HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/02/1975 EDDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
t
TRCER;Sa 2 , 15 5 7:30 PM, CF1'Y HALL
COUNCIL MEMBFOS: Mayor D. W. Osterholt, Joan Meyers, Billy Bye,
Wolfgang Fenzel and Sidney Pauly
COUNCIL STAFF City Manager Roger Ulstad;City Attorney
Harlan PerbLx; Planner Dick Putnam; Finance
Director John Frane; Director of Community
Services Marty Jessen; Engineer Carl Jullie;
Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary
INVOCATION PLEDGE OF PLLFJGIANCE ROLL CALL
I. PUBLIC 1-7EN;RTEG
A. Sanite y Sewer, Wetermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements for Page 1424
Areas a and C of The Preserve Commercial Plan and adjoinir areas,
I.C. 51-274. (Resolution No. 1060)
B. Mitchell Lake PUD Revision, request by Pointorn for revision to the Page 1425
Jip_oved 1971 PUP and rezoning from Rural to RI 13.5 for the single
family portion. Tiro site is located east of Mitchell Fake and West of
Cou_,y Road on a nproximatsly 120 acres.
C. Corn,:_`Taralen R(.roninyt a request for rezoning from Rural to RI-22 Page 1452
for '.ots, The lots are located north of Willow Creek Addition and
�;ast rti.1n T..; e.
--- ---
N. REPORTS OF C }1.':ERF, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Report of City Engineer
1. Final plat ao7irovel for "Flying Cloud Center" Addition. cRes.No.P re 1463
1061)
2. Accept streets and utilities within Northmerk 2nd Addition.
B. Rallor1 of Director of Community Services
1. C >±nsiricretion of rental of the BIacklock House at Anderson Page 1467
Lakes.
C. Report of City RCanerser
1. Council vece,ncy - Council to determine urocedt
for irrterv1nw rrocnss of Council candidates.
I'i. NEW BUSiN:.SS
"..`Y7Oi.1E 4;'.1- T
JOHN FRANE
•
Doc. 2, 1975
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1060
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 12th day of
November, 1975, fixed the 2nd day of December, 1975 as the date for a public
bearing on the following proposed improvements:
I.C. 51-274, Sanitary sewer, watermains, storm sewer
and street improvements for Areas F and G of the
Preserve Commercial plan and adjoining areas.
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed
for the making of this improvement were given ten days' published notice of
the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice
and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 2nd day of Decam-
ber, 1975.
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
1. Such improvement as set out in Council Resolution of Novem-
ber 12, 1975, and as above indicated is hereby ordered
(and amended as follows).
• 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and speci-
fications for the making of such improvement, with the assistance
of Rieke Carroll.Muller & Associates, Consulting Engineers.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Paririe on
•
David W. Osterholt, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
•
1g21
Minutes — Parks, Rec. and Page Five
Natural Resources Com. Unapproved November 17, 1975
b. Mitchell Lske PUD
Jessen inforsed the Commission neisbors that the 2 yr. time limit on the "island"
was the aaajor difference from the Planning Commission's recommendation of a
6 month time limit. •
Mr. Jim Hill, of Pemtton Inc., briefly highlighted the Mitchell Lake POD pro—
posal. Referring to the "island", Mr. Hill said in order to figure the cost
of the entire develop=ent,thry have to know whether this will be purchased or
not,and how much money will be allowed if it is purchased so that they can
determine whether the project is feasible. He added that they would hope to
be able to start construction by this Fall. He said the other recommendations
in the Staff report are workable and they generally agreed with them.
Eingrey requested that Jessen outline the Staff recommendation for the proposal.
Jesson referred to Memo of October 6, 1975 and briefly wont through the seven
modifications.
Choiniere inquired about tat lots for the townhouses. Hill responded that they
came along with the townhouses. Jessen added there were provisions for a 3-4
acre space,for a mini—park for the 7-10 yr. old ago group, which could be used
for unstructured play.
Helmer asked if there would be tennis courts. Hill answered that the townhouses
would include tennis courts.
There was discussion on whether the mini—park could serve the whole area.
Anacreon ouestioned whether any figures were available as to the possible
worth of the "island". Jesson answered that there were none at this time
and that an appraiser would have to be brought in.
Choiniere asked whether local money would be involved in buying the "island".
Jessed said that this was not clear at this time. He said the Watershed District
could finance the acquisition, but the City would have to bay back 50%.
Jessen said that the decision had to be rade whether acquisition of this."island"
would be a good thing to include in our park system.
•
Helmer asked whether there were any other Staff recommendations. Jessen said
it was spelled out in the neighborhood facility study, which calls for a min4_
park and that South Mitchell Lake was recommended to be a site for a neighbor—
hood facility.
The question was brought up as to how many lots would be involved if the
"island" were not purchased by the City. Hill responded that 15 lots, with
• homes of $150,000 value on a minimum 1/4 of an acre were anticipated being built
here.
NATION
Choiniere moved to abandon park concept on the "island" for this project on
the Mitchell Lake POD. Upton seconded.
pTSCgiSSTON
Anderson was opposed to dropping the idea without investigating value and cost
of acquiring and possibilities of funding. Ho felt that once the land is developed
you can never get it back, and that we should explore every possibility.
•
Minutes - Parks, Rec. and Page Six
Natural Resources Corn. Unapproved November 17, 1975
Eingrey felt the 3-4 acre mini-perk would
drbe ehiorequateef for
rntheia amount
would be
town-
houses and multiple dvellines proposed
for unstructured play, end there would also be the tot lots and tennis courts.
He added that the "cash in lieu" of land would be used for the Kitchell Lake
Park site neighborhood facility.
Upton inquired about the possibility of Lawton funding. Jessen responded that
it is generally available for a resource area, but there has been discussion
for changing priority and criterea to providing for more active play space. He
added that the plans have beencgood ity ns and be felt that we should quite a bit of funding
r search the possibilit8e our
y
VOTE
The notion ended ins tie vote 3-3,•'ith 2 abstentions.
r " Kingrey "nay". Upton "abstain"
Choiniere
ickson "yaye Garens "nay" Penael "abstain"
Helmer "Yee Anderson "nay"
•
EOTIOH of the 7 modificatfons,
Kingro moved to accept Staff recommendation of Oct. 6, 1975
with the exception of the part relative to the "island", and subsitute 6 months rather
than 2 years for that part of the recommendation.. Garen seconded.
DDlS3USSlOii
Erickson asked whether the "island" issue would come back to the Commission.
Jessrn :yid that if the Council accepts the recommendation, we will do the research
•
as soon as possible and bring it back.
nded that
Helmer egrange of $3 thO, endst to theretuuuldty.be Staff en timesinvolved in writing letters
uld
be in the range of �3�,
and soltcitating responses.
Choiniere felt it did not fit in as a park because of no access. Kingrey agrced,but
wanted more information before ruling it out.
There was discucaioa regarding the well known 2`pls. parks and the lack of deterioratir
in the value of hones 5 to 6 blocks away and whether that kind of consideration res-
ponded to the people here today.
•
Upton called the question.
•
VOTF with 1 abstention.
Motion carried with a vote of 4-3,
Kingrey -
"eye" Erickson "nay" Fenzel "abstain"Carets "aye" Helmer "nay"
Anderson "aye" Choiniere "nay"
Upton "aye"
•
approved
• Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 28, 1975
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Mitchell Lake P ID Revision andRezoni_ng. request for rezoning from Rural to
R1-13.5. The development is located east of Mitchell Lake and West of
Co. Rd. 4 on approximately 120 acres.
The planner referred the Commission to the Environmental Assessment prepared
by Chris Enger,the staff report from Marty lessen, and the Oct. 23rd staff report.
He Informed the Commission that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission has not yet made a recommendation on the Mitchell Lake PUD.
The planner stated the staff feels the character of the PUD has changed signifi-
•
cantly from a predominance of ownership units to over 50% multiple. He ques-
• tioned the desirability of having single family residents traveling through the
multiple area to reach the single family area.
•
The planner then reviewed the recommendations in the October 23rd staff report.
•
•
• IIoterger questioned if any of the proposed structures would be damaged by •
possible high water. The planner felt the structures would rot be endangered.
•
The Commission then discussed the possible access to the island site If It
was a park site, the - park's usaLility, and the desirability of using public
funds for a park that would have limited use. The planner felt possible
funding sources would he; grants, Metro bonding, iawcon funds, etc.
Mr. Thompson, Prniton inc., estimated the future lot values of the island to
•
be appruximately $ 35,000 - 45,000 /lot.
Feerick asked If a homeowner's association would be viable in the PUD.
Thompson responded they have been Involved with homeowner associations
•
since 1966 and most have been successful.
Meyers asked how utilities would be handled. The planner reported no major
trunk extension would he necessary and a lift station would be necessary to
serve the back area.
In regards to the recommendations in the October 23rd staff report Mr. Hill
felt that Recommendations Al, A4 &A 7 would regRire further negotiation.
•
Sorensen asked what the lot sizes would be . Hill responded they would be
•
approximately 11, 000 square feet with 85-110'front footage.
