Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/22/1976 JOHN FRANE • EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 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 Jessen; Engineer Carl Jullie; Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. MINUTES A. Minutes of the Board of Review meeting held Thursday, May 27, 1976. Page 2533 B. Minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Council meeting held Tuesday, Page 2534 June 1, 1976. C. Minutes of the Continued Board of Review Meeting held Tuesday, Page 2540 June 8, 1976. D. Minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Council meeting held Tuesday, Page 2541 June 8, 1976. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. East/West Parkway Apartments, The Preserve, request to rezone Page 2548 approximately 9 acre site to RM 2.5 for 129 rental apartments. The site is West of The Preserve Center on the East/West Parkway. B. County Road 4 Bikeway/Hikeway. Page 2554 III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 315, rezoning the Minnesota Protective Page 2555 Life approximately 5.9 acre site from the existing zoning to Office District. • B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 332, relating to and establishing Page 2561 subdivision regulations for the plattin and subdividing of land and amending Ordinance No. 93, Section 11, Subdivision 1, relating_ to parks, playgrounds, open space, storm water holding areas or ponds. Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,June 22, 1976 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Nevlell opLamkee tA parantmeotr s�4 Thue iPtrse.sere,sreq ues tora tm diofn iNtio n Loke Page 2563 Road across from the High Point single family area. • B. Request from Bernard Hamilton for property at northeast corner Page 2590 of Mitchell Road and Research Road. V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports by Council members. B. Report of City Manager. • C. Report of Planning Director 1. Crosstown Extension from Shady Oak Road to I-494. Consideration Page 2597 of access to Beach Road and Cooley Road. D. Report of City Engineer 1. Resolution No. 1150, restricting parking on Mitchell Road at • Page 2615 Scenic Heights Road. 2. Receive petition for bituminous surfacing on Eden Prairie Road, Page 2616 I.C. 51-293. (Resolution No. 1151) l 3. Change Order No. 1, Preserve Area F & G, I.C. 51-274. .Page 2618 E. Report of Director of Community Services 1. 1977 LAWCON Grant Program. 2. Lake Riley Operations (Letter of understanding for the Page 2427 Schaitberger property). • F. Report of Finance Director 1. Mechanical Voting Machines 2. Clerk's License List • 'Page 2620 3. Payment of Claims Nos. 1689 - 1852. Page 2621 VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT. MINUTES BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING ( THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Sidney Pauly, Joan Meyers and Tim Pierce BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS ABSENT: Billy Bye BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF PRESENT: City Assessor Bob Martz, Assistant City Assessor Lorna Thomas, Assessing Clerk June Hanson, City Manager Roger Ulstad, and Kermit Benson, Senior Appraiser from Hennepin County The Board of Review was called to order by Mayor Penzel at 7:30 PM on Thursday, May • 27, 1976. The following people appeared and were heard by the Board of Review: 1. Richard Sprau, 56888 - 1600, Reviewed, Value reduced 2. Rose Marie McCourtney, 57028 - 8500, Reviewed, Value ok ( 3. Fred Saxe, 56770 - 2400, house reviewed several times, no reduction 4. Gerald Harris, 56892 - 3900, not concerned with value, continual increase in taxes main concern. 5. Dennis Graf, 56915 - 5400, reviewed, no change 6. Marcia Brinkman, 56915 - 1800, reviewed and reduced 7. Janice Sarenta, 57028 - 5000, no review requested • 8. W. C. Nuenfeldt, 56836 - 2800, reviewed, already reduced for 1976 value, letter sent 9. Jim Simchuck, 56723 - 3516, straightening out tax statement with County Treasurer 10. Helen Fowler, 56736 - 9000, no reduction on land, improvements reduced 11. G. T. Mork Co., 56712 - 4010, reviewed and reduction given 12. Jim Cardinal, 56855 - 1500, no review requested 13. D. H. M. Eames, 5670B - 2610, satisfied with value, complaint addressed to flooding. Board of Review wants to see file and Mr. Ulstad to give report on flood correction at reconvene. 14. Don Sorensen, 57030 - 6500, agreed to Henn. County Assessors appraisal to be made fo Board of Review reconvene. MOTION: PAULY MOVED, SECONDED BY PENZEL TO RECONVENE THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING ON TUES., JUNE 8, 1976 AT 7:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2533 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel Billy Bye Joan Meyers Tim Pierce .Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad City Attorney Harlan Perbix City Planner Dick Putnam City Engineer Carl Jullie Recording Secretary Joyce Provo INVOCATION: Marlys Dahl, City of Eden Prairie Employee ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS, The following items were requested to be added to the Council agenda under the "New Business" category: A. Recommended street names for the East-West Parkway. • B. Advertisement for bids for Steelman home on Highway#169. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers,to approve the agenda with the inclusion of the 2 aforementioned items. Motion carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. Forest Knolls, 2nd Addition, request by Don Peterson and Wilbur Giersvik to rezone from R1-22 to R1-13.5, and preliminary plat 12 lots. Don Peterson outlined the proposal and answered questions of Council members. Mr. Peterson noted that he is the owner of seven lots and Mr. Gjersvik is the owner of five lots. The proponents would be willing to grant a sewer easement for 5 lots not already served, and will also grant an easement for the continued use of the pathway. l 2 53(i • VVulll,ll lvl l,1.4LOa I. aYYJ..a..J, Jw.0 ♦, .,Iv A. Forest Knolls, 2nd Addition, reauest by Don Peterson and Wilbur Glersvik to rezone from R1-22 to R1-13.5, and preliminary plat 12 lots. (continued) City Planner Putnam spoke to the Planning Commission's recommended approval of this proposal and answered questions of Council members. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to close the Public Hearing and approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 334,rezoning the 10 southerly lots of Forest Knolls 2nd Addition from R1-22 to R1-13.5. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, that prior to the 2nd reading the City Attorney be instructed to draft a rezoning agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations of April 26, 1976, including the additions of the Engineer's report of April 21, 1976 changing page 2, item 8, to read "that the developer dedicate a 10 foot easement for trailway purposes • • along the east line of lot 2 and lot 8 of Block 1 of the preliminary plat and then continue in the road right-of-way of Forest Hills Road", and further require the owner of Block 2 to provide plantings on lot 2, 3 and 4 so as not to create a negative visual appearance which would affect the two adjacent homeowners on Prairie View Drive. Meyers, Penzel and Pierce voted "aye", Bye and Pauly voted "nay". Both Bye and Pauly felt that the City should not be involved with such things as plantings on single family lots. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the preliminary plat for Forest Knolls 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. B. Proposed street improvements on Preserve Boulevard from East-West Parkway to Schooner Boulevard, I.0 . 51-282. Dale Hamilton, Suburban Engineering Company, outlined the feasibility report for this project and answered questions of Council members. City Engineer Jullie spoke to the agreement he had worked out for the D. V. Anderson and Nancy Holmes property through their legal counsel Robert Silverman. Jullie recommended approval of this agreement. Pauly questioned how many square feet would the City be purchasing from Anderson and Holmes. Jullie replied approximately 18,000 square feet at a total price of about$28,000. Gil Darkenwald, 11803 Franlo Road, questioned what the assessment will be and who is going to be assessed in the area. Jullie responded approximately 650 front feet at a proposed rate of$23.00 per front foot for a total estimated assessment of$14,950.00. This would be a five,year assessment at 8% interest subject to Council approval at a special assessment hearing. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 1146, ordering the improvements on Preserve Boulevard from East-West Parkway to Schooner Boulevard for I.C. 51-282, amending the feasibility report to include as an alternate the construction of an 8 foot bituminous trailway along the east extension of Preserve Boulevard, 325 feet south of Westwind Drive, north to Schooner Boulevard, and approve the purchase of the right-of-way for the D. V. Anderson and Nancy Holmes property as per City Engineer's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. �j.� Council Minutes - 3- Tuesday, June 1, 1976 C.Anderson Lakes Condominium site from RM 2.5 to Rural. City Manager Ulstad spoke to Ordinance No. 333 and answered questions of Council members. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to close the Public Hearing and approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 333, rezoning the Anderson Lakes Condominium site from RM 2.5 to Rural. Motion carried unanimously. III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 308, providing for a permit to operate Fire Hydrants and Valves on the City Water System and providing a penalty for violation thereof. City Manager Ulstad recommended that the Council give a first reading to Ordinance No. 308. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the 1st reading of Ordinance No. 308, providing for a permit to operate Fire Hydrants and Valves on the City Water System and providing a penalty for violation thereof. Motion carried unanimously. B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 317, approving the rezoning to C-Regional Service for the 4 auto dealerships and public areas for Condon/Naegele Realty. Don Brauer, Brauer & Associates, consultant for Condon/Naegele Realty, spoke to changes relative to encroachments (attached) and answered questions of Council members. Meyers read from her prepared statement recommending denial of this ' proposal, noting that she strongly supports the recommendations of the advisory commissions which oppose this proposal. Pierce commented that if we are going to restrict an owner from doing what he wants to do on his own property, then the City is going to have to settle up with the owner, i.e., the City purchasing the land. Pauly questioned how can we afford to keep and preserve this area in its natural state along one of the busiest highways in the State. She further stated there is going to be a high demand on this property and wondered if we can afford to save this beautiful land that happens to be along *494. • Bye felt for Eden Prairie to be a complete community these types of proposals have to be put in the best economic place. He further expressed his opinion that our control is in the method and the mode. ZS3(o Council Minutes - 4 - Tuesday, June 1, 1976 B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 317, approving the rezoning to C-Regional Service for the 4 auto dealerships and public areas for Condon/Naegele Realty. (continued) Pierce questioned what the 5.5 acres would be worth on the market today. Ulstad responded that the estimated figure of$2.00 per square foot would be a reasonable cost to acquire the property. He further stated that we have gotten up to as high as$3.00 per square foot. If the City is talking about condemnation the figure would be from $450,000 to$650,000 for the 5.5 acres. Penzel stated he has had several doubts from the start of this proposal. He thought these concerns could be worked out, but they haven't been. Feels rezoning agreement is too vague. Mrs. William Beaman, 9955 Valley View Road; Pat Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road; Geneva Middleton, 9411 Timber Trail; Fred Baumann, 10805 Valley View Road; Jeff Pederson, Eden Prairie News, and Dick Anderson, 14208 Charing Cross expressed their concerns, i.e., extra cost for City services, against having a beautiful area industrialized, what would be done with Smetana Lake, does not care for highrise pylon, feels a corporation headquarters could do a lot with the site -does not like the thought of auto dealerships, question of buildings matching the terrain, screening would not help people living on the lake, and question of access to and from auto dealerships. All aforementioned residents of Eden Prairie requested denial of this proposal. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Pierce, to continue the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 317 to the July 6, 1976 Council meeting for the purpose of modifying the rezoning agreement. Pauly, Pierce and Penzel voted "aye", Bye and Meyers voted "nay". Motion carried. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the Council meeting past 11:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. IV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports by Council members. There were no reports by Council members. B. Report of City Attorney 1. Discussion on Planned Study Districts. General discussion took place regarding Planned Study Districts. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to refer the matter of the industrial district of southwestern Eden Prairie to the Planning Commission regarding zoning change to Planned Study, and request their recommendation for ordinance change to the Planned Study zone. Motion carried unanimously. ,2SI Council Minutes - S - Tuesday, Tune 1, 1976 C.Report ofjinance Director 1. Clerk's License List. • MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the Clerk's License List dated June 1, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Recommended street names for East-West Parkway. The Council discussed in general a street name for East-West Parkway. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pauly, to rename County Road#18 to Mitchell Road "Anderson Lakes Parkway". Motion carried unanimously. B. Advertisement for bids for Steelman home on Iliahwav#169. City Manager Ulstad recommended that the Council set a date for advertisement for bids for the Steelman home on Highway#169. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to establish July 6, 1976 to advertise for sealed bids on the Steelman home on Highway#169 followed by an optional auction to the highest bidder. Motion carried unanimously. VI. ,ADIOURNMENT MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to adjourn the meeting at 11:24 PM. Motion carried unanimously. • C �5'3�i BRAUER&ASSOCIATES,INC. Mune Date ProJeet N✓ . Sheet �t Made fs'/ Job Na. 15•d4 Checked 44,6 N i �. Bw RJ tLi 1 w EArs 1s1e5T ROAD RAi RI ' Ja u w�dowp A,41._gizyZ ,Ps is i... -. a 1� .ems ''l( 2uAC: Ips:;61 _ 1 1!7_ _1-. :- - - LLB. 1U RthoStAft4 OkAt144;CAtitter.ii@Fb_si.L..._1112i* -; )_GNRgIiC 1 .0 MINIM i _ MINUTES BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING TUESDAY, NNE 8, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL (Continuation of Board of Review meeting held 5/27/76) BOARDOF REVIEW MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Sidney Pauly, Joan Meyers, Tim Pierce and Billy Bye BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF PRESENT: ,City Assessor Bob Martz and City Manager Roger K. Ulstad INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEIGANCE ROLL CALL Invocation was given by Marty lessen, Director of Community Services. The Board of Review reconvened and was called to order by Mayor Penzel at 7.30 PM. City Assessor Bob Martz gave a report on the disposition of Items 1 - 12 of the May 27, 1976 meeting. Item#13, D.H.M. Eames, Plat 56708, Parcel 2610, flooding problem was addressed to by City Manager Ulstad. Mr. Eames was satisfied as to the solution to correct the flooding. Item#14, Don Sorensen, Plat 57030, Parcel 6500, City Assessor's market value was discussed. MOTION: Councilwoman Pauly moved, seconded by Councilman Pierce, to accept our City Assessor's estimated market value of$75,700.00. • Motion carried unanimously. The following motion was made for closing the meeting: MOTION: Councilman Pierce moved, seconded by Councilwoman Pauly, to close the Board of Review meeting at 8:35 PM and certify its completion of the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. RM.1p . . f 23 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL rUESDAY, DUNE 8, 1976 8:45 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel Billy Bye Joan Meyers • Tim Pierce Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad City Attorney Harlan Perbix Director of Community Services Marty Jessen City Engineer Carl Junta Finance Director John Frane Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary Mayor Penzel called the Council Meeting to order at 8:45 PM, immediately following the Board of Review meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation were given at the Board of Review Meeting at 7:30 PM. ROLL CALL: All members present. . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS. The following item was requested to be added to the Council agenda under the "New Business" category. A. Reauest to the South Hennepin Human Services Council for a recommendation on the East/West Parkway complex in The Preserve. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the agenda with the inclusion of the one aforementioned item. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1976. Pg. 2, para. 6, strike "seconded by Meyers"and insert "seconded by Pierce". Pg. 5, para. 8, at the end of the third line add ", a rural district parcel of less than 5 acres created by City approval of land subdivision." Pg. 9, 3rd para. , 3rd line, strike "six" and insert "four"; on the same page, last para., strike"1:00 PM" and insert "1:00 AM". MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the City Council minutes of May 25, 1976 as published and corrected. Motion carried unanimously. 2jtiI Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.June 8, 1976 III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 332, relating to and establishing subdivision regulations for the platting and subdividing of land and amending Ordinance No. 93, Section 11, Subdivision 1, relating to Parks, Playgrounds, Public Open Space, Storm Water Holding Areas or Ponds. City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo dated June 8, 1976 regarding "Parkland Dedication Fees". Pierce questioned if fees already in effect could be adjusted if these new fees were adopted. Ulstad replied these fees could be adjusted accordingly. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 332 using the figure of$1,200 for all commercial/industrial/office, and that a clarification be made as to the number to be used for high density and low density. Motion carried unanimously. B. Resolution No. 1143, establishing election precincts. • Finance Director Frane spoke to Resolution No. 1143, recommending the Council retain the present three precincts, strongly consider electronic voting, and consider reprecincting after the General Election in November. Pauly expressed her hesitancy about having an electronic voting system. Would much rather pay Eden Prairie's people to count the ballots. Penzel responded that after talking to precinct people, they certainly feel some improvements are very much desired. A suggestion was made that a task force consisting of the political leaders of Eden Prairie and the City staff be formed to make a recommendation as to the possibility of reprecincting. He has received favorable comments for a mechanical way of counting ballots, both from an efficiency standpoint and eliminating errors. Meyers stated her reluctancy to spend$20,000 when we have gone to every other year elections. Bye favored leaving the election process the way it is. