Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/19/1980 ti APPROVED ` EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ,E i TUESDAY, AUGUST 19 , 1980 7:40 PM COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Dean Edstrom, Sidney Pauly; Dave Osterhoit arrived at 8:10 PP1. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; Finance Director John Fra ne; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; City Engineer and Acting City Manager Carl Jullie; and Jean Johnson Recording Secretary. I. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF MERIT FROM PRESIDENT CARTER THROUGH THE AMERICAN RED CROSS TO STUART FOX, MIKE ROGERS AND JAMES BERGSTROM Mayor Penzel introduced Mr. Gene Borochoff, American Red Cross , who proceeded to outline the circumstances &life saving actions which lead to the nomination for Certificates of Merit for Stuart Fox, Mike Rogers and James Bergstrom. Mr. Borochoff then presented each recipient with a framed Certificate of Merit and a pin. Director of Public Safety, Jack Hacking stated that this is the 6th such Certificate of Merit presented to a City employee within the past 3 years. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were moved to the Consent Calendar: IX.U. 2. Request to advertise for bids for grading & seeding Hidden Ponds Park & Creekwood ark; IX. . 3. Reouest to advertise for bids for construc- tion of the Community Center & to schedule Tuesday, September 30 1980 as a Special Council Meeting to review bids; IX,D. 4. Round Lake Treatment& Restocking Program; IX.E. 1 . Final plat approval for Braun's €states Res. 80-160 ; IX € 3 Res 80-153 declaring costs to be assessed & ordering preparation of proposed 196 Assessment rolls &settin hearin date for September 16, 1980. Item IV. A. was changed to read as follows : IV.A. Request to set a public hearing for the Redevelopment Plan proposed by the HRA as well as the Eden Prairie Tax Increment Financing Plan & District for September 16, 1980. MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to approve the agenda as amended & published. Motion carried unanimously. III . MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,AUGUST 5, 1980 Pg. 3, B , 5th para. , strike onerous` and insert thereof "onus". MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Council meeting held Tuesday, August 5, 1980, as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -2- Tues . , August 19, 1980 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request to set a Public Hearing for the Redevelopment Plan as proposed k by the HRA as well as the Eden Prairie Tax Increment Financing Plan & District for Se tember 16, 1980. B. Approve plans and specifications and order bids for sewer and water improvements along T.H. 101 north of Valley View Road, I .C. 51-386 Resolution No. 80-1 4 C. Approve plans and s edifications and order bids for street improve- ments in Hi s Mitchell Heights 4th Addition, I.C. 51-353A (Resolu- tion No. 80-156 D. Approve plans and specifications and order bids for utility and street , improvements in R marland Camp 2nd Addition, I .C. 51-383 Resolution No. 80-157 E. Resolution No. 80-158, approving election judges F. Request to set a Public Hearing for September 2 , 1980 for the 1981 City Budget 'o G. Request to advertise for bids for grading & seeding Hidden Ponds Park and Creekwoud formerly IX .D. 2 f H. Request to advertise for bids for construction of the Community Center and to schedule Tuesda , September 30 1980 as a Special Council meeting to -review bids formerly IX.D. 3 I . Round Lake Treatment & Restocking Program .formerly IX.D. 4) J. Final Plat approval for Braun's Estates (Resolution No. 80-160) (for merly IX.E. 1 K. Resolution No. 80-153, declaring costs to be assessed and ordering re aration of proposed 1980 special assessment rolls and setting earing date for September (formerly MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to approve items A - K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Feasibility Report for Tax Increment Financing (continued from August . 5, 1980 MOTION: Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded, to close the public hearing and take no action in light of Item IV.A. Motion carried unanimously. B. Federdl Revenue Sharing Funds Finance Director John Frane explained that federal requirements state that a public hearing be conducted in order to dcsigna to use of funds. He recommended the funds be used for public safety purposes as has been done in the past. °e;u G e C { City Council Minutes -3- Tues. , August 19, 1980 Penzel inquired if funds could be used to assist in construction of elderly f housing units. i City Planner Enger replied funds from C.D.B.G. have been reserved for such use. Penzel asked if audience had questions or comments. None were raised. MOTION: Edstrom moved , Pauly seconded, to