Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/29/1967 - Joint Meeting PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 29 August, 1967 SPECIAL MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL, PARK. AND RECREATION COMMISSION, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION AND SCHOOL BOARDS, 272-276-274. This is the first joint meeting on the comprehensive plan for the Village of Eden Prairie. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Miller at 8:00 P.M. PRESENT WERE: PLANNING AND ZONING COUNCIL PARK AND RECREATION Arthur Miller David Osterholt, Mayor Frances Blacklock Ralph Nesbitt James C. Brown, Clerk David Osterholt Cecil Cruse Arthur Miller Harry Picha David Dale Paul Redpath Henry Hauser Odmor Skjelbostad Homer Raguet James Brown, Clerk Don Brauer, Planner Bruce Pladson, Planner INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 272 James Cardinal Paul Enblom Allen Upton Harry Picha John Wright Mr. Arthur Miller turned the meeting over to Don Brauer who went through Part I (attached) of the Community Development Plan for Eden Prairie. After Mr. Brauer finished, there were some questions from the floor. This part of the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. The Planning and Zoning Commission met briefly to discuss the Bury and Carlson, Peters property. They had continued the hearing pending a Planner's report. The report had been mailed to the Board. Motion was made by David Dale, seconded by Ralph Nesbitt to reopen the Bury and Carlson Hearings at the meeting of 9-5-67. The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Jam C. Brown, Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 29 August, 1967 A special joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council, Park and Recreation Commission, Industrial Commission, and School Boards,- #272, #274, and #276, was held on September 19, 1967 at 8:00 p.m. at the Eden Prairie Village Hall with Mr. Donald Brauer and Associates on the Eden Prairie Community Plan. Mr. Arthur Miller called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. and turned it over to Mr. Donald Brauer for his presentation. PRESENT AT THE MEETING WERE: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COUNCIL Arthur Miller David Osterholt, Mayor Cecil Cruse James C. Brown, Clerk David Dale Alvin Bren Henry Hauser Arthur Miller Ralph Nesbitt Paul Redpath Homer Raguet Odmor Skjelbostad PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Frances Blacklock Kenneth LeGrand Charles Brace • Harry Picha EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL BOARD Harry Picha Paul Enblom Dr. John Wright Robert Gartner HOPKINS SCHOOL BOARD Kenneth Skold ALSO PRESENT Quentin K. Wood, APW, Eden Prairie Village Representatives from Brauer & Associates Mr. Donald Brauer went through Part II of the plan which was the Natural Environment for the Village of Eden Prairie with a series of color slides. After the meeting there were no questions and the meeting was immediately adjourned. James C. Brown, Clerk VILLAGE 0 Yjih`lM 1„t[: � i' r e z O n 1'i A requEn � to MZ togethertry.�,� a the tkp�^.'L'san ?te �Y'G�?+% y 3 ! re sub!'IlittcaP,j 10 I,ttw lant W MY ! c�, 1967 . A hearing Vas set planning COM"i "s ion on Hann Ing Commission voted to asK an 00" in 'Ublicationa he hearing was but was opened on nay Mh- ,use permit were continued can- :}it�'` !1 tY�::.�'`�ii special � ' Taport could be received * ASSOCIATES . INC - M 1 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC. ,, Village of Eden Prairie, PLANNING REPORT 8 August 29 , 1967 FINDIMS 1 . The area in question is bordered on the West by N2 zoning , ,in the North by 'the proposed 62nd Crosstown Highway. The other two sides are open, undeveloped, land-, presently zoned RA. Most of the property North of the proposed Crosstown Highway is currently zoned "Planned Industrial " in the Village of Minnetonka and development design for at least one plant is underway. 2. The property in question is located in Section 3, Township 116, Range 22, and consists of approximately 40 acres . 3 . The site is about IJ3 low and 2/3 hilly, partly wooded , containing one single family dwelling. The dwelling will be owned by the petitioners , and will likely be removed soon, 4. There is a definite non-residential character to 11-he sur- rounding area. Existing ind!1 sty""' .7- to the I-lest and North , commercial zoning to the East, trackage and excellent access to the Crosstown and 1494, make residential zoning , at any density, unlikely and undesirable . 5. Existing topography and tree cover provide partial screening between the subject site and existing , quality, single- family development to the South. Only one existing residence has a direct 'view into the present M2 area , and this view could be screened with plant materials ,, The same residence does not have a direct view into the proposed M2 area . 6. The question of a special use permit for a blacktop plant CO can be easily evaluated inasmuch as a plant is presently C3 operating on the M2 property between the two railroad tracks to the West. Noise, odor, traffic , fumes and smoke from the existing plant are, or certainly can be, controlled well within reasonable tolerances , and the same should hold true Ct- for the proposed plant. The specific question of nuisance was at issue in a recent law suit by a neighbor against the existing plant--the suit was dropped. Lo BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC. 2 ASSOCIATES , W . . Village of Eden Prairie , PLANAM REPORT August 29 , 1 . The ared in question is committe ! to non-vesidential use by virtue of access , transportation and exiztinq ipdustrial Iand u Tho proposed black top plant will be no more obtrusive th9n the existing plant, or for Uat nalter , the "salt plant" . 