Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/15/1979 EBEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 15, 197, 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; Engineer Car1.Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1979 Page, 1121 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 1134 B. Final plat approval for Prairie East 7th (Resolution No. 79-97) Page 1136 C. Final plat approval for Prairie East 9th (Resolution No. 79-98) Page 1138 D. Final plat approval for Maple Leaf Acres 7th (Resolution No. Page 1140 79-99 E. Plans and specifications for utility and street improvements Page 1143 in High Trail Estates, I.C. 51-322 Resolution No. 79-100) F. Set Public Hearing for Stewart Sandwiches for June 5, 1979 Page 1144 G. Resolution No. 79-102, authorizing permit application for Page 1145 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission interceptor sewer for Mitchell Lake Estates Sanitary Sewer Improvement, I.C. 51-342 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Super Valu Shopping Center at County Road 18/Anderson Lakes Parkway,Page 689 & request to preliminary plat and rezone from Rural to C-Commercial, 1146 10 acres located in the southwest quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 (Ordinance No. 79-01 and Resolution No. 79-22) Continued Public Hearing from April 17, 1979 • B. Cooperative Power Association, request for PUD approval on 1-5 Page 1148 zoned land for exceeding 50% office use and for construction of a tower. Located in the southwest corner of Mitchell Road and 1.H. 5. (Resolution No. 79-93) C. Immanuel Lutheran Church, request to rezone .8 acre from Public Page 1179 to R1-22 for the existing single family have located at 16515 Luther Way (Ordinance No. 79-13) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,May 15, 1979 IVA. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) D. Hartford Real Estate, request for PUD, rezoning from Rural and 1-5 Page 1183 to Office and Commercial 'egional Service, preliminary plat approval, and approval of EAW, finding no significant impact upon 158 acres. Located west of Anderson Lakes, south of West 78th Street, and east of Eden Prairie Shopping Center. (Ordinance No. 79-12, Resolution No. 79-91 - EAW, and Resolution No. 79-92 - preliminary plat) E. Bluff's West 3rd & 4th by Hustad Development Corporation. Request Page 1258 for PUD concept approval, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, RM 6.5 and RM 2.5, preliminary plat approval for approximately 640 units on 168.5 acres, and approval of EAW, finding of no significant impact. Located north of Bluff's West Second and east of Homeward Hills Road. (Resolution No. 79-94 - PUD, Ordinance No. 79-14 - rezoning, . Resolution No. 79-95 - EAW, and Resolution No. 79-96 - preliminary plat) • F. Power's Department Store Wine License Page 1319 V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS •I. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Lund Interim Use Agreement Change. American Baptist Homes of.the Page 1321 Midwest, Inc., requesting interim use permit on 7928 Eden Road with expansion of upper level. VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-06, United Methodist Church, rezoning .9 acre from Public to R1-22 of an existing home at 15150 Scenic Page 1336 • Heights Road and developer's agreement B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-05 Cardinal Creek by Cardinal CreekPage 1342 Associates, rezoning from Rural toll-13.5 for 53 acres and developer's agreement C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-229, Park Dedication Ordinance Page 1087 (Continued from 5/1/79) & 1353 D. Ist Reading of Ordinance No. 79-15, establishing a Code of Ethics Page 1356 for Public Officials of the City of Eden Prairie ▪ E. Resolution No. 79-103, granting final approval for M.I.D.B.'s Page 1361 fire for Ruben Anderegg in the amount of $5550,000.00 F. Resolution No. 79-104, granting preliminary approval for M.I.D.B.'s Page 1373 S N a0i for Crown Plastics/Hanson-Eggerichs in the amount of $1,150,000.00 'G.,;,•''Resolution No. 79-105, granting preliminary approval for M.I.D.B.'s Page 1387 for Suburban National Bank/Suburban Associates in the amount of • v' $1,600,000.00 = , •-• •• • City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,May 15, 1979 • VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members I. 4 AppoTtensf representatives to serve pn dviSgrif page 1397 cowl e to To glice het number of alternative route Iscpt ons for 2 169r to be considered in the Draft Twriformientai Irneict Stapamant B. Report of City Manager • 7/1-1 I. DisLus,tan iwIpprifig pool fencing Page 1398 C. Report of CitY Attgrnev D. Report of Diteqpr of Community Services I. Valley V10w RQd Bike Trail (continued from 5/1/79) Page 1399 4060110 .. Eden proirim Stables (continued from 5/1/791 .4UU 5 Page / : • E. Report of City Engineer I. Reck! e 109X petltion, order improvements Anrikpantion Page 1401 of plans and specTflions for utility_ street Cardinal Creek.Istatis. 51-355 (Ru•oluiion N . 179431) • - F. Report of Finance Director Discussion on M.I.D.R. Guidelines Page 1403 I. Insurance Proposals x7 Page 1404 • - • Payment of Claims Nos. 4124 - 4284 Page 1425 IX. NEW BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT. • - - A • eteki s ,„ = • ib • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; City Engineer Carl Jullie; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were requested to be added to the Council Agenda:A. Discussion of the Airport extension under"New Business", VII. A. B. Petition received on bike trail on Valley View Road under "Reports of Council Members", VI.A. C. Discussion of April 30th Special Meeting set by the Parks. Recreation & Natural Resources Commission under "Report of Director of Community Services, VI. D.3.' Councilwoman Pauly requested that item VI. B. 1. Addition of Staff in Assessing Office (1 appraiser) be placed on the Consent Calendar. Council concurred with Pauly's request. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Plans and specifications in Shady Oak Industrial Parka I,C, 51-344A (Resolution No. 79-751 C. Plans and specifications for improvements in Mitchell Lake E totes, I C. 51-342, and Street Improvements on Singletree Lane, IBC. 51-334 (Resolution No. 79-78) 0. Final plat approval for Chatham Wood (Resolution No. 79-76) E. Set Public Hearing for Hartford Real Estate Company for May 15, 1979 F. Set Public Hearing for Cooperative Power PUD for May 15, 1979 • G. Set Public Hearing for Immanuel.Lutheran Church, rezoning of single famijy home, for May 15, 1979 1121 Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,April 17, 1979 II. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued) H. Set Public Hearing for Bluff's West Third & Fourth Addition for May 15, • 1979 • • I. Set Public Hearing for issuance of a wine license for Power's Department Store for May 15, 1979 J. Addition of Staff in Assessing Office (1 appraiser) -(formerly item VI.B1 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve items A - J on the Consent Calendar. Roll Call Vote: Redpath, Osterholt, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Outlot A Crestwood 73 by Alex Dorenkemper & Richard Wilson, request to rezone 2 7 acres from Rural to R1-22 and preliminary plat approval for • 3 lots. Located north of Dell Drive and East of 9659 Dell Drive (Ordinance NK-71:07 and Resolution No. 79-62) Continued Public Hearing from April 3, 1979 Edstrom stated his primary question at the April 3rd Council meeting was what the status of the Wilson building permit was - how many acres were associated with that permit at that time? Since the last Council meeting Edstrom looked at the files in the City with respect to the property and found that the building permit was applied for by Mr. Wilson with respect to in excess of 5 acres. Consequently there wasn't any question on the face of the application that should have troubled the City under the Rural zoning applicable to that parcel. • Dorenkemper spoke to his request and went over the past history of the property back to 1973, using maps for illustration purposes. Jullie commented at no point did he ever require a 300 foot long driveway. • The intent at the time of his Staff Report was to have Mr. Dorenkemper construct a 20 foot road to serve the Wilson driveway and to have the road terminate at a cul-de-sac, and that the Wilson driveway could have entered at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Dorenkemper went ahead and constructed the cul-de-sac and there were no construction plans submitted to the City Engineer's office for review, in fact it is partially built on private property. • Osterholt questioned if Jullie had any plans and directions for the cul-de-sac. Jullie responded there was a recommendation in the Engineering Staff Report that a 20 foot public road be provided on Dell Road to the proposed driveway on the Wilson property. The 135 feet dimension was scaled off of the building plans for the Wilson house. Osterholt further questioned if the City required Mr. Dorenkemper to construct the cul-de-sac as he has indicated it has been constructed? Jullie replied Mr. Dorenkemper never came in with any construction plans.or anything else. Jullie stated he would have been more than happy to review the plans with Mr. Dorenkemper and if they didn't make sense, they could have been adjusted. Penzel asked if the building application was for the 2.2 acres or the 5 acre parcel? City Attorney Pauly responded the application for the building permit was made in May of 1973 and recited a 5 acre parcel, and it referred to that parcel as Lot 4, Block 1, of Crestwood, which apparently was in preliminary /I2,1 Council Minutes - 3 - Tues..April 17. 1979 A. Outlot A, Crestwood 73 by Alex Dorenkemper & Richard Wilson (continued) plat form at that time. Apparently the application was accompanied by a survey which shows the parcel of property in excess of 5 acres. Then that parcel was later subdivided at the time of the approval of the plan of Crestwood 73. The portion that Mr. Dorenkemper is asking for further subdivision was then split off as Outlot A. The building permit was issued on August 24, 1973 and the plat was approved on August 28, 1973. These are two things that occurred at approximately the same time. The plat was approved and the effect was to reduce that original lot size that was applied for, for the building permit. Dorenkemper read from City Engineer's Staff Report dated August 23. 1973 as follows: "Bituminous surfacing, 20' wide shall be constructed on Dell Drive from Crestwood Terrace to 135' east ending in a cul-de-sac to provide proper access for the existing house on Outlot A. A concrete valley gutter shall be installed across Dell Drive at its intersection with Crestwood Terrace". Redpath questioned if there any possibility we can relieve Mr. Wilson and the existing house without allowing building on the remaining lots. Dorenkemper replied that cannot be done unless he wants it done. NOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing. Notion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No: 79-83, denying the request by Alex Dorenkemper & Richard Wilson to rezone 2.17 acres from Rural to R1-22. (Resolution No. 79-83 attached as part of minutes) Osterholt stated he is inclined to support the request because Mr. Dorenkemper has abided with certain requests the City has made, and his request is not unreasonable to plat this in two additional lots and give Mr. Wilson his platting that he should have on the property which his home is on. VOTE ON MOTION: Redpath, Edstrom and Penzel voted °aye", Osterholt and Pauly voted "nay". Motion carried. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to deny approval of Resolution No. 79-62, preliminary plat for Outlot-A, Crestwood 73. Redpath, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt and Pauly voted "nay". Motion carried. B. High Trail Estates by Countryside Investments, request to rezone 40 acres from Rural to R1-13.5, preliminary plat'79 single family hones and approval of Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located north of Duck Lake Trail between Duck Lake Road and 168th Avenue West. (Ordinance No. 79-08 - rezoning, Resolution No. 79-67 - preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 79-68 - E.A.W.) Cliff Swenson, representing the proponents, spoke to the proposal commenting they have met with the neighbors a couple of times and have worked out something that is agreeable to the neighbors and the proponents. City Planner Enger explained this item was considered at the March 26th Planning Commission meeting and was recommended for approval on a 6 - 0 vote, subject to Staff Report dated March 22, 1979. Eager referred to communciation received from Karl Kurtz, 6451 Duck Lake Road, who owns the property just to the north of the plat under consideration, regarding his concern about a ponding area. Lloyd Erickson, RCM, explained they have been in contact with the Department of Natural Resources through the Watershed District, and the DNR is going to come out and look to see if the pond to the north should be declared public waters. /123 Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,April 17, 1979 B. High Trail Estates (continued) The proponents are proposing to put a storm sewer system under Duck Lake Road and the storm sewer system can be extended up to the low area to relieve the situation if the City and property owners desire. Councilwoman Pauly asked that consideration be given to changing Pleasantview Road as there is a road in Minnetonka with this same name. Penzel suggested prior to final plat it be ascertained what can be done with the low area and then to provide by the means of the final plat an access from the proposal to the parcel to the north, be it directly north on what is now called Pleasantview Drive or be it offset by a lot or two to the west. Marlin Grant, representing Marvin Anderson Construction Company, 8901 Lyndale Avenue South, who owns the property immediately to the west, spoke in favor of the proposed plat as they have been waiting for sometime for someone to plat this property to help bring in the improvements on the north/south street. . His company will be coming in very shortly within the next three or four weeks with a plat for the Council to review platting 10 lots directly to the west. - Grant asked Mr. Erickson if the storm sewer is going to be put on the entire length all the way down to Duck Lake Trail. Erickson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Grant also stated he thought it was a bit odd the developer is required to pay the assessment and improvement cost to the City owned parkland. This he finds unusual as in the other areas where they have developed when there is City owned property, the City somehow takes care of their own assessment rather than having the developer pay it. Director of Community Services Lambert went over the various items discussed at the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at meeting held April 2, 1979 when this proposal was recommended for approval. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Penzel, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-08, rezoning 40 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for High Trail Estates. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 79-67, , approving the preliminary plat for High Trail Estates. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 79-68, finding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for High Trail Estates a private action does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to direct Staff to draft a developer's agreement incorporating the recommendations of Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, Staff Report dated March 23, 1979, and that prior to final plat to ascertain what can be done with the low area and provision of an access from this proposal to the parcel to the north. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,April 17, 1979 C. St. Andrew Church, request to rezone 3,5 acres from Rural to public for construction of a church building. The site is located within irdenvale PUD, the northwest corner of Valley View Road and Mitchell Road (Ordinance No. 79-09) Lloyd Berquist, BWBR, Architect for St. Andrew Lutheran Church, outlined the proposal noting that the plan does anticipate expansion in the future and at that time they will need the balance of the property for parking. City Planner Enger explained this item was considered at the March 12th Planning Commission meeting whereby a recommendation for approval was granted on a 7 - 0 vote. The recommendation for approval was based upon the Staff Report dated March 9, 1979. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and • give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-09, rezoning 3.5 acres from.Rural to Public for construction of a church building for St. Andrew Church. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to direct Staff to draft a developer's agreement incorporating the reconmendations of Planning Commission and Staff Report dated March 9, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. 0. Olympic Hills Sixth Addition by Olympic Hills Corporation and The Preserve, request to rezone approximately 67 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 preliminary Filet approval of 89 single family lots and 7 outlots upon an 1I1 acre site, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The site is located west of Olympic Hills Clubhouse, east of Sunnybrook Road, and south of Neill Lake. (Ordinance No. 79-10, Resolution No. 79-69 - preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 79-70 - E.A.W.) • Don Ringrose, BRW, representing the joint development team (The Preserve and Olympic Hills Corporation), spoke to the proposal and answered questions of Council members. City Planner Enger explained this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the 2/12/79, 2/26/79 and 3/12/79 meetings. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval at the March 12th meeting of the preliminary plat for 89 lots, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and approval of the E.A.W., subject to the Staff Report dated March 9, 1979, and also subject to the specific item that no construction of homes would occur in the area prior to a second access out of the site. Enger summarized how the roads should be developed in the area in order to mesh. Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to the items discussed S the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission on March 19, 1979, at which time the Commission also recommended to the Council approval of the proposal. Councilwoman Pauly asked Mr. Adams if he would in the developer's agreement commit that they will not be subdividing Outlots A. B. C and D. Mike Adams, • • President of Olympic Hills Corporation, replied they would be willing to make this commitment. Ron Nelson, 12205 Sunnybrook Road, requested that Sunnybrook Road not be used for an access road for construction traffic. Mr. Ringrose replied the only construction that could take place prior to some other access being provided would be changing of the golf course. Assuming that an access from the west, north or south is there before they start developing and Sunnybrook is identified as a "no truck route", the proponents would have no objections. Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,April 17, 1979 D. Olympic Hills Sixth Addition (continued) General discussion took place comparing the size of the lots in North Oaks with those in the Olympic Hills Sixth Addition. Pauly commented the lots in North Oaks are all on at least an acre lot, whereas the size of the lots in this proposal are much smaller. Pauly also questioned if lining up 13.5 size lots adds prestige to an area when the lots are that small. Redpath asked if there is any way the City can be assured that Olympic Hills Golf Course will always remain a golf course. City Attorney Pauly responded one technique would be a restrictive covenant as to the use. Mike Adams stated they have agreed to restrictive covenants on the other additions and would be willing to do so in this case. Larry Peterson, representing The Preserve, also stated The Preserve has no problem with a covenant restriction. Council requested the following: 1) the ultimate proposed and/or accomplished development plan that affects the golf course, the perimeter properties, the subdivisions that go through its center, etc.,; 2) an agreement as referred to by City Attorney Pauly as a restrictive covenant which would assure the - City that the golf course would remain open space even if it would cease to operate as a golf course; and 3) a review of those portions of land which already have restrictive covenants imposed on them and then review of the additional portions that would be included. Councilwoman Pauly asked that serious attention be given to the alternate road as described by City Planner Enger where there is less grading required. Adams commented that would necessitate getting into a drastic revision and they would lose the 3rd and 13th holes and would have no place to pick them up. Penzel suggested the proponents look at the alternatives of specific road locations within the proposed plat. There may be an alteration possible in grade at one end or other which would obviate the need for having an 8 foot bank immediately adjoining the road right-of-way. Ringrose explained they have prepared preliminary grades for the road and will come back and with a graphic which illustrates the extent of cut and fill. Osterholt asked when the proponents bring a graphic of what is contemplated and what is already developed, that the proponents show the present location of the holes, if there is any land that is going to be changed - like a residue from the changes, and what is contemplated for that? Osterholt further requested Staff to address the situation with the deer corridor and the E.A.W., as the area where Neill Lake is located is very sensitive and putting in and watering golf course holes with drainage into that area could have a substantial pollutant impact. Penzel asked that Mr. Nelson's contents be included in the developer's agreement when drawn up that the use of Sunnybrook Road be restricted. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue the Olympic Hills Sixth Addition Public Hearing to May 1, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. • E. Vacating excess portion of West 74th Street in Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 79-73) MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-73, vacating excess portion of West 74th Street in Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. tt�Co Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,April 17, 1979 F. Vacating T.H. 169 slope easements (Resolution No. 79-74) MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-74, vacating T.H. 169 slope easements. Motion carried unanimously. IV. REPORTS OF ...JVI ORY COMMISSIONS No reports. V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-C2 rezoning Norseman Industrial Park 3rd Addition from Rural to I-2 Park and approval of developer's agreement MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-02. rezoning Norseman Industrial Park Addition from Rural to 1-2 Park and approval of the developer's agreement. Motion carried unanimously. VI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members I. Petition received on bike trail on Valley View Road (Councilman Osterholt) Osterholt referred to petition received from residents along Valley View Road desiring a separate bike and pedestrian path along Valley View Road east from County Road 4. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to direct staff to prepare a feasibility report and inform the neighbors of the steps that are being taken toward examining the alternatives and costs of their request. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager 1. Addition of Staff in Assessing Office (1 appraiser) This item was placed on the Consent Calendar (item Ii. J.). C. Report of City Attorney No report. D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Park Dedication Ordinance (Ordinance No. 78-229) Osterholt requested Staff to report on what other communities have adopted and what their fees are before a 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-229 is adopted. lambert explained he has provided this information to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Conmission and will submit same to the Council. IJ27 Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,April 17, 1979 R 1. Park Dedication Ordinance (Ordinance No. 78-229) - Continued MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 78-229, relating to and establishing subdivision regulations for the platting and subdivision of land and amending Ordinance No. 93, as amended and relating to procedures, parks, playgrounds, Oublic open space, storm water holding areas and ponds. sterholt, Pauly, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye", Redpath voted "nay". • Motion carried. 2. Bryant Lake Park Plan Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to his memo dated April 12, 1979, with the staff recommendation for approval of the Bryant Lake .. Regional Park Master Plan with the access road as shown on the plan. Elizabeth Hanley, 6408 Rowland Road, stated she would like to know more about this plan, specifically the location of the road. Jerry Rodberg, 6580 Rowland, felt there was an inadequate plan for the park before construction was initiated and there should be more safeguards provided for the residents when the park will be used heavily, i.e., how are the residents going to be protected from people driving into their property. Rodberg further commented the temporary access is not a bad access, it may not be the best, but it should be considered. Would like to know where the $10,000 figure is coming from on the access road Haakon Toresen suggested. Rodberg felt traffic should be reduced on Rowland Road as there are only 6 - 8 residents on Rowland Roadiand to develop it as a collector road isn't in the best interest of the property owners at th; time. Mr. Rodberg requested that more thought be given to this situation. Penzel questioned the time frame for completion. Lambert explained the time frame should be within the next month or so as construction should be continued this summer so the cuts are rot left open. The Council continued this item to the May 1st Council meeting in order to inform the people living around the Bryant Lake area, including Beach Road, what is proposed. 3. Discussion of April 30th Special Meeting set by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission Lambert spoke to the upcoming special meeting of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to be held April 30th for the purpose of selecting a committee to evaluate the interest of the community regarding a park bond issue for purposes of capital improvements. The Commission would like the committee to know•the Council supports this procedure. Lambert commented the committee will come back before the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission before they make a final recommendation on a bond referendum. Ulstad asked that the Council submit names of people they would like to see serve on this committee. • Council members expressed their support of the procedure, with the exception of Osterholt who did not agree with the approach. fin Council Minutes - 9 - Tues.,April 17, 1979 E. Report of City Engineer 1. Final plat approval for Norseman Industrial Park 3rd Addition (Resolution No. 79-77) MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 79-77, approving the final plat for Norseman Industrial Park 3rd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Consider bids for water meters City Engineer Jullie requested this item be continued to the May 1st Council meeting. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath,.to continue consideration .. of bids for water meters to the May 1, 1979 Council meeting. Motion carries unanimously. 3. Change Order No. 1, I.C. 51-332, Super Valu sanitary sewer project, interceptor connection MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Osterholt, that Eden Prairie does not wish to dewater the northeast corner of Eden Prairie as part of this sewer project because of the severe impact which it would have on the marsh and Bryant Lake, and ask for the Department of Natural Resource's support in the pleading to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Further that Eden Prairie will be responsible for any added maintenance costs. Motion carried unanimously. F. Report of Finance Director 1. Payment of Claims Nos. 3813 - 3994 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 3813 - 3994. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of the Airport extension Edstrom stated he felt the Council owed it to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission to consider some action on the Commission's recommendation, even if that action may be contrary to his position. Osterholt explained the ultimate concern is for safety for the people living around the airport as well as those using the airport. Further that people knowledgeable in this have come to the conclusion that the extension of the southerly east/west runway (running the traffic pattern over the Minnesota River area) is the most desirable method of accomplishing this and certain Federal safety improvements could not be made on the north runway because of the close proximity to the hangers. For those reasons,Osterholt commented, he would be in favor and supports the report and findings given by the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. He also expressed concern that the jet traffic does not increase at the airport and would like to see some way to control that. Council Minutes - 10 - Tues.,Apri1 17, 1979 A. Discussion of the AirRort extensipn MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 79-79, supporting the plan outlined in the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Comnlssion's report for the extension of the southern runway to.3900 feet. Osterholt, Pauly, Redpath and Fenzel voted °aye°, Edstrom voted may°. Motion carried. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-80, requesting that the Metropolitan Airports Commission make every effort to restrict and hopefully prohibit and discourage jet traffic from Flying Cloud Airport operations, and direct the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Comnission to look into same. Motion carried unanimously. Council directed staff to explore the possibilities as outlined in memo to M.A.C. dated April 17, 1979. (Attached as part of minutes) VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adjourn the Council meeting at 11:08 PM. Motion carried unanimously. f.s= • I! • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-83 A RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST OF ALEX DORENKEMPER AND RICHARD WILSON TO REZONE OUTLOT A, CRESTWOOD 73, 2.17 ACRES FROM RURAL TO RI-22 BE IT RESOLVED, that the request of Alex Dorenkemper and Richard Wilson to rezone Outlot A, Crestwood 73, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota from Rural District to RI-22 District- under Ordinance 135, as amended, is hereby denied. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with respect to the request of Alex Dorenkemper and Richard Wilson for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision of Outlot A, Crestwood 73, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County II Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, into Parcels A, B, and C according to a survey thereof by Schoell and Madsen, Inc. dated January 25, 1979 (subdivision), it is found as follows: 1. Ordinance 135, as amended, ("Zoning Ordinance") requires at least 5 • acres for construction of a single family dwelling in a Rural District and in addition, minimum lot width of 300 feet and depth of 300 feet. • • 2. Parcels A, B and C are each less than 5 acres in area, are less than 300 feet wide and in the case of the East line of Parcel B and all of Parcel C are less than 300 feet in depth, and do not meet the requirement of Ordinance 93 that the minimum dimension and area of a lot in a subdivision shall be not less than those required by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. There is situated on Parcel A a house and approval of the Subdivision would result in the Easterly line of the house being within a distance of 10 feet from the Easterly line of Parcel A thereof, which line constitutes a side lot line as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Zoning Ordinance requires single family detached dwellings in Rural •• District to be situated at least 50 feet from side lot lines. 5. The Subdivision would result in the East line of the single family dwelling situated on Parcel A being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The proposed Subdivision also does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for lots in the proposed R1-22 District in that the East line of the single family dwelling is 10 feet from the East line of Parcel A, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires 15 feet and the width of Parcel A is 96.49 feet whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a width of 100 feet. 7. The Subdivision does not contain adequate provisions for access to public streets for all of the parcels contained therein, 8. Outlot A is situated outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as determined by the Metropolitan Council and does not have available to it municipal sewer and water facilities at this time, and the Metropolitan Council has discouraged development in those portions of the metropolitan area outside of such service area. 1131 • ksolution No. 79-83 Page Two • Based upon the foregoing and all of the evidence and a nude and presented, equest of Alex Darenkenper and Richard Wilson to subdi�r said C1e Outlot A, stwood, ►3, is in all things denied. • ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 17th day of April 1979. •ilclfgang H. Prerrael, Mayor 1TTEST: 3a(ia D. Frane, City Clerk • . • • • 11 • • ,r: • • • • • MEND: • TO: . Metropolitan Airports Commission ATTN: • . Claude Scheidt . • FROM: Eden Prairie City Council DATE: April 17, 1979 • Eden Prairie has discussed With .A.C. repreaentetives in the past the MT tng'"itpFdv nts•which could be.,tsf nmtual benefit•to the r F1 9 Cloud Airport and to the cOMAnnity that M:A.C. Ovid help with:. 1. A small await of right-of wby fr *•M.-A4;• pt OPti!et intersect itf Of MOO*. lii9 and C.:S.A 11 1 , pis necessary to imp:lateefl itiOnV MentS1 Provision of this right of ly"b M.A t. hill:kelp essure'the isipro re lit, `1dtich will provide safer.11Ctees tho-airpart.anrd it0+ E. sefety at Flying CltMad-Airport. nTri lee Improved 1?tO U h he c psiremotion and.staffing of a fire station b MAt4.C. eoiiriui could.:alb #1.4, served in the imaediate ate fry►.this atati4to. 3. M.A.C. suppgrt of the construction of lilgl r,21E-would be benefi all ` ' and help eliminate traffiC.Safety problems'en 114..1d9 }ligtiea7 5 and benefit both the airport and the rat., • N.A.C.`s participation in these Projets awiill Olga:Sly enhance Fi$141q C1pud 1 Airport as a good and responsible business,neighbor in the ccmnunity. • CE:ds • 11; . - .' -3a'i• kepi -' • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST May 15, 1979 CONTRACTOR (Multi-Family & Comm.) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - Type B Elder-Jones, Inc. The Wye Cafe CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family) mpg.CANDY STORE _._ •_ _._ Bolles Construction, Inc. Woiell's Valley Dairy Deane Hewitt Corporation . Design Construction Co., Inc. VENDING MACHINES • Hart Custom Homes, Inc. Peturska Construction, Inc. Worrell's Valley Dairy Pius Buechler Construction Co. DRIVE IN 73YEATRE PLUMBING Flying Cloud Drive-In Galaxy Mechanical Contractor, inc. Hopkins Plumbing & Heating Co. TEMPORARY BEER LICENSE Nuebel Plumbing Town & Country Plumbing Eden Prairie Lions Club (Schooner Days) HEATING & VENTILATING 3.2 BEER ON SALE Carlson Store Fixture Co. David'a Old Time Resturant & Deli Larson-Mac V & R Heating & Air Conditioning 3.2 BEER OFF SALE GAS FITTER lye Cafe Larson-Mac CIGARETTES & TOBACCO FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - Type A Nye Cafe David's Old Time Resturant & Deli FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - Type C Edenvale, Inc. Worrell's Valley Dairy • • These license have been approved by the department head responsible • for the licensed activity. Rebecca guernemmen, Deputy Clerk 101 _ _ • .a MELD TO FILE • On Tuesday, April 17, 1979, I metvithMr. Irving Braverman, President of Northwest'Cinema Corporation, and his local manager, Miss Michelle Taylor, to express Public Safety concerns regarding the increase in alcohol and drug related incidents-occurring at the Flying Cloud Drive- In Theater. Mr. Braverman was most cooperative and expressed a willing- ness to comply with our reccenendations on hog he might improve the situation. . . As a result of this meeting, the fallowing .recommendations will be acted on by Mr. Braverman as soon as pos'$ibte: 1. Northwest Cinema Corporation mill hire a private guard service to patrol the theater lot on weekend nights. 2. A °leader" will be run an the screen prior to every ahoy advising the audience that posaessiOn and/or consumption of any alcoholic beverage by anyone under the age of 19 years will not be tolerated and that the theater is working in cooperation with the Eden Prairie Department of Public Safety to eliminate this problem. 3. A sign stating the above will be displayed in ticket booth. 4. The theater will provide additional ticket takers on weekend nights to help keep cars moving into the theater and avoid traffic problems on Highway 169. Both Mr. Braverman and Miss Taylor received a copy of City Ordinance Number 3 relating to the regulating and issuing of licenses for drive-in theaters. Riftv By Sgt. Tyson Police Division 14AY 35. 1919 • • • , CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 79-97 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF PRAIRIE FAST 7TH ADDITION • WHEREAS, the plat of PRAIRIE EAST 7TH ADDITION has been sub- mitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and • WHEREAS, said JARVIS in all respects consistent with the City plan and _ the regulations and requirements of the laws of the.State of Minnesota and ordinr.... ances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat Approval Request fa PROLE EAST 7TH ADDITION is appr • upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's -- • Report on this plat dated MY g• 1919. L Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified coRY • - this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- ,... trar of Titles far thinr use as required by NSA 462.358. Subd. 4. D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above name: plat. • • E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon cam- faience with the foregoing provisions. • • ADOPTED by the City Council on • Wolfgang H. Panel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • • May 17, 1979 ti CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT • TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FRDM: Cart Jullie, City Engineer DATE: May 8, 1979 SUBJECT: PRAIRIE EAST 7th-ADDITION PROPOSAL: The developer, Hustad Development Corporation is requesting City Council approval of the final plat'of Prairie East 7th Addition. The plat consists of 12 acres intended for the construction of 56 . duplex units, and is located north of Linden Drive, west of County Road #18 and south of Garrison Forest. This is a replat of Outlot B, Prairie East 2nd Addition. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved on November 8, 1979, per Reso- lution #78-106. Zoning to RM 6.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council of February 20, 1979, per Ordinance #78-31. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was approved and signed on February 20, 1979. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. I waiving the six month time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat is necessary. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Construction of utilities, streets and walkways are covered in items 4, 8, 9, 12 and 18 of the Agreement. givenRequirements5, 6 forthe eaco 7 of drivewaystion of Aofedre. and placement of units PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication requirements are covered in item 11 of the agreement. BONDING: Requirements for bonding are covered in item 18 of the agreement. RECOMMENDATION: e AAddition, subject to the prequirements of this roval of the final treport at of pand rithe following: 1. Receipt of development plan as required in item 3 of the agreement. 2. Receipt of fee for engineering services in the amount of $1,500. 3. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of S393.60. I1;') • • • • may 1R, 1979 .', CITY.OF EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MiNNESOTA • . • RESOLUTION NO. 79-98 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAl. PUT • OF PRAIRIE/AST 9TH ADItION WHEREAS, the plat of PRAIRIE EAST 9TH AD ADDITION has been sub- mitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the MitniesOtaStatutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and • WHEREAS, said plat is itf ill respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requiremet ,Of•lbe7919 pt thg.State of Hinttuto..4:.and ordln. ances of the City of Eden Prairie. . NOW, THEREFORE,,BE IT RESOLVED:BY THE CITY CatINCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE; A. Plat Approval Request for lorattie zest 9t 1 A4dttton is a upon-compliance'rah'the vrecomendartion of the City Enginter'l • Report on this plat dated H a', .1979. D. Variance in herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93.See A, Subd. 1 waiving the slit.00nth iffantnian tithe elapse between the approval date of the preliminary .plat and filing of the final plat as described in Said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is herd directed to file a certified y Qf this resolution in the office of the.Register of Deed and/ar14. trar of Titles for their use as required hY MSA 46t.3EB, Srtbd. 3:.. D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the comers and subdividers of the above named plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Fv+"*te. the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon Ito*. pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on Wolfgang II.• Fenzel, ifi#r ' ATTEST: SEAT. • John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Mated, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: May 8, 1979 SUBJECT: PRAIRIE EAST 9TH ADDITION .., W.... PROPOSAL: The Developer, Rusted Development Corporation is requesting City Council appro oasl.of the final plat of "Prairie East 9th Addition." This is an 80 unit multiple family plat (RE 6.5) located between Linden Drive and County Road 18, east of Prairie East 2nd and 3rd Additions in Section 25. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved on May 16, 1978, per Council Resolution #78-66. Zoning to RM 6.5 was finally read and approved on July 5, 1978, per Ordinances #78-23. The Development Agreement referred to in this report was signed July 5, 1978. VARIANCES: Variance from Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the pre- liminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Requirements concerning the installation and main-• tenance of streets and utilities are covered in items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18 and 21 of the Agreement. Plans indicating utilities to be owged and operated by the City will be required prior to release of the final plat in conformance with item 9 of the Agreement. PARK DEDICATION: Requirements for park dedication are covered in items 2, 3 and 12 of the Agreement. BONDING: Bonding shall be in conformance with City bonding policies. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Prairie East 9th Addition subject to the requirements of this report and the following: 1. Receipt of Development Plan as required by item 11 of the Agreement. 2. Receipt of fees for City Engineering services in the amount of $1600. 3. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of $590.40. 4 ti CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Panel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: flay 8, 1979 SUBJECT: PRAIRIE EAST 9TH•ADDITIOli PROPOSAL: The Developer, Rusted Development Corporation is requesting City Council appcavalof the final plat of "Prairie East 9th Addition." • Thiele an 80 unit multiple family plat (RM 6.5) located between Linden • Drive and County Road 18, east of Prairie East 2nd and 3rd Additions • in Section 25. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved on May 16, 1978, per Council Resolution f78-66. Zoning to RM 6.5 was finally read and approved on July 5, 1978, per Ordinancd /78-23. The Development Agreement referred to in this report was signed July 5, 1978. VARIANCES: Variance from Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the pre- liminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Requirements concerning the installation and main- tenance of streets and utilities are covered in items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18 and 21 of the Agreement. Plans indicating utilities to be owned and operated by the City will be required prior to release of the final plat in conformance with item 9 of the Agreement. PARK DEDICATION: Requirements for park dedication are covered in items 2, 3 and 12 of the Agreement. BONDING: Bonding shall be in conformance with City bonding policies. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Prairie East 9th Addition subject to the requirements of this report and the following: 1. Receipt of Development Plan as required by item 11 of the . Agreement. 2. Receipt of fees for City Engineering services in the amount of $1600. 3. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the am mat of 6590.40. it 1`i • Fkty 15, 1979 • HENNEIP COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO,Y9-99 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF MAPLE LEAF ACRES Till ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Maple Leaf Acres 7th .Addition has been sub- mitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and ail proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and . • WHEREAS, said plat is'ilr all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and,requirements ife.the.lims,of.the,State.of Minnesota,and ordin antes of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE OLVED BY THE CITY CMICIL OF THE'Cliff OF toss PRAIRIE: • A. Plat Approval Request fbr Maple Leaf Acres Tth Addition.. Is apt' upon compliance With the reConmendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat-dated N.sy 9, 7979. • B. Variance is herein greeted from City Ordinance Aa. 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse ketieen tine , approval date of the preliminary Plat and filing of the final plat as described in said Engineer's Report. • C. That the City Clerk is hereby-directed to file a certified copy '' this resolution in the office .of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for their use as required by MSA 468.358, 'Subd. D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon cpm- pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on • Viol/gang H. Fenzel,l4ayar • ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Frane, Clerk • /140 w ! • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • ENGINEERING REPORT OF FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: May 9, 1979 SUBJECT: Maple Leaf Acres 7th Addition • d PROPOSAL: The Ceveloper, Jarip Corporation, is requesting final plat approval of Maple Leaf Acres 7th Addition. This is a 16 lot single family residential Plat (RI-13.5) located in Outlot C, Maple Leaf Acres 5th Addition. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved on September 6, 1977, per Council Resolution #77-97. Zoning to RI-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on November 11, 1977 per Ordinance #77-28. The Rezoning Agreement referred to within this report was signed and approved on November i1, 1978. VARIANCES: Lot size variances were approved in item 3 of the agreement. A variance from Ordinance #93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final. plat will be . necessary. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Utilities, streets and walkways will be installed in conformance with Eden Prairie specifications and item 13 of the agreement. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication'requirements are covered in item 11 of the agreement. BONDING: A performance bond or letter of credit approved by the City Attorney in an amount approved by the City Engineering • must be provided to cover the cost of'installing utilities, streets and walkways. • The pro-rate amount of $25,232.00, based upon $23 per abutting foot for the construction of Dell Road and Valley View Road, must also be included in the bond amount. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Maple Leaf Acres 7th Addition subject to the requirements of this report and the following; tlt/I` • • • t Maple Lead Acres Tth Addition Page R, 1. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. • 2. Receipt of cash deposit for street 'lighting in the amount of $983.90. 3. Receipt of fee for City Engineering Services in, the amount of $480.00, • • • • • • • 4! May 15, 1979 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ' HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION No. 79-100 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING • ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (I.C. 51-322) WHEREAS, the City Engineer, through Rieke ill Muller, Assoc., has prepared plans and specifications for the fallowing improvement, to wit, I.C. 51-:322, Utility and stre •inlircoleinersts in High Trail 'Estates 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 specificatitns, 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 Construction Bulletin an • advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement 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 Thursday, Owe 15, 1979, and considered by the Council at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, June 19, 1979, in the Council Chambers of the City Hail, 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 ATTEST: liolfgang H. Penzel, Mayer SEAL • John D. Frane, Clerk • . . .. • • . • • ,.:•• • .. • . • .. . . C:ki4 •*r;s1'. — 111:, Stewart • 16101 HIST 786 STREET EDEN PRAIRIE,MINN 05364 • g I PHONE 612.941.4870 _ • '"- ':• EARL SWEEN NY THOMAS L SWEEN Y 9, 1979 ogfly am eeowN _ . bithw4W Eden Prairie City Council • • A'"' Eden Prairie City Hall DARRELL tititiNCE 8950 Eden Prairie Road. • . s.It KOPPER,PILO. Eden Prairie, Pal E5344 • Attention: ffr. .ROger'llisted City Manager . Dear Mr. Ulstad: we at Stewart Sandwiches are requesting that the • zoning proposal that we have subeitted be given a first reading on dune 5, 1979, and a second reading • : on June 19, 1979, at the City Council ratings. Your cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated, and would allow us to obtain a permit and begin construction at the earliest date possible. Sincerely, • • • • • • • • • Peter A. Petrulo Vice President Operations Manager mia cc: Chris Enger City Planner ':••••)•k 11441 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA REBoLUTioN NO. 79- 02 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PEWIT APPLICATION • • WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary ddwer in Improvement Contract 51-342 requires a connection to the Efatropolitan Waste .:- •--. Control Commission (NWCC) interceptor.systea; and WHEREAS, the proposed connection conforms to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Saver Plan. • NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT Pogo:NED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows. • The City Engineer is hereby authorised and directed to submit an application for "Permit for Connection • to or Use of Commission Paci±ties" to the MCC. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Coutrl on Wolfgang Passel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Prone, Clerk ' '-..".-• . -.7.,..,:„.,.,. ' '' -,,,,.••i' ''',‘7.:'..'...','''',,;2•7'''.-'.--'27':•:'...'""'-'"'"..'7".:;,.2';`.7','•••••":72.":-.......L..2:7-'2:".,'• ' ,-..':.,..-;::::.'.:...:•.;',''..-,:".,......:;..r.,7.-.,,.:::::?,,,7T,"7-,.' ' ..' . .`..,.'.'"..‘,.::.7.......'7.7.;'' ''.1'.'.. .'.:,.;.'2.:J...::::"...,.';'.',"..,:. •.",:,::.,::::::=‘,...,,,,,,:s.-...-,..:- -'2.-. ,.... .-:., :,-,-...'.....,;:,-.....,:.-,--7- ..r. -.-1„.,_„. , . , . ., ......,,,,„,..,-,. • . . . , .t....., ,,.„, .. .• ....„. .:,....,.... .„..., „ .,-...... • . .... ,..,„. ., ...., , ,. ,.... , . ..., .,.... .., ..,..., „... _.„„,.. ..,.. , .. . . . ..-.. „ . •• . . „,..., .,. ..„.„ - -.. - - ..', . - -. .- . ,, ,.., " . - .„.,• .... ...... ....,„....., .,_, ,,, • ,. , ,. . .... .. . .„.. . . . .. . . . . ..... ....„ .,.,.... . ... . ...:,.;,.,....- •••,,-...''.:- ,... .. • ... • ...' - • . •••• .,' 1—,••,..."..., , '. - •''.... . . — , ,. . — , ..,„.„•,..,...._. , . •• .. „.. . .. .• . , ... • .•,.• r, . . ..„... ., .. • • , .„ ,, .. . .... .„. .• „„....„ • . ,.•• , . ,,. ., • • • ... . • • , . •- „„• • . . . , ,,,,,.„. ,. ' ' . ' .,....... .. • .•: ' ••••• , • ' ...-..,,,.....,,..,..,............-....,..... . 11 • . • '•.'..,:•;:,':..•. ...,,..,.. ‘.. • .• ",:s.•>10 • . .. ;,•-,;.;,7.,,,,..• NDIO ....,..,.. ., ...,••., t-•'',''.....:'... .TO: 'M the City Council Mayor Penzel and 'Members of f ..,,_.. „..„,......, • • •/.7,..:•••.:,2''' • FROM; Roger Ulstad, City Manager ...., . . DATE: may gs. 1979 .. .. ,.„...... ..... ...• , ,....„ --.. ... :,....-:,•,•;:.,.. „... SUBJECT; Anderson Lakes. Parkway/Co. Rd. 18 Signal Location • ••,•,..';',.: 1 * . nrnerrtall- , a Ctsekreettee staff' ,, ,--- .CoRd. I8,4 - , ...,.. 91"11119tc* City —Lakes Parkway and . • 2 9, the 4Ander/40k ectiPt a '-::,.,•••• On Wednesday, May traffic signal. at ...,,,,fri..,prese- trt itterS ..___,,,...._ location for the141 be ITO.feet south:"'I'trii.on Anderson tricenle,liV .'.• ,,'t„.?:,,,•„,, The new locationw3u driiWtnil The eevee."1 acceptable because 0 attached *wi T tot.ttil • ' ". '..2";.:'.-- shown on the ,_t .- is mi.....ma., . .. -..,'•:,,.•-„,:.•,...-,:- be feet,, wnTq' • - was to.trent. • Woreluakitively3°°Short length of eel' , • •• .• , ise location • ‘:,...i:,..,t,,•,:•••• Hennepin County has agreed that tlifissfci". roallTacoiartyantincti'aitm . ',,,,77:.,:::;,:•.::‘, .. •.1..bi sm. an, en behalf of Mr.• • • 16$4,e.s=olrldr•nPr. fral•nthe COuott. -- - .4 finds it occegtem•-, - ga.wwioe '•-•.'''2:.'-',..'''. -- - hzetablet4 the new location 10,4Lakes parhwayftet as ......., . Co., ......... reviewed . 4 ........4-ance on tiler thanonly 75 ea . ,,22,•••,...., agreed SO feettoeirriseepatgtiwrn;;rraoll Garrisong'u WaYs rather pre- viously ProPelled- ii chooses to proceed we•wouldrev•irecseosieendtaatr' !ottleinitibesary ---6".a'splatnio'detrzgtne . . '::::„:,....„;.1.,..,':•1::...;.,:.::, tIftpSntnenCounc.--request Hennepin CenetY to upon the new location. ,•,.7..,7•'... • ,--,,jr.'1.'-'•';' prep—reffa cotoopeistive agreement based .......,. • ,• -.,,...,,,...:::;.:• • -...;,-•••••,,,•.••••;'•, RKU:kh , •... ,,,,.„ .. „:•.,,,,,....,.. .• ::::::N",:::::: ,.. i.l..:•.,,••••,,,,•:-., ,-,•-•.,..:,,,., • i.„'•„:7•••••,•,,,.., _ "„'„?...:•''...,;;•••,; • ,„.. ,:.,,,,.• , ,.. : ,,.. ::-..,...... . . ... . .. ,... . . . • . • ..... , •, ,-, • .. .,, , ..., ...,•,„ , . . •••.", • • :.,• • ,..- .., - , . .. .. ... . . • ...• .„, ...., . ..,,-.... '. .1•••,,....,••••• '...,,,,,.• •,,,. , • • ...• .„.. . .. . ,....,..... .., .... ,„... /1.144 • • ,,,.... .......... . „. , . ,.... ,„.. . .• - • .,_ , . ... ,..._. ..... . , ... . , .: • • „ ... , .. ... ,.. . PROPOSED, SHOPPING ; ! t l CENTER 1 I 1 1 I f I tt • -----� I I t i I I �, i/Ill' I 1 f • / / il I > " . / i 4. I g . .. if , . 5,00b, , zit 1 2 �, s 1 1 7r- --iaNi=m-`Ars /1" I / I IR / J/ > / . 1 1 II. / Ix . /1 ,1/1 i 1 1 1 1 I , ill ! CO. RD. 18 I_ 1 E 1701 I j L� - 1 '. • • MASIOR AND BALE.L+td. 378 Peavey Puking IAW OFFICES 730 Seca:Aven,e scum MI1Yleppphi Mmesda 55402 UM0xAe 339-8848 Arco 612 May 11, 1979 Mr. Roger 0lstad City Manager City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 RE: Cost of Signals at Intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 Dear Roger: • This is to confirm the commitment of The Preserve to the effect that it will pity up to *10,000 cash either to the City of Eden Prairie or to Hennepin County far the ezoess cost of the signals over the $70000 which has been promised • to be paid, in cash or by assessment by the developer. This . money Leto be applied to the purchase of the signals at the. intersection. Raving talked with Jim Ryan of Ryan Construe tion Company, we understand that the first.$70,000 will be paid by Ryan Construction Company and will be paid either in cash or by assessment against the developed property, at the • option of the developer. Very truly yours, MAASTOR AND BALE, LTD. tiitk By ff l L.r'1 William G. Bale • NGB/mel cc: John Gertz Ken Person • • • WoI*M8aI* PondaAmmo • W6bt+eiidba+ 9uonJ Mompson wdbomG Bore AchaMJ Guru API*m Aoaxm °T'C SEI. (olesA @aylardJr. DavdR W+oded Ammaftsupg ,yyr7i4!•i ' %vhenJBeody GeageC.Make AtAm.SAGA AcAOdKL.1 5/7/79 • C.P.A. PUD LD-79-PUD-02 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 79-93 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDING THE 1968 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN •. .,..-•- WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has provided for.the Planned Unit ----.--. Developments within the City by virtue of Ordinance 135, and WHEREAS, the Cooperative Power Association Planned Unit Development is considered a proper•amendment to the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan, and' WHEREAS, the City PlanningCommmission did conduct a public hearing on the Cooperative Power Assocation PUD Application dated March 5, 1979 and did recommend approval of the PUD to the City Council, and -21 WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on May 15, 1979 on the Cooperative Power Association PUD. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council of Eden Prairie as follows: 1. The Cooperative Power Association PUG, being in the County of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota, and legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD approval for the - PUD as outlined in the application dated March 5, 1979. 3. That the PUD meet all of the recommendations of the • staff report of April 6, 1979, and as amended by the Planning Commission at their April 9, 1979 Meeting, all attached hereto as Exhibit B. ADOPTED, this _day of , 1979. ATTEST: Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk • '1 ti EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • MINUTES approved MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION HEMBER'S 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 C. Cooperative Power Association PUD, request for PUD approval on I-5 zoned land for exceeding 50% office use and for construction of a•tower. •- •• —*Located in the southwest corner of TH #5 and Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. • The Planner summarized the "Findings and Conclusions" of the staff report of April 6, 1979 explaining that the PUD proposed is not 25 acres in size, but the total land area encompassed in ownership meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the variances requested are reasonable. Mr. Don Brauer, Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Inc. explained that they ' have an option on Outlot D from.Mr. Miller, and that the additional 50,000 ft. will be added on later, but will not be an additional building. They have no questions on the staff report. The Planner requested that an additional recommendation be added to the staff report: the lot as it enters the property from the Schultz property, the road shoud be screened because of going through a residential use. Mr. Larry Harrison, Superintendent of Conmunications .Cooperative Power Associates, addressed microwave relay tower safety, explaining gnat microwave relay is "point to point"comnunication and this particular tower is 5 volts only. Transmission is closely controlled by the Federal Communications Commission. Bentley asked the effect on an airplane crossing through the zone. Harrison responded that there is no effect. Brauer pointed out the route . of the beam from Eden Prairie to Apple Valley, its receiving point, and explained that the flight pattern was_well out of range. Gartner inquired what the effect was on Tv, radio, garage doors and etc. • Harrison responded there is none, noting there are several microwave towers throughout the City and they have had.no problems. (State Highway Dent.. County, Educational TV and other users) MOTION: Bentley moved to close the public hearing on the PUD Concept of Cooperative Power. Torjesen seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Cooperative Power PUD, dated March 5, 1979, as per the amended staff report of April 6, 1979. Torjesen seconded, motion carried unanimously. Torjesen left at approximately 11:00 PM. i!5 I • • • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 6, 1979 PROPONENT: Cooperative Power Association PROJECT: Construction of Main CPA Headquarters Structure and Warehouse totalling 100,00 sq. ft. 1st Phase _ REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Approval to allow60% office space in an I-S Industral Park and allow.the placement of a 70 foot microwave tower which would be in excess of ordinance requirements by 5leet. PROJECT Approximatley 20 acres lying in the southwest quadrant of trunk LOCATION: Hwy. 5 and Mitchell Road in the central area of Eden Prairie. BACKGROUND: The 1968 and 1977 Comprehensive Guide Plan illustrates this area as industrial. The current zoning of the entire site proposed is I-5 Park. The I-5 Park. District provides for a minimum 5 acre lot with a minimum width and depth of • 300 feet. Minimum front yard setback is 75 feet. Minimum side yard setback is 30 feet. Minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet. The maximum floor area ratio is 30% coverage for a one story building and 50% floor area ratio for a multiple story building. The maximum height of the main structure is 40 feet with the maximum allowable height of additional towers, spires, chimneys, water tanks, flag poles, radio and TV antennas, transition towers and other structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than 10% of the ground area may be erected to a height of not more than 25 feet in addition to the maximum height permitted. Ordinance No. 292 amended f135 by providing that (office uses as permitted in the office district shall be permitted in the industrial district. Office uses in the industrial district shall in na_.evant.exceed 50% of the.totei_._... .. . floor area of the structure.) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The zoning Ordinance #135 defines Planned Unit Development as a tract of land ! which is developed as a unit under single or unified ownership or control and which includes two or more principle buildings. The ordinance further states that the Planned Unit Development proposals must include an area of at least 25 acres. The purpose of Planned Unit Development is to allow variations from the provision of Ordinance 135 including setback , heights, lot area, width and depth of yard, etc. in order to: a. Encourage more creative design and development of land. b. Prompt variety in the physical development pattern of the village. c. Concentrate open space in more usuabie areas or to preserve unique natural resources of the site. d. Preserve and provide a more desirable environment than would he possible under strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulation. 