designate the use of 1981 Fed- eral Revenue Sharing funds for public safety purposes. Motion carried unanimously. C. Timber Creek PUD-by B-T Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development approval on 150 acres of land for single family and multiple residential , park land and open space uses. Located north of Duck Lake Trail , West of Co. Rd. 4, and south of Town- line Road (Resolution No. 80-151 - PUD, and Resolution No. 80-159 - E.A.W. ) Mayor Penzel noted the August 14, 1980 letter from the proponents wherein a continuance to September 2, 1980 is requested . (letter read & attached as part of minutes) . Joe Morin, 15820 So. Eden Drive, distributed a resident report dated August 19, 1980. MOTION: Edstrom moved , Pauly seconded, to continue the Timber Greek PUD public hearing to September 2, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. Penzel informed the audience all neighboring residents would be renotified,• as to the continuance. D. Thorn Creek Place PUD by Minneapolis Retail Meat Cutters & Food Handlers Health and Welfare Fund. Request for PUD Concept approval for office, commercia and mu tIple residential uses on 60 acres. Located north and west of Co. Rd. 39 and east of U.S. 169-212 (Resol - ution No. 80-152) P MOTION: Edstrom moved , Pauly seconded, to table this item until 8:30 PM as the proponents were absent. Motion carried unanimously. 8:30 PM, ,After Item VIII. A. John Uban, Howard Dahlgren & Associates, presented the Thorn Creek Place proposal outlining the location, utilities , parks and open space, surround- ing uses, noise impacts , soils , vegetation, access points, and proposed uses of office and commercial . He stated first phase development of office, raquet club and a parking ramp is anticipated in the southern portion. City Planner Enger reviewed the Planning Commission 's review and approval of the request noting the commission recommended deletion of staff report recommendation #5 regarding introduction of more housing. x . A City Council Minutes -4- Tues . , August 19, 1980 Community Services Director Lambert reviewed the Parks Commission 's review and approval noting they recommend an additional recommendation for a trail easement. t Penzel asked if the proponents concur with the commissions ' recommendations . Mr. Uban replied affirmative. Mr. Uban believed that if the northern road connection is made a►►d cost becomes a burden for the uses proposed, they would request additional building near the north boundary. Penzel suggested the southern loop road to Valley View be constructed with first phase development. Uban expressed their preference to construct the loop road when the res- taurant is built. Gary Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, requested that all future right of way for Valley View Road improvements come from the north side. City Engineer Jul-lie stated that 66 feet of right of way exists, 17 feet is being requested from the north side, and a total of 100 feet is desired. He added that the 17 feet being dedicated is anticipated to suffice for - turn lanes to serve the new development. Frank Smetana , 7680 Smetana Lane, stated his opposition to the proposal . Marilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, felt the development proposed is too dense. The Planner noted that ordinance allows 30% building coverage and the request is for approximately 16% coverage. MOTION: Edstrom moved, Osterholt seconded, to close the public hearing, adopt Resolution 807152, and direct staff to draft a Developer's Agree- ment per the recommendations of the July 3, 1980 staff report as modified by the commissions , and that: 1. the loop road to Valley View be con- structed with first phase development, 2. the necessary right of way for Valley View Road is obtained, b 3. the northern road connection is assumed feasible and should be made as required by traffic densities as per the City Engineer' s recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAINS NOS. 2757 - 2981 MOTION: Pauly moved, Penzel seconded, to approve Payment of Claims 2757 - 2981. Roll call vote: Edstrom voted aye, Pauly voted aye, Penzel voted aye. Motion carried. VII . REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSION 5 None Osterholt arrived. City Council Minutes -5- Tues. , August 19, 1980 VIII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS Don Chmiel , NSP, explained their difficulty in acquiring easements from the adjoining property owner as outlined in the August 13, 1980 letter. Chmiel requested changes in the Developer's Agreement to: 1 . revise the location of existing 345KV line approximately 300 ' south placing it South of W. 78th Street next to the Rosemount, Inc. entrance; 2. Nave � a 1982 deadline instead of 1981 to berm and landscape _-the site due to additional precautions needed to go over a sanitary sewer line. Edstrom asked if Rosemount,` Inc. has -been- contacted and reacted relative to the revised tranmissiun line location. Chmiel replied they first wanted to receive Council approval prior to _ contacting Rosemount, Inc. Pauly inquired if placing the line on the south side of W. 78th Street i posed any safety problems and how much lower the ground is. 4 � Chmiel replied no danger exists and that the ground is 10-12 feet lower and would therefore require a taller. transmission structure. MOTION: Osterholt moved, .Penzel seconded, to approve the requests to change the berming and landscaping date to 1982 and the.revised location_ of the transmission line contingent upon Rosemount_ Inc.