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, that the City Manager bring the matter of reprecincting back to the Council in September for consideration at that time. Meyers, Pierce, Penzel and Pauly voted "aye", Bye voted "nay". Motion carried. Perry Forster, DFL precinct leader, spoke in favor of an electronic device for voting. City Manager Ulstad requested the political leaders to organize volunteers to help during the upcoming election. asq . Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,June 8, 1976 C.2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 333, rezoning Anderson Lakes Condominiums site from RM 2.5 to Rural. City Manager Ulstad spoke to Ordinance No. 333 and recommended approval of the 2nd reading. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 333. Motion carried unanimously. D.2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 308, providing for a permit to operate Fire Hydrants and Valves on the City Water System and providing a penalty for violation thereof. Mayor Fenzel spoke to memo from Finance Director Frane dated Tune 7, 1976 pertaining to suggested amendments to Ordinance No. 308. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to amend Ordinance No. 308 as per Finance Director Frane's memo dated June 7, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 308 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. E. Resolution No. 1147, designating the Public Safety Director as applicant for reimbursement for Basic Training of Peace Officers. City Manager Ulstad recommended approval of Resolution No. 1147. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by 8ye, to adopt Resolution No. 1147. Motion carried unanimously. IV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council members. I. Pierce noted that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, June 7, 1976, was canceled for lack of a quorum. B. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Land for sale along Purgatory Creek and South of Hillcrest Court. Director of Community Services Marty lessen spoke to his memo dated May 14 and answered questions of Council members. 'MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, that the Council authorize that an independent real estate appraisal be prepared on this property. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.June 8, 1976 1. Land for sale along Purgatory Creek and South of Hillcrest Court (continued) Bye suggested that an explanation be put together where this property fits in the total plan. The consensus of the Council was that a Public Hearing be held if and when this project comes back to the City Council. 2. Municipal Liquor Director of Community Services lessen spoke to his memo dated May 28, 1976,and answered questions of Council members. Pauly expressed her opinion that the matter of municipal liquor should be a referendum to the people. Pierce felt municipal liquor would be a viable contribution to the community. Thought location of County Road#4 and*5 to be the best location. Don Sorensen, member of the Planning Commission, spoke personally in favor of municipal liquor. Feels Council has a real obligation to lower taxes and to provide facilities in this area. Hopes the Council will consider this very seriously as a possible revenue source. • Virginia Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, did not feel a municipality should have a monopoly on liquor. Jim Simchuck, 9145 Flying Cloud Drive, expressed his concern about problems municipal liquor may cause. Jeff Pederson, Eden Prairie News, thinks Council should clarify whether we are against government running a private enterprise. Thinks we ought to get into the business of liquor or not have any liquor at all. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to instruct the staff to proceed in investigating a lease agreement as outlined in memo from Marty lessen dated May 28, 1976, and to also refer this matter to the advisory commissions requesting their recommendations as to where funds might be applied. Motion carried unanimously. Bye further requested that he would like to see a more detailed budget. 3. Cooperative agreement with Purgatory Creek Watershed District for purchase of the Schaitberger property. • Director of Community Services lessen spoke to his memo dated June 4 and answered questions of Council members. .5U� Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.June 8, 1976 3. Cooperative agreement with Purgatory Creek Watershed District for purchase of the Schaltberger property. (continued) Meyers questioned if by changing our clarification of this park, would we be in danger of losing funds from the Metropolitan Council. Jessen responded that we would be in danger of this. He further stated that we will have to resubmit some other regional park plan to them and that we are in the process of notifying the Metropolitan Council of the change. Until we come up with another plan, they will not give us regional park funds. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the Cooperative Agreement with Purgatory Creek Watershed District for purchase of the Schaltberger property. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to exercise the option on the Schaitberger property. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Lake Riley Operations - 1976 MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to request Marty Jessen and Harlan Perbtx to draft a letter of understanding for the Schaitberger property and bring this matter back to the Council on June 22, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Status report on County Road 4 Bikeway Director of Community Services Jessen outlined his memo dated June 4,and recommended that a public notice be sent to all of the people adjacent to the property notifying them whenths Council will be discussing the County Road#4 Bikeway so they may have some input regarding this matter. Jessen further stated he has talked to all of the major property owners, especially those abutting the road. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to authorize the staff to notify the affected property owners that action will be considered on the County Road 4 Bikeway/Hikeway at the June 22, 1976 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of City Engineer 1. Approve plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids for utility and street improvements for Mitchell Lake PUD, Phase 1, I.C. 51-289. City Engineer Jullle spoke to Resolution No. 1148. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to adopt Resolution No. 1148. Motion carried unanimously. �.J`IJ Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,June 8, 1976 2. Receive feasibility report for bituminous overlay on Birch Island Road - south of County Road 67, STR 75-3-12, I.C. 51-291. City Engineer Jullte spoke to Resolution No. 1149 and the Feasibility Report dated June 3, 1976. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 1149. Motion carried unanimously. D.Report of City Manager • 1. Discussion on Development Signs City Manager Ulstad outlined the procedure the City follows in sending out notices - 2 mailings to affected property owners and 2 legal publications in our official newspaper. General discussion took place among Council members. Bye felt development signs are optimistic. People can see development happening long before it comes. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, that the Council voice their approval of the concept of experimental development signs and refer this matter to the staff and Planning Commission for their recommendations as to where these signs should be placed. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to continue the meeting past 11:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of Finance Director • 1. Payment of Claims Nos. 1547 - 1688. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 1547 - 1688. Roll Call Vote: Meyers, Bye, Penzel, Pauly and Pierce voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 2. Clerk's_License List MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to approve the Clerk's License List dated June 8, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. a51 %..VLL111.,11 riluwttla i - auoa.,PAWS o, aa,v V. NEW BUSINESS C A. Request to the South Hennepin Human Services Council for a recommendation on the East/West Parkway complex in The Preserve. Penzel spoke to this Item expressing his opinion that it would be a good idea for the South Hennepin Human Services Council to make their recommendation on the East/West Parkway complex in The Preserve since this complex would be located within mere feet of two already approved complexes of a similar nature. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to direct the staff and proponent to appear before the South Hennepin Human Services Council at their next meeting on June 16, 1976 regarding the East/West Parkway Apartments. Motion carried unanimously. Other items discussed under"New Business" 1. MTC Bus the City has received free of charge. Director of Community Services Jessen stated he would draft some policy on using the bus. 2. City Manager Ulstad reminded the Council of the upcoming visit by Moody's to Eden Prairie on Thursday, June 10, 1976. 3. City Manager Ulstad spoke to letters from Helge Olson, Hennepin County, dated 7/75 and 6/76, requesting that Eden Prairie waive penalties and interests in the amount of$1,615.94. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to give the City Manager authority to abate penalties and interests in the amount of$1,615.94 to Hennepin County. Bye, Pierce, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Meyers voted "nay". Motion carried. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION.: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 PM. Motion carried unanimously. • a1 ;17. at,..: •olp. „ .w , CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENTS • • DATE: _6/17/76' DEVELOPMENT: East-West Parkway Apartments L.D. NO. LD 76-2-07 LOCATION: West of the Preserve Center on East/West Parkway REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS ZONING AGREEMENT: RES. #. DEVELOPER: The Preserve ENGINEER/PLANNER: Douglas A. Moe Architects DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: General information packet PROPOSAL: The Developer is proposing the construction of 129 units of rental housing l 1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid Yes Yes Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District 2. Processing Schedule: • a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary b. Park & Recreation Commission c. Human Rights Commission d. Planning Commission Public Hrg. 5/24/76 e. City Council consideration 6/22/76 f. Watershed District 7/7/76 3. Type of Development Rental apartments 4. Environmental assessment or impact statement required per Environmental • ( Impact Policy Act of 1973: ! No • • 5. Present Zoning Rural C 6. Proposed Zoning RN-2.5 • Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes • List variances required & setbacks that apply: • • • 7. Project Area ± 9 acres Density 16% (building coverage) 8. Public open space and/or cash dedication Refer to Planning Report • Private open space Refer to Planning Report • Trail systems & sidewalks Refer to Planning Report Range of lot sizes N.A. 9. Preliminary Building Plans Submitted 10. Representative Soil Borings Not Submitted • 11. Street System A. Access to adjoining properties Proposed connection to parcel east of site. • B. Type R/W 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) 6 Cul de sacs over 1000' 60 32 • Z5v9 • 3 - • / MSA 70 44 o 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 Aa,r+irp,i C. Check City's comprehensive street system. Developer builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication y 2, 'nnciApr right-angle. intaraartiniLat EtA Parkway • D. Street Names - try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional names on cul de sacs having eight or less lots. Check list of existing street names. N.A. E. Private parking lots--B6-12 conc C&G and full depth asph. design Required F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs N.A. 12. Parking: (See Ord. (141) Conforms to Ord. $ 141 13. Utility Systems: A. Sanitary Sewer Sewer available at rear of lot (Neill Lake Subtrunk) • 1. Service Detail Final design and review by Plumbing Inspector required 2. Service to adjoining property N.A. • B. Watermain: Available along East-West Parkway • 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K. 2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Final design & review required 3. Valving Final design & review by plumbing inspector required 4. Compliance with fire code Fire inspector to review 5. Service to adjacent property N.A. • l 255Z) 1 - 4 - C. Storm Sewer & Grading Plans not submitted - required 1. Sediment control plan Required - Watershed to review 2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots Watershed District to review . 3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Required • 4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Proposed • S. Arrows showing drainage Not submitted Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties Required 6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water for ponds • Required 7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Pending review by Engr. Dept. 8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes Required 9. Flood plain encroachment Neill Lake Flood elevation 807 No encroachment proposed 10. Watershed District approval Required 11. DNR approval N.A. D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground required E. Electric (underground) Required 14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Required 35. Preliminary plat to be submitted to NHD or Henn. Co. if abutting a State or County Hwy. . N.A. 36. List special assessments ]evied and pending Levied: #5859 trunk sewer • & water, $13,566.98; #6438 Neill Lake Storm sewer, $9867.90 • 7 17. Re-zoning agreement required No Developer's Agreement required No . / Title Abstract for Attorney's review 2551 • approved t Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 24. 1976 . , \ . . V. PETITIONS AND REQIIfS'I'S. A. `Past/hestl'arkeay_Apartmen_ts ,t The Preserve - Request to rezone an approximate 9 acre site to RM 2.5 for 129 rental apartments. The site is west of the Preserve Center on the East/West Parkway . f S•nchill representing Land Tech,sponsors.of the project, said the project was , '1. 421 D 3 MIA project authorized under the amended National Housing Act. . Mr. Putnam asked Mr. Sawhill if the project was a subsidized project for low and L. moderate income families. Mr. Sawhill responded that the name of the HUD program } HUD is the Program for Low and Moderate and Elderly Incomes, but Land Tech is• not requesting Section 8 funding for subsidized rents. etr. Putnam explained to the Planning Commission provisions of the 221 0 3 • as follows: ' 1. A reduced interest rate to 71i% sponsored by HUD to the developer. t ' 2. A restriction on the amount of profit the developer can make per , year on the project. • r/ 3. That the units would fall within a rent guideline established ! . for Minneapolis and St. Paul for Section 8 units. 4. That the developer must sign a regulatory agreement with HUD for the program. S. That the City of Eden Prairie School District and Hennepin County• would reduce taxes to the project by 1/2 identical to Briarhill ( 236 ) and Windsiope ( Section 8 ). The planner felt that under the 221 D 3 program, because it was a program for low • end moderate income families , HUD would prefer low and moderate income families . The planner noted that Eden Prairie has approved 2 projects for low and moderate income families,one of which is built ( Briarhill, 126 units ) and one approved but not yet built ( Windslope.168 units). He stated both projects are approved for market rate low and moderate and rent , supplement units, therefore, the total units available for low and moderate income families would be around 300 units or 101, of the City's housing stock. In Eden P sirie's Housing Assistance Plan submitted in the Hennepin County Community k al opment Grant application approved by the Metro Council, Eden Prairie listed its housing goals for the next three years as follows: "The city lists no first-year goals for federally subsidized housing. It has listed as its three-year goal its pro-rata share based upon the Allocation Plan's guide percentage. However, this city now , • has greater than'10 percent of its units as subsidized housing. Under HUD's guidelines, the county is bound to prevent overconcentration of subsidized housing. Eden Prairie's three-year "pro-rata-share" goals are listed. But, it is the strong feeling of both the city and . county that the current amount of subsidized housing available in . the city represents already an overeoncentration of federally- subsidized housing. During the upcoming program year, the county ' '� • will look at the problem of overeoncentration closely. It is quite ' possible that the county will support further temporary elimination - of federally subsidized housing beyond the current years. Thus, the ' city's plan and program are adequate and realistic, given its peculiar situation•"_I The planner then further stated that the Metropolitan Council Human Resource Committee at their May 11th review of the liaising Assistance Plan fqr Hennepin ' County and the City of Eden Prairie,coumentod as follows: ' "The following communities should be commended for meeting or making i. . meaningful efforts towards fulfilling their 1975 Iloitsing Assistance • Plan goals : Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie . . " . ( Illousing Assistance Plan Community Development.Block Grant Program Urban ll&spin County, 1976. j • ir . il approved . .z �� Plarning Commission Minutes -6-• May 24, 1976 t (s The Planning Commission questioned why the low and moderate income project was proposed across the street from Windslope. Mr. Sawhill responded that they did intend to rent the project under the low and moderate income provisions and that it would be a cut :hove the Windslope project and slightly below the • Neill Lake Apartment project. • Mr. Carlson said that this was another indication of how the developers of The Preserve have broken faith with the residents by proposing subsidized housing . directly across the street from an existing subsidized project. Motion: • Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to.recommend to the City Council denial of the rezoning application from Rural to RM 2.5 for the East/West Parkway Apartments ' proposed by The Preserve and Land Tech for the following reasons: 1. That the East / West Parkway Apartments of 129 rental units financed under the 221 D 3 HUD program requires rental to low . , and moderate income families and elderly. - 2. That the site is located across the street from the previously . • approved Windslope 236 project for 168 units and currently is being • . considered for Section 8 funding. ' 3. That the construction of the East/West Parkway Apartments and'the • Windslope project would lead to an over concentration of low and moderate income units within 1 planning sector of Eden Prairie. 