Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/01/1979 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath 71:11Cli COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; d`r Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services lib Lambert; o rCalJuie, andoyce Pecording Secretary • INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RDLL.CALL I. APPRSVAL OF'AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF DUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Minutes of City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 3, 1979 Page 985 B. Joint Development Commission/City Council meeting held Page 1003 Wednesday, April 11, 1979 C. Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting held Monday, Page 1005 April 16, 1979 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Set Public Hearing for Neill Woods for ui 5, 1979 Page 1008 ~ B. Set Public Hearing for Topview Acres 4th Addition for June 5, Duo 10O9 1979 C. Set Public Hearing for Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd for Page 1014`'.. June 5, 1979 D. Plans and specifications for channelization and traffic signal Page 1m11 at T.N. 5 and W.78th Street and intersection improvements at T.H. 5 and Mitchell Road, I.C. 51-327 (Resolution No. 79-86) E. Receive lii: petition, order improvements and preparation of plans Page 1012 and specifications for utilities and streets in High Trail Estates, including Duck Lake Road, I.C. 51-322 (Resolution No. 79-::) F. Plans and specifications for Round Lake Area.Trunk Sewer and Page 1015 Water, I.C. 51-315A, and Utility and Street In rovements for Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition, T.L. 51-351 (Resolution No. 79-89) G. Change Order No. 1, adding storm sewer by petition to Lake Trail Page 1016 Estates, I.C. 51-315 Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,May 1, 1979 7 . I1/0 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. (/ Super Valu Shopping Center at County Road 18/Anderson Lakes Page 689 ,y\r- Parkway, request to preliminary plat and rezone from Rural to / C-Commercial, 10 acres located in the southwest quadrant of o Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 (Ordinance No. 79-01 and Resolution No. 79-22) Continued Public Hearing from April 3, 1979 B. Olympic Hills Sixth Addition by Olympic Hills Corporation and Page 905 & • 'he Preserve request to rezone approximately 67 acres from Page 1020 Rural to R1-113.5, preliminary plat approval of 89 single family lots and 7 outlots upon an 111 acre site, and approval of Environmental Assessment Worksheet. This site is 'located west of Olympic dills Clubhouse, east of Sunnybrook Road, and south q . . of Neill Lake (Ordinance No. 79-10 - rezoning; Resolution No. 79-69 - preliminary plat; and Resolution No. 79-70 - E.A.W.) Continued Public Hearing fran April 17, 1979 O. Meadow Park by Faulks & Reynolds to rezone 26 acres from Rural Page 1022 to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat 44 single family lots. Located north of Sunnybrook Road. (Ordinance No. 79-11 and Resolution No. 79-t2) V. • REPORTS OF AIVISORY COMMISSIONS • A.„,4iuman Rights & Services Commission - Comprehensive study of human Page 1043 • service needs in South Hennepin area. VI. PETITIONS, REIUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A e RReeeuest by Mr. Rort tauten for an interim use of the house at rage 1s& 8460 Franlo Road for a dental lab. VII. ORDIN S & RESOLUTIONS . 1 Resolution No. 79-85, granting final approval for M.I.D.B.'s Page 1052 for Blackbourn/Nicholson in the amount of $750,000.00. • B. Resolution No. 79-71, granting preliminary approval for M.I.D.B.'s Page 1053 JJ ) r 1 in the amount of $1,150,000.00 for Energy Controls/Lloyd Miller . 1 Resolution No. 79-72, granting preliminary approval for M.I.D.B.'s Page 1060 in the amount of $1,350,000.00 for Donald Russ --11. Resolution No. 79-81, finding no significant impact and ordering Page 1067 publication of the Eden Prairie High School/Valley View Road Extension Environmental Assessment Worksheet . E. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-229, relating to and establishing Page 1087 subdivision regulations for the platting and subdivision of land 1t and amending Ordinance No. 93, as amended and-relating to procedures, parks, playgrounds, public open space, storm water holding areas and ponds fr. Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,flay 1, 1979 VI I I. REPORTS OF OFFICERS..BOARDS..1 COMMISSIENIS A. Reports.of Council.Council Members 1. Set:1ZUblic..fle `''i tpr Noe Plan Page 1093 2. Cabte,11, (Councilman Paul Redpath) S. B Pgrt of C't}yr meager C. Report el 191,0 B' rne •. Re rt.of Bir e:torr.of Conexmi-ta. Services Brent Lake. Park.Plan (continued front April 11, 1979) .Iti94 2. Rem car laTl�r..VTteni-' trAll take' 3. Tree-W1,1'[t(t4Mk Page 10 98 4. Eden P►ilti r Sl»able cgg asal9 Page 1101 � XM 6 3fXr•X � E. Report of Cita,ElWi IW' 1. Consider'bids fpr iwatter meter((continued from 4/17/79 P496 is Council t 2. Resolution. No. 79-87 SUPriet.ti1151 the prms o G,bnli r P ""ode '14141ftti FAili.fax F. Report of Finance:I:irecter 1. Pasanent,ef Claims Nes. 3995 - 4123 Pape 1,1111 IX. NEW IUSINESS R. AIJSURNNENT. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Sidney Pauly, Paul Redpath and Dave Osterholt COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Eager; City Engineer Carl Jullie; Finance Director John Frane, Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Council agenda: A. Public Relations to be added as item IX. A. under New Business B. Setting of a Public Hearing for May 1, 1979 for a notice of intent to amend the Urban Hennepin County w ,9unit.Y Development Block Grant for Year III and IV and to est. lfsh a multi-year project titled the Senior Citizen Center on Staring Lake as item D on the Consent Calendar C. Items to be added under item VIII. A. Reports of Council Members - 1. Guide Plan (Mayor Penzel) 2. Valley View Road (Mayor Penzel) 3. City Hall Open House (Mayor Penzel) 4. Cable TV (Councilman Redpath) 5. Invitation from South Hennepin Human Services Council (Council- woman Pauly) 6. Highway #212 (Councilwoman Pauly) 7. Billboards (Councilman Osterholt) 8. Hazardous Waste (Councilman Edstrom) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.. Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,April 3, 1979 II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1979 Pg. 4, under item A. 2., 1st line, strike "McCuen, Baywood Terrace" and insert in lieu thereof "Brust, 16830 Duck Lake Trail"; in the same para., last line, after "solution," insert the following: "Mr. McKewan, 16730 Baywood Terrace, sent a letter expressing his concern and opposition". Pg. 7, 1st para., last line, strike "development" and insert in lieu thereof "dedication". MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the minutes of the March 20, 1979 Council meeting as amended and published. Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt "abstained". Motion carried. III. CONSENT CALENDAR • A. Clerk's License List B. Request to set Meadow Park Public Hearing for May 1, 1979 C. Receive 100% petition and order improvements for Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th Addition, T.C. 51-353 (Resolution No. 79-65) D. Setting of a Public Hearing for May 1, 1979 for a notice of intent to amend the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant for Year III and IV and to establish a multi-year project titled the Senior Citizen Center on Staring Lake MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt to adopt items A - 0 on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Super Valu Shopping Center at County Road 18/Anderson Lakes Parkway, request to preliminary plat and rezone from aural to C-Commercial, 10 acres located in the southwest qua•rant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 (continued from March 6, 1979) Resolution No. 79-22 and Ordinance No. 79-01 City Manager Ulstad explained the proponents are present to outline the progress, if any, that has occurred since the March 6th Council meeting. City Engineer Jullie stated he has had several conversations with the City of Bloomington's staff and Hennepin County's staff within the last few days, and have looked at different alignments for the proposed intersection improvements. The proponents have engaged an engineer to look at some fairly detailed designs of the various alternatives which were also reviewed with the City of Bloomington. At this point we do not have an agreement with Bloomington as to where the intersection improvements should occur. Jullie further commented that the Hennepin County staff remains non-committal and are requesting the two connunitie (Bloomington and Eden Prairie) to come to a common agreement before they will proceed with the intersection improvements. Jim Benshoo, Traffic Engineer with 8RW, who has been retained by The Preserve, outlined the 4 alternatives as outlined in communication from Bill Bale, legal counsel for The Preserve, dated March 28, 1979. (Letter attached as part of minutes) • y6( Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,April 3, 1979 -A. Super Valu Shopping Center (continued) Edstrom asked if Bloomington would not cooperate on Alternate #3, would Eden Prairie be left to its own devices. Jullie responded the County could still possibly participate if they determined it was a safety improvement that had to be done without Bloomington's participation, however they haven't come to that • point yet. At the request of Mayor Penzel, Jim Ryan, Ryan Construction Company, displayed graphics of the design of the center with modifications that have been made, Bill Bale, legal counsel for The Preserve, spoke to the effort The Preserve has made to keep people in the area informed, i,e, 1) when they were before the Council on Garrison Forest 2nd Addition, the Council passed a resolution requiring they sign this property as possible non-residential use, and this was done pursuant to their rezoning agreement in an effort to not mislead anybody and to keep everybody fully informed as possible as to the what might happen, 2) The Preserve ran a post card survey to try and feel out opinion in the area which the Council has been advised of, and 31 The Preserve had a public meeting in the Community Center after sending a letter to the residents in the area the middle of last year so that they could come in and make comments with the architect present. Osterholt requested a clear definition of the dollar amounts that have been suggested that the developer is willing to pay for road improvements in the intersection. Bale replied Super Valu is prepared to contribute $70,000 to the interchange and the signing, and The Preserve is prepared to come up with the remaining money necessary to put the signals in that Bloomington is scheduled to pay for. The one major improvement that he has heard needs to be made is lowering of the hill north of the intersection of County Road 18 where the intersection would be, and Mr. Bale stated that is a Hennepin County highway expense that The Preserve is prepared to incur and pay for. Benshoo commented Alternate #3 is exactly the same as the County's plan, the only difference there would be no construction on Ansden Road on the Bloomington side. John Wolcott, 9508 Garrison Way, expressed opposition to the proposal and stated he went down to Hennepin County and researched some of the same things BRW has researched and got a little bit different idea as to what Hennepin County and Bloomington feel are alternatives. Bill Steinbicker, 9152 Neill Lake Road, expressed his opposition to the proposal conmmenting he would like to see the area remain natural or developed as previously planned. Feels Bloomington does have a stake in this and probably should be a part of developing this intersection and widening the road. Mr. Steinbicker also spoke to the fact that Anderson Lakes Parkway is used by many residents of The Preserve for jogging, walking and bicycling. Believes it is essential that some plan be made to provide a bicycling path, walking path, etc., along Anderson Lakes Parkway because as traffic increases it is going to become more dangerous than it is now. Steinbicker also expressed concern about the trail connection on the southern end. Pat Cassidy, 10600 Northmark Drive, and Rita Olson, 9408 Clubhouse Road, spoke in favor of the proposed Super Valu Shopping Center. Joe Duffy, 9440 Clubhouse Road, stated he went out and talked to people in his area to get their ideas and all 40 people he talked to were in favor of the proposal, including himself. Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,April 3, 1979 A. Super Valu Shopping Center (continued) Mr. Bale responded to a request from the audience as to the results of the survey taken by The Preserve: 700 mailings went out, 338 responses were received, of the responses received, 233 were in favor and 105 against. There was a 48% return on the mailing. Results broken down were as follows: Westwind - 24 yes, 9 no; Trails - 19 yes, 19 no; Highpoint - 23 yes, 15 no; Ridgewood - 16 yes, 4 no; Garrison Forest - 8 yes, 10 no; Northmark - 9 yes, 6 no; Basswoods - 12 yes, 4 no; Northmark II - 30 yes, 17 no; Amsden Hills - 16 yes, 6 no; Windslope - 50 yes, 6 no; Windsor - 20 yes, 9 no, and others - 6 yes. Linda Flavin, 9360 County Road 18, and Mrs. Dinham, 9310 Overlook Trail, stated they did not receive a survey card and felt they should have as they live close to the proposed site. Jullie explained the County had two different methods of constructih the intersection, one was total reconstruction which had a total construction cost of $136,400,00, and the other method of construction was widening and overlaying the existing surface at a cost of $109,400.00. Under each method the City's share was about $38,600.00, Bloomington's share was about $20,400, and the County was picking up the additional amount, not including any engineering fees, just raw construction, nor cutting down of the site distance problem to the north of the present intersection, but would include signalization. The County did subsequently revise their plan, but we have not received any cost estimates. Penzel questioned what if the County maintains its position that it will require concurrence of both municipalities or it will not participate, leaving us short in the neighborhood of $80,000 to $85,000, namely the County's share. Bale contented under that circumstance The Preserve would have to back off on that much of an investment on the roadway as it would go beyond the equities of the transaction. Fred Shuberg, 9405 Garrison Way, asked what the distance was from the west access to the shopping center and Garrison Way? Mr. Benshoo responded approximately 50 to 100 feet between the two intersections. Mr. Shuberg felt the distance to be totally inadequate making vision very limited. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing on the Super Valu Shopping Center proposal. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-22, approving the preliminary plat for Super Valu Center subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report and Commission reports, and to withhold any action on a final plat until such time as the traffic safety problems at the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 have been resolved. Council members suggested that the County Commissioners also be contacted regarding this request. Osterholt stated the problem he has is that an approval of the resolution is essentially the City going on record officially in favor of the project, and if these other matters don't work out you are going to have a hard time saying that is the reason for not granting rezoning. Suggested another solution by reopening the Public Hearing and continuing the Public Hearing, and then directing Staff to go to the County and say we direct you to make these maintenance improvements and let them come back and say "yes" they will or "no" they won't, then you have no commitment of the City having made any decision on the resolution. Feels that is the better means of pursuing this matter, if that is the overriding concern of the Council. qa Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,April 3, 1979 A. Super Valu Shopping Center (continued) City Attorney Pauly explained he feels the record is clear that the question of traffic and control of that traffic is a very important consideration for the Council and his view is that the suggested motion does not reflect that the Council feels the problem has been resolved. For that reason, Pauly stated, if the problem is not solved the City should be free not to give final approval to the plat as it is expressly being stated as a condition, and he does not see how the preliminary plat approval would create an implication of final plat approval of that use and would not view it as setting a precedent of the type of use expected, only in the event that the condition is met. Osterholt further commented if the action under consideration is approved he feels it does put the City in a position of having gone on record as saying this type of development is ok, but we would like to have certain things happen with regard to the traffic pattern. Osterholt pointed out a more critical problem in his opinion is to have so many homes that close to the project. Bill Bale stated the proponent would be agreeable to signing an agreement saying there would be no precedent set. • Councilwoman Pauly gave the following reasons for being supportive of the proposal: Staff recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations for approval, the guide plan does call for these four community t.umnmrr.ial centers, the fact that the corner was signed before the homes were built and it already has the PUO approval for high density muitiple.a lot of the people in The Preserve and in the area want the center, signalization and improvements at the intersection will be at a much less cost than they would otherwise be, and Mr. Bale's commitment to sign an agreement this would not set a precedent. Edstrom explained he supports the concept and feels resolution of the immediate problems at the intersection is essential for whatever the City intends to do with the parcel. That type of facility is needed in this area of Eden Prairie to serve the existing residents and future residents. Assuming transportation problems can be worked out at the intersection, it does make sense from a transportation standpoint to put a center on County Road 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Penzel commented modification should be made to allow for adequate spacing between Garrison Way and the rear entrance (the western most entrance of the center) as it is totally inadequate. Penzel acknowledged before he is willing to proceed with this proposal the question of the intersection has to be resolved. Redpath called the question. Motion to include language suggested by City Attorney and agreement to be signed by The Preserve that there would be no precedent set. Motion restated as follows: MOTION: Redpath moved. seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-22, approving the preliminary plat for Super Yalu Center subject to the recommenda- tions of the Staff Report and Commission reports, to withhold any action on a final plat until such time as the traffic safety problems at the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 have been resolved, approval of the preliminary plat would neither expressly or impliedly indicate any affirmative action on the part of the City to contribute any costs to the intersection at this time, and contingent on receiving a signed agreement from The Preserve stating no precedent would be set. Redpath, Edstrom and Pauly voted "aye", Osterholt and Penzel voted "nay". Motion carried, Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,Aprii 3, 1979 • • A. Super.Valu Shopping Center (continued) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to reopen the Public Hearing and continue the matter until May 1, 1979. Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried. Council directed staff to send notices to the neighborhood informing them of the meeting on May 1. 1979. B. United Methodist Church, request to rezone .9 acre from Public to R1-22 of an existing home at 15150 Scenic Heights Road (Ordinance No. 79-06) Tim Pierce was present representing the proponent. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing and give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-06, rezoning .9 acre from Public to R1-22 of an existing home at 15150 Scenic Heights Road for United Methodist Church. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to direct Staff to draft a developer's agreement incorporating recommendations in the Staff Report dated February 22. 1979, and Planning Commission recommendations dated February 26. 1979. Motion carried unanimously. - C. Outlot A, Crestwood 73 by Alex Dorenkemper & Richard Wilson, request to rezone 2.17 acres from Rural to R1-22 and preliminary plat approval for 3 lots. Located north of Dell Drive and East of 9659 Dell Drive (Resolution No. 79-62 and Ordinance No. 79-07) Mr. Dorenkemper spoke to his proposal as outlined in communication dated January 26. 1979. and answered questions of Council members. City Planner Enger spoke to the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial at meeting held February 26. 1979. and to the Staff Report dated February 22. 1979. • General discussion took place regarding this proposal and the past history of the property involved and on what basis the building permit was issued back in 1973. Edstrom stated he would like to see the matter continued as he is not fully aware of the past history on this property and would like time to research this history further before making a decision on how to vote on this matter. MOTION: Osterholt moved. seconded by Redpath, to continue the Public Hearing on Outlot A, Crestwood 73 by Alex Dorenkemper, to the April 7. 1979 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 0. Cardinal Creek by Cardinal Creek Associates, renuest for PUD Development approval, rezoning from Rural to R -i .5 for 53 acres, prelininary plat approval of 58 lots, and approval of Envirionmental Assessment Worksheet (Resolution No. 79-60, approving the preliminary plat; Ordinance No. 79-05, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5; and Resolution No. 79-61, approving the E.A.W.) Billy Bye, Cardinal Creek Associates, spoke to the proposal as outlined in brochure (on file at City Hall). Mr. Bye introduced Greg Gustafson. legal counsel for Cardinal Creek Associates. and Bruce Knutson, landscape architect. who displayed graphics illustrating the project on behalf of the proponents. Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,April 3, 1979 D. Cardinal Creek by Cardinal Creek Associates (continued) City Planner Enger explained this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their 2/26/79 meeting, and also by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources meeting of March 19, 1979. Russell Marsh commented he looks forward to the day there will be open water in that portion of property which was originally referred to as a lake. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-60, approving the preliminary plat for Cardinal Creek. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-05, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 53 acres for Cardinal Creek. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to direct Staff to draft a developer's agreement incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Commission from their meeting held 2/26/79, the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission held March 19, 1979, Staff Report dated February 21, 1979, and to include a provision for a drainage easement. Motion carried unanimously, MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 79-61, finding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Cardinal Creek a private action does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. Motion carried-unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue past the 11:30 PM scheduled adjourn- ment time. Motion carried unanimously. V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS • A. Flying Cloud Advisory Commission - Chairperson Sally.Brown Sally Brown, Chairperson of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, spoke to the action taken by the Commission at their March 23rd meeting whereby the Commission recommended approval of the extension of the southern airport runway. Chairperson Brown announced the two upcoming meetings: I) April 18, 7:00 PM at the Fire Station on Highway #5 and Mitchell Road for the purpose of an Open House/Information Meeting, and 2) the Public Hearing to be held by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on April 19, 7:30 PM at the Vo-Tech for consideration of the southern runway at Flying Cloud. Brown explained the Commission would like to meet with the Council to discuss this item at a joint meeting and the Commission would prefer either April 4th, 5th, llth or 12th. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to meet with the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission preferably on April 17 at 6:00 PM before the regularly scheduled Council meeting, or April 12th at 7:30 PM as an alternate. Motion carried unanimously. • VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COtt4UNICATIONS A. Request by Timothy Gagner for preliminary plat approval of 3 lots zoned R1-22 to be called Alpine Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 79-23) Mayor Penzel spoke to Mr. Gagner communication requesting that his request be withdrawn from consideration at this time, Council members concurred with Mr. Gagner's request. Council Minutes -8 - Tues.,April 3, 1979 B. Request for approval of Round Lake Estates Second Addition Developer's Agreement Mr. Eliason spoke to the changes he has requested which were submitted to the Council for consideration. City Attorney Pauly requested a change in item 9.C., 3rd line, strike "southerly" and insert in lieu thereof "northerly". Councilwoman Pauly felt the City should protect the pond shown on Exhibit B, lot 1, by placing a restriction on that lot. Mayor Penzel explained this item could be discussed at the time the Council considers the final plat approval for Round Lake Estates Second Addition (item VIII.E.1). MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the Round Lake Estates Second Addition developer's agreement with the amendment on item 9.C.,3rd line, by striking "southerly" and inserting in lieu thereof "northerly", not to include the 3 changes requested by Mr. Eliason. Potion carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS • A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-03 rezoning 40 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 59 single family lots, Chatham Wood by Tome Development, and developer's agreement MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-03, rezoning 40 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 59 single family lots for Chatham Wood by Tome Deveiopment. Motion carried unanimously. Penzel requested that the notations on the developer's agreement be initialed on page 4. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the developer's agreement for Chatham Wood with the proviso that the handwritten notations on page 4 be initialed. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council members 1. Councilwoman Pauly reported on two items: A) invitation which will be forthcoming in the mail for Council members to attend the next meeting of the South Hennepin Human Services Council on April 18th at the Eden Prairie City Hall, and B) Pauly requested approvai of the Council to appear before the Metropolitan Airports Commission to alert them to the fact that Highway #212 is going to be before Eden Prairie and we will be having a Public Hearing, which does affect Flying Cloud Airport and the status of Highway #169. Council members approved of Counciiwoman Pauly's request. 2. Councilman Redpath reported on the recent Cable TV meeting he attended, noting that Eden Prairie has to go along with the joint powers or Eden Prairie will not have Cable TV. Redpath explained that Eden Prairie is no further behind than any other community - at least we do have our advisory commission appointed which will have a first meeting on April 10th. 3. Mayor Penzel reported on several items: A) letters ready to go on Highway #212 to the various legislators and invited Council members to co-sign same if they so desire, B) Penzel commented he would like to have an open house in May both to ailow the public to see the new City Hall addition and to visit the new fire stations, C) Suggested renaming Council Minutes - 9 - Tues.,April 3, 1979 • 3. Mayor Penzel (continued) a new section of Valley View Road between Highway #169 and where the new Menard's addition would take off because it is going to be part of Schooner Boulevard (Penzel requested Staff have this item on the agenda. as soon as possible?,D) requested Staff to have the guide plan to the Council for a Public Hearing as all of the commissions have made their recommendations on the Guide Plan. 4. Councilman Osterholt spoke to request he previously made on some billboards and asked the status of same. City Manager Ulstad explained he is pursuing this matter at the present time, and has asked the Naegele Company to remove the sign on Highway 1169 and also removal of the semi- trailer. 