Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/04/1979 AGENDA JOINT FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1979 6:30 PM, CITY HALL • COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kent Barker, Sally Brown, Tom Faranda, William Gilk, Les Lewis, Norma Schee and Claude Schmidt COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad and Planning • Director Chris Enger I. IMPACT OF "A" AND "B" ZONES ON BLUFF'S DEVELOPMENT II. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1979 7:30 7M, 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; IL Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; Engineer • Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES DF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1979 Page 2515 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 2536 • B. Set Public Hearing for rezoning Shady Oak Industrial Park (First) Page 2537 from I-5 to I-2 for October 16, 1979 C. Final plat approval for Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd (Resolution Page 253E No. 79-165) D. Final plat approval for Bryant Lake View Estates (Resolution No. Page 2540 79-166) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Bluff's West 3rd Addition by Hustad Development Corporation. Request Page 2542 to rezone from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat 166 single family homes on 84 acres. Located West of Homeward Hills Road, north of Bluff's West 2nd and East of B.F.I. Landfill and "A" and "B" zones of Flying Cloud Airport. (Ordinance No. 79-14 - rezoning and Resolution No. 79-96 - preliminary plat) Continued Public Hearing from 8/21/79 City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,September 4, 1979 B. Valley View Road West of Co. Rd. 4 and Dell Road Improvements, I.C. Page 2543 It 51-325 (Resolution No. 79-163) C. Cardinal Creek Phase 2 by Western Construction Company, Inc. Request Page 2551 to rezone from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat 30 acres into 2B single family lots. Located east of Cardinal Creek, north of Topview Acres, and south and west of Purgatory Creek (Ordinance No. 79-29 and Resolution No. 79-158) • O. LeParc by Jay Kohlrusch. Request to rezone from Rural to I-2 and Page 2570 preliminary plat 35 acres for an industrial park. Located north of Valley View Road and proposed Briarfield Estates, and south of Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd Addition and EAW approval. (Ordinance No. 79-31 - rezoning, Resolution No. 79-160 - preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 79-161 - EAW) E. Mitchell Heights by Ryco Development, Inc. Request for PUD Concept Page 2604 approval and preliminary plat of 94 attached residential units on 15 acres zoned RM 2.5. Located east of Mitchell Road and north of Atherton Townhouses. (Ordinance No. 79-30 and Resolution No. 79-159) V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Petition from BanCon, Inc., regarding setback for Neill Lake Page 2610 Condominiums VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS • A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No, 79-23, rezoning approximately 20 acres Page 2643 from Rural to R1-13.5, Duck Lake Vista by Pierce & Associates, and developer's agreement B. Repeal of Resolution No. 79-103 and adoption of Resolution No. 79-162, Page 2652 final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $550,000.00 for Ruben Anderegg VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members • B. Report of City Manager 1. Proposed Draft of 1980 Budget 2. Authorization for representation in joint negotiations for a Page 2653 contract beginning January, 1980 (Local No. 4') 3. South Hennepin Human Services Council Page 2655 4. Discussion on revising hunting zones, amending Ordinance No. Page 2660E 337 - Firearms Ordinance C. Report of City Attorney • City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,Se►tember 4, 197, D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Topview Park Purchase Agreement Page 2661 E. Report of City Engineer 1. Consider bids for utility and street improvements for Chatham Page 2663 Wood, I.C. 51-343 (Resolution No. 79-164) - 2. Status report en Nell Road, I.C. 51-326 Page 2664 3. Status report on Crosstown extension Page 2668 F. Report of Finance Director 1. Request to set a Public Hearing for Municipal Industrial Page 2669 Development Bond approval for Fred Falk & Robert Murray in the amount of $1,200,000.00 for October 2, 1979 2. Payment of Claims Nos. 5472 - 5624 Page 2680 IX. NEW BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT. • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; City Engineer Carl Jullie, and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION: Councilman Dave Osterholt PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: A11 members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the agenda as follows: III. F. Set Public Rearing for Cardinal Creek, Phase 2, for September 4: 1979; and VIII. A. 2. Request from residents in the Hidden Ponds area regarding the moving of a home into that area without appropriate City approval. The following items were moved from the regular agenda to the Consent Calendar: VI. A. Request for approval of Alpine Estates 2nd Addition developer's agreement; VI. B. Request for approval of Preserve Center Addition Replat developer's agreement; VII. D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-24, rezoning 4.4 acres from Rural to Office for a bank and office facility for Suburban National Bank and developer's agreement; VIII. A. 1. Appointment to the Waste Disposal Advisory Commission (Mayor Penzel appointed Councilman Edstrom with the consent of Council members; VIII. D. 1. Round Lake Park Development; VIII. E. 2. Consider bids for Shady Oak Road improvements, Z.C. 51-3448 (Resolution No. 79-143; VIII. E. 3. Consider bids for improvements in Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th, I. C. 51-353 (Resolution No. 79-144); and VIII. E. 9. Change Order No. 2, improvements in Lake Trail Estates, I.C. 51-315A. ' MOTION: Redoath moved, seconded by Dsterholt, to approve the agenda as amended and published, Motion carried unanimously. II, MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 3, 1979 MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, July 3, 1979, as published. Edstrom, Osterholt, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye"; Redpath abstained. Motion carried. III, CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Plans and specifications for temporary traffic signals at T.H. 169 (Resolution No, 79-147) C. Mans and specifications for improvements in Chatham Woods, 1.C. 51-343 (Resolution No. 79-148) • City Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 D. Set Public Hearing for LeParc, J, C, Kphlrusch, for September 4 1979 • E. Set Public Hearing for Mitchell Heights townhouses for September 4, 1979 F. Set Public Hearing for Cardinal Creek, Phase 2, for September 4, 1979 G. Request for approval of Alpine Estates 2nd Addition developer's agreement • (formerly item VI. A.) H. Request for approval of Preserve Center Addition Replat developer's agreement (formerly item VI. B.) • I. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-24, rezoning 4.4 acres from Rural to Office for a bank and office facility for Suburban National Bank and developer's agreement (formerly item VII. D.) J. Appointment to the Waste Disposal Committee >tynrp Penqzel appointed. Councilman Edstrom with the consent of Council members) - formerlyg item VIII. A. 1 K. Award bids for 2 emergency sirens (formerly item VIII. B.1.) L. Authorization to seek proposals for codification of ordinances (formerly item VIII. C.).) M. Round Lake Park Development (formerly item VIII. D. 1) • N. Consider bids for Shady Oak Road improvements, I.C. 51-344B (Resolution No. 79-143) - formerly item VIII. D. 2 0, Consider bids for improvements in Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th, I. C. 51-353 (Resolution No. 79-144) - formerly item V-III. D. 3 P. Change Order No. 2, improvements in Lake Trail Estates, I.C. 51-315A (formerly item VIII. D. 9) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve items A - P on the Consent Calendar. Roll Call Vote: Redpath, Pauly, Edstrom, Osterholt and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Shea rezoning, request to rezone .8 acre from Rural to R1-13.5 for 1 existing house and 1 additional building lot. Located at 6991 West 192nd Avenue (Ordinance No. 79-25) Alice Shea spoke to the proposal and answered questions of Council members. Planning Director Enger explained this item was considered at the July 9th Planning Commission meeting and the Commission recommended the Council consider approval, which included the stipulations in the July 2nd Staff Report. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-25, rezoning .8 acre from Rural to R1-13.5 for 1 existing house and 1 additional building lot. Motion carried unanimously. • City Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 B. Sunset Crest by Audrey Buss, request to rezone and preliminary plat 1.35 acres fran Rural to R1-13.5 for 1 existing home and 2 additional lots. Located north of Lotus View Drive and west of Tartan Curve (Ordinance No. 79-26 and Resolution No. 79-135) Planning Director Enger explained this item was considered at the July 9th Planning Commission meeting and the Commission recommended the Council consider approval of the rezoning and preliminary platting subject to the Staff Report • dated July 3, 1979. Jayne Kuhar, legal counsel for the proponent, spoke to the proposal and answered questions of Council members. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Hearing and give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-26, rezoning 1.36 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 1 existing home and 2 additional lots, Sunset Crest by Audrey • Buss. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-136, approving the preliminary plat for Sunset Crest by Audrey Buss. Motion carried unanimously. • C. Opus II, PUD Revision, request to amend the bus II PUD 74-06 for the expansion of American Family Insurance Building. Located northwest quadrant of Co. Rd. 62 and CSAH 18 (Resolution No. 79-137) Robert Worthington, Director - Planning-& Governmental Affairs, Rauenhorst Corporation, spoke to the proposal and answered questions of Council members. 41 Planning Director Enger explained this item was considered at the July 9th Planning Commission meeting and the Commission recommended the Council consider approval on a 6 - 0 vote that the PUD amendment be approved as per the material dated June 18, 1979 and the Staff Report of July 5, 1979,with the modification that a strong recommendation that any further parking development on the site incorporate the use of a parking ramp to decrease parking coverage of this area. Enger also spoke to the action taken by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at their July 16th meeting, whereby the Commission voted 5 - 1 that the Council consider approval of the proposal, The Planning Commission recommended approval of the concept of expansion of the buildings but with the concern when zoning information came in that the parking area be shown considerably smaller in order to preserve as much of the tree area as possible. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-137, amending the Opus II PUD 74-06 for the expansion of the American Family Insurance Building, stressing the recommendations by the Planning Staff and Planning Commission -• particularly recommendation B in the Staff Report dated July 5, 1979. Pauly, Redpath, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried. D. Independent Millwork by Darkenwald Real Estate, request for PUD Concept approval • of 8.30 acres for commercial and rezoning from Rural to Commercial for one lot. Located north of W. 78th Street, south of the Presbyterian Church and Leona Road residential area, and east of Eden Prairie Auto Body Shop. (Resolution No. 79-138 - PUD, and Ordinance No. 79-27 - rezoning) Gil Darkenwald, Darkenwald Real Estate, spoke to the proposal. Planning Director Enger outlined the past history of this PUD and explained this item was considered at the July 9th and July 23rd Planning Commission meet- ings. The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary platting on a 5 - 0 vote, subject to the Staff Report dated July 5th and the other stipulations outlined in Motion 2 of the Planning Commission minutes dated 1..1., 91 1070 2/.1 City Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 • D. Independent Millwork by Darkenwald Real Estate (continued) • Pat Fitzsimmons displayed drawings deoicting._the racquetball club plan. John Wolcott, 9508 Garrison Way, questioned how the idea for 5 parking spaces per court was arrived at. Enger explained that is what he has been able to determine as an industrial standard in other communities. Wolcott felt this was an excessive amount of parking to be required. • MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to continue the Independent Millwork Public Hearing to September 18, 1979, to further explore the issues of: 1) uses of adjoining lots in greater certainty rather than the loose • concepts which have been mentioned, 2) treatment and handling of storm drainage from an engineering standpoint and financial standpoint, 3) need for the extension of the road to the north and how it might interface with the properties to the north and also whether the presently platted location is the most appropriate one, 5) detailed landscaping plan, and 6) screening and treatment of the mechanical equipment which will be required on top of the building. Motion carried unanimously. E. Old Farm Addition, Dirlam Properties, request for PUD Concept approval of 14.8 acres for multiple residential uses and community commercial. rezoning from RM 2.5 to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property into 19 lots for four-plexes and 1 for future community commercial (Resolution No. 79-140 - PUD, Ordinance No. 79-28 - rezoning, and Resolution No. 79-141 - preliminary plat 19 lots and 1 community commercial) Don.Peterson, Dirlam Properties, spoke to the proposal which is located at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Mitchell Road. The corner piece of ground is tied up in a life estate and the proponents are asking for PUD designation and no rezoning on the commercial corner with the idea that it could be brought back in as the market develops. The controversy at the Planning Commission has been over the commercial site. Mr. Peterson explained they proposed the commercial site because the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan shows a neighborhood center somewhere in the general locality and felt because of the location near a lot of housing units it would be a good location for a • neighborhood covenience center. However, Mr. Peterson emphasized they are pretty much open to what the Council determines they would like to see in the area. City Planner Enger explained this item was first considered at the June 25th Planning Commission and was recommended to the Council for approval on a 6 - 0 vote for rezoning of 18 four-plex lots from RM 2.5 to RM 6.5 as per the Staff Report of 6/22/79 and brochure of May 1979 with modifications as follows: Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, be designated as an outlot with no recommendation for future use, and maintenance agreements be submitted. The Planning Commission also instructed the developer- to work with staff and the landowner • to the south to determine if an access to the southern property would be • desirable. Enger noted Staff has met with the property owners to the south and resolved the question. • General discussion took place as to the pros and cons of a commercial site being located in the site under consideration. • Sandra Shepherd, 14242 Chestnut Drive. spoke against the covenience center as she felt Penny's was close enough for the people to shop at. • John Wolcott, 95D8 Garrison Way, questioned the size of the covenience center. Pen-,1 replied the covenience center would consist of 6,000 square feet. �;1K City Council Minutes - 5 - Tues„August 7, 1979 E. Old Farm Addition (continued) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-140, granting PUD concept approval on 14.8 acres for multiple residential uses (RM 6.5). Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-28, rezoning-14.8 acres from RM 2.5 to RM 6.5 for 20 four-plexes for the Old Farm Addition, Dirlam Properties. Motion carried unanimously. • MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-141, approving the preliminary plat consisting of 20 lots for residential use. Motion carried unanimously. • MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to direct staff to draft a • developer's agreement including 20 four-plex units incorporating items from the June 20th Planning Staff Report and recommendations of the Planning Commission from meeting held June 25th. Motion carried unanimously. V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS No reports. VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS . A. Request for approval of Alpine Estates 2nd Addition developer's agreement 11/ This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. G.). B. Request for approval of Preserve Center Addition Replat developer's agreement This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. H.). • VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-41 approving the request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 108 acres for Bluff's West 2nd Addition by Hustad Development Corporation, Dr. & Mrs. Brandt and B.F.T., and developer's 1 agreement Edstrom stated he learned yesterday after some inquiry that his firm has a small relationship with Hustad's, and since his firm has been retained for unrelated real estate matters in Eden Prairie under the circumstances, even though he is not involved, Mr. Edstrom felt it would be appropriate for him to abstain on this matter. Penzel requested modification of the plat prior to filing so the streets may be given proper names. City Attorney Pauly explained since the developer's agreement was drafted the City has been presented with a further draft of the preliminary plat and pare- ( graph 19 of the agreement refers to a 15 acre parcel to be conveyed as a park. Pauly suggested that the approval include a reference to the 15 acres as being Outlot A of the proposed plat of Bluff's West 2nd Addition. The proponents and Council concurred with the change as outlined by Mr. Pauly. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-41, approving the request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 108 acres for Bluff's West 2nd Addition by Hustad Development Corporation, Dr. & Mrs. City Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-41 (continued) ® Brandt and B.F.I. Redpath, Pauly, Osterholt and Penzel voted "aye", Edstrom "abstained". Motion carried. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the developer's agreement for Bluff's West 2nd Addition including the suggested change outlined by City Attorney Pauly. Redpath, Osterholt, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Edstrom "abstained". Motion carried. B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-01, rezoning 10 acres from Rural to C-Commercial located in the southwest quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 for Super Valu Shopping Center, and developer's agreement (continued from July 17, 1979) Penzel asked City Manager Ulstad how the modifications by Super Valu respond to the Council's questions and to the letter submitted by the homeowner's attorney. Ulstad replied the concerns the legal counsel of the homeowner's association presented were basically screening and lighting, and the proponent is in a position to talk about the changes which are being proposed for both. The parking in the legal counsel's communication speaks to 5.8 parking spaces per thousand that were approved in the PUD and they referred to the ordinance requiring 8 spaces per thousand square feet. This situation has been reviewed by Staff with the Planning Commission with other like uses in the general area and they arrived at a parking ratio which is felt to be adequate. The proponent 10 is also prepared to speak to the request that the shopping center be closed at midnight. The last request was that a signal be installed at Garrison Way and Anderson Lakes Parkway which staff feels is very difficult to comply with and also very costly at this time. City Engineer Jullie spoke to the intersection of Garrison Way and Anderson Lakes Parkway, stating that he did drive out and there is a site distance problem now but believes it is primarily due to the growth of sumac along the steep slope and probably some grading and cutting back of the vegetation will greatly improve the site distance. Doesn't feel there is warrant for traffic signals. John Wolcott, 9508 Garrison Way, Mr. & Mrs. Frank Pfau, 9400 Garrison Way, and Fred Shuberg, 9405 Garrison Way, feel the Super Valu Shopping Center as proposed would present a dangerous traffic situation, especially for those people living in Garrison Forest as the hill is too steep and grading would not alleviate the problem. Penzel asked with some redesign of the intersection and adjustment of the grades if the problem can be alleviated. Jullie replied in the affirmative. Don Hadd, 9805 Garrison Way, stated he thinks the developer has done a good job on a majority of the items that were questionable. The major problem is traffic and Mr. Hadd feels something can be done with Anderson Lakes Parkway by filling in the dip and widening a small portion of the roadway and putting in a stop- ( light to help prevent someone from being killed or seriously injured. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the 2nd Reading to Ordinance No. 79-01, rezoning 10 acres from Rural to C-Commercial located in the southwest quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18 for Super Valu Shopping Center. Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried. City Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-01 (continued) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the developer's agreement incorporating the changes in the plan as shown and that prior to the issuance of building permits that the City has a resolution of the site distance problems on Garrison Way. Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried. C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-18 rezoning approximately 17 acres from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for Topview Acres 4th Addition by Mi ler's and developer's agreement • Mayor Penzel referred to alteration in the developer's agreement which Mr. Jerrold Miller has requested. Mr. Miller spoke to his request that only if the proposed trail were to continue completely around the lake at the 876 level and the City has easements from all property owners fronting the lake, will he and his wife agree to execute the agreement. Mr. Miller further commented he has never received any notices of Public Hearings on Cardinal Creek and after checking with City Hall he learned none of the people on the south of Cardinal Creek received notices. Karen Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, also stated they have not received any notice or word of a Public Hearing on Cardinal Creek, and were told when they appeared at the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission it was too late for them to have any input because they had not appeared at the Manning Commission. • Penzel requested staff look into the matter of lack of notices for Public �- Hearings. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-13, rezoning approximately 17 acres from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for Topview Acres 4th Addition by Miller's. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the developer's agreement including the changes proposed by Mr. Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Council recommended the proponents of Cardinal Creek meet with the property owners south of the proposed residential plat to answer any questions and concerns regarding the layout and proposed street patterns. John Reedy, 7262 Gordon Drive, requested that residents living in Topview be informed of future hearings for Cardinal Creek. Council directed staff to send notices as requested by Mr. Reedy. D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-24, rezoning 4.4 acres from Rural to Office for a bank and office facility for Suburban National Bank and developer's agreement This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. I.). VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, 80ARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Appointment to the Waste Disposal Advisory Committee This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. J.) �J.11 City Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 2. Request from residents in the Hidden Ponds area regarding the moving of a home into that area without appropriate City approval S Penzel spoke to the issue of the moving of a ready built house into Eden Prairie which was brought to his attention Monday evening upon the arrival of the structure in the Hidden Ponds 2nd Addition. The neighbors felt this particular structure creates a lot of contrast to the existing homes in the neighborhood. A variety of questions were raised by neighbors as to the appropriateness of this structure being moved on to the site, i.e., concern about the nature of the placement of the unit, it is totally unprotected and not fenced, and the lot it was placed on is muddy and unsafe. Penzel explained in discussing this matter with Wally Johnson, Building Inspector, this morning, the City has not issued a permit to move that • structure on to the site. Penzel further stated he requested Mr. Johnson look into an amendment to Ordinance No. 176 with City Attorney Pauly which would regulate the movement of fully constructed homes, and asked the Council to concur with the request to instruct staff to develop necessary background information and, if it is feasible, a possible amendment to Ordinance No. 176 which would give the City the power of review of such a proposed move prior to the next occurrence, MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to instruct staff to take whatever appropriate remedial action as is necessary under the City's ordinances toward correcting the violations of existing ordinances, and report back to the City Council on August 21, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs, Fischer, 18830 Partridge Circle, stated she would like some way for people in the community to be notified when a home is going to be moved into their neighborhood before it actually happens, Bev Crank, 18895 Pheasant Circle, commented the man who bought the lot and the contractor are the same according to information which she received at City Hall. Also the size of the home moved into the area is the same as shown on plans at City Hall, Jim Asselstine, 7205 Green Ridge, explained the neighbors are concerned that the house does stick out in the street and is a hazard to children. Penzel stated he has asked Wally Johnson to attempt to find out who has control of the house at the moment and to assure that some protective fencing be placed around the unit as quickly as possible, Carol Ellison, 18925 Pheasant Circle, asked how the neighbors could find out what will be happening to the house, Penzel asked that a sheet of paper be circulated throughout the Council chambers and a letter will be sent informing the neighbors of the progress. Jim Strom, 7284 Tartan Curve, asked that the situation be looked at immediately to get the best remedy because as time goes on the more • permanent the structure may become. City Attorney Pauly stated he would look into the situation first thing Wednesday morning. dL Vern Skallerud, 7350 Green Ridge Drive, questioned if an injunction can be filed by the people in the community to stop the house from going in. City Attorney Pauly replied under certain circumstances injunctions may be obtained by persons that are affected by a violation of zoning and building codes. There are cases whereby such injunctions have been granted to individuals. However, Pauly stated, he does not know if this is one as he_doesn't know enough of the facts to have an opinion. l t:i3 City Council Minutes - 9 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 3. Cable TV Councilman Redpath spoke to Resolution No. 79-150 and requested the Council to consider adoption of same. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-150, approving the Joint Franchising Process. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager 1. Award bids for 2 emergency sirens This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. K.). C. Report of City Attorney • 1. Authorization to seek proposals for codification of ordinances This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. L.). D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Round Lake Park Development This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. M.). 2. Petition from Topview neighborhood • City Manager Ulstad explained a number of people who live in Topview stopped in to the City Hall to discuss the history of Topview relative to a tot lot. Staff suggested to the people that were in the office that possibly a petition outlining their reasons for requesting acquisition of a smaller park in that area be submitted to the City Council and also to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, which they have done. (Petition attached as part of minutes) Ulstad further spoke to the action taken by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission on August 6th that the Council direct City staff to study the suitability of the site for a mini park and if the site is suitable allow the staff to contact the owners on an acqukition price to be reported back to the Commission for further recommendatiors. The site is described as Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Topview. Penzel called the Council's attention to a letter from David W. Ekback, 7255 Gerard Drive, which speaks to the proposal and generally opposes it as being too narrow to meet the needs of the Topview area and he is suggestin. the City look at something larger than the two lots, and something where the acquisition and development costs might be less expensive than the two residential lots requested in the petition. (Attached as part of minutes) John Reedy, 7262 Gordon Drive, recapped the history of the Topview area and spoke on behalf of the petitioners requesting the Council consider the acquisition of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Topview, for the establishment of a mini park, as he feels there is no other choice for easily accessible property for park land in the Topview area. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to instruct staff to contact the owners of Lots 14 and 15 in Topview to obtain price quotes for what they would be willing to sell their property for. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes - 10 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 MOTION; Pauly moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue the Council meeting past the 11:30 PM scheduled adjournment time to no later than 12:00 Midnight. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Letter from Eden Prairie Athletic Association City Manager Ulstad spoke to the communication from the Eden Prairie Athletic Association indicating their need for additional space for ball fields and their request that the Council consider instructing staff to negotiate for additional fields at Flying Cloud. • MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to instruct Staff to negotiate with the Metropolitan Airports Commission for additional space needed for more fields at Flying Cloud. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Counter offer on Milkovich property Penzel explained Mr. Milkovich has counter-offered the City's offer of $86,000 to $92,500, which is the appraised value of the property. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to counter-offer at one-half the cost of the real estate commission to be deducted from the $92,500; however, if the law requires that the City pay the full amount that staff be authorized to pay the appraised value. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of City Engineer 1. Final plat approval of Bluff's West 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 79-149) MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-149, approving the final plat of Bluff's West 2nd Addition with the stipulation that the streets be designated properly. Osterholt, Redpath, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Edstrom "abstained". Motion carried. 2. Consider bids for Shady Oak Road improvements, I.C. 51-344B (Resolution No. 79-143) This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. N.). 3. Consider bids for improvements in Hipp's Mitchell Heights 4th, I.C. 51-353 (Resolution No. 79-144) This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. 0.) 4. Consider bids for seal coating, I.C. 51-339 City Engineer Jullie spoke to his memodated August 6, 1979, recommending awarding of the contract to Allied Blacktop Company, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $48,870.00. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Redpath, to award the bids for seal coating for I.C. 51-339 to the lowest responsible bidder, Allied Blacktop Company, in the amount of $48,870.00. Roll Call Vote: Pauly, Redpath, Edstrom, Osterholt and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. • :2,)2:J City Council Minutes - 11 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 5. Revised preliminary plans for traffic signal at Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, I.C. 51-338 (Resolution No. 79-134) Continued from July 17, 1979 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 79-134, approving the revised preliminary plans for traffic signal at Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, I.C. 51-338. Motion carried unanimously. 6. 100% petition from Jason Investment Canpany for extension of storm sewer on 69th Avenue, I.C. 51-344 (Resolution No. 79-145) Councilman Edstrom indicated that he would abstain from voting on this matter due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Edstrom and his law firm act as counsel for Jason-Mork Industrial Properties, the petitioner, and for Jason Investment Company, the General Partner of the petitioner. In addition, Mr. Edstrom's brother is the President and a s4gnificant stockholder of Jason Investment Company. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Penzel, to adopt Resolution No. 79-145, receiving 100% petition, ordering improvements for Jason Investment Company Storm Sewer (I.C. 51-344A). Redpath, Penzel, Osterholt and Penzel voted "aye", Edstrom "abstained". Motion carried. 7. Feasibility Report for Valley View Road extension west of Co. Rd, 4, I. C. 51-325 (Resolution No. 79-146) City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 79-146 and answered questions 111 of Council members. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-146, receiving the feasibility report and calling for a Public Hearing for September 4, 1979 for I. C. 51-325, Valley View road extension west of Co. Rd. 4, including portions of Dell Road plus utilities. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Change Order No. 1 to provide granular backfill material, Shady Oak Road improvements, I.C. 51-344A City Engineer Jullie spoke to Change Order No. 1, commenting he is not sure the granular is present or not, and would like to have this Change Order approved in case the granular doesn't appear he would have authority to bring the material in. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve Change Order No. 1, Shady Oak Road improvements, I.C. 51-344A, in the amount of $110,000.00. Roll Call Vote: Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried. 9. Change Order No. 2, improvements in Lake Trail Estates, I.C. 51-315A This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. P.). • City Council Minutes - 12 - Tues.,August 7, 1979 F. Report of Finance Director 1, Request to set a Public Hearing for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval for Robert Murray Ottice-Warehouse Project in the amount $1,150,000.00 for September 4, 19'19 City Manager Ulstad explained the attorney for the proponents have called and asked cil concurred with request aoft tthe proponents his item be ttorwithdraw the request fawn fr the agendas rom nthe agenda. 2, Payment of Claims Nos. 5042 - 5266 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 5042 - 5266. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Edstrom, Redpath and Penzel voted "aye", Pauly "abstained Motion carried. • IX. NEW BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Redpath moved seconded by Edstrom, to adjourn the Council meeting at 11:55 PM. Motion carried unanimously, •• . • 4 .p no3 Dv 1! ' 7, 7►1P construction compofy OP MINNESOTA INCORPORATED 1 f August 3, 1979 • Mr. Roger Ulstad City Manager City of Eden Prairie - 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Mn. 55343 • I re: Super Valu Center Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Roger; As you know, we have previously signed a Developer's Agreement for the above project. This was sent to you with a cover letter dated July 10. Be- cause of the expressed concern of the mayor and city council regarding the 0 adjacent residential neighbors, we are prepared to make the following additional concessions and include them in a.revised Developer's Agreement: 1.) We have, at the direction of your planning department, increased the landscape planting in the green areas facing the adjacent residences to make our berms and wood screens more pleasing aesthetically. The wood screen has been extended on the south side of our east property line to completely screen the parking area from the existing resident at this location. We have revised our drawings and will be prepared to show and explain these changes at Tuesday night's council meeting. . 2.) We have lowered the exterior lighting level for our parking lot from 2' candles to 1' candles and are proposing to use Garde::: Formten high perform- ance, sharp cutoff luminaire as submitted to your planning department. The light standards are 20' in height, but with the proposed parking lot elevations, will be from 3' to 8' lower than the top of our center which, of course, must be completely screened from all immediate residences. • 3.) We will agree to restrict the operating hours in the shopping center to from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. The 6:00 A.M. opening is important to the breakfast trade in the restaurant in Jerry's Super Valu. If competition within a three-mile radius operates on a more extended hours basis, we want to preserve the right to come back to the council and request an extension of these operating hours. This would, of course, let more accurate judgment be made on our completed building, landscaping, screening and operations. • As per our July 10 letter, it is our understanding this $70,000 contribution for traffic signs and intersection improvements will be assessed. Also, the restriction of deliveries in item N9 from the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 6:30 A.M. would not restrict customer parcel pickup between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M., or necessary standard maintenance, such as snow removal. HOML OffICE RVAN BWIDING,H1061NG.MINN[$OTA 55746-TELEPHONE ... Tri i. 8 .----.....,� rcnunntc 1:1211157MA1 0 Mr. Roger Ulstad August 3, 1979 Page 2 We believe these concessions will help to create a more pleasing environ- ment for the adjacent residences and a high quality shopping center Eden Prairie can be proud of. • truly yours, CONSTRUCTI 0 • R. Ryan ice President JRR/jw 110 • • • ac 7 i i { t Hon. Wolfgang Penzel. Mayor Eden Prairie City Council City Hall Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 August 7, 1979. Dear Mayor Penzel. I are writing to you in regard to a proposed Park Board recommendation for a Xini Park to be located in Topview Acres, third addition. As a resident of Topview Acres, located at 7255 Gerard Drive, I have a keen interest in this matter as the property deemed most suitable by the neighborhood group lies adjacent to my property. Let me preface, I am not against par''cs, nor children, nor places for children to play. I am however, strongly against this particular park proposal. I have patiently and diligently listened to all the discussion put forth on this matter at the reoent Park Board meeting of 6 August 1979. The discussion was both informative and interesting. After tracing the potential park in this area over the y'-ars and 41 learning that all that is now " over the dam ", including the mistake of not purchasing five designated lots for a neighborhood park which would have included facilities for baseball, tennis, basketball. bto., the discussion switched to the need for a Mini Park to be located on Gerard Drive . lots number 14/15. The need stated for this area was to set aside a portion of land on which children could play. Discussion disolosed the number of homes in the area. the number of ohildren per home•and concluded that beoause of the number of children a park site was in fact needed. However there are some interesting drawbacks to this arguement. It appears that a vocal minority want their needs met without the oonsideration for the total neighborhood and the community as a whole. In disoussion it was pointed out that there were some 150 children in 94 homes or a ratio of 1.5 children per home. Each home in this neighborhood is situated on one half acre of land or more. With this ratio of children per home to the amount of land it would app ar that there should be enough room for children on existing proPrties. Also, to purchase the said property at an estimated price of 4 36.000 plus the improvements needed in the site, proper equipment for a Mini Park for young children.landscaping to a level comparable to the rest of the existing neighborhood, and proper maintenance could oost well over $ 1,000 per child. This seems to be a very high price to pay to discriminate against the rest of the residents of Topview Acres; the older resident with no children and the young l,. who have no children but who like everyone else are paying for park services but getting very little in return. page 2. • I trust that you Mayor Penzel. as well as members of the city council, will not be myoptic in your judgements but will consider what is in the best interests of the nei( 4borhood and city as a whole. Topview Urea and surrounding d v loping areas like Cardinal Creek need places where the young can come to play, where teens and adul$s can come to exercise, play baseball, soccer, jog etc., and where Seniors can come to walk and enjoy the beauty of the area as well as Natures wonders. I fully recognize that a facility of this magnitude is expensive. However it will in the long run meet the needs of more of your constituents rather than a small minority. Please do not allow yourself to make the same mistakes that have been made in the past. Take the time to build and develop facilities which are geared to the whole family, places where families can come and have fun and play together not just have a convenient babysitter park. Let tunnel vision be a thing of the past! Be progressive'and meet the nude of your growing city today,. It is my desire that with the development of neighboring Cardinal Creek we can have such a facilities that would be beneficial to all. I trust that you will register my objection to the present proposed action and will give careful consideration to the needs of this area. Nino ely, 100'/&' 1 vid W. Ekback July 30, 1979 Eden Prairie City Council City 7'al1 Eden Prairie, "innesota Dear Councils "'c the follcr:in.- recadentn of T^p:•iev: :ores 2nd and 3rd additions r(c-na,t the City fo 'der. ''rsirie to ^urchaso Lets lit and 15, 31eck. 1, Po vo.n ' for the much needed use of a 'in_ Park in our Top view Area. There are several reasons for this retests 1. Our area consists of 94 houses and 117 children under 19 years of a:e. 2. There are no park areas within walking or safe hike riding distance for the residents of our area. 3. Cur area is an established area as contrasted with the newly • developing areas and aeparently foresight in planrin, was not given to our area to provide adequate park space. Is. Cur urea pays ecual or greater taxes than any other area. 5. Ccrunercial establishments are infr'_nginC upon our ar:a and we feel the rconey they will ha givir,;; the rark and pecrcation rep»rtnert should bone:it our pecrle first since r:a si. ^e the -zest _ tly affected by then. 6. Presently the only area for ":lay;rcu_^.d on"1-eelso to meet is on • the street. This is not only teaching our children to play _^ ioe streets, but is a safety hazard not only to the children hut, also to the notori.ats. r:,r:c ae de:ire should not he costl"", nor do v:e desire basicto obtainan area si •_ls.r facilities. ftiar des;re _.. sad to leave this land pretty ,ach i" itsna.ural state ..::cent esc: lann'cr.n: gain; the surer and floodirs; of the 1r::r' c.- :: .. • r'r�7 . ranter. ^lis arca would then 'ho conducive to such nei.h''or!^ro' acti,,it'e: .• • football, baseball, soccer, etc. "'e think this re:lc:ost deserves the i-ved_ato attention of the C^':ncil se the need is r;ell established. `',.r this type of ^ini ' -rh. hurt?,er^ore, vi`_thcst cui.c'c act?on, this space w',11. no longer he av:ilablo in this ;,incerely, • a;al 7.1'&' .P` Z - % la 77/ as �ri B e 4.II cJ ;u. VCk nkA 4 °LVS.SA 2 4.4) I ' ' ; "7 G 61r t I a 4h.,; Ca I Al. CI e -"A.,- 46,- .J w,4„, 0?-73 y l AN, ' lilt y YAA4 gig-ZbLL /h tAA o s? C - �� �: tom. M` `�t a t ` •Si, w -1714- N44/, T i dd2 / 12 ) j° 0 Wit, p 1;die.hia., >2 l ` amkpx, 7..eld&Lz 7/71 joiain'od iect ��- -.G'u�e��- 70/, -. _, `.,:" ,(13.Q., .4,4./6? 4"..... 7027 'Th.,?tm.:It..4..) 9_N .C1-411A-14L6 707 aG o... , i , Jett Qyz0 1 Wit_t g7)11•74,\ *Jig° rTftw gielA/417 723 f r <;a,<,, it.ty-a4( i 11:-:yt ,KA-"ty 747.E ,..;....) .ed x.4, .t/i A'/ '10-"41./441'44 7A Yr:/lx j-- )7--i------- -71. 4. 3 /47-4-'-4, y►n 063 7 &k. ,f 11444P-1 7 38 a" '97090114. trie films,-4- iti,r6vid 73 o3 7- iv-a • sir+-�.� -� Y►�t�c.►��.� �'I.c� .�. i a7 o Jd I E ,/'. at_ 1.2 74/ ;242A..,.4L � P 1 ed i.)77o 04d E., r rLtAt8J111, 04,1 — — OW an& I S owvwczni WO 0 ar‘asuJ Xhia/e/e'' / A.° ./-142 ,(ial/4 44 /-7.-7.So 66%W ''t'• 3 ' J XI; 2.25;2 (,), . c . r� kv(4t/ t I,. �L-e c 7 .� '`r_c c ,/44' Vo-k,apututiabz. . -P 73 - -4ao( exy/5_4, -7 z.7-4- . uL. (/ ize„ 2.n7 2,J,,, eo at, &d'a 73/3 0.,,. . C . / 2) y 0,1.QJ 1383 A..; ,)11 4. all` �1t u-o a{,�► �I'63 /%''nq 9274, . Aa-eA-1--en- M 4 y�1•14° )84.�/ l2 7 V y4 S . Li 0,1-1„vir,_- ir, , 73.1' a 1 tr 7? u1 Rd 64(A:4"1%) 73 3 6 % -- 93os Cam. �vn i s 7 6,o U d k4 ;• 2 !� /x6 - (4614:f, tV-V1146-44 " ig 4 1/13 a.tl 7/)3 o'er( /a 7 7/ i Pj / � . ?4-(44`) 11 Taal sgiait.cuid Zit). 444.4e:c/f) 7/41 / y ? >, eulviteyt i-2 )ra V � .a d v r--6,, /`�i.�,vCt<, 1.2 7 c/ l/„; .n.ti CA 73 al ? v 244-� P 4-,-.-� 2r34 r /. 1-1 :;7:4";...- ' `.." fca...; 7""5-7 -.11re:a 7->"'""2:),--,. •/Cop c 1 7/e(drc:-t__ /irA‘fitizi, 0 // i z rys .211AJ o61ti. /a oo g Lad 14uc4-- t ( J) 5• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST SEPTEMBER 3, 1979 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT TYPE B R & R Builders Mark's Eden Prairie Standard TLE Construction Company VENDING MACHINES PLUMBING Mark's Eden Prairie Standard H. I. S. Plumbing Co. Inc. Le Vahn Brothers Inc. GAS FITTER S Abel Heating Jerry's Mechanical T. J. Heating & Air Conditioning HEATING AND VENTILATION Jerry's Mechanical T. J. Heating & Air Conditioning MECHANICAL DEVICE Northwest Cinema Corporation CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO Mark's Eden Prairie. Standard PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION: Wilder Design & Construction Inc. These licenses have been approved by the department head responsible for the licensed activity. Cindy Plante, Licensing Clerk brio Riehcvtd 9I e Ofinektdon geoefojses 110 9600 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55343 TELEPHONE 16121 9446903 • August 31, 1979 Mr. Robert Ulstad, Mayor and The City Council City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Shady Oak Industrial Park Addition Gentlemen: • The Planning Commission recently took action on Shady Oak Industrial Park Addition rezoning, therefore,i would respectfully request the City Council III to set a Public Hearing at their earliest convenience. Yours very truly, R chard W. Anderson /mt • Sept. 4, 1979 i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • • RESOLUTION ND. 79-165 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Shady Oak Industrial Park Second Addition has been sub- mitted in the manner required•for platting land under the Eden Prairie Urdinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said'plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin- 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 for Shady Oak Industrial Park Second Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of.the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated August 29, 1979. 411 B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358. Subd. 3. C. 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. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL iL John D. Frane, Clerk { CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 29, 1979 SUBJECT: SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK SECDND ADDITION PROPOSAL: The developer, Richard W. Anderson, Inc., is requesting City Council approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Industrial Park Second Addition. The plat contains approximately 12 acres divided into 3 lots and included dedication of Shady Oak Road to T.H. 169-212. Outlots A and B are resdltant residue parcels from the acquisition of right- of-way for Shady Oak Road and will be included in future platting of the Shady Oak Industrial Park PUD. HISTORY: The Preliminary plat was approved on June 5, 1979, per City Council Resolution #79-110. Zoning to I-2 Park was finally read and approved by the City Council on July 13, I979, per Ordinance 79-19. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on July 13, 1979. VARIANCES: Any variances requested must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: The City has awarded contracts for the installation of all public streets and utilities iwthin the plat. The developer is responsible for completing all site grading prior to the installation of these utilities. PARK DEDICATION: Requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement BONDING:No bonding will be required for this plat. A cash deposit will be required to cover the cost of street signs and installation and main- tenance of street lighting for two years. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Shaky Oak Indus- trial Park Second Addition, subject to the requirements fo this report and the following: ® 1. Receipt of cash deposit for street signs in the amount of $390. 2. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of $590.40 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Sept. 4, 1979 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 79-166 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BRYANT LAKE VIEW ESTATES • WHEREAS, the plat of Bryant Lake View Estates 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 plat•is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin- 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 for Bryant Lake View Estates is approve( upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated August 30, 1979 B. Variance Ss 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 copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. 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 com- pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • I 0. Frane, Clerk acIl) } CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 30, 1979 1' SUBJECT: BRYANT LAKE VIEW ESTATES PROPOSAL: The developers, Thelma Haynes and Bruce Haynes, are requesting approval of the final plat of Bryant Lake View Estates. This is a 26 lot single family plat containing approximately 23 acres located northwest of Bryant Lake and east of Beach Road. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved on April 4, 1978, per City Council Resolution #78-60. Zoning to R1-22 was finally read and approved by the City Council on May 2, 1978, per Ordinance #78-19. The Rezoning Agreement referred to within this report was executed on May 2, 1978. VARIANCES: 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: Municipal utilities and streets and walkways will be installed by the developer in conformance with the requirements of Eden Prairie Ztandard Specifications and items 1, 3, 4, 7.8 and 9 of the Rezoning Agreement. Street signs will be ordered and installed by the City and paid for by the developer. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in item 6 of the Rezoning Agreement. BONDING: A performance bond or letter of credit approved by the City Attorney shall be posted, in an amount approved by the City Engineer, to cover the cost of installing municipal utilities, streets, walk- ways and street signs. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bryant Lake View Estates, subject to the requirements of this report and the following; 1. Receipt of fee for City Engineering services in the amount of $780. 2. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount of $984. • OIMM Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District '~ 8950 COUNTY ROAD;34 • EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343 a"� August 16, 1979 r • Mr. Chris Eager City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Re: Bluff's West Third Addition Dear Mr. Eager: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the Watershed District for the Busted Bluff's Third Addition in 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 must be obtained from the Watershed District for this project. Accompanying this grading and land alteration permit application, a detailed erosion control plan outlining how sediment will be controlled from leaving the altered area on the development site both during and after construction must be submitted to the Watershed District for review and approval. 2. Due to the size of this project, the District will require that the development operations be staged to minimize the areas dis- turbed at any one time. 3. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please contact us at 920-0655. • Sincerely? • Robert C. Obermeyer �% BARR ENGINEERING CO. / Engineers for the District RCO/lv c: Mr. Conrad Fiskness Mr. Fred Richards Mr. Jim Ostenson 251/), MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie,.City Engineer DATE: August 31, 1979 SUBJECT: Valley View Rd. and Dell Rd. Improvements I.C. 51-325 Attached for your reference are the construction cost breakdowns for the three proposed phases of the Valley View Rd. and Dell Rd. improvements. These figures correspond to those in the Feasibility Report received by the Council on August 7, however we have made some revisions in the proposed scope and timing of each phase and we have shifted the costs accordingly. We have talked to RCM Asosc. about the engineering fees for this project and because of the large scope of the work involved, they will agree to provide engineering services for preparation of plans and specifications and to provide staking and inspection services on an hourly rate basis, with the total fees not to exceed 10% of the construction costs, including fees paid to date. We believe this would be fair compensation for these services and recommend approval. The feasibility report indicated a 12% engineering fee, which has been an average cost for past projects. If, for any reason, the City becomes dissatisfied with RCM's performance during Phase I, Phases II and III could be completed by a different con- sul tant. During the past two years, BRW, Inc., has been our choice'to provide engin- eering services for road improvement projects. However, at the present time, BRW is quite busy with three other major projects within the City. RCM has an adequate number of competent engineers, technicians and landscape archi- tects (170 total employees) available for this project and I fully anticipate the that their performance will meet or exceed oar requirements for careful, complete design and stringent inspection of the contractor's work. On Wednesday evening, August 15, we had an informal meeting with several of the property owners listed on the preliminary assessment roll. Some of the owners of the large parcels are presently under the "green acres" designation and therefore the proposed assessments would be automatically deferred until the green acres designation is lost. These owners expressed concern that at such time that green acres is lost, the full amount of principal and in- terest so deferred is due within 90 days. They feel this would be a big disadvantage when selling their property some time in the future. I sug- gested that the Council may be willing to agree to reassess the past due amount over the remaining term of the original levy in order to help soften this impact. Also, Mr. Paul Ratwick, attorney for the School District, was present at the meeting and expressed his approval and satisfaction with the proposed land- scaping, berminq, fencing, etc., to be included with the project. September 4, 1979 'CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-163 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS ON VALLEY VIEW RO. 8 DELL RD. (I.C. 51-325 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 7th day of August, fixed the 4th day of September, 1979, as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements: I.C. 51-325, Valley View Road west of Co. Rd. 4 and Oell Road Improvements WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the re- quired notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 4th day of September, 1979; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCO OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such improvement at above indicated is hereby ordered. 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement, with the assistance of Rieke Carroll Muller Assoc., Consulting Engineers. ADOPTED by the City of Eden Prairie on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: Seal John D. Frane, Clerk VALLEY VIEW ROAD EXTENSION .----' ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS REVISED PHASING SCHEDULE PHASE I Bids: February, 19B0 Completion: Roadway - September 1980 Total - November 1980 Estimated Item Const. Cost Valley View Road from County Road 4 to School Entrance Intersection Channelization $170,000 5-Phase Traffic Signals - - B0,000 Excavation and Embankment 75,000 Granular Base & Bituminous Construction 142,000 Concrete Curbing 39,000 Bituminous Walkways 16,400 Chainlink Fence 16,B00 Post & Chain Fencing 36,200 Landscaping, Berms, Plantings 75,000 Storm Sewer & Pond 86,000 Seed, Sod, Mulch, Hay Bales 22,200 Connection to School Property 10,100 . Land Acquisition 4,000 Subtotal $772,700 f 10% Contingencies 77,300 Total $850,000 $850,000 i Hames Way Excavation & Embankment $ 4,100 Granular Base & Bituminous Construction 23,600 Concrete Curbing 10,800 Concrete Sidewalk 10,500 Storm Sewer 12,700 Seed, Mulch, Hay Bales 6,000 Land Acquisition 5,000 Subtotal $ 72,700 10% Contingencies 7,300 Total $ 80,000 $ 80,000 72nd St. RR Crossing Safety Improvement (Temporary) Excavation & Embankment $ 1,500 Granular Base & Bituminous Construction 12,400 New Ballast, Ties, Etc. 9,000 Seed, Sod Mulch 2,100 Signalized Crossing with Drop Gates 50 000000 Subtotal $ 75,0 10% Contingencies __I AN Total B2,50D S 82,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED PHASE I CONSTRUCTION $1,012,500 • PHASE II • Bids: April, 1980 - Completion: July, 1981 Estimated Item Const. Cost Valley View Road from Duck Lake Road to East Side Hidden Ponds Excavation, Embankment, Granular Borrow $ 35,000 Granular Base & Bituminous Construction 71,000 Tree Removal 5,000 Concrete Curbing • 18,000 Concrete Sidewalk 18,000 Sanitary Sewer 30,000 Watermain 29,400 Storm Sewer,.Ponds 24,000 Sod, Seed, Mulch, Hay Bales 10,000 Land Acquisition 16,600 Foundation Materials, Dewatering 8,000 Subtotal $265,000 10% Contingencies 26,500 Total $291,500 $291,500 . Valley View Road through Hidden Ponds • Excavation, Embankment $ 2,000 • Overlay Existing Bituminous Mat 4,200 Concrete Curbing 3,600 Concrete Sidewalk 8,400 Sewer, Water Services 2,000 • Seed, Sod 2,000 Subtotal $ 22,200 10% Contingencies 200 Total 2 , 00 $ 24,400 Valley View Road through Maple Leaf Excavation, Embankment 15,000 Granular Base & Bituminous Construction 61,400 • Concrete Curbing 14,500 Concrete Sidewalk 14,500 Seed, Mulch ' 8,300 Sanitary Sewer 12,500 Watermain 28,500 Storm Sewer 18,600 Subtotal $173,300 • 10% Contingencies 17,300 Total $190,600 $190,600 TOTAL VALLEY VIEW ROAD $506,500 l dill • • PHASE II (Continued) Estimated Item Const. Cost Dell Road Excavation, Embankment $ 37,000 Granular Base & Bituminous Construction 149,500 Concrete Curbing 38,400 Concrete Sidewalk 38,400 Storm Sewer (Hidden Ponds) 25,400 Storm Sewer (Maple Leaf) 32,000 Watermain 5,000 Sanitary Sewer 12,000 • Swamp Excavation, Granular Borrow 46,000 Land Acquisition 6,200 Subtotal $389,900 10% Contingencies 40,000 Total $430.000 $430,000 Duck Lake Road Connection Existing Roadway Obliteration $ 1,500 Excavation b Embankment 13,500 Granular Gase b Bituminous Construction 35.000 Concrete Curbing 19,200 Watermain 26.900 Sanitary Sewer 24,200 Seed, Sod, Mulch, Hay Bales 7.200 Land Acquisition 18,000 Subtotal $145,500 10% Contingencies 14,500 Total $160,000 $160,000 • Pedestrian Bridge Construction (Three) $240,000 $240,000 TOTAL PHASE II CONSTRUCTION COST $1.336.500 251.11 • PHASE III Bids: March, 1981 - Completion: June, 1982 Estimated Item • Const. Cost. • Bridges and Bypass Removal Railroad Bypass Removal $100,000 Railroad Bridge • 430,000 Work by Railroad Force 30,000 Total $560,000 $560,000 • Railroad Bypass Construction . .• _ •. Excavation,,Embankment, Clean & Grub $ 15,000 Granular Borrow 82,600 Sub Ballast 6,000 Rail, Plates, Ties, Ballast 84,000 Culvert 1,400 Relocate Telegraph Line 6,500 Subtotal $195,500 10% Contingencies 19,500 Total $215,000 $215,000 Valley View Road from School Entrance to Ouck Lake Road Excavation, Embankment, Granular Borrow $ 38,000 Granular Base & Bituminous Construction 64,300 Concrete Curbing 15,600 Concrete Sidewalk 15,600 Sanitary Sewer 44,200 Watermain 16,100 Storm Sewer, Ponds 100,200 Sod, Seed, Mulch, Hay Bales 12.000 Land Acquisition 0 14,200 Foundation Materials, Dewatering 12,000 Subtotal $332,200 10% Contingencies 33,800 Total T66,000 $366.000 TOTAL PHASE III CONSTRUCTION COST $1,141,000 • • aI5LI% SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Construction 51,012,500 $1,336,500 $1,141,000 $3,490,000 10% Engr., Staking, Insp. 101,300 133,600 114,100 349,000 9% City Engr. & Admin. 91,100 12D,300 102,700 314,100 Subtotal 1,204,900 1,590,400 1,357,800 4,153,100 Interim Financing (6.86%) 55,106 109,100 108,700 272,900 (8 Months) (12 Months) (14 Months) TOTAL PROJECT $1,26O,00O $1,699,500 $1,466,500 $4,426,000 NOTE: All construction estimates are based on current prices and may be subject to inflated prices by bid time. 2rg7 c4E888 8882 88888388u88Qi «IQs MN Oa: 7 f"I 0 .1 �05 N ... b Sppy 0 ,, ,. N N 0 1�0 O L r. g i .N. 1f1 ^ n .O. 01 m O r. O N m �!N 40 IMv IC It laoN 24 � 2524 � 0. Li Vg1 .1 in 0. • ., IB 8888 ^ � 8888 8 2 agR3DA88 8 2 N _ 0 N• r i 0 1'1 O 8 • O O /myY pp NI mm 0 ^ NA w - q S 1 0• O 6 Y 8 $ 8 8 .i88 8 i J N Ne Qp K Op1 Y Y p Q gg 8 L 1 {8 ` gamm �,X, X � oo, oS oo e M 1 �l(Ny N �. ^...11. .N•..N•. .N-. r.� R. 0 e �6 u y yN1 `1 r e r r r YN Jam+ y� y Y 2gt 2 JJ8 : .D88 8 C =8 YO C J ~ 0 g 01p C 8_ 28N 8 $ 89832822282282 ' s.- 2 fi i i ^ 2 v4 F al a p a 0 pk 3 g N Vf g Rams EF 6 12 •••n.y4 N w'i <2< 2 m w2i 1 n <<O 0 P m `� 01 ' • wRi O m �Op Y:`w F 4 Y. 4 6 G F. 2 1n of of 6 6 E. E. 6 ' 1'1 1'1 ' ' " M O O. C "' ++L++Mrs p pp f {y _u r r y r Y y4Nm0PPON2 1• (Ef O3OO p�� .pp^�pxp `LL12 N a N 1 ^ N 1'1 • w f• r• N � O• 1p ON2ss APO root 00 0•1 M�M y.1�1 W O M M`l Y.N 00000000 N Y Y OY Y T N • Y a y� Y N1 Y LOL►LL�L O L 'o ing ! C r > c t 3 g 33 DC r , tt.0l1i`-■WWIr III , e m m ._ 0q I.. • • • a iL NONN Mp�1.m Yi0 6( '! 