4. That the 129 unit proposal is inconsistent with the City Council approved Housing Assistance Plan submitted with the Community �' ( Development Act Grant with Hennepin County for 1976,and is incon- sistent with the Metropolitan Council's Regional Housing Goals. The motion m rried unanimously. . • VI . OLD BUSINESS. none ' VII . NEW BUSINESS. none • ' VlII . PLANNER'S REPORT. • A. Homeowner Associations. The planner indicated that a report outlining the areas of concerns would be prepared for the next meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT. • • Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to adjourn at 11:45 pm. The motion carried unanimously. • Respectfully Submitted: Richard Putnam,P]anning Director Acting Secretary I • • 01553 . • June 11, 1976 Dear Homeowner: On Tuesday, June 22 the Eden Prairie City Council will consider the matter of the proposed bikeway along Co. Road 4, The meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. at the Eden Prairie City Hall and you are all cordially invited to attend. If you are unable to attend, you may file a written statement by contacting me in advance of the meeting. As you know, we have previously staked a "preferred alignment" for the trailway and have discussed this with the adjoining property owners. We have modified our thinking on this alignment and are now proposing that the trail be constructed within existing Co. Road R.O.W. This concept will be discussed at the meeting on the 22nd as well as general discussion of the earlier concept as represented by the staked alignment. Your comments on this trailway proposal would be appreciated. If you have any questions that you would like to have answered in advance of the meeting, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, •Marty le sen Director of Community Services MJ:md • • a551f • JUN 11 1976 • PERaIX. HARVEY. SIMONS &THORRINNSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. SOX ISO • • 17 TENTH AVENUE SOUTH HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55340 TELEPHONE 135-4460 W.HARLAN P555.1 HOWARD E.HAMMY Kent E.StMONR Roos L.TNORPINN1oN June 17, 1976 Mr. Tom Mayerle Attorney at Law Northwestern Bank Building 620 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, Mn. 55402 Dear Mr. Mayerles • res Minnesota Protective Life Ina. Co. I am enclosing a revised Rezoning Agreement which contains the changes which I understand Mr. Toskey and Mr. Dieted • discussed. The changes are the deletion of the signal pro- vision and the addition of the parkland requirement. The latter is now new, but I felt it wise to out it specifically in the agreement so that everyone is aware of it. This should be signed and in our possession prior to Tuesday June 22, 1976, if the Council is to act on it that evening. I also require a legal description for the property to be rezoned. • Very truly yours, PERBIX, HARVEY, SIMONS Si THORPINNSON, P.A. • W. Marian Perbix WHP/azd • Encl. c.c. Mr. R.D. Toskey Mr. Roger Dieted • z55f) • whp/jh 4/1/76 R E - ZONING AGREEMENT. . a THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into in triplicate this day of April, 1976, by and between MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO., a corporation, hereinafter called "Owners," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, herein- after referred to as "City," WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie to change the zoning of a tract of land from District Rural to Office District (OFC) for an area consisting of approximately 5.5 acres and which is legally described as more fully set forth on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, it is believed that the rezoning of said area to OFC will {� be in the public's interest, welfare and convenience of the people of the City of Eden Prairie; and WHEREAS, the owner agrees to develop the aforementioned property as an office building in consideration of the City's changing of the zoning to OFC District and the owner further agrees as a part of said consideration to lay out, plat, develop and maintain the areas so rezoned generally in accordance with the concept plan heretofore presented to the City, marked Exhibit R which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement witnesseth, that for and in consideration of the City Council of the City adopting an ordinance changing the zoning from Rural to OFC and of the mutual benefits to each of the parties hereto, the parties, their respective successors and assigns do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 255G WHP/azd .6/17/76 1. Owner agrees to develop said property in accordance with the plans submitted to the City Staff and the City Planning Commission and for approval by the City Council, subject to • the following conditions: A. To comply with the requirements set forth in the staff report dated March 4, 1976 which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked Exhibit C. B. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the owner prepare in conjunction with the adjoining neighbors a plan to buffer the adjoining residence, said plan should be submitted to the City Council for approval. C. That the owner adopt a lighting program for its outside lighting in such a manner to create a minimal effect on the adjoining owners. D. That it will pay to the City in lieu of land dedication an amount equal to $1200.00 per acre at the time of the issuance of the building permit. 2. That all sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer facilities, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing whether to be public or private, shall be designed to City Standards by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer and submitted to the • City Engineer for approval. The developer, through his engineer, shall provide for competent daily inspection of all street and utility construction, both public and private. Asbuilt drawings with service and valve ties on reproducable mylar and certificates of completion and compliance with specifications shall also be delivered to the City Engineer. The developer also agrees to pay all fees for City Engineering and administrative services consistent with current City requirements. City and property owners agree: I. That the property owners shall comply with all applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and laws of the City of Eden Prairie. 2. That the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors and assigns, and all • subsequent owners, their respective heirs successors and assigns, of the property herein described. • • 2 2.551 w .. .. „ .-ems.: .u.. idx r,_.. ea,�`:. • 'EtR'•pb•` r.. .... .. • • c • 3. That an executed copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. 4. That if Owner fails to procure a building permit in accordance with this Agreement within eighteen (18) months from the date hereof, Owner will not oppose a rezoning of said property. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this agreement have caused their • presents to be executed the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,of the State of Minnesota (SEAL) BY: Wolfgang Fenzel,,Mayor John D. Prone, City Clerk MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO. (S E A L) BY: • • STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of April, 1976, by Wolfgang Fenzel, Mayor and John D. Franc, City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of Coe State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public, Hennepin Co., Minnesota My commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of April, 1976, by and of the Minnesota'Protective Life Insurance Co., a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public, Hennepin Co., Minnesota My commission expires 1561 . Unapproved Monday, June 14, 1976 7:30 PM City Hall IV.REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A. Minnesota Protective Life Company, review of revised site/building development plan. Hr. Don Lakens Jr., architect, stated the revisions to the site and building were prompted by the concerns expressed in the staff report and by the residents, and the change in the building's expansion from vertical to horizontal He stated the building , with the redesign, would have more exposure to the freeways, the screening and berming would be more effective, the window contact with the single family would be minimized, and the bank drive-in would be off of 169 ( in-only), instead of from Leona Road. He believed the construction could start in July and be completed in February, 1977, if prompt approval is received. Bearman inquired about the height and caliber of the trees to be planted. Mr. Lankens responded they would be 8-12 feet in height and 17-3" in diameter. Sorensen relayed the following concerns submitted by Mr. Lynch : The revised plan is an improvement over the previous plan, but believe a revised staff report should be submitted relative to the adequacy of proposed parking, the need of a parking ramp, and the total land coverage. Mr. Koehler, 11518 Leona Road, stated the revised plan puts the building closer to • his home, and asked what type of fence is proposed and how the horizontal expansion would be accomplished. Mr. Lakens stated they would be willing tooconstruct a rough cedar opaque fence as requested by the residents, and the expansion would be accom- plished by additional land purchase. Sorensen asked what was the basic reason for changing to a horizontal expansion. / Mr. Lakens stated that the structure parking and vertical expansion was found to l be infeasible. Sorensen asked if the planting plan had been discussed with the City Landscape Architect. Mr. Don Soupus stated they will be presenting the plan to the Landscape Architect for approval and it has already been discussed with the building department. Mr. Putnam stated preliminary review of the plan has found the plantings adequate. Sorensen asked if shared parking would be used between MPG and the church. Mr. Lakens said it is MPL's intent to work with the church regarding shared parking. Sorensen asked if the MPL site would have a MFC transit stop. The planner stated the possibility and location of a stop would be determined by the MTC, the Highway Depart- ment , and.the City, not the developer. Motion: , Schee moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend approval of the revised site development plan for the MPL building as submitted in the June 10, 1976 MPL brochure,as the revised plan seems to have satisfied the concerns of the staff report and surrounding residents. Discussion: Pauly questioned if the planner thought a revised staff report would be necessary. The planner felt an additional staff report would be duplication of the first, and believed MPL will work further with Mr. Koehler's specific concerns. Vote: The motion carried unanimously. • ( l •55.9 . __ �,,.- MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO. Lilt.health and Grt,np Insurance ( 2800 WAYZATA BOULEVARD•MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA•58405 TELEPHONE(812)374-3880 cAl PROTECTION SECUtUIY • • • • SERVICE June 1, 1976 • • • Mr. Richard Putman Planning Director 8950 Eden Prairie Place Eden Prairie, Mn 55343 Dear Dick: The following letter was sent to the property owners adjacent to intersection 494 and 169: In conjunction with our application for rezoning the property in the southeast guandrant of the intersection 494 and 169, we have redesigned our proposed office building. The revised i design necessitates going back before the Planning Commission. However, we would like to review our new plan with the property owners adjacent to this property. The Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church has been good enough to lend their facilities for a meeting with these property owners on Tuesday, June 8, 1976, at 7 P.M. Our architect, contractor and the Planning Director of the City of Eden Prairie as well as Company personnel will be available for this informal discussion. Sincerely, MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 66,s11 R. D. Toskey, Secretary RDT/skh l antembernl 771E PROTECTIVE. GROUP• WHP/azd 6/17/76 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 332 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AND ESTABLISHING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PLATTING AND SUBDIVIDING OF LAND AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 93, SECTION 11, SUBDIVISION 1, RELATING TO PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, STORM WATER HOLDING AREAS OR PONDS. The Council of the City of Eden Prairie does ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 11 of Ordinance No. 93 is hereby deleted • and the following substituted therefor: "Section 11. Subd. 1. Parks, Playgrounds, Public Open Space, Storm Water Holding Areas or Ponds. The owner or owners land being subdivided for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses, or as a planned unit development which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses, or any combination thereof shall dedicate a reasonable portion of each proposed subdivision to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds, public open space or storm water holding areas or ponds; or at the City's option, the subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount in cash based on the following schedule which is hereby determined to be the fair market value of the undeveloped,land. Residential Units Per Acre Fee per Unit Single Family Detached $275 All other residential uses •$200 Commercial/Industrial Use $1200.00 per acre Subd. 2. That any money received hereunder shall be placed in a special fund by the City and used only for the acquisition of land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces, storm water holding areas or ponds, development of existing park and playground sites, public open space and storm water holding areas or ponds and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. WHP/azd 6/17/76 • Subd. 3. In ascertaining the amount of money and or land dedication required herein to be dedicated to the public for public use, the City may take into consideration the open space, park, recreational common areas and facilities which the subdivider has provided for the exclusive use of the residents of the subdivision. Subd. 4. Payments required by Subdivision 1 may, at the Council's discretion, be deferred until such time as a building permit is issued for the property involved. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Eden Prairie this day of , 1976, and finally read, adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the Council { of said City of Eden Prairie on this day of , 1976. Wolfgang Fenzel, Mayor ATTEST: (S EAL) John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1976. • • • 2rxoe1 - 2 ` • • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 14, 1976 C. Neill Lake Apartments, The Preserve, request for pud development plan approval for 84 units. The site is Iocated on Neill Lake Road across from the High Point single family area. The planner reviewed the background of the project and The Preserve's request. He then asked The Preserve the status of the Ridgewood project. Mr. Gertz, The Preserve, stated the First National Bank controls the project and some individuals are occupying the building with tentative purchase agreements. The planner said he feels the revised plan is a better plan than the previous approval which could be built with the acquisition of a building permit. Sorensen directed the secretary to make as part of the record the following letters received regarding Neill Lake Apartments: June 8, 1976 Mary Ann Anderson June 8, 1976 Bertram J. Hudson "undated" Mr. 6 Mrs. Robert J. Carlson June 8, 1976 Tom Bach • June 1, 1976 John Retterath (plus an articie,Mon.,May 10, 1976 Mpls. Tribune) The other commission members remarked that they had not received all of the letters. Mr. Don Hess reviewed the site plan and building location, and handed out informa- tion on theproject's approximate rental range. He stated the first area of ( Ridgewood was approved for 90 units and 35 were built, and the remaining part was approved for 105 units and 84 are being proposed as the Neill Lake Apartments. Gerald Anderson, Moe Architects, outlined the location of the 8 foot berms to screen the parking lot and part of the structure, the change in location of the entrances, and the line of sight of the single family and road to the building contained in the revised plan dated June, 1976. Pauly inquired how many people are expected to occupy the apartment. Mr. Anderson estimated 3-3.5 persons/unit . Pauly questioned if the 3-3.5 persons/unit would be greater than expected if the project remained owner condominiums. Mr. Hess felt the two would be close. Pauly then expressed concern about the 400 foot length of the building. The planner agreed, but felt the revised plan of a 400 foot building is 'in improvement over the visual impact that the original plan would have on the single family. Mr. Hess agreed with the planner, and said the original plan placed the units much closer to the single family. Fosnocht asked how long the clusters were in the original approval. Mr. Hess estimated they ranged from 131 feet to 219 feet. ' Fosnocht then asked if the building could be broken and if materials in addition to the all wood exterior construction could be used. Hr. Hess stated it would . be difficult to break the building due to the underground parking, and they are investigating the possibility of using some brick on the exterior. Mr. Fosnocht asked who presently owns the project. Larry Peterson, The Preserve, said it is unknown at this time. _.. w - • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 14, 1976 Sundstrom questioned if further berming could be used to screen the single family from the building. Hess felt higher berms on the apartment site would look ridic- ulous, but suggested additional plantings on the berms and on the single family lots would help. • Sundstrom asked if the garage entrance could be relocated to the rear of the building. Hess thought it might be possible. Mr. Anderson believed traffic . using Old Franio Road would invade the privacy of the units facing the back and the users of the pedestrian path. Mrs. Anderson, 10561 Lake Fall Drive, stated the existing Ridgewood units are not favorable , the proposed apartment project is not an improvement, and the approval of ownership condominiums for the site should remain in force. Mr. Bach, 9051 Neill Lake Road, stated he did not feel the aesthetics of the building were the issue, but the reliance of the residents on The Preserve that the site would be owner occupied units. He felt the rental structure would lower the values of the single family homes, and increase traffic and lake pollution. Mr. Carlson, 9061 Neill Lake Road, expressed concern that a number of unrelated persons may rent a unit. He felt the commission and council has a responsibility to the residents whether the reliance on ownership units is civil or not. Mr. Mars, 10700 Lake Fall Drive, did not feel looking at the roof of the apartment was an improvement over looking at the face of the building. He then expressed the concern that the berming may be a traffic hazard. Mr. Retterath,9011 High Point Circle, did not feel an in/out should be allowed at the south entrance because of the drop, and that the children of the project may prefer totlots across the street and unsafely cross the street. Mr. Bergen, 8705 Bentwood Drive, aksed if the project will be subsidized. The planner replied negative. Bergan then suggested the project remain ownership condominiums unless access is provided other than Neill Lake Road. MEETING WAS ADJOURNED BY THE CHAIRMAN DUE TO 10:15.PM SEVERE WEATHER AND ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT THAT PERSONS SHOULD TAKE COVER. Meeting rescheduled for Mon., June 21, at Votech, 7:00-16:00 PM • • • 251041 June 8, 1976 ( Br. Don Sorensen 7121 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 ti Dear Mr. Sorensen: I purchased my home at 10561 Lake Fall Drive in December of 1973. I inquired as to the land use of the surrounding property, including the site of the proposed Neill lake Apartments, and was assured by The Preserve that the Eden Prairie Planning Commission had approved the site in question for owner occupied units. I realize the zoningis the same - multiple dwelling p - for owner occupied condominiums and rental apartments -- BUT -- the difference in the use of each, is very drastic!! I do not know if you were or were not a member of the Planning Commission that voted to approve the use of this site for owner occupied units. The point as I see it, is this; the developer conceived the best land use as owner occupied, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission concurred and approved for owner occupied use, and I, as a homeowner believed the site to be used for owner occupancy. Now, I find it difficult to understand how this same Eden Prairie approving body can possibly consider voting for such a drastic change in use, after some of us "pioneers"- have invested our money on the basis of these promises or assurances. ( Sometimes some of the most desirable property in a project is not developed at the outset and this may be possible in this case. The site in question is beautiful!! It is on a hill overlooking Neill Lake with a long row of beautiful large old trees. From the sake of beauty, I cannot think of anything less desirable than a long structure resembling a barracks. If you can spare a few minutes of time, please drive out to The Preserve and get out of your car and look over the property where the building is proposed. You will be rewarded with a breathtaking view. To be sure, I am looking for growth in The Preserve. However, I do not feel that rental property on this site is a stable method to achieve the desirable growth. The question that I ask you to ask of yourself, is this: Would I want this to be happening to me?" I believe your answer would have to be, "No". I ask for your "No" vote on Monday, June 14th. Yours very truly, Mary Ann Anderson 10561 Lake Fall Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • • • ( t a5W. ( . 