5. Councilman Edstrom referred to meeting notice from the Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee of the Legislature and questionedif at this point the Council felt he should still testify. Council members encouraged Edstrom to attend and reiterate the City's position. B. Report of City Manager City Manager Ulstad requested Finance Director Frame to report on an item which will be discussed at the Joint City Council/Development Commission meeting on April lith at 7:00 AM. Frane explained there have been some recent developments in industrial revenue bonds for housing. The Commissioner of Securities is again approving MIDB's for housing. The Legislature at the present time is considering a bill which would eliminate housing from the MIDB section. It is very likely in conjunction with the elimination, they will set some time that those applications or projects could proceed. The Council may want to consider the adoption of a resolution granting preliminary approval to an organization so we would have such an instrument in hand should we consider it necessary. The Commission will discuss same with the Council on April llth, C. Report of City Attorney 1. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Bill City Attorney Pauly spoke to memorandum dated March 29, 1979, and-the proposal made by Staff on May 23, 1978, MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to submit the proposed settlement for repayment of the deferred cost for the reserve capacity and the metropolitan sewer interceptor and treatment works. Roll Call Vote: Redpath, Edstrom, Osterholt, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Park Dedication Ordinance Council suggested fees should be included in the Fee Ordinance, and typos on page 2 should be corrected. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Osterholt, to instruct Staff to prepare the final Park Dedication Ordinance to be before the Council on April 17. Pauly, Osterholt, Edstrom and Penzel vote* "aye", Redpath voted "nay". Motion carried. 1 .3 Council Minutes - 10 - Tues„April 3, 1979 2. Removal of Nesbitt House-- Preserve Park MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to authorize Staff to remove the Nesbitt House. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Bryant Lake and Riley Lake Fees Lambert explained the recommendation is that the only fee would be $1.50 for parking for non-residents. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt the park fees as recommended by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Omission and Staff in memo dated March 13, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Tennis Court Joint Use Agreement Osterholt questioned why the City and School 2istrict should both carry insurance, and what is the cost of same. Lambert stated he would look into this matter. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Tennis Court Joint Use Agreement with the addition of Section 6.5 as recommended by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Request for Approval of Resolution on CDBG Funds Director of Community Services Lambert requested Council consider approval of Resolution No. 79-64 with one amendment as follows: Remove the $1,000.00 transfer from Edenvale Park Year 3 and add it to the $10,500.00, making it $11,500.00, transfer from Edenvale Park Year 4. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 79-64 as amended, approving transfer of Community Development Block Grant Funds to Year Four of The Preserve Park Fund. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of City Engineer 1. Final plat approval for Round Lake Estates Second Addition (Resolution No. 79-66) MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-66, approving the final plat approval for Round Lake Estates Second Addition, Councilwoman Pauly questioned if this motion includes placing a restriction on lot I. Osterholt replied in the negative. VOTE ON MOTION: Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye". Pauly voted "nay". Motion carried. F. Report of Finance Director 1. Payment of Claims No. 3675 - 3810 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 3675 - 3810. Roil Call Vote: Redpath, Edstrom, Osterholt and Penzel voted "aye", Pauly abstained. Motion carried. qld Council Minutes - 11 - Toes„April 3, 1979 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. .tic Relations - Council Pauly'brought up a Iluent letter which appeared in the Eden Prairie News,' and.general dllsdu3�on tookplace 8.in9 articles which appear in the paper. Dick Dahl, Eden 1 airie ; parr. in the discussion. • X. AAA:swifter NOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by; Redpath, to adjourn the'Council meeting at 12:40 AM. Motion carried unanimously. • • • • • r ji vS1OE2 AND BALE.Lid. 3ISPvavovtioklm, .. AW OFFICES 130 Sr+COMJ MAR 2 v 1979 me.part t Mnrrxuu YAW :e ufs orie 339 W 4(.Arqu ht: March 28, 1979 • Mr. Wolfgang Ponzel - Mayor Mr. Paul Redpath Mr. Dean Edstrom • Mrs. Sidney Pauly • Mr. David Osterholt - Council Members Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of The Preserve in connection with the proposal by Super Valu Stores to construct a shopping center upon approximately ten acres of land at the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road. 18. As you are all aware, this matter has been before the Council and has been continued for reconsideration to Tuesday, April 3. Enclosed you will find four sheets of drawings of the land in question at the intersection of County Road 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, these four drawings prepared by the engineering firm of BRW at the request and cost of The Preserve and titled Short Range Alternate 1, Short Range Alternate 2, Short Range Alternate 3 and Long Range Plan. A discussion of the Plans follows, all of this engineering wort: and discussion being for the purpose of informing you, as Council members, prior to the scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 3. SHORT RANGE ALTERNATE 1 This temporary solution is acceptable to Hennepin County and, we understand, with the staff of the City of Eden Prairie. It permits the utilization of the site by Super Valu and requires the agreement of the City of Bloomington for the connection of the Bloomington Ferry Road to County Road 18. The work contemplated under this plan involves lowering the hill to the north of the intersection on County iiii Road 18, reconstructing the four-way intersections so that there are four lanes on all roads approachi.ng. the intersection, installing of signals and cul de sating Amsclen Road whore it lies in the City of Bloomington. This solution is the most *oh.,M Po.M Puukolo.Ns..+ Weynot+pvn Sumo J WSW,If, wm xhc:B.•r I. dJ G•r dv■n0+►.cairn Ot COMA' t +f ( 0.'.A Pn,U+d.J po,,41l tYtAKw �']( JnC►A`AaNrg AN41'M Ft* �.ati+v,aJ lla.vgr Gn+tX'C�.�Y7.7 �710.—_. .�04.—Spur .......___.�._..... ..R1'Ulaa'It 1a. .— ..�.. Mr. Wolfgang Penzol Mr. Paul Redpath Mr. Dean Edstrom Mr. Sidney Pauly Mr. David Osterholt Page 2 March 28, 1979 • direct but requires the immediate cooperation of the City of Bloomington to be effected as shown and requires the immediate taking of the residence known as 92.01 County Road 18, which immediate taking may not be preferred by the City of Bloomington. • SHORT RANGE ALTERNATE 2 This sheet represents what The Preserve and BRW understand to be Bloomington's preferred temporary solution. It avoids the necessity of an immediate taking of the residence referred to above and because of the location of the intersection south of the existing intersection, may not require the lowering of the hill referred to above. It should be noted that the lowering of the hill would not be the obligation of either municipality but instead the obligation of Hennepin County, which obligation Hennepin County is willing to • assume. The principal disadvantages of this temporary solution are: (1) it requires the construction of a great deal of four-lane road which later would be abandoned, (21 the construction involves a very tight turn situation in the City of Eden Prairie thereby reducing the flow of traffic in what is understood to be a somewhat congested area, (3) it destroys the usability of The Preserve site during probably the next ten years, as proposed to be used by Super Valu; and (4) as a consequence to the foregoing, the contribution to signalling by Super Valu of $70,000 plus would not be realized by either municipality or Hennepin County. In conclusion, this is obviously not a cheap temporary solution • from the point of view of increased road construction costs, loss of signalling funding and loss of development of the Super Valu site. SHORT RANGE ALTERNATE 3 This proposal permits the City of Eden Prairie to move ahead without the immediate cooperation of the City of Bloomington, without prejudicing the rights of Bloomington to move ahead on its own schedule, at the lowest possible cost, and without in any way prejudicing the upgrading of County Road 18 should the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Bloomington so agree to that upgrading in the future. Mr. Wolfgang Ponzel Mr. Paul Redpath Mr. Dean Edstrom Mr. Sidney Pauly Mr. David Osterholt Page 3 March 28, 1979 yy The work involved under this proposal would be to widen Anderson Lakes Parkway as it intersects with County Road 18, to widen County Road 18 on the Eden Prairie side so to permit easy on and easy off at the intersection, and the installation of signal's at this intersection. • Amsden Road (in Bloomington) need not be upgraded or closed because of the low traffic. The traffic pattern from the east to west would flow along Veness Road and across the temporary gravel connection to County Road 18. The intersection of the temporary gravel connection to County Road 18 would not require signalization because of its long distance from the hill to the north of the intersection under consideration, and in connection with the actual signalization of the _ intersection, Super Valu is again prepared to pay $70,000 plus towards the cost of this traffic control. This proposal has the advantage of permitting the • immediate upgrading.of the intersection on the City of Eden Prairie side, the signalization of the intersection, the continuation of the traffic flow in a safe manner from Bloomington to County Road 18 across the temporary gravel connection, the development of the Super Valu site, and all of this at a relatively low cost. • LONG RANGE ALTERNATE PLANS • Assuming the City of Eden Prairie would approve Short Range Alternate 3, or in cooperation with the City of Bloomington, ' Short Range Alternate 1, both such proposals would be consistent, acceptable to the Hennepin County Highway Department and permit the expansion of County Road 18 to either arterial or freeway standards at a later date. No drawing is submitted with this letter for the arterial alternate plan since it would be just an extension of the work done as shown on Short Range Alternate 1 enclosed. The Long Range Plan attached shows how a freeway interchange might be constructed if approved by the•City of Eden Prairie and the City of Bloomington. The Long Range Plan enclosed would contemplate signalling at the off ramp in the City of Bloomington and at the off ramp at the City of Eden Prairie (opposite the Super q93 .'�', • • Mr. Wolfgang Penzol Mr. Paul Redpath Mr. Dean Edotrom Mr. Sidney Pauly Mr. David Osterholt Page 4 March 28, 1979 Valu store) and would contemplate that Old County Road 18 would become the service road as shown by the flow of traffic design next to parking on the Super Valu site. RESIDENT OPINION POLLS The City Council has received petitions both for and • against the development of the Super Valu site and the following information is simply to emphasize those petitions with which The Preserve is familiar. The City Manager, Roger Ulsted, and members of Eden Prairie's City Council have received a petition in favor of the development signed by 27 owners/residents. In addition, The Preserve took its own opinion po11 in the form of a . postcard mailing, a copy of the'form attached to this letter. The Preserve mailed out 700 of these cards and received a response of 233 Yes to 106 No. This represented a 48% return on the mailing. CONCLUSION Based upon the enclosed engineering studies and an examination of the problem by The Preserve, Super Valu, the developer for Super Valu (Ryan Construction Company) meetings with the staff of the City of Eden Prairie and Hennepin County, it seems that the following are reasonable conclusions. 1. Alternate 1 is the most direct solution to the development of the property but will probably be delayed by the City of Bloomington which is acting on its own schedule and for its own reasons, all in connection with the acquisition of 9201 County Road 18 and its view of the manner in which County Road 18 should be developed. 2. Alternate 2 is the most expensive, short-term solution to solving the traffic congestion which now exists at County Road 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, due to the excessive construction of four-lane roadway, the physical and economic damage upon the Super Yalu site and the loss of the contribution to the signalling expense. • • 441 0, _ -- Mr. Wolfgang Ponzel Mr. Paul Redpath Mr. Dean Edstrom Mr. Sidney Pauly 4 r Mr. David Osterholt Page 5 March 28, 1978 3. Alternate 3 represents the least expensive solution to the problem and probably the most expedient solution to the problem. It contemplates the use of existing roads } for access to County Road 18, the development of County Road 18 on the Eden Prairie side,,. the immediate development._ t of the Super Vale site a:s„that proposal is now before the City Council for the City of Eden Prairie and the use of Super Vale money of $70,000 plea at a contribution towards the necessary signalling at the intersection. 4. All of the foregoing preliminary conclusions are conatetent with and do not ruin the long tines plan for'-a full scale intersection in the ant that the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Bleomingtcut, in cooperation with the Hennepin County HighwayHigbwaY0aPartmeato. Should all agree that upgrading of County Road 18 should be accomplished to that level. It is not the intention of the enclosed material to suggest that at this 44ma either O. City of Eden Prairie or the City of Bloomington should take . a position on the Long Range Plan. The inter• eCtioa'i diagram as presented with this material is acceptable a to Hennepin County Highway etAn. rds. On behalf of the developers and Super Vale and consistent with what The Preserve and developers understand to be the consensus of residential opinion as to the necessity for the proposed Super Vela development, we would request that you approve the enclosed engineering data and the request for the rezoning and building of the shopping center consistent with Short Range Alternate 3. Very trul'y yours, f. a MAST©R AND BALE, LTD. 1 ,..,:,.. By 114/1;144( William G. Dale WGB/mcl • Gi ,h,es all' i9ttcraa1 i— a Attention: City Manager Roger Ulstad MAR n ,. Members of Eden Prairie City Council We, the undersigned, are in favor of building a grocery store, hardware store, drug store etc at the corner of Highway 18 and Anderson Lake Road: .4 4"Tf ;11 h'sz.��-{:` i <1u�6• 44...�_..4.24. e i!! g '4 � iT'�9/rt`Ca( qs�Ylr....4 , q..'1/$ O.*1/Ure a ho..ev ,.. ' _,i at?,•"., Fll .4 ,c.::� . ("-: z``-I- ‘S r d-. eye et-i_ ' � ! � C � i 11 '1 � +? s : + / � s 7 p. ,e—i.„<„,,,,-,:‘ ?1,..„4_,.. (,,,,„ . .fr :-:..-c.. . �fL, )( {{ I rite ,•,,,,, , --: .FAteer,ZZ4L6s. 90 Cr. ILA.,/hoe , - -1'4.4. `' f � . rft ti icka„ U (t c ) `t :k. tr#,.:3 idclst.. - •: 11 / t�T . / • > 1Z. set"' �L+".dL':Z f' d e.tiEt IGy.Jd .��ti' •y :. .9 / ' A:7 ( CI''at i 1.,,Z, '' ° ,•7, 4/ f-t'2'IC'7°141.- " !�1 l"f I `� 11'..� /!✓ C '�1`; =d.:sa ':.. '�;12r �L .Lem �/ c d fe 3 C. 4.:a-et/.g- f c4' /,/ I •e. y. F C/-",' cueko tka yla,IA,A cl,l, - tlk 14 i-tx-viLl .--::::: S. ,0),54-,..,. i -'x_-t.-feL id,✓„d u leg l l:7 C.rr- ..1111' 9 -• . ''' .„''.: , ' ' -...„: ., - .•'7. , . . . .. • .:-,,‘,. -,..... ... .. .. . . , _ . _..... ... . . . . . . . , '' ' ' .... ...... li. ./. Al•, i ,-id". "'It, , -"•,,,'- 9570 atc,„<„, .,„... • 4 4:,.,.." . .. yelp civiiitypii#9, 9 '/ 4747 ce4_0.4.., ffof4,1 e,Atilies - ( . fi 4v5 .... . ..::.":: . ..:;.- )(4 W,(4 ",(7 941?,"-..' i(Vri,'.2 • •'..::,..:..: ..„. /4 .,d- .44,---- A-0,_ •,',.•: . 0.4.4.4Attvuutzei•- . .1404•-•(J7I-01 i. .:,...L ct 4' Al , . (1)1 alf fk n . tar L, 1 if A Atiotif ' • 47. 1,15 3- ad ,6 tit fricf.H a ;-, ?lei Ab.ie IAA ird . tAii- e-231 ...., •.,,•,.,::-: . ..1 ......., . , •„...-. ..:::,: , ,:•1:::...;:4 .„•.-. -,.. -... ..'7, •' .,..;:-. • • :. :1?,.;:. • :j:., ..::',::••,:-;; • , ' !,..•:':::--5 •r-.'''': • ,."-•--,i. •;•E',..,: • ,..-;•-•,1,, ..... . .,..::::.., . ,. . _ ... ., .,.. .. „.......,.._ . , .. ., ... ...,........ . . „_. ... : .. , . . , • JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Unapproved WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1979 7:00 AM, CITY HALL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS Chairman Tim Pierce, Jerry Kingrey, PRESENT: Robert Moore, Don Opheim, Mike Pohlen, Roy Terwilliger, and Robert Hanson CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Paul Redpath, Dean Edstrom, and Sidney Pauly CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: Dave Osterholt COMMISSION/COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad, Finance Director Jo:+n Frene, and Recording Secretary Donna Stanley I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Opheim moved to approve the agenda as published, seconded by Kingrey. Motion carried unanimously. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1979 MOTION: Opheim moved to approve the Minutes from meeting held March 14, 1979, seconded by Terwilliger. Motion carried, with Hanson abstaining. III. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Industrial Revenue Bond Funding for Home Mortgage purposes City Manager Ulstad summarized the background of Industrial Revenue Bond Funding. Possible alternatives of handling the program were discussed. such as the use of a re-Development authority; and also whether this would help fulfill the City's requirements with the Metro Council for low and moderate housing. Additional information was requested from the Staff on the various approaches: Federal Housing Administration, mortgage approach or combination of both. The Staff was also directed to check with the Metro Council on eligibility and housing requirements. MOTION: Terwilliger moved to direct the Staff and Development Comnission to investigate further Industrial Bond Funding and come back to the City Council with a reconmendation. Hanson seconded, motion carried unanimously. • Deveiflpment Commission Minutes• - 2 - Unapproved April 11, 19/9 77.4 B. Other items, of discussion City Manager Ulstad summarized the status of the Eden Prairie Foundation in response to question by Edstran. Pauly spoke to an upcoming meeting tin trannpyrI Lifln to be held at the Hazeltine Golf Courseon April 20th at 11:45. The suggestion was made that.the Chamber of Commerce<be imrted to a Development Ctmmission meeting to share hair views. IV. NEW BUSINESS ... ,. . .... None. • • g• QJG9MEMi MOTION: Terwilliger moved to adjourn at 8:30 NI, seconded by:Polen:, Notion carried unanimously. • • • • • • fr JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES approved MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Sidney Pauly, David Osterholt, and Dean Edstrom CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: Paul Redpath PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Matthew Levitt, Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, George Bentley and Hakon Torjesen . PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Oke Martinson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning • Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as published. Id. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION • A. Transition Ordinance for MCA vs. interim use agreements Bearman summarized the concerns of the Planning Commission on this subject, explaining that as the Major Center Area continues to grow with interim uses, the Planning Commission would like to have guidelines to determine future proposed interim uses. The drafting of a Transition Ordinance for the M.C.A. was discussed. and the following suggestions were made: 1. Combination of ordinance and developer's agreement, tailored to a situation. 2. Flexibility. rather than limited in approach. 3. Definition of M.C.A. boundaries. 4. Time frame for interim uses, termination date, subject to review periodically, with adequate notice given. 5. Protection of landowners. 6. Define purpose and objective. 7. Consideration of abatement of taxes on single family homes. 8. Study of surrounding communities' policies and ordinances directed at this question. 9. Request opinion from the City Attorney on the alternatives. 10. No additions to existing structures should be allowed. Bearman requested the item be put on the Planning Commission agenda for the May 14th meeting for discussion and recommendation to the City Council. 8. Discussion of liason Council member Bearman discussed, what the Planning Commission felt to be a communication link through a liason Council member. especially when large complex type proposals come before the Commission. C Joint City Council/ 'approved Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 16. 1979 B. Discussion of liason Council member (continued) Various suggestions were made and discussed and iy was generally aoreed unnn that a joint meeting be requested, in addition to the two meetings per year suggested by the City Council, whenever the need arose. C. Development Review 1. Totlots The Planning Commission requested a definition of tot lot, how it was authorized, and whether "density vs. lot size" was to be used in • determining the need. Mayor Penzel explained that it was a matter of definition, and that various criteria was used such as: 1. 1 acre 2. 10 acresftoo220 acn ace for res for userty to fort as informal game area, with ball its, maintained fume owners. fields, skating rink etc. 3. Tot lots were not regarded as trade-offs because they are not large enough, and the smaller the lot sizes were, the more the.tot lots are needed. 4. Avoidance of locating tot lots next to holding ponds for safety purposes. 2. Lot sizes The major concern of the Planning Commission was to receive the Council'S thoughts on the concept of lower cost housing on smaller lot sizes. The Mayor explained that there should be•a•strict relationship between the cost of housing and size of lot and two points should be considered: 1. Income 2. Are we meeting lower cost and middle income housing? This will be reviewed in depth during the Ordinance review. The Planner pointed out that policies that are being discussed at this stage may have very little effect, because most development will be planned for within the next 2 to 3 years. therefore an ordinance with tong range vision should be adopted. Cul-de-sacs were discussed, and it was generally agreed that the City had too many, and they should be limited to where they made sense in a project. 3. City's development rate; need vs. existing services The question of how much development could absorb in terms of roads and services was discussed. The Mayor explained ncial lers Associates, recommendedtt at $3,0000,000 the City's a yearly cbes spent tfor hpublic d improvements. The Planner explained that to the extent that we have development all .over the City, our road systems will continue to absorb it, but intense • • • Joint City Council/ 'approved Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - 'Merit 16, 1979 • 3. City's development rate. . . .*erv1ces tcoginuee) development in one area would overload the City's road system. The possible need for special assessments was discussed, and it was suggested that a new opinion from Ehlers and Associates be requested on the amount of funds to be used for public improvenents. Dearman suggested that more be done to protect home buyers from false selling statements. 4. Limiting radiyo of The Planner explained the:CItytt ill edure for fotiftcatioi of residelitt of public hearings. Currenatly,t_the legal requireMent fir platting notification Is 350', but the Cfty hat 'neirififed•u .1,O00' 'be tusse of location Of'Weft; Re explained the mailing.Oreced_ure,has become eerytime construing,.arid suggested that a possible solution could be to request developer to purchase the teeppt r run-off sheet from Hennepin CountyCutaity.of addresses Within the radius of his Pro-- posal.' It was suggested that a radius of i'' of affected inflevice,.,but no Ten that 50O', be used as the natificatton guide line. . • Various suggestions were made on the notification prcwefa such as the.possibili . of publishing the public hearings„ in addition to the legal notices already pub*» • fished, and hand delivery of noticesby local Girl Scout-troops. III. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Torjesen moved to adnourn at 9:DO PM, seconded by Gartner. Motion carried. unanimously. 7. • Dia April 24, 1979 • Mr. Roger Ulatad City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8980 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, M81 56344 Dear Roger, Please request the City Cor+nel7 to seta public hearing on the reaming of the Neill Woods subdivision June 5 or sooner. The site is not readily visable from any public roads, but if you wish, you have our permission to erect the necessary signage on the painetitig rezoning. . Very y yours, f e W. Jo' on Vice President Eagineeriig LWJjjn CC: Jim Hill 'till Anafsrson Lakes Parkway.Eden Afejrie.41Themeate,EiN4•Of )9414 JERROLD T.MILLER 7I20 Gerard Drive Eden Prairie.MN 55344 APR 2 5 1919 April 24, 1979 Roger Ulstod,City Mwinger Village of Eden Prairie 8940 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Rat Tapview Acres-Fourth Addition Dear Mr.'Ulstadt Our request for rezoning and plating of approximately 17 acres in the Topview area was h heard by the Planning.Commission April 23. They op- • proved our request. • I would like to request that the rezoning and preliminary plating of Topview Acres Fourth Addition be placed an the City Countil's agenda and*.public hearing be scheduled at the earliest ccnvesrient tins. I will tolk to Bob Lampert about being placed on the Park and Recreation Committee agenda far their next meeting. Thank you. • Sincerely, f1 Jerrold i.Msehar • cc Chris Enger, Director of Planning 'et" ail:of —90.440 si.VALLEY wave Rmro ODIN PAAmna.WOMOTA 5.143 ISUPINONE 111211144001 APR 26./979 . April 24, 1979 • City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Shady Oak Industrial Park, 2nd Addition Gentlemen: Kindly set for hearing before the City Council, at the earliest possible date, the Zoning and Platting of Shady Oak iNdustrial Park, 2nd Addn. Yours very truly, fiehiA, andiekdat71 Richard W. Anderson /,► /mrt • • /010 • • May 1, 1979 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-96 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVER- TIholtdi FOR BIOS (I.C. S1-327) WHEREAS, the City Engineer, through Bather Ringrose Wolsfeld. Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvement, to wit, I.C-. :11-327, Channelization and traffic signal at T.H. 5.A W. 70th St. and intersection im • - provmnents at T.H. 5/Mitchell Rd. and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: ; 1. Such plans and specifications, a espy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. • 2. The City clerk shall prepare and ruase to be inserted in • the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertises for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The adver- tisement shall•be published for 3 weeks, shall specify the work.to be done, shall state that bids will be opened at 10.00 o'clock A.M.. .on Friday, June 1, 1979* and con- sidered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, June 5, 1979, in the Council rhamhars of the City Mall, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and + filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penael, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Frane, Clerk r« May 1, 1979 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 7g-38 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 1001 PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUB- LIC IMPROVEMENTS IN HIGH TRAIL ESTATES (I,C. 51-322) BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 1009 of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the .proposed sewer, water and street improvements in High Trail Estates, I.C. 51.322, at an estimated total cost of 5780,000, have petitioned the City Council to construk.t said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.O31, Subd. 3. and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City Engineer, with the assistance of Rieke Carroll Muller Assoc., Inc., shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvementA in accordance with City standards and advertise for bids thereon. 3. Pursuant to H.S.A. 4429.0314 Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the of- ficial newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improvements shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publication of this resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on • • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor _- ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 1 . ... ,,.. .. _... ..... .. ........ . .. . ... .,. ... . . . I . • . ' . .. ''.• :e. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, xreasson • :., . • 100% PETITION TOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS • . • . . to Tuz Eau PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: . • , The undersigned areal]. the fee owners of the reel property described below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described improvements:. . . . . (General lacati010 • • • x Sanitary Sewer. Duck Lakp RA pp....... n..410. laha Trail, Y GA 2,1001 •. X Waiermain Nish Trails voi,41.4.•$9.1. . . . X -Storm Sewer . . . ------- . , • . , x Street Paving • - Other ---.......- . ' .. Puissaut to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigtmdheretarvalve any . . • public hearing to be held on said Improvements, and further state and agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be oP004.011Y.%s° messed against the property described below in accordance with the City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the preliminary, estimated total cost for the said isprovementio i$ ' , . Street Address or other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners . .. Description of Property to be Served at be owners of record) . _ 6709 Duck Lk. Rd. - . . , .., ' 6616 168th Ave. W. -..--":,. Parcel 2000 Lametti 10 acre'approx. • ." dui-) •; i.fri . 4r • *•:r-c," .., .,e,.."•...17 Parcel 3805 Lametti 10 acre approx. ; are .,,,,Z7.4 .1 • .. ... • , . • vmml•0•00.•••• ••••• •=0..001000.00010mila.="0......0000•0100 • . . .. • ... ...m........mr••••• ••mmimosoloo , • . •, •••0,=...........010.0.= .0.11•INNIIP=........."010 0 . .. . ... .... . . (For City Use) • . .. ••....- • Date Roceixed.----U114J _ W...---...—......----. . . : .:•••,.:.! Project No. ..... ......,—..--......................— • ... :•;',-.:'.:' . .:7 Council Consideratian__SLnL„,...„.... ih. 613 .._ .. ..., . ..,...,... • '.... . .... .-.. ., -, . • : ..:.• .':: .' ..::.'::''''. .::::: ::: ::'.. .. •. ... ...--.,. .,.. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 100% PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS . • TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL. The undersigned are all the fee 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) x Sanitary Sewer Duck Lake Rd. From Duck Lake Trail-2,1001 Nerth •• -- ' n x Watermain x -Storm Sewer II • Street Paving " - Other • Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any public hearing to be held on.said improvements, and further state and agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as- sessed against the property described below in accordance with the City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the prel4m4pPry, estimated total cost for the said improvements is ' Street Address or other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners Description of Property to be Served f (Must be owners of record) bike en I ,-v (i ( (� /----- t3 !� � �.44 i uu% �4 L✓t m..i f a1.�St .��,. / L G�i+ae k h�cl,P��./1 e==.(.'-c � i<•A: •tr-.,F--s. ,L8) ) /t &) ,_ /ii,sir 3 )N1,/)?Yr...//{4,4!vs. PZ Y C Ci 541 0 .i c f<:.. mil'. d tK,.i}•r&l o' C. 0. i-/ (J l a,,t c..t 5,9 DO '"h . r,, ao �.-i ?' (For City Use) ` .. Date Received N/ 4/11 Project No. 5%-32;.. + .. -___,.......•4an s;I,J'i .....r� - " - Mal It 1979 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-89 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVER- 116tmENT FOR BIDS (I.C. S1-327) WHEREAS, the City Engineer, through Rieke Carroll Muller, Assoc., has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvement, to wit, - IIC? $1.315A, Round Lake area trunk sewer• and *Ohm, and I.C. 6141j, Utility and street tMpreVements for Round Cake Estates 2nd Addition and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval! NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specificationS, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the CenStruction Bulletin an ad- 1 vertisement for bids unCe the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The adver- tisament shall be published far 3 weekc, shall SPeciVY the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened at 1030 o'clock A.M. on Thursday, May 24, 1979, and con- sidered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday. June 5, 1979, in the Council Chambers of the City and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and. filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified rhe4 payable to the City for SS (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Welfgang.H. Penzel, Mayer " • ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Frane, Clerk • MO40 TO; Mayor Fenzel and embers of the City Council THROUGH: Roger tilstad, City Manager FROM: Carl dullie, City Engineer DATE: April 27, 1979 SUBJECT: Change Order Ito. 1, I.C. 51-315 The attached Change Order in the mount of $12, i is In:r~e�trse to a . petition fran Arlo Elinor;for additional start .suer pipe to handlea drainage problae:in the Rowed Lake,Estates w kcidi an pipe raiuld ' cross through Lake Trail Estates and'Air.. Eliason ties agrRed to p y the total cost. Recommend approval of Change Order No. 1, I.C. i1-415. C33l:kh Attachment • • • • ., 4 • eo# ~ . • • ,. ,.• ' • • • • •, • • • • • .....,, • . . „ • . , • • , • April 25. 1979 . • '• . . . . • •. . . . Tos . . • • • • Carl Janie. City EtEillaarS eitr.of Eden Prairie .• . • . • • • I do hereby petition fora Change order in • ** Improvement dantra,ct No, II,-315 for a *tor. % sewer throueb• • .Lake Trail Trail Estates' from Round Lake Estates Addition. • . per_plans by Rieke, Carroll, Muller, at * cost eetimete, • •-• of $12,400,0d. • , sincerely yours, . . 2,44 Ellason, President • • •. •Eliaeon Builders, Inc. • • • • . . • . • „.• „.„.„ . , . . ..,„ „. ..„. . . „ • • /01/7 . CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATED 4-23-79 PROJECT: Lake Trail Estates ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO. 781023 OWNER: City of Eden Prairie CONTRACT DATE: November 7, 1978 OWNER'S PROJECT NO. I.C. 51-315 TO: Nodland Associates, Inc. ,CONTRACTOR You are directed to make the changes noted below in.the subject contract: _ . . ._. OWNER: City of Eden Prairie BY: DATE: NATURE OF THE CHANGE: Add to the contract: 170 LF 15" RCP CL III @ $20.00 LF 1 EA Catch Basin @ $1,000 EA .285 IS 18" RCP CL III @ $24.00 IS 10 TON Sand Bedding @ $6.04 TON 1 EA 18" RC End Section @ $1,000 EA All to be constructed per attached 2 CY Riprap @ $50.00 CY drawing. ENCLOSURES: Plan & Profile Sheet - Copy of quote from Nodland Associates, Inc. • The changes result in the following adjustmsnt of Contract Price and Time: • Contract Price Prior to this Change Order: $ 318.852.00 Net(IncreaseXi iecrease)Resulting from this Change Order • $ 12,400.00 Current Contract Price Including This Change Order $ 331.252.00 Contract Time Prior to This Order Completed by July 1, 197(1 Net(IncreaseXDecrease)Resulting from This Change.Order 0 Calendar Days Current Contract Time Including This Change Order Completed by July 1, 1979 The Above Changes are Approved: The Above Changes are Accepted: RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC. • NODLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. `� ENGI ER CONTRACTOR BY: �Lt %: -'' DATE: 4/3--A/72 _ -- (I 2) t /�cpp lip) ,/ r_ {f ro.r..mom t. I U IJ U g`IPtk /f°"MD n7 LI`L [ /t lC,,Ct y( . i;.,\( �'j n. .ra .tmni i7c[aar r s R R.---•']�'"/t_��l u �.R..i •4 4M PnO N N• uyus ' h.tiMfUq i*NN.4iUu16u=Gut- 1'hynnr i (ITtfchow NODIA'ND ASSov:TATEL338 rnc. i0 Rieke Carrell_MNiller_Anro044e14T11°. . 1. ' - 2flll First S . South + + 1�AINNESOTA SSSQH __ opkiz�a,_F"ixwtetR_ e$.,.._ ... _. . . . Cb15)7434199 R Ed!ae 1'rai} e 8toral 8esnar 81'e�poafl ._ Rude, _ A 199 ? SUeIECT _--_ Weluxeregiewed,jAsa _ '.$h sbbrm sewer and are pleased to tucrte the t'ol.lemia: Reap .*_ 9 6 — E --Rip Rap Band Bedding . . 10 ton 111.03 alterbetel'Ifit. -Ix via titsikka,-mtnirsegur. • 1hta4 prima 48 2,h00.00. k . ' :� , PLEASE. REPLY TO 1 SICNent DATER s1ONEDi .�R- --- -W- OOTACM YELLOW CCWM+SEND WMI1E ANO RW&COOKS With CANNONS e AV N..Flii1N43 ,AApifYe;,NtL...A WtRE N1JLt plSWS{S SNKLOiE MFIAI/ACTIAlN..WO.�OCA.�Rai*11Y.S.RYII Mt!CLW7CN.M1SNN�•ANFRI6MR.COW ti S COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED . .;d° '1 • • • gut Z m m iPt:-m m m V) fl g U. I a . 8 d' soas �: - ..S 4 fs t m m C a 11 . C 0 Ow 2 4 4.8 3 i .1, r- 4. : .,..14 1 :jai g 2: • 8 2 it. 2 �� 4. - a r • 'a Iyyt..s G j;E c,. ii qI. N .e .a S 5 r r a rr. 1. g ' '''''. El . - -.- .. -....'-''''i.H'...'-'''..'•:...5'......',.: �V, ,�; t v 1 YI( 1SQw t JRt: FAG / 839 `-'J 'N. �/ / • FP 1 • _ �. D a 'I' ._._ ._ - I .. 1 fir., ,.. ..t� w'.� �'.�� i.t Mi:�� j �IP;.. . ;•�s!f ■.� 13.3 77. i:1„ml ! •4a n�itiq�� PUB 1 - r/...4.11 4,.-.!. giiI/f\ P, ‘r. j ��� III"U. I:.r ram;. : x"` ``-'llifor,e) % .r i ..w F I4I ' ( ,�;`.,a4►\ \ ' Universal Land;)Ai :-....."--.---':::." ",, ') & ,i+ti�;,4� United Faulks PRESERVE �./,_, is Lower b and Rey- t r:c;' ;•::<:ca �i,_. lot Aar - .I-i-I z_ t1_ilf. r _. voids '�����I _.� `:,r, �,.. . � j17i .•. S� 0i pic4,41 PRESERVE __Dele41T 13 �.„ . is Corp. pp ��Pro..sed 0, ���. . iidlife ;t�+`y 1a 1 1 PA1'fls�� PI-.- ✓1., Welter .. " i��ir��1� , PRESERVE - .� 0lym.ic club-� 9 [►�llivah „a an .1 • • ly H is house • 1�c�\/a wir His. C. p. a ,� '1'i'*^ if r-- ,111 or 5th ar4, �. 4 '1� 'lls- �, rrough TT- ■ _' " 1i Villi ?Ii‘,4,-. 4 Prairie 4w Hillsborough : ' 1111111171.—. -- East 6th 'Jd2/ rid".` • Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -3- B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals a. Meadow Park Single Family Subdivision Lambert introduced Mr. Don Buteyn and Mr. Dave Vogel who presented the project to the commission. The plan had been altered slightly, adding more acreage to provide the road, (the new total is 27 acres) and increasing the number of lots to 47. Sidewalks are planned along Larkspur Lane and Homeward Hills Road; these would create a connection from the Preserve to Purgatory Creek. Kruell questioned the fact that the developers hold 45 acres, and are developing only 27 at this point. He asked if this doesn't negate the purpose of the EAW worksheet, which is required on developments of 40 acres or more. Can we and should we consider the entire area? Although Lambert agreed that Kruell had made a good point, there is no way the commission can require the developer to include all his land in a proposal. Kruell asked how close it would be to a neighborhood park. Lambert told him that it is about 1 mile to Lake Eden and two blocks from a proposed 5-6 acre park. • MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend to the council approval of the Meadow Park project according to the staff recommendations in the memorandum of March 29, 1979. Tangen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. b. High Trails Estates Lambert introduced Cliff Swenson who handled the presentation to the commission. The proposal showed 79 lots in a 40 acre development with a mini-park plus cash park fees. He also mentioned that the potential drainage problem was going to be resolved. Kruell questioned whether the information on the drainage at Duck Lake was correct. R. Anderson asked which park would serve the area. When he was told Eden Farms West, he pointed out that it is not yet owned by the city. Lambert explained that within a few months a developer has suggested dedicating this park (8-9 acres) area as part of a development proposal he is working on. Dave Anderson pointed out that part of the proposed development is within one-half mile of Prairie View School/Park. /Ga„( MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: March 29, 1979 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Meadow Park Single Family Subdivision PROPONENT: Don Paulks, Dean Faulks, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Reynolds REQUEST: Approval of preliminary plat with 44 single family lots on 26 acres, and rezoning from. Rural to R1-13.S for the same 26 acres. LOCATION: North of Co. Road 1 and Purgatory Creek, East of 169, West of Neill Lake BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report CHECKLIST: • 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) No Affect on park: N/A 2. Adjacent to public waters? Yes, within shoreland of Neill Lake Affect on waters: No significant effect • f from acrea - •1,11 - 3. Adjacent to trails? Yes, trail mean a ^',z' through this development to Homeward Hil c Road Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) multi-use Construction: • (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime)Operete sidewalks Z. asphalt tr- Width: 5' 4 6' Party Responsible for construction? Developer Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) Dedicated Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industriallesidential Single Family Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood) Lake Eden Neighborhood Park Need for a mini-p:rk? No /0,23 -2- S. REFERENCE CHECK: • a. Major Center Area Study: N/A • b. Neighborhood Facilities Study:This site is within the service area of the Lake Eden or (Edenvale South) Neighborhood Park. C. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: Ter a47em.Are All within nllewahle cite of the general development district. There are no lots on the shoreline. - O. Floodplain Ordinance:cc,.prnpftwAA alignment for Moarwerrl Rillc Road is yithin Inihlir water Refer to Planning ltgcc Report for action. .f. @aide Plan:The 106R Cd+ida Plan and the 1979 snide Plan 10da e_both denote chic area RA tingle family low density. g. Other: 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A 7. CASH PARK FEE?Cash Park Pee applicable at time of building permit should be paid. 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: Adjacent neighborhood type is also large lot single family residential. No opinions stated to date. 9. Number of units in residential development? 44 units . Number of acres in the project? 26 Special recreation space requirements: N/A 10. STAFF RECOM'IENDATIONS: Community Services Staff recommends approval as per Planning Staff Report recommendation alternate 1 with the following additions: a) Out lot B be eliminated from the plat b) Must be approved by the Riley/Purgat• Dreek Watershed District. • • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES approved MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Beaman, Matthew Levitt, Liz Retterath. Hakon Torjesen, George Bentley, Virginia Gartner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Oke Martinson STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donna Stanley,'Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL-CALL .. B. Meadow Park, by Faulks & Reynolds.. Request to rezone 26 acres from Rural • to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat 44 single family lots. Located north of Sunnybrook Road. A public hearing. The City Planner discussed the staff report of March 20, 1979 explaining that one of the main concerns was access to the property. and that the planning staff does not feel that Sunnybrook Rd. west is a viable access for the devel- •opment because it is a gravel road and has a hazardous intersection at-U.S. 169. He outlined several alternatives for access through the construction of Home- ward Hills Road extension as well as a secondary access through Olympic Hills Sixth Addition or an access to Creek Knoll Road via direct connection between Sunnybrook Road and Creek Knoll Road. .Mr. Don Buteyn , representative for the pro- ponent, explained that the surrounding proposals, Lake Heights Addition and Olympic Hills Sixth Addition have received Planning Contnission approval, and that they are currently negotiating with N. S. P. on land to the west, and they feel it will not present a problem. There is an N.S.P. easement on the land. This property will contain middle and upper income hones. Mr. Jerry Sundeen,land surveyor for the proponent discussed the site as rolling, agricultural land, with all lots cuittormina to the zoning ordinance. They are negotiating with N.S.P. for right-of-way for Homeward Hills Road and the outlot that would be created between placement of the lots. Bentley asked what alternatives were available if there was difficulty in the negotiation of-the right-of-way from N.S.P. . Sundeen responded that the plat would have to be re-designed and explained that the City staff favored the extension of Homeward Hills Road. The Planner added that this project would need the approval of the Riley/Purgatory Watershed Oistrict,and the Department of Natural Resources would have to make a determination on fill in public waters . If fill is necessary, a permit will be required. lit explained further that an alternate plan was running Homeward Hills Road through the middle of the plat. • B'ntley asked what the time schedule was for this project. Lundeen responded they would like to proceed at the best reasonable rate on the project. • et2S • approved Manning Commission Minutes - 3 - March 26, 1979 B. Meadow Park public hearing (continued) Levitt questioned no. 9 of staff report, and requested an evaluation of these two cul-de-sacs to see whether there was a way to alleviate them. He commented that there have been several proposals recently in the Neil Lake area, and that the Shoreland Management Ordinance was in the' process'of being adopted. The City favored Heil Lake as a"general development' classification, rather thus a "natural environmental". The Planner explained that the Shoreland Management Ordinance has only received first reading approval from the City Council, and that the City will have to petition the DNR in order to change the classification, and this shoud be done prior to the final adoption of the Ordinance. He explained • further that the City has talked with DNR representatives regarding the Preserve as far as densities, and has been told to honor previous conmittments. The pedestrian system, which according to the staff report, was designated to run around Neil Lake, was discussed and the Planner explained that the original plan has been modified along Homeward Hills Road and that the rear yard path has been eliminated. Levitt asked whether it was agreeable to the developer that the sidewalk leading from Outlot C be placed within right-of-way of Homeward Hills Road. Sundeen responded affirmative, it is contemplated for the project. Mr. Don Buteyn, representing the proponents, requested information on the pro- lem of assessments on upgrading of Sunnybrook Road. The Planner explained the three methods of handling the problem; as developer installation, request for assessment hearing, and 100% petition for improvements. Mrs. Libby Hargrove, 12640 Sunnybrook Rd., presented two concerns: increased traffic on Sunnybrook with increased housing, and would like assurance that thelHomet berarHill lsdaccess wouTde elundertaken. She asked whether Sunnybrook Rd. that the staff recommendation would be to cul-de-sac Sunnybrook Road to Highway 169 at time of second access. Hargrove expressed-favor for the cul-de-sating of Sunnybrook Rd. She inquired further about the improvement of Sunnybrook Rd. and who would pay for them. The Planner responded that improvements would df ilue ded sewer e 1rs and dwater for the residents of Sunnybrook Road lying east nc ad. Torjesen questioned whether it was appropriate to recommend approval with so many items being unknown. The Planner explained that there are three other subdivisions in the area that will provide the necessary access, and it is advantageous to be able to consider them all at one time. Mrs k , O Sunnybrook lac �re was located onSunnybrrooRd. ThePlannerlocated Rd., on the map. BBentey requested continuance of the project until adjacent land had been negotiate'. and felt there were too many contingencies. 4,2� } approved• • • Planning Commission Minutes - 4- h 26, 1929 6. Meadow Park. . , t • .public hearing, (continued) Mr. Dean FauTks, one of the owners of the development, assured the Geoid slOfl that the N.S.P. property would net be a problem. He commented that they were . very close to an agreement on the lend, . MOTION: Levitt moved to close the Public Hearing.on Meadow Past, seconded by Gartner. motion carried unaniro'cly. MOTION #2: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval of.the re. zoning from Rural to h - t. for 26 acres material .or 1979 and based upon the staff report of March 20, 11979 and adoption FINDIt ND CONCLUSIONS of the staffreport, with the following,modification5 to the. staff report: 12. Approval by the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed DistricxCircls"`, . 13. Elimination of one of proposed street nams•of 'Larkspur 15. Elimination of Outl two t accesses from excluding plat. y rook The motion was seconded by Gartner and the motion carried 5-1,'with Bentley voting "nay",. MOTION.l3: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval .mt the preliminary plat dated March, 1979, based upon the staff report of Horde 2O: 1979, including the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS in staff report along with t1e additions listed above. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-1, with Bentley voting "nay". • MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning PROJECT: Meadow Park Single Family Subdivision DEVELOPERS: Don Faulks • Dean Faulks Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Reynolds REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat with 44 Single Family Lots on 26 Acres and rezoning from Rural Zoning to R1-13.5 for the same 26 Acres. PROJECT LOCATION: In the SE Quarter of Eden Prairie. North of County Road 1 and Purgatory Creek, East of 1169, West of Neill Lake and South of Anderson Lakes Parkway. DATE: March 20, 1979 } BACKGROUND: The Project area is currently vacant land within the area of Sunnybrook Road. North of Purgatory Creek in Eden Prairie. NSA, property borders the project on the western side and is the site of 320 k.v. NSP highline. • Both the 1968 Guide Plan and proposed 1979 Guide Plan Update denote this area as low density residential. The Project is within 1000 feet of Neill Lake so is classified as shoreland. The draft copy of the Shoreland Management Ordinance which has been reviewed by the Park and Recreation and Natuaral Resources Commission and Planning Commission is predicated upon Neill Lake being reclassified as a General Levelopment water with regards to this project. The lot sizes shown in this project all are within the allowable size of the general development district of the shoreline management ordinance. Since the project is bordered on the west by an open water area in some cases a 100 year storm flood elevation must be determined by the proponent in order to provide finish floor lower elevations a mimimum of 2 feet above the 200 year flood outlet. EXISTING SITE CHARACTER: The general topography of the site can be characterized assteeply rolling open meadow. A band of grading. approximately 250 feet in width occuring along the I&7 • 1p MU- Mtnuuw YAKK mar. CU, 1,I7 Page 2 EXISTING SITE CHARACTER, CON'T alignment of the internal loop road will be required to accamedate a road, sanitary sewer and water improvements and building pads . City ordinance does not allow street grades in excess of 7$ S. The street grade from East to West along the road shown as Preserve Boulevard is approximately 8% for a distance of 300 feet. This is in excess of.allowable City standards and must be modified. There is an additional steep grade toward the center of the loop road shown as Larkspur Lane which is approximately 60 for a distance of 300 feet. This grade is acceptable. The area to the West of this site where the proposed Homeward Hills road runs pis probably classified as public waters by the Department of Natural. Resources since it is shown as open water and CattailTReed-Canary,Marsh Vegetation on their area quadrangle maps. In order to build Homeward Hills Road it will be necessary for the proponents to; 1) obtain permission or ownership of the land from NSP, 2) obtain determination from the local watershed district as to whether a Chapter 105 work and public waters permit will be required from the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, 3) assume the assessments or the building casts of the entire length of Homeward Hills Road along the western boundary of this parcel. .There are existing homes in the area occuring on the north side of Sunnybrook • Road which are shown as exceptions to the project and are bordered by proposed lots of equal size . Sanitary sewer service and water service is obtained from the existing inpiace systems occuring to the south of plat at Sunnybrook Road and extended northward within the NSP power line easement up to the juncture of Homeward Hills Road and the proposed Larkspur Lane.. Storm sewer for the site is carried on the north side of the site in the street and within the storm sewer systems from East to West in Preserve Boulevardcollected in a set of catch basins at the intersection of Homeward Hills Road and Preserve Boulevard within the wetland area. A northern cul-de-sac accepts the drainage mostly from the street itself and the surrounding lots and collects it in a catch basin which is then connected to a storm sewer which proceeds to the west in outlets from the west side of Homeward Hills Road. Drainage from the balance of Larkspur Lane in the south- ern cul-de-sac is collected at a low point occuring approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of the southern cul-de-sac in Larkspur Lane and then piped to the east into a lowland outlot shown as outlot C on the plat. The storm. water along Homeward Hills Road is collected in catch basins and channeled towards • the west low lying property. The last one-fifth of length of Homeward Hills Road toward the south as it intersects with Sunnybrook Road does not illustrate any type of catch basin system and should be addressed in detail by the pro- ponent prior to final construction. The entire storm sewer system must be re- view and approved by the City Engineering Department and the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District. , 2q Memo- Meadow Park March 20, 1979 Page 2b • LOCATION NAP ... • j 4 l • nib ` . • • y IT . Oil& Ee ij{ SITE LOCATION OtAGRAM , ea..-, 1030 Memo-Meadow Park March 20, 1979 j Page 2c 1 ii 1 1 ii 1 i .: ,,, , . 4.i;, • J • 11, Ji!' .1.•i if 1 V�)\ t > /� • L r tf • • � "'i ii � " I " I i'. .;• • .'t ' ft,. 7 1 4/ i• I Cy •:.\-\• •• . 01 is 1 S.+ • i ., . .i .,;� s� • \I,FTLI'l : .i. . l i '•..'' .I' 4...,Si 4--% i' ,),. \ \ . . ' ! .tt•°t• 4 tio •. . ‘ , ' 4A.,* ' i . , . . A . ril ...... _ , . • •. i 1 II i ' i . ,et.,,, _ - .4,".... • .... •. ••• , .\\ . , ,... •'., • I \%1W . • , ,„....• ' pr...,,_if,. .......r, N..v....,./.. ..; \ ..... ...` ..0 Mtti • »,+ , • !,*; .1 61-15,41- 7;• \\• A .,...\r\I - . . k-,. 4... '1-„,.,„. . -- - , 4.. . ,A1.I 't• I '. I l'I 1).'". 'I tilIf ;‘),.r:' •• i �4 ` �i." ,, `' is _ - ,� ,-- s // / - II / ` t> r` N- I r .„,, —'•. ,...._, , , 1 ,,.i.•• I:: .\\ , ....,.._ ; j i i).--,! I C..,;,.: . -,',.:::-",.( .f •TA .. ,,-",...'-.4 . 1.,1 , .\. _- ._, ?. , / P.. 0.... 1 •::.t „di/ . i , ..,:, , :-N i'.. 1: '•//�'v' t_.;rJ i. 1 j ' ;e . .: - '• _� — • • `•`,(fit',`'_: ._ ::..;-._— r --ter. ,.1.� . MEMO • MEADOW PARK Mar. 20, 1979 Page 3 - TRANSPORTATION By far, the critical factor in determining when development 011 reach Sunnybrook area is accessibility. Currently the site is only accessible from the South and West via existing Sunnybrook Road out to #169. Existing Sunnybrook Road is a gravel road and the intersection with #169 is ±gry hazardous. Lake Heights Addition which is the Universal Land propetal for single family and multiple uses which was recently approved adjacent to and north of this site could provide the,first link to an alternate means of-access to the site. Anderson -Lakes Parkway which lies north ,of the Lake Heights. Addition is currently not in flace.This connection must'be'thade'pr forr to Con- s-truction of any units in the Lake Heights Addition. •Also,as a part of the Lake Heights Addition:.The developer,would extend. Homeward Hills Road down to his southerly property line which would bring it within reach of the Meadow Park developmentdevelopment.With the extension by the current.developer of Meadow Park Addition of Homeward Hills Road.dorm to sunnybr0ok Road%one•safe point of } ' access out to the North would then eXiSt. H0wever one safd point of access would dn'effect not be adequate and would en0Ourtge a4d&ianal use of tleW inter- section of Sunnybrook Road and into. The second mrians Of Less: . oi=. site could occur to the south and east of the project via a Sunnybro<Nk H extension through the proposedOlympic Hills Sixth Addition . The Planning Commission will recall a recaeanendation to the Council for approval of the project contingent upon working out state grade crossing items but construction of this road would not only allow a second way out for the Meadow Park Adtiittauy but would also allow a second way out for the proposed 01YMPiC Hills Sixth Addition. The third means of access which potentially exists would Occur to ;.; the North and East of the project through a proposed addition titled Neill Woods Addition by the Preserve which is currently proposed and which would allow a circuitous route to the Northeast to Preserve •Boulevard. The fourth means of access potentially existing out of the site area would exist If as a f of the 169-County Road 1 intersection upgrading the State Highway Department would be contemplating purchase of additional right-of-way on the -Eastern side s. of 11169 which would allow the City to dead end Sunnybrook Road as it Approaches #169 and swing it South within new right-of-way tc connect with deadd.,ended•Creak knoll Road, this would allow a southern access out of the site down to County Road 1. The fifth and long range potential access out of the site would be 'the completion of Homeward Hills Road south across Purgatory Creek'to:.r.leeet1 ;. Road 1. This would be the ultimate and ideal solution for development of the entire area. No development should occur in the area until at least two safe accesses are provided to help preclude additional use of the Sunnybratl - ' access. MEMO- MEADOW PARK Mar. 20, 1979 PAGE 4 • • SIDEWALK AND TRAIL SYSTEMS As a continuation of the sidewalk from the North within Lake Heights Addition there should be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk built on the East side of Homeward Hills Road within the road right-of-way along the entire Western por- tion of this.proposai. In addition, although Outlot B is shown as a potential connection of the neighborhood with the sidewalk along Homeward Hills Road, the grade as it approaches Homeward Hills Road is in excess of 12% and is not acceptable as a•pedestrian or bikeway. In addition Outlot C which is a storm...