-'.s _agreement. to the revised location. Motion carried unanimous y. IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members A. Councilwoman Pauly presented a resolution outlining a joint planning effort between Carver County and the Cities of Chaska , Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and requesting planning funds from the Metro Council . MOTION: Edstrom moved, Pauly seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 80-164. Motion carried unanimously. B. Mayor Penzel 1. Spoke to invitation from League of Minnesota Municipalities to attend a meeting on Wednesday, August 20, 1980. 2. Spoke to invitation from Eden Prairie Lion's for the annual golf day at Dahlgren. 3. Informed members the Metro Council Chairman would be present Thursday, September 4, 1980 at St. Louis Park City Hall for questions and comments. B. Report of City Attorney None City Council Minutes -6- Tues . , August 19, 1980 C. Report of City Manager None D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Hidden Ponds Park Plan Mayor Penzel read an August 19, 1980 letter from the Paulsen's requesting the City to install a fence to protect their property and orchard, adjacent to the park , from trespassers. Director of Community Services Lambert reviewed the park plan stating: the majority of trees depicted do exist, the Parks Commission unan- imously approved the plan , and perhaps trespassers could be discouraged by berms and plant material . Discussion took place regavding the cost and effectiveness of a berm with plantings versus a chain link fence , and the unique conditions of this park/landowner situationin that the owner derives livelihood from the orchard. MOTION: Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded, to approve the general park plan and request the staff to r-.turn with a report on type, cost, and . placement of a positi,ye boundary control . Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of City Engineer 1. Final plat approval for Braun 's Estates (Resolution No. 80-160) This item was moved to Consent Calander (IV.J.) 2. Receive feasibility report for storm drainage improvements in Sutton 1st Addition, I .C. 51-370 Resolution No. 80-128 Con- tinued f r—o-F 7/15 80 City Engineer Jullie briefly reviewed the report and Mr. Sutton 's response and stated alternatives could be investigated. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Pauly seconded , to continue the item to September 16, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Resolution No. 80-153, declaring casts to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed 19 0 s ec a assessment rolls and setting eari ng date for September 16 . 1980 This item was moved to Consent Calander (IV.K. ) 4. Consider bids for improvements on Anderson Lakes Parkway, including park site g rading, 1 (Resolution' 80-15 MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to adopt Resolution 80-155 and award the bid to low bidder Shafer Contracting Company in the amount of $499,722. 80. Upon roll call Pauly voted aye, Osterholt voted aye, Edstrom voted aye and Penzel voted aye. Motion carried. ,a a City Council Minutes -7- Tues. , August 19, 1980 (\rr =A 5. Change Order No. 4, I .E. 51-326, Dell Road realignment and - agree-ment for right of way City Attorney Pauly spoke to the change order and revisions, r. MOTION : Osterholt moved , Edstrom seconded, to approve the Change Order and authorize signatures. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Purchase agreement with Tudor Oaks Condominium Project for sale of City property abutting T.H. 169 south of Schooner Boulevards Y. Mayor Penzel asked City Attorney Pauly to speak to the sales process followed. Pauly responded that sales of excess property does not require a bid process and can be offered to adjoining owners. Pauly then summar- ized the Purchase Agreement conditions. City Engineer Juliie stated the land was offered to adjoining owners due to difficulties of development and access unless developed in conjunction with other land. Osterholt stated his objection to the process followed and he dild not see any clear benefit to the City. Penzel concurred with