Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/23/1976 • JOHN FRANE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Billy Bye, Sidney Pauly, Joan Meyers and Tim Pierce COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Harlan Perbix; Planner Dick Putnam; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Marty lessen; Engineer Carl Jullie; Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS. II. MINUTE - A. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held Thursday, March 4, 1976. Page 2020 B. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 9, 1976. Page 2027 C.Minutes of the Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting held Page 2051 Monday, March 15, 1976. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Minnesota Protective Life Insurance request for PUD concept and Page 2053 development stage approval and rezoning from Rural to Office District. The 5.42 acre site is located north of Leona Road and east of TH 169 In the MCA. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from the Eden Prairie-Hoskins-Minnetonk&League of Women Voters for a contribution to be used for the League sponsored "Town Meeting" . Page 2066 V.ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 313, granting Carnes/Tangen rezoning Page 2067 from Rural to R1-22 for 3 lots. B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 314, granting Maple Leaf Acres rezoning Page 2069 from Rural to RM 6.5 and R1-13.5. Council Agenda -2 - Tuesday, March 23, 1976 VI.REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports by Council Members. B. Report of City Engineer 1. Receive feasibility report for street improvements on School Road and Eden Court, Project STR 75-3-18. Page 2072 2. Agreement for 1976 engineering services with RCM Associates. Page 2081 3. Change Order No. 3, I.C. 51-263, northeast area Trunk Watermain Page 2089 Project, G.L. Contracting, Inc. C.Report of Director of Community Services 1. Resolution No. 1106 expressing support for legislation to fund Page 2090 Regional Parks. 2. County Road 4 Bikeway/Hikeway-- Discussion of Design - - Page 2092 • Development. 3. Specifications for a Stake Truck for the Park Department. D.Report of Planning Director 1. Discussion on Hennepin County Transportation Plan meeting held March 4, 1976. (continued from March 9th Council Meeting) E. Report of City Manager 1. Discussion of Suburban Hennepin County Organization.(continued Page 2115 from March 9th Council meeting). F. Report of Finance Director 1. Clerk's License List. Page 2115 2. Payment of Claims Nos. 8964 - 1059. Page 2116 VII.NEW BUSINESS VIII.AD]OURNMENT. • UNAPPROVED MINUTES DDJN PRAIRIE CITY CoUNCIii • THURSDAY, March 4, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wof lfgang Penzel Joan Meyers Tim Pierce Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF PRESENTz City Manager Roger Dieted City Attorney Harlan Perbix Planner Dick Putnam City Engineer Carl Jullie Recording Secretary, Donna Stanley INVOCATION - City Manager, Roger Ulatad PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL- Pierce, Penzel&Meyers were present. Bye arrived at meeting at 7:45 PM; Pauly arrived at 7:50 PM. • I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following item was requested to be added to the Nev Business category. A. Discussion of possible topics at meeting with Legislators on Saturday. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARING$ A. Hobert H. Mason& Fraser School. Inc.. reouest for PUB approval. ;ezonina from Rural to RN 6.5 and ureliminary plat approval. Mayor Penzel opened public hearing requested by Robert H. Mason& Fraser School, Inc. regarding 4 acre site located in the the northeast corner of the intersection of the Bast/West Parkway and Preserve Blvd., and introduced Dr. Robert Kowalczyk, Executive Director of the Fraser School. Dr. Kowalczyk gave a slide presentation of the proposal and offered as additional information, his experience in initiating research across the U.S. in existing group homes. For background information, be stated the approval of the program by the Human Rights Commission, the South Hennepin Human Services Commission, and the Planning Commission of Eden Prairie. Mr. James Robin, landscape architect, spoke to the site and responded to • questions on how much of the site would have to be filled and where this fill would come from. He stated that the entire site would have to be A020 Council Minutes - 2 - Thursday, March 4, 1976 • A. Robert H. Mason& Fraser School. Inc. . . .amuroval (oont'd) raised to provide adequate drainage, and we will receive fill from the Winslow site next door. Mr. Bart Jordan, Board member of the Fraser School, was introduced and presented the plans for the houses and site development. He emphasized that they were trying to make the homes large, airy, and pleasant and these houses would cost about S150,000. Mayor Penzel called for Planner Dick Putnam to review the Planning Commission . Minutes and other reports. Planner Putnam gave a brief summary of the various bodies which had re- viewed the Plan and their action. He spoke to the Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 1976, touching on the six points on which Motion Your was based upon. City Attorney Perbix explained, for the benefit of some of the people, that Ordinance 289 came in advance of any other ordinance in the State on this type of legislation, and that State Law came after ours and did make some changes. • Mayor Penzel called for questions from the Council. Kowalczyk responded to questions from Meyers regarding the residents integration socially in the nn,mmrnity and the guarantee of the highest quality of parents obtained. He said that social integration into the neighborhood was part of the plan, and that the Department of Public Welfare has set the guidelines for training and other qualifications of the house parents. Pierce inquired as to where the young adults would be coming from and how it would be handled. Kowalczyk answered that they would be mainly from the south and southwest suburban area, and it would be dictated by the Department of Welfare, based on the needs of the residents. Council members had questions ons the use of the recreational facilities by the residents - Kowalczyk stated they will control the element of too many going down to use the facilities at one time, and hoped to involve volunteers,because of the handicap of some of the residents; the possibility of breaking down the project into stages - problem was that training time would be wasted; State and Federal approval applicable at this time - approval cannot be received until Council approval is given;&Hording for the project - Kowalczyk assured members that funding was available. Mayor Penzel opened the meeting to the audience. John Sakella and John Retterath presented a series of five letters against the proposal, and in favor of keeping Ordinance 289, with additional signa- tures from Preserve opponents. goal Council Minutes - 3 - Thursday, March 4, 1976 4 I A. Robert H. Mason& Fraser School. Inc. . . . auaroval (cont'd) John Bergen, 8705 Bentwood Drive, Preserve, wasio was �tsed wh the ich would proposal because he felt that the average age , the age of 34, would mean that many would not be graduates of the Fraser School, and therefore, not trained. There was discussion on the selection of the residents, which Kowalczyk said would be made by the Intake Committee, made up of parents, professionals, and lay people, and with our input. He added that approximately 75% of residents will be Fraser School graduates. Fred Berglund, 7835 Bien Court, speaking to the letter opposing the pro- posal because it would be similiar to an institution, defended institutions, stating that the Mayo Clinic and Univ. of Minnesota were institutions, and was in favor of the proposal. Sakella, Preserve, felt the proposal was to provide "family environment" and should house six,rather than twelve, which made it an institutional size. Bye spoke to the letters submitted by Sakella and felt they were too late • for the Council to study, since they were introduced only tonight. Joan Dudley, Preserve, apologized for the lateness of the letters and said their intention had been to submit them earlier. She requested that the Council go over them and give them some answers. Bye spoke to some of the letters and briefly answered some of the questions. Pauly requested that Don Hess of the Preserve and City Attorney Perbix speak to letter no. 4. Mr. Hess stated that there are no restrictions at all for Preserve residents to use any of the facilities which have been provided by the developer. Attorney Perbix spoke to the question of the Preserve "Declaration of Covenants", and stated that our position is that those are private rights of the people building the homes and not rights that the City gets involved with. John Davis, 11240 Windrow Dr., Preserve, felt the homes should be scattered throughout the neighborhood MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to close public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 1098. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the first reading of Ordinance 213 from Rural to RM 6.5 and to direct the Staff and City Attorney to draft a Developers agreement, containing recommendations from Planning Commission Minutes of January 26. 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Pauly questioned point no. 2 of the Planning Commission recommendations referring to future family care homes being allowed in the Preserve. City Manager Ulstad stated that Attorney Perbix will review this point prior to the second reading. Council Minutes — 4— Thursday, March 4, 1976 A. Nobert H. Mason& Fraser School. Inc.. . .aval (cont'd) MOTION 3: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt Resolution 1099, approv ing preliminary plat, lot B, block 2. Penzel offered amendment of including outlot for homeownerts trailway and transfer to Winslope site, agreed to by Meyers. Motion carried unanimously. B. jdenvale 11th by Edenvale, Inc.. request for rezonine. to R1-13.5 with lot gize variances and preliminary plat approval for approximately 22 lots on 6 acres. Don Peterson presented the proposal of Edenvale llth Addition, by Zachman Homes and Edenvale Corp., located at intersection of Woodhill Trail and Edenvale Boulevard. Mr. Zachman spoke to the proposal, stating that homes would be somewhat on the order of Summer Woods and Village Woods, except the garage is optional in order to keep the price down. Report of the Staff was presented by Planner Putnam, who spoke to a summary of PR& MR Minutes and recommended approval the proposal subject to the ee points outlinedby Mr. Peterson. Addressing himself to the Planning request regarding setback, he stated that he felt the 301 setback was very adequate. City Attorney Perbix questioned Item C. of the recommendation and whether the bond was to cover the recreation area and bikeway. Putnam responded that the purpose of the bond was to make sure these points were accomplished, and if development is finished before people move in the bonding would not be necessary. Meyers asked if this project was successful, would the remaining area be proposed as an extension of this project. Peterson responded that they do not have a continued option agreement on any other portion except these 22 units. Meyers questioned the driveway and inquired as to cost for extending the driveway. Zachman responded it would cost $200 per house, with Peterson adding that the reason for carrying driveway to the rear of the house was to give the project a finished look. Mayor Penzel asked Putnam to speak on background requirements on Planning Staff Report of January 22. Planner Putnam spoke to the requirements such as variances which would be necessary and landscaping. Pierce suggested that one of the lots be moved around or eliminated to ease the problem of the driveway, with Peterson responding that they have experimented with eliminating one lot and that it would increase cost of other lots by 000 with a gain of only 2'x feet. Mayor Penzel called for questions and comments from the public. Mari Dragseth, Preserve, spoke in favor of this project and for alternate housing, and commented that as a resident of Surmerikod with this type of driveway, they found it very palatable for a growing family with a young imme. zaa3 • • Council Minutes - 5 - Thursday, March 4+, 1976 B. Fdenvale 11th . . .acres (cont'd) MOTION 1:Pauly moved, seconded by Bye, to close public hearing and to approve first reading of Ordinance 319 regarding rezoning from RM 6.5 to k' Rt-13.5, with the lot size variances and direct the City Attorney to draft a develo- per's agreement with the provisions on Planning Commission recommendation of February 23, 1976. Fenzel suggested including in developer's agreement, that Edenvale meet the normal City requirements toward making trailways and in response to Riley-Purgatory Watershed District letter of January 26 which states that the developer retain responsibility for providing adequate erosion control measures on the site regardless of future ownership dof ftthea. e entire site or subdivided portions thereof. Meyers agreed Motion carried unanimously. Peterson commented that he would have a trailway plan in a week and a half and meet other requirements in their proposal before the second reading. MOTION 2s Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt Resolution 1100 based on revised preliminary plat dated February 5, 1976, that included tot lots, bikeway, & play area. Notion carried unanimously. C. iinntRoad out sQu eration ot oronertes he northeast southeast and sohwestuadrants of the 4/5 intersection. City Manager Ulstad gave background information on properties involved. • Planner Putnam spoke to the reasons why they have initiated the Planned Study, because of the Guide Plan Update pda � Pemtom whrequesting put ittpblbliic earing on their proposal, and with the question with it. He suggested eliminating nned Study when we are going to do something the Pemtom Study and lower right parcel, south of Highway 5. Pierce inquired whether there were any development pressures. Putnam res- ponded there were none except the Pemtom Study. Mayor Fenzel asked for questions from the Public. Ruth Qneal, 16191 Westgate Trail, submitted letter with signatures against the Gonyea proposal,po locate at the Northeast corner of Intersection State Highway 5 and l 4. Keith Bjerk, 16371 Westgate Trail, asked whether there was something they could do make sure that something good was done with the property. Bye responded that in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which is being updated at this time, the comeunityb Sequests are part of this. • Mr. Bjerk questioned the need for a shopping center. Pierce responded that due to circumstances of existing zoning, there is very little the City can do. • A02(1 • Council minutes - 6 - Thursday, March 4, 1976 C. T.H. 5 and County Road 4 Planned Study'Rezoning. . .4/5 intersection. (oont'd) Jim Quaal, 16191 Westgate Trail, stated that they were oldest residents on Westgate Trail, and they were concerned with what used to be a corn- field. He asked what Eagle Enterprises was going to build. Planner Putnam responded that it mould be a mini-mail or small shopping center,and added that the potential is there to develop the same way commercially on all corners. . . MJTIONs Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the public hearing and to adopt the first reading of Ordinance 320 re-zoning to Planned Study, the northeast, southeast and southwest quadrants and commercial 17.9 parcel on southeast quadrant, north half of 17.8 and the remaining parcels on the southwest quadrant. Motion carried unanimously. Putnam requested map of area be inserted in the Minutes. r I ,1 ... "" ! .,.. . III. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & 00hIIa3sIONS A. perort of City Engineer 1. lnnrove Plans and Specifications and order advertisement for bids for utilities and streets for areas F find G of The Preserve Coranercial Plan. I.C. 51-274 (Res. ho. 1097) City Manager Ulstad spoke to the plans and specifications for consideration of the Council and asked for consideration of advertisements. MOTIONS Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adopt Res. No. 1097 approving plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids for utilities and streets for areas F and G of the Preserve Commer- cial Plan, I.C. 51-274. 2. Receive petition for street and utiliti improvements for Red pock Hills 2nd Addition. I.C. 51-285 (Res. No. 1082) Mr. Houston, developer, appeared before the Council and responded to questions regarding the Red Rock Hills 2nd Addition. Council Minutes - 7 - Thursday, March 4, 1976 2. floelvq petition for street and gtilitr imnrov. for_Red Book Hills..21- 5 (oont'd) MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve Resolution 1082, omitting "per their petition letter dated Jan. 30, 1976"(end of 1st para.) to receive the petition for street and utility improvements for the Red Rock Hills addition and advertise for bids. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Approve final plat of St.,Jcj►n's Wood 7th Addition (Res. No. 1096) City Engineer Carl Tullis spoke to the Resolution and stated that they were in the last stage platting of the St. John's Wood Project, which has 16 units. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce to adopt Resolution No. 1096 approving Final Plat of St. John's Wood Seventh Addition with the follow- ing additions: ponding provision of the plat be made a matter of record, and in addition, the residents in St. John's Wood be made aware that the turn-around shown on plat is a temporary easement and will not be per- manent. Motion carried unanimously. IV. NEW BUSINEER A. pisousaion of possible topics at meeting with Legislators on Saturday. Councilwoman Meyers felt that if someone was going to the meeting, . they should be aware of our concerns. Concerns discussed were: fiscal disparities, road problems, access to highways, pending Bills such as' Use Formula for General Hospital, Metro Open Space Plan, and FAU funding. . Mayor Fenzel announced that he would attend the meeting. V. £DJOURNMEN Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 PM. Nation carried unanimously. • • 42006 e ,n ..... UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976 7:30 P.M., VO-TECH AUDITORIUM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel Billy Bye Joan Meyers Tim Pierce Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad City Attorney Keith Simons City Engineer Carl Jullie Director of Community Services Marty lessen Planning Director Dick Putnam Recording Secretary Joyce Provo INVOCATION - Marty lessen, Director of Community Services ROLL CALL: Penal, Bye, Meyers and Pierce present; Pauly absent. (Bye was excused from the meeting at 9:50 PM) • I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were requested to be added to the New Business category: A. Discussion of a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting on Guide Plan Proposal. B. Report on Hennepin County Transportation Plan meeting of March 4, 1976. C. Consideration of the Suburban Municipal organization request made by Mayor Jim Krautkremer of Brooklyn Park. D. Request from Pemtom to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda of March 22, 1976, for public hearing on their preliminary plat and rezoning for the single-family and townhouse development portions of the Mitchell Lake PUD. E. Report from Planning Director Putnam on Community Development application. