HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/07/1976 ERN i'RAirRIE CiTY COUN:-1L
;,r ;,1', f,!Li11rtE4 7, 1976 7:30 PM, CM IIAIL
i-I—IL i ir;C..,'.S: Mayct lc.;fgan Pcrzel Billy Eye, Sidn°
Pauly, J:,;r;t Meyersrid Tim Pierce
C .. :CIL FF' City Manager Roger Utstad; City Attm4..
Marlon Perbix; Plaonen Dick Putw,m;
Director John F,-ane; Director of Cn : ,'
Services Marty Jessen; Fnci,•ce: Carl
Joyce Provo, Recording Src,et:Yry
a'
i'..6O;it71U:2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL
I. A,°Fr'OT.L OF AL 1; -; AO OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS t
II. PR i T[,i'a! re BTUTE'S CONTRIBUTION FOR CIVIL, f'
PE i S fS ' i i1 31 S1Ai- REPRESE.NdiAlIVF UOJGLAS
III. 11:1!UTE.5 OF THE C:,),hIr,Al NEETIEG CONL TUESDAY, NOTE': rR 9, 1°76. Pay t 1
.••'icested IV. PU I R1135 f
Tires-
8:05 i, u ue• " ".' ,-t Cc ?rt-'ion reclort 4.6,
re ort t,1 ao ro+.a1 Pa_;' '
of e1,' x I:.r L , • S ecrE fi 1 n1 n Office. The ;it is .
.
_ loco ; 1:: t h ncrt_h c'.t c;'�a '+f.n;: ,` ..•,O`N 62 and Co. Rd. 12.
_,.
(Ordinance Re 53)
3•; Co neh re k,iitn. ,nc;• for rezoning r
. , Pa;-,e 3430
L sciic1.
r
for apro>.imateif 3 acres. The
sll-e is 1 ,c ettd n this •cute .t: corner of Co. Rd. 60 and
I-4is4 rs,c.,.:nce ramp. (Ordinance No. 355))
S."5 .- I1:45 C. Arcs G n of ' Prrs r+r, Co rt al Flar, request for approval Pave 343F7
,f 4 yelo,.f•'eo Staniar` r 'ci:,.,1r iroil (rural to C-Repiof+l
S..-vice [r5 h`rli,iary plat ppre ?1. the site is locate
ir. the n.n t:,ei.si qu..ii a .t cif Schooner Gou1e vard any US i;W/2 12
6
. intc_ .,.ct.ou (Jrdtnance iid. 357 and Rraoliltiun i;,). 1217) .
It:1', C. Jr'r ` +dc{: J, Scl I trnn License. i.
L. St( 1hiri 1.r'% Str rt Properties, request to preliminzpy Page 3459
p1i,t tp. rch i, ,And recow., Tupvic!a Acres 1st Addition frost, Rur,•1
to NM 6.5 for ,-,ogle f..sily a:Id/or douhie bungalow: dwellings. :E
(O din,r^:u :,u. 354 and r:eselution No. 1216)
1C.15 F. `:'^ v rt. r r:,d "aterr•;,in it,,rovcc. nts on lierit3ne Road, Page 121
1:C ' "_lU t'tesolution Ne. 122UT —
I` - l e:45 G. Ent ,' rl est Aut twonts. The Pro servo, request for rezoning f r Page uu
kuim I to 1•' un 8.98 acres nor 120 rental apartmentt.: -
I Th^ site is Ic,cated west of The Preserve Center. (Ordis; .
No. 356)
10
Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,December 7, 1976
V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 352, repealing Ordinance
Page 3317 '
No. 158, which is the Ordinance licensing and regulating
the sale of intoxicating liquor by certain clubs within
the Village o een Prairie.
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 343, Creekwood double bungalow Page 3530
and single family detached, Hustad Development Corporation,
rezoning from rural to RM 6.5 and rezoning agreement.
C. Resolution No. 1219, establishing precinct boundaries Page 3537
for the City of Eden Prairie.
D. Resolution No. 121B, Municipal Industrial Development Bonds Page 3538
fi
for Physical Electronics.
• VI. REPORTS DF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council members.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Suburban Public Health Nursing Service (continued Page 3548 i,
• from 11/23/76).
C. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Kucher/Deaver Properties (continued from 11/23/7G). Page 3549
2. Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Five-Year Capital •
Improvement Program (continued from 11/23/76).
D. Report of City Engineer
1. T.H. 169 right-of-way agreement with C. Anderson, J. Schwartz,Page 3551
and the City of Eden Prairie.
E. Report of Finance Director
1. Payment of Claims Nos. 2937 - 2980.
Page 3562
2. Clerk's License List. Page 3563
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. ti.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
•
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 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 Engineer Carl Jullie
Recording Secretary Joyce Provo
INVOCATION: City Manager Roger Ulstad
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were requested to be added to the Agenda under the "New
Business" category:
A. Offer of First National Bank of Hopkins to sponsor a member of the
City Council to a conference to be held December 2 and December 3.
(. B. Appointment of a Youth Member to the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission.
C. Report on Dutch Elm Disease as request^d by Council.
D. Requests for Public Hearings.
E. Informal discussion on Chanhassen's proposal to connect to Eden Prairie's •
Duck Lake-1 Trunk Sewer.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the agenda as amended
and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12 1976.
Pg. 1, 1st para., line l; strike "seconded by Bye", and insert nseconded by
Meyers"; 4th para., 4th line, strike "italian" and insert "Italian".
Pg. 2, 4th para., 3rd line, strike "appeared" and insert "expressed objections"
Pg. 3, correct spelling in proper name: "Johnston" to "Johnstone"
Pg. 5, 4th para., 2nd line, after "the" add "Council feels the"
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to approve the minutes of the Council
meeting held Tuesday, October 12, 1976, as amended and published. Motion carried
unanimously.
•
300
Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,November 9, 1976 :.z
III. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council members.
I. Councilwoman Pauly reviewed the Planning Commission's meeting
held November 8th, specifically speaking to the Comnission's request
that the Council explore the possibility of an ordinance that would
perhaps limit or prohibit Class 4 restaurants unless they are
clustered, and that this not be part of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan updating as this item should receive faster action.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to instruct staff to
prepare a report on the Class 4 restaurants and submit to the Planning
Commission and Council for their consideration, and direct City Attorney ?k
to research if such an ordinance can be passed to control Class 4
restaurants and also taking into consideration similar clustering
for automotive TBA (tires, batteries and accessories). Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Report of City Manager
I. Suburban Public Health Nursing Service
City Manager Ulstad brought the Council up-to-date on the Suburban Yh
Health Nursing Service, referring to memo from Betty Johnson dated
November 2, and communication from Phil Eckhert, Acting Director from
the Office of Planning & Development, dated November 8. •
Mr. Ulstad explained there will be a meeting on Wednesday,
November 17, in the Community Room of the St. Louis Park City Hall, '•
r
for the purpose of updating the planning to implement the Community
Health Services Act in Hennepin County. Mr. Ulstad will be attending
this meeting along with Councilman Pierce.
A report will be given by Mr. Ulstad and Councilman Pierce at the
November 23rd Council meeting relative to the above mentioned meeting.
2. Award bids for 4 intermediate police vehicles.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo dated 11/8/76 regarding bids
received.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to award the bid for
3 police cars to Freeway Ford in the amount of $14,787.00, and
the bid for 1 station wagon to North Star Dodge in the amount of
$5,095.22. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Discussion on bid submittal for Vo-Tech Model Home.
City Manager Ulstad discussed the possibility of bidding on a Vo-Tech
Home, explaining that if we were a successful bidder it would possibly
cost the City $35,000, which would include the home, moving the home
to the site, digging a basement walkout, heating and landscaping.
The other alternative would be to contract for a shell, of which the cost
may be somewhat about the same. Mr. Ulstad stated he would have more
information to the Council for the November 23rd Council meeting.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pauly, to direct the City Manager to proceed
with further evaluation of site location and economics of purchasing a
home from Vo-Tech at the present time, and to review other alternatives.
Motion carried unanimously. �11
1
1
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,November 9, 19/b
4. Request for Public Hearing for liquor license for John Suback.
City Manager Ulstad explained that this is a continued request on
the part of Mr. Suback for a liquor license, noting that the City a
does have a completed application in addition to drawings that were
submitted to the City Council 1 - 1 1/2 years ago relative to land
layout, an architect's concept of the building, and a floor plan
of the building.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, that the Council initiate
a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering rezoning the
Edenvale property from 1-2 Park to C-Commercial and refer matter
to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation.
Meyers and Penzel voted "aye", Bye, Pierce and Pauly voted "nay".
Motion failed.
Pauly stated in the ensuing years she has not heard of one request •
that has come before the Council that would change her opinion as
to the recommended use adopted by the Council in March of 1974.
Penzel explained that although we may set the Public Hearing date for
December 7th, the license cannot be approved until the 1st meeting
afterwards. Having the Public Hearing does not prevent the Council
from granting or approving the license a week after.
Bye noted that this request has been around for years and that people
have acted in good faith on the precedent that was set.
( Meyers explained that what we see before us now is a brand new
application and feels it is important the Council has the option of what •
to do with it. Action taken by the Council two years ago determined
this to be a location for an on-sale liquor store which was never
exercised by the applicant. Meyers further expressed her concern
with all the undeveloped industrial property in Eden Prairie, that we would
receive similar requests for commercial uses.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to set December 7, 1976 as the
Public Hearing date for the request for an on-sale liquor license by
Mr. Suback and partner. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of Human Rights Commission
1. Report by Chairperson Rosemary Dysinger of the Human Rights
Commission on the•South Hennepin Human Services Council Workshop
on community based services.
Chairperson Rosemary Dysinger of the Human Rights Commission spoke
to the workshop scheduled for December 4, 1976, 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM
at the Creekside Center, 9801 Penn Avenue South in Bloomington, She
also outlined the Goals and Objectives of this workshop and invited
Council members to participate if at all possible.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, that the City donate $75.00
to the South Hennepin Human Services Council for the Community-Based
Residential Services Workshop. Motion carried unanimously.
3(02
I
Council Minutes - 4 - 1ues.,Novemoer 9, I Io
0. Report of City Engineer
1. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 349, changing the street name of West
76th Street to Arboretum Boulevard.
( City Engineer Jullie spoke to Ordinance No. 349 and to the responses
received from various property owners on West 78th Street. He noted
that the business community is opposed, but he has received responses from 4 or 5
property owners in favor of the change. There would be costs involved to the
business community, especially to the big companies.
Meyers felt that as a resident she would prefer to live on Arboretum
Boulevard as opposed to West 78th Street, but did not feel it would be
worth the change if it would burden our business community. Pauly stated
she was inclined to agree as it would be too much of an imposition to the
businesses affected.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to deny the 2nd reading of
Ordinance No. 349, changing the street name of West 78th Street to
Arboretum Boulevard. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Accept utilities in Prairie East 1st Addition and 2nd Addition.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to his memo dated November 4th and recommended
approval of the City accepting utilities in Prairie East 1st Addition
and 2nd Addition.
•
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, that the City Council accept
for continuous ownership and maintenance the sanitary sewer and watermain
in the Prairie East 1st Addition and 2nd Addition, subject to a one-year
maintenance bond commencing November 9, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Final plat approval for Basswoods Second Townhouse Addition.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1208B, approving final plat
of Basswoods Second Townhouse Addition, and recommended approval of same.
Meyers questioned if trails that were supposed to be built have been
completed. Jullie stated he would check to make sure the trails have
been completed.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly. to adopt Resolution No. 1208B,
approving the final plat of Basswoods Second Townhouse Addition. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Receive feasibility report for utility improvements on Heritage Road,
I.C. 51-290.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1209 and the Feasibility
Report prepared by RCM Associates.
fl
MOTION: Meyers moved. seconded by Bye, to adopt Resolution No. 1209,
receiving feasibility report and calling for a hearing for December 7,
1976 for I.C. 51-290. Motion carried unanimously. `.1
11
31413
i
Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,November 9, 1976
5. Special assessment deferments for senior citizens.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1210, relating to
deferment of special assessments for senior citizens, and explained
that he had taken ordinances from two other communities, those being
( Minnetonka and Bloomington, and also input from staff, and drafted
an ordinance which would fit into an ordinance for Eden Prairie. Jullie
stated that after much publicity, the City has only received interest
in this deferment from one person.
Amendments were suggested by Council members to be incorporated in-
to Resolution No. 1210.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adopt Resolution No. 1210,
as amended, relating to deferment of special assessments for senior
citizens, and direct the City Attorney to redraft the resolution
including amendments requested by Council members. Motion carried
unanimously. (Amended Resolution No. 1210 as redrafted by the City
Attorney and adopted by the City Council attached as part of the minutes).
E. Report of Finance Director
1. Clerk's License List.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the Clerk's
License List dated November 9, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
2. PaJymient of Claims Nos. 2838 - 2936.
( Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve Payment of Claims Nos.
2838 - 2936. Roll Call Vote: Bye, Pierce, Meyers, Pauly and
Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
IV. NEW BUSINESS r
A. Offer of First National Bank of Hopkins to sponsor a member of the
City Council to a conference to be held December 2 and December 3.
Mayor Penzel asked if any Councilperson would like to attend the ,e
conference to be held December 2 and 3 in the St. Paul Civic Center
to discuss critical economic issues facing our state between now and
1990. Councilman Bye said he was planning on attending the conference.
B. Appointment of a Youth Member to the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission'
Mayor Penzel recommended that Randy Retterath be appointed to the
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission as a Youth member.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the recommendation
of appointing Randy Retterath to the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission as a Youth member. Motion carried unanimously.
C
- 6 - Tues.,November 9, 1976
Council Minutes A::'I,,
C. Report of Dutch Elm Disease as requested by Council.
i.
City Manager Ulstad explained that the report on Dutch Elm
Disease would be included in the "For Your Information" to be
submitted to the Council on Friday. s',
D. Requests for Fublic Hearing
City Manager Ulstad spoke to the requests received for Public
Hearings for December 7. .
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to set December 7,
1976 as the Public Hearing date for the following: Condon/Naegele
Office Building, Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan,
Stewart Highlands, East/West Apartments, and Opus II. Motion
•
carried unanimously.
Council requested that guidelines be drawn indicating that
each Public Hearing would take no longer than 45 minutes. If
the Public Hearings continue past the 45 minute time limit,
then they should be continued to another meeting.
E. Informal discussion on Chanhassen's proposal to connect to Eden
Prairie's Duck Lake-1 Trunk Sewer.
City Engineer Jullie explained that he has had further discussions
with the Chanhassen people and they have pointed out that it would
cost approximately $6,500 to cross under #1D1 to make a connection
( to our trunk line. Jullie thought it would be reasonable for
the City of Chanhassen to pay $75,000 less the $6,5D0.
It was the consensus of the Council that staff continue to
negotiate with the City of Chanhassen and see if they would
be acceptable to the above mentioned proposal.
F. Additional New Business - MTC Bus Shelter_.
City Manager Ulstad explained that the Metropolitan Transit
Commission has agreed to put a bus shelter in the vicinity of
Highway #5 and Mitchell Road and will pay for the sidewalk,
provided we put in the sidewalk. We have expanded the lot and will
expand itc lfurther to ove the,agde for reement40 -with45 thears. Mr.MTC for thistad busrsheelter.
nded '
the Council app 9
Penzei questioned if handicapped parking could be provided right
next to the shelter. Mr. Ulstad stated that this would be provided.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to authorize the Mayor and
City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Transit
Commission for a bus shelter at Highway #5 and Mitchell Road. Motion
carried unanimously.
i V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 PM. '
Motion carried unanimously.
3415
. 11/11/76
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1210
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
WHEREAS, M.S.A. 444.22 through 444.24 authorizes the City
of Eden Prairie, upon receipt of proper application, to defer
t:.
the payment of special assessments against any homestead
property owned by a 'person 65 years of age or older on January
1 of the payment year and for whom it would be a hardship to
make the pajments; and
WHEREAS, M.S.A. 444.22 through 444.24 authorizes the
municipality to determine the limits of the term."hardship
\ within'the scope of the law; and
WHEREAS, M.S.A. 444.23 authorizes the municipality to
establish an interest rate to be added to the deferred assess-
ment which shall be payable in addition to the deferred assess-
ment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, AS FOLLOWS:
That persons 65.years of age or older whose gross annual
household income of husband and wife is $9,000.00 or less, may
apply to defer special assessments levied against homesteaded
property provided they meet the following requirements:
•
•
3y'.
•
1. Filing an application for deferment of special
assessments which application shall be provided
by the City Engineer's office. Said application
must be filed by the aualifi.ed property owner no
later than November 10 of the year preceding the
year in which the assessments are to be due.
2. That the market value of the homestead property
according to the City Assessor's records shall
not exceed $75,000.00.
3. That assessments pending or levied against a
parcel of land prior to ownership by the applicant
shall not be eligible for deferment under this
resolution, except that unpaid special assessments
levied against'property of eligible applicants may
be deferred provided they were the owner of the
affected property on January 1, 1971.
4. Deferred interest at the rate for that particular
assessment shall be added to the deferred assess-
ment but not exceeding 50% of the original assess-
merit amount.
5. Multiple dwelling complexes designed and organized
' for retirement living exclusively shall not be
r eligible for deferment unless specifically
authorized by the City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the right of deferment shall be
•
terminated as permitted under M.S.A. 444.24 upon the happening of
any of the following events:
A. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise
eligible;
B. The property or any part thereof is sold,
transferred, or subdivided;
C. The property shou]dlose its homestead status, or
D. If the City determines that the taxpayer is no
longer in the hardship category.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on November
10, 1976.
( Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
]ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk 31WJ
- ., -
Unapproved
Planning Commission Meeting -2- Nov. 22, 1976
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Opus 2, Rauenhorst Corporation, request for rezoning approval of approxi-
mately 6 acres from Rural to Office. The site is located in the southwest
quadrant of CSAH 62 and Co. Rd. 18.
The planner referred the commission to the staff report and stated the planning
staff believes the land use and site configuration are appropriate , but suggest
design changes be made.
Robert Worthington stated he has read the report and concurs with it. He stated •
the brochure contains concept drawings and more detailed drawings for
permitswill be developed for the staff's approval.
Sorensen , referring to recommendation #3, questioned if the 4.2 parking ratio
would be adequate and if ramping is anticipated. Robert Worthington responded ,
based on past experiences, the parking should be adequate and they do anticipate
ramping.
Motion:
Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Rauenhorst Corporation application for rezoning of approximately.6 acres of Opus 2
based on the staff report dated 11-15-76 and the recommendations as follows:
1. That Rauenhorst Corporation redesign certain elements of the American
Family Insurance site to meet the following objectives:
a. Minimize encroachment on the wooded hillside.
1 b. Create an aesthetically pleasing and high quality image as viewed
from Crosstown 62.
In line with these objectives the following site plan modifications =j
are necessary:
1. Slight relocation of the building involving elevation
and placement to reduce significant encroachment into
the northern hillside wooded area.
2. Relocate the utility connections.
3. Explore alternate grading and parking lot development plans.
4. Provide positive screening and buffering of the parking area
viewed from Crosstown 62.
4.4
2. The Planning Commission recommends the resolution of the utility service
costs/responsibilities between the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka at
the earliest opportunity to provide Rauenhorst and the American Family Insur-
ance Company with accurate costs and time tables.
3. Planning Commission finds the 260 parking spaces,4.2/1,000GFA, proposed is reasonable 11
and recommend additional parking, if necessary,should be provided by ramp
construction or jointly with other development uses in the area.
4. Planning Commission recommends approval of the development stage plan and
rezoning to OFC District contingent upon the revised plan submitted to the
Planning and Engineering staff which responds to the items of the 11-15.76
staff report.
Discussion: Sundstrom inquired if the utilities for the site had been resolved.
Mr. Worthington responded Carl Jullie is preparing a Joint Powers agreement and it
is anticipated to be resolved by the public hearing council date of December 7th.
Vote: The motion carried unanimously. 3 g f8'
•
ESTIMATED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND HOOKUP
CHARGES - EDEN PRAIRIE PORTION OP OPUS 2:
AMERICAN FAMILY SITE •
1. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
There are presently no special assessments levied against the Eden Prairie
portion of OPUS. However, once Eden Prairie and Minnetonka agree on how i
the specials should be spread, special assessments in the amount of
$14,044 per acre, plus interest if not levied this year, will be levied '
against the Eden Prairie parcel. Therefore, if one ignores the interest, '
special assessments in the amount of $85,668 will be assigned to 6.1 acres i
of the Eden Prairie site. If these are spread in the same manner as those
on the Minnetonka portion, the first year's principal will be $4,283, and
the interest in the first year will be $5,997, for a total of $10,280.
2. SEWER AND WATER TRUNK CHARGES (Charged As An Additional Hookup Fee)
A. WATER TRUNK CHARGES
The current Minnetonka charge for industrial/commercial lots which
were never previously assessed for the city-wide trunk water system,
is $1,848/acre. This number is again subject to inflation, if this
is not charged to the property this year. However, it would
currently total $11,273 on 6.1 acres. The owner has the option of
either paying this off at the time of obtaining a building permit,
or spreading the total, in the case of Minnetonka, over 20 years
at 7% interest.
B. SEWER TRUNK CHARGES
The sewer trunk charges to be levied against sites in OPUS were
fixed, for commercial/industrial properties, at $700 per developed
unit in 1972. A unit is a half acre. However, since then 52 months
interest have been added, at 7% interest, compounded annually. This
raises the per unit cost to $938 today. There are 12.2 units involved
here, for a total cost of $11,444.
Unlike water trunk charges, the sewer trunk must be paid off at the
time a building permit is issued. It cannot be spread against the
property as a special assessment.
•
•
•
DR:m1 3�1 j
1
1
iSECONDARY ROAD USES ')
1 The secondary road system of OPUS 2 shall be limited in use to the following:
..r
a) Pedestrian foot traffic. .
f
b) Bicycle and tricycle traffic.
c) Electric battery operated "people mover" type vehicles having maximum
speed of less then 20 m.p.h. and designed to carry persons, goods or serv:
to and from destinations within OPUS 2.
r
d) Utility service or maintenance vehicles. •
e) Police and fire emergency vehicles.
1 ;
All automobile, truck, snowmobile, motorcycle, go-cart, mini-bike or other •
gasoline motor vehicle traffic similiar in nature to those previously described
shall be prohibited.
711
•
i C
4
i
t
i
i
i
(
1
1
1
1
ti
' 1t
1
_j
/mj
11/10/76 3(1AO
•
RAc11® ST G® P®KAYO®lid! ' :''
, October 29, 1976 •
City of Eden Prairie •
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
•
RE: American Family Insurance in OPUS 2
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We would appreciate having the Planning Commission review and recommend
approval of the enclosed site and building plans for the American Family
Insurance Office Building in Opus 2.
The building will be a three-story, 60,000 square foot all brick structure.
The American Family Insurance will occupy 40,000 square feet with the
balance to be leased as office space to a future tenant. •
The building will occupy 20,000 square feet of the six acres contained in
Lot 1, Block 2, OPUS 2 Second Addition. This represents a coverage of
approximately 8%. Parking will be for 260 cars which representatives
of the insurance company believe to be more than adequate for their needs
and those of any future tenant occupying the building.
The parking lot combined with area covered by the building reprer.uts a •
hard cover of about 35-40%.
•
Last month we appeared before the Planning Commission and outlined our concept .
,plan for developing the OPUS 2 acreage in Eden Prairie. At that time we
focused on requirements for Building "C" as shown on our concept plans (See
attached exhibit 1.). The American Family Insurance will be located in •
Building "A", thereby making it the first area in Stage A to be develoled.
We hope the Planning Commission finds our proposal for the American Family
Insurance Building favorable, thereby recommending its approval to the Eden
Prairie City Council. •
I will be at the November 8 meeting of the Commission, at which this item has
tentatively been scheduled for consideration, to answer questions and give
further testimony on this proposal. =r
Very truly yours, _
l211�t�i�s�•�l ,
Robert A. Worthingt n •
Director - Planning' Governmental Affairs
f Enc.
RAW:ms
SUITE 2200.NOn1NWESTERN EtNANCIAt CENTER.7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH.MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55431(812)830.4444
3uai •
I
T.
!jai-, REPORT
10: Planning Cumtai Inion
FIiO1: Dick Put n:!a, Planning Director
DATE: November Li, 1976
PROJECT: Opus 2
APPLICANT: Rnnenho.'a Corporation
LOCATION 6 t acres north of new Crosstown 62 and south of old Co. Rd. (2
IIFQI11 ST: Dovelopi,ent Stare Ain,roval of Opus 2 I'UD
Rezoning to OFC District
A. PROJECT Ilif::jiFR.XT1ON
1. G.aucrshill_
The sit(; is currently owned by Rauetn:orot Corporation win rropose:; to lease
2/3 of tic prcpos:d 'building to American Family ln"ur:=ace company.
L. The love i / owner of the :`ite and building x411 he Reucnhorst Corpotatien. .
Rnueuhor't lu.- lead s.ibstantial cape:ierce in co. :rci.al/ofi',ce developi,.'ets
over the past 2i ycaes.
.
3. Fi sea d/Fee pie
No I fora^stica has been provided.
4. labvel c;;•^_rt Net hod
Ranenhor!:t is proi'oaing to construct a building with a long term. lease to
Ailor.lC,n l:emil) In=a!rnncc . Rauenherat will lease the additional 20,0011
square feet. of the structure.
5. Dcerlossent _i_lio
]nitiJily C',r,.truClie'1 ulih site (,r5,'ing sea; to b.:p,iu Fall'lfiutor 1976.
pia';, r co,::,tr;,crien ::es a,,ticipatcd in Spring 1977 with oeenp:uacy in late 'Tie
6. l_,iii ,.1 la'Ci ions.
a. Res,,lutton , i the ape.:i:,1 a;wcsa:..••;tts and public service contracts
hots-area Fli;',in t nnl.a and l:drn Prairie.
N. Arprev;al el tl:i dcvclopm,'at stage plan and rezoning to OFC Di atriet .
rr„o., feu r.a I.
C. Separate .rp ration w.ii 11: filed for preliminary plat and'fin;,I
plat.
3421
•
Staff Report-Opus 2 -2-
Nov. 15, 197G "'
7. Onus 27 PIIU yramework '
The site is located within the Opus 2 commercial/industrial/residential
planned unit development. The majority of which is located within
hinnetonLa. 'the project h,as been under construction for about 2 years
with atmicrous office/industrial sitea developed.
The site in question was given planned unit development concept approval
by Ihico Prairie for office development consistent with Zoning Ordinance 135.
The American P:,mily I non vance Guild lag is the first application for develop-
ment stage approval. •
t
r :.
Il. pi AN A pi.A JUi v,,171i!f!1i.;
1. Location - '
\ t4'
_ . 1//i ,
•
4. ipxistine,_lancl Use
The property is vacant and parts are used for agricultural punpo',e>: today with
•
an old facet, cad on the western slops of the site. The slopc,ri:,Ing from 9..:,'
to !iSP,', is wooded with 1S-20'1, slopes. .
S. Tram otation
---- Opus 2 dove.c,p�nen: --�
Thei t a will he served from the
The dercl.,; mint inclun.',es a one-way street system for truck and auto traffic.
A >,cry i r:
drire frr parcel in Eden Prairie will connect with the Opus 2
Main Ci rfulat ien system.
A ::c conch ry road ::y'.tcrm is also planned. 'this system will provide pedestrian,
bicycle :Ind electric cart meccss for the in,hc•tril/conlwcrcial/residential
eras of Opus 2.
The site is. currenttly _rued lina1 and is part of th' Opus 2 Planned Unit
IC hove Ii•pment 7--1)(,.
7. i;uidr {'lam 7; 1'll!', t'nna:,Tt
The Comprehensive Guide Plan indicated this area as industrial development.
'Ibis wa•: modified by the Upls , PIOI1 in 1974 inrlic:alog office tears in
prosiniIy to t:tiAli b2 . 'Phi a rctunilig StahuiIciiioil is eons intent with both
plan:. 3q 3
•
Staff keport-Dpus 2 -3- Nov. 15, 1976
•;
C. PLAN WA AALYS1S
1. Naturaljeatures_
The vajority of his. site is co....prised of sand and gitivel soils with a small
area of loam,siltelay. None of the soils present development problems.
lhe slope on the eastern half of the site is the most prominent feature
of thc entire 1.it e. •
As th,.. existing ,;ite conditions graphic 117, on the following page would
•
indicto,the trees arc' pilmarily located on the northern hall of the site
with the knoll aod southeast slope open.
The at el used for parkirn-1 in the proposed plan has is flat with the
exception of the enti'ance drive and western SO' of the2arking lot. Drainage set
the site flows to the east and into the freeway riht-of-way.
2, Site An;:lysis i• -7
The site has two basic areas - the slope and hill which contain the
tree cover, and the flat pasti.r...e area present unique opportuni! ies for any
urban develement . Soils , especially on the slope, present goo..1
cowtvlictiOu 5t.0.6lity. Sensitive developmentof tau site prGtectin,;, the
wooded hill!,,ide ni Oeveloping huildird/pocLing areas consistent t,ith
site's natul.al character make the east economic and enviroiwoat:-.1 sense.
3. Dcvelonnt 0!,iectives_
No sl..ccifie development objc.:tives acre presented in the application. llo,xver,
clearly the obj,:,:tivkv, from the submission hope to capitalize on the natural
feature:, of thy site and the visibility to Crosstown 62.
. ,
11. Silo Plan Analysis
The develoreut plan snbnitted prooses a 3 story masonry building sot into
the hill with a first floor devotion of 938'. In reviewing the skemotic grading
plan. a good d..al of cut will he required to place the building into the hill
as shu -n. A siat:.en foot cut will he required on the northwest corner of the
boildinA and 1):%:ai,e oOln, ground floor uses, ( service delivery entrance),
the slope would re,0iiro a rotaning wall along the driveway. The elevations • •
illustrate only A It-lb ' cut , thereby leaving 2 stories exposed on the west
and north elevdiie..-.s, ( sheet .5 in (h.., submission ), yet the grading plan
reprcentiog -xi it i id tips) and proposed floor elevations is not consistent
with those dotal iOns Mils-SS N good portion of the northern hill is graded.
llie propo,ed and water ey.tensions , coming along the side elope of the hill.
will have to be It'It-:: the elevation and would require significant alteratiea
of the hillside and vegetation.
. ,
LI DA
, ,
-.. . _.
'Staff Report-Opus 2 -3b- ' Nov. 1S, 1970
ti .• .
,1 ;....•.si ............_... .., ..,
.! f.1 .!......- ' ../ idn • ,
•
‘`r 1..:.:,,) ...i,k..,-,....L...._....-. s'.•:.N..._ ) -
• .
, .
/
• • .
rn.,/. •
. . .
... .
, .
I
'.i.C.i,i •
. '
. ,'
II
„.............„.._Lt. (
I'•, i ''A'r,,---„-r , : . . •
u,:, . .,-...
„ 1 \\ . ', 4\,,,,,p4....,,_..,-/ -. •
t ' .
r ) '1 ....,7) • 1 1> , U •
i:,3 Ulj ,i'./-, c:,r11 • \ -'\-_..s. ...} / - .
-,r v• -c:-1, •, 0 , 0.D.,-, -- i .
r . . ..
I's.i; ...„--\1„..., - ,•---.1-"- ..------
l• ,:........."--,
.i .
,---,,,,-)---
- .-..
I(
U ,
' 1 ,•,.;;•.;
.. ....--
• : ' 1
I 1 1 I'
. ./ ! i
1 ; .
\ 0 r-'
;_1 ) ,d.:..?,
f •)
(.1 4.2,...41.. . • . e• -—1 . .
-%,j1 11,,, • k E ' ) -::-.,.:2--_•• ..
. ; • a / , ,../ '
',..,.. ;:r • , .,,, - „,,
\ s_..._•:.,...,-. -q,,, •. , 0‘..." „..., -.7.':_-_,.
ci
0 .
1) • i . . '
o
. \ ; (% • .
,..,
..1
0 % .
n....11 ..
"4 \. .,,,--ri.m
...,---r-s- / . .'....:2) . .
•: .
„ 0 / . ii,
(. 11.1
: -,
.0. ---.........,,„ ,\-- ----,
\.----- .--; :1,"( V,------.."'",
(:\//" :./ \\ • ..
. U
1....-.-1.....,'''', j.' •.1 3(12c .. c. • , .
...
. . . ,..
ii
I
Staff Report- Opus 2 -4- Nov. 15, 1976
•
The skematic. grading plan illustrate:: from 6-8 feet of fill necessary in
the parking area to create a basically flat parking lot.
Oppurt unit ivs Jro grade changes within the parking areas have not been
uti1i.:ud r:hich woo Id help to break up the parking lot and •
might reduce the amount of excavation necessary.
The :;toff in rev ic;riop, the grading and building plans would suggest greater
study by the d.re1oper to hotter capital.l:;c on the site's features . Consi-
decalion of the following is suggested:
•
, 1. Creator care in buiWing placement and elevation to
reduce the alteration to the hi11.
2. Ir:n•ieus levels in the parking area to reduce excavation
and enhance visual quality.
3. Relocation of the utility services so as to run in the
disturbed portions of the si te.
PR1:IJ"1g\R1' AI:currEcmiRAi. PdiAYLSIS
The building plan is well lay-out for the needs of the client and for rental
off icc space. The building, is structured similar to the t4PL building curtcntI/
under coast met ion on Leona Road with 2 and 3 story design tad;in;; advantage of
slopes.
Iuilding materials of brick with masonry construction techniques are well suited
for the office design and will be a credit to the site's high visibility from
the Cro;ci(cut 62 higin:::y . .
Inst rumen is for Plan leinlemonta'..ion
liceallse of the possible shared parking and lease :n•rangeeents for future ramp parkin , `.
additional in loam:; I am should he provided to the ci ty describing the method ;or
otcucr'.hip f;common usage of the easements and foci lilies.