-. sewer sedimentation pond prior to hinderance of storm water to Neill Lake would also allow the opportunity for connection of a trail to the City trail which will exist on the south side of Neill Lake and to the Preserve Trail System which will be constructed around the West. North and Eastern side of Neill Lake. It would be desirable because of Outlot C to have a more direct connection between Homeward Hills Road which will go south of County Road 1 and north to the neighborhood park site. The Planning Staff would suggest that a five foot concrete sidewalk be constructed from Outlot C within the right-of-way of Larkspur Lane southerly to the intersection of Homeward Hills Road. And that a six foot bitumious path be constructed on the south side of Outlot C to connect the sidewalk with the Neill Lake Trail System. PARK AND RECREATION The existing proposal does not contain a Tot Lot. however the.Park and Re- creation Commission may wish to consider a safe connection over to a Mini Park which would be planned directly west of the site on the western side of the NSP property. In addition,the Cash Park Fee in effect at the time of Building Permit Issuance should be charged to the site to provide its share of the cash contribution toward the area neighborhood park. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • 1. The proposal for the planned unit development for the entire 34 acre parcel as single family is not necessary at this time because the proposal is cbnsis- tant with the Comprehensive Guide Plan therefore the Comprehensive Guide Plan would already allow single family residential. 2. The current request for preliminary platting and zoning of 26 acres of land for 44 units is consistent with Ordinance 135 in terms of lot sizes and den- sity. • 3. The current proposal for current preliminary platting is dependent upon the acquisition of the Homeward Hills right-a-way from NSP and the ability to construct Homeward Hills Road to access the property as well as a second- ary aecess through Olympic Hills Sixth Addition or Neillwood Addition or an access to Creek Knoll Road via direct connection between Sunnybrook Road and Creek Knoll Road. 633 MO- MEADOW PARK Mar. 20, 1979 AGE 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CON'T 4. Approximately 300 feet of length occuring along proposed Preserve Boulevard is in excess of the 74K grade allowed as maximum by our sub- division ordinance. 5. Additional storm sewer catch basin detail is required along the southern 1/5 of the proposed Homeward Hills Road. 6. The proposal is consistent with the proposed Shoreland Management Ordinance and classification changes. 7. The pedestrain system as shown is not adequate and should be modified to include sidewalk along the eastern side of Homeward Hills Road and a side- walk along the eastern side of Larkspur Lane from Outlot C south to Homeward Hills Road and six foot black top pathway along the south side of Ouutlet C to connect to the Neil Lake Trail System. 8. If Sunnybrook Road is to be utilized as access to the East or to the West it must be improved to a City road standard . 9. The two cul-de-sacsshown as Larkspur Circle do not allow possibilities of an additional loop road without double fronting of all the lots on Larkspur Lane and double fronting of all the lots on Homeward Hills Road,therefore it seems desirable to allow two short cul-de-sacs. 10. The Park and Recreation and Natural Resource Commission should determine the need for a Tot Lot. However it does seem appropriate that the Cash Park Fee be paid in any case. 11. No Environmental Assessment Work Sheet is-required for this project since it is less than 40 acres in size and less than 50 units within a shoreline area. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission may choose to: 1. Approve the preliminary plat for 44 lots on 26 acres and the rezoning from rural to R1-13.5 contingent upon Findings and Conclusions of the Staff Report, or: 2. Deny the project because of the inconsistencies with City Ordinances and Requirements and the lack of adequate access to the site. or: 3. Recommend approval of the request for the rezoning from rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat approval 44 lots on 26 acres as sub- mitted. • The Planning Staff would recommend alternate 1. • • • • • • Memo-MEADOW PARK March 20, 1979 • Page 6 • FINDINGS AfjP CONCLU5I9J4S :CONTINUED} *12. Approval by Riley/Purgatory Greek Watershed District. *13. Elimination of one of proposed street names of "Larkspur Circle". *14. Project should provide two accesses excluding Sunnybrook Rd. west. • *16. Elimination of Outlot B from the plat. *As per Planning Co mission meeting.of March 26, 1979. ' i • r,. : • • • ram.. II► .. Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District l. � EB50 COUNTY ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 5534 s p GM Mae `rApril 4, 1979 r Mr. Chris Enger 'Li•+ram i't. City Planner _ _ “Wariemmirrtk City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • Re: Meadow Park Development Dear Mr. Enger: . The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers Of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans, as submitted to the District for the Meadow Park Development in Eden Prairie. The following policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this project: 1. Grading operations are planned adjacent to a large wetland area located along the western lot line of the development site. This wetland area may be classified as public waters by the Maw .Yf11'a Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). A determination of public waters and a natural ordinary highwater elevation must be estabigahpd by the EDER. Should development encroach below the natural ordinary highwater elevation, a Chapter 105 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 will be required. Accompanying this permit application, a detailed erosion - I control plan outlining how sediment will be prevented from leaving the altered areas on the development site both during and after construction must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 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 at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the Districea comments, please contact us at 920-0655. ineerely, ' .1:` ` Ro rt C. Obarmey:; BARR ENGINEERING '?. Engineers for the District RCO/111 •' cc: Mr. Conrad Fisknees Mr. Frederick Richards 036 • MEAD II PARK • • A RESIREtfertiL DEVELtOPMENfi - EDEN PRAIRIE., ;KIIRIES131A • • • • • • • PIARO1 1979 -1- APPLICANT: Don Faulks Dean Fairies Mr. A Mrs. Bruce Reynolds Sox 428 Antigo, Wisconsin OWNER'S AGENT: Don Buteyn 8110 Eden.Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota LOCATION: The an ap�r!mciaurte 4L5 arose Sere Parcel of la i.locai in the S. See 3 T 116 R of 'HBenept>i'Coup with a 10.8 acre parcel direct South Of Sunny rook Road and West of the Preserve. eof��t6 okk 54.7 acre(Road and West Of ithe directly North.. ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the following: 1. P.U.D. Development Plan R. Preliminary Plat 3. Retorting to R1-13.5 _ s -2- i PROJECT IDENTIFICATION OWNERS: Don Faulks Dean Faulks Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Reynolds Box 428 Antigo, Wisconsin • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract E, except the North 129.1 feet of the East 337.5 feet thereof, all in Registered Land Survey No. 751, in the Files of the Registrar of Titles of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Tract D, That part of Tract D lying East of the West 266.1 feet thereof, Registered Land Survey • No. 751. • Tract A and Tract 8, exi.epl that part of the East 100.0 feet of the West 460.0 feet thereof lying South of the North 179.33 feet of said Tract B, and except that part of the East 100.0 feet of the West 160.0 feet of Tract B lying South of the North 179.33 feet of said Tract B. DEVELOPER: The Owners will be the developer of the lots which will be marketed to various builders for Single Family Home Construction. DEVELOPMENT TIMING: Construction of Homes will start immediately after grading is completed with the utilities coinciding with Hare construction. The entire project is expected to be completed over a two year period. FISCAL, ECONlkiIC: Financing froom private financing tutions and/or a land oby development loan petitioning the City of Eden Prairie for developing streets and utilities and assessing the cost against the benefitting property. CRITICAL PUBLIC DECISIONS: 1. The approval of the P.U.O. Development Plan. 2. The approval of the preliminary plat. 3. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5. ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed development conforms with the scope of the developments adjacent to the project. The project offers single family lots ranging in size from 13,500 S.F. to 48,950 S.F. and averageing about 20,113 S. F. These are relatively large lots and should attract high . quality homes to the area. The grading is being kept to ii minimum, thereby, encouraging the have design to Conform is the terrain • • • • ';?PLAN AREA IDENTIFICATION • BOUNDARIES; • The project is 'bounded on the North by the proposed. Lake heights Addition of Universal Land Corporation and property owned by Northern States Power Coapany, on the East proposed Developments by the Preserve an the West by the Proposed :Extension of Homeward HiTi ,Road and Property Owned by Northern States Power Company. REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS: The pralect is in keeping with the residential character currently,pp,pused the surrounding develapuents of a low density residential area. The current.;p$deetrianfbi cO,"ldOt tannecting lhelfl . - • Lake:and AndertoA L5ke tiOetala the Preserve satar10 be• continua i through "the.project with.Outlti "B" & and then Sarah along rtomewarvl Rills Road keeping with the City gall pedistlrith.and bikeway corridor plans. A..portieenf Outlet::"T" Which it dire :far fUturrr tie?e'ioOppOrt:Will her edi• rigid for ix'i i;halt 11ii t' park wnd alb with.th Parksund presently liedi d to tt rdI b i lversel i tlnI •fit of.the pre o I and Parkland North-of Ninde Lakes, Parkway curr'ent'1y Hai by the School Oistr1.ct w114 sattsf.y park.needs;for the reai'dentaw EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: The major access to the.propeity aOu -bt wbm x.N• ,1169 lA Andersnp Lakes Ptrar.,kwa.f VIA Hrrn�rdr4 Hill Road'frau tire-Nara. A minor access YIA Sunaitrreolr Rr V.IA N riard Hi11s Road troU7d bt cunt t y armsilablr until such time T,il. ILO is upgraded,- -At.lbat'Pare Sennybrook Read would not be from T,H. :flb9 .and it is anticipated that Homewa d Hill,S',Road will hove been a*teased South to iiennepin County NI1i ►eer • Trail and would provide a SeaallSat7 access to the :_... . . . . . _ -4- PROJECT ANALYSIS EXISTING LAND USE: The land is primarily open space et the present time. The site consists of irregular slopes ranging from TOPOGRAPHY, SLOPES: approximately 5% to 20%with certain limited slopes exceeding 20%. SOIL: General soil conditions are excellent for residential Construction and it is the intent to hold rough grade • • tO a eittauM and maintain the.existing grades as much as possible. YEGITATION: Majority of exiSting site is gran tarsi with feature hardwoods in Northeast uO4tiOn Of fh410 I heveloPee:,,I andlitmthweSt Section of future development Ontlot F UTILITIES: All utilitteS are Presently installed near the /411'111d will be ntaiuktd to coincide with the development cow' structioh. GENERAL ANALYSIS; kV.usingreed The grading Is being kept to a MinisElm grades Which conform to the existing lend fer, as mach s as jpossitile. By keeping the 11, wanlmum it will encourage the ins design to fit the tOrral."-• :1.1 The storm sewer system and SorteSe drainage Pit,etros ,-..-....- r,etnettle with the existing runoff pattern - a Neill Late systems on the East and110 V* drainage area on the West, • ,- • • - %- -5- DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT '-:JECTIVE: The development objective is to satisfy a need for larger lots for single family homes in the S100,000 to $180,000 market range. ' DEVELOPMENT PHASES: The project would be constructed in two phases. The first phase is planned for spring 1979 and is the area indicated on the preliminary plat plan. The second phase is planned for spring 1980 and is the area indi- cated as future development, outlets "E" & "F" on the site relationship plan. LAND USE: As indicated above, the land use for the P.U.D. will be single family residential R1-13.5. The preliminary plat which is Phase I of the P.U..D. will contain 44 units on 28.0 gross acres of land resulting in a density of 1.7 units per acre. Outlots "A" & "D" were incorporated in the preliminary plat in antici- ration of purchasing the land fram;Northern States Power Company adjacent to the West and bounded by • -- Homeward Hills Road providing for two additional lots. All lots of the preliminary plat meet the requirements under the General Development category of the State Shoreline Management Act. • COMMON AREA AND FACILITIES: Common facilities provided will be the Park Dedication area under Phase II in Outlet "F" and the pedestrian and bikeway corridor in Outlots "B" & "C" of the Phase I Development. • TRANSPORTATION: Access to the project will be provided as previously stated under Plan Area Identification. ZONING: The sorting classification required for the proposed • • development is R1-13.5. PROJECT RELATIONSHIP & LOCATION PLAN: Location of project and its relationship to surrounding properties - Exhibit 1. • PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Location of streets, preliminary lots, building set back lines - Exhibit 2. PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN: Preliminary grading and location of utilities - Exhibit 3. 1(441 TO: Manager Ulstad, Mayor Penzel and City Council members FROM; Human Rights and Services Commission and Betty Johnson SUBJECT: Proposed Comprehensive Study of Human Service Needs in Eden Prairie DATE: April 4, 1979 The purpose of this memo is to answer questions that were raised about the proposed study at the joint City Council-Human Rights and Services Commission meeting on February 12. 1. What are the differences between the original proposal LAuqust 1,4 _1970 and the current prc:posal? First, the original proposal included only Eden Prairie and assumed that South Hennepin Human Services Council (SHHSC)would do the research, conduct the survey, compile the results, evaluate and make recommendations -- in other words, SHHSC would do the study for Eden Prairie. That study's cost totaled$56,724, with SHHSC committed funds accounting for$15,935 of that amount, leaving a balance of$40,788 to be funded from other sources. The current proposal includes all four South Hennepin communities and •assumes that each city will gather its own data, with SHHSC role being one of coordinator, monitor,and advisor. The total cost will be $47,684, with$24,502 committed by SHHSC, leaving $23,182 to be funded by the four cities. If each contributes $3,000, there is a very good likelihood that a private source will also contribute. 2. Whv is the study being recommended by the Human Rights and Servict:s Commission? This could be a useful and valuable component to Eden Prairie's Com- prehensive Guide Plan. It will assess the human services needs of this rapidly growing community, recommend future services and/or expansion of existing services based on those current and anticipated needs, and deter- mine how the city can work with Hennepin County to make better use of services already available through the County. The aim is to provide a fair share of human services for Eden Prairie's present and future residents. 3. What is included in human services? There are a number of categories covering a broad range of services. The Community Committee (an Important of the city's input for the study) would pick out those of most importance to Eden Prairie to study in more depth. Human services can include: Alcohol and drug abuse services; children and youth (counseling, adoption, day care, recreation); community care for adults (home-delivered nteals, nursing homes, day care); community groups and relations (civic and social community groups); consumer services (client advocacy, consumer education, information and referral); counseling; criminal justice; develcnmeaetal disabilities (physical and mental) (education, information/referral, day eate. rehabilitation, employment, sheltered workshops, residences); community education; emergency services (child protection, fire and rescue,'tut lines". IIiU� p. 2 Memo to City Council about Comprehensive study of Human Service Needs emergency food/shelter/clothing); employment and training; family planning (counseling, clinic); financial services (AFDC, food stamps, money management); handicapped (blind, deaf, physical impairment, transportation); public health: (home nursing, clinics, screening, immunization, education); mental health (counseling, treatment, education, in-patient/out-patient clinic, referral);. older adults (housing, transportation, recreation, nutrition, health, education); volunteer services (transportation services, emergency services, advocacy, referral, training). 4. What is the Community Consultation Committee? It is a group of Eden Prairie people who would act-as the information gathering and coordinating committee for Eden Prairie's part of the study. It would also function to make recommendations specifically for Eden Prairie and to provide input to the Area Study Advisory Committee and to the County Board of Commissioners. The Human Rights and Services Commission plus others representing specific facets of Eden Prairie community could make up that Committee. The Committee would also be responsible for with staff and agencies to gather information. (The City Council would be represented on the Committee.) 5. How much staff time would be required from Eden Prairie for the study? It is estimated that a maximum of half-time for about a year would be necessary to gather Eden Prairie's information. This includes a survey to be developed by SHHSC for the use of all four communities. Administrative (or staff) cost for implementing recommendations that may be made as a result of the study conclusions by the Community Consultation Committee could be included in the final report. 6. Could an outside firm or private agency do the study for less money? If an outside agency did the study, It is difficult to break out just part of it, as it currently is proposed. There would still need to be extensive community involvement and input in order to establish meaningful priorities and long-range recommendations. The other three communities' staffs are prepared to go ahead with their own data and information gathering. A strong indication of support was given for the four community study at the August 24 meeting of SHIISC, City Council members and staff from the communities. Discussion with a private consulting firm that does planning and -esearch In this area revealed that they would not give a bid price unless there was a request and proposal to bid on. It costs them from$1,500 to $3,000 to put together a bid, and they expect to recoup that expense by getting the job. Stricker estimates the study would cost the equivalent of$90,000 from a private agency. (SHHSC will actually be spending$25,502, with an additional $23,182 from the four cities and private sources.) In order to prepare a detailed request for bid, Stricker estimated the city would spend $1,000 to$3,000. That is $2,500 to $6,000 just to have a private firm give us a price for the study;it doesn't include any work on the study itself. Current prices are about$250 per day. This includes administration, clerical, overhead. salaries anti:7°% for profit. As an example, this firm is now designing a questionnaire form and evaluation form for an Indian tribe. It will cost $12,000. Such tasks are a small part of the propo::ed study we are considering. No reputable firm will bid on a project unless it is assured it will be wcxtlr their while. The Commission feels that SIIHSC, city staff, the Community • /Off • • P. 3 Memo to City Council about Comprehensive Study of Haman Service Needs , ' Consultation Committee and the Area Advisory Committee will be able to perform a highly professional and valid study for much Less money than a privets firm. • { 7. How about en pvaivatian oom ent.loath as he study droaress•es and.,in a the future? Guidelines. a timetable and parameters will be speolficallY added es a j. • function of the Community Consultation Committees. SHHSC will also prepare a quarterly progress report. There Will also be a yearly up-date anti evaluative of data and recommendations for the city's human services plan that may develop from this study. . • JIECoMM :NDATICN: • The Eden Prairie Huntait Rights,and Services Commission recommends that • the City Council approve the Comprehensive Study of Human Services Needs in Eden Prairie, as outlined in tare•Tanuary, 1919 document Preliered by • South Hennepin Human Serviette, and recommends allocation of$S,COO tit South Hennepin Human Servix . fOwtCU,as Edgelra.irie1s share of the firndInni . MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director DATE: April 4, 1979 PROJECT: INTERIM LAND USE OF HOME LOCATED AT 8460 FRANLO ROAD BY MR. ROBERT C. BOUTEN APPLICANT: Mr. Robert C. Bouten - • REQUEST: USE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOME LOCATED AT 8460 FRANLO ROAD AS A DENTAL LAB BACKGROUND/LAND USE This site and surrounding land was shown as residential multiple in the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan. The Major Center Area PUD depicts the site as potential Regional Service or Regional Office. The Draft 1979 Guide Plan illustrates the site as Neighborhood Commercial. ZONING The site is presently zoned Rural. • LOCATION MAP -_,_ _ . eii,: s , ._.„.. s7,1_ t.._____:.: ._ -. - G = ..aT 387 =, C-REG _ - . . -- / RIE CENTER �; C- G.•' _ . i� ;. - _ BAR :s - -. TUDOR MIL OAKS # _- _ .. I' ..`PROP K ED. P.. .... / jj,' ` h MU Eli•:� _a 4. r - N. — -------------,��''• "`L "- L mu 1A.►... n."ws T�r-r.r-r w=r; "';a'--` z" 1 Z qas x.: . 1 - It Memo-Bouten Dental Lab -2- • April 4, 1979 REQUEST Mr. Bouten requests approval of an Interim Land Use Agreement between himself and the City allowing him use of a residential structure for a business of crown and bridge lab work. Exterior painting is proposed along with additional parking space. No interior renovation is included or signage request . Major Center Area Interim Land Use Agreements: Below is a list of interim land uses the City has approved on properties within the Major Center Area. Project Location Use Term I Dr. Belvedere July 13, 1976- dental facility 8430 Franlo Road dental facility July 13, 1981 II Bermel/Smaby 8110 Eden Road real estate June 30,1977- Real Estate office indefinite III Dr. Lund 792E Eden Road rental office May 16, 1978- office May 16, 1983 .ice '� \� -- - - - A- I5-F� K r4-el 1 '---_; 3. i �t{�' .:� ice__ _ \,,, ■ Z7- _ w,.. r • : : : ate..`:..-- \ i��laii,; •--..'-` ::.::...... .!-_--------:;-:-_, i im,,,r, . E : ------ V.357 C-REG • • yy..JyyL_-- - L i.f t.C ifi lri'f • • • • • Memo-Bouten Dental Lab -3- • April 4, 1979 EXISTING SITE CHARACTER The home is located upon the high elevation in the southwest corner of the 1.1 acre lot. The remainder of the lot drops off to the northwest at an approximate 20% grade. • Heavy vegetation exists to the north and west of the home providing a natural screen between the home and Schooner Boulevard(150 feet to the northeast) and the Eden Prairie Center(1,000 feet to the northeast). • -- ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS • If the proponent were to request rezoning to Office District the proposal would conform to ordinance setbacks, lot size, and it would exceed the number of parking spaces required(5.7 are required, 12 are proposed). BUILDING REQUIREMENTS The Chief Building Inspector, upon request by the proponent, inspected the home to determine if the structure was acceptable to be used as a dental lab. His inspection concluded that it would be necessary to have an additional exit in the south exterior wall with appropriate landing. • The Building Inspector also concluded that the structure does not meet current building standards as to stairway width, hall widths, toliet facilities, etc., for office uses. SITE PLAN The proposed new drive and 12 parking spaces would be difficult to achieve without a steep drive, considerable fill, and removal of 12-15 small elm trees. None of the parking stall dimensions meet the minimum ordinance width of 10 feet; and 2 stalls do not meet the required length of 20 feet. No landscaping of the parking area has been illustrated. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the use subject to the following conditions: 1. Relocate the new drive closer along the structure, thus reducing the grade (see diagram on page4a ). 2. Combine the existing drive with the new drive, thereby the property would have only 1 interaction with Franlo Road. ( see diagram on page4a). ktig Memo-Bouten Dental Lab -4- April 4, 1.979• • Suggested Revisions , continued 3. Reduce the near of additional parking stalls to 8, (8*2 existing 0 10 stalls) this*Mold reduce the asphalt • cq Irage , tree reeve and infringement upon right-of- ways while still proeidi enough parking for the . employees. Parking will nave to be Setback from khoaner. Boulevard vO feet and cannot be within the front yard setback.. 4. Proponent agrees to sabot a.landscaping plan: to thePlanning Staff depi-eting additional plantings needed.to effesCively screen the perking area. 5. Proponent agrees to silt:a detailed grading cOnstraiction plan -aif the parking area to the Pla ;ng off for review and approval. 6. PrOpOltOpt agrees to i g tentfata the park n and drive atti . 7.' 'Proponent agrees no'slOwepkiilly,te a110Ned. 8. Proponent agrees to no parkIn.1w the front yard s ack • g. Protanent agrees all truck `and unloading- i;ll he serried,on wit in a completely enolOaed i leg. 10. Tnterhs use agreement be states* into for a period of threeYears. *11. Addition of additional access 'Prow south face of the building- a3:J3 *As per Planning tomaisslon meeting of Appril 9, 1919. • ii;y I • • >- I 1 I10 feet some of the - evergreens 40 liv _ (all to'be saved) It a ... 8 • lE. i s '`` Garay 2 50' E I d House 18.8z� 1 v ,/ j 42' i l / 9 10 20' / 1 Iwide existing driv p a a 4° r Schooner i Boulevard Right-of-May • FRANLO ROAD J .- // /7—N' 4a • 11 • • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • MINUTES • approved MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Oke Martinson, Matthew Levitt, George Bentley, Hakon Torjesen, and Virginia Gartner COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL E. Mr. Robert Bouten's Dental Lab, request to operate a dental lab at 8460 Franlo Road. (next to Dr. Belvedere) The Planner briefly summarized the recommendations of the staff report. Mr. Robert Bouten, Normandale II Dental Laboratory, discussed one of the problems of the parking lot area, explaining that the amount of fill needed made it difficult economically. He requested nutting in the fill and rock surfacing the parking lot this fall, and hard surfacing it in the spring. The Planner responded that on a 3 year agreement in a residential area, the parking lot should be hard sur- faced and felt that enough fill could be generated by leveling off the area. Bouten did not feel this would be a problem, and felt that after 3 years they would like to do more with the land. Dearman expressed concern with "transitional land uses" around the Major Center Area. Would we have to grant "transitional uses"? Our Ordinance does not provide for interim agreement and nresently the interim agreement is somewhat of a temporary variance. Bentley inquired about the upperand lower floor plan, and referred to the recommendation for an additional door. Bouten agreed to meet - this recommendation. MOTION: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the request to operate a dental lab as an interim use for a period of three years based upon the items of the staff report included within • a Interim Use Agreement between Mr. Bouten and the City with the following addition to the staff report of April 4, 1979: No.11- The • addition of an additional access from south face of the building. Retterath seconded, motion carried 5-1-0, Bearman voting "nay". • /lc/ • • TO: MAYOR AND.COUNCIL • THROUGH: ROGER ULD FROM: f! FRICHE DATE: APRIL at, 1979 -- RE: RESOLUTION.