•
Sorensen questioned the ability or 70-80'wide houses being built on lots
that are as narrow as 85 feet.
.anning Commission Minutes -3- approved
October 2g, 1975
• Mitchell Lake PUT), Continued
Sorensen stated he does not feel the original or revised PUD plan conforms
to the Guide Plan. He suggested the Commission consider recommending
decertification of the original PUD approval If the revised PUD Is not approved
' ' by the City.
•
Thompson said they would oppose the decertification of the PUD as it would
devalue the land.
•
Motion 1
Schee moved, Feerick seconded, to recommend rezoning to R1-13.5 and •
revision to the 1972 PUD Plan for the Mitchell Lake PUD and to include
the following recommendations;
A. That the PUD 71-04 be modified in the following areas:
I. That the City continue to pursue the possibility of purchasing
the island and continue to determine the suitability of the island
as a park. That a 6 month time be set in which the city would
• seek funds for the purchase. If the city decides not to purchase
the site then the owner may apply for zoning and platting.
2. That area B be restudied to minimize the grading on cul-de-sac
4; 1 and reduce the road impact upon the pond.
3. That area C he approved for Iow density multi family condomin-
ium development and that the northern side of Mitchell Lake
he coordinated with the northern property. •
4. That area 1) aot be approved for multiple apartment development,
rather the original plan for single family detached or single
family attached be apaopriate to maintain the original character
of the Mitchell take development.
5. That area B he reoriented to provide a neighborhood mini-park
with space adequate for informal came fields.
6. That area F' be redesignated from the original PUD to single family
attached or detached for townhouse type development. At the time
of development stage application sensitive design in the woodland
and setback from Mitchell Lake.
7. That tie open space around the lake he expanded to approximately
the 880' elevation. The ownership and maintenance responsibilities
may be homeowners association or public depending upon city and
developer arrangements.
8. That the developer construct a trail.way along Co. Rd. 4 as each
phase of the project is developed or earlier as the need Is demonstrated.
•
9. That an cast/west trail be constructed from Co. Rd. 4 to the future
Mitchell L'.ke Park site . southwest of the site at such time as
development for area F is approved.
10. That the collector street right-of-way be reduced to 80'frorn the proposed
100' and thetno single driveways front on that street. .
11. That no specific dwelling unit number is approved except in the
single family detached plat, rather the densities will be determined
as the unit size, design and site planning is submitted.
7
IW2 •
approved
• Planning Commission Minutes -4= October 28, 1975
• Mitchell Lake PU D, Continued
B. Recommend rezoning of Blocks 1, 2 and 3 from Rural District to R1-13.5
in conformance with the Revised Mitchell Lake BUD 74-04. That the
rezoning be based upon the following conditions:
1. That if the single family lots establish a homeowners association
that the lakeshore he maintained by the association with a maximum
of three common association dock areas be provided-no private
individual lot docks will be permitted. If no homeowners association
is established tienthe lakeshore will be dedicated to the public.
2. That an area of approximately 250 to 300 feet square be provided
and developed (grading and turf) by the developer for the benefit
of the proposed lots. Ownership and maintenance will be handled
as discussed in point 1.
3. That a trailway along the collector street to Co. Rd. 4 and Mitchell
Lake Court be included in the plan.
4. That the plat he redesigned to minimize grading on lots 30-24 in
Block 1 and reflect the change in the use of the island or Block 4.
The cul-de-sac could be pulled north to move it out of the floodplain.
5. That Pcrnton may petition the city for plaiting and rezoning for Block 4
if the city decides not to purchase the 10± acres. The city must make
its decision (z months from the second reading. of the ordinance
approving phase 1, block 1. 2, and 3.
6. That the city may consider rezoning hack to Rural if development is not
begun within two years of the ordinance's second reading.
Vote:
The motion carried 4:1 ( Schee, Fserick, Meyers voted aye; Boerger voted aye
with reservations ) and Sorensen voted nay.
- Boerger's reservations were because the problem associatedwith the access
to the park i and lack of Park & Recreation recommendations.
-Sorensen's nay vote was based on the following concerns;
Lthe 6 month limit may not be sufficient to determine the funds'
availability and the site's suitability. •
2.the recommendations as worded appear to allow development in excess
of the Guide Plan. Provisions should be adopted reflecting the total
area is of lower density residential. -
3.the proposed lot sizes ( front and side yard setbacks ) do not conform
to the land development pattern.
2. Boerger moved, Schee seconded,the PUD approval should include the Watershed
District's letter of October L, 1975 relating to the Mitchell Lake'BUD.
Vote:
The motion carried 9:0:1 with Sorensen abstaining.
7
N29
STAFF REPORT
PROTECT: Mitchell Lake PUD
APPLICANT: Pemtom, Inc.
REQUEST: Rezoning to R1-13.5 and revision of 1972 Concept Plan
LOCATION: West of County Road 4 and East of Mitchell Lake on about 118 acres.
DATE: October 23, 1975
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
Chris Enger, Associate Planner
Marty jessee, Director of Community Services
Cad Jullie, City Engineer
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
RE: August 18th letter and sketch, Pemtom, Inc.
Booklet of original Pemtom PUD
4/5 Study
Environmental Assessment & Recreational Potential For Western
Eden Prairie
•
•
A. BACKGROUND
Pemtom is requesting modification of the 1971 PUD at Mitchell Lake.
Their request as outlined in the August 18th letter is to modify the
overall planned unit development land uses and density and to have
approval of the first phase development portion for single family
detached units totalling 74 lots on approximately 22-1/2 acres.
The plans for the first phase have been submitted to the watershed
district park and Recreation Commission and city staff for review.
At this time, the Park and Recreation Commission has not acted upon
Pemtom's request. The watershed district, in its letter of September
8, 1975, had outlined some concerns and have met with Pemtom to
discuss solutions to watershed concerns.
The appropriate city action would be to recommend either an approval
of the proposed changes to the planned unit development 71 -4 or
modify their request submitted by Pemtom. The second city action
would be to recommend approval of the development phase and rezoning
•
to R1 13.5 with proper setback, lot size and frontage requirements.
A third action the city may consider is the application for funding to
•
purchase the+ 10 acre peninsula which is labeled Block 4, Lots 1 through
15 for public park purposes. -
POD
B. GUIDE PLAN AND Pun CONFORMANCE
The 196E Comprehern iv-Plan anticipated a low density development on
the malnrity of the Iditr'hell lake site with the exception of the low
and medium density multiple development adjacent to the County Road
4 and trunk highway h intersection and along highway 4. The intent .
was to develop the mid density such as townhouse or very low dug-
- city muitiplu family in proximity to the commercial, activity center/
park at Round Lake permitting a clustered construction near the north
side of Mitchell Lake.
The 4/5 Study proposed mixed residential uses on the.Pemtom site. The
study did not specify the number of units nor their location.
•
The planned unit development approved for Mitchell Lake in 1971!ndi-
sated approximately 98 acres of the 110 acre site to be used for single
family units, either detached or attached townhouses. 13 acres were
proposed as multiple family apartment type units. Of the 13 acres only
7.8 acres was approved by the city with 4.6 acres held pending deci-
sions on the property to the south. The character of the original planned
unit development as indicated by Exhibit 27 of the POD was that of a
single family detached and attached arch heavily oriented to ownership,
units with multiple family units included on the fringes adjacent to ki
County Road 4.
.
An extensive open space system with bituminous pathways and private . ..
and public parks including community facilities of pools, tennis courts,
and community recreation building were included in the original pro-
posal.
-�.J! 1113 . j /�- __
p ,\� c ci nm ercial w.e
f I113 i industrial
l� \
Ct l ,( m o,Z r.c dwelling
3 M.x ew.]...m tlwety - j�,� '
p pad;
I „' f lire station Lnlul+ip
library am _ - � 1'
—=-" e e' r^cntary school `. .'4,.-�
"-"`'""�i I'j- f - ) ih iur n high School 7 k., \ ., r� .t
il I
Sfl sector.NO schncl 1 ,�. �t�.UTrI r _. ,e,.a rs +'++
11
-• - -- (' C4 _ - I aftR fled' 'nes - },�-}
- L3' '�.---- -�'�'..�r.. i if ca �'. Sl. i 1.
Uf f11 __» / // Z}l x-.., lr t J. :.Y' i, , ; t om:,1
} ,19
... 1113 t•,.-r_/ 5Uh �` `j P 1 „t a �.u:,\ -- n „p. ,4,
..Dr:fin ...- • , \� ,.' .`� �pf Y
• .__ _�_ { - l 1l 1A.sa
{{l�l; !i,llCd: r i t t!at `r \ ` to .�..:,.
C. 1975 PUD REVISION
The revisions to the Mitchell Lake PUD proposed would significantly
modify the land usage and character of the approximately 120 acre site.