4 W . F ! Y J p8 = C 88 Y N N N N M~i 2 i �! J V •.1 0 3 0 0 4 O C C C C¢e C 4 J yN " E L C }`I G § _'' S 1. > L JJC1I1 :Ssi 1¢rt Yq+ • ' 2 a 2 2 ` ' . . . W ( 3 `N' IJ a`0 0 o O0 O e o O 6 i N N N N N N NN N N N N NN NNN IL' AI 000 m0mO0 0 4 4 0 4 b 0 0 N 0 4 N N _ 9 pJ 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 • 1 1 ` PfVVf�V 8 pSS88 0 p VV. V ` S. 8 OU0000000 0 010 000 0 .v d N 11 N . N i iti1 N N N N N Y a. N • N N N I. I. N N N N i • i ' ' '1 + Y m 4 O m A m n n 4 A n 4 n 4 A A n n n 0 v 255) . • COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Fifield .Minutes - Parks, Recreation & 'approved August 6, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -5- Gild replied that a pool is planned for Phase 2, to be used by children and adults.Their studies indicated that it would be nearly impossible to provide adequate total recreational facilities for adults. The maintenence would be too costly. MOTION: Oave Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Mitchell Heights Townhouses as per the staff recommendation in the Memorandum of August 2, 1979. Tangen seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. b. Independent Millwork Properties • Mr. Gil Darkenwald spoke to the Commission concerning his proposed development. He requested that the Cash Park Fee be dropped, since they had dedicated to the city, some property needed for a roadway. Kru4.11 stated that he would like to know what othe developments would occur within the P.U.O. R. Anderson stated that the Commission's concern in this matter was the request to drop the Cash Park Fee. MOTION: Oave Anderson moved to recommend that the Council require the • Cash Park Fee; if there was an agreement between the City Council and the developer concerning the road property, it is up to the Council to waive the fee. Johnson seconded the motion. • DISCUSSION: Kruell noted that by recommending the staff proposal the Cash Park Fee requirement would automatically be included. • Dave Anderson and Bob Johnson withdrew their motion and second. MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Independent Millwork Properties Oevelopment proposal as per the staff recommendation in the memorandum of August 2, 1979. Tangen • seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. • c. Cardinal Creek Phase II W. Bruce Knutson presented the plan to the Commission. He pointed out that the floodplain along Nine-Mile Creek, and the dry lake bed have been dedicated to the City. R. Anderson noted that staff was recommending a trail easement between proposed lots 10 and 11, to eventually connect to Topview • Acres. Jerrold Miller, 7120 Gerard Orive, stated that unless the Cardinal Creek developers are required to dedicate a trail easement around • • Minutes - Parks, Recreation b approved August 6, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -6- the lake(as he was asked to do), he will not dedicate a trail easement either. Karen Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, asked where the trail was supposed to go. She was concerned that she had not been notified • of the potential trail, being an adjacent land owner. • MOTION: Kruell moved to send the Cardinal Creek proposal back to staff to work out feasible posibilities, since it appears the trail on the south side of the lake is not certain. R. Anderson seconded. The motion passed with Dave Anderson voting against it: Mr. Knutson requested the Commission to make a recommendation as to what they wanted, and it would be worked out, before the presentation to the Council. MOTION: Kruell moved to re-consider the previous motion. Tangen seconded, and the motion passed. R. Anderson called for a vote on the original motion. The motion did not pass. • • • 'MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Cardinal Creek Phase II, according to the staff recommendation in i • the memorandum of August 3, 1979. Dave Anderson seconded. DISCUSSION: Kruell questioned whether the sidewalk would be • necessary; and pointed out that the $325 figure for the Cash Park Fee should not be stipulated, but rather, it should.require the current Cash Park Fee at the time of the building permit is issued. Tangen suggested the sidewalk remain as part of the recommendation, ' but the dollar figures should be deleted. Dave Anderson agreed to this, 1 Karen Hanson questioned whether the ten foot easement accross the • • property's northern boundary (planned as a trail) was coming from • the developer or the present landowners. VOTE: Motion carried with Dave Anderson voting "nay". 2. Ownership of Abandoned Railroad Right-of-Way Kruell noted that part of the right-of-way had been developed as a roadway (Valley View Road). The right-of-way should still be wide enough to allow for a trail, however. • MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend that staff retain and incorporate data for future trail planning, and to verify that the trail is incorporated into the overall trail system. R. Anderson seconded the motion, which • passed unanimously. ' C • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: • Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: August 3, 1979 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List • PROJECT: Cardinal Creek - Phase 2 PROPONENT: The Litchfield Corporation REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 approximately 30 acres and.preliminary platting of 27 single family lots. • LOCATION:East of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road, south of Nine Mile Creek, north of Valley View Road and Topview Acres. BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report CHECKLIST: 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) Neighborhood Park (Forest Hills) Affect on park: Increased user demand. • 2. Adjacent to public waters? Nine-Mile Creek borders north end. meandering dry lake to east (not considered public waters). Affect on waters: The dry lake may begin to hold water. Aglime trail on Nine Mile Creek; 5' concrete sidewalk constructed' 3. Adjacent to trails? along cul-de-sac; 10' easement along Hanson's property to connect with proposed trail easement across northern boundary of Miller's property to connect trail,on western part of Miller's to Cardinal Creek First. Typo of trails: (biko, multi-use, transportation, etc.) Multi-Use . Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglimc) Concrete/Asphalt • Width: 5'/5' Party Responsible for construction? Developer Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) Dedicated Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial) Residential j Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood) Cardinal Creek/Topview Need for a mini-park? Yes • • .15rA • • • • -2- • S. REFERENCE CHECK: a. Major Center Arca Study: N/A • -• b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Indicates the trail connection will follow the creek to the NSP easement dedicated area. A mini neighborhood park is needed to serve the Topview Area between Tupview and hrust Bills. • c. Purgatory Creek Study:N/A • • d. Shoreland.Management Ordinance: Lots backing up to floodplain area should be a minimum of one-half acre in size - the proposal meets this requirement e. 'Floodplain O dinance: N/A f. Guide Plan: Consistent with 1979 Guide Plan. g. Other: N/A 1 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A 7. CASH PARK FEE? $325 per unit paid at time of Building Permit 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: Rest ential; opposition expressed' to continuation of long cul-de-sac by land owners on south side. 9: Number of units in residential development? 27 • Number of acres in the project? 30 Special recreation space requirements: Construction of tennis court and tot lot in center of'northern loop road. 10. STAFF RECO1dINDATIONS: See attached memorandum. • • • • • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '-'approved MONDAY, JULY 23, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL • COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairperson Liz Retterath, Oke Martinson, George Bentley, Matthew Levitt, Hakon Torjesen COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman and Virginia Gartner COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: • Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL B. CARDINAL CREEK ESTATES, PHASE 2, Western Construction Company, request for rezoning of approximately 30 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary platting of 27 single family lots. A public hearing. • Mr. Billy Bye, The Litchfield Corporation, presented the plan, explaining the history of the PUD for the area. They have met with the neighbors to the west, who also felt that this was the best land use. The plan conforms to the existing Guide Plan and the 1979 Guide Plan Update standards in their opinion. , • Bye introduced Mr. and Mrs. Russell Harsh, fee owners, and their Attorney. Mr. Lyle Folkestad, Bruce Knutson Architects Inc., explained the lot pattern, with the grading intended to emphasize the impact of land. The Planner discussed the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS of the staff report. He explained that the Community Services Director felt there was relatively little area for active play space, and that the center island area would • provide a nicefocal point for the development with a tot lot, either main- tained by the City or a Homeowner Association. He suggested re-working of the grade with the possibility of opening up the loop road by increasing frontages. He spoke to the mitigating factors of the long cul-de-sac and suggested it connect eventually through to the Topview Acres area. • Encroachment of some of the lots into the flood plain was discussed, and preservation of the flood plain area by the use of a restrictive covenant or scenic easement. Folkestad responded they were in favor of preservation of open space. approved Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - July 23, 1979 B. CARDINAL CREEK ESTATES, PHASE 2. . .public hearing (cont'd) Levitt asked for proponents' response to staff report recommendation that all lots be brought to a 90' minimum. lir. Gregg Gustafson, Attorney for Western Construction Company, Inc., explained that the area where the plan goes below the minimum frontage was done in response to request to minimize amount of cul-de-sacs. They feel it would affect terrain very negatively, end did respond by making one cul-de-sac in the small tot lot area and adding one lot to their project. Gustafson addressed the staff recommendation of a road going throgh to the Topview area and are opposed to it. Bentley pointed out that the direction of the City toward cul-de-sacs is very negative because of maintenance problems and the safety factor involved with only one way in and out. He noted that eventually there would be a park south of Valley View Rd. The Planner explained that in other projects considered such as Olympic Hills Sixth Addition, and Meadow Park, the City has favored reducing the length of the cul-de-sacs and the staff has tried to show the potential of another way out of the project. • Retterath inquired what the ordinance requirements are for cul-de-sac lengths. The Planner responded 500'. {!! Bye explained the configuration of the land in the area, and stressed that he did not feel it was the responsibility of the City or the proponent to disturb the land to the south by building a road through. Bentley questioned plans for the "dry pond" area. Bye responded that they feel with proper drainage, they will attempt to restore the lake. Bentley suggested that residents should be made aware that it is dry now, but may be a lake eventually. • The grading on the east/west through road was discussed, and the proponent agreed to the grade alteration change from 12127, to a maximum of 7'; , and would work with the Staff on this change. Torjesen questioned the proponents' response to the suggestion of the tot lot area. Gustafson explained that they felt it was too "busy" of an area for small children, and were in favor of a tennis court. Mr. Arnold Beckman, 12900 Gerard Drive, resident of.25 years, expressed opposition to the extension of a road from Cardinal Creek to Gerard Drive, because it would go right between his house and the Larry Hanson parcel. The Planner noted that he had received a long distance phone call from Mr. Hanson stating his opposition to the road extension. Levitt pointed out that the road extension was only a suggestion from a planning standpoint if at such time the land would be developed. Torjesen inquired whether the staff was aware of any citizens in the Topview Area who desired this road going through their area. The Planner responded "negative". 11.)j)L approved Planning Commision Minutes - 5 - July. 23, 1979 i B. CARDINAL CREEK ESTATES. . . .public hearing (continued) Bentley pointed out that if the connection were planned for, it would eventually be built because it was contained in the recommendations. ' A I a Retterath felt there would be a hazardous traffic situation if the connection were made. MOTION #1: Martinson moved to close the public hea••ing on Cardinal Creek preliminary plat. Bentley seconded, motion carried 5-0. • . MOTION #2: Martinson moved to recommend to the City Council approval of • the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 as per the plan presented tonight dated July 23, 1979, and the staff report of July 19, 1979 with the following modifications: Deletion of nos. 1, 3, and that portion of no. 4 dealing with the installation of sidewalk and enlarged right-of-way from RECOMMENDATIONS. Torjesen seconded. DISCUSSION The Planner pointed out the addition of one more lot in the plan p: .:vented tonight from the plan previously submitted. Gustafson explained that part of Lots 1 and 2 are drawn out of Lot 8, and what is shown as an extra lot is part of Cardinal Creek Phase 2. • Torjesen inquired further about the frontage shown for the cul-de-sac lots. and what the frontage was: at the building pad. The Planner explained that the frontage is 55', and that the Ordinance requires 90" frontages. Common practice. has been to allow 40' and up on a cul-de-sac. The frontage from the building pads is 110'. • VOTE: Motion carried 4-1, with Levitt voting "nay". MOTION #3: Martinson moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat presented tonight dated July 23, 1979 and as per the staff report of July 19, 1979, with the above deletions from RECOMMENDATIONS of the staff report. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 4-1, with Levitt voting "nay". C. LEPARC, J.C. Kohlrusch, request for rezoning approximately 35 acres from Rural to 1-2 and preliminary platting of (6) 5 acre lots for industrial uses. A public hearing. The Planner referred to new plans submitted dated 7/23/79. Mr. Dave Husby, Rieke- Carroll-Muller Associates Inc., presented the plan, explaining that the request was for rezoning of the entire 35 acres to 1-2. He discussed the dedication of a strip of residential land needed to construct • the necessary link to tie in with Shady Oak extension. The drainage would be tied in with the area to the north. They are in agreement with the recommenda- tions of the staff report. The Planner discussed the staff report, explaining that the EA!•! would be brought forward before the proposal goes before the City Council; County recommendations on road services within right-of-way be brought up to County standards; and further landscaping plan illustrating the buffer • from residential use. STAFF REPORT: MEMO: TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Manning DATE: July 19, 1979 PROPONENT: The Litchfield Corporation FEE OWNER: Russel and Helen Marsh PROJECT REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 approximately 30 acres and preliminary platting of 27 single family lots. PROJECT LOCATION: East of Cardinal Highway1494, northast of of Valleyer Viewad, south of 9 Road and Topview e Creek, ewAcres. BACKGROUND , As was stated in the developer's brochure, the site was part of a 1970 Planned Unit Development and was originally designated for townhouse density. However, the 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this area as single family residential. The existing zoning on the site is Rural with the flood plain occurring at approxi- mately the 860 contour. The.U.S.G.S. aerial quadrangle map given to us by the Department of Natural Resources depicts a small area of public water east of this project within the Nine Mile Creek flood plain. According to the draft Shorel<:nd Management Ordinance, the lots backing up to the flood plain area should be a minimum one-half acre in size, which is consistent with the development proposal for Phase 2. Although the proponent evidently does not own the property shown as Phase 3, and is not requesting any approval for Phase 3 at this time, Phases 3 and 4 are shown in order to provide for the overall road work structure for the entire project. • An Environmental Assessment Worksheet has not been required on this project because the number of units is less than 40, however a oublication of the basic statistics on the project has,been made in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor to make agencies aware of this projects relationship to Cardinal Creek Phase 1. EXISTING SITE CHARACTER The site can basically be described as a high spine ridge which runs northwest/south- • r east, the top which has been previously mined as a gravel operation. The balance of the property is made up of steep slopes southwest facing and northeast facing. which are largely wooded. The soil of the upper portions of the site is supportive of single family construction. • Staff Report-Card.Creek, Phase 2 Page 2 • ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Ordinance 135 calls for a minimum lot size of 13,500 sq. ft., with a maximum density of 2 units per acre. This is consistent with the development proposal. The minimum frontage for a 13,500 sq. ft. lot is 90 ft., some of the lots pro- posed are 55 ft. in frontage.. Although our Ordinance calls for a minimum of 90 ft. frontage, it has been common practice in the past for our Engineering Department to allow frontages as small as 55 ft. at the right-of-way line on cul-de-sacs, if there is 90 ft. of width at the setback line. However, the proposal shows a loop road on the northern part of the plat further than a cul-de-sac which does have frontages down to about 55 ft. •. Our Subdivision Ordinance no. .93 .lists.6%.as a maximum percentage.of_grade on. .._- -_... a public street. The proposal as outlined contemplates a 121% made leading to the third Phase. The•Engineering Department, as a matter of course, has allowed up to 71/2% grade within the community on public streets. The Planning Staff would recommend after doing preliminary grading study, that the grade on the main through road be held to a 71/2% maximum. This can be accomplished as illustrated in Figure 5, by running an even 711% grade from the area at the top • of the graphic marked 870'elevation to the area at the bottom of the graphic marked 900' elevation. A spreading out of the grade between these points will give an effective 711% grade and will not generally cause the limits of construc- tion to increase, although the amount of cut toward the top of the hill will be more severe. The Planning Staff feels this is a more reasonable way to develop the site because of the already altered character of the site. Changing of the grade in this fashion, and cutting of the top of the hill out toward the approxi- mate construction limits illustrated in Figure 5, would also allow a moving easterly of the eastern leg of the small loop road to allow wider frontages on this loop road and a larger open space area in the center of the loop road. SITE PLAN Figure 1 of the Staff Report is taken from the developer's brochure and illus- trates the relative context of this Phase 2 of Cardinal Creek' to Cardinal Creek Phase 1 and the anticipated future road system, as well as the existing half acre single family development occuring to the south of this project. Figure no. 2 in the staff report is a one inch equals 2,000 topographic map, illustrating 10' contour intervals to give the general lay of the land of this site as it re- lates to the site to the east and south. Figure no. 3 illustrates the proximity of the southern portion of this plat to both the two single family homes lying directly south of it and to the Jerrold Miller plat, which was recently approved by the City Council. Note that only the southern cul-de-sac of the Jerrold Miller piece was given preliminary platting, the northern area shown as future platting is still flexible in terms of final configuration. Figure 3 of the Staff report illustrates how the spine land form continues to wrap around the southeast side of the pond area, thus allowing the possibility of connecting through of this 2500 ft. long cul-de-sac to Gerard Drive in the future. Note that Figure 3 only illustrates one alternative for how the road could continue through. It illustrates the road continuing through between the two existing homes, allowing for proper right-of-way and proper set backs. Another alternative would be to swing the road west of the Larry Hanson parcel, which is parcel 5500, and run it from a mid point on his western property line along the common property boundary between the Miller parcel and the Larry Hanson parcel to the intersection of Gerard Drive. Either une of these solutions would not be forced upon the existing property owners, but rather with the extension of the I , . .. 1 .....,,‘. . 1 .• . i ., 1 • 1---i —7 \ i t •,. 1 \ 1 ,.. 1 ‘... 1 \ met '•'\ \ \ ( —\ ‘• • ., i ‘ \\ .. . ! \ . • • \ I,.._zt 1 •\ • ,NI, _ \_ ,...,, . , ,_, ,.. . .. . \ \\ ......, .. . . . •,,__..‘ , , ........„....... 0,„ , ,; \,. , . . . . • ,,. ,ikp,r,,,-,-L \--7,,,._,„, , • , ./...„,,,.„..,,4,..., . ... ., „ 1\\ = i___.1. —I I loso'en'xi------"7 " -1-<''‘)')-44-"-ri"1:4):4--, f——1 -N,\ . . -.4-. ..,J./ / • . i 1 \x\.I "7' ' ' . ......1 .............\,1 I / , ..1 r ......til. 1 1 . ,, .-<\ , I . LA:----r•T''‘,.. .k.'AU i i......,7ss—tili,c4--...., it, ——I I \-A\1- - -1\ _L_L.....1....1___.\. , ' '=-4-* 4 ,......_,.. :-4....L r N...‘ ) rir VOW . '.:1 4-- —._ =IT\-1— + -- • , --.1--1 J— —.---,...,. —7. rii—t—_ — _.. :oke,...k li t__ ——. -, -- .- • 1F. Et-rsi . ----I _ ----1 I r----1:--.——• - --1---_,,.. . , rr.600' I FIG. 1 neighborhood • cerfcclInal creek mrnework . ., • e imutson aschiteitErie , gli.V.Z:= 8120 pima soli sel blacrinztim Inn 5543% au......k...................*ma& • t:' ?J. ..: . t. iv.diti,i,d,a Lake ,Siady'Oak /^ ,t r c ,, 'r _ai• t ,: .• is ;,?. ' '. ✓ '' tF p s i �` xL •�' 1 a17� ,l�';`.�!'a•,�^'.1• .. ,�1�' \ �\`L kt 1 r !C1 ! � i 1 pit N Vf o • � I�• �'J a u t r '� r wC ::4, .Il ` • "-.`••4. ' /'l ` ')' • sue. t en I c•- .is r, i x ,� � •A.1, `.=1. 7(d. . 1•• �' `vIa.,...,S'••:.' .,,' 1 :£. ti ktun ���7 :J. • ♦ Gten,Lake ryjt''. • %.":. r ••• —. /I`'' r7_, 07*--r; 7::r . - :•i C f•t!. I �C i{ TcJ . <.. ' 1 ` j'').. '' str•Tyrriq -14'-;?../'4- ..11 ,..-' \-- *. ,- i '. p..., 1 1 IN 1 ....'..'.t, ...,,. 4. .... ' . 1 f Ei:1:;74. ,...... „,,:16......, ie• •-•....- 7 , e'0'.:' cr-5.--c.'?"&tivji--24,,--.--; ','-.:::.•.\°,:' s. Y'1 -,' *t.,,161,-.;-_-: ' - 1 .I I' 1. ;•.,.:.°,.' 14\i,,Cr<„.'k tt - 1 i �TSr x S.net9Orn• r 1. \,•� , . R r'1': `—,. • an.r.rr.. '_' i._. „_,:,,It , e , :_._,. • • / inch Island -.v. .. : ; r` _ 1 • r:- `. _•'''''-..._. `�r� ._:,,/ e Lake ,e T. d ,i: % • yt' — •A 1 ' •\`� 1, II • . 1%.. ., • )-�._ -:a ' G 19 tE7 • r e. �� /1 '1.. "JJ ' N q�Q e. tt,e• .,..fl •j A a�;'�fir+ :Y>•! 1 N .„ :\\� ,,,�•e r • . . • �r i " .$ / • ~, .�i' •��r lr. .• \ s. `e`. ,o,' a�:dam f - .,? . '..• ,...'Sy.,(,)L <.:.rt.:<,\.... ...\ ,iisi .....r."..., r ._. - .. _-....,,,L_,,..,., __,, ,. _:,.4. , ._ JA., IN _...,,,Ac-, \'\9\ • t,, ).••`..t.:- .s.t% .' „.-`%; :• i• I....fp L :, , .o�, .,;�/�1,Y,, 'r am•.', �; 7, ;• < �r• a .8 :�y)141 ."e `.`.) _ sea_ pf, .'—S• .-PF ,i; o c .ems „s+ ii l r a , ,.,(�Q� .car, `t:<l-r"1 9ra� j1�• .r? �J;' �� w.:.. . .11. 1.M• - G4• i ` 1 e'\`!e.P" t•... .I Bryant Lake ':. e`. '-"port`owutf ..• - aaipr •C-•e'er=s .-.�.��\i C. n, _1 rro.o _:E � �• •.� 11t ...? : 9iw ' .'P. �' 1' 10 �� - -m64 k.r ,„„c . .`v pep . , r jam` . 9at� ++�' f. sr. 'i 00 11(. ,, TV--. , .,r . - _,,,,. , ,,.. . ...........„.....„,..,,R,--. . '. ..... ...) • r (1 . ') „ 1 =20 0 - .,),EN PRA1Rir—� _) , • .FIG. �, �,r• '' r 1 16 .. . . ...\ , 'i�. \ 15 ztjln1 is 1A 1: - • • • t'....t....,....-,...k...•..e.-;N•.•::•. •••,.. ....;..... ' ••••• , (•• -. _ `/fir J•i : - - t� \ N- \ ;; .,. `\'. `\ f'� ,aS7b.5..,fn r • \\ \ , � -.-.'I sti.' : :., AertaT.Ptlo o`• • r. z ' - "• .'-_, 4;,, . ' ' - )• ).• \. a I • .e. r - ,v i : t s� ; I. . /N s i i 1 - •!•Y. _ .--IV ta•,_ ,_`i I '�: ,E.�.,�, ): . a•• • .. '-: , I 'd.:4 /J/y�.�J p : .........,-....z....----,....e......„,:i \ - -*: - ... I • •,j__/ ; i 7.' e. ....- .rs—.::•z__--- . l r• .•I • ' 1 .(.0i'.-.1-4 ' ..•••....•.:. •)^.11.1 t‘ .7 ....I,' I , _1. `'•.• i• , 'J.��'•./�%•• G�'S.N.74: ''�� ,!•:7 • J'' •+• �'�\•I• L',•,,., III ;ri • • ,� ,— �. :_-.- •_i _:__�4,T{±"'-70 " r',.•;, ' —0 — i' ' - ..:O.ti..! r ttttttntttttt _ `1Qr:rt�.11l ••.'1 A(1\ f Latit i tttt,Nt%t t��y,1r.. ;•"' L:;pi' - ;`b.i. ., , :'�t ;p;1 % '.�` r. a r :i ta� •- .'••1,•' •\• t' - •.•• 'fit•• ; ! rr, t i• -i w ii+••• • i- illif1644,:::1:y/1 1 .441'* 1,,,...-- 1 ,I,I , . . r ; , ; i j i f Y ,I'/I'A- ``s• 11. N M , �, 0.1-% • ii, tit c.t.'•..e' .......••••••• ••••••••••••-•• „_, • I I �I • 0 e::: .;:':o.:;: "...::' 4, ? ;';';:?.?: .:5 ',. • • • . .„ . :::::::';'e04;;'.11‘,..::e:77:: ..;:;' ',5',' 'f;‹, ::::.: :: -,. ',' ,' . .--. CSC • %.'.-' '��= ma •y,`. �:--�: i .,-; ..---...-:-.-=.::::;,„;„-.- ---__------ ----------1:.. _.-\----- •1�• • -" • y I 1 I�I,i:'ll lt' ., I 1 . Vill::::1,„',, V. . '1%100' • nri 'FIG. 4. 1 f r i i i ri4/ �•,1LtgNe�'•. f f \ r ' r 'a ~ 1 ! I 1• ,,,pp0 r r r r/ r • f f r ..v.%.s , •i i 7 : P �• ._ i. • �«w 0 } \ii : • ::1;3:49-16 14\ ' \ • .....'.. • • or.•-• ___t-----f?..)- --• - .__- -";.'", , - „.--;7;7::>•:-..viiii=N.,.ss s ......0 ..\ kg'' • ''''''','''.0/(: - ..:%'-......1::..----. 7. -----\'s •s:•-•-- -%_C_ : "<'/Yri';‘;' -.0._ ,,,,,,), � � .,...- ..-...-,...- ' ' 11,K )--: -.=-. .. ... _______,„_____ ,,,,,,, ...,,,,,,-,,, -,,,-..- ,---,,,--.i.):-Za-ik----;' ---; .-- :"*• , � ' ' l j !il/ '� - I r, '' . 0MS1IUC-Tro .,Ivij• I:,ri �," � LIP -• , '-' '-;� 'thy =—.- . t ;1 ' y f '' • •-- ' • ' ,- ' _ J•--------\_-._ < rJ %\ • .•\- �: ,iv - - - 78.-211_- , flG. I -' - `.\`•:tr, \ ,C�• �, ti'��-yam r,- ,,- %• -. �.1 r f , l �►�..__, cry •• i Staff Report-Card.Crk.-2 Page 3 Cardinal Creek Phase 2 cul-de-sac to the property line, would allow the possibility in the future of extension of the road to Gerard Drive, which would allow subdividing of the larger single family parcels. It would also provide a much needed link for an excessive length of cul-de-sac pro- posed in the Cardinal Creek,Phase 2 subdivision. Note that our Subdivision Ordinance 93 lists 500 ft. as a maximum length on a cul-de-sac. Practically speaking, • until the cul-de-sac in Phase 2 were connected on through, it would effectively be a 2500 ft. long cul-de-sac coming from Baker Road. This is a very undesirable situation, and one thing which helps alleviate it is the loop turn-around toward the center of the subdivision. It could be argued the loop would make the cul-de-sac only 1,000 ft.long. In any case, Figure 4 fTluStrates the method by which the cul-de-sac should be extended with the turn-around part of the cul-de-sac being skewed to the east to take advantage of flatter topography 'and the cul-de-sac touching directly on the southern property line to allow continuance through in the future. This method of ex- tending the cul-de-sac does not create an immediate through road, but does . allow for 90' frontages on all three of the lots that were previously on the end of the cul-de-sac and have less than 90' frontages. PARK SYSTEMS The Community Services Department recommends that the north/south road in the subdivision be platted to a 60' right-of-way width and a 5' concrete sidewalk installed along one side of the right-of-way. At some future date, this would 1 connect the people from Topview Acres up to the east/west road occuring through the Cardinal Creek area, and finally over to the Forest Hills School area. There should also be a 5' wide concrete sidewalk, which is extended on the east/west road through the subdivision as was required in Cardinal Creek, Phase 1. As a part of extending the east/west loop road through to what is anticipated to be Cardinal Creek,Phase 3, a creek crossing will be required. Although this is the site of an existing creek crossing, it is anticipated that a new permit will be required from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and perhaps the Deoart- ment of Natural Resources. The elevation shown on the road at this point, seem to indicate the culvert may be as much as 6 to 8' in height, and the Planning Staff would strongly recommend that the culvert be of a design to allow pedestrian . usage as part of an open space corridor along the Nine Mile Creek flood plain in the future. The area which is created by the small northern loop road is not designated as a lot, but is shown in the grading to include a flat area which is the size of one tennis court. The area is about one-half acre in size, and since Cardinal Creek Phase 1 did not contain any recreational area, and since all of the lots in Phase 2 will have steeply wooded back yard areas not conducive to play areas, the Planning staff•and Community Services staff would recormend that if a tennis court and tot lot structure were installed in the central area, the City would assume ownership and liability for maintenance on the area, if the owners did not wish to form a homeowner's association and own the property in common. e" • Staff Report-Card.Crk.-2 Page 4 As a part of the recreation system, the cash park fee in effect at time Of building permit issuance, which is currently 5325 for single family homes, should be paid toward the neighborhood cash park fund. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The plan as proposed is a consistent land use with the 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. The lot sizes as proposed and the density as proposed is consis- tent with the requirements of Ordinance.135_ category R1-113.5.. . 3. The frontages illustrated are less than the 90' frontage required by Ordinance 135 in some cases. 4. The east/west through road is shown at 121% grade, while our Sub- ' division Ordinance 93 calls for a maximum grade of 6% and common • City Engineer practice would not allow greater than a 71% grade. 5. The project as proposed would create a temporary 2500' long cul-de-sac. 6. No pedestrian systems are illustrated within the project. 7. A permit for a creek crossing will be required by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 8. The central area created by the northern loop road is approximately one-half acre in size, and would be suited for tennis court and small tot lot area. 9. The cash park fee is applicable to this project. • 10. Some of the lots shown on the eastern side of the subdivision are platted down into the flood plain. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning staff would recommend. to the Planning Commission that they recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary platting for 27 single family lots subject to the following items: 1. That the frontages on all lots be brought to a 90' minimum. ' 2. That the percentage of grade on the east/west through road he altered from 121/2% to a maximum of 71/2% as illustrated in Figure 5 of the Staff report. 3. The lengthy cul-de-sac proposed in this subdivision should be extended south to the property line as illustrated in Figure 4 of the Staff report and lots replatted as illustrated in order to allow the possibility of a future extension of this road to Gerard Drive, similar to that schematic shown in Figure 3 of the staff report. As a of the extension of the . cui-de-sac, a temporary"dead end"sign should be placed at the end of this road. • .PAL • ' Staff Report-Card.Crk. 2 Page 5 4. There should be a 5' wide concrete sidewalk installed along the north/south cul-de-sac. The right-of-way of this north/south cul-de-sac should be enlarged to 60' in order to allow for the sidewalk. In additioh, the 5' wide concrete sidewalk from Cardinal Creek Phase 1 should be extended along the east/west road within the right-of-way through the subdivision. In addition, all the property from the south and west side of this subdivision toward the small dry pond below the'876 contour should be dedicated to the public, along with a 20' wide outlot running east/west and adjacent along the southern lot 11, block 2 of the subdivision in order to allow future access to a recreational trail system around the pond. • 5. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Nine Mile Creek. Watershed District and if required by the Department of Natural Resources,with appropriate permits being taken from the proper agencies prior to construction. 6. The open space area enclosed by the northern loop road should be en- larged by moving the eastern leg of the loop road further east and a tennis court and tot lot should be installed; to be owned and main- tained by the City of Eden Prairie, but constructed by the developer as' part of his mini 'park obligation for this area. 7. The cash park fee applicable at time of building permit issuance, which is $325 per unit, will be levied against this project. 8. The area of any lots.•platted into the flood plain should be dedicated to the City as a part of final plat approval. CE:ds • c - . . . . . .. ..• , .•.-•.. • . . ... ',. - / .:.. „ . ,. • I. %! ..N§' . • s.•. • • rr-7-7-77,-%. . .. ,... . i-- , . . ..A... ,z- ,.i ,- ..: ra. .... , A:: : I ock ,. ." , :. i... .... •...i....,...... i t .. 4,-•- 3.. .•' .% . :7•: --- ..-• .,;. .".• :•.,--' N '• .1,,• 1,, ..-4 ,t. • . ..x ... ..:.(:..... .... , ...1.... . 1 N......... „.\\.... .. , ..„ 4,.. • ............. • . , \.....,....- .. . • ./.\_. -\\\..... ... , . .,........ .. .. /...,.... i ...\:::.:. ::....... ... ..,..\\ :...:....,... ................ ,.......::... .....,, :...,• ,.: ......\:.,.....v....,..,... .:1,...„....; . . \,. ::.N .1';'. '•:••••• ': ... *,..V......4.:1;i:: : ' ..;:t.:7 1::::N. . \: .:;-,T.:.:1; '•''',. - :: . •.:1;.•:•.t,Ilt •,,...,‘'........,;:,..,•.S,•• • ....:•,... ..1:*•"4.", :I,Iii ' 1 ..",'• '". . ,. 71 : :.7.. •- .4f:i!, -, •,•,•,r1,t',..\.....,I.\ . • k.L._ '• ' ( 1 . .c. ;:c :,:: c :, ., .,,, ..... -. •:-:..........,.:.A4. "•,...1 ..•.:',:,: :.:'., •-•,.. ••------ i Ili ..i. .;/., '•/-;',...'„,.7/ `i ..:A.::,;•.V.'.,4, V.:-,' ,.. ....,... ''.', ,"... 1 1 1 ).i•if• . ,.f .,-` , - - -..:•\...,.........y.,1:.N.. •:,....:•,..\:•:•• •••••••'.,y• • ,I ' ' ' V.,.. ..,:•oi.. l'Hil 1 * ."1 ' ' •' ! i....... .:r i',•1 .:....A::•:::. 4/2i N 1'-' . t il ' v...••,•,f I :' ‘ . ,, , ..,..1,• • ' 1 2 ; [- ''. 3L''.... . ' ..1. '' \..ft!. /...: :', v:-.8........N.1 ....! . ) . A .22 . \,,ie..1-4.k.... . .i 1 go...... .... ......1...1...,i.f i, or it , ._______- .2\ , .,,,, . . ,,/:..p .k._.„., c....‘....vol: , ,1 17., I 7 19 --Ct all):4)e:....\\\:'• ' : . 4" / s".#6%‘ \ V 1) •• - ) ' 1 • i\ ..4i. .::-.L-::' • ...:I 1•:,1 •.::1. • . . ----r,`' 3 •bI0,- 1 \ :. •t- :','ktif'7':-';*: ::•:t 1:::ti..; .,tve- : ::. .:::i x•ss. 7- ,;.<\,‘ A 1 '1! : Vs:. ,:i'','..' 1. ., 41 A 1:::::].: s A ...,N. , iia,"..,...1... \< ,ibk11110* ....,./\,sit,:\\.•,\ '.........cot t ss\9r: ::Ni‘i...........,.,, • :A:qiiii .. i ':' :•••lk.:ili" ' .:'.: .1:::/ ' \ .44''K:. ./".:::,' ':::.: . '';4'..