Osterholt and expressed opposition to certain conditions in the purchase agreement. Michael Contact, Tudor Oaks representative, stated they wish to acquire the land to develop in conjunction with other property. Discussion took place regarding agreement contingencies and the ab- sence of a current appraisal . MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to refer the item back to the staff for a 1980 appraisal and to direct ABIO to submit a PUD amendment application. Motion carried unanimously. F. Report of Finance Director 1. Clerk's License List Penzel referred to petitions in opposition to the Kennel license. Mrs. Renier presented a new petition in which some individuals who opposed the license have now reversed their objection after having a Kennel license explained to them. She added that they will not re- place whichever dog expires first and they have fenced in their rear yard to prevent roaming. 1 Mr. LeRoy Wickstrom, representing Mr. Ruegemer (on vacation) , sug- gested Reniers b Ruegemers meet to resolve some of the complaints . City Council Minutes -8- Tues. , August 19, 1980 Edstrom stated he had been contacted by Renier & Ruegemer, neither of whom could attend, and suggested due to the absence of Mr. Renier and Mr. Ruegemer, the item be continued. Pauly suggested the community service officer involved be in attend- ance at the next meeting. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to continue the Kennel license to September 2, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. <r Pauly suggested a new name be applied to the hcr.^el licc rsc residents misunderstand the purpose of the license. MOTION: Osterholt moved, Edstrom seconded, to approve the Clerk's License List with the exception of the Kennel license which is con- tinued. Motion carried unanimously. X. NEW BUSINESS Edstrom introduced Mr. John Bukelich who is considering?running,for CounciCl . XI . ADJOURNMENT ( Pauly moved, Edstrom seconded, to adjourn at 10:08 PM. Motion carried. a Aff RESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE (r EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUIICIL 4.: ON THE TIMBER CREEK DEVELOPMENT Date: August 19, 1980 Prepared By : Joseph J. Morin with the support of citizens representing six neighborhood communities. i k� FORWARD This report deals with the rights of citizens in the seven neighbor- hoods surrounding the proposed Timber Creek development to have additional parkland dedicated in this area beyond that already re- quired to be dedicated by the developer . The report* was presented to the Eden Prairie Planning Commisssion on August 11 , 1980. The Planning Commission ruled that it did not have the scope of authority to decide the issues presented in this report because +_h.my, co_=.7 A only consider the parkland requirements of future residents of the proposed development. The Planning Commission advised us (the residents of the seven neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development) to "take your fight to the City Council. We are not presenting this report in order to "fight" , but only wish to present our case. The Planning Commission was too narrow in the scope of its authority to deal with the rights of the citizens of seven neighborhoods. We hope that the City Council is not too broad in scope to consider the rights of these citizens. We fear that we are being told that we must give up our rights to our neighbor- hood parkland so that the entire city can be served by bigger and better parks in other areas of town. If this is indeed what we are being told, we strongly object to the message. We even more strongly object to the concept implicit in the message, that citizens can be told that they must give up their rights for the good of the state. *NOTE: This version of the report differs slightly from that presented to the planning commission because the statistics have been updated. i I y "+ F' INTRODUCTION This report represents the majority opinion of the residents of the neighborhoods described as Edenview 1 , Edenview 2 , Nottingham Forest, County Road 4 , Kurtz Lane, and Paradise Valley. It also contains information about the opinions held by residents of the Coachlight Manor/Trumpy Homes development area. a: The residents of these neighborhoods are dissatisfied with the park plan proposed for the Timber Creek development. We recognize that the park issue is only one of several important planning issues under consideration, but this issue is of extremely high importance to the residents in the area surrounding the develop- ment 4y?:^ :-:i 1 , 1-.., I.... c . ..; - ..