11c2 Cooperative Power Association -2- April 6, 1979 Although, the request as presented does not meet the 25 acre requirement the total land holdings of the CPA Corporation in the area exceed 25 acres and we have been made aware that there is a purchase agreement contingent to approval of the Robert Miller piece which would put the entire Planned Unit Development applied for under the control of one owner. SITE PLAN The Planned Unit Developoment proposes perhaps 150,000 sq. ft. of total gross floor area building which would be made up of,110,000 sq. ft. of office and • • 40,000 sq. ft. of warehouse. The floor area ratio in the I-5 zone would allow a floor area ratio in a multiple_storago building_of 50% or. roughly 400,000 sq. . ft. of office/warehouse space based upon 19 acres of property. Since the proposed development plans to exceed the 50% allowable use of office in an industrial district and since traffic problems on trunk Highway 5 and Mitchell Road exist at this time, it would seem reasonable to limit the PUD to the 150,000 sq. ft. proposed so that additional requests may be evaluated based upon their merit - . and ther impact on traffic. Although, the Planned Unit Development proposal makes possible the introduction of public road access into the site, in order for the road to meet City standards the front yard setback of 75 feet from the road right-of-way would have to be met. Although, there seems to be adequate area on the site for both the building and the parking introduction of the public road possibility into the site plan as shown does not allow for the 75 foot front yard setback that would be required in I-5 zone. Since the road stubs out at the northern property line of the Planned Unit Development it will also offer access to the northern parcel owned by CPA which is also zoned I-5 which is planned for exclusive warehousing space. Since the majority of the porposed headquarters building is office space towards the road the setback of 35 feet called for in the office district may be appropriate. However, the site plan will have to be modified in order to meet this setback as well. PARKING • A quick calculation of the parking required by Ordinance 141 indicates between • 300 and 350 parking spaces necessary. This does not include a tabulation for the 20,000 sq. ft. of auto, van, truck parking which is included interior to the building. Parking is illustrated on the site for 255 vehicles. However, there does seem to be ample room for expansion of the parking if necessary. The proposed intersection with Mitchell Road is located toward it s re the crest teoft ti the he hill and should not present sight line problems. lc addition, the 1JFS driveway approximately 450 ft. The proponents have taken into account the preferred alignment of truck Highway 212 and the construction of the building would not fall within the specific proposal. Since the preferred alignment actually would occur across the top of the pond. , • • 1163 • :,Cooperative Power Association -3- April 6, 1979 • TRAFFIC The information submitted by the proponent indicates that there will be between 520 and 570 trips per day generated from this building with a total peak hour generation of 230 to 240 cars. Although, addition of this traffic on Mitchell Road will be an additional burden, the addition of the free right turn Iane at trunk Highway S and Mitchell Road, to occur this summer, should help the flow capabilities on Mitchell Road. In addition, subsequent to the announcement of Highway Department plans for the actual location of Highway 212 perm ninent plans for time span upgrading Mitchell Road which would include cutting down of the grade past the site can be made. SANITARY SEWER The site is dependent upon sanitary sewer easements which must be obtained from property owners to the northeast of the property in order to tie into the existing main. Storm sewer for the project is shown outletting into a small pond to the north of the site which is not entirely owned by CPA and there may be some question as to the riparian rights of the property owner to the east regarding grading of the level of this pond. This storm water plan must be evaluated and approved • by the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District prior to building permit issuance. • VEGETATION There are scattered oak on the site which is to be retained within the site plan of the CPA main building proposal. • BUILDING ORIENTATION • The building as shown would be of a brick or brick material construction and would face southeast across the pond lying south of the property. The orientation of the building will allow the company to take advantage of the view of the pond. MICROWAVE TOWER The proposal depends largely upon the ability to construct a single pole microu:rve tower which will bo in excess of ordinance restrictions by 5 feet. As shown in the building plans in comparison of the silhouette of the tower the building proportion makes the appearance of the tower almost negilihle. In addition the difference between 65 feet and 70 feet will be inperceptable. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The PUD proposed is not 25 acres in size, but the total land area encompassed in ownership meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. • 2. ll cause of the character of the type of business proposed. the rcgoe' l for W.. office in an industrial zone, rather than 5fl., should not a.ld additional traffic to the zone. In addition, the proposal requests a building program of 150,000 total square feet which is approximately 250,000 stplarc letI he••• than the total potential of the zone. We can therefore conclude that if the ut total building prorr:nn it. kept to 150,000 square feet the tt:tfiia that auatld ft have been anticipated from the total development of the 1-5 Park. acrotdda; • Cooperative Power Association -4-_.. April 6, 1979 S. The cash park fee of $1200 / acre should be paid at time of building permit issuance. 4. The proposal for the microwave tower is a reasonable request and the height differential between ordinance and requested is negilible. S. The site plan does not accurately reflect proper setbacks from the potential public road and should be modified. 6. There is not adequate constructed parking shown , however., there is r --adequate room for capeM in-the future if-additional-parking is-necessary. 7. The proposal is dependent upon obtaining sanitary sewer easements from the property owners to the north and east . 8. Introduction of a public road into this area of the-industrial park will allow an additional industrial lot lying to the north and owned by CPA to take access off of Mitchell Road rather that TH S. 9. The site plan as proposed respects site conditions and preserves existing vegetation. 10. Approval of this project should be Contingent upon review and approval by the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District. 11. Future expansion beyond the 150,000 square feet space proposed, will require addit4nnal review by the City to detm{reine if the 'slim of office and industrial space has potential for,creating traffic impacts upon Mitchell Road and TH S. *12. Screening of the road going through the residential use (Schultz) RECl0ATl0NS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the PUD request which would --- allow variance of the height of the microwave tower, variance of the office percentage in an industrial district, and variance of the PUD size , subject to the Findings and Conclusions of this report. *As per Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1979. CE:ad ,r 1JtI • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission PROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: April 12, 1979 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List _ ^ .PROJECT: Cooperative Power Associates Headquarters structure and warehouse PROPONENT: Cooperative Power Association REQUEST: PUD approval to allow 60% office space in an I-S Industrial Park and allow placement of a 70 foot microwave tower. LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road • ROEND.See Planning Staff Report CHECKLIST: 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) N/A Affect on park: 2. Adjacent to public waters? Small pond to the north and one to the south Affect on waters: Both ponds will receive storm water run off • 3. Adjacent to trails? Yes, there is a proposed sidewalk along the west side of Mitchell Road. Type of trails: (bike, multi use, transportation, etc.) pedestrian Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime) concrete P , developer responsible far cost Width: 5 Party Responsible for construction. �-' P Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, otc.) R.O.W. Type of Development? (residential. commorcial, industrial) industrial/office Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood) Red Rock • Need for a mini-park? no .2. S. REFERENCE CHECK: a. Major Center Area Study: N/A • b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A c. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A e. Floodplain ordinance: Not building within the floodplain f. Guide Plan: Both the 1968 and 1978 plan show this area as industrial. Current zoning is I-5 Park. g. Other: 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: 7. CASH PARK FEE? Cash fee applicable at time of building permit should be paid. 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: 9. Number of units in residential development? N/A Number of acres in the project? 20.31 Special recreation space requirements: N/A 10. STAFF RLCOMAfl NDATIONS:Comnunity Services Staff recommends approval as per Planning Staff Report of April 6, 1979 and Comnuntiy Staff Report of April 12, 1979. . 1150 • • • .approved Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - March 26, 1979 B. Hartford Real Estate Company. . . .public hearing ' (continued) Bentley, referring to neighborhood meetings held, the suggestion was made for a buffer strip,unzoned. Ketcham responded that if this area is not . zoned, the owners of the buildings cannot take credit for it in terms of • ground coverage. This can be written into the developer's agreement. Retterath asked what was planned for the additional traffic on W. 78th St., and the concern expressed by residents. The Planner responded that the scheduled merge of W. 78th Street east bound with the off-ramp from 1-494 to Co.Rd. 18, in 1980 would be helpful. - The following concerns were expressed and requested that they be included in the staff report: the amount of impervious surface; DNR recommendation on water quality; impact on the City sewer system; and future building plans through the P.U.D. and precedent in the past. Torjesen asked what the preference of the residents was, speaking to the neigh- borhood meetings, as far as what is being proposed. Bentley responded that the preference was office park over medium residential. • Mr. Bob Dunbar, 11270 Lanewood Circle, commented that the residents we're pleased with the proposal, but questioned the distance of the north arm of Lanewood Circle to the proposed site. Ketcham responded 415', at the closest. • MOTION: Levitt moved to continue the Hartford Real Estate Company request / to the April 9, 1979 meeting. Toriesen seconded. motion cnrriori unanimously. / g MEMBERS PRESENT - (Martinson absent) N/// C. Cooperative Power AssociationUD, request for PUD approval on I-5 zoned land for exceeding 50% office use and for construction of a tower. Located in • the Southwest corner of TH #5 and Mitchell Road. A public hearing. Mr. Don Brauer, Brauer and Associates, LTD. „Inc—, made the presentation explain-_ _ . _ ing that the company was an association of rural electrical cooperatives and , they are requesting•PUD approval on I-5 zoned land for use as a site for their headquarters. He introduced Mr. Jerry Kingrey, Land Use Consultant and Engineer for the project. Brauer discussed why they had chosen the P.U.D. method, because it is second ownership (they are purchasing land from Eaton Char Lynn Co.) with a small build- ing site; 60% office-40% non-office; and will be control center for 19 coopera- tives. Mr. Lloyd Berquist, BWBR Architects, discussed the plan further, explaining that the entrance road would be built to City standards. .. Bearman read the letter received from one of the adjacent landowners, Mrs. Schultz, 8100 Mitchell Road, expressing concern with the proposed road. ai 6 • at, Ned Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - March 26, 1979 C. Cooperative Power Association PUD. . . .public hearing (continued) Bentley questioned whether Outlot D was presently owned by the pro- ponent. Brauer explained that they are presently negotiating the pur- • chase of Outlot D. The right-of-way is currently owned by the proponent. • • Brauer responded to questions on the micro wave tower; it compared with the tower at P.E.I.; the tower is below flight path of the airport; on question of safety, Brauer referred to a report recently published by' the Federal Government on safety and interference of micro wave towers. Gartner inquired about the width of the tower. Brauer responded that the bottom was about 3' and the top 1'. Levitt requested that the question of safety and interference be addressed • in the staff report. • • Mr. James Sabako, 14254 Chestnut Drive, stated that his property looks right into C.P.T. and this building. Brauer explained how the building sits into the hill. • The Planner read the letter received from Mr. Crowley, 8303 Sheridan Lane, expressing opposition to the tower. Other points were briefly addressed such as number of trips by service vehicles and storage vans (approx. 24, service, 6 storage; location of the parking lot - north side of building and west side of building would be storage. • MOTION: Gartner moved to continue the Cooperative Power Association PUD to the meeting of April 9. Retterath seconded,motion carried unanimously, VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of Joint Planning Commission and City Council Meeting The following items were suggested for discussion: narrowing down the scope of specific criteria for developers; discussion of limitation of • notification of residents; to what extent does the City need a lot of development; and to what limits do we allow our developments to push our transportation system. (To be added to suggestions from former meeting) VII. NEW BUSINESS • A. Literature on Clean Air Amendment Bentley briefly discussed the information on the Clean Air Act Amendments • and concern by the PollutionControl Agency that communities are not taking air pollution planning seriously. • IV) 1 • Minnesota Department of Transportation . . District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive • °Flo, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. • torn o-:►no • Karel 21, 1979 • • Mr. Rod Sundatrom • . Chairperson, Planning Cor isaion• City of Eden Prairie City Hall- • - ' 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Sundstron The Department of Transportation io developing plans for a new • !runts Highway 212 from Eden Prairie to Norwood. One of the proposed • alternatives.will cross the proposed Coopiracive Power Association • P.U.D. at its southeast corner. This alignment•hos aanY positive features. These features may qualify it as the preferred alternative in the new 1981 new Draft levirmusental Xepact Statement. We encourage the Planning Commission, City-Coyn :11 and developer.to rnna,.lr with us • - to obtain more information. Please call E. O. Paine, Project Manager • (585-3161 ext. 118), or Susanna Pelly, Planner (cut. 137). • SiacRrely, .' ,. • W.M. Crawfor , P.E. • • District Engineer • WMC:bn • • • • • • • As EqualOppmumiij Smith**, • 11151 x ,-;-,4„.,:.,•-• ";;;Z-7.-.7,77,:,7•-•,-T--;44-'44:4•.i.--,17:4:,-Fe,z.‘t-4,...y..-..,.1..4,-.;•-..t.4-4.•••,,,,%;;;•fe.4-.!:::'1';'-.Ve'si:t:...•*:'77.7,4:c4i.:.t ',;:';'7.,-7; li'''' t,"„: -,'.'ipf -77:':•.:::::::,..--4,.7•:: ;-' --'•.'f,'. .`'_:',..,',.-.'W.e...!rlf,:d*-,747.".;;75-j77....7'.1.;,!.':”'''''Pf'';';7.'''-17‘"f''.: .:-"ri"-'1...1.1:* ';''' ''''''-`' ,,,,..,:,?.',.;..,r'':f, .;:Z.::) '•'.''''.;:...(,i', 'i:,..;I:;;:.;:‘,, ;,, ii',„,:::0' ,It':41,:iii.,-f;r:VrY7i:':Pa'77;,=7Y;'‘t.*A32:41":n"4:5;-'f'::" 1-....;'''''%'tj:'!: C.,•,) :'' ;;. 7,- , ,'1;'. ::• ; •......4,.:,:•:', '•, ,;,...4,:31;;.,,••? ...,•,:,.1,. e;47:„..,-.?;,,,,,..-;,•','- 4' ,• ,,,, -4.,,,, • „. .„...,,•... 74:4;:to --*•„7--.-- - 4;,:j ,. :t--,.,, '''- ':, :, ,:"'.....:.4--•T'•(:!"V4:*•V",4:4-,!•;;,...%-74-1-../;,=•.471...,--".4':,er...':' '1,',.'.:'7-44^. ',,..,',.kt .".' f 4' .., '4''';.• '..:''.:•,;..'' ' . ";i:', .:'4.41.:.'''';'4,i'4.:‘,;;:X4,4..;; ;`,"e'l!Elf.:,;.,7.';''.' ''11's-2.-:%•''''''':::'"-;:;;• '-,,..:,': v,: . ', i;;;:-.,,.,:1 \ , •'i:,•.„..,;;;...':,,;,*t.171:.;:,..7..-,.....,:„,.....1.,4-t;;;;;I.,...7.'•:i:'.:::.,V-''' ::4...:,..:'''.. :'::; • :...:',..'7 / ) '.." ' ' • ,• ' :...1.:'.:: ;A"--`:.t'i'..5.;:4.4;.?...1.r.'.''':''''71%-'•.,.:',"4- 44':;'' ,,,,,:..,'',. ''''' '' ..::,..T....fir;;;;;', •:::::',..f.:-. ....i4";4:,,`;,.:1:',1''i'A.!.:'.:;: i,''',.. :-:::::;,•;:*.eP,',': 2:i;.-.7.f': • . . ,D. ....,.: .‘ ..: . ,.. ...1'..''''''::: '''''.4":....it;;"....:•'.'..*'4,:' •.:• , ' '.......:,. ....'4..., ,,.„ " ' '-• '''' .r...."•N '' 1:v' ''..4-'7.'.."."''7,...:•:•''''';.,, 15.,i.;::" .:V^::::i'...+;7.:7* *;:':';,'';"" '.,'''f''':'''''':-.,','4;.'7 il.:"'=:•,L''',..'.';', Ai',;;.-Jir.-:';;GERKtliT7,;ft-T%"';'''''7''447'4",•• -S,:;"."?..4.' .';!'..,.4-A1;:'...'2V,t . ,/i'l:.:'. '76"..03"-Ciir-rit1.'-' .r?':4171.;';',0:i-lt:14Ttrr:4173::,.'114'•7.-47-'=: .'ir":2''''':'in 4''''-:' 7" ' .27:•",i''''•'•..-, .' . •1 . : '.'.. .:,n:-.,,,,,,.-, "4'-' "1:•"' 4..•"1.4 4.....,•;:.*4• .„....:. --.'.' .':::' ,:`••••'.41'-' :'.=:L.:,"?-'."-.e4=.4,1k-',;''.7-% 4,,' -' ',"'" ••- ' , ,:.,-•-••,-.4--. ..;,.................i.4........-....--. September 20, 1978 ....,... . . ;'-!,!,'...‘:'• '''.:',........4 Mr. Richard Wades Direeter Division of Environmental liegath . ....,... Minnesota Departnent ot Health 717 S. E. Delaware Street . . . Minneapolis, Mineasata 5511.4P ....,._.. Dar Dr. Wart-: . . ., .... ...., , • :, We have a petition before us it ullieh the OnomituPerativeverowerantenna. Association is seeking permission to erect a . . „ for COMilunications between the various substations. They have • - indicated that there will be a 5 watt output: . • • , • .,, „ .. .„,..., Can you please supply us with any and all infolvationerela.tivthe to any known or suspe tretlah hazardsvic s' tThwehl4tequedetfinitive Ita7.ards has been raiseedtedanicralue prior to fltrther considith-atimn of s tint.m...rs .,. Very truly Years/ C1T1 CIF -IC- .t.../...:_sc 4.1 /Lb - -- ."'''i•:"----.... ._ Glen Northrup, City flonagt .. ., -..:.. mi,4•11g • - •'.-,-.-. .•. • -.... . . _ • .-:-.... , . ... . .. .11511-,. . _ . / : , ,sif,..... t aUminnesota department of health f` 717 s.e. delaware st. minneapolis 5544O — el<^ zaeszzl • October 13, 1978 Mr. Glen Northrup T- City Manager 1313 East Highway 13 Uurnsville, Minnesota 55337 Dear Mr. Northrup: Thank you for your letter, dated September 20. 1978, con- corning possible health hazards from exposure to microwave: energy. We appreciate your concern and hope the followiel . information will be helpful to you. The Minnesota Department of Health, due to limited pore:un::'�,-. has been unable to examine the issue of whether or not thr:.'e might be a hazard to the public's health as a result of :itbic::.t tticruwave exposure. .For this reason, we cannot, at t.h ^ t i:x''. make. a definitive statement on this issue. However, ;..tut? t..; have been and continue to be conducted on microwaves and possible associated health effects. Many of these utuite.: 'have been/are being done by federal agencies or under feds•:-al ronit acts, Therefore, we are requesting the U. S. Envi:nt1:••''l:l".. 1. Protection Agency and the Bureau of Radiological Health to provide information and comment regarding your concern. . Any information and comment received from these agcne:i'. h • be forwarded to you. However, you shoult-, be aware tit v. +1. may t ike these agencies some tine to respond and that _t:< information received may be inconclusive. . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact tti. at i 12/296-5508. c s ' , ‘:::1.:11.51,,':.. Yours very truly, e t -t '4.447 t� .J : 1°t.4 t`,c it Larry D. Gust ' 1 ' ° 'Research Scientist ';.� ,.t\_ - Section of Health R'_;.K A. _ .:;rwr.t' 11'c/1u1k' / . • • o jii' VA. ,1.1 r11:.I e',,p.'.tu=uly eftildoy t r..t . . ... . , . ' ..''..• . • •. ". . , -: :.r. : N-f • • . . .- ... 4 .....----. • . o .L: ...g minnesota department of health F .,. •• . ..„ @f0 717 s.e. delaware st. thr., minneapolis 55440 NO 5N1 : a . .. • December 5, 1978 . . ..T - ...-.., . . ., Mr. Glen Northrup City manager ' • io 1313 Fost Highway 13 Burnsville. Minnesota Dear Mr. Northrup: .:. oo, An noted in my correspondence to you, dated October 13, l'17it, i i have contacted the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency regeootioo information concerning possible health haoards from expouro to '•'.o.,• microwave energy. • o."..':,,,,. : Mr. Norbert Hankin of tho Office of Radiation Programs, EM fta:::intin Analysis Branch, Silver Springs, Maryland, indicated to n,o, in a telcpllena conversation, that microwave relay systems (nimi1z;i7 to tloo one you are concerned about) are commonly used in cormttpietions. ..„...... . ..,„ lie Ni..,it,a that these systems are generally of low power, v..ry Jit.c..ttiol ,..... ,..4., al and well columnated. As a result, general population levels are extremely low. He does not consider these systems to o ha701o.1 to the environment or the public's health. mr. conLin further ntated that the maximum exposure (at ground lev,11) [tom a system of thin typo and power rating is apProximotoly 1 nao, watt/contimeter2. To put this in perspective, this is th-e of soonitode (1,000 times) below the most restrictive et:11..'ral pv., utation standard in the world (1 microwatticentimeter2). Thir an U.S.:;.!'. suggested level of safety and is considered hy t:1 -!.: loo o love] whore no adverse health effects are observed. The Unite...! ntatos does not have a microwave standard for populat len. (U.S. occtipation.al standard is 10 milliwatt/r-tit.'.:;•.-t-.•: • , continuous exposure.) However, the U.S. Environmental P:otael_ion "is piteauttly gatherinq information pertinent to the devel,.-tr.. .Lt qUi.1.11, to Federal agencies within the U.f.t. concerning limit;.t.i,”..:: on radiefrequeney (RE') and microwave (MW) exposure of the genevol . „... populotion." (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19,8, '-Oopolotion lo:luo;ut(! to VHF and UHF' Broadcast Radiation in the United St-kter., Page ) .) 1 4m i!i-t:71csing copies of materials forwarded by Mr. Pan'itin. They are teporlr on measurements and estimates of population expotatte to broai- cast Iregt:crieics of eloctramlignetic radiation. These stia.iies conelude . ...... ... . . . ' Lk.i'4, '•••••;.: ',:. •• 1:"':•. .::•,,,,,Z.ti . '1't Ir.' ;!,.;;• , •; ..•:;1'. .:'±IL,'' 11611 . .., ,'• •. midpq tA:, i 2 -,"„ ......1 " . . •""- ::- .„. ,, ::'t, ,-:,,.: -...:: E ,-,•,;::.,,::,:i. ;:,.:.-;.':, ,, ,,:-.:: :..i:::,-.: 7.-.: ;:: ,"2-..,s,:''-',:,':..;7.. . :,;..„.! :,:-,! ..':,,, • . •'• : : , . . , • . . - •, • • • ••• . "that, of the population group studied. representing IR perennt the total U.S. population. 99 percent arc not exposed to leve , above the suggested level of safety established in the U.S.S.R. of: 78 1 microwatt/centim(tcr2." (U.S. Environmental Protection P.gency, 19 . "Population Exposure to VH} and UHF Broadcast Radiation in the United States", Page 25.) I am also enclosing two articles that review the literature on LO biologic effects of microwave radiation. The authors of otherie artic note that many of the studies reviewed are inadequate and 1«ott: new- e limitations. They are, therefore, unable to make final conclusions regarding the biologic effects of microwaves in humans. It in important to note that the exposure levels used in these studies ore several orders of magnitude above the level that might be expericnecd by the general population. • I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have further gnostic: please feel free to contact me at 61//296-5508. Yours very truly, ictativie .b- 14 . Larry D. rust Research Scientist Sectiat of Health Risk A:•::.f.:L;I:x..c:ut huG/ri:.-1; • • 7:- • • , . . • /122. • . ,• • UNCLla: s;f=1LC} �J‘\ (�i ...�'` tr........_._ ' - BIOLOGICAL EFFEC1S' OF M I CI�OWAVES Aerospace Techno T ogy Division Washington , D. C . 17 September 1965 - Pa•occs;xd for . . . DEFEI`?SE DOCUivIENTAl ION CENTER DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY • fOR(tOt$,t S:to , _;VI i M ,"EbL .'t . }} 1 I. t..C'hl,•n(Nt ei cr.s•l el-1.,r.+•IC. . Ou6taJ Gr;`.V.. „; .tiC :;,tl i,`,,a :, •,._. ,• • • UNCLASSIFIED 1{1// r. F i • • • r✓f 6o,t �tvSl.‘11 7 fa 1M a.?t. GJ �,�fafbk. l� ;i:'i�'e Fitt re Resealed! rcc iciw, • Special Panel :?isctission Li Col Alvin M. Burner. USAF, MC. Chairman Transcript andSupplementary M.tterials • f Held on the C)cc.tsi•on of the 1968 Sh'Atl't)SIE'1+.4 ON MIC1:Crit'`tv1; TOWFJ Intcrn:ition:tl hticrowitvr Pri*4er lrtstit,tte • • kw.M1.V, Roston, Massachusetts • March 22, 1968 • E't " 23S ta;A S:e.t Sin rntyti:o.ca,t.u::a VUC) ,, ._. • " _ ry r f• =4 '- ;A't':? ),•:'):c)t•t l'•45.:>-0"ri Ii' ;it�jtttstt:°i:'r :(.0 - Surreys of Sarirt Scientific and Technical Litrruture • V K } ~i: • ,; 1 Ct1mpitatiu.o ¢if •4h iri:eiS _ ' C.,-.' f; ..:/. ,at .r f 3. .. i .. " r .. a •ty l 1 • tri. r } , • . jw • _ • tict c��,i�ztc•c, .Tc�t'ai..i�' ;1,' rljt'..'!t11't /':•• \\ .'\ IJtt)t'Itt',' C41 l't>1tr"I."` f 1, `� . • m _ ....-;,-- • 2--"'". :„....2...•,,...1...:,. •••.,‘`; ..' ...,...":,.7,s.:':"..‘4.':" - • .....-^"..r-,:- ::',.:—.,,-....,- '--- "-,•• — . .., • - '' ---- — ' ' . • ..., ,,,,,, , ,.z.••.••.. .--, ^ :.: ',.•,:•,...,,'„•-•. - -' ' ."r' ... ' . ...''''.''''':'"'7''':'' ''' '''''''. ''' ' .-7"'' " . : -'-. .."-.--''' "'...."''''.'-.".,'..•7.-'-..-::'-• -. " . . . . '' ' - - ' "''''''''' , • • -..- .. .. . . . al(''1% )- U:,111(17 1 I'll c.-4 p li in7.1 , ,.k.„ st,„., .,, , v 4 it 0 , ,,Lri, r,. i• ., .... ......_f_."......t. ...J. . ... -------- , . • -.„2. • / ' i . ,, .,„ „ , , . thlitr0;,4:4,1, 1:.;—.1t-'1—.;Of f•; ." ' ' -''',uf.)jai ift?,),..ft 1!,..::I A..1, si kf...7.1,' ,I:t,':' eit..:Auci.Ecr,•,!,,,•:., vr.,,,, -, -,.. 21st etilt(t.ty....,,,y • et: IlfT 4.1•:.-rit• • `2,"" , . • • , . - ":1-."•,.; . '•' I);ii tl ' • '.':.:.: . 4 I• ' .."- .... '... . ;..:,.:-.-• -• VICROILTE liktIlit1011 BA11RDS • • _ •- • . . . itwy prr:11CroS of ulon,;; refl frr,..r.• ff.,*r;- radiation. Ht•••••I••ret. the;Pl'f,•t, q••••• •-.., _,•..- - ......,.. cronavc 1•731ation Vela;fc ;NJ.',Ir., .0,T,T 1...•^ •-• 3117 t:f....11S-. A1.•••ut 1 r f',3 aft 1,, It' ••of b.C.C3v•C +6..1,1 11•Chfai•cal novant-r: *:*s.- t:,i'l.1;.t.. ye:ter/tilt:1 or t.:3•,Cr and a..3!. r ra.:. : 7 levt1s. ..•!,y pc:fie taC1i.:st• Ott..., ,•..,••• 0,$••• :I if. allitt-t...Ili At°. ;t 1- .1n.•••• •,,,, ',..- 1'4:4, Ot ,,,•04,.; fe.,—.1..,ett t n...r.-. O.isto.,•1. ..,..,Cist•A .oit• -,c,tr. •••• ., "' ''''."' . • •.1.-i-i- •• it:...:,••fility„ •30.0.;.i.4.6talife.. ...; ;;t:c. ...1 f.411.4.•—•r.:.r.!... ...f ,.....,tt•3 ••-•-• •••",•• •-• .....:, .. verb° Oara9e, normally att rl Loire tr lord;,r a diatIta fotrrtity tis4.1.; ,..'1 •,:--'t : f''" ', .•:;."....' I ft44044 1.314ricus c...1-: tlart 1, o ,,:... 1.....i. l' . , ..:•'..7 • • ••. I• HICOWLVES Olt IhED • . , L•E•: ° • . ,. .— • 11. liltt5.415.5141t Of HICREINATES .- • .. . • . • . . . •,•• III. POWER DENSITY LEVELS SURROUNDING A IRANSNITIER • • • . -z''. — .. -. . IV. HAZARDS OF MILADY/IVES . . ._ .. . . • t. V. ESTADLIONED VOREOROLD 1.114IIS . .,' , • . ,..., . ,. . . VI. ultkovivE DETEtTIOR AC MEASUREMENT .:,,-..... . 7,--. " VII. RELESSLRT SAFETY flECAOTIONS . , 1,,,7••-•,-. . • • . VIII. OTHER liAZAilDS 10 BE CONSIDERED . ' .[..-:.•-•.::- . ,. 1..•'-• . ..,.. • . . • . . . . • ,:. . . ., • . .. ... . : 111.1.0 . .. • .-• .. - ..••:„, ,• ..• . •,....,..r, :...- . ., • ., . . . .. . •,„. .-1, • -';'; VI ..--.:',4'',....';'..' ',.. ' , ,:.-.... ,...',.;.:. ....,;,..- ',..,•—••-'_, -•-,..',. .:--:, ,,i'..:,...--- - .: '" ''''* . :. ' ' Ilitt - • ' • , . _ , • .„, • , . • % • • • As 1 • • • • • • tInvel,cr C, 11.1(.5 mot: CALIFORNIA STATE Orrt.7.17:1t-::rr OF I'LLBLIC )1EAL7:: .111.1REAU OF OCCUPATIO::Al. . 'ECT: OCCUPATIONAL 11EAL.T11 BULLETIN ON xrr.rtmiAvr. !,.A1)/AT:rt: .CORR.T:q10•1 OF. Recently, ye sent yc.0 a copy* of our Ocespatinrin: enth et entitled, rtniATIori IZkX . Will yOet plesse correctio.-.: of fort:I.:la:. or. •4•;Pr,e..6, under n1,:icIt. Fnrr.,•::•• • . . Distances": • -.2-) Suf.° distance in feet is: (Frenrroct Text) (Corrpetri 2. 2.85 Wevelcr.cth in • • '" 3. (;: • Waveler:6th in CM Wavelenilth in CM • _.„ • • • • • • . ' //11,i) "" ' •," - . . . . . . . . . ..„,, . . . , . . , .- • . ' — • . •' r..: ... .,• " •• -:-..' ......--. . . • ..., . .. . ••-.:":. - . - .'.'• 2 ' .:"..=•• ..... .. • •) I. MICROWAVES OCEIREO ..-.3 ..-,: or ntaetees•Itnn,. ,..t.j,I. e.j. :,.:1., .i , Hi rrow.tvol. axe Ot rt.t r•ow tu,t ir r.txt'at ion.: ....:::' (similar la ultraviolet, 1 i.tot, t tilt.;ma n.vnt:e proetvrt. l'...in t,t, e.t t 14;• ;..t • t . ut.;(If te•rur in tt." •'Is.tieeetioeit ;pt... 1 I tr. :.01.0.1, r•J:;00tst.5 utt.1 ilia.-1•4 r.u,... it.;., Pr. Ait thr IA.i,•.1 . •-,-- .1: .,-i:• :.• at tt•uf..e, rt.,,:: lIten lut.er ill o,u•t.)y (.not t:‘.- tutruty) it,..., till,t ww-, .oe, a i.tr.. tta.oppre.... unit, 1O,Ili..t,r ni,...tt. . .el, . . :. . .. • . : - ...-. i.n.‘to PI.yI.II..II r INSI•Il 1 f,r i...t i r c..! t..i: t,;,.....t ,....,,,, . ,r.o4iat1.11 ore..I.: r.)1 III....: ittso.trt..tt *it!. tt..• .•...., ., t .:• .:•• • rrclueor y: 3C-jOu,VOO o! ;.,,y..I.,,./,,,,(, the :Akira P. II,twit•t -.:1:.J •1•;'. I.r, ; • (foci'•J:•) -,.....,-- W.Ey.4 s ejt.,: 1,040-0.00 ...,it;,"t 1.,•r". (eft) • :.••7: t'",Vf (f•nh...1... )i" •1..'3 vi.st,c“,, vt,h.. (,..) ,„..,:. .-..--:01:1-ii ft. :..t•ry ...suf. .... i.:•11:i1;0.1 AVII, .... , ta.e IllrtAto,.eli,o4,,4 i.41 oot tie,.:I ,-,... Cita, ur.i; . 41.• 1. t,t I: , .;tt.: '..:,. .^.., ; 1.1I..0 It, 1.40ct T1-) to TI.n out ... A 1,:ti, st ri.•t t1., . f..I • W.'• ••.. •" f""..'"'"...:1 fi 1 1 S 2.'00 ; .9.41 I I..) to :,,J.. t if I . ...“I.. .e....I 1,,..: . .i t 1 .. 4 a. • . • •......,•!;17.• .0 C )..V....0 to ;OVA I ALI IL .••11 •....;OHL It%Out .,•I., it. to• •, . t., t' ..,..--, , ,..... tl./Int to 1..1.01 3.11, It. :1.4• ---„^-:: •,:. 11:.440 tu I Z.4/1,1) ;'..... tI, I•CI I.OV I.: .0:,..... .—................. O 1et,•Itk, I., 7(....00 1.et to Lit 1.1.0,V.t,/,.. - ..-...r.,::Y.: ,)„...UU lu ati.00t. 1.14. to 1..:tt •",n;: tlei..-10C,, .111 eletltt),,hotic ut,..: I tao.•1 41 11. IRANt4.41;Sirm oF p;rst,..!,vi!. ,11,0.1.,,,t .00c it (La Y.K1,1) In.: l'..IIIII4.Iti I 'IL,- . I at <,:L.1,;p :Jr I wren ..-Ive.-1,nob 44,4 1 robot'4(y A typitut :tit t-.4.6,1.1 If rrrr•,:l. 110141 of: (1) 1 11,11.1,14/IV( •I•a.....;..r, (•r! . •• ;•• atilt fill riff,t1tit. 0) II I/•.'.II.I;; • • ; I.., I"...,.. ,...."." tin' tt,at.'1-i•,-ittn 011,,,..4 r I i;•.t r. • . , ........Zvi.'el,titt., A ;.• 1°".°°‘' - 1 r,....t:,,,q,,,,. f• (;n rhrise.-.1 et.etOr„ tilt...ft A Ai y•:r... !...,.., ,„tz,,•1 •: " •(in cm) 1.001 Cif a.titty Je:11,-. U.", t^.; ..;,,, z .. kirt,..? I0ni7.ition d.ot,a1., to living I;..1.111. .....":' reftuitu., at le.a:t tetote.attP.of kl.-•tt...i. ,olt:.‘,1 ' ' — '''s ' ' s cf“''.1t- .u...I tbs.notiouto t.r..f.j, t*mt.,: tat mi,rt.- qt.:it,'• II,- ...o.,, !rum :t.., •.. a•......• I, t ••• idowt-t IS(.1 Ito'utttuf Of IV (..v., /0 touil... ttutu. A A.II..' I•...re. ;I lif".• I I.t' II.4 I•.•' .I ;' V • ,'"',";,'... i;011 4.18,11)1' dt Cu/5 elue. III I'n'ef e.ts,I` tu ti.e.-.0 ft e•r tt•a and to.u....ct ty (S.. If“.,l'i.• t 1.•t•• .„ -T.'' u:tr... Alt 1.)utuq;c.,1 1 i!pet%af.•1,..1 if,i..1 to I, directly or inaireetly r.,tettitt to tio. tx.etitoi cr!oct of V..;.I:k Ik/A*,,` I at,i1 iIII . •,:-.1. ,,1-',44- ir.li.t.,...t. C.. . r:tt,:.• t bp j.,14,. e... ' .. ' ... .." 1141 . • . 2:-''' '''''''''''.''''''''''''''''' '''"-''''''"'"--'-'-',,,'-,',..:'..•::-.7.:zsl;::::::,-,..7,:,-...7,,,f,,F.,--;,,,,...,..,..---,..--,..L.--.::,:..., ...„.....,i,;_--,,..... ....:,:e..,...,...., ,...,...,...,. .......,,:...,:. '' ' .":':' .'"'. '''.-'.- '1•: ...,...:'''."'.. .',:',„.'.-S..;":..,.'„'": .z-:,..:.,''..-J,;,..„,••,,,;•.'„",,,,:."•"::;,:,,::: :,,,,,-...:-,- • . zs, '•,- : . ',.,-.,:. ,, ..., r,. , . .,,,,,,,..:,,.. _ - ,.. , , . .• --. . - . -• .., .„ . . ..., . • , . • .. ' • .: , - . — ..... P. • , I Figures I alla 6 ',......:.'f7'.' .., V:Y. ‘, • • , - , , ••• . , -:,....-...:.- '7:-• ..,; • ''''*- -:',,-."•--gp,-- . . -s. f.1 : .-1 1 ,..-1--:' I. '7'"I •:..1.-"::' .47 -4'7 7-' ' h --r .f 71- .;.::.---•:.•-•7:-... ".-:z ', (it ' ?... c';':.:2.-ri;''' '•= 'h '''..". ....,....-,-.-.. • ,-,,„ r,..?.., , •.:-:.; - i•f04., 1 11:. :.. . ''',./.4.1.i. 11!1\ii'll •• k7z. %-N.. 11ir ie II '-- -.. 4 f••i.. ..,11 / ,..1...-:::„.... '-•• i,.!c--."*'-'t 1.. . .. ... — ..... .t.h t .t..„:-........,,-„: ....... .... ,f.,...s.,,...... I .., !\ -.,....,...- . ,,,,..,..,.. • r - :g t ... ...•Ski, t.":...*: . :.c's.,'•i', •(t.. :'.,''''...:.-''. .z!-, OK i7-e •. -'i s • ;00.7,.4 r 'iii.'1:: -,.-. /.. ._: .7.‘.'::•,:' 1.74Ci;."'f ...r) 14/4.,,,. 7"!!;* -.• I I; . .‘. "I. : ; , „. , , k f, j ' f.irt.:.• ,. "!.,.. ,. .,.%k*" r.."""4...„,....-.....-:-..f..: . ..e' ' I..." -..-11.i -.:-........,......,.......,.: ....!..7:::::!`..,--1.1:. *-13 ' '.....1,".. /11 II iv IIi.4111(..11,-.4 4.-•-••-.....4 .'ilii...#1.. ''''•'77" Fir..11. Min n,.;•I a lit iti4o,1.1..r 4 ar, •,.. r) ...0 .. 4. . ' ,-;,- ' ....-;: ..,:.:72.:.:-....-i.......::::-.,::::::;•:.:'''.''. ,:','.!, • .11.tpq . ,.. ,-.--,:-,...,•.......:...:.,-.7....,.....:....,;..1_,:„:„R.„.. ,,,::::.„,-7,.,,.. --... ., __ . , _. _ , ! ' -.'""••',.--',..2-2••,:::-•,:::•-7.'f17,•`:::,':':'•:,.:'''''',.77,..,,,,';'-'''':•••::'-''',...:'1..:,.:: :-•.::'•-..•;;7,..,•„.ft;.*:.f.•:,:',...:".":.:.:,:',-;::::...:.'...„,•,:''''''..:'.;•.';'!;-;•:•','....r.';':1:•....7;:.;'-'''::-...,.'..•:.'',1.,'-',.',TS:,:':'•''.7‘'.:::2f..:;::'''''''....:'••;;;;;:•••'-'-•'''''.:,:7.:::-..',:.::-••:., , . '. .2'. •i• . t' ;".-, •,. 7•..72:::7''''•'' ...'''.7'7:f.':.:7•;::7:.:`;;;:,;':.:':•:'''''....'..;•,,-; .:',•.'7;'''',-.7'::•!f••:f..."::'.:•'-'''•-;'..s.:::::-.'•':' ":::"..:::..:::••• •.:`,71'.::,..:,'-':.•:'..-''''',.,...:.', ,:7',..''.',.. . . .,,. . . „ .. . , . . . . . . . . • ....... . .- , .., ..., •.. •• -.. , -'- "...•••__-.. ' :: — '1:7•;';. i ' ..:...:Figure t . - HI CRCWAYC IRAtt SSION SYSirt4 . • ,.... • ....- ,'?"-;,.'. . ...„:'..:.:..1.,; Scar Region r far Region 1 • r < A/2k t r > A/2k -.._. (s.v. I t '!"..:;',!•-..! I --e-....; t eedhorn I .... I ''."••".;;';'..,:::.• I I . ..- ....4--' t 1 ...- -- -1. ."' - 7-- r.....•,:'.'7,. .--' IraA,itiort w t7 I wma; r. 4 Wo Afttenhd W '.'- '-'-• 1 Reg i<at 7' -. W r, Ave fast pester der.,ily - Witm. il = Mt id.tot oos...r dvnt.i 1 y - Wi co.2 hut Tronsmit ter Wo .• ro..er density ..t J•Itt...Ina aert of c • a'',:s..1 r . Rounet.y of near .t.otl fat rcq.on g X. = Wavelength of ricrnrate - Cr. •..,....•.-'4.- i * Cross sectional area o: aatcr.rts - co.. , ...".•:".., ''.',:jr.,::........, • • III. POI,Elt DENSITY LEVELS SURROUNOINU A ' ;t; IftAHS!it 11fP. 1.."....2.:";.,:. 0 Ateo tot It,4 tarn It. ,.1 's sr::•:::.,V.:;„ ''.•.V:iiA: I. i!.s/ • Sipco the pc.t.ntial ba rard (in ay.:or. vattst ) of a r.— .. -.:• A ll'Iliv•Mit.t.ion unit 4•Aendt upon tt.e rt.,s,r tk,,c;I f ' '•'..7:1'at the print Of hide 0,(.11ur C. Pt ut FA' tut.) 1.•...•:.;-•:••:. time at rronsurr. our interc:.t e,at,st. t.I. 116, it VAryItsj di-1.11,o'. Ir .. tt• tt•-•••oit"Int :',.::::..'.•''' dOner den..ily it,elS erit,titot .tt di?tett t 1•P:A- antennh 0.5fty C i.:4,11.1 f•I'tvt: ,f rrn..1:.a tiari: nits r eLPar I to tit. aittoonl et t..1'.•rt..r. • rrfrar.tion detottnico the;...,•: ,t••,•.i:, I.,,,t, -'...2:•:'-:;',.. • For er.m•ple. i t tie cr.n end ht th. 4.,1' •11.1•2‘. Cmterol I It. t A:. tt •.I I;C i'.::,..• A. , : ••to•:a•••1; (or tett! !•ortt) i,. a •„,.farce of lok.,1 au!) I.... (1) it., •scIr ii,;,!• (,r Irr art rr.,: r.! %.' Pcourc, it,re..-r dr”sit) - wt., di ihl 1 (...i,,* II: the •ftir t it•I•:• i.t It ...0.4,ttt t-4:1,1. .1 !,•!•}1 F...,..E.,' ..,... .. . ta:t.e ter, ra•lion; ti...,P h... trs,....;•i.••• r•,i,t. . ",...;H:.••:., ' ' 7..7.:;•,:.:-. ....) , I • .":.•:‘.."..".." .... ....... . . 111 0 . .... • ' ..!..7"'id....if...:',.i' ' ' ' ', ' ..'".-' . . .'', .:"S"'".".."7" .'27''''..t.:"'-.•''''..:'''-':'''''..;:,"''''.:''';L:..:;;;"'''''•"J.' '.: '-' ' f , ' 1 ... :II.' II...:7 • j• . 1 I COrtt31111ftl lisl'.C.Nrit,1 f.1,tOff. ..it.h m:KO il i., %het C P3V.;b1,! to or,:.liz•t df ttr, f;clj I n......, tiC'.. Th0 I.0.ni Of t,.., N..tr :I.J ( ;i: ti,l.v: ;•.! vimu . ..-r C.,,ity :: •0- .is:• • me projt•ct!I(nit few...." r;yid is n font I i,.h, I/i ./t!VC,:.. thC ClOtt.-,,....ctio,,1 mu.: (oflorti.0; I: thn ..,:a. we =. tynrain ',-,t,'r C, •ily ..., ,--, - trrma .111..1 t 1, 1 nn1.1. Of the h we. .3 f If.i1.) to turn iflu',1tf. r.j. followit,) fern:Ono: (........: I i‘juti:C; • Thu% tht` 111v i^unt h ....t• ,: n... .. iv t,. .. • < A • :Ind (?) Field ;:t a tinus t?e• .1,4.•:t. t• •.' ' ;.• : .-.. 2K :).e anIcrna/,:••rton• .. 1 A It (A) O. POSCf Ovf.ST 1) i n r,r f;-0,1 - -1 Peyntia ton to if: n: l t'•• ; • ,;!;., :;,'.• P.)...r .1.1. .C.,, v,f in.: i.i.or'•1. --,it.: •:i... = r.o.".•of Tht:r I ii.14• (it i... nfAitriht. .ft - Nine of -it, f lelil" in...1. • •tent.7 1__ . x a = 'Wert:se crw.t-••••••,tit.n..1 .,re o or ..- A2 si ir) toftna Where k -z.wrie,,,ilth ti f mit rhnave in 0,3. .., -.; ptkowl 14.1,•,4 1, ;It 1.1r :i,',, I' ..1 t.. . r,r eho-411n„ with 3 13 CM NiC,4/.te ,,,,a1 on ; effective Cr',sin.% Arra or 9 1.1unf e wntn!.., (9 x le% cn.1). Ha, soar relit.; wo-1,1 t,:t••.! t 1 woltnfrn.., nn(onx;r•ntely et;....a I t‘r,. 1:r :::3:.,ut :....J f 0, A,,,, loratior, 1. t,t• t,,:.v.of tn, •,,,,C. arol t,,:ot ;'„O (not r,...:util tin in tnn trnnnition :one, of in the v w;ore'.4,,Ith of I!, n;e Fro I:etit. I • r =di..tno,o fio, I:: hito,,i in (•. , A, .Power (tensity in the ho3r lid ? for ,..t•-,,I., t... ';.•13 I.,. I .1t .i;v- ;:. .... Wi Mill the Iraf i;rid the ;owe, ot,o..;ly i'. It-- ntw,ie 0,,,p't•) ... :V:, f: •1 f ,,, '...., ...,•...• . eft&c.11.1,I) tsh.,taot mil ;14;1 roil-ot fif III:ton:o w...Oli/ ho 1/. nn hi:v. .,, 1044 riot I po,..•r :kr, .I. . Icon.tht hiltChn.l len exArt•In futin< inf. ..3C•o 41 MU (Vat. ''.'.. ainntioneJ nntinf,i), the po.er dcnty Zt CO tin.l frtai the ohterton*Dolt;he ANtrn,:imately on,11 to C. Power Density In transition lane the por:rr f!..ntti I y nt :00 font fro A ti.: Ma et.o.‘. the intent.ity wenlil vary :1;.1htly 0.;0.in t..iS At distaiiet h .nnii tot: trroltiy it.'',- .i fe9;0n, a•Pf nithhi .40ri the :Allow dn.,;,r,„ to t Pent: two iii,no. r ft ot;;lel 4:11.1 t,It,f it. , any event, the Clci Myth 1/0*Cf tit VI ;17. ,, . in thi•hex?. the filth. totoo. nod.vo,8..1 (ooriox i the Near Resich Can he ,typrox:hated by tho Sot tioft or thn ate; All terd t9 n..k.• ,:,., ..C,: I...1• . . 107.6) lornolo: • Ct..1.1tiOn,fl;!fic ult. C.,o,•olt„ cro '. 1 a . ...,.,. to t ti. .to fir:T •: ,tit, i 4) • ,•. •'•• . • ''!'7.:: . . —• • ' ''..1.ii.:.' 1 • 1111 . • . . . ..• • . • .. . • ' • ry I. • • ../.••. a G L.• s near the boundary and a •,,,n,t toe 1r value.i ,:r : IY. HAZAPDS OF HICRCWAYfS t thi5 would intrudu(c a positive safety factor in assay,,j the pctential hafr,rd of toe bt.rn. In 19Sr, under the -po^:^r•••;n rf t.. • - Cral Ele`tric Corp?r`tien, a reef r.•.•::.y ,,, O. Ahlt.`rMa Glen hcfd in Srhlnf•(t.>ty, ar« tot., iu Often the antenna focusing c:.arncteristic 1, ,arils of n;"�+:,..- raai:ai....) ;• ••>t iS defir.ed a: antenna gain (c). crpreSsed ei- the most ifc;,rl.o i rfft r: w_n, fen ''• titer as a ratio or in torus of decibel!.. «rose• ^ye rat Mart and for elrs'.:r+! tc-:(-:•.:'. , • the decilci is a logarithmic function (to the ternai *Noss. lot t,.«;nt •1 r.i. , ;•, base 10). to deCibels are a mvttiei i fa,toil fat- top Kayo Clinic in ..:rt.r•••t:r, Kt,,:r It n, • .. tut or nails of 10 times; 70 decibel:are a .!tin • anal'Ire-«,wire (❑.,!;:ary) (,•t.•r.••,.. .. , of 100 times; etc. ine gain mrf Le calculated Otttutcd in 19:.i. Si..r In,n, fu.r e.•.e ,.�',• 06 lotions: rneos have berm held. c i 71 A err. (6) the n,tfard of aor ra.l;int ..,.,14 >• },2 to dfprr.d no at 1r.,•i t.ra ia'.ir (.11., • ,. .._ the energy evail.e,S. in.:.e ;r.l:•e t.. . .. • . (eaa.e units as (5)) action in metier. oral !:) t•,r : .. 10 that in the far field epuition (;) may se or e.Mer7y :,trurrt;on i, ..:tt f. - . 1 written: ed foal a5 the I„« do..r;, t,:•ir..• .1 l'... .• of rtrl;alien or.•.I..,.-. o y r,.. .:.. if P c (5a) ;unit at ion in L:..•, t. ... , all .ff. 1 , •' - - �� { ear r? bad/ inwot v, Dena r.,l Or I:.:'Ili. . • , . 1 no..m nn, lot••.e 4•1 h r t:. 'fi:.....v:.' ., (:.eta` !•nits as above) priu:ti-if tat of tt..` ,w:wv i el . , I. :,;`• In a::et:;n) the safety of a sand fit.radar tilt of rn.•..; ,•urCt:.a. .., .. installation, a fast net'.od of•r1\i:: on e.t1_ ity and p....•lrario,. :•. a « ., . . mate reguirir.g a m;•,ao-.of ma:t.:vatic: ._„d.r ien!ytn (or treitear,), ., .. ...•'« vi51.a by Csrrr,.ti,.17 11,7!only tl.r.:t:1.1,47.1 <a:,t;- more d•:-.ti e.i It.,,•other.. for . . lic•5 re!.:•SS,ary art (11 the JiNr..•ler of the fin- ;S tramC'.MPot to wn. .;pr. :r« trnna aierbor.. in t, t: ;71 the ay.:ri,)r y,aw,r, !!also S..t n,,,.:yet• , (,,r ...-„ ;•, , -- in matte.: a•,d (3) :ha •s.flar.ti., in U:at;nl� no rrtt•r:.), left .,...nr;t•;r ,r t tM:. • Oak0 lornalas for RGd:,r sore Di,.tances erg/ iS ah•nftL.1 Ir. tut.,GO'y, All u' .• .,•. ., (lw',cd on po.er density of .01 ++Itirr..?) .at'sivo.a., ., let,. than 3 rn in , i,. Au, r, and Sa btn•1:). ;•. ,rGr1 .. If averaaa pus.t:r ..In Safe di stantd our f.t•,r: rite. es. •. r.;^r of intt-lie , . salts (M) is. in feet ;5: Only fist• F.R.I.ar.A r•tl:,e: .,.t t.tt :.r.i . , , ed.* At a aveten.ti. of ) .m, O.. ;..,:;,.1: t. ; . 1. less than) D2 All Safe a0tiirbe4 try tin: •.1.in ..r.d ln.• !Ai., ,err••t..1(,,,; 7.tl5 l� react with a stn.-Ilia/4 of :.i3i .w+t:. pr:>.. .".. 2. 6ttlneM ) D2 And 5.D 02 Ywcl,a.gin ;n cm adequate warning. • ). er S.6 D2 6.AS OVA— Absorption and d.ro.e teen tees fra.h t lb Y • Ov ttavCirf,rth in cm 10 en In lanptn•(r, C or() : t,ord..) .i„• fir:fel W it Ocet.,yr Omer output of ,.,Aetna in.31t5 10 the 101. layer!.of tot. is•, •:tt• .,I.;^l••ti- D 1 di.0,fir 0 f a.11,,ia ', foot Cat des cue Io the .,,tense ;tit'. L t•., . , - ,-) ` tenili. increases I.ey,r,l „ f.. (t. i.:r'(. ion. _ • • • • • F • •.) 7 • • energy is .bsottsd beton the skin surfar. %t.tre fat. 'mettles. or hone. toe!. of w-n•or there is little C:.paCily for neat sensation• ha: been attributed tic intnrtrr,ore .i:h.r that damage maw Occur before a pain naming is - Celtation of signets in ::,e n,ro:,r. '.i :, •+• given. Toe lens of the eye is particularly Ca'- xnch.' teats with mil',L hint •.1 c,•:! t: , C eptiLle la 10 Cm radiation. A: the .ay.tenet,. Cta'.n formation of •p.•:.rl ri.,i ;y;-• ;. ircrrateS Iron 7S tm to 200 cm (t band). 'mitt direction or the rn:.littic:: fie',.' of (tut energy is AbArberl wi rain the Lady. (Inge, nO.•nrnon tat':Egan '.u.pjcaed .et .c c.' i h'•• tern, the deeper tissues may 'CO hereoncly alfe-t.d meet for t.urer. bath bet note of lt.c lath of Coat SL'n:.11eon dr•..•p wet?.in the l ily and also t,ornuhe of the in- ft. total lady tfferts • . : (rOa:e4 'lbantr:ion of a...ilabte energy at toe Site of tha int.•,rotl urgent. Ohre the Intaa Cc.sty ' c.'.,r.• S i . ,.. Ware ricld il. 1•....•r.••.ur: .. •, - , A. LOtxli:eJ reati,.1 fff5Cls lu Cniee• lieease•do tape. in•^e•,;1r, .. Certain trail. uriur. are P,rtirular!y •anti- :v:orr. is • , • Live to the efrcrtb CI m'rruw r.e 1,. 39'. a ,...:(away ,a' I. .•t'., r .. ' . ,. report ',it iC•.u^d ihorusin,) cyC eytnr.0 t'. ce. .. , .. r,.,,t ;t• lanai_, .. st.11:11ftc.:au.•.r. Jrca'Y.aret_ .Swet . ..' •Crle,drh. a'.,......+ ,.. ' . !.• at l'C Criti:t. S. v.l••h•it'. 0.'.,t of C to Cm. !rhea... i ..1:•.,,L,a: by .. . ... ., (Inn 19 ra. or S.u,d. iS 'S.e r.o;t C.oc';rcc. .) Cy tcth,,t ,.n,•it,• ,, ,. 10. ,. .t. r . . , Llthougf. the o04;4..0 ret,,tt indica!,J th..t her` 20 a,i11iwaa:!rn,t. n_•..... ;. 1 •.. deluge it rc'.'r:ihte, tater :Audit..., iodic+,t..c eneloy U.•oa !.,,-:antic•; ...r.et•rt„ r., f„• i, (Oat the eye C. le it i..unohly Cc.rulAtive .and rrnrc u. :h••c , • . . nOnrevcrtI to e. c',:.Cevr, tni: fee for has runt yet at•q the• tut act. ... a rt...I i..•..:.,tc,, . se•�• he+w Ct.ccClusivcly proven. Ills mijur r.unulati cc' that atralrbel rent ircled,• l:•. td+:r, t •• , Offt(I, Inn J.vt•1Cer0nt of op ace tie; in the i t is estir..eteJ IC...t :i;••et 0:•,M1,. .. ... Crystal:ic!•ie+.t.of ins rye, ray moor t.ry au'e .1 watlrrn.', :.. .. 1,. , the lox vottr.e of Llea,: transfer in the eye pre- t(.t•.'r.,t„re 7e,C. (or a' f,j." vents rayia di!:epainn of the abcOrb,'4 he.11.2 COctor:oho I. r..:t,,stet i:.'S ,,, , It ha:a!::, heen ref•arted5 that the (ettcs 'neie to.lvec a.iy:afro(': t•,n ..... `I, , are alfec ted by 'c c absorp(eon. In tl.it rasa four nays: • is ,.'.rr:ihlc at only tree„tarily ia- doted !Morality is a 0os'.e1:el ity• S,.Ci or,;anf. .+t 1. Ito.), may take t left e r.,t•act ,••. t taw brain. -t•ina! cord, and liver can •alto b,: tClcral:lt Ir.r?- $.td ...0., ..tt,,t t, ,• da+raltvt by U:r'? c.di.diont. f t bah been rtpur t- Or death. ed that h,'+ugl..bin Lees sine Of ith Cvyg.cc Car- rying capacitya„J tt•,et the ready•%natural auto- ?• humrt can Of a ray... .a:m,.nl i"n�,t c, lit: nestic heat cents;.t :yslnn becones Ie: et fit i,•r.t. - :'r� Cbhol� C. A hart d.tagrr a twat ;r t, Certain otfr of tarts e:have ton report,J. *arch 44ardt9 „ m;.tent. AS rr:ananCC or rale,tion in vario.e: hc11:,x C,,v• -), ftJl.v ut.,r sh:nrp n tiun of ,;•..r. _ iv- itiO'. (:oc•. a: t!•C er,.ce,cl Cavity or 'pu.el col- (Cr he rb rith',fluter 1.:,y•i,,IJn ire +, iv- one) Causing lo,ai feat t.,itJ•uf• If leer!",• finite nurwer of ...y,. effect tan t:o:r lesions due to refir'tee.ny It,:, • r ,:I et.ain•, ,•,cS, i• ,, ter. Jr•,•,C,. ;i. ,weal t 1 , ttirir. in .. • -•. r•' t,Jnse 10-icrt.ava• t..J.u,t eher.yy. • •• 11943 • . • ., - : ...,..;-..:,-...":'::.4,-;:.""'',t.,:..--'..7.,..„ .,'.••-....-...'..,:-...--i'z:-..-.'„.,..".7••: ..1'...-:".,',.....";-:...........-.-?..E:''....---...:....-...7'.',.---...-.....''•'7.72,2,..:;:i'`.=:,'FF...17::::".---'-'":7:..7.'''i''''...'"'.-","'"-.7'."'..`"•-•'' . • ' - ,• • - z.i.. . -_-... -,.. ,. - / -, . 'I ? -..,. .,.., ..- • - '-• it. sicro*:.vc-..., a i re,Sly 8S LICat. or in t,t,mt• Civet;OVA 41 work Iti a:Atli.t•a%r•••', 3•1 3... • .... ....... ....... other IX.Itatir. ALL an stres3es-1 awl net wit stratert the nmeer from,t•ro•e,r• to •••• ... •, . ;,. • the%ti0nt'. reartion with at) ;In towli•nisz•bl: of 12.21.rm. Until further i•O;),.A:,,r. i. . sequelae wh %L;rh follow in e wAs.e of the able, tisin fo,m of •-nt r..sr t.s.,••,',1 v.,- .ir•-•,:, acute atiiiin rr..wlirw••• neer retpect at CLL.., ,..‘'9,6.! t't+L;. ..,,o .• At X fart. Won%I t xtyfc, ood•••wirt•tr...1 ; ''-:•-.."," thic clinical p a:ern of capillary fr.e•til it h -.. -..;.:....., . .., failure of .1.Iti.s.te clot s••sr.tction. WO . nor- mot hIcedina, r..s. ter4e pienentcd. ''.:•"..':;":',.• T ai4 il I Otto's!. 01 elOtOtttet E.Crt(ii Os tetC'Marth • •;::::;,..7.: ref Ouths:Y :ISIS CS re.ratt htfon::.•rtti-• *stvEll'•61ts unets lltr fissaln ft:t.h•g 1..4 t‘ :L,.. ..el .. '..F,•';...r. (M) (ro) — —--...-- --- -_.....-..----- ------- — • .'.....:.,....;,'.:' • haft LLAti LO.LPIO 'eV, Lh.a. ) Au.L.t.t ,11,4 0.r.tt it.''t!, 1 • r'-',7F.7.:7''' 10,000 3 1 ..;k;.t ..4 ia•• rlit-t 4;1,- •'" .. 10,0 r-j40.0 5-10 . 1.tr..of •ti• W.Cao.s.v.'ts • 3-)0 X,C„'4.1 t••,,of cr•-• .''....-.;.'"; 1,700-she in-i00 wet-till It-totem) t al) er•f•••.• Cr,,:c ,,, i.. •.. t ,, • iron/...•r•.. ....., !. • le:.!. tiOn letti &DOW, ZOO •,.•,..7..,.'., -.- __________ .. ......... f•Ti;:.:1•.:::::.';', '0,'".'..',..... V. E SI A B L I S il t.0 IHRESOOLO LittlIS .6 VOI.r. ll tie .03 %....' • ... 1.••• werl..je,.1 Loltr Ine.• 1..v..1 t. (for it. WI to .1.t .itii•...• i...:2,2.r.;71....... fleill 'lot.. it, *I.., ict •tit I"; chelli..tit. h.r L'i.'...,...-,.."...' I.•,.t;,..i. ,.I i•/.,,' Of 0.1,.".)• • :II 11 1 .' •.....,;. ?,...• .,t 6,. I:.. I.1 -.1 8 1,.4„5 t„:.r,,, ,it..0..... • ' .... .., '..'.;."-.S... • , . • Intl . - -''' '` ''',..'' .'‘.:.'i' .,'_",''. ''.';;'::''''..,..7;'.-c''''1":"fS'..:'...."--. ;'L'''.'.''''',.:''''....:'''' ::'',..':':•••.'''':•'1' e"•- • , . . , _ . • ' . — . . . , . . - • .• •/ r ". •.• yoreoy-.military 41.partmont-. oho.. -01 too rIn./r of tl.r• i• •- set by .i tort,:arld uf .01 oattiol. aenut on metra-... of 1:'0 rev( ?) Per 1 ocal 1,1%1 111.,.!T tf.f. IN.dy netticr. '.lotion to tl.rsa or r .....ea„ rtas,r.ItoPq *hauls! ..at t.e elevates! to tr,p;•,attires ss.,;ct; fl'a,s,t1 of IP•ss.! (106 P.:It 4. pelt.. ufli1.c,..t,,pol Ito t•r t isSue 11111t 0111.. VI the C..4.. (IN.GC.1 4..11 ties. the 1.A,At!limits for eopn•,.ur.. apply env a f.ltnn of aproa.it.it.-ty (rl fi; .1 part Of eel. worn nil I ,Jurcc•, of me.ro- N(Or • (it/h....:ritirs for aar ,1•1 pro:,-• .• II,1170.. are eon/3.ot lolled into a /lorry.: hi t!ta) a•ty 1.4oas: .1/...(rr rang., of onvit fezt. 1Jsilr; far criterion (.01 r.:•ttiter.5) aftd fornorlet 41i:•./-tra en `4-..1loft 111, 1be a•tor-ree. I. CROWAVt trtittl tOtt nhuME7.11VP.if1711: romp for tereal ttptcal nernmovr Iran .,him strutters/01 ty- follawc: !It for ;of lfer.rni sr .it Ts, P• , • transmitter opre.,tin.z at an nostrtue of l.04 *our.;tempi yr tra • vr:rkt T,„ *ill, 410.0 ss:tyt.1.041,*bessl, aP4 a lialn 1 me az .arl ottl/.11" 7:17' *I aft(h. (10°ven): ..1401,of /60 ro•ry •-‘14, far t.e; P (t/.11 t tea. .worm. -1...•••.t - 1.. : •- .", it f* Of dote/gilt-1 taa* :14.a • 4 • to OA. for' to. 1- • • fbert....fc .1%4%. 1,1,.1. •1.1 1...11• lug Pi; ft ra.•./.•/- 4.1W!fus.ilort is :•1 .1'•• • .11I 61111t/1116:' 116t11.0661t I• f.a114110.1 pr.'•1..t. 11.6 • G 104 • /..' Ito* t ri. t. e tor.ov:.1 .401101 1.46,1..16116.41 116 0161 1 . ✓ assulPrisos •p ;4 rt.. l'sail.st ;:.‘ if..;•.;‘1, . •T- ; tixv. !lifts Jul t..•!`apfl('1.13 3 pp tar,..r.of 61t-1111.. 0.11. fn., (or pl.ou) ul •", 71g. •••in of• 707 fort. ,. LC44'11041. Inifi...1.1111 ,,If ,! toe by •ottIiiIrt4 a1-1 teCt..--4 Only IS to.- twa,.;rti ; In "I • (I) to alive: iaalal 1.sAt Ai;&siva. in ( CX taa) at oroo.ost. ..i 1,',',I tl.so rs.,oprs•prPt ar ttfiappai% sup.1p.s.;14;1‘,. for w here I. e. Paoliar eay aot +t, 0-ut ui 4 ou u p000r 0.,. tu 7r 1A/1410/%1 amt..;I+.sti‘ ;04. . 161 1.1. 1.•••'• X to en. Manufaaty•o.1 tip 4*-/ry Metlyy..or litin" Ii rooia• Ca.11.....;.s. km,•'• rAtsq.•p! 11.ad• it./o. t/tvl",ion ul e.errer (”r:t.r.sliva • • wail *art •-•=.• 11'15°' . , •" • , . . . ' . . .,: ' 77.:.;--.,..,:`,-,-.....f.'.T.7i.', ....•.: '. -..',''L.''.!"- :''''''. '''' - -.. ':' ' '.'-'' '::-'''' -:'--.''''' . . . . , „... . ,.., ...... . . ,.'...... ... ...... . - .. ..- -.1 • . ..... . ...::':.... .... , -;.... ... . . _ 2. Rancor Oensiornter ftldol 1200, range 200 to 5. Accurate riear.urerv•ol. of eritt int r-ti 0.tom /0,000 men.*cychts: flower denSity 1.0 to :0 intensity leant..by reti.e5te if. ',Iv •,t". i., mittimAttnicml: pot art zAtinn Orbendnnt: the Made of prr.s”mh..1 welt price Str95. 140 of :Arch equipment. manufactured by Rancor tncorporatrd 190 Out fy Avenue. tirkhvil le. 11.Y. Protection from riert-.4•..-.• r11;1!.... '• pittfil•Ated by Pent ton S.itter..014 trsli- often be 3etcAn1i',1,1 tr 1,,•• u'i'*. neering Company. tOs Angelo:. and f 4to either in the farm n* .-sva barrinr• •r MU?, Calif. 1octiye tt thin.t. 0.,:iatizr :.-n c • .' •,•• I .. '....::.'f . Certain materi VI% t...re'• ,..r• .:: slated*it .1 fuleJ••! nr4 .] ..-.1•:,,•;,!..,•• :• • • ••:•••••:1'3•••• ,. Oennity Pete; rtod.ul Of-157; range 200 to ftected try mire PC•1•1, rOrst.trurs.• 1 . ••'.1', . 1 10.001 p„iyktyrie:,; eoner dignity 1•••re1 I tO .';',"';'5'.. . -. ttlAr%-dic.41 r..1,m1,..ti.n.I' •.••- .• .. . .. 1.00*mill i,..,:',...Iem : pular i:at i..n 4.:eon.tents c"ct". • • • ..:.....ii;•;:.: f Dui rroentS of mn Olt Is,.: •oe TJ'tt"-t!• . : • 1' ftanuf.K.1are4 of rrnire Oevir... ..'''...;.:.^7.s. ter arc; AsnUs:.“ %sir. ..::.:;:;J:.•''' Is Redact inn of hi.p•I r,:el .i,.!: .e.r.0. -...1.,.:;'''f.i.'.:; YI Is PIELCSSaa SAf Er( PRECIAITIONS the riarninnt to ..0.; I.,.t.. ,, .;•• moot. • . .., Of prin.," iuportanse in J prO•Ir.r' Lf •••••frtAY /..:.:71••77 IS An rir.T.ItS•Jr,er.t or eV:11011131i or Ire 4.../.10 In 2. rrultr lion ::iiir.•t 1.;.:•,. v •.1 .4. '75•• 1) . OcCupii....1 or pete.li'rily to..I.Ilit.i 4r• ••,. 1 -rs of 1:4fi1t up in the 4..,,,,i. • the information eAsir to tIO''•I.V.1i;ha 011 would .., .:'.''..-......:'' be: 3. Stigist.s.r.-.:Tictltr.or y,.. .:1;•,,. • ;PI: alai eleYter;tv. . 1. snontedte of tt.c• type of oicteysye ir.stnt- . ':1.-:.•,::',".. ..‘ ..,...... lotion insolura. cud,at: f fo•rs,:ru y of nlud. SIMI:J0-05et 1,1, '.1 0: oc..,11. •. t .• ;,...,...• • ''''....;:'''' poner ltuel, gains duty tyCle, airile of rotation. etc. 10 ref tcct .s..- eeer;,.. r ,.t. . ••• 1: ' ::• • ,2.....' Cu "..•;. the•I fr.ti..•••-. c, :1 •••••."1i . : l 1. toos.learr.Of the calcul3ted di..tnnset. f ron IA M nut SPLZi.lo,o,,,, •••• All ..t,... ,.... • .. . the notr,nha to toe houndary of t‘it.4rti:Oly ...Ives Isom .1 c .1.e.y:ik. 10 1,..11:. • , . '.. . : `,....:'".''.: hats zur.cr.. A 1;11 Of CA1,:vt.,tel •O;r•- f..11 ...a S sje.....II..a rod J.7...1 t!.,' Ai-••••••• • . tAhe c...t o 9,undary of Potentially ma7;stano: hers•;:fe iscchanis.al ant s ft,'i rt....!!.1 t• l'-'. •' '' •-•:!:,..', Zones of r.my ra.isr sets Is s.,eented ;n t(.r.plOte If.5••1•rt Cr .4...,,, ••.: .,•,..:::;:....1,.:.;....' Reference AS, ranoing from 2.5 feet :.trortifoi 0.., Ai 11•::•" vi•11.11i..1t. 11 .' t, • (Allypr5-A f tO..f) LC,more t1',91 I.t.r.il es fur tort at ...te 1 y i lt .1 el,.....1 f C.,portlt rin•• 1041WS S)Sto•rS. inio,..., Anwar ,Irrt...;Iv ;.. lt.•..i1e, I...•".r•Ofe '',.. ..F...7.-2 tOrittive Mo. t!.• pee .....1 11•A• I ici t I...%t".-ll' ,. A lir.linq of osnsal and uossitrls. locations of roro st ns AO O.,i!•••/..1• Of vouthi,j pe.te,J,01 JAO ti,o•1••,••r.11 1,,,,..1 I.- lion nSt r• re:i..I to the r.tai it;est 1••0.•!J•.5•,. 11;rA., Ow••ie• at'. I .4-1 IP,al•tri.. •1 4.;It ji', ..•'':c,::: to 4.41,...e, 1.0;tat It. tt • ;.1.1,..tiat. " .1. • :''.';':;.'.•:- a. au assare..re..1 of the pre;rnre of I•ior.ty re- tit•Od Alwrotvor I pl.tynt;.t .A,••••„:-• I•;• flerti‘e ..vrf.tert. {mall*, mi.,: an, rt*.; deYiee... ce..s;:.t;u1 u: •:.t.tri: rr.nr- I.rrrt•Jt• ;•51-•::'..f..2::•:- 11 A., 6r! ;',. •,, , n 1,, iti, 1.1.4- 2.!'.....i''''',-•: • •••••, - .1 14.... • ,,.---, ..., .......,.:.-:--. • ....,. . 111)6) - - • . • •• 7 , " .L • • . . • ••' ' • •7r.:;:.2. ••:•;•,:-'r.• • • . .7:7; 7.; 2.7 • ••":72: •••• 7;17: • : . ' —. • • • • • 11 re"( J • • in the frentrfactare And testing of Slystmn mieruiravel Orest•ot the Oassihil it, of isiti•e l‘t tuheii an/otser SoorreS of micron rred,, brat ter et ett r Shith;14. beanS nay tf ralrase& tt id esSential, ttietre• lore, that Potentially haiacsktits Para'r,/tosIties Diets.If ecti*tayr ), even of ronatt areas he rev:Ignited and oT tirti lion of flash.114(.1, tr ere rr;-,;:.,1 !wireless. a tailor unit IGO Teti arrtr "' 1 ^. in;Ittv tattSe itt 'heartionrneth• ;qt.; • , 11.11-h but trs.•tir. ors Art.tr in-.At t.1-. r r•-• Till. 01/1fR HAZARDS TO Of CORSI Ot Rf 0 1 at in to aircraft (110;r1 htt.. r.r. In addition to the dire,t h ds azar tram thr ra(tal thfr' r; • '1,77:, wit ;VMS thenSetveS, ono must consider the kOntiotirtfn thiPA) h" .e a "* i tent Creca.rd• -"f! Poddibilitv of orPo•mres to the 07-1,104 Alfhtet irre on toa ,,st sls,2' • , t 111 sieve Seen Its X rZarS, tot tfdviclet ray:, anst tkir*lusli•wttc Pre"-"h4e infra: rays from the elystrun tohcf.... further, 11'444*bet° ta4.4 TAit's.in tn more, the high rut ta.rt-t.used for generallerit of ,47-N • • • • forte.nr infornItion on the evaluation or colottal of mt.:reargue mryri rtItAtr. L tr•rn ti•t‘ Calih'irit St.t. nt 4,1 tel.': 1k 11.4. 0.1 :I!! t...•1`r .!fu (It. ; p• at 14 .4r1 I &1'14- 444i - VT , • 2 • • :»r C• 12 • RE1fNCNCES • 1. 'Microwave Rsdiation• by R. C• *union, Inimical bulletin 30. 15 July. 1St.:,a.:.r 1:ir:. 0ivi6100 6f loran 4roer4a01 aviation, lot. •Are R.,tar R.tdiation; Owwinmua, A Survey of tl•,•Pns^,bla•no:ards• by C'.•• t•..*1•. ori1. Co>n:J E1rCItonics, b.ty, 1960. 3. •MtCtGAwc kadiaticn Naltfd'.• by M. M. VP46•.an4 w. W. Rumford, Mcnttt.Y•v'.if;. v,.t. pp 160-160. June, o. 'MitrOwlvc Ra4iotion 0f 10 mwJCntt' by tat+. U. U ktor11no. Pi..0. and Ir.,a.,. w. 51,.'•c•••.• Industrial Medicine.md 5ur•tr•ry. Vol. 10. cry. 6, .luit, 1%1, S. •Mien:At: a Catdr.vts•by T. G. nirscn, icwaf Conf. no ite3'-tt•, Et'Cirm.:i, . April, 1951. 6. 'Pratt Chin lorr.:.,t:u9' by J. f. ncrrick, Mt,.p.. Prnrv,,ti f.•:- of the f 1.i Confcreo c an Bir:cgical iitt1116 or Nicr0w1.0 the,'4. t.;. a!• f. .. 601ti7.A.✓I :• Can.Jhrt. 1:„pt0:4Cr, TS.o. . 1. PtOceedingt of Third donut! Ti i-5eruLCc Crufer.•n,•:'•r uisd..gie.,t Cif:•c t:u. ri;- • Radiating E,1ui0'+rnts, au;utt, 19y9. B. 'twat Entangle Crtaracter i ttics of animal%fate.:1.1 Sr. 1'1 rus Mi•taa w.'.^ la 1. C. I', :. I 0. E. Colda..n. 1.R,E. Ttans. ItId. Electron MJ-u (19,6}. 9. •R3dio Iroouency Rtdittfan Mnyard5• Rov. 1 January. !9,9. T. O. 3t-1-t,0^. a. force. • 10. Bio,osical II feels of fr,.tia frouneoey Rsdi atinu - Oiotin.l+nl•nr. M nl'.'r••n a,•• •.:r Oevei6Grn,t C.otrr and Midr.c•,t Revartt tnr•:tt,t•'. trtt. 11. 'meth Alyards trout Microwr+o Radiation' by Joon 1. Mt lauRhlin, M.D. dc•.t••r.• • •• Vol. 111, no. it, April, 1962. 11. biological Effects of Mief•.xavc N•tdiation, vol. 1. Protne4inrys of the fu..•t* A..• •l. Tri-Scr.lec Conference. 1161. •Effects of R.t+:ar TVanati.'n; on the R.vwltennieti, ;y•.t•w• by P. t. 1?e's^ .to" COhn, M.O.. Aviation ft..•dicinr. vol. ,i:njl, fors.¢•ar, II. •Pot:iblC Inds ntr ill iJL,rdu in tfic OSC of M1 crows, fr:uil.,t l.w• by U. n• Min.: ,c1 , J. E. Randall..tlectricil tetincerinl. OrtAlsr, 19'St. • IS. 'Same Chihli...rim; a•,vrcts of Microwave` Ra4i.,t ion $n..adt• by R. :. fw,n•f an;''. m? V. w. lNnford; hi Ref. 11. 16. •Ocvolrment of for Prot.4 tint of P. ,uu..I w,uf.in,l in Nigh f'.-+N I Inc.r`n- rwnt:• tf M. G. .,.1. • ,•. 1,.f. 11. I1. 'feat formulae for Rut.r :trip Oiutanrat•by N. S. Oretv:.u. in e.g. f:. • 1,1/ t •� • • •GHRfSr • Pv Oq • p • `` do 5, 34VtL LUT1iERAN CHURCH,' • est ,� a S4044 9 0l 0 vac,Irp bb j Ul alt3,- -% M,I_ 12 • ••es�►'A S53f3•PHONE got: March 19, 1979 • City of Eden Prairie f Eden Prairie, NN. 553hh • Dear Sirs: • We respectful)/request a zoning change in respect to our parish house, • located on the western portion of our land and facility at 1a515 Luther Way. Our entire parcel, including the parish house, is presently teed public; we ask that you re-zone to R1-22 the eight tenths of one acre and the house under consideration. The house was built as a parsonage and was used as such from 19o2 until 1972. Since that year its primary purpose for us has been to arcomodate our parish education program, particularly on Wednesday evenings and on Sundays. ABC Day Care Center has also used the facility during much of that time. We will begin the construction of a new sanctuary this Spring, and upon • completion our present sanctuary will accomodate our prot;rant of actuation, making continued ownderahip of the house unnecessary. Further, ut respect to our tax-free status, we are reluctant to retain the property for the • express purpose of rental income. Nor, do we anticipate that we shall have future use for it in any way consistent with the intention of the church's progran or the city's public zoning ordinance. We appreciate your attention in this matter, and trust that we shall be granted the re-zoning application, enabling us to dispose of the property. • Sincerely, r • Dr: Gary D. Paterson • u c) • . • • • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • MINUTES • approved MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1979 7:30 PIN., CITY WALL • COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Beaman, Liz Retterath, Oke startinson, Matthew Levitt, George Bentley, Hakon Tor,*esen, and Virginia Gartner COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of P1-anning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary _ 0. Immanuel Lutheran Church, request to rezone .8 acres from PUBLIC to R1.22 for the existing single family hone bated at 1b51.fr Luther'stay. Nr. Robert Hendrickson, re tug ter mranuel Lutheran church. pre* rented the request and answered questions. The Planner explained that the proposal does meet the criteria of Ordinance. 135• and is co atible with the Yesidentig `'development to the west and otheer surrounding uses. He expressed concea^ri With pa iag day carve use i-n the single family area. MOTION: Gartner moved to rec+ nd to the till council approval of the - rezoning of .8 acres from PUBLIC to RI—� as per the staff report of April 4. 1979. Bentley seconded, motion ctra�ied unanimously. a..,. • • • • TAFF REPORT , TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director DATE: April 4, 1979 PROJECT: • Zoning of Existing Single Family Home to R1-22 APPLICANT: Immanuel Lutheran Church REQUEST: 1. Rezoning from Public to R1-22 for .8 acres for an existing single family home. 2. Variance from Ordinance minimum lot width of 100 feet to 30 feet. -- - (lot division to be processed through administrative land division) BACKGROUND As outlined in Dr. Peterson's letter of March 19; 1979 the house was originally built as a parsonage. It presently accommodates some activities and a day care center operated by the ADC Day Care Cente rish w LOCATION _', The property is bordered on the west by R1-22 zoned Kirk Meadows Addition, on the south by the Prairie Village Mall, on the east by the Immanuel ` .-. Lutheran Church, and on the north by Luther Way. j!_' �,6 4 i 1• �.•".1a . . IA3 s ti!-13 �; -4uther Way' 'dc . • } �. 7-5 :;l ?�' =. .5t. SITE -• " Inn ••I' -1.,3 •• . 7- 4 'Ir�.:%•l1V� - LL - p-`l,l `".s Prairie I �. _ ^ I UTILITIES Presently water honk-up is available and used by the two hones in Kirk Meadows closest to Co.Rd. 4. The remainder of the subdivision is nut yet served by sewer or water. The home at 16515 Luther Way has private sewer and water . The home could hook-up to City services when they become available as Kirk Meadirws will, • • Staff Report-Immanuel Luth. Ch. -2- April 4, 1979 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS R1-22 DISTRICT Home at 16515 Luther Way 22,000 sq.ft. lot size 34,000 sq.ft. approximately lot width 100 feet lot width at Luther Way 30 feet* lot depth 180 feet lot depth 467 feet front yard setback 30 feet front yard setback 170+ feet side yard setback 15:30 feet side yard setback 15:35+ feet rear yard setback 25 feet rear yard setback 165 feet park dedication required none paid todate * Immanuel Luther Church requests variance from the minimum frontage of 100 feet so that the church can retain as much property as possible and still provide private access to the home. The lot width at building f.,•.; line is 100 feet. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The R1-22 rezoning request would be•compatible with the residential development to the west and other surrounding uses. The lot and structure meet ordinance requirements on lot size, setbacks , and lot depth. The lot dimensions requested on frontage ( on Luther Way ) of only 30 feet does not meet the ordinance requirement of 100 feet. RECOMMENDATIONS • The Planning Staff would recoimiend the request for rezoning of .8 acres from Public to R1-22 be granted as follows: I :> a. The variance from minimum lot frontage be granted as considerable open space exists to the east, the majority of the lot is 100 feet wide, and the lot size is 34,000 sqaure feet b. That cash park fee payment of $275 be paid within 30 days of sale of the home. • c. That the structure's only proper use shall be a "single family residence" in conformance with the R1-22 District. JJ:Jj • 11Y2 5/7/79 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION 79-91 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR HARTFORD REAL ESTATE COMPANY A PRIVATE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a public hearing on May 15. 