Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 01/16/2007AGENDA CITY COUNCIL & CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD WORKSHOP & OPEN FORUM/OPEN PODIUM MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007 CITY CENTER 5:00 – 6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOM II 6:30 – 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Councilmembers Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Rob Reynolds, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Parks and Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Communications Manager Joyce Lorenz, Assistant to the City Manager Michael Barone, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters Heritage Room II I. MLC LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Council Chamber II. OPEN FORUM III. OPEN PODIUM IV. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Councilmembers Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Deb Sweeney I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY FOR RECOGNITION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS VI. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2007 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. ADOPT RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS C. AWARD BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA BOARDWALK OVERLOOK TO SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC. D. ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-08 BY AMENDING THE MEETING DATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMMISSION FOR 2007 E. AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH CBIZ FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 16, 2007 Page 2 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO GOLF COURSES (Ordinance for Amending Chapter 11) B. BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING. Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Location: Bent Creek Golf Course. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change) C. OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING. Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi- Public to Golf Course on 170.71 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Location: Olympic Hills Golf Course. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change) D. BEARPATH GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING. Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Location: Bearpath Golf Course. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change) E. GLEN LAKE GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING. Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres, Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Location: Glen Lake Golf Course. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change) F. STARING PRESERVE by Aileron Development. Request for: Preliminary Plat on 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Location: 9181 Staring Lane East. (Resolution for Preliminary Plat) G. WINDSOR PLAZA by Solomon Real Estate. Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.44 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Flying Cloud Drive, South of Singletree Lane, North of Regional Center Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change; Resolution for Preliminary Plat) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 16, 2007 Page 3 H. RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD by Randy Neis. Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres, Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres. Location: Southwest corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Singletree Lane. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and Zoning District Change) IX. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS X. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 9.04, RELATING TO RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PARKS B. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO GOLF COURSES AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY ORDINANCE XI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Revised Land Exchange Agreement between the City and the Eden Prairie School District 2. HRA Secretary C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1. Purchase Agreement for Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot C – Columbine Addition D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR 1. Renaming of Purgatory Creek Recreation Area E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 16, 2007 Page 4 G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT PROCLAMATION City of Eden Prairie Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie’s City Council and Human Rights & Diversity Commission sponsors the Human Rights Award program, recognizing those who work to create an inclusive community spirit through their actions, activities, and programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie recognizes that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream and dedicated his life to helping freedom exist for all people through his commitment to human rights and his non-violent philosophy; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie reaffirms its commitment to fostering diversity in our community through the Eden Prairie Manifesto. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the City of Eden Prairie hereby proclaims 2007 as a year to celebrate human rights and diversity, and asks all residents to continue their commitment and concern for equal rights for all persons, to dedicate themselves to helping those who do not yet share in that freedom, and to join the City of Eden Prairie in recognizing and celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream. Phil Young, Mayor City of Eden Prairie ITEM NO.: IV.A. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2007 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Councilmembers Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Jon Duckstad, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Deb Sweeney I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Young called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. SWEARING IN OF MAYOR PHILIP YOUNG AND COUNCILMEMBERS JON DUCKSTAD AND KATHY NELSON IV. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION V. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS VI. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2006 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the Council Workshop minutes as published. Motion carried 3-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2006 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the City Council minutes as published. Motion carried 3-0. ITEM NO.: VI.A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 2007 Page 2 VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1-2007 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 4 SECTION 4.07 RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS FOR LIQUOR LICENSEES C. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-01 AUTHORIZING CITY OFFICIALS TO TRANSACT BANKING BUSINESS D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-02 DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES E. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-03 AUTHORIZING USE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS F. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-04 AUTHORIZING TREASURER OR DEPUTY TREASURER TO INVEST CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FUNDS G. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2007-05 AUTHORIZING TREASURER OR DEPUTY TREASURER TO MAKE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS FOR CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-06 AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT PRIOR COUNCIL APPROVAL I. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-07 APPOINTING COMMISSIONERS TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-08 ESTABLISHING MEETING DATES AND TIMES FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR 2007 K. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-09 DESIGNATING OFFICIAL CITY NEWSPAPER L. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-10 EXTENDING CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT NO. A12099 WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR ELECTRONIC GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATE M. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 FOR MITCHELL ROAD / TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 005508 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve Items A-M on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 2007 Page 3 IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve Payment of Claims as submitted. The motion carried on a roll call vote with Aho, Butcher, Duckstad, Nelson and Young voting “aye.” XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XIV. APPOINTMENTS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-11 DESIGNATING OFFICIAL MEETING DATES, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL IN 2007 AND APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR Neal noted the following resolutions and appointments require approval on an annual basis. In addition to the regular Council meetings listed in the attached Resolution, Town Meetings are planned for April 10 and November 27. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to adopt Resolution No. 2007-11 designating the official meeting dates, time and place for the City of Eden Prairie Council in 2007 and appointing Councilmember Butcher the Acting Mayor. Motion carried 5-0. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-12 APPOINTING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY FOR 2007 Neal noted Director of Public Works Gene Dietz served as the Director and Councilmember Case served as the Alternate Director to the Suburban Rate Authority in 2006. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2007-12 designating Director of Public Works Gene Dietz as the Director and Councilmember Butcher as the Alternate Director to the Suburban Rate Authority. Motion carried 5-0. C. APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR YOUNG AS DELEGATE AND COUNCILMEMBERS AS ALTERNATES TO THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 2007 Page 4 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve appointment of the Mayor as Delegate and Councilmembers as Alternates to the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. Motion carried 5-0. D. APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR YOUNG AS DELEGATE AND COUNCILMEMBERS AS ALTERNATES TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve appointment of the Mayor as Delegate and Councilmembers as Alternates to the National League of Cities. Motion carried 5-0. E. APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR YOUNG TO THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve appointment of the Mayor to the Municipal Legislative Commission. Motion carried 5-0. F. APPOINTMENT TO SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR COMMISSION Neal noted Mayor Young served on the Southwest Corridor Commission in 2006. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to approve appointment of Councilmember Nelson to Southwest Corridor Commission. Motion carried 5- 0. G. APPOINTMENT TO SOUTHWEST CABLE TV COMMISSION Neal noted Councilmember Case served on the Southwest Cable Commission from 2002 to 2006. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve appointment of Councilmember Aho to the Southwest Cable Commission. Motion carried 5-0. H. APPOINTMENT TO EDEN PRAIRIE FOUNDATION Neal noted Mayor Young served on the Eden Prairie Foundation in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Young explained he would serve out the end of the Foundation’s fiscal year, through the end of May, and then step down so another Councilmember could be appointed. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve appointment of Mayor Young to the Eden Prairie Foundation through May 31st, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 2007 Page 5 I. APPOINTMENT TO I-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION Neal noted Councilmember Aho served on the I-494 Corridor Commission in 2005 and 2006. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve appointment of Councilmember Aho to the I-494 Corridor Commission. Motion carried 5-0. J. APPOINTMENT TO CITY AND SCHOOL FACILITIES USE TASK FORCE Neal noted Mayor Young served on the City and School Facilities Use Task Force in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve appointment of Councilmember Nelson to the City and School Facilities Use Task Force. Motion carried 5-0. K. APPOINTMENT OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SOUTHWEST TRANSIT BOARD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM Neal said it is necessary for the City Council to appoint a Council Representative for a three-year term to end December 31, 2009. Mayor Tyra-Lukens served as the Council Representative from 2004 to 2006. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to appoint Councilmember Duckstad to the Southwest Transit Board as the Eden Prairie City Council Representative for a three-year term to end December 31, 2009. Motion carried 5-0. L. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR Neal explained under state statute, the Mayor is considered the City Weed Inspector. Each year the City appoints the Assistant Weed Inspector under the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 18.80 and 18.81, to enforce the local and state weed ordinances. Jeff Cordes has been doing this inspection work for the past several years, and he is familiar with the City ordinance and state law. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher, to appoint Jeff Cordes as Assistant Weed Inspector for the City of Eden Prairie. Motion carried 5-0. M. APPOINTMENT OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE TO SOUTHWEST TRANSIT BOARD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM Neal explained Eden Prairie appoints a Citizen Representative as well as a City Council Representative to the Southwest Transit Board. Former Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens has served on the Southwest Transit Board in the past. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 2007 Page 6 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Nelson, to appoint Nancy Tyra-Lukens to the Southwest Transit Board as the Eden Prairie Citizen Representative for the remainder of a three-year term to end December 31, 2008. Motion carried 5-0. N. APPOINTMENT OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Neal noted Butcher is being reappointed to this position. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to appoint Councilmember Butcher as a trustee of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Motion carried 5-0. XV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR 1. Construction Management Services Contract for Community Center Expansion / Round Lake Park Improvements / Birch Island Park Improvements Neal reported on the item since Lambert was attending the Parks Commission meeting. Due to the complexity of the Community Center expansion project caused by the requirement to keep the building operating during construction, meet all of the deadlines to accommodate school use and the fact that it must be coordinated with the Round Lake Park improvements to the Community Center parking lot, the relocated baseball field, and the construction of the NURP pond, as well as the Birch Island Park improvement project, staff is recommending the use of a construction manager for this project. This approach would provide better control of costs, better analysis of the complex bid packages which include many alternates, advantages in staging the project to accommodate ongoing use of the pool and ice rinks, and a “not to exceed” cap on construction costs. The City interviewed four construction management companies, received proposals ranging from $711,718 to $1.2 million, and is recommending RJM at a fee not to exceed $711,718 for this project. Funds come from the project itself and would otherwise have been incorporated into a general contractor’s fees. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 2007 Page 7 Neal said the contract would look different from a typical public building contract and would include many subcontractors. Rosow referred Councilmembers to the packet for an itemization of costs. Each item would be competitively bid. The current amount at risk is $13,000, which is the amount budgeted for the construction manager to suggest adjustments to the plans to promote buildability and to assist the City and architect through the bidding process. The construction manager would then give a guaranteed price which the Council could accept or reject. The construction manager understands his fee is part of the total cost. Nelson asked if RJM had a good record for on-time, quality work. Rosow said the architect had contacted references and met RJM staff several times, and felt confident of their quality. Aho asked for clarification—would RJM take responsibility for the cost through the “not to exceed” provision? Rosow said yes. There are different types of construction manager agreements, and this is a hybrid agreement providing advisement plus a guaranteed price as the constructor. Cost changes within the scope of the project would be the construction manager’s responsibility. Should there be changes to the costs that no one could have foreseen, responsibility for those costs would be negotiated. Aho asked how the City can ensure quality is maintained if the construction manager comes under cost pressure. Rosow said the architect has the responsibility to inspect and see that all plans and specifications are carried out. Neal said City building inspectors would also be involved in reviewing work quality. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the Construction Management Services contract with RJM for the Community Center expansion / Round Lake Park Improvements / Birch Island Park improvement project. 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 XVI. OTHER BUSINESS XVII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Aho, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. - 1 - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Christy Weigel, Police/ Community Investigations Unit ITEM DESCRIPTION: Clerk’s License Application List ITEM NO.: VII.A. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Temporary Liquor Organization: Church of Pax Christi Event: Volunteer Appreciation Event Date: February 17, 2007 Place: Pax Christi Social Hall New Liquor License(s) Licensee name: Phu, Inc DBA: Cam Ranh Bay 8244 Commonwealth Drive 2007 Renewal Licenses Private Kennel Barb & Jim Gabbert – 3 dogs Solid Waste Collector Aspen Waste Systems, Inc Minneapolis, MN Allied Waste Services (Awin Mgmt) Eden Prairie, MN Dick’s Sanitation Service Lakeville, MN Dumpster Box Services St. Paul, MN Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal West St. Paul, MN LePage & Sons Blaine, MN Lloyd’s Construction Savage, MN Randy’s Sanitation Delano, MN Red Arrow St. Paul, MN Tubs, Inc Minneapolis, MN Veit Disposal Systems Rogers, MN Waste Management Savage MN Waste Technology Inc. Brooklyn Park, MN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Scott H. Neal, City Manager ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Pertaining to Expenditure of City Funds ITEM NO.: VII.B. Requested Action Move to: Adopt Resolution pertaining to expenditure of City funds. Synopsis We ask the City Council to adopt this resolution at the beginning of each new Council term in order to provide official authorization to the City’s existing employee recognition plans, events and programs. This resolution also covers plans, events and programs for City Councilmembers and volunteers to our citizen advisory commissions. This is a standard resolution. Funding for the plans, events and programs authorized in this resolution are included in the approved 2007 City Budget. Attachment Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007- THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO EXPRENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN BENEFITS RESOLVED, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THE COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZES EXPENDITURES FOR THE FOLLOWING EVENTS: FINDINGS A. The Council is authorized to “prescribe the duties and fix the compensation of all officers, both appointive and elective, employees, and agents,” (including volunteers), (“Employees and Officials”) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.111. B. Benefits authorized by this resolution (the “Benefits”) such as awards, recognitions and social events, (picnics, dinners, luncheons, etc.) for or participated in by Employees, Officials and Volunteers serve to enhance the morale, efficiency and productivity of the City’s Employees, Officials and Volunteers. C. Providing the Benefits results in greater satisfaction, attraction, retention and motivation of the City’s Employees, Officials and Volunteers. D. Employees, Officials and Volunteers who interact together while partaking and participating in the Benefits develop synergy which allows for better ideas, better cooperation and higher productivity. E. Based upon the foregoing, the expenditure of funds for the following Benefits for the City’s Employees, Officials and Volunteers are for a public purpose. AUTHORIZATIONS Based upon the foregoing Findings, and the authority contained in Minn. Stat. §412.111, the Council authorizes expenditures for the following Benefits as compensation for the City’s Employees, Officials and Volunteers. 1. Recognition lunches; 2. Departure and retirement recognition events; 3. Awards and gifts for years of service; 4. Annual employee picnic; 5. Annual holiday party; 6. Annual Record Review Week; 7. Wellness Program; 8. Charitable Giving Campaign; 9. City Commission Members’ recognition dinner; 10. Athletic Association’s Boards of Directors Education and Recognition Dinner and Awards; 11. Recognition dinners for Police Chaplains and Reserves; 12. New Elected/Appointed Officials and New Employee Orientation programs; 13. Health and Benefit Fair; 14. Munici-Pals; and 15. Administration of employee Sunshine Fund. 2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CREDIT CARDS WHEREAS, it is expedient that officers and employees of the City who are authorized to make certain purchases on behalf of the City have available the use of City credit cards. RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THAT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 471.382: The use of credit cards by any City officer or employee otherwise authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City is authorized, provided that, purchases by credit card must comply with all statutes, rules and/or City policy applicable to City purchases. The use of City credit cards shall be limited to purchases on behalf of the City and no other purpose. 3. RESOLUTION RELATING TO IMPREST FUNDS (PETTY CASH) WHEREAS, the establishment of petty cash funds is necessary for the timely payment of certain expenditures on behalf of the City. RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THAT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 412.271, SUBD. 5: The Council hereby establishes the following imprest funds for the payment in cash of any proper claim against the City which is impractical to pay in any other manner, except that no claim for salary or personal expenses of an officer or employee shall be paid from such funds: 1. Finance; 2. Public Safety; 3. Community Center; 4. Park and Recreation Programming; and 5. Building Inspections. RESOLVED FURTHER: The City Manager or his designee shall act as custodian of each such fund who shall be responsible for its safekeeping and disbursement according to law. Money for the operation of such funds shall be secured by transfer from the general fund. Claims itemizing the various demands for which disbursements have been made from the funds shall be presented to the Council at the next Council meeting after the disbursements have been made. The Council shall act upon it as in the case of other claims and an order shall be issued to the custodian for the amount allowed. The custodian shall use the proceeds of the order to replenish the fund; and if the Council fails to approve the claim in full for any sufficient reason, the custodian shall be personally responsible for the difference. 4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO MEALS WHEREAS, the furnishing or reimbursement of the cost of meals to officials and employees of the City in certain instances is beneficial to the City. RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THAT THE COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZES EXPENDITURES FOR THE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZATION The furnishing of meals and refreshments or the reimbursement to officials and employees of the City for the cost of meals and refreshments in the circumstances, purposes or times described hereafter is necessary for or conducive to the accomplishment of employees’ duties and responsibilities in the conduct of the business of the City and is of a public benefit and a public purpose and is hereby authorized, a. Those provided immediately before or in conjunction with meetings of the Council, committees or subgroups. b. City business meetings at which those in attendance involve non City employees. c. When a breakfast, lunch or dinner meeting is conducted for official City business when it is the only practical time to meet and when it involves non City employee participants. d. In connection with a conference, workshop, seminar or meeting which the employee has been authorized to attend. e. Department-sponsored meetings, conferences or workshops where invited participants include non-City employees. f. An organization-wide or department-wide annual, quarterly or monthly staff meeting. g. At regularly scheduled meetings of the City Manager and department heads. h. Meals for staff involved in election related duties when the performance of their duties prohibits staff from leaving the building. i. At the discretion of the City Manager. 5. RESOLUTION RELATING TO MEMBERSHIPS WHEREAS, memberships of the City or City employees and officials in community, civic, business and service organizations are of City and public benefit. RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THAT THE COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZES EXPENDITURES FOR THE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZATION The membership by the City and its officials and employees in community, civic, business and service organizations (including but not limited to the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, the Eden Prairie Rotary Club, Sensible Land Use Coalition and Habitat for Technology) enhances the ability of the officials and employees to serve the public and conduct City business through the interaction of the officials and employees by and with such organizations and members and thus provides a public benefit and serves a public purpose. The expenditure of funds by the City for membership fees, dues or other expenses including meals and refreshments is hereby authorized. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2007. ________________________ ATTEST: Phil Young, Mayor ______________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Report of Parks and Recreation Director DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources ITEM DESCRIPTION: Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Boardwalk Overlook Bids ITEM NO.: VII.C. Requested Action Move to: Award the bid for construction of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Boardwalk Overlook to Sunram Construction Inc. in the amount of $65,485. Synopsis The City of Eden Prairie advertised for the construction of a boardwalk overlook structure in the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. Plans and specifications were prepared utilizing SRF consulting services and the City received two bids from prospective contractors. The work scope is to construct an L-shaped boardwalk overlook that would be placed on helical anchor pilings. The 8-foot wide boardwalk would extend 40-feet from the current park trail to a 20-foot x 28-foot overlook area above the pond basin on the west side of the park. Background The funds for doing this project come from the Capital Improvement Project funding. This boardwalk overlook is the final phase of the initial concept plan for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. From the first phase through this one, there have been facilities within the Park that were shown on the master plan; however, due to timing and construction phasing, it was deemed better to install them at a future date. This boardwalk will extend nearly sixty-feet out over the water and become a place where park visitors can sit on benches or picnic tables. The CIP funds of $66,000 were designated for this project. The summary of the bids is as follows: Base Bid Add Alternate 1 Add Alternate 2 Sunram Construction Inc. $65,485 $20,400 $17,169.76 LS Black Constructors, Inc. $90,329 $25,160 $13,290.40 The engineer estimates for the project were $69,000 for the base bid and $13,000 for add alternate 1 (railings), and $6,286 for add alternate 2 (timber walk). Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Boardwalk Overlook Bids January 16, 2007 Page 2 Each of the submitters met the guidelines as detailed in the bid specifications and staff recommends that the bid award go to Sunram Construction Inc in the amount of $65,485 for the base bid only Staff is not recommending award of the add alternates for this project. The construction contract would ensure that the helical anchors as well as the frame work for the boardwalk overlook would be installed. City staff will utilize its park maintenance workers as well as the ICWC work crew to complete the decking and railing of this park amenity to keep the total expense well below the add alternate totals. Staff anticipates that the project will begin within the next month and that the final decking and railing installation will take place sometime in late spring, so that the structure is available for park users during the upcoming summer months. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Molly Koivumaki, Manager, Housing and Human Services ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution amending Resolution No. 2007-08 by Amending the Meeting Dates for Human Rights and Diversity Commission for 2007 ITEM NO.: VII.D. Requested Action Move to: Adopt resolution amending Resolution No. 2007-08 by amending the meeting dates for the Human Rights and Diversity Commission from the second Tuesday to the third Thursday of each month, for the months of February, March, April, May and June 2007. Background A scheduling conflict will prevent the Chair of the Human Rights & Diversity Commission from attending the Human Rights and Diversity Commission meetings from February through June 2007. Commissioners discussed the situation and proposed a solution to move the meeting dates to better accommodate all of the Commissioners schedules. Attachment Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-08 BY AMENDING THE MEETING DATES FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMMISSION FOR 2007 BE IT RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 2007-08 is amended by changing the meeting dates for the Human Rights and Diversity Commission from the second Tuesday to the third Thursday of each month, for the months of February, March, April, May and June 2007. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 16th day of January 2007. _______________________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Human Resources/Office of the City Manager Karen Kurt, HR Manager ITEM DESCRIPTION: Agreement for Employee Benefit Consulting Services ITEM NO.: VII.E. Requested Action Move to: Authorize agreement with CBIZ for employee benefit consulting services through 2008. Synopsis The City provides comprehensive benefits to approximately 270 full time employees. Another 30 employees of Southwest Transit are also covered under the City’s health and dental insurance plans. The City employs the services of a consulting firm/insurance agent to assist our Human Resources Division with the technical aspects of employee benefits. The consulting firm coordinates the insurance renewal and bidding processes, provides benefit plan design analysis and advice, assists with open enrollment, and responds to technical benefit questions. After several years with the same firm, the City recently conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for benefit consulting services. The City received seven responses and interviewed three firms. Of the three firms, CBIZ offered the best match of services and experience. CBIZ has extensive experience working with public sector groups and currently provides services to cities such as Burnsville, Plymouth, and St. Louis Park. CBIZ also offered the lowest price for the proposed services, a flat rate of seven dollars per month per employee (estimated $28,000/year). This rate is significantly lower than the commission structure with the previous consulting firm (estimated $47,000/year). Attachments Service Agreement between CBIZ and the City of Eden Prairie SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement made by and between City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (“Employer") who sponsors a group employee benefits plan (“Plan”) and CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc. (“CBIZ”), who will provide for Employer one or more of the services more fully described herein and as indicated below. WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms set forth below, CBIZ will perform the services described herein in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (“IRC”) and the Public Health Services Act, as amended (“PHS”), without assuming any responsibility as a plan administrator or plan sponsor under the Plan, and without assuming any responsibility for continuation or extension of coverage laws unless specifically agreed to elsewhere in this Agreement. CBIZ will perform the following services effective January 1, 2007: Employee Benefits Consulting Services (Addendum A) The Terms of Agreement and all applicable Addendums are attached hereto. Employer and CBIZ have read the Terms of Agreement and all attached Addendums and agree to be bound by their terms. Employer CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc. City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Revised 3/05 1 TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. Services Provided by CBIZ. CBIZ will perform the services selected by Employer and pursuant to the services outlined on the Addendums attached hereto. 2. Relationship of the Parties. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement does not create any employer/employee, partner or joint venturer relationship between the parties. The parties agree that the relationship between CBIZ and Employer shall be that of independent contractors. As an independent contractor, CBIZ shall have the right to determine the means and methods to be used in accomplishing and providing the services to be rendered hereunder, including but not limited to outsourcing one or more services contemplated herein. Each party shall be responsible for all expenses involved in the execution of any services to be performed hereunder and shall also be responsible for all federal, state and local taxes that may be required to be paid by either party. The parties shall not have any express or implied rights or authority to assume or create any obligation or responsibility on behalf of or in the name of the other, except as may otherwise be set forth in this Agreement. 3. Requests of Information. Employer acknowledges the importance of providing complete and accurate information to CBIZ prior to the effective date of any and all services provided hereunder. CBIZ, from time to time, will request certain information from the Employer, which is necessary to enable CBIZ to adequately perform its duties hereunder. The Employer shall, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing or hand delivery of such request, furnish CBIZ with all information requested. CBIZ, its officers, employees and agents shall not be liable for any damages, taxes, interest, penalties, or fines incurred by the Employer if all the requested information is not furnished within the time period set forth in this paragraph. 4. Reliance on Employer Provided Information. All information supplied to CBIZ by the Employer shall be provided in writing or in such electronic media as is acceptable to CBIZ and such information shall be true and correct to the best of the Employer’s belief and knowledge. CBIZ may rely on any such information furnished by authorized individual(s) of the Employer and shall have no responsibility to inquire into its correctness or accuracy. CBIZ shall incur no liability for reliance on such information in the performance of its services. If the information supplied proves to be incorrect, the Employer will pay CBIZ based upon then current hourly rates for the costs of all work to correct such information. The Employer shall use reasonable efforts to retain duplicate copies of information or material sent to CBIZ and for taking other precautions as it deems necessary in case such information or materials are lost or destroyed, regardless of cause, or in case information reprocessing is needed for any reason. 5. Plan Administration and Fiduciary Responsibilities. The Employer is the Plan’s fiduciary, whether named or otherwise, and plan administrator, not CBIZ. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to make CBIZ a fiduciary to the Plan. The Employer is solely responsible for all administrative duties incident to the Revised 3/05 2 maintenance of the aforementioned Plan, including general compliance with the IRC, PHS, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, P.L. 99-272 (“COBRA”) or any other federal, state or local laws or regulations that may have bearing on this Plan. CBIZ, its officers, employees and agents are not Plan fiduciaries and shall not perform any functions which might, in the opinion of CBIZ, result in the classification of CBIZ, or any of its officers, employees or agents as a “fiduciary”. The Employer acknowledges that CBIZ has no discretionary authority, control or responsibility over the Plan or over the administration of Plan assets. CBIZ will execute requested transactions involving the Plan only after receiving the appropriate authority from the Employer, named representative(s) or other properly identified fiduciary (ies). CBIZ, its officers, employees and agents will not furnish any legal, tax, or accounting advice for which its officers, employees or agents are not licensed to furnish, but will direct such questions either directly to, or through the Employer. The Employer bears responsibility to direct such questions to its legal counsel and accountant. 6. Limitation of Liability. CBIZ’s services under this Agreement shall be limited to the services outlined on the Addendums attached hereto. Neither CBIZ, nor its officers, employees and agents shall have any liability whatsoever for the payment of any damages, interest, taxes, fines or penalties which arise out of or are in connection with any acts or omissions of a Plan trustee, sponsor, fiduciary, administrator or party-in-interest to the Plan. CBIZ’s liability regarding processing and recordkeeping errors shall be limited only to substantiated and proven direct damages and the correction of such errors that are reported to CBIZ within ninety (90) days of receipt of said erroneous reports, records or information by the Employer. CBIZ shall not be liable for losses incurred by the Plan or a Plan participant for indirect, special or consequential damages arising out of any breach of this Agreement. 7. Prior Acts or Omissions. CBIZ shall not be liable for any acts or omissions with respect to the services provided hereunder, which were committed before the date of this Agreement. CBIZ shall also not be liable for any acts or omissions with respect to the services provided hereunder for the Plan which occur after this Agreement’s termination, except for acts or omissions in connection with the transfer of records upon termination of this Agreement as provided in Section 12 of this Agreement. 8. Responsibility for Own Acts. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of Employer shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes 466 and other applicable law. 9. Fees. The fees for CBIZ’s services performed hereunder shall be outlined on Addendum B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Revised 3/05 3 10. Confidentiality. CBIZ agrees not to disclose or use during or subsequent to termination of this Agreement, any confidential information relating to Employer’s business unless such use is required in the performance of this Agreement. The parties agree and understand that confidential information is any information that is treated as confidential by either party and/or has not been made generally available to the public. Such information shall include, but not be limited to, employee information, client and customer lists, data, records, computer programs, manuals, processes and methods that each party may have become privileged to during the course of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that Employer may disclose confidential and important Protected Health Information (“PHI”) to CBIZ as defined under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). Execution of this Agreement indicates each party’s acceptance to the terms of Addendum C, Confidentiality and Nondisclosure of Protected Health Information, attached hereto and made a part hereof. All records and other materials related in any way to each party’s business shall be and remain the respective party’s property during and after the termination of this Agreement. Upon termination of the Agreement, each party shall promptly return to the other party all copies of materials involving confidential information in the other party’s possession or control. The parties further agree and acknowledge that they will disclose the confidential information only to those directors, officers or employees that have an absolute need to know for the purposes of the Agreement. A copy of CBIZ’s privacy practices regarding Employer’s nonpublic personal information is available upon request. The provisions of this Section 10 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 11. Notice. All notices, requests, consents and other communications hereunder will be in writing, will be addressed to the receiving party’s address set forth below or to such other address as a party may designate by notice hereunder, and will be either (i) delivered by hand, (ii) made facsimile transaction, (iii) sent by overnight courier, or (iv) sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. CBIZ: CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc. 11440 Tomahawk Creek Parkway Leawood, Kansas 66211 Attn: General Counsel Employer: City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 If any party gives written notice of a change in address, notice to that party shall thereafter be given at the new address set forth in the notice. 12. Term and Termination. A. Term. This Agreement is effective January 1, 2007 and will remain in effect for a twelve (12) month period from and after the effective date stated (the “Initial Term”). Thereafter, this Agreement shall automatically renew for additional twelve (12) month terms (each an “Extended Term”), unless terminated earlier by CBIZ or Employer with written notice thirty (30) days Revised 3/05 4 prior to the end of the Initial Term. In the event the Agreement is renewed for any Extended Term(s), the Agreement may be terminated by either party with written notice thirty (30) days prior to the end of any Extended Term. B. Termination for Cause. Whenever either party is in breach of this Agreement, the other party may take one or more of the following actions after giving ten (10) days’ written notice, but only if the breach has not been cured within said ten (10) days: i. Cancel and rescind the Agreement ii. Take any action, including legal or administrative action, in law or equity, which may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement or covenant of the other party under this Agreement. C. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to either party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any breach shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. D. Effect of Termination. Upon termination, CBIZ shall have a reasonable amount of time to transfer account records information in accordance with the written instructions of the Employer. CBIZ shall be entitled to receive all of the revenue due through the end of any term of the Agreement plus reasonable costs related to termination, including without limitation costs of generating termination related reports and accounting. CBIZ shall have no responsibility to release any records, plan data, electronic files or other information to the Employer until CBIZ has received payment in full for any compensation due and owing to CBIZ pursuant to this Section and Section 9 above. If Employer terminates this Agreement for cause, CBIZ shall only be entitled to receive fees through the termination date of the Agreement. 13. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this Agreement and the attached Addendums may be modified or amended only by written agreement executed by the parties hereto. 14. Waiver. No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other breach, whether of the same or any other terms of this Agreement, nor shall any delay or omission of either party’s exercise of any right arising from any default affect or impair the party’s rights as to the same or future default. 15. Severability. In case any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the Agreement’s remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired. Revised 3/05 5 16. Successor and Assigns. This Agreement and all Addendums shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. However, this Agreement shall not be assigned to any other party without the other party’s written consent. 17. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Minnesota, without regards to principles of conflicts of laws. Both parties to this Agreement hereby irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Minnesota over any dispute arising out of this Agreement and agree that all claims in respect of such dispute shall be determined in such court. 18. Data Practices Act. CBIZ shall at all times abide by the Minnesota government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §13.01, et seq., to the extent that the Act is applicable to data and documents in the hands of CBIZ. 19. Audits. During and for six (6) years following the termination of this Agreement, the books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of CBIZ relevant to the services provided under this Agreement are subject to examination by Employer and either the Minnesota Legislative Auditor or the Minnesota State Auditor, as appropriate, upon reasonable request and notice to CBIZ by the examining party. 20. Worker’s Compensation. CBIZ represents and warrants that it has and will maintain during the performance of this Agreement worker’s compensation insurance coverage required pursuant to Minn. Stat. §176.181, subd. 2 and that the certificate of insurance or the written order of the Commissioner of Commerce permitting self insurance of worker’s compensation insurance coverage provided to Employer is current and in force and effect. 21. Discrimination. In performance of this Agreement, CBIZ shall not discriminate on the grounds of or because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regards to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age against any employee of CBIZ, any subcontractor of CBIZ or any applicant for employment. CBIZ further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §363.01, et seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 22. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the Employer and no member of the Board of Employer shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The violation of this provision renders the Agreement void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 23. Claims. To receive any payment on this Agreement, the invoice or bill must include the following signed and dated statement: “I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that not part of it has been paid.” Revised 3/05 6 24. Limitation of Remedies. In the event of breach of the Agreement by either party, the other party shall not be entitled to recover punitive, special or consequential damages or damages for loss of business. 25. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and all attached Addendum(s) contain the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreement between them related to the subject matter hereof. There are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings, oral or written, between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, which are not fully expressed herein. 26. Headings. The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret or construe its provisions. All pronouns used in this Agreement shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine or neuter gender as the context requires. 27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Revised 3/05 7 ADDENDUM A EMPLOYEE BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICES SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Plan Management and Administration ♦ Participate as an insurance/benefit committee facilitator ♦ Act as a benefit advocate to Labor/Management teams ♦ Develop Long Term Care alternatives ♦ Conduct educational seminars for employees ♦ Provide benchmarking B. Employee Benefit Management Assistance ♦ Provide CBIZsolutions, an online benefit enrollment system ♦ Provide employee orientation assistance. ♦ Develop and coordinate employee communications ♦ Conduct on-site open enrollment meetings ♦ Provide On-Line Benefit Surveys for employees to complete ♦ Provide HR support and HR Hotline C. Health/Welfare Plans ♦ Complete an analysis of the current benefit plan ♦ Assist Employer with long-range and strategic planning ♦ Develop customized plans for all lines of coverage ♦ Develop bid specifications for the Request for Proposal (RFP) ♦ Analyze bid responses ♦ Evaluate alternative funding strategies ♦ Negotiate renewal rates with the insurance carriers. ♦ Provide future cost projections and analysis ♦ Personal health advocate D. Innovative Benefit Design Strategies ♦ Provide information regarding Consumer Driven Healthcare Models ♦ Evaluate plan designs for effectiveness ♦ Evaluate funding options for post-retirement healthcare costs ♦ Collaborative employer/employee development E. Regulatory Affairs ♦ Provide “For Your Benefit” book, a reference guide to welfare benefits ♦ Assist with federal and state requirements relating to employee benefit plans ♦ Follow and analyze trends impacting employee benefits ♦ Prepare updates on law changes affecting employee benefit plans ♦ Assist with federal and state compliance requirements such as COBRA, FMLA, ERISA, HIPAA, etc. ♦ Evaluate continuation of coverage for retirees ♦ Create an in-depth compliance checklist. Revised 3/05 8 ADDENDUM B FEE FOR SERVICES Employer agrees to appoint CBIZ as its agent of record on all lines of coverage in its benefit plan. The parties agree that the fees for the services to be provided by CBIZ will be equal to the revenue received by CBIZ from the third party payors for the insurance policies in the benefit plan of Employer. Beginning July 1, 2007 and continuing thereafter unless revised upon mutual agreement of the parties, the commission received by CBIZ from the third party payors for the medical coverage will not exceed an amount equal to Seven Dollars ($7.00) per employee per month. CBIZ has been and will continue to be committed to acting in our client’s best interest by providing services and products that meet our clients’ needs as communicated to CBIZ. From time to time, CBIZ may participate in agreements with one or more insurance companies or third party vendors, in connection with the insurance related transactions, to receive additional compensation or consideration. These compensation arrangements are provided to CBIZ as a result of the performance and expertise by which products and services are provided to the client and may result in enhancing CBIZ’s ability to access certain markets and services on behalf of CBIZ clients. More information regarding these agreements and the consideration received pursuant to these agreements is available upon written request. Revised 3/05 9 ADDENDUM C CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION This Confidentiality and Nondisclosure of Protected Health Information Business Associate Addendum (the “Addendum”) is entered into by and between Employer on behalf of Employer’s Health Plan in its role as sponsor of the Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Covered Entity”), and the undersigned (hereinafter referred to as the “Business Associate”), and amends and is made a part of the Agreement between the Employer and the Business Associate. WHEREAS, the Business Associate has been retained by the Covered Entity to perform certain services on its behalf; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Business Associate’s provision of services, the Covered Entity may disclose to the Business Associate, confidential and important Protected Health Information (PHI, as defined below); NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree to enter into a confidential relationship with respect to the disclosure by the Covered Entity to the Business Associate of certain protected health information. 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Addendum: A. Business Associate. ``Business Associate'' shall mean CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc. B. Covered Entity. ``Covered Entity'' shall mean City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Health Plan. C. Designated Record Set. “Designated record set” shall have the same meaning as the term ‘designated record set’ in 45 CFR 164.501. D. Individual. ``Individual'' shall have the same meaning as the term ``individual'' in 45 CFR 160.103 and shall include a person who qualifies as a personal representative in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(g). E. Privacy Rule. ``Privacy Rule'' shall mean the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information at 45 CFR part 160 and part 164, subparts A and E. F. Protected Health Information (PHI). ``Protected Health Information'' including electronic protected health information, shall have the same meaning as those terms are defined in 45 CFR Sections 160.103, limited to the information created or received by Business Associate from or on behalf of Covered Entity. G. Required By Law. ``Required By Law'' shall have the same meaning as the term ``required by law'' in 45 CFR 164.103. H. Secretary. ``Secretary'' shall mean the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services or his designee. Revised 3/05 10 I. Security Rule. “Security Rule” shall mean the Health Insurance Reform: Security Standard, as set forth in 45 CFR Parts 160, 162 and 164. 2. Confidentiality. At all times, both during and after the termination of its relationship with the Covered Entity for any reason, the Business Associate and its Representatives will not use, disclose, or give others any of the PHI in any manner whatsoever, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Addendum, and will hold and maintain the PHI in strictest confidence. The Business Associate will ensure that all proper safeguards are in place to prevent the use or disclosure of the PHI. 3. Permitted Disclosures. The Business Associate may disclose the Covered Entity’s PHI to the Business Associate’s Representatives with a bona fide need to know such PHI, but only if such Representatives are advised of the confidential nature of such PHI and the terms of this Addendum and are bound by an agreement or by a legally enforceable code of professional responsibility to protect the confidentiality of such PHI. In no event will PHI be disclosed to any other person, including but not limited to any investor in, or beneficiary of Business Associate, without the prior written consent of the Covered Entity. The Business Associate will provide information to the Covered Entity concerning disclosures made by the Business Associate pursuant to this Section 3 and Section 4. Except as otherwise limited in this Addendum, Business Associate may use or disclose PHI to perform functions, activities, or services for, or on behalf of, Covered Entity, in accordance with the above-referenced agreement between the parties, provided that such use or disclosure would not violate the Privacy Rule if done by Covered Entity, or the minimum necessary policies and procedures of the Covered Entity. At the request of the Covered Entity, the Business Associate agrees to provide access to the PHI that it has in its possession to an Individual. The Business Associate further agrees to document any such disclosures of PHI and the information related to such disclosures for an accounting of disclosures of PHI if requested by the Covered Entity in accordance with 45 C.F.R. §164.528, and to provide such documentation to the Covered Entity as it may request from time to time. Furthermore, at the request of the Covered Entity, the Business Associate agrees to make amendments to PHI as directed by the Covered Entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Covered Entity will not request that the Business Associate use or disclose PHI in any manner that would not be permissible under the Privacy Rule and Security Rule, hereinafter collectively referred to as “Privacy Rule”, if such disclosure or use were done by the Covered Entity itself. The Business Associate agrees to mitigate, to the extent practicable, the harmful effects of which the Business Associate becomes aware, that arise out of the use or disclosure of PHI by the Business Associate that is in violation of this Agreement. The Business Associate agrees to report to the Covered Entity, any use or disclosure of PHI not specifically permitted by this Agreement of which it becomes aware. Revised 3/05 11 If the Business Associate maintains a designated record set, the Business Associate agrees to provide access, at the request of Covered Entity, and in the time and manner as mutually agreed upon by the parties, to PHI in a designated record set to a Covered Entity or, as directed by a Covered Entity, to an Individual in order to meet the requirements under 45 CFR 164.524. If a Business Associate maintains a designated record set (DRS), the Business Associate agrees to make any amendment(s) to PHI in the DRS that the Covered Entity directs or agrees to pursuant to 45 CFR 164.526 at the request of Covered Entity or an Individual, and in the time and manner as mutually agreed upon by the parties. 4. Required Disclosures and Use. The Business Associate may disclose the Covered Entity’s PHI if and to the extent that such disclosure is required by law or court order, provided that, to the extent reasonably possible, the Business Associate provides the Covered Entity a reasonable opportunity to review the disclosure before it is made and to interpose its own objection to the disclosure. Further, the Business Associate agrees to make internal practices, books, and records, including policies and procedures and PHI, relating to the use and disclosure of PHI received from, or created or received by the Business Associate on behalf of the Covered Entity available to the Covered Entity, or to the Secretary, as requested by the Covered Entity or designated by the Secretary, for purposes of the Secretary determining the Covered Entity’s compliance with the Privacy Rule. 5. Required Notice to the Business Associate. In accordance with 45 C.F.R. §164.520, and to the extent that such a limitation may affect the Business Associate’s use or disclosure of PHI, the Covered Entity will notify the Business Associate of any limitation(s) in its notice of privacy practices of the Covered Entity, including, without limitation, any changes in, or revocation of, permission by an Individual to use or disclose PHI. 6. Records. Upon termination of his/her/its relationship with the Covered Entity, the Business Associate will deliver to the Covered Entity any property of the Covered Entity which may be in the Business Associate’s possession including all Confidential Information, products, materials, memoranda, notes, records, reports, or other documents or photocopies of the same, including without limitation any of the foregoing recorded on any computer or any machine readable medium. 7. Responsibility for Own Acts. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of Employer shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes 466 and other applicable law. 8. Term and Termination (a) Term. The Term of this Addendum shall be effective as of first date written above, and shall terminate when all of the PHI provided by Covered Entity to Business Associate, or created or received by Business Associate on behalf of Covered Entity, is destroyed or returned to Covered Entity, or, if it is Revised 3/05 12 infeasible to return or destroy PHI, protections are extended to such information, in accordance with the termination provisions in this Section. (b) Termination for Cause. Upon Covered Entity's knowledge of a material breach by Business Associate, Covered Entity shall either: 1. Provide an opportunity for Business Associate to cure the breach or end the violation and terminate this Addendum, and the above-referenced Agreement, if Business Associate does not cure the breach or end the violation within the time specified by Covered Entity; 2. Immediately terminate this Addendum, and the above-referenced Agreement, if Business Associate has breached a material term of this Addendum and cure is not possible; or 3. If neither termination nor cure is feasible, Covered Entity shall report the violation to the Secretary. (c) Effect of Termination 1. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this section, upon termination of this Addendum, for any reason, Business Associate shall return or destroy all PHI received from Covered Entity, or created or received by Business Associate on behalf of Covered Entity within 60 days of termination of the Addendum. This provision shall apply to PHI that is in the possession of subcontractors or agents of Business Associate. Business Associate shall retain no copies of the PHI. 2. In the event that Business Associate determines that returning or destroying the PHI is infeasible, Business Associate shall provide to Covered Entity notification of the conditions that make return or destruction infeasible. If such return or destruction of PHI is infeasible, Business Associate shall extend the protections of this Addendum to such PHI and limit further uses and disclosures of such PHI to those purposes that make the return or destruction infeasible, for so long as Business Associate maintains such PHI. 9. Survival. This Addendum will continue in full force and effect even after the termination of the Business Associate and the Covered Entity for any reason. 10. Successors and Assigns. This Addendum and each party’s obligations hereunder will be binding on the representatives, assigns, and successors of such party and will inure to the benefit of the assigns and successors of such party; provided, however, that the rights and obligations of the Business Associate hereunder are not assignable. 11. Notices. All notices, requests, consents and other communications hereunder will be in writing, will be addressed to the receiving party’s address set forth below or to such other address as a party may designate by notice hereunder, and will be either (i) delivered by hand, (ii) made facsimile transaction, (iii) sent by overnight courier, or (iv) sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. If to the Covered Entity: City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Revised 3/05 13 If to the Business Associate: CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services, Inc. 11440 Tomahawk Creek Parkway Leawood, Kansas 66211 Attn: General Counsel 12. Entire Addendum. This Addendum embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. No statement, representation, warranty, covenant or agreement of any kind not expressly set forth in this Addendum will affect, or be used to interpret, change or restrict, the express terms and provisions of the Addendum. 13. Modifications and Amendments. The terms and provisions of this Addendum may be modified or amended only by written agreement executed by the parties hereto and any such amendment will comply with the requirements of the Privacy Rule and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191. 14. Severability. The parties intend this Addendum to be enforced as written. However, (i) if any portion or provision of this Addendum will to any extent be declared illegal or unenforceable by a duly authorized court having jurisdiction, then the remainder of this Addendum, or the application of such portion or provision in circumstances other than those as to which it is so declared illegal or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each portion and provision of this Addendum will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law; and (ii) if any provision, or part thereof, is held to be unenforceable because of the duration of such provision, the Covered Entity and the Business Associate agrees that the court making such determination will have the power to reduce the duration of such provision, and/or to delete specific words and phrases, and in its reduced form such provision will then be enforceable and will be enforced. 15. Interpretation. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that both (i) the rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are resolved against the drafting party and (ii) the terms and provisions of this Addendum, will be construed fairly as to all parties hereto and not in favor of or against a party, regardless of which party was generally responsible for the preparation of this Addendum. 16. Headings and Captions. The headings and captions of the various subdivisions of this Addendum are for convenience of reference only and will in no way modify, or affect the meaning or construction of any of the terms or provisions hereof. 17. No Waiver of Rights, Powers and Remedies. No failure or delay by a party hereto in exercising any right, power or remedy under this Addendum, and no course of dealing between the parties hereto, will operate as a waiver of any such right, power or remedy of the party. No single or partial exercise of any right, power or remedy under this Addendum by a party hereto, nor any abandonment or discontinuance of steps to enforce any such right, power or remedy, will preclude such party from any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or remedy hereunder. The election of any remedy by a party hereto will not constitute a waiver of the right of such party to pursue other available remedies. No notice to or demand Revised 3/05 14 on a party not expressly required under this Addendum will entitle the party receiving such notice or demand to any other or further notice or demand in similar or other circumstances or constitute a waiver of the rights of the party giving such notice or demand to any other or further action in any circumstances without such notice or demand. The terms and provisions of this Addendum may be waived, or consent for the departure therefrom granted, only by written document executed by the party entitled to the benefits of such terms or provisions. No such waiver or consent will be deemed to be or will constitute a waiver or consent with respect to any other terms or provisions of this Addendum, whether or not similar. Each such waiver or consent will be effective only in the specific instance and for the purpose for which it was given, and will not constitute a continuing waiver or consent. 18. Governing Law. This Addendum will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 19. Attorneys’ Fees. If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Addendum, the prevailing party in such action will be entitled to reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 20. Counterparts. This Addendum may be signed in counterparts, which together will constitute one agreement. Revised 3/05 15 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Michael Franzen ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to golf courses ITEM NO.: VIII.A. Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing and; • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to golf courses. Synopsis This is a continued item from the December 4, 2006, meeting. The proposed text amendments are related to creating a zoning district called Golf Course. This district and other amendments relative to golf course would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake Golf Course, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills. Background The attached letter from Rodney D. Hardy asked the City to consider amendments to the proposed ordinance related to parking, permitted uses, seasonal housing, and rebuilding. The staff response is included in the attached memo. The Planning Commission directed staff to recommend appropriate language for additional uses to be added to the amendment. The draft ordinance was changed to include “croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, ice skating and other passive recreational activities with non-motorized use, provided however motorized golf carts are permitted.” Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission, at the November 13, 2006 meeting, voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the an ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota amending City Code chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd 1.A, Subd. 2.B., tables 4 and 5, Subd, 3.3.H.4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd 4. relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Section 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Attachments 1. Ordinance 2. Staff report dated November 9, 2006, 3. Memo to Planning Commission dated November 8, 2006 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Correspondence CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE ____- 2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11.03, SUBD. 1. A., SUBD. 2. B., TABLES 4 AND 5, SUBD. 3. H. 4., AND SECTION 11.10, SUBD. 2, ADDING SECTION 11.36 AND AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUBD. 4. RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOLF COURSE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 1. A. is amended by adding to the table at the end of the column entitled, “District Title” the words “Golf Course” and at the end of the column entitled, “Abbreviation,” the letters “GC.” Section 2. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 2. B., Tables 4 and 5 are amended as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto. Section 3. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3. H. 4. is amended by adding to the table at the end of the column entitled “District Land Uses” the following: “h. Golf Course” and at the end of the column entitled “Off-Street Parking Space Requirements” the following: “1/3 seats in the clubhouse plus 72 spaces.” Section 4. City Code Section 11.10, Subd. 2 is amended by deleting item “F. Golf Courses.” and changing item “G.” to “F.” Section 5. City Code Chapter 11 is amended by adding Section 11.36 as follows: SECTION 11.36 GC-Golf Course. Subd. 1. Purposes. The purpose of the GC-Golf Course District is to specify a land use district applicable and consistent with the historical and contractual development and use of the City’s golf courses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Golf, golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths, irrigation facilities, croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, ice skating and other passive recreational activities with non-motorized use, provided however motorized golf carts are permitted. The term “golf course” does not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. Section 6. City Code Section 11.70, subd. 4 is amended by adding “G. Golf Course District” as follows: G. Golf Course District. 1. Free-standing Signs: (a) One sign per street frontage is allowed provided the total area of such sign shall not exceed 50 square feet. (b) Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 10 feet to any street right-of-way. (c) Height: Maximum height of free-standing signs shall not exceed 8 feet. (d) Sign Base: (Refer to Sub. 3, paragraph DD). 2. Wall Signs: One sign per building not to exceed 24 square feet in area. Where a building is located on a corner lot, one sign may be located on each wall facing a street provided one does not exceed 24 square feet and the other does not exceed 18 square feet. All walls signs shall be uniform in design. 3. Temporary Signs: Temporary signs shall be permitted for a period not to exceed ten days. Such signs shall be not higher than 8 feet and not larger than 32 square feet. Section 7. City Code Chapter 1, entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation” and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are herby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of January, 2007 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of January, 2007. Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on ______________________, 2007. 1 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: November 9, 2006 SUBJECT: Amending Chapter 3 Comprehensive Guide Plan to Add Golf Courses as Land Use Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to golf courses APPLICANT/ City of Eden Prairie 2 Amending Chapter 3 of the 2002 Comprehensive Guide Plan to Add Golf Courses as Land Use BACKGROUND The purpose of the proposed amendments to the City’s comprehensive plan is to specifically reflect golf course land uses. The addition of a golf course land use category in the City’s land- use element of its Comprehensive Plan will result in consistency with, and conformity of, the Comprehensive Plan to the historical development, through the PUD process, in the case of Bent Creek Golf Club and Glen Lake Golf Course owned by Hennepin County, and Open-Space Agreements in the case of Olympic Hills Golf Club and Bearpath Golf and Country Club. BENT CREEK GOLF CLUB EDENVALE PUD 70-4. Bent Creek Golf Club, formerly Edenvale Golf Course, lies within the physical confines of the Edenvale Planned Unit Development. Edenvale PUD Application 70-4 was originally submitted to the City on June 16, 1970. The Application was the subject of several Planning Commission and Council meetings which resulted in approval of PUD-70-4 by the Council of the then Village of Eden Prairie on August 25, 1970. The physical area of the PUD is shown in a land-use plan dated July, 1970. The area consists of approximately 1,000 acres of which approximately 115 acres, (later revised by several acres) are devoted to the golf course. A description of the elements and terms of the PUD are contained in the Edenvale Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Application revised August 1, 1970, together with a second supplement dated August 25, 1970. On July 25, 1972 the Council adopted a resolution which amended the planned unit development adopted on August 25, 1970 which provided for realignment of fairways in the Edenvale Golf Course and residential areas adjacent to the golf course, as well as other matters. On June 13, 1972, the Council adopted Resolution No. 527 which gave final approval to the plat of Edenvale Second Addition. The golf course is described in that plat as comprising four parcels: Outlots B, E, H and a part of I of Edenvale Second Addition. In the City’s Planning Report dated March 20, 1972, it is stated: “All of the land within the plat is also within the Edenvale PUD and is presently zoned Rural. The blocks and outlots are arranged to accommodate the development pattern established in the PUD Concept Plan. Outlots B, E, H and I represent the golf course and have a total area of 106 acres. The PUD Concept Plan indicated that the golf course would be about 115 acres.” “The remainder of the plat totals about 151 acres and represents the developable 3 portion of the total plat. The PUD Concept Plan anticipates that this developable area would be about 145 acres.” The Planning Report recommendation states in part as follows: “The proposed preliminary plat substantially conforms to the Edenvale PUD Concept Plan and in all other respects conforms to village policies and requirements.” OWNERSHIP AND VALUES. Eden Land Corporation, the name of which was changed to Edenvale, Inc., conveyed the golf course property to Golfview Investment Co. No. 2 by warranty deed dated April 28, 1978 and filed May 11, 1978. The Certificate of Real Estate Value indicates a purchase price of $875,000. Current taxable market value of the golf course is $2,387,300. It’s deferred value is $11,260,000. The deferred value is a value required to be determined by state law so that if the golf course is utilized for other purposes, additional taxes are collected based upon the deferred valuation similar to the Green Acres Law applicable to agricultural land. GUIDE PLAN. The Land-Use Plan contained in the City’s current Comprehensive Plan designates Bent Creek Golf Club as “quasi public.” The Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Village Council in May 1968. The map, which was approved at that time, depicted the Edenvale Golf Course as quasi-public. The designation as quasi-public for the golf course at Edenvale has remained consistent through the various updates of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan was updated in 1977, revised in 1978 and 1979. In each instance, the Edenvale Golf Course retained its designation as quasi-public. From 1968 to 1977, the contours of the golf course changed but the designation in the Guide Plan remained the same. Quasi-public is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a category that includes privately owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations, golf courses, country clubs and private schools. The land uses identified as Quasi-public in the City’s various versions of its Comprehensive Plan have never included typical residential, commercial, office or industrial uses. ZONING. Historically, the golf course was in the R-A (Residential Agriculture) and M2 (General Industrial and Manufacturing) Districts pursuant to Ordinance No. 8. Permitted uses in that district included golf courses. It was in the Public or Quasi-Public District pursuant to Ordinance 135 which became effective November 6, 1969. The golf course property currently, and since the adoption of the City Code on September 17, 1982, is situated within the Rural District zone. Permitted uses in the Rural District include agriculture, single family dwellings on not less than ten acres, commercial stables, golf courses, antennas and towers. Permitted uses in the Public District zone include churches, cemeteries, antennas and towers. The City’s current ordinance does not include a Quasi-Public District. Under current zoning the property could be used only for those uses permitted in the Rural District which are consistent with the Guide Plan. COMMITMENT TO MAINTAIN GOLF COURSE. In a news release dated June 17, 1970 4 on Eden Land Corp. letterhead, it is stated, among other things, “While the course (referring to the golf course) will remain public and within tree covered walking distance, the course will be completely redesigned to a more spacious 18 holes and a practice range to fit into the surrounding development.” In a July 9, 1970 report to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Staff, Brauer & Associates, Inc. it is stated under the caption “Quasi-Public,” “The 150 acre golf course is a major quasi-public space. Eden Land Corporation will issue assurance on the golf course which will guarantee its use as recreational land and prohibit its future development as building sites.” The supplemental information for Edenvale PUD Application 70-4 dated July 27, 1970 signed by Donald R. Peterson, Executive Vice President, Eden Land Corporation states in section 3 under the caption “Quasi-Public,” “Eden Land Corporation will issue assurances on the eighteen hole golf course which will guarantee its use as recreational land so that it will not be developed into building sites.” In the minutes of the Eden Prairie Village Council meeting of August 25, 1970, it is stated, “He (referring to Mr. Peterson) also noted that their application stated their commitment to maintain the golf course within the development.” Upon completion of the discussion concerning the application for the PUD, the Village Council adopted Resolution No. 362 which gave approval to the Edenvale PUD. The Resolution contains this sentence, “The property would include the Eden Prairie Golf Course.” There are other documents in the file in which Eden Land Corporation utilized the existence of the golf course to gain neighborhood acceptance or to enhance its prospects for subsequent City approvals. For example, on January 31, 1972 a letter on Eden Land Corp. letterhead, addressed to “Dear Neighbor,” signed by Donald R. Peterson, President, Eden Land Corporation, states “We hope this new golf course adjacent to your homes will give you pleasant scenery, and we feel it will greatly enhance the value of your land, as well as ours. Later in the year, on July 25, 1972, Eden Land Corporation was granted its request to amend PUD 70-4. In another letter on Eden Land Corp. letterhead dated September 6, 1973, Mr. Peterson states “We have invested over $1 million in our golf course to provide an amenity which will serve the community and will enhance the value of adjacent property.” This letter was issued in connection with a request for approval of an adjacent development. