HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/02/2003AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2,2003 CITY CENTER
5:OO - 6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOM 11
6:30 - 7:OO PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, and Jan Mosman, and
Philip Young
CITY STAFF:
City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Dan Carlson, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works
Director Eugene Dietz, Director of Parks and Recreation Bob Lambert, City Attorney Ric Rosow,
and Recorder Lorene McWaters
Heritage Room 11
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
111. STADIUM
IV. OTHER TOPICS
Council Chamber
V. OPEN FORUM (Scheduled participants, 6:30-7:00 p.m.)
VI.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
OPEN PODIUM (Unscheduled participants, 6:50-7:00 p.m.)
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2,2003 7:OO PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, Jan
Mosman, and Philip Young
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public Works
Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council
Recorder Theresa Brundage
I.
11.
111.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
CERT CERTIFICATE CEREMONY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MINUTES
A.
B.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A.
B.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18,2003 (p. I)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18,2003 (p. 5)
CLERK’S LICENSE LIST (p. 17)
ADOPT RESOLUTION SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR
LAYOUT APPROVAL AND MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR NEW TH 212
IMPROVEMENTS FROM CSAH 4 TO EXISTING TH 212, I.C. 93-5305 (p. 21)
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS
A. TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING by Keith Traxler. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Rural to Office on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on .43 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on -43 acres, Site
Plan Review on .43 acres, and Preliminary Plat of .43 acres on 1 lot. Location: 9340
Hennepin Town Road. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change,
Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Resolution for Preliminary Plat,
Ordinance for PUD District Review, Zoning District Change) @. 23)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
December 2,2003
Page 2
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XTII.
XIV.
xv.
B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE A REZONING by Pemtom Land Company.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 2.55 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-
9.5 to RM 6.5 on 2.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres. Location: North of
Highway 212, west of Spring Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment,
Ordinance for PUD District Review, Zoning District Change) (p. 39)
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS (p. 6Q
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 4; RELATING TO LIOUOR LICENSING (p. 73)
B. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 4; RELATING TO LIOUOR LICENSING (p. 76)
PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
APPOINTMENTS
REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C.
D.
E.
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
OTHER BUSINESS
REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR
REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/F’ORUM
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18,2003 CITY CENTER
5:OO - 6~25 PM, HERITAGE ROOM 11
6:30 - 7:OO PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, and Jan Mosman, and
Philip Young
CITY STAFF:
City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Dan Carlson, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works
Director Eugene Dietz, Director of Parks and Recreation Bob Lambert, Finance Manager Sue
Kotchevar, Senior Accountant Tammy Wilson and Recorder Lorene McWaters
Heritage Room 11
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
111. 2004/2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Finance Director Sue Kotchevar provided an overview of the Capital Improvement
Program planning process and proposed 2004/08 budget. She noted that a public hearing
to approve the CP will be held at the Council’s December 16 meeting. This is to comply
with new legislation which allows cities to issue debt under a qualifying Capital
Improvement Plan. The City could issue debt under this new legislation for a new fire
station in southwest Eden Prairie. The City Council will also be asked to approve the
new general budget and 2004 tax levy on December 16. Kotchevar reviewed the City’s
objectives and policies regarding the capital improvement budget.
The proposed 2004/08 CIP totals $26,246,700, broken down as follows:
0
0
0
0
0
0 Police, $3 16,000
0
Facilities, $2,720,000 (including replacement of carpet in City Center, parking lot
improvements, and ongoing replacement program for heat pumps)
Fire, $6,500,000 (including replacement of equipment and construction of a new
fire station)
Historical properties, $93 1,000 (including renovation of the Riley-Jaques Bam)
Information technology, $1,33 5,000 (including equipment replacement)
Parks and recreation, $6,859,700 (including development of the City’s last
neighborhood park)
Public works, $7,585,000 (including an ongoing pavement program)
I
Kotchevar said funding for these projects is expected to come from the following
sources:
e
e
e Other, $425,000 (2%)
e
e
e
Existing Capital improvement/maintenance fund, $13,964,500 (53%)
Issuance of debt, $6,500,000 (0%)
Park Improvement Fund, $5,203,700 (20%)
Storm Drainage Fund, $3,500 (0%)
Utility Construction Fund, $50,000 (0%)
Kotchevar noted that the legislature has granted municipalities a new bonding authority
that allows for issuance of bonds for improvement to public facilities at reduced interest
rates. She is proposing that this vehicle be used to finance a new fire station.
If Council approves this CIP plan, the City will be able to maintain level debt service
payments and fimd top priority CIP projects through 2008.
Kotchevar also discussed several challenges that are not covered in the current CIP,
including $3 1 million in transportation projects. She said the City anticipates about $1.4
million in Minnesota State Aid for transportation projects, but this will not cover all
proposed work. There is also about $1.4 million in anticipated renovation work to be
done at the Community Center, including replacement of the freon icing system,
compressor and air conditioning units for the ice rinks, a new roof, and parking lot
improvements. She noted that Inspec has been retained by the City to conduct an
inventory of all City facilities. It is possible that other funding needs will be uncovered
as part of this inventory. A survey conducted by the City in 2001 indicated high
community interest in an improved community center and addition of a water park.
Construction of these facilities would cost about $1 1 million. Other park and recreation
needs and wants include addition of a third ice rink ($3-$4 million) and additional and/or
improved youth athletic fields ($1.3 million).
Kotchevar asked Council to consider increasing the annual transfer fiom general hd, as
appropriate. Other funding methods include CIP bonds, one-time revenues from sale of
city-owned land, institution of a street lighting utility, or development of a special service
district. In addition, the City is currently conducting a phone survey to determine
whether or not residents would support a parks referendum.
Kotchevar asked Council for questions and input on the proposed CP. Mayor Tyra-
Lukens said she would be in favor of increasing the general fund transfer to CIP, if the
budget permits, particularly if the money is earmarked for transportation. She said she
consistently hears concerns about transportation from the business comxnunity, and
keeping up with needs in this area is important. Public Works Director Dietz explained
that transportation projects are not currently included in the CIP because they are so
massive that they don’t fit into the model. He noted that while there are $3 1 million in
projected transportation projects, there is only $14 million in hds identified for this
work over the next 10 years. Dietz said this requires constant assessment and balancing
to ensure that the most critical transportation projects are funded in a timely manner.
a
Parks and Recreation Director Lambert said he thinks the funds required to maintain the
Community Center and Ice Rinks should be included ifthe City decided to hold a
referendum. He said he would lump the requests together as one referendum question,
rather than breaking them down.
IV. OTHER TOPICS
Council Chamber
V. OPEN FORUM (Scheduled participants, 6:30-7:00 p.m.)
Alan Greenberg of Stonewood Court spoke to Council about the proposed 494
construction. He referenced a letter he e-mailed to staff and Council outlining his
concerns. He said that because the timeline for construction was greatly speeded up, the
noise study conducted by MnDOT was rushed and faulty. He said his street was not even
listed on the original MnDOT map used this summer during the study. In addition, he
said MnDOT used Highway 100 as a comparison to 494 for projected increases in noise
levels. He said the two roadways are not comparable because 494 sees much higher truck
traffic. He said MnDOT has suggested the neighborhood consider petitioning for a
special assessment to build a sound wall behind their homes. Mi. Greenberg noted that
100% agreement among the neighbors would be necessary in order to pass a special
assessment, and this is unlikely since some in the neighborhood will be more heavily
impacted by any increase in noise depending on the location and orientation of their
homes. He questioned why houses one block away from his qualify for sound protection,
when his does not. He said it is already impossible to sleep with the windows open.
Another resident referenced an article in a newsletter published by St. Francis Regional
Medical Center on noise range studies.
Another resident of the neighborhood said he has been forced to move his grill to his
front yard because traffic noise is so loud in his back yard. He said he talked to MnDOT
about preventing trucks from “jake-braking,” but they indicated they were unable to
prohibit it because 494 is a federal highway.
A woman who owns a home on Stonewood Court noted that her house has been for sale
since June. She has finally gotten a verbal offer on the home, but will probably “only get
$259,000.” She said she has consistently heard prospective buyers express concerns
about current and future freeway noise. She also does not believe the MnDOT noise
studies were conducted properly. She asked that before Council give municipal consent
for the project, they ask MnDOT to conduct more studies. Another neighbor on
Stonewood Court noted that their street was not on the map MnDOT was using in the
beginning of their sound study. He said it does not make sense to build sound walls with
gaps like the one behind their home. He said he also understands that the decision to
build sound walls in certain areas was based in part on the ease of building on the terrain.
3
VI. OPEN PODIUM (Unscheduled participants, 6:50-7:00 pm.)
No one requested to speak at Open Podium.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18,2003 7:OO PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case,
Jan Mosman, and Philip Young
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public
Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, City Attorney Jennifer Inz and
Council Recorder Theresa Brundage
I. ROLL CALL I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:OO p.m. All members were present.
11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
111. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
Tyra-Lukens said the City Council provides an Open Forum opportunity for Eden Prairie
citizens to address the Council on issues related to Eden Prairie city government on the
first and third Tuesday of each month fiom 6:30-6:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers
immediately prior to the start of the City Council’s regularly scheduled meetings. She
said Open Forum is reserved for scheduled participants. If you wish to speak to the
Council during Open Forum, please contact Ms. Lorene McWaters in the City Manager’s
office by calling 952.949.8412 by noon of the meeting date with your name and the
subject matter you wish to address.
Tyra-Lukens said the Council also provides an impromptu, unscheduled Open Podium
opportunity for citizens to address the Council concerning issues related to Eden Prairie
city government from 6:50 to 7:OO p.m. immediately following Open Forum. She said
Open Forum and Open Podium are not recorded or televised. The City Council reserves
the right to adjust the time allocations for Open Forum and Open Podium. If you have
questions about the process or procedures of Open Forum or Open Podium, please
contact the City Manager’s office.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Case added two items under Reports of Councilmembers. Butcher added an item under
Reports of Councilmembers regarding articles that have appeared about the City’s
historic properties.
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the Agenda as published
and amended. Motion carried 5-0.
5
CITYCOUNCIL~~S
November 18,2003
Page 2
V. MINUTES
A. SPECIAL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14,2003
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve as published, the
Minutes of the Special Workshop held October 14,2003. Motion carried 5-0.
B. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21,2003
MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve as published, the
Minutes of the Council Workshop held October 14,2003. Motion carried 5-0.
C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21,2003
MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Case, to approve as published, the
Minutes of the City Council Meeting held October 21,2003, Motion carried 5-0.
VI. CLEAN INDOOR AIR TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
City Manager Scott Neal reminded the audience that the Clean Indoor Air Task Force
was appointed by the City Council earlier this year with the objective of preparing a list
of recommendations for improving the quality of air in buildings in Eden Prairie. He
noted Councilmembers Case and Young served on the task force. Neal said Staff member
Molly Koivumaki, who was a liaison to the task force, and task force member Deborah
Plumb are present tonight to provide a summary of the draft recommendations.
Plumb presented a report on behalf of the task force. She said the task force was
appointed in May, 2003 and a third party consultant, Kent Eklund, designed the agenda
for the meetings. She said the task force met six times between May 27 and October 28
and although invited, no representatives from area restaurants attended. Plumb said the
task force studied the possibility of indoor air testing, but decided the process would be
too complex, scientifically unsound and too costly.
Plumb said the task force then looked at voluntary smoke-free restaurant programs
similar to those in areas of Illinois, Washington and North Carolina. She said a voluntary
recognition program for building owners who comply with guidelines to improve indoor
air quality is consistent with objectives of the task force. Plumb said the
recommendations are as follows:
The Clean Indoor Air Task Force recommends the City of Eden Prairie develop a
voluntary clean indoor air initiative that recognizes smoke-free facilities and
eating establishments and those eating establishments that offer smoke-free dining
periods during their business hours. The characteristics of the voluntary program
include the name “Star Quality Clean Air Initiative.”
Plumb said the recognition program is based on stars with 3 levels of recognition - gold
star for both eating establishments and any other facilities in the City that are smoke fiee;
silver star for eating establishments which are non-smoking until 9 p.m.; and bronze star
cITYcouNcTLMINuTEs
November 18,2003
Page 3
for eating establishments which are non-smoking until 4 p.m. She said a static window
cling would be provided for the establishments to recognize that they are a smoke-fiee
facility.
Plumb said to be considered for participation, businesses will submit an application to the
City and a site visit will be conducted prior to approval of the application to make sure
they meet the criteria. Upon approval, the businesses will receive a window cling and
other materials related to participation. She said an annual review will take place to allow
businesses to opt out or change their star rating. She said if the Council approves further
development of the voluntary program, the task force recommends that the group will
continue meeting with volunteer members who will come up with a marketing and
implementation program.
Plumb said cost estimates for developing the marketing plan include the costs of a
marketing consultant, focus groups and drafting of proposed artwork and materials. She
said the task force could return to the City Council in February with a marketing and
implementation plan with cost projections for review and approval.
Butcher thanked the task force and said the work reflects discussion by the Council and
what the Council had hoped to achieve. She asked if the words “city of’ were omitted on
the graphic for the window cling. Plumb said it was drafted without “City of’ Eden
Prairie to avoid wordiness, but it could be added.
Tyra-Lukens suggested putting “The City of Eden Prairie” somewhere near the bottom of
the cling so that people know it is a program backed by the City.
Case said this proposal does fulfill every hope and expectation he had of what would
come out of this type of task force. He said he would hope that the task force could
continue on with an educational component piece and clarifying of financing and
projected possible costs. He said his hope is that every restaurant at least join in on
smoke-fiee lunches.
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman, to adopt the recommendations
presented by the Clean Indoor Air Task Force, specifically the implementation of a “Star
Quality Clean Air Initiative,’’ a voluntary program to help business owners improve the
indoor air quality of their buildings.
Tyra-Lukens asked if Council wanted to see more in terms of a recommendation to
continue with the education phase of the program. Neal said tonight’s action involves an
endorsement of how far the task force has proceeded to date, are they on the right track,
does the initiative reflect the values Council was hoping to see. Neal said if there is
further work for the task force, it could be written up and brought back to the Council.
Motion carried 5-0.
cITYcouNcILMINuTEs
November 18,2003
Page 4
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K
CIMA LABS by CIMA Labs, Inc. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development
District Review on 9.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 District
on 9.47 acres, and Site Plan Review on 9.47 acres. Location: 10000 Valley View
Road. (Ordinance No. 32-2003-PUD-17-2003 for PUD District Review,
Zoning District Amendment, Resolution No. 2003-155 for Site Plan Review)
EDENVALE VILLAS by Brenshell Development Cop. 2nd Reading for
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.01 acres, and
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 5.01 acres. Location: 6525
Birch Island Road. (Ordinance No. 33-2003-PUD-18-2003 for PUD District
Review, Zoning District Change)
EAGLE RIDGE AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE by Pemtom Land Company. 2nd
Reading for: Planned Unit Development District Review on 64.9 acres, Zoning
District Amendment in the R1-9.5 District on 16.9 acres, Zoning District
Amendment in the RM-6.5 District on 48 acres, and Site Plan Review on 48
acres. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. (Ordinance No. 34-
2003-PUD-19-2003 for PUD District Review, Zoning District Amendment,
Resolution No. 2003-156 for Site Plan Review)
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-157 APPROVING F'INAL PLAT OF
EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT ADDITION
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-158 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
EDENVALE VILLAS
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-159 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
EAGLE RIDGE AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE TWO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-160 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BRYANT LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-161 APPROVING REGISTERED LAND
SURVEY OF 73.0 ACRES INTO FIVE TRACTS, HENNEPIN VILLAGE
RLS -
APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR HILLCREST/ ALPINE
STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, I.C. 98-5471
APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR HIDDEN
PONDS TRAIL AND POND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, I.C. 03-5606
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-162 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF
IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 03-5606
A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR HIDDEN PONDS TRATL AND POND
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 18,2003
Page 5
VIII.
