Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/05/1977 JOHN FRANE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1977 6:45 PM, CITY HALL • COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Billy Bye, Joan Meyers, Dave Osterholt and Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Harlan Perbix; Planner Dick Putnam; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Marty Jessen; Engineer Carl Jullie; Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION PLEDGE F ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. WINDSLOPE PROJECT DISCUSSION II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Walnut Addition by Dirlam Properties, request to preliminary plat Page 4098 and rezone 7.7 acres from R1-22 to RM 6.5 and R1-13.5 for double bungalows and single family. The site is located in the NE corner of Valley View Road & County Road 4. (Resolution No. 77-40 - Ordinance No. 77-14) B. Tudor Oaks by Covenant Living Centers of Mn.,Inc., request to Page 4127 rezone from Rural to RM 2.5, RM 6.5 & Service-Commercial, Area H of The Preserve Commercial Area for an elderly health care retirement development. The site is located in the SW quadrant of US 169 and Schooner Blvd. (Ordinance No. 77-15) C. Prairie East Third Addition by Hust_d's, request to preliminary plat Page 4137 and rezone 50 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 85 single family iots. The site is located west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd Additions. (Resolution No..77-39 - Ordinance No. 77-16) D. Edenvale Industrial Park, 2nd Addition, Ouklot F by Edenvale, request Page 4158 to preliminary plat and rezone 1 of the 3 lots from I-General to I-2 Park. The site is 7 acres located north of Martin Drive, east of Corporate Way and west of Commerce Way. (Resolution No. 77-41 - Ordinance No. 77-17) E. Woodland Addition by Edenvale, request to preliminary plat and Page 4168 rezone from Rural to RM 6.5 for Phase 1, 58 lots. The site is located in Edenvaie's NW area. (Resolution No. 77-42 - Ordinance No. 77-18) F. Norseman Industrial Park, 2nd Addition by Belle, request to preliminary Page 4184 ' plat and rezone 16 acres from Rural to 1-2 Park. The site is located South of Co. Rd. 39 approximately 400' west of Washington Avenue. (Resolution No. 77-43 - Ordinance No. 77-19) I • Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,April 5, 1977 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) • G. Special Assessment Hearing for removal of Dutch Elm Disease Page 4202 IV. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 77-36, relating to the endorsement of State Page 4207 Financing for certain features of 911 Emergency Telephone System B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 77-12, amending Ordinance •No. 315., Page 4217 correcting legal description on Minnesota Protective Life C. Resolution No. 77-44, changing the time limit for removal of Page 4219 dutch elm diseased trees from 7 days to 20 days D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 323, Crosstown Baptist Church, rezoning. Page 4221 approximately 9 acres of property at 6500 Baker Road from Rural to Public and rezoning agreement E. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 77-11, Garrison Forest by The Preserve, Page 422E rezoning the 16 acres, including Outlot A. from Rural to R1-13.5 for the approximately 50 family lots F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 77-1, implementing an industrial waste Page 4237 strength sewer charge and execution of a Joint Powers Agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission G. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 338, creating a Community Based Services Page 4239 Board to assist all supervised residential programs or social rehabilitation programs H. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 7748, rezoning approximately 2 acres Page 4243 from Rural to 1-2 Park for the construction of an industrial storage building for Miley's Sprinkler System and rezoning agreement V. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of 3 members to the Planning & Zoning Commission for 3 year terms B. Appointment of 3 members to the Historical & Cultural Commission for 3 year terms C. Appointment of 7 members to the Industrial Commission for 3 year terms D. Appointment of 1 member to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for a 3 year term C. Appointment of 5 members to the Building Code Board of Appeals for 3 year terms F. Appointment of 5 members to the Board of Appeals & Adjustments for 3 year terms • Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,April 5, 1977 V. APPOINTMENTS (continued) G. Appointment of 7 members to the Human Rights Commission - 3 members for 3 year terms, 2 members for 2 year terms, and 2 members for a 1 year term VI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council members B. Reports of Advisory Commissions C. Report of City Manager D. Report of City Attorney 1. Correction to MTS lease and mortgage for19IDB bond issue Page 4253 E. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Receive bids for log loader Page 4264 F. Report of City Engineer 1. Consider bids received on 3/24 for TH 169 improvements, Page 4265 I.C. 51-266 (Resolution No. 77-38) 2. Consider bids received on 3/25 for utility and street improvements Page 4267 on Forest Hill Road, I.C. 51-294 (Resolution No. 77-37) G. Report of Finance Director 1. Payment of Claims Nos. 5050 - 5223 Page 4269 2. Clerk's License List Page 4273 VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TUES.,APRIL 12, 1977 7:30 PM, HIGH SCHOOL ��� t aj,ui /a 1.0/r j r� Q.e/u. Cov IJtjE1 %.L.c, CC.io (—ua pry yD0 :2-0 c� `>-C & cQ ryvtauptt, Pao OAA, -r-i -tt Sfctc c`1y-A-v2'a, (y 6 . kJ I 4 ( 0 CI /J Gxr r,c- !" _"--,-L' D. Fit() (it1/J yr0 u,c, ✓,c / 12--° /a-.Ct e{-27 W ra A 51,0 i/'',t/>. G?1 111 I c rY'L . Z-Z)O G C,ie-'9 2 I/✓ l U C�-fiL P��/ eA1_, l„C« -{Y') C� 4( II. COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR '77-'78 4 approved Planning Commission Minutes JOHN FRANE Feb. 28, 1977 • IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATiuna A. Walnut Addition, by Dirlam Properties, request to preliminary plat and rezone 7.7 acres from R1-22 to RM 6.5 and R1-13.5 for double bungalows and single family. The site is located in the northeast corner of Valley View Road and Co. Rd, 4. A continued public hearing. The planner reviewed the original plan and revised plan. He stated the city engineer is suggesting 10' additional right-of-way along Valley View Road and Co. Rd. 4 for possible future turn lanes. Mr. Upton, 16163 Edenwood Drive, suggested lot 8 be zoned R1-13.5 instead of RM 6.5 as it abuts single family. Sorensen inquired if the property to the north of lots 8 and 9 is zoned single family. The planner stated the property to the north is zoned single family and presently is the site of an older home and barn. Mr. Dirlam stated he believes the original plan and revised plan are both consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated the revised lots are 100' wide and Esterhill's lots are only 100' wide. He believed the S0' wide buffer of trees on the north side of the property would sufficiently buffer the multiple from the single family, but would not object to lot 8 being zoned R1-13.5. As to the additional right of-way, Dirlam stated the lot lines could be redrawn to allow 10' additional right-of- way and still meet lot sizes. Nancy Autio, 7279Augusta Lane, stated she would prefer having lot 8 as single family consistent with the properties to the north. Mrs. Rose, 7336 Franklin Circle, inquired how much the lots would sell for and value of homes to be built on the lots. Mr. Dirlam replied the lots would sell for approximately $14,000-15,000 and the homes may be around $60,000. Mr. Conley, 7305 Franklin Circle, asked the commission to recommend denial of the request as nearly 100% of the neighbors are against the proposal. He felt the lot costs, as estimated by Dirlam , were high as his 1/2 acre lot is valued at $10,000. Mr. Upton inquired how the drainage would be handled. Mr. Dirlam replied the majority of runoff would be directed to the street. Motion 1: Bearman moved, Sundstrom seconded, to close the public hearing on the Walnut Addition preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously. Motion2: Bearman moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend approval of the Walnut Addition rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 for lots 9-20 and R1-13.5 for lots 1-8 as per the preliminary plat dated Feb. 1, 1977. Discussion: Bearman expressed concern that the lots may not meet standard lot sizes if the 10' additional right-of-way is needed. He added that the city and county should investigate some type of controlled intersection for Valley View and Co. Rd. 4 not just due to this project, but because there is a need for residents east of Co. Rd. 4 to safely cross #4. Vote on Motion 2: Motion carried 3:1 with Sorensen voting nay. I r• • • • • • • approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- Feb. 28, 1977 Walnut, continued Motion 3: Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Wa1n+ Addition dated Feb. 1, 1977 with lot sizes consistent with zoning Districts RN 6.5 and. R1-13.5, and sufficient right-of-way deemed necessary by the city and county along Val View Road and Co. Rd. 4 to be dedicated by the proponent. Motion carried 2:1:1 with Sorensen voting nay and Bearman abstaining. • . • • • • • • 11096) • • r 4 approved 'Planning Commission Minutes -3- FEb. 14, 1977 • B. Walnut Addition, by Dirlam Properties. Request to preliminary plat and rezone 7.7 acres from R1-22 to RM 2.5 and RM 6.5 for double bungalows and apartments. The site is located in the northeast corner of Valley View Road and Co. Rd. 4. A continued public hearing. Mr. Enger stated the staff report recommends denial of the request and suggests the plan be modified to double bungalow and single family. Mr. Dirlam showed the commission 3 new alternatives: a. two 4 unit apartment buildings, remainder in double bungalow. b. all double bungalow, 2 cul-de-sacs. c. double bungalow and single family ( similar to staff recommendation). Sorensen asked MR. Dirlam if he desired amending his original request by one of the alternatives. Dirlam responded negative and asked the commission to respond to the alternatives. Fosnocht inquired if Dirlam wished to withdraw his original request. Dirlam stated he is not formally withdrawing his original request. Lynch, referring to page 6 of the staff report, asked for clarification that the 1/2acre lots could be developed without city sewer and water. MR. Enger stated,based on the existing ordinance, land that is zoned R1-22 can be developed without city services. Mr. Berne, 7332 Franklin Circle, stated the city should not allow any development on 1/2 acre lots without water and sewer. Mrs. Rose,7336 Franklin Circle, asked what process the application will follow. Sorensen replied the Planning Commission will make a recommendation on the request, then the request and recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council where the decision will be made on the zoning and platting. Mrs. Rose then asked what advantages and disadvantages there are to extending Augusta Lane. Mr. Enger stated the city staff sees no particular advantages or disadvantages. Mr. Conley, 7305 Franklin Circle, asked why the staff report did not recommend Alterna- tive B in the staff report. Mr. Enger replied Alternative B is a possibility, but the staff believes Alternative A responds better to the request and the site's location near an activity node. Mr. Conley believed a market exists for 1/2 acre single family. • • • q,oQ approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- Feb. 14, 1977 Don Peterson, 7025 Mariann Drive, stated he does not believe R1-22 is feasible ithout sewer and water and in the past S-6 years Edenvale, The Preserve or Hustad's have not submitted RI-22 requests because it is economically infeasible. Lynch asked what alternative Mr. Dirlam favors. Mr. Dirlam stated he would favor Alternative c ( similar to staff recommendation). Mr. Martinson, 7312 East Franklin Circle, asked if the city has an ordinance regula- ting the.maintenance of rental property. Sorensen responded negative. Mary Upton, 16163 Edenwood Drive, asked if a totlot is proposed because small children could not cross Co. Rd. 4 to Round Lake Park. Mr. Dirlam replied he does not feel the project will generate many children and he is not proposing a totlot. Motion: 2 Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to recommend the proponent'resubmit a revised plan to the staff and the staff should prepare a report on the revised plan. • Discussion: Sundstrom suggested the lots adjacent to Esterhills Addition be consistent with the R1-13.5 District lot size.. • Sorensen suggested the staff consider in their report that the request is not a pud request and does not include trails or tradeoffs in light of the variances requested. Schee called question on the motion. Question carried. - Vote: the motion carried 3:3 ( Lynch, Pauly, Fosnocht voted aye ). Motion 2: Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to close the public hearing considering the preliminary plat of Walnut Addition. The motion carried unanimously. Motion 3: Lynch moved, Pauly seconded, to recommend the staff reivew the revised plan submitted(c) this evening and submit a report. The motion carried 5:1 with Sorensen voting nay. • Motion 4: • Pauly moved, Fosnocht seconded, to reconsider Motion 2 closing the public hearing. The motion carried unanimously. • Foosnocht moved, Pauly seconded, to continue the public hearing to theotion 5: commission's Feb. 28th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. • 4101 • e approved Eden Prairie Planning 4 Zoning Commission -5- Jan. 24, 1977 V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Walnut Addition, by Dirlam Properties. Request to preliminary plat and rezone 7.7 acres from R1-22 to RM 2.5 and RM 6.5 for double bungalows . • and apartment units. The site is located in the northeast corner of Valley View Road and Co. Rd. 4. Dennis Dirlam, Dirlam Properties, stated he is requesting that the 7.7 acres be rezoned to allow 16 doubles and 2 lots for'8 plexes. The duplexes would be 2 stories with garages. Sorensen, referring to page 3 of the 12-29-76 submission, asked why it is not believed economically possible to develop the site as R1-22. . Mr. Dirlam stated the cost of the lots under the R1-22 zoning would be very expensive and dictate higher cost single family than is reasonable for the site. He believed very few R1-22 lots are being developed in Eden Prairie because of the cost. Sorensen asked how many stories the duplexes would be. Mr. Dirlam replied 1-1.5 . Bearman, referring to page 1,1t4, inquired if the developer would proceed with the project if the school is not built at Round Lake. Mr. Dirlam replied affirmative as a market exists for the units whether the,.school is built or not,_._.__. Fosnocht asked, considering existing surrounding land uses, why the apliicant felt the proposed land uses are appropriate for this site. ( Mr. Dirlam responded that since Co. Rd. 4 is such a busy street he believes the site would be more appropriate for the duplexes than single family. Fosnocht remarked that the nursery stock on the site is planted in rows and may be difficult to retain. He asked what percentage of the stock the applicant feels will be retained. Mr. Dirlam estimated up to 90t could be retained or transplanted . Sorensen asked how wide the lots are in the Estherhills Addition that adjoin this proposal. Mr. Dirlam estimated 100 feet . Gordon Carlson, 7352 Franklin Circle, on behalf of approximately 47 families sur- rounding the proposal, submitted a petition with signatures opposing the rezoning of Walnut Addition ( petition attached ). He stated some of the single family homeowners would not have bought lots if they had known this site could be changed to multiple. They believed the project is inconsistent with the surrounding single family character and should not be rezoned.' - • Tom Bartel, EP News, asked when the property was zoned to R1-22 and if the Guide Plan depicts the area as multiple. The planner estimated the property was zoned in 1959 and the Guide Plan does show M3 in this general area. Mr. Ron Conley, 7305 Franklin Circle, stated he believes the proposal will be inconsistent with the surrounding single family of one-half acre lots. Don Peterson, Edenvale Inc., stated multiple is shown on the Guide Plan for this site and across Valley View Road. Al Upton , 16163 Edenwood Drive, believed the access to theproposal is too close to the C o. Rd. 4/ Valley View Road intersection. '//0.2 { • .approved Planning 6 Zoning Commission -6- San. 24, 1977 • • Don Berne, 7332 Franklin Circle, believed the grading required on the site would dictate tree removal and expressed concern that in the spring water runoff from the site passes through his yard and driveway. . Jerry Rose, 7336 Franklin Circle, believed the project would adversely affect the single family values. He felt the distance between single family and multiple should be greater than the distance in this proposal. Mr. Dirlam stated he lives 1/2 mile from the proposal and believes the proposal will be beneficial to the city. • Marco Jones, 16354 Edenwood Drive, stated he developed Edenwood Ridge and at the time of development he was told to align Augusta Lane so that it would correspond with the proposed single family plat for this area. • 'Mari Dragseth, 15071 Summerhill Drive, inquired about the costs of the units, tax benefits and if they would be owner occupied units. Mr. Dirlam replied the duplexes would probably be owner occupied on one side and the other side rented out. The units would cost approximately $40,000 apiece , and he believes the tax benefit to the city would be greater than if the site is developed as single family. Tom Bartel, inquired how much the 8 plexes would rent for. Dirlam replied $ 225-250 and they could possibly in the future be converted to ownership units. Motion: Lynch moved, Bearman seconded, to continue the public heating of Walnut Addition, to the commissions Feb 14th meeting and instruct the staff to prepare a report and recommendations. The motion carried'unanimously. • 1 • { 1 • • • 11103 140 • Eden Prairie City Council 8950 County Road #4 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 3/ 21/ 77 Dear Sirs: This letter is in opposition to the proposal to build apartment units in the area known as the "Nursery" across from Round Lake Park. We feel that building other than single family dwellings in this area would be against the character of the neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. Homes in this area are on 1/2 acre or larger lots (Zoned R 1-22). 2. The builders proposal is to place two family units on 1/3 acre lots. 3. The present building mix lends itself to the openess of Round Lake Park on the West and Purgatory Creek on the East. 4. Raising the population density along Purgatory Creek could affect the ecology of this area. 5. This also would increase the traffic hazard to young children brought in by the units along County Road #4 crossing to the park and library. 6. This would probably eventually require a stop light or overhead walkway in the area. 7. The present mix of apartments and residential hones in this Northeastern section of the city lends a nice aesthetic value to the city. Some of our other thoughts on the building of apartments in Eden Prairie are as follows: 1. The city should develop a Housing Maintenance and Occupation Ordinance and we feel that such a code should be developed and put into affect as soon as possible. 2. A more comprehensive plan should be developed identifying areas aesthetically adaptable to apartments, business, etc. and encourage development in these areas as it becomes appropriate. ylb� • 3. Feelings are strong on this issue by neighborhood residents and some have expressed physical opposition should the plan be approved and equipment start to move in and try to work. This will lead to only hard feelings on all sides. 4. Many citizens on the group have a feeling of distrust in all government and they feel that their interests will be ignored. A negative vote on the rezoning of this area would aid considerably in rebuilding their confidence. • We wish to extend to the Mayor and Council Members a thank you for your consideration on this matter. 711.0 John C. Martinson Marilyn R. Martinsen 7225 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 ' I yi0 � t • /6L2.2 r. ,014.eidi 7, M77 46e, �(/� -c�•2r .moo., z t� ,d,s.. . -.�t - — ,t Qa,A vG 16-t.144 lsse. --,/tsuL, • G. -444At. Vef- eae o�.-t.L4:.- y106 • ..o•.,.du.uG ergs.... t 4I0...t-". -. 4 aJr 2 44- �' jl 14 on+ .444o I een- • 4",y _ ,,,, . -4(4444,..doext•ohli • - .-,d.. pA , � - tie ,� . A4td. .LJ °. o • • • U1OY a � 9 4 /577 hat:;4 . 490,u.,27 ;4. ei.cceleurrwle c2 4e.i.viet* lei. 41 es....{' r!Z€41_, eZ q o9 do /404 .tv�er &:.+ 47 X-f.,..c. �1czr� �� � III , I./� v � am". - a ,ram — Atv ,A - .4.49 ,9 qu O - • • fez - . /.-e .____..._ y,tl .ra •'R 'yq/Y'. '.:;y}�. ..yr - �,�n )rA'..' .��� T►M r• ......- . - e • PLANNING STAFF REPORT APPLICANT : Dirlam Properties PROJECT: Multiple Family Sites, Walnut Addition • LOCATION: Northeast corner of Valley View Road and Co. Rd. 4 REQUEST Rezoning from R1-22.to RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 DATE: February 1, 1977 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director REFER TO: Dec. 1976 application ( follows draft zoning form ), proposed plat of Walnut Addition INTRODUCTION The application of December 29th is very complete and follows the form of the draft zoning procedures. The site is readily developable and has been uses for nursery stock for the past few years. The staff report will deal with three basic issues important to the decisions on the proposed rezoning application. Those being: A. Zoning Considerations B. Guide Plan C. Site Development Plan A. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS • The property is zoned R1-22 and has been zoned for residential purposes for the last fifteen years. Under Zoning Ordinance #8, the property was zoned R1 residential and was changed with the adoption of Ordinance #135 to R1-22 allowing half acre single family detached development without public sanitary sewer and water service. The zoning requested to RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 would permit multiple family dwellings. Normally a townhouse density of 4-6 units/acre occur in the RM 6.5 District with apartment or condominium buildings common in the RM 2.5 District. The double bungalow units would fall into the RM 6.5 District because of the attached dwelling unit which is defined in Ordinance #135 as multiple family. 1/IIa • Staff Report-Walnut Addition -2- Feb. 1, 1977 B. GUIDE PLAN - 1968_ The Guide Plan illustrates an activity center in the Round Lake School/Park site including commercial, institutional and multiple family development . 1 The Walnut Addition site is illustrated as M3 ( low and medium density ) multiple family dwellings. The Guide Plan in the 'Plan Element Section ' describes what is envisioned for the area: " Specific locations for low and medium density (10-15u/a) multiple development are shown , particularly around each of the community centers. A concentration of popu- lation around and within the commercial center is impor- tant to the economic viability of the center and essential if it is to be an active,interesting and actual focal point for each community. This is a much more important p. reason for the multiple dwelling land use than the usual buffer or transitional logic between commercial and single family land use. Several other areas of low or medium density multiple are shown in locations where the present or projected land economics will likely preclude single family density. In other cases, highways or unusual natural conditions (lakeshore)will probably result in multiple development sooner or later in any event. " The introduction to the Plan Elements Section speaks to the ability of blending old and new developments when it states: It must be remembered that any development guide plan which is prepared in 1968 must recognize two very important conditions. The first condition is the actual physical development which exists in the Village today. While the existing development represents perhaps as little as 10% of the total development, it is none the less significant and requires considerable respect in any development proposals A second equally important factor is the existence of a'10 year old plan ' . While it is true this plan was implemented dl solely by means of a comprehensive zoning ordinance there are many public and private rights and interests that are well developed and in some manner exercised at this point in Eden Prairie. Thesetwo factors are certainly important but it must not be taken for granted that existing development or the existing plan are irrevocable or irreversible. The proposed guide plan being considered hire is based upon an entirely different concept than that under which the previous plan and present development has occurred. If the proposed new concept is to produce any kind of results, significant changes must take place in those areas which are presently zoned, but as of yet undeveloped and-equally signtigant changes must take place within those as yet undeveloped spaces between existing and incompatible uses." • Staff Report-Walnut Addition -3- Feb. 1, 1977 The implementation of the Guide Plan today takes somewhat of a different form than the activity center concept illustrated on the plan map below. 11mn,-• �.I 1968 Guide Plan Map .• .. G" f Eqc \► µ3 The community shopping center illustrated in the southwest quadrant of the Valley View/Co. Rd. 4 intersection has shifted to the Northwest quadrant of Co. Rd. 4/TH 5. Likewise the senior high school , which was illustrated adjacent to Co. Rd. 4 is currently proposed further west with park uses adjacent to Co. Rd. 4. A major library facility in the community will be located in the Major Center Area and operated by Hennepin County. Smaller libraries will be located at activity centers such as Round Lake but will be of a neighborhood character. A fire station is proposed along Co. Rd. 4 as a branch station. ' What has developed with the activity center at Round Lake is the intensive uses of commercial 8 the high school has shifted away from the intersection of Co. Rd. 4 and Valley View. The guide plan recognized this area as a busy intersection and illustrated low and medium density land uses in the NE and SE quadrants. The plan for Walnut Addition is consistent with the intent of the 1968 Guide Plan as originally intended. Hdwever, as the plan states the blending of uses with existing development , as well as the previous zonings must be dealt with in the present contexts. The planning staff recognizes the recommendations in the 1968 Guide Plan for low and medium density multiple dwellings within the close proximity of the Round Lake activity center and also is aware of the specific location of facilities. When the Guide Plan concepts are balanced against the existing zoning, current development and neighborhood layout no clear answer is provided by the 1968 Plan. Development of multiple dwellings or single family lots can be interpreted from the 1968 Plan and perhaps specific site plans will determine the appropriate land use. 5 a Staff Report-Walnut Addition -4- a Feb. 1, 1977 o EDE Nil;O,43D R/ • C. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN \ :• 1 1. 9 8 ,i T . '/ 8. .�.e l ` .: 1 ;„/ 10• ,• 1 P ' 5� / : O I . 1 1zsi �'�.. \ \,yam • 1 \i I IkPl't l'-\ / • -,... pp n .1� .,,.•-../ j'`/- 2 4t { { ' I . i is .... { ,. —.� e i 1 ors..-` • 1 .\ . • &, !' . i \\8 \ : \ 1 ti/ l \- :It • is /,-,VALLEY. . . .... . view •-.ROAD The plan proposes sixteen double home sites ranging from 13,000 to 18,000 square foot lots with widths ranging from 90-110 feet . The lot depths along the Estherhills Addition are proposed at 124 feet . • Lot 17 and 18 are proposed for two 8 plex buildings similar to those proposed in Edenvale's Golf Vista Addition. The multiple family lots will utilize a driveway backing onto lots 13-16. The driveway access to Co. Rd. 4 will be i approximately 130 feet from the Valley View/Co. Rd. 4 intersection . The proponent has stated the site would not be appropriate for single family homes because of its proximity to busy roadways and the economics of the property cost. The eastern half of the site is well buffered and separated from Co. Rd. 4 by the existing major nursery trees and the distance of over 300 feet. The concept of a cul-de-sac street accessing to Valley View is good from a safety standpoint and offers seclusion for the project. Staff Report-Walnut Addition -S- Feb. 1, 1977 SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVES An alternative to the Walnut Addition plan would utilize R1-13.5 zoning on the east side of a relocated Walnut Court with lots no less than 13,500 square feet consistent with the provisions of the R1-13.5 District. A rede- signed lotting plan for double bungalow units on the west side of the street would allow for nine to ten lots , or eighteen to twenty units. This alter- native is similar to others that mix single family detached homes and double bungalow units . The advantages to such a plan would be it eliminates any access to Augusta Lane and any potential through traffic from the existing neighborhood. The plan would blend with the existing single family homes to the north and east by platting of single family homes and would provide sites for owner occupied _ and rented double bungalow units near community services and get in a high quality environment. Alternate A would reduce the density from 6.3 to 3.75 dwelling units/acre which may or may not be an advantage. Also, the combination of double units and single family lots has been used for many years with success. COUNTY ROAD 'It ••4' -- `4 IN 6.5 i T� double bun low.1,9ts �/�9toLt1. lots/18-20 u • /5J • �, I. Q Augusta Lane • .., r........._-- :., :. _,. : :—' .i jam► I• .,. a , i 1 C// . . i :.÷ 5„: 1 ...1J-3 . [33 .,c=i- lil.-13:S Np Ingle gamily detached . . lots/8u i � �M-SO'{ 1 ' R 1 i-• 2i,y 1 I t �' Staff Report-Walnut Addition -6- Feb. 1, 1977 t Alternate B proposes no change to the zoning of R1-22 and would provide / acre P lots with either a cul-de-sac or connection to Augusta Lane. No public sewer i or water would be required because of the provisions of Ord. 135 specifically permitting unsewered lots of 1 acre or larger. The development of 14 or 15 t• single family lots would maintain a density of about 2 dwelling units/acre. I I r" :1;,•. t A % 1 ! 1 • -k _ 1 jr • 1 tt 3: t• r; x v 04.0tiek JIF.a1 V•CAQ • 1-t-6\i-T44-itt\-iv.- 6. von* ra-a:. 0af140) y giti Staff Report-Walnut Addition -7- Feb. 1, 1977 STAFF RECOMMENDATION . . I;_. .-;; ' r ' -;_. r 4.-:: '".A • i- �� is^. ify f .... ' lI 1` �' ,�.y�- y ! .}��. 1 • 1„e.- !. i 'At, - pIT"( / irter i 1 ,1°4 fit 4� jR? ,, �• i ' ; y y. '' t nx,k-S. 4— i; The above sketch illustrates the proposed and existing land uses surrounding the Dirlam Properties site. Some changes are expected in the existing uses within the next few years, those include development of Round Lake Park with nine athletic . fields and construction of a fire station either at 72nd Street or Valley View at Co. Rd. 4 The proposed future high school will be constructed north of Round Lake at such time the school district and the voters approve such a plan. • The Little Red Store is a non-conforming use at this point and has served the citizens of Eden Prairie for many years. It is unclear whether the Little Red as presently exists will remain at this location or shift to another site serving northwest Eden Prairie. This site is not envisioned by the Guide Plan, or other studies by the city, to be a commercial site . The majority of property surrounding the Dirlam site is R1-22 or city park ( across Co. Rd. 4), these factors combined with the limited size of the site indicate to the planning staff that the uses describes in Alternate A including double bungalow and single family detached would be the most appropriate development plan for the Dirlam site today. The staff rejects the argument that the Guide Plan shows M3 (low and medium density) as the land use proposed for this specific site. The staff does not believe the Comprehensive Plan Map was ever intended as a land use or zoning map , but rather a graphic illustration of concepts for community development. The staff would recommend the following : 1. Recommend the proponent redesign the concept for development of the site in accord with the intent of Alternate A, double bungalow and single family detached lots consistent with Ord. 135. 2. Recommend the proponent redesign the preliminary plat in conformance with the modified zoning request. 3. Recommend to the city council denial of the rezoning request as submitted by Dirlam Properties for Walnut Addition for RM 2.5 4 RM 6.5 because it does not conform with the intent of the Guide Plan involving blending with existin84surrounding uses. - . PNTITION ' • • . V.aro proporty comma with proporV adjaccat to or aoarby to proposal pm:4*ot • which io calla to "L'o3.aut Li:ditto:A. ilo undoratuoti that a roquoot tom boon mato for r000air.; of oit (8) ;or frost P1-22 to =-8.5 cad E -2.5. Voir, tho uzioraic--od, oppoao thin roar: esoi:as RAM 0 ." . ADDZSS 7.....3:=77. .... ..7..,.,...,:....../4, /1...,....../if e--,-,..-: 7 „.-,, 1 41,,ali.:7„ --c) Yvl c 1A.cj -73 41./ . .-,,,,....,--.0-11.1-;....;, C,...,r I, c/ I - rki,1 itl Ale Akft _ /44t claii VG,:t 6',.:- ... 8 .., ... , --/ 7 ___/;/-- 7:?,-; .e /4.,.,....-,. C._ 6....) .,_ ,.--•\ !..i. ........... 1,- ?...,--,.._ 11 4-5 .7:1 A.,:.-,-t...k,.-, ltk c. 1 f +71: .• :el;7X;-,..",--- e.<!-,i-,-...e..- 7,A/1,- '- '-:;-:•--4.-.../(".-:-.-- ";:--1, , - 7 •-- ? ---f _ - -- .• ., -;','-... • ::?%'•--, r'•-•::•-," ' /.•-•Li 7?5,3. -";',.-_,„,...„', ' ..` .ii„,.- . if i'f ., 4 ( '..e-•i':,It, i errs,'' 12.5)4/12 7.....,-,,,, /.2.4...., (,,......e-7-;7 I (.1 11' '1 4 /21 e_il _,/, , .. ...%X_ —,..-.1..e. 7 3,:k) r .644-...t Ce. 4 .)"..- -.16'/ilat)• P (— P- 733 rAbAtkic/it. 5,Se__L____.) 73/g 7l.).::,4 -,-: ,.f.,.,z 0.4;.; /0"- "i,--7,-74--;--1,7T-.......-e, 71/z. A.----7 -e,//Jre (10e1/4f4 , . ,,, \ A. / '9)•74,',n,,,k "?: '..'.'.4-1,..,......,-,.......,:,,-, 7_g i:Si 71.17.4 r .. ...-..././ (..-4-2--(74.1?- • .• /2/. ),a,/ V t .:4,. , er.).j.6..;) 750-5. Ae:".ilrf 7c2"I 474A0.---1.1 /(-•e;e?2 a4-e-dr.... ql-i.. ,—-at), a. 137,....2.z.z. /6004 -77, 4_ _‘14:-,,._- 1/ /. /°- ../11 _.-:;-•,!---,,C / - 776 1/ I e:i,- Ill 64c.4) /3 lit? Lon • - - -- .- _ .. _ . . • , • . ... PETITION i Vo aro proporty owaere ;Mb proporty adjaocat to or nearby tho prop000S pre3oot Vat& to called the 111:.7.1.-xt ......'%C.itioiel. V. uziorotzad tot o roquoot has bona made for ro2omiaz of oiCzt (3) oroe from 3I-22 to 10-6.5 or VX-2.5. 1 Vs. tbo araoroir,...od, oppo;a tbto roain eltoacos 1 , ?TAM • MOMS 0, p_„.._, (,1,-,i--_,,, -, q--7,,- .., i" i•i• ,0 a-yve. a.„./ c.:) 7Q--7,-/ cz,,„,,...-z.,4 ,z......, u /41" •:.--, L:t."-- --.)...."--:-(--- --‘ 5'1----- /6o) 7 ./..-Ple'l 7":.- „---........,- iz.:4:57 R.,./...4.e.e./......--.....C7g/.. l .4.4...4.,—,... /(95-7 , (I- Rtc 4..:)-r171 . /6,-, 7 6-1.r.iv,9vrf 01 4.1 kr 7 1,-.I.-/1: Ar..Vie,,/:,.,-:,-, //.?I3.-I ,/.:„..,/ A.,.....,... ;--,,4 ....., i -1,-.. ... ‘" 1 //---?-3— V.....- 77 71,•?....7 ,,i—•/.../'-'-r,,,,../ . -./. ' . •-•-i— i ' 7:-''' •• ;.•1./"-. , /: ,: ' /e:',IC:g' . r./.:•„ . ',• ,-/ 2),--,,.- ....-, //.2/? <-e-e--,-eC. /!"----,t,-,•••.' .'•- Tk Et , 1. ,:. . t- " L-1'.-'4" /I)--j. L. ...1'.(1-1,.__,,,,-.-, ...'t: •.:<1.' i„,4' . ._:.... i , Y /6^..t...?.1. c?.6-...... ...„..„: - . - i/ - (Z . 1- ... .. .. ,-c--/(-1 x c c•V:7,4._ .14,, /', i' /S--1 ,, _ / ..9.3<./ .---(:-./.-.- :-...1,7 et /e--,-/ 1.1 t • •• '7/ • /-'71' ' ' ,1- '7 Al 411( 1::-...4. .. z.--t-ri A4,- /V / 1.../_i-l-yi //,- // (. ._'-(4.11..-f.d.e.-e-eg Dit- 1 r,t _, ;"-'f i. . f../4...,, 7,-.1; 42,-- . ) ,r L...., -:',.- ,,,c' 5 (i.,,,—,.. -3----, ?, ,_, if, i 't .-7; `,, ,, . ,,, /4 t 5 1•3 f (11-ix• Yvv.}-,. 1 1:,-4-bs,.. 14 i 6 -73 s/S'. -r------412— 64-‘-`-i-e-- . ill X) V.: . PETITION Vo aro proporty owooro ::;tL propo.Oty ad.aocat to or coarby thm pmpoaod pm3oot id which is called tho ".1-.1:.ct G^CitioaR. No uedarotaad that • rogcoat ban boos mad* for rosoais; of oi;;t (0) ao=co from$1-22 to z 4.5 cal BM-2.5. Vo, the urdoroig odr oppo;o t..eta malts loaves NAM M1 Q .,! !'".e.,' /6.2/? Ga/_{,. it J /� �,r�•t1 .t.r 1ft- ••! f 4:` ".7/7 %4�i. /�i., �'.--J yy / , txiG4 y tIu-r-y..�.e7✓ //•iri Z��ic�r.y—Z .�.:�./_ ;�c Otr„c "71-eT /lra/ 2.a€tly 24. i ,el, l /t,3a/ //Q.1Z'., 0.:,..1 fk 1174 - 41/14. e. ,e. ii.. h:,4 73;7 4.A.a ./;-.A (`.-ec ��/ 4 �l�' G . )t//7 !,/r;./�.��,2/,,,,, 2.0. 0 1.-19 c.(U cl ( if b,v,Av,.. 73'32 �ntw,P__,0_, .. ) i Y 1- . 1 PETITION V. ars property owaors with proporty ad3aooat to or aosrby the proposed projoct Mich is caned the "L'alcut Addition!. Ws naderotsad that a request has boo lade for rosoair„ of oi,;;t (8) cocoa iron H1-22 to EM-6.5 sad BM 2.5. Vs, the ardcraiC-ed, oppose tata eosin assess NEE =MSS A4 C.�j 7 as s FQ P3 )/4 a/t-cti /6 33`f c.�..�..-�..—:C 4 i. �GsyL— I 14° - /W frr 0 727 DeA. AtAxic. A• 9 .t.zll G.4' /6 3z,z 4121 • • • . • • DIRLAM PROPERTIES 7768 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55343 • • December 29, 1976 • Mr. Dick Putnam Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Fri 55343 • ' Dear Mr. Putnam; The following is an application for rezoning and preliminary plat approval for property located on the Northeast corner of Valley View Road and Co. Road 4 in Eden Prairie. A. ?roieot Identification: 1. Ownershin - The property is owned by Dirlam Properties by a • contract for deed with Minnesota Valley Landscape Inc. 2. Developer - Dirlam Properties will be the developer of this project. The lots will be marketed to builders or investors who will construct Housing Units. The multiple units on lots 17 and 18 may be built by Dirlam Properties. 3. Fiscal/Economic - The financing for site grading, utilities, and streets will be by private financing obtained by mortgages. with private lending institutions, or by petition to the City • of Eden Prairie. 