Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 02/06/1979
'A)/ ! JOHN D. FRANE �PRAJRIE ITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1979 : 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: , fir ~ Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; Engineer Carl Juilie; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION ;.EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1979 Page 156 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 178 D. Accept utilities in the Raven Ridge Addition Page 180 C. Amend cost participation agreement with D.O.T. for T.H. 169 project Page 183 (Peso ution No. 79-35 D. Final plat approval for Meadows 3rd Addition (Resolution No. 79-38) Page 185 kE. Feceive 10K petition and order im rovements for Mitchell Lake Page 187 !states, I.C. 51 342 esolution Na. 9-3 F. Receive 100% petition and order improvements for Chatham Woods Page 189 I. C. 51-343 Resolution No. 79-34 G. Order feasibility re ort for T.H. 5 Frontage Road from Fuller Road P.,e 1% to County Road 4, F 5 - 2eso ution No. 79-39) H. Reso'ution No. 79-40, participating in Minnesota Cities Week Pace 194 V*7- 4—L IV. PUGLIC HEARINGS A. Removal of diseased trees on private property (Resolution No. 79-37) iage 196 B. Super Valu Shopping Center at Co. Rd. 18/Anderson Lakes Parkway, a ;- request to reliminar lat and rezone from Rural to C-Cou.. 10 acres located in the St quadrant of Anderson Eakes Parkway and Co. Rd. 18 Resolution No. 79-22 and Ordinance No. 79-01 C. Norseman Industrial Park Third Addition by H_e_rl�eiv Hell�ee, request Page 233 to rezone from Rural to I-2 Park and Preliminaryn5a't , acres, ie s T fe is located approximately I west of Washington Avenue and 1300' south of Valley View Road (Resolution No, 79-23 and Ordinance No. 79-02) F, 9 City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,February 6, 1979 9. Lake Heights Addition by Universal Land Corporation. request t4 rezone Page 241 from Rural to R1-13.5 and RM 6.5. preliminary plat aparoval for 29 S"� sin��e fames and 40 townhouses, and approval of Environmental Assessment Worksheet The site is located south of Anderson Lakes r^ Parkway and East of Darnell Road (Resolution No. 79-26, approving preliminary plat; Resolution No. 79-27, approving the Environmental As essme t Wor sh et; a d Ordinance No. 79-04) E. Chatham Wood by Tema DevelopmentF request to rezone 40 acres from Page 285 Rural to R1- 3.5 for 59 single family lots reiim par at approval. and a royal o Environmental Assessment Wyrksheet The site s ocl ated south of Towline Road and G st of Purgatory Creek (Resolution 1 No. 79-24, approving preliminary plat; Resolution No. 79-25, approving the Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and Ordinance No. 79-03) "F. Round Lake Estates Second Addition b Arlo Eliason, re oast for Page 323 re iminar lat a royal of 34 acres t R .5 nto 6 single am lots a acre ar an a rova of Environmental Assessment Worksheet Resolution No. 79-Z8, approving preliminary pat; Res= ution�y- ot�79-9, a rovin the,Env ronmental4�.Ass�ssment W�QrV Bt) V. REPORTS OF ADV 0RY C, I�_ oca VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS Request by Richard Hipp, Hi 's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition to page 371`- reliminar lat acres son 6.5 into 29 duplex lots Units) , - e site is ocated in the southwest corner o r an Mitchell Road (Resolution No. 79-21)VII / r trm�Nr . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS Resolution No, 79-30, uesti Local Planning Grant Funds from Page 408 t e Metropolitan Council B. Resolution No. 79-36 ran i noprelimi nary approval for MIDB's for page 410 Ruben An eregg ry A,,I.S — VII I. APPOINTMENTS �1Fp��- y7..`,, A. (oard of Appeals & Adjustme s - 2 appointmeU s for 3, s= commencing 2/28/79 and expiring 2/28/82 B. Building Code Board of_Ap"als - 2 appoin n s for 3 y r terms, commencing /19 ande piring 2/28/82 C 0 it C. Development Commission - 3 appointments; 2 appointments for 3 y terms commencing 2/28/79 and expiring 2/28/82i and ] appointment ,�3 -j to an unexpired term commencing immediately and expiring 2/28/ �,,,,.,r s fwl D. Historical and Cultural Commission - 2 appoi _meats for east ns� commencing an expiring 28/82 j4"'r 7— E. Human Rights & Services Commission - 4 appointments: 2 appointments for year terms comnencing 2128119 and expiring 2/28182, 1 appointment to an unexpired term commencing immediately and expiring 2/28/81. and I appointment to an unexpired term commencing immediately and expiring 2/28/80 (visa o rr 0$"4 tdy �y�,�r 9- �r.0 t.WAI Ay City Council gen a jf ,g 3 - 7ues.,February 6, 1979 /q Mu4 F. !A.As, Recreatiort & Utural - 2 appoi•ntmefts for ate. year erms, CWWRC•ng anti expiring Z 28/82 G.) Planningb Zoning Commission - 3 appointments: 2 appointments fat 3 year terms, commenting 2128179 and expiring ZM/82* ant 1, epptrintwint to an unexpired term Commencing immediately and expiring VWSO H. Flying Cloud Ai rt Advisory CommillioRij ie » 2 appoin'Cwts r a year terms. Commencing aM expiring IX. REPORTS OF Il;ER5 OA GOMi4ISS 'p e_its of,-Cour;,i 1 1 mbars ilk G . Report of City Manonar Report of City Attorney 1. Creekside heights Dew- l pment.•Asrr t fltarRshire ftirnt'i D. crt f Pie i -JYft� 1 f97�iSo Page'. oR�..;lio: E. Report of Director of Comm ,i- ..S r 9ces 1. Eden Prairie 5ta61es , Pit<gii 44 _•... F. Report of City Engineer >. ' 1. Final,!lat a rovai for H bs'�t�litchei'.7 Wei hts 4tb Add tion' u ron RlS approval for Galf i<jsta deselopment Ad►1` P�[gg•$ G. Report of Fina•nCe pireCtar 1. Pa,Ment of Claims 491. - 312 Pale 467 X. NEW l;U$INESS ,l+j.., 1 XI. ADJOURNMENT, 1 , s adslPwt 9 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger U'lstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; Planning Director Chris Enger; City Engineer Carl Jullie; Finance Director John Frane; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Penzel, Edstrom, Osterholt and Redpath present; Pauly absent. I. SWEARING IN CEREMONIES FOR PAUL REDPATH City Attorney Roger Pauly conducted the swearing in ceremonies for Councilman Paul Redpath. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the agenda under the "New Business" category: A. Communication from K. E. Schumacher, President of Eden Land Corpor-a on,regarding the proposed park dedication ordinance B. Letter and titian received from residents of To view Acres u v s an rece vd January C. Letter from Eden Prairie High School relative to Eden Prairie-In-Action MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. III. MINUTES A. Minutes of City Council Meeting held Tuesday, December 19, 1978 Pg. 3, 4th para., ist line, after "communities" insert "Foundation". Pg. 5, 1st para., 5th line, strike "private" and "along the wire", and i-n the 6th line, strike "loin" and insert "connect"; 7th para., 2nd line, strike "nothing" and insert "noting". Pg. 6, strike the 2nd paragraph in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following language: Pauly suggested verbage be contained in the ordinance that land to be dedicated should be useable land. Pauly also commented that when land is being excavated and boulders are found, these boulders would serve as a tremendous thing to play on in lots. and might be considered for that use." Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 Pg. 8, 5th para., strike "Ring Road" where used and insert "Schooner Boulevard". MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the minutes of the December 19, 1978 Council meeting as amended and published. Osterholt, Penzel and Edstrom voted "aye", Redpath "abstained". Motion carried. B. Minutes of City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 2, 1979 Pg. 3, paragraphs 4 and 5, strike "February 1" and insert in lieu thereof "February 6". Pg. 5, add a new 4th paragraph to read: "Osterholt stated the Council members he has worked with feel Mr. Pauly has done an outstanding job and should be reappointed on the basis of his work." Pg. 6, 4th pars., 2nd tine, strike remainder of the sentence after "insurance" and insert in lieu thereof "and that he would look into the question of both insurance and liability generally with the consultation of the City Attorney." Pg. 7, 2nd para., 4th'line, after "for" add "final development of". MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the minutes of the January 2, 1979 Council meeting as amended and published. Osterholt, Edstrom and Penzei voted "aye"; Redpath "abstained". Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Osterholt requested that items VIi. C & D also be placed on the Consent Calendar. Council members concurred. A. Clerk's License List B. Set Public Hearing for Chatham Woods for February 6, 1979 C. Set Public Hearing for Norseman industrial Park 3rd Addition for February 6, 1979 D. Set Public Hearing for Lake Heights Addition for February 6, 1979 E. Set Public Hearing for Jerry's Super Valu for February 6, 1979 F. Authorize bids for I dump truck G. Authorize bids for quick lime for water treatment H. Accept street and utility improvements in Red Rock Hills 3rd Addition I. Accept sanitary sewer and_watermain improvements for Hipps Mitchell Heights Ir�Addi t on MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve items IV. A - I and VII. C & D on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Bluff's West 2nd Addition by Hustad Develo meat ation, Dr. & Mrs. Brandt anO.F.I. Request or rezoning from Rura to R -Co?3. on acres Continued Public Bearing) City Manager Ulstad explained Staff has visited with the proponents over the past month and a revised proposal is before the Council. Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, spoke to their revised proposal as outlined in their communication dated January 10, 1979. (Attached as part of minutes) Osterholt stated the revised proposal is a vast improvement over what the Council reviewed before, and feels it has a lot of merit plus the fact that the developer is willing to provide the cash park fee in addition to the land. Osterholt questioned Staff whether any of the proposed changes in Flying Cloud Airport would interfe.r with any of the densities in the area. Enger replied in terms of what zoning may be mandated according to State Law regarding airports, none of this area falls within a zone which would determine any type of density. Penzel agreed with Osterholt that this is a vastly improved proposal as far as the relation of the 2nd Addition is concerned with the park. However, he is concerned about the degree of density proposed for the 3rd'and 4th Additions as he believes the densities should be adjusted down. Enger asked for a legal opinion as this project started out many months ago as a straight zoning type of application. Technically it is not a PUD, and there are a number of variances that are required. City Attorney Pauly responded if the proposal does involve the introduction of variances and special considerations which have been outlined, for the Council to have authority to grant those it is really through the PUD concept. If we are now going to'PUD concept, then we ought to really go through the hearing process to be sure that there is not a problem in the future. Edstrom questioned what will happen to Homeward Hills Road in the southeasterly portion of the property up next to the Brandt property. Putnam replied Homeward Hills Road will be vacated - the gas easement and the metro sewer interceptor will be retained. The actual road will be vacated and the new street called Concord, which is in place now, replaces Homeward Hills Road next to Riverview Road. Edstrom felt thought should be given to slopes on a few of the lots (1. 2, 19 and 20) to make sure they really are buildable without threat of erosion. Osterholt questioned if Staff felt the density is so severe that it would really impair the development to the point where it would be detrimental. Enger replied he felt the density is relative. The side yard setback would be 5 and 10 feet, the smallest lot size somewhere around 9,000 or 10,000 square feet. Some communities have 10,000 square feet standard lot sizes with 5 and 10 feet set- backs. Functionally the development could work very well. There are a number of places in Eden Prairie where those type of lot sizes exist; however, he could Aot. think of a place where so many exist in one area - although this is a large area. Council Mi:iutes - 4 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 A. Bluff's West 2nd Addition (continued) Osterholt asked if Staff felt it is reasonable to include the 15 acres with the 108 acres to get density. Enger responded in the affirmative. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Hearing on Bluff's West 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 78-154, approving the preliminary plat for Bluff's West 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. Penzel noted that if variances are to be granted they will have to come through the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and if they are not resolved there, they will have to be resolved by the Council. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the lst Reading of Ordinance No 78-41, approving the request for rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 108 acres for Bluff's West 2nd Addition by Hustad Development Corporation, Dr. & Mrs. Brandt, and B.F.I. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to direct Staff to draft a developers agreement including the recommendations of the Staff Report dated 7/7/78 relative to the scenic easement and public dedication of land, and that this action is not to prejudice future decisions for rezoning on adjoining properties that may come before this body or any future bodies. Further that the proposal be referred to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for comment on the park issue before the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-41. Motion carried unanimously. B. Community Deve]o ant BlockBlock Grant. Joint application for approximately 5,00 o ederal funds to for eligible community projects. City Planner Enger spoke to his memo dated January 12, 1979, explaining that page two of the memo was inadvertently missing from the packet. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue this item after item VII. E, allowing Mr. Enger time to distriNte page 2 of his memo to Council members. Motion carried unanimously. (See page 6 VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS No reports. VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-56 rezoning 11.7 acres from Rural to Conmercial-Regional Service for Eden rair e NeighborWd Center BarMil Search Corporation, and developers agreemen Larry Mikan, Vice-President BarMil Search Corporation, requested Councils consideration of a change in the developers agreement from 6.8 parking spaces per thousand square feet to 5.5 parking spaces per thousand square feet. City Planner Enger added BarMil would like to provide parking for 5.5 parking spaces hard surfaced at this time, the rest would be sodded. If it came about they were short of parking they would then have the area with proper setbacks to construct additional hard surfaced parking. Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,January 16. 1979 A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-56 Eden Prairie Neighborhood Center BarMil Search Corporation continued Council members concurred with the request of the proponent as stated. Other amendments were made to the developer's agreement: Page 2, staff to rephrase item 8. a., and after 8. c. add an item which covers Schooner Boulevard. Pg. 3, item 11, eliminate parentheses around "Registrar of Titles". Page 5, last para., add Jr. to George L. Mikan. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to give a 2nd Reading to Ordinance No. 78-56, rezoning 11.7 acres from Rural to Commercial-Regional Service for Eden Prairie Neighborhood Center, 8arMil Search Corporation. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the developer's agreement for Eden Prairie Neighborhood Center, BarMil Search Corporation, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. B. Resolution No. 79-14, Mntinq final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bo s orCorporation City Attorney Pauly spoke to changes which have been made in Resolution No. 79-14. Edstrom requested thaeLoan Agreemene on page 1 of the resolution be defined. NOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-14, granting final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for C.P.T. Corporation as amended. Motion carried unanimously. C. Resolution No. 79-15granting final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Super Valu Approved as part of Consent Calendar (item IV). D. Resolution No. 79-16. granting final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Kensington Development Approved as part of Consent Calendar (item IV). E. Resolution No. 79-19, granting preliminaryapproval for Municipal Industrial Deve opment Bonds for Eden Hills Company Howard Rekstad, a partner in Eden Hills Company, spoke to their request for approval of MIDB's in the amount of $1,600,000.00, and answered questions of Council members. The site, Mr. Rekstad explained, they are asking for MIDB approval is located on 7 acres at the south end of Fuller Road to develop a quality office warehouse building of Just a little over 86,000 square feet. Osterholt expressed concern about the traffic in the area under consideration. Also it is a I-General situation which would allow outside storage, outside trucks, etc., and he does not feel it is desirable adjacent to a residential area. City Engineer Jullie explained Stewart Sandwich Company has acquired property over to County Road 4 and City Staff has had meetings with them and also with the Department of Transportation staff. Jullie believes a corridor arrangnt f�O(1 Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 E. Resolution No. 79-19 (continued) has been worked out where Stewart Sandwich would reserve a street right-of-way for construction of a frontage road between Fuller Road and County Road 4. Enger further'noted Stewart Sandwich has had several meetings with property owners in the area in an attempt to resolve the traffic situation. Their intent is to approach the City with a petition toward an improvement out toward County Road 4, not dedicating the right-of-way but providing the area for the right-of-way. Edstrom stated insofar as Eden Prairie's reputation is concerned we have less to be concerned about in the case of a private offering than a public offering. However, it is nevertheless important to have the financial background. Osterholt asked that financial information that is developed should be circulated and made part of the record. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to table this matter until after discussion on item VIII. F. 1. Motion carried unanimously. F. Resolution No. 79-20 grantiV preliminaryapproval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for enar s, Inc. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to table this matter until after discussion on item VIII. F. 1. Motion carried unanimously. V. B. Community Development Block Grant (Continued from Page 4) City Planner Enger explained that page 2 of his memo has now been distributed to Council members for review, and spoke to same. Enger suggested Council adopt: a) a general needs statement; b) housing assistance plan; c) three year plan and d) a one year action plan as outlined in memo dated January 12, 1979. Osterholt inquired if some of the funds could be used for the other camp site that has been offered the City (Camp Frontier) under item 3. e.) and developed into that type of a facility. He could see where a handicapped park site in the community would be of benefit to the entire metropolitan area if it is done right. Enger replied he hadn't thought of that possibility, and will look into that opportunity. Osterholt requested that housing for young people be added as 3 f) under the three year plan, and that it should be indicated that the letter designations do not necessarily mean priorities. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Hearing and approve the recommendations as outlined by Staff in memo dated January 12, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Council members urged Mayor Penzel to attend the meeting on January 30th on the Council's behalf. Penzel agreed to attend and asked Enger to advise him of the time and location. Al Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 Item VIII. F. 1 was taken up at this time at the request of Council members. VIII.F.1. Municipal Industrial Development Bond Guidelines (Resolution No. 78-215) Frane stated per the Council's direction,the Eden Prairie Development Commission reviewed the City's proposed guidelines for MIDB's and voted to recommend approval of the guidelines to the City Council. Edstrom added the Development Commission reviewed the guidelines in December and January and some questions were raised along the lines of the distinction between the private placement purchaser and a public offering. In addition a note was made of the fact that some of the requirements in the memo to the applicants anticipated action which applicants would not necessarily be in a position to take prior to preliminary resolution. The Development Commission understood from Mr. Frane, notwithstanding the lack of a few items on the application form, that after the adoption of preliminary resolution that material would be forthcoming and would be in the hands of the City and before the Council prior to final approval of the bonds. Osterholt suggested a change on page 1, first item 2, that an application fee be set forth for this type of matter, and that fee be based on a scale depending on the amount of bonds and if our cost did not reach the deposited amount, the balance could be refundable. Osterholt questioned item 1 on page 2 of the application. Frane explained the previous resolution spoke to two times the principle and interest of the last two years and a demonstrated record of earnings. Osterholt asked that language to that effect be added to the MIDB guidelines. Osterholt stated he would like to see a recommendation made by Staff as to how we can judge where the financing is not done by the public bond issue, for example, if a mortgage is to be placed with a private lender, that the name of that lender be part of the application. Randy Nelson, Juran & Moody, replied generally they would have no problem in putting that in an application form, with the exception that a number of institutions refuse to review a project other than on a preliminary basis with- out getting a resolution passed by the City Council. Osterholt questioned if there are cities that do require a commitment from an institution prior to preliminary approval. Nelson responded there are cities which have the same guidelines as the City of Eden Prairie requiring a letter from a company like theirs or from an institution. Generally the cities accept their word that they feel the bonds can be marketed or the mortgage as satisfac- tory in place of an institutional commitment. Osterholt stated he would like to see something more definitive in the MIDB documents. Osterholt stated where there are personal financial statements given with the application, he believes the City should have some assurances that those principals involved are in some way tied to the project so there is a financial obligation there. He wants to make sure the people who come before the City do have the commitments that are represented to the Council to whatever extent they are. Edstrom and Osterholt commented on the point about identifying the potential institutional investor and asked if the problem could be solved by requesting a letter from the institution expressing a favorable interest in the offering. Nelson replied in the affirmative. Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 1 VIII. F.I. Municipal Industrial Development Bond Guidelines (continued) Edstrom expressed concern on the question of the two years meeting the earnings test,as there may be some small corporations that are in the formative years that may not meet the earnings tests, but nevertheless good financial analysis indicates there is a good future for that corporation and they may have done extremely well for the past year. Thus he would be inclined to go with the suggestion in the guidelines, recognizing if that is not satisfactory the minimum guidelines are not binding on the City and we could refuse to issue the bonds. Edstrom stated he would be inclined to keep the threshold requirement low, but view critically each application that comes to us without excluding a company which really shows a promise for both themselves and for the community. City Attorney Pauly noted the application does not limit in any way or contemplate to limit the projects for which industrial revenue bonds would he available in this City. Those limitations would only be provided by State Law which really permits any type of project which is revenue producing. Osterholt felt one of the questions in the application should be what the record has been of the applicants, what other projects have they participated in (either proposed issues where they may have been turned down and also those that havl been issued), and what is the status of those bonds and present projects. The people before us tonight have had some very good success in that field and that is to their credit. Osterholt requested Staff come back with a recommendation on what the financial projection the City has so we know the principals involved really do have some financial commitment. other than a net worth statement which may not have any definite worth, and also some idea as to how those assets are committed to the projects. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 78-215, approving the Municipal Industrial Development Bond Guidelines as amended. Motion carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS E. Resolution No. 79-i9 rantin relimina approval for Munici al Industrial Developments or Eden Hills Company (continued rom Page Penzel asked Mr. Rekstad if they were willing and able to meet the requirements of the guidelines as previously discussed. W. Rekstad replied in the affirmative. Osterholt expressed concern over the traffic that would be anticipated. Mr. Rekstad explained they have had meetings with Stewart Sandwich and have sent the President of Stewart Sandwich a resolution which has been signed.whereby they are commiting themselves to their proportionate share of the cost as laid out by the City for the inclusion and development of a frontage road which would go along Highway 5 and tie into County Road 4. Osterholt questioned if it becomes necessary for the City to acquire the rigbt- of-way, would the City assess the benefitted properties for those costs* Enger replied in the affirmative explaining the City asked the property owners to petition the City for a feasiLility study and their understanding is that the share the State would not pick up would be 100% assessed back to the benefitted property owners. 143 s Council Minutes - 9 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 E. Resolution No. 79-19 rantin Preliminaryapproval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Eden Hills Company Continued MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 79-19, granting preliminary approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Eden Hills Company. Motion carried unanimously. F� Resolution No. 79-20, granting preliminaryapproval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Menard's, Inc. Finance Director Frane explained Menard's is requesting the Council to consider approval of MIDB's for the construction of their homer-are center building, and there is some urgency on their part because of a closing which is scheduled for next week. Menard's were unable to submit the entire documentation that we required in our previous guidelines. However, the Council could adopt the resolution contingent upon receipt of the additional required documents. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-20, granting preliminary approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Menard's, Inc., contingent upon the receipt of additional required documents. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Grieco; 12781 Hina Lane, commented if Menard's does not comply with things other people do, maybe the Council should take a second look at them. Penzel replied the resolution does include a provision that all information shall be provided prior to any further action regarding the bonding. Also that Staff has been in contact with Menard's regarding the other concerns that were expressed by the neighborhood and Menard's has indicated informally that they are very much interested in working those problems out and they concur with desires for screening, etc. VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. A5pointment of members to the Citizens Advisory Commission on Cable Penzel referred to communication from Rita Conrad expressing an interest to serve on the Citizens Advisory Commission on Cable TV.and placed her name into nomination. City Manager Ulstad stated he received a call from John Lovas,who is emplayedht the School District,requesting consideration by the Council for appointment to the Commmi s s i on. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to appoint Rita Conrad .and John Lovas to serve on the Citizens Advisory Commission on Cable TV. Motion carried unanimously. Other appointments to be made to the Citizens Advisory Commission on Gable Ty at the February 20.1979 Council meeting. Osterholt suggested Libby Otto at the Library be contacted to see if she has any recommendations as to appointments that the Council could eonsider, 14 Council Minutes - 10 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 i 2. Appointment of-1 Representative to the WAFTA Board for a 1--year term Penzel recommended the appointment of Robert Pemberton as the representative to the WAFTA Board. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to appoint Robert Pemberton as the representative to the WAFTA Board for a 1 year term. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Set date for Council to meet with the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to set Thursday, February 8, 1979, 7:30 PM, for the joint meeting of the City Council and the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager 1. Request for change order regarding developers agreement for Creekside Heights, tem #3 Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, spoke to their request as outlined in communication dated January 11, 1979 (attached as part of minutes). Putnam explained Mr. Schrader of Hart Homes has Tntacted Mr. Zachman and asked that he take over the remaining 20 lots 1n the subdivision and build it out as originally intended. The problem is that in the developer's agreement it states the limit of $40,000 - $50,000 homes. They would have two $40,000 homes in the subdivision rather than 6, and that the price on Mr. Zachman's homes, of which there would be three basis models, would be $54,900 including mortgage points and sales commission. Mr. Zachman, Zachman Homes, Inc.. commented the $50,000 price was the 1978 price and with the inflation on homes at about 15%, actually the $54,900 he is proposing is really less than $50,000 with the 1979 price. The problem comes with the 4 remaining houses at $40,000 that Mr. Schrader felt he could build without basements. The change requested in the developer's agreement is that there would be a two rather than six $40,000 homes in the project. The three types of homes he is planning on building are: 1) split entry, 2) rambler, and 3) split level. These houses would be set up to have an attached double car garage, but would not be included in the $54,900 price. Osterholt stated we have people come in and ask for rezoning and they sign developer's agreements and then we find we are dealing with somebody else. Suggested the proponents go back and replat the property into larger lots. Osterholt feels the City has kept its part of the agreement and now finds the developer comes in and says for these reasons they can't do it. He doesn't really think the developer thought they could live up to the agree- ment as they were more concerned about getting a display home up in time for competition. Redpath agreed the developer failed on their project on what they were attempting to do, but still the area could be bailed out with this proposal and still have the same idea. The premise was right, but unfortunately it didn't work. You still are going to have a low/moderate cost house with Mr. Zachman's proposal. Council Minutes - 11 - Tues.,January 16. 1979 1. R uest for change order regarding developer's agreement for Creekside Heights, item continued Osterholt commented the problem with bailing the developer out is the City is going to see more and more projects of this type with a scaled down lot and they are going to come in and plea they can build a house for X number of dollars because that is really what is needed in Eden Prairie. When the developers come in and make those commitments and then don't deliver, he does not feel the City should go along with the change and bail them out. He does not feel the proponents have kept faith with the City. Putnam explained the project is a failure for Mr. Schrader in the sense that what he hoped to do was to produce a product and have it be something that could be sold quickly. He was talking about being done with the subdivision by the first of the year, that would be all 27 homes completed.. A number of reasons entered into why it didn't happen. It wasn't a function of not trying as proven by the fact he has 6 houses, one of which was marketed and sold for $40,0DO and a commitment to do another. fir. Schrader started out with the whole premise not to go through FHA. He had private conventional financing lined up, however, needless to say when the mortgage rates went up, the financing dried up. and he had to try to get FHA approval which has been tentatively approved. Putnam stated when you use that type of financing the points you have to pay have to be added on. What happened was he found his costs that he started out with, becaus6 he couldn't sell the subdivision out by the first of the year, went into 1979 costs and frankly he had underestimated what the basement was going to save and how desirable it was. At this point in time Hustad is trying to finish the project off because they did sign on the developer's agreement, and will follow what was intended - to build the lowest price house that they `1 can possibly put on the lot that is going to be a quality project. Osterholt stated in his judgement this project would never have been approved on any other basis then the proposal was to have low income housing of this type as it was represented to the Council, and now Mr. Schrader says he can't do it. The concern is an agreement was made and it is not being. lived up to. If it is going to be changed, they proponents should go back and replat it. The other thing involved is the developer has land costs there, and maybe Hustad should assume part of that and not expect the City to. When a developer comes up with a project that is unworkable because of bad judgement, the City should not have to bail the developer out. Penzel noted the developer's agreement was worked out in cooperation befiwen the developers and the City and everyone had the opportunity to put in whatever they wished to and what everybody put in was approved. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to refer the developer's agreement on Creekside Heights to the City Attorney for review as to what the documents entail. Motion carried unanimously. C• Report of City Attorney City Attorney Pauly updated the Council on the Ban Con/Ridgewood Condominiums lawsuit. Council Minutes - 12 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Mitchell Lake Park Option Director of Community Services Lambert explained he received the new proposed agreement late this afternoon from Mr. Moriarity, legal counsel for the Miller's, and has reviewed the agreement along with City Attorney Pauly. Lambert pointed out what the payments would be under the first option and compared them to the payments proposed in the revised option agreement . figuring interest, etc. The first option provided we would pay $528,250.00, and the new proposal is $529,000.00 for the Miller property. The City would have to come up with $220,170.00, of which $100,000 would be reimbursed through the grant. $55,000 of that would be option money which would go toward the purchase of the last piece of property. $9,973.00 is part of the agreement we originally made in paying the 1977-1978 taxes. $155,200.00 is the purchase of Parcel 1 of which the $100,000.00 woulS be reimbursed. Penzel questioned if the purchase is feasible? Lambert replied through grants it is feasible, but emphasized although there is a very good chance for receiving grants on the lakeshore sites,there is no guarantee. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the purchase agreement and the option payments for the Miller property as outlined in the agreement. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Moriarity explained he has not had an opportunity to discuss the revised agreement with the Miller's, but will be doing so within the next week or so. He is relatively satisfied the Miller's will find it to be acceptable and assumes they will have no major objections. 2. Topview Park Penzel explained as a consequence of the Menard's approval, he was asked to meet with some neighbors in the Topview area who expressed great concerts about their screening on the south side of Valley View Road towards the Menard's site. After that initial meeting another meeting was held, which included City Planner Enger, about how the 9 acre site on the northern portion of the Menard's property would be desirable for a park site in the view of the residents. Enger then asked Bob Lambert to look at how suitable that particular site would be. It was also revealed in the conversation that Property adjoining Gerard Drive was in the process of being considered for development and therefore might be available for acquisition. Lambert talked with Mr. Miller, the owner of that property, and there seems to be a possibility of working out an option agreement for the acquisition of the southern parcel of the two parcels that are being considered for development. Lambert has given us a preliminary layout of what might be possible and in his opinion it seems to be a viable neighborhood park site. Penzel suggested Lambert put this item on the agenda this evening and request Council approval for an attempt to negotiate an option for that parcel which would be paid largely out of park fees to be collected from the property to the north and west and Stewart Highlands and Menard's. Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission Mond" evening, January 15, recommended that the Council approve staff to appnmo the landowner just to see if he is willing to sell the parkland and W e-t ,. he feels the property is worth, and also to look at the property to tft.Wrth- ,west adjacent to the pond as a potential park site to serve Tepritc l the,. ;., 1�7 Council Minutes - 13 - Tues.,January 16, 1979 2. Topview Park (continued) proposed developments to the northwest, so we aren't zeroing ourselves in on one site. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to direct Director of Community Services Lamber to contact Mr. Jerrold Miller to see if h is interested in selling � acres for park, and direct staff to identify possible sites in the Topview area for a neighborhood park. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue the Council meeting past the scheduled 11:30 PM adjournment hour. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of City Engineer 1. Consider bids for sanitary sewer extension for Super Valu headquarters s to - . . 51-33 (Resolution Nos. - and 79-18 City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-18, recommending approval of same. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-17, awarding the bid to 0 & P Contracting, Inc. for Improvement Contract No. 51-332 in the amount of $122,768.12. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Edstrom, Redpath and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-18, authorizing City Engineer Jullie to submit an application for "Permit for Connection to or Use of Commission Facilities" to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Final Plat approval for Olympic Hills Highland (Resolution No. 79-09) Penzel referred to questions asked at the January 2nd Council meeting regarding additional development by the Olympic Hills Corporation and asked the proponents to respond to same. Mike Adams and Don McGlynn, Olympic Hills Corporation, displayed a map showing the ultimate development proposed for Olympic Hills and answered questions of Council members. Osterholt requested the map as shown, together with the color graphic originally shown to the Council, be placed on file in the City s Engineering Department for future reference. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-09, approving the final plat for Olympic Hills Highland. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Report on meetings with Major Center Area property owners regardial transportation improvements City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo dated 1/11/79. Osterholt requested City Engineer Jullie develop what the figures would be on items 3 and 4. City Manager Ulstad stated Jullie will forward these figures to the Council in the "For Your Information Pa"*t% -No action necessary. 1�,f Council Minutes - 14 - Tues.,January 16. 1979 i 4. Release of 10% retainage - HNTB City Engineer Jullie spoke to memo dated 1/10/79 and communication from HNTB (Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff) requesting the Council to authorize release of 10% retainage ($14,752.50). Council referred this matter to the City Attorney to review the documents before the Council authorizes payment of the $14,752.50. F. Report of Finance Director 1. Municipal Industrial Development Bond Guidelines (Resolution No. 78-215) At Council's request, this item was taken up earlier on the agenda. (See pages 7 and 8) 2. Report on Municipal Industrial Development Bond financing for single family dwellings City Manager Ulstad explained the City has received a number of requests for this type of financing. Rod Pakonen, Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, and William Fahey, Ehlers & Associates, spoke in detail to their memo dated 12/22/78 and the possibilities for MIDB financing for single family dwellings. General discussion took place pertaining to same. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to refer this matter to the Planning Commission, Development Commission, and the Human Rights & Services Commission for review. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Payment of Claims Nos. 2799 - 2959 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 2799 - 2959, excluding Claim No. 2950. Roll Call Mote: Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Osterholt stated he would like to have an inventory of Grope ies developed and verified. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Communication from K. E. Schumacher, President of Eden Land Corporatiopz regarding the proposed park dedication ordinance Council requested the communication from K. E. Schumacher, President of Eden Land Corporation, be forwarded on to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for their edification. B. Letter and petition received from residents of Topview Acres Subdivision recisi�red January 15, 1979 and dated January 11, 1979 City Manager Ulstad spoke to letter from Mr. & Mrs. William M. Verkuilen received January 15, 1979 along with petitions from residents of Topview Acres Subdivision. C. Letter from Eden Prairie High School relative to Eden Emir%--jg ActiDA City Manager Ulstad referred to cowmunication regarding Edon Prairie-in-Actiqni tom`/ Council Minutes - l5 - Tues.,Janry 16, 1979 C. Letter from Eden Prairie High sphVi relative to Eden Prairie=In& continued uggesting the City have two booths - one for the Public Safety Department oEden nd Fire Department. send the other for the Parks and Recreation Depa Ent, ouncil members agreed with Ulstad's suggestion. enzel stated he thought it would be a good idea to have a bus tour for Prairie residents to see what is happening in the community. X. ' ADJOIIRNMENT MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adjourn the Council meets%at 12:50 AN. Motion carried unanimously. _ .. � .., u o o O p o 0 p 0 11 VtSiJVUU January 10, 1979 Eden Prairie City Council 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN. 55343 RE: BLUFFS WEST 2ND ADDITION Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, We are presenting for your consideration an alternative proposal for the Bluffs West 2nd Addition. The revised proposal attempts to solve the major stumbling blocks identified at previous meetings. The City Neighborhood Park question has had two previous plans for purchase negotiated between Eden Prairie and the owner, Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). The City Council asked our company to attempt to work out an alternative approach. The second concern was the type and amount of future development that is anticipated in the area. We have taken a look at our future plans and have prepared a concept sketch providing an overview of the Bluffs West area. Bluffs West 2nd Proposal (Plat o n The attached Bluffs West 2nd plat proposes 244 lots on 108 acres at {cie density of 2.26 dwelling units/acre. The plat is proposed as a it continuation of the 1st addition for Orrin Thompson Homes, Inc. The Planrs�p bluff lots will be sold to individual buyers for expensive custom homes. The overall map of the area shows a 31.5 acre neighborhood park site adjacent to homeward Hills Road. We propose to purchase that site from BFI and dedicate 15± acres to the City as part of the platting of Bluffs West 2nd Addition. The remaining 16.5± acres would be dedicated with the 3rd Addition later this year. 12750 PIONEER TRAIL,EDEN PRAIRIE �M INNESOTA 553 {10941-4 Eden Prairie City Council January 10, 1979 Page 2 We also propose that the City cash park fee be paid by all phases of our development in addition to the 31.5 acre Neighborhood Park dedication. Our objective is to continue Quin Thompson's quality single family development in the Bl-offs West neighborhood and to make provision for the recreational, health and safety needs of the residents. Our staff will work with the City staff to develop the Homeward hills Neighborhood Park during 1979. We sincerely believe that this Bluffs West 2nd Addition proposal is a better plan since the neighborhood park, tot lot, and scenic open space areas are provided while cash park fees are generated to assist in development of neigift rhood parks. Sincerely, Richard Putnam HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION i January 5, 1979 BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION 1. Total Gross Area 122 Acres Area Excluding Outlots A, B & C 108 Acres 2. Total Residential Units 244 Units 3. Gross Density (Excluding Outlots A, B & C) 2.26 Du/Ac 4. Proposed Setbacks Front Yards: 30' Side Yards: Garage - 5' 1 Sty lase - 10' 131 Sty Hse - 15' BLUFFS WEST THIRD ADDITION 1. Total Gross Area 103.3 Acres Single Family 37 Acres Quad Sites: 37.3 Acres (1st Phase - 26 Ac.) (2nd Phase - 11.3 Ac.) Dougles: 29 Acres (1st Phase - 16.5 Ac.) (2nd Phase - 12.5 Ac.) 2. Total Residential Units 434 Units Single Family 100 units Quad Sites: 1st Phase 144 Units 2nd Phase 80 Units Doubles 1st Phase 60 Units 2nd Phase 50 Units 3. Gross Density Single Family 2.7 Du/Ac. Quad Sites: 1st Phase 5.5 Du/Ac. 2nd Phase 7.1 Dm/Ac Bluffs Meet Third Addition (continued) Doubles 1st Phase 3.6 Du/Ac. 2nd Phase CD Du(Ac BLUFFS BEST FOUM A:U?MON 1. Total Gross Area 28 Acres Single Family 19 Acres Apt-tondos 9 Acres 2. Tot,al Residential Units 129 knits. 5 "1* Family 39 Units Apt-Conto:s 90 Units 3. Gross Density Single Family 2.1 Du{Ac. Apt-Condos 10 Du/Ac. MEMO TO: Mayor.and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager DATE: January 12, 1979 RE: Hustad Development Bluffs West 2nd Addition City staff has been working with liustads in an attempt to come to a common position relating to Bluffs 2nd addition and the general development to occur on the balance of B. F.I. property.contemplated by Hustads. To briefly recap the history of review on this proposal: Hustadss original proposal- contained about 198 lots. This proposal was fairly consistent with ordinance requirements with the exception that a variance was being requested on the lot widths. The Planning Commission and Parks, Recrea- tion and natural Resources Commission reviewed this proposal and reconraended approval subject to several items of concern. 