Building, Oata
The plan is for a 60,00P r.gvare foot building, 20,000 square feet on each floor,
with .'60 parking spaces . The building meets the site coverage and FAR mind re-
ments Ui iho city and require: only va riation from. 1 he parking requirements in
Ordinance 111, raid Iring 5 spaces / 1.110I CIA . The site has ttgproxintately 4.2
put i ie, sparr:. / 1,000 ed'A . Additional parking terry he provided on the eastern
edge of the site to a1low for the 3u0 :'.paces required by the ordinance if require,
Also. hamnhnrra h:;s indicated ;Wit Iona parkinp development with a ramp bet wren
the .lnrrii;tn Iain;ly Insurance ciIc and the eastern site.
is
3(1a(1
•
Staff Report-Opus 2 -5- Nov. 15, 1976
•
Nlrlrl fli S
1. That R::uenhcn-.t Corporatien redesign certain elements of the
American Fan;ily Insurance site to meet the following objectives: .
a. Minimize encroachment on the wooded hillside.
b. Create an nesti.ctically pleasing and high quality
image as vin e l freaa Crosstown t2.
in line with thesc ohjectiacs the following site plan
modifications r.:ay be necessary:
• 1. Slight relocation of the building
involvinf, elevation and placement to reduce signifi-
cant encroachment into the northern hillside wooded
area.
2. Relocate the utility connections.
3. lixplocc alternate grading and parking lot development.
plans.
4. Provide positive screening and buffering of the '
parking area viewed from Crosstown 62.
2. The planning ,:taff would recommend the resolution of the utility service
cost ..ep::r.,iLilitics :etwoon the Cities of Cdew l'reirie and t it:,,ctx.;rl;..
at the esriic:it o portunir;. to provide Paucnhore.t and the America : Finaily
Tnsorrn<.e Cb. 1,..O- with accgrate cost, and time tables.
3 The st: 'f believes the 260 parking spaces, 4.2/1,C00 C,FA, is reasonable _
and holicl-^t a.lditienal parking, if nece,rary could he provided on the
eastern c c cf the site or jointly with future de,:elopttent phases.
4. The st::if would recommend approval of the development stage plan and
rezoning to OFC Ili trice r.,atIngent upon the revised plan submitted
to the Planning and L•tgin ering staff which responds to the itens of
this staff report and those that might be added by the Planning
Ccn:nis:;ion.
•
•
lll':J I 6
C
3ya?
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- Nov. 8, 1976
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
A. Opus 2, by Rauenhorst Corporation, request for rezoning approval of
approximately 5 acres from Rural to Office. The site is located in
the southwest quadrant of CSAH 62 and Co. Rd. 18.
Mr. Worthington, Rauenhorst, informed the commission they now have a new proposal
for rezoning on a new site for the American Family Insurance.
It is a 3 story building with approximately 80,000 square feet on 6.1 acres.
Sorensen asked if the Rauenhorst Corporation would retain architectural control
of the buildings in the PUD. Worthington replied affirmative.
Sorensen asked the staff to address the siltatianfrom the parking lot in the
staff report.
Sorensen then asked if an agreement had been worked out with Minnetonka regarding
water and sewer. Worthington replied it is in progress.
Sorensen asked if a parking ramp would be part of the PUD. Worthington replied
a parking ramp is expected in phase 2 of the pud.
Motion 1:
Bearman moved, Schee seconded, to continue the rezoning request of Opus 2 to the
November 22nd meeting and to direct staff to prepare a staff report. The motion
C , carried unanimously.
Motion 2:
Schee moved, Bearman seconded, to recommend the City Council consider setting a
public hearing for December 7, 1976, the motion carried unanimously.
VI. OLD BUSINESS None
VII. NEW BUSINESS None
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT None
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Bearman moved, Schee seconded, to adjourn at 12:10 AM , the motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted
Jean Johnson
e(
3U2B
•
. approved .
Planning Commission Minutes -3- Sept. 27, 1976
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
A. Opus 2, Rauenhorst Corporation, presentation of Opus 2,
Phase 1. Request and further information on rezoning of
Block 1, Lot 1, to Office to be considered at upcoming •
meeting. Phase 1 is approximately 5 acres and located
in the Northwest quadrant of Co. Rd. I8 and Crosstown 62.
The planner informed the commission the item is on for presentation
at this time, as the proponents have further work before clarifying
. their requests.
Mr. Worthingtonbac}grounded the proposal as having received PUD •
and preliminary plat approval, and an extension of the approvals
were, gained when the timelimit lapsed. He stated utilities appear
most feasible extended from Minnetonka. As work is still underway
- with prospective clients, he said they are not yet prepared to `-F 1
present specific site and building plans, but did want to familiarize ,.
the city with• plans todate.
John Alberts, architect for the project, reviewed the topography,
vegetation and other existing site conditions.
Worthington stated they have attempted to work with the contours
> and trees, therefore, a cluster building development appears best.
sic said they do not anticipate exceeding .3 stories in height.
He then reviewed the 775 parking spaces, •155,000 square feet of
buildings and other specifics contained in the brochure.
Lynch asked if fire, police protection, etc. , have been negotiated
•
with Minnetonka. The planner stated talks have taken place , but
no formal agreements have been reached.
Sorensen inquired if the parking ramp would be concurrent with the
•
first building. Worthington replied it would be subsequent to the
first building.
Sorensen inquired about the ownership of the 2 parcels west of the
Opus 2 property. Worthington responded they are owned by others.
The planner stated a staff report would be prepared for the following
meeting if Rauenhorst is ready with specific requests.
Motion:
Sundstrom moved, 8earman seconded, to continue the Opus 2 item to the
following meeting and refer it to the developer and staff for further
details and report. The motion carried unanimously.
•
3429 -
J
:Ss
CITY OF EIA•:N PRAIRIE
CIU:CI. LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED
LAND DEVEIAPNENTS
11/17/76
DEVi:LOYMiNT: CONDON/NAEGELE OFFICE BUILDING L.D. NO.
LXAT;D;,7: South of Co. Rd. #60 and East of I-494
REi'I: NCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS
ZONING MGREP.'1ENT: RES. #.
DE•VLLOPER: R. O. Naegele and R. F. Condon
ERG:`.E1:R/PLANNER:
DDCUNDNTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW.: Site analysis and booklet dated 10/25/76
PROPOSAL: The developer is requesting approval to rezone the property for •
the purpose of constructing an office building
1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid Yes
Yea
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.
e. City Council consideration 11/23/76 'R
f. Watershed District
3. Type of Development Office ,4
4. Environmental assessment or impact statement required per Environmental
/r Impact Policy Act of 1773:
1. No
3t O •
- 2
5• Present Zoning lbsral
6. Proposed Zoning Office - OFC District
rConsistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes (MCA Plan) ;f:'
List variances required & setbacks that apply: Requirements of Ordinance #135
7. Project Area i 3.3 acres Density Maximum floorr4aarea for multi story
building
R. Public o•.'vn space and/or cash dedication Cash contribution
Private open space Southeasterly portion of site
Trail systems & sidewalks • None proposed
Range of lot sizes N.A.
9. Preliminary Building Plans Submitted
10. Representative Soil Borings Required •
11. Street System "
A. Access to adjoining properties Not required
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 S0 28. 'e
(not over 1000') &
minor residential ),
Cul de sacs 100 78 (no island)
120 98 (with island)
Thru Residential (collectors)
& Cul de sacs
over 1000' 60 32
•
* Henn. co. must review and approve proposed access
s a o Co.
Road separation0. h from the-
• posed access point should be moved 70' easterly to provide
future ramp to northbound 1-494. The proposed R/W realignment shown on Page 8 of the.
Naegele Bldg. brochure appears to be acceptable, pending further review by MHD and
alignment studies for Schooner Blvd.
343t
- 3 -
ESA 70 44
• Parkway 100 28 divided
Fire Road 12
Pathways 12 6
Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .59,
Concrete curb & gutter required,
Deep strength asphalt design Required ;}
C. Check City's comprehensive street system.
Developer builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication N.A.
D. Street Names - try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional
names on cul de sacs having eight or less lots.
Check list of existing street names. N.A.
•
E. Private parking lots--B6-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design
recommended
/
F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs N.A.
L.
Parking: (See Ord. #141) 355 required for 71,000 S.F. Building
5 Utility Systems:
A. Sanitary Sewer Extension of system required to serve property
1. Service Detail Pending final design
2. Service to adjoining property Pending final design of system
B. Watermain: Available at Co. Rd. #60
1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K.
2. Hydrant location=Fire inspector to review
3. Valving final design required •
4. Compliance with fire code inspector to review
5. Service to adjacent property O.K.
/ .
•
C. Storm Sewer & Grading
1. Sediment control plan Required
2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots as required
by Watershed District
3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Required
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removalRequired
5. Arrows showing drainage Required
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 Required
8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes Required
9. Flood plain encroachment None
y
10. Watershed District approval Required
11. DNR approval N.A. • •
D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground required
E. Electric (underground) Required
14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Required
15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MHD or Henn. Co. if abutting a
State or County Hwy.
Hennepin County (Co. Rd. #60)
16. List special assesLments levied and pending #6133 Ring Road, $509.60; #6452
Trunk sew/water $5072; .Pending: Lateral sewer and water and additional Ring Road
Yes
17. Re-zoning agreement required No (no platting or public utilities)
Deve3oper'a Agreement required No
Title Abstract for Attorney's review ..
3ii?r3
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- Nov. 8. 1976
.. Condon/Naegele Office Building. request for rezoning from Rural to Office for
approximately 3 acres. The site is located in the southeast corner of
Co. Rd. 60 and 1-494 ramp. ,
;
The planner reviewed the building location and size. He stated the 2 issues before
the city are the office rezoning and approval of the on-site billboard. He suggested
the commission recommend approval of the rezoning and delay recommendation on the
billboard request until further detailed information is supplied.
Sorensen asked if an engineering report is being prepared. The planner replied
the City Engineer has asked HNTB for preliminary work on Schooner Boulevard prior '
to a city engineer report on this project.
Mr. Geisler, architect, stated he concurs with the report and the future access
entrance suggested by the planner.
Bearman inquired if Condon/Naegele would refrain from building if the sign request
is denied. Mr. Geisler was unable to answer.
()Sorensen inquired if the future entrance could be built at the time of initial
construction to alleviate additional costs to the builder. The planner felt that
until the preliminary engineering work is completed by HNTB. the future road could
Lion
be constructed.
Motion 1:
r
=Schee moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend to the City Council that the poster
panel application be considered as a separate issue and not as part of the rezoning
application. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion 2:
Schee moved, Bearman seconded, to recommend to the City Council rezoning of the
Condon/Nacgele Office building from Rural to Office District located at
the intersection of Co. Rd. 60 and 494 with the recommendations of page 3 of
the November 2nd staff report as follows:
1. "delete"
2. That the site be rezoned from Rural to Ofc District within
the MCA as submitted in the PUD Development Stage brochure .1
dated Oct. 25, 1976.
3, That if a building permit is not obtained within 18 months from the
date of the 2nd reading of the ordinance. the owners will not
oppose the rezoning of the property back to Rural.
4. That Condon/ Naegele will submit for approval plans for the
entrance road to Co. Rd. 60 to the staff.
S. That approval of the rezoning be contingent upon the
recommendations of the engineering report with particular
attention to the storm water runoff.
'rne motion carried unanimously.
.31134
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: Nov. 2, 1976
PROJECT: Condon/Nacgcic Office Cuilding
APPLICANT: R.O. Nacgcle and R.P. Condon
LOCATION: Co. Rd. 60 and-1-494
REQUEST: 1. Rezoning from Rural to Office-OFC District
2. PUD Development Stage Approval �•.�'
3. Utility Extension to Site
4. Addition to Sign Zone provision of Ord. 152 '
regulating outdoor advertising for poster panel
., •
INTRODI UCT 1 O5
The project is well documented in the brochure and clearly explains the
Condon/Nacgc le proposal. The staff.report is II cite existing city policies
and make recommendations concerning the plan. —��+f�r� t
MCA PM?. `,ti1�i\. .N . /r:7r7!i, —a°;.4 ; ,
xt
The land within the Ring Route in Zone 3 is very t• `tr I °rnnw. tD' ip -
•similar to that of Zone 2 in that it contains less than 50 -� /
acres of very cle ;,:.olu:and.The freeway exposure - • -
to 212 and the inr:rchange as well as the views to tin �' nil Y4 •' J
north of Bryant Lake make this she ideally suited to ° I.�, ':rot + . t
highway commercial use,office or selected free standing i t1• .
commercial facilities.The rather high proportion of •v r ,,;�„ • fre f
Ring Route frontage,compared with the total acreage, ° 1,t l /./_ h Jj ,
suggests higher trip gonrrating uses in this area,as the • v,,
volumes of traffic on this segment of the Ring Route tns,v~ ;�� ,
are lower than those adjacent to the southwest °'y =use. ae� ` //,
�✓quadrant. ° t 5,6,7
i° r
The land outside the Ring Route is of high environ- 56,, "` a
mental quality with steep stones,mature woods and 1 �� " r
proximity to Bryant Lake and flood plain.The narrow l. ,,ae o . t
strip of land where KrlSI has built its offices offers very °R"-""0 ,. •t
limited potential for smali office development. Limited
' parking requirements and minimum flood plain en- The residential units would have limited use of Bryant -',$
croaehment are mandatory for further site development. Lake. Small sailboats or canoes for the residents me.r •
-
A site nxt to the 49A/Rinc Route interchanne cou'd be appropriate for the size and function of Bryant
support highway cnntuvrrd ur regonal office um.,on_ Lake.Preservation of the major marshes and land
Kiss than 10 u i s r„ Lin I Tilt:tree �lanti forms and character north of the Ring Route are critical to the
visibility should rn•bh.:ievelopment of this site tr Mend success of development in this visually red environ 3 '
the commercial and resideomil use in the guaclrant. mentally sensitive segment of the M.C.A. ?°
The majority of the pi oper ty north of the Ring Route
is well suited for rectririntial OeVOIOpmt nt of a low to `
medium M.C.A.d^nsity. Apirnximately 50 acres are
available as buil;fanie land if tie i•:oaded knolls adjacent
to Bryant Lake are preserved as public open space. Site.
development should omvide for the dedication of the
wet hands and the prominent knolls for public open �r
space and preservation of the southwest cove of Bryant
Lake.Spatial building types such as terraced housing to
accommodate the steep slop.;or clustered multiples
are required to acrornmod is en'cor::traiM3.Designing
to',resolve these m4ural kat urea will r:r ante a resi-
dential environment of the highest qu..lity. .1L`js
Staff Report-C/N Off -2- Nov. 2, 1976
POSTER PLANE!. •
( At the time of this report no further information has been submitted
clarifying the request for the panel. The proponent indicated that the
owner was requesting a double sided elevated panel about 20' X SO' .
Preliminary review of the site plan and on-site inspection indicated
that the top of the panel would have to be about 40-50feet above the
ground to be seen from the north.
The City Advertising Sign Ordinance permits the city to approve sign .
locations by adding to the sign zone area. However, because of the
insufficient detail concerning the advertising sign request, the staff
cannot adequately evaluate the request.
Recommendations:
a. That reveiw of the sign zone request be handled as a separate
matter when the required material is submitted.
b. That with preliminary review the staff believes a 2 sided
elevated panel is grossly out of scale with the proposed
building and �would have a very negative impact upon the
adjacent property to the north proposed as luxury condominiums.
C
OFFICE SITE DEVELOPMENT
The rough site and building character are very well integrated producing a •
truly unique solution. The staff believes the plan is well conceived and
will require higher development costs in order to achieve its goals.
The staff would recommend one additionto allow for future access restric-
tions by nrnvidinn an area fnr driwe•'ay access to County Rned 60 / Schooner
Boulevard'when the north freeway ramps to 1-494 are constructed. the
sketch on the following page illustrates this recommendation. • •
•
3 N3A
•
•
Staff Report-C/N Off -3- Nov. 2, 1976
V. I C\i,,.„- V.Uji1JL J�Q 0 •l
\\J � Y ,`rot • •+-^..y f
�`"�''l !,`,.•.}�' ".`�t j.; ` 1 "+,+. -{,-yr^--0°°
''\\\\ �_ la�•_ . p� �3" ,ail, :—----I-J
+y ;3 ..'.tf• �--_ ,-,!.72V.Sj lr .
l^ ro ro _t' , �T....`i1Z. s ;. 1�. •
� "1-. . f!.� —�*-i�_ i
. \\V —Th 1\1-:•••':•'.;-.:- .:•-• . ':-:.40.:•',.1' .'11';'1`./.1's•;:i':•'1,W.'"-.3...717: 00dcsi '' '
•
\ \ ,‘\\\ ..,.....------4-si'',.....1.4 (((-'4:k.'-'2 ,r,c},A112"......)';''.'('',... ..'',:1,'-'1''''
\\\:::\,s, . ,,• k0`P� •�-'' 11 A L .}� -c, 1, 'I� `1 .
\\ \\��..., cit`-r ,,[�==-;: —4.2 `'``' °b- 1, I 'll gill area
buffer •
r i.• ` •/ • / t 1 • dew..piz Ur
`\.".• \I n W I (i'''
'fi •.
\:\ \\
\c\\,\\\\C•• una17 I i
5. -i /
S ��
y� \
's;,\ ,
0 ---'.."- -‘ ../;-7.-----------: :::
�� c
�� rgi lb ;� 'i�la•�rr��9- ✓d\Y M.Q
RLCO'P4:NDATIONS
1. That the poster panel application be processed separately and not
hold-up the zoning/building considerations.
2. That the site he rezoned from Rural to OVC District within the MCA •
as submitted in the PUD Development Stage brochure dated Oct.25, 1976.
3. That the utility extension be considered by the City Council taking •
into account the Bryant Lake Condominium project's need for utilities.
DP:jj
•
3g3t,
( approved
anning Commission Minutes -2- Oct. 25, 1976
IV. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
A. Condon/Naegele Office Building, presentation of plans to rezone from
Rural to Office approximately 3 acres. The site is located in the
southeast corner of the Co. Rd. 60 and 1-494 entrance ramp:
Mr. James Geisler,Design Consortium-project architect,presented the plans as
illustrated in the October 25, 1976 brochure. He stressed the unique quality
of the site and the architectural solutions.proposed. He also indicated the
request by the owners for a double sided elevated billboard visible from 494
north of the site and the interchange with US 212. He estimated the size to
be approximately 20 feet by SO feet and stressed the billboard advertising was
very meaningful to the owners.
The commission members had a number of questions concerning the billboard proposal,
•
such as the size compared to the elevated Naegele billboard by their 35W building,
(estimated to be 1/2 the size of the 35 W billboard). Concerning the site
lan, the commission questioned the right-of-way necessary for Schooner Boulevard
d the access when it is improved. '
Mr. Lynch expressed the concern that the staff not spend excess time . ... ..
analyzing the billboard request , but rather deal with the site development which is
the major request before the commission.
Motion:
Sundstrom moved, Schee seconded, to continue considerati, ' the Condon/Naegele
Office Building rezoning request to the November 8th mee, and request the staff
Oto prepare a report for the commission. The motion carr. unanimously.
t.
31431
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.1217
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF AREA "G" OF THE PRESERVE COM-
MERCIAL PLANS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of "Area G" of the
Preserve Commercial plans, identified as
"Figure A" in the Design Framework Manual for
area "G", dated 10-7-76, attached hereto is
herein approved, subject to all requirements
and conditions of the rezoning agreement to be
executed in conjunction with the 2nd reading
of Ordinance No. 357.
ADOPTED l,y the Eden Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
SEAL
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, Clerk
• 346e
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- Nov. 8, 1976
•
( Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, request for approval of development
standards, rezoning from Rural to C-Regional Service and preliminary plat
approval. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of Schooner
Boulevard and US 169/212 intersection. A continued public hearing.
The planner informed the commission the site, grading and utilities are completed
for the Area G site. The DFM ( Design Framework Manuai)standards submitted .1
by The Preserve would speed-up the development process through the use of a
Design Review Committee. He then referred the commission to the staff report
dated Nov. 2nd and explained it has the staff's additions and deletions to the
standards submitted by The Preserve so the commission can readily see what the
staff is recommending. He stated the staff is recommending the rezoning to
C-Regional Service or Office for the sites within Area G. -
Mr. Hess had the following changes and comments to the report:
page 4 #1, prefer that parking be allowed if standards are met.
page 5 #2, should read "Street g"
page 7 heading of last P should read PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
page 8 last P should read "The Design and Review Committee will work . .
page 9 last P should read "determined by the Design Review Committee. .
page 10 #3 The Preserve desires a careful development of the tree slope
area.
The commission then reviewed the report page by page and had the following comments:
page 2 Sorensen suggested including in the Goals/Objectives a
statement referring to the DAM as an experiment in case
modifications are needed.
Bearman suggested the city attorney investigate the necessary
measures to take to properly delegate the powers of review.
•
page 4 #4, Sorensen inquired why the staff had changed the 4" to
21" . The planner replied it allows flexibility of more •
trees within a set budget.
page 5 Bearman inquired if a provision should be included for ramp
parking.
The staff was directed to include a provision providing -
ramp parking within the SHAREC PARKING heading, page 6.
page 5 Pauly inquired what type of setbacks would be used.
The planner said the staff would investigate and propose setbacks.
page 8 #4, Bearman suggested alternative material, and not limiting
it to cedar or redwood.
It was agreed that it should read compatible materials.
3(139 •
•
Planning Commission Minutesapproved
-5- Nov. 8, 1976
( ' Sorensen questioned if Area G, in figure A, would allow 4 or 5 freestanding
fast food establishments. The planner felt it would be difficult to prohibit
them as freestanding fast food places have been allowed in other parts of the City.
Sorensen believed the concept of clustering is valuable and should be attempted.
Discussion followed relative to the market and policy desirability of clustering.
Motion 1:
Schee moved, Bearman seconded, to close the public hearing on the Area G prelimi-
•
nary plat of the Area G Preserve Commercial Plan. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion 2:
Schee moved, Bearman seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning request based upon the Design Framework Manual concept including the
redrafting of the staff report of November 2nd to reflect the changes, inclusions,
etc., suggested by the commission at this meeting.
Discussion:
•
•
( idstrom inquired if the commission wished to recommend a policy on Class 4 8`5
•
estaurant clustering.
Amendment: •
,
Sundstrom moved, Sorensen seconded, to recommend should there be freestanding
Class 4 GS restaurants ( as defined in the Area G staff report dated 7-22-75)
in the commercial along US 169, then said structures should be grouped.
Discussion:
Bearman believed the city would hinder development in the area if the amendment passed.
ass stated they would attempt such a clustering concept,but do not want approval
cied to clustering.
Pauly called question on the amendment. The question carried.
Vote on Amendment: The amendment failed 2:3 with Sorensen and Sundstrom voting aye.
Vote on Motion2:
r The motion carried unanimously.
•
Motion 3:
Bearman moved, Schee seconded, to recommend the City Council consider establishing
a policy statement as to the treatment of Class 4 and 5 restaurant clustering
specifically to their grouping and location. The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
3440
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: November 2, 1976
PROJECT: Area G, Preserve Commercial Plan •
APPLICANT: The Preserve
LOCATION: NW quadrant of Schooner Blvd/TH 169 in MCA
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to C-Reg Service, Office
•
REFER TO: a. Nov. 11, 1974 Preserve Commercial Plan Brochure
b. July 22, 1975 Staff Report on Area G
c. Oct 7, 1976 Area G Design Framework Manual
INTRODUCTION
The staff review of the Area G rezoning application will not follow
the typical PUD Development Stage outline for the following reasons:
-the project has been previously reviewed in detail,
-the streets, grading, utilities, etc., are inplace,6
-The Preserve is proposing a unique development control
technique.
This report will make the assumption that the basic land uses are
acceptable and that the issues are the timing of zoning and administrative
controls to be used as a "yard stick" to measure specific development
plans against.
PROCESS
The Preserve will enter into a Rezoning Agreement for all sites in Area G
that will regulate the development of these sites. The proposed "Design
Review Committee" would review all development applications to insure •
conformance with the standards. If an individual project wished to vary
from the terms of the Design Framework Manual ( DFM ), and the Rezoning
Agreement , the applicant would request consideration by the City through
the normal PUD development stage procedures, i.e., Planning Commission
and City Council. Clearly, the intent is to encourage development under
the requirements of the DFM and the option of city review would not be
used often.
•
1.
•
301
Staff Report-Area G -2- Nov. 2, 1976
STAFF EVALUATION OF DFM-10/7/76 DRAFT
I. INTENT
(comment) Excellent statement of intent. •
II. GOALS/OBJECTIVES
(comment) Basically good, however, would suggest these changes:
In contrast to typical piecemeal land development Area "G" in Preserve
Commercial Center presents an excellent opportunity to realize a commercial
project mutually beneficial to the community and to the developers by
creating a strong, recognizable identity or "sense of place" and encouraging
high quality design and construction.steh as was-attai.ned-#n-Yorktown-{am•-
cxis'A ng cocmercial4res-de dina, Minnesota) Using
the same epproa,,h, as -1 ia�-C-enter;
huff eem h35-aehieited " d t + d tw sense of 7 ity°
The physical environment of the prr osed Preserve Commercial Center is
conceived to be an inviting, infor. and enjoyable business center. It is
not intended to compete with Eden Prairie Center, but to supplement its
commercial neighbor. Because of the individual land parcels comprising
Area G in The Preserve Commercial Center, the basic design goal is simply
to "pull the pieces together" and provide an optimum measure of continuity.
addition-
Through the DFM approach The Preserve and city review of each development
request will be processed faster and easier with definite standards to
guide each project.
III. METHOD
Avro••4O
The architectural image of The Preserve Commercial Center"will not depend
upon the implementation of past styles of development, but upon the in-
tegrity with which the physical design reflects its purpose. Therefore,
the approach indicated within the "Design Framework Manual" shall be to
establish a design review board to assist future building teams to develop
within the context of the framework plan, material standards and design
review procedure.
A. Framework Plans
A diagram site plan of each Preserve Commercial Cer*er araA
may ea...t"alij bt thAed to tI. "D,s;yn em,%ori. I'.,.n,ual"
F Each diagram site plan in-
cluded serves to establish the general relationship of the
individual parcels to the whole and to describe basic
functional requirements such as pedestrian, vehicular and
Landscape Areas shown in the plan and as further described
by planning criteria. MO.
Staff Report-Area G -3- Nov. 2, 1976
2
B. Material Standards
A ra*w? of materials will be selected by the
design committee which should provide the common bond
necessary to achieve design continuity without limiting
creative design opportunity. Material selections €ormi ng-•
shall be governed by limitations
of availability and longevity of the source. Reasonable
projected costs for the material, installation and its
subsequent maintenance will dictate ultimate selections.
C. Design Review
A design review procedure shall be established to coordinate
all projects within Area G of The Preserve Commercial Center.
The _procedure shall be administered in a flexible fashion
psui by ap ed',--de e pment experts-to allow individual inter-
Go" pretation while assuring overall quality control and design
compatibility.
Iv. SCOPE
The authority for design control derives its basis from the factthat this ����„
"Design Framework Manual" is incorporated within the developer s^;agreement J
between The Preserve developer and City of Eden Prairie and which will be •
included as part of the developer's land purchase agreements. Nowcvcr, as
-mert-i-oi,cd earlier, thn intent i-s not to be restrictive-, but rather to be
-aeei=.+ztive and flexible in the management of the review pree
The extent or scope of design control shall be concerned with five basic
elements or categories as noted below:
•
1. Site Planning
2. Exterior Building Materials
3. Outdoor Lighting •
4. Landscaping
5. Graphics/Sionage
The first item above is discussed in the Framework Plan section of this
manual and the others are outlined in greater detail in the Material
Standards section. All are subject to discussion and approval according
to the procedure described in Design Review. •
31143
Staff Report-Area G -4- Nov . 2; 1976
V. FRAMEWORK PLAN
In addition to the goal of identity and continuity, one of the important
objectives of Area G in The Preserve Commercial Center is to control
vehicular traffic. Consequently, it is essential to develop circulation
systems within the project area that reduce potential conflict between
automobiles, pedestrians, and service vehicles and reinforce the concept
of an integrated whole. The diagram site plan serves as a base of refer-
ence for individual owners to relate their separate site plans within the
context of the whole -- not only in terms of circulation, but design con- e`
tinuity as well.
A key element in this Framework Plan is the identification of possible
platting alternatives which reinforce a desirable vehicular circulation,
access and parking system.
An additional element in this Framework Plan is identification of landscape
and conservation areas which establish building and parking setbacks, re-
strict signage placement and type, and encourage a unified landscape de-
velopment. See attached development diagrams.
The Pre
i.reas-ass _ .
LANDSCAPE AREAS - shall occur adjacent to Highway 169 and Schooner Boule-
vard arterials as shown on the Area G design plan. Within proposed landscape
(. areas the following design elements shall be treated as indicated.
an, prokJtA
1. Parking - Parking and;automobile circulationAwithin the 20' land-
„" ca spe area ;T^��, ' n -he degree that the proponent's •
proposed landscaping, grading or structural screening
• mitigates the adverse visual effects of parked cars and
extensive paving surfaces when viewed from outside the
s i te,o wd FVAxckA,$r fUbli c.sa*y eow.da13i�s.
2. Signage - Only temporary free-standing sales signage associated with
primary sales of the developer is permitted within the
area. Other signage shall be limited to building identi-
fication and shall be wall mounted either on an approved
retaining wall or building wall as per the existing City
signage ordinance in effect at the time of area develop-
ment. •
3. Lighting- An approved fixture and pole shall provide
internal lighting. Building facades shall be li�•nteo
from low ground mounted or building mounted light sources.
4. Planting- All landscape and grading plans are subject to approval
prior to mat x.l ld ny fx'«";'1" 11.
( Shade Trees - A mixture of 4Y - 6" caliper specimen
Tiled trees shall be installed on the site in an informal
fashion in positions which maintain reasonable business
visability, safety and maintenance requirements.
3V4U
•
Staff Report=Area G -5- Nov. 2, 1976
•
Shrubs or Small Ornamentals - When desired in designated
Tanc�scape areas,ha1T-be Timited to foundation planting
of the building or screening of adjacent parking or
circulation facilities in such a manner as to preserve •
safe site distances for pedestrian and auto systems. •
•
Ground Cover - All ground surface areas must be covered
and maintained. Lawn areas shall be created from sod.
Other areas not sodded or paved shall be covered with
hardy ground covers o- acceptable mulch materials. •
BUILDING LANDSCAPE AREA - A minimum space of 10' forming a complete envelope
surrounding the proposed structure shall be conceived to be the building
landscape area (see exhibits).
Permitted uses shall include -- Lighting, Planting, Loading and Unloading
Facilities, Pedestrian Access and Egress Facilities, Terracing or Patio •
Screening, and Miscellaneous Landscape Features - sculpture, fountains, etc.
OPTIONAL PARKING b LANDSCAPE AREAS - See Exhibits C - F
1. Parking - Primary parking within these designated areas shall be
discouraged.by the committee. Future parking require-
ments nay be satisfied by the paving of all or some of
these areosx. LvLcyt aA .i;' +ro FkAAi,•..kveejs wkuce. kyd�uyx;.gre-
art, rc ovc.A.oL.
2. Signage - Signage is discouraged by the-c 3,tr.ittcc in these areas.
When required, the City's sign ordinance in effect at
the time of the areas building development shall govern.
The review committee shall require extensive landscape
treatment for the sign base (10 x 20) to provide a
proper setting.
3. Lighting - Committee approved architectural lighting fixtures and
poles may be used for parking area lighting. All sign-
age shall be internally illuminated.
4. Planting - Hardy, standard varieties of Minnesota trees, shrubs
and ground covers shall be used to break up and screen , to
parking facilities. All surface areas not paved shall
be landscaped and maintained.
f -i --t .
additions-
Building Setback Standards: •
1. TB 169 G Schooner Blvd-all structures shall be setback a minimum
•
of 30 feet from the street right-of-way.
2. Street g( 60' R of W )-all structures shall be setback a
minimum of 2S feet from the street right-of-way.
3. Street h 60'R of W -collector 50 ' (R of W ) - all structures
shall be setback a minium of 20 feet from the right-of-way.
4. Private Access Easements 30' (RoPV) - all structures shall be
setback a minimum of 15 feet from the easement line. .
34il�
Staff Report-Area G -6- Nov. 2, 1976
SLOPE POLICY
In all cases the toe of a slope must occur on a property or right of way
line. A high side owner may elect to construct a retaining wall on his-side
of the property line to improve the useability of his site. All land areas
must be stabilized during and after construction to protect the public from
interim and long term effects of soil erosion.
RETAINING FEATURES
When needed, retaining features must be designed to conform to the materials
used in the primary building. All retaining wall designs and locations are
subject to approval.
MAINTENANCE
Owners of adjacent properties are encouraged to arrange joint or coordinated
maintenance agreements with a landscape or nursery contractor to obtain-hieher
l oe l niv ar i ly. e414e e, Jk&sofulikAA.4,14 Avelitaii i rreSee.r,
WATER SUPPLY
--
luLate,i un nun e.d,j-ut.:,.t walls tc provide wator supply for landcrvpi- areac
CLECTP
-A4-l- unried outlet
;.'a:c.d and protected for exteri —c-intcmance equipeicnt.
SHARED PARKING
To reduce the number of parking spaces within Area G , the concept of shared
parking is encouraged between adjacent ownerships.
addition-
Because of the similar businesses locating in Area G, each owner must provide
adequate parking spaces on his site or have a legal easement for parking
spaces off his site. Joint parking areas between two or more sites is
encouraged thereby eliminating side yard setbacks and gaining additional
parking area.
PHASED PARKING
At the time of building permit and design review an owner may demonstrate
to the committee that only a portion of his final parking spaces are needed.
The committee may allow phased development of the parking area if the
following criteria are met:
1. that the site has adequate size and layout for the total parking
requirements.
2. that any shared access or driveways will allow orderly develop-
ment of all adjacent parcels.
3. that proper screenhig and landscaping are provided consistent
with the UFM .
3qq0
i r
Staff Report-Area G -7- Nov. 2, 1976
PARKING STANDARDS
The guide for parking spaces per land will be the City Parking Ordinance
Number 141. The required spaces may be modified by the committee if i.
I. ;
the change is demonstrated to be appropriate. ( •
I'
SHAPED ACCESS
To laprov•. safety and to reduce the amount of surface coverage in the
development area, the concept of sharing access points between adjacent
ownersLi,is is encoura;ed.
PUBLIC TREE CONSERVATION AREA - See Exhibits A and B
To retain dominant species of existing tree growth in designated areas of �y
the development, the developer wiil protect=r5$r514.-of-thenexisting vegeta-
tion from the direct effect of developrent. See development plan for
location.
SELECTION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
V
To assure aesthetic •e•m-t Y of the development area, the developer pro-
poses to restrict the type, color and texture of primary building materials*.
(See attached specification- Section VI)
* Building structures and associated retaining features.
* Paved areas (parking & walking surfaces).
SECURITY
To protect private investments, all future development within the area will
be subject to final approval by Eden Prairie Fire, Police and local Building
Inspections Departments.