4. Develonrent Method - The lots will be subdivided and prepared for resale to builders to build double homes for owner occ- upants. It is anticipated that lots will be sold to builders or individual double home owners. The multiple lots 17 and 18 are planned to be retained by Dirlam Properties for construction of two 8 plc): buildings to satisfy future housing needs of teachers, school personell or others desiring to live in this area. t • Mr. Dick Putnam Page 2 December 29, 1976 5. Development Timing - We anticipate the lots to be all developed by mid summer 1977 with homes to be built over the next two years. We anticipate to begin construction as soon as the plat is approved and completed with occupancy scheduled for mid summer 1977. 6. Critical Public Decisions - We are asking for approval of pre- liminary plat and rezoning of lots 1 through 16 to Rm 6.5 and lots 17 and 18 to Rm 2.5. 7. Additional General Project Information - The land use proposed is consistent with the City Comprehensive Guide Plan which shows M3 multi family density on this site. The use will provide a good relationship to the adjacent single family property and the commercial property and park across the street. B. Plan Area Identification: • 1. The site lies at the northeast corner of Valley View Road and Co. Road 4, and is legally described as the south 727 feet of the east } of the NE 4 of section 8, lying west of Esterhills Addition. 2. The adjacent land to the north is Edenwood Addition owned by single home owners. To the east is Esterhills Addition, a single family home subdivision. 3. Regional Relationships - Valley View Road and County Road 4 provide excellent access to the site. The site is directly adjacent to Round Lake Park and the future high school. It is close to commer- cial shopping areas, the county library, and churches. It will provide an excellent environment for residency. 4. Existing Land Use - The land is presently unoccupied and has been used as a nursery for trees and shrubs. The majority of these plants will be retained for landscaping. 5. Existing Transportation System - The site lies adjacent to County Road 4 and Valley View Road. It is likely that we will someday see mass transit on these streets and access is excellent. It is proposed the no access will be required on County Road 4 so that traffic conflicts will be minimized. No connection between Augusta Land and the project street is proposed because we feel that this would provide a natural bypass from Valley View to County Road 4 when signals are eventually installed at Valley View and County Road 4. This would provide an undesirable traffic pattern through a residential area. 141114 Mr. Dick Putnam Page 3 December 29, 1976 tly zoned 6. rezoning ofnlots 1ing - Tthrough 16 to Rmhe site is n6.5 and lots � We request Existing 17and18to Rm 2.5. n s site M3 low 7. toimediumndensity residential. The Framewok - The Guide asite oisd not i as suitable for R 1-22 lots for economic reasons. 8. General Analysis and Conclusions - The proposed use of the site is oonsistent with the Guide Plan and will provide an excellent location for attached housing. The shopping center at County Road 4 and TH#5, the library, the excellent parks, the new high school, and nearby recreational facilities will provide an excellent residential environment. C. Plan Project Analysis: 1. ' Topography Slopes - The site slopes gently from north to south thus allowing very minor grading. A large amount of existing tree cover will be retained to provide good buffers from adjacent properties, and a park like setting. 2. Soils - Soil condition is excellent for any type of building and consists primarily of clayey sand and gravel. d nts clude 3. Vegetation Honeysuckle, Coral Green the following: Ash, Silver Maple, Olive, Winter American Arborvita, NorwayPine, JuniperSandrGlobee� White Arbervita. 4. Water - The site will drain south toward Valley View Road. City water is adjacent on both Valley View and County Road 4. 5. General Natural Ecological Analysis and Conclusions - The proposed use and site development will require very little grading, thus allowing a considerable amount of vegetation to remain. The trees located within the road and building areas will be removed where possible by tree spade and replanted. The site is unique and will provide a park like setting for residents. t-I12S Mr. Dick Putnam Page 4 • December 29, 1976 • • • • D. Plan Proposal: 1. Development Objectives - The objectives of development are to .provide attached home sites and multiple sites to satisfy a market demand. • 2. Site Plan - The site plan is shown on the submitted preliminary plat. 3. Grading - Grading is shown on the submitted grading and utility plan. 4. Utility Plan - The utility and grading plan is submitted. 5. Preliminary Architectural Drawings - No architectural drawings are submitted. Buildings will be individually designed to meet all ordinance requirements. 6. Legal Instruments for Plan Implementation - No owners association is contemplated. An access and utility easement for lot 18 is located across lot 17, so that access won't be needed on County Road 4. • 7. Housing and Land Building Use Profile Building use will be attached double homes and two 8 plex buildings. 8. Zoning Classification - The proposed uses require rezoning of lots 1 through 16 to Rm`6:5 and lots 17 and 18 to Rm 2.5. 9. Phasing and Construction Schedule - It is anticipated that grading will commence in early spring 1977, with home construction to start in spring of 1977 with occupancy planned for mid summer 1977. 10. Additional Information - No additional information is submitted. Yours tru , • Den i . Dirlam DIRLAM PROPERTIES Enclosures March 27, 1977 City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Council Eden Prairie, Minn. Dear Council Members: Being a property owner near the area of the proposed Walnut ad- dition, we wish to go on record as opposed to the .proposed change in zoning. We would like to point out that the entire area is single family dwelling. This particular plot has been zoned single family for many years and to change this last 7i acres to anything different is not consistent with the rest of the area, good planning, traffic safety, and long term goals of the city. The traffic in the area is heavy, as the Little Red has been ex- panded twice in size and parking area in the last few years. This, plus the increase of traffic because of the Edenvalve project, in- creases on county #4, have drastically changed the safety factors in this general area. Keeping the area to single family acre lots as it was originally intended will at least minimize the additional load and hazards it will create. Other problems that we are concerned about are the play area for the children if they are high density lots. With no play area, you can not ask the future home owners to always send their kids across county #'4 to play. Also, proper drainage'of the entire north and northeast areas. This area drains towards Edenwood Ridge and Frank- lin Circle. We already have an abundance of water run off during heavy rains. We can not tolerate additional quantities of water in our direction. It should all go out the front. We have lived here for 14 years, many of our neighbors much long- er. As per the petition submitted to the zoning board, all of our neighbors in Franklin Circle and Edenwood Ridge are opposed to any- thing other than what is consistent with the pest development in the area. Anything different than single family, acre lots is only good for the developer. After it is sold off, his interest in our problems are gone. The rest of us, including the city, will be stuck with the problems that it will create. Very sincerely, Al en afi DUpton Y P Lit v.A it MAR 3 3 1977 7337 Franklin Cirole Mien Prairie, Minnesota 55343 March 30, 1977 Mr. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor City of Eden Prairie • 6932 Barberry Lane Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mayor Fenzel: Reference to proposed rezoning of property known as the Walnut Addition which is scheduled for public hearing on April 5. The majority of the property owners on Franklin Circle, Edenwood Ridge and Valley View Road surrounding the eight sore parcel to be rezoned from H1-22 to R1-13.5 and RM-6.5 have signed a petition that was presented to the Zoning Commission at a public hearing earlier this year. The property owners signing this petition were opposed to the rezoning and want it to remain as it is presently zoned. I am extremely disappointed, as are the neighbors I have talked to, in the Planning Commission reoommendetions for rezoning. It is another case of government not being responsive to the residents of the community. There was never a valid rea- son given at the public hearings I attended as to how this rezoning would benefit the community. It appears the only benefit that would be derived from this re- coning would be the benefit to the developer. This eight sore parcel is surrounded by R1-22 zoning. It was brought out that because of Highway 4 and Valley View Road, this property would not be marketable for 1/2 aore home sites. I disagree with this thinking and believe I have justi- fication because of the number of homey built in the past ten years and one now under oonstruotion in close proximity to this site along Highway 4. You, as Mayor, and the Council have been responsive to the needs of the community and its residents in the past and I urge you to vote against the rezoning of this property and let it remain as R1-22. Sincerely, ZI,01 V. H. Steinhof VHS je oo:jtr• Roger K. Ulated, City Manager, City Hall, 8950 Eden Prairie Road Mr. William Rye, City Council Member, 6530 Leesborough Avenue, Edon Prairie Mrs. Joan Meyers, City Council Member, 6930 Boyd Avenue, Eden Prairie Mr. David Oeterholt, City Council Member, 16344 Edenwood Drive, Eden Prairie Mrs. Sidney Pauly, City Council Member, 17450 West 78th Street, Eden Prairie U0208 • • April 5, 1977 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA II RESOLUTION NO. 77-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF • .• WALNUT ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of WALNUT ADDITION , dated , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: 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 Eden Prairie City Council on • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk II u1206 approved Planning Commission Meeting -S- Feb. 28, 1977 • is • E. Tudor Oaks, by Covenant Living Centers-Mn.Inc., request to rezone from Rural to • RH 2.5, RM 6.5 and Service Commercial Area H of The Preserve Commercial Plan for an elderly health care retirement development. The site is located in the southwest quadrant of US 169 and Schooner Boulevard. The planner referred the commission to the staff report which recommends approval ansi the information supplied tonight by Mr. George regarding the project's financing. • Sorensen inquired why the rezoning request to Service Commercial if the.proponent did not own it. Mr. George stated Covenant Living Centers does now own it and desire having the Service Commercial zoning with development subject to city review and approve The planner suggested, with the information that the small lot is now owned by Covenant Living Centers, that it not be rezoned until a use is proposed and therefore recomen• tion 44 in the staff report should be deleted. Beaman inquired which financing of the project would be the most benefit to the city. The planner stated the staff is presently unsure because the proponents have not decide on which financing they will have. Mr. George stated they would soon decide and infol the city. Tom Bartel, EP News, asked if the Metropolitan Council has control over the approval of the project. The planner stated the Metro Council with its Health Board makes a recommendation on the "Certificate of Need" to the State and the State,considering thei recommendation, has final approval. Motion: Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend approval of the rezoning request for Tudor Oaks from Rural to RM 2.5 and RM 6.5 based upon the Covenant Living Centers-Mn. Inc., development stage application dated 1-31-77, including: A. Phase 1 - 240 apartment units service and common facilities 60 bed skilled care health center Phase 2 - 96 apartment units Phase 3 - 60t duplex/quadraplex units Phase 4 - 60 nursing care beds and support services B. Reserving the remaining 22± acres of Purgatory Floodplain for open space uses consistent with the standards of the Purgatory Creek Study. • - r _ . -a. • • • .approved Planning Commission Meeting -6- Feb. 28, 1977 C. Refine the Jan. 7, 1977 site plan to reflect the US 169/212 access requirements illustrated schematically by figure 1 in the Feb. 25, 1977 staff report. D. Urge support of the Covenant Living Center-Mn.Inc. , Tudor Oaks Eden Prairie development before the Health Planning Agencies and Metropolitan Council. E. Recommend the 2t acre site requested to be zoned Service Commercial remain Rural. The motion carried 3:1 with Beaman voting nay because no clarification was given on the taxes and effect involved. • • 4 QaS • • • Information Relating to Financing of Tudor Oaks - Eden Prairie Prepared for: Eden Prairie Planning Commission Prepared by: Reverend James Williams Prepared on: February 28, 1977 The financing of a retirement community can be approached in several ways. The purpose of this paper is to briefly outline the options being considered for Tudor Oaks - Eden Prairie and to appraise the Commission of our thinking with regard to those options. 1). In many states, projects such as the one being pro- posed are exempt from property taxes. It is our opinion that, based on case law, gaining such an exemption in Minnesota is not likely, therefore the most economically viable package in terms of costs to the elderly would include tax exempt long term financing. This tax exempt financing could come in the form of a privately placed mortgage or through a public bond offering. The former could cost approximately 1% more than the latter but is more convenient and easier to handle. Current rates on the private placement would • put our long term financing in the 7.75 to 8% range, while a public offering would probably be in the 7.5 to 7.75% range. Liability for property taxes is required in order to qualify for tax exempt financing in Minnesota. 2). If the property were not on the tax roll, the project would be conventionally financed through the private placement or public offering of taxable instruments. This alternative is most favorable to the residents, in that long term costs are established at the outset and are not subject to upward revision over the years, which provides relative service charge stability even in the face of inflation. 3). Recognizing that there may be a reasonable middle ground which keeps the project contributing taxes and allows greater access to the program by a broader economic base 4121 • page 2 Financing of Tudor Oaks - Eden Prairie of the area's elderly, Covenant Living Centers - Minnesota, Inc. is proposing to petition appropriate governmental bodies for a tax abatement agreement which would benefit both the residents of the project and the community during the start up phases of the operation. On this basis, Tudor Oaks could be financed through the •• � use of tax exempt instruments while facing a somewhat reduced tax liability, which makes the cost of delivering program and services more reasonable. Other projects in the Covenant Living Group are exempt from pro- perty taxes, and have been conventionally financed utilizing the underwriting capacity of Francoeur and Co.,Inc., a Chicago - based investment banking firm. Francoeur and Company has agreed to provide whatever financing Tudor Oaks - Eden Prairie may need, either conventional or tax exempt. Negotiations are currently underway with Dain, Kalman, and Quail to serve as co-underwriters in providing long term funding. In the past twelve months, Francoeur and Company has funded $12.5 million in financing commitments for other Covenant Living Group projects. Under any of the above financing programs, construction would be able to proceed as planned during the Summer of 1977. yi30 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director DATE: February 25, 1977 PROJECT: Tudor Oaks-Eden Prairie APPLICANT: Covenant Living Centers-Minnesota, Inc. LOCATION: Area H, Preserve Commercial Plan. Southwest quadrant of 169/Schooner Blvd. intersection. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS a. PUD development stage request for Tudor Oaks-Eden Prairie, 1-31-77 b. Area H development stage request. 3.1-76 PUD concepts. c. Ordinance 340, 1st reading approved 9-7-76 rezoning Area H to • C-Reg-Ser E Floodplain. N d. Brief Overview Proposed Life Care Retirement Community in MCA Eden Prairie, 9-1-76. e. Revised site plans for Tudor Oaks, Eden Prairie 2-7-77. f. City Council Resolution 1207, A Resolution Supporting The Concept Of The Life Care Retirement Living Center. g. Evaluation of the effectiveness of congregate housing for the elderly, HUD 9-76. h. Letter from Lee Johnson, Preserve 12-9-76, concerning access agreements to property. INTRODUCTION The 1-31-77 development stage and rezoning request is complete and explains the life care concept and development plan. Eight reference sources represent previous City actions and background information which the staff has used in formulating its recommendations, the staff will only deal with questions not answered that are unique to this application. TAX IMPACT AND STATUS Two tax status alternatives have been discussed; tax exempt with a service contract payed to the City or taxed as non-homestead property. The tax status is not a City decision but is dependent upon State and County interpretation. , j Staff Report - Tudor Oaks -2- Feb. 2S/77 s ACCESS/CIRCULATION The revised site plan 2-7-77 illustrates an access from U.S. 169 less 1 than 150 feet from the Schooner Blvd and 169 intersection. The Preserve r and the City engineer agreed to the following access restricts for Area H S as outlined in the 12-9-76 letter from Lee Johnson, Vice President Preserve. 1 "3. If a development plan is submitted for Area H showing all commercial use or a combination use of Covenant Living Center and commericial on the Schooner Blvd. - 169 intersection, then a ROW corridor dedication up to 60' wide shall be located by Preserve design to provide for a loop connection between Schooner Blvd., and a full access intersection to Highway 169 approximately 600' or less south of the Area F intersection to 169." Figure 1 illustrates the changes in the Covenant Living Center-Minnestoa Inc. revised site plan necessary to comply with the US/169 access requirements. FIGURE 1 - . ''<% V�r0 \ \ FICIUVr • • A r_t, � / �C t\\ \-, DO �, r •S ' gA �' Sn9 - . ....:::.-" V/\ \<-A051' \ -R3Ct6) .,$,.. \sts, ; E7' 1. if--:.,! i tj6 ) 4 •0(, �' t�,/ -�. i•''t� cars ' •C �='.5,1 L: i t \ l' . .s.-.. i t"� T a:: i�ir[ ...:a t `\ "KILLED CAR .4- , / / .,,.. \ .40.44 ee./' '.-"D ////,‘";/" . v0012c3A-t3opzropoppiza:Arstita_lape ,./AD-)4,0:.. ..,../..k, • atis' 410 urn 4 k,`' • /DIY • Staff Report - Tudor Oaks -3- Feb. 25/77 SITE DESIGN ' The schematic site plan utilizes the site features to define the building R'' types, apartment core services on the hill near Schooner Blvd. and the lower density units west of the tree line near the floodplain. The plan is not a finalized site plan and will be refined to reflect specific individual building design and street layouts. FIGURE 2 • • • . i, _ — ..---- -ci,) \., -t,,, \ • • . Ell- -- ) ;• cpsii \ \ ,,,-';— • . • • [ ttitiG�:vK'1 lj�ryM �` r ' -.) _.,.../7-: ,-, ' 'N, .Jr. _„„. • _ ...., .... . , . , , , . , sy, .1, „ , ,.,. . ..u,?2„,.. ...0._ . • - t's 1-j,..: 1-..-' Li .,''j • ..1.117-'7. '''''.:441‘eltL4444%. 4.' ''',. '\. , s • a � /t ' t it t L Cii /%j /• -......,....s...L........ .w. 'N!...t,li'sii.:*4 Cfj.---7-.*.77-------.."-.-- / \\,.,...„..../ L \' t tl� /r • 3 s. s. �- ...Y...... • Staff Report - Tudor Oaks -4- Feb. 25/77 CONCLUSIONS The Covenant Living Center-Minnesota Inc. approach to housing for retired people is different from those provided in the Metropolitan area. A study • of congregate elderly housing facilities published September 1976 for HUD • concludes;.the research results presented in the preceding sections all converge in the overwhelming conclusion that congregate housing does indeed effectively meet the needs of its elderly residents. Furthermore. it appears to improve their "quality of life," by helping counteract the social isolation, by providing improved housing for a low income sector, by staving off unnecessary and premature institutionalization, and by providing a humane invironment to grow old in. Congregate housing accommodates to residents' individual lifestyles and allows a large measure of freedom of movement, discretion, and privacy. There are notably few rules and regulations to restrict residents' activity. In other words, the elderly congregate residents generally are treated as independent individuals, and are not subjected to humiliating protective or restrictive policies. Futhermore, congregate facilities provide consumers with the services they require as they need them. Thus residents themselves can match their needs with appropriate levels of care. Until residents decide to use them, services are relatively unobstrusive. This arrangement permits residents to exercise discretion regarding their service utilization, thereby functioning as a highly sensitive service delivery mechanism. Therefore, as a final conslusion, congregate housing is highly useful for a broad spectrum of elderly with • an accompanying array of needs. It effectively provides the elderly with shelter and services once they no longer want to live independently, and before their physical capabilities decline to the point of needing constant surveillance and intensive health care.a The Major Center Area Plan encouraged the type of development proposed by Covenant Living Center-Minnesota Inc. in it's description of land uses. "Residential units are a must for any viable downtown area. Today major cities are attempting to integrate housing in close prox- imity to their downtowns. The MCA will attempt to do this by locating medium to high density housing in close proximity to other high density urban uses, while maintaining contact with the high amenity areas which surround the MCA.... Housing units themselves will most likely be of a speciality nature, appealing to age groups other than the typical suburban family. These may include housing for the elderly and housing for the over-50 "empty nester", or housing for singles and young married couples." Major Center Area Report July, 1973 page 74. 14134 • • Staff Report - Tudor Oaks -S- Feb. 25/77 The Tudor Oaks, Eden Prairie concept of a multi use center is consistent with the goals of the MCA...,'the ability to integrate within single structures or between adjacent sites, a variety of uses is highly desirable. The creation of semi self sufficient clusters is encouraged, as it would reduce the internal traffic generation on the Ring Route and feeder auto systems, while providing efficient commercial, residential and office services. Special design and zoning considerations as well as site and building plan requirements for mixed clusered projects with the MCA is recommended." Major Center Area Report July, 1973 page 77. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the rezoning request from Rural to RM 2.5 based upon the Covenant Living Center, Minnesota Inc. development stage application dated.1-31-77 including: Phase I - 240 apartment units - service and common facilities* - 40 bed skilled care health center Phase II - 96 apartment units 60*- duplex/quadraplex units 90 nursing care beds and support services 2. Reserve the remaining 22t acres of Purgatory Floodplain for open space uses consistent with the standards of the Purgatory Creek Study. 3. Refine the Janauary 7, 1977 site plan to reflect the U.S. 169/212 access requirements illustrated schematically by.figure 1. 4. Rezone from Rural to C-Regional Servcie Commercial the 2t acre site with review and approval for the site development plan by the Planning Commission. 5. Urge support of the Covenant Living Center-Minnesota Inc., Tudor Oaks Eden Prairie developement before the Health Planning Agencies and Metropolitan Council. „Limited Commercial/office use are included in the CLC-MI application and are included in the recommended common facilities and services. DP:md • u13S • • • • approved • Planning Commission Minutes -8- i Feb. 14, 1977 V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS A. Tudor Oaks , by Covenant Living Centers-Mn.Inc., request to rezone from Rural to RM 2.5, RM 6.5 and Service Commercial Area H of The Preserve Commercial Plan for an elderly health care retirement development. The site is located in the southwest quadrant of US 169 and Schooner Boulevard. W. Elliot George, project coordinator, stated Covenant Living Centers-Eden Prairie is not a nursing home but a retirement complex of self care units, businesses, recreation and one wing of health care rooms. He stated the buildings will occupy 1/2 of the a5 acre site and the remainder , which is in floodplain, they hope to develop some ype of recreational uses for the residents. Sorensen asked if all of Area H would be purchased for this project. Mr. George stated 2 acres would remain in The Preserve's control for commercial. Sorensen informed Mr. George the commission had already viewed a presentation of the project and the •planner has keep them abreast of recent governmental reviews. Mr. George informed the commission they have once again submitted the project for approval to the Metro Council Health Board. • Motion: Fosnocht moved, Pauly seconded, to continue the item to the commission's Feb. 28th meeting for a staff report. The motion carried unanimously. April 5, 1977 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.77-39 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRAIRIE • .EAST 3RD ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of PRAIRIE EAST 3RD ADDITION , dated March 28, 1977 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: 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 Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • 1113GA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services A. i RE: Prairie East 3rd Additon DATE: March 28, 1977 1 On Monday, March 21, 1977 the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission took the following action after considering the attached staff report: MOTION "Kingrey moved that the Commission identify the corner parcel as the neighborhood park site chosen, and that the Commission request the Council consider the use of the park fee for special assessment purposes vs. the use of general funds or some other type of .reimbursement for special assessment and also request that the staff secure advice regarding protective covenant, whereby the terms of the contract for deed may be extended to meet the secured park fee. Anderson seconded. Motion carried, with Choiniere casting the dissenting vote." The discussion and action speaks to two points: 1. Approval of the location of the playground site to service this part of the City so that the Hustad Plat can be approved as to meeting the Park and Rec, needs in that area, 2. Raising the question of what should be eligible costs for land acquisition and development using the CASH PARK FEE. You'll note that Table 1 on page 2 of the Staff Report spells out all costs associated with the acquisition of this site. The Commission does not now feel that the money raised by the CASH PARK FEE should be used to pay assessments and request that you consider this policy question. The February 1976 MEMO, which served as the basis upon which you adopted Ordinance No. 332 (CASH PARK FEE/LAND DEDICATION), discussed those items included in land acquisition and minimal development. Then, we spoke to acquisition costs including purchase price and assessments for improve- ments in the land (i.e. sewer, water, and streets). Also at that time it was contemplated that park facility development would not be financed out of CASH PARK FEE proceeds. The attached, unapproved, minutes of the Commission meeting describe the discussion which took place and their current thinking on the matter, refer to the amended motion at the bottom of page four of the attached minutes. L/13(.6 • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Hustad's Prairie East Proposal--Identification.of a Neigborhood Playground Site in the area DATE: March 18, 1977 BACKGROUND The Neighborhood Facilities Study identified the need for one of the J11 neighborhood playground sites in the community to be located in the vicinity of Franlo Road and and Co. Road 1. Consistent with this Hustad in the First and Second Additions of Prairie East has been paying the $275.00 per lot Cash Park Fee to provide for such a site. Mr. Hustad has now brought before the City Prairie East Third Addition on which he again proposes payment of the Cash Park Fee. Prior to going too much further it is necessary for us to identify precisely which land it is that the City wishes to acquire for a neighborhood playground site and set it aside through an option or contract for deed or some other mechanism. • SITE CONSIDERATIONS Enclosed is a copy of the proposed lotting layout for this area. Two sites are well suited for the neighborhood playground, the first site lying south of Nottingham Road to the intersection of Franlo and Co. Road 1, the second lying just north of Nottingham Road and surrounding the two pond areas. Each consists of approximately 17-18 acres. Each appears to contain an adequate amount of land suitable for intensive recreational facility development i.e. ballfields, skating, tennis courts, etc. Both sites contain adequate road frontage for easy access and maximum site utilization for recreational purposes. One of our problems in other sites has been the relationship between the park area and the back yards which abut it when street frontage is not provided. In addition to the road access, trailways are proposed to be constructed along Franlo Road and Nottingham Road that non-motorized access would be easily attained. The service area for this site as identified in the Neighborhood Facilities Study would include land lying south of County Road 1 and would reach as far north as the Preserve's southern boundary and mini-park area. Locating the playground site at the intersection of the road would provide adequate service for the land lying south of Co. Road 1 in the Bluff's East Area with the exception of the need for some small scale mini-park areas. If the site is moved further north to the location surrounding the pond, the distances increase sufficiently so that there may be a need to provide one additional neighborhood playground site south of County Road 1. 413GC Hustad's Prairie East Proposal -2- COST The Cash Park Fee is intended to provide adequate revenues to acquire neighbor- hood playground land and improvements in the land i.e. special assessments for road frontage, utilities, etc, but not to pay for the development of facilities. We estimated as a general rule of thumb that a site of 15-20 acres would cost in the order of $250,000 for the land and improvements therein. This $250,000 included contingency of approximately 15%. The cost estimated for the two potential sites are as follows: TABLE I Site Acres Land Cost Asssesamentr S Water$1 600/acre oot$20/front Lateral Sewer f000t8 Water Total Intersection 37 $153,000 $27,200 $16,000 $21,000 $215,200 Pond 18.5 $157,250 $29,600 $20,000 $30,000 $236,850 Mr. Huatad has indicated that he feels either site has a value of approximately$215,000. • FUNDING While there is no specific requirement in the Cash Park Fee Ordinance for spending the monies for acquisition of land in the areas in which they are collected, I did in the process of developing the Cash Park Fee Ordinance discuss repeatedly the concept of allocating the money for expenditure to the areas in which it is collected. You may recall, I suggested that the City attempt to acquire property in development areas at the earliest possible date under contracts for deed or other land holding mechanisms so that the land could be acquired at the lowest possible price and and paid for over a period of years as the money came in as development occured. Using this asssumption, the following funding would be available for park acquisition in this area: TABLE II Property Development Type Units CASH PARK FEE Prairie East Single Family 300 $82,500 Multiple 320 $64,000 Finholt (26 acres) Single Family 52 $14,300 McConnell/Tucker Single Family 60 $16,500 130 acres) Listberger (15 acres) Multiple 90 $18,000 Olympic Hills (10 acre)Multiple 60 $12,000 882 $206,300 4134D Hustad's Prairie East Proposal -3- Table II Continued Land So. of I served by this site is about 300f acres. If it all developed as single family at 2 units/acre, then an additional fee of $165,000 will be available. CONCLUSION Development activity in this part of town necessitates identification of the parcel which should be acquired for neighborhood park usage. I would suggest that the Commission designate the corner parcel on Co. Road 1 and Franlo Road as identified on the attached drawing for that purpose and and recommend to the City Council that this parcel be acquired at the earliest possible date beginning with an appraisel of the value of the property by an independent real estate appraiser and proceeding through negotiations on a contract for deed for purchase with the payments to correspond to the collection of the Cash Park Fee as generally summarized in table II. • Page Teo Minutes - Parks, Rec. and Natural Pa B Resources Commission 'Unapproved March 21, 1977 • Voyen spoke to public hearing, conclusion (whether or not to purchase), community input from citizens, decision to proceed or not, and presentation to the Metro Council. Jessen said the Staff will consider question and look at potential B zone in greater detail, and put into perspective with the A zone, along with Busted and Browning and Ferris Co.. • s Upton asked whether there were any buildings in the B zone? Jensen answered that ,there was a possibility of maybe one home. Upton inquired about the land topography. Jessen responded that the westerly part was high,then it drops downward. Anderson asked for a couple of examples of what they mean by low recreation use. Voyen responded that probably the trail use would be appropriate, and also a golf course, which would be good examples of low density, non-spectator use. In response to questions about other land involved in this plan, such as land to the west of Co. Rd. 4, Voyen said there were several areas in the process of planning at the present time, and that allpxeceasa3 have to be meshed together to get to the same place at the same time to arrive at the conclusions. Be was sure a study would be made and they will have a look at these approaches. Voyen added that all agencies, State and City should study the issue and cooperate on the timing. Kingrey asked when the deadline was. Voyen responded that hopefully the public hearing will be in June, and that it will have been considered by all City advisory groups, endorsed by the Council, and entered in the public hearing. )ingrey inquired whether they were likely to convey to somebody else zone B, so that it would be a landlocked parcel. Voyen answered that it is outside of the approach area and that there would be access through another direction, and added that the City might want to address that concern. MOTIOII:Kingrey moved to receive MAC presentation by Mr. Jim Voyn, and to direct the Staff to study the question and come back with a report. Retterath seconded. Motion ' carried unanimously. 