recording Secy. Belinda Vee
INVOCATION: Given by Lee Kottke, Eden Prairie United Methodist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL - Council Members Bye and Pauly - Absent
I. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPT. 2, 1975.
Pg. 1, Last line, Correct "unanimiously" to "unanimously".
Pg. 2, Item (5), delete "by The Preserve", insert "to be
preserved".
Pg. 3, Para. 8, Delete balance of paragraph after "record:",
insert, "The above-grade pedestrian system was discussed
and generally accepted. The City requires that pro-
vision be made in the site layout to facilitate future
installation preventing potential structure condemnation."
Pg. 5, Para. 1, Delete "Osterholt and Bye voted "nay", insert
"Meyers voted 'nay` ".
Pg. 6, Para. 8, Delete "family" after'hny other", insert "party".
Meyers moved to approve the minutes as published and corrected,-
Penzel seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye",
motion carried unanimously.
•
11!
•
•
Minutes -2- September 23, 1975
I. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPT. 9, 1975.
Pg. 3, Para. 4, Delete "did not accept", insert "received and
filed".
Delete_"nursery", insert "garden store".
-' Pg. 4, j?ara. 1, insert "reported" after "Ulstad".
Pg. 4, Para. Para. 6, Delete "were is", insert "are in".
Pg. 5, Para. 1, Delete "take the job of demolishing the buildings, insert
"demolish the buildings without cost to the City."
Pg. 5, Para. 7, Insert "density" after "implied".
•
Meyers moved to approve the minutes as published and corrected,
Penzel seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye",
motion carried unanimously.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1975 Special Assessment Public Hearin
City Manager Ulstad explained the following: (1) Public
Hearing method was established by State of Minnesota,
(2) All contracts awarded were awarded to the lowest bidder,
(3) The method used by the City to arrive at the cost of a
project, and (4) The City costs are substracted from the
total project. He also stated the interest is at SA for a
20-year period and if assessment is paid before November, 1975,
no interest will be charged. Notices have been sent to all
affected property owners. -
1. I.C. 51-259, STM 73-4-17, Neill Lake Storm Sewer.
Engineer Jullie explained the area the project serves
and the project cost. He said they have tried to predict
land uses for their method of rating and responded to
questions by Council Members concerning the assessments
and credits allowed.
Mr. James Mars, 10700 Lake Fall Dr., stated he did not
receive letter and would like to know primary area. He
said he receives two tax statements and is in more than
one area. Engineer Jullie explained if he did not receive
a letter stating he was in part of the flow, he was not
part of the project.
Itiq
1
Minutes —3— September 23, 1975
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
A. 1975 Special...(Cont'd.)
2. I.C. .51-260, STR 72-9-261, Re-assessment of the 1974
Phase 1 Ring Hoed storm sewer assessment.
Engineer Jullie explained the change in assessment was
-- due to re-figuring as an error had been discovered. f
Mr. Lee Johnson of The Preserve, stated this reduction
does not reflect in any way our non-agreement with the
assessment.
Mr. Robert Silberman, representing D. B. Anderson and
Nancy Holmes, questioned if this assessment was passed,
would a new appeal have to be filed. Mir. Perbix said
he had discussed this with Mr. Jullie and did not think so.
Mr. Bermal, Bermal Smaby Co., stated he would not be
satisfied with current breakdown of services.
3. I.C. 51-263 and I.C. 51-264 WTR 74-$-01'and SAN 71-7-3l .
•
Engineer Jullie explained the project and the assessment.
•
Mr. W. Essling, St. Paul,_representing the owners of
Tract 3000, N.E. Corner, stated they objected to the
assessment and did not feel it was appropriate, etc.
Mr. Doug Reed, Rauenhorst Corp., Parcel 3425, questioned
Engineer Jullie if they were to be assessed and Jullie
explained they are not recommending assessment at this
time.
Ir. Bruce Brill,Kingdale Kennels, asked if this sewer line
was done and Jullie explained it will be done in the spring.
4. I.C. 51-265, SAN 73-7-0511, WTR 73-8-0711, STR 74-3-12.
Engineer Jullie explained the project and there were
no questions.
5. I.C. 51-267, S3'? 73-3-27, Street improvements and storm
sewer for the Scenic Heights Addition and adjacent Properties.
Mr. David Kashmark, stated his sod and driveway are in bad
condition after project work.
Mr. Bo Lund, 15010 Hillside Drive, stated he thought it
was a real shabby job on the sod and driveway was never
restored, etc.
Mr. Clark Fifield, 8383 Red Rock Road, asked if where
they sprayed with green meant the sod was to be replaced
and if easement remained the same and Engineer Jullie
•
Minutes -4- September 23, 1975
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
explained the green was to denote sod replacement and the
easement remained the same as before.
Mr. Joe Leonard, 8217 Hillside Drive, questioned Mr. Jullie
and the Council as to exact funding time for this project and
when bonds were sold. The Mayor explained the funds are put
in one pot and it would be difficult to identify them and that
bonding is required.
Mr. Ron Burke, 8242 Sheridan Lane, stated they have a bad spot
on their road and he explained to the engineers he didn't think
they could put a road there and keep it as there is 18-20 feet
of black dirt.
6. T.C. 51-269, SAN 73-7-21, WTR 73-8-21 and MIS 74-9-14.
Mr. Paul Albrecht questioned the cost of the curb and gutter
and stated his driveway was not brought back into condition
and he has lost two exhaust systems on it. He is against
these things.
Mr. Gray, RCM, questioned cost of curb and gutter and Engineer
Jullie explained.
Mrs. Judy Pfaff questioned the Council regarding the increase
in cost of Metro sewer - Mayor Osterholt explained.
Mr. Stan Reigert expressed his concern with the project and the
method of sod installation, location of hydrant and elevation
of curb. Engineer Jullie explainedsor:3eone from the Engineering
Dept. will get in touch with him to work out the problems.
1•ir. Jim Manning, concerned about manhole being covered.
Mr. Leo Dorf, concerned about caved in culvert that has filled
with sand and will cause trouble in spring.
fl r. Loren Irvine, expressed his dismay with service being in
but not with sewer and is concerned about clean-up and seeding,
7. PSISC2LLANZOUS SUPPLEI ENTAL ASSESSMENTS
7.1 RLS, Tract A, trunk sewer and water assessment (2 acres),
7.2 13816 Valley View Road, Trunk sewer and water and water
lateral, 7.3 7636 3aker Road, Trunk sewer and water and water
lateral, 7.4 15601 Valley View Road, sewer lateral, 7.5 15%14-
Scenic Heights Road, sewer and water trunk and lateral and area
coll., 7.6 7300 Prairie View Drive trunk sewer and water and
water lateral, 7.7 7950 Mitchell Road (8000), water lateral
7.8 Additional Phase I Ring Road Assessments.
• }4 lt2t
Minutes -5- September 23, 1975
II.A.PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.)
City Manager Ulstad presented a letter from Mr. Seifert objecting
to the assessment on his property. •
Council members questioned Mr. Jullie regarding method of
•
assessment.
Mr. Bob Hansen, Chamber of Commerce, questioned the method
of Ring Road assessment and Jullie explained.
• Penzel moved to approve adoption of Resolution No. 1031 pertaining
to Items 2, 4, 6, & 7 as amended and continue consideration of
public hearing on Items 1, 3 and 51ntil October 7, 1975, Meyers
seconded. Meyers,. Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye",
motion carried unanimously.
B. 169 Mini-Sector Study, report by Brauer & Assoc.
Meyers moved to continue matter until October 7, 1975, Penzel
seconded. i•ieyers, Pen.-el and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye",
motion carried unanimously.
C.Modern Tire & Energy Systems Rezoning request for reroning
from-aural-to In:'au;trial for the lioacrn Tire c9051 Flying Cloud
Drive) ana . nerF:y 3ystans (9022 j`1yin C1ouc: urivcZ
Fenzel moved to continue to October 7, 1975 meeting, Meyers
seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion
carried unanimously.
III. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & CULMINATIONS
A. Request by ',i. Gordon Smith Company (Jesse Schwartz) to
install a retail gas pump in an Industrial Zone, 7920
Wallace Road.
Penzel moved to continue matter to October 7, 1975 to
enable staff to notify all adjoining property owners of
request, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor
Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried unanimously.
B. Communication from fiichael T. Rutten, received 9/4/75,
aencr:1Ti : on behalf of the £cw Testament Church for a
re-c_:amination of an o:site soil abcorration sewage system
and/or ho13in tank for the church building.
Penzel moved that we stay with original commitment as
required for approval with the option of waiving public
hearing through petitioning process, Meyers seconded.
Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion
carried unanimously.
f1a2
•
Minutes -6- September 23, 1975 •
III. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.)
C. Request by local snowmobile club for City participation
in snowmobile trails.
Mr. Hanley Anderson appeared before the Council to
explain their request. Stated State has money available
for trails approved by City, etc. _
Penzel moved to refer this matter to Park and Rec. Commission
and staff for their recommendations and come back to the
Council by the first meeting in November, Meyers seconded.
Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion
• carried unanimously.
D. Request for extension of Basswoods D-1 Apartment Site
from George Carter, The Preserve.
•
Mr. Hess, of The Preserve, explained the request.
Meyers moved to extend time limit to September 5, 1976,
Penzel seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted
"aye", motion carried unanimously.
E. Petition from residents of Crestwood Terrace Estates for
• natural •ems to he installed in their development. (Petition
received 9/1b/75)•
City I1anager Ulstad explained the request and Council •
members discussed. .
Penzel moved to direct this petition .to the Gas Co.
(Minnegasco) and ask the Gas Company to instruct the
residents accordangly, Meyers seconded. Moyers, Penzel
and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye"; motion carried unanimously.
F. Petition requesting bituminous overla for West 62nd Street
sown ine __oae from oun s o :oo an i oa . v a ,on
• received 9/17/7b).
Council members questioned Engineer Jullie regarding this
request.
Meyers moved to refer to staff to make inquiries as to
financial participation by Hennepin County and A:innetonka,
Penzel seconded. Meyers, Fenzel and Mayor Osterholt voted
"aye", carried
aye , motion unanimously.
•
G. Request from School to expand existing bus garage.
fessers. Ovick (Architect), Gantz (Fire Chief) and
Shoe (School Board) presented the request and responded
Minutes —7— September 23, 1975
III. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.)
G. Request from School...(Cont'd.)
to questions by Council members as to construction,
time frame, safety, sprinkling system, cost, removal
of trailer, etc.
Penzel moved to approve the remodeling on the written
commitment from the School Board that a sprinkling
system will be installed within year from the approval
date, Meyers seconded. Penzel and Meyers voted "aye",
Osterholt "nay". Motion defeated.
Penzel moved to send back to School Board for a commitment
as to sprinkling system and safety, Osterholt seconded.
Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion
carried unanimously.
IV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COI1MISSIONS
A. Report of City Engineer
1. Plat correction for Mill Creek 4th Addition.
Engineer Jullie explained the correction request.
Penzel moved to adopt the correction, Meyers seconded.
Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion
carried unanimously.
2. Change Order No. 2, I.C. 51-263, Northeast Area Trunk
Watermain-Project.
Engineer Jullie explained the change order was necessary
as the State Highway Dept. did not show correct location
of pipe on their map.
Penzel moved to approve Change Order No. 2 and instruct
• staff to take all steps possible to correct mistake,
Meyers seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt
voted "aye", motion carried unanimously.
B. Report of Director of Community Services
1. M. B. Hagen Realty Company — offer to donate to the
'City S lots in the Paradise Valley Area.
City Manager Ulstad explained the offer and stated
there were back taxes due plus penalties and special
assessments.
Meyers moved that we inform the M. B. Hagen Realty
Company that we are not interested in accepting these
hia
Minutes -8- September 23, 1975
•
IV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (Cont'd.)
B. Report of Director of Community Services (Cont'd.)
1. M. B. Hagen Realty...(Cont'd.)
lots for park as they are not suitable, Penzel seconded.
Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion
carried unanimously.
• 2. Notification of approval of Federal aid urban funding
for County goad `4 bikeway.
Director of Community Services Jessen explained the
approval for first phase of bikeways and would like
to proceed to obtain funding.
Penzel moved to authorize staff to proceed to obtain
funding for bikeways, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Penzel
and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried.
unanimously.
Mayor Osterholt requested Jensen present a recap of
funds contributed by developers for park in lieu of
land.
C. Report of City Manager
1. Community Growth Council (continued from 7/22/75
Council meeting).
City Manager Ulstad explained the meetings have been
very constructive and presentations have been made
by the City, School; Developers, etc.
Mayor Osterholt stated he has sat in on meetings and .
found them very interesting.
Penzel moved to receive the Manager's report favorably •
and instruct him to submit reports on a regular basis, •
Meyers seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt
voted "aye", motion carried unanimously.
2. Eden Prairie Stables - Building Demolition. •
Ulstad explained the cost to demolish would be $3400.
Penzel moved to approve the building demolition bid of
3400, Pcyers seconded. On a Roll Call Vote Meyers,
Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried
unanimously.
II 5`
Minutes -9- September 23, 1975
IV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (Cont'd.)
C. Report of City Manager (Cont'd.)
3. The Preserve RLS - authorization of Mayor's signature.
Penzel moved to approve the RLS and instruct staff to
send a letter outlining the Council's concern that
no future land uses be committed for Tract H, Meyers
seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt voted
• "aye", motion carried unanimously.
D. Report of Finance Director
•
• 1. Payment of Claims Nos. 7666 - 7781.
Penzel moved to approve payment of Claims Nos. 7666-
7781, Meyers seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor
Osterholt voted "aye" on a Roll Call Vote, motion
carried unanimously.
• 2. Clerk's License List.
Penzel moved to approve the Clerk's License List,
• Meyers seconded. Meyers, Penzel and Mayor Osterholt
voted "aye", motion carried unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Penzel - Budget meeting prior to October 7, 1975 public hearing.
Mayor Osterholt - Chamber of Commerce would like the Council
to meet with them from 4:30 to 6:00 PM on either the
22nd, '3rd or 24th of October.
•
Meyers - City should take steps to vacate AlpineWay and take
barriers off and call public hearing.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
•
Penzel moved to adjourn at 12:23 AM, Meyers seconded. Meyers,
Pens'el and Mayor Osterholt voted "aye", motion carried
unanimously.
•
1 ��:
MEMO
TO: Mayor Osterholt and Members of the City Council
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager •
DATE: October 3, 1975
SUBJECT: Continued 1975 Special Assessment Hearing
City Council consideration of the final assessment rolls for the following
listed projects was continued to Oct. 7, 1975. Certain reveiws, changes and
alternate assessment methods for these projects, as requested by the City
Council, are submitted as follows:
1. I.C. 51-259, STM 73-4-17 •
Neill Lake Storm Sewer Project
The credits for previous construction from Barr Eng. Co. due
The Preserve and Olympic Hills Golf en=rse are broken down as
follows:
The Preserve
23 acre-feet of storage pond @ $870/ac-ft. = $20,010
BOO lin. ft. of 15" storm sewer pipe and
2 manholes = $16,965
Total credit due $36,975•
Olympic Hills Golf Course
6 acre-feat of storage pond @ $870/ac-ft.
Total credit due $5,220
Adding these credit amounts to the actual project costs of $971,100,
the amount to be used for determination of the assessment rates is
$1,013,295.
Alternate assessment methods for I.C. 51-259 are described as follows:
Method A
Detenninra the Assessment rates based upon the following benefit
ratios:
- -
- 2 _
Benefit
Land Use Ratio Assessment Rate
Low density residential 1:1 $875 Per acre
Medium density residential, 1.25:1 $1,093 "
church and school sites
High density residential 1.90:1 $1,312 "
Commercial 2:1 $1,750 "
The land use under Method A is taken from the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan and the various PUD studies which have been completed
for certain portions of the assessment district.
Method B
Same as Method A except change the benefit ratio.for commercial
properties from 2:1 to 3:1.
Benefit
Land Use Ratio Assessment Rate
Low density residential 1:1 $740 Per acre
Medium density residential, 1.25:1 $925
church and school sites
High density residential 1.50:1 $1,110 "
Commercial 3:1 $2,219 "
The land use under Method B is taken from the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan and the various PUD studies which have been completed
for certain portions of the assessment-district (same as Method A).
Method C
Same as Method A, except change the benefit ration for Commercial
properties from 2:1 to 3:1 (same as Method B) and apply the low
density residential land use rate to all developed single family
parcels regardless of possible future zoning changes for these
properties,
Benefit
Land Use Ratio Assessment Rate
Low density residential 1:1 $770
Medium density residential, 1.25:1 $964
church and school sites
High density residential 1.50:1 $1,156
Commercial 3:1 $2,312
ee
- 3 -
DEFERMENT
Along with Method A, B or C, a 5-year deferment without interest,
to be allowed for all developed, single family parcels for which
a building permit was issued on or before June 22, 1971. Such defer-
ment would.end upon subdivision or re-zoning of said parcels.
Approximately fifty acres of assessable property would be eligible
for this deferment.
REMARKS •
Method A may be the most defensible, in terms of the benefit ratio,
if the assessment is appealed because of the technical recommendations
from Barr Eng. Co.
Method B results in the lowest rates for the single family properties;
however, some of the developed single family parcels which are within •
the Major Center PUB and would be assessed at the higher density or
commercial rates. The same is true for Method A.
Method C best satisfies the concerns which have been expressed by the
Council and the residents. Only a relatively small number of acres
(35) may be re-zoned in the future to a higher use so the impact of
assessing these properties at the lower rate is minor. Also, a reason-
ably good argument can be made in support of the 3:1 benefit ratio
for the commercial properties.
2. I.C. 51-263 and I.C. 51-264
WTR 74-8-01 and SAN 71-7-34
Sewer and water trunk
and lateral assessments
for Northeast area.
A question was raised concerning the assessable area for Parcel 3000,
Section 1. Upon review, we have reduced the assessable area, because
of soil conditions and steep slopes, from 31.40 to 26.88 acres.
The connection charge for the City water system is $100 per residen-
tial dwelling unit rather than per lot unit.
3. I.C. 51-267, STR 73-3-27
Street improvements and • • •
storm sewer for the
Scenic Heights Addition
and adjacent properties
The assessment roll has been revised to properly reflect the 25%
credit for those properties eligible.
•
4
The cost of the sanitary sewer and water laterals, excluding
street restoration was $2,648 for those lots eligible for the
• 25% credit. The credit amount was $650.
It can be said that the 25% credit should also apply to the minimum
street restoration which would have been required for the streets
in the Scenic Heights Addition following the sewer and water lateral
installations. Adding the cost of minimum street restoration to the
lateral costs would result in a project cost in excess of $4,000
per lot. Accordingly, the 25% credit would reach this $1,000 maximum.
In accordance with the above discussion, the assessment rate for
those properties eligible for this 25% credit has been reduced from
$2,940 to $2,590 per lot.
Mr. Virgil Siefert, fee owner of Parcel 6525, Sec. 16, has objected
to receiving the total assessment of $10,196 for the Outlet construc-
• ted for the drainage pond south of the Scenic Heights Addition. During
the improvement hearings for the Scenic Heights projects. Mr. James
Zachman, representing himself as the developer of Mr. Siefert's
property, requested and agreed to pay the cost of said storm sewer.
Mr. Siefert reports that at the present time, Mr. Hochman is not
• going to proceed with the development of the property and this
leaves Mr. Siefert in a difficult position.
It is recommended that $5,100 of the storm sewer cost be assessed
against Mr. Siefert's property at this time. It may be possible to
recover the remaining project cost if Mr. Hochman continues with
this project at some future time. Our.City special assessment
records can so indicate.
A draft of Council Resolution No. 1031A approving the above described
• 1.975 Special Assessments is attached.
•
f C3t
a —
•
October 7, 1975
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
• HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1031A
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1975 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City
Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments
for the following improvements, to wit:
(See Exhibit A attached)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY cuONCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
•
1. Such proposed assessments are hereby accepted and shall constitute
the special assessment against the lands in the final assessment rolls,
and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be bene
fitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments ex-
tending over a period of years as shown on Exhibit A, the first of
the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in
January, 1976. Subsequent installments shall bear interest at the
rate of 8 percent per annum. No interest shall be charged if the
entire assessment is paid on or before Novpmb r 10, 1975.
3. Resolution No. 1024 is herein amended to include the assessment data
of this Resolution No. 1031A.
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax
lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and
' •paid over in the same manndr as other municipal taxes.
ADOPTED by the City Council on
David W. Osterholt•
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
J 3t
+)
W '� w
A0ro oa tt 4A E. wSadi
�0 .-t3 O � p�F
0 CO
aD m
d RYO 13 h d •-A
, A 414
0
CM { a mS03.1 to to w to
UyU.4Ntt. al }p N f FrN U O
w.-tA t It ,.I 0O C �mq4: 2 D' N
1 44 . O O 3 p «ip 0184
48 Oaii/ O4 tel N il OAVw .I I [ Wi[i p . 00 .0p as�1 E o gt dya aO i .- fYi S)•
.-t A A\ A0NNO
s.
•
IS
ol
° 0 3 + g Si � St W 433
.4 YIQ1MpUywyH 3 a. Pt R100 '0 Ot -..4 Oin pN� . ia toA- � i g w F 0� d4'UUw a a PS
DI 4 0U4w toONO N ON
ail.
to as
W 0 'm0 �w IA $, to of N M ar 0n W
ro b d ,0 fd.Oi d to
o E g
1:ites _ Am '{ .t a
rl w .1 O d
0 N o a AI w b'"I UOO .
• to.4 v da•• 44
..
L61Q VO O N
[{u�7,41 O ry
A. U6 co�.0 aQ� a�
ii�� Q t n N li 2
r taw Nh
m •
la •
v
Q n
10
ror w
r
�r
I 14 1w
N 40
H to d d Y d w
d 14
4.1 UN N 0 Nto Aw
t rr�iv roaa.
E. r k.-t.5
a
1-1x H
1. t N _
• :/133. . ..