#79-85 F.TNAL. �R�II.;OF...MI, 6's For B1aekbourn/Nii halSon Project The final documents concerning this transaction have been reviewed and approved by the City attorney. Resolution which consists of 25 pages has not been Included in the packet it is on file in the a ty Hall. The project is:located in Crosstown Industrial Park Second. • • /6P • • TO: Mayor and Council • .TMRU: Roger Misted FROM: John Frane DATE: April 26. 1979 RE: MIOB Bonds Energy COrttoi's/toy MiiTar $1,150. . • _ W. Miller, tamer of Energy,ContrGie, Which is,praaa 1y lao inEden Prairie. is requesting ,preltminary approval OF'M..l,fif6,'s to construct a 6O, ' square toot,office warehiause iir an area presenntly zoned I—L Energy Colttroi-s wrill occupy 2OrOOO square fey the ball e•world be sub-leased. theeeruceinn wo' ult not, pracrer d.u til 75%aunt'the sub-tease'&trace.has been Teased. Reao'll i tr i 7 is attached for your consideration. . ,/ IMPORTANT This Application must be submitted to Commissioner in triplicate +tan**** ******** *************+rt*****rr****r*************rs***** STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ********************** APPLICATION For Approval of Municipal Industrial-Revenue Bond Project Date May 1979 To: • Minnesota Department of Commerce St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 The governing body of Eden Prairie , County of Hennepin Minnesota, hereby applies to the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, for his approval of this community's proposed Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond issue, as required by Section 1, Subdivision 7, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes. We have entered into preliminary discussions with: FIRM Lloyd W. Miller. an individual ADDRESS 5101 Woodridge Road CITY Minnetonka STATE Minnesota State of Incorporation N/A Marvin C. Ingber • Attorney Markali, Crounse 6 Moore 1000 First National Bank Building Address Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): Real estate investments The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general nature of project): partially fund the purchase of 5 acres of real estate and the construction thereon of a 60,000 square foot combination office-warehouse building It will be located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota • The total bond issue will be approximately $1,150,000 to be applied toward - payment of costs now estimated as follows: • Cost Item • Amount Land Acquisition and Site Development $- 5O�00O Construction Contracts 1,100,000 Loan gees 15•0DO Legal gees , Interest during Construction �,.POD Initial Sand Reserve BSA Contingencies .•••���DDD1 Fond Discount V ilA Closing Costs S,000 It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about June 1, 1979, and will be completed on or about October 1, 1979. When completed, there will be approximately 18 new yob's created by the prej'ect at ad annual payroll 6f approximately $150,000 based upon currently prevailing wages. The tentative revenue agreement term is 30 years, commencing June 1, 1979, and the firm will retain title to the project. The municipality will provide the Commissioner with a comprehensive statement indicating how the project eatisfies the public purpose and policies of the Minnesota Industrial Development Act. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue from an underwriter'or en analysis of a fiscal consultant as to the feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint is attached to this application. We, the undersigned, are duly elected or appointed representatives of Eden Prairie, Minnesota. and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. Signed by: (Principal Officers) Mayor City Manager • This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Commissioner or the State of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the lease to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefor. • Date of Approval: • Commissioner of Securities Minnesota Department of Commerce 77 - 7/ • • RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND FINANCED UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUTHOR- IZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARA- TION.OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ^f • .Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. There has been presented to this City Council a proposal that the City undertake a project pursuant to the Minnesota Munici- pal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended (the "Act") consisting of the acquisition of land in the C#ty, •the construction of a 60,000 square foot combination office- warehouse building thereon (the "Project"). Under the proposal, Lloye W..Miller of Minnetonka, Minnesota (the•"Proponent") will ent into a loan agreement (the "Loan Agreement") with the City whe;_oy the City agrees to issue and sell its $1,150,000 Indt:t•' •'ial Development Revenue Bond (the "Bonds) to partially finance tt: Project and to loan the proceeds of such sale to the Proponent. merees to construct the Project. The Loan Agreement will regv•ra. Proponent to pay amounts sufficient to pay the principal of .ad interest on the Bond.. The.,Bond will be issued and sold to a,1 institutional investor or investors,cas a tax exempt mortyag- financing, and will be secured by a mortgage on the Prop t. The Proponent will retain title to and ownership of the Project and will lease the Project to Energy Controls, Inc. and to other business enterprises under lease terms sufficient to provide f- the payment of principal of and interest on the Bond. The •' t - -- of the Proponent in the lease and the interest-of-the Cit, - Loan Agreement will be assigned to the holder of the Bond as •additional security for the Bond. The Bond will be issued anti sold *in accordance with the Act and will provide that the Bond.is payable solely from amounts received•by the City pursuant to the. Loan Agreement and other property pledged to its payment. The Bond will not be a general obligation of the City or be payabl, from any • other property or funds of the City. . • 2. There has also been presented to this City ':0%incic • • • form of Application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Sect,• ities, for approval of the Project, setting forth the estimated 4 . •.;15 c: • the Project And the increased employment and payrolls to z therefrom. it is hereby found, determined and• declared th purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof wil', 'x to ').,,u e the public welfare by fw. attraction, encouragement . '.! development of cconomically sound t.:dustry and commerce s *he d•'ve'qpment of • industry to use the available resources of the City, in order to retain the benefit of its existing investment in educational and • public service facilities; the promotion of employment opportuni- ties in the City; and the more intensive development of land available in the area to provide an adequate tax base to finance the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services pro- vided by the City, the county and the school district in which the City is located. 3. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City, subject to .(i) .approval of the Project by the Minnesota --- Commissioner of Securities and (ii) approval of this City Council, the Proponent and the institutional investor or investors of the ultimate details of.the 1rioject and the terms of the Bond. • 4. The Proponent, through Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & 4Ekstrom, Incorporated, investment bankers, is undertaking to make arrangements with an institutional investor or investors for the purchase of the Bond. This City Council has been advised by Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Ekstrom, Incorporated that, on the basis of information submitted to it, the Project is economically �Ay;l✓ feasible and that the Bond could be issued and sold upon favorar rates and terms in order to finance the Project. Th- °► -nP-nd the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed =k6, t the Application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities for approval of the Project, substantially in the form presented at this meeting, together with the letter of intent to purchase or a letter of feasibility for the sale of the Bond and the Statement Concerning a Proposed Project, substantially in the form presented at this meeting. The Mayor and the City Manager.and other officers, • employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities with such preliminary information as he may request and are hereby authorized and direc- ted to execute the Memorandum of Agreement substantially in the form presented at this meeting. 5. The Proponent has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities; whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bond or operative instruments are executed. 6. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue and sell the Bond as requested by the Proponent. The City retains the right in its reasonable discretion to withdraw from participation, and accordingly not issue the Bond, should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bond or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. • -2- /GS/7 • 7. The Proponent fledges the current Sack ot;,public access to the subject property. By Resolution NO, 79w42 thin:City _ Council ordered public improvements and the ration. of plane and specifications for said improvements following receipt of a petition for such public irprdvenflts by the owners of 100t of the subject property. The adoption eesteitment that the City will l proceed with the ordered public improvements nor does it prohibit or prevent the City from any further action regartiing such public improvements, including thanderveent of the project or the repeal of Resolution No, . 8. The,Proponent is hereby•author ed,-tea-enter into sty l�r contracts as may be neeellserylor-the construction of the PrajeCt by any means available to them.:and ie manner ey etermine without advertisement fesr bide axe be required felt .the cC' struction or acquisition of otter municipal facilities. 8. iiackall C tnso.ar MOOr'e, .act its bond counnseL is authorized to assist in-thee prepa ratuon and retied of 4°l. doe;imonte relating to the Project'. to consult„With the City attorney? ,'the', Proponent and. the purchuar or'' and as to the i tl ty:e imp . est rate and other terms and pr vi;aions of the Aped and:U to the covenants and other provision!' the necetaia' ,decussate; and.to • submit such documents to this Sty Cot it for final approval, Attest: . City Clerk DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS,STRAND&EKSTROM ThcogratATED • April 25, 1979 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Re: $1,150,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Industrial Development Mortgage Revenue Note (Energy Controls, Inc. Project) Gentlemen: At the request of Richard W. Anderson, developer, we have evaluated the economic feasibility of the:proposal that the City of Eden Prairie issue one or wore of its revenue obligations Under the ProvisionS Of the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act 13 provide funds to.partially finance the acquisition of land and the construction and equipping of office/ware house.Owner's comities to be owned pany, Energy Controls,Lloyd Miller� therei}dal Based on the financial statements of the Owner, together with SattafaCta leases from additional proposed tenants Sufficient to pay their proportionate share of operating expenses and debt service, we conclude, baled on r financial conditions, that the project is economically feasible.and:that the revenue obligations of the City can be sucCeSSfU1ly issue` 'SAS amount not to exceed the amount of the application. We believe that the-.•fie►'+ directly and through sub-contractors, agents and consultants, has the manage- ment capability to fulfill the obligations to be imposed':by'this transaction. We propose to act as agent for the City and the Owner in arranging for the private placement of the obligations with an institutional 1 er'., subject to approval of the project by the City of Eden Prairie and,the Minnesota Depart- mean of CommCity, it the OwneriaanndBthesion and Leender asubiect to final agreement.by and to the terms andconditionS among the City,, to issuance and sale. We understand a copy of this letter will be forwarded by the City to the. - Comnissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota to serve as the letter of intent required by the Commissioner. Very truly yours, DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS, STRAND & EKSTROM • T ted By • Thomas H. Strand Executive Vice President TMS:rk INVESTMENT•BANKERS *a IDS CENTER.CI mNNEAPOLA.'MINNO W/1i OM 0EgeSa4020 • TO: Payer and Council TliRtU: Roger it stad • FRAM: John Frans OATE: April 26, 1919 RE: MIDB Bonds - Donald':Russ Mr. Russ is requestin pmh winery at 1 t1,3 ,i 0 p partially finance a nszl`ti office.l ildi a.F 81%000.sgas feet at Flying Cl u:d v* nd:Wa;rhingi n Avenue.. The pro t CdRt is expected to be $Z,"1 , Is expected to: be occupied six businesses. The. d ai iee which:is fear: the Intended user. lit.`?l1Gs;t1i-r ' vial Bt&fi t ifldI :a substantial. nolutirl .. net worth and he has a b ckgr d in r l-qestste:ma ent: 1i�ti�r No, 10.72 is attached. your. t toeratfiocr. \IL 7f7 RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND FINANCED UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUTHOR- IZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARA- TION OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by-the City Council of the City of Eden..... • Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. There has been presented to this City Council a proposal that the City undertake a project pursuant to the Minnesota Munici • - pal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended (the "Act") consisting of the acquisition of land in the City, the construction of a 32,000 square foot multi-tenant office building thereon and the installation of leasehold improvements therein (the "Project"). Under the proposal, Donald C. Russ, a Minnesota resident (the "Proponent") will enter into a loan agree- ment (the "Loan Agreement") with the City whereby the City agrees to issue and sell its $ 1,350,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bond (the "Bond") to partially finance the Project and to loan the proceeds of such sale to the Proponent who agrees to construct the Project. The Loan Agreement will require the Proponent to pay amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold to an institutional invest- or or investors, as a tax exempt mortgage financing, and will be secured by a mortgage on the Project. The Proponent will retain title to and ownership of the Project and will lease the Project to various business enterprises under lease terms sufficient to provide for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bond. The interest of the Proponent in the leases and the interest of the City in the Loan Agreement will be assigned-to the holder of the----••- Bond as additional security for the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold in accordance with the Act and will provide that the Bond is payable solely from amounts received by the City pursuant to the Loan Agreement and other property pledged to its payment. The Bond will not be a general obligation of the City or be payable from any other property or funds of the City. • 2. There has also been presented to this City Council a form of Application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities, for approval of the Project, setting forth the estimated costs of the Project and the increased employment and payrolls to result therefrom. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by the attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce; the development of industry to use the available resources of the City, in order to • i/ retain the benefit of its existing investment in educational and public service facilities; the promotion of employment opportuni- ties in the City; and the more intensive development of land available in the area to provide an adequate tax base to finance the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services pro- vided by the City, the county and the school district in which the City is located. 3. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City, subject to (i) approval of the Project by the Minnesota • _ . Commissioner of Securities and (ii) approval-of-this-City the Proponent Proponent and the institutional investor or investors of the ultimate details of the Project and the terms of the. Bond. 4. The Proponent, through Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Ekstrom, Incorporated, investment bankers, is undertaking to make arrangements with an institutional investor or investors for the purchase of the Bond. This City Council has been advised by . Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Ekstrom, Incorporated that, on the basis of information submitted to it, the Project is economically feasible and that the Bond could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms in order to finance the Project. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to submit the Application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities for approval of the Project, substantially in the form presented at this meeting, together with the letter of feasibility for the sale of the Bond and the Statement Concerning a Proposed Project, substantially in the form presented at this meeting. The Mayor and the City Manager and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities with such preliminary information as he may request and are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Memorandum of Agreement substantially in the form presented at this meeting. 5. The Proponent has agreed to- pay directly or.through- _____....- the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Minnesota . Commissioner of Securities; whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bond or operative instruments are executed. 6. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue and sell the Bond as requested by the Proponent. The City retains the right in its reasonable discretion to withdraw from participation, and accordingly not issue the Bond, should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bond or should the parties to the trans- action be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. • • -2- /GG2 • " • . • , . . • • 7. The Proponent is hereby authorized to enter J entr 1;r:41cortxch the construction of contracts as may be necessary for costruct him the manner he eet.,elem by any means available to h as r the construc- tion or acquisition of other without advertisement for bids may be squired for es municipal B. Macklin, Croon** & Moore, acting as bend counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation...,.*!?..,,d_f,;77...iewitofttotartorll ,documentsthe Proponent • , relating to the Project; to 0011:14:ttelfftlitTigasT417;0 th7; *scarify, inter- set and the purchaser of provisions of the load and oil to tbs... *St rate and ether terms and covenants and ether previsions of the. necessary documents;ok olar.. submit such documents to this cityCouncil f for final approval. Attest: City Clerk • • . - •.• • 14' • las. - IMPORTANT • This Application must be submitted to Commissioner in triplicate ****tom*******r********e**s*1nt*******a*******e*********,r+►******* STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ********************** APPLICATION For Approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Project . • Date May , 1979 To: • Minnesota Department of Commerce St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 The governing body of Eden Prairie , County of Hennepin • Minnesota, hereby applies to the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, for his approval of this community's proposed Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond issue, as roquired by Section 1, Subdivision 7, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes. We have entered into preliminary discussions with: • FIRM Donald C. Russ, an individual ADDRESS 3205 North Harbor Lane CITY Plymouth STATE Minnesota 55391 • State of Incorporation N/A Marvin C. Ingber Attorney Mackall, Crounse & Moore. 1000 First National Bank Building Address Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 This firm is engaged primarily.in (nature of business): • Real estate investments Tho funds received from the sale of the In ustfun ial Revenue purchase of S 5 s llbe acres used to (general nature of project): partially of real estate and the construction thereon of a 32,000 square foot multi- tenant offico building It will be located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota • 1064 . • The total bond issue will be approximately $1,330,000 to be applied toward payment of costs now estimated as follows: Cost Item • 4 Land Acquisition and Site D nevelopment $ 4�0.000. Construction Contracts 1.x 0.000 _ Leasehold Improvements 350.000 Loan Fees 40.500 Legal Fees 15,000 Interest during Construction 27 y000 Initial Bond Reserve 11A Contingencies • -0- Bond Discount bflA Closing Costs 7,50 It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about June 1, ... ... 19.79,.and will be completed on.or about October,4..1.9 74- ,Shen completed,•there --•-•. --. will be approximately 120 new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approximately $1.440.000 based upon w alutly prevailing wages.. The tentative revenue agreement term is 30 years, commencing June I, 1979, and the firm will retain title to the project. . The municipality will provide the Commissioner with a comprehensive statement indicating how the project satisfies the public purpose and policies of the Minnesota Industrial Development Act. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue from an underwriter or an analysis of a fiscal consultant as to the feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint is attached to this application. We, the undersigned. are duly elected or appointed representatives of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. Signed by: (Principal Officers) ' Mayo • , City Manager • This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Commissioner or the State of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the lease to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefor. Date of Approval: Commissioner of Securities Minnesota Department of Commerce DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS,STRAND&EKSTROM oicauvRATED April 26, 1979 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Re: $1,350,000 City of Eden;Prairie, Minnesota Industrial Development Mortgage Revenue Note (Crosstown Industrial Park Trade Center Project) Gentlemen: ' At the request of Richard W. Anderson, developer, we have activated the economic feasibility of the proposal that the City of Eden Prairie issue one or more of its revenue obligati YS under the provisions Df:the Miiineset& Municipal Industrial Development Act to provide funds to Partteillrininente the acquisition of land and the construction andequipping Of-art Office building to be owned by Donald C. Russ •-the`"Ownerc ) and eased t varrio tenants for use as office/showroom ' i ities. Based on the financial statements of the goner, we conclude that the project is economically feasible and that the revenue obligations of the."C °can` be successfully issued and sold in an amount not to exceedthe amount Of application. Based upon the previous experience of the genets we believe that he has the management capability to fulfill the obligations to be-Imposed by this transaction. We propose to act as agent for the City'end the Ow ner in arranging for the private placement of the Obligations with an institutional lender, subject to approval of the project by the City of Eden Prairie and the Minnesota Department of Co mnerce, Securities Division, and Subject to final agreement by and among the City, the Owner and the lender as"to the terms and conditions of the issuance end sale. We understand a copy of this letter will be forwarded by the City to the Cam:issioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota to serve as the letter of intent required by the Commissioner. Very truly yours, 00ueHERTY, DAWKINS, STRAND & EKSTROM Incorporated By AO , r lgertn:/' Thomas M, Stren+:,• Executive Vice President TMS:rk . INVEST GENT' 1c ERS , • as Boa CENTER o uuNNvmOua.AaNrr nneieca;m en- /04 • 3' 4/23/79 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN GOUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION 79-81 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL CON- STRUCTION AND THE kxrtnoION OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD DOES HOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie School District, 'Eden Prairie City Staff, and the consultants of The Weld Association did prepare an Environmental. Assessment Worksheet dated April It, 1979, and WHEREAS, said high school construction and road extension is • located on School District and City property, and • WHEREAS, the City finds that construction of the • • high school and extension of Valley View Road are not mere than of local . significance. • NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not n+r+xssary for the Eden Prairie High School construction and the Valley View Road extension because the projects are not major actions and will not have significant environmental effects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Quality Council. ADOPTED, this __day of , 1979. liolfgang H. Penzel, Aayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • • • • draft 4/19/79 • MINWESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL • onRamona, ASSESSMENT WoRKSHEET (EAW) AND NOTICE OP FINDINGS ' • . $ DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R. i 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 SY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON). Negative Declaration (No EIS) EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) B. ACTIVITY ct nameior-tit Eden Prairieliigh School - 1. Project name Or-title 2. Project proposer(a) Independent School District .272 Address 8025 School Road , Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Telephone Number and Area Code (612 ) • 941-2262: • 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 sAW: Chris Enger ' • Telephone 941-2262 4. This EAW and other'supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location 8950 Eden Prairie Road Telephone 941-2262 noura8am-4:30pm • 5. Reason for EAW Preparation V Category number(s)-cite Petition l A l other MEQC Rule (Voluntary) C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY . 1. Project location county Hennepin city/Toweshdp name Eden Prairie . Township number 116 (North), Range Number 22 Fast or West (circle one), • • Section number(s) 8 Street address (if in city) or legal description: - 1 - K.iti • 2.. Type and scope of proposed project: Construction of a 202.000 square foot building for a high school of 1200 students. 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) MAY. 1979 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) Fall, 19BD • •- S. Estimated construction cost S9.142.000 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. or Federal Funding regional, local) • City of Eden Prairie - - building permit - pending Riley/Purg.Crk Watershed Dist. site drainage &land alteration pending D.N.R. - well/well discharge into Rownd L. approved D.N.R. & P.C.A. site drainage Swell discharge pending P.C.A. 3 boiler permits ' approved M.S.D. Education ' plan review/comment approved M.S. Building Code plan review/cortment pending 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal US be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act3.11. II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPT/O4 • A. Include.tha following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original 84 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 712 minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (OriginalU.S.G.4. sheet must be main- tained by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution points.) 3. A.sketch sap of the site showing location of structures and including significant natural features (water bodie3, 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 present use of the land has been agriculture. To the south and east is city parkland; to the north is West 72nd Street; and to the west is rural land designated for residential uses. • 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: . -- a. Urban developed 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, XV, V) __Aacsea b. Urban vacant ¢8.5 acres • g. Shoreland 32 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. 