2. Development Proposals a. Prairie East Jessen spoke to increased single family home building activity in the Irairie East III section, extending south from current portion. He said of the two sites identified in the neighborhood facility study, the pond site and inner section site, the Staff is suggesting the inner site as the best recoimmendation, Be spoke to pg. 2 of Staff memo dated March 18, 1977, referring to cash park fee figures, and where $206,300, plus another possible $165,000 was anticipated, and which would provide adequate money for sewer and water assessments for the lots. Ho spoke to tho 17 acres, which would bo reviewed with the School Board and Administration as to whether it would • 41214. • Minutes - Parks, Rec. and Natural Page Three Resources Commission Unapproved March 21, 1977 fit into elementary school concept, and the City could enter into a purchase agreement so there would be no development pressure. • Upton asked about the lot assessments. Jessen explained that the City and developer each will pay for half of the assessments of sewer and water. Jim Ostenson, Huatad Developers, spoke to activity in the smaller lot area, of which there were sixty lots and they expect them to be sold out soon. He continued that they were in the process of platting 85 more lots and anticipate a good two year cycle. He said they have generated about 5% of the cash prrk fees and anticipate about 300 lots built out in about three years. Kingrey asked if Nottingham Street presented a problem as to traffic. Jessen answered negative, there would be good access to the site, with bike trails put in for easy non-motorized access. Ostenson added that the County has put a moratorium on using Co. Rd. 18 as an access, ! and they must now use Co. Rd. 1. He spoke to the Finholt property, which he said would not be developed within the next two or three years. Kingrey asked whether it was possible to addaprotective covenant, in case development of cash park fees does not come in time for payments. Jessen agreed to confer with City Attorney Perbix to work out some arrangement protecting the City, and yet being fair to developer. Choiniere expressed his opposition to the use of the cash park fee to pay for special assessments because the Ordinance did not state that this could be done, and he felt it would destroy the purpose of the cash park fees. Jessen explained the front footage involved will be directly related to this site and the property has all been assessed for sewer and water at 0.,600 per acre. lie added that the Ordinance does not speak specifically to assessment, but it is improve- ment to the land. He said it provides the City with an opportunity to acquire the site it wants, spreading the cost for all who would benefit from it. Kingrey agreed with Choiniere in theory, but was concerned that the City would not have this money in the general fund. Choiniere felt very strongly that another method to pay for the special assessments must bo used. Anderson suggested presenting it to the Council and requesting a legal interpretation of the question. Jessen spoke to a suggestion he had proposed to be included in the general fund bud- get, which would include a "sinking fund" for this kind of situation, but it was turned down. Choiniere asked how many homes could be put in 17 acres. Ostenson responded the density per acre was 2.5. MDTION:Kingroy moved that the Commission identify the corner parcel as the neighbor- hood perk site chosen, and that the Commission request the Council consider the use of the park fee for special assessment purposes vs. the use of general funds or some other • Minutes - Parks, Rec. and Page Four Natural Resources Commission Unapproved March 21, 1977 type of re—imbursement for special assessment and also request that the Staff secure advice regarding protective covenant, whereby the terms of the contract for deed may be extended to meet the secured park fee. Anderson seconded. Motion carried, with Choiniere casting the dissenting vote. Choiniere felt the language of the motion was not clear enough and asked for clarification. Kingrey said the intent was not to use the park fee for special assessments, what is their interpretation of the Ordinance, and what other options are available. Jessen commented that he felt it was a cost that should be associated with this property, because some property has been bought without assessments, and was in favor of paying for it on a long term financing plan such as a five year contract for deed with an eighteen year payment. Commission members discussed further the assessment question, with Kingrey commenting on general improvements•and general assessments vs. special assessments of benefit to the site by improving that property. Erickson called the question. •. Jessen asked for point of information on whether Staff should proceed as per recommen— dation of Staff report. Kingrey responded that the identification of the site should be carried out, but felt the appraisal and securing of contract should be delayed. Anderson commented that he agreed with Choiniere, but felt that Kingrey was speaking specifically, and that we should speak in general that we are concerned with what is down the line, and that we should not use park fee money for special assessments. Jessen rend Ordinance 332 for the purpose of identifying direction. It spoke to acquisition of land, development of land, and retirement of debt. he added that he felt that assessment is a legitimate improvement to the land. MOTION:Anderson moved that the Commission recommends that assessment fees on the land aro not to be taken from the park cash fee. Upton seconded. Choiniere requested amendment to the motion of:"as per Ordinance 332 . It is the understanding of the Commission that the cash park fees are to be used for the acquisition and physical development of the park site." Anderson accepted amendment, Upton seconded. Iotion carried unanimously. Choiniere commented that the Ordinance spoke to development of the area, but not to the improvoment of the area. Jessen responded that in the series of Staff reports dealing with the cash park fee issue and in the process of developing the fee, we talked about land acquisition and improvements made in the land in developing the ultimata site, (Feb. 1976), and spoke to this action taken by this Commission. AMENDED MOTION:Anderson moved that the Commission recommends that assessment fees on the land are not to be taken from the park cash fee as per Ordinance 332. It is the understanding of the Commission that the cash park fees are to be used for the ac— quisition and physical development of the park site. We recommend that the Council resolve a method in which the special assessment type assessments might be reimbursed from other sources. Upton seconded, motion carried unanimously. q MI Minutes - Parks, Rec. and Page Five Natural Resources Commissission Unapproved March 21, 1977 Choiniere asked what the per.acre rate was in that area. Jessen responded that the City has not appraised that kind of land in five years, and for the Bake of discussion, he felt it may be about $9,000. He that at added atthis point, there are enough revenues in the cash park fee to pay for this B. 1. Forestry Program 1977 Jessen spoke to recent meeting held about this question and feels it is a good idea to involve young people of the community. He said we are currently being considered along with Edina, and possibly Richfield, by the Tree Trust. He added that we will provide the land, and we feel that the Horeb property at Bryant Lake would be a good facility for this purpose because we have people on the site. He continued that he felt the cost would be very minimal to us because of our situation, and that the approximate cost would be about :19,400, mainly for purchase of 820 trees. He said we could not match that price any- where else. Choiniere asked whether we could keep the trees. Jessen answered affirmative, and that each commenity provides their own trees. He spoke to the memo of March 18, and to the fact that Edina would provide supp1ies and tools, while Richfield would provide the labor. MOTION:Anderson moved to recommend to the Council that Staff recommendations in memo of March 18, 1977 regarding the Forestry Program 1977 be accepted. Upton seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Fifield left at 9:10 P19. IV.A. Land For snle Alone Riley Creek Jessen apoke to the land for sale, which included a major chunk of prepezi'y and nearly the whole creek valley. He said that the Joe Seared dedication in the Cedar Forest development ties in with the present land for sale. He said it was mag- nificent property. Commission members expressed concern for the creek bed, presently used by the Hidden Valley Stable, and requested that Jessen contact the Watershed District to see if anything could be done about the condition. MOTION:Erickson moved to receive the communication and direct that Jessen set up tour date, so he could cou unicate this to the owner. Anderson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. V.A. 1. City limited tern of softball fields -hinrreY Kingrey snid it was brought to his attention that we are woefully lacking in softball fields and they are poorly developed and maintained. .He asked the Staff to identify fields that are available in the City, who operates those fields, whether time may be available before softball'season to utilize fields for prac- tice or games, and if there is any possiblility that we can got maintenance help. Jessen responded that tho City is in the process of screening 280 applicants for maintenance help, along with some now equipment, and available time to take care of some of these problems. • • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 28, 1977 IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Prairie East Third Addition, by Hustads, request to preliminary plat and rezone 50 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately 80 single family lots. The site is located west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd Additions. A continued public hearing. Mr. Robert Engtrom, Engstrom F, Associates, engineer for project, stated based upon the commission's comments from the previous meeting, Hustads and he revised the plat to address the road concerns and the parkland location has been iden- tified. He informed the commission that only 11, instead of the previous 19, lots now front on Nottingham Drive and the plat still contains 85 lots. Pauly inquired if all lots meet the 13.5 lot size requirement. Engstrom replied the average lot size is 13.8. Ostenson said he was unsure of the exact number of lots below 13.5. Sorensen inquired if the staff still believes additional area play space is needed as was discussed in the staff report. The planner replied the Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission did review the park location and did not suggest any additional. Sorensen believed small play areas are important in neighborhoods as small children are not allowed to travel the distance necessary to reach larger parks. Mr. Wally Hustad felt if small totlots, play.areas, etc., are required then homeowner associations would be required and they do not feel associations should be forced upon buyers . Mrs. Hustad stated many people do not like to buy into homeowner associations and the money market does not favor homeowner associations. Motion ]: Sundstrom moved, Schee seconded, to continue the item until the April 11, 1977 meeting when a full commission would be present. Discussion: Pauly believed the members present could make recommendations on projects . Vote: Motion failed 1:2:3 (Sundstrom-aye)(Pauly F, Lynch-nay)(Schee, Fosnocht and Sorensen-abstained) Pauly stated she still has concerns relative to the high percentage of lots below 13.5. Motion 2: Pauly moved, Fosnocht seconded,to close the public hearing on the Prairie East Third Addition preliminary plat. Motion carried 3:0:3 (Sundstrom, Sorensen and Schee abstained) Motion 3: Pauly moved, Schee seconded, to forward the Prairie East Third Addition to the City Council without a positive or negative recommendation from the commission but to convey their concerns that the following conditions have not been adequately solved: 1. 30% or more of the lots do not meet the 13.5 size. 2. Question of Nottingham Drive's classification as a collector and the possibility of higher volumes(800 to 1500) and subsequent problems. 3. The lack of definition of local play areas and routes to park. Motion carried 4:0:2 with Sorensen and Sundstrom abstaining. • t • Unapproved Planning Commission -3- March 14, 1977 B. Prairie East Third Addition, by Hustads, request to preliminary plat and rezone 50 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 85 single family lots. The site is located west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd Additions. 1 A continued public hearing. g Mr. Ostenson stated the plat has 85 lots with the average lot size being 13,200 square feet and the three outlots would be developed as follows: A-future single family, B-extension of PUD to north and C-future single family. Bearman inquired how many lots were below the 13,500 size. Ostenson estimated one-half of the lots. The planner referred the commission to the staff report and the concerns included therein relative to traffic, street capacity and lack of recreational space. He stated the planning staff is recommending redesign of the proposal. Rick Sather, McCombs-Knutson Engineers, engineers for the project, stated the PUD approval was for greater density than this proposal, that Linden Drive need not be a through street and disagrees with the traffic estimates contained in the staff report. Mr. Ostenson stated Hustads have worked with the Director of Community Services regarding park/play space for this entire area, but todate no recommendation has been made by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission . He said they intend to have a 12-15 acre park-site northeast of this project. He felt the road system contained in the staff report would be very costly and add an additional $1,000 / lot. Bearman inquired if the cash in lieu of land fee would be required. The planner replied affirmative. Bearman inquired if Hustads would be acceptable to Linden Drive having 60 foot right-of-way with 32 feet blacktop surface. Ostenson felt it may be possible. ' • • Fosnocht asked if the proponent would like more time to further work-out the design with the staff. Ostenson replied he did not believe the engineering depart- ment has any disagreements and additional meetings may not resolve the differences with the planning department. Motion 1: Bearman moved, Schee seconded, to close the public hearing on the Prairie East Third preliminary plat. The motion carried unanimously. Motion 2: Bearman moved, Schee seconded, to recommend denial of the request of the planned unit development request to be included with the Prairie East PUD based upon: 1. 30% or more of the lots do not meet the ordinance. 2. question of Nottingham Drive's classification as a collector and the possibility of higher volumes (800 to 1500)and subse- quent problems. 3. the lack of location and definition of play / recreational areas. Motion carried unanimously. Motion 3: Bearman moved, Schee seconded, to withdrawn the first motion closing the public hear- ing and to continue the hearing to the March 28th meeting for redesign if the proponent desires returning. Motion carried unanimously. (j;: 'f I • • • roed Planning Commission Meeting -6- app Feb.v 28, 1977 G. Prairie East Third Addition, by Hustads, request to preliminary plat and rezone 50 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 85 single family lots. The site is located west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd additions. A continued public hearing. The planner reported the staff report will be completed by the following meeting. Motion: Bearman moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue the public hearing to the commission's 1. March 14th meeting and recommend the council set a public hearing at their convenience as the commission believes they will have a recommendation from the March 14th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. • • • • • • • • • • Vie 4 • • • • • . approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- Feb, 14, 1977 F. Prairie East Third Addition, by Hustads. Request to preliminary plat and rezone SO acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 85 single family lots. The site is located west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd Additions. A continued public hearing. • Mr. Enger informed the commission no report has been completed todate. He added the request is for small lots and setbacks. • Mr. Jim Ostenson stated the lot sizes range from 10,500 to 16,000 and the variances/ setbacks are similar to Prairie East 2nd Addition. He referred the commission to Hustad's letter dated Feb. 9, 1977 which requests a pud status for the project. Mr. Hustad stated he believes the project's park dedication is solved by the $300/lot fee charged by the city. - Motion: Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue the public hearing to the commission's Feb. 28th meeting. The motion carried unanimously. • • • • • 4,39 A • • • approved Planning & Zoning Commission -8- Jan. 24, 1977 E. Prairie East Third, by Hustad. Request to preliminary plat and rezone SO acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 88 single family lots. The site is located west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd Addition. Jim Ostenson presented the proposal which is located south of Prairie East Second. He stated the 3 outlots would be developed at a later date. He stated the trees would create a buffer between the project and Co. Rd. 18. Bearman inquired where Noble Lane would gb. Ostenson was unsure as it is not owned by Hustads. Sorensen asked for the net area of the plat. Ostenson estimated 35 acres. Sorensen then asked for the average lot size. Ostenson stated he had not yet computed the average. Motion: Lynch moved, Bearman seconded, to continue the public hearing to the Feb. 14th meeting and direct staff to prepare a report and recommendations. The motion carried unanimously. • • • 41L10 . • ` CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENTS DATE: 3/11/77 DEVELOPMENT: PRAIRIE EAST 3RD ADDITION L.D. NO. 77-P-01,Z-01 LOCATION: East of Co. Road 18 and north of Pioneer Trail REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS ZONING AGREEMENT: None • RES. #. DEVELOPER: Rusted Development Corp. ENGINEER/FLAMN R. McCombs-Knutson Assoc., Inc. DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOP. REVIEW: Preliminary Plat, Prelim. grading and drainage plan and prelim. utilities plan. • PROPOSAL: Developer's requesting PUD approval, rezoning to R1-1.35 with__ standard setback variances, lot size and density variance and preliminary plat approval. 1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid Yes application forwarded to Watershed District Yes Copy of • 2. Processing Schedule: • a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary b. Park & Recreation Commission c. Human Rights Commission d. Planning Commission Public urg. 3/14/77 (cont'd.) e: City Council consideration f. Watershed District 3. Type of Development i Single family detached residential 85 lots plus 3 outlots - 4. Environmental assessment or impact statement required per Environmental Impact Policy Act of 1973: No • 141111 • • 2 5. Present Zoning Rural • b. Proposed Zoning R1-13.5 Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes • List variances required & setbacks that apply: Standard P.U.D. setback variances, variance from 13,500 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2 units/ac maximum density. 40' front yard setback is recommended on Nottingham Dr. 7. Project Area 233.5 ac. Density 2.53 U/ac for S.F. area • ' O. Public open space and/or cash dedication $275 per lot cash dedication • Private open space _ None proposed • Trail systems & 'sidewalks Proposed along west side of Linden Dr. and south or Nottingham Dr. Range of lot sizes 10,000 to 27,000 sq. ft. 9. Preliminary Building Plans None submitted 10. Representative Soil Borings More submitted - general soil type is sandy clay 11. Street System . A. Access to adjoining properties Future development potential for Outlot A is doubtful. Suggest Outlot A and C be dedicated as open space and drainage retention. B. Type R/W Roadway (Back to Back of Curb) • Private driveways, no 24 . parking Post no parking signs • Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28. Required (not over 1000') & minor residential eel do sacs 100 78 (no island) 120 98 (with island) Thru Residential. (collectors) & Cul de sacs over 1000' 60 32 Required for Nottingham Drive • plus 4' concrete sidewalks on both sides. *Nottingham Drive will fundtion as a neighborhood collector, with traffic volumes , potentially in excess of 1500 trips per day, depending upon the future use of Co. Rd. 18 and the proposed connection of Linden Drive to the Garrison Forest project. Therefore, a 60' R/W 32' streott and sidewalks on both sides is recommended. Also, % recommended is an extra 10' setback for lots fronting on Nottingham Dr. • - 3 - NSA 70 44 Parkway 100 28 divided Fire Road 12 • Pathways 12 6 Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5% • Concrete curb & gutter required, Required • Deep strength asphalt design 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. Changes required as discussed with developer S. Private parking lots--86-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design N/A F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs Developer purchase - City installs 12. Parking: (See Ord. 0141) N/A . 13. Utility Systems: A'. Sanitary Sewer O.K. Before final platting, establish floor elevation for • building sites to assure proper elevation for sewer hookup. 1. Service Detail Also, eliminate manholes in back yard areas 2. Service to adjoining property O.K. • B. Watermain: Service to cul-de-sac lots west of Linden is CREhRrsome, Review and possibly re-design when final utility plans are prepared 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K. 2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector 3. Valving 4. Compliance with fire code 5. Service to adjacent property O.K. 41143 - 4 - Major grading (12' S cut) is required on.NOttingham Dr. at K C. Storm Sewer & Grading, ..._._. .. _ --- - Sherwood Lane. Other grading to be required is reasonably moderate 1. Sediment control plan Required for final utility and road consernetion plans 2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots N/A 3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Outlet A will be a pondina area with an overflow elevation of 845. 4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal O.K. • • 5. Arrows showing drainage O.K. • 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 Block drainage back yard and steep f slopes 3Storm sewer pipe should be extended throug 9. Flood plain encroachment None 10. Watershed District approval Required - permits required for utility and road construction. 11. DNR approval Not required D. Natural Gas & Telephone Proposed E. Electric (underground) Proposed 14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting To be installed by City upon petiton by developer or homeowner. Homeowners would be billed $10-$15 per year. 15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MilD or Henn. Co. if abutting a State or County Hwy. Henn. Co. comments attached 16: List special assessments levied and pending Levied: #6452, Trunk sewer & water $63,376 Pending: Trunk sewer & water, $16,900 17. Re-zoning agreement required Yes Developer's Agreement required Yes Title Abstract for At:torney's review Not required a • HENNEPIN COUNTY SAFETY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS RELATING TO PRAIRIE EAST III 1. Additional 17' of right-of-way should be dedicated, as shown on Plat. • 4: Access from Plat to Co. Rd. 18 should be limited to Linden Drive. 3. Access from Plat to Co. 418 also includes access'for any future development on either Outlot B or C. • 4. Recommend construction of bypass lane for Co. #18 north- • bound traffic at proposed Linden Drive intersection. S. An entrance permit is required before construction of Linden Drive. 6. Any replotting of either Outlot B or C must be submitted to the County Engineer for comment. 7. Provisions for noise abatement should be considered for all areas adjacent to Co. Rd. 18. • • • • �1145 • • i STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission • PROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director DATE: February 25, 1977 PROJECT: Prairie East 3rd Addition APPLICANT: Hustad Development Corporation REQUEST: 1. Rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 - 12/30/67 2. Preliminary Plat for 88 lots - 12/30/76 3. Amendment to Original Request Submitted 2/9/77 - Requesting PUD Concept Plan for 50 Acres REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1. Prairie East PUD Concept, 4/23/73 2. Bluffs Sector Study - Unapproved Concept Plan, 4/73 3. Prairie East 2nd Addition Replat, 5/21/74 4. Prairie East 3rd Addition Application Graphics,1/21/77 S. Prairie East PUD Request, Letter W. Hustad, 2/9/77 6. Prairie East Rezoning $ PUD Concept Information, 2/24/77 BACKGROUND • The developer, Hustad Development Corporation,submitted a PUD plan for 95 acres between Franlo Road and Co. Road 18 in April 1973. The plan approved (Fig. 1) incorporated single family lots, townhouses, and apartment units around a mini-park and trail system plan. The City Council approved Resolution No. 762 placing 14 conditions on the Prairie East PUD to be resolved as the plan and platting proceeded. May 4, 1974 the developer applied to the City for a rezoning and platting for the change in the 1973 PUD and to allow 64 clustered single family homes. The plan prepared by Robert Engstrom Association Incorporated minimum lot sizes of 7500 sq. ft. and a unique divided parkway road. Important elements of the plan were: (Fig. 2) 1. Enable single family house for under $40,000. 2. Redesigned road system to provide local collector between Franlo and Co. Road 18. 3. Playfield and trailway system similar to 1973 PUD. 4. Homeowners Association for maintenance and organization purposes. Prairie East 1st Addition; Prairie Estates was platted with 53 lots along Franlo Road in June of 1974. • • 41UG • >�„- � . +Tam=,=- - .-...mime FRANL ;...- . ... .:. . `a f J rtG:T • -Yf (( L L�Ik ti�+'A a+ �; .1 n • ' : V, ; ,.r. 7^r�- f• �,,s b� A st f i . t 'IA:, ...A.,-;--C+r4� +y� ` I 1 1�� i j� i 15 • tY r a + T�t � .*, t 1* L;... a 1 •; ��� :�^ �, ��a � 'fax .--ti, 1, , ti� Z�,•�i �' 1 ""—" try- L .a 5 )''7•'-;',:i.- +" . H----.1.-,..„........, _ :. . 1.• .-- - '': 4...'..'' '-.7';:...•''''' - : ' ...7.....:'....; ' .1.:1,.:...1 .,1 r. Y }s ''.-v' t'''.\ :.'—._.,,.•�' • f �J C � '^ ': ' ..fn twin`f \ y . /..*•„...te..,i'i :.':! • i }I v 3 n rya t I •Y ( • * .Y 'Y . r r,�.•.!`jii !' i i ZOO OZ 0 70 , f -1D m�fri o j • +, : � u �. , Obi'FN TAM(a .,, ff Z a—) i l • r •*, -t: 4 . t COUNTY., -..-RD.,98... . :--.Y ......_.. ___•_r___. ...w.e ,. ....c-.: .. 4I�7 . Staff Report -Prairie East 3rd -2- Feb. 25/77 April 1976 the developer applied to the City for a replat at Prairie East 2nd Addition (refer to Fig. 2) changing the "clustered lot concept" to typical single family lots of 80x125 and reducing the total lots from 64 to 60 - Fig. 3 illustrates the plat changes purposed. The pathway and mini park systems remained between the 1st Addition and the replat, however slightly smaller. The developer eliminated the Homeowners Association and asked the City to maintain the narrow pathway system in the rear yards. Figure 4 illustrates what was finally approved for Prairie East 2nd Addition, no rear yard pathways or "mini-parks" are included rather sidewalks and the cash park fee are used to meet the recreation needs of the residents. The current Prairie East 3rd application is located south of the original Prairie East PUD along Co. Road 18. The builder will be Windsor Development Corporation, who currently is building in the other Prairie East Additions. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Refer to February 24, 1977 three page memo from Hustad Development Corp. PLAN AREA IDENTIFICATION Refer to February 24, 1977 three page memo from Hustad Development Corp. PLAN PROPOSAL Traffic System The Plan for Prairie East 3rd Addition proposes Linden Drive's extension to County Road 18. The original plan and the 1974 revision (Fig. 2) planned a continuation of Linden Drive as a local resident collector street west to Franlo Road. Figure 5 illustrates the road patterns for the Prairie East area. The schematic plan represents a rough estimate of the assumed land uses and logical road patterns. A surveying and engineering firm prepared a traffic assignment based upon the total single family development which is in terms of trip generation very comparable to those in Figure V. The land uses which would use the east and west street ( shown in Figure V ) represents approximately 245 single family E 350 multiple units. Total traffic generated by those units might be expected to be approximately 4,000 trips / day A.D.T. That is assuming a 8-10 unit density on the multiple sites and approximately 211 units/acre for the single family area. The proponent's engineer estimates the east/west street would have approximately 700-800 trips / day . The staff believes that figure could be double depending upon decisions made by the developer and city. Those being the potentiPl for limited service commercial and/or school/ neigbhorhood park development west of Franlo Road, and secondly the density development along Linden Drive and Co. Rd. 18. Conceivably apartments or townhouses might be developed on this site and the developer can not predict that at this time. _ _' ,._�,f """...yet—_ .-+7':___I 1 .: I) • .s:*---ERANID. t4,1: ) ;,.....• • e'",..t.,.. :, i �, `� • p• / y/, �s j• .'` ►•.. a \♦ - ., .1 t-e. .. I;•i it � °•,, ; .� .._., ,," / �- . , 1. • • r ! ' . •,' v . 1,p . l c�, • ` -t\ / /. c, 8 ..,_ , Ike,\A _.,•: - r.)).i.4. ' :, ' ° . i. -� �..'. -, G� '\i tom'`_' 1 • • .p:>.- .::, \c • ♦%.--',:•,/-v, , \ '��l R"1. W a`'ram' '_ p� I'. s r \ U t ♦ V � A •Y\ / 1 to fa -; ,h, '.: • • 1 '---, •I CP• . , -. t ....i);",-!,, A.,'5. -, t.\:;;,...' ,,;.. '1 ‘„ - ,,,1 • i . ''' \ \1 .(/.• ... .1 il ' T \<) :c i .✓+: / •i. 1 • I 1 I{ ! . . - I 691 .1 ri , i\,,,,,,,,,/ \ *, ...0.4,...0'., s?...t, ',....)! .-yi..•.,;., fili \ \ ..- ..T" -x-,.. )111 A\ 1 if'.;i ,(' 1 j....‘ `-`,r , ' -S.--. •.\,,. 7. . , .N•11,e. ‘ . 0 -A 1.... I..././-r -,J /:-. 1"----41,747,,,,_* 4 --,..c '• ._ -,,H'. : ,,,..._! ,ji'll ,:-• a. 1 . i. ,... „„fAi..... \ /.. p_. \ of, ...z..„.......„ ..., ,. .. ......,:...::,-..,..7 .:.-- , :t., .9.4 ./, ) i .0.,.... ..,•11 ;27 / .,,, / l.if .--/-,---„f".:,\7\ , A ,, ,„......!„--.........:_ , ..4-4,.. 4.1:1 • 1 i • 70? /1 1 .,,..0,- /' 1 1 \' .... • 1-7'. , to...1/ •. / •:"` k t;..,:, i • ,..,.' '6 1; ZA_-...--.\,--44/1 , .,,/ 16 'If;'"I' 1.1' i'''''''''.:7S•.% -.\7 ,... ---7-7-1.4,, 7 / .: ". \:xr , .., \ -, -,-5 .1.-.7.0J . ( / .. , .• i i., ,••\.... .-'4,.,\,,. t. — : 1 ,_, , .. :.7...::...iiS\.)....,1 ,,‘,.:c.1;,c::., .„,_14 .•-,. I.vi •:()fars:....41.. :71 ,1:.11‘,:i.!:,•:::',..., 411 .......( 4' . ..1 1,1), '...... .\-:•\:':-..'7,\:' t. '..... .... . ""'' ''1:71' ;.:" '''r"f. 1-V.• .11,--;\ ://c1,-..- '-:Y5,I'f ''.:(77)Av.i..4-111111:-1-11‘11‘\•-_:°.•,-_,...11:‘'Ll;::'.>'-r:-/?>='4---„ ---- 11.:1::111,1=x-i14!-: ----",,,-:` ,-.k51--:-, ;i'`'‘'s ,<•:•,,11-.!:Is.f-, • i ''A)-,•,/e ••.%•,..••••'..a , •13',"N ""•.• i•-'4 t:". , - r"•\,I,Vg r) „; i !if-- ' -i -----' •::(f6-•C4-1'. „. "4'"Liz i\4C\''ZIILIX.:--„..1.1-..31 :--4.'7k:\A,A(-------0 0\)--tv,4::'') '-\....\; :11:4..::';5,7 : A :.4,\?, :,,,:„.., .4. t: '•• ---,,F2-4,\--,;:ky:,'),":.!,' f k..II ,.. \\..4: I If', ,;:\,,Ii 1—'. -...-:.; .7.7r.., ''''' A.:••,'...tr.'. ' / ci --N. . \ ..‘'. :• '::',I . .".,' , 'I, I,1-....„'l ' , ., i \ iP I 1 i• , \ , / 0 a 1.7t.1-.A...., —7-4:Lk,-L,1^-1c....1._$-,.......,,,41/ '44'1 .-.1,.........7,.. - ,I,l'-: (I. . -r ",--• • :: , , •• -,e• -4 J .4 ii 1.1,. •-.4 ,I,I • I -•L. • 7 . •-..... .,, t‘ 's,i,,41, .. ' 1.*•.J•11-..'• -..b...f-71,...:::_j:lj;.. 1 ' 1 .,:' , ,'., ,,,' .j....,,19k ! -..1.,. . / -7,4•••i - .. • .., i/. 1 \ 11.?„•1 '. "---!.:.A's' ' :`•;•1 - i--1-7,, :- --fnTTx-r--2.4 ' ''1:4 /.!:•,.. 1-1: ! -;-"i- /f.:Crl--;:,1 •'; :,/!/ .„. \ 1 • 1 1 ti - 'V:\i il i i il 1' 1 -(1 14' \ ' ' 11;111 ) .... _ ,, . ., ,..- --: ••;•,1-,--, :'-1,;-•••N--: ....,:,,. ,,......„ ..: 4 -., :::•- :: ;s • :,•, 1,...,-.+.,_. i! ..„-3:: ... _i:;77-7-1 ', ,.) • :::• i, • OuTi.Ot a .•••...934 , 4 L.)) . ,.•i! .'.. ". :4 . .... .: .,21 ,•:- I.. 1•., ; . •' S..• ••': ' , .1' .'':•.7' r.,;.,-C. •• ,..• •••....-C = Ix', 'T.. 0 i e •.r------:.,:77..----,e- -:„ :' • ;,. , ::......,,..„,'f , ,,, 3.7... ,.,,,'•13.:,'' 2.3 •!•,:,' ..., .• "•/,' .35,i',;• .".I . • .., . - ' l' . '. i ,' / ••• '' ' ' •• ....,...„_.7,,, (:•./ (..1 :•...• . ,•••, `'...•, / .. . , , r .: • ... 4 . 1 .."2:•:-: / /•• " . , •. I.••:•s,...:•'••sT77:77 7.7-1. ••;• . . -.•: '.; .• ., ',.7. 3 ; : ''• • ', . `.•' •.',.;.'t j..... . '•.. 3 k.1..1.!i..1 .I. %•.; ' 4. . : ..: '1".' ' '' •'.7‘.- . '- . ' . : , . -i. / -'. I.j. • :, :.:.. , . , , / s t: , ••• .'"•-• 1 ti. 500 ti' . ; '' • •. .,' ••.' ''' ( , 1,:.....,' ;...,.,,,,..1 17:777..;:—7),_.../‘,....,• 7.. : 1 . / ,‘.., \ \ ..:, .t:.',1J.,..,..,„,i'4:'.47 ; :Av. \i' :' s. ••••:4,, : . *--.: ----..,"77.-••.'-'-• , -AT , tii- I - e,e 1,44..1 , •"• ' ... ...... . • " '- ' ' • . • •"" :•,c...-.--,:•...'--'5..Zs.. t.1.1.`"••••.• -. 1 , 5.-4-. •••••$ •7....;.. •‘• *I's>•. • Ivi4f.,.4.,,.,L\-* ,..i. ., ..:,.".. t.i... ..--(S::',- !....... . :.TY. •;.:•.:I,-7.1: . ... • • , .. : ..1..,:',„ .•!.:.j.1 :, ., [1:13. •:—..-71,...... - • • • • • 1..... :, ! : .,‘_)*."..,.•,,.;•-.....:,-,:,. '2'la agog.. raor.4 - • • .. •'4.•. •! !....*. s..2.`• :. • '.... ,• ,( 1'.19 i I • ,.,.•.--7. ,.,...i....7.,:-.-Ts.7.,:......i ... ,:.::„. .5bustis ‘_.? 1 . . ... - ; ';" . ' •:,7 : 1 t i•: 1 .. , — .... -.:7` .--,,•' „„_ —••--:.....,.. s • : .- -•• ..,:. . .. .: „.....:•>;.: „': ' , ;-- • • • , ' . 7 . !. ; -...-N,• '.-*•:'*: A .0-16c1b>14;:s' , .:. ,, •: i.'. ' ... 3 guitafao. i I{ . li „..." • •.— , . .'.,s....,; ''i fePtiF . . . \ " ......4i41i!1 •-- ......•--- . • •,s-.s1.7,.,-1.,1-_.,.-..,.A'.-2,,0.i;_2t;..5.2.,-_._..I.,—N..._.A_.c-__-__:.-•'.:'"_1.' :•.,_.-.-.•L-ri.t'-s.a.:-4L : .* --7-ihica i ' • 1 r11 . • . 1 :lI 1i, /4.2tdeks , —--L,.:i(3 t....‘...si• -.‘i • Li -e4 • :1 I ' 1{61,.,. , ,I.;--- ,. c.,„ ,, 0 usaits*:!_l .6 1 i . — '14,..41,:, ,4. 1 asi.otto,. i _ .. th_HiNmilft, ••-• q 50 LN:6 1 . Mill I . cx.> .4 , . • .. /. .1. . NJ . 1 0 0 1 1 1 \ . i C3 I. Ii eh. . • ,. ..1gst. rt„ ..1.0' . •..s,tes :3 I . • • I s...,,,.24 *‘'''"•-•...1 . 1 ..,, e. . I I . . I . I i• ' .. . I . 11 Lit's! . .. _ • / iA1 . .i .� 11, �..i�'1 .���\tt �` ',�\•I 11 l'1 ;/I / • l lce r:.' F � rl ' f //.�.y. • • , / �� .�-•i _ ," • � � • ,// ...:..;. /\'0, 'i: _,.,..'. ...,,*: .'',."., \,..,.-- ,,!-_-_-1 • 1,.4 .•,,fir=r . . H ti.... .. • ,, „•• ,,,,,..,,.,,,,•,....„....,_;,,..„ L ; / --,.. 1:2).k....?"-TT r.. i ,nil:.-- ' c' • r/... . .1--,Y... ..-/::::•.ks,./ ','...cr7----,---,T-7."'I-7.- ..- 4.\:_'\•-i.;Lizott,'..;.:j''f-,' 1 I: ; • • f , .,k1 rr p4\ v�:Y` \�I „a iii 1 1 O,.}• t 11,-,tt.,,l.!i''..:sf,! . AI ict 1 t, ,:,\'':,:)K— 4 '...-:;-'-';'''. " '. • ''•• :_,...... • 1 g 1 1/4.---.,1. • ' Illi .V. . /,!,0.' ',''''.,/.• •),....t• i'i A. 1 4..-1,/.1".. I -`:-E]i , \ ---- .../....!) Ir. ',\ ham' • ._...fir.._ il.,v5 i ik w �` A•.l, ..l .OI • / � !.NI . ,\• \., :i ,I � - \ f IH;;;rTTfrrTñ- 5 1 Ia. ••, �cnQ I ... ". ' w •r r• ewc a \ S �, }r 1 M:r -� L ' "F o�. b ,2. yr'• ty- .,�• �`.-....*1, •` • ,l` ' • • \r, ---, . L .z, , •,..\\<<„ ., ...„....„\<, ..,,...i.i.,. .... :,...., . s__ ... s. ..4x . ...., . ...?...t., / 1 ,,,• 1 6 • • L• �•` 4 5 ems\ •, .41 •I 3 � `� _ / • ,'''' . ( --''.- \ ' 1W T%11' 0, . • ( I 4 .} \ C ,-.,. (( • , ___, .. :.l `�! /•//✓:ate• �' L\ a? I ' ' . 1. .. ) ( ../ \. 1 f; 4 ' . 1:—......,,... .1\ '—'":., '• '4.-' : . . .' : / , . . , ,: • \`, .--.-..—..\. #.,. .1„>.,," X\ ., ,.1 I , •/ ., ,.. .. 0 Llitlor, \ ... i I I d% ... I 1 1 • Staff Report-Prairie East 3rd -3- Feb. 25, 1977 • As illustrated in Figure VI Nottingham Drive,which would correspond with the east/west street( figure V ) , is platted as a normal residential street with 50'right-of-way, 20 ' wide street and individual homes fronting on it. The street has up to 13 feet of cut near the intersection of Sherwood Drive in order to maintain proper grade. The planning staff believes that the potential for high traffic volumes undesirable for single family residential streets may be anticipated on Nottingham Drive because of the proposed land uses in OUtlots B f, C and the uncertainty of development to the west. The staff believes a redesign of the plat, (the northern section ),allowing Nottingham Drive to function as a collector with 60 foot right-of-way, 32 foot street and no homes fronting on it similar to the layout of Linden Drive would be in the best interest of theplatting of the property and long term public interest. The developer has indicated an alternate alignment of Nottingham Drive's layout as a collector would eliminate approximately 6 lots in this phase plus an additional 6 lots on the connection with Franlo Road and therefore is unacceptable. The staff does not intend to prepare detailed layouts to refute that claim, but believes since fitting the road to the land forms is not of primary importance as evidenced by the 13 foot cut on Nottingham Drive, that through skillful subdivision layout the reduction in lots could be minimized. The s: ff recognizes that Nottingham Drive is the only east/west street connecting with the potential multiple development along Co. Rd. 18. The city and developer will be faced with very hard zoning and development hearings when the residents living along Nottingham Drive realize the traffic to be generated along their street. The connection of Golf View Addition in Edenvale to Forest Hills is an excellent example of the neighborhood resistance to increased traffic on residential streets. The City Engineering Department in their staff report outlines an alternative requiring additional right-of-way , wider street and sidewalks as design alternatives for Nottingham Drive that are possible in the configuration, shown in the plan. SITE PLAN The planning staff, in their review of the Prairie East Third Addition, and a schematic of the area between Franlo and Co. Rd. 1 and Co. Rd. 18 reflects total development of almost every acre with the exception of the proposed neighborhood park along Franlo Road. Pedestrian and bicycle movements arc accommodated on streets through the use of sidewalks with no small scale play or open space areas within the subdivision. Tentative plans for Outlot b , north of the 2nd Addition, is for single family development which would preclude any development of a small scale play argg as illustrated in the original concept. The city has required other developers such as Redrock dills, Ecklund/Swedlund , Mitchell Lake, The Preserve and Zachman to provide small scale neighborhood play areas that can be maintained by the surrounding property owners for informal recreation space. The city's rationale has been that on the smaller lots of 10-14,000 square feet such recreation spaces in close proximity to the units are desirable from an activity standpoint as well as a visual relief of the platting of 100-200 acres of solid single family units. .jig'3 f Staff Report-Prairie East Third -4- Feb. 2S, 1977 The planning staff is also concerned about the change from the original concept as represented in Figure II which utilized the natural landforms in providing small scale open space within the development. Modifications of the plan over the last few years and the most recent Prairie East 3rd Addition reflect a conventional platting technique utilized in many suburbs over the years. • RECOMMENDATIONS • The planning staff believes something should be done with Nottingham Drive to either provide a collector street without the lot frontage, or detailed design refinements as suggested in the engineering report by expanding the street width, sidewalks and greater setbacks. The staff is concerned about the land use concept of total use of every acre and raises the question to the Planning Commission and City Council for its consideration as to the desirability of such single family areas. The staff can not recommend denial of the plat, zoning and pud request based on any specific ordinance requirements, but rather design and planning judgements. The staff recognizes the problem the developer encounters when dealing with homeowner associations in maintenance of common space. The staff also understands the unique ownership conditions that are present in this development area which do not , in the developer's opinion, lend themselves the large scale development. The staff would recommend consideration of these points by the commission and draft a recommendation to the City Council either agreeing with or modifying the requests . DP:jj • LOsy • • • deVeD@Pment eorpoG'1OW • r � 1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATICN • Ownership The 52 acre site is presently owned by the Bluffs Company, Wallace H. Rusted, President, and the single family plat will be conveyed to Windsor Development Corporation. Developer. Hustad Development Corporation will be the primary developer of the site. Hustad Development has been active in planning, building and land development in Eden Prairie for 4 years. Presently we are developing Creekwood, Mill Creek Townhouses, Prairie East and Prairie East Second Addition. Our emphasis has always been quality construction and land development that is sensitive to natural amenities. This proposal will embody this same criteria. Fiscal, Economic • • Development loans will be obtained from local financial institutions with which we are presently associated. • Development Method &Timing Because of the threefold nature of the project, both method and timing will be varied. Prairie East Third Addition: This 85 lot subdivision will be a continuation of the existing Prairie East Second Addition. It is anticipated that grading would start in May, 1977. If the build—out is similar to Second Addition, it is estimated that this project would last approximately 15 months. 