The proposed revisions indicated In the August 18th letter from _
Pemtom would include approximately 41 acres of single family detached
and attached units and 32.5 acres of multiple family apartment/condo-
miniums. The remaining 47 acres would be street right-of-way and public
park. Comparing the character of the development originally proposed
with the revisions suggested indicate a substantial change in the
character of the planned unit development. The multiple
family apartments originally proposed near 4 and 5's intersection
and Mitchell Lake and the south eastern corner have been enlarged to a
1,000 foot strip along highway 4. The entrance to the single family and
townhouse portions of the site under the revised plan would be through the
multiple family area on the east/west collector road.
The revised Mitchell Lake PUD would reduce the total number of living
units from the originally proposed 771 with a density of approximately
6.9 units per acre to 669 units or approximately 5.6 units per acre. The
overall density might be compared with similar projects. For example,
the Eden Farms PUD by Shelter Corporation which was a townhouse, patio
home,single family home development had an overall density of 180 acres
with approximately 3 units per acre. The 'village Woods by Zachman, an
80 acre planned unit development with a single family and townhouse de-
velopment was approximately 3.5 to 4 units per acre. Developments with
substantial multiple family components, such as the Atherton PUD of 60
acres with townhouse and apartment densities would be in the range of
7 to 9 units per acre overall or the Bass Woods planned unit development
in The Preserve with approximately 80 acres of apartment,single family
detached,townhouse and condominiums where the average density was
approximately 5.5 units per acre.
•
The major issue that should be considered by the city and Pemtom is the
change in character of the proposed modifications to the original planned
unit development. The substantial increase in multiple family apartment
condominium property was not envisioned on the comprehensive plan and -
does mark a substantial change in the developers and city's approach
to this site.
•
Ig3z
i
D. REVISED SITE PLAN
The revised plan dated August 14th incorporates major changes to the
original PUD. First, the 74 single family units are proposed on the
previously designated townhouse sites overlooking Mitchell Lake. The
access to this site is off of the east/west collector road with approxi-
mately a 3,000 foot cul-de-sac. The 15 lots proposed on the peninsula
will significantly change the character of 10 to 12 acre point (Block 4 on
the plan). The original planned unit development suggested townhouse
in an area approximately 17.5 feet by 400 feet. The comparative sketches
illustrate the difference in development area from the original PUD to the
proposed revision.
s 1 • 1 �, -7 i s�,. 7 -mac.„y�
igr.:::: .t.... K., ‘
1,'i' _ ` '`r: ) ),:\\.,V --1115••,4.o-E/;y1-.,-. 1 1 ,i,, I
-\4'•\?.',''','.-'.-'k
)1 1_
• ` y':l_-='1J , �i, �" _. •7 �y f I co! s r�ct..,e l\\ C .i.+.��.
_JY \ I:.
♦ 1•
....�z..t- _� 1 1 •/ �`\ -� 11 -.•..1 umncan :' tee
'." :,K bid . se \ T 1. .1
The alternatives raised by staff and discussed in the environmental
section of this report deal with the use of the peninsula site for public
park, purchased by the city or single family detached development as
proposed by Pemtom or a clustered townhouse development on a restricted
site as proposed in the original PUD.
The planning staff is concerned that the phasing of the development
beginning with the single family homes followed by the townhouse units
will produce a neighborhood with an identity and vested interest that
will affect city and developer opportunities on the multiple family sites
adjacent County Road 4. The potential for future conflict between the
single family and townhouse residence with the potential future multiple
apartment plans should be considered by the developer and city in approv-
ing such a modification to the original PUD.
Iy3S
The staff is concerned that the flat non-wooded character of he
19.8 acre multiple site will require very sensitive design of any
apartment development whereas, the 12.3 acre multiple family site
adjacent to the eastern finger of Mitchell Lake has significant slopes,
trees and views to Mitchell Lake to provide a more exciting multiple
family environment.
E. PRESERVATION AREA, RECREATION SYSTEM CONTINUITY
The environmental assessment and recreational potential report
for Western Eden Prairie was done in early 1975. The Report shows the
relationship between the Pemtom lakeshore property area, the Mitchell Lake
School/Park site, Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. The report points up the
environmental and recreational importance of acquiring public ownership of
lakeshore surrounding Mitchell Lake. Since much of the western shore is
currently in single family lot ownership, the eastern shore, not yet developed,
is a more logical first step for obtaining the needed protection corridor.
As the graphic on page 16 of the report illustrates, and the accompanying
graphic further delineates,a trail corridor is proposed from Lake Riley diagon- .
ally Northeast through the School/Park site, up along the Southeast shore of
the lake, through the Pemtom proposal to connect with the major north/south
trail to be constructed on the west side of Co. Road 4.
There would also be a trail north from the Mitchell Lake School/Park site up
along the east shore of the lake, possibe bridging the two eastern projecting
fingers of the lake on floating board walks. This north/south trail along the
eastern shore of the lake would split on the north side of the lake, one fork
going toward the northeast, across 5 to the proposed neighborhood park site
in the North Mitchell Lake Floodplain, and one fork crossing 5 west of Eagle
Enterprises proposed shopping center, through the natural swale to Round Lake
Park. Both of these crossings would be grade separated.
The north/south trail west of County Road 4 through Pemtom's the property
diagy should
be constiucled by them and dedicated to the City, as
al
northeast/southwest grail leading from the Co. Rd. 4 trail through their pro-
posed townhouses to the Mitchell Lake School/Park site. Both trails are
major trails and should be 8 feet wide, asphalt (Minn. Highway Dept. Spec.
2331) and should be four inch deep strength over compacted subgrade.
The lakeshore trail occurring on the oast side of Mitchell Lake would be con-
structed by thepublic in the future.
'there arc three alternatives for what can be done with the western most
peninsula of land in Pemtom's proposal:
1) It can be developed as single family, 15 lots, with a band of public
lakeshore ownerships.
a) advantages:
1) beautiful lots for owners. J
2) no public expenditure of money.
3) increase tax revenue.
•
4) high degree security.
b) disadvantages:
1) to build in the area would significantly change a beautiful
thick woods.
2) public use of the land may be too close to single family
owners.
3) back yards would tend to expand into the public area.
4) expensive to clear, and provide utilities to.
5) a valuable natural resource would be lost to the community
as a whole.
2) It can be purchased by the public through grants. •
a) advantages:
1) public has preserved a significant natural resource for all
of the community for all time.
2) as a leisure recreation space on the lake trail system, it
would provide the highest quality of recreational experience.
3) The woods, preserved in this fashion would be an asset to
the Pemtom property buyers as well as the public at large.
4) The area provides a significant wildlife habitat for the lake
area.
•
b) disadvantages:
1) expenditure of public funds.
2) disadvantage to developer because of uncertainess during
proposed 2 year abeyance time period.
3) some property tax revenue loss to public.
4) holding costs to developer while decision for funding is '
being made.
3) Compromise - allow limited'cluster' development as shown in original
proposal.
a) advantages:
1) no public expenditure of money.
2) from developers perspective, allows immediate development.
3) Some visual supervision of park area from adjacent residential
owners.
4) Preserves more of the site than single family.
•
• 5) High quality townhouse site.
• b) disadvantages:
1) townhouse market slow today.
2) preservation limited to 50%.
3) townhouse access must come through single family.
PI:3
.. 1 1 I•1 .,'• ,V., i
1.1 " I • ‘'.•••, r . .:.
til... ____ ".1%'-'-i--, .__ _r_i -..-.)., /
• •-, ,_ t - . ,.. ,..- ..
, , , .
! , , — , c2- ..,,,,,\(, -.
_
,....., r-----,.---..-,--- 1-4 i . fl,\,- „-
. ,.
: '''1: i ,r1.1 , . ----- - 6...--- r 1 -
„,-.. \ 12.11.,,,........_ty,4--124.7--,-,-A ,..,......-, - 3, ,,,..„,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,..:..:. .
-- -E-. •,_:. . , • ,. ! rrE zt)4-20-'2/- -'.t:
b .,
. s t
- '"jr1- i ' '' ' . `t-- sLt
__)-1 \-- -', I '__---- —
__
- -- Vitipiltii:- F.,..---- -,-,--,_ , ,-.-.1 -_,..,
i
. .
, ",, ;,;:...'.4"'TA,-,:'s,4. ;:,-`:,t,-,•-j'i,), ,/ . "---7_},6, ,. .1 ,
'.--'. ..'"........°,<;...s.. ...--,, i"..1.2—,11,......a.s........,..d.••••••rn ....... r*"........... .0
• , \-"vi \--, LL.)l'.' --:?':;.{. . :1 '
i-111,01._ \
, •- i,,1 i,,,,/,, JH 1,---1,---"'"----D C ' i,
,,N1 .As-1,-41Lti,, a
•' --,-,,- ,---77------,,,,,-t• •... : i ( _______,./—_-
____,.•-cv-vAQ.- - _ j 1 4\., --. ,-;- :--,,-,.1j
• .r....,.......a.,,Cm3.0‘.7VisiZA te-z.ca—
—— ------- lb Mit -/ i.i'!' - .\' -ag;. -Iva_cm,-.7-:&,-,:\c‘t fe<p•cxv.,..z.