1►loodplain 0 ACrms d. Rural vacant 0 acres i. Cropland' astuse land 50 acres e. Designated Recto- 0 acres J. Masted Q acres ation/Open Space - 2- 1" " 1,. ..i.„t,:de,°. F:— /LHLtIf -:-- --'�i,.-.i4....,• ., ,....•. . , -" - 1 .•q WnR -- SOWI,t ' O.F�.O.t. . II 1j I ,allacw eo. � .rowew 1 �s' .rr, , c.t. I ..r I uw I nw�e.,a. ,, .,..-.,, ra.nart 1 seals , I j I • III 1� Crow '+ litt •at ow NOW WWWW h-1ra.Mn W11 CO •.rt•IML• t r.r• WWI *'.•OwLn,.w II .Ow ]7' P I antaw.n• • IRIpQMn CO. tau: 0. WOW .1. o"•"' i - °LMm r/1�' �' L -�' • rwr WWI. I � Id i .Nwlit �i"1 I'I iho gams 1,,i—r* 'f./ — 1 VI 1' CO VI411 416.1?, 11 I 1 Or•tMn• j � I WILL,.000 I *W.W.I. Il ., 1 trwvn I 1 JI r7/ �r�aw.w '�d:.i• s er...w• �' rgtrR w",,n r „, . 1 qs s. ..wr0 1 w.. ., a.w W...V I =EWAN •awn i ----� CAW. IV oulot� CO. , � N..V 4L"2 I. i..l�a 4.,0. ..O1wJi T I �iy owuu r •` _.•a I . e ....LOWArilta gli tx�+ 11.,, --r VW*MAGUS I • Iw Itaasout 1 I r.wawu I I•..t..a• L._-� ,.wo..ta• 1 wwsaru dw� tw„le 4� .:.xw i 1 1 r m 1 "."*Ili..". 1 et.Wntw.dmow. ' I m _L � 1 L ----r----r— i i- �'`�• K•1•t i I rwr.r/ 1.rlt • .. OtY,un I MAI/LnW I ntaw clult I art I r• m l... �• Crtaa 00.. -Ct• I � w..nw I ewr.•t !a�• __L---_.1—.Q,—L—_-1—_ N+---••-"�---,---;• nrsati•• 1 to an atr 1 a.tewrt Irla.«r unto' t • TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 410 • 'cfaa UNITED STATES • c'% DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY , 93'30'•.• moo{ '12 C 'p 27'3(0" 'N 44•52'30"' v ti ` t p(1,4 nM y � - . ems. ,l „duedir c� ► 44 a Y yr 1 ed 4Ii o' O j,� / n 1 � n17jj ::„. �'<�-Elji, P'G7 t' ' a•74'•iIV ,,,', ; ••.‘ °P r irillr- _ O. r , 1 f o :!: .,_ - ' 5-, *0- ') .'r 1...;; ar ? ..-..,-..f..,.•.. �' � � ;Iiii s.t. ;�y. i•am N $r dj..., i . .- --. r_ Q �� � r� PMf t � e ' 4 '4r. .1 . , ..,....,..1:-..-- ,,, ''V ;l;r r •_d.• 1 , % — (�1:,._ , �:i 0 t- I I, — �u Lake tisi j - �C j. f i;i_ WI ,p .(;) 4.-/ lip. 21 h 4/ I • Zak • 1 f/ 1:' now _ 1•,..byI. l( y /� sai .� �� a��� _ • it/' ��$/� � I ir�1� �..%'�'-•r,-�•• e )L: • /i , ' ,1//;,E'• • 1 �, t 'r2 �l'Iu ��• n i 1. ? 7 -' .tr lY :' 8• F YIN __ ' 'Q rim �1. .- - . ,. . •. ----- • • • •-•- 1 i • \ 1 • • ! I • - — . -- ik, S.'4''''A''34177•71. ,s 1 0. - r ('• ;)11 r r- II!i?","" , -, , 1 r f 1 1 1 1 k 1 41 41'• ir r";•11:;)1.1i11-..vir41' I - 1 • ,, ../i/c,,A )11 i,..1,It 00/ 044 iri6 . ‘;‘,v,,,,...;t1.:,-, ,„..,,,,,,,x,„!•,.:,,,,%,• 1. ..,!' ...... liP4:9 i 147/';'Akl4M P0dpf .It r • \.•••- ,,,_ ,., .50-rA•ry...vir) I7 : •. t,...', 1111 , III.Mige p . o i ,' • ' r•P i- v ,, ------ . • r, If 0 /Ali' r•I` • — 1 riv • . . • I r i i 1 h . II • li ; DI . . , . . I 1 1 -,••::,?,„1,.._;•.,..7,,, • I . . . • , . i • - I .J 1 ., .,. ..;.1,1 ,......, • . r ik •• .. ' 1 1 ,.::1„,'{M,P0,•4.I pi!. • 1 I . 1 .- I i ''''", • .4,1 " 4,0., : . •• I I . 1 .. • '.- • .4 t--ur."--1 • II ir . - it .,... I--- ,•-•,,-.-,---_ ---- IIII 1. .......• • .- '" I, 11 I 3 II nil i • till' . <!if at:-i&ILL611 f'-'37,44-1:-' tiiiiiiwtta!qii , NS 10 I 044.1•00011111.IMOUKT I.1 XVI : . t I , .. . If or 4_ 1 I I „.......,p,.,Ainim.A,,.,.4.tscs.,..00,_ 1...„„. •...„..,.....:,1 ...:.,--__,__ ........ , • . . . ... .. .... • •- • . . . • • . . . • I • --t .il ) • . W•4--.4-e• • 4,4.,....rim_an ,_, . . . ....... • s $ ntsg, ip , - I *3 II I ! 1 .. .4 1 I irtiP al' t - pulmut t 4 10 a t . I I . .. • I r, i 1 II ,, t it .• !tki • X N., c • a • rai it . . • . I • I• V° .- 1 1:::6- ., (.\(\:-.7.1-' ---71rOpl — -ti..‘k, =--7=.4-' • • \\,g4Iclik,:-1',' e'll - :z. . • 1111( , _....,„ ---„L",.. \,. \\,.,:.„.k.s.:„.. A 1 s . 444. .1.4fiwli .... \, ..,,,;‘......:„. . ,. 11 , 01 ) ii...,„2.. r.„ ..,s.. It p. . lefe://""t"-'- -....,it•14%----.7.4)i 1.... .•••,..z.,,,„.2>..x.:.,,,, tilb.„, tp,mi;.- TIL , ,...,,,,/ r- ---,••,,, . •Cli . 7 it riii 1:nr 4 --- . , ..:-._----,-.A., , riii,..r.--• --,,„,,----_,, 4,1-- !_m.t. I, i. tiiitti::•--" C\tic, --&(41-:,),,,T0-4111 . . - - -'44-iJI,i ) 1 -•:1‘ , 4",-,..c.,• o-,- .A iii C,/i.)i ‘' .4dr .A.z ..=. 'a'sl'T 'i ' ‘11k1 i _....e, ,I . CO 'jc,41F—.(—• " ."10%("1 / /////,'•••;:'%' '\•\'-'1."‘;'f'170sil-c •; 1 tiP3P' 'ili ' ! " ''it ;tli 1'Oil rir 1;1111 /llit,11 ,..1t,--. 1 «z , A 171 • Villitit 11111111, .. 00V.'•*,,44S.,„„.,•06'0:40,..qp,' 1' , 'n' I 1 1 . , 114\.111 III i III) .#4,,tiq;i3,,,`Itt,',?•1C•i149'''..' ,•,,,If#...V. i - ••1115/ ti t ' . . i .11\tlil Itiiiibil 1' 1f.- ,,,i';•? „e'k l' in6F1 ill 11 •.-. jp.-• t - . • , 0,:„, z.v,A, i t•,,,,t1 1 1 - • - 1,1;3r ,-1- - . , tv.,t,fAllit,vt,t.? ,'4.- .. .,,,..:•.;slw...0::?...;.:1- ...4..'i I i., 7.'p 1 ilital, ,o - 4, '. A1.,,,,,,,,A,,\‘:\ ,i.‘,4,,,,,,.1....s.1.. ,,,,;„„,,,,,53„,t,„;:-.1 .- . an .•-„ioimii 1. . • -- .1 ut..%1,‘‘ot.,,,q,,. . ii.,.•-•,,.- •...t,., —,,,. ...4- .4.1 1 ).)1\1 \41 ,, ---Vi ::"•••••,•Avrrli . .i.. Ill 4)tb41111. ,e,' 1. . , 1 1 A I ,10. A,s: ..,,,,%, „.,,.,,,...:':-0.,&.,,, , , .k„.„, -...14,0_, ,Mj . f It 1, 1 Il,,;,&,:••,, • ..,rtiii, ------ i. r I 1! )\))\:;\\<,.\2t•n''', ,$.w -'43,,,t,o1 %,`-!...*.41/3 i L: 1 •-• . 1191 . tit. . . • i i ItI\ .....-*:•,,,c.,41••,,t, ,, ,„%., f, . .44V,pill i ,/,/ ' t - S7';'6V; tt,e.',..':.;.'? t' 'S "1 r.;•!li a I ,•, ,,,,/ / ,\,......._ .... ,,.....,, ,,,.,,,....,.., 4• . or )1d ti mar. ‘''•• . • •'', , , ‘ -- Pal•billia .!,•„..„•4 ,.,,.. t211„*- 1 • uti 4 f /Y' '--" ''' 7'1.'\\' 4 ..a,i-ur1 ,,,e,11;1111-1111 • : N11 / ., -- -) ... tk,'•;-....-....,., Alr., 11 . • -(.. ii,,' ( ,...,._.ti— —, , t„..,... , • 1 i i -.-.)-i\- 1 I . OW. - 1 I • Akil 1 - , . i , c --yk #11 • - ki . _. i • ,11,, ,I • • I . i .,t 4_ - - 'jig k''ll. i ) tf 1 , 1 . — • .1111111.31 • 1 i: 1. • 1, . . • . / P 1 ' • • 0 _......s L...- •' ).,4i ... N..,:'-'••-'•• 41111110UNINe 4,1,. 7 ' ' - , 1 t". ,,,,. ......-, • . • 6,7/ . • , ; T1• ••••••". A k 1 • it . • 1 1 • . i ,........ 1 • I t • 11• 0removontoc c:owry —0 • - , .7. • M a ; .,-,— A•19CIATt INC. "" 4,44.) '. ',7 • ..7 . OMNI PRA1,112 liIGH solooL T.. ......„...,..........,..1 /673 • . "3)1' ' norm PnAtm.mi. .!.4.;.,Atfik, ....••..... ,. •,,...: 3. List names and sixes 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'located within 1,000 feet to the South. 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). • A 1,200 student senior high school, grades 9-12, which has been dtsigned to allow additions. Forecast for 1983-1985 to accommodate an ultimate student population of 1,600 students. • 2. Fill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 68..5 acres g. His. of marina and access N_A.sq. t- or channel (water area) Length N.A miles h. Vehicular traffic trips generated per day WOW W b. Number of housing or recreational units N.A. i. Number of employees 100 c. Height of structures��ft. j. . Water supply needed 30,000 gal/d_ source: municipal d. Number of parking spaces - JOEL k. Solid waste requiring disposal 100 tons/ e. Amount of dredging N_A_ u. yd. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space N_A.sq. f jug treatment 30.400alida. III. ASSESSMENT Or POTENTIAL,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently exceeding 12%? Naa Yes 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? jNO YE:. 3. If yes on I or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. • 3 - log • 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. Extensive soil borings indicate soil suitable for foundations. No individual septic systems are planned. S. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: 80,000 cu. yd. grading ;it f14iu cu. yd. filling What percent of the site be so altered? 104.8 i 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 1,5:1 s ave. 3:1 max. 7. What step.will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? Contractor will be required to meet all requirements of watershed district during construction period. City and watershed district staff will conduct inspections to insure proper soil erosion techniques are in place and operating. s. VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following . • vegetative types: Woodland 0 i Cropland/ bpi • Pasture Brush or shrubs a s • Harsh 0 % Grass or herbaceous 4n i other 0 i (Specify) 2. Now many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? p acres 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DER publication The Uncommon Ones.) 'X NO YES it yes, list the 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 sits? X lA YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife :on or near the site? (Sae DER publication the Uncommon -�..NO YES • Ones.) . 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish _WD X YES habitat? 4. If yea on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce por.a*{al adverse impact on them. Ground nesting birds, rodents, small morsels, water fowl, etc., will • have their habitats disturbed and may relocate temporarily or permanently. After the heavy initial construction traffic,many of these species will be able to return to the area. • • 4 - 1075° D. HYDROLOGY • • 1. Will the project include any of the foilowinge if yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. • a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, SO lowland or groundwaterPlY X see item #3 b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X c. Dredging or. filling operations X see item #3 d. Channel modifications or diversions X e. Apprapriaticn of ground and/or surface water_ _. X - - see item #3 f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- • section of water bodies on or near the sits _ -IL- see item f3 2. •What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 9 S • 3. ghat measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface waterrun- off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? A two stage settling pond system captures site and building drainage. A sediment trap between the two ponds eliminates pollutants. This system has beet approved by the watershed district and is being reviewed by the D.N.R.. Ongoing site inspections will be conducted by city and watershed district staff to insure compliance. • 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 veer) floodplaia • by new fill or structures? • - _j o +YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance?jupo YES S. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on 15 feet the site? 8 WATER • . i there be a dis bt*9e of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body oc.to groundwater? MO if yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the water Body receiving the effluent. The well water cooling system draws water from the Shakopee Levl. It thehsedin. through a closed system and is discharged into a holding pond. erom pond it is discharged overland by regulated flow to Round Lake. 2. tem is f discharge of waste watert corrodes or unusualpolluto the municipal treatment ants planned, identify any • in the wastewater. None 3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project?composition and WO Ohod If yea, specify the expected volume, chemical of disposal. • 0 • • • 4. What measures will be used to minimise the volumes or impacts identified in questions 1-3? The well water holding pond is designed to hold a maximum of discharge water, Estimated rates are :max.discharge 455gpm, max. discharge to pond'1,629,800'S/yr., max. discharge to lake 1,355,000 '3/yr., supplementation to lake 1.8"/month. Well discharge is planned to supplant lake supplementation system now maintained by City of Eden Prairie. 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. --N.A. P. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE • -- 1. Will..tbe 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. • The three boiler heating systems using natural gas and No.2,4 or 5 fuel oil has been issued a permit from the MPCA. No emission controls are provided. Any emission will comply to special and general conditions of the permit including a yearly emission inventory. Maximum estimated amounts are: particulates: 2/ton/year, sulfur dioxide 40 tons/year. 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation . of the.project? wo YES If yes, describe the noise sonnets); specify decibel levels 0800], and duration (brs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/vibration. During construction there will be standard construction activity 8 hours/day. 5 days/week. Upon completion no noise or vibration is expected. 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether 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. Neareast residential development is 1,000 feet from construction activity. Wildlife(ducks. herons, musgrats, etc)may be displaced during the • construction period. G. LAND =SOURCE 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 o marketable crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. Approximately 50 acres were used for soybean production. School District rented land to tenent farmer during interim. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits cn the site? X NO YES If yes, specify the type of deposit and the acreage. • • • /677 • • 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 Daily) Anticipated Firm Contract or • Type Requirement summer Winter Supplier Interruptible Basis? Oil 15,400 G. 24 GPH 62GPH bid yearly firm Natural Gas 7,938 6 MCF 11.5MCF Minnegesco firm & interruptible Electric 1,212,000KWH 816 KWH 732KWH N.S.P. firm , b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed as-site fuel storage. • . One 30,000 gallon fuel oil tank • c. Estimate annual energy distribution fors space heating 73 a lighting 13 air conditioning 2 t processing 6 • '• e ventilation 6 d. Specify any mijor energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. The school is designed for passive solar gain. It is designed to • meet or exceed all current building codes. . a. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, ate? None.The high school replaces the existing high school which will become the district middle school. The present middle school is designated to become district.offices. . N. OPEN SPACE/RECREATIoH 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 bow eath may be affected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. The City of Eden Prairie's Round Lake Park is immediately adjacent to the site. The park encompasses Round Lake. By joint agreement of the City and School, and through cooperative planning, the park and school sites have been designed to complement one another and allow maximum joint use of the facilities therein. • W. TRANSPORTATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc)? X RiO u If yes, specify which partial of the systems) 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 8e • 2. Is mass transit available to the site? ' WO X • School buses for students living. over 1 mite from sy: • 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? . • Busing as state above. J. PLAmaI11G. LAND USE, commons SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensiveplans? If not, explain: • ' :''.: If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing coning and change requested. ' •N.A. ' . 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? —X—_ vas If yes, explain and describe any.measures to be used to seduce•onnT'ets. , • ° " 1013 • • t".1. • H. TRANSPORTATION Roadways The City is planning the extension of Valley View R::ulo::stwar0 from Co.Nd. 4 and this collecotr roadLwills;r feet wide to the proposed high school. This r::dwir'imillio.besloo za on the minimum State Aid Street s l ti is planned at the Co.Rd. 4/Valley View Read intersection. Pedestrian trails, fencing, and 2-3 pedestrian overpasses will help insure pedestrian and bile safety. Storm drainage will pasothroulhituep catch basins and settling ponds prior to discharge into pond Lake. All construction will be-eel:tett to Cite' and Rate/shed District • approval and inspection. • The City will realize a change in theel related traffic flow with the new high school location, Pedestrian Arregs -- • In addition to safer vehiculAreOvernents the new high school location will be served by the bikeway/hikeway system depictedin the graphic attached. Airport The school will be located 3+ miles from Flying Cloud Airport. The site is not within either the A or B Safety Zones of theairport. • • • • • _. • -LW- teiir() •• 1 __I I 02 i I. 0w 6. 0'411 \ N.owe ink. AT ( J.. 0 - 1...:. , • .. t • ' • 4r: ; . . • 1r . 3 i.oil , . w.IIIITIN,/. 6600 - . buillifirarr• n • ... 4 , I ik / a .0,,t, 111 ' d 16 . _„ 4, g I 110 , Z 4.o/ go --"-- ii . ...• 7 ( : .4'N'`S7r". ti 4**,7)7' ' . xi • ill -- -ouzel " •..A..b...i ••• z •,,. It \..... 7000 1 ,.....t4_so.soon,LArre It" •••• LAI ,. pm*view LANE . - k'''''''' Will - - ...,: , r N. g...... , • ...1 : ....1 MI OP,"A ir -;4::, irli ...122.it . , , J..- 0,4, 1,4, • • HIGH 'SCHOOL ,. g- * , . . * 1 ::1111.1111 ..,-,Nic4,4*2;Z:::_,L.'",,' •..., . , , 141.14 dir. it 4 . um 7,..„... , . stoomic,,,,, ..•4. CITY Ii0yi5ii .„%...,...,„.-..,... ,_ -e..r4k-:.,,,.c..i.a.C.t.:•r•..',*- .• i4*16 I,P AR,K. g 7800 - - _ ..: .,,..;, I CHANHASSEN • i z•17 : ''''...._'''.Y. _ as' Nov sancst.ti..t. 't...;": -••••.;/.•.. f r , - -IS -......------ -. Ttlitielt1W 4.it• "( t • I . s - • 4 it LAKE 8200 1 I -:7 - -. , 'Rice ,!.: • • LANE t.IP• - -- - EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRAILS/SIDEWALKS ..- I • . ( lessift&, . 8600 gr ... 3. How many employees will move into the area to be near the Project? nine Sow much new housing will be needed? non • 4. Mill the project induce development nearby--either support services, ' or similar developments? No If yes,explain type of development and specify any other counties;and municipalities affected. • • S. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? :" Amount required Public Service for croiect f�cient oaqit Existing Planned water 30,000 galtda X wastewater treatment 30.000 eal/da X sewer ' 4.011 feat X schools. pupils solid waste disposal 8 tan/mo X streets .5 miles X • other (police, fire,etc) N.A. X _ . * 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? X 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 an gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisions, etc? •_IL ° YES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to be taken to m4ri-4.e adverse environmental impacts from accidents. - 9 - /0 • .•. - -•„ •. • • • •,• . . • . • • . • • • S. When•the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the facility require special measuree or plans? 41-1.1116 • If yes, epeeiey# ••• •• • HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any strocturason the site older than SO year*or on federal : •.47:•.• " • or state historical registers? X VD TES Will be reviewed by State Historical Society. • 2. Have any arrowhead*, pOtreri or other evidence of Prehistoric Sr early settlement bees found on the site? X HO VP Hight any 3corfon anchalkogic or pal.pope-3.0910a sites be affected --- • by the activity? No.Area has been extensively „A.)* .... ss cultivated. 3. List any site or qua identified in 1 and 2 end explain any halm*on them. • None • • • • L. OTHER IDIVIROESSEHILL CONCERNS • Describe any other major environmental effects which say not have been identified in the previous sections. None • : :•;•#, • - " '" six. OMER MITIGATIVE MEASURES • Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential • adverse impacts that have not been described before. • • ..,, • • • ••••'IN • • • - • • , • • 10••• /013 • • V. FINDINGS • The project is a private ( ) governmental ( X.) action. The Responsible Agency (Person), after consideration of the information in this RAW, 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 X environmental, effects. (A.) have the potential for aignUi:caat State reasons: . • 3. (For private actions only.) The project is ( ) is not ( ) of more than local significance. • State Reasons: • • • • 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 EEC Monitor section of • the Minnesota State Register.' Submittal of the RAW to the EQC constitutes • a request for publication of notice in the ME 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 NOTICE: ' • No EIS'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. . • • 11 • IOU 2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An EIS will be prepared on 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 MEQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances. the MEQC'catspecifically authorize limited construction to begin or continue. 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 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,EWC Monito .. If special circumstances prevent compliance with this time.lin t, 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 Resron¢{hlR Agency(s) or Person(s)): • Signature Roger K. Ulstad,City Manager Title • - Date B. 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 (refer to question I11.3.4 en page 9 of the BAN). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is sent to the EQC. • . C. Billing procedtaes for EEfC Monitor Publication • ' • State agency' Attach to the EAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 CULT: 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) 296-8289. • • - IZ .. /OZ' 1 • , . . . ., .,.. . . ,. . ,. . . ...., . . . , • . . • ., - . . , . • , . .. . . • " ' „,''.':',-,.' • . • „ . . .„ . . .. ."... .. ,, , , . .:•„..., •. . , .-,. . ,-.. , . .,... . "••- • • . . .... _.- .--4- ...., . ...' 1, ,.,' .°' ,.-....,,,rj... PiVi4J.'4,;*,-'.,:L'f;,,';','-'' -' v ..,,V,,,f, '"'',,,',74h: ,rk.1,,... 4.' Artr.r.,:.• .--..'.... , .....„. • '-';'. . ......-'''. .. . ,.. . . 1. .... ,.'••,,,,:: kraal. '',,,:•'..,!.. eut uge..n•autumn,aososabas tebreqv.Islas.,taabiatTalat assaarrt taxe at est.,Op.Vs.a am sow as ISMS Mt 44 WO Ilsnasaaa*areas at Satabla I.fttalaS,., 1SAIS asasaatua Id vhe amt.taaa id sem St Platatla Ceara tar lot ilmak,axes 11%40.giguKgsg agg.g.......,.......4. 90 libg Oat.to,Sattetsaa abreaat, ISO valistit at 04 litlarsa Seadamaa own..sr sim„...0 owe..al sae a OK StOWNO.0 .,.•,'.,...7','''. Six a asa aseesatatia aoseolat.sweat.a Wet at absetssata taw* .........4e Os Visa tasaraat mime id ow.igggidt f t,P.M_ paggigniggr Lc*a.saw.g It*Zri„..11 se.sasausWO,Isms"at SW stoat Iss sta.Is..Va*PT, . _I baits eau.tatiast taw*a se.a at asa sass wt.. ,,....,es., ..... „,,,,,...., 0. igeg dial.... .. II igig.ga.Igg.*saggeguid g a gigg Maggot rolls,gaga,.•sena Isar .........f .......... 4 Ian ova s 144131014ssia.4,1414 lit • s, .VootsW4414 4.41 st.W1111421,114444.40:Air . =wiewr Ir141 - '04 1 .. &Ltrissas wt setarsan. 1.0=1.las.OSSaamtsigx Obtalt 1.irtii . .:::.;:•-:', ow.saatsbasecorts allot alta,Iatair, 4* __ ?gm as 444.44,.44 oi. w 4444 Art,1100.4.4151,041 . swam tlosataiet at uts on raw alt saks4.0 a,..71,.. ti164,11‘.00.4 I 4141041.01 410.1. .44t , 0 ......., 4414414 nil 141 Owns 4044 10.I.ups.$4440.4414 so 4 , Wu./ *a*Tanaka aol!*+balsam.tux =g Vag IP*gm mpg ar 3.#0..varoz......A.11.41.110. filrlat 441.114 law Ss surs4 10.4 0404 4.11414X14.9.-04„V ,, , .,,,,, Oxon Ohl 7.404 five 00or SI I.14r.iinat s awn* anoe,a 114,1001144441 944rtSr iir-'04,14 40441414.1,2,14.1...41.' a. sat ato.a wt....Iv,•a.101.0.u, '..-:•:-,,:',. waxi= ii, as..• at Oat atisal si4044,4,4,..arsa. =......iraisit Tatte shot bra•1**44,., ' • •- Saint* • ,,-....,.; . abaaaar lob.ars*asp 1.1110sli 444 ion g Vb.VW Van ,Wouiii.i.. ..........,,**Ago*.41.,ar mum.I..AU...144.,ffle,,..i. ,,...,.• , • sum 11-1400V,14.441404.41044441.44,100171004 SS 00 PM,. ,....,•., •10.4010 im.IS aramaast US at aralattit4S4,.a J6, ,logglidg 1%-...L.... lip,,.:...ZilleUr.or4ilirigiNiiggg 01.0140004 41.,4*11.11ass tratioxastialistelL,XIS'It'.'• '• .,,''.:'' rgiliraiasIll'ar7tia,%ais,itstall,taw th gialit****.l..,,nt at ant triar*.MI isk4i....114.41,7 s ' •'., ',','."..''',',... • ...,aa aa tallarib Possaaallaa b...... . rarlast.1.isi SI soa 440,040.in st goaggitsig leg..,gg gligg ..mmmirmmm,mmomum .........Z.m,m. ..am . .,,,:......, gaga Om aka 11040104.444.444*44001s.00400 SUVA,la:SOS Sistii;"11611 Sestrassz amass at Wit siataaaas VS airattisatt.swig, um m.the'lettivamit roan, .,...ft lisithglefr i.......‘!,.. • ,,,,,,, ', .• 0.181 g.umbra swage at seas agekogst, I 44*Stasaalts.14s; Waco atria as ales ratareassa aot..“a, liersimei0t.4.... ........4.....Ma..44144.u umeue.:40....4•,..#44...4L • , ,-,,,,- muttra u swins.Wit i014.444.04,14.04 1440 ww• • . ,,.......„: . r Was.*4#4*<Soma uss slaw*I Iota Luis.404two.V 0 J44t44 MS If Oa tiautopolis ',44,14t.41'....14'.."•1 '... - ,..."'....- Mots.4“tat slit Sao PM bostismaaa aegasi a*sal... AN.* - tiokt,aboate.'imas 0 Js-144.4.V 00404,14 1i4 410.44.1.14s .404$44thaossarls ts i otr0014 Ito... abratia Una'Akita'taaa Ss 4 ruameased.una.....4.....• . . . .,,,,,,,,, , .• M.Mr.11,60..."1". 'a ta:rMaIrer.trDAr47141104 La sem mums•smiler Olt e,4 ume.a...flume ......4.6,4,lit 1.0 Urals-Fe• . -r,-...,' , 43,41 it illitia i•......4,Wt..10*WO.......Sue UM511.07.eaeifttaT4.41,...ante..ele,....,4.44.4 •.. '..' .•,..•.S....T...: away stab se.t. as ma , ,a bad.. :USA Aiwa•,owatooi . ,.- Ms Sailltata Wan. Mai Pea past St us at 24 StapanitS. Sp*.Sa.MISSSS III AS SP.S.i0144. , . ..,;...„. . 141$4114 tiles ma aria ams taut at Oa-strata.tatazaa. • .. •,,,,, . •it.a.,4 at*IA,et saanao,S.sawailla 444...**.a_....VP. ..**. alba at ea 0..0 sateastaa at ar•aortas WM 41..1 jia,prnSista .....M...,auad,Obi rats Lass4 ata.latbatalt.„..404.• ' • ,...:',',' Own 444 1401 mu MA"Iamb al Sa4ltaasa aPrIl*,,__,atrn, masa I.&steam.at 4,14.444.4, at iss ttsbt-otsosp st Ur 1St...4,4•44404 4 so, swe SR44 . 44400 1•440.01:440.44440 owas sr . , ...,.., • Sss•Sst• gptr!"1*.glaisaV,at"Ilt1.44 b..SCOSSOMIE irtit: , •...-.,... . lam ad“eaaa tar Saimaa,aosaastabl smolt.. - .1, sea'Seatit I Santa&S'SySadat,-), .., MOSS - s.Sha St Sap,LItis itt,.C.S1.1.31..IIS.,4' • m 41.....*, l at far..tatil atalkata S W . Itattaxt•a*,•*141 • . ,. rte .,....asks au soar ka mt O a MO*kikee 41 4444.414......, ,,',•,,::.,...:. 4‘4444444 4t.ORA.444,Aso.salmi affistaas Sato ,,,...,. . _ ... Ss mamba sataa wails)stab allt,Sait•SLIM Mt MU ta.SA . S.S.A.S:ali.a a&SUMO St aiti,Itt ISS.V.*M..*R.. et realaaaillt. ^''..7...' CeatataUs sa-li rams asaleta 49 SW laat AU ilinfalai it tititi• :".,,..,....... • , ::''.-..,...- ' , . ' • , . ' .,..'7,7,'.....,. . ...,.„ . .:., ..... • . . -,,,, ......,_ • ' . '..:''''.., . . ... ... ... .. ,.-... . • 10344' • ',.. '-',.,..','42,-',',.; `,,',.,,..'";.-....;--;...T.''',,-,...,'...,:;:''';"'",':-.'„1:-.,;-i''''''''''''-':.'. '''''''' ' ...".-; ' .' ' '''' ''' .1-'';4.,i',.'..:, • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 78-229 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AND ESTABLISnING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PLATTING AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 93, AS AMENDED AND RELATING TO PROCEDURES, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, STORM WATER HOLDING AREAS AND PONDS. The Council of the City of Eden Prairie does ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 4 of Ordinance 93, as amended, is hereby amended by adding Subd. 22 thereto as follows: "Subd. 22. 'Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission' is the City of Eden Prairie Parks, Recre- ation and Natural Resources Commission." Section 2. Section 5 of Ordinance 93, as amended, is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefor: "Section 5. Proposed Sketch Plan (Procedure). Subd. 1. Persons desiring to subdivide are requested to prepare r review with the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources.Commission, a subdivision' sketch plan which, in order to be most useful, should contain the following information: tract boundary of the land proposed to be subdivided and all contiguous unplatted land under the control of the owner of the land to be subdivided; significant topography and physical features, proposed general street lay- out and proposed general layout and the locations and dimensions of all proposed parks, playgrounds or other public 'areas. • Subd. 2. The sketch plan will be considered as submitted for informal discussion between the subdivider and the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources; Com- misa:ion. Snbmi.nt;ion of a sketch plan shall not constitate fa+r.+al filing of a plat. 44;0- /077 • • • • tr • Subd. 3. As far as may be practical on the basis of the sketch plan, the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will advise the subdivider as to the conformance of the design with standards, plans and other • related information. Subd. 4. When any proposed drainage way, park, playground, schoolor other public site, as depicted in the Comprehensive trt'- velopment Plan, as amended, and updated from time to time, is in part or in whole within the boundaries of a propcsgd subdivision and such way or site is not owned by the City, a school district, or other governmental entity, the owner shall not submit a preli- minary plat as provided in Section 6 hereof for a period net to exceed ninety days from the first date on which the Parks, Reere- ation and Natural Resources Commission reviews the sketch plan, to allow the proper governmental agency the opportunity to take action for the acquisition of such way or site by purchase or other method." Section 3. Section 11 of Ordinance No. 93, as amended, is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefor: "Section 11A. Parks, Playgrounds and Public Open Spaces. Subd. 1. The owner of land being subdivided for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses, or as a planned unit develop- ment which includes residential, commercial and industrial users, or any combination thereof shall dedicate to the public for public us'-' as parks, playgrounds or public open space a reasonable portion of the land up to 10t thereof, as determined by the City to be in the public interest and necessary for such uses. Subd. 2. At the City's option, the subdivider shall contri- bute an equivalent amount in cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the City may require such owner to dedicate f+ur:;a.att: to Subdivision 1 hereof, in accordance with the following schedule which is hereby determined to be based upon the fair market value'.