12750 PIONEER TRAIL,EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343(612)941-4383 41SS ... .,.. _ v4 -. 4i • • • Outlot A will likely be developed into single family lots along with,the adjacent land to the west. Because of the lower elevation in this area, the timing for development would be dependent upon further extension of sewer facilities. Outlots B &Cs It is anticipated that medium density apartment or town- house units would be constructed on these parcels as soon as the market and economy allows. Additional General Project Information This e st the sameject is lot sizes, setbacky he same as variances andidensity along Co. Rd Addition,8and h Linden Drive. PLAN AREA IDENTIFICATIai Project Area • The area lies directly south of Prairie East Second Addition and is bordered on the east by Co. Rd. 18. The Bluffs Company also owns the land to the west to Franlo Road. • presently the 52 acres has only one structure which is hs havecupiiedfby y Mrs.r Kopesky on a temporary basis. Approximately 5 with the balance remaining idle. • Guideplan and General analysis The proposed single family and medium density would seem to be consistent with the guideplan and other approvals received in Prairie East and the Preserve's Amsden Hills area. • . PROJECT ANALYSIS The site has a gently rolling character very typical of this part of .Eden Prairie. Natural prairie grasses abound and the trees are mostly • Oak and elm which occur as windrows along the boundaries. The northeast • corner is an exception with a significant stand of trees. • The soil is of a clay, sandy clay type below one or two feet of topsoil. The following densities would exists Prairie East Third Additon: 2.53 units/acre Lot sizes.. 10,000 sq. ft. to 27000 sq. ft. average.13,198 Outlot A: 3.4 acres (Approx. 2.5 units/acre) Outlot B: 14.4 acres (6-10 units/acres) Outlot C: 0.6 acres (6-10 units acres) • 4156 • • PLAN PROPOSAL Concept plan Coals_The primary objective is to develop a land use plan con- taining a single family plat that has proved extremely successful with broas market appeal and yet leave a portion of the site that could be developed later and provide a housing mix as the area matures - and financing improves. . • Land Use The land use is varied due to the previously mentioned factors and can . be divided into two cllssifications: 1. Single family plat: Again, this plat is virtually the • same as prairie.East Second Addition with approximately • 2953 units per acre. 2. Medium density residential: Itp is anticipated that four • d • BEsi wiYllte c�l6roi° ate esa°vi ualycg ie v issers. and proper buffering from the single family and Co. Rd. Care will be taken to preserve the stand of mature trees • 'at the north end of the site. Transportation Linden Drive will be extended and will provide an additional access point • unto County Road 18. This access point has been reviewed with Hennepin County and future land use, as well as future upgrading of 018, will be taken into consideration. provide• a h through be street forextended f twestito Franlo as the area develops and Mass Grading No mass grading will be required except for the roads and building pads • to allow positive drainage. • Common Areas and Community Facilities • The bike path to the north will be extended to the south and west. Also, each building permit will contribute an additional amount of approximately $300.00 toward the purchase of a 15 acre school park site on Franlo Road. Zoning Classifications and Variances • Rezoning is requested from rural to R1-13.5 with the following set back and lot size variances: 20: rear'of house lot line 5+garage side lot line 101 1-1.5 story house to side lot line 20' EldkeyaIgtietback on 151 2 story house to side lot line 301 front of building to front lot line Fireplaces and overhangs shall not be considered as setback encroachments. III Sr ® tin 31977 • EDENVALE,INC. 7766 Mitchell Road•Eden Prairie,Minn.55343.612/941-5300 March 25, 1977 Mr. Roger Ulstad City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 -- Dear Roger; Due to some unresolved problems regarding our request for platting and rezoning on Outlot F, Edenvale Industrial Park, I am requesting that you continue the public hearing scheduled fOr April 5, 1977 to the next regulsr meeting at which the Council can schedule it. Yours truly, �f Donald R. Peterson DRP/sr Lo5')R • April 5, 1977 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 77-41 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDENVALE • •INDUSTRIAL PARK THIRD ADDITION • BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK THIRD ADDITION , dated February 1977 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: • 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 Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk } approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- Feb. 28, 1977 C. Edenvale Industrial Park 2nd Addition, Outlot F, by Edenvale, request to prelimina plat and rezone 1 of the 3 lots from I-General to I-2 Park. The site is 7 acres located north of Martin Drive, east of Corporate Way and west of Commerce Way. A continued public hearing. • The planner outlined the site's location and the request to preliminary plat the 7 acr into 3 lots leaving 1 lot in I-2 Park and rezoning 2 lots to I-General which would require lot size variance from the I-General District. The planner then referred the commission to the staff report and stated the staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning of 2 lots to I-General with lot size variances. 1 Sorensen expressed his disapproval of varying the conditions of the I-General District The planner stated the drainage ditch, which intersects this site, creates a hardship in development of the site as I-General and therefore the staff is recommending approvj Don Peterson stated outlot F is in the middle of the 100 acre industrial area, will be' completely buffered by other industrial uses and will meet city screening conditions. Seaman inquired if the ditch could be piped and covered . Peterson replied piping and covering the ditch would be very expensive. Motion 1: Sundstrom moved, Lynch seconded, to close the public hearing on Edenvale Industrial Park, Outlot F, preliminary plat. Motioncarried unanimously Motion 2: Sundstrom moved, Beaman seconded, to recommend approval of preliminary platting Outlo into 3 lots, retain I-General zoning , vary lot size requirements from S acres to 2 acres, and vary I-Gen setbacks to : 50' front yard, 20:40 (both) side yard, and 25' re with the expressed understanding that very thorough screening of outside storage will required as per Ordinance 135 and 178. • Discussion: Lynch asked if the city attorney was aware of the staff recommendation. The planner replied affirmative. Sorensen questioned the Planning Commission's authority to grant the variances request The planner replied the commission can make recommendations on variances and the count • has the authority to grant the variance. q/51 _ .approved " Planning Commission Meeting -4- Feb. 28, 1977 Sorensen then inquired if having I-2 Park lots with outside storage would be a better alternative. The planner replied, of the 2 alternatives, the staff is recommending I-General with lot site variances. • • Bearman expressed concern the rezoning as requested appears to be spot zoning. Peterson stated he desires the I-2 Park zoning for the eastern lot for an interested buyer and believes a need exists for smaller I-General lots with outside storage. Vote on Motion 2: The motion failed 2:2 with Sorensen and Bearman voting nay. Motion 3: • Bearman moved, Sorensen seconded, to recommend rezoning from I-General to I-2 Park and preliminary plat approval of the 7 acres into 3 lots as per the staff report dated Feb. 25; 1977. Discussion: Sundstrom felt the lots near the railroad would be appropriate for outside storage. Bearman did not approve of varying I-General lot size from S acre to 2 acres and allowing outside storage. Vote on Motion 3: Motion carried unanimously. - Sorensen stated the commission is recommending consideration of the possibility of granting the variances with adequate screening and outside storage because: 1. The topography caused by the drainage ditch. 2. The existing railroad service on the rear of the property. 3. The area is totally surrounded by industrial uses including I-General to the north and west. • • • • • • u159 • 4 • • Planning Commission Minutes -10- approved FEb. 14, 1977 • • Z. Edenvale Industrial Park Outlot F, by Edenvale. Request to preliminary plat and rezone 7 acres from I-General to I-2 Park. The site is located north of Martin Drive, East of Corporate Way and west of Commerce Way. A public hearing. Mr. Enger informed the commission the plattin has changed the rezoning request to rezoning of g oonlyst theseasternasted parceellttodle II-2aPark. • Mr. Conrad Sorvick, 14322 Fairway Drive, representing the Fairway Woods HOA, complimented the city on their overall planning and requested information on the above request as it is not far from Fairway Woods. Sorensen thanked Mr. Sorvick for his interested and stated he would be supplied with a staff report when it is completed. ( Sorvick was supplied with the plat material) • • • 11)100 j STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission PROM: Chris Enger • DATE: February 25, 1977 PROJECT: Edenvale Industrial Park s DEVELOPER: Edenvale Inc. Edenvale Inc. has requested a subdivision of outlot F, Edenvale Industrial Park into three parcels of 2 acres, 3 acres, and 2.5 acres respectively. After discussion with the City Attorney the Planning Staff would recommend that since the anticipated use of most of the parcel would continue to be I-Gen; and since an I-2 use can certainly occur in an I-Gen area; parcels should not be rezoned from I-Gen to I-2, but rather a variance to the I-Gen five acre minimum requirement should be considered. The I-Gen catagory is for those industrial uses that require outside storage. Outside storage in reality, has traditionally been difficult to screen properly from differing surrounding uses, even though this is a requirement of Ordinance 135. If you look at other communities that have had areas for outside storage of industrial materials, you will usually see the remnants of some type of attempt of screening. You may see broken fences, scraggly trees, etc. This merely points up the need for I-Gen zones to be carefully located in relationship to surrounding land use. Edenvale's Industrial Park is bordered on the west by railroad tracks, on the south by Highway 5, on the east by Mitchell Road, and on the north by Purgatory Creek and Edenvale Golf Course. The area for the Industrial Park has already been platted and site lines to the center area will be controlled for the most part from the outside by the periphery industrial uses. This particular site is directly in the middle of the Industrial Park. It is currently zoned I-Gen which makes a great deal of sense. There is a deep drainage ditch which cuts through the western third of the site on a north/south line. This is an obvious place to separate lots. I-Gen setbacks I-2 setbacks front 75 50 rear 50 25 side 30:60 (both) 20:40 (both) minimumlot size 5 acres 2 acres Since this proposal will be separated from other differing uses by other buildings and uses, and site lines to it will be minimum from the perimeter of the industrial park, the miniumum lot size does not seem imperative. • Staff Report-Edenvale Industrial -2- Feb. 25/77 ALTERNATIVES 1. Replat into three lots as requested, vary lot size requirement for I-Gen from S acres to 2 acres, maintaining I-Gen setbacks. 2. Replat into a 5.7 acre western I-Gen parcel and a 2 acre eastern parcel and zone eastern parcel I-2 Park. 3. Replat into three lots, retain I-Gen zoning, vary lot size requirements from S acres to 2 acres, and vary P-Gen setbacks to: 50' front yard, 20:40 (both) side yard, and 25' rear; with the express understanding that very thorough screen of outside storage will be required as per Ordiances 135 and 178. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Staff recommends aternative three, emphasizing that any outside storage must be screened from public roads and differing land uses. • / / PrikLUlIIi3ARY PLAT N f/ f`ems EDENlVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK 3rd ADDITION t /. j,. a replat of outlot F edenvale ir.d. park • M / ;i' , ,lot t i / . '. F C .° ( 1. : . : .... s • /?. -1.• 26ov / - � / let ... , .s .� �.. revs — L•. T. t.• �7 f-� ,� lot 6 1} Q . 6. r,YLO\ `\ E . • 0 ` • EDENVALE,INC. 7766 Mitchell Road•Eden Prairie,Minn.55343.612/941-5300 February 4, 1977 Mr. Roger Ulstad City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Roger; Edenvale has requested a subdivision of Outlot F, Edenvale Industrial Park into three parcels of 2 acres, 3 acres and 2.5 acres respectively. The 2 acre parcel is tentatively sold and does not need outside storage. In a discussion with you and Dick Putnam it was suggested that in order to subdivide that lot we should ask for rezoning to I2 Park. Outlot F is presently zoned I Gen allowing outside storage. We have another good industrial customer who desires a site of not more than 3 acres which must have outside storage. I would like to place them on the remaining 3 acre portion of Outlot F, west of the City drainage ditch. This parcel is completely surrounded by industrial sites and was previously zoned for outside storage because of that. I realize that the Eden Prairie ordinance required an I General area to be at least 5 acres. The public hearing for this rezone and platting is scheduled for the Planning Commission on February 14, 1977. I would like to modify our request so that the easterly 2 acre site is rezoned to 12 Park and the remaining 5.5 acres is zoned 1-General with a split of that lot at the city storm sewer ditch. Please modify our request to incorporate these changes so that we can have an opportunity to attract another industrial user to Eden Prairie. The mortgage release alone on the only other I-General site we have is more than this company will pay so they need this action to locate in Eden Prairie. Yours Truly. Donald R. Peterson DRP/sr • 4/� • • • 6 1 .. ,. Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District 19141 • , . 88SO COUNTY ROAD :4 it EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343 February 11, 1977 Mr. Richard Putnam, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • Re: Garrison Forest; Edenvale Plate, Golf Vista Apartments Dear Mr. Putnam: The Engineering Advisors for the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District have reviewed the development proposals for the above referenced projects as submitted to the Watershed District. A grading and land alteration permit must be obtained from the District for these projects. The permit application should be obtained after the development has been approved by the City Council, 1 but before land alteration can begin on the project. Plans detailing how • erosion will be controlled during project construction must accompany the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these developments. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact us. Sincerely,ilLitda•UL'j Allan Gebhard BARR ENGINEERING CO. AG/sb Engineer for the District cc: Mr. Frederick Richards Mr. Conrad Fiskness g1t0q ' 0,m: EDENVALE,INC. 7766 Mitchell Road•Eden Prairie,Minn.55343.612/941-5300 January 24, 1977 Eden Prairie Planning Commission and City Council City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • Ladies and Gentlemen; This letter constitutes an application for rezoning and preliminary plat for Outlot F, Edenvale Industrial Park. The application follows the format suggested in your recommended zoning procedures dated September 27, 1976. 1 REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION Specific Plan Requirements 1. Ownership - The property is owned in fee title by Edenvale, Inc. 2. Developer - The developer and applicant is Edenvale, Inc. 3. Fiscal Economic - The application for replat is being done to respond to a market demand for smaller lots than originally anticipated. No cost of development will be incurred other than surveying and city fees which will be paid by the developer. 4. The lots will be marketed for industrial users similar to all lots in Edenvale Industrial Park. 5. Boundaries are shown on the preliminary plat. The replat is a subdivision of a 7.5 acre lot called Outlot F, Eden ale Industrial Park and all boundaries are readily defined off the previous plat. 6. The property south and west of the site is owned by Edenvale, Inc., the lot north by Roth Distributing Company and east of the site by Northwest Fluid Products. 1146 . . .w.� ...._-.�...�._........_... ... _.... r ..........:.•..ram..,. January 24, 1977 Page 2 7. The rezoning will outsidechange st storage allowed terials from to three 12 ParkIndustrial general not allowing allowing site allowing outside storage. 8. The existing land use is vacant land. 9. The roadway pattern will remain the same. The site istbo bounded nded by Commerce south by Martin Drive, on the west by Corporate Way, o Way. 10. Existing zoning is I-Gen which allows outside storage on over 5 acre sites. 11. The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the site as Industrial and it is in the heart of Edenvale Industrial Park. 12. The City is requested to rezone the site to I2 Park and approve the preliminary plat. 13. No additional information is submitted. Site Area Analysis 1. The development objective is to create smaller industrial sites to better react to the market demand for light clean industrial users. A large city storm water drainage ditch bisects the site and this subdivision will create an easement for this City storm sewer drainage andw subdivide the lots along the centerline of this ditch which is very practical. 2. Site Plan - The preliminary plat shows all pertinent information. 3. Grading - No regrading will be required. 4. Utility Plan - No changes in utilities will be required. 5. The lots will be sold to industrial users who will design their own buildings. No architectural plans are submitted. 6. No homeowners or other legal documents will be required. 7. The land use profile will coincide with the City zoning ordinance for I2 Park. 8. Zoning classification requested is I2 Park and no variation from this ordinance is requested. • One er 9. Construction of buildings will be as dictated by market thde arend. and usernon Lot 3 is expected to build in spring 1977, as soon as is completed. 4I(6 • January 24, 1977 Page 3 10. Submitted with this application is a preliminary re-plat for Outlot F, Edenvale Industrial Park. Please process this application for rezoning and preliminary platting as soon as possible. Yours truly, Donald R. Peterson DRP/sr Enclosures • III • • April 5, 1977 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 77-42 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WOODLAND ADDITION • BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of WOODLAND ADDITION , dated February 28, 1977, a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: • 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 Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • .approved Planning Commission Meeting -4- Feb. 28, 1977 D. Woodland Addition, by Edenvale, request to preliminary plat and rezone 31.5 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 77 single family lots. The site is located in Edenvale's Northwest Area. A continued public hearing. • The planner referred the commission to the staff report which covers traffic, trails, • driveways and future adjacent uses. He stated the staff is recommending approval of the requests contingent upon the conditions outlined in the staff report. Don Peterson stated the original request was for 77 lots but after discussion with the staff the plan is being proposed as 58 lots for the first phase. Sorensen inquired if additional runoff would be realized if 'T' drives are used. Peterson believed 'T' drives would create additional runoff but was unsure of what type of drives would be best as eyebrowing would dictate additional tree cutting. Sorensen then felt problems may arise (easements) when two families have to share 1 d Mr. Peterson agreed . Sorensen asked if Mr. Peterson was willing to construct the asphalt trail as depicted i the staff report. Peterson replied affirmative. approved Planning Commission Meeting -5- Feb. 28, 1977- Motion 1: Seaman moved. Lynch seconded, to close the public hearing considering the Woodland Addition preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously. Motion 2: • Dearman moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for 58 single family lots and rezoning to R1-13.5 for Phase I of Woodland Addition as per the revised plan dated 2-28-77. With approval contingent upon engineering staff report, proper design of pathways and special conditions of item a of this staff report dated Feb. 25, 1977 and based upon the recommendations contained in the staff reports dated Feb. 25 and Feb. 10, 1977. Motion carried 3:0:1 with Sorensen abstaining due to the setback recommendations contained in the staff report. • • • LII(OZ • • • • • • fl • • '.approved • Planning Commission Minutes -5Feb. 14, 1977 • ---- Sorensen resumed chair D. Woodland Addition , by Edenvale, request o preliminary plat and rezone 31.5 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 77 single family lots. The site is located in Edenvale's Northwest Area. A continued public hearing. Mr. Enger referred the commission to the memo dated Feb. 10, 1977 outlining some of the staff's preliminary concerns on the project. He added the staff is suggesting rezoning to R1-13.5 instead of RM 6.5 to preclude building of double bungalows . Sundstrom questioned if the extensive single family lot access to Woodland Drive is inconsistent with its character as a collector. Mr. Peterson replied he views Woodland Drive as a neighborhood collector. He further added a market exists for wood- ed single family lots and he would like to have an opportunity to work with the • staff further . Motion: Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue to public hearing to the commission's Feb. 28th meeting. The motion carried unanimously. • • • • • • • • • • Ld((9 . • • approved Planning & Zoning Commission -7- Jan. 24,'1977 C. Woodland Addition, by Edenvale, request to preliminary plat and rezone 31.5 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 77 single family lots. The site is located in Edenvale's Northwest Area. Peterson pointed-out the site's location in Edenvale's Northwest Area. The project would be 2.4 u / acre and lots would be 70-110 feet wide across the building pad . He proposed to cross the dry marsh with a street in order to retain some of the large historic trees in the area. He stated when Edenvale Boulevard is completed, 2-3 years, it will greatly reduce the traffic congestion in the area. Fosnocht inquired what use is proposed northeast of Woodland Addition. Peterson replied cluster units. Joyce Miller, 7036 Springhill Circle, asked what uses would be on outlot A. Peterson replied 2 single family lots and open space. . Bill Michaelson,6951 Edenvale Blvd., asked if a variance would be requested for no garages. Peterson replied negative. Lynch suggested future buyers be made aware that cluster homes are planned northeast of this site. Mari Dragseth, 15071 Summerhill Drive, requested the old unique oaks and other trees be protected even after the lots are sold to builders or individuals. Peterson stated he would work with the city staff and walk the site to personally place the road location and mark trees to be retained. Motion: Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue the public hearing to the Feb. 14th meeting and refer it to the staff for report and recommendations. The motion carried unanimously. • • ti 110 • • STAFF REPORT • TO: I. Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Landscape Architect • • THROUGH: Dick Putnam, Planning Director DATE: Feb. 25, 1977 PROJECT: Woodland Addition PROPONENT: Edenvale Inc. REFER TO: • PUD Development Stage Application 1/4/77 Staff memo 2/10/77 (attached) • BACKGROUND Key points,brought up by the staff and Planning Commission are: • 1. Is it appropriate to front 13-14 lots on Woodland Drive which was originally designated as a collector. 2. Are pedestrian and bicycle needs provided for in the subdivision. 3. Some lots in the northern part of the subdivision appear unbuildable because of slope. 4. Is the single family use of this area appropriate as relates to steeply wooded terrain and surrounding uses. 5. Does this proposal'land lock'or preclude proper development of future adjacent land development. The project has been revised to try to address the original problems : a. Edenvale's original PUD was approved for 1,754 units in the northwest area. Their current projections, Hr. Peterson informs us, are to change much of the emphasis from multiple family to single family thus bringing the anticipated units down to around 600. • Based upon a general evaluation by the staff of Edenvale's current thinking on the northwest area, the average daily trips which can be expected past this addition on Woodland Drive are between 1,500 and 2,000. This estimate is based upon "Highway Research Board Report 121 (1971)" which relates A.D.T. to unit type. Comparisons of traffic volume on existing city streets are as follows: Duck Lake Trail 2,300 A.O.T. • Mitchell Road-N of 5 2,000 A.D.T. Baker Road 1,600 A.D.T. • Staff Report-Woodland -2- Feb. 25, 1977 The City Engineering Department considers streets in excess of 1,500 A.D.T. • • as undesirable for fronting homes onto. Edenvale's current request is for approval of 58 lots in phase I only. This proposal fronts 10 lots onto Woodland Drive. If, as Edenvale informs us, the subdivision can not work financially without fronting lots on Woodland Dirve, the planning staff would recommend either platting through "eyebrows" as Was done in Summer Woods II or at the minimum the following: 1. 40 foot setback on lots fronting on Woodland • 2. Single "T" driveways for turn around 3. Combining of driveways,one to serve two lots to reduce the points of conflict. This is necessary, not only based upon the anticipated traffic volumes, but because of the poor sight lines due to the curving nature and topo- graphic variation of Woodland Drive through this area. • b. Edenvale proposes construction of hard surface trails or side walks' along the north side of the proposed White Oak Court, and along the east side of Woodland Drive from Birch Lane to the south end of Woodland Addition. A Limestone trail would be provided from south-. 1 east of Woodland Addition, south past Briarhill. The hard surface trails must be constructed in accordance with requirements from the City Engineer. c. Edenvale has deleted the northern problem slope lots as shown in their sketch (attached ) of the northern phase II area and outlet E. d. In looking closely at the original townhouse conceptual plan for this area, it appears that any development of any traditional residential density will result in removal of about 50n of the trees. The consolation is that the lots will be attractive single family. e. In the enclosed sketch, from Edenvale, they have reexamined the possible development of outlet E, and believe at this point that a better overall plan may result by combining it with the area for Phase II of Woodland Addition. The planning staff feels that this approach will not preclude future site use plans. Alternatives: 1. Deny the request for prelimnary plat and rezoning to R1-13.5. 2. Approve the preliminary plat for 58 single family lots and rezoning to RI 13.5 for Phase I of Woodland Addition. Approval contingent upon engineering staff report, proper design of pathways and special conditions of item a of this staff report regarding lots fronting on Woodland Drive. REC0t.WENDATI ON: The planning staff would recommend alternative'k2. c�l'7� X. / :.' n. ---' ,1. 1 \'.\ a ....._....... o �. a 1,.. "-' I. / . ter'- ••" i. i 0. i 7 : • s. l' •\\ \ i' 'j Ttiic .y.l: f ' /I j •o'i I ;a I. • i r+s 1 i•?i 1 / / i a! 4111, ; . .; �' ` ! • .,.. ,t., . • . 1.0 1.tt ! , • , ,...„ ,/..:.,11' 1 illp • t ' i • " :.•.••• / c• 1 , . ---....4.4 7 ..,...\ N. ,,,,,,,,p,,, •• . •'• .. : • "I # .,....›...-- - • : ,.....,. i '...."\ .--\\. \ .; . : , ‘ \ ....6:, , .;', .ak l , .• • j I '• N., •.,••i Via . s k;40761ii . ' ' ""%:,, 7...: „,".....)t,'• ...,/,,, 1,..L,... \ . \ ,.., a ) , . , • _, ,.„, • _ ___ • • . . , j ` \ :1::' b'�""r'` \\ • 'I : I. . . • .'`', II r 1,• r ,J . . • . • ' ' ' . • . ' . 1Th Planning Commission .. FROM: Chris Enger , . . _ • .• DATE: Feb. 10, 1977 • SUBJECT: Woodland Addition • , MOUSING TYPE AND SITE TREATMENT • S The character of the site is very steeply rolling with a mature open oak woods with aspen, maple and oak understory on the south and major portion • of the site. There is a small seasonally wet area occuring in an opening j toward the northern center of the site. The high point of the site occurs at approximately 970' and slopes steeply to the east down to an elevation of 930' within 250 The site is bordered on the northwest by Woodland s Drive; on the North by Edenvale Boulevard , on the South by Briarhill and on the east by.a future multiple dwelling site and the railroad. .The Edenvale Vita Par Cour system currently runs through the heart of the site up along the 960' ridge line toward a future Ironwood Court road. • • In the original PUD this site was designated for multiple family at a density of 6.3 u/acre. This was originally envisioned by Edenvale as a townhouse type of development because of its steep wooded character. The opportunity • to consolidate the amount of housing use to certain prominent areas was a tool that was to be utilized to retain the overall character of the wooded • site. However, because of the change in the housing market and the current drag of townhouses, Edenvale wishes to develop the site as single family with lots smaller than 13,500 square feet. Lot widths range from 85-100 feet in the southern section and lot depths range from 120-200 feet. The-lot sires • in the northern open section , occurring in Phase 2, range in width from 70- 85 feet and in depth from 100-135 feet. • • Because of the cuts required to place roads on this steeply rolling terrain some of the cuts through the woods will be 100 feet in width. In addition to this with the 30 foot setback required, the narrowness of lots and the upper-moderate income market that this projectis aimed, the amount of woods which can realistically be saved is about 50e of the existing major trees. It is very likely that most of the under brush will be cut and lawns placed. There is no doubt that this site is a beautiful area to build single family homes, however, rather than being woods in the future with some housing occurring within the site, there will be single family lots with selected trees remaining. In reviewing the grading plan for Phase 2 there seem to be a large number of lots on the east side of Orchard View Lane which will require at least 12 feet of fill within the front yard setback and beyond to make the homes serviceable by sewer. This is not consistent with building houses into the slope or ., trying to match the terrain and surrounding character with housing. grit' • • *Memo-Woodland Addition -2- 'Feb. 10, 1977 • , • . TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS • .. Kr.'Peterson , in changing the housing types in the northwest area . appears • to believe that this will substantiate the platting of lots fronting on • • Woodland Drive and Edenvale Boulevard. Within this project there are approx- , • imately 14 lots which front directly on Woodland Drive. In looking at Edenvale's tentative overall plan for the Northwest Area it appears both Edenvale Boulevard and Woodland Drive will continue to.function as they were originally planned, as the major collectors of traffic going north to the Crosstown and south to Valley View Road. There is a potential of north bound traffic of all of Sunmerwoods I and II, Briarhill, half of • Linden Ponds, proposed Woodland Addition and half of a proposed multiple • addition all taking Woodland Drive past this proposed subdivision to reach • the Crosstown. • Non-Motorized recreational and transportational trails or sidewalks for • pedestrians, cross country skiers, bikers, etc., seem to be somewhat lax in • . this section of Edenvale. In light of the fact the city now plans to use Community Development Funds to develop a Edenvale School/Park site to a minimal level this summer, it would be a very good idea if pedestrians were able to reach the park safely. Since the Par Cours is not for year around • use perhaps Edenvale should consider the following; a hard surfaced(blacktop) six foot wide trail or sidewalk on Edenvale Boulevard , Woodland Drive and Woodhill Trail that all the periphery Vita Par Cour and unsurfaced trails • and cul-de-sacs feed into. SURROUNDING LAND USE One of the very basic questions pertaining to this project is how it relates to surrounding,existing and proposed land uses. The southern cul-de-sac of the • • Woodland Addition looks directly out over the Brairhill project. These may • be very desirable lots from a topographic standpoint , however, the very large canopy trees occurring in a sparse fashion in the southern• part of the site should be preserved at all costs to aid in this transition between the land uses. For the area occurring east of this project, Mr. Peterson has submitted a very preliminary sketch plan depicting around 216 apartment units serviced by a single 1,200 foot cul-de-sac. While other options may exist for addi- tional access out of this future area, the staff feels that the Woodland Addition as currently proposed may severely limit future options. RECO1MENDATI0NS The planning staff would recommend the project be continued so that Edenvale has an•opportunity to address the above mentioned concerns . Although the zoning ordinance leaves a wide spread of lot sizes linked by RI- 22 and R1-13.5, the planning staff believes the rezoning request should be for R1 13.5 to preclude double bungalow use of these lots in the future. • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CHECK LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPAT£NTS DATE: 1/13/77 DEVELOPMENT: WOODLAND ADDITION L.D. NO. 77-P-Z-05 LOCATION: East of Woodland Drive & West of C & NW Railroad REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS ZONING AGREEMENT: Edenvale PUD RES. 4. DEVELOPER: EDENVALE, INC. ENGINEER/PLANNER: DOCUMENTS su Irn.0 FOR REVIEW: Preliminary Plat, Preliminary grading and utility plans dated 1/13/77 PROPOSAL: The Developer is requesting Prelimianry Plat and rezoning approval of the development. • 1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid Yes Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District Yes 2. Processing Schedule: . a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary 1/14/77 b. Park &.Recreation Commission c. Human Rights Commission d. Planning Commission Public Hrg. e: City Council consideration f. Watershed District 3. Type of Development Residential - single family detached • 4. Environmental .+::::essmant or impact utatement required per Environmental Impact Policy Act of 1973: No 4, 10 • 4. . i • • • • S. Present Zoning Rural . 6. Proposed Zoning RM 6.5 (Planning staff recommends R1-13.5) Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes (PUD) Proposed multiple site List variances required & setbacks that apply: Usual PUD setback variances. Also, a variance to exceed 2 lots/acre density if zoning is to R1-13.5 7. Project Area 31.5 acres Density 2.4 units per acre 8. Public open space and/or cash dedication Covered through Edenvale PUD Private open space Covered through Edenvale PUD Trail systems & sidewalks Extension of existingystem required Refer toPjanning staff Report of 2/10/77 )( Range of lot sizes 29,250 S.F. to 10,000 (10,800 average) _ • 9. Preliminary Building Plans Not submitted 10. Representative Soil Borings Not submitted 11. Street System A. Access to adjoining properties * - V B. Type R/W Roacivay (Back to flick of C r)) • Private driveways, no 24 parking Post no parking signs Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28. Required (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 Woodland Drive. • *Proposed plat to be revised such that Orchard Lane will provide future • access to the proposed multiple site to the east. Orchard Lane can be cul-de-saced north of Birch Lane as part of Woodland, Phase I. W177 • • 3 33 NSA 70 44 • • Parkway 100 28 divided • fire Road 12 Pathways 12 6 • Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5% Concrete curb & gutter required, Deep strength asphalt design 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. Change White Oak to Ironwood, change Birch Lane to Orchard Lane. E. Private parking lots--B6-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design ' • N.A. F. Street Signs-Developer or city installs City installs, developer purchase 12. Parking: (See Ord. #141) Conformance to Ord. #141 required 13. Utility Systems: A. Sanitary Sewer Available from Woodhill Trail & Woodland Drive for 1st Phase. Extension on Edenvale Boulevard required to serve 2nd Phase 1. Service Detail 4" minimum 2. Service to adjoining property Review pending further design B. Watermain: Available at Woodhill Trail & Woodland Drive, extension on Edenvale Boulevard required to complete loop. 