� �.. ..r �u�.asi iCa 1ii Lhe development area. The Purgatory Creek area , abundant with wildlife and natural beauty would be forever lost as natural wilderness parkland if the planned development occurs. If we are not heard at this time , our right to have this wilderness parkland will also be lost. HISTORICAL ENTITLEMENT The neighborhoods affected by the proposed development are the pioneer residential neighborhoods that first provided the tax base for Eden Prairie. The tax base increased as the area grew, but parkland was never secured. The townships did not foresee the need in these neighborhoods to provide what is being provided today in communities that are being developed. The residents were told to go play in the fields , and this suited them fine because the fields and wood- lands were beautiful. The fields and woodlands are disappearing now; and the neighborhoods are becoming closed pockets , isolated from the natural open parkland they once enjoyed. These neighborhoods had provisions for parkland in their original covenants. For example, two mini--parks were proposed in the Kutcher Development Covenants for Edenview l and Edenview 2 . Edenview 1 had lots dedicated at the east end of S. Eden. Drive and at the west end of N. Eden Drive. Edenview 2 had lots dedicated at the end of S . Lund. These parks were not accepted at the time because the town of Eden ' Prairie was unwilling to accept maintenance responsibility. As the pioneer development community, we would expect the planning commission and city council to be especially sensitive to our rights. We are entitled to due process in the serving of the compelling in- terest of the community. Specifically , we are entitled to the same consideration given other neighborhoods in satisfying our need for recreational facilities. The cash park fee system was instituted for the purpose of providing parkland for neighborhoods such as ours . Past city council members have been sensitive to our inequities and have made attempts to provide parkland for us in the past. However , the need for support from the City Council has never been as critical as it is now. d, 4n6 The last bond referendum in the fall of 1979 showed a plan which included acquisition of parkland in what is now the Timber Creek development proposal . This plan (and funding) was passed before T the original Timber Creek development project was even submitted. Strangely enough, the areas defined as parkland in the bond ref erendun now also appear as parkland in the Timber Creek proposal. The developer is required to provide this amount of parkland anyway for the future residents of the development. Therefore, the present residents of the surrounding neighborhoods will be deprived of their rights (which were guaranteed long ago) if this proposal is passed. iaiC viig 3 iaai Tuber 'reek proposal "February 1 9 H p 1 was rejected on the basis that the park situation was not well addressed toward tax paying citizens of a community which dates back 20 years . It is the feeling of these citizens that the basis of that rejection was well founded, and that the only change to the rejected proposal has been the insignificant addition of a few more access points. We believe that the park situation is still not well addressed . We believe that we are entitled to more parkland area. It is more than just an issue of entitlement that concerns us today. We are also concerned with our social responsibility as citizens to make the proper decisions in preserving our bountiful natural resources . We would like to preserve the entire area; but if this is impossible, let us at least try to preserve the most beautiful sections. We are fortunate that these sections are the ones most used by children and adults alike for nature study, walking , jogging, and even bicycling in the summer. . . and for sliding, cross country skiing, and snow shoeing in the winter. We have the responsibility to include some human feeling for the people who now use and love this area, along with the other relevant factors in making a proper decision. We have a responsibility to preserve some of the area for children not yet born, and for those future residents of the new development. RESIDENT/PARK BOARD COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTIES Unfortunately, we have not had effective communication with our Park Board. The Park Board staff did not solicit citizen input during the planning process , and reacted defensively when input was provided during the June 16, 1980 Park Board hearing. Thirty-five residents attended the June 16 , 1980 hearing because one local resident distributed flyers throughout the neighborhood. No one else was even notified of a meeting . Residents are not informed of meetings and are not notified of major shifts in planning policy. For example, of the 35 people attending the June 16, 1980 meeting, not one person knew that a major shift had taken place in the park planning system depriving this community of the more than 18 acres of parkland originally planned by the Park Board. No public h,,-_wrin5s were held, and no public