+'t the undeveloped land. Residential Units Fee Single Family Detached $325 All other residential uses $250 • • Per Acre • Commercial, Office/ Industrial Use $1,400.00 The amount of cash contribution shall be subject to redurfaof by the City upon a showing by the owner that the cash contribution l'ro- vided by the schedule is greater than the fair market value, .10 ut the date of final approval of the subdivision, of th.tt rt-'asen•d..le 2 - ar-r portion of land which the owner could be required to dedicate for public uses pursuant to Subd. 1. hereof, but for which the cash contribution is required in lieu thereof. In such event the cash contribution shall be the fair market value of such reasonable portion of land. Any cash contribution received hereunder shall be placed in a special fund by the City and used only for the acquisition and development of land for parks, playgrounds and public open spaces, development of existing park and playground sites and public open spaces, debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes and payment of assessments against land..presently or previously acquired for such purposes. Subd. 3. Whenever the term "dedicate" is used in Section 11A or 1T 18 shall mean a dedication of land in connection with a plat for the purposes required or, at the option of the City, a deed or other instrument of conveyance conveying the land to the City. A dedication of land shall be such as shall vest good and marketable title of the land in the City, free and clear of • any mortgage, lien, encumbrance or assessment, subject to such easements or minor imperfections of title as may be acceptable to the City. Subd. 4. The City may determine the location and configu- ration of any land dedicated, taking into consideration its suit- ability for its intended purposes and how it will best servethe public and future needs of the community for such purposes. Subd. 5. Land dedicated for the holding of storm or drainage water, power line easements or which is unusable or of limited use may, at the option of the City, not be deemed accepted • by the City for purposes of owner's compliance with Subds. 1. and 2. hereof or Section 118. Subd. 6: Where the owner provides for public use, 1eial+i''i. hood park amenities such as, but not limited to, tennis court::, i11 fields, open space or other recreational facilities, the City r.+.+Y reduce the amount of land to be dedicated or the cash contribution' in lieu of such dedication by an amount equivalent to the cost cif the facilities provided. Subd. 7. Cash contributions required by Subd. 2. hereof shall be made concurrent with issuance of a permit for building upon lots or parcels within the subdivision." . "Section 1113. Mini-Parks. Subd. 1. 'Mini-Park' is a specialized park,play<}mound or open ::?lace which serves a concentrated population or specific ':T•'u1, of person:: such as those residing in the imnu diite nei;hh++rhoo,i 'µ'++ may be located in or .uljaCt to apartment complex duvel+y•O.'+its, house developments and single family deVelopmrnts that are not ill ion • MEMORSOMI .. TO: Mayor and City Council THIW; Roger X. glstad, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Coseunity Services nATE: April 27, 1979 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Ordinance • Attached is a copy of the juforeation reeetved from other suburbs comparing • park dedication ordinances. As you can wee, those ccetmutities requiring a for of 10% of the current market value of the land.Weald receive the g7teateat awn of cash using our dayt+oL'hetical situation. fibs forapala sleet tends tet have the developer arguing for a lower value of his property Imo is helpful when you decide to purchase.purchase part of it far park. After discussing its effectiveness with ware adadieiatratOrs the emblems are trying to find an appraiser that both tit* City'and owner agree . the"current market value", also every stM4visien ends up-'with.different fells and it becomes more difficult to administer for the Building DepaXtment. BL:md • • 7. 1O •.I a;f tt. i w Q 7 R1' 74 04 I- > a se I ) M Y n Y w A- i - i - M N M N N Y Q II M • F. NI ai I Is ii * a ir, M AM.. ,1 N rt *4 M r/ .d M0.0 .d . M xx as i I 1,, O �0 ++ o ee. ao N 1.4. m 1! ii _M .4 .ti 40 V 1 1m '1 o a w 4,4 1.1 5 i 1 4. 4 1 3 ie i Y /41 i 1 i . 1 i v al 6r� m / .., I t i0i _2_ To compare the ordinance we will use the example of a single family development containin9100 acres and developed at 2 units/acre. We will also use $10,000/acre as the current market costs. because that is about what we were told we would have to pay for the land on our preferred park site on Homeward Hills Road. (We were told $15,000/acre for the site at the corner of Co. Rd. 1 and Franlo Road.) This is the amount brought in by the various ordinances: CITY CASH PEE DEDICATED LAND Eden Prairie $65,000 10 acres + $20,000 (land would be graded 4 seeded) Burnsville $100,000 10 acres Chanhassen $47,000 4.6 acres Chaska $37,500 (raw land value) S acres Shakopee $50,000 10 acres • Prior Lake $37,500 10 acres Savage $100,000 10 acres Bloomington $100,000 10 acres Eagan $48,000 10 acres Plymouth $55,000 10 acres Blaine $56,250 10 acres + $18,750 Edina • $50,000 "reasonable" Maple Grove $50,000 S acres Cottage Grove $55,000 8.5 acres + $30,000 (land graded 4 seeded) Apple Valley $100,000 10 acres Of course,the problem with terms like"10% of the fair market value:or currant market value; tend to immediately cause differences of opinion between the developer and the City. This difference of opinion leads to costly delays for the developer and sometimes costly condemnation actions for the City. /6 • MEMO: TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager DATE: April 26, 1979 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN The proposed Guide Plan has-now been reviewed by the City Commissions with recommendations to the City Council. Also, included in Chapter 7 (addendum) are the recommended additions from the Conmissitms end iwritterr communicattons - -- from property owners and other interested parties regarding the Guide Plan. Only the recommendations from the Commissiont are suggested for incorporation or change of the Guide Plan at this time. The Mandatory Planning Bill calls for the communities' Guide Plan to be a- dopted by the local planning unit and accepted by the local governmental unit prior to submission to the Metruplitan Council. Also, b months prior to submission of the Guide Plan to the Metropolitan Council the local unit must send copies to all surrounding communities for review and comment. Upon receipt of a Community Guide Plan, the Metropolitan Council has 120 days to return written comments to the local unit to incorporate in its plan. Since Eden Prairie has been involved in the Guide Plan process for over three years, with numerous public meetings, workshops, and forums; we believe that there has been maximum exposure given to the basic Guide Plan. We would therefore suggest that the Council set a special meeting as a public hearing for review of the Guide Plan and approval for submission of the document to the Metropolitan Council. Since the basic document was just recently distributed to our surrounding neighbors, we have about 5 months before we can submit this to the Metropolitan Council. In that time, we would expect to update all the graphics that have been modified since the beginning of the planning process. Two potential dates for the public hearing would be June 12 and June 26. The staff would expect to make just a very short summary presentation of the Commission, recommendations to the Council at that time. A second public hearing could be scheduled subsequent to the Metropolitan Council for final City Council adoption. CE:ds • Ion. MBMORAKI/M TO: Mayor and City Council • . THRD: Roger K. Ulatad, City Manager PROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: April 27, 1979 SUBJBCr: Bryant Lake PaYk Plan On April 20, 1979 staff sent tint•information on the Bryanr twke Park Plan. Since that tine, Mr. Rodberg staked the boatmen of the Proposed access toad: I have reviewed that road alignment, on site,, wixh Carl Jullie, City Engineer, and with Keith Wall of our Public Seety went. Staff continues to support the direct access to the park for the following reasons.: • a. The alignment &erre/Posedby fkr. Rodberg and Mt, Terrain doesn't provide enough room.for proper yowler/CS forma intersect on with Rowland Road. It would.' difficult to awake* left-turn vesting out of the park. Mr. Jullie felt that it the park Vern tg at that point, that it would have to errata at a 9atlgle from Rowland Road and would require 10-12 feet of fill at the bottom of the lea area. b. Cost - The difference in alignment would result in a$11,000 arr`erence in grading costs, asnaeing the fill and.bass could be acquired on the site. If the alignment were et a 90"angle at the same location it would be even wore vorpensive. Mr. Rodberg+a privacy could be maintained by pan*mitr4on of a berm between hie property line and the access road in the park. • Mr. Rodberg suggested another Change to the plan that I felt would benefit the park. Be suggests that the boat launch site be moved from the point southoast,rly approximately 400 feet, and also to move the boat parking area closer to the launch - site. BL:md MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services PROM: James E. Jensen, Park Planner DATE: April 27, 1979 SUBJECT: Feasibility of Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Along Valley View Road Preliminary investigation into a trail along Valley View Road has been completed in response to the April 16, 1979 petition requesting a separated path for bike riders and pedestrians. Several general criteria have to be considered in preparing for construction of such a trail, and are listed as follows: • . ' 1. Property Ownerships - Very seldom are the topography and other physical barriers positioned favorably for keeping trails that are adjacent to roadways within the road right-of-way. Therefore, adjacent property owners have to be considered for acquisition of easements or backslope easements. 2. Natural and man-made features - Topography, roadway backslopes, ditches, fences, poles, trees, etc. have to be considered to determine what changes have to be made, what mitigating steps are taken to insure aesthetic and functional compatibility, and what natural phenomenon have to be considered and incorporated into the design. 3. Funding Criteria - In most instances there are criteria regulating horizontal and verical alignment of a trailway, as well as the construction► section. 4. Future considerations affecting construction - This category may often abbreviate consideration for certain construction based upon cost/benefit in a particular time frame. S. Present and future benefit from construction. In preparing this'feasibility report, these five criteria are considered and weighed separately and together. Basically there is a general awarenesss of the need for a separated bike/pedestrian trailway along Valley View Road, and for that matter, many of the roadways in Eden Prairie. In viewing the corridor several times I have concluded that a bikeway could be constructed between County Road 4 and Edenvale Blvd. Starting at County Road 4 and proceeding east, the south side of Valley View Road would be the most favorable positioning for the path. Most of the adjacent homes on the south side have "claimed" Valley View R.O.W. as part of their front yardf, resulting in numerous trees, hedges, fences, etc. that are in the R.O.W. and could be removed for construction of a trail. • -2- The south side is the favorable side for the trail all the way to Ontario Blvd. where it would have to cross to the north side for the crossing of Purgatory Creek. One serious problem exists in front of 15917 and 15817 Valley View Road. A very steep backslopo arises from the roadway shoulder and stretches southward. The owner of 15917 has agreed to an easement according to the petition, and the owner of 15817 has not. Even if the easement were procurrod from both owners the trail would be forced to climb the steep slope, and compounded with the 104 already existing on the road, the slope for the trail could conceivably be 20. or more. A slope of this magnitude would surely prompt users to go back to riding on the roadway. Slopes in excess of 8% are usually considered steep for a bike trail, unless a downhill run precedes the uphill so that sufficient momentum will help carry the rider up the grade. Minnesota Department. of Transportation --- -- funding criteria dictates that there be 10' between the driving lane and an off-road bike trail so the trail on the shoulder below the slope would not work either. ' A trail on the north side of Valley View Road from County Road 4 east for the first 2,000' would be almost impossible due to topography, ditches, and large power poles. About 15-20 poles would have to be moved to accommodate a trail in this area. At least half of the poles are major NSP power poles and it is estimated by NSP that it would cost the City about $1,000 per pole to move. It is estimated by Carl Jullie, City Engineer, that Valley View Road will be upgraded in 5-10 years and possibily as soon as 3 years. To build a full scale bike trail along Valley View Road when it might have to be removed in 3-5 years may not be the best use of the funding. It has been indicated to me by the trail funding people at MNDot that it is possible to transfer part or all of the funds proposed for County Road 1 trail and use them for a trail along Valley View Road. They also informed me that it may be possible to fund the Valley View Road trail in the 1980 funding period beginning later this year. (MNDot staff are not in favor of moving funds from County Road 1 to Valley View Road.) Cost estimates for 8' wide bituminous path from County Road 4 east to Edenvale Blvd. (south side east from County Road 4 to Ontario Blvd.; north side from Ontario to Edenvale Blvd.) Grading $10,000 (based upon equipment rental only) Base - 800 ton 5,000 (material only) Bituminous - 4,200 20,000 (material only) lineal feet Possible Acquisition 10,000 Restoration 2,500 Bridge Structure. 4,0000 RECOMMENDATION Based upon cost/benefit for an unknown period of time, the staff recommends that the 8' bituminous trail not be constructed, even though it may be possible to build the trail as indicated in the cost estimates above. As a possible temporary alternative, a 5-6' wide limestone trail could be constructed from County Road 4 east to Ontario Blvd. or Purgatory Creek. Using City funding the trail could be placed on tin shoulder where necessary (below the steep slopes of 15917 and 15817 Valley View Rand.) A minimum of grading would have to be done for the temporary trail leaving the major cost in the limestone only. A 3/8" minus crushed limestone becomes quite hard surfaced once it has been wet compacted and would be sufficient for bicycles, at least on a temporary basis. �� io'JL • • • • • • Cost estimate: . S00 tons of 3/8" minis crashed limestone . x$.00 =limestone estimated cost 2,500 grading 1 000 restoration • 00 total estimated cost This cost becomes much easier to accept When Valley View Road is upgraded and the trail is torn up. d6J:ad .. • • • • • • • • • • • • #. MEMORANDUM • - TO: Mayor and City Council • TRHU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Stuart A. Fox, City Forester DATE: Arpil 28, 1979 SUBJECT: Diseased Tree-Removal Alternatives II In a memorandum dated November-30; 1978, the staff briefly-outlined the hauling - problems which have plagued the tree disease program over the past 2 years. The recommendation of that memo was that the tree program needed to improve its hauling reliability and capability. The City Council granted the staff request to use up to $12,500, of unspent 1978 program funds, to purchase a 30 yard tree hauling truck. In December the City advertised for bids on a tree hauling truck. However, when the bids were received tht lowest bid was $16,000 and subsequently the bids were rejected. Nith summer approaching, the staff still feels it is imperative that a solution that will provide reliable, low cost hauling for homeowners diseased trees be found promptly. 1978 SUMARY Trucks used for hauling: (1) - Civil Defense Truck with Prentice Loader 2-S yd., 21/4 Ton Dump Trucks (maximum hauling capacity 10 yds per trip) . Fuel: Gas • Fuel Usage: . 15-20 gallons per day Prentice (x2) 18-24 gallons per day per dump truck. 51-68 gallons per day x $.58 per gallon Fuel cost $29.60-$39.50 per day Prentice i of hours operated I of'work hours in period C of total hours worked Feb. 28-June 2 267 hrs. 400 hrs. 67% June 5-August 25 192h hrs. 472 hrs. 41% August 28-September 20 57 hrs. 152 hrs. 38e Sept. 21-Nov. 23 Prentice down - broken 352 hrs. 0% front axle totals 55114 hrs. 1,424 hrs. 39% The above chart is a hourly use breakdown for the prentice log loading truck during the 1978 season. The major reason the truck operated only 59% of the available work time was due to the numerous mechanical breakdowns of the 1953 (MC (CD) Civil Defense Truck. • • -2- Breakdown Expenditures for the CD Truck: Parts $2,833.00 Labor 215 manhours - ! $7.55/hr. 1,623.00 Total $4,156.00 In addition to the above costs the tree program had the following expenditures to haul trees while the CD truck was being repaired. Rental of log loading truck July 18-Sept. 1 ($2,000/mo.) $3,000 Contractual hauling - 24 days (August-November) 8 $42/hr. 8,026 Total $11,026 When you combine the repair costs with the funds-expended to supplement hauling-rksie- . the CD was being repaired the total is $15,182. These costs were not anticipated in the formulation of the 1978 budget. The tree program was able to meet the expenditures without exceeding the 1978 budget request because 1978 tree losses were lower than what had been predicted. The staff feels that we cannot rely on "good fortune" to get us thru the 1979 program.. • Alternatives for hauling trees 1. Lease a 30 yd. hauling truck (June-Sept.) Cost: $12,000-$3,000/month for 4 months Wihtages: Reliable hauling, increased hauling capacity 2 man crew could do the work instead of present 3 man crew, fuel far 1 vehicle instead of 3 trucks (approximate fuel costs for 25-30 gal/day (diesel) would only be $13.00-$16..00/day for fuel, compared to the present $30.00-$40.0Cfday. Disadvantages: Hauling of trees during the remainder of year using present equipment which is proving to be unreliable and expensive to repair. 2. Lease a 30 yd. hauling truck with a purchase option. Approximate Costs: 3 different approaches: .a. 1977 truck complete with prentice-loader - City would sell present - loader. 3 yr. lease - *$1,620/monnth - lease/purchase price $58,320 S yr. lease - *$1,050/month - lease/purchase price $63,000 • *NOTE: By selling current prentice it would reduce original price of truck $6,000-$8,000 and lower these monthly figures. b. New truck - City would have current prentice mounted en leased • truck. 3 yr. lease - $1,250/month - lease/purchase price $45,000 S yr. lease - $817/month- lease/purchase price $49,020 c. New truck - City would-have current prentice mounted on leased truck. Lease based on a percentage of new purchase price. 3 yr. lease - $1,025/month - lease/purrhnse price 3 yr. lease amount $36,4►O0 + 204 of base price 7.5MI Total t.I4,4wo 5 yr. lease - $710/month - Iease/purchase price " 5 yr. lease amount •$1=,00, • IS% of Imo price S.s•':. 1091 Total icy*,`J • -3- Advantages: Same as option 01 with the following additions; truck would be used year round vastly improving the tree program, City could sell the present prentice loader ($6,500-58,000) to defray expenses or mount current prontice on a leased truck, truck would be new, covered by manufacturers warranties. Disadvantages: City pays financial costs to benefit low yearly payments. 3. Purchase an older 30 yd. tree hauling truck Cost: $45,00-$50,000 X3Vintages: Basically the same as option •1, except that an available truck would probably be 5 or 6 years old. Disadvantages: The availability of good quality trucks is questionable...---- -- When the staff researched this option in the winter contractors were only only interested in selling trucks that were 5-6 years old which have questionable reliability. In addition most tree contractors which had. newer trucks also had contracts or bids which made them reluctant to sell their truck. 4. Purchase of a new truck with 30 yd. box. Cost: $3 8,0D0 for a truck with a box. $1,500 to remount current prentice on a new truck Total,$4' .,9O Advantages: Same as option 41' in addition the City would not pay financial charges (as in option 3). Truck would be used year-round, truck would be new and covered by manufacturers warranties. Disadvantages: Large expenditures in one year. The staff has envaluated the above alternatives and ranks them as fellows: t 1. #4 purchase of new truck 2. #2 lease/purchase of a truck 3. #1 lease truck for summer Accept- 4. f3 purchase of an older truck able FUNDING SOURCE For the past two years the tree program has operated with expenditures less than the appropriated budget. As a result of this the forestry program has $ 1,000 in unspent monies. This money has not been used primarily ho'e"ee the funding of the tree program comes from outside the levy limit and these funds can only be spent for special programs. ie. a tree disease program. RECOMMENDATIONS The staff requests the Council approve the use of approximatley $40,000 for the purchase of a now 30 yard truck to haul diseased trees (alternative 14) • SAF:md • Io • MEMORANDItal TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Roger X. Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 'RaL- • DATE: April 24, 1970 SUBJECT: Review of Proposals for Lease of Eden Prairie Stables Attached is a copy of the review of the seven proposals for leasing the stables. I have summarized their respective answers to the questions listed in the proposal form. After reviewing all Pr0Posals+ I would recommend the city mate a lease with Hennepin County Area Vooationai.T iea1 vectors, i belie4re they-would Offer the most service to the g a L number of people, and wmild he the nest reliable tenant. I would encourage them to offer msme recreational services ` as part of their stable aanxg per pogram ie. hay rides, slsigh tides., and would want them to to guarantee offering riding lessons to`the_Public* The other proposal that deserves consideration is the p o dr 4 ,Cant Bedew of Sunnybrook Pars. Their proposal offers the meat variety of recreational' programs. They want to move from their present location because their barn was destroyed by fire last year. Apparently they have a fairly:goad hnn4nrsq built up, and they feel the majority of that business would follow thou to Eden Prairie. • This item will be on the Council agenda on May 1, 1979 for review and comments, and on %he Parks, Recreation and 'wnrnral Resources Commission agenda on May -- 7 for a recommendation, and on the May 1'B Council agenda for final action. BL:md • • 4/17/79 REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FOR LEASE OF EDEN PRAIRIE STABLES a. Hockey Association of Eden Prairie (HARP) b. Rick and Leslie Hartmann, Excelsior, Minnesota c. Sheril Wendling, Dennison, Minnesota d. Sunnybrook Farm, Roger and Janet Bedew, Coon Rapids, Minnesota e. Eugene Doering, Lake Elm, Minnesota f. David and Trudy Bromley, Carver, Minnesota g. Hennepin County Area Vo-Toch • Comparision of answers to requirements listed on form: (Summaries) 1. Proof of liability insurance insuring themselves and naming the City as an insured party with limits of one million dollars. a. HARP - provided certificate of insurance for 1 million dollars. b. Hartman- has $100,000 insurance -"didn't have time to make change to 1 million: c. Wendling - no insurance infatuation provided ("father able to obtain"). d. Bedow - letter from insurance agency indicates it will provide 1 million. e. Doering - letter from iranrance company confirming 1 million available. f. Bromley - are attempting to get insurance thru Carver County Agency. g. Vo-Tech - District currently carries 1,000,000 umbrella liability. 2. Proof of bond in the amount of $50,000 to guarantee the continued good condition of the buildings on the site. a. 11ACP - not bondable - don't feel it is necessary. b. 1artmann- would provide a $5,000 bond. c. Wendling - no bond information provided ("father able to obtain bond"). d. Bedow - would provide $5,400 bond equal to annual rent. e. Doering - would provide escrow of $5,000 cash in interest hearing account. f. Bromley - can provide bond if form is provided by the City. g. Vo-Tech - it is possible to obtain, would like to consider another meth'"!. • • _2- 3. A statement of all persons who will be involved in the management of the lease along with business and character references. a. HARP - list of Board of Directors provided b. Hartmann- information provided c. Wendling - family members would operate - no references d. Bedew - information provided e. Doering - information provided f. Bromley - information provided g. Vo-Toch - Hennepin County Vo-Tech staff would operate facility, all licensed and bonded as necessary by law. 4. A statement as to the length of time the lessee desires. a. HARP - "as long as possible" b. Hartmann- "as long as possible" • c. Wendling - no information provided d. Bedow - three to five years • e. Doering - three years or indefinite f. Bromley - three year lease g. Vo-Tech - would like to enter into a five year lease with a four month cancellation notice. S. A statement as to the percentage of gross income, net income, monthl;: t',.,.. . ,• other foe the lessee proposes to pay the City for the use of the pt•a ..rt i•_.loll buildings. a. HASP - only want use of barn, fee depends on their costs. • b. Hartmann- $450/$500 per month c. Wendling - no information given d. Bedow - 6',t of gross income or $450 per month e. Doering - $SSS per month f. Bromley - $450 per month • g. Vo-Tech - $200 per month, capital investment In initial stages would constitute lease payment. !KJ3 • -3- 6. Proof of bonding equal to the amount of annual foe times the number of years in the lease in case of forfeiture on the part of the lessee. a. HAEP - not bondable, don't feel this is necessary ' b. Hartmann- $5,000 bond to cover #2 and #6 requirements c. Wendling - no information provided ("father is able to obtain bond") d. Bedew - $5,400 bond equal to annual rent . --_.-- - -- e. Doering - $5,000 escrow (mentioned in #2) plus 3 months rent in advance f. Bromley - no information provided. g. vo-Tech - willing to provide a security deposit to cover damages or early withdrawal • 7. A detailed statement as to all aspects of the operational plan the lessee proposes including: a.) kinds of activities; b.) foes for each activity; c.) anticipated number,of people involved in conducting activity; d.) method of supervision and evaluation for each activity. a. HAEP - Area used by HAEP and High School-for practice, also for games at Squirt, Mite, and Mini Mite level; possibly baseball and track practice: in spring; all activities supervised by team coaches. b. Hartmann- 20 box stalls for boarders at $125/stall/month 15 tie stalls for boarders at $75/stall/month-training of horses riding lessons - $10/hr. group, $12/hr. private temporary boarding $15/box stall/night, $10/tie stall/night c. Wendling - boarding $75-$100/month riding lessons $10/hr. breaking and training $250/month • horse shows rodeos horse sales . trail rides buying and soiling horse trailers tack sales roping buying and selling horses .d.' Bedow - 20 horses - boarding $100/month hay rides $1.50/student, $2.00/adults weekdays, $2.00 weekend. sleigh rides - barn dances $3.00/person (groups provide own caller 4 music) bonfires lounge available 15k/person pony/horse rides petting farm animals picnic tables tail ride: (one hour) IS trail horses - $4.50 weekdays. 