—witt.r- . . .\ V 7 It \ — -. N . ' '''ti .. • .,-,<- •-.el.,/../ . 2 <\\\ \ — ‘ • :--...:.:.'--.1,'• 1 I'\Ski. \,- II en ,r.(n \ 1' . ,:. S' ', •'\ . -.. '...-- cambial lake . 14 ' \ ' \ \L ,\ I • , mote ‘ ,.as, •N ,„._. • • \• \- .' \ la.' \pl .L.H4. •.\ *. -,..•.:.>,:s, . . I • ).. • ' . \--' '‘ .;\ ..,\\%„\-.$)' .. ,ii,\i'''...\?::.:::: .... ,'...,,,:.7. ---.--..,... :*.i....,. . • —.1:...:\.:::::V:. ":' ••*..! • - -' ...• '. . 0 • : ;4'..:E' ...alb . ''. .::'''.:'''....t.'1.:' . ..;:' ..'‘.' - %. I-• • plan ... carrclinal creek NoPosed plat Pit erten awn mitnesola j bnlCe kniliVeweerrittratea • . : western corenuctran cenewny ne.,Ii.../ternineetCleinnelatle ' - • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79_15B RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF Cardinal Creek Phase 2 • BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of ---Cardinal Creek •Phase 2 --• • ..._ dated July 23, 1979 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: • is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein . approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of 19 . • Iolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor . John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • APPLICATION FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT pp4 TO: City of Eden Prairie FROM: Jay Kohlrusch RE: Application for Platting and Zoning Change Gentlemen: We are proposing to develop approximately 35 acres of land which is located south of and adjacent to Shady Oak Industrial Park as shown on the attached maps. The proposed plat is made up of individual lots of approximately 5 acres each but we are requesting I-2 zoning to allow more flexibility in developing the land. Sales for two of the proposed lots are already being negotiated. The property is owned by Helen Swendseen and will be purchased by the developer. J. C. Kohlrusch on contract for deed. Each lot will be released as it is sold. The developer has been in the real estate business for 15 years and has no intentions of involvement with this project other than marketing. He is not participating in any other ventures at this time. We anticipate that all financing for buildings constructed on the proposed lots will be private financing through banks. There is a possibility that the developer would participate in one of the buildings but that is not a likely prospect at the present time. The plat consists of six five-acre lots abutting Shady Oak Road extended. The road has already been dedicated and so has an access road to the property along the east boundary of the plat. Approximately 400' to 500' of the roadway passes through extremely poor soils. It is our intention to either muck out and replace the soils under that portion or surcharge the area by placing up to 15 feet of fill over the roadway. We are hopeful that this work can commence soon so that the utilities and road surfacing can be completed in a timely manner. • We feel that the completed project will be beneficial to the area because it will provide a necessary link connecting Shady Oak Road from State Highway 169 to Valley View Road. It will also provide for a completed water loop from an existing trunk on Valley View Road to Washington Avenue and eventually to another trunk along Highway 169. These loops will provide for adequate fire protection in this industrial area. • 2 We feel that the proposed development is the best use of the land since it is surrounded on•three sides by industrially zoned property. The proposed development to the south of this site includes high density apartment construction plus a north-south strip of residential platting. Only two residential lots would abut our site and we will agree to dedicate a street along those lots in accordance with the latest thinking of the City engineering and planning staff. The site contains a relatively large area which is unsuitable for any type of development other than industrial because of the poor soils. Sail_borings indicate depths of peat and muck up to 40 feet deep. The existing development in this general area is highly industrialized. It is advantageously located with respect to regional transportation with Highway 169 to the north, I-494 to the south and County Road 18 (plus Washington Avenue) to the east. The grading, drainage and municipal utilities proposed for the site are Shown on the attached drawings. The overall drainage plan will be an• extension of the system presently under construction in Shady Oak Industrial Park. It involves the use of ponds to hold storm water and release it at a slower rate into Nine Mite Creek. The grading plan shows a berm along the west portion of the south property line to help shield the site from the proposed residential area to the south. The topography along the east side of the south boundary (Lot 4, Block 1) is very steep and we are hopeful that we can coordinate our grading plan with the developer of the property directly south of Lot 4. • • He is proposing a restaurant in that area and will likely be faced with a considerable amount of site grading to cut down the hill which extends across the property line. -;)1,11 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION The fast One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and tiwt part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying westerly and southwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence westerly along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 872.80 feet to the point beginning of line to be described: thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 5 degrees 23 minutes 25 seconds east parallel with the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 900.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 05 minutes 03 seconds West parallel with the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 4.30 feet; thence South 31 degrees 31 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 502.95 feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and said line there terminating. Subject to easements for roads. Subject to easement for utility purposes as described in Hennepin County Records, Book 76, Page 4191460. • PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 100 FEET OF • PROPOSED PLAT NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION M. G. Astleford 1014 Excelsior Avenue 43 0003 Hopkins, MN 55343 • „ „ „ „ „ 44 0013 „ II 44 0012 Wilson Learning Corp. 6950 Washington Ave. 44 0004 M. G. Astleford 1014 Excelsior Avenue 12 0002 Hopkins, MN 55343 L. E. Belfone 10080 Valley View Road 13 0001 William J. •Bearman 9955 Valley View Road 14 0002 The Northland Co. 540 Hamm Building 14 000B St. Paul, MN 55102 „ „ „ 14 0009 Viking-Press, Inc. 7000 Washington Ave. So. 11 0002 Bade Realty Co., Inc. 6009 Wayzata Blvd. 11 0003 Mpls., MN 55416 Robert E. Murray 7037 Valley View Road 11 0007 Edina, MN 55435 • • ).. • • E OGIc I G (4170) Ot SC.AI.E:I.-ZOO' 0) • LAT IZ' IAT1 • 1 (gunk.) yJ. TO To Sr. __- w T41 UNL SLOT ION 12 R Po r °�. aa.tr I II J si_OLK 7' • // ti // ' - / (t) 'of- /// 2 (8) Ro,1O 6wCK I /� // // fT7 //// _ _J/ r J 1 - - 3 •t/'js —6U STREET I I s ,., CASEtitiv --+1 I+—30' EASEP1 (r _.(_ • .i ' a�i HALF SECTION MAP �,r;', 11111 I II y... .....\- ,,, ,y!../ PLAT LOC TtON MA / ri ^ r ''') SCALE:1“.500' _._�__. \ HAMILTON NO. •• \ I I I l VG 4.\\ RS. s Vi 6Sth ST. Piit 43 0003 44 0013 44 0012 44 0004 Z FUTUR r070trrt 11 0002 1 i 1 / 1 . 12 0002 • 11 0003 \l' 313 0001 (p• 14 0008 14 0009 -•� - ---- l'>14)0 14 0002 Ill • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Planning Director DATE: July 19, 1979 FEE OWNER: Helen Swendseen PROPONENT: J. Kohlrusch • REQUEST: 1. Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park 2. Preliminary plat of six 5acre lots LOCATION: Project is located in the central east portion of the City, east of Washington Avenue , north of Valley View Road, south of Shady Oak Industrial Park, and the project will be bisected by the extension of Shady Oak Road. • BACKGROUND •The 1979 Guide Plan Update illustrates this area as industrial and/or high density residential. The existing zoning of the area is Rural and will require change to I-2 Park. As the Planning Commission is aware, Shady Oak Road will now 'T' into Valley View Road which will make a direct connection with the half diamond at Co.Rd. 18 and Washington Avenue. • In the Smetana Lake Sector Study, Shady Oak Road was shown to be the dominate road , but because of lack of right-of-way acquisition, it was not accomplished. Also, at this point in time it is envisioned that Valley View Road traversing the entire east/west width of the City will be the dominate link and should be the direct connection road. • Because the project is of a size+ which would permit ultimately as much as 405,000 square feet of industrial development, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet will be required prior to final action by the Council. The Planning Staff would suggest that this Environmental Assessment Worksheet be compiled and submitted prior to the City Council's public hearing on the rezoning. There is no floodplain or shoreland area shown within the plat and no public water wetlands, as designated by the D.N.R. Aerial Quadrangle Vegetative Survey. The D.N.R. Survey depicts areas of reed canary and willow. and willow/elm/aspen shrub swamp . Neither one of these categories falls within the definition of a public waters. An erosion and sedimentation control plan must be developed , submitted and approved by the Nine Bile Creek Watershed District prior to any construction. Staff Report-LeParc -2- July 19, 1979 EXISTING SITE CHARACTER The existing site is largely wooded across the northwestern half of the site which is made up of the lowland areas and is largely willow/alder/ cottonwood shrub/swamp vegetation. The other area of vegetation on the site occurs in the southeastern corner which is a high wooded knoll. This area is of more mature growth. The existing topographic character of this site is separated into two distinct areas on a northeast-southwest diagonal. Northwest of this line is largely flat shrub swamp area and the area southeast of this . line climbs from a low point of about 850 to a high point of about 936, for a total change in elevation of 86 feet. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Under the I-2 Park District, 2 acre minimum lot sizes are required with a minimum front yard setback of 50feet, minimum sideyard setback of 20 feet, and minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Maximum coverage of the land by the building is 30%. Maximum building height is 40 feet. Although the Planning Staff has not received a development plan depicting building locations, building limits, parking lot location, and setback lines, we have requested such information and expect that it will be . presented at the Monday night meeting of July 23, 1979. SITE PLAN Included in the developer's information is a preliminary plat , a sight plan illustrating mass grading,&a utility plan showing storm sewer/sanitary sewer/ water. • Althrough the entire site will be graded, the majority of the site will be • left basically at its natural grade with the exception of the southeastern corner of the site which will be taken down from a high point of 936 to a building pad elevation of 890. Regarding this, the developer illustrates a cliff created at the property line at the southeastern corner of the plat of 26 feet. This will not be allowed and must be redesigned . Figure 1 illustrates the relationship of this industrial area to the property to the south. Please note that the proposed development of 8riarfield Estates i has received a first reading of the zoning ordinance from the City Council, but has not yet requested a second reading or signed the Developer's Agreement. Planned Unit Development Concept approval was given to the restaurant and apartment site located east of the duplex development. Staff Report-LeParc -3- July 19, 1979 The current Kohlrusch proposal'illustrates a berm placed along the residential area of the Briarfield site of approximately 870, which would be 10' higher than the expected building pad location, and also approxmately 10' higher than the expected duplex pad location. Since the maximum of building height in an industrial area is 40' if the industrial building on Lot 3, Block 1, and Lot 4, Block 1 were expected toward the back of the lot, additional trees for the screen- ing of the area should be placed along the berm area. In addition, there is a small outlet shown at the very southwestern corner of the Kohlrusch proposal', which is intended as right-of-way through the Kohlrusch parcel to allow a link in an alternate way out to the Briarfield proposal of residential:" There should be an 870 berm located on the northern side of the road right-of-way, as well, to screen lot 16 of Block 1 of the Briarfield proposal from industrial. This screening is required under Ordinance 135 in that all outside storage parking and industrial use is required to be screened from differing adjacent land uses. The area of development lying north of this proposal is Shady Oak, 1st and 2nd additions. The Planning Commission will note on the street grade and storm sewer plans that are supplied that the drainage from the Shady Oak proposal is shown coming down from the north and then turning west along future West 70th St. and on to a storm sewer pond, which is located west of this parcel. The storm water run-off on this parcel will be collected and directed toward a joint storm sewer pond located on the southwestern boundary of this site. The northern storm 3 sewer pond will overflow into this one, both ponds will ultimately'empty into the intermediate stream leading to Nine Mile Creek. Since the road system is proposed to be built by the proponent, it must be built according to City Engineer specifications and construction plans must be submitted and approved prior to commencement of construction. In addition, since Lots l and 2 of Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 contain significant areas of very poor soil, it is desirable for the developer to pursue construction of the road, rather than have the City build the road under a public contract with assessment back to perhaos marginal property. As a part of this road construction, the developer will proceed with development from the south part of the property toward the north. As part of the requirement of this road system prior to connection to Shady Oak Road coming from the north, the developer must submit site plans that show parking lot accesses located in such a way as to allow traffic to turn around through the parking lot areas that are located at the dead end of the road. Hennepin County has reviewed the initial proposal for access to Valley View Rd., or County Rd. 39,and they have suggested that Shady Oak Rd. should intersect at a .90 degree angle. However, this must be re-evaluated, since Valley View Rd. toward the east of this intersection will be skewed to the north to make a direct connec- tion to the half diamond at County Road 1B in the future. This would put the inter- section of Shady Oak Road at a very close to a 90 degree angle. The County has also suggested 17' of additional right-of-way be dedicated to Valley View Road. Any construction or access to Valley View Road must be approved through an access permit from Hennepin County. • J.5 it • t. 1 '/S/• s�i,I 1 •Y• \, •• \• • ' 1 \ / .j/j//f. a • •` ' • ' ,;, 1L \: -.i lg .S: ,•. .-- BLOCK I • • f I ` r�... .. •. - / ...2 � ' ) _ 85S /, i . :C' . r. 1 .... , , ......,....: ..fii,. ... . ..,/. ,( 1;.i...„....... 0._:;„ 'i' . .., • //�-�� / f�rI • (�PAD �� �M• .:o% ' 4 .4 /,#'w.r..r _ Ir . i,•.PAD III• V .8 a -! ir,...,00 _. s- j •'' , 1— • pts,. ego— 1/ �d \\\ I./II, r 1n _ .... , --•� ,., •:„.., .r , . .i___;,;:::;_.::_i . .. .., •. ....._... . i:t.ti -......--177--:-.1 . . r. ....4 1-• - .. ,.. / /• , t r...-.1 : 1 [ ..I \:- \:. s'•'‘. • ' /... • . • • 0 r O' ' \ '..•::. • .IFr r• .. • • �\ •l • ` -1 . a. • i1 • ;' 1 . - l '' • 1 • ` .` . •. • • • A! ,. . .. FIG. 1 1'I? • • Staff Report-LeParc - 4 - July 19, 1979 The grades on the proposed Shady Oak Road extension are acceptable under City standards, the steepest grades reaching approximately 41%, which is acceptable on an industrial road. As mentioned earlier in the report, the developer will be developing a small section of right-of-way at the very southwestern corner of the parcel to allow future access out to the west by the Briarfield Estate residential area. No industrial access to this road will be allowed. It should be noted that a future West 70th Street is a potential on the north side of Block 1, Lot 1, and does bear the potential for future assessments if the road is extended through. . FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONIS 1. The plan as proposed is consistent with the 1979 Guide Plan Update. r 2. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be submitted prior to review by the City Council. 3. A permit must be obtained from Hennepin County for access to Valley View Road. . i 4. A permit must be obtained from the Nine Nile Creek Watershed District prior to construction. 5. Prior to construction of Shady Oak Road, detailed Engineering Plan must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 6. A detailed development plan illustrating general limits of parking, place- ment of parking structures, and indicating setback lines must be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to approval. 7. As part of the staging of development of Shady Oak Road from the south, plans of lots adjacent to Shady Oak Road must be built to allow turn around through the parking lot area, as the road will be "dead ended" temporarily. 8. Grading with the property owner to the south must be worked out so that an acceptable grade not exceeding a three to one slope is accomplished between the two properties. 9. The right-of-way depicted in the southwest corner of the plat should be • dedicated'at the time of final plat. 10. The cash park fee at time of building permit issuance is applicable to this project. 11. If the development plan for Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 illustrate the pad of the building toward the south, additional plantings along the southern berm will have to be made in order to screen the area from the duplex lot lines themselves. The detailed landscaping plan denoting the screening should be submitted prior to final approval. 12. Additional right-of-way to Valley View Road as required by Hennepin County shall be dedicated. Staff Report-LeParc - 5 - July 19, 1979 13. The developer must warrant at this time that the lots as shown are buildable within the limits of the City Zoning Ordinance and shall agree to requesting no further variances from setback standards or any other provisions of the Ordinance, based upon poor soil as a rationale. 14. There shall be no industrial access to the residential road to be dedicated in the southwest corner of the plat. 15. There is a potential of future special assessments to Lot 1, Block 1 from the extension of a future West 70th St., adjacent and north of this lot. • RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park,subject to the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS of this report. CE:ds • • • • • 1/Fc COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Bearman, Bentley, Levitt, Torjesen and Gartner approved • Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - Aug. 13, 1979 B. LEPARC, J.C. Kohlrusch, request for approval of Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The Planner explained that this project was considered and acted upon during the former Planning Commission meeting, and answered general questions on the E.A.W. • MOTION: Torjesen moved to recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Finding of No Significant Impact for the LeParc development. Bentley seconded 1 Motion carried 5-0. C. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, request to rezone 64 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 166 single family homes. A public hearing. The Planner discussed the background of the proposal, explaining that the former proposal was a larger project in terms of acreage and the number of units. (approximately 640 units) The project has been cut down to the Third Addition only,of 166 lots. This proposal continues to include a 16 acre piece lying to the the west for a neighborhood park and storm water area, and a 2 acre totlot. As a part of the request, the developer is requesting variance from minimum lot size, frontage and sideyard setbacks. Mr. Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, presented the proposal, and ex- plained that he and Mr. Roy Willis,ofRieke, Carroll, Muller Associates Inc., have met with the City Engineering staff on the project. Putnam questioned No. 12 of the staff report, the installation of methane gas monitoring wells before occupancy of any homes in the Third Addition. The Planner responded installation of methane gas monitoring wells should be coordinated with the phasing of construction. The lot sizes were discussed, with 50% under 13,500 sq. ft., and a net average of 2.5 units per acre. The Planner summarized the staff report FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS and responded to questions. The proponent was in agreement with the staff report recommendations, except for No. 12. Torjesen questioned the 400' buffer space from the approximate edge of the fill area to the back lot lines of the homes. The Planner responded this was arrived at by the developer, and explained that the Staff has researched the methane gas question through the Anoka Landfill and Pollution Control Agency, and that their input has indicated it would be relatively non-expen- sive and simple to install monitoring wells. Torjesen suggested the changing of the wording of No. 12 to indicate the installation of the monitoring wells "in a timely manner as determined by the City", rather than "prior to occupancy of any homes in the Third Addition". Bentley questioned the status of the pipe line present in the land. Putnam I/ responded that the line will probably be re-located along a roadway, and Hus- tad has agreed to work with the William Brothers on this re-location. Bentley felt it was important that the City Council be aware of the presence of the pipe line on the property. _»;r1- LJ iUISSION iiLmuLI:S Vice-Chairperson Liz ketterath, Oke Martinson, George Bentley, Matthew Levitt, Hakon Torjesen COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman and Virginia Gartner approved Planning Commision Minutes - 5 - July. 23, 1979 B. CARDINAL CREEK ESTATES. . . .public hearing (continued) • Bentley pointed out that if the connection were planned for, it would eventually be built because it was contained in the recommendations. Retterath felt there would be a hazardous traffic situation if the connection were made. • • MOTION #1: Martinson moved to close the public hea••ing on Cardinal Creek . preliminary plat. Bentley seconde.c, motion carried 5-0. • MOTION #2: Martinson moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 as per the plan presented tonight dated July 23, 1979, and the staff report of July 19, 1979 with the following modifications: Deletion of nos. 1, 3, and that portion of no. 4 dealing with the installation of sidewalk and enlarged right-of-way from RECOMMENDATIONS. Torjesen seconded. DISCUSSION The Planner pointed out the addition of one more lot in the plan p .'sented tonight from the plan previously submitted. Gustafson explained that part• • j of Lots l•and 2 are drawn out of Lot 8, and what is shown as an extra lot 1 is part of Cardinal Creek Phase 2. • Torjesen inquired further about the frontage shown for the cul-de-sac lots. and what the frontage was. at the building pad. The Planner explained that the frontage is 55', and that the Ordinance requires 90" frontages. Common • practice. has been to allow 40'. and up on a cul-de-sac. The frontage from the building pads is 110'. VOTE: Motion carried 4-1, with Levitt voting "nay". MOTION #3: Martinson moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat presented tonight dated July 23, 1979 and as per the staff report of July 19, 1979, with the above deletions from RECOMMMENDATIONS of the staff report. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 4-1, with Levitt voting "nay". C. LEPARC, J.C. Kohlrusch, request for rezoning approximately 35 acres from Rural to I-2 and preliminary platting of (6) 5 acre lots for industrial uses. A public hearing. The Planner referred to new plans submitted dated 7/23/79. Mr. Dave Husby, Rieke- Carroll-Muller Associates Inc., presented the plan, explaining that the request was for rezoning of the entire 35 acres to I-2. He discussed the dedication of a strip of residential land needed to construct the necessary link to tie in with Shady Oak extension. The drainage would be tied in with the area to the north. They are in agreement with the recommenda- tions of the staff report. The Planner discussed the staff report, explaining that the EAU would be brought forward before the proposal goes before the City Council; County recomnendations on road services within right-of-way be brought up to • County standards; and further landscaping plan illustrating the buffer from residential use. �,�� • • • approved _• Planning Commission Minutes 6 - July 23, 1979 I C. tEPARC, J C Kohlrusch P ub lic hearing (cont'd) Bentley questioned in of the staff report. The Planner responded 4( that buildable lots must be within constraints of state and local standards, and when approval is recommended of industrial lots, it is given with the idea that the developer will have to make the lots• ? acceptable for building. asked about storm; drainage provisions, with Husby responding that Bentley 'i a skimmer man hole is included in their plan. i; Bentley inquired further on whether the oproponentbhnt adead3acenttpropertnot have owners' permission for storm draining p that permission yet and do not have an alternate plan. The Plannr added that all owners should be aware of where the storm drainage holding ponds General discussion and general agreement took place on the Hennepin i County Department of Transportation letter.of 7/12/79. 1 The differences between the I-2 and I-5 zoning districts was discussed, • and Husby explained they are requestir^ 1-2 rather than I-5, because the 1-2 district gives more flexibility in building. allowing more parking spaces. Torjesen questioned constricting a road subject to Shady Oak Road and what happened if the developer reached the point of poor soil and could not complete the road. The Planner responded that the builder is bonded to j insure that the road is completed. Mr. Jay Kohlrusch, proponent, commented that accnr:ling to Braun Engineering, the road can be completed. The Planner added that the City will not take over maintenance of the road until it is completed to City standards, which will probably be about 2 years. MOTION fl: Bentley moved to close the public hearing on LeParc preliminary . plat. Martinson seconded, motion carried 5-0. MOTION 12: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning from Rural to I-2 as per the plans dated July 2, 1979 and July 23, 1979 and staff report of July 19, 1979, contingent upon the procurement of property rights fe•• storm sewer lines and holding ponds from adjacent property to the west. Martinson seconded, motion carried 5-0. MOTION d3: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of preliminary plat dated July 2, 1979 and staff report of July 19, 1979. with • the same contingency as in MOTION #2.tlartinson seconded, motion carried 5-0. i ) D. MITCHELL HEI(HTS T011NHOUSES, Ryco Development Incorporated. request to revise the Mitchell Heights PUO (72-3) (zoned RM 2.5 for 94 units of multiply family upon approximately 15 acres) and preliminary plat the property. A public hearing. hr. Donald Gill, Director of Development and Marketing for Ryco Developmemt Incorporated. introduced the architects for the project, Mr. Bill Dolan and Mr. Ralph Ruliffson, Koehnlein. Lightowler and Johnson Inc. : ,:� • • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �; 320 Washington Av. South �I"'' t Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 HENNEPIN 935-3381 • July 12, 1979 Mr Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie MN 55344 Dear Mr Enger RE Proposed Plat - "Le Parc by J C Kohlrusch" County Road 39 West of Washington Av Section 12, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No 746 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: -The developer dedicate an additional 17 ft of right-of-way making the right-of-way 50 ft from the centerline of County Road 39. -The proposed Shady Oak Road should intersect County Road 39 at 90 degrees. Any new access to a County road or revision of an existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit. See our Traffic Division for entrance permit forms. -All proposed construction within County right-of-way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail developaent, and land- scaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. -The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right-of-way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. S ncerely James M Wold, PE F-4"- Chief, Planning and Programming JMW/LDW:bg HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-160 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF Le Parc BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Le Parc ••dated July 2, 1979 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of 19 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL . 2/E/77 7-79 MINNEIOTA ENVIROtt:4ENTAt. QUALITY COUNCIL t ENVIR71t•n'!A'AL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) ( AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS • DO NOT WRITE IN TIHIS SPACE E.R. M • NOTE: She purpose of the-Environmental Assessment Worksheet (CAN) 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 •pagt,s, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. Your • answers should be as :specific as possible. Indicate which answers are estimated. • . SUMMARY , A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) ONegative Declaration (No EIS) 0 EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) R. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION LeParc . 1. Project name or title 2: Project proposer(s) Kohlrusch • • • . Address P.O. Box 251 Shakopee, Minn. 55379 Telephone Number and Area Code ( 612) 445-3196 • 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie • Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road • . Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information on this EAW: Chris Enger Telephone 612-937-2262 • 4.' This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in- spection and/or copying at: Location 8950 Eden Prairie Road • Telephone 937-2262 flours Sam-4:311pm 9. Reason for EAW Preparation OMandatory Category -cite O Petition (:)Other NW Rule ramber(s) 24 (b)(cc) over 250,000 sq.ft. industrial space C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY 1. Project location County Hennepin city/ ns*or nasmz Eden Prairie ' Township number 116 (North), Range Number Pant or Nest (circle one). Section number(s) 12 Street address (if in city) or legal description: • • • . 2. Type and scope•of proposed project: Development of 35 acres within a planned industrial sector into 5 industrial 3. Vst&matod starting date (month/year) Oct. 1979 4. Estimated completion date (month/year), Oct. 1980 S. Estimated construction cost unknown 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) E.Q.B.• Negative Declaration pending • Nine Mile Wat.Dist. land alteration permit pending • City of Eden Prairia zoning & platting approval pending 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, willNaO fedeYESral EIS UNKNOWN { be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?— II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTICN X. Include the following maps or drawings: 1. A map showing the regional location of the project. 2. An original 81 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 711 minute, 1:24,000 scale map with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. Indicainal U.S.G.S. sheet quadrangleeet may be suppliedst be to other n r EAN distribution points.) 3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including • significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc). 4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency. Photos need not be sent to other distribution points. B. Present land use. 1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. The site is located within an industrial sector of the City but presently is undevelo • • proposed pmultipleed. To tresidential,nandhe east htorthenwestris ae 1proposedti o the south is industrial. • 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban developed D acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) 0__'acres • mixture•of II &VII b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland _acres • c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 0 acres d. floral vacant 35 acres i. CrnielamlMlstura land O acres e. J. Forested 8 _Kies i1•niyuated Recro-0 acres nt.i.on/Oren i:i.a(c - 2 - 9511 • • • V • IJ.a� LITT7T:Lfl:_TT tose ORA CO. I GIN* 1 MY I •e Lu t.K t I .. • O i ' 1 et* uuIu• • aoW•wro. ll•l•.l. oatL. IN Ct w•w ..N tta•• U.uP*Jn.ttl q«L WASH..GTOS CO. ue '�4 w.le ••ns.