3. Preservation and further development of the existing natural screen to the South must be a condition of any new zoniiq on special use peymits , as well as the existing M2 zoning and renewal of current special use permits . 1 , Subjact property--excepYthat porlion which is part of the approved rig ay ht-of-w for CSAH 062 , shou ld be zoned K2 , subject to tho following conditions : Ppe-s-a vat io" and devslopment of as effective natu;11 screen on South boundary, through Mall plen approval , Prcsarvation and Development of reasonable natural screening on Horth and East as actual land use awr,' development proposals are made. n ) Worcement of outside storage screening requirements Formerly inclmded under S1 zoning . 01 2 . Special use permit for Black Top Plant should be approved subjTU to the following conditions : al lastallaion end continuoys operation of wet washor in ! gas fired dryer dusignad to control odor, dust, noise aad smoke emission Nom the plant , QJ b) Effective dust control on access road and aggregate stock- pile haul roads Hours of Operation 7 :30 A.W. to 6 :30 P .M.80Z & opQrating days and in 0o case earlier than 7 : 30 AX or latir than 0:30 P.M . d) Aggregate stockpile oust not exceed 40 0et in height or elevation 930. IRAM Q ASSOCTATES , W . 3 r-4 I T. , Z� a ■ _1— Q 3 of ♦ o W � : 1 V ' r r r� s ri �. r ♦ , r t ELI r J rCOL.LAI Zw � 4 - _ r ' 00 A ■■ • or ■■ J% 1 ■ �W�,�umm�rr�t. J NM01 as • + f tt►i 3stiti �t,�Nt 00000 ? SWOOP swoop swoop 0000,so.wow .ram'WO"swoop w �..�.i ON ♦ ups Q arir � NO 01 ' + o y 'tSb at c op - i h I�IIIE WE1XIIIIIIIIIIIM m +r y r s_ Ivan i s y Owl, ® �.,Cz===Ran o, ^ ■n r `\ - rL Am NA k ,.. •, ��s':fit ,��ti ,% � _ f ,,,,.;r ' • �i r � Ak Wo i Y i own 0 MR pp- E %*I PI N w Q =' .0 3 aco m N • � R M i Z N 4 4 olem a �.. i � o Orr ■■ zi all fir■ • • rcc . ■ •, ad �\ r A. *jnsNrrur�+rk. �`� #321 t,,iMOl 4 A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM jot the Vittag e o 6 EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA PART I SURVEY AND ANALYSIS • ***** REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS pnepaned by: BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . jot pnezentation on: August 29 , 1967 Speciat Cont,uttant; Paul Anderson , Consulting Sociologist ANOKA CO. HENNEPIN RAMSE CO.TON CO. t CO. EDEN PRAT E CARVER CO. SCOTT DOKOTA CO. CO. t • COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM VILLAGE OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA PART I SURVEY AND ANALYSIS REGIONAL RELATIONSHIP L e St. Cloud 10 Taylors ells M;sS;ss'pp/ 52 8 VC 61 a U 52 MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL EDEN PRAIRIE co Chaska 212 Shakopee e� 35 } 61 n 169 € Red Winq 52 Fai►boult Mankato Owatonna Rochester LOCATION MAP 8-28-67 NORTH 6737 • 0 5mi. IOmi. 20mi. SCALE r__ Tom — _ —_—•� I BETHEL_ I ST.FBAM _CIS I NLINWOOD EAST BETHEL BURNS OAK GROPE _ I i 1 ANOKA CO' COLUMBUS 1 RAMSEY GROW HAM LAKE I FOREST LAKE I (JEW SCAN 014 DAYTON FOREST LAKE MILES 1 5 I AN KA LINO LAKES ONE. MARINE H AS SAN DAYTON CHAMPLIN COON RAPIDS CE NTE RVILLE ROGERS BLAINE I MAY CHAMPLIN I �HUGO HAND E. LEXINGTON CIRCLE PINES WASHINGTON CO. OSSEO 13 SHOREVIEW y— GREENFIELD CORCO RAN MAPLE GROVE OUH�S 27 1 VIEW HO RTH I STILLWATFR BROOKLYN PARK 1Y OAKS W ■AR D LWOOD ROCKFORD FRIDLEY KE GRANT HENNEPIN CO. BRONTER NEW HEIGHT S CENTER IBRIGH HEIGHTS 1 I STILLWA TFR ❑LORETTO C STAL 143 ARDEN HILLS 2 LINC 29N NEW 30 1 INDEPENDENCE MEDINA PLYMOUTH HOPE 10 ISI LITTLE O ROSEVILLE CAXAO ST.'PA UL 22 EAST OAKDALE RAPPORT MAPLE PLAIN I //////��IIII BAYTIWN GOLDEN '� NAPLEWOOD ELMO� I MEDICINE LAKE VALLEY 17 I WEtT _ OAN DALE LONG LAK _ WAY T I LAMFLANIr r _^nW' OR ONO — `/ ATERTOWN MINNETONKA ST.LOUIS I 1 ( LA KELAND I MINNETRISTA PARK 1 3 HOLLYWOOD WATERTOWN I HOUND DEEPHAVEN HOPKINS 8 �ST CROF BEA H I 4 9 WEST WCnOBufrl 3 � AU AFTON _ISP.ONIFACIUS _ EDINA 1 is WEST SOUTH f, dM AYER r�— RIG NFIELD AIRPORT MEND OTA ST' NEWPORT AFTt1N NEW GERNANY VICTORIA 112' HE UH,ISH PALL CHANHASSEN E ST.PAUL CAM DEN WACONIA LAKETOWN AR WACONIA BLOOMINGTON INVER GROVE CHASKA FSGAN HEIGHTS COTTAGE GROVE DEN"" CARVER CO. t CHASKA SHAKOPEE DAKOTA CO. AMERICA 5..1 YOUNG I 9 F�7 0 NORWOOD� CARVER JACKSONI I BURNSVILLE COLOGNE DAHLGREN - I EAGLE CREEK IGLENDALE YOUNG AMERICA BENTON `—I I LEBiN��N PnSEMO`NT NININGER �y LOUISVILLE I I 1 ROSEMOUNT HASTIN GS LIT ___—�__ I T OA ES HA tURG I SAN FRANCISCO P I R F HANCOCK I LAKE I VFPMILLION +.,t NNAI SAND CREEK SPRING LAKE I CREDIT LaKEVILLF FMPIRF Mt k'.11llr I � I Ll RIVER � i VERMILLION ST.LAWRENCE I JORDAN SCOTT CO. LAKE ILLE I IFARMINGTON _ 1 BELLE PLAINE NEW MARKET DREW TRIER l HAMPTON f I BLAKFLEY I BELLE PLAINE I HELENA A'LCEDAR LAKE I I FURFKA FASTLF ROCK MIESVILLEI NEW MARKET HAM P1riN f�ft`ii,l s' I NEW--DIRAG UEI ELKO RANDOLPH June67 LJ RANDOLPH I I .P FF NVALE WATFRI-- 1 SPRING PARK 17 FALCON HEIGHTS I S fIOTA 1 2 ORONO 18 MENDOTA 3 MINNETONKA BEACH 19 LILYDALE I �--- 4 TONKA RAY 20 GREY CLOUD 5 EXCELSIOR 21 LANDFALL 6 GREENWOOD 22 NORTHDALE 7 WOODLAND 23 PINE SPRINGS 8 MIKNFTONKA 24 MAN OMEDI 9 SAVAGE 25 GEM LAKE 10 ROBBINSDALE 26 BIR CHWOOD 13 SPRING 11LAKE PARK 27 WHITE BEAR ANOKA Countie s 12 U.S.GOVT 28 LINCOLN --�-�— 7,, 13 HILLTOP 29 WILLERNIE GRANT -TOWnSYll S 14 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 30 OAK PARK HEIGHTS --- --- P 15 3T.ANTHONY 