1979 to consider the Hartford Real Estate Companiy proposal, and WHEREAS, said development is located'on approximately 158 acres of land located West of Anderson Lakes, SOUth of°'West 7iith Street, and East of the Eden Prairie Shopping Center, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Caission did hold a public hearing on the proposal and did recommend approval of the project and the . Environmental Assessment Worksheet Finding of no significant impact, and • WHEREAS, the property in question is contained in the approved "The Preserve Final Environmental Impact Statement" dated June 22, 1976 and is consistent with said E.I.S.. • NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not noCag*ary for Hartford Real Estate Company because the project is not a major action which does not have significant environmental effects and is not More than of local significance. BE If FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED, this day of , 1979. lslolfgang H. Peneel, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • • MEM3RANDUN TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: April 12, 1979 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT:159 acre Commercial/Office site PROPONENT: Hartford Real Estate Company REQUEST: PUD amendment from Regional-Cannercial an4 residential to Reason CammRECIal and Office, rezoning from Rural to C-Reg Service of 30 acres and from Rural and i-S Park to Office District of 129 acres. PreliminaryofLOCATION: East of Eden Prairie Center and pfplattinge ak 14 lots on 159 acres. ]� 1?e� Anderson Lakpc_ BACIGROM: See Planning Staff geport pf April S. 1979. CHECKLIST: 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional)Anderson Lakes Regional Park Reserve Affect on park: No significant affect providing water quality of Anderson Lakes remains acceptable. 2. Adjacent to public waters? Anderson Lakes Aff et on waters• Storm water drainage will raise lake level approximately 1 foot. Affect of salt 9n'Sbtrm r"runoPf is prat known: 3. Adjacent to trails? There is a proposed 8' bituminous trail along the south side of Schooner Blvd. • Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.)transportation Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime) asphalt • Width: 8' Party Responsible for construction? developer Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) R.O.W. Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial)Co mercial/Office Where will CAShI PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood) N/A Need for a mini-park? no • zq o , -2- S. REFERENCE CHECK: a. Major Center Area Study: Refer to pap of April rith P7anninn Staff Rapnrt. j It is generally consistent with the MCA Study. b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A c. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A d. Shoreland Management Ordinance:Refer to Planning Staff Report pages 2 & 3. Setback 2001, impervious surface 302/proposed 321 building ht. 35' unless PUD. Propsoed Luu -75 height. e. Floodplain Ordinance: No construction within the floodplain. • f. Guide Plan:Refer to page 1 of the April 5, 1979 Planning Staff Report. it is generally consistent with the 1979 updated plan. g. Other: 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A 7. CASH PARK FEE? N/A 8. Adjacent neighborhood typo, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: 9. Number of units in residential development? N/A Number of acres in the project? 159 Special recreation space requirements: N/A 10. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Community Services Staff recommends approval according to Planning Staff recommendations of Planning Staff Report dated April 5 . 197_9 with the following additions: (See attached sheet) • • • • Attachment for Hartford Report 4/12/79 • . 3. No construction within the scenic easement. 2. .Any expansion of additional parking, that would result in increasing. the percentage of coverage by impervious surface above 32%, would be accomplished through the use of parking ramps. 3. Recommend the use of canopy trees Within the parking lot areas. 4. Developer must show a detailed plan shooing an effective barrier between the scenic easement and the developed portion of the site. 5. A sidewalk should be installed. by the developer, along the spine road to allow for pedestrian movement from the office.area to the commercial area located on•Schooner @Blvd.. This would also provide for a more direct pedestrian access to the Center from the residential area tosediately to the south. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11' • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1979 approved 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Oke Martinson, Matthew Levitt, George Bentley, Waken Toriesen, and Virginia Gartner C0tUSSION STAFF PRESENT Chris Enger,Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary • • • • B. Hartford Real Estate Company, request for PUD development; rezoning from Rural and I-5 to Office and Commercial •Regional Service, preliminary plat approval, and approval of E.A.W. finding of no significant impact. Located west of Anderson Lakes, north of Northinark Additions, east of Eden Prairie Center, and south of West 78th Street. A continued public hearing. ;. The Planner summarized briefly the amendment to the Planned Unit Development requested by the proponent, noting that the 200,000 sq. ft. initial phase of Hartford is the only specific project proposed. He explained that in ..-- marketing the individual lots, the Planning Staff is concerned with bermin over the seven year time frame between residential area and the office park and buffering from the Lake. The major road improvements that are critical are the half diamond at Schooner Boulevard and 1-494 and twin lane bridge at Highway 169; with other concern noted as: water quality (potential problem with salt levels into Anderson Lake). He noted two errors in staff report: No. 2- building heights variance from 30' to 75' (not 36'); and the addition of water velocity to.no. 8. uJtf) approved Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - April 9. 1979 ti B. Hartford Real Estate Company.. .continued public hearing (cont'd) '• Bentley listed concerns of near-by residents as discussed in their neighborhood meetings: ' 20' light standards listed in the Hartford booklet - will there be glare into neighborhoods? Mr. Herb Ketcham, Architectural Alliance, responded that in discussion with their engineer and lighting consultants. there is a cut-off point • as far as wherethe light is directed down, the spread, lens, and amount of fixtures used. Bentley inquired further: What are the methods fbr reducing intensity of run-off to Anderson Lake? The Planner responded that Hartford is planning on-an outlet from a sedimentation pond;•and•that velocity is the••••. •••• • key factor. "Sheet drainage"is different from a"point source" type of drainage. Bentley questioned the emergency connection coming off between Fieldcrest Road and Hyland Terrace; he explained that Center Way has heavy use by children. and that sidewalks would not solve this problem. and that the connection of Center Way would destroy the effectiveness of the proposed berming; he questioned whether plantings of the berm would be mature planting:. he expressed concern with potential of stop light at Preserve Boulevard and Schooner Boulevard because it will become major traffic carrier; and expressed the need for more police patrols in this area. Ketcham, responding to concern on the use of mature plantings, explained that three berms are contemplated and that large type plantings would be used. Building coverage, the need for an indirect source permit, and the control the City has after completion of the first phase were discussed. Mr. Frank Sparicio, Hartford Real Estate Company, explained their overall intent was to develop a plan that can be defined now and request conceptual agreement, and after first phase development. the remaining development can occur through the specifics of the Ordinance and City procedure. The Planner noted that extensive study has been done on the building pads by Hartford, and that we have the knowledge of where the smallest lots are. • The Planner, responding to Levitt's question on water quality vs. quantity, referred to information on hydrology included with the staff report and to his recommendation that the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District begin a study of Anderson Lakes to determine what management and physical steps need,.. to be taken in terms of both water quantity and quality to insure that Anderson Lakes may be maintained as a high quality Wildlife Preserve. The critical point of Anderson Lakes is that it has no operable outlet or way of flushing the lake, therefore. has the potential for salt build-up, Sparicio explained that this subject is being studied, and their . intent is. to maintain the quantity of water in Anderson Lakes by pouring water into the lakes, and at this point, they are talking about using no salt on the parking lot, but grit and sand. Levitt asked what the options were if the Study indicated that this type of development was not desirable. ���0 'approved Planningtomnission Minutes - 6 - April 9, 1979 B. Hartford Real Estate Company. .continued public hearing (cont'd) • Mr. Jim Book, Barton-Aschman Assoc., Inc.,explained that Hartford's capital committment will be very high in the first phase, and the report done by Barr Engineering indicated that pumping water into the lake would be desirable. therefore, this is the direction they have taken. Sparicio requested clarification of no. 3 of staff report. The Planner responded the question of additional setbacks on scenic easement lots was addressed previously in the staff.report,.and..that there would not_ .. . - be any. . Sparicio addressed no. 5 of the staff report, explaining.that their intent is to use natural barrier, combining earth and plant material, to form the berms. MOTION #1: Bentley moved to close the public hearing on the Hartford preliminary plat. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION #2: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural and I-5 to C-Reg-Service and Office based upon the material dated March 26, 1979 and the staff report dated April 5, 1979. • Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Levitt inquired whether any of the concerns expressed tonight would be met before consideration by the City Council. The Planner responded that more definite plans should be received prior to Council meeting. We will not know any more regarding water quality. MOTION #3: Bentley moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat dated March 26, 1979 as per the staff report of April 5, 1979. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. As a point of clarification, Bearman inquired whether the Hydrology report was included in the motion. Enger responded that the Hydrology report and other additional information on the use of de-icing chemicals was included in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. MOTION #4: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no significant impact as per Draft of April 4, 1979. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. C. Cooperative Power Association PUD, request for PUD approval on I-5 zoned land for exceeding 50% office use and for construction of a tower. Located in the southwest corner of TH #5 and Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. The Planner summarized the "Findings and Conclusions" of the staff report of April 6, 1979 explaining that the PU0 proposed is not 25 acres in size. • but the total land area encompassed in ownership meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the variances requested are reasonable. • • 1119 • STAFF REPORT • .x MEMO: TO: Planning Conmission FROM: • Chris Enger, Director of Planning pp PROPONENT: Hartford Real Estate Company PROJECT: Development of a 159 acre site as Commercial-Office PROJECT LOCATION: Directly east of the Eden Prairie Homart_Shopping Center, . .. south of W. 78th St. and I-494, east of the northernmost Anderson Lake, and north of the Preserve Northmark I and II residential area. PROJECT REQUEST: Planned Unit Development amendment from the original PUP 7'1-3 from Regional-Commercial and Residential, to Regional-Commercial and Office. Rezoning from Rural to C-Regional Service anproxi- mately 30 acres. Rezoning from Rural and I-5 Park approxii:atelv 129 acres to Office District. Preliminary platting of 14 lots u+ 159 acres. Review and approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. DATE: April 5, 1979 BACKGROUND The 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan land use designations for this area bear little resemblance to subsequent specific land use recommendations for the area. However, the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan did illustrate the general important principle of • providing a major center area around the cloverleaf intersection of Trunk Highway 5 I-494 and the intersection of Highway 169 with this area. The distribution of the traffic around this intersection was to be handled by a Ring Route, which has been accomplished in part by the installation of the southeast leg of the Ring Route fro; W. 78th Street southwest down to Trunk Highway 169 in a four lane division cnntinura- tion past the Hartford site. The 68 Guide Plan also illustrated commercial lard uses surrounding this Ring Route and although the locations of the commercial have changed slightly to take into account the 1970 Preserve Planned Unit Development, and subsequent specific changes to the Ring Route alignnrent.the concept of cor'.:arcia of a regional service character is still valid today. You will notice that the par, area for Anderson Lakes Park has been shifted from a majority on the northwest side of the lake to an actual and almost complete acquisition to date of the entire Baste shore of Anderson Lakes all the way south to Anderson Lakes Parkway and all the way east to County Road 18. In addition to this, the concept of protection along the northern and western shores of Anderson Lakes has been adopted and to this point. largely implemented. The 1970 Preserve Planned Unit Development which amended the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan reinforced the Ring Route concept illustrated in the 1968 Guide Plan and showed commercial development in a band around the Ring Route.To the south of this a+ ! it illustrated approximately 1,i100 units of residential of a min to hiol. de+,..itv residential ranee of ahuut 10 units per acre, with a niaxI um; of 1:: kJl cnt ;o This plan was subsequently amended to the Preserve plats as we currently i.naw it. which includes the vnlar•gem['nt of the Ring Route to allow for tluw construction of the I"den Prairie Center within the. Ono Route.and con,uereial tees in a.wide band along the eastern and southern sides of the Ring Route, with medium to high density residential occurring along Anderson Lakes to the north and east of Nnrthmark 'j . . . '' ----'-- ' •-- '.-: - '."-:-",-,J..-- ,,r,'•'"..- ':•-.1--..,.. --,:-..•.,:. -,•;.:::::.-"--•-., -.:-,.., •=....!- -. :.7.',,-, .:-.-:„. . , -:: !.... ,,,,,. • . .• _ • , . • ."E •;',";-, . ..„ *4: .1.- '..' I -- • ' - - 1:'-611T\.i\3s.',I!c.C1.0M........-.P-....7R.,—.....,c HEH.--R.4-,S.,,,...7I„•./,V EiI.4.,.:GUIDE-i1I i..,:r1-.:.Al..c.,t,.„ ,,;...... • \‘ ,.--..'. i . ..., ....,... 4. I S': 4 _-",.:•-----, - , k, ;,r 1.-;... ---. ............iii , , i \' ' ----:-- -0 i -•••••,.... -t'... ' - \•,,,.......„.... :11.9........, k,,, ..''." . , -7 ' -4 '''*''''"'-: I •) . i-; - 2 .-• ,-- j _ 4._ :s• • ,•.. .. _ _ , ....50..t.2„._#7:-,:,,t,::-„,:ils,,, p...-;„ - - - , r - 11 1...-,:r..,..s.rs,:\.- 1 • ...,.., : 1 _ _ ____.____ . 1i ,- t._, :. ,‘,--•-•4 ....,,.. F ..____ c...i. • 1 ,.... (, ........,./ • . . , • 1 ..:.....:::. i i:. :„. 1 . :......,••-'''.....•'-: -- . -7..... '•' „ - 1/91 • PRESERVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT � i 4! . a� a l.� >- - I ` i • ..7't 4140.::"...':;::i A'.: .• ..* -4.-:*---..-:.:V' \ 'Nisi 1::::........ ........-::.:::::....:..:-:::.::-;;S:::::....,: ' Dote ,r' ' 03.:•0.-•!' '••to: 44if::::2:i*::•::2-.i'.i:.4.fi:Z.iii::i:i•:i.:1i•• :f4 J.':04.—+ \\ y.f•a• I b )tf < . a / j :47.- ;mil ;7 ., a t19. : ' :'..•'2"::= ; ' '"'''' '7-4'''''.: .'''':'-'-..."'"'''''''":''.3.7.7"`t:,,'.':...,,'...`::::,,,,..:.7...-:,,,,,,,,.L.,......,,, i ,j,.....,‘. , . , . ' -- .,„ . , ... ..„ ' ,..-..(,.. -. .,7•:::,.. • ."I',.::^...N. 1973 MAJOR CENTER AREA ..:.',..:.;:f.: • - ...., t'i,f .y, . \„.„. j t i ,....,..,, 't ,,,, ,- 1,s , ,.,...... il .-`-------•--------.1.-1. ....,, .1.,... .....-..,.,,, ,Ie ,a. , /e• t k••- n4;:...-''''. , „ ,!7:.--.7.,...... . '',..''....,e'. .,,,,_.. I, ":-,:7•:°,1 /1 \-4, ',...: ,H0/1...f7 ;Z17.1). --...'''',..s..,.. .1.1.4,,,,x,..,:. ,;!.-• ., ._":":: r.' '..:...,;.- ..7-C 1. ' ... '-,,,..x .,,,,_1 ji. • 4,-.........,„ . ...._. ,v...• ,• •-:,.., ..._ ....,..., Ito' •L'I'Vt :..;c21.,,4i` i . ::,.....-: :. ............ _ . ' 1%Z." . l,... f. : , )-1;F:' ' ::( \ i -,,_____ • 1-6; s:;,,,,.1 -:.':,:, — • „ i ,01.—xs .. , •...;JJ•.,.. , ' ,...... l'-';:,. k• .-17': t., --- ,.. (:: , i \L:' ; 1' .::•'"„-'-',' iii ('1... "'"4 • ':.,7 1:.• .::...;•.4.':•::'. .:....:•‘.'::'S.. ,..., ..- ;.:.'s;.,1::. ,.'''•:•;•;::,_ , ;7•",:.' • . ,- • /193' - • ,.. . .- .. "..r. '-•''':'..,::'::";-.',."''.:'"'',, '`;,.6,A -'- -- ".'.'' '.:'• ',":-,-,...-:•.•.•.,zi•.•',.,,2.,:•.,,,...,,,',,,.--,.; , , ., , '''• A,;;; Staff Report-Hartford - 2 - April 5, 1979 The 1973 Major Center Area Sector Study, which was a further revision of the Preserve Planned Unit Development and1968 Comprehensive Guide • Plan aligns more closely in character with the land uses proposed currently the anticipated 1977 proposed Guide Plan Update. The Ring Route is shown roughly in its existing alignment and the commercial regional shopping center is reflected. Along the eastern side of the Ring Route on the site now proposed for the Hartford office development, Highway-Commercial,Regional-Service and Regional- Office uses are illustrated in the Major Center Report with the preservation area currently in scenic easement by the City along Anderson Lakes and the norther, . marsh also shown. The only discrepancy in land tile proposed now compared to the Major Center Area Report is an area of potential housing that was shown toward the center of the site • in 1973. In 1974, '.he City, With"the help of the'Wildlife Consultant, Les Blackloch. developed a line of preservation along the western and northern shores of Anderson Lakes. The line represented the area along the lakeshore that the City wished to retain in its natural condition through scenic easements or outright dedication. Although the optimum Blacklock Line would be reflected most accurately by the area of park land shown in the graphic of the 1977 Guide Plan Update for optimum protectic and enjoyment of the wildlife of the area. The actual compromise line between urban development was arrived at by City Commissions and Council in conjunction with the Preserve in early 1978. This line is reflected as the scenic easement line shown in the proposal as a dotted line roughly parallel to the shoreline of • Anderson Lakes. The Preserve has dedicated to the City all of the land lying above the 840 elevation contour plus 50', and the addition was given in scenic easement; the area located within the dotted line. This scenic area includes the marsh area to the north of the Hartford site. The Blacklock Study point out the need for a physical barrier that would occur at the scenic easement line that would prevent casual use of the wildlife nesting areas by office employees. No master plan has been submitted by the proponent for the installation or form of this barrier, and thisis a very critical part of preservation of the scenic easement area. the State suggested Shoreland Management Act has two important criteria which apply to this site. The setback from a Natural Environment•Lake under the S!.oU' suggested Shoreland Management Act, is to be 150' from the normal ordinary hiu4 water mark to the building line. The normal ordinary high water mark of the Anderson Lakes has been established at 838.6. In all cases, the scenic vascvn'nt line, which has been adopted by the City, would place building beyond 150' of setback from Anderson Lakes.. The Park, Recrteation and Natural Resources Commission has suggested that the setbacks for office use on a Natural Environ- ment Lake should b 200'. Although the 838.6 contour is not specifically shown on any topographic maps because of the 2' contour relationship we can see from the interpolation between the 838 contour and the 840 contour that in almost all cases the scenic easement line is at 200' or greater from the normal ordinary high water mark. However, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and Planning Comnission also decided in the formulation of the Shoreland Ordinance that two studies would override the adoption of the Shoreland ''anagemient Ordinance. One would be the natural study of Anderson Lakes and the previously adopted Bl;rck- lock Line, and the second would be the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Zone Study. • I r91/ • Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 3 - April 5, 1979 The second aspect of the Shoreland Management Act is the principle under placement of structures Section 2, Subdivision EE, that states that the total area of all impervious surfaces on a lot shall not exceed 30% of the total lot area. If we look at the performance rationale of this criteria. we will see that this particular section of the Act is meant to apply to pronerty as an overall general guide line when sedimentation ponds and storm water clean- ing systems are not'anticipated. Hartford illustrates that within a 1,000 ' of a normal ordinary high water mark of Anderson Lakes, the hard surface or iurnerviow. coverage with a 4 car per thousand parking ratio is about 32:, if the standard re- quired by City Ordinance of 5 cars per thousand sq. ft. of office space is indeed constructed, the total impervious surfacing would be 37%. However, Hartford is using " a total storm sewer system which provides for drop•inanholes, which will accu,„narlatr --- sediment at each specific point and a grit chamber prior to entrance of the water to a storm water sedimentation pond. Treatment of the particle size involved in the storm water in this fashion should mitigate the amount of impervious surfacing proposed over and beyond the 30% suggested by the State Shoreland Manage- ment Act. The proposed 1977 Guide Plan Update illustrates the majority of this site tow rd the Ring Route as Regional-Commercial or Office. It also shows a small area of multiple density residential to the north and east of the single family subdivision Northmark II. However, the 1977 Comprehensive Guide Plan graphic was drawn prior to the final outcome of the Blacklock Line, so it reflects a much larger park area along Anderson Lakes, than has actually been accomplished. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS The two zones being applied for are C-Regional Service and Office District. The brochure supplied by the proponent outlines the Ordinance requirements for the Community-Commercial District, rather than the C-Regional Service District. C-REG SER (Regional Service District) A. To provide appropriately located areas for commercial uses having features that are incompatible with the purposes the other commercial district•:. B. To provide sites for businesses that typically are not found in shopping centers that usually have relatively large sites providing off street parking and that attract little or no pedestrian traffic. To maxiwim, the efficiency of the Regional District by limiting or prohibiting uses that breaks the continuity of commercial frontage or are incompatible with an attractive pedestrian shopping center. Permitted uses within Commercial Districts include: A. All direct retail sales to users of goods and services conducted within structures and accessory uses except C-Regional sales uses are limited to sales and service operations which require relatively large sites. attra, little or no pedestrian traffic, and are typically not found in shonoing center structures. ' • I i95 • Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 4 - April 5, 1979 B. Related or supporting office and distribution uses. C. Public end quasi-public facilities and services required by the resident working or shopping population. SUBDIVISION 7.3 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: A. All uses shall comply with regulations prescribed in Section 2 (site, yard, bulk, usable open space, screening, landscaping, parking, loading and performance standards). . _ _ .. B. Acceptable approved sanitary service must be provided to all occupied structures and users. C. Zoning requests will be considered only on the basis of a comprehensive development plan for the entire area to be zoned and specific plans for initial structures and site development. D. Site and use area conditions. C-Regional Service, minimum zoned areas 10 acres. .SECTION 6 OFC-OFFICE DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION 6.1 PURPOSES • A. To provide opportunities for offices of a semi commercial character to locate outside of Commercial Districts. 8. To establish and maintain in portions of the City the high standards of site planning, architecture and landscape design sought by many businesses and professional offices. C. To provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern offices including off street parking of automobiles and where appropriate, the off street loading of trucks. D. To provide space for semi public facilities and institutions that appro- priately may be located in office districts. ' E. To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the overloading of the util- ities by preventing the construction of buildings of excess size in're- lation to the amount of land around them. • F. To protect offices from noise, disturbance, traffic hazards, safety hazards and othe. objectionable influences incidental to certain commercial uses. • SUBDIVISION 6.2 PERMITTED USES A. Business and professional offices and accessory uses. • • B. Supporting co nercial sales and services to office users within large office structures only. C. Public and quasi-public facilities and services required by IN, rc5+s :ar. working population. • e I • • Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 5 - April 5, 1979 SUBDIVISION 6.3 REQUIRED CONDITIONS A. All uses shall comply with the regulations described in Section 2 (site, yard. bulk, usable open space, screening, landscaping, parking, loading and per- formance standards). B. All professional pursuits and businesses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed sturcture except for off street parking and loading areas. C Acceptable approved sanitary sewer service must be provided to all occupied structures. D. Zoningrequests will be considered only on the basis of a comprehensive develop- ment plan for the entire area to be zoned and specific plans for initial struc- tures and site development. The important aspects of the requirements for both the C-Regional Service zone and the Office District zone are as follows: OFFICE: minimum front yard 35' minimum side yard 20', 50' combined side yards minimum rear yard 20' maximum floor area ratio 30% lstory, 50% multi story maximum height of main structure 30' • C-REGIONAL DISTRICT: minimum front yard 35' minimum side yard 20' minimum rear yard 10' maximum floor area ratio 2D% 1 story, 40% multi story {{ maximum height of main structure 40' In addition to the setbacks required by Ordinance 135 the City has been requestimu 50' setbacks for parking and structures from major collector roads. This standard would apply to Schooner Boulevard. Since the scenic easement is a building setback from the lake, no further setback: from the scenic easement would be required other than than necessary to prevent construction from'occurring in the scenic easement. Part of the intent of the Major Center Area was to concentrate development intensity in a suburban downtown area surrounding the I-494 and Trunk.Highway 5 interchange area. To this extent the maximum floor area ratio and building height need only to apply when the amount of site coverage is excessive. /139 Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 6 - April 5, 1979 CONCEPT APPROVAL-PLATTING-ZONING The current Hartford proposal differs slightly from proposals normally reviewed by !� City Commissions and Council in the following ways: '. Normally rezoning is requested based upon a specific anticipated use and initial architectural drawings are submitted as a basis of review. An example of this 'is the information supplied with the First Phase development anticipated by Hartford. Hartford has no specific plan for the remaining 13 parcels other than their general use, but proposes to apply the criteria established in the concept plan presented as a guiding factor in the ultimate development of each parcel. We know where Hartford proposes individual lots. We also know where Hartford proposes, according to the general plan, general building pad areas and general parking areas. We also know that the maximum height of any building would be 75'. The only thing we do not know at this time is the specific architectural style and building material of each indi- .vidual building. If the Commissions are comfortable with the overall concept criteria and the overall master land use plan, then the zoning of the individual parcels could be subject to performance of individual building according to the overall plan. • An example of a zoning review similar to this was the Gelco proposal, which the Planning Commission reviewed last spring. This was a request by Gelco Corporation for an addition to their existing building of approximately 115.000sq. ft. of'office. which is roughly comparable to the size of their existing building. In addition. although Gelco did not have specific architectural plans although they requested 7ro. of enough additional area to provide in the future up to 5 total buildings, totalling as much as 570,000 sq. ft. of office space. The rezoning of the entire area was made subject to review of the individual buildings by the City. SITE PLAN Of approximately 159 total acres, 46.7 acres is included within the scenic easem,'nt area and approximately 7.8 acres is taken up in road right-of-way. The balance. i•: 25.3 acres allocated for 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial space along Schooner !;rulev.!rd and 125.8 acres allocated for 1,250,000 sq. ft. of office space. The perceetdge of the site which would be covered by hard or impervious surfacing would be 45 of the total site if 5 cars per thousand sq. ft. were provided, 40S of the total site it ; parking spaces per thousand square feet of office space were provided. 37:. coverage within the shoreland area if 5 parking spaces per thousand square feet of office space were provided, and 32% of coverage if 4 parking spaces per thousand square feet of office space were provided within the shoreland area. The site has good coniaercial frontage along Schooner Boulevard and as the development brochure illustrates, has good traffic access from Schooner Boulevard itself. About one quarter of the site would be drained toward the Schooner Boulevard storm sewer system, but the balance of the site draining toward Anderson Lakes. The First Phase development of the project would be construction of the major spine road up to the Hartford site itself and construction of the 200.000 sq. ft. general office and corporate headquarter building proposed by Hartford heninninn thk a er' and with completion in the tall of 19tU. The overallsediau•ntatien pond .+d„o..•at the Hartford office building site would be installed at time of 1st uh.tse.iue only trnm. construction anticipated during the First Phase on the overall site would h.' grading in of the gravel road on the alignment of the spine road and the loop road to provide sales access to the balance of the site in the area. II i 0 '. VCM N I \Bryant La m 1 Z \ f-� m. `"CO-Rd.gp 4 $ ‘ TH5 „iic i 4, na Lake 41- 1AG 78 6t. `g:-tie* oil ‘ i 494 Regional ,,. `, • 1 Shopping "tilt Anderson Lakes , \ Center 0t ch400/� Site _ of i • NI , . ' $ The Preserve I� Pkwy, / .� Existing Area Roadway System • .dl. North • Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 7 - April 5, 1979 A master plan for buffering the single family area to the south from the parking • areas has been done and would be carried out in stages as each building along the buffer area was built. Construction of the barrier in this fashion brings up a logistical problem in that it is anticipated that since lots individually sold by Hartford would not actually be constructing the barrier. agreement for fill would have to be obtained by Hartford from potential buyers and the responsibility for construction of the berm would have to rest with Hartford. TRAFFIC Current access to the Hartford-site is as follows: • - From the south along H'ghway 169;access is currently in place•via Schooner Boulevrrd•• From the south and east along Co. Rd. 18, access is currently in place but inadequate along W. 78th St. from Co. Rd. 18. Alternate access to this exists via Co. Rd. 18. on ramp 494, off ramp to Highway 169, and Highway 169 to W. 78th St. and back east • again to the Hartford site. Access from the north on Co. Rd. 18 would occur as listed previously for access from Co. Rd. 18 south. Access from the north from Highway 169 . .would occur via Valley View Road overpass of Highway 169 and then south along Highway 169 to W. 78th St. then east to Schooner Boulevard. Access from 494 from the north occurrs by taking the off ramp to Highway 5, then to W. 78th St. across to Schooner Boulevard or taking the clover leaf ramp to Highway 169 eastbound, then south along Highway 169 to W. 78th St. and Schooner Boulevard. Access from the west occurs on Highway 5 to W. 78th St. to Schooner Boulevard. Access from the east on I-494 occurs • via the,recentiy opened ramp from I-494 to Highway 169, then via W. 78th St. to the site. As one can tell by the above description, the only adequate accesses to Hartford certainly exists from Highway 169 northbound via Schooner Boulevard and from; 1-494 westbound via Highway 169. The following improvements in chronological order will greatly enhance the accessability of the Hartford site: 1. There will be a late June, 1979 letting of a bid for construction of an intersection improvement and signalization at W. 78th St. and Highway 5. Completion of this project will occur in-late fall,1979 or early spring, 19f.0 and allow safe access coming from the west on Highway 5. 2. We anticipate an April, 1980 bid letting, for a merging of the off ramp from 1-494 to Co. Rd. 18 with east bound traffic on W. 78th St. to a co; on signalized intersection. This improvement will mitigate traffic effects on single family residents in the Bloomington area experienced from east bound traffic on W. 78th St. currently. 3. We anticipate 1980 construction of the Ring Route northwestern quadrant from Valley View Road down to Trunk Highway 5 and southwestern quadrant from Trunk • Highway 5 down to Highway 169. The completion of the southwest quadrant of the Ring Route, in combination with the signalization of Trunk Highway 5 and W.W. 78th St. will improve access to.the Hartford site. 4. We anticipate a joint bid letting of May, 1981 for a widening of Highway iv9 • overpass, of 1-494 to four lane, possibly to be Completed by 1982. and a major improvement at Schooner Boulevard and 1-494, which will include a half- diamond which will allow the underpass of I-494 and ramps to 1-4n1 and from I-494 to Schooner Boulevard westbound. this Schooner ronl-k ed I-494 improvement could be completed by 1983. jfoc Staff Report April 5, 1979 Hartford Real Estate Co. -8- 5. Tandem with the construction the underpass at I-494, the northeast leg of the Ring Route to Valley View Road could be completed. This would complete the initial phasing of the Ring Route system and would allow complete accessibility to be safely handled to the Hartford site. It is important to remember the Hartford phasing calls for first phase construction to be completed in late 1980, and the balance of the property to be developed over a seven year period. This phasing is critical in order to allow time for road improvements to serve the property be made. 'As shown in the traffic information supplied by the proponent in their development brochure, figure 27, page 40, some improvements to Schooner Boulevard need to be made initially which would include left turn lanes, right turn lanes, and acceleration lanes. Ultimate development would double up the widening and exclusive left and right turn lanes with signalization being made upon demand. The improvements required involving f widening of Schooner Boulevard largely benefit this proposal and should be made by the proponent. • As pointed-out in the development brochure, the use of van pooling is encouraged by the concentration of working space. Although not specifically mentioned in the development brochure, Hartford does carrying-on noon time van pooling in their existing office park which provides a shuttle service to and from eating establishments for employees. This service counts down considerably on the per use trips expected in an office area. In addition, the MTC park-n-ride site, currently occurring at the Eden Prairie Shopping Center , may ultimately find a second stopping place at the Hartford Office Park. EXISTING VEGETATION The overstory tree vegetation existing on the site is a small percentage of the overall site. The site character can be characterized by a rolling open • meadow . The majority of the woods on the site occurs along the northern portion of the phase 1 Hartford lot and is anticipated to be preserved. The balance of the vegetation on the site occurs sparsely along the shoreline of Anderson Lakes and more heavily towards the southeastern portion of the site along Anderson Lakes. This vegetation occurs along old fence rows in the upper part of the site, and according to the development plan, will not be preserved. Although a detailed landscaping plan has not been presented, an overall landscaping concept shows extensive use of canopy trees throughout the site and should actually provide more total canopy tree vegetation than originally occurred on the site. As a part of this overall landscaping concept it seems reasanahle that the large parking lot areas could be broken-up from the office use thenewlve.. through the introduction of canopy trees within the parking area as was done for the large parking area of Honrart Center. The module used for planting within the parking area for Homart did not eliminate parking spaces and foi r 4 „%ct. //e/ .. //aO... Phase I ev SAjR �R P. 010 ilia i a 0. 0" SA, H p"12 - 4.040 45 c I Ultimate Development L . . /7/4 < iliipts_tooA Roo G Proposed Site Access Concepts k i Figure 27 ' Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. -9- April 5, 1979 snow removal has been provided through the use of windrowing along the parking lot lines. If the vegetation occurs within this windrow area snow removal would not be hampered. • As was mentioned previously in the report, a detailed plan showing a barrier could be established between the developed part of the site and the scenic easement may take the form of impenetrable thorned shrub and mass plantings, or may incorporate a fence within the middle shrubed areas so as to be invisible tp the_eye but effective and economical as a barrier. • ANDERSON LAKES Water Quantity vs.Water Quality There has been much controversy over the proper way to treat development . around Anderson Lakes within the last few years.Discussioniargeiy centered around the question of water quantity vs. water quality. According to lake elevation records by Nine Mile Watershed District over the last nine years, it indicates that a major problem of Anderson Lakes is water fluctuation . Dur4ng a 2 year period from 1976 to 1978, the water level of Anaerson Lakes fluctuated 3.1 feet. Since the overall average depth of Anderson Lakes is between 31-4 feet in depth, and since the overall surface area is approximately 190 acres, the edge vegetation and wildlife habitat is affective significantly by the water fluctuation . • The water fluctuation seems to be independent of the development occurring around the lake . Although from an intu ative position it would seem best to have additional water flow toward Anderson Lakes , the quality of water must be evaluated. In the late 1960s , the Watershed District published a report titled Hyland/Anderson/Bush Lake Report. In that report it was anticipated that an augmentation well would be installed at Hyland Lake and that water would • be pumped from Hyland Lake to Bush Lake , and from Bush Lake by a lift station to Anderson Lakes, and then through an installed outlet on the eastern end of the northern Anderson Lakes , the water would flow to the fine Mile Creek system. Since this water would come from a deep well within the Jordan Aquifer the lake levels could all he stabilized and the water quality improved by the flushing action of augmentation. It appears that a system similar to this is still the most viable and best solution to a loon term nunagemcnt of Anderson Lakes. You c.u, see from information powidrd by Hartford on hydrology that the hard surface area proposed would inrrrase the amount of surface water runoff in the Spring, from 5 acre feet to approximately 40 acre feet. Staff Report- -10- April 5, 1979 Hartford REal Estate Co. • A total year precipitation contribution to Anderson Lakes from the Hartford site could be as much as 66 acre feet which would be contributed to a 600 acre foot Anderson Lake total volume. However , due to the large surface area of Anderson Lake , in comparison to its average depth, the total impact of adding some water runoff from Hartford would be in the magnitude of about 1/3 of a foot per year. With the lake level fluctuating as much as 3 feet in two years , and the current established outlet of Anderson Lakes at 848 , the lake is effectively landlocked and the fluctuation experienced by the lake would not be changed by the addition of a 1/3 foot to the cycle. Again the answer to the fluctuation problem is the establish?lent of an outlet and lake augmentation. .This ......._.__ _ .. establishes a non-fluctuating shoreline at the same time improving and stablizing the water quality of Anderson Lakes. Hartford should study the feasibility of utilizing deep wells for air conditioning • with an outflow, after temperature rise to ambient conditions, to Anderson Lakes. Development of the office park utilizing this type of air conditioning is identical to the system currently proposed for the Eden High School and could solve Anderson Lakes augmentation problems. If we look further at the information submitted by Hartford on use of de-icing chemicals for the parking lot areas,we can see that the result of•one year of piping storm water run-off into Anderson Lakes from the site could increase the sodium chloride levels from 33 miligrams per liter current concentration, to between 65 and 110 miligrams per liter. Although the information is not all en- compassing, since the lake has no effective outlet at this time, and since salt does not evaporate with water, we can make the assumption that the level of sodium chloride in the lake would continue to climb year after year. We therefore must make the assumption that if the storm water quanity from Hartford site is to be channeled to Anderson Lakes, the quality must be improved by not allowing the use of salt within the parking area. Hartford is currently studying the use of alternate methods of de-icing the parking areas. If these methods cannot be found, the staff would offer as the following alternative to limit the quanity of water going to Anderson lakes and hence the quality of salt entering the lakes. 1. The Planning staff reiterates the desirability of the use of parking ramp,: within the watershed area of Anderson Lakes. Two level decks by themselves could limit the amount of salt entering the lakes by a factor of almost `,tt . In addition, to limiting the amount of salt entering the lake, the amount of open space would be dramatically increased and the discrepancy that Hartford currently has between 30» impervious cover suggested by the Shoreland lianane- • ment Act would be eliminated. 2. In combination with provision of parking ramps in the area absolutely having to drain toward Anderson Lakes, Hartford could extend the area that could drain to Schooner Boulevard storm sewer and thus take that much additional area out of the storm water drainage area. Since the amount of surface area that Hartford is proposing is dramatically increasing the amount of surface water run-off, it is highly unlikely that any of these measures taken in combination would reduce the surface water run-off less than th•• • mutt involved in the site originally. Therefore impliiuentinu an,/ procedures would not he expected to effect the water quanity in Ando•.e"l Lakes, but may offer less of the potential for poorly impacting the quality of the water in Anderson Lakes in regard to wildlife habitat. fa61.1 Staff Report 5, 1979 Hartford Real Estate Co. - 11 - April Also of importance in the storm water system is the detail of construction of the weir which would be placed at the outlet of the storm water sedimentation pond. The water is proposed to outlet the structure at 48 cubic feet per second, which could have a dramatic impact on the vegetation of the lake directly in front of the outlet if the velocity of the water is too great. PARKING Hartford proposes construction of parking spaces for 4 automobiles per thousand square feet gross floor area of office building. As was mentioned earlier in the .„ report, City Ordinance requires that adequate space be provided for 5 automobile spaces per thousand square feetoress floor area in an Office District. Although the planning staff does not disagree with staging of parking, it has been the ex- perience of office uses within Eden Prairie that 5 spaces per thousand is not over abundant and 4 spaces per thousand has proved to be inadequate. Examples of this would be the Gelco office building, which originally requested a variance from the parking ordinance, and subsequently had to add additional parking up to 5 parking spaces per thousand, American Family Insurance Co., which requested a variance from the parking ordinance and subsequently had to add up to five spaces per thousand and Eden West Professional Building, which is at 5 spaces per thousand but find this almost inadequate. To reiterate the desirability and feasibility of providing parking in decks to re- duce the amount of ground coverage and the impact upon the site, we can offer as an example Bachman Anderson on Anderson Lakes who have proposed to build 100,Oo0 sq. ft. office building which would include half of its 500 parking spaces within a deck, American Family Insurance expects to expand its facility and will provide parking through the use of a deck, and Gelco Corporation plans provision for parking for its later phases within deck structures. These examples.would seem to indicate that decking is a viable option, and does seem preferable in terms of a reduced visual and physical impact on the land, especially for uses adjoining Anderson Lakes. Landscaping throughout the parking areas should be provided as a visual relief from the large amount of hard surface area as was done in. the.Homart parking area. within the parking lot areas will not be as visible from Anderson Lakes because ter the strategic location of buildings, however lighting could cause a potential prr'.•lint to the surrounding resi dents 'located to the south of the project and the performance standards regarding glare in Ordinance 135 should be followed: Glare - Whether direct or reflected such as'from spot lights or high temperature processes and as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible be- yond the limits of the immediate site from which it originates. This indicates the use of low canopy lighting with direct luminaire cut offs so that the light source is not visible and soft amber light type situation. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS Although there is adequate room within the plat,Hartford has not provided for side- walks along the spine road and has not provided for pedestrian connection to the i20S Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 12 - April 5, 1979 single family lying south via .Center Way. Although it may not be desirable to create vehicular access to the Hartford site via Center Way. front the neighborhood standpoint the ability to access the site by a second entrance for both automobiles and pedestrians seems in the overall interest of energy con- servation. The extension of Center Way would also allow a second access to the site for police and fire protection. The planning staff would not anticipate that this would become a major shortcut to the shopping area of the Ma.ior Center Area at though itcould very well become a shortcut for people coming from the south to go to work at the office park. Figure 22 of pg. 34 of the development brochure estimate that 5; of the traffic approaching the Hartford area would come from the south on Highway 169 and that 35% of the traffic would come from the east on I-494, however, this does not take into account the amount of traffic which • would approach from Bl•mmington toward the southeast of the site via Co. Rd. 18. Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Boulevard. If we took a conservative estimate of 5% of the traffic, we could see a potential for 700 additional trips per day that could short cut to and from work via Center Way. Seven hundred trips a day is not an excessive number of trips on a neighororhood connector road and the connection could be a desirable feature of the plan The planning staff feels that it would be desirable to include a sidewalk along one side of the spine road which would lead to a sidewalk occurring along Schooner Boulevard as has been previously planned, and to a sidewalk from Center Way. BUILDING ORIENTATION In certain respects when this current proposal is compared to the previous Pillsbury proposal for the site, we can find the following advantages: 1. Instead of one or two major buildings encompassing the entire lake shore of Anderson Lakes, we now have a proposal which illustrates a number of smaller buildings, each planned for vistas of Anderson Lakes and each impacting the visual quality of the Anderson Lakes area less. 2. Generally the concept site plan is done so that the buildins face toward Anderson Lakes and the parking lot areasare placed behind the building so as not to be viewed from the lake. 3. Since the parking lot areas are broken up rather than on: mass area. the use of landscaping can be introduced and-provide for an overall attractive site appearance. E.A.W. Accompanying this proposal is an Environmental Assessment Worksheet which although not legally required because this area was previously encompassed by The Preserve Environmental Statement, has been voluntarily done through cooperation between the developer and the City to provide more specific site information than the original Environmental Statement. The planning staff feels that the information loci uded in this brochure and the Environemntal Assessment Worksheet will more adequately help us address the porblems involved with the project of this magnitude. FINDINGS AND COW LUSIOtlS 1. The current proposal for general concept plan of the Hartford site as Commercial and Office is generally consistent with the 1977 Guide P1an Update, the 1974 Preserve revision to the Planned Unit Development, the IlbtO _y 23% Ro.Bfi �� 0OP/4 , •,--- ill LI .--- • 1... (4 ,..„,...., 6% ,ems 35% / w.78th sx —.. / _ Eden Prairie Center Site ;. '-- o y�/ '� Schooner Blvd • o (/1 • Estimated Direction Of Approach .Gsa North • I Figwe 22 1201 • • Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 13 - April 5, 1979 1973 Major Center Report, the 1974 Blacklock Line and the Shoreland Management Act. 2. Since the Major Center Area contemplated more intensive use of the land in terms of building heighths the variance requested from 30' to 75r should be granted under the P.U.D. provision of Ordinance 135. In addition to this the floor area ratio should be varied under the Planned Unit Development provision to allow multiple story buildings. •- --3. All setbacks called for in Ordinance 135 shall'be Sdhdred to. In addition--_- a 50' setback to parking and building structure shall be required along Schooner Boulevard. 4. Road improvements along Schooner Boulevard necessary for the construction 'of this development should be provided by the developer. 5. A specific plan illustrating an effective barrier at the scenic easement line shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council action. 6. More detailed study needs to be accomplished prior to final action regarding the type of ice control to be utilized in the parking lot areas. 7. A comprehensive plan for the construction of screening berms occurring along the southern property line of the Hartford site must be submitted which illustrates each segment of the screening which is to completed with each lot of office and commercial construction. 8. Although the first Phase of Hartford proposal should be allowed to proceed subject to review of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, the City Council should request the Nine Mile. Creek.Watershed District to begin a study of Anderson Lakes to determine what management and physical steps need to be taken in terms of both water velot quantity and quality to insure that Anderson Lakes may be maintained as a high quality Wildlife Preserve. In conjunction with this, Hartford should begin a water quality monitoring program to quantify the amount of storm water run-off outletting their site and the quality of that water in terms of solids , grits and soluable chemicals. 9. Since Hartford will be one of the major land uses in impacting uses surrounding Anderson Lakes, agreement to cost sharing in the study of Anderson Lakes should be borneonaproportionate share by Hartford. I I as J, Staff Report Hartford Real Estate Co. - 14 - April 5, 1979 10. Provision of at least �Qli of the parking within an area which cannot - _ drain back towards the Schooner Boulevard stone sewer system should be provided through the use of deck structures to mitigate the amount • of impervious surface runoff to Anderson lakes. 11. Application for an indirect source permit should be instituted prior Second Phase construction by Hartford of the Pollution Control Agency. 12. Since Hartford is requesting zoning of the entire pacel at this time, without specific plan and since detailed impact is rrat'total1 apparent at this time in I.eiarb of ureter quality`.and transportation , as additional ` uses are proposed on the remaining Tots perlOtte•updating and review .. should be regra,red by City Planning, Park, Recreation and Natural Resources and Engineering staffs at least ene month prier to application for:a building permi#. In the event thereare unreso1vable.probimns between the staff and Hartford or subsequent owners the parti a at proposal should be reviewed by the city Council, and alb` their direction, :by the advisory Commissions for recommendati n. RtcrkFPicliD TIQN: The Planning Staff would reco nd approval of the P.IJ.{a. amendment+; the request for rezoning from.Rural and I-5 Park to C-Regional Service and flfflce ifistrict fat '. approximately 159 acres subject' to the Findings and Conclusions of this Report. CE:ds • • • • �, • /5 arton-Aschman Associates,Inc. en Cedar Square West/Cedar-Riverside,1610 South Sixth Street,Minneapolis,Minn.55404 612-332-0421 MEMORANDUM TO: The Architectural Alliance PROM: Barton-Aschntan Associates DATE: March 30,1979 RE: Use of De-Icing Chemicals at the Proposed Hartford Development • At your request,a preliminary analysis was made of the potential for using salt or other forms of ice control chemicals at the Hartford site. Also, we attempted to assess the need for non-structural, or quantity, controls on the use of such materials. Finally, due to the concern regarding the discharge of salt to North Anderson lake, we have explored alternative measures which are compatible with the present concept of the storm water management system, and may serve to alleviate potential concerns. Information Sources The ice control practices of a number of major office and commercial developments in the Metropolitan Area were reviewed. This involved communications with a number of personnel from the 3M OffIce Park complex in Maplewood. Water quality monitoring reports were also reviewed pertaining to salt application at the Ridgedale Shopping Center. Standard Practices Ice control practices are'not uniform but vary from winter to winter and place to place within the development. For example, rock salt(sodium chloride) is used In pure form only in very select areas such as sidewalks. This helps to minimize the abrasion on linoleum, tile and carpets that typically occurs when sand and other materials are used. For larger areas with moving traffic(roadways and parking lots) rock salt is typically mixed with an abrasive material in the ratio of one part in 10(i.e.,one part rock salt mixed with 9 parts of the abrasive material). The 3M Company has found NSP grit to be very effective as an abrasive material in ice control. It could be used without mixing with salt except that clumping of the material would occur thereby making application difficult. halo • • Application Rates Estimates from 3M Company maintenance personnel indicate variable application rates for ice control chemicals. During a normal winter approximately 0.4 tons of salt Is required per acre of impervious surface area. On the other hand, during a severe winter,with above average snowfall and number of snowfall events,as much as 1.1 tons of salt may be applied per acre of impervious surface area. Applying these figures in relation to the estimated 68 cores of impervious surface in the Hartford development that are within the North Anderson Lake watershed, it is estimated that between 27 and 75 tons of salt would bbefice required mp�.ice control practices comparable to those of the 3M Company Analysis Assumptions _ _ 1. Long term monitoring of North Anderson Lake has not been conducted. It is assumed, therefore,that the 33 mg/1 (milligrams per liter) as measured by Watershed District Engineers in 1971, represents a long term average or steady-state value.' 2. Normal hydrological conditions are assumed to occur during the spring runoff: — Spring snow melt runoff from impervious surfaces has a water content equivalent to 7 inches of rainfall. — Snow melt runoff from turfed surfaces has a water content equivalent to '0.75 inches of rainfall. 3. 100%of all salt applied at the Hartford site will appear in the outlet from the retention pond to North Anderson Lake. 4. The assumed chloride water quality standard for North Anderson Lake is 250 mg/1. 5. The period of spring runoff is assumed to be short with the runoff flowing into North Anderson Lake instantaneously mixing laterally and vertically with the entire receiving body. Analysis Results 1. Under the above assumptions, the spring volume of runoff from the portion of the Hartford development that is paved, will increase from about 5 acrefeet to about 40 acre-feet. Total volume of spring runoff from the watershed will increase from about 165 acre-feet to about 200 acre-feet. 2. Given the application rates derived above and assuming 50% of the applied salt would be calcuim chloride and 50%sodium chloride, the concentration of chloride ions in the stormwater discharge would range from about 300 mg/1 to 860 mg/l. *Note that the usage of salt by MnDot peaked during the period 1968-1971. Substantial reductions in salt usage have been achieved on Interstate and Trunk Highways since that time. This indicates that the assumed long term average of 3 mg/I is somewhat conservative insofar as it relates to loadings from those segments of 1-494 and TH 5 in the Anderson Lake Watershed. More recent sampling and analysis resulted in an estimate of 20 mg/1 (Mr. Chris Eager, personal communication). l,11 • 3. The in-lake concentration of chloride :loss woaid increase from 33 mg/l to between 50 and 88 mg/L The,.assumed water quality standard of 250 mg/I would not be violated. 4. Assuming a normal excess at evaporation over precipitation of 5.5 inches,the concentration effects would result in an in-lake chloride concentration ranging from 66 to 110 mg/I. This also would not result in a violation at the assumed standard. • Prolusion Although the analysis indicates that a violation of state water quality standards is - —not likely, non-struetural (gattntit) teem**can lee"i i ^fb minimize'the addition of salt to North Anderson Laka. Such cuntruis may Involve; (1)substitution of abrasive materials such as sand or grit which can be picked up in. the proposed grit chamber; CZlmalntaining an accurate maintenance log which provides an estimate of salt application during the course of awinter;(3)monitoring of the discharge to determine the salt loading to the lake as a result of liarti'ord's Maintenance practices. Flintily, it should be recognized the salt concentration in ! Saderfaan Lake results from a number of sources and circumstances, many of which are not under ,w lia wed bas control. Thisemphasizes the need for water quality management on a only on a siteaite basis. • • • • • • • • • • M. D. HYDROLOGY 3. The increased runoff generated and potential pollutants rem the proposed development demonstrates the need for a permanent st Water control facility. A permanent storm retention pending area and an inlet structure capable of removing grit and floating debris have been provided for the proposed development. A hydrologic analysis was conducted for both the existing site and the ..: .. _ . ___. . proposed development. - Existing peak runoft..frm.the.•eite proposed for development,during a storm with a 10-year return frequency,was determined to have a discharge of approximately..4jefs Wide feet per second). The peak runoff from the developed site,during a 10-year storm, was determined to have a discharge of approximately 194cfs. With a maximum allowable discharge of the existing site(48c s),a detention pond will be provided to accommodate the runoff generated from a 10-year storm. Storage requirements have been determined to be 5.0 acre-feet and the detention pond will provide•a storage capacity of 5.5 acre-feet,thereby accommodating a 10-year storm. The stored water within the retention pond will be discharged at a maximum rate of Clefs to Anderson Lake by means of a triangular weir. • Because of potential pollutants and materials contained in the storm water detrimental to surface waters,a permanent inlet structure to remove grit and floating debris has been inP1utipel with the detention pond design. This inlet control will provide controlled settling for grit and an area for entrapment of • floating debris. A schematic diagram of the inlet control unit is shown below. INLET CONTROL comet* R e �►e ! ' - b IMDi STOW ssVITe RAAT=OEBIB3..1 0 i er m J • r 49.411'J921VALVA 4�'tj.'t ` �S'.'�:•`'�+s?•,-,:.fii�`.�:�a".�.{C7.'s;�i5a'�N�c?tl�`.i?p'�i>y '+""r�'�?�,,"' moo 91+,C"t S x�.4 :?,.�.r•�Y".�..w'}.r'� •"`-R'ti�a�n+•Ti',iy.'A..+it;�'.i.