'One of the major items vies that the proposal included about thirteen lots platted on the north side of River- view Road. The staff and commissions felt that based upon the soil conserva- tion report, advising against development on such steep slopes, platting of these lots on the loner side of the river bluffs was unacceptable. The staff recommendation was to eliminate the lower lots and to add the area to the upper lots, thus creating large estate lots with building no lower than the 960 contour. Hustads presented the original plan to the Council showing the lower lots as one 12 acre outlot to be considered at some later time.. The Council, however, was very concerned about the disposition of the 12 acre steep slope outlot, the absence of mini-parks, and the provision of a neighborhood pare. Hustads returned with a preliminary plat showing 212 lots with lot size and setback variance requests, two totlots, agreement to pay the cash park fee and 2 units per acre gross density (using the 12 acre steep slope as a density transfer and agreeing to dedicate it to the City. At this point negotiations began with B.F.I. for acquisition of the neighbor- hood park site. There was approximately 31 acres in the area B.F.T. agreed to sell at $4,000/acre, however, at that time the staff felt that only 20 acres was necessary. Since B.F.I. was not willing to sell only 20 acres Hustad agreed to purchase the remaining 11 acres from B.F.I. to bring about the sate. After review of the development costs, the Council felt higher land might be more desirable. Mr. Lambert picked 12 acres further south which included about 7 of the original 20 acres and 5 different acres. B.F.I. quoted S10,000 per dcre. The Council then requested an appraisal be done. The appraisal was $5,500/acre for the area quoted by B.F.I. at $10,000. I Memo- Hustad development Bluffs West 2nd Add. Page 2 The Council also, requested a general overall plan for development Hustad had in mind for the area. Since Wustads had mentioned that they may be contemplating some multiple north of Bluffs Znd addition and the ISM guide plan and the proposed update both show low density development for this entire area, the staff approached Hustads with the idea of transferring the 2 unit/acre density from the 31 acre lover area to the anticipated fu- ture additions. Under this plan, the developer could be allm-ied higher net densities on the balance of the property while conveying the open space to the City in consideration of this. The cash park feelunit and tot lot areas were to stay the same. The staff suggested since the City Council seemed to voice approval of the 212 lot Bluffs West 2nd plat itself, that this should not be changed, Mat Hustads have submitted to you now is an overall plan which encompasses. 270 gross acres and would anticipate approximately 807 units, bring the den- sity overall to 2.99 units/acre. The Bluffs best 2nd Addition was increased from the previous plan the Loartcil had reviewed of 212 unit lots, 2-44 let$ or 2.26.units/acre. We understand from Hustads that about 30% of the lots would require a 68 foot frontage, 30S 80 foot fronUge and 40% 90 foot frontage. From information received you will note that 160 lots are shown less than 13,500 sg. ft. or 65% ^f the subdivision. This contrasts With Bluffs West 1st whj'Oh was appravp d- with avproximately 15b under $13,500. 1tcCfl IL DATlON`S The staff feels that the overall concept of providing open land through a density transfer is good and the mix of housing type and npportuaity it pro aides is desirable, however we recommend that the concept be utilized with Bluffs Hest 2nd Addition according to the 212 lot proposal previously seen by the Council, and that the 563 anticipated units in the balance of the project be revised down to obtain a gross density more consistent with the City's existing standard of 2 units/acre. frt l oo�o{} 0{D�UUUVUUV QV�L/U VISUOU� January 11, 1979 FVen Pr:irie City Council 8950 rden Prairie Rord E�,:en Prairie, bn. 55344 Hes Yorkshire Point Tear mayor and Members of the City Councils fustad Development Corporation, Hart Custom Homes ant Zachman Homes are requesting a change in the Yorkshire Point Zoning Agreement. Due to a number of circumstances, Hart Custom Homes can not ca.,lete the Yorkshire Point Project. They have ;;wilt 6 hatmes and are comnittc:: to built' one ad.:itional hove. Hart has arranger' to have Zncl:man Homes, Inc. take over the construction of the t-,:(mty remaining lots. Zachman Homes plans to construct three basic home styles a3th a variaty of exterior treatments. The 1979 price for etch of the homes is $54,°00 which includes sale fee, 41 mortgage points, 4 x 8 storage buileings, fully eeveloped lot, bitwainous drive .-nd sidewalk. Yorkshire Point is intenc'ed to be a small subdivision�--xclusively for loaner priced single family homes. Hart Homes attemptef' to complete the pr33ect with a factory built system. Zachmen Ilomea, Inc. plans to complete the s,roject with similar style, site built homes. Ue are confic'.ent the Zachman Homes will complete Yorkshire Point as r modest cast family neighborhood as originally planned. Idr. Zachmnn ,sac I will be at the January 16th meeting to explain his plans in more '.ctail. I Thank you fa your consiverntion. Richard Putnam HuA—,0 Develoluent Corporation Pil/Ir d � 12750 PIONEER TRAIL,EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESO A 5534 (61Z94"M '1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE j CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST February 6, 1979 CONTRACTOR (Mulit-family & Comm.) HEATING & VENTILATING Crosstown Baptist Allied Metal Craft Co. L. L. Dysart Construction Berghorst Plumbing & Heating Hustad Development Dill Sheet Metal Libbey & Libby Co. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal Welsh Construction Corp. Home Heating & Air Cond. Modern Heating & Air Cond. CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family) Steins, Inc. Thomas Air Cond. Balmer Construction The Tinn Shoppe Crocker Construction, Inc. D & D Remodeling GAS FITTER Dalhaug Building Co. Dolphin Homes, Inc. Home Heating & Air Cond. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal Eugene Erickson Herb Garbers Const., Inc. Northern Propane Gas CO. Gerry Construction, Inc. Piper Plumbing, Inc. Hustad Devlopment Steins, Inc. Jarip Builders Thomas Air Cond. James E. Johnson Klink Construction, Inc. WELL DRILLING Northwestern Builders Don Stodola's Well Drilling Co Schum, Inc. Skluzacek Construction Torgerson Well Co. Stuart Construction Co. Orrin Thompson Homes SCAVENGER Thompson & Tonsager Const. Suburban Sewer Service Windsor Development PLUMBING GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTION A.O.K. Plumbing Co. Able Sanitation, Inc. Action Plumbing Co. Eden Prairie Sanitaiton Russ Anderson Plumbing G & H Sanitation, Inc. Backdahl & Olson Plbg. & Htg. Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. Berghorst Plumbing & Heating Hopkins Plumbing & Heating Co. PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE Hovde Plumbing & Heating Judy Bersie Key Plumbing & Heating, Inc. estler London Plumbing Co.,Inc. Martin Jenkins Madsen Plumbing & Heating Harold Jenkins Pilver Plumbing, Inc. Dennis Peterson Southwest plumbing Ployd H. Sable SPetz & Berg, Inc. COMPIERCIRL KENNEL LICbNSE Steins, Inc. Westonka Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Kingdale Kennels Widmer Bros., Inc. CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST Page two 3.2 BEER ON SALE VENDING MACHII.ES Cedar Hills A & i Enterprises Dircon Enterprises CIGARETTES & TOBACCO Gold Medal Be•rerage Gustafson, Inc. A & i Enterprises Pennys Super Market' coca Cola Bottling Co. Mr. Steak Movies at Eden Prairie Roberts Drug SuperAmeriea Viking Pioneer Incorp. THEATRE (In-doom Movies at Eden Prairie MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES Aladdin's Castle, Inc. Genghis Khan of Sapporo Lion's Tap Movies at Eden Prairie FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - Type A Olympic Hills Golf Club Pennys Super Market Winchell's Donut House FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - Type C Eden Prairie Grocery Hot Sam Companies Karp's Twin City Supply Main Street Ice Cream Movies at Eden Prairie These licenses have been approved by the department head responsible for the licensed activity. Rebecca Quernemoen, Deputy Clerk 4. MEMO TO: Mayor Fenzel and Mfrs of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad. City Manager FROM: Carl auilie, City Engineer DATE: February 1, 1979 SUBJECT: Rmn Ridge.Addition Acceptance of Utilities Westwood Planning and Engineering Co,, per the attached 1etter'Of fttobar 11, storm has c ithedRthat the striate on tree nitary sewer, watermain and been completed itt tftoMd, ante with OU approved plans ;and specifi:cati:ons. the City BOWri.ng Staff fits matte a final I'Mection of these:utilii<4ga and it is recammendtd that the City CDMI9,11 atc pt for tontifiutitts. ship and maintenance the sanitary sewsr, watermatn and storm sewer in the Raven Ridge Addition, subject to a two year warranty cnmmensigg on Feb.,,6, 1474, per the attached Warranty 800- CJJ:kh Attachment WESTWOOD PLANNING &ENGINEERING COMPANY October 11, 1978 Mr. Carl .lvllie Director of Public Works City of Eden Prairie 7801 Mitei"ll Rood Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Raven Ridge Subdivision Edenvole Dear Mr. Jullie: We herewith certify that the sanitary sewer, watermain, and Strom sewer for the above subdivision was completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City and all tests required by the City have been performed and meet City re- quirements. Therefor the owner requests the City accept the sanitary sewer, watermain, end storm sewer for perpetual maintenance. A two year bond as required by the City is enclosed. Sincerely, WESTWOOD .LANNING & ENGIREERING COMPANY 7. Dennis Morhulo, P.E. DMaswb Enclosure t1 I &A1L 2W,7615 WAVAIA BDUUVAND UNKAMIS WW4W"044 76111 bwass F - &:irm �c 'y' •4� UNITED STATES FIDEL:IT`y,t c AI�NTY COMPANY A( I MJ►ENTENTAl4>r8 @Ottl'© ODNO NUMSER �-_` crreta� cQvs�rRucrmn'_co...�•38a?..sc.• ,;, ` s KNOW ALL MEN [Y THSSS PRESENTS,That wo, ._.W........._.._........... Lake ._---•...._................ i lti I therNnafter called the Principalt,and UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND M ANANTY COMPANY,a Maryland emPmater'thererrmi)er called Its Smety),are hem and firmiv bound unto ,.... * as cbl3gee...iapd t1?e CStY. i1f... E�'•Pre3�lee a Nmttota�a13„_og-ob73ee ........_.__ _._. .........._.._.. ._ ._..,..... � ---••—•_•............_. _........... � w........ �� "i theretrurrip called the William), the tali and,lust am of...._.—�.. ... "'"_. I o lawfat money of the United Shtea far the Paymerd el which,wait and truly to be made.we bind d1511"',our.I'th"admtaitIr,aWk 1:5 executors,sr=am and assigns,jointly ad—&&fly-Ormly by these Present+• R f { Obliges dated__.... �. ..._E r��7.,..d '� � � 1 WHEREAS.serd Princtpai has entered late a Certain coWrad with the Obi � A sewer orate,,smain enfl stDxta�aewer in RerreA Ri ,..,f...,. i a ro><...�a�.rites_c.:��.....+��._�,t>�.�.�•ar_..._._..._....�........ ......�.._.._..�.._....... .: .Edon..Ys ixie,..Mi neaeta.._._.___........_. ................... f _ ................... ___.....__.. _ _-............. _ _.W....... W... j which contract has bass or is about to be completed and accepted ...................M If AND WHEREAS,speCifrcat+ons and Contract provided that•—- should guarantee,be project iree from detects caused by f�ty workmaasldp and materials for a period of _ytan general wear a 2. and tear excepted �a1 NOW.THEREFORE It the said project shet be free bon deteCls of vuukaunship and matmtab,geaeral wear and tsar" Miled, ��Ml d r for a period of tW Years,than Ibis"Wilaliea shall be null and voids otherwise to remain in fuel force and affect f Signed,scaled and delivered ��? 6�ta•• � Witness as to �. .y<^./.Y _e._w •' `,F", dal► `� Priacipel _ q_man ' �� y Wan sul ftimin RNR RUAWY&BOANY y • R. ZZettr�att iaeaY+n 9,.. The conditions of thin bond are subject /srto the proviacio" Of the � P attached "Dual Obligee Rides". af0 f� �,,,._.`�.::.:.'� ,_w.�:,.,.l.��i:::;,.`� u5 Y wi.u,�.y�is�1..u.�',raW�:�..:.ilt9'w:,�'�°•ra�w'�i:ras.,.�.oNll.��#�3 .L�.rPilii�"iaa�,:., •' rraw �f ta.uur sw re•Yar MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Cart Juilie. City Engineer DATE: Feb. 1. 1979 SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with MR-DOT on T.H. 169 Project Resolution No. 79-35 MN-DOT hb9 agreed to amend Agreement No. 58346 regarding the cost shartng for work completed on W. 78th St. as part of the T.H. 169 improvement project from. 1-494 to south of Schooner Bovlevard. The amended ag ant will reduce the City's share of the .project Costs by about$25,000. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 79-35. CJJ:kh .�•l W . I 58346-1 a A CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RESOLUTION No. 79-35 1(1 1 4 BE FT RESOLVED that the City of 'Eden Prairie enter into Supplement No. 1 to Agreement No. 58346 with the State of Minnesota, Depattment of Transportation for the following purposes, tea-wit: t0 emend, and modify a portion of Article II, Section A. of said Agreement No. 5$346 in order to extend the State's cost participation in the city contract construction to include all of the construction to"be Per i formed upon and along 78th Street from Trunk Highway No. 165 easterly to the constru,ctioa termini at Engineer Stations w �s®placaesa Y E.B. 14437.52. In addition, this supplemental agreement the Agreement No. 58346 construction cost estimate and division Of costs form with a form revised for and attaetred to the supplemental agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorization to execute such suppiemeata'i agreement is hereby given to the Mayor and the City Clerk. CERTIFICATION enze , y�or State.of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Eden Prairie I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutioa'is a true and eo•rrect copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City of 'Eden Prairie at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of 14 , as shown by the minutes o sa d meeting in my possession. City Clerk CITY OF EDER PRAIRRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNES©TA RESOLUTION NO. 79-38 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT Of The Meadows 3rd Addition wlttEREAS, the plat of The Mes4ows 3rd Addition has been sub- mined in the manner required• for plattinghave mi land under fire Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proe ngl duly had thereunder, .and w1HEREAS, said .0 rplat if therlamscof thets sState ofiiiiiinr�esota the tanddlaordin n- - the regulations and reqsments o ances of the City of Eden Prairie, NW, THEREFOR, BE 'IT RESOLVED 9Y TkTE CITY Ct3t1NCIL OF THE G�TY 'OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat Approftl ;Request for The-Readbws 3rd Addition is 4ixPT ed. Upon compliance with fife re ehdatign of the City En9�eprrs` Report Cdr this Plot dated: Or 7974., g, Variance is We€n granted from City Ordina�tce No. 93.. - �► Subd. I wanting the six month maximum time ela-pse i3et "t plat filing of the final approval date of the preliminary p' and plat as described in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to ideaer of Dertified�APY' s llf this resolution in the office of the Reg tray of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358. `mod D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a Certified Copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the abO*e ni plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council.+t'pi+A - pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on gang ;H. enze'1. M��ar - SEAL ATTEST: 77 Jcih�i D: rane, CSerl�c�— A6 i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT OF FINAL PLAT i I TO: Mayor Penzdl and Members of the City Council , THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager { FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: January 30, 1979 SUBJECT: THE MEADOWS 3rd ADDITION PROPOSAL: The Developer, Dirlam Properties, is requesting City Council aop"'nVal I of the final plat of "The Meadows 3rd Addition". This plat consists of 6 single family residential lots (Block 1, zoned RI-135) and 13 lots for double units (Block 2, zoned RM6.5). This is a replat of Outlot D, Meadows 2nd Addition, and will complete the platting of this project. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved on August 16, 1977, per council Resolution #77-108. Zoning to RI-13.5 and RM 6.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on October 18, 1977, per Ordinance #77-30. The area shown on the Plat as Outlot A will be redrafted to become part of Lot 7, with the area of Outlot A being platted as a scenic easement. The final plat now submitted for approval conforms with the approved preliminary plat. VARIANCES: A variance from Ordinance #93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. This variance should be allowed because the developer has proceeded with the plat in a reasonable and efficient.manner. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed by the developer in accordance with Eden Prairie specifications. PARK DEDICATION: Requirements for park dedication are covered in.the Rezoning Agreement signed October 12, 1977. BONDING: A Letter of-Credit has been supplied by the Developer to cover the cost of installing the remaining utilites and streets. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of "The Meadows 3rd Addition" subject to the requirements of this report and the following: 1. Receipt of fee for City Engineering Services in the amount of $960.00. 2. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting requirements in the amount of $295.20. n6 Feb. 6, 1979 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNE50TA RESOLUTION NO. 79-33 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION i OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN MI TCHELL LAKE ESTATES, I.C. 51-342 BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council* 1. The owners of 1.00'& of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the .proposed sewer, water and street improvements in Mitchell Lake Estates, I.C. 51-342, at an estimated total Cost *f $230,OOD, have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess.ths entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429,031, Subd, 3, and upon recamendatTen of the City Eng m , said improvements are hereby ttrdlsr&d and the City Engineer, with the assistance Of XM Assoc,, Iire., shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City standards and advertise for bids thereon. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City 'Clark is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution orme in 1:114 official newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improvements shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 3D days following publication of this resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang N. Fenzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, er E CITY OF MEN PRAIRIEr MINN63+OTA 100% PELT-ION.-TOM LOCAL IMPROVEMMIS TO TPE EVEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCILa The undersigned are all the fee Owners of the real property described below and herein Petition for. the Edon Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described impro'''ementsa (Geaaeral Location) sa»itasy Sewer Watersmain storm saw Street Paving _Other Pursuant to g1.S.A. A25.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned bureby waive any public hearing to be bold on said improvements, 4nd further state and pgrae that the total cost of said Lnprovcments shall be specially as - pub party described below in acow"'da+'� with the sessed against the P pe y City's special assessanOnt policies. we further uarlerstand that the preliminary, estimated total cost for the said imprcvamcmt Names and miners of record)ss0s of Street Address or other ogbe Served (Must be Description Of PYO]�rt � r J 1jI (For City Ur.e) Date Recc:vcd.^_, Project No. '@ Council Consideration� y k CITY OF EDCN PRAIRIE, MINKESOTA P i 100$ PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS TO T1iE £DEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL' The undersigned are all the foe owners of the real property described below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described improvements' (General Location) _sanitary S:wer Watermain 11� Storm Sewer / Street Paving ,k_ Otber js ww-,we Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd• 3, the undersigned hereby waive any I improvements, and further &4Ate and public hearing to be held Iagree that the total cost of I improvements Shall be specially 5essed agai'st the property described below in accordance with the the City's special assessment Policies. We further undstand tisy preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements Street Address or other Legal 450 Mamos and addresses of petitioners Description of Property to be Sprved Mnss zers of r d1 (For city Use) / Date Rcccivcd�_( Project No. /go Council considrara "4 Feb. b, 3939 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, 14INNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-3+44 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 105 PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION DF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUB- LIC IMPROVEMENTS IN CHATHAM WOOD AD-. DITION, I.C. 51-343 BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of I0096 of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the proposed sewer, water and street improvements in the Chatham Wood Addition, I.C. 51-343, at an estimated total cost of $450,000 have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess tl,* entire cost against their property, 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby or4tred and the City Engineer, with the assistance of Schoell & Madsen, shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City standards and advertise bor bids thereon. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby Of- directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the af- dicia1 newspaper, and further a contract for construction of s shall not be approved by the City Council said improvemeni prior to 30 days following publication of this resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Praarie on o fgang H. renzel. Mayor ATTEST: SEAL o n U. Frane, er r 1 ` Feb. 6, 1979 v j CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-39 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT ON IM- PROVEMENTS, T.H. 5 FRONTAGE ROAD 51-336) WHEREAS, petitions have been received and it is proposed to make the following improvements: I.C. 51-33L5.. Frohta4'+e road construction longrthe RcadotohCo�dRoafl of 74.H. 5 from and asStiSS the benefitted property fn!" 'all or a portion of the cost of thB o M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111. improvements, pursuant t NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 8Y THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that a proposed im'py report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary t, assessment and feasibility of the Proposed way as to the scope, cot improvements. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on gang H. Penze , Mayor SEAL ATTEST: Jofin D.. rane, G erk January 4, 1979 TO: City of Eden Prairie ! FROM: Fuller Road-Highway 5 Eden Prairie Property Owners i PETITIO14 The undersigned hereby petition the City of Eden Prairie to take action toward the solution of the hazardous access problem at Fuller Road and State Higtnaay 5. tie are in cormron agreement that the above-stated intersection is a hazard to both the companies and their employees who use it. We are also all in agreement that the situation must be solved as soon as possible. We further believe that the project should include properties to the east of Fuller Road; namely, as far east as Water Products, Inc. It is also agreed that in the eyes of the undersigned the solution to the problem is a service road running along State Highway 5 from Fuller Road to County Road 4. This will provide a controlled access to and from westbound State Hight-lay 5 at the County Road 4 intersection. In addition, it is understood that Stewart Sandwiches is willing to sell the necessary land to make this project a reality. t It is further understood by the undersigned that each benefiting property miner, those named below, will he assessed on a per acre basis for the costs incurred by the city for this project. The preliminary estimates for the County Road 4 to Fuller Road section were presented as S109,000 or approximately S1,800/acre figuring there are GO acres benefiting from the project. Definite costs will be determined upon the completion of the city's formal feasibility study. At that time, the city will present their feasibility study to the undersigned for their final acceptance. Lastly , we want to re-ciaphasize the urgency needed to soT this'atuation. Tank Co. Hr. Tom Sween - Stewart Sandwiches t:r. John Pay -rvl er Laboratories, Inc. Mr. htoza �2 kstad - .osewoo orp. Jerry Olsen`+- Champion Products ttr. Richard Graham - Nortivie�stern Sell t:r. Larry obhnson - habbey Engineering Mr. Harlan McGregor - Statidard Oil Co. !r. Gen Reed - ltater Products /92 i January 4, 1979 TO: City of Eden Prairie FROM: Fuller Road-Highway 5 Eden Prairie Property Owners PETITIO3 The undersigned hereby petition the City of Eden Prairie to take action toward the solution of the hazardous access problem at Fuller Road and State Highway 5. We are in conm,on agreerent that the above-stated intersection is a hazard to both the companies and their employees who use it. He are also all in agreement that the situation must be solved as soon as possible. Fie further believe that far cast as l:aerdProducts,include pIacerties to the east of Fuller , It is also agreed that in the eyes of the amdersigned the solution to the problem urog State Highway from o County t is a service 5 a he This will provide aconLlledaccess to from esu County Road 4 intersection. In addition, it tti mundethiooprothat ject a�realitayndMriches is willing to sell the necessary It is further understood by the undersigned that each benefiting property owner, those gaged below, will be assessed on a per acre basis for the casts incurrred by the city for this project. The prelininary estimates lforthe elCoSnt Road 4 to Fuller Road section were presented as $104>000 or app Y - figuring there are 60 acres benefiting from the project. Definite costs will he determined upon the completion of the city°s formal feasibility study. At that 4.111e, the city will present their feasibility study to the undersigned for their final acceptance. s Lastly, we want to re-emphasize the urgency needed to solve this situation. it Ton Saaee - S t i chi 1 r. Jack Eide - Roll Tank Co. t ;ir. JO}an lady - Fu'ler Laboratories, Inc. it Howard Re sta - .oscnr rp. Jerry Olsen - Champion 'roaucts l+r. . chard Grahaw -H-1W.�tstea'n Larry Johnson—K hbeY £n�,Iinc--" erin9 11r. ltarlan 1icGregor - tan arai 0§1 Itr. Glen Pced - dater Products l93 ttC{1I �� league of min n sota Cities January 15,1979 TO: Mayors,Members of the Councils,and Clerks: Governor Albert H.Quie has agreed to issue an official prociamation designating the week of February 26-March 2 as Minnesota Cities Week.This will allow cities the opportuunity to high- tight city services in concert with hundreds of other cities throughout the State of Minnesota. The entire week will offer a variety of opportunities for your participation locally,so that you can select the options that seem to best fit your community. One purpose of this letter is to ask you to adopt the enclosed'resolution of participaticnt,gftd for return it to the League and to the Governor.If we can got this kind of official participation'rrom cities in every part of Minnesota,it will help to underline the importance of the week.We W*uld like to be able to say publicly that cities from Ada through Zumbrota are officially parfidl)at- Ing in Minnesota Cities Week,but we can only do that if you pass this resolution at the next possible council meeting. The Board of Directois of the League has selected a slogan for the week.It's—Cukj—lithare the People Are!We plan to have a campaign kit designed around this slogan and hope to hawse samples in your halals at the beginning of February.The League will also provide suggc,tlom for a number of activities that cities can undertake on their own.Finally,we will contact the flews media,so that we can coordinate the publicity here with the League's Legislative Conference, which will be held Wednesday,March 1. The Board feels that Minnesota Cities Week offers a good opportunity not only to illustrate the diversity and vitality of cities,but to make cities more visible daring this very impot'tant legWi a tine session.They would certainty urge your participation,via time enclosed resolution,and lit any other way that you deem appropriate either now,or after plans for the week are more developed. to the meantime,If you have any Ideas that should be considered,or any comments,please let me know. Si cereiy, Donald A.Slater Executive Director DAS:glb Enclosure 300 hranover building. 4Et0 cedar street, u{ain ptaut,rni o a 55101 C61"tc12, hr'v�"ka 1 f q ta. RESOLUTION NO. 79-40 Model City Government Week Resolution (Adapt as seems appropriate) City of F.dan Prairig pnWin County,Minnesota. RESOLUTION OF PARTICIPATION IN MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK WHEREAS,February 26 through March 2 has been proclaimed as Minnesota Cltles Week by the Governor of the State of Minnesota;and WHEREAS,city governments offer the best opportunity for most Minnesota citizens to take an active part in the political processes which so profoundly Influence their fives;and WHEREAS,the recognition of thesi$nificanceofcity government by designation of a city government week wiii provide an opportunity to promote even greater citizen understanding and Involvement;and WHEREAS,designation of a special week for recognition of city government wi.II provide opportuni- ties for greater understanding of the role of cities in relation to other units of local,regional and state government by governmental officers and employees; NOW THEREFORE- IT 1S HEREBY RESOLVED,that live city council of Eden Pra jriv officl. ally recognizes Minnesota Cities Week and commits this city to such promotional and other city week activities as the council shall herewith and hereafter direct. BE IT FURTHER DIRECTED,that copies of this resolution be provided to Governor Albert H. Quie,the League of Minnesota Cities and the official newspaper as well as other local news media. Adopted by the city council of the City of this date of 1979. Attest City Clerk Mayor a i I M1sM01tJtNiJllhf TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Stuart A. Fox, City Forester DATE: February 1, 1979 SUW CT: Public !rearing for Removal of Diseased Trees on Private Property In an effort to get property owners to remove diseased trees the staff had made several attempts to work with the the affected property owners. To data the procedures have been as follows., 1. Original notification - swmaor of 1978 (living owner 2-0 daps to have trees removed.) 2. second notification - November 1, 1978. 3. Date set for Public: !tearing - December 19, 1978 Cotamil meeting. 4. Public notificatiml of property owners - two publications in Eden Prairie Ness .7a2uary 1979. S. Third letter to property own4ors informing them of Pobruur'y 6, 1979 Public Hearing. 6. February 6, 1979 Council meeting - Public Hearing with estimatod costs. Property owners have opportunity to appeal. Many property owners have responded to this effort by the staff to have dis<.as:e4 trees removed, however many property owners have not. Enclosod is a list:of property owners who have not removed diseased trees as required by City Ordinance No. 77-36. The staff recommends the Council require abatement of the trees on this list by resolution. SAF:md 194 ! CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 11UNNSPIN COUNTY, ktTi4-WOT;A RI ,11TION NO. 79-37 RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUIILIC IMPROVEMENT FOR TIM REMOVAL OF DISEASES TREES NNEREAS, the City Council fixed the 7th day of February 1979 for a Public hearing on t1te proposed improvement to remove diseased trees from private lands and, WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvemimt have been notified and notice has been published as required by lase; NOW THERECORL', BE IT RESOLVED, that 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 2. The Director of Communi.ty Services is authorized to advertise: for kids for the remoirai of=id trees. (See att4th4d list. of properties) ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this day of February, 1979. o Eang Pentrzol, Mayor ATTEST: John U. Franc, Clerk UAL s NN:RI ADDRPSS LOCATION OF TKM R TREES pDAA 0 PST. COST WF@R:NPS Thomas It Carlson 8701 Summit Drive (Sae Attached Legal 08 2 15/2St78 $160 Edomalo, Inc. 14500 Valley View Road Outlet V,Edcnvole 3rd 28 6/15/76 $2,240 Cdonvalo, Inc. 14500 Valley View Road ,Outlot A, Edenvale 10th 4 .6/IS/78 $320 r Clenvale, Inc. 14SOO Valley View Road °Outlot C. Edenvale 6th 3 4/29/78 $240 ---_-- 3 87. 2,Outlets 8, C, Edenvale, Inc. 14500 Valley View Road D, P, r 6 Lot 11 Dl 4 2T. 7/3/78 2,160 ;fdenvale Zed Addition Edenvale, Inc. 14500 Valley View Road S. 2, Lot 9. Edomalo 1 7/6/78 $80 __ __ _Industrial.Park 2td Acldn.-;—.�-_. ---- -- -.- Edenvale. Inc. 14500 Valley View Road -Outlot G, hike Eden Plat ! 2 1/6/78 $160 pdenvale, Inc. I 14500 Valley View Read Outlet C, Lake Eden Plat i 11 17/6/78 $880 Edomalo, Inc. 14500 Valley View Road Lot 2, 81 3 P.demaie 2nd 2 r/7/78 $160 I Edonvale, Inc. 14500 Valley View Road 'Soo attached Legal aS 18 {7JI0J78 1,440 t Edonvalo, Inc. ` 14500 Valley View Road Outlet 1, Edenvale fird fi! 1 111/78 - $8o i Tree from 1977 Edonvalo, Inc.!i 14500 Valley View Road Lot 1,81. 2, Edenvale 4th! 9� 7/11/78 $720 ± 6 trees from 1977 I � y Edenvale. Inc. 14S00 Valley View RoadOutlet C, Linden Polls 1 8/13/79 $ao _l._.-.._.. . +_.. ._ _ ... Edonvalo, Inc. ! 14500 Valley View Road :Outlet B. Woodland Addn. 1 8/fO/78 $80 _l__--- '-Y•-- -_-� 14500 Valley View Road Outlet G, i.ako Eden 4 8/i/78 $320 Edenvale, Inc. ey Eeklund G Swedlund Development Corp. Sox 38, Excelsior, MM llillerest Court 3rd S .7/3/78 $400 ( --�•.• Ecklwrd G Swedlund- box 38, Excelsior,684 ;Smo attached legal 14 t 10 '7/IS/78 $80Q Developmont Corp. k iwi 4whvrd 'Lot 5, 81. 3 �7$ l ! ve ol" �dorp. Box 38, Excelsior,MN Hidden Ponds 2nd Addn. 2 8/IS/78 $160 Great Plains land 9120 83rd Ave. No.—�.-• Lot 2, 81. 2 1 2 7/27/78 $160 Minneapolis, MN. plying Cloud Cotter Phillip licnderson i 168SQ Duck Lake Trail ISee Attached Legal #3 ; 2 }6/30/79 $160 ` Lot 2, Bl. I Uilicrest Ralph lbffaFtn I ]S45o No. Ili IIcrest Ct. Courts 2nd Addition 1t 4 1J5/78 $320 1..�-. :.._....._.. _..-.-.._- _.... _._ 1426 So. 1.3rd Benson Blolmcs Omaha, Robraska 69130 See Attached Legal 47 i 6 l7/7/78 $480 I 10-16 Tolnlu Cirice »_ rrnt lisiao --- -- Let 12...81; 1, Willow Croe i 8/4/78 $80 ru:y+Hinolis, liN. 55437 Hu!Aad hcvelolaacnt i 12750 Pioneer Trail 'Outlet A. Crackwood 21hd 4 6/28/78 $320 Biustcal jkv.•lopmrnt 127SO Vionvet Trail tot 11, Dl. 2 Crectwoed I 4 A/2a/78 $320 Estates Ind Blustad Ik•vclopw`at 127SO Piouccr Trail lot 10, 81. 2 Crockwood S 'G/20/T8 $44V e t ONE RAM AMIRE.c.4 ID=ox or TREKS #7Rw, tt4RK m CSr. COST CO 1Ml.w Mustad 0avolaloa — 12750 Pioneer Trail_ 81. 1, Lot 20_ 1 Prairie Cost Ist Adds. 10 17/17/78 $800 2 trees are froa 1177 Indepoutdont Milli 9420 83rd Ave. No. 81. 1, Lot I Work Minneapolis, M. $5455 Flying Claud Center 1 7/27/79 $90 Carl Keviin 8833 Ilidden Oaks lat 1. Bl. 2 Hidden Oaks 1 7/20/78 Carl Kevlin 8833 Bidden Oaks Lot 24, Bl. 2 Ridden Oaki 1 17/20/79 ` $80 Carl Kovlia 8833 Bidden Oaks Lot 3, El. 1 Ilidden Oaks 3 7/20/78 $240 Carl Kavli.n 8833 Midden Onks-- _ _lot 10, U 2 Ilidden Oaks 1 7/7173 $80 833 Hidden KevlinHidden Oaks Lot 2, 01. 1 Hidden Oaks t 2 l7J20/78 ` wo i I 'Russell Marsh 6509 Baker Road See Attached Legal #9 9 '7/6J78 $720 Universal Land 14SOO Valley View Road I let 16, B1. 1 {.woodland Addition 11 8/10/78 $8BO Universal Land 14500 Valley View Road W7-1-at- t ,3 Bl, I j WoodJand.Addition 1 1 W 6178 $80 Universal Load 14500 Valley View Road .v let 2,111 2 f NoOdland AdditiuR 1 8/23/78 $80 P.O. Box$23 Witten Inc. Centralia, 111. 62801 See Attached Legal#1 I 3 8/1/78 ! $278 William Bren 715O Flying Cloud Drive Sae Attached Legal #6 18 7/7/78 I$1,440 1 Cardinal Cruek 7400 Metro Blvd. Edina ± Sea Attached Legal 12 14 7/17/7a �$1,120 �_.._... eetas. i I j ? i � I 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Notice'is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota will meet Tuesday, February 6, 1979 at 7:30 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 i Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northeast 4 Legal a1 of the Northwest "-; thence West 24 rods; thence South 12 rods; thence West 8 rods; thence North 12 rods; thence West to the Northwest corner of the East 43 acres of the Northeast '4- of the Northwest 3,1; thence South the Southwest corner thereof; thence East to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North to the beginning except road and highway. Section 3 Commencing at a point in the East line of the Northwest Legal +k2 thef the NorthSlineethereof;athencence South to3e t South from the Southeast corner of the West of the Southeast 4; thence West to the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northerly along the center line of County Road number 60, to a point 666.53 feet South from the North line of the Southeast , 4; thence East to the beginning except road. Section 5 That part of 'the following tract commencing at a point Legal a3 in the center line of Duck Lake Trail 305.9 feet Northeasterly from its intersection with the ilest line of the East 40 rods of Government Lot 4; thence North 269.25 feet; thence Northeasterly to a point in the East line of Lot 4, a distance 200 feet North from the center line of said road; thence South to said center line; thence Southwesterly to beginning which lies East of the West 135 feet thereof, except road. Section 8 Commencing at a point intersecting the North line of Legal 04 Section 8, Township 116, Range 22, a distance 1598.43 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof; thence South at right angles 616 feet to actual point of beginning; thence North along the last described line 245 feet; thence Last parallel with the ?forth line of Section to the West line of County Road 4; thence North along said West line to North line of sectiaul; thence West along said Worth line to Southeasterly line of railroad right-of-way; thence Soutiumsterly along said Southeasterly line to its intersection with Easterly extension of center line of North Hillcrest Court. 260 Section 10 That part of the Southeast 14 of the southwest 4 lying Legal 05 Northerly of Registered Land Survey number 1364 and 'Easterly of Edonvale 4th Addition, and that part of the West 's of the Southeast a lying Northerly of Registered Land Survey Number 1354 in Section 10, Township 116, Range 22. Section 12 Commencing at a point in center line of old Eden Legal 96 Prairie Road, in section 12, Township 116, Range 22, now vacated a distance of 340 feet Northwesterly from rvT the South line of the Northwest ?i of the Northwest 14; thence deflecting 108 degrees, 38 minutes loft 140 feet; thence deflecting right 29 degrees, 40 minutes to West line of Northwest 14 of Northwest 4; thence North to the Northwest corner thereof, thence East to the Westerly line of Highway 169; thence Southwesterly along said road line to a point 344 feet Northeasterly from the South line of the Northwest 14 of the ,Northwest k; thence Northwesterly 297 feet to a Point in muter line of said old Eden Prairie Read.436 feet Northwesterly ?: from South line of the Northwest of the Northwest 4; thence Southeasterly to beginning. Section Section 14 South It of the North is of the Southwest ?a Af the Southeast 1 Legal 97 of Section 14. Township 116. lunge 22. except road. } . Section 14 The South, 150 feet of the North 452 feet of the East 322 feet of Tract 8 of R.L.S. #168, lying South of the South line of Tract A extended Westerly. Section 21 Commnencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 14, Block 3 Legal as Red Rock Lake First Addition; thence North parallel wit it the IJest line of Government Lot 7, a distance of 67 feet; thence Easterly along a line drawn thru a paint 595 feet North of the South line and 1160 feet East of the; West line Government Lot 7 to the shore of the lake; thence Southerly alone said shore line to the north line of said Lot 14; thence West to beginning. Section 3 The East 'z of the Southeast 1- of Section 3, Township 116, Legal 89 Range 22, except highway. 901 0 I 'approved Planning Commission Minutes n-2- July 24, 1978 All ron+mw��erJ /nPmb er s B. Super Valu Shopping Center at Co. Rd. 18/Anderson Lakes Parkway, request to preliminary plat and rezone from Rural to Lommuliy Commercial 10 acres located in the Southwest intersection of Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway for a supermarket, hardware and drug store. Continued June 26, 1978. i Enger spoke to Memo of July 21, 1978 and to the Planning Commission onvection at Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. He discussed the intersstudy by Hennepin County indicating that an improvement is warranted which will most likely include a signal. Mr. Jim Ryan, Ryan Construction, spoke to basic agreement with the recommenda- tions of the Staff but had two concerns, one of timing and how much they were expected t$40,000 too$50�,000 asdtheirashareion and other of the expenses tswhichlved. He they feela spoke resig- nificant. Lynch inquired whether the communication from Hennepin County indicated that they plan to pay for the improvements in the study. The Planner replied that once the study determines the improvements are warranted, Hennepin County-will implement them, The was alu uld asume, into consideration othat trafficn on how c would h of tbe generated he costs ebyv their odevelo5 taking developments Ryan requested approval of their proposal based on an agreement that will be acceptable to parties concerned. Mr. Don Pennie, 9155 Neill Lake Road, questioned whether the City has talked with Bloomington officials on their plans for this area and if Eden Prai'rie's plans are.consistent with that of Bloomington. Enger responded this plan is not consistent with Bloomington's plans, and that they are the only govern- ment agency supporting a freeway design for Co. Rd. 18. Pennie requested further detailed study of the location of the signal, express- ing opposition to the proposed location of the signalization. Chairman Sundstrom assured Mr. Pennie that the City Council's decision would be based on such de- tailed study of the question. MOTION 11: Redpath moved to close the Public Hearing on the Super Valu Shopping Center at Co. Rd. 18/Anderson Lakes Parkway. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION t12: Redpath moved to recommend to the Council re-zoning from Rural to Conuixunity Commercial, of 9 acres in the southwest corner of Anderson Lakes and Co. Rd. 18 as per Staff reports of June 9, 1978, and July 21, 1978, sub- ject to road improvements made prior to opening of the Center. Retterath seconded, motion carr-led 4-1-1, with Martinson abstaininsq. 201 ., a Planning Commission Minutes f B. Super Valu shopping Center at Co Rd 18JAnderson Lakes Parkway- fc the,d) 140TION 0: Redpath moved to recommend to the Council approval o Preliminary Plat of hStaff acres reports the of Junesouthwest 1978corner and July 2of 1,s1978on aksub- and Co. Rd. 18 as per . Retterath ject to road improvements made prior to opening of the Center seconded, motion carried 5-1-0. Levitt voted "nay". MOTION: Redpath moved to revise Agenda and move up to item D. U.S. 169 Sho in Center. request by Eden Prairie Real Estate Investment Company for rezoning rom Rural to Community Commercial for 10 acres located continued from e southeast corner of US 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, July 10, 1978. The Planner spoke to formal request b.Y Eden Prairie Real Investment Comnanv- to withdraw their proposal in order to adequately review thehStaffSta R rPecroranernia- and plan to re-submit their proposal. He then reviewed tion of denial and asked for Planning Commission input on this corner, and commented that he felt it was important that the proponent understands as well as possible what is .intended for this location. He explained that the proposal was for a total gross leasable floor area of 53,000 square feet and that the 1977 Guide Plan recommended a neighborhood scale commercial alltCityfuse,a00proposed. He askedt. not lforiinputrfromo e pe or regional over square the Commission 8earman favored the types of uses such as a Tom Thuu+b tvoe store, dry cleaners ple and or maybe a boutique that would not bring inahigh volu the niddl eowith shoals traffic. He suggested a courtyard type approach ally around, not to exceed 25,000 sq. feet. The Planner asked how the Commission looks at free standino buildings. such as those located in Edenvale, on Mitchell Rd. and Valley View Rd.. Sundstrom expressed favor for more integrated building for this type of unit. Martinson spoke to opposition from residents that objected to a "striested type mall, and stated that he would oppose any of this type. He sugg bringing in a road and providing a buffer along that road. Sundstrom expressed support for the Staff store was nendationserally .he scope in mind. Lynch coninented that a Tom Thumb type V. PETITIONS AND REQuL for A. Public xfaTrunkoflinhwav 5randiCoualte-Ron-aad Ge 11ertWayStHer (L Road, coiner o �__ lest l2nd St.. praPosed Valley View Road . The Planner spoke to feasibility study by the Council on the Heritage Hills and Round Lake areas for sewer and water, and that no further plan would ate access from the site. Neighbors were concerned work without an altern and water on their neighbo+•hood as far as what Lyles about impact of sewer about roads it alight entice. lie spoke to thirteen alternate roads developed of by the Engineering Department showing different types of cal-de-sacs and road alignments. Council has directed the Planning Commission to hold this Public Hearing, and will then be considered at a City Council Public Hearing. 205 r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South HENNEPIN Hopkins, in Minnesota 55343 935-3381 July 21, 1978 i Mr. Carl Jullie, City Engineer City of Eden Prairie 895D Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Jullie: As requested in your letter of July 29, im we have investigated the feasibility of upgrading and signalizing the intersection of CSAH 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. After reviewing traffic data and making observations at this location we concur that an intersection improvement is necessary. Traffic counts now show the intersection approaching the necessary warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. Certainly with the addition of traffic generated by the pro- posed Super Valu development, which is estimated at 5 to 6 thousand trips per day, the warrants will be exceeded. Towards this end we are presently studying various alternate improvement plans and programming schedules. Our recommendations should be available within the next month or two for further discussions with the city. It would appear ideal to coordinate the completion of the roadway improvement and the shopping center opening. We acknowledge Super Valu's offer to participate in the improvement. This could probably best.be handled through a cooperative participation agreement between the city and county wherein the city would assume Super Valu's obliga- tion. The city could then be reimbursed through special assessment or other arranged means. As you know, the county has no direct assessment powers. We have discussed briefly with representatives of the City of Bloomington the need for an improvement at this location. Based mainly on conceptual differences in roadway and land development in the CSAH 18 corridor, they expressed some serious reservations concerning our plans. It would appear advisable to initiate, discussions with Bloomington in an attempt to reach accord on this matter. Sincer ly, f Herbert O. Kiossner, P.E. ` Chief Engineer f HOK/DLH:A cc: Lyle Berg, Bloomington HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppoftu*are plov* I MEMO: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Regarding: Super Valu Shopping Center Request DATE: July 21, 1978 At the Planning commissions June 26, 1978 meeting the Public.Hearing on Super Valu's Shopping center at Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway was continued to July 24, 1978 in order to obtain information from Hennepin County on upgrading of the intersection. We have requested Hennepin County to do an intersection study, and I have talked to Dennis Hanson, Traffic Engineer for Hennepin County, today re- garding the results of that study. Mr. Hanson will be sending the City a letter describing their findings which we should hirpRully have by tionday night's meeting. Their preliminary findings indicate that an Improvement is warranted which will most likely include a•signal. Hennepin ComAy is .beginning the design of that intersection now as well as the type of signalization whether It is to be timed or traffie actuated,) This final design will not be dore for perhaps two months, ir, the County expects to impltt those measures next summer. In discussion of the possible improvements to the interseetioA, Mr. Hanson was in agreement that widening of C.S.A.H. 16 with by pass lanes on turn lanes and a signal would be the general form os the improvements. i have included a graphic which illustrates the R.O.W. necessary for a four lane parkway with turn lanes,on Anderson Lakes Parkway. Super Yalu should dadi;*te t dditionat R.Q.W. and make revisions necessary to maintai'ri proper setbacks. The Engineering Department recommends construction of the parkway design from C.S.A.H. 18 west to Super Valu's property line by Super Yalu at this time. The parkway design would be a 26' road surface East bound lane, with a free right turn lane, separated by an 18' median from a 26' road surface West bound lane which could incorporate a right in turn lane from C.S.A,H• 18. The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning to Commity Commercial subject to road improvements being made prior to opening of the Center. Also, according to Staff recommendations made June 9, 1978- CE:ds o�a A Jp ° T--f 0 \, y)1 � 'ns.