P
V 04
n
Y.1 W 0 N
p 4 N
+�( 8 3 0/ R id
0� i0 3 y., 0 is C '
oq�pplppOHi .Oi 6 h ONi.0 0C1 a .iw H L1i
as
ID 44
CO 0 •
.,�p1 11I -a1 .0 o. i0 3 A A.� CO 11p. il! ,.--1I
a rd .i C I 4 w a) .1 wA N 0 al N
.4 4 W Q. O r09i e . .yA N W E {a U)
474 go
40.4 O.Oi 0 0 O 0 U O C O +{8i]• �O
-01 N q,.•1,1 .1 .t .4 I R. '0 '17 0.H .el
p ,to ® a In In 0 * 0 Hill
M0 .1 N fiy
ps 4. to Q'Q tli N 0 Ve N.0/ 01
.44
;pNp 01 0 C tt000 0
i1�v�14 3 0 10
yiy/ 0g1 W r4 A O
O 0.4
0 ' f
I,.0 A.H Ed
1 g •
44 .O
1 1'I
IA
-4
a
.44
O
0
I
N
1 1
4.4
Cl. DI
U. 4.3 1LI
• I N 0
n • 1+1 CO 0/41 H
•
U3 DpoOO.
vs
N 30 N H•rt .0
N d 01 z el
C3 VI teal
1.1
-'r sly .w. ' .S� ......... .-_ w._..._.-_ ....
U
0 1 41 >. d w 0 1 S .d•1 • d a
i +1 •1t
1a O C V W A a1 41 1J ® 41 11.n�,q U o aD
y V ••.�i 0 to d r1 0 V m Ayp D,. i0 to d 10 +i d•8 .
4r.d. £ MO33..t m rt O b10O � ktdr1 �.4).g O q•�-1•.dgi .I
r1 .1 1.0 :
43 34 CU 4jg A 0
v 43 1-1 0 .8 0 0 1114 i
.
0 0 U 4:1 0 : 0 s.„-; 2 V °'4 ''ij 2 8 a
gaxg, .043.40 •4 04) 14a1 •w m ra 41 0 1
p0 d00V00e000C
>. 1 a
i ° v v a . a
.a o r1 0 ° .♦ G ; � va a, o 41
___ ® m � ppc .
W S a1 i. � +9E.•pw1aoa . gy5
(4 12a G'ga 8V.2 g4o8' 4a004;; a � d
. .1-1 m
pA 414 - 16 2F vVQy7
03 j .41 2 4.. it $ eV a C
ilu
•
q� C y (
41
1 4:1111 T " OW m
aa m >.14 it
l0 ) + m
. - 1-1 0 ro,,,
8
'� w 0a8 0. 04aII0 am'
am 04 W
4
m 5, 14 'y. i1 m k of Si " a as ovie
y�'0 0` `�yQi 40 1a
AA O m a4 W m d' w3; 1 ..99'1}0i� W� .- a! a1 R1,1
g "G 41 o .1: 1-1 W' 0 11 0 >.14 0 0 > 41
y 1 pr.V ,C •4 d•rl 0 0 d 41 0 i1 al+4 001 >w o..0 10
Y Nad1 (0 411 q�y Cali 'n 0.ta �Wr•}r4 I >.'11� .✓ u1
g . a 0 d'43 • a1 41 ° a >..41 41 41'4.y1.4 yob�m J i41 14+�1 0 a sti
w a1 $4 41 O a.4 a0 .0.14.pop 0 41.0 g0..+C41 W 0 o V 4 W aCC (1C�!.y fa)a1 44 41
C 0 0•.4.0 00W, O troy,.� �4 1..y.,1 +4 py 4, a.1 .•1
1 lioto
,ww 1d1Gii 1a4 -5 .y .d+w 1W10 A 15 o m C to
N
1
i
'0 .
31 .
• .I
V
. N - I
1 •
.i
v '
1i .
1 •
N
••
r'1
111
•
Planning Commission Minutes -4- Unapproved
Sept. 29, 1975
•
lII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. 169 Mini Sector Study, staff report on alternative road alignments and Garden
King Market area.
The planner discussed the recommendations made In the September 12, 1975
•
staff report concerning the Garden KingMarket site and the northern Votech •
School entrance . He outlined the recommendations listed in the report
and the. reasoning that Brauer & Associates and the planning staff used in
formulating their recommendations.
Members of the audience expressed concerns relative to the following;
• Mr. Simchuck, across from the northern Votech entrance was concerned about
the north access road and its impact upon his property. He questioned if
the Modern Tire and Energy System's cul-de-sac might provide a reasonable
relocation of the east/west collector road.
The plannerresponded that it had been considered , but due to proximity to the
parkway and the significance of the northern Votech School access that the
major access point should occur at the Votech School access rather than
to the north by Modern Tire.
• Sirnchuck expressed hts feelings that any road declstons`snd construction would
have tremendous impact upon his home and possibly hts business (trucking ), and that
•
he was not in complete agreement with the road on his property.
Mr. Perkins, owner of the Garden King,Market, expressed a concern for safety
•
of the curve and that of the Votech School access. •He stated that people turn
around in his driveway and that the curve is very dangerous because of the
heavy truck traffic and proximity to his business.
Mr. Gene Hansen, owner of Cleen Sweep expressed concern"relative to the
heavy truck traffic and safety along 169 .
•
Motion:
Scher moved, Meyers seconded, to amend the 169 Mini Sector Study by
Brauer & Associates as follows;
1. Retain the Garden King home site and adjacent lots as residential
property not commercial.
2. Enforce the requt cements of Ordinance 135 pertaining to non-
confoinming uses and clearly identify the fruit market as such a use.
3. At such time as sewer and water are provided to the Sunnybrook
area, pie;Liis; and zoning of the Garden King home and adjacent
lots should be corn,idered to an appropriate single family detached
residential district.
4. Close Sunnybrook Road when alternate access is available.
5. Give further study to the impact of cul-de-lacing Creek Knoll Road.
6. That the east/west collector road is neceseary to allow
'` orderly and compatible future development of the total area.
•
/i O
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- Sept. 29, B75 •
7. That the east/west collector should connect with the northern votech
access road because of spacing from other streets, property served by
• the streets location, and connection with a major intersection.
8. That the long term use of lots, 3,4,5 and 6 should be non-residential I
as described in the 169 Study. The collector road design and alignment
should be planned with this in mind.
9. That the timing of the east/west collector street should not be in advance
of the need created by either the residential development east or the
industiral.development of parcels 3,4 and 6.
•
10. That alternates B, C, D are possible at a future date as a way of
extending the east/west collector street.
11. That at the east/west collector street improvement, cost vs. benefit
comparisions he prepared-on the various alternatives.
Discussion
Perkins questioned what was being approved and it was indicated to him by
the Commission that it was the recommendations included in the September
12th staff report. Perkins expressed his concern about his ltvelfloodandd said •
his
that decisions made by this body effect his business and family . i r
He business had been at the same location for 47 years and that he saw no reason I
to change . He did not believe his property should be viewed as residential
and that he hoped that his fruit and garden market could continue in the future. i
•
The planner e):plaincd that because of the safety hazards , which he also indicated
at that location, the limited size of the parcel and condition of the building
•
that a residential use in conjunction with the adjacent properties would make
the most sense. To indicate the parcel as commercial and rezone it to a commer-
clai use.would in the planner's and Brauer's opinion,not be in the best interest
of all parties, and that the commercial zoning would be applicable to other uses ...
not just the fruit market.
Libbey Hargrove, resident on SunnybrookBo ad , asked why the Garden King
•
Market is different than the Modern Tire request for rezoning and how did
Clean Sweep gain its operation. The planner responded that the Modern
The request for rezoning is considerably different than the Perkins Garden
King Market. first the building condition and investment is substantially
different, likewise the; parcel size of Modern Tiro and Energy Systems of
sufficient sire to permit reasonable industrial development within the City
Ordinance requirements. The Garden King situ would not provide adequate
space for industrial development. Secondly , the Clean •Sweep operation
started by using the 1:,.rn when the Hansen home was purchased for park
. along Staring Lake. The existing barn was used for storage and then an 1
addition to the barn was constructed ---no City approvals , such as coning,
have, been iseued. The planiir asked Hansen to further explain the
circumstance„ . Hansen felt the planner outlined the history correctly.
a
1
•
t {
Iq 1
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- Sept. 29, 1975
Amendment
Meyers moved, seconded by Schee, to amend the motion by amending
• recommendation;,`4 Co ,cad; that the timing of the cast/.vest collector
street should not be in advance of the need created by either the
residential development east or the industrial developmentof parbels 3,4
and 6 as defined on page 3 of the September 12th staff report.
Vote: 5:1 , Sorensen voted nay.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes • Sept. 29, 1975
C.Prairle Lawn & Garden, request by Stanley Riegert for Development of a small
engine repair , lawn mower sales, and garden store. The site is about 1 acre
and is located north of T. H. 5 across from Fuller Road's intersection with T.H.5.
Mrs. Riegert explained their concern about the staff report of September 18,
1975. She indicated they did not feel a metal building as proposed was
inappropriate and•she did not think the City had the right to restrict the type
—— of building. She questioned the access as to where would they connect to
their site. Also, she felt the needs of the City of Eden Prairie should be
accommodated and that if a masonry building has to be constructed it would
be difficult for them to do.
The planner responded that the zoning ordinance restricts metal buildings
and it is applicable to all builders in the City. He stated that the access
as indicated in the staff report, alternate 1 , would be taken from the east
side of their property at the base of the hill off of the gravel road entrance
that presently exists. The planner believed that all developments should be
evaluated equally, and that other builders and businesses were required to
have certain building standards and Prairie Lawn & Garden should be no exception.
Sorensen indicated concern over the neighborhood sites for businesses and that
he could not justify commercial use in the industrial area as outlined in
Ordinance 135.
Motion:
Fosnocht moved, Feerick seconded, to recommend alternative 1 contained in
the September 18, 1975, staff report.
The recommendations•of the 4/5 Study pertaining to access and land
use enables the Planning Commission and City Council to consider
rezoning the entire 18 f acres as illustrated on the 4/5 land use
concept plan to I-2 Park requiring platting and design review for the
industrial park prior to issuing building permits other than the Riegert
property.
This alternative will allow phased development of the 18 acre area ,
• perhaps beginning with the existing land uses which are now industrial
office, or related minor commercial . This alternative would meet the
terms of Ordinance 135 pertaining to I-2 Districts except for the minimum
zoning area provision which requires 40 acres. This however, could be
waived based on the site constraints , adjacent land use south of
Highway 5 which is industrial , and the conformance with the reference
4/5 Study Report. •
- �liJ�•
• -
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes Sept. 29, 1975
Mr. Rtegert's land use as a small engine repair business , storage of
parts and equipment, potential nursory,and mower sales, may be interpreted
as an acceptable industrial use as it fits under Subdivision 8.2 ,
Permitted Uses, Subd, a and b. Also, the building should be designed
to meet the •standards of the I-2 District which would not permit a metal
building unless it meets provisions of Ordinance 135 , Subd, 2.7, Special
Requirements, Design, #4, which states;
"Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction
if the panel material be any of the those ne:nsd above. ;glass
• prefinished metal,(other than unpainted galvanized trorr,or plastic".
This means the panel metal construction such as used in the Homart Shopping
Center and not the metal pole building with a corrugated sheet metal siding
as proposed. The building should be designed to provide for future
•
industrial uses as well as the Riegert Lawn & Garden business.
•
The sketch provided in the application of the site showing direct access
to Highway S should - be revised to accommodate a revised road location
acceptable with the City Engineering Department and the Minnesota Highway
Department to group the Fuller-Road and access to the 18 acre industrial
park at one location. This would eliminate the individual access of Prairie
Lawn& Garden to Highway 5. •
Vote: 3:3 , (Schee, Boerger, Sorensen -nay), (Feerick, Meyers, Foanocht-yes )
The Commission decided to submit two recommendations,
with 3 members suggesting alternate 1 and 3 members
. suggested alternate#3 • ••
•
TI (V
•
PLANNING STAFF REPORT •
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
_ PROJECT: Prairie Lawn and Garden
APPLICANT: Stanley Riegert
LOCATION: North of T.Il. 5 , directly across from Fuller Road.
REQUEST: .•Approval of'Prairie Lawn and Garden Store rezoning
from Rural to Community Commercial
DATE: September 18, 1975
REFER TO: 1. August 29, 1974 Planning Staff Report
2. 4/5 Sector Study staff report Sept. 26, 1974
3. Planning Commission Minutes 9-6-74
4. Applicants request brochure , and addition 8-6-74
BACKGROUND
Mr. Riegert submitted anapplication for Prairie Lawn and Garden dated
7-18-74 and was considered by the Planning Commission first at their
August 6, 1974 meeting with subsequent motion from the Commission
on 9-6-74. During the period of consideration the City Planning
Commission, and Council discussed the possibility of conducting a
study on the 4/5 area. The study was authorized and prepared during
late 1974 and early 1975.
Resolution 986 adopted by the City Council stated; •
" Whereas, the Eden Prairie City Council anticipates numerous
requests and development proposals fir lands adjacent to and
in the vicinity of Co. Rd. 4 and T.H. 5,and
Whereas, this area includes land use concept designated in
the Comprehensive Guide Plan and also planned study area , and
Whereas, the staff, advisory commissions, interested citizens
and developers have reviewed and studied various land use
proposals and transportation alternatives affecting the above
mentioned land uses, . •
Now Therefore ha it resolved, that the Eden Prairie City Council
hereby commends the Sector Study team.Andthe material presented
in the 4/5 Study Report be received as reference and review
particularly as it relates to all development proposals for these
areas which :night come before this Council and future councils .
And this council does recognize this report as a valuable
contribution to the overall land use of this area as it relates
•
• to the entire community and the general development concept
as expressed in the Comprehensive Guide Plan." _
f 7ttm =a•
_�L_
r.
Staff Report-Prairie Lawn & Garden .-2- Sept/ . 18, 1975
The resolution did not specify any City action to take place concerning
the previously presented development proposals by Prairie Lawn & Garden,
Gonyea Investment&Eagle Enterprises ,but rather that those developments
would at their own choice. take appropriate action consistent with
Resolution 986. Eagle Enterprises has proceeded with designs and
a building permit to Construct a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Rlagert
did not proceed with any action after the adoption of the 4/5 Report as a reference .
_ Mr. Riegert is now asking that the City Planning Commission, and
Council reconsider his request for rezoning for his proposed Lawn &
Garden Business.
• GUIDE PLAN COMPATIBILITY
• Pages 3-5 in the August 29,1974 , staff report describes the Comprehensive
Plan statements relating to the use proposed and its location.
'r
The adoption of Resolution 986 , and the work done on the 4/5 Study, have
informally at least, modified the concepts and thoughts of the Comprehensive
Plan. If the Planning Commission and Council choose to use the 4/5
Study as a " reference and review " document , and as a " valuable
• contribution to the overall land use of the area as it relates to the
entire community and the general development concept " . . then the
recommendation of the 4/5 Study pertaining to access and land use
should be considered as pertinent to reviewing the Prairie Lawn and Garden
request. .
4/5 Study
• Pages 44 and 45 explain the lens uses for the site;
"The 18 acre site adjacent to Highway 5 and south of the open
space corridor is proposed as an industrial park without outside
storage. The proximity of the site to Highway 5,exlsting,uses,
. and zonings , .& shared access with the relocated Fuller Road,
make a small scale industrial park workable and an asset to the
area as a highway buffer if properly designed. "
r ..� ✓, 1Ir, ..
c , i ;\fig\\ i p I 29xt '�: 11I ! )
—. 1 j -' per\ 1;
`�to4 t`v- isj�_ \s\dr, ,...\ *\\ i • ,�j,✓ 'i1, :
r .i, � '�Y N
e v g yy .rJ
.` ! '
.'+.'.,,..- , \ .\ fl0 t. :11 . . f �1.1C. "
ii
•
' (
r fy
YC'• ",1t3 t I wc.d f .,. Z :SG./, ,�s�tt�r .3
r
Y..... ....ww. ,....,-a.j.-..K. ++r'.�.';;1`.
•
Staff Report-Prairie Lawn & Garden -3- Sept. 18, 1975
The transportation requirements effecting the Prairie Lawn & Garden Site . {
are summarized on page 28 and 29 of the 4/5 Report under Alternate A. i
The recommendation is for upgrading highway 5 to an urban parkway or
maximum four lane 'divided arterial roadway with median for left turns .
similiar to the 4/5 intersection and the improvements
to Mitchell Road. The urban parkway alternative would require approxi-
- matoly 1500 foot spacirig between the controlled access points, specifically
relocated or preeent Fuller Road access north and south and no driveway
access as currently exists to Highway 5.
J `
- � F: �r- -- - e-),i"=,`., : I • a
.
-,.•i--.-
_{ fit. _
!. �r�/� moo _ , -- «. '_ —
ice . '/�I.__ /. M
•
Q ru`r twee %•;I' .1 1/, d_;?•'/4 � �U., a�i
i Off.h�./Q tJt IIVtiL
j 1 't —..
Other issues raised by the application for commercial zoning is Its
non-conformance with the City Guide Plan adopted in 1968 , and the
conflict with the recommendations of the 4/5 Study for industrial
development and Ordinance No. 135.
Eden Prairie has adopted a concept of community commercial centers ,and
the Major Center Area, for regional or major commercial office activities. • '.
The proposal by Mr. Riegert would place his commercial enterprise outside
of an existing activity commercial center such as the north west quadrant
of 4/5, Eden Plaza Shopping Center, or the Preserve Center area. It
would reinforce the concept of strip commercial along the major highways
and spot zoning of individual commercial sites. Therefore , it is the
Planning staff's opinion that a rezoning of 1 # acre site for the Prairie
Lawn and Garden store to Community Commercial would be inconsistent
with the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, the 4/5 Study,
and those of Ordinance 135 pertaining to C-Commercial which requires
a minimum of 5 acres. r+,Q
/N
Staff Report-Prairie Lawn & Garden -4- Sept. 18, 1975
•
ALTERNATIVES
• Alternative 1
The recommendetions'of the 4/5 Study pertaining to access and land
use enables the Planning Commission and City Council to consider
rezoning the entire 18 f acres as illustrated on the 4/5 land use
concept plan to I-2 Park requiring platting and design review for the
industrial park i'irior to issuing building permits other than the Riegert
• property.
This alternative will allow phased development of the 18 acre area ,
perhaps beginning with the existing land uses which are now industrial
office, or related minor commercial . This alternative would meet the
terms of Ordinance 135 pertaining to I-2 Districts except for the minimum
zoning area provision which requires 40 acres. This however, could be
waived based on the site constraints , adjacent land use south of
•
Highway 5 which is industrial , and the conformance with the reference
4/5 Study Report.
Mr. Riegert's land use as a small engine repair business , storage of
parts and equipment, potential nursery,and mower sales, may be interpreted
as an acceptable industrial use as it fits under Subdivision 8.2 ,
Permitted Uses, Subd, a and b. Also, the building should be designed
to meet the -standards of the I-2 District which would not permit a metal
building unless it meets provisions of Ordinance 135 , Subd, 2.7, Special •
Requirements, Design, # 4, which states;
"rectory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction
if the panel .. material be any of the those name above. ;glass
• prefinished metal,(other than unpainted galvanized irottor plastic".
This means the panel metal construction such as used in the Homed Shopping
Center and not the metal pole building with a corrugated sheet metal siding
as proposed. The building should be designed to provide for future
industrial uses as well as the Riegert Lawn & Garden business.
The sketch provided in the application of the site showing direct access
to Highway 5 should be revised to accommodate a revised road location
acceptable with the City Engineering Hepartment and the Minnesota Highway
Department to group the Fuller Road and access to the 18 acre industrial
park at one location. This would eliminate the individual access of Prairie
Lawn & Garden to Highway 5.
fl1/9
_ i
•
Staff Report-Prairie Lawn& Garden -5- Sept. 18, 1975
•
•
Alternative 2
The second alternative would be to deny the application and determine that
the proposed use is not an acceptable industrial park use at this site
consistent with the 4/5 Study Report and should be denied for commercial
zoning as requested.
The City Council and Planning Commission in adopting this alternative
would determine that the Lawn &Orden (small engine repair, warehousing,
and limited retail sales ), would not be consistent with the provisions
of the I-2 District , and that the commercial zoning requested would be Y
inappropriate at this site based on the Comprehensive Plan and the
4/5 Study.
Alternative 3
The third alternative would be to deny the application by Prairie Lawn &
Garden for . commercial zoning as it is not consistent with the Comprehensive
• Plan indicating a residential use at this site.
Alternative 4
The fourth alternative would grant the request for C-Commercial zoning for
the Prairie Lawn & Garden site as requested and vary the terms of Ordinance
135 pertaining to -minimum zoning district area, building material and type,
and approving the individual access to T.H. 5.
•
PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATTONS •
The planning staff recommends Alternative I with the restrictions on building
type to be of masonary construction , or •' factory fabricated and finished
metal framed panel construction ',' that the access be combined with the
other lots in the 18 acre industrial park , that the building be designed to
be compatible with other industrial buildings and provide the required
landscaping buffer treatment, parking, etc., required in Ordinances135,
141, and 178 •
DP/jme
•
•
•
Y.Y
115 .:
Einutes - Parks, Boa. and Paco rive .
'Natural Resources Con. .1 pproved • August 18, 1975
y
a. Busted Office Eui.idlnr. .
•
Bill Bonner, of Busted Development Corp., presented summary of major inton-
tions of the project. He pinpointed two' problem-the lend itself and the
• site. lie explained there eras long time existing industrial use on ono ride
with resedential (Creckwood) on the other side. The site was low area,
wooded slops, end Proving to flat area with prairie grass. Dedication would '
be the flood plain, with wooded slopes protected by scenic easement. Fe
— added that a major concern of home owners was the traffic on Creek knoll Hod,
and they have'requested a cul-de-sac in this area. Bonner opened the floor
for questions. .