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Young, to approve Items A-K of the Consent
Calendar.
Mosman said she wants to pull for discussion Items B and C.
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Young, to amend the motion to approve Items A
and C-K of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
Item B discussion: Mosman said Council was sent information fi-om residents and it
appears that the landscaping plan was not looked at. She said residents have a concern
because there will be more houses backed up along Birch Island Road and it appears they
want something in the landscaping that would protect the rural feel of the area. She said
there are ways to address the concerns without holding up the project and Franzen could
explain it.
Franzen said Item B contains a tree replacement plan for approximately 110 3-inch trees.
He explained proposed areas for placement of the trees and said a minor change in the tree
replacement plan to pare down sizes fi-om 5” to 3” trees which would provide flexibility to
add more trees along Birch Island Road and convert some of the trees to shrubs to create a
more natural look. Franzen said the developer is agreeable to making changes in the plan to
accommodate direction fi-om the City Council.
MOTION: Case moved to direct Staff to revise the tree replacement plan to add additional
trees and shrubs along Birch Island Woods Road to create a natural transition to the park
area to the north. Seconded by Butcher, motion carried 5-0.
Item C discussion: Mosman said there was a concern, brought‘ up by a resident group last
spring, about the easement because it is a private road with no visible access and there was
a small overlook. She said the developer expanded the overlook, but there is still a concern
that the public overlook be welcoming and accessible. She said there are two
recommendations - one that the City be allowed to put up a sign designating “for public
use,” and that it look like a public easement.
Franzen said there are 2 exhibits attached to the developer’s agreement - a public easement
and a trail easement. He said the public easement allows motor vehicles on the road and the
trail easement allows walkers and bicyclists. He said the language in the agreement
addresses the signs properly.
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case to approve Consent Calendar Items B and
C. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS
A. MEADOWCROFT by Nickel Land Company for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 14.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 7.08 acres, Zoning District Change fiom Rural to R1-22 on 7.08 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 14.6 acres into 4 lots and 2 outlots. Location: 9950 Dell
Road. (Resolution No. 2003-163 for Concept Review, Resolution No. 2003-164
9
CITY COUNCILMINUTES
November 18,2003
Page 6
for Preliminary Plat, Ordinance for PUD District Review, Zoning District
Change))
City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published
in the November 6,2003, Eden Prairie Sun Current, and sent to 28 property
owners. He said this project is for four single-family lots to be rezoned R1-22.
The lots will be served by a private drive, requiring a waiver for lots without
frontage on a public road. He said the Community Planning Board voted 5-0 to
recommend approval of the project at its October 27,2003 meeting.
Franzen said reasons that Staff is recommending approval are that the project is
consistent with the approved PUD from several years ago; the site has a very low
tree loss; there is a gift of 7.5 acres of land that covers steep slopes and trees; and
the developer did an archaeological cultural resource survey that did not uncover
burial mounds or archaeological artifacts.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; and
Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 14.6 acres; and
Approve lSt Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers on
7.08 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 7.08 acres; and
Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 14:6 acres into 4 lots and 2 outlots;
and Direct Staff to prepare a Developer’s Agreement incorporating Staff and
Board recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
B. PROPOSED LIQUOR LICENSE FEE INCREASE (RESOLUTION NO.
2003-165)
City Manager Scott Neal said Official notice of this public hearing was published
in the October 16,2003, Eden Prairie Sun Current, and sent to current liquor
licensees. He said the Council adopts the fee resolution each December for the
fees that will be charged and collected the following year. Because liquor license
renewals are sent out before the fee resolution is approved, it is necessary to
update the fee resolution now.
Neal said Staff has compared the fees the City charges to comparable cities, has
taken into consideration that liquor related fees have not changed since November
1999 and recommends the following increases:
3.2 Beer Annual License Fee - On-sale fiom $500.00 to $750.00
3.2 Beer Annual License Fee - Off-sale from $100.00 to $150.00
Liquor Annual License Fee - On-sale from $7,500.00 to $8,500.00
3.2 Beer, Wine, Liquor Investigation Fee for New Managers - fiom $0.00 to $25.00
3.2 Beer, Wine, Liquor Investigation Fee for License Change - from $0.00 to $150.00
Neal said these fees will provide a more reasonable reimbursement of City costs.
lo
cITYcouNcILMINuTEs
November 18,2003
Page 7
Butcher asked if a reason for the increase in fees is because of the practices and
regulations for compliance checks. Neal said that is true
There were no comments fi-om the public.
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Young, to close the Public Hearing;
and Adopt the Resolution amending Resolution No 2002-190, Regulating Fees
and Charges for Business Licenses, Permits and Municipal Services. Motion
carried 5-0.
IX. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Payment of Claims. The
motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Butcher, Case, Mosman, Young and
Tyra-Lukens voting “aye.”
X. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR 1-494 IMPROVEMENTS FROM TH 5 TO 1-394,
I.C. 02-5553 (RE SOLUTION NO. 2003-166)
Tyra-Lukens noted that concerns were heard earlier tonight from residents on
Stonewood Court and Council has received many emails, letters and phone calls
and all the information was funneled to Staff to look at those issues.
City Manager Scott Neal said the public hearing for these improvements was held
on October 21,2003 and closed that same evening. He said the primary issue is
noise impacts and mitigation. As a result of MnDOT’s work of optimizing the
noise mitigation, noise walls will be installed along the west side of 1-494 at two
locations. One location is adjacent to the Gerard Drive/Gordon Drive
neighborhood. The other location is adjacent to the Promontory DriveKardinal
Creek Road neighborhood. Neal said based on state guidelines, noise mitigation
is not justified along the east side (Beach Road) of the corridor nor along the
Stonewood Court area.
Dietz said the question was not whether MnDOT’s policy was fair, it was whether
or not the policy was adequately addressed in Eden Prairie and uniformly applied.
He recapped meetings that led to the process and outcome. He said the primary
concern was identified that the process of noise wall installation by MnDOT
seems to be influenced by pressure. He said an additional 3 homes on the west
side of Promontory Drive were included because the noise level was shown to be
effectively reduced by 5 decibels. He said MnDOT criteria for noise walls is that
they be effective with at least a 5 decibel decrease in noise levels, and they be cost
effective. Dietz said MNDOT went beyond what they normally do and looked at
fi-ont yard situations in the corridor-wide analysis. He said 6 walls were identified
as being both effective and cost effective - 5 in Minnetonka and 1 in Eden Prairie
(wall 23). He said MnDOT was willing to extend funding and spend up to $3250
per decibel per residence and the analysis is being used metro-wide.
.
CITY COUNCILMINUTES
November 18,2003
Page 8
Dietz said a question was raised on the initial effectiveness reductions in a
particular section of the northerly wall along Promontory Drive. He said there
were also concerns expressed about the number of and location of receptors in the
Stonewood Court area. He said in the development process for these areas, no
noise walls were promised.
Dietz said today a package of petitions was received with a cover letter from Dr.
Tim Olson who raised issues on October 21 about how consistent noise levels can
have long-term effects on hearing. He said the petitions had 11 signatures from 5
Beach Road properties indicating they would be willing to participate towards the
cost of a noise wall. However, he said that it is not viable at this point to pursue
residents paying the cost differential of $625,000 to build the wall.
Dietz said as he reviewed the noise analysis that MnDOT has done for Eden
Prairie and Minnetonka, he found there are similar situations in Minnetonka
where there are no noise walls also. He said there is a segment of Minnetonka just
south of 394 along Indian Road, where there is a 1,050-foot gap between two
walls that have been approved. He said there is a wetland adjacent to the freeway
there and 7 lots along it. He said this shows that MnDOT has been uniform in the
application of its policies.
Mosman said she appreciates the time and effort that Mr. O’Keefe and Mr. Dietz
have put into researching answers for this issue. She said she believes Council
will need to advocate in the landscaping phase.
Young said this is a less thin ideal situation and options are somewhat limited by
the Council in the municipal consent process. He also said some of the more
recent emails were directed at Staff and he holds Staff members in highest
possible regard and discounted the negative comments.
Tyra-Lukens asked if NOT takes responsibility for future monitoring of noise
levels in areas where noise walls did not initially meet the guidelines. O’Keefe
said noise levels are currently monitored on existing freeways that do not have
noise walls. He said the National Institute of Deafhess states that prolonged
exposure to noise levels below 80 decibels is unlikely to have hearing loss
associated with it. He said none of the noise levels currently being looked at were
at that level.
MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Butcher, to adopt the resolution
approving the proposed layout for 1-494 improvements from TH 5 to 1-394.
Motion carried 5-0.
XI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. ARCHERY RANGE PETITION
City Manager Scott Neal said on March 18,2003 the Eden Prairie City Council
moved to continue consideration of an archery range in Staring Lake Park. The
12
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 18,2003
Page 9
Councilmembers discussed how the need for an archery range could be assessed
since there was no public request for the facility. Neal said since that time, the
City has received a petition for an archery range fiom parents of children who
have participated in the City’s archery program classes, as well as some of the
archers who utilize the facility on Spring Road.
Neal said the initial estimated cost for the archery range was $30,000, however,
since that the time the Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative has donated the
poles for the structure and the canvas battings have been provided fiom a grain
elevator in Savage. The revised estimated cost for construction is approximately
$12,000 for the remaining materials. Labor would be provided by the ICWC
crew. On November 3,2003 the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission recommended the Council approve this project on an 8-0 vote.
Mosman asked if the archery range had already been graded. Case asked how
many people signed the petition. Lambert said he believes 35-40 on one petition
and 10-12 on the other.
Tyra-Lukens said she is concerned the archery range may not see a lot of use but
it is important for the city to have a wide range of activities. Case said it is a low
use, but the goal as a city is to provide as many opportunities for recreation as
possible.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to recommend approval for an
archery range in Staring Lake park in 2004. Motion carried 5-0.
B. BRUNSWICK REQUEST FOR CODE CHANGE
City Manager Scott Neal Brunswick Lanes is requesting consideration of amending
the City Code Chapter 4: Beer, Wine and Liquor Licensing and Regulation, that
would allow the Brunswick Lanes facility, located at 12200 Singletree Lane, Eden
Prairie, to hold their intoxicating liquor license, beginning January 1,2004, as a
“bowling center;’’ and that the principal part of business (PPOB) shall be derived
fiom a combination of food sales and bowling activity revenues. He said if Council
wishes to have Staff pursue amending the City Code changes, staff can return on
December 2,2003 at the next City Council meeting with those amendments.
Neal said the proposed City Code amendments would define “bowling center” in
Section 4.01 and include “bowling center’’ in Section 4.05, subd. 7 so an on-sale
intoxicating liquor license could be granted to a bowling center, and to define
principle part of business for the “bowling center” in Section 4.06, subd. 4 to
specify parameters that would regulate a maximum allowable percentage of gross
receipts fiom the sales of intoxicating liquor different fiom the current 50% for
restaurants .
Neal said this request would allow Brunswick to vary Srom the 50/50 rule in place
for all liquor licenses. He said Staffwants to know if Council wishes to pursue
this, and if so, Staffwill prepare the ordinance changes for the next meeting.
13
CITY COTJNCILMrNUTES
November 18,2003
Page 10
Mosman said Brunswick Lanes is an asset to the community and it is a quality
establishment. Tyra-Lukens said it is a family place and an asset to the
community and it is important to keep it operating. Tyra-Lukens requested the
language of the code change be drafted to avoid bar type environments. Neal said
he believes that language could be drafted within the time parameter and brought
back to the Council.
XII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
XIII. APPOINTMENTS
A. REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO LOGIS BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman, to appoint Finance Manager
Sue Kotchevar as the Eden Prairie Representative and IT Manager Lisa Wu as
Alternate Representative to the LOGIS Board of Directors. Motion carried 5-0.
XIV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
Case said about a year and a half ago, a hockey group came to the Council
requesting funds and Council advised them to go out into the community to try to
raise funds for the hockey association. He said there is another hockey group,
where John Schmelzel and Mike Rush are associated, that is realizing that the
fundraising has not been successful. Case asked if it would be appropriate for
Council to direct Lambert to touch base again with the hockey association through
Schmelzel and Rush to find out where they are with the proposal. He suggested
directing Staff to pursue other alternatives for raising funds.
Lambert said he has received updates fiom Hockey Association President John
Schmelzel, but not Rush. He said it has been a struggle for them.
Mosman said she would like to look at all possibilities.
Case suggested asking Staff to make contact with the hockey association to see if
there are new ideas and report back to the Council. Neal suggested, and Council
agreed, to direct the City Manager to see that it gets done and he will work with
Lambert to produce a report for Council.
Case suggested, because of the success of the Dunn Brothers Coffee House
project, doing some type of private/public partnership to remove some of the
funding requirements at the Cummins Grill House. He said he wondered if all
parties could meet to discuss the possibilities. Council agreed to direct Staff to set
the meeting.
I4
CITY couNcILlwTNuTEs
November 18,2003
Page 11
Butcher said there have been several erroneous and misleading articles about the
City’s spending on historic properties. She said she wanted to clarify a few points:
many of the figures used regarding the preservation costs are inaccurate an
incorrect and often projected costs, and much of the funding comes fiom grants
and private donations. She urged residents to call Staff and Councilmembers for a
true accounting of funds spent on historic properties.
Butcher read a line fi-om the state auditor’s report about the Smith Douglas More
house where Dunn Brothers is located. This report stated that the city has properly
found a way to reduce the cost to the taxpayers. Butcher said two weeks ago the
same property was presented an award fi-om the Minnesota Preservation Alliance
commending the property on its adaptive reuse.
Case said that all historical properties in the City today were acquired prior to the
current Council.
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Eden Prairie Center Citv Space
Neal said a presentation was delivered to the Council in October regarding
space in Eden Prairie Center. He said owners at the center are suggesting
an alternative of taking space in the former food court area. He said this
space is more private and is already finished, so there is possibility of
much less City funds being used to finish the space. He said more
information will be brought back to the Council as it develops.
2. Vikings Stadium Update
Neal said the City would like to put together a proposal to potentially host
a new Vikings stadium. He said the proposal will be brought to the
Council prior to it being submitted. Case suggested a cost benefit analysis
in the future for the project.
C. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
1. Proposed Changes to Jean Harris Memorial Bridge
Lambert said that on October 7, the City Council authorized city staff to
proceed with preparation of plans and specifications for the Jean Harris
Memorial Bridge to be constructed within the Purgatory Creek Recreation
Area. The bridge will be bid as part of the excavation of the pond between
the dike and Technology Drive later this winter. During the preparation of
plans and specifications the engineer met with Terri Kwant, the artist
responsible for the bridge design. As a part of that process some decisions
had to be made that resulted in changing of materials for the final bridge
15
CITY COTJNClL MINUTES
November 18,2003
Page 12
design. Ken Grieshaber of SRF explained the design changes and new
colors for components of the bridge.
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to approve the design and
material selection for the Jean Harris Memorial Bridge. Motion carried 5-
0.
2. Proposed Tribute to Charlotte Bruening
Lambert said that the purpose of displaying the “angel” is to honor
Charlotte Bruening and her dedication and inspiration towards designing,
planting and maintaining the garden behind the Senior Center for
approximately the past 10 years. The Senior Board recommended
approval and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
reviewed this proposal at their November 3,2003 meeting and
recommended approval.
Lambert stated that Charlotte and her husband were in a tragic car accident
earlier this year and her husband was killed in the accident. Charlotte is
unable to do the same kind of work because of the accident.
Councilmembers were totally in favor of the tribute.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the proposed
tribute to Charlotte Bruening by displaying an angel in the garden behind
the Senior Center with a plaque inscribing: “A Tribute to Charlotte
Bruening for Her Dedication to the Garden.” Motion carried 5-0.
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XV. OTHER BUSINESS
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DATE:
December 2,2003
ITEM DESCFUPTION:
Clerk’s License Application List SERVICE AREA/DMS1oN:
Police / C.O.P. Unit
Christy Weigel
ITEM NO.: -m*A
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
Cigarette & Tobacco Products
Pickled Parrot 11
DBA: Pickled Parrot
DBA: Don Pablo’s
Gemelli, LLC
DBA: Woody’s Shady Oak Grille
2004 Renewal Licenses
On-sale and Sunday Liquor
Apple American Ltd Ptsp of MN
Hops of Minnesota, Ltd
DBA: Hops Restaurant Bar & Brewery
Kabuki, Inc.
DBA: Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill/Bar DBA: Kabuki Restaurant
Bearpath Golf & Country Club Ltd Ptsp of MN Leiserv, Inc.
DBA: Bearpath Golf & Country Club DBA: Brunswick Eden Prairie Lanes
Bent Creek Golf Club, Inc.
DBA: Bent Creek Golf Club
Biaggi’s Ristorante Italiano, LLC
DBA: Biaggi’s Ristorante Italiano
BUCA Restaurants 2, Inc.
DBA: BUCA di BEPPO
Campiello, LLC
DBA: Campiello
Champps Operating Corporation
DBA: Champps Americana
Chevy’s Cuatro, LLC
DBA: Chevy’s Fresh-Mex
Courtyard Management Corporation
DBA: Courtyard by Marriott
Olympic Hills Corporation
DBA: Olympic Hills Golf Club
OutbackMidwest-11 Ltd
DBA: Outback Steakhouse
Pickled Parrot 11, LLC
DBA: Pickled Parrot
Purple Star, Inc.
DBA: Green Mill of Eden Prairie
Redstone American Grill, Inc.
DBA: Redstone American Grill
RT Minneapolis Franchise LLC
DBA: Ruby Tuesday
Shady Oak Hospitality Ltd Ptsp
DBA: Hilton Garden Inn
MinneapolisEden Prairie
Don Pablo’s Operating Corporation
City Council Agenda 12/02/2003
Clerk’s License AppIicatioiz List
Page 2
Starmark Holdings, LLC
DBA: Stars Restaurant-Flagship
TA, Inc.
DBA: Great Mandarin Restaurant
Timber Lodge Steakhouse, Inc.
DBA: Timber Lodge Steakhouse
Wildfire Eden Prairie, LLC
DBA: Wildfire
On-sale Wine with Strong Beer
Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC
DBA: Chipotle Mexican Grill
Civitali Restaurant Corporation
DBA: Punch Neapolitan Pizza
D’Amico & Sons, LLC
DBA: D’Amico & Sons
EdenDoba, Inc
Qdoba Mexican Grill
Fuddruckers, Inc.
DBA: Fuddruckers
Happy Family, Inc.
DBA: Cam Ranh Bay Restaurant
New Beijing, Inc.
DBA: New Beijing Chinese Restaurant
Nguyen, Inc
DBA: Mister Q’s Vietnamese Cuisine
Oceanside Enterprises, LLC
Bear Rock Cafe
The Noodle Shop Co., -- Colorado, Inc
Noodles & Company
Tobiko, Inc.
DBA: Little Sushi
On-sale Club
Eden Prairie Lions Club, Inc.
DBA: Eden Prairie Lions
3.2 Beer On-sale
Davanni’s, Inc.
DBA: Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies
Lions Tap, Inc.
DBA: Lions Tap
Innkeepers Hospitality 111, Inc
DBA: Residence Inn Eden Prairie
3.2 Beer Off-sale
Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc.
DBA: Cub Foods
DBA: Jerry’s Foods Eden Prairie
Lions Tap, Inc.
DBA: Lions Tap
PDQ Food Stores, Inc.
DBA: PDQ Store #215
RBF Corp. of Wisconsin
DBA: Rainbow Foods
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC
DBA: SuperAmerica #4159
DBA, SuperAmerica #4269
DBA: SuperAmerica #4441
Cigarette & Tobacco Products
Babe VI, LLC.
DBA: Smokers’ Haven
Bearpath Golf & Country Club Ltd Ptsp
City Council Agenda 12/02/2003
Clerk’s License Application List
Page 3
DBA: Bearpath Golf & Country Club
Bent Creek Golf Club, Inc.
DBA: Bent Creek Golf Club
Champps Operating Corporation
DBA: Champps Americana
Driskill’s Shorewood, Inc.
DBA: Driskill’s New Market
Hiawatha Marketing, Inc.
DBA: Eden Prairie Grocery
Hops of Minnesota, Ltd.
DBA: Hops Restaurant Bar & Brewery
Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc.
DBA: Cub Foods
DBA: Jerry’s Foods Eden Prairie
Leiserv, Inc.
DBA: Brunswick Eden Prairie Lanes
Luxus Corporation
DBA: Eagle Mobil
Norseman Oil Co, Inc.
DBA: Mark’s Aztec Amoco
DBA: Mark’s Eden Prairie Amoco
DBA: Mark’s Hwy 5 Amoco
Olympic Hills Corporation
DBA: Olympic Hills Golf Club
PDQ Food Stores, Inc.
DBA: PDQ Store #215
Purple Star, Inc.
DBA: Green Mill of Eden Prairie
RBF Corp. of Wisconsin
DBA: Rainbow Foods
DBA: Redstone American Grill
Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc.
DBA: Snyder Drug #5054
DBA: Snyder Drug #5087
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC
DBA: SuperAmerica #4159
DBA: SuperAmerica #4269
DBA: SuperAmerica 4441
TA, Inc.
DBA: Great Mandarin
The W. Gordon Smith Co.
DBA: Mobil
Tom Thumb Food Markets, Inc.
DBA: Tom Thumb #269
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
DBA: Wal-Mart Store #1855
Walgreen Co.
DBA: Walgreens #2970
DBA: Walgreens #05080
Youngstedts, Inc.
DBA: Shady Oak Amoco
Youssef H. Tadros
DBA Garden Court Gifts
Commercial Kennel
Affiliated Emergency Veterinary Service, PLC
Anderson Lakes Animal Hospital, P.A.
Hound Dog Pet Hotel
Kingdale Kennels, Inc.
Redstone American Grill, Inc.
City Council Agenda 12/02/2003
Clerk’s License Application List
Page 4
Private Kennel
Becky Beiersdorf - Dogs
Evelyn Bone - Cats
David Cameron - Dogs
Kimberly Donahue - Cats
Barb & Jim Gabbert -Dogs
Nancy Parker - Dogs
Julie Savalas - Dogs
Danny J. & Kathleen L. Sheldon - Dogs
Deborah Winter - Cats
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
Engineering Division
Rodney W. Rue
Set Public Hearing Date for New TH 212
Improvements from CSAH 4 @den Prairie Road)
DATE:
December 2,2003
ITEM NO.:
VrI.3.
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt resolution setting the public hearing date for layout approval and
municipal consent of new TH 212 improvements fiom CSAH 4 (Eden
Prairie Road) to existing TH 212 near Carver County Road 147.
Synopsis
This public hearing to consider layout approvaVmunicipa1 consent for the extension of a new TH
212 alignment through Eden Prairie and parts of Carver County is required as part of the
“municipal consent’’ process. Part of the statutory requirements for municipal consent requires a
30-day notice for the public hearing. Therefore, we are proposing to set the hearing date for
January 20, 2004 with the notice to be published in the official newspaper on December 18,
2003. Notice of the public hearing will also be sent to adjacent property owners along the
corridor.
Background Information
The TH 212 improvements include constructing a new four-lane freeway from its existing
terminus (temporarily designated as TH 312) at CSAH 4 to the existing TH 212 alignment in
Carver County near the City of Carver. In addition, new fieeway interchanges will be
constructed at Dell Road, TH 101, Carver County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard), TH 41, Carver
County Road 10 (Engler Boulevard) and Carver County Road 147.
Throughout the project corridor, noise berms will be used as the primary method for noise
mitigation where required. This is due primarily to the tremendous amount of excess material on
the project. In locations where there is insufficient area to construct the required noise mitigation
berms, noise walls will be used to supplement the noise berms. However, there are areas where
noise mitigation is not required. These areas may be used to dispose of excess material by
constructing additional screening berms (if tree loss or wetland impacts are not an issue).
The preliminary layout for this project has been presented to the public at three open houses (one
at each affected city) that were held during the last week of October.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
SET THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL AND
MUNICIPAL CONSENT OF TH 212 IMPROVEMENTS
FROM CSAH 4 (EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD) TO CARVER COUNTY ROAD 147
WHEREAS, WOT is proposing to construct the new TH 212 improvements from CSAH 4
(Eden Prairie Road) to existing TH 212 near Carver County Road 147;
WHEREAS, MnDOT has prepared the layout and environmental documentation for this project;
WHEREAS, WOT has requested layout approval and municipal consent for the new freeway
improvements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 161.164, the City of Eden Prairie needs to hold a public
hearing to consider layout approval and municipal consent of the said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the required
Public Hearing is hereby scheduled for January 20, 2004 at the Eden Prairie Council Chambers,
8080 Mitchell Road at 7:OO p.m.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 2,2003.
ATTEST:
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
SEAL
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
aa
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Public Hearings
DATE: 12/2/03
DEPARTMENT/DMSION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Management and Budgefllanning
Scott H. Neal Traxler Office Building Danette M. Moore
I ITEMNO.:
Requested Action
Move to:
0
0
0
Close the Public Hearing; and
Adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Rural to Office on .43 acres; and
Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on .43 acres; and
Approve lSt Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers on .43 acres
and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on ,43 acres; and
Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of .43 acres into 1 lot; and
Direct Staff to prepare a Developer’s Agreement incorporating Staff and Board
recommendations and Council conditions.
Synopsis
This project is a 3,100 square foot office building. A Guide Plan change from Low Density
Residential to Office, a parking setback waiver, and a tree replacement waiver is required. The
project is located at 9340 Hennepin Town Road.
Community Planning Board Recommendation
On November 10,2003 the Community Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the
project to the City Council based on the Plan B Tree Replacement Plan.
Background Information
A small office building in this location can be a compatible land use near residential. The
building is small, one story, with a pitched roof. Traffic is generally on weekdays; evenings and
weekends are quiet. The site takes access to Hennepin Town Road. There is no access into a
residential area.
In order to create a better buffer between the office building and the homes to the west, a parlung
setback waiver from 35 feet to 17.5 feet is needed. This waiver will provide more open space for
trees.
A waiver is required for tree replacement. The required tree replacement is 266 inches. The
recommended Plan B is for 165 inches. The waiver may have merit for the following reasons:
0 This is a small infill redevelopment site less than one acre.
0 The tree replacement plan maximizes the amount of trees that can be planted at a ratio of
five trees for every tree removed.
0 The redevelopment of the site for a small office building is a compatible land use in the
area.
Attachments
1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution for PUD Concept Review
Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
Community Planning Board Minutes dated November 10,2003
Staff Report dated November 7,2003
Stuart Fox memo dated November 5,2003
TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIF,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING FOR KEITH TRAXLER
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Traxler Office Builidng for Keith Traxler dated October 10,2003, and
consisting of .43 acres into 1 lot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, 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 2"d day of December, 2003.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
as
TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIR1[E
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF OFFICE TRAXLER BUILDING
FOR KEITH TRAXLER
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on November
24,2003 on Traxler Office Building by Keith Traxler and considered his request for approval of
the PUD Concept plan and recommended approval of the request to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on December 2,2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Traxler Office Building, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described
as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans
dated October 10,2003.
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning
Board dated November 24,2003,
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of December,
2003.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
PUD Concept- Traxler Office Building
Legal Description:
A tract of land in the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, Commencing at apoint 215 feet north of the Southeast corner of Section 24; thence west
and parallel to the south line of said Section a distance of 238 feet; thence north and parallel to the
east line of said Section a distance of 100 feet; thence east and parallel to the south line of said
Section a distance of 238 feet; thence south along said east line a distance of 100 feet to the point of
beginning.
TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MIMNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan (“Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment; and
WHEREAS, the proposal of Traxler Office Building, by Keith Traxler for a
3,100 square foot office building;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan subject to
Metropolitan Council approval as follows:
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of
December, 2003.
Nancy Tyra-Lultens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, November 10,2003 7:OO P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS:
$TAFF MEMBERS:
Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred
Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray
Stoelting, Bill Sutherland
Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:OO p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting,
Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson and Sutherland. Absent: Seymour and
S teppat
11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, second by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 6-0
111. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the October 27,2003 Community Planning Board Meeting-
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Brooks, to approve the agenda. Motion failed,
4-0, Nelson and Koenig abstained
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING by Keith Traxler. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change fiom Low Density Residential to Office on .43 acres, Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on .43 acres, Zoning District Change From Rural to
Office on .43 acres, Site Plan Review on .43 acres, and Preliminary Plat of .43 acres
on 1 lot. Location: 9340 Hennepin Town Road.
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 2
Gary Sands presented the project, He stated the home on the properly is in poor
condition and needs to be tom down. They are proposing a small single story office
building which should fit in well with other buildings in the area. He stated tree
loss amounts to 200 diameter inches of trees of which 168 inches are mature silver
maples. He said there is a lilac stand in rear of the lot that serves as a barrier to the
abutting development. He said they intend to plant evergreens for privacy.