4001 Sc ux.4a.41_ Tuae Sl /974 7/t/ t.4:c.110.4 C4.44h. A4/ Ei•4•0 /0it4 UL) .H N• Del /*. so- .o•,+-, ,60/ Amf, /ve;LL LAh'e AeNTAL A/oAAr/Nehrs we/tL 30/N7 rc 6e com.sriaocred o,v tAc. /vo.t.ikvesr si/C o$ NeiLL GAke AI s would NOT bee/o ', cA4/J.ry ,/ore A/+/LocA4re/AT 903o 11444o/A✓T c e• wAS ,pec/•F.c a//y talc/ 6y 474.C9Are ,4N t 1,. r wAJ LvoKi.v9 Fo/L A CO#I17AVICT/6N S/7e) Itr 11tAty Wou/p he owNe,( occo,A," O'O/rJ/N,uM1. FvAi e/e1 60t4 At L/Te.CArf iee. Now 4e/N, d s7a/dv70/,4y to veve% iL ,Ave/ A LA ,a 74A/o//At d/J,LAy AT t.4 Atesearr CevteA descA/.be I-Ms A/1t.4 AA eoAvdan.N/v/rf1' ReNrAL vAiitr tN/M tgNv!/elvr tewNANts /4/te NOT t14- SAMe As owNt/! oce1014 LONdom,NivN+' 6y 4/vy srierrA of .64 /NAT/o,J • .t fee/ t/leNe , s tetw AndceNT/NVe' Tb 4e A9AoSf ;i4e//1eSlMAT/oN o•F .f-A. vs< of f ti/f toed/ 14A! w/// "mat /N A /.tt/r1Ar7 eN ieveo/oeAesy 4,99LvaJ,4,ro/v74,v/11lerAki/,Y /N tA- A••c'f•+• = navfr Also tAke exce/orior- t.,,if< seveQAL v ire/Ne/TS i.a I- $MI /2EAcb.T e/ArI S-=o-76) lc/torn - 41,t• cARis (Ala- n) tic ,/A/N,v;/.f Co.tis. o ) fr " . Th. Zan- ;en Jr aN 'Aye TwO STAref) /c MO h0sieS /4 ' oi/e,Td ro.'AJ t,4 °A''d ecr ,4r &/!if 1ocvN;! Ante/A AFPief look ¢`j,tov5/i ro the 4,:iti,v9 s//ou/d/NoT Odjecr/oNA6k . " TA vie4.4 filets ,iy deck > jt +k p4mes€y 4CXON Z LocAre6 A/ goso /•//i//#0,wr C/t. wi// 42 o1frXuc/al ,q.rd /00e/%v1 1or A 4-60 Aet /o.r1 rnoNoLitA if mosr ae/eTA;N/y a4je'crioAseh 74e EN v .Z 44Acr 5T.T e#weHvr CE I ,vow It/N4 fiNAt/i•� 6y //'I sr,arel fhAf Aq// euflOa9 .6e ,delet4 sr.'crvArei yer `11,t• EN Jell'S 57A•F'{ /(yb/cT ,gNor ,t• Ness /te,ee..Te//y /4,q 4/e ,e.e f ert r,vice To S,,,(fIr e eP el/,/A/r•Yiwq- rt A///e,be$ ro , t/$A1 tAn desc4ar/in.) of tJ Ale;14 Z.A!/e Apr /0/Lo jecr /o u vidJ to ,Lp. v,'oN t,,,/f;ch ile y wi// 6Afe i ( ower o ;v/+R✓Nl4e_ Covv4AN//1T✓tk/✓Ti is AvoT AT All fie sAme- ois 6e:NAj PLAAvN4� AA,1",*Q91o7eJ -to tAe AiANr1 Com,n/SS/AA • RefMewce /Ale 3/ /Temt 3 of #k e. i.S. 4r Co AileeK.PvN ct0/0 OWN M 0 CC.4), el GpNdo,M/N/om.r rO Roo/74ft A,eAx rime r rs " ,n'A r"iyiA/4- re/we" Tn M . EnIP,it l 1 •T f/lAt %$ AN ec.ONO. (C cQNS/IP Ar,01) and A bbe' Nor hi,ye. rn Live ,,,,i4.1, +k ,res.tr•rife_ cv .,,kuis/0/� , V%A #A CI ry CoNNit It scrjd -10 ,Qesteso r tit. ,ett/deNTs ,y.vdcirizrNt OF EdeN /',e 4E'Q ) ,vor fA eco,v,#,wC /NTeoeesrr o1C t�, , ewe4e/t AS LAwd Teel-. I p,,ANf you ro wore A' o ro /0,1471efed ,Qe.vrAL A,,4,4AstevrS. Z A,01 12,0 re A few otle t co,vice/tNaI 4et,o(4rrr ,,Ae swaq To ,or /®LAa�io� Cavitiirlra� ,s,eefsrg oN 7vNe /9) /f7t To c rocou6?age you/t on:fosi T/1W To +hit itDao/eosAL • Si"vicetee/y you,tr, ,Qe,Cr/1AM T. ,yvafo,%' 9.0 3 to /-leg fi,Do&NT c,t• (dem /14h4('/4),9?iNN• SS3+3 'Lore eare eteccr-e ,-At hc4U,¢1rre9 coy. Z did ,um? Minvt ,Ac/est ro A 7-yin 1.4in'rot 6.,r d/d wA,vf ro voice .,Ay 4,46jecrAvii ra .rk. VoSOA,A/LD'i1fH7iS .2 57 • • • Mr. Don Sorensen • 7121 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • Dear Mr. Sorensen: This letter is in regard to the proposed Neill Lake Road apartment complex which has been and still is before the Planning Commission. As you may know, I personally presented my objections to this proposal at the last Planning Commission meeting and I would like to restate that I am totally opposed to a rental apartment complex on this property. Z objections to the plan are: 1) When I purchased my property in the High Point section, I was first told that this particular parcel would be developed into owner-occupied condominiums. As recently as one year ago I was told by the developers that.since the Ridgewood Condominiums were not moving, that this parcel would be plotted into single family plots. While I recognize that my objections on this point may be more civil in nature, I nevertheless feel that you should be aware of this fact. • 2) Despite the promises of the proposed developers that berms, plantings, etc. will make this an attractive development, I cordially invite you to visit my property and other adjacent High Point properties to get a first hand picture of exactly what the proposal would do to the various views of High Point residences, and most particularly the proposed black top parking space that is to be provided. • 3) The original condominiums' parking entrance and exits were to be at the approximate location of the present Ridgewood entrance and exit • so that traffic could flow to and from the East-West Parkway. Now the entrance has been located in front of my "eyebrow" and more lately at the intersection of Lakefall Drive and Neill Lake Road. 4) In furtherance•of the above mentioned items (3) i.e., entrance and exits --Neill Lake Road is a narrow residential-type street on a 30"-grade level that certainly would jeopardize the general welfare of the many, many children that catch their buses to the Eden Prairie schools. • • • l • -2- . • 5) Because of the inherent problems associated with rentals, certainly, to say the least, it is most undesirable to have such complex in the immediate proximity of such expensive, well developed, single family residences from a property value point of view. Had I been aware that this is what would be across the street of.TAY home, I certainly would not have invested the thousands of dollars that I did and I suspect that if you were living where we do, you would be of the same opinion. There are probably a number of other reasons that I could set forth that would support my asking you to vote "no", but since they would be somewhat redundant, let me say that you, as a member of the Planning Commission, have to make a decision relative to this proposal in light of all the circumstances and since I believe that you have some responsibility to reflect the feelings and/or opinions of the resident taxpayers in this immediate area, I am confident that you or the.developers, were you standing in our shoes, would be totally opposed to this proposal. I, therefore, once again ask you to vote "no". • Sincerely, Gam` a).-r^ a4 i rm - • Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Carlson • 9061 Neill Lake Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • • • • • •• • .25709 .... _.. .- - .b.,.,., :rr..; .„+ F s y-, . -�sv,.•,:,l A- ..3lcaR?+-�+r- .'r..- .r-... • ( 9051 Neill Lake Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 June 8, 1976 Mr. Don Sorensen 7121 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Sorensen: I am writing to you with regard to the proposed apartment complex on Neill Lake Road, presently before the Planning Commission. As a resident who has invested a substantial amount of money in a single family detached home which would look directly on to this rental apartment complex, I would like to state that I am totally opposed to a rental and/or multi-family complex going in across the street from my home. My objec- tions to the plan are as follows: / 1. There are many children in our residential neighborhood between the ages of 3 and 13 including my two daughters ages 9 and 1. I believe that this type of rental apart- ment building would create a substantial amount of traffic on our residential street, thusly jeopardizing the general welfare of our children. 2. The plan is a change in the original proposed use of the land, which was owner-occupied condominiums, to rental apartments. • 3. The rental apartment complex with the substantial amount of blacktopped parking area and the large massing of one 'structure would create a tremendous amount of potential pollution to the lake and the ground water system. There has been no environmental impact study done specifically for this project with regard to the lake and wild life that this particular apartment complex would jeopardize. Also, to my knowledge the Department of Natural Resources has not studied the matter and given their opinion. 4. I have discussed with real estate firms what this type of development would do to my property values. The consensus • .is that I would lose approximately 10% to 15% of my initial • purchase price. 2570 • Mr. Don Sorensen June 8, 1976 Page Two 5. I would also like you to take into consideration the misrepresentations by The Preserve to myself and various other residents with regard to the use of this property and to the development in general. 6. I would suggest that you talk to people who live in single family detached homes where there are multi-family rental apartment complexes adjacent to their property and see what their opinions are with regard to living next door to or across the street from rental apartment complexes. Since the developer and the various builders have many months to plan and organize their presentation and have the financial resources to produce the documents that would support their position, and the Planning Commission has the staff of Eden Prairie to evaluate the developer's and builders' plans and give their analysis and opinions to the Commission, you must see the inequity that exists here. The residents -- being a fragmented group -- are only aware of projects of this type in their final stages and not having any financial resources available to them as an organization because no organization exists, they must first organize themselves to levy the membership of the organization for a pooling of financial resources and then hire somebody to analyze the documents that were produced by the staff of Eden Prairie and the developer and builders, formulate their objections in presentation form, and then present these in an articulate concise manner to the Planning Commission. This takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of the residents, and we feel that we should have as much time as the developer, builders, and staff of Eden Prairie have had to produce their case. Since the above is rarely possible, the citizens must look to their elected and appointed officials to exercise their own good judgment in not only protecting the environment and stimulating growth in the community, but also in representing their constituents. I would ask that you apply the "prudent person rule" to your decision with regard to voting "yes" or "no" on the Neill Lake Road rental apartment complex. By using this rule, you would have to put yourself in the position of the resident who has purchased a home directly across the street from the proposed project, and who has invested well over $70,000. If you were that individual, would you then vote "yes" for a rental apartment complex across the street from your home? Or would your vote more likely be "no"? a5?r Mr. Don Sorensen June 8, 1976 Page Three • We are asking for your "no" vote on the proposed rental apartments on Neill Lake Road at the Planning Commission meeting on June 14. S erely yours, t B�+i TB:ab • • • i;g12-s a�*� �r;rF•...1 •S r. -"Zr!IT......—.-....-r-71 -r!� toer t Ili I1w'� (Syt t0 �•rI k I arosyy %1 � � Y•• £ Y t Y.� wa '�' _ .. I O Y F tCwo 2 0: _ F 'F P F E-,E r . x .� e� - _ k z gg E i agm ,4F NRik_ s. tsll L .1, _ y.y Y . `Stl EEE .4= .'s,, ° e.".w £ 'FL c4 'Y £:. w1Vq<y, ` 5 F tF` q i42 ;s=� '=nA.O. gF z e";a▪' r� 'tSF "i` gr --'t4 Est . E x'�.' •,S-@ E u5 J k- e"<� 0 E- LR 113 i i'p5 rE 5r p =s F c k ' - s `cz tr E t. SgFR E1E F F 4y . F s Ey4. :€ x f Y==( a " F i:t€ E FYI g r ,02" p,g . E€sE c<lo i $F: € F -- ▪ 'pk. •" t-. �#_ E F +E Yc k ,.._i T ; bf Y c.' A Yo-s r y L �pp '� ;IE h u�d k L 3 3E h g CEF `G < 5..-Ia-i �e• 04 Yi il III .6 EaL . 7r t `"mot t. W a "'k gg c _i`� Y. `E Ol! f 4app; < f' .. a! F.. =f 3 Eg ..2• 0 Yc� - t 4F ; .Y1,1 , �L uF..,z, E 'I t € s ; f s 4 Z=F y.F! 1 r Fc F giw � t3�x� .. 6Cc SrsF ri" g r.'E �;, uv t 1 t iF2*F. 4 k °5 . €:N2t�e 1YgEst .E2 z>_-.:-. „ `_atti SE •E<.r_5e5<sr.Fsi •i`f.13 Sot c.. r.x�E<_} c3 ` ■,.,,z_E-E ■..zt'c`< �.. . ,. =gg a p p..Fo i tl.i �1 �+ . ` Y _3 44 k E> F'Frg ,la j „ =£ mot s9 lici : Will h P i tr. '• 2t' Y ..--F EA 4 L aEnrs mE $ k Ir` '1. 9 tlrw• Z▪v Fc sycL cg tfi E + ti S'.• 1 y"... �a r. F k E"3 - � F ' r k -� 3 ., S F0241RfES E3 " w I t �� ' L ( F( < 1 . NI; .4g C i. ; C€= L V > i pi . 2,.'1a5. • 11 ,. t 1 L E E x Y 5 '" CC W � ▪ Y I " - r 4 . S 3 • . .xIi, 1<s. ■ z.� Val" H ..L. J € &ia? iitys= 3� us"' .k ',c' . . . June 1, 1976 Mr. Don Sorensen Chairman City Planning Commission Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Sorensen: In regard to the Neill Lake Apartments, the following observations are made: 1. The construction appears to be in contrast to the $60K- $SO)(homes across the street from it. The exterior has no brick work. This could eventually lead to a "shabby wood fort" type building for Eden Prairie. 2. The tot lot would be used if it were of the same quality as the tot lot across the street and up the hill. If not, the youngsters would cross Neill Lake Road frequently and use the one on the hill, thus creating a potential hazard. 3. Neill Lake Road south of Lake Fall Drive drops down (15-20% grade approx.) and turns towards Neill Lake, hence, the entrance (or possible exit) would be dangerous. Recommend eliminating entrance at Lake Fall or straightening Neill Lake Road north of Lake Fall and make apartment entrance a one car wide drive. 4. The apartments are very limited for storage and small. 5. The enclosed article shows a potential problem. Does the city have any way of preventing or handling unmaintained apartment buildings? a5?u Mr. Don Sorensen June 1, 1976 6. As an alternative, build this unit on the Bast lust Parkway apartment's site and make Neill Lake into a single family area. 7. Would it be safe to say the traffic on Neill Lake Road would be about 300 vehicles a day? Is it designed for this volume? 8. Many times i hear buffering from the single family areas by a 6 - 8 foot dirt pile with trees. Needless to say, one must be very gullible to call a dirt pile a physical or socialogical buffer. 9. Class action or legal action not relevant at this point. Also, the bus stop at Neill Lake and Lake Fall is already a known fact. In conclusion, i hope these points express the views of the local residents and give Eden Prairie a Neill Lake Road and not a Lake Street like in Minneapolis. Yours truly, John W. Retterath • JCR:kla Enclosure • a.51 Street Addresses . 44, 444Q orthmark 2 Northmark ,„ , 0 ©Qoti4 °o ,A•IMPOO. Mali, ® Qao„1 , � ... p Iff---°41N \ — - . it 43 Ssi#1. schoo..., ... •atitirPir A\ �p�ppp Fore-� 0� .r d�► WindsloPe pp.rlm.nls trawiTnents'eadi 004.# 4.4. itINSOir... ,,.._ N«n.. 01414411 .0.; east west pawks, wfb _„ r.. tr . O f t CID w...."- .-\,,,„ , 404 NelB La" /I' ,, °I)40.i Nlte:Ct , arpi¢� `�A,r .Q� K0 � P aR. � 0 , „tip,.r t i ;affik pcsirji i� ear lUe The Preserve f"' 8920 Frank)Road RID T411t113 A Eden Prame.Mmnesola 55343 A 4'�r 1/_ -- 16121941.2001 1W .OPcj p'OK1?t,©J aff f5 irekems,f • • • approved Planning Commission Minutes -2-3- May 24, 1976 B. Neill Lake Apjtrtments, The Preserve,.request for NJdevelopment plan kin6 approval for 84 units. The site is located on Neill Lake Road across from the High Point single family area. . Mr. Hess, Mr. Moe and Mr. Sawhill presented the site plan and site modifications, moving the building further away from Neill Lake Road and realigning the parking and access roads as suggested at the previous meeting. Mr. Moe then discussed the extensive landscaping and herming that is proposed along Neill Lake Road to buffer the project from the single family homes. The planning staff report of May 20th was discussed with questions from the Planning Commission and developer. Mt. Sorensen read an important concern of Mrs. Pauly ( submitted in writing ),. .• relative to the previous commitments from Preferred Developers for owner occupancy rather than rental units. • Mr. Sundstrom asked Hr. Hess his definition of buffering or what are the criteria for the barrier. Hess replied visual. Mr. Fosnocht asked the planner if the plan was an ideal situation for mixing single family and multiple land uses due to the close proximity. The planner responded that the site is not the ideal situation in which to mix land uses, however, because of previous zonings and construction , this project is a vast improvement, in his opinion, over the previous project. Mr. Rotterath asked if there would be any brick on the exterior of the building. Mr. Moe responded there would not be any brick, rather the exterior would be of • wood construction. Mr. Carlson, 9024 Neill Lake Rend, questioned whether recreational vehicles could be kept out of the parking area. Mr. Sawhill , representing Land Tech Manage.- ment, said they could effectively control recreational vehicles as they have been successful in other projects. Mr. Putnam asked the proponents what the provisions of the 221 D 4 program are for everyone's clarification. Mr. Sawhill responded that there would be no tax reduc- tion , that it was not a subsidized low or moderate rent project, it would not be eligible for Section S funding under the current limitseaud the mortgage is at :. 7's% just as Cl or MIA loans are made to hones. • Sorensen asked about the overall size of the building and if any relief of the massiveness of 400 feet could be achieved. Screening and landscaping as well as • possibly breaking the building at the center would be possible according to Mr. Moe. Mr. Carlson raised the following four points of concern: • 1. That the Preserve developers had broken faith with his personal assurances that the project would be owner occupied. 2. That the ownership vs. rental questions was the primary reason for him opposing the project. 3. That the traffic would increase on Neill lake Road and be potentially dangerous. 