N.S.P. EASEMENT
To guarantee development of the area in accordance with existing property
easements, all property shown within the existing 165' N.S.P. power line "'
easement shall be subject to the approval of N.S.P. prior to physical
development of a parcel:
•
DEVELOPMENT PADS
To assure quality of standard designed foundation construction a proper re-
gard for easement restrictions all building locations are to be located on
prepared building sites, unless otherwise approved by the review board. See
exhibits for pad locations.
PLAN REVIEW CO?OIITTEE
The City Staff of Eden Prairie working-work-int directly with The Preserve
developer shall preprocess building permit applications. A report from the
City Staff person shall be required as a building permit document to fulfill
City requirements to issue a building permit to the proponent.
3441
. Ks
Staff Report-Area G -t- Nov. 2. 1976
VI. MATERIAL STANDARDS - Tentative Specification
• The use of the materials or products outlined below is not IT • S
mandatory, nor is it meant to be inclusive. The use of traditional •
materials like brick, copper and wood is encouraged, but that does not
mean that all buildings must include these materials. The choice of other
basic materials shall be at the discretion of each project architect, but, .
subject to approval by the Review Board. Generally, the approach is that,
if brick is used for example, it shall
bb cthee e rbrick
specified
herein;
c or
if metal fascias are used, they ssh
• exterior materials (e.g. stucco, concrete, etc.) may be approved if it can
be demonstrated to the Review Board that the usage is compatible and ap-
propriate.
(All items refer to exterior use.)
1. Face Brick Appearance - to be selected by the maw 040',at 444.e4 e.
Review Board.
•
2. Metal Roofing/Fascia/Spandrel - copper, zinc or
cor-ten steel.
3. Metal Frames/Trim - darko bronze
sorebrown color
(anodized or painted),
4. Wood Surfacing - cedarishingles/siding (seal or •
stain to preserve natural color).
5. Wood Frames/Trim - dark brown color (stain or
• paint, prefer former). •
6. Walkway Paving - brick G ,5.
ilevi eardt, exposed aggregate concrete or v.+p
cea-hinatien—bluer €.
7. Outdoor Lighting -interior roadway and parking area
( lighting is to be selected by the Review Board with
regard to initial installation and ultimate operating
costs. '
8. Landscaping.
a. Planting - to be coordinated by the Review
Bo :d.
b. Furnishings - walkway system, benches/trash receptacles.
hand rails/fences/screens, kiosks/posts/bulletin
-' boards/etc. (above to be designed/selected/installed
by owner as appropriate and/or approved by Review ,
Board).
•• 9. Graphics/Signage - similar to Landscaping above, Graphics/ •
•
_ Signage is a design project in itself. More definitive
standards will be developed as work proceeds. However, it can
be said that the signage will be considered to be one of two
basic types: •
nal
a.• in general rthroughout efers to iArea iGnof The Pal Preserrve signs Commercial
( Center (to be designed). .
! b. Business - refers to a sign which directs attention to a
business activity conducted upon the premises. Individual
identification logos and typography will be allowed. but
within certain limitations regarding size, locations. and
background. The Review Board will work within the limi-
tations of Eden Prairie's sign ordinance which is in effect
at the outset of the project. 344
Staff Itelxrrt - Area G -9- Nov.. 2. 1976
VII. DESIGN REVILW*
•
The third component of the Design Framework, and perhaps the most important
to its successful implementation, is the establishment of a standard design
•
review proredure. Design Review by a 'Review Board" representing The
Preserve, the City of Eden Prairie shall receive and approve all proposed
projects is The Preserve Coc:ncrcial Center. The Board shall r,eet at the
request of the 'individual project developer. Depending on complexity,
each project shall require at least the three basic steps noted below: .
1. pre:.Pvtie,, :,,ic;ins - The owner/developer shall submit
a vri-ittcn i' i.je f-l:cs;cription, and in turn receive a
copy of tee Des inn Ir,eercork i'ienutl. The Project Des-
cription simirld include the following information: •
•
- project location, function, sine, cost, .
•
special rnquirents, etc.
- owner/d::veici.er contact •
- project design team
•
Initial contact and request for this meeting should be made
through Toe Preserve development. office.
2, F,1_itiin.rd' ',n 'rs `,- The prOPonent'S project architect.
L>vam„(ors.. — cal:'pre n'. to '7 e+tee-Boa•de a preliminaey design concept
•
[nr,r e, for ai:pro al. Graphic exhibits should include the following: •
- comprehensive site plan limited to the appropriate
dovelopnent erne in The Preserve Commercial Center
(scale - 10,')
- project site plan
- floor plars •
- eievetinns/sections
-stud, model or sketch perspective
Th_'-erk.rrf shall nut be concerned with the details and internal
( workirgs of the project as mute as the overall relatiotsh:ip
of the site plan and building to the remainder of The Preserve '.,
Commercial Center.
( 33fine'. D_sieo koview - The project. architect shall present to
the .view noted the final project design for approval prior
to bidding and/or consi•;ction. Exhibits should include.
• - working drawings (set) •
- specifications •
- model and/or purspestive ,
- basic material sa,e,les •
--chc cle-in•-c^Dent—ef-items-ilea-Rev ieeBeaed-
-eonsw-lka;ii—f-eE--
Final written approval by tire City Staff Review Board r,:er:ber
will he required hefnr*work peocceds, unless spe-ifically
waived by the tioard. Special variances or exceptions will be
considered on a project basis, but permitted only with written
approval by the Board. A copy of the written report ui11 be
subeitted :o tie•City's Duildinr; Inspector by the applicant.
as a part of his building permit application.
A. Final Construction Inspe tion - The Review Board may accom-
pany tine City's !suildin^, Inspector at the time of final in-
spertiem to aeeure the: reasonable compliance to building
c:rdc., end Design Fra:reware Manual conditions has occurred.
•
* Fees of a D '.inn ;rview Board Conarltaa., if needed, will be paid by
(' propoar'nt to conclude the final review process. The amount. to be deter-
mined ;;y the U.rgI Review Committee shall he sufficient t0 cover costa incurred.
3=Iu9
•
Staff Report-Area G -10- Nov. .2, 1976 •
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The DFM is a good tool that can be used to aid the developer in marketing
his sites whileproviding equal or greater city control. The following
conditions further clarify the Area G development plan:
(Refer to modified Figure A)
1. That the lots along TH 169 ( lots F & G ), are specially designed
and vary from many provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (a135).
The DFM restricts signing to retaining wall or wall mounted
signs toward TH 169. •
2. That lots G,F,E, B, C & D be rezoned to C-Regional Service
consistent with the MCA Plan and provisions of the DFM. •
3. That lot A be zoned Regional Office-OFC with an open space/
conservation easement to the city for the slope area.
•
4. That all typical legal documents for easements, etc ., be
reviewed by the City Attorney before building construction
begins.
5. That the sketches of typical site plans Figures A-F should •
be modified to conform with the changes suggested by the City. •
•
•
•
31450
3 v ro(
o m D `� y }
7Ye
O 0 O= ry ' / &i]) P6
ea ' C O , Ci�4d os
w
fa, 3 / . •/.• i, .
\ a
re, i 0.0iP 1I . \ '
m ""
•
' ."Ws''',Of.1.‘''''2,''N''. / '? ' •i '!
b °
40 •
-??` s _E os°ma r_ 8
� ��> � '° % °I
NI\VJ
, Dg Zr 0- (C; rn 8.1;ii II /
i-u .•
s R C
n - 1 9� q l�''�
It
O_ 4 .J .
° i
co .� ;
3451
N -4 :7
N� D m
-` 0
✓ 0 < lam*tftworitord
M• Q z4a x
G p. ..,... W.s''C We
,-__-J'V.-.--------I
[ a a s 4
x 4 - s a
I3-- R —a I 8 a�� -- S
j I i
II .I_ -- i i — d Y_._.—
w. n w-o-- 1 QI i
f = j ° I
q: _1 1. 15� --
Ili _
4 a z y halt . . .n.otia .ArMit i e T
zrit ' T. M. 169• 212 P.O.W.a\
e 'ri
"`` V- ?y
fl-�V hl o . Y:a p..
� I
a asa3 - MAXIMUM-2 LOT DEVELOPMENTR'd ; e 5iwoo Palma-�" f
6I • o ; 6/1000 Parking-� -�---a
s,, i(0 4.
(Y L.
mEA
Li_
•
c •
approved
.nninp. Commission Minutes -4- Oct. 25, 1976 I _
V. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS •
A. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, presentation of development
standards implementing the PUD Concept Plan and request for rezoning
from Rural to C-Regional Service. The site is located in the northeast
quadrant of Schooner Boulevard and US 169/212 intersection.
The planner stated the staff has not completed the staff report for the commission's
consideration and believed a general discussion of the concept might be beneficial.
Cshort discussion followed concerning the general concept of the DFM approach
and the benefits to the developer and city.
Motion:
Sundstrom moved, Lynch seconded, to continue consideration of the Area G request
to the November 8th meeting and direct the staff to complete the staff report.
The motioicarried unanimously. •
•
•
•
•
3y53
_
^
CITY OFmwmAT^m
oo7Cx1.7or FOR xxvmuo« PROPOSED '
LANnmmo/v�onrs
.
� un=, zo/ro// �
` --
"Area o^ The rm°"rve �.». NO. /�x_� �
_ __-_- '
prmx,` Northwest «uaci"mt T.H. �e+o2 & Schooner o�"u.
___ --___----_
cv.v. OR vRVvmn` mu.o 286
ZU�,.., '`"se'"" c""t«`
/
The vyc"e `c�
LNG`xu`v�/Amom. Rather, u�uvrnm' no��ela. Inc. `
xmmIro1") nm mmzc=. Design rzpme°oru xauu*z o0n/76> « �
roorv,o.. The »*""zmper is c"o"csti»n r=m°aa of the s�� �� c-���r�z
_ ^ `
°",.�e �� mez��° Plat am"�^ .
-_'
I. u"`« ��"�°r*""^ "rp i""ti°` ciz"x and ciz!=« , �
c", ^ u"»^ �� ^id ma
~ Yes
'
�m °c �aa/=u�i mr°"m~a to �taa°u oi",,i�
z r,",",~',o :"x, "3c.
�
a. m^ooun ^ Zoning C"=u=iow Preliminary 10/14/76___
b. r",u n mmcwti"" c"=i"=i*o
v' x"°^" Right!. rom~i""i"o
o. m.m"inw r"wi" mn. 1025/76
�
e., City councl], consideration
x. v^^.,sx. L).x-tci"t
c x
3. T«" of ,,.^`�°""� c"=""��z_-_----__- =�c�. } `
^. ^v�.~.,~,.*� ,,`,,~~,.` ', /m "�L ,��°".� r"r./,"u pr u""i,"m"u*l
j ` )"-)I�,r a� 'o z:n `
�" '
' |
3qS4
� .
.��
•
- 2 -
•
5. Present Zoning
6. Proposed Zoning _C- Reyional
Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes
List variances required & setbacks that apply: Refer to Ord. #135
7. Project: Area ± 17 acres Density ± 17 lots
8. Public open space acid/or cash dedication
Private open :;),ace
Trail syst.c.os & sidewalks
Range of lot sizes
9. Prelimnr:ry Building Plans Refer to Design Framework Manual (10/7/76)
10. Reprocuntativc Soil borings Not submitted
3). Street 5ytrm
A. Access to adjoining properties O.K. Service through development from
Schooner Blvd. and Bermel-Tenan properties
B. Tyne R/W Roadway (Pact: to P.aek of Curb)
Private
driveways, no 24
parking Post no parking signs
Leading to Cul do sacs 50 28.
(not over 1000') s
minor residential
Cu) •
de sacs 100 78 (no island)
120 98 (with island)
Thru 1:e:;idonti;a1 (collectors)
& Cul de r•aes
over 1000' CO 32 Roadway existing
•
•
3q(SS
•
•
•
g •
MSA 70 44 -
Parkway 100 26 divided
Fire Road 12
Pathways, 12 6
Street grades-max. 7.5 , min. .5%
Concrete curb & gutter re7uircd, Existing
Decp streslth asphalt dc;.ign
C. Check City's co:cprehensivc' street system.
Developer builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication Dedication
of Schooner Blvd. right-of-way required
D. Street Nucc s - try to conform with existing in the arca. Avoid additional
names on cul de sacs having eight or less lots.
Check list of existing street names. Recuired
E. Private parking lots--56-12 cone CCC and full depth asph. design
Required
1'. Street Signs-rcvelopc:r os City installs: Developer purchase - City install
12. Parking: (Sec Ord. 4141) To be reviewed with individual building plans
13. Utility Systems:
A. Sanitary Sewer System installed through City Contract I.C. 51-274
1. Service Detail As required pending submission of final building plans
2. Service to adjoining property O.K.
D. i:utc:::ai.n: System installed through City Contract I.C. 57-274
7. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K.
2. flydr.:nt location-Eire Inspector Approved
•
•
3. Valvinq O.K.
4. Compliance with Lice code Fire Inspector to review final plans _Y
5. Service to adjacent property O.K.
•
3gS(n
•
- 4 -
C. Storm Sewer & Grading
1. Sediment control plan Watershed approval required
2. Skimming I. grit control for commercial parking lots As required
by Watershed District
3. Positive outlet. for drainage ponds O.K.
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal O.K.
5. Arrows showing drainage Required
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties O.K. •
6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water
for ponds
O.K.
7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street O.K.
8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes Hydra-mulch alternative
9. Flood plain encroachment. NO
10. Watershed District approval Required
11. C;::1: approv41 N.A.
D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground Require
E. Electric (underground) Required
14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Required
15. Peeliminay p at to be submitted to 1111D or Henn. Co. if abutting a
State or County shay.
Minnesota Highway Ileot. (TA!. '-i169-212)
•
16. Liat special ast:cssmonts levied and pending See attached
Listing
_ 1
17. hc-wning agreement ri:guii-rd Yes ..
Developer's Agreement required Yen
Title Abstract for Attorney's review Not required
•
34S1
"Area G" The Preserve
16. * Special assessments •
Levied:
#6133 Ring Road $5,877.55
#6143 Trunk sewer & water $35,985.00
#6438 Neill Lake Storm $44,044.50
#6451 Ring Road Storm sewer $74,354.79
#6730 F & G - I.C. 51-274 $135,737.32
#6741 S1R - F & G $103,845.87
Pending:
T.R. 169 Improvement S76,500.00
* Parcel f5625 - includes portion of Parcel located south of proposed
Schooner Boulevard
•
34Sti
r
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- • Oct. 14, 1976
C. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, presentation of development
standards implementing the PUD Concept Plan and request for rezoning
from Rural to C-Regional Service. The site is located in the northeast
corner of the Schooner Boulevard and US 169/212 intersection.
The planner referred the commission to the Design Framework Manual submitted •
by The Preserve as a tool for developing Area G. •
Hess stated the Design Framework Manual ( DFM ) standards are similar to those
used at Yorktown. He stated many plans are possible for the development of
.; Area G and he believes the 5-8/1,000 parking ratio will accommodate most uses. •
;orensen expressed concern that Figure A in the DFM would permit freestanding
restaurants, not clustered as previously approved.
Lynch, Beaman and Pauly felt the DFH has merits and is a good attempt to
improve the planning process.
Pauly suggested the City Attorney investigate the DFM and report on the legal •
aspects of the document , delegation of authority, etc.
Motion:
•
Beaman moved, Lynch seconded, to continue .Area G to the October 25th meeting. •
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
6 3tJc
PJ,Ai:1:)I'dC .. •;;)' Ii1PORT
TO: Planning Co:or:nission
1'J< Dick Putncm, Planning Director
1Yti7 n July 22, 1975
PPO area C of The Preserve Commercial flan
;" The Preserve
;1•- . Concept Plc c approval and preliminary platting for
a commarcio) development in the northeast quadrant
and 169/ Mug Route intersection
"•t I. Preserve Commercial flan, �_ !'
pages 2a 29,graphirs 22, b..
22a and 23. (pre. distributed )
2. Market Analysis for Retail and Office Commercial (>.
prepared for the Prec+cry
(pre. distribute
d ;c
3. Jack Auu.rson ;,sso., traffic report Preserve Arca G.(attached;
4. Turk & brereetion Report 5-5.75(attached)
5. Revisr•ci Plea 6-1-75 (attached ) iF
( G. Enginec,r'a Report dated 7-24-75 (attached ) ((s
h. )', ,n C ,,i.iit•
C.?r,tur`Report , on pages 81-PS, discusecs the. land use potentials
for %''-,,cc : and 6 in which ;irea C Is located. The Plan states on pace 02; •
3crca upland bordering old 169 and bounded on the
the elope to the flood plain off;rsa direct relation-
• :n tm lIomart l:cgionr+l 14a1) cite. Thu scattered l:
c,n eeci r-olling 1;!m_i character should provide for
. y ar::;y cornmurcial dovcici;mcnt. The Northern States• <'
... ,,,;,;:ri:;nt, 165 tent wide, runs north/eoutl, through !;
pr:r.ic;: a site planning constraint c•omhined with
ution of the piing i;onte. Reetrlctions on the Notthcrn •
P'cnrc:; e;ts,: tent will limit tIc construction of the p..
:ilcin.,., t;ithin 11,,,t aasemeni and would allow parking
\td unc::. This 1011 acne area offers a gtrlt deal
;htlily In lie u:;C of rog:oncti :; ,vice, office and
I ..-'' !tonal , I :nr.,it (Anhui, , and housing. " t_
t,
P ":
1
. A f
Staff )report-Area G of The Preserve Com. Plan -2- July 22, 1975 '
• I,
The Plan recognized the need to plan detailed road, utility and land
use pai eels with the landowners as development •occurs. On `
(
page fS'I, the Plan elates;
". . . . The area is provided with an internal road system 1
that may nerd revision to better serve'the needs of a 1
commercial center." c
, 1Vs. i c e t
! Ca }
,J ,�r ^' a.J .
•
.w..v ! It i. .? // '. :
The land uses, road pattern , and development timingis consistent with 1'.
•
the Major Center Area flan. 1,',
•
B. Plan 11'monis
1. Land lif“ •
-
The land uses proposed on the 17.3 acre site for Area G are within
the Major Center contr;c:rviol, office , service categories and
conmulnity commercicl such as the proposed
sums market. Table 1 lists the acreage , proposed lend use,
parl;ing, square footeq e:nd coveiagc of the lots within the
Area G plan.
' TAI:LE ) : Iicv!et:d Lira C Concr.i.t Plan
Lol,Wort: A•rer: L: trlll,,r: ?7tin.h.J.11• rr"17roozim1. -
P1, 1. 1 3„ oil/i: r.t 32,600 37i'/ 1 Ice
J,2,3 1• rct•ail/utf 9,200 12S/:;peer
112, 1.1 6.0 rc.lni)/I.ar. 311,!,(10 144j::pacr.
1•la (1,1) tr.:t./It:i,1 7,0(10 lail/i:p:•ca
1,2 7.6 lot,ii1/611 )7,0il0 130/::pacC
J.3 1.9 1:J ol./o`I 8,400 150/:.p:i ce
1.4 .0 t(!.1+e n,tnt 7,000 17:•/: •::cc'
L5 1.11 1(•:I/A Hot) 7,0110 )10_/:)•ace: 7 -
" r.lrn(I 1(,,h1 of.k,,I,, 2.02 ,:c.
Total 19.32. 126,600
)7.30 44)26,600
+ p:01,l19 aril) rem,',n) I.p::rd on.,:mi. ft. of 0m00
1,011400 1,,,,It1no :;...re
44 6i114in9 to:.r 'n.,;c poccolagc l:;about 17Z,
I'lL,GGI1 cq.11.1.1,19, )77
7:.3,598 ng.1l. .r1c•:;total 3I0
•
Staff Report-Urea G of The Preserve Com. Plan -3- July 22, 1975
•
The Area G plan proposes a potential of 3 free standing t�:;. ::rant
sites along 169. At this time the type and specific sir_: .. the
( restaurants is not known. The planning staff would sug. i.st a rating
system used by St. Louis Park in Ordinance No. 1258 wlt: rr classifies
restaurants by their function. The following explains eL.ch of the
restaurant classes,
•
Restaurant Class I: A sit-down restaurant with on-sale liquor,
serving food to its curto.:ers while seated at tables. Personalized, printed
menus are used and the food is served on multiple use utensils. There may
be scee take-out service but the food is not previously packat,ed. •
Restaurant Class II: A sit-down restaurant without on-sale liquor
but otherwise providing the services of a Restaurant Class I.
Restaurant Class III: A cafeteria which is a sit-down restaurant.
Bond is selected by the patron while going through a serving line. The
patron lakes his food to a table where it is eaten. Multiple use utensils
are used. 'there ray be scans take-out service but the food is not previously •
packaged.
• Restaurant Class IV: A fast food or drive-in restaurant that dons
not pr'ceit eating outside on the premises. This restaurant specializes in
. fond;; prepared or nearly prepared in auvenne and which are sold directly
to the prt:ron et a counter end not served by a wailer. The fond is often
partially ;::-ci:cgc•d beiorc the order is taken. The food is essentially
served p :1;aged or served in single service materials (paper or plestic).
The pr.:.curl ready have the option of eating inside the building or off the
premi scs.
Restaurant Class V: A fast-food or drive-in restaurant that a1.leus
eating outside on the premises.. This restaurant provides the services of a
rc.stauraa Class IV but also includes eating outside of the building on tits
•
Jyl P
Staff Report-Area G of the Preserve Corn. Plan -4- July 22, 1975
For the Area C site , based upon the Preserve Commercial Plan, and
_ Objectives of the Major Center Plan, the 3 sites proposed for restaurants
would be for Class 1 & 2 freesteuding restaurants, and the Class 3 &
4 iesteurent:, norinelly 'known as cafeterias and fast foods would
be prohibitd unless (tro ped in a unified building or site plan.
Class 5 restaeiunta, the drive-in type, would be prohibited in the
Ai ea G plan.
The Preserve Commercial Plan has established a site near Anderson
Lakes and tier. Ring Route for the Class 3 and 4 ciusteredcspecia1ty
food rest:nurt.nis . The intent of the Arca G plan Is to provide for
• frc cstnr;dinq tinnily typo Class 1 and 2 restaurants.
The .upon:erket and chop uses would be a direct competition with the
Humeri r:;;igbi,urhood Center plopc;;ed just east of 169/ Ring Route
intcreectiou, it is likely that if 1 of these centers is constructed the
other may change its use. At this time. tita City has approved the
Ito' Sri Nei: i.:0;1oo•l Center in concept, but no detailed development
Wu:: have been submitted. The Preserve's locution for a super merkeV
slioppine center may he more inarl.etahlc:_ due to lower land cost for
irnmediet:• development es it is deteohcd from the regloual mall site.
Four Si:en is ;, ill entriitt'd os office, instilutlonul, or retail and border
( the b ri.'l �perty to the r;oith. The co tbinetion of two of the sites
toc::0'; i c ri he en option if a tenant desired a larger space.
1'lcxlbili,e• of the transportation system and the natural features would
permit such future: modifications. ,.
C. Ciirit ti n
T i-. atieened Joel; Anderson Traffic Analysis provides detailed information
rel:+live the io trip generation , turning movements, and circulation patterns
to the :;ire. 'the I iterr.al toad system has been negotiated between the
Beteicl, 'Leman, and' ;'reserve landoweeie and conforms with the
en lii.eeri In reenire:nients developed by IIovrrrd Needles for the ring Route.
l:lco, the t.,.ie digit\::y l)ef'.irtmeat h s approved the, design for 169
and in - oct et me l to )6 J/212. 'l'he Area C:.cite will be well served
vlih pi: it_; i r.dc on 3 sides of the Lite, awl the • proposed 70 foot
•
light-of-way running emih/eoutii under the Nil' easement. To complement
•
thin ai s} t.r.. of easements with piivate roads provide joint circulation
Lciwucn ill;: sites and the public roads. •
•
Staff: Report-Area G of The Preserve Com. Nun -5- July 22, 1975
Pcdestrlan and bike circulation systems are notes well defined and
need further definition during the development stage planning. Connection
to the llomart Center at the Ring Route / 169 intersection is advisable
• for bikes and pedestrians connecting north/south to
the hermrl property. Likewise, a north/ south system connecting
the fireoti,ndtng uses along 369 to the north of the Ilomart entrance
through the Hormel /Teman properties is recommended. lit the
north Hornell entrance a connection to the IIorut:rt pathway system
linking to the future 3rd or With deportment store would be made along
the earth berm The City has placed
heavy emphasis upon non-vehicular movement systems for internal
site mobility as well as total Major Center connections with surrounding
residential areas. •
D. Opr_r.Sl':;_r-c'_
The /ilea G Plan retains the tip of the slope along the
Ring Route which extend:: north through the Ecrmel/Tetuan /Kelly and
reednrs properties. This area proposed in the Major Center flan is
to be reiniand as a natural woociud hill side, Potential Oi ice,
inatitufionol, or retail use nay he built adjacent to the
hillside with a p:.r;:lag structure nccormmcac:t.ing the grade
change. Tio Part: l Recreation Commission roeonuucndud
k. that u:ore of the hill he r lti'.n d in the grading plus, much as
the (;ulco Office hailding was built on the side of the hill
to retain more of its natural character.
The rem,ntodor of the site is developed in urban uses as;roads, parking,
building alias, and :'Cihar;}; green space . The ability to create pleasant
urlr..n scn.le open space in conjunction with the building clusters
and the pedei:trian bikrAvays to the site will (dinner the urban
envirommorit and will be consistent with the remainder of the Major Center
devehm.,mcnt.
];. Siin PI;:n r1 ' mewls
1. (;r;uliny. •
The proposed used marline plan will alter the existing site signficantly.
The western hill will be nut 25-30 feet and the low area under
the i fT easc.mec,t would h iiiled 10-12 feet to permit building
silo:, . This erdeneiv; grading is doe the grade and alignment
of the Ring Route which has a 20 foot cut through the hill and
3�1 try •
1 '
,
Staff nc.port.-Area C of the Preserve Corn. Plan -6- July 22, 1975 .. ,
fills the low area under the power easement. Also, the
no/row hill adjoent to l 69 offer:: little huildahle urea
with il 20-30 foot slop . The staff hclievcs the grading
( requilcd on this site , due to load i)iginnent , land ur,e,
location, ned nets co,Klitions I,... not typical of that
(,xpecit.dil.lot4h..ut tim Major Cenier Area.
... -
.. , • 1.1 I : / _i. .
i 1,1 ;/I/ ,,1 1, ,,,,. :, „. ••,), I . /4, ; ,11,.; ,t,• ;..--`-i- .:-..--- c i.,%,s3 c-;._'''--.4,.... s ;,
- s;m, /".„ ,:, i \ „t •- -,. .• 7.. • ..,:,... - .:It / , ..,, - .
.... .
f ". - • -..'' i 1 i •:-.. s• , 'i•
11 k. (•,,1\ , ',\ -\!:1,, i. '' ii) • (// ,'
.;,i,1 . -, I/ , , ,. . . ii...---1-6, • 1,
I1 ,)! 'i %"\\ '.'/Iii / =-<1- fir. •; ' i-- 'i: 1 • ' II :._':' ; ----7,,,:)--
i: , ,.: : ,,,, \ „„,:„.:,,,,,. ,-,, ,,,,, . . . „, .............„____,0.___.._ \ 1 i,. ity
I I i,, \ ...' -,...-' ' ,'::.::',..../1 ' 'Id(1 , / 1'4 . . ,, . , 2. ' V
A.--'''\....,\'' ).' -:"-:--(.1,1 i (.1.;/., _ ;,; —
C'..,.,,,, "1"-:,N1, //
' 'J .. 17 V; . 1. ,'-'-i 1 ,,
/ /
-----...._ •
41:: .k; - , 3,\,,f..2...."
1..' i`,1 ' ;;:::-:/ i -
:• ' " I: ' 411 Y„ ' /,i / ,1 .,
'.. .. \.1 1.... `!(:•,-i .,,t--------‘1•r:....--- ir ''/ i.•-;'', .••<':,/ ..'; 7 . i .:::.'.'
I 1 , . ..1-',...-7.."/".'"--7/ l'' I.<1 1.-f y• i / ,r% ____,' -:."5,.. •,
' ', .•:• ''.'.. j' . ? I J---/• . .4-,:.----,;/ ,`-k.,4 ,>,-4 / /// '1: ' a __.
' i.„.'" ) •, ' ,Ki ,."; - -i --"--/-- " - / N,--„NQ':' ,‘.„„ /..
. ..?
/ i\ ://, ' '1,-,,, ,,f,,..N.',;‹,.,if ,,,'/// • ".'•
/..! i'' i\I.,-.'‘,. \ .' ' . '-':'"ir• • -..-s------'-'7 / /1-N`f,::(.'
,, 1 ;// /'
,. ,i •,,y` \ ' s\- -:.-''.'s",/ ,• ', '/ -/-------''':'--el- 5.%01 '.
, . /,. I . . ----''N.N.),
/
..,
74
''' '/,', / ,. s., t /
'' '
-7 , ,.,%, •.',,,,,•.,,, ;,_ ,/i ,.... , „-' ,/,, , ..,,
4,••
• '/7 ; t'-'),',' V r-C\
1, - N ,,1 • . r si / ,'• 4 _ \ '..,
-: :,.1 0''.' ',___'. --;,-' .', .\," 'r-4', ! '''",,.'...' .1 -. .. . /' '..../.?I 1\' \_..- •) ' :
. ,\\u i•• • , // ,/'.('-> ,,_,. : ?. .
\,,,, \ '1•:,,I''''2.C, •,'>'' ,,,.
' \ ,I 1 ' 1 I ,......-"''''' . li ;r ./' A IN'.. 51:•V'',,-- 1.'.'.<-*,,7'
\ ; ; ' 1 : ; ' ; ; 1,,! , ;.., ....„• ''',, , 2\,,,,,(..„.,,-,---, • ,--1 ..-. ''..':':: - '
/ ri: . •
't , 1 ' , ,, ', • :I'.'.1. ' / : .:t`,,°.%,,,,=•-•'-,-------'...-71-11.),./: '' ', . '4, ,. ",',. ,
7 • 1 / ' !
, ' , ', \ : -// . 1;' (P/, .1 ..,4:-,4. `-•:,:r.s _ • , ,.j . ,
//•)• • ":.. 141i I...;"; ''',. N ),..1' , /
\ ' ,, ,.\ \ I ' '! (-''•,,,.,\:, : :,I. -
1 il."‘\I \ ''.\ • , t
K
)
.:,;., • \ . -
N.t.. A e //1
\ ;77 '' . s 1...,, • .
I ( k, 1,', '\ \• \-../-'sN'` - t '
k1./// 'I.- ------ --NT '12 '`i ) N 4 \ • i ••!:'_
•• 1 j ,IN ‘ •.-
ii.1 I, ( \ ,,, 1 t D: \.,, .1:':',,,• :...‘ ./ ' 02; •' ... ';7....\ \ ' ( '6 ''''\\\ '‘4 '
I ' N \ •' •-.1• '':,-
4 ,
7 /'i .' * .t.\1 1(•\ • 7 I i l / , , • °.'-'t.. ., --',4 ,\4.: :1 ,''' •
Tii'df; .
• : ._
,_.,
'
Stuff Repent-Area G of The Preserve Corn. Plan -7- July 22, 1975
2. .i.'ric3 capind
The level of landsceping illustrated on the plan is conceptual
end depicts the use of the parking lot vegetation to define
•
curb and hairier areas , •arid the plani.ing s in the court
yard and building areas. In addition to the landscaping
• •concepi , parking Jot trees similar to that used by
]lower: should be Incorporated in all development plans. Like-
wice, earth herminn screening and other landscaping techniques
should be utilized for buffering the parking areas from the major
rosdreeyc•
3. ecl,ac•1 .,Sidevr rd_RecWrirerne;its_
The setbeck, side yard requirements will be flexibile to accommo-
date the planned land use package thi's•Will enable joint use cf drive-
ways, parking areas, end siting of buildings in relation to public •
streets to 'achieve the desired effect from the public and
private developers standpoints. The function of hethochs .
•relation to the public objectives and that of the private owner
shall be used as a determinent of actual distance, instead of
a required distance. •
%a. pr,It in .
The 1, r?:ing ratios for individual uses will be calculated from the
(. herev ilt:ble iufoir.etion thet the City and private developer a
can put together at the time of developme,t approval . Joint use
of par;ins if it can be proven thet adequate space will be available:
for those using the coinmon par)dng facility will be permitted.
1\o perking will be permitted on public streets or driveways serving
more thee I pre:?eriy. The parking required may be underground,
ramp , or of-grade parking. •
5. Urhen 1)reigiu
Revicr: of the development proposals will take into account structural
design, cite amenities, site reietionshii,5 to other uses , and
detailed urhen desire elements such tic; walkways, lighting, land-
scepin;,h pe dcrtrien.fe ilities Wit effect the overall success of the
Major Center environment and the use proposed.
(
34G6
• • • .
Staff Report-Area G of The Preserve Com. Plan -8- July 22,1975
/21:(X)7.:7, 1;T:7T2AT121:5
1. The planning staff recommends approval of the PlJD Development
Siwje and i:rvis.nd Area 0 Plan . as depicted in the following
sl:cteli and Table 1 acreage breakdown .
t //V
• iv
•
: •t
\,:::14$ 1•1 :
1 / • /
41 N. •`.2 "
2. Thet all development applications within Area C be processed
as rczoning rz;c;t:icnts and evaluated hosed upon the Revised
Area C Plan of the Pr2scrve Commercial Plan and z,cc.ording to
the rec;omm:nd:.itions of the July 22nrl planning staff report
anci the July 24thengineering report. •
3. TI],.:t ae 17.3 acre site be approved for preliminary platting consis-
tent with the plat dated 4-11-75 and the Revised Area G
Concept Plan.
4. That the Preserve work with Beriscl/Toinan to coordinate the
connecting street and girding
DP/jin:
•
3(4.1
. ,
• '" •
I'itlanf.s.11 C..;C:-.736Eleti!.'51 V:1.F.nutom -a-a • • . ' " • July LU, 1275 • . ;
_ .___ ... _.. . . .. ....._ ......... . . . ; . . .
rirt....7.2.: . . . . _ ... . . ' • . ".