• Helmer was concerned whether any provision for min-parks or playgrounds would
bo made. Bonner responded the residents of the proposed 25 homes would have
the use of the pool, which would be part of the office. He sug;*,ested area
by the pond could be turned into a more active recreation space if it could
be worked cut with the City.
Anderson asked for future plans for recreational areas for Cree wood rosidenta.
Bonner cited Bluff Sector Study, which is a major study encompassing l'AC land,
with 200 acres as major focus for proposed institutional center.
Anderson was concerned with problem of scenic easements. Jensen
• explained the problem comes in because responsibility is
sometimes hard to define.
Ein_rrey asked if there was a relatively dry area by the creek that
•
could be used as a ballfield 'Bonner responded
iponded that the support arearear north
of the creek is usually dry and he
•
NOTION
•
Anderson moved to request Staff to come back with a study to look into
the question of Hustad proposal for land use. .Helmer seconded, motion
• carried unanimously.
•
Bonner requested feedbacksubstantial assessments
on the problems of
on Creek Knoll Rd., then dedication of that land to the City. He
was also concerned with the timing involved.
' Erickson responded that the next regular meeting would be Sept. 15.
Fenzel said the meet public hearing would be held at the first.Council
meeting of Sept..
Bennett and Mikkelson had to leave meeting at 10:15 In4.
Chairree Erickson reminded-members there was no meeting scheduled •
•
for thotonday of Labor Day week-end. •a
•
110/
,
..yr.,....
Planning Commission Minutes -3- Sept. 8, 1975
B. Hustad Development Company, request for office , industrial and residential
PUD on a 26 acre site located south of U. S. 169 , west of Creek Knoll Road
and north of Co. Rd. 1.
The planner said the staff is recommending approval.of the modified site plan;
and the storm sewer specifics will be worked out between the proponent
and Hustads.
Sorensen questioned why the staff is recommending approval of office uses
outside of the MCA in this case. The planner responded that the one and
two story office buildings are not regional in character and a need for
non-residential uses around the airport 'exists.
Sorensen then asked the planner's opinion of the letter from the highway
department. The planner stated he did not feel the City could withhold
approval based upon the letter.
Meyers Inquired into the status of Creek Knoll Road's cul-de-sacing. The
planner replied that alot of work is entailed and it is not entirely applicable
to the office development.
Bill Bonner stated they agree with the buffer recommendations in the staff
report and they are now requesting rezoning only for the office,and concept
approval for the industrial and residential parts of the PUD.
1
Sorensen asked what Hustad's intentions are regarding the existing house
' presently used as an office. Bonner replied they intend to retain it and
lease it as an office.
Bonner stated that Hustad's disagree with recommendation(la)in the staff report
and desire to retain the .8 acre sign site.
Meyers asked if 1 main entrance with right-in/right-out had been considered.
The planner responded that they are waiting for the County Highway's responSe .
Lynch asked if the proposal is consistent with the Guide Plan. The planner
felt the office project is inconsistent , but office&industrial uses
are needed around the airport.
Motion:
Boerger moved, Meyers seconded, to recommend approval of the Hustad office
PUD concept plan for the area located between 169, Creek Knoll Road, and
Co. Rd. 1 for the overall 22 acre plan and rezoning from Rural to Office. And
include the recommendations of the engineer's report dated September 8, and
the staff report of September 2 with the following changes to#js 1,4, and 8;
1. a. The .8 acre sign site, wooded slopes, and floodplain be
dedicated for public open space. Subject to the developer's
right to maintain the existing sign for a period reasonably
necessary for the completion of the Bluff's Sector.
4. The 9 tacre site be rezoned from Rural to OFC District for the.
construction of 14-2_story office buildingsas depicted on the
modified site plan dated Sept. 8 to be prepared in conformity withthe
overlay presented to the Planning Commission on Sept. 8, 1975.
8. That development of the Ist stage office or industrial begin by
September 1, 1977, or the City may reevaluate the PUD
/62 Concept and rezoning plans..`motion carried 3:0:1 with Sorensen abstaining.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
- FROM: Marty jessen, Director of Community Services M.3"•
SUBJECT: Busted Office PUD .
DATE: September 11, 1975
pn as
The following
ofo�parkf.Busted
rearaalion and natural rPUD rnesonrces:it impacts
the City's concern
1. The Brauer &Associates study of the Purgatory Creek
Open Space Corridor - The map on page 45 of the Purgatory {
Creek Study indicates the protection areas as delineated
by Brauer & Associates. The area in green shaded dark on
the enclosed reproduction of that map corresponds closely
with the open space dedication area indicated in the Austad
Office PUD concept plan. The one discrepancy between the
two exists on the east side along Creek Knoll Road where
proposed townhouses are shown on the Busted plan and where
the Brauer study would suggest continued opeif space as
required in the conservancy area. The Brauer study further
suggests the provision of some loop trails along Purgatory
Creek in this area, although the barrier of Highway 169 Makes
any short term trail continuity through the Busted parcel
unlikely. .
2. Comprehensive Guide Plan -The Guide Plan shows a realignment
of County Road 1 through a portion of the Busted site. The City
has previously acquired some land along Purgatory Creek south
and east of Staring Lake which corresponds to the anticipated
future realignment of County Road 1, the thought being that
realigned 1 would serve as the edge of the nature perk.area
forming a parkway drive. Should this occur, trails along Purgatory
Creek using a reeliggned County Road I overpass could cross 11169
end continue along the creek corridor.
3. The City Mini-•Rink Skating Program - Last year one of the eight
mint-rink locations: was identified as the pond along Purgatory Creek 1
on this parcel. Uee of tha mini-rink was minireel last ycar,but
with the increased development just east of Creek Knoll Road and {
through the provision of some safer, easier access to this site, it is
anticipated that this use would increase. The possibility of cut-de-sacing
a Creek Knoll's Road on both sidksof the creek and eliminating the bridge
•
crossing would greatly enhancefor the usability, serving the rkasid of the creek corridor
,.
for trail purposes arid this area
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural -2 - September 11, 1975
Resources Commission
area to the east. Although in any event, the?mini-park at this
location is not centrally located to the residential development.
4. Bikeway/Hikeway Task Force Report -The Citizens Task Force which •
studied the need for bikeways/hikeways in the community identified
a major route along County Road 1 as a early priority. Regardless
of whetliea County Road 1 is realigned west from this side or not, the
provision of this pathway should be incorporated into the site plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends that the Hustad office PUD concept plan be approved
subject to the following:
•
1. That the open space dedication be accomplished consistent
with the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study conducted by
Brauer&Associates. This to include all land from the intersection
of 169 and Crook Knoll Road southerly to the top rim of the creek
• valley,generally as represented by the map on page 45 of the
Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study report.
2. The trail to be provided along County Road 1 consistent with
the standards and criterias of the Bikeway/Hikeway Task Force
Report and that access be provided through the office PUD from
County Road 1 to the creek. The City should consider trail
construction along Purgatory Creek at a later date as a desirable
goal or one that should be considered when a safe crossing of
169 can be accomplished.
3. That the City incorporate any recommendations or suggestions from
the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District with respect to water
quality control as a result of development as indicated in the concept
plan.
MJ:jp
:I
•
•
1154
•
S'.•'.:K
,.,..„„i....7,7
1
•
...-- .•...,..
Z.‘.......'•`.•4-2
, -.'••.-..777.- • ; .... 4) • .;,.;',', , , •....._...A X..1__
i • 1
....•
... I • J "II. .I .
1 — , „ 4.\ ''''''' ' •,
. , .
( • " ' .
;..../(
`4,. , C:.. ....1.\ ( . • ( . . ',A:V .'' 41 ' . '')..... . -. - •":"'s'.. .- s....
--\:. 1,....,) \ , • \ 1 I- : 147 ''''' •i - .h.
' - '...:.: •..'.., .••- •
I .. ,,Z,.., - •-•• -,..N , :
-‘.-;,:-,,-,--..s. ',:, • ' C----,.f. . ._ I. . . .• -2.11:.*rt.s
ITV i '''''.,0,1 •1
• '....;'-',.' ,,-"9 '. s. . 'i i j:;. .e. .---.:\ _./ ../
, / ,,,,-...• -, -,. i
.•,/ \... N..\-v1
i •i : , •• - : .- -.--- • ift ........... ,• - .
.. ' '•;
,.\_. , , _ i / • i.1,%.4 , ' 1 /
-.• ,r,,_ . ...c,1,, --,,.,!• N.2 i r ',,#'1 .-• --,'.! , I I I
'''''-'---......... ...,•••••\\ I -er - 1.^, ). ! , . - • '
7::___,;•',,-.'-:-1- r. 0- _/ •ii •,) - ".!''' - .
J .1\ !-- r•7"777--'-'77''" '''-' (---,;"" .f 1-:-. • ;•'77->. (-- 1:, *.I'.:,....---.......'.;„_-- ' --:-.... '. . .-:.:- `;'t -' -:i y ./ i-: .-`----'- -
.... •
. ----•----„,_ ,. /.. ‘•i:• C t - .
. ..
. .
•••
. •. ,..
1 C• 7 \,. I • - - :
I .. - i•-••••." 77, •
; . . 1- ...77 ..:_,/-----,'•,'‘'I;•.',-• V .. •__.7.....d I:
. 1^,-•. 7• ',, •, 7 ki• ,',,f _N. . .
• ,
....II. ; 1 •: .••••,,,, • ;.,, . .•
-• ,,,, / '-‘,,,'...N., •:.-..,,„:• _t,..„,....0_,......',..,•:?,•(.;I r...,..y.,,,' -- ...!• i
• _
. . ' ' . i.• •i / - •1
. .
• , _(_
. i
- • I.
_,,,•
,i,i o •- ' ' 1 '
/"I i .,,4 i i i I\
\ ', 1 ,
. . ..1';4" ,',1' -•i
.. i . '••'—,9 ‘•1 --• !--•-......-
. —i , fl c:1 •
,/ .-,,..,-, ,. \ , . ., • i
.•
-,••. ,'
CZLIC:'-f, )
• .•v„,:.:, . t..:/t,i'. •i i„,. ..•••,,,....*. .
• ''.t)''''-•::'.., ‘•,,,s/r5. /110 /......r..1/1'!.,• - -.7.,.. , \ ' • i.1!a.0 --,...-4 .
-
-.11 I . ..... . . .
...-.,1/..V'4-P'"•(' ."-----,..;- u(--.--;'
-.__>--- ._• . .,:, ,,,, ,7::-_ "'N•-I--,1,14"("41Q"''; \,, r ...'.':.. [TN .
...-- ?...,1, .s.,-/...r---_ —:—.—_-4,-.•..,..„-2„::: /, ,1 i:.• : •:-=-, • ,
F I .....
....,
. rarn'Oco l •--—%..-.'`..'-1:I)..'.---_----- 1 ..`-:•i.,. /7-- ',.,,—.,—,-";5"(, 1,°),'•P L. :..-,,:.1:':'.---::•t•"":•*.,,'; il
Y":. : .. 1 • ( • / J )
mo yti7A . _ 4
,..•..
.1...".,..,-,, ,,,,,,. •,-", ki \,,:,-.--. ,„„..,„ .. ,„•-•.,......„..., ,„......_,,,,,z,.1, , \:.
• ,
-:••--....s•-......,..-1 ,,--,/:•::,..„1.,%....i _ \•:-... ,-;z:,:__.----_-,-- ':-. •-•-.1-::::;;:.:, •-2 r,•-:-.`1f., '-
-- ---"----..----:.--,..i.i.„,,,,..-,..„__ •----,--',..-751 '.•,----- -i-tio-.-!:---/,'-..c-'-,.,‘'.:,,' ,''.t.)i.5r',,,,,v- ", \',“
r
1 --'--:•••••-.--...:,'.'"•:.'• q __,) ?:, /4,,....1. ;:.....„,..,:::. ...,. •:-..4,T.,..% :--S• -1
i11------,,,' ._ ., .,..,... .46.•,:...:. 1- .. •-,,- ......... -,,,, ,
. -...... ,...., •-..._....,„_-,,,,,D,..„..)...._
. 4 ,
• -.
_. m.c.a. - staring sector
purgatorY
.,_
• ,
45 cree t
• ii6c
. ,.. .• • :
,. . . .
CITY OF EDHN PRAIRIE
CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED '
LAND DEVEIOPMENTS •
DATE: 9/8/75 .
DEVELOPMENT: Illlstr 0.11j,��Rite L.D. NO. 75-PUD-02
75-2-14 • t---
LOCATION: Area within C.S.A.H. 1, T.fi. 169-212, Creek Knoll Rd.
REFERENCE P.U.D. OR'PREVIOUS
• ZONING AGREER NT: RES. II.
DEVELOPER: ' Busted Development Cor_aeration '
ENGINEER/PLANNER: McCombs - Knutson Associates
•
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: Information Booklet
PROPOSAL: Construction of Industrial, Office & Residential use
s
1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid Yes
Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District Yea
2. Processing Schedule:
• a. Planning & Zoning-Commission Preliminary 7/28/75 .
b. Park & Recreation Commission .
• c. Human Rights Commission
d. Planning Co
mmission ission Public Hrg. .
e. City Council consideration 10/7/75
f, Watershed District
• Ty
ne pe of Development Industrial, Office & Residential
4. Environmental assessment or impact statement required per Environmental
Impact Policy Act of 1973: JI
. /156
. .
.. „
,---,,t-
•
• ,
• - 2 -
. .
. • ,
5. Present Zoning Rural &.I2 General • • .
•
6. Proposed Zoning RM 6.5, Ofc. 12 PRK Zoning of:adjacent Parcel (7530) also
requested. Set letter dated 8/27/75
Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? No •
•
' List variances require() & setbacks that apply: None requested
. .
•
• . .
Residential 5.2 units/ac.
:. . 7. Project Area 26 acres Density Office 60,000 Sq. ft.
Industrial 60,000 Sq. ft.
8. Public open space and/or cash dedication Refer to Planner's Report •
Private open space Refer to Planner's Report
, .
- •
Trail systems & sidewalks Required
.. .
. Not suhmitted
reange of lot sizes
• .
9.-. Preliminary Building Plans Submitted •
. . .
10. Representative Soil Borings Not submitted
11. Street System
N.A. - . .
A. Access to adjoining properties
• .
. •
. -
B. Type ' RA/ - Roadway (Rack to Back of Curb)
, .
Private • . . . ' --
.
'• driveways, no 24
parking ----- Post no parking signs
Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28.
1000') &
(not over
•
minor residential . •
. .
7 Cul lie sacs 100 78 (no island)
• , 120 98 (uith island)
. .
. . . • :
• Thin Residential (collectors)
. ' & Cul de sacs
over 1000' 60 32
; # , •
. .
. .
_ ..,
; . •
. . .
; • . .
, .
. .. .': ; : ...:777..•••2
. .
•
115.17 • • •..'.... ::.2 ..:'',•:-• •;........ ,i'-;••••47, •;11.' ];T• ••••.''I. .-'1:
•
•
- 3
MSA 70 44
Parkway 100 26 divided
•
• - Fire Road 12
Pathways 12 6
Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5%
Concrete curb.P 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 N.A.
•
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. Required .
•
E. Private parking lots--B6-12 conc C&G and full depth asph. design
Required
F. Street Signs-Deve3oper or City installs Developer
12. Parking: (See Ord. 11141)__
13. Utility Systems:
A. Sanitary Sewer Available: on-site extension required
1. Service Detail
Pending final building design
• 2. Service to adjoining property May be possible to design system
to provide service to property west & south of site
B. Watermairi: Available; on-site extension required
1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K
2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Fire inspector to review
3. WavingPending final design
4. compliance with fire co].. Fire inspector to review
5. Service to adjacent. property Design system to provide service
to property west of site
116
- 4
C. Storm Sewer & Grading. _
$to;m_sewer systpn_pro sod _----
Check drainage around buildings in S.E. corner of project
1. Sediment control plan Required
• 2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots Required
3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Required
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Minimum grading proposed
5. Arrows showing drainage Submitted •
o
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties O.K.
•
6. Denote drainage area f.br individual inlets and projected high water
for ponds
Not submitted
7, Keep drainage i.n gutters, not in center of street required
,
8: Sod drainage shales and steep slopes
Required
' , Yes-suultiPle area below elev. 816
9. Flood plain, encroachment
10. Watershed District approval Required (see letter attached dated 8/6/75)
11. DNR approval Required ---- ----
D. Natural Gas & Telephone • Underground required
E. Electric (underground)
Required
14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting
Required .
15. Preliminary plat to he submitted to MD or Henn. Co. if abutting a •
•
State or County hwy.
Ilemn Co. (Co. Road Al) & MUD (T.lI. 169-212) Refer to Letter of 8/29/75
16. List special assea:sments levied and pending Parcel 8000 - Trunk sewer
and wager $43,400;_Lateral sewer., 0 7,430; Street improvement, $18,3751
Pending water
Yes
17. Re- oning agreement required
Dev.:lol>cr's. Agreement required
Yes
• Title Ahatract for Attorney's review No
/65 9 -•
i
_._ _._ ,, . .. TE _ -_ —
. ___� -
.. gy
: m __l y
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam
DATE: Sept. 2;1975
4
PROJECT: Hustad Office PUD •
APPLICANT? Austad Development Corporation
LOCATION: Between 169, Creek Knoll Road, and Co. Rd. 1
REQUEST: PUD Concept Approval for Overall 22 acre Plan and Rezoning
From Rural to 1-7. Park ,Office and RM 6.5
•
•
GUIDE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan and the Plan Map indicates a number of changes which -
would effect the 26 acre parcel. Those changes relate to the noise, change
in land use to industrial/commercial, road relocations, airport expansion, and
park area.
The 1968 Plan states on page 6;
" 3. Industrial development should be concentrated within the
• major highway access areas and around Flying Cloud Airport.
and should permit very little heavy industry.
The Comprehensive Plan suggested low and medium density housing along
the ridge over looking the creek valley on the site. This was combined with
the relocation of 169 and Co. Rd. 1 to provide industrial/commercial buffer
around Flying Cloud Airport. The Plan established the major roads as
boundarlet to the Airport and airport related uses. • •
Implementation of Comprehensive Plan
• The Browning Parries i'UD (previously Waste Management), has been approved
for industrial and office use development around and over the land fill site
southeast of 169. One building has been constructed for the Browning Ferries
Office P.uildtna Maintenance Facility as well as truck storage. Industrial
developeeo.i has occurred in the south side. of Co. Rd. 1 , north of the Flying
Cloud Airen's clear zone. Three office/warehouse buildings have been
constructed . No development has occurred west of 169 and north of Co. Rd. 1,
•
however, interest in industrial development has been expressed. •
•
The path development for Staring Lake and Purgatory Creek are proceeding •
with ucquieliivrr and protection of the crock valley area. •
Staff Report-Hustad Office PtID -2- Sept. 2, 1975
• .
The proposed relocation of 169 on the present Creek Knoll Road alignment
south to Bluff Overlook Drive around the land fill site is extremely unlikely
because of existing development , costs, and relative benefits derived.
The proposed realignment of Co. Rd. 1 north with a new intersection at 159
as proposed on the Eluide Plan seems rather unlikely. Some realignment of
the existing Co. Rd. 1 / 169 Intersection should he accomplished for
safety and greater traffic capacity. Such a realignment may take a
number of forms which must be decided with State, County, Metro Airports
Commission , City , and effected landowners.
The area indicated for highway service commercial development on the
Comprehensive Plan, without the road alignments proposed,does not seem
feasible because of the limited area available.
OTHER STU..DTLS AND PLANS
.Purgatory Creek Study
•
Brauer& Associates in conjunction with City and Watershed District completed
the Purgatory Creek Study. The study indicated protection of the fioodplain
and related low areas on the llustad 25 acre site as well as slope protection
to tho top of the valley. Some use moy be put to the low land areas for
• recreation space , but on a informs] level.
r \ r
c \ i � ,A
.+.• _ v ...:t`...v
f _ ., ,. ; •
;•/••'A 11-------14, _ 1,-,---,--_,-2-..\' ..., ii
.. .
, .
:_ . .,_ _... :: ....f 'r P i ,..,-- f
\I\I f
{ C
i6I i .
i
.:el.
Staff Report-Husted Office Site -3- Sept. 2, 1925
Airport Study_
The Flying Cloud Airport Study Indicated concern relative to compatibility
of land uses in this area with the noise levels & indicated industrial or
multiple family uses with special acoustical treatment . The Airport Study
indicated that the road reafigneents proposed in the Guide Plan were not
needed for the airport expansion contemplated which would keep the airport as
a General Utility Airport, rather then upgrading the airport. Also, minimum .
additional land purchases would be required for any airport improvements.
Major Center Plan
• The MCA Plan stresses the importance of consolidating major regional uses
including regional office, commercial, high density housing, etc. In
the MCA 1,000 acre jtreu a number of proposals have been submitted for
significant commercial service developments outside of the MCA. The
question related to the Hosted Office proposal, 60,000 square feet ,
is whether the pure office use as proposed is inconsistent with the
Major Center Plan .
Office buildings have boon built in other areas of the community , for example;
the Edenwest Office Building, Carderel.le Office Building •
•
�tansnortetion study
The Metro Council Transportation Development Guide Chapter recognized that
construction of New 212 would he unlikely until 1990. Therefore, existing
169 would he utilized as a major regional arterial through 1990. Improvement
of existing 169 to a 4 lane design with ciwnnelized intersection and
' signals would seem the maximum upgrading to be expected on existing 169.
Co. Rd. 1 will function es a community east/west arterial from Jonathan
east to Metropolitan Sti.dlum in Bioominton . Design may be maximum
with 4 lanes with intersection controls and ramps at the freeway intersections.
The Improvements to the 169/Co. Rd. 1 intersection aro depicted in alteratives
A-C with the most feasible improvement expected in the near future would be Alt. A.
. ,, .-1/1 . ., ., ,,, , . .
•
- . ,,,,,Acp(
1
1/ 1 144
�. n N
,, ;:.: . ., {ram ,f(°r y ,
... -ems / \tie ......,,.,,,,, i•
;5 B ,.emu u.. . .