•W. * n9 ...T- .!, i...- to Or K im no CO. :;;; •• .Ac •a••. 1 .. 'f On r. • •.li l.l d I:7:-. wt ,10:„ M . • .. .K. N• ro . OA I+--- n.t«•� lrW.e ;lj� • �+� c RAM'r Co: Mr —.•. ..ot. 4 I 1..++» i q N" + OM. S i. : • ;t ••wt... ... : --- lN•. t I .wrot. I .Ku...«Lw.••••.e.• co 3' Ill. ..�lu•Wl II GASSER CO c•Ku I u«e m e.1 t ama cm! •.-•• �• L----f-- 1- _ lf I Ly 1 CM... DAKOTA CO •. • `, 1.1141 .tl w1C• ! p1e�{� ...Ott L•«• 1-'`luo Owwx•K �C q+3 `L. i I.Ou.SaM CL I .N..• I — .•.w I •!nt wueWw Y/ .. 1 L-"._e u— ;,— ..—..once --- 1I_—L ...L«• 1 — I 1 •...l.e. ^" fCOTT CO. 1 n.Le I ` run.•a m' I s! 1 awe 1 1 I1 -- 1 1 I wa. t NM. 1,I- 1 .....•.• o•. ..w..,. 1 e.t•(hM/ I W.(.• u.•00 . e.e ea.. I (u.lw i MReMKT i N t 1 �•{,' •••.NM I l•e•.••t • ---I-----1—.,G-- - — 11--- -- 1 I t 1 1 • DIM' . so is so 7. , 0•10.00 Ieup.N. : i . •i aau 1 1----1—.....J—...3 L TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA • ?.';i9 • • 1, i 1---.•-' ,*�._r •MI.: _",, ,/•tom'-° ,. 4Z, •l `.�,/1��J.._i�/!{ t, 1 0. . , m ��y�� v:a ./ 1 . • i . . . s_.7, c•: \1 1T/ • 11 W t',. {• .. c I • V:.::: . . 7 it +. .V-.._Kr �� ..,..,,-;,1� ram... .•.... 2 tyam= 1• 17 - s :'mom. •� N • c4.-,,›: e't • °•' .`:.' : : I HOPKINS QUADRANGLE o • *N`"j •t ,#..l.!y ._ �: I. y EDEN PRAIRIE L-2 p 3t '• �_ _ QUADRANGLE • . ; - • ; 4. .'"'': --\- •. .e.t../q: - . 4 s>'►. ; *+aoi t:•.��Y - pt1V‘.1 .i ^1: r - / a1G; } 7./.•. .l �` 1 •+\ 3 '.•f'-11 ' %' ; .ern^�s. '..,ae c'ijJ' '1 ..G.a.dnl 1 ` • • • 16'7 IIIIISIA4 _V16 - -' _ - v \ L 13 j.•1 y �v ----T. ./. 9 - /.� 12 'Ill , •• Roceland �1 +` t`II: 41 .,r�.- � 0.12 '6kV.�t. 3 :,-zr, •1 _ • r �"�, V. \-- . 1A 24 ` - •17 17 ` 24 i� .i. r 17 2 $ :i•. .. • ^ 111 15 1: 2� :� t� 1 t. 11 1 f 1 • f 12 a 2J•17 I 12O t7111, r 19 0i3 2.1 i2 I w a Tom• •r wa � w P7 / a • • 81_ock I • 0 (•$70) a ) yGAt.6:t•-zoo• It LOT It. Lort (;unu92) w. 707„ sr. ...__ No TH u$C SHC tOt4 1 tel. I II I BLOC..14 2- • '' • 1 // • o i // • •i /, • I, t sI.• / II °i•• // . 2 a RA g0 ea_ocK t / / /// f' S r .1 ' � � I -- 3 s £Pest HEN • I .I — e 9 r .may I LEPARC PRELIMINARY PI,AT • w�';ai,• :;f�� i HALF SECTION MAP .r;', Sri • • • • • 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. Nine Mile Creek is located 1,000+feet to the southwest. 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). Activity is development of 6 office/warehouse lots on 35 acres . All lots will be sold and developed as soon as possible. • 2. Pill in the following where applicable: a. Total project area 35 acres g. Size of marina and access sq. ft. • or channel (water area) Length NA miles h. Vehicular traffic trips generated per day 2,750 ADT b. Number of housing or recreational units NA i. Number of employees 1,20!_ c. Height of structures 40 ft. j. Water supply needed 490,000_9al/da maximum sourco:municipal d. Number of parking • spaces 1,125 k. Solid waste requiring and— mum disposal 1,000 tons/yr e. Amount of dredging NA cu. yd. 1. Commercial, retail or f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor. space 450,000 sq. ft. ing treatment 490,000 gal/da maim • 'i2. ASSESSHSNT or POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 1. Will t-he project be built in an area with slopes currently exceeding 12t.? _ No (_es 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project, such as fault zone:, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? N0 J(_YI:S / 3. If yea on 1 or 2, describe slope condition:: or unstable arca and any wanur.':: to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. Poor soils will either be mucked out or surcharged in areas of building & road locations. Grades of the industrial street will not exceed 4'.:• . and • Site grading must be revised so that a three to one slope is accomplished between this project and the property to the south. J'i�jr . . • 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic ((( systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. Lots will be prepared to support foundations. No private septic systems are included. t' S. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: • ••:u. yd. grading cu. yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? 60 i 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 3:1 t 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after construction? s, During construction snow fencing and hay bales will be installed as per Nine • Mile Creek Watershed District recommendations. On-site inspection of erosion control will be conducted by City and Watershed District Staff. B. VEGETATION 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types: Woodland 233 S Cropland/ 0 t Pasture Brush or shrubs 47 % Harsh 10 s Grass or herbaceous 20 t other 0 S .• (Specify) • 2. Now many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 4 acres 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNR 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 impact. C. FISH AND WILDLIFE • 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- • ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? _K_No YES 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNA publication 7Ue Uncommon Li NO YES Ones.) 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish _NO X YES habitat? 4. If yes on any of questions I-3, list the area, species or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. Development and occupancy of the industrial lots will temporarily and/or permanently displace some birds and manuals. • - 4 - :J•',•J • • • • D; HYDROLOGY 1. Will the project include any of the fell'ewing: 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 _ _X b. Shore.protection works, dams, or dikes Y_ C. Dredging or, filling operations _ _x._ d. Channel modifications or diversions X _ e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water - X • f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site X • 2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious ser"ace? 30 1. .3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run- off and/cr treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)? Development plans include a holding pond with skimmer which will be reviewed and subject to approval by the Nine Mile Watershed District. • r • A. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain my new fill or structures? . x NO YES If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? NO YES S. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on 1 feet the site? . WATER QUALM sanitarysewage 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, or other ,Jthers to vol:m volume, water the concentration of pollutants andNO the x YES If yes,, specify water body receiving the effluent. Water will be carried via municipal pipe system for treatment at Blue Lake . Treatment Plan and ultimately discharged into the Minnesota River. is 2. If discharge of waste water planned, identify zee toxic,tcorro corrosive or unusual pollutants o the muniCipal treatment m in the wastewater. None • ® 3. Will any sledges be generated by the proposed project? S7_NO YES If yen, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and ut thod • of dispasasl. • . . 4. What measures will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts identified 1 in questions 1-3? NA S. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal. NA F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE • 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates _._into,.the_atmosphere? NO 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. Preparation of the building sites and construction of improvements will cause emissions of particulates into the atmosphere from heavy equipment. After construction and occupancy of building, ordinary emissions associated with industrial parks will be common. • 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); specify decibel levels jdd3Ch)), and duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the noise/Vibration. Noise confined Lo seta and should attar Standards for Heise ; only during aaylight noun.liaise slroutd Day Higitt be dissipated at boundary ligits LSO L10 LSO LIO 60dM 65d3A SOdMA S5d6A Mantras d IA Ranges: fouitment At Machine a�t�50�t scraper aS:IT 6{=103— dozer 00-105 93-90 rotor grader MS-96 63-61 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. Three residential dwellings are within 700 feet to the south. To the east • of the site is industrial development; and industrial/residential multiple uses are planned to the north and west but presently the land is vacant. G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production or currently in•such use? X NO YE.^. If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of ,aLkatablc crop or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use. 2. Are there any known mineral or peat dsipaita on the site? NO x YES If yes, •t;criry the tn.', of sk•po•-it and the arreaae. Peat and Much dominate the area. : ;1) . • • • 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 Str-maer Hinter Supplier Interruptible oasis? Electric 940,000KW/Hr . 390KW/Hr 260KW/Hr NSP contract Natural. Gas 18,300mcf/yr .•. _•.. • .- .Minnegasco interruptible •• •• -••• • (based upon 400,000 square feet of industrial ) b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. NA • . a. Estimate annual energy distribution for: • • space heating 45 ♦ lighting 1S ♦ air conditioning 25 ♦ processing 10 ventilation r, d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment incorporated into this project. Building designers and owners may incorporate energy conservation systems. • e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project • (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc)•? The project itself will not induce longer car trips, housing, etc. H. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION • 1. Ara there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails, lake accesses)? X NO YES • If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the • project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. ) U. TFANSPOETATION 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems • (highway, railroad, water, airport, et )? NO x YES If yes, specify which part(s) of the system(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 attached 2. Is mass transit available to the site? X NO YES . 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? • • As rider numbers warrant, the Metropolitan Transit Commission and City will jointly develop locations for park-n-ride sites. J. PLANNING, LAND USE, CO*IUNITY SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive plans? NO YES If not, explain: • • If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing . toning and change requested. • Existing zoning is Rural . Change to I-Z Park is requested. • • • 3. Will the typo or height of the project conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood? __X_JMO YES If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. No, the project is centrally located within an 800 acre industrial/ multiple residential sector of the City. • — a _ ,2 . • • • • • • g N t CV ,41 •,o .0 to N rl s-• s-• • N r • 1 9 7 6 �'�• u'' j TRAFFIC VOLUMES - 1,2-110,A- • N 8 P 3 ao .4....t 3/.:" . i ° j.3 4EIft • 5•'.• a ...-•. ..,„,• � / f ,� �� Li "I . 5• �` o ..• Propos-Ig v 3 Shady .Et �, ; :a i $ $ g § v �o r. Roads` p • C J v . 1 C 7.. '• ;J `PROJECT O.•::.•:i w•• �' • o 3S450 —.. •... .. CO tr, ,c, titbit:1r CN 2750 • To .e•.•r•axx• NM • V.S. ,� t vy,e•y w•• .. Ar F o O +++� +�+ o da u IIQ W W CI "V'^•• 1� E'ap G. t71-- S q ,/ G.Q V a Q S is 4-4 ': 1 r.1 A far _ ' • • 3. How mnny employees will move into the area to be near the project? NA How much 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. The project itself will not induce development. S. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle the project and any associated growth? . Amount required Public Service for project Sgffici�yity? Existing proposed water 490,000 490,000 gal/da • wastewater treatment 490,000 gal/da X sewer 1,700 feet X . schools. • NA pupils A. solid waste disposal 83 ton/no X streets .32 miles X • other (police, fire, etc) If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local • plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this • one project and its associated impacts? • 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program reviewed by the EQC? X NO YES If yes, specify which area or plan. • • 7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or disposal of rotcntially hasardous or toxic liquids, solids on gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisionss. etc? X NO YES If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. • • 8. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the IFfacility require spacial measures or plans? ; If yos, specify: i4. • K. HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal or state historical registers? _x_N0 YES • • 2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early settlement been found on the site? X NO YES Might any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected by the activity? X NO YES (will be reviewed by State Historical Society 3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any impact on them. S L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have been identified in the previous sections. III. OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts that have not been described before. • During project.development , city staff and watershed district staff will conduct on-site inspections and will enforce ordinances in order to eliminate or reduce any adverse impacts that have not been described. aGOO • • •V. FINDINGS The project is a private ( ) governmental (X ) action. The Responsible Agency al (Person), after consideration of the information in this SAW, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. 1. The project is ( ) is not ( X) a major action. State reas..ns: . 2. The project does ( ) does not C) have the potential for significant environmental effects. State reasons: 3. (For private actions only.) The project is ( ') is not ( ) of more than local significance. State Reasons: • • i O IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION NUM A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed until the date of publication of the notice in the Es Monitor section of the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of the EAW to the EQC constitutes a request for publication of notice in the NE Monitor. A. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible: Agency or the Responsible Person identified below. Based on the above fiings, 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 projciisin not taat major action and/or does not have the potential e only, the environmental effects and/or, for p project is not of more than local significance. • 11 - _)f) 1 • • t EIS PREPARATION NOTICE An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a major action and has the potential for significant environmental effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than local.significance. a. The MEQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the .NEQC ca 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 EC 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.) I/ 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 llikelyQ op ee 9 directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question 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 LE Monitor.Publication • State agency Attach to the EAR sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100 O,ys 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 Regi$Jter--(612) 296-8239. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 79-161 A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ON LEPARC DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRON- ' MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie City Council did hold a public hearing on September 4, 1979, to consider LeParc, and WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 35 acres within a planned industrial sector of the City, and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public • hearing on the LeParc preliminary plat and did recommend approval of the plat along with the finding of the E.A.W. does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. • NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for LeParc because • the project is not a major action which does not have significant environ- mental effects and is not more than of local significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. ADOPTED, this _day of , 1979. • • • ATTEST: Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • John D. Frane , City Clerk SEAL �t�o3 • .. _ Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District • 8950 COUNTY ROAD#4 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343 !� August 16, 1979 Mr. Chris Enger City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Re: Mitchell Heights Development:. Eden Prairie Dear Mr. Enger: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the Mitchell Heights development in Eden Prairie. The following policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this development. 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. Accompanying this permit application, a detailed erosion control plan outlining how sediment will be prevented from leaving the altered areas on the site both during and after construction must be submitted to the District for review and approval. • 2. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please contact us at 920-0655. Sincerely, !+! Ro ert C. Obermeyerr BARR ENGINEERING CO. Engineers for the District c: Conrad Fisknes Fred Richards 2 6,0g Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved August 6, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -4- V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS ilt COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Fifield A. Reports of Commissioners 1. Purgatory Creek Kruell reported that he and Stu Fox, City Tree Inspector, had surveyed the'section of Purgatory Creek that has the dead tree problem. He indicated that Fox would be sending a report back to the Commission about the reasons for the trees dying, etc., and then some answers to the problem may be worked out. • 2. Round Lake Beach R. Anderson noted that he and Commissioner Fifield had received complaints about the lack of a diving platform at Round Lake Beach. Anderson noted that five years ago the facilities at the beach were better, and it had more use--even though the population was considerably lower. Presently, many older youngsters choose to go to other beaches. He asked Werts if there hadn't been money for a diving platform in the • 1978 Budget. • Werts told him that the specs will be drawn up, and the installation will probably occur next year; the money budgeted for the purchase is still available. B. Reports of Staff • • 1. Development Proposals a. Mitchell Heights Townhouses Mr. Donald Gild presented the development proposal to the Commission, noting that all the recommendations made by the planning staff had been satisfied. • R. Anderson asked about their plans for tot-lots, as mentioned in their proposal. • Gild replied that each cluster of townhouses would have access to it's own tot-lot. There will be four interior tot-lots in the development. Kruell asked why the development was coming in stages; what did they consider to be minor variations; and is the proposed development adjacent to developed or open areas? Gild answered that the entire property had not been acquired before the first development started; also, it is not always economically feasible to develop in one stage. The minor variations referred to five units, each with a different floor plan, and in addition, the exterior materials will differ slightly. Finally, the proposed development is north of Atherton and Chestnut Townhouses and Apartments, (developed), and east of a large marsh or swamp, (undeveloped). Kruell asked if they were providing recreation for children only. Z a5 .Minutes - Parks, Recreation & 'approved August 6, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -5- Gild replied that a pool is planned for Phase 2, to be used by children and adults.Their studies indicated that it would be nearly impossible to provide adequate total recreational facilities for adults. The maintenence would be too costly. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Mitchell Heights Townhouses as per the staff recommendation in the Memorandum of August 2, 1979. Tangen seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. b. Independent Millwork Properties • Mr. Gil Darkenwald spoke to the Commission concerning his proposed development. He requested that the Cash Park Fee be dropped, since they had dedicated to the city, some property needed for a roadway. Kru@11 stated that he would like to know what othe developments would occur within the P.U.D. R. Anderson stated that the Commission's concern in this matter was the request to drop the Cash Park Fee. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend that the Council require the • Cash Park Fee; if there was an agreement between the City Council and the developer concerning the road property, it is up to the Council to waive the fee. Johnson seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Kruell noted that by recommending the staff proposal the Cash Park Fee requirement would automatically be included. Dave Anderson and Bob Johnson withdrew their motion and second. MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Independent Millwork Properties Development proposal as per the staff recommendation in the memorandum of August 2, 1979. Tangen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. c. Cardinal Creek Phase II Mr. Bruce Knutson presented the plan to the Commission. He pointed out that the floodplain along Nine-Mile Creek, and the dry • lake bed have been dedicated to the City. R. Anderson noted that staff was recommending a trail easement between proposed lots 10 and 11, to eventually connect to Topview Acres. Jerrold Miller, 7120 Gerard Drive, stated that unless the Cardinal Creek developers are required to dedicate a trail easement around • MEMORANDUM irTO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: August 2, 1979 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List PROJECT: Mitchell Heights Townhouses PROPONENT: Ryco Development Inc. and Lorraine Mitchell REQUEST: Revised Development Plan approval and preliminary platting of 15 acres currently zoned RM 2.5 J LOCATION: East of Mitchell Road, South of Scenic Heights Road, North of Atherton Townhouses and Northwest of Chestnut Apartments. 'BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report • CHECKLIST: • 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) Neighborhood Affect on park: Across Mitchell Road from future Red Rock Neighborhood Park. This • will increase demands for this park and facilities. 2. Adjacent to public waters? N/A Affect on waters: N/A • g. Adjacent to trails? N/A TYpe trails: s:a (bike, along pa rkway. multi-use, transportation, etc.) Pedestrian - connect Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime) Concrete Width: Party Responsible for construction? Developer Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) N/A �r Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial) Residential 0. Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood) Red Rock Need for a mini-park? Interior Tot Lots part of plan. .2r )7 . • • -2- S. REFERENCE CHECK: a. Major Center Area Study: N/A b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Red Rock Neighborhood Park will serve this development. e.' Purgatory Creek Study: N/A d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A • e. Floodplain Ordinance: NSA f. Guide Plan: 1979 plan shows general land use of residential and multiple • in this area. g. Other: N/A 6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A 7. CASH PARK FEE? s2SO per unit to be paid at time of Building Permit. • 8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or against proposal: Townhouse and apartments; yes residents would prefer if land remained open. 9. Number of units in residential development? 92 Number of acres in the project? 1S ' • Special recreation space requirements: 4 interior tot lots in plan, swimming pool planned for future. 30. STAFF RECOAAENDATIONS: Recommend approval subject to Planning Staff Report of July 19, 1979. STAFF REPORT: MEMO: TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 19, 1979 FEE OWNER: Lorraine Mitchell DEVELOPER: Ryco.Development Incorporated REQUEST: Revised Development Plan Approval and preliminary platting for approximately 15 acres currently zoned • RM2.5. ' PROJECT LOCATION: East of Mitchell Road, south of Scenic Heights Road. extended, north of existing Atherton Townhouses and northwest of existing Chestnut Apartments BACKGROUND The zoning of the site is RN 2.5 according to a 1972 Planned Unit Development which illustrated the extension of Chestnut Apartments up in this area. The .1979 Guide Plan Update shows general land use of residential and multiple in this area. Although the City flood plain designation does not affect this piece, the next 20 acres lying east of the future Anderson Lakes Parkway would contain about a third of flood plain area. There is no public water area shown on this site or shoreland or floodplain. EXISTING SITE CHARACTER The site slopes from a high point on the western portion of the site up near Mitchell Road in the existing farm homestead of 884 to a low point on the very eastern portion of the site, where the parkway would extend through of 830', with a total elevation difference of 50 feet across the site. The topography supplied by the developer in his brochure may be incorrect. There were actually two different topographies supplied. One of the topographies was used under the preliminary plat development plan, and it is different from the topography shown on sheet no. 8 of the development brochure. An on site evaluation by the Planning and Engineering staff revealed that there has been a considerable amount of fill in the southeastern section of the site adjacent to Chestnut Apartments. Planning Staff would suggest that a new topo be supplied, as well as a grading plan, as there was no grading plan supplied with the project. The areas of poor soil on the site occur on the eastern portion of the site and soil borings have been • supplied would seem to indicate soil corrections requiring mucking out and back filling in. The Chestnut Apartment project experienced very severe pro- blemswith curb settlement, asphalt settlement within the parking area, water in units, sinking of building , foundations etc—due to poor soil conditions which were not properly corrected. This mistake should not be repeated in the proposal before us at this point. Staff Report-Ryco Dev. Inc. - 2 - July 19, 1979 VEGETATION The vegetation on the site is very scattered, consisting of major vege- tation around the farm homestead and a east/west fence line occurring on the north border of the site. The remaining vegetation is scattered tree vegetation punctuated throughout the site, which is dominated by upland meadow grasses and marsh grasses toward the lower area. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Under the RM 2.5 category of Ordinance 135, 35' front yard setbacks normally are required with 25' minimum side yards and 30' minimum rear yards. There is also a 2500 sq. ft. side area required per unit. The proposal at first review is consistent with these requirements. The Ordinance also requires that the areas of parking of more than 5 vehicles be screened from public right-of-ways. Although there is a master concept landscaping plan, prior to building permit issuance . more detailed landscaping plans must be submitted to show screening of the parking, driving and drive-way areas from Mitchell Road, Scenic Heights Road, and the future Anderson Lakes Parkway. In addition, there will be a 50' setback required from Anderson Lakes Parkway. The developer must assure that there is adequate room between the parkway right-of-way boundary and any hard surface or structure area to allow adequate berming and landscaping for proper Screening. An area in which this is not being done is the very eastern area adjacent to the parkway in which less than a 20' green space is maintained to the parkway right-of-way. The Planning staff would recommend that either the plan be loosened up to allow more green area in this location, or that the proposed parkway realignment be studied to allow more area to be attributed kkk to this site. • SITE PLAN As previously mentioned in the report, there has been no grading plan submitted with the proposal. A detailed grading plan must be submitted prior to action by the Planning Commission. TRANSPORTATION • The Planning Staff has evaluated the location of the access of Phase 1 to Mitchell Road and finds the sight lines acceptable at the points shown. However, there is a right in, right out, sort of an arrangement proposed, and the Planning staff would recommend a single ninety degree drive-way with Mitchell Road, unless acceleration lanes are to be provided within Mitchell Road right-of-way. Phase 2, as outlined, depends upon the extension of Anderson Lakes Parkway from Mitchell Road. However, the current developer does not own a small triangular shaped piece of land occurring north of Phase 1, which would be required to extend the Parkway. Construction phasing and assessments for construction of the parkway must be worked out prior to approval of Phase 2. a��o • • Staff Report-Ryco Dev. Inc. - 3 - July 19, 1979 i The plan as depicted illustrates the two distinct projects separated by somewhat of a natural slope between the two projects. The Planning staff feels that site has been significantly altered at this point, and there is no critical reason why the two projects cannot be connected together as is shown in Figure 2. The connection shown in the location marked on Figure 2 as location no. 2 will require that the 5 units lying to the north of this connection be shifted further north in order to accommodate the connection. Position 3 on Figure 2 shows an access which would tie in with an existing stubbed off access to Chestnut Apartments. However, rather than a permanent full time connection, the Planning staff would recommend that the connection be made an emergency exit with knockdown barriers be placed between the two projects to separate the rental and ownership units. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS The sidewalks shown between the two projects in the proposal in combination with the sidewalks shown with each group of townhouses, with the addition a concrete sidewalk to be placed along the proposed parkway should suffice for pedestrian system. PARKING Each townhome includes one double car garage and a space behind the double car garage for parking. In all cases, the drive-through lane between units should be no less than 24' in width, and an additional 24'from the back up curb to the front of each garage as a minimum drive-way length. Screened area must be provided for storage of recreational vehicles or by-laws written to prohibit outside storage of recreational vehicles. PARKS • This project would be required to pay the cash park fee per unit at time of building permit issuance, in addition a number of tot lot areas are depicted and should be reviewed by the Community Services Department and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The Planning Commission will note that in the second phase there is also a swimming pool area denoted, which is an asset to the recreational facilities of the area. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Phase 2 as depicted is unbuildable at this time until the future extension of the parkway, which must be worked out with property owners both to the north and•to the south. • 2. The access to Mitchell Road is shown in an, acceptable location, however, the method of entry will have to be revised to a 24' wide road entering at a 90 degree angle to Mitchell Road. 3. Additional information is needed for the Planning Commission to take final action on the project. No grading plan has been submitted and a more correct up-to-date topography must be also submitted, in order to more correctly evaluate the proposal. • Staff Report-Ryco Dev. Inc. - 4 - July 19, 1979 4. Additional connection between Phase 1 and Phase 2, and also between Phase 2 and Chestnut Apartments, should be included in the final plan as depicted in Figure 2. 5. Detailed soil borings•over the entire Phase 2 project should be done with Engineering recommendation es to construction techniques prior to building permit issuance and prior to placement of any parking or driving areas. 6. Adequate set back must be allowed from the parkway. in order to allow - • - the minimum 24' driiring lane, a minimum 24' drive-way behind garages, a minimum 20' wide green area that will allow for berming and landscaping • to screening parking•lot areas. 