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the agenda with the inclusion of the five afore mentioned items under New Business category. Motion carried unanimously. ao2? Council Minutes -2 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 II.MINUTES A. Minutes of the Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting held Monday, February 23, 1976. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the minutes of the February 23, 1976 Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting as published. Motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held Thursday, February 26, 1976. pg. 4, para. 6, lines 5 and 6, strike "Staff for further consideration on the Pemtom Island" and insert in lieu thereof "Parks, Recreation& Natural Resources Commission for further recommendations on the Mitchell Lake park areas". pg. 5, 1st para., line 2, strike "proposals" and insert "proposal review". " ",2nd para., 5th line, strike "of the land". " ",in subheading "B", strike "proponent's" and insert "proponents". " ",4th para., strike "written" and insert "submitted by applicant". pg. 6, 2nd para.,lst line, strike "Penzel" and insert "Meyers". pg. 7, 2nd pare. , 3rd line, strike "decision" and insert "recommendation"; in the same para., 4th line, strike "be moved accordingly" and insert "will be continued". MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the minutes the City Council meeting held February 26, 1976 as published and !I corrected. m.ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 321 regulating fees and charges for business licenses, permits and municipal services and amending Ordinance No. 280. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 321. Motion carried unanimously. B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 320 licensing and regulating the use and sale of intoxicating liquor and amending Ordinance No. 202. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 320. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 3 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 W.j'UBLIC HEARING A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study The following members of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District Board of Managers participated in discussion during the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study Public Hearing: Howard L. Peterson, President Conrad B. Fiskness Donald F. Pennie Howard Merriman William Sault Al Gebhard, Engineer for the Watershed District Don Brauer, Brauer &Associates, consultant for the Study, gave a slide presentation illustrating the various sectors involved. Director of Community Services jessen explained that the Study has been in the process for a couple of years. A Steering Committee composed of the staff, City, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission and Watershed District was put together to see what direction should be taken. The recommendation of the Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Commission is to accept the idea that it represents as a guide and to use it as a definition of what kind of open space and how the open space should be used. Does not necessarily mean land acquisition at this time. Howard Peterson, President of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District, made a statement on behalf of the Watershed District. (See attached statement from Howard Peterson dated March 9, 1976). Dick Anderson, representing the Parks, Recreation& Natural Resources Commission, restated the Commission's support for the study report. (Complete statement made by Mr. Anderson, dated March 9, 1976, attached). Dick Putnam, City Planner, noted that the Planning Commission has been considering this study for about 4 months and did take action to utilize the Purgatory Creek study as a guide to further policy development. Consultant Brauer, City Attorney Simons,and Watershed District representatives answered questions of Council members. • 2Ua 9 to • Council Minutes -4 - Tuesday. March 9, 1976 A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study (continued) Mayor Penzel opened the meeting to the audience for their participation. Mr. Teas, Box 1156, Hopkins, asked the definition of open space. Brauer responded that open space means something that is not developed with urban things. Mr. Teas further stated that Purgatory Creek should be left as it is. Gretchen Salyards, 15824 Park Terrace Drive, expressed her opposition to the study explaining that the Purgatory Creek Corridor would not be good for bicycle paths. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, felt the Purgatory Creek Study was too big a program for the small amount of people tax-wise. If implementing the plan is undertaken, he feels the costs would be much more prohibitive than what has been indicated. Diestler further questioned if anything definite was going to be done by the City, or if this is merely a proposal. Mayor Penzel responded that we are not proposing any land acquisition at this time. Ray Welter, Jr., 10844 Blossom Road, felt the costs are way higher than can be imagined. (Mr.Welter also submitted a written statement to the Council dated March 9, 1976, which is attached). He further felt that what the study says and what Brauer has indicated do not coincide. James Cullen, 15381 Creekside Court, representing 10 homeowners, read their signed statement. (Statement attached dated March 9, 1976). Mr. Cullen further stated that the matter of financing is not discussed in the report. Ernest Booth, 6781 Tartan Curve, expressed concern that the Creek goes through his property about 75' from his home. Brauer responded that there is nothing that says the path should be right next to the Creek. There isn't any set pattern, there are alternatives. Calvin Anderson, 7214 Topview Road, stated it appears we are going overboard on open space in expense of our neighborhood parks. Michael J. Pohlen, expressed his concern indicated in attached letter dated February 3, 1976. Sally Brown, 10080 Bennett Place, asked how many acres were in the con- • servancy zone and transistional zone. lessen responded approximately 1,200 acres altogether in the conservancy zone, transistional zone and flood plain zone. Brauer added that we are proposing the conservancy zone to be inhabited. aoSO Council Minutes -5 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study (continued) Cecil Martin, 6585 Eden Prairie Road, suggested that the City evaluate their capability of a purchase of this size. questioned if not the City, who would contribute to these purchases( Don Hess, The Preserve, stated the Preserve is pro open space but they do have some reservations. Questioned what is the total impact of this plan plus all other open space plans? The Preserve thinks there is a benefit of having more, but how much more? What happens to the development in the floodplain in Eden Prairie until a plan replaces this study? Concerned how this would affect The Preserve who are in a position where they have a committed plan with a good deal of open space in it. The Preserve would like to be involved in future meetings on this study. Dan Hamilton, 11995 Sunnybrook Road, explained that when he attended a Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting the questions of priorities for acquisition were discussed and tentative financing for the acquisition. Jessen responded that the Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Commission did not take any action on these two items, however would be prepared to discuss these pending the outcome of the Public Hearing. Jessen further stated that we have preliminarily explored but do not have any answers on funding that will be available. We know that some may be available, we do not know for certain that we would qualify. The plan is not an implementation program. We are not actively soliciting funding. No specific financing plan or implementation program has been developed. Don Pennie, Watershed District, noted that one of the things the Watershed District is trying to achieve is some master guide plan to look at. Bye expressed his opinion that there are a great number of concerns which have been expressed and thought there is some misunderstanding as to exactly what the situation is as far as this study is concerned. MOTION: Bye moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study to March 23 and allow the community to acquaint themselves further with the study, and to allow staff and Council to take into account some of the opinions expressed. Motion died for lack of a second. Jerry Catt, 18600 Duck Lake Trail, stated he appreciated the study and thinks we need a plan,whether this is the plan we need he does not know. It is hard to support a plan unless we know the specifics of how we're going to implement it. 2031 Council Minutes - 6 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 • A. Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study (continued) Elizabeth Bryant, former Eden Prairie homeowner, stated she approves of the study that has been prepared. It is not a binding document, it is a good plan, it is a beginning, and hopes that due consideration and thought be given to what we do with our natural resources. Bob Kruell, 6780 Tartan Curve, explained that he thoroughly under- stands the Purgatory Creek Study and urged the adoption and implementation of same. (Other information received but not read at Council meeting attached to minutes). MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to continue the Public Hearing on the Purgatory Creek Open Space Study to April 13, 1976 and give an opportunity for any rebuttal to the questions that have arisen here and also any new concerns the people might have to bring before the Council at that time. Bye and Penzel voted "aye", Pierce and Meyers voted "nay". Motion failed. ( A five minute recess was called by Mayor Penzel at this time. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to close the Public Hearing and to say it is the intent of the City of Eden Prairie to preserve, protect, rehabilitate and manage the Purgatory Creek resource;the Purgatory Creek Study is accepted as a guide to achieve this intent; the Council direct the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to prioritize the critical areas, priotitize areas of acquisition and/or recreational development; to explore funding availability; to develop a general long range implementation program, and further to initiate action on measures possibly legally, physically and financially for 1976 with the Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources relating to cleanup, planting, erosion control and;ough fish control; direct the Planning and Zoning Commission to develop land use control methods for the conservancy and translational zones and report to the Council when recommendations are ready;and direct the Council to call another Public Hearing for these proposals and implementation strategies. Meyers and Pierce voted "aye", Bye and Penzel voted "nay".Motion failed. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to continue the Public Hearing until April 13, 1976 and take into consideration the questions that have arisen from the citizens here tonight, ask response from staff and different • advisory commissions, and also allow citizens a ten-day period to bring in written statements of their objections to the Study. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 7 - Tuesday, March 9, 1976 V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports by Council Members Mayor Penzel observed the fact that the Eden Prairie Center had opened on March 3 as scheduled. B. Report of Finance Director 1. Payment of Claims Nos. 8863 - 8963 MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve Claims Nos. 8863 - 8963. Meyers, Pierce and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 2. Clerk's License List MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the Clerk's License List dated March 9, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting on vide Plan Plan Proposal. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to set a special meeting of the Council and Planning Commission for Monday, March 15 at 7:00 PM, City Hall, for the purposes of discussing the Guide Plan Consultant proposal. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report on Hennepin County Transportation Plan meetinq of March 4, 1976. City Planner Putnam explained that a representative from the Planning Commission did attend this meeting,however he is ill and Mr. Putnam has been unable to receive a report from him. It was the consensus of the Council that this item be continued to the March 23rd Council meeting. C. Consideration of the Suburban Municipal Organization request made by Mayor Tim Krautkremer of Brooklyn Park. Meyers explained that the idea behind the resolution from Mayor Krautkremer is that the Suburban Hennepin County municipalities would organize to fund lobbying efforts at the Legislature regarding legislation and its impact on suburban Hennepin County only. This organization would lobby mainly on fiscal issues and their purpose would be to protect the suburbs. It was the general consus of the Council that this item be continued to the March 23rd Council meeting. 2033 (.:ouncu minutes - o - luesany, moron s, isle VI. NEW BUSINESS (continued) D. Request from Pemtom to be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda of March 22, 1976. for public hearing on their preliminary plat and rezoning for the single-family and townhouse development portions of the Mitchell Lake PUD. The Council received letter from James R. Hill, P.E. Senior Vice President of Pemtom, dated March 4, 1976. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to set a public hearing for Pemtom on their preliminary plat and rezoning for the single-family and townhouse development portions of the Mitchell Lake PUD for April 27, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. E. #teport from Planning Director Putnam on Community Development application. Planning Director Putnam explained that the City of Eden Prairie will be submitting the application to Hennepin County for Community Development funds. He further stated that the City is requesting of the Metropolitan Council that Eden Prairie does not desire to build any assisted housing within the next two years, but maybe will in the 3rd year, as we have more than met our quota for the next two years. VII. }1DIOURNMENT MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 PM. Motion carried unanimously. 20341 Howarcz reTen,n, 3191,1(0 __ . --. A primary function of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District is to review proposed land developments in the Purgatory Creek Watershed to insure that any detrimental impact by land development on this water resource system is minimized. As the Manager% home reviewed the many land developments proposed along Purgatory Creek individually, they came to realize that options for preserving the natural beauty and esthetic value of the Creek Valley would be lost without an overall study leading to guidelines and a specific plan to preserve much, if not all, the natural features of this Valley. In order to Etlet define the important fear res of the Purgatory Creek Valley, the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the city of Eden Prairie, cooperatively funded a study to define the natural features of the Creek Valley and to define the development boundaries of an open space corridor along the Creek to preserve that area worthy of saving. The result • of that study is the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Report that is the subject of this public hearing. As developments along the Creek are proposed, the Watershed District and the city of Eden Prairie will use the'study to insure that resources of the Creek ,Valley are preserved as open space areas for future generations and that the scenic vistas of the Creek Valley are developed carefully an as not to detract from the scenic value of the Creek Valley as a community resource. 203 U ce K tl o usel\j�►y'I" DRAFT POSITION STATEMENT FOR PURGATORY HEARING TO: The Eden Prairie City Council and Board of Managers for the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District FROM: The Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ' Commission DATE: March 9, 1976 SUBJECT: Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has been involved throughout the planning process which resulted in the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study report which is being considered this evening. Brauer and Associates, the consultant on this project, has presented information on several occasions to the Commission and solicited input as to the direction and thrust of the study. As a result of this input and study, we feel that the report should be approved and adopted as a City policy for the future of the Purgatory Creek Corridor. We all understand that the study calls for the acquisition of the conservancy zone by the City to serve as a recreational resource for the community, a wildlife habitat area, a flood water storage space and as a visual amenity. We on the Commission support this concept wholeheartedly. We feel that some of the final decisions as to specific recreational land uses within the conservancy zone can best be made "down the road a bit" rather than trying to define every minute detail at this point and time. As a result, we urge adoption of the study as a guideline for all of the land use decisions that need to be made along Purgatory Creek. The management of the transition zone is something that we feel will take place within the private sector through City review of development proposals. We've discussed this with some representatives of the private sector who own land along the creek and they are generally supportive of this role. The Commission has discussed in a preliminary way some of the implementation programs which might be used to carry out all of the recommendations of the report. We feel that it is feasible to implement the study both from the standpoint of public land acquisition of the conservancy zone and private land management of the transition zone. Upon the approval of the study we will work further on these programs and make specific recommendations to the Council as to a course of action. • In summary, I would just like to restate the Commission's support for the study report. 