�._.p._. sue."^ -•-�•-•a,+._!w• ',rs --:.•r.""� ••��: R � � its;. �'` � ���,�a'_ �� � •�' �.� ifa _ j{gyp.;) ti t kr1 ti ?9 i!�j �sdKs3 i 08 C MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, June 26, 1978 7:30 PM City Hall COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Sundstrom, Paul Redpath, Matthew Levitt, Richard Lynch COMMISSION ABSENT: Liz Retterath•, William Bearman STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Planning Director; Jean Johnson, Planning Assistant I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Redpath moved, Levitt seconded, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 12, 1978 MEETING P.S,Discussion: 2nd sentence should read-He felt it caused hardship without direct resolution of the traffic problem and is the result of prior decision to close Luther Way. III. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Chairman. none B. Others . none IV. REPORTS AND RECO!,UiENDATIONS A. Super Valu Stores, Inc., request to preliminary plat and rezone from Rural to Connunity Canmercia 10 acres located in the Southwest intersection of Co.Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway for a supermarket, hardware and.drug store. A continued public hearing. The Planner informed the Commission the County does suggest intersection improve- ments, such as: widening of 18 to provide for right-in lane and bypass, signals if warranted, and an acceleration lane for south bound 18 traffic from Anderson Lakes Parkway. He stated the City of Bloomington has approved a 100,000 square foot shopping center site east of 18 and South of Anderson Lakes Parkway. He added the Engineering staff and he did inspect the turning radiuses at the intersection and found them to range from 23-60 feet and a semi-truck requires 50+ feet for a turning radius. Redpath asked how quickly a temporary signal could be installed. The Planner replied, Super Valu has stated they would be willing to assume the cost of a temporary signal , and the staff could petition the County for a study and if a signal is determined needed, a temporary signal could be installed immediately after the determination. Lynch inquired when Anderson Lakes Parkway would be up to parkway standards. The Planner felt the roadway would be increased to four lanes when the 2 lanes are no longer able to handle the traffic. Levitt inquired where the access would be for the Bloomington Center. The Planner replied approximately 180 feet south of the Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection. 2G7 i approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 26, 1978 Jim R an, Ran Co s ruction, presented the sh9ppin center mode d5 ing: parkii9, be mnng andscaping, future expansion o approximately square feet,.and the intersection improvements. He stated their total signage package would be 450 square feet of signage for.the supermarket, drug and hardware; and 300 square feet of signage for the remaining shops, which is well below ordinance requirements. He added they would be willing to commit.to 20 foot high lights as recommended in the staff report instead of the 30 foot high poles proposed. John Petty, 9154 Heill Lake Road, expressed concern that a signal at the intersection would not be a safety improvement , but may be a hazard because of the hi.11 to thenorth on 18. Mr. McDermott, 8715 Leeward Circle, suggested the signal study consider the necessity of cutting the hill. Mike Flavin, 9300 Co.Rd. 18, felt the shopping center should be located within the Eden Prairie Center, John Gertz, The Preserve, stated they mailed out a survey requesting residents' pro or con for the locating of a shopping center at Co.Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, and of the 41% response - there were 201 yes, and 85 no.- Bob Dunbar ,11270 Lanewood Cir., stated his approval of the Super Valu request at this intersection. Mr. Steinbecker, 9152 Neill Lake Road, preferred the shopping centQrlocate in the Major CenteriArea. Robert Louisiana, 9525 Garrison Way, suggested the temporary lights be installed prior to construction if the project is approved. Motion 1: Lynch moved, Redpath seconded, to caose the public hearing on.Super Valu Stores, Inc.'s preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion: Levitt inquired how Super Valu would be bound to install the temporary signal. The Planner replied through a developer's agreement. Lynch believed improvements needed to be complished on Anderson Lakes Parkway to allow for stacking room and through traffic besides a signal improvement. Lynch suggested the Commission wait for the County signal study prior to action. Motion 2: ithpath moved, Lynch seconded, to reopen the public hearing and continue the, request to the July 24th meeting for further information on the improvement geometries and the County's traffic study. Motion carried unanimously. !'p , 2-0 9300 County Road 18 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 June 20, 1978 Laden Prairie Planning Commission 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Gentlemen: I am writing in regard,to the hearing of June 12, 1978 concerning the request to preliminary plat and rezone Commerciality from3oural to int�ersectiono CO CoRd. 18 10 r locatedes andAnderso n the Lakes Parkway. My husband and lenext door 'to rezoning Ofithisnland forr this the very much opp©Sed to following reasons: we feel this would greatly increase traffic in this area and would cause chance for accidents to be greater. We feel that the Eden Prairie Center would be a better area for construction of a supermarket to increase trade in the main center' This land is residential and would probably loner property values of the surrounding Also truck traffic and noise levels would increase, distrubing the neighborhood. We hope you will take our concern into consideration when you make your decision at the June 26 meeting. Sincerely,j �tP�? L CC7fH1L Karen Ylinen FEB 7�3 January 31, 1979 Eden Prairie City Council Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Gentlemen: This letter is in regard to the proposed Super Valu con- struction at the intersection of County Road 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. We live on the property that is adjacent to this proposed construction. When we moved to Eden Prairie two and a half years ago, we did not choose this property because we wanted to live next door to a shopping center. We chose this particular home in Eden Prairie because it seemed to be away from the hustle and bustle of city life. We have accepted the build up of homes in the area, yet have a hard time accepting a construction of this size. As we are sure that we cannot control the passage of this plan, we would like to ask the Council to under- stand that we do not approve of the center and would like you to think of the homeowners in the area when you agree. We would like you to consider lighting, traffic, parking, and the separation of this large unit from the homes in the area. The hardest thing for us to imagine is looking out our kitchen window onto a parking lot and large, glowing lights. Thank you. Karen an d Michael Y1 ne�'+.'1-ate 9300 County Road 18 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 14inutes - Parks, Recreation iapproved 4londay, June 19, 1978 and Natural Resources Commission - 4- 5 Members present; (R.Anderson, 4.Anderson,fifield,Kruell, b Tangen) 2 absent; Garens, Johnson 1. Sumer Value Rezoning Avreeraent - TMM (cont'd) condition 3 of the Planned Unit Dave eat and Development Agreement with Super Valu Stores Inc, dated 6/8� there be no exception to allow construction of any facility, dock, or structure below the 8541 topographic contour. The PR and NR Commission also requests that the Council inform the Commission as to how a change in a development agreement as found in oon- dition 3 could be made when it is contrary to all previous recommendations by all Co.,missions and Council as is present in their approved minutes. Dave Anderson seconded. DISCUSSIONS Richard Anderson expressed concern that the Council was not acting consistently., and that it causes difficulty. He pointed Out that in the Gelco and Bachman-Anderson proposals, land was dedicated, but in this proposal the City is not getting twills or dedication,and the residents are being infringed upon. Lambert spoke to the Councilts viewpoint that many of the items listed on the rezoning agreement were covered elsewhere, and added that the Shoreline Management Ordinance was placed on the agenda in order to reassure the residents. Dave Anderson commented that everyone has a different idea of what is reasonable, but he felt that.i;he concerns expressed by this Commi.ssicn would reasonable to most citizens. YOTEj A;otion carried unanimously. Kruell pointed out that when issues are reviewed, information is reflected in the minutes, but this new agreement was not made known. 140TION: Kruell moved that this Commission observes that the point on dock building structure is a new part of the June Sth action and that it should be postponed until further proper review and discussion is held. Riohard Anderson seconded. DISCUSSIONS Tangen commented that the action has been taken, and does not feel the Council will recognize this request at this time of reviewing and discussing because of the time limitations on the proposal. MOTION was withdrawn, as was second. B. Reports of Staff 1. Develornnent Proposals a. Saner Valu Stores Community Commercial pa. Nicolas Mazanyi, of Super Valu Stores, Inc. spoke to their proposal ) and to Juno 12th Planning Commission meeting. He explained that Super Valu would retain ownership of the supermarket after construction. i Minutes-Parks, Recreation approved and ldatural Resources Comission - 5- Monday, June 1% 1978 1. Super Vale Co (contfd) i Fifield arrived at 9t45 PM. Dave Anderson spoke to 1970 PUD indicating this land as high density residential and asked how it was changed to commercial, whether at the request of the Pre- serve or through the Guide Plan. Mr. John Hissink, Preserve, responded that he was not on the Guide Plan committee, and was not aware of how the change occured. Kruell asked whether "cash park fee" application would change, since the zoning was changed from high density to commercial. Lambert responded that the sgreew:e remained the same, that "cash park fee" would not be required of the Preserve be- cause of past dedication to the City- He did express concern with the screening and terming plans, because he felt they would have an important effect on the character of the shopping center. Mazanyi explained that they were working with the Staff on this issue- Hissink pointed out trail system and where it will connect through to Anderson Lakes Parkway, toting there is a connection with the Hustad development. Richard Anderson asked where the major bike path trailway was located. Lambert responded that it ran along Franlo, with concrete path on each side of Franlo. He questioned safe access to the Center. 1 Commissioners expressed concern with no provision for pedestrians to get to the Center. Hissink pointed out that the shopping would serve no pedestrians, but only people driving there. He noted that the trails underpass is a dedicated easement to tY.e City at this time, and suggested putting trail on the west or south side. Kruell, speaking to the Prairie Village Mall, felt biking and walking to this area was very minimal. Richard Anderson felt there was much interest in jogging and biking, and there was a tremendous sales market for shoes for these types of activities. A'azagyi spoke to working with the Highway Traffic Departments and it was their desire to upgrade Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Parkway, He spoke further to Super Valu's opinion that this intersection was an overwhelming probleme but felt it could be worked out with the total problem. He noted a present study indicating where a signal light was warranted, and that Super Valu plans to come back with a more concrete plan to the Planning Commission- Richard Anderson spoke to the perking lot, noting the need for more trees and vegetation. 14azanyi responded thatihis is also being discussed with the Staff. Kruell asked whether the traffic signal was a reality and when it Would QOme abol Lambert responded the City would talk to Bloomington on sharing funds for constru tion because the southeast quadrant of the Co. Rd. IS/Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection in Bloomington is being considered for commercial uses. a�� Ndnutes - Parks, Recreation repproved and Natural Resources :ommission -6 - Monday, June 19, 1978 1. Super Valu......commercial (cont'd) Tangen suggested a pedestrian crossing at a non-congested area with 'flashing lighteP and signage noting the crossing. Tangent speaking to lack of separation for bikes and pedestrians, suggested a center area for parking bikes. Yasanyi indicated they could come up with a plan for a collector sidewalk in the lower half of the parking lot, with plantings. YETIONs Dave Anderson moved to approve the Staff recommendations of June 91 1978, and that the main condition be signalization at the Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection,because of bike and pedestrian traffic that will: occur; and the estimated heavy traffic. Tangen seconded. DISCUSSION: Tangen requested addition to the i10TIONs that the construction of the bikeway systems from the south be constructed in conformance with the remain- ing Amsden Hill Addition, signalization to include a marked pedestrian bike mat- ing across Anderson Lakes Parkway, and the responsibility for construction of the trail from the Preserve to the shopping center will belong to Super Vale and the trail to the south of that will be constructed by the Preserve. Dave Anderson accepted the ADDITION. Ate 14MION: Dave Anderson movedto approve the Staff recommendations of June 91 1978, that the main condition be signalization at the Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection, because of bike and pedestrian traffic that will oocasr and the estimated heavy traffic; that the construction of the bikeway system from the south be constructed in conformance with the remaining Anaden Hill Addition; signalization to include a marked pedestrian bike crossing across Anderson Lakes Parkway; and the responsibility for construction of the trail from the Preserve to the shopping center will belong to Super Valu and the trail to the south of that will be constructed by the Preserve. Tangen seconded, motion carried, with Fifield abstaining. Chairman Anderson called for a ten minute break at 1Os15 Phi. b. Lake Trail Estates Lambert spoke to the check list and Planning Commission report, and suggested the concern of the Commission be what will happen to the marsh area and working out the trail system, connecting the perk with the develc� meat. Richard Anderson felt the road should be next to the park in order to make it easier to get into the park. Lambert responded that isalf the cwtcC con- structing the road would fall on the City, and that the Public Safety Depc,: went expressed concern that there would be too many accesses. Tangen noted there were no provisions on the east aide of the develespsaeat for access to the park. Lambert explained the contour was higher, aad all', it was the over flow to the marsh area. n t MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, June12, 1978 7:30 PM City Hall CO1BdISSION PRESENT: Richard Lynch(Vice President), William Bearman, Paul Redpath, Matthew Levitt COMMISSION ABSENT: Rod Sundstrom (ChAirman), Liz Retterath STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Planning Director; Jean Johnson, Planning Assistant Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 12, 1978 B. Super Valu Stores Inc., retest to preliminary plat and rezone from Rural to ommumt` Commerrc al" ib acres located in the southwest corner of CO-Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway for a supermarket, hardware store and drug store. A public hearing. Mr. Nick Mazany, Super Yalu. reviewed Site plans for their proposed 27,500 square foot supermarket plus additional floaa^ space of 40,500 square feet for hardware and other shops. He also discussed the berming and landscaping proposed-along Co.Rd. 18, Anderson Lakes Parluay, and to,buffer the stores ffom the adjacent future single family. lie informed the Commission the Ciwnty has not approved their access request to Co.Rd;. 18. Me stated Super Valu, mid with surrounding neighbors in Ray to acquaint theni with the proposal. Mr. Mazany stated they agree with the majority of the staff report, but do not believe the 4th side of thebuilding should be brick. Jim Ryan, Ryan Construction, informed the conmuission they would be managing 00 shopping center in conjunction with Super Valu. He believed the beming and landscaping would sufficiently buffer the stores from the single family. Redpath inquired if the the stores mould be served by a malt. Mr. Ryan stated the center would have 3 entrance doors, one of which enters into a interior mall. Lynch asked if the signage would be similar to Prairie Village Mall. The Planner replied the Super Valu siguage depicted on the plains does conf.enu to the City Sign Ordinance. w approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 12, 1978 Lynch asked for explanation of "controlled access" as used in the County Highway letter of June 12, 1978. The Planner replied the County is attempting to limit access to Co. Rd. 18, it does not refer to signalized access. The Planner stated it is the staff's suggestion that Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Super Valu request study of the need of a signalized intersection with cost sharing by all. Hr. Jim Ryan stated they would be willing to share in the cost of a signal at Anderson Lakes Parkway and Co.Rd. 18. Bearman questioned if semi-trucks could maneuver the Anderson Lakes Parkway entrance from Co.Rd. 18. Lynch suggested the upgrading of Anderson Lakes Parkway be studied by the staff. Bearman asked if the supermarket would be a corporate store. ter. Poffenberger, Super Valu, replied it would be rented to Jerry's Super Valu. Mr. John Petty , 9154 Neill Lake Road, opposed the request because: 1. it is not needed, 2. safety hazards, and 3. aesthetics would confIict with Anderson Lakes Park. j Mr. Robert Louisiana, 9525 Garrison-Way , stated the traffic problems are his ! major concern with the project. Carol Flavin , 9300 Co.Rd. 18, opposed Ll.e rezoning, due to traffic hazards along Co.Rd. 18 and the Anderson Lakes Intersection. he believed the proposed shopping center across 18 in Bloomington and thi, one wtould be too much for the area to support and cause increased traffic congestion and hazards. Bruce Anderson , 9130 Neill Lake Road, stated he would prefer to see the supermarket in the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. Bill Steinbecker, 9152 Neill Lake Road, believed the supermarket would hinder the character of the Anderson Lakes Park and The Preserve. Tim Hansen, 9500 Garrison Way, felt the grocery store use would be acceptable but the area does not need hardware and additional shop$. Mr. Torgerson ,9320 Co.Rd. 18, objected to the increased noise the market trafficn:ould produce. Mr. Poffenherger stated a center close to residential conserves energy; and they will try to protect the aesthetics of the area and will share in the cost•uf a signal to help alleviate the traffic problems. Motion Gearman moved, Levitt seconded, to continue the Super Vaiu request to June 26 to have the following concerns studied further: 1. necessity of signalization of Co.Rd. 18 & Anderson Lakes Par)-.ay. 2. turn lanes for Anderscn Lakes Parkway & widening 3. status of the gloouniligton shopping center east of 18. 4. total siganqe package S. future grewth plans of the shopping center. 6. possibility of left turn line off of 13. 7, extension of Anderson Laryryk��e�}}s Parkway east of 18. mminn rnrried mianilaou lY. i!Y ... ..._ ..... ...._.... _. .. ..,.._...... _ �_ I �ti �' June 8, 1976 ►" t` ,3 9515 Risewood Circle 8den Prairie, Yn. 55344 City of Eden Prairie 10le Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Attention: Mayor Penael As a resident of the Preserve and Eden Prairie, I have much interest in how the area is being developed. Further more as a steward of God's earth, I feel an even greater concern of how we develop this land. The areas of my greatest concern at this time are the southwest corner of Hwy. # 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, the southeast corner of Franlo and Anderson Lakes Parkway, the area southeast of the above area - the area southeast of the pond, and the Sherwood area just south of Garrison Forrest. What is the intent of the developers? I and many residents in Amsden Hills were told the southwest corner of HwY. A 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway would be 4 plexes and that the northwest corner of the intersection would eventually have a small 7-11 type store. Now the southwest corner is posted commercial. I understand a shopping center will go there. I feel small shopping areas are frequently built too hastily and then have trouble keeping out of the red. I understnnd a study has been made about the area as far as use. I do not think studies are always unbiased as has been the case of over building schools. Why build another shopping area when Eden Prairie Center is so close and could well use one or two grocery stores in the immediate area to stimulate business? Why draw us away from there or ancouraee another driving distance for gas consumption'? What about about traffic flow? Also the Center could use a few more tenants The developer has begun Foad'and lot development oft the soiithe'ast corne$ of Franl6:and Anderson Lakes Parkway before the final reading July 5, 1976y and I understand they have not obtained the special permit needed to procavc with the work. How does the developer work with city planning and city council? The developer has given incorrect and misleading information to the resident: of Amsden Hills about the area southeast of the above area. They have never posted area 2 or 3 above as asked of the developers by city council in the spring council meeting of 1977. We feel the developers and sales- men in the Preserve are not carrying through with their written and spoken plans for the area. Lastly the Sherwood krea south of the Garrison Forrest area is in question. At the spring council meeting in 1977, 10 acroa were to be left as open land by the developer to compensate for not putting in outlots. This again was told to buyers of the immediate area. Now the land use has been changed ono. again. Where is the council in this matter? Integrity? The residences of the Preserve are upset. Yo rs truly, Helen Rer� 2-1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South (•� Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 HENNEPIN . 935-3381 June 12, 1978 Mr. Chris Enger, Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: RE: Proposed Plat - ,Super Yalu Shopping Center" CSAH 18 - Southwest 0-aadrant CSAH 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway Section 24, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 670 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We have reviewed the above referenced plat and have the following recommendations: 1. The developer should dedicate, for roadway purposes, an additional 10 feet of right of way for a total of 60 feet from and along the centerline of CSAH 18. 2. All access from the plat to CSAH 18 must be provided by Anderson Lake Parkway. A new direct access to CSAH 18 will not be permitted because: A proliferation of driveways or access onto a roadway increases the accident potential and decreases the roadway's capacity as a result of turning movement conflicts, traffic weaving, and sudden stops or unexpected speed reductions caused by turning or entering vehicles. - The developer can provide adequate access to the site by widening Anderson Lake Parkway to four lanes along the devel- opment's frontage. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal npportu*QMP*ate r Super Valu Shopping Center Page 2 1 I 2. Con't. No matter what design con-,ept is finally adopted.for future CSAH 18, access must be controlled and limited to the major intersecting City streets. The County :has maintained this position in all previous plat reviews for this area. . t 3. Drainage provisions shown on the preliminary site plan appear adequate. However, we request that final grading and drainage plans be submitted to James Ault, P.E., Design Division, for additional review. 3. r 4. All proposed construction within County right of way requires - r County approval before begirming construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage construction, utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. A utility permit is required for this work. Utility permit forms are available from our Maintenance Division. ° 5. The developer must restore any area within County right of way that is disturbed during construction. ` Please direct any response or questions to Douglas Mattson at this office. ncer)ely, James M. Mold, P.E. Chief, Planning and Programming JMWJDOM:bg cc: Nicholas Mazany Super Valu Stores, Inc. VT +. STAFF REPORT I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Planning Director DATE: June 9, 1978 PROJECT: Super Valu Stores Community Commercial PROPONENT: Super Valu Stores, Inc. REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to Community-Commercial for 10 acres for 68,000 square foot neigborhaad shopping center LOCATION: Southwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Co.Rd. 18 Nithin Garrison Forest 2nd Plat) BACKGROUND The 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this area as single family residential . The 1970 Preserve PUD depicts, and was approved for, high density resi• dential of 15+ units/acre. The 1978 Draft Guide Plan depicts this area as neighborhood or community commercial. Neighborhood Commercial is defined as 50,400 square feet of retail sales space , or less; and defines community commercial as 100,000-200,000 square feet of retail commercial. Bloomington's Western Area plan shows the southeast quadrant of the inter- section as one tier of single family lots backed-up on the east by an area of commmercial designated land. In conversation with Bloomington's Planning staff, we have been informed that Pemtom's proposal for rezoning of the southeast quadrant of the Co.Rd. 18/ Anderson lakes Parkway intersection has commercial uses. This amount of commercial in the intersection would place the intersection area within the'conmunity commercial'square footage range . The 68.000 square feet of retail sales proposed by Super Valu would be a complement to this commercial area to provide a complete community commercial hub at this location. ,' 2�� LOCATION MAP {,+ — _:.� .r 1iti. lGti•�• .1YY-� { ask. a^ rw , "'f} `'' L' ores -son oi PE 7 2.3 Rtd.-fib }� �.�,t 1:`1•'�k j {yam 'O= 1 rf�t of f •� � .��G I♦= �(i+ �a�'-4,,, ' �Y I_ PE 4ra�rie9 }J` zc=r-' • � ate 1968 GUIDE PLAN :ors ,/.• SITE . ,u 1978 DRAFT PLAN , a 6q, t"Hi I_— ✓[ .�.•"1,;, \•��' 1 i.l:�,` �� r V�• .`�� f�hy kf A! Id 11 1 { �.' I,/�f f SE J(�J ., Id "T k,� ��,,��'�•i" •...•. V I f p ����p p t'��.� fJ.( Ri.1 _�V {(•'t':7 � C �1� ^� �. ��� .' I •• ���. v� .._ SUPER- -it ;.•s(s '� = N I ft .1�... •�r"r� i w� \ / "`�-_ !_ .�, �� ...P ,may' .,(C f �•�.� '.r�' � Staff Report-Super Vaiu C-Com -2- June 9, 1978 Prairie Village Mall, in the northwest corner of Co.Rd. 4/TH 5, is approximately 70,000 square feet of retail commercial and currently is theonly smaller scale commercial area in the city which supplies service needs such as s grocery store, hardware, drug, dry cleaner, barber shop, etc., With the amount of growth the city has in the southeast corner of the city a need exists for community commercial of this type. As part of the approval of the Homart Eden Prairie Center, in the southwest quadrant of the property, an area was designated for neighborhood convenience to be a small shopping mall including the services similar to Prairie Village Mali. As part of the Lake Eden South PUD the southeast quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and US 169 was envisioned as a smaller neighborhood commercial ' center less than 50,000 square feet in size , for quick stop convenience services. Super Valu's marketing information is based upon the ik mile service radius for the store area proposed on Co.Rd. 18. This would certainly not prPrlude either the smaller neighborhood commercials quick stop area on US 169JAnderson Lakes Parkway,.or the community commercial service area to be located in the Major Center Area. Typically, marketers have found that major grocery store chains , hardware stores, etc.. are not as desirable from a marketing standpoint within a major shopping center. For this reason, Eden Prairie's Guide Plan Update recognizes the need for at least 3 levels of commercial services 1. neighborhood level for quick stop, 50,000 sq.ft. 2. community commercial services 100,000-200,000 " ( 4 planned j 3. regional scale services which are envisioned in MCA At time of approval of the Garrison Forest 2nd Addition Plat the developer indicated that outlot E, (proposed Super Valu site ) is being considered for high density multiple residential or small scale commercial. At time of approval of the Garrison Forest 2nd , the Council required the developer to post a.si9p to this affect to make all potential buyers aware of the possible future land use of this site. Staff Report- Super Valu C-Com -3- June 9. 1978 TRAFFIC As western Bloomington quickly swells to capacity, and southeastern Eden Prairie also grows, Co.Rd. 18 continues to increase in traffic volume to a point of 3825 average daily trips at Co.Rd. 1 and Co.Rd. 18; and 6900 average daily trips (ADT) at West 78th Street and Co. Rd. 18. We feel approximately 5700 ADT are now in evidence at the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Co. Rd. 18 location , on Co. Rd. 18. Counts taken in 1977 on Anderson Lakes Parkway as it enters Co.Rd. 18 indicate 2477 ADT. Super Valu's marketing information for their stores in general indicate that the average shopper spends 24 minutes in a grocery store , and spends an average of$17.00. A store of this size would be expected 'to generate sales of around $125,000/ week . If this is worked backwards , we find that the number of people coming to the grocery store would be about 7500 peoplel.,+eck. If this is taken on a six day ucnk, this would be an average of 1250 persons/day, which translates to 2,500 trips/day. From tables taken from Highway Research Tables 121, we would anticipate the remaining 38,000 retail mini-mall to attract approximately 70 trips11,000 square feet which would translates to 2660 ADT. However, in a mall of this sort there is a tremendous overlap because the grocery store is the major draw. We feel approximately 25% of the trips attributable to the mini mall would not be double trips with the grocery store, therefore, 25% of 2660 trips would be 665 trips. Therefore we can expect 2,500 trips attributable to the grocery store plus 660 additional trips not attributable to the grocery store, for a total of 3150 trips/day that would be attracted by the shopping center. If we make the assumption, that 50N of the business done by the center, is based upon traffic already passing by the area, we can then say that addition of this commercial center to the southwest corner of the intersection adds 1575 ADT to the existing traffic volumes on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Co.Rd. 18. However, the intersection area is the critical question. if we make the assumption that 50% of the people coming to the store would come from the west along Anderson Lakes Parkway, and 50'; would come from either south on Co.Rd. 18 or north on Co.Rd. 18, we can see that one half of the 1575 trips generated by the center , or approximately 780 trips would be coming from Bloomington. In addition, half of the existing 1575 trips which would currently not use the intersection, but proceed south. would now enter at Anderson Lakes Parkway to enter into the store. Therefore. we can say with some assurance that the impact of locating this connaunity commercial service center at this intersection would add approximately 1575 additional trips to the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Co.Rd. 18. This would bring the total number of trips on Anderson takes Parkway to 2477 plus 1575 ,; for 4050 ADT. 222 Staff Report-Super Valu C-Com -4- June 9, 1978 The question is whether or not the intersection can handle this additional traffic. The project of course must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. We understand Hennepin County may be anticipating up- grading of the intersection next summer. This up-grading would take the form of turn lanes and by pass lanes , but no signals and no reduction of grade. Hennepin County is also recommending that the developer not be allowed a right-in / right -ouc directly onto Co.Rd. 18, but rather the proponent provide additional right-of-way on the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway to provide for a free right turn lane and slip lane onto Co.Rd. 18. This would consolidate all the traffic movements at the intersection area and would add to the safety by not providing a multiplicity of access points which may be confusing'to motorists traveling at 50 mph. Therefore, there is the possibility of two traffic lanes east bound on Anderson Lakes Parkway, and two traffic lanes north bound and southbound at the intersection area on Co.Rd. 18. From the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; warrants 1 and 2 may be applicable for a traffic signal for this inter- section in the near future. tie would consider, because of the free right turning lanes from Anderson Lakes Parkway on Co.Rd. 18, that.siDuld be required as part of this development, and the anticipated construction bypass lanes and free right turn lanes to be constructed on Co.Rd. 18, we would consider the warrants under two or more lanes for both the ma3or street and minor street because of turn lanes. It shows 600 vehicles/ hour on the major street ( total of both approaches ) this is for an hourly period over eight hours which would bring 4800 trips for a total of eight hours . Since a major street has a speed limit of over 40 mph, 70% of that would be 420 trips/hour over aneight hour period , for a total of 3360 trips for an eight hour period. This extrapolated to a 24 hour day would perhaps be around 4,000 trips / day for the major street The Minor street is illustrated as 200 trips/hour one direction only, therefore, we would have to take the average daily trips in half, ( 4,000 ) 2,000 trips/day which mould travel on Anderson Lakes Parkway. Warrant fur the minor street would ,requ7rc7�X of 200; 140 trips/hour per eight hour period, or 1,120 over an eiyiic hour period, which translates to approximately 1500 for a 24 hour period , would be necessary to meet the warrant. Ohe must be careful in looking at these warrants and the numbers we have generated but perhaps Warrant 1 would be met for a traffic signal . It also appears that the minimura vehicular volumes for warrant 2 would be met for a traffic signal with the inclusion of Super Valu. Therefore the following may be considered if this project is approved: signalization for this intersection could be $60,000 t ( Eden Prairie & Bloomington could request Hennepin County to do an intersection study for traffic volume warrants which would support signaliaation at this intersection) If Hennepin County agrees to place a signal at this location, the municipalities of Eden Prairie and Bloomington would most likely bear 75% of the signal cost. Zz3 L , 4C4 Warrant I,Minimum Velticulnr Volume Tiro Alinhttum Vehicular Volume warnnt is intended for applies• tion.nhero the rolurno of intersecting tr-i lic is tiro principml reason for consideration of signal installation. The warrant is sittisfied when,for each of ally 8 Ileum of an average flay,the traffic volumes glen in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher. volume minor-street approach to the intersection, MIXIMUM V=Ilcut.An VotID.-des ros NVAMKNT I Vehicles per hour Humber at lanes for"wing uvulae Vehicles por hour an htghervolume on major street minor-street ap- on each approach (total of both ap preach (me di. major Street Minor Street preaches) recuou only) 2 or more I----_-------- coo 1W i `i 2 or more...... 2 or more OW 200 I-------------— 2 or more____ 5W 200 Theis major-street and minor-street voinmes are for'the same 8 hours. During them 8 hours,the direction of higher volume on the minor street may Ix on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach cturin g other hours. Ilan the M-pereentile speed of major-street trf is exceeds 40 miles per hour,or when the intersection lies within the built-up:teen of an isolated commurilty.having it population of less than 10,000,the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the seTtire- ments above (in recognition of ditlerences in the nature and olxr&- tional characteristics of traffic in urban and rural emritmuncuts and smaller municipalities). { 4C-4 Warrant 2,Interruption of Continuous Traffic The luterruption of Continuous Traf,c warrant applies to operat- ing conditions where thL traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suRers oxcca;sive delay or hazard in entering or crossing ths.raajor street= The warrant is satisfied when,for each of any S hours of nit average day,the traffic volanres given in the table below exist on the major strect and on the higher-volumo ininor-street. approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive tr.utlic flow. 1♦fltrIIMM V£IIICULAlt VO=Un rolt IVAMAVT 2 Vehicles par hour Vehicles per hour on higher-volatuo Humber at lanes for moving traffic an major street minor-tired ap ou eurh approach (total of loth ap- proach (oao Et- Major Street Minor Street proaebes) ration outy) 14 2 or more DOD 70 2 or more 2 or more it0it 100 2 or more axe IOD 71rm major-street anti nninor-street volumes are for tho saran 8 hours. During those 8 hours,the direction of higher volutnn on the Minor street may iie on ono appitoacl during spine hours snip oa tho oplmsito upprtxirh doriug other hoitrs= 11'hrn the 85-percrittile ApeAd of nnaior-st`•rrt traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour,or when tho intor•rtiwi lies within the built-up area of an isolated cimununity having a iop+ulation of 14-8 than It011),the Interruption of aoutinwnis traffic warvaiA is:0 Ixreutt of the ra• 22," at" (i11 iieot,-nitiuu of ""vie macs in tits liatat9t taIItl olwraliaiwl charaacterislit-t of trailic its lt1.0w1 And sautti�ttrjtruiint+ith9 Staff Report-Super Valu C-Com -5- June 9, 1978 In any event, it seems that signal ization of the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Co. Rd. 18 intersection is eminent. The previous approval of 15 + units/acre , under the Preserve PUB, would give a total of approximately 150 units, average 8 trips/daily , 1200 trips added to the intersection. With the Hustad area developing to the south, it seems the threshold numbers may be reached relatively quickly in any event. SITE PLAN Setbacks The setbacks for buildings in C-Com District on a corner lot are §5 feet from both street frontages. However, on collector streets and county or state aid roads, the setback distance is 50 feet. Also, parking is allowed within 1/2 of the required setback. Super Valu meets the setback criteria for the C-Com District and the 50 foot setback. Additional right of way should be dedicated along Anderson Lakes Parkway as necessary according to engineering standards to allow a free right turn lane and provision should be made for acceleration lane along Co.Rd. 18 as required by the County . Signage As stated in the development brochure, the signage wilt be according to existing ordinance, which will allow one sign / street frontage , total area of any sign not to exceed 80 square feet with a maximum height of 20 feet. Wall signs for the comnercial building are allowed not in excess of 15% of the wall area when the wall area does not exceed 500 square feet. When the wall area is in excess of 500 square feet, the total size may not exceed 75 square feet , plus 5.1 of the wall area in excess of 500 square feet provided that maximum sign area for any wall sign shall not be in excess of 300 square feet. The wall area is computed individually for each tenant in a muli-tenant building based on the exteria wall area of the space the t--aant occupies. Super Valu is proposing one free standing sign . Elevations of the signs are included in the brochure information. The. existing Preserve pylon sign which identifies the Preserve area would have to be moved or eliminated. 21j Staff Report-Super Valu C-Com -6- June 9, 1978 Building Material d Super Valu is proposing brick around three sides of the building with textured concrete block along the south side of the building. The staff would recommend brick treatment of the entire building area. The garden center area should be designed in such a way to provide screening of all outside storage. Screening Because of the location of the site at the entrance to Preserve and on the eastern boundary of Eden Prairie, and directly south of the Regional Wildlife Preserve, it is imperative the screening of this site be-well done. The residential areas surrounding Super Valu on the west and south should be completely protected from the views of the commercial area. Super Valu has submitted a plan which illustrates berming and fencing which will accomplish this objective. Above and beyond the functional screening and berming however, the aesthetic appearance of the site is of maximum importance. The final detailed landscape plan must reflect this and should appear from exterior views as an almost park like setting. Therefore very substantial amounts of evergreen and deciduous plants will be required as part of approval of this site. Further more, the inclusion of canopy trees throughout the parking area Similar to Homart's treatment of their parking lot, should be done to reduce the visual impact within the parking area of the blacktop surfacing. Li__hc�ting IT is very important that the lighting in this area be compatible with the park area north ' and to the surrounding residential uses. Therefore, luminars should be used that will cut off the angle of light projection very sharply and limit the illumination to the parking lot area as much as possible. LIghting standards in excess of 20 feet should not be allowed. ' a� Staff Report-Super Yalu C-Com -7- June 9, 1978 { Pathways Pedestrian walk areas shown on the plan. leaving from the Garrison Forest Second should be paved at time of construction of Super Valu's store with a hard surface material , no less width of five feet. Areas around the walk should be heavily landscaped to buffer the adjacent single family homes from the effects of pedestrian traffic walking to the center. Pa rki n Ordinance 141 requires 8 parking spaces/ 1,000 C,FA for retail centers. However, this standard is more applicable for free standing uses and we have found from experience,(Prairie Village Mall) that 5.3 spaces/1,000 seems to be adequate. Super Yalu is proposing 6.65 spaces/1,000 ; the Planning Staff believes this will be adequate. A variance from Ord. 141 should be granted. Drainage Drainage on the'site basically is collected from the parking area and taken through a storm sewer system back into the Garrison Forest 2nd Addition storm water ponds. This system must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department and Watershed District. i RECOMENDATTONS { i The Planning Staff would recommend to the Conn ission recommendation to � the City Council for approval of rezoning from Rural to Connnunity Coniiercial for 10.03 acres and Dreliminary slat approval according to the following: { i 1. *Super Valu's plans must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County Highway Department. 2. Super Valu's plans must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and Watershed District. 3. City should request jointly with Bloomington that Hennepin County study the intersection of Co.Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway in anticipation of future warrants for a traffic signal. 4. 1f,a traffic signal is warranted , due to approval of this project, that Super Valu participate in the cost sharing of the signal based upon their portion of traffic generation: Staff Report- Super Valu C-Com -8- June 9, 1978 S. Additional right-of-way along Anderson Lakes Parkway i Should be dedicated to the City of Eden Prairie and the i construction of a free right turn lane along Anderson Lakes Parkway, and an acceleration lane acceptable to Hennepin County on Co.Rd. 18 be constructed by Super j Vala. 1{ • i 6. All signage shall be in conformance with Ord. 261. 7. The building should be of brick construction on all sides. 8. The garden center area should be completely screened for outside storage. 9. Berming and fencing similar to the plan proposed, shall he constructed by Super Valu substantial enough to interrupt sight lines from adjacent public roads and surrounding residential areas to the parking lot area. 10. Any mechanical equipment on top of the building shall be screened with material equal to the wood facia shown in elevations proposed by Super Valu. 11. A substantial landscaping plan for the purpose of creating a densely landscaped periphery be submitted and approved by the Planning Staff prior to building permit issuance. 12. Lighting within th-parking area shall be equiped with cut off luminars and poles not to exceed 20 feet in height. 13. Pathways leading to the center shall be constructed at the time of construction of the mall and landscaping to buffer the pedestrian use from the single family yards shall be reviewed with the landscape plan and approved by the Planning Staff prior to building permit issuance. 14. A variance from Ord. 141 allowing parking of 6.65 spaces/1,000 be granted to Super Valu. 15. Drainage and grading plan be submitted and approi d by the City Engineering Department and Watershed District. 16. Cash park fee of $1200/acre shall be paid at time of building permit issuance. 