7. Prior to building permit issuance, a detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the Planning Department, which will depict buffering of townhouses from surrounding land uses and complete screening of driving and parking areas from adjacent land uses and public road right-of-ways. 8. The cash park fee is applicable to this project and shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. • 9. Recreational vehicles must either be provided for in completely screened areas or they should be excluded for in completely screened areas, or they should be excluded to the restrictive covenants. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recomrend that the Planning Commission continue this item until additional correct information may be supplied regarding grading and existing topography and the site plan may be altered to accomplish areas which are inconsistent with the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS of this report. CE:ds • Y,12 • • II - •�14 3 4 S s1• •".;s t.- . -1 St. A- 1 4!$t. - • • SZEA..: .... EIGHTS t a:== s" i:: ROAD.E •ik'ED • :; ;.• 0. of :Tv +4 ..„.:,, :.}:;\ • 1— 1 • - \.• ': a f;;:;.1r :tE".' :_ :i :::". \ _ V. q :1:• a ;ts` • =e #s ; \` ,t % MMMON .r .Mawr ::•C;Y.; _i: • :p .t::.:: i . *i^I_i: t .\.'; 1 • ' • 1` 4 4ii ' •'i a _ i E e s ti a N. I 4' II. *: . _-s:::,s''•• r :t;, i 11 . 1 i: : i`'• ::j i A ::i 1 • 1 10011410r M AMair1.1 •i{ II M ..Hi Mi ammo** •� i R �� ,.....\,.. .1 i�'• ^tit IF c.,f.rY, MAR .. .._ .._. • • r \ I ` ' • 1` --— • .4 .�. .r,",,V , f t S lea` � �' \ \ en ! / �' ..-.„.- i--...ei . (.-,,,,31 z ` 1 ¢`C •� s.� C't:.; OCK—DOWN I• -... •. —..."...... • .' :,•,,::.i.4 • .4„,„ i •V '>1.‘,y.•:. .-.. <7,n_ i • . _ • .. 1 . .....t .i 1 ri_r_. .. .i.:„.:,\:. ,/*-::/.• -• .• . ) 4y, __., . i, r ..• ..2 C;inr.f. --L-j-Vc:::...1 fly, .r.f,,:.(7.3•; s.'• AV.- V.,•- • • . I • • i i . •• ....0 .4(.....1.; -57' I) • ••• 1*.. ••• .•• ? r i :a.�3. . \• r. • .• ' ) pli ..t. 'ice '.Y�.��: ••`` Y:. -!•[ --f 2 y . • 1 4�21: ✓%i'"--. T-f L• V ':., ,'.-..`,,:.S-' `gip • _ • 111. .1.': ' 4:i.e!:i-- .---El.„-i-c---„,,,s..14,4,21:<-5, .:,.., „k, ?..A t • ., 1 r!r1 I f� .. " $7 ' - .- - _ . • ill• -rJ /S.,i - { . . ! I- ••f �., '.;/,... Lip: \ *t. a st . . 1 tit I i.' 1- •§ .•!..• 1 P \ It 4y i Y. .L i •,•?. ,', • • ill••• r I / :, r_...• z:Lit• •.• ; ;u1._ -"71 ..;-'i 4."\\ • ' 4 1., _ ..,•," ]:...: .G J.:.. ;.s. - l` , ... . ,•. ... . / „e;:l ,.;:• ') •: `' 4.":.FIG 2;- .. It �_ ����, �.' ,, ENTRANC ctEViS� OMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Bearman, Bentley, Levitt, Torjesen and Gartner approved Planning Commission Minutes - 2 ; August 13, 1979 • 11%. MITCHELL HEIGHTS TOWNHOUSES, Ryco Development Incorporated, request to revise the Mitchell Heights PUD (72-3)(zoned RM 2.5 for 94 units of multiple family upon approximately 15 acres) and preliminary plat the property. A continued public hearing. The Planner discussed concerns of the Planning Commission from the previous Planning Commission meeting requesting modifications by the proponent of: submission of a more detailed grading plan; addition of additional guest parking; inclusion of a "knock down barrier" for emergency purposes; and the Anderson Lakes Parkway connection. . ..Mr_ Bill Dolan, Koehnlein, Lightowler, Johnson Incorporated, .explained the changes they had made to the original proposal:" addition of 12 additional guest park- ing spaces; addition of more green space between parking areas and drive-ways and off of Mitchell Road; the turning of the major entrance road so it followed on through the project; movement of buildings along northeastern boundary of the project forward for proper screening; and the addition a the"knock down barrier" in the southern portion of the project. Levitt inquired whether the proponent had had any more communication with M.T.S. regarding their property and the possible alignment of Anderson Lakes Parkway extension. Mr. Donald Gill, Director of Development and Marketing for Ryco Development Incorporated, explained that presently there is no conclusive agree- ment with M.T.S. on the Anderson Lakes Parkway extension, but they have contacted them and will continue to work toward resolution of the road question. Levitt requested comments by the Planner regarding the project. The Planner ex- plained his concern that the 2nd Phase of the development not begin until the future extension of the Anderson Lakes Parkway is worked out with the property owners both to the north and to the south. Gill expressed concern with the contingency of building Phase 2 subject to the extension of the Anderson Lakes Parkway. He explained that it was his understanding that acceptance by the City of the bid for the Parkway extension and then calling for bids would constitute permission to go ahead with Phase 2. The Planner ex- plained that no committment has been made, and the two phases were initially separate, with Phase 2 depending upon the Parkway extension from the north. Whatever form this takes by the Council, Phase 2 should be served from the north through Ander- son Lakes Parkway. Bentley commented that it was not premature in nature for the recommendation that the road be put in,as the City Council in the past has requested access to the development before any construction takes place. MOTION: Bentley moved to close the public hearing on Mitchell Heights Townhouses PUD. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0 MOTION: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitchell Heights Townhouses PUD as per the revised plan dated August 3, 1979 and the staff $ report of July 19, 1979. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitchell Heights Townhouses preliminary plat dated August 3, 1979 and the staff report of July 19, 1979. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0. . C0t1MISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairperson Liz Retterath. Oke Martinson, George Bentley. Matthew Levitt, Hakon Torjesen C0iMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman and Virginia Gartner approved 'tanning Commission Minutes • - 6 - July 23. 1979 C. LEPARC, J.C. Kohlrusch. . . .public hearing (cont'd) Bentley questioned f13 of the staff report. The Planner responded that buildable lots must be within constraints of state and local standards, and when approval is recommended of industrial lots. it is given with the idea that the developer will have to make the lots acceptable for building. Bentley asked about storm drainage provisions, with Husby responding that a skinmer•man hole is included in their plan.. _ Bentley inquired further on whether the proponent had adjacent property • owners' permission for storm draining ponds. Husby responded they do not have that permission yet and do not have an alternate plan. The Planner added that all owners should be aware of where the storm drainage holding ponds will be. General discussion and general agreement tool: place on the Hennepin County Department of Transportation letter.of 7/12/79. The differences between the I-2 and 1-5 zoning districts was discussed, and Husby explained they are requestinn 1-2 rather than I-5, because the I-2 district gives more flexibility in building, allowing more parking spaces. • Torjesen questioned constr':ctino a road subject to Shady Oak Road and what happened if the developer reacI c; the point of poor soil and could not complete the road. The Planner responded that the builder is bonded to insure that the road is completed. Mr. Jay Kohlrusch, proponent, commented that accnrJing to Braun Engineering, the road can be completed. The Planner added that the City will not take over maintenance of the road until it is completed to City standards, which will probably be about 2 years. MOTION tl: Bentley moved to close the public hearing on LeParc preliminary . • plat. Martinson seconded, motion carried 5-0. MOTION #2: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning from Rural to I-2 as per the plans dated July 2, 1979 and July 23, 1979 and staff report of July 19, 1979, contingent upon the procurement of property rights ft.: storm sewer lines and holding ponds from adjacent property to the west. tia,tinson seconded, motion carried 5-0. NOTION t3: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of preliminary plat dated July 2, 1979 and staff report of July 19, 1979. with the same contingency as in MOTION t2.ttartinson seconded, motion carried 5-0. D. MITCHELL HEIGHTS TOWNHOUSES, Ryco Development Incorporated, request to revise the ttitchell Heights PUD (72-3) (zoned Ct1 2.5 for 94 units of multiple family upon approximately 15 acres) and preliminary plat the property. A public hearing. fir. Donald Gill, Director of Development and Marketing for Ryco Development OW Incorporated, introduced the architects for the project. Mr. Bill Dolan and • approved PLANNING C0t•Y1ISSION MINUTES - 7 - • July 23, 1979 iF D. MITCHELL HEIGHTS TOWNHOUSES,. . .public hearing (tont') Mr. Dolan presented the proposal and explained the history of the site as related to the 1972 PUD. Their plan is for 92 townhouses, which is 37% of what was originally proposed, and :rill include a Homeowner Association and an umbrella type Association to cover recreation and swimming pool. The project includes "clustered areas" and "view units", and they will be petitioning the City to construct the Anderson Lakes Parkway extension as relates to their project. Their intention was to put in tot lots throughout the units, and additional guest parking areas. The Planner discussed the staff report recommendations, explaining that one of the main cqncerns is that the 2nd phase is contingent upon the construction of Anderson Lakes Parkway extension. For a complete review of the proposal, he requested a grading plan be submitted, and also suggested that it would be beneficial to tie the two phases together by the inclusion of a "knock down barrier" in order to be open to emergency vehicles. Alignment of Anderson Lakes Parkway was discussed, and the Planner explained where the Parkway was proposed to occur. Bentley questioned the amount of high density residential in this area. The Planner explained the background of the land according to the Major Center Sector Study. Dolan responded to staff recommendation of connection beteen the two pro- jects, explaining they do not object to this, but would like two separate Homeowner Associations, and added that they do not want a road connecting to the apartment complex. The grading between the two projects was questioned, and Dolan responded there was about 15' difference between the two. Screening of recreational vehicles was discussed, with the suggestion of regulating this by restrictive covenants. . Torjesen expressed concern that the City could be overly restrictive to • residents who have opted to live in this area. • Ms. Lois Velasco, Vice-President of Ryco Development Incorporated, explained she has been working with multiple family housing around the Metro area, and said that restrictive covenants are not unusual. One of the residents from the area expressed concern with the high speed of some vehicles on Mitchell Road; the need for a park; and Was not in favor of providing parking spaces for recreational vehicles in this area. The Planner commented that a landscaping plan will have to be submitted before consideration by the City Council. In response to proponent's concern with a tight time frame, the Co:mnission was in agreement that they could request a public hearing before thi• Council as soon as possible, providing the proper materials were submitted first. • • approved Planning Commission Minutes 8 - July approved 1979 D. MITCHE_ LL HEIGHTS TOWnHOUSEs public hearin (cont'd) MOTION: Torjesen moved to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat for Mitchell Heights Townhouses dated July �he1979 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 13, beforee contingency that the proponent may request a public hearing the City Council at this time. Levitt seconded, motion carried 5-0. V. PETITIONS ANO RFQUEITS VI, PLANNER'S REPORT • A. OLD FARM ADDITION, revisions to street system. and The Planner explained that this project was previously proposed action taken: One of the concerns was the connection to the south, and where the road comes out in relation o he Atherton ter annina Townhouse/Chestnut Apartment entrance. Uponrd rnation t thesouth Commission, the staff has met with the property • to resolve the connection. • Commissioners directed Staff to relay concern of Planning Commission • to Mr. Peterson on styling and "barracks" effect of the proposed houses. • UPCOMING PROJECTS • The Planner briefly summarized the following projects upcoming for August 13th meeting: Gonyea Invest. Co., Overlook Place by Hustad, Richard Anderson's Third, Fourth and Fifth Additions, and Hidden Glen. VII. OLD BUSINESS - None • VIII. NEW BUSINESS - None • IX. ADJOURNMENT . MOTION: Torjesen moved to adjourn at 12:00 PM. Bentley seconded, motion carried unanimously. • ) %�/_17 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.79-159 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF Mitchell Heights BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Mitchell Heights • dated July 5, 1979 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting i rdinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the_day of I9 Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL 24►q . I • MEMO TO: Mayor Peniel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager • FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 16, 1979 SUBJECT: Petition from Ban-Con, Inc. Leill Lake Condominium Setback Variance • As the Council may recall, Ban-Con, Inc., back in September of 1978, submitted a request to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for a variance to allow a "zero lot line" setback for a portionof their Neill Lake Condominium project adjacent to the Ridgewoods Condominiums in the Preserve. At the public hearing for that variance request, there was considerable opposition to the variance from property owners in the Ridgewoods project and after much discussion the Board denied the variance request. A lawsuit between the parties followed and the City was also made a party to the suit. Now, after several months of negotiations, an agreement has apparently been reached between the parties per the attached "Stipulation of Dis- missal" and "Declaration of Covenants and Easments," wherein the owners in the Ridgewood project agree not to oppose the variance re- . quest in return for certain concessions on behalf of Ban-Con. Ordinance 0135 does provide that an applicant may appeal to the City Council any decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Accord- ingly, Ban-Con, Inc., per the attached letter of August 7, 1979. is appealing the previous denial by the Board of Appeals of their request • for a "zero lot line" setback under Variance Application No. 78-I2. •Since the parties have apparently reached an agreement in this matter, and because of the steep slope to the west of the proposed building sites, it is recommended that the Council approve Variance Request No. 79-12 as heard and denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjust- ments on September 2I, 1978, thus allowing a."zero" setback for four six unit condominium buildings in the Neill Lake Condominium project. Such approval shall be contingent upon. and no building permits shall be issued, until,receipt of fully executed copies of said agreements and approval thereof by the City Attorney. CJJ:kh • WL * n e. f Ill...li 7,1 K WAD S I It\ ..\\ \. \V ,i: . 1....., ' .7--‘1/ 1 ' ,1 ..t.' \ ,... s\. S. \\ k' ). ,. .... SI)..,,,\:-. 1 i IT I 0:22-7; e " ' • :: % �\'•Ij,�11n . , ‘\ik \ 1 iii en ... v, d'alf4.' "" 1"` 4 ..\\\\ 1 l'i\\\\ \ \ 111; 1 \ 1\ — ',At N 1 , k .1. 1. . .a ho .1 ,... . \\t'. \':11 k 1 . . . 1�oy,• ha lritv 1 ;: N ' \: �` \ ` h V n : `r• -4.\\ . El JO 4 \. . , A A. \ \\ � 4 , Ili .\\ , • • 26;1 41t1,4 - 11) . • Ban Con,Inc. rti3 1 G ci 2345 Thee Street North St.Paul.Minnesota 55113 Telephone 612,a83-o801 • • August 7, 1979 • Roger Ulstad City Manager 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 . Dear Mr. Ulstad: Ban-Con, Inc. has been working on an agreement with the Board of Directors of Ridgewood Condominiums since August 1978 to resolve the question of setback for the Neill Lake condominiums immediately adjacent to their property. Attached, herewith, is a copy of the proposed Declaration of Covenance in • easements to be recorded pursuant to the agreement, and a copy of the stipu- lation and dismissal of lawsuit between Neill Lake and Ridgewood. Ban-Con, Inc. is requesting that they be put on the agenda of the council meeting on August 21, 1979. Our request is to receive a variance from the ordinance for the 22 foot setback to a zero setback pursuant to our request to the. Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments; application submitted in August 1978. You will recall, the variance was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments cQ.d pursuant to that denial, we are requesting a review and approval by the ' y ordi, ly, l . • .a,' a•en Jr. • P-si• NH/,„/ °( ,.; • ure cc Neill Lake file r . 1 BEST bt FLAxAGAx ;i • ATTORNEYS AT LAW D .t040 IDS CENTER . RECEIVED mmst.:APOLIF.MINNESOTA 55402 Ietu) 352-T00 AUG 3 1979 CAnLz:2tESTLAw BAN-CON, 1NC. August 1st, 1979 Mr. Robert L. McCollum Graff & Bailly Attorneys at Law • 300 Midland Bank Building • OMinneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Re: Ridgewoods Condominium Association v LDear Bob: • Please find enclosed a copy of the Declaration'of Covenants and - .Easements and the Stipulations of Dismissal which you drafted and we Yput on our computer system. Mr. Hagen has agreed to all of the terms set forth in the Stip- elation and Declaration. Mr. Hagen desires to commence construction on the next phase of Neil Lake within two weeks. As a consequence, we would appreciate you indicating any objections or changes with regard to this agreement as soon as possible. Mr. Hagen will accept a letter from you or a member of the Association indicating its acceptance to this agreement. Upon receipt of this letter, Mr. Hagen will then go to the City Council to obtain approval of the development. i I am enclosing a copy of the ownership status of Ridgewoods Condominiums as of July 26 and a copy of the Neill Lake apartment ownership status as. of the same date. Upon receipt of this letter, please -call me so that we can discuss • these items. Yours truly, I gyp:jlg M. W. Van Putten, Jr. Enclosures BEST & FLANAGAN • cc: Hans flagon, Jr. i J • • • • 20/1 STATE OF MINNESOTA • DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Ridgewoods Condominium Association, ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL vs. ) • ) The City of Eden Prairie, Ban-Con, ) Inc., and First National Bank of ) Minneapolis, ) Defendants. ) • This AGREEMENT, entered into this • day of , 1979, by and between Ridgewoods Condominium Association, its uccessor and assigns (hereinafter called "Ridgewoods"), and • Neill Lake Condominium Association and Ban-Con, Inc., their successors and assigns (hereinafter called "Neill Lake" and "Ban-Con" repective1y4, recites as follows: WHEREAS, Ridgewoods $nd its members are the owners 20/2 of the condominium units, the condominium garages and the common areas descrlbed in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County on May 18, 1972, Document No. 1031312, as amended by a documentfiled on June 27, 1972, as Document No. 1035856; and WHEREAS, Ridgewoods and its members are the owners, :cording to their respective interest, of the lands described as "Tract A, Registered Land Survey 1384, subject to certain • 2 .2q • ;ements of record, together with the improvements constructed thereon; and WHEREAS, Ban-Con, Inc., is an owner of the land described as Tract B, said RLS 1384, and Lot 1, Block 1, Highpoint adjacent thereto, subject to certain easements of 20/3 record; and WHEREAS, Ban-Con is constructing and plans to construct improvements on its lands described above, to file its Declaration of Apartment Ownership in one or more phases, has created a homeowners Association, namely Neill Lake, conveyed apartment units and common areas therein, and intends to convey • editional apartment units and common areas therein, said plans • ..nd improvements known as Neill Lake Condominiums Phase ; and WHEREAS, the members of Neill Lake are owners of the condominium units, condominium garages and common areas described in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions filed in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County on Document 20/4 No. ; and WHEREAS,the members of Neill Lake are owners, according to their respective interests, of land described as subject to easements of record, together with the improvements • constructed thereon; and -2- • WHEREAS, Ridgewoods commenced an action in Hennepin County District Court entitled Ridgewoods Condominium Association, Plaintiff, vs. City of Eden Prairie, Ban-Con, Inc. and First National Bank of Minneapolis, Defendants, District Court File No. 750589 seeking the relief as more fully set forth in its Amended Complaint; and WHEREAS, the defendant Ban-Con, Inc. instituted a Counterclaim against Ridgewoods seeking the relief as more fully set forth therein; ifnd 20/5 • WHEREAS, the parties hereto, in order to amicably settle, compromise and resolve all differences existing ' 'tweerithem, reached an informal agreement on January , 1979; the informal agreement having been accepted by the parties thereto; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto, by this Stipulation of Dismissal, intend to formally set forth the terms and agreements of said settlement agreement, so to be ginding upon the parties now and forevermore; NOW, WHEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, agreements, grants and understandings and obligations expressed herein, and upon the payment by Ban-Con to Ridgewoods of the m of $6,000.00, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, -3- b I'r • � is hereby stipulated gnd agreed as follows: 20/6 1. Ban-Con may apply to the City of Eden Prairie for a building set-back variance along a line beginning at the most Northerly corner of Tract B; thence Southeasterly in a straight line to the most Southerly corner of Tract A and there _terminating; the boundary .line_being common to Tracts A and B RLS, 1384, and such other permits as may be required, contingent, however, upon the granting of such variance by the City Council and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals of said City, and approval, as may be ncessary, by the Watershed District. Ridgewoods will not oppose the granting of the variance or the issuance of other necessary permits as proposed snd will, if guested, indicate its and %heir approval thereof. 20/7 2. Ridgewoods will cooperate with and support Ban- Con in obtaining the necessary approvals for the works and • improvements described herein. 3. Ban-Con will construct and provide a surfaced parking area conatining not to exceed 18 vehicle parking spaces, over the following described area, to-wit: Commencing at the most Westerly corner of said Tract B; thence North 67° 52' 04" East, assumed bearing along the Northwesterly line of said Tract B a distance of 150.93 feet to the actual point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 67° 52' 04" East 65.96 feet; thence North 36° 09' 34" West 45.99 feet; thence South 52° 50' 26" West 64 feet; thence south 76° 09' 34" Cast 30 feet to the actual 20/8 -4- • • • • point of beginning; and commencing at the most Westerly corner of said Tract B; thence North • 67° 52' 04" East, assumed bearing along the • Northeasterly line of. said Tract B; a distance of 150.93 feet to the actual point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 67. 52' 04" East 65.96 feet; thence South 53° 50' 26" West 64 feet; thence North 36° 09' 34" West 60 feet to the actual point of beginning, reserving, however, to Ban-Con, its successors and assigns, the exclusive use of the most Southerly eight parking spaces located in said parking area. • a. The grade of the access road and parking lot from its point of.connection with the existing Olacktop, driveway 20/9 and parking area on said Tract A lying easterly of the west building of Ridgewoods shall not exceed 6%, •and said access road and parking area shall provide proper drainage. b. Bin-Con will provide and install suitable lighting and natural screening for the area and will provide for the . connection and installation of said lighting to the existing exterior lighting system of Ridgewoods. To the extent possible, Ban-Con will preserve and protect existing mature trees, and the screening to be provided by Ban-Con for this parking area will be compatible with the topography of the surrounding areas. c. The cost of electircal power for the lighting of said parking area described above, Over Tract A, shall be borne 20/10 by Ridgewoods. • • -5 • - �4-f • 4. Ban-Con will provide and construct a surfaced parking area containing five, vehicle parking spaces located on Tract B described as follows: Together with an easement for parking purposes over and across said Tract B; said easement being described as commencing at the most • Southerly corner of Tract A said Registered Land Survey No. 1384; thence North 65° 54' East, assumed bearing along Southeasterly line of._ said Tract A a distance of 31 feet; thence South 28° 34' East 56 feet; thence North 61° 26". East 12 feet to the actual point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 61° 26" East 20 feet; thence North 28° 34' West 45 feet; thence south 61° 26" West 20 feet; 20/11 thence South 28° 34' East 45 feet to the actual point of beginning. 5. Ban-Con agrees to construct, with suitable .creening, pads for trash accumulators, one to be located adjacent to the east end of the garage building in front of the Ridgewoods west building, and the other to be located adjacent to and northwesterly of the parking spaces northwe.;t of the Ridgewoods east building. 6. Ban-Con shall provide suitable landscaping within the easement area described in the following described area: Together with exclusive easement for parking purposes over and across said Tract A; said easement being described as beginning at the most Northerly corner of %aid Tract B; thance 20/12 North 51° 49' 36" East, assumed bearing, along the Casterly extension of said Tract B a distance of 22.01 feet; thence South 36° 42' 34" East 411.52 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Tract Aj thence South 65° 54' 33" West along said Southeasterly line of Tract A, a distance -6- 2f:2 ate' • • of 22.54 feet to the most Southerly corner of said Tract A; thence north 36° 42' 34" West along the Westerly line of said Tract A, a distance of 406.03 feet to the actual point of beginning. 7. The parties agree that this Stipulation of Dismissal incorporates by reference the terms of the attached Exhibit A, subject to the proviso that this Stipulation of Dismissal, the rights and responsibilities contemplated $erein, shall be 20/13 effective and conditioned upon the execution, filing and recordation of said Exhibit A, in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • 8. The parties further agree that the attached Exhibit ` shall be incorporated into the respective Declaration of Covenants of Neill Lake Condominiums and Ridgewoods Condominiums. • 9. Ridgewoods agrees and hereby does dismiss, with prejudice and without costs, its Complaint, as amended., against Ban-Con, the City of Eden Prairie and First national Bank of Minneapolis, and Ban-Con agrees to dismiss its counter-claims, with prejudice with without costs, against Ridgewoods. 10. Ridgewoods and Ban-Con, acting for themselves and through %heir officers, agents and attorneys, each agrees 20/14 with the other in carrying out the foregoing provisions and accomplishing these objectives and to do all things necessary io comply therewith. Ridgewoods, and Neill Lake will use their )est efforts to induce their respective members, the owners -7- gar :2;) �„ 4 r ; • • ;If said units, garages, and common areas, to execute Exhibit A to carry out and effectuate the terms of this agreement. BEST & FLAtNAGAN BY Marinus W. Van Putten, Jr. Attorneys for Ban-Con, Inc; 4040 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota '55402 • (612) 339-7121 • CRAGG & BAILLY • By • Robert L. McCollum Attorneys for Ridgewoods Condominium Association • 300 Midland Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 20/15 (612) 333-0411 • • • • • • -8- 2t31 .,t►,-n . 1 ' DECLARATION OF COVEIIANTS AND EASEMENTS • The undersigned Parties of the First Part (owners or encumbrancers of the real property set forth beside their respective names on the attached Exhibit No. 1) in consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration including grants of the reciprocal easements set forth hereinbelow and the covenants of Parties of the Second Part (owners or ,) encumbrancers of real property as set forth beside their respective names on the attached Exhibit No. 2) do hereby grant and dedicate to said Parties of the Second Part their successors and assigns the following: • • A perptetual easement 24 feet in width for ingress and egress over $nd across Trace A, Registered Land Survey No. 1384, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The centerline of said easement being described ' as commencing at the most Northerly corner of Tract B, said Registered Land Survey No. 1384; thence North 51° 49' 36" East, assumed bearing, along the Easterly extension of the Northwesterly line of said Tract B a distance of 34.01 feet to the actual point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence North 36° 42' 34" West 15 feet; thence Northwesterly 39.12 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 76.37 feet and acentral angle 29° 21'; thence North 66° 03' 34" West tangent to said curve 74 feet; thence 2 Westerly and Southwesterly 32.11 feet along a tangential curve concave to the South, having a radius of 21.19 feet and a central angle of 86° 26'; thence South 27° 30' 26" West tangent ) to last described curve 110 feet; thence Southerly 23.27 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the East, having a radius of 20.94 • • • • • 0 feet and a central angle of 63° 40'; thence South 36° 09' 34" East tangent to said curve Ab 38.58 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of said Tract B•distant 183.91 feet Easterly from the most Westerly corner of said Tract 1 B and there terminating. The sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at the Northwesterly line of said • 1 . Tract B. • Together with a perpetual easement 24 feet in width for .ingress and egress over and across " said Tract A; the centerline of said easement . being described as commencing at the most Northerly cornet of said Tract B; thence North 51° 49' 36" East assumed bearing along the Easterly extension of the Northwesterly line 1 of said Tract B a distance of 34.01 feet to the actual point of beginning of the centerline to• be described; thence South.36° 42' 34" East 360 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point"A"; thence Easterly 42.24 feet along• a tangential curve, concave to the North, having . a radius of 31.43 feet and a central angle of 77° 00'; thence North 66° 17' 26" East tangent to said curve 70.90 feet to the Easterly line • • of said Tract $ and there terminating. The • 2 sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at the Easterly line • ' ! of said Tract A. • Together with a perpetual easement 24 feet in B width for ingress and egress over and across said Tract A; the centerline of said easement • being describes as oeginning at the 0 aforementioned Point "A"; thence South 36° 42' 34" East 25 feet; thence South 29° 15' 37" East • 28.92 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said Tract a distant 31 feet Easterly from the most Southerly corner of said Tract A and there terminating. The sidelines of said 0 easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at the Southeasterly line of said Tract A. An exclusive easement over Tract A, RLS 1384 for 2' 0 maintenance of the structures located on Tract B and vehicle • parking on Tract A, which easement is described as follows: CO © • -2- 1�� .w • • Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Tract B; thence North 51° 49' 36" East, assumed bearing, along the Easterly extension of said Tract B a distance of 22.01 feet; thence South 36° 42' 34" East 411.52 feet to the Southeasterly line of Tract A, thence South 65° 54' 33" West along said Southeasterly line of Tract A, a distance of 22.54 feet to the most Southerly corner of said Tract A, a distance of 406.03 feet to the actual point of beginning. Tog-ther ith a p rpetuar easement or park'ng pur••ses •ver and cross said Tract ; dal. 21/ ease •-nt being desc iberl as commenci g at the most le terly corns of said Tract B; th ce puLk' North • ° 52' 04" Ea , assumed bears g long- the No thwesterly lin of said Tract B distance of 154.