31 LAKELAND SHORES OSSEO 16 LAUDERDALE 32 ST.MARY'S POINT Municipalities TOWNSHIPS AND INCORPORATED AREAS, 1967 TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION Z FIG. 18 BUILDABLE LAND BY SECTORS a A N O KA y Co. OLAKES -- SECTOR BOUNDARY DON RAPIDS r tLAINE y WATER "um cFIA ! I MARSH �-,� � �� LE DIMES EXCESSIVE SLOPE OSSEO — LINCOLN (OVE'T 10%) MAPLE GROVE MOUNDS ' ■ROOKLYN P K VIEW NORTH S EXISTING URBAN W" fl FRIDLEY DEVELOPMENT 1Q ? tWOKLYN NEW CENTER BRIGHT V NAIS UNURBANIZED RDEN HE HTS RYSTAL HILLS BUILDABLE LAND OL Mt1A NE HEIGHTS EACH PIE REPRESENTS "D Sims ALE CANADA 00 Q• LYMOUTN NORTH 100% OF SECTOR , P I P ROSEVIIIE fA1M P EAS M)1rLEWOOD GOLDEN VALLEY HEIGHTS - HE EPIN CO. O M0 MU[TZA I I RAMSEY CO. fAIPARK lim NTLOUIS INNEAPOLIS MOUND MINNETONKA SAINT PAUL PHAVEN HOPKINS rL- - II y WEST WO Y SAINT - fHOREWOOD CEL PAAW L T _� 3 EDINA J- f ! AIRPORT•• ` RICHFIELD H I N GTgN ME OOTA HEIG S - CHANHASSN PAUL PARK •`i, PLOOMINGTON I CARVER CO. Tct 1 E ,, I INVER GROVE r-C6M EGROVE CHASKA I As o+ I fKA SHAKO►EE I y� Co. SAV JACKSON i SCOTT CO. BURNSVILLE EAGLE CREEK VGLENDALE IA C4 COUNTY BOUNDARY I CENTRAL CITY BOUNDARY I I _ 1 - I { lam►,;^-,. FIG. 6 SOIL CAPABILITIES- -GOOD =FAIR POOR . Soil imposes few limitations on Soil requires special conserva- Soil imposes severe limitations the choice of plants and requires tion practices and/or restricts and is generally unsuitable for almost no conservation practices. the choice of plants. cultivation. 4 14A COUNTY I BOUNDARY I p I _ CENTRAL I I—• CITY BOUNDARY COUNman MSEY UNTY � SHI N i COUNT a I ti 9 ' 0 � D ST. PAU L MINN OLIS I rJ I U G� 10 I CARVER C O NT I � I DAKOTA COUNTY SCO T COUNTY I O _.J I I .J FIG. 8 MAJOR WATERSHEDS MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI ST. CROIX RIVER RIVER RIVER Source: Division of Waters,Minnesota Department of Conservation. 16 5 r----- -�- -�- - 1 fl � Urban Developement I O d — a o �n 60 Water O S 10 MILES O I ANOKA CO. oa Ir 1 tj40, l� , a o - _ WAS GTON r� HENN PIN C ` _ 1 A Y CO i 1 ��r. ,--1� --■ gu � c 1 � 0 0 I � CAF tVER C a -''j a o 10 - D KO A CO. - u '1 c5 a COTT O. 1 i 1 . .. 1 Fig. 4. MAJOR ROAD NETWORK ------------- Proposed Interstate Highway System Federal Aid Primary Federal Aid Secondary 11 6 r uft ems, , ' " ! i/' i is;illy. Ait'- ig V. 40 I t 1 ` ?!4►: # � 'f ♦ 1 `s �=_i J�ilitrdeatatrrr�� _.�-._ - :. S� i - „`�`•+':-•�� � jam `•, - !; - •�S - �. s.- .- u.,R ,.: - - - .,, 4-:�.:,• "V*xx i *RrYi • r irlRl mica law* j .� . �. ■ i a too, - WIrl TAT W4 � - - •. - �. � s 3'1 TIRR i j. r Fig. 6. TRAFFIC LANES: EXISTING & PROPOSED ■■■■■■■ 6 Lane Divided ������� 3 Propne osed 4 Lane Divided � 6 Lane p -----. 4 Lane Divided Rar Upgrade to Interstate 4 Lane 94 Interstate Routes 16 � n I Urban Developement I o b I t to Water � � I C , 4 wuss �p Q Q 0 OKA CO. D I o4 d Z pe a SO o WASHI GTON CO. ,w �RAN1i9 O.� NP HENNEPIN CO. ® I v " Otk $oo o �O QH V I C;&NW a o AW �.�Jb �I cc w x I . CARVE I DAKOT COS - •—� ��a�5 � � scow co.Q GSL Q v � � Z P I I Fig. 13. RAIL ROUTES & TERMINALS Double Track Centralized Traffic Control Single Track O Passenger Terminals Automatic Block Signal Control A Freight Terminals r 1 Urban Developetnent ( ` \``� 01 I \\\ I0 O � 4r� I \IN,Water ` ` I \ o s w rues J g `KA CO. 0 a ,i,, p`` • JOURNEY'S NO cal , \` ANOKA CO. I v a O ulttltiltltltppppplV7gnlipppppnitllt�iltiltJ� jfpr rrrp — RICE LA BENSO�T� • C1l`' fit Q3 WASHINGTON CO. / ��iq,,,�" Fti? • a��O�pv`\a� o v' ��ip, .� w _ � �. nn�'ynn°°pnnnuu fiVy�IEPIN CO. p E , I ,DRAMegY CO. �—�— ,,�— '� ..:.tM► t1 + ''�����9i�,,,� LAKE ELMO CIS6 .. � ` t• t!p �_L_ ,,�'i''��,� g � WOLF i, FLE4 � ''''''','���� • CARVER CO. d pb,b DAKO' �CO.-CO.� \ R jA SOH , • C� ',''� ttt tuuuu°tm m uuu{i��;��� t S(fOTT CO. pm"ll" tttptllt f' \\ Itl IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV261111111111111i1 IIIIIIIIIIitiit — .. .....« itiittttltttttttiitttttttttltttlttttttttlttttttt,tt `ttttttt = _ - -- >,,, t /ice Fig. 19 . AIRWAYS & AIRPORTS tttllllti im Victor Airway — — M.A. C. O Other Public Airports Colored Airway jurisdictional Boundary • Private Landing Strips Wold-Chamberlin Control Zone © M.A. C. Public Airports A Private Seaplane Bases 52 9 Figure 8. GROWTH ACCORDING TO PRESENT TRENDS %$/ I,Wwwo.�/ll- Urbanized Area LM Major Roads a s ------ Commuter Railroads • . Commercial Centers •0.��D Industry / Water Bodies �w :-�,�°y Twin Cities Metropolitan M °° Area Boundary , d (This legend also applies to other maps in this report.) 19 64—Population 1.7 Million • y 414lot h I � b t n1 /I � � v f 6 O f i 1980-Population 2.5 Million 2000—Population 4.0 Million 10 j r ' '•%' �� // a'v lJi n pit ;L1 A�,. Figure 22. TWIN CITIES, 2000 A.D.: Figure 23. TWIN CITIES, 2000 A.D.: PRESENT TRENDS ALTERNATIVE SPREAD CITY ALTERNATIVE /Or qN� / err �'�,i / i �; '/,.�;•;. �' � p ter. - , �-• o . )lam i,.