E:o'.....ruclrE2'...-..-c-ci, 8c.!•tr. oceox.:361, to r.:=-_•,-4.r.tmd op7sovol of 1'r G's r:
coracc;;,t !::-...73. c147.4 :.-,-.:.c....-..:icz.-14-.11,::-...t-ttnii7 c:tyi)Soct to rcot.::.--•-rnr:r.z....ttionv 1!,
1-3 r:•1 r•_-,:•,,, r;0::t::-) .!,.7 :::, 7.(..,'4'5 ctztil:l':.-7,c7t, 0 4 nc corn.-.1r,qiratti..ed.). 56G ; ,
. . . _. . .
( 1. 71:7a r':-DI'l,:-.1 rZ,-.. r-.-7.-.---,.....r.Nc:1.-,.:0 c -,...-..,.1 c' t!.-n El?! )n-irfs!t.r:r•".I
£.',--2r.:n i :•4 r•-,,,,,,;••J;-,-1. c;•.1-7.-.Th ' .rc CcioLe.tcti In V.:a follo:-,;.'-.7
I : ac..-t-_. ..,o/.......-11;:e :/i.
. . i• ;
- R ....t--•-r-
• . j': • -; 77...::'77""-- 7' i•-1-7,_ •,::.... '-•,:...... ...-,—../" ,
:Y., :' ''l:• . :•: ;:: "`:. .L...: ..,., .f. :, ''',; . 4.
• ''
\, '',....i ! ;-7:.!.:,::,1:,•.;.',r,T..,-/., ;,,-,..,.- .
‘ . .. . . ••••,• . ,. , 1,' ‘.-•!. . .7, --• ,1 , •
.„..
.., ,%: •-• - , - ,;•':,..' ');//.
. C.•:. :!....77,•..:;';','..it.r. r...:.....7.1 II • `.',:11•: • -" . :7:' 77.• ? /
.s \......f. '',•.:.; -7:•`•-•..-7,-'.,•<:' •:::.//,/ '..
7, • , ::•':. .. --:-.- i --7 .
•.
'‘....-.• .i..N.': '`:-:/./ / ,
CN,';•.; •• ,
. . .
Z.'. .11'-2 n11 (':c...-r.:a--.::c•r,t,cr 'lir-.Tic.:;-,vit.i..",m iTc'.1 G l'_-; !--i:-..•;:.-2.crc,41 .. ,
cti !:!-:„.•!-±.,. -; r-i.c.:..i..-', rr' (•..-;,:t. -...,,:-.4 i'•ir---it•--O-t C:-Ii--.,:. r..,,-:li „
I,•.-:-:;-. C. ',;,' .:. '..-2';':--, , •• ,•.f.-71 C.-.
• (....!. • t•_.',..: : .-.:,.:`.!, .,. ..,g i..!'.' .....t..:1 l'::::..:-...'.'''; ,;;;_-.....:r;:"..77:.'t ..• .
(.. r-r-li t.....') )V: / `4'..`../.....,.:::•;.".:::..-...,14-.•)tc.,•.......-tt.
•,
1....n r...,---....,.-4••:.:(•-:2:-..77,-t-_,:',:!.7:tr.o..z.1?r...•;(..:".1.4t1 oz.:..-.:7.!.0- ,
• t-..•:_ ::v"1:.•-t';.:."-.: n'..ze c 7.. c...i _1-1.i,'-',•,•, z",',.'::::c....)igi.'v.1.17!C,:gi ist"„14 Ci .
C:••77::::7;: ..:717.:1. ..
.
12. `/;."It::':• ;:--: .?,::.4 c.7 ::: -,,,-3 : : ..;,•...i„, .... t:... c.--..3:.-7e.:, ..-......to • .
V:-7; Ca:: , ;;::.•....:`f 1..-7:%,.:.ggg.i.:....4 e .,...;.7.1 ! 7:, Ig',..::,,,, C..:,:::i..21..:1 (.7 : ::`,
. .
t'7 g..tg'77 g .: 7,::.g'...:.7..•:.ii g. '..i. .-.7.;:g[...gi C......:::,.).t.;::7.:,....1'.g X:.77,--1.- .:-'.": IV
c.,..r..r.--,p_".-..:...: c..._. ..i:4-.....,_;...4...2(.:i,c.4%.,-..;;;.....1 c.:4.-.4k..'1.i(I_,.•x,:g7.•,/a t.f..•i.g.11..:11:11271 ,'..;:1'.'....7 .:
::.'4.:',7' .,:•,„':.,,. .
r,. L-: :...,•:.; ... , .-...:.,, . 1,_,,,,,,,i c.:..-_,. .. :-,:,:; .1.,1(..!:.7, 'J.:7;0 r_-....°1 l'...rd tv..:c.s.1 Co C?,-.;;;;:.1 t(..-::.:.
ry :.....71.:• •• :0'.j.--.::::, : 2',....,,, L'....,—".7..2.'.. .) .71 .
. L,
G. '.."..'-,t!:',
. ‘-,•1?.i I:--.:.,'^g:4 i.77 , (1 C-7.`....$ 1.7.2 t r.c7.4.41-t'...:: .-.tic t..:::-4.lulitiZIP C,`..-;----.:.:(:: l -.
f7.-7....1 Os.1 1 :NI 1.1:7.7,79 1 , 7..: 17:,....., '::,:5'‘'....t1C.,2Z.I.V.`...'..i c_ir,_1 rz•cf.....c.4..., , ;
! ,
1::)..7:,:.-: . .1 s ....4 c.. ,;.........:„.....--.4 u..-....-] f,:r4I,In.f....-vc,.P...*..:;.zot i...)114I';'..•7•.:g ort/
r•-•-•,c..i.;...-.; 1.;.a.:-.-,1.4:...:...:-.1 c..-.....:.-4.:A. .
. .
.
'.::-....":.....):•!..,..:.3 c. si-i::;',i t:4:-_-.: '-,:-.-41:3'...1;t7. • •
cc L...;=.;.;...:_, L.1 .....a IL::•,•,••,...;, :.._.::1; ct.z.f.2r:.74v..1
: °. _ ... ..• 1 :
.. .
. . „
. -.-. . .
( • .
.. .. . . ., . . .
.. . • . .
' • I
.• . - . • , . • • . .
, •.• ... • • • .... • . ..• • . . .
•
• :.2. (r7', .
•
ii
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.1216
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF STEWART HIGHLAMS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the prelimina'l-y plat of Stewart Highlands,
dated 10-8-76, a copy of which is attached hereto
and amended as follows:
Street names to be changed.
Proper provision for sight distance at kilt
Way and County Road G0 as required by the
City Engineer. •
Subject to all requireP.Alts and conditions of
the rezoning agreement to be executed in con-
junction with the 2nd reading of Ordinance
No. 354.
is found to be in conformance with the provisions of
the Eden Prairie Zoning and platting ordinances and
amendments thereto and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the den Prairie City Council on
•
Wolfgang H. Pcnzel, Mayor
SEAL
ATTEST:
•
John D. Fran, Clerk
•
MEMO
\ TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
•
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: Decrmhrr 3, 1976
SUBJECT: Stewart Highlands Plat
Request for Deletion From MCA Assessment Area
The owners of the proposed Stewart Highlands Plat have requested that their
land (19 acres) be deleted from the assessment area for the Schooner Boule-
vard Project. The assessment amount currently levied for Phase I of the
project is $4,332. Assuming the Schooner Boulevard Project were to be com-
pleted under the current assessment policy, without F.A.U. funding, an
estimated additional amount of $29,300 for the base rate plus $15,800 for
the land use/trip generation rate would be applied against the Stewart
property.
Since the density of the proposed Stewart Highlands (less than 3 units per
acre) is far less than the estimated 15 units per acre projected for "low"
density residential areas in the MCA and further, since this property will
not have any frontage on schooner Boulevard, it is recommended that the
land be exempted from any additional assessments for the Schooner Boulevard
Project.
CJJ:kh •
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- Nov. 8, 1976
D. Ste.rart Highlands, by Stewart Properties, request to preliminary plat
(
31d rezone Topview Acres 1st Addition from Rural to RM 6.5 for single 4:.
family and/or double bungalow dwellings. A continued public hearing.
The planner reviewed the staff report and noted the project r+- ::ts all of
the requirements of city ordinances.
•
Pauly believed the project is also consistent with the MCA Report. She read
from page 81 of the report:
"Within Zone 4, the most sensitive area is located north of the
Ring Route between old Valley View Road and -the community park.
This triangular shaped area is approximately 40 acres, with o
high point at Valley View Road dropping SO feet to the RingRoad
at the base of the hill. The relationship with Topvieu single ,
family residential area will require a blend of residential unit
types on site with lower density use adjacent to Valley View
Road and medium density residential or freestanding office ut lizin
adjacent to the Ring Route. Great care in site planning, g
the slopes to integrate the office and residential uses with
those of the existing neighborhood will be required."
Pauly expressed the concern that future buyers be made aware of possible
future adjacent uses. Other commission members shared the concern and expressed
hope that the proponents and his agent:; would make future b,:yers aware of the
possible adjacent commercial uses.
(Larry S. Johnson, engineer for the project, stated they do not have any objections
to the staff report.
No comments or questions I.:ere raised from the audience.
Motion 1:
Schee moved. Bearman seconded, to close the public hearing on the Stewart
Highlaud's project preliminary plat. The motion carried unanimously.
Mot i ii 2:
Schee moved, Bearman seconded,to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Stewert Highland.; proposal for Topveiw 1st Addition rezoning from Rural to
R!i a.S and preliminary plat approval including the recommendations of the staff
report , literature sbumitted by Stewart Properties and that if a building permit •
is not obtained within 18 months, the owners will not oppose the rezoning of the
property back to Rural.
DIscussion:
Sundstroo questioned if the road pattern of the project was desirable for the MCA.
The planner felt , without an absolute design for Schooner Boulevard, it is
difficult to foresee which design will be hest.
f Sorensen inquired if the city desired an outlet to the south for the project.
c "'he planner stated 2 options are available, an outlet to the south or west. . ,..
cote: The motion carried 4:1 with Bearman voting nay.
•
I �ll'l(
I .T.7
. . 1 ;..
•
STAFF REPORT, Amended
TO: Planning Commission • . ,
. ,
ROA: Dick Putnam. Planning Director
DATE: November 4, 1976
. ,•
... .
. .
L ,
somum Stewart Highlands • .
APPLICANT: Stewart. Properties Inc.
1,0A110::: Tcpview 1st Addition
_ .
. .
111.M%'.ST: Zoning from Rural to RN 6.5 . „. .
Preliminary plat approval
REHR 'JO: September 3, 1976. staff report .,
, .
10/19/76 engineering report
,.• .
As Idr. Stewart points-out in his November 2nd letter,the proponent feels he has •
met all of the requirements of the planning commission and city ordinances
. ,
..
pertaining to the revised pi:in. lie explains the project's influence on adjacent
lanclowners and the need for the landowners and city staff to solve the road
system pro ices. • . .
• .,
Mr. jnille, City rngineoi, is satisfied that approval of the requests will not
i elin.inate potential solutions to tie access road question in the future as it . .
. .
V may he, built on the property west of Stewsrt's or cast of the church. The city
. ,
doo:,. net hz.,%. ;..r.;:lininnry pl.ins for S...'ao,.,-‘-xr Iloulova;.1 through this area and . .
that isv.kes it very difficult to locate future road...
Cli%nriy, all parties ::gree ,.,,ame road connection 1,01'Wiell Co. Rd. 60 and the
fin ire Schooncr isoulevard is necessary.
..
, .
Mr. I-;tewart states that no variances from city ordinances would be necessary
to c .i,..true this project and he is correct. using Ordinance :;03 & 13i . All
sethnel.s. heights, street grader, utility designs, etc., moot . .
. ,
, .
• city ordinance requirements.
.• .
. .
•iliv interr,oction of the proposed streets in Stewart Highland's ,Kilt Way • .
. .
and !;;I:.h Road with Co. Rd. 60 do meet the spiciwg reqn1temonts of Ordinance k93.
The devtloror his submitted in entrance permit application to Hennepin County
PWilic Forks to deteinioe if the sight distance and location is acceptable to
..
the cionty hiliv:ay dopartawnt . lie expect that the entrance requests will be . .
detcrmincd to hC acceptable to the county. ..
/,s Ili-. Stewart explained in his letti.ir, park land questions have been addressed
as per city ordinances where the builder would pay the $209/unit charge at the
tin, of building permit application. No additional play space for residents
of ti,;:, project would be propo,ed other than yard space of each unit.
, .
. .
The riodii.p plan for the revised plan i:1 very similar to that of the original
,
( plri. lia. Cite is a vacated gray, I pit which slopes southwestward from Co. Rd. CO
and th- CA! i prop...rty line. lie design solution which Mr. Stewart refers to as
"the itir:;cig effect" doe!. allow for views for tinny of the units over the roofs
of 011c C6il!'. . To do thin relatively steep slopes, approximately 3:1 (similar
he f!,-way ,,habkments), will he used to take up the grade betiteen the blckyard
of (Is' lilt and that of another. This will he feasible with proper erosion control. ,..-.
. .
Staff Report-Stewart Highlands, amended -2- Nov. 4 , 1976
In my opinion, the staff report which Mr. Enger prepared on the original request
still generally represents my feelings of the overall project design. The saying
comes to mind from the llousing Task Force Report,
" In a community of *square mi les there should be room for
•
some of everything„."
Perhaps that same approach could be used in this project since in the last five
years no developments have been proposed based on the concept of a'grid iron'
• subdivision which was designed to meet city ordinances completely.
My opinion is that the land uses arc acceptable as a transition from the MICA ,
and as Pr. Carpenter pointed-out at the last meeting, the location of homes along
the south end of the site will make implementation of the MCA northwest quadrant
•
more difficult due to the removal of the morraine south of this site and the
commercial uses proposed and anticipated.
Since the city has ordinances governing land development and the applicant has
asked the city review his plan according to those ordinance,, it is difficult if
the proponent meets the''`letter of the law"of those ordinances to deny the project-
Therefore, I would be hard-pressed to recommend denial of the project based on
any city ordinances or standards-
CTie phoning staff believes the project does meet the city ordinances, therefore
the roicCI should be re_cneend to the Co“nei1 for approval. However, the
planning staff does not believe the project is creative in its approach to
housing in a ;aid-density fashion. We would hope the c'ty would, during the
Guide Plan Upiste, reconsider its ordinance provisions.
Dl':jj
C •
3,173
• •
C,77-
. SI r‘N
• INII:,.`;1•:Al'til.1`.•;, (• 4:6(:•'1,,,t)
NIAN.s•.1.•
\ 11. Nov:ribr..!1• 2, 1976
)4,)
Hr. •., •7••:11.;•-•••
• • •
i : re: Y .1'/•‘1 i•
•••••h•lt ,
Fo:• WE: !.}; , EC.n1
:• • ,., 1•11, o, a•rf in cot':,•••••,.••,rd•-_:1;.,, •:)
•-•; -1'or 11 1 i •••.-nt
; , •,
W,. o t 1.'..cr Lo f LL1-. Ser,t0": (/' 1 ,
VG-LO
C Ti . ,;•••-d,.1 ch
1'7 01: 1 •
•
••• •••• of U•••_• -fin";
cc;
•• ' c cc rr r1 of
t C I 1Cc•...., to 11.s ::,171
rf, Co•
•' ' • 4,;) f t
• • C. .••• •
": a i).•%.7.1*.i.:2•:•.r:a--- •
L(i Ct.:1 .frt-••.
•;.;. • n, ••••.“,.; c over to htp..,er,r.,;,,,,r •.
Lr,-.••••• Ify tr• Cot1.71.1cccrc, thC:
;•:ir:. r. L j.; on :
, • • ,-. (}iit,i • (,•,1 CO, 'Lind 1.1..c
••• ; ‘• F,(1 1)J.u:':).,-3(
•
•• , • , .)! 3. ft( 1:,1. 10fce',.
••• • 1 I i .• I 0`:: (.1' rtY ,ts
•
, ) " • .!. . •";• C ; oLe cctuny cod CO,
t.,J•• • rm.
init. 11;1(1 1c.• HaL.
.' Ht L'Ip 1 :„.; W. it would
•
••: i• • .
r, •.or ro-t t"'ES.* ).1t di ^. to
• i,.; it Lit,
.:„ •,•• :• c iiI!, •,/,,:jit ti cii :
:•••
••••,•, ••••t•••..4 t o:: •; t (lite
„,,•• •,L, 4.r•,••• fo; v4 ;,'N1 Str•riAt :imitt•
. .
rnin to 1.,pr-Ild tho traffic among the various ntreetn in our projcet and
;w:,,, I, ',',..,.• ni '0 ,, WOCt of u,••• -- a'l el which traffic woulci funr.,:l. down .,
to •zt 1,hos•o1•-,hfare which would. then go :...)uthwar(1 to the Rine, Road. • •_..
Jt .i:', 1::T,. ..ibl,o., for any of en to predict what the street f....i tea ti on will
he V • .•.',tur , ,,:l...,r•c or wh,,n thelli rig React will be built, arid no it . .
In se••:.k.•wrid.1.,-of a quancthry. •
,,f - I•_• ch lic,]-1..,- a stub ,,f L;t.r( et near the southwort corner of our
i i•-; ! '.., ...-ie'r. :A -1.1, 1.c c•.a ..c•ctrA to a :•;trut con.:rp; f rum the property to
:-, ...' us --- Lc'.1). F..,'..ro‘ ',.: then per-cc i bly c-mint; tots,uth,,:r into in thcrour711-
far, ti, •.:.:.,-. ur; ••,•:,i '..i, the j. e,-, c,,(i. Pi r.,-; head -- 1:111L.,U, of nc,,!esr,ity, be
•
.:,p(,•.'„:1. ' ,' _ a:',.. a 1 ,c..,:,0::...a I It offcr ,:jul:•,t, n-,': l'- ,:`,''.1.,;r; f,,11 t,i.1 on. .•
. .
• ,
Ti' ?Ai, c'It' :,•,lv,-..-'.0 ri•-,c1(-'. , th:,.1, r,-oac o rner type •;•treet pattern :•-i onld be
,I, v.,,,r,i ,: ••:,, 4,, -, -.,';!1ire, uur d,._,O, c-Itcd strw•t to tn..' ;-:,,,rath could c.li.her ;
a d, f..',--,y1 f o7. F.e-r-:ic :, o-.r 1 ift fli ot I.CTI C`n the south...• :r.t
coi•n,. I. ,, •,:e r :•(T,. •-t-y, or cottl.cc ba vacated, or other deLi rabic action
tak, ,, a', -1..,•.-11-• tic::_..
be a fc.rot d,7.vr??.‘..,,,,.q. in ccc; are-. ;..!,-,:1 ‘,,,ic, fcc.: that our project •
t.r.,,,• f-1, ; ., ., of u,....-.,:-,c3 p-oT.i..ty and turr.:.-, it 11,',„o an ar.,ticip:•tc-_,.1 ;:,5-mill',e•-.
now';,,.. -,„. .:'c1, :.:_i 1 h 17,,._-r-rd i..Ctl; do•oble }-•:-.T.es ofI•Trir.:,: a hov:-...5.nr-, opp:::,rtur.-.ity
.lot : ,: ,, :';, 71,,. f.i,, ...r,t,itv in Erl,,r. SP-1•7.: r-le at th-::r, tine. ..,.,9, r._Lso b:-.1.ieve
tha' t} -• ',.• _•.-.'f,..cf,r.7, c r'rf•ez.:', =•,--.'' t;.!, dif L'rr,..:nt t•,:,J,•-.r; of d clad', i-.0 :-.;2 will crez-.-.to
,,, ,•, H,,._,o-', .-, -_,---siCa..-.,t.'..:11 n•oi,,,.111;.:•-tood an i 1„1,1t the coLlArl....etioli
..•.c .',•': ., ; , • ' , ?:.1 r t o r...1,-..-=,ci dev(,1.:,,,.,•::c..,t of otL'.,r project. ; in tho il• ediato .
vic.'.:.• .:• ' ...; i-2.--,,,,-:-_,.o. tax :r11 c .: :Into E(7,,•,n Frail',e. ..
..,1r.,,, ', '( , , - to ccvic ahcr..c: ',:',-.lc our!. Tyroject ccc tiel:ly rt<:: pos:-.:ible co t)19.i.,
Alh_ • ' I' '','7 t,'.)11.1;', ,1'1-, ani, 1::,'.. buyr?-11., 1 hat tin projr..,e t },._•:e been a,,,):-,,rovd . .
•1,y -.., ,•,-,..... F -'-•_,-, -‘,.7-,,...:• r,',-;.:1 p!•.:--, :•_,,.il inl,c. f(,:-• 1'.,,,:-. e ozr..1.r.:' 1977 1,1.:il
-,a; ,-; f•,'.!:' . r-,I 1_,..!, ,o ti,.it 1.:,c:y viiil. not buy lots .i.n .
(,ti,„ , c 't, : lai'c.:c uur:_. •,•,,,,vc, not i,... -Liabil.c..
r'r.ar._ arprec.:;‘,....., coon de rati, ,-ivcn to the approval of our
1‘. c,,' a' : : :,,,hz::. .; ! :T',.,:i r,c,..• ..... 1,,,u,ci an c 0 iel:ly a:. i o.,-.;••=11-r,]c,..
',:, . : ,- : - . ti at any prohii;7 ,; I.-o brou,,-)it oul, fVI, the Now.,!..,cr 8 public
:, :•- ...!',' -.-cc ....a: di .e.!••.:; IA ••orl ;.....!,1 try to re-!,•-co th,..:, t.ori: and, in -
,',.• , . , ' --,-,.(oy crtm c, bc r..)1-,•?,.1 on ti.r. rpot, 1,11'.:, the pull i c. ilf_arill,f,-, be •
he p. ,:'„ 7,1r.,'!.:11i! ,-, Cc,-1.3 I P.'lea icc 1:7,i C!', so t}41.1; ',,:•"! i-lre not de-
• '
1. .,,,, •,. ,.:, !-,.--•::, r. ...,,-,,y- f Cr f ussqber p•.11,1 ica4„i,,,1 1,.:•,,:e..,;,;,-,..i,s.
., , .-• , ' '•.,.) .y..- ii Cary Oi..i', it,' ',1' f rer, the o..:,“,,rn of the property to the,
v . ' .• .1• ,,, ,•:•, "cc t, -y E...,,,'', .".1 tO (cOot ,:!'%it.e, in O141' pro ro:',(..d 1..,treet der,icn
- ,, ,. R f'...!, ,..1 11.; :Jr. C'LLn.!..-ilt COI' r.i.0.11:: ccln..3'.
. :. ,, , , : h:,t .,...c (3,-,,,r,,:„, :,.,.; I,c r.,.a 4„.._,, ,-;•.ch r!nti (.'"Very 0011r1 cf.--,y, 1:i nano on and
,• , ,1 , • ,21, ex t,-,cc'-- i i.o 11 1,:,, ti,c, ci t-,. str,f1 :::,,r•Lors and the lianni.ng
, •
,( I ,., l • ' '
- ' t 1 ' ' i
, i .----i ,'.• ,.,1": I-
-
•
/
c.e: i'l z, ,,:',:' Co•:::'..1:,c,i etc 1 City Coorwil, 13 111 :Ia.:, 1) Putman, C Jull.ie, M 0 ennon
3(1 IS
•
YNGVC & PE:MRSCORE> •
-* AT-ro.r:I.YS AT LAW
02130 WAY7.TA t30ULrVAPOD .
MINNE.A(•c)LIS.MINN.i3r:n7(: '
{44.(t4G(
wNT.":rra.vl.
TI.(VAt r I.. . .f G01:()
October 25, 1976
Mr. C rl Jullic, city engineer , .
• 89`IO Pre.; is Road .
Eden Prairie, MN 55343 .
RE: Stewart Highlands
Dear :1r. Jullie: •
he, the undersigned, being the representatives of the group who' are
owners of the 3h acres im'^cdiatcly west of and adjacent to Top View
Acres, 1st Addition, which Stewart Properties is planning to develop
into a double dt:ellin; project, dr: hereby veri.fy that Stewart Properties
]t;;;; 1, ( sad I Ils with a copy of their prottc cd street plan for their
rro,c _t .; 3 that they have advised ur that they are dedicating to the.
City 0. i.den Prairie a street outlet near the southwest corner of their
tnrepcl . '. ' is designed to tic in to a proposed future southerly road
%„ 'II:t tic is to the rrceosed Kin.^ Rondo which is planned to run scw tl:
of our e pt )pertics.
hurlh;er, `r. Stewart has provided us with a possible local network of
strut t , for epr property and for the properties south of our two pieces
of 1 .•rr1 This is to advise that it would he our intention, if we are
the c;c;.tarcr; of the property, to corner:te with the city and the '
ne ','\.: ia : andeoncrs in the dctclop :cnt of a usable street system
ti,.a ..,fl1if pr_a'i'e :ccets fro:. Valley \'iota P,ond south thru our property
to c.c• note'_ a: to other proposed streets that would give access to the
1.ri)rrL i :in„ Rend. 1.c further would pa:;s on this infornation to any
bet-reof cur property for the it information ormat ion and they would be advised
1,\ us that t':. c 'Ly wenif request therm to cooperate in such an overall
•
..trout de:-Hpt prodrrrt. . .
Aline.:.,1 a cony of the suggested possible local street design plan
sal to i,y Str.:cart l'r(Iltcrt;es and which, we understand, has
h( ca ,au!I'',i;ted to you.
Iul th, r, cur group is a,,,ccablo to granting the store sewer easement
t..,1 ;t•,., us by Stc' :art Properties, a copy of which easement is
n i.,o .11 t..I.ltc(;.
L;) :
Sincerely,
4. • r.?)' ,v•im (I .1r 't4,„,,,/\.
Al ti'ty;vc and Tonmm Rci.ersgord
in behalf (if
3(1,m, Valley Mica: Road and linker Road Propertie
I1.1 :ate •
�MP
7 • A e 1 ��.. a 1t /' i 6 , \dy t
' ',Or '1+y f y �y
j::::---7.-:,_t
• f M _
,1 P t\
,r'-')
) 1 1 $G6 sa \ ! a t 14• ' ) I, I
It .I ' r. / • 1 , .f /// /
! • R. • ', \ ( Y L� I J 1..q,
J t - I 1 1v N 1 1 1
t i I• 1
■ ` —' ._.....___�, ✓"" `\ \,, I..°1r• ^ pas. I '
ti I' 1 7 "• r' "'
r • ; %, a : �C•l:�a, 1
t , , fit' ,y 1.4l_- !
r ' ;;C, Y I 1 i
!
•
. •
.: tom. , �"_
r •
� u
f • C K. r l
I' 1 ^^4 t,� 1 bJ
Y ''y'
:i •
(Parf.1”1o) I /
J
/ /
r l
.• p f
;'.,;..76 E4tihNi•:NT D..>i0H11710:1 r't•': STYN,II:T I1 Cr' TiNS
I ,;,. litBBItY S. JOIINSON COMPANIES, INC. r`
(J ),,zr 8330-220 ST.W.. L AK r VILLE,M{NNESOT A 65044 PHONE 1612)469.4431
t i Sk.
wo
Sur( yor's Certificate °
.>N
41 •
u •
[_...--- --- - - --- ___ ___ ____ _ _ ____ ___
` °WN
)TEMPOPAtY rASHISENT o • X
o N N V
�.... p , ... I,,f,r5J(%cow 175.00. 0 - t0 u k.V '1 -
___ '
0 o, V
. r_ _ _ ,i'CL.RG:6:IiEl;T EASEMENT _8o w
L•
0,.•ro., Seale; 1 " = 40
South line of the SA of the NEI; of Scc. 10, Twp. 116, Rge. 22
•
.EASE':ENT DE0CNT,1':•10N
A 20.00 foot pernrancot storm sewer easement and a 80.00 foot temporary
cnnrtrortinn r c:,.ent over, under and acre, the South:r:•,st Qtortcr of .
the ::orl. et:ttQuarter of acetic. IC, Township liG, Range 22, Hennepin
County, Niinesota. The center line of said easements is described as
follows:
Corr^cne.ing at the southeast corner of said Southwe.t Quarter of
the northeast Qt.^..tcr; thence North 0 degrees 24 minutes 00 sec-
onds East. (assm.:..d bearin^) along the cast line of said Scutin;est •
Q::arter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 40.00 feet to the
point of bee nning of the line to be described; thence North 23
degree:: 50 aint.tee JO second:: West parallel with the south line of
raid Soutl,eat Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 175.00
feet and there terminating.
•
3t It
phone 941-1770 •' �,M
Y • NOS..
INC
1 W)west 78th street eden prairie,minnesota 55S43
October 25,' 76
Mr. Don Soreeeon, Chairman
Foen Prairie Planning Comeinsion •
850 Eden Prairie Rd.
Eden Prairie, Jtn 55343
Re: Top View Acres let Addition-"Stcvart Highland "
Dear Mr. Sorenson:
Mr. Stewart han been kind enough to review briefly his development plans
with me and to furnish me with a cony of his proposal for a possible local
street network to serve the development. It is my understanding the develop-
meet will be comprised of double homes presumably of good quality.
The proposal requires the construction of approriimately 7501 of roadway
en our property to make connection with the Rion Road as shorn on his proposal.
It would appear that the configuration of streets proposed iin Mr. Stewarts
proposes does not lend it.^elf to ,Terantr. f"ic, roar :7oald this be dceireable to
put such traffic through residential streetu, so presumable the connection to
lathe Ring Road would be for the purpose of serving only the residences of this
development, providing them w-.th a convenience outlet to the south.
Reen Prairie bad7e needs development and I support Mr. Stewarts efforts to
develep his property with residential development, bet this particular plan does
present uc with two very serious long range pre;ltims.
First, what will be the reaction of home owners in this development to •
coeoiercial development on our adjoining property and to the grading and removal
of an abrupt hill necessary to that coeWoercial. development? If the commercial
development yore in place or preceeded the residential development then home
•
buy: n would be aware of the condition in advance - but this will not be the
cas. , It would not be unusual to have vigorious homeowner resistance to come-
eret l development later proposed on our property even though the Major Center
Guide Plan had long ago establ_ eed the commercial. classification.
Second, who will pay fcr the 750, of R/W and road construction through our
property to provide the proposed connection? If the roadway connected directly
to Valley View it would have benefit to us, but as proposed by Mr. Stewart, it
does not. We are understandably not anxious to be assessed for it as proposed.
In summary, I support development by Mr. Stewart, but would ask the Plann-
ing Commission for a statement as to whether thin will in anyway change the
Major Center Guide Plan as it. designates our property. I would also appreciate
a clarification as to the method to be used to assess the cost of the connector
street across our property? Thank You
Cordially,
3 y Walter S. Carpenter
74" '7-2, , • . .
t — •
C./V,(4' •
s; I it. :it.. • sii ‘‘AR I 111 II I,ING
•1,4:", NI, (1! LI.T A VI.!%.I.E • MIN7:1'..A1'011‘; VINNI, ;(1'1'.1 55.123 • 612 .sci!
1 ,,11:% •
M 11:1.1(
• •.
( I II ,. II •
'• 21, 1976
V.r. C: 1. J,.al •,, Eny:inpor
U959 Iradrio Thud
55345
In :er -r[:' to yo:.:r sureJtion thct we touch base with t:.e adjacent
proper ow.lcrn c.ho vould ba affocted by the street denizn that we
, .
arc, prof -flins--1 for ; •.!c(.. bet..een Valley View Road and the propoced
;-N-d, I nava had several conversatjonr by phone and in pc:con
with Er. Al Yn7:e ;ind Ur. Tom Reienr„-o-...a of Vaiioy View a;ld Baker
Prelr.(:rties rho cy,:n tho 36 ocruu iT.'„:zediately adjacent to us und
•
to the '..-est of our Property.
_ .
Al and Tem are agreeable to rivinEr. the city a letter of intention.
to cooy..-11,1,-.e in a etreet desizn which scald tie-in to any future
Thnt is dcsic,,ned to cnnry trnffic from Valley Head to
thot thc proposed Rin7, icoci. We have riven the'c a copy of
rce.!):..; dnaft of C•:4: intnaal d..:sic.m and a fictional street
6,,r,iLn fay- procerty and for a connection to a
collector 1..-.a.(1 takin,-: traffic to tho Rinj. Road. .
I have rlo hnd a porsonal meetin with hr. Don Peterson, -;resident
o t.:der Conr,:.oration, who own tho immediately south or and
adjf,cont tO V.1icVi-w and hoad Propertioa and I }'-:cc ivon
a C(Ty of rb. roue Lraf: of cur propo0 nosuible street network to
on u ho sees no 1.)jection on tho pact of their corporation and
rood wi chen for ouccers in the development of our proprrty.
perronal m,aet.in--. with 11r. Walter Carpenter of I:innesota Tr- '
prop.!rt:, adjneent to and south of our land
-*.ven eop;. of the 1%yaut of the poncablo loaal street
havo ccci 'a- i n fora:. Pa also e:\anessaq no
stroet deuicn and wished uc well in the
of" our proprrty.
people Cr to fo31 that thr development of our lnnd
d;.: 1 • ;v:..ntu, cow, our a- - Phoro and we feel it will La- advan-
nf Pr-air-la norroundinr pror.JI•ti.ou to
.4 .1ta••tcl in th:A. lecNrtion.
,,,,: ;•• • I 2.1t:•01•.. ul ',11'1?t: .1\1 t•NI 11.1o!,•
31i10
• . ,
, .
k
Further, we hLv,. ;:libmitted to Al Yncve and Tom Reiersgord a copy of
th, al'..%ohod Eno,eotnit for 2torm Oewer to collect the water from 0117
pro; Corry it to the swampy area in the southern end cent-ol
•
ue
of their property. They have naid that they are favorable to
thin cAzoroont an will recaLmend to thoir asnociates that it be
cmcitcl to us.
Wo hoi,e to hove no:nothing in written form by Eonday, October 25,
the r hi of the Planning Co--insion Ir.'.:otinr, on both the ratter
of the streotn and the storm sewer eanement.
• As you know, we are presenting this plan on a otraicht ro-zOninrr basin
and -.re ore plannfnr to meet all the ordinance requirements and also
lo anwer ail the other questionn and nerrestions put forth by the
city ntoff and Planninc Comminsion at our last Planninc Corimintion
meeting.
Thank you for the consideration and courtesies extended to us in
this proponl.
recardu,
/ ,
•
Billaewart
c
b
A
•
Pt,t1r.,m, Rorer Uistad, Harry 2. Johnson, Bailey Soidn,
Corieski
•
— •
} .1 i .. , .7 .c t
; . • ___—x.r,A'2:------i. tul,i, • '1'7-7. t•-1:
Asa!
•
% s }p. K
•4 . .