notices were re- ceived by the residents . At the June 16 , 1980 meeting , attended by 35 residents , the Park Board rejected the original staff proposal on the basis that priority whould be given to the present residents (over future residents) on the park issue. The primary concerns expressed earlier in this report (entitlement, a wilderness park concept, extent of responsibility) were discussed. A secondary concern was expressed that more attention should be given on how to access this area. At the conclusion of the meeting the developer agreed to meet with the residents to draw up a plan which would be endorsed by the resi- dents. A number of people signed up , and a list was provided to the developer during a gathering after the meeting in the parking lot. The developer then agreed to organize the meeting to draw up a plan with the residents. The developer did not have the meeting which we agreed upon , and a second Park Board hearing was held on July 7, 1980. Only one resident was notified, and it was too late to inform the neighborhood people. The residents wonder why at least the 35 persons attending the first meeting were not notified, since a sign-up list (on a yellow pad) of meeting attendees was circulted by the Park Board staff. Consequently, only about 4 or 5 residents attended the July 7 , 1980 meeting. Op- portunity for discussion was quickly closed and virtually the same plan, previously rejected , was passed. The Park Board said that the citizen ' s concern was access to the park , and that this was now ade- quately addressed. This conclusion was reached even though access was only a secondary concern. (One Park Board commissioner who did not attend the meeting where the plan was rejected voted to pass the proposed plan. He pointed to a stack of documents before him and commented that he was adequately informed to vote. He made the statement even though approved minutes of the meeting had not yet been issued, and were not issued as of August 3 , 1980 . ) The primary issues were ignored. There was no citizen input to be evaluated by the Park Board Commis- sioners . One Commissioner expressed concern for the cash fee paying community west of the staff proposed park in the southwest corner of the proposed development even though no one from adjacent neighbor- hoods ever attended the meetings or requested representation_ This commissioner motioned to vote against the wilderness parkland concept proposed by 35 active participants at the June 16 , 1980 meeting. . . 35 people representing six neighborhood communities. . . 35 people en- titled to due process. We have since learned that the vast majority } of the Coachlight Manor/Trumpy Homes area residents actually prefer the wilderness parkland concept. PUBLIC PETITION As a result of the communication failure with our Park Board, the residents had a meeting and organized a petition drive. We wanted our voices to be clearly heard and understood. The petition reads as follows : PUBLIC PETITION We , the undersigned, hereby petition the city of Eden Prairie to dedicate the northeast corner (approximately thirty-five acres) of the proposed Timber Creek development as undeveloped wilder- ness parkland (except for woodchip trails) . This area is bounded by Purgatory Creek on the south, townline road on the north , existing de- velopment on the east , and the low side of the hill (known locally as "Dead Man ' s Hill") at some distance beyond an existing trail on the west. w ) We propose that the entire 15 acres now dedi- cated by statute ar parkland be allocated to the northeast corner park , and that the city purchase the additional acreage needed tc cc:nplete the fl above description with funding from the cash park fees. We further petition that access be allowed only from walking trails , bike paths , cross country ski trails , or walking type bridges across the creek and marshland. NEW DEVELOPMENT FLOODPL,AIN PARK DETI'rI oh AREA* Qk .v M YU•QN AO _ • � \ 3..�u1�--.� ~cam �K[�: rr w � •yam � SSE ��PRAIRIE SCHOO pJti. • J P F�(♦ y T k a[^aTGf TL L• ��- '� L am C"'lf ` •e sT""__.mil L�f�i� 7777A�ONU v7 *Map denotes general location (not to scale) ( Copies of the signatures were presented to the Planning Commission during the meeting on August 11, 1980. The originals are presented to the City Council this evening. The results to date are as follows: 0 336 signatures o Over 325 "voting age" signatures o 212 households have signed the petition 0 12 households did not want to sign the petition 0 62 households have not yet been contacted Of the 12 households who did not want to sign the petition, 4 cited increased taxes as a reason, 1 had no reason, 3 were professionally involved, 1 preferred tennis courts or adult facilities, 1 preferred ballfields over the wilderness parkland concept, and 2 supported the wilderness parkland concept but