0 JUG 11� W Kv 26, 1978 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 1 Members: This letter is to protest the ahopping area proposed for the corner of County Road#18 and Amsden Road. We have lived at our present address for 22 years and have taken about as much abuse as private home owners should ever have to contend with. First me saw the "Wild Life" disappeaz from the area, we have neiti�r the graceful deer to watch nor the regal: Pheasant to food. £,eoondly, the earth has been so disturbed by the eauipmat used in building the reacts, digging holes and dbstroying the woods, so that the Preserve (that name is a poke) eat: oonatract their obtteaio�ts housing development, that a very old and precious mirror an ear wall:, literally seas tiuown , to the floor by 4ha censtsit ahaks:xg c+f the grouttct by these same earth igreo movers. Fortunately it did net break althoagh same of�ttrat we feeld chip. IIp to this point we have not voieed opini. has Teen total desecration of a truly besut4 M1 areas hawever E:4gt4 is. the time. County Road #18 used to be a road of eonr coy for peopleunty from the Cities of Eden Prairie and Bloomington, Today it is a highway used by every body employed latest of Prare Ave. The drays n4 the traffic is naver andia:g, we know because it not only disturbs our sleep, it keeps us awake until 1:30 AN. As our FlaMdpg Commission, wttsre do you suggest tl:e additional traf.ic from any type of shopping area be funneled? One of these days there is going to be a very serious accident at the corner of County Road A8 and Amsden Road. The cars coming over the hill are doing no less than %VH and more likely 60 PT H. I suggest you consider the home owners who have lived in the I mnsdiate area, most of us for a number of years, and have paid our taxes and attempted to keep up our dwellings. Granted, we dc, not live in a large OVERSIZED home, but it is our home and suite nW husband and myself perfectly. I trust you are not only reading this letter but absorbing the Context. Sincerely, Raymond & Virginia Torgorsen g18 Men Prairie, Minnesota�a55344 � 1 May 25, 1978 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8950 Eden Prairie Rd Eden Prairie, Minn 55344 Dear Sirs: We are very much AGAINST the proposal to rezone the lot on the corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Rd 18 to commercial. At least for the proposed use that was presented last evening by the Prosearve Association to build a LARGE shopping center in this small area, The following are our reasons: 1. Building proposed is much to large for the lot. 2. Traffic is to heavy now with just local traffic. 3. Use of our residentual street to service the stores truck traffic is C(XIFLEiELY UNACCEPTABLE!!. 4. Moved to Eden Prairie to escape commerical areas-We do not want a shopping center in our back yard again. 5. The "country" affect would be ruined by such a large developemeat on a lot this size no matter how they "dress" it up. Traffic is still --nffic. Some possible suggestions: 1. Keep commercial areas of this magnitude concentrated in one area. Don't ruin several areas by doing this. 2. Eden Prairie Center is in need of help. The area does not have a Grocery Store or a Drug Store or a Hardware Store. They also have many empty stores. I would use the center more if it had one or more of these stores. 3. The land owned by the Presearve just East of the Eden Prairie Center is commercial and of larger size with no residential homes in sight. Let them put there shopping center over there and not in our back yards. Please do not consider this proposal and vote no for the re-zone to make this a commercial area. We are not alone in the feelings that the Presearve is trying to bleed the area for every cent they can. Sincerely, / L4eoCs �e/ Robert Louisiana & Betty Louisiana 9525 Garrison Way 941-7175 Eden Prairie Mn 55344 23� _ - � -a \�-- RA RX4 Z-O-I-Cl-a -9- Ah� la —� DVS :.__.. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CO MISSION approved JANUARY B, 1979 7:30 P.M. CITY NAIL MONItAY. � C0I4+IISSION ME1'IBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom. Matthew Levitt, Richard tynth. Oke Martinson, and Liz Retterath COM TSSION KDiBERS ABSENT: William 'Beaman STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger..airector. of Planning llnrma Starti: .v. Plannino Secretary .approved Planning Commission Minutes D. Norseman Industrial Park Third Addition, by Merleiv Halle— Bequest t4 rezone anY�prelimiinary p at 5.12 acres from Rural to 1-2 park. The site is located approximately 775 west of Ilashington Avenue and 1300 swth'uf Valley•View Road. A Public Hearing. The Planner explained that this one lot is to be .platted as one large lot Mr: explained that Ar. Nelle has dedicated up to thus parcel gnd' least this parcel should 6e 8U' right-of-Tray, He said that the balance of property in this area is 1-2 zoning, and noted donation by Mr. Swendseera regarding construction of Shady Oak Road. He 'explained further that 1e11e was in conforaiance with the road alignment for Valley View Road which WAS approved by the City Council. Mr. George Moss, Attorney representing Mr. Melle, presented the proposal* noting that untilities are in place, no variances are requested, 044d the compliance of the proposal 3rith the Guide flan. He explained that Me11"o is in agreement with the recomwendations of the staff report of 12171. approved Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - Jan. 8, 19707 D. Norseman Industrial Park Third Addition. . . . .public hearing •(cont'd) Sundstrom presented concerns by Commissioner Bearman on the proposal: He expressed concern with extension of W. 74th St.by the assumptions. of where W. 74th would connect. Sundstrom asked whether there were any options open to the City on the road question and whether 11. 74th St. could becore the extension of Valley View Road. The Planner responded there were other options open to the City and that U. 74th as the extension of Valley View Road could be-an alternate, however perhaps not a desirable one. Sundstrom did not feel it was reasonable for semi-trucks to travel through a residential area. The Planner pointed out that this area is not residential, although there are some single family homes in this area. He noted that Briarfield .Estates is located in this industrial area. He explained that there is a need for some good road systems in this area because of the tremendous amount of traffic coming through. Levitt asked whether the proponent was in agreement with improving the road? Mr. Helle responded affirmative. MOTION: Lynch moved to close Public Hearing, Retterath seconded.. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Lynch moved to recommend approval of preliminary plat dated November 30, 1978. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Lynch moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park for Norseman Industrial Park 3rd Addition, based upon plan dated November 30, 1978 and staff report of December 27, 1978, with modification of no. 3, that West 74th St. be platted to a 80' width. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. 23� I STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Planning Assistant THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director DATE: December 27, 1978 PROJECT: Norseman Industrial Park 3rd Addition APPLICANT: Herleiv Helle REQUEST: Rezoning of 5.7 acres from Rural to I-2 Park for one industrial lot BACKGROUND Land Use 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan The 1968 Guide Plan depicts the site as industrial. Smetana Lake Plan The Smetana Lake Plan, 1974 amendment to '68 Guide Plan reviewed this area as extensively mined and well suited for industrial or office/warehouse uses. 1978 Draft Guide Plan The 1978 Draft Guide Plan illustrates the site as industrial. LOCATION MAP i-5 PRK •� - 12-2 121 �•, r� bnrSCUL7 . ` ppp `�, Ind. Pk.3 EG 111 P 11-8 Susttety 0j o '`-- �235' a . Report-Norseman irnd.Pk 3 -2- Dec. 27, 1gn EXISTING SITE CHARACTER Soils The area has been mined for many years. Topography Approximately 40% of the site has bep-n mined to the 870 elevation. The remainder rises to a highpoint of 930 at the southeast coy ner,. see figure 1. The area of 930 elevation is the area that has not yet been mined. Fig. 1 1 4ygQ '� q� Condor Corporation r ! f site. , drop to approx. fa7f1., Vegetation Mining of the site has removed the majority of vegetation. Four-Six ,15,' oak trees still exist in the southeast corner, see figure 2.' These trees will be removed when the unmined ridge is 4rought down to the 870 elevation for building purposes. Fig. 2 _.,n Report-Norseman Ind. Pk 3rd -3+ Dec. 27, 1478 Surrounding Land Uses As outlined in the proponent's application information, the site is immediately surrounded by industrial buildings or land proposed for industrial. Further to the north are two single family residences : the iiearman and Hiiiger residences. These two residences have heavily wooded lots and are separated from the proposed industrial by a vacant strip of land 1400-600+ feet wide. This vacant strip of land could be expected to be developed as industrial in the future and access to West 714tb Street. Development of the land immediately to the south of the two single family residences will require more care as for buffering and sight lines. Figure #3 illustrates ' the distances between the single family and proposed industrial and the vegetation occuring on the sites. Views from the two homes are partially blocked _due to vegetation, but since the hones are at a higher elevation. they will look down on part of proposed industrial development as they w view existing industrial development. 4 A' M N i �q 8eama Resideace - 43 Fig. 3 S` Jp • «o-o- Rillser Rome"* O. i`-200, 0 f Report-Norseman Ind. Pk. 3 4- Dec. 27, 1978 ORDINAkCE REQUIREMENTS I-2 Park District Minimum lot size 2 acres minimum lot width 200 feet minimum lot depth 300 feet Setbacks: front 50 feet sides 20:40 feet rear 25 feet F.A.R.(Floor Area Ratio) (5.72 acres) 1 story 30% 74.748 sq.ft. of building . multiple story 50% 124,581 sq.ft. of building Maximum height of building 40 feet Parking: industrial 3 spaces/1,000 G.F.A. warehouse )i space /1,OD0 G.F.A. ' office 5 spaces/1,000 G.F.A. required parking spaces if industrial 224(30%FAR) 374(50%FAR) required parking spaces if kindloffice 293(30%FAR) 499(50%FAR) The request exceeds the minimum lot size, width and-depth requirements of Ordinance 135. The City Building Department will review the building application as to F.A.R. , parking, height, etc. At this time no variances are being requested and none would be anticipated due to the ample size and configuration of the industrial lot. If the 5.72 acre site is divided into two lots in a future preliminary plat request, it could be accomplished with both lots accessing to West 74th Street and meeting the minimum lot size, width, and depth requirements of the I-2 District. (see figure 4) However, splitting of the parcel should not be granted without the exten- sion of West 74th Street and utilities along the entire northern frontage of both lots. 5il,��9. Fig. a A6. 1 Ac- 2--U Report-Norseman Ind. Pk. 3 -5- Dec, 27, 1978 SITE PLAN All ordinance requirements on land use, parking, landscaping,and signage will be reviewed at time of building permit application by the City Staff Grading and drainage of the site, beside, being reviewed by City Staff, will be reviewed by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of any building permits. Open Space/Cash Park Fee The cash park fee of $12OD/ acre as per Ordinance 332, or as amended , will be applicable. TRANSPORTATION Access will be to West 74th Street and no problems of sight line distances are anticipated due to the level nature of the site and West 74th Street. West 74th Street at Washington Avenue is platted only 40 feet wide. The City Engineer would request 70 feet-of-right of way All road and utility improvements will be subject to City Engineer's review and approval. 230) Report-Norseman Ind. Pk. 3 -6- Dec. 27, 1978 RECOMMENDATIONS (SUMMARY) The request for rezoning is consistent with the Guide Plan land and transportation elements, and does not require any variances from Ordinance 135, the Planning Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park contingent upon the following items: 1. Grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District prior to final City approval. 2. Utility and grading plans shall be reviewed by City Engineer's Department prior to final plat approval. *3. Owner shall plat West 74th Street to a 70 foot width , improve as per City Engineer's recommendations, and dedicate said street to City. 4. Norseman Industrial Park Thrid Addition shall be subject to whatever cash park fee payment is applicable at time of building permit issuance. Fee applicable todate is $1200/acre. 5. Owner, or future Owners, shall be subject to special assessment for road and utility improvements. * Modified at 1-8-79 Planning Commission meeting to indicate 80' Width. .. JJ:jj 240 x i I EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 1979 Unapproved Special Meeting 7.3D PM, CITY HALL COMMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Oke Martinson, Matthew Levitt COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Chris Eager, Planning Director Ilona Stanley, Planning Secretary Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - January 15, 1979 Special Meeting IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. Lake Heiihts Environmental Assessment Worksheet, request for approval of Ora t A.W. dated January 9, 1979. Martinson questioned the reason for designating the project as a governmental action. The Planner explained that it is designated as a governmental action because of the fact that it needs an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and that the inpact has to be state wide. The impact of the development on the wildlife in Anderson Lakes Park was discussed. MOTION: Beaman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Draft Lake Heights Addition Environmental Assessment Worksheet dated 1-9-79 and the finding of no significant impact. Minutes-Parks, Recreation & unapproved Jan. 15, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -4- p 1. SnommObiles on Parks R. Anderson reported that while Cross-country skiing at Bryant Lake Park he found that snowmobiles are ruining the trails--they have even thrown gravel up onto the snow. Apparently in this park area, the sm.,=bilers are using the groomed cross-country ski trails and not the open areas, which ruins the trail for skiers. Anderson suggested that a letter may be sent to the residents around the lake pointing out that snowmobiles cannot use cross country trails developed by the city for the skiers. It was apparent to him that the offenders lived near the park. Tangen pointed out that there are no snowmobile trails or use areas in the Bryant Lake or Anderson Lakes areas, and the policing by the snomobile club will have little effect on the problem there. Most of the trails are in-the western area of the city. Lambert agreed that a letter could be sent to all the residents of the Bryant Lake area. R. Anderson requested, at the next meeting, some concrete ideas for enforcement throughout the community--including Bryant Lake and Anderson Lakes areas. Kruell suggested that a trail patrol could gain access throughout the connnunity by using the right of way after the Public Works Department cleared it with the wing-plow. B. Reports of Staff 6 members present, Johnson absent 1. Development Proposals a. Lake Heights Addition Lambert located the proposed development on the map for the coiwissibn, and introduced Don Peterson, who.presented the proposal. Ile stated that most of the committments have been or will be met--but they { feel ther is a problem with the required 8' bituminous bikeway. Also, the owners feel they should be exempt from the cash park fee since it was not a requirement at the time of zoning. Lambert pointed out the critical need for a neighborhood park in that area now, and most of the land dedicated to the city in the area is either under water now, or too low to develop. There is one site, however, that will be a suitable park site if the school district allows the city to grade and borrow fill from their adjoining proposed school site. Lambert recommended that the commission require a cash park fee to help pay for the development of this site; and also require the developer to construct a 5' concrete sidewalk along proposed Homeward Hills Road, as per # current policy. Peterson objected to the sidewalk on the basis that part of it would be on city-owned property. Kruell asked if the city had a policy on the maintenence of side- walks and bike trails; and Tangen asked if an asphalt sidewalk would be less expensive to construct. Lambert replied th4t there Minutes-Parks, Recreation & unapproved. Jan. 15, 1979 Natural Resources commission is no maintenence policy at this time; and there is little difference in cost. MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Lake Heights Addition as per staff recommendation in the January 12, 1979, memo, with the following changes: 1) Eliminate requirement for 5' concrete sidewalk on the west side of proposed Homeward Hills Road. 2) Add a connector of 8' asphalt or 5' concrete from the under- pass west to Homeward Hills Road. Motion was seconded by Dave Anderson. DISCUSSION: Dave Anderson questioned the problem with the cash park- asking if there was an agreement which stated no fees would be collected. Peterson replied that the developer had dedicated land to the city and that no fee bad been levied against the early development. Lambert pointed out that all of the outlots dedicated to the city are under water or too low to use. Even outlot A is going to require $35,000 to grade and fill with borrowed material. R Anderson asked if outlot A was buildable in its present state. He was told that it is not because of the soil structure--it consists of peaty soils. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. A five minute break was called at 9.30 p.m. b. Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th Addition Lambert introduced Don Sorenson who was representing the developer- builder. He described the proposed development and stated that he was unaware of the planners desire to change the back lot lines of Lots 18 and 19 (to provide a funneling effect toward the pathway H stated that the requirement for a $1,000 e the mini-park.) from bond did not seem neccessary since no problems have been caused by the builder in the past. Lambert agreed on this point. Tangen asked why the funneling effect was desired: He was told the planners felt it would create an easier access to the mini-park for children using the trail. Sorenson also questioned the width of the proposed trail--having agreed to build a 4' wide trail, they were surprised to see the staff reconmmendation for a 6'wide trail. Kruell asked why 6' was required. He was told that it is city policy for all trails to be 6' in width. Lambert pointed out that possible maintenence would be extremely difficult on a 4' trail with a standard 6' plow blade. Also, six feet is the minimum for two walkers or a biker. Sorenson stated that it seemed the developer was being expected to. make an unreasonable number of concessions. L i3�:F�!v1Y:ntiA! TO: parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM; Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: January 12, 1979 C SUBJECT: Development proposal Check List PROJECT: Lake Heights Addition PROPONENT: Universal Land Corporation REQUEST: Preliminary plat approval and rezoning to R.Pi. f.5 and R 13.5 and P.U.CL,— Development Plan approval. LOCATION: East of Lake Eden South west of the Preserve. BACKGROMD: See Planning Staff Report of Janaury A, 1979 Planning Commission. approved on Janaury 8, 1979. CHECKLIST: 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Conuaunity, Regional)Lake Eden Neighborhooc site. Affect on part:: This development will increase the demand for development of recreational facilities to serve this area. 2. Adjacent to public waters? Northwest Of Neill Lake Affect on waters: Storm water drainage would outlet to Neill' Lake. Citv Engineering rssfie is roc +41 require se imen atlon control device Department and 1Jate s. 3. Adjacent to trails? — l Bikeway is proposed along Anderson Lakes Parkway. Type of trails: (hike, multi-use, transportation, etc.)-Bi • SB'ectriatt trail Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglima) Asphalt - Width: 8' Party Responsible for construction?. Developer R.Q.W. i,and wrnership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) -- Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial) Residential hlicrc will CASH PA1,K FEE go? (what neighhorhood) Lake Eden Neiyhborhoad Park Need for a mini-park? No -- 2q };. _y_ S. REFERENCE CHECK: '? a. Major Center Area Study: rd/A —- i b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: There is a junior high school proposed adjacent to the park site. The site is to be developed into an active use area. Teh area around the storm water pond is to be left in a natural state. c. Purgatory Creel: Study: N/A d. Shorciand Management Ordinance:Neill Lake is presently classified Natural Environment which would require 20,000 square foot lots for lots within 1 000 ft., however oi—it cTi•a or . refers to our recormiencation that t,eili We, a man made lake, be classified General Development which would require only 10,000 sg. ft. lots within 300 feet. The four lots within the 300'are I ,5U sq. ft. or greater. e. Floodplain• N/A f. Guide Plan: The 1979 Guide Plan dons not specify a zoning for this area. the 196E Guide Plan shows this area as single family, g. Other: 1973 Edenvale South P.U.D. given concept approval for single family altd to+nrhous s. 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: None 7. CASH PARK FEE? Lake Hen Neighborhood Park S. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: Neighbors in Lake Eden are requesting developiaent and access to a neighborhood park. 9. Number of units in residential development? 29 single family and G four unit i torn houses. Number of acres.in the project? 22.1 Special recreation space requirements: None 10. STAFF RrCOMMENDATIONS. The Coiill inity Service° Stiff recolurr+1A i1p{+r4vA1 propo„+1 under the followint conditions: (See Attached�Sh Petl Lake Heights Addition -2- Jan. 12, 1979 A. The cash park fee be paid at time of building permits in the amount required by ordinance at time of payment. B. Commitment by the developer for sidewalk construction, 3' concrete along both sides of Homeward Hills Road as this is the current policy along collector streets, and that this be completed at time of road construction. C. Commitment by the developer for construction of an 81 bituminous bikniay of 4" deep strength asphalt„ along the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway firm 169 west to the underpass, and along the north side of Anderson Lakes Parf;way from the underpass east to Preserve Blvd, and that this be completed during road construction. D. Commitment by the developer to construct a walkway surface through tiv under- pass thereby making it a usable trial connection, and that this be completed during road construction. C. That the developer provide the pity with a signed deed for the 11 acre park site previously committed to in the original P.M., prior to final .plat approval of this project. a , MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved MONDAY, JANUARY B. 1979 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COAfPIiSSION MEMBERS PRESENT: ChairmaRichard nLynch, Oke Rod tMartinsont,e Levitt, t�an Liz Retterath COMtiISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William i3earman STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger,,Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary approved Minutes - Planning Commission - 2 - Jan. 8, 1979 IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Lake Heights Addition, by Universal Land Corporation. Request to rezone rom Rura to 111-13.5 and RM 6.5 for 22 acres, and preliminary plat approval for 29 single family and 40 townhouses. The site is located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway extension and east of Darnel Road. A continued public hearing. The City Planner explained that Mr. Peterson has revised the re- quest by increasing the number of single family lots and decreasing the multiple units. This project is .part of a larger 188 acre PUD of which the first phase has been approved and built. He explained further that the cash park fee will be used for improvements within the project and pay most of assessments. Mr. Don Peterson, Universal Land Corp., presented graphics indicating some of the revisions. He explained that in response to the concerns regarding lots fronting on Neil lake, the road has been pulled in further so there is good separation from Neil Lake. He requested that action be taken on entire area, in order to make the multiple designations clear to future landowners. He explained further that he would submit revised plans according to the staff reconnmendations on the multiple sites prior to construction and bring back before the Commissions and Council for approval. The sidewalk that was missing, was under contract with purchaser from Eden land Corp., and has not been accomplished, and Peterson agreed to resolve this question. He requested consideration to allow RM 6.5 family lots, and agreed to townhouses according to ordinance Sundstrom questioned the project in relation to the proposed Shoreland Management Ordinance and the IWO ft. requirement. The Planner explained there are no lots adjacent to the shoreline of Neil Lake, and that the lot sizes are in accordance. Planning (OWISSlon minur.es Lynch expressed concern with the validity of tieing a developer to a condition once the property is zoned. The Planner explained that stipulations could be incorporated in the Developer's Aqreement t`+at when a plan.for specific multiple projects is submitted, prior to any building construction, the developer would have to appear before City Council and Commissions. Lynch felt that developers should post signs indicating there would be multiple housing in certain areas to inform future landowners what was intended for the surrounding areas. Peterson agreed to post signs of this nature, noting that he had done this in another project and felt that it had been helpful. Mrs. Gloria Pond, 6819 Darnell Rd., representing 192 families living in the Centex area objected to the existing large signs _ placed at the entrance to the development indicating single family homes and that there had been nothing said to them about multiple homes being built. She explained further that after future anticipated units were built, it would cut their area off from the park, forcing the children to use Anderson Lakes Parkway which would be very busy and therefore dangerous. Peterson responded that their.intent has been on record since 1973. Mrs. Pond said they have not been able to get any answers on land use for the area previously, and also requested that the signs be taken down at the entrance to the development as they were misleading. Retterath questioned the type of land that Outlot f in the center of the Centex area +ars. The Planner explained it was rough, scrubby woods,_and usa'-1e as a play area. He ex- plained however that the southern center outlot area of the single f4riily homes was specifically set up so that homeowners could put in a tot lot, and that the neiohborhori st. The outlot in NE corner of Lake Heights Addition park will be located to the ea work for use-as a tot lot for multiple homes. MOTION: Retterath moved to continue the Public Hearing because of lack of EAW. Motion died for the lack of a second. The Planner explained that the E.A.W. had been sent to the Commission several weeks earlier. MOTION: Lynch moved to close the Public Hearing on Lake Heights Addition. Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously. Chairman Sundstrom turned the chair over to Lynch in grder to make the following motions. MOTION: Sundstrom moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and D1 6.5 in accordance with plat dated December 28, 1978, staff report of January 4, 1979, and conmittments agreed to in these Minutes of January 8, 1979. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Sundstrom moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated December 28, 1978 subject to staff report of January 4, 1979 and also that the areas shown as RM 6.5 be in accordance with the ordinance and that any specific site plans be returned to Planning Commission for revivo before building permits are issued. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanirnousiv. MOTION: Sundstrom moved to recommend to the City Council, that on the Lake Heights Addition project, the areas designated RM 6.5 be appropriately signed so that future homeowners are aware of the zoning. Martinson seca1,i matittm carried unanimously. ( STAFF REPORT 10: Planning Cornnission FROM: Chris Unger, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Starf review of Lake 1leights Addition DEVELOPER: Universal Land Corp. REQUEST: Development Stage Approval for Outlet R of Edenvale South Planned Unit Development to include platting of 29 single family lots and 2 lots for multiple housing and rezoning from to R1-13.Sfer29 single family lots and rezoning from {aural to P 16.5 for 2 multiple lots-lot one is 1.9 acres in size and lot 17 is 3.96 acres in size. LOCATION: The project is located east of 169, south of the Eden Prairie Shopping Center, north and best of Neil Lake, and Wrest of the Preserve area. It is the southeastern most parcel of the Edenvale South Planned Unit Development. DATE: January 4, 197-Q BACKGROUND Thn 195E Co:.pr-hensive Guide Plan illustrated this entire area as single family, 2 units per acre, however, in 1973 Edenvala South Planned Unit Development was given concept approval vAth this parcel, Outlet R, shown as being acceptable foe• tm,,nilouses and single family homes, 1iowevei' Flo specific nuinbers or densities vAirr. approved for this specific lot. The vmjority of t.h2 Edervale South Planned Unit Development in terries of land area has been bullt up to 192 single fai:ily Wiles. The original 'PUC dedicated property for storm water ponding ir. the northeast corner of the site as 1_0ke Eden South, also Outlet C Wh-.0 n lies irunnediately to the west of the current proposal is apprc.ximately 5 acres of storm iaater pondincl area. In addition, Edenvale was to dedicate an approximate 11 acre park site lying r;orth and east of this current proposal to the City. Also, as part of their.PUD reciairuaents Edenvslc was to have constructed a trailway along the east/west parla;ay throilgh the entire width of the PUB. The two items Which have ;rot h_ein Iislied zs part of the original conmitrnelit are: the dedication of the app:'oXinaLely 11 acre Hark- sic: north and east of the current paoposed projart; and the construction of the trailway.through the Planned Unit Develoli:n:not. __ ... . �, � -- �J � .�.. ,youth lurk 6 .•^,.. ��`,. ..-. _ i_,� _.� --� 'sue--•� _ram - 1 _�'.�Aa. `4,�"r f�... i�-..i•�}� �.p c ��.��� -.i, o.3s d ti Titns'land• .r 11 .a..—,\� \�j; (l`� �11}Y�.��� .. ��' KB'� , �4pr• i IANf J rnw'� 'YI,Nr+� ` PPS '�o � � 1 �"',�s,:-•�� ``� w!"cl�,'�� �4. �O.°>', � .! �• _ `'1 .:�- o© t 'pia � i_ =� - ..�, �✓' •e, �{;° --: c� gyp;, '��-f-'1 f rl••`. j' .1• � '^ •/ �E �"aye � —_— � ^^1� ¢�••861. ` � ',1.. �.-V •`�, - l 1. A•9.9 -.` Gn+..:r a":.,�,.1, ,. ! ���x A ..._;, "..\ t \ Ed P+ �Crm ar o +✓ �.. `! 'I. c. � JI 22 _ `+ice _� _ �' �� •�� �w doe 17 � �+ y•c 26� �� ° 25 I� • •as' ✓+ •t �i .'7<.1<+n f+.. c �\� �'- �.� �\•r"`- ' r;ry BSI �l� t _ 34 1 '\ 35 1 fil w `.'il1]rl \ ' r°:`'-.��41i1 •„wid::"w•.,wr ..,f :.. rw,i wi .,i ,L. s e,.• r.,\` ..... •L....Y[�1�` l.'w F. �h�,M� s 1". s � J Jp ',a fl 1 Staff Report-Lake Heights Addition Page 2 The proponents have not requested any variances in the current pro- posal, however, under the RM 6.5 category the minimum of 6500 sq. ft. is required per multiple unit under Ordinance 135. On lot one, there are 4 four unit buildings illustrated on 82,800 sq. ft., which would only be only 5175 ft. of open space per unit. This is not according to Ordinance. The Ordinance would only allow 3 buildings on this parcel. The 24 units shown on the northeastern multiple site do fall within the lot size require- ment of the RM 6.5 zone, having 7069 sq. ft. per unit. There are 29'single family lots proposed, all in accordance with Ordinance 135 the R1-13.5 single family zone. The minimum lot size is 13,500 sq. ft. ranging to an upper lot size to 28,500 sq. ft. The minimum frontage shown is g0 ft., no front yard or side yard or lot size variances are requested for the single family zone. No single family lots front the shoreline of Neil Lake, however, four lots fall completely within this 300' shareland classifi- cation. These lots are all according to City ordinance size, and therefore, not being adjacent to the sloreline, are in conformance with the Shoreland Management Act. No platting is shown within the Neil Lake floodplain. EXISTING SITE CHARACTER As explained in the original submittal brochure, the site is about 30% wooded, made up of slopes ranging up to 20% within the wooded area. The northeast corner of the plat is area of questionable soil and will require careful building, siting and special foundation consideration. Although the proposed roads for the plat are shown going thrcugh the wooded areas, utilization . of the sloped wooded areas for larger lot,large frontage single family homes without maximum side yard encroachment will allow building within the woods and a considerable portion of the woods may be saved on the lots themselves. There are no wetland areas proposed to be filled within the project. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS As stated previously, the minimum lot size allowed is 13,500 sq. ft. for single family, 6500 sg. ft. for the multiple. Within the RM 6.5 district. there is also a maximum floor area ratio of 20" Tor single story and 40% for multiple story, with a 20a maximum footprint coverage. Setbacks for both zones are 30 ft. front yard setbacks, 10 ft. and 15 ft. for a combined 25 ft. side yard setback, and 20 ft. rear yard setback. On State Aid and collector roads within the coomiunity, there is a City requirement for a 50 ft. setback from Anderson Lakes Parkway and a 50 ft. setback from Homeward Hills Road. Ordinance 141 requires 2 spaces per dwelling unit for parking, with one enclosed. The plan illustrated would provide parking as required. 20. f Staff Report-Lake Heights Addition Page 3 SITE PLIN The grading proposed in this initial development stage would be for grading in of the roads only. Individual lots would be graded by individual builders. The drainage plan proposes storm water systems within the street which would outlet to Neil Lake. This storm sewer plan must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department and the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District as to erosion control and sedimentation control devices. Open space and tot lot structures for the multiple and single family area are not proposed wi�hin the development, however, as a part of approval of this submission the past cocmnitment from Edenvale to con- struct a trailway from Highway 169 along the Anderson Lakes Parkway to the east end of the PUD should be required as part of approval of this project. The original committment of Edenvale to dedicate the approximate 11 acres for a neighborhood park site occurring directly north of this site should also be required as part of -this approval. As regarding the siting of the units shown in lot 1 (the northwestern multiple site)since they are not proposed according to ordinance in terms of minimum let size available to the unit, one set of dfour units should be remnvpd and the site plan be re-done for this site. Regarding the northeastern multiple site, the proposal for- 24 units) although there is adequate room for the units in terms of gross acreage, the buildable soil seems to be closer to t'- single family lots. The site plan as done for this multiple area places two units in very close proximity to single family homes.A further drawback of the plan as shown is the large configuration of the parking area. Although the parking is necessary, the way in which it is accomplished on the plat in correllation with the units is awkward and is not desireable• . The 24 unit site should also be re-evaluated by the developer in order to accomplish more buffer space between the northwestern two units in the single family and to accomplish parking in closer proximity to the units and in a more desireable visual relation- ship. TRANSPORTATION As part of the proposal for this subdivision Universal Land Corp. will petition for the extension of Anderson Lakes Parkway, which currently does not exist north of this plat. They will also petition for the extension of Homeward Hills Road from Anderson Lakes Parkway south to the southern boundary of their plat. Since the western side of Homeward Hills Road•isadjacent to an open water area which is not assessible, the developer agrees to accept the assessment for the total con- struction of both sides of Homeward Hills Road.The City through assessments in their road improvement plan, expects to extend Anderson Lakes Parkway through past this project in 1979. As part of the original plan in the POD, Universal Land should extend a sidewalk 5' wide concrete, at their cost on the north side of Anderson Lakes Parkway. They should further include in the improvement of Hcxneward }fills Road a S ft. wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Homeward Hills Road. Staff Report-Lake Heights Addition Page 4 The road on the eastern side of the plat shown as Preserve Boulevard should be of a 60 ft. right-of-way 30 ft road surface width, as it will continue as a through road to the properties to the south. Also regarding this road, Universal Land Corp. has had discussions with the Preserve and has made a land trade and an agreement to share in the construction cost of Preserve Boulevard south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. OPEN SPACE/CASH PARK FEE As was discussed at the previous Planning Commission Meeting density anticipated by Eden Land in the entire Edenvale South PUD according to today's standards is a density trade-off, and therefore the balance of the parcels not built upon should be assessed the cash park fee. The current fee is $200 per multiple unit and $275 per single family payable at time of building permit. This fee may change, as the current ordinance is presently under study by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The current proposed plan by Universal Land Corp. is generally in con- formance with the Edenvale South Planned Unit Development in terms of architectural type and treatment of the parcel. 2. The single family platting area is in accordance with ordinance 135 requirements. 3. The western multiple proposed zone is not in conformance with lot size requirements for Ordinance 135, however the eastern 24 unit proposal is in conformance with lot size requirements. 4. Eden Land has not dedicated the 11 acre neighborhood park site as part of the original pUD committment or constructed the trailway as required as part of the original PUD. RECOMENDAT IOPIS The Planning Commission may choose from any one of the following alternatives: 1. Approve the project as presented- 2. Deny the project for the following reasons: a. The western multiple zone is not in conformance with the ordinance. b. The eastern multiple site plan does not offer reasonable distance between proposed single family homes and anticipated multiple units and the large parking area as shown in the site plan is not desirable in terms of quality of site planning, Staff Report-Lake Heights Addition page 6 c. Preserve Boulevard does not show a 60 ft. right-of-way with a 30 ft. road surface. 3. Approve the preliminary plat presented and the zoning from Rural to RI 13.5 for the single family area, but return the rezoning proposal for the two multiple areas to the proponent _ for revised site plans,, approval to be subject to the following items: a. Cash park fee shall be applicable to the entire subdivision. ,4 b. Commitment by the developer for sidewalk construction, 6 ft. concrete along the eastern side of Homeward Hills Road,, along the southernside of Anderson Lakes Parkway west of tht8 project, and the northern side of Anderson Lakes Parkway immediately north of this project. c. The developer agree to assume the assessments for sewer and water construction on Homeward Hills Read for both sides of the road. d. The area of land designated as neighborhood park site for the area and canmited to in the original Edenvale South AND shall be dedicated prior to final plat approval o. Z'Iiis pro. ject. e. Preserve Boulevard shall be platted 60 ft. in width, 30 ft. road surface. f. No units be allorw•ed to front on Homeward Mills ft ad or , Anderson Lakes Parkway, and the minimum setback from those ; roads shall be 50 ft. g. No setback variances have been requested. M The Planning Staff recommends Alternative 3. �.,..•.,._. CE:ds . � Staff Report-Lake Heights Addition Page 5 c. Preserve Boulevard dries not show a 60 ft. right-of-way with a 30 ft. road surface. 3. Approve the preliminary plat presented and the zoning from Rural to RI 13.5 for the single family area, but return the rezoning proposal for the two multiple areas to the proponent for revised site plans, approval to be subject to the following items: a. Cash park fee shall be applicable to the entire subdivision. b. Commitment by the developer for sidewalk construction, 5 ft. concrete along the eastern side of Homeward Hills Road, along the southern side of Anderson Lakes Partway west of this project, and the northern side of Anderson Lakes Parkway imunediately north of this project. c. The developer agree to assume the assessments for sewer and water construction on Homeward Hills Road for both sides of the road. d. The area of land designated as neighborhood park site for the area and conmited to in the original Edenvale South PUD shall be dedicatee prior to final plat approval of this pro- ject. e. Preserve Boulevard shall be platted 60 ft. in width, 30 ft. road surface. f. No units be allowed to front on Homeward Hills Road or Anderson Lakes Parkway, and the minimum setback from these roads shall be 50 ft. g. No setback variances have been requested. The Planning Staff recommends Alternative 3. CE:ds CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 79-27 A RESOLUTION FIND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR LAKE HEIGHTS ADDITION A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on- February 6, 1979 to consider the Lake Heights Addition proposal, and WHEREAS, said development-is located on approximately 22 acres of land in Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Lake Heights Addition Preliminary Plat request and did recommend approval of the project and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding.of no significant impact, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental impact Statement is not necessary for Lake Heights Addition because the project is not a major action which does not have significant environmental effects and is not more than of local significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED, this day of February, 1979. Wolfgang H. enzeh ayar ATTEST: o�D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL Lake Heights Addition MINNFSOT Draft 11-29-78A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL Rey, 1-9-79 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORYSREET (EAW) AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R. N NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to provide information on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the project requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Attach additional pages, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. Your answers should be as specific as possible. Indicate which answers are estimated. I. SUMMARY A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) l_1Negative Declaration (No EIS) Q EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION' 1. Project name or. title LAKE HEIGHTS ADDITION 2. Project proposer(s) Universal Land Corporation Address 14500 Valley View Road,Eden Prairie, Mn.55344 Telephone Number and Area Code (612 ) 941- 5300 3. Iw.spoc,sible Age,icy o2 Person City of Eden Prairie Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Mn, 55344 Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this FAW: Chris Enaer Telephone 612-941-2262 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location Eden Prairie City Hall Telephone 612-941-2262 uours8am-4:30pm S. Reason for EAW Preparation Mandatory Category -cite 0 Petition 0 other L yJ MEQC Rule number(s) MEQC 24 (uu) (residential development of 50 or more units any part of which is within a shoreland) C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY 1. Project location County Hennepin Cit Township name Eden Prairie ' Township number_ 116 (North). Range Number 22 East or Wtyst (circle me), Section number(s) 23 Street address (if in city) or legal descriptiont 1 ��S a , 2. 1yI4 and scope of proposed project: The project as proposed contains 40 townhouse units and 29 single family lots on a total site area of 22 acres. 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) Apr AM M 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) Noyember,1980 5. Estimated construction coat $555 Q00 6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed from each unit of government and status of each: Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval Status (federal, state, or Federal Funding regional, Local) E4g Negative Declaration pending Watershed District land alteration permit Pending City of Eden Prairi Revised PUD concept, rezoningo pending platting 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals axe involved, will aO feda YES X8S9� be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?—' —» — II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION A. Include the following maps or drawings 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original Bea x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 711 minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated- indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be main- tained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution points.) 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc). 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points- B. Present land use. 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. The site is a wooded hill with open field at the base of the hill. The area west and north of the site is park and the area south and east is planned for residential development. 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are+ a. Urban developed 0 acres f. wetlands (Type III, Iv, W) 0 acrOS b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. shoreland 1s 2CSR6 c. Rural developed 0 acres h. ploodplain AQtiis d. Rural vacant 22 acres i. croplancOasture land e. Designated Recre- 0 acres j. V"asted 1 N ationfOpen space rQ - 2 - 4 II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION t A.i. A map showing the regional location of the project. awwn.. ....,N? 3411..., M EAPO iS .«N . NO T1'[` i Ra•.ruw SIT r. AUL r mn u.a 1 w...M 1 f •a+aM . .Nan NOAT aaN "'lJ 'ST.PJ UL ... WwewRC1D.E N. 1q— u b..d�E1aR tY/�r�[ ««uwr.0 aE �r as C' I WtwaN MIN EAPOLMLNW.N Co. :J • yNr ..rw..M �i Mi0. � RA..asr Co. w,N.wor ` ..xnw.••� .uu .l i���:'.. """•� �.R.•ro..r .r « n aaa rN. ----�:--�--1`--- vrH AST 1 Lae ei hts di -PA i CARVER CO. � � ma� Mimm E OLIS ,J:r: 1 IRna+. 1 .....,.. ....,,j T r,...aN N........ I :�.: pAu r i 1 .corr co. a l:Ut1V 1'1{HJK1t t_ MINNESC 7.5 MINUTE SERIES SWA MINNIZAPOUS I!" T]T]IV NW p Ml.TO V.S.1? a MI.TO.IVNC Fl. °65 (NOPKINSI ]G Mr i0 MrNN 7 °SI YS °4 M!i(!MrNN I00 °ta 8.22 W. li W. 46 2760 dD0 Fi' 60 t`.^v +M r= .sue. :•\`d�. I.,, }'° m � � �" ` -_�•11---' it— ,'`� J o i - P.1�� `,{( � P yf°•FCIi �T'� / QJ°�'�'`j �y \�"�. �"�'•:-( �. �.��.5_�3taGKTown` ,�,I. r r cr.w, t , �." I `(.:• n° G �-. � 1/i�—,�•i� / {���rr�c asn° ���� /�',�.) , :.,1� �,;�� i a«*>vi Ra$ �r F- �- (�mapl` 1. �o f. -- ', `•�'/ ,t, ev .Y,��-Y--`�1.�'\r4�.— '} b'� -to'-----L' .i /. L1l1 % ]lowland '� •QL—sic CL� ��3r •\ A� cr _ l0 v � �\ o t' + 1� t^'� `�r / V a��_J�`� f`,����vV`•+ '�, �K � g1e`f S° a ___-- -- i� �-, 13 °� i •t I + 114411eechJl� n ri -ell z " Ile bls:.: aN ��.�ff �) �`�./)\`��� �'r•'p�Jive �,�l t� ;. �i�^'��` � y�•� 19 // °1°`\1 1_} o rr'Ji el!! � '/ �' l�v'� Q� 'tiC. �<��L����•Iw t --AV `4i� i }Y� ){(� 1, o' ��,. \ .'1(���� 2�+ ��1J �l(/�O�1J �'l'ti7�\)��.,7 �=11 � •'•Il�� 'fe� 7 1 '�s,v � .1 -76 +ems. 1 C'� �° ' /I ,4 t-•'�� ' yC�� W.'�Sj. Das6YaUyar'! r`� .,.k � t!•;1.. � �!�!f�"; 1.��', `�a; `_1i��lr�?° ^r�re'Gr '�. .�_t'� - � :�t>1_I.i`+'��s�` ��, A :;, _. •� ,1;.�•.��ti r ,�` tit •=f: `';_ , JI \\ �•`• � U//r,.•, s� .`t>l` %! t cif �i •�-�•! -/ � Ir 44 rl 17++I.Zj � \ � i '� �� _.. t�`• ,}q C .'t'r' a.-.... .. to 21 id 1ti�N 1 ap—� "' / �.`� ..mot"o^''•.�' ���'-r.: .. FT" At ,I'�wa\ �_ '% ^elf• . tz,,j .o +, '•t'✓.``..�+�..� _ At3Q1 �.lel��l'.�.,y',:.$r��'��eAxytl�l� ; Y i 3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. ' Neill Lake lies approximately 150 feet southeast of the southeast corner and Lake Eden lies approximately 300 feet north of the northeast corner. c. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any), operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- cesses to be used. Include data that would indicate the magnitude of the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc). The development will have two phases. The first phase will be 29 single home lots and twenty - townhouses in 1978, Phase two will be twenty (20) townhouses to be developed in 1979. The lots will be marketed to individuals and builders for home construction over a 111-2 year period. . . 