I �f.. , �7000, 76 s�°=1
•='e
ra.
::: _.....,, ,, , ..._.:
• •j ( -'�/ / 1
f, ,1 t• s�
.Ili4 � , 1 j \ { •i t
1
� •.` `,`i ce-'' +'�n � r /n; \ r
, i .� .a : ` 72( f I / ,:•t..)\'
\ ` ..wa.u.sj -has•
I }, i ]J \ r 1 1��f j I i
I ; is / l ..•h.,b_, . I N,'
jrt
..,-t , '.. J'\ ^ice i i
E ,i
'• (C 'f W L' i i `}i
l 1' ----_ ........
. yy •�.•� i+:l:. . •
1 + 1 b' p '.D , ..
_ y
(Dart of 3010) •
+•
/C • '
• til5 F '
approved
inning Commission Minutes -2- Oct. 25, 1976
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
C B. Stewart Highlands,by Stewart Properties, request to preliminary plat and rezone
Topview Acres 1st Addition from Rural to RM 6.5 for single family and/or double
bungalow dwellings.
MT. Harry Johnson, Harry S. Johnson $ Assoc., explained the revised plan meets
the ci-.•' zoning and subdivision ordinances completely with no variances required.
He also presented a road pattern map developed by Eden Land Corporation showing a
number of different road patterns around the site. He indicated he has talked to
Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services, regarding the pathway along Co. Rd. 60
and the ol::n space/park contribution . He mentioned the meeting with Mr. Putnam
and Mr. Jullie concerning the roads, sewer and drainage for the site. •
He felt that the plan,which allows for reasonable phasing and . a simple lotting
concept, should be excluded from the Major Center Area assessment.
Mr. Ed Schuck,7286 Topview Road, aske, cro a play space would be provided for
the project. Mr. Stewart indicated tL .e is an acre in Topview Second Addition
which has not been used and questioned if there exists a need for play space
with the city perk to be located to the west. He also felt there will be very
few children in the Stewart Highland project.
(- Tom Bartel, EP News, asked how many units are being planned and their approximate
nst.s. Mr. Johnson re:nonded there would he 106 units ranging from $85,000 to
1.00,000 for two units with an average monthly rental of $500
( '
Mr. Walter Carpenter, Minnesota Tree, restated the concerns in his letter,
distributed that evening to the commission, as the costs of additional roads
which would have little benefit to his commercial area, and more importantly
the impact of double bungalow development directly north of his property.
He also indicated the plans to remove the large morraine south of Stewart's
site is necessary for Schooner Boulevard fill and material to develop adjacent
commercial sites. He expressed concern that when the units are built that
removal of the hill and construction of commercial uses will meet with a great
deal of resistence even though it has been planned by the city for many years.
He was unclear as to what might he done to alleviate the problem, but wished
to express the concern at this time. He hoped that if the city approved
the request that they would also reaffirm their support for the Major Center
Plan as it applies to his property.
Schee felt the developer had made a number of improvements to the project and
hoped that the road concerns could be solved.
Sorensen expressed the concern that the street intersections along Co. Rd. 60
might not be safe due to sight lines and locations and hoped the staff would
address the problems closely.
Motion:
•
cLt•c moved, Fosnoeht seconded, to continue the public hearing on Stewart Highlands
C to the November 8th meeting and direct the staff to prepare a brief staff report
on the revised plan. ery
• �y6�
I.., ..
.. ....
-/ -/„...)
_Vi..'e'6'7,' / •.,:',1/4'7/!,..'
'1111 ..`i,•• • %I I W 711?I Pill I IING
.1 A1 i.:\11,1:. • Sir,'1.:1..Nyin Is, A111,::,:i.:,(1TA 51.'.:, • 1,12,11.,,,31,04
•
s,Vs 11:1 21
1'. 'I 1.•; 111!I WI)
ZW:
( 1 . ' ',II!'.lit)
•. ,
(,)'..:1 ,b,! ;';', 1976
rran
C.: 7t1. '::i0/1
7710 hocd
,, I',L.iri,-, 1:acne:ota 55.3,;;.;
.,-ronson:
". ..:',-• you Tyr01:-::.'ply know, we shall 1,-, ar....earir.,,:: befOre the Ilanninr
-0:::',...on thio cor.in-; 1:cnday ni(h1., Octob-r L'5, with a 'f',_-.....11:.:.itta 1
oar pL.r. for Top View Acrel; Fir..:1, Additioa. 1.'e chall requec3t
.-i
l'-ori rural to Iti.6.5 for :.;incle fa.::.i.ly and/or dooble dwellincs,
15 .
p.,....120..,I•a:y plat appro.:nl, and street vacation of Earl Drive. f
nhi..11 cl:..o be. r.r.kin,., for excIuoi on from the I1',..1A and MI", as3ociatea
1 our project will be totally residential.
..'.:,,...::::!.:1,0:•_'-. i...../7‘:( F'i:i,,',70 YART!,!:‘,.',E;',_._ And, we arc prcrarcd to toot
012. a- toe c...,.;,- or,....r,:...ricen-;..:,d codes that would relute to such
1 , ,
, -
a ,,Q-oject.
:.ce thc 1.,....-1, .1.-ectin7, 14, here endenvored to 1:in:i o 1,,7:ty to rc::porld •
It c•.-.:' , ,,,,r:,,, q,..,2:•ticn Lod sp. -e:-.:tics toot w.l...3 r....ade to 11.f.) by city,'
.e.....ff r..,.2,1 be rs, %nd 1 11e e i 1,.: plann in;-, o,,.-riminoi on. ,i,.., ...
(, ti:cr, ',,,. 1,,v,-., 1.:.:Lkod, to all hd.icinin,1* nnirhborn cbcut o',;_re,,t, newer
! • , .. .
•.
Lr-..: ...,.or,, ::•,.'.::-.,- problow.s and believe that we can recolvo r,11 of thoce
._.::.--,•::,:.,ull y•
In v.:0..- ef -0:0 above, we reepectful 1.,- requent that you corriider Inahini.-
,:-.1: if '', ., to followinr, rocommondn:,,i one:
. .
1. A ,rovol of our projoet, rt:: :',ublittc.0., 1:ubjcet to any t ••
,-::: '.;.,.,ion 1 r,a471!0 ::e1,i.0, ,.„..h ao ,.,,',. ::'t i...1 to the 1;--1,..,;,1.,:d dir,-..r.10,,, the co.icly hi oay -:,-art:on I for
a i-,' oval of o':.- ;.',!.:r.`,20:3 1)11:; to hi:.,ly (-.3 and an:: other :::-: 'I'•
i nip,: pro lilt,:,., lo be irorled out.
2. If I h:1 0 are 1(.:'1 ininc problem:, that we be r.otiried of
t)-h,:-,,. ur..b1,::: ..t tho ::e,.tin,: no thn I ...;,.• o-n try to
:,..,...., 11,01n on tp' npo.,, :ail, if not, 1:,, rell,,,: t a mem-
r..::.L.ton t':. t ti-! p•,...:.•,11.c i.,a.,.'in,-, b, ('Jot to 4, in tin., .„
..n 1: r,:!t of r o.,',:-0- t ir.,:, ro -.0 ,'to 1., -I v,.:!A :.n o;Tor',.unity „1,, : ,I..'o any ..f.,:.. r;:If: 7!11 i L'::,:. 01' (ii i f,rt nei%i wi thoUt
•
,.,).,[,..- '.Iit'tl I hr 1..•Ctin'!.;:; 07 !:' t tin, up ..:1.1.1)tilt r ptl'oi i o hem.;trip. :
• : .- .,,, , ...,_ ...,•,,, , .. -11 cow,Ocrat1°Ir.:, court,,,ier. and
. .
.0:!....!:,:((1 tc, u., ...uncern;!.- 11,1;:, rrojs..ct Which we
,,,,,•,,,,I.,,,, ),,,,0 ',..1.11 be r.11 :1::',ut to : 1,,r1 Prairie.
, .
'.,..7. . a.i. 'rt.,:•!N'.n,
,,,,
/ , . ---- , ,
/ .,/
/
',..- ,•, ,
--... ,
1..11 ''.;t.-lart
5LlYti
I • • . .
_..
F',.• "1.
CITY 01, PDPN PRAIRIE
CIINCK LIST FOR 1 iMING Pi!OPOSED •
LAND DPV13.01`14ENTS •,r;
/11.,
-1049/.76
DEVLI L.D. NO. 7.6.,.pun_03.2_12, P-09
ArcISS 11.d AddAtipn
RES. 1.
•
DEV.r.`./.Pi;R: Pronortics
•
ECGi
_Ilax,Lry,...S,,,Ichpson, Inc.
'OR Pro]iminary T,3nt dated Rev. 10/g/76
, .
'be developer i request kna PrLe). inary_Pla
'of the Ire.-no) v. The 2ryiect will curere the City to vacate the enisting_21,4_
o ice P.r.:rms 1st Ada.
( 1 L3 cz.t.i on fccInl fi13icr! r.c.c dcperit pi yeg :
ica'c a co c•rdce. to Wo to.r shcd t:' t
• ,
2. 1,,/
a. 1•1.r.nningi. 7cniI1y Cori cccon Prk,•3.3:7.:Inz-ry 9t13/76____
• b. Park v., ROCIC4i.ion CvAlmi.f.:L;icri
c. Ilwan Right fr Comnilt•.r.ion
d. P)aoninq Ptn,al..c Hrg. 10/25/7G
• CitY CC,111C!') COP:,1 ttel';;.t:4011
•
tv(:." 1)...r;trirL
3. cyj of vcRofjdontial single family 01.- doobl.o dwol lings
4. Im6..oiro,.:,.t.0 .71!:11,acL :-LittowonL rpqui),d V.nviron11;old.:.,1
ctt Poljoy
3(1Ze-
•
- 2 -
• •
5. Present Zoning Rural
--
6. Proposed Zoning RM 6.5
Consistent with opproved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes
List variances required & setbacks that apply; No variances revested. Set-
lack weldirements arc imdicatelot the Preliminary Plat.
7' Pr°j"t Area ± 19act S Density 2.8 units per acre
•-
8. Public open pace awl/or cash dedication $200 per cult
Private open space Covered through cash dedication
Trail syst(an. & sidewalks Pronosed to be constructed by the City along south
side of Co. Rd. #00
Rantje of lot SizQE: 13,000 S.F. to 14,640 S.F.
•
9. Preliminary Puilding.Plans• Not submitted • •
10. Represt'ritative Soil Borings Not submitted - required at time of building permit
11. Strcv.i Syste,,
A. P,ecess to adjoining proportion Access to areas south of plat via proposed •)'•
'.
Scott Torra-e
•
R/O Roadway_Mack to Pack of Crrh)
Private
dri‘ *, no 24
Port no parking signs '
Leadiwt to Cul de sacs 50 28 Required (street names must be changed
(not over 1000') •
•
minor rcsidential
Coll de sacs • 300 78 (no island)
• 120 98 (with island) Required
Ihru Residential (collectors)
& Gal do sacs •
over 1000 GO 32
The proposed road system will allow thru access to the future Schooner Blvd. to
the south, withrut concent.rating traftic on any particular street. This type of
street pattern should be continued as property to the west of this site is
developod ,
I '
3(ig4 •
L
- 3 - •
NIA 70 44
( Par)away 100 28 divided _ ._ %
Fire Rood 12 ------- ___ —
•
Pathw.:y5 32 6
Street gr.:dcs-anax. 7.5", min. .5:
Coocact.e curb & gutter regoired.
Deep strength asphalt design Regniired
C. Checl; Cit.y's co•nprehen_ive street system. N.A.
•Devcleper builds 1/2 of parhways at his cost, & R/t0 dedication
D. Street N mrn - 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 naaaes. — Revision of street names required
E. Private parking lots--E6-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design
N.A.
P. St!ect. :3iynr -Dev:leper c-r City inrtal.ls D_vcl000r_nurc_rrse in.^talls
( ?. Purling: (See Ord. 1614)) O.K.
13. Ut.i_liiy Systems:
A. .,ahi.i:ary ikw r Available : on site extension and lift station required
1. Service D^tail — 4" minimum ..,-._-- _
2. Service to adjeini.ng property O.K. •
---�
n. wat.crmain: . Avnil.able - on site extension required
` — O.K. - 1 one inch services
1. Chec): Service Design (20 psi at highest f ixl;.ure) required per double unit
2. Ilydre.nl. location-1'ir.. Inspector to review _ _____-____
3. Valvlog Pending review of fin_rl. plans
4. Comp)i;,nce with fire code Fire inspector to review •
Pend in review of final plans
5. :cruise to ttFijaecnt Property g _-_
3y ?
- 4 -
C. Storm Scwor & Grading Grading and drainage plan.not yet-.puhm
ittcc).foX this !k
revised site plan
1. Sediment control. plan
Required __
C 2. :)inching & grit control for conmiCrcial p.:rking lots N.A.
•
3. Yos.itive outlet for drainage ponds _ Required__-_-__---
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Required '
Required i
Arr��Wii showingna drainage __ _ _
Recuited
Accomodate drain-+ye from adjacent properties = ____- -
G. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water
for ponds owner to the west is necessary for
Required - an casement from the property -_
titiom sewer pur;obes' Rewired
7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street
ti. Sod drainage ewalcs and steep slopes
Required
-
9. I'la,.l plain encroachment None -- -
Requiv-
1.0. Watershed District approval •--
•
1). Lb;R ,gip•. oa) N h`__ -_ . -----
Underground required —,-
D. Natural COa & Telephone -�- -Underground_
•
•
Required _. - —'
E. Electric (underground/ -__. - --
14 :irret l.i.g'rt,;, & Or-Site Lighting
Required - -
15. l'r )iminary plat to be seLmi.tted to !IND or )Tenn. Co. if abutting a
.;t:te or County Nwv.
fl,nncpi❑ Co-�nty (Co. Rd_((G0) Rt. turn lanes may be required along Co. Rd. 60
•
- - — -+- dinq Levied: #6133,-Ring Road, #8663.20
lf. List special assessments levied and peu
Pndin<t: trnk s w eer & w erat A 1870/ac e.r _ '
—e u _ram------ —....--
17. 10-::oni nil agreement rr I
ired Required
`ui.re
Developer's Agreement required Re _..d _- -------
Title Abstract. for Attorney's review Not required _____. �_ •
C ,
C
•
Minutes — Parka, Rec. and Page 3
Natural Resources Commission approved October 38, 1976
2. Devr'lnnment Prvponala
Stewart Highlands
Jensen spoke to the proposal, which be located as across from
•
Topviev Acres. Pe said the only thing we need to be concerned
with is the cash park fee.
•
2. Stewart Hitrhlaflds (cant'd)
MOTION'. Kingrey moved recommendation of the Stewart Highlands
Development Proposal to the Council, subject to the swab park fee
and adequate easement along County Rd. 60. Garens seconded, motion
carried unanimously.
3 479
SUITE 2O STI:11';1H'1'III I )ItiG
6425 NICOLLET AVENUE. • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55423 • 012/800-3611-1
plt'NIIN ASANAGI(::
( !T11.1 1 1.I l.,;ri:w n r %YC 1'I I II.'II'
ISIX;1;I ANN Sl lll'ah•I'
October 6, 1976 •
J';r. Dick Putnam, P1ra.u.rkr Director
891;0 Eden Prairie lio',(. •
lh:an Prairie, r'..inaos.ot': 55343
re: St,r,nrt :Ji ')' ids. of ',dc r Prairie
Dear Dick:
Thin is to inform you that we would appreciate being included on •
the rt;erl;ia for the Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting of
1.:on..:.-: ri ht, October 25, 1;76.
1Je plan to s;ubr::it a revised plat and to ask for re-zoning from t.
rurol to ;:116.5 for single family and/or double dwellings.
Ile hill. not be cosin(c in under a PUD but under a straight i
re-aonini, raeucst. and ..ski.:L:: for approval of a preliminary plat.
i :I.. -: O.ch thin calls for a public heo.rie , I am sending thin: letter
4. so t;ot it will be in tine for puhlicot:ca. ''
•
B.ilc•, Scirlri or I will be in touch :with you further with any
£uicii. `o;rta ormotiun required. .
Plea.,-- Cc, not Ireaitate t.o call if there are any questions. •
•
•
We t,1 e tt1:; o l ,cnciate your coaae ration in this and all other scatter:
per :i .i( r io our proposed project.
.
Ti.in4 ,'ou p.r: ;.::indent personal records,,
I �. '� ''
•
J,.i l :,.;:,wart
i
b ;
cc: Cant .)u1:Lio, Joan Johr:c..m, H. S. John:ion, B. Seidf, D. Corieski •
C •
ruc:ndrr:: :rnd (la•uar / C1per:rlur•.. for 25 years. of 1NJ'11C AM/NA-1 Stereo Adult Radio
• • ' 'approved
Planning Commission Minutes e4- Sept. 13, 1976
C. Stewart Hithiands of Eden Prairie, request by Stewart
C Properties for PUD Concept approval, preliminary platting
and rezoning of 56 lots for single family and double
•
dwellings. The PUD is located on the south side of Co. Rd. ';
60, !-1 mile east of Baker Road, across from Topview •
Acres Second Addition. A public hearing.
The proponent's planners presented a lengthy discussion of the
rationale behind their request and the merits of the plan.
Mr. Seida,H. A. Johnson Co. Inc., explained that the original `:
MCA intent for office/commercial and medium density residen -
tial was a good idea, but could not be implemented today •
based on the s].wness of the market and the demand for double
bungalow units. He felt their proposal is a good use because
it is.an ideal transition area and was marketable today. He
in. 'ca.tcd the second and third home buyer, ages 40-50, would
be the primary buyers and would live in half of the unit and
rent the other half. Mr. Seida further explained that because •
of the uti lity service and development cost, that cluster type
development was not feasible. He stated the plan did not
incorporate a north/south street between Valley View Road and
the new Ring Road because of a 40-50 foot drop in grade,
traffic sight visibility at Valley View load and no assurance
the road will be bui lt. The proponents suggested the road
be located on the property west of the Stewart property and
that would he better suited from a grade and land development
standpoint.
Mr. Seida than presented a schematic section through the
property illustrating the spacing between lots which would have
a 46 foot drop from the east property line to the west. He
felt this would break-up the grid iron street system and would
make the project more attractive. •
Mr. Seida distributed a brochure with photos' of homes similar
• to the duplexes proposed. ,4
The commission asked if the homes in the hooklet would have the
•
l0 foot between structures requested by Stewart Properties.
Mr. Seida responded that only a couple of pictures would
illustrate that condtion.
Sorensen questioned the alignment of Gerard Drive in the Topview .
Acres plat and how it w'oiild line-up with the proposed westerly
street. Mr. Seida said the platting does not line-up, but
the actual street location today does match with the existing
Gerard Drive.
A question was raised about the active play space provided and
whether it would he adequate for the 112 units proposed.
Mr. Seida indicated they did not believe the future residents
•
would require active play space, but two tennis courts and/or
swimming pool could be built in the outlot in the southwest
cornet- of the site if desired.
301
. • approved •
Planning Commission Minutes -5- Sept. 13, 1976
Mr. Stewart spoke to several points which he felt made the
project desirable to the City of Eden Prairie. He indicated
the current water shortage, which most communities are cxper-
( iencing, would be partially solved by the limited lawn space
provided in the smaller double bungalow lots. Secondly, the
homes would have a 40-50 foot backyard and a 40 foot front
yard to the street. He felt the gas shortage would be somewhat •
alleviated since there would he a limited amount of lawn to mow.
He also felt that terracing would make good sense and that the
commercial and office development potential of this site w. s
not feasible in today's market. He indicated that many
builders have expressed interest in this size lot of under
13,500 square feet.
Mr. Doug Coreski , H.S.Johnson Co. Inc., said he was instrumental
in recommending to fir. Stewart that no north/south road between ,°
Valley View Road and the Ring Road be accommodated on this plat
because of the 46 foot deep cuts which would be required to
put the road in along the east property line. He felt this
would be unsuitable for the developer to assume the cost of
such a cut and loss of lots
The planner briefly outlined the comments of the September
3rd staff report and indicated that detailed alignments for
the connection between Valley View Road and the Ring Road
have not been completed. But, if the commission felt the plat t `
proposed warranted further consideration , the staff
would begin •those detailed studies.
The planner then outlined the procedures which the proponent
•
had discussed on numerous occasions which could be either a
straight rezoning with variances requested , or a planned
•
unit development which would provide design flexibility if
creative site planning and a better environment were created.
It was the staff's opinion as stated in the report, that the
proposed plan is a significa•lt departure from the quality of
land planning developed in Eden Prairie and in that respect
it does not seem to justify the flexibility provided in
Ordinance 135 for PUDs.
Motion 1 :
Scher moved, Bearman seconded, to close the public hearing on
the preliminary peat application of Stewart Properties. The
motion carried unanimously.
Motion 2:
Fosnocht moved, Schee seconded, to recommend denial of the
•
proposed Stewart Highlands PUD, rezoning from Rural to PM 6.5 '-
and preliminary plat approval as the development plan does
not properly respond to:
a. north/south road connection, •
b. interior pedestrian system, •
c. adequate side yard setbacks,
d. creative site planning techniques,
e. usable group open space,
Further, in applying for variances from the RM 6.5 District
through the PHD process, variances are granted by the City if
34ya.
. 'approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- • • Sept. 13, 1976
there are mitigating effects and good reasons for the request.
This proposal does not, in the Planning Commission's opinion
respond to the basic minimum requirements of Ordinance 135,
C RM 6.5 District, and does not illustrate creative site planning
that would allow for such variances to occur as specified in
Ordinance 135,
Further:
2. The proposal does not respond to the need for a
.north/southconnectian between old Valley View
`Road and the MCA Ring Road.
•
3. The proposal requires the vacation of an existing
road right-of-way that may be needed for future
connection.
4. The proponent is requesting that this project not
be included in the MCA for assessment reasons.
Since the density proposed is somewhat low, as well
as originally planned for, this request may be
reasonable.
5. The proposed project would require variances.
It does not meet side yard setbacks , minimum lot
• sizes, or the group open space requirement.
/ 6. The project does not respond to future needs of
1, pedestrians and bikers as an alternative form of
transportation to community facilities.
•
7. The project is only 20.4 acres which is under the 25
acre minimum required for consideration as a PUD.
However, since the MCA requires that projects be
considered as PUDs, this is reasonable.
Sorensen moved, Fosnocht seconded, to amend the motion to
include point 1 :
•
The proposed western road alignment and intersection
with Valley View Road will be inconsistent with City
ordinances foe proper spacing between road intersection
points as Gerard Drive intersects Valley View Road on
the north. And such an intersection combined with the
road elevation would create unnecessary traffic hazards.
Vote:
The amendment carried 6:1 with Dearman voting nay'.
The amended motion carried unanimously.
C
34°►� .
STnrF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chri 5 linger, Asst Planner
1'lIP UGIi: Di ck Putnam, Planning Directer
DATl:: September a, 1976
•
PROJECT; St ewart Highlands,S6 duplex on 20.4 acres(112u)
APPLICANT: Stewart Properties
LOCATION: • Topview 1st Addition
REQUEST: Zoning District change from Rural to R`d 6.5,
PUD Concept Approval, preliminary platting,
and street vacation.
•
BAC:ECi.OIJND LAND USE CONCEPT
•
The pro-ui..sting vacated plat was shown as large lot single family
development as an extension of the Topview Addition. An existing
street right-of-way has been dedi cated "Earl Drive". The 1968
Guide Plan shows this area designated as high density multiple
farr.i ly d:•:el Bugs. The MCA Report has this to say about the
general area of the proposal: ( page 81 )
"Within Zone 4 the most ransitivc area is located
north of the Ring Route between old Valley View
Road and the community park.(or lowland) . "This
triangular shaped area is approximately 40 acres
with the high point at Valley View Road dropping
SO feet to the Ring Route at the base of the •
hill. The relationship with Topview single
family residential area will require a blend
of residential unit types on site with lower
density use adjacent to Valley View Road and
mediuni density residential or free standing
office use adjacent to the Ring Route. Great
care in site planning , utilizing the slopes
to integrate the office and residential uses
with those of the existing neighborhood, will
be required."
With the construction of the New Testament Church now completed,
part of the land use of this general area described in the MCA
Report has been determined. That of a high quality institutional .5 •
use whieh has used distance, grade change and landscape materials
to buffer it from the neighborhood wh I le at the same time being
in close enough proximity to he of service to the surrounding area.
3gi4 •
Staff Report-Stewart Highlands -2- Sept. 3, 1976
The current proposal certainly is within the realm of densities
mentioned in the Guide Plan and MCA Report . The land use of
dn'i'ex, . or S.6 du/ acre in this area does seem to be in
keeping with the earlier ideas. Perhaps it i$ not developed
at a: high of density toward the southern portion as would have
been expected, however, development of this area of the MCA
is undoastandihly occuring slower titan the southern portion of
the !IC;1. Therefore the land use for this parcel does seem
to be reasonable.
ROAD SYhTt'i,
The 1968 Guide Plan shows the realignment of Valley View Road
through this area toward the south as a parkway which would
event :,lly tic into the Ring Road . Since the Guide Plan, the j
cocci , of how Valley View Road will tie into the Ring Road
was looked at a little hit more closely. The thinking of
planning and engineering ,how this road system will be
accor.ptished, shows Valley View Road as it now appears from
Baker Road over to the frcerey becoming a residential character
road , possibly ceding in a cul-de-sac just west of the intersection
of 4!14 and the Ring Road. This modification would make the off
rasp ,f; of 494 safe by not having to compote with a oblique
intt ri:ic ion of Valley View Road and the Ring Road.
ttuiao,e of the steep topo between existing \'alley View Road
and the future alignment to the Louth, there are limited
oppor'.onities for access between the two. One of the prime
thou• a-,t for access was reinforced in the Planning Commission's
rcemr nd;.tion of approval of the New Testament Church site.
In tit approval discussion with the New Testament Church (see attachment) ,
pertaining to road systems revolved around the difficulty of
their access and the fact that the church would be willing to 7.Tt
dedicate road right-of-way along their eastern boundary and
right -of-say ending northwest career of their site to provide
a nortn/south connection between the old Valley View and the
now VHiloy View Parkway or Ring Road. The current developer of
the Stewart Highland's proposal has here appraisedof this road
access need and the current proposal does not reply to this need.
Ilowevrr, the city does have existing right-of-way previously
dedicnti•rl in this plat in the configuration of Earl Drive .
1 t %„sold be possible with the land dedicated to the city
to start the north/south connection on tar] Drive and make a
smooth curve onto the Now lestameet Church property to complete
•
the southern portion of this access. Therefore, if the proposed
Cplat cannot accommodate this north / south connection, Earl
Drive should not he vacated.
3te9S
•
;t:,ff Report-Sieaart Highlands -3- Sept. 3, 1976
Pk(1PU' Lh PNLIhCT (:HAkACTItR
Under I.'.1 6.5 zoning, attached dwellings are permitted. However,
those are restrictions:
1. A minimum lot size for a duplex is 13,000sq.ft.
The current. proposal has a number of lots under
this minimum.
2. Front yard setbacks are 30 feet.
3. Minimum side yard is 10 feet on one side and •
15 feet on the other side, combined setback
25 feet.
4. 1,000 sq. ft. / dwelling unit of group usable
opin space be dedicated, or set aside for
recreation purposes of the residents.
Thy project as currently proposed would require side yard
sethacl,_. , lot size variances and open space variances.
As you can see from the enclosed diagr a the proposed building •
locations would result in a rather stark and confining street
PARK SYS1 ttl kl M111PMdiiS
7 add;tion to the 1 ,000 sq. ft. / dwelling unit requirement
under the 6.5 zoning category, eaoh of the 112 unit3 would be
required to pay a $200 ca,h in Tact of land dedication fee
prior to building permits being issued.
The ep;,ortunity for any type of pedestrian system linked to the
major Valley View Road trail , or to future parks, or to the
MCA, or to the institutional site towards the east has not been
allowed for in this project. The developer should look at
this opportunity and respond either to agree to the use of
outlets or street right-of-way and adequate widths to permit
pathways which will not conflict with utility installation.
C0M ti)N O:i4ERS11TP ANt) RESTRICTIVE COVFNANTS
In the development application the proponent refers to a property
association which would be formed for purposes of maintenance of •
common areas. Consideration will also have to he given to how
( maintenance is handled for those attached dwelling units which do
not remain under one ownership. The city should require that the
homeowner association documents and convenants be submitted to the
city for approval prior to final plat approval.
3y' (a
Staff Report-Stewart Highlands -4- Sept. 3, 1976
COSCI.'ISIONS
•
1 . The density proposed does respond to the
land use concept:' for the area.
2. The proposal does not respond to the need for a
nosh/southetnnection between old Valley View
Load and the MCA Ring Road.
3. Tile proposal rec•uires the vacation of an existing
road right-of-way that nay be needed for future
connection.
•
4. The proponent is requesting that this project not
he included in the MCA for assessment reasons.
Since the density proposed is somewhat low, as well
as originally planned for, this request may be
reasonable.
The proposed project would require variances.
It does not meet side yard setbacks , minimum lot
si-. , or the group open snb.rc requirement.
C 6. The project does not respond to future needs of
prdrr•t Ion :' bikars na altcrnetive form of
transportation to condnunity facilities.
7. The project is only 20.4 acres which is under the 25
acre cinimurn required for consideration as a POD.
liowet•cr, since the MCA requires that projects he
con id:•red as fUDs, this is reasonable.
in applying for variances from t're RN 6.5 District through the
PHD process, the variances are usually granted by the City if
tLrrc a.rc mitigating effects and good reasons for the request.
In the planning deportment's opinion this proposal does not only
not reply to the basic minimum requirements of Ordinance 135 for
RM 6.5 Districts, but .does not illustrate creative site planning
that would allow for such variances to occur.
ct.Co'4?ti'SPATIOSS
•
1. Recommend the rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and
preliminary plat with variances as submitted.
2. Recounnend PUD Concept plan, rcaoning, and preliminary
plat be approved with no variances.
Staff Report-Stewart Highlands -5- Sept. 3, 1976
3. Recommend denial and redesign of the proposal based on the plat's
inability to reply to the need for :
A. North/south road connection.
R. Pedestrian system.
C. Adequate side yard setbacks.
D. Creative site planning.
E. Usable group open space.
The planning staff recommends # 3 , as stated above.
CE:jj
C
3.4V
•
i',,, 1`.. `'t• I• MG 115 1
•
it
te
1 f • I, ' 1 \Y\ ' ,'•1'.i...','N // '• ''„;/ .' •-"' \ ',
f = ` 1 • I.
• I' I 1 ' r-,, .4.•-• ' ,‘ '''+ i, • : 7' ,..,,\\:,,,, / ; '/7/\\. .
I
I.Y.',•',, ' •i :,''11 • ! ; t ,-'; '',•,'' ; ' 1! I fr. *.r, i'., '; —11 --: / i;,, ....--,,,,.,, ) •
w.. I I
i' { • I 0. ri. t t,I I R i I � �;�
1 1 I I i •, 1 • 1 1-4,;1 1 .
it I i 1 3 p'i..� H
I ' •• a. • 7 i , I
I' !jI ?',q ICI! L
1. --..9 f L j., 1., II1 `•' ''Y �� ° 4.rQ1- I f , ,I
I
M; ew r i1 I ;f, ` 1�1/II ,:
I ,I,' l\ IF
l -- ,` `I . 1
I'
' I !, t! i ;I'' li
I,
j 1 1 ;i ,,i�`�
i
kI'
!{ I - ; I I
I
..,M ., 1 i
. • • - _._ .. III(
' • "e'-''';'4! (I,.."..1......0,..,c VP. r,...7:.„........:. . ,___.....•• ....„.,,,,..
i:,: ,
.•
I ,.
-qj1
•
When development of the parcel west of New Testament Church
_ oedurs the ii:;ed for a connection betv,,ecn Valley View Road and
the Ring Route :rill be necessary. The preliminary location for
' this road would he along the west property line of the New •
Testament Church,. The. estimated
elevation of the Ring Route south of these properties would be •
approximately 865-870 . The chance in grades from Valley View
.11
I; ''r r't4'-c•44 of approximately 910 to the king Route will necesitate a sensitive
• road design and property grading to accomodate such a
connection. At the time that street would be connected the
primary entrance to the New Testament Church property could •
be shifted to the new north/south street.
•
uThe deveopment plan of the New Testament Church indicates
provision of 25 feet for right-of-way along the westerly property
' line. A minimum of 30 feet should be provided for that right-of-
,/ ,` i way and the understanding that a ' T ' intersection with
Valley View Road may be required or a re-alignment of Valley
View to :.onnect to the north/south road.
t_
attachment to Stewart Highland staff rer.'ort, 9-3-76
s.:.3o
Dec. 7, 1976
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
`! HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1220
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS
I.C. 51-290
WHEREAS, a resolti . on of the City Council adopted the 9th day
of November, 1976, fixed t`.«.: 7th day of December, 1976, as the date for
a public hearing on the following proposed improvements
I.C. 51-290, Sanitary sewer, watermain and
street restoration on Heritage Road
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be
assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days' pub-
lished notice of the Council hearing ..hrcugh two weekly publications of
•
the required notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard
on the 7th day of December, 1976;
NOW, THEREFORE., RE IT RESOLVED BY Till CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
Such improvement as set out in Council Resolu:•i.on of
November 9, 1976, and as above indicated is hereby ordered.
The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and
s-•:cifications for the oaLing of such improvement, with
the assistance of Rieke, Carroll, Muller Areoc., Inc.,
Consultint Engineers.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
•
John D. Frane, Clerk
s 1 ►
I �..11 J7c FUTtURE ROUND LAKE ti 1
---.-_-I 1 TRJNK (SEWER V' `� •
i
t0 LAKE ;
A ROUND .
I j r/'' -- . i `` 1 TRUNK
1 1 `. t SEWER
--- \ i' , \\ r `� 1 ',� ,4.
\ L.
I\ i • I 1\ t`---__I rr `\ f
i
L% `
Ix J 7 • \
•
•
U II:� I.--_--- =-�T..