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.E. 2. Hydrant location-Fire inspector to review 3. Valving Review pending further design 4. Compliance with fire code Fire inspector to review S. Service to adjace”t property Elimination of dead end lines within the development shall be reviewed. . • • • — 4,- C. Storm Sewer & Grading _. • 1. Sediment control plan Required for Watershed eicr nrrr,,,ni 2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots N.A. 3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Required 4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Required (see Planning staff repott) 5. Arrows showing drainage Required Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties Required, Proposes storm sewer east of Orchard Lane shall be extended down the slope. 6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water for ponds Required 7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Rewired 8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes' Required 9. Flood plain encroachment None • 10. Watershed District approval Required 11. DNR approval D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground Reguirgd E. Electric (underground) Required 14. Street Lights S On-Site Lighting Developer to Petition 15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MED or Henn. Co. if abutting a State or County Hwy. N.A. 16. List special assessments levied and pending Levied: #5858 Trunk sewer/water 446,007.GO; #5864, Lateral sew/water, $467.00; #6732, Edenvale Streets 417,216.21. 17. Re-zoning agreement required Required Developer's Agreement roanired Required Title Abstract for Attorney's review None required 4139 mow • • • EDENVALE,INC. • 7766 Mitchell Road•Eden Prairie,Minn. 55343.612/941-5300 January 4, 1977 • • Mr. Richa'rd Putnam Planning Director City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • Dear Mr. Putnam; This letter constitutes an application for development stage approval of PUD, rezoning and preliminary plat approval for Outlot 0, P and part of Outlot Q, Edenvale 3rd Addition. The application follows the format suggested in your letter dated September 27, 1976 regarding development procedures. • PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE SUBMISSION A. Project Identification: 1. Ownership - The land is owned in fee title by Edenvale, Inc. The lots after development will be marketed to various builders for construction of single family homes. 2. Developer - Edenvale, Inc. will be the developer. 3. Fiscal Economic - Development money will be obtained either through a land development loan with private financing institutions or by petitioning the City of Eden Prairie for developing lots and assessing the cost against the property. • LIIgo • i 4 • _2_ 4. Development Method - the lots will be prepared for home construction and marketed either in blocks or individually to builders. 5. Development Timing - It is expected that grading will be done as soon as the frost is gone in spring 1977 with utility and street construction to be done subsequently. The home construction will commence in spring 1977. Occupancy is expected by late summer 1977. 6. Critical Public Decisions - The City is asked to approve PUD development stage plan, preliminary plat, utility and street plans and rezoning of site from rural to RM 6.5 in accordance with PUD concept plan 70-4 approved in 1970 by Eden Prairie. 7. Additional General Information - This site was shown on the original PUD plan as M1 medium density land of 5 to 10 units per acre. It was subsequently considered for townhouse development but is now being proposed as single family clustered lots at a density of 2.5 units per acre. B. Plan Area Identification: 1. Boundaries - The project is located on Outlots 0, P and part of Q, Edenvale 3rd Addition, bounded on the south by Briarhill, on the west by Woodland Drive, on the north by Edenvale Boulevard and on the east by The Chicago and Northwestern railroad tracks and Edenvale 8th Addition. 2. Briarhill on the south is owned by Landtech Management Co. The property across Edenvale Boulevard is the site of Edenvale 12th Addition and Edenvale 7th Addition and is or will be owned by private owners. Woodland Addition will be sold by Edenvale, Inc. to builders for private homes. The property east of the site will be developed for medium density apartments or condominiums. • 3. Regional Relationships - The project is in keeping with the residential character outlined in the Edenvale PUD but at a significantly lower density. The nearby parkland to be dedicated by Edenvale, as well as the County and City owned Birch Island Lake Park northeast of the site will satisfy park needs for the residents. 4. Existing land use is open. 5. Existing Transportation Systems - The major access to the property will be from the south by Edenvale Boulevard and Woodland Drive. An additional access will be provided from the north by Edenvale Boulevard and Birch Island Road. This basic pattern was approved previously by both the City Planning Commission and City Council in the Edenvale PUD. Some homes will front onto Woodland Drive which is a minor collector. This is necessary to utilize existing utilities and streets in order to make the proposed low dert.sity development economically feasible. y12i • • • -3- This cannot be done unless these facilities are utilized. It is consistent with homes along this street approved in Edenvale 7th, 10th and 12th Additions. 6. Existing zoning is rural under PUD concept approval of medium density residential. 7. The project is consistent with the guide plan and Edenvale PUD framework but at a lower density than originally planned. 8. General Analysis - The project will provide medium and large lots in a very desireable wooded area. The north end of the project is open and lots are reduced in size in this area. Street utilities, parks and • open spaces should support this density. The surrounding neighborhood is anticipated to .develop at a lower density than originally expected except for parcels that prove economically unfeasible for single family construction. The north end of Outlot R and S have previously been approved for apartment density along with Edenvale 12th Addition and the east part of Outlot Q and Edenvale 8th Addition to the northeast will have to be developed as apartment or condominium density because of • topography. • C. .Plan Project Area Analysis: • 1. Topography and slopes are shown on the preliminary plat. 2. Soils - the entire area is a sandy clay loantwhich lends itself to frame construction. 3. Vegetation - Wooded areas are shown on the preliminary plat. These trees consist of many large oaks and maple trees, with some elm and birch trees. The north end is open grass land and weeds. 4. Water - No ground water table should be encountered in the malority of the site. A small low spot is located in the center of the site. No 'water has been in this area for several years and it will be filled and used for roadway to eliminate the need to remove many large oak trees adjacent to it. A low area along the railroad will be used to convey storm water to existing ditches along the tracks. 5. An aerial photograph of the site is submitted. 6. Ecological Analysis - The grading is being kept to a minimum by varying grades between building pads to conform as close as possible to existing grade. Grading will be limited to roadway areas and grades will be set to conform as much as possible to existing ground. A very concerted effort to save trees will be done as in the rest of Edenvale. The steep wooded slopes are left in outlots to retain trees. q• I7� • a. b • • • D. Plan Proposal: . 1. Development Objective - The development objective is to satisfy a need for large and medium sized lots for homes in the $60,000 to $100,000 range. These lots will be sold to builders for resale to home owners. 2. Site Plan - A preliminary plat is submitted. 3. Grading - Grades are shown on preliminary plat submitted. 4. Utilities.- Shown on preliminary plat. . 5. Architectural Plans - No architectural plans are submitted as the ' development will be single family detached homes of varying architectural • style. • 6. Legal Instruments - No owners association will be set up other than the Edenvale Association which legal documents have previously been filed and approved. 7. Densities, acreage, etc. are shown on the preliminary plat. 8. Zoning Classification - Zoning classification required will he EH 6.5 and setbacks similar to Edenvale 12th Addition as recommended by Eden Prairie's Engineering Department. 9. The entire development will be placed into two development phases ' beginning on the south end and subject to availability of financing and market. It is expected that the first phase will be the southerly 61 l• ots. .10. Additional Information - No additional information is submitted. The .Edenvale Environmental Impact Statement is available for reference if desired. This application is intended to accompany the previous application for platting of Outlot E & F. Please proceed with the processing of these applications for PU1 development stage approval, zoning and preliminary platting as soon as possible. Yours truly, • Donald R. Peterson DRP/sr • Enclosures • • P; ,.,a 01977 March 29th, 1977 Mr. John D. Frane City Clerk City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Frane: In response to your notice of a public hearing for the rezoning by Mr. Helle of 16 acres South of County Road 39 to Industrial Park, Condon/Naegele would like to express its support for the change. Sincerely, ice,y4;74 *.:0441 Kraig A. Lofquist Associate Condon/Naegele Properties • KAL:bap 413311 April 5, 1977 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 77-43 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORSEMAN • . • INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION , dated January 7, 1977 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: 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 Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk qIRO\ • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CHECK LIST FOR R*VIEWING PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENTS DATE: 1/13/77 DEVELOPMENT: NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADD. L.D. NO. 77-P-Z-04 LOCATION: South of Co. Rd. #39 & 400' East of Washington Ave. REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS ZONING AGREEMENT: RES. #. DEVELOPER: Herliev Helle ENGINEER/PLANNER: Robert B. Meredith DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: Preliminary Plan dated 1/7/77 ' PROPOSAL: the developer is requesting Preliminary Plat and rezoning'approval of the site _ 1. Land Development application filed and filing fee & deposit paid _ Yes Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District Yes 2. Processing Schedule: • a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary 1/14/77 b. Park & Recreation Commission c. Human Rights Commission d. Planning Commission Public Hrg. e: City Council consideration f. Watershed District 3. Type of Development Industrial 4. Environmental assessment or impact statement required per. Environmental Impact Policy Act of 1973: No • 418 C., • • - 2 - 5. Present Zoning Rural 6. Proposed Zoning 1-2 Park Consistent with approved P.U.D. or Comp Plan? Yes (Camp. Plan) List variances required & setbacks that apply: Requirements of Ordinance No. 135 • 7. Project Area t 16 acres Density 3.9 acres per lot • 8. Public open space and/or cash dedication Cash dedication required Private open space None proposed Trail systems & sidewalks None proposed Range of lot sizes 3.9 acres (four lots) 9. Preliminary Building Plans Not submitted . • 10. Representative Soil Borings Not submitted 11. Street System A. Access to adjoining properties * ._ B. Type R/W Roadway (Back to Back of Curb) Private driveways, no 24 parking Post no parking signs Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28. (not over 1000') & minor residential Cul de sacs • 100 78 (no island) 120 98 (with island) Thru Residential (collectors) & Cul de sacs over 1000' 60 32 Recommend dedication of 40' across the south end of lots 3 andfor future extension of W. 74th St. Additional 30' to be acquired by the City from property owners to the south at time permanent road is needed. Also recommend dedication of 70' street R/W in N-S direction through the center of the property to Conform with the Lake Smetana Plan. qi 1 t) 3 - i N-S street and W. 74tht . MSA 70 44 ns ruction can be stagedSt parkway 100 28 divided Fire Road 12 Pathways 12 6 Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5% Concrete curb & gutter required, Deep strength asphalt design Re iced C. Check City's comprehensive street tyhis cost, & R/W dedication N.A. Developer builds 1/2 of parkway at D. Street es - 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. E. Private parking lots--B6-12 conc C&G and ffuullidedth.asph. design F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs Developer purchase - City install 12. Parking: (See Ord. #141) As required through Ord. #141 13. Utility Systems: A. Sanitary Sewer Extension from existing B and Lake trunk ro sed 1. Service Detail As required by plumbing Ins ctor 2. Service to adjoining property Possible oversizin of trunk extension to be considered upon final design • B. Watermain: Available from Washington Avenue 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture) O.K. 2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector to review 3. Valving Review pending final design • 4. Compliance with fire code Fire Inspector to review 5. Service to adjacent property Provision for extension and looping of system required. till F. . I - 4 - . No grading & drainage plan submitted 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 pon ds Required - Show outlet of temporary holding pond. 4. Avoid excessive gracing and tree removal Required 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 - Provide calculations showing capacity of holding pond. 7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Required 8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes' Required 9. Flood plain encroachment None 10. Watershed District approval Required (Nine Mile Watershed) 11. DNR approval N.A. D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground required E. Electric (underground) Required 14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Pending receipt of petition from developer 15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MHD or Henn. Co. if abutting a State or County Hwy. ' Hennepin County Highway Dept. (Co. Rd. # 39) 16. List special assessments levied and pending Levied: #6452, trunk sewer & water, $26,208 17. Re-zoning agreement required Yes Developer's Agreement reai•ired Yes Title Abstract for Attorney s review Not required .approved Planning Commission Meeting -6- Feb. 28, 1977 Ii! F. Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition, by Helle, request to preliminary plat and rezone 16 acres from Rural to Industrial I-2 Park. The site is located south of Co. Rd. 39 approximately 400 feet west of Washington Avenue. A continued public hearing. The planner referred the commission to the staff report recommending denial of the project and the BRW letter addressing the traffic concerns. He stated the city staff believes a north/south route is needed and the property owners should work in conjunc- tion with the staff in order to allow reasonable industrial development in this area of the city. He further stated the staff is suggesting Mr. Helle resubmit his plat and show a north/south road. Mr. Helle did not believe a north/south road is needed to serve the property and did not desire dedicating any right-of-way as the right-of-way should be purchased. He added that the Valley View Road relocation is a county matter and the city need not become involved and deny his project on that basis. He believed the city is not giving him equal treatment Tom Bartel asked if the property to the east of this proposal is zoned. The planner replied the property is zoned and built upon. Motion 1: Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to close the public hearing considering the prelimina plat of Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. Motion 2: Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded,to recommend the rezoning and preliminary plat request by Mr. Helle , dated Jan. 7, 1977 be denied based upon its inconsistencies with the transportation needs of the Lake Smetana Plan and the Feb. 23, 1977 BRW letter repor, Motion carried 3:0:1 with Bearman abstaining. • / � • • • approved Planning Commission Minutes -6• Feb, 14, 1977 E. Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition, by Mr. Helle, request to preliminary plat and rezone 16 acres from Rural to Industrial. The site is located south of Co. Rd. 39 approximately 400 feet east of Washington Avenue. A continued public hearing. Mr. Eager referred the commission to Mr. Helie's letter of Feb. 14, 1977 and the 8RW report dated Feb. 10, 1977. Sidmond Helle, representing Mr. Herleiv Helle, stated the property is shown to be industrial by all studies done by the city and they wish to receive zoning as soon as possible so they can market the property which is presently at a very high tax level even though it is only zoned Rural. Pauly asked if the staff had concerns relative to the zoning or if their concerns are about the road location. Mr. Enger replied the staff agrees with the zoning • request but does have concerns relative to road location and right-of-way. Sorensen asked if the staff report would be completed by the next meeting. Mr. Enger replied he believed the report could be completed by the next meeting depending upon staff time. Sidmond Helle believed a logistical problem is involved in placing the road as depicted in the 8RW report. • Mr. Sorensen suggested Mr. Helle submit any further information to the staff in time so that it could be addressed in the staff report. Motion: Fosnocht moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue thepublic hearing to the commission's Feb. 28th meeting. The motion carried unanimously. • • ., r 1,1 approved Planning 6 Zoning Commission -6- Jan. 24, 1977 • B. Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition, by Herleiv Helle, request to preliminary plat and rezone 16 acres from Rural to Industrial. The site is located south of Co. Rd. 39 approximately 400 feet east of Washington Avenue. Mr. Helle stated his request is very simple, 4 acres per lot and sewer and water are available and will be worked out with the City Engineer. He stated he has tried to sell the property, but buyers want zoning. He felt the zoning will be consistent with the Guide Plan and he will retain the tree line between the property and Hi]lger's and Bearman's homes. He expressed his opposition to Co. Rd. 39 going through his property and objected to the road system proposed by the Smetana Lake Report. Bearman questioned which way Co. Rd. 39 would be relocated. The planner replied the county will be addressing the issue and the city may be seeking traffic consultants' assistance in reevaluating the road system in this area of the Smetana Lake Sector. The planner stated one problem with widening Valley View is that as it crosses the creek it is limited to the existing right-of-way and no additional right-of-way can be acquired because of park dedication along Nine Mile Creek. - Mr. Bill Pearson stated he has no objection with the road systems. Helle did not believe further time and study should be spent on road systems in Smetana Lake as the city has already done one report. Motion: Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to continue the public hearing to the commission's Feb. 14th meeting and direct the staff to prepare a report and recommendations. Helle objected to any delays and requested the commission take action tonight or he would proceed to the City Council. Sorensen asked Mr.Helle to allow the commission to consider the motion and ruled Mr. Helle out of order. Mr. $ Mrs. Helle further objected to continuing stating it was a delay that was uncalled for. Sorensen informed the Belles they were out of order. Mr. Putnam reminded Mr. Helle, according to Ord. 135, the commission has 60 days from the date of referral to make a recommendation on an item before it goes to the City Council. Vote: The motion carried 4:0:1 with Bearman abstaining Mr. Helle again expressed his displeasure of having the item not acted upon and stated no further study should be done on the road systems. He said he would ask to be on the Council's agenda with or without a Planning $ Zoning Commission recommendation. • • STAFF REPORT TO : Planning Commission FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director DATE: Feb. 23, 1977 PROJECT: Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition APPLICANT: Mr. Helle REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park LOCATION: South of Co. Rd. 39 and west of Norseman Ind. Pk 1st Add. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS a. Smetana Lake Sector Plan , June 20, 1974 b. Eden Prairie Council Resolution #900 c. Feb. 10, 1977 Memo from Richard Wolsfeld, BRW d. Feb. 14, 1977 letter to Roger Ulstad, City Manager from Mr. Helle INTRODUCTION The reference documents listed illustrate the comprehensive research and analysis that has been utilized in drafting the conclusions and recommendations which fot- low in this report. The staff will not restate the facts and conclusions , but rather confine our discussion to controversial issues. • i LAND USE • The landowner's request for I-2 Park zoning is consistent with the city Guide Plan originally adopted in 1968 and amended in 1974 with the Smetana Lake Plan. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS The landowner rezoning request does not allow for the construction of a north/south relocated Valley View Road connecting the Co. Rd. 18 interchange with the MCA Schooner Boulevard / 212/ 169 interchange. The Smetana Lake Plan recognized the need for an arterial street as critical to t1e orderly development of the industrial land south of Valley View Road, the sep- aration of industrial and residential traffic and the need for a high volume arterial connecting two of the three interchanges serving the 1,000 acre sector. Mr. Woldsfeld's letter, 2/10/77, concludes: • " The conclusions of this analysis from a traffic engineering viewpoint is to build a relocated Valley View Road as a four lane arterial with turn lanes at major intersections. This road should intersect at right angles with both the extended Shady Oak and Ring Road. The specific location of Valley View • Road is beyond the scope of this effort." (refer to Fig. A 6 B) .J `i40 1g +mA I , Staff Report- Norseman Ind Pk 2nd Add -2- Feb. 23, 1977 Figure A Figure B I; j{ • • • it . 41[. 1 • • 1r • S�'N 1 • Rory <v • S m S. I-494 i. Land Use G Transportation System Recommendations lj The staff review of city policy . Mr. Helle's rezoning request and Mr. Woldsfeld's I. analysis produces the following recommendations: 1. That the relocated Valley View Road is necessary to allow orderly development in the Smetana Lake Sector. 2. That the right-of-way for relocated Valley View will require extension through Mr. Helle's 16± acre plat. 3. That the use of Mr. Helle's 16t acre site for industrial park (I-2 ) is consistent with all city plans. • • • • L ft e 'Staff Report-Norseman Ind Pk 2nd Add -3- Feb. 23, 1977 I fjs . • I •, • i f 1 ( I. '''' /../ ,\ . (t i',Tr-\\ .. ._\.,,i. 4 • 4 ,. - i ,:..7 )fi ) ,—' i ' \i' /.!!, . )1 i 1,9_,/,/117' >: "�' F�i �, •Y - - • ,r,j� m . I , . --_-- / - j, �: 0 / _. —� --<;% - --•'I .• .. . , ( /'��i •'i --- j;�, ' to /�/��/ x - ' , ,/l(l(l( ` , ' r �1' - / " - --•�_� n I # i;;/ (/ I -- -_ '� :.. ... / --- 7 1 i • I ....._.. ._. .h.rr,wx9• Figure 1 is the plan proposed by Mr. Helle with no road alignment provided. _ Figures II, III, IV illustrate minimum 2± acre industrial lots with three road alignments. The staff recommends that figures II, III, or IV be considered by the property owner in a redesign of his site plan. • (Figures III f, IV on following page ) .. _.. —_ . 't • Staff Report-Norseman Ind Pk 2nd Add -4- Feb. 23, 1977 • I /' fl '�$ 1 ,, •to � `GI ��;/ .. ;•. t' �.,� -.�. ;��... _7 . . 1:\'► 5 • :� � • : -,!..1/•y 1 1 ,,/) 7 i .14. /711\ ( ..2, . .1 / , • , / i ' '' Ilrc-. ',. 2, , '//i—ii-.777r1r1.1.• • '.,4 - , ••• '''• . :-. i • .41 /j/;'.8-,i..-:.).N;_ • ---,;. - -`, N ) - . .7 -- /'. �.s ` -. . : 1 �'j . ;' -•, • �:._, . , ! , 1 + ; Construction of relocated Valley View Road would be to a normal industrial street standard as requested by the property owner. Future street expansion to county arterial standards would be accomplished by the County or City when the need warrants. Right-of-way for relocated Valley View Road should be provided by property owners as the property is zoned and platted for development consistent with the provisions of Ordinance 93. CONCLUSIONS 1. The staff recommends that the rezoning and preliminary plat request by Mr. Helle, dated Jan. 7, 1977, be denied based upon its inconsis- tencies with the transportation needs of the Lake Smetana Plan . 2. The staff recommends that the proponent redesign his plan to provide right-of-way for a relocated Valley View Road through the 16t acre site. • DP:JJ • J i J • • 4 HERLEIV HELLE cp.!, fi 6138 Arctic Way a f, Edina.Minnesota 55436 • February 14, 1977 Mr. Roger Ulstad Manager of The City of Eden Prairie .Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Ulstad: I am sorry that the planner did not show up at the Planning Commission meet- ing of January 24th. Without notifying me, he had left for an out-of-town trip, and his replacement did not show up. He probably would have done a better introduction than I did. I have to admit that I was very disappointed because my proposal did not pass. It was sent back to the staff for more study. Then a question came to my mind. Is this like another Lake Smetana study for over a year ... or is it just two weeks. I am writing this letter in order to clarify my view, and hope it helps the City to understand my problem. 1. The Parcel in question lays west of Norseman Industrial Park, which lies in the Southwest corner of County Road 039 and Washington Avenue. The Parcel number is #2005, and the size is 16+ acres. 2. The proposed zoning is from Rural to I-2 Park. This zoning was recom- mended in your 1968 guide plan, and the Maculan report of September 4, 1973, and the staff report of October 29, 1973, and the final staff re- port of June 20, 1974, which was approved by the City Council. The parcel is located roughly 800 feet from a diamond interchange. On your staff report of October 29, 1973 recommends: "Industrial development should be considered within the major highway access area". As you can see, all planners and all plans agree that this particular parcel should be an I-2 Park. There is also demand for industrial land in the area. I could have sold 1/2 of this parcel to a printing company last spring if it had been zoned. This spring I have another prospect inquiring seriously about 1/2 of this parcel. The rental in the area seems to be good too. J. T. Mork Co. started construction: on an adjacent site August 17, 1976. In these five months, they have built two buildings and rented over 50', of the area. This is an excellent result when you consider today's economic condition. I have to have 74th Street built in order to get service to the south half of said parcel. As you probably know, when I plotted Norseman Industrial Park, I was requested to dedicate 40 feet for future 74th Street. Mr. George Hight, who was your planner or manager at that time, said the other 1/2 would be re- quested from the neighbor, when they came in for plotting or request for build- ing permit. However, the City did not live up to its promise when the neighbor • City of Eden Prairie ' February 14, 1977 - Page #2 • on the south of my property built, and to avoid any consultations, I declare t 4th I will to givem hetcos 26 referably by assessment of landet of land in order to �,cas7longsasethe I will also assume the cost, preferably neighbor can prove they don't need the street. Utility - Water is available on Washington Avenue. • Sewer - Is available on the Northwest corner of my 42 acre parcel at a point closest to Nine-Mile Creek and Valley View Road. It is extended outside of the road, and it is located within my own- n border. This can easily be extended through my gravel pi cause excavation has proceeded so far that we get excellent gravity flow through there. ,; The present zoning on the north and south is Industrial. On the west side are two homes which altogether have an area of 7 acres. The border line between the properties has a heavy belt of forest, rather big trees and substantially couplenofrplaces.whWhen theich makesfoliageit realisa up,hrd tY uecano rbarelyate rseehthroughtit.in a This i makes an excellent barrier between those two zonings, and in addition ofto that, , when my area is graded, it will be at a lower level than the property heavy two neighbor'sop. ManTcouldore,not make atically we will better barrier herete thanrme MotherhNature vegetationsid on top. has provided. I am guessing, but I think 1/3 or possibly 1/2 of that foresidee- longs to my property, and I have no intention of cutting down trees on my of the line. I cannot guarantee at this time, but I have in mind to erect a pair of buildings like those of J. T. Mork Co., where exposed to the outside is the office building and parking lot, and all the loading area will be intern- ally between the two buildings. This makes truck traffic almost invisible from I ' the street and adjacent property. Anybody interested can drive over there in the neighborhood and look at it them- selves. • When it comes to the so-called new Valley View Road, I want to go on record as • opposed to it. p the same theview Planning Commdission ofew feMay 21ars ago, 1974.You can Therenare o out by reading myy report to a number of reasons, and I will try to explain a few of them. If this road is located 1/2 and 1/2 on my and Bearman-Hillgers property, you their will have to cut Furthermore,ytherespeaking, an1e0levation vars. iationhofr38 will feet,then i nlase privacy. distance of not longer than 400 feet. You either will have to build a very steep road, or make a tremendous cut with high retaining wall, or have widetse pes, which will require a tremendous right-of-way. If you build it up er area, it will interfere with the free flow of surface water, and it will make it hard to construct a sanitary sewer. It is a tremendously difficult project to build a temporary intersection with the present Valley View Road because of a combination of elevation differences and horizontal as well as vertical curve. Furthermore, to build a County Road is a County job ... it is not for a private, person .. nor can it be built piece-meal either. a • City of Eden Prairie Pa a B3 February 14, 1911 9 ,I / In the Eden Prairie Sun, I read that the Physical Electronic Industry, ii Inc. nt of 0 and previously ent y, hadreceivedrial Revenue additionallyBond in the$1,300,000 inoIndustrialORevenue Bon now recently, withi Bond, I guess you do this in order to create jobsthingsn Eden However,rle'byn d I assume this is legal and a correct way of doing developing Norseman Industrial Park,and with the help of the builders, also have created 100 jobs, and maybe more, and none of us so far as I know, has asked for any Industrial Municipal Industrial Bonds. , All I am asking for is rezoning, so I can continue to bring jobs to Eden Prairie without any municipal support. However, if some land owners south of County Road #39 and east of Nine-Mile-Creek ask ann wrezoning,cit alwae seems to wind up in some kind of a study as much traffich , hundreds of jobs created by Physical Electronic, bring just tria Park. frcblu created in hve have started at thatstime, then traf- ficyoufwoul study be done by now. I would like to give o few ross for issuing real ures of statetaxts. The for the yeare I am 1974 using is the value theCity and the taxes is what was due and payable 1975. I am including the last parcel in Norseman Industrial Park because that cannot resolved. Here are the figures: be used before I have the 74th Street problemS 9g,000 00 1. 16 Acres valued at 598,000.00 2. 2.6 Acres in Norseman Industrial Park, 43�DO calmed at $43,000.00 5 141000.00 Total Value - for tax purposes Annual Holding Cost on value figure - 10% S 14,100.00 1_ 1,B0U0 Taxes Total Holding Cost - per year S P5,900.00 - per month 2,158.00 - per day 71.00 - per hour 2.95 ( /hr roughly theeclock aking $ 5 , 360 arounddays . a year) , The Holding Cost from your January 2 meeting,et . • 1,490.00 o t your February 24th meeting, figures out It spea ks for imtself.ket, hen for get that high, we have to make it ready for the le. • ii Y1'7J fl City of Eden Prairie • February 14, 1977 - Page #4 t • Real Estate Taxes • It may or may not have some interest to you to receive information about the difference in real estate taxation between me and the two home owners. To- gether they have about 7 acres, and I will compare them with what I pay for 7 acres in my parcel. On one acre of my land, I pay $471.00 a year, on 7 acres this amounts to roughly $3,300.00. My neighbor pays less than $3,000efor their 7 acres. In my opinion, this seems like they are paying no taxes for their home. I have a hard time accepting this as being fair. However, that is not the worst part of it. What I think is worse is that if those two neighbors, in some way or another, make the city prevent me from using my land for what it has been proposed to be on several plans, then I feel I have a right to rebel. Last year I cleaned out all my tax liability on my sixteen acres - it was dose to $40,000.00 or $2,500.00 per acre. If I knew at that time that I would be de- nied the right to use my land, I would have kept my money, and dropped my land. Therefore, if the City exercised their right to issue heavy taxes, and also ex- ercise their right to delay and deny zoning, they can squeeze property out of the hands of anybody they wish ... even if the reason were only that they didn't like his personality or his broken English. I absolutely do not think that local government was invented for this purpose. And when we are talking about taxes, it might be worth while to know that if this land is rezoned, it will give room for 200,000 sq. ft. of industrial buildings with a taxation of 4O a foot .. this will amount fo $80,000 a year. Can the City afford to put down such an opportun- ity when they have to guarantee over $2,000,000 in order to get the same tax benefot from other company. There has been a rather slow growth in the Golden Triangle. Last year I don't think that more than ten acrews were used for building. At that rate it will take over 50 years to build up the Golden Triangle, and by knowing the holding costs you can just about figure out what an acre will cost about 50 years from now. Will you do me a favor and respond to a little question? Take a moment or two and make yourself believe that this property is owned by you, or your retiring father who is deprived of turning his property into cash, and is responsible for its holding costs. What would you then do with this property? My conclusion is then: 1. Rezone Parcel #2005 from Rural to I-2 Park, something which all your proposed plans have shown. 