2. pill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 22.1acres g. Size of marina and access sq. ft. or channel (water area) Length NA miles h. vehicular traffic trips generated per day 50n ADr b. number of housing or recreational- units 69 J. Number of employees KA c. Height of structures 30 ft. j. water supply needed 22,(00 gal/da Source: d. Number of parking spaces 138 k. Solid waste requiring disposal 165 tona/yr e. Amount of dredging none cu. yd.. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space Np sq• ft. ing treatment 22,0�1/da III. ASSESSME14T OF POTENTIAL ENVIROR4FNTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOCRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently exceeding 12%? 190 X Yes 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? TWO YES 3.3. if yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to ixo used to reduce potential adverse impacts. See page -3a- LAKE HEIGHTS ADDITION E.A.W. I. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY Slopes exceeding 12% cover 14% of the site. Approximately 13 acres are comprised of Hayden and Lester Soils. These soils are deep, moderately permeable , and well drained. The water table is usually 5 feet or greater. Residential +. development on these soils requires wide footings as the soils have only fair bearing capacity. The remainder of the site contains Erin. Hamel and Peaty Mwck. Erin soils are deep, moderately slow permeability,-and require wide footings because of only fair bearing.capacity. Hamel soils are deep, poorly drained, water table depth 1-3 feet, high frost heave potential, and require wide footings and drain the . Peaty muck occurs along the northeast corner ofthe site. Two townhouse areas will require 2 to 15 feet of peat excavation. Unstable soils will be excavated from building areas and replaced with granular soil. Peat will be used to build landscaping berms. Only roadways will be graded in steep area and boulevards will be restored to eliminate erosion. Temporary diking will be used td prevent sedimenation into storm sewer system. -w 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the Project. Some building sites will require wide footings and drain tile, others are suitable for i and 2 story dwellings. 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: 9,000 cu, yd. grading 9,000 cu. yd. filling 15 s What percent of the site will be so altered? ` 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 1 to a 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Slopes will be seeded and mulched or sodded to prevent erosion. Temporary erosion control dikes will be constructed where necessary to protect ` against sedimentation and will be subject to Watershed District review. B. VF--UTATI6N 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types& Woodland s 4 crcplamV 0 % pasture Brush or shrubs 20 e 0 Grass or herbaceous Other ; (Specify) �— 2. Now many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 2 acres 3. P.re there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (Se NO publication YES The Uncommon ones.) measure to be used 1 y¢s, istspecies or area and indicate any to reduce potential adverse imtiact. C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fishxmannaage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? NO 2, Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncommon X No YES ones. 3, will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish —No X YES habitat? 4. if yes on any of questions 1-3, last the area, species or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. Anderson Lakes Regional Park is 314 mile to the east of this site. Small man%lals, birds and deer will be displaced. The amount of habitat and food will be reduced, therefore wildlife reproduction will he reduced. The general impact on the local wildlif population will be negative due to the increase in .noise, changes in "miernclimatfA, decrease in habitat, but mostly due to the presence Of On 04 dj5 re53dentia3 dt1�!is • 4 • 20, D. HYDROLOGY 1. will the project include any of the followingt If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake,,pond, marsh, YES lowland or groundwater supply X b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X c. Dredging or. filling operations X _ d. Channel modifications or diversions X _ e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water X f. other changes in the course, current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site X _ See item #3 2. what percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 10 i 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? The existing storm sewer system will be used which already provides a series of ponds for sedimentation control. Sedimentation ponds and other sedimentation control devices will be implemented as per Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District rules and recommendations. 4. Will there be encroachtlent into the regional (100 year) floodplain Dy new fill or structure:? X A YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? No YES 5, what is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on ry feet the site? WATER QUALITY 1, Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? _No X YLS If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the^ water body receiving the effluent. Ka Its process .ter tool w4 water i s+a+t•ry u.,r(Hetre WaetL Tr-ttaat pta4te lln.tlroer4 i stone t wed.. tstia+axtrals&wiled hY klne Rile 1;#Wssed O+soittl 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is ' planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollu}ants in the wastewater. f NA 3. will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? X No _YES If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and?Mfta l of disposal. �`� 4. What measures will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts identified in questions 1-3? Discharge of sanitary sewer and storm sewer will be handled through City utility systems-and be processed,at the Blue Lake Treatment Plant. 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. NA F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates into the atmosphere? NO X YES If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the approxi- mate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. There will be normal exhaust emissions from construction equipment during construction. following construction the project-will generate approximately 500 automobile trips per day and emissions from heating and cooling 67homes. 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation of the project? No X YES If yes, describe the noise source;_;; specify decibel levels [Z(AQ, and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce•the noise/vibration. Noise during construction period only during normal working hours,Monday-Friday. Noise should be dissipated at boundary limits. Stzndards to Nrisc__ tu.j_d eA Rnses: Ls-Am nt Jit tt,rntwr • Sg d Tay— biynt steeper $5-115 t50 tt0. 150 t10 dozer 63406 77-90 (OM W;a 50dak S560A $*to,grsder 7®•% �'81 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whetiw r any areas sensitive to noise or reduced air quality-(hospitals, elderly housing, wilderness, wildlife areas, residential developments, etc.) are in the affected area and give distance from source. None j G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production t or currently in such use? NO X YES If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. Areas have been farmed , but the soil is marginal for such use. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on the sito? N8 X YES 1 If ycs, ;pcci`y the type of deposit and the acreage. Peaty muck occurs in the northeast corner of the site, approximately 3 ,acres. 0 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? No X YES Complete the following as applicable, a. Energy requirements•(oil, electricity,, gas, coal, solar, etc.] Estimated Peak Demand Annual (dourly or Daily) Anticipated Firm Contract or Ty a Requirement Sumner Winter Supplier Interruptible Basis? Nat. Gas 9,OOOmcf/yr .16mcf/u/d .19 Minnegasco firm contract Electric 440000 K.W.H. 2.4KWH 1.6K.W.H. N.S.P I firm contract b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on—site fuel storage. None c. Estimate annual energy distribution fort space heating 50 t lighting 10 t air conditioning 30 t processing- 5 t ventilation 5 t d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. All homes will be insulated to meet or exceed Minnesota State Requirements. Solar heating, heat pumps, etc., may be incorporated in some homes. e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etcp? The project should reduce automotive travel eventually be providing affordable housing near to the Eden Prairie employment center which will support much of Eden Prairie's business interest upon completion as projected by the Guide Plan. N. OPEN SPACE/MCREATION 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)? NO X YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be zZrected by the project. indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. -Purgatory Creek, Metro Council Trail Corridor, 1 mile -Preserve Association Recreation Center, 1/5 mile -Anderson"Lakes Regional Park 3/4 mile -School/park site, across AndersanLakesPkway. Adverse impacts upon the regional and local parks is not anticipated. �L� _ 7 - V H. TRMSPOWATION 1. Will the project affect any existin? or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc)? VO X YES If yes, specify which part(s) of the systen(s) will be affected. For these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and percentage of truck traffic (if highway); and indicate how they will be affected by the project (e.g. congestion, percentage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (ADT), access requirements). See page -Ba- for Transportation Information 2. Is mass transit available to the sits? X No 7s 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse i+rpacte? Park-n-Ride service is presently available at the Eden Prairie Center, approximately 3/4 mile from the site. J. PLANNING, LAND USE, CDMI'NITy SERVICES ehensive 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional compreh � YES plans? If not, explain: This site is Within a planned residential development. • If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing zoning and change requested. Rezoning is being requested from Rural to RI-13.5(single family detached) and RM 6.5 (single family attached). 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the X aracter ofYth ES existing neighborhood? If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. 4 4 ' t H. Transportation US 1691212 Anderson Lakes Parkway 55 mph 40 mph 8-10% truck traffic 6-8% truck traffic 14,300-16,900 ADT(current) 5,000 ADT(projected) 20DO veh/hour/lane max. designed capacity Traffic would enter US 169/212 via Anderson Lakes Parkway Development of this residential project will include the construction r. of the south lanes of Anderson Lakes Parkway,(half of the projected four lane divided collecto/. connecting the two existing Aortions of Anderson Lakes Parkway. This connection will allow east/west movement of traffic between Co.Rd.' 18 and U5 169. The new portion of Anderson Lakes Parkway will connect to a north/ south road, Preserve Boulevard, providing access to the Eden Prairie Center and Schooner Boulevard (the City's Major Center Area ring road). These connections ( Anderson Lakes Parkway from US 169/212 to Co.'Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway to Preserve Boulevard) , will allow mnotoristt a choice of ingress and ogress from the single family development other, than the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and US 169/212 which is unsignaliaed and unsafe. Completion of the 69 residential units can be expected to generate approximately 500 additional daily trips. These additional trips will be accommodated by the road improvements above noted. 44- 3. 11ow many employees will move into the area to be near the project? NA Now much new housing will be needed? 4. Will the project induce development nearby—either support services or similar developments? I If yes,explaisn type of development and specify any other counties and municipalities affected. The project could induce development of supportive services, Presently, supportive services exist in the Eden Prairie Center and surrounding Major Center Area offices, businesses, clinic, etc. S. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? Amount required public Service. prolect Sufficienta lity? water 22,000 gal/da yes wastewater treatment 20.,000 gal/da yes sewer 3,000 feet Yes schools 103 pupils e5 solid waste disposal 13 tcai/mo yes streets .5 miles Yes other. (police, fire, etc) 1.2officers/1,OU0 yes - If- current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this one project and its associated impacts? 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally seyitive plan or program reviewed by the EQC? NO YES if yes, specify which area or plan. T. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or disposal of potentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisions, etc? _-i_NO YES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to he taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. 1 8. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement ; of the facility require s,?ecial measures or plans? X NO If yes, specifys , • I X. HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal x state historical registers? x NO YES material being reviewed by State Historical SocietyT 2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early settlement been found on the site? _HO YES Might any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected by the activity? X NO YES 3.. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any impact on them. L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Describe any oUser major environmental effects which may not have bean identified in the previous sections. C ' None r. III, OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. City staff will review all public facilities utilities, building permits, and do field inspection. Riley / Purgatory Creek Watershed District will review and issue permit for land alteration. V. FINDINGS The project is a private ( ) governmental (X ) action. The Responsible Agency (Person), after consideration of the information in this SAW, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is ( is net ( X ) a major action. St.atr. reasons: 2. The project does does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. State reasons: g. (For private actions only.) The project is ( ) is not ( 3 of more than local significance. State Reasons3 7V. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed tion Of until the date of publication of the notice in the F1C Ignitor conssttitutes the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of theMEEAAW to F�Ca request for publication of notice in the A. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible Agency or the T.esponsible Person identified below. Based on the above findings, the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete either 1 or 2). 1. X NEGATIVE DECLkPATION NOTICE project is not a No EIS is needed on this project, because the oor significant major action and/or does not have the potential environmental effects and/or, for private actions only, the project is not of more than local significance. l.r...... .1..'L . _ '- I rt 2. LIS PREPARATION NOTICE T-An EIS will be prepared an this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for significant environmental effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than local significance. a. The NEQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the MQC cmalLocifically authorize limited construction to begin or continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this project, specify the extent of progresz recommended and the reasons. b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted: (month) (day) (year) (MEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 120 days of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the M Monitor. If special circumstances prevent compliance with this time limit, a written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request " must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.) c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency's) or Person(s)): Signature Roger K. Ui stall. City Manager Title ;., Date S. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed to all points on the official EQC distribution list, to the city and county directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed action (refo-r to question III.J.4 on pace 9 of the EAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is sent to the EQC. C. Billing procedures for EQC Monitor Publication State agency Attach to the LAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 ONLY: form (State Register General Order Form--available at Central Stores). For instructions, please contact your Agency's Liai;.on Officer to the State Register or the office of tw State Register--(612) 29b-8239. . 12 a M MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MDNDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1978 kapproved 7:30 PM CITY HALL CDHISSION 1491BEP,S PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Matthew Levitt, Oke Martinson, and Paul Redpath COliMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beaman, Liz Retterath, and Richard Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Planning Director Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary D. Lake Heights Addition, by Universal Land Corporation, Request to rezone from Rural to R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 for 22 acres, and preliminary plat approval for 24 single family and 52 townhouses. The site is located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway extension and east of Darnel Road. A public hearing. The Planner briefly outlined the background of the original PUD of 1973 illustrating 192 single family homes in the center area built by Centex; 26 acres made up by Neill Lake development; 5k acres dedicated as open space; school district land and a park site to the north of the proposal. He explained that no cash park fee has been paid on this area presently, and they have received requests for an active play area. The Planner felt that since over 600 units had been p .. requested over a gross area of about 185 acres in 1973, the wetland that had been given to the city was a density transfer and did not exempt subsequent additions from paying a cash park fee. Mr. Don Peterson, Universal Land Corporation, commented on the 1973 PUD, explaining that the city requested land dedication at that time. They are presently proposing single family and multiple dwellings, explaining that the large heavily wooded area will be for single family homes. The Planner discussed some of the propblems that would have to be resolved; property owner access, concern with the four units to the west-notinq the need to loosen density in the wooded area. The Commission expressed concern with the density, separa0on of fourplexes from single family homes, roadway right-of-way , sidewalks and berming. Levitt inquired what lay to the east and to the west of the pronosal. Enger responded future low density residential lay to the east and single family homes to the west, as well as open space or park. Sundstrom requested that Neill Lake be addressed in the Planning staff report because of its listing.-in the Shoreland Managemeit•Ordinance, n f. approved Planning Comnission Minutes _ 5 _ December 11, 1978 >i. Lake Heights Addition. .public hearin (cont'd) Mr. Don Sorensen, past Planning commission member, explained the density designations at the time of original PUD approval, and that the Planning Commission was concerned with housing types rather than numbers. The Planner commented that the original request was for over 600 i units, and felt that the drainage areas and park occurred as part of density transfer. lie expressed concern with the present suggestion for park dedication, and that no cash park fees were collected for the Centex area. Peterson explained that there was a committment of land dedication made in lieu of cash park fee. Redpath commented that at that time, it was believed the fairest method was to set aside some land for open space, but now that thinking is antiquated. The Planner explained that lots were allowed to be smaller here and densities increased, and that there is no place for a neighborhood park except in the Northeast parcel. He felt there is a neighborhood park obligation along with the open space density transfer. The other option would be to build to remainder of the property out In single family so that the overall density did not exceed 2 units per acre. The Planner also discussed the assessments to be paid by the City on the 11 acre park site totaling over $60,000. Gloria Pond, 8819 Darnell Road, submitted a cony of a letter from homeowners in the Lake Eden North and South Subdivisions, along with a petition which she intended to present to the City Council- She expressed concerns of the residents regarding congestion of area, severe traffic problem of access to Highway 169; and lack of recreation space for children to'play baseball, football, soccer, etc. The residents felt the suggested park would be used by the Preserve residents from the multiple residences located there, therefore causing congestion. The Planner explained that the Preserve Park recently completed, located in the center of the Preserve would serve the needs of Preserve residents, as well as the Community Center, swimming pool, and tennis courts. He explained further that the extension of Anderson Lakes Parkway through to highway lE4 a:ould help the people right now gain a different way out, The Engineering Department was petitioning the Highway Department for a signal at Anderson Lakes Parkway and highway 169, but do not expect results for another 3 to 5 years because of other higher priority requests else- where in the district. Levitt questioned when Anderson Lakes Parkway would become a Q lane park- way. the Planner rvsponded that it may not be developed with a median be- cause of lack of funds, but he anticipates completion when traffic warrants, perhaps 5 years. �7 1 ;approved Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - December 11, 1978 D. Lake Heights Addition public hearing (cont ) Levitt inquired whether any lots fronted on Anderson Lakes Parkway. Enger responded negative. Peterson felt the signalization was needed today, and that the pro- blem was not with the road, but with the intersection. He requested that the City petition strongly for a signal light as soon as possible. MOTION: Redpath moved to continue the public hearing on the Lake Heights Addition until the January 8, 1978 meeting pending a staff report. Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously. Y November , 1978 City Council Members Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Council Members: We are homeowners in the Lake Eden North and South Subdivisions. It has appeared that the area has been developed with insight and concern for keeping it open and attractive. Trees and hills have been left for aesthetic landscaping. our children have had the use of vacant lots and undeveloped land. It has been an impressive and pleasant location to reside. This past summer proved to be a rapid growing period for our area. Many stew homes have been built and occupied. There will be 192 families when present construction is completed. The vacant lots our children had been using are now occupied by these new homes. The common areas do enhance the beauty of the area and provide some wildlife shelter. However, the common areas are mostly water and swamp and cannot be used as recreational areas. As homeowners, we have become acutely aware of a growing problem. There is an ever increasing ntnnber of school-age children who have no place to play baseball, football, soccer, etc., except in the streets and yards of the neighborhood. Residents.are con- cerned with window breakage in their homes and parked cars, P.. destruction to their trees and shrubs, and other accidental property damage. There is the possibility of injury to pre- school children playing in their own yards. There is also the danger of children being hit by motor vehicles, which will increase when Anderson Lakes Parkway is completed. In an effort to cope with the problems, we checked with Eden Prairie City Ball about the possibility of getting a park close by and obtained the following information about the property described on the attached map: Outlot A has been given to the City of Eden Prairie for recreational purposes. The school board has an option on Outlot R. Outlot C has been proposed for multiple housing-and townhouses and additional single family residences are proposed for OuLlot R. i o City Council Members Page 2 November , 1978 it is evident, considering the development going on now in this area and the development planned for the future, that our prob- lem will continue to grow. To help us solve this problem, we are asking that you please consider the following action; 1. Acquire Outlot C for additional centrally located recreational space. 2. Grade and seed a portion of Outlot D, which could later be used by the school. 3. Grade and seed a small portion of Outlot A so it can be used as a ball field, and provide easy and safe access to this area for our children. We especially feel that if you would acquire Outlot C, it would provide the following advantages to the families of the Lake Eden Subdivisions, the future residents of Outlot R, and the western residents of the preserve: 1. It would provide open space and added recreational area that cannot be adequately provided by the small area in Outlot A. 2. It would blend in and enhance the school area .and Outlot A. 3. It provides excellent access to Lake Eden. 4. It would provide safe and adequate access to any . development done on Outlots A and D. 5. outiot C is more centrally located to the previously mentioned.growing area as compared to Outlot A, and would be much less of a hazard to the children. attempting to travel from their homes to a recrea- tional area. Outlot C would provide recreational area and open space at a more reasonable distance to the families of Lake Eden and future residents of Outlot R. 6. Outlot C would provide an overload backup for Outlot A, as the children from Lake Eden and the western portions of Outlot R would usn out.lot C, keeping Outlot A less populated for the residents of the eastern portion of Outlot R, and the residents of the preserve, which is adjacent to Outlot A. 7. It would limit further residential development on Outlot C, which would alleviate further aggrevation of our present growing concern. 2.19 City Council Members Page 3 November 1979 . S. it would also provide some immediate help to our present problem, since, even undeveloped, it pro- vides a common unpopulated area for our children to play, and could even be used by families as access to the public areas behind it. Respectfully submitted, Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Name Street Address Legal Description y 5. 7. � ` i 10. ///::Z/ ,_/7/1J�ii _ ��f ) //. ter✓1// '�. ,• J 7 15. 4' .' ))v ` /' 16 , i ��'Jyr%t �fcr'i_ /. (. _()o'ut P l/ 17. 18. � r 19 20. 21. .LL\ 1 f�� '�,\^ a�! 7-7 f ate G!r City Council Members Page 4 Novembeer� ,,('1978 _.s 24. 26. 28.J'=r j .s t,y. 1-�" �' - t'1 ��,t� 6'• 29..' 30.E 33 34. 35.36. , E 1. L - I.Z C'tir!'tis. :✓ �.t 39�1,•s.tcn , ��. .cS`,�,..�.'��c� ����lv C'ae1���tti� e�• 40. 41. 4 �ai c (����,.�� d1.�7 Al LA-,4 46. t' City Council Members Page $ November , 1978 _ - r fit, sf � , (! ,� s:26. t/ , , a �323. L f., ( aee. / fit✓ �1 :,..: r r " 3/ ''/,�'1�.� :rLl.�s t I�yl�'r i��11'I'/6C darr 36. 36i' C�/`• ci. S'A — ter.. ..� 39. 4-1.%.. 42. .� 43. 44. ✓ r ' /; 46. City Council Members Page November , 1978 Zf 1 24.�'tl•t. 25. 26. 29. -'30. r 31. 3,2 _ 33. 34. (r 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 4-Z. 4.3 4f?. —--- 466. 97._ - - 21 , • � ., �' r�';'t�!-� i /.I d ma's' s ', f1 t �''�r i IllINNESOTA HISTORI T' °L SOCI 4* S9D Cedes Street.St.lNrn1,blupirrpfa SS.1t11.69Y•Pth ' January 24, 1919 Larry L. Hanson Schoell h Madson, Inc. Engineers and Surveyors 50 Ninth Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55341 Dear Mr. Hanson; ._iFP1*l1m1nary..Plat..of Cfistham Vote�e > . C�f�,vP�E�ea Flrarie,.Minttesvear MHS Referral Pile Numbax-, B113 Thank you for the opportunity to review and .comment on the above project,. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic PreservatIOU- of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council, on His-totirs Preservation (36CFRBOO). This review reveals the location of no sites of historic, architectural,, cultural, or archaeological significance within the area of the proposed project. There are no sites in the area which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and, there- fore, none which may be affected by your proposal, Again, thank you for your participation in this important effort to preserve Minnesota's 'heritage. Sincerely, ussell W. Fri+dle State Historic P/eservation Offiver �= rt+wn�ali iNd9L a M 6s nidnr+Swrrtl r n.v_a!pt iJ%J& Minutes-Parks, Recreation & tmapproroed Jan. is, 1979 Natural Resouces Commission -6- Garens asked Sorenson what his reaction was to the path leading to the 1st Addition from the mini-park. He replied that it seemed excessive; however, the developer has agreed to cooperate when possible. MOTION: Tangen moved that the commission recommend to the council approval of Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th Addition as recommended by the staff in the January 12, 1979 memo, with the following changes: 1) Delete the trail extension to the cul-de-sac in Mitchell Heights 1st Addition 2) Delete provisions £ and F (the $1,000 bond requirement, and the changes in the back lot lines of Lots 18 and 19.) Garen^ seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Tangen felt the developer should not have to put in improvements outside their development or on city property. Kruell agreed that £ and F should be deleted. Garens also agreed, stating that the cash park fee should be used to build the trail extension. Lambert explained to the commission that the trail request was made based on the background of the entire development. The original Planned Unit Development (1972) called for two play areas 150' by 100' in size, constructed and landscaped to provide recreation for the residents of the area. Also contemplated in the original PUD were trails, tot lots, extensive landscaping, and tennis courts. To date, none of the above mentioned improve- ments have been accomplished, according to the original PUD. Lambert told the commission they could accept the proposal without the trail extension, but there was rational for the requirement. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. c. Chatham Wood 6 members present Johnson absent Mr. Tom Selseth and Mr. John Mueheberg were introduced by Lambert. They discussed the proposed Chatham Wood development, the park and trail commitments and dedication. R. Anderson raised the question of future traffic in the development; and would it affect the trailway to the creek corridor. He did not favor a trail crossing a heavily traveled road. Kruell suggested that the "no-build" land should be protected by a firm but reasonable ordinance; and it should be surveyed in this development, since the topography is so irregular. MOTION: Kruell moved that the commission recommend to the council approval of the Chatham Wood Development as per the staff recomendations outlined in the January 12, 1979 memorandum. Tangen seconded the notion. DISCUSSION: Garens expressed concern over the trail crossing extension of 168th to Townline Road. Based on this concern, he could not support the motion. He suggested an wWarpass.he pub: , 2?d 40 Minutes-Parks, Recreation & unapproved Jan. 15, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -t- in at the trail intersection, or signs on the road to control the traffic. R. Anderson asked if a culvert underpass would be possible considering the topography of the area. He was told the road would have to be raised. Kruell pointed out that traffic would probably use better roads, he did not think it would be heavilly traveled. VOTE: Motion carried, Garens opposed. MOTION: Garens moved to recommeed to the council the construction o underpass to accomodate pedestrian traffic from outlots E-F to Purgatory Creek in order to provide safe access; or erecting stop signs on 168th. Seconded by R. Anderson. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 2. Bunt Lake Park Plan Jim Jensen reviewed the revised concept plan,'showing the suggested changes in the bike trail and boat launch parking that had been made. He then discussed two access possibilities; realignment as opposed to direct alignment. The cost difference was estimated to be $11,000; with the direct alignment being the least costly. He pointed out that the access road was to be of a gravel surface so it could be moved if/when the council were to dead-end or upgrade Rowland Road. Hakon Torjesen presented a letter from the residents near Bryant Lake Park. lie discussed through the letter: Park use, possible sediment problems at the beach area, an alternate access (through the low area), more parking, tails, and fencing alternatives. R. Anderson pointed out to Mr. Torjesen that all the points had been voted on and passed except the access. Lambert questioned the alternate cost figures quoted by Torjesen for the alternate access. He requested the commission make a recommendation 'on one of the access points to the Council in order to begin trail construction. He reminded them that the question about Rowland Road would have to be decided by the Council. R. Anderson stated that the difference in the cost of access seems excessive. Ise pointed out that a gravel road could be moved if it did not work; the cam>:nission can only make a recommendation on the park entrance--not road alignment and transportation planning. Beulah Pinion, Vina Lane, suggested that if cost were the only factor } a fee,cornparable to a toil, could be charged to park users until cost was recovered. Anderson pointed out that when the eventual upgrading of Rowland Road does occur. the permanent entrance could be decided. The extra monk should not be spent for a teruporary access, therefore he ftvrare4 t k, .direct alignment, KNORANI)IJI1 T0: Parks, Recrcati.on and Natural Resources Commission FR%I: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: January 12, 1979 ,SUBJECT: Dcroalopncnt Proposal Check List PRWECT. Chatham Hoof PROPonE:gT.Tama Development RE(�K.yj•: Rezoning 40 acres to R1-1.3.5, preliminary plat approval of 57 single family lots and autlDts A-F. LOCATION:South of Townline Road, west of Purgatory Creek. north of Coachlight Manor. BACKCROUND. See Planning Staff Report dated January 2, 1979. CFILCKLIST: 1. A3jacC7.t to parks? (NeighLorhooi, Community, Regional) No Affect on park. N/A '} 2. Adjacent to ptublic waters? Purgatory Creek 'Affect on waters: Proposal provides dedication of creek corridor. 3. Adjacent to trails? Yes, a recreational trail will follow the wood lime 4 adjacent to the creek. and should connect to the sidewalk along 168th streeet. T)Tc of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) Hiking Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aLlime)Siderlalk 5' concrete, Recreation Trail 6' asphalt Width: 5' A 6' Party Responsible for construction?tk_velolLer L7ndoanership: (dedicated, density tradeoff. etc.) dedicated T)Te of Drveloluacnt? (residential, comerciai, industrial) Residential lahrre will CMI PARK FFF. go? (what nci„hborhood) Edon Farms N.P. Need for : mini-bark? NO -2- , S. REFERENCE CIIE•CK: �} a. Alajor Center Area Study: N/A J b: Neighborhood Facilities Study: The floodplain should be left as natural as I possible, a neighborhood park site is proposed to the S. E. ;:tT c. Purgatory Creek Study: Refer to pages 2 and 3 of Planning Staff Report. d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: See Planning Staff Report page 6. e. Floodplain Ordinance: f.• Guide Plan: 1978 Guide Plan shows this area as single family and public open space. g. Other: EAW has been prepared and is pending City approval tcrzpy enclnsedZ 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: Shall be paid by developer. 7. CASH PARK FEE? Fee applicable at time of building pet7�rit shall be id. 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: 9. Number of units in residential development? S7 Number of acres in the project? 40 Special recreation space requirements: NJA 10. STAFF Ri:CO?L NI)AT1o.1B: The Coamunity Services Staff would recommend approval under the following conditions: (see attached sheet) 211 ';. ., Chatham Wood Jan. 12, 1979 A. That ilutlots A-F, and the area within the Purgatory Creek Floodplain, be dedicated to the City for public purposes. B. That a scenic easement or covenant be placed in favor of the City on the land from the approximate 880 contour and the ridge line, to the creek, prohibiting any erection of structures or clearing of vegetation. C. The developer commit to constructing a 6' concrete sidewalk along the east side of 163th St. from Townline Road south to the sidewalk in Coachlinht Manor. D. The developer commit to constructing a 6' asphalt trail through 0utlot F & C from 168th St. toward Purgatory Creek. (in the future, the City will be constructing a walking trail along the wood line adjacent to the creek.) E. That all lots be subject to the cash park fee applicable at time of buildin permit. F. That the proponent obtain all necessary appnval5 and permits €rom the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District. The Community Services Staff does not feel that a development with lots this size requires a. tot lot or mini park. A neighborhood part; is proposed less than 4 mile r` to the southeast. •.olr MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION .approved MONDAY, JANUARY 8. 1979 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COtiMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Matthew Levitt, Richard Lynch, Oke Martinson, and Liz Retterath COMtiISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary approved Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - Jan. 8, 1979 C. Chatham Wood%. by Toma Development. Request to rezone from Rural to R1-13.5 O acres and preliminary plat 59 single family lnte. The site is lncatPd snuth of Townline P.oad and West.of Purgatury Creek. A public hearing. The City Planner summarized the proposal, explaining that it basically evolved around the topography of the site. He explained that access would be from Townline Road and•168th Avenue. Townline Road is presently gravel but anticipated by the County's capital improvement plan to be constructed as a two lane blacktop road in 1981. He explained further that the subdivision would be low in density with large lots, and that the lowland area would provide a corridor to the floodplain area and provide protection by scenic easement of Purgatory Creek. Mr. Tom Selseth, Toma Development Co.,gave abrief presentation outlining changes which have been accomplished with the planninn staff since January 1978. Mr. Selseth explained they could not agree strictly with the restriction on the scenic easement at the 890 contour but would be willing to talk with the staff on the question. Levitt questioned the reference to sanitary sewer in the EAW. The Planner explained that the storm sewer was to be within the street. Sundstrom suggested moving the road to the south. John Emond, School & Madsen Eng. , explained that they could not move the ld hroad ave toover because feet placement of houses on the south of below the road, if the road were moved to the south. —approved Planning Commission Mimites - 6 - Jan. 8, 1979 C. Chatham Woods.. public hearing (cont'd) Mrs. Roeder, 6435-168th Ave. W., asked whether the water flow under the culvert on the south end of their property would be affected. Emond explained that they would have to connect a pipe to carry the•water to the holding pond. Martinson asked whether some lots would be sold to contractors to build upon. Selseth responded that their intent was to build on the majority of the property, but some of the lots will be sold to-other contrattc with restrictions and covenants. Sundstrom asked whether the City should be a party to these covenants. The Planner responded that the lots will be large, with a good variety, and feels that custom homes would provide good architectural variety. He did not feel the City has to be involved in the private architectural covenants. MOTION: Levitt moved to close the Public Hearing on Chatham bloods. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning request for 40 acres from Rural to RI-13.5 based upon the revised plat dated December 27, 1978 and the staff report of January 2, 1979 (modi- fication to Paragraph B.4 to include: "that the Staff locate a specific area for the scenic easement replacing the 890_contour- Block 7, lots 5-12 and outlot D";and modification to paragraph B.3. "excluding Outlot D" from dedication to the City for public purposes.) Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. Preliminr Plat Motion: ri0MI Levitt movedlo recommend to the City Council the Draft EAIJ dated 12/78, finding no significant impact. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. The intent of the developer for outlot D was questioned, with Selseth rescondinQ that their intention'was to purchase additional land to add to it in order to make a buildable lot. 2- - f. Riley. purgatory Creek Watershed District .a�. 893o COUNTYr4 Ri° $D@ PRAIRIE,M4NNE�NNESDTA 55 353•A3 P t i 1-t lj� December 6, 1978 Mr. Chris Eager City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re Toma Development - Cbatahm Wood Deer Mr. Unger: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory Creel:Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the above referenced project. The following policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this project. 1. Orading operations are planned adjacent to two wetland areas located on the development site. Thecae wetland areas may be classified as public waters by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources {:=11). ,. A determination of public waters and a natural ordinary highwater elevation must be established by the Minnesota Department'of Natural Resources. should development encroach below the natural ordinary highwater elevation, a Chapter 1.05 Work in Public Waters Permit will be required. In areas where development remains above the natural ordinary highwater elevation, a Riley-Purgatory Creek 'Watershed District grading and land alteration permit must be accompanied by an erosion control. plan showing how sediment will be prevented from leaving the development site both during and after construction. 2. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development. If YOU have any comments, please contact us at 920-0655. Sincerely, lid 1 , Robert C. Obermeyer1r BARR tiNCJXEERINC CO. Engineers for ttee District RC0J111 cet Mr. C,,,nrad Pisecaess Mr. Fred(>HcL Richards Mr. Ronald ILaruack , Mr. Seat 11arri a CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 79-25 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKS14EET FOR CHATHAM WOOD A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on February 6, 1979 to consider the Chatham Wood proposal, and WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 40 acres of land in northwestern Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Chatham Wood Preliminary Plat request and did recommend approval of the project and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no significant impact, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for Chatham Wood because the project is not a major action which does not have significant environmental effects and is not more than of local significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED, this day of February, 1979. iVolf9ang 11. hnzeT—, Mayor ATTEST: Sohn D. rane,rity C er F SEAL .:._. Chatham Woods Graft 12-78 Ma41�t£ScrrA DOVIRetnCHTAL ;?uALITY CoT.1CIL I.<:4IROr�-ztlrAL ASSESS`IENT WO+Z45111 ET MAW) ,.�.4�,,{.•i''. .� "D t=ICE Or r gi ,vGS ro NOT WRITE I11 THIS SPACE E.R. 9 V=2 .-The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA14) is to provide infozration on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the project requires an Environmental Ilcpact Statement. eest Attach addis. Yonr� _-pages, charts# maps, etc, as needed to answer these % answers should be as sFecit'ic as possible. Indicate which answers are estimated. S. St1eG.'dARY A. ACTIVITY FUDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) negative Declaration (No EIS) ' s. ACTIVITY IDEhTLFZC�TI Chatham Wood. 1. Project nar..e or title 2. Project Propcser(s) Toma 0eve]o meet Address 15602 Fairwood t Telephone t7TMcbar and Ixea Code ( fi12) 935 2875 carRt33 City of Eden Prairia� Responsible Agency or Person Y Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for'f ^the- inforraation Telephone on this Etst: supporting documentati Q. This EAW and other on are available for public m- ain t4 Location Eden Prairie C Hal] spection and/or copying a Telephone 941-22fi2 Hours Sam 431sm 5. Reason for EAW Preparation other {`1 mandatory Category -city 0Petitinn 1,-�' Ft;QC Rule nuai,er(s) 24 (uu� ,art of which is within shoreland) (construction of 50 or more residential ul; pa r C. ACTIVITY nv.:;CRIPTIM s-mmARY 1, Project .10e:kti,n i County Henne+in it'/Township name Township nurutx•r 115 (North). M-11,4o Nuabcr 72_g�st or ry (circle onc)r section e,umber{.) 5 Street Addreaa (if in city) cr login at4"riPt'"' Zol 2. Typo and scope of proposed project: Approximately 59 single family..lots on:40:.acrwa 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) Silting_ i479 • A. Estimate. completion date (month/year? Simmr+r 198 S. Estimated construction cost $400,000 S. TList any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed from each unit of government and status of each.- of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval Status .(federal, state, or Federal Funding regional, local) Riley/Purgatory Creek grading & storm drainage approval pending Watershed District and permits City of Eden Prairie platting & zoning approval` pending 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved. will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act? NO yEg-)—( UN*NW6 II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION A. Inclu'.e the following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original 8n x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 7h minute, 1:24,000 scale map f ` ..with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. j Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original a-S.G-S. sheet must be main- tained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution points.) 3.• A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including' significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc). 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. B. Present land use. 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site,, ., The 40 acre site is bordered on the east by Purgatory Creek and;its floodplain, -. the south by residential developments ranging from 4-5+acres in size. on the west by large lot t2•acre single family . and on the.north by the City of Minnetonka. 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that arc: • A. Urban developed 0 acres f. 'Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) :ores b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland. -A acres, c. Rural developed t7 acres h. Ploodplain d, rural vacant ' -5 acres J. •CroplasWllastura land a. Designated Recre--r_acres j. Fovesud o N ation/Open space ' (Purgatory Creek Conservangy- 4 7nap) © sURNs x GROVE p FreewaY or Expressway �tt proposed Interstate Freeway 9 Arterial -- Water Body R Ren+v AN KA HASSAN ac lnn y I 43 B,nskLM Darts N. ' p,eenMi/ Ceree,v O ♦ �^y _ 1 yea -- �: --- •:. 1 C tj tAIIJOWN fi�p,'„•lb. �1� 'C•i�fr^"��ti; 'I� G � 5 1 7 F. �� �C:f ___-� ✓, fa 1 J v n•M 1 E.,.nn... cl.,v..u1/ .� eTf jYy;j�'•!+iv�..�.�.�_...: ...�...-_-. J.r:tiz`-.'gr,.T___. �rsj'L.! •: -.r...,: Ii " !., • ''"i� 1~� 1_' � C� ti ��1� ` ad� e lt`�'n rlr! 1]y� •,�, � p, e•:- � _ r J ;�� ��� ,,��P(`Y �� <" &fro 2''A.'+." '�w t "' .t{F}{,i ,!:•` - \t.---�.irl .t...,..°, .• •yli���JJJAAA f1.` ,a^,. 1 G I 11111 W' , "�� 3- r is•;t/'I '� 7 �%�•.0 t'l"-t,� i1 1 .1 •.xa?Y...}I � �} •`�. � ko w �1 X. {./7N i it •/ +/ j(Na •.3 t 'a t�-.f + s Ih W f .