Franzen stated the project is a guide plan change from low density residential to
office for a 3,1000 square foot office building. He said staff supports an office
building in this location; the building is small, one story, with a pitched roof. He
stated the traffic generated will be on the weekdays. He said the site takes access to
Hennepin Town Road and there will be no access into a residential area. Staff
recommends approval with a requirement of a modified landscaping plan for tree
replacement.
Fox stated tree preservation is required of all projects before the board. He said the
ordinance applies to woodland areas prior to subdivision. He compared Plan A and
Plan B. He said Plan A allowed for 7 trees for every tree lost, Plan B which is the
preferred plan allowed for 5 trees for every tree lost. He stated it is important to
plant trees far enough apart to provide for room to grow and to avoid planting too
many so that there isn't a need to remove trees due to crowding.
Koenig asked Fox about the health of the lilac trees. Fox responded lilacs are
dependent on good plant management practices and these are 10-15 feet tall. He
said they are partially shaded and lilacs need fill sun, Koenig asked if the proposal
allows enough space for trees. Fox responded Plan B allows for enough room.
He said it's necessary to look at what to do with redevelopment on residential
property or small infill projects where trees on the property were planted, not grown
as in a woodland area. Koenig stated she remembers a larger proposal in the past
where a developer planted on park property and asked if this would be a possibility.
Fox responded that according to the City Attorney it can't be required.
Sutherland asked Franzen about the NURP pond requirement. Franzen responded
with this smaller site a NURP pond isn't required. He said that a catch basin will be
built to allow drainage to Hennepin Town Road and since there's not a lot of runoff
the concern is with the quality of the water leaving the site. He stated a manhole
will trap debris in the storm sewer. Sutherland asked who would maintain the catch
basin. Franzen responded it's the City's responsibility to provide upkeep and to
clean them out periodically if it's public, if private, then maintenance is up to the
property owner.
Nelson asked the proponent if they had a tenant for this building. Keith Traxler
responded there is no specific customer for the building. Nelson asked if the area
will remain office or whether if at some future date the building could become a
30
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 3
restaurant. Franzen responded that commercial is not allowed in the office zoning
district.
Stoelting asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the number of parking spaces
allowed for in the plans. He said there are eight offices in the building and
questioned whether the parking could accommodate the employees. Franzen
responded they need 5 spaces per 1000 s.f., according to code, but experience has
shown that small office buildings generally use 3 spaces per 1000 s.f.
Foote asked about how the neighbors feel about the office building. Sands
responded he spoke to a couple of neighbors who were for the development because
of the bad condition of the house and they're anxious to see it removed.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 6-0
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Foote to recommend approval of a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on .43
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .43 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on .43 acres, Zoning District Change
From Rural to Office on .43 acres, Site Plan Review on .43 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of .43 acres on 1 lot, based on plans dated October 8,2003, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated November 7,2003, to the City Council.
Nelson asked if the Board needed to indicate the preferred tree replacement plan
was Plan B in the motion.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Brooks, to amend the previous motion to
indicate that tree replacement Plan B is the preferred plan. Motion carried, 6-0
B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE A REZONING by Pemtom Land Company.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.55 acres, Zoning District Change
from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres.
Location: North of Highway 212, west of Spring Road.
Dan Herbst of Pemtom Land Company presented the proposal. He indicated
because of slow sales and input from consumers, they are wanting to make changes
within Site A. He said Hennepin Village is a very complex PUD consisting of
approximately 270 acres. He asserted the development was not approved for one
housing type, that there were four that were approved. He said the zoning code will
not allow single and multi family to mix in the same area. He said an alternative
would be to pick areas that have not been built on at this time. He stated he would
still like to intermix the homes because the architecture is very similar. He
STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Planning Board
FROM: Danette M. Moore, Planner
THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
DATE: November 7,2003
SUBJECT: Traxler Office Building
APPLICANT/ Keith Traxler
OWNER:
LOCATION: 9340 Hennepin Town Road
REQUEST: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to
Office on 0.43 acres.
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.43 acres
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 0.43 acres
Zoning District Change From Rural to Office on 0.43 acres
Site Plan Review on 0.43 acres
Preliminary Plat of 0.43 acres into 1 lot.
Staff Report - TraxIer Office Building
November 7,2003
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the site as Low Density Residential. There is a Paragon
Cable building and an office building to the north. Land to the west and south is guided low density
residential. The property is zoned Rural.
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
A small office building in this location can be a compatible land use near residential. The building
is small, one story, with a pitched roof, Traffic is generally on weekdays; evenings and weekends
are quiet. The site takes access to Hennepin Town Road. There is no access into a residential area.
The building is moved forward to create a bigger green area to the west.
SITE PLAN
The plan shows a 3,100 square foot single-story building on .43 acres. The Base Area Ratio and
Floor Area Ratio is 0.12. The City Code permits up to a 0.30 base area ratio and 0.50 floor area ratio
in the Office district. The building meets the setback requirements for the Office district.
The plan shows 16 parking spaces. The City Code requires 16 spaces for a 3,100 square foot
building in the Office district.
Parking meets the required 10-foot setback along the side and rear lot lines. The fi-ont yard parking
setback (parking stall and drive lane) is 35 feet in the Office district. A 17.5 foot setback is
proposed, which will require a waiver through the Planned Unit Development.
DRAINAGE
Due to the limitations of the sites size and the project creating a limited impervious area, a NURP
pond is not proposed. Instead, the proponent has requested that a cash contribution will be made to
the Storm Water Utility. The storm sewer will direct drainage to catch basins in Hennepin Town
Road.
TREE REPLACEMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
The attached memo from Stuart Fox recommends a landscaping and tree replacement plan for 165
inches.
33
Staff Report - Trader Office Building
November 7,2003
Page 3
ARCHITECTURE
The single-story building is 13 feet tall and has a pitched roof. The exterior material requirements of
the office district are met for 75% face brick and glass, Due to the neighboringresidential landuses,
both the mechanical and trash areas should be contained within the building, or enclosed within a
face brick enclosure.
Light levels need to be minimized next to residential. All lighting on the building should be shielded
to direct light to the ground so no off site glare is create, Pole lighting should be limited to 20 feet in
height with shielded downcast fixtures.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVER
A front yard setback to parking from 35 feet to 17.5 feet is required through the Planned Unit
Development. The waiver will allow for an increased setback from the residential area to the west.
The parking setback will be consistent with office building to the north.
CONCLUSION
The Community Planning Board should discuss the following questions:
1. Should the land use remain as guided, or be changed to Office?
2. A waiver is requested for the parking setback. Does the plan with waivers result in a
better design for the City?
Staff supports an office building in this location. The building is small, one story, with a pitched
roof. Traffic is generally on weekdays; evenings and weekends are quiet. The site takes access to
Hennepin Town Road. There is no access into a residential area. The building is moved forward to
create a bigger green area to the west.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative I
If the Community Planning Board believes that Guide Plan Change is acceptable, that impacts on the
surrounding area are low and can be mitigated, then one option would be to recommend approval of
the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 0.43 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.43 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 0.43 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 0.43 acres, Site
Staff Report - Trader Office Building
November 7,2003
Page 4
Plan Review on 0.43 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 0.43 acres into one lot based on plans dated
October 8,2003, subject to the recommendations of this Staff Report, and the following:
1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall:
A. Revise the landscape plan according to the recommendations of the November 5
2003 memo from Stuart Fox.
2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by
the City Engineer.
B. Pay the appropriate contribution to the Storm Water Utility.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to review fire code requirements.
B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review.
C. Submit a landscaping and tree replacement bond for review.
Alternative I1
If the Community Planning Board believes that the Guide Plan Change inconsistent with the land use
in the area, that impacts on the surrounding area are high and not mitigated, then one option would
be to recommend denial.
Staff recommends Alternative I
Area Location Map -
Traxler Office Building = Project 20034 8
I Highway 169 I I I
36
MEMORANDUM
To:
Through:
From:
Date: Eden fprairie
Community Planning Board
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
November 5,2003
Subject: Traxler Office Building - Landscape Tree Mitigation Plan
Background Information
Staff has reviewed a plan submitted by Keith Traxler for an office building located on Hennepin Town
Road. The present site contains a single family home and an out-building. The trees on the lot are trees
that were planted and some have been there for many, many years as landscape amenities. There are a
total of ten trees that qualify as significant for a total of 200 diameter inches. Of the 200 diameter inches,
168 diameter inches are contained in six large silver maples.
The proposed plan is to construct an office building in the rear portion of the lot with a parking lot in
fiont of the building. As a result of this plan 100% of the significant trees on the site will be cut during the
construction process.
Landscape Reforestation Options
The developer has submitted two landscaping plans for consideration with the project submittal. Based on
the tree preservation ordinance the developer is required to replace the 200" of significant trees at 1.33
times the loss, meaning they are required to replace 266 caliper inches of trees. In addition, based on this
square footage of office building they are required to plant ten caliper inches of landscaping trees. Ofthe
two plans submitted, the first shows the planting of 70 trees totaling 210 caliper inches. The second plan
shows the planting of 55 trees, totaling 165 caliper inches. While both ofthese landscape plans fall short
of the 286 inches of landscaping material required for this development, staff would like to review
possible options for this particular project.
0 Option A - The plan showing 70 trees, totaling 210 caliper inches means that the developer is
replacing trees on a 7 tree per 1 tree loss ratio. The landscaping plan utilizes nearly every foot of
the property to plant the trees and actually has trees planted at distances closer than those
recommended under good planting practices guidelines. This plan certainly makes a good-faith
effort at replacing as many caliper inches as possible, however it does fall short by 76 caliper
inches.
Traxler Office Building - Landscape Tree Mitigation Plan
November 5,2003
Page 2
0 Option B - The second plan submitted shows a replacement of 165 caliper inches using 55
landscape trees. This plan falls 121 inches short of the required replacement, however it does
plant trees throughout the entire site as did Option A.
While both plans fall short of the required mitigation for the removal significant trees fiom a site, the staff
does recommend Option B be utilized for the mitigation on this office building site. This recommendation
is based on the following:
1. The tree preservation ordinance was written with the intent ofpreserving large significant
trees in woodland settings during new development and construction. Staff recognizes
that philosophically all trees are significant, however, in the case of having an existing
home and landscaped yard area that is being redeveloped it could be perceived as being
excessive in applying the tree preservation ordinance since this area, while not a “forest”,
the trees were grown with the intent of adding beauty and value to the property. In a way
redevelopment of these lots as well as in-fill of existing areas will be difficult to evaluate
for tree loss since most of the trees will have been planted and not growing in a native
condition.
2. Many of these in-fill project sites are going to occur on relatively small lots and when you
apply the required replacement of the current ordinance it become extremely difficult to
find enough physical space to plant all of the required trees. As illustrated in this
particular instance a nearly a 5: 1 or 7: 1 ratio is being proposed. Planting this number of
trees while giving the appearance of being a forest would result in the future need to
remove many of the trees since they will crowd each other out. Good 1 andscaping
practices dictate that these trees should be planted on 20 to 25 foot centers. Many of the
trees are on less than ideal planting distances from each other, some only 10 feet apart.
3. The mature size of many of these trees that are proposed to be planted will cross property
lines in the future resulting in potential conflict with adjacent property owners. While the
trees are being proposed to be planted on the development property, staffwould point out
that many of these trees are within 4 to 5 feet of the property line. In addition, the growth
size of these landscape trees would result in some being crowded out in 10 to 15 years.
Summary
Staff in evaluating the tree mitigation reforestation plan for Traxler office building recommends the
Planning Board approve the reforestation plan that would require the planting of 55 trees totaling 165
caliper inches. Staff acknowledges that this is short of the required tree placement; however, the situation
is unique in that this is an in-fill project with adjacent office zoning. In addition, the landscaping plan will
provide adequate screening at the rear of the building to the single family homes directly to the west to the
proposed office building. Additionally, staff would note that this issue will need to be addressed for future
projects of similar type where it is either an in-fill project of a very small lot, or potentially rezoning of
residential property into some other zoning district. This will result in a need to address a change in the
current tree preservation ordinance, for these types of projects.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: PUBLIC ElEARTNGS
SERVICE AREADIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Office of City ManagerRlanning
Scott H. Neal
Michael D. Franzen
Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
DATE: 12/02/03
ITEM NO.:
Requested Action
Option #1: Withdraw Option (with proponents consent only)
MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing, and with the consent of the proponent, return the
plans to the proponent without prejudice.
OR
Option #2: Approval Option
MOTION: Move to:
0 Close the Public Hearing; and
0 Adopt the Resolution for approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 30.5 acres; and
0 Approve lSf Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers Zoning District Change fi-om R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.55
acres; and
Direct Staff to prepare a Developer’s Agreement incorporating Board and Staff
recommendations and Council conditions
0
OR
Option #3: Denial Option
MOTION: Move to:
Close the public hearing.
MOTION: Move to:
0 Direct staff to prepare findings supporting .denial by the City Council to be
adopted at the December 16,2003 meeting.
39
City Council Agenda
Hemepin Village Site A Rezoning
Page 2
Synopsis
The approved plan for Site A is 144 units with 84 townhouses and 60 single family homes. There
are four amendments to the approved plan.
Rezoning 33 Single family lots from R1-9.5 to RM- 6.5
Multiple family buildings are not permitted in the single family zoning district.
Change in housing mix
The proposed mix is 84 townhouses units, 33 twin or three unit townhouses, and 27
single family homes.
Change in open space
The zero lot line set back reduces internal open space between buildings by .37 acres
Change in architecture
The one level product for the two and three unit buildings have a different architectural
look than the two-story single family homes.
This new housing product is requested initially for Site A, but will eventually be requested for
the remaining single family areas in Sites By Cy and D.
Community Planning Board Recommendation
The Community Planning Board reviewed this project at a public hearing on November 10,2003
and voted 5-1 to recommend denial of the project to the City Council for the following reasons:
Rezoning the property as proposed would be inconsistent with the approved planned unit
development.
The proposed two and three unit product types are inconsistent with the approved
architecture of the planned unit development.
The waiver for zero lot line setback reduces open space.
Background Information:
The one level, two and three unit buildings, will add to the housing mix of the overall planned
development. However this product does not fit within an area that has single family homes
built, lots purchased, or under construction. Adding two and three unit buildings would be
inconsistent with the expectation of current and future single family and townhouse homeowners
that 60 single family homes would be built in Site A. This product type would be more
appropriate in portions of the planned development such as Site By Cy and D, where the homes
have not been built or lots sold.
The Community Planning Board indicated they were not comfortable with introducing the
multiple family units in an area that has begun to develop as single family, that it is important to
retain single family as part of the housing mix in the overall planned development, and that this
product type could work better in other parts of the planned development.
40
City Council Agenda
Hemepin Village Site A Rezoning
Page 3
The single family homes are designed to reference a period of historic local architecture around
1850. These architectural references include decorative louvers, roof top elements, gable
pediments, panel shutters, Victorian brackets, porch entry’s and raised panel doors.
The two and three unit buildings have the same architectural references, but have a different roof
and larger building mass. Staff asked Miller Dunwiddie Architects to critique the proposed two
and three unit buildings and suggest ways in which the buildings could be redesigned to be
historically accurate and compatible with the single family homes. The attached memo and
sketches fiom Miller-Dunwiddie Architects suggest six modifications.