•O� ..q � ,. Figure 24. TWIN CITIES, 2000 A.D.: Figure 25. TWIN CITIES, 2000 A.D.: MULTIPLE CENTERS ALTERNATIVE RADIAL CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY In April of 1967 , the Village Cauncil of Eden Prairie voted to retain BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . to assist in the prepara- tion of a comprehensive community Development Plan . A specific proposal for a planning procedure was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council in May , and approved on June 27 , 1967 . SCOPE OF SERVICES The contract proposal includes the following services : - Maintain Community Base Map - Study and Analyze Regional Relationships - Evaluate Natural Environment • - Complete Sociological Analysis - Conduct Community Development Seminars - Assist in Establishing Development Goals - Prepare Community Development Guide Plan w - Provide 100 Copies of Plan Report and C/) w 2000 Copies of a Summary Report Brochure . o w C) c, C/) A Z Q U Q 1- C/) P�1 Q . BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA PROCEDURE The planning process has been divided into four basic parts , to be accomplished in a series of steps beginning in August , 1967 and ending as a formal program with the completed Development Guide Plan in July of 1968 as follows : PART I - SURVEY AND ANALYSIS - Regional Relationships August , 1967 - Natural Environment September, 1967 - Sociological Analysis October , 1967 PART II - GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - Community Development Seminars November , 1967 - Statement of Goals and Objectives December , 1967 * Conzidenation and Adoption Januany, 1968 PART III - PLAN . ELEMENTS Thoroughfares February , 1968 - Land Use March , 1968 Community Facilities April , 1968 - Municipal Services May , 1968 * Conzidehatian and Adoption June, 1968 PART IV - DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PLAN - Plan Report Presentation July , 1968 * Conzidenation and Adoption August, 1968 - Implementation - Ordinances and Procedures and Long- Range Capital Improvements Program Q Each major subdivision will be presented before a joint , public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission , Council, Q • BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Park Commission and Industrial Commission , and submitted for study in the form of a loose leaf "work book" . Upon completion and review , each Part will then be duplicated and bound as a completed preliminary report . Part I is merely informational , and requires no formal action before continuing the planning process . Part II and Part III , however, provide the foundation and basic guidelines required in order to formulate the Development Guide Plan . Review , modification and formal adoption will be required before the next Part can be prepared and considered . The months of January and June are set aside for consideration and adoption , and the month of August for presentation and adoption of the Guide Plan itself . These dates are tentative presentation dates . Each Part will be presented in outline form with a summary of FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS , followed by illustrative materials and text to explain and support the summary statements . Specific Policy Decisions will be set apart for consideration and adoption under Part II and Part III . c.� Q F-- cn 40 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA " In facilitating definition of variations in all other factors in the equilibrium balance necessitated by an initial change , and assuming maintenance of locational equilibrium , and at the same time making it also possible to delineate shifts in locational distribution of density that must occur if such primary change and secondary adjustment are to be forthcoming , the approach opens the door to prediction of geographical , spatial , or locational spread , diffusion , and distribution of residential and non-residential densities from the interaction of the determinants of economic potential and cost variables related to distance and density"* "*or you could say that if you poke it , the whole mess squishes out in a sort of a pattern . " ( 1 ) `o ( 1 ) And On The Eighth Day , Redman and Bair Falcon Press , 1961 0 t- BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 4 Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN • FOR EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA A mass of statistics is about as interesting as a pile of third-class mail when you come home from a vacation . Statistics provide a basis for projections of many kinds . Supported by assumptions , and hedged with alternatives , they are often used to, construct the Community Development Plan . As information and data is gathered , plotted , correlated and analyzed , a' picture of the community and its problems begins to emerge , ready to be solved as it was constructed --statistically . The Community Development Plan for Eden Prairie will NOT be developed in this manner for the following reasons : 1 . A "picture " of the community today will be almost completely unrelated to what will develop . Projecting what HAS HAPPENED is neither realistic nor desirable . Extrapolation is not the only means of utilizing experience . 2 . Eden Prairie is only a small part of the larger urban 09 metropolitan area , and the forces which provide development pressure are nearly completely external in origin and control . Analysis and projection of these factors is the task of the Metropolitan Council - Division of Planning ( formerly MPC) . Eden Prairie should consider and weigh the projections and proposals already prepared by the MPC . 3 . Political , social and economic- conditions are changing rapidly in Eden Prairie as the Village begins to assume an urban , rather than a rural nature . 