4 4 tr ¶.)--_ - _^ -- .��
10 Ix„ ' ' — ! FIGURE 2
CM (74ua) Id T,iUNKtWATERfdl ''—' --- j
F
,., BLOCK ...14 i�(.,91
o� i� ♦ I SANITARY
— ,' t------+ SEWER 8
zj 2 \ 1 WATERMA1N FOR
o a: \` c� 1 HERITAGE ROAD
r (1�t /- 1
I / `• ' EDEN PRAIRIE
t ;i
a „ r `♦ 1 I.C. S1-290
xl [ Y1
ie--PROPOIUN`aw (�( t"l a I I--- ,. WATERMA ,�= lic'sE et., uT
ri— — — --K�..I r...�,-;.ri; BLOCK
5
FU-TUREI I1C1(
2 ✓
SA f.,\Y / 1 � �v .::4TAr=
I I/'` r� .SPN\CA
•
•
_-_ � S4E *
�) ''tOPOSED 8 ,�
SANITARY SEWEF '' /�vv
G
1�rr%/ ,
BLOCK WATERMAN
ci .? EI
EXIST. M.H
.
26
6/
('177r 27
SERVICE
EXTENSIONS
( Sliftit EXISTING WATERMAIN _ •
TM—EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
i
3SOa
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
to co N A 1.4 to N to Co V J Cr, ut A W
00 b0 t0 to to 01 to bP to to to bf 01 N
to 1-' H ; F' H F' 4. A A I-. N N N I-'
_ _ 0 Afl
. .'Y.
C . i a a M
/' S a i S a a a V. b �^
x It E . S pc. Or
9` z
a a a i M x s a s a fD
rt
O 4 0 M 3 In G) -i 4
'- 3 P+ Al • PP r• '.1 0
E a II x s x
O• 0 ..0 0 0 ..0W O
.
5
D SU
O Hi p CO • o Lil o 'i '! 2 {D t7
`Q to k F.•� g I(D 'a F' 0
in cO
n
w ' DC~ o a n e � i
O n 0 N 0 °"0
O m m
O.m CD. C
a
• m
DI m l I 1 1 I 1 1 11yy, 1-� i 4-', ';', 1 �'' t7 Iro+1
t., tD '0 w 1 1 1 i 1 1 t0 t0 '0 i 1 tD q — ''7
rt. . ) N I I I i I I I tm0 J m CYCP J t Co, .3 Z Ct C7
N PO.+ D tv PP t to O 1 A M H.12 Z H -
r 0 .0 0 8
N rt trt, rF- F
O to < r- to P:
fD .0..,
00 '. in N N .3
}p} _.
t{• U. IA. L DC 'if'0 'DC '0 'tI ' 'e ill to b VI V1 V1 S' V. C l S'
fD 0. Y ID 0' ' S' St J' St 3' S' tJ IV H tJ tJ IV 4-4 t7 D7 Z VI
Q: W '< Du 0 O O 0 O O 0 O ,"0 ,'p ryt En
CI, N fa hi .-t IS,
Co. F- 0 a 0 ^y
cr 0 w +n
CC W a ID H H F— F-. N !-' V H 1-' 1-' Y Y C Y 1-' Y V) Y 1 0
N ty U1 to l.) 41 W to W W W W W W W W W W 1', 1-3 N 0
W IDVI - A AA A A A .C. A AA ,-IA A Ar.1 .D r
B •
J N IV DJ tJ fJ 10 N to iv N N tJ N N DY pq O CP 0 --. 0 C
13 F+ rt 0
CO -4 a to '�
O f0 40 1
C
F- to t' y
M i N �t+' t,^
0. 1-' H F-' 1,-. r I-, F' F' H 1-' r r tC F' H r ' y '
fD r A v' tl' IAtll to tP to to to to LAtl, V' tl' .3 P1 in
n (0 .1 L., L., tJ l.' 1.... W W W IJ W W W W (4 tI3 F V
fa 60 m A A A A A A A PP A A A A A A ,:i
A _r a * D * *
0,, C ;� N
rt . COh1
.4' r CO •to to O O
O A r V F' M H F+ F' F' H F-' DI F-, A 1-' Z
µ I.., W W W tJ 1... W W W W I.t W W lJ �"J
Ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 00 0 0 I
fD 0 MD
ti
m 0
cc
ft
to 0'�1
an tJ
Ai t 1 1 1 1 1 1✓ 1 1•' 1 1•' i r 0
• 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 i 0 1 O 1 0 .-O 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 0 1 O 1
O t 1 1 1. 1 1 1 0 1 O 1 0 1 0
O
•
iti iA
•
oft
J A A A A A A A Id la A IAA L 4
t' F' F- F-' I-' M N m m r 09 0 0 Y Y'
/' 0 --I -4 -4 J ..1 .....1 J .0 Vi �1 60 10 t0 .4 r
�. �J I 0, cr. 0, 0, m m m m m a+ m aF 01 01
C ,- sofa Pol:�►on Control Ace no,,
(612) 296-7262
July 16, 1976
Mr. Ja cs Zaik
Plumbing Inspector.
City of Eden Prairie
City Hall
6950 Edon Prairio Road
Lucn l'rniric, Minnesota 55343
Dear Mr. 2aik:
In accordance with our telephone discussion, please find en-
closer, a copy of a laboratory report on tests by the Minnesota
Department of Health on a sample collected from drainage from
a residence located at 7640 Heritage Road in the City of Eden
Prairie. The s„male number 680 results are considered indic-
ative of sanitary sewage.
It is understood that the City will proceed with actions nec-
essary to obtain correction of the unsatisfactory conditions
a observed.
The cooperation of the City in this matter is appreciated. If
you have any questions, please call the undersigned at 296-7262.
Youur�rs very
� truly, 1
•
111.D. Miller, Head ?)
Complaints Unit
Surface & Groundwaters Section
Division of Water Quality
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John D. Frane, Clerk, Eden Prairie
Mr. Roger Ulstad, City Manager, Eden Prairie
1935 West County Reed B2,Roseville,Minnesota 55113
Recaenul Ott,:es•boW;h;tr::-nerb Fergus tolls/Morsholl/ROcheslei:ROseville
[.;.._ 54-pe,;w-;ry impmye
3aoy
V A ,• ,:
CITY O'.' MN MAMI:
COLCK L1:.T 1Y11: RE•:v11::7O uC I'F:.W.MEN
LAND 1i'JSIJJI
12 -76
East Wst Parkway Apartments ----- L.D. No. 76-Z-18 -_
1•.,,;,I;r we-t of Pi_serve center & South of An,'.^rson Lakes Parkway ---,--
P.U.D. OR 1'Ris2I01:.
oov._:. . ... The Pre-.serve -
r Dorglas A. Moe, Architects
.i ?;TTCD FOR ri-'IILt : General inforr.:atic,) packet dated 10/76
& revised site plan dated 11/8/76
The Developer is proposing the construction of 129 units of rental
houcindlv_ -- -- - — --
:cl: -cat, :r.rlicet_cn filed and filing fee & deposit paid Yes
•
of oplication focwardcd to Watershed District Yes
•
2. 1'r:.. .-.. . C.:•hedulc:
a. 1'l.u:.ninq c Zoning Cmrr scion Prelur.ioary 5-24-76_.__
b. Park & Recreation Co.:.rdi:;‘ion
c. llsron Rights Commission -
d. Planning Commission Public flrg. 10-14-76
e. ,City Council consideration 12-7-76 —
f. Watershed District.
of ll<-:velcl:r.nt Rental Aiartments
•
n:. .,,,d ,ntal :..;u,n; c•r' impAct raatement required per Snviron:eental
t ,of iict; Act of 1.4 :
No -- •
•
350
- 2 -
'ioni ng Rural
(,. 1•rul,,,,a,1 Zoning RN 2.5
Consir.tent with approvr.:d P.U.D. or Comp Plan"? Yes •
T
Lj::t v„z;ances rc:jk red & setbacks that. all,ly: Norse required
•
7. Projcvt t.ra•e 9 acres — Density 14.4 units per acre
•
8. Pi l`c- o::on space anti/or cash dedication Satisfied through Preserve. PUD
Privet, open space 5.6 acres
Trail rns & sidewalks Satisfied through Preserve PUD
Ramie o` lot. sizes N.A.
9. Prelir..i::a.i y Building P1ans Submitted •
10. l:,,yrcr;c:,_,;.ivc Soil Borings Not submitted
ll. St.:ect
( A. Accc ss to adjoinin3 prol:erties. (see note be],
P. T p R/4: Roadway (Back to Back. of Curb)
Pr.iv,ae
dricva;ays, no 24
Post no parking signs Required
Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28.
(not over 1000') h 't
minor residential.
Cul do sacs 100 •78 (no inland)
120 98 (with island)
Thru residential (collectors) •
t Cul de sacs
over ]0(10, 00 32
NOTC: The northerly access road should be extended to Anderson Lakes Parkway
to provide n seuo:,d access point for the project. At some future time
it is intended that the southerly access road will be extended to the
C West providing an additional access route.
3 c:0(0
70 44
(- ParRway 100 28 divided
Fire Pn.J 12
Pathways 12 6
Street grades-max. 7.5:„ min. .51 A
concrete curb & gutter required,
T strength asphalt design Required
C. Check City's comprehensive street system.
Devt:oper builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication O.K.
•
D. Strcf:t Names - try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional
names on cul de secs having eight or less lots.
Cheek list of existing street names. N.A.
E. Private parking lots -EC-1? cone C&G and full depth asph. design
Reguired
F. sheet :,igns-Dvt3,:pr or City instf.11s N.A.
parkit:_:: (See Ord. #I4)) Confarms to Ordinance #343
Utility Systems,
A. Sanitary Sewer Scwer aver:labia at rear of lot (Neill Lake subtrunk)
1. Service Detail Final design and review by Plumbing Inspector required
2. Service to adjoining property O.K.
•
B. Waternain: Available - possible relocation of hydrant required
•
I. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K.
2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector to review
3. Valving Final design & review required
4. compliance with fire code Fire Inspector to review
5. Service to adja,ent property O.K.
4:
. .
c. ,„rm Sewer & Grading _
1. sediment control plan Required
2. Sbimming e grit control for commercial parking lots Watershed
district to review
3. Positive outlet for drainage panda Required
4. Avoid e;,cetsive grading and tree removal Required
5. Arrows sho%:iucl drainage Required
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties Required
6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water
for ponds
Required
7. Peep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Pending review by Eng. Dept-
8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes Required
9. rlo:Ad plain cneroacluDent No encroachment proposed
10. W,itersheci District approval Required
21. 1NR amrovc.2
D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground required
Eletrie (underground) Required
24. Sttert Liqbts & en-Site Lighting Pecll'ired I . IT(14T'iu: Plat to n submitted to MUD or llenn. Co. if abutting a
State ca- County ih.ry.
N.A.
AC,. List n,erial assessments levied and pending Levied: .#5859 trunk sewer &
_Wd101", 566.98L_ 16438Neil1 Lake Storm sewer, $9,867.90
Re-:'oniug agreement required _ Yes
• Agreement required No
Title Abstract for Attorney's review No
(.
•
3S CS/
Pl: :i ur. nb Commission ]donates approved
'6- Nov. 8, 1976
�.E. E ct / West Ap77tmcnItF, by the Preserve request for rezoning from Rusa.l to
hd 2.5 fort . , acres for 129 rental apartent units. The site is located
•
west ,of The Preserve Center.
•
Doe., Moo. architect for the project, - presented a model of the revised plan.
and p., iccho, ,.the parking, siltation pond, walkways, etc.
Sue Osi rr, 9550 Timber Trail, Middle School teacher, asked for the Center's •
leeation in relation to the apartments and how the traffic flow would be designed.
Moe stated the Center is to the: east, and a future road exten:ion would ease
the traffic flow.
Sendste,ee asked if the Lakeshore would he actively used. Moe replied the lake
is intended for passive use and there would be trails around the lake. •
0' Hess stated he has no objections to the staff report.
•
John Retterath,9011 High Point Circle, referring to the Ray Harris Survey, Minneapolis
Tribune, 5-10-76, question_.1 if the developer of the project would be allowed to
depree ete the building in 4 years and .hen, as in cases noted in the _survey, the
developer would pull-out.
la.
Mr. Be.reen respenleu that the Ray He:. is survey was not a good cross section , only
dealt with a smell number of examples and a new tax law prevents such depreciation.
r. lien . rioted that if by chance the building physically needed work , the homeowner
a:;ocia tiu• doe shave huge a recourse mechanism• to force repairs and assess the cost back.
Mr. Moe added that there would be one garage door to each garage building and the
buildinee would heave hand:icei ed entrances. .
Soren en asked if outside storage of recreational vehicles would he prohihitelt. P-tensor
replied affirmative.
Mat ira:
Se,ee ':wod, char.*an seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the
rez n.;,i, from t.ural to PM 2.5 for the Past/West Parkway Apartments including the
rcccm.,,,:etions of the staff reported dated Nov. Sth, the documents submitted on
the project. and the r, •ised plan shown in the model tonight and dated Nov. 8, 1976.
•
And to iecicde that if a bua1c:ing permit is not obtained within 18 months of the
2no rr Free of the ordinance, the owners will not oppose a rezoning of the property
boele t.n Loral. The motion carried 3:0:1 with Sorensen abstaining. Sorensen abstained •
brcnu•:, ho was uncertain whether the project could be considered in less than 1 year
as per Section 19.5 , Ordinance #135.
•
PLANNING STAFF BLPORT
_ .
•
10: Planning Commission
FROM: Diek Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: November 5, 1976
pkOthCT: hast/Wost Parkway Apartments
APrIICAT: The Preser:c/A, Bernardi t
LOCATION: West of the Preserve Center and South of Ande"son Lakes Parkway
LEGAL: bloc!, 1, Lot 2, Preserve Center Addition
it]QUEST: A. PUP development stage approval of PUP-70-03
B. Pezoning from Oral in The Preser.e. Pith to ItM 2.5 •
for 129 rental apartments
A. P Orel'
1. Owiner›hinjieveloper
The Preserve will retain ownership of the project and site area
thronh the period that public approvals are obtained.
Antonio Bernardi is theprospective developer, builder and owner
of the project.
2. Fiscal-Fcomic
•
The proposed preject is to be funded by a mortgage committed from
Finny M;:y-tandum plea C 71:. for 30 year,.
The loan is guaranteed by HUD through an FHA insured mortgage on
the has of the illl:3 Program. ( An indireet subsidy program
specifying the! there MI:St he aoproxinntely Site local real estate
.•
abater...•at which is to be applied to further reductng future tenant
rent .)
.•
7
The future owner has made the following verbal .commitments which
will he put into writing :
a. To apply for only the minimum program term of
15 years.
b. To restrict. future options of combining Section 8 f
subsidy na the D3 programs on this project.
Analyi!. or fiscal imt!Jcts of ret.idential hout.ing has been preformed by The
PIP ,Tve developer led % trifled by the school district and city clerk. Some
of these materials have been distributed independently of this report.
3. Develop;lent Methods
The entire tract will he sold to Mr. Bernardi with provisions for deeding
back homoowner spaces required to implement the developer's greenway devel-
(. opment plans in the area.
The project proposes 129 units of affordable rental units to future
residents of Filem Piairie.
0
• - •• •
Staff Report-II / it Apartments -2- Nov. 5, 1976
•
Actual construction, ownership and management is to be controlled
by !Ir. Borns I'd i.
C U,;-site amenities shall he controlled by the building management fa3
team - tentatively Landtech Inc.
4. Uevrlopmcnt 'l;im;nl;
The project expects to bep,in construction curly Spring 1977 with
occupancy I. '77-hinter '78.
5. Critical Public Decisiens
Since the site is well screed by roads and utilities , the major public -
decisions necessary to begin Construction would be the rezoning of
the property to PM 2.S
The Preserve Environmental Impact Statement was approved by IIUD and
was ju..t appro•,ed by the Minnesota !;u;ironme'nt.;I Quality Council.
Therefore, the way has been cleared for processing of projects in
The Preserve with full environmental review completed.
13. P1.,\ ,111l A IDENTIFICATION •
1. I,e,e ;t
v -�..a �PCCfI painu c or 9 '. 7 ...ram r
.�d '�
I
' 3'(---(\\\.1 ,----•--- .
•
•
....., ..te,,,j .
- -,,,i, i Tit:3,s.,) ,
I 51�'I'
ki „
,.2..
`',.1
Ii I
-•, - i,
r-- : b .l
5
6 __
3'.5
I
Staff Report-East/West Parkway Apts -3- Nov. 5, 1976
?i
2. Pelion:,1 RelatIon bins I.;
The need for mu1ti.l,ie family housing in The Preserve is briefly
discussed in the :`ctober 19, 1976 memo, 'The frescrv.Housing '.oucept', 1'
1.
where housing for a variety of' incomes was envisioned
in The Prest.rec fro. the ons,t. 'Ioday, no rental units are built and
The Preserve 1s rcque•ting approval of the Bast/1Pcst Apartment 129 4.
unit project to fulfill this con:nitntent. to a variety of housing types
and income levels ro,po;uiinp to market demand within Eden Pio itie.
f
Recent e:nploymnt increases in the Dlajor Center Area with Minnesota ,-
Protect icc Life, Ccico and the future Pillsbury project, demonstrate
the present and fi:t,i.c aged f,r multiple family housing in this segment
of the cotr, di ity.
3. lixistinr, Card Use f; 1'ransjprtaticn Syctcrr,
Access to the Eft; apartment site wi11 rose from the existing Preserve
Center drivc.:ay ttith connection west to a future pt:biir. street.
The existing land use is a horse pasture for The Preserve Stable with
Multiple in,lily use:, shown for the site on the Preserve Development
C' cc,it, fhc pl an for stage one arou.td The Preserve Activity
•
Cent er callr:9 for a. range from 12-13 units/acre for this sit.;; because
of the close relationship with the Cooter and Nei11 lake. •
The fol'0 rt two graphics represent the original Preserve Stage One
Land Use ..n., The PteSQrVO Center Pieilities illustrating this rite
l
as, h ., .sinl', .n clo• 'i rcic.tinn ip to the. icsc•rc�e Center.
�, - t . 1 ]l / _- )Ij 117 • 1\le' �, ��nli
f ,p /
v, i _ 4
7 j cj ' �I• -i I( \ ((', u ••
t x ' I ;mac , t /t�t
L�: 1 • U - , ,�
I ,'y ^' err � l � � r • , � P
!
i _
�r /
�, 1f 1:r( tt )
(J' r 1
k. 1� o, ' �Jl y ,•• �,, 1 . r, /!a.•, -
\; ,�.`�, t._ ii in• .1.0. . ac.m,:, r• ;.•
t f�tc:...lu:. r:..
S•aff Report-Ern Apts. -4- Nov. 5, 1976
i'.
f C PLAN PROJECT AREA ANAIYSiS
1 linti :Rntal Analysis
The site has four distinct features: low pond on the north, triangular
plateau, slopes along the west and south, and tht• Neill Lake shore. •
The soils, slopes and vegetation vary in each of these areas providing
dcrclopcient constraints.
The majority of the site's trees arc located along the westernslopc
with scattered trees along the NeiI1 Lake slope . The remainder of
the site has been used for a horse pasture.
The staff believes that development of the site should respect. the
slope/tree areas and develop ,mainly on the triangular plateau.
Replacement. of the existing pasture land with urban uses would not
eliminate any unique habitat. If the developer were to "flaten" the
site and destroy the slopes and trees then significant natural
features would be lost.
D. PLAN PR0AI.
1. levelej-eont Obicrtives
C The last/West Apartment objectives are summarized in letters from Mr. Hess
of The Preserve in which he stresses the provision of a broad range of
rental Loasin+, opportunities available to high medium and low income
families is the primary objective. The 221 fi.i program , as Mr. Hess
pointed-out, strives to provide housing for the middle income family
flinging from $7-,1100-20,000/year. This project in conjunction with other
multiple family developments in The Pres,crvowill provide the full
spectrum of rental housing opportunities.
A second objective for the project is to consolidate the higher density
multiple tasty projects around The Preserve Activity Center. .The
Center includes high quality recreational facilities and future
lustiintion;al/ncir,hhorhood/cermtercial services. Location of multiple
family sites in close•proximity to those amenities maLes a great deal
of sev e and is consistent with The Preserve and City plans.
A third objective is to respect the site's character sand utilize a •
building style that will enhance the site.
2s J3
St..:f Repoit-::/:, ',pis. Nov. 5, 1676 i`
2. Site Plan Analysis
a. 1 railing
7.1. revised site plan, 11-3-76, ( attached ), locates the building
a+op the Knoll with pa Pup and garages lower . The parking and
,. ,rage area would he ;raised a fee feet above the natural grade.
The slopes me,,ld not he ;)toed t secpt for the 3 garage c•>:cavations
•
towards 'ei ll lake. The 11-3-i6 plan shows grading on the west
slopes,ho;:ever the plan say:: " slopes to be preserved". c
b. Utilities 11 Drainage
lltiliti:s are readily available to the property with no public
extensions neces:ary.
No let.ailc•: dreinay:• plan has been p:.pared. however the pond
comhi ied with the e\ stinp storr) wat,.)r systen loading to Pci:1
lope should provide adcc;uate d ainne.c sr-tie'-. Ihc diainape
plan rust he approved the Cite and Riley Purgatory Creek
Watershed District .
c. Circulation
1'cJertr';an--fu'arc mocotacnts are provided fur tcaxm-s who wish
to 11.:11.: Of cycle to The Iruserve Center, Sceel Park£, other
internal and external t:ciOu,erhoua>: and the nden rrairie
CShopping Center Area.
Vito-acectc to the site through 'Ihc i'recorve Ccatcr will be
provided by ogricmcrt with The Preserve is'.rloper.
Existing tiro o•lo.hfare>: ate developed which p,ernit access to local
and Yogic,. ) destirettions.
Mature access to the hest to r: net: nni-th/ontli street or other ,
project driveway will unsure :ui alternate put:tif.'e t.e the site ..
along, Neill hnl.o.
Transit- the city is currently r:i,ri:in7 with the btl'C to develop a
new concept for transit service. 'Ihc idea is to serve residents and
businesses with a,"pal-a-transit" or :le ible service concept rather
than the conventional fixed route scrvi.:e.
The Preserve ::ill he an excellent neighborhood for such a system due
to the clustering of higher density ,L.,velonnts increasing transit
`�`% `;'yam- I/ `_._. b i
yi>i I:'./i"., t,-3"s__ ..i
1 ,./
Sta`f Rep ut-1./ll Apt a. -6- Nov. 5, 1976
(
d. Landscaping c
C Tho revised plan does not provide sufficient. detail to evaluate
the: proposed lautiscapin!. A detailed landscaping plan mu;a be
approved by the stuff prior to buildiup permits. Such a plan will
be evaluated against the following criteria: �)
Soften the garatJ.e screen w;.;J 1 with car e`n,shrub and
2. Provide sufficient canopy trees. (3-b'! caliper ) in the
court area to soften the view of other unit:..
3. Share trees for pining area to reduce visual impact,
•
tOri
4. Screen/softer; view of lower parking arc as viewed •
from Neill Lake.
c. Amenities
•
The location of the East/Crest Apartments , adjacent to The Preserve Center
with its wide aray of anenities,.aill provide the hihh quality services
desired in apartment livir,r.• The Fast/'Bust Apartments and other multiple
family projects will increase the use and :ability to financially support
those: n7enities and allow additioa:ii facilities to be provided.
The pro;.ur.r iu;1id provide at lent two play areas in close relationship
to tnc units.
•
.,Arcl:itcctur:
The ro.vised plan. 11-3-76, is developed around an entirely different
concert tl•.ca the previous plan. A "intanior court" scheme, similar
•
to C;indslepe allows group open space hotveon clusters. Careful siting
of the units will allow limited views of the lake, woods or pond for
all un':ts. The landscaping of the con,•ts will provide privacy between •
clus.tcrr .,bile strucruring children play space within easy view of the
unit.
The puling relates fairly well to the units but a redesign of the spaces
near Neill Lake would reduce the visabiIaty and improve circulation.
The p.arat'e wall olgnr the pond provides the positive screen for the
parkin;: area; and increases the privacy of the project. Construction
material, elevation and lan,iscapi'tr, will be critical design features
of the garages to in:.urc a quality appearance.
•
�i,it
. -,---
t:
Staff Report-E/11 Apta. Nov. 5, 1976
i:
1:
( 4, land li.(. Profile _
11/3/76 Update Sgoaro Font
Cage 44,1(0 11
, .
Driveway 1, Parking 62,970 16
!handily. Overage 32,480 8 . .
Open Space 251 ,610 65 a:
Totals: 391,110 I.00i
. .
, .
. ,
•
As the talkie reflects , the site coverage is greater kith this design
tla ,a with a stricture like the Poolside elevator zipartr, .,ts.
.:' .
S. llonsing/rgulat
. .
The following chart illustrates the income profile for the three apartment
.. .
project around The Preserve Conte:. 'I he art, prepared by The Preserve,
the range of incomes •Ishich 11)e“, project a will serve. .-
,
. .
PP111.11a4 P11.11 - f 551(.!5IL0 FRT:!i.0 PR5.111,,,S•
. .
(a... IliF. 111.'11rsE .
. • • •
. 1NCt''.E fr;(,',TS
e PPDACT In'..:•.1. 1p;: , !•.,... 1..:',....1" . 1.1..':. .E• .nir..n
. ...0-',: 1.-7••`:••..t.;:"017"'... -:•7 :21C,•.:FI.17•.:•":"' ,7
. . .
111r.*LC ,.: 11(.. B
. . .
(lai tans:
1 S S' CC1 (3 ",:7:1 r 71
2 11,a.ao.c.;
3 12.40.c.1 I 1 .
4 1tn ) : I
S 14,72:).t.)
6 15,f.;;D.e3 ....,.
L.:::•...l L., 2-.4 si.;,..>. i..._...i .. j •
- • . . .
EfST-IT$T P.7 ".;;Y 0.3 •
'
(129 1. 11S
• . '
...
1 $9,1`16.c.11 1"-42T T 77: Cr:n1
2 30,::^5.t13 • I .i,
, .
3 13.6L6.0.1
; l'il -'4.' j -...A
4 15,46 .1.a •• •. t c r-.: ; 1.----,
s .
,6 - I..__J 1........1 i__-_.9 . ..
•
• .
1,":..srr. . 0 S .
(1.4 tntlt) • .
1 111.6119.D3
( 2
13,(1•J.00 . .•
19.20,B,1 • .
' •
3 14'..•••' ';‘!',.' 1 .
4 17,X.0.c.) 1 r. : .
. a 4 .
5 21.13o.v) . • .
, i - I..1 '.V..! :.1.
6 . - . . • i.........i L....--,
3519 • .
. . . .„
. . .
staff Report-EA Apt,.; -8- NOV. S, 1976 •
The East/West Project does include a local property lix abatement
of SO% which is passed on tot he units as a ,35.00/month rent
•
deduction. The project will not serve low inca;oe families or
elderly nod the owner has cons tcd that no Sect ion S or other
rent subsidy would he included in the , roj eel.
An import ant consideration is v.hethcr the 50"% tax abatn,ent for 15
yea;: will croazc an tn:rca:•o:uihir finanri:il posit t'n for the city
and :xhool dist riot. The Preserve has merk,d clo:•,rly wi s h ".ir. C ;cm
and ;.11.. Franc to c;nulyze the ecoicosii, impart:. The conclusion
is that the l:a:t/hest :Apartment pre;jecl is an worse than other
reside;:ti a I dcvc•1oprc is frost an economic peripecti.ve as it may
impact the city and school distriet.
G. Ph::•:ia:, trod Construction Schedule
All public approvals Deccml,or 1970
Cnnstroctien start Early 1977
First occupancc hate 1977
Full occu .cncc: 1978
•
D. offs
That the Pict/1.:ca* P; Puny Aparrr.ients is Consistiuit :.ith the city and
CThe Preserve Precept i'lits end does assist in prey iding a broad range
of hodsi ep7ortimiticr as re,luir0U by the c.ity is the original
Prescrce PUP 70-03.
2. That the £:net/less Parkway Agee:Tnents do not inciudc any further subsidy
other trhait that p'revided under the 22195 propram as other suhsidLes,
such as Scotic:t B, would not be consistent with city or Pros ve policies.
S. That the project meet all recrti..r,ments of the Pity Engineering Department
art RI Icy/I'urestnry Creek 1;atcrshed District .
.1. That the 91 acre site , I31n;k 1, Lot 2, Preserve Center Addition be rezoned •
front 1.01•11 to 11i 2.5 for eonsiruction of the modified 11-3-76 plan.
5. That the rezoning approval be for a two year period during which time
cenatinci ion must begin or the city may ittitiate a resoning back to Rural.
Di':jj
C
,, T Uadorpnaa
( Zr' , ''xt;1 . ‘,./Il'r.'i i i 1-'. ,i . r'..-'''''',. -N.\ -
` 2
,:*,�.r;\7 I I`\ .. � s ` .s. '1 PanA rroa
' I
;<'1 far \:.::` ,, tO Co pit.corred
rl ,,�r L r 1 it`.\ '.� //\`
I 1 / ` - J r
•
1,1
r '.1 .`) _` . :�.T // a"r /r---4::--':— a
f i, V ��.\ • ' l— Gar, �,
r,. J i I ,\ __ ` A .�y�i f•`^'J L.�'-- 7
. i''',, :r.:—...-....--'
..___-___..-..., ,,..,._.........-..y.,_____,::).-..--7`i.1 , . r-,/'
1 it l• 1 }� . �, (ti ', 1
I - r l _ Y' 1 • `y h
4 \• lft1 j` i,..•.• .,,.• ,`LL `I ,1 :.art. ' 1C: %_,,,-1 `\ \\ 1 i i•I
J 1
VT: •
. {i i
J ---
1 1 <-
-- • �. - ., l
,,,, i-,;.. . . . ..,.: . .. ......-::_. ..„. . ..-.11 ...4
•
' v �.
.
�. ‘ ,'— 7 }
Aj1 ,�\ , -- . �!/ fir`. '�1.t'
'-\ .\-
-
•
EA=';.�'_i •V,'EST' Pi-rrte `AY APTS. .
SCr,I_C 1". too' 11.3.76
L(T ^ 1.;LOCI\ I Sr : 77:..: Pr: 3 (
)�.J
I iETPC ii'.i A
Existiny Ownership 65% (Note: coe:tant f;;cto- since 1960)
Existing Rental 35% (Note: 5O of this a:a3unt is in 1Ipls.
and St. Paul)
THE PRESERVE - (AS APPROVED F.U.D. 70-31
Proposed Ownership 44ro (S.Fam. = 29%) (T.H. or Cook 15%)
Proposed Rental 56%
• THE PRESERVE - (ZONED TO DATE 1184 UNITS - AUG. 76)
Condo % S.Fam. R
Dwnership 53.3% 3 8' .23.4
1
Rental 46.6% (552 Units)
THE PRESERVE - (% BUILT TD DATE AUG. 76)
Condo T.House S.Fam.
�•!, ship 1OOi, 10.5 27.4 60 •
Rental 0
THE PRESERVE (WITH PROPOSED APARTMENTS)
•
Condo T_H3use S.Fan.
333 Ownership (existing) 35 9h [U0
Rental
84 Neill Lake (Poolside Apts.)
168 Windslope
129 East-West Parkway Apts.
Ti81 .
4 Total Units 53% Apts. - Rental 47% Ownership
•
THE PRESERVE WITH 1977 NEW OWNERSHIP UNITS
1D0 + New Ownership Units
714
814 Total Units End 1977 46% Dental 54% Ownership
•
'floo,00m„ Ii�,wtl :'AI,!lE - LAND L'.):: ~Ni.i 4.', VALUE •
to,, r2^v
----2 i 1.-0-4, A,
f7 f.,y, nvJ,
LAND USE T`,'PE E.f•.11. H0,".EST AD NON-F^'ESTEAD TAX 6EN7C, S
Single Family (S1CL',?'0 House) $100,000 $87,000 $3,269.,. s4'9d it
(3) S33,333.00 100,000 61,C00 2,26':'.C.: 3.1,2)
7 2,760.CY: 31°9
(2) rD.Ql.:1.uD units 1QQ;Q'JQ 4,000
Single Fz:.i ly 100,0i;u -- $100,000 3,777.c`''c+,a
•
lulti-Family 0-3 S100,000 --
Building --
87 50043,750 1,653.26
Land 12,500 -- 12,500 472.5' "
2 .6
Commercial $100,000 -- • $100,000 $4,360.0C
co'
,J
°y
a7` i
3 e� -a' .
o°
.► 9 S 041
pup y"" $1 I
/ Dal )S-0 .74 3�I
6 1 1J,r
PER UNIT - FISCAL EFFECT OF VP IOLS DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
EOEN Pi?A1'<Ir, MU;LSOTA
CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBSIDY Summary
DEVELOPMENT OPTION Cost to Homestead lax Reduction Per Unit
Educate Credit D.3 Impact
•
1. SINGLE FAMILY '
S50,000.00 -361.37 . -- -- -361.37
S70,000.00 -328.28 , -- -- -328.28
$90,000.00 - 95.20 -- -- - 95.20
2. C.3 DEVELOPMENT - 88.40 -- -146.23 -234.53
City 28.11 '
School Dist. 118.12
Other 88.04
3. D.4 OR OTHER NON-
HOMESTEAD - 47.27 -- -0- - 47.27 =_
South Hennepin Huri:gin Services Council
640f Franco Pveauc$•ct4 • Edo,.Minnesota 5b496
thane ti201194
•
Serving.
October 26, 1976 tarn hone
[den,
Hicb it d
•
Mr. Wolfgang per. -1
11i or
city of hden reallte
8950 Eden e.nidle n•�od
Eden I'roirle, TIN. 553411
Pear Moyer Punzelt •
•
Ott ,t eeo ]f, 1976 the South Hennepin Hunan Services Coune'.l :'evle::ed the
i
Enr.t/:.'c•st l'nrtu,-ty Arertcr.•nt'n request to dev,!,:p 129 root+,1 rtponn,,,ts 1n
the Pees-rye. 'dr• lon,n7drd to you and the City Council nor concerns that
the proposal approved;
•
1) may constitute en excessive conccotrati,:r of sohnidized
housing tied rroult in a "tipping" of the chase:.c.r of
the Preserve.
2) could provide presqure on av,tihobitt seppert services such
AO day care, curial service , finn•::rtal services, retreetice,
transportation, etc., et least in the short tern.
• Since then ye hcvc received new info/nation that necesoitotes a modification
of not position.