/J� j)
•
Rusted Office Site -4- Sept. 2, 1.975
•
PUD PLAN
llustad Development Company has evaluated numerous alternative land use
types for the 26* acre site. The proposed concept developes 16.4 acres of
the level hill top as industrial and office . The industrial and office
buildings work well with the natural features offering economical non-resi-
dential sites with exposure to the Purgatory Creek Valley.
As a buffer to-the Creekwood single family homes east of Creek Knolls
Road,thc plan proposes 26 townhouse units, anticipated to be rental.
Concern by the Watershed District regarding the location of the northern
units in relation to Purgatory Creek requires moving the units south & drop-
ping the total member of units. Some concern of Creekwood residents
about the desirability of rental townhouse units along Creek Knolls Road
has lcd the developer to explore other housing typos for the 5±acre site,
In my opinion the developer has chosen reasonable land use types given the
surrounding land uses and natural site character. Refinement will be
necessary to insure the compatibility with neighboring homes, transportation
impravements,and creek valley preservation.
PUD Plan Elements
The Planning staff has concern in these areas:
1. The proposed .81, acre sign site should be dedicated to the
City for open space purposes along with the flood plain and
slopes. Exclusion of the .8 acres will, in my opinion,only
create the temptation for highway commercial development.
The terms of the dedication could allow the temporary use of
' the site for the "Bluffs Riga" for a period of years. Commer-
cial development of the site would create traffic safety and
aesthetic problems. •
2. The condominium or "Homeowner's Association" approabh
to multiple in usttritajoffice ownership is a new idea . •
Many questions must la worked out that involve such basics
as; financing, sales agreements, cundominum association
documents, City responsibilities, etc.
The City in approving the proposed concept may not be ,
able to evaluate the plan under our existing :coning ordinance,
rather some of Ordinance 135's standards will be appropriate
and others not. The plsaning staff suggests that when the
industrial pork plan is ready for zoning&platting that, where t
nended,speci-1 standards be incorporated as provided for in
Sec . 11, PUT), of the Zoning Ordinance.
(1 EE
Planning Staff i:eport-Hustad Office PUD -5- Sept. 2, 1975
3. The 60,000 sq. ft. of office use is basically well designed •
and fits the site well. However, the planning staff must raise
a question regarding the office use and its impact upon the
ability of landowners to develop the high value/high service MCA.
Also, existing and planned public investment in utilities,
roads,and storm sewer can only be paid for by development
of the MCA.
In my opinion , two alternatives may be suggested - —
a. restrict ail'major office development to the MCA except for
• professional office uses, (doctors, etc. ), which might
locate in"activity centers."
b. allow limited office development within industrial areas
and high noise . corridors (freeways, airports ) , provided
the building type is of a low intensity ( 1 or 2 stories ).
•
From a planning perspective either alternative will work, the question is
one of City Policy affecting the MCA. Many private and public
commitments have begun in the MCA and the financial impact upon the total
community is not clear if the MCA does not develop as planned. •
SITE PLAN ANALYSTS •
Auto Accese
3 access points to Co. Rd. 1 are proposed over 300 feet apart.
No locations are indicated for the existing driveways of the industries
south of Co. Rd. 1 . Final design should allow the access points to
line up forming "T" intersections with those existing driveways.
a
Access to Co. Rd, 1 should meet or exceed the minimum standards of
Hennepin County Public Works Department. •
On-Site Circulation j
The plan I3roposcs private internal streets and parking area owned and
maintained by the businesses similier to a townhouse project. The private
street system Is clearly defined at the entrance but becomes only a normal
parking ,recess road. The average traffic generation per day would be about
1,100 trips spread meinly on the east and middle access points. Most
traffic (approx. 80ii ), is during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Revising the intcrnol road circulation plan to clearly define the Main i
circulation routes frnnn the parl:iug access roads should be done to
increase safety and traffic handling capacity.
116
•
•
Planning Staff Report-I-lusted Office Site -6- Sept. 2, 1975
Pedestrian System
The Ilustad Plan should include a primary bike/hike trail along Co. Rd. 1
consistent with the Task Force Report. Also, a.connection either along
Creek Knolls Road or through the office site between Purgatory Creek and
Co. Rd. 1 is desirable. Pathways connecting to the Co. Rd. 1 primary path
should be made to the office/industrial buildings.
Parking
Ordinance 141 requires 5 parking space/1,000 sq. ft. of building for
office use , i space/1.,000 sq. ft. for warehouse, and 3 spaces/1,000
• sq. ft. for industrial uses. The proposed site plan provides 445 t spaces.
Depending upon the percentage of warehouse vs. offico,the parking appears
sufficient. Changes suggested concerning setbacks may reduce the total
parking.
In Subdivision 12.2 of Ordinance 141 ,"off street parking facilities shall
• be on the same parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve".
If the condominium approach is used chances are that the parking area will
be a common outlet owned and maintained by all owners.
Setbackpi(SSuffer
The proposed plan violates setback requirements along Co. Rd. 1 and
169. A 50 foot setback is required in I-2 Park Districts.and a 35 foot setback
in Office Districts.
Land scani nJ
The site plan should be modified to provide the necessary landscaping
along Co.•Rd. 1 and the buffer along 169, lanndscaping should be
provided to complement the parking lot shade treesand screen the parking
areas from Co. Rd. 1 and 169.
•
• r
•
sA r9lQ
•
Planning Staff Report-Ilustad Office PUD -7-
Sept. 2, 1975
PLANNING STArr Rl COMMENDAMNS
1. That a modified cite plan reflecting the concerns of the staff report
regarding the following
a. .8±acre sign site be dedicated for public open space.
b, that the road access points meet the design and loca-
tional requirements of the City Engineer and County —
Pubiic Works Department. •
c. that pathway systems be included along Co. Rd. 1 and
connecting to Purgatory Creek.
d. that the peaking spaces meet the requirements of Ord. 141.
a. that landscaping space and appropriate design be included
along Co. Rd. 1.
f. that setbeeks along Co. Rd. 1 and 169 meet or exceed
those of Ord. 135.
• g, minimize grading along slope to Purgatory Creek.
• 2. That the City attorney appmve the condominium association
documents to insure the City's interest and responsibilities
arc defined.
3. That the Pti)Concept Plan be approved for approximately
60,000 sq. ft. industrial, 60,000 sq. ft. 2 story office
buildings, and low or medium density residential (under 6du/ac ).
4. The 9± acre site be rezoned from Rural to orc District.for
the construction of two story office building as depicted on the
modified site plan dated • , Ig15.
•
5. That the open space dedication or scenic easement of the
slopes , floodplain, and sign site be completed prior to
issuance of any building permit.
6. That the 7.4 i acres of industrial and 5 ±acres of residential
not be zoned c,t, this time, rather when definite plans are
finalieed,ioning to 1-2 Park (with mcciftations ) and RM 6.5
would be aprroerietccornsistent with the PUD Concept Plan.
7. That the Ilusted Develoim ellt Corporation prepare a
preliminary plat defining the land use areas and open space
dedication.
8. Thet development of the 1st stage office or industrial begin
by September 1, 1977 or the City may reevaluate the PUD
Concept and rezoning plens.
•
DP/free 116
_ .
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF HMGHWAYS
$T.PAUL.MINN. 55155
August 29, 1975
Mr. Richard Putll'am
- Planning Director, Eden Prairie
8950 Eden. Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
•
In reply refer to: 315
C.S. 2744 (T.H. 169)
Proposed Development Review
IIuUtad Development Corporation Proposal
located in N.E. Quadrant of T.R. 169 and C.S.A.U. 1
Adjacent to Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie
Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Putnam:
We have received a copy of the above proposal for our review in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys. We suggest
further study in the location of this proposed development for the following
•
reasons. ) _
1) Tnplaco T.M. 169 is presently operating at or very near capacity.
Construction of a large development such as this one would overtax
the facilities now available.
2) District 5 is proposing signalizat:ioii and ahannelization at the
T.R. 169 - CSISB 1 intersection in 1978, subject to available funding
and Central Office approval..
Because of the steep grades approaching this intersection, however,
a sigral.would decrease rethcn than increase the capacity of the
present intersection. The signal is proposed for two o'l.her reasons:
To create gaps for cross street traffic and to reduce the potential
of serious accidents at this location.
3) The Hustad proposal would include a folded diamond interchange to t.,
alleviate this traffic problem. This solution would likely be
adequate but has several drawbacks.
a
a) A considerable amount of right.of-way would have to be pur-
chased.
b) Tie Metropolitan Council staff is of the opinion that this
proposal is contrary to the approved Eden Prairie Comprehen-
1.
AN EQUAL°PPM:W .1TY EMPLOYER
Mr. Richard Putnam
August 29, 1975
Pago 2
•
•sive Plan. (This plan shows rerouting T.H. 169 to the east
of its present alignment and rerouting CSAH 1 north of its
present alignment - both would cross the triangle proposed for development, yet neither is shown on the layout). This
would necessitate adjustment of the Eden Prairie Plan and •
'new approval from the Metro Council.
c) T.H. 212, after relocation on its new proposed corridor,
would remain classified as a principal arterial, and inplace
T.H. 169 would be dropped to a somewhat lesser classification.
Because of its low priority and in light of the limited fund
available for highway construction, the major expenditure needed
for an interchange at this location could not be justified.
d) Relocating c:An 1 to the,north may cause environmental
problems with proposed Staring Lake Park.
In summation, since this development will likely require a'higher level of
service than T.H. 169 can provide for the foreseeable future, it may be
..better located in the Major Center where a higher level of service is avail-
. able.
•
As you may be aware, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act requires that
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) review any project which has the
potential for significant environmental effect. We suggest that you contact
the EQB, 100 Capitol Square Building, St. Paul 55101,-to determine if the
. project proposed in relation to this plat review comes under EQB jurisdiction.
If you have any questions in regards to the above comments, please contact
Mr. J. S. Katz, District 5 Layout, Research and Development Engineer or Evan d '
Green, Project Supervisor, at 545-3761 ext. 50,or 19. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.
•
Sincerely,
•
11�ka:3.-1.1.4)
C. E. Durrill
Assistant Commissioner
Metropolitan Region
cc: John Boland
Metropolitan Council
Attn: Chancey Case
Gary Backer
Hennepin County Sur-:yor's Office
approved •
• _ August 25, 1975
Planning Commission Minutes -5-
C. /lusted Development Com n , request for an office, industrial, and
residential PUD on a 26 acre parcel located south of U. S. 169, and
• west of Creek Knoll Road, and north of Co. Rd. 1 .
The plrnner reported a bridge over U.S. 169 seems unfeasible, and
suggested an alternative might be realigning Co. Rd. 1 through the
Drive-in .
•
Sorensen asked if Hustads had responded to the watershed district's •
letter. Mr. Bonner replied they are confident that further meetings with
the watershed district will resolve the problems.
Motion:
Meyers moved,Fosnocht seconded, to continue the item to the September
8th agenda. The motion carried unanimously.
i
• t
II�� _ Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
ot.\:- 8950 COUNTY ROAD 04
v F_DEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343
i
�4 ,
— ® :as '•� '•,,. ,•>r? August 6, 1975
mow ` 1
f
i
•
Mr. Richard Putnam
• ' City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road '
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
RE: Hustad Office Site '
Dear Mr. Putnam: 1
The engineering advisors to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District i
have reviewed the development proposal for the Hustad Office Site as submitted
to the District. The following Watershed District policies and criteria are
applicable to this project:
1.. The townhouse located in the northeastern corner of the development S
is immediately adjacent to the flood plain of Purgatory Creek. Due
to the proximity of this townhouse to the flood plain of Purgatory
•
Creek, it is likely that fill will have to be placed into the
Purgatory Creek flood plain. If fill. will be placed in the flood
}lain, detailed plans showing the extent of this fill must be i
submitted to the Watershed.District before the project can be approved.
The Watershed District also notes that the proposed townhouse in
the northeastern corner of the development is within AO feet of t
the centerline of Purgatory Creek. It is the District's policy that
no structure be built within 100 feet of the centerline of the stream.
During a meeting between the Watershed District's engineering advisors
and the developer, Mr. William Bonner of Hustad Development Company, i
indicated that the townhouse adjacent to the flood plain and within i
100 feet of the creek would be moved to comply with the District's
set-back requirement. This, would also likely remove the townhouse
• from the pro inuty of the flood plain and may remove the need.to fill .
within the flood plain. The Watershed District is awaiting a revised 1 •
development plan showing the change in this townhouse location and
•
will comment after receivieg the revised plan. i ,
2. The board of Managers is concerned about the itn+,act of surface runoff
from the completed project on Purgatory Creek. As shown on the pre-
liminary utility plan, the storm sewer system outlets 30 to 50 feet k `
above the creek. This would result in erosion between the development
it
Mr. Richard Putnam i
Page 2
August 6, 1975
and the creek and is unacceptable. A storm sewer system from the
development to Purgatory Creek must be provided. In cases where i,
erosive velocities are present, energy dissipation will he needed W
at the outlet of the storm sewer system. In order to remove oil
• and inorganic solids inherent in runoff from a development of this
type, consideration :should also be given to providing a storm water —
settling basin.
3. A grading and land alteration permit must be obtained from the
Watershed District for this project. A grading and land alteration I
permit application must be accompanied by plans and specifications
showing erosion control measures to be used for the project. Due t
to the size of the project and the very steep topography in the j
area, consideration should be given to only altering a portion i
of the site at one time and to the timely restoration and revegetation
of the areas. A restoration schedule should be submitted for restoring
the altered areas of the development.
• 4. A recent study of the Purgatory Creek trail corridor completed in
cooperation with the City of Eden Prairie indicated that much of the 1
northern one-half of the development should be retained as en open I
space corridor along Purgatory Creek. According to the development
proposal, a portion of this open space corridor will be developed with
townhouses and this may conflict with the intended use of the corridor.
The Managers request that the City staff define the desired location y
for a future trail through this development so that the extent of the
conflict between the trail corridor study and the development plan can
be better evaluated.
hThank you for the opportunity to comment on this development at an early
dote. If you have any questions about the District's comments, please contact
us. •
Sincerely, 1
I
Pu......)-3,1L9-
Allan Rebhard
• BARR ENGINEERING CO.
. Engineer for the District
- ' AG:ps i
. cc: Mr. Frederick Richards
Kr. Conrad Fikness
Hr. Willis;; Bonne'
A !
• r
y 4
OW !
q;
. .
ip:
• approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 28, 1975
IV. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS. •
A. Hustad Development_Company, request for a office, industrial and residential
PUD on a 26 acre parcel located south of U. S. 169, west of Creek Knoll
Road , and north of County Road 1.
Mr. Bill Bonner presented theproposaland reviewed the natural Iand forms and
uses in the site. He reported that Hustad Development Company conducted
an informal meeting with the surrounding landowners on Saturday and the
primary concerns expressed were; traffic on Creek Knolls Road and the char-
acter of the residential units.
Mr. Nemec,9449 Creek Knoll Rd,asked if the northern portion of the proposal
would be parkland and what assurances there were it woulddremain parkland.
Bonner replied that the northern area would be dedicated to the City and
the slope is proposed as scenic easement, Sorensen informed Mr. Nemec
that that the parkarea would be secured by a legal document.
Mr. Nemec then expressed his approval of a cuI-de-sac for Creek Knolls Road
at the bridge. •
Mrs. Nemic asked if the sign at 169 and Creek Knoll Road was on Highway
property or Hustad property' Bonner responded that the land belongs'
to Hustads.
Mr. Nemec then expressed concern about the present traffic problems at 1 and
169 and future traffic. increases. Bonner stated that hopefully Co. Rd. 1
would cross over 169. The planner believed such an improvement would be
beneficial , but neither the State or County Highway Departments have such
plans in their 5 year programs.
Harold Schaitberger felt the industrial shown on the zoning map was inaccurate
on the Hustad proposal. He expressed the desire to have his property west
of the Hustad proposal zoned industrial along with the Hustad request.
The planner felt it would be possible and suggested Mr. Schaitberger apply for rezoninc
Meyers asked if the residential units would be rental. Bonner replied he
was unsure, but would know in a couple of weeks.
Meyers suggested the possible future approval should include upgrading of
Creek Knolls Road and 169/ 1 intersection.
Sorensen inquired why 3 accesses were proposed along Co. Rd. 1 . Bonner
replied the 3 accesses would distribute the traffic east or west more efficiently.
Motion:
'Fosrocht moved, Boerger seconded, to continue the request to the August 11th
meeting and refer it to the staff and Park & Recreation_ commission .
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
MINUTES
EDE.•N PRAIRIE I'IJNNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 8, 1975 7:30 PM City Nall
III. ByPORTi'ANP RT:(Y)RihfEIlDATIQNS,
A.Olyn plc Dills Phase i fie request for development stage approval, rezoning,
and•prelnnfnary plats p proval for 20 single family and 19 atrium units. The —
site is located south of the Trail's townhouses and west of Pranlo Road.
The planner stated he felt the concerns of the Planning Commission had been
met by the proponent.
Bruce Knutson summarized the changes such as; relocation of the totlot,
pathways, etc .
•
Sorensen asked if the pathways would be connected to the City system and if
they would be usable by the public within reasonable limits. Knutson responded
affirmative. The planner informed the Commission the City Attorney has been
asked to develop easement documents for trail use.---
Lynch moved, Meyers seconded,to continue discussion of third phase of
Olympic Bills after Mr. Hustad's presentation. The motion carried unanimously._
Meyers questioned if the easement as suggested in the staff report could
be extended to include the ridge. The planner felt it was possible although
total dedication , in his opinion, scorned unfeir. 1
Boerger felt total course dedication wus unporportionai to the size of the
d evolopwent.
Motion_
. Lynch moved, Pocrger seconded,to recommend rezoning to RM 6.5 permitting
• single family detached and double atrium units as per the staff report of July
21, 1975,and September 2, 1975,and the engineer's report of September 11 th
with the following changes to f., g., and Summary in the Sept. 2 staff report
f, . . . We believe that open space restrictions on the 15th green,
tee, fairway; 7th tea area; the 6th green area, and the ridge
urea from the 9th green to the vrestcrn property line would insure
significant open space directly related to the proposed 28 i'
acre apartment, single family, and atrium units.
g. . . . The northern atrium unit shall be exchanged with the single
family lot meth of the entrance road as far south as possible to
provide space for the trail to negotiate the hill and not totally
•
block the view of the existing Trail's townhouses.
That constn,ctlon begin within 2 years of the City Council's final
rezoning action or the City shall have the right to consider rezoning
Olympic Hills Phase III back to Rural.
Amen<#mnnt
Ivicyere moved, Sorenson seconded, to amend the motion to read-the northern
unit (..ingie family unit at the entrance) t.hail be combined cr exchanged to
increeee the setback distance(tor•an additional 20 feet atlunst) , of the unit I,
at ramie Rond. The amendment did not pass, (tioargor&Lynch voted nay).
I' Vote:
Tho motion carried unanimously.
WI
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CHECK LIST FOR REVII-MING PROPOSED
LAND DEVELOPMENTS .
DATE: snpt A, 1975
DEVELOPMENT: Olympic Hills a Jhase 3 L.D. NO. 75- -l3
LOCATION: 1„[2 Segtion 24 South ofF.-W Parkway, Wept of F'7 il1.o Rd,
REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS
ZONING Ac;Rr:EMENT: Olympic Trills MID RES. II.
DEVELOPER: Olmpic Hills Golf_glpb
ENGINEER/PLANNER: Midwest Planning
Olympic Hills PUD booklet for Phases 1, 2, 3,
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIE'r:: Informational supplement dated 7/3/75
Revised preliminary development and utilityppris dated 6/14/75
•
PROPOSAL: PUD Development approval, Resoni RM 6.5) and Preliminary Plat
Approval for 34 units Ofl JDprox. 15 acres ---- -
1. Laud Development application filed and filing fee & da;>osit Raid Yes
Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District
Yes
2. Processing Schedule: -
• a. Planning & Zoning Comrtiission Preliminary •V28/75
9/8/75 .
b. Park & Recreation Commission •
c. Human Rights Commission
•
• • d. Planning Commission Public Rig.
•
e. City Council. consideration
. • f: Watershed District
3. Typo of Drvclelmunt Residential
4. Environment-al assessti nt or impact statement required per Environmental
Impact Policy Act of 1073:
No •
• /h75
•
- 2
5. Present Zoning lisu:al
6. Proposed Zoning _ lap 6.5
Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes •
List variances required & setbacks that apply:
Lot size and set-back variances necessary to mee RM 6.5 requirements
7. Project Area 15 acres Density 2.3 units/acre
8. Public open space and/or cash dedication Refer to Planner's Report 7/21/75
. Construct bituminous walkways and $8,750 cash deposit
Private open space Refer to Planner's Report 7/21/75
Trail systems & sidewalks As shown on 8/14/75 revised site plan
Range of lot sires Not submitted. By scaling, most lots are less than 13,OQ0 sq. ft.
9. Preliminary Building Plans Refer to PUB booklet -
10. Representative Soil Borings Not submitted
11. Street System
A. Access to adjoining properties O.K.
B. Type R/w Roadway (Rack to Back of Curb)
Private
driveways, no 28
parking ----- Post no parking signs
Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28. Required
(not over 1000') &
minor residential
Cul de sacs 300 78 (no island)
• 120 98 (with island)
•
Thru Residential (collectors) •
& Cul de. sacs
over 1000' 60 32
•
•
/176
•
. i
.
NSA 70 44 •
Parkway 100 28 divided -
Piro Road • 12
Pathways
12
Street grades-lax. 7.5%, min. .5%
Concrete curb & gutter requited, Required
strength asphalt design
C. Check City's comprehensive street system. N.A.
Developer. builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication
D. Street Names -- try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional
names on cul de sacs having eight or less O•Xs
_ . Check list of existing street names.