1A'c are of the opinion that Purgatory Creek is one of the most significant resources in the community and as such deserves the priority which the report suggests for it. ao March 9, 1976 Eden Prairie City Council 8950 County Read. 4 Edon Praire, Minn 55343 Gentlemen, Res Purgatory Creek Study: Our opinion of the area wo know-(169 to Cty#1). The reason for the letter is to add many facts that were missed by the people doing the study. There was no one on steering Comm to represent owners of land along the creek & only 1 person to represent the people of Eden Praire. (Mr. Anderson of park board) This is proved by the excessive amount of Green area in Eden Praire. There is no way the people will ever be able to pay the tax on all that green. In 1973 a meeting of the owners was held to get their input. I see in this report everything we requested was rejected. ige believe in nice parks that are reasonable and we love to protect the wild life in the area, however, this study has proved there is not much wild life in the area that won't adopt to housing being in the area (Study the list of animals found in the area). amount The cost of buying the tremendousAof land over and above the flood plain is going to be much more than stated in the re- ports I have seen. The cost of upkeep, and the policing is also not figured. :'ihen you figure all this, and then compare it to the number of people who use it in a years time, I think it would change many people minds. The flood plain should be the most you should think about controlling. 250 ft or more is such mere than is needed. The idea of keeping housing ect from the view of the pathways is stupid. This is good houing area and produces much needed tax base which should also be projected into the future costs per person using this area as I have stated above. On our land we have done a study, and figuring 1/2 acre lots along the top of the creek rim there would be 51 taxable lets. The way they figure the transition zone on our property you can more than double that figure to around 120 taxable lots. People on walks thru this area would not be against looking at housing. You can look at the records and see that over the years we have fought to keep this a wild area let with the state over toe dam, second witn the sewer to get its route changed (this costs us many thousands of dollars), with the power Co. and their lines, and lately tug drainage system from the shopping center. Tuis proves we and toe otaer people want to preserve this area, but we are resonable enough to know when things are going too far and costing more than the people can afford. a037 • Page 2 . The main reason for this letter is to let you know that (1) the study though long and expensive �s)p°�ly1dons and people no costs were taken into consideration. P pl along the creek was complete 4 totally disreguarded ( Pages 1-6 to 1-11 will prove this). (3) The tax base loss to the village would dr. be unbareable. (4) The idea of a transition sone beyond the flood plain is the largest and most expensive of the problems the study has created. (5) The amount of park we now have, along with the park area along the river and the county park in west Bloom- ington are more than adequate f or the afordability of the tax payers of Eden Prairs. (6) The Council has the responsibility to stop the excessive controls and costs thru land aquisitions that they are placing on development. It'a nice to have everything we want, but I knew of no family in Eden Praise that has every- thing they want so why should the council feel they can vote in everything they went with no consideration to costs. The costs spiral thru government regulations and spending most be stopped so the American dream of a home of your own will not be lost. Fiscal responsibility is necessary. Very truly yours, Ba N. Welter, Jr. 2 a) ter • 2o38' ` ee'd ii'II STATEMENT REGARDLJG PURGATORY CREEK OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR STUDY Presented on behalf of the residents of'Creekside Court at the meeting of the Eden Prairie City Council on March 9, 1976 at the Vo-Tech School Auditorium. tic, the undersigned residents of Creekside Court in Edenvale, submit the following as a written expression of our very real and serious concerns regarding the Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study report. First, we will address the corridor plan generally and then we will address it as it affects the Edenvale Sector located southwest of the Milwaukee railroad line and northeast of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. We feel strongly that much of what is proposed under the guise of preserving Purgatory Creek and the natural habitat surrounding it, is really • directed to the goal of developing the creek for recreational uses. In this respect, and with limited exception, the report fails to adequately distinguish which land areas will be acquired for the purpose of conservation and which land areas will be acquired for development of recreational uses, such as snowmobiles, bicycling, picnicing, etc. Although it would seem obvious that such a beautiful natural resource as Purgatory Creek should be preserved through various forms of municipal control such as land use planning and zoning ordinances and regulations as well as water shed district controls, it is clear to the Creekside Court residents that conservation is not what this report is about - For to preserve nature it is not necessary to acquire great bodies of land or to construct floating docks or snowmobile and bicycle trails. Indeed, we are of the collective opinion that the Purgatory Creek corridor • plan is essentially a recreational plan which is poorly thought out in terms of its environmental impact, its placement and location, and its repeated engagement in certain assumptions. That this is the case seems to be Z39 • Page 2 borne out by the language of the plan itself which, on at least one occasion, refers to Purgatory Creek as a "recreational spine." (1-16). We ask you why this must be so. Do we lack sufficient open space in Eden Prairie every bit as capable of being converted to recreational use? We don't think so. We take exception to the idealistic notion that it is necessary to link all sectors of Purgatory Creek by some form of common medium, such as a trail. There are several obstacles to such an approach and these include a sensitive consideration of the privacy rights of Eden Prairie residents who have built homes on property adjacent to the creek, a recognition that certain natural areas are better left untouched by human hands, and the avoidance of artificial barriers such as rights of way, railroad trestles and golf courses. There is really no need to place this plan on an all or nothing concept of a trail or corridor link. To do so is disturbing to say the least. We have been asked as Eden Prairie residents to actively comment on this Purgatory Creek Corridor study. Undoubtedly this is for the benefit of the City Council as well as the individuals responsible for preparation of this plan and report. Although we willingly choose to participate in the discussion of this study, council members should note that the matter of financing the plan is not described in the report. Where land acquisition and development moneys will come from is apparently an open question. If there is to be federal participation in this project we ask you what percentage of the cost this will be and what portion or residual cost will we, as Eden Prairie home owners, be required to hear in the form of special assessments or taxes. We ask this with respect to the start up costa for the plan as well as the maintenance expense of the future. Whether we are willing to • financially support this project depends a great deal on our being satisfied with respect to plan objectives and specifics, which are disturbing where 24040 Page 3 found in the present report, but for the must part are noticably absent. Control of the entire Creek project disturbs us. Which individuals will insure us that the ecology of various areas will not be disturbed by this man-made plan? Who will.guarantee us that the home environment of those Eden Prairie residents who choose to reside adjacent to Purgatory Creek will not be invaded or disturbed, much less abused? In short, what protection is there for the residents, whether animal or human, from en- croachment by the yet undefined others? The Edenvale sector of the Creek plan makes the case for creek and habitat preservation. The 60 acre marsh, located off Edenvale Boulevard, should be protected as a water storage basin and as a distinctive piece of open space. It contains, according to Norman Stone, wildlife consultant, numerous species of wildlife, including the great horned owl (4-7) and the only "Liatris" in the entire creek corridor (6-13). It should be observed that this marshy area is considerably smaller in size than the marsh found in Paradise Valley, the lower marsh in section 6 south of Townline Road, the 160 acre Staring Lake area and the marsh found in the Major Center Area sector. Yet the graph at I-58 of the report shows plans for severe use of bicycle paths, severe use of recreation paths and severe use of cross country paths. Mr. Stone also suggests hiking-general use trails and the installation of board walks in the Edenvale marsh. We submit that the marsh area and the hour glass area to the northwest of it are too small to rationally accomodate all of the foregoing. Yon most keep in mind that the development of "environ- mental educational trails" for the benefit of the future elementary school is also planned for this area of the Creek. Policy makers must bear responsibility for the ecological impact and destruction that will occur in the event all of this is done as proposed. Those of us who do not wish the deer and fox driven away in the name of "recreation" or education intend to hold you responsible should you fail to wisely discharge the public trust placed in you. a2(J4' Page 4 The obsession of Eden Prairie planners with trails continues to disturb us. We question the wisdom of permitting bicycling in a confined natural area and we have little doubt that snowmobiling has no place in the Edenvale sector. Bicycling should be banned in the entire Edenvale sector as is proposed for the Sunnybrook sector. Many of us have experienced trespasses of our private property by individuals on bicycles, motorcycles and snowmobiles. Who of you will guarantee us that if pedestrian paths arc constructed that they will not be the subject of unpermitted or heavy use. What guarantee do the homeowners whose property fronts on Purgatory Creek (in some instances within 40-50 feet of the creek) have that their privacy will be respected by hikers. The situation will be particularly acute in and around the hour glass area where homes built on Hillcrest Court and Creekside Court are very close to the Creek and the land corridor is narrow. We ask whether a trail is really necessary for the nature lover. It would seem in the final analysis that such a person is quite capable of wending his or her way through the natural habitat without a great deal of difficulty. In forcing us to accept the trail concept are we, as individuals being required to trade our individual rights for the alleged good of the whole. We note that no trails are seriously recommended for the Paradise Valley sector in recognition of the rights of adjacent homeowners. Why are we in Creekside Court to be treated any differently? In conclusion, we ask that you cooni der preservation of the Edenvale sector as the primary concern and object of any Creek acquisition and development plan. We ask that you relegate recreation to a larger area of Eden Prairie, such as the Staring Lake area or the area south of Townline Road. We hope you are aware of the threat to privacy which trails can present and this includes the privacy of wildlife as well as human beings. The ao4a. Page 5 possibility of noise and air pollution and ecological disturbance dictate that any paths or trails which are constructed must be limited in size and length, and patterned after nature, as is proposed for the Riverview area. Finally, we would point out that many of our concerns arc the concerns of other citizens in Eden Prairie and were voiced by them in December 1973. Their comments are a part of the addenda to the report. Listen to us and to them and be mindful of the fact that they have changed very little. The Edina City Council's recent refusal to allow a hiking trail around its side of Meadowbrook Lake should not be viewed by you as Council action reflective of a more urban environment - rather it is to be commended as responsible action by an elected governing body. We trust that all policy making with respect to Purgatory Creek will be conducted by you in the some spirit and with the same degree of sensitivity and intelligence. Thank you. ` L• !f .0 aa43 rrifhiCx`4c,` y. February 3, 1976 Eden Prairie City Hall Attn: Mr. Roger Ulstad 8950 Eden Prairie Road • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 1Y^� Subj: Proposed Land FEB '3 Use, Parcels: 2580 & 2610 Dear Mr. Ulstad: As you know, I am an owner of the above parcels comprising 20 plus acres located on the north side of Valley View Road just west of Purgatory Creek. In reading the Purgatory Creek corridor study, I note with concern that this area has been placed entirely in the conservancy zone. I'm not sure what this means in terms of my ability to develop this land to its highest use in an orderly manner, mutually agreeable to all concerned, and with an opportunity for profit to me as an owner. Judging from the study, flood plain areas appear to be prime candidates for conservancy status. I recognize that a modest portion of the property may lie within the definition of flood plain. Howe••er, I'm confident that any such area could be filled economically to make all, or most all, of the property 'suitable and desirable for building purposes. I hope that in your reply you will advise that orderly development of the property for residential purposes is not in conflict with the corridor study, or any other studies underway of which I may not be aware. If so, I shall commence at once to prepare a Preliminary Residential Plan for review and discussion. Many thanks for your assistance. Yours very truly, • • Michael J. Pohlen IvITP/41 • • • apy4! tx:.. . • � Werner W. Schulze I MO NORTH NR.LCREST COURT • EDEN PRAmME.MINNESOTA 55717 March 4, 1976 . Mr. Marty Jessen ,. 3 City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road • Eden Prairie, Jainnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Jessent • Once again I would like to address myself to the matter of the Purgatory Open Space Corridor Study. I have read the summation and find the proposed plan quite good. However, • it is my opinion that during future implementation, care • must be taken the concept of "open.space" is followed as much as possible. I understand this to mean that whenever a decision is to be made to alter any of the terrain, no efforts should be spared to do this with the least possible effect of change on the surrounding natural environment. If such a philosophy could prevail, the city of Eden Prairie would be sure to gain beautiful parkways all of us could enjoy. it(si ce ;lyJ itut • ,2yz_ • v Ian To 4 , T . . WHOLESALERS OF?EXICAN FURNITURE&ARTCRAFTS w ! Slaw,uom-w%ahou,e RS52-54 Pen ado Blvd.itt LI 62IG2 &fril i f' BROWNSVtI.Li+ TrsXAB 78850 r,\ 1. . May 21, 1975 f 1 �-+t 1P • City of Eden Prairie . Eden Prairie, Minn. 55343 . Gentlemen: Will you kindly advise us if you wish to purchase the land we now own along Sunnybrook Road. We - wish to make a disposition ,of approximatelyc:5O acres. -1 7 Thenkyou. Yours truly 1,9,J,CAC'6,0'-/ eevA ;.•- t:04._ , . 44e De Lecour Joyce C. De Lecour c .-. • Hilda M. Raguet w -�.e�.e, ' '" . • • :a ,. ......... .. _.. V -data Ig ta. T e O. .44 WHOLESALERS OF MEXICAN FURNITURE&MTCHAM • YY Showroom-Waneboae:2852-54 Bon CMaa Blvd. `- IJ 6-2152 BROWNSVILLE.TEXAS 78320 1/ Dec. 19, 1975 Mr. Marty lessen Eden Prairie, Minn. Dear Mr. lassens • About two years ago we talked to an engineer in Eden Prairie, about our land along Purgatory Creek and were informed the city might buy same, and would have an answer for us in two to three months. To date we have not heard anything. • We have about 15 or 16 acres of land, Tract F, if this is to be bought for a park along the creek, we would naturally wish to sell it all because what would be left would be a narrow strip, worthless to anyone. Kindly advise us if any disposition is made concaring our property at the meeting we heard you were having at this time. Thankyou. Very truly, • Paul 1. De Lecour • • • AA/2 J40 .. _ ..—'..', sx. 'see. .. .,ts. a71� fP'rn_.'%"�'•...-.— Werner W. Schulze Val Use NORTH HILLCREST COURT • sow PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA Use `��1� 1$ • December 10, 1975 ytr•. i Mr. Marty Jessen City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 .. . Dear Mr. Jessen: • j In 1972 when we were thinking of moving to the Twin Cities • area, we were most favorably impressed by the seemingly well coordinated and foresighted guide plan for the city of Eden Prairie. I am sure this has a lot to do with the fact that we now live here. • • Our house is located on North Hillcrest Court near the • Purgatory Creek and we sure like the area as well as being residents of Eden Prairie. Of course, we would like to • see the plans come to fruition, especially with regard to the parklands along the creek. • About the flood plain between Valley View Road and the Hillcrest Courts itself, we feel it should be left in a wild state to harbor beavers, pheasants, deer and all the other small animals and birds it attracts. It is an ideal • area for wildlife and Eden Prairie should regard herself • blessed in having such areas as this, the Anderson Lakes ' and the Minnesota River valley within its boundaries. • , These nature habitats are important assets of this city and should be preserved and protected. These are the • important things that this city still has, that other communities have lost long ago. Let's keep Eden Prairie distinctly different. Our own and the future of our • children will be enriched by it for the rest of our lives. ' Sincerely, . ,(t/th,e)1, 49. 