4. That representatives of The Preserve had told him that single family development would be built on this site and that this project is in direct opposition to that. Mr. Sorensen thanked Mr. Carlson for his opinions, but felt personal comments to Carlson by other persons are not grounds for the Planning Commission's consideration' • Brad Thorsim, attorney representing a Preserve resident, requested the Planning • Commission take no action at this meeting, rather allow time for the property owners to discuss with the developer their concerns about the project. • • approved Ping Commission Minutes -4- May 24, 1976 • Mr. Retterath expressed a concern that putting an apartment building across from single family is not appropriate , and that the Planning Advisory Service, which he read, seemed to say that protection of the integrity of the single family neighborhood was of prime importance in community development. He also expressed the concerns that the apartments would not be adequately maintained, that there is no use of brick as in other buildings in the area , that a good number of school children are picked up on Neill Lake Road,and that the apartment traffic would be dangerous to those children. Mrs. Retterath expressed the concern that with the construction of Nindslope, the East/West Parkway Apartments, 'and the Neill Lake Apartments,the Preserve would be overburdened with multiple family units and this is not consistent with The Preserve's plan. . Mr. Hess stated The Preserve has always anticipated approximately 50% multiple 25% townhouse and 25% single family. • Thorson believed the personal concerns of residents regarding misrepresentation of facts by the developer should be considered in the commission's deliberation . • tion I: • hee moved, Fosnocht seconded, to continue consideration of the development plan to the June 14th meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Notion 2: Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to ask the Council to consider the Neill Lake Apart- ment project at their June 22nd meeting. The motion carried unanimously. • • • • • • 2 577 approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 10, 1976 V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS. ) A. Neill Lake Apartments in The Preserve, request for pud development plan approval for 84 units . The site is located on Neill Lake Road across from the High Point single family area. Mr. Hess stated The Preserve is doing the project with a client and after the ' review process is complete,the new owner will assume the project. He explained the Neill Lake Apartments are located on the southern part of the previously approved Ridgewood Condominiums. Hess stated no change in zoning is required 'and they are proposing 84 units with underground parking instead of the previously approved 105 units. John Retterath, 9011.High Point Circle, asked how the apartment stories would be viewed from Neill Lake Road looking toward Neill Lake. Doug Moe , architect for the project, showed illustrations depicting the views from different angles. Sorensen inquired if a better alignment of the entry road and the High Point cul-de-sac could be achieved to prevent direct site views and oar lights shining into homes. Mr. Moe stated the entry is located across from the cul-de-sac because to the south it would conflict with the pedestrian path. He believed berming would alleviate some of the straight line views. Sorensen inquired if there was a planting plan for the parking lot. Mr. Moe said one would be done. ( Mr. Durniden, 10501 Lake Fall Drive, asked what the rent structure of the apartments would be. Mr. Hess said rents have not yet been determined. John Retterath asked if an additional access would be available if the traffic on Neill Lake Road becomes a problem. The planner stated Neill Lake Road is a collector, not a residential street, and that it can accommodate the traffic. Motion: ilearman moved, Sundstrom seconded, to refer the item to the staff for a report and direct the staff to notify residents of the pud development stage request. • • • a5 q • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission • FROM: Chris Enger THROUGH: Dick Putnam DATE: May 20, 1976 PROJECT: Neill Lake Apartments LOCATION: Located on the previous Ridgewood Condominiums site. • West of Neill Lake Road and East of The Preserve Center REQUEST: Approval of revised development plan . Proposal is for 84 rental units on a 6.39 acre site. APPLICANT: The Preserve BACKGROUND The Preserve concept which was part of the original PUD showed this parcel at a density of 12-18 units per acre. This density reflected the philosophy of clustering and increasing density to take advantage of Neill Lake and the Preserve Center. This concept was reinforced in 1972 when Preferred Developers obtained RM 2.5 zoning for Ridgewood Condominiums at a density( of 13.26 units / acre. The current proposal by The Preserve, for Land Tech Corporation, shows a density of 13.15 du/acre covering the southern 6.39 acres of the original 14.8 acres proposed for Ridgewood Condominiums. While the density is similiar, • the site plan is completely different as is the architectural building type. This proposal is a three story, double loaded corridor, under ground parking rental apartment building. • The Preserve's very tentative mix of housing including units in the Major Center Arca shows a total of approximately 4,445 units of : 1/4 single family detached, 1/4 townhouse, and 1/2 apartments. It should be stressed that this plan according to the Preserve is subject to change based upon the market. The Neill Lake Apartments proposal is consistent,with this tentative mixure. In light of the poor marketability of condominiums during the past couple of years and increased job opportunities in Eden Prairie, conversion from condominium; to apartments seems to make sense. However, with this project, Windslope, East/West Parkway Apartments and Basswoods Apartments occurring within a close proximity, the absorbtion of a significant number of units that are similiar may be slow. . i • l • Staff Report-Neill Lake Apts -2- May 20, 1976 id The rental structure of this apartment building is listed as "Housing 'for Moderate Income People" under HUD's 221 D 4 Program. The rental rates • are as follows: Efficiency $ 205/month 1 bedroom 260/month 2 bedroom 335-345/month 3 bedroom 415/month ( 2bdrm+den) • All units are required to have a garage 6 according.to Landtech President, Tom Barrett , it is an additional $ 25/ month/unit. SITE INFORMATION �, • The site basically consists of a high knoll ( 887 ), near Neill Lake Road at a midpoint between Woodward Circle and Lake Fall Drive, which slopes toward the lake for approximately 200 feet at a 10% grade and then drops off between 15-20% to the lake. • Old Franlo Road sits at a medium elevation of approximately 854. The proposed building would be located at 874 with 50% of the parking occurring at a medium elevation of 874. Neill Lake Road goes from an elevation of r 860 from the southeast corner of the site to 884 at the northern peak of the site. Relationship to Surrounding Uses The Ridgewood Condominiums adjoin this proposal to the northwest. Consideration should be given to sharing an access drive with this project to limit conflicting driveway access to Neill Lake Road across from Woodwatch Circle When comparing Neill Lake Apartments with the original Ridgewood plan, you. will see that the density on this site appears less than originally shown and the units are displaced from Neill Lake Road and the single family area to . the northeast. The relationship between building, parking, access, and single family to the cast is tight. At the suggestion of the Planning Commission at the • initial presentation and subsequent discussion at a meeting with Planning staff, the developer is investigating the possibility of obtaining access to the undrerground parking from the northern end of the building and eliminating the southeast access. Because of the problem.of steep grades on the north end of the building, the Architect felt that an in, only at that point combined with a one.way circulation pattern would work out. ' If the eastern access were eliminated, cars should not hP required to drive the entire length of the parking area to exit. Therefore, an exit opposite Lake Fall Drive would probably work out well. Since this would require cutting through the screening berm, retaining walls should be used to lessen the width of the opening. Also, since no homes arc oriented toward the project at this point, a brief look through to the building should not be objectional. 1 25Z( . ' •• Staff Report-Neill Lake Apt s -2b- May 20, 1976 • . r • r . • I • e • NEILL LAKE APPARTMENTS . . SCALE 1"1: 100' DATE 4-76 HIGHPOINT CK 3 • SITE PLAN COMPARISON n• , LOT 1 BLO • 1 4 . . A • 1 : •". \ • •••••••.. . .. •'... •• 4,4#•'..,. .-1/1:...k... ,...,, • '( ‘ i . . ..,.. .:e:... '•'4';',..k..•;:fi:•,:iii•if.:;:.:1...•:-.,, .'' . . i .—:..t..%':::: ''', ...i/P•ZiZ,Z:..•'1F.•';'..1-'..':',. - '- ' ' • .'*• ":4:;:.:;;'.':j'.!;,• ,... ...k74.12!1*'Siti.:*.f'.:!:;',..t. .......•-:-• . \•\ 1.::`,•:'.i'.1%-7..%::::.i. .(4';'.1..i..11:Zi.fge;••''• \ * \.\ . ._...„7/1'' 1‘. illiii::::•\;,•:•,!.;•,,N • -,•,...,....:.1:::::•...:.•4.. •-,.‹.,..%". • '''.'•',:',?:,/,'::'Pl•'.•i.•.: e ` ( ' \ t '.•''''''.';:,.1:<, •, ......% ..\ '4i/Aill.::•:-•::::::/*".',.• _a.. .• . ....:\.\\ • '''.,0•".•::•:•.%:', .`V. '7,.V...?,•;.•.::..;,..:::::::::.:....*:fiti:.:/:, .„. . •%•..:...•....:X."-•A , /-•-\ ".*::::1•4111g:V.•:,:i.'"IFYIA. 1 11111:...":.4.i:::;;;,::;•..:.‹.1.i. %, t.s.:`,•,„ eilif.',•-•/".:;i•rh,•••:?.?4.:::14 -••••rN•s`..:".'"••••4•• %.:4"1::•• ••••:•'.*•••:'••.-i.::ii....:4•4•,:!/:,.:-:-:.4, ;1;1:= 1 \\ *tif„.,:::.i,f...:*.‘ .;::;'..:::: 0:.•,...;',?. •:.ifl,..,:•;::::*,•!///::;;.f.;•: ••••-'''' •:••••Pi,:::.4•::',.-••:/:::. • 1 :i , A 4•.*3'ii;-',..i.Z:"•,k?;:".;:%:•,..., :fift:',:fil '•••••••:••,:lif"h:V:,..',.......,:,:,. . •• vv.: r:',%,,, •••-3•.`zi,..,.4.::::::0,, •6;•,„:,.:,::,!//::.•",:iii.•:::::••,cf...., ' ' ; ••• t••••••..-:-,•• , ,..t.,,i••••••• • --- •.v.-p...7::: .•?.,::::•y.:,. ' •.r••• E if'''llig.:,..:‘,:•,.;.,.'••••,,,'. " \ ***4?•:;:.:::,''''.....f":"...4.!....;,.•:,• . 1.1..-- ) s• V•,..i::'. •,,'..?' '' .-'71..ifl•.•'. .:'.•. ..;, 0 ..\t'.1... *.-", •'#:;:s•“:'Z-. '.0.i.k . • '''%. ."*:';;t4.''.7•;•:::%.:. ..: . 1110t ,•:,,'••••2'0-4r-'';'". ..',!..' ______•. .____ , -..').:.;.lik";:Ki,%s;?:)'•,:.:!`,V.. --'"'''kg::.i4::;•ISS, . . .-:: --‘... ,....'-', .;"..':-)'n •..!r".,-i- •:::;•1•::if'.14::.'';•••:,. 1 I -•- - .''...1:,y;;;:•?;%:•,;.:::::.i.::-.";;,,s\0 ...4 :/..•,f/i• i t 'k -. -.%....s'r;:k:,::''....:'::.f.":',:"..: -‘s•--- c ... .. ... ,;:::::v:t.<.::i:;•:::.1.8.... ..,:,,,./..::,...r i t . I . .:,,k''''' '........} .145:;:;:..t. ..f .....:;',..1?j:•::ffi/„......i., i. '•. ./ ,li -- ''' ..,..,:::----7-':. .4". "•"••''''' . .. .... • . ' i - ______;, _...-:. ...• , • /, \1 _ . '\,„_,,..„ ,., „.„....,....... . . ,. .:. . ,• .,. .... ( 40:15------1--=:“—"--:--:::::2--------- i i 1 • ' • • I 1 . .9Sia- • , 11 . • .. . • • NBILL LAKE APTS. - SITE PLAN CONSIDERATION • . ITEM 39 BLDG. 21 Bl.l x;, 195 UNITS 3 GARAGE 1 BLDG. PDC PLAN PDC !'LAN PROPOSAL !` SITE ' Total Acres 14.7 0,39 6.39 Square Feet 641,000 278,3411 278,348 ° 100% 100% 100%r DENSITY 13.26 16,4:: 13.IS • ' ¢, BUILDING COVERAGE Square Feet 84,200 49,136 31,356 13.1% 17.7% 11.0% GARAGES Square Feet 25,000 13,8;1 _0_ 3,9% 5.0'% 0% DRIVES Square Feet 5,600 17,480 2.0% 6.3% OPEN PARKING Square Feet 44,790 16,860 16.1% 6.0% . RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Square Feet 6,500 _0_ 1.0%c 1r 0% 0% OPEN SPACE • Square Feet 479,•1-00 164,951 212,712 74.6% . 59.3% 76.4% • • :c573 • Staff Report-Neill Lake Apts -3- May 20, 1976 • Doug Moe, the architect assures the planning staff that the parking area can be broken up by introducing planting islands, and creating a sharper 'V' in the two segment parking lot. Don Hess, The Preserve, also pointed out to the planning staff and project architect that the southern building could be swung toward the lake and away• from the single family area which would allow more space for additional berming and screening. Mr. Hess also considered this area as suitable for future parking if proposed facilities were found inadequate. However, a more appropriate place seems to be out in front with the parking currently shown. This would assure a'good relationship with single family toward the east in the future. • Parking • • Tom Barrett states that their management policy requires each resident to rent a garage with their unit. Also, no boats, trailers, or similiar recrea- • tional vehicles are allowed to be stored in the parking lot over the winter. However, they do allow storing recreational vehicles in the garage and parking one or more cars in the parking lot. • Our parking ordinance requires one covered parking space and one uncovered space per unit, which is exactly what is proposed. Depending upon management this may not be adequate, and in light of the fact that there is no provision for recreational vehicle storage by Landtech or The Preserve, the question ( of possible parking expansion is very important. `. Pedestrian Circulation' • • • The Ridgewood plan included both an internal pedestrian system and an external systemihich included a 6-8 foot walkway along the south side of Neill Lake Road. This should also be included in the current proposal plan. It is acceptable for cul-de-sac streets to be used as feeder trails,but a neighborhood collector such as Neill Lake Road should have a sidewalk separate from the street. Internal pedestrian .circulation should be shown between the parking areas, building., totlot, and major pathways. Buffering from Single Family Area 11 Since partgof the original Preserve concept was to increase density around amenity areas, this proposal seems to be in keeping with the original intent. It is lower density than the Ridgewood plan and is moved further away from the single family area. However, the building.is very lineal and the facade is unbroken. • • • • • • • Staff Report-Neill Lake Apts -4- May 20, 1976 • It is therefore important that the proponent include the following elements • K ) In buffering this use from single family directly across the road: • 11 Distance there appears to be adequate distance in front of the building, but more distance is needed on the east end. This could possibly be accomplished by swinging the eastern building more toward the lake. • 2) Grade Separation grade difference between Neill Lake Road and the first floor elevation at most is 10 feet lowere and at the eastern end,the first floor is 14 foot higher than the road. • Therefore, grade separation in the form of a high, broad berm should be included. The building is 28 feet high, bringing the effective top elevation to 902 or approxi- mately 20 feet above the high point of Neill Lake Road • Llc t4 1-1/. -.1-11, 1 r-hi-LA1 Am. 14444AK% emir , ° ato • ona t4� $'6 tAlkiike • • F lu.tAlx Ar . R4'KiNfa 1•�u.uua sinus .1 , 1 tu�vromiLy 8T4• 1 676 • -`noel .541. V44r> tat u LAIC At"1's. Staff Report-Neill Lake Apts -5- May 20, 1976 • • 3) Plant Material plants provide the buffering effect in a screen and a complete landscape plan showing earthwork and plant materials • must be submitted to the City staff prior • to issuance of a building permit. In addition to completely screening the parking • area, a major buffering of the building from the single family area should be accomplished satisfactory to city staff review. • CONCLUSION The overall concept of this proposal seems to be consistent with The Preserve philosophy and past city decisions. The plan proposed, with some revisions, may be a more acceptable utilization of the site than the current Ridgewood plan. rr Recommendations ( Possible recommendations are: 1. Recommend denialt 2. Recommend approval as proposed. 3. Recommend approval of this alternate development plan under RM 2.5 for 84 rental apartment units with the following stipulations: a. the parking lot be broken up for.visual relief. b. the east access be eliminated onto Neill Lake Road. c. an additional entry to the underground garage be worked out ' on the northwest end. d. the eastern building be moved further from the single family area to allow more adequate area for berming and screening. e. a second access opposite Lake Fall Drive be provided. f. a 6-8 foot wide trail be provided along Neill Lake Road. g. sufficient berming and screening be!incorporated along Neill Lake Road to screen parking and significantly buffer the building J from Neill lake and the adjacent single family area. This Subject to approval of city staff. h. area for future parking be provided. i. recreational vehicles not be allowod in die parking area during any season 1 The Planning staff would recommend number 3 a-i. • CE:jj 011 • Flay 17, 1976 • W. Richard Putnam City Hall • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Putnam: This letter is in regard to the proposed Neill Lake apartments in The Preserve that we understand is to come before the Planning Commission May 24, 1976. We, the undersigned, wish to state that we are completely opposed to this proposed apartment complex and we feel that the developers have misrepresented the use of this particular parcel of land. When we purchased lots in the High Point area to build our homes; we were told specifically that the land in question would be owner-occupied condominiums. Furthermore, Mr. Carter told us that the driveway or entrance to this property would be where the present entrance is to the Ridgewood Condominiums. A review / of the proposal would indicate that they intend to make two additional entrances l onto Neill Lake Road; 1) opposite Woodwatch Circle, 2) opposite the eyebrow at 9061 Neill Lake Road. . If the proposal for 80+ apartment units becomes a reality, this would make for a great deal of traffic coming and going on a rather limited-type road (Neill Lake Road) and as taxpayers we do not believe that we should have to pay to have a higher street maintenance cost and tremendously increased traffic on such a residential-type street. Furthermore, we do not think it is right to have to pay for additional police protection, which as you know, rental property requires, as evidenced by the Edenvale Apartments and Hirsch Bros. Townhouse rental' units. We believe that apartments and rental-type property breed more crime than single dwelling homes. We further believe that the developers could make better use of.such beautiful land right on the lake by dividing this properly into single family lots. We moved to Eden Prairie and The Preserve because%of its beautiful grounds and guarantee( of owner-occupied areas in the High Point section. It appears that The Preserve developers are willing to break faith and are more interested in a quick sale than the long term beauty and esthetics of the area. It is also interesting to note that not one of The Preserve developers has an Eden Prairie address. -- . j We have all invested large sums of money in our homes and in our property and do not care to sit back and let the developers earn their fast buck and take off. . We world appreciate it if you and the other members of the Planning Commission would take into consideration all of the disadvantages of the rental property in this particular area and protect the existing owners who are already taxpayers and we respectfully request that you turn down their request' for rezoning or whatever their request is to make the Neill Lake Apartments a reality. • Mr. Richard Putnam May 17, 1976 Page 2 • One final note that we believe is appropriate in requesting the Planning Commission denial has to do with the large number of small children that live in the immediate area and we feel that the increased traffic alone would be justification enough to deny them (The Preserve developers) the right to build rental apartment units.in this area. Residents of the High Point area of The Preserve: NAME ADDRESS PHONE 7 4 77ho. o r v-o e —✓s, Qc 9P ism .�v�. ee t; . 97//-7ss7 v , 'rze /-53y/ : cS9,k>7T 6e—e4. 9' / 4.( tr2kese 9q/- S3s61 i. F. . �. �_�r.���-..✓ a�isi �%�/�� ,e0 911i - 77/1 • 112. j1A44;,..4 e_ C `'2Ze or /o 3/ JAG 2 r` /o-lob Li I i i=P-1LL pr 994-1"7• 7 .,V✓, l 0 �. 7 Dr• 25BX • 9o3n. //,i4 ri . `l f-1 P/33 C:44 vi" Au • , e f/-0(512-241 at-€26.- g1/4145'/41 4 - Pam, ,.����''�' /e2 7 F.- .- c 7yy--37,7 7)4A4 * CiL-,-1 64L4 0007,,z, -, J'-a/ 74c_ 4. 9s‘-/�?3)-01 0 Ake_ 9066 4 )q_ - 9 sg.2k37 A of 14. ;te, /®goo '. ge l4. 