. 1.0,-,2o .. 44cEz• --tt.ti4k0-X- fittAN.,Zt
,-- - i (1.ea4 --- -: -
\ A /- -144t.- ---- - .. -.)/ • i : :
r ,..- Co4A•Por., -,',.-..." ./
,,,:........ : --
i c- ' -. • .:
.... - ,-..•'•:• rTej _. . o<.,
• ..
/
--.A..<•;,.: - 1.. __ _ , --/ L
i — •
----- -1--;•;,,: --- - -,
j----•-.,?,•-:r i f-r ,,,,, _
• ! i -'.' . 1
i --•\/ "'"b '
\1,.:`,N_,,„ . ‘,,, \ \ • • N, % \ \.\•-V X
.• \ ‘\' t 1\\ '''. \ • '
',:1\‘ '•.\,li /.
ib•
AIL TCEELL 11'''' Y' -.-..: '' \
1 (....., 7/C-''' ' il /7 'T
• LA K E • ••....,;,),...• ,, .,-",,,,, • n...e.4-:.--_..e.i '',,
1 1 I ''_ z I 1 s ;• 7,---11tAWKa 114.tid.t .J 4, :I -• ,-,. c•\-.2
1 i '!` ./,' y ,N, „ • , 1 u.,/,„i-,,X`s-, _
....;, 71'ii.,,, . . \,, , ,‘ \..„, \> .,,,:y- •-\:, .
i •,;.„-,., -.. 1-.Ai• \:.......-''' . '7,.. \ ; .., 'S ' ':,,-.Y. , ' •
, ,/ ,i, ie--,---- \ ,, „ ,1,. i -- v, - •.:.:-I -:-5,,
• ...: .• („: . , .
\•1•\PAI4 ,
::'-. ' .„ • ,, 4 :-..:.:4 .• --,,,_--.— -,....,!•. , t',,'se -
// ' '' <4 'I, -/ 42,e'At_.---) r"'-- ,— - : :" '''.1..4-''' • ,
, • •`,!%-_?: ,/,
..- . ‘-‘/'' "•'".1. : '- ,-,' "t'''''''''''.,.,r1 ,-----'y ..i' ''''- ' %Zit.
.,-....,--- --- •
---
N...."-I'.."-:, 4 ' •
. '•,' ,'' ' :,.:-'----K-4141iV° /•".. .... ,L _ . , t i I 1.13-- •/
\
-
i PATA, ,f.-----.,_ -‘. _.....7 t ...." ,•7;..!.'" r c, ,.....:
,i,j...,-. La 14...-tli.:-. ',...--.\\,,_ —r. ' IV Ice" h • "..--
. •,.. ---'"-"- ) -
..
_
� e f dr'
,L)
4 .i '. \ I i H:
r---.7,7..7.-• 1 . a. ,__ ,-,{ --_-.-___-, ., , ., + t
w t \ ` / _ 1
_ l •f -
,•���'` r r �' .'7 �.' , it
., • i
-�-.Jam..,- (-s.`. /�,
Cam '�:.. "N, - _. _ — —J
WO V tnK PUD ��L✓ND USE ,r , fw t`-
1pf( ,1l
1 ---«.>,..e:tt •
t,.-.w,P..,,.J 1 PLAN j CI -- J
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
A. That the PUD 71-04 be modified in the following areas:
1. That area A, the 10th acre island not be zoned to R1-13.5 of this time.
That a 2 year time be set in which the city would seek funds for the
purchase. If the city decides not to purchase the site than the owner may
apply for zoning and plating.
2. That area B be restudied to minimize the grading on cul-de-sac ill and
reduce the road impact upon the pond.
3. That area C be approved for multi-family apartment or condominium de-
velopment and that the northern side of Mitchell Lake be coordinated
with the northern property.
4. That area D be not approved for multiple apartment development rather
than the original plan for single family detached or single family
attached be appropriate to maintain the original character of the Mitchell
Lake development.
5. That area E be reoriented to provide a neighborhood mini-park with space
adequate for informal game fields.
6. That area F be redesignated from the original PUD to single family attached
107
for townhouse type development. At the time of development.stage
application sensitive design in the woodland and set-back from
Mitchell Lake.
7. That the open space around the lake be expanded to approximately the
880' elevation. The ownership and maintenance responsibilities may be
home owners association or public depending upon city and developer
arrangements.
8. That the developer construct a trailway along County Road #4 as each
phase of the project is developed or earlier as the need is demonstrated.
9. That an east/west trail be constructed from County Road#4 to the future
Mitchell Lake Park site southwest of the site at such time as development
for area F is approved.
•
10. That the collector street right-of-way be reduced to 80' from the proposed
100' and that no single driveways front on that street.
11. That no specific dwelling unit number is approved except in the single
family detached plat, rather the densities will be determined as the unit
size, design and site planning is submitted. Densities should not exceea
those permitted in Ordinance 135 for these districts:
Single family attached RM 6.5 - max 6.7 dwelling units/acre
Multi family RM 2.5 - maximum 17.4 dwelling units/acre.
R. Recommend rezoning of Blocks 1, 2 and 3 from Rural District to R1-13.5 in
conformance with thefivlitchell Lake PUD 75-04. That the rezoning be
based upon the following conditions:
1. That if the single family lots establish a home owners association that
the lake shore be maintained by the association with a maximum of
three common association dock areas be provided no private individual
lot docks will be permitted. If no home owners association is estab-
lished that the lakeshore will be dedicated to the public.
2. That an area of approximately 250 to 300 feet square be provided and
developed (grading and turf) by the developer for the be nefit of the
proposed lots. Ownership and maintenance will be handled as discussed in
point 1.
3. That a trailway along the collector street to County Road ft and Mitchell Lake
Court be included in the plan.
•
1g51
4. That the plat be redesigned to minimize grading on lots 30 - 24 block 1
and reflect the change in the use of the island or Block 4. The cul-de-sac
could be pulled north to move it out of the floodplain.
5. That Pemtom may petition the city for platting and rezoning for Block 4 if the
city decides not to purchase the 10+ acres. The city must make its
decisions with 2 years from the second reading of the ordinance approving
phase 1 block 1, 2 and 3.
6. That the city may consider rezoning back to Rural if development is not
begun within two years of the ordinance's second reading.
•
•
•
•
1489
•
Planning Commission minutes -3- approved
LKoher 8, 1975
Mitchell Lake PUD Revision and Rezoning, request for rezoning from Rural to
R1-13.5 . The development is located east of Mitchell Lake and West of
Co. Rd. 4 on approximately 120 acres.
The planner reported the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission
had not yet arrived at a recommendation concerning the project.The planner then showed slides of the Pemton property , the proposed housing
sites . andthe property the staff believes would enhance the City's park land
if purchased or dedicated.
Sorensen cited Meyers concerns-as; some arrangement of dedication and/or
• purchase of the island to be park , and is access through the single family area
desTrahl
Mr.'Thompson, Pemton ,agreed that the island site is unique and felt City
purchase of it would not appreciate the pud but could reduce values depending
• upon the type of use of the park and the access.
7"soerger asked what type of activities are envisioned for the park. The planner
•
responded the staff and Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission
is investigating possible uses.
Fee-rick believed the access is an important element in determining if the land
should be park or open space.
Sorensen believed from walking the site the area would have value as an area of
contemplation and ii must be decided if it warrants spending City funds.
Chairperson Sorensen referred the project to the staff and Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Resources Commission for staff reports and recommendations.and
asked that the item be placed on the Commission's October 27th agenda.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- Sept. 8, 1975
• IV. PETITIONS AND RF.OUESTS.
A. Mitchell. Lake PUD Revision, request by Pemton for revision to the Mitchell
•
Lake PUD approved in 1971. The PUD Is located east of Mitchell Lake
and west of Co. Rd. 4 . •
Mr. James Hill reviewed the 1971 PUD with 770 living units and a gross
• density of approximately 7 units/acre. The changes were; reduction to
670 units/acre with a gross density of 5.6 units/acre, elimination of the zero
lot line homes; multiple units along Co. Rd. 4, townhouses south of the
lake , the remainder in single family, and park along the water boundaries.
Sorensen asked what the average lot sizes would be. Hill estimated the
,sizes as about 11, 000 sq. ft. with an average width of 90 feet.
Lynch asked what the tirneframe is for the project. Hill responded that they
would start grading this year if possible and the single family would be
built first, the townhouses second, and the multiple units last.
•
Meyers asked the staff to address the single family use in the previously
designated park area and the single.entrance to Co. Rd. 1.
Motion:
Bocrger moved, Meyers seconded, to refer the project to the staff and Park
and R.ereation Commission for a report. The vote was unanimous.
'3
}
•
MEMO
TO: Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Marty jessen, Director of Community Services /� Z
DATE: October 6, 1975
SUBJECT: Mitchell Lake PUD
At the September 15, 1975, meeting the Commission expressed the
following concerns with respect to the proposed development plan.