2. Have 74th Street built westward to serve the south end of this parcel as your present guide plan shows: This street has to be built, no matter what kind of a Valley View Road you use. 3. Take immediate steps to plan and install utility to this property. • I hope this information has been useful for you for the valuation of my situation as well as the City. Therefore, I hope you will.go along with my proposal and recommend for approval by the City Council. /� r.,•Resp ctf ly sut pitted,./ Her1eiv Ilelle V • 44311 • • • • nnDrD , Q killuous.W PLMINING/TRANSPORTATION/ENOtNEER1NOeARCHRECTURE February 10, 1977 MEMORANDUM To: Richard Putnam From: - Richard Wolsfeld 0206 Subject: Review of Road Plans for Lake Smetana Sector As per your request BRW has completed an analysis of the follow- ing traffic issues in the Lake Smetana Sector: • Need for a road to connect the Valley View/Co.Rd. • 18 interchange with the proposed ring road. • Relationship of the road to the extension of Shady Oak to Valley View/Co.Rd. 18 interchange. • Type of road that will be required to serve the expected traffic to, from, and through the area. • Location of the road between the two points. The analysis and the results are discussed below. Background Material The following resource material was reviewed and utilized in the analysis: • Eden Prairie Staff Report - "Lake Smetana Sector Study", dated June 20, 1974. • Hennepin County Transportation System Study, BRW, October, 1976. - GATHER.RINGROSE.WOLSFELD,INC. 7101 YORK AVENUE SOUTH EDINA.MINNESOTA 55135 PHONE 612,e31.2300 ' , • • Richard Putnam February 10, 1977 Page 2 • Need For Road Connection This sector of land is extremely unique in the way it is 4 surrounded by controlled access freeways. If the interchange of Co. Rd. 18/I-494 is upgraded, there will be only 3 ways into or out of the area. Connecting the access points in the most direct manner possible has the following advantages: • Provides maximum accessibility for properties within the sector in all directions. • Helps to balance the traffic loadings on the various roads. • Tends to minimize the amount of travel and turns in the area. • Provides the most direct route across the sector for any trips from outside the area desiring to cross the area. Thus, the concept of connecting the access points to the area with a road system, as presented in the Composite 1974 Plan for Lake Smetana is logical and valid. Relationship of Connecting Roads Figure 1 illustrates two possible relationships for the major connecting roads in the sector. The traffic planning principles that apply to this situation include: • Minimize the number of turns for the heaviest flow of vehicles. • Intersect the major roads at right angles. Since both schemes intersect at right angles, the primary concern is to minimize the number of turns. Analysis of—the composite plan indicates that more traffic would have access to the exten- sion. of Shady Oak than to Valley View when the area is fully developed. Therefore, Method 2 is preferred over Method 1. In addition, Shady Oak has route continuity to the northwest, whereas Valley View ends at the proposed ring road. 14196 • Richard Putnam February 10, 1977 • Page 3 1 Type of Road Required To Serve Traffic The third major issue to be addressed is the required road type (i.e. two-lane, four-lane, etc.) to serve the traffic along the Valley View corridor. The key indicator of the size of road required is the forecasted volume. The forecasted volumes in the Composite Plan have been reviewed and found to be reasonable. The key variable is the intensity of industrial use that actually results; the concept of using the average value for trip genera- tion is reasonable. Using a capacity of 840-1,000 vehicles/ hour/lane for an urban arterial in BRW's opinion is a little high; 600-800 vehicles/hour/lane is more reasonable. However, if a lower capacity is used, the degree of failure by the road system increases. Designing Valley View and Shady Oak as four-lane, divided road- ways certainly is a conservative posture and will require lower land use intensities, changes in vehicle occupancy, or staggering of work hours. The real restricting factor is the capacity of the interchanges; there is no value in bringing a six lane arterial with a capacity of 3,500 vehicles/hour up to an inter- change that can only handle 1,800 vehicles per hour. A good balance between the interchange capacities and the connecfing road system geometrics is to design Valley View and Shady Oak as four-lane arterials with turn lanes at major intersections. location of Roadway Within Valley View Corridor The next key issue is where the required four-lane arterial roadway in the Valley View corridor should be located. Two options exist (Figure 2). upgrade the existing Valley View 41 build a new road In evaluating these two options many factors should be taken in account. This report only evaluates the options from a I traffic engineering viewpoint. Existing Valley View Road is a road with curves of less than 30 mph design speed, grades in the range of 6%, and the road is cut into hills in many cases. All of these characteristics result in lowering the capacity of the road. According to the "Highway Capacity Manual" published by the National Academy of Sciences the capacity of a roadway is reduced by the following percentages for rolling terrain and lateral obstructions. • • Richard Putnam • February 10, 1977 Page 4 . Factor % Reduction Rolling Terrain 17 • Lateral Obstructions 15 • Thus if Valley View were upgraded to four lanes and had rolling terrain and lateral obstructions, the capability to carry vehicles would be 32% less than a roadway on level terrain and no lateral obstructions. Another factor is the problem associated with mixing traffic types. A general traffic planning principle. is to separate ' industrial/employment related traffic from residential traffic. From traffic engineering standpoint, these two factors would suggest a relocation of Valley View. Conclusions The conclusions of this analysis from a traffic engineering viewpoint is to build a relocated Valley View Road as a four - lane arterial with turn lanes at major intersections. This road should intersect at right angles with both the extended Shady Oak and the Ring Road. The specific location of Valley View is beyond the scope of this effort. RW:ju . A .$ A A r e. m lopu... 33 ,3 "I m • o H• m m . -I GO RP. /a , =O v . CO • 0 i 0 F 0 m Z .. Z m 0 z A, . s • ZaC)u.s, , . • • , fm 0 . . v .,4.c,. Potty I G N o <o Rp/g • • • li �.. > f- m Ili, -I m "hp 1 O n O mn WAS%I4bTpt4 AVE. It < 17 to.RP- 18 -der _alb.- . mo o prm • Fri 5i m 0 xi y • � d 1 v < a I m fo \111114P1. , 1a ELFy . m roF As% •TON AVE. . i 11 ,. :O. is -.a I.- --quir Jt J 1 O. T. MORK 6CO.' INCORPORATED TELEPHONE AREA CODE ON MORE BUILDING 641-3840 6660 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 35343 January 28, 1977 . • • City of Eden Prairie 8950 County Road #4 Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Re: Industrial Land Eden Prairie, Minnesota Gentlemen: As you are no doubt aware,last Fall we purchased 4.9 acres of property from Mr. Herleiv Helle on the corner of Valley View Road and Washington Avenue South. We started construction of our project, VALLEY SQUARE, approximately August 17, 1976 and in the five months since we begun the project, we are now approxi- mately 60% leased. , This letter is to serve as notice that if Mr. Helle's property to the west of my we wouldt had proper enterintoserious negotiationsadequately zoning with wi sized utilities, with Mr. Hellefor'thecpurchase of same. We have consistently enjoyed the spirit of cooperation shown to us on the part of the City and have always been able to lease our properties that we developed along Washingtcn Avenue. Warme pers'nal regards, V. 41(04‘ 4 6. T. Mork President 'GTM:baj • • :4. . _. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Marty Jessen, Director-of Community Services At. SUBJECT: Public Hearing April 5, 1977 For Removal of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees DATE: March 25, 1977 Attached is the notice of public hearing sent to the Eden Prairie News and the letter sent to the property owners who have not taken down their marked trees. A number of the people have called us and are taking action to remove their trees and will be dropped from the list. We would hope that there will be only 10-15 property owners who have not responded to the request for removal of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees by the April 5 hearing date. Some of these will no doubt take action after the 5th and before the 15th - which is the DEADLINE. By your ordering the trees removed on the 5th - we'll be ab e"f to proceed to remove the trees immediately after the 15th by receiving bids and issuing contracts. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Marty Jessen. Director of Comnunity Services M...) SUBJECT: Tree Removal Assessments DATE: April 1, 1977 Attached is a list of property owners who have not to date taken positive action to remove their trees as marked last fall. We'll be contacting each on Monday or Tuesday to verify last minute activity. The number of trees are approximate and the estimated costs are based on two times the subsidy approved at the last meeting. The actual number of trees will be based on final field work and actual cost of bids which we'll solicit after April 15th. l4ZOo2/t • • W XAt- 0 0 0 O 0 0- - 0 0 0 0 0 00000 Z 0 to O 0 yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 tO 001U10 O N 01 tD n sel MO1 0 U e7 U) U) O N N fn AO if) N'0£ inN .7 .ti 0) N w ^ .••.r 0'1 N W. 4 to V► M--. 44 404-1Ryi U) W Ca Les aC H W 0 0 ul Cn el - P - 0 •• 0 - 0 tf)y tO XI O cc cc tD Le) 0 el N NNtD.-- 0-W Q 1 Z -J W L 0040 -0 00 - CON 0 - ... 0000 00000 CC 0.-000 -N N 0 000.0 - N 0 O.-+N < 000 N 0.0 -N 0 tD - - tp 0 tp Or —t"WS 0.0 0- fn y.•+ U .-. mM N N •• - N4D 4D fn.r 01 NM U)NN tD tD tD •tD tp tp fO fO • 0 0 0 0 r CO et tO tD to to F- 000 -0 00 0 0 00 - - rrr CV fO fO NN Q fn.fn.fn. nn n n Inn n N. n Inn nn nnIn. -J tD tD tO tO tD to it) tO tO • • tD •to to to to to 40 40 tO tO tO 0- U)WS U) tel U U) to y y U) U) y WS U) U) WS to WS WI •p VS CO 00 • 10 CO 0 t0 .0 V O y t0 Wy CPS S. • i S. O O W CO t 44 0 4.1 W 0 3 • U 4.1 C IX • V W �- U)0 y 1/1 in >C 0 in 4/1 •CO W 10 Oil - t0 y 7 _E r > .0 C r 3 • W •O •O W fl 0 W COC > N CPS ••0 f0 C •C • C •••S W r>r>W N >- fn. 0 tD C U C 0-in W U `.. C 0 S. $.. I-. 10•.- S. W C r W C W•r i t0 C ••cC W W t0 W K E t0 Y Y C n- U C•- C r W C r}I•p >>'0 C W X VI X W X W •E C 0.0 L •F V/r 0 c O.0 N CO 10 U WOO U. - .=10 - CJ tD CI Cl O K K J m K W . 01•• X~W W 0 10 W O 0 0- CC N N tf) C • 7 C- COO tf) C-. 0 0 CO 0.4 0 O t0 xr 0.10 0 C N .•)•.-0 0O M e7N.0 F- O ++L fn V e7 'VIe7 r fn rt CV•O 1\r IC r CO CO Z Q IX U tO • tD W tb.••V1 W N E..1, y W K 01.-t r 1,Of W U) V1 y W V1 )I < RI W S.0 W 00 VI 41 C1 E al V) n 1 InL �) W i C L) 7 - - V) I- W V) S. U W W S. W 0 W _se0 W W 10 W C C W C r C) Win•.- - •W O. i ...se CI t0 0- in • W r oGo IT W Y CO = y E S. 7 00 . f L S. O • C W O W C7 d y • 0 C) O Y 3 C) W V N C CO• NC 10 �+ - EE011 E ��'- E C in 0y8 0 71 C 10 t0 W 10 W L O W 0 3 3 ill C L O. W C - 10 S-W 3 - C 4-1 S. L - E W 7 0 ggX t C 7 S. U 4- •O it C C1100 S. �C+ oC • • CO.- tO 0. Z '7 0 S O • E~r . k i'? F J it k icry W it An)2 8 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA c} NOTICE OF HEARING ON • 4 PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota will meet on Tuesday, April 5, 1977 at 7:00 o'clock P.M. at the City Hall located at 8950 Eden Prairie Road for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the proposed assessments for the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased trees. The properties to be assessed are described as follows in Township 116, Range 22: SECTION PLAT NUMBER PARCEL 1 56701 1110 1 56701 5220 2 56702 8840 3 56703 2624 3 56703 2628 3 56703 5422 5 56705 5801 5 56705 3000 5 56705 • 3220 5 56705 1025 6 56706 3000 - 6 56706 1010 6 56706 5820 6 S6706 5812 - 6 56706 1200 6 56706 5000 6 56706 1400 6 56706 5210 9 56709 4400 10 56710 1530 10 56710 6000 10 56710 6500 10 56710 7000 11 S6711 1140 12 56712 8600 13 S6713 9100 13 56713 6700 13 56713 7010 24 56724 2120 24 56724 2110 26 56726 6412 26 56726 2010 26 S6726 2200 26 56726 2420 36 56736 3500 36 56736 5500 Hillcrest Courts 2nd Addition LOT BLOCK 3 1 56866 0900 2 1 56866 0600 Lia03 4 Written or oral objetions thereto by any property owners will be considered at this meeting. Published in the Eden Prairie News. March 24, 1977 John D. Franc, City Clerk • itao`f March 24, 1977 Dear Eden Prairie Property Owner: } Ne contacted you in a letter dated November 24, 1976 informing you of trees on your property identified in 1976 as having Dutch Elm Disease or Oak Wilt. These trees were identified under compulsion of State Law that requires municipalities to identify and order removal of these diseased trees. Under the rules and regulations of the State Department of Agricul- ture, which we must follow, all Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt diseased trees must be removed by April 15 of each year. This must be done in order to destroy beetle populations in diseased trees prior to their emergence and spread to healthy trees in the spring. A majorityof those property owners who have diseased trees on their property have cooperated and taken steps to remove the trees by the April 15 deadline. • To assist the property owner and to provide an incentive to property owners getting trees down, the City is making the following services available: 1. Burning Permits available to those who have sufficient trees to merit it and proper conditions to burn. 2. Continue pick-up program if trees are cut into sections eight feet in length and stacked on City right-of-ways. 3. Sanitation subsidy for trees only if removed prior to April 15th. RESIDENTIAL SUBSIDY (for up to 1 acre surrounding a home or multiple residential property.) 0-6" tree diameter $ 0/tree 6-18" tree diameter $25 18" 6 up tree diameter $50 OPEN LAND SUBSIDY (all other land) 0-6" tree diameter $ 0/ tree 6" $ up tree diameter $25 6" 4 up tree to be $15 burned 4. Reforestation replacement shade trees for trees only if removed prior to April 15th and only trees on Residential property. Laos • Eden Prairie Property Owner -2- If the trees identified in 1976 are not removed prior to April 15 you will not be eligible for the sanitation subsidy or the replace- ment trees. In addition, after April 15, the City will solicit bids for removal of trees on your property, and have them removed at your expense totally plus 10% overhead costs. In order to be prepared in the event you have not removed your diseased trees by April IS, a public hearing before the City Council • has been set to be held at 7:00P.M. on Tuesday, April 5, 1977, at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 8950 Eden Prairie Road. This will allow the City to assess your property if we must remove trees after the April 15 deadline. To summarize,the diseased trees identified on your property in 1976 must be removed by April 15, 1977. If you remove them, you get: 1) a sanitation subsidy, 2) replacement trees, 3) possible permit to burn if warranted, and/or, 4) pick-up of tree debris at curb. If you do not remove the trees prior to April 15, the City will remove them and assess you the cost and you will not be eligible for the sanitation subsidy. Make sure to contact us when removing trees so that we may verify date of removal. This will insure your subsidy if you are eligible. Thank you, Marty Jesse Director of ommunity Se ices Ml:md 4420G Don Omodt, Sheriff ��'��J,/',6^/'Courthouse,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55415 1 yia ii H@NNePIN COUNTY March 25, 1977 • Mr. Roger Ulstad Eden Prairie City Manager 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mr. Ulstad: On February 10th, 1977, I directed a memorandum to every municipality in Hennepin County requesting that the various City Councils and appropriate governmental bodies consider a proposal recommending state-wide financing of a 911 Euargency Communications system. Enclosed also was a sample resolution endorsing this proposal (a copy )f which is enclosed herein). As of today, I have received copies of approved resolutions from 20 of the 47 municipalities in the County. A bill pertaining to the establishment of 911 is presently going through the legislative committee process in both the House (H.F. #385) and the Senate (S.F. #448). Financing of 911 has been an issue of major concern among certain of the legislative committee members. In the interest of facilitating progress towards implementation of 911 in Minnesota, it is essential that the sponsors of 911 legislation receive evidence indicating wide support for the state-wide financing proposal. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you bring this matter to the attention of your City Council if you have not already done so. Hope- fully, within the very near future copies of approved resolutions will have been received in my office from all municipalities in Hennepin County. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact either myself (348-3740) or one of the following: James Brekken, Bloomington Police Chief (884-3591), Robert Scarlett, 911 Project Coordinator (291-6494), David Duryee, Hennepin County Sheriff's Department (348-5341). Thank you for giving this matter your prompt attention. Sincerely, SHERIFF DO:ehs Enclosure cc: James Brekken +� Robert Scarlett [Iddrj David Duryee Hennepin County is an Affirmative Action Employer a March 25, 1977 TO: Roger Ulstad FROM Keith Wall 4. 0. SUBJECT: 911 Financing Plan After the councils recent decision on the 911 Financing Resolution I made inquiries regarding actions of neighboring communities and the attitude of Northwestern Bell regarding the issue. My source of information was Bob Scarlet of the Metro Council's Public Information Section. He is in • charge of collecting data concerning community action on this resolution in the seven county area. His lists show that over 80% of Hennepin County communities and five of seven metro area counties have passed the resolution. He anticipates a better than 90% favorable reaction to this financing plan. I asked why most units of government were reacting favorably and he indicated that they saw this as the only alternative short of property tax as a funding source (all were opposed to property tax as a source of funds). I also inquired about Northwestern Bell's position on the matter and learned that they were opposed to any rate increase to finance this system and therefore felt that the gross earnings tax was the best alternative. We would appreciate the council's review of this memo and in light of the information here reconsider their decision regarding the resolution in question. gaot Metropolitan Council Supports County Plans and Financing Recommendations On Thursday, February 24, the Metropolitan Council passed a resolution supporting the recommendations of the Int^"-County Ad Hoc Committee on 911 Financing. Council members were aware that the Committee had investigated a variety of alternative financing methods and that the resulting recommendations were widely supported by elected officials in all seven counties. The following elected and appointed bodies have passed resolutions supporting these same financing recommendations: Dakota County Board of Commissioners Hennepin Emergency Communications Washington County Board of Commissioners Organization Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Edina City Council Ramsey County Board of Commissioners St. Louis Park City Council St. Paul City Council Medina City Council Robbinsdale City Council Shorewood City Council Plymouth City Council Minnetonka City Council St. Paul-Ramsey Criminal Justice Crystal C.ty Council Advisory Committee Champlin City Council Resolutions on the same subject are pending in a number of other counties and municipalities around the State. The resolutions are being forwarded to State Legislators representing these areas. Minnesota 911 Legislation is Unique in Nation If the Legislature acts to establish 911 service state-wide and provides appropriate funding for the r,quircd telephone system network, Minnesota will be the only state in the union to have done its "homework" on 911 costs before moving ahead with a bill. California, Florida, Louisianna, Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois have all passed state-wide 911 legislation ... but none of these states had previously studied the cost and developed appropriate funding policies. In these states, even though support for the canoe t was nearly unanimous, implementation has often been bogged down for lack of a sensible un tog program. • Here in Minnesota, sixteen of the most populous counties have already completed plans for county-wide 911 service. Consultants undr. "entract with the Metropolitan Council and with the • State have estimated the cost of implementr.,y 911 service for each of Minnesota's 87 counties. • An inter-county planning group has studied the cost estimates, studied financing ,,lternatives, and reached a consensus on a state-wide funding program ... before working on the passage of 911 legislation. The 911 funding program proposed for Minnesota will make it easier for all counties in the State to proceed with locally developed plans. The State will be asked to fund the telephone system trunking network needed to deliver 911 calls to designated local Primary Answering Points. The county or municipal governments responsible for operating the Primary Answering Points will continue to pay for answering point equipment along with any increases resulting from the implementation of 911 service. First County-Wide 911 System Ordered Jackson County is the first Minnesota county to approve a plan and place an order for county-wide 911 service. Steele County is the second. Fourteen other counties, including the seven metro area counties, are in a position to begin negotiating orders with local telephone companies. Scott County Delegation Visits Rochester Sheriff Robert Moody, Sgt. Al Dubois, Prior Lake Police Chief Richard Powell, County Admin- istrator Joseph Ries and Metro Council 911 Project Coordinator Bob Scarlett visited the 911 communications center in Rochester on February 28th and found out how their system works. Plmsted County Sheriff Chuck VonWald, Rochester Police Chief Macken, Fire Chief Orville Mertz, County Administrator Dick Devlin, Rochester Mayor Alex Smekta and Other local officials set aside tin* to discuss the benefits of 911 service and to point out ways of attacking problems that arise during implementation. The Scott County delegation brought back a packet of information that will assist us in planning for 911 service here. It contains information on public information programs and on policie^ and procedures based on their experience with 911 service during the past year. 4 • • • RESOLUTION Relating to the Endorsement of State Financing for Certain Features of 911 Emergency Telephone Systems. WHEREAS, the 911 emergency telephone system has been under study in the State of Minnesota for several years;and WHEREAS, planning of a 911 emergency telephone system for the entire seven-county metropolitan area has recently been accomplished;and WHEREAS, a Metropolitan Inter-County Ad Hoc Committee on 911 financing has prepared a proposal for the financing of 911,telephone systems on a State-wide basis;and WHEREAS, the Hennepin Emergency Communication Organization (HECO), which has been developed to coordinate emergency communication planning, has demonstrated support for this plan by unanimously adopting it and encouraging all units of government in Hennepin County to endorse these same recommendations;and WHEREAS, legislation mandating the adoption of 911 on a State-wide basis has been introduced into the bet two sessions of the Minnesota Legislature; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that this issue will again be under consider- ation in the present session of the Minnesota Legislature;and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that capital costs for the equipment necessary to implement the 911 system will be financed with federal and/or state grants; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE endorses the"Statement of Policy: 911 Telephone System Financing" recommendation which encourages the Minnesota State Legislature to look on the telephone company gross earnings tax as a source of revenue for the recurring costs of a basic 911 system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE supports the other recommendations in the report;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be forwarded to the legislative representatives of the in the Minnesota State Legislature, to the 911 Coordinator of the Metropolitan Council, and to Sheriff Donald Omodt, President of the Hennepin Emergency Communication Organization. 4o2(U STATEMENT OF POLICY: 911 TELEPHONE SYSTEM FINANCING Adopted by: Hennepin County Criminal Justice Council Communications Steering Committee January 27, 1977 • La(( HENNEPIN COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS STEERING COMMITTEE James M. Brekken, Chairman Chief, Bloomington Police Department Robert Buresh Chief, Edina Fire Department Donald Davis Public Safety Director, South Lake Minnetonka John DuBois Hennepin County Communications Division G. Patrick Lilja/John Luce Hennepin County Emergency Medical Services Donald Poss City Manager, Brooklyn Center Dick Richardson Minneapolis Public Works Donald Vodegel Hennepin County Sheriff's Radio Division• This statement of policy recommending a method for financing the recurring costs of the telephone network and equipment necessary for 911 emergency telephone service was unanimously adopted on January 27, 1977, by the Hen- nepin County Criminal Justice Council Communications Steering Committee. • 4111 • STATEMENT OF POLICY: 911 TELEPHONE SYSTEM FINANCING INTRODUCTION The 911 telephone system is an emergency response system whereby it is possible for a person to dial 911 and be connected directly to a public safety answering center which serves the area from which he is caning and which has the ability to either directly dispatch the appropriate pub- lic safety service, extend the call or directly relay the request to the appropriate responding agency. The 911 telephone system for the metropolitan seven-county area has ' been developed through a planning process that included a 911 planning group from each county. These groups individually developed, with the assistance of a consultant, an operational plan for each county. These county oper- ational plans were translated into technical specifications for a 911 tele- phone system for the seven-county area by the consultant. The consultant combined the seven separate county plans in such a way as to reach an optimum design for the entire area which should provide the greatest service at the lowest cost. This position paper is the result of a joint effort of representatives from each of the seven counties working as an ad hoc task force (see at- tachment). It is intended that this paper serve as a common understanding that will be reported to the appropriate county and local officials. It is also intended that this position paper serve as the basis of seeking legislative authority to fund the 911 telephone system. ASSUMPTIONS 1. A 911 telephone system will be mandated for the state. 2. Eventually, 911 will be used throughout the state as the number to call to obtain emergency assistance. 3. Capital costs for the equipment necessary to implement the 911 system will be paid for with state and/or federal assistance. 4. Although county and municipal governments may be willing and able to finance certain local recurring costs associated with this service, the financing capability of local government is extremely limited and state financial assistance will be sought to support certain telephone system network costs. 4218 - 2 5. It is likely that local units of government and telephone sub- scribers will experience some increased costs for telephone service with the implementation of 911. FACTS BEARING ON THE ISSUE 1. The geographical boundaries of the various political subdivi- sions in the metropolitan area do not correspond with the tele- phone exchange boundaries. 2. A great number of these political entities have their own public safety agencies which require immediate notification of requests for service. 3. Because these communities are contiguous, it is possible that a person needing emergency assistance may not know which com- munity he is in or which public safety agency should be called to obtain service. • 4. It is necessary to provide a telephone system whereby a call to request service will automatically be routed to the proper public safety answering point that can either provide the ser- vice requested or, as in the case of ambulance service in Hen- nepin County, extend the call to the appropriate agency without requiring a caller to re-dial. • 5. Telephone companies operating in the state of Minnesota tardonnonot pay a local property tax. Instead, they pa a y gross tax to the state of Minnesota. DISCUSSION The 911 configuration that has been recommended is an optimum design for the metropolitan area. It is recommended because through the sharing of common elements the overall cost is lower and the system will serve the needs of the entire metropolitan area equally. The complexities of this areawide system make it virtually impossible to allocate a fair share of the costs to each public safety answering point. For example, it is not possible to equitably determine who bene- fits from a particular trunking arrangement, or a trunking arrangement may be recommended which dictates additional telephone lines being routed to a particular public safety answering point, which in turn, however, produces a greater reduction in the overall trunking costs for the entire metropolitan area. START OF RETAKE The images appearing between this point and the End of Retake target are true, accurate, and complete copies of records that previously were not filmed or were filmed incorrectly. - 3 - CONCLUSIONS 1. A definition of the basic 911 service to be provided statewide should be adopted. Such a definition should be expressed in operational terms rather than technical specifications. 2. The basic level of service for the metropolitan area is by defi- nition the same as the basic level of service for the rest of the state. However, the complexity of the system trunking and the sophistication of the telephone equipment in the metropolitan area are likely to be greater than out state. 3. It is anticipated that as the units of government increase in population and density, the telephone trunking and equipment needed to deliver basic 911 service will increase. TMMENDATIONS 1. That "Basic 911 Service" for the state of Minnesota is defined as: An emergency response system whereby it is possible for a person anywhere in the state of Minnesota to dial 911 and be connected directly to a public safety answering center which serves the area from which he is calling and which has the ability to either directly dispatch the appropriate public safety ser- vice, extend the call or directly relay the request to the ap- propriate responding agency. (If individual counties and/or municipalities elect to dispatch some of their emergency services from a location or locations other than a public safety answering center, the telephone trunking and equipment necessary to extend the calls are not considered part of the basic service.) 2. That the recurring costs of the telephone network and equipment that are necessary to provide this "basic service" be paid for • by state-collected tax funds. 3. That the telephone termination equipment at the public safety answering point will be paid for by the governmental unit oper- ating the public safety answering point. 4. That a governmental unit desiring a level of service greater than the basic service, as herein defined, is expected to pay all costs of such additional service. 5. That the state should look to the tax on telephone company gross earnings as a source of revenue for the recurring 911 basic sys- tem costs. (It is understood that the gross earnings tax pro- duces approximately 34 million dollars of revenue annually and • I . END OF RETAKE • - 4 - that the anticipated natural growth of this tax revenue each year will more than cover the projected annual cost of basic 911 service for the state.) 6. That any legislation which mandates 911 throughout the state • include a provision describing the method the state will use to pay the recurring costs of the basic 911 system. 7. That legislation be adopted which exempts from the provisions of the levy limitation act local costs of implementing 911 which exceed existing costs of emergency telephone service. • • • • • • • • • L 116 whp/jh 2/25/77 Minn. Protective • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • ORDINANCE NO. 77-12 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 315 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended by adding the i following: • That part of Lots 1 and 2 of Auditor's Sub-division No. 335, lying Southwesterly of U.S. Interstate Highway No. 494 (per Doc. No. 3677302) and Southeasterly and Easterly of State Highways Nos. 212 and 169 (per Doc. No. 3677302) and Torrens Doc. No. 888473) more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of sal Lot 1 and running thence, on an assumed bearing of East an: ,ng the south line thereof a distance of 761.92 feet to it •ersection with the southerly boundary of Interstate No. 49 hence N. 64° 48' 29" W and along said southerly boundary .iistance of 65.85 feet; thence continuing along said southerly ooundary and along a curve to the left having a chord hearing of N 74° 07' 20" W and a central angle of 20° 19', and a radius of 2446.48 feet, on an arc distance of 867.50 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve bearing N 84° 16' 50" W, and continuing along said southerly boundary, a distance of 124.60 feet; thence S 19° 18' 33" W and along the easterly boundary of Trunk Highway No. 169 a distance of 236.57 feet; thence S 10 02' W a distance of 55.17 feet to a point on the south line of Lot 2 of said Auditor's Sub-division No. 335, being also the most northwesterly corner of Lot 2 of the plat of LEONA ADDITION; thence east along said sputh line a distance of 330 feet more or less to the southeast corner of said Lot 2 and the southwest corner of Lot 1 and being the point of beginning; and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Leona Addition, according to the record plat thereof; all of which land is situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. which property shall be and hereby is removed from rural zone and shall be included hereafter in the Office District (OFC) zone. ii • Section 3. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Rezoning Agreement dated June 22, 1976, entered into between MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO., a corporation, and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE; which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City relating to such Office District (OFC). Section 4. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of • Eden Prairie this _ day of , 1977 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1977. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on , 1977. i _2- d � • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 77-44 RESOLUTION SPELLING OUT THE CITY'S INTENTION TO SHARE IN THE COST OF REMOVAL OF CERTAIN DITCH ELM AND OAK WILT DISEASED TREES WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE GENERAL HEALTH AND WELFARE WHEREAS, The City of Eden Prairie in Ordinance No. 186 relating to the control and prevention of tree diseases has determined that the health of trees within municipal limits is threatened by certain tree diseases and that the loss of trees growing upon public and private property will substantially depreciate • the value of property within the City and impair the safety, good order, general welfare and convenience of the public; and WHEREAS, the cost of removal of diseased trees within the City can be of sub- stantial financial burden on the individual property owner; and WHEREAS, it is in the general interest and benefit of the City that the removal • of these trees be accomplished as quickly as is possible; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. Upon positive verification of tree disease under the provisions of Ordinance No. 186, the City Tree Inspector shall advise the landowner to remove said diseased tree within 20 days from the date of notice either by removing the tree himself or by having the City remove it under the Special Assessment procedure pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.061 by signing a waiver of hearing and consent to special assessments form. 2. If the owner fails to take appropriate corrective action within 20 days, the City shall order it done under the Special Assessment procedure pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.061. 3. The City shall subsidize the removal of diseased trees within the 20 day time limit as follows: Residential Trees Within 100' of a residential structure 0-6 diameter no subsidy 6-18" diameter $25.00 over 18" $50.00 Non-Residential Trees 0-6" diameter no subsidy over 6" diameter $25.00 unless if burned then subsidy is $15.00 If the Owner fails to take the corrective action within 20 days, he forfeits all eligibility for the tree removal subsidy. 4. The cost of tree removal under the special assessment procedures shall be assessed against the property for a period of five years with interest at the rate of 8%, and shall include 110% of the total cost of the bid for removal. less any subsidies for which the property owner is eligible. 4219 5. In any event, the City will pick up the trees at the nearest public road and dispose of the material in an approved manner provided that the material is cut into pieces of reasonable length and stacked in a manner in which they are easily handled. ADOPTED BY THE EDEN PRAIRE CITY COUNCIL THIS 5th day of April 1977. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, Clerk SEAL • y,,AU whp/jh 1011/76 (716,.:4;;;Z) • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNI:I'IN COUNTY, M INNENOTA ORDINANCE NO. 323 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135. 191E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended by adding to Section 3, Township 116, Range 22 as follows: That part of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 116, Range 22 described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4; thence East along the South line of said Southwest 1/4 to the Southeast corner of said West 1/2; thence North along the East line of said West 1/2 distant 682.55 feet; thence deflecting to the left 31° 30' distant 193.8 feet; thence Southwesterly 64D.0 feet more or less to a point in the West line of said Southwest 1/4 distant 493.5 feet North of said Southwest corner; thence South along said West line 493.5 feet to the point of beginning, except therefrom an easement over that part lying with the right of way of County Road No. 60, according to the United States Government survey thereof, which property shall be and hereby is removed from Rural zone and shall be included hereafter in the Public zone. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Rezoning Agreement dated March 16 , 1976, entered into between Crosstown Baptist Church and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject ,to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City relating to such Public zone. Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Edon Prairie this day of , 1976 and finally read and uza! adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1976. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John U. Franc, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1976. -2- uaa2- 3/16/79 REZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in triplicate this 16th day of March , 1977, by and between the CROSSTOWN . BAPTIST CHURCH, a religious corporation, hereinafter referred to es "Owner", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as "City", . ' •WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City to change zoning . .t • from Rural to Public for development of land more fully: <.. described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made' a part hereof; . and WHEREAS, It is believed that a rezoning of said area to . Public would be in the public's interest, welfare and conven- ience of the people of the City of Eden Prairie; and • WHEREAS, Owner agrees to develop the aforementioned • . property in consideration of• the City's changing of the zoning; • and Owner further agrees that as a part of said consideration, it will lay out, develop and maintain said project as herein- after set forth. EON, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the Mayor and the City Council of the City adopting an Ordinance changing the zoning from Rural to Public, the Owner agrees to construct on said property in accordance Stith the punning, ar;:hitcctural, engineering and landscaping requirements of all City Ordinances subject to the following terms and conditions: . j 1. That the 9.35 acre Crosstown Baptist Church site ' be recommended for rezoning from Rural District • • - to Public District for development of a church ,. complex, including: ' (a) Parking Lot (conforming to City ordinances) (b) Church buildings (including residences, if required) (c) Open space/recreation development (d) Private School • • 2. That the site plan meet the requirements for PUB Districts as set forth in Ordinance Nos. 141, . - 135, 178. That each phase of the final site plan shall be reviewed by the Zoning and Planning • Commission, for the purpose of making a recommenda- tion to the City Council. - 3. That the site plan presented does not completely . meet the front yard set back required for the - parking lot of 50 feet from the street right •of • way. The parking lot should be moved to meet the . 