E. Private parking lots--86-32 cone C&G and Req f ll depth asph. design
F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs
Developer Purchase - City Installs
Conforms
12. Parking: (See Ord. (4141)
13. Utility Systems:
A. Sanitary Sewer Available - rcqui.Yes extension bdevleo r _
1. Service Detail Q"_service
erty Detailed Plans required
2. Service to adjoining 7 1 tro.
Available - requires extension by developer
H.. 1:zoLormain:
1. Check serv.iec Design (20 psi at highest fixture) Sufficient
• ' 2. Hydrant location-Fire l.sspector •Pendzn5 final der�icln .
• 3. Valuing Pending final. desn
4. Compliance with fi-e code Pandit, final deli
5. Service to .-d_acent property Loonilw of t±t�rrmain rwithin .
dcveloZ�s'�'1tt required
11
- 4 -
C. Storm Sewer & Grading ___.____.Storm.Sewer._Plan-mot-submitted---
1. Sediment control plan Required - • .
2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots N:A.
3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds _ Required
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Minimum grading proposed —
5. Arrows showing drainage Not submitted
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties Not submitted
•
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 Required
R. Sod drainage swalcs and steep slopes Required
9. Flood plain encroachment None
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 sulxnitted to MUD or Henn. Co. if abutting a
• State or County I3wy.
N.A.
•
16. List special a senneents levied and pending
Neill Lake Storm sewer;
• trunk sewer & water; Franlo Road improvement
17. Re-zoning agreement required
Developer's Agreement required Yes
Title
Title Ah:;Y.ract for Altorr..ry`s review
Not required
•
/ gig
PLANNING STAFF Rf.PORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: September 2, 1975 •
PROJECT: Olympic Hills Phase 3
LOCATION: -West of Tranio Road and South of The Trails townhouses
REQUEST: Third phase approval of the Olympic Hills PUD, rezoning
to RM 6.5,and preliminary plat approval.
REFER TO: Olympic Hills PUD Brochure
Phase 3 brochure
Staff Reports dated July 21, 1975
Engineer Report
Sap).•
. The planning staff has reviewed the revised site plan as to its conformance
with the recommendations of the filly 21, 1975,staff report and Planning
Commission suggestions.
a. Totlot
The play area has been moved to a suitable location
serving the Phase III area.
b. Lot size
The lots along Franio Road have been expanded to permit
200 + foot deep lots. The double units on the north end
of the project still have about 40 feet to the right-of-way
' and"80 feet to the road.
c. Trails •
Design along Franio Road will be to trail standards of the
Bikeway/Bikeway Report and constructed by the developer
during each phoso.
The internal trail has been moved to the street system as a
"sidewalk " rather than along the golf course. This realign-
moat provides better access to the residents, more privacy :
for the homes and access to the totlot. Some detailed design
will b: needed along the north boundary where the trail
rune down a 20g. hill.
lr39
•
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
•
. DATE: September 2, 1975
4
PROJECT: Olympic Hills Phase 3
I_rOCATION: ."Jest of Franlo Road and South of The Trails townhouses
REQUEST: Third phase approval of the Olympic hills PUD, rezoning
to RM 6.5,and preliminary plat approval.
REFER TO: Olympic hills PUD Brochure
Phase 3 brochure
Staff Reports dated July 21, 1975
:,ria' ry Engineer Report
SapT. `Sf
. The planning staff has reviewed the revised site plan as to its conformance
with the recommendations of the July 21, 1975;staff report and Planning
Commission suggestions.
a. Totlot •
The play area has been moved to a suitable location
serving the Phase III area.
b. Lot size
The lots along Franlo Road have been expanded to permit
200+ foot deep lots. The double units on the north end
of the project still have about 40 feet to.the right-of-way
and 80 feet to the road.
c. Trails
Design along Franlo Road will be to trail standards of the
Hikeway/Bikeway Report and constructed by the developer
during each phase.
The internal trail has been moved to the street system as a
sidewalk " rather than along the golf course. This realign-
• ment provides better access to the residents, more privacy
for the homes.and access to the totlot. Some detailed design
will be needed along the north boundary where the trail
runs down a 1.0:", hill.
tl�i� •
/
Planning Staff Report-Olympic Hills Ph 3 -2- Sept.2, 1975 e
•
A short walkway link should be included along the entrance
drive from the Franlo Trail to the totlot and internal trail.
The legal easement documents should permit public use
of ell trails subject to reasonable rules established by'the
homeowner's association.
•
d. Wildlife Corridor
The revised plan provides a 150' outlot wildlife corridor
between phases li& Ill. Natural plant materials (shrubs
and trees), should be planted in the open areas.
• An casement document should be work out with the City
attorney specifying the permanent open space use,
ownership, and maintenance responsibilities.
1.
. 1
e. QponSpnce Commitment t
No new information has been submitted changing the
recommendations of the July 21 staff report which suggested I
about$ 20,000 cash in lieu of land dedication consistent 1
with City policy. •
77
• t
f. Permanent Casement for Golf Course
The City Council:untie sted that the entire golf course be subject
, to a permanent open space easement. The Planning Staff€review t
of this requirement recommends that such open space restrictions t
only apply to areas adjacent to housing sites, not the entire golf I
course at this time. We believe that open space restrictions on
the 15th green, tee, fairway; 7th tee area;and 5th green area, tk
would insure a significant open space directly related to the
proposed 28 t acre apartment, single femtly, and atrium units. 1
F
Later housing phases around the golf course may also Include t
r
such open space areas, thereby insuring the open space character. s
•�' : r. i/ / ���
ram_ /// ,
-'+lam , `\ \ i
la. r r �.` ,J'�-y . - '` _ ••
.
\ / i .
l - ) t. � •\S (` -- I f _ems r
r1, - -,, \ f -if,,, ,yA t� r ,
,••::;,•, •• -,:.:?•• s . ..k ....:.:,-,., , : iv r'-;., 1 — •-7:--j, ----_1!--i,... '---.t.--/.1-:'''\ •*,'.---Js'•'-',
II'
ii
Planning Staff Report-Olympic Hills Ph 3 -3- Sept. 2, 1975 l'
w 1 �'� i i.`ij t
1\
•
-Z ` L 1...._,1 ,.i• i ;-Lao , 1`1.0..0J .
%
•
fci + ,i -:- ti c o, 1'
. ....
.,..
,, „,.., , ,,„ ,,,,,,....... ,,,.., , ...,.. , ,,,,,.„ ,,,,:::-.,, ,
7-
.,,...„
r i� !- _�'_. .t 4..., • It lrr r� \ \1.:�..9 3 ,,,'�f' h'd•<a
T1 J ;tom A 5.d
P\ t 1 ' 1 i F
g. Lot Plan ,
The lot at the end of the north cul-de-sac has been removed.
The north atrium unit has been sited in front of the Trail's
townhouse units. Because of the size of the atrium units a
single family unit might be better suited for this location.
' The northern unit should be moved as far south as possible
• to provide space for the trail to negotiate the hill and not •
totally block the view of the existing Trairs townhouses.
•
h. Setbacks
The plan is to permit detached and attached single-family
units in a zero lot line concept. The side yard setbacks will
be regulated by fire codes for detached and attached dwellings.
Front yard setbacks will not apply since the streets are pri-
vate without public maintenance. The parking areas in front
of the garages should hi no case be less than 25 feet from
the building to street curb.
SUMIVIAl:Y
The planning staff recommends rezoning to KM 6.5 permitting single family {
detached and double atrium units including the terms and conditions of the '
Planning ?teff Reports of July 21 and September 2, and the Engineering
report of July 22, 1975.
r
Approval of the preliminary plat for 29± acres {21 single family , 34 .
•
atrium units, and 49 apartments ), contingent upon the Engineer's i .
report of try°±, and the staff report of Sept. 2.
That construction begin within 2 years of the City Council'n final rezoning
action or the City may consider rezoning the Olympic Hills Phase 111 site
back to Rural.
DP/jme
•
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 28, 1975
•
C. Olympic Wills Phase III request for development stage approval, rezoning,
• and preliminary plat approval for 20 single family and 14 atrium units.
The site is located south of the Trails townhouses and west of Franio Road.
The planner informed the commission the wildlife corridor in the
revised plan did not meet the concept approval of 150' and would need •
revision. •
•
The planner said the staff recommends rezoning approval subject to the terms
of the staff report and reviewal of the open space corridor use and maintenance
agreement' by the City Attorney. The planner suggested the•preliminary plat
approval be withheld until the revised plan is submitted.
Knutson said they would be submitting the revised plan which will conform
to the staff report recommendations. •
•
Peerick suggested the City Attorney also review the homeowner's agreement.
Sorensen inquired If the 150' corridor was intended to be lot line to lot line,
or building to building. Knutson believed the original approval was building
to building. The planner said the City Attorney , developer, and staff
would work out an agreement before final platting.
Lee Johnson, The Preserve, asked if the southern property line is near the •
location of the sanitary storm sewer line. The planner believed they occurred
. in the same general location. -
Motion:
Schee moved, Lynch•seconded, to continue the hearing to the August 11th
meeting at which time the revised plan would be submitted, and the staff
• and developer would work out the sewer location, open space dedication,
•
• totlots, house placement, the size and method of protection of the wildlife
corridor, straightening of the trails along Frank), and review the homeowner's
association agreement. The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
118.
•
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CHECK LIST 1OR REEVIEWING PROPOSED
LAND DEVELOPMENTS •
DATE: July 22, 1975
DEVELOPMENT:DEVELOPMENT:DEVELOPMENT:T:, Olympic Hills - Phase 3 L.D. NO. 75-2-13
LOCATION: S4 Section 24 - South of E-W Parkway, West of Franlo Rd.
REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS
BONING T.t=1ttNENr: Olympic lulls POD RES. 1I.
Olympic Hills Golf Club
ENGINEER/1'LENER: Midwest Planning
Informational Supplement
DOCUMENTS SiSRAtI'PTI�a) FOE REVIEW: --"
PROPOSAL: POD development approval, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat approval
Yee
1. Land Development application filed and fiiiag fee & deposit paid
Yes
Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District
2. Processing Schedule:
a. Planning & Zoning•COa ission Prei iearnary 7_7R-7ci
b. Park & Recreation Commission
c. Human Rights Commission -
d. Pl>tnning Commission Public Hrg. -
e. City Council consideration --
f. Watershed District •
3. Type of Development R,sidential
4. l7,viroiumC at a1 assessment or impact statement required 1xr Environmental {
haled. Policy Act of 1973:
No
•
lla •
_. _
I '
5. Present Zoning Rural
6. Proposed Zoning Al_2,5
Consistent with approved Y.U.A. or Comp Plan? Yoem •
List variances required & setbacks that apply: Nortp_rets,
7. Project Area 15 acres aensity 2.3 unis.siacre
8. Public.open space and/or cash dedication Refer_to_planners report
Private open space Refer tq.plannersreport 7-21=25
Trail systems & sidewalks pr...9..m.L.d
Range of lot sires _ LigtEllbMitled
9. Preliminary Building Plans Refer to no booklet
10. Representative Soil Borings Not submitted
11. Street System
• A. Access to adjoining properties N.A.
R/W Roadway (Pack to Pack of Curb)
Private
driveways, no 24
parking Post no parking signs
Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28.
(not over 1000 ) &
minor residential
Cul dc sacs 100 78 (no island)
120 98 (with island)
• •.•
Thru Residential (collectors)
& col de sacs
over 1000 60 32
• • •
- 3 -
lSA 70 44
Parkway 100 28 divided _—
Firs Road 12
Pathways 12
Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5%
Concrete curb'& gutter required, •
Deep strength asphalt design j21ire
C. Check City's comprehensive street system.
Developer 'bsilcls 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication ly A
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. . p,y,. •--- .
E. Private parking lots--BC-12 cone CCC and full depth asph. design
Recqu i red ,_---
F. Street Signs-Davcloi er or City installs DevelgLe+
12. Parking: (See Ord. ii141) Conforms
1.3. Utility Systons:
A. Sanitary Sewer Availahle - reouirea extension by developer
1. Service Detail 4" service
2. Service to adjoining property Detailed Plans required
Ts. Watermain: Available requires extension by developer
1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) Sufficient
2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Pending l'•inal Design
3. Valving ren:iinq final design--_
4. Compliance with fire code Pending final design
5. Service to adjacent 7s operty . looping of oatei.main within development
rc uircd. __
•
C. Storm Sewer & Grading . -.Storm-Sower.-Plan--net-Submitted
1. Sediment control plan Required
2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots N.A.
3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Required
•
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal ^minimum grading proposed
5. Arrows showing drainage Not submitted
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties Not submitted
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 Required
Required
8. Sod drainage resales and steep slopes Req
9. Mood plaii encroachment None
1.0. Watershed District approval Required —
11. DNR approval N.A.
A. Natural Gas & Telephone underground required
E. Electric (underground) required
14. Street Licj]rtr: & On-Site Lighting
required
15. Preliminary plat to 1x^ submitted to SUD or Venn. Co. if abutting'a
State or Ccsinty Hwy.
N.A.
Neil Lake Storm Sewer ( pendi.ng
16. Lint special asses.ments.lev;ed rind pending — -- -
$20,037.5 : trunk sewer & water $G5,260.: E'ranlo Road :improvement ( pending )
$7440.
Yes
il7. Re-soni.ng agreement required _ ---
Yes
Developer's Agreement. required
Title Abstract for Attorney's review
aaa
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: July 21, 1975
PROJECT: Olympic Hills Phase 3
LOCATION: West of Franio Road and South of The Trails Townhouses
• REQUEST: Third phase approval of the Olympic Hills PUD,
rezoning to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat approval.
• REFER TO: Olympic hills PUD Brochure
Phase 3 Brochure
Staff Reports dated
A. Conformance with PUD.
The Phase 3 proposal reduces thu density from townhouse development
to single family detached and attached homes. The configuration is
hasci.al.ly the same with a modification of the road system. The land
area proposed is approximately the same as the original PUD . •
13. Site Plan Analysis.
l.. Grading arid \Tecretation
The propoeedPhase 3 site plan accommodates the natural features
of the site very well with no grading that would significantly
change the character of the site . The vegetation along the golf
course and wildlife area has been retained and additional plantings
will be made in the development . To accommodate the sloping
terrain walkout, tuck-under and at-grade units are proposed .
2. Colf Course Relations)_
The unit:: have been shed in relationship to the 15th tee and
6th green to provide adequate separation between the units
and the course . Grade changes from 15-25 feet combined •
with mature hardwood vegetation will provide the barrier needed
to buffer the golf course use.
3. Wild'life Corridor
The pope ed Phase 3 plan when overloyed with the Phase 2
plan does not provide the requi.cd 150 feet necessary for the
wildlife eraridor. The duplex units arc within the 150 foot
bound- ny atal the platting illustre.ted would not allow an outiot
or sep:rrule wildiile corridor. No method is proposed to
assure the protection of the wildlife corridor.
• otg7
_-.._. L
Planning Staff Report-Olympic Hills Phase 3 -2- July 21, 1975 '
The southern atrium units will need to be realigned to
the north to provide the needed open space as well as
the platting of a separate outbtas an easement allowing
permanent open space use.
4. OpenS•Pacn _
a. YIay_Arca
A totlot is proposed in the central Island surrounded
by the access road and guest parking. Due to the
_narrowness of the lots adjacent to Frank,and disadvan-
tages of locating a totlot in the middle of an auto circula-
tion route, the staff suggests that the totlot
• be moved to the location shown on the following i
sketch. This relocation would eliminate 1 single
family lot and reduce the central island (proposed
totlot), and allow greater lot depth along Franlo
Road.
,, ! I I
.. v/.; ,-1 Zi 2II
.
,,.r'= ' /
�_ ,� rr,:
c., / , --.17: :: o...„ —7.7-, - ,;1 , ; ,ii
: 1> ;.cr
f C`�1jJ L 1y }
C fc. ?I.
r- �Zl7 (, , fit'
c, 1` , , P �r ',It� �r mi"'4 J ,,.
i•.r \�� N t:1.T i f:
�� /\r�i�'q '� ;�9
S 1 A'
\,tb l�y ! lC 31 i 1
e, G ihce,. 't1l�=r- .a
Ili .
Planning Staff Report-Olympic Hills Phase 3 • -3- July 21, 1975
•
b.No public open space is proposed by Olympic Hills, pe-s.0
;,0I,
therefore the standard cash in lieu of land dedica- l U,,-u%:
ton will be used to determine the required cash ll)tit ,1„
commitment: Given the units to Phases 1, 2, +_!_-. ui.
and 3 (approximate1.y 320 residents would be spat-11 t,,...��,1��t
_ expected to the development),a cash contribution 44.1„,v'..i>r 7 cat h
t,/h-e-1.,A.11
of about$20,000 would be expected. 1€:— - I,e,e' ,r; -
• q ` � Jr-2
c. Trailways f, l� j j i e,,,,,
As required in the original PU D, a trailway along •i G L �;
Prank)Road will be constructed by the developer .t-yr, !e, . + L.,.
to conform with the primary trail standards of the ,. )V,,, ?, -., _
1974 Hikeway/Bikeway Report. The trail could be • ,;c;; t
stratgthened-out to minimize cost& provide a more 4;_ �.`._ ,t...
direct route. Trails within the site should be 1rL `,"'i
designed to connect the totlot play area with ) .. 81
some of the units and the golf course clubhouse. � ' ',-
Tho trails should be all-weather and usable by ry7 . 1,
pedestrians, bikes, and golf carts. \/r'- "'ayWel r i'
S.Building Site. -„ , tj
The site Offers extr+=ordinary high quality building sites overlooking cie ai• .J.,:(,) 1p
Anderson Lakes at the north, a small park/drainage area east
of Dank, Road on the south , and Olympic Hills Golf Course
to the west. The units and site plan maximize the views
in every direction. It is recommended that the 1 totlot loop,
previously discussed, be reduced i.n size , thereby allowing
40-80 foot enlargement of the lots along Prank) Road while still
providing the loop street and guest parking in the central island.
Elimination of the unit at the "1" intersection of the streets and
replacing it with a totlot area is recommended. If in reducing
the island size and moving the southerly duplex units north to
provide more space for the wildlife corridor , an additional duplex .
unit iu y be substituted for a single family lot along Franlo.
It is advisable that additional plantings and earth benning be
done along i•ranlo Road to enhance the privacy of the single 1
family loin
Theplatiiri;of the pr„perty should clearly indicate the common
areas and those of private responsibility. The maintenance
responsibilities rsn,i homeowners association documents should
be presented to the City attorney and approved before final
plat approval is given.
//F9 3a
Planning Staff Report-Olympic IIills Phase 3 -4- July 21, 1975
•
C. Recommendations.
1. The Planning staff recommends that the 15 acre site be rezoned to
RM 6.5 for construction of not more than 16 attached and 18 detached
single family home site as per the revised site plan dated 7/3/75.
2. That the revised site pin dated 7/3/75 conform with the recommenda-
tions of this planning staff report regarding open space, trails,
building orientation, wildlife corridor, and site development. ._
3. That the preliminary plat not be approved until it is submitted as per
the revised site plan and is in conformance with the standards
of the Engineering D-epartment.
4. That development of Phase 3 begin within two years of the date of the
published second reading of the Ordinance, or the City Council may
consider rezoning the property from RM 6.5 to Rural
DP/jmc
•
approved
•
Planning Commission Minutes -3- • - - July 19, 1975
•
•
E. Olympic Hills Phase III, request for KID Development approval, rezoning to
accommodate approximately 20 single family units and 14 atrium units, and
preliminary plat approval of Phase III of the Olympic Hills PUD,
Mr. Bruce Knutson presented the Phase 3 plan for single family type units
and stated they have incorporated the Council's and Planning Commission's
concerns' of a • path • along the eastern boundary, a totlot, and a
150 foot buffer, between phases 1 and 3 of the PUD.
Knutson stated that the land would be maintained by and be part of the
Olympic Hill's property. •
The planner asked If the lots would be conventional single family lots.
Knutson replied that the intent is to have 0 lot lines on one side, but that
other alternatives are possible.
Fosnocht asked what the price ranges of the units are expected to be.
Knutson estimated the units to cost between•$ 42,000-67,000.
Feerick inquired how many bedrooms the units would have. Knutson replied
the model units would have 2 or 3 bedrooms , and Custom designs'
would also be considered.
Sorensen asked for the purpose of the empty lot at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Knutson responded that the empty lot could accommodate a totlot or be left
• for common space.
Motion:
Boerger moved, Fosnocht seconded, to continue the item to the July 28th
meeting and direct the staff to pepare a staff repcsrt. The motion carried
unanimously.
•
to
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes Sept. 29, 1975
E.Area 5a The Preserve, requestfor preliminary platting and rezoning for 51 single
family lots. The area is located off Franlo Road south of the East/West Parkway
and east of Olympic Hills.
The plan was presented by Don Hess with questions relative to trailways and
grading and lot variances asked by the Commission. The Commission was also
concerned about the price of the lots and the need for lot size and setback variances.
Hess explained the lots would be strainer in size to those of Highpolnt
ranging from approximately 9,000-25,000 sq. ft.
Boerger and Feerick were concerned that the City was making marketing judgements
without basis when we discuss the merits of higher priced homes on smaller lots.
and that this is a market decision rather than a City preogative . They also
felt it was reasonable in the market place for today's housing market.
Motion:
Boerger moved, Feerick seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval
of the Amsden Hills 50 t lots for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with variances
In lot sizes to permit lots of 8,000-25,000 sq. ft. at a density of 2.6 du/acre, &
frontage variances less than 90 feet and setback variances as follows.
5 feet 1 story garage
10 feet 1- - 1 story houses
15 . feet 2 story or greater
,20 feet houses built on corner lots.
2.That a trailway corridor be established between the 7 acre public park adjacent
to Franlo Road connecting with the Prairie east corridor.
3.That the internal walkways provide access along Amsden Way or through the
off street trail corridor leading to the public park at Anderson Lakes and
the Franlo Road trail.
4.The Preserve work with Hustad Development Corporation to investigate
connecting the cul-de-sac street in Prairie Eist with Amsden Way for a
loop road configuration along the Lutheran Church and Preserve common
boundary.