(These are in addition to those cited in the September 11, 1975 staff
report. )
1. That provision for Mini-Park Active Play Space be made.
•
2. The buildability of the proposed public park.
3. The extent of the protection of the lakeshore •
After a field inspection and additional study the following conclusions
were made about the proposed development;
1. The area designated as public park on the Pemton Land
Use Plan Map are inaccurate. They represent the current
elevation of Mitchell Lake at approximately 864 ', whereas,
the Eden Prairie Drainage Plan prepared by Barr Engineering
shows the normal level of Mitchell Lake at 870 and flood
elevation of 873' . These elevations are based on the
assumption that an outlet will be made from Mitchell Lake
to Red Rock Lake. If no connection is made providing an
outlet for Mitchell Lake then the flood elevation rises to
876 . 5 ' . When these new elevations are superimposed
on the land use plan for Mitchell Lake PUD , the land mass
shown"public park" diminishes substantially. •
2. If the elevation of the water increases to the normal level
suggested in the Eden Prairie Drainage Plan th n the 15
•
lot single family area shown as Block 4 becomes an island.
This area is very significant in terms of its natural habitat
and land features, and It is very questionable if any
development activity should take place..
Memo-Mitchell Lake PUD -2- Oct. 6, 1975
•
3. None of the areas designated as "public park" on the Land
Use Plan are adequate for active recreation space. It is
either very narrow along the lakeshore (assuming that the
water level rises in Mitchell Lake ), or it is relatively
steep slopes in the center part of the development proposal. •
The steeply sloped area , in the center part of the develop-
mint proposal, is definitely buildable land for residential
purposes, however, it does not adapt well to field game
types of recreation.
The Pemton property touches the proposed Mitchell Lake School site
on the southwest corner. The school/park site will provide adequate
open space for neighborhood recreation activities, however, there
should be provision for internal mini-park types of recreation within
the PUD. This mini-park area should be approximately 24-3 acres
in size , relatively flat and properly dimensioned (300x300' square).
None of the areas shown as "public park" in the original land use •
plan is adequate for this purpose. -I would suggest that an area south
of what is labeled " park " in the middle of the development proposal
be added to the public park area and used for mini-park purposes to
be maintained and operated by the homeowner's association .
The " island " and the water surrounding it would make a very desirable
addition to the Mitchell Lake Public Open Space Area. The Mitchell Lake
PUD was presented to the Riley/Purgatory Watershed District at their
meeting held October 1, 1975, and the possibility of their participation
in acquiring the property was discussed. They will be touring the
area this week on their annual tour and will then decide whether or not
the land might be appropriate for them to participate in acquisition.
•
Access to this area will be provided through the mini-park located in the
center of the proposal , plus lineal access would be provided around the
lakeshore from the Mitchell Lake school/park on the south end of the
lake.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I would recommend the following modifications be made to the Land Use
Plan submitted by Pemton ;
1. That dedication of the public lakeshore land be expanded
to the 880' elevation around the lake and including the
" island" .
«3
•
Memo-Mitchell Lake PUD -3- Oct. 6, 1975
•
2. That the "island" be deleted from their rezoning request
and the City attempt to secure funding for the purchase
of this area within the 880' elevation within a period of
two (2 ) years after which Pemton could reapply for
rezoning. •
3. That the encroachment on the slopes surrounding the
remainder of the lake area is limited be decreasing the
lot sizes within Block 2 of the single family detached area
and pulling the roads into the middle of that open field
area.
4. That the park area in the center of the development proposal
be expanded to the south a distance of 250 feet , thus
creating a usable mini park space along the proposed Mitchell
Lake Road.
•
5. That the cash in lieu of land formula be applied to the
development proposal to provide for rrl ghborhood park
playground areas and facilities needed to serve this develop-
ment as determined by the Neighborhood Facilities Study.
This would result in a cash dedication from the developer
of$ 125,000.00 to be collected at the time of plat final
approval for the various areas.
6. That provision be made for totlots within the townhouse
and multiple parcels as shown on the land use plan
at such times as zoning is requested for these uses.
7. That the developer construct a Bikeway/Hikeway along
County Road 4 and in a southwesterly direction thru the
site to the Mitchell Lake School Park site consistent with
the standards and criteria of the Bikeway/Hikeway Task
•
Force.
In the brochure submitted for this proposal is discussion about community
facilities to be owned and operated by the homeowner's association. They
included a community building, swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. The
present proposal does not deal specifically with these facilities, but I
would suggest that if any are to be constructed in the plan,that provision
be made for incorporating those on the park area located at the intersection
of Mitchell Lake Court and Mitchell Lake Road as expanded under the
recommendations in this staff report.
MJ/1me •
i
•........h. .
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District o
;- - - 69s0 COUNTY ROAD+:a
a
EDEN PRAIRIE•MINNESOTA 58343
7: 7— -'z r ..
October 1, 1975
Mr. Richard Putnam, City Planner
• City of Eden Prairie
•
8950 Eden Prairie Road
• Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 .
• Dear.Mr. Putnam: +'
The •
engineering staff of Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed •
District has
I
reviewed the survey information supplied by Pemtm for the Mitchell Lakeiake POD•
The survey indicates that the existing lake overflow elevation is app
mately 876.5. This overflow elevation would result in a flood level at •
Elevation 877. TT,e District recommends that 2 feet of freeboard be provided
between the flood level and the finished basement floor. All finished
•
basement elevations for homes constructed around. the lake should, therefore,
be above Elevation 879.
The following Watershed District policies and criteria are applicable •
for this development: "
1. Since this development is adjacent.to Mitchell Iake, alteration
•
of the site area oust be carefully carried out to minimize the
impact of site erosion on the watertr quality
yeof Mitche fromll.
L Lake.
`-
A grading and land alteration p
he
Watershed District. The grading
and
alaud
specificationsalteration
eshit 0ppliCa-
•
tion should be accoepanied by plans
erosion control methods to be used for the project. Consideration
f
e
tineshould be given to onlyrestoration og a fovegetationilonsthe altered ,
area and to the rfor ten is to be part of the erosion
areas. plan,
nhe storm weer bus •
control p3 nn, they xeust be built before land is altered for the
development. •
•
2. The D;striot is also concerned about the long-term
cat of this
•
project on the quality of Mitchell lake. he sewer the use of perennent pending areas as a part of t cto m toould be
system. As :such of the develoinn:.oat area as possible
diverted throng;: the pending areas. Street drainage should also •
go through a storage area and not be discharge directly to Mitchell
Lake as iltcwn on the plan.
3. the T':;n:tors expressed cence:n that a public access to Mitchell Lake
be obtained and are interested in r:hether or not a public access will
be incluZad i.n the b itchell Lake POD.
•
Thnrk you for the opporteai ty to review thin development. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Allan Cebhard
ltcofjcl
: c we. Cunrnd ri_nkoess
•
:x. Frederick eta.hards
Xt. 3.:mes hill
•
•
Fl7
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- Sept. 29, 1975
B. Mitchell Lake Pud Revision, request by Pemton for revision to the approved
1971 residential PUD. The PUD is located east of Mitchell Lake and west
of Co. Rd. 4.
The planner indicated staff members Mr. Jessen, Mr. Enger, and himself
had visited the site and had some reservations about development on the
peninsula of about 12 acres proposed for 15 single family lots. He believed
that it was the staff's responsibility to inform the commission about the
significance of the island or peninsula area. He suggested that the Park
and Recreation and Planning Commission members visit the.site and determine
for themselves whether the City should consider acquisition of the 12 acres
for its scenic habitat and recreation potential.
The planner explained in his opinion this site is totally unique and of significant
value that the City should consider investigating possible funding sources
for acquisition of the area. He expressed a concern about development as
proposed in the original PUD of single family attached (townhouses ), and
those proposed in the revision for 15 residential lots. He believed the impact
would be significant in changing the character of the area and that the time
to give it consideration is now prior to approval of any development.
He indicated some options may not interfere the with the orderly process
of the PUD revisions proposed by Pernton. He believed if the City felt the
area is appropriate for open space acquisition that that area could be placed
in a defered platting arrangement for a definite period of time.
Mr. Hill felt the use of that property for single family development is very
valuable and important to the implementation of the Mitchell Lake Plan. He
asked that the Commission use all haste in determining what action it wishes
to take so that they may proceed with the development in the other areas.
The Commission suggested that a tour might be possible at 6:30 PM , September
30th , this was approved and the planner was asked to set up the tour.
Motion:
Feerick moved, Schee seconded, to continue this item to the October 27th
agenda with a staff report prepared at that time.
•
Mr. Hill requested the October 27th date as he would be out of town on
October 8th.
The motion carried unanimously.
trg4/(/
.
d
MEMORANDUM
. e,
TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Marty lessen, Director of Community Services M.. .
SUBJECT: Issuos concerning the Mitchell Lake PUD
bl
DATE: September 11, 1975 I
On Monday, September 15, you will hear a presentation by Mr. Jim Hill of
Pomtom concerning the Mitchell Lake PUD proposal. Enclosed in this packet
is a xeroxed copy of their proposal;.presented to the then Village of Eden
Prairie a few years ago,which did receive concept approval. Also attached is
a letter dated August 18 to Dick Putnam the City Planner from Mr. Hill
indicating certain changes in the proposal from the earlier brochure.