•3 feet to th 1 ctual point of ginning of th- =asement to e scribed; then a north 67° -2' '4" East 65.96 eet; thence ort 36° 09' 14" I -st 45.99 feet; thence Sou h 53 50' 26" lest -4 feet; thence South 36° 09' 34 East ' 30• eet t• the ac ual point of be inning. • A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over Tract A of RLS No. 1384 described as follows: • Beginning at the Southeast corner of Tract A of RLS No. 1384. Thence southwesterly along the Southerly line of Tract A a distance of 21/ 125.86 feet to a point, Thence northwesterly along the southwesterly line of said Tractve--& OP distance of 406.03 feet to a point, Thence . Northeasterly and at a right angle to said Southwesterly line a distance of 46.01 feet ' to a point, Thence southeasterly along a line. parallel to said Southwesterly line until it intersects with a line which is parallel to ' and 60 feet north of said Southerly line, Thence northeasterly along said line which is parallel i to and 60 feet • north oflsaid Southerly line until it intersects with th right of way line of Neill i.ake Road, Thence southerly along said right-of-way line to the point of eginning. ) ) -3- J • Parties of the Second Part, for themselves, their respective %uccessors and assigns, for their part, in 21, • consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration including the grants of easements by Parties of the First Part do hereby declare and covenant, as follows: Neill Lake Condominium Association convenants and agrees 3 to assume 36% of the maintenance costs for the access and parking areas located on Tract A, RLS 1384 including but not limited to snow removal, and seal coating of said access and parking 3 area. Said agreement shall constitute a perpetual covenant • and shall run with the land described as follows: Lot e, Block $ 1, High Point and Tract B., RLS 1384, to bind the successor • • and assigns of Neill Lake Condominium Association and the owners, 21, %heir successors end assigns, of said condominiuns.and property. If Neill Lake Condominium Association fails to remit to Ridgewoods Condominium Association said share of the cost 3 'of maintenance of said access and parking areas located on Tract A, RLS 1384 within 60 days of notification by Ridgewoods Condominium Association to Neill Lake Condominium Association of such cost of maintenance, then'in that event Ridgewoods Condominium Association may assess said cost to the respective owners of Neill Lake Condominiums, which assessments shall constitute a derivative lien in favor of Ridgewoods Condominium 3 -4- ,� �1•35 auk • 40 • • Association upon each of said apartments and undivided interests 0 in common areas of Neill Lake Condominiums. 2 Said assessment shall be considered an assessment by the Neill Lake Condominium Association payable to Ridgewoods a Condominium Association. Such assessment shall be for a Maintenance and upkeep of property located on Tract A, which by this agreement will be subject to common use by owners of a condominiums of Neill Lake Coddominiums. An apartment owner i of Neill Lake Condominiums may remove his apartment and percentage of undivided interest in the common area and 40 facilities from the lien by payment of a fractional amount of said lien amount according to his percentage interest in the • common area. CP Parties of the Second Part for the above-stated consideration, including the grants of easements by Parties 2 Of the First Part, do hereby grant and dedicate to said Parties of the First Part, their successors and assigns, the following: CP Together with a perpetual easement 24 feet in width for ingress and egress over and across CP said Tract B, over and across Lot 3, Block 1, High Point according to the recorded plat thereof ® on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County Minnesota; the centerline of said easement being described as commencing at the most Southerly corner of said Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1384; thence North 65° 54' 33" East, assumed bearing, ® along the Southeasterly line of said Tract A, -- 31 feet to the actual point of beginning of the centerline to ale described; thence South � I i g 28° 34' East 56 feet; thence Southerly 159.52 r5_ p Iterr 1C�� • • • • • 0 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 843.69 feet and ® a central angle of 10° 50'; thence South 17° 44' East tangent •to said curve 392 feet; thence Southeasterly 126.27 feet along a tangential curve, concave•to the Northeast, having a radius of 215.97 feet, a central angle of 33° 30'; thence Easterly and Northeasterly 143.92 feet along a compound curve, concave to the North, having a radius of 70.93 feet and a central angle of 115° 46'; thence North 13° 00' East tangent to last described curve 67 feet; thence - - northerly 137.03 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the West, having a radius of 272.30 21 feet, a central.angle of 28° 50'; thence northerly 99.69 feet along a compound curve, concave to the West, having a radius of 524.06 feet, a central angle of 10° 54'; thence Northwesterly 119.77 feet along a compound curve, concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 782.75 feet, a central angle of 8° 46'; thence North 35° 30' West tangent to last described curve 89.98 feet; thence northeasterly along • a. tangential curve, concave to the East, having a radius of 16.57 feet a central angle of 79° • jl' 41" and an arc distance of 22.91 feet to the Northeasterly line of said Lot 3, Block 1, High Point and there terminating. The sidelines of said easements are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at the Southeasterly 21 fine of said Tract A and at the northeasterly line of said Lot 3. An easement for Parking purposes over and across Tract O B, RLS no. 1384, for the exclusive use and benefit of grantors, ® their successors and assigns; said easement being described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of said ® Tract B; thence South 51° 49' 36" West, assumed bearing along the Northwesterly line of said Tract B, a distance of 62.52 feet; thence South O 38° 10' 24" East 5 feet; thence north 51° 49' 36" East 62.39 feet to the northeasterly line of said Tract B; thence North 36° 42' 34" West • 5.00 feet to the actual Point of beginning. O -6- )i Al li • • • ► • 1 An easement for parking purposes over and across Tract 4 21/ B. RLS Mo. 1384 for the exclusive use and benefit of grantors, their successors and assigns; said easement being described as follows: Commencing at the most Southerly corner of Tract A said Registered Land Survey No. 1384;-thence North 65° 54' 33" East, assumed bearing along Southeasterly line of said Tract A a distance of 31 feet; thence South 28° 34' East 56 feet; thence North 61° 26" East 12 feet to the actual point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 61° 26" East 20 feet; thence forth 28° 34' West 45 feet; thence South 611) .26' West 20 feet; thence South 28° 34' East 45 feet to the actual point of beginning. • A 20 foot perpetual easement for utility Xnd sanitary 21/ • sewer purposes over, under and across the following described • property: Tract "B" Registered Land Survey No. 1384 files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said perpetual easement being 10.00 feet on each side of the following described center line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Tract "B"; thence south 45 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southwesterly line of said Tract "B" 109.06 feet to the point of beginning; thence north 42 degrees 28 minutes East 102.65 feet; thence North 1 degree 39 minutes Cast to the • northwesterly line of said Tract "B" and there terminating. • _7— 2t;;•1 • J • o- D i • An easement for parking purposes over and across Tract 21, B., RLS No. 1384, for the exclusive use and benefit of grantors, their successors and assigns; said easement being described as follows: • ® Commencing at the most Westerly corner of said Tract B; thence North 67° 51' 04" East, assumed • • bearing along the Northwesterly line of said Tract B a distance of 150.93 feet to the actual . point of beginning -of the easement to be • described; thence North 67° 52' 04" East 65.96 • feet; thence South 36° 09, 34" East 44.01 feet; thence South 53° 50' 26" West 64 feet; thence North 36° 09' 34" West 60 feet to the actual point of beginning reserving, however, to Ban- Con, its successors and assigns., the exclusive 9 use of the most %outherly eight (8) parking 21/ spaces located in said parking area. • • • • 3 9 • 1 3 3 -8- • ....A AP' • • • Apartment Ownership No. 80, Ridgewoods Condominium First Addition Apts./ 'Garages Owner. Encumbrancer Cert. No. 101/20 Kurt W. Johnson First National Bank 539180 of Minneapolis 102/24 Craig Larson First National Bank 568992 of Minneapolis 103/22 Kenneth W. Smith 1) State Bank of 541210 Chanhassen AnD 2) First National Bank of Minneapolis 104/21 Thomas P. and Barbara First National Bank 543520 A. Olson, husband and wife 105/23 Roberta A. Gorman First National Bank 543576 • 111/25 Joseph J. Pallansch First National Bank 540543 and wife, Judith A. • 1.12/30 Glendon L. Sohn First National Bank 546697 113/28 David and Roger L. Rovick, First National Bank 584004 as Successor Trustees under Trust Agreement dated February 8, 1968, wherein Odd K. Rovick and • Emma L. Rovick, are Trustors 114/26 Michael T. and Timothy S. First National Bank 585260 Duffy and Jane H. Duffy 115/27 Steven R. Slivken First National Bank 545964 121/31 Wayne A. and Elaine M. First National Bank 566057 Peterson 122/9&35 Martin L. and Barbara Birk First National Bank 586216 123/3&33 Kathleen D. Bruns 'First National Bank 566224 124/32 James A. and Thomas A. Ries, First National Bank 576522 Trustees 125/34 Louise A. Bendt First National Bank 541360 131/16 Bradford R. Johnson First National Bank 574042 132/38 Michael S. and Evelyn. M. First National Bank 588336 Dorn 9(L I 44-r,1A Apartment Ownership No. 80, • . Ridgewoods Condominium First Addition • Apts./ Garages Owner Encumbrancer Cert. No. 133/10 Joan M. and Harold A. National City Bank 540171 Theisen of Minneapolis AND First National Bank 134/15 Jack D. and Elizabeth L. First National Bank 540170 Higgins v.. 135/18611 Rick E. .Carter.and Michelle First.National Bank 540605 - - I. Carter 141/2 Thomas L. and Dana K. First National Bank 540968 Christianson 142/17 Larry Allen Demaree and First National Bank 568036 Susan Alice Demaree, AND Carole Lynne Cruickshank, Contract for Deed Vendee . 143/1 Harlem R. Anderson First National Bank 546775 144/12 Barbara H. Heltzel, AND First National Bank 541320 Dennis L. McClinton, Contract Vendee 145/36 Robert L. and Patricia J. First National Bank 539806 McCollum 151/37 Daniel 1. and Arlice R. First National Bank 540051 Normandin 152/19 Morris L. Norman, Jr. First National Bank 540371 and Cynthia L. Norman 153/33 Mary Beth Theisen and First National Dank 540147 Harold A. Theisen . (Marian E. Theisen, wife) 154/6 Lloyd S. Sorem First•National Bank 540688 155/4 Pamela.E. Palen _ First National Bank 540969 161/7 Joseph C. Cunningham First National Bank 589621 162/40 Thomas R. Smith First National Bank 538982 163/41 Edna M. Holmgren First National Bank 538794 164/14 Elliott C. and Carol A. First National Bank 540971 George; and William J. . Payne, Contract for Deed, Vendee • If.SiZp flay." inn ..i.n ,4a /1! td ....114k Firer f$er;n++r.t wink 53A567 • Apartment Ownership No. 116 Neill Lake Condominium - Phase One • Apt, Owner Encumbrancer Cert. No. • • 9028 B Gerald M. and Northern Federal 588561 Jane E. Hildebrandt Savings and Loan • • Association 9050 Gerard Callanan • Northern Federal 589683 Savings and Loan Association • • •t { � l 21.10' • • Duck Lake Vista CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 79-23 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 is-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 tens and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 1979, between Tim Pierce & Associates, Inc. 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 f 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 passaged publication. • FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3 day of July , 1979, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _day of , 1979. • ATTEST: Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL r Published in the Eden Prairie News on the_day of , 1979. 8/27/79 Duck Lake Vista DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1979 by and between TIM PIERCE:5 ASSOCIATES, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and by the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to change the zoning from Rural • to R1-13.5 for approximately 20 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "the property", and WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop and plat the property into lots for 32 single family homes. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Mayor and Council of the . City adopting Ordinance 7 9-23, 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 June 5, 1979, reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 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 times 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 construct one(1) driveway from County Road #4 to serve lots 1 and 2, Block 1, as depicted on Exhibit B. The driveway shall be no closer than 670 feet south of the property's northeast corner. • • 201 Developer's Agreement-Duck Lake Vista page 2 4. Owner shall convey by Warranty to the City, or dedicate to the public for right-of-way, a portion of the property 10 feet wide lying to the East of and adjacent to Lots 1 and•2, Block 1; and Lot 1, Block 2, as depicted on Exhibit B. 5. Owner shall obtain an entrance permit to provide access to the property from Hennepin•County C.S.A.H. N4 from the Hennepin County Highway Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of any building permit upon the property: • 6. Owner warrants and agrees that variances will not be requested in the platting, development of, and construction upon the Property., 7. Owner shall remove all elm trees which have been designated diseased by City Tree Inspectors upon the property prior to issuance of any building permit. 8. Owner shall construct a cyclone fence 5 feet high and 200 feet long along the northwesterly line of the ro rty and extending a distance of 1QD_feet._on either side of the mostnorthwesterly intersection of the cep. rline of North Hillcrest Court West with_Lots 1 and 9, Block 2, as depictedon Exhibit B. __ 9. Owner shall redise the location of the eastern terminous of North Hillcrest Court West so that North Hillcrest Court West will be aligned with the westerly portion of North Hillcrest Court. Owner shall submit said revision to the City Engineer and County Highway Department for review and their approval. • Developer's Agreement-Duck Lake Vista page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. TIM PIERCE b ASSOCIATES, INC., a Minnesota corpor of the State of Minneso BY: STATE OF MINNESOTA ie e its Cd. SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ' / • The foregoing instrument s n e d before me this2q day of 1 ,�s°'r�' 1979 by Tim Pierce the �� of Tim Pierce & Assoc a , nc., on behalf of the corporation. Notary PublicsAmAAA r wn EINa♦'AF aaaY pT N punt-" NOThNTNNEPIN COUNTY C„rN,t hoots MO A I at f f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota BY: Roger K. Ulstad, Its Manager BY: STATE OF MINNESOTA) Wolfgang H. Penzel, Its Mayor )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of • by Roger K. Ulstad, the City Manager and Wolfgang H. Penzei , the Mayor0— Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 1 • DUCK LAKE VISTA Legal Description: All that part of Government Lot 6 and accretions thereto, Section 5, Township 116, Range 22, and of Government Lot 2 and accretions thereto. Section 8, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southeasterly of the southeasterly right-of-way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, westerly of the ceterline of County State Aid Highway No.4, Hennepin County Highway Plat No.3, and north of the westerly extension of the centerline of North Hillcrest Court as platted in HILLCREST COURTS; except that part of the south 245.00 feet ' of the north 616.00 feet of said Government Lot 2 lying westerly of the centerline of said County State Aid Highway No.4 and easterly of a line drawn southerly at right angles to the north line of said Section 8 from a point 1598.43 feet west of the northeast corner of said Section 8. ALSO, All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies south- easterly of the southeasterly right-of-way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and north of the westerly extension of the centerline of North Hill crest Court as platted in HILLCREST COURTS. EXHIBIT A �,? €:• \f \ N M O • • O .`":...f.` \ O p s. C s a 1 .•` n :C s o g , m 0, i\T 4G A y A \, _ 'r o �4 / 10, \ L.. es'!"A i..'`is.• .6' \ i , ?i .; t`\s • . ,4. • --_.▪_ .\ . . • .rw z t 'O r \ r" \ . 1i r .?% - \ ID DC 40• .• �.r I �• to is . *.1•-fR s'—• , ‘..., \ _ -•_ �0 ti p,• a�, r, q \ e • \6. 8 to II• S y .„ 3 �', p� sb, ^tun_, ,. : . •)� i ., �- , a ,': ti1 ec `.0.:6. . s •• c i s a. A sr, Sn�•;' • "'s• t-� p ) y \ � : I .1 1' � CI 4_i;;;5 ,j•0 it4,- t N •,!__,.r} — . et, 1,3�wr$1 �i 4, d." L 4_a•m.r et'i i..vsio- \.. �•��� �i 8 C.5 A.ht NQ GSAH. N0 fr. .-.2-1,• `:-..rsryr— • tic! `� . HILLCRE_ST COURTS iRD :�:i^IT;ON _ - • • • "EXHIBIT 8" . • /. i.` .. . . . • • • 1 • • DEVELOPER ' S AGREEMENT • • EXHIBIT• C • page 1 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 diiection 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 the development plan by the City Engineer. II. Owner shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the RAley- Purqafory Watershed District for review and approval. Owner shall follow all rules and recommendations 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 issuance of each building permit for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $31 6 per Ict . 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, transfer or 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 in 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 or any 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. i 1Ccig Developer's Agmt Std. Form page page 2 of 3 Exhibit C 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 standards by i a registered professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Al1.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 mylar 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: 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 shall be 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 registered engineer 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 V.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 111 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 6— ♦L.. t.+.. rnninnor .i l Developer's Agmt Std. Form • • • • • page 3 of 3 Exhibit 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- meet and grades, minimum floor elevations on each lot, drainage ponds, high water elevations, and arrows show- . ing direction of surface drainage, locations of trails, . • " • etc. D. Poy to City fees•for first year street lighting (public streets) engineering review , and street signs. VI. 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. , yli. 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. hereof, Owner for itself , its successors, and assigns shall not oppose 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 encumbrances, except: • K. Mortgage of $100,000.00 in favor of McCombs Knutson. • • • 111 • • • 2t TO: Mayor and Council • FROM: John Frane DATE: August 30, 1979 RE: Final Approval MIDB's Ruben Anderegg - 5550,000 The City Council gave its final approval to the Anderegg project on May 15, 1979. The resolution granting final approval contained references to an interim (construction) lender. It was not necessary for Mr. Anderegg to use an interim lender and a new resolution #79-162 can be adopted in place of the original one. The council could repeal resolution #79-103 and adopt resthe©Cityon #79-162.Attorney is 4e new pages longution and hasich notlbeene has been included inathe agenroved da packet. • p '1 • L. I metropolitan Area Management Auodotion of the Twin City Area A August 20, 1979 TO: MAMA-49 JOINT BARGAINING CITIES FROM: John Elwell, Chairmen MAMA-49 Negotiating Committee SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRESENTATION IN JOINT NEGOTIATIONS FOR A CONTRACT BEGINNING JANUARY, 1980 • Please complete the enclosed Authorization for Representation in Joint Public Works Negotiations for a contract beginning January, 1980 with I.U.O.E., Local No. 49. This form should be returned to Labor Relations Associates, Inc. no later than September 1,, 1979. . Only those communities which have subscribed to the MAMA Labor Relations Subscriber Service will be eligible for representation by the MAMA Negotiating Committee. JE: Enol. • Authorization for Representation in Joint Public Works Negotiations for a Contract Beginning January, 1980 with I.U.O.E., Local No. 49 1. The municipality of hereby (name) authorizes , does not authorize _ , the Committee which has been established by.MAMA to serve no its representative in public works negotiations with I.U.O.E., Local No. 49 for a contract beginning January, 1980. 2. The Negotiating Committee must have a list_of any changes demanded by your city on local issues by September 15, 1979. Local issues are issues not covered by the MAMA "MASTER AGREEMENT" but which are 1 included in your city addendum to the "MASTER AOME61E T." • Signed Date (City Manager) PLEASE RETURN TO LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC. BEFORE SEPTEIuBER 15, 1979. 111 '7- 1 • TO: ROGER ULSTAD FROM: RAE BLY SUBJECT: COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY (C.A.A.) DATE: AUGUST 17, 1979 • After reviewing the material sent to you from S.H,H.S.C., I would urge you to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the resolution in support of the Human Services Council's model for a suburban Community Action Agency (C.A.A.) in Hennepin County. Best estimates are that there are 25,000 poor people in suburban Hennepin County, with around 6,500 in the South Hennepin area. Many federal programs (C.S.A. funded) are available to assist these individuals, but they can only be administered through a C.A.A. What this means, for example in Hennepin County, where Minneapolis' C.A.A. is the only existing C.A.A., Programs such as the Crisis ) Intervention Program (to help low income people pay winter utility bills and prevent service termination) can only be administered through Minneapolis. The ability of the suburban poor to participate is then dependent on them hearing of the program by chance and being able to arrange transportation into the city. Having a suburban C.A.A. • would ensure that the needs of our residents will be advocated for and not left to chance. Because of federal requirements for C.A.A.'s Board composition, the Human Services Councils were not eligible to become a C.A.A. themselves. It was also felt by the state that a single suburban C.A.A. was preferable to three. Given these requirements and recommendations, the Human Services Councils have developed a 'linkage model' where the municipalities can continue to relate to their respective Human Services Council, and the Councils can coordinate the services throughout • the suburban area, thereby eliminating opportunities for duplication of efforts and services. I think this looks like an excellent framework, worthy of the support of Eden Prairie. 2C,1if • • • A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAA FOR SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN COUNTY • WHEREAS, the question of whether there is a need for a CAA to serve suburban and rural Hennepin County, and what organi- zational form is most appropriate if a CAA should be esta- blished, has been under study for the past year, and .WHEREAS, this review has indicated that the County's lower income citizens will benefit from the establishment of a CAA that can build on and complement the activities of the existing • Human Services Councils, and WHEREAS, a Task Force representing the three Human Services Councils has developed an organizational model designated the "Link- age Model", which will enable a CAA to be organized while retaining the Human Services Councils and making the fullest use of their existing planning, management and service capa- bilities, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby urge the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to accept the recommendations of the Task Force and establish a CAA for suburban and rural Hennepin County based on the "Linkage Model" and to designate the present Task Force as the interim board to: write the By-laws, apply for funding; organize the new board. • Adopted this day of , 1979. SIGNED • ATTEST: • • r • • • �rjc, • • STATEMENT OF NEED There is a need for a Community Action Agency in suburban Hennepin County because: - there is not accessibility to currently available services - there is a lack of knowledge about available services - many agencies in the area are underfunded and- are not able - to meet the needs - many people do not use services available to them because of pride and could be educated about using services through a CAA - there are gaps in services available - there is a substantial number (25,000) of poor and near poor people who live in suburban Hennepin County and could benefit from the services of a Community Action Agency - there is a large number of poor people who are not visible in our communities because there are not concentrated geogra- phic "pockets of poverty" - there is not a group or organization which can speak to the • needs of poor people in suburban Hennepin County, and because: • - a Community Action Agency could improve access - identify people who are poor - further clarify needs - involve people who would benefit in the development and imple- . mentation of programs - work on the prevention of negative effects of needs being unmet or ignored - could add to the resources of currently underfunded services MISSION STATEMENT The primary objectives of Community Action Agencies (CAA) are to mobilize and channel the resources of private and public organizations and institutions into anti-poverty action, to increase the opportunities as well as the capa- bilities for participation•of the poor in the planning, execution and eval- uation of programs affecting their lives, to initiate new and more effective means to the solution of poverty problems, and to strengthen communications and mutual understanding in the planning and coordination of anti-poverty programs in the CAA service area. These objectives will be discussed in detail to more clearly define the role of Community Action Agencies as soci- ety's number one anti-poverty organization. 1. MOBILIZING AND CHANNELING RESOURCES INTO ANTI-POVERTY ACTION -- Commun- ity Action Agencies have been established to serve the poor by assisting in the development of all programs possible and needed for each agency's service area. The idea behind developing a more useful utilization of resources for anti-poverty programming throughout the country is not to provide monetary handouts to all low income people but to increase their chances of becoming economically independent, thus reducing the actual number of low income people in the country. 2. ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION OF THE POOR -- One of the major goals of the Community Action Agency is to provide the opportunity for poor people to Structure their own development toward becoming economically independent. The basic idea behind this goal is that low income people must be given the opportunity to shape their own destiny, although some guidance is required 4 to make this development as easy as possible. All programming efforts of the Community Action Agency at some time in the planning process include input from the service area's low income population. Low income individuals part- icipate in all administrative functions of the CAA. 3. DEVELOP INNOVATIVE ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMMING -- Community Action Agencies have been given the responsibility to discover new methods of anti-poverty programming and implementing such programming when possible. The Community Action Agency is unique in the fact that it is one of the few government agencies that deals directly with the people at a local level. Because of the CAA's proven ability to deal on a one-to-one basis with low income people they can more easily adapt the service area's population to new pro- gramming. Community Action Agencies over the years have become one of the • best organizations at researching and implementing innovative programs aimed at the reduction of poverty throughout the United States. 4. DEVELOP A COORDINATED EFFORT TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS RELATED TO POVERTY -- The fact that Community Action Agencies at times become a sounding board for all the problems associated with anti-poverty programming only strengthens its role as advocate to the poor. Community Action Agencies have taken on the responsibility of defending each person's right to utilize the services provided by the government in the manner they were meant to be used. Any discrepancy in the way the government services are delivered versus the way they should be delivered becomes one of the most important principles behind the well-established communications network developed by each CAA. This communication network is often used, but not only to defend the rights of the low income person but to mutually develop anti-poverty programs and simply share information and ideas concerning the low income sector of our population. • 101 • • • • • Mission Statement - page 2 • It becomes increasing apparent that not only does a Community Action Agency mobilize private and public resources, encourage participation from low in- come individuals, develop and implement innovative programs and help coord- inate all anti-poverty programming in the agency's geographic service area; it provides all people, not only low income people, with some kind of voice in the bureaucracy of government. Although this mission statement more clearly defines the role of the Com- munity Action Agency, it does not cover everything. Community Action is a continuing ongoing program that expands to meet the needs as they arise. • • • • • • • MINNESOTA STATE PLAN FOR COUNTIES WITHOUT COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES • About 10% of'the poor in Minnesota, estimated to be almost 42,000 people in 1978, live in six counties which do not have Community Action Programs. A consortium of Community Action Agencies which are contiguous to, and provide some services in these counties have joined with the Office of Economic Opportunity, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, in sponsoring a study to determine the feasibility of designating these counties as partici- pants in Community Action Agencies. Designation as a Community Action Agency participant, which can occur upon request of the County Board of Commissioners, and recognition of CSA, Region V, allows the full resources of the Community Action Program to be brought to operate in the interest of the poor residents of these counties. A feasibility study was completed in November, 1978. It identified the needs of people in the six counties, the services that are available to meet those needs, and the problems that exist where services fail to meet needs. The Study was distributed to each of the counties and discussions were held - 'E with human service boards, full boards of county commissioners, and other interested groups of people. One county, Washington County, did not wish to move any further with the study, but the other five have been working with it and are in various stages of development. Hennepin County accepted the study and passed a resolution that their Office of Planning and Development study it further and bring back to the County Board their recommendations. On May 31, 1979, the Office of Planning and Development submitted their recommendations to the County Commissioners Ways and Means Committee. The recommendations progressed to full Board on June 5, 1979 and two resolu- tions were passed at that time. 1) to recommend concept approval of a Com- munity Action Agency to serve suburban Hennepin County, and 2) to recommend the suburban Human Services Councils develop a model for such a Community Action Agency and return it to the Board by September 1, 1979 for final approval and designation. Olmsted County Board of Commissioners met on May 1, 1979 and discussed the feasibility of establishing a Community Action Agency. They are still grap- pling with organizational and administrative issues and assigned the Assist- ant County Administrator for Human Services to study these issues and return to them with pertinent information. Dakota County will study Community Action in depth in September through their Human Service Advisory Committee. When this study is completed they will r move their consideration to the Human Service Board. (County Commissioners) Freeborn & Mower County have reviewed the study and have expressed an interest, nstruct ni 9 their Welfare Directors to report to them on the possibilities of forming a CAA. It is estimated that the progress of each county will move according to the schedule outlined in table 1 with Community Action Program designations • M.atl1Ma. Sanwa Maser earwata sues ra..�.raew. • uaw-earer ,epr xe ere Copy c PURCHASE AGREEMENT f{1. u— RECEIVED OF City of Eden Prairie Me sum at Five hundred (f.51/0 ) DOLLARS 1CMa.e..►e.se.-saw walal earnestas money and in put payment foe the purchase of peoperry at Lote.14...e...1.5,_elocJ..,1a..topview.Aoree,e,,.1,rd..,dd},>rion awed is the County of . Hennepin gat0 of Minnows,and legally rkrm'6ed as follows,to-wit: Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Topview Acres, 3rd Addition including.11 garden bulbs,plena,*ruin and trees ail anew sash,storm doors,deuchabk vestibules,amens,aoningt,window • • dudes,blind.