wanted a larger buffer zone between their homes and the planned townhouses and condominiums. The results from the Coachiight Manor/Trumpy Homes neighborhood is significant because the petition calls for re-allocating approximately 5 acres of proposed parkland from the southwest corner to the north- east corner (Rick Murray of B-T band Company told a committee of residents that B­-T Land Co. would be willing to re-allocate the pro- posed southwest corner parkland to the hill area in the northeast section) . There were 34 signatures from this neighborhood, 29 house- holds were contacted, 1 did not sign because of taxes, 2 were pro--. fessionally involved, and 2 supported wht wilderness parkland concept but did not want townhouses and condominiums nearby. The residents of this neighborhood would give even stronger support to the wilder- ness parkland concept if the development plan showed single family units in the southwest corner and townhouses and condominiums moved more toward the center of the development. This would be more fair to the builder in the Trumpy homes area since property values would tend to fall with condominiums nearby, would tend to rise with a small park nearby, and would remain stable with other single family dwellings nearby. In summary, approximately 78% of the households comprising the seven neighborhoods have been contacted; and of these, 95% have signed the 4 petition. We believe that this represents overwhelming endorsement } by the citizens of these communities . CONCLUSIONS The conclusions drawn in this report are as follows : 1 . The residents have historic entitlement to the - r.-land described in the petition. 2 . Additional parkland beyond that already contributed by the developer should be purchased by the City from the funds ac- cumulated from cash park fees and the last bond referendum. Funds originally allocated for park development and maintenance could be re-allocated toward acquisition of the parkland on the basis that a natural wilderness parkland would incur little or no development or maintenance costs. 3 . The wilderness parkland concept has the overwhelming support and endorsement of the citizens of the community. d During t}-o wee-k-rand ;prior to t_-he AL+m3ct 11 i 1980 CO ccinn meeting, the citizens of six neighborhoods gathered together to discuss the issues, drew up a petition, had it published, went out and gathered 309 signatures, and produced this report. We believe that the intensity of this effort is almost as revealing as the results of the effort. The people are very seriously con- cerned, and very intimately involved. u.. r s August 14, 1980 { Dear Eden Prairie Council Members : As next door neighbors, we thoroughly disapprove the granting of a kennel license to E J Renier. The dogs' barking and whining at any and all hours of r the day and night is unbearable. Our sleep has been disrupted nearly every night. It is necessary to keep our bedroom windows closed be- cause of the horrible stench from the kennel. The kennel slab is being hosed down to remove the dog' droppings, some of which end up in our yard, resulting in a soggy, grass- less area on our property. i The entire situation is not very pleasing to the eye. Attached is a list of Holly Road neighbors who disapprove of granting a kennel license to Mr. Renier. Your consideration of this unpleasant matter will be app- reciated. I wanted very much to discuss this matter with you in person at the August 19 meeting but will be away on a long ago planned vacation. Sincerely yours, L CL.It��� (B � wrence B Ruegemer 1, u `t _ t w We, the undersigned. neighbors, very much disapprove of F E J Renier ---13859 Holly Road---obtaining a kennel license. za 1377,5 131 604 1.3 ...,..--' /,q Sloss- JOV our principal objections are the barking of the dogs and running through the neighbors yards. August 15, 1980 In view of the fact the three dogs now owned by the Reniers are retained in a 6' high ehnin link fenced kennel Attached to their garage and that they h-rive recently fenced their entire rear yard with an additional 4' high chain link fence to prevent the doge from leaving their yard find due to the fact that they have no Intention of breeding dogs and have agreed not to do so . We do not object to a kennel license being issued to them on an arnu:: ? basis so none of th6 present dogs have to be destroyed. Name Address Date / 3 q oS�o� 'ke•..1�. ��rS /� 474 f 4�1 c?