�'� 'l:'...1:� The floating debris and grit will be removed after the storm and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner by a licensed contract hauler. • • For design purposes grit is defined as fine sand greater than .0079 inches in - diameter, with a specific gravity of 2.65,and a settling velocity of.075 fps(feet per second). Floating debris includes any material with a specific gravity less than water(i.e. wood and petroleum distillates). On the basis of the physical characteristics of grit and the peak discharge of a 10- year storm from the site, a grit chamber was designed. A grit chamber hydraulically capable of handling a peak discharge of 194cfs and to settle out all grit greater than.0079 inches in diameter was determined to be impractical due to its immense size and corresponding cost. However, since the'peak discharge • generated from a storm constitutes only a small duration and discharge of the�-- ""Montt'the grit"chamber was designed--for-a-lower:storm-discharge and•-return - T . �. frequency. Since a storm of a 10-year return frequency theoretically occurs only every 10-years, only a relatively minute portion of grit will escape the grit chamber only to settle in the detention pond. The necessary size of storm sewer pipe entering the grit chamber was increased with a flatter slope to lower the velocity of the water entering the grit chamber. Lowering the velocity will decrease turbulence within the grit chamber,thereby aiding settlement. There is sufficient capacity for storm sediments within the detention pond almost indefinately before storm storage within the detention pond is affected. However, it is anticipated that the detention pond will be required to be cleaned periodically due to natural occuring sediments(i.e.wind carried dirt and leaves). The grit chamber was also designed to trap all floating debris, a significant potential source of pollution. The detention time provided within the grit chamber provides ample time for debris with a specific gravity less than water to rise to the top and float. Floating debris examples include gas,oil,grease, foam and wood,all serious potential pollutants. Floating debris and grit will be removed after the storm and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner by a licensed contract hauler. The proposed location of the grit chamber provides adequate access for maintenance from the adjacent parking lot. The detention-pond will also serve as a sedimentation basin for removal of suspended solids grit escaping the grit chamber. The sedimentation basin will provide a particle detention time of approximately 2 hours, sufficient time for at least 90% removal of suspended solids. It should be noted that as percent of removal increases, time required for removal increases dramitieally and becomes impractical (i.e. removal of the remaining 10% of the suspended solids would require an additional detention time upwards of 24 hours and a detention pond several times larger). Removal of dissolved solids (i.e., salt) was explored and determined to be impractical. Equipment with sufficient capacity to remove salt from the winter runoff from the site.(estimated 13 million gallons per year) would require several million dollars with an estimated energy and maintenance costs of approximately 26 thousand dollars annually($2/1000 gallons). Salt removal also leaves a salt brine which must be ultimately disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner which raises further environmental questions. Because of the extreme capital 5b I flLI • costs, maintenance and energy requirements, salt removal is practically and - economically unfeasible. However,while it is unfeasible to remove salt several things may be done to limit the amount of salt in the storm runoff. Cutting back on the amount of salt used on the site for me shed by willgreatly ss �nish thematerials for leetaf The pontr runoff. instance can.be accomplished by using their are two forms of fly ash(power plant residue)which are Currently being use in lieu of the normal sand/salt combination. 'These flit ash materials a as . . 'little as la%of the normal salt content. The salt.is t*edto keep•he lily ash from freezing into clumps. • The fly ash alternatives do have drfushaoks, hd roger. t type le ft d material which is very sharp and if tracked•into aosl normal flooring surfaces it Will destory them (such as carpet or ihrolsuml. ''fie other IS a.very black f jh ';s which is extremely dirty if tracked into a'bw t '. • rloua the cooperation of the variOusifeeefluteettel elfebetesaw,eestzhttlall the • amount of salt used would be efoil!heiwaytclaL Eveww tt`"Jirtle A'set is used on site,,it will,still be picked up andaStit,ilffedatt the site hlrvehieles driting on adjacent streets and highways. resolutirtn of ihisiteht lithely-end the 40.0Md of the developer. The inlet control structure and detention pond afford North Anderson Lake a significant rise in the water quality whale ineressI the volume of that water sennlY• • These two features provide a significant benefit to that lake and its ultimate preservation. • • • 111 ` a3 • ~•. DESCRIPTION OF ACES Annual Cycle Energy Systems (ACES), or more appropriately low temperature storage, can significantly Puce the energy cots for buildings. Storage allows for the accumulation of thermal energy when electrical energy costs are lower.a:nd permit wore efficient operation of mechanical systems. Ice storage, a recent technical possibility, is a practical method to store low temperature energy in a smaller space. The energy released when melting ice to writer at 32° is fourteen times greater than the: energy required to raise the temperature of water ten deegr-con fahrenheit. As the cost of energy continues to escalate along with the cost of when electrical energy i.s used, low temperature storage will become increasingly important. • • • • .MINNESOTA ENVIRMAMNTAL QUALITY COUNCIL Draft April 4, 1979 . zmnitoriterizez ASSESSMENT womcs T (SAW) AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS • Do NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R. M NOTES The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (SAW) 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. SUIO R! A. ACTIVITY.FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) ®Negative Declaration (No EIS) ❑ EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) S. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION 1. Project name or title Hartford Office Park and Commercial Development 2. Project proposer(s) Hartford Real Estate Comnanv • Address Hartford Plaza,Hartford.Connecticut 06115 Telephone Number and Area Code (203) 547-5791 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road.Eden Prairie.Minnesota Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this EAW: Mr.Chris Enter Telephone 941-2282 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location Eden Prairie Administrative nffiens Telephone 941-2262 Hours R tllf n_rn_—4:30 p.m. S. Reason for EAW Preparation OMandatory Category -cite OPetition (I)Zieunrtary MEQa Rule number(s) if mandatory tcc)tdd) (the property is contained in The Preserve Final E.I.S.dated June 22, 1976) C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY (dd)office development within a shoreland 1. Project location (cc)office development of more than 40 acres County Hennepin city/Township name City of Eden Prairie Township number 1.116 (North), Range Number 22 East era) circle one), Section number(s) 13.14.24 Street address (if in city) or legal description: 78th Street West and Schooner Boulevard • 2. r,o:and scope of.ar000sad psatect: 1.25 million square feet of office space on 125.8ac of which 42.4 ac is scenic easement; 200,000 square feet of cprnercial on 25.3 ac of which 4.3 ac is scenic e�a�$$mnent; and 7.8 or road ROW. rstsmatec smarting•nave cmontnwyear) sner, 199 sclg'alttet 4. Estimated ompletiodaOson h/year) Phase 1-2004,00 9,ft. office-Fall,1980 & ultimate 1987 5. Estimated construction cost 373.8 million 6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed from each unit of government and status of each; See taehed Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval status (federal, state, or Federal Funding regional, local) Refer to Attached p. 2a • 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?__.L- PMIMOWII Not applicable • II. ACTIVITY DESCRTPTICW A. Include the following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. See p. 2b 2. An original 8h x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 7+h minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be flain- taiaed by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other EAW distribution points.) Sea 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including significant natural features (water bodiet,...ioadsc_etc). See p. 2d 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 land use on the site was agricultural. Eden Prairie Regional Center is adjacent to the site on the west;78th Street West and I-404 border the site on the north;Anderson Lakes are to the east;and single-family residential development occurs south of the site. 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban developed O acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) us..yaere= b. Urban vacant ,, acres g. Shoreland 95.2acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain Oacre d. Rural vacant 0 acres i. Cropland/Pasture land 112 acres e. Designated Reese- 47 acres j. Forested 9 acre", ation/Oaen•Space I?1 (scenic easement commitment]-2- • • • LC.6. GOVERNMENT APPROVALS NEEDED AND STATUS Eden Prairie Approvals �and Permits status Zon ct Cher Topment Plan Pending Preliminary Plat Approval Pending nding Mai Plat Approval Puture Grading and Construction Permits AW Pending Nine Mile Creek Watershed D of Plan Review and Grading To be applied for • Extension Permit To be applied for State disposal System and/er MMPDES Permits Nel to-be determinedby Y ' indirect Source Permit !infer Ultimate Dev.t Not let - applied for MDNR —7—Public Waters Required;Not yet applied for • • • • 2a i r -"? *-7 \--': ..,-4/....r...71111".""m".i. -- , • •-•.--1---'--------.-7-=iii-d- --.0"" ...;!....... ..... , .w.--. 1 4i9r: ... -- : •••••,%k\,2 i IsuZ-- - 'et-- . torl,az Su ~ • Ip'lj • iZi " ij tc LI 00,: 14l1. S i.. .,am •- : fir.it 1 \� '' ..it• a6AK+.� 1,... �t� - 2- �, D 'Gt i ``'r,` I 'illy- ..t -''''.1.... •i. �`f`Ri ,SONYA w si•'11 •▪ !� •t I u Y ,1 '' • yek-... S: WI 1[L1I a•.�,„ a'''.: �Y 1. yi c a, ' ' - r$ �-� ,.,,t nA _: 7' Tr $ f 1L L. iN. al '• '•"� li,- . t rfig ' ' ' urI .6�. - . } I'r• , tW m•P I 1.„.n.I, L;,r � .iras w .. •ti / ' 1 1,... -14.4 ,::1'' -#ir - t 724 i. ifr W. _..• y ! .•fr - v g I 1nY•r k t�1 R alit 1....ram` ' --• 4.P 41,1d ".�.r ..r"", _ �i, "" -_ • 1 \' '•'.r"Yam' ��' , l� f- y~ R" — -c-- A.V...nars MP Nay .....* it,.: i 1.=.119[ I I a ii...I.:- `.....V.........„) l• 1:",j : '•� I a" ;''' : is i.ti":' 1}. -" ,uazilia SITE Figure 1 • Regional Location 2b )• ; .) 1 • : -..,• .:11'.. • 7 ••••.. :/:‘,.t:. i,'i•,,.--:: 11 vials ! ,.. • 112 • D!1A .es /�-' .crw m`i r*F 1 4 +a.,.a yncesn I t j .. •RA rt Olt , r.� 0.•�w» .F. I a ,.•� •':* /' t'- tptt:+f•., Ta,p•yj r.—q Ir. 1. iii fi •I v4 • ..r' �• •' an gt „ r V' fn Fyn _ • L i t y r, ..y.,0 ) r ,;./.r Df r » • ,...._, • • •,, � � t4b t� w ¢ P. 2 .l / r aft. t` `N °` ti►!�/I t7: gyp !{ 19 ^� . OJ` e-`; / ��e '',., ( / t gyp ..•Ott S .l • aft a ,' J •r" ^c v''' F i j a l `pc Figure 2 U.S.GS. Eden Prairie:!.' Minn Quadrangle u 1".,t • .. . ,. ., ,. . . , ... .„ ,, , . . .. , • , . -.,.• ... . . . . .. . . , • • • • ••% . - . , • _ . . , .,...4ti =-. -/4 - „--5--,=-.---,---,-.1. .:70.- -,5....."-;.,•.: ..',.:1, ,,i.......... - -4,,..,1,,,rt.t.,....--.....:_'.:-...,,,...,„..,, ,------,-":"-2:-. .. . •.---""V.... -....i.. .. .\.._ „7•;.!-•-ck__. 4.t. I. ---.7"• . ',,,.,::,-,--; ••..,-- ,-...,it ry'...• .,., ../ --. .. ••• 1",'a, VI- g••w I '2"71- ' '' • _ -a ilr, 0:07 leirip. -, Or .•., ' • ' y „iAttool ,N'• , ...'- .4,57:041: ..t Ik1/4. • 1 • • • ." . .! N..._• Lot 1 .. , . .. . ... . A. • , ' • ' .•.-414'..i',_.,,..•:-.'h . - "... t'11 s;.%„;, ,'.\ • k.........--,..--14.-_- . / N' •••,& - -,, •'' \ ,•,,,a,;, , 1.. .. ......, ,....... . -,1".----7' ;2-- 4. . ' 4,(4) ..L . 4 ' 00101 ‘,-1,„\'4. ' • • 1 •h. , +4;:••••••••-. .s4 '. al, ,... ....400.'1 V -,.... • . .. F':, -.''‘..,IlIcri... '''44."°!...' ' . ts,:::,004.g ,`• '''''...\:.... ' -7 '''.;. 0. .1......, •-....., 4, ' 4,''',N1.' ‘. • ' . ,•'' '' \ 4 ii• ;9'--- 1 "1-sis... ' -, I t !* . . t . .. .4z ---, AP, . . , - . !, -. ' \*,.4r , ' ..., 4-• .4 ' • 1 :. ' rti. ''•-- . . ' • . .1/''./ * . ""N\ j3 n ' ''.1. '!. -Z1, 's.'. ! 0,. • • Lat /..,,',., 47, ,,,,,,444,,,ii ., I — :,z, ,. . ,'.,••••...,... "0„,„1", / -4:4„,...._ ,'":4111114 .\ ,. o 4/k,,,,•9" '-‘, , . 1 .. , , •,,. ,....„.__, . . .,....\ ....._ . ., ‘, .. „, .....• ......, . . . ...,,,....... t., , ,s Lat-12'•-•-•i• 1 Lott ';, -----;.--_ , . . • \ ,,,e.4 •,•, • ,,:.. . _ --..•, • - _ '•V . .. \;,...,:;,1„..•••‘. • ---,- ' \ . ' ;. 1 .-: .. . '• '..: • l'°"3.0'' •L-::`--L--*-:- k.e.,...._..' - , . ..7,..f..., ..iv._ \ . 40,, • . 4111Virial,' %\,,\ . *.••• ._ ‘• ••••,;- • . -,'••„,7, ' ,—41111M., „• t '..." l'...Nt- .. • ; .•-,:••••. • ..• • % . - .• ••• .• •1440 . ,. •. . N. • 7' • '7,• '" ''''....? ''....'''' l'' '\ f f.s. ;7-isuj- _ • t..'"L, ',..... '... . "---.....:••••', "'---":.--,,...• 1-•••••.N.,..."--.; •• ,'1 ,r*-"•r• . -','_ . 14": !n •\ - ; -., L._' • ; • ."•,-,------"F•••••:•::#1-\47.....z. tt,,,,,., .4, -, •.,1 .1,1••7°' .. t--.., Th\-_-,._.,,-C.0... . ''''. -. ;",..;•.-'. •4..„,- \, '`s- iS-.:".,, I , .....1• "..!:....,' , 1.----.7...- .. / '•"••• ; ; .. • .., Figure 3 .A /... :.. , Proposed Development Concept Plan • - „ -•::,„ P0113-200 .. 1.. • .......„.4, t •t. „ . ,.., r.,„../ • • • * i , ' '.. . •.? • k• s, N. •••••••=..-•-•-'•"' `, ''"-'.---..---'-*.' ' I.1 ..'./ i'.t ' ' ,:t,f'').k . . .. . • • . ", • • . ...., , ...., ...... .. . „ • . .. ....„..._ ,„„ ...,. ..,... ....„ , . .., ... , • • • 3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes"within 1,000"feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. North Anderson Lake abuts the site on the East. 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). See Attached pp. 3a & 3b - . • • 2. Pill in the following where applicable: See Attached p. 3c a. Total project area acres g. Size of of marinaarea)and sq. ft. or Length miles h. Vehicular traffic trips generated per day ?D b. Number of housing or recreational units i. Number of employees c. Height of structures ft. j. Water supply needed _gal/da Source: d. Number of parking spaces k. Solid waste requiring disposal tons/yr e. Amount of dredging cu. yd. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space sq. ft. ing treatment _gal/da • III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently • exceeding 1211? No_Iles 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? _NO�Yls 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. For a detailed discussion of soils and topographic limitations,and proposed measures to reduce impacts,please refer to the detailed discussion in the Development Proposal, pp.14-21. (attached' )23 - 3 - � 4 • II.C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION • 1. The Hartford Real Estate Company proposes to develop a commercial-office Planned Unit Development on a 159 acre site located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. (Refer to Figures 1 and 2). The site is bounded by West 78th Street on the north, Anderson Lakes on the east, Basswood Forest, Northmark and Northmark Second Addition on the south and Schooner Boulevard on the west. (Refer to Figure 3.) The development proposal provides for the construction of 1,250,000 square feet of office space and 200,000 square feet of commercial 'space. ' Approximately 200,000 square feet of office space will be constructed during Phase I development. Method of Development Hartford Real Estate Company will be the prime developer of the property and,as such,will consider sales to others if those others agree to the overall development plan and to the specified development standards. Project StaginK Hartford Real Estate Company proposes a development schedule to meet the following objectives: - Preparation of Phase I documents for a 200,000 square foot office building to commence construction in the summer of 1979. - Preparation of commercial sites abutting Schooner Boulevard to facilitate sale of the properties and completion of development by 1985. - Preparation of office sites to facilitate sale of the properties and completion of development by 1987. Development Concept The proposed Development Concept Plan, depicted in Figure 3 gives an indication of how the site will be developed. The road system is comprised of a spine road that extends from Schooner Boulevard to parcel 5,located in the southeast corner of the site,and a loop road that extends from Schooner Boulevard to the spine road. Major office buildings will be located between the scenic easement and the spine road on parcels 2 through 5. These parcels will contain approximately 150,000 square feet of building floor space each, except for the Phase I building of 200,000 square feet located on Parcel 2. Office buildings to be located in parcels 6 through 8 will be positioned to provide views between and over those buildings located closer to the lake. These parcels will contain 3a I approximately 150,000 square feet of building floor apace each. The proposed office buii83nga will be three to six stones in'height with a maximum height of 75 feet. Parking for the office buildings would be Prodded on surface Iota. This proposed action includes parking for 5,200 ears(800 in Phase Ti and room to expand to 6,000 or 8,500 spaces if required. -_..• The area adlacent to Schooner litadevard and ppreposed-for merelal.uses is also shown in-Figure 3. Approxi 300,000 square.feet of space is to be --- - located on these els. tatildluge smultbassinsinty perking would be provided for 1,800 earn. • Landscaping and Buffers Landscaping and earth berms will be used.to-pr visual barriers between the residential neighborhoods arnd• the proved de' ment. Thu eorrstraetles of the earth beret*:Will be fmod to Dine,development activities occurring on the tsrsrall'.:sitex At each p of development pis constructed, earth berms � be put in plies to sateen residen i ' viewing that phase of development currently under construction. • • • • 3b rY1 • B.C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION • Phase.1 Ultimate 1.a. Total Project Area (acres) 14.5 159 - b. Number of Housing or ReereStiiorial Units c. Height of StruotUres (feet) • 75 '(trnaxImum:) VS cmazdtsium) d. Number of Parking'Spaces 800 totes a. Amount of Dredging (cubic ) 0 0' f. Liquid Wastes Requiring Treatment (ins✓day) Tg:S1� z1&�Aa9. fi +g. She of Starfi►a and AAces Chansiel Not Mt (water area in square i? tlttsa h. Vehicular Trips Generated Par Day (average daily traffic) 21140 it,iiDit :1 ' i. Number of Employees 800. 11,200 3,. Water Supply Needed • allonsfday)� 17,000 1�J6,iiD0 k. Solid Waste Requiring Disposal (tons/Year) 820. 0,200 • 1. Commercial., Retail or Industrial Floor Space (square feet) 2110,000 14400; (totem 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic -4. systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. Replacement of unsuitable soils will be necessary for foundation construction. For additional information see p. 4a. S. Estimate ttie total amount of grading and filing which will be done: 295,000 cu. yd. grading290.000cu. yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? 70 ; 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 25 ; 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and • after construction? Trrdsion matting and straw bales will be used as required by the Nine Mile Creek Waterst. *• District.After construction,the slopes will be sO4ded and landscaped ib � i�. lg.. :_ .-- a. 0n-§iLe inspections will be conduc ed by iaaters'6e�C.distWict and�i'Ly� s of its l xbe accomplished in phases. 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types: Woodland 5.7 t Cropland/ JQ_% Pasture Brush or shrubs 12.5 t Itarah ♦1 At Grass or herbaceous 4Q.4% Other - 6 • (Specify) 2. Bow many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 1 acres 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNB publication The Uncommon Ones.) 'X NO YES If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse intact. • C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? ND X YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See ONR publication The Uncommon �( NO YES Stall 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish NO X YES habitat? f 4. If yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and b indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. Anderson Lakes Park Reserve abuts the site on the East. See Attached for additional information, p. 4a & 4b 4 Q n III.C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 4. The types of fish and wildlife habitat involved in this proposed action are upland cultivated and fallow fields, maple-basswood forest along the northwest shore of southwest Anderson, and elm-oak forest along the sou and thwest and attached marshes t shores of of North Anderson La Anderson Lake. ke considered are the Wildlife in these habitats is varied, and generally-considered :^_^ r important as an amenity attraction in the area. Various sources report -- sightings of approximately 100 species of birds utilizing habitats in . BrdoilTrigtOn and Eden Prairie. Representative Resting..bird.species.includ® _,_... . the yellow-headed blackbird, red-winged blackbird, soca rail, Virginia rail, coot, mallard, blue-winged teal, red-head duck, gadwall, woodduck, pied- billed grebe and northern yellowthroat. Representative mammal species include muskrat, raccoon, mink, beaver, fox, skunk, weasel, deer. badger, among other animals. Preservation of portions of wildlife habitat in relation to the Hartford site was initially considered in 1970 in the formulation of the Planned Unit Development concept for the area. At that time, 10 acres of shoreland property was conveyed to the City of Eden Prairie. This conveyance consisted of a 50-foot strip of land measured landward from the ordinary high water mark of elevation 840. Also created at that time was a scenic easement adjacent to the dedicated shoreland area. The easement provided for open space on an additional strip of shoreland averaging 170 feet in width. Together, the shoreland and scenic easement resulted in the retention of approximately 57 acres of land for essentially conservation and scenic uses. All major wetlands and forested areas on the site are retained in the easement and dedicated area. • Hartford Real Estate Company proposes no additional mitigation of wildlife habitat losses other than to observe the following restrictions on activities • within the scenic easement as approved by the City: (a) The scenic area shall be preserved in substantially its natural state to continue as a habitat for the preservation and observation of plant and animal life. No other use or occupation shall be made,established or maintained upon said scenic area. (b) or°offal shall hereafter be allowed upon the scenic area. garbage,of ashes, trash, junk,rubbish, sawdt, earth fill, (c) No trees, or shrubs,shall be destroyed,cut or removed from the scenic area except as may be required for reasons of sanitation and disease control and except for selective cutting of timber by the Village of Eden Prairie. A vegetative barrier shall be installed between the buildings and scenic easement boundary to prevent active use of area ebyypl°y (d) The only structures to be constructed,erected or placed upon the scenic area shall consist of the grit chamber and outflow. 4a • ti • North Anderson Lake . North Anderson Lake is a shallow, euticephia lake of ITO acres and approximate volume of 600 an.ft. Previous.Studies by engineers to the Nine Nile reek Watershed District have demonstrated that the lake has .a ma imam depth of.8 feet and a mean depth of about 3,ii feet. The deeper areas are reportedly in the eastern portion of the lake near County Road 11. Anther characteristic t of Importance is that. Anderson Lakes are at bleb water.level& During mueh of the year,therefore,there is limited tu erof1kaw r; __Tate-iimmtrsata'Department of Nai S1-Rose " i .Scotto,- Anderson take as minnow,or-nus.tillati Larne• The lake Is subject:to winterkiil Primary tales of the lame,as-,de'tertnn in,ittonVersations with City staff at Eden Prairie, are wildlife .o$trriatiort end scenic enrolment. The it+tinnestor 151 t does not provide any form of es management aevtivities for the Ialtit edit!' 10-ttY bay no plans to de.for • swimming beaches or formsrff"a tie recreation of 4f to nt� ►e• The proposed . bivalves nnvironmented.COMInilinnii410rit [d ' Lake in so far•as stern w (er is pr ''to ate tot .lalte ir^om the proposed detention points discussion of '� storm, water management pond and appWtecattatis is contained in the liViraltg r section of this 8Atr. fI Urban storm water may effect water ty .and intended lake usage, }. particularly if the contributiOn is large relative to the total supplir of water reaching the lake and time,die.is MIC011trelied in termn of potential pollutants. in this case,Preliminary stoma water management concepts and engineering have been developed and: are described.&rein, A formal application will be submitted to the lelfritiesota Pollution Control Aged ter:a determination as to the need for a State Disposal System and/or MPDES permits for the proposed facilities. hi aeidtiee a public waters permit. application will also be submitted to the Minnesota 12int for review and approval • 4b ..,.. ..,.... . ,.... .. Far D. HYDROLOGY g, 1. Will the project include any of the followings If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond. marsh, NO YES lowland or groundwater supply b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X c. Dredging or filling operations • d. Channel modifications or diversions e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water y. f. Other changes in the course. current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site (See#3 Attaches *see page 5a for detailed explanation 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? As 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? See Attached • 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain ny new fill or structures? ENO YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? NO YES S. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the site? (marsh in scenic . WATER QUALITY sanitary sewage easement) 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, or otherwaste waters groundwater? X YES If yes,, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the water body receiving the effluent. see p. 5a 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is planned, identify any toxic, Corrosive or unusual pollutants in the wastewater. None 3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? X MO YES If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method of disposal. 112,0 - g .. • • M. D. HYDROLOGY .. 3. The increased runoff generated and potential pollutants from the proposed development demonstrates the need for a permanent storm water control facility. A permanent storm retention pcmcling area and annll rt ucture . r the capable of removing grit and floating provided . proposed development. A hydrologic analysis was_conducted for both.:the. existing site and the...... _.._ ,' proposed development. Existing peak runoff from the site proposed for ' development,during a storm with e ilk.s.ear.pot1i tt&F yx. deter fined_.,._ _ to have a discharge of approximately 48cfs(cubic feet per second). The peek runoff from the developed site, during a 10-year storm, was determined to • have a discharge of approximately 194cfs. With a maximum allowable discharge.of the existing site (48cf8),a detention pond will be provided to accommodate the runoff generated from a 10 year storm. Storage requirements have been determined to be 5.0 acre-feet and the detention pond will provide a storage capacity of 5.5 acre-feet,thereby accommodatbeing a 10-year storm. The stored water within the retention pond discharged at a maximum rate of 48cfs to Anderson Lake by means of a triangular weir. Because of potential pollutants and materials contained in the storm water detrimental to surface waters,a permanent inlet structure to remove grit and • floating debris has been to luuad with the detention pond design. This inlet control will t and an area for entrapment of . • floating debris. A schematic diagram of thovide controlled settling for e inlet control unit is shown below. INLET CONTROL CHAMBER "; -1..1 ti, $, L b s •ee L vs mi+w.m um saw , PLUMS amaa 40091, � • N RETINTION a t moo li ik.„$;yy.,r• L ,t+it srstilli i'�t(ael`t1iht. IMP L;p ii rA The floating debris and grit will be removed after the storm and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner by a licensed contract hauler. Further settling of solids contained in the storm water will take place in the detention pond prior to discharge into Anderson Lakes. Actual criteria for storm water design will be determined by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 5a 1 '31 4. What measures will be used to minimise the volumes or impacts identified in questions 1-3? Ongoing inspections will be conducted by watershed district and • city staff. Detailed impact of the quantity of water when combined . with the velocity will occur during detailed storm sewer plan submission to the City , Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Department of • Natural Resources. • 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. Not Applicable !. MR QUALITY AND NOISE -Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates into the atmosphere? No rYES -- 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. Refer to Attached pp.6a,6b & 6c . 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation of the project? NO X YES If yes, describe the noise source(s)t specify decibel levels [d8(A)), and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/vibration. Refer to Attached pp. 6a,6b& 6c • 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. • . Refer to Attached#1 and#2 G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production or currently in such use? NO_, If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop or wood'produced and the quality of the land for such use. Approximately 112 acres of the site is formable. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on the site? X NO YES • If yes, ,•^eci`y the type of deposit and the acreage. • s • • For design purposes grit is defined as fine sand greater than .0079 inches in diameter, with a specific gravity of 2.65,and a settling velocity of .075 fps(feet per second). Floating debris includes any material with a specific gravity less than water(i.e. wood and petroleum distillates). On the basis of the physical characteristics of grit and the peak discharge of a 10- year storm from the site, a grit chamber was designed. A grit chamber hydraulically capable of handling.a peak discharge of 194cfs and to settle out all grit greater than.0079 inches in diameter was determined to be impractical due to its immense "size' and corresponding cost. However, since the-peak discharge - -- . _... generated from a storm constitutes only a small duration and discharge of the . gtdYni"the"grit"chamber was designed for-a dower;stern-discharge and•re •n.ro-a,.,r....«,,...• frequency. Since a storm of a 10-year return frequency theoretically occurs only every 10-years, only a relatively minute portion of grit will escape the grit chamber only to settle in the detention pond. The necessary size of storm sewer pipe entering the grit chamber was increased with a flatter slope to lower the velocity of the water entering the grit chamber. Lowering the velocity will decrease turbulence within the grit chamber,thereby aiding settlement. There is sufficient capacity for storm sediments within the detention pond almost Indefinately before storm storage within the detention pond is affected. However, it is anticipated that the detention pond will be required to be cleaned periodically due to natural occuring sediments(i.e.wind carried dirt and leaves). The grit chamber was also designed to trap all floating debris, a significant potential source of pollution. The detention time provided within the grit.chamber provides ample time for debris with a specific gravity less than water to rise to the top and float. Floating debris examples include gas,oil,grease, foam and wood,all serious potential pollutants. Floating debris and grit will be removed after the storm and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner by a licensed contract hauler. The proposed location of the grit chamber provides adequate access for maintenance from the adjacent parking lot. The detention pond will also serve as a sedimentation basin for removal of suspended solids grit escaping the grit chamber. The sedimentation basin will provide a particle detention time of approximately 2 hours, sufficient time for at least 90% removal of suspended solids. It should be noted that as percent of removal increases, time required for removal increases dramitically and becomes impractical (i.e. removal of the remaining 10% of the suspended solids would require an additional detention time upwards of 24 hours and a detention pond several times larger). Removal of dissolved solids (i.e., salt) was explored and determined to be impractical. Equipment with sufficient capacity to remove salt from the winter runoff from the site (estimated 13 million gallons per year)would require several million dollars with an estimated energy and maintenance costs of approximately 26 thousand dollars annually(5211000 gallons). Salt removal also leaves a salt brine which must be ultimately disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner which raises further environmental questions. Because of the extreme capital Sb " "• •::-; . . . - • ' • • maintenance and energy requirements, salt removal is practically and economically unfeasible. However, while it is unfeasible to remove salt several thethmse amsmabyhtbeadsonalef touselidinbrilt the amount of salt in the storm runoff. Cutting backon of the runoff . This the Site for ice control,will greatly dileiniell the salt content -: can be accomplished by using substitute materials for ice control. _nor_ 198110usee. their are two forms of fly ash(power plant resia_due) which_ are currently being in lieu of the normal sand/salt combination. These a:bnhe ematerials ash from e as little as 1096 of the normal salt content.. The salt 15,90.0_ ep _ . •,• freezing into clumps. The fly ash alternatives do have drawbacks, however. One.tgeorilengesuirrfaactett material which is very sharp and if tracked Into arril•on normal black ash 1.11 destory them(such as carpet or linoleum). The other is a very fly which is extremely dirty if tracked into a btlibling. I. Even various governmental agencies in restricting the Obviously the cooperation of the neti I if little or no-salt Is used amount of salt used wOuld be extreeetlY it by hiciZa -driving on on site,it will still be picked up and deprolted_lat_the_site the . „ adjacent streets and highways. The resolution of this item is Deplane m control of the developer. The inlet control structure and detention pond afford_ North Andersonhatlatlte:Ltera significant,rise in the water quality while increasing the v Of • ,P154 - • These two features provide a significant benefit to that lake and its ultimate preservation. • , • : • • • 5c • !Iv• • , - • W.F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE • 1. During the construction phase of the project,a temporary increase in fugitive dust emissions can be expected,created by exposure of soils to the wind and to construction traffic. Potential mitigative measures include phasing the • project to minimize exposed surfaces, the use of water sprays to suppress dust, and covering of stockpiled materials. If promalgated, such measures • would be mandatory under MPCA's draft regulation of fugitive ddst emissions (APC-40,as proposed). According to the U.S.EPA document{ Compilation of • • • Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), approximately 1.2 tons of fugitive --dust-emissions per acre of construotiow-will-occur--for-each—month-of•- --. continuous construction activity. Application of control techniques, as described above,can curtail fugitive emissions by fifty percent or more. In order to determine the impact of traffic generated emissions on ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide, a series of dispersion analyses have been conducted according to the procedure specified by U.S. EPA Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 9: Evaluating Indirect Sources (September, 1978). Given the predominant office space character of the proposed development,traffic patterns will show pronounced morning and evening rush hour peaks with comparatively low volumes during the intervening period. Accordingly, the dispersion analyses evaluate traffic impacts on peak hour CO concentrations in comparison with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard of 30 parts per million(PPM). While an MPCA Indirect Source Permit is not required for Phase 1 of the project, a much more complex air quality analysis will be completed as part of an Indirect Source Permit application to be submitted prior to initiation of subsequent development. For the year 1981, Phase 1 analysis,the peak hour CO concentration has been estimated for a receptor located approximately 40 meters southwest of the nearest lane of Schooner Boulevard and 50 meters northeast of the nearest lane of the site access roadway. Significant parameters assumed for the analysis were as follows: wind direction from the west-southwest;wind speed of one meter per second,ambient temperature of 20 F;10 percent cold-start and 20 percent hot-start vehicles on Schooner Boulevard, 35 percent cold- start and 20 percent hot-start on the access roadway;national vehicle mix; stable atmosphere; smooth terrain; and background 10 concentration of 3.2 ppm. The resultant 10 estimate for this receptor was 17.6 ppm. For the year 2000 ultimate development,peak hour 10 estimates were made for two receptor sites: the first corresponding to the Phase 1 receptor located northeast of the northern site access intersection with Schooner Boulevard, the second located 40 meters southeast of Schooner Boulevard and 50 meters southwest of the southern site access roadway. A background concentration of 2.0 ppm was assumed. For the northerly receptor, a wind direction from the west-southwest was used,and a worst-case wind from the north-northeast was assumed for the southerly receptor. All other significant parameters were as assumed for the Phase 1 study. The peak hour CO estimate for the northerly receptor was 13.5 ppm, and 8.8 ppm for the southerly receptor. 6a ''�'- ✓J • • • , • • • Forecasted concentrations are well below the Minnesota standard. Moreover, • the analysis procedure is %humidly 0011SerVatiVe, providing reasonable • assurance that no violations will occur due to completion of the proposed Pror4eot. 2. A field inspection of the area indicated the land uses moat susceptible te Impacts from the proposed development•would be the residential area south of the project. Noise monitoring stations were legated at three loot to obtain representative data on ambient conditiorN. additon,the ambient_.... noise levels for these stations Were predicted (=Iodated after development for the peak brat time perked,'MTh*tUTWO Traffic volumes. An analysis of the measured as welt as estimated ambient noise levels Cfable.•-- 1)indicates that all receptor locations-Will OrIterients imise standards as specified by the Minnesota Noise Pollution Pstittot It should be noted that construction detdeit/ cans, noise .10O_VI TO increase on a short term MOS, hat will not meat* a long term elosesee • impact • • Construction noise will temporarily force wildlife from the site. Wildlife should return to the open space areas of the Site after construction of each phase. The construction of the uses adiacent ,to the lake will produrs, the most temporary displacement of wild- life. The installation of the vegetative barrier-along the scenic easement line will help buffer latter construction phase impact. .• • 117'1,,(47 J• • •-•"•-• • •- - ..",, • 1.- • •-• •••• • - - -„ • . • " ••••• •• •- • , • . • . •• 7. • -._•";.1.F.:•;„•-• - • , • - . • . , • ". • • . . • • .... • • TABLE I. EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS-dl(A) Receptor -peak Hour Measured Calculated State Stiuciard - (Existing) (1)ItiMetts Development) *NPC - • L. - Residential area in the vicinity of • •. Lanewood 1rele . ...col.. Cul-de-Sac LBO 44 52 60 Lip 48 .57 es S. Residential area in the vicinity of • , • Center Ivo end Fieldcrest Rd. L50 44 48 60 L10 48 63 65 . .„ • it. Residential area In the vicinity of Ntwthmark Dr. 04.4:le-Sao L 44 42 L10 48 64 65 • * NPC-2 Noise Pollution Control Standards •. •••- . • • ge 11'31 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 Daily) Anticipated Firm Contract or Type Recuirement Sumner Winter Supplier Interruptible Basis? Electrical 1'114,000 40,300 27,000 therms therms therms NSP Firm C'Antinrt 213,000 7,100 Open Market Interruptible Oil therms N/A ,therms 107,000 3,550 Coal therms N/A therms Open Market Firm rnntrent Solar As Needed N/A N/A N/A Firm Contract *Based on 1,250,000 square feet of office space and 200,000 square feet of commercial space b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. Potential exists for storage of approximately 30,000 gallons of.fuel oil and 800 tons of coal. c. Estimate annual energy distribution fors space heating 57 t lighting IC air conditioning 13 t processing • 5 s ventilation 5 d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. ACES-Which_is_a system of energy recycling • is being evaluated for one or more of the parcel developments. This system includes reservoir water and ice storage,heat pumps,and solar collection. In addition,there will be considerable effort to provide inter area busing and van pools to help reduce transportation energy demands. • e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc'? Initially there will be longer work trips(+20 miles round trip)but this will gradually be reduced as the area around the regional shopping center end office park develops. The office pe,rk will induc• housing and businesses in-the area. However,this is a planned growth Tor this area. Ultimately this will become a semi-independent regional centers area. With development the use of masstth tragnyysiiIt�will gebbecome more feasible,thus mitigating the initial energy requirements H.Of OpE g dglaINTREATION 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic ic rivers, s, trails, lake accesses)? If yes, list areas by name and ex.lain how each may be affected by the project. Indicate any measures to used to reduce adverse impacts. The proposed action will be located adjacent to scenic easements and shoreland which are planned as part of the Eden Prairie park system. The proposed action is not expected to adversely impact these open space/recreation resources. The scenic easement�will be respected in accord with the restrictions listed under IILC.4.above. PP. 44 &4b 12,,r 8. TRANSPORPTION 1. Will the project affect any existing eoorroposed transporta on systems (highway, railroad, water, airport• r)p if yes, specify which part(s) 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 (MT). access requirements). See Attached pp. 8a-8f 2. is mass transit available to the site? __LSO • YEE 3. What measures, including transit and pasatran sit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? Van pooling will be considered after completion of Phase 1. On-site bus service will be considered for ultimate development. Hartford intends to actively promote and provide these types • of programs in relation to its own employees. Hartford has employed a noon luncheon van for office employees in previous developments which helps to reducenorthwest h traffic. A Metropolitan Transit Commission park-n-ride site exists 1/2 mile of the site. The route is presently under-used and can accommodate additional riders. J. PLANNING, LAND USE. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive Plans? YES If not, explain: The site is within the Metropolitan Council's 1975 Planned Urbanization area. The northern, eastern and western portions of the.site wOulgli1P.developed in the land uses designated by • the Eden Prairie City Guide Plan.Framework. The southeaster'n portion of the site,planned.. ... ..._ - for multiple family residential,would bb e developed as office park. This areawould be buffered from resideppi�l i $Auptia? t $xrdV �Q� 3•" iitate existing zoning and change requested. Existing zoning in the northeastern corner of the site is industrial parka-5). This area is approximately 17.5 acres. The remainder of the site.excluding the 47 acre scenic easement, is zoned rural. The rezoning requested is to office and commercial regional service. . 2. will the type or height of the project conflict with the character ofNO f existing neighborhood? If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. • • Although the proposed buildings will be higher than other buildings in the area,the site will • be developed to provide topographic and visual barriers to shield surrounding land uses. Hills and landscaped berms will effectively screen the area. The site is located within Eden Prairie's Major Center Area, "downtown" , and conforms to heights envisioned for the area. - 8 - L?3°i • IILI. TRANSPORTATION 1. The existing Average Daily Traffic(b.DT)volumes and peak hour volumes for study area roadways are shown in Figure 4. Average Daily Traffic and peak hour volumes for Phase I development utilizing existing roadways are shown on Figure 5. There are major improvement plans and programs for the roadway systems in •.-.. ..• the study area. The proposed series of-roadway.improvements which would._. have the most effect upon the proposed'office site is the extension of Schooner Boulevard to the north,passing under I-494 and connecting to the TH 169, County Road 60 interchange. In conjunction with this, a half- diamond interchange(to the east)would be 4onstructed to provide interstate access from the extended Schooner Boulevard. Access to/from the east for I- 494 and TB 169 would be retained by the provision of a pair of collector- distributor roadways. The ultimate plan for Schooner Boulevard(Ring Road)is to circumvent the major centers area providing access from all directions to the ring road. Also important to the site access is a proposal to widen the existing two-lane TB 169 bridge to a four-lane facility. The City of Eden Prairie has prepared a roadway improvement schedule for these projects and all are to-be completed by 1982-1983. Since the scheduled roadway improvements are to take place prior to ultimate site development, Average Daily Traffic and peak hour volumes were assigned to a roadway system including the proposed improvements. These volumes are shown in Figure 6. In order to establish impacts which may occur on existing or planned roadways due to site generated traffic, intersectioncapacity analyses,were performed accordir.g to the'critical movements'method for both Phase f and ultimate development at the intersections of the access roadways and Schooner Boulevard and Schooner Boulevard--and West -78th Street. The ---- results of these analyses are shown in Figures 7 and 8. As can be seen in Figure 7,roadway impacts occurring during Phase I of the - ..•... •-- • site development will be slight. Figure 8, however, shows that at ultimate- • • site development, the intersection of Schooner Boulevard and West 78th Street will be over capacity and a Level of Service F will exist. The intersection at the north access road and Schooner Boulevard will also operate at Level of Service F. - 8a .''-'-'''','".',11'..-''',-''''. • .". • • �� �' orto Id • • ' - '...1:::"...:,:•..,::'1.:•:''':::11',:,''f,‘" '';.',:,...':..7•1:-::,..‘,'',....,...::,.' • • • FIGURE EXI$Tl'IG TRAFFIC LUME 000AI T PSIpEAK - r F; k a sv (cool. e3e 344980 rj',.''......-''''..7'..:::-1...1.1'''''.....1.r..::'..--':‘::-.''':::....-i:':'.:1'..-''''....''''''' 4-0 • SITE �.w� .....,.,. FICHE 5 PHASE I TRAFFIC VQLLI T 0) PM PEAK • IA� R F e • ti ieo/953 lit T8th ST L?5l996 e . f ITICAt M 9 .4T t} i j: KEY:000/000= urea►IuF,cAraaciTY • # GRI71CAM.MOYEM NT'S 4 0-45 tin ___ FIGURE 7. . INTERSECTION o . « ANALYSES': . • MAN,Be ,t10� , • • P- et g • 40/335 280/333 W.78Th ST. • • *.CRITICAL MOVE!ENTS s i.28 Lps F • 5 1650/2230 ' NORTH ACCESS 2 s C " *CRITICAL MOVEMENTS = L37 t j.i. . • 10 • • sir Si S, O • a I CRPCICAL MOVEMENTS=0.04 a" FIGURE 8 INTERSECTION C rr' i'' ..,,.:n "te KEY:oo©/Ooo= ANALYSIS • VOLUME/CAPACITY ULTIITE �� ,, QE .El.4PhJT • 3. Now many employees will move'into the area to be neer the project? Now much new housing will be needed? . See Attached .P. 9a 4. Will the project induce development near--either support services or similar developments? if yes,explain type of development and specify any other counties and municipalities affected. The area is already served by a regional shopping center and commercial growth Is planned far future phases of the Hartford development itself. Any additional growth would be controlled according to land use plans of Eden Prairie. .S. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public..services to handle__ ..___. . • . .the project and any associated growth? Amount required public Service for project • Sufficient capacity? Phase l-;e,000 water ult.- gal/da See Attached pp.9b &9b • Phase l .100 wastewater treatment 33E 000 galfda See Attached Phase I-2,300 sever lilt.-5.400 few See.Attached schools • pis See Attached schools Phase 1- 11 ' solid waste disposal .-. 1.208 tea/me See Attached streets rn,use 0.2 AA miles See Attanlle$ other (police, fire, etc, Pirs as needed Fr,Hna sae peeriod _ gam Atteehod 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?. See Attached 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 EQC7 _ENO 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 co gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive waste's, poisiens, etc? X NO ICES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures. to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. • Iad, _ A ILL PLANNING,LAND,COMMUNITY SERVICES. 8. The proposed action will accommodate approximately 800 permanent jobs following completion of Phase I and approximately-5,200 jobs by 1990. It is assumed that about 25%of the 800 positions will be relocations from outside the Metropolitan Area. It is reasonable to assume that these employees would seek housing as close to their place of business as possible, say within 10 minutes driving time or less, and therefore, the greatest share of the - housing demand would fall in Eden Prairie and Bloomington. With respect to ultimate development, housing needs will depend on the nature of the business, whether it is new or relocated office activity and other factors. A worst case assessment would be to apply a 40%factor to the ultimate employment of 5,200. This approach would generate a total housing demand of 2,080 units by the late 1980's and early 1990's. Planned and potential housing units in Eden Prairie and Bloomington should be adequate to meet these induced housing needs. 5. The existing Schooner Boulevard was constructed by the City of Eden Prairie to provide public services for future development in the area of the proposed development project. Water, sanitary and storm sewer services were provided with sufficient capacity to service any developments. The only water, sanitary and storm sewer construction required is on-site installations to provide service to specific properties and will be installed privately by the respective properties. Solid waste in Eden Prairie is hauled by private contract hauler and is disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner in a privately operated sanitary landfill. No additional City service will be required since the development will contract for disposal of waste and adequate capacity is available at the existing sanitary landfill. Street construction will be required to provide sufficient access from Schooner Boulevard to specific properties within the development. These streets will be privately constructed and financed by the development, or constructed by the City and assessed back to the beneficiaries. ' Conversations with personnel from Eden Prairie's Department of Public Safety indicate that certain types of fire, police and medical emergency services will need to be provided to the proposed development. It is not possible to project the exact magnitude of the effort required. For example, the need for routine police surveillance will depend largely on internal security measures undertaken by Hartford, parking lot accessibility and visibility,lighting,etc. 9a " ? "-• `• • ' • . • . • - " : • - •••• • . . „ . . . „ • yn. • The City has a weil*oquiPPed and fully-trained fire fighting force. A new fire station is located at West 78th Street and Highway 168,about four bkszics • from the Hartford site,and will provide service to all of the central area. AU equipment needed for a major tower fireibuildby higher than five stories)is either presently available or on order,and will be on-line prior to complau on • of Phase I. Lang term plans of Eden Prairie School District Number 272 zultielpate continued growth of the student poptdatiOlt to the year.19940.11%— numbers of - -- - - students induced because of the proposed action after'Plante I and ultimate development are less than the prrdsasted enrol/meat hiereases in the district over the con,eqporlding thne Period- .2? ._ • • • , I k.fl• - " "• • 8. When,the project has served its useful life, will retirement of thyss \ fa41 sty reare special measures or plans? __x_. If yes, specifyz K. HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any structures on the site elder than 50 years or on federal . .. ----- . or state historical I --— - ,,..ti' Being reviewed 6y State Historitat•Socie�y~~ a or^ear29 2. Have sny`arsowbesds, pottery or Other edenoe of prahl ..... settlement been found on the site? • s. asaj ffeet�t Hight any.Amown arohaol.egie or paleontological Olt 7lES by the activity? 3, list any site or structure identified is1 and 2 and explain any impact on thaw. . See attached. p. 10a - • 1. OTHER ERVIROMEML CONCERNS • Describe any other major environmental effects vhich may net have been identified in the previous sections. • Nate II . e I OTHER HITIfiaTIVS MEASURESS Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate pot� t4at adverse impacts that have not been described before. None . .-, ,,, ,. ".....,,::::,''...2f,:::;.:::,..,::.. ..7",,-;z..:,.:,,:..,.'-:::,,,:,2:,. :':.....?-=.•-•:":..-,::`4::..,--,:., .r7,';.:•:.,-,...,..',..-,..';':.:. •,...:,...:,..,...-,:.'.17' -, ,:. - . •-:. ...-: „::::-F.,,:-..---,.-.'‘::,r:;' ::-...t, .,--:::,,.‘'..:7.:`,..::'.',',:,--:‘,.Y.'.-'-' ''''.,';;';''''''-''''''',."'-'.-'''''''''.!'''''''' '.-''''''''':"7-`:' ' ", ......`''.,,,,,'J:'..2,,....-.;•-.7:::..,::::,..." '''::.:.'.,.:':'"7''.-;:::'.:.;,.„.„''''--'''' ....".;•:.--': ,,' '.--'''...''''''''...'''''''.. .'''„:,',.;..":::".7.'''''."..'':•‘ . ,, .. . • ': ' ' . ',- ,.. . ',‘ 1 ', "1".. - 'i...`.' . ;; .,''. '...:'''''':.2.-.4.',':'''''',"i .. , ....,',' • , , ..... . . • " :.., . , . ,.. • - '•''-.. •• • _ ,,,,,,-,"" ."..","• . ... . .....:-. . 1. • R. HISTORIC RESOURCES . :,....,:-...- • -. 3. dffuringeonstruphation4 cceratithe orauncover any unrecorded archeological • .:;.:-/•,.., require that the contractorconstruction aPasioneraficati°10 approved remains :,,,F.:' until the State HistoricalSociety . study the the eheleitYbYef tiarti°14:1 will :,.,.,-:::-.. reached on the-appropriate lam --diseaverY and the discovery required for 4 future phases mettle of aett6n. Similar I agreement Is "',....". ..._ ..-,..-..- phases of the proleet. provisions still be ...:.,-.i c7: .. . ''''?....7' .:::• . - ....,• . • .....7...... • .., . ''.,".. , .. • ' ':',77..." .-...i........ _ .. ,...- . ;•7„. . - •,-,- - -. , .. ... . i'• :... , . , • ...• ,.: .,. • ,IL, . .i. • , :t, '' • 10a0c) - . ... I j 7. is a private ( ) governmental (X ) action. The Responsible Agency s ..:n) (?•:rs•:a), sitar consideration of the information in this ERW, and the factors Iii :"i:.:. n-o. MKS 225• makes the following findings. 1. •;h•s pro+ect is ( ) is net (X) a major action. a_:c. .:ys..:.s: The proposed action provides for development of the study area, consistent with local and regional plans, in a manner which will not lead to significant I •negative•environmentai effects. - - _ • • X: The project doe% - ) does not (_X) have--the potential for significant- _••.•-- ,.,.._. envirom:ental effects. `j • State reasons: The proposed action allows for the protection of valuable and sensitive areas through open space dedication,control of erosion and sedimentation and retention . of overall drainage patterns. The action is consistent with existing or planned 1 ' capacities for necessary public services. Minimization and appropriate mitigation of impact is to be ensured through adopted policies and permitting processes of • 3. (For private Bacons only.) The project is ,( ) is not (-. ) of sore than local significance. I State Reasons: e Vi. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION 3 NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed until the date of publication of the notice in the FCC Monitor sect Egt section onuof1 the s a requestsota State eister. Submittal for publ catgion of notice in the fBE M:miter.the EAW to e A. I. the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible ] Ageo the Responsible Person identified below. Based on the (Compi finding::. the ResponsibleAgency (Person) es the following conclusions. .either l or 2). 1. „_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE is not a . No EIS is needed on this project, becauseprojectfoe significants major action and/or does not have the potential environmental effects and/or, for private actions only, the project is not of more than local significance. J 3 • 2.-. —EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for signiicant cant enmore roonmeentn tal effects. For private actions, the project is ir local significance. a. The I*QC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the MEQC caa specifically 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 1E Monitor. If special circumstances prevent compliance with this time limit, a written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.) c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) or Person(s)): Signature Roger K.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 III.J.4 on pace 9 of the EAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is sent to the EQC. C. Billing procedures for EEC Monitor Publication State agency Attach to the PAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 ONLY: form (State Register General Order Form—available at Central Stores). For instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of the State Register--(612) 296-B239. I J% - 12 _ Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Comiss ion -4- R. Anderson noted that there would be an unfinished segment of side- walk when the development was done, along city property, leading to the school. He asked if the city could contract to have that section of the walk completed at the same time. Kruell suggested that the walk be wider than 5 feet, and more than 21/4 feet from the side of the road since it would carry an increased- - volume of traffic when the interchange at the Cross Town Highway is complete. Lambert agreed and suggested that it might be appropriate to request' walks on both sides of the road, since Duck Lake Road will be heavily • used as a connector to the school: • - _.____ • -_ _._ __ _ .._.._ -- Fifield asked for an explanation of the drainage problem at Valley Knolls Mini-Park. He was told that the water should drain through the park, not into it, and end up in Purgatory Creek. MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the council approval of High mail Estates, according to the staff recommendations in the memoran- dum of March 30, to also include the recommendation to require an 8 foot asphalt trail (instead of a 5 foot trail) within the develop- ment boundaries because of the anticipated increase in traffic due to the proposed Cross Town Highway/ Duck Lake Road Interchange. The motion was seconded by Bob Johnson, and passed unanimously. MOTION: Fifield moved to recommend to the council that they authorize the extension of the trail/walk to be completed by the High Trail Estates contractor and be paid for by the city. Carlson seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. A short break was called by the chairperson. c. Hartford Real Estate Company Proposal _ Herb Ketchum was introduced by Lambert. He opened his presentation with slides of some other developments done by the Hartford Company, and then reported on neighborhood meetings held earlier in the year with residents near the proposed development. Some of the concerns brought out at those meetings were: traffic patterns, screening of the parking areas, building heights, overall appearance, and lighting. He felt they had resolved all of these questions with the area neighbors. They plan to use extensive landscaping (earth berms and planting) to screen the parking and buildings from the sight lines in the nearby residential areas. They are requesting a variance on parking--they would prefer lots to accomodate 4 cars per 1000 square feet of office space, rather than 5 cars per 1000 square feet, as is now required. They have room to develop more parking if it is needed. Minutes--Parks, Recreation b approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -5- They also are planning a higher percentage of development on the lake- shore land than specified by code--but want to compensate by building a controlled drainage pond which would filter oil and sludge from the water before allowing it back into the lake. This is planned for the first phase of development, and an environmental assessment worksheet has been filed. They plan no fence along the scenic easement, but rather, extensive plantings designed to prevent pedestrian traffic moving to the lake. _ The retaining pond is planned to look as natural as possible. Lambert asked if all the water draining into the lake from the existing area would remain the same, or if they would be gathering more. Also, could the salt in the drainage be monitored and controlled? He suggested the use of parking ramps rather than the extensive lots. Lambert was told that they could only control the application of salt on the parking lots and access roads--they are working on monitoring salt levels in lakes, but have little data to work with at Anderson Lakes. Tangen was concerned about a large stand of trees that appeared to be in the way of proposed utilities--he was assured that the utilities would go around the trees, not through them. Tangen also had questions concerning the set back from the high-water mark; and how does the height of the buildings relate to the Gel co development? Ketchum told Tangen that he would try to get the answers for him at the next meeting. Kruell asked what the residents of the Preserve were told when they purchased their homes; had they been told about the possibility of this type of development? Carlson questioned the problem of traffic flow. How many people were expected to be brought in with the first stage of development? He was told that an interchange with 494 and Schooner Boulevard was scheduled in 1981, by the highway department, and they expected 800 people with the first phase of development. R. Anderson was concerned about the nesting area to the north--and what would be done with the air conditioning water? Is it possible or • feasible for the air-conditioning water to go into the lake? . He was assured that the wildlife area was included in the "scenic easement"; and an internal air conditioning system is being considered. Kruell asked if more attention could be directed toward the problem of dissolved solids going into the lake--weren't there methods to precipitate them out? He was told that this was uneconomical from the standpoint of the initial investment, and also the annual treatment. • app.,oved . Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - March 26, 1979 • - A. Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions (continued) Additional information was requested by the Planner regarding the possi- bility of methane gas dangers, and the question of liability, noting that B.F.I. may apply for an additional fill permit. Torjesen requested that the following questions be addressed in the staff report on this project: land use concept for this area, airport expansion, and density in this type of application. Bentley stated that the Joint-Airport Zoning•Phard-should have input into the• zoning around the airport. MOTION: Bentley moved to continue Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions to the April 9th meeting. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. 6 MEMBERS PRESENT - (Martinson absent) B. Hartford Real Estate Company, request for PUD development; rezoning from Rural and 1-5 to Office and Commercial Regional Service, preliminary plat approval, approval of E.A.W. finding of no significant impact. Located West of Ander- son Lakes, North of Northmark Additions, East of Eden Prairie Center, and South of West 78th Street. A public hearing. • Mr. Frank Sparicio, Hartford Real Estate Company, made the presentation, using slides to briefly give the Planning Commission samples of the various types of projects they have done around the country. The first proposed building was scheduled for construction in 1980• . They felt the M.C.A. concept was good and viable, and the constraints are in keeping with the beauty already there. He mentionedmeetings with the residents, and one of the concerns was the linkage between residents and the office park. There would be no connection of Center Way, and the relationship of office traffic and residential would be separate. The screening of parking would be accomplished through the use of rollino berms; building height - 5 stories,lr 75' maximum soft lighting; no more than 50% coverage in hard surface of the 159 acres - re- maining part of the site would be natural. Sparicio addressed Hartford's concerns: water quality, the hard survace cover- age, platting and rezoning approval, and traffic. Mr. Herb Ketcham, Architectural Alliance, through the use of a project model and other graphics outlined the first phase and sight lines. He explained that 47 acres of the 159 acres would be in scenic easement. • Levitt inquired what the width of the scenic easement was. Ketcham responded the widths vary at different points up to 200 feet. • Ketcham discussed the drainage plans, explaining that the commercial zones area will drain into storm sewer, while the lighter use will drain through a retention pond into the lake. Parking would entail 4 cars per 1,000, while the ordinance requires 5 per thousand. In addressing the traffic, Ketcham explained they are . anticipating 14,000 A.D.T. with signatization at the timp of ultimate development. • .approved Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - •March 26, 1979 B. Hartford Real Estate Company. . . .public hearing (continued) Bentley, referring to neighborhood meetings held, the suggestion was made for a buffer strip,unzoned. Ketcham responded that if this area is not zoned, the owners of the buildings cannot take credit for it in terms of ground coverage. This can be written into the developer's agreement. Retterath asked what was planned for the additional traffic on W. 78th St., and the concern expressed by residents. The Planner responded that the scheduled merge of W. 78th Street east bound with the off-ramp from I-494 to Co.Rd. 18, in 1980 would be helpful. • The following concerns were expressed and requested that they be included in the staff report: the amount of impervious surface; DNR recommendation on'water quality; impact on the City sewer system; and future building plans through the P.U.D. and precedent in the past. •. Torjesen asked what the preference of the residents was, speaking to the neigh- borhood meetings, as far as what is being proposed. Bentley responded that the preference was office park over medium residential. Mr. Bob Dunbar, 11270 Lanewood Circle, commented that the residents were pleased with the questioned distancecl of arewood Circle to thproposed site. responded 415', north the closest. MOTION: Levitt moved to continue the Hartford Real Estate Company request to the April 9, 1979 meeting. Torjesen seconded. motion carriers unanimously. . C. Cooperative Power Association PUD, request for PUD approval on I-5 zoned thedS far outhwesexceeding corner0of THice use and for 5 and Mitchell Road construction public hearing. Located in • Mr. Don Brauer, Brauer and Associates, LTD. Inc., made the presentation explain- ing that the company was an association of rural electrical cooperatives and they are requesting•PUD approval on I-5 zoned land for use as a site for their headquarters. He introduced Mr. Jerry Kingrey, Land Use Consultant and Engineer for the project. Brauer discussed why they had chosen the P.U.D. method, because it is second ownershipg site; 60% office-40%(they are non-office;land from a d willn Char be control centernn Co.) ith fora small l9 coopera�d- tives. Mr. Lloyd Berquist, BWBR Architects, discussed the plan further, explaining that the entrance road would be built to City standards. Bearman read Schultz, S100tMitchellrRoad, expressin received fromg concerne of e with athe tproposed w Mrs. road. • 0^ • MEMORANDUM TO: RogerIC. Mated, City Manager PROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Cemsmtity Services *+'s'�� IwrB: May 11, 1979 SUBJECT: Preserve Park Cam :tme:tt As cm your request for in£ormaticon cone n the Ptaaeve taent cm parkland dedication along Anderson tA�ikes, I submit the following information: I. Dedicated Parkland: Original FIID commitment 84$SO (1O4'aeres Actual dedication 1978 84D�$B � 2. Scenic Basement Original FUD commitment - 4g aCxes Actual en n4i easement'Branumin 19 8 • 52 acres In March of 1978 the pity Oeameil passed Resolut on TB- nwy*3r&ng that,.the Preserve PUD complies fully with the Pack fee�requiraeagta�. BL:md • • • • 124 = ,; • y ' MinnesotaPollution Control Agency • '440 ' April 13, 1979 Chris Enger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • ' Dear Mr. Enger: You requested comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on methane gas generation at landfills and the Citing of homes adja- cent to landfills. Solid Waste Rules Si-6 (2)(u) states "Deeetpdaition gases Shell . not be allowed to migrate laterally from the sanitary landfill. They shall be vented into the atmosphere directly through the cover material, or into cut-off trenches, or into the atmosphere by forced ventilation, or by other means approved by the Director so that explosive concentrations are prevented". Therefore., methane venting and monitoring should be required At the landfill boundary. The separation distance between the homes and the landfill hor!ld be maximized. Two landfills that had methane gas migration problems near homes are the City of Hopkins and Anoka Municipal Landfill. I believe you have contacted both landfill managers to discuss their methods of addressing the methane problem. . _ . One other source of information and possible assistance is the Envi- ronmentel Protection Agency Technical Assistance Panel. This panel is set up to help local units of government with solid waste related • problems. I have sent you a pamphlet bn the EPA TA panels under aep. arate cover. We would appreciate being informed of any action taken by the City Planning Division. Very truly ]tour , Sandra J. Forrest Hydrologist Permits Section Solid Waste Division SJF/cd Phone:_ 6122f296-7320 1935 West County Road 82,Roseville,Minnesota 5$113 Regional Offices Mikan"&mead Benoit Lakes Mamba Radiesttr EqualClsportumf EmrO yc .;: z... x C9 115 ' ti • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1979 approved 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bea►rman. :Liz Retterath, Oke Martinson, Matthew Levitt, George Bentley, '- ,taken Torjesen, and Virginia Gartner COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning . Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary None. IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A. Bluffs West Third fi fourth Addi;i , by Busted Development Corporation.Request for POD concept approval; rezoning from Rural to R1-13.6, RR 6.5 and RA 2.5; preliminary plait approval for approximately bop units on 1 S acres; and approval of E.A.M. finding afro significant impact. A continued public hearing.. The Planner summarized the Findings and Conclusions of the s,.taff report of April 2, 1979, and discussed the planning impactsand uses in this area of the City according to the Guide Plan, owning and. Ferris Industries Planned Unit Development, and the Flying Cloud Air-port Safety Zones and proposed run-way extension. He explained that in checking with the Pollution Control Agency and the Anoka Sanitary Landfill, they have informed him that there is a chance of methane gas, especially in the winter months. This is not a problem that cannot be solved, but the Browning and Ferris Industries have not made any provisions presently to solve this problem, and he felt the proposal submitted by the Busted Corporation.was premature, in light. of the planning that seems to be needed in this area. Be explained further that the Sanitary Landfill will be doing a study this Sprang. to determine whether the Landfill could be extended, thus staying in existence from 3 to 5 more years. Dick Putnam, Busted Corporation, referred to the Memo of January 12. 1979 written to the City Council from the Planner. approved Planning Conmission Minutes - 3 - April 9, 1979 A. Bluffs West Third& Fourth Additions. . . .continued public hearing (cont'd) Bearman questioned the increased amount of units proposed from those listed in the Memo of January 12. Putnam responded the number is now 640 units (up from 563 anticipated units in Memo of Jan. 12). He explained that in response to the staff's concern with the lack of services, he asked the Commission two questions: 1. Is it appropriate to develop now? 2. Can the land be developed at 2 units per acre? He felt that it could not be developed at 2 units per acre and there is no land to dedicate at that scale. He explained that 640 homes would not be built in 3 years, and therefore, would not be rapid development. _ Bearman stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to review proposals, and it is not a question of whether it should be developed but how it should be developed.. Levitt asked whether the proponent disagreed with any of the statements made in the staff report. Putnam responded that the original Waste Management Plan and the present BFI PUD are not the same. He explained they are not concerned with what the Landfill was doing, but were concerned with construction of the residential units, and that they are planning to put in the basements of the homes located close to the Landfill "on grade". Torjesen commented that he saw his responsibility on the Planning Commission in reviewing projects, to use the 2 unit per acre guide line in making his decision. Levitt did not feel that proponents should be held to 2 units per acre in all cases, but that the Planning Commission should be able to exercise that judgement. Gartner commented that she appreciated the proponent's plan, but felt that with the unsettled questions of landfill and traffic, the plan is premature. Bentley felt there could be variations in units per acre, but when a plan had as many major problems as the plan presented tonight, he felt he could not vote for apprnval. Martinson inquired what the height of the proposed apartment buildings were, noting the low clearance of the flight path of the planes to and from the Flying Cloud Airport. Putnam responded they would be two to three story high apartments. Sally Brown, 10080 Bennett Place, chairman of the Flying Cloud Adisory Committee, presently studying the question of the proposed run-way extension, expressed agreement with Martinson's comment on the Airport fly-out pattern. As a•resident of Eden Prairie for many years, she explained that this area has not had services previously and stilt does not have them, and felt that with the addition of 4,000 people this rapid development was not desirable. She also asked whether people purchasing these homes would be made aware of the Flying Cloud Airport flight pattern? I:J(r0 ti approved Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 9, 1979 A. Bluffs West Third & Fourth Additions. . .continued public hearing (cont'd) Libby Hargrove, 12640 Sunnybrook Rd., commented that after going over the Planning staff report, she did not feel this land use was compatible. MOTION #1: Levitt moved to close the public hearing on the Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION #2: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the. PUD Concept of Bluffs West Third and Fourth-Additions based upon the staff- - .•. - report of April 2,1979; Minnesota Department of Transportation letter dated March 27,•i979;and Metropolitan Airport Commiss-ion•letter.dated.March.8,.] 79 ..., .1 Torjesen seconded, motion carried unanimously. 11]] MOTION #3: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5. RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 based upon the staff report dated April 2, 1979; Minnesota Department of Transportation letter dated March 27, 1979; and Metropolitan Airport Commission letter dated March 8, 1979. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. MORION #4: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the preliminary plat request for Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions based upon the staff report of April 2, 1979, Minnesota Department of Transportation letter dated March 27, 1979; and Metropolitan Airport Commission letter dated March 8, 1979. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION #5: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council the E.A.W. finding that potential exists for adverse impacts due to the project's location upon a landfill, within an airport fly-out zone, insufficient road networks, etc. as per E.A.W. dated March 7, 1979; Minnesota Department of Transportation letter of March 27, 1979; and Metropolitan Airport Commission letter of March 8, 1979. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. B. Hartford Real Estate Company, request for PUD development; rezoning from Rural and I-5 to Office and Commercial Regional Service, preliminary plat approval, and approval of E.A.W. finding of no significant impact. Located west of Anderson Lakes, north pf Northmark Additions, east of Eden Prairie Center, and south of West 78th Street. A continued public hearing. The Planner summarized briefly the amendment to the Planned Unit Development requested by the proponent, noting that the 200,000 sq. ft. initial phase of Hartford is the only specific project proposed. He explained that in marketing the individual lots, the Planning Staff is concerned with berming over the seven year time frame between residential area and the office park and buffering from the Lake. The major road improvements that are critical are the half diamond at Schooner Boulevard and I-494 and twin lane bridge at Highway 169; with other concern noted as: water quality (potential problem with salt levels into Anderson Lake). He noted two errors in staff report: No. 2- building heights variance from 30' to 75' (not 35'); and the addition of water velocity to.no. 8. i)-tD# • nal MI, STATE *.f w DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES CENTENNIAL 'OFFICE BUILDING • St PAUL, NIINNESOtA • .55155 April 5, 1979121 01 • Mr. Chris der, Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 9950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 - - • 2,,,.: RE: JAW tor'Bluffs.Meet� AdditiOnn " Dear Mr, Eager: „' The Department of Natural Resources WEED Ras rest the mental Assessment Worksheet for the PrOP0Med Bluffs Rest 2rel Ma tion. it does not appear that theeject ritill rewire smy DER permits. WIe recommend that effective erosion control a cea be.ilop on the project in consideration of the steep.tr a in the�-- ..,.. . ,.. , .. Icy► weld . Environmental Planner A>EK: rlh cc: Mary Sullivan, EQS • • AN EQUAL OPPQRTUNItY y If FieESlaE9alerltPRAIRIE altos/EOM PRAFMIE.MINIESOTAa544titt1firoSt$UIf4 Y` v • , 14.1 i lyi pf��-y r im April 2, 1979 Ms. Sandra Forest . Solid Waste Division • 1935 W. Co. Rd. 5-2 Roseville, Mn. 55113 • Dear Ms, Forest: I:am forwarding the Bluffs West 3rd and 4th development proposal to you consistent with our telephone conversation on Nafch 27. As you will recall, this proposal is a request for relt011int end platting by the Busted Developfl ent Corporation.oCCUrring.:partly on the S.F.I. Landfill site and ,partly to the:east and adS'C*flt to it. We understand, from talking with,dim Nelson re B.F.I.T that they are now utilizing lime sludge as an :i ryious cover material._ ire'would appreciate your commits regarding safety, and-sag enitedds' flees between the landfill and ad$arpnt land uses. since it appears as if, development of residences could be completed Prior to landfill restore- tion. The City Planning. Commission will be reviewing th-ia at their April 9 meeting, then to be reviewed by the CityCouncil- We would appreciate any comments you have as a part of our 'Weal,prOCOSS. S ncerel rs e , Director o arming CE:ds r ..r414 .- STAFF WORT MEMO: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 2, 1979 DEVELOPER: Hustad Development Corporation REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept approval for 168.5 acres of land for single famtly,medtum and high density residential-uses. 2. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with lot size, setback, density and frontage variances for 135 single family residences on 55.4 acres. Rezone from Rural to RM 6.5,44.6 acres for 252 quadraminium units and 28.8 acres for 110 duplex units for a total of 73.4 acres to RM 6.5 and a total of 362 RM 6.5 units Rezone from Rural to RM 2.5,14.3 acres for 143 apartment or condominium units. 3. Preliminary plat approval for the Bluffs Third and Fourth Addition comprised of 8.9 acres of open space along the Bluff area; 16.5 acres of open space along the northeastern corner of the plat; 135 single family lots; 252 quadraminium units; 110 duplex units and 143 apartment condominium units for a total of 640 residential units on 168.5 total gross acres of land for an overall density of 3.8 units per acre. PROJECT Lying in the southeastern quadrant of Eden Prairie; east of LOCATION; Trunk Highway 169; south of County Rd. 1, and west of Homeward Hills Road. The 1968 Guide Plan depicted the majority of the area west of Homeward Hills Road included within this proposal as low density, single family residential. How- ever, the 68 Guide Plan reflected a major•realignment of Trunk Highway 169 almost one-half mile east of its current location The purpose of this realignment was to provide additional area within the radius of State Highway 169 for the airport to acquire clear zonesand establish appurtenant industrial zoning which would be compatible land use with the Airport. This plan has not come about and the realignment of High- way 169 is no longer planned. However, the Metropolitan Airport Commission has acquired property north of Browning Ferris Industries to establish additional safety approach zones for the Airport. In 1970 Browning,Ferris Industries proposed an overall Planned Unit Development for the land fill area, part of which is included in the Rusted proposal shown as apartment condominium sites, single family Fourth Addition and quadraminium Third Addition currently. This Planned Unit Development again reflected the • 1aG1-) • il:c• - ......(.....4 ,---- ---, i .,:::, , _ ......, J , �,t ��� Y P -----. , 1 EIVi- 0 \''`IWIL... IMMO I I r- =z4.( .toroi*._,ati*\--..,,,i,...... ---,--___MIMIIMIrg?4_____. — - ' ..4-1,ti'l - ' — -,dillr , , .. PI 7,4 ;1‘:. /1111r: * • \ , r .,_.- ___:„.4.1 rat\ .t1111111Pc 7 , __ , i_ .______) . ,,,,„ 4... f' ....."/,'. iv •-...---1 ., ) , ..„ „ 4--_„.;- � per r r\ 1 I, , . „rrr._ 1,.. Illa.. .,,,,-- , : , ---,-_-x-7—:•4°' .-t---- .7.,-'71.3-'--;',-:-,6 :±i --- /--- , •'-, .1.•..f.-:',1 // 1 i 11,1.7,)441"1„1:1;12L—; (ta , , , .... ! 4......4,..? ,..,„ 10,71,.„. . .• . ,,,„., 1 •:•• •.,... • limo t Illrs. \ %, i . ... All 1 , , • MIN.. ., . ) r f ::,,rrs .,,,4,40)., • �` . . ..,1r//.. rirs.., w -, - h t + alk. ililv • f .j.1414, ' 1 pr. ' • IF, . , . • . , • .__ .__. ... • , . I i : ' - 1 ,, ff r i •• fr , ( : /Jr i • 1 -•--'.\ • I . : , 1 VI -...10 - - .-(a . .., . • .:- , • a • , ,! ,f• : ' �' `-111r } f It WA 011117:74 ''. • . I. :3.a• _ .• •\ . .. . • . ..• ... s __,_ _ : , , . _ .. . " . • . ,,,, , .„ 4, !:1.I•k L;Jk\ i: . C`� .1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••----------""""—.... ..............•,-.F....."--•-•r•- •Ni it . .....„.. .. ............-......--..-, . isistorrri.rintignitlittaisszt.r.,..1volyrtrPI t lov ..:..............147,-7--,:..,......,...„y:..., - .• -...'-',.•f..?..,..L.:: ,:,'.--.. 1 I.,,:f)..,.... • . :1 F. ..• .-,,..,:.„,,...,......#44....',rib's..47,„ , ,,,,. ..,• .-.t - ,..,-- . .-•. • -.....-.1.. ::).t,r,.... Li .• • . . .••• • .. '.. .,,.. . •14. -).,,,,;7:e:4:•'::".:1‘.7i":1-1'.--;1\e1-.‘',...1:3...s4-......7..::'.s.ii.-‘....7:.:.-:::,-",...,•::::..,•:1--:'.:..1.:.,,:i.--s.:,;.!...:::::::,..'::-..1::...!,::::.::::;:::::::11::;:::.::.:-..,:.'.:-.:„.:;':'.'14-'.:.':::.:':•:::..1.,::::..1.:.:.:.:.':•.:.s.1.:.:.:::.:.:::::1.::::..:.'.:.:::.11:•..:.4'.,:;'.:.'::.1....:,:i:....:::::::::;•::...):-::.::.1.::::.:::.r:::::j:15,:':.1.::!.r:•.:.::''''''''f::.'.....':?:\''''..If'17 • •ri.,...4,',1,.,.....:, ,. . . . . ... . . . . . . •. , . • . . .. • ..,..:,,.:., .. • . 1:Gti ...,. I; . ....A% ••••::•,....:•:-.s.,-:.,:••::•:•:,•:•,,,•:.:::::: i .,,,,-I.-, .. ,-,--,q: • ....• • %.„r.s ./:". ..,;•tee,,'I' 4 - , .........„,:.,-.,...„ . .. tu-1 -.:.,..i•r;-x _ , . ....Alp... . . ..... .,,... ...,„•,.;,.. .,-.:.).4 . .. ....i. ::,...•-•Ft7'--. 1.•,::1:1:•-,. I .. ..,...I."?•;J.........., „4...,. • . e•,::r......i,.:-::i:•:".,::',:-7. 1 ' 0 r•---..;:c.4-.?. :1;fr .'.: •. ... „:,••, '•••••.46 - i . .131!!.. '..' ;7.1%....76.:1‘." '''...'' .... . . '''''* •••••'.....k:.:: :$: •. .. •..s. 1 - '''••50.7 Ik 1' '' . • ' 11....W:•Z.:::.::::••:::•%;.:t!• . SR.F.1:••cl:'...-:,:•••:••••: " ICI'Cit.;:1:- ..' • • t::••,'V•*.:.:::..;:::::. .5';' • _..„,.41i itriQ.,,4:_--..,'..,;1•31-`-'-', ,,,, .Anse73...•, •-,K- -1-rittlit.- • . — ,: „.„.•-,....,........,..„.:::.•.:,... • - 1 .• r . . . . ,,...•• , at,- -. - -.. ... . ... . • I •II .14.4 It).. . +3,.., .. • •- I/ t ...f:::••••.....-:•....,:-,....y.::i.:i•••t:•::::•:,..:..,....;4:;•'.. R..; *..... . '••••• / •••• •.• .. •i's . :21E . I f ,- • - "",,,,,.......„..,.......... ,, • , .......•••••„:„:„....,:,..„:„...:.„,„:.. : _ , • 5-:„.:.,,,•:::::,:;:„:::::::,::,:.::: . • ii q .**-•. -. §N.,i,.ii--,*1.,m..,:,•.::p...:....:•.iT, . , • — la c - •A • ?..:::-..:::::::::,:issf:::.::. ::;;1.tii.., : ••, . .;::::iiii%:,.::,:>::::::.,:i.1:5z..A..,:iii:.•--=:: , A 4., ( C : ••••••••• '' .7'. V.??...44•?:••• :::'.::•;:;',::.•:•;•,:::::::, :.' 0 C . ...".: ..X.:..•••••i!:',N:,:,:trt•::::;,...1:•.:4••••:n.: . • , t*,:',...,••••:::::::•,X:•:••••••:•:::••..•- • .ifk:•:$.•'iie:::::!:::::::',.`"":!;:".:":.'.1/0 ..., itie/1. • :,..•, '••••••••,•:•:••••••.7.44:!::....,; ••I . . • .i P.::•;•'.......:.•/''.. .::;`;•:'.:*•••:::*i.i.•,..• -:' ... •4::*;%.••• ••••••••::::::;',.•::•i••::::::••••:: / .....4...., • .• *.-,;••:<•••:::•.::•:•.•%••• :*k;c%},.....'::"..s••. ••:":'..*:::;•••:•••:'•:'•• • . . ,r:::;•iy.$.::::::.!!' , •••4-•••;....,-••.!!:•:-.: . , $:::::.::::::::::*:••:::•..-..4-!...•'...,;••.,;%::::: •-•,-•••-•-...-- — ' . • :atoms $.,'i,i'•:::,i';:;::::::•.::• .;;;:,.. °%:,::.- /e—,-7:7:-.7 ' •li." . - • • ;;:::::::•:::,-.::::ii:•:::51:,....;:,-....:... , • .r. ..• .,, • r :::::!::;:".::•::::::,,,,,,,•••' ' , : "', • •.,:.:,...:•:•••:•:.., IA‘..,... ., 4 . • • ' k.:k::i:?...*::: :.:i:i .::::::::::::.>.%;' • ..,I i%. • .i..- ' '1-17 • "''• 4...::•4) • , ,p., . P......• iie::.it.:::•,x)•:•....• ,vt14 , ; 4 • :::1•. ;44:40:kil '•'.• :- '','...‘• i 1 ' '' -.4-at • .,, a J , •• • I;iis .,.,!!;*ir ;.•:::.1.:Zi::::;,:'.•;::.::::;.,.` $:t. ...;%•11:A.::;:.:IiI.ff:;.;.:4:-‘::::'.§:i...1i.*f..---. ..? .", :•".-..! i 1 CI1. :. . • ‘Ii:i•*'!,..,..:Ti:•• ••••.' • N -;ok) i . . • 11.::::::::- .....:::::::::::•:.::::::::.:::::::::::::,:::::::::;::::::::.,..„. , , .. . ... , • )r, .... • :' ;:•;4::;114:1:::::Iti.:::•:::•:•:E:::::::::*".:::::%•::::,,z;f,k.%;:..'. e e Ivy/ . .114,, . ... ,. -: t,'' • %•••••N ....) . .'•:.!1:.- :. :•:::::<•?•‘...•::;;; : . :. €4.,.4,•<„,:it,..,!. '. • ' .:.'....k.'!'.1.''' ' '.* :. •::••::::,':'ili§S.:':::''S::::::::::f•f•:;..,f;:i.•:::f.•,:::•!•:•:•:•.:•,:.. '....(' '5..:.?:;1:•?1:I.•...;:: :•::::: :./1::::::.;i:.f .i3i.e:::::'1/:. . ',:::•'.•i .:*I.:::,: ,ei:.,.?;.,..,„...,. ......,....",,:f5( .•?:::-.:.''.::s'..:-.'.''''...: ::: .. -"•••••••,r••-•••••••:. ''''..§:*::::;•.::':::'•:......:'''.•••''... ' : ::::.?•,;,:i..:•:?...":",i;:„:::K•::::,..ei•.\,:s.'".. 1 ..:,:,...„;.::::::,,,..s.*:;::,..:....., .7...:....7.7,,,..7. .:•••,...r.el rr..,t,f'11-•••_____„......_•••••,-.•-...:.:•:'....,. •••;:•:•::; 1....i .4.• ,.'':...... .......,. ,.., •• .4. .....-;;:i.,',...:•:...,::.....:.....,::::::-::.::::-...,...:, ::.:::#I.::::i I .1 .......,.:,.,....... — ..,„,......, re. . • . -'•;:y:'•'''' 4/.i.';':;:.•?; ';'.:'..../;.:::.:i*; .4.....:': . .....!..:,... 1,.... 4.**"%x:::'Q''Q:.:::?...::.;.,:.:.:,::.'1:*:'-:;:;•:::i*:•ifi:ii*:i r1'.;..1 1. .' :•i::.*::':•:.i:i:'.c:i:Ki.:.. .... ..7::.,:7 :.; f'• . ..,..............„:::.,.....„:„..........„....„.4.....,............,.:„....:::::::,.$,:.:,,:,...:,:„...... . 'A 1••• :.. J.. ...‘ -:d atesem.., ,:: .::.....• ••••.f::::::••••:::::::.......: Vi . ' = '.• • . . k,;:".;•'•i..:-....• ....c.. •:. < ..''' - ....• •.•'.,:....i. ....• :.:...:::::?•.::,• 0.• V •.:.:•...1.:••• *.T.•••• ' .:•,:::.,„1).:,..:..•-...-:::::,-.%...,.) 9 - a. .4.‘ ..• • -- -•• , t...-....i.:.:. ..-.:'.....:..:.:.;:-.;...i:I....-..,. • • ., ,:„.„.,:„..,,::.lit 1r i..•••••.1 j •t , (.....:•'•••"%•:-;,%•x,XeN•olr, •.. , ..... • • •:. ."....!•;:.f.:-.",'• •-"•'..,.:•::,....".*::,,:•,..0, . z S.:0-1•`•• ' : ,::::•....4. .;!.. •;:::•....:,.....::•••:.01 ix 4( ..J . ' "...).. ..' lib' • •.". n,...... • . . .....,4 •...:•.•:.•••••••!':*:,,::"it 0 f , • 5.6•`;•''''').f•••• 4:•••:''•:•••••7.!..1). •••, ir. I.j •••tf , ,. . ' . ;I!••'..'s......4•,.."••::::?..r.'.:i.......:i•.•Ns A a - • . - .. Staff Report-Bluffs Third and Fourth - 2 April 2, 1979 • road realignment of Trunk Highway 169 called for in the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan. In addition, it reflected two industrial zones on the west side of Trunk Highway 169 as depicted in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and the clear zone north of Browning Ferris Industries as depicted in the Guide Plan. In addition, this Planned Unit Development proposed the preservation of the Bluff area and the preservation of the major lowland area to the east of the Flying Cloud Airport approach zone through the use of a density transfer. It is important to note that in this Planned Unit Development the density transfer was contemplated as 2 units per acre, as outlined on page 10 of a staff report done by Brauer and Associates Inc. to the Planning and Zoning Commission, dated April 9, 1970. "The last objective can be accomplished by means other than dedication of park . space. We believe that a well developed, medium density, multiple dwelling land use can afford portions of the fantastic view to private residents and accomplish • the transition at the same time. Total density has been determined on the basis of applying current permitted single family density (2 units per acre) to the entire park area over and above the 5% dedication requirement and permitting the construction of the total number of units within the project area designated RM 2.5. The result is a medium density development area, which can be an asset to the project in the community." The result of this Planned Unit Development was recognition of the impact of the Flying Cloud Airport and the Sanitary Landfill on surrounding land uses and the pro- vision for transitional land uses consistent with park preservation, the Flying Cloud Airport approach zones, and land use of the landfill itself. This Planned Unit Deve- lopment contemplated preservation of a major lowland area directly east of the Air- port over toward Homeward Hills Road. It also provided a major open space corridor down to the Minnesota River. The density was proposed at 2 units per acre but was clustered overlooking the river bluffs out of the major influence of the flight approaches of Flying Cloud Airport. The 1977 Guide Plan Update reflects most of the intent of the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan & the subsequent 1970 Planned Unit Development. Industrial is shown over the western two-thirds of the Browning Ferris site with a transitional open space • area of park shown on the eastern side of the landfill, which is also part of the major_ open space park shown in the fly Out area of Flying Claud Airport. If we over-lay the 1977 Guide Plan Update anticipated land uses on the current proposal, we can see that half of the quadraminium site is shown as Industrial as a part of the original 1970 Planned Unit Development. The apartment complex, about one-half of the quadre miniums in the second phase of the Third Addition; about one-half of the duplex sites second phase of the Third Addition; and about three-fourths of the single family shown in the Third Additon were anticipated as park or open space in the 1977 Guide Plan Undate. The purpose of this again is twofold: 1) The finger of open space land that projects down along the eastern boundary of the landfill limit is to be utilized as a transition area between the B.F.I. proposed Industrial Park and the Residential lying to the east. 2) The major open space area to the north is shown as a continuation of the fly-out of Flying Cloud Airport and provides a more compatible use with the Airport than medium density residential. The balance of the site shown in the 1977 Guide Plan Update as low density residential could actually use the density from the surrounding open space and park land, based upon 2 units per acre for a density transfer and allow clustering of residential units in areas not so severely impacted by the Sanitary Landfill and the Airport. . .. , , . • • •., % • . • _ ... ..._-___ . • : . . . • • t.-,--l-, • . . • • , . • = . . . • .. 4 -, ... i. . • - • •"-: •• . . . . . . 1.• , - • . - tit. t„' . •.• . . . • c •.. . if,,,r7, . .. •. 14NO . " 11•> ---F---i--4 I:. • . • • 1 8 ft:.,-..1-••1,.'.. ..-5:7.••:•;!:: -•1.4. Ilti1.4 i 4:3 I r.:......);-.If.-C,,:•. 'iliY*.•••-•'- '..:" rz:t • ! .-,---J-t.A?.... • -• ',..,i•.,:„)....T--., ... . /irk.... ,....... ...k.. ,,,I.h.,....•c.v..; ....,71 h, , • il,I. ..r.,........... •••• 7 , j.__... ...i 1'...,,,:,1,tel.;?..1'..4.....r1.,‘'"•4 ,',.• 7j.' r'IL,, i .4..f!C.,,.'7,4:Pe.: ....'i f;I f i $"•••••;., i c.) di„,,,,,...-- ,,.. t..eN. 741.. ri • e.ii...01 -,.. .,..1.4,., ,!.,cs...._ e',..•-),:-..... '•'''•• '" • . '.:..V---..t , s•• i .i .11// :",/ •--, ..""/;. .-...•,.-.. .,t,'/". ;v., - i ,. • it I -.Y 17.7"••••:.:•.A.3/4` '''''7• 44 i i nil 77,1-.Y.al`r• --- I _____ ., I t, ..t....., . . 1‘,,..v ---— i • ''...Linfl•isaniVtisj~... wm L. ...,,,,,.......a.. .,44i.. ...L._............ 4 -• • . .. -.....,.., ..-Tr:-..7,7,;I 7.‘ .1----- ......4,1c, .•-• - 'efalt.-E,71.4:. tt•'. •4 ,L', * g 1• kti 4 jti,i, -- „ .., a ,.., , At--. . „,,. $ ‘,1 - 11 ,-.„ .1.'k, clo'li lic s',, • ;11 4.T-- i PO's,. . t- ::.•\li Q.1.*.1.11 --, = - -.1. ,ro` = i' 0 4 .4 ''Z ji • s:''. k•Ve.I ,'S.2.a-ti . C'' \ '' E2 • § I' w-,,i74.4.114.i-,---9 .1 1 ! •-k r ,.: - 14 1, / I k jl '.41 :.I \V 1 ) i- / .. • \4, ,, ,-- :.., ......: _ 1 . •,Et,pr. .4, t,. : _. 1 E.1* 4' , .-•,. _ --..,11.—1---. . . _Jot:, •: -;-----=:,. . ..,..'•-i ., —el i. i. • 4,1,4, , t , — 4— - 7,.7' i Wii i ',.?/i'l i d ,--,--1, • ,...,., 7 4,011.11KW . , .. \,• ••• .. i',:...i,.17 . eT, .,,:TT, .f ' ° WI—'.• • 1 14 1 *0.1 r tz," _,..., : Vk4 i . N 4 • , 7 - ; .„ .. _ _ z• i • -s• 1:-. 1 4 • . -. ..., .--- .. _.......,,,.-.. ...ss ... , ...... .. . . .i ..... ., -..-. • -, ,, ...v. i. . .,4.,/ .• •,, . t".\ -- : M r ' I , :• • r • 'v ...,..z 2-.)- 1 i . . . • - 6,L-4 in ,w 1 e4 1 , .00 7'.... tv A 1,-,.. .:41\''..- -,/' k 1 ' N.,,,.'it,........L., •••‘..1 1., . i • : I 1 = : 4.• p,,,,pa_ Ir f • ii\y.., .. ‘ . ) •-•-... s•=•,,. : :11/. if ,, ....,• •,,.., , 1. L. •f-_ ?f at t . . : - 1 • r• . , . . i4,•,, I ..„ • • • • : : k . .t •••••• • • •• • 4 • 4 . . .., ;• •••... ::.•... .... . . . ' T. • t ... •• 1: . ,... I. I I, • ' • OA'1 I I.: I '.7,' ••. .. .•.,. •••z••• .$ I rt(i ''.."'..,,. : • • tv:t0t. . „ • . '',.:,,,.:, . --- ' „ .„ ,,:•:-,, ' , 1,',...,,2‘'--,,,,„'.:......,-•,,.J:,:::•';''' Staff Report-Bluffs Third and Fourth - 3 - April 2, 1979 • • ' f EXTERNAL IMPACTS There are a number of external factors which will influence the developability - of this proposed site. They are: Flying Cloud Airport, the N.S.P. power line, the Williams Brothers pipeline, Browning Ferris Industries Landfill, the existing road systems, the existing.utilities and the existing schools. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT • • • Figure 3 depicts the 1977 anticipated Guide Plan land use designationsand also illustrates the approximate boundaries of the existing A Zone and B Zone and the - proposed A Zone and B Zone of Flying Cloud Airport. Included here is a discussion from the-hew Guide Plan Update from Section 5g, describing the Flying Cloud Airport - and the A, B and C Zones: You-will notice that the"zenes-surrounding Airports-are ••-•-•--•., . • required by the Mandatory Planning Bill, which is the same Act that required the development of a Comprehensive Guide Plan. The A and B Zone are very restrictive in terms of land use, in fact the A Zone allows no residential land use and the B Zone allows residential land use of 1 unit per 3 acres. 5g. SPECIAL PLAN AREAS (TAKEN FROM THE COtMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAT: UPDATE) Flying Cloud Airport Flying Cloud Airport is presently a general utility facility; • . it is designed to accomodate virtually all aircraft of less than 12,500 pounds gross weight. Aircraft of this size generally have a seating capacity of 2 to 12 passengers and • consist of light and medium single engine and twin engine airplanes. In March, 1973 the Metropolitan Council adopted an airport system plan that designed to accomodate turbo- jet powered aircraft up to 60,000 pounds gross weight. Such aircraft are usually business jets with a 6•to 20 passenger capacity. Just recently, however, the new proposed Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide has redesignated . the airport as a general utility facility once again. It was •• - felt that upgrading the airport to a basic transport role would adversely affect the quiet residential character of the community as welll as the wildlife populations inhabiting the National Wildlife Refuge along the Minnesota River just south of the airport. • Figure 5-12 illustrates the Land Use Safety Zones associated with the existing runway configuaration at Flying Cloud Air- port. The Minnesota Department of Aeronautics has established use restrictions for these zones (Aero 10, Airport Zoning Standatds) as follows: • Zone - A: Zone A shall contain no buildings, temporary structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar land use structural hazards, and shall be restricted to those uses which will not create, attract, or bring to- gether an assembly of persons thereon. Permitted uses may include, but are not limited to, such uses as agri- culture (seasonal crops), horticulture, raising of livestock, animal husbandry, wildlife habitat, light outdoor recreation (nonspectator), cemetaries and auto • parking. l..R•.C`) • • ..- , fig 612 Airport Safety Zones • Pg. 4 • • . - It . .. --.1-4 I • ,-L. .,,,„...,,, Hc , r • At' if' 1 - •i'r, ‘,"•r4•31r. ArlistirriVrt r AI •attii. . . T : .:.1:1gr (."1.11* ` -•j P* *._____st 7 f•• •..4....4in - A OA f ....1. '.'' ' • lk-I ' ' /..---tiplw ,..ur• fas t = ..."-- ...,. ..- - z"„,Pd 11- 1P4 i---1 - A ... 0, ,-..., .._.. • i ,,,, ,_ •.....,f : _. —44 --, \ , 40 L .:• A ', . I 1110; i 1. t 127'•j:...f:15.:..4.1a' 4 47.....tt 1.' '' 141---13:4‘At\ :111141C:. 4 .,,i----. r -I ,,,, .4.....,t, . -, i , , 4 i 1"•-•;13p \e '• • • -- • '''' I ,-.4 : . ir:.:,- IliNr-_,LIV • . .• fp- • 1, ' t., , • Pi" -4--rtit-c..rt.-,,,,':::'.A,-° ... 6.iti;0' •--1. ' -I- . I - •..^-• t .ill 1„--4:, ,c;ill 7''''.,..'' ^r:•.,„e, r. IX" Ae:- L-t.,... N 0.1.;,;•! _ a. -;L.*• . , or c. ' • •-•4111141 '"1-411414 -AI —,F11:4-1. '", ;P "1'..14 ' - ' '. , . le 4 F r a Asi• .--:'. 40 ,r, ) . - -. -I IZP'V-7- Til St p ;••• _ /sw, ,,,...dsffr'' .r•r!,10. , \ -4itZp . ... .,...,..-9, /. . 4:7-- -., .4.7.01- ---7,,,,,--,), ,.... •,.........ir fr,...,,,, ...4rAT:...-..1. 'T 7:i AL P '''' ._'.-..,„ookotlaPore 4 ••••;:. 4.4-% `..''LA' : ,'''...... --ii,' A.'-I::: k- .,..;;--- '4 t 7 t''''.._4 d..;r"..-i''''7"•iki.-''''a Ili;47e Sib.' 4...i.....,-. :- ..A-'1 .:,L,-, 11111 t i _ __----....... 11016,--400vp410 — P,• ,:,• i .: I ..'1, 1 lio,e. ' ',--4,7---.-',--7 "4. It(111 '1),./' '•-• I . eh.......• L-,,... A-4...'-.44.-iNti , ,,,,,,' .,.. ,. 3 '46.2*-1x. .,. Ailliri4,.. _ . --,,;•? 10 ie,---°>4.-41-1Z177,_„1-..1.4‘.1 1,,,,_' 71.1 -: 4M1Ps cs iss5f- -.1ma 4 , /, / "/".. — . • - ''' ,. */ , • .. // " • p 41 if . ,. p e•:--i- ,L"'•/' ' :r .11% _or' Lict1 ri 0. ‘• ,1, ' -mL4\ w. . P:7--Z--- •4411,--, a ..., , : 411P- _.. . • ." 111."-' Vr "' . • -4--AI • ACAtip __!___ -• '-- •.,•• -% -1S-- .... -liA .%'''----°3' 4- ' CP•4 ..'1 • ' . ';;11-44faleare 'r • ,SIE-s•--V 4:34jet p 11 - "-••• A , - f ; Nft,...""), ( - ''.4. ?OW' ::::1*-7::"-i:::: t),- r-- • :: F • 40011119Nti A p..gr.....-•! . A V.4.7‘.1;,.. • : : , .....100111.11.11111111117 Is. NI C'''a ,.L- ..4'4• . •,C":„ .. I••-•-1 ‘-‘7n.I ' • ''. . ‘•• 4: ' .4... ' _ / ,I I, .."- • ‹,..:,.., ,/ ••-- ••-- ^ • . . leg-nd:1 . \....7 ..,t i . t '-. . . . zAll W..../ see text for safety zone elispkfications --.. C bend :: • •••••••..... it•••••••••. • • -- , .., 41.4,100.1,......I , me........., , - :-.---- AM 41 s.AMMO. . ......... . . a abonswi.410... ......:.......A.•• ^ . • Eden Prairie Guide Plan Update Source: Minnesota DePt a Of API L '...1':,_. nautics Wee and RegniatiQns --:: ... . . ,.„ ... tone - B: Zone B shall be restricted in use as follows: • (Pg. 5) - • -Each use shah be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres. -Each use shall not create, attract, or bring together a site population that would exceed 15 times that of - the site acreage. Each site shall have no more than one building plot . .. upon which any number of structures may be erected. • • -A building plot shall be a single, uniform and non- • • contrived area, whose shape is uncomplicated and whose area shall not exceed the following minimum ratios with respect to the total site area:-- .. Site Area But Less Ratio of Site. _ Building._ _._ _ Max. Site .. • at least Than Area to Bldg. Plot Area Population (Acres) (Acres) Plot Area (sq. ft.) (15 persons/A) j 3 4 12:1 10,900 •- 45 . • . • . 12:1 . 4• 6 10:1 17,400 60 - • 10:1 6 10 8:1 32,600 90 8:1 10 20 6:1 72,500 150 6:1 • . 20 and up 4:1 218,000 300 -The following uses are specifically prohibited in Zone B: churches, hospitals, schools, theaters, stadiums, hotels and motels, trailer courts, camp grounds, and other places of public or semipublic assembly. Zone,- C & General: No use shall be made of any land in any of the safety zones which creates or causes inter- ference with the operation of radio or electronic communi- • • cations between the airport and aircraft, makes it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport • lights and other lights, results in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise endangers the landing, taking off, or maneuvering or aircraft. The only area of petential safety zone/land use conflict is • at the northesst corner of U.S. 169-212 and CSAH 1. When CSAH 1 is realigned to the south, as proposed, care will • have to be taken to ensure that the proposed commercial and • institutional uses are located such that they conform to Air- port Zoning Standards. • . . • A joint Airport Zoning Board has been established to make recommendations • to the Eden Prairie City Council and Planning Commission along the guide lines of the State Law for zoning in the Airport influence area. An Airport Advisory Commission has also been established to improve communications between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the j• / City and to discuss Flying Cloud operations as it affects the City!' •Staff Report-Bluffs Third and Fourth - 6 - Aprii 2, 1979 In addition to existing impact of Flying Cloud Airport there is an Environmental Assessment Impact report currently available andthe Metropolitan Airport Commission will be holding a Public Hearing on April 19th to determine whether to lengthen the southern east/west runway 200' on the east end and 485' on the west end for a total runway length of approximately 3900', thus allowing the majority of the traffic pattern to use the southern east/west runway and circle over the river bottom. Although the report illustrates that lengthening the east/west runway would not increase the size of the noise contour over this proposed land use area, it would increase the influence of the A,&B Zone areas as illustrated in Figure-3: Currently the A Zone just touches on the western end of the proposed quadraminium site, but the B Zone cuts entirely through the quadraminium site and up through the northwestern tip of the duplex site. If the southern.east/west runway is extended the proposed B zone would cut through the quadraminium site, the duplex site and about the northern one- fourth of the single family site. You will notice from Figure 3 that the 1977 Guide Plan Update anticipated this impact by providing open space area in the fly-out area and within the A and B Zones of Flying Cloud Airport. The current proposal, however, illustrates about 21 quadraminium units and 12 duplex units within the existing B Zone, and about 40 quadraminium units within the proposed A Zone, and 40 quadraminiums, 40 duplexes and 14 single family homes within the proposed B Zone. The N.S.P. 345 k.v. highline borders this site on the east and will have impact on the type of development that can occur within the neighborhood park. The Williams Brothers pipeline, which is currently shown on the plan cutting through the center of the site is a high pressure natural gas line which is expected to be at a depth of about 30" from the surface of the earth. Although it is not included in the written material, we are advised by the proponent that they are attempting to nego- tiate a re-location of the pipeline with the William Brothers Pipeline Co. However, we have not been furnished with any information illustrating where the pipeline would be placed and currently the pipe line is shown encroached upon in several places by actual building structures within the development plan. This of course, is not a situation which would be allowed. BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES LANDFILL As stated previously in the report, there is an existing Planned Unit Development in effect for the Landfill property illustrated in Figure 2, although it does not show •- up clearly on figure 3,the eastern property line of the existing approved Landfill cuts across the single family Fourth Addition; the duplex site for Third Addition First Phase; the apartment site for the Fourth Addition; and the quadraminium and duplex sit( Second Phase of the Third Addition. In other words there are residential land uses proposed on property previously included in the 1970 Planned Unit Development. It is interesting to note that the original 1970 P.U.D. anticipated the impact of flying Cloud Airport on the site and the current area shown as a quadraminium site in the northwestern portion of the proposal was shown as light Industrial in 1970, which would be more compatible with the Airport land use. As stated previously, the 1970 P.U.O. also showed a density transfer of all the Bluffs open space area andthe medium density housing was clustered along the Bluffs south of the Airport influence zones. The current proposal turns this concept completely around by placing the high density areas up the northern part of the site and the single family areas down toward the Bluffs area. We have only the Browning Ferris Industries Planned Unit Development of 1970 with a • small subsequent Industrial zoning 1973 as a basis to gauge Browning Ferris' intent for the ultimate use of the Landfill. Also, in terms of the phasing of the Landfi11, representatives of the Landfill state that their best guess upon completion of the current Landfill would be three and one-half to five and one-half years.It therefore seems inconsistent to plan quadraminium units overlooking the Landfill area, when the r t1. • Staff Report-Bluffs Third and Fourth - 7 - April 2. 1979 • . ultimate use of the landfill has not been changed from Industrial and the build- out of the landfill would extend beyond the development of the residential. In addition , in checking with the Pollution Control Agency, we have been made aware that Browning Ferris Industries is beginning a study in anticipation of extending the capacity of the Landfill beyond this 31/2 to 512 year time frame. From a February, 1970 report regarding the proposed Sanitary Landfill by Greeley and Hanson Engineers, on page 4 of the report, under item 8, gas generation: "It is anticipated that some gas will be generated within the fill. The pervious nature of the cover material in the surrounding soil however, should insure that it is dissippated rapidly and .harmlessly to the atmosphere,, .In the unlikely event ' that gas does accumulate, vents will be constructed and the gas burned off." It is important to realize now, nine years after the writing of that report, that ' the proposed land uses did not include residential land use directly adjacent to the fill area at that time. The statement on gas generation was also predicated upon the fact that a pervious cover material would be used, however., the Landfill is currently using an impervious lime sludge as a capping material in that it provides good surface water run-off rather than having surface water leech down through the fill creating ground water problems. The existing sub-grade soil of the Landfill, however, is still very granular and speaking with the Pollution Control Agency, we find that it may be possible that methane gas that was originally anticipated to rise harmlessly through the surface of the pervious cover, would now be forced laterally underground,seeming to indicate the need for a gas venting system which. to this point has not been designed or anticipated by the Landfill. Additional impacts that are or can be part of a landfill operation can be: odor. methane gas, noise, dust, blowing paper and fire. A sub-surface fire did occur the week of March 24, 1979 which required the participation of several community fire departments and the usage of 80,000 gallons of water to put out. This fire, we are told by Landfill representatives, started about 8 feet underground in an area that had previously been landfilled in early February of this year. • Subsequent to the major landslide that occurred on.the•Bluffs south of the Landfill last summer, B:F.I. has been required to construct a major surface storm water system that will include a 50 acre foot storm water pond somewhere down in the southeastern corner of the Landfill property. The staff is unaware of how this pond impacts the proposed apartment and condominium site in the Fourth Addition and the duplex and single family site in the Third and Fourth Addition. TRANSPORTATION The information supplied by the proponent regarding traffic illustrates that there will be 9,539 trips per day coming out of the Bluffs First through Fourth Addition area. Since existing Riverview Road to the east and west is an unimproved and unusable road by large numbers of traffic, the only way in and out of the area is via Homeward Hills Rd. to County Rd. 1. In addition, we have received a letter dated March 27, 1979 regarding the Bluffs West Second Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which states that Trunk Highway 169-212 is now at capacity level for peak hour, and that the Bluffs West Second Subdivision would add 1708 trips daily to Highway 169-212 for a peak hour addition of 171 vehicles. The Minnesota Department of Transportation encourages us to work with the Metropolitan Transit Commission to encourage the acceleration of bus service to the area, and has urged us in the past to not rely on State systems for local traffic. These traffic analysis point out the increased need for three additional roads to the Bluffs West area. 1) Homeward Hills Road, north of Co. Rd. 1 must be extended north up through to the Major Center Area,in order to carry community trips on local collector road systems, thus not overburdening regional systems, such. •• Staff Report-Bluffs Third and Fourth - 8 - April 2, 1979 as Highway 169-212. Riverview Road to the east of the Bluffs area should be , upgraded to County Rd. 18. A second way out toward the west from Bluffs West Second, Third and Fourth Additions should be provided as illustrated by the pro- _ ponent on the south side of the B.F.I. area to 169-212. Currently, the developer does not propose the construction of any of these road systems to serve his proposal. Rather, roads are stubbed out to areas of land that are not to be built around and will leave little property to assess, therefore, the public could bear the majority of the cost to provide adequate access to the Bluffs West area. The signal scheduled for 1980 at Co. Rd. 1 and Highwy 169 is imperative. as is the signal at Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, with additional traffic contributed to Co. Rd. 18 with this proposal.. Upgrading of. Highway 169 to four lanes north.of•• Co. Rd. 1 through the Major Center Area would also provide the needed capacity given this proposed development. . . UTILITIES There is ample sewer capacity to service the proposed Bluffs West Third and Fourth Addition. Water to be provided to the subdivision by the City will be substantial. The average daily use of water for the Third and Fourth Additions will be 250,000 gallons per day. For the entire Bluffs West First through Fourth Additions there would be a requirement of 437,190 gallons of water per day. The total amount of water used by the entire City of Eden Prairie in 1978 was 483,080,000 gallons of water. The Bluffs West areas would use 160,000,000 gallons of water when completely built or roughly one-third of the quanity of water used by the entire City in 1978. Obviously, development of this scope in combination with other development through- out the City would require an expansion of the water treatment facilities and number of wells as provided in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The population of Eden Prairie early in this year was about 15,000. The Bluffs West area would add about 4,000 people to that population over a three year time period. The storm water plans submitted by the proponent are very sketchy, but do illustrate that the majority of the storm water will outlet into the area proposed as neighbor- hood park. The 16.5 acre area proposed as part of the Third and Fourth Additions would largely. be required for the 38 acre feet of storm water storage required by the entire surrounding area. ADJACENT MAJOR AREAS The Hillsborough Additions One and Two occurring to the north of this property are at an overall density of approximately 1.9 units per acre. The original Bluffs West Addition was shown at 200 acres, with a total of 240 lots. 15% of the lots were allowed to be under 13,500 sq. ft., the 90' frontage width was varied, and the side yard setbacks were varied to 5', 10' and 15' on a one and one-half to two story home. Bluffs West Second Addition was originally proposed as a 193 unit straight 13.5 single family subdivision, however, it was ultimately approved by the City Council for 123 gross acres, containing 244 single family lots for a total overall density of about 2 units per acre. However, 65% of the lots were approved under 13,500 sq.ft. with frontage variances allowing 30% of the tots to be 68' frontage, 30% to be in 80' frontage, and the balance to be in 90' frontage. The Bluffs West Second was also • given side yard setback variances. In comparison. the Bluffs West Third and fourth Additions is a 168.5 acre proposal containing 640 units, an overall density of 3.8 units per acre. I Y1(! • Staff Report-Bluffs Third and Fourth - 9 - April 2, 1979 . . AtUFfS WEST THIRD AND FOURm The information originally received by the Planning Commission illustrated the Bluff West Third Addition quadraminiums and duplexes.as platted lots. Subsequent to that initial submission, the Planning staff requested development plans of the proponent as required by our development procedures. During the review process of the development plans it was brought to the planning staff's attention by the developer that the platting of lots was not actually contemplated in the method illustrated. Rather, the quadraminiums would not sit on individual lots, but would be made up of four lots of individual ownership lined underneath the quadraminium buiiding itself, with the balance of the property inthin t effect, thireorigidition quadraminiums and duplexes being common open spae information supplied by the proponent Illustrating,tot .lines.and..fao buil4i(1g.areas, would not be the plat upon which they would base their final plat lot delineation. The Planning Commission was looking at nothing other than a general overall outlot with road systems. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS The proponent is requesting three different types of residential zoning: Single family lot zoning under 13.5 category. This zone requires a minimum lot. size of 13,500 sq. feet, with side yard setbacks of 10' minimum totaling 25; a front yard setback of 30'; and a minimum frontage of 90' - all within a density 1 of 2 units per acre. The proposal requests R1-13.5 zoning for 135 lots with a minimum lot size for the Third Addition of approximately 7700 sq. ftft. with Addition of the gg lots under the minimum 13,500 sq. ft. category. The 36 lot subdivision would have a minimum lot size of 9500 sq. ft. with 6 of the 36 lots under 13,500 sq. ft. bringing the total Third and Fourth single family lot division of 135 lots to 72 lots less than 13,500 sq. ft. and 63 lots greater than 13,500 sq. ft. or approximately 53% of the lots under 13,500 sq. ft. In addition there are requests for frontage variances apparently 60' with 40' shown on some of the cul-de-sacs. Although the Ordinance calls for 90', the City has allowed down to 45' on cul-de-sacs, certainly no less than 45' on cul-de-sacs should he permitted. The next category would take into account the duplex elosand the quadraminiainuots and would fall under the RM 6.5 zoning category referring to minimum 6500 sq. size. Athau. per unit required by the zoning ordinance, with 13,000 sq.no sizes were shown for the quadraminium lots in the information submitted,a quick t cf. of the Third Addition, block 9, lots 1-14, illustrate that there is 5375 sq. ft. per unit, which would be 1,125 sq. ft. per unit less than the zoning ordinance allows. Since Block 9 of the Third Addition seems fairly representative of the lot sizes, we can only guess that the majority of the quadraminium sites are also not in confor- mance with the RM 6.5 category.. The third residential category requested is RM 2.5 which would require 2500 sq. ft. per unit for the apartment and condominium site shown as Outlot A in the Fourth Addit Since density ise no consistentlans at withlwhatmtheed on the zoning ordinancent callseforll we in tthisocaitegory. ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS • As part of City policy, the City requests 50' of setback from any collector roads within the community. The major road abutting the Third and Fourth Addition on the south side for the majority of the distance is a collector road,and according to the development plan there are some units within 30' of the right-of-way line. . This condition should not be permitted. 1,114) Staff Report-Bluffs West Third and Fourth - 10 - April 2, 1979 A • the Rm .5 The zoning ordinance of theobuildinglls or a squareofootage coverager area ratio tasncompared6to the vn is al mess overall lot size and the R14 6.5 zone calls for a 20% floor area ratio when com- paring the building square footage to the lot size. If the lots were in conformance in with the RM 6.5 zone, a quadraminium tot would be a at.inimrumr fn26of ,of 000asq. ft. inium size - 20% coverage of this lot would be 5200 sq. lot size oflthe quadraminiumtsepems toibe aboutn20a,m00Q 22,000tsq.ft cwe 20% ft. per unit of a quadraminium building. of this, which would allow a 1,000 sq. . .. Any units on lots less than this would inieti excess isfofmthiofloor are area bratiorovfded- • the units were larger than 1,000 sq. as to the size and square footage of the quadraminium uoits,..it is not possible to tell whether or not the proposal exceeds the floor area ratio. SITE PLAN A site plan has been provided by the proponent, but it does not illustrate any vegetation features occurring on the site. From aerial photos we can see that there appear to be several hundred medium sized evergreen trees occurring in the Second, Third and Fourth Additions. The only grading plan submitted by the proponent is a very general mass grading plan which shows areas that will be cut and areas that will be filled. osHo.eVlr,tweal do not have a good idea of how much fill and how much cut is being prop Addeo ,grades are illustrated east/west roadd we have iasdhavinrgmation betweeneae5%ly- on or, wppichrox shows hill for approximately one-half mite from the east to the west. Tredinra e onhas a collector road is approaching upper limits. Since no 2' contour grading plan been submitted, as called for in the development procedures, it is impossible to evaluate whether or not any variety can be introduced into the site plan through the use of grading. DRAINAGE • The drainage plansubmittedi aschematic, , ebatly illustrates the water is osnningdownhothenorthesttoardsth park site. There is a e he ernmost of e southern park proposed orequiri g thatrthepCityiextendnthe Bluffstsubdivisionestormhwater system. cts The proposal does not illustrate entire areagwillnbe completed within s3 years,owe havens. tthe h the E.A.W. states that the current Bluffs West First Addition which is over 100 acres in size that has been gfae for approximately tyo inlnerat t 30 hst completed to ate, with the balance of the nroceYremaingiarwunesoredate. hBlusWest Second developmen agreementt ond done in hree hates for the grading completed beforest esnexxtt phaseoisestarted. tThis saeseparate distinct phases, each phasearet not left raw typeso t u dreds oflacresuof ld be eandx in thesouthern partofs the hconmunity rotdieft w feat hug g the fact for a number of years ximately development. their site.This twhichsishleftuinea raw state . that B.F.1. has asp as part of the landfill operation. al(P h April 2, 1979 Staff Report-Bluffs West Third and Fourth - 11 \ PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS The information provided does not illustrate any walk-way, systems. However, as part of the Bluffs West Second Addition approval, the east/west through h road was to City Council concrete swithalk the Parks, Recreation side a d NaturaltReso Resources road. In Commission, has adopted a guide line of a tot lot to be required for every 100 residential units, to be no less than an acre in size. The tplaniin ingsstaifififeels tt would be most appropriate, due to the distances involved.wi. hi n theviiadditional tot lot h space-within each pee g iutpans the units usteredaround teopenspaceandthe open space tied inooverall pedestrian system which could lead to the larger neighborhood-park. • In many communities, including Eden Prairie, when a developer proposes a large number tionntosincreasedthedqualitynofitY ,lifesand addnities va variee ty providd the sitefor the plan. omsuucheameni- ties have been provided within this proposal with the exception of one small tot lot lying in the center of the first phase quadraminiums Third Addition. The developer states in his addendum to his submittal information that "the proposed Bluffs West Third and Fourth Addition completes the Bluffs West areac with areas va ariety of housing styles and costs, while providing scenic and usable open Pa planning spop thereiarethe 252proposed variety of quadraminium units whichng are made,upoofsone floor© e 640 units proposed, are also one housing type. f plan. There are also 110 duplex units that apparently the 135nfo mitt single family as,to the variety of the s are to be built by a of housing styles. builder, with no nhasmnoion been areahas not been designed yet, and at this tsmeeSsewhichlmaysbepcacistol��ibuilt zoning. hom�es. This leaves 36 single family lots of varying The vaenyinacko combination iwith the244plots ofent othere BluffssWestbSecondYAdditio. the when taken No landscaping plans have been majority of which will be built by Orrin Thompson• a itts have experiencefwith sdealingswithathe OrrinwThompson d condominium v pe of pi n the airie Ea h A ddition. This addition, s it is finally deelopings sadlylackinginanytypeofamenity landscaping and is a rural type of approach with a single building style. EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING As stated earlier in the report, the Eden Prairie 1968 Guide Plan an and tGe community,de Plan Update t do not illustrate high density on a gross basis these Guide Plans do provide for medium and high density rfesidentialearsas elsewhere in the community where transportation systems and community approximately exist 2se ofe the these areas. The overall Guide Plan has been done based uponappproximat 5« to then` City area be developed in single family resiential homes, apprcmi at 4% of the Land in medium density areas 3.5 to 3.10 units permade up f area is designated as high density residential land, with the baalnceihei m de�� Q public,park area amd commercial and office industrial development. ti • 63 QUADRAMINIUM BUILDINGS . - Your Townhome by Orrin Thompson • 6 _1 . ' ',9::.41.. A :„.,., w M 1 R_ -.....t � . ` C - t" '/ ' ..I tad I r-.14.• --1 111:h4 1.: '—'':-: 7-----*..---=1 • -t;.::.??°'-' Li'• • - .-/--- —:;-------- "-.:._,--,::-.1k1:4!li:.-- 3 1_,•,•;,Z; .7=j 40+ •win 6,�� ;:,... -.55"DUPLEX-BUILDINGS—. . .—.. . n- ----- _1 -- _I ,' :r, f'7: ;,.r.N£ -, r:}a;el'. ,-% -•! .:1:: •2 'ice 1 . t=ROt4T OLEVaT,O,a •_... : - .....4 ,tuam•w. 771 r! $J4° _ r_,: __ :_- : j - e a •_ "..���..-t — _ni =. _� a e.;; - • —_. • I ; . 7___ 1 ¢F.AR •�lF_VATIQN'" ... _ i:?u'1Ti ••..... 0 Model Q- I , • 1 .. _... t'�_ a • •• .• - . ' Orrin Thompson, Homes. Staff Report-Bluffs West Third and Fourth - 12 - April 2, 1979 ti Comprehensive Guide Plan Update has been done based upon these proportions and has illustrated adequate medium density residential land occurring around the community in other locations, it would seem inappropriate to insist that this area of the community be multiple residential. In addition, Eden Prairie has an existing inventory of approximately 1,000 single family lots, plus several hundred units of multiple designated land in areas illustrate(' in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Additional density in this area of the community. with so many negative impacts, seems inappropriate. However,this is not to say that the multiple architectural type is not appropriate in this area. But rather the area as proposed is much_too large when taken into context of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the plans for the Landfill, and the Flying Cloud Airport impact, An appropriate use of the land would be to transfer the density at 2 units per acre from the areas of the site shown in the Guide Plan as Park to the areas left to residential and to cluster these in it for variety and efficiency. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . 1. The proposal for Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions by Hustad Development- Corporation is inconsistent with the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with the 1970 Planned Unit Development for the Browning Ferris Industries property. 3. The proposal is inconsistent with the proposed 1977 Guide Plan Update. 