• Changes between the earlier proposal and the one of today are as follows:
1. The number of living units has been reduced from 771 on
111 acres to 669 on 120 acres, thus causing a reduction
in living units per net acre from 6.9 to 5.58. .
2. Apparently the road which was to circle through the single
family area around the pond has now been discontinued
and eta-de-laced out at the end of the peninsula, thus
minimizing tho impact on the lake and the pond.
The basic intent of their proposal has not changed significantly in that the
•
types of residential structures are still located pretty much as they were earlier.
The Patio Homes have been eliminated from the plan and the number of multiple
development acres has increased.
The proposal on page 14 under Community Facilities states as follows:
"The Village Comprehensive Guido Plan provides for suggested locations of
public schools and perhe. The site plan proposed does not provide for public
open_n;::.e or churches." However, private open space equal to approximately
34.8 acrea has boon included in the plan. On this land will be included the items
listed on peen: 13 of the proposal under COM&lON AREAS AND FACILITIES. These
include, p:thways; improvements of the pond, community buildings, pork facilities,
•
•
at or near the swimming pool site, tennis and totlots within the residential
neighborhoods. All of these items are consistent with the normal requirements
on PUD developments in the City. ..
(MO
w-
•
TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural - 2 - September 11, 1975
Resources Commission
PUBIC PARK AND RECREATION CONSIDERATIONS
1. The Bikeway/Hikeway Task Force identified a trail along County Road
4 as the highest priority in the City. This should be included in the
ultimate site plan for the Mitchell Lake PUD.
2. The 2,007 projected residents of this area will cause a great deal of
increased&mend on the public recreation and park system in the
• community, and the cash in lieu of land dedication formula should be
applied. Applying it to its fullest would yield a cash contribution
in the range of$125,000. Perhaps given the extent of common areas
and facilities some reduced figure might be appropriate.
3. The plan as proposed does protect much of the Lakeshore of Mitchell
Lake by providing for lots at backs and common area open space in `l
• the high amenity areas along the lake. Provisions for public passage
on these trail systems would be desirable to the public park and
recreation concerns.
SUMMARY •
No specific recommendation is included in this memo. It is intended to perhaps
generate some thoughts with respect to the various issues surrounding this
proposal as to relate to the park, recreation and natural resources concerns �,
of the Commission.
MJ:jP
Riley-•
Purgatory Creek Watershed District
ttt ,u d_Q 8950 COUNTY ROAD •4
Jam.... ° -���"6 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343
Ur C th September 8, 1975
II, Mr. Richard Putnam •
City Planner
f; City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Wen Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Re: Mitchell Lake PUD
Dear Mr. Putnam:
At the September 3, 1975 meeting of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed
District, the Managers discussed the Mitchell Lake PUD. The Managers are
concerned about development around Mitchell Lake since available maps
indicate that Mitchell Lake does not have a surface outlet at the present
water level. This being the case, a wet hydrologic cycle could result
in a substantial increase in lake.level. Therefore, buildings constructed
without consideration for possible increases in lake levels during wet ,
hydrologic cycles can become flooded even though the buildings seem to
be well above the lake level at the present time. Numerous cases of
flooding around landlocked lakes have occurred in the metropolitan area
and the Managers are concerned that similar problems do not occur around
landlocked lakes within the Watershed District.
I
The U.S. Geological Survey contour map indicates that Mitchell Lake
• overflows to Red Rock Lake with the lake overflow probably occurring ;S
somewhere between elevation 870 and elevation 880. A copy of the U.S.G.S.
quadrangle map with the approximate location of the lake overflow marked ,
in red is enclosed.
Before the Managers proceed with any further review of the Mitchell.
Lake PUD, a survey should be completed to define the lake outlet elevation
and the drainagewty leading from Mitchell Lake to Red Rock Lake. The
survey should include a profile of the drainageway leading from the lake
including the elevations of the inverts of all culverts beneath rail-
roads, roadways and farm crossings between Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Lake.
After thin information has been submitted to the Watershed District, a
flood level can be established for the lake and the District can then
proceed with its further review of the Mitchell Lake PUD. .
Sincerely,
ill.PLAall
AC/am - Allan Gebhard
Encl. Engineer for the District
cc: Mr. Conrad Fiskuess
Mr. Frederick Richards
• mg 9
I
• A
+ UNITED STATES •
�4rti, DEPARTMENT OF THf. INTERIOR i
% GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1:
93 30' GI'^^E 462 I'53 27'30' '61
44°57.'30" 1 - - —r 1...7r 1.fi= "-t7 \ (� -.� r ..1 Cit' n '2 \. ti`- c.'—
• .rr v22 ' 1 } of - 1 t r . " I t :�
,.? �'P .l ._ -T.,-'1_ 7 S e tGorf Co {l L �., ,: v
{-� 11 '1'QDaD -L
r 13R'I.;n'/ \' .}_ _ D. �I _ void-- - vr�w''�.,. •i'1(:oltC.urr\ it ) Zfl� -
♦ f. ;yid se
ha
�2 Q. - . ��ero::., J/ i 11•,,,, --,, -- ((J vm~ J F4,,,,.. .., ,� \� \' Y
it,
- ii 1r\ , e r#I. •�,  yam) , f ` V` 4
t 1 , 'iI L -',/ - '
_ 7 a nxi Pair f r ,`ant o tq
"67 'N rs - '••/ r\,o `; '3'`I) 'i' PRAIRIE :_•
1, T-2,E3D 1 f• /
r - �N. � n
4 L1 j-_
( l;
19 __- - -. _- - _rfJ • 2 r -
% c {! } C `--
i.
.,_, :f �. mr t 321 r �,
If ��.� ss 6S
~ �1 r' A
" %n4 ' \\I ah�
\ y". 1 ,. f i SandGrt i a ''. ...��
• . 'i'Fj' r£'7 A ` " i
rf • '' / Ir ryrt� y L__ r. r'\ \ \ f .r ;T�' I
P
(ditC ve (
\`\ `'I �i• �6- FI,-----._LL,UO•'17 AISI 'tlttdd1[\t .
C _1. '. 4 it , rr \' t ,�7. > 4 • . ji + .may �' • S'L
i ``' 4 1 I d., !. i l' n•, J 4: tea s._. .>�L
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- Nov. 10, 1975
C. Carnes/Tangen Rezoning, request for single family rezoning from Rural to
R1-22 for 2 lots. The site is located north of Willow Creek Addition and
east of Bryant Lake.
•
As the proponents are both friends and clients, Sorensen stated he would
• refrain from voting but would participate in the discussion.
• Mr. Jim Olson, attorney for Carnes&Tangon,thanked the staff on behalf of
the proponents for their indepth study of the rezoning request. He then reviewed
their concerns relative to the October 20th staff report. He said the
proponents desire the 25 foot lake access for the back lot but an easement
arrangement may be possible. He stated the proponents are willing to dedicate
the additional 9 feet to enlarge the road right-of-way to 44 feet, but they
have no control over the other landowner's dedication, selling, or easement
of-additional right-of-way. He suggested the additional 9 feet of right-of-
way be acquired by the City if necessary.
Tangen suggested the 100 foot setback in Alternative C.4.g. be changed
to approximately 90 feet in order to preserve a large sugar maple. He
suggested they resolve the setback at the time of final platting.
Carnes believed the 35 foot road has served the existing residents well ,
preserves the natural resources,and does not need additional right-of-way.
He did not believe allowing the 25 foot lake frontage for the back lot and 1 dock
would harm the lake because he felt this re zoning would complete the
Willow Creek Area and development around Bryant Lake. The planner disagreed
because of the possibility of development across the lake. •
•
Lynch asked for clarification of Alternative C .4. e. The planner explained
that access through the lots to the north to serve the parkland'would be
beneficial for the Willow Creek area. •
Fosnocht suggested the additional street right-of-way could be obtained when
utilities are installed ,
The planner felt the staff could not negotiate any agreement other than the
minimum City standard of 44 feet. ..
Schee moved, Lynch seconded for discussion purposes, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Tangen/Carnes rezoning request for lots A-F
as per the air photo dated 11-10-75 withmodlfications for the following reasons;
1. The 3 new lots will not adversely affect the ground water quality
or pollution potential of Willow Creek upon Nine Mile Creek and B want
Lake.
2. That the street and 3 lots complete the Willow Creek subdivision
in a compatible manner.
J(10d
•
•
approved
Planning Commission
_3- Nov, 10, D75
3. That the property is not developable within the foreseeable future
in any other manner.
4. That the following modifications to the proposed plan are the ,
basis for approval.
a. That the "strip lake frontage" be removed and only •
Lot D be given access.
b. Modify Lot D to a minimum 100 foot frontage on Bryant
.Lake.
c. Give consideration to a joint driveway for Lots A and B
due to grading and tree removal required for the proposed
• driveway for Lot A.