4. Statistics reflect "what" ( "thing" ) values and not "who" ( "pe&.sona.E" ) values , and for as long as it is possible in this technological society , we must try to utilize personal values in the important decision-making o processes . E-- U The materials presented in all three subdivisions of PART I , Q are intended to be informational - not even interesting - CD in order to minimize the time required for providing a �-- similar information base to all those involved in the Community Development Planning process . BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA HISTORY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Although the Eden Prairie we know today gets its beauty primarily from the rolling countryside , its name was inspired by a different beauty . In 1853 , an early settler , Mrs . Elliot , was fascinated by waving grassland on the prairie that is now Flying* Cloud Airport . She likened it to the Garden of Eden -- and thus the name Eden Prairie was born . John McKenzie , one of the first to settle in our area , decided that a township was needed to attract more settlers . As Secretary of the Minnesota territory , Alexander Wilkens was persuaded by John McKenzie to establish the township of Hennepin . This was the first of four towns that were later consolidated to form the present Eden Prairie . The plot for Hennepin Village was filed on May 17 , 1854 . Its ' area included the land of Sections 34 and 35 , along the Minnesota River. • The 36 square mile township was organized in 1858 . The first town meeting was held on May 11th of that year . In 1902 , the four townships of Hennepin , Rowland , Washburn , and Eden Prairie were combined to form the Eden Prairie we know today . The township became a Village on November 12 , 1962 . ( 1 ) a t-- U Q O ( 1 ) Excerpted from "An Invitation to Industry From EDEN PRAIRIE , MINNESOTA by the Industrial Development Department , Northern States Power Company , April 1967 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 6 M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA GEOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1 . Eden Prairie is located on the Southwest rim of current total urban development in the second "ring" of Minneapolis suburbs . . . One of more than 100 municipalities in the seven-county Metropolitan Area . 2 . Except for the Minnesota River Valley , the topography is hilly and largely covered by native hardwood forest . About 50% of the existing land area is considered "buildable" - that is , slopes of less than 10% . 3 . Soils are considered "fair" for urban development and are typical of most of the metropolitan area . 4 . Eden Prairie lies entirely within the Minnesota River watershed drained by Riley , Purgatory , and Nine-Mile Creeks . 5 . No other community in the Metropolitan Area has motor . vehicle , rail and air transportation facilities to equal Eden Prairie . ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1 . Assessed value has increased 250% since 1960 , as compared to 68% for suburban Hennepin County . 2. Individual income is growing at the same pace as in other cr) Hennepin County suburbs . (Average annual income is ca estimated to be $11 ,000 . 00) . Q 3 . Buying power in Eden Prairie has increased nearly 400% since 1960 . (About $4 ,500 ,000 to $16 ,000 .000) . 0 Q BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 7 l COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS 1 . Population in Eden Prairie has increased 90% since 1959 , compared to 34% in suburban Hennepin County . (By the year 2000 , Eden Prairie may be nearly 90% urbanized - under present trends or any of the three alternate patterns proposed by the MPC . 2 . New population is stable , similar kinds of people . (Mostly young families - result: Second highest household size in Hennepin County , 4 . 28) . 3 . Middle class - typical of suburban Hennepin County . 4. Social problems exist at rates so low that they are not evident . 5 . Male work force shows higher percentage of professionals and managers than the metropolitan area as a whole , but fewer than suburban Hennepin County . 6 . Suburban Hennepin 'County is showing signs of social maturity , while Eden Prairie is growing but not maturing . (age and institutionalization ) 7 . Eden Prairie has no identifiable community spirit or image . cD Q z 0 cry BRAUER & ASSOCIATES , INC . 8 w COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA COMMUNITY STRUCTURE QUESTIONS . . . . How should people live together? . . . . What obligations and freedoms do they enjoy? . . . . How should people make a living? . . . . How should natural resources be used? . . . . How should families be raised and educated? . . . . How should the aged and handicapped be cared for? . . . . What place does free (discretionary) time have in community order? . . . . . What tolerance will be developed for the exploratory impulses of individual in the community structure? cn CD 0 n- Q cn BRAUER & ASSOCIATE$ , INC . 9 EDEN PRAIRIE AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS INTRODUCTION P ,1 ABSTRACT 1 POPULATION 2 FAMILY AND AGE COMPOSITION 2 INCOME AND PROPERTY VALUES 3 OCCUPATIONS AND LABOR FORCE 4 SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND SPECIAL POPULATIONS 5 A NOTE ON FURTHER RESEARCH 5 TABLE I - STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF EDEN PRAIRIE. 