It w.'.s col u;n:o-csc,•:.:!n; titer 221--:!- finrnrr•.' nrniects ,,er, dcsignc.i for low
and tolerate'incon.e persons nos gnnlifind for the Section h rent subsidy
rioter,. -e hove hew loused thet nl though the 22 -tl 3 progr:.•r in deiiucd
P_ a ,. am .or led nrd sf,ases rc 'ices, pr._•,.e out:,. are n_ incoan; •
•
l:n tdel Ines
fur ten: ;rs and Ii.),;t, ncgot tett:, the rent. ?arts •.rt:.it lb, dc•delnner. The
epprov4,1 monthly feels for has t./itec t. Parkway 1,pnetment art. ns follows:
1 bedroom $ 2;0
2 bed ronw $ 215 •
Also, 1f a devpin;•,•t is to receive approve' for Sortion 8 subsidy to his
project I:c must de no before cens.rnetion hoduty. There is coreent ty no
such npplicot inn pc,.dinr..
In the vi;•w of tor. Join r.uengcr. P.•1'.uly "'ol i f:.,:ly Services officer for Hit p„
•
it is bil. Is co;il:,.ly thnr low ..ud e;odc•r•,:e Indite le w'o
people vld be shies to
of ford to I COP lit 1..I/IJost !':,r;.w;-v loar tn,t ore, both because of the approved
• rent levels, lied the absence of t.ct ion 8 s:i•:-id ics.
6cceuee of thfa n,•-t lnfort-lit Ito It. is our belief that the approval of
East/ttest Partway Apnr:mentn would not tentlt ht n "tipping" of the •
charm:cr Cl the it,,:,.:•vr or utresai tote ren,j or fact-Eases in special services.
Ids reolf:e that the City CnuaciI cult sl::o nddress the issue of the SOY,
tax ,I:' n rrc li3 Went: Lot- 22] P-i housing. It is our under•:tnnding
that :u-1 n.e•t . ,i doer„ the ptojeetod I•,tte by shout $32.00
p
writ cod 1.!`:•• :set, :n nd:.'ltion to reduced 1nr.rent rated by 0.11.0,,per
•
the tvun "• .:•si:iem,1 housing•, rill] r,pplie,thli`. Ti. tart, hoover, In
Grp..u•nt ly nor iadic.it.lce ❑t the iuci...r level of persons usually targeted
tot I.t•d, pr „ m:s.
Sincerely,
•
I J -
i r.ItI I1 I,•/i, "''et'SI,
l.Xec,i 11- P:tector 1,i2:3
•
•
•
•
•
approved
n;hfni; (: ;vnis,.ionMinutes _q_ Oct. 25, 1976
F. bast/West Parkway rAnartmnnts. The Preserve, request for rezoning from Rural
to RM 2.i on b.6,;. acres for 129 rental apartment units. The site is
located we.t of The Preserve Center.
•
S.inee the plan had been changed and no final site plan was available for discussion,
the cozimission considered the housing memo prepared by Mr. Hess wh.ch outlined •
a variety of statistical studies for cost of developments, taxes and income generated.
Ton Bartel, EP News, questioned how many children would be in a D3 project vs. a
nor: ..: apartment -complex. Hess repsonded --that the experience of the developer
is that the projects are identical in the number of children,( figuring approximately •
.3 childen/ unit ).
Joh:, herg:an , 8705 Bentwood Drive, questioned the figures Mr. Hess presented relating
to a-hi_h '.yp- of dovelopment generated the best eronor:ic picture for the city. He was
of tY opinion that $100,000 homes were better development for the city than
n.c' ar:,:rtr:ent units especially if they are subsidized. He also questioned why
i,reject is being considz: -d since ,.n city has already established a low priority
for e6cIttiontl subsidized units. He then asked why a tax subsidy is needed if this
project is for middle and upper income individuals .
Hess rated , today due to interest rates in the conventional money market, that
apartment development is not feasible without the HOD financing programs, both
221D 3 .;nd 221D3.
blot i t•. : •
'es6o.-ht roved, Lynch seconded, to continue consideration of the East/Kest Apartments
to the Noeember Fish meeting and direct the staff to complete a staff report. The
moti0;. cr."Pieci uncnime•usly.
•
•
4
•
approved
limning Comcuissior: Minutes -3_ Oct. 14, 1976
•
1>. t a j l c Parkwv Apartrw nt s_ The Preserve. Request for rezoning from
1 J t, it' ..S on 6 S)i acres for 129 renial spertment units. The site
is cuted west of Thel Preserve Center. •
11 })taller i,,formsd the commission the Council , upon request frost The
Pre:, ve, has approved the reconsideration of the project.
Uoa Hess pointed-out the location of the s:ie and the surrnunding trails.
P' Moe, architect stated he fe.is the revised plan has better unit orienta-
tion , a lower profile and each unit would have a separate entr,:ace.
Sorensen a:•ked the staff to investigate the significance of the Shoreland
h1 .;apei:,.;,t Act relative to this project.
Sorensen asked The Preserve tc submit more detailed grading plans. •
Sore ,n asked if 1 enclosed garage would be included in the rent. Hess replied
affitc�ativc.
1'r. Carlson, 9061 Neill Lake Road, questioned wily the project was approved for
re corr:i,itrttio:' if the previous plan had been denied partially due to the City's
p•ee.rt nn+:,bcr of subsidized unites.
Wno niann,r replied he believer the changes warrant reconsideration and the City
1,,,t an oili„ tic, to act upon appiicat;,,;,s.
221
Rc•rS stated fundir; is available for4D3 programs, and a report upon the project's
w:11 be i'urthcsr ng along with a statement iron tha South Hennepin 1tu:aan
S,:evieed Council ,
i;:. t,ch, 935: Nniii Lake Road, asko.' who the owner/manager of the: aparl,;ents
1,a. Mr. Larry Peeerscn repiie' 1'r. Bernardi.
l:,,t S or "•
iy ;caved, Lynch seconded, to continue the item to the next meeting. The
L.Gt en carried unanimously. •
Le :c:;-rov:•d, Lynch seconded, to refer the item to the staff and Human Rights
:er reports. The motion carried unanimously.
•
C 4
,a
IN!---.cCvE.ru13
C
Augc ..l 31, 1976
•
Ms, I:ceeyr arc Dysieger
C:11,i :•'Wnyn 11
TTurr..,, li;;lt: Cnmmi ,ion •
CITY OP .Tr17F;: i''RAIR.lci
81:(,0 Lion Prufri.e. head
Edot. l'r.irie, Ilia esol, 55393
Dear Ilo sctna""y:
I would Iike .-you to have the followinu information which I have recently
pro,.itoi ci or ecgeired. The likely economic mix o mcurr.ing in The Preserve
Center neigh)-;, ::ood ra;ciliir:g :rein recent rental apartment proposals
eec'l'L d with l.rcvioue coed ominium zoning (profc:•ty adjusted) would be:
Proposed fly Average Metro
The Preserve Community
(apartments only) Economic Mix
(apt.,, & single ±;.rr.? .)
Lo:v )r 'cnc 10,ro 19%
Modem' eIrseonce 10.7°%c EVic
Lower :Middle 1(1.4% 32%c
Upper Middle 22.15'c 18%
i` qh 1rn_on:e 44.2r/i• 12%
Vies_ this re:•.1:11., I can see The Preserve has been, and continues to
be a Lit optimistic in the hicl,h incorre.• area and probably overly pessimistic
in tic lower u,iddle income range. I um working to bring visibility of
thin, issue to our stf L:f so i1:at Y!e mic ht eonrti:'.er corrective measures.
S1:ce'.,:Lv,of the rental vr:, condominium issue (because it surfaced then
sub;,cc r ed during the Cooncil's review of the Neill L use Apartment
proposal) I propose! to recite the fc:l.low!eg from thn approved Preserve
P.Y1. D. Agreement (Sec. A lib) Development Methods - Residential
Do•,•;,lunment 1'rogr..rn). Copies are available from The Preserve or •
City led1.
C •
A Tot.,1 Environment Community—0920 Frank',Pd.,Eden Prairie,Minn. 65343—(612)94-22031
his. Rosemary Dysinger
August 31. 1976
•
Page r1',70
( . '
Suril-,Pn"y: All residential develop-scut --
.' .,
41'7.- - owner occupied
29',"c - to he once oaTE: •ted de •tielled ..
15'',4c - to be iii lit heti.ve s apartment and townhouse.- (split determined
by market) ••
•- .
...
58cil, - rental occupied
..._...„.
11;•7 - tov»Pousci: .. . .
- •
45% - apartments
As of August 1, 1976, The Preittrve has --
331
pl.::;ted single fe.7-.-.ily del:-Hi lots '.
511 platted single family attpehed lots (couderniniurn) „..
-0- platted single fainily attached lots (rei..:•.ill
279 rental garder. upartmet.': - :toned •.
•144 rental elevator apartmes„ts - 500e 6 .. .
. .
842 owner occupied - 68.66'1: .„., .
(.. 42:i rent ‘.1 occupied - 33.4.1';i ...: ,..
-17,l,.173 tetpl telilp pit.tici or 7_,,..u,! ',2: •
Bast -•Zy, the impact of the Neill I...1:e prepos.t.1 v„Tould he altered these
...•.
.. ,
figeret: as foltows: l,
-•
737 owner oceppicd - 59,2';', ( sinus 105 flihil.cvt,oci C1ondorniniums)
507 rental. occupied - 40,ft';', phis 34 Neill Laite Ap:,:itinent units) .., .
..5. „
I th:nk detailed analysis of The Ill.•esrs•ve,p pro-,,:ress and goals will continue --.i' •
to bring out the fact that The i'reserve is attempting to implement the
approi.•••,-.! .1.11,D. We feet it is elementary that the community support
The Preserve in its contit,dinit; efforts to cenfran to the P.I.3„D. -
, .
.. .
In conclusion, 1 V.'01.11d in f", 1 point not that, if the community attempts
to ini:inlsin in„ sbicetive overt/low of the situation, it will rcaliue that for
those existins: or prospective homeaowners who fiirl themselves in non . .
, .
con5.‘rinity with Prererve I . ll. D. plaming re:;traints,Eden Prairie
continues to offer a wide rant tif ite,,,iing alternatives., Consequently,
it is not required that the Connell with,!;•-aw its support of previous
1'.1.1.1). commitments to The Preserve to appctase a vocal minority, t.„.
•
(.
- •„ ..
, .
•
.,. ,
. ,
. .
3'511 ,
. ,
Ms. Rosemary Dysinger
August 31, 1U76
Page Three
Please call i you would Lily.: to disucss any of these issues in groats ,
&tail.
Very truly yours,
(
....,_.,,,,,,„ ,...{ k 1/ /L.,(...,/r • / If
n 0 .,,;(3 L. Hess, Jr. - A.S.L.A. ..,.
Vice President
Architecture & Planning
CARTER &GET-T,TZ, INC.
DI,Ii/cml
Alt,..ell,.c.nt .
•
(
7
•
(
.-. .
r_____.__rtzr_. :.,
•
'.9TAN:.:ECTCRS I
loPr./.3.:
I MP.1 111.
I
:.•••-•',3"1,.;..",\114EAF',..A..IS 1 .,.... 1
. I Neje;
I $‘4 AIVOTIA CO. /
C01.51.•01
( Ring ....
MIMI. / •••••.e. -
I•••••?../1-4t;.•..., li 41,..C./.
- I .
...r...."'"'
••Ste... L...„,
../...r1... ./' 0.7... I 1 II.••a..0
.:1,,,..; I ..,•7,..0
"........—. . •-,‘..-n---r-‘1
•'
44111 taAmore,o±:.. c.oc...nos, j, V/ASkIroGTO.
ow% \N
kor, - ..;:.!—..- 1 ,' i Lt 1 , ,,),.
• ....-,,..... ' I 1 k7 I r':::: .... •.--' '
I .,1..., •
•44.0.Piri co. olir7r,:,..,. .".."1--...-.-;..... -1--,-,-;;;-'7"
i•-• . .:--- - • .
• •
I fr....-". Lg,•,•-h
I ' ,1-1 ‘' ', 11-, -•,•,'• • ,. '•-•,•_. d '
_.......,-..,... orrrf.•.k
1_,--
.1.;•Kr.nr.
i rola,..,..1 L A ..../.. -1...r.. .., •
1 •61.1.4...••te ........4 '7\ LI 1... ,_,-.-.• , f 1
4•1 .......
-: ••••-.".,- .
.7,....„ , ......,.,--r.,..,... .,1%, „.e
...4....•44_;r.,_ I..,_ 1 •
•••;.
'....-..-
0 1 r"s'-:- -1, 1 i
R..3.1CY CO
r.". i . ^ts I
..,•
r-- I ,.,-, I . 1.1.4.1 u••• .
I I ro,Noorrim,•, ..,.....,..?„, •,,,, s j?1 int.o.trwij.y...1•••4.
:. ....,.' j:..oremeareo...ei 01.1/.11411.I;1/411. ...„„..., I ..A7,10•••• 1 ..,/' 0; ,..,, .."."' 7:1..... ;
I .-,- .4 4 , or cirOo.::',11.1, :•
I •) 4,,' ..1---------;;,
i .,..•,... , ......,....•...,,,,, ,..o.,.., .,..., •,/..A.
\.....0
)
i •a<1,, oftvIts e or. ,n,/
1 I I
Ca',CR CD ..............
•19,7:9 ,9. L.,.
A --• <,,,“t Ire. ,1•••••'• :.,1•P
1 .
''''"% i i
,,,....,Th ,..„, . c.r.77:. ..c..••>.,,.. ,,• • ,..*
1,'''
r ---)
I 4 ; 1 .,,.• .
• --- • 1 - --0- I ,„,..„,....
i , 1....... ,
L_ _.____ ' /, '`
_..._4 ,./ Ly...0 r.er• I ,•••,.4,,,o I ,z., r
,„.....,
SCOT T CO. I I' L.Z.,,t I i I , ,
...Fos krt I'.....
— 1•"^4—L---,-..-.-nos., .61•Er...a-- --1.- - - '
.....Zi; °
I
I CAS11.1.&OCR
oto..4” •I I ..,....' L.'' ...• i 10{TM.11
, I i ''':""• !'
....•-ros
, I I ..,A....a, I 1-'.:',e.::. I . I
L•,--...;=.‘,........;... ,....somee......... ..,...wsam........a....-4ma.......,-,...----- -- -
I va...,..
I I I
''..et..".......:" ,
y..„„ r----:7- , . .7 ' a.: IA
I WI
I ...'i--.U.Ors
I,..--....----2----J---J ,.• :
--
TwiN CT I7o LIET.ROPCLITAN AREA
•
.........•• ,.••(Tafiut. I,••Lf ao;,......T. .t8 44,tisk • „.
0;•••••/.(0 I,. 42,0M---County Sounciaty
12•I••eill SUML----kturuciDal BOLIn,/an/
liv i A.• • 11•••••••• MP 9..411mt
"'..././...."'''' n';•;..7..P.. :!::......''.41" i".11/414--Townst.ia tiounaary
IL orb"...LA” 1111..../...." 4.••••••1fteiu. 111 II ism"0 1...0.1
. • .
; ./ ///' 1 NS r,-•-10€ Pa S:''l ASS./.; l'LtE 0 11\13)AE 1 PVLI I'i.-Yt To EVI,Lrftl,L Sao- 9333
Or -r..HE 11,78(4 .
...,, -
ug, •). 0 3-9
- •, ,.1
- _
1il]/Ri
•
C'TTY or F'ID"9 FRAI^1/3
IiENN: 'IN C',)UN'1' , MII'TAII, O4'A •
OR':_. 1rTNCf No. 343 •
AN O0')INANCG RTt--sTIN0 TO ZONING, AND AME'IDIN0
ORDINANCE NO. 3.35.
TOE CITY COUNCIL t'P THZ ClTY OF ED1N PRAIRIE DOES ORDLIN
EOL71)W S:
Se< i ion_1_ Appendix A of Ordi-nenccj No. 135 is amended
Ly adding:
That part of the west half of the northwest Quarter
•
of Section 21, Township 11C., Range 22, Iiennepiin
County, Ninnesotr, describe; acifell.:,::s: commencing
at: the most sontl:o t e. ly corner of Trc:ct h,
Ar>- is Lured Le,nr? Strve', No. 79)., Ne::nc:pin County,
noinV: bell, CFI tr . CO, _r Fine. of
C Co my CoedNo. 1 on nl n nn pin Co,ur,ty
hiq ,.:sr. Plot. No. 67 thonc,, cn anS. ,,.re : bEm i::y of
•
North. :... •ng the line aa1J .c t LI 627.00
feet; thence North 70 dc•erc :s East 75.00 foci.; `tl
tiwnce East 300.00 feet; ._rnre South 43 decrees
Lost: 170.00 foot; thonre ..o.uth 23 deuces last 260.00
feet to the point of . . inner; of the land to ba
di cril:cc;; then:cc ^:o: cl; 2:' Iior,irces 260.00 feet;
thence Korth 43 (Lou,e c. N',t 170.00 feet; thence
North 25 degrees caa' 130.00 Le_et; thence North 67
degrees East 160 fcot, tear, or less to the southwesterly
lire of CPti'h 'OOD ESTATES 1G'i ADDITION, Hennepin Co,tnty,
14 urset:a acco:di::y to the rccorricd plat thereof;
thence southeasterly a)ono the southweotenly line: of
en1.d Cprr:0%30D L'iNCPYS 1.-',1' ADDITION, to the center line
of Ea County RondISo- 1; thence west-oily along the
center line of.s:_i-I Count•- Road No. 1 to the intersection
wi th a line that. t+-tnrs S, Ali 4 degrees Loot from the
paint of hoc innuru; thence North 4 de roes West 280 feet,
sure or less, to Lou point of beginning.
�4:Iel property shall br and herrb7 is removed fro:.: Rural zone and
•
shall be included hcrc I to; .in the R14-6.5 zone.
1/11/16 •
Srtirn7, The abo,rr described property shall be
•
subje t to the terms and cc ,dit ions of that certain. Rezoning
Agree:1.1(.11f dated , )976, entered into bet..-reen .•
Ilus-tad Developatent Corneritic,n and Lice City of Eden Prairie,
which z Ireement is hereby mode a part her and shall farther
be subjeci to all of the ordinances, rulers and regulations of
„ .
the City ralativg to such 5 zones.
Section 3. This ordinance 1ieronca effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRfT READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Eden Prairie on the dav of
)/6, and finally react and rdorit ef;, and rdr l Eli rEed at a
•
reciallr meeting of the City Council of said City on the _ •day of 1 r-i'76
. .
Mayor
duhic 7:7i,:,ne, City Clerk
roldi in the Eden Prairie Neur
•
on the __day of _ ,
— 2 —
1/11/76
RI?-:,C 'TNC; 7J2EEMENT
TIIIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this '''`day of •
•
1976, by and betw: _:n HUS' \D DEVELOPMENT
Co)NION.^.9'ION, a Minnesota corporation, he:'el .after referred
to z. "Owner", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIIU E, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City",
WITNESSETH:
WI;ET;FAS, Owner has requested the City to change the
zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for development of land described
as follows;
That part of the west half of the Northwest
Qurrter of Section 26, Tco:nship 116, Range 22, p,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
commencing L,t the o•cr-t southeasterly corner of ;A
Tract 13, Registered Lan; Survey No. 791, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, said print being on the center
line of County Road Ne. 1 as platted in Ilcnn2oin
County Highway Plat No. 6; thence on an assumed
bearing of North alc',j the east line of said
Tract Ii, 625.00 feet; thence North 70 degrees
East 75.00 feet; tence East 300.00 feet;
thence South 43 degree: East 170.00 feet;
thence South 23 degree:; East. 260.00 feet to the
print of beginning of the lane' to be described; 1
thence North 23 degrees West 260.00 feet; thence
North 43 degrees 'West 170.00 feet; thence North
25 degrees East. 130.00 feet; thence North 67
degrees East 160 feet, more or less to the south-
wc.nt.crly lino of Cii:'KI DD ESTATES 1ST ADDITION,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plot •thereof; thence southeasterly
along the souti:wes'orly line of said CRL'ERNOOD
ESTATES 151' ADDIT1''U, to the center line of said
County Road No. 1; ncnce Westerly along the
center line of said County Road No. 1 to the
intersection with a line that bears South 4 degrees
East. from the paint of beginning; thence North 4/
WEP/i t
1/11/76
C . ,
/degri.ns West 2E0 feet, more or less, to the paint
be giro
a' l
vnirias, IL is bel ':.\-ct,' that the rczo,ing of said area
•
to EM-6.5 would lin in VII:- public's interest , welfare and
etnvenience of the people of the City of Eden Prairie; and
WHEREY,S, Owoar agrt;es to develop the aforementiened
inoporty in consideration of the City's chant:jug of the
zonftPrJ7 and Owe .; further aq.i-ecs that as a part of said
considoti.tion, it will lay out, develsp and maintain said
•
pi .Yisot: as hereinafter set forth;
Iti!rDt,71-)P7', C 5 f 5Sf :!TTNE, :-:till That too and
in crosiderstion of the Ens-or and the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie i cp!-.inq to Cirdinnacc. chanqing the
• frec, Por,'0. to Ed.-C.5 the Owacr aqrros to construct
'hM:'5 en said prooertw in accordance with the plannine,
architectural , erilneerii. and landscaping requirements of
• Cjty Ordinances, sub-jeci to lite following conditions:
1. Tliat the lots rot meet the front, rear and
side yard setbaci: requirements specified in
Ordi%;tnce No. 135.
That the propci ,:d lot frontage of 65 feet
is less than t!.e required 90 foot width. •
However, if the set hack i:twirtiti: nts are
applied, the v.i neal, impact of double or
single units wi'nld be controlled to meet
the infant of tlic- Pm-6.5 District. •
3. That the cash in liatt of land dedication
requirellionts be collected as required by
City Ordinance.
- 2 -
3;•.,7)..,,
Ir4. That the preliminary plat he approved
heard upon the recommendations of the
City Engineering ':-_partment.
•
5. That Hustad Development Corporation is to
retain architectural approval of the
structures.
(. That the product mixture of single family
and double bungalow homes be: 5 single
family and 4 double bungalow \ i;.
7. That there be but one single width drive
for each double bungalow.
8. That a grading and land alteration per-it
must be obtained from the Watershed
District prior to any improvements.
9. That all sanitary sewer, watermain and stopi
sewer facilities, concrete curb and gutter
and bituminous eur.faci„-r whether to be public
or private_, shall be desi.gnc:d to City Standards
by a Registered Protesrional Civil Engineer
•
and submitted to the City Engincer for a proval.
develc: <', throry,: his engin&:ar, shall
provide for competent daily inspection of all
street and utility construction, both public
and private. 1,s-bs:ilt drawings w'`h service •
and valve ties on reproducible 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.
FURTHER CITY AND PROPERTY Oi•:NI;i:S AGREE:
1. That: the property owners shall comply with all
applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and laws of the City
of Eden Prairie.
2. That the pr.,vision5 of this Agreement shall be binding
upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors and assigns,
and upon all subsequent, owners, their respective heirs, successors
and assigns of the property herein described.
- 3 -
/.1.1110
•
3. That en executed copy of thi Agreemen t shall be
recc,rded with the Ele.jister of Deeds, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
4. That if Owner fa ils to proceed in accordance w.;th
this Agreement within twent .'—four (24) months from the date
hereof, Owner for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees
that it vii.]1 net oppase the rezoning of said property back
to its Rural zoning.
IN WITNESS 1.TIEREOP, the parties to this Agreement have
caused their presents to he executed the day and year aforesaid.
•
HESTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORMIGN,
a Minn,.:sot& corpil
•
And by _ /
Its
CITY OF EDLN PRAIRIE, a municipal
. ,
corporation of the State of Minnesota
•
By _
Mayt-r
And By
Its
(d MINNESOTA )
) ss.
c(ui,ri7 ITENNEPIN )
Th,„ fei-cooing instrument was acknowledged by fore mei thi s , •107e, and
(' t'ati DeVOJeDm,:,n1 Coroorar)on, a Minnesota
IvAl<7.1•1: c the corporat ion.
(/'•• , !('• •Notary Public
•
— 4 —
1/1)/76
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNT]' OF HENNtPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _
day of , 1976, by Wolfgang Pen-4c , the Mayor, and by
Roger V1Etad, the_City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a •
'rti.nnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the Corporation.
Notary Publa.c
•
•
•
•
C
7. ;!. — 5
C
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEYIE COONTY, MINN. STA
RESCi' ION NO. 1239
BE TT RESOLVED by City Council of th.. City of Ed-.h Prairie .
that the election precinC boundaries of the City are established as
;!own on the attached m,lp of the City of Eden Prairie.
./oporri. y the Eden Prairie City C,A17!1.11 or, the day
of pecesber, 1076.
_ .
Penne)., Mayo':
SEJ,L
John D. Free, City
. .
4:
RESOLUTION 121U
Member introduced the following resolution
and m.:,ved its adoption: •
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT UNDER THE
11;DUST.:I7L DEVELOI-1Er ' ACT, CIVI::G
PRELIMINARY AI'F;)' iL TO THt; PROPOSAL AND R::-
FR!d-.ING TI.^.i, PROPOSAL TO THE PI;P ,RTMEN, OF
ECONOMIC DldiELOPMEFT FOR APPROVAL, AND 7,I7-
TIlORI7.IHG EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREE-
MENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCCFEHTs
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council. of the City of Eden
•
Pairis, Minnesota (the City), as follows:
1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as fol-
lows:
1.1. The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires
; olive promotion, attraction, encouragcm€nt. and development of
c'•c:.:eicr l 1', sound industry and ecssnerco throuq.: governmental
l
act` tc' pr.:'•'cni so far as possible, emo rc—e of blighted lands
:"•.1 cii':'s o'7 Car eni c u.nc:raioy:;ant, and th:': state has enccu;ooe.e
local v;, n ienL units to act to prevent such economic deterio-
ra i cn.
1.2. The, City has heretofore issued its Industrial
Devol;;;crrr.:. '.c.vur uc Bends (Physical Electronics Industries, Inc.)
Fsri' a 1974, in the principal amount of $930,000, for the aceui-
7'. i c' Of a "i-reject" (the Series 1974 Pruned...) consi sting of cer--
proocrty and existing improvements, and i:-cprovorrents to
Fr c•;•an,ructod and equipped t;i r:eo: for use; by Physical Electronics
I; ,',:z..ri_•a:, Inc. , a I•,innc rota corporation (the Company) , for manu-
fnctia-im handling, storing, warehousing, processing and shipping
I,1 of mr.00facture, together with incidcotal facilities. •
1.3. The Coccony has advised this Council of its desire
tr i,uire additional. land, comprising :;,;roximatcly .77 acres •
w•i ci. cc the City and ar'jaccnt to the site of the 1974 Project, and
to . .r•u;i:ru. t and equip thereon c ne or more h+ ildinys as an addi-
t.i in the exiting Plant (such additional lard, new construe-
t.ir:1 ccc:ipment i.oing horn; ;..firer referred to as the 1977
i'rc j'•cc), ior use by the Company for additional '.:canufacturing and
pr. ' action spac.o.
• •
.r ':
i
•
•
•
•
1.9. The existence of the 1977 Project would signi£i- „' ,
( cn ugly increase the tax b :se of the City, County and school district.
in, which the City i r located, and would provide opportunities for i
additional employment. for residents of the City and surrounding area.
1.5. The city has boon advised that conventional., corn-
mcr-'i;al firaane.i.; to ,.cc the capital cost of the 1977 Project is
as, .,blce only co a la,..-ited basis and at such high costs of bor.-
rc, u.q that the ecortc,.r.c feasibility of operating the 1974 Project
and the 1977 1'ro;ect e'ccuid be significantly reduced, but that with
t1:, aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing
o,,..'. the 1977 Iroject is economically more feasible.
1.6. Tin .Council hat- been advised by a representative
of t.as Compe ny, that on the basis of their discussions with rep-
resentatives, of potential underwriters of tax-except bonds, in-
dustrial dcvcice;ucnt revenue bore,ls of the City could he issued
and sold upon ic:vorc_:ble rates and terms to finance the 1977 Project.
1.7. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chap-
ter 474, to is::ue its revenue bonds to finance capital projects
•
c:ons:a' tang of properties used and useful in connect ion with a
roves c o, i„ociu;:i;c eil;ttaxprise, such as that of the Company, and the
issu c,. '.,c-:;cr. lay the City t^ouid be a subct;rn tia1 induce-
sect to the Co:r.l;uny to construct its facility within the City.
( 2. On the basis c'. information given the City to date,
it apT><, ' . that it 4'on13 be in the best Inc. rest of the City to •
i:.•:;u„ its inciurtria e deveit.nmsnt revenue bonds under the provisions
of Ci,i.pttr 474 to finance the 1977 Project of the Contpar.; at a cos
p.C!:,•ilLl , et.t.imated to Lc approximately $1,300,000.
3. The l Y•,7 Pro oet referred to above is hereby given
•
pull ry cc rrva? b; the City and the issuance ice of bonus for
such } oe in such amount is aup'ovc;3, subject to approval.
•
of t':e l i^7 Prniecti by the Co:,v;i... i.ont r of Economic Development
and tcc Lis' mutual a :rr...•nt: of this bout, the Company and the
iritir:l pur.ci;seers of the bonds as to the details of the bond
i •su• :and pmoviidems for t t_ir. payment. In all events, it is {
wad c.cc;, nc c - :at tha bonds of the City shall not con ti-
•
i.utc a charge, li.em of encumbrance legal or equitable upon any
property rty of the. Ci }' except the 1977 Project, and each bond,
c. te-r., :if; and it issued, shall recite in substance that the bond,
inchtiding i-nt c rest tilt-reran, is payable solely from the revenues
recC•ivcd fret ;he 19ii '.',-c'jc c-t and property pledged to the pay-
n,c :it tic root, ,ind r.t,ell not constitute a debt of the City.
( -2 •
-
•
•
•
• 4. The form of Memorandum of Agreement relating to
th issuance of revenue bonds of the City to finance the cost
of the 1977 Pro__act is hereby approved and the Mayor is here-
by auto : d r nd directed to execute the Memorandum of A ree-
ment in behalf of the Cit-y.
5. n accor3 .nce with Minnesota Statutes, Section
474.01, Subdivision 7, the Mayor is hereby authorized and di-
rected to submit the proposal for the 1977 Project to the Com-
miceioner of Eco ..omic Development for his approval of the 1977
Project. The Mayer, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney
•
an(. other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby
autbcri.zce. to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary
infor,.etien Le may need for this purpose, and the City Attorney
is authorized to initi"te and assist in the preparation of such •
documents as may be appropriate to the 1977 Project, if it is
approved by the Commi ss:i...ner.
•
Mayor
Attest-..:
City 1 Lnayel
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolu-
tion was uuly seconded by Member , and the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whca c u�>en said resolution, was declared duly passed and adopted,
and vos presented to the Mayor who approved and signed the same, •
which was attested by the City Manager.
•
•
—3—
•
•
TO: Me; r and Council
Tiff U: cger U1st:d
FROM: John Franc t...."
DATE: December 1, 19)6
RE: Runcipal. Industrial Revenue Bonds - Physical Electronics Industries, Inc.
Flysical Electronics has requested the city to authorize an additional
$1,300,000 of M.I.D.B.'s to finance an expansion to their facility
constructed with an issue of $980,000 in early 1974.
The cn,puny's earnings before taxes are more than adequate and they are
in e idance with all our other criteria for issuance of M.I.D.R.'s.
•
`1 I
•
/ /t �.
•i
'
Nove. :r 29, 1976 f 1i )
1 j
City Council of Eden Prairie
Attn: Mr. Roger K. Ulrtad, City Manager
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prair c, MN 55343
Re: City of Eden Prairie, MN, Industrial Revel.ue Bonds
(Physical Electronics Industries, Inc., 1977 Project)
•
Dear Members of the Council:
This letter i.:: written to request your consideration and adoption
of rc resolution giving preliminary approval to a project under
the Municipal industrial Development Act, referring the proposal
to the Department of Economic Development for approval, authoriz-
ing preparation of the necessary documents and expenditures in
anticipation of the issuance of the bonds.
Physical Electronics Industries, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
currently occupies a 28,000 square foot building on a 5 acre
project site at 6509 Flying Cloud Drive in the City of Eden Prairie.
This land was purchased and the building constructed as a project •
( with $580,000 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds issued by
the City of Eden Prairie. This project enabled Physical Electronics
to increase employment from 50 to 100 personnel in Eden Pr •-ie,while the company's business increased from $2.3 million • 6
m llien per year. The company's business is continuing t w,
and v:; can now see an opportunity to increase business an.• .plcy-
•
ment if we can increase our building space.
We have reviewed the guidelines for municipal industrial develop-
ment bonds, Resolution #596 adopted by the City of Eden Prairie,
and present the following information to demonstrate compliance
of the guidelines.
•
1. A new assembly plant and office we.ald be constructed •
with approximately 35,000 square feet total; the
anticipated coot of the land, land improvement and
the building would be approximately $1,000,000. A
small plot of land adjacent to the present site would •
be purchased to insure enough parking area for 200
employees.
C PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC.
6500 F LYING CLOUD URIVC 16121 941.5640 .
1!I N PRAIRIE.MINNf SOTA 56343 TLX 29{407
3
City Council. - 2 - November 29, 1976
2. The company's fiscal year ends September 30, and
/' enclosed herewith arc audits of the previous two
AA yore ending September 30, 1974 and September 30, 1975.
The audited statement for 1976 will be available in
a few weeks and will be sent to the City Manager at
that time. The unaudited financials indicate sales of
about $6 million and pre-tax income of about $1 million.
3. A copy of the most recent Can & Bradstreet-. report is
enclosed. i!
4. The estimated amount of the bond issue is $1,300,000.
The breakdown of the application of funds may be seen
on a copy of the request to the State of Minnesota
Department of Economic Development for 'approval of
the project which is included herewith. Based on on
issue of $1,300,000, an estimated annual principal and
interest payment on the part of Physical Electronics
Industries, Inc. would be $154,000, For the year end- ;1
ing September 30, 197G, net income before taxes and
profit sharing was about $1,000,000. This would indi-
cate that pre-tax income covers the principal and
interest reqn1remcnts in execs; of six times. Included
also is a rc art which stater the progress of the
company sine, its inception and it indicates a growth
C to a point whyrein the just er.dine year the company
earned over $500,000 after taxes. Stockholder equity
has grown to more than ,2,300,000. On the basis of
current backlog and other business projections, the
six month report for the period ending March 30, 1977
will indicate profital:dlity at lest that experienced
in fist;;] 197G.
5. Al]. administrative and legal costs incurred by the
City of Eden Prairie will he borne by the company.
In the preliminary resolution presented herewith for
your approval, we have included provisions which will
tie into your Guideline Resolution #596. Your atten-
tion is drawn to Section 1.3 and 1.6.