The Cornmunity Planning Board indicated they were comfortable with the architecture as
proposed.
The project requires the following waivers in the RM-6.5 zoning district.
0
Lot depth from 100 feet to 90 feet,
Front yard setback fiom 30 feet to 10 feet.
Rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.
Side yard setback fi-om 10 feet minimum to 0 feet on one side.
Side yard setback fiom 10 feet minimum to 7 feet on one side.
The zero lot line setback for the attached units displaces .37 acres of open space between the
buildings. Since the lots are small, 5 units would have to be taken out of the plan in order to
retain a no net loss of private open space. The Community Planning Board reaction to the
waivers was mixed, noting that a few well placed areas of open space may be more important
than the spaces between the buildings.
Attachments
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept
Staff Report dated November 7,2003
Community Planning Board Minutes dated November 10,2003
Memo and sketches -Miller Dunwiddie Architects
Letter dated November 4,2003, from Ivlr. John Higgins
HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE A REZONING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MNNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE A REZONING
FOR PEMTOM LAND COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on November
24,2003 on Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning by Pemtom Land Company and considered their
request for approval of the PUD Concept plan and recommended approval of the request to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on December 2,2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Hennepin Village Site A, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described
as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans
dated November 17,2003.
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning
Board dated November 10,2003.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of December,
2003.
Nancy Tyra-Lulcens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
PUD Concept-Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
Legal Description:
Lots 1-6 and Lots 17-22, Block 2 and Lots 1-21, Block 3, Hennepin Village
43
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
Community Planning Board
Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
November 7,2003
Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
Pemtom Land Company
Pemtom Land Company
South of Flying Cloud Airport, east of Eden Prairie Road, and north of
Highway 212
REQUEST:
1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres
2, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.55 acres
3. Zoning District Change from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.55 acres
4. Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres
44
Area Location Map:
Hennepin Village Site A - Rezoning
Address:
Intersection of Prospect Rdl and Spring Rd.
~. . ,
Grass Lake
45
Staff Report - Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
November 7,2003
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approved plan for Site A is 144 units with 84 townhouses and 60 single family homes. There
are four amendments to the approved plan.
Revision 1 - Change in architecture
The one level product for the two and three unit buildings has a different architectural
look than the two story single family homes.
Revisions 2 - Change in open Space
The zero lot line set back reduces internal open space between buildings by .37 acres.
Revision 3 - Rezoning 33 Single family lots from R1-9.5 to RM- 6.5
Multiple family buildings are not permitted in the single family zoning district.
Revision 4 - Change in Product Mix
The proposed mix is 84 townhouses units, 33 twin or three unit townhouses, and 27
single family homes.
BACKGROUND
The City approved the original 250 acre Hennepin Village Planned Unit Development in 2002, with
waivers from the City Code based on two fundamentals; 71 acres of dedicated open space and
“historic architecture” for the single family homes. The amount of dedicated open space is not
changing. The number of single family homes is changing and a new product type is being added.
The approved planned unit development is 184 single family homes and 576 townhouses. The single
family homes units are 24% of the housing mix.
Site A is currently 60 single family homes and 84 townhouses. The single family homes are 38%
of the housing mix.
The proposed housing mix is 84 townhouses, 33 twin or three unit townhouses, and 27 single
family homes. The single family homes are 19% of the proposed housing mix for Site A.
This new housing product is requested initially for Site A, but will eventually be requested for the
remaining single family areas in Sites By Cy and D.
STAFF ASSESSMENT
Should the single family product be retained as part of the approved plan?
The single family home with the gable roof, front porches, sidewalks, and grid street pattern is
one of the primary reasons the planned unit development was approved with waivers for lot size,
46
Staff Report - Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
November 7,2003
density, and setbacks. The historic look of the homes and grid street plan was an attempt to
create a subdivision similar to one that was recorded in Hennepin County on May 17,1854. The
single family home should remain as part of the approved plan.
Are the proposed elevations for the two and three unit buildings compatible with the
cchistoric architectural” look of the single family homes? If not, how should they be
changed?
Staff asked Miller Dunwiddie Architects to critique the proposed two and three unit buildings
and determine if the proposed product types properly represent a farmhouse style of architecture
indicative of Eden Prairies past and compatible with the two story single family homes already
constructed and planned.
The attached memo fi-om Miller-Dunwiddie Architects suggests the following modifications.
0 Models A-D illustrate large, low-slope shed and hip roofs on the side and rear elevations.
These roof types, while used to roof secondary structures and additions, were not the
primary roof forms in Eden Prairie and are not in character with the rest of the
development - especially on single story structures. Gable roofs, preferably with a slope
greater than 6/12, should be the primary roof form.
0 Street-side elevations of Models A-D successfully use the gable form to accentuate
articulations in the ground plan (entry porches, bay bump-outs, etc). It is recommended
that this strategy be carried around all elevations of the structure, taking care to keep ridge
heights consistent and unbroken. If possible, plan articulations should be exaggerated.
Single story structures with large unbroken roof planes, as illustrated in the triplex
drawing, are inconsistent with the farmhouse vernacular of the rest of the development.
Where possible on the street-side elevations, a false dormer with a shed or gable roof and
adequately scaled windows should be added. Cupolas are not appropriate for the style.
Breaking the roof-line vertically where the units divide due to a grade change accentuates
the multi-unit appearance of the duplex and triplex models. It is recommended that any
grade changes take place between structures in the side yard and each structure have a
consistent floor elevation for all units.
0 Terminate all brick wainscoting at inside corners, wrapping around more of the elevation
instead of only the street-side.
A color palette moving away fi-om bright Victorian themes and into a lighter earth-tone
range of greens and browns and tans might work better with the larger structures.
Staff Report - Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
November 7,2003
What would be an appropriate number of single family units to retain and where should
they be located in the planned unit development?
The Miller Dunwiddie suggestions will make the two and unit buildings more historically
accurate and compatible with the single family homes. The gable roof is the missing element in
the Ryland design. However if the ideas are considered to be the final design, it is clear that
neither the Miller Dunwiddie or Ryland approach fit in with the single family neighborhood.
Both approaches would change the character and appearance of the single family community and
detract from the feel of the community design. Existing single family and townhouse owners
have purchased on the assumption of being next to or part of a historic looking single family
neighborhood. All of Site A should remain single family. The appropriate solution would be to
introduce the Ryland product in Sites By Cy and D where neighborhood patterns have not been
physically established.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS
The project requires the following waivers in the RM 6.5 zoning district.
Lot depth from 100 feet to 90 feet.
0 Front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet.
0 Rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.
0 Side yard setback fi-om 10 feet minimum to 0 feet on one side.
0 Side yard setback fi-om 10 feet minimum to 7 feet on one side.
The zero lot line setback for the attached units displaces .37 acres of open space between the
buildings. The private open space is an important part of the approved plan for visual transition
between the buildings. Since the lots are small, 5 units would have to be taken out of the plan in
order to retain a no net loss of private open space.
DRAINAGE
There are minor changes to the grading and drainage plans.
LANDSCAPING
There are minor changes in the location of trees due to the change in location of units.
SITE SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS
There are no changes to the approved plan.
StafTReport - Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
November 7,2003
SUMMARY
There are three choices for the Board.
1.
2.
3.
Reaffirm the approved plan. Site A should be single family. Introduce the two and three
unit product in Sites B, C, and D.
Change the approved plan as proposed by the developer. This reduces the number of
single family homes fi-om 60 to 27. Approval of the two and three unit buildings is based
on using similar colors and details such as porches, doors and window treatments as
proposed.
Change the approved plan to include two and three unit buildings. The building
architecture should be revised to incorporate recommendations by Miller Dunwiddie
Architects and use similar colors and details such as porches, doors and window
treatments. This reduces the number of single family homes from 60 to 27.
The staff recommends number one.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative One: Recommend approval of the request based on the following.
0
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres
Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.55 acres
Zoning District Change fi-om R1-9.5 to RM 6.5 on 2.55 acres
Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres
This approval is subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated November 7,2003 and
plans dated November 7,2003, and the following:
1. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and
erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District
2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall install erosion control and tree protection
fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and
City Forester.
StafTReport - Hennepin Village Site A Rezoning
November 7,2003
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements.
B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review.
C. Submit a landscaping and tree replacement bond for review.
D. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
4. The following waiver from the City Code are granted as part of the Planned Unit
Development District review in the RM 6.5 Zoning District:
Lot depth from 100 feet to 90 feet.
Front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet.
Rear yard setback fi-om 20 feet to 10 feet.
Side yard setback from 10 feet minimum to 0 feet on one side .
Side yard setback from 10 feet minimum to 7 feet on one side.
Alternative Two: Recommend a continuance to the December 8,2003 meeting.
Direct the developer to revise the plans based on architectural modifications as suggested by the
memo from Miller Dunwiddie Architects.
Alternative Three: Recommend denial to the City Council based on the following findings:
Rezoning the property as proposed would be inconsistent with the approved planned unit
development.
The proposed two and three unit product type architecture is inconsistent with the approved
architecture of the planned unit development.
The waiver for zero lot line setback reduces open space.
Staff recommends Alternative Three.
50
UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, November 10,2003 7:OO P.M., CITY CENTER
BOARD MEMBERS:
STAFF MEMBERS:
I.
11.
111.
IV.
V.
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred
Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray
Stoelting, Bill Sutherland
Six Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:OO p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting,
Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson and Sutherland. Absent: Seymour and
S teppat
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, second by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 6-0
MINUTES
A. Minutes of the October 27,2003 Community Planning Board Meeting-
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Brooks, to approve the agenda. Motion failed,
4-0, Nelson and Koenig abstained
PUBLIC MEETINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING by Keith Traxler. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on .43 acres, Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on .43 acres, Zoning District Change From Rural to
Office on .43 acres, Site Plan Review on .43 acres, and Preliminary Plat of .43 acres
on 1 lot. Location: 9340 Hennepin Town Road.
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 3
restaurant. Franzen responded that commercial is not allowed in the office zoning
district.
Stoelting asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the number of parking spaces
allowed for in the plans. He said there are eight offices in the building and
questioned whether the parking could accommodate the employees. Franzen
responded they need 5 spaces per 1000 s.f., according to code, but experience has
shown that small office buildings generally use 3 spaces per 1000 s.f.
Foote asked about how the neighbors feel about the office building. Sands
responded he spoke to a couple of neighbors who were for the development because
of the bad condition of the house and they're anxious to see it removed.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 6-0
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Foote to recommend approval of a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change fiom Low Density Residential to Office on .43
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .43 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on .43 acres, Zoning District Change
From Rural to Office on .43 acres, Site Plan Review on .43 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of .43 acres on 1 lot, based on plans dated October 8,2003, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated November 7,2003, to the City Council.
Nelson asked if the Board needed to indicate the preferred tree replacement plan
was Plan B in the motion.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Brooks, to amend the previous motion to
indicate that tree replacement Plan B is the preferred plan. Motion carried, 6-0
B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE A REZONING by Pemtom Land Company.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.55 acres, Zoning District Change
fiom R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres.
Location: North of Highway 212, west of Spring Road.
Dan Herbst of Pemtom Land Company presented the proposal. He indicated
because of slow sales and input fiom consumers, they are wanting to make changes
within Site A. He said Hennepin Village is a very complex PUD consisting of
approximately 270 acres. He asserted the development was not approved for one
housing type, that there were four that were approved. He said the zoning code will
not allow single and multi family to mix in the same area. He said an alternative
would be to pick areas that have not been built on at this time. He stated he would
still like to intermix the homes because the architecture is very similar. He
52
Planning Board Minutes
November IO, 2003
Page 4
commented that consumers had indicted they would like to have most of their living
space on a single level. He said the homes are not historically accurate, design
elements were taken fi-om historic home and utilized in the architecture but they are
not meant to be historic. He stated
this plan will allow for utilization of the same single family lots since the doubles
and triples are designed to fit on the lots.
Herbst discussed the suggestions made by Miller-Dunwiddie Architects regarding
gabling of the multifamily units. He stated he did not agree with the design; the
proposed architecture in his plan was taken fiom historical home architecture and
incorporated into the design of the homes in Hennepin Village. He stated the
original plan is still intact and will not be significantly modified. He said the City
Planner suggested incorporating the multi-family on Sites C & D. Herbst stated he
would rather it be done on Site A. He said the single family homeowners will not
be willing to wait for years to see neighboring homes sold. Herbst described the
floor plans for the multi unit buildings.
Franzen stated there are two fundamental principles of development in Eden Prairie.
One is that zoning is based on a development plan. This way the Board, Council
and neighbors lulow what will be built in a given area. The second is that
developments are expected to alter their plans to conform to City code and policies.
He stated when Pemtom brought in the Hennepin Village project; staff did not ask
them to alter the design because the plans provided what the City expected, historic
elements, trails, and considerable open space.
The first time Pemtom brought in these changes, staff indicated that the use did not
fit with the single family homes in Site A. The second time Pemtom discussed this
with the staff; they added a list of reasons why the two and three unit buildings
should be considered. Staff responded that the product still does not fit. After the
third time of reviewing additional reasons why the City should consider the change,
the staff thought that rather than just saying no,that it might be appropriate to see if
the architecture of the two and three unit buildings could be designed to be more
historically accurate and compatible with the single family homes,
Staff decided to bring in a historic architect for ideas on how to make the two and
three unit buildings more historically accurate. Franzen stated according to Miller-
Dunwiddie Architects, the most important item to add to the project is a gable roof
If the ideas by Miller Dunwiddie are considered a final design, then both the
Ryland design and the Miller Dunwiddie design do not fit with the single family
homes.
Cornpatability of use and architecture is one item, consideration should be given to
the people who have bought houses in the development with the belief that they
53
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 5
would be living in a single family home development. For all of these reasons, staff
is recommending completing Site A as originally proposed and do the changes on
the other sites where no homes have been built or sold. Staff is recommending
denial of the project.
Herbst stated that the architect for Hennepin Village has done a masterfbl job on
this site with the gables, Victorian design and shutters. Herbst stated he
understands the City Planner's position but that planners are not architects and
should not make architectural decisions.
Herbst proceeded to discuss each revision of the plan that was referred to in the staff
report.
Revision 1 - Change in architecture
The one level product for the two and three unit buildings has a dicerent
architectural look than the two story single family homes.
Herbst stated architecture is very subjective in nature and the architect has adapted
the historic elements into the multifamily home. He said they are introducing a
product consumers say is good. He said it's foolish to continue with single family
homes in Site A since they're just not selling.
Revisions 2 - Change in open Space
The zero lot line set back reduces internal open space between buildings by .37
acres.
Herbst stated that this has absolutely no affect on the overall site. He said it is only
.2% of the land mass.
Revision 3 - Rezoning 33 Single family lots from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5
Multiple family buildings are not permitted in the single family zoning district.
Herbst said that is why they are asking for the zoning change since it is not allowed.