Vote The vote was 3:2 with Fonsocht , Meyers, Sorensen voting nay, and
Boerger and Feerick voting aye. Schee had left the meeting and did not
vote, the motion was defeated.
i1O
-1 ,
•
•
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: September 19, 1975
PROJECT: Amsden 1-Iills, Area 5a of The Preserve
APPLICANT: The Preserve
LOCATION: On Franlo Road south of the E/W Parkway and east of
• the Olympic Hills Golf Course
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Stage approval for rezoning
to R1-13.5 vi t11 lot size and setback variances, and
preliminary plat approval.
•
BACKGROUND •
Area 5 a of The Preserve was approved in the 1970 PUD, (LD-70-PUD-02 ),
for single family, multiple family&townhouse development.'
The overall density for the 82 acres of residential uses
is approximately 6 du / acre . Tire • Preserve has indicated
the time schedule for site preparation to be this Fall with home construc •
-
tion beginning next Spring.
SURROUNDING USE:
•
Hustad Development Corporation's Prairie East single family subdivision is
located directly south of the Amsden Hills proposal. This subidivision
built in a 'rolling wooded area has lot sizes above 13,500 square feet.
The project has not been constructed due to lack of financing, but
has been approved through zoning and preliminary platting. •.
East of the Amsden'Hills proposed plat the property is owned by the
Lutheran Church . This property extends to County Road 18,•&et this
time there are no plans for development, ..
West of Franlo Road Is the Olympic Hills PUD , including single family, •
49 luxury muldplu, and atrium double bungalow units.
North of the Ams.I.,n Hills a:ea is a ;ow area encompassing approximately •
7 acres designated on The Preserve PUD as park/open space area. A
Storm drainruic part:: has been dug in this park area approximately 50-75 '
north of the nort.l:-:rn lot line of the Amsden Hills Plat.
•
•
_ - _ -
Z.' F
i.
-2-
Coordination of the roads and trailways of the proposed Amsden Hills plat ~
with adjacent Prairie East and other Preserve developments is important to -
the orderly and economic development of the area,
•
SITE PLAN ANALYSIS
The circulation is designed around Amsden Way as the east/west local street
through the Lutheran.Church property to Amsden Road providing access to all
of the property between Co. Rd. 18 and Prank) Road.
The property is served with cul-de-sacs from the Amsden Way loop road.
These streets are strainer in character with the streets of Creekwood by
Rusted Development. Careful.pj.acement of homes is required to preserve
• . the wooded character of the area.
Tho lot sizes proposed range from 8,900 to 25,000 sq.ft. requiring the normal
setback variances from side'yards for single family projects in planned unit
developments , those being;
5 feet 1 story garage 15 feet 2 stories or greater
10 feet 1 & 11 story houses 20 feet houses built on corner lots
Open Space System
The open space system of The Preserve should be connected to that of Prairie
East as illustrated on the following sketch -
'— i lv ° ✓ 1
C.`(i i'• -.'� ' ^-' -
t 1 , ..t
` . :-a
.!! i 1✓ \ i -c -, -_ -h i -
jr 5_.
+-r� -wr r7 a 1 e`Ii •Lam•-- t • •� . /, i
i \4�h n y f L y 5/ .
•ar i i ., k ✓,y i 1 lr ,f,.: . • .
,, i ' .rr `• !••- // / r• r. ' r'�
• •
.. t it ‘1 { !. /1•, i � lr l✓i. +�,3
ix k 1
c+ � . 3 :, ' i, ` '. , i.-- {i r\ 111 I
�� _ 1 ,j
.o.
Staff Report-Amsden Hills, Area 5a -3- Sept. 19, 1975
This connection would run to the proposed neighborhood park along
Franlo Road and from there north to Anderson Lakes Park and the
East/West Parkway ,and north/ southalong, Franlo Road connecting
to the - Preserve Center and Co. Rd. I.
a.
_ Internal trailways should he provided by either locating surfaced trails
on the back lot lines or by use of the cul-de-sac streets as trails.
There may be a need for a sidewalk along one side of the Amsden Way
if alternate trail systems are not provided.
• SUMMARY /RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The fifty + lot single family plat, Amsden Hills, is a straight forward
moderate lot size development. Homes•shoud range in price from
$ 50,000-135,000. The Preserve will be developing the streets, utilities,and
site grading with various builders building on a spec and custom built
basis.. The location in a wooded , •-killing area will require care
to protect those primary site assets . Amsden Hills will also offer
slightly different character single family lots than currently offered in
The Preserve.
Recommendations
1.The planning staff recommends that the Amsden Hills fifty lots be
approved for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with variances in lot sizes
to permit lots from 8,9 00 sq. ft. to 25, 000sq.ft , eta density of
2.6 du/acre with setback variances as follows;
• 5 feet 1 story garage -
10 feet 1 and 1- story houses
15 feet 2 stories or greater
20 feet houses built on corner lots
- 2.That a traiiway corridor he established • between the 7 acre public
park adjacent to Franlo Road connecting with the Prairie Last Corridar. •
3.That internal walkways provide access along Amsden Way or through off-
street trail corridors leading to the public part:at Anderson Lakes and the
Franlo Road Trail.
4.That The Preserve work with 'lusted Development Corporation to investigate
connecting the cul-de-sac street in Prairie Last with
Arnsden Way for a loop road configuration along the Lutheran Church and
Preserve common boundary.
DP/jrrre
11416
T7:
. - . .
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
• CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED
LAND DEVELOPMENTS
• •
DATE: g/34/7s
DEVELOPMENT: Arivvipn Hi 1 19 L.D. NO.
•
-- LOCATION: East of Franlo Road & North of ro s d PreiLlA2aAdditign . —
REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS
ZONING AGREEMENT: PUT) 70-03
RES. #.
DEVELOPER: The Preserve
ENGINEER/PLANNER: Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Inc.
DOCUMENTS SUBMII-Tr-D FOR REVIEW: Preliminary Plat and utility drawings
dated 9/12/75. Refer also to City Planner's report dated 9/19/75 - •
PROPOSAL: Developer is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and
rezoning to R1-13.5
A. 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 9/30/75
b. Park & Recreation Commission
C. Human Rights Commission •
d. Planning Commission Public Erg.
e. City Council consideration 10/7/75
•
• • n. Watershed District
3. Type of Development Single family residential
4. Environmental asses,ment or impact statement required per Environmental
Impact Policy Act of 1973:
•
No
• •
• .
•
ligq .
•
•.,
- 2. ,.,
5. Present Zoning Rural ,
6. Proposed.Zoning R1-13.5 - •
• Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes
•
List variances required.& setbacks that apply: Variance from minimum lot •
• size, sideyard setback and 2 units/acre max. density required
7. Project Area
t 18.5 ac. Density 2.8 units/ac.
8. Public open space and/or cash dedication No cash dedication proposed in lieu
- of other park, open space and school site dedication within The Preserve
Private open space Refer to Planner's Report
Trail systems & sidewalks Refer to Planner's Report
. Range of lot•sizes 8,900 sq. ft. to 17,500 sq. ft.
9. Preliminary Building Plans Not submitted
1.
10. Representative Soil Borings Not submitted - check soils at east end of Amsden Way
' I
11. Street System
A. Access to adjoining properties
Access to property located east of -
proposed division is provided through proposed Amsden Way
B. Type - Rip Roadway (Hack to Back of Curb)
-Private • •24 • • . .
. driveways, no signs parking -- ns- Post no parking g
Loading to Cul de sacs 50
Streets B, C & D
(not over 1000') &
minor residential -
Cul de sacs - 100 78 (no island)
• . • 120 98 (with island)
Thru Residential (collectors)
& Cul de sacs •
Amsden Way
over 1000' 32
s.
• II93
I
•
_ y
•
N1SA 70 44
• Parkway 100 28 divided
Fire Road 12
Pathways 12 6 •
Street grades-max. 7:5%, min. .5%
Concrete curb S gutter required, O.K.
Deep strength asphalt desigt
C. Check City's comprehensive street system: O.K.
Developer builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication
•
D. Street Names - try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional
names on cul de sacs having eight or less lotR�ired
•
Check list of existing street names.
E. Private parking lots--B6-12 cone CSG and full depth asph. design
F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs Developer Purchase - City installs
12. Parking: (See Ord. 041) N.A.
13. Utility Systems:
A. Sanitary Sewer Extension of existing utility proposed by developer
1. Service Detail 4" service required
2. Service to adjoining property Extension of sanitary sewer is •
proposed to the east property line
B. b'atermain: Extension proposed by developer ' •
' 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K. '
2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector -Fire inspector to review
3. Valving Approval pending development of final plans
4. Compliance with fire code Fire Inspector to review
• 5. Service to adjacent property O.K.
t1
•
�__ �_
:"-•
•
. • - -
. . •
. ' • \,..
•
C. Storm Sewer & Grading _ Storm sewer system proposed __________
- .
1. Sediment control plan Required . .
2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots __ _____N.A.
. .
• 3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Yes* Ileilake Storm Sewer
I
4. Avoid..7-cessive grading and tree removal Subst
• antial grading proposed
• 5. Arrows showing drainage Submitted
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties
. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water
for ponds -
• Required
7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Re ire(_ --1 _
R. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes _____ Re i__ !_e_d----_
9. Flood plain encroachment No
10. Watershed District approval " Yes
11. DNR approval . No
D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground required
E. Electric (underground) Required --------
.. . .
14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Required
15. Pre]iminary plat to be submitted to NHD or Henn. Co. if abutting a
State or County Bwy.
No
16. List special assessments levied and pending Levied: Trunk sewer & water,
$27,638. Pending: Neill Lake Storm sewer, $19,425; Lateral sewer,
. . . • . .
•
$3.754; Street improvonent, $3,720 • ,
.----
17. Re-zoning agreement required Yes
. .
Developer's Agreement required Yes •
-Title Abstract for Attorney's review -----
. .
. .. .
. . .
.... ' • • " .
. . .
. . .
• • •' . •
. , '
ii
•
D.Parkview Apartments Phases 2 and 3 , discussion of concept plan revisions for the
second and third phases from the 1972 PUD.
The planner informed the Commission the Council asked the Commission to
reccnsider the Parkview PUD and the Resolution# 505 approving the PUD --
Mr. Peterson objected to the proposed change as it would be unnecessary and
would require consideration of the assessment levied on the PUD . He also
indicated Eden Land Corporation has no plans to do anything with plias es
2 and 3 at this time.
Meyers stated she has concern relative to the density requirements listed in
Resolution 505 and that they should be changed to the guidelines of the Red Rock
Sector Plan.
Sorensen agreed with Meyer's suggestion.
Peterson said the City could have a review opportunity at a later date for
development stages , but did not seen any reason why the Planned Unit
Development should be changed.
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -9- Sept. 29, 1975
The planner pointed out the numerous occasions where specific approvals
of planned unit developments have been applied by the developers to
a specific development proposal.
Motion:
Schee moved, Sorensen seconded, to recommend revision to Resolution 505
to be drafted by the City Attorney in a legal manner which would change Res. 505
as follows: (delete 1-4, and incert the following#s land 2 )
1. Concept be approved for the 59.3 acre site with an overall
density to comply with the Red Rock Sector Plan.
2. That varied building types be used on the later phases of
the project to fit the terrain .
Vote: 5:0:1,with Fosnocht abstaining.
The question was asked if the Council would consider the 14 acre site adjacent
to Mitchell Road currently zoned Rm 2.5. The concensus of the Commission
was yes this was intended and that the Council might consider such a change.
iaa2
•
•
R:EMO
TO: Planning Commission •
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: September 19, 1975
SUBJECT: Purl;vlcvr , or Old Farm PUD
The City Council asked the Commission to consider a revision to the Old
Farm PUD, LD-71-PUD-05, to remove part or all of the City approvals
on future phases. A copy of the resolution approving the Old Farm PUD
is attached.
The Commission could recommend any of the following;
a. • Change the PUD, 71-05, as approved in Resolution505
by passing cl new resolution repealing Res. 505. Therefore,
no City approvals other than the Redrock Plan would apply.
b. Chance only some wording in Resolution 505 to meet
the desiras of the City. A resolution amending 505 would
.accomplish this.
•
c. Not alterthe existing Resolution it505. k'
RESOLUTION NO. 505
A RESOLUTION APPE071N5 T'1fl PLAlctli7)
UNIT D?:7 LP."''•1E T PLAN FOR OLD FARM, i
SI ELJ EP, DEVELOP IEI:T Co.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Eden Prairie,
Hennepin County, Minnesota •
THAT, approval be given Old Farm, Shelter Development Co. PUD
Concept Plan located on 59.3 acres on the west side of Mitchell Road
.south of Seenle }`_eight:: Road to contain an overall average density
of 10 units/acre or 593 units.
MAT, approval be given based upon recommendations in the
Planning gcpert dated March 18, 1972 and Planning Commission reconraendations
of itarch 21, 1972 as follows;
1. The concept be approved for the 59.3 acre site with an overall
average density of 10 units/acre or 593 units.
2. That varied building typos be used on the later phases of the
project to fit the terrain.
3. The approval of RP1 2.5 zoning on the phase 1, 14 acre parcel
located adjacent to Mitchell Road.
4. The approval of the phase 1, 186 unit two-story apartment
clusters as presented to the Commission.
/4203
II
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- Sept. 8, 1975
B. Request by IA'. Gordon Smith Company (Jesse Schwartz ), to install
3 retail gas pumpsin an Industrial Zone, 7920 Wallace Road.
The planner stated the Council referred the request to the Planning
Commission for an interpretation of Ordinance 135. He believed the retail
sales and self service gas pump could be considered a minor supporting use.
Lynch inquired who would manage the pump sales. Jesse Schwartz Jr ,�
responded It would be strickly self service and controlled by inner office
personnel.
The planner suggested moving the pumps to prevent traffic hazards from
possible stacking of cars .
Meyers suggested limiting the hours of the self service operation to the
hours of the warehouse ..
Lynch asked if the canopy as recommended in the staff report would be
possible. Schwartz replied it could be done , but it would be expensive.
Sorensen felt fuel pumping and storage Is related, hut one use is bulk and
the other a commercial outlet.
Motion:Lynch moved, Meyers seconded, that the W. Gordon Smith Company be
allowed to install 3 pumps as a self servtce.gasoline island in conjunction
with their warehouse building as per the Engineer's report of September
8, 1975 , and the following ; rt,tt
1. That the pump area be covered with a'material compatible with
the building providing an enclosure for the fuel pumps.
2. That price signing be limited to the roof support enclosure
and not on the roof or free-standing.
3. That signing for the self service fuel station be included on
the one permitted freestanding sign. The ortentation of that
free-standing sign shall be to t e asiiawent streets and not T.H. 5.
4. Hours of operation of the three'? pumps be limited to the hours
• of operation of the warehouse.
The motion carried 3:1 with Sorensen voting nay.
Sorensen's nay vote was based on his interpretation of Section 8, (8.1.b),
of Ordinance 135, and the traffic flow and traffic hazards that may develop.
/PO4
•
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Mayor and City Council -r-
•
FROM: .Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services A..,J.
THROUGH: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
SUBJECT: Request by Northwestern Bell to Bury Phone Cable
on Parkland Doducated byZachman in Village Woods
1st Addition
DATE: October 2, 1975
Attached is a sketch prepared by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company
showing their proposed alignment for underground cable across the
subject property. This property was received in dedication for park
and open space purposes. A preliminary landuse concept plan has been
prepared and is also attached.
We feel that the request is compatible with the park development
planning,and would suggest that the easement be granted subject to the
contingency that Northwestern Bell Telephone Company agree to remove
and rebury the cable if the City finds it necessary to grade deeper than
30 inches in this area in the process of park development.
MJ:jp
Attachment
.•
•
';',..:,.. L.•-:''c'
-•,,79:14.7,5 •
,
— •-, _ __,,,„.. .,_____,....,y txt,:,..,,,,,. ;ROAD--__._
--,..---,-.. -.---,,,-,--,• ---14.F.1c,1-11-31----- "•‘-'.1' ________,...
r:r----1.7•-•-
. I . :•.:p^i. •••
:, 1 '- i tn.%
1 -- ,
1 : -- -Nc - .-..-.7- ' •'.. :: .'', --—.;"1
.r.%>•A\ ... L.; ;.Y14'... ''? ...:' ;, .'......,-- -...!
I> 1 . e .. ,.!,. .1..., ::-I:: ,-1-* 1 .22.. 1.-,.1-:'',• '
<
•I,1 L
•.,0,.•. 1 n .• 4. /
.,..• i ...,• .., i -,,..."--; -C,.."—----•„;"i=„:.:,1,•:,7....,2 1, • tv;rfti_
a • 4 .4 -ir-‘-/'''•'.'"': .„1:,:-:::,,',:::::'
i'---tk . i i I x. ---
,i
.`. . .3'3 F._'....__.N..,.,;! " .i -i----—----5- r •:.,.'"1.1':,f,'..''''''''.;;:';'•' -;`,.r._`. , '
5 t .„ .
.:R! ,,41(.2.<4' Mit'..,7> ;-". _ __. 4!.. ,i._.. :. ,z....,-...;,7F ,0 . ,..k. .
1..'..1 i f-r•,---1--71C '''''r...,''
„._1 t;[...\..
''\.. ....
, .,,..z I, 2.) ,
. .,,e., LI , 17 i. 3 ti... .._ _/.4__ __
ne.....„, , ,, j.„,.. _,,,, r., , k1 , , ,7 4 .i.!,,,, N..., ...„:3.....3. , p •‘;•,,,,,,N31.;11.e I
lti
sr —73. ., ,.../4,...,, ...,r :;52--`:1-- .7: .
; I, g \>,/ •33. 3 4? 13
.' . ..,..9/_,.. :!. fr-1,/.'''.1".> \l'. (3:: 34/ .1' -49
-N:. I
,• .,.4 ; .s°-.--...'-.9; . 2 \i'' ... \:.s'..,,,:f..9'-
' 5 ' a."
t;
1,• 1. ,,.--:•- ' - s ;-!..,
. ------7",'1; •,::' /\,S--;:._.,\;- f,.. .1.___12__L_ x
i : /3 . ;,i,
I
„ 5 • ,...._ I
..9 4,,.t. 9 ..!/ / .,.7,..-°.N.:',./
/
:...
..4.4 '---...'./.--.. '/ ..-,s,&3•4 c ,° 1:, t 0 FA 4 Z4 r- I I,? ',,,,,,:, ,._...f r,,..J., r.
.---J,' .:43 ‘,.""' ` ',...' 't•::!/ /'', 'N.:.__....,..:_.____.;:z___3'.: • ,,,.2:.....,-;4,7 ,-';p,:t: Dzi3 a 3
. ....,:•,6,. - •i••;.,,''''''''' 42/:` 4` / .),,,,9.•9''9 T /;',711/L a i,77,''''''.-•• ,'-',7::•c':.e
.:..•,.
''''..--'-'''''.-1-.,3-..3 . , °3. t.?•••-,;, ,:c‘ ., 1'' I k di•. ,, n ,..\,.. 1 .:.,f
.._,
: , ...„ .•,. ,L„, ,,-,:z.,.: ,F
,. ......, :
.
:..1 z 4.,.. -''1 1 ' '' ' . ". :
--,::::e ,,::__S-1.:-., 7:7 •.--,4, ,., , .s.1". ,r,,r.,7, -,iit '4.7 :. .... -1'.
' i.. r ..'1.-, - '.4/1-(4 ''''',':\ , 1 I fi : **n t ' ,..';', 44 r'f, r-4,•• 44,4.4 ',4
,•"/'
'1", I'.... i-4'* ''..ii..11.Li O F.-.?,..... o -I,1 f, .;-:.'2 ..,3 ....., %., •C.....,,,,. /./ 1°1 •
(..:3<;:„.....,. ''`:-....:,.l I'l \fr: y s,,, .
1„,,
. .1..,..
f''',.:4..;-...... ..t.?• --2--;".J,:;;; .,,,. 1—Arseir
Z 'ei .•,..;;:'',..:II:2211,‘,.1x,j;• •1,:,:.: -.,..,t. ,:r 1.0,,i. ., „
. , A
-',..),1,4,74,:1\*. ."7•,441 I fry 17
• o (-) - ' - '7 74 i.-.'.'-7'.• •.1.'7..:_17,0 . c 1 \.- e'-..,,.• h -:.4
-.---- 1.13.13ECI En i EC Ci,BLC PLAc€r! 3:o'LlEr023 ,
AT TOi Ci StGi'l CZ° CAS' b7 EAS1 pRoPErry
..„.,......,....,
LINL TOTAL Li.lxHi E.36 F1E1 I
/...
. .
....:
. I . .
VMTHY!ESTERN BELL TELEPPVIE COMPANY
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE
TELEPHONE PLANT 034
• .
• I • trial Ho!RI E PAN: FROPEETY
MINNI'LECLIS.,- EDEN FRAIRIE
- •,- ,-- ES 7,sF-F,p Fin', 437 -i 1:1141.!. v.T.SOAS41 PCT. 'I Or 1 NT :'.•
CMTF C1-26-75 si
. .< .
. . 1. .
. lao6 •
. _ .
-,-,-- - -
•
.....
• I . Lc..._ I :49.! :1 C; . •
— ---±; 7---f /1 , - , tki \• k ‘ i i'ii I I; 1 —11 . • .
(...' • ti 1 ----to5E.4, \ \ \ i ; is • •
• I' I ' ' . • •
I: • ,
:: : k.., .....,,,,,...... \
. • : , ,-1 . \ ‘ • . i,..:: t i
. ,
. .f..,,--- ‹ i .: i . . . g.;„.“.....„..„,, \ 1 . ! ,. :..: ; i • .
. 1,.,;-it.4.4rr. ‘ f • ; 1 :1 1 . f
, t 1 • •‘''-.v '1 . ii ii . ' I
,f.,..., .. i ; i , I, ; it \\ t
i i 1/
• -...., .,.,. ,
, . r ,.
-.: -•_•-•-S ... ,. 1 : - . . .. . . . A : i ., q
•,': i ! — -.., ... ! i .: ! ;.: i , '',. \ . .