50 foot set back from existing Baker Road. i 4. To provide a walkway easement 20 feet in width along the West side of the property described -. herein. ' 5. •Bus storage is not .to be allowed on site without. adeauate screening, which screening is to be approved by the City Staff. 6. On the properties converted to other than single • family use, the access property shall•be relocated • in a manner to be approved by. the City Engineer.. • . 7. That all sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer • facilities, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing whether to be public or private, shall be • designed to City Standards by a Registered • Professional Civil Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The developer, through - his engineer, shall provide for cmpetent daily • • inspection of all street and utility constriction, •, both ,public and private. As-built drawings with •• 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/ . IPJq - : • for City Engineering and administrative services consistent with current City requirements. 8. That the church work with the city park and recreation de- partment to allow joint recreation use of city and church facilities. It is understood and agreed that any recreation use of the property subject hereto by the city park and rec- reation department is secondary in all respects and subject to the use thereof by the owner for the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 above. FURTHER CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS 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 provisions 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. That an executed copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 4. That if Owner fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within thirty-six (36) months from the date hereof, Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees that it will not oppose the rezoning of said property back to its Rural zoning. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed the day and year aforesaid. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the State•of Minnesota By Its Mayor Its Manager -3- . ii CROSSTOWN BAPTIST CHURCH, a roliii ious corporat-' n .taw rFd STATE OF MINNESOT ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The .foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ' A. day of p%hi^e# ' , 1977. by Wolfgang Fenzel, . the Mayor, and by Roger Ulstad, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal Minnesota orporation, on behalf •- . of the corporation. . Nod i •• . • • STATE 07 MINNF,SOTA) - ' -• • .) ss. COUNTY OF IHENNEPIN) • • The foregoing instrument was acknow ed e r me this ge day of Mnk'r( , 1977, by • e �7'Q6(SYnL' and by , CYy14..-.. 4. Igo- the • - . Paves of Crosstown Ba ist Church, a religious corporation, on behalf of the corporate n. . • . No y , That part of the West 1/2 el the• Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 116, (tang; 22 described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4; thence East along the South line of said Southwest 1/4 to the Southeast corner of said West 1/2; thence North along the East fine of said West 1/2 distant 682.55 feet; thence deflecting to the left 31° 30' distant 193.8 feet; thence Southwesterly 640.0 feet more or less to a point in the West line of said Southwest 1/4 distant 493.5 feet North of said Southwest corner; thence South along said West . line 493.5 feet to the point of beginning, except therefrom an easement over that part lying with the right of way of County Road No. 60, according to the United States Government survey thereof. EXUIRIT A Clam .. 1 I whp/jh 3/10/77 Is is CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 77-11 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTPY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended by adding: Tracts of land lying and being in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. of Section 25, Township 116, Range 22, lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said North Half; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 59 seconds East, assumed basis for bearings, 350.26 feet, along the north line of said North Half, to the point of beginning of the herein described line; thence South 02 degrees 50 minutes 46 seconds West, 48.80 feet; thence South 23 degrees 34 minutes 11 seconds West, 126.31 feet; thence South 00 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds East, 195.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 33 seconds West, 200.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds East, 40.00 feet; thence southwesterly 125.66 feet along a tangential curve, radius 80.00 feet, central angle 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 33 seconds West 10.00 feet to the west line of said North Half and there terminating. and That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 22, bounded by the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said East Half; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 59 seconds East, assumed basis for bearings along the south line of said East Half 350.26 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 02 degrees 50 minutes 46 seconds East, 184.95 feet; thence South 88 degrees 28 minutes 28 seconds East, 310.00 feet to a point distant 648.00 feet westerly from the east line of said East Half, as measured parallel with the south line of said East Half; thence South 01 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds East, parallel with the east line of said East Half, 175.00 feet to the south line of said East Half; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 59 seconds West along said south line to the point of beginning. which property shall be and hereby is removed from Rural zone and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 zone. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Rezoning Agreement dated 1977, entered into between The Preserve, a co-partnership consisting of Carter & Gertz, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation and The Minnesota Gas Company, a Delaware corporation and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City relating to such R1-13.5 zones. Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1977 and finally read and adopted, and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1977. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of , 1977. -2- 4119 whp/jh 3/10/77 REZONING AGREEMENT 1 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in triplicate this day of , 1977 by and between THE PRESERVE, aco-partnership consisting of Carter & Gertz, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation and The Minnesota Gas Company, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City to change zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for development of land more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof and which is identified as "GARRISON FOREST", and WHEREAS, it is believed that a rezoning of said area to R1-13.5 would be in the public's interest, welfare and convenience of the people of the City of Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, Owner agrees to develop the aforementioned property in consideration of the City's changing of the zoning; and Owner further agrees that as a part of said consideration, it will lay out, develop and maintain said project as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the Mayor and the City Council of the City adopting an Ordinance changing the zoning from Rural to R1-13.5, the Owner agrees to construction on said property in accordance with the planning, architectural, engineering and landscaping requirements of all City Ordinances and will submit development- stage rezoning plans to the City, subject to the following conditions: 11230 • 1. That the 16 acres be developed into approximately fifty single family lots. #i# 2. That a trailway be provided from the area to the South known as Prairie East Northeasterly to the recreation area between Amsden Hills and this project. 3. That access to Anderson Lakes Parkway be constructed in conjunction • with this development and described in the City Engineer's Report. 4. That the following setbacks and lot size variances shall be granted: 5' garage to side lot. 10'1-11 story house to side lot line. 15'2 story house to side lot line. 30' front of building to front lot line. 20' rear of house to rear lot line. 20' side yard setback for houses built on corner lots, but not conflicting with 30' setback on adjacent lots. 50' minimum from any building line on MSA, county and State highwasy. (Fireplaces and overhangs shall not be considered as setback encroachments) (Accessory structures shall not be placed in the front yard and shall be 5' minimum from side and rear lot lines.) 5. That future access to County Road 18 he planned as shown on the attachment to said City Engineer's Report, subject to further consideration and review by the City and Hennepin County as additional platting occurs and as plans are finalized for upgrading County Road 18. (Exhibit C) 6. That the City engineer's report revised 3/29/77 (attached hereto 1 and made a part hereof, Exhibit R) be complied with and that all sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing whether to be public or private, shall be designed to City Standards by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The developer, through his engineer, shall -2- (ii^✓a' !P provide for competent daily inspection of all street and utility construction, both public and private. As-built drawings with 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. 7. That the developer will pay park dedication fees as required by City Ordinances. FURTHER CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS 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 provisions 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. That an executed copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 4. That if Owner fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within twenty-four (24) months from the date hereof, Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns agrees that it will not oppose the rezoning of said property hack to its Rural Zoning. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this agreement have caused these presents to be executed the day and year aforesaid. CITY OP EDEN PRAIRIE, a Municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (S E A L) BY: Wolfgang Penzel, Its Mayor Roger Ulstad, Its Manager qz3 -3- CARTER & GERTZ, INCORPORATED, A Minnesota Cor oration BY: ,V�YL,cs—N---- Its: ,1;f w: ( 7/4.-1 THE MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation Its: - Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA) , ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1977, by Wolfgang Penzel, the Mayor and by Roger Ulstad, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) p- r2T2heforegoing instrumennt,aas ackn i�edged before me this /=y day of 1 1.2770 by v7-c?.'_ 7.t.),Y .-a�-r�-,-'r--, the'Z-1,wlra,.a. ..,rand by `,,-/-- �)+ `,. '��-,) the ,,..(.,r.,,1,7 of Carter & Certz, Incctiporated, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. C/ JOAN D.LA PORTE '�"' �" ,%Clt. `J i A,, ;NOTARYPUBLIC-MINNESOTA 7 Notary Public {{,,�� HENNEPIN COUNTY Z,'..'As l�, My Con,o,on t.pores Non 2e.1883 -4- t{;33 • STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1977, by the and by the of The Minnesota Gas Company, a Delaware corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • -5- u231 Tracts of land lying and being in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 22, lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said North Half; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 59 seconds East, assumed basis for bearings, 350.26 feet, along the north line of said North Half, to the point of beginning of the herein described line; thence South 02 degrees 50 minutes 46 seconds West, 48.80 feet; thence South 23 degrees 34 minutes 11 seconds West, 126.31 feet; thence South 00 • degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds East, 195.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 33 seconds West, 200.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 21 minutes 27 seconds East, 40.00 feet; thence southwesterly 125.66 feet along a tangential curve, radius 80.00 feet, central angle 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 33 seconds West 10.00 feet to the west line of said North Half and there terminating. and That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 22, bounded by the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said East Half; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 59 seconds East, assumed basis for bearings along the south line of said East Half 350.26 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 02 degrees 50 minutes 46 seconds East, 184.95 feet; thence South 88 degrees 28 minutes 28 seconds East, 310.00 feet to a point distant 648.00 feet westerly from the east line of said East Half, as measured parallel with the south line of said East Half; thence South 01 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds East, parallel with the east line of said East Half, 175.00 feet to the south line of said East Half; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 59 seconds West along said south line to the point of beginning. • • EXHIBIT A • • r ♦�'' t'"t't N, CITY OF EDIiN PRAIRIE V"(ti(lla'` CAxCX LIST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED 3 7•vc..l Vi-7:.:( LAND DEVLL.OI'b1 TS ' DATE: 1/13/77/ • DEVELOPMENT: t Garrison Forest L.D. no. 77-P-2-03 LOCATION: East of Amsden Hills and West of Co. Rd. k18 (N. Sec. 25) REFERENCE P.U.D. OR PREVIOUS • ZONING AGREEMENT: Preserve PUD RES. • DEVELOPER: The Preserve ENGINEER/PLANNER: Bather, Ringrose, Woldsfeld, Inc. • • DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: Preliminary Plat & Preliminary Plan for utilities, grading and street improvements dated Jan. 13, 1977 PROPOSAL:, The Preserve is requesting preliminary plat and rezoning approval for the proposed development. 1. Land Development application filed and filing fce & deposit paid yes Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District Yes 2. Processing Schedule: a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary 1/24/77 b. Park & Recreation Commission c. )Human Rights Commission d. Planning Commission Public Hrg. a.' City Council considtration 3/1/77 f. Watershed District 3. Type of Development Single family detached residential 4. Environmental assessment or impact statement reryired per Environmental Impact Policy Act of 1973: No : ; � Exhibit B :4 • . - z © -' 5. Present Zoning Rural 6. Proposed Zoning R1-13.5 ® Consistent with approved P.U.A. or Comp Plan? Yes - Comp. Plan & POD List variances required & setbacks that apply: Requirements of Ordinance #135 and memo dated 10/19/76 i i 7. Project Area i 16 Acres Density 3.2 units per acre 8. Public open space and/or cash dedication Covered through Preserve PUD 1 Private open space Refer to Planner's Report dated Feb. 2, 1977 Trail systems & sidewalks -Refer +-gl '"7°^"' '~ 7nc�( CCw a.:.(je .2, i-%a-w (s-,- ' r-*-c• ' 4 • Range of lot sizes 16,000 SF to 9,240 SF (10,000 SF Average 9. Prelinin ry Building Plans Not submitted ; 10. Represe,. ve Soil Borings Not submitted • 11. Street•S •:n ® Access to properties north of A Acces : to adjoining properties proposed plat through Amsden Way & Garrison way to be constructed as part—Of—this pro ect. • B Tyne R/W Roadway (dick to Rack of Curb) • Private driveways, no 24 parking ----- Post no parking signs . Leading to Cul de sacs 50 28-jCCu /S th / _ d''i1()a )_.._. (not over 1000') & \, minor residential Cul de sacs 100 78 (no island) 120 98 (with island) Thru Residential (collectors) & Cul de sacs over 1000' G0 32 ---R..clnir-ed� i,S.DiAinet alsO1_ _ i -A-Al iturzxoad R/W across the north-1i of R1' ecommend a 6' 2y'.tuminous Lot 28, Block_I-Shnuld-be-ind•c.,ted on the (or 5' concre ewalk along the , � Preliminaxy'PLit which ca,T7+rcwi-_ access south end east side of'Gar'rison ay to-Parcel 2172, Sec. /24. — te ' Vi.t-i 3-..m4.41 ( ..,a, t..1tLl 0 1n o - 3 MST 70 44 ® Parkway 100 28 divided 12 Fire Road Pathways 12 6 Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5% Concrete curb & gutter required, Deep strength asphalt design R C. Check City's comprehensive street system. & R/W dedication N.A-- — • Developer•builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, D. Street try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional na Names'- names or less lots.on cul de sacs having eight �estinq change of street names. Preserve is zegc ..----------, � • Review and resolve prior • Check list of existing Garrison Way to Amsden Way• final plat existing Y E. Private parking lots--IIG-12 cone C&G and full depth A sph, design ta: Developers Purchase - Ci_ty Installs F. Street Signs-Developer or City installs __ O.K. 12, Parking: (See Ord. 9193) ' 13. Utility Systems: p; Sanitary Sewer Available from Amsden Rf ill__nddition 4" Minimum 1, Service Detail _______----- rovicled Sewer stub to be p 2. Service to adjoining property stub . to serve area north of development Available from Tmsden Rills Addition II, 1Patermain: OK to review ' 1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fifixture)2, hydrant location-Fire Inspe ctor Review pending final des gni 3, halving ____ __— 4. Compliance with fire code Fire inspector to review property — Provision for looping system 5, service to adjacent proposed • ® _ ' _ 0 ® C. Storm Sewer & Grading. ... -_ .-_-..-_-- --- -• 1. Sediment control plan Required for Watershed Dist. Approval 2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots N.A, 3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds Show pending area outlets located in southeast corner and south central portion of plat. . 4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Required 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 ii r+, 9. Flood plain encroachment None 10. Watershed District approval Required _ 1 11. DNR approval N.A. Underground required ID: 'Natural Gas & Telephone E. Electric (underground) _ Required 14. Streat Lights & On-Site Lighting Will be installed upon receipt of petition from developer 15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MHD or Henn. Co. if abutting a ' State or County Hury. Hennepin Cou-ty Highway Dept. (00. Rd. ff18) 16. List special assessments levied and pending Levied: t6428 Neill Lake STAt $5,579.60; 06452 Trunk sewer & water $31,200 Required 17. Re-zoning agreement required Required Developer's Agreement required Title Abstract for Attorney .^. review Not required • tI , . • ' • • . '.- ..., . I ,f././. •wor•.. .. • • • omerri : i. L--' ;''•.; • , • • ,, City • Park,' .- 1:,' ; , ' '• ' , ... r,•„ „..., ...,.:.,: . (....,:::::::::„,„:..,s•••••....,.. ..._. ,-- ,,..,...... •..,.. . ; -.- ‘..,kr'.:.:. '....,...t..\•47:..,'..........4'.':'....!T.:;•....t.:!:::„..:i";.;1.7..-. .....\.:0; fat„,..-..-_.:e.r•„. • • 1 i )• ,;,,<F/4 ....„..,: 4 kit.4... 4.• 4 .........:.•;:.::.::::::.:::::::f:s::::::',.,:,..•..--... ....---, • iii 4 1 4 1..4, ( 4. :...•.4:4, .4.....4,4 •• .• i • , -•• t:••••••••• •:,.•••••••,.,•.•, v....N.:v..0 . i •:•'':t:-‘i:":.,.•:•••••:::%•:i.....,..:-.----... . -7-4,,:••:,zt• u. , ••n '. elcf•I..ti•k*::.3;•y1.•.,Y.T'' t • ''...•";:',•::;:',f4;:f/4:::;:::.::,,,..., .7..yriziii:••••••;:::::::•::•::',•:::•::;;.:11 n - • .--/ ;' .14' • \Is'...i''',...''','••t-I":z.-'- e-i*...-•••••• x • 1:',P...,;-,7::::•..:•,;,.;,:::.:;;O',•:::'::::;:;;;;;; i:::::,;;;;;:.;;•.;.::, .§•;V,4:9. ' 416.-f-ri(n—tr.-11 l',,V''''.•.'••••'''''''.i'i•''P;'''I' :'::''', " ;I ‘..,. 1 k.J4;‘,,, .r:;.•1::-..1,,...:,..::,--i.,.;:f.::::.,;.;,;,:..f...:::;" ..:.. ..;:• ..::.::::::: ;.:*iffl 8 1" .5 1 • •••••,;' ,.':',';";'''Va.$4,Ve41,...: i:•.4....5::•.....:,7.•:.......:.:„.4.,:::t.7.::::•.,.,......1/.•:::, /..:4•.,......:,:.::::0.•?..,:::!:::::•:.•;...,,::::,•: , p Rim 13.5 R 1 . , \', 1:•„•ii4;,Viil.;L:411,., 1 4 4:..ff:t:::•::: .::: ::.::101. -kE)tPANSCOM ) • N i - /2* ' :'.,.:c.f.,(?s.?.,"';.;:;:!.1.::::',,...,,.,,,.-,*.;../1..:::::.;:!.:•.::::/•:,.:;;:.•.!.,:::T.:..,::.•:.:'.-..,...:,:..2...,!..:.:*3*/..4.%:::•:7".::%:',:?i.i•.,...-- A 41n _ .i0iI-•—\ eII1,-..-'\• ':. •,•I.. ,I'1 '.• ,.. ,,.,. :,1.25.k...:.::!.,.:;:iyi,.::,,:.;.:*:.•,....0,-,..:.:".....z::::•.,.,s.. .,......:•:••4•1.4 9. • ' , •••••..7::,,.:.:....i.i,:%:::',::::•: :::.:•.ii:.•4::...z......%,,..::::,!:•::,..:••,:ci.,.:.:i..? , g , 0CY ' . '',.1::::•:•::,::e:.:,:•:•:ilizili::,.:::,/i:,,,.',;::::,FI::.7:vi,I.:• • D. .....-, .0. ---I-jj:7 ,',:',I.;':•:••:,.,:,;::•:'.•:,:,:i:,..::::,1,••,:•••,P,','/P•;,- o ,.. E >I —:/q _.____ .'i '' ,,,•___ ________L—_,.. ..____ _____ __. L_ ' 6 • ........4 . ; I ' I --t k_. • • — )—-- ; .1------.2 . . • . . .,,_____ • --•-- a \ . ft__ % . ///./ , -- - . , . 1 , ..1....„, • .----? '-'` ritt ----T----7—. . , ''')//' • • , , , • il P • t. i I --__J • • 1--- ----( Y ' A t \ N)---4-,‘-:7--ILI - \\\\ - 1-11 , . . „. 1 1-1- L7 i • , • -.. . . . . , . . . .... • . ... ... . . . , . • • / 1 J • ';./..• \'.• �_ ` v Cozy Par ,;r, �1 - • 1',1, ,r `. rj r. / \ _,�••/ - �-) f 71 hI ,1 \ I ii.r! q� �jr..f:tl5:- i. !r , ,..,i:n:A(; d . i ) OF u/\ 1 /,.! 1)•Y 44.Yry .l.,. , ! >• `-:1- ( +\ ' •' '�F'k t.t • +ir.j;.• •�•7 t 1 1.�w1P,:111\ \A� '.e5•.: %:i• I .''', I\_ �� eta+„.....z� r;: 'P �'pA ..1•J S; :•i i,z.ii'ti},r::i%,,7 > �;,�, 7�� T , -I A G1 -(,.,.:7;,...:.:::::;:., -A:4,,,,,4.,:,: f.,-,,,,:...%,..,- ,46.- lk 1 i, -:.--ram 1)1 --\\''-•- 1('...1 ' ri Al {I •r %%c'y -. I/ yr; I� I,, •� \ .' tt ,...,,.....„))*:-:?...g.-....:,.,?:./.,..-.4.-;:-:,/..:-.,7::..,:::::•:::::::;.**1-:§•!&.,,, i,,, 4.- II .4 A ,• ••, 1 ,• ,, c y7 \! \\II t I I.!q T41 / I M •�a�. I.' ;::�l..yr�'� ,Ili 1 \ \\\{P�(Q�':� .� fad?: :�:•i :::,;:.`N{r.„ ._#II...i/ , \ •H::• L._ 0 . I , .,:,:::,,,:::::.:).),...z: ::::,::7...f.,,s.:z.,00_,.,---1_,,,,,,:i q''l - -',. . '''' l''-' ' >11,1 r---1 r .. ...„....,„,„„::;,„•,„„„..., ,., -- . „,„..., , ...... _____, , 41,, _____vz , ... ,.. , ri ,-.-..,„..\, 0') 1! 4 , ar iv soli .‘ ,. , \_.,,,_„.,..„..„, ..„..„„,,,,,4„,,, Mr mg/'--1-:):: ........".4;.,,,',..A.,.,..,...i.m.f.,„...:;1 CS:7F ;I- I•. I I \ `- \\ I 1 II ,J 1 ��, �I� ^YEAN. \ .. i, I ____ ' IF,,46,111111lik / , ,I ''‘,-,.-.-`) di�� Jam; itii iii- 1 1.- 1,,, - ' `..'.. '• I, - *,,,diPg. .* .---,::1- I ,-.' - ' . - : AO ' A e 411'1 'N..- . - ' \ , . , I I•. � ' fir . , III �` . s•-•._L,,, ....-\;„,_.,--- , ' . -.. ,- -1-7--r, //, 1 ., .:. , II c) . , . r . \ :. i. ,. ,„,1 , / I,I; I -1 .9 11 rl 1 •,I P. i !, I i 't" i q1{ ) ^ -) • •••• , 1 &hib�t C I i . PETITION 1 The undersigned residents, homeowners, and purchasers of homes in Amsden Hills, Eden Prairie, Minnesota favor the adjacent subdivision, Garrison Forest as presented to the Eden Prairie Planning Commission. We find no objection to connecting the present main road, Garrison Way, to Amsden Road. We do, however, strongly object to connecting Garrison Way to County Road 18 in any manner other than via Amsden Road as per the plan approved by the Planning Commission. NAME ADDRESS J).‘-��izi-(;LiG'. �t� P-(i. 7'7 '`� e-cFiFTzrT r'�cc,E y o 4;er , ,- _: C C'Leic/\\T� r:4/1-��yr� P • �7'93 !<4444,Tri,,( LVl..,JL Jl 1"410C/. ._:'f/1.e e'Z'yY ' /,-7 6/3 4ei4'/",r/,//`J2.< 'll,i. .�114,rJ �. /s .:4 t(. 9s?6- ?.. ti:.a.z.d c., L't �'{ l Gam/ .z..1. Paz. ;.- 4....... '7`iz;_.i t t, (,. /o y2.c" Yie, 1 G,e„,7 TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Roger Ulstad FROM: John Frane RE: Ordinance 77 - Establishing an Industrial Waste Strength Charge System DATE: March 23, 1977 Attached is a letter from the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce. The City Council directed that Ordinance 77-1 be brought back to the agenda after the Chamber had reviewed the strength charge program. The council may proceed with the second reading of the ordinance, the first reading was held on 2/1/77. L/237 EDEN PRAIRIE MINNESOTA ': ow r - r. r,President Suburban tRommel Bank Richard Feerick,Vice President K . L. R.M.feerick Anociata 44; '--K, a "',"'•+++��• Ye James°stallion,Secretary . CHAMFIt_R OF COMMERCE Hustad Development Corporation 1000 Eden Prattle Center Dean Edstrom,Treasurer Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55343 Doherty.Rumble&Butler Telephone:10121 085-3549 Steven Zinnel,Past President Northwestern National Bonk Soul tarts, March 22, 1977 Mr. John Frane Finance Director City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Dear John: The Board of Directors and membership of the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce is very appreciative of your advising us on behalf of the city of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's proposed sewer strength charges. We have discussed it at our Board meeting and raised the subject on two occasions with the membership. There appears to be no i concern on the proposal and the imposition of the strength charges. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and your consideration. I Best regards. Sincerely, (LAT/?/ Roy W. Terwilliger President RWT:hd N +Where The BEST Begins 11231 whp/Jh 3/18/77 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 338 AN ORDINANCE CREATING A COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES BOARD TO ASSIST ALL SUPERVISED RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS OR SOCIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Community Based Services Board. Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the City of Eden Prairie to "assist all Supervised Residential Programs or Social Rehabilitation Programs by providing a conduit for resolving problems and integrating the homes into the community." Section 3. Establishing Community Based Services Board; Qualifications of Members; Term of Office. There is hereby established a Community Based Services Board, hereinafter referred toas the "Board" which shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council from among the residents of Eden Prairie. In addition there shall be one ex-officio member to be appointed from the administrative staff of the city government. Terms of office for membersother than ex-officio members shall be for three years and shall commence on March 1st of each year; provided, however, that in 1977 three members shall be appointed for a term of three years, two for a term of two years and two for a term of one year. The terms of the present members shall terminate upon the adoption of this ordinance and appointment of their successors. Thereafter all appointees shall hold office for the term to which they have been appointed or until their successor y��l I • has been appointed and qualified, whichever comes earlier. The ex-officio member shall be appointed for an annual term, provided that membership on the board shall terminate with the office from which ex-officio membership is derived; to serve during the pleasure of the City Council or as may otherwise be appropriate. Members other than ex-officio shall be appointed from among persons in a position to represent the general public interest, and no person shall be appointed with private or personal interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed shall find that his private or personal interests are involved in any matter coming before the board, he shall disqualify himself from taking part in action on the matter, or he may be disqualified by the chairman of the board. No one shall be appointed to the board who holds an elective office. Commencing with those appointed to terms in March, 1977 no appointee shall serve consecutively more than two three year terms plus (1) any portion of an unexpired term to which he or she may have been appointed or (2) the remainder of any term to which he or she had been appointed prior to March, 1977, provided, however, the Council by unanimous vote may appoint a member to a further term. Section 4. Removal from Office; Vacancies. Any member of the board may be removed from office for just cause and on written charges by a two- thirds vote of the entire City Council, but such member shall be entitled to a public hearing before such vote is taken. In addition, any member -2- tratrro may be removed for nonattendance at board meetings without action by the City Council, according to rules adopted by the board. It shall be the duty of the chairman of the board to notify the City Council promptly of any vacancies occurring in membership, and the City Council shall fill such vacancies within thirty days for the unexpired term of the original appointment. Section 5. Objectives. The objectives of the Board are as follows: 1. To continue evaluation of city ordinances and procedures in order to accommodate city group homes experience. 2. To maintain an up-to-date inventory of home locations, and possible areas for home locations that may be available. 3. To oversee the relationship between facilities and its neighborhood environment, and suggest and encourage communication between group homes and the community and initiate if necessary. 4. To review all applications for group homes in conformance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 289 as it may be amended, and prepare a report which details how each home meets City ordinances and State Law provisions. 5. To establish liaison with appropriate governmental agencies and community groups that provide services for group home residents or are involved in their regulation. To act as a mediator to resolve problems or misunderstandings between homes and neighbors or governmental agencies. 6. To design and implement neighborhood and community wide education programs to enable citizens to better understand the needs and capabilities of group home residents and enable group home residents to better understand opportunities available to them within the City. 7. To work with the governmental agencies involved with deinsti- tutionalization policies to give Eden Prairie decision makers correct and advanced knowledge of new programs or regulations. 8. To provide a forumfnr all citizens to express ideas concerning the community based services concept. -3- 9. To design ways that better and more efficient city/ religious/school/civic organizations services can be utilized by group home residents. 10. To act as a coordinator of all group and foster homes to maximize their communication enabling better economic efficiency and program compatibility. Section b. The Board shall annually prepare and present to the City Council a report in writing of the activities. Section 7. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this day of , 1977, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1977. Wolfgang Fenzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the on the day of , 1977. -4- whp/jh 3/11/77 RESOLUTION NO. 77-18 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED NEAR COUNTY ROAD NO. 1 AND STATE HIGHWAY NO. 169. WHEREAS, MILEY GJERTSEN , hereinafter referred to as "Miley," is the owner of certain property and legally described as follows: See attached description, and WHEREAS, to effectively develop this area additional areas should be included, and WHEREAS, Miley did on or about file a petition with the City Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) pursuant to Sec. 11 of Ordinance #135, and WHEREAS, the Council did refer said plan to the Zoning and Planning Commission for study and report, and WHEREAS, the Zoning and Planning Commission did on hold a public hearing on said plan and thereafter made recommendations to the City Council on December 13, 1976, and WHEREAS, the City Council did on February 8, 1977 hold a public hearing on said plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said P.U.D. plan be approved and comprehensive guide plan amended to reflect this P.U.D. based on the following: 1. Planning Staff reports dated December 8, 1976 and January 19, 1977. 2. That developmental plan should be limited to one right in, right out movement to U.S. Highway No. 169. ff2g3 • 3. That any development shall provide adequate legal safe- guards against development of the slope as delineated on page 3900 of Exhibit B. 4. That because of the proximity to the public park that special attention be given to uses that would restrict the noise and pollution problems from development of the property involved herein. 5. That a plan be developed for serving the area with public utilities including the manner of service and method of assessments. ADOPTED by the City Council on the day of , 1977. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Prone, City Clerk -2- 42gq • That part of S.,ct.i0.n 27, Tcwesaip 116, '.tange 22,fH.?nnepir Co•inty. Minnesota, described a:', f<,11.. . . Cooaencing at a point in ti:.t • North line of the Northeast 1/'. of said r•ec`io:a distant 230.5 feet, East from the Northwe_at corner of said Northeast 1/: of • said section; tie nce rly in a strai^.nt line, which i :.outiac;.ste. if produced Southeasterly rill intersect the South line of the Northwest 1/4.of the. Southeast 1/4 of said Section 27 at a point c:istant 41 rods East frcea the Southwest corner thereof a distance of 1117.04 feet; thence at :a richt a:tgle Easterly 21- 1/3 rods;' thence at a right anc.le r;orth.:rly to the North line of said North- east 1/4; theece West to the point of beginning.; Together with an e.,..,u,r.., at• for street or road purposes over the Westerly 50 feet of that p. .ct.of the ..,r•t..::,s: 1/4 of Section 27,• Totwnsh p 116, i<asr-xc 2«�. ii•;n:N:cis C.. .ity,•M nesota, described as follo.or Gcttaer.+_ing at a re x. in the North line of said north- east 1/4 of & tiO- 27, div. not aao.S feet East from the North- west corner of said ;:artye-:4t'1/4, the cc Southaa_t.tarly in a straight lino, which if produced Srattb c tcrly will intersect the South lima of t_c 5or t 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section.27 at a poi_ot-.dis.tant 41 rod x East frne th'•Southw.est- corner thereof, a distance- o.`. 1117.04 feet, to the actual point .• of becixrdng of the land to t,..e. hereinafter d, Continuing Southeasterly aloha said 1 of ."JZ.�• -.St d,. cT.i�"\:Ci line :t distancefeet; thence at richt feet; th„nee t So:: h at right' angles to the- ccntr_rli;-e of +nty Road No. 1; therc r East- -•-ly.aluny the centerline of said 1 to its inters:•_ction with -a line distant 21- 1/3 rods cas . at right angles from and • parallel with the said first .+`o-. scribed lit:r; thence tiorth • - erly along said last c's-.cri5:_.i pa; _;i l:.- ' • .s to iatersectian with a 15 c;.rat.n newst rig from the act_alpointof ._eninning at right-angles to t=-, first a -,oi _.. •.` ' straioht lit:@, thence Westerly ale:-g said 1 st ca scsit cd right r _1a line to the actual A130 ter_+,:er with an earnnt for street the - :. .• ` or road �+iT�JCGsS ri..nr • r1y 50 of t'r r ::, ast Li.; of :tart i o:i • 27. �c n rda ilh, :' a., follows; Ccom•Incing at a point in tree r:'•, to lir., of th-:�-, _ .,_ said i:Gr 1/4 2P0.05 feet East frca t`o :iOrt�+.T3 ctal:•--_ .`._er.iof; ..?atae•s 'lon thd.., t �Merl,,. along a straight lie_..; u;Nica if p:er_';uc.:d will intersect the Sc:ath line of t`.ti,Norti~--•-sE 1/4 of the SOu-+,r•.ast 1/4 of said °:eetirn 27 at a point 41 Mse.s --.st f_o.a the- Sc',,ths., .:t corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the ,r_,a:thc..tst 1/i a tiista ' :.C^ of i:i'O feet to the actual poi:t of be-giaoing of t:.e Trae: to t:e described; thence East at richt angle, :23 feet; -;hence :;.:x th at right eagles to the North line of the ne., County Noad No. 1 :s presently laid out; fh.-nce Northwesterly :along said North Iine to the :first described straijut lire; thence Northerly along said straight li::r to the actual point of beginning. • • • . • • . • Staff Report-Co.Rd. I/US 169 PUD -8-• • . Jan. 19 , 1977 • FIGURE 6 • •••• . • -•''s, •••'•-•* ..47•-•••• .----.-^-,/,. .1.i if . ''• • •••:--.-7- .. 1 21-'7'.•\/'-•,--•" 'r's-... •-'' ... 7.---.'',."'-'-':'', ' ..--- N,-- N, i .1 ( .:-':.""- ,_ \ ,s, , , ....._---- ....,.. . ....,..,,....:\\2... . /,' / / . • " .*•---,,. ' \ e__, . I / \' __fly t •-• :' 17. ... •. •...,„. t i t•,!'.V..7'".,.'''', , ,..__;—•-•'%N. \ „.....,...,..r.,!..;F.P . ....______------*"' / '. -. 11.1=-Ikti--11 ..,... •nr,..:,. . ..:•,,.-__...--:•-•---1 \ . • \ • ' -• ." ...Al' •• ..../ ,.. • •,.--------15''. \ ‘ \ ' A ., • '• •• ---57 - ..,;-----A--'.- L9 ' '' '' \ ------. • - -- ....- ./ .. ,\•• ./ • •....„,,,,c, • ••••• :. • x ••••‘.. eo ( . %. . • ,....... . . . -- • V z•\:-.,•," ,•-•';-,. . 6 \ , ) 0 , .... .. .• ._, . . \ \ 1., .,.f ,(,,N•szo.:,..) - i - . •,-/..„,.._...- . . ,. . \ .,v ..—.._...,!..c. .•.:.:\. !..1 19.r=r- ..,:t. e:•••. ' .../...........\ . .-• ".:' • ,/ • •"-.C-. •1/• o 1 ° -. , . : • ,••,..2\ .,,::,-: r'p ,A, •'. ''-....-.-..-.i-,1,..:-....,/ = -t _l:)..:.;,..- ''' •i.;!,--41'; ''''`i:i*:-.',:.----: .-=_,-::/c)\• -/ ,..:Y \ . .,- • . k N.y. - -- • -,--; v--, '`--,;-.),,•L.___ .. ., . ......._:., ...-zr, -,. .1:, -1a...,... ,x.`--,-.,...,;,.... . .c.,5i-..,', / . ., ,.i•to v.?:..,..'.,.-.*.-..---• \ .• -1;,%\ ',. ..... .', ?,.... ,•::•••,,7,..::,...?,,,,-...?..,...,....,x,-34,-,t," - ;e") - o'•?,:.k'; _,--- ,,••••.',?l,;\. :, •'.z.... ' -.'•.- - .-.•. ,, -1 ..„....- ,, . . -.....:"--,...., • o .-. . • (--- -, . . ‘4 •;...a4 ............ ,.. .,. • ; •4,...- , ,,%......,... - - •,, ,,,\,... i.;../ ‘ . • :. , `..:3 :',Y1i".. !•;) ', • fr..-V- . v.% ,. ... .. .;,;:k.:i.,. c 1..,.. • 1,„1, .1,•,„,1 ...--;/.. .. tr. :..'.1 , . •., ";...01% • -1--;),I-7, .. . .:. ..- ,:!.;' . ... • s ...04,\ 4'1'al"-:',..1. . '. 't:?? I... ..•••.' • ..k, (2-st•‘.,I,-.) ,..•••":"...•:'. '•.Ii. .1--.. .t-,,, Ai .' • • -z: ,•• • ' .V%\...-••-tc. si.,,..,•--A .: •.*.i.;;;..:), .; ...-• e'r 2-1,;,...). 47 • -:',• : .,>..-- - \'.'''.'t,!.-• z,•,.- % \ •.-,. A cl. .-r, ,.,-::,---.'! •',.. ;. r.. ,/,./ i„,,,-..- . ‘.‘,7„..,..„ • ......k,; • , v,,,...`, , :.•', ,. •.IP `;-,•• I.;,'• ,.. i. -,,-''.Z. , .-t•-:-. 4i'.... ...AO. •r s-...., .•:-."••• :'• "-.-• --=----7.—tt•-i'''r.. .".-'-'''•-• '&:•,&%:•-.....:,..'