�' �'S•J 1 w 'IY rt'11_r • - _~'I� (t i b.7 i4Jh+l/:�.4>.k _ �� 1 �I• ) �,., +'C'�y �, �� _ q ..4 .y�.. 111 ...., t ,� ��,�4 fr'�`���la�i�t.,�hkF,r•�. � Pr,r�*,v�l,�mj�/��(""` '�°f'si�. Y� t ��� �, R f� �.rt .v '�_�. F' 4 �• 4�,+ j'^-:�fj5 J j ��t�,�.t.� ^�r 44 � TY 'o wd+rn� � If 4 �' t � ��� +r -�}, � •� , Cfan'Ldke � r � `' c n-;.r�r Y' fit, �n. d 3�.�, f"' � a '� �It ice:) iJ%\�f�3� �y�z✓ yU��I�'�P� hA. ''°a.N! Pi✓ yv �� � tir,l i�,�'%?fit `.1�.�' 7•�' .I^ ''���n \ d \1st' ���' A �¢�1 J'YsGi i r�—AN. p. ; a T.W �3�� '1'Lala, lA i p11 D�,rt 440000 , sn--x..� _{.! 4 _• -' '-"" Si:e 5 FEET r 1 _ T.116 N.' A's�\%( �\ '{'sr Larc lsinwt C ;d a_..�,A�{{�-��t.t-•\ , �. `ab�. .�"��� ;� � +r y .��� � �•i4d' n.ef� �Zfi ;yy�.x�1+ji h 411 it .` i `• �,'�� • •4J�� ... t 1 C, mills :,:'w;ti i.. O� ,,,.•1 z. _ ✓_ .C `�. 1 3 \ ;� c FDE ;PPv11 j Duck ;ll llJl , .,`,a.11� �y" L f'.'�.,,1.1'�°ti` „+ (�tl+lid., Lake i^^��yf�1%1��L > I' C ,✓`` 1 �1t sY i\✓ -�� �.q � a19 `t� li. t`.+,w°A,o.. .. 46Y•�0 soh.r CS - .� +1 \\ t\ r!. �s i`- .�+_ .i1„d� dl�yuttr� �`•" Pit 1 \ I®'�.`�\ 93*30 :13oWJfEt.i ---�� ou+u+ ro/u�.rN.s .y 127'30" •'W �,E% Mapped,edited,and published by the Geological Survey t 49"41 Control by USES.USC&GS It �'F•+"^^+'=" LeW Topogtaphy by photogtammetric melhOfs from aerial photographs - tskenl947. f tetdchechedl9i4. Pmwdfromaenal pholographs Taken l966. Field checked 1%7 sfs• ' �' O•!s' as wis CLI Hydrography Comp-led tram mfnrmatfon furnished by D wµs 1 Mmnesola Department of Conserva60n + Potyzomc projection, I K7 Noah American datum 10.000 toot ynd based on Minnesota coordinate system,south iena urn Gard auo Lott rw:wrio tsouw _ 1004meler lin,vei fat 1'eanlrerse MMCaIM Fr+e'beks, afcLwaleOM 44 cmtta Or s«LLa cone 15.shown w blue. TMIS KAP CLINN Red tint ind,cates.+yeas,a eha:h Daly landmark bu4ldtng4 are s4owei 213 �yT' FOR SALE BY U.S.=L,OWCU SO �3 w FADIZW nE'$4&ItfleIG Tc11•t. Fine red aWs d l,nes,rid•s ate selected In+ree aria head briar Thera e -it�dL!V2'_`t4Y�.tlSY�Y�n� � 17�• _+w+`•\..�._,•1T/NNf IME. .. .. 4'^�/ �ear���.�: } IPyl + �l�I,i 4 '�°,..\`��S\+..,'i�.\.(, ".yIJ�+��� 'f'�1 '4 rtv` � ,�3 r•R�!S.`t w. .. J � 1 • •{r•� ( / ��"� /b'rtii�`.`/ '(�Sti I�s r '�� `�c- 'z'�s1 �7r, � '�v�r '•.�\ �=_ .1.� •�.:�' '\�� f"..''}t"T y�•,_: r{\`_1\� ice/ � 4 {f )��`s��l� I:t�ti�Jfi. , '�`r �. ••1,\.. r�1 t i�' � .. to � •��v,;n`�' j!1 '^ /r 1 (1��orl�i. � ��\� �;) s P' U. 40 ��. ,.r•.'•=..�.���...... ��•—!it !!+' 1_•.:+:ri:LJ_C'L•.'I;_�Jay��../f., 1 it 3. 1ist names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes within l,000 feet and rivers and streams within .300 feet- Approximately�3001.feet:of Rargator}+'Ct`det'Lcrdsse§=.tfie-northea5t"corn�r of the site. - .• C. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any), operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- include data that would indicate the magnitude of ceases to be used. the proposed activity (e•g: rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc). The proposed activity is -residential.,development on lots ranging from 14,{�00 square feet-33,000 square feet in size, with a density of 1.48 units/acre, 2. pill in the following where applieablec a. Total project area _acres g. Size of marina and access �sq. £t. l chha nel (water areal or miles h. Vehicular traffic trips Length '�"' generated per day A5 ADT b. Number of housing or ;. Number of employees .CIA. recreational units FR Water supply needed 1812AD—Sal/" e, Height of structures �p•_ft. �' source: ml'ni ion d. Number of parking k. Solid waste requiring spaces disposal e. Amount of dredging M co• ld.1. commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space -�sq. ft.. ing treatment 18 2, 40 qal/da ASSFSSNSENT Or POTENTIAL EWIROTMUTAL IMPACT A. SOILS MD TorocP.APHY gently 1. will the project be built in an area with slopes no X yes exceeding 12t7 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project- ink_swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? such as fault zones, .br 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverne impacts- The majority of poor soil areas will be included in the sip OutlOts which will not be built upon. . The development does propose building upon areas tan U. ces$ 20% slope. Indicate suitability of site coils for foundations, individual se8ti c systems, and ditching. if these are included in the project. SAii.s outside nf.tlsc outl•ots are suitable.for:foundations and the developer will be required to install extra wide footings wherever.City Building Department requires, S. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done$ 19,500 cu, yd. grading 1t. 5,500 cu. yd. filling 1!] t What percent of the site will be so altered? 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 30 ?. $fiat steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Hay bales , snowfencing, and other erosion control techniques will be implemented as*per RileYINP atory Creek Watershed District recommendations. On-site inspections will be made by watershed and city staff. B, VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types: Woodland �5 i Cropland/ 2Q Pasture Brush or shrubs 10 • Marsh Grass or herbaceous _15 _,! other - (Spaaify) _�- 2. How mn..f acres of forest or %,,:Aland will be clear'cd. if aqy? 15 acres 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique j -botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNO p X1i cation YES The Uncommon ones.) -ifyes, rst the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. See page -4a- C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- went areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? NC X YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncommon X NO YES Ones.) 3. will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish +NO 2 YES • habitat? 4. if yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. . See page -4a- , • 30/ r d +. . F . Chatham Woods Environmental Assessment Worksheet B, Vegetation 1 3. The Puroatory Creek Study by Brauer & Associates, I994,identified lands in this area of the City as " covered with prairie grasses unique to the entire system", The study suggested "Protection of native speVes would be an important consideration in land planning". The site in question is heavily wooded with lowland wet areas. Prairie grasses would not expected to be found on the majority of OR site:, The development does include protection of the wooded creek slope and wet areas. For further information refer to the attached material. C. fish and Wildlife 4. The project will alter wildlife movement and amount of habitat available to support wildlife. The plat as proposed pro- vides a 150 foot wildlife corridor along the west side of Purgatary Creek and protection of a series of outlots which will provide limited habitat for small wildlife species, ie., birds, rabbits, etc. i sector analysis eden farms sector gwirotal set Natural Features: This sector is characterized by a wedge shaped valley ca,rered wiiR- rairie grasses, unique to the entire system, and upland hardwaod. overstory vegetation. The ramwt prairie vegetation and a su=ssional glacial pond (northeast corner) are the two most bvortant elements. Excellent creek valley definition is provided by topography and vegetation, toning open land atnpte family residenEtat units ✓ 60 a corridor edge glacial pond romwant prairie swe " . —broad Road ptatn_+—_ 'lowland ptantaw- west etlptt TYPICAL EDEN FARMS SECTOR Land Use: single family residential use orcura on the eastern edge of the for, The western side has been used for agricultural purpose until ram_ fears. Physical encroachment on the corridor has been tttinimal. The sanitary sewer is located on the east bank of the area. Constraints: There are few constraints which v=ld limit recreational use in this area. The extent to winch neighborhood recreation facilities could be developed depends on neighborhood need and site adaptability, e.g., softball dimes uftich txauld be difficult to adapt to the rolling topography. Proms- tion of native species would be an uq=tant consideration in land planning. 9�22rtunities: The corridor has remained virtually undeveloped, thus Vegeta— tive camuuuties have remained undisturbed. The high ridges on the nest side provide long vistas over the Creek valley. Develo >Gtt Proposals. Shelter Hmes Corporation previously caned M acres a ong the Crce-k—Weir proposal would have placed 50 acres in pentunent open space. The recent change in Ownership will wxloubtedly alter the land use proposal. This may have sore effect upon the Creek corridor. 27 pur alto creek. Re�m�ndations � ' Potential Use: It is i0portant that 1tu:ds be set aside in this sector fur nLi�recreation as well as for trail darelopnent. The area has a bigh potential for prairie vegetation nmagas*nt and for neighborhood m s- ation. Trail develots=rt should be periphoaal to take advan mW of the views up rind down the valley. An interior trail COUld follow the sanitary sewer 1'CA1tE;. nneggmt: The upland prairie species lusted on the east slopes should be Mxnagod and suxplcmented with native a panes; thrcuagh cmtro].led burning and other managment techniques this unique area can be retained. Me control will be required if atteapts to reclaWFeserm prairie species are insti- toted. The use of trail bikes is not cag3atih e. The glacial � showld be included in this restoration project. Control: The Go acressAnil+e ccnaept waaid be appropriate through this seet=. _ final property will have to be obtwied in the northeast corner for neighborhood recaaLimal psirposes, including the pond. i� � r purgetor tree '� tt 1.• ,� •plyNyK�NN a .•4'• //. �'� gym» W row Rood Gomm sit • _ ' ":i�{�: ;:`` Y Y .i 14.1.AI- 14, Ij f _r�= lye r. ..�-ra J � D ^"7T ,�_.;,,g \. °+ ,'\'",t•1' ��kk�f 7711 .. eden farms - paradise valley • Seetor` 29 PU rg s �.�.• -. .�, er s:1.;v acs! 3S«a.,.••r: tL•�• cc� 21��+ :�tur.vl^.t .nrr .D D. HYDROLOGY -[ 1. Will the project: include any of the foXlowing: Xf yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond. marsh, NO YES lowland or groundwater supplY X (see item A3) b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes -X C. Dredging or. filling operations X d. Cbannel modifications or diversions X_ _ •e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water (see item #3) f. other changes in the course, current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site (see item #3) 2. What percent of Clio area will be converted to now impervious surface? 10, ; 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off andlor treat it to reduce pollutants (sedi=nt, oil, gas, ote.)? Storm water will be collected and directed to the lowland ponds with outlets to Purgatory Creek. During construction erosion control techniques as recoumended by Watershed District will be inspected by watershed and city staffs. 4. Will there be encroa&ment into the regional t100.7ear? floodplaO YN ay.new fill or structures? - x N© if yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? NO YES 5. ,that is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on 0-5 feet the site? E WATER QUALITY 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? _NO X 'YES If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants curd the water body receiving the effluent. h Waste water and sewage will be carried by City sanitary system to Blue .take Treatment Plant and discharged into Minnesota River. 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is planned, identify siV toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants in the wastewater. NA c � , NO _YES .3. Will any s]udges be generated by the proposed project? X If yes, ;pecify the expected volume, chemical composition and mothod of dirposal. 4. What measures will be used to minimize the volumes or inPacts identified in questions 1-3? Answered under #1 page 5. S. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. KA !. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates into the atmosphere? ITO X YES If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the approxi- mate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. During construction engine emissions from truck and heavy equipment will add gases and particulates from grading and traffic will change the composition of the air quality. Upon completion, normal emissions associated with a residential development will occur, ie. heating and car emissions. I 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by'construction and/or operation of the project? NO YES If yes, describe the noise sources)s -q:_cify decibel levels tut- , .mod duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative neasures to reduce the noise/vibration. During construction period equipment will be running 8am-5pm. Approximate noise levels within 50 feet of equipment will be in the rangq of 90-100 dBA. 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or f reduced air quality-(hospitals, elderly housinq, wilderness, wildlife j areas, residential developments. etc.) are in the affected area and give distance from source. Residential homes occur as close as 150feet from the proposed project and will be'subjected to construction noise during working hours. G. LANU RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production or currently in such use? NO X YES If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop e or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. Approximately 10 acres would be suitable for crop production, more if woods were cleared. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on the site? no X Yes If yes, ^ci:y the tyke of deposit and the acreage. 3-4 acres have peat deposits The acreage,is within outlots which will )jot be built upon. 3. Will the project result in an increased energy domand? ND X YES complete the Lollowing as applicable' L. Eaorgy requirements (oil# electricity, gas, coals solar. etc*) • - E tinted peak Demand Annual (liourlp or �•�ilv) yii Anticipated Firm contract or Type Reouircrent sum-Hu r. ;:inter b suanlier Interrvntible Basis? Electric 370.000 KkN 2.4g.64S. firm Natural 7,400 mcf 2 %/dco firm s •b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on—site fuel storage. NA C. Estimate annual energy distribution fora Fn t lighting i15 space heating I t processing air conditioning ventilation s d. Specify any major energy conservation system and/or equipment incorporated into this project. Lots within the plat could utilize solar energy, wind energy, etc. Installation of conservation systems will be at the discretion of builder(s) and/or homeowners. e. teesg secondary longerycar` effects may resul from this proec trips, induced housing or businesses, etc)'? If individuals living and working outside Eden Prairie move to this subdivision and continue to work in another connnunity, longer car trips will result. The project also has the possibility of reducing length of car trips by allcnrinn Spine individuals to live closer to their work. u. orrN srrcrwiax':LATlaN 1. Are there any dcsign-,ted federal, state, county or local recreation or open space arcar. near the site (including wild and see rivers, lx.ke accesses)? If yes, list arc as by n. - and explain how each mat be affected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. Purgatory Creek crosses the northeast corner of the site. A 150+foot strip dedication from the creek would reduce adverse.impacts and preserve the ssive recreational uses. Preservation creek corridor for wildlife and pa of the wooded slope, within the ISO foot strip. will allow the creek valley to function as a wildlife corridor much as it does today. .r �... ..... is Y. i i 'ir9'. • b ,i t• .! 'a; !• .., • y.:., '.f;•. h ��'1-:'fits ..:11'v2'a•{ P.. QC' iL7,`it .•b7t, w'Y .+.. .. ' S, TWISPORrATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportati0ft 9YSt VA (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc)? .10 If yes, specify which part(s) of the systems) will be affected. ror these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and percentage of truck traffic (if highway)i and indicate how they will be affected by the project (e.g. congestion, percentage of truck traffic, ^ safety, increased traffic (ADT4, access requirements). _... .....__. see.PA99 -8a= NO YES . _. .._ . . 2. Is mass transit available to the site? x 3. that measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? On a yearly basis Eden Prairie in conjunction with the �Jetropolitan Transit Commission reviews areas which warrant park-n-ride sites. When monies and warrants are sufficient , park-n-ride sites in this northwest corner of Eden Prairie wild be investigated. J. 1 the��jeecct,co©sistent wwith local and/or regional compreWICES hensive plans? NO YES If not; explain: If a zoning chance or special use permit is necessary. indicate existing zoning and change requested. Existing zoning is Rural. Change is requested to R1-13,5, single family detached, minimum lot size 13,500 square feet. 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? X No YTs If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conf3icts. Chatham Woods Environmental Assessment Worksheet H. Transportation 1. The project as proposed would include completion of a section of 168th Avenue from its present temporary termination at the site's southern boundary, north through the project to connect to Townline Road. This connection will provide future residents, existing residents along 168th Avenue} and City residents as a whole an alternate north route other than County Road #4 and THJ101, and Duck Lake Road gravel base road). 168th Avenue is hard surface rrerth/south residential collector street. It presently serves approximately 30 bombs (.Z'5o AM), all which must exist south to duck take Trail. Full occupancy of the 57 homes proposed could add approximately 450-480 AOTs, this could double the existing low usage of 168th Avenue ( assuming h of the trips exit south and h north). d 7, Crosstown 62 (CSAH 62) is expected to be upgraded by 1981 and will facilitate traffic traveling east. ... . . . . .. . . ........� ......,: ......, . '�to�. ;• ?tt ,a'i) Y:."« q•; :.j .r 1 M' .7r:• .. 'r f• J ...�@. cn the project has served its useful life- retirewk of the NO YZS facility require special measures or plans? It yes, specify:: ,:, ;•�•• _ K. RS.=RIC RESOURCES 1. hre there any structures on the site older than So years or on federal NO or state historical registers? ...�..or $. 1lave any arrowh®ads, pottery or other evidence of prehi-s toric or early no settlement been found on the site? ,. Y'PS Might any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected NO by the activity? *-'�by 3. List any site or strnet-O identified in I and 2 and explain m UY impact on them. _ NA L. OTMR MMIRONMENThL COT MRS which may not have been Describe any other major environmental effects identified in the previous sections. MA TR3. MIER ASITIGhTIn MEMURES to redoes or eliminate potential Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed adverse i2npaets that have not been described before. M • ��'` sir 3. Haw many employees will move into the area to be near the project? NA Haw much new housing will be needed? . .. i�s 4. Will the Projcct induce development nearbp --either support services or sinilar developments? no any other counties and If yes,explain type of development and specify municipalities affected. NA . S. Is there sufficient capacity in the following Public services to hand}.* the project and any associated growth? Exisi4 ,Tanned Amount required Public Service for o S 'r+ water 18,240 gal/da Yes _ wastewater treatment 18,24-0 gal/dla 4,OOM feet ,yes sewer schools. $5 'pupils solid was" disposal 13 ton/aw & streets •8 miles other (police, fire, etc) 1.2 officers Yes -- jr. current major public facilities are notadequate. do existing local plans call for expansion, or is expansion accessary strictly for this one project and its associated imPacts? s part of the amied mentThe Chas'�peem r�the Comprehensive oods developpient �Guide Plan and Ccapital lisprotrement� plans. 6. Is the project within a proposed pr designatod Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive Plan or No Yr'S program reviewed by the MC? If yes, specify which area or plan. 7. will the project involve thh r�ious orptoxieililuids,agsooudss o or disposal of roteatially gaseous substanecs such as pesticides. radioactive wrasr Pais+ etc? any mensvxe6 If yes, please specify the substance and rate of u a to be tal:ea to miniiaiae adverbe environmental itgpaots itom acciduncs. w . 1 V FINDINGS ;. .:• a t, _ ernmental ( X ) action. The Responsible AgWWF the project is a private ( Y gam* (Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. I." The project is t Y is net ( X } a major action. _ •, _. . Stag, reasans .,1'A.. 2. The project does( does not(X j have the potential for significant environmental effects. t project is.�is not $, (per Private actions only.) ( ) of more then focal significance. Y c State Reasons: IV, CDXCLASIONS AIM CERTIFICATION not NDTE: A Ncgativd Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is Monitor section t until the date of Publication of the notice in the C constitutes the Minnesota State Reu ster• Submittal of the MWataor. ub a request for plicati_on of notice in the resentative of the RespOAS ilp A, I. the undcrsicr rd, am either the authoriicd rep Based on tDia above finditiQtl.t Agency or the Responsible person identified below- the ttesponsiblc Agency (person) makes then following conclusions- (Complete t either 1 or 2). 1. X NrxATIVE DCCIAR),TTOt] UUTICE Project' because the project is not a �!No EIS is needed on this significant a major action and/or does not have the potential for only, environmental effects and/or, for private actions only• the project- is not of more than local significance. ti p �• ��EIS PREPARATION NOTICE is An F.IS will be prepared © otentia2ofostsignificantt environmentale the majort, major action and has the p than effects. For private action&+ the profect is also of more local significance. ....•... a• The F'EQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances. the ME>ZC cat specific?llY authorize limited construction to begin or Continue. is you feel Lnare are 5,mcial circumstances in this • project, specify the exteaC of psogres3 recommended and the reasons• b. Date Draft EIS will be submitteds (month) (day) (year) (NEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 32Q da s of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the FCC Ron^--it, �r. If " th this time Special circumstances prevent compin the reams forltltetrpque8t written request for extension explaining must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.) C. TMe Draft EIS will be prepared by Ilist Responsible AgancY(s) or Yerson(s))s Signature kaaAr K ill-fad- Cjty- n— MauanTime Date 8. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed to all points on the official EQC distributi.ui list, to the city and county directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities li kely to.J.4 onnb� 9 directly impacted by the proposed action (ref^_r to question of the PAW). The affidavit need be attached Only to the copy of the EAV which is sent to the EQC. C. Billing procedures for EM1C monitor Publication State agency Attach to the EAN sent to the EQC a completed oSA lO© • 67t—Yt form (State Register General Order Form--availablcoAc Central Storer.). For instruttionS, please contact your Ay y I.iai::on officer to the State R .gister or the offica of the State RegisG+r--(612) 296-8239. 12 y i STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger; Planning Director PROJECT: Chatham Woods APPLICANT: Toma Development DATE: January 2, 1979 REQUEST: — Rezoning of 40 acres to R1-13.5 — Preliminary plat approval of 57 single family lots and outlots A-F BACKGROUND Land Use 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan The 1968 Guide Plan depicts this area as single family, ZZ Purgatory Creek Study. 1974 See pages 2-3 . 1976 Attempted Park Acquisition In 1976 the Community Services Director and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission undertook studying the possibility of purchasing the property in question—Kucher land,34.5 acres, and the Deaver property( 150 acres east of Purgatory Creek, previously the Eden Farms PUD). A City Council motion, Dec. 14, 1976, to option the two properties was defeated. 1978 Draft Guide Plan The 1978 Draft Guide Plan depicts this area as single family and public open space. L0CATIi�0N p�M�AP • • ! ' , lr�.._-...� — LWVUII IM 1ai/'VV b� - Pn untry - Vista 1968 GUIDE PLAN r �d i + + any �•���` � ���i� � 9, 1978 DRAFT GUIDE PLAN ��� xca:-�x-vi.` :+ -.I;:�,fset.r--�'rz..•h ti�a3�.c--_ rr�e' +s.r�s -s+cr`ra:s^s-wavwer•��'^+" '.mt tm•alw. j SITEZZ Li ,�� ..o. c\n�..- ;_C-��_�:_:-• _ r{..ram� !"' 't;.. � ` r . T� ���.� .gip.• _�_-t _:711� � � � p :��,,,• , U.S.G.S. MAP T.117N �f t '"• T _•1 th 690000 r Cl T.116N \I\L'vj/ ,t.l� ,b C1 ) � r^ � ••y:�t� ad r �� '�`ciS�/r :) `y�Yl�. �w'o F a'✓ ��. :R6y�� �_ Report-Chatham Woods -Z- January 2, 1979 EXISTING SITE CHARACTER ` Soils Approximately 80% of the site is M. comprised of He der and Hayden y Y r: p Y Y soils. These soils are deep, well-drained, but require manage- ment to prevent erosion. Extra wide footings would be a necessary e , safeguard against possible shrink/ ..Pm , 'AtD• Ncfi.r swell. .c fam qse The remainder of the site is comprised of bands of wet, ,• �• Y marshy lowlands as depicted by the locations of Pa,Pm and •`• ' n ' Co Soils. These areas,besides being poor for crops unless drained, are also inadequate '*• ' ' for building sites due to high water tables and high shrink/swell characteristics. Topography A wooded ridge occurs along the northeast corner of the site within the Purgatory Creek Floodplain and Conservancy Zone. Other areas of the site are rolling hills flunuating from 860 to 910 elevation. Vegetation Vegetation in this area is best described by the Purgatory Creek Study: F111vironmental Setting Natural Features: This sector is characterized by a wedge shaped valley cov with prairie grasses, unique to the entire system, and upland hardwOOd. overstory vegetation. The remnant prairie vegetation and a successional glacial pond (northeast corner) are the two most important elements. Exeeliwnt creek valley definition is provided by topography and vegetation. Units rolling Wien land _ alnyle lamilY rosigl atiat pond —. f9tl a corridor edge � „�. reminanl prairIo species-4tu broad flood plain �,•., lowland Dlanla—�,o weal _._._...______��___•rYAi�:91t �Gtrs�ti_E��I't1� �-r` �• r a Report-Chatham Woods -3- January 2. 1979 Land Use: Single family residential use occurs on the eastern edge of the 1 corridor. The western side has been used for agricultural purpose until recent years. Physical encroachment on the corridor has been minimal. The sanitary sewer is located on the east bank of the area. ' Constraints: There are few constraints which would limit recreational use in sith slth area. The extent to which neighborhood recreation facilities could be developed depends on neighborhood need and site adaptibility, e.g.. softball diamonds which would be difficult to adapt to the rolling topography. Protec- tion of native species would be an important consideration in land planning. Opportunities: The corridor has remained virtually undeveloped, thus vegeta- tive cawt=ties have remained undisturbed. The high ridges on the west side provide long vistas over the Creek valley. Development Proposals: Shelter Banes Corporation previously OlKned 183 acres along the Creek-fir proposal would have placed 60 acres in permanent open space. The recent change in ownership will undoubtedly alter the lard use proposal. This may have sane effect upon the Creek corridor. Reccmmcndations , Potential Use: It is important that lands be set aside in this sector for nelg�r jag recreation as well as for trail development. Inie area has a high potential for prairie vegetation management and for neighborhood recre- ation. Trail development should be peripheral to take advantage of the views up and down the valley. An interior trail could follow the sanitary sewer route. managanent: The upland prairie species located on the east slopes should be managti and supplemented with native species; through controlled burning and other managment techniques this unique area can be retained. Site control will be required if attempts to reclaim/preserve prairie species are insti- tuted. The use of trail bikes is not compatible. The glacial pond should be included in this restoration project. Control: The 60 acres/mile concept would be appropriate through this sector. Mffi-ttional property will have to be obtained in the northeast corner for neighborhood recreational purposes, including the pond. Report-Chatham Woods -4- January 2, 1979 Existinq Buildings The preliminary plat as proposed incorporates an existing home on Block 7, Lot 3. This home has access to Townline Road. Diseased Trees The developer would be required to remove and dispose of all diseased elm and oak trees during initial street and utility construction. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS R1-13.5 District Minimum lot size 13,500 sq.ft. minimum width 90 ft minimum depth 100 ft Setbacks front 30 ft sides 10:25 ft rear 20 ft Maximum density 2 units/acre The smallest lot within the preliminary plat is 13,900 square feet, the largest 33,000; with an average lot size of 20,400 square feet. Two lots (Lot 6,Block4 and Lot 2,B1ack8), are under the minimum width of 90 feet,with 70 and 83 feet respectively. These two slight variances from lot width do not effect the lots' buildability, but the staff would suggest the plat be redesigned at final plat stage to insure full compliance with ordinance. All frontages on cut-de-sacs are 50 feet or greater consistent with City Engineering Department's recommendations. Dens i t The gross density of the preliminary plat is 1.48 units/acre. (59 units/40 acres) The net density of the preliminary plat is 2 units/acre. (59 units/28.3 ac.(44Dac.-6.7ac outlots + 5 ac.roads)) Variances No lot size, density ,or setback variapceA have,bra rm . :r4 are they necessary. Report-Chatham Woods -5- Jan. 2, 1979 SITE PLAN The steeply rolling character and low wet areas of the site make placement of roads without fill difficult. The road network is laid-out as much as possible to correspond to the topographical features. The ridges and slopes have been utilized for walk-outs,and the ridges will be utilized for road placement. The road grades range from 2-6%. The low wet areas of the site are majoritably placed in the outlots. Drainage is accommodated through the sanitary sewer system and ponding in outlots. The lots are of sufficient size so that a low percentage of each lot will be converted to impervious surface thereby preventing excessive runoff from leaving the site. Grading is necessary to develop the site, however the subdivision plan reflects good use of the land. TRANSPORTATION The revised plat, Dec. 28, 1978, includes extension of West 168th Avenue north of its present temporary termination at the north end of Coachlight Manor , along the approximate 890 elevation to connect to Townline Road. The 60 foot right-of-way shown for 168th Avenue includes a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along the east side. Existing Townline Road, north of the project, is a gravel road. Upgrading to a 2-lane hard surfaced county road is anticipated in 1981. This plat is in compliance with anticipated road plans. The connection of 168th Avenue through to Townline Road will provide residents with an alternate access north, and a choice of exiting the plat north or south. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A mandatory E.A.W. is required on the project as it entails 50 or more residential units, any part of which is within a shoreland. (Shoreland is defined as being 300 feet either side of a creek, 1,000 feet around a lake). A draft E.A.W. has been prepared and is pending City approval and Environmental Quality Board distribution and publication. Report-Chatham Woeds _6- Jasr. ; 19J9 • t - SHORELAND ORDINANCE Sewered lots abutting General Developtm'rtt waters, render the State Shoreland Management Restriction's, are to be a minimum of 15,OM square feet in size, minimum width at building line of 75 feet, and to have a minimum building setback of SIT feet. .The plat proposed meets these requirements. The draft City shoreland management ordinance , Draft No. Is, sppeecifies a minimum lot size of 13,5QO.square feet,,annimum width at buil.dim line of 90 feet, minimum width at Ordinary High.,rater Park of 90 faat, and a minimum setback from the Zrdinary 'High WP.L^ar Biolt; of IM feet.. To net these draft standards,, the'width of Lot 8,;07ttck 7, at the. Ordinary High Water Mark would hue to � i:rrcreasEd;. CASH PARK FEE All lots within the plat shall be West to frill,-=.h park. payment applicable at time of each 'building permit Usuance. Todate the fee is $215/unit. Totlot The proponents have agreed to war'k with the Parks,,8etreatian.and Natural Resources Commission on the installation'ef4 totl'at u, Tit one of the outlots. a E > a � r 0 s Report-Chatham Woods -7- Jan. 2, 1979 RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend: A. The draft December, 1978 Environmental Assessment Worksheet on Chatham Woods be forwarded for approval to the City Council, finding no significant impact. B. Approval of the Chatham Woods rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat approval of 59 lots on 40 acres based upon the following: 1. The plat design, grading, utilities, etc., be subject to City Engineer's review and approval. 2. That the width of Lot 6, Block 4; and Lot 2, Block 8, be redesigned at time of final plat to increase the widths to the minimum of 90 feet. * 3. That outiots A-F, and the area within the Purgatory Creek Floodplain, be dedicated to the City for public purposes. ** 4. That a scenic easement or covenants be placed in favor of theCity on the land from the approximate 890 contour to the creek (including outlots A and B) prohibiting any erection of structures or clearing of vegetation. 5. All lots be subject to cash park fee payment applicable at time of building permit issuance. 6. That the width of Lot 8, Block 1, at the Ordinary High Water Mark, be increased to a minimum of 90 feet. 1. That the proponent obtain all necessary approvals and permits from the Riley 1 Purgatory Creek Watershed District. 8. That the proponent work with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission on the type and location of a totlot. * Modifiedl-B-79 Plan. Com. meeting to exclude outlot D.from dedication to C, ,y * * Modified 1-8-79 Plan. Com. meeting to state that the Staff locate a specific area for the scenic easement replacing the 890 contour (Block 7, lots 5-12 and outlot D) JJ:S3 w OPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, DECE'MBER 18,1978 7130 P.14-, CITY HALE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTt Richard Anderson, amirperson; Steve Fifield, William Garens, Robert Johnson COMMIssION MEMBERS ABSgTTo David Anderson. Robert Kruell, George UWE COMMISSION STAFF PRESERTi Robert Lambert, Director of Community ftrwi-COL Jim Jensen. City Park Planner OTHERS PRESENTt Arlo Ellason, Jerry and Beverly Rodberg,,, Jerry syulman, Janet Gerecke, Hakon Torgesert, Al Dybier, E. P. Suit I. ROLL CALL Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 7s3D P.m. II.. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTIONS Garens moved to approve the agenda as published= seconded by JobAeas motion passed unanimously. III. MINUTES of DECEMBER 4. 1978, MEETING MOTUWI Garens moved to approve the minutes as published; Johaaan seconded. and the motion passed unanimously. IV. PETITZOY3 REQUESTS AND CnMMUNICATIONS None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners None B. Resorts of Staff �.J Development PrOPOUIR a. Round Lake Estates Lambert introduced Mr. Arlo Eliason who came to present his plaat fan Round Lake Estates second Addition. After Mr. Ellason's Presett't tfi!t Lambert reviCued the proposed develapment in relation to Bound Law. Park and the surrounding area. Carens expressed concern about the close praximity of a holdite, to the tot-lot area. Lambert pointed out that the holding pond was only 100 bst 4490.1,11 the tot-lot than Round Lake was. He did,'awt recomme04 d pond because it may seta precedent. 78 Minutes--Parks, Recreation de app2raved Dec. 1a, 19 Natural Resources Commission Garens asked if a thorny vegetation could be planted as a screen between the areas. Lambert said this may be the most desirable 1 alternative, however, it could screen a child who was near the pond from his parents who were trying to watch him, thus creating a new problem. Mr. Eliason reported that his engineering firm told him that there are no communities that fence holding ponds, and that holding ponds are used quite often. R. Anderson was concerned about the holding pond running off to Round Lake, since this type of runoff is heavily polluted by Salt, oil, etc. He asked who would be responsible for cleaning and maintaining the pond. Lambert told him the city would be. He explained that ordinarily the city does not accept this type of park dedication. In this oasa it is land in excess of park dedication to be used to extend the open space area. MOTTON: Garen moved, in view of the fact that there seems to be n alternative to a holding pond, that the commission accept the staf`t recomendation for the Round Lake Estates Second Addition according to the memorandum of December 15, 1978, and recommend approval W the council. Fifield seconded the motion. pT3CU33I0Nc Lambert agreed to point out to the council the commiseion, i concern about the holding pond in the park area. VOTEe The motion carried unanimously. 2. Bryant Lake Park Plan Lambert reviewed what has been done to date in the planning of Bryant Lake Park. The main concerns at this point are the location of the arm. and roads, the location of the swimming beach and the boat launch. He introduced Jim Jensen, the City Park Planner, to present the concept plan he had arrived at after reviewing all the data with park planners from Hennepin County and with the city engineers. Basically the plan calls for retaining the present location of the boet launch--by keeping it there no major revisions will be necessary, and 3t will not interfere with the proposed swimming beach. According to County Planners. the proposed swimming beach is ideal. The topography and water depth are good, and an underwater rock formation. at the perimeter defines and protects the area. The proposed gamefields are old farm fields. it is the only large flat area suitable for informal ball games, frisbee tossing, etc. There will be picnic areas near the beach and the launch. Tice stable Arm Is separate from the other park areas. The access to the park will come off Rowland Road. The,UJ+'y Winn a distance of at least$0 feet from any existing daicveualt'+ 3apea&O parking areas for each use will 'be ceded. MMORANDIM T0: Parks, Recieation and Natural Resources Commission PROb1: Bob Uimbert, Director of Community Services DATE: December 15, 1978 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Round Lal:o Estates, 2nd Addition PROPO?:1:NT: f:liason Builders REQUEST: Request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary Plat approval_ for 72 single family lots on 33.9 acres. LOCATION: Highway 5 and 11critage-Road BACKGROUND: 1972 PUD included 5o acres, 105 SP/clustored residential units, 10' acm of open space, trails and a combination of private/public ownership of the opon space. (See page Z i oven er, r a��ning a elwrt CHECKLIST: 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, rnmiman,ity, Regional) Round Lake Park Affect on park: This neighborhood will increase the neighborhood- demand for use of the comnutnity parr. 2. Adjacent to public waters? Round Lake Affect on waters: - 3. Adjacent to trails? 5' concrete sidewalk connectin with tMalls in a c Trails listatet, also G' asphalt trails in the mini park -- Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) pedestrian and, bike Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, 19111nc)�Concrete sidowalks A.tl4TiiIT"par• tx�1s Width: 5' L 61 Party Rcslwnsibic for construction?dovclol+ar Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.)44edicaled min-iAlark Type of Development? (residential, cowmaercial, industrial) S. P. re5 tlyutial Where will CASH l`ARK'1'1 E l;o? (what ncighborlsond)�Roun+l Lake NeOd for a mini-part? yes -2- 5. REFUENCE CIIrCR: a. •Major Center Area Study: N/A b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: This study refers to the possibility of, developing' a neighborhood park in thd1itchell lake Floodplain to the west of Bound Lake Ts atcs. c. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A d. Shorcland Management Ordinance: Approximately le of the development is within the Shoreline, therefore by our draft ordinance they only require 13.5 zoning o. Ploodpiain Ordinance: ri••*s:de of floqdpla+*+ f. Guide Plan: 1978 Draft Guide P13n show this ana. as low density single family. g. other: G. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: Will be paid by developer 7. %SU MM' �'CE?.The cash park fee will be paid at the rate appropriate at time of uiiding 'erm . 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or agaiiist proposal: 9. Number of units in residential development? 72 units Number of acres in the project? 34 acres Special recreation space requirements: A 3.25 acre mini park devolqlled as tyer City specifications will be developed in the northern Portion of the site. 10. S•1•Af1' 1:CCU�nllaat,l'flOVS: Recommend to approve the rezoning and pinttinR subject to development of the 3.25 acre niui park, construction of trails as outlined in t}to. Nov. 1, 197S 1'lanrting Staff Report and satisfactory placement of the holding Lam, ITT.nZVUT-IT t1e71i1-tIR lu1111 par'. 4 MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLAT{PIING COMMISSION ,approved MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 108 7:30 PM CITY HALL COMMISSION I4EMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Matthew Levitt, Oke Martinson, and Paul Redpath COP14ISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman, Liz Retterath, and Richard Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Planning Director Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary INVOCATION - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Levitt moved to accept Agenda as published, seconded by Martinson. Motion carried unanimously, . I1. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 1978 MOTION:Redpath moved to carry over approval of minutes of November 27, 197E meeting to December 18, 1978 meeting. MEMBERS REPORTS None. IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS q A. Round Lake Estates Second Addition, by Mr. Eliason. Reouest fo- r preliminary plat approval of 34 acres zoned RI-13.5 into 69 lots and a 3.25 acre park. A continued public hearing. The City Planner explained that this item has been continued at Mr. Eliason's request in order to work out the concerns that the Piann;ng Coaunission had regarding the park area and drainage plan. Mr. Eliason has worked to meet these concerns. He also referred to the coniiunications received from Mr. Bridge and Mr. Geason dated December 8, 1978 and December 11, 1978. Mr. Eliason, Eliason Builders, presented his revised plan, pointing out that basically, the changes from the previous ineetinq deals with the holding pond and a slight change in the park size. He explained that the 69 lots were 13,500 sq. ft. minimum with 90` frontage. Approved Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - December 11, 1978 A. Round Lake Estates.....cont'd public hearing The Planner discussed the concerns Mr. Eliason has responded to: agreement by Mr. Eliason to provide 5' concrete sidewalk along one side of the east/west road, one side of Heritage Road north of the east/west road and along the north/south road toward the top of the plat which would be connected through the park area with a 6 wide bitumi- nous trail between the two cul-de-laced areas; a 6' asphalt trail within the park area through the center of the park over to the boundary of Round Lake Park would also be provided; the park area of 3.25 acres would be to the specifications as outlined in staff report attac}mient on mini-parks; and Mr. Eliason has agreed to platting of the northeasterly cul-de-sac as the 60 foot right-of-way in response to the suggestion by the Engineer- ing Department. Levitt asked whether the road system was consistent with road alternative approved by the Council for this area. The Planner responded affirmativq. Mr. Ken Geason, 7621 Atherton Way, expressed concern regarding the southern access to the park in the form of a corridor and.of locating the tot lot close to the holding pond area, which he felt could be dangerous to little children. He explained that the homeowners would be willing to forego lots one and fifteen, providing lots i and 2 were included in the nature corridor.. The Planner discussed direction by the City Council to provide tot lots, and the staff's response in trying to make them consistent in each develop- ment. The Planning staff feel a one acre mini-park is the absolute mini- mum (for every 50 units). He agreed that Geason had a good point in questioning the proximity of the park holding pond, and suggested moving the pond as far east as possible, away from the tot lot. Levitt questioned whether the tot lot would get any use. Geason responded that the neighbors were in favor of the tot lot, but was unsure whether it would be used or not. Sundstrom commented that he felt the revised plan did address the concerns of the Planning Commission. He asked whether there was ample space for ade:ivate setbacks in the lots. The Planner explained that no variances are being requested for setbacks. Geason requested that no building commence here until the proposed road through Luther Way is constructed. Levitt pointed out that the Lake Trail Estates proponent will also be building part of this road. s approved Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - December 11, 1978 A. Round Lake Estates. cont'd public hearing Martinson inquired about the depth of the holding pond and the anticipated maximum depth. The Planner responded that Martinson felt this would be a definite hazard whether it'is near a park or not because of the nature of the neighborhood. Sundstrom questioned why the pond could not,be moved further east titithin city owned park. The Planner -explained that because of LAWCON funding received for Round Lake Park, this would not be possible Redpath suggested moving the pond further east ami•replaci•ng it with land to the west. The Planner agreed to discuss the possibility with the Director of Community Services, MOTION: Redpath moved to close public hearing on Round Lake Estates 2nd, seconded by Levitt. Motion carried,unanimously. WTION: Redpath moved to recanmend approval-of the revised PUD development plan of Round Lake Estates, Second Addition, as.ver staff reporis of Nov. % 1978 and of December 6, 1978. and additional study on the holding pond. Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved to recommend approval of Round Lake Estates, Second Addition, preliminary plat dated 1.1/30/78, as per the staff reports,mf November 1, 1978 and December 6, 1978 with the addition of: no construction until road between Lake Trail Estates is completed. Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved to recommend approval of the Draft 10/16/78 EAW finding of no significant impact. Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously. �INC-if r Detember 8, 1978 To: Mr. Chris Eager, Planning Director Eden Prairie Planning Commission From: John Bridge and Kenneth Geason ' Subject: ROUND LAKE ESTATES 2ND EDITION -- MINI PARK Through the courtesy of Mr. Eliason, we have been provided with a copy of the proposed platt for the Round Lake Estates 2nd Edition, dated ! 