We aperc,ciate the opportunity to present our proposal for the use
of industrial development revenue bonds to help finance our cx-
panoled ricilities. We are confident it will be a credit to the
em unity and trial the City of Eden Prairie presents a satisfec-
toey environment: for our continued growth and expansion.
IV
Sincoluly,
PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC.
Roland L. Weber, President
hLF/ek Enclosure;:
EariPLOYEES
(At Year End)
175
Physical Electronics Industries, Inc.
r->
150
125
100
dew
•
75
•
•
50 }
a � .
25 �-
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
C
•
SALES
(Millions of Collars)
10
Physical Electronics Industries, Inc.
8 rn
:.9
6 -
r._t
t
4
2
f" t
0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
3'i�l�
•
INCQ , AFTER TAXES
(i housanc s of Daitar;)
Physical Electronics Industries, Inc.
1,030
•
r,
000
600
in
4CC -
i
200
I
rij !
0
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
12001'
1i0`d .?1 1979 S00 Multifoods Building
• 733 Marquette Avenue
Minueapn!is,MN 55402
Area 612 371-6111 •
•
q,,1 ') riper,Jaffrayci-Iopwoo1
tNCOHl OAAN I.
£sro'AhrJ 1695•Member D',N York Stork MAC t.,If•r•,h C.
November 24, 1976
•
Honorable City Council
City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Physical Electronics Industries, Inc.
6509 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 •
Ce.nt.lcmen: •
At t.'..:.! raqucst of Physical Electronics industries, we have conducted
an informal study es to the economic feasibility of the proposal that
•
the Ci Eden Prairie issue itf revenue beads in an amount not to
exceed .1,300,000, under the provisio:'.; of the Minnesota Municipal
•
Industrial Development Act to finance the construction of an addition
•
to the Cnrop:ny's existing facilities in Eden Prairie, to be leased to
the Co.•pany as office, and manufacturing facili.tier..
•
Our, study has led us to conclude that on the basis of current financial
condi' on:; the p ojrct is economically feasible and the revenue bonds
of the City can hr• successfully issued and sold. We propose to pur-
chase the bonds subject to the approval of the project by the City of
Eden Prairie and the Minnesota Department of Economic Development.
A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the Commissioner of Economic
Development to nerve as the letter of intent requested by the Commis-
sioner..
Sincerely yours,
PIPER, TAFtnAY & HOPWOOD INCORPORATED
Ingolf Hermann, Assistant Vice President
Public Finance Department
•
IIl:cal
1
TO: Roger Ulstad, Mayor and members of City Council
FRCSs: Betty Johnson
SUBJF.CT: Community Health Services
Wilt: December 3, 1976
There is very little additional information available on the subject of
which agency Eden Prairie should receive its public health nursing service
from.
Methodist Hospital has not completed preparation of their proposal to pro-
vide nech care. Jerry Blume, assistant administrator, expects to have it
ready for a conference with Mr. Ulstad on Monday, December 6, so there may
be something available for the Council's consideration by Tuesday evening.
A join powers agreement has not yet been worked out with Bloomington, either,
pending mo,a information on Eden Prairie's out-of-budget costs. As noted
in a memo written by Bloomington's City Manager to the managers of Edina and
Richfield, the estimated cost per capita for those three communities together
for combined public health service would be about $1.54 for 1977. It was
noted in a cover letter to Mr. Ulstad that the costs for Eden Prairie would
probably 'not be substantially different. This compares with a budgeted F.P.
figure of about 68f per capita for Suburban Public Health Nursing Service.
It is hoped there will be additional information from Bloomington, and the
Hcr:neri.n County Office of Planning and Development, by Tuesday.
Sometime after the 10th of December, hopofullyin time for the December 1'
( meeting, but possibly not until December 28, all the information available
will be in your hands to enable you to make a decision about what vendor
wi;l provide public health nursing service in Eden Prairie in 1977.
i
i
rho preliminary plan for Hennepin County for Community Health Services 1
received its official public hearings on November 30 and December 1 in j
four locations in the county. Based on those hearings, the advisory com-
mittee will be making final adjustments in the plan and passing it on the 1
County Boar.'. about. December 10, with Board passage on•to the State Board j
of Health before Christmas. Note that the detailed preliminary plan proposes
direct cash subs, dies to eleven communities that now provide sanitarian
service. Based on 18% of current expenditures, that means Eden Prairie wilt
receive $486 next year to be used in sanitarian program.
. {
1
1
1
1
a
5.4
I'.t:Pi bAND F
TO: Mayor and City Council
4 711811: Roger Ulstad, City Manager �/
Ik0:1: Marty Jesse-n, Director of Community Services ,v/ J
Gucher/Deaver Properties /
I)A7?'.: December 3, 1976
As directed, I have contacted the landowners about "specifics" for
optioning their property. Following arc the points we've talked about.
Pepresentatives for both arc reviewing these details and will notify me
of any problems in advanc., of the Council meeting on December 7th.
DE.'.\'ER rFOPf7TY
1. 150 acres at $3,000/acre. (r:/o deed restriction)
2. Option thru 1977
1% = $4,500
Z. Coniract fo: Doo ..,
4 ycc:rs 1978 25%
1979
25
t 25% 6. Interest on Balance
1980
1981 25%
4. City to assume all unpaid specials as of date of option.
5. City to pay taxes payable 1977 and thereafter.
6. Dcavc; to remove all Dutch LIm Diseased Trees (220 trees).
I. 34:5 ac.res at $4,600/acre = $58,700 -#
$172,500(@ $5,000/acre) i
$5,000/acre is Kocher askin,r, price. (Sec footnote)
2. Option th:u 1978
1% = $1,600 (or $1,700)
3. Contract for Deed
4 years 1978 25%
1979 25% 6% Interest on Balance
1980 25%
1981 25:
4. City to assume all unpaid specials as of date of option.
Page 2 Kocher/Deaver
S. City to pay taxes payable 1977 and thereafter.
CFootnote for No. 1
. The Commission hos recommended $4,600/acre.
. Margoret Rogers and William Kocher representing Mrs. Kocher will
not option for lens than S5,000/acre. I feel this is reasonable
in light of the fact that the option specifying the price per acre ••
"
is good for 2 years and $S,000/acre reflected inflation of 9% over.
the 2 years.
•
•
•
tt
MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger ❑letad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullic, City Engineer
DT,TE: December 3, 1976'
SUZ+JECT: T.H. 169 Right-of-Way Agreement
Anderson-Schwartz-City
I.C. r:1-266
The attached agreement is submitted for Council approval. We have made pay-
ment to the Andersons in the amount of $6,800, as previously authorized by
the Ci y Council (4/13/76) and the T.H. 169 rig) t-of-way documents have been
executed by the Andersons and delivered to us. The terms of the agreement
have been worked out jointly with the Andersons, Jesse Schwartz, the City g
staff and Harlan Perbix.
It is recomm•,audod that the City Council approve the attached agreement nd
authorize the Mayor t.o e>:eoute same on behalf of the City.
C
CJJ:kh
Attachme
;E
•
•
ACREEENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this ... _ day of
197G, by and between the City of Eden Prairie, a
il<
municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
hereinafter referral to as "City"; the W. Cordon Smith Co., Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Smith"; and
Calvin h. Anderson and Helen H. Anderson, husband and wife and
Mary Ellen Island and Paul H. Anderson, hereinafter referred to
as "Anderson".
WITNESSL P11:
WHEREAS, the City has coamencal an action to acquire
certain lands fur the improvement of State Trunk Highway No. 3.69,
located within said City and identified as Hennepin County Dir.-
trict Court Case No. 1382; and
WHEREAS, the City has heretofore acquired a portion of
the right-of-way from Smith, identified as Parcel. P13 herein; '
and
WHEREAS, as a part of the consideration of Parcel #13,
the City died agree to reconvey to Smith that portion lying North
cf Eden Prairie Road as Tolerated and identified on Exhibit h1
as Parcel "C"; and d'
Anderson is the owns r of Parcel tl9 therein which
is required for raid improvement;
dot; THEREFORE, It is agreed between the parties as follows:
1. That the City shall reconvey to Smith the parcel of
real estate identified on Exhibit t1 as Parcel "C".
2. That the City shall vacate that portion of Eden Road
identified on Exhibit 81 as Parcel "E" and shall reconvey the
Sout::erly portion of said vacated road to Smith and shall recon-
vey the Northerly portion of said vacated road to Anderson.
3. That Smith shall convoy to Anderson by warranty deed
Parcel "C" and that portion of Parcel "13" acquired by it from
the City through conveyance or vacation.
4. That Anderson shall execute and deliver to the City the
easementh as identified iu attached Exhibit 113.
C 5. That in consideration for the casements identified in
Paragraph 4 of this Agreement, the City shell pay to Anderson the
sum of Si.a Thousand Eight Hundred and no/100 ($6,800.00) Dollars
and shall convey to Anderson by (wit C)aim Deed, that parcel of
real estate l.yi:,n in the Northwest One-Quart‘ Town-
ship of Section 34, .,,
ship 114, Range 22, Hennepin County, which parcel abuts West 7i:t'.:
Street and highway No. 169 and which is identified as Parcel "D"
on attached fahibit €2, reserving however unto itself, the right
to mainr.;,;n over, under andacross said parcel presently existing
utility Ce emcnts.
6. That in connid,.ratiun for Smith conveying to Anderson
Pare.1 "C" and all of its rights to Parcel "B", Anderson shall Bay
to Smith the nun of Twelve Thousand and no/100 ($12,000.00) pnl l;.:
7. 79,at the City shall release to Anderson the permanent
slope easements acquired heroin and as described in att.:'Led `-::•ht:.tt .
•
•
No, 3 updn eempieetiur of the construction project for v:hien it
•
1 acquired. It is under:,to._d and acre-cd by and between Andcr Ion a.•. 7-
the City that said release shall he contingent. upon approv:il b;
State of Minnesota .'rly whero the Stdt.r of Minnesota has acquired
an interest in said permanent slop,. easement::.
8. That it is vndors.eod and agreed by and between the ir.. ..
ties to this A9rccment, that the responsibility for the pi r>:ra',i
of the lean] descriptions and the staLing of the boundaries of tr.,
pat eels of real estate identified in this Agreement Shall be t•h
nt
of the City
9. That it is understood and agreed by and between the i;,t
ties to this Agreement. that the City wiSI not be able to cocatr
Parcel "7%" until the completion of new listen Road and that ;:at t h. ..... 2
not. be othe to convey to Anderson it:: portion of Parcel "D" until
said vacation in of fcct.u.i ted; however, in reliance upon the rel., -
si•ntatinnr, and coven.Intu sot forth in this Agreement, Anderson ••... I'
upon the delivery to them by Smith of the Deed for Parcel "C",
:r f^!"
•
deliver to Smith the full consideration of Twelve Thousand and •
no/100 ($12,000.00) Dollars with the understanding that i,mnedi,.trl•;
upon the vacation of Parcel "B", Smith shall convoy to Andersen
its p)rtion of said parcel with no furt.h.r compensation from ci thvr
Anderson or the City.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their :.,,n•.i.,
and seal this day of _ , 1976.
CITY OP EDEN PRAIRIE ,•
Its •
W. GORDON SIUTII, CO., INC./ `rt�•.. •.r�. ...,,` �. ...
And By / > C.
C ; lS I `>
•
Caivin A. Anwrson
licl i3. Anderson
Mary 1. Jrn Bland
GL�s � IG1� �✓1L3^-ti ..
Paul II. ,+ndrr:on
•
C •
STATE, OF MINNI•:SOTA )
as.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
-- clay of ___---' 1976, by - --__-- the
and by the
of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the
laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation,
Wotary Public
• ST;i'E OF I^.I NNI.SOTA )
) Ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ••
The forcyoin- ire trmrcnt woo acknowledge,: before me t'ni
7.1`
�( day of i�,,i + �, 1976, by _+ , the
Y'-- - and by --- � (r �i'4 7thc . •( r_of W.
Gordon Leith Co., Inc., a corporation under the laws of the State
of Minnerota., on behalf of tier corperrotion. •
L
is Nos.nry Public
\. .� Ct ...,.•.64'.t'w t.Jth
ST;iE OF AMINNESOTA )
C0 11TY or IIi:1.:v:PIN )
•
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
. day of (Li( I576, by Calvin A. Anderson and hc]cr, II.
leek rtrcm, husband aria wife, Mary Ellen Bland and Paul I). Andersen.
/
.. -......fr. .-.,,•oo � _t ( i I C!1 ->ir.i.'c A(1ztfr,�
i,! t ,1
( 1 i to Notary Public
. 1
3szz
• .,,
• 1..1./1••._ \.;1.i . .
..•-•,..,
'.1 . .
0/. b COLN irt). r.l. IS + E.',•. .
, ...
., .
11 21° co' 1,5" RT ....,,,
D 12° (>0' - 1/1 j -....--...: ,,,,:, (•- •• .L ,
.e . 1- 8851' • .
L 175.04 •
,, '
( . . .
' R 47145'
, .
/ 'C')PC. 101();)00
.
/ •
,1)1).i, I f-I 75.0.":
• •,
.
()
----.--\\ ,c). '... •
.\-.\(.3 ... ' • \ \ 5);
.
0. --,
0 \ ).\
,.-•••'-' 0 c'CC-I• • \ % St „' . .
',.._••'•-•_ ,,,C'' 1 0 ''.‹
/ -'•7' 1 ‘', 1 ..-----
. 4 -‘,.... °). C(''''C ---'''.. \ •-::"'''"\•/' ,, . .
•'..,.--, ---'""---,,;>'.1:' 1."'•••, \ \ 4....•f)•',..‘Y\
s• '-'•1---,-,J1; •-•-•-, .•4./1::',77, :
c• 0 \I\. :'!. / \
\\ •.. . '"•••.- ''.....4••,... 1, !•••,.. 7 ,e• . 6
• --•;-.9 ''•-:'",.':,'.'",<,,. '4,)• .., . '' C.." '- '', \\ , ---'• 1. -
s -..
( e .
e / t \ , ,
..."' . :
\ 47 /''''
•J• '',., /,.•• N.,----.-..;\ s;,,,. '-u..0.,'"-:.',( :".,,,7, \ s . -''S ', •
.
- ''
,4.‘ ( T-,...,\ , '-',.-..---'' -••,...),\,)Z \.51' .A. ,-•
sst.r.5'''. '''•... ''....3.......•... .''''........./'(; r,d) ••••/ .......,'''' ,.•••'..• . •
/.3)•'''.,, ..A "..,,. , ',•,....,...., e, \ •..'.•.' '
. • \
'- • • 1
\C"" ' ' ----- -:
' ''• '-'''''- ,-----. 5.--- '• -"'' ,.'75<---\,_.•.•;-_,• ...' . . .
.r.‘, ,• / ,,,d) ,-:',.<': .\I.:-ff._ .,.- .--_., ) V •r - li,:;.J..,..--,y-....
/
:.' • ' ' ` ..::'s • ,,"-o'''.
,--- ,
--
/, ,
, .c
814,'
(.2, \ I / 2y.,, , „....c) -1.. • • -
,V • i_:,,,,",,.,-',,,,(---. k....•'''' N.•. //'' \\ \ O\
„. ...,,-- 2,' ,....',-/-.......) V..-3. \ i 1 \
,.•7
Z\'',/ -
ri,r3 \ \\ ' •-
.1 , .'''•.• ,. ,/'•• ../..",.•' \s \li ••• \•
'\\ \,•• ' cq•
• ‘,•"(7! 1•.• k‘ 1 , „,'•••• 1\`:', ...::„Z ..,,Z \ \ 1 ). e . /
,../.',..;,-, / ‘'• „. ....../r ,...\ „.\._eo.
. ,
/. ;/-c(•',. /) r ,,, /
‹ er , 0," I,'.:
\
., .\ ./..,./
'• .,..-' . .;\ , )'•- .•'' ydr., 0'.1 ,.,C.') ...
\.Z " r;-,.,/, ,, , ,, i \ \ . .•,.‘, . %. (;,"•••
(•1?• '..,k , , .
•-• -
. .., .'
• •'• ," Z Z,V \ ••\
,'• t`.• \••-• •
. ..
.•'„', . ' „/.,.• ....'• / / V/ \ \ , • e,• ;,•,-,() c• '
\\ -• e;' iC,.- `• _.,
\--..",-' ' :.'"-
.S1 \ \\••\ , '''<',.\ \ , .,
\ ‘ -<:*,:•.!'.V.s \ t
'''' \(.)1 " .\/ \\. \ \ ,
' - \/' •'' "- '', /CI'• Cr
r 1 9 .%. k "••••• /) . i" • !
;• /' '
/ • '7\' k ..-- ----
• \\,••.-- \ - - 7
/ ,,..": ..,•• `\•.. <, 1 . \r,1(\.
' FY.171 It 11 \
. G
/ •" ..,`,.
. 1 ..• () ' 2-2-TO \--'• i..%4• ,...••. .••.'''/ " ..
-.. ... .
\ 1. • I,. I / . , ,�
r,
/.1 / 44_-7,7.
\ \\ \\\ �\ 1\
/ / ✓// i/// /w n yrW'r. •,\ .f.e.,.k%'-''. .. ',0.',./. 7 ,/,,i- /7\a"- -1
I
v
....---</ ti:‘;',4 1. '.
\\0 .,,\ \, \•, ),,_,
\ I:
• \,•'-')---j \\ ''\'' \"" / 0 L -,. • ,,4.,
, _ 4 ,
. .,
, , // (., . . , ,
\.,,\ , ,\:\
,,, • ., \.\-s, , -,-/ / / c .
\,,‘
\• i.`.\. \ \\ VO N .
i i ,,,'''..,.\' • �I„:.
1
1.7.„; ,
, / , t cam/ / / , a A� I
I Y C \\ \ .\ I \,---\ n: •M t i x n I.i
\' \. :\ \ o
J \` \ {� •�a n� 1 g
,..-: :_ „; \ ,,
.. ? //%/ \ \\...-
11_,,......_ _NA, / ntea :.,; �}
, V
�.�\1 ;;`1 `l ! c .
,,t ,11 ,tl,� \ \\
11 11 2 0 0' o_0
t1:11 \ril %'- 11, r
: is''''''''''.1•.......„,.............:,-;:'•.•;i.,..;;;.-.....-.-. . __
, ff 1 \
J s �'1 ' 1� // 11 S
(ft';� i }: \ ( 6.44.
. ._.. .. _ ...! a. ,i u. • •n 4 . !
1
I-!h 1 ,.- ID — -. i'1(01.1 Il'1'e1'i',. U1'.I.1) TAX. •
lldd
WAI21tAIJ IN Ilia:_!
19 7L ,l)piwrcn I.
THIS IIJUL.IITUI:11, 11:131c
CAI.VI 11 A. A'Irt RSOt1 AIIII 111,1.3.11 II. A17UI fi:o I, ho bel 1 nil wl fe; and NARY WIN 111.AI:11 1'
A n 1,104111E Al AND, her 11u.I,310; :mil I'A111 II, AI.III.I 01I, 1n11'301'1.11.d,Of Ow County of II,an,l•ln _ v t'
PI t• of Ilmc: tl. Volt ic,Of _
( till' fir.t Pail, :Old CI, CITY Or 1.111?1 1'ItAl WI:, 131N LO
fiLI?., a lluniciI,..) DO,. .h
col Po,,t ion par tv (Cl the oocond PII I.
1 I.(r:,1 1rl ,in cun.:itlt tltion of I'I.'
7.
1•.')'I�r.-.SF'PIi, Tho t the call p• .J.1:.:.
ou111 01 One (5)..OP) 11011r and cllt.r g0UI 1 I ,,11u 1 e ccn'1''ral l'
to A! ,...-,io hand 1•.:all I p 1he ',lid ,croft 101 1.p t1 t• 10:. 1I t Will Q ,
iu hoe,ill .Icl,nnvi,,Lit d, du - h,1 cby (irult, It:1t{,i❑ •]I an] (:c..vl"i
oft'lan' an lllrnncl�ia Cnn1 .1t)• III old ,ic, `;c i 1111 . i1u t1 .11 travt.
f o)hCC',;,
(SLG 111;7111.1 "11" F:IliCII I.i A'I"I'ACII1,11 111.13:'10 ADOIL1U1; A PACT 'II','•LV';
TI) IIAV1: ni`i) IC, 1101.D d I.
1111: At , 'I,n,cU c 1 H i Ih ol.l the,rttininp,
ll'Wl l I11
, Li nul i'L:tur ur'r„ LL,rovnlo ]•, I n,1in1 ,1 it .np IS p1.
:-:I id acct•u? .'.:rtl'. 1 I.I, .,u rcrr.rt and 1 Pt 1otc.1cr. Ant',
j (A1.1.71J A. A'll' .51:: A7ilI III IJv Cl. A?I1 I eIl be bond i ,.1f and IUJ'S' I:0.1.11 IL/OIl
�;'..1 AND It0,1.:11 DIA.:, hc[ hu.•hand; and PAtll,II, Ai:DI.IILOP, enrnar,3a.1,
.uitl e1 .t ;'ar 1, , 11 *,-.: I ,I,,[, heir:,. excel'tor:: iltrI
afbnir.1 'C.1.101.: c 0,11,1n1 v)Ih 11 Id :;ccond port)... it:, Ic..
an;] ,CO' i 1 ;, tl 'It .. 1111] -i, d 1n fcl• of the 3 I I s,
„y;:.y._,ur , 1ityht fo �:].1 nI cone,.; tllc .,.u„t i
Prcn11 t - Itto- ,�id, d1 -,...`1 -< free ;ton tIlc
•
l•lann,.1 .nl tore 11 urc ,1 i and Ihal. 11 ',a111t, ,
COCCI. 1,!,1,,,,,, 1_c Ill, 1_11 l,l; n tut h4r.l,•':I 11d ea._ r llI laiCl I`rll c rherLtt, u1 11' I
co,it f l,,1: I. tvo. !",[11'1 ( Alpal, 1 JU I), 1, cl ,1ued 1. I 111
and 1Y.I I 1'i, po,.,1 Iiul 1.3.3-.tltl in faro; oI North/in Sidi,., Power Le.lpalry 1,ranted
by hot- )t u75. 1.. 1... .1 n11 rrin l.,o,., 1n the t
And tl r rr 1 lroalncti end <1r tr,i Pl1_: :". n1h 11 1 : r
_1(11 O till' 1, 1 , rrund Pal t-,
11,at1r I] 11. 1`. 1 1:, i 1, 11 I• 1lnri rr{ nr to C]nn. t.I.e 1.h.,lc o, n ;..CI
1
W therlu. ',..,jtat ll+ t o%tr,11na111 , 11 ;01,,, IWO.'inhtfOre 1'udiVne,I, (.L'
�0id 1.11.:t part 1
C.:I,'
-,,
'"-'Cu1v1n A. Auden•t
c- 1I,1...,, IL Ut 1,n❑
ILu y/i ., P1 C1u1/. ./.
Doi,.,3"DI aid
•
'i;:ws ii.Aside[Cum
1/Y: I„ 1 .r
1:1:'.tf!, _"/tl-:. ., .(
'0h0 I1 :V
1'..I�,i1•n(. V',.. ;.,11 ill —.._.�.lt.�l.• `).:
1.3.111 1 II,11I1. :,Ifn !i^..; . 'I'I II,I'I I IlII:II111,P.A.
17 'II ill11 Av.-nu,. ,nll1: I'.t1. Ilt,:. 190 V,r -"p,,a:;. .1.,",., -
11o111.((1:;, Mi nnc:Of•I 3.t,143
=] t r -1- elk. 44
3'�;Y .
, •
• • . .
;IWO F.(I) :1114:1W01'1A )
) As
LOW:fY OF 111140 Ill )
•
he
lAta
forer,oinc Was dCl..110,41 dr;d Ilot _,I
BY: CAIN Ill A. ANIII•It21(1 AU!)
Cl ( .) Uri II. A711)1.11SON, IIUSI1AW1 Ala/1/111,
• .`"`.1.1f " 11' •
rut,'
Sitir OF 1•11^:NI TA )
)
or 111:::::11 )
`.,'"." 'II lort.roinz An.I“ornt foto me th1 day of
13Y: IIARY 1.1.1 1 111.A2:2)A2111 •
.2 • 111.A:W, 111.1: 111.1ifA711),
• •
Notaly
•
•
STATE 01 2111:51 SOIl )
) A.:
CO1'.,TY UI P!W.11111 )
TIe f oror,oing 1.•af., ad:10,1 cd,(1 1,for, thj, (10}'
BY: PAW. II, LW,I,ASON, onr.arritd,
holly PoIII
in•lio:oIll• 1.,/
I.11,1.1,,,..1.1A1 V,'I" . iT;1,1 IA
I/ IS Ala !;..; II r ; III
I),))i 1
•
•
• --•
,)•
MP lay 0 L / the law I A IIc iit I,. tot c Ia,0 111 ". •\ '•
the tiverr I, rot I,'' t•i,d,t a,' taut,! 1.111,1 (tar :do/ riiiyotr.o.' tacit '• ,
the pnLi•O!, to' ,:!,it!, 1.re 1...i.,j; 1.,' •1
That of ...ft. I. cla al ha;
A. ill of t 1,0t. t or If,,. 1'..,1 0,1 f ‘,1 Pat•111 r of
:1,...,11o, dti 1, 1 a. 1,, la,,a. 11 11,0, ,111 Coortty,
11i jl. •I 0. I;ll ."-: . 0,al.': at a 'al t..•
1 ia.• of t ! •:I I. ;. .1 :I at t'it.,!.t. •
ea:A 4,11 I „• 1.it a, -ed to Cie •
(al t :aat a;,.1 el t I a a a. 1;1 Ila I'o. ),9 (f tip
I:tot i• I'); I .; L(11;..., int. e tio
(et•r, .•k..11 (.! %L ot••a• of I..•1 ;Itl. I
a'! . , 010 3,1 • of, a•VOIal..y od I a' I.faa et,',1 11
OE .1..Eta d ; II• 1,d .1. .lo.••• •.t. I in, Ia, to •
at tat II,.• e; Ct. :..• not hy,e.t t• •••', I
caa'oa ral ) oo.1, • :.ota'i of 'la )I, of el 4:I.
110,a a a •A ' .1 Oja It f..ai•I rorte
ta 1.0; El'; I a: ;,r,:.'' ,0.al 0 I j lac h ..:
OE la a!a:I : o: I..:, a alain,. of Goo,'y tare,! L . .•
50e111. "(or r I a to" of a,o,.• o,,,! '•
Villa a o' . 'afar,,;' th, Lori!, a/o.0 • ' .. • , •
/Alio of. .;al ",, a:.1 ,' :.-', t J1 :a0;•.E. laf•:.:j` all:J • ••••.
thereof i.,.1./ cett fel I' ••ja.'or,d I art ,...recy fadtr
ol,orc reit tt...,! 1,, I all, ad •,,y It. 169 and :it...La.
Ill2, ( port ?1, I tor, :ool'01.1,3 tad
.„,,,), t a,1, ot 1,0i
fl ed Oa ,..1 lyl., 11 , I 1.1 Sri; 11,, fro
oral of! t _ dEtalt;
14,^ ^^,t ly cf 1-lall 101 1.j11, :A i.10.9(1 loot orly o' 1..
c. .1 1 :
asi p0a L /.1.•''
at,,,a 7oo a,1. tI.,• aa'taT
Cr, )'',I 1:••• I •••• •I y air of 11.1 d..,..rte I,7
a. Ira Ea; 0 or (.. .1-1:17,
Ito:, 10 1,07 CI) for f la •,..r to the 1,ft
d,f 1,el In r t..., :Irv( 1.,J....
of 11 Y... • (1 . 1, I.1 0 , Irt..r, 51
1 or 517.99 hat. t, ;
toi I' a 1,', a, t orf a ••'1 it'a 1.1.• o •1 '••, •
••Lolaa IJO L :.• I 1 ' rt ..t 1:1.:,•of f ale:,:' .
1a rilaIi4 a.a A. theaa-aa:t at tI h 'O.: LI, 1.1, d / ••• .
II,- 1 f or 41,i.LI`, loot -,,s1 e Ltd riled ';
111,,,, I ta.',' • •a I of 'I .o A !Iva 1111 orr ala•••.a a•laIrla :. ,a • • ,•
of :a lioaa 1,111 p.al..11,I ,:at.,a ,..,•tat. '.0 1,et.tli.,,,Lot1y of 1,i 2 do:.( . , a,
2. ,at a, 'di rt. or Lit 1 ea., la.1 oh,ve, afital rant P10.12 Er,:
aa,aat!a.'t of j I. 0;;;;,, a.a a a .t',a.: fl aaa,' )1111 1,•I Cr)y oat aIt• 1.•
' II.,•,.• t o •1,1 1.;oe (I,.1..Yred tr.,
a.aaa,ha a• ) na labIa, I a : •••IL at I I,LI. to tam' 101L on a
10 I 11 a.1.Vl• .• I • ‘,1 /4 . o oat
21 d, , 0.) L; ;I. to ...•I-. ' I ft'. I t 11,11I.,' 011 L;W:.;,
to natal ter, tail .!ta's, 1[..L IA' 511,11-ill..;
••I!II 1.• H. I 'art o, 1, ,a ,', 1.• ra,r. V 1101't11,)1
.1'.1 .,1,4V.• 1,!•• ,1 ik '11,1k I :1, of I1,, 101,...ill •
11 1.10 /./1.l• IA.2, :11/ •a .11I0V1 9t/ I a el at011iao.o.:Ii ly fat ta Iaalnai, oIl
• •• •.
''A"
Page 1
. .
LC:0
•-.
— - '
NI:o1)
tcr,•Jo,14o., von rol y tot 1•;•3/1 .,11!•112.. Lu MOO 2 or 441 I to t plPi,r -
of tj0, . oI Ll.r 11T1,• t lP gli:4,12 I 3t 3; t!•1 Ot.•• La a paldi Lot
./0 It,I t rfy( .Pt lit,I Ot 110:111t. nu ,,.11,1 1/re 7, -t. .t1,Y
;L.:, ol 1,•rt /0-0/e Vit. )101'1.111,1r I l'Cly 1311,i tt•1 ;
hilid ' tor .dO Loy:. Cud 11. t Li.1L1.„3
GOO: 0..11 ot.rr, tore or
"•-•
•
"; •
•
•
T;:.
EX1110T 1 "A"
PI fr.2IX, V. : ;•. A.
Paw! 2
•-
______ _ 5 Ea I
November 19, 1976
STATE OF MIPN1:SOT,
( CITY OF F(, .I, 141AI:(>
COMINY SF Iii_NNLPIN
The follov'ir,1: accounts wera audited and allowed ,;s follows: •
wl :0-7„ 2:.05 VOID CHECK. ( .'3?,:
11 .1 1.-7 G 2937 POSTT77S1i R Postage for newsletter 224.55 .:
11-1 ;.76 2930 CHERYL GLISCZINSI:I Election services 33.19
2939 NYLA JEUSEN Election services 33.19'
2940 BER''"JETTL PLOUIIEII Election: services 33.12' i`,
2941 LORETTA ELLISON Election services 33.19 aI.
2942 SHIRLEY JELLISON Election services 34.',1
2913 MARC IE 'I:000HOUSE Election services 39.3i :'
2944 DOROTHY FITZGERALD Election services 32.6' ',
2945 EVELYN 9OGEl?c Election services 32.6::
294'+6 PATRICIA ARL, Election services 32.6'.
2917 ROSEMARY DYSINGER Election services '32.6: '', '
294s'. GRETCHEN SHAW Election services 34.2. I.
2949 SUZANNE LANE Election services 34.;7'.5:
295P JOAN CEBULLA Election services 34.F7
2951 VOID CHEF:
2952 JOAIIIIE VOAS Election services 21.::'`'
2953 1•IARY Ul'1C14 Election services 3' ''
2t 54 cAPOLY11 LYNGDAL Election, services 34.
2955 SHARON LY1 CI! Election services ar
2S5i, JO APIN Cht?L.IN Election services 2r
295/ DORIS JYI11•1301d Election services i;1 '
29511 Sld5AN l,'JLIGOVSKI Election services 37.
2.i.2:;'-r GENEVIEVE Gi35(dl Election. services 42.(
29:50 MAR II_Y'!. 11'CMILEAN Election services 3..i
2961 SALLY Si11..IN Election services 2.'.! .,
2952 SANDRi GROWN Election services 11.'
29C3 MilOREY CLARK Election services 3.6.1
2964 VI11GI9IA SCiIWIl2 Election services 36. .;' •
2965 VTPGIFiIA GARTIIER Election services 36.,
2957 GORO7iS li,"_P !2 Election services 21
20r:7 EDNA 11O12Ii7REU Election services ., 4
2.96II JERRr' 7/).11II Football ofr"icial 51.1
2!:69 JEAINNE- IIAt-erN:SON Election services 31
2970 MACV HART ',AN CONSTRUCTION Refund on overpayment of permit ,r:.
2971 ROOLRT I1t12-i7 October expenses 103.1
1 '72 POSTIIISTLR Postage for utility bills 42.:..
-?:, 2973 DIANNE HAPISb0 Reimbur ,,ont for purchase of coffee
maker- 39.',.
2974 NISIY-IIINTS Service-Public Safety dept. 17.''6`
2975 POSTI1AS3FR Postage for newsletter P3.
2976 INSTY--MN-FS Service-Public Safety dept.
1, 1°-7E 2977 GLEN LACE GAI'Li,Y Refreshments for Guide Plan meeting 15.C'1
r 2973 PUBLIC Ehti'LOYLLS REITREI1ENT Employees withheld and employer
ASSOC. contributions 11-12 payroll 4,429.r`'
2979 FEDERAL RLSFRVE BANK Taxes withheld 11-12 payroll 5,0•16. '-'
2980 UNITED HAY Donat ions withheld 11-12 payroll 25.
✓.
.------...---- •
pi64O.4r
C
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LISP
Decmber 7, 1976
CONTJT.CT;R ( 7. £. 7. FAMILY) Food :;t_tb1 ishaent Type D
Diamond Construction Roberts Drug
Lake Suburban Builders •
Ozmun - Pederson; Inc.
PLUMING
Royal Plumbing
Heins Plumbing
JJEATINC & VENTTLATING
Sand ?4"chani-'al Repair
FOOD TARLISEMF m TYPE A
Jake':; Pizza & Ice Cream Parlor
ON S1LF LIQUOR LICENSE
Genghis Khan of Sapporo
These licenses have b, 2n approved by the department head responsible
for the licensed activity.
6:‘
Rebecca Quernemoen, Deputy Clerk
I
. a