• d. That the street right-of-way be 44 feet in width dedicated
. to the City with the provision that the owners of Lots A,B,
C, D and E maintain the street until such time as it is
reconstructed to City standards.
•e. That a pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists be provided
. connecting to Willow Creek Road and future Bryant Lake
park land.
f. That Lot F be rezoned to R1-22 for combination with the
Freeburg Lot 10 of Willow Creek.
g. That when homes on Lots D and B are planned the proponents •
should meet with the staff as to the house placement and lake
setback.
h. That the normal cash In lieu requirement be applied to the
three new single family home sites (approximately $ 300/unit) .
Vote: The motion carried 2:0:2 with Sorensen and Fosnocht abstaining.
/(11 33
•
•
Minutes
Parks, Rec. and Page Six
Natural Resources Com. Unapproved Novembdr 3, 1975
•
c. _a en/Tan?en Land Division
Jessen said the proposal consisted of a division of land to establish
five lots out of what is Presently two. 1e said land division is real-
tively simple, but will require re-zoning. As per Staff.Roport of Oct. 20,
addition of the 5 acres to Bryant Lake Park would be beneficial but not
essential. Jessen suggested that Metro Council funding could be considered.
Upton was concerned with the neighbors reactions. Penzel said there was
agreement of all but two. to added that according to Sorenson, who is a
resident of that area, the neighbors are generally in favor of it.
MOTION
Upton moved to recommend "Alternate 0", approving the Carnes/Tangen Sub-
division of Lots A-F with modifications, as stated in Staff Report of
October 20, 1975. 1:eliner seconded, notion carried unanimously.
•
•
iswq
approved
planning Commission Minutes -3- October 8, 1975
LETITIONS AND RF_OIIESTS. •
A. Tanoen/Carnes,a request for single family rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for 2 lots .
The site is located north of Willow Creek Addition and east of Bryant Lake.
As the proponents are both friends and clients, Sorensen stated he would
Walter Graff, attorney for the proponents , stated Tangen's property is already
zoned R1-22 and the request is to divide the property as shown on the plan.
Mr. Carnes expressed the desire to divide his property because he does not
require the full 10 acres he owns and friends have shown interest in
buying if the property car. be divided. Carnes stated all the lot sizes would
be approximately 1.5 acres In size and the road would be dedicated to the City
at the time of final platting.
Mr. Tangen informed the Commission they have approval for the land division
from all the Willow Creek residents except two of the reslderrts.
Schee inquired if City approval or resident consent as required under the Willow
Creek covenant comes first. Tangen replied they would be able to supply the
legal document at the time of final platting.
Gr'aff added that rezoning of the properly in Willow Creek does not require the
consent of the residents.
Boerger stated theCitY's policy of not rezoning Iand under 5 acres without sewer
and water would have to be evaluated in this request. Carnes said the Willow
Creek homes have drainage fields and the contours in the area are such that
utility extension is highly expensive. He added that the residents are satisfied
with their systems and he does not believe 2 more systems on 1.5 acres each
will change the situation.
Carries said his lloperty to the north is land locked and he does not feel their
platting request will open the area to development. Carries stated he has had
conversations with the Community Service Director about the possibility of selling
his property as park and is unsure of the status of the purchase.
Feerick felt an engineering report is needed to address the problems of access
and services.
•
Lynch suggested the staff investigate the regulations concerning lake frontage
as 1 of the proposed lots has 25' frontage.
Motion:
• Boerger moved, Schee seconded, to refer the request to the staff and Parks,
Recreation,and Natural Resources Commission for-reports and recommendations.
The motion carried Atkl with Sorensen abstaining,
// 6-
•
•
•
•
. approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 28, 1975
8. Carnes/Tar9en Rrezoni 9, a request for single family rezoning from Rural to
R1-22 for 2 lots. The site is located north of Willow Creek Addition and east
of Bryant Lake.
Sorensen repoited that the Carnes/Tangen request would be continued 2 weeks
per the request of the proponent.
•
•
•
•
•
1
.
ST'APT REPORT
Project: Tangen & Canes Willow Creek Subdivision
Developer/Owner: Tangen & Carnes
Location: North of Willow Creek Road and East of Bryant Lake •
Request: Rezone approximately 4.3 acres from Rural to R1-22
Refer to: Ai.rphoto 1" = 53' •
Land Development Application 9-25-75 —
Date: October 20, 1975
Prom: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
•
ISSUES:
A. Rezoning of Rural District land to urban densities without municipal
utilities (water and sewer).
•
•
B. The provisions of Ordinance 135, Section 4 subd. 4.2. .Permitted uses,
• provides for minimum half acre lot without sanitary sewer service.
C. The city has through numerous actions since 1973 limited and/or prohibited
rezoning and platting of Rural District properties because rio municipal . •
utilities were available.
•
D. Does the proposed subdivision provide an example to other land owners/
developers regarding city standards for street, lot configuration and lake
shore policy?
•
E. Will the proposed subdivision complement Bryant Lake Park? •
•
Urban/Rural Service Areas
•
•
Utilities
.,
The Tangen & Carnes subdivision is within Eden Prairie's trunk sewer/water •
system plan. Service to the subdivision could be provided to the Bryant Lake •
trunk. The proponents have pointed out the difficulty and high cost of any
city sewer to serve Willow Creek. •
•
The proponents are correct that the city sewer plan showing a 12" trunk along Bryant
Lake and through Mr. Carnes' home would be very costly. Mr. Italic, City
Engineer, dcic not believe that line is feasible due to the Bryant Lake Park cx-
parision, environmental requirements, and limited homes/acres served. He be-
hetives that a small lateral sewer could go up Willow Creek Road with lift stations
at far less cost than the trunk system shown on-the City Sewer Plan.
•
•
ltl6
- 2 -
Based upon these facts, the proponents subdivision could be served by existing
city trunk water and sewer, with the extension of a lateral system to serve the
Willow Creek area.
. Schools
— The comprehensive plan does hot project any school construction in the Bryant
Lake area. Two of the Carnes' lots will be in School District 274 while Tangen's —
Lot B will be in School District 272.
Community Facilities
The subdivision is close by the MC.n. and community par
ks, Police, fire and
•
emergency service are available from U.S. 212/169 and T.H. j#5. No pedestrian
bike routes exist that serve Willow Creek. The area is well served by auto routes
and community services. .
Rezoning & Platting in Rural Districts
Eden Prairie's City Councils since 1973 have not encouraged subdivision of
Rural Districts unless city sewer and water were available.
The land development requests by Mr. Dorenkemper,Crestwood, 79 Z-17.
73-1-P-24 and Hustad's Development Creekknolls 721-2-03 were approved with
conditions of the rezoning relating to other parcels. Two proposed subdivisions
have been rejected, Ceder Forest 2nd 74-2-24 by J. Semred and Mitchell Lake
Estates I'UD-74-14 a mobile home park. The City Council motions for the
development requests stressed the lack of city utilities as a major reason for .
rejection.
Crestwood single family rezoning to R-1-22 was approved due to unique circum-
stances. Platting was allowed adjacent to the existing street since it had been
improvewith lots on one side. The intent of the Council was to allow a rean-
able compljtionof the existing neighborhood without enlarging the subdivision to
any great extent. l
Official City ordinances allow single family lots in the R1-22 District withod
sewer and water however, the City has not allowed subdivision requests in
unsewcred areas. A clarification of Eden Prairie's policy is needed.
i
Impact Upon Bryant Lake Park
The_r_5 acre eastern parcel has been informally offered to the city by Mr. Carnes
to define the Southern boundry at Bryant Lake Park. Mr. Jessen, of the city_has
total •
reviewed the
o
Path tbuthepnott esslentia 1.acui Timing of such acquisition is uncertain.tion and believes that it would be beneficial alongt
with .
the funding availability.
-�.%. tJP
- 3
•
To make Bryant Lake Park more usable by the residents of Willow Creek a
pedestrian/bike connection should be provided from Willow Creek Road to the
Park property. Such a trail casement or dedication might be located on Mr.
Porter's property or Mr. Carnes'. Tho neighborhood should work with those
owners to establish the most appropriate location.
•
•
Site Plan Review •
The proposed lot configuration makes sense given the "rough terrain".
Large Lot (over I ac.)is a reasonable development type for the site. The lots
would complement the existing homes in Willow Creek.
Lake Frontage .
The proposal shows Lot L and E with narrow lake frontage of. 25 and 50 foot.
The intent is to provide dock and lakeshore access for those two lots even
though they are not oriented to the lake.
•
The staff does not believe this approach to lake shore use should(be permitted.
Perhaps, Lot D could have shore frontage but Lot E is 25' strip does not seem
appropriate.
Willow Creek has a common dockage area for those residents without lake
lots permitting boat dockage etc....Lots D and E if they join the Willow Creek
association and agree to deed restrictions of the subdivision,could use the
common outlot for dockage etc. •
•
The Planning Commission required that such a "lake shore strip concept" he
changed in the Bedrock Hills Platt by Houston Engineering. The city does not
want the "wall to wall" dock and shore land over use which is generated by
small lake frontage lots.