.• ••'Li2.:::..'.;-.:44.%::,; '''i'..N..i.-- :. . . \,.. .... . ..'`''''•*: . • 4--•••.,.,‘,..'-. 7:. ::•••••-'•••',-,';... .:": ,.„' .:7:; z.:..?,-,-.1-4;;::../ ./ • \ • ' ,, i . r--- r --; , -.L -. . -F.:-1r: /....i. :-. •U.A':•_i',.-2.:i ' “. =•- .,.....;.,;,--..:-......:,•.,--...;. " •.1 . . • . . . . . - \ . . • . . . . • • . . . • • • . :ici oD /19.cl(0 an I BIT a • whp/jh 3/14/77 RE-ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 15thday of March 1977 by and between Miley Gjertsen hereinafter referred to as "owner", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City to change the designation of a portion of the area designated as PUD 77-18 from Rural to I-2 Park for development of land more fully described as shown on Exhibit B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, it is believed that the rezoning of said area to Industrial would he in the public's interest, welfare and convenience of the people of the City of Eden Prairie and in accordance with the development of the Planned Unit Developmental Plan for the area; and WHEREAS, Owner agrees to develop the aforementioned property in con- sideration of the City's changing of the zoning; and Owner further agrees that as a part of said consideration, it will lay out, develop and maintain said project as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement witnesseth that for and in consideration of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie adopting an Ordinance changing the designation PUD 77-18 from Rural to I-2 Park the Owner agrees to construct a building on said property in accordance with the planning, architectural, engineering and landscaping requirements of all City Ordinances, subject to the following conditions: lf2,tr) • 1. That the Miley property as designated in red on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof shall be rezoned to I-2. 2. That that portion of the Miley property delineated in blue shall be protected from future development by the granting by Miley to the City of an easement which would prohibit its future development. 3. The area designated in yellow on said Exhibit A shall not be developed or used except in conjunction with the develop- ment of the remainder of the property included in the PUD. 4. That the developer will install a holding tank in lieu of an on site disposal system and knows and agrees that at some future date public utilities will be installed to service said area and the public improvements therefor assessed against the benefited property. 5. Pay upon application for building permit a park land dedication fee in accordance with City Ordinances. FURTHER CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS 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 provisions 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. That an executed copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 4. That if Owner fails to proceed in accordance with this Agree- ment'within eighteen (18) months from the date hereof, Owner for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees that it will not oppose the rezoning of said property back to its Rural zoning. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused their presents to be executed the day and year aforesaid. 67 • Miley 9j'ertsgti �f -2- 0:1. L • 41. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation BY: Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor John U. Frane, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1977 by Miley Gierisen Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _, 1977 by Wolfgang Penzel, the Mayor, and by John D. Frane, City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public -3- ADDENDUM This Addendum is made to be added to and a part thereof that certain Re-Zoning Agreement dated March 15, 1977 by and between MILEY CJERTSEN and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. That there shall be added under the conditions an item 6 which shall read as follows: 6. The owner agrees that at such time as the future public street as shown on Exhibit A is installed that he will change his ingress and egress in such a way to use that public street. The owner further agrees that at such time he will abandon his present means of ingress and egress off County Road No. 1 as shown on Exhibit A. Miley Gjertsen CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BY: Wolfgang Fenzel, Mayor John D. Franc, City Clerk • • • I Staff Report-Co.Rd. 1/US 169 PUD -8-• Jan. 19 , 1977 • FIGURE 6 , • • 1' ;--K.cep' ." c:::,i.x•/f /,.‘r . i t- -, 1. •__-- ,". 1 !! • ^�("� �% hb Ci 0 ` \ 1�. \--__.— -1 • ? c: • '�'''. . .1 1 O--_.)f^jam ,,�%' 7. ;,_, v. 4, , . .vd�> ./ / Vim` s J v : .•:, Yr_ r fJ f wf � \`.. , � V -\ „ ,-:;�°-•-•: ji �:, • • �.- `]��►l\.''b.t.. ._. Jam. ' je.4„«y.C.` �. �Ytinr \.1 -N'_ ih... ;1i. • • 1 , iJ ::.-._. .: . <.�� . , 'C�� 'iys it . l • • • • ..'1/ • ti . '"t 3,900 .. 1 • • That part of Section 27 T Minnesota described 1 : 116, �nqe ate;{{•'point i Co•�n'Y, North line of thr. Northeast aol ....a: COa acing at a point in the cast 1 feet, East from the N� /: a; said osection distant -t of orthwesL corner of said Northeast lj of said section; thence Southeast. if produced 5 Southeasterly in a :,trnzaAt line, which Northwest 1/4.Southeasterly r.i.11 intersect the South line of the costa the Southeast 1/4 of snit: Section nt 4I rods East from ti,e 27 at a paint of 1117.04 feet; Southwest corner thereof a distance thence at :a ricat angle Easterly ?1_ 1/3 rods;* thence at a right are-le Nnrt!z rly to the North line of said north- east 1/4; theeco West to tb•r point of Together with an ee.,,ententor road putWesterly SG feet o:' for.street road purpas2� over the t:v.t, p' f th:. l4 t n �„''' ae: 1/4 of Section 27 >Toens:;_p llos iia>om ?• , J, :ur�i: C:.)uety, Minnesota, described a- Ccenen.ciny at a po ax in th North line of said Noeast 1/4 of Sectin' :7, ci✓.anL 'Fq.S few; East from the North- west corner of said i:o.•tt„-:.s...1/4, the:.ci Southsasterly in a straight line, wait.: it pro&aced Southeasterly will intersect the South li:r,. of , ^-c Nor=::. t 1/4 of the Southa.a•;t 1/4 of said • Section.27 at a point-.c:i::-tant 41 rails East':free- the'Southwest- corner thereof, a rii.Rt�n.:-e- o 1117 of offeet,04 to actual• Thence, e cf begincinc�ou the land to }:,e hereinafter d..eseribed; Thence, coof tb. img S th as'terly aloa,n said last c!:-S,.,;r_;- { 1' '.9h f_zt; the,:c>: a: lee a distance r.ig:tt, angles to V.-,-. cc-, Aire of la y R feet; thence thence it at rly:aluaLr County Ro.d No. 1; u 9 the c-:aterl?. of said ;r intersection _tst- a line distant al 1/3 rods'Eaa.• y at to its anglrss_fromn with parallel with the said f"- `rly r.=r:,:- angles from and erly along said 1 firit .�L tlrib•,d line; thence North- ` • with a 1ite dra•aea EaS rly frt,o parallel ct 1i p to itsf intersectionebeginning at rir.hb-:,cglrs _� �:e �ct'aal point of bin@ �nirg at to tax first a'u,., ;,-scrims Straicht line, thence Westerly -alo-n said 1•-s t describd r";point of b--gii:a :o.. r41'at ., >ls line to the actual Also tC ctbar with the 1 -•,trr an eas.e,s nt for street l y 50 .-•_t cif t'r . or road pf, a,o:s owe, =', ip-11&, a a.�,I_ fellows: c. of ing at 8 point in : . -� as 1c11Gv9 S Cc. -:g at sir th lLre of said i frca the Nort::.ti.et co:. th- thence 1/4 asterl feet East s:raiath liras ..:t ra if ` r of> ';host �n;t;,>_a;Le.tly along p:o—incd will int a the ;.ortrr-est 1/4 Of the SOut':west 1/4 of said the South�tJa lfrz of point 41 Ra,ls thst.f:t tµth-a S ,th,.- .t corn. of said rNorthwest 1/., of ;h / point list a:,ce of 1�2ry t of beginning o: t:.e Tract to +,u fe=t to :;:�+ actual ast l right angles :_st fret; ; described;an; thro.y theest at line of the ::once :,.:x;th at ri.giat a7nies to North r c a County Road No. 1 as presently laid out; thence Yortt: easterly along said North liar, to the first f? seri • • lire; thence Northerly along said straightact ai:iut point of beginning. line to theactuaall • • f."q >;XHIBIT B • • — •t INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS First Supplemental Indenture Between City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and First Trust Company of Saint Paul 1. Mayor Penzel and City Manager Ulstad should sign all three copies on page 2 and the corporate seal of the City of Eden Prairie should be affixed in the space provided to the left of their signatures. 2. No date should be inserted on the title page, page 1, or page 2. 3. The signatures of the Mayor and City Manager of Eden Prairie should be notarized and the Notary should insert the appropriate date, crossing out the month of January on the second line and interlineating the appropriate month immediately above the word January. 4. All three fully executed copies should be returned to William E. Fox at Lindquist & Vennum. First Amendment to Lease 1. 'or Penzel and City Manager Ulstad should execute six copies of the Amendment of Lease on page 2 reof and the corporate seal of the City of Eden ; , .;irie should be affixed in the space provided immediately to the left of such signatures. 2. The signatures of Mr. Penzel and Mr. Ulstad should be acknowledged on page 3 and the acknowledgment should be dated a current date. The word January on the second line of the acknowledgment should be stricken and the correct month interlineated im- mediately above. 3. All six copies of the First Amendment should be returned to William E. Fox at Lindquist & Vennum. FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE BETWEEN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AND FIRST TRUST COMPANY OF SAINT PAUL Trustee • Dated January , 1977 • • • This instrument was drafted by Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay 2300 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, dated as of January , 1977, between the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal cor- poration, herein called the City, and FIRST TRUST COMPANY OF SAINT PAUL, a corporation duly established, existing and authorized to accept and execute trusts of the character herein set out under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principal office, domicile and post-office address at St. Paul, Minnesota, . herein called the Trustee; • WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal • Industrial Development Act, the City has authorized, executed and entered into a Mortgage and, Indenture of Trust, dated as of July 1, 1974, and recorded and registered, August 2, 1974, in the offices of the Re inter of Deeds and Registrar of Titles, respectively, Hennepin' County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. 4097996 and 1116114, respectively, • (hereinafter as originally'executed, the Original Indenture; with all supplements thereto, including this First Supplemental Indenture, "the Indenture") with the Trustee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Original Indenture, the City has authorized and executed, and the Trustee has authenti- cated and delivered a. series of revenue bonds of the City, designated Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (MTS Systems Corporation) , Series 1974, dated as of July 1, 1974, in.the aggregate principal sum of $3,000,000.00 (hereinafter the Series 1974 Bonds) , all of which are still outstanding on the date hereof; and ' WHEREAS, the City, the Trustee, and MTS Systems Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, have entered into a certain Easement Agreement dated July 9, 1975, and recorded January 7, 1977 in the office of the Register of Deeds and registered on January 12, 1977 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. 4259101 and 1205832, respectively, which agreement is hereinafter ' called the "Easement Agreement"; and WHEREAS, City and MTS Systems Corporation, a Minnesota corpora- tion, have executed a first amendment to the Lease described in Section 1-1 of the Indenture, which amendment is dated January 14, 1977 and which amendment has been recorded and registered 1977, in the offices of the Register of Deeds and Registrar of Titles, respectively, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. and , respectively, and which amendment is hereinafter re- • furred to as the "First Amendment to Lease"; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to amend the Indenture to include within the real property which is subject to the Indenture, the easement rights and benefits created and provided for by the Easement Agreement; and A -2- WHEREAS, Section 11-1 of the Original Indenture provides that the City of the Trustee may consent to an amendment of the Original Indenture, such as this, for the purpose of granting to and confer- ring upon the Trustee for the benefit of the bondholders' additional rights, and security, and for the purpose of describing and identi- fying more precisely portions of the trust estate which are subject to the lien pledge of the Indenture, without the consent of or notice to the Holders of the Series 1974 Bonds outstanding under the Mortgage and Indenture of Trust; NOW THEREFORE THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE WITNESSETH: Pursuant to the authorization outlined above, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Original Indenture, the Original Indenture is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph as an additional paragraph to and as part of Exhibit A to the Indenture: Subject to and together with the rights and benefits con- ferred by that certain Easement Agreement dated July .9, 1975 and recorded'January 7, 1977 in the office of the " Register of Deeds and registered on January 12, 1977 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. 4259101 and 1205832, respectively. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the"Trustee have caused this First Supplemental Indenture to be executed in their respective . corporate names, and their Respective corporate:seals to be hereunto- . • affixed and attested by their authorized officers, all as of January , 1977. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Wolfgang Penzel Its Mayor (SEAL) Attest: Roger Ulstad Its City Manager • FIRST TRUST COMPANY 'SAINT PAUL Its INCE PRESIDENT (SEAL) Attest: t/11 • Its i�:i' (•D • . - 3 - STATE OF MINNESOTA) 1 ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 1977 by Wolfgang Penzel and Roger Ulstad, respec- tively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. STATE OF MINNESOTA) RA/',se y) SS COUNTY OF .H£NN'1 P N-)- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /f 4. day of Fie/et/067.y, 1977 by ,Y,tic?>7.. -I 1 ,("/n —A,— and d and C . 4u.7,At? , respectively the VICE PRESIDENT Assistant ec,ct,r9 of FIRST TRUST COMPANY OF SAINT PAUL, on behalf of the corporation. - p N • x 'MARY K.ESTREM • . "": NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA RAMSEY COUNTY . My Commission Exp.May 13,1983 ItVWWWWWwwvwwwvrvvv wvvn'■ I • a...A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE • BETWEEN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AND MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION as Tenant Dated January 14, 1977 • • This instrument was drafted by Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay 2300 First National Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 • THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE, dated as of January 14, 1977, by and between the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota, called herein the City, and MTS SYSTEMS CORPORA- TION, a Minnesota corporation, called herein the Tenant, WITNESSETH: ARTICLE 1 Recitals WHEREAS, MTS is the fee owner of land situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described upon Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter called the "MTS Property"); and • WHEREAS, City is the fee owner of the land situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described upon Exhibit B attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter called the "City Property"); and WHEREAS, at the execution hereof, Tenant occupies the City Property as Tenant under the terms of the lease dated as of July 1, 1974, and recorded and registered August 2, 1974 in the offices of the Register of Deeds and Registrar of Titles, respectively, Henne • - pin County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. 4097995 and 1116113, respectively, which instrument is hereinafter referred to as the "Lease"; and WHEREAS, City and First Trust Company of Saint Paul, a corpora- tion duly established, existing and authorized to accept and execute trusts of the character herein set out under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principal office, domicile and post office address at St. Paul, Minnesota, as trustee, (herein- after called "Trustee") has entered into and executed a certain Mortgage and Indenture of Trust dated July 1, 1974, and recorded and registered August 2, 1974 in the office of the Register of Deeds and Registrar of Titles, respectively, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. 4097996 and 1116114, respectively, hereinafter called the "Mortgage and Indenture of Trust"; and WHEREAS, City and Tenant have entered into an Easement Agreement dated July 9, 1975, and recorded January 7, 1977 in the office of the Register of Deeds and registered on January 12, 1977 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. 4259101 and 1205832, respectively, which Easement Agreement creates certain easement rights over and across the MTS property for the benefit of the City Property as therein provided, and which instrument is hereinafter called the "Easement Agreement"; and WHEREAS, City and Tenant wish to amend the lease to include with- in the premises leased to Tenant by City therein, the easement rights created for the benefit of the City Property by the Easement Agreement. -2- ARTICLE 2 Amendment of Lease Section 2.01. In consideration of the premises, and the mutual covenants herein contained, and for other good and valuable consider- ation the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree that the Lease shall be and is • hereby amended by adding the following paragraph to and as part of the legal description set forth in Exhibit A of the Lease. Subject to and together with the rights and benefits con- ferred by that certain Easement Agreement dated July 9, 1975 and recorded January 7, 1977 in the office of the Register of Deeds and registered on January 12, 1977 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document Nos. 4259101 and 1205832, respectively. Section 2.02. Except as hereinabove expressly modified, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect as originally written. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Tenant have caused this First Amendment to Lease to be executed in their respective cor- porate names, and their respective corporate seals to be hereunto affixed and attested by their authorized officers, all as of January 14, 1977. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Wolfgang Fenzel Its Mayor (SEAL) Attest: • • Roger Ulstad Its City Manager MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION By George N. But•zow • Its Presides t (SEAL) Attest:/�2 /I 4' 4f^^ William T. Dolan Its Secretary • 4240 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Js'u The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 1977 by Wolfgang Penzel and Roger Ulstad, respec- tively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument entewas aBcknowledged dibefor T e this Dtlis, s t ey of January, 1977pr by respectively the President and Secretary of MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, on behalf of the corporation. 1'.y ':, -c C. L.IS,1>CO • 1111(a EXHIBIT "A" All that part of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 22 West lying East of the West 75 • rods of said Northwest Quarter of said Section 15 and South of the Southerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 5 described as follows: The South 320 feet of the North 752.8 feet as measured along the West line thereof and drawn at right angles to said West line, of the West 85.38 feet. AND . All that part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 22 West lying be- tween the East line of the Westerly 75 rods of said Section 15 and a line 600 feet West of and parallel to said East line of said West 75 rods and South of the Southerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 5 and Northerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the East line of said West 75 rods lying 871.65 feet South of the Southerly right- of-way line of said Trunk Highway No. 5, thence South 67°24'31" West to said line lying 600 feet West of and parallel to said East line of the West 75 rods of said Section 15, except that part thereof lying Northerly of the fol- lowing described line: Commencing at a point on the East line of said West 75 rods lying 432.88 feet South of the Southerly right-of-way of said Trunk Highway No. 5, thence at right angles West- erly 285 feet, thence at right angles Southerly • 340 feet, thence at right angles Westerly 315 feet to said line lying 600 feet West of and parallel to said East line of the West 75 rods of said Section 15. y?i,2 EXHIBIT "B" All that part of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 15, T116N, R22W lying between the East • line of the Westerly 75 rods of said Section 15 and a line 600 feet West of and parallel to said East line of said West 75 rods and South of the Southerly Right-of-Way line of State Trunk Highway No. 5 and Northerly of the follow- ing described line: Commencing at a point on the East line of said West 75 rods lying 432.88 feet South of the Southerly Right-of-Way of said Trunk Highway No. 5; thence at right angle Westerly 285 feet; thence at right angles South- erly 340 feet; thence at right angles Westerly 315 feet to said line lying 600 feet West of and parallel to said East line of the West 75 rods of said Section 15. All that part of North one-half of the North- west one-quarter of Section 15, T116N, R22W lying East of the West 75 rods of said North- west one-quarter of Section 15 and South of State Trunk Highway No. 5 and Northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the East line of the West 75 rods of said Northwest one-quarter of Section 15 lying 871.65 feet South of the Southerly Right-of-Way line of said Highway No. 5, thence N 59°37'36" E to the Southerly Right-of-Way line of said Highway No. 5 except the South 320 feet of the North 752.8 feet thereof as measured along the West line thereof and drawn at right angles to said west line, of the West • 85.38 feet. U2L3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services/ SUBJECT: Bids for the Boom Truck Log Loader DATE: April 1, 1977 Specifications for installation of a log loader on the back of the army surplus vehicle were distributed to the suppliers identi;: >d as being in this business. Specifications call for equipment tyr id capacity modifications necessary to the truck to accomodate the i nent bid with delivery 30 days from the date of award. The following bids were received: 1. Landco Equipment, Inc. $10,548.00 2. Road Machinery and Supplies $14,890.00 3. Charles Olson and Sons, Inc. $17,541.00 The apparent low bidder is Landco Equipment, Inc. at $10,548.00. we are reviewing all bids as to compliance to specifications and will make a final recommendation on Tuesday evening. April 5, 1977 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COiNT'I, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 77-38 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID I.C. 51-266 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for for the following imp.covements: I.C. 51-266 S.P. 2744-25 and 23 T.H. 169 Improvements from 1-494 to 1/4 mile south of Schooner Boulevard bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contrast to Progressive Contractors, Inc., Osseo, Minnesota as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed •• to enter into a contract with Progressive Contractors, Inc. Osseo, Minnesota in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $923,030.66 in accordance to the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer, subject to concurrence with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST SEAL: • John D. Frane, Clerk 4aLr� SUMMARY OF BIDS I.C. 51- 266 DESCRIPTION: T.H. 169 Improvement from I-494 to 1/4 mile south of Schooner Boulevard BIDS OPENED: 10:00 A.M. March 24, 1977 CONSULTING ENGINEER: Minnesota Department of Transportation { CHECKED BY: Dave Olson, Jim Richardson BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL AMOUNT PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS, INC. 5% $ 923,030.66 SCHAEFFER CONTRACTING, INC. '5% 930,317.50 WEST SUBURBAN UTIL. CO. 5% 949,523.40 C. S. McCROSSAN, INC. 5% 997,821.34 HARDRIVES, INC. 5% 1,068,624.90 MINNESOTA VALLEY SURFACING 5% 1,097,061.60 M. G. ASTLEFORD CO., INC. 5% 1,142,942.81 The undersigned recommend award of Contract to PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS, INC. as the lowest responsible bidder fot this Improvement Contract. Consulting Engineer Carl J. Ju11ie, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer U,�Go • April 5, 1977 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 77-37 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID I.C. 51-294 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: I.C. 51-294 Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Street improvements for Forest Knolls Second Addition bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to Gerald Stepaniak, Inc., New Brighton Minnesota as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Gerald Stepaniak, Inc., New Brighton, Minnesota in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $24,705.25 in accordance to the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file 1 in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST SEAL: John D. Frane, Clerk SUMMARY OF BIDS I.C. 51- 294 - DESCRIPTION: Sanitary Sewer, Watermain ans Street Improvements for Forest Knolls Second Addition BIDS OPENED: March 23, 1977, 10:00 A.M. CONSULTING ENGINEER: Rieke Carroll Muller Assoc., Inc. CHECKED BY: D. Husby BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL AMOUNT GERALD STEPANIAK, INC. 5% $24,705.25 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO. 5% 26,492.50 * G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. 5% 29,427.50 BIANCONI CONSTRUCTION, INC. 5% 30,196.70 WALBONS, INC. 5% 31.,448.50 A S K CONSTRUCTION, INC. 32,887.93 * Mathematical errors corrected The undersigned recommend award of Contract to GERALD STEPANIAK, INC. as the lowest responsible bidder fot this Improvement Contract. • Consulting Engineer Carl J. Jullie, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 1, 1977 STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 03-15-77 5050 METRO CLEAN AIR NOISE Community Noise control school 60.00 5051 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage for newsletters 276.60 5052 STATE OF MINNESOTA Four vol. of Minn. State statutes for Public Safety 175.00 03-16-77 5053 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Employees withheld and employer ASSOC. contributions 3-4 payroll 1,953.95 5054 CAI. Publications-Planning dept. 22.00 5055 MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Manuals for Engineering 10.00 03-18-77 5056 DONNA STANLEY Feb. services 11.50 5057 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM. Reserve charges collected in Feb. 19,626.75 5058 B. DALTON BOOKS Books for Public Safety dept. 23.00 5059 INSTY-PRINTS Service-Public Safety 7.96 03-23-77 5060 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN. Employees withheld and employer contributions 3-18 payroll 4,488.84 5061 UNITED WAY Donations withheld 3-18 payroll 25.01 5062 FEDERAL RESERVE RANK Taxes withheld 3-18 payroll 5,134.30 5063 LYNDE GREENHOUSE Plants for municipals dinner 126.00 ` 03-24-77 5064 STATE OF MINNESOTA Sales tax report for February 425.35 ' 5065 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. Book for Public Works dept. 20.00 5066 INSTY-PRINTS Printing service-Community Services 2.90 03-28-77 5067 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Employees withheld and employer ASSOC. contributions 3-25 payroll 97.31 5068 GERRI FLEMING Supplies for municipals dinner 13.34 5069 JOYCE PROVO Supplies for municipals dinner 10.00 03-31-77 5070 EDEN PRAIRIE GROCERY Stamps for Public Safety dept. 65.00 04-01-77 5071 ADVANCE AMBULANCE Police equipment 527.40 5072 ANDERSON AGGREGATE CO. Sand-Public Works 154.79 5073 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS Subscription-Planning dept. 30.00 5074 LYMAN ANTONSON Tuition for school-Bldg. dept. 21.50 5075 ACRO-ADROIT Office supplies 202.87 5076 ARROWHEAD BEARING, INC. Equipment parts 56.16 5077 ALL INDUSTRY SUPPLIES, INC. Supplies-Public Safety dept. 49.69 5078 EARL ANDERSON Traffic control signs 736.34 5079 BROWN PHOTO Services-Public Safety dept. 102.29 5060 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH Locks-Public Safety and City Hall 144.15 5081 BUSINESS FURNITURE, INC. Letter file-Fire dept. 123.08 5082 BRAUER & ASSOC., INC. Services-Guide Plan 1,619.98 5083 BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC Blower motor-Water Plant 120.00 5084 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS Blacktop-Public Works 105.88 5085 BILL'S HOUSE OF GUNS Rifle for Public Safety dept. (250.45, 5086 BLOOMINGTON OEFICIALS ASSOC. Officials fees for 76-77 mens ' ___, basketball league 357.00 5087 BATHER, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, INC. Services-Planning dept. 192.50 5088 CITY OF HOPKINS Relamp signals 117.90 5089 CITY OF EDINA Water samples 20.00 5090 CARGILL SALT Deicing salt 355.72 5091 COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. Services-Engineering and Planning 357.62 5092 CROWN RUBBER STAMP Desk signs-Public Safety 33.33 5093 CURTIN MATHESON Supplies-Water dept. 73.38 April 1, 1977 • 04-01-77 5094 DONNOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Siren repair 45.00 5095 DANIELS STUDIO Picture-Public Safety dept. 17.16 5096 WES DUNSMORE Reimbursement for school expenses 8.00 5097 DORHOLT Services 646.21 5098 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL Gasoline 612.98 i 5099 EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS Legal ads for Dec. thru Feb. 998.35 5100 JOHN HENRY FOSTER Air compressor-Water dept. 222.60 5101 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, INC. Tape-Park Planning dept. .33.84 5102 JOHN FRAME March expenses 112.00 5103 FISHER SCIENTIFIC CO. Supplies-Water dept. 42.37 5104 FOX VALLEY HARKING SYSTEMS, INC. Marking paint-Water dept. 34.68 5105 ROBERT FLINT Services-Public Safety dept. 140.00 5106 GLENROSE FLORAL Services 15.60 5107 GROUP HEALTH PLAN Employees insurance for April 499.12 5108 GENERAL ELECTRIC Repair services-Water plant 161.28 5109 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Repair service 22.55 5110 G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. Repair service-Water dept. 259.50 5111 HERALD NEWS Employment ad-Tree desease 12.60 5112 HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDDFF Services-Schooner Blvd. 341.38 5113 HENNEPIN COUNTY Supplies-Engineering dept.and Assessing dept. 137.32 5114 MARK Ht1RD Topography mapping 815.00 5115 HONEYWELL Repair service-Water dept. 979.00 5116 HENNEPIN COUNTY VO-TECH SCHOOLS Tuition for Fire Fighting classes 240.00 5117 DIANNE HANSON Mileage 26.10 5118 HAYDEN-MURPHY Street signs 499.60 5119 HILLCREST SAFETY EQUIPMENT Breathalyzer test kits 188.00 5120 HENNEPIN COUNTY Equipment parts 22.84 5121 HENNEPIN COUNTY prisoners board and special assessment information 202.55 I: 5122 JACK HACKING Expenses 57.71 5123 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES Repair service-Office equipment 695.B8 5124 INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOC. Subscription 90.00 5125 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER Dues-Robert Martz 35.00 5126 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS Certificate fee for Wayne Sanders 5.00 5127 ITASCA EQUIPMENT Equipment parts 107.16 5128 JOHN'S WELDING SERVICE Repair service-Water dept. 262.50 5129 ELIZABETH JOHNSON Feb. services 282.31 ' 5130 HARRY S. JOHNSON CO. Survey services-Testiment Church project 1,266.50 6131 CARL JULLIE Feb. and March expenses 315.08 6132 MARTY JESSEN March expenses 112.63 G133 JAMES JENSEN Services and mileage 321.94 6134 FRANK JEDLICKI Thaw outside water pipe 120.00 6135 JONES CHEMICALS Chemicals-Water plant 189.10 6136 PATRICIA KEOGH Refund on guitar lessons 14.00 6137 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO. Water level indicator-Water dept. 125.00 6138 KARULF HARDWARE Supplies-Fire dept. 8.07 6139 KRAMER'S HARDWARE Supplies 122.89 6140 KARULF HARDWARE Supplies 1,064.46 6141 LYNDE CO. Dog repellent-Public Safety 26.63 y;,1'l0 April 1, 1977 04-01-77 5142 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 6,031.84 SYSTEMS Services 31 84 5143 JOHN LATZKE Expenses for March 5144 LLSLIE PAPER Office supplies 16.90 5145 MINNESOTA DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Employer contributions 48.62 5146 METROPOLITAN ANIMAL PATROL Feb. services 475.50 5147 RDBERT MARTZ March expenses 109.85 5148 MAYVIEW RADIO Repair service 454.03 5149 MINNESOTA TREE, INC. Tree pickup services-Tree desease 120.00 5150 MARSHALL AND SWIFT PUBLICATIONS Subscription 45.00 5151 MINNESOTA RESCUE AND FIRST AID 7.50 ASSOC. Dues-Fire dept. 7.50 5152 MINNEAPOLIS DXYGEN CO. Retest of welding type cylinders 5153 3M BUDINESS PRDDUCTS Services and supplies 96.87 5154 METRO PRINTING, INC. Newsletter and business cards 433.D0 5155 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO. Oxygen-Garage 11.27 5156 METROPOLITAN FIRE EXTINGUISHER Recharge units-Fire dept. 153.99 5157 MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE Employment ad-Tree desease 5158 MEDICAL OXYGEN Oxygen-Fire dept. 1, 84.28484. 8 5159 MINNEGASCO Service 5160 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC Service 3.75 5161 NORTHERN STATES POWER Service 250.00 1,681 17 5162 NORTHWESTERN BELL Service 5163 NORTHERN CONTRACTING CO. Evacuation of sludge-Water dept. 5,012:0: 5164 NDREN PRODUCTS, INC. Bumper lights-Public Safety cars 127.25 5165 NDRTHERN STATES POWER Service for Public information 2.95 5166 NDRTHERN STATES POWER Services 6,763.03 5167 JIM OSBERG Tree 9.00 5168 PEMTOM, INC. Refund deposit 3,000.00 5169 REALTY HOUSE Refund on overpayment of special 725 00 assessments 5170 ROOT-O-P1ATIC Repair-Sewer dept. 73.50 5171 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER, INC. Services 2,656.29 5172 H. A. ROGERS Supplies-Engineering dept. 551.85 5173 SOUTHDALE TEXACO Towing service 5174 SHAKOPEE RECREATION BOARD Bus service-Park dept. 25.00 5175 SPECIALTY SCREENING Lettering-Public Safety autos 13.3D 5176 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY City's contribution to SRA for 77 150.00 5177 SCHAUMBURG VILLAGE Report for Public Information 270.642.50 5178 DON STREICHER GUNS Two shotguns for Public Safety70.64 5179 SHAKOPEE VALLEY PUBLISHING Employment ad-Tree Desease 42 74 5180 STANDARD LAW ENFDRCEMENT SUPPLY Signs-Public Safety dept. 5181 SHERWOOD DISTRIBUTORS Gas mask-Public Safety dept. 157.00 5182 SCHNEIDER AGENCY, INC. Assessors bond 20.00 5183 CHERAL SCIIOCH Gymnastics refund 10.00 5184 DONNA STANLEY March services 112.00 5185 W. E. NEAL SLATE CO. Supplies-Public Safety 26.60 5186 SYSTEMS 3, INC. Recorders-Public Safety and Fire 485.60 dept. 5187 STARR OFFICE SERVICES Office supplies 54.00 5188 SULLIVAN SEPTIC SERVICE, INC. Repair service-City Hall 94.00 5189 SCIHERER BROTHERS LUMBER Materials-Round Lake beach 641.36 5190 SUBURBAN AUTO ELECTRIC Repair service 132.30 5191 SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO. Tools-Park Maint. dept. 34.97 5192 0. B. THOMPSDN ELECTRIC Insulation for Prairie View 99.75 warming house I.;.,"i1 I April 1, 1977 I 04-01-77 5193 TOWN'S EDGE FORD Repair service 698.61 i 5194 LOWELL THONE Expenses for building inspection school 33.00 5195 UNITED FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOC. Dues-Fire dept. 15.00 5196 ROGER ULSTAD April expenses and meeting expenses 139.25 5197 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA School expenses for Tree Desease program for Doug Ernst 15.00 5198 VAUGHN'S Flag 62.00 5199 VIKING STEEL PRODUCTS Pipe for drainage control 262.71 5200 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE April employees insurance 596.02 5201 WILCOX PAPER CO. Office supplies 245.00 5202 WARREN,GORHAM & LAMONT, INC. Book for Water dept. 44.00 5203 WEST PUBLISHING CO. Minnesota statutes-Public Safety 60.00 5204 SANDY WERTS March expenses 55.65 5205 WATER PRODUCTS Repair supplies-Water dept. 377.53 5206 ZECO CO. Equipment parts 5.00 5207 ZACKS, INC. Glass cleaner-Garage 11.00 5208 XEROX CORPORATION Services and supplies 949.03 5209 ERNST HOUSE MOVERS Refund deposit '1,000.00 5210 PAM LESTER Exercise instructions 104.00 5211 MAGIC SHOP Magic class instructions 80.00 5212 JILLAYNE MOERTZ Gymnastics instructions 64.00 5213 PAUL BROWN Volleyball official 132.00 5214 THERESE MCHALE Gymnastics instructions 36.00 5215 ALLENE HOOKUM Puppetry instructions 36.00 5216 NICHOLAS FOWLICK Gym leader 12.00 5217 BRIAN MIKKELSON Gym leader 48.00 5218 LAREN WOLSKY Gym leader 66.00 5219 KEVIN FISKE Refund on magic lessons 8.00 5220 CHRIS HARTFORD Refund on magic lessons 8.00 5221 LYN BAKER Gymnastics refund 10.00 5222 CARI O'ROURKE Gymnastics refund 10.00 5223 ELIZABETH JOHNSON March services and meeting expenses 390.78 TOTAL 89,321.31 yz94 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST April 5, 1977 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Familvl REFUSE AND GARBAGE COLLECTION Ban-Con, Inc. G & H Sanitation, Inc. The Denesen Company, Inc. David Durst & James Gans CIGARETTE & TOBACCO Pioneer Builders, Inc. Ken Roelofs Construction, Inc. Movies at Eden Prairie Sherwood Construction Sunrise Homes, Inc. FODD ESTABLISHMENT - TYPE C Williamson Realty, Inc. Movies at Eden Prairie CONTRACTOR J ultii_family & Comm.1 Hot Sam Companies Arteka, Inc. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - TYPE B Richard Miller Homes, Inc. Professional Contractors, Inc. Flying Cloud Drive In Reynolds Printing Co. D. L. Rong General Construction VENDING MACHINES HEATING & VENTILATING Cedar Hills Golf & Ski Executive Vendors C. 0. Thompson PLUMBING Southtown Plumbing, Inc. Standard Plumbing & Applicance Co. Whelan Company, Inc. These licenses have been approved by the department head responsible for the licensed activity. Rebecca Quernemoen, Deputy Clerk