4. The proposal is inconsistent with the existing B Zone of the Flying Cloud Airport and the proposed A and B Zones for the Flying Cloud Airport. 5. The proposal is shown at a density of 3.8 units per acre gross and is incon- sistent with the land use designation illustrating a 2.0 unit per acre gross. 6. Inforniation has not been provided that would illustrate that the Browning Ferri Industries Landfill would be completed and restored prior to development of th' Third and Fourth Additions. 7. Information has not been supplied that would illustrate that the proximity of these residential units to the completed Landfill would be free from hazards associated from fires and methane gas accumnulation by the fill in the landfill. 8. There has not been complete information supplied as to the depth and ultimate disposition of the Williams Brothers high pressure natural gas line through the site. 9. Existing transportation systems to the proposed area will not be adequate to handle the local or regional traffic without improvement to: a. Extension of Homeward Hills Road north of Co. Rd. 1. b. Improvement of Trunk Highway 169 and Co. Rd. 1. c. Extension of Riverview Road to the east in approved fashion to Co. Rd. 18. d. Extension of the east/west through road through the site westerly to Highway 169-212. • e. Anticipated improvement to four lanes of Highway 169 north to the liamart Center. 1A1 . Staff Report-Bluffs West Third and Fourth - 13 - April 2, 1979 Minimum road improvements required to serve this area should include the extension of Homeward Hills Rd., Riverview Rd., and the east/west road out to • Trunk Highway 169. 10. Dedication of the 16.5 acre site will be necessary for a 38 acre feet of storm water storage required in this area. 11. Residential density approved in the immediate area of-the Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions are 'all at or under 2 units per-acre.- .- 12. The gross units per acre illustrated in the Bluffs Third and Fourth Additions is 3.8. 13. A number of variances will be required if the proposal.is•approved. a. An amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan to allow densities as shown to occur. b. A variance from the side yard setbacksin the RI 13.5 zone and Rm 6.5 zone . from 25' total side yard to 15' total side yard. c. A variance in the minimum lot size in R1-13.5 to allow 53% of the lots to occur under 13.5, with a minimum lot size of 7700 sq. ft. • d. The minimum frontage requirements would have to be varied to 60'. • e. The minimum lot size in the Rm 6.5 district would have to be varied to 5300 sq. ft. to allow the quadraminiums as proposed. f. The minimum floor area ratio in the Rm 6.5 zone would have to be varied to allowthe quadraminiums as proposed. 14. There are no pedestrian systems, adequate number of mini-parks based upon a standard of one acre of tot lot per 100 units which should be provided within the development. 15. A completed grading plan showing a 2' proposed contours has not been provided.theret • complete evaluation of the grading is not possible. 16. The drainage illustrated from the large quanity of impervious surface is shown to drain mostly toward the neighborhood park occurring in the northeastern area. • The storm sewer system should outlet within the northern half of the31.5acre parcel, so as not to require the City to extend the subdivisicosstorm sewer system. 17. Very little variety is illustrated within the plan, one quadraminiuia type, one duplex type, and one speculative apartment site in combinatiai with one major single family builder. Information has not been supplied to illustrate the variety provided by the single family builder. • 18. Ho landscaping plan has been submitted to illustrate any type of amenity or site variety. Staff Report-6,i�uffs West Third and Fourth • 14 • Apr11 2, 1979 19. Proposed Guide Plan Update suggests duplex lets to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet in size, the proposal depicts 13,000 square foot lots. 20. The major east/west road should have •a minimum.500 foot radius, the proposed road is 335 feet radius at one point. 21. Subdivision Ordinance 093 requires all road.,intersections, be off-set by 150 feet minimum or be aligned. •The proposal does not meet this Tali cases. 22. The duplex units as proposed show two complete double driveways caning out to the street, this is exx.rb.,ive in width and makes an impossible snow removal situation.OntuT-d''esac where the entire frontage of the lot is taken up in driveway, • RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the Findings and Conclusions, the planning staff feels that the overall proposal is inconsistent with good 'and use, timing mad planning for the area and feels that due to the lack of information regarding the timing of the development vs. the timing of the Landfill, the inconsistencies involved in the proposed land uses and the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan, and due to the tentativeness of the proposal and the lack of overall good access to the sits,' that the proposal should be denied. . CE:ds • • rr 1 i • • etE rt.q Mlinilcsol a Departnmcni of Transportation 4 l Transportation l3iaiieiing yr St. Pr1Ui, 1111II1C 5e)til iliri.5 OF TO • 1'InHN' -1(.36 March 2 7, 1979 Chris nru_er City Planner • City of Eden Prairie 895O Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 In Reply Refer to: 702 Bluffs West Second Addition E,mriI'crtrr,r'Itt.11 Asses It Worksheet Door Mr. Enerr: f The Minnesota Department of Transuortat•ion's Golden Valley District Office has reviewed the Environtaental Assessor"nt Worksheet prepared for Bluffs west Second Addition, located in the City of Eden Prairie. 1'e offer the following casrents for your cons1c1 ration in pier+hint; for. this proposal. It is ar:tici:'ated that the proposed development will have an advcrs., imp.:ct. en kin/TOT facilities. Adverse impacts art' expected to occur :... a resr•,1t of tl:: large n caber of vehicular trips t enerated by the iltopt.:•::1 which will Utilii:C tn'un:: hirym ys it: the ar!a. As a result rf th-. increc.sing growth of the Eden Pr.tir•ie: :;re,:, Sc a±•.• .':<- perie,:ci.r:g an annual ,>r:'w':h of i0 percent to average daily traffic 1.•':oi:: via Trull:: HQirway ]69-212. For es.u•p1e,.in 1976, approsimn`.ely 1100 vehicles, in 1)oth dir.cttans, were present: during, the peak hour. By : aT.,, aµproxic:_tely 230:3 vehicle:, in both directions, were present. The..s• .au:'- bers indicate. that Trunk Highway 1G9-212 is now at capacity levels for t:u peak hour. • The Bluffs West Second Addition proposes construction of 244. single t':waily. h.•tocz. Us nt; estimated values of ten vehicles per sinClo family res:.i.'I+- t.ie: unit, 2440 vehicles trips would be �encr•ated daily. 11r.' Eztvir,e:t<nt.t: hsnes:rhea Kor k ihv.t• ASSiVIS an apprcraimate split of '.it) p:.rcint of '•+:::a trips to County State-Aid Ilir)uaay (Ali) 18, and 50 I rent to 1'Iw,l: iil'h- way IC9-212. We question this a:sienmont split as the convenience a:l' acce't«. • • Au Equal Opportunity r+n,pt.+)'r . „. • , • . _ . • , Page 2 Mr. Enger "'- March 27, 1979 would conservatively indicate that approximately 70 percent of the vehicular trips would use Trunk Highway 169-212, while 30 peit. would use Mil le. Assuming a 70 percent split, 1709 trips would be generated daily. Using a conservative 10 percent to determine peak hour getarration, the !Corn: West development can be expected to add approAmErteiy 171 vehicles to Trunk Ilit;hway 169-212 during the peak hour. Taking into consideration the several other developments, bOth cannwcial muj residential, emerging in the Eden Prairie area, we believe that the ii.vv! service of ventcles through this corridor will be severely impacted. '.1e strongly recommend that the city coordinate land use planning with th12. Metropolitan Trar.sit Comnissinv and endwise*the addeleration of ilk,. sm. - • — vice in the area to offset the impending reduced level of service on ale trunk highway system. In addition to transportation impacts, other enviturnental effects my also be ctunulatively occurring. We reaffirm a suggestion rekde itt ttnring on the Round L.-tke Estates Envitunsontai Anse:Snaa iOpIsheet, that the city consider preparation of a "Related Action,Etivi.renmental As.sessinour to assist in assessing the overall inom.L.2 that may be Uecarring in the Eden- Prairie area. Thank you for the opportunity to review this aSSOOSPent. 04043;ons en thf.- above comments may be directed to me or Rob Nernst, dstrict Transpertatiort Analysis Engineer, at 545-3761. Sincerely, • Randy Halvorson Acting Director Office of Environmental Affairs cc: Mary Sullivan - SOB Administrator • • . • . , • - - • • • (approved Planning Conmis'sion Minutes - 6 - . March 26, 1979 • • D. Homart Development Company Signage Amendment. . . .(Continued) MOTION: Bentley moved to approve the "topper" sign upon UA Movie Marquee as requested by Homart Oevelopment Company and United Artists Cinema as per staff report of March 20, 1979. Retterath seconded, Motion carried 3-2-1 Bentley, Retterath and Levitt "aye" Torjesen, and Bearman "nay" Gartner "abstain" MOTION moved to approve the location, but not the design of the two entry signs as per staff report of March 20, 1979 and per proponent's request. The motion died for the lack of a second • ---- MOTION: Bentley moved to approve the UA•Wall sign for "The Movies", as part of the six allowable signs as per March 20, 1979 staff report and per proponents's request. Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously. V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS 6 MEMBERS PRESENT - (Martinson absent) A. Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request for PUD concept approval; rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, RM 6.5 and RH 2.5; preliminary plat approval for approxi- mately 640 units on168.5acres; and approval of E.A.W. finding of no significant impact. A continued public hearing. Mr. Oick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, referred to their letter dated March 19, 1979, in which they have tried to address some of the con- cerns expressed by the staff and Planning Commission. Bentley questioned the rationale for the extremely'large number of variance lots in the project, (60t), explaining that some are only 7700 sq. ft. in size, and some of the quadraminium lots are only 17,000 to 26,00 sq. ft. in size. Putnam explained the relationsbilvoL.the Bluffs West and Bluffs West Second Additions to the Third and Fourth. Through the long process of solving the neighborhood park site problem, they intended purchasing land for a thirty acre park and are also paying the cash park fee. He explained that this amount has to be picked up somewhere, and they are proposing puttir in more lots to spread the cost around. Bentley asked whether smaller lots bring about lower cost housing? Putnam responded that if Orrin Thompson Homes cannot purchase land for a certain price, they will not build. Rapid development will not happen in the more expensive homes. Bentley inquired whether the Planner had all the necessary information needed from the developer for a staff report. The Planner responded . that a grading plan at 2' intervals is necessary for review. and the pro- ponent has only provided a mass grading plan. He'emphasized that this is a large scope project. .approved Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - March 26. 1979 • A. Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions public hearing (continued) Mrs. Lorraine Christopher, 10550 Riverview Drive, expressed opposition to the large amount of homes on small lots, commenting that they had moved to this area for some "elbow room". She asked how this was allowed. Beaman explained that under City Ordinance, through the P.U.D. process, certain trade-offs may be allowed if it is to be of benefit_of the overall City. _ _- _ ..� Mrs. Jeanne Brandt, 12300 Riverview Rd., questioned how many people this would • bring in, and expressed concern with the impact OR,the schools and city ser- ..•,,... vices such as Public Safety. Putnam responded the project would involve about 4,000 people, explaining that people are not gbing to want to buy expensive lots overlooking a cornfield. If you want to slow down the population coming,in large lots is one way to do it. He commented that they have "read" the City as wanting to grow. Mrs. Brandt inquired how close the Sanitary Landfill came to the apartment site? Putnam explained that after the landfill is complete, the units will be backed up to the edge of the landfill. He added that these would be the same type of multiple housing as in Bloomington's Countryside West Area Mrs. Ellen Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, was opposed to such variances and the density of these lots. Their intention in moving into their present area was to be in a single family residential area. They are opposed to the quads . • Torjesen asked whether the proponent was saying that the trade-offs made on the earlier projects binds the City to what can be done with this project? Putnam responded negative, and explained how the trade-offs on the former projects occurred. Levitt felt the Bluffs West Third and Fourth should be looked at apart from the other additions. Bentley asked whether these units would be as closely spaced as Prairie East • 8th and 9th Additions located on Co.Rd.18. Putnam responded negative, they would be 70 teet•apart as a minimum. • Levitt requested addressing the airport situation, entention of the run-way. and the impact on the river and creek in the area as part of the staff report. Levitt questioned the Landfill situation. Putnam explained that they are talking with the PollutionControl Agency people and Browning and Ferris. • tali' % appluved Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - March 26, 1979 • A. Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions (continued) Additional information was requested by the Planner regarding the possi- bility of methane gas dangers, and the question of liability, noting that B.F.1. may apply for an additional fill permit. Torjesen requested that the following questions be addressed in the staff report on this project: land use concept for this area, airport expansion, and density in this type of application. Bentley stated that the Joint, Airport Zoning Board should have input into the zoning around the airport. • MOTION: Bentley moved to continue Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions to the April 9th meeting. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. B. Hartford Real Estate Company, request for PUD development; rezoning from Rural and I-5 to Office and Commercial Regional Service, preliminary plat approval, • approval of E.A.W. finding of no significant impact. Located West of Ander- son Lakes, North of Northmark Additions, East of Eden Prairie Center, and South of West 78th Street. A public hearing. Mr. Frank Sparicio, Hartford Real Estate Company, made the presentation, using slides to briefly give the Planning Commission samples of the various types of projects they have done around the country. The first proposed building was scheduled for construction in 1980. . They felt the M.C.A. concept was good and viable, and the constraints are in keeping with the beauty already there. He mentioned meetings with the residents, and one of the concerns was the linkage between residents and the office park. There would be no connection of Center Way, and the relationship of office traffic and • residential would be separate. The screening of parking would be accomplished through the use of rollina berms; building height - 5 stories,')r 75' maximum soft lighting; no more than 50A coverage in hard surface of the 159 acres - re- maining part of the site would be natural. Sparicio addressed Hartford's concerns: water quality, the hard survace cover- age, platting and rezoning approval, and traffic. Mr. Herb Ketcham, Architectural Alliance, through the use of a project model and other graphics outlined the first phase and sight lines. He explained that 47 acres of the 159 acres would be in scenic easement. Levitt inquired what the width of the scenic easement was. Ketcham responded the widths vary at different points up to .200 feet. Ketcham discussed the drainage plans, explaining that the cannercial zones area will drain into storm sewer, while the lighter use will drain through a retention pond into the lake. Parking would entail 4 cars per 1,000, while the ordinance requires 5 per thousand. In addressing the traffic, Ketcham explained they are anticipating 14,000 A.O.T. , with signalization at the time of ultimate development. • *approved Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - March 12, 1979 A. High Trail Estates, by Countryside Investment Inc. . .public meeting (cont'd) Mr. Arvid Schwartz, CountrySide Investment, Inc. presented the request, explaining that it is composed of three parcels of land. They want to present their total plan, and feel it is consistent with the Coach Light Manor development next to them. He explained that they have had neighborhood* meetings about various aspects-of their plan. There will be a 1.2 acre tot lot, and they have talked about the standing water problem along Duck Lake Trail and private property to the south and intend on resolving this. He added that the company that oinis lots along Duck Lake Road intends to uart.icioatt in development ,:nd the up grading of Duck Lake Road. Levitt requested that the Planner address the upgrading of Duck Lake Road and the question of who would maintain the tot lot. Mr. Schwartz responded that the tot lot would be deeded to the City. Bentley inquired whether Pleasant View Drive would be of that name throughout the development, noting the problem occurring in a similar situation with Darnell Road . The Planner responded that the streets are named at the time of final platting through a master list by the Engineering Department. Torjesen asked what the overall density of the proposal was. The Planner ex- plained 2 per acre, and there seems to be a wide range of sizes of lets in the plan. Beaman asked how the residents could get to the tot lot. The Planner responded that sidewalks would be suggested in the staff report. Bentley asked about the problem of lots exiting along Duck Lake Road. The Planner explained that 168th Ave and Duck Lake Road will be of the same status and that they will not be collector roads. MOTION: Retterath moved to continue High Trail Estates to March 26, 1979. Bentley seconded, motion carried unanimously. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT B. Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions, by Hustad Development Corp. Request PUU concept approval; rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, RM 2.5 and RN 6.5; preliminary plat approval for approximately 640 units on 184 acres; and finding of no significant impact, £AW. A public hearing. Mr. Jim Ostenson, representing Hustad Development Corp., presented the plan composed of 640 units, including single family homes, duplexes and quadraniiniums. He requested the direction of the Commission and recommendations for the project. The plan is basically similar to the Bluffs West. and Second Addition, geographi- cally and marketably. Small lots would be located in the center. working out- wards with the larger lots. 16'i acres would be dedicated to the City for park land. Beaman questioned whether this area was designated as multiple in th.' Gui'.e Plan. The Planner responded that neither the 1968 nor the current Guide Plan Update show any medium density, but that it could come about through density transfer. • 1211 J iapproved Planning Commission Minutes - B - March 12, 1979 B. Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions,. . . .public hearing Several concerns were discussed: communication received from the Metropolitan Airports Commission on review of the proposal; the power line located along Homeward Hills Road; possible leakage from the Sanitary Land Fill abutting the 600 units; and natural gas easement located in the location. Bearman requested that the Planner research these questions and include in the staff report. The density of the project was discussed, and Ostenson responded to further questions on the request; 168 acres, with PUD approval for entire 168 acres being requested. The Planner inquired whether the project included the steep bluff area. Ostenson responded affirmative. Levitt asked what the justification was for this PUD, and what is the rationale for the variances requested. Ostenson responded that they have presented their entire project to avoid large delays. With respect to PUD and densities, he explained they are developing land for Orrin Thomp- son, quadraminiums and doubles are becoming very significant on the mar- ket, and it is a matter of economics. He explained further that they are dedicating land which they have had to purchase for that reason. Bentley requested that the staff report also include information concerning the gas line easement, safety factors building near the gas line, depth of the line etc.. • Mr. G.Harrington, 11524 Kingsington Drive, inquired what the distance of the quads and apartments from Homeward Hills Rd. would be and whether they would be visible from Homeward Hills Rd.. Ostenson explained they would be located along the collector road back from Homeward Hills Rd., although they may be visible from Homeward Hills Rd. Beaman inquired whether the project had been discussed with any of the neighbors. Ostenson responded they have not had any meetings with the neigh bors. Harrington expressed concern that the proposed park area would be under the NSP power line located in the area. Mrs. Darlene Connerford, 11544 Kingsington Drive, asked what the balance ei single family to multiple homes would be. The olanner responded that there would be 135 single family homes out of 640 total units. Bentley asked whether residents of the Bluffs West first addition were aware that multiples would be involved at this time. Ostenson re..prouted that the land, at that time, was not owned by Hosted Corporation. Gartner inquired when the sanitary landfill would be at capacity. approved Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - March 12, 1979 • B. Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions. . .public hearing (cont'd) MOTION: Bentley moved to continue Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions to the meeting of March 26, 1979. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of Meeting dates and time Bentley requested copy of Ordinance 77-7. There was general concensus that meeting dates and times continue to be held the second and fourth Monday of each month at 7:3u Pri. Commission members were in agreement that project materials, except staff report, be sent to them ten days before the meeting they are to be con- sidered. Bentley commented that the staff should not have to do the °leg,work" for the developer, and that it was the responsibility of the developer to make information available. VIII. NEW BUSINESS - None IX. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Discussion of Residential Mortgage Bonds The Planner summarized what Municipal Industrial Development Bonds were &wh.. the original intent of the Bonds was. He explained that the City Council has directed the Commissions to address the question: Should the City consider use of M. I. B.D.s for any type of housing? Mayor Penzel expressed some of the thoughts of the Council, noting that the City should be prepared to compete in this area if necessary. The Mayor requested that the Planning Commission designate a date that would be acceptable for a joint meeting with the City Council, to discuss any topics of their choosing. Beaman requested an outline of what the obligations of the City would be in issuing these bonds. Gartner felt the City would be involved in financial matters that would better be handled through private enterprise. • Martinson agreed that the City should not be involved in financing that belongs to the private sector; there would be morelutrt,aucrary anti the City already overworked with projects and building is going well. MOTION: Torjesen moved to recommend to the Council that they do not pro- med. under present conditions,_ to provide residential mortgages. Martinson seconded, motion carried unanimously. MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: April 12, 1979 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Bluff's West 3rd Addition PROPONENT: Hustad Development Corporation REQUEST: See Planning Staff Report LOCATION: East of BFI, west of Homeward Hills Road. south of Co. Road 1 BACKGROUND: See April 2, 1979 Planning Staff Report CHECKLIST: • 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) Homeward Hills Neighborhood Park Affect on park: This development will increase user demand on the park 2. Adjacent to public waters? No • Affect on waters: N/A 3. Adjacent to trails? This project should provide pedestriaJbike trails to park. Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) multi-use Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime) asphalt Width: 6 Party Responsible for construction? developer • Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) • homeowners Typo of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial) Residential Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood) Homeward Hills _ Need for a mini-park? Yes • t2 O -2- S. REFERENCE CHECK: a. Major Center Area Study: N/A b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Homeward Hills Neighborhood Park would serve this area. c. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A • d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A 8. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A f. Guide Plan: 1968 Guide Plan shows this area as low density single family. 1977 Guide Plan Update —Refer to page 2 of April 2, 1979 Planning Staff Report. . g. Other: 1970 Browning Ferris PUD - Refer +o Planning.Staff P'pOrt -of April 2nd. 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: Assumed by developer. 7. CASH PARK FEE? Cash fee applicable at time of-building permit would apply. 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: 1 R. Number of units in residential development? 640 _ Number of acres in the project? 168.5 Special recreation space requirements:Tot lots of approximately one acre per 50 units may be required. 10. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: See Attached Sheet • • • • • Attachment The Planning Staff Report of April 2, 1979 reetenends denial based on 22 • different points. The Community Services Staff concurs with all of the • findings and specifically recognizes parks, recreation and natural resources concerns as numbers 6, 10, 14,. 16. 17.. and 18. The Community Services Staff also questions whether or not 38 acre feet of water storage will be sufficient to handle the storm water runoff with the additional denS1,ties proposed. Any development proposal for this site should guarantee that storm water runoff will not exceed the 794 contour. 1 ` i -r '`' MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Y iv a I` I+ f;I ,if, i NO Cedar SUts4 X Poet.as O4 SS10t.an.ratkre1 -- . : e i • ' • March 9, 1979 Mr.Dick Putnam Hosted Development Corporation ' 12750 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 --' Dear Mr. Putnam: RE:Archaeological Survey of Bluffs Review of Bluffs West 3 &4 Vest Second Addition, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County Minnesota. • Referral Pile Humber: P789 Referral File Hunnber: 1 80 I have reviewed the Bluffs West 3rd and 4th development in light of the information you provided me during our telephone conversation of March 8, 1979. • After reviewing Mr. Belmen's survey report, 1 conclude that any prehistoric archeological sites that may have existed in Bluffs West 3rd and 4th are most likely to have been located along the bluff, in the area labeled • "Single Family 4th Addition". I understand that this entire area has been very extensively altered by earthmoving and landscaping. It is certain any archeological sites that may have existed in this area have been destroyed. Therefore I conclude that there are no properties of historic, architectural, archeological or cultural significance in the project area, ' and that therefore no survey is necessary. Sincerely,• Eduard Lo£strom Archeologist State Historic Preservation Office SUP -,- cc:cc: 1:r. Chris Eager City Planner ' City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • r-.._4.4 41140. 7I.alelriee buluussaa in lbt Sl.b _ _ r d o velopment • • corporot'ion • • • v. • March 9, 1979 • Mr. Ted Lofstrom Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office 240 Summit Ave. St. Paul, Mn. 55102 Re: Review of Bluffs West 3 & 4 Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Mn. . NHS Referral File Number: H580 Dear Mr. Lofstrom: . The purpose of this letter is to follow-up our telephone conversation • today regarding the present conditions of the area included in the Bluffs 3 do 4 development. As illustrated in the duffs 3 A.4 brochure, this project is a continuation of Bluffs West 2nd Addition located east and south. The 2nd Addition, t 24:.lot single family project was reviewed by the Historical Society and Professor Vernon Helmen conducted an archaeological survey dated October 15, 1970 of the site. Professor Helmen's conclusions upon field testing and evaluating the data available was that "a prehistoric occupation (preceramic), thin and scattered, exists along the top of the south river bluff. This occupation has been"churned" for many years as a result of annual agricultural activity. At no place where shovel testing toile place is there any evidence that an ww:iuturbel area remains; nor is there evidence that the occupation extended below the plow sone. • 1. 12750 PIONEER TRAIL EDEN PRAIRIE MINNESOTA 55343(o12)941 ,:- • • Because of the location, high above:the riven and the results of surrey, Professor Helmer concluded that, "...no adverse archaeological 14pact will occur if construction is permitted." The area along the bluff top in the 4th Addition is a continuation of that area surveyed • in the 2nd Addition with one notable exception, the.4th Addition site been scantly Traded as part of the Flying Cloud Landfill operated by Browning Ferris Indstri.es. The landfill. previottsly • owned and operated by Waste kanagemsnt,;I2nc. was begun in 1971 with completion projected for 1982-63. s As recently as the fall of 1978 and winter•of '79 extensive grading • of this area occurred. A holding pond and drainage swales have been constructed to solve the erosion problem along the bluff slope. ha of the site* contours has taken place the year as part Also, a3or res of the landfill operations plan for cell cover material and stockpiling of final cover earth. • Because of the previous archaeological survey results and the altered natural conditions of the Bluffs West 3&b Addition site, we believe an archaeological survey would be of little use. • Your interest and aaaistance in resolving this matter has been much appreciated. Individual handling of specific cases by the Historical "real Soc a staff allowssd the environmental review process . to function ina w Thank you very much for your consideraticti. Sincerely, ifith14,704......, '-...:-.:. Richard Putnam Rusted Development Corporation • RAP/er . cat Hr. Chris Finger planning Director City of *soon Prairie. • lq�f .. .... Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District 411. IA • )111111,14 8950 COUNTY ROAD+ MR MOM EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 5534 March 9, 1979 Mr. Chris Heger City Planner City of Eden Prairie - 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Is: Busted Bluffs 3rd end 4th Addition Dear Mr. Eager: The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the above referenced project by the City of Eden Prairie. The following policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this project; - 1. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit application must be submitted to the Watershed District for this project. Accompanying this permit application, a detailed erosion 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. The District will require that sufficient storm water storage capacity be provided in the northwest quadrant of the development site in accordance with the Eden Prairie Drainage Plan. The drainage plan proposes that with a 10 cfs outlet, 38 acre- feet of storm water storage is to be provided. Homes to be constructed adjacent to this pending basin must have minimum basement floor elevations 2 feet above the 100-year flood level of this pond. 3. Due to the size of the development, the District requests that grading operations be staged to minimize areas that are altered on the site. 4. The Managers indicated that a bond will likely be required to ensure that proper erosion control measures are carried out. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please contact us at 920-0655. y,' �, v t1 ( RCO/111 C. Obermey cet Mr. Conrad Fiskness BAR ENCINEERINC CC. Mr. Frederick Richards 'Engineers for the District Mr. Jim Ostenson 11910 _ Mtial240130114 . Qg Pad 'MAC .° METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION i v.C. !.. 'vv • TWIN CITY:.:, ..i • . • °••a''_t OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE MM4 n5.57 0 March 8, 1979 Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: The Metropolitan Airports Commission has reviewed the material submitted with your letter of February 27, 1979, regarding the • Bluffs West Third and Fourth Additions. As has been indicated, the proposed project is located adjacent to, and to the southeast of Flying Cloud Airport. A review of the proposal in terms of potential affects from implementation of the Airport Zoning Rules and Regulations indi- cates that portions of the development could lie in Zones A and B. This would hold true for the 3rd addition, particularly those areas of Quad Sites, Duplex Sites, and Single Family Sites lo- cated immediately south of the MAC property line. As you are • aware, the Rules and Regulations implementing the Airport Zoning Statute have both use and density restrictions for Zones A and B. Specifics of these restrictions are contained in 14 MCAR 1.0010 F (2) and (3). It should also be pointed out that the proposed development will create a large aggregation of people in close proximity to the approach-departure tracks to the east-west runways. Since these runways accommodate the majority of traffic at the airport, I+ro:.I>ective residents may see and hear.aircraft. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Sincerely yours, Claude C. Schmidt Director of Operations and Environmental Affairs NDF:hu • _= "~' MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY t `'• ti +t Ii:(t. t I i 690 Cedar Street,Sf.Plul.Mmmehufs ssiol.612296 • March 6, 1979 Rusted Development Corporation 12750 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Sir/Madam: RE: Review of Bluffs West 3 &4 Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota. MHS Referral File Number: H580 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State • Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council on Historic • Preservation (36CFR800). This review reveals the location of no properties of historic, architec- tural, or cultural significance within the proposed project area. There are, however, four known prehistoric burial mound sites.in sections 35 . and 36, T116 R22, which is in the same area and the proposed development of Bluffs West 3 & 4. It is our opinion that the proposed development may destroy these sites, and any additional archaeological material in the vicinity of the mounds, which may be eligible for the National Register. If you are unaware of any extensive alteration to the project area, we recommend an archaeological survey be eondictod. Such a survey would determine the condition and location of the known sites and the existence of any additional sites, their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, and the possible effects on them from the proposed activity. I have enclosed for your reference a list of archaeologists who have indicated an interest in performing such a survey. The archae- ologist hired will need a map of the above project area and an explanation of the kind of development proposed. In addition, a copy of the survey results should be submitted to this office for final review before work on the project begins. founded WI ! The•eWrci institution in the sine • . Dusted Development Corporation 2 Iiarah 6, 1879 • If you have any further questions: or aom ts, please tact Ma. Susan @ueripel, a any amaatn1 Asses,uiw,ct Officer, state veatorit Presaro.ct3oa. Of£See, Minnesota Historical Society, Sunstit Ave., St. fain, Miaae• so,ta 55102, phone (6l2) 296-01A3. Thank you for your interest in preserving innesota's cultural resources. Siac4.4 e:rel • to liiit[ c reserver on Officer RW$Iga Earl. • ' ee: Mr. Chris Enger • City Planner City of Eden Prairie $950 Eden Prairie Road • Eden Prairie, ME 55344 • • • • • • • • • ti. wM"r .3 eP 4'th A' Tc — P M(L.r L©7 • c.oF- 0- 121°'10 Ct33 15,A- OD z,©"62*, (3D.t , C`J- z L•a)„3`rr- ( }•<x, "Iczo C^) 14,z C?,f '3,'ter'O //,ed-r' f T /41 (?) ie5p a:�,r ,q,w ' C`t)- lot ^ C -9 k,;•0 i 1t} /J,l Grp' Ft,1socz,} ,ssco kg) (5)-12C.0 C't3 f t,Rcc) 613 /d (zz)- t , 111 v CO-!Mao C�z) ISi CM} itiodo Le.tet tti' iQ(* ' Ca) zi74to iar r) tZ,►c (?)/,xv (M)I 09)Fsf (1:5)Iz1eco( J i',G•,�' ( niece, 60 1100 64.0 $lion CzD) f t,u'° 010)teraio y�,zv C3)mom) C`t}12,) U5� A,tev, CZt) t I,2a) C tg (33,) (q)_lttr' 06) 1Srbto at.)ill76e+ cM) 1 CAO i ( 400 (5)t�1t Ctt�fit UI1 ( tom) 1adce, tr"i" 'c c 7Cie • U®) (ii)19,t' UQ . co Ccf{1 Jzoi9s^0 00)ti ' tor/)/5/5c, (3)tr'isx %)/igegre, „")/a- `n))Z ' 4,19 7Z,'' ' tz)/m, CZ; /o w )/rf,& cti` /Z, ° act)/4,,Bas Oliva-4- tAr I) 'i 75D t11 //,::‘47 (3)/o,!.w icoso Q I,,aer. (? I t/ Z) per, ( ) //,�a �tv,15 (t a •:„,:z,400 I,74o 07) lt,z b *//,/cry t1112i 2.52) a')t`d,tot:0 00 tire Gbt�� L ':4S. -1-1. ! s t ' I 4:44 it. /. .. • 1,r sir �`t • • • • • it,,, ''moo La?— STafi1t • _.. _.__ __._. • ` Rya 2 .__. ._ i 9 tip. as .t.V100 .Z �ti t4 ., t rys .$ , " .; . 3 4 " _ Z?, C3� ' ? + ' 'mot • ,.; .=, 4442....", 3:prz. - ,L s 1,,5,,E 4%r. ra il . lairAt., t•ort7 il . ...'• : :',:„.•..',.:...'„-.., L_0 6. ..,N E • rii$44 1 rl a ' • :.i • • ,mil 2/8/77 ' Rvais t 3/7/79 Revised MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL Revised ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE . E.R. # NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAR) is to provide information on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the • project requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Attach additionaladdiY onal pages, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. ur answers should be as a,pecific as possible. Indicate which answers are estimated. SUMMARY __. A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) (vl Negative Declaration (No EIS) EIS Preparation Notice Mrs Required) ti.o-+ B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION Bluffs West Third & Fourth Additions 1. Project name or title . 2. Project proposer(s) Rusted Development Corporation • Address 12750 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 • Telephone Number and Area Code (1512) 941-4383 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie - Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact Telephoneor 6furt er2in2 information on this RAW: Chris Enger • 4. This EMS and other supporting documentation are available for public in- • spection and/or copying at: Location 8950 Eden Prairie Road Telephone 941-2262 tours 8am-4:30 pin . S. Season for RAW Preparation ®Mandatory Category -cite ' OPetition (::)Other Other NEW Rule number(s) MEOR 3.024 (t)(u) • (construction of more than 500 units in a severed area) C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY • • 1. Project location County Hennepin City/r ►ip name Eden Prairie• TownshiP numbc: 116 (North). tango Number 22 Ea:.t or* (circle one). . Section number(s) 26,34,35Street address (if in city) or legal description: • 2. Type and scope of proposed project: Residential development of 135 single family, 362 townhouses and double units and 143 apartment/condominium units and a 16 acre storm water holding/park site. - 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) July 1979 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) August, 1982 • 5. Estimated construction cost land development $3 million-total cost of housing estimated in 1979 dollars-$36.1 million. 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) • to be submitted VA/FHA subdivision approval after city approval City of Eden Prairi zoning, platting, PUD, EAW pending Riley/Purgatory & grading and land alteration pending • Gower Minn. River permit • Watershed Districts 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS • be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act? No YEs-X—UNKNOwN • Its ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION " A. Include the 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. 74 minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be main- -. tailed by Responsible Agency: legible copies may be supplied to other ''• EMI distribution points.) 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc). 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. • B. Present land use. 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. "The 184 acre site is vacant with its past use agricultural. A new housing development Hillsborough is under construction to the north, and Bluffs West and Bluffs West Second Additions are located south and east, one houseust is ee�ast of Homeward Hills road , and Flying Cloud Landfill is located 2. Indiicate"the egp*oximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban developed 0 'acres f. Wetlands (Type IYIr IV, V) 0 acres • • b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreiand 0 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain D Acre.; 84 d. Rural vacant 184 acres i. Croplan:YPasture land 1��_acres e. Designated Recre4.6 acres j. Forested 0 acres • titian/Open Space • 1:Y 2 .. I _ r—. ... — E---- ---1 tOPOLUTAN SECTORS 1 = on.. "i.e. 11aa1 er1ll.a -'-' •RAL CITIES 111 ANau CO. rawlw 1 I e own .a.aua Maur j uo I la.meow 1 i illf .—...�_.—........__—... Ya\M YraNLL .... Maw W ear..wN lame • toms ,?n -nap ` w*i ii*itoN co. AA �T sa.1a.\Oa Macau NMI a.w1 IQ 'i t.N/ +*- 4 aaaY.e...c •••1. 1 nwaA.la O Ya iikll 1 MOMQ\M CO- a.at"a.t` a 1.—., ... 1. ` CIA? 1 ona. Ne..� t Iawasso sane* t t T rr 45.IIa�Y1.M1r .n�.M• t tanks.b -- 1 .�1te.t.a� .... .. ,` .•twatMat•N4.N{ . . I��]p . 1.1�1 . sa I •atltal.. III�••a 1 Yae M �ya�, Y 29,Dio '�, • MOO -•f 1' A : W .k i!'.. 'L . . '� ' 'aMR . t !k .u, 1 �- Y *,r, u a.. .. ■ I a\pyr ..a Wt10.. I Una Mien • • 1 CMv a C0 a..sa. , wan rune "?usOM aanaaa _ _ 7 _-b. _.._ OAKOTA CO saws. """a BLUFFS WEST THIRD & FOURTH " `4. 1 1a\ 1..\ora ...... .n.u. ' 1: nub I unw 1 NNI Mai Nmemos ..mw I �" I s".s.\u I e. r \ 4 1 1 /r' w..wa I L —'4 .waua 1 woos I um.\ 'Milli" ta.aa ; {7 ••r."'a 1 I .Nta Ita.•4.r .e�nu. I S \ la J 1 *Corr CO.e 1I I Lit 1 _� .W ..\aa.N.N. , i` I . • 1 ,1.«...1t .WILL* I ...uN...1 1 .,UUa. *" COYW, . r I 4 W1Y I Casa a«a * . . OMNu1 k /AY/*MOM IIA u • an -- 'I•Ntueli0 1 TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA ' • • rw.•ssc«T�n = = T/T/I sc CHASKA/MI. +.RO>•[[I.•Ml. I$NA/IOPECI I. MI.TO JUNC.U•I Ill Vt.i MINN.III 4 I A r� I. •J 9: ,)ji 1 II d �•-.�, �✓ ter.. cf) • ` S "y� \ C t`l/Ilk .. \bey (� � t N ( - r• _ •y --- am=-�` �° j ., oto : rt.....1 i Cf ii,r, ---). r .1 . — .,'-'-- II. -• ----.T.`:' • t• - - , ) . NSA_ t• ,• • / to • 1 ° " i i 7 .0 re a • S . • 40 / .- I. rg t ( .� , V _r. • i . , ,,;... .:,....... ::_1:„.-4.:,. , . 1t..,,,,, 1,, ii,),1(8\, tl" „, -Nti. t it. • • ,_Ii. ...-., ., ... : ,f------,-.... .N 1 U Y' S I tit' ji: i -mot ".+J ' / ia{i., /J�-` }L-� , ,I,I, .,� i • .• i�, • • RR _/�''�Th • tom} .� - . . . , . • • ,. . . .. ....7.--• - - •- . • _ . . . -• . • - -- • • • 1,. - • • • > • . - • t 11.; - - • . • . . • (:.., .. . <, .. . , a: . -- -- I 0 o g - g 11 0 a , : ,.• -• '' ,- ----.---N---- _ - ____. , .. _...4.......-. . ,s, / 7..r.-...f...,...,.....:---—• , o : ..-• •:',—ill.t.,\ ....".,....'.... ..k....ii. .N%S!..... ..........:.. •/ } Th' .. •• i.2 ' .1/` • 'I 47 , - ). , , :e., •G'• :.. 1 • •..,.....•:,,........„,........:•",t . . ./ -........... • . ;---;7-.........1 •••../ V.. . ' •r-/i .• • i , ...1/_ , i,, $:t • • l(1 -13 • • r., -• %.1 4•:' • co.. 1,8 i 4....-. ; . 1..,..k #.,_,. 1-.7„. /C•••/.„,s/.../ ---, i ;. `:!•$,Y::-.'7. -."."1/4"`\•;-/e' "'-`1\.:7'-r7", —i i 'rl, 1 ,11..‘"- ' <----; .••• • 0 1 \ -t. ' r• •szo-ts'il t ,. , 1 .,jo,„„,:cN.., ,v;_,..;/* . ./ i I \ / •••••-•• e:wr,....'.• .L.\.\c-Z,)-1 . g j‘ ' i**7-•-•-"--< ' II. i i i 1 )-7/ •,$ •.r.:. 4 ..I)..V• /I'.- ..„.. 2 f. ‘.‘A-'‘‘ ; ;.:; 's,1-. ..",/ . ) 7 ' --1 ) I 1( I . • -',.. it 1 • , •J , • •• ----... /...'••e•-••• • ;.1';'7•1•-•‘- - •---- I i 1'''.1 -. • ' k 4...%•••.. jr I 1 !/ \1;".•:"'"•-•'7,; ‘,.... •- ,'. , -::•44 i t ;I .,-,—-,. , ) ,,, • / 's.1 \..• .',. - ,• i-.. ._I--‹ I-..1. • 9 • ': .- • I . i .).- (AZt: I „ i ":-:.:-. :- '2'. .• ..z...1.7,,,..)-.2-7....1.-..: • x • . • .''•.1.• 1 N., :I il i 1 1.__ : 1 • .. ... . .. • . ,.. , --,... ,..„.. •, ...___.__ . .. I- :II w '.:,..'',.::,p.-f.:`..'`‘. .-!--- .--4:-=.--.-7 __.__.__ -- •— — . ..,..._.,,„. . . ..,.. ..lf A 1 i .—— ...— 1 , j I .1. f 1 \ 1 fill itf I 1; li • ''• 6:- t ..--*".'‘-- -- :.II • f s ..v ?. .." .. _i•--—---': v i ''" • 1) (... „:.,:i %.. ..., .....-...,c \:\ I . -- • - F. : ..: ,-. . ...) k•A ! N '- - - ..'•-::':"•••.'1•••,---------.---------- • f‘ , t . i. ••:/' .t- e,.71. !../...:..... ..... "••• i• '',. . ... 7....)0 6 //. 1.\ ...':•:::•:::. /1 ..i''''.." • • .. N''.\ ZI•k '. .• . Y i r r.•i . .//j •••• V...../...... o"'"•• 1' .. Z I" k ''' .'• -i. i• i'' le t 1 1 l....•••••••• 1 '''''', . / .r.) !) .••., ..‘....•-------, t'.2 ----..----- — •...-- I (--* •‘. . ...• / /I•1 II 1; . --FX '. I — ' C> ( 4.. • . ...... : _.--... ./i.‘,• Xt ‘....•- '' %.,,,../..1 I. i , I rs '.• , • ,„. - y f-.. -----. , 1 . .. • . J.,.., / '' .•) ' Q - '. : I ,.._.-- •...... i(4,f,r, i i•-.••• 1 A 1 1 '.2;„. : 1 ." 4:1 • ..•••••1• •I i -.:r t . \ •\.1 , ' ( I , i : ...4 /1. ,. ..$ . ..../..A,--`' • - - ‘. •.•,-v.,-•-•,...,..,:0"); \ .., .. ! i 0 :, , ... ..% . ........... ". 10 r N c•. - „,.. 1 .1 i at1701+• !,‘",;!'t..,"' ...01: ..:i. ( -: , , :•.' a..:1 t• ,• i • 1 !: I it, • li :...._......, . i 1 2 4 ,.".,. . . 'i.,...„,-;:•;-•-',.-7-,4i) : t, •--- I i , 4f ..-...-'-,;-%. ..;A 7.z--"-'-."-"."-:-..; , I ••••7 n I:12'---,L . g .i 1 1 ‘ : -: i•---.....' -7::::// - , . __--l• t•-..,. f... . 7 I f.t .3 N.' i ,'.I .:.! r / ' • . .. • 7 i i".e%..1; \ 'k. I I: 1: i'1 .1 C. ..'1 / i .I .. / , ____ t4c.. .. ........4...4.. \.\ ! , ___ i--- ..• ...; :1 1 i % ., . e i ()(,? " i ...... .I j . ' ii. •,.5.....-.;•;, t -•••••.-...., 3: List names and sizes of lakes. rivers and streams on or near the site. particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. - Purgatory Creek is east 300+- feet Minnesota River is south 250+ feet C. Activity Description 1. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any), operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro- - • ceases to be used. Include data that would indicate the magnitude of the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc). The project is a residential development that will require phased installatib—of improvements(sewer, water, storm sewer, streets) beginning in 1979. Site. grading will be accomplished in phases subject to erosion control plans approved by the • two watershed districts. Park construction will be phased with the grading of residential areas with first phase completion anticipated by Fall, 1979. Approx- imately 80 single family lots, 130 townhouse lots and 20i acres of park will be • - included in the first phase development. The project completion is expected in 3 years. 2. rill in the following where applicable: • a. Total project area 184 acres g. Size of marina and access q. ft. or channel (water area) Length N/Amiles h. Vehicular traffic trips • generated per day . 5,000 ADT ± b. Number of housing or recreational units 640 i. Number of employees EL c. Height of structures 30 ft. j. Water supply needed 2500QQQa1/da source: municipal d. Number of parking spaces 3.300 k. Solid waste requiring (includes garages) disposal 1,28Qtons/yr e. Amount of dredging N/A cu. yd. 1. Caonercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space NL„J sq• ft- ing treatment 250.00al/da • III. ASSESSMENT or POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently • exceeding.12f? No ILYes 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, • such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils. poatlands, nr sinkholes? �NOj(„_YES (a portion of the park site has peaty muck soils) 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any mrasures to Le uie4 is reduce potential adverse inimcts. • The site is composed of fsterville and Salida Soils which are errodable. Protection of the slopes.18-30%, along the Minnesota River Bluff is necessary to stop gully formaticn. Upland pond connection to storm sewer systems coin • - bined with grading and revegetation will improve the natural erosion process. • 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic • systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. The soils are good for residential building construction and road/utilities. No on-site sewer or private wells are proposed . S. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which Will be done: nilagicu. yd. grading220,000.u. yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? 65 • (70,000 cu.yd for city park construction) 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 10-15 s 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and ' after construction? Soil erosion control plans will include temporary siltation pending, hay bale dikes and grading in phases to insure that runoff is controlled within . . the site. The final lot and street grades and storm sewer system/pending will. B. escriwrics provide upland ponding prior to discharge into creek or river. i. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following . vegetative types: _ Woodland 0 t Cropland/ 0 t . Pasture Brush or shrubs 5 s Harsh 6 ta. Grass or herbaceous 89 s Other 0 i • (Specify) 2. Now many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 0 acres • 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botaniral or biological significance on the'site? (See N publication The Uncommon Ones.) If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used . to reduce potential adverse impact. • C. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? NO _LYES The Minnesota River Valley Wildlife Refuge is south of the site. 2. Sire there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncommon .L.NO ?E Ones.) 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish —NO x YES • habitat? • 4. If yes on any of gnestlaes 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and • indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential.adverse impact on them. Construction of residential areas will permanetly displace some small animals and ground nesting birds. The areas when finished will prnvine habitat fur other small animals normally found in residential areas such as squirrels, song birds and tree nesting birds. Because of the amount of preserved open . space within and adjacent to these areas: Purgatory Creek Valley, Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge. low land in park site and river bluffs , somc:dis- placed species can.relte tg. (307) D. HYDROLOGY 1.* Will the project include any of the following: • If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, w0 Et lowland or groundwater supply - b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes .. ^_ e. Dredging or filling operations - d. Channel modifications or diversions _� _ • e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface vate' /* f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site _ • *grading and fill will alter the temporary pondi c, in spark area which i 1 be sh • 2. What percent of the area will be convertednew ry ous sur ace l4 apefor watc 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume•0f surface water run- Storage off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? P The site's sandy soils, while erodable are also very porous. . The runoff from the residential areas in the site will be collected in city storm sewer system and discharged in pending areas; The ponding areas are • connected to major drainage ways on an overflow basis. All construction plans must be approved by the watershed districts. 4. will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain by new fill or structures? •. __L_EO YES •If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? NO YES S. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on 5' feet the site? (except in peaty muck areas) 4 . WATER QUALITY 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? NO if YES If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the water body receiving the effluent. Sanitary sewer will be treated at the Blue Lake Treatment Plant then discharged into the Minnesota River. • 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment usys is tants . planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual poll in the wastewater. • None. . proposed project? YES 3. Will any sludges be generated by the P j .1_ If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method of disposal. I • • 4. What measures will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts identified in questions 1-3? answered under #1. • • . • S. If the project is orincludes a landfilll, attach information on soil profile, portion of the table,Land`fdilnlrop°roperty-ouht of an active part or tne-disposaar area. P. AIR QUALITY MD NOISE 1. Will the. activity cause the emission of any gases and/o;_particuiates • 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. During construction engine emissions from heavy equipment will slightly reduce the existing air quality. Upon project completion,.normal air quality associated with 'residential suburban development will be anticipated. • • 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation C of the project? . NO X YES If yes, describe the noise source::::: specify decibel levels rda(A)), and • duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/vibration. During construction 60-65 diia will be a normal daytime level and 50-55 dila • evening level maybe expected from heavy equipment. Due to the site's isolated location with respect to existing scattered residential development , noise level will be contained on-site. 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. The Minnesota River Valley Wildlife Refuge is located 1/3-1/2 mile southwest of the site and Purgatory Creek is 1/4-1/2 mile east of the site. One single family home is across Homeward Hills Road from the park site. The isolated locatic: provides an excellent buffer. C. LAND RCSOURC2 CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production or currently in such use? NO X YES If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. • The upland site is very sandy top soil suitable for small grain and light soil field crops. Approximately 65% of the site is suitable for cultivation. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat dei'onits on the site? N0 X Y!:S It yes, arecify the type of depor.it and the acreage. �� Approximately 10 acres. • I,3I() • 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? NO X YES Complete the following as applicable* a.. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) Estimated Peak Demand Annual (Hourly or naily) Anticipated Firm Contract or Type Requirement Sunwcr Winter Supplier Interruptible Basis? F1ectric 3.402.500KWH 2.4KWH 1.6KWH N.S.P. firm • Nat. Gas 68,050mcf udav mc/day /, u/dav.34mcf/ Minnegasco • firm b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. N/A • • a. Estimate annual energy distribution for: space heating 60 t lighting 15 air conditioning 15 t processing 5• ventilation 5 t d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. • . Those systems required by building and energy code as well as 80% of the•units are multiple family construction which normally demands less energy than single family detached. e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc*? This project is a continuation of existing residential development in the area and by itself should not significantly affect secondary energy use. Longer car trips will be necessary for traffic to reach major collector roads N. OPEN spy%r a morn direct connection is made to US 169/212. ATI 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)? NO X YES If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be a.'rected by the project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. -Wilkie Regional Park 1i miles east -Purgatory Creek 1/4-1 mile east -Anderson Lakes Regional Park 2* miles northeast -Minnesota River Wildlife Area 1/4-1/2 mile south -Staring Lake City Park 1 mile west • • (no adverse impact expected (t • U. TRANSPORTATION transportation aystema 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed _ (highway, railroad, water, airport,•etC)? 1O_..1...E It yes, specify which part(s) of the systen(s) will be affected. For these, specify existing use and capacities, average traffic speed and percentage of truck traffic (if highway); and indicate how they will be affected by the project (e.g. congestion, percentage of truck traffic, safety, increased traffic (ADT), access requirements). see page 8a . • 2. Is mass transit available to the site? .� .NO TES 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit•services, are planned to induce adverse impacts? The closest park-n-ride site is Pi miles to the north at the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. Like other suburban projects, this project will be impacted by - national energy policy which discourages auto use. The amount of homes in this area may merit consideration of transit service as private transportation costs increase. J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive ehensieh ive • plans? If not, explains • If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing toning and change requested. Existing zoning is Rural, request is for R1-13.5, RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 and PUD concept approval . 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character of yth . existing neighborhood? If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. iv 8 . l3 t,J • H. 1. TRANSPORTATION ' Co.Rd. #1 US 169/212 Co.Rd. #I8 50 mph 55 mph 50 mph 6-8 % truck traffic 16-20% truck traffic 8-12% truck traffic 2,500-3,000 ADT 11,000 ADT 7,000-9,000+ ADT count from June/July count from May 1978 count from June, 1978 1978 • • capacity 16,500 ADT capacity 10,000 ADT Estimated increases due to Bluffs Third and Fourth Additions,plus Bluffs Second at full occupancy Co.Rd. #1 US 169/212 Co.Rd. # 18 5,326 ADT* 2,663 ADT* 2,663 ADT* * assumes 90% of traffic will exit development on Homeward Hills Road to Co.Rd. 1; half east-bound to Co.Rd. 18 and half-west bound to US 169/212 • Anticipated construction of signals at the intersection of Co.Rd. 1/ US 169/212 will assist in letting traffic onto US 169. The bid letting is expected in Spring, 1980 with construction in late 1980. Until improvements and signalization aremade at the intersection of Co.Rd. 1 and Co.Rd. 18, waits will be encountered and the danger level of the intersection will increase. These improvements are not currently in the County's capital improvement program. Traffic can be expected to more than double on Co.Rd. 1 when the three additions are completed. This will bring the road to near capacity and will necessitate improvements to its intersections with other roads. If improvements are not made to the transportation systems, as noted in the 2 paragraphs above, current safety problems will increase. **** This section on transportation is not yet completed. Additional studies on traffic projections (existing, approved and pending developments) will be added. ! . ; 1�R 3. Now many employees will move into the area to be near the project? N/A Wow such new housing will be needed? . 4. will the project induce development nearby—either support services or similar developments? •.", If yes,explain type of development and'specify any other counties and municipalities affected. 4 ` The project includes a neighborhood park that provides supportive recreational , facilities for existing and future development. Other services will be . provided as need and development occurs. • S. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? • Amount required Public Service for nrni ct Sufficien* cane tv? r st1np Planned water 250,000 gda interceptor X lateral wastewater treatment 250,000 gal/de X - sewer 25,000 feet X • schools 960 pupils X solid waste disposal 106 ton/mc X streets 3 miles X other (police, fire, etc) 1.4 officers/1,000 - 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? The phasing of the project over 3 years will permit public services to keep pace with the total neighborhood development. 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? _Lye YES if yes, specify which area or plan. 7. will the project involve the use, transportation, storage release or disposal of ;otcutlally hazardous-or toxic liquids, solids on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisions, etc? • .�__NO YES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to he taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. - '-,."• 9.. • BILI .. r S. when the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the facility require special measures or plans? J_1QO Ycs It yes, specify: • • • • K. HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal or state historical registers? YES • • 2. nave any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early settlement been found on the site? NO _ jes 'Right any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected • by the activity? RO y YES • 3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any impact on them. Adjacent to the site an archaelogical survey was conducted by Prof.-V. Hellman which is on file with the State Historical Society. The findings of the survey are anticipated to be appropriate to this site. The findings were that all artifacts were within the plow zone and are not of significance. L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Describe any other major environmental effeota•which may not have been identified in the previous sections. The City Staff is investigating the following other environmental effects not identified in previous sections: -northwest portion of site is within B Zone of Flying Cloud Airport (for development criteria, see attached) -25 foot natural gas line easement and a 50 foot gas line easement occurs within the site. -safety concerns relative to building upon landfill unknown(methane gas) III. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. • The projects location near Flying Cloud Airport will require sufficient space from the safety and noise impacts of the air traffic. The City and MAC have instituted a Airport Zoning Board that will review the project for potential conflicts. f • V. FINDINGS The project is a private ( ) governmental (X ) action. The Responsible Agency - (Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors In Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is ( ) is net ( X) a major action. Stat. reasons: The residential project is not a major action because of the scale of the low- . mid density residential within the Eden Prairie service area. i 2. The project does ( ) does not ( ) have the potential for significant . environmental effects. State reasons: .. Because of step by step controls by permitting agencies,the potential for _ detrimental environmental effects is reduced. Erosion and strom water design are the most critical elements of the plan for this area and are proposed to minimize potential problems. The housing and park development will improve .. the drainage and erosion control of the existing site. S: (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 Monitor section of the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of the EAw to the EQC constitutes a request for publication of notice in the EC 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�tions only, the project is not of more than local signs 1�,lh • 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 PEQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the NEC cal specifically 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 Elm Monitor. If special circumstances prevent compliance with this time limit. a written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.) c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) or :.rson(s)): • . Signature Roger K.Utstad,City Manager Title Date B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAR 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 (ref'vr to question III.J.4 on paao 4 of the EAR). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the SAW which is sent to the EQC. C. Billing procedures for ERE Monitor Publication State agency Attach to the ERN sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 ONLY: form (State Register General Order Form--available at Central Stores). For instructions. please contact your Agency's • G.. :.•`:. Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of the State Register--(612) 290-8239. • is - G11 • • • • • 5g. SPECIAL PLAN AREAS - C flying Cloud Airport - Flying Cloud•Airport is presently a general utility facility; it is designed to accomodate virtually all aircraft of less • than 12,500 pounds gross weight. Aircraft of this size generally have a seating capacity of 2 to 12 passengers and consist of light and medium single engine and twin engine - airplanes. In March, 1973 the Metropolitan Council adopted ' an airport system plan that designed to accomodate turbo- jet powered aircraft up to 60,000 pounds gross weight, .$pch . aircraft are usualiy business jets with a 6 to 20 passenger capacity. Just recently, however, the new proposed Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide has•redesignated the airport as a general utility facility once again. It was • felt that upgrading the airport to a basic transport role would adversely affect the quiet residential character of the community as welll as the wildlife populations inhabiting • the National Wildlife Refuge along the Minnesota River just . south of the airport. Figure 5-12 illustrates the Land Use Safety Zones associated _ . .. . . '''';;:,..;......,, .: with the existing runway configuaration at Flying Cloud Air- ; _ port, The Minnesota Department of Aeronautics has established • '. use restrictions for these zones (Aero 10, Airport Zoning _ C . Standatds) as follows: Zone - A: Zone A shall contain no buildings, temporary • structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar land use structural hazards, and shall be restricted to. those uses which will not create, attract, or bring to- . gether an assembly of persons thereon. Permitted uses may include, but are not limited to, such uses as agri- culture (seasonal crops), horticulture, raising of livestock, animal husbandry,•wildlife habitat, light • outdoor recreation (nonspectator), cemeteries and auto -; parking. • Zone - B: Zone B shall be restricted in use as follows: -Each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres. -Each use shall not create, attract, or bring together a site population that would exceed 15 times that of • the site acreage. { C. • (Eden Prairie Draft Guide Plan Update) • 11� • ... •'r r ItVJ 1 , ''' .:,..,....-:-..•,.:..1,:•.jz?'.,:i'l,,,f..;$:,.7,...s.,....::,•..... '•.:..'.,..,'.:.''''''.L,'':l'..',-.'f,:'.,i!.,...:,'...;;.,,...'.-'..:''',.I'_V,;2,'.'.'.f,,;..,t:,,,;f.,',...:?:,'..,„::.,;,., .„,:,;:..„,..,-i;'.,,,..,: ,.. "-'., .-.'.:::::.-:,,.......-...t.:',:.'4,:::„...ff:.,.7.,„:'''...7.::::;,:s.: ::;:','i,i,,..:::::::.7.7• '';'-,:',.:::•-:.-...:'...'".:,:',,.'1'::".,:ft:':::::,.. '.' -' ' y.- : 1,'...'..„:„..:.1..'...;•••.L.itit:7„.',....,,,..4-',...`'......:.:t,..,:'..''',......77..:'-z:..,:..Y.......11.:.•':,7.'-' -,:......:......,,,,:,:,,,,:,.'z,..:,,?...,••';'..-_,,,..::...",:, - ' ':- ' ,:' ..'.',...',..:..'..:...::.:,...* :',,,.:',-•',,,;7:::•••,=b;,•'..ff..,;,',..4.::-.',I:Js:.(..,-..:::,:'..-'''...• ''',..:"......„--..;•:;i,':..,"..C.',',',"':',.',.',.:,.......-;....".:-:;,...,i.,.;.:If.,...rji.,,-,',....,,...',.....,:. -- ' '-...,-.-.;."..„,•:....::...„•;.-.„.:.•,..1,;,.....,',."...;'2...,:::,;',5i.'"",•.:.,-,:.:,':•,,,-.1.;,,,-.:7-,•••,-4....,„;',,,,,,:j..,:,:,t-2..:I.,:.F.:!;-.7.';',;-'--. ..,.,."!..i.,,..,..;'.... ,,...-..,-7...i.f,„,..4,`,.?'",,,,:',.5...:-..-.,'„,',„;',..-,,,-....2„:;.-.:2.',-,".":,'",....'„'-'i,. .-':-.1:: ,..'.-.'-?; ' ' :''''...-.":„ ' ' . -- -'-'-".... ''''''C'''"-:.-:;--7.'''''''''';,;-;•";:'.:),"::-...,."',..-1'2".''''''''''..f.f.'','•''.;::::...-•-iY:''• '1,..--.,,'''''',.;-;-7,-:.'-'' -;-','','"..;:-.'!:,':,:::",1',' ?..,'-i."..-.'.--.':'';,,::-.,..."•':;,:•:',.";.:•:•:Z::',..--,:i.:',I.":-J,-,'''''f--...;-, . , . ,,.. ..,...".. ,, ...,,,,„ , ..„...., ; :. , .,. , ., . ". ,...•,.. ... ‘. .,...,,,•• „ . , . , - . . „..-. , . . ,, . ,, .--•--,, . - . .., . .. . ...„.„-,,,,„... , . -..,...„....., • . . , „....„,„. ,.- 2„', , :. ,'„ ••,,,,,-;"..,' ",„.., ' .„:1'.....',';'. ' -....- --1'.';',".....-f.7,-„..„ ., .. , . . .... - - „. .. , ... , • „.„ ...,,... ..... • .; ...,... . ,, ,., ..,, . .... . .. „, ,, . .. , , , „.. . ,...., , . „ ,„, ,,. .„,. .. •• . ,, • , . • ....„ ,, ,,,. _ • ,', , , .,--;-."...',.;'„,..•.,`:,',..-'....,',,',..;.„ 7.: ''..-'-.-•.,•;,-,.-, .- ..7 -''.- ...„ .... '' ' -• -. •-•'"f.::-..,;5'-;',7', ,-- •• _,, .,. .,.. . • . . . ,. -• ' • ' ' • - ' ' • • .. ,...,. . . , , . .„ . , - . • • .• ...,„... .. . .,..... __. . ......„....-. '••!,:-::"..,',-, . ...-.-,.,...... .. ..,. .'''.•;.:,-;.1'..',' • :::;?:,-7....:::. • ,..,....„„ ,..„.. , „,.. ..,::-...:,:,..., . ..,.iR..„-- ,.,,. April 12.1979 ...... .. , . ,•:. • , ,....._ , Roger ulstodl . ,.. •;',77„, • . .„.,,. . To: Keith Wall . Application . „.„.. From: Powers Wine License ''''vv . -,. .. Subject: .4...foritatfalt ::.•::::,..;;;;...., Ar the 111, of concern ., ... investigation —. nothing ....,........ . ......„,. . -... , .. ,-.... conducted a routinep 1tive and found ....';;'''.....;:.?...•,;i' We have . he Powers al) contained ...--ut. . - .. . Z`e'Haur DeParuu° . .,...„.. ..., . . .. ,. . .,.....,..-...... ::::.:.1.,',7,,,'.'...• • --•:•"':::, . , . -'..-:....''•••7.. • , _ ,. ......„• 'k'::',i-,,-..-, ...-. .22,::'....,'•• . . .t.,.„ • ,,,,.,,,,, • • . ........., -,,•• :. _. . ,n ... . ,....,, ,,•.' .''' e:, . .. • , -.;. .',••r::,'...:,.....,:,...',....,',,..:::,:::1....,•_1:::',1.1.....•:::'.....,„::...,"... ,:::,.......'1..... ,..' ,..",--.. ...--; :,. • •.•- . - jai•ci,,,A,- • ....„...„„.....,..,,.,-.,:...,,,..:,::.-.... _ .,, , ...i "., ..:.,..... ". .. , .. .. 1POWEfl • 51H STIEETAT N CIIEi 554ZI • C%CCUTIVC o►nec March 28, 1979 Village of Eden Prairie City Hall - 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Re: Application for on Sale Intoxicating Liquor License (Wine and Beer) Dear Ms. Becki: Enclosed please find our application for on sale liquor license (wine and beer) far our Eden Prairie • Store. Enclosed is the following: 1. Part I - General information in duplicate. 2. Part II - Personal information in duplicate. 3. City of Eden Prairie application for registration and/or license. ' Trusting you will find everything in order. Sincerely, it Louis Levine Senior Vice President Finance & Operations . , cc: Barbara Weiner - ADG sjb 13,.00 A DIVISION OF AUUOCIATCD DRY 0000$CDRPORATION • • • L i • May 1, 1979 Planning Commission of Eden Prairie City of Eden Prairie - Eden Prairie, MN. Planning Commission Members; I hereby request that the interim use permit granted --- - - - --to me on May 16, 1978 for the use--of the property .. . - described below be transferred to the name and for the use of American Baptist Homes of the Midwest, Inc. Lot B, Registered-Land Survey 1895 _ Plat Number 56986, Parcel Number 80000 7928 Eden Road, Hennepin County, MN. .1 originally sought and was granted the interim use permit to house an interior desigt partnership invol- ving my wife. The venture did not materialize, and I sought to rent or lease the premises for other office use without success. I have now been approached by .American Baptist Homes to purchase the property for their office use. They are not interested in merely renting the property from me, but instead wish to establish ownership. I greatly appreciated the cooperation that the Planning Commission and City Council afforded me in initially establishing the use permit. My plans did not work out. In addition, my work assignment has not permitted me as much time and opportunity to becomea part.of . I - Eden Prairie's business growth as I had. anticipated. . However, inasmuch as the transfer of the interim use • permit would now allow utiliiah,tion of the property in a manner consistent with the wishes of the Plan- ning Commission and City Council, and also bring a - respectable new enterprise to the Eden Prairie com- munity, I request your consideration of this request. Thank you. Sincerely • ':" es P. Lund • 7308 Schey Drive Edina, Minnesota 55435 • • : • American Baptist Homes B of the Midwest ¢Ii1 1 NA9oLD W.KLEINPASTE,PRESIDENT 4010 Vim66ta SttM JACK D.HIGGINS.EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT SlinneepoRs,Mumma 55435 V LEEROY PETERSON.VICE PRESIDENT—OPERATIONS Phan IifiEi927�67C DAVID tNARRON,DIRECTOR—CREST GROUP HOMES • May 1, 1979 - Planning Commission of Eden Prairie City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota • Planning Commission Members: The American Baptist Homes of the Midwest wants to purchase the property and house at 7928 Eden Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for use as an office for our central office staff. This purchase is contingent on receiving approval from the City for the transfer of the May 16, 1978, interim use permit and its terms and conditions from Dr. James P. Lund to the American Baptist Homes of the Midwest. The purchase is also contingent on receiving approval to build a 20' x 22' addition above the garage roof deck as shown on the attached drawings. American Baptist Homes of the Midwest operates nursing homes, retirement centers and homes for the mentally retarded in Minnesota, and four adjoining states. The corporate office is presently located in Edina and would be moved to this Eden Prairie location. There are nine staff members involved in this office. Five of these staff members travel extensively and therefore there are seldom more than six persons,in the office at any given time. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sine 7� 'Seek D. Higgix Executive Vice Presiden • t JR/ps AS REQUESTED - 5/3/79 There is very little visitor traffic and rarely more than one car and u.ually for very brief periods of time. The auditor is in almost daily for three weeks in October and November. We pick up out of town people at the airport. Board meetings are held regularly at the Sheraton Motor Motel, t I 1 I 1 tr-----I j . F t t • . n . . !',.. 1 • i..Eii .• t L., . . J 1 li • / It), .,....,.:...,.... . • g tint... i • ii 4 . 16 °t ) ; '1:,1:_,,,...7:,:._::::.:,1,,,' • • ' to i ' ',:i.,,,..:.,":,,,'::;'1::,,:',,,,,,,.7;,,,':'-'i.:!:i.::',:./..i...,;::'.,..: i � •s I w MA it it 1a 4 li ist ... 1:4„;::,...,,,,,,,:z.,,,,i!,,,,,r,7..,,..::,.:7:...,7 • 4 a44. ), 4 V q cc o Qs r • H ,:i...7,:',1,,:ir.'2..;,1:::.i.71:i:1-;,..,::::.-'1:!...;.:.,,.:.:.:.::',, . 14 • • Ty,. • W x • • • ' ' ' '': .' ..',7,.',7:::';'.....'".'''.',..-,'-'''',:":":', .::':''.? ', 1.;':Z,.:-::.,-.::::'••:', ":7":".:';',.?,..E4: ',''';',:;',,..;;;.•,..77"..,::?'.• ;;;7.,,.:..,..J..,-)1.,7',..::',,; ::::':::5rf..:7.'7,:'.•.','-,,,t;,'•:::: E'.'•:...', ":,..-7,;:4.:';ic ,4':',P..:.:•"•:,. y:::;',77.:::::!.„ ...:. . . . . , . .. . • ...- • . , •..•, , .-... .. . . • . ...„•:„ . , . . . . . . . • . . . . . . ..,... , . , . • ,• , . . . . . ... . . .. . . , • • • . .• • -,'...7.7 . , . ...,..,... . , „..,... t. ...,.1 . . . • . • • I; • • . ' ' • ' . . . L A i< E . . . ........ • . ...„.,,, . • • ,.•.,....,, : .., . . . .......• . I . ••• • • ;.,-,,:::,.::-... • ... . .. . ...... .• •. .. . , : k 4• g '''''':'.?-7-..•49 • ..• 19 . • . • . . :Z•.:17: i < • lia 1.'•° • It ' ........ . , • .,.... ' • 0 • : . '. ta..! ai-o 7,1,22 • Osfiters , Z . : :...:-;,',... .. . , Ear" jtodt0 4, • . i ". . . ..7.: • .:•‘•'.:4•-:',.: , . • •0 4 AI'4. )ier-o.". • le N ..... '•••'..!;.,:. • , • • . : •c os.1 4 • MY7---1 ,. A . slit . in • 1,,t, . : i'..:.•./.tii .•',..'.-.,,,'.: /if 4Pli 1-r I a4,4 L. : • 1_ _Vi...7 ..... • • •' PAX Kt sti/ 0' . , kl::. • ; ...-- . ' /Y:eageo .:: CA ow771£ s• in • ill.1 g I ex is7-,.„„,?* 1 ,144,,,./tC' ' i l * • t..4._ 0 -, 41 4 :, - : kill LI- 1.4).c..s r 1 1 t F. . % -.4. 1 .• I.7.,.."....,, ...:„., -........ ' Accomiftoo"r° 7 % • i @ it •i • ‘:';':.:-.,z • ; i. i3 , . k t ' I- . ..,...... ....„,......... --- ,:::::.,;•:::„... ; 1 • ,-------- . . , . -.,.....;..:••,•,,,.,.. . • . • i.. .° • . .• ,..•,.,•7•,...,•,•; /0'11 EIXA • f NI, ;:-e.,.'2.: ..,7,.::!...,....- . ,y_1:_4_.*._._.....--------"----------- i?0,A a ,.1,. •. . . ":',••' -- . .. ..% . • • ti • • MEMO 'TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director DATE: May 10, 1979 SUBJECT: _ . AMERICAN BAPTIST HOMES OF THE MIDWEST INTERIM USE REQUEST AT 7928 EDEN ROAD (Site of Present Lund Interim Use) BACKGROUND Since 1976 the staff has been reviewing interim use requests based upon recommendations within the Major Center Area Report and according to City direction. Interim uses have been allowed under the following conditions: 1. To provide for transitional uses within the Major Center Area without detracting from single family neighborhood character or causing delay in said property's rezoning to an appropriate district. 2. To consider all input from surrounding residents and/or landowners. • 3. To insure adequate buffering/screening between the intended interim use and adjacent properties. • 4. To allow improvements only for safety or as normal upkeep maintenance; and prevent enlargement of interim uses without proper zoning. 5. To require adequate hard surface parking to accommodate the intended use. 6.' To limit signage thereby protecting the surrounding uses 7. Require that interim uses are not transfereable with the sale of the property. Sale of the property would nulify said interim use agreement. LUND INTERIM AGREEMENT Dr. Lund's Interim Use Agreement was signed May 16, 1978 and is effective for 5 years based upon the following: 1. Rental office use only. 2. Written statements from the surrounding property owners were received and no opposition expressed. r� .t Memo—Am.Baptist Homes of the Midwest Interim Use page 2 Lund Agreement, continued • 3. A total of eight parking spaces were to be provided screened through the use of a 6 foot high wooded fence. 4. Any transfer of the property would nulify the agreement. Rental office use of the property was not engaged by Mr. Lund. He now wishes to sell the property to American Baptist,Homes of the Midwest _.. and they desire to receive interim use permission to use& enlarge the residential structure for office use. AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCH REQUEST q ' ' The church's option to purchase the home from Dr. Lund is contingent upon their receiving approval from the City to transfer the items of the May 16, 1978 Interim Use Agreement between Lund and the City to themselves. This could be accomplished by the City entering into an Agreement with American Baptist Church if they so wish. • FINDINGS: A. If office zoning had been applied for 11 parking spaces would be required. The church in their letter of May 1, 1979 depict the need for only 7 parking spaces. (According to ordinance no parking is allowed in the front yard setback) • B. The intent of interim uses is to allow the future transition of the property into an appropriate zoning category. The church wishes to expand the structure now to accommodate their office use. (20% expansion of useable office floor area) C. If services are conducted within the structure, the church could apply for a tax exempt status. Tax exempt status upon this property could affect permitted uses on adjoining properties. D. Notices were mailed to adjoining property owners. Todate no written objections have been received. JJ:jj • (al ,.. ') _ • AGREEMENT . THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between OR. JAMES P. LUND, hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", • WHEREAS, the Owner has filed with the City an application to modify an existing single family residence as and for a rental office located on real property which is legally described as: Lot 8, Registered Land Survey f 895 Plat Number 56986, Parcel Number 8000 7928 Eden Road, Hennepin County, Mn. "the property" • and . WHEREAS, accompanying said request there was filed with the City and hereby made a part hereof, a document dated April 12, 1978 outlining Dr. Lund's Statement of Intent, and marked as Exhibit A , and attached hereto, WHEREAS, the Owner contemplates that the residence shall be an interim use for a period of time not to exceed 5 years, and s WHEREAS, Owner has received writt4p statements from adjoining property owners expressing no opposition to said request, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 8, 1978 , through motion, recommended to the City Council that such use be permitted under specific terms and conditions, and WHEREAS,the City Council did on May 16 , 1978 approve the use of the , single family residencein the Major Center Area as a rental office according to the terms and conditions herein.- I. 13a1 I. J' 1 • • , :., jreement-Dr. James P. Lund page 2 NOW * THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED, by and between the parties hereto : 1. That the property involved herein shall be used as a rental office for a period of not to exceed five (5) years from the date of this Agreement. 2. That the property be developed consistent with Exhibit A with the addition of one (1) parking space to brim the total parking spaces to eight-MY. 3. That the building involved meet all Building Codes. 4. That any and all signage be consistent with Sign Ordinance 261. 6. That nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to involve any special land use designation to this property in the future. • 6. That after the five year period this Agreement shall be null and void. Further,Owner shall nu,- oppose said termination of said agreement. 7. That all future proposals shall require review and rezoning according to City Ordinances. 8. That the Owner agrees that at the time of conversion of this real property to a future use to bring theproperty into confor- • mance with all city ordinances. 9. The Owner agrees to comply with all applicable rules, regulations, ordinances, and laws of the City of Eden Prairie. 10. That the provisions of.this agreemment shall be binding upon the Owner and are not transfereable.i.Any transfer of this property during the period of this agreement shall nulify said agreement. '' o••..,r +w t11..i. &i.SI CITY OF r °RAIRIEior , r►wtius W. co you x f,�' Notary Public.Hennepin County.Ken BY: .c. r..i, i My Commission Expire,Jan.22.19 1 o !•r g d 'enze , I s Mayor DY .. ��. rK. U stall, Its Manager ..W.,._r J.44„1 - - • _ _ •. • 74nm. F " • • • • April 12, 1978 • • Planning Commission of Eden Prairie • City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota .. Planning Commission Members: I hereby apply for a special contract arrangement to permit . me to use the following described property is the manner described below: . 7928 Eden Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota f' N. l/2,, Sec. 14, T. 1i6, .R. 22 Lot B. R. L. S. i 893 ;`• Plat 56986 . Parcel 8000 '--. • I have entered into a purchase agreement on the above-described property. Pending city approval of this Sequent, it is my intention ,,.':-`. • to use the property for lease or rental as office apace. I believe it would be suitable for businesses such as: insurance, real estate, appraisal, architectural, interior design, etc., and I wul4 hope to attract such a tenant or tenants. • Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, T M James P. Lund • 7308 Schey Drive +:?'-`f Edina, Minnesota 55435 EXHIBIT A . • Planning Commission • • City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota STATEEIENT OP INTENT — In support of the application of amtes P. Lund to gain a transitional use perm t tar the • property located at 7928 Eden Road, Eden Prairie. It is the intention of the applicant to make cages and additions to the above identified proper r tar. mare adequately' dequately suit the site for use as rffce space and interior designldrapery workshop..: ollO Wsh tht sand �'' additions to the site include Um) follow nxls :.:_... • I. Enlarge-the parking meet on the . a t snide of the lot to provide five (5) parideg.stal1c a each ,meas- • wring 9• x 18` Note that d lel - Will .. be used to provide two .�lr a4ditioflat parking spaces. Earth fill will are added'and weelaid is ,ate- elate the enlarged parking•ate**. • 2. Install hard surfacing an • the ent{rR..e riveway•and parking area, to incJ ode the ass l added parking spaces. 3. Erect approximately 135' of six-foot wooden privacy fencing to screen the parking area dam the awn- rounding neighborhood. . . . Repair and paint the exterior of theexisting s� +c- tore to better suit commercial use. Calar. tan with contrasting trim. 5. Repair as necessary and paint interior of the existing structure to suit commercial use. 6. Install new sod around reconstr• ucted parking area. • • • • • • • i 1 � . 4 '3O,©. • L A. /1• j. - ,N* • - . . `.„.:':,..::::::,......' 4. 19 asm.rn^p . El)," Rio a 0• f 0" LP 4oQ16 T. • II v. i � '• ,., .. . .‘ k 4 � } @r • $aD „ • t i . isi.# • i.1......:,,,,,.',..........:,::,...,,,i • 32-d 13Jy > w 7936 EDBl1 RC!/k4 LPN PRAIR�y1►E��7AwEiltyi}Is1ESOTA• y I y�y �' - d .._ Tate'i %..., jfl � 1 z- . . ,,,,,,;,. 9f4.,.. � ? • • 1,4,947.1 . • , ...r.r.','''.1::..-: io • • .• ..........:...„,.....,x:::',..,,.„... ,,,, k , • • „ gip • ' t 7214 Topview Road Eden Prairie. Minnesota April 20, 1978 5044 City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55 ,44 • I have no objection for an interum use of the house on 7928 Eden Road t * office use. • Yours truly, .,4:65iel % ...13.1ri"fselt91.74Z,14,...— ,,,,...,;:::::::•:•• Calvin A. Anderson. • • • • • ti CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 79-06 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 135 ' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended as follows: The following described property.,_.._ as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be and hereby is removed from the public District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-22 District. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of ,1979, between • EDEN PRAIRIE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the R1-22 District. r „ Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and---- after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of ,1979, and 1 . finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting .of the City Council of said City on the day of ,1979. • Wolfgang H. •Penael, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of ,1979. . IRSCRIPTION: Northeast Quarter Beginning at the Southwest corne r of the Southwest Quarter of 22, Hennepin COu/�tg/ thinge on an assumed of Section 16, Township 116, Range ;. bearing of North, along the West line of said Southwest quarter of Northeast • Quarter. distance 348.3 feet; thence North 87 degrees, 23 adnutes. 15 seconds east, a distance of 67.0 feet/ thence Southeasterly to a point on the south line arter; said point being 230.5E feet of said South / quarter of Northeast qu easterly of the southwest corner of the southwest quarter of Northeast quarter of Section 16; thence Westerly along said South line of the Southwest quarter to the point of ginning• accepting therefrom the following of Northeast quarterfollowing described described tract: That portion lying Southwesterly/ of the at the center of said Section 16, thence due North along the line: Beginning West line of said Southwest quarter 92.45 feet to the actual point of beginningM of the line to be described. Thence South 58 degrees, 25 minutes East 75 feet: thence South 47 degrees, 27 minutes Nast to a point in the South line of said Southwest quarter of Northeast quarter and there terminating. For the purpose of this description, the west line of said southwest quarter and South line. Also of the northeast quarter is considered to be a due North theraof• excepting roadway easement over and across the Southerly portion " EXHIBIT A " =T United Methodist Church DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT • THISRGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1979 by and between EDEN PRAIRIE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, hereinafter referred to as"Owner", and the CITY•OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as"City" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City for changing the zoning from Public to R1-22 for approximately .9 acres , more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereafter referred to as "the property", and WHEREAS, Owner desires to sell the property as a single family residence. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Mayor and Council of,the City adopting Ordinance 79-06, Owner agrees to the following: • 1: Owner shall develop the property in conformance with the material dated January 25, 1979, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 3, 1979, attached herto as Exhibit 8. • 2. Owner shall pay $275 cash park fee, or the amount provided by ordinance,at the time of sewer or water hookup, or in advance of sewer and water hook-up. 3. Owner shall remove the property from the County's Tax Exempt Roll. 4. Owner shall file this Agreement with the Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles and supply the City with a copy of this Agreement with information as to Document Number and date and time of filing duly certified thereon within 60 days from the date of this Agreement. .5. If Owner fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof and provide proof of filing in accordance with paragraph 4 herein, Owner for itself, its successors, and assigns shall not oppose rezoning of said property to Rural. 1 Page z 6. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the property herein described. 7. Owner"i'epresents and warrants it owns fee title to the property free and clear of mortgages, liens and other encumbrances, except: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these ---, . presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid;-- --- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota - Wolfgang K. Penzel, Its Mayor j. Roger K. Ulstad, Its Manager . STATE OF MINNESOTA)] COUNTY OF HENNEPIN} The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ' , 1979 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Roger K. Ulstad, therity Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • EDEN P IIRRJJE UNITED HODIST CHURCH its ,/lQ.0 a,n a STATE OF MINNESOTA} COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The for going instrument was acknowledged before me this g day of 04� , 1979 by ited r qq,h the �/I(�t.i/rl i4/• on behalf of the n Methodic O rc . [-J._ TIMOTHY W.PIERCE ////y/:y/Neste-- \ t144AYIc• �/ - HENNEPINCOUNTY �% J - awm� EWux,OilQt.1M i//• 13?I • r=- c . +„t: sANi .s Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter' of Section 26, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County! thence cut an :resumed bearing of North, along the West ! ine of said Southwest quarter of Nristvaat •._r Quarter, distance 348.3 feet! thence North 87 dam 23 minutes, ! ! to a point on the south line of 67.0 feet! mace Southeasterly east, a distanceinn being 210-50 feet of said Southwest quartet ' Sort-beast quarter! said quarter of Northeast quart er easterly of the southeast cotter of the southwest of the Southwest quartet Westerly along said.South line of Section l6! thencetherefromthe following of Northeast quartet to the point of begiiin9• gxcepting described tract: That portion lying Southwesterly of the fol,towing,described line: Beginning at the center of said Section 16, thence due Noith along the er 92.45 feet to the actual point of beginning West line of said Southwest quart75 feet! Thence South 58 degrees, 25 minutes Nast of the line to be described. ' . South line of said thence South 47 degrees, 27 minutes Bast to a point in the Southwest quarter of Northeast quarter and there terminating• of this description, the•west line of said southwest quarter For the purpose and South line. o of the northeast quarter ill considered to be a due north excepting roadway easement over and across the Southerly portion thereof. i.....:::: " EXHIBIT A " t • • • • • . .t1 • -4-•'— ' '�l t • . t+ ' . •i• Y ; /1..., 4 Ac. ©•5 _ __ _ - 3 • - "EXHIBIT B" n • _ I v a-IScale i*bo. • .0 • c • I 3. ata - • >,» s kg•T a , •ao— lr— • • , .......,ebb an. .... Rd. Ira / L' _ / .-.--` I• •`.� • • I I L.ertif°i"ca7t'e ©'f Survey iir: .S I Sliest A-mire Ife4400.s! Clw+da •. / ! r+,�R RE r_tr_a d. Ifi1C t i a s t•a•t•s a t um airs Nra+r. an AIM•".na•.suss hos au sauna / ":„6,10b.j,,. • LTA �.1. r.F .rr.. • Bets . • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE , HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA `1') ORDINANCE 79-05 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 135 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended as follows: The following described property, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of ,1979, between CARDINAL CREEK ASSOCIATES and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the R1-13.5 District. Section 3. This ordinance shall become_effective from and_. after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of ,1979, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of ,1999. Wolfgang H. Penael, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of �.1979• • • • ;j • Legal Description: Cardinal Creek - . • The West half of the Southeast Quarter of motion 3, -except that part lying.Northerly and Westerly of County Road 65, also known as County Road 60, and - except that.part thereof lying North of a line drawn parallel to and 666.53 feet South of the North line . . thereof, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, ,,-. ; -Minnesota. • • EXHIBIT A • • • • I3°' ,, fy�2a 4-25-79 • • 5-10-79 ; Cardinal Creek DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1979 by and between CARDINAL CREEK ASSOCIATES, a Minnesota General Partnership consisting of The Litchfield Midwest Corporation, a Minnesota corporation and • Western Construction Company, Inc:, A Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and by the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corpor- ation, hereinafter referred to as "City". WITNESSETH: - WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City for changing the zoning from Rural .to R1-13.5 for approximately 53 acres for development of land more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "the property", and WHEREAS, Owner desires to plat and develop the property into 59 lots for single family residences. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Mayor and Council of the City adopting Ordinance No. 79-05, Owner covenants and agrees to.construction upon, • development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated February , 1979, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 3, 1979, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifica- tions as provided herein. 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and observance . by Owner at such time and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and Conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Owner shall convey by Warranty Deed that part of the property shown as Outlots A, B, D and E, on Exhibit B, outlined in green to the City immediately upon filing of the plat and prior to issuance of any building permits. • Developer's Agreement-Cardinal Creek Page 2 • ' f 4. Owner shall construct trails concurrent with street and utility construction according to the following specifications and in the following locations: A. A pathway 6 feet wide 4 inches thick of deep strength asphalt, with let down curb and gutter, (a) commencing at the easterly end of Outlot E northwesterly through Outlot E to the road right of way abutting said Outlot E; and (b) commencing at the southerly end of Outlot B northerly through Outlot B to the northerly end of said Outlot B; ail as depicted on Exhibit B-in red; . . B. A sidewalk 5 feet wide 5 inches deep of concrete within the right-of-way and south of the driving surface of the E/W Street as depicted in red on Exhibit B. 5. Owner shall dedicate to City on the final Plat for public right of way a strip of the property 17 feet wide adjacent to and extending along the portion of the property abutting Baker Road as depicted on Exhibit B. 6. Owner shall not and shall not permit others to construct any single family dwellings or accessory structures (of which garages shall be considered a part) a minimum distance of 50 feet from the new right-of-way of Baker Road, as established on the final Plat. 7. The deed from Owner to the City conveying title to Outlots A and D shall contain a restrictive covenant (but no right of reverter) that the City will hold the property so conveyed for rk purposes ,AJA- and will retain said property in its existing state, except only that the City may at any time and from time to time, construct and maintain pathways within and upon said property. Said restrictive covenant shall further provide thaTt„withsr ss �,,ct to Outlot D only,A04 the Owner shall retain the right:to rake whatever action it deems reasonably necessary (including without limitation, excavation,seating of the take-bed and installation and maintenance of one or more wells and pumps) to allow Outlot D, or any portion thereof, to receive and retain water as a marsh, a lake, a pond or a series of ponds. 8. The Owner shall construct,at its sole expense, a buried culvert or storm sewer which will allow overflow of water from Outlot D into Outlot A, the entrance to which outlet shall be at an elevation to be mutually determined by the Owner and the City based upon appropriate engineering data to be provided to the City by the Owner. The deed conveying title to Outlot B to the City shall contain an easement in favor of the Owner and the public for the purpose of constructing and maintaining said overflow outlet. The Owner shall provide for an appropriate and adequate easement in the final Pia' the purpose of constructing and maintaining said overflow outlet between Outlot B and Outlot D. the form, substance and location of which easement shall be reasonably satisfactory to the City. • • ..beveloper's Agreement-Cardinal Creek page 3 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. • -- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corpora- • tion of the State of Minnesota BY: (SEAL) irblfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor. BY: • STATE OF MINNESOTA Roger.K. Ulstad, Manager _ SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN • . . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1979 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Roger K. Ulstad, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. • • • Notary Public CARDINAL CREEK ASSOCIATES, a general ' • partnership of the State of Minnesota consisting of: The Litchfield Midwest Compoltion, a Miii ita rporatif (NO SEAL) B • :11404411/ • • Its I . t.flPeoCit'iter:m . , ,( WesternlConstructiontanpany„ Inc.,a Minnesota corporation , (NO SEAL) Gnst;isnri Its Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA • SS. • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN • -.77/71,0 The foregoipg,pstrumept/rs acknotg: e dthis ofday ._. he le .1 1979 by PitAtio? Corporation on behalf 0 the corporation. • •• c tt",,/ • • 1145 • • • 134t, • • • • • • • ..:;‘,:ase Developer's Agreement-Cardinal Creek page• • • STATE OF MINNESOTA SS. COUNTY OF NENNEPIN • foregoing inb6n,aent was acknowledged bees me ilhis :day of or G ,- , Pt tafs©n the Vice President --).- The, . �f astet ,rnr construction o any , nc., on behalf the corporation, . . .„.,.. , .,1 1_74 0.: . ,. ,....L.,......... .. .43mys, ,:„.... ( ii 'b ss • • • • • • • • r w T:72" ' ' • • • - . „ „ . . ' • • - ' ••. • . , •< „ . , . „. ,„ • • .< . •. , . - .• • .< , . , . .. „ „. . . ... .• . . . • ' ' ' ' • •• • • • , • • „ ,„,• - • . , „. .. „ ., •.. •• ,•.. • . .' . . . • . „ ' , • • • ..,• „ . . , . , . . • • . • . , .. . . .•' t • . • . •• - . • • . • • ' • '" . . . ' ' ' ', . • ••• •. •ti •. . . . . . . „. . . . <., • •. .• • •,. •• • . . . , • •• ' . . • • • % • • • . • .1•-• • • • . . • •••% . • • • • • - . . • Legal Description: Cardinal Creek • • • • • • • . • ..:1 . ••• •The West half of the Southeast QUa'Fter.t!".f'.51?W011 . except that part lying Northerly and i1eterlY Of . i• . _.• County Road 6$, also L'rtrtiff.a.1(s, Collh. 11;-RafOad,irite+AZailit thereof lytfig•Hort • , :except that part655 53 feet.SoutIttf the North 11.m . • . /144re!;! towa4gip li6,'IRatige12.,..titillitipintottWtY, • •.• . • ,minfiesota. • • • • • • .......„ . • • • • • •••• . • EXHIBIT A . . . i31 .• • • • • • • • • • • • • „... • . ..„ • • • • s• • r tartly lots ii ; ---- _ i �1 C di_ 1 f t aArdA• `\\� . z' .;,e,,,./t,„ N. N 1,!if j.-- r _.• ......-e,, ) _._ ,..„...), ,,,, ,, , , „4 - ,''.- .,','.--..r 1: A-5--- -- ',..\\,; /.; ', 4srs4ir I '8 r'1 $ . :,V ,,. I i 1.. .,',5'7"1 N '',. -\• ____ -3--,. ?Art!' ,1 '...".:' '',- ,./:;1 -_,-;. „,„,,,-s;Ni.‘1,\'-•t_.....\.' \‘,.•.,,,...-NT' N ',/a .7.-------. , / /I::''. ./P _ • —-...f. '.,7•• , '''. ( ‘,‘,..''. N,.,\. —,p1:4 ,IV,IT '",._•,_ .• =icr I 1M�,J r, {\ ��,; Y. /" #,-c `��=�'""`a; �_ . / 1 it, ill 1:.:.,,:.., ,,,\Iv, ,,,‘,..,,.:(,‘ ,....„i ;;,•'1. 1147 ..5.. ..--- , 1, . . i \ ,`,',,',,_ "N.,4,, iiiiistiliallk.,`,..7 . , ,\sv*.../.;;;;;;.2 1 . ,,jrit'' i i ' \''' • '‘;;'' 0,.`1*/, ---141*... 11tA —.vs- ,. i s.: .-_:::-. •„,141 410 P1141 i '.,' ''..7- s '''''' i '1771 - \ %;'• '''.--;:71. 1 k i . f ,w\ _ \` 4 d/I,I,/�uIII`, � .t Itt `�/il�j+1, -- 1,, 1 i . di( ..,/,, e �' :1 .-.. Ittljiii0, ,v , 1 ` . i i 1 \1 "'dim! W ,,, �'i 1 � _ fr. 2 ty\`., \ aerbtD 1, 451 �,• 'fit! �. _ ^� t� '\1\ 1,t 1 31 �' '�• / ,� '7 14 ;r is- „,,.:, ,, "7 '_ Wvio'reill ..,N,„.,-11:c f,;// I iI '' , �,,'.,, ',1 I 1 �Q .19.: 18 17�'`16;,� 15i' ' 'll �\ ev►a•r f �° I I ' !lei'"`._�F/\1`�,```^�� \ 'Y��(� � `�' .�F„`1-,1 �. ` t ^ 3.0 proposed grad ilçarjnaI creek ,�, , • DEVELOPER ' S AGREEMENT -sa EXHIBIT • 5 • page I of 3 • I. Owner shall submit a development plan prior to approval of the final plat which shall show proposed grading, storm water drainage areas and direction of flow, .preliminary utility plans, ponding area and flood plain high water levels for 100 year storm and minimum floor elevations for all lots. Approval of the final plat shall be subject to approval of'fhe development • . plan by the City Engineer. II. Owner shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Nine Nile Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Owner shall follow all rules and recmiteildations of said Watershed District. III. Owner shall pay cash park fees as to all of the property required • by any ordinance in effect as of the date of the ieaua,nrP of each building permit for construction on the property. 'Presently, the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $ 275 per lot . The amount to be paid by Owner shall be increased • or decreased to the extent that City ordinances are amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the property. IV. Prior to the dedication, transferor conveyance of any real property or interest therein to the City as provided herein, Owner shall deliver to the City an opinion addressed to the City by an Attorney, and in a form , acceptable to City, as to the condition of the title of such property or I:n lieu of a title opinion, a title insurance policy insuring the condition of the property or interest therein in the City. The condition of the title of any real property orally interest therein to be dedicated, transferred or conveyed as may be provided herein by Owner to City shall vest in City good and marketable title, therein free and clear of any mortgages, liens, encumbrances, or assessments. V. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities, streets curb, gutter, Sidewalks and other public utilities("improvements') to be dedicated to the City shall be designed in compliance with City standa•• a registered professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All private improvements shall conform to the City's building code requirements. The Owner, through his engineer, shall provide for Competent daily inspection during the construction of all improvements. As-built drawings with service and valve ties on reproduceable nl'lar shall be delivered to the City Engineer within 60 days of completion thereof. Prior to final plat approval, or issuance of building permits, .. . if no final plat is required, the Owner shall: . ' r A. Submit a performance bond or letter of credit which guarantees completion of all improvements to be dedicated • • ••• to the City as determined by the City Engineer. The . amount of the bond or letter of credit..shalLbe 125% . ..._ ___...., of the estimated construction cost of said improve- ments. The bond or letter of credit shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the City Engineer. The Owner's j . registeredengineer shall make and submit for approval to the City Engineer a written estimate of said costs. Said bond or letter of credit shall specify that said improvements shall be completed and acceptable to the City Engineer not later than a date to be specified . by the City Engineer and that said improvements shall be fully guaranteed against any defects in materials or workmanship for a period of two years following said completion and acceptance date. Acceptance of improvements by City shall be subject to recommendations of the City Engineer and to receipt by the City of the Owner's warranty, guarantying such improvements against any defect or defects therein for a period of at least two years, together with a bond or letter of credit in the amount of 25% of the costs for such improvements in such form as shall be acceptable to and containing such further terms as shall be required by-the City. B. In lieu of the provisions of subparagraph Y.A. above, . Owner may submit a 100% petition signed by all fee owners of the property, requesting the.City to install the • improvements to be dedicated to the City. Upon approval by the City Council,.the City may cause said • improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs for said improvements will be levied on the property, except any thereof which shall be dedicated to the public,over a five year period. Prior to the award of any contract by the City for the construction of any improvements, Owner shall have . entered into a contract for rough grading of streets included in the improvements to a finished subgrade elevation. Contractor's performance of the rough grading work shall.be secured by a bond orletter of credit which shall guarantee completion of the rough grading as determined by the City Engineer. The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be 125% . of the cost of such rough grading and shall be in such . • form and contain such further terms as may be required by the City Engineer. i35/ . • . .. .-. _ ....r. .-. . • Deaeloperss Agreement Standard Form \ Iz Page 3 of 3 Ehtbit C C. Submit to the City Engineer a development plan showing. existing contours, proposed grading, finished elevations,- - - . streets, sewer, water and storm Sewer preliminary align- meat and grades, minimum floor elevations on each lot,. drainage ponds, high water elevations, and arrows show- ing direction of surface drainage,•4cations•of trails, etc.. -•.. :. D. ..Fay to City fees for first year-s t;.yigp • streets) engineering review,.and street•signs... • VI. Owner shall file this Agreement with the ster of Deeds or Registrar of Titles and supply t City Witha copy of this • Agretusnl. with information as to � Number and and • time of filing duly certified thereon•withi ti 60 ddayPss fraaa they date of this Agreement. VII. If Owner fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof and provide proof of • filing in accordance with item VI. herf.:Owner.for itself, • • its successors, and assigns shall not oppe5e rezoning of said property to Rural. VIII. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the property herein described. IX. Owner represents and warrants it owns fee title to the property • free and clear of mortgages, liens and other pneumbrances except: a mortgage of record in the name of lgmerican Freight Systems, Inc., 9393 West 110th Street,-Overland Pa*., • Kansas 66210. • • • I. .iA • " - • --- • ''crigSP MEMORANDUM • TO; Ilayorand City Council -"•°: THRU: Roger K. 'listed, City Manager PRON: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Serrsimes DATE: Nay 11, 1979 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Ordinance I've attached a copy of the Nay 4, 1979 memorandum to the Parks, Recreation and 4: Natural Resources Commission referring to Draft 91 of the Park.Dedication tledinance ••"- Rraft 95 would contain the language necessary to establish fees based on 10% of the fair market value of the undeveloped land. The Nay 4th memo outlines some of the shorteemings of the 101 formula, After • a great deal of discussion, the CommissiOn itesbetra fait that the-original draft •••• with a flat fee seemed easier to administer ad wig allow both the Olt and the developer to imow whcrre they are On the question of comb fees for tart Purtieut. The Commission members agreed that the assessed value of the property wa#1.rarely reflect the true fair market value. Dave Anderson moved that the rnemn-isginn rec.ommend to the City Crtunr4I the ipproya of Draft 14 of the ordinefic..P with cash perks fees set at $32S for single Awl _1P detached, $250 for all other regidootial uses and 41,400 per acre for sommerelali officetioehistrial use. Seconded by Tangen. Passed unanimously. BL:md • • ,• • • • • • • • • .r MEMORANDUM GTO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: 'Bob Lambert, Director of Community Servicera-- DATE: May 4, 1979 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Ordinance Draft /5 At the May 1, 1979 City Council meeting, the City Council considered the second reading of the Park Dedication Ordinance as it had been recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Previously, at the April 17th City Council meeting, after the first reading of the ordinance, the City Council requested staff to provide information comparing our proposed park dedication ordinance with surrounding communities ordinances. I attached a sheet showing the comparision of Eden Prairie's proposed ordinance with fourteen other suburbs. I used an example of a single family development containing 100 acres and developed at 2 units per acre with a land value of $10,000 per acre as the current market cost, to compare what each city would obtain in park fees from their ordinances. The City of Eden Prairie would receive $55,000. The City Council noted that Burnsville, Savage, Bloomington and Apple Valley would receive $100,000 with their formulas. Those formulas call for a cash fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the current market value of the property. . After checking with some of the City Assessors, I find that their formula's are somewhat misleading, in that they don't appraise the average piece of undeveloped land as high as $10,000 per acre. As our own assessor told me, he would have a difficult time increasing the "fair market value" on undeveloped land as soon as it is necessary to appraise it for purposes of determining the cash park fee. Most City Assessors have undeveloped land on the books listed lower than the actual value. If the Council and Conmission wish to review a different method of arriving at a cash park fee, I would propose the following change to Ordinance 78-229: SECTION 11A • Subd. 1. The owner of land being subdivided for residential, commercial, Industrialor other uses, or as a planned unit development which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses, or any combination thereof shall dedicate to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds or public open space, an amount of land equal in value to ten percent (10%) of the undeveloped land proposed to be subdivided. Subd. 2. At the City's option, the subdivider shall contribute an amount in cas>f equivalent to the value of land required to be dedicated by Subd. 1 hereof. Any cash contribution received hereunder shall be placed in a special fund by the City and used only for the acquisition 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. /31111 Subd. 2a. Undeveloped Land Value. As used in this Section, the tens "undeveloped land value" shall mean the estimate of market value as calculated by the City Assessor of the property included in the subdivision as of the date' of approval of the final plat. If the City changed frame flat fee to this fmitula, it would probably require additional staff in the Assessing Department, BL:md OROINMHCE NO. 79-15 Establishing a Code of Ethics for Public e . Officials of frtheie City of Eden • The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie ordains as • - follows: Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the: "Code of Ethics for Public Officials of the City of Eden Prairie" or *Code of Ethics.• • Section 2. Pow ' it is Subdivision 1. Generallaration of Poll. imperative that all persons acting in the public service not only maintain the highest possible standards of ethical conduct in their transaction: of public business . but that such standards be clearly deft ed and known to the public as well as to the persons actingin public service. The proper operation of democratic government requires that • public officials be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policies be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its govern- ment. In recognition of these goals there is hereby estab- lished a Code of Ethics for those public officials described in Section 3 hereof- The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for such officials by setting forth those acts or actions-that are incompatible with the best interests of the City and by directing.di$ . closure by such officials of private, financial or other s • interests in matters affecting the City The provisions and '"b purpose of this Code are hereby declared to be in the best: interests of the City of Eden Prairie. Section 3., Bao�f�rs'Dns Covered. The p€aviaions of this Code of Ethics shall be applicable to all public officials which shall include members of the Council, advisory cnme4ssions, committees and boards of the City. Section 4. Pair and E1 ' aa°"a ` Subdivision 1. Public officials shall disclose any financial or personal interest to the Council, board, . . cosmission or committee of which the.pefsen is a mnbeer. . . Such disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes and become a matter of publio retort. Subdivision 2. Subject to the pracioites of SUbdivia3on 3 below, no public official, while acting as such. shal; participate in the discussiOn of, or vote vn, any issue in which be or she has any direct financial interest or persomml interest which arises from blood or marriage ' relationships. "Direct financial iaterest'.ii deemed to mean such an interest as would involve a reasonable likslibood. of gain having a monetary value of substance. *Blood relationships' and "marriage relationships' sha11 1 . for the purposes hereof to include only immediate cemily relationships of the first degrees spouse, children,, ,, mother, father, father-in-law, mother-in-lava, stepfather+ . stepmother, brother, sister, sister-in-law, end brooke*. in-law. 81 I A.' Subdivision 3. No person covered by this Code of Ethics ' shall take any official action with respect to a matter in which he or she has a direct financial interest or personal interest which arises from blood or marriage relationships; provided that participation in the decision-making process on his or her own behalf as a private citizen shall not be proscribed in this Code of Ethics, and provided further that he or she may participate. in matters leading up to or preliminary to official action to the exteist that he or she has disclosed any such direct financial or personal interest as he or she may have in the name, and to the eateiat that he or she has . no discretion to make a final controlling taigmant or vote on the same. Subdivision 4. No public official shall,without• proper legal authorization, disclose confidential information concerning -- the property, government, or affairs of the City, nor *hall • he or she use such information to advance the fizecmiel or other private interests of any person: Subdivision 5. No pnblir. official shall directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift of substance whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise or other form, under circumstances in which it could be reasonably inferred that the gift was intended to influence him or her, or could reasonably be expected to influence him or her in the performance of his or her official duties or was intended as a reward for any official action on his or her part. 667 • . '. ' ......., - „ .• ,,,, , ::;...! ' f.-. • Subdivision 6. No public official shall appear in behalf of anther's privet* interest before the ceuncil, any , '-. comai.ttee, co,eaissien or board of the City, nor shall he' or she represent anther's private interests in any • action or proceeding against the interests of the City _ in which the City is a party. Section 5. PUbliyO$ ! by Public flftici s. Subdivision i. Within 30 da3n after the effective date of this Code of Ethics each public offic,01_4hall file, as . a public record, in the offico of the City Clerk, a signed statement disclosing the followibgt (1) a list of the names of all business corporatiens, governmental agencies, hies, firm$ or • partnerships or other business enterprises • doing business with the city of Eden Prairrie or located within the City itEden Prairie (a;) with • which he or she is connected as an employee, officer, owner, director, trustee, partner. • advisor, consultant, fiduciary (other than as . a nominee) or (b).in which he or she has any continuing direct financial•interest, through . a pension or retirement plan, shared income, or otherwise, as a result of any, current or prior employment or business or professional sesociatit r or (c1 in which he or she ha` any direct financial' ' interest through the ownership of st'ai bends or other securities. (2) A list of his or her interests in real property or rights in the same located within the City af. Eden Prairie. . Subdivision 2. ' Within 30 days after the election mr appoint meat of a public official after the effective .date of this CadlL if Ethics, each such public official shall also file the state . sent required by Subdivision 1, Section S. hereof. ei. • Subdivision 3. Material changes in direct financial interest or in positions held shall be disclosed by filing an amended disclosure statement within 303 days after such intermit is obtained or such changed petition occurs. Subdivision 4. This cods of Ethics Shall not be construed to require the filing of any information relating to any personas connection with, or interest in, anay,professional society or any charitable, religious,-social, fraternal, education, reoreational, public servie.e. smi. g.a .Political argan$sata or any similar organisation not conducted as a business enter- prise or governmental agency. Section 6. 5fiective Hate. Elie affective date of this cads of Ethics shall be . . . • FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Edeh • Prairie on the day of. . i97 ..and finally reed AIM adopt and ordered published et a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1919, • lielf9ang H: Peozel.*Or ATTEST: • John D. Franc. City Clerk • • Published in the Eden Prairie Ness an the day of . 1979., lath • • To: Mayor and Council Thru: Roger Ulstad From: John Frane Date: May 10, 1979 Re: Final approval MIDB's for Ruben Anderegg $650,000 Resolution #79-103, the final resolution On the Anderegg project has been reviewed and approved by the City Atti ey, 7- • • • . , • • • A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 474, MINNESOTA STATUTES, TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO BE LOANED TO RUBEN ANDEREGG FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT AND APPROVING MORTGAGE, ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS, LOAN AGREEMENT, CONSTRUCTION LOAN AGREEMENT AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT • BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authority. The City is, by the .Constitution and Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended (the "Act") authorized to issue and sell its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the cost of construc- tion of authorized projects and to enter into contracts necessary • or convenient in the exercise of the powers granted by the Act. 2. Documents Presented. This Council proposes that the City shall issue and sell its City of Eden Prairie Industrial Development Revenue Bond (Ruben Anderegg Project) in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto (the Bond") pursuant. to , • the Act and loan the proceeds thereof to Ruben Anderegg (the "Borrower") to pay the cost of constructing a warehouse-office building, together with necessary equipment, exterior utilities and site improvements (the "Project"), all pursuant to the Act. Forms of the following documents relating to the Bond and the Project have been submitted to the City Council and are now on file in the office of the City Clerk: (a) Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1979, between the City and Ruben Anderegg whereby the City • agrees to make a loan to the Borrower and the Borrower agrees to complete the Project and to pay amounts sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of the • principal of and interest on the Bond; (b) Assignment and Pledge Agreement (the "Pledge • Agreement"), dated as of May 1, 1979 from the City to the Mortgagee whereby the City assigns its interest in the Loan Agreement to the Mortgagee as security for the Bond; (c) Construction Loan Agreement, dated as of , May 1, 1979, by and among the City, the Mortgagee and the Borrower, providing for the purchase of the Bond by making advances thereunder; (d) Combination Mortgage and Security Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1979, between the Borrower and Ronald Saxon (the "Mortgagee") by which the Borrower 1362 will grant to the Mortgagee a mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project and all improvements thereto as security for the Bond (this document will not be executed by the City); (e) Assignment of Rents, dated May 1, 1979, from the Borrower to the Mortgagee assigning the Borrower's interest in leases of the Project to the Mortgagee as additional security for the Bond (this document will not be executed by the City); 3. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) The Project, comprised of the buildings, improvements and equipment described in the Loan Agree- ment and the Mortgage constitutes a project authorized by and described in Section 474.02, Subd. la of the Act. (b) The purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by: preventing the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment, preventing economic deterioration; the development of sound industry and commerce to use the available resources of the commu- nity, in order to retain the benefit of the community's existing investment in educational and public service facilities; halting the movement of talented, educated personnel to other areas and thus preserving the eco- nomic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and increasing the tax base of the city and the county and school district in which the Project is located. (c) The Project has been approved by the Commis- sioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act. (d) The issuance and sale of the Bond, the execu- tion and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Construc- tion Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Bond, the Loan Agreement, the Construc- tion Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement and of all other acts of the City and the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement; the Construction Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement and Bond valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act. • -2- 843 (e) It is desirable that the City of Eden Prairie Industrial Development Revenue Bond (Ruben Anderegg Project) in the amount of $550,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set forth herein, and that the City's interest in the Loan Agreement be assigned to • the Mortgagee as security for the payment of principal and interest on the Bond. (f) The Loan Agreement provides for payments by the Borrower to the Mortgagee for the account of the City of such amounts as will be sufficient-to pay the - - principal of and interest on the Bond when due. No reserve funds are deemed necessary for this-purpose.•. . . .. w. ..-.__. The Loan Agreement obligates the Borrower to provide for the operation and maintenance of the Project, including adequate insurance, taxes and special assess- ments. (g) Under the provisions of Section 474.10, Minnesota Statutes, and n^ provided in the Loan Agree- ment, the Bond is not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds other than amounts payable by the Borrower pursuant to the Loan Agreement which are pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of the Bond shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bond or the in- terest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City; the Bond shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, other than its rights under the Loan Agreement; the Bond shall recite that the Bond, including interest thereon, shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general creditor taxing powers and that the Bond does not constitute an indebtedness - of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. (h) The Municipality is a duly organized and • existing municipal corporation under the laws of Minne- sota and has power to issue the Bond under the Act. (i) The Project, the issuance and sale of the Bond, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement, the performance of all cove- nants and agreements of the Municipality contained in the Loan Agreement and Pledge Agreement are valid and binding obligations of the Municipality in accordance with their terms, and the loan of money thereunder are -3- • authorized and have been duly authorized by this reso- lution. •(j) There is no litigation pending or, to the best of its knowledge threatened, against the Municipality relating to the acquisition, construction and financing of the Project or to the Bond, the Construction Loan • Agreement or this Loan Agreement or questioning the organization, powers or authority of the Municipality. (k) The execution, delivery and performance by the City of the Resolution, the Construction Loan Agreement, the Bond, the Pledge Agreement and the Loan Agreement will not conflict with or result in any breach of, any provisions of, or constitute a default under, any agreement or instrument to which the City is a party or by which it is bound; provided, however, that this finding is made solely for the purpose of estopping the City from denying the validity of the • Bond, or of any of the documents referred to in this paragraph, by reason of the existence of any facts • contrary to this finding. • 4. Approval and Execution of Documents. The forms of Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Construction Loan Agreement, Combination Mortgage and Security Agreement and Assignment of Rents referred to in paragraph 2 are approved. The Loan Agree- ment and Construction Loan Agreement shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and City Manager, upon execution thereof by the Borrower, in substantially the form on file, but with all such changes therein, not inconsistent with • the Act or other law, as may be approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The Pledge Agreement shall also be executed • in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and City. Manager in substantially the form on file, but with all such changes therein, not inconsistent with the Act or other laws, as may be approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. Copies of all documents shall be delivered and filed as provided therein. The Mortgage and Assignment of Rents may contain such revisions as may be approved by the Mortgagee and the parties executing the same. 5. Approval, Execution and Delivery of Bond. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its City of Eden Prairie Indus- j • trial Development Revenue Bond (Ruben Anderegg Project), to be dated the date of delivery, in the principal amount of $550,000 in the form and containing the terms set forth in the form of -4- • ' I • Bond attached hereto as Exhibit A, which terms are for this purpose incorporated in this resolution and made a part hereof. The proposal of the Mortgagee to purchase such Bond at a price of $550,000 (100% of its par value) by making advances in accordance with the Construction Loan Agreement is hereby found and determined to be reasonable and is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare the Bond in type- written form substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A. The Bond shall be executed by the manual signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and the official seal of the City shall be affixed thereto. When so prepared and executed the Bond shall be delivered to the Mortgagee upon receipt of the purchase price therefor, which may be paid to the parties entitled to receive • the loan proceeds in accordance with the Construction Loan Agreement and the Loan Agreement. The Bond shall contain a recital that it is issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and regularity of the issuance thereof. 6. Registration Records. The City Clerk, as Bond Registrar, shall keep a Bond Register in which the City shall provide for the registration of the Bond and for transfers of the Bond. The principal of and interest on the Bond shall be payable to the Mortgagee or registered assigns in lawful money of the United States of America at the address of the Mortgagee or registered assigns as shown on the Bond Register. 7. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bond. If the • Bond is mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the City may exe • - cute and deliver to the registered owner a new Bond of like date, number, maturity and tenor as that mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed; provided that, in the case of mutilation, the mutilated Bond shall first be surrendered to the City, and in the case of a lost, stolen or destroyed Bond, there shall be first furnished to the City and the Borrower evidence of such loss, theft or destruc- tion satisfactory to the City and the Borrower together with indemnity satisfactory to them. The City may charge the Bond- holder with its reasonable fees and expenses in this connection. 8. Transfer of Bond; Person Treated as Owner. The Bond shall be transferable by the registered owner on the Bond Register of the City, upon presentation of the Bond for notation of such transfer thereon at the office of the City Clerk, as Bond Registrar, accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar duly executed by the registered owner or its attorney duly authorized in writing. The registered owner seeking to transfer ownership of the Bond shall also give written notice thereof to the Borrower. The Bond shall continue to be subject to successive transfers at the option of the registered owner of the Bond. No service charge shall be made for any such transfer, but the Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental 844 -5- •- • -7 charge payable in connection therewith. The Bend Registrar shall give written notice to the Borrower of any transfer of ownership recorded on the Bond Register immediately upon effectuating same. The person in whose name the Bond shall be registered from time to time shall be deemed and regarded as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes, and payment of or on account of the principal • of and interest on the Bond shall be made only to or upon the order of the owner thereof, or its attorney duly authorised in writing, and neither the City, the Bond Registrar nor the Borrower shall be-affected by any notice to the contrary. All such payments -- shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sUM MAW _ • 9. Amendments, changes and./eadifinaticrie to Loan • Agreement, Construction Loan Aoreeml ,•aod.,„iu^H.Cil_RegCaution. The City ellen. not, without the written cement of the Morteages; enter into any agreement, changes modifitettien, alteration or ;•:--_-_,-„°"" termination of the loan Agreements tins Conertruction TAMS Agree- ment, the Pledge Agreement or this BOTid-•-Reseluthau, io. The Mayor, City manager and 43.talr Clerk and other •officcrs of the City are authorized awl climatal to prepare and furnish to the purchaser of the Bonds gertified COPtee Of all preweraings and records of the City relating to the Bond, and subject to the approval of the City Atterney, such nrucr affi- davits and certificates as may be re:pared to show the facts appearing from the books and records in the officer& cuatolitx and control or as otherwise known to them; and all eertifi copies, certificates and affidavit , J=14114119 any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained thowein. Approved Mayor • . Attest City Clerk • /34/ • • "", • , - • • • • • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HEN)EPIN ) • I, the undersigned, being the duly,'qualified and acting • -_ _..._ City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Hinnesotit., do hereby _. certify that the attached extract of minutes of a regular .meeting of the City Council of the City held , _. .► 19:19, is a full, true and correct transcript therefrom insofar'as.the Stang relates to a $556►00.0 Industrial Development sailed Of the City. • WITNESS My hand officially and Seal offie• Ly., ae EBVid: • City Clerk this day of , 1919. • ti't; •Clerk • (Seal) • • • • EXHIBIT A (Form of Bond) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE No. R-1 $550,000 Industrial Development Revenue'Bond .-•_. (Ruben Anderegg Project) The City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, a municipality in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, being a body corporate and politic (hereinafter sometimes called the "City"), for value received, hereby promises to pay to Ronald Saxon, or registered assigns, solely from the revenues derived by the City from the Loan Agreement hereinafter described, the principal sum of FIVE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($550,000), or such portion thereof as may be advanced under the Construction Loan Agreement hereinafter described, and to pay interest on the unpaid princi- pal amount thereof at the rate of Eight and one-half percent (8.50%) per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year, 30-day month). Interest only accruing on said principal amount from the date of the delivery of this Bond shall be paid June 1, 1979, and the first day of each month thereafter to and including the first day of the month following the month in which the Assign- ment Date, as defined in the Loan Agreement, occurs. Thereafter principal and interest shall be due and payable in 299 equal consecutive monthly installments of principal and interest in the amount of $4,432.08 each on the first day of each month, com- mencing on the first day of the second month following the month in which the Assignment Date occurs, and one final installment of all unpaid principal and interest shall be paid on the first day of the following month, which final payment shall in no event occur later than December 1, 2004. In the event of a Determination of Taxability, as defined in the Loan Agreement, the rate of interest hereon shall be increased to 11.00% per annum effective as of the Date of Taxability, as defined in the Loan Agreement, unless the Date of Taxability occurs before the Assignment Date, in which case the Bond shall bear interest from the Date of Taxability until the Assignment Date at an annual rate (calcu- lated on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed in a 360- day year) of 12%. In the event of a Determination of Taxability, monthly payments of principal and interest from and after the Date of Taxability shall be recomputed at the applicable rate or rates set forth above and the Municipality shall promptly pay to the registered owner and to any prior registered owner the aggregate difference between (i) the amounts actually paid here- under between the Date of Taxability and the effective date of such rate increase and (ii) the amounts which would have been paid to such registered owner during such period if the increased rate or rates had been in effect and this Bond had been amortized at the rate of 11.00% per annum from the Date of Taxability to maturity. This Bond is issued under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended (herein called the "Act"), and in conformity with the provisions, restrictions and limitations thereof. This Bond does not represent a debt or pledge the faith or credit-of the City or .... grant to the owner of this Bond any right to have the City levy any taxes or appropriate any funds for the payment of the princi- pal hereof or interest hereon, nor is this Bond a general obliga- tion of the City or the individual officers or agents thereof. This Bond and interest hereon are payable solely and only out of the moneys received under the Loan Agreement or realized from the enforcement of the security hereinafter described. This Bond is issued pursuant to a resolution of the City adopted by its City Council on , 1979 (the "Bond Resolution") for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and equipping a warehouse-office building, together with appurtenant equipment and site improvements (hereinafter called the "Project") and pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of May 1, 1979 (herein called the "Loan Agreement") between the City and Ruben Anderegg (hereinafter called the "Borrower"). Under the Loan Agreement, the Borrower has agreed to construct and equip the Project and has agreed to make certain Loan Repayments in amounts and at times sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond when due. Pursuant to an Assignment and Pledge Agreement dated as of May 1, 1979 between the City and the Mortgagee (the "Pledge Agreement"), the City has pledged and assigned its interest in the Loan Agreement (except its rights under Sections 4.02, 6.01, 7.04 and 7.05 thereof) to the regis- tered holder hereof. This Bond is further secured by a Combina- tion Mortgage and Security Agreement dated as of May 1, 1979 (the "Mortgage") by which the Borrower has granted to Ronald Saxon a mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project and an Assignment of Rents dated as of May 1, 1979 (hereinafter called the "Assignment") by which the Borrower has assigned to Ronald Saxon its interests in all leases with respect to the Mortgaged Property. Advances of funds for the Project are being made pursuant to a Construction Loan Agreement dated as of May 1, 1979 by and among the City, the Mortgagee and the Borrower. Reference is hereby made to the Bond Resolution, the Loan Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement, the Mortgage and the Assignment for a complete description of the covenants and agreements therein contained, the nature and extent of the security thereby created and the rights, duties and immunities of the City thereunder. 1.370 -2- This Bond is subject to prepayment prior to maturity at the option of the City upon direction of the Borrower, in whole or in part, on-any installment payment date on or after May 1, 1990, at the redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the unpaid principal amount of the Bond to be prepaid) set forth in the table below plus accrued interest to the redemption date: Redemption Redemption Dates - - Price May 1, 1990 to April 1, 1991 104% May 1, 1991 to April 1, 1992 103% May 1, 1992 to April 1, 1993 .'.-.. 102% •, May 1, 1993 to April 1, 1994 101% but without premium if redemmed thereafter. Notice of any such prepayment shall be deemed sufficient if mailed by the Borrower to the registered owner of this Bond at least 30 days prior to the redemption date. This Bond is also subject to prepayment without premium in certain instances of damage to or destruction or condemnation of the Project as provided in the Loan Agreement and Mortgage. All prepayments, whether voluntary or otherwise, shall be applied in inverse order of maturity. This Bond is transferable, as provided in the Bond Resolution, only upon the books of the City kept for that purpose at the office of the City Clerk, by the registered owner hereof in person or his duly appointed attorney and similarly noted hereon. By acceptance of this Bond, the registered owner agrees to provide to the City Clerk, at the Clerk's request, a verified statement of the dates and amounts of all payments of principal, premium and interest received in respect to this Bond. In the event of default in the payment of principal of interest hereon or if an Event of Default as defined in the Mortgage or Loan Agreement occurs, or if for any reason the Assignment Date does not occur before December 31, 1979, the unpaid principal of this Bond together with all interest then due thereon may be declared or may become immediately due in the manner and with the effect and subject to the conditions provided therein. It is hereby certified and recited and the City Council has found: That the Project is an eligible °project° defined in Section 474.02, Subd. la of the Act; that the issuance of this Bond and the acquisition and construction of the Project will • promote the public welfare and carry out the purposes of the Act; that the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of Securi- ties as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act; that all acts, conditions and things required to be done precedent 13)1 -3- , . , • , • • • - - • , . • , . . • . , „.. . • -, • to and in the issuance of this Bond have been properly done, have happened and have been performed in regular and due time, foam and manner as required by law; and that this Bond does not exceed or constitute a debt of the City within the Meaning of any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation.. IN WITNESS NREPSOF, the CITY OP EDEN PRAIRIE, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be signed in its behalf by the signature of the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk and • sealed with the corporate seal of the City, *1.1es of the day of , 1979. C:ITY Or EDEN PRAIRIE Mayor BY . And BY., • - 1'7."- tit*/ Manager • -• Attest: • tSeel) . • • City Clerk Certificate of Registration • r• • ......,. It is hereby certified that, at the request of the • ...,, holder of the within Bond, the City of r4en.Preirie has this day • registered it as to principal and interest, in the rtaide Or holder, as indicated in the registratiOn b3 Detour an the books kept by the undersigned for such purpose: • Name of Authorised Registered Date of Signature Owner RegistratiOn of •:=:r.tprit • ' • • • • , . . . ;" • -., • . - ' • . „„ , To: Mayor and Council Thru: Roger Ulstad From: John Frane• Date: May 10, 1979 Re: M DB's Crown Plastics/Hanson-Eggerichs • The owners of Crown Plastics, Hanson and Eggeriehs, intend to build a 60,000 square foot building in Shady Oak Industrial Park. The company which manufactures and distributes motorcycle and accessories is presently located in St. Paul.. The ap�i cants are requesting preliminary approval of I.R.s in the amount of 1,160,000; the estimated cost of the project is $1,430,000. The traatectlon will be a private placement mortgage. Resolution No. 79-104 is attached for your Consideration. yy FF 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA • Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name - GARY S. HANSON and ROBERT L. EGGERICHS, CO-PARTNERS b. Business Address - c/o Crown Plastics, Inc. and C-F, Inc. 869 Pierce Bulter Route St. Paul, MN 55104 c. • Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor- . ship, etc.) - Co-Partnership d. State of Incorporation or organization - N/A • e. Authorized Representative - Richard W. Anderson 9600 Valley View Road Eden Prairie. MN 55344 f. Phone - 612/ 489-8053 (Applicant) 944-6803 (Richard Anderson) • 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: a. Gary S. Hanson `' 9940- 177 Circle West Lakeville, MN 55044 • b. Robert L. Eggerichs 6532 Cherokee Lane Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 c. • -1- • 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL • • • PRODUCTS, ETC: Applicants are real estate investors. In addition,applicants are the sole shareholders and officers of Crown Plastics, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation --- which distributes and fabricates motorcycle parts; and C-F, inc„a,Minnesota ' Corporation which manufactures motorcyle accessories. • 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT • A 60,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse building to be leased by Applicants to Crown Plastics, Inc. and C-F, Inc. who will occupy the entire structure. • a. Location and intended use: • Shady Oak Road and Shady Oak Orive,both to be constructed in Shady Oak Industrial Park, Eden Prairie, MN, • - b. Present ownership of project sites.,.. . ._ Richard W. Anderson, Inc. c. Names and addressof architect, engineer, and general contractor: Engineer Adolfson 6 Peterson,Inc. and General Contractor: 6701 West 23rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55426 Architect: Ed Mackie Adol fson h P.eterrson,Inc. 6701 West 23rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55426 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: ._ Land 5 acres $ 250,000 Building 60,000 sq. ft. ` $ 1.10&flfp'1 . • Equipment ' _ $, -0- • Other - Financing Costs $ 80,000 Total $ 1,430,000 • _2_ • • Jay! • • • • • B. BOND ISSUE - a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $1,150,000 • � b. Proposed date of sale of bond - dune 15, 1979. • C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - 30 y amortized monthly in equal installments xai.th.c„all..prav#sion.att end of _ _ _. 15 years. d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - The bonds will be purchased by one or more institutional mortgage lenders to be duLerwined. e. Name and address of suggested trustee - Not Applicable i 177:- f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original • purchaser - None in existence at this time. g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - To be provided by institutional mortgage lender(s). h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing .= in addition to bond financing - None 7. BUSINESS PROFILE - a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No •b. Number of employees in Edon Prairie? None i. Before this project: None • 26 emplayees, upon completion of project ii. After this project? 34 employees growth first year, • 78 employees growth five years. c., Approximate annual sales - 1978 - Crown Plastics., Inc. $1,435,000 4 1977. _ C-F, Inc. $620,000 1978 d. Length of time in business Crown Plestics, Inc. - 1972 C-F, Inc. - 1975 ::'1 • in Eden Prairie Not Arolicable `` . • e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? • Yes, 869 Pierce Butler Route . St. Paul, MN 55104 „ • f. Are you engaged in international, trade? Na 8. OTBER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEN`P PROJECT(,): a. List the name(s) and location(e) of other..industrial. .a ,.ems, w. development project(s) in which the Applicant is the • owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "releated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)($) of the Internal Revenue Code. • None • • • • 4:-"4' b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. • None • a. Detail the t!tatus of,,any request the Applicant has before._ __ any other city for industrial development revenue financing. None • , . • • • 3. • d. List any city in which.the Applicant has been refused • industrial development revenue financing, _. . . .. .. • None • • • e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant . has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. • • None • • • -5- i? T • • S f. It Applicant has been denied industrial development revenue financing in any ether city as identifier! in (d) or (e), specify the reasen(s) for the denial an the names) of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. 'None . • • • 9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: . s Agent or Mortgage Broker • Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand.i* Ekstrom • 414 IDS Center � Minneapolis, MN 55402 ' b. Private Placement Purchaser (It private placement) , Institutional mortgage lender to be determined ' i. If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project, submit a letter from proposed - • lender that it has an interest ►- the 'offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner of Securities. Not Applicable - • I . • .., ..ii ..8.. ;.' " ..:"..^ • • b. Bond Counsel - Rockall, Crounse &Moore 1000 First National Bank Building Minneapolis,`MN 55402 A licants c. � Counsel - Richard W. Copeland 1502 Woodlane Drive • Woodbury, MN 55119 d. .Accountant - Alan H. Anderson • 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard, Suite 204 Minneapolis, MN 55429 10, WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start - June 15, 1979 • • b. Construction completion - October 16, 1979 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The undersigned Applicants understand that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Intlustriml • Development bond financing does not expressly or 1nlplrpviyian constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of art or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or othier male or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or au7� otluar Law applicable to the property included in this project• DART" S. HANSON Co-Partner EGGRIC ;( . lire Co-Par • sat a L229 Da -7- • 13 3 • 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. . .......... a. Property is zoned - I-S . • b. Present zoning (is) (Wkldt) correct for the intended use. • e. Zoning application received on, .• . •• for which is correct for the intended use. • d. Variances required - . . . . I • • Snger • • • -8- • • 4�� • 77—ioV RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROP9SED 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 REIOLVED 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 60,000 square foot combination office- warehouse building thereon and the purchase of equipment therefor (the "Project"). Under the proposal, a partnership formed under the laws of the State of Minnesota consisting of Messrs. Gary S. Hanson and Robert L. Eggerichs (the "Partnership") will enter into a loan agreement (the "Loan Agreement") with the City whereby the City agrees to issue and sell its $ 1,150,000 Industrial Develop- ment Revenue Bond (the "Bond") to partially finance the Project and to loan the proceeds of such sale to the Partnership which agrees to construct the Project. The Loan Agreement will require the Partnership to pay amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold to an institutional investor or investors, as a tax exempt mortgage financing, and will be secured by a mortgage on the Project. The Partnership will retain title to and ownership of the Project and will lease the Project to-Crown Plastics, Inc., a-Minnesota cor- - • -- poration, and C. F., Inc., a Minnesota corporation, under lease terms sufficient to provide for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bond. The interest of the Partnership in the lease 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 1 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 promot... 13`l1 • - • 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 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 Partnership and the institutional investor or investors of the ultimate details of the Project and the terms of the Bond. 4. The Partnership, 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 economic feasibility for the sale of the Bond prepared by Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Ekstrom, Incor- porated, and the Statement Concerning a Proposed Project, substan- tially 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 Partnership 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 Partnership. 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 • -a- �33 • "" • .-.. ‘. . , - `., • . interest of the City not to issue the Bond or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the structur- ing of the financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 7. The Partnership acknowledges the current lack of public access to the subject property. By Resolution No. 79..42 this City Council ordered public improvements and the preparation of plans and specifications for said impiwamunts following receipt of a petition for such public improvements by the owners of 100% of the subject property. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will proceed with the -ordered public improvements nor does.it-prtabibit-et-prevent-the City-- - from any further action regarding such public improvements, including abandonment of the project or the repeal of Resolution No. 79-42. 8. The Partnership is hereby authorized to enter into such contracts as may be necessary for the construction of the Project by any means available to it and in the manner it determines without advertisement for bids as may be required for the construc- tion or acquisition of other municipal facilities. 9. Mackall, Crounse & Moore, acting as bond counsel', is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of all documents relating to the Project; to consult with the City Attorney, the Partnership and the purchaser of the Bond as to the maturity, interest rate and other terms and provisions of the Bond and as to the covenants and other provisions of the necessary documents; and to submit such documents to this City Council for fJnal approval. Mayor Attest: City Clerk • 13111 • MACKALL, CROUNSE & MDCRE: LAW OFFICES IL OTO C.Nat+OY MOO FIRST NATIONAL SANK SYIIOINO es COltweet OOI.ALO A.MOVVCm ,M imelealaCsL. MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55402 wOMAf+.M a•MYnfOw TalERNOMI 1*Itt7lf•1!R• CIA,R.Moons CVMMOR',se NMIO Tates.,I11-O$04 teleeegi R.etMKNteLLOltfel•Neei Vat C.Nnfll Rf LORes%O.OAT Y[f TAO ILRRT e,MOVat Rees.yfO WOOO/URT M,AMCRLme DONALD♦. flees MAT /SORIC R.A.JOMI.fO11 N,CRWNfa Idea-1eTY ROOLR V,STA/MICRO ANORLR n.CLAM% reams A.OVORAN COIN*O.CI%VOta MANV1C C.•NOCCR IRAwt I.Jerome et ACZCOCT.1.IULLaf MARVIN V,AVRLLCTT ROACCT s.tee JONm LUA001.11ST I N .- May 15, 1979 - •' 'JAMLL T, 11ale ... NICMALL 1.rfOf1 Mr. John D. Pratte Finance Director City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • Re: $1,150,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Industrial Development Revenue Bond (Crown Plastics, Inc. Project) Dear Mr. Franez • Our firm has been retained to provide you with a preliminary opinion relating to the qualification of the above captioned Project under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota-Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended. Subject to the due authorization and/or execution of the necessary documentation required by the parties to the Project, including, but not limited to, the appropriate municipal resolutions, a revenue agreement and all related documentation, legally binding on the parties thereto and legally enforceable in accordance with terms thereof, it is our preliminary opinion that the proposed Project will conform with the requirements of the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act. Very truly yours, MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE By Ma in C. I1, .er MCI:me 137cp 1 .7 7 w 70, ... ........ m Z,-1-, t .7.7�.� ............. 71,�7�.:- ;-I TO: Mayor and Council 'M: Roger Ulstad FRDM: John Frane RATE: May 10, 1979 RE: NIDBIs Suburban National Bank/Subtirban Associates 1 7 7 of individuals who hold stock in the suburban Associates, a grow , esting $1 .600,000 to-vonstruot a Suburban Natiomal Bank, are I an 2-i #crias of land. TTw g5,aW square foot office buim initi-ally occ 28% of the soacg and intends to bank intends to lease the balance to others. To?"N." 6, the bank UdIcatO :h 'The OrkojeCt that they. wi I I be using, additloftO� sPace. Bv will be located at the cOmer Of 14 *h Street and-So" in the Homart Development. Ihe prooertY Is premtly zqh'w ruftls nsistent with the Wor Center Area Plan. the use of the prorrty is cc Resolution No. 79- 05 is'attached for your consideration- -n t.� • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND FINANCING • 1 Name. (a) Business Name. Suburban Associates (b) Business Address. c/o Roy W. Terw+.11iger ._. - _ Managing Partner Suburban National Bank 1080 Eden Prairie Center Eden Prairie, Minnesota (c) Business Form. General Partnership (d) State of Organization. Minnesota (e) Authorized Representative. Roy W. Terwilliger Managing Partner c/o Suburban National Bank 1080 Eden Prairie Center Eden Prairie. Minnesota (f) Telephone Number. 941-7100 2 Name and Address of the Principal. Roy W. Terwilliger • Managing Partner c/o Suburban National Bank 1080 Eden Prairie Center Eden Prairie, Minnesota The other partners are 20 persons who are shareholders of Suburban National Bank. • P3f1 • IZT 3 Give brief description of nature of business, principal products, etc.: Acquire land, and construct, lease, and operate an office building, to be occupied by Suburban National Bank and other tenants. 4 Description of Project: (a) Location and intended use: The Project consists of the purchase of 2.2 acres of land at Schooner Boulevard .7. and West 78th Street and construction of a 25,000 square foot office building, in which space will be leased to Suburban National Bank and approximately... five other tenants. (b) Present ownership of project site: Homart Development Company (c) Name and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: Rauenhorst Corporation 2200 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 35431 . 5 Estimated Project Cost for: Land: $ 312,000 Building: $1,145,000 =771- Other (interest, financing cost, legal fees, etc.): $ 143,000 TOTAL: $1,600,000 6 Bond Issue: (a) Amount of proposed bond issue: • $1,600,000 (b) Proposed date of sale of bond: August 1, 1979. (c) Length of bond issue and proposed maturities: Amortize in 360 monthly installments, with call provision at 240th installment. • `` (d) Proposed original gi nal purchaser of bonds: _y One or more institutional mortgage lenders to be determined. (e) :Name and address of suggested trustee: Not applicable. (f) Copy of sny agreement between Applicant and original purchaser: Not yet existent. (g) Describe any interim financing sought or available: To be provided by one or more institutional mortgage lenders. (h) Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing: None contemplated. ti 7 Business Profile: (a) Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? • The main tenant of the proposed building, Suburban National Bank, is located in the City of Eden Prairie. (b) 'Number of employees in Eden Prairie? (i) Before this project: At this time the Suburban National Bank employs approximately 23 persons. (ii) After the project: Suburban National Bank projects the following described staff increases: First year of occupancy - 30 employees Fifth year of occupancy - 40 employees Eighth year of occupancy - 55 employees Twelfth year of occupancy - 71 employees Initially the Bank plans to occupy approximately 6,000 out of a total of approximately 21,500 square feet of net rentable area in the building. The Applicant estimates that the balance of the space in the building will be occupied by approximately 59 employees of approximately five other tenants. • 3. t33O • • • • (c) Length of time in business: The Applicant is a newly organized partnership. The Suburban National Bank has been in business since March, 1976. (d) In Eden Prairie: See (c) above. (e) Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? Not applicable (f) Are you engaged in international trade? Not applicable. 8 Other industrial development project(s); (a) List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "related person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. None. (b) List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. None Y. (c) Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial development revenue financing. Not applicable (d) List any city in which the Applicant has been refused industrial development revenue financing. None (e) List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. • None • (f) If Applicant has been denied industrial development revenue financing in any other city as identified in (d) or (a), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. • Not applicable. • 4. 1N.1 9 Name and address of: (a) Agent or mortgage broker. Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand 6 Ekstrom, Inc. 414 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (b) Private Placement Purchaser (if private placement) One or more institutional mortgage lenders to be determined. f: ; • (i) If lender will not commit until Cite.has.passed its preliminary. resolution approving the project, submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner of Securities. No commitment from a proposed lender has yet been obtained. (c) Road Counsel: Stephen B. Solomon • Larkin, Hoffman, Daly 6 Lindgren, Ltd. . 1500 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 835-3800 (d) Corporate Counsel: Robert F. Collins 1735 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 835-5404 (e) Accountant: Keith Holmgren Larson, Allen, Weishair 6 Co. 600 South County Road 18 546-2211 10 What is your target date for: (a) .Construction start: August 1, 1979 'Z..' )•. • • • ' �°(b) Construction completion: March 1, 1980 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The undersigned Applicant undarstaads that the approval or disapproval by the City. of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing does not expressly or implied constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating _. ' to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. • SUBURBAN ASSOCIATES, a PaxtnersT ,p,. ..�. BY:glart4plor-1 .•.-., .- ng Partner • • • • • • s 6.. • • • • 7 oi RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE ACQUIRED, • CONSTRUCTED, AND FINANCED UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION 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. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows: 1.1) Suburban Associates, a Minnesota general partnership (the Company) has presented to the City a proposal to acquire Land as the site for, and to ' construct and equip a new office facility in the City (the Project). The Company presently estimates the cost of the Project to be approximately $1,600,000. 1.2) The Company proposes that financing for the Project be provided under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, of the Minnesota Statutes (the Act). 1.3) The existence of the Project would increase the tax base of the City, County and School District in which the City is located, and would provide opportunities for employment for residents of the City and surrounding area. 1.4) The City has been advised that conventional commercial financing to pay the capital costs of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing costs, the Project is economically • more feasible. 1.5) On the basis of discussions with representatives of the Company and the potential underwriter for the sale of tax-exempt bonds to finance the Project, the Council is advised that industrial development revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project. 1.6) The City is authorized by the Act to issue its revenue bonds to finance Projects consisting of property used and useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that proposed by the Company, and the issuance of such bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Company to carry out the Project. 1:7) The purpose of the Project is, and the effect thereof will be, (a) to promote the public welfare for the attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; (b) the development of industry to use the available resources of the community, in order to retain the benefit of its existin investment in educational and public service facilities, by halting the oov,t,ent talented, educated personnel of mature age to other areas and thus preserving l39L1 • • • the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; (c) 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 provided by the City, the County and the School District in which the City is located. 1.8) The Company 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 Commissioner of Securities; whether or net the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the bonds or operative instruments are executed. 2. On the basis of information given to the City to date, it appears that it would be in the best interests of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to finance the Project of the Company. 3. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City, and the issuance of bonds for such purpose and in the amount estimated to be necessary to pay the cost of the Project is approved, subject to approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Securities and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Company, end the initial purchasers of the bonds as to the details of the bond issue and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon the property of the City except the Project, and each bond, when, as, and if issued, shag recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable only from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City. 4. In accordance with Minn. Stat. 1474.01, Subd. 7, the mayor and the city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Commissioner of Securities for his approval. The mayor, city clerk, city attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary information he may need for this purpose, and the city attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by the Commissioner of Securities. • 5. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the bond as requested by the Company. The City retains the right in its sole 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 interests of the City not to issue the bond or should the parties to the transactions be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this day of , 1979. Mayor ATTEST: • City Clerk �i191} • DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS, STRAND& EKSTROM INe0RrceA1ED May 10, 1979 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Hall .; 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Re: Proposed $1,600,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Industrial Development Mortgage Revenue Note '`• (Suburban National Bank Project)- ......... . .. ... .. ...,,. ,. . .. ... � Gentlemen: At the request of Roy Terwilliger, Managing Partner of Suburban Associates, a Minnesota general partnership, we have evaluated tire.economic',feasibility of the proposal that the City of Eden Prairie inane one or.tore of.its revenue obligations under the provisions of the Minnesoota',Municipal industrial Develop- :sent Act to provide funds to finance the acquisition of land and,the construc- tion of an office building to be owned and operated by Subut' A$Soctatea and leased principally to the Suburban Salerno,' Bank, but to apprawtmrrma,y five additional business and professional firm as well. , Based upon the financial statement of Suburban 1i '{ nal Bank, the financial statement of Suburban Associates together with satisfactory Leases from the proposed tenants sufficient to pay their proportionate ahate of opp'r•eptng expenses and debt service, we conclude, based on current financial rnnrt4tigna, that the project is economically feasible and the ravenuepbiigatiane of the City can be successfully fiRa.'od and sold and that sub'.rben Aasna4Atea has the financial and management capability to fulfill the obligations to be imposed by this proposed transaction. We propose to act:.as agent far the City and • . Suburban Associates in arranging for the private plaveaent•a the al:bigations . . with one or more institutional lenders, subject to approval of the pro4eet by the City of Eden Prairie and the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Securities Division, and subject to final agreement by and among the City, the Lender, ned Suburban Associates as to the terms and conditions of the issuance and sate. • We understand a copy of this letter will be forwarded by the City to the Commis- sioner or Securities of the State of Minnesata.,to serve as the letter of intent required by the Commissioner. eery truly Yours. DOUGHKRTY, DAWKINS, STRAND a EKSTROM Incorporated -' TMS:rk INVESTAINT(JANKI S 41410SGENTER u YINWEAPOuS.M1NNESQTA u Bi ;34t E00.: PAID o ' Minnesota(4)(z[:,‘ Der artment of Transportation • t District 2055 No. Lilac Drive or:sea' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. • ((3131 545•3714t April 30, 1979 • • Mayor and the City Council City of Eden Prairie . City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Par R.P. 1017 T.H. 212/169 Dear Mayor and City Council Ma/DOT's Golden Valley District staff has bee*worting on a Draft Toollosulaatai Impact Statement (DEts) for IS 212/169 which US bi outbIt to our aeon srtrrnative route locations which were not studied previously. These need to be aaalyned at this time. We are currently iurolved in a preen that ahould answer some of our concerns but more input i3 still needed. Therefore, an advisory committee is being formed by our department to help us reduce the number of alternatives to be considered in the DEtS. Hopefully. time delays in en* •sting the DM will be reduced by the input of this ri " tras;. Mn/DOT is requesting that each affected calamity select four representatives to serve on the r w"rtee. dos should be an elected official,• Each county is requested to select two represr.nr'*ivaa.. The existing TH 212 task force hes volunteered to host the meetings and aid the advisory committee in any way they can. The committee would bold-evening meetinga-arteset cue weary meal/sew and conclude its f+nMMngs by the end of this year. The first meeting is scheduled for May 23, 1979, 7130 PM in the Coamfasinners' •Room at the Carver County Courthouse in Cheeks. 1 would appreciate it if you would inform Bob Paine, project manager at 345-3761 Ext. 118 of your comsittee selections before that time. Any questions should be d4'mered to Bob. 1..., Sincerely, W. M. Crawford, P.E. District Engineer cct Roger Meted . Al • Equal Opportunity Empb1� ti May 10, 1979 MSMo TO: Roger Misted - City Manager • 1,' FROM: Walter Johnson - Building Official RE: Fence ,protection around privately owned swimming pools. We have contacted seven (7) communities in svbnrban Rennipen County too see if they have ordinances covering privately owned swimming pools. All communities contacted have ordinances, and all require fence protection around pools. The following table 1 ":; indicates fence requirements. t: lidk(PCINAZTB FRICA MROCIREP ilei a Minnetonka yea min. 5 ft. #11 gage woven Wire- self closing gate-all other materials by Atpp° revel of bldg. inspsc. W.ohfeild yes min. 4 ft. f11 gage wire'signal cloak 1 •, gaetemother swter&als by 1. bldg. inspector Approval • Edina yes min. 4 ft. 411 gage woven Wire W/ aloes gate-Bother ma+e,iAi-a , . by b:+;seang inapec. approval Golden Valley yes min. 5 ft. privacy fence v/self close 94_ Bloomington yes min. 4 ft. 1111 gage'wile,visa/ c101ge gnu. other materials'by approval Maple Grove yes min. 4 ft. unr)4.*..hi. fence appnolrad by inspector a self close gate E... Plymouth yes min. 5 ft. #11 gage chain link a self •. nose gate a la,/rt .4yE� .7 F Nayor "A city council TW: , ROM L Ust", city manager FRM: Bob Lasibert, DireCtior Of COMMMIty Servues DATB: fty 11, 1979 Sam=- Valley View Road Bike Trall At the Way 1, 109 City Omeil meeting the City Coundl reviewed tIm feaffiti Toport from the Coftumity SerWIt*W-Staff Oh i'bikb Inir Albft-Mlif View II*recommendation fro staff was to oonstrwt an agUme.trail along the mmh aide of Va4ley View Ros6 from County Road 4 astatly to PUrSnOTY&Oak. 7he staff felt that this alternative, e*ainj Aboot�$6,0ft,,v=14 7mvide =10 *estrian access to Round take Pwk and would oMr a was Alte=400 t*NW4Uts,�- This recommendation was ruviewed by the 14tUt" R~100 O=Issieft on May 7. IM. At that meeting, thm vis a4sideftbli' an the history of the proposed bike'tmil along�Valley View Uld. SMIC:Rmbm noted that the staff proposal wmld not extend to the Topti" aret and-that it would serve a 14-4ted ri-bA-o of bons along Valley. View-162C Other imbers,of the Comission felt that few, if my, people ridUs bftY;les imuld use that:Aglike U41 when it was directly adjacent to an szpMll� surface. The CoMais&ion brought up the point that Wm the HAnzy/Sikamy Tuk PON* completed its study, one of the higbW prlorit4ex Ja i the tcit�va for A'a"natiff# bicycle trail along Valley View Road. At that -time, the,aty-mas,Prodicting,40a upgrading of Valley View Road. within 5-10 yens. Tho-CarmisA&nimid that the City is still predicting the upgrading of Valley ViewRead Owithin 440-YO.&W and,- retmended that the upgrading sh-uld be moved higber on the prim-ity Ust. Bob Carlson owed that the Cnmmi ssion recommend to the Council the Upgrading 0 Valley View Road as soon as possible. The Comission WOUI4 prefer ta.seg the attire roadway upgraded and a peTmnent trail i=luded at the time.of read constfU414A. rather than a taWorary aglime trail. Seconded by Tomm, passed uiodbilOY, BL:md �Vd d-LI • tzt43RANDtti . 70: Mayor and City Council T UW: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Comauoity Services MTE: Nay 11, 1979 - SUBJECT: Eden Prairie Scabies.- At the May 7, 1979 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Camission meeting, the Commission reviewed all of the proposals for leasing the Eden Prairie;Stables. The staff indicated that there had been a question about gaollutioma to Bx7ant Lake and noted that staff had been requested to contact the TBIR to get a ree ens ion is on this possible pollution problem. Staff has contacted members of the staff at the of Natural Resourcaac and the Watershed District concerning possible poiltttion to Itleht Lake Neither the DNR or the Watershed District staff mill make a comment on the area above the normal ordinary high water mark of the lake or floodplain as it is on of their jurisdiction. Staff again referred to the study done on the lake Several 3ek$ go by the Watershed District. That study indicated a number of steps to take to ilinieate the poll aut on to the lake. The City has taken all of those steps ohs ih inc.Tudet 1) renal of the manure piles within the fioodpiain, 2) rentoWal of the pasture within the: floodplain, 3) reducing the number of tie stall horses, their reducing the number of pasture horses. Bob Rruell moved to recommend approval of the Hockey Association proposal for use of the riding arena as an indoor ice skating facility. Motion died for lack of a *Acona, Carlson moved to recommend that the Council accept the proposal nF*red by V4..Tech as the first choice.if the facility is to be used as a stable; the and Ho ckey Association proposal as a second choice. Second by Dick Anderson. FkttiOi.passed. Eruell opposed, Dave Anderson abstained. BL:md { fi • Nay 15, 1979 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOtA RESOLUTION NO. 19-101 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 1002 PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND Srli.a.i.CATIONS FOR PUBLIC. IMPROVEMENTS IN CARDINAL CREEK ESTATES (LC. 51-355) BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 1002 of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the proposed;sewer, water and street improvements in Cardinal Creek Estates I.C. 335, at and estimated total cost of $4O6,000.00, have petitioned the City Council to construct said daupravements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ortlared • and the City Engineer: with the assistance of Rieke Carroll Muller Assoc.. Inc., shell prepare plans and spenifieations for said improvements in ,.rrnrdanca with City ,sPAndar4s and .. advertise for bids thereon. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this re4sA7uht,nn once in the official newspaper, and further a contract tow construction of said improvements shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publicarron of thin"resolv*'enn in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on • • 'JToifgang H. ?easel, fir. ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Franc, Clerk . • j ' .'. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA i 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) Yes Sanitary Sewer See Cardinal Creek Nt, Yes Watermain .: See Cardinal Creek Plat Yes -Storm.Sewer See Cardinal Creek Plat Yes Street Paving See Cardinal Creek Plat 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 speciallythe as- sessed against the property described below in accordance City's special assessment policies. we further understand that the preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is Undetermined. Street Addressor other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners Description of Property to be Served (Must be owners of record) The Hest half of the•Southeast Quarter Cardinal Creek Associates • of Section 3, except that part lying . By THE LITCHFIELD MIDWEST Northerly and Westerly of County Road CORPORATI' , General'i the a1i,65, also known as County Road 60, and B,BIM. is< < except that part thereof lying North of • a line drawn parallel to and 666.53 feet By WESTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., South of the North line thereof, Town- General Partner ship /16, Range 22, Hennepin County, BY:. • t ''"1— • Its Vice-PresITennt Mipnesota.: 7400 Metro Boulevard. f411. Edina. MM 5543r, (For City Use) • • Date Received • Project No. /'/`J. 11 • To: Mayor-and Council Thru: Roger hllstad From: John Frane Re: MIDB Guidel ines • At the.council meeting on May 1, 1979 the staff was directed to review the:141DB Guidelines. We visited with the Development ConnissiOn:'about possible revisions. The consensus of the Commission was that no further revisions to the guidelines was necessary because additional guidelines might hamper the council or diseuurage some rrprt'hWhile projects. They felt the council could weigh each applitation on it's own merits. It was also mentioned that it made g economic s e, if a 'business felt it was going to,grow, to constructa banding>which was larger than cuI taut needs so the business coaled expand;Into it. The council could amend the guidelines by insertion of the following ' paragraphs; In the case where part of the project is leased to.others: The proJect must be 25% occupied initially by the business or the businessis) of the applicant(s) and the applicanti(sl must demonstrate that it is anticipated that the business will expand to occupy the project Or / The applicant must have a signed lease(s) fr:om_:company(s) t which meet the earnings test prescribed for public offerings. JL 14 7 Z� ;"'77 To: Mayor and Council Thru: Roger Ulstad From: John Frane Date: May 11. 1979 RE: "oposals for Insurance T" proposals for insurance were received on Th"kY- The 04TY Proposal received was submitted by our present agent X. E. Lane for the NOW Insurance Co. The Hwe is wry competitfim'fil the SWOV wPiting about 80% of the amicip4lities. other cmWits Me A" reluctant to bid against them. The total cat per year Is estimated to be 3131.96L thisC00 wt-11, vary somwbat due to actual payrolls, amber of vehicles etc.s.and, any chaages the State Legislature mfght make to WW-k,,C0V1VAefl-ts- TheNork Cam cost is almost half of the irwram produms. I reconmnd that our insurance coverage-he renewdwitb the E. Lane agency. j 2' May 15, 1979 STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 04-20-79 4018 VOID OUT CHECK 1,294.20' 4019 VOID OUT CHECK ( 130.55' '04-27-79 4124 KIWI KAI IMPORTS Wine 99.70 4125 GRIGGS COOPER Liquor 235.10 • 4126 ED PHILLIPS Liquor • 985.53 4127 OLD PEORIA CO. Liquor 635.70 4128 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Wine 298.81 4129 JOHNSON BROTHERS Liquor 413.72 4130 QUALITY WINE Wine 599.91 4131 TWIN CITY WINE Wine 184.57 4132 ROGER ULSTAD Meeting expenses 27.95 4133 EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Lease for ball field 1.00 4134 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES Employees withheld and employers• RETIREMENT ASSN. contribution 4-27 payroll 7,107.51 i 4135 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Taxes withheld B,744.93 4136 STATE OF MINNESOTA April taxes withheld 7,549.99 4137 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK Bonds deducted in April 375.00 4138 UNITED FUND Donations withheld 4-27 payroll 31.34 4139 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS Training workshop-Community Services 15.00 4140 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL ASSOC. May rent-Liquor store 1,868.13 4141 SANDY WERTS Cash for Bryant Lake register 25.00 4142 VOID CHECK 05-04-79 4143 ED PHILLIPS Liquor 1,156.68 4144 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Liquor 398.9' 4145 EAGLE DISTRIBUTING Wine 492.7o 4146 TWIN CITY WINE Wine 466.6n 4147 GRIGGS COOPER Liquor 1,326.51 4148 OLD PEORIA Wine 825.05 4149 MINNESOTA WINE MERCHANTS Wine 59.02 4150 VOID CHECK 4151 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,813.10 4152 JOHNSON WINE CO. Wine 2,285.38 4153 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage for meter 1,000.00 4154 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION April report 72,789.75 4155 STATE OF MINNESOTA April sales tax report 2,059.64 05-11-79 4156 ACTIN REDDY RENTS Equipment rental-Drainage control 20.84 4157 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK Bond payment • 87,407.44 4158 ALUMACRAFT BOAT CO. Four row boats-Riley Lake and Bryant lake beach 1,817.2r 4159 AKINS FIRE EQUIPMENT Hose gaskets-Fire dept. 16.9,, 4160 A&H WELDING CO. Equipment parts 12.20 4161 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO. Keys-Fire dept. 2.00 4162 LES BRIDGER Expenses 4.50 4163 BARZEN OF MINNEAPOLIS Grass seed-Park Maint. 2,592.30 1il(f. May 15, 1979 05-11-79 4164 BROOKLYN PRINTING & ADVERTISING CO. Business cards-Assessing dept. 210.00 4165 BATHER, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. Services-Lotus View St. Imp.; Dell Road and Traffic Signals at TH5 & W. 78th 24,237.50 -- 4166 BLUE CROSS INSURANCE May insurance, • ..2A 4167 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. Rock-Park Maint. 39.97 4168 BUSINESS FURNITURE, INC. Chair-New fire station 126.76 4169 BURNSVILLE SPORTS CENTER Equipment parts 9.50 --- 4170 CARVER COUNTY PARK DEPT. Grooming•ski'trails-Community Services--60(6.00-• • 4171 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN Subscription-Engineering dept. 32.00 • -• 4172 • CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO.- •• Ad-Water. dept..,.... ......46.44. 4173 CURTIS NOLL INDUSTRIES Supplies-City garage t'- �"°P ®"~' 18.65 4174 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC Chemicals-Water dept. 87.76 4175 COPY EQUIPMENT Services and supplies 746.62 4176 CUTLER-MAGNER CO. Lime-Water dept. 130.48 4177 DORHOLT PRINTING Services 1,729.97 4178 DODGE BUILDING COST SERVICES Dodge guide-Engineering dept. 26.25 4179 EDENVALE GOLF CLUB Golf lessons-Coumiunity services 924.00 4180 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL Gasoline 959.63 4181 EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS Ads • 333.90 4182 NICK FOLWICK Services at open gym-Community services 18.00 4183 LDUIS FOLWICK Services at open gym eccr-�- 54.00 4184 FEDERAL DYNAMICS, INC. Supplies-Sewer dept. . ,�;s.-a." 148.43 4185 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL Lime sludge removal , A � 9,989.52 ta 4186 FRANZ ENGINEERING Services-Engineering dept.e'°t 220.93 4187 FUTURE PUBLICATION Trophy stamping-Community services 203.70 4188 GROUP HEALTH PLAN May insurance 813.90 4169 GOOD YEAR Equipment tires - g 355.5r 4190 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS Battery-Fire dept. 10.00 4191 NORM GANZ FENCING CO. Softball backstops-Community Development grant $915 and Park dept. $915 1,83D.0O . 4192 HENNEPIN COUNTY Prisoners board 170.0c 4193 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE Taxes-Park owned property 657.9. 4194 HOPKINS DODGE SALES Equipment repair parts and service 304.45 4195 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES RadaP service-Public Safety dept. 40.20 4196 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CORP. Office supplies s way`- . 165.06 4197 0. J. JANSKI Appraisal services-Park bond fund 500.00 4198 WALTER JOHNSON School expenses reimbursed 64.5') 4199 GEORGIA JESSEN Services 43.75 4200 K. C. AUTO BODY Equipment repairs 95.00 4201 KRAEMER'S HARDWARE Supplies 300.7r 4202 KARULF HARDWARE Supplies 192:41 4203 GEORGE ANN LILLIE Instructor services 28.50 . 4204 STEVE LANG Refund on golf lessons 16.00 4205 LEEF BROS. Services 107.80 4206 ROBERT r1ARTZ May expenses 108.0 4207 METRO FANE COMMUNICATION Radios-Water dept.; Public Safety and Public Works 35.40 4208 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL Sewer service charges for June 18,094.55 4209 THERESA MIESELER Instructor services 25.00 • /Lila`, e • May 15, 1979 05-11-79 4210 MEDCENTER HEALTH PLAN May insurance 1,003.20 4211 MINNESOTA DAILY Ads-Community services dept. 48.20 - _ 4212 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT Equipment parts 7.42 4213 MINNEGASCO Services 223.96 -4214 MINNEAPOLIS STAR Employment ads 73.06 4215 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSN. Advertisement-Community Services dept. 30.00 4216 MERIT PRINTING Office supplies 148.57 4217 METRO PRINTING, INC. Business cards-Public Safety dept. 55.00 4218 MEDICAL OXYGEN Oxygen-Fire dept. 103.16 4219 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. Asphalt=Street'Maint. --249:25 4220 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN Welding and Helmets 25.42 -, .. 4221 NORTHERN STATES POWER - Service. " 222.98 ... 4222 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK Bond payment 50,426.75 4223 NORTHWESTERN BELL Services 1-:.56 4224 RAY O'HERRON CO. Supplies-Public Safety dept. 21.10 4225 PENNYS SUPERMARKET Supplies-community services dept. 3.45 4226 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING Park and recreation cards ' 18,00 4227 JOHN PALMER Refund of overcharge on permit 100.00 4228 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN May insurance 4,852.12 4229 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC. Services-Swr&Wtr trunk Round Lake area; Shady Oak Ind. Park; Amco on TH169; Eden View 1; Super Value sewer; E-W Amco Rd. Wtr - . main ext; Valley View Rd. West Co Rd. 4 and Crosstwon Ind. Park 24,691.67 4230 MARSHA SEIDER Refund on tennis class 10.50 4231 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN • ADVERTISER Ad-Community services dept. 10.50 4232 SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERVICES Senior citizen program 1,125.0C 4233 SHAKOPEE SPORTS CENTER Boat locks and oarsBryant Lake Beach 32.50 4234 GORDON SMITH Motor oil f. J",`.< 175.33 °.,4 *4235 MEG STEVENSON Program-Sh tW4ctor-C °mmu,nity services 3PY=et'• 4236 • CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT SPECIAL SERVICES & TELEPHONE SALES DIV. Subscription-Sewer dept. 24.00 . 4237 JAMES SALENTINE Basketball services 57.00 4238 SUBURBAN AUTO ELECTRIC Equipment repairs and.parts 130.40 4239 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET Equipment parts 4.55 4240 STANDARD SPRING CO. Equipment parts -• 63.70 • 4241 STATE OF MINNESOTA Electrical services-494-TH169 ramp connection s,b_tom 37,527.26 4242 LOWELL THONE School tuition 18.00 4243 TRI-S TOWING Towing service 7A-'tn 35.00 4244 JOHN A. TURNBULL 'City hall sign 170.00 4245 TOWN'S EDGE FORD Equipment repair and service 530.54 4246 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Supplies-City Hall 7.45 4247 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Film rental-Fire dept. 7.50 4248 VIKING PRESS, INC. Office supplies 41:4, .eoe C4+'0�'-r. 327.41 4249 SCOTT WALLACE Instruction services-Co ,,nnwnity services 16.0 4250 EDEN PRAIRIE GROCERY Stamps for cable TV survey 28.6: 4251 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE May insurance 338.10 4252 SANDRA WERTS Expenses 41.71 4253 WILCOX PAPER CO. Office supplies 51.60 ' '''' ''''',.= .:.,:',.,•::',-.-",:':H.,,.. .F.,,...:-..'7:. ...,,,.::,:-.. Y.....:-::-.J.,..•,-7,-....?.,',:;i.,..1,,,..-a..4•.,:-...-,,:,,,,..-.,.,..,::::,....,.:,...,:, .3,,,, ,,...,7.:... - ' ' 7 '','-',ff::::..1.-,.':-.:" .:2:'..-,'::::!:.,:-'/i:.'"..,:.t-,,..-.'Ff...-,,7.-s,i,..7.•,.... .,ici.:,•::::„.•.1....,„?„......:.•-...-..„.„,,,,,„:„.,...-.2. -,••„,-,„.:„..,,,,...-,..,-...,,,H,„..,,t,„,,,„..,,,.,,,. ,,. .,,.. , ,,%,,,.,,„,,,, , . . . . _... . - ..,„... , . .. ..„ . . ,..„.. . . . . „ -- . .. . .:::,...., . • . .„ . . ,.,. May 15, 1979 • , •.;.',.... 05-11-79 4254 ZEP MEG. CO. Supplies-City garage .,. 28.50 ,:.,Y.s•': . 4255 JAMES ZACHMAN Refund on overpayment of levy -•,‘, 573.39 4256 FULLER LABS Refund on softball fee - -t2.0D' . :::::.:::-.7--,' 4257 MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE 4258 PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS " " * 4259 DRI INDUSTRIES " 4260 STEWART SANDWICHES . " " 12i00 4261 MINNETONKA. POOLS . 4262 GELCO " . .•. 4263 AMERICAN FAMILY INS. Y - " ..- 41 7.: 4264 MIS " . . 4265 ROSEMOUNT, INC. . . . 24. ... 4266 STARKEY LABS . 00 1200 .,..... ,...,,-.• ....::.',,.. 4267 EDEN PRAIRIE LEGION " " * . ...„._ _._ 4268 CAROL SOFNER " " " I2440 4269 DOYLE LOCK CO. Supplies-Public Safety dept. . 20.89 .12‘,..), 44/0 ECKLUND & SWEDLUND . Valence for projector screen and amterial for wall-fi •' f:::i:-..1:..':.:: 361.55 ''‘, ,.--:-.::•••:.-. 4271 FILM COMMUNICATORS Film for Fire Dept re Bond. • ,.....--:::,:-..,-. . . .. .4272 JACK HACKING Expenses .;:.• -.. TOX 4273 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 4274 OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Book-Public Safety dept. • •: ...,. lifilti',,,_ ,.::,.:.7„,.. ALLEN LARSON Expfinqug • - - *°?! .-. . .L.,:.-...:.,,,,.• 4275 MURPHY PLUMBING Supplies-Fire dept. 4276 MINNEAPOLIS STAR Motercycle MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE ad-Public Saf*ty 440. 4277 SERVICES April services 4278 ROBERTS DRUG Supplies-Public Safety 401g. lajk-,-.,,- ,,,,,,,,, 4279 ST PAUL POLICE PISTOL CLUB Ammunition4ablic Safety dept. - .14.46-,......,-...-,. ..,..,-, 4280 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Uniforms-Public Safety and Fire . .. 4281 XEROX CORPORAT/04 Supplies and service-Public Safety 42%2 SANDY TEBELIUS, PRES. LIONESS ScaNice*Happeninos 4283 NODLAND ASSOCIATES Contract Est. No: 3-Sur &Wtr trunk Round Lake area 82,384-92. --z„:7,-7.:, 4284 0 & P CONTRACTING Contract Est No. 3-Super Value . -...., .,.. ., „ Sewer 38,262.04 TOTAL . .. ,..... „ 487,532.75 -,: ,- -,•:',..:,..:.- ,..... • • • . :-:"3:7„,:::,-. • . „, .... , ,........... ,... „ ' . '2'Z-.Y.,'...1;::.:'...F''...':''. : '..''''Hf..:''L'....'P''..;;....:,,,.."':