7 SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE 8 METROPOLITAN AREA ON SELECTED 9 CHARACTERISTICS S- TABLE II -MALE OCCUPATIONS, EDEN PRAIRIE, SUBURBAN 10 0 n ui HENNEPIN, AND METROPOLITAN AREA (1960) BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.1 0 J 0 0 CONSULTING SOCIOLOGIST - PAUL ANDER.SM z z 0 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EDEN PRAIRIE AS COMPARED WITH THE TWIN CITY METROPOLITAN AREA AND OTHER HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBURBS , The remarks of this report are preliminary in character and based upon analysis of a variety of statistical records which are available on Eden Prairie and the metropolitan area . A more careful analysis of some of the same factors as well as a number of other factors will be conducted as the study progresses . ABSTRACT As a result of this preliminary analysis it seem that several characteristics typify this village . First , it is a rapidly growing area ; population has increased 90% since 1960 . Second , it seems to be a relatively stable community in the sense that new growth does not seem to reflect additions of large numbers of different kinds of people , but rather large numbers of people very similar to those who are already residents of the community , particularly young people (families ) . ® The community is preeminently a place for young families with relatively large numbers of children . (Eden Prairie has the second largest household size in Hennepin County , 4. 28) . In terms of social class the community is probably best identified as middle class , shading toward the lower middle o class spectrum . In this sense it is typical of the social a. composition of suburban Hennepin County . ( In 1960 the maleUj work force contained a higher percentage of professionals and managers than the metropolitan area , but fewer than �-- other Hennepin County suburbs . c� In terms of income , the community is also representative I of the Hennepin county suburbs ; individual income is � growing at a pace consistent with the rest of the suburbs U and , in the face of rising population , buying income is o growing very rapidly . (Average income in 1967 is about (D $11 ,000) . At the same time this buying income represents z only a fraction of the total metropolitan purchasing power . J One of the most spectacular differences between Eden Cn Prairie and the suburbs as a whole is reflected by the rate o of increase of assessed valuation . Eden Prairie has risen 2 5 0% in v a l u a t i o n since 1960 .. ........whereas the metropoli— tan area has risen by only 22% and suburban Hennepin as a whole by only 68%. 1 Social problems are not prevalent ; but there may be some problems in dental care for children and in programs and care for the aging , even though this population is only 3% of the community. FOPULATION (SEE TABLE I ) Since 1959 Eden Prairie population has risen by 90% . In the same period suburban Hennepin county population has risen by 34% and the metropolitan area by 18. 5% . The average annual increase for this period (over the 1959 population ) is 11% for Eden Prairie , 4% for suburban Hennepin county and 2 . 6% for the metropolitan area . The rate of increase , however , has been slowing in recent years , probably in both absolute and relative terms . From 1965 to 1967 the Eden Prairie growth rate was 6% , the Hennepin suburban growth was 3% and the metropolitan growth rate declined to 1 . 6% . Despite the change in rate , the number of new households and the total number of new persons in Eden Prairie appears to have remained stable . New households have averaged 74 a year since 1959 and new persons in the population have averaged 366 since 1959 . A slight decline in absolute population growth in Eden Prairie may be noted from 1965 to 1967 , for the mean growth 1959 to 1965 - was 370 and the mean growth 1965 to 1967 was 350. Probably , in view of both national and local slacking of population growth , this is a significant difference . a: 0 a FAMILY AND AGE COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION (SEE TABLE I ) W Cn F- Since 1960 the persons per household in Eden Prairie has 1-4 risen from 4. 07 to 4. 28 . Only Brooklyn Park , of the suburbs , has a higher number of persons per household o (4 . 32) . This means , of course , that the family size and number of young children is relatively large . In this period in the metropolitan area , persons per household o has risen from 3 . 28 to 3 . 74 ; but the persons per household in suburban Hennepin has remained relatively constant at z about 3 . 77 . (The rise in size per household in the i metropolitan area is accounted for by the increase of family size in other areas and counties , particularly N Dakota County and Anoka) . o Consistent with the high and increasing size in persons per household in Eden Prairie , is the shift in age composition . The community median age has shifted from 21 . 7 to an estimated 19 or less (based on the 1965 Special Census projected to 1967 ) . '2 In addition , the number of young persons has shifted dramatically , both in number and percentage of population since 1960 . In 1960 there .were 1 ,490 persons under 18 in the community and they composed 36% of the population . In 1967 , persons under 18 had risen to 2949 and composed 48% of the population . The median age of the metropolitan area in 1960 was 25 . 2 ; for suburban Hennepin it is estimated to have been slightly less than 25 . Though 1967 figures on age categories are not available , it seems reasonable to estimate that the age levels of other areas of the metropolitan area continue to be considerably higher than those in Eden Prairie . This is reflected , particularly by the change of the proportion of persons under 18 in 1960 and 1967 . In 1960 , the population of suburban Hennepin county under 18 was 44% . In 1967 this figure had declined to 42% . This trend reflects not a declining median age but an increasing median age . At the same time , the metropolitan area as a whole shifted from 37% under 18 to 36% under 18 . Thus , suburban Hennepin as a whole is beginning to show the signs of being a maturing social area ; whereas Eden Prairie is not following this pattern at all . The ratios of persons under 18 years of age to 18 or over (modified dependency ratios ) are : 1960 1967 Eden Prairie . 