— / 7" o B-T LAND COMPANY td55 EAST lYAYZATA BOULEVARD WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 (02) 473-8511 t August 14, 1980 Eden Prairie Mayor and City Council Members City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: x: This letter will serve as our request for a continuance on the August 19, 1980 City Council meeting until the September 2, 1980 City Council meeting. We feel this continuance is necessary to provide us with time to create and prepare a conceptual buffering plan for the western boundary of our Timber Creek proposal . We feel this is necessary in light of concerns raised at the August 8, 1980 Planning Commission meeting as the two dissenting votes were both cast because they felt the proposed condominiums on our western boundary may be too close to a potential single-family area. In the park land located in our southwestern corner we feel that f there is sufficient buffering through the park dedication land from the existing single-family area which abuts our property at that point. We feel that by the use of landscaping and berming that the open space farther to the north on our western boundary can effectively be buffered by berming and landscaping within our current proposal . We feel that our plat conforms with your City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, your City's Comprehensive Thoroughfare Plan, and your City's Comprehensive Utilities Plan, has a unanimous recommendation from your City Park Commission,and has a positive recommendation from your City Planning Commission that this concept plan should be approved. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, B-T L D COMPANY Rick D. Murray Vice President RDM/1 g SUITE 1141 --ONE APPLETREE SQUARE BLOOMINGTON.MN 55420 TELEPHONE:612/854-6400 . y Land'Sake AUS 27 1 COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL / REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT August 26, 1980 ' Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Gentlemen : On behalf of Land ' Sake, Inc . and it ' s Lake Idlewi Id Office Project, I am requesting a Public Hearing and City Council approval of the following at the C regular September 16th City Council meeting: 1 ) P . U. D. Concept for 6. 7 acres of townoffices . 2 ) Rezoning from Rural to Office District for Phase 1. 3) Preliminary Plat and Development stage approval for Phase I . Resp tfully ubmitted: Jsa W e gident k A1..)GU`> F 27, 1�-8n AUG 2 8 1980 TO: Moyar And City Council of Eden Prairie SUBJECT: Prelimninary Plat and Rezoning Hearing Request (See Ar+ached Maps) Property Identification Number: 06-116-22 23 0001 Joseph Doieisi (Fee Owner) and Joseph K . Doleisi hereby request +he scheduling of a Public Hearing on October 21, 1980, for the purpose of rezoning from RURAL +o R1-22, and considering a preliminary plat one lot subdivisionj(Approximately two acres) con- +oining an existing homestead, within +he Hidden Glen Subdivision, We will be appearing before the Board of Appeals on September 18, 1980, and +he Planning Com- mission on September 22, 1980. A brief background statement is provided to acquaint the Mayor and City Council with on explanation for +his request. The property which we request to divide is a 95 acre parcel of land which has been owned and farmed by +he Doieisi family since 1958. The Innd has situated on it, an older form home which for many years was rented. After several disappointing renter experiences Joseph Doieisi asked his son Joseph K . Doieisi, 'o live':• in and maintain +hF farmstead, which he did beginning Sep+ember 1970. As s'o+ed, the house is art older form home and al+hough s'ruclurally sound requi,,t,. mrv-ly irnp+ovemen+s. During July of his year, Roland Crandel, a 1ccal con'rac+ar and rep Y modele t wos f..onlucle?d +C) obtain a proft�sronol opt rllov, a to 11-re of rerrout-1er1') c- i5' nCi house. to . Crande! iepor+ed 'he' hn;,se n'a<, struc'Irrr_rl ly so�jnd and -.-,,o;jld It—c i+self 'o remodedincy. With +his informo+ion,agtr-r-rner)+ has hre'rn reoched be'wr.-nn Jr ,t,ph Dole,jsi and Joseph K . Doieisi on the sale of this house and two acres so +ho' Jo eph K . Doieisi could ob'cain title and thus obtain financing required +u under-ake 'her remodelivg project which would incl tide upda'ing: wiring, furnace, wa'er suro.piy, insvla'ion and 'he possible addi'ion of living space and garage. The proposed st16d;vision was toyed out in such a manner as +o conform with to+tiny and marl netvrorks as proposed by fhe Hidden Glen Concept- Plan which received Concept approval by +he Eden Prairie Council in +hea fall of 1979 (Zachman Homes Inc.) The one vat ioncr needed if plot and rezoning are gronved', is`due to lack of lot fron"age Oil a public road,. This variance is requested so as not to divide a contiguous 25 acre parcel +o the north, which is owned by Joseph Doieisi . Applicotion has been made for 'his vat lance +o be heard by +he. Board of Appeals on September 18, 1980. Please advise if any ques'ions should arise regarding +his matter or if there are any ommissions of infarma+ion which are required in the scheduling of 'his request for Public Fie orinp- Respec+fully: tJosep,S Dotjs► 1oph K. Dole jsi 9005 Riley Lake Rd . 6445--192nd Ave. West Eden Prairie, &An. Eden Prairie, Mn. (fit 2-881-8.501)