35.00 weekends riding lessons 1110 -4- e. Doering - boarding $115/box stall/month, $70/tie stall/month English riding lessons $4/lesson groups, $8/private small amount of training breeding program one assistant trainer, one barn boy all maintenance done by lessee f. Bromley - David Fi Trudy Bromley -proprietor and owners Gail Fries - manager, riding director, trainer Michelle Gotten - assistant riding director, assistant trainer Jim Fries - weekend supervisor and grounds keeper boarding heated box stalls $140/month boarding unheated box stalls $110/month boarding tie stalls $90/month training horses $11S/month • riding lessons group $7/person/lesson one hour semi private w/2 $12/person/lesson • semi private w/3 or 4 $10/person/lesson private $14/person/lesson sale of horses • horse shows trail riding • clinics (horse care) special activities subject to City approval • g. Hennepin County Vo-Tech - post secondary horse care and stable operation program 6 hours/day, 20 students • secondary (11-12 grades) horse care program, 40 students adult and community training in horse care, riding cooperative training for Vet. Medical lessons students/U of M extension training for physical education students/U of M horse shows of various kinds 8. A statement as to to the extent the lessee intends to maintain the facititir••. a. HAEP - this would depend on lease agreement b. Hartmann- lessee would clean barns daily and haul manure away at end of month - only if existing manure is clehned out prior to lease e. Wendling - The Wendlings would keep the grounds clean. d. Mr. Lolm would be responsible for maintenance. • p. Doering - all daily minor maintenance by lessee any damage caused by lessee repaired by lessee • all other maintenance open for negotiation facility kept neat and clean and as odor free as possible F� -b- f. Bromley - To maintain and improve the existing facility we plan to install a heating system for part or all of the upper box stall barn. Also wo would like to, - Install separate tack compartments for boarders, also a tack room for our own use. . - Repair and replace automatic water cups in the upper barn. - Install an out door shower stall for'the boarders who constantly show their horses. - Build additional paddocks and corrals. - We anticipate installation of toilet facilities for upper barn and arena area. - Build an outdoor riding arena in the area previously graded near the house. - Repair and maintain all plumbing and heating with the exception of the well and underground water services. - Install a remote fire and smoke detectors in all buildings which will be monitored inside the house. - Paint as needed and generally maintain the grounds and buildings in excellent repair to ppaumute a first class appearance. - Keep all fences in good repair. - Trim lawn regularly. - Remove unsightly manure from roads, rings, parking area, and lawns. - Provide electronic insect control. - Finish construction of stall area of lower barn. - Build adequate feed rooms in both barns. We understand the City of Eden Prairie is willing to repair the roof and coling insulation of the upper barn and supply gravel fur the main driveways and parking lots. g. Vo-Tech - lessess responsible for interior repair and minor maintenance. City responsible for exterior repair and major maintenance. Vo-Tech would anticipate mutual understanding on the capital expenditures. 9. A statement as to who, if anyone, will live in the house and provide getn•r.ri. surveilance for the facilities and the park area. a. HAEp - not interested in the house or other buildings on the property. b. Hartmann- The Hattmann's will live in the house - possibly One part-time • person. • c. Wendling - The Wendling's would live in the house. d.' Bedew - Roger t.elm and his family would live inthe.house. - Mr. Lelm would supervise stable and grounds maintenance. - Gary Bass would he assistant manager. - Part-time people would be hired as sleigh ride drivers, trail guides, stall cleaners, etc. e. Ik+crinl; . Doering and his assistant would live in the house. f. Bromlly - Jim and Gail Fries would live in the house, Michelle t.eUen would Iive with them. g. VD-Tech- occupied by one of the stuff that will provide security. 1111, • • • • -6- 10. A statement as to the experience and background of the proposes in the equestrian area. a. HASP - N/A b. Hartmann- Mrs. Hartmann owned and showed horses for 10 years. Mr. 5 Mrs. Hartmann have leased two farms and operated boarding facilities for six years. c. Wondling - The Wendling's have had horses "all of their lives", experienced in breaking and training horses and giving riding lessons; active in showing horses, and rodeos, have done some riding. d. Bedew - Have been in stable business since 1965 at Sunnybrook Farm in Coon Rapids. . Mr. Lobe has managed a saddle show, Cow Town Stable; and Bunker Hills Stable in Bunker Hills Park. Gary Bass has been manager of Sunnybrook since 1977. e. Doering - Eugene Doering - 12 years experience in light horse management 4 years as a farrier 3 years as a stable manager (Pine Trees Stables in Woodbury will be closing bpcauso of housing development) f. Bromley - David and Trudy Bromley have owned horses for seven years. Gail Priers - riding director and trn4ner - Malkersons Stable Michelle Cotton - assistant to Gail at Malkersons Bromley's own and operate their own plumbing, heating, and welding business. • g. Vo-Tech - Vo-Tech has operated equestrian programs for five years. Instructors are licensed by State of Minnesota. They have numerous professional horse people on advisory committee. 11. A statement as to the lessees financial assets and liabilities. a. HASP - non profit organization, foes Inca.{ on costs b. Hartmann- Assets $65,450 - Liabilities $20,790 - Net Worth $44,660 .c. Wendling - no information provided d. Bedew - Assets $229,005 - Liabilities $66,357 - Net Worth $162,643 e. Doering - Assets $21,600 - Liabilities $6,000 - Net Worth.$15,$00 f. Bromley - Assets $124,931 - Liabilities $24,494 - Net Worth $100,417 g. Vo-Toth - Governmental agency - April 1979 Treasurer's report is.provided. -7- 12. Any other information that might indicate the proposers ability to handle such a project. a. HAEP - MEP has been running the hockey program in Eden for 6 years. Program has grown from 120 to 304 participants. b. Hartmann- The farm the Hartmann's are now leasing is being developed, therefore they plan on purchasing a house with additional acreage for their operation within a year. c. Wendling - No information referring to this specific question. d. Bedew - No information referring to this specific question. e. Doering - 12 years experience, program and ideas are flexible, willing to negotiate on details of agreement. f. Bromley - No pertinent additional information. ' g. Vo-Tech - Vo-Tech would need a long range commitment from theaCityl as they would be committing a substantial to the stables. SUMMARY STATEMENT ON EACH PROPOSAL Hockey Association of Eden Prairie - The Association's proposal has a great deal of merit if the City chooses not to continue the use of the facilities as a stable operation. If this were to happen, the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and the Metropolitan Council would have to approve this as and "interim use". We would not receive any regional funds for lights, hoards. etc. We would have to operate the arena as a public facility open to all group::. not exclusively Eden Prairie teams. • Rick and Lesie Hartmann - Although, the lartmann's didn't have time to get information'on the $1,000,000 liability insurance, and could propose a $5,ount bond, they have offered boarding services for six years and are experienced in horse business. However, they aro not as experienced as some of our other proposers in managing a public riding facility such as the Eden Prairie Stable. They are also planning on continuing their business on their um land "when we get a house purchased and the land fenced. This would not take more than one year." Therefore, their lease would probably not be a very long term deal and the City would be going through this process again in the near future. Sheril Wendling - Ms. Wendling simply did not provide sufficient information in her proposal for staff to make a comparative evaluation with the proposals. • Roger Bellow - Mr. Bedow'a proposal offers the most variety of recreationalexperience, however I do have some questions concerning the trail rides - there isn't sufficient acreage or trails to offer trail rides. • I think the hay rides, sleigh rides, pony rides, barn dances, bonfires, rtditu; lesson:; and animal farm would be a god use of the facility and would ceus,•rm to the original intended use. • flog • Eugene Doering - Mr. Doering's proposal offered the highest Iease amount - $555/month. This operation would be a typical commercial stable operation, offering boarding and English riding lessons. David E Trudy Bromley - The Bromley's proposal is similar to Mr. Doering's in that the stable would be run as a typical commercial operation, offering hoarding;, training of horses and riding lessons. They also would offer horse shows and clinics to the public on horse care. Vo-Tech - Hennepin County Vo-Tech has proposed to lease the stables to operate their equestrian programs. Prog`iams would include their seced Lary and post secondary horse care and stable operation program, also adult and community training in horse care and riding. They would also offer horse shows•of various kinds. ••. .- It is my feeling that it would be advantageous to the City to enter into a lease agreement with Hennepin County Vo-Tech for a number of reasons: 1. The school would be offering programs to a large number of people, rather than the typical horse operation that would only serve boarders and a limited number of persons taking lessons, 2. The programs would not only be riding lessons but also horse care and stable operation. This is also important for people that are interested in this form of recreation. 3. The use of the park facilities as a part of a school program is, in my opinion, more compatible than leasing the facility to compote with other commercial stables. 4. In my opinion the Vo-Tech would be a good lessee, and would attempt to upgrade the facility and assist the City in improving the grounds. If we would enter into a lease agreement with Vo-Tech, I would recommend the following delegation of responsibilities: • Indoor Arena and Box Stall Area - Roof repair and insulation repair caused by water damage - City - A water system for the stalls - Vo-Tech • - A septic system for the stall area - Vo-Tech - Heating and insulation of the arena - Vo-Tech - Completion of a tack room, locker room, toilets, classrooms, office, I.M.C. - Vo-Tech - Wash stall area - Vo-Tech - heating in box stall area - Vo-Tech Additional lighting in arena - Vo-Tech - All electrical brought up to code - City ' Stall Barn - Removal of tie stalls and construction of box stalls - fo-Tech - Plumbing, heating and electrical to code - Vo-Tech • 1' ". —9— Land Area is in need of: • Manure removal - City - Junk removal - City - Outdoor arena construction and location - To-Tech and City - Regrading - City - Paddock redesigned and graded - City I also feel that it is important that Ve-Tech would offer recreational services such as riding lessons to the public, both youth and adults, early in their. _. . lease period. I would also suggest that Vo-Tech consider offering hay and sleigh rides to the public as another recreational service. Any approvals on Vo-Tech*s part must be approved by their Board. 'They net on the 2nd Thursday of the month. They also would have to be ready for classes to begin by.July 1, 1979. • • • • • ea • MEMO • TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl &Ilia, City Engineer DATE: April 26, 1979 SUBJECT: Bids for Water Meters Upon further review of the twO bids received on April 12, 1979, for later • meters, it is recommended that'the bids be re3ected and that new bids be :2 ordered. The reasons for rejection and rebidding are as follows: 1. The bid Specs did net citarly state the basis for *Ward•Of • contract (i.e.. total-amoodt ce• line iteal and the two year fine price reqilireellt;k1.04 bOth bidders some diffitaM • 2. Davies Water Co. did Nat'bid on the We Intl teapot Merl • nor on the copper herhar mating corm:if:risen the bids tin a total amount basis impossible . . 3. Water Products Co. qualified their bid by stall* that their prices would remain fittl•for only one year frog:We of hid rather than thrOugh 1980 as required in the spees. We propose to amend the bid SpeOs ty stating that the total bid amount will be be the basis of award. Only ifila meters and copper horns will be bid and the prices will be effective for one year. The lager size meters, of which only a few would be used each year, can•ba•purchased directly by the plumber from the suppliers. _The City inSPettions.de- partment will specify the models of'these larger meters which will be acceptable. It is recommended that the date for opening new bids be set for 10:00 am", May 25, 1979. •-• CJJ:kh -7— , •- • ••- iti 1 - • - • -- "- • Nay 1, 1979 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE NENNEPI'N COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO, 79-87 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED CONSUMER PRICE INDEXED FUEL TAX BE IT RESOLVED, that the Eden Prairie City Council herein ex. presses its support for the Consumer Price,indexed fuel Tax legislation .as proposed by the State Coamissioner of Transportation,and — • . NE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mlnnesota:'s legislators and Stnrevemr Quie are herein urged to approve such legislation. • ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on • • Wolfgang N. i'enzeT, trayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • • • • • 1112 `> ' O4 Minnesota It Department of Transportation Transportation Building St. Paul. Minnesota 55155 OF lit Office of Commissioner (f1f21 21x4:1floo March 26, 1979 TO : County Highway Engineers Municipal Engineers • FROM : Richard P. Braun Commissioner of Transportation SUBJECT : Proposed Legislation I am sure we are all aware of the very serious revenue shortage which today faces state and local road authorities throughout Minnesota.. This shortage is being felt just as acutely at the county and mnnaci- pal levels as at the state level. It is most urgent that additional revenue be made available for road purposes and that such revenues be shared by state and local government. The enclosed report briefly describes the funding crises brought about by inflation and presents an approach which would provide badly needed additional revenue in what we believe is a fair and equitable manner. The proposal, titled the Consumer Price Indexed Fuel Tax, would tie the motor fuel tax to the consumer price index. Governor Quie sup- ports this proposal and it has substantial legislative support as well. You may be particularly interested in the table listing the amount of .."- -- additional revenue which would accrue to each county and municipality in the State under this proposal. We urgently need your active support during the upcoming weeks as the Consumer Price Indexed Fuel Tax is considered by the state legislature. I am convinced that local support for the proposal would enhance chances for its passage tremendously. Cnnta.•t your local representa- tive and enlist his/her support for the bill. -- r1_V)14 44A- Richard P. Braun Commissioner of Transportation Attachment • An A ndOpporlimib 1A 11I? a icant impact on employment not only in the field of construction, but in related in- dustries as well. The Consumer Price Indexed (CPI) Fuel Tax Proposal The CPI, developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, is a statistical measure of the average change in prices for a fixed "market basket" of goods and services. The CPI is prepared for 28 different metropolitan areas throughout the United States. It is proposed that,the CPI for the Twin Cities metropolitan area be used for index- ing fuel taxes in the State of Minnesota. The CPI fuel tax should be adjusted on an annual basis and be based upon changes in the CPI during a preceding 12 month period. The per gallon tax on fuel should be adjusted to the nearest tenth of a cent. For administrative simplicity, the fuel tax should be applied only at the wholesale level as it is today. A floor of 9 cents per gallon should be established. All changes in the cents per gallon tax should be cal- culated using a base rate per gallon of 9 cents. . The initial tax adjustment should take place on June 1, 1979 and be based on the changes in the CPI from January 1978 to February 1979. After the initial adjustment, all subsequent fuel tax adjustments should be implemented on June 1 and be based on the change in the CPI during the previous February to February period. As an example, an increase of 10 percent in the CPI would result in a 10 percent increase in the motor fuel tax. Based on today's 9 cent per gallon tax, the increase would be 0.9 cents per gallon resulting in a total State fuel tax of 9.9 cents per gallon. Analysis indicates that trends in highway construction costs closely parallel changes in the CPI as shown on the next page. Linking the motor fuel tax to the CPI instead of directly to the highway construction cost index has the advantage of pro- viding a more stable revenue source, without the cyclical and sometimes sudden fluc- tuations which occur in construction costs. Since increases in construction costs would not bring automatic increases in revenue, an incentive would be provided to /heconstru'etion industry not to exceed the general rate of inflation. HISTORICAL TRENDS TWIN CITY CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX FOR MINNESOTA 250 • too— Iso— • TWIN CITY CONSUMER PRICE INDEX �I MIMES A HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INDEX Ben YON I967:100 SO 1940 HMS 1950 M58 1960 1946 1070 1975 1060 An additional advantage of the CPI motor fuel tax is that it would be essentially "self-policing" because a CPI motor fuel tax is not likely to result in windfall reve- nues. CPI revenues would tend to increase during times of inflation and remain stable or decrease during deflationary periods, therefore, additional controls in the form.of__. tax rate ceilings or other constraints should not be needed. Since the CPI fuel tax would only keep pace with the general rate of inflation and not exceed it, such a tax should not significantly increase inflationary pressures. It is proposed that the CPI fuel tax be implemented effective June 1, 1979 with January 1978 and February a tax rate adjustment based on changes in the CPI between 1979 is 1979. The estimated change in the CPI between January 1978 and February 9.3%. This is based on the actual change in the CPI between January 1978 and Jan- uary 1979 and a projection for February 1979. A 9.3% increase in the CPI would re- suit in a,tax of 9.8 cents per gallon on June 1, 1979. Under this alternative, the estimated additional revenue during the 1980-81 biennium would total 538.0 mil- iii lion to the State, $16.5 million to the Counties and $5.1 million to the Cities. Estimated additional revenues for FY 1981-85, based upon a projected 7% annual in- crease in the CPI and a 2% annual in.-Amass in fuel consumption, are presented be- low. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FUEL TAX REVENUES (Above current revenues in millions) FY 19801 FY 1981 FY 1982 FY 1983 FY 1984 FY 1985 Cents per gallon 9.8 0 10.5 0 11.3 0 12.1 0 12.9 c 13.8 q State $12.3 $22.7 $34.5 $47.5 $61.9 $77.7 County S.8 10.7 16.2 22.3 29.1 36.5 City 1.8 3.3 5.0 6.9 9.0 11.3 The CPI Fuel Tax Proposal will accomplish two very important objectives: - provide $56.6 million in additional funds during FY 1980-81 to cities, municipalities and the State to offset a portion of the additional costs caused by increased.highway con- struction cost, and - establish a mechanism which will help highway revenues keep pace with highway costs and improve the effectiveness of all levels of government to deliver projects which have under- gone extensive 4-6 year planning and preliminary design periods. The attached appendix presents a detailed breakdown of the additional revenues which would accrue to each of the states, counties and municipalities during FY 1980-85 as a result of the CPI fuel tax. All calculations are based on 1979 CSAH and P3A6 Ap- portionment factors. Distribution of the CSAH and MSAS funds among the counties and municipalities may change as factors in the apportionment formula change. Hap • • • CORBI3NER PRICE INDEXED pun.TAX / , : PROJECTED ADDITIONAL CITY REVENUES (thousands of dollars) • FY1979 FY1980 FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 ALBERT LEA 0.0 12.3 22.8 34:5 47:5 61.9 77.3 - ALEXANDRIA -- 00-. - 5.7 10.6 14.1 22+2 28.9 34.1 • ANDOVER 0+0 7.9 14.6 22.1 30,4 39+6 49.5 ANOKA 0.0 8.5 15.8 23.9 32.9 42.8 53.5 _ _ APPLE.VALLEY _0,Q __ 12.0 22.1 33.45 46.2 .60.2 .75...1 ARDEN HILLS 0.0 4.3 7.9 • 12.0 16.5 21.5 26.8 AUSTIN • 0.0 13.7 25.4 38.5 ,53.0 69.1 86.3 BEMIDJI 0,0 9.2 17.0 25.7 35.5 . 46.2 57+7 BLAINE 0.0 13.2 • 24.5 37.1 51.1 66.6 83+1 BLOOMINGTON 0.0 51..55 95.4 144.5 199.0 259.2 323.7 BRAINERD 0.0 12.2 22,E 34+3 47.2 61,5 76.7 BROOKLYN CENTER 0+0 22.7 42.1 63.7 87.8 114.4 142.8 • BROOKLYN PARK 0.0 20.7 38.3 58.0 79.9 104.2 130,0 BURNSVILLE 0.0 2840 51.9 78,6 108.3 141+1 176.1 CHAMPLIN • 0.0 5.6 • 10.4 15+7 •21+7 28.3 35,3 CHANHASSEN 0.0 3.5 6.5 9.8 134 17.6 22.0 • CHASKA 0,0 5.5 10.2 • 15.5 21.3 27.7 34.E CHISHOLM 0.0 4.6 8.5 12.8 17.6 23.0 28.7 CLOQUET 0.0 15.3 2843 42.9 59.1 77.0 96.1 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 0+0 10.8 20+0 30.3 4148 54.4 67.9 COON RAPIDS 0.0 18.5 34.3 52+0 71+7 93.4 11,6.E •- COTTAGE GROVE 0.0 18,9 35.1 • 53.2 73.2 95.4 119.1 CROOKSTON 0.0 8.7 16,0 24.3 3345 43.6 54.5 CRYSTAL 0.0 16.7 30.9 46.8 64.4 . 83.9 104.8 DETROIT LAKES 0.0 5.0 • 9:2 13.9 .• 19.1 24.9 31.1 DULUTH • 0.0 87.5 162.0 245.5 338+2 440.6 550.1 EAGAN 0.0 18.9 35.1 53.2 73.2 95.4 119.1 • EAST BETHEL 0.0 • 6.0 11,1 16.8 23.1 30.1 37.E EAST GRAND FORKS 0.0 4.8 • 8.9 13.5 18.5 24,2 30.2 EDEN PRAIRIE _0.0 16.9_. •.._31A4 47.5-__.655.5. ._..8543- 106.$ EDINA 0.0 33.4 61.8 93.6 128.9 168.0 209,8 ELK RIVER 0.0 9.1 16.9 25+5 354 45.8 57.2 ELY 0.0 4.5 8.4 12.7 • 17.5 22.8 28,5 EVELTH 0.0 4.8 8.9 13.5 18.E 24,3 20.3 FAIRMONT 0+0 8.7 16.1 24.3 33.5 43.7 54.5 FALCON HEIGHTS 0.0 2.6 4.9 7.4 10.2 13.2 16.5 th'i • • May 1, 1979 • STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 04-13-79 3995 BEER WHOLESALERS, INC. Beer 1,738,45 3996 PEPSI-COLA CO. Mix for Liquor store 130.50 3997 COCA-COLA BOTTLING . Mix for Liquor store 85.75 . 3998 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 2,885.95 3999 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer ' 1,857.00 4000 GOLD MEDAL BEVERAGE COL. Mix for Liquor store 64.65 4001 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO. Beer 1,957.65 4002 LEDING DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 1►127.95 4003 ROUILLARD BEVERAGE CO. Beer 990.03 4004 KIWI KAI IMPORTS Wine 169.35 4005 INTERCONTINENTAL 46.30 PACKAGING Wine 426.34 4006 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 4007 BELLIS PAPER Stemware for Liquor store 27.31 400E JOHNSON BROTHERS Wine 363.76 4009 EAGLE DISTRIBUTING Wine and liquor 724.19 4010 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO. Liquor 1,209.98 4011 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,218.25 4012 QUALITY WINE CO. Wine 322.35 4013 MINNESOTA WINE MERCHANTS Wine 130.55 04-17-79 4014 PETTY CASH Reimbursement for supplies 71.35 • 4015 LIONS TAP Dinner for City Council 21.84 04-19-79 4016 STUART FOX Mileage-Tree disease 60.48 04-20-79 4017 BOBS BINDING & SERGING Carpet repair 37.50 4018 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,294.20 4019 MINNESOTA WINE MERCHANTS Wine 130.55 4020 TWIN CITY WINE COMPANY Wine 125.45 4021 JOHNSON BROTHERS Liquor 539.79 4022 GRIGGS COOPER CO. Liquor 1.068.66 4023 EAGLE DISTRIBUTING Wine • 20.24 4024 ED PHILLIPS AND SONS Liquor 1,617.54 • 4025 ROUILLARD BEVERAGE CO. Beer 2.00 04-24-79 4026 U. S. POST OFFICE Stamps for Public Safety dept. 189.00 4027 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 6 firemen to attend State Fire School 180.00 4028 VOID CHECK 4029 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES Employees withheld and employers RETIREMENT ASSN. contribution 4-13 payroll 6,745.04 4030 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Taxes withheld 8,733.79- 4031 UNITED FUND Donations withheld .--- -- 04-27-79 4032 EARL ANDERSEN Street signs • 137.15 4033 BROWN PHOTO Services-Fire dept. 32.33 4034 BELLIS PAPER Supplies-Liquor store 82.58 4035 BUOGET POWER HOME CARE CENTERS Supplies-Senior Citizen project 215.43 5 4036 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE Book-Water dept. 215 96 4037 BEACON PRODUCTS CO. Ball field marking material-Park dept. Ha May 1, 1979 04-27-79 4038 JENNIFER BROWN Refund on dance lessons 5.00 4039 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE Equipment parts f,-_<0-- 58.56 4040 CREEK KNOLLS PARTNERSHIP Cash park fees collected on Franlo Road park site 18,125.00 4041 TRI-CITY PUBLIC HEALTH LAB Water testing 51.00 4042 COMMUNITY SCHOOL SERVICES Community education class 2.00 4043 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO. Desk signs-City Hall 56.02 4044 CURTIN MATHESON Equipment-Water dept. PM r-. 727.18 4045 COPY EQUIPMENT Supplies-Engineering and Park Planning 275.40 ' ... 4046 DALCO � Mobile carrier-Fire bond ,,,.,.- "'-'4' 89.24 4047 EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS Legal ads and subscription 472.74 -•-- 4048 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS Custodial service-City Hall. ....... . 440.51. .. . • 4049 F.Y.S. FRAMING, INC. Picture frames-Public Safety dept. 25.86 4050 FIRST CALL FOR HELP Community srvic ectory 6.00 4051 FLYING CLOUD OIL CO. Gasoline"IJ d 1,561.60 4052 FEED-RITE CONTROLS erric sulfate-Water dept. 1,793.80 4053 FRONTIER LUMBER Materials 218.05 4054 STEVEN GEIGER Expenses 4.50 4055 G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. Repair service-Water dept. 627.09 4056 JENNIFER GARDNER Refund on dance lessons A,,.fens ,,.ama•V' 8.00 4057 GOPHER ATHLETIC SUPPLY Supplies-Community services dept. 51.24 4058 HONEYWELL Maintenance-Water dept. • 1,130.00 4059 HENNEPIN COUNTY CENTRAL SERVICES Maps-Engineering dept. 5.00 4060 HOPKINS RADIATOR SERVICE Equipment repairs 151.35 4061 JEANETTE HARRINGTON Picture-City Hall addition 125.00 4062 HENNEPIN COUNTY Signs-Tree Disease dept. 22.70 4063 HOPKINS PARTS CO. Equipment parts 357.52 • 4064 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF . OPERATING ENGINEERS May dues 187.00 4065 IMPERIAL, INC. Repair parts-Water dept..n 356.57 4066 STEPHANIE KIRCHBERG Refund on dance lessons 8.00 4067 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS Service-January 1,683.81 4068 R08ERT LAMBERT April expenses 108.10 4069 LEARNING STRUCTURES, INC. Book-Community Services dept. 2.50 4070 LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON Legal services 3,952.12 4071 M. E. LANE, INC. Insurance - ,,'_- 200.00 4072 MAYVIEW RADIO Radio repairs-Fire dept. 221.95 4073 METRO PRINTING, INC. Communication forms-Public Safety 64.00 4074 MINNETONKA COMMUNITY SERVICES 78-79 budget support 100.00 4075 EUGENE MARTINSON Refund on dance lessons 8.00 4076 MATT'S AUTO SERVICE Towing service 140.00 4077 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. Equipment parts 94.41 4078 MINNEAPOLIS STAR Ads 124.11 4079 MODERN TIRE CO. Equipment repair service 77.64 4080 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC Service 3.75 4081 MINNEGASCO Service 2,536.83 4082 NORTHERN FORD ENGINES Throttle cable-Tree disease dept. 46.08 4083 NORTHERN STATES POWER Service-Public Information 4.93 4084 NORTHWESTERN BELL Service 4F'•?.59 4085 NORTHERN STATES POWER Service 7,361.90 4086 PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATES Sand-Snow and ice control 368.72 4087 PERBIX, HARVEY, SIMONS & THORFINNSON Legal services - "'" 2,321.50 R� • May 1, 1979 04-27-79 4088 PRINTERS SERVICE, INC. Knives sharpened-Tree disease dept. 11.52 4089 LOIS PALMER Refund on calligraphy class 12.00 4090 BECK! QUERNEMOEN Reimbursement for school expenses 38.90 4091 ROBERTS DRUG Supplies-Fire dept. 6,00 4092 RAPID COPY, INC. Liquor I.D. cards ,taa4t„ . 1. 4093 ROAD MACHINERY Equipment rental-Tree disease dept. 2,(XX).00 4094 ST PAUL DISPATCH Ads 4095 TERA SYKES Refund on dance class 12.00 4096 SEARS ROEBUCK &CO. Equipment parts-Park Maint. 12.15 . 4097 BOB TYSON Expenses 4.73 4098 HARO D TEIGEN Adding machine tape-Liquor store 25..22 4099 ROGER ULSTAD • . May-expenses 100.0 4100 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Mammal-Commtmity services dept. ` 20.00 OFFICE 4101 WARREN, GORHAM 6 LAMONT, Fortis-Water dMpt. 14.75 4102 RICHARD WILSON BLDRS, Refund of overcharge on building permit 100.00 (103 SANDY WERTS March expenses ...• . 411 4 WESITRN LIFE INSURANCE Insurance 1,092,E 4105 MEND! WILLARD Re Und' on dance lessons 0 .. 4,1 RIVER W Lime�si otse-Par'R dept. i 4107 WALDOR PUMP Station inspection-Water dept. . 4108 XEROX CORPORATION Service 4109 ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE Tires '- ^ 80.9.1:2 4110 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN Subscription-Engineering dept. 32.00 4111 DICKEY, KODET ARCHITECTS, INC. Architectural services- re band 1',515. . 4112 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT, Materials for nee grass rig-Fire 74.92, 4113 CHRIS ENGER Aprril expenses 103.35 4114 JACK HACKING Expenses .24.49 4115 CARL JULLIE April expenses 1 ,.00 4116 ALLEN LARSON Expenses% 6.49 4117 MINNESOTA GOOD ROADS, INC. Subscription-Engineering slept. 60,00 4118 MEDINA ELECTRIC, INC. Electrical service-Fire bond 90 D0.. 4119 NORTHWESTERN PRINTING Specification printing service- 7 3.QQ Engineering dept. 4120 NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER Blood alcohol test-Public Safety 41.21 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING Service-Public Safety dept. .I ..40" 4122 H. A. ROGERS Printing service-Public Safety dept. Zit_ 21 4123 JOHN FRAME May expenses i TOTAL 92,a12.13