60 . 92 Suburban Hennepin . 80 . 74 0 Metropolitan Area . 60 . 64 w a U) INCOME AND PROPERTY VALUES (SEE TABLE I ) ~ 0 Useful information on income and property values are 0 difficult to obtain , because of the absence of more U frequent census information and because of changes in 0 property valuation procedures . Nonetheless , certain trends and useful information can be located and estimated from 0 z the available data . _I In 1959 the average annual income per household in Eden U) Prairie was $6 ,791 . Based on an average estimated increase z of income levels since 1959 of 60% , the average annual o household income would now be about $11 ,000 . The Hennepin county suburbs in 1959 had an average income of about $7 ,400 with a range of $6 ,791 to $11 ,000 . 3 The median income of these suburbs now would appear to be about $11 , 000 with a range of $10 ,500 to $22 ,000 . The average annual income of the metropolitan area was $5 ,806 and is now probably around $9 ,500 . These figures suggest that Eden Prairie has shown a slight rise in relative position visa via income in the metropolitan area and the Hennepin county suburbs . Since the income figures are derived from different sources , it may not be a genuine difference . At the same time , since it is expected that the community has become progressively less rural farm , and more suburban , it would be expected that a rise in relative income level would occur . The evidence suggests that while Eden Prairie is below Edina , Minnetonka and St . Louis Park in level of household or family income , it is at the same level of income as Richfield and Bloomington and probably above the income level of most other Hennepin suburbs . The increase in income combined with the increase in population has , of course , generated an increase in buying power. The effective buying power of Eden Prairie in 1959 was probably about $4 ,500 ,000 and in 1966 about $16 ,000. 000 . While this is a significant increase , it is only a fraction of the buying power in the immediate area . . Suburban Hennepin had a buying power of around $360 ,000 ,000 in 1960 and of around $1 ,000 ,000 ,000 in 1966 . One of the most spectacular growths in Eden Prairie is reflected in increased property values (real and Personal ) . In 1960 Eden Prairie showed assessed valuation of $1 ,579 ,000 . By 1966 this assessed valuation had risen to $4,498,000 an increase of $2 ,918 ,000 ( 190%) . E- 0 In contrast , the suburban Hennepin as a whole showed an Uj increase of 68% ,, from $196 ,284 ,000 to $329 ,011 ,834 . a U) OCCUPATIONS AND LABOR FORCE (SEE TABLE II ) cD 0 0 There is no current data on the occupations of the work U force of Eden Prairie . In 1959 , this work force was very 0 similar to the employed persons of the suburban county "' area. It contained fewer professionals and managers (D than the other suburbs , but more than the metropolitan area as a whole . (Eden Prairie male work force was 33% professional and managerial ; Suburban Hennepin was 36% professional and managerial ; the Metropolitan Area was z 27% professional or managerial . ) o 4 Eden Prairie in 1960 also differed from the Hennepin county suburbs significantly in the small number (5% , Eden Prairie , as against 13% , suburbs ) of persons employed in sales work . The Metropolitan area as a whole reflects larger numbers of relatively unskilled occupations and smaller numbers of skilled , professional and managerial occupations . Our expectation is that the trend since 1959 has been in the direction of larger numbers of professional , managerial , craftsmen , foremen , and sales persons , with a decline in less skilled occupations . Subsequent investigation will probably clarify this issue . SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND SPECIAL POPULATIONS Social problems in Eden Prairie , seem , at this point , to be conspicuous by their absence . The only problem which may exist at a serious level , is an absence of adequate dental care for children . The United Fund reports in 1963-64 , an incidence of 8 . 1 to 15 dental clinic services per 1 ,000 population age 6 to 17 . In addition , it may be that the older persons of Eden Prairie have some special needs . The United Fund reports that Eden Prairie , in 1963-64 was in the second quintile of amount of group work service for the aged rendered by the United Fund agencies in that year. Eden Prairie residents over 65 are relatively few in number. There were 179 persons over 65 in 1965 (3% of the population ) and 132 persons over 65 (4% of the population ) in 1960 . w The fact that old people are growing in absolute numbers should , despite the small percentages , be a matter of ♦— concern for the community . About 9% of the metropolitan population was over 65 in 1959 . About 4% of the Hennepin 0 county suburban population was over 65 in 1959 . —1 0 U 0 A NOTE ON FURTHER RESEARCH "' c7 z A number of important questions remain unanswered by this E— preliminary report . To begin with , we do not know the current distribution of male occupations , and without this z information it is difficult to assess the nature of the 0 new population . 