1,2,e, 'at., f . ... .. ., • • ' ;1S • z 114 Box 110 ` Palm Renate Park Brownsville, Tex. 78520 . Mr. Marty Sessen, Eden Prairie, Minn. Dear Mr. Jensen, • I understand there is to be a Council Meeting on a proposed park along Purgatory Creek. If the city is to aoquire property along Purgatory • Creek, I hope they will consider buying all of my property on Sunnybrook Road. If the oity acquires the land along the creek then • I will not be able to sell the rest of my property as there would not be aufficient land left for five acres to sell with my house and five acres•with the duplex. Pleayse inform me of any development in regard to this property. • • Sincerely, • • Mrs. Hilda Raguet Box 110 Palm Resaca Park Brownsville, Texas. 78520 • • • • • • • Y. 1' • .20 9 qkj !) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor ind City Council FROM: Councilwoman Sidney Pauly SUBJECT: Purgatory Creek Flood Plain DATE: March 4, 1976 I would like the minutes of March 9 to reflect the fact that my husband's family has a very minor interest in Purgatory Creek Flood Plain land. My mother-in-law, Elizabeth Pauly, owns a half share of a 25 acre parcel south of Townline Road, basically in the Flood Plain. Other relations hold shares in what is left of an old family farm of several generations. I feel these facts should be part of the public record. SP:ip ' !t, I • 2050 MINUTES JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Unapproved Monday, March 15, 1976 7:00 PM City Hall COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Penzel, Joan Meyers, Sidney Pauly, Tim Pierce COMMISSION PRESENT:Chairman Don Sorensen, Rod Sundstrom, William Beaman, Norma Schee, Herb Fosnocht, Sidney Pauly OTHERS: Human Rights Chairperson Rosemary Dysinger, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Chairman Marvin Erickson STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad, City Engineer Carl Jullie, Public Works Director Ray Earls, Planning Director Dick Putnam, Finance Director John Frane, Building Inspector Wayne Sanders COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN UPDATE II Mayor Penzel welcomed the Council, commission members and staff and thanked them for taking the time to attend the meeting. The Council and commission members discussed the first part of the March 5th memo from Don Brauer which outlined the results of Forum 1. held at the Votech. Referring to the second part of the memo ( update process ), Meyers inquired if the selected group in Phase 1 would develop the plan. Brauer responded the selected group would be facilitators who would be trained by Brauer $ Associates to assist in the community seminars and make recommendations . Brauer noted that the risk involved is that persons with special interests would have to be weeded-out. • Sundstrom asked what other risks are involved in the selection of the group. Brauer cited feelings of prejudice on the part of individuals is another risk. i Pauly asked how the facilitators would be chosen. 1j Brauer felt volunteers would be asked for and the Council, Commissions, etc., could i 4 suggest persons they feel would be willing to serve. /I The members then discussed Phases II 5 III and the possible need to revise ordinances ( i.e. Ordinance 135 ), and to draft new ordinances ( i.e. MCA Ordinance ). _i Pierce questioned how new projects would be handled during the update process ? Brauer felt projects should be handled as they have been in the past but suggested the City consult its legal counsel. Dysinger and Sorensen both suoke to the importance of neighborhood meetings to gain input in the update and to identify problems others may overlook. X43/ • • Unapproved Minutes-Council/Planning Commission -2- March 15, 1976 • Guide Plan Update • Mayor Penzel then asked for input from the City staff. • Carl Jullio believed input on specifics for roads and land uses should be an early part of the process. • Dick Putnam expressed concern that not everyone may have the possibility of input if the participants are limiteb.to 200. John Frane questioned how the viability and obtainability of the plan would be determined. Brauer felt the participants would continually review the viability of the plan during the update process. The members then discussed how and when community involvement should be sought and the necessity of the facilitators to be a good representation of the community. Bearman felt the only legitimate way of selecting the people would be a random sample. • Motion: • Meyers moved, Pierce seconded, to refer the proposal for the Guide Flan Update to the Planning Commission for input and recommendations to the Council as soon as possible. The motion carried unanimously. • Penzel stated Meyers and he had met withour State Legislators. Penzel then briefed members on the following items; - recent Planning Bill amendments -.stadium issue - possibility of cable tv francising through a State Agency - legislative work regarding the Metro Council's charge. • - small chance of modification to the Fiscal Disparities Bill. -possibility of bonding for Schooner Boulevard is poor. - "Town Meeting of Eden Prairie" to be held on May 1 by the League of Women Voters. - informational meeting to be held at Hennepin County Government Center • regarding Solid Waste on April 9th. • ADJOURNMENT Pauly moved, Meyers seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. The motion carried. Respectfully Submitted; Jean Johnson 42o5 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • + CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED • LAND DEVELOPMENTS 3/18/76 • DATE: DEVELOPMENT: Minn. Protective Life Insurance L.D. Dp. 76-P0D-02,Z-02 LOCATION: West of T.H. 169-212, North of Leona Addn., South of 1-494 REFERENCE P.U.A. OR PREVIOUS BONING AGR1:EF•ENT: RES. B. ELOPER; Minnesota Protective Life Insurance ENGINEER/PLANNER: Hustad - Pontinen Architects - Baldwin Landscape Architect DOCUMENTS SUBMIraZU FOR REVIEW: Concept Booklet and Site/Landscape . Plan dated 3/8/75 (revised)•. • . • PROPOSAL: Protective Life is requesting concept and development stage approval for the site and structure • 1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid Yes Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District Yes 2. Processing Schedule: . • a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary 2/34/76 b. Park & Recreation Commission • c. Human Rights Commission di. Planning commission'Public Hrg. 3/22/76 • e. City Council consideration . • I. Watershed District • 3. Type of Development Office (MCA Area) • 4. Environmental assessment or impact statement required per Environmental • Impact Policy Act of 1973: • No • 2053 • , - _ _ • 5. Present• Zoning Rural . 6. Proposed Zoning Office District Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? .Consistent with Guide Plan • and MCA-PUD • list variances required & setbacks that apply: Variance from minimum parking spaces required • 7. Project Area 5.41 Ac. (235,095 S.F.)Density 10.9% Ground coverage • 8. Public open space and/or cash dedication cash donation► required Private open space None proposed • Trail systems & sidewalks N0ne proposed . Range of lot sizes R•A• • • • 9. Preliminary Building Plans Submitted 10. Representative Soil Borings Not submitted 11. Street System • • A. Access to adjoining properties O.K. p. Roadway (Back to Back of Curb) Private driveways, no 24 parking Post no parking signs Required Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28. ' (not over 1000') & minor residential Cul de sacs 100 78 (no island) • 120 98 (with island) • Thru Residential (collectors) • &Cul do sacs over 1000' 60 32 • - 3 - • Elp 70 44 Parkway 100 28 divided Fire Road 12 Pathways 12 6 Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5% , . Concrete curb & gutter required, • • Deep strength asphalt design Concrete Curb & Gutter required C. Check City's comprehensive street system. • Developer'Wilds 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 oh cul de sacs having eight or less lots. Check list of existing street names. . N.A. • • • • E. Private parking lots--B6-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design Required . F. Street.Signs-Developer or City installs N.A. • 12. Parking: (See Ord. #141) 370 required - 250 Proposed Variance Necessary 13. Utility Systems: • • • A. Sanitary Sewer Extension by City required. Feasibility study in progress • .. 1. Service Detail ' 2. Service to adjoining property • B. Watermaip: Available on T.N. 169 • 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.R. • • • 2._ Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Fire Inspector to review 3. Valving O.K. • 4. Compliance with fire code Fire Inspector to review • • 5. Service to adjacent property O.K. • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Unapproved Monday, February 23, 1976 8:00 PM City Hall IV. PETITI HS AND REQUESTS. A. Minnesota Protective Life Insurance Company, request for PUD Concept and Development Stage approvals and rezoning from Rural to Office District. The 5.42 acre site is located north of Leona Road and east of T.H. 169 in the MCA. The planner informed the Commission that on Friday evening a neighborhood meeting was held by the proponent at the Presbyterian Church. Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, presented a slide presentation of the site location, zoning, building plan, utility plan, utility location, proposed parking and drive-in bank facility, and lighting plan. The planner listed some concerns expressed by residents at the Friday meeting as; use of Leona Road, screening of building & parking lot, the view of the parking lot from 494, lighting, elevation of the parking lot, etc. Mr. Stan Koehler said concerns of his in addition to those listed by the planner, are the location of the building approximately 60 feet from the backyard line of the residential area, and the screening of the building from the residential homes. Lynch asked why 169 was not used for access. Mr. Baldwin explained that the lane adjacent to the site is a deceleration lane for 494 and would be usable only for cars desiring to enter 494 East. • Sorensen inquired if the building could be turned 90°thereby increasing the • distance between it and the residential area. Mr. Baldwin responded that the internal function of the building would make it difficult. Sorensen asked if plans for the proposed parking ramp are prepared. Mr. Hustad, Hustad-Pontinen Architects, Inc.,stated no definite plans are prepared because they are unsure of the future total square footage of the building. Sorensen asked if the proponent would be willing to agree to lighting restrictions, i.e. time and intensity of lighting. The proponents agreed. Lynch suggested a signage program be submitted for review. Motion: Schee moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue the Minnesota Protective Life Insurance Company request to the March 8th meeting and direct the staff and proponents to review the concerns discussed this evening. 205.61 • • • • NOTICE A meeting is to be held at the Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church, 11609 Leona Road, Eden Prairie, at 7:30 p.m. Friday, February 20, 1976. The purpose of the meeting is to explain the re-zoning of the property located at the South East corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway 169 and Interstate #494. The proposed new construction is an office building for the Protective Life Insurance Company. Represenatives from the Protective Life Insurance Company, Eden Prairie and the Architects will be present to answer questions regarding this re-zoning. • 4.'.4 ire T' lr dW'a HUSTAD•P0t1TIHEN ARCHITECTS,INC. •SUITE 3400• 7400 METRO BLVD. •EDINA,MINN.55435•TEL 6121835.1717 • • PLANNING ST,.FF REPORT r' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director DATE: March 4, 1976 PROJECT: Minnesota Protective Life Building APPLICANT: Minnesota Protective Life Insurance Company REQUEST: PUD Concept Plan, Development Stage and Rezoning from Rural to Office • REFER TO: Protective Life Brochure February 23rd Commission minutes MCA Report , pp. 20-23, 74, 75, 81, € 82 REPORT OUTLINE 1. MCA Guide Plan Relationships 2. Site Plan Evaluation 3. Recommendations • MCA GUIDE PLAN REIATIONSHIPS 1 The 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan identified the Leona Road area and the MPL site as a C-2 Regional Retail site. Within that category the Guide Plan envisioned a variety of commercial uses including office. The MCA Plan,considerably more detailed ., speaks to the existing site conditions and the proposed land uses. Page 82 of the MCA Report discusses the realtionship between the existing homes along Leona; " The freeway visibility ready access from the easterly 494 , and the adjacent Homart Eden Prairie Center contributes to this property's value for regional commercial, office and service land use . High land values and intense market demand will force the existing single family residential uses to change. Important to the evolution of land use is the interim treatment of new uses while the residential exists Protecting the residents " quality of life" during the change in this area is critical. Also, the ability of the existing landowners to coordinate their sales and marketing will create a highly valuable and well planned commercial development." a.. _ q, :l -2- March 4, 1976 Staff Report-MPL - • i -, t The regional office uses discussed on page 75 of the MCA Report states; 1t i " One would expect a substantial amount of office to be constructed within the MCA due to the high level of commercial activity, the close proximity to high capacity regional freeways and the excellent living environment which exists in Eden Prairie. The intensity of office use is encouraged to be of a high rise or medium rise character to permit location of the structures in relation to the pedestrian corridors which will connect the residential areas with the commercial and institutional uses. Phased develop- ment of the high density office sites is encouraged it which can be coordinated with the shifting pattern in transportation, thereby eliminating ethe euhhigh gh the requirements for public parking . To high density office use , high floor area ratios • combined with low ground coverage and reasonable parking requirements will create the opportunity for phased high density development." SITE PLAN EVALUATI CN A. Building Site Area As'outlined in the MPL brochure the initial phase of the building will include 73,913 square feet total gross building area. Of this 48,892 are leaseable square feet for office and 2,750 square feet for commercial bank, a total of 51,642 square feet of leaseable space. The floor area ratio is .31 for the first phase on the 5.42 acre site. Parking space for 250 cars is provided in the first phase . Expansion through the use of ramps or deck parking is possible when and if the building `! floors are increased. it The ground coverage floor area ratio for the first-phase are within the 8j requirements of Ordinance 135 and the second phase construction cannot be completely computed since the site will be enlarged through acquisition of adjacent properties. The uses proposed for commercial office,potential bank&, commercial lease space is consistent with the MCA Report for regional office uses as well as multi. - use developments where a variety of high density uses might be combined within a single structure. The relationships of the MPL office site to adjacent uses is consistent with the Presbyterian Church to the south and the Titus commercial/restaurant proposal along West 78th Street previously approved by the City. The relation- ship between the existing single family homes along Leona Road must be sensitively handled to protect the integrity of the residential use which f exists today y t provide for the conversion of those residential properties i to commercial uses in future years. Buffer treatments, site design and traffic access restrictions will enable the phase transition of the residential. a Staff Report-MPL -3- March 4, 1976 it 7 2. Parking 4 Ordinance No. 141 requires 377 parking spaces for the MPL Office 6 bank 1;• site with approximately S spaces per 1,000 square feet gross floor area. The MPL proposal with 250 parking spaces in the first phase provides approximately 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The MPL planners and owner feels the spaces provided will be adequate for the first phase construction. If additional spaces are required they may be provided in two potential areas assuming the proper screening and landscaping from adjacent roads and residential properties is accomplished. The two areas would be the existing single family lot directly south of the building which is owned by MPL. pn additional 40-50 spaces might be provided in this location if necessary. Additional parking of 40-50 spaces could be provided in the eastern triangle of the site assuming adequate screening and freeway buffers are accomplished. If the parking demand cannot be accommodated in the existing areas no parking will be allowed in fire lanes and the owner will be required to provide the needed parking without delay. Additional parking for an estimated 100,000 square feet of office space would require between 400-500 spaces. It is obvious that svcb. a large parking area would require multiple levels of decking or a parking ramp arrangement. The potential for a joint parking structure between adjacent office and commercial uses might well be possible during the second phase of construction. Joint parking between the Presbyterian Church and the MPL,site may be possible if an agreement is reached. Such a joint use would com- plement the high use periods for the office and the church. 