(including venetian blinds),curtain rods,traverse sods,drapery reds,lighting domes and hullo,plumbing futures.hew water tanks and heating plant(wide any homers,ranks,stokers and other egoipnunt toad in cantos-Om Mere. • • with),seater softener and liquid gas tank and mods(if the property of seiks),sump pump,television antenna,Winer. • atae,budt.in dishwasher,isobar disposal,ovens,cook top saves and central air conditioning equipment,i(any,used and betted on said premises and including also the following personal property: • all of which property the undersigned ha,this day add to the brayer for the sum aF. Forty thousand (f 40,000 )DOLI AR$ which doe buyer agrees to pay in the blowing stunner • Parses money berths pail$ 500 ..andf 39,500 ,ts*l,at. 9/28/79 ,the date ufckrsing r • Seller shall pay all special assessments against the property at the.date of closing so that the • property will be free and clear of the lien thereof on such date. • • rabiro to performance by the buyer the seller amen,to maw and desist a Winery Dead (to k mined in by M.O.tt sett congaing mulrahle tole a sad mania.s!.itn only to the talhelml moeptun.: fa)Building sod toning law.°minas,..Star and,.Jnal ttmla<:n. ih)Rerr.a.ma telaemg le use nr impmv,mene of plenum plen without akin.:Manta,pavua ie (t)Rrsaoa ett of any minerals at at Mond eights the Err a Mont.. • (d)Utility and drainage.aarnenn which knot intake with patent imorotemnn. fe)Right of roam,no foU..,,tmk,s speifed.not oakum to Rensgue.l The Fayer that Pot the teal route wtes due in she yea 19 age Lla.wae.-.. ,_,y__.__r cw:.,... s„o� r .•1tahlessaher.Sella warnings.. .tut to the sal ewe wet due the year 19 80 watt, bm ...n vicei.Iwo.ro • 1(u11,pan..et n.o.E.monad—Mar nhl.h, • s Neither the seller nor the seller's emu make any opr.se sso.on a mamma. ,.ante aM amount a real mute ter • riled du rvum ll be mutual auaimt the pronto,suhe to the date of purchase.• ra..anee Srlke<o.tlunt.dui balkknr.it any.are mikes within the b,00da,y lines of flee en.eon and tom at lean Al pans+.*ptyen,T an indudod knit Awl all lobrit hem the omen Crux in pno.vum dale.SELLER w 1kg ANTS ALI.APPLl.1V I.111110.tr..11& CONDilkk\INti.w'IKING AND W.UNe1NG USED AND U)CAi'LD ON SAID 1'a:Sl.JS ARE IN PROPI:a w,tabi\t.,.RIM( . AT DATI'.OI'CLOSING. . The seller further metres to deli...pntrn.„not Wee than date Of closing pom..oJ 4,14 au,.,.h•..,,.4 ah., aprmolew hear been.aopted with.Unless.dem.e spanned Mn sale shall be,Aped on nr M.Ia do das u m the Jae host 1n the meet oho warm is*,mimed or,okeaMlle dammed bs Ste or any other came Mute the doting dam,Mn Alma....dull krone Man Mad aati.a the puohasi s anion.and all moans pad Imeumkt shall la aboard to hhn. the later and Mkt aim mrou4ly acre dui p•.'t. *Jammer.of no,,,mare,announce and cir.ran.and,on sly.as at Scene N"onolo.gement operating taw.,,.hall he oak as of • • The,Alen shall.within a teaweaWe men afar unmoral a Mn atn.m meet.tornoh an shun a ode.or a Krum r..f l',t.ny Ab inn arethest to time no include roper sand.<.aern,NWNp<e,.and State and(,deal nwhanatot aol Inn 1he bows!.4.11 he • allowed In d...ter mean Metro(ho mamma..of a..l oak and the making el ate d.u.auw.thenn....el.ko,,,.a.w.1.....e al wino-kW e,deemed to b.sacral.11 any thaat...as.,mole the age.Mull he shooed 1 Vt d.:s to make.ah ale ma.-.ra0A th Wag • crnnen a iris the torment.heotun,.,remand Mall it papmra.Ma a Iorteu,n of halt and.dun Is dam.atom. n moo. r the bon .the W....Mad whim this 000n.,wm,tnx,ho[to e.terns • m ants • 1f sad ale n not marketable and.on.made t.%info I_I'Joy,Ito if,Joe,e..men a..nu,n.torah,,,atone r.,n.a a,chi. anmmmr shall I,'null anJ w.d.At up.ro.d do how,ants tear,r..n.i.l dud be kd,k his dam.m animal a d..N,r,p,nyai. . All moan oherma re yowlby ohm Warr shall F.nt, e4 su n, .It she it.......1.......1 N.M.he hued mnlnahk ran le.....dt.AIua,.o,.t tone, am 1 ad heel.Malt J.tault In am.4 the teens.no.toss..nn.nm,m dr unk h..pod.c In Jars.then ant to Ain...rh.'h.may reno-wr II,ss own,.WO.m sub to Iona Al the Wrn.nt•mA4 ups.J,..rnvrJa dull 1r arum J h..J a 14,r..f...1 a. • d o au a...o.nm:the r,Nat.as l.pndtad o .<ane..tn.Sr.:.•,lr .,A Ise.even mi.Ito, .....J.t .4 1•• .ra,r,M•g le, e a x'e.ut pt..mune a dn...m.r..e pr.,..kJ..rh...raw.Jan n,a be tit I A ,, ,..1 r t•..1.,.1... no ego-a,ego-a,.u.k.pan me prin,mam,Mall to-oonm• mM wnhm o•no..th.ant,w.h min.d Amm�mean a•• ...t.loll at o b a oon etm..l and actet.1 that this sale is atai.........s11..She a.mnai Fr the..toore d sod Nano..t....ion•ant mkt der ode• • t attneJ A.,tos st tot.manors i..hk fa m ►k oon, v.mix a Ma asnenee p n•tenon .r..e . on or Joatm got dh r ions.nu. oft},.pod on rho Laud • a The ddl.sordaft p.,,nand nun.gull beau*..ohe.aa.e of: Aeon°vgo St rntnkama awaoear.o+nr ptgy 1.she undersigned,owner ofthe oh*ha.4 booth,wpm* or Mon the aim,a.nmnu1 end the oak thumbs auk. I h"eh spar pock"the sM(*mom An she pay ,gd ..pvrn'nN numr da t aem.m.d,anJ rh..t a el,•IadPbm • (SEAL) City of Eden Prairie f=,v.� Thomas A. Millet"' By Mu (SEAL) Gale M. Miller Eedir ( Rag, (SEAL) • ..•.•at a ark,.n av ran'oItna:r TIN't VAS T II-WIT ttNDla5 room.sri A t'(N1p1 Ir'1'.lnl'itp • SI MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie,•City Engineer DATE: August 31, 1979 SOB3ECT: Bids for Improvement in Chatham Woods I.C. 51-343 Bids were received at 10:00 A.M. on Thursday, August30, 1979, for the utility and street improvements in Chatham Wood. Those bids received were as follows: NOOLANO ASSOC. $776,429.50 G.L. CONT., INC. 777,012.15 • PROGRESSIVE CONT. INC. 801,284.54 • NORTNDALE CONST. CO. 810.076.37 In estimatidg the cost for this project before the bids were opened, we applied the unit prices we received approximately 3 months ago (May 22, 1979) for a similar project (Mitchell Lake Estates) and added 5% thereto. His yielded an estimated contract price of approximately $700,000. A low bid from Nodland Assoc. is therefore 11% above our estimate. We questioned Nodland Assoc. about their bid and they believe their prices are reasonable in view of site conditions for this job (some poor soils and excessive surface and ground water). Another probable factor con- tributing the high price is the barge volume of work now available to contractors in the Metro area. Normally, we would expect at least eight bidders on a job of this size. We have talked to the owners of the development (Toms Development) who petitioned for these improvements and who will be assessed for the project cost which could amount to $14,000 per lot. They are reviewing the bid prices and have asked that the Council continue the matter until the September 18 meeting to that they can determine if the project is still feasible for them. Since the contract documents provide that no bids may be withdrawn for 30 days after opening, a continuance is possible and we so recomment that the Council continue consideration of these., -. bids to the September 18, 1979, meeting. CJJ ,.. j - MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel'and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Ju11ie, City Engineer DATE: August 31, 1979 SUBJECT: Status Report on Dell Road I.C. 51-326 The attached letter from BRW outlines the status of construction on Dell Road north of Duck Lake Trail. We concur with the recommendations on Page 2 of Mr. Gardner's letter and request that the Council direct the staff to proceed accordingly. CJJ:kh Attachment 0 i l 6c aC I 1 L. /(µWINQ/TPAN$PpPTAT10NIENpINEEPINW APCNITERUPE • August 29, 1979 • Mr. Carl Jullie, P.E. Eden Prairie City Engineer 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Dell Road Construction Status Dear Carl: The purpose of this letter is to describe the status of the Dell Road construction project and to recommend a course of action from this point forward. The initial design for Dell Road was based upon cost and location constraints that required special designs through the swamp areas. To this end extraordinary soils engineering input was used throughout the design and, in fact, during the Construction process. Basically the concept was to float an engineered fill over the swamp in accordance with accepted procedures rather than to excavate the deep peat and muck deposits and backfill with granular material. This technique was expected to save upwards of $400,000 on the cost of the road construction project. Construction has progressed to the point where all of the lower portions of the embankment have been completed over a distance of approximately 3,000 feet. In mid—June, 1979, a short section approximately 100 feet long in the center of the swamp began to slide sideways due to a shear failure in the peat material rather than to consolidate straight downward. This situation led to the request for additional soils they include severallalternatives, beenorts have main two of9which were: . A displacement method which would increase the cost of construction by approximately $250,000. • A counterbalance and continued surcharge method which would add approximately $40,000 to the cost of the project. OATMER PIN,-.ROSE WO SPEED JAPVIS GARONER INC 26.'9 UNIVERSITY AVE SE MINNEAPOIIS 41.4 Syu POI 61 1371 E171 t-vt,J Mr. Carl Jullie August 29, 1979 Page 2 At approximately this same time the development directly adjacent to Dell Road apparently came to a halt. When we proposed to begin borrowing material from the site we were informed by .the developer's engineer that plans were underway to change the development and we were requested not to begin the borrow operation. If, in fact, the development is to change the potential exists for a- new road- location approximately 80 feet westerly of•the•-existing--Dell Road • construction for a distance of approximately 800 feet and would eliminate the potential for continued soil failures as well as long range maintenance problems. Therefore, we recommend the following action: . Redesign the segment of Dell Road from approximately Station 20+00 to 30+00 slightly to the west of the current alignment and outside of the limits of the deep swamps. . Request right-of-way from the landowner for the newly developed alignment. . Negotiate a change order with the existing contractor to complete the contract under the revised design. The original design was mandated by the development as far as location of the roadway and, in addition, by the requirement to conserve on the cost of construction. The element of risk was inherent in the approach utilized. Prior construction in the area and the existence of the swamp and its steeply sloped bottom are probable contributing factors to the shear failure that has begun. Further construction in accordance with the original design will in all likelihood increase the area of shear failure from approximately a 100 foot long half road width area to possibly 400 feet over the full road width. Therefore, if the above recommended action is not successful, one or the other of the two alternatives previously discussed will again have to be considered. Every effort should be expended to pursue the recommended plan of action. A new development proposal provides the opportunity to vastly improve the road foundation conditions as well as to reduce road construction costs and long range maintenance costs. We have estimated that if a new location can be accommodated in the new development plans, the increase in the project cost should be virtually nothing. Because work yet to be completed could be eliminated from the contract in the swamp area, the new roadway embankment construction on a new location would not result in an increase in construction cost for the project. fir. Carl Jullie August 29, 1979 Page 3 After your review, please 'cons me with further comments, questions or recommends s you-may have. Simmer BA: 0 LSF -J V S-G ER, INC. . Gard r, P.E. • • • • LJG:nb Sept. 4, 1979 • MEMO • TO: Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: August 30, 1979 SUBJECT: Status Report on Crosstown Highway Project We have been informed that the Hennepin County Capital Budgeting Task Force has prepared a recommendation to the County Board that would eliminate from the County's Five Year Capital Improvement Program construction of the Crosstown Highway from Shady Oak Road to I-494 and related upgrading on Townline Rd. to Co. Rd. 4 to T.H. 101. Mr. Herb Klossner from Hennepin County explained that federal funds are not available to build the Crosstown and that property tax funds (7 million) would be needed for this project, which if approved would eliminate many other projects for several years. Mr. Klossner further stated that that the connection of Baker Road south- west to Mitchell Road is still in the 1981 program, but would have to be eliminated ff the Crosstown is constructed. Thus, we may have mixed feelings about our opposition to the Task Force's recommendation. We understand that the County Board will be meeting on September 26 to conduct a hearing on their proposed Capital Improvements budget. We can appear at that meeting to speak to the issue. Mr. Klossner also Vigor wets tcouldt espeakw oh to speak to our t a Chairman (Robert Reznick) ofer rthely Budget TaskMr. ) Force. We will be prepared to proceed with whatever action the Council deems appropriate.in this matter. CJJ:kh • TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frane DATE: August 24, 1979 RE: MI0B'S Fred Falk and Robert Murray • Mr. Falk the owner of Reliable Automotive a wholesale auto parts company intends to consruct a 60,000 square foot office/warehouse building in Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd. The facility expected to cost $1,350,000 would be leased to Reliable Automotive which expects to employ 34 persons. The bond would be privately placed with institutional investors. The attached letter explains the business relationship between Mr. Falk and Mr. Murray. The property is zoned I-2 and is correct for the intended use. A Public Hearing could be scheduled for October 2, 1979. ? .(. ) • :E -F t MACKALL. CROUNSE & MOORE LAW OFFICES R•[Num.. [, Moonwfr NATIONAL 0AN[iYiL 01N6 C.N•C.•LI. w. ,.. MN, MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA SS40E i. w1N[TON S.MUNSONi N )[l[PMiN[ 1 a1]7]-1]•1 CLAY p. aR-O RO• MC•N.Nt,$C N,1Ll0 NRl,-1RRu1 COKING*p1011.1 0 peppy N.MOORe IIRN-RNh v IIL P.N 1i OWV OONI.O A. yeN-1Rn1 0.N.A COMPS N.CROYNK 11RR]-1R1M IROOOiywr N.•NON[RR R.A,JONNRON ANOR[�M P.CLANK August 28, 1979 w. - O. M•RV1N C.,, ►N•Na P 0 J. MARTIN V.ATRtLO'T L [[ JOMN O IYNOOYIRT T,pw[NiON [RIC O.MRORON MMCNA[l I.PRO[T Mr. John D. Frane Finance Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: $1,200,000 City of Eden Prairie Industrial Development Revenue Bond • (Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. Project) Dear Mr. Franc: 1 . d This letter is intended to explain the relationship between Messrs. Fred P. Falk and Robert Murray with respect to the above-captioned Project. Mr. Falk, the President of Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc., has agreed, subject to the approval of the Eden Prairie City Council authorizing revenue bond financing for the above-captioned Project, to acquire Mr. Murray's interests in the land, construction contract, and related Project assets thirteen months following completion of the Project. For income tax reasons, the asset acquisition will be accomplished via the formation of a partnership in order to acquire the land and construct the Project followed by the aforementioned sale by Mr. Murray to Mr. Falk of the former's interest in the partnership. Other than providing technical advice and assistance during the construction stage of the Project, Mr. Murray will have no major involvement prior to his sale to MACKALL. CROUNSE 6 MOORE Mr. John D. Frane August 28, 1979 Page Two • Mr. Falk. The lending institutions providing the financing for the Project will consider only the credit of Mr. Falk and Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. Mr. Murray will have no financial liability with respect to the Project insofar as *his interest therein will expire upon the sale to Mr. Falk. I trust the above clearly explains the somewhat complicated fact situation involved in this transaction: Please call should you have any questions. Very truly yours, MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE By Mal a in C. In•,.er MCI:dlm • • 21.71 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing • 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name - Fred P. Falk and Robert Murray, Partners • • b. Business Address - c/o Fred P. Falk, President Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. 2600 Cleveland Avenue South Roseville, Minnesota 55113 a. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor- ship, etc.) - Partnership d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota O. Authorized Representative - Fred P. Falk f. Phone - 612/636-0117 • 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR SINOMPOUNIMOM PRINCIPALS: a. Fred P. Falk • 6409 Interlachen Boulevard • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 b. Robert Murray 7037 Valley View Road • ,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 C. • -1- 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC: Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. is a wholesale • distributor of automotive parts. • • 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Construction of a 60,000 square foot combination office warehouse building a. Location and intended use: on a 3.9 acre site located at the roosedof 69th Stet and Shady Oak Drive, legally described aster Lotection 2, Block 1, Shady Oak• Industrial Park, 2nd Addition. Entire building to be leased to Applicant's wholly owned corporation, Reliable Automotive of Minnesotc, b. Present ownership of project site: Richard W. Anderson, Inc. • Inc. c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: Design, engineering and construction to be done by: Adolf son & Peterson, Incorporated 6701 West 23rd Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 5. ESTIMATED- PROJECT COST FOR:. Land 3.9 acres $ 170,000 Building 60,000 square feet. $ 1,100,000 Equipment $ _0_ Other - financing costs $ 80,000 • Total $ 1,350,000 _2_ • 6. BOND ISSUE - a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $1,200,000 b. Proposed date of sale of bond - October, 1979 C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - • 25 to 30 year term amortized monthly-in-equal installments' d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - Bond to be purchased by one or more institutional lenders to be determined. e. Name and address of suggested trustee - N/A • f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser - None g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - Construction financing to be obtained from institutional lender to be determined. h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - Equity funds to be provided by Applicant. 7. BUSINESS PROFILE - (Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc.) a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No • ' b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? i. Before this project: None -3- r _ • ii. After this project? 35 1 C. Approximate annual sales - $4,000,000 d. Length of time in business Six years in Minnesota; over fifty years outside of Minnesota in Eden Prairie None e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? Four affiliated corporations located in: (1) Sioux City, Iowa (2) Denver, Colorado (3) Dallas, Texas (4) Kansas City, Kansas f. Are you engaged in international trade? No ' -(\8. J 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 "releated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. ' None D -4- • b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. None • c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial development revenue financing. None • • 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 r _5_ • f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development revenue financing in any other city as identified in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who Pave knowledge of the transaction. None S. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: • Agent and Mortgage Broker: a. MagavirvitiPrxtsbfactatbayfiaaadionfingrk The Highland Financial Group, Inc. 6100 Green Valley Drive Minneapolis, Minnesota 55438 b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement) Institutional lenders to be determined i. If lender will not commit until City has pasted 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. See attached letter from The Highland Financial Group, Inc. -6- • b. Bond Counsel - Nickell, Crounse & Moore 1000 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 C. .Corporate Counsel - Stewart, Hatfield, Klass & Whicher 830 Frances Building Sioux City, Iowa 51101 • d. Accountant - Sterling & Company Suite 101, Prestige Square 607-14th Street Sioux City, Iowa 51101 • 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start - October 15, 1979 • b. Construction completion - April 1, 1980 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: • The undersigned Applicant.understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing does not expressly or. impliedly 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 roject. icant • eo n Y), • Applicant r A t 24 197 • ate -7- • 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a. ',Property is zoned - 41-7i b. Present zoning (is (is not) correct for the intended use. • C. Zoning application received on whic is correct for the for iaten ed use. d. Variances required - • • ty Planner • • • • • • • -8- • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager • — � PROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services {=- - DATE; August 31, 1979 • SUBJECT: Topview Mini-Park Purchase Agreement At the August 21, 1979 meeting, the City Council directed staff to negotiate a Purchase Agreement with Thomas Miller, owner of the two lots in Topview designated as a mini-park. At that meeting, the City Council also directed staff to attempt to negotiate an option for 6 months on this same piece of pl4.yvr Cy. On August 23, 1979, staff met with Mr. Miller to discuss details of the Purchase Agreement and terms for a possible option. At that meeting, Mr. Miller . informed.staff that he was unable to offer a six month option on the parcel • bt lase he had a contract for deed on the parcel with the balance due October 31, 1979. Mr. Miller indicated that he did not have the capital to invest in that piece of property by paying off the balance and holding the land for six months; and therefore was not interested in negotiating any type of option. • The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has discussed this proposed purchase and recommended negotiating an option for six months, however they were in favor of acquiring the property at this amount. • The staff recommendation is to enter into the Purchase Agreement for $40,000. using Cash Park Fees for the acquisition of this parcel and including development costs in the proposed Park Bond Referendum. The staff would also recommend the City Attorney review the legal question of ' including the acquisition costs of this park within the bond referendum so the Cash Park Fee fund could be reimbursed if a bond referendum was successful. BL:md • September 4, 1979 • STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN • The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows; 5020 VOID OUT CHECK (24.00) 5324 VOID OUT CHECK (253.78) 5351 VOID OUT CHECK (81.50) _.5472 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 200.83 5473 JOHNSON WINE CO. Liquor 982.41 5474 OLD PEORIA CO., INC. Wine 65.66 5475 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Wine 468.61 5476 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 1,668.56 5477 MIDWEST WINE CO. Wine 142.92 5478 EAGLE DISTRIBUTING Wine 357.25 5479 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 1,561.35 5480 PETTY CASH Supplies 57.26 5481 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK June Bond deductions 375.00 5482 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK June Bond deductions 187.50 , 5483 INTERNATIONAL UNION Dues-September 198.00. 5484 BETSY SCOTT Sumner fun-park dept. 10.23 5485 GAYLE SIGURDSON Summer fun-park dept. 3.88 5486 MARGARET CUMMINGS Leisure Challegne-park dept. 13.7.4 5487 LIZ FORMICO Sumer fun-park dept. 2.99 5488 MARY OLK Sumner fun-park dept. 4.04 5489 STANDARD Gasoline-street dept. 6,477.05 5490 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Additional taxes withheld 150.13 5491 STATE TREASURER 2nd qtr-81dg permit surcharge 8,65B.03 5492 METRO WASTE CONTROL May SAC report 41,654.25 5493 METRO WASTE CONTROL June SAC report 84,991.50 5494 METRO WASTE CDNTRDL July SAC report 44,599.50 5495 POSTMASTER Postage 163.00 5496 HOLIDAY INN OF ST. CLOUD AWWA conference-water dept. 87.36 5497 NORTH CENTRAL SECTION AWWA AWWA conference-water dept. 35.00 5498 PERA Payroll 8/17/79 7,423.72 5499 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 8/17/79 • 10,254.67 5500 JAMES J. LORENCE Easement for sewer & water 15,900.00 5501 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. Liquor 1,079.40 5502 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 1,187.13 5503 OLD PEORIA CO., INC. Wine • 512.71 5504 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 916.83 5505 GRIGGS, CODPER & CO., INC. Liquor 1,004.44 5506 A & H WELDING & MFG. CO. Supplies 16.00 5507 ACE 8ILLIARD & RECREATION INC. Supplies-park dept 12.33 5508 ADVANCE AMBULANCE & EQUIP SALES First Aid Supplies-public safety 175.56 5509 CINDY ANDERSON Handcuff cases 50.00 5510 EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC., INC. Signs 120.58 5511 BRW Service-Ringroute 78th street-Hwy 169, 7,254.27 Lotus View Drive, Dell Road, Temp signal on TH. 169, T.H. #5 & West 78th Street & Mitchell Road 5512 8ATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC. Equipment parts 102.15 if • • Page two September 4, 1979 5513 DON BERNE Supplies-Senior center 24.51 5514 BLOMINGTON LOCKSMITH COMPANY Keys-public safety 22.50 5515 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Tests 2,669.03 5516 JOHN BURNS August mileage 40.16 5517 BUSINESS FURNITURE INCORPORATED Desk & supplies 573.87 5518 CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC. Property Inspection & appraisal report 150.00 5519 CASTLE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. Chemical supplies 108 0 5520 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. Supplies 6 80 5521 CROWN RU8BER STAMP COMPANY Desk signs 145.85 5522 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Quicklime 147 0 5523 DISPLAY FIXTURES Carts-Liquor store 100.98 5524 DAVID DUNHAM August mileage 00.98 5525 DUSTCOATING, INC. Oil Roads 26.85 j 5526 EDEN PRAIRIE GROCERY Supplies 818.05 5527 EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS July legal ads 5528 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT #272 Services-Transportation & Gasoline 1,019.55 5529 VOID OUT CHECK 36.37lies 5530 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. Supplces-park dept 38.72 • 5531 EMPLOYERS OVERLOAD 138.72 5532 E55 BROTHERS & SONS INC. Supplies 2, 68.00 5533 • FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. Ferric Sulfate .0 6 5534 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN. OF MINNESOTA Training supplies 87.0 5535 FOX VALLEY MARKING SYSTEMS, INC. Supplies-water dept 186.42 5536 JOHN FRAME September expenses 15.38 5537 FRANZ ENGINEERING REPRODUCTIONS INC. Supplies-engineering dept 115.38 "5538 FRONTIER LUMBER & HARDWARE Supplies 117.99 5539 FUTURE PUBLICATION INC. Softball-park dept 82. 5 5540 G.L. CONTRACTING, INC. Test 30' watermain 182.83 5541 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Battery & repair parts 5542 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP Equip repair-fire dept1,919.239.23 5543 GRANT BATTERY SALES Battery delivery 37.0 5544 ERIC L. HAGEN 27.00 5545 HENNEPIN COUNTY CENTRAL SERVICES Special assessment 5546 VOIO OUT CHECK 39.50 5547 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION Board of Prisoners 139.50 5548 HOPKINS DODGE SALES, INC. Equipment repairs & parts 25.75 S549 HOPKINS GLENROSE FLORAL & GIFT Flowers .75 5550 HOPKINS IN RRINT SHOP, INC. SuResidence&en center busineess dislocation 21,862.00 55512 EARL INGRAM 182.31 5552 I8M Equipment maintenance 12 0 5553 J & R RAOIATOR CORP Equipment repair 600.00 5554 O.J. JANSKI & ASSOC., INC. Appraisal report .00 5555 GEORGIA JESSEN Preparation of minutes-parks dept 40 5556 JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY CO. Towels pouches 19.01.0 5557 KAPAK CORPORATION Suppliesien 1 5558 KARULF HAROWARE INC. 608.7566.00 r5559 KLEVE HAEATING & AIR CONOITIONING Repair & parts 6.05 5560 KOKESH ATHLETIC & GOLF SUPPLY Golf shirts 14 5561 KRAEMER'S HAROWARE Supplies 388.1623.67 5562 CHRISTINE KRANTZ August mileage 2O 69 PAUL R. KUJAWA August mileage 5564 5564 M.E. LANE. INC. Insurance policy 1,098.00 4,340.97 ` 5565 LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTO Legal fees • Page three (. Jeptember 4, 1979 5566 LOGIS Services 1,082.62 5567 LOVERING & ASSOC. Refund on permit 20.00 5568 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. Equipment repair & parts 429.88 5569 MARKS STANDARD Gas-Squad car I35 60 5570 ROBERT N. MARTZ September expenses 200.82 5571 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Oxygen70.80 5572 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Forms, envelopes, Happenings newletter 895.00 5573 METRO PRINTING INC. 5574 . MEYER BROS. DAIRY, INC. Dairy products-park dept 34.50Z3 .50 5575 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION 8lacktop 5576 MILLER/DAVIS COMPANY • Special •assessment cards & legal-forms ....•98.80 5577 MINNEAPOLIS MEDICAL-RESEARCH Seminar-public safety 5578 MINNEGASCO Service 183.3013.30 5579 MINNESOTA FIRE INCORPORATED Parts-fire dept 10 30 5580 MINNESOTA MFOA Membership dues 5581 M.R.P.A. NRPA Conference-Park dept 340.E 5582 M-V GAS COMPANY L-P Gas - Senior center 125.00 5583 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Service 75.00 5584 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Service 2,142.47 5585 DAVE NORTHINGTON Teen work program 31:20 5586 NORTHWESTERN BELL Service 37.36 5587 RAY O'HERRON CO., INC. Hat racks-public safety 9.01• 5588 GORDON W. OLSON Expenses-park dept 99.00 k. 5589 STEVE OLSTAD Packet delivery 31.94 5590 PENNY'S #25 Supplies 97.47 5591 PEPSI COLA/7-UP BOTTLING CO. City Hall & Water Dept.-pop machines 309.20 5592 PINK SUPPLY CORPORATION Towels 15 5593 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING, INC. Printing supplies-public safety 872.5021.00 5594 PREMIUM SEED COMPANY Grass seed-park dept9.24 5595 PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATES, INC. Sand-park dept2.20 5596 PUBLIC SAFETY-PETTY CASH Postage 121.50 5597 RAINBOW SIGNS INC. Lettered fire trucks 5598 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC., INC. Service-NorsetanAIndue Development Park-2nd 2,383.61 5599 SHARON ROBINSON Summer fun-park dept. 17.40 5600 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES, INC. Portable restrooms-park dept 116.00 5601 DICK SAXE Teen work program 1.95 5602 SHAKOPEE BAKERY Expenses 15.44 5603 W. GORDON SMITH CO. Parts & Supplies 148.80 5604 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY Supplies 1,042.24 5605 EMMETT STORK Community Bond 190.00 5606 SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERVICES Eden Prairie Senior Citizens program 1,950.00 5607 MARK TIERNEY Softball supervisor 290.00 5608 TRU-GRIT INDUSTRIES Supplies-fire dept 158.35 5609 808 TYSON Meeting-public safety 8.50 5610 ROGER ULSTAD September expenses 100.00 5611 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Uniforms & equipment 198.10 5612 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minn. Juvenile Justice Conference 10.00 5613 VAN WATERS & ROGERS Chlorine Liquid 188.50 5614 WARNING LITES, INC. Lights-water dept 23.00 5615 RIVER WARREN AGGREGATES INC. Rock 93.73 5616 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Meter-water dept 1,697.97 5617 SANDY WERTS August mileage i2.68 5618 WILENSKY AUTO PARTS CO. Parts 64.89 5619 XEROX CORPORATION Services & supplies 1,501.88 • • • • ( 'age four •September 4, 1979 5620 ZIEGLER INC. • Equipment rental & supplies 3,371.69 5621 WILLIAM P. HUBER August mileage 51.66 5622 LION'S TAP Refund softball fee 35.00 5623 DR. RICHARD ANONSEN Refund softball fee 35.00 5624 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION Second half tax-Schaitberger 657.97 Total $303,837.85 • r.. .r • • • • • • 1G`l�J JOHN O. FRAME f AGENDA JOINT EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 6:39 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: • Maser Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath 'EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS: Chairperson Jon Jo Wigen,Lobbe Dr. Gaar IMohr reenweiser, and Norman Friederichs I. REQUEST FROM PARK BOND REFERENDUM COMMITTEE FOR "CONCEPT APPROVAL" ON Page 2684 THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITIES. II. ADJOURNMENT. • c ` Il, r' !tiJ 1 h a E. .r 03 s t'T co oh, ✓wo¢e� u/b Jo®PGs per iV¢ ✓.rC /b ��/Le ✓ark a 3/ y l A 4-Cr �/ p Jur .S� 4 _ _ ,r/ ✓ !t/LO ✓uBF(i9 /a/ JusrFol /R' /v J a Tr+ t/, V67,7 /4 d nit( .c T ; I? t f kg 3a 1 foici se r i/�f jvoaa' IA- Jas a, L `s /ipc✓eTer vdr /i- i' / I 1� 1� 217. t 2-4 • 3/ ►' •. l L 4 Sa 7 1 1 .