9v/'1-5; d.. o AA.,7all A 9W-56a3 / . Is- 4 • ( • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON ZONING VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Eden Prairie will meet in the City Hall, 8950 Eden Prairie Road, at 7:30 P.M.,Thurs. , May 20, 1976 for the purpose of considering the appeal of Bernard Hamilton ' for a zoning variance permitting a variance from the 50 foot side yard setback requirement and the 50 foot rear yard setback requirement to allow a building setback of 25 feet on one side and 25 feet at the rear ( of the building. On the property located at the NE corner of Mitchell Road and Research Road. And legally described as follows: That part of the West 264.91 feet, as measured at right angles to the West line thereof, of Government Lot 5, Section 22, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Southerly of the following described line: (OVER) All comments, suggestions and/or inquiries should be submitted in advance of the hearing itself or at the hearing itself. A copy of the appeal application is on file at the City Hall and may be inspected between 8 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. • BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS • • • - I 2590 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONT. • l Beginning at the meander corner on the West line of said Government Lot 5, thence i . running Northerly along said West line of Government Lot 5.a distance of 308.14 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described/ thence deflecting 89°36' to the right and running Easterly to a point on the East line of said West. 264.91 feet of Government Lot 5 and there terminating, and lying Northerly of the centerline of Research Road; subject to the rights of way of Research Road and Mitchell Road. • • • • • 2591 WILLIAM J.TEGEDER PHONE 545-2797 ATTORNEY AT LAW 5730 DULUTH ST. MINNEAPOLIS.MINN. 55422 • • 'March 2, 1976 Mr. Bernard Y. Hamilton • 9870 Franlo Road . Eden Prairie 55343 I have this date examined title to the premises described as: That part of the West 264.91 feet, as measured at right angles to the Wrest line thereof of Government Lot 5, Section 22, Township 116, Range 22, lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the meander corner on.the West line of said Government Lot 5; thence running Northerly along said West line of Government Lot 5 a distance of 308.14 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting 89°36' to the right and running Easterly to a point on the East line of said blest 264.91 feet of Government Lot 5 and there terminating, and lying Northerly of the centerline of Research Road. This examination is based upon Registered Property Abstract, Title Insurance Company of Minnesota pertaining to Certificate of Title 498984. From such examination I conclude that the premises were owned on February 23, 1976 by Doris A. Rice. Such ownership is subject to the following: 1. Mechanic lien rights, if any, which may exist for recent. improvements on said premises or property connected therewtth. 2. Facts which an accurate survey of the premises would disclose. 3. Subject to all right of the State of Minnesota, in its sovereign govern- mental capacity, as owner of the land constituting the bed of Starring Lake below the low water mark, and its right for navigation purposes in the land lying between the ordinary high water mark, and the ordinary low water mark of said lake. 4. Taxes for 1976 amount not determined as yet. 1975 taxes were $155.56• 5. Special assessments, if any, which may be levied against the property. The owners duplicate certificate is at the.torrens office. Sincerely, Copy to Hustad Company • 2 592 • • • .I.'-..,' M a ,' PERBIX, HARVEY, SIMONS & THORFINNSON, P.A. Attorneys at Law P.O.BOX 190,17 TENTH AVENUE SOUTH-HOPKINS,MINNESOTA 55343 935-4468 TD Mr. Wayne Sanders °` d�' .fi l9-lxst ,:,, Fe t�f h.� Building Inspector .1 f City of Eden Prairie _ ., � 8950 Eden Prairie Road ` Q �/ (� • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 ._. � ,6y.y(C.i }I)1/i7 /T/ <...1'1t/�'�-3^•Ci41 DATE May 27, 1976 . ..._ .. `47,0:,,r)`ft'... . ••fit... .. .. . Lk, f%2k iiii Dear Wayne: Re: Hamilton Subdivision on .� search Road, . . . Can you give me the background as you hav_ it as to when the Hamilton —_- :,) parcel was created at least for tax purposes a. that we can make a little record on this for our files? _ _ _ . • Very truly ,ours, _ • PERBIX VI••••- AR EY SIM0NS & THORPINNSON, P.A. • /ti W. Harlan P-rbix WHP:jh / (I) ni ,i(' ,fli ov-i) 'Ail'. . . , . . ,( -i-1.:, 't 4„4„,Ar ttiii SIONED ! MOWED • roam iv.n.ru,toN CNe:.we CO.,INC. THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED OOt,MIRO AVIS,V IILIIN.,N.Y.,Ittt 2693 . . .a%. .. r'--.---- __ • • .. — �� lj�� 'L= .��1•�� a ;.r � . PERBIX, HARVEY, SIMONS & THORFINNSON, P.A. • Attorneys at Law P.O.BOX 190,17 TENTH AVENUE SOUTH-HOPKINS,MINNESOTA 55343 935-4468 TO Mr. Wayne Sanders_ DATE Building Inspector City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road • ecjen.Prairie, IV 55343 J -_ -DATE June 10, 1976.__ —J__ • - ( year Wayne:_-_--_-__ Re`_Hamilton_Subdiv sion._ _ Mu This will confirm our oral conversation and relate to the recent Council instructions relative to the question of whether or not a building permit should be - _issued for property referred to--as the_Hamilton iece located in Section 22, Township ..-•-_-_ 116, Range 22. An examination of the City's rec..rds indicate that on or about July 12, 1972 a Doris Rice applied fora subdivision <.f their property providing a _ _ separate tract of ground of approximately 1 acre Thereafter on August 8, 1972 by _ resolution 557 the City approved the subdivision creating a separate building,site. This subdivision was further approved for a division for tax purpose on July 11, 1974. It is my opinion that a building permit s ould be issued for this lot assuming it complies with the other regulations of the Ci y. Very truly y,urs, --- PERBIX, HARV Y, SIMONS & THORFINNSON,-P.A. -- _-.-. { W. Harlan Pe bix - _ ------.-.-..r._.-..---- --- sunNEO P Jh sioNED IbwN 10V6I1.•aC LON 4116146C Cb.-INC. *1))NINb.114.!'NIVN N.Y.L))Y THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED • _.. any VILLAGE OF EDEN PRAIRIE • • ZONING AMENDMENt APPLICATION APPLICA\7TiQ�f/A�D y /1A.rrlLTa•✓ ( ADDRESS 9t7o FiPAA/LO JPD/• Ei1f.+/ A94//e/F, sift/. 3'4 3'#J Zip • .• 94•/-10f 3 : Phone • REQUEST L../ Zoning District Change o PUD Concept Plan • 0 Zoning Appeal © PUD Development Plan O Zoning Text Change • DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST fo.4#40 toAtf/A F AtXMIF710.1 Auglirawce MPc 7.e . •so Fr tar .•I eta J6wiAe r.Piiuiecorezr AMI ,Vi hO .'AO Yi9eo',lite Alk•ite..,I r lb ititOtv,ts,fulatr tS .rrrewu oer • t?s', ' ow ewe .fia• Ad, Aee".. 0 Arm e r Repo.mit LocATIo:t Or PROPERTY .44•41:_elO le of .nirri/du Al. 4 I/ttA.ec.M Al. 1,00_2_ ���r .1 •(.....4..1: . The u.ndorsigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of Ordinance No. 135 and the application fee requirements of Resolution No. 335. . Signed b, • Date V3/7/•• � Appl icatic.n Received by 1 fi,y� Date •• Minimum Fee $ w:i•nv Application to be Considered • Deposit By. ,•0. (SO•v a. at Total $ , '•� 3 its L��yl� 19Nomceting. • • a eb fail . r s � . f a. `I s I' • 0 • i q t f C. A w t % O v 1 or P ? �, a P i IS "' "r t L• i YI V q P. Q \ 1 \ . ( i j Aii9S-ft Juncil Minutes - S - 'luesaay, may co, lot F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 326, rezoning the Mitchell Lake PUD from Rural to R1-13.5 for the single family area and RM 6.5 for the townhouse area. (continued) pg. 3, item 13, add a new "E" to read "Corner lot, side yard setback of 20 feet." pg. 4, under item 4, last line, after "property" insert "to rural". MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt the 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 326, rezoning the Mitchell Lake PUD from Rural to R1-13.5 for the single family area and RM 6.5 for the townhouse area. Pauly, Bye, Pierce and Penzel voted "aye", Meyers voted"nay". Motion carried. MOTION: Pierce moved; seconded by Pauly, to approve the Rezoning Agreement as amended. Motion carried unanimously. G. Resolution No. 1141, request for Eden Prairie to participate 1n H.E.C.O. Sergeant Keith Wall, Public Safety Department, outlined Resolution No. 1141 and answered questions of Council members. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt Resolution No. 1141, request for Eden Prairie to participate in H.E.C.O. Motion carried unanimously. V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports by Council Members 1. Councilwoman Meyers reported on the Board of Appeals & Adjustments meeting held Thursday, May 20, 1976. The Board of Appeals & Adjustments had asked for an opinion from the Council pertaining to the Hamilton parcel on Mitchell �. . and Research Road. ;sell, • Mayor Penzel recommended that the City Attorney make a determination on the Hamilton parcel,and that staff be either directed or not directed to issue a building permit on this parcel. The Council agreed with this recommendation. B. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Consideration of purchasing the Schaltberger property at Lake Riley. • t ! Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to his memo dated • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 14, 1976 B. Crosstown Extension, from Shady Oak Road to I-494 . Consideration of access to Beach/Cooley Road. Discussion of staff report and Hennepin County response. Mr. Klossner, District Engineer Hennepin County Public Works, said he felt the staff report was excellent, but did not agree with all the points raised. Mr. Kiossner believed the revised plan met the 4 criteria included in the City Council's action, Aug. 27, 1974, relative to the Crosstown Extension: 1. Subject to City Manager's memo of Aug. 9, 1974. 2. Signalization of Beach Road. 3. Proceed with discussions with property owners regarding right-of-way acquisition along Baker Road. 4. Provide hikeway/bikeway access. Mr. Klossner, referring to page 5, relative to the safety of signal intervals, stated a safe stopping distance at 60 mph is 300 feet, so the 900 foot intervals between signals should be sufficient. The Commission felt the signal intervals may cause safety hazards when bad weather exists, during peak hours forcing cars to stack between signals, and because of the obstructed line of view over the bridge. Mr. Klossner stated 22,000 vehicle trips/day are expected,(the highest 15 minute peak), and such traffic would only incur 300 feet of stacking which is approxi- mately 12.5 cars. Fosnocht questioned why signalization is being considered on th=Crosstown, and requested information on why no better alternative exists. Kiossner responded signalization was recommended by the City Council in 1974. The planner felt signalization of the intersections along Crosstown 62 would increase the development pressures for commercial land uses along the route. Klossner informed the commission that the City of Minnetonka had approved the revised extension. • Bearman inquired as to the cost of the revised plan. Kiossner responded that as of 1974,the cost was estimated to be 2 million dollars, one half of which is the cost of the bridge to span I-494. Schee stated she is not in favor of an at-grade intersection with Beach Road, and would prefer a limited access freeway. Sorensen inquired if the staff lead received any further comments from residents. The staff responded negative. Potion: Schee moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue the item to after V.A. on the agenda. The motion carried unanimously. Meeting rescheduled for Monday, June 21. at Votech , 7:00-10:00 PM 2'i`%'I .. ,m,. _ •ass. -err vrrr----- . ..._.._. .. ,.yam • MINUTES • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • • approved'lt7 l 197& IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Crosstown Extension, from Shady Oak Road to I-494 . Revised plan illustrating access to Beach Road and Minnetonka Industrial Park. The planner distributed the staff report , dated May 20th, and discussed the various implications of the Crosstown extension as listed in the report. The major issue discussed concerned the safety of the at-grade intersection with the freeway and its location relative to 494 /Crosstown intersection and the bridge spanning Nine Mile Creek. Secondly, the impact of such access to the Crosstown upon land uses within Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Impact of such an access upon higher density land use types such as commercial, industrial, high density multiple and its compatibility with existing character of the area were discussed. The planner discussed the alternative road designs , the need for the road connec- • tion and emphasized the importance of City consideration of the safety considera- tions and potential land uses of the finalized Crosstown design. There was considerable discussion from residents and Planning Commission members as to the points raised in the May 24th staff report. � s. Harrison, 694I Beach Road, saw the need for an extension across 494 with a �afe route for children going to school and community areas. Mr. Saxe, 6761 Beach Road, said that Alternative B which provides more access to the City would also slow down the traffic and hence reduce the safety hazard of. the one signal at Beach Road. Mr. Franzen, 68S1 Beach Road, questioned the need of extending the road to 494. Mr. Sorensen expressed the fact that there are other decisions that were made prior to now that had approved of a crosstown extension . He further noted that an an alternative that still exists is to do nothing. • Mrs. Harrison felt that the extension to Shady Oak seemed to dictate a need to connect some type of road to 494. Mrs. Haynes, 642S Beach Road, questioned whether the property at Beach Road and Crosstown intersection was commercial today. The planner responded that the pro • - perty is not zoned commercial today. Mr. Saxe said the Crosstown extension has been around for a long time and Mr.Kaefer who lives on Baker and the Crosstown has been experiencing problems with such an. expansion for the last 15 years. Fosnocht moved, Schee seconded, to continue consideration of the Crosstown extension to the June 14th meeting and to notify Hennepin County of the meeting for their comments. The motion carried unanimously. { • • • • approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 26, 1976 • C. Crosstown Extension, from Shady.Oak Road to I-494 . Revised plan illustrating access to Beach Road and Minnetonka Industrial Park. The planner informed the commission the county is requesting city approval on the revised Crosstown 62 extension. Dave Schimdt, Hennepin County Public Works Department, stated access would be provided to residents of Bryant Lake and to the Minnetonka Industrial Park with signals at Beach Road. Sorensen asked if improvements to Baker Road were part of the project. The planner said the staff has correspondence relative to the agreed improvements. Posnocht asked if Baker Road would have a signal or be a four..way stop. Mr. Schimdt stated Baker Road would have a signal. The planner believed the city would have to make land use decisions at the time they make the access decisions. ' • Posnocht asked if it was possible to have Beach Road go under the Crosstown. Mr. Schmidt said it was possible , but it would not provide access to the Crosstown for Beach Road traffic. Motion` Schee moved, Bearman seconded, to continue the item and asked the staff for - further research and dialogue on the alternatives, and to gain input from the - residents and landowners. The motion carried unanimously. • • • • • 2599 • • • STAFF PLANNING REPORT • • • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director DATE: May 20, 1976 SUBJECT: C.S.A.H. 62 CROSSTO1?N EXTENSION • Project No. 6839 • LOCATION: From Shady Oak Road , 1 mile west to I-494 • adjacent to the north boundary of Eden Prairie APPLICANT: Hennepin County Public Works Department • • A. PROPOSAL Hennepin County is proposing to extend 62 Crosstown to Baker Road intersection west of 1-494. Improvements would also include upgrading of Baker Road north and south of the intersection as well as other improvements as specific by Hennepin County. The extension to 494 would be built to a freeway design of a 70 mph design speed. No intersections or interchanges are proposed between 494 and Shady Oak except for Beach Road/Minnetonka Technology Park. ( Hennepin County is requesting the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka to approve the revised design as illustrated on the October 4, 1973 plan with a revision to Beach Road/ Cooley Road access which has been moved east from the present Beach Road access. B. BACKGROUND • Since the late 1950s the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has publicly committed itself to the completion of C.S.A.H. 62 to freeway standards between T.H. 55 in Minneapolis and F.A.I. 494 in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. Today C.S.A.H. 62 is completed and operating as a limited access freeway between T.H. 55 and C.S.A.H 61 in Minnetonka/ Eden Prairie. The proposed improvement to the Crosstown labeled Hennepin County Project 6839 will provide a controlled access, four lane freeway, between C.S.A.H: 61 and F.A.I. 494 thus completing ', the Crosstown freeway system. The Eden Prairie City Council in late 1974 approved Resolution 892 approving the revised layout dated 10-4-73 of the Crosstown extension from Shady Oak Road to 494. In that approval an access to Reach Road in Eden Prairie. ! was approved by the City Council. Meetings were held with property owners in the Beach Road area, the Planning Commission, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to formulate the City Council's position. In 1974 discussions of alternative accesses for Beach Road were considered, but due to the cost estimates,an:l the participation by the County and State, the City had no choice from the economic feasibility point of view other than ' the at grade intersection with the Crosstown for Beach Road. • .... • _ Gbo _.... Staff Report-Crosstown Extension -2- May 20, 1976 • C. DEFINITION OF TERMS Principal Arterial* • The principal arterial system 1s the foremost element In the roadway network. Principal arterials will be provided as a continuous system within the metropolitan area. They • are used to connect the subtegtons in the urban service area with each other;and to connect both the urban service area and the rural service area with the metropolitan centers. They also concoct the metro area to outstate centers. Principal arterials ' provide high speed travel, end should serve a high proportion of the total daily trip travel, Principal arterials should connect with other principal arterials and Intermediate arterials, Minot arterials may be connected on a selected basis only. Principal arterials should • not connect to collectors or local streets. In all cases they should be designed as fully control access facilities. Fully controlled access means that connections with other roadways should be only at grade separated interchanges and land access should not be provided between these points. Within the urban service area intersections • should all be grade separated, in the rural service area they slay be controlled, at grade intersections, such intersection.^, and selected minor arterials the access should • be consistent with maintainnance agricultural land use. Principal arterials provide a very limited percentage of total road mileage and their • spacing depends on trip density, area served, supporting use of transit, Intermediate and minor arterial availability, spacing and environmental factors. Principal arterial intersections with other arterials should be limited to four approach directions and in all appropriate cases they shculd be designed as multi-mode guideways for auto, buses, and/or other types of transit or oars-transit vehicles. Principal arterials should not connect to collectors or local streets. Establishment of the principal arterial system sets the framework for planning, location and size of other remaining classes. • • vjnor Arterials* • The Minor Arterials System complements and supports the Principe! and Intermediate System, but Is erfmarfly oriented toward travel within and between adjacent subregions. Minor Arterials are generally;wcedfrom ore-half mile to two miles apart and typically are two to four lane streets in the urban service area and two lane roads in the rural service area with signals or stop signs at major intcrnecttons. Minor Arterials are primarily oriented toward the prevision of submettopolltan mobility and any land access should be oriented to public streets end major traffic generators. Single family driveways onto minor artc_riels should be stronely.disccureged. Minor arterials ale generally not to be continuous across two or more subregions, Minor Arterials era also an important component of the transit system providing many of the routes for local transit service. Both design and lot'out of the minor arterial should reflect this when appropriate. • jnter:a_diate Arterials * • The Intermediate Arterial Arterial is the supporting element to the Principal Arterial system but differs in revere!ways. Irtermediete arterials connect two or more stifi'ae.,, regions within the metropolitan service area in high volum corridors and provide secondary connections to outstate areas. They also complement the principal arterials at locations in the urban service area where few minor arterials are available between subregions. In all cases they should be designed as controlled access using either controlled at grade or grade separated interchanges with land access restricted to major traffic • generators. Access should be controlied to connections with principal aterlals, Inter- medtnle arterials, minor arterial;and selected collectors only. lnter.oediate arterials provide a limited percentage ofctotel toad mileage and early a high percentage of daily 4 travel..