0 5 We do not know either , how many persons are employed in Eden Prairie itself; nor do we know with any decisiveness , where new members of the community are coming from . (The 1960 census indicated that migrants were coming primarily from otehr suburbs and from communities to the North and West . With the expansion of industry in the area since 1960 , one would expect however , that new members of the community would have more diversified backgrounds than the 1960 population . Further , we do not have reliable information on income , though the data we have does provide us with some clues to the basic trends . This report does not throw any light on another important issue ; the extent to which formal or informal institutions nucleate in such a way as to create a genuine community spirit in Eden Prairie . In the absence of a single school district , central churches and a major shopping district , it is our estimate that citizens of Eden Prairie must experience their membership in this community with less intensity than residents of Hopkins , St . Louis Park or Edina , for example . While a community has physical form and structure , it exists ultimately in men ' s minds as the composite of ideas about certain questions , particularly these : How people should live together - what obligations and greedoms they enjoy? How people should make a living and use physical resources? w How people should raise children and care for the ill and helpless? Cn U) 0-4 What place have free time and exploratory impulses in an ordered society? o 0 The ideas about these matters which are brought to the U community setting are usually more important than any other U) physical or social fact in determining community development . 0 z We expect that future inquiry will provide some information on how these questions are answered in Eden Prairie . U) z 0 U 6 4 TABLE I STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF EDEN PRAIRIE. - SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA EDEN PRAIRIE 1960 1967 Under 18 1 ,490 36 1 ,949 48 18 and Older 1 ,733 64 3 ,210 52 TOTAL 3 ,233 100 6 , 159 100 Median Age 21 . 7 19* Est . from 1965 data Sex Ratio . 98 1 . 0* Number Households 848 1 ,439 (591 increase 1959 - 1967 ) Persons in Household 4 . 07 4 . 28 (only suburb higher ; 4 . 32 Brooklyn Pk . ) Absolute Mean Growth Households / year 74 (1959 - 1967 ) Mean Population Growth / year 366 (1959 - 1967 ) 370 (1959 - 1965 ) 350 ( 1965 - 1967 ) Absolute Population 2 ,926 ( 1959 - 1967 ) Growth 703 ( 1965 - 1957 ) Population Percent 90 ( 1959 - 1967 ) Increase 70 ( 1959 - 1965 ) Mean Percent 11 ( 1959 - 1967 ) Increase / year 12 ( 1959 - 1965 ) 6 ( 1965 - 1967 ) Mean Annual Household Income $6 , 791 $11 ,000* (estimated ) Effective Buying Income $4 ,500 ,000* . $16 ,000 ,000* (estimated) Assessed Valuation 1 ,579 ,000 4 ,488 ,000 ($2 ,918 ,000 increase or 250% 1959-1967 ) *Estimated from 1965 Data 7 a a TABLE I STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF EDEN PRAIRIE, SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY 1960 1967 Under 18 157 ,000 44 203 ,000 42 Over 18 203 ,000 56 274 ,000 58 No Age Znganmation 5, 000 TOTAL . - 360 ,000 100 482 ,000 100 Median Age 25 (est . ) 25 (est . ) Sex Ratio 99 no in6o&mation Number Households 93,700 127 ,000 (33 ,000 increase 1959-1967 ) Persons in Household 3 . 78 3 . 77 (median of suburbs ) 3 . 6 (median ) Absolute Mean Growth Households / year 4 ,850 ( 1959 - 1967 ) Mean Population Growth / year 15 ,250 ( 1959 - 1967 ) Absolute Population Growth 122 ,000 (1959 - 1967 ) Population Percent 3 ( 1966 - 1967 ) Increase 34 ( 1959 - 1967 ) Mean Percent Increase / year 4 ( 1959 - 1967 ) Annual Income Range of $6800 to 11 ,000 Range of $10 ,500-22 ,000 Per Household Suburbs Median $7400 Suburbs Median $11 ,000 Effective Buying $360,000 ,000 ,$1 ,000 ,000 ,000 Power (estimated) (estimated ) Assessed Valuation $196 , 284 ,000 329 ,012 ,000 ($133 ,000 ,000 increase 1959-1967 or 68%) 8 TABLE I STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF EDEN PRAIRIE, SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA METROPOLITAN AREA 1960 1967 Under 18 540 ,000 37 672 ,000 36 Over 18 937 ,000 63 1 ,095 . 000 64 No Age Injonmation 40, 000 TOTAL 1 ,437 ,000 100 1 ,807 ,000 100 Median Age 25 . 2 No injoxmation Sex Ratio 93 No injonmation Number Households 441 ,000 950 ,000 (509 ,000 increase ) Persons in Household 3 . 28 3 . 74 Absolute Mean Growth Households / year 64 ,000 (1959 - 1967 ) Absolute Average Population Growth 41 ,000 (1959 - 1967 ) Population Percent Increase 18 . 5 ( 1959- 1967 ) Average Annual Income Per Household $5 ,806 $10 ,000 (est . ) Effective Buying Power , Assessed Valuation 1 ,162 ,000 ,000 $1 ,421 ,000 ,000 (estimated) (22% increase est . ) BIBLIOGRAPHY U . S . Census - 1960 U. S. Special Census - 1965 Metropolitan Planning Commission , Estimate of Population 1967 (August 9 , 1967 ) "Sales_ Management" June , 1967 June , 1960 Data for estimating effective buying power: Property Valuations 1960-1967 , County Auditor ' s Office , Hennepin County H ry 0 a_ w U) I— U) 0 0 0 U 0 cD z J 0 fN ' Z O v 11 w TAB LE II M- LEOCCUPATIONS SUBURB. DEN 1960 CENSUS SMSA* % HENNEPIN % FRAIRIE TOTAL EMPLOYED (Civilian) 369, 000 100 91 , 000 100 764 100 Professional , Technical & Kindred 51 ,000 14 15 ,000 17 132 17 Managers , Officers & Proprietors 48 ,000 13 17 ,000 19 121 16 Clerical 35 ,000 9 7 ,000 8 61 8 Sales 33 ,000 9 12 ,000 13 40 5* Craftsmen & Foremen 75 ,000 20 19 ,000 21 176 23* Operatives , etc . 64 ,000 17 12 ,000 13 133 17* Private Household (494) -1 (236 ) - - - Service (except household) 23 ,000 6 3 ,000 3 16 2 ry Laborers 24 ,000 6 4 ,000 4 51 7 °- w ry Not Reporting 17 ,000 5 2 ,000 2 34 5 H W O J O U O U) * SMSA REFERS TO THE STANDARD METROPOLITAN -STATISTICAL AREA z CONSISTING OF A COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA J W Z O U 1f'