Road and Driveway Access
The street is proposed to he public providing frontage to each of the lots.
The frontage is below the requirements of Ordinance 93 but is for lot acces>.
The proposed street of 35' right of way should be enlarged to at least 44' right
of way and preferably 50 feet.
•
The driveway which exists does not meet city street standards for new sub-
divisions. The Engineering Department recommends that the right of way be
•
accepted for a public siseet but that all maintenance be the responsibility of
lots A, B, C, D, and E until such time as the street is improved to city
standards. Snob improvement might occur if and when sewer and water is ..
extended to the area.
•
•
- 4 -
The driveway for lot A may require filling and some tree removal if built as
proposed. The other driveways should present no major problem.
Alternatives:
A. Deny the Tangen and Carnes subdivision as proposed for the •
following reasons:
•
1. No municipal utilities are available to the lots.
2. The street does not meet city design standards.
3. Lots D and E do not have acceptable lake frontages.
B. Approve the Tangen and Carnes subdivision as submitted and rezone from
Rural to R-1-22 for the+ 5 acres of Lots C, D, and E.
C. Approve the Tangen and Carnes subdivision for Lots A - F with modifications
. for the following reasons.
•
1. The 3 new lots will not adversely affect the ground water quality or
pollution potential of Willow Creek upon 9 Mile C1•eek and Bryant Lake.
2. That the street and 3 lots complete the Willow Creek subdivision in a
compatible manner.
3. That the property is not developable within the forseeable future in
any other manner.
•
4. That the following modifications to the proposed plan are the basis
for approval. •
a. That the "strip lake frontage" be removed and only Lot
D be given access.
b. Modify Lot D to a min. 100'frontage on Bryant Lake.
c. Give consideration to a joint driveway for Lots A and B
due to grading and tree removal required for the proposed
driveway for Lot A.
d. That the street right-of-way be 50 feet In width dedicated
to the city with the provision that the owners of Lots A, B, C,
D, and E maintain the street until such time as it is recon-
• structed to city standards. •
•
•
•e. That a pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists be provided
connecting to Willow Creek Road and future Bryant Lake
• Park land.
- 5 -
•
f. That Lot F be rezoned to R1-22 for combination
with the Freeberg Lot l.0 of Willow Creek.
8-
That homes on Lot D and B be a minimum of 100 feet
back from Bryant Lake.
•
h. That the normal cash in lieu requirement be applied to
the three now single family home sites. (approx. $300/unit)
STIFF RECOMMENDATION
The unique location of the site, proximity to existing trunk sower and water and
lack of other alternatives indicates to the Planning, Park and Rec and Engineering
Staff that alternate C be recommended.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
efts�
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Osterhult and Member, of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager. —
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: November 26, 1975
SUBJECT: Flying Cloud Center
PROPOSAL: Titus, Incorporated is requesting approval of the Final Plat of
Flying Cloud Center. The property consists of 7.8 acres located north
of the Eden Prairie Center,Addition, east of T.H. 169-212, south of
Leona Addition and west of the proposed Schooner Boulevard. The pro-
posed land use is regional service/commercial.
HISTORY: The Planned Unit Development for the Commercial Plan by Titus, Inc.
was approved by the City Council on April 1, 1975, per Resolution No. 964.
It is assumed that the P.U.D. process and approval, including public
hearings, does satisfy the intent of the preliminary plat requirement
of Ordinance No. 93.
VARIANCES: The current zoning of the Titus property to be platted is Rural
except for the westerly portion of the site which is zoned C-Hwy.
Future rezoning of the property will be necessary prior to issuance of
building permits. The developer will agree, in writing, to this require-
ment. Platting at this time will facilitate marketing of the land and
rezoning descriptions. The final plat for the Edenvale Commercial
Park was handled in a similar manner. Accordingly, it is recommended
that a procedural variance from Ord. 93 and 135 be granted, allowing
final platting prior to rezoning.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal sanitary sewer, and watermain are available
to the site extension by the developer will be required and subject to
approval by the City Engineer. All parking areas and drives shall
have concrete curb and gutter and full depth design bituminous surfacing.
Leona Road will be dedicated to the City to accomodate a future connec-
tion with the existing Leona Road. The developer shall maintain all
roadways constructed within the platted right-of-way of Leona Road
until such time that the roadway is extended to serve other properties
to the north of the Titus project.
/y63
— 2 —
PARK DEDICATION: There will be no land dedication for public park or open
space within the plat. Resolution NO. 964, P.U.D. approval, requires
a cash donation equal to 15% of the assessor's market valuation. This
•
amount would be $7,500. Said resolution further requires that payment
shall be but proportionate to the amount of acres developed in each
development stage or rezoning request and shall be payable prior to
r- issuance of building permits. The developer will agree in writing ._
• to this cash donation procedure.
•
BONDING: Roadways and utilities within the plat with the exception of
Leona Road, as above described, will not be maintained by the city
and therefore no bonding will be required.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Plying Cloud Center, subject to the
contents of this report and receipt of the fee for City Engineering
•
services in the amount of $156.
•
CJJ:kh
•
•
•
a �
• December 2, 1975
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.1061
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
OF FLYING CLOUD CENTER
•
a- —
WHEREAS, the plat of Flying Cloud Center has been submitted
in a 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 ,
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
•
A. Plat Approval Request for Flying Cloud Center.is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
Report on this plat dated November 26, 1975.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified •
copy of this Resolution in the office of the Register of
Deeds and/or Registrar of Titles for their use as required
by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above
named plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Coun-
cil upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City council on
•
David W. Osterholt, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
•
John D. Frane, Clerk
17r 6
II
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council �
FROM: Marty jessen, Director of Community Services /4.3
SUBJECT: Blacklock House at Anderson Lakes
DATE: November 28, 1975
At the time the Blacklock purchase was approved, the matter of interim
use of the home was deferred until the end of this year. The Blacklocks
have now advised that they will be vacating the home by February 1, 1976,
and we would suggest that a renter'be secured to live in the house with the
expected ultimate use of the home to be part of the Nature Center program.
The appraised value for the house and 1.3 acres is $35,000.00, which is
equal to the purchase price. In discussing the matter with the City
Assessor, he is of the opinion that a $275.00 a month rental rate would •
represent a "fair market rate" for this property. We would attempt to rent
the Blacklock house at that rate.
In addition, we plan to rent the Heppes house because we have received
no bids to buy the house for moving. In this case, the Assessor feels that
a fair rental rate would be $200.00 a month. We would suggest that in light
of the condition of the property, the rent be in the range of$150.00 on a
month-to-month basis with the City to assume no responsibility for
maintenance and repairs.
MJap
•
•
146.47
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
SUBJECT: Council Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, December 2, 1975
DATE: November 28, 1975
I.A. The Council at the time the Public Hearing was set relative to the improvements
in Areas F and C, raised some concern relative to the City on establishing
this improvement district and ultimately assessing the project for these
improvements. A question arose as to the City's policy on front ending
these types of improvements for individual benefit. In this particular
area, however, these improvements will benefit other areas in addition
to F and G,but the major portion of the benefit is directly to these two
areas. We have reviewed with Mr. Carter of The Preserve and also Methodist
Hospital the thought of posting a bond to cover their proportionate share of
these improvements at the time of certification. These bonds could then be
reduced in part or in total at the time building permits were obtained. I have
asked representatives of The Preserve to be present Tuesday evening to speak
on their position relative to posting thc bond. John Frane will also outline
to the Council our per capita debt and also what affect improvements of this
type and other such improvements would have on our bond rating.
I.B. Pemtom is requesting modification of the 1971 PUD plan. They ere also requesting
rezoning for about 40 acres of the total acreage from rural to single family. The
single family area is slightly larger than the original proposal. You will note
in the recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation
and Natural Resources Commission would be to consider establishing a park
area in the development which can only be obtained through purchase. If the
decision is to proceed in this manner, additional research will have to occur
to determine whether funding is available for this acquisition.
1.C. The request of Carnes/Tang en for rezoning will finalize the Willow Creek
addition as to land use for that total rrea. Both the Planning Commission
and the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommend
approval of the rezoning es you will note in the enclosed survey and reports.
I1.A.1. Flying Cloud Center Addition, Titus Corporation being the propor nt, are
submitting their final plat for apprevel. We have enclosed Resolution No.
1061 for your approval as ear Carl juilie's enclosed memo.
Mayor and City Council - 2 - November 28, 1975
II.A.2.All streets and utilities are now constructed in the Northmark 2nd Addition,
and we recommend the Council consider accepting these streets and
utilities as built with the condition that bond be posted for a period of
one year to insure against defects.
II.B.1.The Blacklock home at Anderson Lakes will be vacated approximately
February 1, 1976. It appears to be a very fine home and we would request
the Council consider renting this home as per the memo outlined in your
agenda packet.
II.C,1.The Council stated at your last regular meeting that you would outline
the procedures and also set a date and the interview process for
selecting the Council replacement. The Council may wish to consider a
• special meeting for this purpose.
•
RKU:jp
•