•They also are components of transit rervlce as accessary and should be designed with bus service in mind. Their spacing de'eudc on trip density, area serviced, minor arterial availability, and environmental faders. intermediate arterials should not connect • to local streets. Together with the principal arterials, the Irtenrodiate arterials set the framework for planning, location and sine of minor arterials,collector streets, and focal streets. Staff Report-62 Crosstown Extension -3- . May 20, 1976 03 Controlled Access- An access or intersection between major roadways should j be a grade separated interchanges with no direct land • access provided. In other words a bridge.'and freeway ramp configuration. Controlled At grade Access Signalization , channelization of the intersecting roadways with direct land access limited to major traffic generators. An example would be the intersection' of T.H. S and Mitchell ' Road as a controlled at grade intersection. 1. K..._ 3.0MI • ..... ..i•.v^»sax cix�s-: •a..si t.ac�:::.... ..¢ax�r..x:•• �rays vy.C� •-t• I Iy ri t • if l Wry i' I �,� +1 :::34.Wannziaac5=mm0-n..i� �7C 4 ........ .I .......,...-.-.._ .... :i!). MAJOR CENTER t = co ,ter .r �r ..T zetsrm�J •tz) I,mo t /C • er-...S.Y::':'.�l]t;:iriCL'Ji:]L,S�.:.L^.u^uxilid•'+w.rz+nn , / —.'.` • V1 k—s•2 MI =1/2.2 M1 j''�"-AI4•f M1 Nm11nmM I iw PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ' 19 MS10 INTERMEDIATE ARTERIAL 11///'' INTERCHANGE WITH NO LAND ACCESS ...-....... MINOR ARTERIAL ( ] INTERCHANGES WITH LAND ACCESS COLLECTOR ... , GRADE SEPARATION • _, LOCAL 0SIGNAL OR FOUR-WAY STOP FJp u.20. SPACINU CHARACTERISTICS OF FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ' * December, 1975, final Draft of Metropolitan Transportation Development ( Guide Policy plan, pp. 78-79. • rn a6002- II i I A��1 k' i • -t_-.- EI11fi : \.;�% \ I 1` N.G l., II II 1 I I , lkA; . ..".+:i I:17.;" �'� •:•... ..., a '�raw^`;<ri r ,_..1.. --v.:. �.. 44 .�,,o t,tl! + • �µl( }./its' , I • ..;:: i 1---- ., . ;:,.,..,.,7--t tt..,.::!1 „. n •\„.. N.......,..iv . \ \ .. ,••.; .„. ,. 7, ifi.t...v.‘„?..• ,,c,, ,,.. • ..1 . / ,,. ..J P.:" 1‘0.'! !I •' I-,:- "1*- .C......-N,Cil nf-jut :Yea - �rT:� ' + •:.,1[ 1 �\ ..:.. cot ( r Au . e�v..• �•';LV J 1 : i i I I })/ c1 t, p1.p�cg L t I'I • i �.- Na •. �`.—" w°"• la • � 1 "`� r �' nL lE^+ J 4\5+3(. , .....ile): I L ''' ,.----'..,,„„,,,,..;'''''''..--:(----.-iii) I. , 1"' c, • _:...,.._. -. (fr'•:- .,';‘1;:;,---4-1.'•••,,:k., rt:i.i Il , , I (�U _ � 7 V* 1 : L C� -- ,,> �' s. it � 't\fE19 :--- ''''' \ -------A • '...---st, 1 J._..i_ . •(;.;";.,.11.- ,1 ... .,. VILLAGE OF EDEN N A6:`!E m; 11.4411111 4..r 1.. ... ... - .-.. . HORO00IIrnr[ PLAN LAND USE T • 4xw wr Orr 4w 071, t1[MNINI11T KIIOOI • INDUSIk1Al W`7' Mum HamK/1°°[ ".- commis _ • M[p { . .. RkWA1't Cld) MAIM(NWIIINI6 wWw"l.«r Mrr�rr4 rw (�ti) NItiM tow scum •' •A rye INIIk(I.AN4[ W.11MN1 Atclis CD WWLL(AMU F ass k[AM1 .[:(. N1114t11M / ...1 WIIII Ac[[SS ) PAM ��/) L [WAki' • STaff Report-62 Crosstown Extension ' -4- May 20, 1976 • • D. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH EDEN PRAIRIE AND METRO PLANS The proposed extension of Crosstown 62 to 494 permitting an at grade controlled intersection with Beach Road and Cooley Road in Minnetonka would be inconsis- tent with the intents of the Metropolitan Development Guide Transportation Policy Plan for intermediate arterials connecting with collector roadways. The projected traffic volumes of the Hennepin County Transportation Study Final Draft Report illustratcs22,000 vehicular trips estimated in the year 2000. These trips would rot require a freeway road design between Shady Oak and 494. The Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan adopted in 1968 does not indicate access either controlled , at grade , or grade separated at the Reach Road location. The plan also indicates a low density residential development north of Bryant Lake. The construction of at grade or grade separated controlled access to the Crosstown would create significant development pressures incon- sistent with the 1968 Guide Plan. • Construction of 494 , Crosstown, and 212 , has isolated the Bryant Lake area of Eden Prairie from the majority of the community . Such isolation reduces the ability of the residents of Bryant Lake to utilize community, school dis- trict resources, as well as minimizes the ability of the remainder of the city residents from use of the Bryant Lake regional facility. Access across 494 would be desirable in unifying community uses through a local street ( system, rather than requiring the use of regional metropolitan roadways for local community circulation. Alternative funding methods for Beach Road access must be given complete consideration viewing.the long term cost of each solution rather than the first stage capital costs, te;,,construction of an at grade intersection with Cooley and Beach Road may result in a grade spearated access at a future date if commercial, high density uses are constructed in the future. E. ALTERNATI\iE CROSSTOWN EXTENSION DESIGNS Alternative A-62 Designed to Freeway Standards with controlled grade separated access at Shady Oak and I-494 with no access to Cooley Road or Beach Road. Alternative B-62 of a freeway design with controlled grade separated access at Shady Oak and 494 excepting an at grade controlled land access to Beach Road and Minnetonka Technilogical Center. (CURRENT PLAN) .Alternativc C-Besign 62 as urban expressway with limited controlled access to parcels between Shady Oak and I-494 including Beach Road and Minnetonka Technilogical Center. • • Alternative D-62 designed as four lane undivided arterial roadway between Shady l Oak and 494 allowing limited direct land access . • 711 • °I ,i), A . : . 1 ( i . ki_i 8411 \VI • _ . . e)„_,, -----LL--\_-_a GL(1dFmA . 'l . . I 'fAII:ti At „.1..) -(esmittp . c /" Q. • -A---__r_1\1 6z.GrtYi1 •--1 , , forT-1, -,-----.. ----1--- --- tl • \ ettea_iLitz....ci', vt.A.on . ict):1 .........__. ci-j-4 °',o --Virt x. te! aCDas• ' • • Staff Report-62 Crosstown Extension -5- May 20, 197E Land Use and Transportation Impacts ;: The Eden Prairie planning staff in reviewing the 4 Crosstown extension alternatives to I.494 from Shady Oak Road, believe it important to point out potential impacts ( from various road designs. The staff recognizes discussion between the County Public Works Department, the residents affected and landowners in Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, respective city decision makers and regional transporta- tion planners are required to fully access the complete impact of each align- ment. • Public Safety Alternative A constructing freeway design would provide the greatest safety for through traffic on the Crosstown and adjacent landowners. With controlled access at 494 and Shady Oak definition of freeway ending at 494 would be clear to the motorists coming from 494 or the Crosstown. The traffic projec- tions by BRW of 22,000 average daily trips, would be well within the safety .limits of a freeway design facility and would not lead to traffic delays.' • Alternative B providing at grade signalized access to Beach Road and the Minnetonka Technilogical Center would add a completely nonexpected crossing to the freeway designed road . The signage and warning for such a signalized intersection must be extremely effective to avoid accidents. Also, the location of this access approximately 900 feet west of the bridge over Nine Nile Creek could create serious traffic safety problems in slippery or wet weather, particularly with a 630 foot long bridge that may become very dangerous in cold weather. The bridge has a minimum westerly slope dropping • approximately 3.5 feet from the eastern edge to the west. Compounding ( potential safety hazards of the bridge would be the lack of visibility far ahead of traffic moving from the east due to the grades of the Crosstown. For example, 900 feet east of the bridge motorist would be approximately • 10 feet lower than at the bridge thereby reducing visibility of conditions across the Nine Mile Creek bridge. N .:,Y l:;i'1 qc dt::. Ear 9 Fr,�,' P'1.,}�Ju.��0`_"/i,)!� ::��.' .. ".j �... ... �� p : _. ..51TST. ,.;:1�Y\ - ,Qp� . Fc W.SHTN Sl. g !I/4,.` . `� ! '° a�._.„_ _ _ STIIsST. Glen` t T11 1j��t4t:Z-Darn �ii A ,`:. !�o 211 • EDINA o'K _ 4..:, donl sT. � . 1 Lake t`1 i, i, .� / t�• —;I rop,AA 4 ._ I ... w: �. T. .. � , rt ...,.-:,,,I.,,_ _ ^T••..... ',',.__ r.S "-'I W.621ta ST. L...)HV �y" � JfYb r"^ t ' ^' ^Y- N-1 ... I(�1 11,\. 4.6.4+,''4 ? V.. ..-;:' n•nrT.' _..ice+. �•. .. . 1 [;i `` 7 Tp ���'•�f it l �'ra t J/ ~ N W. 46T11 ST i �" «'('+� y- \.s` _ GI/ :1.e� J LukrL I ti :WyGtTa ST.a I , 1 Bryan! (•��1/I.�.; 7 tj:= fY a-'�.'' - � w.+� W IOTH ET Qe. ._..:•1-1 Ai I� ,! un �'`I':Indi(a iltoaCl t:--.y.. "*.,.,, •1•l,.;r ...+... ..� r •:.", r 16�,•, A, !v-. p}i i!v. L. < �i' W.72ND Si. :?{ W T3 l 1 c • •1.r ,.,.'�:,'*.,S•,/ ti, } IIIHISCVS AV[. W, •p )tin sT -.\-'--(...... e r•�� � ' SOS .../ 1u '� SIII St(.,, ''',..,sr.A r.i i 1 " ,R,�r Ay.l , tM 1w ` ' ..n (�« . � .i.A,S. r�I • f.JI _ -M i ry f �Id d . , Iz7V�1.pr.. r.,. C\... r...,./'-1‘' _ i.. T.i-- • :,;::;:Li..m, .-n,`9w' sour ST II 1;:)1 0—r,Lt'XJ Nip.•('.t:'', v'.':4m. A L, I,!A!"':"-NI I /..,.•4.[rt.r H•I1' .-n...•r.•141�..♦ I'"s..:44�4u .:. C.. _� ... 111 Approximately 1,100 feet west of the proposed Beach Road, Cooley Road crossing would be the intersection with the 494 ramps. By placing Beach Road's intersection inbetween the bridge and 494's ramps, the effective stacking - for automobiles waiting for stop lights, and hence stopping distances after coming off of the bridge is approximately reduced in half. The potential for auto accidents with the Beach Road, Cooley Road access would be enlarged if the land uses were to take on a higher density, higher trip - . character such as commercial and office, rather than the proposed use in • Eden Prairie today of low density residential. With the signalized improved access to the Crosstown such development in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie would be very likely further aggravating the traffic safety of the proposed intersection. Alternatives C and D would involve a redesign of the roadway to less than freeway standards and would hence slow the traffic beginning at Shady Oak Road to a 45 or 50 mph range. The road design would warn motorists that they are changing from a freeway standard to expressway or urban arterial design •with signalized intersections . Such a design would not be assa€e as a freeway design, but may be comparable with Alternate B permitting.access at Beach Road. Further study by traffic safety experts would be necessary for complete evaluation. • Metropolitan Roadway Compatibility l The recently approved Metropolitan Transportation Policy Plan reflects a down grading of the Crosstown from 212 west to 494 from principal arterial to intermediate arterial. West of 494 the Crosstown would be a minor arterial. Clearly the extension to 494 from Shady Oak is necessary to complete the freeway grid system within the 494 loop. Future projections show the lowest volumes on the entire Crosstown occuring between Shady Oak and 494. Also, the jurisdiction proposed would be county rather than state jurisdiction proposed west of the intersection of the Crosstown and 212. Alternative A and B seem to respond to the Metropolitan Highway System Plan better than C and•D as the'freeway design completes the existing Crosstown system. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT • As discussed in the March 2, 1974 report by the Eden Prairie planning staff on the proposed Oct. 4, 1973 alignment, significant grading, land alteration and environmental change is expected with the freeway construction. The nature of the terrainithe vegetation and land 'uses make construction of a freeway type I road most difficult. Without evaluating an alternative design for urban arterial or expressway, one cannot make adequate comparisons. The staff estimates that . an urban arterial , four lane design, could require less disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation than the proposed freeway because of the lower • design speeds, reduced right-of-way and design/construction standards. c�.L 97 1 . \\ .,, i, �. t�` '• /▪�-^ �,.� 1`a •, 7/ _•_='-• •+ — /`(.41;.'' \\� \ /.ram 1�1J ,. ';•.., c''"yl4 ,' V , /////7'•• ''�" -- fir' Al \�; \, ,' r. , J/.- .1\\ ,t,,�1�r ( . :':,.-1 01)/)//(-:c '\// (--,C.c‘„..;(_..,.. 1.1.1__._..____,. .I .„ .... r,... .,1,,_ . .... -... , ,,,,,;,,,.., i-c,) ,,,,,---,... - - --- _,..,. N__<:-..1,,i.___, ,-_-1_,, , -,••4 . !�:.)./.:;-. .,1 ':\ \ 11 1�~?fir/ ='\} w!�t+L. r,i 1' t ytl.71�1v.y fU '1i''a �r) , ! '� yc„t/ ,.i 1 _ r iJt i ,,./ i 1 :,f`` •1- ,• ' 1).7: ..Ij,:•: ,'.. • ) 'rJ.0 7•.. ter 1 \) i 04,,,,- r \• \ • `^\( r1 4.,,,,,.....,.....:,>e‘ „,,....„.c.\,,` : �R 1\ 'J 1 G, {j2jj ,•' I,, ,.. !'• .� '• ,.r<'1'G. 1 1. ' .- lII `` I- .....,.. .11 r. .Q...1. -7- . ( The design for Alternatives A and B respond in a positive manner to the l environmental concerns raised in the original staff report by an extensive •high bridging of the Nine Mile Creek Valley and using a high.alignment; thereby reducing cuts through the major north/south hills. It is fair to say that any road construction between the existing 494 ramps and the . Shady Oak termination of the Crosstown would require significant environ- . mental alteration and disturbance of the existing area. . Land Use • • Minnetonka has envisioned industrial development between Shady Oak Road and 494 extending north to Milwaukee/St. Paul Railroad . Minnetonka has • reconstructed Rowland and Bren Road to accommodate industrial , office traffic using the Shady Oak and Baker Roads as major access points. The Minnetonka plan does not show access to the Crosstown between Shady Oak and 494 . Currently the Minnetonka Tochnilogical Park is zoned for multiple residential , industrial and light commercial development. The property adjacent to the Crosstown, west of Nine Mile Creek, is not zoned ,but would be commercial or industrial depending on access to the Crosstown. Eden Prairie has approximately 40-60 acres lying north of Bryant Lake and currently used for estate homes or undeveloped.vacant land. The City's, Comprehensive Guide Plan envisioned lower density residential development and a city regional park on the high hills south of the Crosstotim overlooking ( Bryant Lake. The single family area south along Bryant Lake is The Cove which is large single family lots with expensive homes. The planning staff believes that moving the Beach Road access from its present location approixmately 600 feet east and building a frontage road will provide high ' quality access to the residents of Beach Road and to the undeveloped properties overlooking Bryant Lake . Controlled at grade access to the Crosstown 62 within view from 494 will likely lead to a petition for rezoning and development of ;high density residential,office or commercial properties south of the Crosstown in Eden Prairie. No other property has at grade access to the Crosstown between 494 and Ill 55. The pressure for high traffic generating development would be anobvi,ous outcome of such a road design and may lead to construction to a grade separated controlled access in the future because of the high traffic generating land uses in Minnetonka and Eder Prairie. . • Of course the City Councils of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka have the ultimate control of the land uses adjacent to the Crosstown, however, the access potential will have a signficant affect on the ultimate land usage and to deny that fact would be a mistake in the Planning Staffs opinion. • _g_ . • • (: . ( Access to Bryant Lake Park ' 'Alternative A would confine access to Bryant Lake Park to Shady Oak Road or if alternative access to Beach Road could be found to Baker Road across 494. Alternatives B, C and D would provide opportunities • for improved access to Bryant Lake Park which is a regional and community • open space facility . Alternative B could utilize the Beach Road connection with construction of a parkway road along the north edge of Bryant Lake, • thereby providing high quality access to Bryant Lake Park. Alternative C and D would allow access between Shady Oak and Rowland or at Rowland Road providing high quality access to the park. ALTERNATIVE BEACH ROAD ACCESS 1. If alternative A with no access for Beach Road to the Crosstown were' constructed, alternative access to Beach Road would be required. .The alternatives would be : a. connection of Beach Road east to Rowland Road through Bryant Lake Park. b. connection of Beach Road south alone 494 to the Eden Prairie Schooner Boulevard in the MCA. c. connection west across 494 to Baker Road ,C.S.A.H. # 60. d. connection to Cooley Road and the Minnetonka Technilogical Park over or under the Crosstown with no access. The cost of the alternative5as well as the at grade access for Cooley Road and Beach Road were considered by the County and the City. In a memo of July 15, ( the minutes of a meeting between the Eden Prairie City Council and Hennepin County Commissioner Ticen) , the alternatives were considered. At that time the county was willing to commit $250,000 toward providing access to the Beach Road properties , and based upon that county contribution and the estimated cost of the alternatives , the City Council decided to leave Beach Road as an at grade crossing at its present location since the city had no funds to pay for access for Beach Road residents. f In light of the proposed realignment of Beach Rd. and Cooley Road and the potential for high traffic generating land uses the staff believes the cost of a future grade I separated, controlled access interchange with Beach Road/Cooley Road should be considered in the total cost for alternative access to Beach Road. • • . . 1. • _____ _......... _ t . • ,...,\ . • . . :• . 1 • • \ . . .. .. • ,,,I.......: . 0,_ , a \-:---2.f.-/,fr......_::•-----4 --- \c",,,i ...-----, .\\ \ . • • • I \k\t utl i . tt, , \ if 21) . 2., . . \..,..,......,,, ct.../(ri,!,1..,.1.,:t,,,i,-1.. (7/7/7.1 ' \"\\ \Ys',4 yt\N-\\____ ..;,\‘‘ (4-1., . • t `�-. �a� Imo 1. .,.,_•;' tie .'%. „.,1, t `� . ii�= >'-�.' a t'C%1 a -10- • SUMMARY The approval of the Crosstown alignment between Shady Oak and 494 along with • improvements to Baker Road's intersection have more impact than simply • the road design approvals. The staff believes the future character of the northern end of Bryant Lake will be significantly affected by the road design decision. Also, the future safety considerations for traffic in this.area will be determined by the ultimate road and access design. • 'Another consideration should he the impact upon existing commercial and industrial development within the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka including Opus II and the Major Center Area. • At grade access to the Crosstown as proposed in the revised Mcnnpin County Plan would open up significant commercial/industrial development areas with higher quality access than • either.Opus II or the Eden Prairie Major Center Area. At this time neither Minnetonka or Eden Prairie is short of industrial/ commercial property which has already been assessed for major public improvements as well as zoned for commercial and industrial purposes. • • The planning staff raises these points, not as recommendations, but as l considerations that may be important to the City Councils decision. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Council Mint s 4 Aug. 27,19 74 C. Request by Hennepin County for approval of proposed alignment and profile for the construction of CSAH 62, Crosstown Highway -Project No. 6839, from Shady Oak Hoad to 1-494. Mr. Heinrich presented the proposed alternate routes and their relative costs. He summarized the agreements reached with County officials on July 15, 1974, specificali • the alignment of Co. Road 60 to eliminate the sharp turns, the improvements on Co. Road 62 between Scenic Heights and T.H. 101 to handle anticipated traffic, and the • ,designation of Baker/Mitchell Road from T.H. 5 to Co. 60 as County-State Aid Highway. Mr. Fransen, Beach Road, opposed any road through park land and asked about the possibility of bike access .under 494. Mr. Lee, Hennepin County, said that no policy has been set for bike trails and that night safety factors prove no recommendation for their consideration. Mayor Osterholt asked about the possibility of a clover- leaf intersection at 494 and 62. Mr. Lee said there was years ago, but not now. Motion by Penzel, seconded by Pauly, to close the hearing. and adopt Resolution No. 892 approving Layout No. 6 for CSAH 62 (Crosstown Highway) Project No. 6839, from Shady Oak Road to 1-494 and granting approval to commence right-of--way acquisition, subject to the memo of the City Maneger dated 8/9/74 and received; and that the County agree to signalization at Beach Road; and that the County deal with the property owners concerned with the right-of-way acquisition on Baker Road. Meyers asked t?at pedestrian and bike access be included. Penzel agreed. Motion carried unanimously. • • IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, & COHMUNICATIONS: A. Communication from tir.R.M. Robinson, District Traffic Engineer, State of�•iinnesota, regarding the traffic operations at the T.H. 169 - CSAH 60 interchange. Motion by Penzel, seconded by►teyers, that the staff be directed to return the Ccuncil's concern to the traffic engineer and urge re- consideration of his decision, that stop-signing is essential. Motion carried unanimously. • atm :.•...w�.raw.wwa._.w�w .-.- �..., a.. ...•.. ►ra. .a•.ti::a♦ ..ti..«.....4v... :'q:?.i...w".4.�.!%rlr:. MEMO TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Heinrich, City Manager • • DATE: August 9, 1974 SUBJECT: Approval of Crosstown Highway Project No. 6839 • City Council approval for Layout No. 6 for CSAH 62, showing the proposed alignment and profile for the construction of the Crosstown Highway from Shady Oak Road to Interstate 494, is recommended at this time, based upon agreements reached at a meeting held at the Eden Prairie City Hall on July 15, 1974 attended by County Commissioner Ticen, Director of Pub- . lic works Art Lee, Sam Fisher and Don Galloway of the County Staff, Mayor Osterholt, Councilman Penzei, Councilwoman Pauly, City Engineer Carl Jullie and myself. • A summary of these agreements is listed as follows: 1. The County will agree to participate in an amount up to $250,000 to provide alternate access to Beach Road in lieu of an at-grade intersection with the Crosstown Highway as originally proposed by the County. 2. Co. Road 62 will be designated as a County State Aid Highway from Scenic Heights Drive to T.H. 101 and improvements will l be made thereon to provide a properly surfaced roadway to handle anticipated traffic between T.H. 101 and the Crosstown Highway. 3. Alignment corrections to eliminate the sharp curves on Co. Road 60 (Baker Road) north of existing Valley View Road will be completed on or before the opening of the Crosstown Highway to I-494. 4. Baker/Mitchell Road from T.H. 5 to present Co. Road 60 will be designated as a County State Aid Highway. Opening of the re- maining unimproved segment between new Valley View Road and present Co. Road 60 will coincide with opening of the Crosstown Highway. County participation in the traffic signal at T.H. 5 and Baker/Mitchell Rd. will be 25% of the project cost. 5. County Road 60 from Baker/Mitchell Road to Co. Road 39 and Co. Road 39 between Co. Road 60 and Co. Road 18 shall remain designated as County Highways, subject to future review. Future review will also be necessa{y regarding designation of Co. Road 61 (Shady Oak Road) from new T.H. 169-212 to Co. Road 18. 6. County participation in the Ring Road Project may be possible to the extent that the County will pay a proportional share of roadway improvements consistent with its policies as applied to similar situations in other communities. CJJ/kh . . . . I. •. -, ... . - �i.� 2.1. 7,i'..'?!.•_Jt:. .. :.1 /.rs• t.:; • June 22, 1976 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1150 • • RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON MITCHELL ROAD AT SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD I.C. 51-270 BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: • Roadway parking on Mitchell Road shall be allowed only on the west side of the street from 250 ft. south of to 400 ft. north of Scenic Heights Road, in accordance with the rules and regulations regard- ing Municipal State Aid Street Construction, SAP 181-105-01, I.C. 51-270. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie city Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk l CaIS .. • June 22, 1976 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1151 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND CAT.T,ING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING ON EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD, I.C. 51-293 • WHEREAS, a petition has been received requesting the following improvements: I.C. 51-293, 3" Re-cycled blacktop surface with an oil seal, and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that the improt%ement is feasible and will benefit the abutting properties to be assessed at an • estimated rate of $1.00 per front foot, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendations and the assessment of property abutting for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to M.S.A. Sect. 429.011 to 429.111. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 13th day of July, 1976, at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7:30 o'clock P.M. The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as required by law. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on . Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • • John D. Frane, Clerk 2GtG CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA • pETITION FOE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT • • • To The Eden Prairie City Council: The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City • Council to consider making the following described improvements(s): (General Location) Sanitary Sewer Watennain • Storm Sewer Street Paving 3" tifil�"'*. • Other CM�1 ti`G � ?Q 'CL — 9u 3 •64i v �Q" Street Address or Other • Legal Description of Names of Petitioners Property to be Served (lust De Property Owners) ) ry , f • n.. `�V1 L!J_ PA t>.{tom �/e �;S , .,ram ���.f'r�A i � • � • • (For City Use) Date Received 41/H/7{' • Project No. Council Consideration 6/2217tr. g . a c 2r' i l'il\II 1 il I (3700) N SC.Att / z Z00 (3425) 1 �E T/T/011/EQS 0 I 0 S.T,Q E ET RIV/NB • i 4. i t I . ` 1 t • (4025) t I I ` a 2pp 1 �y t v I N 4'i AC of F y2 of SW V4 of 5 E.tia•///i' 0 (n1^4c of Si,S£) 1 I l _35.7 (4040� t ._ tL3r, O • yr 7Co.04 ter" .. 'I L,t L �.> 1 4 S (4045) g,_ '"f• tta :� ; '/� $4 r WSJ b1." SUR100Pey (4050) N/� o V• 4 6• 4 kR l•4 Jjdo • ,.nnlrut UKUtK i DATED June 17, 1976 PROJECT: Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Watermain � and Street Improvements ENGINEER'S PROJECT N0:753039 OWNER: City of Eden Prairie CONTRACT DATE: April 6, 1976 OWNER'S PROJECT NO. I.C. 51-274 BID NO. TO: G, L. Contracting, Inc. CONTRACTOR, You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract: OWNER City of Eden Prairie E Y By City Manager Mayor Date Date: Nature of the Change: Construct 8-618 curb and gutter and surface "D" Drive with: 3D" select granular borrow; 6" Class 5 (100% crushed); 4" MHD 2331 bituminous base course; 2" MHD 2341 bituminous wear course; all according to the line and grade as shown On Plan Sheet 8. Enclosures: Schedule.of established quantities The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Time: Contract Price Prior to This Change Order $ 487,832.40 Net Increase Resulting from This Change Order $ 16 285.00 Current Contract Price including This Change Order $ 504,117.40 Contract Date Prior to This Order April 6, 1976 Current Contract Date Including This Change Order April 6, 1976 1 The above changes are approved: The above changes are accepted: RIEKE CARROLL LLER ASSOCIATES, INC. E neer G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. Contractor By ' By Date 6/ i 7/76 Date • 26a CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 'APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES Contract Contract Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total C-2 Bituminous Base Course (MHD 2331) TON 370 6.20 $ 2,294.00 C-4 Bituminous Wear Course (MHD 2341) TON 185 6.20 1,147.00 C-5 Bituminous Material for Mix TON 26• 75.00 1,950.00 C-6 Class 5 Modified (100% crushed) TON 700 3.20 2,240.00 C-7 Select Granular Borrow TON 3350 • 1.50 5,025.00 C-9 Tack Coat GAL 415 0.60 249.00 C-10 B-618 Curb and Gutter LF 900 3.20 2,:-n.00 C-11 Top Soil and Sod SY 500 1.00 500.00 TOTAL $16,285.00 RG919 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST June 22, 1976 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family) David W. Durst & James D. Gans Windsor Development Corp. • Metro Major Builders Landico, Inc. CONTRACTOR (Multi-family & Comm•) Sherwood Construction PLUMBING Hayes Contractors TEMPORARY BEER LICENSES Eden Prairie Jaycees: Calico Ball - June 26 July 4th Celebration at Round Lake These licenses have been approved by the department head responsible for the licensed activity. Rebecca Quernemoen, Deputy Clerk ,2Ge2G June 18, 1976 STATE OF MINNESOTA 1 ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 1 The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 1 05-28-76 1597 VOID OUT CHECK (172.12) 06-04-76 1689 CASH For Round Lake change fund 25.OD 1690 STATE OF MINNESOTA Taxes withheld for the month of May 4,068.63 1691 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Taxes withheld 5-28 payroll 4,508.18 1692 UNITED FUND Donations withheld 5-28 payroll 25.46 1693 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Employees withheld and employers ASSOC. contributions 5-28 payroll 4,155.84 06-11-76 1694 BULLSEYE RELOADING Ammunition-Public Safety dept. 66.02 1695 INSTY-PRINTS Service-Public Safety dept. 14.45 1696 HENNEPIN VOCATIONAL SCHOOL Fire training for firemen 135.00 1697 INSTY-PRINTS Service-Public Safety dept. 12.95 1698 POSTMASTER Postage for flyers-Teen Work program 67.14 1699 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPER- Union dues withheld for the month ATING ENGINEERS of June 27.00 06-14-76 1700 UNITED WAY Donations withheld 6-11 payroll 25.46 1701 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Taxes withheld 6-11 payroll 4,484.52 1702 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Employees withheld and employers ASSOC. contribution 6-11 payroll 4,160.71 06-16-76 1703 HENNEPIN COUNTY Trailer license - Park dept. 2.00 1704 STATE OF MINNESOTA May sales tax report 409.86 ( 1705 PETTY CASH Reimbursement of petty cash fund 47.98 1706 AMERICANA BEST WESTERN Room charges for Public Safety officers during driving school 112.00 06-18-76 1707 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK Fee for destroying of coupons 175.00 1708 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK Bond payments 108,941.68 1709 ART MATERIALS, INC. Supplies for Engineering dept. 3.50 1710 ACTION REDDY RENTS "` Equipment rental for drainage control 85.00 1711 WILLIAM BYE June service 60.00 1712 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES Service - Guide Plan • 6,505.50 1713 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Testing service-Red Rock 2nd 478.60 1714 CHANHASSEN AUTO PARTS Shop materials and equipment parts 183.10 1715 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC CO. Parts-Lift station -4 " 11.60 1716 CARLSON & CARLSON Utility staking-Red Rock 2nd 1 720.00 1717 DALCO Cleaning supplies ,4<, o,•' 109.42 1718 DE VEAU BUS CO. Bus service-Park dept. & tour 396.00 1719 EDEN PRAIRIE SANITATION May & June service 8.00 1720 EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN Reimbursement for property CHURCH appriasal 300.00 1721 CHRIS ENGER Mileage 36.60 1722 ESS BROTHERS & SONS Supplies-Drainage control 0n '` 80.00 1723 ELK RIVER CONCRETE Pipe for correction of drainage,,,; ' problem-Cedar Forest addition 904.75 1724 FEED-RITE CONTROLS Polyphosphate 801.00 1725 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. Employees insurance-June 359.86 1726 GENERAL SPORTS Bases & softballs-Park dept. 696.00 1727 MRS. GUETHING Refund on tennis 8.00 1728 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS Office supplies 351.85 1729 GOLD MEDAL BEVERAGE CO Pop for concessions 108.20 1730 MEDCENTER HEALTH PLAN Employees insurance-June 558.26 . , n rc�a�i _... r June 18, 1976 06-18-76 1731 HOWE-INC. Fertilizer-Park dept. 156.80 ( 1732 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Gasoline 3,388.48 1733 HORIZON AGENCY, INC. Umbrella insurance 1,600.00 1734 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS Subscription-Assessing dept. 14.50 1735 JEAN JOHNSON Mileage 10.70 1736 MARK JACQUES Mileage 18.44 1737 KELLY SERVICES Community Services dept. 74.83 1738 KRAMERS HARDWARE Supplies-Water plant maintenance 430.82 1739 ROBERT KERN Mileage 29.75 1740 JOHN LATZKE Mileage 9.90 1741 SHELLEY LYON Refund on gymnastics 10.00 1742 LINHOFF Services-Planning dept. 33.35 1743 M. E. LANE, INC. Liability insurance 17,600.00 1744 LEEF BROS. Rugs and rags 141.70 1745 3M BUSINESS PRODUCTS Copy maching-Public Safety dept. 68.00 1746 JOAN MEYERS June service 60.00 1747 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Sewer service charges-July .��,.,,,�,-_• 13,156.90 �-1748 MINNETONKA COMMUNITY SERVICES Tickets-Community Services wept. 160.00 " 1749 METROPOLITAN ANIMAL PATROL May services 791.25 1750 MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Annual dues 10.00 1751 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL Sewer access charges 618.75 S 1752 MINNESOTA TORO, INC. Maint. parts-Park dept. 225.00 1753 ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES Dues 788.00 1754 BRIAN MIKKELSON Gym leader services 30.00 1755 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. Asphalt-Drainage control 124.23 1756 METROPOLITAN FIRE EXTINGUISHER Recharge extinguishers-Fire dept. 21.00 1757 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK Accounting & storage services 206.99 1758 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK Bond payment 14,949.55 1759 NORTHWESTERN BELL Service 1,112.71 1760 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. Services 1,168.14 1761 SIDNEY PAULY June services 60.00 1762 WOLFGANG PENZEL June services • 80.00 1763 TIM PIERCE June services 60.00 1764 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN Employees insurance-June 2,254.32 1765 PERBIX, HARVEY, SIMONS & THORFINNSON Services 6,148.10 1766 DICK PUTNAM May expenses 111.95 1767 PEPSI-COLA CO. Employees pop 161.50 1768 JIM RESCH Golf instruction services 828.00 1769 ROTO-ROOTER Refund on pumping permit 5.50 1770 RAINBOW SIGNS, INC. Cards-Public Safety dept. 4.50 1771 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC. Service-Red Rock 2nd, Industrial Blvd, Preserve Area F Div., Minn Protective Life, Lochdnburn Area, School Road Paving and Mitchell Lk Pub Pemtom 23,175.40 1772 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES Portable restrooms for parks 475.46 1773 W. GORDON SMITH CO. Fuel & oil 94.01 ( 1774 ST PAUL 800K CO. Office supplies 33.75 1775 STATE OF MINNESOTA Services-Th169 140.62 1776 DONNA STANLEY May services 109.50 1777 TOWN'S EDGE FORD Equipment parts & service 174.89 1778 THOMPSON PLBG. Refund on Plbg. permit 15.00 2G1.k June 18, 1976 06-18-76 1779 TWIN CITY TESTING Testing water-Riverview springs and Miller springs 459.50 1780 TOP NOTCH AUTO SUPPLY Equipment-Community Service dept. 11.00 ( 1781 DAN THOMPSON Tennis instruction services 517.50 1782 WESTERN LIFE INS. Employees insurance-June and employees life insurance withheld from payroll 575.50 1783 DEAN WESTMAN Reimbursement for supplies-Summer Teen Work program 30.10 ' 1784 A WEISMAN CO. Food-Concessions 132.93 1785 WATER PRODUCTS CO. Parts and supplies-Water dept. 206.33 1786 XEROX CORPORATION Service 908.02 1787 G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. Contract-Preserve Area F Division Est. Ho. 2 200,159.43 1788 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO. Contract-Beach Rd. & Circle Est. 5 Lochanburn Area Est. No. 9 20,049.83 1789 MINNESOTA VALLEY SURFACING Contract-Woodland & Martin Dr. Est. No. 4and5 12,431.64 1790 BARBAROSSA & SONS, INC. Contract-Bryant Lake Swr. Est.15 125,189.85 1791 BROWN & CRIS CONSTRUCTION Contract-Red Rock 2nd-Est. No. 1 17,386.79 1792 DIANE DALEIDEN Refund on archery 5.00 1793 KEITH JENSEN Refund on archery 5.00 - 1794 JEFF KING Refund on archery 5.00 ' 1795 DAN MCMAHON Refund on beginners swimming 6.00 1796 STUART STANLEY Refund on archery 5.00 i 1797 SUE MARTINSON Refund on gym 10.00 1798 LINDA MARTINSON Refund on gym 10.00 1799 GAIL WESSELS Refund on gym 10.00 1800 SUSAN OSTLAND Refund on gym 10.00 1801 JOELY HODAPP Refund on gym 10.00 1802 JOHN EIGEN Refund on swimming '6.00 1803 LEE PAVELKA Refund on swimming 6.00 1804 HALLIE ROGERS Refund on horseback riding 37.00 1805 CURT BERGQUIST Fireman services 476.00 1806 LANCE BRACE Fireman services 340.00 1807 BRUCE BREN Fireman services 410.00 1808 RON BURKE Fireman services 492.00 1809 DUANE CABLE Fireman services 372.00 1810 ROBERT CHRISTIANSON Fireman services 62.00 • 1811 GARY CLARK Fireman services 210.00 1812 JAMES CLARK Fireman services 232.00 1813 SPENCER CONRAD Fireman services 312.00 1814 WALLY CONRAD Fireman services 206.00 1815 LARRY DOIG Fireman services 270.00 1816 MICHAEL GERDTS Fireman services 804.00 1817 JACK HACKING Fireman services 366.00 1818 FRED HAFFNER Fireman services 740.00 1819 TOM HEELAN Fireman services 286.00 1820 JOHN HOBBS, SR. Fireman services 232.00 1821 JOHN HOBBS, JR. Fireman services 386.00 1822 GENE JACOBSON Fireman services 862.00 1823 DUANE JOHNSON Fireman services 300.00 • 1324 . DAVID KASHMARK fireman services 484.00 ' 1825 STEPHEN KLEIN Fireman services 124.00 1826 MARVIN LAHTI Fireman services 500.00 ' 1827 M. E. LANE, JR. Fireman services 202.00 1828 TONY LICALSI Fireman services 112.00 1829 ROBERT LISTIAK Fireman services 362.00 1830 LOWELL LUND Fireman services 582.00 I June 18, 1976 06-1r '6 1831 JIM MATSON Fireman services 470.00 1832 RAY MITCHELL Fireman services 1,266.00 1833 BERNARD NEUMANN Fireman services 204.00 1834 HAROLD NORDSLETTEN Fireman services 138.00 1835 CURTIS OBERLANDER Fireman services 540.00 1836 JOHN PALMER Fireman services 194.00 1837 MARTY PAULSON Fireman services 442.00 1838 DOUG PLEHAL Fireman services 610.00 1839 GERALD PR000EHL Fireman services 344.00 1840 STAN RIEGERT Fireman services 694.00 1841 NORBERT ROGERS Fireman services 622.00 1842 MIKE ROGERS Fireman services 372.00 1843 EUGENE RUUD Fireman services 154.00 1844 CHUCK SCHAITBERGER Fireman services 534.00 1845 HARVEY SCHMIDT Fireman services 238.00 1846 GERALD SCHWANKL Fireman services 516.0D 1847 EUGENE SPANDE Fireman services 344.00 1848 VERN STEPPE Fireman services 324.00 1849 BURT SUTTON Fireman services 636.00 1850 WAYNE TRAASETH Fireman services 206.00 1851 ARVID VANGSNESS Fireman services 264.00 1852 JULES HF�MAN 600.00 h TOTAL 632,620.21 (