Revision 4 - Change in Product Mix
The proposed mix is 84 townhouses units, 33 twin or three unit townhouses, and 27
single family homes.
Herbst stated there is no reason that the townhouse Units can't fit in Site A. He said
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 6
he has shown that they will fit on the current site and if the City Planner believes it
can work on Sites C and D, why not Site A.
Herbst stated that he reviewed the planning staff report for the informational
meeting when the Board was originally considering the Hennepin Village plat. He
said the staff report listed the reasons for approving the comprehensive guide plan
as the mix of land use, 71 acres of dedicated green space, closer service to existing
and hture developments south of Pioneer Trail and the architectural theme. He said
the architectural design was not the main reason the project was approved.
He said City Councilmembers have had all positive comments regarding the
development. In the November 20,2001 City Council public hearing, they had the
following comments: Sherry Butcher stated this is a plan for a community that is
about neighborhoods and incorporation of natural landscapes that fit into the
topography and also into the historical aspects of the site and this project fits well
into the growth of the southwest portion of the City by using density transfer to
utilize open space for all to enjoy. Mayor Harris said the plan was delightful. It
reflects many of the concepts the City has for this area. The historical, cultural and
archeological resources are preserved, and 70 acres of open space would be donated
to the City.
Ron Case said he liked this project because it has new homes that have an old look,
with the ambiance of front porches and gables. He also liked the trails and open
spaces. Nancy Tyra-Lultens said she believed this is a beautiful neighborhood,
building a community within the City. She liked the effort to work with the
geography of the site regarding architecture.
Ann Higgins who lives in Apple Valley stated she was representing her son who
had signed a purchase agreement for one of the homes in the development. She
stated she is impressed with the development and her son was very distressed about
the possibility of the loss of the single family homes. She said when he purchased
his home he thought the development would be unique. She stated her son believes
that there would be many people interested in the product.
Foote asked Herbst where this product has worked in the past. Herbst responded
there is a development in Hopkins; the product sold out before there was a model.
Foote asked if Herbst did a survey. He responded that there was no other choice for
the Hopkin’s area. He said in Eden Prairie people want the single level living
space. Foote stated his favorite part of the development is the single family
element. Herbst stated Pemtom had hoped that they would sell but that isn’t the
case,
Nelson stated this development incorporates a large area of Eden Prairie. She said
when it was approved it was with a mix of housing types and the most appealing
55
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 7
aspect was the single family homes. She stated she had reservations about it from
the beginning and she is not willing at this point to give up the single family
housing. She stated she would like to see various designs of the single family
homes and the lots may have to be adjusted to allow for the larger main floor and to
allow for some medium and larger single family homes. She said she is concerned
about the loss of the single family home element in such a large development.
Brooks asked where the eight homes that were sold are located as to where he
wanted to put the mix of homes. Herbst showed on a map where the homes were
located. Herbst stated all sewer and water are in place and it would be very difficult
to change the size of the lots. Brooks asked about price of single family homes;
Herbst responded they were $350,000 - 375,000. Brooks asked if there was more
square footage on the first floor of the multifamily home. Herbst responded there
was.
Brooks stated he disagrees with the mix of homes in the single family area, he said
it should remain single family. Brooks asked how long the models have been
complete. Herbst responded at least a year.
Koenig asked Franzen to review the variance issues. She asked whether they would
need waivers for these changes and she commented this change makes the
development seem denser. Franzen responded that supporting the waivers and
density transfer were a conscious decision because of what the City was getting in
return; more open space and historic architecture.. He said the only real difference
in the waivers is the multi-family buildings have zero lot lines and open space
between buildings is lost. Koenig stated she was trying to visualize how the loss of
the space would affect the development. . Koenig asked Herbst whether the eight
homes that have sold were sold more recently, in other words, was there any
momentum. Herbst responded it was very slow. Koenig asked about assessments
and whether the price point increase had any affect on sales in the development.
Herbst responded they have had a big affect on the price of the homes.
Stoelting stated he would like input from each board member concerning the four
amendments.
Revision 1
Brooks stated he’s fine with it. Nelson stated she is fine if the architecture remains
historical. Foote stated the developer has done a great job with the architecture.
Koenig stated she agreed that she had no problem with the architecture. She stated
she would like it to be consistent. Sutherland stated the proponent has done a great
job with the architecture. He said there’s more than architectural design, it is the
look and feel of a row of homes; the architecture of the single family houses is very
appealing and he prefers the existing architecture.
56
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 8
Revision 2
Brooks has no problem with that. Nelson stated when looking at the houses there is
green space. She said if the side green space next to one of the townhouse areas is
taken away, it leaves very little green space remaining. She stated if the green space
is removed fi-om the side, it should be added to the fi-ont; there should be a
significant space of green when looking out the windows fi-om the inside of the
buildings. Foote stated that .37 acres is negligible and when putting in the larger
buildings there will be the perception of less green space. Koenig stated she is not
comfortable with this part and it’s going to be overwhelming because the homes are
going to be close together. She said she doesn’t like the zero lot line. Sutherland
stated the .37 acreage isn’t that important but a few well placed areas of green space
are important and it depends on where it’s located. If it’s in this area, it’s very
important.
Revision 3
Brooks stated he has a problem with this. He would hate to be one of the eight who
have bought homes only to find the area is going to be changed. He suggested
considering alternatives such as buying the homes back. Nelson stated she could
see area D as a good area for this type of mix. She agreed the homebuyers have
specific expectations because these changes could affect property values. She said
the north part of the site has a feel of a single family development. She stated she
wanted to see more single family housing than is shown on the revision. Foote
stated the change would be very unfair to homebuyers. He stated Site A is not an
option for this type of mix but perhaps the other areas would work. Koenig stated
she agreed the single family homeowners who have committed to that area expect it
to be the way it was presented to them. She stated she empathizes with the
proponent’s situation but she is not for changing Site A and she was unsure of Sites
C and D. Sutherland stated there is a lot to think about here. He said this was
presented to the Planning Board as having a character that was considered
consistent with the City’s character. He stated the rezoning proposed here is a step
backwards fi-om the original proposal and he doesn’t agree with it. Nelson stated
that if this had come in originally with more multifamily, she would not have
approved it. She stated she is sympathetic to the economic changes that are
affecting sales but the development has made such an impact in the community, it’s
not a small change the proponent is asking.
Revision 4
Brooks stated that when looking at a product this size, there needs to be a balance of
product mix. He said the reason for changing this may not have anything to do with
the product other than the historic architecture which is taller. He would like to see
Planning Board Minutes
November 10,2003
Page 9
other designs and would like time to discuss this and figure whether this is the best
mix. Nelson agreed with Brooks comments. Foote stated there needs to be a
balance of the mix of homes which this proposal doesn’t have. Koenig stated that
one thing she looks at when looking at a southwest development in Eden Prairie are
the natural resources in that area. She said while there seems to be a lot of open
space, she did not want to see the single family homes squeezed out. The mix is not
to her liking. Brooks asked if this would increase the density of the project. Franzen
responded it would not. Sutherland stated it’s difficult to answer the question, look
at it out of context. He said for himself it’s a question without an answer.
Nelson asked why the assessments went up so much. Franzen responded that the
feasibility numbers are based on estimates and actual numbers are based on
construction costs,
Brooks asked for an explanation of the costs. Franzen responded there was a
change in the fire code and they now require sprinkler systems in homes. He stated
this has been a change for this year, whereas in previous years it was not required.
Brooks asked the total dollar estimate. Herbst responded feasibility estimates for
sites A, B, C, and D were a total of $4,201,912 which was $8,222.92 per unit.
Current pending assessments are a total of $6,713,434 which is a cost of
$11,321.14per unit.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 6-0
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Koenig to recommend denial of a Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 2.55 acres, Zoning District Change fkom R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on
2.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres, based on plans dated November 7,
2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated November 7,2003,
to the City Council, based on the following reasons: Rezoning the property as
proposed would be inconsistent with the approved planned unit development. The
proposed two and three unit product type architecture is inconsistent with the
approved architecture of the planned unit development. The waiver for zero lot line
setback reduces open space
Brooks asked if this motion passes what it would mean for the proponent. Franzen
stated if it’s denied, he can still go before the City Council.
Koenig asked if they had any other recourse. Brooks stated the Board could move to
continue. Koenig stated would the proponent have anythmg else to show. Stoelting
stated they Board would direct him to do so.
Stoelting asked for a roll call vote on the motion. Brooks, nay; Foote, aye; Nelson,
58
Page 'I of 1
Mike Franzen
From: Green, Daniel J. [DGreen@millerdunwiddie.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04,2003 6:40 PM
To: Mike Franzen
Cc: Liddy, Charles D.
Subject: Hennepin Village Design Recommendations
~ ~~- _. __ -.. .~ ~___
Michael,
Attached are sketches of duplex and triplex units.
Overall the interpretation of the farmhouse vernacular looks good. The Key Exterior Elements identified on the
rendered streetscape drawing should be carried to the duplex and triplex units.
Design recommendations:
1 Models A-D illustrate large, low-slope shed and hip roofs on the side and rear elevations. These roof
types, while used to roof secondary structures and additions, were not the primary roof forms in Eden
Prairie and are not in character with the rest of the development - especially on single story structures.
Gable roofs, preferably with a slope greater than 6/12, should be the primary roof form.
Street-side elevations of Models A-D successfully use the gable form to accentuate articulations in the
ground plan (entry porches, bay bump-outs, etc). It is recommended that this strategy be carried around
all elevations of the structure, taking care to keep ridge heights consistent and unbroken. If possible, plan
articulations should be exaggerated.
Single story structures with large unbroken roof planes, as illustrated in the triplex drawing, are
inconsistent with the farmhouse vernacular of the rest of the development. Where possible on the street-
side elevations, a false dormer with a shed or gable roof and adequately scaled windows should be
added. Cupolas are not appropriate for the style.
Breaking the roof-line vertically where the units divide due to a grade change accentuates the multi-unit
appearance of the duplex and triplex models. It is recommended that any grade changes take place
between structures in the side yard and each structure have a consistent floor elevation for all units.
Terminate all brick wainscoting at inside corners, wrapping around more of the elevation instead of only
the street-side.
A color palette moving away from bright Victorian themes and into a lighter earth-tone range of greens
and browns and tans might work better with the larger structures.
.
.
1
. .
Regards,
Dan
Daniel J. Green, AIA
Miller Dunwiddie Architects
123 North Third St. Suite 104
Minneapolis, MN 55401
direct 61 2-278-7698
main 6 12-337-0000
fax 612-337-0031
11/20/2003 59
60
a
November 4,2003
Mr. Paul Sodt, Member
Eden Prairie Community Planning Board
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Sodt:
It has come to my attention that Pemtom Land Company and Ryland Homes have
requested a change in plans for the number and location of single family homes in the
Summit Oaks portion of the Hennepin Village development. I want to express my
concerns about the adverse impact that these proposed changes could have on the original
concept of the area and on the special features offered by the architecture and
neighborhood feel of this portion of the development.
Based on my conversations with Chris Lawrence, a Ryland Homes’ Sales Consultant at
Hennepin Village, the developer has had tremendous recent success with selling single-
family units to buyers interested in purchasing homes in this portion of the development.
When first approaching a decision to purchase a home for my family, it was particularly
important to me that the presence of other homes with similar architectural style and
features would be a major visible asset in this close-in neighborhood setting. It was these
features and community design that attracted my family to the property in the first place.
Now, having already signed an agreement to purchase one of these beautiful single-
family homes, I fear that the very essence of the community’s design and appearance are
being threatened. The proposed abandonment of the additional single family units and
the substitution of twinhomes, and even a triple-home unit, will unalterably change the
character and appearance of what I had anticipated would be a benefit of being a
homeowner in the Summit Oaks portion of Hennepin Village.
t
You will be reviewing these proposed changes to the Summit Oaks portion of the
Hennepin Village development at your meeting on Monday, November 1 Oth.
It is difficult for me to understand why the developer is currently preventing single-
family homebuyers from selecting lots where the proposed twinhomes would be built.
This is particularly discouraging to me since the lots that are now being proposed only for
twinhomes provide outstanding views of the open spaces that are among the most
remarkable features of this development. Based on my experience, I can assure you that
the Ryland Sales Consultants are tuming away single-family homebuyers who desire to
build homes on lots now proposed for twinhomes. I was forced to select a lot other than
the one that I desired in order to move forward with my purchasing of one of these units.
I am aware that the developer has agreed to make his plans known to those who either
have or are in the process of purchasing single-family units in Summit Oaks. I am not
aware of the reactions of others in my circumstances, but I anticipate that they will be as
keenly disappointed as I am with the proposed dramatic alteration of the original plans
for this neighborhood. The entire look and feel of this small portion of this development
will be irreparably harmed if you rule in favor of the proposed change to the plans.
I wish I could be with you in person on Monday to help you evaluate the issues that will
be before you. Unfortunately, my job requires me to be out of town at the time of your
meeting. I trust you will act in the best interest of the current and future residents of
Hennepin Village and of the entire Eden Prairie community.
If you care to discuss this matter with me prior to Monday, I can be contacted at the
numbers below.
Best Regards,
John Higgins
952-891-4513 (H)
952-912-5574 (W)
612-597-0589 (M)
63
November 23,2003
Eden Prairie City Council
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Councilmembers:
In November I first leamed that Pemtom Land Company and Ryland Homes have
requested the city to approve a change in the plans for the number and location of single
family homes in the Summit Oaks portion of the Hennepin Village development. I am
concerned about the adverse impact that these proposed changes have on the original
concept for Summit Oaks and on the special features offered by the architecture and
neighborhood feel of this portion of the development.
When my wife and I first approached the decision to purchase a home for my family, it
was particularly important to us that the presence of other homes with similar
architectural style and features would be a major visible asset in this close-in
neighborhood setting. These unique features and community design initially attracted ow
family to the property. Now, having already signed an agreement to purchase one of
these beautiful single-family homes, I fear that the very essence of the community’s
design and appearance are being threatened. The proposed abandonment of the
additional single-family units and the substitution of twinhomes, and even a triple-home
unit, will unalterably change the character and appearance of what I had anticipated
would be a benefit of being a homeowner in the Summit Oaks portion of Hennepin
Village.
You will be reviewing these proposed changes to the Summit Oaks portion of the
Hennepin Village development at the city council meeting on Tuesday, December Znd.
It is particularly difficult for me to understand why the developer is currently and has
been preventing single-family homebuyers from selecting lots where the proposed
twinhomes would be built. This is especially discouraging since the lots that are now
being proposed only for twinhomes provide outstanding views of the open spaces that are
among the most remarkable features of this development. Based on my experience, I can
asswe you that the Ryland Sales Consultants are turning away single-family homebuyers
who desire to build homes on lots now proposed for twinhomes. I was forced to select a
lot other than the one that I desired in order to move forward with my purchasing of one
of these units.