11130/78, which we understand Mr. Eliason plans to present at the 12/11/78 meeting of the Planning Commission. As you may recall, we proposed an alternative suggestion for the mini park to you prior to the last meeting of the Planning Commission, which was subsequently discussed in the meeting with indications from you to the Commission that our alternative was acceptable and made sense. Our proposed alternative essentially provided a "nature park corridor" between Atherton Way and the Round Lake park area, allowing access from both Atherton Way and Heritage Road, which the previous proposal did net provide. Mr. Eliason's 11/30/78 proposal for the mini park does provide access to Atherton Way via the twenty foot path, and provides access to the park from Heritage Road, but does not provide the "nature park corridor" which our alternative proposal would have accomplished. We still feel that it would be highly desirable, if possible, to retain the existing wooded area directly to the north of Heritage Park in the allocation for the mini park, to provide this natural "buffer" between the existing Heritage Park neighborhood and the new development. Although we are very much in sympathy with Mr. Eliason's desire to sacrifice as few lots as possible for a mini park, we had hoped that it might be possible for some benefit to accrue to the existing Heritage Park residents in terms of direct adjacency to the park, which Mr. Eliason's proposal does not provide. We have not had time to discuss the 11/30/78 proposed Platt with other residents to the south of us in Heritage Park, and cannot speak for their interests. However, those of us located near the 2nd Editiou'would naturally prefer to retain a strip of the natural wooded area directly to the north of Heritage Park if such an arrangement could be worked out satisfactorily to all concerned. As we recall, the plan under discussion two or three years ago did specify a "nature park" in this area, and our intent was to preserve this concept in the alternative proposal we submitted to you prior to the last Planning Commission meeting. We hop the above will be considered in your thinking and final decision on h matter. Keldieth Geason John ]Bridge 7621 Atherton Way 7611 Atherton Vay 941-6692 9A1-2281 33"0 w E►t I � `J►KcE. _���� ��`L �F8{78, '�4,;•T'tT A♦ t•.t rrC i �•tr, ..^'ar. z 6 + ryha.r v.sr a 3 r to 14 ,m c �f R 'v�4.. w ® - s.+ � r ,.f �aj'v^•it ir:W fs,.•7G.•'.;"e W r'�• :t•Y. 1`r�� ..: ,,,s X 1:�.sa irry a r �t•.LJ.,�^r .o '�; Yy�. 1 ( ,mY .Jr.. a .i y. •r Tam'- e.a: ) ttr 1 cc G „ e. a k ...r s r .n ;�'C�,p 1`. `;L+a r e +•t,r `',R 7�".,�7r y !•� m /. r; .s. Y a T r.i.t-w b.i+'.�j' sr '1:.p�y. tF_'pr y'.t,��•."4-,�'r`",y�:.�d .J'3(m.�Y:{.!'�;. a r r rZ S o N esL �'y A" e- . x^` , r ..+ •.,�a . ..�� 7 7Y Y1� r rF.r1 �� p k"'� C'Y"+'Arr���3r Y�ti. �rtri -.Sw• � r s`�+�ar• P x�f.0.�•. rF t y ti 'd3' a. w.• .. rO r-t M l S S s ta.,t tK tr.i i. .�' t �h^►�` "," - e.e M.".. T'2 �.r •.v +v1Gy+"'TZ� AL '=6� tyac.y 4 ... [[ �...'•� v � �-:� 4 :�ti r>.'gh��"4•' � a�•'J±^n"r ..'re y,�� t��r,{'X: 'y.;.y � ��y th,:���'•r��t x L •..1 ,y � r» + y; �kry 4 y7r'a {'y�'91 v .^ .1 s ..r v^<..�.b' .s• T r4( •�'� � 1. i t D' wf. ri,+t Sprfl,4q%."�✓+�.rQ�'i. Rrs�MQ�t°, Q•'T YLe-C. i`a, t� 1�\��ES ©r ki IF—f*AT,'p^grQr YLE.rr�i3 V•s —Co . � uCAJJuG poNn4: �M�3 1 i ,;•c �,+., ' � : ,. ,e, `'tea_, x 1.d ''4 a^ri ii 41re• p • } E � a,CS�i�i� �►�fON �' F 1p7�,a�.a � i��'C � .! y � r 'i c � a. y t t:" ,!i .t k,�yti•„�'i6 .�vaC':(� S'��'�• $ Mgr. e � t . l �j o tut� ©cu ort E.2S• •I�E.`�'Pf tnt t��3 �1°� � .� N 6 Cj M M A 3� r as N w• #x e F•a}dr ry t '` � T. '�+ ; r,;� ur. "^rs s>,.ri tx �T y�.a:.�.tr ���+•�z..��'r �y��a'��s�vS��� re�a :r 4 t'r 1 vo' r�,:� � �.f�GrT rJ 7. t i 1 K., YK�S�-•�Y .,,p( pQ -, r SST d A �P m a. ♦ R.'.r. yd � ra_ e'l}gc'.0�'� t �' a�Y Spr • Lr l� r r a r' y jl�t i.�t�,F,,3r`: R.t '�• r .����xi w. �. ��, , r . .t.w..i J•< . ., •nr. •`r m'���''.•s'`_.w. r..ya^a.^s.a..3=�,t_...x. �i:..�.••y m �6y: _ 1 N P, O L�l ova 1 tl * off t,�:+ry, Me(3 ' ". ., a .•,a. « s..�, '^` by . : •J VJh�cl,t, hT.; irov�. A -r Yr ;y :g' t •a't' ra,,y, .. 3 to r'aa,t,,.7'o ,a�•l -r'"aA 1d �Y♦ IF rr+. ' .. t-,.�„ waRRS•2 J •�— r�r.��j r{.�../v ..s•-!`�'..,. M1w,ix 5 :F-�_• , 6. t �. � t •d4�.X�" ��r t'• •-� PF'�' t L* ,t'a'ptCv1'"'.1r•,k''+$r.W'7t A' :�]`,$#g�,f..� L, - .-.,1 �3`© �? a -C��-�3� -.�Srh o`pp�:s -Co��.• ao,.�w^ 4r .y'a..f •', r�. '1S° &AaM' f_ s ,rr ;` ��yyR., r" _ .. 'w r r e .r ._ ar ..>R x..�a.�..r r M•• s f b.9!sE .. pkw�^�„�+'r'7'gi i} 1 fl YL �? 0 n-C R "le,CA . r .s r wr•.. ` '?r a°+/n's`�@'•Lr�� " d4� IAJG .�•�rK��alo'. it L, er ar`'Yrfr '�' .a,+rtl �t^�R14' �+ ♦✓-P gyp•.,�^! ,tar• •.� s .rr^..+a w �.e� .�q -.1 q rT'�l•��l.t't i+'a 11 s f�f�1 U 1�Sc. y9 YL 6� 1Pa S -AS V. fn Co S Ti m:1 '+ { T � �� °l� +�, ty b rQQrt�++{{M,iXppa.i r"N'`Y�k��" �i'a .j �,-. r:m• w ' t• a K„ i S 1 1�_ A r�L t' S �'S j it Y,�•s te• ir�.i��i M!Z`�jy� F•�r^ ' rQ.r 9°M r.,r9 y ,f t ?.. ^!r -+✓, " q 1574, i "9 i � r ' r t. r w.� M .6 °Y r.it ry ''''�•�d Y:.`f~F.K�'� �sYf1 L�^• cpAaM� asl CAI' 4> 1 /.'� raw\ 1 'i.._, 4 J ) b 1 L P.• , .y{. +t :.i',1+,,5.�.96`{��•�:Y�,-J;1yY�K•....r:J-�, '},.J '.` E �' a`y•i,yb '.�. JIV 3� _ tit:•"•w-.'G�w 5 t. �,' � d C SIC I 40 fA� J ��L •+• J X r Ll,iT.� !- L lip 7l /'[✓1 A J� L•d.:'.' '. r..,;..:•L i1x .,.� N• �':.'.a 1'+,r, ��.tX3�? i- _. 4 � ..0 �c '��.� �� .. t . � r �r^: t� r � �t�,°y; (. �_4"'. q .�.§r ra$ }+�:•�'�v ai.T:a .:r�'L�s�a-M tit O T TR t ...., .��.- 1 ...j l,.a •rx[Z :^"®1 Ina�Z ,a. 1• Co�,s�o�izgTAo� ^�� • rr J�f78 -, ' �L • �:.7 n t':ia��5wi:�',>�'.E3 ;.it l' "y dr{�`.��T_`�+. 4�•. .'b^�ff�• ' ` oM ocurc �.a '42e_auetT O A+tf�J. T rr a y + �'•$l.i.'.[ ...,.!•'t ri.a tiy.x.•a r,� vi.•. F�.t F:r:C�- r :'(''s+ y; i• 0�' .. t C.o r e.�t.�a ciRSQ•�}gh 1 C.�'1� y�it.L ., .`4 � L, ~ i W� °.w.y�1 Rf.Q L a* �'.t T�;w•A.:F�r i.2 i �fY�1.:.."'`ITsJ'�y •y'd�r'S6 b'v.ri4�rt. . o � � a• .1 .1. e... e - V i r.� <' p .I.S'B,1 ;�'^ a:s •`•.. - .. t v•• 1 7 F a.c t1.Yy1t 'I '°''a -'�,� s ,'a a•s 1 rc 6J1 q'1.$$ a S`• l° a s r 1 i !41, f� t y.1 ; %��•i�kf��lr� i. j 1 T S 5 v ! s �° '�s 4 )M fiy t °w« (f F`.� Ss i� ~`�L.W�'•aa� • / A .. „a a J.. rr1 1 •ra i y w . `�'�� �q�4.r "d s� 1 dd�a�£�y�Kti`�� ., t a _ i° t t:e~. 'l�b � kl,,,ref jeF✓•`t°:a'g1y�`i`d..x°! �,'„��a:� � w,.�. �„'� Itj� �:�t vtle','��j fin. _ .......1 }++:� _t _•'•' .a �.t.--.�,✓t'r.Ysi.A1�T.Ltl��1}L'6.��Lt�.�J"✓C.4.'.d94.�°j4'S��a'S L`.r.�Tna�F:JBI:i�i'����^1M ,. STAFF REPORT Mum: TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Erger, Director of Planning DATE: Decemb^r 6, 197E PROJECT: Round Lake Estates, iiid Addition DEVELOPER: Eliason @uild2rs REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to RI 13.5 and preliminary platting for 34 acres LOCATIO14: West of Round Lake, north of Highway 5 and north of Round Lake Estates Addition As Planning Commission members will recall, this request was continued from the December llth Planning Commission greeting to allow the developer time to work out park considerations and drainage ponding problems and more consistently bring the project in conformance with Ordinance 135. Since that time we have met two times with Fir. Eliason and the plat included with this p-et is the result of those discussions. The latest plat which is dated 11/30/78 shows 69 platted lots on 33.9 acres with the total density of 2.04 units per acre. The plat information illus- trates that the smallest lot is 12,800 sq. feet, however, Mr. Eliason has assured us that the plat proposes no lots under 13,500 sq. ft. The perk as depicted is 3.25 acres in size and provides adequate area for a tot lot structUre, which will be placed and constructed by the developer. The park area also extends the greenway connection out to the west toward the major flood plain <.nd open space area. The proposed holding pond is again in the location initially shoran in the eastern end of the park, however adequate open space is provided over and beyond the area required for the porrl for tot lot and play area. The proponent has agreed to provide a 5' concrete sidewalk according to engineering specifications along one side of the east/west road; one side of heritage Road north of the east/west road and along the north/ south road tow,ird the top of-the plat. This concrete%idewalk would be connected throu(Iii tite park area with a 6' wide bituminous trail between the two cul-de-sated areas. Alto the dcvclope_r till provide a 6' asphalt trail within the park area from the tresterwalost boundary of the ;nark area through the center of the nark over to the boundary of r2ound Lel:e Part. The specifications for development of the park area are included t•:ith this staff report. The Engineerinn Dep.,rtmcnt has sucgested that the northeasterly rtost cul-de-sac he platted as the t.0 foot right-of-way in order to insure that the road coating from the north rill not have to he ,jogged to correlate within the right-of-way. Staff Report-Round Lake Estates, .gird Add. - 2 11eeW*r In addition the tngineerinq Department has noted that the loopingg of the `proposed water and sewer main will cross under the proposed }rolding pond,. The Engineering Department recommends that the holding pond be .pulled further to the east in order that these utilities da not cross under the Pond. The Ennineering Department also recommends that the developer give the Ci tv a temporary road easement on tot 6,,81 oek The developer has also agreed to pay the cash park fee of $2751per dwelling unit at time of building permit as outlined in Ordinance 332. Planning staff therefore recommends the approval of Round Lake Estates, 2mi the inclusion of the Engineering Department recommendations and the reerstn ;:. . , dations for park proposed in this staff rap*rt, as weir as the condition thaa:; no tots be under 13,500 sq. ft. inn size. CE.ds b,9 � y MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1978 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COKMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Liz Retterath, Matthew Levitt, Richard Lynch, Tyke Martinson, William Bearman and Paul Redpath COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary approved Minutes - Planning Commission - 2 - Monday, Nov. 27, 1978 IV. - REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Round Lake Estates, 2nd Addition, by Eliason. Request for PUD Development Plan approval and preliminary plat for 72 lots on 34 acres. Project is located SW of Round Lake. A continued public hearing. The City Planner noted the letter received from Mr. Eliason re- questing a continuance of the public hearing. MOTION: Levitt moved to continue the Round Lake Estates, 2nd Addition, until December 11. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously: E� November 22,, 1978 City of Eden Prairie Planning Director and Planning Ccrmmission T Gentlemen i would like to reQWett that the hearing On the Round Lake 'Estates end Addi.tiamr be 04mtid from . November 27. 1978 to December 11, 1978' to Pelt additional time to prOPRrs a revised prcaosal. Sincerely yours, S.A. Eliasscn, President Eliason Builders. Inc. ifMINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY asoCWarsfmvt sc r ffr,minima"a= st-M-014: z u ,y� November 17, 1978 lls. Jean Johnson Planning Assistant city Offices 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55341t Dear Me. Johnson: R8: Round Laltc Nstatas 2nd Addition plat Hennepin County, innesata- ra Referral File Numbex G584 Thank you for the opportunity to review and a mtgemt ©n the above p2101ect.. it has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation officer by th¢ National historic Prow-vat£on Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council on liistari:e Preservation (36CI-IMO). This review reveals the location of no situ of historic, arsltitect-ural,, cultural, or archaeological significance within the area of the proposed project. There vre no site in the area which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion an the wational Register, and, ther•C- fore, none which may be affected by your proposal. Again, thank you for your participation in this important er-fart to preserve Minnesota's heritage. Sincerely, f Russell W. Fridley State Historic Preservation officer Rwr/cjb MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1978 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Liz•Retterath, Matthew Levitt, Richard Lynch, and Oke Martinson COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman and Paul Redpath STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Planning Director Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary r,anning LOMMISsion Minutes _ 3 _ November 13, 1976 B. Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition by Elias;.n. Reouest for PUD Develop- ment Plan approval and preliminary plat for 72 Idts on 34 acres. Project is located SW of Round Lake. A continued public hearing, Mr. Eliason presented his revised plan, expressing concern with land dedication requirement and also with the number of lots. The City Planner explained that the City Cogncil has been very strong in its direction of requiring mini-parks and the need for the cash park fee for acquiring neighborhood parks,work with Eliason an the lot density. He agreed-to Mr. Kenneth Geason, 7621 Atherton Way, submitted an alternate dated November 8, 1978 for the plan Estates 2nd Addition, proposed mini-park in the Round Lake Way.and Heritage Road through tothevRound Lake ide a 7Park dor barea, thereby allowing direct access to the mini park via Atherton Ua current residents in the western Y for the Y residents along the extended Atherton�iotayo�nHthetRoundalake Esi Estates 2nd Addition. .fie added that this proposal has been developed by and discussed among several residents of the current Round Lake Estates and Heritage Park areas. Approved Planning Commission Minutes - Q - November 13, 1978 B. Round Lake Estates. . .conti.nued public hearing (cunt') Mr. Jakubowski, 17299 Park Circle, asked whether Eliason had an alternate plan. Eliason responded that his present plan was similar to the City's recommendations, but he would favor taking portions off 3 lots, in oppostion to losing 7 lots. Sundstrom questioned access to the north and south from Atherton lay i to the park. The Planner explained that access to the two cul-de-sAcs to the north would give access to the park. Martinson expressed concern with the average lot sizes in the plan, noting there were at least two lots that were 11,250. Mr. Lynn Caswell, of Consulting Engineers, Inc.. explained that there was difficulty with uniformity in lot sizes because of cul-de-sacs. Sundstrom summarized the public hearing by stating that several points need to be accomplished: access from Atherton Way through to Round Lake Park;m•ini-park location; lot density of 2.0 units/acre or less and minimum lot size of 13,500. Mr. Geason offered to meet with Eliason to discuss the residents' alternate plan. MOTION: Levitt moved to continue the Round Lake Estates, 2n4 Addition, to the November 27, 1978 meeting. Lynch seconded, motion carried unanimously. November 8, 1978 TO: Mr. Chris Enger, Planning Director Eden Prairie Planning Commission FROM: John Bridge and Kenneth Gcason SUBJECT: PROPOSED MINI-PARK IN ROUND LAKE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION We hereby submit the attached as an alternative to the proposal contained in the November 1, 1978 Staff Report to the Planning Commission for a mini-park in the Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition, submitted through you by Jean Johnson, Planning Assistant, for convenience of comparison, I have also attached a copy of the Nov. i proposal. This alternative proposal has been developed by and discussed among several residents of the current Round Lake Estates and Heritage Park areas. This alternative proposal utili:^ the same number of platted residential lots (7) in the Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition for the mini-park as does the November 1 Staff Report proposal and still utilizes the wooded area, but vie feel that it offers the following advantages Over the November l proposal: (1) This alternative provides a mini-park corridor between Atherton Way and Heritage Rd., through to ti-pe Round Lake park area. This would allow direct access to the mini- park via Atherton Way for the current residents in the western portion of Heritage Park and the new residents along the extended Atherton Way In the Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition. The Nov. i recommendation would make the mini-park an "island" in the center of the new residLn- tial lots, with convenient access favoring the new lots and denied to the current Atherton Way residents. (2) This proposal would allow for 15 residential lots (includ- ing 2 existing lots in Heritage Park) to adjoin the mini- park, whereas the Nov. i proposal would allow for only 11 residential lots to adjoin the mini-park. (3) This alternative should eliminate the nerd for the G' asphalt path through platted lots #39 40. as was recommended in the Nov. I proposal, and this alternativo would also eliminate the need for extension of Heritage Rd. into the 2nd Addition. We would propose a cul-de-sac at the end of the existing heritage Rd. caant l meal• 9,gd Pets¢ is This alternative proposal is respectfully, submitted for your consideration and that of the Planning 6anmission if you feet It is appropriate for presentation at the next meeting. John i3ridge Ken th Geas-on 7611 Atherton tday dent Prairie Way Eden Prairie Attachments (2) Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition NOV. 8, 1978 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR MINI-PARK BY CURRENT HERITAGE PARK AND ROUND LAKE ESTATES RESIDENTS r . Figure 4 FJ M 3, t 1 t .• \\�w \\ C. •. 0 WW1_ -71� ` Y, ix -�'�C/`�`/A//^ rL • � ,...., �.. _mot+ ► J. i Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition NOV. 1, 1978 RECOIAMENOATION FOR MINI-PARK BY PLANNING COJIMISSION STAFF Figure 4 3 •-; 'is • ,_T Its V;$�_S-!// .�',s,,; m �,,; �:"•� ' N % `�; •. / . m 343 ' M ' 1u2r78 ENGINEERING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ROUND LAKE ESTATES 2nd ADDITION Supplement to 11/1/78 Planning Staff Report 1. Plat. a 9` radius along property lines at all street intersections and cul-de-sac returns to provide sufficient R(W for utility installations. 2. Continuation of the 121 watermain for looping with the existing'System in Duck Lake Roast. 3. Several changes are required of the utility systems indicated on the preliminary plat. These changeare,noted on the Engineering Depart- ment copy of the preliminary plat, h. Riley-Purgatory Creed Watershed District approval will be required prior to preliminary plat appNW- 5. Assessment information: Pending trunk sewer and water, and lateral sewer and water - $100,961. vs j is CJJ:kh W.,, STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Planning Assistant THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director DATE: November 1, 1978 PROJECT: Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition APPLICANT: Eliason Builders REQUEST: Preliminary plat approval of 34 acres into 72 single family lots LOCATION: North and East of Heritage Road and Atherton Way BACKGROUND 1968 Guide Plan The 1968 Guide Plan depicts this area as single fancily residential. 1973 Draft Guide Plan The 1978 Draft Guide Plan illustrates this area as low density single fanlil,y with an open space area running east/west through the northern portion. This open space will connect areas west of Heritage Part; and Round Lake Estates to the Round Lake Community Park. 28 2gv. ;1 u �q. 14 r P a o DDE S;Q �r/ r/ i1y1 1 4 811 LOCATION =-v, .'f.=Rv7'crTvfYi,•.tvi�va/�-- — $ R B;T-- '. t n,'c, �A:� �. MAP Gas tt FP f fl 16 FP ¢ A1 P 7-2 vi figure 1 % ! 145 I 145 ,i R f. L tjtata5 �d f tur �P.5rW 11ysY(a 1 GEN i i "ITT, YN IA N! j� 7-4 �3� ., � � c tt�tlAfyJ�`� ^yTy�"1 145 :`s.�_:�:�_; -- ••- $ !I � ° Cat`J qi—'ems..3.� x � J n,18 1 i!�" �„ tdimtiFtx. ! a ��1'xJ1 s Staff Report-Round Lake Estates 2nd -2- Nov. 1, 1978 Background, continued Previous Approvals PUD, 1972 In September, 1972 the City approved Mr. Eliason's Planned Unit Develop- ment for Round Lake Estates through adoption of Resolution 560. The PUD included a total of 50 acres, 105 single/clustered residential units, 10± acres of open space, trails, and a combination of private/public ownership of the open space. (see figure 2) Zoning, 1972 Along with the PUD submission, Mr. Eliason requested rezoning of the entire 50 acres from Rural to R1-13.5. The zoning was approved through adoption of ordinance 182. Platting, 1972 Mr. Eliason received final plat approval for 27 lots, Phase 1, through Resolution 561. (see figure 3). Along with the final platting of lots, the City received 3.89 acres of open space along TH 5. 1975 Variance Re.uZ est 1n February, 1975 Mr. Eliason requested blanket setback variances for Round Lake Estates,( 27 lots— Phase 1 ). The Planning Cotanaission recoimrended approval of the variance request on Feb. 24, 1975. The variances included: 10 feet side yard setback on 1 &1'2 story houses 5 feet side yard setback on garages 15 feet side yard setback on two Story houses 25 feet front yard setback on cul-de-sacs Resolution 976 adopted on April 8, 1975 granted the above variances in setbacks for lots 3-25 of Round Lake Estates 1977 Platting Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition preliminary plat was proposed in July of 1977. it consisted of 37 lots on 1^.'!iacres,2.5units/acre, and 2.3 acres of open space. City}at of the 37 lots were under 13,W square feat and a variance was herded to exceed 2 uaaits/acre. The pro iminary plat (see fi�7urc 3), was approved 1y the P1.11uaing Counnissinn and City i:ouncil Wth the density 41.1d lot size variances contingent upon a second access to be accougalilibi.d pr ot" to final plat. b� Staff Report-Round Lake Estates 2nd -2a- Nov. g, 191 t� f' � '! � '► ? td � Tt S ! t � 77 a j' t{ •, l Imo^ 0. to `•;. '•',lq �j � f 'j+ �- -rPQ n„nFa'�L.f��tR, T V'��-„may 'l�'.? ry� ��#,''r}� `•\K: WOO . may`• �-��„• + .! � '� \yh'. F } f ,.,. �w __•• ,_..--�._... . .1 a .x m, � Y /w�~ - �py`' ft /R \ / 1972 P U D a" figure 2 !E Staff Report•Rt+und Like Estates nd - Nov. 3 s . } T � f.T'b •ka Q�Y r, F re( J � •E' s. a 3"" i_ #) E t t . ♦ nr�..at•, C" i ;'1 J ' 4'} •, t JJ �t5 tr�r. t'� .+.-e.nd''.•! TI s "• e - PARK �JJSS' d.2+'erra 1 /> .>mv- � ' t.''C�•,�- vb `e t:�� � t y f14•r4rCP' #t 6 t m t� I. ,'',ter fyp L-r— �' t.<-##, ;� 1,*:',�y.� � � �•rJ tq, f' `• 7 s rru + �° }.K +'y' E 4°qlt, �"+'0'w c'. •'"�P!„t�'n"'.- kr'+1 1 V � n_ "._'{!'.^ _; , ,;x' ws" ,r.: ,D �,•L,'y ti J:rr'.At' � P x `ir x tt ..mo kt+Ci.^.Wf DSO wd� ;4'.�'r# ,�Kf'q.• Lt ��..J� '. 'f` .'� .. '� h SY' 3�• '� �t 4•sJ f "' D 5 sa 3`�s•,,'+t.�.`t+ �7' Dggy 7 a 'lLy tt.,•)��� yyyid L • a.N 4.;D ...S!P y ds+W a Q ra JR 'r dy`1 a.L i J .R ,p�.,� ''V' v rr..' '. n •e;� i .d,•...D t m as, t ,•esd 11k � ' AA pm';•r.m:.« t• �'. vra RM� �., ..t.tfj t r., r� )� tstJ: d•;, 3.w w�'u 3) c - 4.?, t fit. `3 rx r .§ •Ixrta y>R0 y� y t w r s�° Ct y ! tc°-8' t l.. Asa d „to s e l�AR !• �`.; 60 4 •�¢ 4te:i •+p eig,h u 3 `sue � 'M ;'u i Q .. 4.sa rt k°ir r"••r 2+ .SJ Ee• ,rsr� LJ 111 s D t 7 `-`16 r �� l5 T.f� ry p) 4=i 2H+�Jd•3L � � r •Er r SYy�r } '� t N •rry ` a"x• Y s i to v ' a.`�,w-#,q 17' a .a...£ t n ;.• .AEM �r..-- � � M1NYy> �F rS• •m� '��':'�.' pyiTLOS A or 1' 18 19 1977 Preliminary Plat of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition figure 3 Staff Report-Round Lake Estates 2nd -3- Nov. fi, 1978 PRESENT REQUEST Mr. Eliason is requesting preliminary plat approval of the remainder of the 1972 PUD. The plat involves 72 lots on 34 acres, 2.1 units/ acre. No open space is included in this final development of the 1972 PUD. The changes in the road system were brought about by public hearings in conjunction with Lake Trail Estates EXISTING SITE CHARACTER Soils The majority of soils are Heyder which have fair to good bearing capacity for home development and are characterized by poor topsoil in some locations. Topography Topography of the area is gently rolling Grading plans will be ,object to approval by the City Engineering Department. Vegetation About 35% of the 34 acres is wooded with a combination of elm, boxelder, a few maples and oaks, etc. A large portion of these trees occur on the northern portion of the 2nd Addition. The majorityeoofothisout 5edacre�sll was included in the PUD of 1972 as a wooded pa { see figure 2). Any dutch elm diseased trees will be required to be removed during initial construction and grading. tlll .,. F Staff Report-Round Lake Estates 2nd -4- Nov. 1, 1978 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS minimum lot size 13,500 square feet maximums density 2 units/acre minimum lot width 90 feet minimum lot depth 100 feet setbacks front yard 30 feet rear yard 20 feet side yard 10:25 feet Lot Size/Density/ Eighteen (18) of the lots are less than 13,500 square feet in size, 25%, ranging from 11,300±square feet to 13,300tsquare feet The gross density of the project is 2.12 units / acre. The net density, less roads, is 2.5 units/acre No setback variances have been requested, but the plat as proposed will require minimum lot size, density, and minimum width variances( 3 lots in block 3 have less than 90 feet frontage). SITE PLAN Grading/Drainage The grading/drainage plan subuitted depicts proper grades of the cut-de-sacs to Streets so storm water can be collected by City storm sewer. The City Engineering Department will be closely reviewing the utility plans prior to final plat approval. Open Space/Trails The 1972 PUD for the overall 50 acres included 10f acres of open space, (figure 2). The first phase platting of 27 lots included approximately 4 acres of open space which has been dedicated to the City. This area. besides I,eing lark/open space land, acts as a buffer between TI.1 5 and tile single fairrily homes. All 105 lots in the 1972 PUD were tied to an open space pathway system. The present request to final plat the rrinainder of the PUD into Round Lakes Estates 2nd Addition does not include a backyard open SIUWAf vs :em due to the absence of a horucowtur's association which IMMU lualil;tain it.. :...: Staff Report-Round Lake Estates 2nd -S- NOV. Due to the proximity of this development to Round Lake Community Park,it plays an important part in the City trail system to.provide pathway connection from nearby residential to the community park. The Park and Planning Staff believe the plat of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition should include trails and open space more consistent with the original PUD. An important open space area would be the wooded knoll which occurs in the center of the plat. a 3-4 acre mini-park in this location would provide for passive recreation use for the immediate residential area of hound Lake Estates and Heritage Park without requiring residents to travel to Round Lake Community Park which hosts a number of scheduled events. This mini-park ( depicted in figure 4 below), could include improvements of picnic tables, totlot structures, trails, etc. A park of this size combined with the 3.89 acres already dedicated by Mr. Eliason in the First addition would be less, butgenerally consistent, with the original 1972 PUD in which 10 acres of open space were approved. Trails should connect this mini-park with the trail system to hound Lake Park and to sidewalks consistent with the City's overall trail system and those already planned in the adjacent plat of Lake ''rail Estates. Figure " 4 4 - M t N n�.r •'.sa.'?1 s..••4i' +„'`fotl�-Up 71 Pa'�t• i; • ,o r r n, � ` �. it �� tt o, •- „�� a ^. Stl,• f � 41 y� ' Staff Report-Round Lake Estates 2nd -6- Nov. 1, 1978 TRANSPORTATION The road system in Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition does correspond to th a system included in Lake Trail Estates Addition and the overall Round Lake Road System approved this year. ( see figure 5). Access is provided to the large undeveloped land to the west, Kerber Farm, thereby allowing this area an alternate access. It can be estimated that at total development and occupancy, 66-72 homes, 550± additional daily trips will occur. This may not occur for 3-4 years and it is expected that by that time the Valley View Road connection to this area will have been made, along with the road system of Lake Trail Estates, thereby p•oviding two access points to Co.Rd. 4 besides the accesses to TH 5. t Pa aaTw,,,�� Xar7fYo �t�ef V-�t �Est,ttLs� 884 i� Ph PUS 7-2 t FP 1 5 7-5 ifr i.l �.: IAt.Luth E tates t>r���Church j� 1fi4. t-GEPd _ �t 7- 4 k{i ffiillrz� reL `�_�;t Vii.tkill ,� y ` 145 RI 17 Rt-2a •n•, �' DEVELOP,'-,I:,T t The Engineering Department has recommended the developer keep lot 44, block 3 , open and grant the City a trvnporary easunent across the lot. so that a gravel base road can be constructed up to West 72nd Street next Spriug along wit.h the utility construction. At which time a Citv street is connected to Valley View Road, lot 44 can be turned back to the developer. ^ fJ�► 4 Staff Report-Round Lake Estates 2nd -7- Nov. 1. 1978 ENVIRONMINTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHL•ET Thd development of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition requires the completion of an EAW because it is construction of 50 or more residential units within a shoreland area. The shoreland area involved is Round Lake which is within 1,000 feet of the development. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The final development stage plans for Round Lake Estates PUD, Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition, does not include the 10t acres of open space, trails, or homeowner's association originally approved. The staff believes development of 66 lots on 31.5 acres, dedication of a 3.4 acre mini-park, and improvements to the park along with trails and sidewalks, would be an acceptable compromise to the development proposal of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition contingent upon the following items: 1. Redesign of the preliminary plat dated 10/18/78 to include the following: a. 3.4 acre mini-park in the wooded area as illustrated in figure 4 of this report. The park would be improved by the developer and dedicated and maintained by the City. b. All lots on cul-de-sacs should have a minimum of 45 feet frontage. c. Setback variances shall not be granted, but variance Oil lot frontage and lot size shall be granted as required in the 10/18/78 preliminary plat. d. The developer shall remove all diseased trees within the 34 acre site prior to home construction and park dedication to city. e. Trails and sidewalks as illustrated on figure 4 shall be installed by the developer at time of street and utility construction. f. All lots will he subject to $275 cash park fee payment at time of building permit issuance. h,. The developer shall grant a road eas=at ,wer lit 4k' block 3 to the City. h MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1978 approved 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESER(T: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, William Dearman, Matthew Levitt, Richard Lynch, Oke Martinson, Paul Redpath and Liz RetterathtS COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director, Chris Enger Planning Secretary, Donna Stanley approved Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - October 23, 1978 C. Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition, by Elliason. Request for PUD Develop- ment Plan approval and preliminary plat for 72 lots an 34 acres. Pro- ject is located SW of Round Lake. A Public Hearing. The Planner explained that the Planning staff has anticipated re- visions to the plan, but did not receive the revised plans in time to prepare a staff report on the project. This project is in re- lationship to Lake Trail Estates and the Highway 5/Co. Rd. 4 road alternate system. He explained further that the road system is in conformance with Council action and also gave a brief sumttdry of the background of the project. The trail system was orignial ly.to be within the Home Owner Association, pointing out that maintenance of it may not be desirable for the City. Mr. Ken Geason, 7621 Atherton Way, speaking for the residents, commented that they were not aware the Home Owner Association was to maintain this area. He requested a copy of the plans, in order to respond to the City on this point. Mr. Jakuhowski, 17299 Park Circle, expressed concern that neighbor- hood trails would be taken away, pointing out that these trails were desirable to get the children to Round Lake Park safely, rather than by Highway 5 route. Levitt requested that the concerns of surrounding residences vaicerl at the meeting and access to Round Lakr Park to addressed in the staff rtpbr'-L MOTION: Redpath moved to continue the Round Lake EstaSas,,2nd 7xt►ee, to the November 13, 1978 meeting, a-]an vith at atl�Eif >�sd ri Retterath seconded, motion carried unantnuurslsr � fv CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 14ENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 79-29 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT wf WORKSHEET FOR ROUND LAKE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION A PRIVATE ACTION AND DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing an February 6, 1979 to consider the Round Lake Estates Second Addition proposal, and WHEREAS, said development is located on aPprox$mately 34 acres of land in northwestern Eden Prairie, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public. hearing on the Round Lake Estates Second Addition Preliminary Plat request and did recommend approval of the project and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no significant impact. NOW THEREFORE-, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for Round Lake ^ Estates Second Addition because the project is not a major action which does not have significant environmental effects and is not more than. of local significance. _. ;:..... " BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality C.punoii ADOPTED this day of February, 1979. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: o n 0. Frane,-City Clerk SEAL Draft Oct.16,1978 MIMNESCTA4ENVIRON4ENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT wORKSNEET (EAW) AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R. # • w MOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to provide inforration on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the project requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Attach additional pages, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. Your answers should be as specific as possible. Indicate which answers are estimated. I. SUMMARY A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) t -t M `Negative Declaration (No EIS) EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) R.+ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION 1. Project name or title Round lake Estates 2nd Addition 2. Project proposers) Eliason guilders Address 10306 Colorado Road, Sloominnton, Mn. Telephone Number and Area Code (612) 825-4428 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie Minnesota 55344 Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this LAW: Chris Enger Telephone fi 2_941-22h2 _ _ 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location City of Eden Prairie Telephone 612-941-2262 Hours 8-4:30 M-F 5. Reason for EAW Preparation (`1Mandatory Category -cite 0 Petition 0 Other U MEQC Rule number(s) pAEOC24.(ty) (construction of 50 or more residential units any part of which in a shoreland) C. ACTIVITY D[SCRIPTION SUMMARY 1. Project location county ((ennepifl city/Township name City of Eden Prairie Township number 11.6 (North)', Range Number_2y`East Ore(circle one), Section number(s) 8 Street address (if in city) or legal doscriptiont 6 2. Type and scope of proposed project: platting of 72 single family homes on 34 acres 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) March, 1979 4. Estimated completion date (month/year)October , 1979 5. Estimated construction cost $600,000 6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed from each unit of government and status of each: Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval status (federal, state, ar Federal Funding regional, local) Mn.Dept.ofHealth watermain constr., review pending Minnesota PCA san.smter constr. extension pending MWCC pending Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed land alteration permit pending 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act? �YE X UNSNf1WE II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIM A. Include the following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original 65 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 74 minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be main- tained by Responsible Agency; legible copies uaay be supplied to other EAW distribution points.) 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc). 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. 8. Present land use. 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to tho site. The land is open , unstructured, trees and agricultural uses occur to the north and west. South of the property is similar single family development; and to the east is City parkland and Round Lake Community Park. 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban developed 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) O b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland 2A acres C. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain d. rural vacant 34 acres i. Cropla2uifllastur+e land nr e. Designated Recre- 0 acres j. Forested atiw:/Open Space aQNJN �siwreland ara ara forms:t@l ,, .� _1 N 11 - .•1*��r i �f{�'y+�� s .I'S'"'L.• .•+ i '1•� W LI(�1;y� .�j.V,-1-',,rW1'ri ,µlS�S1� �v •l•4J�lt.t�t; �.�,.•:':� /(.(•il'•„< ,r'4t::,�•. �; 1�'� is y''L..'a _(��• is i• `g_^�c. t �1 1�,.•: .,; J •. f .� /' t�II"r. \ � -�`z y� iIY« y, ,• ' a �--�—,Y'Y�t�r•.�'�� t.r �.,t �1�4n�• �. r/.l�iy��.�'��, '�'�:`• ' '�.� .r;�✓•'�` j��_ «�' -;w �•e: •�1 Pam' '=��j• t•, j _�p orb Qy •+r� ^`a t-•. ��y Y� • �4 "F Cr 1 I` V`s l9 r`i� �..r 9T � r ppI' r t ]{ k t•L '�•.'rz � p'. tt �•0 6 �:.I`y{{• tLTA'C� � (;..0,� ••$ .;�'�ib )/' ±yyY 1, Tn�•� S y' L slit- �L'�./ I�- � - �i)�LOY��r.. +.-� t� ,i: .:4'�C•=' I` I � 1, .sir L .��rE� ,3 .. QJI �. .a '•I-0 i= J ;� -o ' g I: �; p i� V' -":�'. r7 ' /(ff 'Y4 d '• � � Y _ d p ' � .'.f��'�`iy� ` Y r 4f�t.�..�✓�t S� `•.�1.� .t �'.�: �. �� yl�f iy�����±�� tt ^.lS'"/" `�'•' '1 F'^",i .A a �, � �' �4_.s_.: •e„''17��y � -.Z,oT AJ , �' r ��.• a - •1J�* �•.a �-. FA �� s( . In ��� _ � �i �; c��•U .�p3B' z � , 1�} p 1 �'ty.i w1.�/�•.-�✓� � � fasa8 �k A t , / d _ L r �. fd r: a & .Y`-LI,y,,.�L..w�+�' �f 1 1H.lw�� e t1.i..�.. )� t � �` f ��r :� '�•t' r{ t 091.1 it Oj ��.,r►••;'. ".�.....� i: r �� } !• � � I LL t p of J it LWis Is ' �� ;-1 v ct `r" 5{,f ,�1 {:t J ,� I.�I � �����It� �[ �• .i �- `�•�"'� Y ~� S F'nl yJ �C e� t`t ,� �{1 e`t^{Y/• i.[8 �if � u' ; kq ,'r��{ ltp/S �`� .... '- 1 ,f_ J �-t:.:l 2`�- �i./� `( L •�q�." l��_�b��r'� _��'M��" y k �:� aX' ... Nn _w♦ .. .rr.. r.MR., arF• rwc,.+.. .•.. ..�� ...�i. .,. _..w. w.....r_w..rw�...,W� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 93°3CY 462 48 271307 149 7 8H9;i b P:' i�% - i I q:ira• ���,p •�jr•' Vrl _ ` ^9LM.S• v.11•1;., vAE 9 + '`t''6 f•�. ��1 LCt�, C IL alb.... t.Sa ROund` g . ••,,f.^' , r I i _•('�.s��f 6 o ir z3�� .--`j 0 -�.i� ..i.,.,• ` � �.°�,e�9�. �,�Fi, ��7J�, ��i� �o./ �•:�-t . /n•� =' e •�c? ..rpy+�f� �pQ'.i� U 1("1 w-_: ..—_. •..,..e.xo... �"`�/ —'� 0^ •� /drn t�;;'W#}xT�k: �lt� ' �!^.�kSo a.� Q�y, �r� , �AfCCoy Iake ' Q �l`��• \�i- i�Et. .,.,• R � ��v�`n50 '7 // i�. �, +� �-� e x j . _\� p �++� \N,af � 'a l ail((\1�� j t �`�:�� ` L'•� 2r � �. Eli }7ypr ¢'fir! t !- frrr I 11 � � a 1t o i fit, , IfD r t:k µ f A, '• +�.i o i a 8 i� ; ip t.r • M i 3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. Round lake is approximately 250 feet from the site. C. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, incluBing staging of develoTanent {if any). operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- cesses to be used. Include data that would indicate the magnitude of the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc). Project consists of developing 72 single family lots in an area now vacant and unused except for limited agricultural uses. 2. Fill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 34 acres g. Size of marina and access MA sq. ft. or channel (water area) Length NA miles h. Vehicular traffic trips 576 generated per day ' b. Number of housing or recreational units 72 1. Number of employees _.A__ c. Height of structures 3CL ft. j. Water supply needed 2$,- Source: City stater d. Number of parking spaces 280 k. Solid waste requiring disposal ��tens`yr e. Amount of dredging _._9 cu. yd. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor apace 1sq. ft. ing treatment 28,8009al/da III. ASSESSMENT OP POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. will the project be built in an area with slopes currently exceeding 12%? —1-No Yes 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? JLN©:YES 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and anY measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. • 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations# individual septic Systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. Soils consist of keyder, has fair to good bearing capacity,good drainage, moderate shrink/swell, and moderately erodible, 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be dons: 6Q,KQcu. yd. grading69,00Q cu. yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? 80 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 6 s 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Appropriate erosion and siltation measures shall be initiated prior to construction. These shall be in the form of siltation barriers, ponds and filtration means. Development will be subject to Riley/Purgatory Creek D. vEGETATIAN Watershed District review and approval. I. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types: Woodland dt tc cropland/ Q T pasture Brush or Shrubs 2-rr_$ Marsh `Q�t Grass or herbaceous .lfl % Other 0_; (Specify) 2. How many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? �aeres 3• Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (See MM publication The uncommon Ones.) X No Y85 'I yes, ist ie species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? y 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNR publication The uncoeaaon NO YES Ones.) 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish no habitat? 4. If yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, spe—ies or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. The development of single family lots will force birds, small mammals, etc., to seek new habitat. - 4 - s D. HYDROLOGY { 1. Will the project include any of the following: If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, YE lowland or groundwater supply X b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X c. Dredging or. filling pperations X d. Channel modifications or diversions X V. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water X f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site X 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 15 1, 3. what measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (seditratnL+ oil, gas etc.T? Siltation and holding ponds where required by City Engineering Department. All storm water will be handled by City storm water system. All measures will be reviewe d by the Watershed District and recommendations followed. 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (loo year) floodplain by new fill or structures? _ X No ,. If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? No 5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the site? 4 feet E WATER QUALITY 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sawage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? wO YES If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the water body receiving the effluent. 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants in the wastewater. NA 3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? X so Yl� If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical cAmposition and mothod of disposal. 4. ghat measures will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts identified in questions 1-3? NA S. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. NA F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates into the atmosphere? No__YES If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the approxi- mate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the emission control measures or devices. Only during construction will there be free particulates,these will be in the form of dust. Other emissions will be engine emissions during construction and heating of homes by natural gas. After construction, the project will generate approxi- mately 576 ADT with related emissions. 2. will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation of the project? NO _X YES If y--, describe the noise source(s)y specify decibel levels [dB(A)), and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/vibration. Heavy equipment such as back hoes, dozers, trucks and related equipment. 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or reduced air quality-(hospitals, elderly housinq, wilderness, wildlife areas, residential developments, etc.) are in the affected area and give distance from source. There are existing residential hares within 1/2 mile radius of the site. G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any of the site sjitabie for agricultural or forestry production or currently in such use? NO X YES If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop `or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. 5-6 acres of corn exists . 2. Are there any kno6n mineral or peat deposits on the site? X NO YES If yer., apeci`y the type of deposit and the aereaae. 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? No X YES Complete the following as applicable, a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) Estimated Peak Demand Annual (Hourly or naily) Anticipated Firm Contract or Type Requirement summer Winter Su lier Interruptible Basis? Electric 460,000 kw 5-8 pm 5-8 pm NSP firm Natural Gas 15,000mcf/yr .28/u/da .34/u/da Minnegasco firm b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on—site fuel storage. NA c. Estimate annual energy distribution for: space heating 60 Y lighting 15 t air conditioning __1,_ t processing 5 t ventilation $ Y d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. Builders and/or homeowners may install energy conserving devices such as; triple pane windows,heat pumps, heatilators, etc., to reduce their individual energy consumption. e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc)'? Longer car trips can be anticipated if we assume that new residents will be moving out from inner or close in suburbs. However,the project may reduce length of auto trips by providing housing near existing employment and the future employment center within the 1,000+acre Major Center Area. H. OPEN SPACE/P.ECREATION 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)? No X YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse imparts. Round Lake Camiunity Park is near the site. Use of the park is anticipated and will not cause adverse impacts. 7 3� � H. TPMSPOnTATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation syStdms (highway, railroad,.water, airport, etc)? No X YES If yes, specify which part(s) of the system(s) w£li be affected. m For these, spocify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and percentage of truck traffic (if highway); and indicate how they will ba affected by the project (e.g. congestion, percentage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (AVr), access requirements). The traffic Count on TH 5 will be increased due to the increase in dwelling units feeding onto TH5. The increase in traffic volume due to this development will approximate an additional 576 more trips per day. No additional truck traffic will be generated by this development and speedy Will be of a nature consistent with residential streets. Traffic will also be able to use onto TH 5,neighbarhovd c411e tears to the north and east , thereby relieving preys 2. Is mass transit available to the site? X N® YM (two park-n-ride sites along TH 5 may be used, approximate7y`1.5 m TeB) 3. what measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? Individual selection of van pooling or car pools is possible. Residents can use pathway systems to reach Round Lake Park and varied commercial shops nearby. 3. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive NO X YES plans? If not, explain: al use permit is necessary, indicate ®S'lsti.^no If a zoning change or speci zoning and change requested. The site is currently zoned for residential development, the request is for platting of the zoned site. 2. will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of thA existing neighborhood? _ENO -�•StE9 If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conrlicts. NA 3. How many employees will move into the area to be Crean the project? How much new housing will be needed? .,,,.... 4. Will the project induce development nearby--eitber support ally cos or similar developments? if yes explain type of development and specify any other Counties and municipalities affected. This development will not necessarily induce nearby similar developments-, and support services already exist within .5 miles. S. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? Amount required Public Service 3vffi water 28,800 galjda yes wastewater treatment 28,800 gWda yes sewer 4,400 feet s schools 108 pupils YOS . solid waste disposal 10.4 tOn/mO streets .9 miles y4s .. other (police, fire, etc) 1.4officers 1 ,000 yes If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this one project and its associated impacts? 