3. Access The first phase development will generate between 190-1,WOtrips / day utilizing the Leona Road improved intersection with4169. Turning lanes required on`169 and Leona Road will accommodated the traffic demand. The second phase construction adding an additional 1,600-2000, trips/day will require signalization of Leona Road andrt169 intersection. As with other developments, the additional right-of-way that may be necessary for improvements to. 169 should be conveyed at no cost to the City by the MPL owners as well as improvements to Leona Road including surfacing, signing and landscaping to discourage through traffic. A concern of the residents along Leona Road is that traffic that may miss the MPL entrance might increase traffic on the residential portion of the street and some controls should be utilized to discourage any through trips. The proposal is to surface and widen Leona Road to • the first entrance and surface Leona Road to the second entrance. Also a pedestrian crossing of Leona Road will be well marked and landscaped to illustrate a termination of the improved road. Combined with signagc for the MPL entrance. and deadend caution sign , the through traffic problem should be solved. P.U60 • Staff Report-MPL -4- . . • ... . ' March 4, 1976 4. Pedestrian Access The revised proposal will provide a sixto eight foot surfaced walkway running II south from the entrance plaza of the MPL to Leona Road with a marked • crossing of Leona Road to the church property. It is the intent of the planning staff to encourage the church to provide an all weather connection through ie"a through e Titus nsd entbil dtThwoudprovd separedpedestriaystmo the Eden Prairie Center:' A future east/west walkway along Leona Road may be required if the transit • stop is included along k 169 and Leona Road is extended west of # 169. Also, with additional uses developing in the Leona Road area such an east/west system would be necessary. The staff believes such a walkway could be constructed with the Leona Road upgrading in the future. 5. Transit Improvements • Transit improvements are discussed in the brochure and reflect a modest transit development in the early stages. If transit service is provided to the site it may utilize a"169 pull-off to be constructed by the highway department in its right-of-way or direct service to the building if the demand required. Turning radius for bus traffic should be sufficient within the parking area for the in / out movement. Transit improvements around Leona Road should tic in with pedestrian and bike systems to enable safe all weather use of the transit and walkway systems. • 6. Site Landscaping The proponents, site planner and architect are revising the plan to include 3 to 4 foot earth mounds toward 494 which will be combined with landscaping ' provideto • is being provided cralong 169h for e mthe ypermanent ee garchitectural screensandeplanting areas. Canopy trees are provided in islands within the parking areas softening the two parking lot areas from off site views and adjacent residential properties. bota• rara rceteilkngvendel residential coTemporary thndhpari developed theetween screen will e tailored to the needs of the individual residents with landscaping and fencing materials. The concern by the second homeowner on Leona Road is that building will look right into their yard and windows.Screening can be done by canopy tree planting of 3-5" diameters on the back of the lot recently acquired. This should provide the privacy desired by the home4 combined with the fence screening. • s. nu — . 1 � Staff Report-MPL 'S- 1 1 . 7. Lighting tl The lighting plan proposes lighting within the parking area at a height of 12-15 feet with soft lighting levels that can be turned off consistent with Public Safety conc erns. The lighting around the building and the signage t" will be more intense to provide focal points at the entrances. Lighting at the bank drive-in area will be away from the single family homes and adjacent to 169. Lighting along the pedestrian way should be considered ' on a phase basis as the site and landscaping budget permits. I i 8. Signage Concept The signage proposal discussed with the Planning Commission and proponents includes signage on the northeast corner of the building which would identify the building as the Minnesota Protective Life Company. The scale of this lettering should be consistent with the views from1494. Logo and name are being considered. Similarily , signage may be considered in the southeast corner of the building toward-'`169 depending upon the needs of bank signage at that location. Signing alongz169 on the architectural screen wall might identify the address and building as MPL's home office , but should restrict itself to building and address . _ Tenant signing should only be provided . at : , the entrance to the building and possibly na kiosk for Sig age at the entrance of the site from Leona Road . The ropportunity h tenant to have large sign, visable from the freeway or169 does not seem to be t reasonable in this situation. Special tenants such as the bank or possibly post office may well require signage visable from4169. This should be consis- tent with the , detailed signage plan of the site. • 9. Drainage f Drainage on the eastern side of the site flows toward 494 and must be treated either on the site or consolidated before its discharge into the lakes or ' creeks. Working with the watershed district the MPL development should provide the necessary stormo water treatment facilities. The western parking area and building flows to 169 and will be included in the storm sewer project for`169 and discharged into Rosemount Pond. That discharge outlet will include ponding and skimming facilities. 10. Park Dedication Consistent with other commercial projects the staff recommends a cash in lieu of land contribution of $2,000 per acre. No property controlled by MPL has benefit to the City for park purposes. 2.(j(p°-.' • Staff Report-MPL -6- March 4, 1976 RECOMMENDATIONS • . F, 0 A. The planning staff recommends the approval of the PUD Concept Plan • y for the Minnesota Protective Life Insurance Company office and • commercial development. The concept plan proposes Ist phase development of 73,900 square feet of G.F.A. with 2nd phase office development of an additional 100,000 square feet of G.F.A. 2nd phase expansion will require purchase of additional acreage for a multi-level parking facility. • B. The planning staff recommends that the MPL PUD Developr...nt Stage revised plan be approved and the 5.42 acre site be rezoned from Rural to Office District. The conditions listed in the March 4, 1976 planning staff report form the basis for the MPL revised site plan approval. DP:jj • • • • • 2423 ..1 a' MEMO TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services µ.3 SUBJECT: Items for consideration in the Condon-Naegele Rezoning Agreement DATE: February 27, 1976 At the last meeting, we discussed the fact that the Council has referred back to the Commissions this proposal so that specific concerns may be addressed in the rezoning agreement which will be approved at the time of the second reading of the Ordinance approving the development proposal. I would suggest that the following items be considered and incorporated into the rezoning agreement: 1. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has previously granted their approval of the proposal. I presume from this that the grading, drainage, sedimentation control and other development techniques !'• being used by the proponent are satisfactory to the district. I would suggest that this be incorporated into the rezoning agreement to assure compliance with the districts requirements arri standards. • 2. The land falling east of the future ring road alignment and north of the access to the auto dealerships should be conveyed to the City for open space purposes. We should also at this time be incorporating some thoughts with regard to the conveyance of the other land along the creek for which no development approval is being granted at this time. (East of the auto dealerships). 3. I would suggest that we require within the rezoning agreement some plantings along the slope to the Nine Mile Creek Flood- plain which will be created by the new road. This will in effect provide some "naturalization" of this artificial slope in an attempt to make it look more consistent with the other vegetation around the area. 4. I would suggest that the cash park dedication fee be applied to this project in the amount of $2,000 per acre for all acres to be developed. This amounts to approximately 48 acres in the first phase and approximately 40 additional acres in the portion to the east of the auto dealerships. As suggested in the park land dedication memo which you have previously considered, this money should be put into a community recreational facilities account to be used for the development of community parks and playfields. , I would recommend that the four above recommendations be incorporated into the rezoning agreement and would urge that you recommend to the 1 City Council that they incorporate it in the rezoning agreement. a0G1/ • •• Mai 91976 '•• • •••• • ; ;. (1)A, ••• .0 'Age 0• • • • • • • • • • March 18, 1976 The Honorable Wolfgang Pensel 6923 Barberry Lane Eden Prairie, Minn. 55343 Dear Mr. Mayor; The League of Women Voters of Minnetonka-Eden Prarie-Hopkins Aretwould like your help in sponsoring Town Meeting '76, scheduled May 1st, at Hennepin County Vocational School. Town Meeting '76-will provide a;unique opportunity for citizens in Eden Prairie to come together for a day devoted to discussion and solution of local problems. The best estimate of expenses involved for planning a mei;ting for 500 people is approximately $2300. The League of Women Voters is not able to bear this kind of financial burden so we are seeking other sources of funds. A grant oi'$400.00 is available from the Minnesota Bi-Centennial Commission. We are asking each City Council for$300.00. Other costs will be borne by a minimum registration fee for participants and contributions from so-sponsor- ing organizations. We hope you share our feeling that the Town Meeting '76 can be a meaningful way to celebrate the nation's Bi-Centennial and will grant $300.00 for this purpose. Mrs. Rosemary Dysinger is prepared to appear at your next council meeting to ask for your support. Thank you for your attention. • Sincerely, tte Bur Pre 'nt MEPH LWV(Z s -98SS LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS MINNETONKA EDEN PRAIRIE AREA 2G66 • whp/jh 3/4//b u ORDINANCE NO. 313 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Apendix A of Section 2, Township 116, Range 22 is amended as follows: Tracts A through I inclusive, Registered Land Survey No. 875 , files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. which property shall be and hereby is removed from Rural zone and shall be included hereafter in the Residential RI-22 zone. section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain rezoning agreement dated , 1976, entered into between Gerald G. Carnes and George V. Tangen and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City relating to such Residential RI-22 District. Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of December , 1976 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council 4200• • of said City on the day of , 1976. Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frans, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on the 1.9th day of November , 1975. .Tom as et,". :Mier 9"AR' 'R! WHP/azd 3/19/76 at' ORDINANCE NO. 314 f ' f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Section 6, Township 116, Range 22 is amended as follows: Parcel 1. That part of the S.W. 4 of Section 6, Twp. 116,-Range 22 West described as follows: Commencing at the S.W. Corner of said S.W. 4; thence East along the South line of said S.W. 4 distant 1125.4 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North parallel with the • West line of said S.W. 4 distant 169.44 feet; thence West parallel with said South line 351.4 feet; thence North parallel with said West line 123.76 feet; thence East 499.63 feet to a point 294.0 feet North of said South line; thence South 294.0 feet to a point on said South line 148.29 feet east of the point of beginning; thence West along said South line 148.29 feet to the point of beginning. also That part of the Southwest 4 of the Southwest 4 of Section 6, Twp 116, Range 22 described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Southwest 4 of Southwest 4 of Section 6; thence East 636.8 feet; thence South 850 feet; thence west 636.8 feet to the West line of said Southwest 4 of the Southwest 1; thence North 850.0 feet to the place of beginning; excepting therefrom the South 360.72 feet thereof and excepting the west 233.0 feet thereof. also That part of the North 1 of Southwest 4 of said Section 6 lying southwesterly of Eden Prairie Road 66 (Duck Lake Trail) except that part of said North 1 lying Northerly and Northwesterly of the following described line. Beginning at a point in the west line of said North k of Southwest 4 distant 740 feet south of the northwest • corner thereof; said east line bears due south; thence deflecting due East a distance of 40 feet; thence North 49 degrees-03 minutes-11 seconds East a distance of 217.94 feet to the southwesterly right of way line of said Eden Prairie Road 66 and except that part of said North 4 WHP/azd 3/19/76 described as lying southerly and westerly of the following described line. Beginning at a point in the west line of said North 1 of Southwest 4 Section 6, distant 740 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; said west line bears due south; thence deflecting due East a distance of 40 feet; thence South 77 degrees-48 minutes-12 seconds East a distance of 124.02 feet; thence South 21 degrees-54 minutes- East a distance of 112.00 feet; thence due south 231.00 feet; thence South 11 degrees-36 minutes-41 seconds East a distance of 149.05 feet to a point 233 feet east of the west line of said Section 6; thence due south parallel to said west line a distance of 68.98 feet to the south line of the north 1 of the Southwest 4 of said Section 6 and there terminating. 4; also That part of the South 1 of the Southwest 4 of said Section 6 described as follows: Commencing at a point in the North line of said south 1 of the Southwest i 4 distant 636.8 feet East from the Northwest corner there- of; thence South 1026.6 feet; thence East parallel with said North line 636.83 feet to the intersection with a line running from a point in the South line of said South 4 of Southwest 4 distant 1273.69 feet East from the Southwest corner thereof to a point in the North line thereof, distant 1273.60 feet East from the Northwest corner thereof; thence North along last described line a distance of 341.6 feet to a points thence West parallel with said North line 335 feet; thence North parallel to the West line of said Southwest 4 a distance of 685 feet to said North line of said South 1 of the Southwest 4; thence West to beginning. which property shall be and hereby is removed from rural zone and shall be included hereafter in residential RI-13.5 zone. Parcel 2. E. That part of North 1 of Southwest 4 Section 6, Twp 116, Rge 22 W described as lying southwesterly of Eden Prairie Road 66 (Duck Lake Trail) , Easterly of State Trunk Hywy 101 and Northerly and Northwesterly of the following de- scribed line. Beginning at a point in the west line of said North 1 of Southwest 4 Section 6, distant 740 feet south of the northwest corner thereof, said west line bears due south; thence deflecting due East a distance of 40 feet; thence North 49 degrees-03minutes-llseconds f, East a distance of 217.94 feet to the southwesterly right of way line of Duck Lake Trail and there terminating. also That part of said north 1 of Southwest i Section 6 described as lying Southerly and westerly of the following described line, Beginning at a point in the west line of said North 4 • • 2070 - 2 - of Southwest ig section 6 distant 740 feet south of • the northwest corner thereof; said west line bears due south; thence deflecting due East a distance of 40 feet; thence South 77 degrees-48 minutes-12 seconds East a distance of 124.02 feet; thence South 21 degrees- 54 minutes East a distance of 112.00 feet; thence due South 231.00 feet; thence South 11 degrees-36 minutes- 41 seconds East a distance of 149.05 feet to a point 233 feet east of the west line of said Section 6; thence due south parallel to said west line a distance of 68.98 feet to the south line of the north h of the Southwest it of said Section 6 and there terminating. also The west 233 feet of the North 489.28 feet of the Southwest it of the Southwest of said Section 6. which property shall be and hereby is removed from rural zone and shall be included hereafter in the residential RM-6.5 zone. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain rezoning agreement dated , 1976, entered into between LOREN R. IRVINE and JOANNE M. IRVINE, husband and wife, and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City relating to such residential RI-13.5 and RI-6.5 Districts. Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of February , 1976 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1976. Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • Published in the Eden Prairie News on Fanuary 22 , 1976. Miroh 23, 1976 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RBNNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1107 RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING FOR BEARING ON PROJECT (STR 75-3-18) AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECICIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City 'Council on March 23. 1976, recommending the following improvements to wit: Project STR 75-3-18, I.C. 51-286, bituminous paving on School Road and Eden Court. NOW, TIMMITORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to M.S.A. Sect. 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated total cost of the improvements as shown. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improve- ment on the 6th day of April, 1976, at the Eden Prairie City Hall at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice of such hearing on the im- provements as required by law. 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement, with the assistance of Rieke, Carroll, Muller Assoc., Inc., Consulting Engineers. ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. France, Clerk • 2rfia • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • PUBLIC BORES DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PROJECT STR 75-3-18 Bituminous Paving on School Road and Eden Court • • I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Car J. J e, P.B. City Engin Registration No. 9323 a?U15 • FEASIBILITY REPORT • PROJECT STR 75-3-18 MAYOR PENZEL AND MEMBERS OP THE CITY COUNCIL, THROUGH ROGER ULSTAD, CITY MANAGER. I. GENERAL • • The purpose of this report is to present to the City Council an examin- ation of the feasibility of improvement project STR 75-3-18, in terms of the nature and scope of the proposed construction, estimated total costs, assessment rates, financing sources and scheduling data. This report was authorized by the City Council on October 8, 1975, per Resolution No. 1050, upon receipt of a petition from twenty two property owners in the Eden School Addition. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed construction under project STR 75-3-18 involves placement of a 31i" thick paver-laid bituminous surface on School Road and Eden Court in the Eden School Addition. Also included with the proposed improve- ments is construction of a new street connection between School Road and Wallace Road across Parcel 980, the W. Gordon Smith Co. property. The attached location map shows schematically the location of the pro- posed improvements. PART A, Paving on School Road and Eden Court In 1972, sewer and water laterals were installed on School Road and Eden Court. The streets were restored with 4-6" of gravel base and graded to a rural section with side ditches and driveway culverts for drainage. Since very extensive re-grading, driveway and yard restora- tion would be required to change the roadway from a rural to the stan- dard urban section with concrete curb and gutter and elimination of the ditches, it is proposed to simply shape the existing gravel base and place a 24' wide 34" thick bituminous mat and attempt to minimize res- toration costs. It is proposed to close School Road at the intersection with T.H. 5 and terminate the roadway at the driveway to 7800 School Road. The inter- section of School Road and T.H. 5 is a safety hazard and has been the scene of numerous traffic accidents. As described in the following section, Eden Court will be connected to Wallace Road to provide an alternate access to T.H. 5. This change will also help to reduce thru- traffic on School Road between T.H. 5 and the Eden Prairie High School and Middle School. • • • .. - ,.- a v+ • .n. . .apt ++rv:• _...- - 2 - . • The total estimated cost for Part A as above described is $40,000, or approximately $816 per lot. It has been past Council policy to allow a 25% credit on sewer and water lateral projects and associated street restoration, up to a maximum of $1,000 for those lots developed prior • to dune 22, 1971. The amount of credit applied to the 1972 sewer and water projects for this neighborhood was $660 per lot. The 25% credit ..nolicv applied to the proposed $816 per lot street improvement results • in an additional credit of $204 per lot, leaving a net estimated assess- ment of $612 per lot for those lots which qualify. The proposed assess- wont period is 10 years at 8% interest. Based upon $512 principal, the average monthly amount of the assess- ment during the first year, including principal and interst, would be ' $9 per month. PART B, Extension of Eden Court from School Road to Wallace Road •A 7-ton design road, 32' wide with concrete curb and gutter is proposed across Parcel 980 to serve as access for the abutting industrial prop- erties and as a new connection between School Road and Wallace Road, allowing the closing of the connection of School Road at T.B. 5 as previously described in this report. The owner oif Parcel 980, The W. Gor- don Smith Co., has provided for this road connection as shown on their development plan dated August 4, 1975, on file in the•City Building and Inspections Office. The estimated cost for Part B is $13,500. It is proposed to assess the total amount to Parcel 980 over a 10 year period at 8% interest. • • • 4207S . C" TraJ 'ills* -a • PROTECT SCHEDULE It is proposed to proceed with Project STR 75-3-18 under the 3 ' following schedule: 3/23/76 Present feasibility report to City Council. • 3/19/76 Mail Notice of hearing to Eden Prairie ._. Community News. Publish 3/25 and 4/1. 4• 4/6/76 Hold Public hearing, order improvement and preparation of plans and specifics- tions. 4/13/76 Approve plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids 4/16/76 Mail ad for bids to Eden Prairie Com- munity News and Construction Bulletin. Publish 4/22 and 4/29. • 5/7/76 Open Bids 5/11/76 Award Contract 7/15/76 Construction complete Sept. '76 Special Assessment Hearing FEASIBILITY • Project STR 75-3-18, as proposed herein is feasible and will result in a benefit to the properties proposed to be assessed. 9,076 PROJECT STR 75-3-18 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL Property Owner Amount 254 Credit Total Set. Descri•tion Assessment Eden School Addition Block 1, Lot 1 NM. E. Parkos $816 4204 $612 • • • 2 Lyle Raufhold • . 3 Fred Hafner • • 4 Clarence Fryle • • • 5 A. G. Peterson 6 Richard Johnson • • • • • a 7 Arthur B. Rohe 8 Ronald Ott 9 Joseph E. Molitor • • • a w • 10 V. Rasmussen • • • 11 Robert F. Sharpe • 12 John H. Bender • • • w w • 13 Norman Engh a • • 14 Lois G. Rademacher • • • 15 Larry M. Schoch 16 James Willmore • • • ' 17 R. G. Twiss • • • 18 Gary L. Thompson • w a 19 Harold Hanson • • 20 Clarence Lilienthal • • • 21 Ralph Bergman • • • a078 ` %•1% ,.,�J-ao, I.W I.. Property Owner Amount 2S% Credit Total Est. Description Assessment Block 2, Lot 1 E. L. Sickman 8816 $204 $612 2 Larry Vorlicek • * • . 3 Frank Phillips • • . • • 4 Glen Britney • • • • 5 Frederick Berglund • • • 6 Dennis Waltzoni • • • 7 Richard Emahiser • • • 8 Kenneth Svor • • • • 9 Richard Beyer • • • 10 Teunis Jacobse • • - 11 Lawrence Doig • • • . 12 Wm. E. Deckler • • • 13 Roald Nielson • • - 14 Linus Westrup • • • 15 Jerry Parr • • • 16 David Tomcaik • • • 17 Phillip Barlow • • • 18 Lawrence Lidner • • • 19 H. J. Mitchell • • • Sec. 16 • Parcel 980 W. Gordon Smith 13,500 - 13,E 4810 Norman G. Nelson 816 204 • 612 EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER Block 1, Lot 1 Homart 816 — 816 2 Powers • •. .U 3 Homart • • 4 Sears • • The proposed assessment spread is lq years at 8% interest • CITY of EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • NOTICE OF HEARING ON ' • PUBLIC MORES IMPROVEMENTS • PROJECT STR 75-3-18 TO WHYS IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Eden .rairie, Minnesota, will meet at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, April 6, 1976, to consider the making of the following described improvements: Project STR 75-3-18, bituminous surfacing on School Road and Eden Court within the Eden School Addition, Lots 1-4 of the Eden Prairie Industrial Center and Parcels 980 and 4810, Section 16-116-22. The total estimated cost is $53,000, including.the extension of Eden Court from School Road to Wallace Road pursuant to NSA Section 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvements is all that property within or abutting on the above described limits. Written or oral ccmaents relating to said improvements will be received at this meeting. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Kathy Hermann, Deputy City Clerk Publish: March 25 and April 1, 1976 • • • • aciO • AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ' 1976 THIS AGREEMENT, dated 23rd day of March, 1976, between the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the•OWNER, and Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc., hereinafter called the CONSULTANT, provides for the terms and conditions under which the OWNER intends to retain the CONSULTANT to provide Professional Engineering Services required to complete preliminary project design, feasibility report, final design, construction drawings and specifications, and other required contract documents, contract administration, construction staking and inspection. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT agree as see forth below: A. SCOPE OF PROJECTS AUTHORIZED The actual description and scope of each project and any special conditions to this agreement shall be established by the OWNER in his letter of authorization to proceed with that specific project. Each letter of authorization shall be issued from the City Manager's office upon recommendation of the City Engineer. The CONSULTANT • shall sign and return to the OWNER a copy of this letter indicating his intention to proceed with the work so authorized. The CONSULTANT may elect not to proceed with the work if he so desires. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services to be provided for each project is as described in "A Guide for Engagement of Engineering Services" (Attachment A) adopted by the Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers and the Consulting Engineers Council of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Guide) or as modified herein. Basic Services shall include preparation of record drawings for the OWNER. A summary of these Basic Services is as follows: 1. Basic Services - Preliminary Study Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design shall include the normal planning, engineering and land surveying services as follows: a; Collect and review applicable existing data and reports per- taining to the project which may have a bearing on establishing routes, service areas and ultimate design criteria. 2081 �. _ .. __ —.-._ • b. Completion of preliminary engineering design of utility and/or street alternates including supervision of pre- •' liminary soil testing as required, field checking critical features of routes by level circuits equidaforto develop design to establish projectfeasibility, preliminary construction cost estimates. c. Submit project feasibility report to OWNER including, but not limited to, engineer's certification, discussion of feasibility study findings, and proposed project descriptions, engineer's recommendations as to selection of alternates, • preliminary cost estimate summaries, proposed method of assessment, preliminary assessment rolls, and typical notice of public hearing. 2. Basic Services - Final Design Final design, construction drawings and contract tudocumentseshall include the normal planning, engineering, as follows: a. Refine ineealternat plan s byethel OWNER Rnto extent necessary to b. Perform field surveys required for final design. c. 'Supervise soil borings required for final design. d. Prepare construction drawings. e. Prepare estimate of construction costs. f. Submit plans and specifications to the OWNER and applicable governmental agencies for approval. g. Prepare proposal forms, advertisements for bids and data for construction contract. h. Furnish additional copies of plans, specifications and contract documents to prospective bidders. 1. Assist in securing bids and conducting the bid opening. j. Tabulate bids and recommend action to be taken on the bids. 3. Basic Services - Construction Phase Construction phase services shall include the normal engineering and land surveying services as follows: • aocz a. General supervision of project during construction to assure conformance with the intent of the plans and specifications. Such general supervision shall be limited to periodic visits • to the construction site by the Project Manager. • • b. Assist with interpretation of plans and specifications. ' c. Review shop drawings and related data of the Contractor and manufacturers. d. Coordinate the work of testing laboratories. e. Consult with and advise the OWNER during construction. f. Prepare a final report to the OWNER when construction is substantially complete. • g. Prepare as-built drawings following completion of construction. Record drawings submitted to the OWNER shall include one (1) mylar original and one (1) paper print of each as-built plan sheet. h. Prepare and process the Contractor's periodic and final payment requests. 4. Additional Services The following services are not covered in Paragraphs B1 through B3 above, and if any of these services are authorized by the OWNER, they shall be paid for by the OWNER as hereinafter provided. a. Revisions of plans and specifications after approval by the OWNER and/or local, state or federal authorities. b. Construction staking. c. Construction management including daily inspection of Contractor's operations. d. As-built surveys. e. Land surveys, establishment of boundaries and monuments and pre- paration of land and easement descriptions, both temporary and permanent. f. Preparation of final assessment data from information furnished by the OWNER. 3• 2c3 g. Assistance to the OWNER in negotiation with individuals, corporations, municipalities, or any other local, state or federal authorities for acquisition of property easements or right-of-way or agreements required for the initiation, prosecution and construction of the Project. h. Special ini terRre at the NTRicut at locatosoherthan the OWNE 'S or CONSULTANT'S the Project site. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The OWNER ULTANT letion professional aservicesll ndescribedsate the CinSParagraphrBcasp of follows: as ibed 1. ParagraphsrBlre62,NandTB3Tof thisCAgreVement,shalleber in The f based on a percentage of the actual construction cost or, in the absence of actual cost figures, on a percentage of estimated construction cost. The percentage determination shall be based on Curve B appearing on Figure 2, Page 15 of the 1972 Guide (Attachment A). The net construction cost used to determine the compensation rate on all projects for which the OWNER has authorized the CONSULTANT to proceed on the Final Design during the period from January, 1976 to December 31, 1976 shall be the cumulative • total of the actual construction costs (final payments to •Contractors) or estimated costs thereof in the absence of actual costs, except as modified by the letter of authorization. The compensation rate for those projects terminated after the preliminary study phase shall be based on 6% of the estimated construction cost unless otherwise provided in the letter of authorization. In the case of sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer projects, the dollar amounts determined by the use of the said Curve B shall be reduced by an amount agreeable to both OWNER and CONSULTANT to reflect a credit for previous comprehensive studies which will be made available for the CONSULTANT'S use as described in OWNERrwillCbefspecified inethe letter thofrauthorization describede in Paragraph A. Progress payments for BASIC SERVICES on individual projects shall be based upon an interim compensation rate of 6.00% and shall be made as follows: a. BASIC SERVICES - PRELIMINARY STUDY: I5% of Basic Fee, payable in monthly increments based on progress towards completion of • the written feasibility report: or a lump sum fee as negotiated with the OWNER. 4 • 208- • b. BASIC SERVICES - FINAL DESIGN: 70% of Basic Fee payable: in monthly increments based on the progress towards completion of final plans and specifications. c. BASIC SERVICES - CONSTRUCTION PHASE: 15% of Basic Fee, payable in monthly increments in the same proportion as periodic payments to the construction contractor. Final payment due after final inspection and approval of the Project. 2. Payment for the CONSULTANT'S ADDITIONAL SERVICES as described in Paragraph 84 of this agreement shall be determined by multiplying actual salaries (reduced to hourly wage) times a factor of 2.8 and applying the resulting figure to the actual time spent on the project. Measurement of travel time for all personnel shall be from the Hopkins office only. The maximum compensation for all necessary construction staking and inspection for each project shall be 6.0% of the final construction cost for that project. 3. The OWNER with prior approval shall compensate the CONSULTANT for all overtime required by the OWNER'S schedule involving technical and administrative personnel at actual hourly straight time salaries times a factor of 2.8. 4. The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for all reimbursable -expenses, actual expenditures for the CONSULTANT'S additional services, other than the hourly fees, di►'ectly connected with the Project, including mileage, cost of soil borings, testing or special consultants as directed by the OWNER and identifiable materials, services or supplies used in reproduction of records, drawings and specifications or field work. 5. The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for making major revisions in drawings, specifications or other documents directed by the OWNER when such revisions are inconsistent with written approvals or instructions previously given and.are due to causes beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. The 6% limit of Paragraph C2 of this agreement shall not apply for these authorized additional services. D. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY • The OWNER shall make available or allow access to all existing data related to the work and all other data-or information which may develop that could possibly have a bearing on the decisions or recommendations made under this agreement. The OWNER shall specifically provide: 1. Copies of the calculation and supporting data from any reports covering the trunk sanitary sewer system, waterworks improvements • and storm sewer system as submitted to the OWNER. 5 acts • 2. Proposed or approved subdivision, P.U.O., plats and other pertinent data which may have a bearing on planning and engineering decisions. 3. Topographic mapping and boundary surveys 4. City records showing names and legal descriptions of property owners for easements and assessments. 5. Authority for representatives of the CONSULTANT to enter lands for surveys and other information related to the design and construction of the Project. 6. The OWNER will pay for all soil testing required throughout the design and construction of the Project. 7. The OWNER will pay for laboratory tests of materials and workmanship. 8. The OWNER will provide legal assistance for easement descriptions where necessary. E. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 1. Term of the contract shall be concurrent with the work authorized between January 1, 1976 and December 31, 1976. 2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at any time by written notice and shall be effective upon payment in full for all services performed to the date of receipt of such notice, provided, however, that the CONSULTANT may not terminate his • services during critical stages of individual projects as determined by the OWNER. 3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its partners, ' successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party of this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with repsect to all covenants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. F. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and will be made available to the DWNER, if requested. n6 0 • 2. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and maintain statutory copyright in all published books, published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical character, and other works related to this Project in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full rights to re- produce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this Project. One copy of each drawing shalt be provided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain the property of the CONSULTANT. 3. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his employees and the public, and from claims for property damage. G. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW • 1. This Agreement and all letters of authorization described in Paragraph A represent the entire and integrated agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, whether written or oral with respect to the Projects to be authorized. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT. 2. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE OWNER AND THE CONSULTANT have made and executed this agreement: FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Mayor (Seal) By Manager Dated FOR RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOC. INC. By • . • Witness Title Dated (Seal) • 7 9.0$7 • x a•, . . ! . . w i UnU ( | | / xU| / | | | m . m*,"mstr"*ion %rm= � Cost o""�n m --'�' � ------' --� ------ 4 � 50,000 n].05 � wu 9 ul ' - | 250,000 7.0 50N,uoo 7'00 _ � ----- - � --� 6'63 �.�� ' ---- ' - `�`---- 2,000,000 5'75 s.3V ' ' � lu n ---- - -- --�- * ` 8,000,000 5.05 � -_--�� .— � ---- 10.000,000 q.y/ ` 20,000,000 4^88 to sw � m � � 8 V s � � | m � | > 4 U ! U om / m m mm mw ^ oo/ oom o� | Net construction cost,m millions of dollom ` �/o.o-CURVE a^msmwycmMpsmoxTn>m FOR omxoosnv�sm EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE mF CONSTRUCTION COST FOR PROJECTS mF AVERAGE COMPLEXITY. ` ,°".mn^»ccw"""a No."o � � �. • ' t EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA WATER WORKS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT 51-263 TRUNK WATER MAINS • CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 • This Change Order No. 3 modifies the contract to adjust the contract price as compensation for work performed that is beyond the scope of the • original contract. The Contractor requested and the City approved the temporary installation of a 6 inch gate valve at approximate Station 41+00 on Section XI, Line A. It was agreed that the Contractor would be compensated for 50 per cent of the cost of removing the valve. Remove temporary 6" G.V. ($690.00 less 501) $345.00. As a result of this additional work, the contract amount for Improvement Contract 51-263 is to be increased by the agreed amount of Three Hundred Fourty Five Dollars and No Cents ($345.00). All other provisions of the contract remain unchanged. This Change Order No. 3 is recommended for adoption. • BLACK & VEATCH • Approved and Accepted Approved and Accepted /" /r" date date CITY OF EN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. ice--- ,. 3-/6-9G • By By iewf'/.311r1.-r...sr+� Title Title re', CO3-1 • • • 2089 • MEMO TO: Mayor and The City Council PROM: Marty lessen, Director of Community Services THRU: Roger K. Ulstad SUBJECT: Metropolitan Park Funding DATE: March 19, 1976 Yop've previously expressed your support for the Metro Council's Park and Open Space CIP and Funding Request. The 1 Year Funding Request is under consideration by the State Legislature. This legislation would provide additional bonding authority for parks including the money ($115,000) for the Schaitberger property at Lake Riley. Attached is a "Model Resolution" expressing support for this legislation. Z40 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1106 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION TO FUND REGIONAL PARKS WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has adopted a Regional Recreation Open Space/Development Guide;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Guide the Metropolitan Park and Open Space Commission has prepared and adopted a Five Year Capital Improvements Program; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is supporting legislation to provide for an increase in the maximum amount of bonds for regional recreation open space acquisition and development; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is an implementing agency responsible for the acquisition and development of regional parks in its Jurisdiction;and WHEREAS, the citizens of Eden Prairie will benefit from this proposed legislation, particularly regional park (s);now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Eden Prairie lend its support to the Metropolitan Council's park bonding request and urges the Legislature to approve the required funding. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of , 1976. • Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, Clerk SEAL 20 1 MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Marty lessen, Director of Community Services/4i* DATE: March 19, 1976 REGARDING: Proposed Trailway along Co. Road 4 When you considered the location of a trailway along Co. Road 4 at your February 10th meeting, I presented the western alignment and gave general reasons why the staff had determined it to be the most acceptable. Since the Council suggested that the trailway be shifted to the east side south of T.H. 5, I felt that perhaps the Council would appreciate having the more detailed facts contained in the December 1, 1975 Feasibility Study included with this transmittal. The detailed Feasibility Study was not submitted to you initially because of the technical nature of parts of it. To make the general conclusions of the study clear, I will highlight these for you. Page one contains the basic criteria and rationale used in the trailway location selected. Page two contains a discussion of rationale for being within Co. Road 4 R.O.W. or outside of it. The western alignment allows more opportunity for being outside of the R.O.W. without conflicting with existing land uses, thus allowing the trailway to more correctly match an existing grade rather than being built on the side of a ditch, etc thus holding grading costs down. Page three denotes the locations of controlled crossing points of Co. Road 4. Since the trailway would not be directly adjacent to the road surface (the ditch would separate it in most cases), random crossing of Co. Road 4, for pedestrians and especially bicyclists would be physically limited. The denoted, controlled crossing points would be safely signed and the ditch would be bridged by a perpendicular pathway running to the road surface. We feel that controlled crossings of this type are superior to the entire pathway crossing Cedar Ridge Road, Summit Drive, Lake Shore Drive, Scenic Heights Road, Easy Street, Lincoln Lane, and subsequently having to cross Co. Road 4. We believe that the advantage of the western alignment is that it allows people to be in close .209a 1 -2- proximity to it without it having to cut through their side, back or front yards. Once on the trail on the west side, a bicyclist or ped- estrian could proceed along the entire length to T.H. 5 unimpeded. The east side, in comparision, would not require crossing of Co. Road 4 initially, but would create the hazard of bicyclists proceeding across side streets without stopping, and a T.H. 5 Co. Road 4 would have to be crossed anyway. Page four depicts the suggested controlled crossing points of Co. Road 4. Pages three and five list the lineal feet of R.O.W. required and its probable method of acquisition. Pages five and six give an estimated construction cost. Page seven discusses how costs might be reduced. Page eight shows an alternate construction method cost. Page nine depects a program of implementation, points 1 & 2 have already been completed. Page ten lists criteria for 'at grade' crossing criteria &feasibility conclusion. Pages eleven- nineteen contains an appendix of data used to compile • study costs, assumptions and criteria. We hope that you will find this helpful. Attached is a copy of the letter that just vent to all adjacent landowners North of Hwy. 5. The same letter will be sent to the owners of property adjacent to the roadway South of 5 after the March 23 Council Meeting. 2093 CRT OFFICES/1811 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55252/TELEPHONE(tt2)51t•2252 ''*ems' CAI--1 March 18, 1976 Dear Eden Prairie Resident: The Eden Prairie City Council has approved the concept of a sikewaymikeway • Trail along Co. Road 4 from the Minnetonka to Border to t we o Co.cons Road dr 1. The construction design details are now being preps to occur A.S.A.P. In developing this design we are first looking at the land ownership situation. From a design standpoint we would like to locate the trail as far from the road surface as possible. From the view of being compatible with the adjacent land uses (your home)we think we could best locate closer to the road surface. Trying to resolve this "conflict" is a difficult proposition. We believe the safety of the user is a very improtant factor. Thus we request your cooperation as far as finding the best and safest design. The County Highway Department has staked the road Right-of-Way that they own. If you observe the locations of these stakes you'll see that in many cases staying inside of this R.O.W. will be extremely difficult. We are hoping to actually walk the entire length of the trail and mark what • ' we believe will make the best location during the week of March 29 to April 2. This may or may not take us onto your property and we request your cooperation by permitting us to come onto your property. This does not necessarily mean the trail will actually be built on your land. Once the desired trail location is marked on your property we will sit down and discuss the possibility of construction with you. • I'd like to stress that we are not now condemning and sorthe and will trail n and do not intend to. We are studying possible implement (construct) any of the trail until further communications with you. We are not in a position to pay a lot of money for land acquisition for the trail and thus we will be soliciting your complete cooperation. • aa9y -2- • • If you have any questions on this , please contact me at 941-2262. I'll be happy to discuss the specifics with you either now or after the preferred .location is marked. • Thank you. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • N Yi ,� GQdrwK, • Marty�ssen Director&Community Services MJ:md • • • r2a95` I STAFF REPORT TO: Marty Jessen, Community Services Director , FROM: Chris Enger, Associate City and Park Planner il DATE: December 1, 1975 10 SUBJECT: HIKEWAY/BIKEWAY TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CO. RD. 4 { 11 The recommendation of the original Hikeway/Bikeway Task Force Report showed .1 that a major pathway paralleling Co. Rd. 4 was of top priority to get the entire trail system off to a start. The more detailed problem of the specific location of the trail was not addressed at that time. The report did, however, call for a combined Hikeway/Bikeway trail completely separated from the County Road, at least 8 feet in width initially. The trail was to be enlarged to include a sep- arate trail for bicycles and pedestrians when capacities warranted. Criteria which were considered in determining the specific path location j were: Property value, property severance, number of dirveway conflicts, 11 distance to houses, cost of acquisition, tax revenue loss, topography, i soil type, soil limitations for trail use, soil buildahility, vegetation. visibility from surrounding uses, location of nodes of activity, locations on road-crossing points, and percent slope. When property severance, number ofdriveway conflicts, nodes of-activity, crossing points, distance to houses, and existing City-owned land were considered, the importance of soil type and slope for determining the trail location became secondary. This was because preliminary cost estimates for materials showed that wherever possible the trail should occur within the 80-foot right-of-way owned by Hennepin County to cut hack on acquisition costs. The slopes and soil type then came into play to help determine grading quantities and quanitites of suhgrade base material needed on problem soils. The west side of Co. Rd. 4 was determined to be much less developed than • the east side. This was due mainly to the number df single family lots that adjoined Co. Rd. 4 with the back, side or front yards on the east side of the road. Also, the possibility of trail segments being built by future developments on the west side of the road was very important. Pemtom should be required to build pathways along the east end of their proposed development, which would amount to approximately 1,500 to 2,000 lineal feet. Eagle Enterprises will supply approximately 600 lineal feet of trailway. In addtion, many of the major activity nodes will be on the west side of the road: such as, the City Hall, the proposed new neighborhood shopping center, Round Lake, future fire station, Hennepin County Library, future Middle/High School, Prairie View Elementary School and significant western development. Birch Island Park, which occurs on the east side of Co. Rd. 4 toward the northern E Eden Prairie border, affords an opportunity to cross to the east side of the . road and eliminate conflicts with single family lots on toward the north. Crossing points of Co. Rd. 4 are very important and will affect the degree of safety and use of the trail. Providing crossing points at logical pedes- trian and bicycle collection locations, which have good sight distance, is very important. 2a9( In or Out of Co. Rd. 4 Right-of-Way? As was mentioned earlier in this report, about 10, 452 lineal feet of pathway may occur outside of the right-of-way initially because of; public ownership , easements, quasi-public ownership, or developer's commitments. In addition, it appears that at least 5, 100 lineal feet ought to be committed to by future developments and the price of construction assessed back to them at the time of development. This leaves about 11,048 lineal feet that would have to occur in the right'-of-way if no more land could be acquired. The general philosophy for location of the path is to have it near Co. Rd. 4 for safety from crime, low impact property serverance, and direct route between activity nodes, but not too near because of ; high traffic , low scenic value, and low quality riding or walking experience. Within the 80 feet Co. Rd. 4 right-of-way, approximately 48 to 52 feet of it is occupied by the roadway section (24 feet of road surface and shoulders and ditches ). This leaves only about 15 feet on each side of the road in which to build an eight foot path. With the 80 foot Co. Rd. 4 right-of-way, approximately 48 to 52 foot on each side of the road in which to build on eight foot path. The traffic currently south of T.H. 5 on Co. Rd. 4 is 2,460 trips/day and north of T.H. 5 3,740 trips/day. The road would be eligible for upgrading to four lanes when the traffic reaches 7,500 trips/day. -' The developments of Hidden Ponds II, Eagle Enterprises, and Pemtom will add quite substantially to the traffic on Co. Rd. 4. It therefore seems advisable to locate .within the right-of-way only when; 1. grade will not permit outisde alignment, 2. pathway outside the ' right-of-way would encroach too close to a single family home, or 3. when easements or dedication can not be obtained. After looking at the proximity of the pathway to homes and rechecking the topography, it appears that if easements or dedication of land can be obtained approximately 6,135 feet should still occur within the right-of- way. This is about 23% of the total system. The portions that should be in the right-of-way are generally ; 1. along Paracise Valley, 2. Hillcrest Courts, 3. the 300-600 feet south of the C.M.St. P. railroad, and 4.afew other single family lots adjacent to Co. Rd. 4. Crossing Points Initially,because of cost constraints, all crossing points will be 'at-grade', with the T.H. 5 crossing being signalized. The crossing of T.H. 5 will be hazardous because of left turning vehicles. 209' Crossing points suggested would he: 1) A future underpass where Purgatory Creek intersects with Co. Rd. 4 with an at-grade crossing initially 2) An at-grade crossing at the intersection of Edenwood Drive and Co. Rd. 4 with a short collector pathway on the east side of the road running from Edenwood Drive north to Hillcrest Lane 3) An at-grade crossing (future overpass) at Valley View Road and Co. Rd. 4 4) An at-grade crossing at Westgage Drive and Co. Rd. 4 S) A signalized crossing at T.11. 5 and Co. Rd. 4 6) An at-grade crossing at Scenic Heights Road and Co. Rd. 4 7) An at-grade crossing at Lake Shore Drive and Co. Rd. 4 8) An at-grade crossing at Summit Drive and Co. Rd. 4 9) An at-grade crossing at Cedar Ridge Road and Co. Rd. 4 10) A future at-grade crossing at Co. Rd. 1 and Co. Rd. 4 In addition, although sight distances are short at the intersection of Oak Ridge Road and Co. Rd. 4, it does seem that it is the best northern most location for an at-grade crossing. It also nrovides the most direct link between the residential area on the west side of Co. Rd. 4 and Birch Island Park. The location of the at-grade crossings in the locations suggested above occur at regualr intervals, no closer together than Ron feet with an average interval of between 3/1i and 1/2 mile. Areas of Special Consideration The area lying between 600 and 900 feet south of the intersection of the C., M. St. P. Railroad and Co. Rd. 4 would require extensive earth retain- ing work to make room for the pathway. The alternative is skirting around behind the area, which would require about 1,200 extra feet of trailway at an added construction cost of approximately $5,117.00 and a land acquisi- tion cost of perhaps $1,600.00 to 52,0n0,00. This, when compared with the $4,750.00 cost of a retaining wall plus the added safety standpoint of being in close proximity to bypassers make the road right-of-way alignment more desirable. Since the up-dated construction estimate of this project is now around $06,000.00 for construction alone, separate land acquisition outside of the County Road right-of-way will not be possible. However, there are extensive areas where the trail may and in fact should be located outside the right-of-way. City Owned Land quasi-Public City Hall 300 ft. Immanuel Lutheran Church 450 ft. • '` I O f, ---, f,:,,,:,.,z,-1 .,,, ....,• ^0........., / •., . : . .a.l'-' l 1?3? Nil 1! w. L ,"rnc.l !