Based on my conversations with a Ryland Homes’ Sales Consultant at Hennepin Village,
the developer has had very strong recent success with selling the single-family units to
buyers interested in purchasing homes in this portion of the development. The consultant
indicated that four homes were sold during the last two weeks. Moreover, he indicated
that Ryland recently lowered the base price of the homes, which has caused customers to
come out in droves. I fear that if the single-family home concept is abandoned within
Summit Oaks, that I, and the other single-family homebuyers, will face irreparable
economic consequences due to deflation of the homes’ market values due to drastic
changes in the perceived value of this community.
I am aware that the developer has agreed to make his plans known to those who either
have or are in the process of purchasing single-family units in Summit Oaks. I am not
aware of the reactions of others in my circumstances, but I anticipate that they will be as
keenly disappointed as I am with the proposed dramatic alteration of the original plans
for this neighborhood. The entire look and feel of this small portion of this development
will be irreparably harmed if you rule in favor of the proposed change to the plans.
I trust you will act in the best interest of the current and future residents of Hennepin
Village and of the entire Eden Prairie community.
If you care to discuss this matter with me prior to the City Council meeting, I can be
contacted at the numbers below,
Best Regards,
John Higgins
952-891-4513 (H)
952-912-5574 (W)
612-597-0589 (M)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION Payment of Claims
DATE:
December 2,2003
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Payment of Claims SERVICE AREA/DMSION:
Management and Budget I Sue Kotchevar I
ITEM NO.:
2x1
Requested Action
Move to:
synopsis
Checks 125384 - 125689
Wire Transfers 1909 - 1912
Background Information
Attachments
66
City of Eden P&-e
Council Check Sumnmy
12/2/2003
Division Amount
100
101
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
130
132
133
135
136
137
150
151
153
154
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
180
181
183
184
185
186
200
20 1
202
203
204
303
308
311
502
503
506
507
509
511
512
60 1
602
603
701
702
703
803
806
General
City Manager
Legislative
Customer Service
Human Resources
Communication Services
Benefits & Training
Risk Management
Facilities
City Center
Assessing
Social Services
Community Development
Information Technology
Wireless Communication
Economic Development
Park Administration
Park Maintenance
Athletic Programs
Community Center
Youth Pro'grams
Special Events
Senior Center
Recreation Administration
Adaptive Recreation
oak Point Pool
Arts
Park Facilities
Police
Telecommunicators
Civil Defense
Fire
Aniial Control
Inspections
Engineering
Street Maintenance
Street Lighting
Fleet Services .
Equipment Revolving
Cemetary Operation
Grant Fund
Park Development
Utility Improvement
Improvment Bonds 1996
Construction Fund
CIP Fund
Construction Fund
CIP Trails
Prairie Village Liquor
Den Road Liquor
Prairie View Liquor
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Storm Drainage Fund
Escrow Fund
SAC Agency Fund
E-91 1
Rcport Totals
81,927
33
839
3,558
7,229
5,990
22,413
93 1
14,746
135,437
365
2,060
210
1,941
1,945
63
73
12,614
494
35,820
49
24
1,186
3,095
547
672
42
568
2,406
1,691
331
10,851
378
1,461
11
7,455
52,842
24,841
1,598
807
1,481
725
11,994
17,757
34,053
63,635
12,482
627,022
4,758
53,272
11 1,571
53,902
124,674
193,023
3,632
42,562
80,325
1,876,406
check#
1909
1910
1911
1912
125384
125385
125386
125387
125388
125389
125391
125392
125393
125394
125395
125396
125397
125398
125399
125400
125401
125402
125403
125404
125405
125406
125407
125408
125409
125410
125417
125418
125419
125420
125422
125423
125424
125425
125426
125427
125428
125429
125430
125431
125432
125433
125434
125435
125436
125437
125438
125439
125440
125441
125442
125443
,125444
125445
125446
125447
125448
125449
125450
125451
125452
125453
125454
Amount
489
72,330
8,199
1,622
14
813
44
15
519
45
6,785
457
4,700
138
202
61
79,522
20
150
8,773
1,353
134,666
1,481
39
175
15
2,060
30
55
1,182
40
2,267
48
45
28
1,364
228
410
242
949
3,095
4,500
100
162
33
41,170
863
7
61 1
30
67
63
287
93 1
323
350
8
127
107,090
78
150
72
298
5,651
4,532
2,020
15,107
VendorlExplanafiOa
MMNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE
MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE
WELLS FARGO MINNESOTAN A
MLNNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE
AMELL,KAREN
ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC.
BERGSTEIN, MME
CHASE, ERIN
DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI
ECCLES, ANN
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY
GUTHRIE THEATER
HARRISS ARCHITECTS INC
KING, MARION
LESCO INC
METRO GENERAL SERVICES
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
MIDDENDORF, JOHN AND LINDA
MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIAT
MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER
MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP
MOHRPARTNERS INC
QWEST
RUMFORD, JOAN
SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT
SMITH, HOLLY A.
TEENS ALONE
TOURVILLE, RUTH
VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE
XCEL ENERGY
BOLD, PAULINE
CENTERPOINT ENEGY
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER
DILLAHUNT, MICHELE
MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP
MINNESOTA WUNGS FOOD SERVICE
MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
PElTY CASH
PLYMOUTH PLUMBING
QWEST
QUANTUM ART INC
AMERICAN RED CROSS
ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS IN'C.
BARONE, MICHAEL
BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS
CENTURYmCD, LLC
DITTER INC
MECA
MENARDS
MID AMERICA FESTIVALS
PAIN ENTERPRISES INC.
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC
PITNEY BOWS INC
TIME WARNER CABLE
VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE
XCEL ENERGY
ACE ICE COMPANY
AMERICAN INTERTRADE
AMERIPRIDE LINEN &APPAREL SER
ARCTIC GLACIER INC
BELLBOY CORPORATION
DAY DISTRIBUTING
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY
US POSTMASTER - HOPKINS
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
PWC-KORPACZ SURVEY
AccouutDcscription
Motor Fuels
Sales Tax Payable
Employas SS &Medicare
Statc Taxes WithheId
Waste Disposal
Lessons & Classes
Other Rentals
Program Fee
Equipment Parts
Special Event Fees
Deposits
Other Contracted Services
Landscape Materials/Supp
Plumbing Permits
Due to Other Governments
Program Fee
Conference Expense
Building Surcharge
Electric
Other Contracted Services
Telephone
Operating Supplies
Deposits
Mileage & Parking
Other Contracted Services
Other Contracted Services
Pager & Cell Phone
Other Contracted Services
Instructor Service
Gas
Operating Supplies
Program Fee
Electric
Miscellaneous
Equipment Repair & Maint
Miscellaneous
Plumbing Permits
Telephone
Postage
Software
Training Supplies
Waste Disposal
MiSCellaneoUS
Building Repair & Maint.
Operating Supplies
Cash Over/Short
Other Contracted Services
Conference Expense
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Deposits
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Other Contracted Services
Other Rentals
Prepaid Expenses
Cable TV
Pager & Cell Phone
Electric
Misc Non-Taxable
Beer
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Misc Non-Taxable
Transportation
Beer
operating supplies
operating supplies
Business Unit
FlcetSavica
Utility Improvement Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Teen Prognuns
Water Treatment Plant
oak Point Lessons
Senior Center Program
Gelleral
Senior Center Program
Fleet services
Adult Program
Escrow
Senior Center Program
Storm Drainage
General Fund
SAC Agency Fund
Senior Center Program
Water Utility - General
General Fund
Street Lighting
City Center Operations
E-91 1 Program
Senior Center Administration
Escrow
Den Road Liquor Store
Housing, Trans, & Human Serv
Senior Center Program
General
Storm Drainage
Outdoor Center
Water Treatment Plant
Fire
Fall Skill Development
Sewer Liftstation
Prairie View Liquor Store
Park Maintenance
Communication Services
General Fund
Sewer Liftstation
Community Brochure
Capital Impr. I Maint. Fund
Pool Lessons
Den Road Liquor Store
City Manager
Water Treatment Plant
Inspections-Administration
General Fund
Water System Maintenance
Storm Drainage
Storm Drainage
Escrow
Ice Arena
Risk Management
General
General Fund
Fire
Street Maintenance
Street Lighting
Prairie View Liquor Store
Prairie Village Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Prairie Village Liquor Store
Den RoadLiquor Store
Den RoadLiquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Prairie View Liquor Store
125455
I25456
125457
125458
125459
125461
125462
125463
125464
125465
125466
125467
125468
125469
125470
125471
125472
125473
125474
125475
125476
125477
125478
125479
125480
125481
125483
125484
125485
125486
125487
125488
125489
125490
125491
125492
125493
125494
125495
125496
125497
125498
125499
125500
125501
125502
125503
125504
125505
125506
125507
125508
125509
125510
12551 1
125512
125513
125514
125515
125516
125517
125518
125519
125520
125521
125522
125523
125524
125525
125526
125527
128
422
1,329
10,990
724
25,201
15,886
601
445
148
95 1
32
14,181
458
2,298
14,144
24,164
111
673
372
3,013
1,598
293
2,768
250
48
4,764
272
89
16,93 1
40
525
170
26
754
20
13,786
114
115
13
392
253
37,891
700
210
31
27 1
60
148
15
56
115
45
15
65,340
77
150
1,331
188,266
104
90
432
167
272
195
340
48
373
88
899
43
EXIREMEBEVERAGE
GElTMANCOMPANY
GRAPE BEGLNNINGS
GRIGGS COOPER & CO
HOHENSTEINS INC
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
h4ARKw
MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTIZING COM
NEWFRANCEWINECOMPANY
PACIFIC DIRECT
PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY
PEPS1 COLA COMPANY
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
TRI COUNTY BEVERAGE & SUPPLY
WINE COMPANY, THE
WINE MERCHANTS INC
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
ALLDATA
AMERICAN RED CROSS
AMWA
APEX SOFTWARE
APPRAISAL INSTITUTE
BIFFS INC
BROWNLEE, GLORIA
BUSINESS JOURNAL, THE
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MARKETING I
CHRISTENSEN, MARGE
CINCINNATUS
CRACAUER, CLIFF
DARTNELL CORPORATION, THE
DASSENKO, JEAN
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MN
DY, LAARNI
ESCHELON TELECOM INC
FOX, VERNE'ITE
GE CAPITAL
HENNEPIN COUNTY
HENNEPIN COUNTY
HENNEPIN COUNTY UT DEPT
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
HERMA", DAWN
HOYT, CHRIS
IND SCHOOL DIST 272
ISAACSON, KAREN
JLM LANDSCAPING LLC
JLILIAN, CHUCK
KELLY, MURRY
KOZMIK, MELISSA
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE
MERSC
METRO SALES INCORPORATED*
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL E"ME
MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC OF REAL
MINNESOTA BUREAU OF CRIMINAL A
MINNESOTA DEPT OF ECONOMIC SEC
MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC
MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE JOURNAL
MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIAT
MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES
MINNESOTA VISITING NURSE AGEN
MN HORSE AND HUNT CLUB
PORTER, OMER T
QUICKSILVEREXPRESS COURIER
CULLIGAN-METRO
PETTY CASH-EPCC
AcconntDesaiption
MiscTaxable
MiscTaxable
Wme Domestic
Liquor
Beer
Liquor
Misc Non-Taxable
Misc Taxable
Wine Domestic
Misc Taxable
Wme Imported
Misc Taxable
Liquor
Misc Taxable
Wine Imported
Liquor
Beer
Misc Taxable
Wine Domestic
Wine Domestic
Wine Domestic
Prepaid Expenses
Recreation Supplies
Prepaid Expenses
Prepaid Expenses
Prepaid Expenses
Waste Disposal
Prepaid Expenses
Gas
Program Fee
Other Contracted Services
Mileage & Parking
Operating Supplies
Prepaid Expenses
Program Fee
Dental
Equipment Repair & Maint
Program Fee
Office Supplies
Waste Disposal
Deposits
Software Maintenance
Operating Supplies
Waste Disposal
Outside Water Sales
Transportation
Program Fee
Street Permits
AR Utility
Program Fee
Prepaid Expenses
Operating Supplies
Prepaid Expenses
Other Rentals
Waste Disposal
Prepaid Expenses
Employment Support Test
Unemployment Compensation
Prepaid Expenses
Prepaid Expenses
Deposits
Prepaid Expenses
Mileage &Parking
Wages No Benefits
ARutility
ARutility
ARutility
ARutility
office supplies
operating supplies
69 Postage
PrairieViewLiqnorStom
PrairicViewLiquorStore
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Prairie Village Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Prairie Village Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Prairie Village Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Den Road Liquor Store
Prairie Village Liquor Store
General Fund
Pool Lessons
Water Enterprise Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Park Maintenance
Water Enterprise Fund
General Fund
Public Works/Parks
Senior Center Program
City Council
Fleet Services
Outdoor Center
Water Enterprise Fund
Senior Center Program
General Fund
Water Enterprise Fund
Telephone
Senior Center Program
General
Park Maintenance
Escrow
Information Technology
Community Development
Park Maintenance
Water Enterprise Fund
Water Enterprise Fund
Teen Programs
Senior Center Program
General Fund
Water Enterprise Fund
Water Enterprise Fund
Senior Center Program
General Fund
Maintenance
General Fund
General
Sewer Utility - General
General Fund
Human Resources
Employee Benefits
General
General Fund
Water Enterprise Fund
TeenPrograms
Escrow
General Fund
Community Center Ad~nin
Fitness Classes
General
check#
125528
125529
125530
125531
125532
125533
125534
125535
125536
125537
125538
125539
125540
125541
125542
125543
125544
125545
125546
125547
125548
125549
125550
125551
125552
125553
125554
125555
125556
125557
125558
125559
125560
125561
125562
125563
125564
125565
125566
125567
125568
125569
125570
125571
125572
125573
125574
125575
125576
125577
125578
125579
125580
125581
125582
125583
125584
125585
125586
125587
125588
125589
125590
125591
125592
125593
125594
125595
125596
125597
125598
Amoma
51
754
10
8
31
40
32
58
15
13
242
735
299
29
3,274
366
277
977
143
295,614
50
3,3 17
5,190
174
650
500
886
4,895
55
598
124
13
807
195
235
762
121
226,461
181
93
2,619
9,859
1,273
710
797
829
1,759
227
3,425
966
842
92
2,194
678
542
32
862
1,044
550
5,858
437
120
126
102
38
704
337
2,926
922
44
257
RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS
REBSMARF;ETING
RICHFIELD, CITY OF
RYAN PLUMBING &HTG CO
SEARS COMMERCIALONE
SHIMANSKI, BERMA
SBENSON, GLADYS A
SIMON, NREA
STASEK, LISA
SYVERSON, HARLAN
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
WINDSONG MGMT
XCEL ENERGY
A TO Z RENTAL CENTER
ADOLPHKJEFER
AIR POWER EQUIPMENT CORPORATIO
AIRGAS SAFETY
AMERICAN LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION,
AMERICAN RED CROSS
AMERICAN TEST CENTER INC
ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY
A01 ELECTRICAL INC
AQUA ENGINEERING INC
AQUA LOGIC INC
ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.
ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC
AUTO VISIONS
AZTECH EMBROIDERY SERVICES
BATTERY STORE INC, THE
BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC
BERRY COFFEE COMPANY
BERTELSON OFFICE PLUS
BIG MIKES SUPER SUBS OF WI INC
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC
BLOOMINGTON PARK CATERED EVENT
BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS
BOYER TRUCKS SO. ST. PAUL
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
CEMSTONE
CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER
CLASS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
COMMVALJLT SYSTEMS, INC.
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT
DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC
DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS
DELEGARD TOOL CO
DELL MARKETING L.P.
EARL F ANDERSEN INC
ECOLAB INC
EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER
EF JOHNSON
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC
ENGINEERED ICE SYSTEMS
ERGOMETRICS
FACILITY SYSTEMS INC
FASTSIGNS
FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION
FERRELLGAS
FIKES HYGIENE SERVICES
FLOW TECHNOLOGIES
FORCE AMERICA
FORE MECHANICAL, INC
GINAMARIAS INC
GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY
US POSTMASTER - HOPKINS
BAN-KOE SYSTEMS INC
CUTLER-MAGNZR COMPANY
G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL
Prepaid-
mer contracted sm-ces
operating supplies
Cash ova/shoTt
Equipment Repair & Maint
Program Fee
Program Fee
Employee Award
Program Fee
Program Fee
Prepaid Expenses
Conference Expense
Postage
AR Utility
Electric
Merchandise for Resale
Operating Supplies
Equipment Repair & Maint
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Building
Recreation Supplies
Equipment TestinglCert.
Equipment Parts
Other Contracted Services
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Equipment Repair & Maint
Improvements to Land
Equipment Repair & Maint
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Tires
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Operating Supplies
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
Improvement Contracts
Miscellaneous
Building Repair & Maint.
Equipment Parts
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Equipment Parts
Miscellaneous
Computers
Office Supplies
Equipment Parts
Chemicals
Other Contracted Services
Building
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Other Contracted Services
Miscellaneous
Equipment Repair & Maint
Equipment Repair & Maint
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Employment Support Test
Other Contracted Services
Operating Supplies
Equipment Repair & Maint
Motor Fuels
Operating Supplies
Equipment Parts
Building Repair & MainL
MiSCellaneOUS
Printing
Clothing & Uniforms
Testing - Soil Boring
Cleaning supplies
Cleaning supplies
70 Capital Under $2,000
Watcr Enta-prk Fund
WaterAccounting
Fleetservices
GeneralFund
Park Maintenance
Senior Center Program
Human Resources
Senior Center Program
Senior Center Program
General Fund
Human Resources
City Council
Water Enterprise Fund
Water Treatment Plant
Concessions
Oak Point Lessons
Public WorkdParks
Water System Maintenance
Construction Fund
Pool Lessons
Fire
Communication Services
Fleet Services
Water Treatment Plant
Pool Maintenance
Fleet Services
Park Acquisition & Development
Police
Inspections-Administration
Aquatics & Fitness Admin
Water Utility - General
Fleet Services
Ice Arena
Fire
Water Utility - General
Fire
Construction Fund
Communication Services
Water Treatment Plant
Fleet Services
Charlson Area Construction
Storm Drainage
Fleet Services
Information Technology
Capital Impr. / Maint. Fund
General
Fleet Services
Water Treatment Plant
Water Treatment Plant
Construction Fund
Traffic Signals
Environmental Education
Water System Maintenance
CllmminsGrill
In Service Training
Wireless Communication
Fire
Ice Arena
Human Resources
Fire Station #1
Water Treatment Plant
Fleet Services
Ice Arena
Den Road Liquor Store
Water Treatment Plant
Fleet services
Fire Station #1
Water Treatment Plant
Communication Services
Water Treatment Plant
SeniOrCenterProgam
check#
125599
125600
125601
125602
125603
125604
125605
125606
125607
125608
125609
125610
12561 1
125612
125613
125614
125615
125616
125617
125618
125619
125620
125621
125622
125623
125624
125625
125626
125627
125628
125629
125630
125631
125632
125633
125634
125635
125636
125637
125638
125639
125640
125641
125642
125643
125644
125645
125646
125647
125648
125649
125650
125651
125652
125653
125654
125655
125656
125657
125658
125659
125660
125661
125662
125663
125664
125665
125666
125667
125668
125669
Amoont
124
1,348
124
44
24,683
150
3,549
41 1
30
170
302
5,225
94
359
2,654
3,095
450
5,860
800
90
1,556
1,533
378
2,131
2,500
46
181
256
725
28
9,088
33
7,826
184
280
126
1,089
1,511
2,03 1
967
130
141
148
496
1,245
265
27 1
1,269
34
365
160
135
400
15,149
61
76
17
121
36,382
64
103
942
130
607
9,512
140,63 1
20
1,598
88
437
. 42
GRAFIX SHOPPE
GWGER
GREENMANTECHNOLOGIESOFMNIN
HACH COMPANY
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON
HARMON AUTOGLASS
HAWKINS WATERTRJZATMENT GROUP
HOSWCONVEYORS INC
IC1 DULUX PAINT CTRS
INDUSTRIAL CONTAINER SERVICES
INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR
INTERSTATE COMPANIES INC
ISAACSON, MARCIA
J & H BERGE INC
JANEXINC
JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
JOHNSON, KAMARA
KELLER FENCE COMPANY INC
KENNETH COMPANIES INC
LAKE COUNTRY DOOR
LANDS END CORPORATE SALES
LAN0 EQUIPMENT INC
LEROY JOB TRUCKING INC
LOVEGREEN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
M R SIGN
MAXI-PRINT INC
MCKAY FLOOR COVERING
MEDICINE LAKE TOURS
MENARDS
MERIT PRINTING
METROPOLITAN FORD
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION
MIDWEST ENGINE SERVICE & SUPPL
MILLER DUNWIDDIE
MINNESOTA CONWAY
MINNESOTA FENCING & REPAIR
MINNETONKA GLASS & MIRROR
MOORE MEDICAL COW
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES
NATIONAL WATERWORKS
NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE
NEXUS INFORMATION SYSTEMS
NORTHWEST RESPIRATORY SERVICE
OLSEN COMPANJBS
OS1 BATTERIES INC
PEPS1 COLA COMPANY
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY
PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN
PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING
PRINTERS SERVICE INC
PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS
RAY, DAVID M.
RMR SERVICES INC
SBC PAGING
SCHARBER & SONS
SCIENCE KIT &BOREAL LABORATOR
SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO
SHORT ELLIOIT HENDRICKSON INC
SHRED-IT
SNAP-ON TOOLS
SNELL MECHANICAL INC
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL I
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING-
SQUARE CUT
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
STARTRIBUNE
STEEL PRODUCTS &ALUMINUM INC.
STEMPF AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES I
STREICHERS
AcconntDcsaipfion
Equipment Repair & Maint
WasteDisposal
h~clothing
operating supplies
Design&Engineaing
Equipment Repair & Maint
chemicals
Equipment Parts
Repair & Maint- Supplies
Other Hardware
Equipment Repair & Maint
Other Contracted Services
Protective Clothing
Small Tools
Other Contracted Services
Building
Other Contracted Services
Building Repair & Maint-
Equipment Repair & Maint
Other Contracted Services
Building Repair & Maint.
Signs
Capital Under $2,000
Special Event Fees
Equipment Parts
Equipment Parts
Improvement Contracts
Equipment Repair & Maint
Deposits
Safety Supplies
Building Materials
Cleaning Supplies
Safety Supplies
Protective Clothing
Merchandise for Resale
Employment Advertising
Software
Safety Supplies
Small Tools
Operating Supplies
Merchandise for Resale
Design & Engineering
Equipment Parts
Equipment Repair & Maint
Equipment Repair & Maint
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Equipment Repair & Maint
Other Contracted Services
Other Contracted Services
Pager & Cell Phone
Equipment Parts
Operating Supplies
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Design & Engineering
Waste Disposal
Equipment Repair & Maint
Repair & Maint. Supplies
Operating Supplies
Advertising
Other Assets
Design &Engineering
Misc Non-Taxable
Machinexy &Equipment
Equipment Parts
operating supplies
Cleaning supplies
Clothing & Uniforms
printing
Printing
Printing
71 Clothing & uniforms
Bosiness unit
FI& sm-ies
WaterTreatment PIant
Fleetservices
WaterTreatmat Plant
Consbuction Fund
Fleetservices
Water Treatment Plant
meet services
Park Maintenance
Police
Wormation Technology
Fleet services
Adult Open Gym
Water Treatment Plant
General Facilities
Fire
Park Facilities
Water Treatment Plant
Pleasant Hill Cemetary
Public Workslparks
Police
Fleet Services
Animal Control
Water Treatment Plant
Traffic Signs
Police
Prairie View Liquor Store
Adult Program
Fleet Services
Fire Cert Grant
Fleet services
CP Trails
Park Maintenance
Escrow
Fire
Street Maintenance
Maintenance
Fire
Fire
Water Utility - General
Human Resources
Information Technology
Fire
Park Maintenance
Police
Concessions
Construction Fund
Fleet Services
Water Treatment Plant
Park Maintenance
Ice Arena
Fleet Services
Basketball
Water Meter Reading
Water System Maintenance
Fleet Services
Water Treatment Plant
Senior Center
Improvement Projects 1996
City Center Operations
Fleet services
Pool Maintenance
Police
Communication Services
Den Road Liquor Store
Charlson Area Construction
Den Road Liquor Store
Public Works
Fleet services
Police
Assessing
check#
125670
125671
125672
125673
125674
125675
125676
125677
125678
125679
125680
125681
125682
125683
125684
125685
125686
125687
125688
125689
Amoont
419
107
1,191
2,418
575
369
212
49
46
2,971
103
52
85
2,761
64
1,982
413
2,729
339
393
1,876,406
\'mdorlExplanation
SUBURBANCHEVROLETGEO
SUBURBAN PROPANE
suBuRBANTIREmoLEsALEINc
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS
SUNRISE SPECIALTY CONTRACTING
SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES
TIERNEY BROS INC
TOWN AND COUNTRY DODGE
TWINCITYOXYGENCO
VALLEY RICH CO INC
VOSS LIGHTING
WALTERS SWIM SUPPLIES INC.
WARNER OWDOOREQUIPMENT
WATSON CO INC, THE
WEST WELD
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
ZEP MANUFACTURING CO
WORK CONNECTION-BPARK
Grand Total
Esaipmcnt Parts
Equipment Rcpair & Maint
TirS
ma contracted sm-ces
Repair & MainL Supplies
mercontnlL?tedsavices
operating SUppIies
Eqyipment Repair & Maint
operating supplies
Other Contracted Services
Repair & MainL Supplies
operating supplies
Equipment Parb
Merchandise for Resale
Small Tools
Equipment Repair & Maint
Design & Engineering
Other Contracted Services
Safety Supplies
Lubricants &Additives
FlefSerViCCS
Fleetservices
Fleetsavices
Utility Improvancnt Fund
Maintenance
Sewer Liition
Traffic Signs
Fled services
Water System Maintenance
Sewer System Maintenance
Maintenance oak Point Lessons
Fleetservices
Concessions
Fleet services
Fleet services
Construction Fund
Park Maintenance
Pool operations
Fleet Services
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions
DEPARTMENTDMSION: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Office of the City Manager
Michael Barone, Assistant to the
City Manager
First Reading of an Ordinance Amending City
Code Section 4.01,4.05,4.06,4.22,4.32 and
4.33; Relating to Liquor Licensing
DATE: 12/02/03
ITEM NO.:
Z.A.
Requested Action
MOTION: Move to adopt the first reading of an Ordinance amending City Code
Chapter 4, Section 4.01,4.05,4.06,4.22,4.32 and 4.33; relating to liquor
licensing.
Synopsis
The proposed City Code amendment would define “Bowling Center” in Section 4.01 and amend
Section 4.06, Subd. 4. to define principle part of business for the “bowling center” and make
conforming changes to Sections 4.05, subd. 7,4.22,4.32 and 4.33.
Background Information
At the November 18,2003, the City Council directed staff to work with Brunswick Lanes
Bowling Center, located at 12200 Singletree Lane, to allow this business to hold their
intoxicating liquor license, beginning January 1,2004, under a City Code definition as a
“bowling center;” and that the principal part of business shall be derived from a
combination of food sales and bowling activity and revenues, including bowling activity,
bowling equipment, arcade games, billiards, and other recreational activities.
Attachment
Ordinance
73
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -2003
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 4 BY AMENDING SECTIONS 4.01, 4.05,4.06, 4.22, 4.32 AND
4.33 RELATING TO REGULATIONS GOVERNING BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR
LICENSING, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 4.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
City Code Section 4.01 is amended by adding Subd. 22 as follows:
“Bowling Center” means an establishment where the primary business is bowling,
other family recreational activities and equipment sales including, but not limited
to, bowling, arcade games, and billiards; and where food, beverage, and vending
sales are offered and served. A bowling center must have a minimum of 40 lanes
of bowling available and a minimum of 50% of the bowling center’s square
footage dedicated to bowling, which includes, but is not limited to, the bowling
lanes, approach to the bowling lanes, settee area, mechanical area for pin
machines, locker area for bowling balls, counter space for bowling business
transactions, and the bowling pro shop.
City Section 4.05, Subd. 7 is amended by adding “bowling centers” as follows:
On-sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be granted only to hotels, restaurants,
bowling centers, clubs and congressionally chartered veterans organizations.
City Code Section 4.06, Subd. 4 is amended by adding the following:
A licensed bowling center shall be conducted in such manner that the principal
part of the business for a license year is composed of food, beverage, vending
machine sales, bowling activity and other recreational activities and sales
including, but not limited to, bowling, bowling equipment, arcade games, and
billiards. For licensed bowling centers, “principal part” shall mean seventy
percent (70%) or more of gross receipts.
City Code Section 4.22 is amended by adding “bowling center” as follows:
A restaurant, hotel, bowling center or club may also sell beer for consumption on
the premises.. .
City Code Section 4.32 is amended by adding “bowling center” as follows:
A restaurant, hotel, bowling center or club may also sell liquor.. .
Section 6. City Code Section 4.33 is amended by adding “bowling centers” as
follows:
A Sunday on-sale liquor license may be issued to hotels, restaurants, bowling
centers or clubs ...
Section 7. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to
the Entire City Code, Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 4.99 entitled
“Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
day of December, 2003, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on day of December, 2003.
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on ,2003.
75
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions
DATE: 12/02/03
I I I
DEPARTMENT/DMSION : ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Office of the City Manager
Michael Barone, Assistant to the , $ City Manager
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending
City Code Section 4.01,4.05,4.06,4.22,4.32
and 4.33; Relating to Liquor Licensing
Requested Action
MOTION: Move to adopt the second reading of an Ordinance amending City Code
Section 4.01,4.05,4.06,4.22,4.32 and 4.33; relating to liquor licensing.
Synopsis
The second reading of the ordinance is coming before the Council on December.Znd in order for
Brunswick to qualify for renewal on January 1,2004.
76