- ./../.. NI ! ! r - if - i.r. ,:do \ ,
- ..i.,-i :, ,. i / l'''.19 •,4Psis'd "--------
,
ill • i
/- / I i 1 , \\, • . - .
. _ i i ft i f.j i i \
,..,- • r i .\
. \ R .
\
i I 4-1 I
....---. . 1.k.......,_; . :,:r : • : I . \
i : : •
. •.
41-• : : :: 1 c•,\•:';ix',4,.... 1 ' t t 1
. \ t• -c.
.. • •• i i. 1 V . ''.3 -',t ‘ ‘. ''., • - \ •
: : :.__T ::; •
• i). - A. k \ -... . .
*.7. ..j. \ \ \\... \
.• .1. ...
• r ! 1 . •
- . •. ...... •N•.‘,:. N. 1•• .1 \ • .
. .1 ,
;1 -1 tis----------
•-••• --7-1•---..-I I••,..7,,,. e..:1 ‘... \ - II 1 ••
' 1
:..." ; • : .... I i "
f'
a .1..1 I \i ' . -I
• ‘ : ...,....a,
:::: ,... ,... : , . :
,
. „. ,, . .,,,„„e( .-J.
, —.4.. j , . ,..
.......„
.,, . .
".•i :. \ 'I; i - liratf-5 I , ff•L".1 i. ,
.. /••-•'.4..', . "l
/ ' f.1 •1•-•(,..7.:
. • /1 12'.r.<1 ';, :
•,. . \ lis,,, \ i'•,. ,.
t \/ '• / ; •• \ „ti,. i .
•
.••••-••.. • /
1. \ I//• t" 1
/
. ................*...</ 1 1 \ i "...•:.• i 1 r,
.•
...i%.• tl:Ny..1 \ II\- . :. Z\I"I,„/• /.17
, , . . .. / „ . 1...1 .
. ),. ‘--• '. .. • IA I i I \\
• I / ‘/ il N..; i •,, l'
..\ --- ---).., !
1 ,J., e-4 • •
' I i
,. 11 ''\ 4.i .. • ' I
\T \ t /I /«,...\ •.:A,li .,:', • i 't
le I i I 1 •..:.:
•
; \t •1.z 4..(/
- -r-z,.•:, .21.____•,:-: : ''.:•.\---..,,,,.„‘,:,-.•
--- i y- I. •
(...._
. . • i
. ...,. • ,::
. .,. : • .,:, , •
, . . 4,/ . ._ : /, I •: • .
, ; .... .,..,
.\, .....,, , . /..,,..y /.
•
. %,. - ......:-.„177,-X.., •A.-, \•,,_ • ' • ..••• • :: 1 . .
...\,..! .^:-.4---st,t).-...-•.4
.- --.---7.4-.-te-77-:
• '4ii,>:•:-...7..,.. &=..,,, ., n..,..: 1, • /-• • •/
'---"--v.=i:•:,71(.' --,71,,:! y,,,c... .il....0......;-,..;._ , ___.'2Lriv_,,,,,,, . . ... . ., .. .
--------- ''''---------"- .'".1 1
. .
.. .
'14-Iv fikte, En „.„F .4 •'.• / • 21.W A
• I Vit4.1.11 Cetfee ,e4.....rroc.K$' /
7 1.
: , • 0.11' . -
_ 0 • •
Li .
..........!10 •
gd7 '' - • . •
. .
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY
Cerrijird Prblic Acceslrto,Hs
t7B SOUTH PLAZA BUILDING WAYZATA BOULEVARD AT HIGHWAY tOO
MINNEAPOLIS.MIHNESOTA 954 iB
540.5BSB
•
August 28, 1975
•
The City Council •
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road •
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Gentlemen:
We are currently planning our fall and winter work program and would appreciate
an indication that we may again be invited to conduct the 1975 audit of the
City of Eden Prairie.
•
We are well aware of the budget problems of municipalities today and in the
interest of doing our part to keep expenses at a minimum we offer the following
suggestions which will reduce the audit cost.
1. Assign one employee to assist the auditors when necessary.
2. Permit the auditors to do some interim work before the end of
the year.
3. After the end of the year, wait until the 1975 work is completed
before calling the auditors. Starting and stopping the audit work
increases the cost of the audit. -
4. Permit the auditors to confirm utility receivables at November 30, 1975.
5. Have prepared schedules of special assessments and construction costs.
These are the most time consuming areas of the audit.
All of the above items will reduce the cost of the audit.
Assuming the City of Eden Prairie can accommodate the auditors to the extent
indicated above, we prepose an audit fee not to exceed a range of $4,100 to
$4,300. Should our time be less than anticipated, our fee would be reduced
accordingly.
If the City were to type, proof, print, collate and bind the report, this estimate
would be reduced $250. Involved is the typing itself, checking, lithographing,
printing, collating, binding and final review on 20 copies of some 40 pages each.
I2O
•
The City Council
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
August 28, 1975
Page Two
We are enclosing some information about our firm which you may find interesting.
We appreciate the opportunity to make this proposal. -
Very truly yours,
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY
J. Gregory i rphy, Partner
.1G8tidms
Enclosures
•
•
•
LIZA
is '
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY
1974-1975 MUNICIPAL AND'SCHOOL DISTRICT CLIENTS
Clara City
Columbia Heights
Crystal
Deephaven
Eden Prairie
Excelsior
Falcon Heights
Fridley
Golden Valley
Greenwood '
Inver Grove Heights
Lake City •
Lake Park
Lakeville •
Mounds View
Renville
Robbinsdale
St. Anthony
St. Louis Park
Independent School District No. 831 •
Forest Lake Area Schools
Independent School District No. 274
Hopkins, Minnesota
• • . Independent School. District No. 283 •
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Joint Independent School District No. 287
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(Suburban Hennepin County Vocational
Technical Schools)
Suburban Rate Authority
Minnesota State High School League
Minnesota Association of Secondary
School Principals
L.O.G.I.S. Association
(Local Government information Systems
Association)
12
GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY
Certified Pr61ic Aecswr.u,t,
175 SOUTH PLAZA nuILI)ING WAYZATA DOULEVARO AT HIGHWAY tOO
MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA L54t6
546-2555
August 28, 1975
•
•
The City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Gentlemen:
We are currently planning our fall and winter work program and would appreciate
an indication that we may be invited to conduct the 1975 audit of.the City as we
have in past years.
We propose to conduct a limited general audit and issue our opinion on the basis
of such an audit. A limited general audit is an examination which consists of a
review of internal control, accounting procedures and of the details of all
records, including subsidiary records and supporting data as to mathematical ac-
. curacy, propriety and completeness of all transactions on a test basis. The test
• examination presumes that the items selected are representative of all the
transactions.
Although a limited general audit is the one most frequently used today, it will
not necessarily discover fraud or defalcation. However, should fraud or defal-
cation exist, it may be uncovered as the result of One or more of the procedures
applied on a test basis.
As in previous years, we plan to do as much work before the year end as possible
so that we way present our report at an early date.
We have enjoyed our relationship with the City during the past years and hope
that we may be allowed to conduct the 1975 audit.
Very truly yours,
•
JGM:gmd J. Gregory Murphy, Partner
Accepted by the City of Eden Prairie
Title Date
till J
MEMO
•
TO: Mayor Osterholt and Members of the City Council
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer •
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
DATE: October 3, 1975
SUBJECT: Bids for Bituminous Overlay on
Riley Lake Road
Project STR 75-3-13, I.C. 51-281
Bids were received Thursday, Oct. 2, 1975, for bituminous overlay on Riley
Lake Road from Co. Road 1 to the west City limits. The bids received are
shown on the attached summary.
The bidding documents are set up to allow the City Council to choose the
length of project desired and either a 2" paver laid bituminous mat,
22'•wide, or a heavy seal coat using asphalt and "pea" sized cover ag-
gregate. The following table summarizes the alternates available and the
resulting assessment rates using both the front foot method and the per
parcel method. To determine the assessment rates, 15% is added to the
bid amounts for City engineering, legal and administrative services.
EST. ASSESSMENT EST. ASSESSMENT
• RATE - FRONT FOOT RATE - PER PARCEL 'r
PROJECT SCOPE LOW BIDDER METHOD METHOD
A-1 2" Bituminous Mat, Bituminous $2.25/f.ft. $1,150 per parcel
Project length 4,500 ft. .Roadways, Inc.
•
A-2 2" Bituminous Mat, Northwest $2.90/f.ft. $425 per parcel
Project length 400 ft. Bituminous Co.,
(From railroad crossing Inc.
to north) • •
B-1 Seal coating, Hardrives, Inc. $ .90/f.ft. $4§0 per parcel
Project length 400 ft.
B-2 Seal coating, Hardrives, Inc. $1.35/f.ft. $195 per parcel
Project length 400 ft.
The 2" bituminous mat will probably last 5 years without major repairs.
The seal coat will go 2 years without major repairs. During the 3rd and 1
•
•
- 2 -
5th years of the seal coat project life, an additional partial seal
coat application would be necessary. Based upon this, the 5-year cost
for the 2" mat would be approximately $22,000 and the 5-year cost for
the seal coat street would be approximately $17,000.
Because the traffic on Riley Lake Road is in excess of 600 trips per day,
it is recommended that the 2" mat will provide much more consistent and
higher level of service than a seal coat for the money invested.
•
CJJ:kh •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PROJ s.r STR 75-3-13
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
Property Owner per
Description 1975 Tax Records
Sect. 19
(2875) Joseph ri1ejsi • 9005 Riley Lake Rd. 1305' $2936.25
(3600) Howard Good 18600 Pioneer Trail 500' 1125.00
(4010)* James Thomas (P) Rt. #3, Box 106 Chaska 100' 225.00
(4412) . F. J. Schmidel 10812 Pioneer Trail 520' 1170.00
(4420)* Phillip Hill 324 W. First Ave., Shakopee 300' 675.00
(4450)* H. C. Esterhut (P) 9281 Riley Lake Rd. 120' 270.00
(4455)* J. J. Shuldhiess (P) Rt. 3, Box 105 Chaska 180' 405.00
(4460) Kenneth Schaitberger 9235 Riley Lake Rd. 1060' 2385.00
(6000)* City of Eden Prairie 35' 78.75
(6800) Jerome Jacques 9021 Riley Lake Rd. 490' 1102.50
(7250) 0n n 2825'
' 6356.25
„
Aud. Sub. Div. #372
Lot 1 Anna Tutewohl Hampton, Mn. 145' 326.75
Lot 2 Sandra L. Anderson 3013 Quarles Pd., Mpls. 290' 652.50
Lot 3 Mrs. Howard Perkins 8817 W. 35th St., Mpls., 110' 247.50
Lot 4 J. M. Kirtland 5326 Kimberly Rd., Hopkins 60' 135.00
Lot 5 Mrs. Howard Perkins 8817 W. 35th St. Mpls., 60' 135.00
Lot 6 Leonard Swedlund 19400 Hwy 7, Excelsior 560' 1260.00
* These properties would be involved in the .e00' length project '
(P) Petitioners
...
.::::.........:
/I -
• . . '
,• •
. . •
• :
•.
•
.7
1.\\I '....f.......)
•
•:• :. •
...,
i
:•••.;:;
• .• . ..
. .
-->NNN.,.......,....:„...„......1.,i _
sus.
- ._-
1...... ,.... ..,..._ -j-:•ter.rat .-
1 :AuD• „ i:::::•::::;:::.\... -1 '...•
'1(1:\ to 14v• -::••••••:•::::•::•::::•-.. „A
•:•••••::-:-...•:;-:•••••:,•:•.• -5 -.I •
(I*7
.;-.:::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::-.• '•:-;;.:, g 5 0:;._...SejNis-t—I.Le.,-5D-2- --
.1/A.
.. .
•:$
.. r:::::.\\ , .:::..i.i ;.::.:-:....i.-. .::•::-:•.:: : :•:-.: ii:::-: :'44.
...... ., ..., .. .... .. ........ ..•. •. •.•. -.
,:::'... ...:...........-...*:::::::::.::.:::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.::::..••• -
//
-:::::.:::.::.i::.:."- -:•••••-•:::•::::.::.:::::i:•••?:i ::•:::••:-.•.:ii:ii:-.:•::-. :•::::-:.:.!•::.ii:. ,;P.-r-t.s..,'Te,)
:::::::::::::•:::::::•:::::::-::::::::::•:::::::::::::::•::••:•.:•:-:••:••:••• ':A.-.
;/'
i:::::::::::::::::.......::::::::::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I\..$.•i- I
...::::::::::.:::::.::::•:::::::•:::::::•::::::::::•:::::::::::::::•::::::::::-•.•:: ,..e;.1
:.::::.:-:::::ii:::.--": :::.:.::..::•:::.•:::.:.:::.:::*.:::....:::::.::::i.: . :. : : :.:.: , ,/'
/..
:; : ...i.:•::; :•:-.:::;:-.--- : ::::.) I.1-
4//-
t-:.*:::.....•i':::.i:i:::.::: :1.. .-..--siii:.:•••.:.::::: : : :. : -.::•::: ::::).-11> et 0
. [.:::-..ii:.:M:::::iii.:•iiii.::::.1::::.ii.11:diiiiliill-iji.ii:Iiiitliiiiii:::.1;-.::'...iii:ii:.i I e i. I
. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .... •.
....:::: ::::::::::.:::::•::::f::-:::::•:::::::-:•-•:—.......-••••:••••••••-•:••-• ,
-:-.:-•:•—•:-::•::.:•::•::.::•:-.-•:••::.:•:•••,•::•:••:••:•::•::.:••:•:•:
::::::.::::::::"...::•H ::::::: :::.:::::: ::.:.:::::::::::::.::•1.----.:::.:::.:::::.:: -; ,"eT-6.,„;''
-.-.. :-.:.-:-..:.....:-..i::::::.::::.:.-..:-.....::.:-. .:::::::•:.--i -s::::::•:::.::•:::.-•::.::.:::.:. . .. - ,„if.-75-.5 •/ .r,,- g oj
i: :,2'.:: 1-i:::::::::: ::- /
i
.::::.: ::::.:-:::::::::::::::::.--:•::•::::h-i::; -.1::.:c,:_:,. . : :: ..,>,
---:••:-:•••••:-::•::::-::••••:ii...:r.:......•..:::.:: ,. :. - -- ••:,_-•:..
::::.::::.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::: :::::: ::•::;;•:& &:::77--,./.'"
•-:::::::::::•:•::.:::::::::: :•::::::::: :::::-:::::::•::::::..:.•:••-•:::::•::. .-•<
: :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::.:::::.::::::::::•:.:•":---;: //' Ct-1612-)
,. :...: --..ii:ii:i:::.:.i:.::.•- •-:.:::::::::::::::: ::::: :.*.(e..,°:`-'.:.:::;.-..?,`//,'. ,.
i
.....-----
:: :::: :-.•:-.: :: :-:-ii:,..::::*::.:-::::-::: :: ::::::-:.H.::,;,',//7 --\\ • -
...-::::::. :::::H:H:: ::::::::::::.:H:.*::::-•::.:-:::::: :: :ii--.::..),/-,f/ - 0) ' :. -----7-5:.---
•::::::-.::::::::•::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::7,,'
i_ :::::::::::::::::::::•:::::::•:::::::-::•:::::::•::::::::.:::::. ..,•:-:• . /
::::::::::::::;::::::::.::::::::::•::::::.:::::::::::.:::::::•::::.v :-
::-::••:•:-.•-•:••:•::•:•-:-::• ••••.•::•:•••• • •....
•
........i . .;:: ::::::._____:::.::::iif. :.
z ,:3- :::::::::::::::••;_;-•.*:-.-:.::: //
„.....:.......,4.÷...,71:::::•::.::::-::•:: .,,,i,'
,,-,-:---n-:--------:::::::-::::---:-::::•::•::::•- .. „
1
..;:,-.:::.::::::: ::-::::.:::::::-:: •:' • qt: 4/
.....:-.•.......••-.-::.::•::.:•::•:••:•-:•;- •.....
:::::.::.:::::::•::•:•:••::::-: •• ...:.-• „e .
D '5............:.:-•:-.:•::-:••::::•:•• .1. '
•iek' '
••••••.•••-•••••••••••••-.. ••-•
..•. • •. -. •• ••••.•
.....- 1
.-:.• ..-:\ /
/
0 '
•
0 ) N
•
----.. •
,,, /V j3
., . _
October 7, 1975
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1036
- RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 26th day of
August, 1975, fixed the 7th day of October, 1975, as the date for a public
hearing on the following proposed improvements:
I.C. 51-281, Bituminous overlay on
Riley Lake Road from Co. Road No. 1
to the west City limits.
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed
lished notice of
for the making of this improvement were giliations of
n days'
i pub
required notice and -
the Council hearing through two weekly pub
the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 7th day of October, 1975:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
Such improvement as set out in Council Resolution of August 26, 1975, •
and as above indicated is hereby ordered.
ADOPTED by the City Council on
David W. Osterlolt, Mayor
SEAL
ATTEST: .
•
John D. Franc, Clerk
•
:t.
•
• October 7, 1975
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE.
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1037
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
following improvements:
I.C. 51-281, Bituminous overly
(specify scope of work to be done)
Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those
bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to
as the
•
lowest responsible bidder,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED SY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
The Mayor and Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract-with
in the name of the City of
Eden Prairie for the improvements aforesaid by the Council
• and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the City Council on
David W. Osterholt, Mayor
•
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
•
.z.:-..
z z z. 1..,,, g •
V pi z,
,_, z 1 s. n :
z S 9
o •
in 5, U .3 .
in
. C 8 4
. • .8 -.4 ...2
0 .
g • to ,-3
t< z• ,-, 2
. ... .... z z
. .u) 4 8 14 • .
. •
•
. • H 0 0 Vi .
0 . . •
0
. . . • 0 1-4 -
• • • • Z . •
n .
.. .. .
. :
, . .
. . • .
H . ,
. . ,
. 0 .
, .
•
- 1-,(JNI Lts.‘
•
• .
•'t 1 lai rt
'N., N j'; Ns!'t y i-.•g
•
- I,4 4 g' 1.... ti.
• g" .9 :6 1
. ,
. • •_• .la A 1
...-.1. • 1 . 1
, ,... • 0 .3 :4 1 •
kA c••• •
--•rs
.,••• ` :4.....1
t.... u
•.-, t..-., 0t
b' 1
.... A 4' if z :v : •
c--_:.\I. .--"'s 1.• r. .: 1.'0 .... ;
!''V ‘'• i i
if'
1-,
4.-.. 1 .• .. • -' . . . .
• - ' ti:t 1 •
. '.1 g to' • .- 1 .•
• . - ,.,••••..„
._ '...'"•••,. ,,,
i t• l'. .
Lk. •
..,
k.,-.NC. . •
c••••
1
. C'•••• .
,....s .
i . .
. .....,,
(..... .
.
•1 ,
I
•
. . .
. . .
. .
. .
.......
. . ..
• .
. ..\N1 • -...
.C.• t..)
',
. ..... .
.
--.....0 . " .
• • . .. .
_ .
• .
• . . . .
• • .
. • .
. . . .
. . .
•
cmc•N .. .
--.....,
• . . .
• ...,,z, ,. •7•15
b..1 .
. .
. .
-.., . ... .
. . •
. e. r
. .
, . • APL/4/ &.' .
:• .
• .
. . . ..,. .
. .. ' . .
........— •
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1038
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
- OF ST. JOHN'S WOOD SIXTH ADDITION
•
WHEREAS, the plat of St. John's Wood Sixth Addition has been sub-
mitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance
Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been
duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and
the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin-
ances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat Approval Request for St. John's Wood Sixth Addition is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
• Report on this plat dated October 1, 1975.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8,
Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
•
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat {f
as described in said Engineer's Report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy
of this Resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis-
trar of Titles for their use as required by NSA 462.358, Subd. 3.
D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of teh above named
plat.
E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute •
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com-
pliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on •
David W. Osterholt, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
✓dfS
4
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT OF
ST. JOHN'S WOOD SIXTH ADDITION
TO: Mayor Osterholt and Members of the City Council
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
DATE: October 1, 1975
SUBJECT: St. John's Wood Sixth Addition
PROPOSAL: D. H. Gustafson and Associates, Inc., is requesting
approval of the Final Plat of. St. John's Wood Sixth Addition. This is a
multi-family residential plat located west of Baker Road and south of
62nd Street in Section 3.
HISTORY: Zoning to RN 2.5 was finally read and approved on March 14, 1972,
per City Ordinance No. 164.
The Preliminary Plat was approved on September 25, 1973 per Council
Resolution No. 768.
VARIANCES: A variance from City Ordinance No. 93, $eC. 8, Subd. 1,
of the
the six month maximum time elapse between the approvalApproval
Preliminary Plat and filing of the Final Plat is necessary. pP
of this variance is recommended because the developer has proceeded
with the project in a reasonable and efficient manner.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
will be available to all areas of the Plat. All streets will have concrete
curb and gutter and full depth design bituminous surfacing.
Outlot B shall be dedicated to the City to accomodate the future re-
alignment of Baker Road as anticipated when the overall St. John's Wood
Development was approved by the City. Such dedication is cxnsistent
with what has been required from other major developers whose projects
abut or encompass state and county highways and City Parkways and was
required with the Final Plat approval of St. John's Wood Fourth Addition.
Such dedication of Outlet B will-also relieve the developer from taxation
on this parcel. The Hennepin County Highway Department recommends the
dedication of Outlot B.
PARK DEDICATION: Other than Outlot B above described, there will ha no land
dedication for publ?c park or open space purposes within the Plat. A
reasonable cash contriubtion in lieu of land, per City Ordinance No. 230,
a�:
• e
- 2 -
•
can be based on 15% of the assessor's full and true value of the land
being subdivided, as previously required under Ordinance No. 93. This
contribution would be $1,395, based upon the land area of the Plat, ex-
cluding Outlot B.
BONDING: Sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter
and paving have been completed by the developer, therefore bonding for
utilities will not be required. A landscaping bond will be required.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of St. John's Wood Sixth Addition, sub-
ject to t1ie contents of'this report and the following:
1. Approval by the Hennepin County Highway Department.
2. Receipt of fee for City Engineering services in the amount
of $240.