\ •..� �� Pll �.y—.�ga�Mws31•-J�.l•l' ;{.K '� O n 9 !1• Vr -M1�" , �.b...9• it �.._- .:RJ, ..:,., • E--(1 .. ... „_ ""L...,-. ..:!:, . • i• jc•• go --'- am' ' C •i 1•/Q; a. •�' CNANIW!SEN JI ' •/ ...Me.i i W u1nwQ"' yl ?'r tri 11 ui • R " J ' FI,,,..,.• ? ' • , `h ,', •r j� • - i ..i Co.....'It——— (4.. . • :14./ -'''N..::::,,s,,,11 i • . I I , .� !-..,SSA•_r�lift.' 1•nc tua ; a • R r Round Lake Park 1,400 ft. Purgatory Creek Floodpiain 750 ft. School District Site 1,700 ft. Road Right-of-way 1,472 ft. Birch Island Park 1,900 ft. R. R. Right-of-way 380 ft. To Be Built By Developer To Be Dedicated By Future Developers Pemtom 1,500 ft. --- 5,100 ft. Eagle 600.ft. Main Pathway 22,500 ft. Collector Paths 4,000 ft. Amount of Trail Length not requiring initial landacquisition 10,452 ft. Future expected dedication 5,100 ft. Total Amount requiring acquisition or road right- of-way location 11,048 ft. It does appear that over half of the pathway location can occur outside of the Co. Rd. 4 right-of-way. The remainder of the pathway will have to occur within the right-of-way unless easements can be obtained or dedication of the trail corridor received. The impact of dedication on tax revenue would probably be less than 5600 per year. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR CO. RD. 4 PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY TRAIL Assumptions 1. Assume no acquisition of land, construction within City owned land and Co. Rd. 4 right of way. 2.. Assume no major grading necessary from studies of grades made. 3. Assume the price of 2331 bituminous @ $14.50/ton in place. 4. Assume cost of class II crushed rock @ $1.50/ton or$6.00/ton hauled. 5. Assume 1 cubic yard of crushed rock equals approximately 1 ton. • 6. Assume 22,500 lineal feet of pathway 8 feet wide 4 inches 2331 deep strength asphalt on compacted subgrade. 7. Approximately 7545 lineal feet of soils requiring 6 inches class II crushed rock. 8. Assume cost of grading at $ 1.25/cubic yard. a100 9. Assume 1 foot wide strip of sod on each side of path for erosion prevention and restoration@ .75/square yard laid. 10. Assume seeding @$200/acre, assume ten feet on each side of path 100 feet of 2331 8 feet wide, 4 inches thick= 19.5 tons @$14.50/ton 22,500 X 19.5 X$ 14.50 = $ 63,618.75 asphalt 100 class II 7,545 X 8 = 30.180 cu ft = 1,117.77cu.yd.@$5.00/yd=$5,588.00 2 27 2 X 22,500 =5,000 sq.yd@ .75/sq. yd=$3,750.00 sod in place 9 20X22,500 X$200 = $2,066.00 seeded area restoration • 43,560 22,500X8+ 7,545X 8 3 2 X$1.25 =$4,175 for grading of trail bed only 27 12,000 auxiliary grading special details : 100 foot long railroad tie retaining wall, 10 feet high 10 X 2 X - 250+ 1 0 10 -270 @$7/tie = $1,750 materials 3,000 labor 4,750 retaining wall ( $20,000)future • TOTAL $ 95,947.75 4.26/lineal foot plus underpass or overpass $115,947.75 additional collector paths of 4,000 feet =17,04'0.00 2.1 0 ? $ 112,987.75 • • • • Of the $97,00n.00 coat t estimate submitted for funding to F.A.V., the City is expected to fund 30%. If we expect to complete this very important first phase of the H1ceway/Bikeway trail system, we must do several things to get the cost down and to supply our thirty percent matching funds without having to take cash out of our pocket. The cost of the 22,500 feet of trail on the west side of Co. Rd. 4 is within the initial $97,000.00 cost estimate. However, with the feasibility study of the pathway, the approximately 4,000 additional lineal feet for the collector paths was found to be necessary to control random crossing of Co. Rd. 4. These collector paths will add approximately $17,040.00 to the $95,947.75 main pathway cost. Out of the estimated cost of $4.26 for an 8 ft. wide pathway, $2,83 can be attributed to the 4-inch deep strength asphalt surface. This means that about $1.43 per lineal foot can be.attributed to grading, sodding, seeding and limited purchase and placement of base material. This amounts to $37,895.00 of the entire $112,987.75, thus decreasing the amount • of this to $75,092.75 if we were to do the preparation work ourselves. In addition, approximately 2,600 feet of the pathway is going to be constructed initially by Penton and Eagle Enterprises. At $4.26 per lineal foot, this would knock $11,076.00 more off the cost, bringing it down to 564,016.75. F.A.V. has committed to 701 of $97,000.00 or $67,900.00. Therefore, with our own grand preparation, we should be able to obtain a high quality trail • initially. The second way to significantly cut costs, without using our maintenance crew for preparation, would be to change•the cross section of the trail. The cross section recommended by the Minnesota State Planning Agency and the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, and our own City Engineer is 4 inches of deep strength asphalt laid over a compacted subgrade. I had modified this somewhat by adding 6 inches of crushed rock base in very poor soil conditions. However, Hennepin County, in their Bikeway Feasibility Report, suggest another acceptable method (as well as deep strength asphalt) which is laying 1-1/2 to 2 inches asphalt wearing coarse over 3 to 4 inches aggregate base. • '4`y • • • • 2101 it What does this method mean in terms of capital expenditure cost savings? Grading 26,500 X 8 X .5 X $1.25 - S 4,907.41 27 Ancillary Grading - $12,000.00 Sod in Place - $ 3,750.00 Seeding - $ 2,066.00 Asphalt .16 X 8 X 26,500 X $14.50 X $1.98 - $36,068.26 27 Class 5 .5 X 8 X 26,500 X $8.46 - $33,213.33 27 $92,005.00 - 33.47/lineal ft. Minus Developer Trails $ 9,022.0n $82,983.00 We must somehow still decrease the cost to $67,900.00 which leaves $15,083.00 to pick up. Alt. 1 - The initial method minus the developer trails - $101,911.75 Alt. 2 - The reduced section method minus developer trails $ 82,983.00 $ 18,928.75 Alt. 1 - 4 inches deep strength without 4,000 feet collector paths initially - $'84,871.75 Alt. 2 - Reduced section without 4,000 feet collector paths initially - $ 69,103.00 $15,768.75 From the sources I have studied - State, Federal, County and City - it is evident that the deep strength design is the more sunericr surface over a arca longer period of time. In addition, the reduced section would most likely have to be seal coated; and in poor soil conditions, the deep strength on top of aggregate is still recommended. In light of the fact that this trail will be perhaps the most heavily used trail in the City and the standard for construction of this trail will be what developers base their systems on, and since ultimately the City may assume the maintenance responsibility for many of these trails, I would recommend that we pursue the more durable deep strengthdesien. From this state to implementation, the following steps are necessary: 1) Dialogue established with Hennepin County for permission to locate within their right-of.-way if necessary 2) Establishment in the field of monumentation of Co. Rd. 4 right-of-way 3) Contacting property owners for dedication or trail easement where 1) City does not own land, 2) Pathway is not acceptable in right- of way 4) Staking of alignment of pathway in the field 5) Soil borings to determine exactly what section should be utilized in each instance 6) Detailed cost estimates 7) Letting of bids 8) Clearing of trail alignment area and preliminary grading, construction of special details 9) Compaction of subsoil and laying in and cocting of aggre- gate base (where needed) 10) Laying of asphalt 11) Final restoration grading, sodding and seeding * seal coating for 26,500 lineal feet of pathway would cost about 59,422.22, thus bringing cost of the reduced section minus the developer trails to $91,480.78 plus 7,545 lineal feet of poor soils requiring tha deep strength design or an additional $ 10,945.01 plus $ 4,750.00 for the retaining wall brings the price to $ 107,175.79 compared to $ 101,911.75 for deep strength completely. aiou • The remaining ' at-grade ' crossings will be designed as was recommended In the original Hlkeway/Bikeway Task Force Report. 1. They must have good sight distance. 2. They should occur at a relatively flat grade in the road. 3. They should be clearly signed. 4. The crossing area should be clearly striped. 5. The area should be well lighted (either from existing street lights or specially placed lights. 6. The crossing area on both sides of the road may include; benches, trash receptacles, plantings (over-story and lower ground cover) and widened pa1.4ng for resting and waiting. The crossing areas will be designed so as to combine the functional need of readily recognizing them as crossing areas from a driver's point of view with the esthetic qualities of landscaping, benches , plaza, and lighting details. All places where a pathway crosses a residential City street should be appropriately signed, striped and provided with let down curb. In the future, there should be an over-pass at the intersection of Co. Rd. 4 and Valley View Road,and an underpass at the intersection of Purgatory Creek and Co. Rd. 4. The creek underpass will make a Purgatory Creek Trail System very viable and add greatly to the safety of the Co. Rd. 4 system. • Conclusion The implementation of the Co. Rd. 4 Pedestrian/Bicycle system is very feasible. Although costs will most likely be higher then anticipated, spending of moneyegaitst future assessment of perhaps $ 25,000 and future funding to supply the amount needed over$ 67,900 provided this year by F.A.0. does appear justified to complete such a high quality back bone trail. Completion of this initial phase of the system will provide impetus for the entire Hikeway/Bikeway system envisioned by the Task Force in 1974. I would recommend proceeding with the eleven steps toward completion outlined in this report. Nov. 25, 1975 CE LINEAL FEET OF SOIL TYPES PARALLELING CO. RD. 4 ON WEST SIDE feet • BC 264 ErB2 132 RsC 132 EnC 198 . DaB 528 LtB 304 HuC 990 EnC 462 EtC 264 HeC 594 EtB 1848 Hg 924 EtC 594 Mx 264 HIC 390 • HbE 66 • EtB 594 H1C 264 EtC 132 HbE 107 EtB 132 Mg 422 EtC 196 H1C 132 EtB 528 ' BuB 792 HuC 198 EtC 435.6 • EtA 99 • Cu 264 ' EtC 594 Cu 264 Bo 66 EtB 964 EtA 396 EtB 436 • DB 264 . • EtA 132 . HeB 396 ItB2 264 He$ 264 • HcB2 363 Hog 528 HbB 990 HoC 343 Cu 100 Ma 330 HcC2 396 Trail Use Limitations Soil Type Soil Group moderate DaB Dakota Loam • 1 slight 0-12 EtA Estherville Sandy Loam 0-2 % 2 slight EtB Estherville Sandy Loam 2-6 % 2 slight Estherville Sandy Loam 6-12 % 2 slight BuB Burnsville Sandy Loam 2-6% 2 slight HuC Hubbard Loamy Sand 6-12 % 2 • slight H1C Heyder Complex 2-6 % 4 slight HeB Heyder Sandy Loam 2-6 % 5 slight HcC2 Hayden Clay Loam 6-12 % 5 slight HcB2 Hayden Clay Loam 2-6 % 5 slight HbB Hayden Loam 2-6 % 5 severe HbE Hayden Loam 18-29 % 5 slight HeC Heyder Sandy Loam 6-12 % 5 slight LtB LeSuebr Loam 12-18 % 6 slight 2 -12 EnC Erin Loam 2-6 % 7 slight ErB2 Erin Clay Loam 2-6 % 7 moderate : Hamel Land 10 severe Ma Marsh 12 •severe Mx Mixed Alluvial Land, frequently flooded 13 • 207 SOIL GROUPS BUILDABILITY 1 danger of frost heave is slight, low to moderate volume changes in upper 2 to 4 feet, lawns, trees and shrubs are relatively easy to establish and maintain. 2 well drained, underlain by a sand or gravel -low water table -soils are noncohesive, gullies form easily steep embankments are difficult to establish through vegetative practices. Increased runoff from streets can cause severe erosion. -soils have good bearing capacity, low volume change, low sub- septibility to frost heaving. -vegetation difficult to establish and maintain on these soils -a top dressing of 12 to 18 inches of loamy material is desirable before seeding grass or laying sod. 4 -low water table -low to moderate volume change • -frost heaving low to moderate -vegetation established fairly easily except when sand and gravel is present • 5 -low water table -fair bearing capacity, fair shear strength -moderate volume changes -roads and driveways need especially careful design to prevent break up -high danger of frost heave in seasonally drained areas -easy to establish vegetation except for seeding of Hayden soils. 6 -moderately well drained -Le Sueur soils have seasonally high water tables -streets, roads, and sidewalks tend to heave unless they are carefully designed with a thick sand sub base -establishment of vegetation is very easy on these soils 7 -have packets of poorly drained soil -change in voluma is moderate to moderately high -streets, roads, and concrete slabs unless carefully designed are subject to heaving and cracking -fairly easy to establish seed and sod and shrubs on these soils • 10 -deep, nearly level, poorly drained, loamy to clay -hazard of frost heaving is high on these soils ( streets, driveways, parking lots, and slabs at entrances of large shopping centers are subject to heaving and cracking unless carefully designed. The bearing capacity and shear strength are fair to poor) -sod, trees, and shrubs are easy to establish on these soils eirP aIO 1 Soil Groups Buildability, Continued 12 -subject to ponding -water table near the surface much of the year 13 -frequently flooded, poorly drained and have a high water depth, 1 to 3 feet during periods of a month or more CO. ROAD 4 HIKEWAY/BIKEWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY-OWNERSHIP OF POTENTIAL PARCELS WITHIN TRAIL CORRIDOR SUBDIVISION PARCEL WO NER Edenview 2nd Addition Block 1, Lot 1 Russel L Sotebeer 15600 Lund Dr. N. Hopkins, Minn. Block 2, Lot 1 Wendell D. Brosdahi 15601 No. Lund Dr. Hopkins, Minn. Block 2, Lot 17 Odell H. Almond 15606 So. Lund Dr. Hopkins, Minn. Block 4, Lot 1 Leonard B. Kodet 6536 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, Minn. Block 4, Lot 2 Glenn A. Meinke 6544 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, Minn. Block 3, Lot 12 Raymond Fink 15701 Lund Rd. So. Eden Prairie, Minnesota Duck Lake Estates Block 1, Lot 1 Ecklund & Swedlund P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minn. Kucher's 1st Addition Block 3, Lot 1 Charles T. Andre Box 1206 Minnetonka, Minn. Paradise Valley Block 2, Lot 1 Everett A. Rusch 15602 Sunset Circle Eden Prairie, Minn. Block 2, Lot 2 Larry W.Winslow Wikersheim,Gerald 15612 Sunset Circle Eden Prairie, Minnesota • Block 2, Lot 3 John C. Sailor 15618 Sunset Circle Eden Prairie, Minn. 2110 -4- SUBDIVISION PARCEL OWNER $230 2220 i 2210 Lyle Moran 2240 Pemtom Inc. 8200 Humboldt Ave. S, Minneapolis, Minn. 55431 4200 Clayton E.Gunnarson 7960 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minn. 3200 Gordon W. Hulbert 8200 Humboldt Ave. So. Minneapolis, Minn. 55431 1200 Johan M. Lrrsen 6214 Breeburn Circle Minneapolis, Minnesota C. M. & St.P.R.R. 4800 A. J. Miller 1906 3rd Ave. So. Minneapolis, Minn. 5000 C. C. Miller A. J. Miller 8430 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 2080 C. C. Miller 8430 Eden Prairie.Road Eden Prairie, Minn. 2065 F. H. Miller 8425 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minn. 3710 Herbert Mason 1014 Excelsior Ave. Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 6600 Agnes C. toensing B. R. Toensing 8420 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minn. 12111 �— , -3- SUBDMSION PARCEL OWNER Kirk Meadows Block 1, Lot 1 W. Eggan Construction Ellis W. Olson 16400 Luther Way Eden Prairie, Minn. Section 4 3806 State of Minnesotm 5820 Chester Harms 5920 6345 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, Minnesota Section 5 800 Magnum Land Corp. New 1050 Wichita, Kansas Shelter Dev. Corp. 1550 E. 78th St. Minneapolis, Minn. 850 Magnum Land Corp. 5600 W. J. Kocourek Ecklund & Swedlund P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minnesota Section 8 2830 Ecklund & Swedlund P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minn. 3020 Grant N. Sutliff 7070 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 2825 Frieda P. Kocourek 7080 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minn. 2212 Q. Petroleu mCorp. 2835 Nicollet Ave. S. Minneapolis, Minn. Section 17 2425 George M. Moran C.O.R. Investment C. F. Nelson 4236 Lynn Ave. Edina, Minn. 55416 2435 (Broken off George E. Moran from 2425) 7808 Co. Rd. 4 Eden Prairie, Minn. -2- SUBDIVISION PARCEL OWNER Paradise Valley (cont.) Block 3, Lot 1 Donald H. Braun 15501 Perk Terrace Dr. Eden Prairie, Minn. R.L.S. 669 A Warren Shultz Trust Real Est. N.W. National Bank 7th & Marquette Minneapolis, Minn. 669 F Cecil L. Martin 6585 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, Minn. 1016 A H. F. Griffiths 6401 Kurtz Lane Eden Prairie, Minn. Hillcrest 2nd Outlets A,B,C,D,E,F, City of Eden Prairie Hillcrest 3rd Block 3, Lot 17 Lloyd H. Hulbert 7040 Alpine Trail Eden Prairie, Minn. Block 3, Lot 18 Ecklund & Swedlund P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minn. Block 3, Lot 16 Ecklund & Swedlund P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minn. Hillcrest Court Block I, Lot 1 Ecklund & Swedlund ? P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minn. Non-Homestead Block 1, Lot 14 Ecklund & Swedlund ? P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minn. Block 2, Lot 1 Eoklund & Swedlund ? P.O. Box 38 Excelsior, Minn. Edenwood Ridge Block 1, Lot 1 Marco S. Jones 16354 Edenwood Dr. Eden Prairie, Minn. 2113 _5_ SUBDIVISION PARCEL OWNER 1J Section 17 (cont.) 6200 A.W. Miller 8430 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minn. 5825 A. W. Miller 8430 Eden Prairie Road r, Eden Prairie, Minnesota •p 5610 David Dockendorf 8440 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minn. North 20 was part of (3710) 4030 Eden Prairie Day. Assn. Herbert A. Mason 1014 Excelsior Ave. ' Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 4200 Eden Prairie Cemetery 4015 Eden Prairie Cemetery # 2410 Harry Rogers 9100 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 6400 Harry Rogers 9100 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minn. 6600 Eden Prairie Birch Island Acres Lot 16 F. P. Kurtz 6408 Kurtz Lane Eden Prairie, Minn. anti CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST March 23, 1976 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family) Waconia Homes, Inc. LaBore Constrction, Inc. G & M Builders CONTRACTOR (Multi-family & Comm.) D. H. Gustafson & Assoc. Rutledge Construction Co. Scott Construction Corporation PLUMBING . Norman & Smith Co., Inc. BEATING & VENTILATING Air Conditioning Assoc. SCAVENGER Root-O-Matic Sewer Service FOOD LICENSE TYPE C Karp's Twin City Supply RETAIL CANDY OUTLET Fannie May Candy Shops These licenses have been approved by the program head responsible for the licensed activity. 41,Atteret OWA/m4404.etv Rebecca Quernemoen, Deputy Clerk • airs