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program reviewed by the EQC? S7 NO YES If yes, specify which area or plan. 7. will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or disposal of potentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisions, etc? Yn YES If yes, please specify the substance age and rate of us and any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accident,$» *y (v @. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the 9 facility require special measures or plans? 80...Y.. YES if yes, specify& X. HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any structures on the site Older then 50 years or on federal or state historical registers? 2. have any arrowheads, pottery Or Other evidences Of Prehistoric flx eBrlp' settlement been found an the site? max. 110 $ i Might any known archaeologio or paleontological sited.bse afget d by the activity? (being MOVed by State HistmriCLILP —,J29 society) 3. 'List any site or structure identified in l and 2 and exprl08n Any impact on them. 27 L. OTHER EHVIRONMrNTAL CONCERNS Describe any other major environmental eff"ts whicl3 may not have been identified in the previous sections. NA wu TIE. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potanCia adverse impacts that have not been described before. .. M , '8 r V. FINDINGS The project is a private ( ) governmental (X ) action. The Responsible Agency (Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors .in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is ( is not X) a major action. State. reasons: 2. The project does (�) does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. State reasons: 3. (For private actions only.) The project.1a .,is not ( ) of more than local significance. State Reasonse IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed until the date of publication of the notice in the EQC Monitor section Of the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of the EAW to the EQC constitutes a request for publication of notice in the FCC Monitor. A. I, the undersigned, am either*the authorized representative of the Responsible Agency or the Responsible Person identified below. Based on the'above findings, the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete either 1 or 2). 1. X NEGATIVE DECLARATION 140TICE No CIS is needed on this project, because the project is not a major action and/or does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and/or, for private actions only, the project is not of more than local significance. — T1 — 30 2, EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for nisialnso ofcat viinore than) effects. For private actions, the project local significance. a. The mEQc Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances# the MEQC cm specifically authorize limited construction to begin or continues. if you feel there are special circumstances in this project, specify the extent of progress recommended and the reasons. b. Date Draft EIS will be submitteds (month) (day) (year) (mEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 120 days li Of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the EEC lhemitit a, a if special circumstances prevent compliance with this time written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.) c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) or Person(s))s Signature Roger K. U]stad,City Maraoer Title Date B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed to all points on the official WC distribution list, to the city and County directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question III.J.4 an page 9 of the EAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW Which is sent to the EQC. c. Billing procedures for Epc monitor Publication State agency Attach to the EAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 O�Lys form (State Register General order Form--available at Central Stores). For instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Officer to the State Register or the office of the State Register--(612) 296-8239. Res.63"378 l iffdR 5 • Hipps Construction Co. 8U1LDiNS CONTRACT044 1ho"00 I.HIPP 3111 PENN AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS,MN VAII �aaxnaxy �, 19T9 Mr. Roger Ulstad City Manager, City of Won pzalrie Eden Prairie. City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota . S'S344 .. Doar Mr. Ulstadi This letter is to confUm.1r acmPmr1a rwPost tea have tba preliminary plat and tlia final p3At of Hipp's Nitrhall Maights. Fourth Addition placed on the agenda of the Cjt-y Council -Or =... Tuesday, February 6, 1%71. A T 'mil]. 4e returnin fzm an a ut.- of-town trip that day at about 6t3L1 P.M., I ask t these 1d�9:Cars be placed on the later portion of that agevda. � Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours very tru4, SSPP'S Cf}DIS�'RO�.'2t1bi CO1�' ,. . t v a.�;: as��a•`?° .q��• �c as 4 F! Minutes-Parks, Recreation & unapproved Jan. 15, 1979 Natural Resources. Commission -5- is no maintenence policy at this time; and there is little difference in cost, MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the Council approval oiT Lake Heights Addition as per staff recommendation in the January 12, 1979, memo, with the following changes: 1} Eliminate requirement for 5' concrete sidewalk on the west side of proposed Homeward Hills Road. 2) Add a connector of 8' asphalt or 5' concrete from the under- pass west to Homeward Hills Road. Motion was seconded by Dave Anderson. DISCUSSION: Dave Anderson questioned the problem with the cash . paiT fee; asking if.there was an agreement which stated no fee$ would be collected. Peterson replied that the developer had dedicated land to the city and that no fee bad been levied against the early development. Lambert pointed out that all of the outiots dedicated to the city are under water or too low to use. Even outlot A is going to require $35,000 to grade and fill with borrowed material. R Anderson asked if outlot A was buildable in its present state. He was told that it is not because of the soil structure--it consists of peaty soils. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. A fYe minute break was called at 9:30 p.m. ' b. Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th Addition 6 members present, Johnson absent. Lambert introduced Don Sorenson who was representing the developer- builder. He described the proposed development and stated that he .. was unaware of the planners desire to change the back lot lines of Lots 18 and 19 (to provide a funneling effect toward the paths�ay from the mini-park He stated that the requirement for a $I,= bond did not seem necessary since no problems have been caused by the builder in the past. Lambert agreed on this point. Tangen asked why the funneling effect was desired. He was told _ the planners felt it would create an easier access to the mini-park for children using the trail. Sorenson also questioned the width of the proposed trail--having agreed to build a 4' wide trail, they were surprised to see the staff recommendation for a 6'wide trail. Kruell asked why 6' was required. He was told that it is city policy for all trails to be 6' in width. Lambert pointed out that possible maintenence would be extremely difficult on a 4, teall with a standard 6' plow blade. Also, six feet is the mi.ninmm _ for two walkers or a biker. Sorenson stated that it seemed the developer was bein ex, l tCI make an unreasonable number of¢�contani • Minutes-Parks, Recreation & unapproved Jan. 16, 1979 Natural Resouces Commission -6- Garens asked Sorenson what his reaction was to the path leading to the 1st Addition from the mini-park. He replied that it seemed excessive; however, the developer has agreed to cooperate when possible. MOTION: Tangen moved that the commission recommend to the council approval of Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th Addition as recommended by the staff in the January 12, 1979 memo, with the following changes: 1) Delete the trail extension to the cul-de-sac in Mitchell Heights 1st Addition 2) Delete provisions E and F (the $I.000 bond requirement, and, the changes in the back lot lines of Lots 18 and 19.) Garens seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Tangen felt the developer should not have to put in impr'~ovements outside their development or on city property. Kruell agreed that E and F should be deleted. Garens also agreed, stating that the cash park fee should be used to build the trail extension. Lambert explained to the commission that the trail request was made based on the background of the entire development. The original Planned Unit Development (1972) called for two play areas 150' by 100' in size, constructed and landscaped to provide recreation for the residents of the area. Also contemplated in the original PUD were trails, tot lots, extensive iandscaping, and tennis courts. To date, none of the above mentioned improve* ments have been accomplished, according to the original PUB, Lambert told the commission they could accept the proposal wiftut the trail extension, but there was rational for the requirement. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. c. Chatham Wood Mr. Tom Selseth and Mr. John Mueheberg were introduced by Lambert.. They discussed the proposed Chatham Wood development, .the park and trail conunitments and dedication. R. Anderson raised the question of future traffic in the development, and would it affect the trailwalt to the creek corridor. He did not favor a trail crossing a heavily traveled road. Kruell suggested that the "no-build" land should be protected by a firm but reasonable ordinance; and it should be surveyed in this developou�nt, since the topography is so irregular. MOTION: Kruell moved that the commission recommend to the councils, . approval of the Chatham Wood Development as per the staff recoamendations outlined in the January 12, 1979 memorandum. Tangen seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Garens expressed concern over the trail._cr &sin &G19 ex`tensioai of 168th to Townline Road. Rased'on this;tnncga*t;, hp ;. could not support the amtion, fie sptpasted-an underlas put ME1,P)RANDUM T0; Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: Jan. 12, 1979 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Hinn's Mitchell.Heights Ath Addi 1 _ PROPONENT: Hipp's Construction Inc. - REQUEST: Preliminary plat approval of 58 duplex lots on 13 acres LOCATION: South of Scenic Heights Road, west of Hiawatha Circle BACKGROUND:See 12-6-78 Planning Staff Report. Changes recommended in the Planning Staff Report have been made on the plat Commission members received. ann1ng Cona�rissron approved on January 8, 1979. CHECKLIST: 1. Adjacent to parks! (Neighborhood, ^oa,munity, Regional) RA,yA`Ry„rl, ,tya�ighhn,hren;l park Affect on park: Outlot A, completely develosed w 11 add l.fi arj=-Q hra srned park. This development will increase pressure to begin acquisition and development ot'Reti Raci'N�fitjllb�igSbo ar 2. Adjacent to public +paters? Np - Affect on waters: N/A 3. Adjacent to tails? Adjacent to a recreational trail leading f— the Ster�,1'+�.;,, Heights bike trail, eventually to Staring Lake. Type of trails: (bike, multi-uso, transportation, etc.)Iiulti_ -Use• P Cl/Ilike Construction: (asphalt, concrete, Hood chips, agli;me)_ Ash t Width: 61 Party Responsible for construction. Developer Landownership: (Jcdicated, density tra3coff, etc.) dedication _ Tyke of Dovc.lophncnt? (residential, coamcrcial, industrial) residential Nhrre trill CASH PAI:K Fl1i go? (what ricighlxrhoar3)Red Rock Neighborhood Park Neel for n mi,i•l:ark'Yes, adjacent to neighborhood park. ` -2- S. REFERENCE CHECK: a. Major Center Area Study: NIA b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: This studu recvria+rndrd tfm1'--11rBnnc�rt neighborhood park site as the neighborhood facility serving this area. e. Purgatory Creek Study: fl/A d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: NSA e. Floodplain Ordinance: ti/A f. Guide Plan: The Guide Plan reconmends acquisition of a ni-ighbnrhnnd aai:k for this area beginning in 1979. g. other: 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on Proposed park property: Will be paid by developer. 7. CASH PARK FEE? The S6.400 Cash Park Fee from. the 3rAddition has hnmLsM1IrX.W4, The Cash Park Fee for the multiple should be collected on these units prior to bui'1din,ij 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or pelt" against proposal: Complaints about outside parking with duplexes, also there are complaints about the _ lack of park snace -9. Number of units in residential development? 'it3 Number of acres in the project? 13 Special recreation space requirements:A 1.6 acre mini Park devclowd at tine-of streetimprovements. accordimxi to City Mini-Park specifications. 10. ST,%Fr RECOSMENDATIONS: Community Services Staff rec(wenends aioProcal with the following conditions: (See Attached Siaeet) 4 Hipp's Mitchell heights -2- Jan. 19, 109 A. Same as Planning Staff. B.- That the Cash Park Fee for multiple residential be piid at time of building pennit, in the amount required by ordinance at time of payment. C. That Outlot A be dedicated to the City of Eden Prairie and improved according,` to City mini-park specifications. O. That trailway systems leading from Mitchell Heights lst Addtiiorr. Mitchell heights 3rd Addition, and Mitch-eii Heights 4th Addition be provider!to Outlot A. In addition these trail corridors shall he 20' in width with a 6'wide, bituminous path of 4' deep strength asoalt. The bitumiamus path adjacent to Lots Z1, R.O.. 13 and 18 siivuid be extended to the cul-de-sac in Mitchell heights 1st Addition. T* censtruettati of atl of tftile trails shall be completed prior to occupancy permits of hamrs adjacent to the tratTs�- E. The derelopler should provide a $1,,= band that wi-11 9mraftee that Vwn construction adjacent to the park is finished there will be no pikes of.dip dead trees or other debris left on the Ptfk F. That the back tot lines of Liets'18 attd 19 are modified to prorri+de a ftr►reoTima affect toward the pathway. I - MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 1979 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Matthew Levitt, Richard Lynch, Oka Martinson, and Liz Retterath COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beaman STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger,.Director, of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - Jan. 8, 1979 The chair was returned to Chairman Sundstrom. B. Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition, by Richard Hipps. Request to preliminary plat 13 acres zoned RM 6.5 into 29 duplex lots (58 units). The site is located in the southwest corner of Tamarac Trail and Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. The City Planner briefly summarized the concerns: Cash park fee, additional trails, and variety of . housing style. He noted that the Staff has met with the proponent and are in agreement with communication of 1/4/79 rece NO` from Mr. Sorensen, representative of the Hipp's Construction Co. He explained that the proponent is asking for technical variances because of the party-Wall lot line. Mr. Don Sorensen, representing Hipp's Construction Co., presented the re- vised proposal, briefly summarizing each point and answering questions by the Commissioners. The plan has reduction in ground coverage; medium density to fulfill the need in Eden Prairie for middle income housing; their agrpe- meet on varying house types and front facades; dedication of Outlot A, connnited to pay cash park fee; and to technical variances requested,(the same as for Hipp's Third Addition which were granted by the Toning Board Of Appeals and Adjustments). He explained that the minimum distance between units will be 30 'and that in most instances will be more. This is because thay, have agreed to at:least a 15' sideyard in all cases. Retterath inquired whether the City was satisfied with point no. c regarding storm water drainage. The Planner responded that a resident had contacted the the City on the poorly graded situation and the City does not anticipate any problem. A T' Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - Jan. 8, 1979 Sundstrom asked as a point of clarification whether the units were in fact multiple,and regarding the proponent's reference to the single family na.twre . of the appearance. Sorensen explained affirmative, but that they did not de tract from the single family homes and this was an opportunity to get midd•10. income houses into the City. Sundstrom inquired about the length of the cul-de-sac. Sorensen responded 800 . Noting that the:m&ximum length aljQw#d!< by the ordinance is 5001, Sundstrom requested that the staff check with tTae Public Safety Department on safety of that cul-de-sac. Retterath inquired further on whether there would be a Homeowner Assaaciatisn�' Sorensen responded negative, but there would be dedication to the City with covenants and stipulations. Levitt asked about the stipulations to stagger the house types and to separate the single family hones from the duplex units. The Planner res- ponded that in the past, the City has entered into a developer's agreement when rezoning was involved. Levitt asked whether in constructing the garages, they will still keep the `. 15' setback? Sorensen answerd affirmative, that they are coaaanitted- to that 15'sideyard setback. " Levitt pointed out that the previous discussion was on townhouses and clustsrir with more open space, and why was this changed? Sorensen responded that ih5iw homes appeared to be single family, and they are a more marketable,, viable: piece of property, with public and private open space. The status of Mitchell Road as a lcollector was discussed, and what volume gf. naii Lche9�1 Roadd s�purt$t o'Scene t I�eingirtsre5ponded about +I,i100 to 5,00D tr[P .; approved Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - Jan. 8, 1979 B. Hi�pvblic hearing (cone') On of d7e r_es-i 17nitcs expressed concern with the difficulty of tWnn M. Ilet onto Highway 5 from north of TH S. The Pl.anner explained that the. City hais, received petitions from residents north of TH 5 for preferential Wt across traffic turning situation. H6 explai.ned that mno T vi1°1 t approve a preferential crass traffic left turning moyemen#. but are anticipating a free right turn In.e from the south which firilI., help the entire intersection operate wre smoothly. The Planner brought up the point that the plans were to be rMewed'.U4 signed by a registered architect. Sorensen felt this was not neqary and requested that this be loused into,, and if it is not a State reuirement ixe asked that the requirement be waived MOTION: Martinson moved to close Public Hearing on Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously., MOTION: Martinson moved to recommend to the City Council approval Of the preliminary plat material dated January 4, 1979, ba-sed on the Staft rel `t`u of Janurary 6, 1978, letter from Hipp's dated January 41, 1919, and Variance; 78-8 granted on Hipp's Mitchell Heights Third Addition. 'he•ttersth otsded motion carried unanimously. , Sundstrom.directed the Staff to investigate the requirement on reviewal and { signature by a registered architect of submitted ,plans indiostiPg no.prc�b Ttiri HIPP'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 3111 Penn Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 �..- January 4, 1979 TO: CHRIS ENGF.R, City Planner, and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE! HIPP'S 14ITCHELL HEIGHTS FOURTH ADDITION In response to the December 6, 1978 staff Report, the comments and concerns expressed by planning commissiOn membOrs, and additional meetings and communications with Mr. Enger, the preliminary plat of Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition has been redesigned and we are willing to -make various cOmitments, which, when considered in total, appear to meet and remove all of the reservations to this project. In evaluating this project, we respectfully request. that the staff, commissions and council keep the following factors in mind: 1. The Basic unit structure is single family in size,appeay;_ ance and design and fits in well with the Pxisting devel-opments in the area. 2. This plan reduces the total unit density over the entire project by either 21 or 31 units depending upon how one reads the original P.U.D. approval. 3. The only variances which are being requested are those which are necessitated in constructing double bungalow units under the RH 6.5 zoning catagory. 4. The total ground cover is markedly reduced and the total open space, individual and dedicated areas, is subztan tially greater than 'under the approved P.U.D. 5. The design of this project will provide the City of Eden; Prairie with some greatly needed moderate income single family homes. Currently, it is projected that the vari- ous individual units, with the standard inclusions, will d Chris Enger and Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 1979 Page 2 be able to be marketed from $55,000.00 to $60,000,00- «e understand that the current average cost of new single family construction in Eden Prairie is above $80,000.00. 6. The options for the development of this property are limited by the existing municipal utilities and ease- ments, the topography and dimensions of the property, the current mortgage and financing market, and the poten- tial purchasers' desires and needs. The changes in the plat and the commitments we are willing to make are as follows: al The number of lots has been reduced from 60 to 58. bl All lots now meet the minimum lot width requirements. c)_ We have been informed that there may be a storm water drainage problem for adjacent properties to the southwest of this project, and we are willing to attempt to alle- viate this problem in our grading of the southern portion of Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, , d)_ We will provide "T" driveways for Lots i through 8, those fronting on Mitchell Road. a)_ The southwest cul de sac has been -moved northeasterly so as to permit the residences in that area to have larger rear yards. The lot line dividing Lots 27 and 28 has been altered so as to permit the erection of that struc- ture to be accomplished a greater distance away from the westerly boundary. Further, on these two lots, a grading plan including a four foot high: railroad tie retaining wall will be used. it should be noted that there is a substantial decline in the topography in this area, which. wnl necessitate that the units on Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 will be from 10 to 20 feet lower than the adjoining rear yards of the single family homes to the west, which will result in a minimal visual obstruc- tion. {There will actually be fewer structures located on the westerly boundary of this project than on the east- erly portion of the abutting single family lots. When one examines the placement and size of the proposed double bungalows in relation to the approved P.U.D. R ,a Chris Enger and Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 1979 Page 3 townhouse units, it becomes evident that the units are both at least as far removed from the westerly boundary and represent a greatly enhanced vista.j_ We agree to in- stall on the western lot lines of Lots 51, 52, and 53 such plantings as will meet the City's reasonable re- quirements. fL we will install immediately adjoining driveways for those double bungalow units whose design permits it. . gL The structures will be sited on the lots and the party wall wi'li be placed and constructed with the assistance of a surveyor so as to avoid any Problems in that regard. hL The minimum side yard on the open side of the unit will be 15 feet, thereby giving rise to at least 30 feet be- tween structures, a distance wFiich is 'markedly greater than in almost all single family units presently being constructed in Eden Prairie. it we will submit grading plans prior to final plat approval jL Covenants and restrictions applying to all the properties. in this addition regarding party walls, recreational vehi- cles, etc, will be drafted, submitted to the City Attorney for reviewal, and filed at the time of final platting. k7 we will have a variety of at least four basic structure plans with each basic plan having at least three differ- ant front facades and roof lines, which will give rise tO an appearance of at least twelve different units within the project. 14o unit with the same front faeaifle will be permitted to be constructed without at least two dissim- ilar units between theca. it is our intent to make this project a visually.pleasing area. 1L we will agree to the following park and open space com- mitmentst 1L Pay the $200.00 per unit fee for the 32 units in Hipp's Mitchell Heights Third Addition. 21 Pay the $200.00 per unit fee for the 58 units in this ,. project, Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Additio*. Chris Enger and Planning and Zoning Commission ti January 4, 1979. Page-4 31 Dedicate outlot A, incl-udibg the two (21 twenty-foot- wide walkways between Lots 16 and 17-and along the rear of Lots 1.8, 19, 20 and 21 to the City of Eden. Prairie. 41 Seed Outlot A. 51 Construct four-foot-wide blacktop walkways, on& in area between Lots 16 and 17'and tyre other along e rear of Lots U, 19, .20 and 2-1 within the pad�s�iah. areas dedicated to the City of Eden > rie 6) Construct a s&x-foot- dee blacktop We Iasi i�alk�i along xitcfien RoaB, in Its r£gi it `Wg, f aaft df Lots 1 tTirou .h.8, 71 Purchase or construct: and.install: a tot lot pay Asti:: tore on outlot A wfilch n''s equal to or.better than the -structure shown and deseribOd in the City of .Eden Prairie's Specificaticnv Vor Mini-parks meted .tdWs s 13r 19.78. We have earnestly- attempted to meet all of your cono xbz "d suggestions and believe we have a project which wil.l paTMm City's goals and okajecti'ver. ..We trust that our atforts Will h your approval and endorsement. Yours very trulyf HIPP'S CONSTR CTIDN :C(]PiPANY By" _ ' RICHARD E. HIPP, Pare 'den da MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE-PLANNING COMMISSION approved MONDAY, DECEMBER 11,' 1978 7:30 PM CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Matthew Levitt, Oke Martinson, and Paul Redpath C%V4ISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman, Liz Retterath, and Richard Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Planning Director Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary ;approved Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - December 11, 1978 E. Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition, by Richard Hipps. Request to preliminary plat 13 acres zoned RM 6.5 into 30 duplex lots (60 units). The site is located in the southwest corner of Tamarac Trail and Mitchell Road. A public hearing. The Planner explained that the request is similar to Hipps Third Addition which the Commission recommended for approval, and contained 32 duplex lots. • A variance had been brought through the Board.tof Appeals and Adjustments for lots platted with party lot line down the center. He explained further that the proposal requires a variance from the party wall side yard lot line .setback and it also requires a variance from the minimum lot size. This request occurs on a previously zoned RIM 6.5 tract, and that only 14 of the original townhouse units and 29 of the single family homes have been built according to the P.U.D. and the louse type has been switched from clustered to a straight duplex lot. Mr. F.ilippi, of Filippi and Associates Inc., made the presentation for Mr. Richard Hipps. explaining the changes - moving cul-de-sac on the north to the other side of the development, deeding of Outlot A to the City, and the sanitary sewer plans. The Planner discussed the Staff report and graphics of the proposal. pointing out the change from townhouse open space to simple duplex grouping, and that trails will now be publicly maintained. rather than by homeowners. He explained that the park site to the south has been contributed to by Village Woods, Pheasant Oaks, and Centex and that staff recomnendation is for cash park fee to be paid for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd additions, prior to the final plat approval of the Fourth Addition and cash park fee on the 4th Addition paid prior to building permit issuance. Sundstrom questioned the location of the tot lot, noting the closeness of proximity to location of park site, and suggested moving the tot lot to the north, away from the park site. Density trade-off was discussed. with Enger commenting that if the entire area is to be built up as currently proposed, the number of units would total 137 on 34 acres, or 4 units per acre. He explained ,approved Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - December 11, 1978 E. Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition. . . .public hearing (Cont'd) that since in 1972 this was classified as a single family 2 unit/acre density, much of the consideration for density relied upon a presented plan unit development and -, all its promises. Levitt requested the answers to: 1. Why the committments from the previous PUD were not met? 2. Why the cash park fee was not paid from 3rd Addition? Filippi explained that they have changed the plan considerably as far as original tot lot areas. Mr. Darcey Peterson, 8357 Mitchell Rd., expressed concern regarding some assurance that there would be a significant park to the south. The Planner explained the City would like to obtain an option to pur- chase land lying-soutti of the 4th Addition for the purpose of park land. Peterson asked Mr. Hipps why they did not follow the original plan, and expressed objection to the present plan where the garages are not hidden, and since they are only one car garages, there will be cars parked in the street which he felt was unsightly. The Planner explained that the staff feels duplexes have some of same characteristics of single family homes, but that the ordinance does not differentiate between duplex or townhouse. Performance standards are applicable to 6.5 zoning requirements. Mr. Bruce Hiller, 8349 Heather Ave., inquired how the Planning Commission felt about the adjoining property. The Planner responded that the originally proposed density was higher. and that there are about 3 duplex units along the western end that only meet the very minimum setbacks from the rear yard and that he suggests they shouto be modified. Mr. Dominic Londino, 8238 Tamarack Trail, asked what the total park property would be. Enger explained that the expected neighborhood park is about 15 acres, and there is about that amount of land available. The first phase would be to grade in game fields, soccer field, skating rink etc. tondino asked whether Homeowner Association would maintain the totlot.The Planner responded it would be maintained by an overall Homeowner Association unless it were dedicated to the City. Londino requested hearing more on the park proposal. Peterson inquired where the park would be located if the City was unable to purchase the Seifert'. land. The Planner responded that the Red Rock Sector Plan included a scliool park site, lying south of Village 14004S road" Mr. Don Sorensen, 7121 willow Creek Rd., representing Hipps, submitted sage revised plans, and after staff report recaimndatim a were discussed, suggested re-drafting of the plan by the Hipps deve- lopers to respond to these concerns. 3r� 1� approved Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - Dnber T1, 19?8 E. Hipp,s Mitchell Heights fourth Addition. .Public .hearing (Cont'd) Sorensen suggested alternatives to change "barracks" appearance referred to in staff report: setbacks not all on setback time and front fftades can be altered. He explained that the reason Hipps Have gone to duplexes rather than town houses is because of financing not being available. The original PUD, Resolution 810, was discussed, and it was suggested that the land use for this area be-ra-examined. MOTION: Redpath moved to continue thrr Hipp's .Mitchell Heights Fvurth Addition to the January 8, 1972 meeting, and that Hipps meet with-the staff. n resolving of the cash park fee and with a new PrOPOSA subjeet to the staff report of December 6, 1978 and revised plans submitted Oece ber 11, 1170. .`tiArll*�e seconded, motion carried unanimously. Sundstrom commented that there . 5 atlindR�ated density in this area.and we are well away from the original PUD. Sorensen pointed out that the original coa=Iit of 2 'units Per are eta reasonable, but it has been dramatically changed thmsh the Red Dock Sector Plan and that it has been 5 years Since that change. r PETITIONS_AND REQUESTS- None. VI. OLD BUSINESS - None. VII. NEW BUSINESS - None. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT - None. IX. ADJOURWENT MOTION: Redpath moved to adjourn atlO:55 PM. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. - k_.. - , .. STAFF REPORT MEMO TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning PROJECT REQUEST:Preliminary plat approval of 60 duplex lots on 13 acres PROPONENT: Hipps Construction Inc. LOCATION: In the Red Rock Village Sector, South of Scenic Heights Rd.; vest of Hiawatha Circle; in south and west of Tamarac Trail DATE: December 6, 1978 BACKGROUND: In 1972'overalipUD concept approval was granted to Hipps Construction Inc. on 34 total acres to develop 30 single family lots on the western 11 acres and the balance of the total 154 approved units to be constructed as town- house units onthe eastern 23 acres, At the time zoning was approved for the western 11 acres to R1-13.5 and zoning of RM 6.5 for the eastern 23 acres. Hipps Construction subsequently platted single family area into 29 lots and developed the first phase of the townhouse area into 14 townhouse units. The first two developments were the extent of the conformance to the original approved PUD development. The original Planned Unit Development in regard to the townhouse area calls for two common usable play areas as shown in the enclosed graphic labeled "suggested play areas". These play areas measured 150' by 100' in size and as illustrated would be intri- cately constructed and landscaped to provide private recreation area for the residents of the area. Also contemplated in the original Planned Unit Development were group usuable trails, tot lots, extensive landscaping throughout the common areas and tennis courts. To date none of the above mentioned improvements have been accomplished according to the original Planned Unit Development. Instead, in 1977 Hipps Construction proposed 32 duplex unit lots in the northeastern quadrant of the PUD and shifted the trend of common trailways on to the public in the form of a 6' blacktop trail aping Tamarac Trail and !Mitchell Rd., as well as an 81 trail within the road right- of-way as included in the Scenic tlzights improvement. Although the Engineering final plat report for Hipps Third Addition, 32 duplex lots required cash park fee t0tall"19 $+6400 payable upon issuance of building permit, no fee has been paid for this subdivision. The concept of land use as outlined in the original 3bb M Staff Report-Hipps Construction Inc. Page 2 Planned Unit Development now compared with the third Addition S the current proposal for 60 duplex Hots to build up the remainder of the PUD has completely changed. Therefore, the entire Hipps 34 acre area should be ev&ated and brought up to current land use standards. If the entire area is to be built up as currently proposed the number of units would total 137 on 34 acres, bringing the overall density to 4 units per acre. - Since in 1972 this was classified as a single family 2 unitlacre density,.much of the consideration for density relied upon a T,resented plan unit develop- ment and in all its pertinent promises. If this currently proposed 4th Addition looks similar to the third Addition. the amount of variety of architecture in the area which can be expected, is very limited. The third Addition as being built utilizes many identical units merely painted different colors. This gives the area a "barracks" type of look. In order to avoid this problem. the developer should present a variety of different floor plans and facades of units. •SITE PLAN The preliminary plat proposed requires the following waivers of standards in the zoning ordinance: 1. Ordinance 135 specifies 6500 sq.ft. / unit minimum, however it also specifies a minimum 13,000 sq. ft. lot. The current proposed plat would require a variance to allow 6500 sq. ft. minimum lot. Pro- posing the plat in this way will further hamper flexibility of design gnhconstruction in the subdivision by requiring that all party walls be acconuodated on the comnon platted lot line. A more successful approach might be accomplished if the center lot line was left out so that the unit could be oriented based upon the lay of the land, orientation to the street, correlation with other units, and the specific design of the building it- self. It would also eliminate the problems of not being able to build directly on the lot line because of errors in field measurements. 2. The RM 6.5 zone is covered by the zoning ordinance performance standards which specify building materials which are allowed for exterior finishes. Wood or stucco are not allowed in the zoning ordinance and this provision would have to be waived. 3. Several of the Tots in the subdivision do not have the required 90 feet of frontage and this provision would have to be waived. In consideration of this, the Planning staff would recommend that the 15 foot minimum side yard setback be agreed to contractually with the developer in order to preserve as much distance between living spaces as possible in the plat. 4. If the common party wail lot line is allowed the side yard setback to that lot line would have to be waived. 30 Staff Report-Hipps Construction Inc. December 6, 1978 Page 3 The relationship of the duplexes along the western side of the plat to the single family occurring further west is poor in many cases. The minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet is utilized too often along this border. When transitioning between single family and small lot duplex of this type, either a buffer strip with sufficient landscaping treatment should be utilized for transition or very large duplex lots with large rear yard set backs should. be utilized along the western boundary of the site. The open space outlot connection from the single family area occurring to the west of this must be carried through on the southwestern end of this plat in order to allow access to the anticipated public park lying south of proposed Outlot A. The southern "T" cul-de-sac which extends south of Tamarac Trail should be realigned further west to provide safer stacking distance between Mitchell Rd. and the proposed "T" cul- de-sac on Tamarac Trail. As the"T" cul-de-sac road entrance is currently proposed, it also creates a very poor corner lot relationship for lots 41 and 42. This duplex unit would effectively have all front yards and no privacy areas. The lots along Mitchell Rd. should include "T" drive-ways in order to provide for safe entrance for Mitchell Rd.. The 6' bituminous trail should be continued down along Tamarack Trail and also down along the eastern side of the proposal along Mitchell Rd. to the souther boundary. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE In order to make the current proposal and the entire PUD as consistent as possible with appropriate recreation standards the tot lot structure originally proposed for the PUD should be located in Outlot A, with an open space link occurring along the backs of lots 23, 22, 21, and 20, no less than 20' in width. Also the green space connection occurring between lots 14 and 15 This open space connection should be in the form of a 20' wide outlot,with a6'bituminous trail. Since Outlot A is adjacent to a pro- posed neighborhood park area, the developer may wish to dissolve future homeowner: maintenance responsibility by dedicating this area with the constructed tot lot to the City. In addition, since landscaping, open space committments, total number of tot lots and tennis court recreation facilities were never constructed by the developer within the PUD, the cash park fee of $6400 with the third Addition should be paid prior to final plat approval of the fourth addition. In addition, cash park fee for the existing 14 townhouse units and the existing 29 single family units of $10.875 should also be paid prior to final plat approval of the fourth addition Even with this payment of gash park fee and supplying of originally cownitted trails and one-half the tot lot requirements for the area, the developer ends up with 4 units per acre overall, rather than 2 units per acre without having land available for density transfer. Staff Report-Hipps Construction Inc. December 6, 1978 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES . Planning Commission may choose from any of the following alternatives regarding this proposal. 1. Deny the request for preliminary platting of 60 duplex lots, because it is not in conformance with Ordinance. 135 and not in conformance with the original 1972 Planned Unit Development. 2. Request the developer to modify the plat according to the following recommendations: A. That a transition area of distance, grade separation, and landscaping material be provided along the entire western boundary of the site between the existing single family homes and the proposed duplex units. B. That the cash park fee of $200 per multiple unit, and $275 per single family unit be paid by Hipps Construction Inc. prior to final plat approval for Mitchell Heights First, Second and Third Additions, and that the cash park fee according to Ordinance 332 of $200 per multiple unit be paid prior to building permit issuance on Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition. C. That Outlot A be dedicated to the City of Eden Prairie, improved according to the original Tot lot plans. D: That trailway systems leading from Mitchell Heights 1st, Mitchell Heights 3rd, and Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition be provided to Outlot A, In addition, trail along Tamarac Trail and Mitchell Rd of 6' in width of bituminous surfacing be constructed by Hipps Construction Inc.. E. That the developer submit a plan which illustrates variety. F. That the southern " T" cul-de-sac be realigned so that its inter- section with Tamarac Trail occur at least 150 ft. west of Mitchell Rd. G. That the minimum side yard setback should be 15'. H. A party wall agreement must be sutmr9itted by the developer, be reviewed by the City Attorney, to assure that if lots are to be platted with a party wall lot line and side yard setback to this lot Iine to be waived and a workable agreement is in existence for common building maintenance and reconstruction of a building in event of a diseaster, The Planning Staff would recommend alternative 2. F.rl:,rlNG tN.::c�,7r rnw• �_�- •� " n •^Nava R,wm•.N/tMr1 Mr.w �' hRYt•hltw/II MR.MD S•a A �:tQ •� TOt9'NNC75F ' �'^ �•) PR'N[A B A£V£LEf'£A• / ..•• \ED I ll 141~� hw>fI' aAw-ALSO �saa rrmas 1. ,5G t ••h>1 w��,t�.�t . `\\ i!���,�;/.�,$_��_ � / N'�a /tfl, Sdf`V£YDh'0�'£3fGl,'fA• W♦w1 WM • L LHe w< o- / h'wwL RIw NY iR ,�� •�._ 'r 3-• �.jjrrff: RucwiYal/..,,f r,,.a op ..�.� �;/' `� I �/�'' j•t �h i l aww,i RY,,.anw 1 1 SRh,44:q� Y �• I tjf� »� : � lCNVACER, �/r Jta •aat<u4ry`,�_,�r�aM4:'Mp"wil� �Ia \ti :YA .,\ ;c'c •f�l. 5/T£•9R£A• . 30 --'_.._ � 1 "v (�:.r. pit i �" M _ 1« - f,..• � y' wf �n rr i s ♦ � rl.` �.' D�-1y � It A, k Y '�r.' .i,-.'a• .�\L' •^ .... '.:....._--._.,:'tea• -5'.?.. ?y.�': ...'a c m SAS nr:. I,wi, h,.!IY3"ri1= JPi41'Willy"r 1����"`r-^.T� •rt/'" ; PINAS- ,T VIT7 •r ems• 'm'Lhi. `� �`�"�..''" y �}ti. . "� t , . 11�r -t�r t�1���•�'rwj—'r �Y�( Y_ �t a hlpp's mvitc co plate t 8i ®/� k�:.l� CLim j•~�'� �'ndtutl•:NwGn,taVt.; lateP. tti 4 �!�•' L� "� 7 �i U A`Cd 1 Y : en ar+C�t, h rill TA 1 T r �••". 'r�L�g 4 / °;0 �� t '�. � Y—R �. a r�"`"--�-• ! Inv Li 1(11,3 Ali I.. � ed� ` EL N N to •fi Y 0 11 r� 1. r �� e y 4-1 _ ..,�• Lx 7 t WOO �' ..�G•-i �. .. TIC-•.�'• - ',+�, , 4 .v, - i Riley- Purgatory Creek Waterslterl ID19txit '~ 6950 COUNTY ROAD m�� EDEN PRAtRt@.6T1•MMESdTI4 552 December 6, 1978 Air. Chris Eager City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Eipp's Mitchell Heights 4th Addition bear Mr. Eager: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the 'Miley-Purg toryr Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the above referenced project. The following polictos and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this project. 1. In accordance with Section 8(2) of the Districtfs Rules and Regulations. a grading and land alteration permit applitation'aw k be submitted to the District for this project. An erosion eontrel- plan showing how sediment will be prevented from leaving the development site both during and after coastructioa must accompany this permit application. 2. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development. If YOU . have any questions, please contact us at 920-0655. Sincerely Cqy'il;r yb rt ,1 BARR EXCINM- INC CO-.' Engineers for the District RODA II cc: Mr. Conrad Fiskness Mr. Frederick Richards s f i!ippi and Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers 12004 120 AVENUE SOUTH eUHNSMLE,NIINr:FSOTA 55237 e�z-am,-i.�oo November 28, 1978 Jenn Johnson City of Edeu Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota :534+4 RE: flipp's Mitchell Heights 4th Addition Dear. Jean: I have reviewed your letter of November 24, 1978 and have had an opportunity to discuss the additional information requested with Mr. Hipp. The following information is being provided as requested in your letter. 1. Enclosed are 40 copies of the County half-section maps with the information requested. 2. Ify conversations with Mr. Hipp resulted in our decision not to prepare a grading plan for the project at this time for 2 reasons: a. It would be inappropriate at this stage of the project to provide coinplete overlot grading as the style of twin patio homy-s that will occupy each lot is unknown. Several different models are available and the grading near the structure will vary with the type constructed. b. The preliminary plat proceedures do not require a proposed grading plan to be submitted for consideration. 3. Consistent wirh a prior understanding, Outlot A will be deeded to the City of Eden Prairie for park purposes. 4. Approved P,U.)1. provided for 135 townhouse units. The proposed 4th Addition cowpletes development of the property covered by the P.U.D. with a total of 106 units, a reduction by 20% the ntm:bar of rc-sidences proposed. Tito City of Eden Prairie zoning mnp indicates that tho proposed plat is currently zoned RM 6.5. The proposed development it; etnisistatit with that zoning. 'ILI Mpolis • lnndlkirk+:iniral • #"i�Vt4n'i4R4 CQ's .�� I.i IIL' 71i. November 28, 1978 Jean Johnson Page 2 S. it is Mr. Hipp's intent W haw Hipp' s i but1cT rnt cue lots shown in the proposed plat. However,, sbould Aatket t0nditiws ebange, Mr. Hipp reserves the right to Sell any lets to ether builders. 6. The protective covenantsand dead restrictions are cntrently being drafted. They will provide for Patin*wall Avoomartsv exterior control, retreational 4ehi-l6 sestriatiaais *nd eatsi" antemsa restrictfo". we he t you wi11 find this ittfmr i�ti stif':ftdent .to aogw.lats your rc� W� the r•—posed plat. Should you hava —y questim ragaxding tBe etsalba@ .`, infer .,:lion or have need of aMiti l $riPar t s please Contact us'At yoi,r z.anvenieuce. very, truly yours, FILI PI AND ASSOCIATES INC. James D. Fiiippi, P.B. President JDF/gm encl. r 1 _• (~ , -_411;1 .. -b ••--•-gym '.„i ,,.'�.'•...___ 3. •._..�. -...._-,..���..._ In d ,=.3 ]t 1 SHt. ri 3... j p'E' f ?.t..q�.���r A4I• � ''¢� •�• r. '.r' ,' rtia�,19' a\�ifN'I)9374 ' B.tM�l7}{ q' n'�^�``•. - •� '•t1I', �EdJt , S' 3. � i ILI ' 'ax J' At 3,,, '4 ^3 •'•e. t' dInt 43 ...q:' v3 I I I � 1 .��• �.� `�flq �� jj t �,.;Ois7iiy �� a:v a 14 •• ��\ •.. its � •µ'rt a ..� � �(}V' �• � �• �.t ff• f{ Y = � � �t .S ail ••r, " w' Yr�' Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1979 by and between HIPPS CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and by the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to 'City for preliminary plat approval for approximately 13 acres for development of land more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "the property". and WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property as 29 duplex buildings on 58 lots. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Mayor and Council of the City adopting Resolution 79-21 approving the Hipp's Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition, Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, develop- ment, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall conform with all planning, architectural. engineering, landscaping, fee, and building require- ments of all City ordinances ,or as modified herein. 2. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated January 4, 1979, reviewed and approved by the City Council on and attached hereto as Exhibit B.