3. Satisfaction of cash payment in lieu of park dedication re-
quirement.
4. Dedication of Outlot B to the City
5. Bonding for landscaping.
•
1
Public Works Phone 935.3381 320 Washington Av.South,Hopkins,Minnesota 55343
•
•
HONNOPiN COUNTY •
26 September 1 9 7 5
Mr. Carl J. Jullie, P.E.
City Engineer, Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Dear Carl:
We recently discussed a proposed improvement to Birch Island Road from
County Road 67 to a point south. All the property abutting the proposed
improvement on the west side is owned by Hennepin County and the property
on the east side is privately owned except for a small parcel which is also
owned by Hennepin County.
You indicated that you plan to relocate the intersection of Birch Island Road
and CR 67 about 75 to 80 feet east to bring Birch Island Road into CR 67 at
right angles and improve the sight distance, which.is presently a problem.
This would require the acquisition of private property on the east side.
•
We mutually agreed that because of the problems of assessment and right-
of-way acquisition it would be best for Eden Prairie to develop the construc-
tion plans, contract for the construction, and assess the county for work
performed abutting the county property.
On the basis of your rough estimate of $15.000 for the county's share of the
improvement, I will recommend to the County Administrator's office that
this amount be set aside in the 1976 Capital Improvement Budget to cover
the assessment.
Very i;.r" lu y yours,
Herbert O. IU.ossner, P.E.
County Engineer
HOK:db
cc: Stanley R. Cowie
A. J. Lee
Minorities.Worsen and Other PgdeUe4 C+aomq ate Encouraged to apply
tot Employment at Harinapin County •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
• October 7, 1975
PLUMBING
Hovde Plumbing & Heating •
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family)
Houston Construction
Developers Construction, Inc.
These licenses have been approved by the program head responsible
for the licensed activity.
- • •
. .
abecca Quernemoen. Deputy Clerk
•
•
•
. • . .
•
faU 9 -"
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager AO
SUBJECT: Council Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, September 23, 1975
DATE: October 3, 1975 •
I, Correct, approve and file minutes of Special Council Meeting held 4 r
September 11, 1975, and the Regular Council Meeting held September
23, 1975.
II,A. This is a continued public hearing from the September 23rd meeting,
being that the Council requested alternative cost spreads for
consideration affecting the Neill Lake storm sewer plus some minor
assessments in the northeast area and the street and storm sewer
adjustments in the Scenic Heights area. Mr. Jullie has outlined
alternatives for your consideration which are enclosed. The Council
after considering these alternatives, will close the hearing approving
the balance of the assessment roll es corrected and certify to the
County Auditor by Resolution No. 1031A.
II.B. Notices have been sent to the benefitted property owners on the Riley
Lake road improvement. This public hearing was called as a result of
the petition submitted requesting consideration of this improvement.
We have also received bids for this improvement so that the cost can be
one of an actual cost in quoting the total cost to the residents. If the
Council chooses to order this improvement you could do so by Resolution
No. 1036.
Due to the large number of public hearings for the Council to consider regarding
PUD and Zoning requests, we have included an attached summary of Planning Commission
and Staff Reports for your convenience in reviewing the background material relating
to each proposal.
H.C. Mr. Brauer will be present to outline the proposed sector study and answer
any questions the Council may have regarding this study. If the Council
concurs with the Study, it will be necessary to approve the#169 Ivlini
Sector Study by Re solution 1035.
II.D. Modern Tire and Energy Systemsrezoning request. Providing the Council
approve the #169 Mini Sector Study, you may then proceed
t consaffectedider
property
the zoning request of Modern Tire and Energy Systems.
owners in the 069 mini sector have been notified of the hearing. If action
is taken, a 1st reading to Ordinance No. 295 would be in order.
- 2 -
I
II.E. Prairie Lawn and Garden request to rezone is not specifically covered
by an approved sector plan;however, the Council did accept and file
the 4/5 Study as a reference for future consideration of zoning requests
in this area. If the Council proceeds to grant this request, it would be
necessary to give a first reading to Ordinance No. 296 establishing
a zoning district.
R.F. The Hustad request is for PUD concept approval and rezoning a portion
of the PUD to office. If the Council concurs with the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and staff, it would be necessary first to
adopt the PUD concept by Resolution 1039 and then followed by giving
a first reading to Ordinance No. 297 establishing the office district in a
portion of the PUD.
II.G. Olympic Hills -The Council has approved the original PUD for this area
and has previously zoned Phase 1 and 2 of the approved PUD. The proponent
is now requesting consideration to zone Phase 3 from rural to RM 6.5.
If the Council proceeds to grant this request, it would be necessary to give
a first reading to Ordinance No. 298.
II.H. Area 5A of The Preserve is requesting rezoning from rural to R1-13.5. It
is necessary for the Council to give Ordinance No. 299 its first
reading.
ILI. I have enclosed Resolution No. 505 for your review as to the action
taken back in 1972 which outlined the accepted densities for this
area. Mr. Perbix will have a resolution drafted for your review Tuesday
evening which will outline the necessary conditions that will remove the
original commitments applicable to Phase 2 and 3 of the original proposal.
M.A. All property owners have been notified of the request by the W.Gordon
Smith Company relative to their request to install a retail gas pump in an
industrial zone. To-date I have not received any communication from the
adjacent property owners. I will, however, before Tuesday evening stop
by and visit with the owner of the Skelly Station located on Highway 5. II
III.B. Northwestern Bell is requesting an easement across City Park property
over an underground telephone cable. A motion would be in order granting
this request for utility installation.
III.C. Enclosed is the proposal of the George M. Hansen Company to conduct
the 1975 Audit. I feel this firm to be a competent and responsible company
to perform this audit and recommend the Council decijnate the George
M. Hansen Company to perform this audit.
- 3 -
s . :ir
IV.A.1.Enclosed please find the tabulation of the bids received for bituminous
overlay on Riley Lake Road.These bids came in at approximately the
identical costs that we outlined to property owners as to the cost of a
2" overlay. These bids should be approved by Resolution No. 1037.
IV.A.2.Final plat St. John's Wood-recommend that the Council approve this
plat by Resolution No. 1028.
IV.A.3.No action necessary. Mr. Julie will outline Hennepin County's position
relative to their share of the cost of the Birch Island Road improvement.
The Council did order a feasibility study after we had received this
information from Hennepin County. However, we Just want to bring you
up-to-date as to the County's commitment for this improvement.
IV.B.I.The 1976 Budget must be approved by October 10. If the Council finalizes
and accepts the 1976 budget, it is than necessary to certify by Resolution
No. 1044 to the County Auditor the levy for 1976. •
IV.B.2.I have placed this item on the agenda and do not at the present time have
a communication from Eden Prairie School District. However, I will be
meeting with Dr. Fallon on Monday and will have a report to the Council
as to their commitment.
IV.C.1.1t is necessary for the Council by Resolution to set November 4 as the
• date to receive bids for the sale of improvement bonds. There are three
resolutions that will be necessary for the Council to consider. They
are as follows:
Resolution No. 1041 - $900,000 Bond Improvement
Resolution No. 1042 - $1,.080,000 GO Water and Sewer
Resolution No. 1043 - $ Equipment Certificates
IV.C.2.Recommend approval of Clerk's License List.
•
RKU:Jp
•
MEMO
TO: Roger Uistad, City Manager
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: October 3, 1975
-- SUBJECT: Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations for -
items on the Council's:October 7th Agenda
Assembled are the recommendations of the Planning Commission pertaining
to the following projects -
I. 169 Mini-Sector Study
2. Modern Tire & Energy Systems rezoning.
3. Prairie Lawn & Garden rezoning
4. Busted Office/Industrial/Residential PUD& rezoning.
5. Olympic Hills Phase III rezoning
6. Area 5a, The Preserve, Amsden Hills, rezoning.
7. Parkview/Old Farm PUD revisions of Resolution#505
1. 169 MINI SECTOR STUDY
August 25, 197E Planning Commission Meeting • 1
Motion 1;
Fosnocht moved, Feerick seconded, to refer the 169 Mini-Sector Study back to the
staff for consideration of other alternatives for streets and accesses to the
affected properties. The motion carried unanimously. The Commission then
unanimously directed the staff to address the Garden King site.
Meyers questioned what recommended future use there could be for the Garden
King site. The planner stated it is presently zoned Rural and he would ask
Brauer to address the problem.
Motion 2:
Meyers moved, Feerick seconded, to recommend the City Manager make an
exception to the established public hearing policy and place the Modern Tire
and Energy Systems requests for rezoning on the Council's August 26th
agenda for the setting of a public hearing date.
Discussion:
Stmchuck again stated he did not favor any action that would affect his
property.Fosnocht replied that the Commission is recommending future
recommended land uses and not specific zoning for the Simchuck.property.
Meyers felt the Commission should make more specific recommendatlons,i.e.
an alignment to Homeward Hills Road, open space/greenway locations,
no access from 169, parkway alignment to the west, etc.
Vote: Motion 2 carried 4:1 with Sorensen voting nay.
page 2
Memo-Summary of P. C. Actions
1. 169 Mini Sector Study , Continued
Motion 3
To recommend adoption of the 169/Mini Sector Study with the
exceptions listed in the first two motions, that of the east/
west road alignment and the Garden King Market site.
Feerick asked the planner to clarify the zoning possible for Modern Tire
and Clean Sweep. The planner said he would recommend I-2 Park with
provisions as listed in the Brauer staff report.
Crouch, attorney for Modern Tire, felt provisions on zoning other than what
is contained in Ordinance 135 would be unenforceable. Meyers responded
that the City attorney would advise the City.
Sorensen did not feels zoning could be granted with different restrictions than
other like zones in Ordinance 135 unless it was a PUD situation.
Crouch read from Subd. 8.2, Ordinance 135; and stated he believes the
Modern Tire use belongs in that subdivtsion-Industrial Park.
Motion 4:
Feerick moved, Schee seconded, to recommend to the City Council rezoning
of the Energy Systems and Modern Tire sites to I-2 Park on the conditions
of the upgrading of the properties to City ordinances, the resolution of a
single access, a rezoning agreement to outline the commercial use of the II
• properties to their particular use, and the removal of the•existing access
to 169. The motion- carried 4:1 with Sorensen voting nay.
September 29, 1975 Planning Commission Meeting
Motion:
Schee moved, Meyers seconded, to amend the 169 Mini Sector Study by
Brauer & Associates as follows;
1. Retain the Garden King home site and adjacent lots as residential
property not commercial.
2. Enforce the requirements of Ordinance 135 pertaining to non-
conforming uses and clearly identify the fruit market as such a use.
3. At such time a: sewer and water are provided to the Sunnybrook
area, platting and zoning of the Garden King home site and adjacent
lots should be considered to an appropriate single family detached
residential district.
4. Close Surnybrook Road when alternate access is available.
5.' Give further study to the impact of cul-de-sacing Creek Knoll Road.
Memo- Summary of P. C. Actions page 3
169 Mini Sector Study, Continued
6. That the east/west collector road is necessary to allow •
orderly and compattble future development of the total area.
7. That the east/west collector should connect with the northern Votech
access road because of spacing from other streets, property served by
the streets location, and connection with a major intersection.
8. That the long term use of lots. 3,4,5 and 6 should be non-residential
as described in the 169 Study. The collector road design and alignment
should be planned with this in mind.
9. That the timing of the east/west collector street should not be in advance
of the need created by either the residential development east or the
industiral development of parcels 3,4 and 6.
18. That alternates D, C, D are possible at a future date as a way of
extending the east/west collector street.
11. That at the east/west collector street improvement, cost vs. benefit
comparisions be prepared on the various alternatives.
Amendment
Meyers moved, seconded by Schee, to amend the motion by amending
recommendation#9 to read; that the timing of the east/west collector
street should not be in advance of the need created by either the
residential development east or the industrial development of parbels 3,4
and 6 as defined on page 3 of the September 12th staff report.
Vote: 5:1 , Sorensen voted nay.
Sorensen indicated his no vote was based upon his disagreement with the
non residential uses of 3,4 5, and 6 , but did agree with the staff report
indicating a residential use for the Garden King Market site.
-
Memo- Summary of Planning Commission Actions page 4
2. MODERN TIRE & ENERGY SYSTEMS
August 25, 1975 Planning Commission Recommendation
Feerick moved, Schee seconded, to recommend to the City Council rezoning
• of the Energy Systems and Modern Tire sites to I-2 Park on the conditions
of-the upgrading of the properties to City ordinances, the resolution of a
single access, a rezoning agreement to outline the commercial use of the
properties to their particular use, and the removal of the existing access
to 169. The motion-carried 4:1 with Sorensen voting nay.
•
k I.
3. PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
September 29, 1975 Planning Commission Recommendations, Unapproved
r {a
Fosnocht moved, Feerlck seconded, to recommend alternative I contained in
the September 18, 1975, staff report.
The tecommendatlons'of the 4/5 Study pertaining to access and land
use enables the Planning Commission and City Council to consider
rezoning the entire 18 t acres as illustrated on the 4/5 land use •
concept plan to I-2 Park requiring platting and design review for the '
industrial park prior to issuing building permits other than the Riegert
property.
This alternative will allow phased development of the 18 acre area ,
• perhaps beginning with the existing land uses which are now industrial
office, or related minor commercial . This alternative would meet the
terms of Ordinance 135 pertaining to I-2 Districts except for the minimum
zoning area provision which requires 40 acres. This however, could be
waived based on the site constraints , adjacent land use south of
Highway 5 which is industrial , and the conformance with the reference
4/5 Study Report. •
Mr. Riegert's land use as a small engine repair business , storage of
parts and equipment, potential nursery,and mower sales, may be interpreted
as an acceptable industrial use as It fits under Subdivision 8.2
fe
•
{
Memo-Summary of Planning Commission Actions page 5
Prairie Lawn & Garden, Continued
Permitted Uses, Subd, a and b. Also, the building should be designed
to meet the :standards of the I-2 District which would not permit a metal
building unless it meets provisions of Ordinance 135 , Subd, 2.7, Special
Requirements, Design, #4, which states;
"Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction
if the panel ,:material be any of the those named above. ;glass
• prefinished metal,(other than unpainted galvanized irort,or plastic's. •
This means the panel metal construction such as used in the Homart Shopping
Center and not the metal pole building with a corrugated sheet metal siding
as proposed. The building should be designed to provide for future
industrial uses as well as the Riegert Lawn & Garden business.
The sketch provided in the application of the site showing direct access
to Highway S should - be revised to accommodate a revised road location
acceptable with the City Engineering Department and the-Minnesota-Highway
Department to group the Fuller Road and access to the 18 acre industrial
park at one location. This would eliminate the individual access of Prairie
Lawn & Garden to Highway 5.
•
Vote: 3:3 , (Schee, Boerger, Sorensen - nay), (Feetick, Meyers, Foanocht-yes )
The Commission decided to submit two recommendations,
with 3-members suggesting alternate! and 3 members
suggested alternate # 3
•
4. HUSTAD OFFICE PUD & REZONING
September 8, 1975 Planning Commission Recommendations
�Aot err:
Borrtaor fnovocl, Meyers si:ccnded, to recommend approval of the Husted office
1'UL)cone:opt plan for the -,rea located between 169, Creek Knoll Road, and
Co. Rd. ] for the overall 22. acre plan and rezoning from Rural to Office. And
include the rc:cx,;ninondations of the engineer's report dated September 8, and
the toff report of Scn.embei 2 with the following changes to Ds 1,4, and 8;
1. a. E
The .8 acre sign site, wooded slopes, and floodplain be
dedicated for public open space. Subject to the developer's
right to maintain the existing sign for a period reasonably
necessary for the completion of the Bluff's Sector.
ii,
1
Memo- Summary of P. C. Actions page 6
Rusted Office Pud, Continued
b. that the road access points meet the design and loca-
tional requirements of the City Engineer and County
-k-- Public Works Department.
c. that pathway systems be included along Co. Rd. 1 and
• connecting to Purgatory Creek.
d. that the parking spaces meet the requirements of Ord. 141.
e. that landscaping space and appropriate design be included
along Co. Rd. 1.
f. that setbacks along Co. Rd. 1 and 169 meet or exceed
those of Ord. 135.
g. minimize grading along slope to Purgatory Creek.
2. That the City attorney approve the condominium association
documents to insure the City's interest and responsibilities
are defined.
r 3. That the PUD Concept Plan be approved for approximately
60,000 sq. ft. industrial, 60,000 sq. ft. 2 story office
buildings, and low or medium density residential (under 6du/ac).
4. The 9 ±acre site be rezoned from Rural to OFC District for the
construction of(d-Z story office buildings as depicted on the
modified site plan dated Sept. 8 to be prepared in conformity withthe
overlay presented to the Planning Commission on Sept. 8, 1975.
5. That the open space dedication or scenic easement of the
slopes , floodplain, and sign site be completed prior to
issuance of any building permit.
6. That the 7.4*acres of industrial and 5 acres of residential
not be zoned at this time, rather when definite plans are
finalized,zoning to I-2 Park (with mcdifiations ) and RM 6.5
would be approprate consistent with the PUD Concept Plan. 11
•
7. That the Busted Development Corporation prepare a
preliminary plat defining the land use areas and open space •
dedication.
•
8. That development of the Ist stage office or industrial beam by •
September 1, 1977, or the City may reevaluate the PUD_
Concept and rezoning plans. motion carried 3:0:l with Sorensen abstaining.
9
Summary of P. C. Actions page 7
5. OLYMPIC HILLS PHASE III
September 8, 1975 Planning Commission Recommendations
Lynch moved, Eoorger seconded, to recommend rezoning to RM 6.5 permitting•
single family detached and double atrium units as per the staff report of July
21, 1975,and September 2, 1975, and the engineer's report of September 8 th
wits the following changes-to f., g., and Summary in the Sept. 2 staff report;
•
a. °lot
The inlay area has been moved to a suitable location •
serving the Phase III area.
•
b. lot size
The lots along Iranlo Rond have been expanded to permit
200 + foot deep lots. The double units on the north end
of the project still have about 40 feet to the right-of-way
and fi0 feet to the road.
c. Trails `
Design along Pronto Road will be to trail standards of the
Flikewey/Tikeway Report and constructed by the developer
during each phase.
The internal trail has been moved to the street system as a
"sidewalk " rather than along the golf course. This realign-
ment provides batter-access to the residents, more privacy
for the horecs,rsnd access to the totiot. Sortie detailed design
will he nrcdr_d along the north boundary whore the trail
runs down a 2f hill.
•
A short walkway link should he included along the entrance
drive from the Franio'Frail to the toilet and Internal trail. -
The legal ca::emeet documents ehueld permit public use
of all trail: subject to reasonable riles estahllshed by'the
hornecwner's association.
•
Memo-Summary of P. C. Actions page 8
•
Olympic Hills Phase III, Continued
d. Wtidiifn Corridor •
The r.:v!scd plan provides a 150' outlet wildlife corridor
between phases II& III. Natural plant materials (shrubs
und"uces), should Ise planted in the open areas.
An easement document should be work out with the City
attorney specifying the permanent open space use,
ownership, and maintenance responsibilities.
e. Open Space Commitment
No new information hes been submitted changing the
recommendation,of the July 21 stall report which suggested
about$20,000 cash in lieu of rand dedication consistent
with City policy.
•
f. . . . We believe that open space restrictions on the 15th green,
tee, fairways 7th tee area; the 6th green area, and the ridge
area from the 9th green to the western property line would insure •
•sig'niftcant open space directly related to the proposed 28 .r
acre apartment, single family, and atrium units.
•
• g. . . . The northern atrium unit shall be exchanged with the single
family lot south of the entrance road as far south as possible to
provide space for the trail to negotiate the hill and not totally
block the view of the existing Trail's townhouses.
That construction begin within 2 years of the City Council's final
rezoning action or the City shall have the right to consider rezoning •
Olympic Hills Phase III back to Rural.
Amendment
Meyers moved, Sorensen seconded, to amend the motion to read-the northern
unit (single family unit at the entrance ) shall be combined or exchanged to
increase the setbacl: distance Ovor •an additional 20 feet atleast) , of the unit .
et l'rauio Road. T)Ic amendment-did not pass, ( Boerger & Lynch voted nay).
Vote:
The motion carried unanimously.
Memo- Summary of P. C. Actions page 9
6. AREA 5 A , THE PRESERVE, AMSDEN HILLS
September 29, 1975 Minutes , Unapproved
Boerger moved, Feerick seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval
of the Amsden Hills 50 f lots for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with variances
• in lot sizes to permit lots of 8,900-25,000 sq. ft.•at a density of 2.6 du/acre,
frontage variances less than 90 feet and setback variances as follows.
5 feet 1 story garage
10 feet 11- 1 story houses
15 feet 2 story or greater
'20 feet houses built on corner lots.
That a trailway corridor be established between the 7 acre public park adjacent
to Franlo Road connecting with the Prairie east corridor.
That the internal walkways provide access along Amsden Way or through the
off street trail corridor leading to the public park at Anderson Lakes and
the Franlo Road trail.
The Preserve work with}lusted Development Corporation to investigate
connecting the cuI-de-sac street in Prairie East with Amsden Way for a
loop road configuration along the Lutheran Church and Preserve common
boundary.
Vote The vote was 3:2 with Fonsocht , Meyers, Sorensen voting nay, and
B.oerger and Feerick voting aye. Schee had left the meeting and • did not
vote, the motion was defeated.
7. PARKVIEW APARTMENTS PHASES 2 AND 3
September 29, 1975 Minutes, Unapproved
•
Schee moved, Sorensen seconded, to recommend revision to Resolution 505
to be drafted by the City Attorney in a legal manner which would change Res. 50l
as follows: (delete 1-4, and incert the following#s land 2 )
1. Concept be approved for the 59.3 acre site with an overall
density to comply with the Red Rock Sector Plan.
2. That varied building types be used on the later phases of
the project to fit the terrain .
Vote: 5:O:l,with Fonsocht abstaining.
cam' "