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Assessments have been levied against golf course properties in 1974 and 1988. The 1974 assessments include trunk sewer and water levied against the club house parcel only, consisting of 8/10 of an acre in the amount of $1,300. Records indicate that sewer and water were assessed against several golf course properties in 1974 but those assessments were rescinded in the same year. It appears, therefore, that there were no sewer and water assessments against golf course properties other than the club house parcel. Assessments in 1974 included the improvement of Mitchell/Baker Road and a part of Valley View Road. Two of the golf course properties were assessed on the basis of $25 per front foot for that improvement. Reconstruction of available records reflects an assessment at the same rate of all of the properties fronting on the improved streets. In 1988, three Bent Creek golf course parcels were assessed for improvements to Valley View Road. These are discussed in the February 1985 Feasibility Report. The report indicates that the assessments were levied at the rate of $33 per front foot for single-family residential property; multi-family residential property was assessed at $70.60 per front foot and the golf course property at $66.70 per front foot. The Feasibility Report contains a spread sheet which indicates 5 the amounts of the assessments against various properties assessed including those of the golf course. The assessment with regard to Outlot E, Edenvale Second Addition (one of the golf course properties) has a notation that the assessment for the street improvement was $33,366 plus one half of the cost of an underpass in the amount of $89,843.76 resulting in a total assessment of $124,113. It also contains a figure of $18,325.20 which when added to the above two numbers would result in $141,534.96. The latter number is crossed out and the $124,133 is retained (and is the amount assessed). A letter to Eugene A. Dietz dated March 20, 1985 from Samuel H. Hertogs confirms that the owner of the golf course desires an underpass and acknowledges the owner will be assessed for its cost. It should be further noted that only those parcels of the golf course which had frontage on Valley View Road were assessed for the 1988 improvement. Other golf course parcels were not assessed for that improvement. OLYMPIC HILLS In March, 1981 the owners of Olympic Hills entered into an “Open Space Agreement” with the City in which the owners granted an Open Space Easement to the City. The Open Space Agreement provides that the Open Space Area “shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition and imposed certain other restrictions upon its use” except “to the extent compatible with the reasonable use of the Open Space Area as a golf course and country club by Olympic Hills. BEARPATH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB In October, 1993 the owner of Bearpath entered into an Open Space Easement Agreement with the City whereby the owner granted to the City an easement on and over the Open Space Area which requires the preservation of the Open Space predominantly in its natural condition and imposed other restrictions except the “reasonable use of the Open Space Area as a golf course and country club by Bearpath. The terms golf course and country club are defined as including eighteen golf holes, practice range, practice greens and sand traps, tennis courts, club house and restaurant, swimming pool, maintenance buildings, cart-storage buildings, pump house and well, proshop, shelter houses, cart paths, irrigation facilities, outside storage of maintenance equipment, and such other facilities as may be reasonably associated with a golf course and country club from time to time. Both Olympic Hills and Bearpath Golf Courses have been described as quasi-public facilities in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. GLEN LAKE GOLF AND PRACTICE CENTER In 1991, the State of Minnesota relinquished a lease with Hennepin County on the Oak 6 Terrace/Glen Lake Sanitarium facility located near the intersection of County Road 4 and County Road 62 in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. As a result, the Hennepin County Board created the Glen Lake Task Force to evaluate the development potential of this property. The task force considered housing, commercial, and a golf course as potential land uses. The task force recommended development of a public golf course. Hennepin County agreed to construct this golf course on the 75 acre parcel that lies in both Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. The sanitarium facilities were demolished in 1993. The Eden Prairie portion of the property is guided as Hennepin County and Public Open Space. The property is zoned Public. Holes 8 and 9 and the golf course maintenance building are situated on the Eden Prairie side of the property. A golf course is a permitted use as a golf course because it is owned by a governmental unit. PROPOSED GUIDE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 3 is the Land Use Element of the 2002 Comprehensive Guide Plan. This chapter includes a land use inventory, a description of future land uses, vacant land analysis, special uses, historic preservation, a vacant land map, an existing land use map, and a proposed land use map. Section 3.2 contains a list and description of land use categories, including residential, commercial, industrial, public/quasi public, open water, and right of way. The proposed text amendment to section 3.2 is to add golf course as a land use category. The proposed text shall read as follows. Golf course: The terms “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. It is further proposed to amend Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3,3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category. The text amendment also includes changing the definition of quasi-public to delete the reference to golf course and country clubs. The proposed text shall read as follows: Quasi-Public: This category includes privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations and private schools. All of the above amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. 7 Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to golf courses The proposed text amendments are related to creating a zoning district called Golf Course. This district and other amendments relative to golf course would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake Golf Course, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills following public hearings for rezoning. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE ____- 2006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11.03, SUBD. 1. A., SUBD. 2. B., TABLES 4 AND 5, SUBD. 3. H. 4., AND SECTION 11.10, SUBD. 2, ADDING SECTION 11.36 AND AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUBD. 4. RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOLF COURSE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIONS 2.99 AND 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 1. A. is amended by adding to the table at the end of the column entitled, “District Title” the words “Golf Course” and at the end of the column entitled, “Abbreviation,” the letters “GC.” Section 2. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 2. B., Tables 4 and 5 are amended as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto. Section 3. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3. H. 4. is amended by adding to the table at the end of the column entitled “District Land Uses” the following: “h. Golf Course” and at the end of the column entitled “Off-Street Parking Space Requirements” the following: “1/3 seats in the clubhouse plus 72 spaces.” Section 4. City Code Section 11.10, Subd. 2 is amended by deleting item “F. Golf Courses.” and changing item “G.” to “F.” Section 5. City Code Chapter 11 is amended by adding Section 11.36 as follows: SECTION 11.36 GC-Golf Course. Subd. 1. Purposes. The purpose of the GC-Golf Course District is to specify a land use district applicable and consistent with the historical and contractual development and use of the City’s golf courses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. The Construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and 8 greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. The term “golf course” does not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. Section 6. City Code Section 11.70, subd. 4 is amended by adding “G. Golf Course District” as follows: G. Golf Course District. 1. Free-standing Signs: (a) One sign per street frontage is allowed provided the total area of such sign shall not exceed 50 square feet. (b) Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 10 feet to any street right-of-way. (c) Height: Maximum height of free-standing signs shall not exceed 8 feet. (d) Sign Base: (Refer to Sub. 3, paragraph DD). 2. Wall Signs: One sign per building not to exceed 24 square feet in area. Where a building is located on a corner lot, one sign may be located on each wall facing a street provided one does not exceed 24 square feet and the other does not exceed 18 square feet. All walls signs shall be uniform in design. 3. Temporary Signs: Temporary signs shall be permitted for a period not to exceed ten days. Such signs shall be not higher than 8 feet and not larger than 32 square feet. Section 7. City Code Chapter 1, entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation” and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are herby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the _______ day of __________________, 2006 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the ______ day of _______________, 2006. Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on ______________________________, 2006. 9 EXHIBIT 1 – TABLE 4 MINIMUM LOT SIZE MINIMUM YARD- SETBACK OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL/ GOLF COURSE DISTRICTS Area S.F. of Acres Width Ft. Depth Ft. Front Ft. One Side Ft. Both Sides Ft. Rear Ft. SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT SQ. FT. OR ACRES MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) MAXIMUM BASE AREA RATIO (BAR)* HEIGHT OF MAIN STRUCTURE (FT.) OFC 20,000 100 100 35 20 50 20 Dwelling Not Permitted 0.3 - 1 Story 0.5- Multi Story 0.3 30 N-COM 2 acres 200 200 35 20 40 10 Dwelling Not Permitted 0.2 - 1 Story 0.4- Multi Story 0.2 30 C-COM 5 acres 300 300 35 20 40 10 Dwelling Not Permitted 0.2 - 1 Story 0.4- Multi Story 0.2 30 C-HWY 20,000 100 130 35 20 40 10 Dwelling Not Permitted 0.3 - 1 Story 0.4- Multi Story 0.3 40 C-REG-SER 10,000 80 100 35 20 40 10 Dwelling Not Permitted 0.2 - 1 Story 0.4- Multi Story 0.2 40 GC 50Acres 100 300 35 20 40 10 Dwelling Not Permitted 0.3 - 1 Story 0.5 -Multi Story 0.3 30 10 EXHIBIT 2-TABLE 5 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL/ GOLF COURSE DISTRICTS Maximum Height Min. Dist. to Side Lot Line Min. Dist. to Rear Lot Line OFF- STREET LOADING SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING MIN. ZONE AREA (ACRES) MAX. ZONE AREA (ACRES) FLOOR AREA PRIMARY USE (SQ. FT.) MAX. TOTAL FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) OFC 15 10 10 YES YES N/A N/A N/A N/A N-COM 15 10 10 YES YES 2 15 20,000 50,000 C-COM 15 20 10 YES YES 5 20 30,000 200,000 C-HWY 40 20 10 YES YES 5 20 20,000 100,000 C-REG-SER 40 20 10 YES YES 10 N/A N/A N/A C-REG 40 50 50 YES YES 60 N/A N/A N/A I-2 PARK 40 20 25 YES YES 40 N/A N/A N/A I-5 PARK 40 20 25 YES YES 40 N/A N/A N/A I-GEN 40 20 50 YES YES 80 N/A N/A N/A PUB 30 30 30 YES YES N/A N/A N/A N/A GC 30 30 30 YES YES N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following. • An amendment to Chapter three adding the following text: Golf course: The terms “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. • Amendments Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3,3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi – pubic as “ privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. • An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota amending City Code chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd 1.A, Subd. 2.B., tables 4 and 5, Subd, 3.3.H.4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd 4. relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. 1 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: November 9, 2006 SUBJECT: Response to Letter from Bearpath Regarding Revisions to the proposed Golf Course Zoning District. The attached letter from Rodney D. Hardy is asking the City to consider the following amendments to the proposed ordinance for the Golf Course District. 1. Revise the off street parking requirements from 72 and 1 per 3 seats in the clubhouse to “30 % of the capacity of the clubhouse plus 50 spaces. Bearpath has 218 parking spaces on site. The proposed ordinance would require166 parking spaces. Bearpath has 52 available spaces for expansion. Bent Creek, Olympic Hills, and Glen Lake would conform to the proposed parking standards. Staff is not recommending changes to the proposed parking standards in the Golf Course District. 2. Under permitted uses at platform tennis, lawn bowling, croquet and other passive sports. Staff would recommend that platform tennis, lawn bowling, and croquet be added as permitted uses. Adding other types of passive grass sports is not recommended because it is not clearly defined. Passive grass sports could be considered for a future code amendment after careful research and study 3. Permit on site seasonal housing for part-time employees. The ordinance was developed to match closely with existing conditions and uses at all golf courses. This item was not part of the study. This item could be considered as a future code amendment after careful research and study. Staff does not recommend amending the ordinance for on site seasonal housing for part time. 4. Be able to retain the right to replace buildings in the event of a fire or other natural disaster without the risk of rezoning. Since buildings at the golf courses would be considered conforming to the proposed zoning, the owner would not request rezoning to rebuild structures that conform with the Golf Course Ordinance zone at such time. APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig, Pitzrick and Rocheford. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Powell, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 2006 Powell had a revision to the minutes on page 5, paragraph 2. The first sentence should read, “Powell stated that all the sites should be changed to neighborhood commercial because this should be done to supply versatility to the residents.” MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Kirk abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AMEND CHAPTER 3 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN TO ADD GOLF COURSES AS A LAND USE & AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO GOLF COURSES Franzen presented the amendment. He stated that back in March of this year the City Council addressed the City requesting that they look at amending the City Code. On page 11 of the staff report are the Staff recommendations. They are as followed: 1. An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The terms “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. 2. Amendments Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills gold courses. 3. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, amending City Code, Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.B., tables 4 and 5, Subd., 3.3.H4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4, relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Franzen stated that the change would be for all of the golf courses in Eden Prairie. Powell asked Franzen why we would limit this to golf courses. He said instead of calling it “golf course” call it, “outdoor recreation”. Outdoor recreation would include such things as lawn bowling and horseback riding. Franzen stated that “golf course” was just addressed because that was what was asked to be addressed by the City Council. He also pointed out that in the future the guide plan could be changed to address outdoor recreation issues. Ric Rosow, Eden Prairie City Attorney, agreed with Franzen and stated that at this time we should address golf courses as “golf courses” and in the future the guide plan could be changed to include outdoor recreation with these areas. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 3 Stoelting asked Franzen if proper notification went out to all of the residents. Franzen stated that proper notification did go out. He pointed out that the minimum requirement is 500 feet from the area and the City went 1,000 feet from the area, and also posted it in the newspaper and on the City’s website. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Howard Roston, attorney representing Sam Herzog, owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course, stated that they are in opposition of this amendment. He presented Chair Stoelting with official documents. They include: 1. Letter from Mr. Herzog. 2. Letter from some of the other owners. 3. Affidavit from his law partner. 4. Letter from the law firm presenting their issues. 5. Information from DSU. 6. Information from appraisal company Mr. Roston stated that on behalf of Mr. Herzog, they are requesting that the Planning Commission delay action on this matter. Mr. Roston stated that the first issued he would like to address this evening is the timing of this matter. He pointed out that there are 530 acres that are subject to this amendment and that they have not had adequate time to get the appraiser out and address this issue. They are requesting a 30 day delay so they can analyze how this amendment change will affect Mr. Herzog. Mr. Roston said they would also like to see action on this amendment delayed until they can see the decision made by the Supreme Court on the case of Weinsman vs. City of Eagan. He stated that in this particular case, the landowners are arguing that action by the City was inappropriate. Mr. Roston also talked about the status to title of the Bent Creek Property. He stated that the majority of property is Torrens and when looking at the title to Bent Creek there is a lack of recorded restrictions to this property. Secondly, he addressed the City’s historical zoning and comprehensive plan. Mr . Roston added that had the owner looked at the zoning ordinance there would have been a designation of one unit per ten acres had he wanted to develop the property assuming that the golf course is no longer commercially viable which it is not. He pointed out that there is no limitation for something labeled “quasi- public”. Mr. Roston stated that limiting the use of this land to just “golf course” would not be very conducive to Mr. Herzog. Mr. Herzog is contemplating selling his property and feels that by labeling this piece of land as “golf course” would limit his selling potential. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Roston said that Shennah Appraising did some quick appraising of this land and the figures are devastating. He added that in Mr. Hertogs letter it states that the golf course is no longer economically viable use as a golf course, but would be would keep it open for a year but it is not economically viable and is not going to continued to lose money on the golf course forever. Mr. Roston feels that is should not be a function of the government to label land, such as “golf courses”. He stated that he feels it is unconstitutional for several different reasons. He stated that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the Mendota Heights decision stating that there was an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and because of this the Mendota Heights Planning Commission and City Council are negotiating a change with the developers. Mr. Roston would like to ask the Planning Commission to deny the recommendations by City Staff. Marilyn Michaels, attorney working with Sam Herzog, gave some history about Mr. Herzog. She stated that Mr. Herzog is 81 years old. His partner to the golf course passed away and currently the Bent Creek Golf Course is losing money. She pointed out that in March of 2005, she started working with the City and Mr. Franzen and Mr. Rosow because she stated that the golf course cannot continue operating and they would like to come to a resolution to this problem. She stated that coming to a resolution now would eliminate three to five years of litigation. Ms. Michaels stated that if the ordinance is passed in its present form, there will be legal action by Mr. Herzog. She also said that she was surprised that the first notice was given on October 31st to Mr. Herzog. Ms. Michaels stated that she realizes that the residents in this area want open space, but they need time to work on a resolution. She understands that the comprehensive plan and zoning need to be realigned, but feels that is does not have to be done tonight or in the near future. John Sharlowd, planning consultant, stated that he has written zoning plans in the past and also teaches zoning classes. He believes that by limiting this piece of land to a single use is unprecedented. He pointed out that in this area, there is an average of one golf course that is closing every month. He concluded by saying that he feels that the City and Bent Creek Golf Course should come up with a resolution to this issue. Steve Chelesnik, of 7269 Howard Lane, stated that he volunteered as a spokesperson tonight to express the opinion of the residents. He stated that in looking at this issue from the point of view of the adjacent landowners, they would like to see the amendment passed. He said the neighbors have purchased homes in the area under the promise that this land would always be a golf course. He pointed out that the owner could get 16 to 18 million for this land if it could be built on. He would like to see the promises honored to the community, regardless if Mr. Herzog said he was unaware of any promises. He also said that because the attorneys threatened the City with litigation, he feels the amendment should still be passed. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 5 Starr Bourguewyland, of 14267 Wedgeway Court, had one comment on permitted uses. He said that he would like to see the owner have permitted uses, like cross country skiing in the winter; which would be a source of income for the golf course. Otto Teiken, who has lived off of the 7th hole of Bent Creek for the past 32 years, stated that he paid $5,000 more for the position of his house. He believes the recommendation should go forward. Wilson Bryce, of 14418 Fairway Drive, is an architect and is sensitive to the aesthetics in the community. He stated that if this property were to be sold and redeveloped he would lose money on his property if he ever chose to sell it. Gary Everett, said that he is a long term resident of Eden Prairie and has seen many changes to the City. He said that he feels that the City should either purchase the property or work with the owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course to come up with a resolution. Dan Miller, of 7055 Howard Lane, stated that he supports the comments of Steve Chelesnik. He said that when the original developer wanted to create the PUD, there were some restrictions for open space to development. Now, 30 years later, it appears that the owner does not seem to want to uphold the promise. Mr. Miller feels that the owners of the Bent Creek Golf Course should have to uphold their promise and that he would like to see the City pass this amendment. John Brill, of 7384 Moonlight Lane, made a comment that he is concerned with the southwest quadrant of Bent Creek. He said this area floods a few times a year and he is concerned with the fertilization coming through Bent Creek. Rick Dorsey, of 14214 Green View Court, stated he feels that the land should not be developed in accordance with the PUD. He also believes that if the owners were to sell this piece of property that they would make more money on it than what they bought it for. He would also like to see the environmental issues addressed before any type of changes would be made. He stated that if the property was to be sold and developed on, this would lower the property value of homes around the area and they would also be burden with construction for the next few years. Victoria Rolf, a homeowner who lives on Bent Creek Court, stated that what she has heard tonight was that the owner wanted the passing of this amendment stalled for awhile to create a “win-win” situation for both the owner and homeowners. She stated that she would like to know what the “win-win” situation would be. She said that she is also concerned with the wildlife in the area and how it would be impacted with potential construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 6 Nancy Manderfeld, of 13600 Brook Lane, stated that she understands that Eden Prairie is 94.5% built and would like to know when enough is enough. She believes a simple resolution for the owner would be to sell the land. Mr. Roston, stated that he would like to address two issues. He said that he heard several references in regards to selling the property. He said that they have looked into that and have not found any potential buyers. He also said that they have not read any historical documents that would indicate that this land be used for open space. Stoelting reiterated the issues that were brought forward tonight. They are as follows: 1. Mr. Herzog is requesting a postponement of the decision tonight. 2. The status of the title – lack of record. 3. Issues with the PUD. 4. The question of the property owner not knowing the restrictions when he purchased the property. 5. Rural designation. 6. The use of property for uses other than open space. 7. Commitments to the community. 8. Land owners adjacent to the property and declining property values if the land were to be developed. 9. Concept of the City purchasing property. 10. Environmental issues. 11. How will the zoning issues today affect the PUD. 12. The issue of timing in relationship to this amendment. Ric Rosow addressed the issue of the Planning Commission waiting on a decision. He stated that as a Planning Commission, the members are not vested with the authority to extend the moritorium, but rather they are to make recommendations to the City Council. If the Planning Commission feels that this decision should be delayed then that would be a recommendation brought before the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the issue of the status of the title, he has not had the benefit to look through their title research. In regards to the issue of Torrens property, it is subject to zoning ordinances. He also said that there were previous commitments made in the original PUD. Franzen stated that in regards to the land owners that are adjacent to the property and the impact on property values, he stated that numerous factors have to be considered for the property value to be lowered, and that it would not just involve construction of adjacent property. Mr. Rosow stated to Commission that it cannot base its recommendation on unsupported statements made by residents that the development would have a negative impact on the neighboring land owners. He said that in regards to the City purchasing the property, that would be up to the decision of the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the environmental Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 7 issues, if the land were to be developed, there would have to be numerous environmental issues to be met. Franzen stated that all properties are subject to numerous environmental ordinances. Mr. Rosow said that in regards to PUD, the zoning of the property changing to golf course would be consistent with the PUD. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about the Weinsman ruling and what its impact would do. Mr. Rosow said that he is totally aware of the case, but if there was a decision made on it prior to a City Council decision, he would look at it, but he feels that the Commission should not wait for an outcome. Stoltz asked Ms. Michaels about the ‘win-win” situation, and what that would entail. She stated that there is a wetland area to the south and that could be made into a 9 hole public golf course that would generate revenue for the golf course and also allow non-members to play golf at this golf course. She also stated that there was some talk of a conservation easement to the north of the property. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about a law suit and what is the reality if it did happen. Mr. Rosow stated that the City does have insurance but it should not be a reason to pass or deny a proposal. Mr. Rosow pointed out that it does take quite a bit of Staff time if litigation would take place. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow if they have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Mr. Rosow stated that they do have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Stoelting asked about a continuance or delay of decision and how would Staff feel about that. Franzen stated that he would look at what the City Council requested them to do. He feels that Staff did do what they were suppose to do and would not see the need for a continuance. Stoelting reiterated the amendment and asked the Commission Members for their input. Seymour stated that he does not see a problem with changing the language of the ordinance, but asked if we could add the outdoor uses to the amendment. Mr. Rosow stated that if the Commission wanted to address outdoor uses that they should do so. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the following: An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The term “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 8 or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. Amendments to Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as and held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota amending City Code Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.Bl, tables 4 and 5, Subd. 3.3.H.4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4 relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Add croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, and ice skating, to the list of proposed permitted uses. Motion carried 6-0. . B. BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that since the Planning Commission adopted Item A, then this item, along with the subsequent golf course requests, needs to be individually addressed. Franzen stated that the Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rick Dorsey, a resident of Eden Prairie, stated that his only concern is to make sure that as a PUD it has only zoning applied to the property. He stated that he does not want it re-zoned, other than the original PUD. Stoelting asked if the approval of the guide plan change would affect the original PUD. Mr. Rosow stated it would affect the original PUD because it would be zoned golf course, but the other property would be unaffected. He also stated that this action would change the zoning of property from rural to golf course. Mr. Rosow reiterated that PUD is not changing but rather zoning. Brooks Halvorson, of 14348 Fairway Drive, had the same concerns as Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Rosow reiterated that the PUD would not change but rather the underlying zoning on the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 9 MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Motion carried 6-0. C. BEARPATH GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rodney Hardy, secretary and owner of the Bearpath Golf Association, stated that Bearpath is concerned about retaining this facility as a private venture. He stated that they rely on memberships and have to be accommodating to them as users of the golf course. Mr. Hardy pointed out that they are a golf and country club and because of that, they may have different issues. He stated that one concern is parking; as the membership grows they may need more parking. He also stated that there are some additional uses that they would like to have; such as, skateboarding, soccer, or softball. Mr. Hardy stated that he would like to know how that would be protected. He said he would also like to know that if something happened to a public building on the property, for an example, a fire, that they would be able to rebuild it to its current state. John Downey, manager of Bearpath Golf Association, reiterated what Mr. Hardy said. Mr. Downey said that he would like to be able to supply a list of additional activities to the Planning Commission. Stoelting apologized to Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey for not realizing that they wanted to speak during the initial amendment proposal. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the issues brought forth by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey. Franzen stated that he will not prohibit uses like baseball or soccer, or any other similar additional use. He stated that it would be beneficial to address the recreational uses prior to going to the City Council. Franzen said that in regards to the buildings, the City would not request additional rezoning but they would just have to come back for building permits. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 10 Powell stated that any recreational sport that can be played in a park should be allowed here also. He stated that he felt each “open space area” should be able to have non-motorized recreation activities. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Kirk asked how the Commission wants to address the usage issue that was brought forward in the public discussion. Franzen stated that action should be taken on the first motion and then make a second motion to cover this issue. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to ask the City Staff to recommend appropriate language for additional uses to be added to the amendment in conjunction with zoning and guide plan changed brought for to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0. D. OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 11 E. GLEN LAKE GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; and Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Motion carried 6-0. F. BECKER REZONING by Lee and Carri Becker. Request for: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .083 acres. Location is 9795 Bluff Road. Carrie Becker presented the proposal. She stated that the house they are currently living in was built in 1980 and that is was never in compliance with zoning regulations. They are bringing forth their proposal tonight to get their home properly re-zoned. She stated that they found this discrepancy when they started to remodel their home. Mr. Becker illustrated the setbacks using the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen if by rezoning to R1-13.5 would there be any zoning inconsistencies. Franzen stated there would not be any inconsistencies. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff recommendation is for approval. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .83 acres based on the staff report dated November 10, 2006, and plans stamped dated October 20, 2006. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Franzen stated that for the November 27, 2006, meeting, there will be one public hearing for a proposal for an office building and a Guide Plan Update on Transportation. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 12 IX. MEMBERS REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. DARPA golf LIJ ddLII1ItJ el it November 7, 2006 Via email: mfranzen@edenprairie.org Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 RE: Revisions to new revised "Zoning District" for "Golf Course" Dear Mike, As owners of Bearpath Golf & Country Club, Inc. we would like you to consider the following items be included in the revised zoning as referenced above. These cover 3 areas of activity within the designated "Golf Course" district. They are: 1) Parking: In order to accommodate the possibility of expanded dining and additional recreational facilities we request that Section 3 be revised to read for "off street parking requirements" the following: "30% of capacity plus 50 spaces." 2) Under permitted uses (Section 5 Subd. 2) we would request that platform tennis be permitted, as we have it now, plus lawn bowling, croquet, and other passive grass sports. Because of the urbanization of our area and the need to attract quality workers for golf maintenance, we like other high end golf facilities, are looking seriously at providing onsite seasonal housing for part time employees. This housing should be located within our maintenance area, would be part of any employment package and would be carefully managed by our own Bearpath staff. We request the opportunity to provide housing subject to zoning requirements of residential zoning within Bearpath. We believe that this need will become a reality within the next few seasons. II (7.0„i i„„.[„ ()1:11„„c494n Siwswely Rodney D Hardy Secretary 3) Finally, in the event of fire or other natural disasters We request the right to replace buildings presently on site without any risk of rezoning. We realize we would be required to meet building codes for the particular building, we need to be able to replace it. I am sure our lender and insurance companies involved would request the same, These are the major issues that have come to light since our meeting with staff. Thank you for considering these requests. Please feel free to contact me at 952-835- 2808 or John Downey at 952-975-0123 with any questions. CC: John Downey cr)istel .bz,eieci ctt 1/24, /w°7 Ceic,i iltecHin MALKERSON GILLILAND MARTIN L L P 1900 U.S. BANK PLAZA SOUTH TOWER 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-344-1111 FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council for the City of Eden Prairie [SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST] cc: City Manager City Attorney FROM: Bruce Malkerson, Esq. Howard A. Roston, Esq. Patrick B. Steinhoff, Esq. RE: Proposed Revisions to Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance File No. 1782.001 DATE: January 16, 2007 I. INTRODUCTION. As you may recall from past correspondence, we represent Sam Hertogs, majority owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course property (the "Property") through his interest in the general partnership Golfview Investment Co. III. As you know, we are objecting on Mr. Hertog's behalf to the proposed revisions (the -Proposed Revisions") to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance that would create new -Golf Course" Comprehensive Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations and would also re-guide and rezone all golf course properties in the City (including the Bent Creek property) in accordance with these new designations. By adopting the Proposed Revisions, the City would essentially encumber the Property with an open space easement similar to the open space easements that encumber the Olympic Hills and Bearpath golf course properties. However, the owners of the Olympic Hills and Bearpath properties voluntarily conveyed open space easements to the City in exchange for adequate consideration. Here, on the other hand, the City would be unilaterally imposing an open space easement on the Property for no consideration whatsoever. 1 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 2 As we have noted in our previous submissions, the Bent Creek Golf Course is simply not going to be able to continue to operate indefinitely on the Property regardless of whether the City adopts the Proposed Revisions or not. With this in mind, it is in the best interests of all parties to facilitate a transition between the Bent Creek Golf Course and some alternate use as smoothly as possible without recourse to litigation (which is inevitable if the City Council chooses to adopt the Proposed Revisions). We have previously stated on multiple occasions that Mr. Hertogs and the other owners of the Property have always been willing to discuss ways in which the Property might be developed in a reasonable manner that has the least amount of impact on adjacent property owners and preserves as much open space as possible for the benefit of those owners as well as other residents of the City. When the Planning Commission considered the Proposed Revisions on November 13, 2006, planner John Shardlow of the firm Dahlgren Shardlow Uban even presented concepts of how such a development could be achieved. Despite these entreaties, no representative of the City has ever agreed to discuss theses issues. This simply does not make any sense, unless the City has already made its decision and is determined to test the legality of the Proposed Revisions in court which will surely result in a victory for one party and a loss for the other. For the reasons we have discussed before with the City and in part set forth herein, we believe that the owner of the Property will prevail, and the City will be ordered to allow development of the Property, similar to the surrounding development which will be with much greater density and less open space than we believe would be otherwise the case if the City and the Property owner worked together to bring about the transition. We also believe the owner will be awarded attorneys' fees, costs and damages for the interim taking by the City. The amount will be substantial. We have addressed the authority of the City (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions in previous submissions to the City Planning Commission and City Council. We submit this Memorandum to address statements made by members of the City Staff and others regarding the legal effect of the actions taken and statements made with respect to the Property in the 1970s by the City (then the Village) and the previous developer of the Property, Edenvale Development Corporation ("EDC"), to provide new information, and to summarize prior submissions to the City. These statements may be summarized as follows: The City approved the development of the Property as a golf course as part of a larger planned unit development "(PUD") in the early 1970s; 2. Representatives of the owner of the Property at that time made statements indicating the then-owner's intent to maintain the Property as a golf course; and 3. The current owners of the Property (who are different from the previous owners) are bound by these representations and must maintain the Property as a golf course for forever. I 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 3 We are concerned that, due to these statements, the City Council is about to base its decision on whether to re-guide and re-zone the Property on a gross misunderstanding of zoning law generally and the nature and effect of PUDs specifically. Accordingly, we write this Memorandum in part to re-state the following points (both of which we have made in our previous submissions to the City on this matter): Statements made by previous owners of the Property in the 1970s are not legally binding today l on the current owners of the Property to the extent those statements are not memorialized in valid City zoning and subdivision ordinances or in an agreement recorded in the Property's chain-of-title; and 2. Actions taking by the City/Village in the 1970s are not legally binding today on the current owners of the Property to the extent those actions are not memorialized in the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances or in an agreement recorded in the Property's chain-of-title. In other words, statements made and actions taken by the City/Village or by previous owners of the Property in the 1970s with respect to the Property are completely irrelevant to the City's authority to adopt the Proposed Revisions. To the extent the City has any authority at all to re-guide and re-zone the Property so that it may be used only as a golf course (and we believe that the City does not have any such authority for the reasons stated in our previous submissions to the City), that authority must arise only from the authority to regulate the use of private property that has been conferred on the City by the Minnesota Legislature and is limited by the Minnesota and United States Constitutions (as well as judicial case-law interpreting the applicable statutes and constitutional provisions). The City does not have any such authority arising from a right to enforce statements made or actions taken by the City/Village or by previous owners of the Property in the 1970s that were not memorialized in the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances or in an agreement recorded in the Property's chain-of-title. II. APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS. There is very little explicit legal authority relating to the City's right to regulate private property by means of a PUD. The governing provisions of the current Minnesota Statutes and the City/Village Zoning Ordinance in effect during the 1970s are set forth below. a. STATE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. I Although it is not an issue here because the Property has changed ownership since the relevant statements were made in the 1970s, we very much doubt that the statements made the previous owner of the Property would even be enforceable against the previous owner of the Property. 110702.cloc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 4 The Minnesota Statutes contain only a single reference to PUDs, in the provision that authorizes municipalities to adopt conditional use permit ("CUP") ordinances. The relevant statutory language reads as follows: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Subd. 1. Authority. The governing body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain land development activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. *** Subd. 4. Recording of permit. A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be recorded with the county recorder or registrar of titles of the county or counties in which the municipality is located for record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property included. Minn. Stat. § 462.3595 (2006) (emphasis added). While this provision does not explicitly apply to PUDs (like those adopted pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance) that are not also CUPs (and also would not apply to PUDs adopted in the 1970s because the statute was adopted in 1982), it clearly illustrates the principle that government land use restrictions that are not ascertainable from the text of the governing land use regulations must be recorded in the chain-of-title to private property in order to be enforceable (at least with respect to subsequent purchasers of the property in question). This principle is well-established in the planning community, as noted planner John Shardlow stated in the report he submitted to the Planning Commission prior to its consideration of the Proposed Revisions. In that report, Mr. Shardlow even stated that several municipalities in the Metropolitan area have concluded that they had no choice but to permit the development of failed golf course properties due to the absence of properly-recorded PUDs or restrictive covenant agreements. We attach Mr. Shardlow's report to this Memorandum for your convenient reference as Exhibit 1. b. CITY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS. The zoning ordinance in effect in the early 1970s (Ordinance No. 135) when the City (then the Village) originally approved the Edenvale PUD Concept provides for PUDs, but does not contain any substantive or procedural standards for PUD approval (aside from the single substantive requirement that PUD proposals must include an area of at lease 25 acres). Indeed, Ordinance No. 135 does not even define a PUD. It does nothing more than set forth a general statement of purpose. Ordinance No. 135 is set forth below in its entirety. Ord. No. 135 (Adopted 1968) I 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 5 Section 11. PUD — Planned Unit Development Procedure Sec. 11.1. Purpose. The Planned United Development (PUD) provision of this ordinance is to allow variation from the provisions of this ordinance including setbacks, height lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. in order to a. Encourage more creative design and development of land; b. Promote variety in the physical development pattern of the Village c. Concentrate open space in more usable areas or to preserve unique natural resources of the site d. Preserve and provide a more desirable environment than would be possible under strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations. Sec. 11.2. Basic Requirements. Planned Unit Development proposals must include an area of at least twenty five (25) acres. Sec. 11.3. Procedure. The Village Council shall adopt, and may amend specific procedures and requirements for submission and approval of Planned Unit Development proposals. The final provision of Ordinance No. 135 required the Village to adopt "specific procedures and requirements for submission and approval" of PUDs. The City has not produced any documentation of any such "procedures and requirements" in response to our requests pursuant to the Data Practices Act, presumably because none exist. Therefore, we believe the Property is not subject to any PUD. We note (as we have in our previous submissions) that the Property is platted as a series of "outlots." Typically, platting property as an outlot is a method for preserving the property so platted for future development. Moreover, there is nothing in the City's current or historical zoning or subdivision ordinances that states the effect of platting property as an outlot or even defines the meaning of the term "outlot." There is nothing that limits the use of the outlots to golf course only. HI. RESPRESENTATIONS MADE BY CITY STAFF AND OTHERS. As noted above, there have been multiple statements by members of the City Staff and others over the past year which suggest that various statements made by a previous owner of the Property and various actions taken by the Village Council in the 1970s are somehow binding on the owners of the Property today, even though these statements and actions do not reflect 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 6 agreements or requirements that are apparent from the text of the Zoning Ordinance or that are recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property.2 A list of the statements made by members of the City Staff and others during the course of Planning Commission or City Council meetings related to the Property or to the Proposed Revisions is set forth below. a) "July 1970 report to the Planning Commission from Brauer and Associates noted that the Eden Land Corporation will issue assurances on the golf course which will guarantee the golf course would be used as a recreational land and prohibit its use as building sites. Minutes to the January 3, 2006 City Council meeting, p. 9. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. b) "In a supplement to the PUD, Eden Land Corporation issues assurances that guarantee the golf course use as recreational land so that it will not be developed into building sites." Minutes to the January 3, 2006 City Council meeting, p. 9. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. c) "The minutes from the August 1970 Village Council meeting confirmed the developer's intent to maintain the land as a golf course." Minutes to the January 3, 2006 City Council meeting, p. 9_ This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. d) "It is very clear the development was approved as a whole planned community, including the golf course in that context." Minutes to the January 3, 2006 City Council meeting, p. 9. 2 It should be noted that there is not any written agreement (either recorded or not recorded) restricting future development of the Property. I 10702.doe;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 7 This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. e) "Rosow presented a 1972 letter from Edenland to golf course neighbors, notifying residents of course completion and hoping residents would enjoy the scenery and enhancement of their property values." Minutes to the January 3, 2006 City Council meeting, p. 9. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. f) "Rosow presented a letter from the developer requesting further development, which identified the developer's $1,000,000 investment in the golf course is to provide an amenity to serve the community and enhance the value of the adjacent property." Minutes to the January 3, 2006 City Council meeting, p. 9. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. g) "The developer clearly understood the golf course was an integral part of the development." Minutes to the January 3, 2006 City Council meeting, p, 9. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. Ii) "In a news release dated June 17, 1970 on Eden Land Corp. letterhead, it is stated, among other things, 'While the course (referring to the golf course) will remain public and within tree covered walking distance, the course will be completely redesigned to a more spacious 18 holes and a practice range to fit into the surrounding development." Planning Staff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 8 not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. i) "In a July 9, 1970 report to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Staff, Brauer & Associates, Inc. it is stated under the caption 'Quasi-Public,' The 150 acre golf course is a major quasi-public space. Eden Land Corporation will issue assurance on the golf course which will guarantee its use as recreational land and prohibit its future development as building sites.'" Planning Staff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. j) "The supplemental information for Edenvale PUD Application 70-4 dated July 27, 1970 signed by Donald R. Peterson, Executive Vice President, Eden Land Corporation states in section 3 under the caption 'Quasi-Public,' Eden Land Corporation will issue assurances on the eighteen hole golf course which will guarantee its use as recreational land so that it will not be developed into building sites.'" Planning Staff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. k) "In the minutes of the Eden Prairie Village Council meeting of August 25, 1970, it is stated, 'He (referring to Mr. Peterson) also noted that their application stated their commitment to maintain the golf course within the development.'" Planning Staff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. 1) "Upon completion of the discussion concerning the application for the PUD, the Village Council adopted Resolution No. 362 which gave approval to the Edenvale PUD. The resolution contains this sentence, 'The property would 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 9 include the Eden Prairie Golf Course.'" Planning Staff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. m) "There are other documents in the file in which Eden Land Corporation utilized the existence of the golf course to gain neighborhood acceptance or to enhance its prospects for subsequent City approvals." Planning Staff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. n) "On January 31, 1972 a letter on Eden Land Corp. letterhead, addressed to 'Dear Neighbor,' signed by Donald R. Peterson, President, Eden Land Corporation, states 'We hope this new golf course adjacent to your homes will give you pleasant scenery, and we feel it will greatly enhance the value of your land, as well as ours.' Later in the year, on July 25, 1972, Eden Land Corporation was granted its request to amend PUD 70-4." Planning Stqff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. o) "In another letter on Eden Land Corp. letterhead dated September 6, 1973, Mr. Peterson states 'We have invested over $I million in our golf course to provide an amenity which will serve the community and will enhance the value of adjacent property.' This letter was issued in connection with a request for approval of an adjacent development." Planning Staff Report, November 9, 2006, pp. 3-4. This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore 1 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 10 not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. p) "[T]he Planned Unit Development (PUD 70-3 and revision 70-4) the City of Eden Prairie agreed to is a legally binding document. In this PUD the quasi golf course was required to remain open space." Memorandum from Victoria Rolf, December 20, 2005 (included with the staff report for the December 6, 2006 City Council meeting). This statement does not relate to an agreement or restriction that is apparent from the text of the City's land use regulations or that is recorded in the chain-of-title to the Property. It is therefore not legally binding on the current owners of the Property and is irrelevant to the City's authority (or lack thereof) to adopt the Proposed Revisions. Even if the developer had granted a restrictive covenant to the owners of adjacent lots in 1970, that covenant would be invalid today according to Minnesota Statutes: Subd. 2a. Restriction of duration of condition. Except for any right to reenter or to repossess as provided in Subdivision 3, all private covenants, conditions, or restrictions created by which the title or use of real property is affected, cease to be valid and operative 30 years after the date of the deed, or other instrument, or the date of the probate of the will, creating them, and may be disregarded. Minn. Stat. ,sc 500.20. IV. ANALYSIS OF REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PAST "PUD" APPROVALS. If the City/Village had wanted to restrict the Property to use as a golf course forever in the 1970s (or any time thereafter), it would have done one of two things: I. It would have attempted to do what the City is attempting to do now and place the Property in a zoning district that restricted the Property to use as a golf course (which would have been illegal); and/or 2. It would have required the owners of the Property to execute an agreement in favor of the City (or in favor of the surrounding property owners) restricting the Property to use as a golf course (similar to the open space easement agreements recorded in the chains-of-title of the Olympic Hills and Bear Path golf courses) and that agreement would have been filed in the chain-of-title. 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 11 Absent one of these two steps, the City could not have imposed enforceable restrictions that bind the present owners of the Property because there is simply no way for subsequent purchasers of the Property (like Mr. Hertogs) to have known about these restrictions. Consider some practical implications of the suggestion that the above-summarized statements (see Section III) are legally binding: I. How would it be possible for any purchaser of the Property to know of any of these statements? 2. How would it be possible for any purchaser of the Property to even know that the Property is supposedly part of a PUD? The Property was never designated as such on the City's zoning map and there is nothing recorded in the chain-of-title that suggests it. 3. If there is no way that a purchaser of the Property could have had notice of the above- summarized statements, how can it be legal or fair to enforce these statements against the owners of the Property today? There is a reason why the Legislature codifies the laws it adopts each session as the Minnesota Statutes, just as there is a reason why the City Council codifies the ordinances it adopts into its City Code. Likewise, there is a reason why agreements that encumber private property must be recorded in the chain-of-title in order to be enforceable. The reason is simply this: If laws are not codified and agreements are not recorded, it is impossible for those affected by those laws and agreements to have notice of them and it would therefore be manifestly unfair to enforce them. Here, it would be manifestly unfair for the City Council to attempt to enforce statements made or actions taken by the City/Village or by a previous owner of the Property in the 1970s where there is no way the current owners of the Property could have possibly known about these statements or actions. V. CONCLUSION AS TO SECTIONS 1 —IV ABOVE. As set forth above, the purpose of the foregoing is simply to ensure that the City Council understands the nature and effect of the actions proposed with respect to the Property. To the extent the City has any authority at all to adopt the Proposed Revisions with respect to the Property, that authority arises solely from the City's statutory and constitutional authority to regulate private property through zoning regulations. It does not arise from the enforcement of any legally binding agreement made between a previous owner of the Property and the City because there was no such agreement. It does not arise from the enforcement of the terms of a validly adopted land use regulation like a PUD because there were no PUD Ordinance provisions in effect then that could so limit the use of the Property. There is no proof that a PUD existed that included the Property. The statements made by the previous owner of the Property and the 1 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 12 actions taken by the City in the 1970s are simply irrelevant today. To the extent the City Council is receiving legal or other advice to the contrary, that advice is simply wrong. If the City Attorney, or anyone else, is advising the City Council that a statement in a staff report or meeting minutes with respect to the Property from more than three decades ago that is not codified in the City's ordinances or recorded in the Property's chain-of-title is legally binding on subsequent owners of the Property, we demand to be provided with authority for that position before the City Council takes action as to the Property. We asked the City Attorney last week if there were such an opinion and we have not received a response. (See Letter to City Attorney, attached as Exhibit 2). How can a City Council make such an important decision with such potential adverse financial and other consequences for the City without first receiving an attorney's legal opinion that states the City's actions will be upheld and damages do not have to be paid by the City if the zoning action is upheld? If and when a legal opinion is provided, we and the public have a right to see it to make sure that the facts are correctly stated, that all relevant facts and legal authorities have been considered. The City Attorney and you may then still disagree with our opinion, but at least then the factual and legal issues will have been fully discussed. Moreover, in this case, as part of this public hearing, we are submitting new and important information that has not been submitted previously, which could not have been included in any prior legal analysis, if any, by the City Attorney. VI. THE BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE IS DEMONSTRABLY INSOLVENT AS A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, AND THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. As we have stated in previous submissions, the Bent Creek Golf Course is failing as a business enterprise due to the excessive number of superior golf courses in the Twin Cities metropolitan area with which it must now compete. We have included as Exhibit 3 a letter from the General Manager of Bent Creek Golf Course, as well as an estimated profit-loss statement for 2006.3 These documents reflect that the Golf Course is clearly insolvent. It has only been able to continue its operations through the years because of substantial loans from the owners of the Property. These loans have only financed business operations and equipment expenditures necessary for the Golf Course to stay open, not capital improvements that add value to the Property as a non golf course. As we have also made clear in previous submissions, the Proposed Revisions, if adopted, will result in a devastating diminution in the market value of the Property. We have previously submitted three appraisal letters from the well known and respected Minneapolis real estate appraisal firm Shenehon Companies, which has appraised scores of golf courses in the area and we submit a fourth letter with this Memorandum that was not submitted previously to the Planning Commission and City Council. These appraisal letters state as follows: 3 The profit-loss statement is an estimate because the numbers for December 2006 are not yet finalized. Final numbers for December should be available by the end of next week. 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 13 a) Value of the Property if restricted to use as only a golf course: $2.5M $2.7M. (attached to the letter to Planning Commission) b) Value of Property as nine (9) minimum ten-acre lots: $3.1M $3.5M. (attached to the letter to Planning Commission) c) Value of the Property under the current zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan: $10M-$12M. (attached to this letter as Exhibit 4) d) Value of the Property if development allowed consistent with surrounding neighborhood: $18M $20M. (attached to the letter to Planning Commission) VII. CITY HAS NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS. As stated in our previous submissions to the City, the City has no legal authority to adopt the Proposed Revisions. By adopting the Proposed Revisions for the purpose of preserving the Property as open space, the City would be attempting shirk its responsibility as a government body by forcing Mr. Hertogs and the other owners of the Property to bear the sole cost of providing a public amenity for the benefit of the public. It has long been illegal for the government to avoid its responsibilities in such a way by succumbing to the temptation to "improve the public condition ... by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 416, 43 S.Ct. 158, 160 (1922) (J. Holmes). As the Minnesota Supreme Court has aptly stated, for the courts to tolerate such actions by the government would be to allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become grand theft." ('o//is v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 17, 246 N.W.2d 19, 26 (1976). Specifically, the City has no legal authority to adopt the Proposed Revisions for three separate and independent reasons: 1) It is unreasonable (and thus unlawful) for a municipality to adopt land use regulations that restrict private property to a single, economically defunct use; 2) It constitutes unlawful spot zoning because it adopts a land use designation that effectively applies only to a single property; and 3) The adoption of the Proposed Revisions would constitute an unlawful regulatory taking because the Proposed Revisions will benefit a specific government enterprise (i.e. preserving open space) and will result in a substantial reduction in the market value of the Property. For these reasons, the Proposed Revisions are unlawful and the City should not adopt them. A. THE CITY. HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A GOLF COURSE ONLY ZONING DISTRICT. I 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 14 A City's decision to adopt or amend zoning regulations is a legislative decision subject to a "rational basis" standard of judicial review. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 NW.2d 409, 414-15 (Minn. 1981). In other words, the courts will uphold such decisions unless they are "unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Id., quoting State, by Rochester Assoc. of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 888 (1978). Here, there can be no rational basis for land use regulations that restrict private property to a single, economically obsolete use. Such regulations have no rational connection to promoting the "public health, safety, morals, or general welfare" and are therefore illegal. "Zoning is not static." Stone v. City of Wilton, 331 N.W.2d 398, 403 (Iowa 1983). A municipality's zoning regulations are "always subject to reasonable revisions designed to meet the ever-changing needs and conditions of a community." Id. If a municipal governing body unreasonably refuses to adopt land use regulations that account for the "ever-changing needs and conditions" created by the change in the character of a community, then that municipality will have unlawfully exceeded the scope of its authority to regulate the use of private property. See Sun Oil, Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 335, 220 N.W.2d 256, 261 (1974). The United States Supreme Court has recognized on several occasions that it is arbitrary and unlawful for the government to fail to respond to changing economic circumstances and conditions when it adopts regulations that affect private property. In Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405, 55 S. Ct. 486 (1935), the Court found it was beyond the police power of a state to adopt and enforce regulations (in this case related to railroad grade crossings) that did not account for "the revolutionary changes incident to transportation wrought in recent years by the wide spread introduction of motor vehicles." Id. at 416, 489. The Court noted that "when particular individuals are singled out to bear the cost of advancing the public convenience, that imposition must bear some reasonable relation to the evils to be eradicated or the advantages to be secured." Id. at 429, 495. Minnesota appellate courts have not yet had the opportunity to address the issue of whether it is within the lawful authority of a municipality to restrict the use of private property to a single, economically obsolete use (although, as discussed below, the Minnesota Supreme Court may choose to address this issue in the pending appeal Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan). However, courts in other jurisdictions have addressed these issues. For example, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held through the years that land use regulations that are "unduly restrictive" are unlawful, even if the regulations may not be "arbitrary" or "capricious" as a matter of procedural due process. See In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Assoc., 838 A.2d 718 (Pa. 2003); C&NI Dev., Inc. V. Bedminster Township, 820 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002) (concluding that a municipality's one-acre minimum lot size requirement was unlawful); Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Kohn, 215 A.2d 597 (Pa. 1966) (concluding that a municipality's four-acre minimum lot size requirement was unlawful). In the Realen Valley Forge case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied the principle that land use regulations may not be "unduly restrictive" and concluded that a municipality had 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 15 no authority to deny a request by an owner of a 130-acre golf course to develop the property into commercial uses that were consistent with the surrounding locality. It is important to note that in that case the defendant township's zoning regulations would have allowed the golf course owner to develop the property into residential uses, but the court concluded that residential uses would be out of character with the surrounding properties and were therefore not a reasonable use for the property. What is important here is that the defendant township did not even attempt to argue that it had the authority to restrict the use of the property to use as a golf course forever. Its zoning ordinance would have allowed residential uses, but the court concluded that even this was not sufficient because of the commercial character of the surrounding properties. Restricting private property to a single use as the Proposed Revisions would do here leaves property owners at the mercy of economic forces that are beyond the property owner's control and beyond the capability of government land use planners to forecast. While it has never addressed the legality of land use regulations similar to the Proposed Revisions, the Minnesota Supreme Court has previously expressed its disapproval of government actions that manipulate market forces through the adoption of land use regulations. For example, in Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294, 211 N.W.2d 358 (1973), the Court concluded that it was beyond the authority of a municipality to second- guess the law of supply and demand by regulating through its zoning controls the number of gas stations in a municipality. In that case, a property owner applied for a special use permit to construct a gas station in a commercial zoning district. The city denied the application and adopted a resolution stating that there were already a sufficient number of gas stations in the area and that it was not good planning for the city to permit a "surplus" of any single type of use. Id. at 298, 361. This Court responded as follows: It is difficult to conceive of a use which would be more compatible with the basic use authorized in this area. It is zoned for commercial uses and presently contains many varied retail shops and services. Among the businesses in the vicinity of the subject property are a number of gasoline stations, to which similar permits were granted. The plans for the station conform to the requirements of the city, and the station was designed to be architecturally consistent with adjacent buildings. In addition, testimony at trial indicated that the gasoline station would be compatible with uses in the vicinity. Id. at 301, 363. The Court stated further that: We hold that the limitation of the number of one type of use in a particular area does not bear a sufficient relationship to the public health, safety, or general welfare of a community and that the denial of a special use permit for such a reason is therefore arbitrary. The number and type of gas stations and other 1 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 16 permissible uses within a zone should be determined by the interaction of the economic law of supply and demand rather than by the collective opinion of the members of a municipal governing body concerning the needs of the community. Id. at 301-02, 363. If it is arbitrary and unlawful for a municipality to defy the laws of economics by limiting the number of any one particular use within its boundaries, the inverse must also be true. It is equally unlawful for a municipality to require through its zoning regulations that private property owners maintain a particular use that economic forces have rendered infeasible and obsolete. For this reason, a court will find the Proposed Revisions to be unlawful. As noted repeatedly, the Proposed Revisions would clearly serve no other purpose beyond preserving a large swath of open space for the benefit of the City's residents, in fact only for the benefit of a few neighbors. Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized that it is beyond the authority of a municipality to force a private property owner to maintain his/her property as public open space, independent of whether the regulation constitutes an unconstitutional taking. For example, in French Inv. Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 350 N.E.2d 381 (N.Y. 1976), the plaintiff owned a residential complex in Manhattan that included two private parks. New York City rezoned the two private parks exclusively as parks open to the public, while granting the property owner transferable above-surface development rights. According to the court "[t]he issue is whether the rezoning of buildable private parks exclusively as parks open to the public, thereby prohibiting all reasonable income productive or other private use of the property, constitutes a deprivation of property rights without due process of law in violation of constitutional limitations." Id. at 382. "The broad police power of the State to regulate the use of private property is not unlimited." Id. at 386. The court analyzed "whether the zoning amendment [at issue] was a valid exercise of police power under the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitution." Id. The court stated as follows: The ultimate evil of a deprivation of property, or better, a frustration of property rights, under the guise of an exercise of the police power is that it forces the owner to assume the cost of providing a benefit to the public without recoupment. There is no attempt to share the cost of the benefit among those benefited, that is, society at large. Instead, the accident of ownership determines who shall bear the cost initially. Of course, as further consequence, the ultimate economic cost of providing the benefit is hidden from those who in a democratic society are given the power of deciding whether or not they wish to obtain the benefit despite the ultimate economic cost, however, initially distributed. In other words, the removal from productive use of private property has an 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 17 ultimate social cost more easily concealed by imposing the cost on the owner alone. When successfully concealed, the public is not likely to have any objection to the "cost free benefit." Id. at 387. The court held the zoning amendment unreasonable and unconstitutional because, "without due process of law, it deprives the owner of all his property rights, except the bare title and a dubious future reversion of full use." Id. Here, the Proposed Revisions would likewise deprive Mr. Hertogs (and his partners) of all his property rights and provide a "cost free benefit" to the residents of the City at Mr. Hertogs' expense.4 Accordingly, there is no rational basis for the Proposed Revisions. They are therefore illegal and the City should not adopt them. B. ADOPTING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL SPOT ZONING As noted, the Proposed Revisions only affect the Property and not the other golf course properties located within the City because the other golf course properties are either publicly owned (the Glen Lake golf course property) or already subject to open space easement agreements with the City that prohibit the properties from being developed into other uses in any event (the Bearpath and Olympic Hills golf course properties). As such, the Proposed Revisions, would constitute unlawful "spot zoning" if adopted by the City. Minnesota appellate courts have recognized "spot zoning" as unlawful. As described by the Minnesota Supreme Court: "Spot Zoning" is a label applied to certain zoning amendments invalidated as legislative acts unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting public welfare. The term applies to zoning changes, typically limited to small plots of land, which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district, and which dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. Rochester Assoc. of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891 (1978). In Rochester Assoc. of Neighborhoods, supra, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of spot zoning, but refused to apply it to invalidate the zoning decision at issue in that case because the property owners had failed to establish a substantial diminution in the value of their properties or that the decisions of the City of Rochester "would create an island of nonconforming use." Id. at 891-92. That is not the case here. Here, the Mr. Hertogs and his Unlike the property owner in French Inc. Co. (who would have at least received transferable development rights as compensation for the regulations proposed by New York City), Mr. Hertogs and the other owners of the Property will receive no compensation at all from the City in exchange for maintaining the Property as open space forever. I 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 18 consultants have submitted evidence to the City that clearly shows a substantial diminution in the value of the property that would occur as a result of the City's adoption of the Proposed Revisions. Likewise, there is no dispute here that the Property is a nonconforming "island" of Rural-zoned property (which would be zoned golf course only) amid a sea of Residential-zoned properties. As noted in the Rochester Assoc. of Neighborhoods case above, "spot zoning" ordinarily describes municipal zoning actions taken with respect to "small plots of land." Id. at 891. However, size is not a determinative factor and the fact that the Property is more than 100-acres in size is not a bar to a claim of unlawful spot zoning. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently concluded that a failure to approve a property-owner's application to rezone a 135-acre golf course to allow commercial uses constituted unlawful "reverse" spot zoning.5 In re Reale)? Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 838 A.2d 718 (Pa. 2003). C. ADOPTING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE A REGULATORY TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS Even if it were within the scope of the City's authority to regulate the use of private property (which it is not for the reasons set forth above), the City's adoption of the Proposed Revisions would still be unlawful because it would constitute a "taking" of the Property without just compensation. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 13 of the Minnesota Constitution both prohibit the government from taking private property without providing just compensation. The so-called "takings clause" not only applies to circumstances where the government actually takes possession of private property, but also to certain situations in which government regulation of private property substantially interferes with the rights associated with property ownership. Such situations are called "regulatory takings." In Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646 (1978), the United States Supreme Court established a three-part balancing test to determine whether a regulatory taking has occurred. The test requires a court to examine: 1) The economic impact of the regulation; 2) The extent to which the regulation interferes with legitimate investment-backed expectations of the property owner; and 3) The character of the regulation. Under the test established in Penn Central, whether or not a regulatory taking has occurred is an ad-hoc determination to be made by a court based on the specific facts and circumstances presented by the government regulation at issue. 5 "Reverse" spot zoning is the apposite of spot zoning and occurs when a government entity refuses to rezone property so that the property is consistent with the uses allowed the surrounding properties. An example of unlawful "reverse" spot zoning would be if the City denied an application by Mr. Hertogs to rezone the Property to allow residential uses at the same densities as the surrounding residential properties. Mr. Hertogs planned to apply for such re-zoning but was prohibited from doing so by the Moratorium Ordinance. I 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 19 In a subsequent case, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992), the United States Supreme Court found that certain regulations constitute "per se" or "categorical" takings that require no such analysis. In Lucas, the Court addressed South Carolina's enactment of a Beachfront Management Act, which had the effect of preventing the plaintiff property owner from building any permanent habitable structures on two residential lots that he purchased for $975,000. Applying Penn Central, the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that there was no taking because the Act was adopted "to prevent serious public harm." On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that a "categorical" or "per se" taking had occurred because the law deprived the property owner of "all economically viable use" of the property. The Court found that depriving an owner of all economically viable use of his property constitutes a categorical taking unless the proscribed use is not part of the "bundle of rights" inherent in the ownership of the property. The Minnesota Supreme Court has long recognized that onerous regulations can constitute an unconstitutional taking. See e.g. State v. Casey, 263 Minn. 47, 51, 115 N.W.2d 749, 753 (1962) ("if damage to the property [from a regulation] is extensive enough it will be regarded as an exercise of the power of eminent domain"). Separate and apart from any federal claims based on the United States Constitution, the Court has construed the Minnesota Constitution as providing more protection to private property owners. Taking or damage under the Minnesota Constitution can "arise out of any interference by the state with the ownership, possession, enjoyment or value of private property." Johnson v. City of Plymouth, 263 N.W.2d 603, 605 (Minn. 1978).6 In other words, the Court's interpretation of the Takings Clause of the Minnesota Constitution is not bound by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. One example of a way in which the takings decisions of the Minnesota appellate courts differ from those of the United States Supreme Court is the recognition by Minnesota courts of "government enterprise" regulatory takings in McShane v. City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. 1980). In McShane, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed regulations adopted for the purpose of facilitating the operation of a municipal airport. The Court concluded that those regulations constituted a regulatory taking, stating in relevant part as follows: [Where a specific governmental enterprise is involved, the burden of its activities falls on just a few individuals while the public as a whole receives the advantage of property rights for which it did not pay. In essence, the public has appropriated an easement. In such 6 This Minnesota Supreme Court's broad construction of the protections afforded by the Minnesota Constitution is logical since the relevant Minnesota Constitutional provision, by its plain language, is broader than the United States Constitution. Under the Minnesota Constitutional, private property shall not be "taken, destroyed or damaged . . ." without just compensation. MINN. CONST. art I, § 13. The corresponding provision in the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be "taken" without just compensation. U.S. CONST. amend V. As this Court concluded in a damages context in Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 109, 115 (Minn. 2003) "even if appellants' takings claim under the United States Constitution fails under Penn Central, appellants are entitled to compensation under the Minnesota Constitution." 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 20 cases, ... the burden of the landowner is grossly disproportionate to the burden he should be expected to bear as an ordinary citizen, and the use of regulation to take is property rights is, in effect, a shortcut to avoid compensation. Therefore, even though the burdened property retains some reasonable usefulness, the public should pay for the diminution in value just as any private landowner must purchase an easement. Id. at 258. The Court restated the arbitration/government enterprise distinction in Pratt v. State, 309 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1981) as follows: [W]here the regulation only serves an arbitration function, regulating between competing private uses for the general welfare, ordinarily no taking is involved; but where the regulation is for the benefit of a governmental enterprise, where a few individuals must bear the burden for a public use, then a taking occurs. Id. at 773.7 The Court stated further that it is possible for regulations to serve both arbitration and government enterprise functions, and that such dual-function regulations constitute unconstitutional takings if the government enterprise function is prominent. Id. at 774. 1. The Proposed Revisions Would Constitute A "Per Se" Taking Under Lucas, in Violation of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. The analyses that Mr. Shardlow and Mr. Strachota presented to the City (in addition to the letter from the General Manager of Bent Creek Golf Course) regarding the viability of golf courses in the Twin Cities area and the diminution in the value of the Property that will occur if the City adopts the Proposed Revisions clearly establish that the adoption of the Proposed Revisions will leave no "economically viable" use for the Property. Accordingly, adoption of the Proposed Revisions would constitute a "per se" or "categorical" taking under the Lucas decision by the United States Supreme Court. 7 As the Minnesota Supreme Court noted in Spaeth v. City of Plymouth, courts in other jurisdictions "have not been reluctant to find a taking where zoning ordinances provided only for public use of the property." 344 N.W.2d 815, 820 (1984), citing Bartlett v. Town of Old Lyme 282 A.2d 907 (Corm. 1971); Hager v. Louisville Zoning Comm 'n, 261 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953); Morris County v. Township of Parsippany -Troy Hills, 193 A.2d 232 (N.J. 1963); City of Plainfield v. Borough of Middlesex, 173 A2d 785 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1961); Rippley v. City of Lincoln, 330 N.W.2d 505 (N.D. 1983). 110702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 21 2. The Proposed Revisions Would Constitute An Unconstitutional "Government Enterprise" Taking Under McShane, in violation of the Minnesota Constitution. Here, the Proposed Revisions are for the primary purpose of advancing the government enterprise of providing open space for the residents of the City (albeit really only a few neighbors). The Proposed Revisions, if adopted, will result in a substantial decrease in the market value of the Property. Accordingly, the Proposed Revisions would constitute a taking under McShane, in violation of the Minnesota Constitution. a. Providing Open Space Is A Government Enterprise. Providing open space is a core government function, much as establishing and operating an airport in McShane.8 Seeking to fulfill a government function by regulatory fiat on the backs of a private property owner is an example of a use of regulatory power that has simply "gone too far." Any other conclusion would permit a city to zone and guide all of its property as open space, thereby eliminating any use of property until such time as the city deems a particular use worthy by amending the zoning code to permit a particular use. Though admittedly an extreme example, this is precisely what the City proposes to do here. While cities undoubtedly have the power to condemn property for public parks and open space, or condemn a negative or restrictive easement to limit the uses of the property to open space type uses, why do so if the same thing can be accomplished by so regulating the property at no cost to the city? Such regulations clearly constitute a taking because, in pursuit of the government enterprise, the property owner is forced to endure a substantial and measurable decline in the market value of the property without any benefit to the owner. To the extent that some might argue that a regulation must be adopted solely to benefit a government enterprise in order to constitute a taking, this is not the case. In Pratt, the Minnesota Supreme Court explicitly rejected the notion that a regulation must exclusively benefit a government enterprise in order to constitute an unconstitutional regulatory taking. The Court recognized that regulations may have both arbitration and government enterprise functions, and that such regulations constitute unconstitutional takings if the government enterprise function of the regulation is prominent. Pratt, 309 N.W.2d at 774 ("We think that here, where the governmental enterprise function is prominent, a taking may occur if the landowner's property is substantially diminished in value"). Indeed, the Court stated that the regulation at issue in Pratt could constitute an unconstitutional taking even if the regulation did not predominately benefit a government enterprise. Id. Therefore, where a regulation has both prominent arbitration and government enterprise functions, that regulation may constitute an unconstitutional taking even if the government enterprise function is a secondary function. Accordingly, even if a court concludes that the City's actions in this case served an arbitration function, it would nevertheless conclude that the City's actions constitute an unconstitutional taking under McShane because 8 McShane involved regulations restricting approach plans for public airports to eliminate hazards associated with landings and take offs. 1 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 22 they also served the prominent government enterprise function of providing open space for the benefit of the City's residents. b. The Proposed Revisions Will Result in a Measurable Decline In The Market Value Of The Property. We have analysis from appraiser Robert Strachota that unquestionably establishes that the Proposed Revisions, if adopted, would result in a measurable decline in the market value of the Property. A summary of Mr. Strachota's conclusions are set forth as follows: 1. Value of the Property if restricted to use as only a golf course; $2.5M $2.7M. 2. Value of Property as nine (9) minimum ten-acre lots: $3.1M $3.5M. 3. Value of the Property under the current zoning ordinance and comp plan: $10M- $12M.9 4. Value of the Property if development allowed consistent with surrounding neighborhood: $18M $20M. In other words, as this decline in market value would be a direct consequence of actions by the City taken to promote a specific government enterprise (providing open space for its citizens), the Proposed Revisions would constitute an unconstitutional regulatory taking under McShane and the City must then pay to the owners the reduction in value and attorneys' fees incurred by the owners in bringing a lawsuit to collect those damages. VIII. REGULATIONS LIKE THE PROPOSED REVISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SANCTIONED BY THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT The members of the City Council are most likely aware that there have been two recent high-profile Minnesota Supreme Court cases related to the refusal of city councils to allow property owners to develop economically defunct golf courses into residential uses. Those cases are as follows: 1) Mendota Golf LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006), which the Court decided earlier this year; and 2) Wensmann Realty v. City of Eagan, A05- 1074, which is currently pending before the Court. It has been our experience that the Mendota Golf and Wensmann cases have emboldened municipal employees and elected officials (most of whom have only a casual knowledge of the cases) and have led them to mistakenly believe that these cases recognize an unlimited authority of municipalities to prevent the development of golf course properties into other uses. This is not the case. In Mendota Golf LLP, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded only that the City of Mendota Heights had a mandatory duty under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act ("MLPA," 9 As noted above, Mr. Strachota's appraisal letter for this scenario was not available for submission prior to the earlier public hearings on this Proposed Revisions. Accordingly, we enclose it as an exhibit to this Memoranda. I 10702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 23 discussed above) to reconcile inconsistent provisions of its zoning ordinance and comprehensive guide plan. The Court did not conclude that municipalities may adopt land use regulations that restrict the use of property to a golf course when a golf course is not a feasible use for the property. Indeed, the City of Mendota Heights zoning ordinance at issue in that case did allow uses for the subject golf course property (including residential uses) besides golf courses. However, the Court concluded that there were inconsistencies between the zoning ordinance and the City's comprehensive guide plan in violation of MLPA. Moreover, the Court also expressly refused to address the issue of whether the actions taken by the City of Mendota Heights constituted an unlawful regulatory taking because the property owner had not asserted a regulatory takings claim.10 According to this Court "[o]ur decision also does not foreclose Mendota Golf from asserting a regulatory takings claim if the parties cannot resolve their dispute. . . Our decision simply resolves the narrow issue that is properly before the court — whether the city had a rational basis to deny Mendota Golfs proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan." Id. at 182. In Wensmami, the property owner did assert a regulatory takings claim based on the decision of the City of Eagan to deny the property owner's application to amend the zoning ordinance and comprehensive guide plan amendment that applied to the Carriage Hills Golf Course. Without an amendment, the City of Eagan's zoning ordinance and comprehensive guide plan restricted the Carriage Hills property to a very limited number of uses, none of which were economically feasible.11 When it decides the Wensmann case (the Court has received briefs from the parties but has not yet scheduled a hearing for oral argument), the Minnesota Supreme Court will address the issues of whether there is a lawful basis for overly restrictive land use regulations and whether the adoption of such regulations constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The facts of the Wensmann case are not identical to the matter presently before the City. Among other things, the City of Eagan's zoning ordinance never allowed residential uses for the Carriage Hills property as the City's zoning ordinance has historically allowed for the Property here (for over 30 years).' - Accordingly, the Proposed Revisions would be an even more egregious deprivation of private property rights than the City of Eagan's actions that prompted the Wensmann litigation. For this reason, a favorable result for the City of Eagan in the Wensmann case will not necessarily guarantee a successful result for the City in litigation arising from the adoption of the Proposed Revisions. However, a successful result for the property owner would conclusively determine that the Proposed Revisions are unlawful (after which, even if the City again amended its Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan to comply with the 1° As noted above, the City of Mendota Heights is in the process of reconciling its zoning ordinance and comprehensive guide plan in response to the Court's decision, and is currently considering a proposal from its staff that will continue to allow residential uses at two units per acre. 11 It is significant to note that not even the City of Eagan attempted to do what the Proposed Revisions would do here: Restrict private property to use of a golf course only. 12 The zoning ordinances and existing development patterns at the time Mr. Hertogs acquired his interest in the Property will be a very significant fact if Mr. Hertogs asserts a takings claim against the City, as it will establish how Mr. Hertogs could have reasonably expected to use the Property at the time of acquisition. See Penn Central, supra. I I 0702.doc;2 Mayor and City Council January 16, 2007 Page 24 court's decision, the City would be liable to Mr. Hertogs for damages arising from a temporary taking for that time that the Proposed Revisions were in effect plus his attorneys' fees). As noted above, it therefore seems unnecessarily risky for the City to proceed with the adoption of the Proposed Revisions before the Minnesota Supreme Court decides the Wensmann appeal, especially since Mr. Hertogs is willing to withhold any development applications and otherwise maintain the status quo until the Court issues its decision. IX. CONCLUSION. For the reasons set forth above and for the reasons set forth in our previous submissions to the City, we respectfully ask that the City Council not vote to adopt the Proposed Revisions with respect to the Property. For the City Council to do so would be manifestly unfair to the owners of the Property as well as contrary to Minnesota and federal law regarding the scope of the government's authority to regulate private property. We are available to discuss the foregoing at 612.344.1111. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. 110702.doc;2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Michael Franzen ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bent Creek Golf Course Guide Plan Change & Rezoning ITEM NO.: REVISED VIII.B. Requested Action Move to: • Continue the public hearing for 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course 105.8 acres to the February 6, 2007 meeting. Move to: • Close the Public Hearing for the Guide Plan Change; and • Adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres . Synopsis This is a continued item from the December 4, 2006 meeting. The Met Council approved the text amendment to add “golf course” as a land use on January 8, 2007. The existing golf course is guided Public/Quasi Public. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. Before the City Council can take action to rezone the property to GC-Golf Course, the amendments to Chapter 11, which create the GC-Golf Course District, must have 1st and 2nd reading and be published in the official newspaper. The ordinance takes affect upon publication which could occur on January 25, 2007. The City Council should hold the public hearing on the guide plan change and take action on the resolution for the guide plan change tonight. The public hearing on the proposed rezoning of the property should be continued to the February 6, 2007 meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the guide plan change at the November 13, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Staff report 3. Location Map 4. Existing Land Use 5. Proposed Land Use 6. Existing Zoning 7. Proposed Zoning 8. Planning Commission Minutes 9. Residence response 10. Letter from Met Council BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 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 is an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan 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: Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2007. ___________________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: November 3, 2006 SUBJECT: Bent CreekGolf Course Guide Plan Change and Rezoning PETITIONER: City of Eden Prairie LOCATION: REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres 2. Rezoning from Rural to GC- Golf Course on 105.8 acres COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The existing golf course is guided Public/Quasi Public. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. REZONING The existing golf course is Rural .The proposed zoning change is to GC – Golf Course. The existing golf course will regulated by the performance standards as identified in the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following request: • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to GC- Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Area Location Map - Bent Creek Golf CourseGuide Plan Change & Rezoning 2006-26 No Scale Address: Bent Creek Golf Course Valley View Rd Baker Rd HCLRTA Howard La Golf View Dr Bent Creek Golf Course (SITE) Birch Island Lake Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Existing City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Bent Creek Golf Course Bent Creek Golf Course DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Medium Density Residential/Office High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Office Office/Industrial Office/Public/Open Space Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Park/Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Church/ Cemetary Open Water Right-Of-Way Birch Island Lake Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Proposed City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Bent Creek Golf Course Bent Creek Golf Course DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Medium Density Residential/Office High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Office Office/Industrial Office/Public/Open Space Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Park/Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Church/ Cemetary Open Water Right-Of-Way Golf Course RD Existing City of Eden Prairie Zoning MapBent Creek Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Bent Creek Golf Course RD Proposed City of Eden Prairie Zoning MapBent Creek Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Golf Course Bent Creek Golf Course APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig, Pitzrick and Rocheford. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Powell, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 2006 Powell had a revision to the minutes on page 5, paragraph 2. The first sentence should read, “Powell stated that all the sites should be changed to neighborhood commercial because this should be done to supply versatility to the residents.” MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Kirk abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AMEND CHAPTER 3 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN TO ADD GOLF COURSES AS A LAND USE & AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO GOLF COURSES Franzen presented the amendment. He stated that back in March of this year the City Council addressed the City requesting that they look at amending the City Code. On page 11 of the staff report are the Staff recommendations. They are as followed: 1. An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The terms “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. 2. Amendments Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills gold courses. 3. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, amending City Code, Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.B., tables 4 and 5, Subd., 3.3.H4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4, relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Franzen stated that the change would be for all of the golf courses in Eden Prairie. Powell asked Franzen why we would limit this to golf courses. He said instead of calling it “golf course” call it, “outdoor recreation”. Outdoor recreation would include such things as lawn bowling and horseback riding. Franzen stated that “golf course” was just addressed because that was what was asked to be addressed by the City Council. He also pointed out that in the future the guide plan could be changed to address outdoor recreation issues. Ric Rosow, Eden Prairie City Attorney, agreed with Franzen and stated that at this time we should address golf courses as “golf courses” and in the future the guide plan could be changed to include outdoor recreation with these areas. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 3 Stoelting asked Franzen if proper notification went out to all of the residents. Franzen stated that proper notification did go out. He pointed out that the minimum requirement is 500 feet from the area and the City went 1,000 feet from the area, and also posted it in the newspaper and on the City’s website. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Howard Roston, attorney representing Sam Herzog, owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course, stated that they are in opposition of this amendment. He presented Chair Stoelting with official documents. They include: 1. Letter from Mr. Herzog. 2. Letter from some of the other owners. 3. Affidavit from his law partner. 4. Letter from the law firm presenting their issues. 5. Information from DSU. 6. Information from appraisal company Mr. Roston stated that on behalf of Mr. Herzog, they are requesting that the Planning Commission delay action on this matter. Mr. Roston stated that the first issued he would like to address this evening is the timing of this matter. He pointed out that there are 530 acres that are subject to this amendment and that they have not had adequate time to get the appraiser out and address this issue. They are requesting a 30 day delay so they can analyze how this amendment change will affect Mr. Herzog. Mr. Roston said they would also like to see action on this amendment delayed until they can see the decision made by the Supreme Court on the case of Weinsman vs. City of Eagan. He stated that in this particular case, the landowners are arguing that action by the City was inappropriate. Mr. Roston also talked about the status to title of the Bent Creek Property. He stated that the majority of property is Torrens and when looking at the title to Bent Creek there is a lack of recorded restrictions to this property. Secondly, he addressed the City’s historical zoning and comprehensive plan. Mr . Roston added that had the owner looked at the zoning ordinance there would have been a designation of one unit per ten acres had he wanted to develop the property assuming that the golf course is no longer commercially viable which it is not. He pointed out that there is no limitation for something labeled “quasi- public”. Mr. Roston stated that limiting the use of this land to just “golf course” would not be very conducive to Mr. Herzog. Mr. Herzog is contemplating selling his property and feels that by labeling this piece of land as “golf course” would limit his selling potential. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Roston said that Shennah Appraising did some quick appraising of this land and the figures are devastating. He added that in Mr. Hertogs letter it states that the golf course is no longer economically viable use as a golf course, but would be would keep it open for a year but it is not economically viable and is not going to continued to lose money on the golf course forever. Mr. Roston feels that is should not be a function of the government to label land, such as “golf courses”. He stated that he feels it is unconstitutional for several different reasons. He stated that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the Mendota Heights decision stating that there was an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and because of this the Mendota Heights Planning Commission and City Council are negotiating a change with the developers. Mr. Roston would like to ask the Planning Commission to deny the recommendations by City Staff. Marilyn Michaels, attorney working with Sam Herzog, gave some history about Mr. Herzog. She stated that Mr. Herzog is 81 years old. His partner to the golf course passed away and currently the Bent Creek Golf Course is losing money. She pointed out that in March of 2005, she started working with the City and Mr. Franzen and Mr. Rosow because she stated that the golf course cannot continue operating and they would like to come to a resolution to this problem. She stated that coming to a resolution now would eliminate three to five years of litigation. Ms. Michaels stated that if the ordinance is passed in its present form, there will be legal action by Mr. Herzog. She also said that she was surprised that the first notice was given on October 31st to Mr. Herzog. Ms. Michaels stated that she realizes that the residents in this area want open space, but they need time to work on a resolution. She understands that the comprehensive plan and zoning need to be realigned, but feels that is does not have to be done tonight or in the near future. John Sharlowd, planning consultant, stated that he has written zoning plans in the past and also teaches zoning classes. He believes that by limiting this piece of land to a single use is unprecedented. He pointed out that in this area, there is an average of one golf course that is closing every month. He concluded by saying that he feels that the City and Bent Creek Golf Course should come up with a resolution to this issue. Steve Chelesnik, of 7269 Howard Lane, stated that he volunteered as a spokesperson tonight to express the opinion of the residents. He stated that in looking at this issue from the point of view of the adjacent landowners, they would like to see the amendment passed. He said the neighbors have purchased homes in the area under the promise that this land would always be a golf course. He pointed out that the owner could get 16 to 18 million for this land if it could be built on. He would like to see the promises honored to the community, regardless if Mr. Herzog said he was unaware of any promises. He also said that because the attorneys threatened the City with litigation, he feels the amendment should still be passed. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 5 Starr Bourguewyland, of 14267 Wedgeway Court, had one comment on permitted uses. He said that he would like to see the owner have permitted uses, like cross country skiing in the winter; which would be a source of income for the golf course. Otto Teiken, who has lived off of the 7th hole of Bent Creek for the past 32 years, stated that he paid $5,000 more for the position of his house. He believes the recommendation should go forward. Wilson Bryce, of 14418 Fairway Drive, is an architect and is sensitive to the aesthetics in the community. He stated that if this property were to be sold and redeveloped he would lose money on his property if he ever chose to sell it. Gary Everett, said that he is a long term resident of Eden Prairie and has seen many changes to the City. He said that he feels that the City should either purchase the property or work with the owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course to come up with a resolution. Dan Miller, of 7055 Howard Lane, stated that he supports the comments of Steve Chelesnik. He said that when the original developer wanted to create the PUD, there were some restrictions for open space to development. Now, 30 years later, it appears that the owner does not seem to want to uphold the promise. Mr. Miller feels that the owners of the Bent Creek Golf Course should have to uphold their promise and that he would like to see the City pass this amendment. John Brill, of 7384 Moonlight Lane, made a comment that he is concerned with the southwest quadrant of Bent Creek. He said this area floods a few times a year and he is concerned with the fertilization coming through Bent Creek. Rick Dorsey, of 14214 Green View Court, stated he feels that the land should not be developed in accordance with the PUD. He also believes that if the owners were to sell this piece of property that they would make more money on it than what they bought it for. He would also like to see the environmental issues addressed before any type of changes would be made. He stated that if the property was to be sold and developed on, this would lower the property value of homes around the area and they would also be burden with construction for the next few years. Victoria Rolf, a homeowner who lives on Bent Creek Court, stated that what she has heard tonight was that the owner wanted the passing of this amendment stalled for awhile to create a “win-win” situation for both the owner and homeowners. She stated that she would like to know what the “win-win” situation would be. She said that she is also concerned with the wildlife in the area and how it would be impacted with potential construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 6 Nancy Manderfeld, of 13600 Brook Lane, stated that she understands that Eden Prairie is 94.5% built and would like to know when enough is enough. She believes a simple resolution for the owner would be to sell the land. Mr. Roston, stated that he would like to address two issues. He said that he heard several references in regards to selling the property. He said that they have looked into that and have not found any potential buyers. He also said that they have not read any historical documents that would indicate that this land be used for open space. Stoelting reiterated the issues that were brought forward tonight. They are as follows: 1. Mr. Herzog is requesting a postponement of the decision tonight. 2. The status of the title – lack of record. 3. Issues with the PUD. 4. The question of the property owner not knowing the restrictions when he purchased the property. 5. Rural designation. 6. The use of property for uses other than open space. 7. Commitments to the community. 8. Land owners adjacent to the property and declining property values if the land were to be developed. 9. Concept of the City purchasing property. 10. Environmental issues. 11. How will the zoning issues today affect the PUD. 12. The issue of timing in relationship to this amendment. Ric Rosow addressed the issue of the Planning Commission waiting on a decision. He stated that as a Planning Commission, the members are not vested with the authority to extend the moritorium, but rather they are to make recommendations to the City Council. If the Planning Commission feels that this decision should be delayed then that would be a recommendation brought before the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the issue of the status of the title, he has not had the benefit to look through their title research. In regards to the issue of Torrens property, it is subject to zoning ordinances. He also said that there were previous commitments made in the original PUD. Franzen stated that in regards to the land owners that are adjacent to the property and the impact on property values, he stated that numerous factors have to be considered for the property value to be lowered, and that it would not just involve construction of adjacent property. Mr. Rosow stated to Commission that it cannot base its recommendation on unsupported statements made by residents that the development would have a negative impact on the neighboring land owners. He said that in regards to the City purchasing the property, that would be up to the decision of the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the environmental Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 7 issues, if the land were to be developed, there would have to be numerous environmental issues to be met. Franzen stated that all properties are subject to numerous environmental ordinances. Mr. Rosow said that in regards to PUD, the zoning of the property changing to golf course would be consistent with the PUD. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about the Weinsman ruling and what its impact would do. Mr. Rosow said that he is totally aware of the case, but if there was a decision made on it prior to a City Council decision, he would look at it, but he feels that the Commission should not wait for an outcome. Stoltz asked Ms. Michaels about the ‘win-win” situation, and what that would entail. She stated that there is a wetland area to the south and that could be made into a 9 hole public golf course that would generate revenue for the golf course and also allow non-members to play golf at this golf course. She also stated that there was some talk of a conservation easement to the north of the property. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about a law suit and what is the reality if it did happen. Mr. Rosow stated that the City does have insurance but it should not be a reason to pass or deny a proposal. Mr. Rosow pointed out that it does take quite a bit of Staff time if litigation would take place. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow if they have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Mr. Rosow stated that they do have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Stoelting asked about a continuance or delay of decision and how would Staff feel about that. Franzen stated that he would look at what the City Council requested them to do. He feels that Staff did do what they were suppose to do and would not see the need for a continuance. Stoelting reiterated the amendment and asked the Commission Members for their input. Seymour stated that he does not see a problem with changing the language of the ordinance, but asked if we could add the outdoor uses to the amendment. Mr. Rosow stated that if the Commission wanted to address outdoor uses that they should do so. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the following: An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The term “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 8 or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. Amendments to Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as and held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota amending City Code Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.Bl, tables 4 and 5, Subd. 3.3.H.4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4 relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Add croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, and ice skating, to the list of proposed permitted uses. Motion carried 6-0. . B. BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that since the Planning Commission adopted Item A, then this item, along with the subsequent golf course requests, needs to be individually addressed. Franzen stated that the Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rick Dorsey, a resident of Eden Prairie, stated that his only concern is to make sure that as a PUD it has only zoning applied to the property. He stated that he does not want it re-zoned, other than the original PUD. Stoelting asked if the approval of the guide plan change would affect the original PUD. Mr. Rosow stated it would affect the original PUD because it would be zoned golf course, but the other property would be unaffected. He also stated that this action would change the zoning of property from rural to golf course. Mr. Rosow reiterated that PUD is not changing but rather zoning. Brooks Halvorson, of 14348 Fairway Drive, had the same concerns as Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Rosow reiterated that the PUD would not change but rather the underlying zoning on the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 9 MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Motion carried 6-0. C. BEARPATH GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rodney Hardy, secretary and owner of the Bearpath Golf Association, stated that Bearpath is concerned about retaining this facility as a private venture. He stated that they rely on memberships and have to be accommodating to them as users of the golf course. Mr. Hardy pointed out that they are a golf and country club and because of that, they may have different issues. He stated that one concern is parking; as the membership grows they may need more parking. He also stated that there are some additional uses that they would like to have; such as, skateboarding, soccer, or softball. Mr. Hardy stated that he would like to know how that would be protected. He said he would also like to know that if something happened to a public building on the property, for an example, a fire, that they would be able to rebuild it to its current state. John Downey, manager of Bearpath Golf Association, reiterated what Mr. Hardy said. Mr. Downey said that he would like to be able to supply a list of additional activities to the Planning Commission. Stoelting apologized to Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey for not realizing that they wanted to speak during the initial amendment proposal. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the issues brought forth by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey. Franzen stated that he will not prohibit uses like baseball or soccer, or any other similar additional use. He stated that it would be beneficial to address the recreational uses prior to going to the City Council. Franzen said that in regards to the buildings, the City would not request additional rezoning but they would just have to come back for building permits. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 10 Powell stated that any recreational sport that can be played in a park should be allowed here also. He stated that he felt each “open space area” should be able to have non-motorized recreation activities. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Kirk asked how the Commission wants to address the usage issue that was brought forward in the public discussion. Franzen stated that action should be taken on the first motion and then make a second motion to cover this issue. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to ask the City Staff to recommend appropriate language for additional uses to be added to the amendment in conjunction with zoning and guide plan changed brought for to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0. D. OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 11 E. GLEN LAKE GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; and Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Motion carried 6-0. F. BECKER REZONING by Lee and Carri Becker. Request for: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .083 acres. Location is 9795 Bluff Road. Carrie Becker presented the proposal. She stated that the house they are currently living in was built in 1980 and that is was never in compliance with zoning regulations. They are bringing forth their proposal tonight to get their home properly re-zoned. She stated that they found this discrepancy when they started to remodel their home. Mr. Becker illustrated the setbacks using the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen if by rezoning to R1-13.5 would there be any zoning inconsistencies. Franzen stated there would not be any inconsistencies. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff recommendation is for approval. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .83 acres based on the staff report dated November 10, 2006, and plans stamped dated October 20, 2006. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Franzen stated that for the November 27, 2006, meeting, there will be one public hearing for a proposal for an office building and a Guide Plan Update on Transportation. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 12 IX. MEMBERS REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. 12-20-05 To: Eden Prairie City Council From: Victoria Rolf, Resident of Eden Prairie Re: Potential Development of Bent Creek Golf Course Dear Council Members, I find myself attempting to express one of the most difficult conflictions human beings face. We live in a world in which we are populating, developing, unearthing, destroying and recreating the world around us for human benefit alone. We enjoy much of this development but if it isn't balanced with the natural world, we will continue to slowly destroy our planet. It is the Institutions that govern these ethical choices that are ultimately responsible for our world and our habitat. The crucial consideration in opposing the development of Bent Creek Golf Course is the Master Edenvale Plan itself. As I read the files the City of Eden Prairie has on record regarding Edenvale, I became completely engrossed in this new and exciting Plan. In 1970 Eden Prairie had a population of about 8,000 and Edenvale proposed to provide housing for an additional 10,000- 19,000 people. It was an incredible undertaking that took approximately 10 years to complete. It provided nearly every type of housing and commercial space and created living opportunities for every income group. In addition, the Plan provided the means to preserve and protect as much of the environment and natural features as possible within the context of developing a new living community. The documents describe over and over the fact that the population would grow, and yet the intent was to develop the area in a way that is more in harmony with the environment and help preserve and protect the habitat as much as feasible. The developers surmised that this would be a great benefit to humans too. Most developers rarely consider these factors but Eden Land Corporation had a vision and a dream that included our environmental responsibilities in their plan. From what I understand as a lay person reading the documents, the Planned Unit Development (PUD 70-3 and revision 70-4) the City of Eden Prairie agreed to is a legally binding document. In this PUD the quasi golf course was required to remain open space. believe the proper forms were never filed in the case of the golf course and therefore the legal requirement that the course remain open space was never transferred from owner to owner. A very important consideration is that all previous owners purchased the golf course with the intent that it remain a golf course. No one has been cheated or deceived with regard to its status in the past 40 years. Since the golf course was remodeled into thel8 hole Edenvale Golf Course in 1975 as part of the overall Plan, no one has sought other uses for the course until now. The question is whether the current owners have a right to sell it to be rezoned and used as something other than open space. It all comes down to a twofold promise. From 1970-1972, the Eden Prairie City Council made a promise to the community by approving the Edenvale PUD which protected 25% of the 1,000 acres as open space. The golf course was approximately 12% of the designated 25% open space in the PUD and was required to remain that way. The Council bargained with Eden Land Corporation on numerous development items and what the Council repeatedly received in return was the promise from Eden Land Corp. that the golf course would remain open space in the PUD. Now I am wondering who will protect those promises and the integrity of the Edenvale Plan. By virtue of the City Councils approval of the Edenvale PUD, it became part of the overall City Plan. In my opinion it is the responsibility of the present elected City Council Members to uphold this promise to the community. The City promised its residents that it would protect 25% of the 1,000 acres as open space for the use of all. The Eden Land Corp. promised to respect the legal requirements of the PUD that guaranteed the golf course would remain open space and they agreed to file the proper legal documents. In an effort to support this position, I have attached specific quotes from the hundreds of documents the City has on file relating to Edenvale. They specifically pertain to the promises made by the City and Eden Land Corp. to preserve the golf course as green space. They are in the same order as the City file so that you can refer to them. These statements in the City archives represent just a fraction of the Edenvale Plan. From the City of Eden Prairie, Eden Land Corp. received Cash Park Fee exemptions of at least $400,000, reduced building densities which made it much less expensive for them to build, and zoning changes from the city norm for both corporate and residential sites. All these compromises were part of a greater City Plan that included 250 acreas of glorious open space and definitively included the 115 acre golf course. Finally, I want to say that if you choose to allow development of Bent Creek Golf Course, you will be significantly altering our community. Not only will thousands of residents living within Edenvale and the adjoining neighbors be adversely impacted, the natural makeup of the community will be destroyed. There are entire populations of wildlife that live, breed, and transit from Birch Island through Bent Creek to Purgatory Creek. My husband and I have had red tailed hawks nest and breed in our back yard. We had a pair of fox breed here and send out two young ones. In addition we regularly see pilated woodpeckers, broad winged hawks, sharp shinned hawks ground hogs, raccoon, numerous types of owls, flying squirrels, 5 other types of woodpeckers, red and gray squirrels, chipmunks, ducks, turkeys, and at least a 100 types of birds. Any development of the course will impact the territory, migration, and habitat of this areas wildlife. Lots of these animals hover and feed on the small creatures transiting the open area. As City Council Members you have so much power. Yet remember there was a great promise that was genuinely intended to be upheld by the Eden Land Corp. and the City of Eden Prairie. The crucial consideration was an economic and environmental balance and an agreement was struck to achieve that balance. Who really has the right to break that promise made by both parties? Sincerely, Victoria A. Rolf 6890 Canterbury Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Quotes from the Edenvale Planned Unit Development on file with the City of Eden Prairie. Some of the strongest statements are in bold for quick referral: July 7, 1970 Eden Prairie Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Peterson presented a number of documents designating the public and quasi public open spaces and noted that they represented 24% of the total 980 acre project. The proposal included about 63 acres of public land including a 22 acre combination elementary school and neighborhood park site. About 18 acres of the public land was located within the flood plain of Purgatory Creek. He said that the project also contained approximately 52 acres of private open space. ...Mr. Bonner...said that he did not feel that the portion of property contained within the flood plain of the creek should be considered as public land for the purposes of determining the 5% land dedication. He asked for darification of the ownership, use and maintenance of the proposed private open spaces.... He suggested that additional park space be provided along the creek and east of the Baker Road extension in order to provide park service to the large office complex proposed in that area.... August 25, 1970 Eden Prairie Village Council minutes. Mr. Peterson... He also noted that their application stated their commitment to maintain the golf course within the development. July 9, 1970 Planning and Zoning Commission report. Item 4.. .Eden Land Corporation has indicated that it will not be the developer for the entire 1,000 acre project. They will, instead, sell parcels of the land to other developers. These developers must be subject to the same review procedures that Edenvale underwent. The density and percentage coverage controls should be likewise applicable. By utilizing these controls the Village will be able to retain the high quality of development initially indicated by Edenvale....Land Use. Residential. Considering the nature of this specific single family situation it is the recommendation of the staff that the 2 units/acre maximum be waived. The golf course supplies more than adequate open space and the lots conform to the 13,500 square feet minimum. An alternative to this would be a new classification without the two units per acre maximum. The 18% building coverage proposed in this classification is acceptable. Continued. Quasi-Public. The 115 acre golf course is a major quasi public space. Eden Land Corporation will issue assurance on the golf course which will guarantee its use as recreational land and prohibit its future development as building sites. August 1, 1970 Edenvale Fact Sheet. There will be an 18 hole complete public golf course and practice range located within this area which will provide recreational facilities for residents of the area as well as the southwest metropolitan region....This concept can provide private living facilities with adequate open space for all by grouping units together and leaving open space for the enjoyment of all. This concept fits well with the beautiful rolling wooded hills in Edenvale and will result in relatively little grading which results in the saving of natural vegetation and trees. No Date, Eden Land Corporation Fact Sheet. Edenvale, a new community ecologically planned for living in the future. What Is It? Edenvale is a planned community development so large it can provide a full range of land uses, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial; designed so the natural features, the wooded hills, streams, ponds and greenery will remain unspoiled....Edenvale is the planned community proposed by Eden Land Corporation, a corporation formed to assemble large tracts of land, have proper land use designated and obtain proper zoning. The land will then be sold with deed restrictions to others who will develop the property according to the accepted land use plan.. ..A community planning and landscape architecture firm — Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman Inc. -- was retained to do the detailed planning of the community in consultation with environmentalists, ecologists and naturalists. June 17, 1970 Eden Land Corp News Release. Edenvale is naturally divided into three areas by dramatic elevation differences as well as woods, ponds and Purgatory Creek, a bubbling trout steam which courses through the properties. "These natural features made planning a 1970's ecological approach fascinating," said George I. Burkards, chief planner. "We believe we are pioneering in the sane methods that society must adopt for living in the future... .The golf course for Edenvale is already in existence, in the form of a 27 hole public course. While the course will remain public and within tree covered walking distance, the course will be completely redesigned to a more spacious 18 holes and a practice range to fit into the surrounding development. ...Quasi Public. Eden Land Corporation will issue assurances on the eighteen hole golf course which will guarantee its use as recreational land so that it will not be developed into building sites. No Date, Edenvale, Summary of provisions to provide ownership and responsibility for maintenance of open space. The Eden Prairie Golf Club will be retained and changed into a quality 18 hole golf course with a practice range. This course will be provided as a public course owned, maintained and operated by Eden Land Corporation or a subsidiary corporation. At some future date this course may be sold to a member association or corporation and will be operated for the residents and members as a private club; under all circumstances the land will be retained for recreational uses. August 25, 1970 Edenvale PUD Concept Stage Application, Second Supplement. Developer. The owner of Edenvaie is Eden Land Corporation, a corporation formed for the purpose of assembling large tracts of land on which the corporation will cause to have proper land use planning performed and will then obtain proper zoning on the land and will then sell land with proper deed restrictions to other individuals or corporations to develop the property according to the accepted land use plan.... Development Method. Eden Land Corporation will do all land planning and will resell the land with deed restrictions to limit development according to approved plans. Eden Land will join in development on certain portions through joint venture but the majority will be sold in large parcels to other developers with proper restrictions attached to ensure development according to a master plan....All of the open space provided in Edenvaie will be reserved for public use by restrictions placed on the deeds at the time of sale by Eden Land Corporation. July 25, 1972 Eden Prairie Village Council minutes. Revised Edenvale PUD (70-4) Concept Plan. Briefly, the changes to the 1970 land use plan are; the realignment of the fairways in Edenvale Golf Course. The original 115 gross acres of the proposed golf course has been surveyed at 109 gross acres today. August 13, 1972 Edenvale Features Planned Unit Development for Eden Prairie. article in Minneapolis Tribune. ...All will be built and planned in relationship to one another and the environmental features of the site will be preserved.... Now going up in Edenvale is Fairway Wood, a 105-unit luxury condominium apartment complex overlooking Purgatory Creek and the new Edenvale golf course... Fairway Wood...a direct view of the golf course with its meandering trout stream. September 15 1 1977 Land Dedication Requirements/Cash Park Fee Policies from Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services. When the City was considering the establishment of the Cash Park Fee we on staff suggested that the Preserve, Edenvale and Hidden Ponds be exempt from payment of the "Fee". The reason for our suggestion was that these 3 developments, while staged, had satisfied the City requirements for open space at the time at which they'd received concept approval. While a subsequent analysis (see attached) of their public open space dedication indicated that the Cash Park Fee would have yielded greater value to the City than the dedication - we felt that a "deal" had been cut and thus the City should stand by it. April 18 1 1978 City of Eden Prairie Resolution No. 78-22. The lands and facilities conveyed in connection with the original planned unit development of the Preserve and Edenvale comply fully with the park fee requirements of the City of Eden Prairie and no additional cash fee payment will be required with the original planned unit developments. All future developments proposed by the Preserve and Edenvale outside of the original PUD will be subject to the ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie as to the cash park fees. September 30, 1977 Cash Park Fee/ Park Land Dedication Policies. Memo. The City should not assess the Cash Park Fee in the Preserve, Edenvale and Hidden Ponds, providing these developers live up fully to their open space commitments. August 5, 1974 Letter to resident Judy S(unreadable) on Summerhill Drive from Eden Land Corporation. ...By approving the Edenvale planned unit development the City of Eden Prairie approved certain land uses, basic street and utility systems and open space patterns. The land uses were approved with an overall density stipulated to a maximum which could not be exceeded. Each parcel of land was approved for a basic density. Our financial models and land prices have been established according to these densities. Within Edenvale over 175 acres have been set aside as private or public open space or recreational land. The remainder is to be developed according to the land use plan adopted by the City. January 31, 1972 From Eden Land Corp. signed by Donald R. Peterson. Dear Neighbor: The enclosed packet of information is being sent to you so that you may be kept informed of the progress being made in Edenvale....The new Edenvale Golf Course has been completed and we expect to have it open for play in June; however, we will have a period where maintenance problems will exist until a good healthy turf can be established. No trespassing signs were placed around the golf course temporarily to prevent snowmobiles, mini bikes and horses from damaging this very tender new turf. These signs have helped considerably, but we hope we will not have to leave them in place. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. We hope this new golf course adjacent to your homes will give you pleasant scenery, and we feel it will greatly enhance the value of your land as well as ours. September 6, 1973 Letter to Council and Mayor from Edenvale Land Corp... .We have invested over one million dollars in our golf course to provide an amenity which will serve the community and will enhance the value of the adjacent property. Summary complete AArA Metropolitan Council lz"?"-Tftti January 8, 2007 Michael D. Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344- 2203 City of Eden Prairie -- Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) — Golf Courses Land Use Metropolitan Council Review File No. 18795-16 Metropolitan Council District 3 (Mary Hill Smith, 952-475-1388) Dear Mr. Franzen: The Metropolitan Council received the City's comprehensive plan amendment for review on December 6, 2006. The time has now lapsed on the Council's adjacent community notification period. The amendment adds language to the City's Plan that makes golf courses a separate land use category, and changes the land use for the following golf courses (Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath and Olympic Hills) to the new designation and changes the definition of "Quasi-Public". Council staff finds the amendment meets the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Administrative Review Guidelines adopted by the Council on May 11, 2005. Therefore, further action on this review is waived and the City may place this amendment into effect. The amendment, explanatory materials and the infoimation submission form will be appended to the City's Plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions about the information requested in this letter or about the review process, call Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Rep., at 651-602-1361. Sin;4ely, PhylliVianson, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council District 3 Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Representative Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator VAREVIEWS1Cornmunities1Eden Prairie Letters12.0061Eden Prairie 2006 CPA Golf Courses 18795-17 Admio Review.doc www.metrocouneil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • TN (651) 291-0904 r'in Equal Opportunity Employer CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Michael Franzen ITEM DESCRIPTION: Olympic Hills Golf Course Guide Plan Change & Rezoning ITEM NO.: VIII.C. Requested Action Move to: • Continue the public hearing for 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course 169.1 acres; from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres and from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres Move to: • Close the Public Hearing for the Guide Plan Change; and • Adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.71 acres and from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres Synopsis This is a continued item from the December 4, 2006 meeting. The Met Council approved the text amendment to add “golf course” as a land use on January 8, 2007. The existing golf course is guided Public/Quasi Public, and Low Density Residential. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. Before the City Council can take action to rezone the property to GC-Golf Course, the amendments to Chapter 11, which create the GC-Golf Course District, must have 1st and 2nd reading and be published in the official newspaper. The ordinance takes affect upon publication which could occur on January 25, 2007. The City Council should hold the public hearing on the guide plan change and take action on the resolution for the guide plan change tonight. The public hearing on the proposed rezoning of the property should be continued to the February 6, 2007 meeting Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the guide plan change at the November 13, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Staff report 3. Location Map 4. Existing Land Use Map 5. Proposed Land Use Map 6. Existing Zoning Map 7. Proposed Zoning Map 8. Planning Commission Minutes 9. Letter from Met Council OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007-____ 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 is an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan; 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: Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi Public to Golf Course; Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2007. ___________________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: November 3, 2006 SUBJECT: Olympic Hills Golf Course Guide Plan Change and Rezoning PETITIONER: City of Eden Prairie REQUEST: • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres. • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres. • Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169. 1 acres. • Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres. • Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acre COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The existing golf course is guided Public/Quasi Public, and Low Density Residential. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. REZONING The existing golf course is zoned Rural, R1-13.5, and RM- 6.5. The proposed zoning change is to GC – Golf Course. The golf course will be regulated by the performance standards as identified in the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following request: • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres. • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres. • Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169. 1 acres. • Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres. • Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acre Area Location Map - Olympic Hills Golf CourseGuide Plan Change & Rezoning 2006-28 No Scale Address: Olympic Hills Golf Course Pioneer Trail Franlo Rd Anderson Lakes Pkwy Olympic Hills Golf Course(SITE) Mt. Curve Rd Neil Lake Bennett Pl Neill Lake Anderson Lakes Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Existing City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Olympic Hills Golf Course Olympic Hills Golf Course Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Medium Density Residential/Office High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Office Office/Industrial Office/Public/Open Space Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Park/Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Church/ Cemetary Open Water Right-Of-Way DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 Neill Lake Anderson Lakes Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Proposed City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Olympic Hills Golf Course Olympic Hills Golf Course DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Medium Density Residential/Office High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Office Office/Industrial Office/Public/Open Space Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Park/Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Church/ Cemetary Open Water Right-Of-Way Golf Course NE RD Existing City of Eden Prairie Zoning MapOlympic Hills Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Olympic Hills Golf Course NE RD Proposed City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map Olympic Hills Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Golf Course Olympic Hills Golf Course APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig, Pitzrick and Rocheford. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Powell, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 2006 Powell had a revision to the minutes on page 5, paragraph 2. The first sentence should read, “Powell stated that all the sites should be changed to neighborhood commercial because this should be done to supply versatility to the residents.” MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Kirk abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AMEND CHAPTER 3 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN TO ADD GOLF COURSES AS A LAND USE & AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO GOLF COURSES Franzen presented the amendment. He stated that back in March of this year the City Council addressed the City requesting that they look at amending the City Code. On page 11 of the staff report are the Staff recommendations. They are as followed: 1. An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The terms “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. 2. Amendments Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills gold courses. 3. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, amending City Code, Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.B., tables 4 and 5, Subd., 3.3.H4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4, relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Franzen stated that the change would be for all of the golf courses in Eden Prairie. Powell asked Franzen why we would limit this to golf courses. He said instead of calling it “golf course” call it, “outdoor recreation”. Outdoor recreation would include such things as lawn bowling and horseback riding. Franzen stated that “golf course” was just addressed because that was what was asked to be addressed by the City Council. He also pointed out that in the future the guide plan could be changed to address outdoor recreation issues. Ric Rosow, Eden Prairie City Attorney, agreed with Franzen and stated that at this time we should address golf courses as “golf courses” and in the future the guide plan could be changed to include outdoor recreation with these areas. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 3 Stoelting asked Franzen if proper notification went out to all of the residents. Franzen stated that proper notification did go out. He pointed out that the minimum requirement is 500 feet from the area and the City went 1,000 feet from the area, and also posted it in the newspaper and on the City’s website. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Howard Roston, attorney representing Sam Herzog, owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course, stated that they are in opposition of this amendment. He presented Chair Stoelting with official documents. They include: 1. Letter from Mr. Herzog. 2. Letter from some of the other owners. 3. Affidavit from his law partner. 4. Letter from the law firm presenting their issues. 5. Information from DSU. 6. Information from appraisal company Mr. Roston stated that on behalf of Mr. Herzog, they are requesting that the Planning Commission delay action on this matter. Mr. Roston stated that the first issued he would like to address this evening is the timing of this matter. He pointed out that there are 530 acres that are subject to this amendment and that they have not had adequate time to get the appraiser out and address this issue. They are requesting a 30 day delay so they can analyze how this amendment change will affect Mr. Herzog. Mr. Roston said they would also like to see action on this amendment delayed until they can see the decision made by the Supreme Court on the case of Weinsman vs. City of Eagan. He stated that in this particular case, the landowners are arguing that action by the City was inappropriate. Mr. Roston also talked about the status to title of the Bent Creek Property. He stated that the majority of property is Torrens and when looking at the title to Bent Creek there is a lack of recorded restrictions to this property. Secondly, he addressed the City’s historical zoning and comprehensive plan. Mr . Roston added that had the owner looked at the zoning ordinance there would have been a designation of one unit per ten acres had he wanted to develop the property assuming that the golf course is no longer commercially viable which it is not. He pointed out that there is no limitation for something labeled “quasi- public”. Mr. Roston stated that limiting the use of this land to just “golf course” would not be very conducive to Mr. Herzog. Mr. Herzog is contemplating selling his property and feels that by labeling this piece of land as “golf course” would limit his selling potential. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Roston said that Shennah Appraising did some quick appraising of this land and the figures are devastating. He added that in Mr. Hertogs letter it states that the golf course is no longer economically viable use as a golf course, but would be would keep it open for a year but it is not economically viable and is not going to continued to lose money on the golf course forever. Mr. Roston feels that is should not be a function of the government to label land, such as “golf courses”. He stated that he feels it is unconstitutional for several different reasons. He stated that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the Mendota Heights decision stating that there was an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and because of this the Mendota Heights Planning Commission and City Council are negotiating a change with the developers. Mr. Roston would like to ask the Planning Commission to deny the recommendations by City Staff. Marilyn Michaels, attorney working with Sam Herzog, gave some history about Mr. Herzog. She stated that Mr. Herzog is 81 years old. His partner to the golf course passed away and currently the Bent Creek Golf Course is losing money. She pointed out that in March of 2005, she started working with the City and Mr. Franzen and Mr. Rosow because she stated that the golf course cannot continue operating and they would like to come to a resolution to this problem. She stated that coming to a resolution now would eliminate three to five years of litigation. Ms. Michaels stated that if the ordinance is passed in its present form, there will be legal action by Mr. Herzog. She also said that she was surprised that the first notice was given on October 31st to Mr. Herzog. Ms. Michaels stated that she realizes that the residents in this area want open space, but they need time to work on a resolution. She understands that the comprehensive plan and zoning need to be realigned, but feels that is does not have to be done tonight or in the near future. John Sharlowd, planning consultant, stated that he has written zoning plans in the past and also teaches zoning classes. He believes that by limiting this piece of land to a single use is unprecedented. He pointed out that in this area, there is an average of one golf course that is closing every month. He concluded by saying that he feels that the City and Bent Creek Golf Course should come up with a resolution to this issue. Steve Chelesnik, of 7269 Howard Lane, stated that he volunteered as a spokesperson tonight to express the opinion of the residents. He stated that in looking at this issue from the point of view of the adjacent landowners, they would like to see the amendment passed. He said the neighbors have purchased homes in the area under the promise that this land would always be a golf course. He pointed out that the owner could get 16 to 18 million for this land if it could be built on. He would like to see the promises honored to the community, regardless if Mr. Herzog said he was unaware of any promises. He also said that because the attorneys threatened the City with litigation, he feels the amendment should still be passed. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 5 Starr Bourguewyland, of 14267 Wedgeway Court, had one comment on permitted uses. He said that he would like to see the owner have permitted uses, like cross country skiing in the winter; which would be a source of income for the golf course. Otto Teiken, who has lived off of the 7th hole of Bent Creek for the past 32 years, stated that he paid $5,000 more for the position of his house. He believes the recommendation should go forward. Wilson Bryce, of 14418 Fairway Drive, is an architect and is sensitive to the aesthetics in the community. He stated that if this property were to be sold and redeveloped he would lose money on his property if he ever chose to sell it. Gary Everett, said that he is a long term resident of Eden Prairie and has seen many changes to the City. He said that he feels that the City should either purchase the property or work with the owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course to come up with a resolution. Dan Miller, of 7055 Howard Lane, stated that he supports the comments of Steve Chelesnik. He said that when the original developer wanted to create the PUD, there were some restrictions for open space to development. Now, 30 years later, it appears that the owner does not seem to want to uphold the promise. Mr. Miller feels that the owners of the Bent Creek Golf Course should have to uphold their promise and that he would like to see the City pass this amendment. John Brill, of 7384 Moonlight Lane, made a comment that he is concerned with the southwest quadrant of Bent Creek. He said this area floods a few times a year and he is concerned with the fertilization coming through Bent Creek. Rick Dorsey, of 14214 Green View Court, stated he feels that the land should not be developed in accordance with the PUD. He also believes that if the owners were to sell this piece of property that they would make more money on it than what they bought it for. He would also like to see the environmental issues addressed before any type of changes would be made. He stated that if the property was to be sold and developed on, this would lower the property value of homes around the area and they would also be burden with construction for the next few years. Victoria Rolf, a homeowner who lives on Bent Creek Court, stated that what she has heard tonight was that the owner wanted the passing of this amendment stalled for awhile to create a “win-win” situation for both the owner and homeowners. She stated that she would like to know what the “win-win” situation would be. She said that she is also concerned with the wildlife in the area and how it would be impacted with potential construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 6 Nancy Manderfeld, of 13600 Brook Lane, stated that she understands that Eden Prairie is 94.5% built and would like to know when enough is enough. She believes a simple resolution for the owner would be to sell the land. Mr. Roston, stated that he would like to address two issues. He said that he heard several references in regards to selling the property. He said that they have looked into that and have not found any potential buyers. He also said that they have not read any historical documents that would indicate that this land be used for open space. Stoelting reiterated the issues that were brought forward tonight. They are as follows: 1. Mr. Herzog is requesting a postponement of the decision tonight. 2. The status of the title – lack of record. 3. Issues with the PUD. 4. The question of the property owner not knowing the restrictions when he purchased the property. 5. Rural designation. 6. The use of property for uses other than open space. 7. Commitments to the community. 8. Land owners adjacent to the property and declining property values if the land were to be developed. 9. Concept of the City purchasing property. 10. Environmental issues. 11. How will the zoning issues today affect the PUD. 12. The issue of timing in relationship to this amendment. Ric Rosow addressed the issue of the Planning Commission waiting on a decision. He stated that as a Planning Commission, the members are not vested with the authority to extend the moritorium, but rather they are to make recommendations to the City Council. If the Planning Commission feels that this decision should be delayed then that would be a recommendation brought before the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the issue of the status of the title, he has not had the benefit to look through their title research. In regards to the issue of Torrens property, it is subject to zoning ordinances. He also said that there were previous commitments made in the original PUD. Franzen stated that in regards to the land owners that are adjacent to the property and the impact on property values, he stated that numerous factors have to be considered for the property value to be lowered, and that it would not just involve construction of adjacent property. Mr. Rosow stated to Commission that it cannot base its recommendation on unsupported statements made by residents that the development would have a negative impact on the neighboring land owners. He said that in regards to the City purchasing the property, that would be up to the decision of the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the environmental Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 7 issues, if the land were to be developed, there would have to be numerous environmental issues to be met. Franzen stated that all properties are subject to numerous environmental ordinances. Mr. Rosow said that in regards to PUD, the zoning of the property changing to golf course would be consistent with the PUD. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about the Weinsman ruling and what its impact would do. Mr. Rosow said that he is totally aware of the case, but if there was a decision made on it prior to a City Council decision, he would look at it, but he feels that the Commission should not wait for an outcome. Stoltz asked Ms. Michaels about the ‘win-win” situation, and what that would entail. She stated that there is a wetland area to the south and that could be made into a 9 hole public golf course that would generate revenue for the golf course and also allow non-members to play golf at this golf course. She also stated that there was some talk of a conservation easement to the north of the property. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about a law suit and what is the reality if it did happen. Mr. Rosow stated that the City does have insurance but it should not be a reason to pass or deny a proposal. Mr. Rosow pointed out that it does take quite a bit of Staff time if litigation would take place. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow if they have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Mr. Rosow stated that they do have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Stoelting asked about a continuance or delay of decision and how would Staff feel about that. Franzen stated that he would look at what the City Council requested them to do. He feels that Staff did do what they were suppose to do and would not see the need for a continuance. Stoelting reiterated the amendment and asked the Commission Members for their input. Seymour stated that he does not see a problem with changing the language of the ordinance, but asked if we could add the outdoor uses to the amendment. Mr. Rosow stated that if the Commission wanted to address outdoor uses that they should do so. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the following: An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The term “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 8 or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. Amendments to Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as and held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota amending City Code Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.Bl, tables 4 and 5, Subd. 3.3.H.4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4 relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Add croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, and ice skating, to the list of proposed permitted uses. Motion carried 6-0. . B. BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that since the Planning Commission adopted Item A, then this item, along with the subsequent golf course requests, needs to be individually addressed. Franzen stated that the Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rick Dorsey, a resident of Eden Prairie, stated that his only concern is to make sure that as a PUD it has only zoning applied to the property. He stated that he does not want it re-zoned, other than the original PUD. Stoelting asked if the approval of the guide plan change would affect the original PUD. Mr. Rosow stated it would affect the original PUD because it would be zoned golf course, but the other property would be unaffected. He also stated that this action would change the zoning of property from rural to golf course. Mr. Rosow reiterated that PUD is not changing but rather zoning. Brooks Halvorson, of 14348 Fairway Drive, had the same concerns as Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Rosow reiterated that the PUD would not change but rather the underlying zoning on the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 9 MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Motion carried 6-0. C. BEARPATH GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rodney Hardy, secretary and owner of the Bearpath Golf Association, stated that Bearpath is concerned about retaining this facility as a private venture. He stated that they rely on memberships and have to be accommodating to them as users of the golf course. Mr. Hardy pointed out that they are a golf and country club and because of that, they may have different issues. He stated that one concern is parking; as the membership grows they may need more parking. He also stated that there are some additional uses that they would like to have; such as, skateboarding, soccer, or softball. Mr. Hardy stated that he would like to know how that would be protected. He said he would also like to know that if something happened to a public building on the property, for an example, a fire, that they would be able to rebuild it to its current state. John Downey, manager of Bearpath Golf Association, reiterated what Mr. Hardy said. Mr. Downey said that he would like to be able to supply a list of additional activities to the Planning Commission. Stoelting apologized to Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey for not realizing that they wanted to speak during the initial amendment proposal. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the issues brought forth by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey. Franzen stated that he will not prohibit uses like baseball or soccer, or any other similar additional use. He stated that it would be beneficial to address the recreational uses prior to going to the City Council. Franzen said that in regards to the buildings, the City would not request additional rezoning but they would just have to come back for building permits. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 10 Powell stated that any recreational sport that can be played in a park should be allowed here also. He stated that he felt each “open space area” should be able to have non-motorized recreation activities. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Kirk asked how the Commission wants to address the usage issue that was brought forward in the public discussion. Franzen stated that action should be taken on the first motion and then make a second motion to cover this issue. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to ask the City Staff to recommend appropriate language for additional uses to be added to the amendment in conjunction with zoning and guide plan changed brought for to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0. D. OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 11 E. GLEN LAKE GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; and Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Motion carried 6-0. F. BECKER REZONING by Lee and Carri Becker. Request for: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .083 acres. Location is 9795 Bluff Road. Carrie Becker presented the proposal. She stated that the house they are currently living in was built in 1980 and that is was never in compliance with zoning regulations. They are bringing forth their proposal tonight to get their home properly re-zoned. She stated that they found this discrepancy when they started to remodel their home. Mr. Becker illustrated the setbacks using the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen if by rezoning to R1-13.5 would there be any zoning inconsistencies. Franzen stated there would not be any inconsistencies. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff recommendation is for approval. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .83 acres based on the staff report dated November 10, 2006, and plans stamped dated October 20, 2006. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Franzen stated that for the November 27, 2006, meeting, there will be one public hearing for a proposal for an office building and a Guide Plan Update on Transportation. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 12 IX. MEMBERS REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. AArA Metropolitan Council lz"?"-Tftti January 8, 2007 Michael D. Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344- 2203 City of Eden Prairie -- Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) — Golf Courses Land Use Metropolitan Council Review File No. 18795-16 Metropolitan Council District 3 (Mary Hill Smith, 952-475-1388) Dear Mr. Franzen: The Metropolitan Council received the City's comprehensive plan amendment for review on December 6, 2006. The time has now lapsed on the Council's adjacent community notification period. The amendment adds language to the City's Plan that makes golf courses a separate land use category, and changes the land use for the following golf courses (Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath and Olympic Hills) to the new designation and changes the definition of "Quasi-Public". Council staff finds the amendment meets the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Administrative Review Guidelines adopted by the Council on May 11, 2005. Therefore, further action on this review is waived and the City may place this amendment into effect. The amendment, explanatory materials and the infoimation submission form will be appended to the City's Plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions about the information requested in this letter or about the review process, call Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Rep., at 651-602-1361. Sin;4ely, PhylliVianson, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council District 3 Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Representative Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator VAREVIEWS1Cornmunities1Eden Prairie Letters12.0061Eden Prairie 2006 CPA Golf Courses 18795-17 Admio Review.doc www.metrocouneil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • TN (651) 291-0904 r'in Equal Opportunity Employer CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Michael Franzen ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bearpath Golf Course Guide Plan Change & Rezoning ITEM NO.: VIII.D. Requested Action Move to: • Continue the public hearing for 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course 198.04 acres to the February 6, 2007 meeting. Move to: • Close the Public Hearing for the Guide Plan Change; and • Adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres and from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres Synopsis This is a continued item from the December 4, 2006 meeting. The Met Council approved the text amendment to add “golf course” as a land use on January 8, 2007. The existing golf course is guided Public/Quasi Public and Low Density Residential. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. Before the City Council can take action to rezone the property to GC-Golf Course, the amendments to Chapter 11, which create the GC-Golf Course District, must have 1st and 2nd reading and be published in the official newspaper. The ordinance takes affect upon publication which could occur on January 25, 2007. The City Council should hold the public hearing on the guide plan change and take action on the resolution for the guide plan change tonight. The public hearing on the proposed rezoning of the property should be continued to the February 6, 2007 meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the guide plan change at the November 13, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Staff report 3. Location Map 4. Existing Land Use Map 5. Proposed Land Use Map 6. Existing Zoning Map 7. Proposed Zoning Map 8. Planning Commission Minutes 9. Letter from Met Council BEARPATH GOLF COURSE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 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 is an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 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: Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2007. ___________________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: November 3, 2006 SUBJECT: Bearpath Golf Course Guide Plan Change and Rezoning PETITIONER: City of Eden Prairie LOCATION: REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres. 2. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres. 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The existing golf course is guided Public/Quasi Public and Low Density Residential. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. REZONING The existing golf course is zoned Rural .The proposed zoning change is to GC – Golf Course. The golf course will be regulated by the performance standards as identified in the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following request: • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres. • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres. • Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Area Location Map - Bearpath Golf CourseGuide Plan Change & Rezoning 2006-25 No Scale Address: Bearpath Golf Course Bearpath Tr Pioneer Tr Dell Rd HCLRTA Lake Riley Riley Lake Rd Bearpath Golf Course(SITE) Rice Marsh Lake Lake Riley Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Existing City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Bearpath Golf Course Bearpath Golf Course Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Medium Density Residential/Office High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Office Office/Industrial Office/Public/Open Space Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Park/Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Church/ Cemetary Open Water Right-Of-Way DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 Rice Marsh Lake Lake Riley Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Proposed City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Bearpath Golf Course Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/AcreLow Density/Public/Open SpaceMedium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/AcreMedium Density Residential/OfficeHigh Density Residential 10-40 Units/AcreOfficeOffice/IndustrialOffice/Public/Open SpaceIndustrial Neighborhood CommercialCommunity CommercialRegional CommercialPark/Open SpacePublic/Quasi-PublicChurch/ CemetaryOpen WaterRight-Of-WayGolf Course Bearpath Golf Course DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 NE RD Existing City of Eden Prairie Zoning MapBearpath Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Bearpath GolfCourse NE RD Proposed City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map Bearpath Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Golf Course Bearpath GolfCourse APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig, Pitzrick and Rocheford. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Powell, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 2006 Powell had a revision to the minutes on page 5, paragraph 2. The first sentence should read, “Powell stated that all the sites should be changed to neighborhood commercial because this should be done to supply versatility to the residents.” MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Kirk abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AMEND CHAPTER 3 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN TO ADD GOLF COURSES AS A LAND USE & AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO GOLF COURSES Franzen presented the amendment. He stated that back in March of this year the City Council addressed the City requesting that they look at amending the City Code. On page 11 of the staff report are the Staff recommendations. They are as followed: 1. An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The terms “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. 2. Amendments Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills gold courses. 3. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, amending City Code, Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.B., tables 4 and 5, Subd., 3.3.H4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4, relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Franzen stated that the change would be for all of the golf courses in Eden Prairie. Powell asked Franzen why we would limit this to golf courses. He said instead of calling it “golf course” call it, “outdoor recreation”. Outdoor recreation would include such things as lawn bowling and horseback riding. Franzen stated that “golf course” was just addressed because that was what was asked to be addressed by the City Council. He also pointed out that in the future the guide plan could be changed to address outdoor recreation issues. Ric Rosow, Eden Prairie City Attorney, agreed with Franzen and stated that at this time we should address golf courses as “golf courses” and in the future the guide plan could be changed to include outdoor recreation with these areas. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 3 Stoelting asked Franzen if proper notification went out to all of the residents. Franzen stated that proper notification did go out. He pointed out that the minimum requirement is 500 feet from the area and the City went 1,000 feet from the area, and also posted it in the newspaper and on the City’s website. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Howard Roston, attorney representing Sam Herzog, owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course, stated that they are in opposition of this amendment. He presented Chair Stoelting with official documents. They include: 1. Letter from Mr. Herzog. 2. Letter from some of the other owners. 3. Affidavit from his law partner. 4. Letter from the law firm presenting their issues. 5. Information from DSU. 6. Information from appraisal company Mr. Roston stated that on behalf of Mr. Herzog, they are requesting that the Planning Commission delay action on this matter. Mr. Roston stated that the first issued he would like to address this evening is the timing of this matter. He pointed out that there are 530 acres that are subject to this amendment and that they have not had adequate time to get the appraiser out and address this issue. They are requesting a 30 day delay so they can analyze how this amendment change will affect Mr. Herzog. Mr. Roston said they would also like to see action on this amendment delayed until they can see the decision made by the Supreme Court on the case of Weinsman vs. City of Eagan. He stated that in this particular case, the landowners are arguing that action by the City was inappropriate. Mr. Roston also talked about the status to title of the Bent Creek Property. He stated that the majority of property is Torrens and when looking at the title to Bent Creek there is a lack of recorded restrictions to this property. Secondly, he addressed the City’s historical zoning and comprehensive plan. Mr . Roston added that had the owner looked at the zoning ordinance there would have been a designation of one unit per ten acres had he wanted to develop the property assuming that the golf course is no longer commercially viable which it is not. He pointed out that there is no limitation for something labeled “quasi- public”. Mr. Roston stated that limiting the use of this land to just “golf course” would not be very conducive to Mr. Herzog. Mr. Herzog is contemplating selling his property and feels that by labeling this piece of land as “golf course” would limit his selling potential. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Roston said that Shennah Appraising did some quick appraising of this land and the figures are devastating. He added that in Mr. Hertogs letter it states that the golf course is no longer economically viable use as a golf course, but would be would keep it open for a year but it is not economically viable and is not going to continued to lose money on the golf course forever. Mr. Roston feels that is should not be a function of the government to label land, such as “golf courses”. He stated that he feels it is unconstitutional for several different reasons. He stated that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the Mendota Heights decision stating that there was an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and because of this the Mendota Heights Planning Commission and City Council are negotiating a change with the developers. Mr. Roston would like to ask the Planning Commission to deny the recommendations by City Staff. Marilyn Michaels, attorney working with Sam Herzog, gave some history about Mr. Herzog. She stated that Mr. Herzog is 81 years old. His partner to the golf course passed away and currently the Bent Creek Golf Course is losing money. She pointed out that in March of 2005, she started working with the City and Mr. Franzen and Mr. Rosow because she stated that the golf course cannot continue operating and they would like to come to a resolution to this problem. She stated that coming to a resolution now would eliminate three to five years of litigation. Ms. Michaels stated that if the ordinance is passed in its present form, there will be legal action by Mr. Herzog. She also said that she was surprised that the first notice was given on October 31st to Mr. Herzog. Ms. Michaels stated that she realizes that the residents in this area want open space, but they need time to work on a resolution. She understands that the comprehensive plan and zoning need to be realigned, but feels that is does not have to be done tonight or in the near future. John Sharlowd, planning consultant, stated that he has written zoning plans in the past and also teaches zoning classes. He believes that by limiting this piece of land to a single use is unprecedented. He pointed out that in this area, there is an average of one golf course that is closing every month. He concluded by saying that he feels that the City and Bent Creek Golf Course should come up with a resolution to this issue. Steve Chelesnik, of 7269 Howard Lane, stated that he volunteered as a spokesperson tonight to express the opinion of the residents. He stated that in looking at this issue from the point of view of the adjacent landowners, they would like to see the amendment passed. He said the neighbors have purchased homes in the area under the promise that this land would always be a golf course. He pointed out that the owner could get 16 to 18 million for this land if it could be built on. He would like to see the promises honored to the community, regardless if Mr. Herzog said he was unaware of any promises. He also said that because the attorneys threatened the City with litigation, he feels the amendment should still be passed. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 5 Starr Bourguewyland, of 14267 Wedgeway Court, had one comment on permitted uses. He said that he would like to see the owner have permitted uses, like cross country skiing in the winter; which would be a source of income for the golf course. Otto Teiken, who has lived off of the 7th hole of Bent Creek for the past 32 years, stated that he paid $5,000 more for the position of his house. He believes the recommendation should go forward. Wilson Bryce, of 14418 Fairway Drive, is an architect and is sensitive to the aesthetics in the community. He stated that if this property were to be sold and redeveloped he would lose money on his property if he ever chose to sell it. Gary Everett, said that he is a long term resident of Eden Prairie and has seen many changes to the City. He said that he feels that the City should either purchase the property or work with the owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course to come up with a resolution. Dan Miller, of 7055 Howard Lane, stated that he supports the comments of Steve Chelesnik. He said that when the original developer wanted to create the PUD, there were some restrictions for open space to development. Now, 30 years later, it appears that the owner does not seem to want to uphold the promise. Mr. Miller feels that the owners of the Bent Creek Golf Course should have to uphold their promise and that he would like to see the City pass this amendment. John Brill, of 7384 Moonlight Lane, made a comment that he is concerned with the southwest quadrant of Bent Creek. He said this area floods a few times a year and he is concerned with the fertilization coming through Bent Creek. Rick Dorsey, of 14214 Green View Court, stated he feels that the land should not be developed in accordance with the PUD. He also believes that if the owners were to sell this piece of property that they would make more money on it than what they bought it for. He would also like to see the environmental issues addressed before any type of changes would be made. He stated that if the property was to be sold and developed on, this would lower the property value of homes around the area and they would also be burden with construction for the next few years. Victoria Rolf, a homeowner who lives on Bent Creek Court, stated that what she has heard tonight was that the owner wanted the passing of this amendment stalled for awhile to create a “win-win” situation for both the owner and homeowners. She stated that she would like to know what the “win-win” situation would be. She said that she is also concerned with the wildlife in the area and how it would be impacted with potential construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 6 Nancy Manderfeld, of 13600 Brook Lane, stated that she understands that Eden Prairie is 94.5% built and would like to know when enough is enough. She believes a simple resolution for the owner would be to sell the land. Mr. Roston, stated that he would like to address two issues. He said that he heard several references in regards to selling the property. He said that they have looked into that and have not found any potential buyers. He also said that they have not read any historical documents that would indicate that this land be used for open space. Stoelting reiterated the issues that were brought forward tonight. They are as follows: 1. Mr. Herzog is requesting a postponement of the decision tonight. 2. The status of the title – lack of record. 3. Issues with the PUD. 4. The question of the property owner not knowing the restrictions when he purchased the property. 5. Rural designation. 6. The use of property for uses other than open space. 7. Commitments to the community. 8. Land owners adjacent to the property and declining property values if the land were to be developed. 9. Concept of the City purchasing property. 10. Environmental issues. 11. How will the zoning issues today affect the PUD. 12. The issue of timing in relationship to this amendment. Ric Rosow addressed the issue of the Planning Commission waiting on a decision. He stated that as a Planning Commission, the members are not vested with the authority to extend the moritorium, but rather they are to make recommendations to the City Council. If the Planning Commission feels that this decision should be delayed then that would be a recommendation brought before the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the issue of the status of the title, he has not had the benefit to look through their title research. In regards to the issue of Torrens property, it is subject to zoning ordinances. He also said that there were previous commitments made in the original PUD. Franzen stated that in regards to the land owners that are adjacent to the property and the impact on property values, he stated that numerous factors have to be considered for the property value to be lowered, and that it would not just involve construction of adjacent property. Mr. Rosow stated to Commission that it cannot base its recommendation on unsupported statements made by residents that the development would have a negative impact on the neighboring land owners. He said that in regards to the City purchasing the property, that would be up to the decision of the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the environmental Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 7 issues, if the land were to be developed, there would have to be numerous environmental issues to be met. Franzen stated that all properties are subject to numerous environmental ordinances. Mr. Rosow said that in regards to PUD, the zoning of the property changing to golf course would be consistent with the PUD. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about the Weinsman ruling and what its impact would do. Mr. Rosow said that he is totally aware of the case, but if there was a decision made on it prior to a City Council decision, he would look at it, but he feels that the Commission should not wait for an outcome. Stoltz asked Ms. Michaels about the ‘win-win” situation, and what that would entail. She stated that there is a wetland area to the south and that could be made into a 9 hole public golf course that would generate revenue for the golf course and also allow non-members to play golf at this golf course. She also stated that there was some talk of a conservation easement to the north of the property. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about a law suit and what is the reality if it did happen. Mr. Rosow stated that the City does have insurance but it should not be a reason to pass or deny a proposal. Mr. Rosow pointed out that it does take quite a bit of Staff time if litigation would take place. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow if they have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Mr. Rosow stated that they do have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Stoelting asked about a continuance or delay of decision and how would Staff feel about that. Franzen stated that he would look at what the City Council requested them to do. He feels that Staff did do what they were suppose to do and would not see the need for a continuance. Stoelting reiterated the amendment and asked the Commission Members for their input. Seymour stated that he does not see a problem with changing the language of the ordinance, but asked if we could add the outdoor uses to the amendment. Mr. Rosow stated that if the Commission wanted to address outdoor uses that they should do so. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the following: An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The term “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 8 or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. Amendments to Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as and held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota amending City Code Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.Bl, tables 4 and 5, Subd. 3.3.H.4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4 relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Add croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, and ice skating, to the list of proposed permitted uses. Motion carried 6-0. . B. BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that since the Planning Commission adopted Item A, then this item, along with the subsequent golf course requests, needs to be individually addressed. Franzen stated that the Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rick Dorsey, a resident of Eden Prairie, stated that his only concern is to make sure that as a PUD it has only zoning applied to the property. He stated that he does not want it re-zoned, other than the original PUD. Stoelting asked if the approval of the guide plan change would affect the original PUD. Mr. Rosow stated it would affect the original PUD because it would be zoned golf course, but the other property would be unaffected. He also stated that this action would change the zoning of property from rural to golf course. Mr. Rosow reiterated that PUD is not changing but rather zoning. Brooks Halvorson, of 14348 Fairway Drive, had the same concerns as Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Rosow reiterated that the PUD would not change but rather the underlying zoning on the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 9 MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Motion carried 6-0. C. BEARPATH GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rodney Hardy, secretary and owner of the Bearpath Golf Association, stated that Bearpath is concerned about retaining this facility as a private venture. He stated that they rely on memberships and have to be accommodating to them as users of the golf course. Mr. Hardy pointed out that they are a golf and country club and because of that, they may have different issues. He stated that one concern is parking; as the membership grows they may need more parking. He also stated that there are some additional uses that they would like to have; such as, skateboarding, soccer, or softball. Mr. Hardy stated that he would like to know how that would be protected. He said he would also like to know that if something happened to a public building on the property, for an example, a fire, that they would be able to rebuild it to its current state. John Downey, manager of Bearpath Golf Association, reiterated what Mr. Hardy said. Mr. Downey said that he would like to be able to supply a list of additional activities to the Planning Commission. Stoelting apologized to Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey for not realizing that they wanted to speak during the initial amendment proposal. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the issues brought forth by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey. Franzen stated that he will not prohibit uses like baseball or soccer, or any other similar additional use. He stated that it would be beneficial to address the recreational uses prior to going to the City Council. Franzen said that in regards to the buildings, the City would not request additional rezoning but they would just have to come back for building permits. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 10 Powell stated that any recreational sport that can be played in a park should be allowed here also. He stated that he felt each “open space area” should be able to have non-motorized recreation activities. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Kirk asked how the Commission wants to address the usage issue that was brought forward in the public discussion. Franzen stated that action should be taken on the first motion and then make a second motion to cover this issue. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to ask the City Staff to recommend appropriate language for additional uses to be added to the amendment in conjunction with zoning and guide plan changed brought for to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0. D. OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 11 E. GLEN LAKE GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; and Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Motion carried 6-0. F. BECKER REZONING by Lee and Carri Becker. Request for: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .083 acres. Location is 9795 Bluff Road. Carrie Becker presented the proposal. She stated that the house they are currently living in was built in 1980 and that is was never in compliance with zoning regulations. They are bringing forth their proposal tonight to get their home properly re-zoned. She stated that they found this discrepancy when they started to remodel their home. Mr. Becker illustrated the setbacks using the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen if by rezoning to R1-13.5 would there be any zoning inconsistencies. Franzen stated there would not be any inconsistencies. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff recommendation is for approval. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .83 acres based on the staff report dated November 10, 2006, and plans stamped dated October 20, 2006. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Franzen stated that for the November 27, 2006, meeting, there will be one public hearing for a proposal for an office building and a Guide Plan Update on Transportation. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 12 IX. MEMBERS REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. AArA Metropolitan Council lz"?"-Tftti January 8, 2007 Michael D. Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344- 2203 City of Eden Prairie -- Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) — Golf Courses Land Use Metropolitan Council Review File No. 18795-16 Metropolitan Council District 3 (Mary Hill Smith, 952-475-1388) Dear Mr. Franzen: The Metropolitan Council received the City's comprehensive plan amendment for review on December 6, 2006. The time has now lapsed on the Council's adjacent community notification period. The amendment adds language to the City's Plan that makes golf courses a separate land use category, and changes the land use for the following golf courses (Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath and Olympic Hills) to the new designation and changes the definition of "Quasi-Public". Council staff finds the amendment meets the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Administrative Review Guidelines adopted by the Council on May 11, 2005. Therefore, further action on this review is waived and the City may place this amendment into effect. The amendment, explanatory materials and the infoimation submission form will be appended to the City's Plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions about the information requested in this letter or about the review process, call Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Rep., at 651-602-1361. Sin;4ely, PhylliVianson, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council District 3 Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Representative Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator VAREVIEWS1Cornmunities1Eden Prairie Letters12.0061Eden Prairie 2006 CPA Golf Courses 18795-17 Admio Review.doc www.metrocouneil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • TN (651) 291-0904 r'in Equal Opportunity Employer CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Michael Franzen ITEM DESCRIPTION: Glen Lake Golf Course Guide Plan Change & Rezoning ITEM NO.: VIII.E. Requested Action Move to: • Continue the public hearing for 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course 50.39 acres to the February 6, 2007 meeting. Move to: • Close the Public Hearing for the Guide Plan Change; and • Adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres Synopsis This is a continued item from the December 4, 2006 meeting. The Met Council approved the text amendment to add “golf course” as a land use on January 8, 2007. The existing golf course is guided Parks/Open Space. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. Before the City Council can take action to rezone the property to GC-Golf Course, the amendments to Chapter 11, which create the GC-Golf Course District, must have 1st and 2nd reading and be published in the official newspaper. The ordinance takes affect upon publication which could occur on January 25, 2007. The City Council should hold the public hearing on the guide plan change and take action on the resolution for the guide plan change tonight. The public hearing on the proposed rezoning of the property should be continued to the February 6, 2007 meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the guide plan change at the November 13, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Staff report 3. Location Map 4. Existing Land Use Map 5. Proposed Land Use Map 6. Existing Zoning Map 7. Proposed Zoning Map 8. Planning Commission Minutes 9. Letter from Met Council GLEN LAKE GOLF COURSE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007-____ 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 is an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan; 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: Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2007 ___________________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: November 3, 2006 SUBJECT: Glen Lake Golf Course Guide Plan Change and Rezoning PETITIONER: City of Eden Prairie REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Parks/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres 2. Rezoning from Public to GC- Golf Course on 50.69 acres COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The existing golf course is guided Parks/Open Space. The proposed guide plan change is to Golf Course. REZONING The existing golf course is Public. The proposed zoning change is to GC – Golf Course. The golf course will be regulated by the performance standards as identified in the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following request: • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Parks/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. • Rezoning from Public to GC- Golf Course on 50.69 acres Area Location Map - Glen Lake Golf Course Guide Plan Change & Rezoning 2006-27 No Scale Address: Glen Lake Golf Course Co. Rd. 62 Twin Cities & Western R.R. HCLRTA Indian Chief Rd Birch IslandLake Eden Prairie Rd Edenvale Blvd Glen Lake Golf Course(SITE) Minnetonka Birch Island Lake Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Existing City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Glen Lake Golf Course Glen Lake Golf Course Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Medium Density Residential/Office High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Office Office/Industrial Office/Public/Open Space Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Park/Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Church/ Cemetary Open Water Right-Of-Way DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 Birch Island Lake Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA)CreeksPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector Proposed City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map Glen Lake Golf Course Glen Lake Golf Course Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Medium Density Residential/Office High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Office Office/Industrial Office/Public/Open Space Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Park/Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Church/ Cemetary Open Water Right-Of-Way Golf Course DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06 RD Existing City of Eden Prairie Zoning MapGlen Lake Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Glen Lake Golf Course RD Glen Lake Golf Course Proposed City of Eden Prairie Zoning MapGlen Lake Golf Course In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Highway #312 West of County Road #4 is proposed and under construction at this time.Up dated through Ordinance #23-2006 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: September 25, 2006 Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Water Right-of-Way Chanhassen City limits Golf Course APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig, Pitzrick and Rocheford. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Powell, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 2006 Powell had a revision to the minutes on page 5, paragraph 2. The first sentence should read, “Powell stated that all the sites should be changed to neighborhood commercial because this should be done to supply versatility to the residents.” MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Kirk abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AMEND CHAPTER 3 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN TO ADD GOLF COURSES AS A LAND USE & AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO GOLF COURSES Franzen presented the amendment. He stated that back in March of this year the City Council addressed the City requesting that they look at amending the City Code. On page 11 of the staff report are the Staff recommendations. They are as followed: 1. An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The terms “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. 2. Amendments Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as land held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills gold courses. 3. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, amending City Code, Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.B., tables 4 and 5, Subd., 3.3.H4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4, relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Franzen stated that the change would be for all of the golf courses in Eden Prairie. Powell asked Franzen why we would limit this to golf courses. He said instead of calling it “golf course” call it, “outdoor recreation”. Outdoor recreation would include such things as lawn bowling and horseback riding. Franzen stated that “golf course” was just addressed because that was what was asked to be addressed by the City Council. He also pointed out that in the future the guide plan could be changed to address outdoor recreation issues. Ric Rosow, Eden Prairie City Attorney, agreed with Franzen and stated that at this time we should address golf courses as “golf courses” and in the future the guide plan could be changed to include outdoor recreation with these areas. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 3 Stoelting asked Franzen if proper notification went out to all of the residents. Franzen stated that proper notification did go out. He pointed out that the minimum requirement is 500 feet from the area and the City went 1,000 feet from the area, and also posted it in the newspaper and on the City’s website. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Howard Roston, attorney representing Sam Herzog, owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course, stated that they are in opposition of this amendment. He presented Chair Stoelting with official documents. They include: 1. Letter from Mr. Herzog. 2. Letter from some of the other owners. 3. Affidavit from his law partner. 4. Letter from the law firm presenting their issues. 5. Information from DSU. 6. Information from appraisal company Mr. Roston stated that on behalf of Mr. Herzog, they are requesting that the Planning Commission delay action on this matter. Mr. Roston stated that the first issued he would like to address this evening is the timing of this matter. He pointed out that there are 530 acres that are subject to this amendment and that they have not had adequate time to get the appraiser out and address this issue. They are requesting a 30 day delay so they can analyze how this amendment change will affect Mr. Herzog. Mr. Roston said they would also like to see action on this amendment delayed until they can see the decision made by the Supreme Court on the case of Weinsman vs. City of Eagan. He stated that in this particular case, the landowners are arguing that action by the City was inappropriate. Mr. Roston also talked about the status to title of the Bent Creek Property. He stated that the majority of property is Torrens and when looking at the title to Bent Creek there is a lack of recorded restrictions to this property. Secondly, he addressed the City’s historical zoning and comprehensive plan. Mr . Roston added that had the owner looked at the zoning ordinance there would have been a designation of one unit per ten acres had he wanted to develop the property assuming that the golf course is no longer commercially viable which it is not. He pointed out that there is no limitation for something labeled “quasi- public”. Mr. Roston stated that limiting the use of this land to just “golf course” would not be very conducive to Mr. Herzog. Mr. Herzog is contemplating selling his property and feels that by labeling this piece of land as “golf course” would limit his selling potential. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Roston said that Shennah Appraising did some quick appraising of this land and the figures are devastating. He added that in Mr. Hertogs letter it states that the golf course is no longer economically viable use as a golf course, but would be would keep it open for a year but it is not economically viable and is not going to continued to lose money on the golf course forever. Mr. Roston feels that is should not be a function of the government to label land, such as “golf courses”. He stated that he feels it is unconstitutional for several different reasons. He stated that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on the Mendota Heights decision stating that there was an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and because of this the Mendota Heights Planning Commission and City Council are negotiating a change with the developers. Mr. Roston would like to ask the Planning Commission to deny the recommendations by City Staff. Marilyn Michaels, attorney working with Sam Herzog, gave some history about Mr. Herzog. She stated that Mr. Herzog is 81 years old. His partner to the golf course passed away and currently the Bent Creek Golf Course is losing money. She pointed out that in March of 2005, she started working with the City and Mr. Franzen and Mr. Rosow because she stated that the golf course cannot continue operating and they would like to come to a resolution to this problem. She stated that coming to a resolution now would eliminate three to five years of litigation. Ms. Michaels stated that if the ordinance is passed in its present form, there will be legal action by Mr. Herzog. She also said that she was surprised that the first notice was given on October 31st to Mr. Herzog. Ms. Michaels stated that she realizes that the residents in this area want open space, but they need time to work on a resolution. She understands that the comprehensive plan and zoning need to be realigned, but feels that is does not have to be done tonight or in the near future. John Sharlowd, planning consultant, stated that he has written zoning plans in the past and also teaches zoning classes. He believes that by limiting this piece of land to a single use is unprecedented. He pointed out that in this area, there is an average of one golf course that is closing every month. He concluded by saying that he feels that the City and Bent Creek Golf Course should come up with a resolution to this issue. Steve Chelesnik, of 7269 Howard Lane, stated that he volunteered as a spokesperson tonight to express the opinion of the residents. He stated that in looking at this issue from the point of view of the adjacent landowners, they would like to see the amendment passed. He said the neighbors have purchased homes in the area under the promise that this land would always be a golf course. He pointed out that the owner could get 16 to 18 million for this land if it could be built on. He would like to see the promises honored to the community, regardless if Mr. Herzog said he was unaware of any promises. He also said that because the attorneys threatened the City with litigation, he feels the amendment should still be passed. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 5 Starr Bourguewyland, of 14267 Wedgeway Court, had one comment on permitted uses. He said that he would like to see the owner have permitted uses, like cross country skiing in the winter; which would be a source of income for the golf course. Otto Teiken, who has lived off of the 7th hole of Bent Creek for the past 32 years, stated that he paid $5,000 more for the position of his house. He believes the recommendation should go forward. Wilson Bryce, of 14418 Fairway Drive, is an architect and is sensitive to the aesthetics in the community. He stated that if this property were to be sold and redeveloped he would lose money on his property if he ever chose to sell it. Gary Everett, said that he is a long term resident of Eden Prairie and has seen many changes to the City. He said that he feels that the City should either purchase the property or work with the owner of the Bent Creek Golf Course to come up with a resolution. Dan Miller, of 7055 Howard Lane, stated that he supports the comments of Steve Chelesnik. He said that when the original developer wanted to create the PUD, there were some restrictions for open space to development. Now, 30 years later, it appears that the owner does not seem to want to uphold the promise. Mr. Miller feels that the owners of the Bent Creek Golf Course should have to uphold their promise and that he would like to see the City pass this amendment. John Brill, of 7384 Moonlight Lane, made a comment that he is concerned with the southwest quadrant of Bent Creek. He said this area floods a few times a year and he is concerned with the fertilization coming through Bent Creek. Rick Dorsey, of 14214 Green View Court, stated he feels that the land should not be developed in accordance with the PUD. He also believes that if the owners were to sell this piece of property that they would make more money on it than what they bought it for. He would also like to see the environmental issues addressed before any type of changes would be made. He stated that if the property was to be sold and developed on, this would lower the property value of homes around the area and they would also be burden with construction for the next few years. Victoria Rolf, a homeowner who lives on Bent Creek Court, stated that what she has heard tonight was that the owner wanted the passing of this amendment stalled for awhile to create a “win-win” situation for both the owner and homeowners. She stated that she would like to know what the “win-win” situation would be. She said that she is also concerned with the wildlife in the area and how it would be impacted with potential construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 6 Nancy Manderfeld, of 13600 Brook Lane, stated that she understands that Eden Prairie is 94.5% built and would like to know when enough is enough. She believes a simple resolution for the owner would be to sell the land. Mr. Roston, stated that he would like to address two issues. He said that he heard several references in regards to selling the property. He said that they have looked into that and have not found any potential buyers. He also said that they have not read any historical documents that would indicate that this land be used for open space. Stoelting reiterated the issues that were brought forward tonight. They are as follows: 1. Mr. Herzog is requesting a postponement of the decision tonight. 2. The status of the title – lack of record. 3. Issues with the PUD. 4. The question of the property owner not knowing the restrictions when he purchased the property. 5. Rural designation. 6. The use of property for uses other than open space. 7. Commitments to the community. 8. Land owners adjacent to the property and declining property values if the land were to be developed. 9. Concept of the City purchasing property. 10. Environmental issues. 11. How will the zoning issues today affect the PUD. 12. The issue of timing in relationship to this amendment. Ric Rosow addressed the issue of the Planning Commission waiting on a decision. He stated that as a Planning Commission, the members are not vested with the authority to extend the moritorium, but rather they are to make recommendations to the City Council. If the Planning Commission feels that this decision should be delayed then that would be a recommendation brought before the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the issue of the status of the title, he has not had the benefit to look through their title research. In regards to the issue of Torrens property, it is subject to zoning ordinances. He also said that there were previous commitments made in the original PUD. Franzen stated that in regards to the land owners that are adjacent to the property and the impact on property values, he stated that numerous factors have to be considered for the property value to be lowered, and that it would not just involve construction of adjacent property. Mr. Rosow stated to Commission that it cannot base its recommendation on unsupported statements made by residents that the development would have a negative impact on the neighboring land owners. He said that in regards to the City purchasing the property, that would be up to the decision of the City Council. Mr. Rosow said that as far as the environmental Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 7 issues, if the land were to be developed, there would have to be numerous environmental issues to be met. Franzen stated that all properties are subject to numerous environmental ordinances. Mr. Rosow said that in regards to PUD, the zoning of the property changing to golf course would be consistent with the PUD. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about the Weinsman ruling and what its impact would do. Mr. Rosow said that he is totally aware of the case, but if there was a decision made on it prior to a City Council decision, he would look at it, but he feels that the Commission should not wait for an outcome. Stoltz asked Ms. Michaels about the ‘win-win” situation, and what that would entail. She stated that there is a wetland area to the south and that could be made into a 9 hole public golf course that would generate revenue for the golf course and also allow non-members to play golf at this golf course. She also stated that there was some talk of a conservation easement to the north of the property. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow about a law suit and what is the reality if it did happen. Mr. Rosow stated that the City does have insurance but it should not be a reason to pass or deny a proposal. Mr. Rosow pointed out that it does take quite a bit of Staff time if litigation would take place. Kirk asked Mr. Rosow if they have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Mr. Rosow stated that they do have the resources to go ahead with the litigation. Stoelting asked about a continuance or delay of decision and how would Staff feel about that. Franzen stated that he would look at what the City Council requested them to do. He feels that Staff did do what they were suppose to do and would not see the need for a continuance. Stoelting reiterated the amendment and asked the Commission Members for their input. Seymour stated that he does not see a problem with changing the language of the ordinance, but asked if we could add the outdoor uses to the amendment. Mr. Rosow stated that if the Commission wanted to address outdoor uses that they should do so. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the following: An amendment to Chapter 3, adding the following text: Golf course: The term “golf course” includes the construction and maintenance of golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths and irrigation facilities. Permitted uses do not include permanent or temporary residential use Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 8 or transient hotel use. The amendment would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. Amendments to Chapter 3, including but not limited to, Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and figure 3.2 to reflect that golf courses are within the Golf Course land use category and redefining quasi-public as “privately-owned uses that resemble public uses such as and held by associations and private schools.” The amendments would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills golf courses. An ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota amending City Code Chapter 11, Sections 11.03, Subd. 1.A, Subd. 2.Bl, tables 4 and 5, Subd. 3.3.H.4., adding section 11.36 and amending Section 11.70, Subd. 4 relating to the establishment of a Golf Course District and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1 and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, which among other things contain penalty provisions. Add croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, and ice skating, to the list of proposed permitted uses. Motion carried 6-0. . B. BENT CREEK GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that since the Planning Commission adopted Item A, then this item, along with the subsequent golf course requests, needs to be individually addressed. Franzen stated that the Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rick Dorsey, a resident of Eden Prairie, stated that his only concern is to make sure that as a PUD it has only zoning applied to the property. He stated that he does not want it re-zoned, other than the original PUD. Stoelting asked if the approval of the guide plan change would affect the original PUD. Mr. Rosow stated it would affect the original PUD because it would be zoned golf course, but the other property would be unaffected. He also stated that this action would change the zoning of property from rural to golf course. Mr. Rosow reiterated that PUD is not changing but rather zoning. Brooks Halvorson, of 14348 Fairway Drive, had the same concerns as Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Rosow reiterated that the PUD would not change but rather the underlying zoning on the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 9 MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 105.8 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 105.8 acres. Motion carried 6-0. C. BEARPATH GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Rodney Hardy, secretary and owner of the Bearpath Golf Association, stated that Bearpath is concerned about retaining this facility as a private venture. He stated that they rely on memberships and have to be accommodating to them as users of the golf course. Mr. Hardy pointed out that they are a golf and country club and because of that, they may have different issues. He stated that one concern is parking; as the membership grows they may need more parking. He also stated that there are some additional uses that they would like to have; such as, skateboarding, soccer, or softball. Mr. Hardy stated that he would like to know how that would be protected. He said he would also like to know that if something happened to a public building on the property, for an example, a fire, that they would be able to rebuild it to its current state. John Downey, manager of Bearpath Golf Association, reiterated what Mr. Hardy said. Mr. Downey said that he would like to be able to supply a list of additional activities to the Planning Commission. Stoelting apologized to Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey for not realizing that they wanted to speak during the initial amendment proposal. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the issues brought forth by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Downey. Franzen stated that he will not prohibit uses like baseball or soccer, or any other similar additional use. He stated that it would be beneficial to address the recreational uses prior to going to the City Council. Franzen said that in regards to the buildings, the City would not request additional rezoning but they would just have to come back for building permits. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 10 Powell stated that any recreational sport that can be played in a park should be allowed here also. He stated that he felt each “open space area” should be able to have non-motorized recreation activities. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 196.5 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.54 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 198.04 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Kirk asked how the Commission wants to address the usage issue that was brought forward in the public discussion. Franzen stated that action should be taken on the first motion and then make a second motion to cover this issue. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to ask the City Staff to recommend appropriate language for additional uses to be added to the amendment in conjunction with zoning and guide plan changed brought for to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0. D. OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Golf Course on 170.11 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Golf Course on 1.1 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Golf Course on 169.1 acres; Zoning District change from RM-6.5 to Golf Course on 1.6 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Golf Course on .52 acres. Motion carried 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 11 E. GLEN LAKE GOLF COURSE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE & REZONING Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 1 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Golf Course on 50.69 acres; and Zoning District Change from Public to Golf Course on 50.69 acres. Motion carried 6-0. F. BECKER REZONING by Lee and Carri Becker. Request for: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .083 acres. Location is 9795 Bluff Road. Carrie Becker presented the proposal. She stated that the house they are currently living in was built in 1980 and that is was never in compliance with zoning regulations. They are bringing forth their proposal tonight to get their home properly re-zoned. She stated that they found this discrepancy when they started to remodel their home. Mr. Becker illustrated the setbacks using the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen if by rezoning to R1-13.5 would there be any zoning inconsistencies. Franzen stated there would not be any inconsistencies. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff recommendation is for approval. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .83 acres based on the staff report dated November 10, 2006, and plans stamped dated October 20, 2006. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Franzen stated that for the November 27, 2006, meeting, there will be one public hearing for a proposal for an office building and a Guide Plan Update on Transportation. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 12 IX. MEMBERS REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. AArA Metropolitan Council lz"?"-Tftti January 8, 2007 Michael D. Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344- 2203 City of Eden Prairie -- Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) — Golf Courses Land Use Metropolitan Council Review File No. 18795-16 Metropolitan Council District 3 (Mary Hill Smith, 952-475-1388) Dear Mr. Franzen: The Metropolitan Council received the City's comprehensive plan amendment for review on December 6, 2006. The time has now lapsed on the Council's adjacent community notification period. The amendment adds language to the City's Plan that makes golf courses a separate land use category, and changes the land use for the following golf courses (Bent Creek, Glen Lake, Bearpath and Olympic Hills) to the new designation and changes the definition of "Quasi-Public". Council staff finds the amendment meets the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Administrative Review Guidelines adopted by the Council on May 11, 2005. Therefore, further action on this review is waived and the City may place this amendment into effect. The amendment, explanatory materials and the infoimation submission form will be appended to the City's Plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions about the information requested in this letter or about the review process, call Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Rep., at 651-602-1361. Sin;4ely, PhylliVianson, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council District 3 Jim Utley, AICP, Principal Reviewer and Sector Representative Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator VAREVIEWS1Cornmunities1Eden Prairie Letters12.0061Eden Prairie 2006 CPA Golf Courses 18795-17 Admio Review.doc www.metrocouneil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • TN (651) 291-0904 r'in Equal Opportunity Employer CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah/Regina Herron ITEM DESCRIPTION: Staring Preserve ITEM NO.: VIII.F. Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat on 1.67 acres into two lots and road right of way; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis The project is to plat the property into two single-family lots consistent with the requirements of the R1-22 zoning district. Background Information Flying Cloud Airport is located approximately one-quarter mile to south of the property. Because of the projected number of aircraft over-flights to occur in this area, the developer will need to provide a disclosure statement to all first homeowners in the development advising of the proposed airport expansion and associated over-flights. In addition, each home will need to be designed and constructed to provide for an interior noise reduction to 45 dBA based on the Metropolitan Council’s Builder Guide. The 120-Day Review Period Expires on March 9, 2007. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at the December 11, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Staff Report 3. Location Map 4. Land Use & Zoning Maps 5. Planning Commission Minutes STARING PRESERVE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF STARING PRESERVE FOR AILERON DEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Staring Preserve for Aileron Development stamp dated November 29, 2006, and consisting of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way, 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 16th day of January, 2007. __________________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Regina Herron, Planner II THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: December 8, 2006 SUBJECT: Staring Preserve APPLICANT: Aileron Land Development OWNER: Jesse and Kathy Schwartz LOCATION: 9181 Staring Lane East 120 DAY REVIEW: Expires March 9, 2007 REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way Staff Report – Staring Preserve December 8, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this site and adjacent properties as Low Density Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. The property is zoned R1-22. Surrounding zoning is R1- 22 and R1-13.5. There is an existing house and garage located on the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposal is to plat the property into two single-family lots. Lot one is 28,068 square feet and lot two is 36,513 square feet, exceeding the minimum 22,000 square foot requirement. The lots on Staring Lane East range from 22,048-50,014 square feet. Lot dimensional and frontage requirements also conform to the R1-22 zoning district. The proposed house pads meet City Code for R1-22 setback requirements. GRADING AND TREE LOSS The front yard area of Lot 1 has an existing low area adjacent to the street which collects run-off from a portion of the roof-tops and yard areas from both Lots1 and 2. This area is designated on the grading plan as an area to be preserved and designated as an infiltration area. The plan shows tree loss based on proposed house pads. There are 1002 diameter inches of significant trees on the property. Tree loss due to construction has been calculated at 33%, or 328 caliper inches. Tree replacement is 144 caliper inches. The tree replacement plan shows 146 caliper inches meeting this requirement. UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to the property. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT Flying Cloud Airport is located approximately one-quarter mile to south of the property. Safety Zones Safety zones are established to protect the approach corridor from obstructions and other hazards to aircraft. All homes are located outside these zones. Noise Zones The Metropolitan Council’s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise are used in determining land use compatibility with the airport. Noise zones are based on noise contours determined from forecasted aircraft operations at the airport and are shown as DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours. Neither of these contours overlay the property based on the existing or expanded airport (Alternative E with noise mitigation). Staff Report – Staring Preserve December 8, 2006 Page 3 Because of the projected number of aircraft over-flights to occur in this area, the developer will need to provide a disclosure statement to all first homeowners in the development advising of the proposed airport expansion and associated over-flights. In addition, each home will need to be designed and constructed to provide for an interior noise reduction to 45 dBA based on the Metropolitan Council’s Builder Guide. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following request: 1. Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. This is based on plans stamp dated November 29, 2006 the Staff Report dated December 8, 2006 and the following conditions: 1. Prior to release of the final plat, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District. B. Pay all City sewer and water assessment and connection fees. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Install erosion control on the property, as well as tree protection fencing at the grading limits in the wooded areas for trees to be preserved as part of the development. Said fencing shall be field inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading. 3. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the proponent shall: A. Provide a tree replacement surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the tree replacement for 144 caliper inches. B. Provide building documentation to the Building Official verifying that the houses will meet an interior noise reduction to 45dBA according to the Metropolitan Council’s Builders Guide. C. Pay the Cash Park Fee. Area Location Map - Staring Preserve Address: 9181 Staring Lane East ----_. W. Staring La. Rural R1-44 R1-22 R1-13.5 R1-9.5 RM-0.5 FZ1 RM-2.5 One Family - 10 acre min. One Family- 44,000 sf. min. One Family-22,000 sf rein. One Family-13,500 sf min. One Family-9,500 sf min. Mulli-Farnily-B 7 11.P.A. max. Multi-Family-17 4 U.P.A. max. I I Office I I Neighborhood Commercial I Community Commercial Zoning Map Staring Preserve 9181 Staring Lane East Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Mini, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public I Water I Right-of-Way I Chanhassen City limits Shore land Management Classifications EiII Natural Environment Waters Recreational Development Waters General Development Waters (Creeks Only) EZZI 100- Year Floodplain 1-1;ghway 4312 West of County Road 44 is proposed, not constructed at this time. Up dated through Ordinance 400-2005 Ordinance #33-2001 (BF! Adthtion) approved. but not shcmn on this map edition Oate: June 24, 2005 17.-rase la a zec.rty class...fan .t.z.Eng map. G`. z al.h. Ed. Pr. :Sp C.4 EDEN PRAIRIE tIVE•WORK•DREA.‘ Guide Plan Map Staring Preserve 9181 Staring Lane East ummilk Nor W. Staring Lane Victoria Drive Staring Lake Parkway Pioneer Trail V7/1 Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Unit/Acre 11111 Regional Commercial E-1 Medium Density Residential/Office Park/Open Space High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public Office EN Church/ Cemetary M Office/Industrial Open Water 0:ZA Office/PubFc/Open Space L Right-Of-Way IN Industrial — Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA) Creeks Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Low Density/Public/Open Space Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Principal Arterial — A Minor Arterial — 13 Minor Arterial •••= . Major Collector — Minor Collector EDEN PRAIRI E NATE Approved 03-1S-03 DATE Rev-sed 01.07.05 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Al Gray, City Engineer; Mike Franzen, City Planner; Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Rocheford and Seymour. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2006 Kirk had an addition to the first sentence in the first paragraph on page 7 of the minutes. It should read “ Kirk stated he strongly supports non-motorized travel both in MCA and residential sections of Eden Prairie.” He also had an addition to the third sentence of the same paragraph. It should read, “He pointed out it is an old road and also a dangerous road, however, it is in an area where we are trying to preserve the Prairie Bluff area. Pizrick had some additional changes to the minutes. The first change would be page 5, third paragraph, first sentence. It should read, “Pitzrick asked if the project proponent anticipates additional space for this project in the future and anticipates for future fuel types, such as C & G and hydrogen fuel.” The third sentence in the same paragraph should read, “Pitzrick stated he wanted the architects to be creative in their design of the gas pump island area. The next change Pitzrick had was on page 7, paragraph two, first sentence. It should read, “Pitzrick stated he would like to see pedestrian bridges set up in the Singletree/Hwy 212 area, and Singletree/Prairie Center Drive area for pedestrian traffic and to function as land mark signage for downtown Eden Prairie.” Pitzrick also added the following information to the end of paragraph three on page 7. It should read, “Pitzrick stated that we need to look at the impact of the power line on the development potential in the high density area of MCA and also the options to regroup the power line.” Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 2 MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0. Koenig abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS A. ST. ANDREW WOODS INFORMATIONAL MEETING Request for: Informational meeting to present a concept plan for a proposed multiple family use of property currently guided low density residential. The plan includes eight twin home units in four buildings. Location is the northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive. Henry Lazniarz, of St. Andrews Woods, LLC, presented the proposal. He stated they previously proposed a 17 unit building and are coming back this evening with an 8 twin home units in four buildings. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate this proposal. He stated in regard to Baker Road, it is a highly traveled road and because of it he felt this area would most likely not attract families with children, due to the busyness of the road. Mr. Lazniarz also pointed out at the end of Vervoort Lane there is a play area for kids, including a basketball hoop. He said a good project would keep Vervoort Lane as it is and not expand the street. He stated the four buildings could fit on the site with a private road installed. Mr. Lazniarz also said the home values would be in the range of $550,000 to $600,000. He pointed out in regards to the residents on the hill and their concern of the view, they have changed their design of the buildings to rambler town homes. Mr. Lazniarz said because of the elevation, there would be a much better site line. Mr. Lazniarz also stated they would be putting a pond and a fountain on the property. He said he felt this proposal is the best possible use for this site and also said the best fit for this site would be to make these units senior living housing. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this property is designated as low density residential. The proposed plan for tonight is a guide plan change. He stated the Commission should base their decision on which plan is best and would fit with the neighborhood. Franzen also stated the most logical fit is access from Vervoort Lane, and 4 single family homes. In regards to families in the area, he pointed out there are many single family homes in the area on Baker Road has not had an impact on single family homes. Franzen stated there are two options for this area, twin homes and single family homes. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Jason Anderson, of 7238 Vervoort Lane, whose residence is adjacent to the lot being developed, stated he moved into this area 5 years ago and at that time he had a concern the adjacent lot would be developed. He stated they have three children and plan to raise their children in the area. He pointed out there would be 10 feet between the lot line and the building and their view across the street Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 3 would be another unit. He also said in regards to the trees, most of them would be taken down with the project. Mr. Anderson said he is also concerned with the increased traffic this project would bring to the area. Gamal Eshmawy, who was the previous owner to this property, stated when he sold the property it was agreed there would be built on this lot four single family units; which he was to have one of these units to purchase at a reduced price. Mr. Eshmawy stated this was agreed on before signing the purchase agreement. He gave Chair Stoelting a copy of the agreement for official record. Joan Carroll, of 13764 Fenwick Ct, stated initially she was fine with the proposal but after hearing Mr. Eshmawy speak she has some reservations. Patricia Harris, of 7262 Vervoort Lane, stated she is the original owner of her home. She pointed out Mr. Lazniarz never did meet with all of the neighbors as he stated. She stated the proposed twin homes would be in their area. She is concerned there is only 5 proposed off street parking spaces, which she felt could be an issue. Mrs. Harris stated she would rather see this area developed into single family homes. She pointed out there are many kids in the area and feels the single family homes would be conducive to families. She showed illustrations of Mr. Lazniarz’s Sommerset project, utilizing the overhead projector, and pointed out how compact the town homes are in the area. She also read a letter from her husband, who was unable to attend, in which he supports her concerns. Margaret Perry, of 13715 St. Andrew Drive, stated she is also concerned with the parking in the area and pointed out St. Andrew Drive is not very conducive to off street parking. She is also concerned the cottonwood trees would be taken down. Ms. Perry said she has reservations about the driveway that would be put in for this project and stated it is very close to the front of her house and she is concerned with the traffic this would produce and the headlights shining in her front window. She utilized the overhead projector to show where the driveway would be located in proximity to the front of her home. Jess Irmiter, of 7270 Vervoort Lane, pointed out the meeting with the project proponent was very limited. He stated he has numerous concerns for this project and they are as follows; driveway issue, wetland area and drainage issues, and the senior housing issue based on the fact that it is very difficult to segregate an area as senior housing. Mrs. Husby, who lives in the town homes in the area, said she is concerned with looking at the rooftops of this proposed development. Stoelting summarized the following issues: 1. Tree loss in the area 2. Increased traffic 3. Previous owner and contract issues 4. Parking 5. Cottonwood tree loss Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 4 6. New road drive outlet 7. Water run-off 8. Roof lines Mr. Lazniarz addressed the issues of the trees, setbacks, and traffic. He stated if this project were to change to single family homes it would not change any of the setbacks. In regards to the trees, he said the loss would be the same for either the town homes or single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz pointed out when they initially proposed the condos, this project would have saved numerous trees. Also, with the condo development, the building could be kept lower which would require less fill. Mr. Lazniarz said in extending up Vervoort Lane would cause more tree loss. In regards to traffic, he said if Vervoort Lane is not extended, the private drive would be created, which would take traffic off of that area. He also said senior units would create less traffic than 4 single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz said in regards to the contract issue, Mr. Eshmawy had a contract agreement with CRE Construction. He said the purchase agreement was bought by his company and the agreement the past owner gets a single family lot was dismissed from the agreement. Mr. Lazniarz stated they offered Mr. Eshmawy the following: 1. They offered options to commensurate below average compensation for the lot 2. Sell Mr. Eshmawy back the property for $350,000, plus incurred expenses 3. Sell Mr. Eshmawy a unit (8 acres) across the street from the property 4. Or create one single family home on the twin home property Mr. Lazniarz said he came to an agreement with Mr. Eshmawy that he would receive $75,000. Mr. Lazniarz thought they were still under that agreement Leslie Dahlen, a realtor that set up the meetings with the neighbors, stated the reason they could not get all of the neighbors together at once was because they were never in agreement as to time and date. She also stated she could not reach the Harris residence to inform them of the meetings because they have an unlisted phone number. Mr. Lazniarz stated in regards to parking, there are five onsite parking spots but what needs to be considered is the garage space and the two car space outside of each unit, which would give a total of 21 parking spaces. Mr. Lazniarz stated in regards to the neighbor whose home is across the street from the private drive, he said his company looked into this issue and they found the driveway is positioned such that the car headlights would never shine in the homeowner’s windows. Pertaining to the issue of water run-off, Mr. Lazniarz stated the architects have assured him they have taken appropriate wetland standards into consideration and they will also be bringing in fill to the site. Mr. Lazniarz said in regards to the rooftops, it would not make a difference if they had rambler-type single family homes or rambler-type town homes. The roof tops would still be the same. He also said there would be a 4 foot high retaining wall in the backside of the property. In regards to Mrs. Husby, Mr. Lazniarz said they would be willing to plant trees in her yard to act as a buffer for the rooftops. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 5 Stoelting asked Fox to address the issue of cottonwood trees. Fox stated out of the 63 trees in the area, only 9 are significant trees, which would be the cottonwood trees. He said all but two of the cottonwoods would have to be removed. He also pointed out they are looking at an 80% tree loss, but said whatever style of home would go in that area, there would be significant tree loss. Stoelting asked Franzen if he were to go forward with single family homes, would the project proponent have to make an additional presentation at an informational meeting? Franzen stated the project proponent could proceed to the public hearing. Kirk asked Franzen to comment on the senior restrictive housing. Franzen stated if it was low income or affordable housing, and TIF was involved the city could designate what is could be used for. Pitzrick asked if single family homes would be feasible financially. Mr. Lazniarz said 4 lots would not be feasible, but 5 lots would be. Mr. Lazniarz pointed out this area is not a very attractive development site and he does not feel people will spend the money for single family homes. He said $700,000 homes would be hard to sell in that area. Stoltz asked Mr. Lazniarz to put up a picture of the end of Vervoort Lane and asked him to discuss the tree loss. Mr. Lazniarz utilized the overhead projector to show a picture of Vervoort Lane. He said they would save more trees with a private drive rather than extending Vervoort Lane. Stoltz asked if the current residents would be looking at the units. Mr. Lazniarz said the setbacks would be the same for either single family homes or town homes and they would be willing to plant more trees for buffers. He said four single family homes will have the same environmental consequences as town homes. Fox stated houses 10 feet from the property lines would not be able to house trees as buffers because there would be no room. He also said it is difficult to analyze this because there is no grading plan in effect. Franzen reiterated this point by stating with the mass of the building there would not be much room for trees. Koenig asked Franzen about the parking issue. Franzen stated there is adequate parking for this proposal. Koenig asked Mr. Lazniarz if he considered putting up 2 buildings with 4 units each. Mr. Lazniarz said financially it would be very difficult. Koenig said the pricing of the town homes would not be much lower than the single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz stated in looking at the costs, there would be a considerable difference between the two. Koenig asked Franzen how this project could be labeled as senior housing. Franzen stated the City does not need more market rate units but rather affordable housing. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Lazniarz stated they originally proposed the condo building to put in affordable units and to save trees but the neighbors did not like this concept because the units were cheaper than the other housing in the neighborhood. Koenig stated the condominiums just did not fit into the area. Kirk stated the town home proposal would have less traffic and would be less intrusive than single family homes for Vervoort residents. Stoelting pointed out this is an informational meeting and he would like to see a little more detail in regards to the single family homes. Koenig said the Commission should give the developer more direction on the cul-de-sac issue or opening up Vervoort Lane. Powell stated he was surprised that the neighbors on Vervoort Lane opposed a private drive versus going through Vervoort Lane. Powell also said he would want the legal issue resolved in regard to the contract issue. Stoelting asked Franzen to address this issue. Franzen said it was a private party issue. Stoltz stated it would be in the best interest of everyone involved if there was a resolution to the contract before it was approved. Duckstad said there is not enough information presented tonight to make a decision. He felt the neighbor’s concerns should be taken into consideration. Stoelting summarized by stating the Planning Commission would like to see both proposals more fully developed, especially the single family home plan, and to include several different side plans. The developer agreed to work on the new proposals and to present them at a future meeting with the residents. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING PRESERVE Request for: Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Michael Brandvold, of Anderson Engineering, presented the proposal. He stated they have reviewed the staff report and have no questions. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the project. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the Staff recommends approval based on page 3 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Koenig asked Fox to address the issue of tree loss due to construction. Fox stated the project proponent will be replacing trees and the project proponent meets the City’s requirements for tree replacement. Powell asked if the public notices went out. Franzen stated the notices did go out to the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 7 MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way based on plans stamped dated November 29, 2006, and the staff report dated December 8, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.8 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.8 acres; Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Zoning District on 2.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 2.7 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.8 acres into two lots and one outlot. Beth Simonstad presented the proposal and utilized the overhead projector to show illustrations of the project. She gave some history to the project and stated she is here tonight to amend the proposed plan that was granted in 2002. The proposed plan included such items as a 2,300 sq. ft. coffee shop on 7 acres, a 1,200 sq. ft. retail building on 2 acres, and 3.1 acres for future development, which would include 2 buildings on the site. Ms. Simonstad stated they are now making the buildings smaller to give the project a more residential feeling. She illustrated the plan of the two buildings on the lot and also showed an illustration of a landscaping plan. She stated they will be making road improvements to the north side of this site and pointed out they will also be saving the oak trees in the area. Ed Farr, of Ed Farr Architects, illustrated the building design utilizing the overhead projector. He stated it does meet the setback requirements and material requirements. He also showed the different brick types that would be used in the building. He pointed out the architectural design would be carried out on all four sides of the building. He stated in reference to Walgreens, they are trying to coordinate the design of the building to that of the proposed buildings. Mr. Farr stated in regards to the walkways, there would be a generous walkway around the buildings. He said there would be a general landscape buffer along Breezy Way and the developers would also eliminate the service corridor along the backside of the building that would face the residential area. Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the road improvements. Ms. Simonstad illustrated the road improvements utilizing the overhead projector. She pointed out they would be removing the old medians and replacing them with new ones. She stated this is a very expensive project and she will continue to meet with the Staff on this issue. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated on page 4 of the staff report there are six questions that need to be addressed by the Commission. He also pointed out there are three options for this project and the staff is recommending revisions to architecture, roads and screening. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 8 Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Greg Harcus, of 9822 Belmont Lane, stated he would like to see a neighborhood meeting in regard to this project. He stated he liked a lot of the ideas that were presented tonight but has one concern with this project. He stated his concern is the visitor parking for the town home association is located on this property. He stated the project proponent stated they could still park in the area, and he just wants to make sure that is still carried out. Steve Mohn, of 9812 Lee Drive, stated he does like this plan. His only concern is they like the concept of the two small buildings and does not want to see it turned into one building. Rich Feely, of 9878 Lee Drive, seconded Steve Mohn’s comments. He stated he supports the project and would like to see it passed. George McNulty, of 9681 Belmont Lane, stated he has some questions in regards to the building roofs, lighting in the parking area, drive entrances, and the guest parking outlot. Stoelting summarized the public’s comments. 1. Neighborhood excited about the plan 2. Concern for a neighborhood meeting 3. Outlot A, what is the plan 4. Visitor Parking 5. Sloped roofs 6. Access into the property; will headlights affect the residents Ms. Simonstad stated in regards to parking, she will work with the residents to come to a resolve on this issue. She stated in regards to outlot A, she has not addressed any parking spaces as of yet, but will address this situation. In regards to access and headlights, she said the access into the property would not impact the residents. Mr. Farr stated the market supports a flat roof contemporary design. Stoelting stated the staff report recommends the slope roof design. Mr. Farr stated he appreciates the concept of the sloped roof but they would like to use the flat roof design. Franzen stated typically projects located in a residential area should transition into the area. He stated the architects should capture a few aspects of the Walgreens building and incorporate it into their design. Franzen stated Staff will leave it up to the architects to create a design that is consistent and with a residential character. Pitzrick said in regards to the roof situation, he would like to make sure it is an attractive roof. In regards to the south side of the parking area, he would like to see a rain garden into the area. Mr. Farr pointed out there are two rain gardens in the area. Pitzrick stated when outlot A is developed, the project proponent should make sure there is no problem with shared parking. Stoelting asked Franzen to Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 9 address the issue of shared parking. Franzen stated all of the areas were designed to stand alone in regards to parking. He stated all four parcels will have to enter into an agreement in regards to parking. Koenig stated to Franzen since the Commission approved the previous PUD, the proponent is bound by that one. Franzen stated the city is under no obligation to amend the approved plan and agreement. The commission has the discretion to recommend an amendment to the plan if you believe the plan is acceptable. Koenig asked Franzen for a comparison of tree loss between the approved plan and the proposed plan. Franzen stated the only difference would be the two oak trees that would have to be removed. Stoelting asked Franzen if the two oak trees could be saved by repositioning the coffee shop. Franzen stated they could be saved by repositioning the coffee shop. Fox said the only trees left on this site would be the trees in the land dedicated to the City. Ms Simonstad said they will replace any trees as required by the City. Pitzrick said he would like to see some sloped roof tops. Duckstad said he would like the architect to work with the City in designing the roof. Stoelting reiterated to the Commission the three options that were stated in the staff report and asked for a consensus. The consensus was for a continuation. Stoelting asked the project proponent if they would be willing to come back to the January 8 Commission Meeting. They said yes. Chuck Hausker, of 9836 Belmont, stated he is concerned with the woodland area on the property and would like to see this area preserved. Fox stated those trees are on City owned property. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to continue the project to the January 22, 2007 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission, which would include that the developer meets with City Staff in regards to developing a roof design, a tree replacement plan, grading plan, and cross access shared parking plan. City staff to discuss additional parking for nearby residents. Motion carried 7-0. C. WINDSOR PLAZA Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Jay Scott, of Solomon Real Estate Group, presented the proposal using a computer generated DVD of the project. Ryan Pletz, associate to Jay Scott, stated they will be showing a combined presentation of both Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 10 Bobby and Steve’s Auto World. The presentation showed the layout of the site plan including additional parking spots and the landscaping plan. It also diagramed vehicular traffic around the site as well as pedestrian traffic. Mr. Scott addressed the staff report stating they have compiled with the plan revisions addressed by Staff. David Tupper, landscape architect, showed additional illustrations of the landscaping plan utilizing the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the conclusions of the staff report indicates there still needs to be more work done on the store fronts. Franzen pointed out if the store front is not revised now it would be up to the Staff and the architects to come up with a design. Otherwise, the Commission should make recommendations to the plan. Franzen also stated the Commission can give PUD approval to this phase of the project and send that on to the City Council, and the rezoning would be continued. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no public input. Pitzrick stated he had a concern with the Dryvit material and would like to see a solid warranty going along with this project, along with a third party inspection. Bob Dazel, a representative of Dryvit, said all the products used would fall into a 10 year warranty. He stated if there is any type of moisture damage under warranty they will take full responsibility. He pointed out they only warrant faulty materials, the insulator would have to warrant his work. Stoltz asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the use of this project. Franzen stated in addressing this issue, the project proponent is in compliance. He also stated because they are asking for waivers, the Commission does have some flexibility in regards to this issue. Kirk stated it is important to challenge the project proponent, but he does not feel the Commission has the expertise to criticize the product. Duckstad asked the project proponent to address the issue of durability of this product. Mr. Pletz said he is very comfortable with the durability of this product. Duckstad stated as long as the architect and the City Planner are comfortable with this product than the Commission should not micro-manage it. Stoelting stated he does not want the Commission to get bogged down on this issue and to discuss other issues of the project. Franzen summarized the project stating overall it was a very good project. Mr. Scott stated they have addressed specific issues this evening but the only thing they cannot accommodate would be a specific store front, and stated it would need to be flexible. Stoltz asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the store fronts. Franzen stated revising the store fronts is a recommendation from the Staff. The Commission can either agree or modify the recommendation. If the final design is left to the developer and staff, the Commission will have to be comfortable without having input into the final details. Stoltz commented he would feel comfortable with the City Staff in charge of completing the revisions as stated in the report. In regards to the store fronts, Franzen commented he wants the architect to be creative but also to be held accountable for work completed. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 11 Mr. Scott stated they would be willing to work with the City Staff on any issues, including the store fronts. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way, based on the staff report dated December 8, 2006 and based on plans stamped dated December 4, 2006, and the plans presented to the Planning Commission on the computer model DVD shown to the Commission this evening, December 11, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. D. RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres. Ryan Pletz presented the proposal and stated this was a combined presentation of Windsor Plaza. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated staff recommendation was similar to the Windsor Project and after the presentation, Staff would be willing to work with the project proponent to fine tune any details on this project. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres, based on the staff report dated December 8, 2006 and based on plans stamped dated December 4, 2006, and the plans presented to the Planning Commission on the computer model DVD shown to the Commission this evening, December 11, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 12 Due to the lateness of the meeting, Franzen postponed the Rain Water Presentation until the January 8, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting. Tax Increment Plan for Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World. Franzen stated there needs to be an amendment in the motion to change it from Windsor Plaza to Town Center Phase I. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the tax increment plan for Town Center Phase I. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORT IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS Stoelting recognized Jon Duckstad for his work on the Planning Commission and wished him well with the City Council. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:56 a.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Scott A. Kipp ITEM DESCRIPTION: Windsor Plaza ITEM NO.: VIII.G. Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat on 5.81 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis This project is a 133,629 square foot building located in the Town Center consisting of four- stories of office above first floor retail and restaurant uses. The design is consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study for the Town Center. Background Information The MCA Study identifies the site for Community Retail use. In the Town Center this use includes retail, restaurants, and a higher intensity of development such as multiple story buildings with office or other uses allowed in upper levels. The proposed land use for Windsor Plaza is generally consistent with the vision of MCA mixed office/retail use for this site, and is consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study. A traffic study was completed for the project which identified the deficiencies at the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection as it relates to this project. The developer will be responsible for constructing an improved segment of Singletree Lane between TH 212 and Eden Road. The improvement will provide a single left-turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane on the west approach of the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection as well as additional through lanes on Singletree Lane to provide a continuous 4-lane roadway. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with the project with the exception of the right-of-way costs on the north side of Singletree Lane. It should be noted that the improvements to Singletree Lane are considered interim improvements as the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street remains the long-term vision for the roadway. Public Hearings – Windsor Plaza Page 2 The following waivers are requested in the Commercial Regional Service zoning district as part of the PUD: 1. Building floor area ratio of .69. Code maximum is .40. 2. Building height of 68 feet. Code maximum is 40 feet. 3. A total of 667 parking stalls provided. Code requires 743 stalls (16 of which are assigned to Bobby and Steve’s Auto World). 4. Front yard setback to building of 6 feet from Flying Cloud Drive. Code requires 35 feet. 5. Front yard setback to parking deck of 22 feet to Singletree Lane. Code requires 35 feet. 6. Front yard setback to parking deck of 15 feet to Eden Road. Code requires 35 feet. 7. Front yard setback to parking deck of 0 feet to Regional Center Road. Code requires 35 feet. 8. Side yard setback to parking deck of 0 feet along southwest property line. Code requires 20 feet. The waivers are consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study and Town Center, for taller buildings, higher densities, structured parking, and location of buildings close to street frontages, and pedestrian systems. In exchange for the parking waiver, the first floor uses will be retail and restaurant. The second through fifth floors will be limited to office use only. Additional items that will be addressed in the Development Agreement include: planter boxes in the outdoor seating areas and hanging baskets in the plaza area on the west side of the building adjacent to ground floor retail; stamped concrete and staining treatment for all retaining walls, and pavement patterns for the plaza and outdoor seating areas, and signage. No signs have been approved as part of this review. Once the Town Center wayfinding study has been further refined and a sign ordinance is developed for the Town Center, a sign package will be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The 120-Day Review Period Expires on March 6, 2007. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission first reviewed this project at its November 27, 2006 meeting and recommended a continuance directing the developer to incorporate all pedestrian level details and site amenities into the plans, and more information regarding the use of Dryvit material. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at the December 11, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Staff Report dated November 22, 2006 4. Staff Report dated December 8, 2006 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 27, 2006 6. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 11, 2006 7. Location Map 8. Land Use & Zoning Maps 9. Traffic Study WINDSOR PLAZA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF WINDSOR PLAZA FOR SOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUP 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 Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on November 27 and December 11, 2006, on Windsor Plaza by Solomon Real Estate Group 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 January 16, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Windsor Plaza, 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 stamp dated January 11, 2007. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission December 11, 2006. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2007. _______________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk EXHIBIT A PUD Concept- (Windsor Plaza) Legal Description: That part of the following described property: Lot 16, AUDITIOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER 335; Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 369; Tract C, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1449, Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1473; Tract D, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 687 and that part of vacated Eden Road all in Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 14; thence South 88 degrees 27 minutes 05 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of 2612.96 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right of way of Flying Cloud Drive and the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence southwesterly along said northwesterly right of way line along a non-tangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 3859.72 feet, a central angle of 1 degree 07 minutes 10 seconds for an arc distance of 75.42 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 41 degrees 21 minutes 09 seconds West; thence South 41 degrees 02 minutes 26 seconds West, tangent to last described curve, a distance of 21.89 feet; thence northwesterly along a non-tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 43.97 feet, a central angle of 49 degrees 30 minutes 23 seconds and an arc distance of 37.99 feet, the chord of said curve bears North 60 degrees 22 minutes 35 seconds West; thence northwesterly along a tangential reverse curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 189.21 feet, a central angle of 35 degrees 15 minutes 14 seconds and an arc distance of 116.42 feet; thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 37 seconds West, tangent to last described reverse curve, a distance of 72.02 feet to the west line of said Tract D; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds West, along the west line of said Tract D, a distance of 285.44 feet to the northwest corner of said Tract D; thence North 88 degrees 26 minutes 42 seconds East, along the north line of said Tract D, a distance of 166.99 to the intersection with the westerly right of way line of Town Road, aka Eden Road, as depicted on said REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 687; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds West, along said westerly right of way line a distance of 56.38 feet; thence North 88 degrees 26 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 66.00 feet to the easterly right of way line of said Eden Road being common with west line of said Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 369; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds West, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 211.27 feet; thence North 86 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, a distance of 184.45 feet; thence on a bearing of South, a distance of 168.50 feet; thence on a bearing of East, a distance of 217.91 feet to said northwesterly right of way line of Flying Cloud Drive; thence South 42 degrees 30 minutes 02 seconds West, along said northwesterly right of way line, a distance of 12.65 feet; thence continuing along said northwesterly right of way line South 42 degrees 29 minutes 41 seconds West, a distance of 501.54 feet; thence continuing southwesterly along said northwesterly right of way line along a tangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 3859.72 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 35 minutes 22 seconds and an arc distance of 39.70 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. To be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, WINDSOR PLAZA WINDSOR PLAZA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WINDSOR PLAZA FOR SOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUP BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Windsor Plaza for Solomon Real Estate Group stamp dated January 11, 2007, and consisting of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way, 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 16th day of January, 2007. _______________________________ Phil Young , Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp Senior Planner DATE: November 22, 2006 PROJECT: Windsor Plaza LOCATION: South of Singletree Lane, west of Flying Cloud Drive and north of Regional Center Road APPLICANT: Solomon Real Estate Group OWNER: Windsor Plaza, LLC REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres 3. Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service, and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres 5. Preliminary Plat of 5.8 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the property as Regional Commercial land use. The property is zoned Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office. Surrounding land use consists of Regional Commercial. The 4.44 acre site contains three separate office buildings constructed in the 1980’s. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The PUD includes a 141,500 square foot single mixed use building with four stories of office above ground level retail and restaurant uses, together with attached structured parking. A phase 2 concept plan shows how the property to the west could develop for a retail/office use and realigned private roadway with additional on-street parking and bus shelter. The building consists of: 18,300 sq. ft. of retail 12,900 sq. ft. of restaurant 110,300 sq. ft. of office MAJOR CENTER AREA STUDY In January 2006, the City Council adopted a report entitled Eden Prairie Major Center Area Study – The Next 25 years: A Framework for Decision Making, the purpose of which is to chart a course for public and private investment in land development, urban design and infrastructure into the future. The study proposes a vision of the Major Center Area (MCA) based upon comprehensive planning principles. TOWN CENTER Included in the study’s recommendations is the establishment of a Town Center west of Flying Cloud Drive, south of Lake Idelwild, and north or Regional Center Road. The Town Center is to be a compact area with a vibrant mix of land uses that contribute to day/evening and year round use. Land uses will include a mixed use area of retail, residential, office, civic, and entertainment uses designed to foster walking and transit through a compact development pattern in accordance with recommended densities and planning principles. MCA PLANNING PRINCIPLES The realization of a long-term vision for the MCA requires adherence to sound planning principles which identify a balanced set of statements that embody the future intent of land use, transportation, urban design and other fundamental systems. These comprehensive principles serve as one of several sets of criteria in evaluating private sector development proposals and their compatibility with the vision for the MCA and provide policy direction. There are many principles; those most relevant to the Windsor Plaza proposal are the following: Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 3 • Land use • Transportation • Transit • Urban Design/Streetscape • Pedestrian Bike Features and Facilities Since Windsor Plaza is located in the Town Center it should be first evaluated on its compatibility with the vision and planning principles for the MCA and secondly for conformance with City code requirements. Land Use The MCA Study identifies 10 Sub Areas with specific recommendations for land use, density, and site coverage. Windsor Plaza is located on the eastern edge of the “Town Center” portion of Sub Area 2. The MCA Study identifies the Windsor Plaza site for Community Retail use. In the Town Center this use includes retail, restaurants, and a higher intensity of development such as multiple story buildings with office or other uses allowed in upper levels. The land use section also prescribes guidelines for pedestrian focus and building design. Projects in the Town Center should emphasize pedestrian movement while accommodating vehicular movement to/from parking and delivery access. Structured parking should be located at convenient edges of the Town Center to minimized pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. Auto uses such as drive up facilities should not be located in the Town Center. Design, building placement, and massing principles are intended to create the feel and function of a Town Center. The primary components of Town Center form are: • Buildings should provide horizontal and vertical relief with no long unbroken walls. • Street facades should include human scale architectural detailing and try to achieve modules of 25 to 50 feet wide. • Building height should range from 3-10 stories. • Parking should be located primarily in structures behind or under billings and never between the sidewalk and the building. Parking should be designed to minimize conflicts with the pedestrian environment. • Mechanical and service areas should be out of view. • Street level interest should occur with first floor transparent display windows, outdoor dining areas, public art, fountains, courtyards, plazas, pedestrian scale signage, lighting, plantings, etc. • The primary building facade should be parallel to the sidewalk. Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 4 The proposed land use for Windsor Plaza is generally consistent with the vision of MCA mixed office/retail use for this site. The site plan is consistent with the principles for location of the building with the primary façade parallel to the trail on Flying Cloud Drive, location of parking in structures, and parking location for the site. Building height is within the recommended range. Mechanical and service areas are not visible from public streets or sidewalks. The building design has horizontal and vertical relief with no long unbroken walls. The construction and material details are not shown on the building elevations. These elevations need to articulate the details of the use of material patterns, size, reveals, cuts, shadow, texture, and color. This is important to reinforce the principles of horizontal and vertical relief. Perhaps more important is the use of materials and construction details on the first floor to embrace the concept of pedestrian scale and street level interest. An exterior materials board and a scale version of a portion of a wall to illustrate building principles planned for the building is needed to complete the review, but won’t be available until the meeting. The building elevations are also inconsistent with the appearance of the building as shown on the colored perspective. If built according the elevations the building would look different than the perspective and not have as much horizontal and vertical relief. Building elevations need to be prepared for all four sides of the parking structure reflecting materials, colors, textures, and relief, to match with the building. The street level interest has the beginnings of an interesting place to visit with outdoor seating, fountains, plazas and courtyards, and is conceptually shown on the plans. The plans need to show the type of lighting, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles. The street level interest needs improvement at the corner of Regional Center Road and Flying Cloud Drive. The sidewalk areas should be expanded to create a plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping. This would also provide a place for people waiting to cross Flying Cloud Drive at a safer distance back from the intersection and allow room for adequate site lines for cars making a right hand turn. The landscape plan shows a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals. To reinforce the concept of street level interest the plan needs to include more areas of perennials and annuals throughout the project including planting beds along Flying Cloud Drive, planter boxes in front of the retail buildings, on the railings adjacent to the outdoor seating and hang in baskets in the plaza area on the west side of the building adjacent to ground floor retail. The pavement patterns for the internal sidewalks, outdoor seating and other plaza area are proposed to be decorative concrete. The plan should be revised to specify a pattern, color, texture and include a minimum of 35% brick pavers. The proposed sign plan is not to a pedestrian scale and also does not conform to City code requirements. Rather than developing a sign plan now, it would be better to wait until the results of the wayfinding study have been further refined and a sign ordinance is developed for the Town Center. Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 5 The City has recently retained a consultant to help develop the design intent of the Town Center and eventually convert these ideas into an ordinance. Once this process is completed a detailed sign plan will be brought back to the City for a plan amendment. Transportation While land use and transportation capacity should be in balance, some traffic congestion should be accepted as a sign of a vital and desirable area. Efficient use of roadways and mobility on key through movement roadways should be protected. One aspect of efficient road use means a mix of land use that spreads peak movement and more evenly across the day and can be accomplished by a mix of housing, employment and retail. Windsor Plaza is a mixed retail and employment use with primary access from Singletree Lane. Singletree Lane is a key through movement roadway. The attached traffic study for the Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s developments was completed by SRF Consulting Group and is dated September 5, 2006. The traffic study evaluated how the intersection of TH 212 and Singletree Lane will operate in the PM Peak Hour under 2030 conditions and how the trip generation characteristics for the proposed developments compare to the land use assumptions identified in the Major Center Area Study. The following is a summary of the main conclusions of the traffic study: • With the existing roadway geometrics the TH 212 / Singletree Lane intersection is expected to operate an unacceptable level of service for the 2030 Build Condition. • With the widening of the west approach of the TH 212 / Singletree Lane intersection to include a single left-turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through / right-turn lane the intersection is expected to operate at an overall acceptable level of service for the 2030 Build Condition. However, vehicle queues are expected to extend past Glen Lane in the PM Peak Hour. Improvements to internal site circulation have mitigated this queuing issue for site traffic and traffic on Glen Lane has the option of using Eden Road as an alternative access. • The proposed Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s developments are anticipated to generate more vehicle trips than what the Major Center Area Study assumed for the redevelopment sites, particularly in the PM Peak Hour. • The additional vehicle trips generated by the developments do not result in a significant change in intersection level of service or require additional roadway improvements than what was identified in the Major Center Area Study. • If the land use type and/or density of new developments/redevelopments continue to come in at rates higher than those assumed in the Major Center Study the recommended improvements identified in the study may not be adequate. In order to be consistent with the recommended MCA improvements the City will need to consider which development Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 6 areas will be reduced (lower peak hour trips) to account for those development areas with higher intensity (higher peak hour trips). In order to address the deficiencies at the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection the developer will be responsible for constructing an improved segment of Singletree Lane between TH 212 and Eden Road. The improvement will provide a single left-turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane on the west approach of the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection as well as additional through lanes on Singletree Lane to provide a continuous 4-lane roadway. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with the project with the exception of the right-of-way costs on the north side of Singletree Lane. It should be noted that the improvements to Singletree Lane are considered interim improvements as the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street remains the long-term vision for the roadway. Transit There are two components to transit: light rail and bus circulator. Light rail transit (LRT) is a key feature of the MCA Study and the station(s) will have a long- term impact on design, siting, and land use in the immediate vicinity of the station(s). The primary location for the station is on the south side of Lake Idlewild in the vicinity of the new “north-south main street”. Windsor Plaza does not impact the LRT station. The proposed bus circulator service primary route is along the outer ring road described as Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. The Southwest Transit Station is to be used as the terminal and inter-modal connector to the regional and local bus service. Windsor Plaza does not impact the bus circulator routes. The concept plan for Phase 2 shows a future bus shelter. Urban Design/Streetscape The relationship of buildings to streets, and the experience of drivers, walkers and bicyclists as they travel the public streets, sidewalks, paths and trails in the MCA are important to the area’s overall sense of place. A positive sense of place, one that defines a distinct identity and recognizable features, landmarks and patterns of development and open space, is something that has a high value for the future of the MCA. Projects should include: • The pedestrian environment should be made attractive as a result of building orientation, scale, and entrances to buildings. • Boulevards should have pedestrian level theme lighting and plantings. • Public art should be encouraged. • Public amenities should be include, plazas, open spaces, landscape spaces, seating areas and pedestrian elements. Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 7 • Sidewalks should be included for all projects. • Sidewalks should invite pedestrian movement. A sculpture is proposed as public art in the fountain. The boulevard along Singletree Lane and Flying Cloud Drive will have pedestrian theme level lighting and landscaping. The City will develop the plan for the boulevards for theme lighting, street trees and sidewalks. The developer will be assessed for the cost. The land use section recommends building, site plan and landscape changes for pedestrian scale and public amenities. There are internal and external sidewalks in the project. In order for sidewalks to invite pedestrian movement the landscape and sidewalk plans need to be revised according to the recommendations in the land use section. Pedestrian/Bike Features and Facilities As development density increases in the MCA and more residents, workers and shoppers spend part of their daily routine in the area, increased demand and presences of walkers should result. This will make the interconnected system of paths, sidewalks and trails increasingly successful and usable. The Windsor project will be constructing site perimeter trails and internal sidewalks connections to these trails. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The following waivers are requested in the Commercial Regional Service zoning district as part of the PUD: 1. Building floor area ratio of .73. Code maximum is .40. 2. Building height of 68 feet. Code maximum is 40 feet. 3. A total of 682 parking spaces. Code requires 740 parking spaces. 4. Front yard setback to building of 18 feet from Flying Cloud Drive. Code requires 35 feet. 5. Front yard setback to parking deck of 22 feet from Singletree Lane. Code requires 35 feet. 6. Front yard setback to parking deck of 15 feet from Eden Road. Code requires 35 feet. 7. Front yard setback to parking deck of 0 feet from Regional Center Road. Code requires 35 feet. 8. Side yard setback to proof-of-parking deck of 6 feet. Code requires 20 feet. The City code requires parking to be 740 spaces: 463 office, 277 retail, and restaurant. The proposal is to provide 584 actual parking spaces and 98 spaces of proof of parking for a total of 682 spaces. The supportive data for the permanent waiver for reduced parking is base on an Urban Land Institute shared parking summary showing a peak parking demand of 569 parking stalls for the development based on the size and mix of uses. Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 8 The waivers are consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study and Town Center, for taller buildings, higher densities, structured parking, and location of buildings close to street frontages, and pedestrian systems. In exchange for the parking waiver, the first floor uses will be retail and restaurant. The second through fifth floors will be limited to office use only. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REPLACEMENT A total of 442 caliper inches of landscaping is required based on the square footage of the building. A total of 902 caliper inches of significant trees are located on the property, all of which was planted landscaping when the three existing buildings were built. A total of 902 caliper inches of significant trees will be lost due to construction. Tree replacement is 1,200 caliper inches. The landscaping together with the tree replacement is 1,642 caliper inches. The plan provides 629 caliper inches. It is not possible to meet the total tree replacement on site. The plan includes additional in-kind landscaping amenities based on a caliper inch equivalent for the remaining trees, including a fountain/sculpture, planter boxes and large planting beds of perennials and annuals. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat shows two lots and additional right-of-way dedication along Singletree Lane and Regional Center Road. The south half of Eden Road will be vacated as part of the project. Lot 1 is for the Windsor Plaza project. Lot 2 is to for the Bobby and Steve’s proposal to be discussed in a separate public hearing process. UTILITES AND DRAINAGE Storm water will be treated to NURP standards. The building will be connected to City sewer and water. SUMMARY The realization of a long-term vision for the MCA should adhere to sound planning principles. These comprehensive principles serve as one of several sets of criteria in evaluating private sector development proposals and their compatibility with the vision for the area and provide policy direction. In consideration of the waivers from the City Code, development density higher than recommended in the MCA Study, and the City participation in cost through a Tax Increment Finance District, the plan should be revised as follows: Staff Report – Windsor Plaza November 22, 2006 Page 9 1. The building design has horizontal and vertical relief with no long unbroken walls. The construction and material details are not shown on the building elevations. These elevations need to articulate the details of the use of material patterns, size, reveals, cuts, shadow, texture, and color. This is important to reinforce the principles of horizontal and vertical relief. Perhaps more important is the use of materials and construction details on the first floor to embrace the concept of pedestrian scale and street level interest. An exterior materials board and a scale version of a portion of a wall to illustrate building principles planned for the building is needed to complete the review, but won’t be available until the meeting. The building elevations are also inconsistent with the appearance of the building as shown on the colored perspective. If built according the elevations the building would look different than the perspective and not have as much horizontal and vertical relief. Building elevations need to be prepared for all four sides of the parking structure reflecting materials, colors, textures, and relief, to match with the building. 2. The street level interest has the beginnings of an interesting place to visit with outdoor seating, fountains, plazas and courtyards and are conceptually shown on the plans. The plans need to show the type of lighting, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles. 3. The street level interest needs improvement at the corner of Regional Center Road and Flying Cloud Drive. The sidewalk areas should be expanded to create a plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping. This would also provide a place for people waiting to cross 212 at a safer distance back from the intersection and allow room for adequate site lines for cars making a right hand turn. 4. The landscape plan shows a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals. To reinforce the concept of street level interest the plan needs to include more areas of perennials and annuals throughout the project including planting beds along 212, planter boxes in front of the retail buildings, on the railings adjacent to the outdoor seating and hanging baskets in the plaza area on the west side of the building adjacent to ground floor retail. 5. The pavement patterns for the internal sidewalks, outdoor seating and other plaza area are proposed to be decorative concrete. The plan should be revised to specify a pattern, color, texture and include a minimum of 35% brick pavers. The Planning Commission should discuss the following questions: 1. Is the proposed land use consistent with the MCA Study and specifically the Town Center? 2. Is the project consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends a continuance of the project to the December 11, 2006 meeting directing the proponent to revise the plans according to the recommendations in this report. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp Senior Planner DATE: December 8, 2006 PROJECT: Windsor Plaza LOCATION: South of Singletree Lane, west of Flying Cloud Drive and north of Regional Center Road APPLICANT: Solomon Real Estate Group OWNER: Windsor Plaza, LLC REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres 3. Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service, and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres 5. Preliminary Plat of 5.8 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way Staff Report – Windsor Plaza December 8, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the November 27, 2006 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the plans be revised according to the recommendations of the November 22, 2006 staff report. At the meeting the applicant will present a computer model of the project. This staff report is based on a draft version of the model which did not yet contain all of the project details and pedestrian amenities that are depicted on the plans and elevations, but were adequate enough for staff to determine what parts of the project needed more work. PLAN REVISIONS The previous staff report identified five areas for revision. 1. Create pedestrian level scale and interest in the building architecture on the first floor. The plans show construction and material details on the building elevations in a manner similar to the scale model of exterior materials and colors. Architectural elevations show all four sides of the building and the parking structure. The parking structure uses similar materials and details as the building. The first floor of all sides of the buildings needs additional detail and variety of materials to create pedestrian scale and street level interest. The plans should be revised to show stone and brick details around each door. There should be a stone base and ledge below all windows. Attachment A shows one way this could be accomplished. The architect should determine the appropriate scale, material and construction details of how this idea can be incorporated into the design of the building. The staff is open to other ideas the architect may have to accomplish the same result for materials and details around doors and windows. 2. Add and identify lighting, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles standards for pedestrian scale and interest. The plans show the location of lighting, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles. The plans need to show the type of lighting, benches, bollards and trash receptacles. To improve walkablitiy for pedestrians, the plaza area in front of the west side of the building should be revised according to Attachment B. Two parking spaces should be converted to plaza so pedestrians can safely walk around the column without having to step off the curb. Some of the planter boxes and /or seats need to be relocated or removed to provide enough room for pedestrians to walk from the parking lot to the building entrances. Staff Report – Windsor Plaza December 8, 2006 Page 3 3. Include a plaza area at Highway 212 and Regional Center Road for pedestrian scale and interest. The plan shows a plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping. 4. Add more landscaping for pedestrian scale and interest. The plan shows more areas of perennials and annuals throughout the project including planting beds along Highway 212 and planter boxes in front of the retail plaza. The plans should be revised to show planter boxes in the outdoor seating areas and hanging baskets in the plaza area on the west side of the building adjacent to ground floor retail. 5. Add and identify pavement patterns to create pedestrian scale and interest. The pavement patterns for the internal sidewalks, outdoor seating and other plaza area are proposed to be decorative concrete. The plan should be revised to specify color, texture and include a minimum of 35% brick pavers. There should also be a decorative pavement in the outdoor seating areas. DRYVIT The staff met with sales representatives from Lutz Company. New construction methods and warranties were discussed. There have been changes in the product over the last six years to improve drainage behind the insulation and adding granite and other stone chips to the exterior finish to better simulate natural stone. Like all exterior materials the appearance and long term maintenance depends on the quality in which the material is applied and the commitment from the owner to maintain the buildings exterior. The staff has looked at applications of the proposed material on existing buildings as recommended by the manufacturer. The staff observation is that texture of the surface will not be apparent higher up on the proposed building and will be dependant on cuts and reveals to create definition or the stone like appearance. The application of this material on the first floor, with the exception of minor forms and details, is not recommended and a precast material or brick should be used. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ALONG HIGHWAY 212 The 8 foot wide bituminous trail along Highway 212 is located 6 feet back from the curb which is the city standard. This is a transportation trail for the 212 corridor and bituminous is the standard. The state plans to turn the road over to the county in the future. The county road design standards are different and it may be possible that portions of the paved shoulder could be converted to green space to provide additional separation for portions of the trail from the curb. Staff Report – Windsor Plaza December 8, 2006 Page 4 Since the trail is along the outer edge of the town center and serves a transportation function the staff recommends that the trail be bituminous. There will be a pedestrian plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping at the corner of Highway 212 and Regional Center Road. This will provide a place for people waiting to cross Highway 212 at a safer distance back from the intersection and allow room for adequate site lines for cars making a right hand turn. SUMMARY The Planning Commission should discuss the following questions: 1. Is the proposed land use consistent with the MCA Study and specifically the Town Center? 2. Is the project consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Additional revisions to the plans are necessary as recommended in the staff report. Other revisions may be needed pending a review of the final computer model. A review of the final computer model is needed to determine if the project is consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study and to make sure that the plans and the computer model are aligned in representing what will be built. Staff recommends a continuance of the project to the January 8, 2007 meeting directing the proponent to revise the plans according to the recommendations in this report. As soon as the computer model is completed a copy should be provided to the Planning Commission for review. APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2006 MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. Pitzrick and Rocheford abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WINDSOR PLAZA Request for: Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 2 Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Jay Scott, of Solomon Real Estate Group, presented the proposal. Mr. Scott stated he would like to highlight some of the recommendations listed in the staff report. He pointed out his group will bring the final project to the December 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. He stated their project is a catalyst for the Town Center design. Mr. Scott pointed out that this project is an assembly of 4 different parcels; 3 office buildings and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World. He stated this is a transitional piece of property and it needs to work well with the mall but also has to be a transitional piece of property for the Town Center area. Mr. Scott said in regards to the parking issue, their company has hired independent consultants to address this issue. He stated they tried to cut out unnecessary use of parking. They also studied the shared parking analysis, due to restaurants, office and retail areas. They did not over park the project but adequately designed it to accommodate the parking issue. Dan Anderson, project designer, pointed out the window model presented this evening was an example of color and texture of the proposed building. He stated it would give a good prospective of what some of the building would resemble. Mr. Anderson utilized the overhead projector to show products that would be used in the design of the building. He pointed out the restaurants would also tie in with the same design. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this staff report is different than the traditional staff reports. Franzen stated they are more concerned with the design of this project because it will be placed in the Town Center area. He stated this project is about articulation of design. They want to incorporate the “best of the best things” that were seen on their recent tour of other cities. Franzen said they would also like the landscaping plans and final building plans to come before the Planning Commission prior to them obtaining their building permit. He stated the City would like to make sure what they propose is exactly what they would like in the Town Center area. Franzen stated he would like the project proponent to address the five issues in the staff report and present their project to the December 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Gary Cook, of 8108 Eden Road, asked if Eden Road is going to go through from Singletree Road to Regional Center Road. Gray said there would be a transportation corridor going through the area, and it would be a 2-lane road. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 3 Pitzrick asked about the cream-color material on the building and asked if it was drive-it material. Mr. Anderson stated it was drive-it material. Pitzrick stated he felt the side of the building along Flying Cloud Road appeared to be only 3 feet away from the trail. He felt this would be a problem with plowing in the winter. Fox stated the trail along the road is similar to what is throughout the City. As far as snow removal, the City would like to shift responsibility to the building owners. Powell stated he felt the three foot barrier from the trail to the road is too small. Franzen stated this issue could be addressed at the future meeting. He stated maybe there is a possibility that the trail could be put somewhere else in the project that would make it not so close to the road. Pitzrick asked where the loading dock would be located. Brian Klutz, project designer, commented the distance between the curb to the trail is actually 6 feet. He then stated the loading dock would be under the parking ramp; which would be in the basement level of the building. Pitzrick asked if they were looking to achieve lead certification on this project. Mr. Klutz stated they did previously make an attempt to achieve this in a prior list that was given to the City. Dan Carson, lead civil engineer, described what a lead certification consists of. He pointed out you receive points for using certain products, such as paint or recycled water. The goal would be to incorporate a variety of elements into the site. Pitzrick asked how much of this design would be carried forward to future projects. Franzen stated not all of the buildings would look exactly the same; they would only want certain elements in the designs of the buildings. He stated the City would establish certain criteria and let the architects come up with their own design. Stoelting asked how the vehicles will flow through the site and where the parking would be located. Dan Carson utilized the overhead projector and pointed out where the entrances would be located. He said all parking would be located in the parking garage. He said presently it is a three level garage but they could change it to four levels if that is what the City would want. Mr. Carson also stated there would be secured parking below the building. He said the trucks would be utilizing the underground parking area for their deliveries. Mr. Carson also utilized the overhead projector to show where the pedestrian walkways would be located. He also said there would be multiple access points off the trail system. Stoelting asked where the bus shelter would be located. Mr. Carson said they do not have a bus shelter located on this project. Seymour asked Staff about the traffic issues in the area. Gray stated this project will produce increased traffic but they see no problem with this project creating traffic problems. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 4 Powell asked if the current intersection of Singletree Road and 212 could possibly become non-existent in the future. Gray stated as the intersection shifts that could possibly be an outcome. Stoltz asked if Staff was satisfied with the parking on the site. Franzen stated they were satisfied with the parking on this site. Stoltz stated he feels that a pedestrian level does need to be designed for this project. Pitzrick asked again if drive-it material is a durable type of material. Mr. Carson stated this product has changed since years past and it is a very durable and warranted material. He stated they are confident in this product. Pitzrick addressed the sidewalk issue and stated that before this project is approved they should make sure they have the right spacing between the trail and the road. Franzen stated when the project proponent returns for the December 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, he should have two functional drawings showing pedestrian walkways and traffic flows. Stoelting reiterated the meeting on December 11, 2006, will allow the project proponent more time to develop this project. Stoelting asked Mr. Scott if he had any objectives to the continuance. Mr. Scott said he did not have any objectives to the continuance. Franzen asked if the Commission Members would need a model of this project or would a drawing be appropriate. Mr. Scott stated they will have a computer model at the next meeting. He stated it might not be detailed enough to show the pedestrian walkways. Kirk stated he wanted the details to the sidewalks addressed in the motion. Seymour pointed out in regards to asking architects to bring in models; if the Commission asks one developer to do that, they need to ask all developers to bring in models. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend a continuance to the December 11, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission, including detailed sections of the sidewalk area along Highway 212. Motion carried 8-0. Pitzrick asked to amend the motion to address the issue of drive-it material. Kirk amended the motion to add that there would be staff evaluation of the drive-it material. B. RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 5 from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres. Dan Anderson presented the proposal. He started out by requesting Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this project is similar to the first project that was presented this evening. He also stated an issue that should be addressed would by the traffic flow in and out of this property. Franzen stated they did their own study to see if there was adequate room for vehicles to maneuver around the gas pumps. They found they need more room in the north/south dimension to this site. Stoelting asked Franzen how many additional feet that would amount to. Franzen stated it would be 9 additional feet of horizontal space. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Pitzrick asked if the project proponent anticipates additional space for this project in the future. Mr. Anderson stated that if the need would arise for additional space in the future they would be willing to accommodate the change at that time. Pitzrick stated he wanted the architects to be creative in their design of the gas pump island area. Mr. Anderson stated they have no problem with creating a pleasing architectural design to this project. MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Kirk, to recommend a continuance to the December 11, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report. Motion carried 8-0. VII. GUIDE PLAN UPDATE • Introduction to Transportation Monique Mackenzie and Marie Cote presented the Transportation Guide Plan Update. Some of the Transportation Chapter Components are as follows: 1. Traffic forecasts. 2. Mapping. 3. Highway system issues and plans. 4. Bicycle and pedestrian transportation. 5. Transit systems. Trends and Influencing Factors 1. Aging population. 2. Increasing congestion. 3. More expensive fuel and energy costs. 4. Better transportation alternatives. 5. Interest in active, healthy lifestyles. Roadway System Maintenance Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 6 Study will focus on how to accommodate existing growth in the area. Some of the Focused Change Areas are as follows: 1. Land use changes. 2. Limits to expansion of road network. 3. Emphasis on walking facilities. GTA Transportation Objectives 1. Reduce peak period traffic congestion. 2. Increase transit use. MCA Transportation Objectives 1. Locate appropriate density at right locations. 2. Take advantage of the light rail transit system to support higher density development. Key Questions to be addressed regarding the Transportation Study 1. Should the City dedicate transportation resources to updating existing roadways or developing new roadways. 2. Should we have transportation improvements for non-motorized travel in Eden Prairie. 3. Are there certain areas where transportation improvement areas should focus. 4. What funding sources should be considered. Stoelting asked if the Commission should be focusing on the new roadway corridors or existing roadways. Stoelting was also concerned about the feasibility of constructing new roadways in Eden Prairie. Gray addressed these issues by stating in the last 15 years, Eden Prairie has done a lot of improvement to the roadways and it does anticipate the possibility of developing some new corridors to handle the new growth and construction of the City. He stated the City will be improving the corridors throughout the City to handle new development. Gray pointed out the challenge would be financing improvements to roadway corridors. He stated it would be a benefit to the City if it had the Light Rail System. Gray pointed out the LRS would be a substantial corridor that would connect Eden Prairie to other parts of the metro area. Stoelting reiterated it is not really new corridors that are being addressed but rather the Light Rail System and improving existing roadways. Stoelting asked if there was any prioritization, in the concept of dollars, as to which improvements would be considered first in line. Gray stated the City has been working with MNDot to receive some funding for these projects and some of the first priorities would be Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Boulevard, and also Pioneer Trail and the 169/494 interchange. He stated the City would need a considerable amount of money to fund these projects. Gray also pointed out the Golden Triangle area would need a lot of input/output access points. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 7 Kirk stated he strongly supports non-motorized travel both in the MCA and residential areas of the city. He also stated the old Hwy 212 is a dilemma. He pointed out it is an old road and also a dangerous road, however, it is an area where we are trying to preserve the prairie bluff environment. Marie Cote stated they anticipate a lot of volume in the future for the new Hwy 212; which would take traffic off of the old Hwy 212. Pitzrick stated he would like to see pedestrian bridges set up in the Singletree/Hwy 212 area, and Singletree/Prairie Center Drive area for pedestrian traffic and to function as landmark signage. Marie Cote stated some of these roadways would not be conducive for pedestrian bridges due to the high level of traffic. She stated pedestrian transportation is very important to the transportation study and they are looking at addressing all options. Powell asked if the development of the Community Center would increase traffic congestion on Valley View Road. Randy Newton, City Graphic Engineer, stated the improvements to the Community Center would not add congestion the Valley View Road. We need to look at the impact on the power line on the high density area of the MCA and what options we have to remove the power line. VIII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Franzen stated there will be 6 items scheduled for the December 11, 2006, meeting. This will include: 1. Windsor Plaza 2. Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World 3. Staring Preserve 4. St. Andrew Condominium Site. 5. Amendment to the Bluff Country Village. 6. Presentation on Rain Water Gardens There will be no Planning Commission Meeting on December 25, 2006 due to the Holiday. IX. MEMBERS REPORTS Stoltz asked Franzen if there have been any new developments with the Bent Creek Golf Course. Franzen stated there have been no new developments since the November 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 8 MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Pete Rocheford left prior to adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Al Gray, City Engineer; Mike Franzen, City Planner; Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Rocheford and Seymour. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2006 Kirk had an addition to the first sentence in the first paragraph on page 7 of the minutes. It should read “ Kirk stated he strongly supports non-motorized travel both in MCA and residential sections of Eden Prairie.” He also had an addition to the third sentence of the same paragraph. It should read, “He pointed out it is an old road and also a dangerous road, however, it is in an area where we are trying to preserve the Prairie Bluff area. Pizrick had some additional changes to the minutes. The first change would be page 5, third paragraph, first sentence. It should read, “Pitzrick asked if the project proponent anticipates additional space for this project in the future and anticipates for future fuel types, such as C & G and hydrogen fuel.” The third sentence in the same paragraph should read, “Pitzrick stated he wanted the architects to be creative in their design of the gas pump island area. The next change Pitzrick had was on page 7, paragraph two, first sentence. It should read, “Pitzrick stated he would like to see pedestrian bridges set up in the Singletree/Hwy 212 area, and Singletree/Prairie Center Drive area for pedestrian traffic and to function as land mark signage for downtown Eden Prairie.” Pitzrick also added the following information to the end of paragraph three on page 7. It should read, “Pitzrick stated that we need to look at the impact of the power line on the development potential in the high density area of MCA and also the options to regroup the power line.” Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 2 MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0. Koenig abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS A. ST. ANDREW WOODS INFORMATIONAL MEETING Request for: Informational meeting to present a concept plan for a proposed multiple family use of property currently guided low density residential. The plan includes eight twin home units in four buildings. Location is the northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive. Henry Lazniarz, of St. Andrews Woods, LLC, presented the proposal. He stated they previously proposed a 17 unit building and are coming back this evening with an 8 twin home units in four buildings. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate this proposal. He stated in regard to Baker Road, it is a highly traveled road and because of it he felt this area would most likely not attract families with children, due to the busyness of the road. Mr. Lazniarz also pointed out at the end of Vervoort Lane there is a play area for kids, including a basketball hoop. He said a good project would keep Vervoort Lane as it is and not expand the street. He stated the four buildings could fit on the site with a private road installed. Mr. Lazniarz also said the home values would be in the range of $550,000 to $600,000. He pointed out in regards to the residents on the hill and their concern of the view, they have changed their design of the buildings to rambler town homes. Mr. Lazniarz said because of the elevation, there would be a much better site line. Mr. Lazniarz also stated they would be putting a pond and a fountain on the property. He said he felt this proposal is the best possible use for this site and also said the best fit for this site would be to make these units senior living housing. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this property is designated as low density residential. The proposed plan for tonight is a guide plan change. He stated the Commission should base their decision on which plan is best and would fit with the neighborhood. Franzen also stated the most logical fit is access from Vervoort Lane, and 4 single family homes. In regards to families in the area, he pointed out there are many single family homes in the area on Baker Road has not had an impact on single family homes. Franzen stated there are two options for this area, twin homes and single family homes. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Jason Anderson, of 7238 Vervoort Lane, whose residence is adjacent to the lot being developed, stated he moved into this area 5 years ago and at that time he had a concern the adjacent lot would be developed. He stated they have three children and plan to raise their children in the area. He pointed out there would be 10 feet between the lot line and the building and their view across the street Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 3 would be another unit. He also said in regards to the trees, most of them would be taken down with the project. Mr. Anderson said he is also concerned with the increased traffic this project would bring to the area. Gamal Eshmawy, who was the previous owner to this property, stated when he sold the property it was agreed there would be built on this lot four single family units; which he was to have one of these units to purchase at a reduced price. Mr. Eshmawy stated this was agreed on before signing the purchase agreement. He gave Chair Stoelting a copy of the agreement for official record. Joan Carroll, of 13764 Fenwick Ct, stated initially she was fine with the proposal but after hearing Mr. Eshmawy speak she has some reservations. Patricia Harris, of 7262 Vervoort Lane, stated she is the original owner of her home. She pointed out Mr. Lazniarz never did meet with all of the neighbors as he stated. She stated the proposed twin homes would be in their area. She is concerned there is only 5 proposed off street parking spaces, which she felt could be an issue. Mrs. Harris stated she would rather see this area developed into single family homes. She pointed out there are many kids in the area and feels the single family homes would be conducive to families. She showed illustrations of Mr. Lazniarz’s Sommerset project, utilizing the overhead projector, and pointed out how compact the town homes are in the area. She also read a letter from her husband, who was unable to attend, in which he supports her concerns. Margaret Perry, of 13715 St. Andrew Drive, stated she is also concerned with the parking in the area and pointed out St. Andrew Drive is not very conducive to off street parking. She is also concerned the cottonwood trees would be taken down. Ms. Perry said she has reservations about the driveway that would be put in for this project and stated it is very close to the front of her house and she is concerned with the traffic this would produce and the headlights shining in her front window. She utilized the overhead projector to show where the driveway would be located in proximity to the front of her home. Jess Irmiter, of 7270 Vervoort Lane, pointed out the meeting with the project proponent was very limited. He stated he has numerous concerns for this project and they are as follows; driveway issue, wetland area and drainage issues, and the senior housing issue based on the fact that it is very difficult to segregate an area as senior housing. Mrs. Husby, who lives in the town homes in the area, said she is concerned with looking at the rooftops of this proposed development. Stoelting summarized the following issues: 1. Tree loss in the area 2. Increased traffic 3. Previous owner and contract issues 4. Parking 5. Cottonwood tree loss Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 4 6. New road drive outlet 7. Water run-off 8. Roof lines Mr. Lazniarz addressed the issues of the trees, setbacks, and traffic. He stated if this project were to change to single family homes it would not change any of the setbacks. In regards to the trees, he said the loss would be the same for either the town homes or single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz pointed out when they initially proposed the condos, this project would have saved numerous trees. Also, with the condo development, the building could be kept lower which would require less fill. Mr. Lazniarz said in extending up Vervoort Lane would cause more tree loss. In regards to traffic, he said if Vervoort Lane is not extended, the private drive would be created, which would take traffic off of that area. He also said senior units would create less traffic than 4 single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz said in regards to the contract issue, Mr. Eshmawy had a contract agreement with CRE Construction. He said the purchase agreement was bought by his company and the agreement the past owner gets a single family lot was dismissed from the agreement. Mr. Lazniarz stated they offered Mr. Eshmawy the following: 1. They offered options to commensurate below average compensation for the lot 2. Sell Mr. Eshmawy back the property for $350,000, plus incurred expenses 3. Sell Mr. Eshmawy a unit (8 acres) across the street from the property 4. Or create one single family home on the twin home property Mr. Lazniarz said he came to an agreement with Mr. Eshmawy that he would receive $75,000. Mr. Lazniarz thought they were still under that agreement Leslie Dahlen, a realtor that set up the meetings with the neighbors, stated the reason they could not get all of the neighbors together at once was because they were never in agreement as to time and date. She also stated she could not reach the Harris residence to inform them of the meetings because they have an unlisted phone number. Mr. Lazniarz stated in regards to parking, there are five onsite parking spots but what needs to be considered is the garage space and the two car space outside of each unit, which would give a total of 21 parking spaces. Mr. Lazniarz stated in regards to the neighbor whose home is across the street from the private drive, he said his company looked into this issue and they found the driveway is positioned such that the car headlights would never shine in the homeowner’s windows. Pertaining to the issue of water run-off, Mr. Lazniarz stated the architects have assured him they have taken appropriate wetland standards into consideration and they will also be bringing in fill to the site. Mr. Lazniarz said in regards to the rooftops, it would not make a difference if they had rambler-type single family homes or rambler-type town homes. The roof tops would still be the same. He also said there would be a 4 foot high retaining wall in the backside of the property. In regards to Mrs. Husby, Mr. Lazniarz said they would be willing to plant trees in her yard to act as a buffer for the rooftops. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 5 Stoelting asked Fox to address the issue of cottonwood trees. Fox stated out of the 63 trees in the area, only 9 are significant trees, which would be the cottonwood trees. He said all but two of the cottonwoods would have to be removed. He also pointed out they are looking at an 80% tree loss, but said whatever style of home would go in that area, there would be significant tree loss. Stoelting asked Franzen if he were to go forward with single family homes, would the project proponent have to make an additional presentation at an informational meeting? Franzen stated the project proponent could proceed to the public hearing. Kirk asked Franzen to comment on the senior restrictive housing. Franzen stated if it was low income or affordable housing, and TIF was involved the city could designate what is could be used for. Pitzrick asked if single family homes would be feasible financially. Mr. Lazniarz said 4 lots would not be feasible, but 5 lots would be. Mr. Lazniarz pointed out this area is not a very attractive development site and he does not feel people will spend the money for single family homes. He said $700,000 homes would be hard to sell in that area. Stoltz asked Mr. Lazniarz to put up a picture of the end of Vervoort Lane and asked him to discuss the tree loss. Mr. Lazniarz utilized the overhead projector to show a picture of Vervoort Lane. He said they would save more trees with a private drive rather than extending Vervoort Lane. Stoltz asked if the current residents would be looking at the units. Mr. Lazniarz said the setbacks would be the same for either single family homes or town homes and they would be willing to plant more trees for buffers. He said four single family homes will have the same environmental consequences as town homes. Fox stated houses 10 feet from the property lines would not be able to house trees as buffers because there would be no room. He also said it is difficult to analyze this because there is no grading plan in effect. Franzen reiterated this point by stating with the mass of the building there would not be much room for trees. Koenig asked Franzen about the parking issue. Franzen stated there is adequate parking for this proposal. Koenig asked Mr. Lazniarz if he considered putting up 2 buildings with 4 units each. Mr. Lazniarz said financially it would be very difficult. Koenig said the pricing of the town homes would not be much lower than the single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz stated in looking at the costs, there would be a considerable difference between the two. Koenig asked Franzen how this project could be labeled as senior housing. Franzen stated the City does not need more market rate units but rather affordable housing. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Lazniarz stated they originally proposed the condo building to put in affordable units and to save trees but the neighbors did not like this concept because the units were cheaper than the other housing in the neighborhood. Koenig stated the condominiums just did not fit into the area. Kirk stated the town home proposal would have less traffic and would be less intrusive than single family homes for Vervoort residents. Stoelting pointed out this is an informational meeting and he would like to see a little more detail in regards to the single family homes. Koenig said the Commission should give the developer more direction on the cul-de-sac issue or opening up Vervoort Lane. Powell stated he was surprised that the neighbors on Vervoort Lane opposed a private drive versus going through Vervoort Lane. Powell also said he would want the legal issue resolved in regard to the contract issue. Stoelting asked Franzen to address this issue. Franzen said it was a private party issue. Stoltz stated it would be in the best interest of everyone involved if there was a resolution to the contract before it was approved. Duckstad said there is not enough information presented tonight to make a decision. He felt the neighbor’s concerns should be taken into consideration. Stoelting summarized by stating the Planning Commission would like to see both proposals more fully developed, especially the single family home plan, and to include several different side plans. The developer agreed to work on the new proposals and to present them at a future meeting with the residents. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING PRESERVE Request for: Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Michael Brandvold, of Anderson Engineering, presented the proposal. He stated they have reviewed the staff report and have no questions. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the project. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the Staff recommends approval based on page 3 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Koenig asked Fox to address the issue of tree loss due to construction. Fox stated the project proponent will be replacing trees and the project proponent meets the City’s requirements for tree replacement. Powell asked if the public notices went out. Franzen stated the notices did go out to the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 7 MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way based on plans stamped dated November 29, 2006, and the staff report dated December 8, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.8 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.8 acres; Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Zoning District on 2.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 2.7 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.8 acres into two lots and one outlot. Beth Simonstad presented the proposal and utilized the overhead projector to show illustrations of the project. She gave some history to the project and stated she is here tonight to amend the proposed plan that was granted in 2002. The proposed plan included such items as a 2,300 sq. ft. coffee shop on 7 acres, a 1,200 sq. ft. retail building on 2 acres, and 3.1 acres for future development, which would include 2 buildings on the site. Ms. Simonstad stated they are now making the buildings smaller to give the project a more residential feeling. She illustrated the plan of the two buildings on the lot and also showed an illustration of a landscaping plan. She stated they will be making road improvements to the north side of this site and pointed out they will also be saving the oak trees in the area. Ed Farr, of Ed Farr Architects, illustrated the building design utilizing the overhead projector. He stated it does meet the setback requirements and material requirements. He also showed the different brick types that would be used in the building. He pointed out the architectural design would be carried out on all four sides of the building. He stated in reference to Walgreens, they are trying to coordinate the design of the building to that of the proposed buildings. Mr. Farr stated in regards to the walkways, there would be a generous walkway around the buildings. He said there would be a general landscape buffer along Breezy Way and the developers would also eliminate the service corridor along the backside of the building that would face the residential area. Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the road improvements. Ms. Simonstad illustrated the road improvements utilizing the overhead projector. She pointed out they would be removing the old medians and replacing them with new ones. She stated this is a very expensive project and she will continue to meet with the Staff on this issue. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated on page 4 of the staff report there are six questions that need to be addressed by the Commission. He also pointed out there are three options for this project and the staff is recommending revisions to architecture, roads and screening. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 8 Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Greg Harcus, of 9822 Belmont Lane, stated he would like to see a neighborhood meeting in regard to this project. He stated he liked a lot of the ideas that were presented tonight but has one concern with this project. He stated his concern is the visitor parking for the town home association is located on this property. He stated the project proponent stated they could still park in the area, and he just wants to make sure that is still carried out. Steve Mohn, of 9812 Lee Drive, stated he does like this plan. His only concern is they like the concept of the two small buildings and does not want to see it turned into one building. Rich Feely, of 9878 Lee Drive, seconded Steve Mohn’s comments. He stated he supports the project and would like to see it passed. George McNulty, of 9681 Belmont Lane, stated he has some questions in regards to the building roofs, lighting in the parking area, drive entrances, and the guest parking outlot. Stoelting summarized the public’s comments. 1. Neighborhood excited about the plan 2. Concern for a neighborhood meeting 3. Outlot A, what is the plan 4. Visitor Parking 5. Sloped roofs 6. Access into the property; will headlights affect the residents Ms. Simonstad stated in regards to parking, she will work with the residents to come to a resolve on this issue. She stated in regards to outlot A, she has not addressed any parking spaces as of yet, but will address this situation. In regards to access and headlights, she said the access into the property would not impact the residents. Mr. Farr stated the market supports a flat roof contemporary design. Stoelting stated the staff report recommends the slope roof design. Mr. Farr stated he appreciates the concept of the sloped roof but they would like to use the flat roof design. Franzen stated typically projects located in a residential area should transition into the area. He stated the architects should capture a few aspects of the Walgreens building and incorporate it into their design. Franzen stated Staff will leave it up to the architects to create a design that is consistent and with a residential character. Pitzrick said in regards to the roof situation, he would like to make sure it is an attractive roof. In regards to the south side of the parking area, he would like to see a rain garden into the area. Mr. Farr pointed out there are two rain gardens in the area. Pitzrick stated when outlot A is developed, the project proponent should make sure there is no problem with shared parking. Stoelting asked Franzen to Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 9 address the issue of shared parking. Franzen stated all of the areas were designed to stand alone in regards to parking. He stated all four parcels will have to enter into an agreement in regards to parking. Koenig stated to Franzen since the Commission approved the previous PUD, the proponent is bound by that one. Franzen stated the city is under no obligation to amend the approved plan and agreement. The commission has the discretion to recommend an amendment to the plan if you believe the plan is acceptable. Koenig asked Franzen for a comparison of tree loss between the approved plan and the proposed plan. Franzen stated the only difference would be the two oak trees that would have to be removed. Stoelting asked Franzen if the two oak trees could be saved by repositioning the coffee shop. Franzen stated they could be saved by repositioning the coffee shop. Fox said the only trees left on this site would be the trees in the land dedicated to the City. Ms Simonstad said they will replace any trees as required by the City. Pitzrick said he would like to see some sloped roof tops. Duckstad said he would like the architect to work with the City in designing the roof. Stoelting reiterated to the Commission the three options that were stated in the staff report and asked for a consensus. The consensus was for a continuation. Stoelting asked the project proponent if they would be willing to come back to the January 8 Commission Meeting. They said yes. Chuck Hausker, of 9836 Belmont, stated he is concerned with the woodland area on the property and would like to see this area preserved. Fox stated those trees are on City owned property. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to continue the project to the January 22, 2007 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission, which would include that the developer meets with City Staff in regards to developing a roof design, a tree replacement plan, grading plan, and cross access shared parking plan. City staff to discuss additional parking for nearby residents. Motion carried 7-0. C. WINDSOR PLAZA Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Jay Scott, of Solomon Real Estate Group, presented the proposal using a computer generated DVD of the project. Ryan Pletz, associate to Jay Scott, stated they will be showing a combined presentation of both Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 10 Bobby and Steve’s Auto World. The presentation showed the layout of the site plan including additional parking spots and the landscaping plan. It also diagramed vehicular traffic around the site as well as pedestrian traffic. Mr. Scott addressed the staff report stating they have compiled with the plan revisions addressed by Staff. David Tupper, landscape architect, showed additional illustrations of the landscaping plan utilizing the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the conclusions of the staff report indicates there still needs to be more work done on the store fronts. Franzen pointed out if the store front is not revised now it would be up to the Staff and the architects to come up with a design. Otherwise, the Commission should make recommendations to the plan. Franzen also stated the Commission can give PUD approval to this phase of the project and send that on to the City Council, and the rezoning would be continued. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no public input. Pitzrick stated he had a concern with the Dryvit material and would like to see a solid warranty going along with this project, along with a third party inspection. Bob Dazel, a representative of Dryvit, said all the products used would fall into a 10 year warranty. He stated if there is any type of moisture damage under warranty they will take full responsibility. He pointed out they only warrant faulty materials, the insulator would have to warrant his work. Stoltz asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the use of this project. Franzen stated in addressing this issue, the project proponent is in compliance. He also stated because they are asking for waivers, the Commission does have some flexibility in regards to this issue. Kirk stated it is important to challenge the project proponent, but he does not feel the Commission has the expertise to criticize the product. Duckstad asked the project proponent to address the issue of durability of this product. Mr. Pletz said he is very comfortable with the durability of this product. Duckstad stated as long as the architect and the City Planner are comfortable with this product than the Commission should not micro-manage it. Stoelting stated he does not want the Commission to get bogged down on this issue and to discuss other issues of the project. Franzen summarized the project stating overall it was a very good project. Mr. Scott stated they have addressed specific issues this evening but the only thing they cannot accommodate would be a specific store front, and stated it would need to be flexible. Stoltz asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the store fronts. Franzen stated revising the store fronts is a recommendation from the Staff. The Commission can either agree or modify the recommendation. If the final design is left to the developer and staff, the Commission will have to be comfortable without having input into the final details. Stoltz commented he would feel comfortable with the City Staff in charge of completing the revisions as stated in the report. In regards to the store fronts, Franzen commented he wants the architect to be creative but also to be held accountable for work completed. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 11 Mr. Scott stated they would be willing to work with the City Staff on any issues, including the store fronts. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way, based on the staff report dated December 8, 2006 and based on plans stamped dated December 4, 2006, and the plans presented to the Planning Commission on the computer model DVD shown to the Commission this evening, December 11, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. D. RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres. Ryan Pletz presented the proposal and stated this was a combined presentation of Windsor Plaza. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated staff recommendation was similar to the Windsor Project and after the presentation, Staff would be willing to work with the project proponent to fine tune any details on this project. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres, based on the staff report dated December 8, 2006 and based on plans stamped dated December 4, 2006, and the plans presented to the Planning Commission on the computer model DVD shown to the Commission this evening, December 11, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 12 Due to the lateness of the meeting, Franzen postponed the Rain Water Presentation until the January 8, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting. Tax Increment Plan for Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World. Franzen stated there needs to be an amendment in the motion to change it from Windsor Plaza to Town Center Phase I. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the tax increment plan for Town Center Phase I. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORT IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS Stoelting recognized Jon Duckstad for his work on the Planning Commission and wished him well with the City Council. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:56 a.m. Area Location Map - Windsor Plaza Address: West of Flying Cloud, South of Sing letree Lane Sirl ee Lane 212/Flying Cloud Drive I Prairie Center Drive Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Industrial Park - 5Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min, Pak VVater Right-of-VVay Chanhassen City limits Shoreland Management Classifications tzrn Natural Environment Waters 11 Recreational Development Waters el—tTI, General Development Waters (Creeks Only) M 100- Year Floodplain Highway ef312 West of County Road ft4 is proposed, not constructed at this time. Up dated through Ordinance ff09-2005 Ordinance it-33-200i (BF! Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: June 24, 2005 Rural One Family -10 acre mm. R1-44 R.1-22 R1-13.5 R1-9.5 RM-6.5 RM-2.5 Office I I Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial One Family- 44,000 at. min. One Family-22,000 at min. One Family-13,500 sf min. I I One Family-9,500 at mm. Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Zoning Map Windsor Plaza West of Flying Cloud, South of Sing letree Lane 212/Flying Cloud Drive Prairie Center Drive EDEN PRAIRIE DATE Approved D3.19-03 DATE Revised 01-07-05 Guide Plan Map Windsor Plaza West of Flying Cloud, South of Sing letree Lane Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial Principal Arterial L= Low Density/Public/Open Space I Community Commercial - A MinorArterial I I Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre fin Regional Commercial - B Minor Arterial 1--1 Medium Density Residential/Office Park/Open Space - Major Collector liii High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public - Minor Collector I Office Church/ Cemetery V/A Office/Industrial Open Water Office/Public/Open Space Right-01-VVay IIIIII Industrial Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA) Creeks PE CONSULTING G ROUP / INC. Transportation • Civil • Structural • Environmental • Planning • Traffic • Landscape Architecture • Parking • Right of Way SRF No. 0065765 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Randy Newton, P.E., P.T.O.E, City of Eden Prairie FROM: Marie Cote, RE., Principal Renae Cornelius, RE., Senior Engineer DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 SUBJECT : TH 212/S INGLETREE LANE INTERSECTION AND SOLOMON DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION We have completed a traffic study for the intersection of TM 212/Singletree Lane and the proposed Solomon development, located west of TH 212 and south of Singletree Road in the City of Eden Prairie. The purpose of this study is to first analyze how the intersection of TM 212/Singletree Lane will operate under 2030 build conditions, assuming that the intersection has the same geometric configuration as today. The next step is to compare the land use assumptions (type and size), trip generation estimates and traffic impacts identified in the Major Center Area (MCA) Study — Traffic Analysis memorandum dated February 7, 2006 with those of the proposed Solomon development to determine if the proposed development causes any additional impacts. This traffic study includes a p.m. peak hour operations analysis for year 2030 build conditions. TH 212/SINGLETREE LANE The analysis completed for the MCA traffic study assumed that the intersection of TM 212/Singletree Lane would be realigned to the north to create a full intersection at TH 212 with West 78th Street. In addition, the mall entrance opposite Singletree Lane was assumed to be closed. The following analysis was completed to determine how well the existing configuration of the TM 212/Singletree Lane/Mall Entrance intersection will accommodate the assumed MCA development trips during the p.m. peak hour for year 2030 build conditions. The forecast volumes at the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane/Mall Entrance assuming the existing roadway configuration are shown in Figure 1 for year 2030 p.m. peak hour build conditions. Turning movement volumes for adjacent intersections are shown in Appendix A. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite ISO Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447-4443 Tel: 763-475-0010 • Fax: 753-475-2429 srfoonsulting.com Case Plaza, One North Second Street Fargo, North Dakota 58102-4807 Tel: 701-237-0010 • Fax: 701-237-0017 At, Erma/ Orporbalify Eopioyer „,TH 212 000 CN 0 LO el Tr 01 0 0 0 0 CO el Tr CNI 150 (150) 270 (270) 165 (165) Singletree Lane CONSULTING GROUP, 1SC. 0065765 August 2006 (335) 275 (325) 325 (210) 200 Legend XX MCA 2030 Build Volumes (XX) = Solomon 2030 Build Volumes 2030 BUILD CONDITION - PM. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES TH212/SINGELTREE INTERSECTION AND SOLOMON DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY City of Eden Prairie Figure 1 Randy Newton -3- September 5, 2006 As shown in Table 1, the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane, with the existing roadway geometries, is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The eastbound approach operates at LOS F with over 80 seconds of delay per vehicle. In addition, significant vehicle queues are expected to back into the adjacent intersections on Singletree Lane at Eden Road and Glen Lane. In order for this intersection to operate at an overall acceptable LOS D with eastbound queuing 'educed to just east of Glen Lane, it is recommended that the eastbound approach of Singletree Lane at TH 212 consist of dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane. This would require the signal timing for the east and west approaches to be converted to protected left-turn phasing. Table 1 2030 Build P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Level of Service Results INTERSECTION _ P.M. Peak Hour - Level of Service Overall Delay (seconds) and LOS Eastbound Approach Delay (seconds) and LOS Queuing Impacts TH 212/Singletree Lane- Rea li gne d(' 44 D 50 D Queues do not extend past Glen Road TH 212/Singletree Lane- Existing Configuration 56 E 83 F Queues extend past Eden Road Improvements Option 1 (2) 45 D 38 D Queues do not extend past Glen Road Improvements Option 2 (3) 48 D 41 D Queues extend past Glen Road (1) The MCA analysis assumed the Singletree Lane realignment to the north to create a full intersection with West 78th Street. LOS results reflect the realignment and recommended four-lane improvement to Singletree Lane. (2) Option I assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — two left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a right-turn lane (3) Option 2 assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — a left-turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane If the recommended lane configuration for the eastbound approach is not feasible at this intersection, a single left-turn lane, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane, with protected/permissive phasing for the east and west approaches, would operate at an overall acceptable LOS D. However, the eastbound queues would extend through the intersection of Singletree Lane/Glen Road. Southbound left-turn movements at this intersection would be difficult, however, vehicles on Glen Road have the option to access TH 212 using Leona Road to the north. For continuity purposes, an additional westbound through lane should be considered along Singletree Lane between the intersections of TH 212 and Eden Road. The p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for this analysis do not indicate a need for an additional lane at this time, however, it may be needed if land use assumptions from the MCA study change in the future. Therefore, preserving right-of-way for this additional lane in the future should be considered. Randy Newton -4- September 5, 2006 Please note that without the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street, the side-street stop controlled T- intersection at TH 212/West 78th Street mould fail, resulting in significant westbound queues on West 78th Street since the westbound left-turning vehicles will have a difficult time finding a gap to turn onto TH 212. Although the installation of a traffic signal at this location is necessary for this intersection to operate at acceptable levels, a signal at this intersection is not a viable option. Therefore, consideration should be given to banning westbound left-turns at this intersection. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development would be located south of Singletree Road, west of TH 212, in the City of Eden Prairie (see Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan). The proposed development consists of retail, office, restaurant and gas station land uses. The trip generation estimates were calculated using the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Reports. The MCA traffic study assumed that a portion of this parcel would redevelop with retail and residential land uses, and the rest will remain as is, for year 2030 conditions. The trip estimates for the proposed development and previously assumed land uses are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Trip Generation Estimate Comparison Type Size Daily Trips P.M. Peak In Out MCA assumptions - 5,887 248 267 Solomon Development Office 100,000 sq. ft. 1,101 25 124 Retail 20,000 sq. ft, 859 36 39 Restaurant 250 seats 1,208 61 44 Restaurant 200 seats 966 49 35 Subtotal 4,134 171 242 Gas Station/Convenience Market 16 pumps 2,604 113 113 Grand Total 6,738 284 355 Difference in trips 851 36 88 New forecast volumes, with the proposed development trips, are shown in Figure 1 for year 2030 p.m. peak hour build conditions. t.. P1ftWI -. 514" C IMAT3ON ttntlic // •1 MR 2 NUM PMKUt MSC 7 S EMU PHASE 2 rEDESTRU {04uLd.pr- • • Pfl I mar zi• t '1„1,74,) I mu 2. 1711 P.111A ELM tA4tp--, I- , mat 2 t— RAW At£1.5'?0, I F1E1.-StfiCE: sit; Be ,71CW.It 1 kilt, N. • 0.•;1,!7101.::•: n0Y0,15 11tYM I • I r2=1 O 1b. 311 CO IT F0016 PA CARDERS Lt RAN 0ARDEM AFIE•A SUMMARY 11a.. 2UIP3) It Ac1.11. COIrl.an 11. 1;1 0001 10%t 1.I1 rao,a1r/ oa 111/71-0111T .11.00 110 nal4.0/1111 .01110A 1.0,7 11111 Intl VV.,, .11r4t IMPS Intl -cow, Listle 11%, 001 I0. .111001 pt.-Frahm amskarr male; 1111)01 1(01143.1111101.k01._ .1%011031/1 %,.....111 %nag 110sa ak0.11/1 1,001.0 7/11.0•1111 010211110210 (7J (On-L-1V AW Isp.to ,rutst mots mut .utcuuttoi I • C _ . KEA L .• 6!...)0A1,..1.0,1' fER : 0M20 ./.". I El) CEDiVEl.ellIENT 00 0143(00 TOWN CENTER PHASE I PLA11 ••n:1 10 !SOU! PRAM CE [Mt My:C. 0100I0.1.4110.- 11111110 W./410.01.1 TOWN CENTER PHASE I SITE PLAN 9:111:W. A • All S10IL11112 IA10I1 Chas O'Brien SErotlier ARCHITECTS PIRACVS P10I61- COOOIJLT1OOT Goour,INC 0065765 August 2006 PROPOSED SOLOMON SITE PLAN TH212/SINGELTREE INTERSECTION AND SOLOMON DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY City of Eden Prairie Figure 2 Randy Newton -6- September 5, 2006 To determine how well the recommended roadway system will accommodate the increase in trips due to the proposed development, a p.m. peak hour operations analysis was conducted for year 2030 build conditions. This analysis was completed for the realigned intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane and compared the two recommended configurations previously mentioned. In addition, a third option for the eastbound approach at the intersection of Singletree Lane/TH 212 was analyzed. The following are the three geometric configurations analyzed for the eastbound approach: • Option I — dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane • Option 2 — a single left-turn lane, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane • Option 3 — a single left-turn lane, a through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane As shown in Table 2, the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane is expected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the p.m. peak hour with the geometric options and the proposed Solomon development. Option I is the best option with an overall LOS D and queues that do not extend past the Singletree Lane/Glen Road intersection. If the recommended lane configuration for this option is not feasible at this intersection, Options 2 and 3 both operate at an overall acceptable LOS D as well, however, the eastbound queuing for both options would extend through the intersection of Singletree Lane/Glen Road. The difference in queue lengths between these options is not significant. Southbound left-turn movements at the intersection of Singlet= Lane/Glen Road would be difficult, however, vehicles on Glen Road have the option to access TH 212 using Leona Road to the north. Table 2 2030 Build P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Level of Service Results with Solomon Development INTERSECTION P.M. Peak Hour - Level of Service Overall Delay and LOS Eastbound Approach Delay and LOS Queuing Impacts TH 212/Singletree Lane TH 212/Singletree Lane- Realigned (') 45 D 50 E Queues do not extend past Glen Road Improvements Option I (2) 45 D 40 D Queues do not extend past Glen Road Improvements Option 2 (3) 48 D 43 D Queues extend past Glen Road Improvements Option 3 (4) 52 13 47 D Queue extend past Glen Road (1) The MCA analysis assumed the Singletree Lane realignment to the north to create a full intersection with West 78th Street. LOS results reflect the realignment and recommended four-lane improvement to Singletree Lane. (2) Option I assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — two left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a right-turn lane (3) Option 2 assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — a left-turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane (4) Option 3 assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — a left-turn lane, a through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane Randy Newton -7- September 5, 2006 Although there is no change in the level of service and no additional improvements are required to accommodate the proposed development, it is important to note that the trips generated for this site were higher then those assumed for the MCA traffic study. If the land use type and/or density of new developments/redevelopments in the area continue to increase at this rate, the recommended improvements identified in the MCA traffic study may not be adequate to handle future 2030 volumes. In order to be consistent with the recommended MCA improvements, City staff needs to consider which development areas will be reduced (lower peak hour trips) to account for those that are increasing (higher peak hour trips). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: • For 2030 build conditions with existing roadway geometries (without the proposed development), the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The eastbound approach operates at LOS F, with over 80 seconds of delay per vehicle. In addition, significant vehicle queues back into the adjacent intersections on Singletree Lane at Eden Road and Glen Lane. • In order for the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane to operate at an overall acceptable LOS D under 2030 build conditions (with the proposed development), with eastbound queuing reduced to just prior to Glen Lane, dual left-turn lanes, two through- lanes and a single right-turn lane (Option 1) is recommended for the eastbound approach of Singletree Lane at TH 212.. This would require the signal timing for the east and west approaches to be converted to protected left-turn phasing. • If the recommended lane configuration for the eastbound approach is not feasible at this intersection, Options 2 and 3 both operate at an overall acceptable LOS D as well, however, the eastbound queuing for both options would extend through the intersection of Singletree Lane/Glen Road. This would make it difficult for southbound left-turn movements at this intersection, however, vehicles on Glen Road have the option to access TH 212 using Leona Road to the north. The difference in queie lengths between Options 2 and 3 is not significant. • For continuity purposes, an additional westbound through lane should be considered along Singletree Lane between the intersections of TH 212 and Eden Road. The p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the analysis completed do not indicate a need for this additional lane at this time, however, it may be needed if land use assumptions from the MCA traffic study change in the future. Therefore, preserving right-of-way for this additional lane in the future should be considered. Randy Newton -8- September 5, 2006 • Please note that without the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street, the side-street stop controlled T- intersection at TH 212/West 78th Street would fail, resulting in significant westbound qleues on West 78th Street. The westbound left- turning vehicles will have a difficult time finding a gap to turn onto TH 212. Consideration should be given to installation of a signal or banning westbound left-turns at this intersection. • Although there is no change in the level of service ard no additional improvements are required to accommodate the proposed development, it is important to note that the trips generated for this site were higher then those assumed for the MCA traffic study. If the land use type and/or density of new developments/redevelopments in the area continue to increase at this rate, the recommended improvements identified in the MCA traffic study may not be adequate to handle future 2030 volumes. In order to be consistent with the recommended MCA improvements, City staff needs to consider which development areas will be reduced (lower peak hour trips) to account for those that are increasing (higher peak hour trips). APPENDIX A Turning movement volumes for adjacent intersections Eden Prairie Major Center Area Traffic Study 2030 PM MCksingletree as is 9/3/2006 li:IProjectsk5765iTS\SYNCHR-112030MC-112030PM-1.SY7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Scott A. Kipp ITEM DESCRIPTION: Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World ITEM NO.: VIII.H. Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Commission recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis This project is a 22,600 square foot building located in the Town Center consisting of Convenience Retail/Automotive Service/Restaurant. The design is consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study for the Town Center. Background Information The MCA Study identifies the site for Community Retail use. In the Town Center this use includes retail, restaurants, and a higher intensity of development such as multiple story buildings with office or other uses allowed in upper levels. A traffic study was completed for the project which identified the deficiencies at the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection as it relates to this project. The developer will be responsible for constructing an improved segment of Singletree Lane between TH 212 and Eden Road. The improvement will provide a single left-turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane on the west approach of the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection as well as additional through lanes on Singletree Lane to provide a continuous 4-lane roadway. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with the project with the exception of the right-of-way costs on the north side of Singletree Lane. It should be noted that the improvements to Singletree Lane are considered interim improvements as the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street remains the long-term vision for the roadway. Public Hearings – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World Page 2 The following waivers are requested in the Commercial Regional Service zoning district as part of the PUD: 1. Building floor area ratio of .48. Code maximum is .40. 2. Building base area ratio of .27. Code maximum is .20. 3. Front yard setback to building of 19 feet from Flying Cloud Drive. Code requires 35 feet. 4. Front yard setback to building of 0 feet from Singletree Lane. Code requires 35 feet. 5. Side yard setback to building (car wash) of 0 feet. Code requires 20 feet. 6. Driveway width of 40 feet. Code requires a maximum of 30 feet. 7. Off site parking for 16 parking stalls. Code requires parking to be on the site it is to serve. 8. Wall/fence screening height of 10 feet. Code requires a maximum of 6 feet. The waivers are consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study and Town Center for higher densities, location of buildings close to street frontages, and pedestrian systems. Additional items that will be addressed in the Development Agreement include: outdoor seating, decorative pavement and landscaping plaza area on the southeast corner of the site; edge treatments such as fencing or landscaping to define the space from Flying Cloud Drive and auto traffic internal to the site; planter boxes and hanging baskets in front of the retail plaza; and signage. No signs have been approved as part of this review. Once the Town Center wayfinding study has been further refined and a sign ordinance is developed for the Town Center, a sign package will be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The 120-Day Review Period Expires on March 6, 2007. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission first reviewed this project at its November 27, 2006 meeting and recommended a continuance directing the developer to incorporate all pedestrian level details and site amenities into the plans, and more information regarding the use of Dryvit material. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at the December 11, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Staff Report dated November 22, 2006 3. Staff Report dated December 8, 2006 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 27, 2006 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 11, 2006 6. Location Map 7. Land Use & Zoning Maps 8. Traffic Study RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD FOR RANDY NEIS 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 Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on November 27, 2006 and December 11, 2006, on Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World by Randy Neis 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 January 16, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World , 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 stamp dated January 11, 2007. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission December 11, 2006. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2007. _______________________ Phil Young, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk EXHIBIT A PUD Concept- (Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World) Legal Description: That part of the following described property: Lot 16, AUDITIOR SUBDIVISION NUMBER 335; Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 369; Tract C, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1449, and Tracts A and B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1473 all in Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 14; thence South 88 degrees 27 minutes 05 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of 2612.96 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right of way of Flying Cloud Drive; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right of way line along a non-tangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 3859.72 feet, a central angle of 00 degree 35 minutes 22 seconds for an arc distance of 39.70 feet, the chord of said curve bears North 42 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds East; thence continuing along said northwesterly right of way line North 42 degrees 29 minutes 41 seconds East, tangent to last described curve, a distance of 501.54 feet; thence North 42 degrees 30 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 12.65 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence on a bearing of West, a distance of 217.91 feet; thence on a bearing of North, a distance of 168.50 feet; thence North 86 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, a distance of 139.06 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 304.50 feet, a central angle of 26 degrees 53 minutes 56 seconds and an arc distance of 142.95 feet; thence southeasterly along a tangential compound curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 42.00 feet, a central angle of 48 degrees 33 minutes 25 seconds and an arc distance of 35.59 feet; thence along a tangential compound curve concave to the west having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 14 degrees 09 minutes 57 seconds and an arc distance of 16.07 feet; thence South 81 degrees 29 minutes 26 seconds East, a distance of 12.19 feet; thence southwesterly along a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 1392.40 feet, a central angle of 2 degrees 20 minutes 09 seconds and an arc distance of 56.77 feet, the cord of said curve bears South 41 degrees 19 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 42 degrees 30 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 87.66 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. To be platted as Lot 2, Block 1, WINDSOR PLAZA STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp Senior Planner DATE: November 22, 2006 PROJECT: Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World LOCATION: Southwest corner of Singletree Lane and Flying Cloud Drive APPLICANT: Randy Neis OWNER: Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World, LLP REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres 3. Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the property as Regional Commercial land use. The property is zoned Highway Commercial and Office. Surrounding land use consists of Regional Commercial. The 1.08 acre site contains an existing gas/service station. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The PUD includes a 22,500 square foot two-story convenience/gas/service/car wash/restaurant use. The City code requires 54 parking spaces. The site has 38 spaces, 20 of which are located at the pumps. The remaining 16 parking spaces are proposed to be located on the Windsor site. MAJOR CENTER AREA STUDY In January 2006, the City Council adopted a report entitled Eden Prairie Major Center Area Study – The Next 25 years: A Framework for Decision Making, the purpose of which is to chart a course for public and private investment in land development, urban design and infrastructure into the future. The study proposes a vision of the Major Center Area (MCA) based upon comprehensive planning principles. TOWN CENTER Included in the study’s recommendations is the establishment of a Town Center west of Flying Cloud Drive, south of Lake Idelwild, and north or Regional Center Road. The Town Center is to be a compact area with a vibrant mix of land uses that contribute to day/evening and year round use. Land uses will include a mixed use area of retail, residential, office, civic, and entertainment uses designed to foster walking and transit through a compact development pattern in accordance with recommended densities and planning principles. MCA PLANNING PRINCIPLES The realization of a long-term vision for the MCA requires adherence to sound planning principles which identify a balanced set of statements that embody the future intent of land use, transportation, urban design and other fundamental systems. These comprehensive principles serve as one of several sets of criteria in evaluating private sector development proposals and their compatibility with the vision for the MCA and provide policy direction. There are many principles; those most relevant to the Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s proposal are the following: • Land use • Transportation • Transit • Urban Design/Streetscape. • Pedestrian Bike Features and facilities Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 3 Since Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s is located in the Town Center it should be first evaluated on its compatibility with the vision and planning principles for the MCA and secondly for conformance with City code requirements. Land Use The MCA Study identifies 10 Sub Areas with specific recommendations for land use, density, and site coverage. Windsor Plaza is located on the eastern edge of the “Town Center” portion of Sub Area 2. The MCA Study identifies the Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s site for Community Retail use. In the Town Center this use includes retail, restaurants, and a higher intensity of development such as multiple story buildings with office or other uses allowed in upper levels. The land use section also prescribes guidelines for pedestrian focus and building design. Projects in the Town Center should emphasize pedestrian movement while accommodating vehicular movement to/from parking and delivery access. Structured parking should be located at convenient edges of the Town Center to minimized pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. Auto uses such as drive up facilities should not be located in the Town Center. Design, building placement, and massing principles are intended to create the feel and function of a Town Center. The primary components of Town Center form are: • Buildings should provide horizontal and vertical relief with no long unbroken walls. • Street facades should include human scale architectural detailing and try to achieve modules of 25 to 50 feet wide. • Building height should range from 3-10 stories. • Parking should be located primarily in structures behind or under billings and never between the sidewalk and the building. Parking should be designed to minimize conflicts with the pedestrian environment. • Mechanical and service areas should be out of view. • Street level interest should occur with first floor transparent display windows, outdoor dining areas, public art, fountains, courtyards, plazas, pedestrian scale signage, lighting, plantings, etc. • The primary building facade should be parallel to the sidewalk. The Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s site plan is consistent with the principles for location of the building with the primary façade parallel to the trail on Singletree Lane, and parking location for the site. Building height is within the recommended range. Mechanical and service areas are not visible from public streets or sidewalks. Auto uses such as drive up facilities (banks, fast food, gas/convenience) should not be located in the Town Center. The project is an auto use that could be considered acceptable based on the following criteria: Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 4 • The project replaces an existing station. • The site is adjacent to 212. • The site is not in the compact walkable portion of the Town Center. • The project is more aligned with the planning principle than the existing station. The building design has horizontal and vertical relief with no long unbroken walls. The construction and material details are not shown on the building elevations. These elevations need to articulate the details of the use of material patterns, size, reveals, cuts, shadow, texture, and color. This is important to reinforce the principles of horizontal and vertical relief. Perhaps more important is the use of materials and construction details on the first floor to embrace the concept of pedestrian scale and street level interest. An exterior materials board and a scale version of a portion of a wall to illustrate building principles planned for the building is need to complete the review. The street level interest needs improvement at the corner of Singletree Lane and Flying Cloud Drive. The sidewalk areas should be expanded to create a plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping. This would also provide a place for people waiting to cross Flying Cloud Drive at a safer distance back from the intersection and allow room for adequate site lines for cars making a right hand turn. The plaza area on the southeast corner of the site requires seating, decorative pavement and landscaping. Edge treatments such as fencing or landscaping are also needed to define the edge of the space and create a physical separation from Flying Cloud Drive and auto traffic internal to the site. The landscape plan shows a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals. To reinforce the concept of street level interest the plan needs to include more areas of perennials and annuals throughout the project including planting beds along Flying Cloud Drive, planter boxes in front of the retail building, and hanging baskets along the sidewalk on the west side of the building. The pavement patterns for the internal sidewalks, outdoor seating and other plaza area are proposed to be decorative concrete, but no pavement pattern has been identified. The plan should be revised to specify a pattern, color, texture and include a minimum of 35% brick pavers. The proposed sign plan is not to a pedestrian scale and also does not conform to City code requirements. Rather than developing a sign plan now, it would be better to wait until the results of the wayfinding study have been further refined and a sign ordinance is developed for the Town Center. The City has recently retained a consultant to help develop the design intent of the Town Center and eventually convert these ideas into an ordinance. Once this process is completed a detailed sign plan will be brought back to the City for a plan amendment. Transportation While land use and transportation capacity should be in balance, some traffic congestion should be accepted as a sign of a vital and desirable area. Efficient use of roadways and mobility on key Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 5 through movement roadways should be protected. One aspect of efficient road use means a mix of land use that spreads peak movement and more evenly across the day and can be accomplished by a mix of housing, employment and retail. The attached traffic study for the Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s developments was completed by SRF Consulting Group and is dated September 5, 2006. The traffic study evaluated how the intersection of TH 212 and Singletree Lane will operate in the PM Peak Hour under 2030 conditions and how the trip generation characteristics for the proposed developments compare to the land use assumptions identified in the Major Center Area Study. The following is a summary of the main conclusions of the traffic study: • With the existing roadway geometrics the TH 212 / Singletree Lane intersection is expected to operate an unacceptable level of service for the 2030 Build Condition. • With the widening of the west approach of the TH 212 / Singletree Lane intersection to include a single left-turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through / right-turn lane the intersection is expected to operate at an overall acceptable level of service for the 2030 Build Condition. However, vehicle queues are expected to extend past Glen Lane in the PM Peak Hour. Improvements to internal site circulation have mitigated this queuing issue for site traffic and traffic on Glen Lane has the option of using Eden Road as an alternative access. • The proposed Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s developments are anticipated to generate more vehicle trips than what the Major Center Area Study assumed for the redevelopment sites, particularly in the PM Peak Hour. • The additional vehicle trips generated by the developments do not result in a significant change in intersection level of service or require additional roadway improvements than what was identified in the Major Center Area Study. • If the land use type and/or density of new developments/redevelopments continue to come in at rates higher than those assumed in the Major Center Study the recommended improvements identified in the study may not be adequate. In order to be consistent with the recommended MCA improvements the City will need to consider which development areas will be reduced (lower peak hour trips) to account for those development areas with higher intensity (higher peak hour trips). In order to address the deficiencies at the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection the developer will be responsible for constructing an improved segment of Singletree Lane between TH 212 and Eden Road. The improvement will provide a single left-turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane on the west approach of the TH 212/Singletree Lane intersection as well as additional through lanes on Singletree Lane to provide a continuous 4-lane roadway. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with the project with the exception of the right-of-way costs on the north side of Singletree Lane. Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 6 It should be noted that the improvements to Singletree Lane are considered interim improvements as the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street remains the long-term vision for the roadway. Transit There are two components to transit: light rail and bus circulator. Light rail transit (LRT) is a key feature of the MCA Study and the station(s) will have a long- term impact on design, siting, and land use in the immediate vicinity of the station(s). The primary location for the station is on the south side of Lake Idlewild in the vicinity of the new “north-south main street”. Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s does not impact the LRT station. The proposed bus circulator service primary route is along the outer ring road described as Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. The Southwest Transit Station is to be used as the terminal and inter-modal connector to the regional and local bus service. Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s does not impact the bus circulator routes. Urban Design/Streetscape The relationship of buildings to streets, and the experience of drivers, walkers and bicyclists as they travel the public streets, sidewalks, paths and trails in the MCA are important to the area’s overall sense of place. A positive sense of place, one that defines a distinct identity and recognizable features, landmarks and patterns of development and open space, is something that has a high value for the future of the MCA. Projects should include: • The pedestrian environment should be made attractive as a result of building orientation, scale, and entrances to buildings. • Boulevards should have pedestrian level theme lighting and plantings. • Public art should be encouraged. • Public amenities should be include, plazas, open spaces, landscape spaces, seating areas and pedestrian elements. • Sidewalks should be included for all projects. • Sidewalks should invite pedestrian movement. The boulevard along Singletree lane and Flying Cloud Drive will have pedestrian theme level lighting and landscaping. The City will develop the plan for the boulevards for theme lighting, street trees and sidewalks. The developer will be assessed for the cost. The land use section recommends building, site plan and landscape changes for pedestrian scale and public amenities. There are internal and external sidewalks in the project. In order for sidewalks to invite pedestrian movement the landscape plan and sidewalk need to be revised according to the recommendations in the land use section. Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 7 Pedestrian/Bike Features and Facilities As development density increases in the MCA and more residents, workers and shoppers spend part of their daily routine in the area, increased demand and presences of walkers should result. This will make the interconnected system of paths, sidewalks and trails increasingly successful and usable. The Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s project will be constructing site perimeter trails and internal sidewalks connections to these trails. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The following waivers are requested in the Commercial Regional Service zoning district as part of the PUD: 1. Building floor area ratio of .48. Code maximum is .40. 2. Building base area ratio of .27. Code maximum is .20. 3. Front yard setback to building of 21 feet from Flying Cloud Drive. Code requires 35 feet. 4. Front yard setback to building of 0 feet from Singletree Lane. Code requires 35 feet. 5. Side yard setback to building (car wash) of 0 feet. Code requires 20 feet. 6. Driveway width of 40 feet. Code requires a maximum of 30 feet. 7. Off site parking for 16 parking stalls. Code requires parking to be on the site it is to serve. 8. Wall/fence screening height of 11 feet. Code requires a maximum of 6 feet. The waivers are consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study and Town Center for higher densities, location of buildings close to street frontages, and pedestrian systems. INTERNAL CIRCULATION The City code requires 25 foot wide drive aisle adjacent to perpendicular parking. The plan does not meet this requirement. The site needs 6 additional feet to meet the drive aisle and parking dimensions around the gas canopy. Without this dimension there will be internal maneuvering conflicts for customers. This will also create conflicts on Singletree Lane with cars waiting to enter the site and interrupting through movement of cars on a collector road. The sidewalk also needs to be widened from 5 to 8 feet. Nine (9) feet of additional space is needed on this site. The solution is likely a combination of reduced building size on this site and Windsor Plaza and a shifting of lot lines to create the needed dimension. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REPLACEMENT A total of 61 caliper inches of landscaping is required based on the square footage of the building. A total of 313 caliper inches of significant trees are located on the property, all of which was planted with the existing gas station was built A total of 313 caliper inches of significant trees will be lost due to construction. Tree replacement is 416 caliper inches. Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 8 The landscaping together with the tree replacement is 477 caliper inches. The plan provides 102 caliper inches. It is not possible to meet the total tree replacement on site. The plan needs to be revised to include additional in-kind landscaping amenities as recommended in the land use section of this report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The property will be platted into one lot and road right-of-way as part of the Windsor Plaza project to be discussed in a separate public hearing process. UTILITES AND DRAINAGE Storm water will be treated to NURP standards. The building will be connected to City sewer and water. SUMMARY The realization of a long-term vision for the MCA should adhere to sound planning principles. These comprehensive principles serve as one of several sets of criteria in evaluating private sector development proposals and their compatibility with the vision for the area and provide policy direction. In consideration of the waivers from the City Code, development density higher than recommended in the MCA Study, and the City participation in cost through a Tax Increment Finance District, the plan should be revised as follows: 1. The building design has horizontal and vertical relief with no unbroken walls. However the building needs more attention paid to the construction details which are not obvious based on a review of the proposed elevations. These elevations need to articulate the details of the use of material patterns, size, reveals, cuts, shadow, texture, and color. This is important to reinforce the principles of horizontal and vertical relief. Perhaps more important is the use of materials and construction details on the first floor to embrace the concept of pedestrian scale and street level interest. An exterior materials board and a scale version of a portion of a wall to illustrate building principles planned for the building is need to complete the review. A colored perspective is needed to show building relief and detail. 2. The street level interest has the beginnings of an interesting place to visit with plazas conceptually shown on the plans. The plans need to show the type of lighting, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles. Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World November 22, 2006 Page 9 3. The street level interest needs improvement at the corner of Singletree Lane and Flying Cloud Drive. The sidewalk areas should be expanded to create a plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping. This would also provide a place for people waiting to cross Flying Cloud Drive at a safer distance back from the intersection and allow room for adequate site lines for cars making a right hand turn. The plaza area on the southeast corner of the site requires seating, decorative pavement and landscaping. Edge treatments such as fencing or landscaping are also needed to define the edge of the space and create a physical separation from Flying Cloud Drive and auto traffic internal to the site. 4. The landscape plan shows a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals. To reinforce the concept of street level interest the plan needs to include more areas of perennials and annuals throughout the project including planting beds along Flying Cloud Drive, planter boxes in front of the retail building, and hanging baskets along the sidewalk on the west side of the building. 5. The pavement patterns for the internal sidewalks are shown to be decorative concrete, but no pavement pattern has been identified. The plan should be revised to specify a pattern, color, texture and include a minimum of 35% brick pavers. 6. The plaza area on the southeast corner of the site requires seating, decorative pavement and landscaping. Edge treatments such as fencing or landscaping are also needed to define the edge of the space and create a physical separation from Flying Cloud Drive and auto traffic internal to the site. 7. The City code requires 25 foot wide drive aisle adjacent to perpendicular parking. The plan does not meet this requirement. The site needs 6 additional feet to meet the drive aisle and parking dimensions around the gas canopy. Without this dimension there will be internal maneuvering conflicts for customers. This will also create conflicts on Singletree Lane with cars waiting to enter the site and interrupting through movement of cars on a collector road. The sidewalk also needs to be widened from 5 to 8 feet. Nine (9) feet of additional space is needed on this site. The solution is likely a combination of reduced building size on this site and Windsor Plaza and a shifting of lot lines to create the needed dimension. The Planning Commission should discuss the following questions: 1. Is the proposed land use consistent with the MCA Study and specifically the Town Center? 2. Is the project consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends a continuance of the project to the December 11, 2006 meeting directing the proponent to revise the plans according to the recommendations in this report. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp Senior Planner DATE: December 8, 2006 PROJECT: Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World LOCATION: Southwest corner of Singletree Lane and Flying Cloud Drive APPLICANT: Randy Neis OWNER: Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World, LLP REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres 3. Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World December 8, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the November 27, 2006 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the plans be revised according to the recommendations of the November 22, 2006 staff report. At the meeting the applicant will present a computer model of the project. The staff report is based on a draft version of the model that only showed building mass. The exterior materials and site details had not been included in the program. PLAN REVISIONS The previous staff report identified the five areas for revision. 1. Create pedestrian level scale and interest in the building architecture on the first floor. Without the benefit of a finished computer model or perspectives it is difficult to determine if building elevations have enough pedestrian level scale and interest to be considered consistent with the MCA Study planning principles. There is room along Highway 212 to add more horizontal relief. Due to the close setback between the building and the sidewalk on Singletree Lane it is not possible to add horizontal relief. This elevation will have to rely more on variation in building material, color, texture, with edge detailing around the windows. The plans should be revised to show a stone base and ledge below all windows. Attachment A shows one way this could be accomplished. The architect should determine the appropriate scale, material and construction details of how this idea can be incorporated into the design of the building. The staff is open to other ideas the architect may have to accomplish the same result for materials and details around the windows. 2. Add and identify lighting, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles standards for pedestrian scale and interest. The plans need to show the location, quantity, and type of lighting, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles. 3. Include a plaza area at Highway 212 and Singletree Lane for pedestrian scale and interest. The plan shows a plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping. Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World December 8, 2006 Page 3 4. Add seating, decorative pavement and landscaping to the plaza in the southeast corner. The plan should be revised to show seating, decorative pavement and landscaping plaza area on the southeast corner of the site. Edge treatments such as fencing or landscaping are also needed to define the edge of the space and create a physical separation from Flying Cloud Drive and auto traffic internal to the site. 5. Add more landscaping for pedestrian scale and interest. The plan shows more areas of perennials and annuals along Singletree Lane and Highway 212 The plan should be revised to show planter boxes and hanging baskets in front of the retail plaza. 6. Add and identify pavement patterns to create pedestrian scale and interest. The pavement patterns for the internal sidewalks, outdoor seating and other plaza area are proposed to be decorative concrete. The plan should be revised to specify a pattern, color, texture and include a minimum of 35% brick pavers. There should also be a decorative pavement in the outdoor seating areas. 7. Improve internal circulation. The internal circulation is improved by modifications to the pump islands and narrower buildings and a closer setback to Singletree Lane. Since the last meeting staff has visited several sites with gas pumps islands and circulation similar to this site, including a Bobby and Steve’s on 58th and Nicollet. The purpose of the visits was to observe peak hour operations, how cars are stacked at the pumps, and cars backing out of parking spaces. Most of the time there was only one car at the gas pump. On the times when all pumps were full some vehicles waited at the pumps, others parked the car in a stall went inside for coffee and then found an open spot at the pump. In no cases were cars waiting on the street to get into the site or situations when cars in a parking space could not back out to leave the site. DRYVIT The staff met with sales representatives from Lutz Company. New construction methods and warranties were discussed. There have been changes in the product over the last 6 years to improve drainage behind the insulation and adding granite and other stone chips to the exterior finish to better simulate natural stone. Like all exterior materials the appearance and long term maintenance depends on the quality in which the material is applied and the commitment from the owner to maintain the buildings exterior. The staff has looked at applications of the proposed material on existing buildings as recommended by the manufacturer. The staff observation is that texture of the surface will not Staff Report – Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World December 8, 2006 Page 4 be apparent higher up on the proposed building and will be dependant on cuts and reveals to create definition or the stone like appearance. The application of this material on the first floor, with the exception of minor forms and details, is not recommended and a precast material or brick should be used. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ALONG HIGHWAY 212 The 8 foot wide bituminous trail along Highway 212 is located 6 feet back from the curb which is the city standard. This is a transportation trail for the 212 corridor and bituminous is the standard. The state plans to turn the road over to the county in the future. The county road design standards are different and it may be possible that portions of the paved shoulder could be converted to green space to provide additional separation for portions of the trail from the curb. Since the trail is along the outer edge of the town center and serves a transportation function, the staff recommends that the trail be bituminous. There will be a pedestrian plaza area with decorative pavement, benches and landscaping at the corner of Highway 212 and Singletree Lane. This will provide a place for people waiting to cross Highway 212 at a safer distance back from the intersection and allow room for adequate site lines for cars making a right hand turn. SUMMARY The Planning Commission should discuss the following questions: 1. Is the proposed land use consistent with the MCA Study and specifically the Town Center? 2. Is the project consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Other revisions may be needed pending a review of the final computer model. A review of the final computer model is needed to determine if the project is consistent with the planning principles of the MCA Study and to make sure that the plans and the computer model are aligned in representing what will be built. Staff recommends a continuance of the project to the January 8, 2007 meeting directing the proponent to revise the plans according to the recommendations in this report. As soon as the computer model is completed a copy should be provided to the Planning Commission for review. APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2006 MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. Pitzrick and Rocheford abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WINDSOR PLAZA Request for: Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 2 Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Jay Scott, of Solomon Real Estate Group, presented the proposal. Mr. Scott stated he would like to highlight some of the recommendations listed in the staff report. He pointed out his group will bring the final project to the December 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. He stated their project is a catalyst for the Town Center design. Mr. Scott pointed out that this project is an assembly of 4 different parcels; 3 office buildings and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World. He stated this is a transitional piece of property and it needs to work well with the mall but also has to be a transitional piece of property for the Town Center area. Mr. Scott said in regards to the parking issue, their company has hired independent consultants to address this issue. He stated they tried to cut out unnecessary use of parking. They also studied the shared parking analysis, due to restaurants, office and retail areas. They did not over park the project but adequately designed it to accommodate the parking issue. Dan Anderson, project designer, pointed out the window model presented this evening was an example of color and texture of the proposed building. He stated it would give a good prospective of what some of the building would resemble. Mr. Anderson utilized the overhead projector to show products that would be used in the design of the building. He pointed out the restaurants would also tie in with the same design. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this staff report is different than the traditional staff reports. Franzen stated they are more concerned with the design of this project because it will be placed in the Town Center area. He stated this project is about articulation of design. They want to incorporate the “best of the best things” that were seen on their recent tour of other cities. Franzen said they would also like the landscaping plans and final building plans to come before the Planning Commission prior to them obtaining their building permit. He stated the City would like to make sure what they propose is exactly what they would like in the Town Center area. Franzen stated he would like the project proponent to address the five issues in the staff report and present their project to the December 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Gary Cook, of 8108 Eden Road, asked if Eden Road is going to go through from Singletree Road to Regional Center Road. Gray said there would be a transportation corridor going through the area, and it would be a 2-lane road. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 3 Pitzrick asked about the cream-color material on the building and asked if it was drive-it material. Mr. Anderson stated it was drive-it material. Pitzrick stated he felt the side of the building along Flying Cloud Road appeared to be only 3 feet away from the trail. He felt this would be a problem with plowing in the winter. Fox stated the trail along the road is similar to what is throughout the City. As far as snow removal, the City would like to shift responsibility to the building owners. Powell stated he felt the three foot barrier from the trail to the road is too small. Franzen stated this issue could be addressed at the future meeting. He stated maybe there is a possibility that the trail could be put somewhere else in the project that would make it not so close to the road. Pitzrick asked where the loading dock would be located. Brian Klutz, project designer, commented the distance between the curb to the trail is actually 6 feet. He then stated the loading dock would be under the parking ramp; which would be in the basement level of the building. Pitzrick asked if they were looking to achieve lead certification on this project. Mr. Klutz stated they did previously make an attempt to achieve this in a prior list that was given to the City. Dan Carson, lead civil engineer, described what a lead certification consists of. He pointed out you receive points for using certain products, such as paint or recycled water. The goal would be to incorporate a variety of elements into the site. Pitzrick asked how much of this design would be carried forward to future projects. Franzen stated not all of the buildings would look exactly the same; they would only want certain elements in the designs of the buildings. He stated the City would establish certain criteria and let the architects come up with their own design. Stoelting asked how the vehicles will flow through the site and where the parking would be located. Dan Carson utilized the overhead projector and pointed out where the entrances would be located. He said all parking would be located in the parking garage. He said presently it is a three level garage but they could change it to four levels if that is what the City would want. Mr. Carson also stated there would be secured parking below the building. He said the trucks would be utilizing the underground parking area for their deliveries. Mr. Carson also utilized the overhead projector to show where the pedestrian walkways would be located. He also said there would be multiple access points off the trail system. Stoelting asked where the bus shelter would be located. Mr. Carson said they do not have a bus shelter located on this project. Seymour asked Staff about the traffic issues in the area. Gray stated this project will produce increased traffic but they see no problem with this project creating traffic problems. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 4 Powell asked if the current intersection of Singletree Road and 212 could possibly become non-existent in the future. Gray stated as the intersection shifts that could possibly be an outcome. Stoltz asked if Staff was satisfied with the parking on the site. Franzen stated they were satisfied with the parking on this site. Stoltz stated he feels that a pedestrian level does need to be designed for this project. Pitzrick asked again if drive-it material is a durable type of material. Mr. Carson stated this product has changed since years past and it is a very durable and warranted material. He stated they are confident in this product. Pitzrick addressed the sidewalk issue and stated that before this project is approved they should make sure they have the right spacing between the trail and the road. Franzen stated when the project proponent returns for the December 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, he should have two functional drawings showing pedestrian walkways and traffic flows. Stoelting reiterated the meeting on December 11, 2006, will allow the project proponent more time to develop this project. Stoelting asked Mr. Scott if he had any objectives to the continuance. Mr. Scott said he did not have any objectives to the continuance. Franzen asked if the Commission Members would need a model of this project or would a drawing be appropriate. Mr. Scott stated they will have a computer model at the next meeting. He stated it might not be detailed enough to show the pedestrian walkways. Kirk stated he wanted the details to the sidewalks addressed in the motion. Seymour pointed out in regards to asking architects to bring in models; if the Commission asks one developer to do that, they need to ask all developers to bring in models. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend a continuance to the December 11, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission, including detailed sections of the sidewalk area along Highway 212. Motion carried 8-0. Pitzrick asked to amend the motion to address the issue of drive-it material. Kirk amended the motion to add that there would be staff evaluation of the drive-it material. B. RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 5 from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres. Dan Anderson presented the proposal. He started out by requesting Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this project is similar to the first project that was presented this evening. He also stated an issue that should be addressed would by the traffic flow in and out of this property. Franzen stated they did their own study to see if there was adequate room for vehicles to maneuver around the gas pumps. They found they need more room in the north/south dimension to this site. Stoelting asked Franzen how many additional feet that would amount to. Franzen stated it would be 9 additional feet of horizontal space. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Pitzrick asked if the project proponent anticipates additional space for this project in the future. Mr. Anderson stated that if the need would arise for additional space in the future they would be willing to accommodate the change at that time. Pitzrick stated he wanted the architects to be creative in their design of the gas pump island area. Mr. Anderson stated they have no problem with creating a pleasing architectural design to this project. MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Kirk, to recommend a continuance to the December 11, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report. Motion carried 8-0. VII. GUIDE PLAN UPDATE • Introduction to Transportation Monique Mackenzie and Marie Cote presented the Transportation Guide Plan Update. Some of the Transportation Chapter Components are as follows: 1. Traffic forecasts. 2. Mapping. 3. Highway system issues and plans. 4. Bicycle and pedestrian transportation. 5. Transit systems. Trends and Influencing Factors 1. Aging population. 2. Increasing congestion. 3. More expensive fuel and energy costs. 4. Better transportation alternatives. 5. Interest in active, healthy lifestyles. Roadway System Maintenance Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 6 Study will focus on how to accommodate existing growth in the area. Some of the Focused Change Areas are as follows: 1. Land use changes. 2. Limits to expansion of road network. 3. Emphasis on walking facilities. GTA Transportation Objectives 1. Reduce peak period traffic congestion. 2. Increase transit use. MCA Transportation Objectives 1. Locate appropriate density at right locations. 2. Take advantage of the light rail transit system to support higher density development. Key Questions to be addressed regarding the Transportation Study 1. Should the City dedicate transportation resources to updating existing roadways or developing new roadways. 2. Should we have transportation improvements for non-motorized travel in Eden Prairie. 3. Are there certain areas where transportation improvement areas should focus. 4. What funding sources should be considered. Stoelting asked if the Commission should be focusing on the new roadway corridors or existing roadways. Stoelting was also concerned about the feasibility of constructing new roadways in Eden Prairie. Gray addressed these issues by stating in the last 15 years, Eden Prairie has done a lot of improvement to the roadways and it does anticipate the possibility of developing some new corridors to handle the new growth and construction of the City. He stated the City will be improving the corridors throughout the City to handle new development. Gray pointed out the challenge would be financing improvements to roadway corridors. He stated it would be a benefit to the City if it had the Light Rail System. Gray pointed out the LRS would be a substantial corridor that would connect Eden Prairie to other parts of the metro area. Stoelting reiterated it is not really new corridors that are being addressed but rather the Light Rail System and improving existing roadways. Stoelting asked if there was any prioritization, in the concept of dollars, as to which improvements would be considered first in line. Gray stated the City has been working with MNDot to receive some funding for these projects and some of the first priorities would be Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Boulevard, and also Pioneer Trail and the 169/494 interchange. He stated the City would need a considerable amount of money to fund these projects. Gray also pointed out the Golden Triangle area would need a lot of input/output access points. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 7 Kirk stated he strongly supports non-motorized travel both in the MCA and residential areas of the city. He also stated the old Hwy 212 is a dilemma. He pointed out it is an old road and also a dangerous road, however, it is an area where we are trying to preserve the prairie bluff environment. Marie Cote stated they anticipate a lot of volume in the future for the new Hwy 212; which would take traffic off of the old Hwy 212. Pitzrick stated he would like to see pedestrian bridges set up in the Singletree/Hwy 212 area, and Singletree/Prairie Center Drive area for pedestrian traffic and to function as landmark signage. Marie Cote stated some of these roadways would not be conducive for pedestrian bridges due to the high level of traffic. She stated pedestrian transportation is very important to the transportation study and they are looking at addressing all options. Powell asked if the development of the Community Center would increase traffic congestion on Valley View Road. Randy Newton, City Graphic Engineer, stated the improvements to the Community Center would not add congestion the Valley View Road. We need to look at the impact on the power line on the high density area of the MCA and what options we have to remove the power line. VIII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Franzen stated there will be 6 items scheduled for the December 11, 2006, meeting. This will include: 1. Windsor Plaza 2. Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World 3. Staring Preserve 4. St. Andrew Condominium Site. 5. Amendment to the Bluff Country Village. 6. Presentation on Rain Water Gardens There will be no Planning Commission Meeting on December 25, 2006 due to the Holiday. IX. MEMBERS REPORTS Stoltz asked Franzen if there have been any new developments with the Bent Creek Golf Course. Franzen stated there have been no new developments since the November 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 8 MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Pete Rocheford left prior to adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Al Gray, City Engineer; Mike Franzen, City Planner; Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Rocheford and Seymour. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2006 Kirk had an addition to the first sentence in the first paragraph on page 7 of the minutes. It should read “ Kirk stated he strongly supports non-motorized travel both in MCA and residential sections of Eden Prairie.” He also had an addition to the third sentence of the same paragraph. It should read, “He pointed out it is an old road and also a dangerous road, however, it is in an area where we are trying to preserve the Prairie Bluff area. Pizrick had some additional changes to the minutes. The first change would be page 5, third paragraph, first sentence. It should read, “Pitzrick asked if the project proponent anticipates additional space for this project in the future and anticipates for future fuel types, such as C & G and hydrogen fuel.” The third sentence in the same paragraph should read, “Pitzrick stated he wanted the architects to be creative in their design of the gas pump island area. The next change Pitzrick had was on page 7, paragraph two, first sentence. It should read, “Pitzrick stated he would like to see pedestrian bridges set up in the Singletree/Hwy 212 area, and Singletree/Prairie Center Drive area for pedestrian traffic and to function as land mark signage for downtown Eden Prairie.” Pitzrick also added the following information to the end of paragraph three on page 7. It should read, “Pitzrick stated that we need to look at the impact of the power line on the development potential in the high density area of MCA and also the options to regroup the power line.” Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 2 MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0. Koenig abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS A. ST. ANDREW WOODS INFORMATIONAL MEETING Request for: Informational meeting to present a concept plan for a proposed multiple family use of property currently guided low density residential. The plan includes eight twin home units in four buildings. Location is the northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive. Henry Lazniarz, of St. Andrews Woods, LLC, presented the proposal. He stated they previously proposed a 17 unit building and are coming back this evening with an 8 twin home units in four buildings. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate this proposal. He stated in regard to Baker Road, it is a highly traveled road and because of it he felt this area would most likely not attract families with children, due to the busyness of the road. Mr. Lazniarz also pointed out at the end of Vervoort Lane there is a play area for kids, including a basketball hoop. He said a good project would keep Vervoort Lane as it is and not expand the street. He stated the four buildings could fit on the site with a private road installed. Mr. Lazniarz also said the home values would be in the range of $550,000 to $600,000. He pointed out in regards to the residents on the hill and their concern of the view, they have changed their design of the buildings to rambler town homes. Mr. Lazniarz said because of the elevation, there would be a much better site line. Mr. Lazniarz also stated they would be putting a pond and a fountain on the property. He said he felt this proposal is the best possible use for this site and also said the best fit for this site would be to make these units senior living housing. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this property is designated as low density residential. The proposed plan for tonight is a guide plan change. He stated the Commission should base their decision on which plan is best and would fit with the neighborhood. Franzen also stated the most logical fit is access from Vervoort Lane, and 4 single family homes. In regards to families in the area, he pointed out there are many single family homes in the area on Baker Road has not had an impact on single family homes. Franzen stated there are two options for this area, twin homes and single family homes. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Jason Anderson, of 7238 Vervoort Lane, whose residence is adjacent to the lot being developed, stated he moved into this area 5 years ago and at that time he had a concern the adjacent lot would be developed. He stated they have three children and plan to raise their children in the area. He pointed out there would be 10 feet between the lot line and the building and their view across the street Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 3 would be another unit. He also said in regards to the trees, most of them would be taken down with the project. Mr. Anderson said he is also concerned with the increased traffic this project would bring to the area. Gamal Eshmawy, who was the previous owner to this property, stated when he sold the property it was agreed there would be built on this lot four single family units; which he was to have one of these units to purchase at a reduced price. Mr. Eshmawy stated this was agreed on before signing the purchase agreement. He gave Chair Stoelting a copy of the agreement for official record. Joan Carroll, of 13764 Fenwick Ct, stated initially she was fine with the proposal but after hearing Mr. Eshmawy speak she has some reservations. Patricia Harris, of 7262 Vervoort Lane, stated she is the original owner of her home. She pointed out Mr. Lazniarz never did meet with all of the neighbors as he stated. She stated the proposed twin homes would be in their area. She is concerned there is only 5 proposed off street parking spaces, which she felt could be an issue. Mrs. Harris stated she would rather see this area developed into single family homes. She pointed out there are many kids in the area and feels the single family homes would be conducive to families. She showed illustrations of Mr. Lazniarz’s Sommerset project, utilizing the overhead projector, and pointed out how compact the town homes are in the area. She also read a letter from her husband, who was unable to attend, in which he supports her concerns. Margaret Perry, of 13715 St. Andrew Drive, stated she is also concerned with the parking in the area and pointed out St. Andrew Drive is not very conducive to off street parking. She is also concerned the cottonwood trees would be taken down. Ms. Perry said she has reservations about the driveway that would be put in for this project and stated it is very close to the front of her house and she is concerned with the traffic this would produce and the headlights shining in her front window. She utilized the overhead projector to show where the driveway would be located in proximity to the front of her home. Jess Irmiter, of 7270 Vervoort Lane, pointed out the meeting with the project proponent was very limited. He stated he has numerous concerns for this project and they are as follows; driveway issue, wetland area and drainage issues, and the senior housing issue based on the fact that it is very difficult to segregate an area as senior housing. Mrs. Husby, who lives in the town homes in the area, said she is concerned with looking at the rooftops of this proposed development. Stoelting summarized the following issues: 1. Tree loss in the area 2. Increased traffic 3. Previous owner and contract issues 4. Parking 5. Cottonwood tree loss Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 4 6. New road drive outlet 7. Water run-off 8. Roof lines Mr. Lazniarz addressed the issues of the trees, setbacks, and traffic. He stated if this project were to change to single family homes it would not change any of the setbacks. In regards to the trees, he said the loss would be the same for either the town homes or single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz pointed out when they initially proposed the condos, this project would have saved numerous trees. Also, with the condo development, the building could be kept lower which would require less fill. Mr. Lazniarz said in extending up Vervoort Lane would cause more tree loss. In regards to traffic, he said if Vervoort Lane is not extended, the private drive would be created, which would take traffic off of that area. He also said senior units would create less traffic than 4 single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz said in regards to the contract issue, Mr. Eshmawy had a contract agreement with CRE Construction. He said the purchase agreement was bought by his company and the agreement the past owner gets a single family lot was dismissed from the agreement. Mr. Lazniarz stated they offered Mr. Eshmawy the following: 1. They offered options to commensurate below average compensation for the lot 2. Sell Mr. Eshmawy back the property for $350,000, plus incurred expenses 3. Sell Mr. Eshmawy a unit (8 acres) across the street from the property 4. Or create one single family home on the twin home property Mr. Lazniarz said he came to an agreement with Mr. Eshmawy that he would receive $75,000. Mr. Lazniarz thought they were still under that agreement Leslie Dahlen, a realtor that set up the meetings with the neighbors, stated the reason they could not get all of the neighbors together at once was because they were never in agreement as to time and date. She also stated she could not reach the Harris residence to inform them of the meetings because they have an unlisted phone number. Mr. Lazniarz stated in regards to parking, there are five onsite parking spots but what needs to be considered is the garage space and the two car space outside of each unit, which would give a total of 21 parking spaces. Mr. Lazniarz stated in regards to the neighbor whose home is across the street from the private drive, he said his company looked into this issue and they found the driveway is positioned such that the car headlights would never shine in the homeowner’s windows. Pertaining to the issue of water run-off, Mr. Lazniarz stated the architects have assured him they have taken appropriate wetland standards into consideration and they will also be bringing in fill to the site. Mr. Lazniarz said in regards to the rooftops, it would not make a difference if they had rambler-type single family homes or rambler-type town homes. The roof tops would still be the same. He also said there would be a 4 foot high retaining wall in the backside of the property. In regards to Mrs. Husby, Mr. Lazniarz said they would be willing to plant trees in her yard to act as a buffer for the rooftops. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 5 Stoelting asked Fox to address the issue of cottonwood trees. Fox stated out of the 63 trees in the area, only 9 are significant trees, which would be the cottonwood trees. He said all but two of the cottonwoods would have to be removed. He also pointed out they are looking at an 80% tree loss, but said whatever style of home would go in that area, there would be significant tree loss. Stoelting asked Franzen if he were to go forward with single family homes, would the project proponent have to make an additional presentation at an informational meeting? Franzen stated the project proponent could proceed to the public hearing. Kirk asked Franzen to comment on the senior restrictive housing. Franzen stated if it was low income or affordable housing, and TIF was involved the city could designate what is could be used for. Pitzrick asked if single family homes would be feasible financially. Mr. Lazniarz said 4 lots would not be feasible, but 5 lots would be. Mr. Lazniarz pointed out this area is not a very attractive development site and he does not feel people will spend the money for single family homes. He said $700,000 homes would be hard to sell in that area. Stoltz asked Mr. Lazniarz to put up a picture of the end of Vervoort Lane and asked him to discuss the tree loss. Mr. Lazniarz utilized the overhead projector to show a picture of Vervoort Lane. He said they would save more trees with a private drive rather than extending Vervoort Lane. Stoltz asked if the current residents would be looking at the units. Mr. Lazniarz said the setbacks would be the same for either single family homes or town homes and they would be willing to plant more trees for buffers. He said four single family homes will have the same environmental consequences as town homes. Fox stated houses 10 feet from the property lines would not be able to house trees as buffers because there would be no room. He also said it is difficult to analyze this because there is no grading plan in effect. Franzen reiterated this point by stating with the mass of the building there would not be much room for trees. Koenig asked Franzen about the parking issue. Franzen stated there is adequate parking for this proposal. Koenig asked Mr. Lazniarz if he considered putting up 2 buildings with 4 units each. Mr. Lazniarz said financially it would be very difficult. Koenig said the pricing of the town homes would not be much lower than the single family homes. Mr. Lazniarz stated in looking at the costs, there would be a considerable difference between the two. Koenig asked Franzen how this project could be labeled as senior housing. Franzen stated the City does not need more market rate units but rather affordable housing. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Lazniarz stated they originally proposed the condo building to put in affordable units and to save trees but the neighbors did not like this concept because the units were cheaper than the other housing in the neighborhood. Koenig stated the condominiums just did not fit into the area. Kirk stated the town home proposal would have less traffic and would be less intrusive than single family homes for Vervoort residents. Stoelting pointed out this is an informational meeting and he would like to see a little more detail in regards to the single family homes. Koenig said the Commission should give the developer more direction on the cul-de-sac issue or opening up Vervoort Lane. Powell stated he was surprised that the neighbors on Vervoort Lane opposed a private drive versus going through Vervoort Lane. Powell also said he would want the legal issue resolved in regard to the contract issue. Stoelting asked Franzen to address this issue. Franzen said it was a private party issue. Stoltz stated it would be in the best interest of everyone involved if there was a resolution to the contract before it was approved. Duckstad said there is not enough information presented tonight to make a decision. He felt the neighbor’s concerns should be taken into consideration. Stoelting summarized by stating the Planning Commission would like to see both proposals more fully developed, especially the single family home plan, and to include several different side plans. The developer agreed to work on the new proposals and to present them at a future meeting with the residents. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING PRESERVE Request for: Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Michael Brandvold, of Anderson Engineering, presented the proposal. He stated they have reviewed the staff report and have no questions. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the project. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the Staff recommends approval based on page 3 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Koenig asked Fox to address the issue of tree loss due to construction. Fox stated the project proponent will be replacing trees and the project proponent meets the City’s requirements for tree replacement. Powell asked if the public notices went out. Franzen stated the notices did go out to the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 7 MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of 1.67 acres into two lots and road right-of-way based on plans stamped dated November 29, 2006, and the staff report dated December 8, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.8 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.8 acres; Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Zoning District on 2.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 2.7 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.8 acres into two lots and one outlot. Beth Simonstad presented the proposal and utilized the overhead projector to show illustrations of the project. She gave some history to the project and stated she is here tonight to amend the proposed plan that was granted in 2002. The proposed plan included such items as a 2,300 sq. ft. coffee shop on 7 acres, a 1,200 sq. ft. retail building on 2 acres, and 3.1 acres for future development, which would include 2 buildings on the site. Ms. Simonstad stated they are now making the buildings smaller to give the project a more residential feeling. She illustrated the plan of the two buildings on the lot and also showed an illustration of a landscaping plan. She stated they will be making road improvements to the north side of this site and pointed out they will also be saving the oak trees in the area. Ed Farr, of Ed Farr Architects, illustrated the building design utilizing the overhead projector. He stated it does meet the setback requirements and material requirements. He also showed the different brick types that would be used in the building. He pointed out the architectural design would be carried out on all four sides of the building. He stated in reference to Walgreens, they are trying to coordinate the design of the building to that of the proposed buildings. Mr. Farr stated in regards to the walkways, there would be a generous walkway around the buildings. He said there would be a general landscape buffer along Breezy Way and the developers would also eliminate the service corridor along the backside of the building that would face the residential area. Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the road improvements. Ms. Simonstad illustrated the road improvements utilizing the overhead projector. She pointed out they would be removing the old medians and replacing them with new ones. She stated this is a very expensive project and she will continue to meet with the Staff on this issue. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated on page 4 of the staff report there are six questions that need to be addressed by the Commission. He also pointed out there are three options for this project and the staff is recommending revisions to architecture, roads and screening. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 8 Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Greg Harcus, of 9822 Belmont Lane, stated he would like to see a neighborhood meeting in regard to this project. He stated he liked a lot of the ideas that were presented tonight but has one concern with this project. He stated his concern is the visitor parking for the town home association is located on this property. He stated the project proponent stated they could still park in the area, and he just wants to make sure that is still carried out. Steve Mohn, of 9812 Lee Drive, stated he does like this plan. His only concern is they like the concept of the two small buildings and does not want to see it turned into one building. Rich Feely, of 9878 Lee Drive, seconded Steve Mohn’s comments. He stated he supports the project and would like to see it passed. George McNulty, of 9681 Belmont Lane, stated he has some questions in regards to the building roofs, lighting in the parking area, drive entrances, and the guest parking outlot. Stoelting summarized the public’s comments. 1. Neighborhood excited about the plan 2. Concern for a neighborhood meeting 3. Outlot A, what is the plan 4. Visitor Parking 5. Sloped roofs 6. Access into the property; will headlights affect the residents Ms. Simonstad stated in regards to parking, she will work with the residents to come to a resolve on this issue. She stated in regards to outlot A, she has not addressed any parking spaces as of yet, but will address this situation. In regards to access and headlights, she said the access into the property would not impact the residents. Mr. Farr stated the market supports a flat roof contemporary design. Stoelting stated the staff report recommends the slope roof design. Mr. Farr stated he appreciates the concept of the sloped roof but they would like to use the flat roof design. Franzen stated typically projects located in a residential area should transition into the area. He stated the architects should capture a few aspects of the Walgreens building and incorporate it into their design. Franzen stated Staff will leave it up to the architects to create a design that is consistent and with a residential character. Pitzrick said in regards to the roof situation, he would like to make sure it is an attractive roof. In regards to the south side of the parking area, he would like to see a rain garden into the area. Mr. Farr pointed out there are two rain gardens in the area. Pitzrick stated when outlot A is developed, the project proponent should make sure there is no problem with shared parking. Stoelting asked Franzen to Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 9 address the issue of shared parking. Franzen stated all of the areas were designed to stand alone in regards to parking. He stated all four parcels will have to enter into an agreement in regards to parking. Koenig stated to Franzen since the Commission approved the previous PUD, the proponent is bound by that one. Franzen stated the city is under no obligation to amend the approved plan and agreement. The commission has the discretion to recommend an amendment to the plan if you believe the plan is acceptable. Koenig asked Franzen for a comparison of tree loss between the approved plan and the proposed plan. Franzen stated the only difference would be the two oak trees that would have to be removed. Stoelting asked Franzen if the two oak trees could be saved by repositioning the coffee shop. Franzen stated they could be saved by repositioning the coffee shop. Fox said the only trees left on this site would be the trees in the land dedicated to the City. Ms Simonstad said they will replace any trees as required by the City. Pitzrick said he would like to see some sloped roof tops. Duckstad said he would like the architect to work with the City in designing the roof. Stoelting reiterated to the Commission the three options that were stated in the staff report and asked for a consensus. The consensus was for a continuation. Stoelting asked the project proponent if they would be willing to come back to the January 8 Commission Meeting. They said yes. Chuck Hausker, of 9836 Belmont, stated he is concerned with the woodland area on the property and would like to see this area preserved. Fox stated those trees are on City owned property. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to continue the project to the January 22, 2007 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission, which would include that the developer meets with City Staff in regards to developing a roof design, a tree replacement plan, grading plan, and cross access shared parking plan. City staff to discuss additional parking for nearby residents. Motion carried 7-0. C. WINDSOR PLAZA Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Jay Scott, of Solomon Real Estate Group, presented the proposal using a computer generated DVD of the project. Ryan Pletz, associate to Jay Scott, stated they will be showing a combined presentation of both Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 10 Bobby and Steve’s Auto World. The presentation showed the layout of the site plan including additional parking spots and the landscaping plan. It also diagramed vehicular traffic around the site as well as pedestrian traffic. Mr. Scott addressed the staff report stating they have compiled with the plan revisions addressed by Staff. David Tupper, landscape architect, showed additional illustrations of the landscaping plan utilizing the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the conclusions of the staff report indicates there still needs to be more work done on the store fronts. Franzen pointed out if the store front is not revised now it would be up to the Staff and the architects to come up with a design. Otherwise, the Commission should make recommendations to the plan. Franzen also stated the Commission can give PUD approval to this phase of the project and send that on to the City Council, and the rezoning would be continued. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no public input. Pitzrick stated he had a concern with the Dryvit material and would like to see a solid warranty going along with this project, along with a third party inspection. Bob Dazel, a representative of Dryvit, said all the products used would fall into a 10 year warranty. He stated if there is any type of moisture damage under warranty they will take full responsibility. He pointed out they only warrant faulty materials, the insulator would have to warrant his work. Stoltz asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the use of this project. Franzen stated in addressing this issue, the project proponent is in compliance. He also stated because they are asking for waivers, the Commission does have some flexibility in regards to this issue. Kirk stated it is important to challenge the project proponent, but he does not feel the Commission has the expertise to criticize the product. Duckstad asked the project proponent to address the issue of durability of this product. Mr. Pletz said he is very comfortable with the durability of this product. Duckstad stated as long as the architect and the City Planner are comfortable with this product than the Commission should not micro-manage it. Stoelting stated he does not want the Commission to get bogged down on this issue and to discuss other issues of the project. Franzen summarized the project stating overall it was a very good project. Mr. Scott stated they have addressed specific issues this evening but the only thing they cannot accommodate would be a specific store front, and stated it would need to be flexible. Stoltz asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the store fronts. Franzen stated revising the store fronts is a recommendation from the Staff. The Commission can either agree or modify the recommendation. If the final design is left to the developer and staff, the Commission will have to be comfortable without having input into the final details. Stoltz commented he would feel comfortable with the City Staff in charge of completing the revisions as stated in the report. In regards to the store fronts, Franzen commented he wants the architect to be creative but also to be held accountable for work completed. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 11 Mr. Scott stated they would be willing to work with the City Staff on any issues, including the store fronts. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way, based on the staff report dated December 8, 2006 and based on plans stamped dated December 4, 2006, and the plans presented to the Planning Commission on the computer model DVD shown to the Commission this evening, December 11, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. D. RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVE’S AUTO WORLD Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres. Ryan Pletz presented the proposal and stated this was a combined presentation of Windsor Plaza. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated staff recommendation was similar to the Windsor Project and after the presentation, Staff would be willing to work with the project proponent to fine tune any details on this project. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres, based on the staff report dated December 8, 2006 and based on plans stamped dated December 4, 2006, and the plans presented to the Planning Commission on the computer model DVD shown to the Commission this evening, December 11, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2006 Page 12 Due to the lateness of the meeting, Franzen postponed the Rain Water Presentation until the January 8, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting. Tax Increment Plan for Windsor Plaza and Randy’s Bobby & Steve’s Auto World. Franzen stated there needs to be an amendment in the motion to change it from Windsor Plaza to Town Center Phase I. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the tax increment plan for Town Center Phase I. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORT IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS Stoelting recognized Jon Duckstad for his work on the Planning Commission and wished him well with the City Council. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:56 a.m. Area Location Map - Randy's Bobby and Steve's Auto World Address: SW Corner of Flying Cloud and Sing letree Lane Rural One Family - 10 acre min. R1-44 One Family- 44,000 at. min. Shoreland Management Classifications lIjJ Natural Environment Waters EI Recreational Development Waters Innl General Development Waters (Creeks Only) (= 100 - Year Floodplain Highway N312 West of County Road N4 is proposed. not constructed • Up dated through Ordinance N09-2005 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved. but not shown on this map edition Date: June 24, 2005 Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre MM. J)/ R1-9.5 RM-6.5 RM-2.5 I Office I Neighborhood Commercial I Community Commercial R1-22 One Family-22,000 at mm. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. One Family-9,500 sf min. at this time. Mutti-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. MI General Industrial - 5 Acre Min Mutti-Family-17A U.P.A max. Public F-1 Water EDEN PRAIRIE Right of-Way In ca..' isue.,ency rea. to a ming cbssr.r.a.n 1.f.rarky map. tl -s- and a.. kg a! ww anfka Ees•-. P,.e Gdy Crneepre,at Singletree Lane Eden Road Li 212/Flying Cloud Drive j Prairie Center Drive Zoning Map Randy's Bobby and Steve's Auto World SW Corner of Flying Cloud and Single Tree Lane 212/Flying Cloud Drive Prairie Center Drive Guide Plan Map Randy's Bobby and Steve's Auto World SW Corner of Flying Cloud and Single Tree Lane Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial Principal Arterial Community Commercial - A Minor Arterial F7A Low Density/Public/Open Space I I Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Regional Commercial - B Minor Arterial I-1 Medium Density Residential/Office Park/Open Space - Major Collector RN High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public - Minor Collector I I Office Church/ Cemetary Office/Industrial I I Open Water OZZI Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way Industrial Metropolitan Urban Service Line (MUSA) Creeks EDEN PRAIRIE DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 01-07-05 PE CONSULTING G ROUP / INC. Transportation • Civil • Structural • Environmental • Planning • Traffic • Landscape Architecture • Parking • Right of Way SRF No. 0065765 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Randy Newton, P.E., P.T.O.E, City of Eden Prairie FROM: Marie Cote, RE., Principal Renae Cornelius, RE., Senior Engineer DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 SUBJECT : TH 212/S INGLETREE LANE INTERSECTION AND SOLOMON DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION We have completed a traffic study for the intersection of TM 212/Singletree Lane and the proposed Solomon development, located west of TH 212 and south of Singletree Road in the City of Eden Prairie. The purpose of this study is to first analyze how the intersection of TM 212/Singletree Lane will operate under 2030 build conditions, assuming that the intersection has the same geometric configuration as today. The next step is to compare the land use assumptions (type and size), trip generation estimates and traffic impacts identified in the Major Center Area (MCA) Study — Traffic Analysis memorandum dated February 7, 2006 with those of the proposed Solomon development to determine if the proposed development causes any additional impacts. This traffic study includes a p.m. peak hour operations analysis for year 2030 build conditions. TH 212/SINGLETREE LANE The analysis completed for the MCA traffic study assumed that the intersection of TM 212/Singletree Lane would be realigned to the north to create a full intersection at TH 212 with West 78th Street. In addition, the mall entrance opposite Singletree Lane was assumed to be closed. The following analysis was completed to determine how well the existing configuration of the TM 212/Singletree Lane/Mall Entrance intersection will accommodate the assumed MCA development trips during the p.m. peak hour for year 2030 build conditions. The forecast volumes at the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane/Mall Entrance assuming the existing roadway configuration are shown in Figure 1 for year 2030 p.m. peak hour build conditions. Turning movement volumes for adjacent intersections are shown in Appendix A. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite ISO Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447-4443 Tel: 763-475-0010 • Fax: 753-475-2429 srfoonsulting.com Case Plaza, One North Second Street Fargo, North Dakota 58102-4807 Tel: 701-237-0010 • Fax: 701-237-0017 At, Erma/ Orporbalify Eopioyer „,TH 212 000 CN 0 LO el Tr 01 0 0 0 0 CO el Tr CNI 150 (150) 270 (270) 165 (165) Singletree Lane CONSULTING GROUP, 1SC. 0065765 August 2006 (335) 275 (325) 325 (210) 200 Legend XX MCA 2030 Build Volumes (XX) = Solomon 2030 Build Volumes 2030 BUILD CONDITION - PM. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES TH212/SINGELTREE INTERSECTION AND SOLOMON DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY City of Eden Prairie Figure 1 Randy Newton -3- September 5, 2006 As shown in Table 1, the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane, with the existing roadway geometries, is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The eastbound approach operates at LOS F with over 80 seconds of delay per vehicle. In addition, significant vehicle queues are expected to back into the adjacent intersections on Singletree Lane at Eden Road and Glen Lane. In order for this intersection to operate at an overall acceptable LOS D with eastbound queuing 'educed to just east of Glen Lane, it is recommended that the eastbound approach of Singletree Lane at TH 212 consist of dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane. This would require the signal timing for the east and west approaches to be converted to protected left-turn phasing. Table 1 2030 Build P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Level of Service Results INTERSECTION _ P.M. Peak Hour - Level of Service Overall Delay (seconds) and LOS Eastbound Approach Delay (seconds) and LOS Queuing Impacts TH 212/Singletree Lane- Rea li gne d(' 44 D 50 D Queues do not extend past Glen Road TH 212/Singletree Lane- Existing Configuration 56 E 83 F Queues extend past Eden Road Improvements Option 1 (2) 45 D 38 D Queues do not extend past Glen Road Improvements Option 2 (3) 48 D 41 D Queues extend past Glen Road (1) The MCA analysis assumed the Singletree Lane realignment to the north to create a full intersection with West 78th Street. LOS results reflect the realignment and recommended four-lane improvement to Singletree Lane. (2) Option I assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — two left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a right-turn lane (3) Option 2 assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — a left-turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane If the recommended lane configuration for the eastbound approach is not feasible at this intersection, a single left-turn lane, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane, with protected/permissive phasing for the east and west approaches, would operate at an overall acceptable LOS D. However, the eastbound queues would extend through the intersection of Singletree Lane/Glen Road. Southbound left-turn movements at this intersection would be difficult, however, vehicles on Glen Road have the option to access TH 212 using Leona Road to the north. For continuity purposes, an additional westbound through lane should be considered along Singletree Lane between the intersections of TH 212 and Eden Road. The p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for this analysis do not indicate a need for an additional lane at this time, however, it may be needed if land use assumptions from the MCA study change in the future. Therefore, preserving right-of-way for this additional lane in the future should be considered. Randy Newton -4- September 5, 2006 Please note that without the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street, the side-street stop controlled T- intersection at TH 212/West 78th Street mould fail, resulting in significant westbound queues on West 78th Street since the westbound left-turning vehicles will have a difficult time finding a gap to turn onto TH 212. Although the installation of a traffic signal at this location is necessary for this intersection to operate at acceptable levels, a signal at this intersection is not a viable option. Therefore, consideration should be given to banning westbound left-turns at this intersection. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development would be located south of Singletree Road, west of TH 212, in the City of Eden Prairie (see Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan). The proposed development consists of retail, office, restaurant and gas station land uses. The trip generation estimates were calculated using the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Reports. The MCA traffic study assumed that a portion of this parcel would redevelop with retail and residential land uses, and the rest will remain as is, for year 2030 conditions. The trip estimates for the proposed development and previously assumed land uses are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Trip Generation Estimate Comparison Type Size Daily Trips P.M. Peak In Out MCA assumptions - 5,887 248 267 Solomon Development Office 100,000 sq. ft. 1,101 25 124 Retail 20,000 sq. ft, 859 36 39 Restaurant 250 seats 1,208 61 44 Restaurant 200 seats 966 49 35 Subtotal 4,134 171 242 Gas Station/Convenience Market 16 pumps 2,604 113 113 Grand Total 6,738 284 355 Difference in trips 851 36 88 New forecast volumes, with the proposed development trips, are shown in Figure 1 for year 2030 p.m. peak hour build conditions. t.. P1ftWI -. 514" C IMAT3ON ttntlic // •1 MR 2 NUM PMKUt MSC 7 S EMU PHASE 2 rEDESTRU {04uLd.pr- • • Pfl I mar zi• t '1„1,74,) I mu 2. 1711 P.111A ELM tA4tp--, I- , mat 2 t— RAW At£1.5'?0, I F1E1.-StfiCE: sit; Be ,71CW.It 1 kilt, N. • 0.•;1,!7101.::•: n0Y0,15 11tYM I • I r2=1 O 1b. 311 CO IT F0016 PA CARDERS Lt RAN 0ARDEM AFIE•A SUMMARY 11a.. 2UIP3) It Ac1.11. COIrl.an 11. 1;1 0001 10%t 1.I1 rao,a1r/ oa 111/71-0111T .11.00 110 nal4.0/1111 .01110A 1.0,7 11111 Intl VV.,, .11r4t IMPS Intl -cow, Listle 11%, 001 I0. .111001 pt.-Frahm amskarr male; 1111)01 1(01143.1111101.k01._ .1%011031/1 %,.....111 %nag 110sa ak0.11/1 1,001.0 7/11.0•1111 010211110210 (7J (On-L-1V AW Isp.to ,rutst mots mut .utcuuttoi I • C _ . KEA L .• 6!...)0A1,..1.0,1' fER : 0M20 ./.". I El) CEDiVEl.ellIENT 00 0143(00 TOWN CENTER PHASE I PLA11 ••n:1 10 !SOU! PRAM CE [Mt My:C. 0100I0.1.4110.- 11111110 W./410.01.1 TOWN CENTER PHASE I SITE PLAN 9:111:W. A • All S10IL11112 IA10I1 Chas O'Brien SErotlier ARCHITECTS PIRACVS P10I61- COOOIJLT1OOT Goour,INC 0065765 August 2006 PROPOSED SOLOMON SITE PLAN TH212/SINGELTREE INTERSECTION AND SOLOMON DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY City of Eden Prairie Figure 2 Randy Newton -6- September 5, 2006 To determine how well the recommended roadway system will accommodate the increase in trips due to the proposed development, a p.m. peak hour operations analysis was conducted for year 2030 build conditions. This analysis was completed for the realigned intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane and compared the two recommended configurations previously mentioned. In addition, a third option for the eastbound approach at the intersection of Singletree Lane/TH 212 was analyzed. The following are the three geometric configurations analyzed for the eastbound approach: • Option I — dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane • Option 2 — a single left-turn lane, two through lanes and a single right-turn lane • Option 3 — a single left-turn lane, a through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane As shown in Table 2, the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane is expected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the p.m. peak hour with the geometric options and the proposed Solomon development. Option I is the best option with an overall LOS D and queues that do not extend past the Singletree Lane/Glen Road intersection. If the recommended lane configuration for this option is not feasible at this intersection, Options 2 and 3 both operate at an overall acceptable LOS D as well, however, the eastbound queuing for both options would extend through the intersection of Singletree Lane/Glen Road. The difference in queue lengths between these options is not significant. Southbound left-turn movements at the intersection of Singlet= Lane/Glen Road would be difficult, however, vehicles on Glen Road have the option to access TH 212 using Leona Road to the north. Table 2 2030 Build P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Level of Service Results with Solomon Development INTERSECTION P.M. Peak Hour - Level of Service Overall Delay and LOS Eastbound Approach Delay and LOS Queuing Impacts TH 212/Singletree Lane TH 212/Singletree Lane- Realigned (') 45 D 50 E Queues do not extend past Glen Road Improvements Option I (2) 45 D 40 D Queues do not extend past Glen Road Improvements Option 2 (3) 48 D 43 D Queues extend past Glen Road Improvements Option 3 (4) 52 13 47 D Queue extend past Glen Road (1) The MCA analysis assumed the Singletree Lane realignment to the north to create a full intersection with West 78th Street. LOS results reflect the realignment and recommended four-lane improvement to Singletree Lane. (2) Option I assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — two left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a right-turn lane (3) Option 2 assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — a left-turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane (4) Option 3 assumes the following recommended improvements for eastbound Singletree Lane — a left-turn lane, a through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane Randy Newton -7- September 5, 2006 Although there is no change in the level of service and no additional improvements are required to accommodate the proposed development, it is important to note that the trips generated for this site were higher then those assumed for the MCA traffic study. If the land use type and/or density of new developments/redevelopments in the area continue to increase at this rate, the recommended improvements identified in the MCA traffic study may not be adequate to handle future 2030 volumes. In order to be consistent with the recommended MCA improvements, City staff needs to consider which development areas will be reduced (lower peak hour trips) to account for those that are increasing (higher peak hour trips). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: • For 2030 build conditions with existing roadway geometries (without the proposed development), the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The eastbound approach operates at LOS F, with over 80 seconds of delay per vehicle. In addition, significant vehicle queues back into the adjacent intersections on Singletree Lane at Eden Road and Glen Lane. • In order for the intersection of TH 212/Singletree Lane to operate at an overall acceptable LOS D under 2030 build conditions (with the proposed development), with eastbound queuing reduced to just prior to Glen Lane, dual left-turn lanes, two through- lanes and a single right-turn lane (Option 1) is recommended for the eastbound approach of Singletree Lane at TH 212.. This would require the signal timing for the east and west approaches to be converted to protected left-turn phasing. • If the recommended lane configuration for the eastbound approach is not feasible at this intersection, Options 2 and 3 both operate at an overall acceptable LOS D as well, however, the eastbound queuing for both options would extend through the intersection of Singletree Lane/Glen Road. This would make it difficult for southbound left-turn movements at this intersection, however, vehicles on Glen Road have the option to access TH 212 using Leona Road to the north. The difference in queie lengths between Options 2 and 3 is not significant. • For continuity purposes, an additional westbound through lane should be considered along Singletree Lane between the intersections of TH 212 and Eden Road. The p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the analysis completed do not indicate a need for this additional lane at this time, however, it may be needed if land use assumptions from the MCA traffic study change in the future. Therefore, preserving right-of-way for this additional lane in the future should be considered. Randy Newton -8- September 5, 2006 • Please note that without the realignment of Singletree Lane and West 78th Street, the side-street stop controlled T- intersection at TH 212/West 78th Street would fail, resulting in significant westbound qleues on West 78th Street. The westbound left- turning vehicles will have a difficult time finding a gap to turn onto TH 212. Consideration should be given to installation of a signal or banning westbound left-turns at this intersection. • Although there is no change in the level of service ard no additional improvements are required to accommodate the proposed development, it is important to note that the trips generated for this site were higher then those assumed for the MCA traffic study. If the land use type and/or density of new developments/redevelopments in the area continue to increase at this rate, the recommended improvements identified in the MCA traffic study may not be adequate to handle future 2030 volumes. In order to be consistent with the recommended MCA improvements, City staff needs to consider which development areas will be reduced (lower peak hour trips) to account for those that are increasing (higher peak hour trips). APPENDIX A Turning movement volumes for adjacent intersections Eden Prairie Major Center Area Traffic Study 2030 PM MCksingletree as is 9/3/2006 li:IProjectsk5765iTS\SYNCHR-112030MC-112030PM-1.SY7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Payment of Claims DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Sue Kotchevar, Office of the City Manager/Finance ITEM DESCRIPTION: Payment of Claims ITEM NO.: IX. Requested Action Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted (roll call vote) Synopsis Checks 159881 - 160103 Wire Transfers 2596 - 2598 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 1/16/2007 Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit 2596 16,054 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund 2597 20,713 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund 2598 98,529 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS PERA Health and Benefits 159881 1,910 AMERICAN TEST CENTER INC Equipment Testing/Cert. Fleet Services 159882 30 AREA WIDE PLUMBING Plumbing Permits General Fund 159883 1,191 CHILDREN'S WORLD LEARNING CENT Other Contracted Services Housing, Trans, & Human Serv 159884 160 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES United Way Withheld General Fund 159885 418 D'AMICO AND SONS Operating Supplies Fire 159886 1,808 DRUMMOND, RITA Tuition Reimbursement/School Organizational Services 159887 105 FBI NATIONAL ACADEMY ASSOCIATE Prepaid Expenses General Fund 159888 115 FBINA Prepaid Expenses General Fund 159889 85 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals General 159890 30 HAMLIN MECHANICAL Cash Over/Short General Fund 159891 42 HAYWARD, CATHIE Lessons & Classes Ice Arena 159892 30 HEATING & COOLING TOO INC Mechanical Permits General Fund 159893 75 HEDDLE, ALLEN Mileage & Parking Information Technology 159894 25 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Operating Supplies Planning 159895 556 HORGAN, KEVIN M Tuition Reimbursement/School Organizational Services 159896 2,520 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Gym Rental Touch Football 159897 2,450 INFRARED CONSULTING SERVICES I Other Contracted Services Capital Impr. / Maint. Fund 159898 30,923 LOGIS LOGIS Information Technology 159899 40 MAXIMUM CONTRACTING LLC Plumbing Permits General Fund 159900 1,144 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund 159901 190 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Garnishment Withheld General Fund 159902 1,350 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG Prepaid Expenses Water Enterprise Fund 159903 135 MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC Office Supplies General 159904 132 PETTY CASH-EPCC Mileage & Parking Community Center Maintenance 159905 89 PORTA, KITTY Mileage & Parking City Clerk 159906 58 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services 159907 297 PROP United Way Withheld General Fund 159908 65 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO Transportation Prairie Village Liquor Store 159909 35 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER Operating Supplies Planning 159910 125 RANDY'S BOBBY & STEVE'S AUTOWO Cigarette Licenses General Fund 159911 20 RICHFIELD, CITY OF Autos Capital Impr. / Maint. Fund 159912 419 RUE, RODNEY Operating Supplies Engineering 159913 1,610 SHAFTON INC Fire Prevention Supplies Fire 159914 25 SORENSON, ROBERT AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 159915 11 ST PAUL HEATING AND COOLING CO Cash Over/Short General Fund 159916 40 STAR TRIBUNE Dues & Subscriptions Prairie View Liquor Store 159917 20 STATE OF MINNESOTA Operating Supplies Fleet Services 159918 1,312 STEPHENS PUBLISHING COMPANY Fire Prevention Supplies Fire 159919 18 TANGEN, MIRANDA Memberships Community Center Admin 159920 1,860 TRI-COMBINED RESOURCES, INC Small Tools Emergency Preparedness 159921 290 UNITED WAY United Way Withheld General Fund 159922 1,275 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Prepaid Expenses General Fund 159923 8 VERIZON WIRELESS Pager & Cell Phone Fleet Services 159924 242 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER Cash Over/Short General Fund 159925 6 ZHU, RICHARD Lessons & Classes Ice Arena 159926 25 REICHMUTH, DONNA Program Fee Outdoor Center 159927 95 AMERICAN RED CROSS Training Supplies Pool Lessons 159928 86 APCO INTERNATIONAL Dues & Subscriptions Police 159929 50 APWA Dues & Subscriptions Park Maintenance 159930 180 ASSOCIATION OF TRAINING OFFICE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159931 70 BARLI, ROBERT Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159932 6,414 CARDMEMBER SERVICE Conference Expense Information Technology 159933 349 CAREER TRACK Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159934 90 COMCAST Dues & Subscriptions City Council 159935 5,150 CORNERHOUSE Other Contracted Services Police 159936 269 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals General 159937 65 DRUMMOND, RITA Mileage & Parking Community Center Admin 159938 821 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER Dues & Subscriptions City Council Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit 159939 747,000 EDEN PRAIRIE FIREFIGHTER'S REL Fire Relief Pension Payment Fire 159940 16,644 EMERGITECH, INC. Software Maintenance Information Technology 159941 169 EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC Conference Expense Utility Operations - General 159942 100 FBI - LEEDA Dues & Subscriptions Police 159943 148 FEDEX Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services 159944 200 FINANCE AND COMMERCE Dues & Subscriptions Communication Services 159945 70 GEIS, ROB Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159946 150 GLOCK PROFESSIONAL INC Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159947 300 GRAY, ALAN Dues & Subscriptions Engineering 159948 700 HENNEPIN COUNTY I/T DEPT Equipment Repair & Maint Information Technology 159949 479 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Licenses & Taxes Concessions 159950 25 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE Licenses & Taxes Ice Arena 159951 100 IIMC Dues & Subscriptions City Clerk 159952 60 IMSA Operating Supplies Traffic Signals 159953 75 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF A Dues & Subscriptions Fire 159954 448 LANZI, BOB Mileage & Parking Ice Arena 159955 107,241 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Accounts Payable General Fund 159956 1,625 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage 159957 3,872 MADISON NATIONAL LIFE Disability Ins Employers Health and Benefits 159958 115 MEMA Dues & Subscriptions Fire 159959 175 MERSC Dues & Subscriptions Human Resources 159960 1,532 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General 159961 47 MGWA Dues & Subscriptions Utility Operations - General 159962 125 MIAMA Licenses & Taxes Ice Arena 159963 160 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS Dues & Subscriptions Police 159964 40 MINNESOTA GFOA Dues & Subscriptions Finance 159965 23 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG Licenses & Taxes Sewer Utility - General 159966 200 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS Dues & Subscriptions Fire 159967 291 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Prairie Bluff Conservation 159968 275 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159969 1,050 MN CIT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159970 40 MN DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY Licenses & Taxes Water Treatment Plant 159971 950 MN TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE Dues & Subscriptions Engineering 159972 50 MPELRA Conference Expense Human Resources 159973 25 MPPOA Dues & Subscriptions Police 159974 35 MPSA Dues & Subscriptions Park Maintenance 159975 115 NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PR Dues & Subscriptions Heritage Preservation 159976 600 NORTH STAR WOMEN'S FIREFIGHTER Dues & Subscriptions Fire 159977 229 OLYMPIC POOLS Conference Expense Parks Administration 159978 120 PLEAA Dues & Subscriptions Police 159979 7,570 PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC Building Rental Prairie View Liquor Store 159980 407 QWEST Telephone Edenvale Park 159981 141 SBSI INC Software Maintenance Information Technology 159982 200 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Miscellaneous City Council 159983 188 ST. LOUIS PARK, CITY OF Conference Expense Planning 159984 300 TCALMC Dues & Subscriptions City Council 159985 765 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense Engineering 159986 30 USPCA REGION 12 Dues & Subscriptions Police 159987 60 USPCA REGION 18 Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 159988 100 WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Classes/Programs/Events 159989 750 WATERISAC Dues & Subscriptions Utility Operations - General 159990 3,500 WATERSHED PARTNERS Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage 159991 176 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER Repair & Maint. Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 159992 28 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 159993 8,138 BELLBOY CORPORATION Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store 159994 123 BERLSON IMPORTS Beer Den Road Liquor Store 159995 4,060 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 159996 5,314 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 159997 1,012 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 159998 236 FRED Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 159999 240 GRAND PERE WINES INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160000 432 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160001 16,969 GRIGGS COOPER & CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store 160002 1,559 HOHENSTEINS INC Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 160003 4,271 JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN Beer Den Road Liquor Store Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit 160006 37,630 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Other Revenue Den Road Liquor Store 160007 129 M. AMUNDSON LLP Operating Supplies Den Road Liquor Store 160008 13,006 MARK VII Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 160009 797 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 160010 578 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160011 144 PAT KERNS WINE MERCHANTS Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 160012 3,413 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 160013 13,813 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Transportation Prairie View Liquor Store 160014 1,147 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 160015 20,072 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store 160016 215 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 160017 358 SPECIALTY WINES AND BEVERAGES Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 160018 11,046 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 160019 130 VINOCOPIA Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 160020 630 WINE COMPANY, THE Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160021 2,747 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160022 487 WINE SOURCE INTERNATIONAL Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 160023 847 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 160026 95 AMERICAN RED CROSS Conference Expense Recreation Administration 160027 96 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER Repair & Maint. Supplies Den Road Liquor Store 160028 897 AMSAN BRISSMAN-KENNEDY Cleaning Supplies Community Center Maintenance 160029 48 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 160030 175 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services 160031 1,521 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY Tires Fleet Services 160032 7,558 BELLBOY CORPORATION Operating Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store 160033 664 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Testing - Soil Boring Improvement Projects 2006 160035 76 CAWLEY COMPANY, THE Operating Supplies City Council 160036 374 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Gas Crestwood Park 160037 73 COSTCO Operating Supplies Community Center Admin 160038 6,971 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 160039 1,675 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160040 380 ESBENSEN, GEORGE Operating Supplies Fire 160041 129 FERRELLGAS Lubricants & Additives Fleet Services 160042 1,365 G & K SERVICES Office Supplies General 160043 793 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 160044 223 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN Waste Disposal Fleet Services 160045 15,457 GRIGGS COOPER & CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 160046 16,322 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC Motor Fuels Fleet Services 160047 1,696 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD Repair & Maint. Supplies Water System Maintenance 160048 132 HOHENSTEINS INC Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 160049 66 INDUSTRIAL FLOOR MAINTENANCE I Equipment Parts Fleet Services 160050 1,620 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI Union Dues Withheld General Fund 160051 198 J-CRAFT DIV OF CRYSTEEL MFG IN Equipment Parts Fleet Services 160052 7,186 JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 160053 27,885 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 160054 850 JR'S OPTIC INSPECTIONS Other Contracted Services Sewer System Maintenance 160055 321 M. AMUNDSON LLP Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 160056 2 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE Repair & Maint - Ice Rink Ice Arena Maintenance 160057 1,480 MRPA Conference Expense Parks Administration 160058 10,500 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSI Dues & Subscriptions City Council 160059 470 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store 160060 187 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Operating Supplies Community Center Admin 160061 2,913 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Transportation Prairie Village Liquor Store 160062 349 PC MALL Other Hardware Information Technology 160063 13,229 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160064 193 POWERPLAN OIB Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services 160065 8,628 PRAIRIE PARTNERS SIX LLP Building Rental Prairie Village Liquor Store 160066 1,071 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store 160067 17,906 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160068 384 RCM & ASSOCIATES Operating Supplies Telephone 160069 2,075 REBS MARKETING Other Contracted Services Water Accounting 160070 52 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 160071 187 SPECIALTY WINES AND BEVERAGES Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store 160072 2,682 SPRINT Wireless Subscription Information Technology 160073 7,853 STARING LAKE COURT HOMES AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund Check # Amount Vendor / Explanation Account Description Business Unit 160074 40 STATE OF MINNESOTA Equipment Testing/Cert. Fleet Services 160075 34 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET Equipment Parts Fleet Services 160076 7,140 SYMPRO INC Software Maintenance Information Technology 160077 40 TAHER INC CATERING Operating Supplies Water Distribution 160078 6,491 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 160079 1,735 TOTAL REGISTER Equipment Repair & Maint Den Road Liquor Store 160080 305 TRUE FABRICATIONS Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 160081 625 UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOL Equipment Repair & Maint Traffic Signals 160082 84 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 160083 191 WALCZEK, SCOTT AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 160084 75 WATSON CO INC, THE Merchandise for Resale Concessions 160085 4,480 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Services 160086 185 WILS Conference Expense Recreation Administration 160087 959 WINE COMPANY, THE Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 160088 3,418 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 160089 831 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC Repair & Maint. Supplies Water System Maintenance 160090 66 XCEL ENERGY Electric Emergency Preparedness 160091 109 Z WINES USA LLC Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 160092 215 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE Safety Supplies Community Center Admin 160093 135 IIMC Conference Expense City Clerk 160094 169 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE Life Insurance EE/ER General Fund 160095 906 PETTY CASH Conference Expense Park Maintenance 160096 114 PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC Insurance Prairie View Liquor Store 160097 25 TWIN CITIES ARMA Conference Expense Records Management 160101 175 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT Operating Supplies Police 160102 154 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT Operating Supplies Police 160103 18 STATE OF MINNESOTA Operating Supplies Fleet Services 1,445,331 Grand Total City of Eden Prairie Council Check Summary 1/16/2007 Division Amount General 149,720 100 City Manager 337 101 Legislative 12,872 110 City Clerk 355 111 Customer Service 3,274 112 Human Resources 225 113 Communication Services 279 114 Benefits & Training 2,363 116 Facilities 981 131 Finance 61 132 Social Services 1,191 133 Planning 287 134 Heritage Preservation 135 135 Information Technology 54,704 137 Economic Development 514 138 Community Development Admin. 15 150 Park Administration 1,709 151 Park Maintenance 1,054 153 Organized Athletics 2,574 154 Community Center 1,753 158 Adult Recreation 947 159 Recreation Administration 343 162 Arts 310 163 Outdoor Center 25 180 Police 8,302 183 Emergency Preparedness 1,926 184 Fire 753,326 200 Engineering 2,494 201 Street Maintenance 830 203 Fleet Services 25,456 509 CIP Fund 2,526 522 Improvement Projects 2006 664 601 Prairie Village Liquor 57,179 602 Den Road Liquor 136,487 603 Prairie View Liquor 90,035 701 Water Fund 18,613 702 Sewer Fund 3,514 703 Storm Drainage Fund 5,550 807 Benefits Fund 102,402 Report Totals 1,445,331 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Ordinance and Resolution DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Robert A. Lambert, Director Parks and Recreation ITEM DESCRIPTION: Park Use Ordinance Revision ITEM NO.: X.A. Requested Action Move to: Approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.04, relating to rules and regulations governing parks that will prohibit the use of Eden Prairie Parks by large, non-resident sponsored groups, and will require reservations by resident sponsored groups larger than 20 persons. Synopsis The attached ordinance will provide the City the ability to control use of City parks by large organized groups and will restrict any non-resident large groups from use of the parks, and will eliminate any “for profit” group from using City park land for the purpose of operating a “for profit” business. Background This item was originally reviewed at the November 6 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and was continued to the December 4 meeting, after commission members requested staff to provide a copy of the ordinance that more clearly defines which items were deleted or added to the previous ordinance relating to park use. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the November 6 memorandum to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission describing current conflicts with large groups, mainly from outside the City of Eden Prairie visiting City parks unannounced and causing conflicts with those groups that have reserved the park. As well as a colored copy of section 9.04 rules and regulations governing public parks with revisions to the ordinance clearly underlined and color coded. At the December 4 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission unanimously recommended approval of these changes. Attachments • Ordinance Chapter 9, Section 9.04 • Colored Chapter 9, Section 9.04 (showing additions) • November 6, 2006, Memorandum CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. __-2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 SECTION 9.04 RELATING TO RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC PARKS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, ordains: WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Eden Prairie that certain types of park use be prohibited so as to best protect and assist the owners, employees and patrons thereof and the public in general, City Code Chapter 9 is amended as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 9.04, Subdivision 2. Definitions is amended by adding items K., L. and M. as follows: K. “Non-resident sponsored group” means two or more persons who engage in a cooperative or coordinated activity in or on a park and who are sponsored, or organized by, or under the direction or control of, one (or more) person(s), business(es) or non-profit organization(s) or other entity (“Sponsor”), for the purpose of engaging in a cooperative or coordinated activity in or on a park. A Sponsor as used in this definition does not include a (a) natural person who is a resident of the City or (b) business or non-profit organization which, (i) conducts a business, service or activity and (ii) occupies and maintains a physical property having an address, within the City. L. “Resident sponsored large group” means more than 20 persons who engage in a cooperative or coordinated activity in or on a park and who are sponsored, organized by, or under the direction or control (for the purpose of engaging in a cooperative or coordinated activity) of, a (or more) natural person(s), who is a resident of the City or a business(es), non-profit organization(s) or other entity, which (a) conducts or provides a business, service or activity and (b) occupies and maintains a physical property having an address within the City M. “Large group use facilities” means the following facilities within the City’s parks: All park shelters larger than 200 square feet, trails, and all athletic fields, and courts. Section 2. City Code Section 9.04, Subdivision 5. Permits is amended by adding a sentence to the end of section A. as follows: Issuance of a permit shall be subject to and governed by the policies and guidelines for community use of parks and recreation rental facilities as adopted by the Council from time to time. Section 3. City Code Section 9.04, Subdivision 5. Permits, Section C. is amended by adding number 5. as follows: 5. The proposed activity or use will not be contrary to the policies and guidelines for community use of parks and recreation rental facilities as adopted by the Council from time to time. Section 4. City Code Section 9.04, Subdivision 5. Permits is amended by adding to Section D. as follows: D. Use of a Park by the holder of, and pursuant to, a permit shall have priority over use by any other person. Section 5. City Code Section 9.04, is amended by adding Subdivision 7 and Subdivision 8 as follows: Subd. 7. Non-Resident Sponsored Group Use Prohibited. Use of a park by a Non-resident sponsored group is prohibited. Subd. 8. Permits Required for Resident Sponsored Large Group. Use of a Large group use facility by a Resident sponsored large group is prohibited without first obtaining a permit for the use of a park. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation” and Section 9.99 entitled violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as through repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. 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 ______________, 2007, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at the regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _____day of ____________, 2007. ____________________________ ______________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on the ______day of ____________, 2007. 9-1 CHAPTER 9 PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES SECTION 9.04. RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC PARKS. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to secure the quiet and orderly use and enjoyment of the public parks of the City. Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: A. "Director" means the person holding the position of Director of Parks and Recreation of the City. B. "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle which is self-propelled. Motor vehicle does not include a vehicle moved solely by human power. C. "Park" means any open or enclosed land and improvements or facility wherever located which is owned, leased, operated, or controlled by the City and which is reserved, designated or used for a playground, picnic area, beach, or other recreational facility. "Park" also means waters surrounded by parks and/or adjacent to beaches which are delineated as swimming areas by placement of marker buoys. D. "Pet" means any domesticated small animal including but not limited to dogs, cats and birds kept by a person for pleasure or utility. E. "Recreational motor vehicle" means a snowmobile, mini-bike, motor home, go-cart, and all-terrain vehicles. F. "Roadway or street" means that portion of a way or path improved for vehicular traffic exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder. G. "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway except devices used exclusively upon stationary rail or tracks. H. "Watercraft" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation on water. I. "Roller skates" means roller skates, in-line skates, or roller skis. J. “Paint ball gun” means every device by which a person may expel a thin-skinned, paint-filled, gelatin capsule known as a paint ball. K. “Non-resident sponsored group” means two or more persons who engage in a cooperative or coordinated activity in or on a park and who are sponsored, or organized by, or under the direction or control of, one (or more) person(s), business(es) or non-profit organization(s) or other entity (“Sponsor”), for the purpose of engaging in a cooperative or coordinated activity in or on a park. A Sponsor as used in this definition does not include a (a) natural person who is a resident of the City or (b) business or non-profit organization which, (i) conducts a business, service or activity and (ii) occupies and maintains a physical property having an address, within the City. L. “Resident sponsored large group” means more than 20 persons who engage in a cooperative or coordinated activity in or on a park and who are sponsored, organized by, or under the direction or control (for the purpose of engaging in a cooperative or coordinated activity) of, a (or more) natural person(s), who is a resident of the 9-2 City or a business(es), non-profit organization(s) or other entity, which (a) conducts or provides a business, service or activity and (b) occupies and maintains a physical property having an address within the City M. “Large group use facilities” means the following facilities within the City’s parks: All park shelters larger than 200 square feet, trails, and all athletic fields, and courts. Subd. 5. Permits. A. Wherever in this Section provision is made for authorization of an activity by permit, the granting and issuance of such permit shall be by the Director. Issuance of a permit shall be subject to and governed by the policies and guidelines for community use of parks and recreation rental facilities as adopted by the Council from time to time. B. A person seeking issuance of a permit shall file an application with the Director. The application shall state: 1. Name and address of the applicant and the person sponsoring the activity if any. 2. The activity, time and area for which a permit is requested. 3. An estimate of the anticipated attendance, if applicable. 4. Any other information which the Director shall find reasonably necessary for a determination as to whether a permit should be issued. C. The Director shall issue a permit when he determines that: 1. The proposed activity or use will not interfere with or detract from the promotion of public health, welfare, safety, recreation or public enjoyment. 2. The proposed activity will not entail unusual, extraordinary, or burdensome expense for police protection by the City. 3. Any facilities desired have not been reserved for some other use at the time sought by applicant. 4. Payment of such fees as shall be prescribed by the Council from time to time by resolution has been made. 5. The proposed activity or use will not be contrary to the policies and guidelines for community use of parks and recreation rental facilities as adopted by the Council from time to time. D. Use of a Park by the holder of, and pursuant to, a permit shall have priority over use by any other person. Source: City Code Effective Date: 5-17-82 Subd. 6. Recreational Motor Vehicles. It is a misdemeanor for any person, to operate a recreational motor vehicle, which includes, but is not limited to, snowmobiles, trail bikes, or other all-terrain vehicles, hovercrafts, or motor vehicles licensed for highway operation being used for off-road recreational purposes, in parks within the limits of the City. This subdivision shall not apply to 9-3 recreational motor vehicles operated by enforcement, emergency and resource management personnel acting in the performance of their duties. The definition and regulatory provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 84.90 through 84.929 are hereby incorporated and adopted by reference, including the penalty provisions thereof. Source: Ordinance No. 20-2002 Effective Date: 7-11-2002 Subd. 7. Non-Resident Sponsored Group Use Prohibited. Use of a park by a Non-resident sponsored group is prohibited. Subd. 8. Permits Required for Resident Sponsored Large Group. Use of a Large group use facility by a Resident sponsored large group is prohibited without first obtaining a permit for the use of a park. To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission From: Robert Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: November 6, 2006 Subject: Park Use Ordinance Revisions Requested Action Move to: Recommend approval of the revision to the City Code chapter 9, section 9.04 relating to rules and regulations governing parks that will limit the use of Eden Prairie parks by large, non-resident sponsored groups and will require reservations by resident sponsored groups larger than 20 persons. Synopsis The attached ordinance will provide the City with the ability to control use of City parks by large, organized groups and will restrict any non-resident large groups from use of the parks and will eliminate any for profit group from using City parkland for the purpose of operating a for profit business. Background Each year the City experiences more conflicts with large groups, mainly from outside of the City of Eden Prairie visiting City parks unannounced and causing conflicts with those groups that have reserved the park. Often in the spring of the year, schools or other organized groups may bring in as many as five or six busloads of children and spend the majority of the day in a park, leaving behind overflowing trash barrels (if the trash is but in the barrels at all), and in many cases picnic facilities that are not cleaned and ready for a group that may have reserved the facilities for late in the day. Other examples of inappropriate use of parks are where individuals or companies are conducting camps, clinics or lesson programs on City facilities where they have charged the participants a large fee and have not reserved or rented City facilities. They take advantaged of the “first come, first served” existing rule and use these tax payer subsidized facilities to operate their businesses, whereas local athletic associations and other legitimate users are charged a fee for the same use of these facilities. The proposed ordinance change would allow the City to request these users to leave the park. Attachments Ordinance 9.04 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development/Planning Janet Jeremiah Michael D. Franzen ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to golf courses ITEM NO.: X.B. Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to golf courses and adopt Resolution approving Summary Ordinance. Synopsis The proposed text amendments are related to creating a zoning district called Golf Course. This district and other amendments relative to golf course would be applicable to Bent Creek, Glen Lake Golf Course, Bearpath, and Olympic Hills. Attachments 1. Ordinance 2. Summary Ordinance CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. __-2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11.03, SUBD. 1. A., SUBD. 2. B., TABLES 4 AND 5, SUBD. 3. H. 4., AND SECTION 11.10, SUBD. 2, ADDING SECTION 11.36 AND AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUBD. 4. RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOLF COURSE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 1. A. is amended by adding to the table at the end of the column entitled, “District Title” the words “Golf Course” and at the end of the column entitled, “Abbreviation,” the letters “GC.” Section 2. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 2. B., Tables 4 and 5 are amended as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto. Section 3. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3. H. 4. is amended by adding to the table at the end of the column entitled “District Land Uses” the following: “h. Golf Course” and at the end of the column entitled “Off-Street Parking Space Requirements” the following: “1/3 seats in the clubhouse plus 72 spaces.” Section 4. City Code Section 11.10, Subd. 2 is amended by deleting item “F. Golf Courses.” and changing item “G.” to “F.” Section 5. City Code Chapter 11 is amended by adding Section 11.36 as follows: SECTION 11.36 GC-Golf Course. Subd. 1. Purposes. The purpose of the GC-Golf Course District is to specify a land use district applicable and consistent with the historical and contractual development and use of the City’s golf courses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Golf, golf holes, practice ranges and greens, tennis courts, club houses, swimming pools, maintenance and storage buildings, pump houses and wells, shelter houses, cart paths, irrigation facilities, croquet, lawn bowling, platform tennis, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, ice skating and other passive recreational activities with non-motorized use, provided however motorized golf carts are permitted. The term “golf course” does not include permanent or temporary residential use or transient hotel use. Section 6. City Code Section 11.70, subd. 4 is amended by adding “G. Golf Course District” as follows: G. Golf Course District. 1. Free-standing Signs: (a) One sign per street frontage is allowed provided the total area of such sign shall not exceed 50 square feet. (b) Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 10 feet to any street right-of-way. (c) Height: Maximum height of free-standing signs shall not exceed 8 feet. (d) Sign Base: (Refer to Sub. 3, paragraph DD). 2. Wall Signs: One sign per building not to exceed 24 square feet in area. Where a building is located on a corner lot, one sign may be located on each wall facing a street provided one does not exceed 24 square feet and the other does not exceed 18 square feet. All walls signs shall be uniform in design. 3. Temporary Signs: Temporary signs shall be permitted for a period not to exceed ten days. Such signs shall be not higher than 8 feet and not larger than 32 square feet. Section 7. City Code Chapter 1, entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation” and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are herby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of January, 2007 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of January, 2007. Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on ______________________, 2007. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __-2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11.03, SUBD. 1. A., SUBD. 2. B., TABLES 4 AND 5, SUBD. 3. H. 4., AND SECTION 11.10, SUBD. 2, ADDING SECTION 11.36 AND AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUBD. 4. RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOLF COURSE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: The ordinance amends Chapter 11(zoning) with respect to establishing a golf course zoning district. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: __________________________ ________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on ____________________________. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2-2007 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2-2007 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held on the 16th day of January, 2007. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: A. Ordinance No. 2-2007 is lengthy and contains charts. B. The text of summary of Ordinance No. 2-2007, attached hereto as Exhibit A, conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. C. The title and summary shall be published once in the Eden Prairie Sun Current in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type. D. A printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person, during regular office hours, at the office of the City Clerk, and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City offices. E. Ordinance 2-2007 shall be recorded in the Ordinance Book, along with proof of publication, within twenty (20) days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on January 16, 2007. ___________________________ Phil Young, Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: ________________________ Kathleen Porta, Clerk EXHIBIT A SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2-2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11.03, SUBD. 1. A., SUBD. 2. B., TABLES 4 AND 5, SUBD. 3. H. 4., AND SECTION 11.10, SUBD. 2, ADDING SECTION 11.36 AND AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUBD. 4. RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOLF COURSE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: The ordinance amends Chapter 11(zoning) with respect to establishing a golf course zoning district. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: __________________________ ________________________ Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Phil Young, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on ____________________________. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Reports of the City Manager DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Scott H. Neal, City Manager ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revised Land Exchange Agreement between the City and Eden Prairie School District ITEM NO.: XIV.B.1. Requested Action Move to: Move to approve the revised land exchange agreement between the City and the Eden Prairie School District. Synopsis In 2006 the City Council and the Eden Prairie School District Board jointly approved a land swap agreement in which we exchanged District-owned land adjacent to the Community Center with City-owned land adjacent to Oak Point School. The purpose of the land exchange was two- fold. First, it would allow for the expansion of the Community Center. Second, it would provide a site for the Old Anderson Schoolhouse. During the District’s due diligence investigation of the City-owned site, they determined it was not feasible as a site for the Old Anderson Schoolhouse. Because one of the original goals of the land swap could not be fulfilled, District officials asked City staff to consider an alternative land exchange agreement. After much discussion about alternatives to the original land swap, the Superintendent and I reached an agreement to recommend to our respective Boards to approve of the land swap outlined in the attached documents. The entire land swap occurs at the Community Center site. The City land proposed to be transferred to the District is a parking lot used by High School staff. The District land that is proposed to be transferred to the City is the same land that was part of the original land swap agreement. I presented this proposed land exchange to the Planning Commission at their January 8, 2007, meeting. They accepted the arrangement. I am presenting it to the Council tonight, January 16, with my recommendation to approve the revised land swap agreement. Dr. Krull will be presenting the same agreement to the School Board at their next regular meeting on January 22. She will be recommending approval of the agreement to her Board. Approval of the revised land swap agreement will allow the Community Center to proceed forward. I recommend Council approval. Attachment Agreement 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO REAL-ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT This First Amendment to Real-Estate Exchange Agreement is entered into this ___ day of January, 2007 (hereinafter “First Amendment”) between the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation (referred to herein as the “City”), and Independent School District 272, Eden Prairie, a public school corporation (referred to herein as the “School District”). City and School District respectively shall be referred to herein, individually as “City” and “School District,” or as a “Party,” and collectively as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, the Parties executed a Real-Estate Exchange Agreement dated March 20, 2006 for the exchange of properties labeled as Parcel A and Parcel B (hereinafter “Exchange Agreement”). Parcel A was legally described on Exhibit A to the Exchange Agreement and Parcel B was legally described on Exhibit B to the Exchange Agreement; WHEREAS, the legal descriptions for Parcel A and Parcel B have changed since the execution of the Exchange Agreement; WHEREAS, the City and School District desire to amend Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Exchange Agreement to correct the legal descriptions for Parcel A and Parcel B. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The legal description for Parcel A described on Exhibit A to the Exchange Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following: That part of the North Half of Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8; thence North 2 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, a distance of 654.29 feet; thence South 55 degrees 37 minutes 52 seconds East, a distance of 184.26 feet to a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 560.00 feet a central angle of 54 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds and an arc length of 527.79 feet; thence easterly along a reverse curve concave to the south having a radius of 1010.00 feet a central angle of 38 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds and an arc length of 669.80 feet to the west line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8; thence North 2 degrees 27 minutes 52 seconds West along said west line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, a distance of 549.62 feet; thence on a bearing of EAST parallel with said south line of the north half of Section 8, a distance of 111.89 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 35 degrees 54 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 308.83 feet to a line 80.00 feet west of and parallel with the west line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8; thence North 02 degrees 27 minutes 2 52 seconds West along said parallel line, a distance of 250.36 feet; thence EAST parallel to the south line of said North Half of Section 8, a distance of 191.89 feet to the point of beginning. 2. The legal description for Parcel B described on Exhibit B to the Exchange Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following: That part of the North Half of Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8; thence North 2 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, a distance of 654.29 feet; thence South 55 degrees 37 minutes 52 seconds East, a distance of 184.26 feet to a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 560.00 feet a central angle of 54 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds and an arc length of 527.79 feet; thence easterly along a reverse curve concave to the south having a radius of 1010.00 feet a central angle of 38 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds and an arc length of 669.80 feet to the west line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8; thence North 2 degrees 27 minutes 52 seconds West along said west line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, a distance of 549.62 feet; thence on a bearing of EAST parallel with said south line of the north half of Section 8, a distance of 111.89 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 35 degrees 54 minutes 45 seconds East, a distance of 63.99 feet; thence South 69 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 15.45 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 54.11 feet a central angle of 88 degrees 44 minutes 26 seconds and an arc length of 83.80 feet; thence easterly along a reverse curve concave to the south having a radius of 11.25 feet a central angle of 89 degrees 06 minutes 08 seconds and an arc length of 17.50 feet; thence South 69 degrees 09 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of 26.53 feet; thence North 21 degrees 04 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 8.00 feet; thence South 69 degrees 09 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of 70.67 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 807.91 feet a central angle of 40 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds and an arc length of 566.47 feet; thence SOUTH, a distance of 49.02 feet; thence WEST parallel with said south line of the north half of Section 8, a distance of 784.26 feet to the point of beginning. 3. Except as amended hereby the Exchange Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN AGREEMENT, the City and the School District have executed this First Amendment to Real-Estate Exchange Agreement as of the date first written above. [Signature blocks on next page] CITY: 3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By________________________________ Phil Young, Mayor By________________________________ Scott Neal, City Manager SCHOOL DISTRICT: By________________________________ ______________________ By________________________________ ____________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of January, 2007, by Phil Young and Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. _______________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of January, 2007, by Melissa Krull and ___________________, respectively the Superintendent and the Chair of Independent School District 272, a Minnesota public school corporation, on behalf of said corporation. _________________________ Notary Public Requested Action: Move to: ƒ Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a purchase agreement and other documents including but not limited to a Warranty Deed and affidavits as are necessary to complete the sale of a 4.8 acre site owned by the City and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot C - Columbine Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Synopsis: Presbyterian Homes, owner of Broadmore Apartments and Castle Ridge Care facility in Eden Prairie, has submitted an offer to the purchase the 4.8 acre property owned by the City and located between Broadmore Apartments and Lifetime Fitness Health Club (formerly Flagship) for a price of $3,000,000. Their plan is to include the 4.8 acres into a complete redevelopment of the 13 acre Broadmore Apartments and Castle Ridge properties for a new large-scale senior housing and retail development. However, they are not planning to start the project for another 3-4 years. The closing on the sale of the City property would be contingent on Presbyterian receiving City approval of their redevelopment plan. The sale is expected to close sometime in May 2007 or about 120 days following their plan submission to the City. Background: The 4.8 acres City parcel is residual road right of way from the Columbine Road project and was placed on the market shortly after the MCA Study was adopted and Columbine plat was approved in December of 2005. Staff began marketed the property early last year and by May 2006 had received purchase offers from three developers including Presbyterian Homes. The other two proposals were for mid-rise condominium developments. The Presbyterian Homes proposal was selected because it had the fewest contingencies, appeared to be the most feasible from a market and planning stand point, and created an exciting new vision for the complete redevelopment of the 17+ acre area along Prairie Center Drive between TH212 and Columbine Road. Also, Presbyterian Homes is one of the largest not for profit senior housing providers in the country has a good reputation as quality housing developer. Because of obligations related to the bond financing in place for Broadmore Apartments, they have indicated that they would not be able to redevelopment that part of the property until 2009/2010. The proceeds from the sale of the real estate will be placed in the Economic Development Fund. Attachment: Purchase Agreement CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Reports of Directors DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development: Janet Jeremiah/David Lindahl ITEM DESCRIPTION: Purchase Agreement- Lot 1 Block 1 and Outlot C - Columbine Addition ITEM NO. XIV.C.1. PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of January 16, 2007, between the City of Eden Prairie (“Seller”), a Minnesota municipal corporation and Presbyterian Homes Housing & Assisted Living, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation, or assigns (“referred to as the “Buyer”). RECITALS Seller is the fee owner of Lot 1, Block 1, Columbine Addition & Outlot C, Columbine Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Land”). Buyer desires to acquire the Land and all easements and rights benefiting or appurtenant to the Land (collectively, the “Real Property”) pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Seller desires to sell the Real Property to Buyer, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Effective Date is the date this Purchase Agreement is signed by both parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Sale of Real Property. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer and Buyer agrees to buy from Seller, the Real Property subject to terms, covenants and conditions herein. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price (“Purchase Price”) to be paid by Buyer to Seller for the Real Property is $3,000,000. 3. Payment of Purchase Price. The Purchase Price shall be paid as follows: 3.1 Earnest Money. One Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) as earnest money (“Earnest Money”) and which Earnest Money shall be held by Guaranty Title Insurance Company (“Escrow Agent”) in an interest bearing escrow account, pursuant to the Escrow Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A provided, however, that the fee for any such account shall be paid by Buyer. 3.2 Closing Payment. Two Million Nine Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($2,900,000.00), in cash or by wire transfer of U.S. Federal Funds to be received by Seller at Closing, as defined in Section 6 hereof. 4.A. Contingencies. Unless waived by Buyer in writing, Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Real Property shall be subject to and contingent upon each of the following: 4.1 Representations and Warranties. The representations and warranties of Seller contained in this Agreement must be true now and on the Closing Date as if made on the Closing Date and Seller shall have delivered to Buyer at closing a certificate dated the Closing Date, signed by an authorized representative of Seller, certifying that such representations and warranties are true as of the Closing Date (the “Bring-down Certificate”). 4.2 Performance of Seller’s Obligations. Seller shall have performed all of the obligations required to be performed by Seller under this Agreement, as and when required by this Agreement. 4.3 Title. On or before Closing Title shall have been found acceptable, or made acceptable in Buyer’s sole discretion, in accordance with the requirements and terms of Section 10 below. 4.4 No Adverse Action. There shall not exist on the Closing Date any lawsuit, governmental investigation or other proceeding challenging the transaction contemplated in this Purchase Agreement, or which might adversely affect the right of Buyer to own, develop, or use the Real Property after the Closing Date for Buyer’s intended use thereof, nor shall any such action have been threatened or instituted. 4.5 Government Approvals. Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, Buyer shall submit to the City of Eden Prairie all applications required for Buyer’s desired zoning and platting with respect to redevelopment of Lot 1, Block 2, Castle Ridge Addition, Outlot C, and the Real Property (collectively, “Government Approvals”). Within 120 days after submission of the applications all Government Approvals must be obtained: Buyer shall have no obligation to purchase the Real Property if Government Approvals are not satisfactory to Buyer by exercising the rights in Section 4.B. 4.6 Phase I. No later than forty-five (45) days from the Effective Date, Buyer shall have determined that it is satisfied with the Phase I Environmental Report (prepared in accordance with the current ASTM standard for Phase I environmental site assessments) to be prepared with regard to the Real Property by an environmental consultant chosen by Buyer ( the “Phase I”). Buyer shall cause the Phase I to be prepared no later than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date at Buyer’s cost and expense and shall deliver a copy to Seller within three (3) days of receipt by Buyer. 4.7 Testing. Buyer shall have determined, on or before forty-five (45) days from the Effective Date, that it is satisfied with the results of and matters disclosed by soil tests, engineering inspections, hazardous waste and environmental reviews of the Property, all such tests, inspections and reviews to be obtained at Buyer’s sole cost and expense. 4.8 Financing. No later than forty-five (45) days following Government Approvals by the City of Eden Prairie, Buyer shall have received a Commitment acceptable to Buyer for the proceeds of financing necessary and sufficient in Buyer’s opinion to implement Buyer’s plans for the purchase and redevelopment of the Real Property. 4.9 Survey. Seller shall provide to Buyer within thirty (30) days from the Effective Date an ALTA boundary survey, certified to Buyer, Buyer’s lender (if any) and lender’s title insurer, prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed to practice in Minnesota , and who is acceptable to Seller and Buyer, showing the Real Property and location of all easements on the Real Property. 4. B. Termination by Buyer. If any of the foregoing contingencies have not been satisfied on or before the earlier of Closing or the date stated above in reference to such contingency, then this Agreement may be terminated, at Buyer’s option, by written notice from Buyer to Seller. Such notice of termination may be given at any time on or before the Closing Date. Upon such termination (a) Buyer and Seller shall execute a recordable written termination of this Agreement, which shall include Buyer’s quit claim of any interest in and to the Real Property, (b) the Earnest Money and any interest accrued thereon shall be released to Buyer, and (c) upon such return, neither party will have any further rights or obligations regarding this Agreement or the Real Property except for obligations to indemnify the other party pursuant to paragraph 5.1, 12, 13, 17 and Exhibit B. All the contingencies set forth in this Agreement are specifically stated and agreed to be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Buyer and the Buyer shall have the right to unilaterally waive any contingency by written notice to Seller. 4.C. Termination by Seller. If Buyer defaults in any obligation set forth in 4. A. above, including but not limited to obtaining a Phase I and making application for the Government Approvals Approval under Section 4.5 from the City of Eden Prairie within the required time, this Agreement may be terminated, at Seller’s option, by written notice from Seller to Buyer, at any time prior to the Closing Date. Upon a termination by Seller (a) Buyer and Seller shall execute a recordable written termination of this Agreement, which shall include Buyer’s quit claim of any interest in and to the Real Property, (b) the Earnest Money and any interest accrued thereon shall be released to and retained by Seller; (c) Buyer’s rights in and to the Phase I and the Survey shall be automatically assigned to Seller and Buyer shall executed such assignment documents as may be necessary to confirm said assignment, and (d) upon fulfillment of (a), (b), and (c), neither party will have any further rights or obligations regarding this Agreement or the Real Property except for the rights and obligations of indemnification set forth in Sections 5.1, 12, 13 and 17. 5. Buyer's Access Investigation and Security. 5.1 Access and Investigation. Seller shall allow Buyer, and Buyer's agents, access to the Property without charge and at all reasonable times for the purpose of Buyer's investigation and testing the same. Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses of such investigation and testing and shall indemnify and hold Seller and the Property harmless from all costs and liabilities relating to Buyer's activities. Buyer shall further promptly repair and restore any damage to the Property caused by or occurring during Buyer's testing and return the Real Property and/or Personal Property to substantially the same condition as existed prior to such entry. Buyer shall keep and maintain public liability insurance in amounts not less than $1,000,000.00 for each injury, $500,000.00 for each accident and $500,000.00 for property damage. Such insurance shall be written by a company licensed to do business in Minnesota, shall name the Seller as a co-insured and shall contain a certificate providing that it cannot be canceled unless fifteen (15) days advanced notice is given to Seller. 5.2 Buyer Security. In the event Buyer is conducting any tests or inspections on the Real Property as permitted in this Agreement (“Tests”), prior to being allowed access to the Real Property Buyer shall either (i) provide the Seller duly and validly executed mechanics lien waivers by which any provider agrees to waive its rights to claim a mechanics lien against the Real Property as the result of any Tests, or (ii) Buyer shall obtain one written estimate for said services reasonable acceptable to Seller and shall tender to the Seller security equal to the total of the estimates of the contractors selected by Buyer to perform said services. Such security shall be held in the form of cash or Letter of Credit from a financial institution acceptable to Seller (the “Security”) and shall be held in escrow by Seller and shall be released by Seller upon tender of lien waivers for all work performed on the Real Property. Seller may use the Security to satisfy such liens or claims. 6. Closing. The closing of the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement (the “Closing”) shall occur on the date which is ten (10) business days after the earlier of the satisfaction of the last of all contingencies set forth in Section 4 or the date when Buyer shall give notice to Seller that the contingencies which are to have been satisfied have been waived or satisfied (the “Closing Date”) but in no event shall the closing date be later than _______ days from the Effective Date. The closing shall take place at 10:00 a.m. local time at the offices of Seller, or at such other place as may be agreed to. Seller agrees to deliver possession of the Real Property to Buyer as of the closing. 7. Seller’s Closing Documents. On the Closing Date, Seller shall execute and/or deliver to Buyer the following (collectively, “Seller’s Closing Documents”): 7.1 Deed. A Warranty Deed, in recordable form reasonably satisfactory to Buyer, conveying marketable fee simple title to the Real Property to Buyer, free and clear of all encumbrances, except the Permitted Encumbrances as described on Exhibit B attached hereto. 7.2 Bring-down Certificate. A certificate reaffirming as of the Closing Date all of the Seller’s Representations and Warranties contained in paragraph 12 of this Agreement. 7.3 Seller’s Affidavit. An Affidavit of Seller in customary form required by Title, stating that there are no liens, judgments, mechanics liens, bankruptcies, etc. which affect the Real Property. 7.4 FIRPTA Affidavit. A non-foreign affidavit, properly executed and in recordable form, containing such information as is required by IRC Section 1445(b)(2) and its regulations. 7.5 IRS Reporting Form. The appropriate Federal Income Tax reporting form, if any, as required. 7.6 Executive Order Affidavit. An affidavit properly executed and in recordable form satisfying Buyer and Title that the Seller is not a blocked person under Executive Order 13224. 7.7 Other Documents. All other documents reasonably determined by Buyer to be necessary to transfer the Real Property to Buyer free and clear of all encumbrances, except the Permitted Encumbrances. 8. Buyer’s Closing Documents. On the Closing Date, Buyer will execute and/or deliver to Seller the following (collectively, “Buyer’s Closing Documents”): 8.1 Purchase Price. The balance of the Purchase Price, by wire transfer of U.S. Federal Funds or by certified check to be received in Title’s trust account or delivered to Seller on or before 1:00 p.m. local time on the Closing Date. 8.2 Title Documents. Such Affidavits of Purchaser, Certificates of Value or other documents as may be reasonably required by Title Company in order to record the Seller’s Closing Documents and issue the Policy. 8.3 Executive Order Affidavit. An affidavit properly executed and in recordable form confirming the Buyer’s representations in Section 13.2 9. Prorations. Seller and Buyer agree to the following prorations and allocation of costs regarding this Agreement: 9.1 Title Insurance and Closing Fee. Seller will pay all costs of the Title Evidence described in Section 10 of this Agreement and the fees charged by Title for any escrow required regarding Buyer’s Objections. Buyer will pay the premium or cost of the Policy and all additional premiums required for the issuance of any mortgagee’s title insurance policy required by Buyer. Seller and Buyer will each pay one-half (1/2) of any reasonable and customary closing fees or charges imposed by any closing agent designated by Title. 9.2 Deed Tax. Seller shall pay all state deed tax and recording fee regarding the Warranty Deed to be delivered by Seller under this Agreement. 9.3 Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. At Closing, the Purchase Price shall be adjusted as follows: 9.3.1 Current Year’s Taxes. All real property taxes which have become a lien on the Real Property (“Taxes”) and which are due and payable prior to the year in which Closing occurs, shall be paid by Seller at or prior to Closing. All Taxes which are due and payable in the year in which Closing occurs shall be prorated to the Closing Date and Seller’s portion shall be paid by Seller at Closing. This proration shall result in Seller’s payment of Taxes from January 1 to the date immediately prior to the Closing Date and Buyer’s payment of Taxes from and including the Date of Closing to December 31. 9.3.2 Assessments. All charges for improvements or services already made to or which benefit the Real Property and all levied and pending assessments (general or special) arising our of or in connection with any assessment district created or confirmed prior to the Closing Date (“Assessments”) shall be paid in full by Seller at closing. 9.3.3 Tax Amount Unknown. If the Closing shall occur before the tax rate is fixed for the then current year, the apportionment of Taxes shall be made upon 110% of the most current estimate of such Taxes and Assessment installments, assuming for estimating purposes that the Real Property will be fully assessed. Seller shall deposit such sum in escrow and all interest earnings on such deposit will be paid to Seller. Title will retain such deposit to pay Seller’s share of the actual Taxes and installments of Assessments (including interest) payable therewith] and shall pay any excess over to Seller. 9.4 Recording Costs. Seller will pay the costs of recording all documents necessary to place record title in the condition warranted by Seller and requested by Buyer in this Agreement. Buyer will pay the cost of recording all other documents. 9.5 Other Costs. All other operating costs of the Real Property will be allocated between Seller and Buyer as of the Closing Date, so that Seller pays operating costs accruing before the Closing Date, and Buyer pays that part of such operating costs accruing from and after the Closing Date. 9.6 Attorneys’ Fees. Each of the parties will pay its own attorneys’ fees, provided however, notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event either party commences an action for the purpose of enforcing any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such proceeding will be entitled to reimbursement for its reasonable costs and expenses of prosecuting or defending such proceeding, as the case may be, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. 10. Title Examination. Title examination will be conducted as follows: 10.1 Seller's Title Evidence. Seller shall, within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, furnish to Buyer and Buyer's counsel, at Seller's cost and expense, the following (collectively, “Title Evidence”) 10.1.1 Title Insurance Commitment. A commitment (the “Title Commitment”) using the most current ALTA Form B Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance insuring title to the Real Property, in the amount of the Purchase Price, issued by Guaranty Title Insurance Company. (“Title”). 10.1.2 Encumbrances. A copy of every document referenced as an exception to the title of the Real Property (including without limitation the Permitted Encumbrances) in the Title Commitment. 10.2 Buyer’s Objections. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the last of the Title Evidence, Buyer shall make written objections (“Objections”) to the form and/or contents of the Title Evidence. Buyer’s failure to make Objections within such time period will constitute a waiver of such Objections. Any matter shown on the Title Evidence and not objected to by Buyer shall be a “Permitted Encumbrance” pursuant to this Agreement. Seller will have sixty (60) days after receipt of the Objections to cure the Objections, during which period the Closing will be postponed as necessary. Seller shall use its best efforts to correct any Objections. To the extent an Objection can be satisfied by the payment of money, Buyer shall have the right to apply a portion of the cash payable to Seller at the Closing to satisfaction of such Objection and the amount so applied shall reduce the amount of cash payable to Seller at the Closing. If the Objections are not cured within such sixty (60) day period, Buyer will have the option to do any of the following: 10.2.1 Termination. Terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Earnest Money and the interest accrued and unpaid on the Earnest Money, if any. 10.2.2 Escrow for Cure. Withhold from the Purchase Price an amount which, in the reasonable judgment of Title is sufficient to assure cure of the Objections. Any amount so withhold will be placed in escrow with Title pending such cure. If Seller does not cure such Objections within ninety (90) days after such escrow is established, Buyer may then cure such Objections and charge the costs of such cure, including attorney’s fees against the escrowed amount. If such escrow is established, the parties agree to execute and deliver such documents as may be reasonably required by Title, and Seller agrees to pay the charges of Title to create and administer the escrow. 10.2.3 Waiver. Waive the Objections and proceed to close. 11. Operation Prior to Closing. During the period from the Effective Date to the Closing Date (the “Executory Period”), Seller shall operate and maintain the Real Property in the ordinary course of business in accordance with prudent, reasonable business standards, including the maintenance of adequate liability insurance and insurance against loss by fire, windstorm and other hazards, casualties and contingencies, including vandalism and malicious mischief. However, Seller shall execute no contracts, leases or other agreements regarding the Real Property during the Executory Period that are not terminable on or before the Closing Date, without the written consent of Buyer, which consent may be withheld by Buyer in its sole discretion. 12. Representations and Warranties by Seller. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer as follows: 12.1 Authority. Seller has the requisite municipal power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and those Seller’s Closing Documents signed by it. Such documents have been (or will have been) duly executed and delivered. Such execution, delivery and performance by Seller of such documents do not (and will not) conflict with or result, as applicable, in a violation of any judgment, order, or decree of any court or arbiter to which Seller is a party. Such documents are (and will be) valid and binding obligations of Seller, and are enforceable in accordance with their terms. 12.2 Title to Real Property. Seller has good and marketable fee simple interest in the Real Property, free and clear of all encumbrances except the Permitted Encumbrances identified on Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Permitted Encumbrances”). 12.3 Rights of Others to Purchase Real Property. Seller has not entered into any other contracts for the sale of the Real Property, nor are there any rights of first refusal or options to purchase the Real Property or any other rights of others that might prevent the consummation of this Agreement. 12.4 Seller’s Defaults. Seller is not in default concerning any of its obligations or liabilities regarding the Real Property. 12.5 FIRPTA. Seller is not a “foreign person,” “foreign partnership,” “foreign trust” or “foreign estate” as those terms are defined in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code. 12.6 Proceedings. There is no action, litigation, investigation, condemnation or proceeding of any kind pending or threatened against Seller or any portion of the Real Property. 12.7 Agents and Employees. No management agents or other personnel employed in connection with the operation of the Real Property have the right to continue such employment after the Closing Date. There are no claims for brokerage commission or other payments with respect to the existing Real Property, including leases which will survive and remain unpaid after the Date of Closing. 12.8 The Real Property is in full compliance with all zoning and building laws and there are no notices, orders, suits, judgments or other proceedings relating to fire, building, zoning, air pollution or health violations that have not been corrected. 12.9 No ordinance or hearing is now before any local governmental body which either contemplates or authorizes any public improvement or special tax levies, the cost of which may be assessed against the Real Property. 12.10 The Real Property (i) is in compliance with all subdivision and platting regulations and with all of the applicable rules, regulations, ordinances, and requirements of each governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Real Property, and (ii) constitutes two separate tax parcels and is zoned for residential without variance. Seller will indemnify Buyer, its successors and assigns, against, and will hold Buyer, its successors and assigns, harmless from, any expenses or damages including reasonable attorneys’ fees, that Buyer incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and warranties, whether such breach is discovered before or after Closing. Each of the representations and warranties herein contained shall survive the Closing for a period of one year. Wherever herein a representation is made to the “knowledge” of Seller, such representation is limited to the knowledge of David Lindahl for the City of Eden Prairie. Consummation of this Agreement by Buyer with knowledge of any breach of such representations and warranties by Seller will constitute a waiver or release by Buyer of any claims due to such breach. 13. Representations and Warranties by Buyer. Buyer represents and warrants to Seller that Buyer has the requisite corporate power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and the Buyer’s Closing Documents signed by it; such documents have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Buyer and have been duly executed and delivered; that the execution, delivery and performance by Buyer of such documents do not conflict with or result in violation of state law or any judgment, order or decree of any court or arbiter to which Buyer is a party; such documents are valid and binding obligations of Buyer, and are enforceable in accordance with their terms. Buyer will indemnify Seller, its successors and assigns, against, and will hold Seller, its successors and assigns, harmless from, any expenses or damages, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, that Seller incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and warranties, whether such breach is discovered before or after closing. Each of the representations and warranties herein contained shall survive the Closing for a period of one year. Wherever herein a representation is made to the “knowledge” of Buyer, such representation is limited to the knowledge of John Mehrkens, Vice President of Senior Housing Partners, an affiliate of Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. Consummation of this Agreement by Seller with knowledge of any breach of such warranties and representations by Buyer will constitute a waiver or release by Seller of any claims due to such breach. 14. Damage. If, prior to the Closing Date, all or any part of the Real Property is substantially damaged by fire, casualty, the elements or any other cause, Seller shall immediately give notice to Buyer of such fact and at Buyer’s option (to be exercised within 30 days after Seller’s notice), this Agreement shall terminate, in which event neither party will have any further obligations under this Agreement and the Earnest Money, together with any accrued interest, shall be refunded to Buyer. 15. As Is Provision. Subject to section 10 and except for representations, covenants and warranties expressly made by Seller in this Agreement and the closing documents, Buyer agrees that it is taking the Title to Real Property “AS IS ”, “WHERE IS”, and with out any covenants (including environmental conditions), fitness for a purpose of any other matter. Buyer hereby waives and releases Seller from all claims arising out of the condition or status of the Real Property, except as to the representations in Section 12 above. 16. Condemnation. If, prior to the Closing Date, eminent domain proceedings are commenced against all or any part of the Real Property by any entity except Seller, Seller shall immediately give notice to Buyer of such fact and at Buyer’s option (to be exercised within 30 days after the date of Seller’s notice), this Agreement shall terminate, in which event neither party will have further obligations under this Agreement and the Earnest Money, together with any accrued interest, shall be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer shall fail to give such notice then there shall be no reduction in the Purchase Price, and Seller shall assign to Buyer at the Closing Date all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to any award made or to be made in the condemnation proceedings. Prior to the Closing Date, Seller shall not designate counsel, appear in, or otherwise act with respect to such condemnation proceedings without Buyer’s prior written consent. 17. Broker’s Commission. Seller and Buyer represent and warrant to each other that they have dealt with no brokers, finders or the like in connection with this transaction. The parties agree to indemnify each other and to hold each other harmless against all claims, damages, costs or expenses of or for any other such fees or commissions resulting from their actions or agreements regarding the execution or performance of this Agreement, and will pay all costs of defending any action or lawsuit brought to recover any such fees or commissions incurred by the other party, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 18. Mutual Indemnification. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify each other against, and hold each other harmless from, all liabilities (including reasonable attorney’s fees in defending against claims) arising out of the ownership, operation or maintenance of the Real Property for their respective periods of ownership. Such rights of indemnification will not arise to the extent that (a) the party seeking indemnification actually receives insurance proceeds or other cash payments directly attributable to the liability in question, (net of the cost of collection, including reasonable attorney’s fee) or (b) the claim for indemnification arises out of the act or neglect of the parking seeking indemnification. If and to the extent that the indemnified party has insurance coverage, or the right to a claim against any other party for any amount to be indemnified against set forth above, the indemnified party will, upon full performance of the indemnifying party of its indemnification obligations, assign such rights to the indemnifying party, or if such rights are not assignable, the indemnified party will diligently pursue such rights by appropriate legal action or proceeding and assign the recovery and/or right of recovery to the indemnifying party to the extent of the indemnification payment made by such party. 19. Assignment. The Buyer may assign its rights under this Agreement. . Any such assignment will not relieve the Buyer of its obligations under this Agreement. 20. Survival. Except as otherwise expressly stated all of the terms of this Agreement will survive and be enforceable after the Closing for a period of one year. 21. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to Seller by delivering it personally to the City Manager, City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk, or David Lindahl, or if it is directed to Buyer, by delivering it personally to Buyer (Attn: John Mehrkens and Janna Severance) , or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed as follows: If to Seller: City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTN: David Lindahl With a copy to: Richard F. Rosow Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd. 1600 Park Building 650 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-4337 If to Buyer: Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. 2845 Hamline Avenue No Roseville, MN 55113 ATTN: John Mehrkens With a copy to: Janna Severance Presbyterian Homes and Services 2845 Hamline Avenue North Roseville, MN 55113 Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit as aforesaid, provided, however, that if notice is given by deposit, the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such deposit. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 22. Captions. The paragraph headings or captions appearing in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement and are not to be considered in interpreting this Agreement. 23. Entire Agreement; Modification. This written Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the Real Property. There are no verbal agreements that change this Agreement and no waiver of any of its terms will be effective unless in writing executed by the parties. 24. Binding Effect. This Agreement will be binding upon, and will inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto, their successors, permitted assigns, heirs and legal representatives and any person who will have acquired any of the interests or rights of any party hereto in accordance with this Agreement. 25. Controlling Law. This Agreement has been made under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and such laws will control its interpretation. 26. Remedies. In the event of any default hereunder by Buyer or Seller, the parties shall have all rights available at law or in equity including the right to specific performance. 27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 28. Construction. This Agreement will not be construed more strictly against one party than against the other merely by virtue of the fact that it may have been prepared by counsel for one of the parties, it being recognized that both Seller and Buyer have contributed substantially and materially to the preparation of this Agreement. 29. Memorandum of Purchase Agreement. Upon the request of either party, the parties shall execute and record a memorandum of purchase agreement in recordable form and in form reasonably acceptable to Buyer giving notice of record of this Agreement. Upon Closing or termination of this Agreement, the parties shall execute and record a termination of such memorandum of purchase agreement. 30. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Each of the covenants, undertakings and agreements of the parties hereto are intended solely for the benefit of the other party and its permitted successors and assigns, and are not intended for the benefit of, and may not be enforced by, any third party. 31. Governing Law. This Agreement is made pursuant to, and will be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota. IN AGREEMENT, Seller and Buyer have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN HOMES HOUSING AND ASSISTED LIVING, INC. By________________________________ Its Mayor By________________________________ Mark T. Meyer Its Chief Financial Officer By ________________________________ Its City Manager EXHIBIT A - Escrow Agreement EXHIBIT B - Permitted Encumbrances EXHIBIT A ESCROW AGREEMENT The undersigned, Guaranty Title Insurance Company (“Title Company”), acknowledges receipt of $100,000.00 (the “Earnest Money”) to be held by it pursuant to the Purchase Agreement to which this Escrow Agreement is attached. Title Company will hold the Earnest Money (hereinafter the “Earnest Money”) in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement and disburse the same strictly in accordance with such terms. Title Company will invest the Earnest Money in such interest-bearing accounts, instruments, corporate paper, or money market funds as approved by both Buyer and Seller. Interest will accrue for the benefit of Buyer, unless the Purchase Agreement is terminated by reason of the default of Buyer, in which case the interest will be paid to Seller. Upon three days prior written notice to Seller, Buyer may direct the Title Company to return the Earnest Money to it if Buyer elects to terminate the Purchase Agreement in accordance with Section 4B of the Purchase Agreement. If Seller objects that Buyer is not entitled to a return of the Earnest Money, Title shall not disburse the Earnest Money until the parties agree or a court orders the disbursement and the time for appeal has expired or no further appeal is available. Title Company is not responsible for any decision concerning performance or effectiveness of the Purchase Agreement or for resolution of any disputes concerning the Purchase Agreement. Title Company is responsible only to act in accordance with the joint and mutual direction of both Seller and Buyer, except as otherwise provided herein, or in lieu thereof, the direction of a court of competent jurisdiction except as to Buyer’s right to direct the return of the Earnest Money prior to the Contingency Date. Seller and Buyer will hold Title Company harmless from all claims for damages arising out of this Escrow Agreement and do hereby agree to indemnify Title Company for all costs and expenses in connection with this escrow, including court costs and attorneys’ fees, except for Title Company’s failure to account for the funds held hereunder, or acting in conflict with the terms hereof. The fees and charges of the Title Company will be paid by Buyer. This Escrow Agreement is dated this ___ day of ___________, 2006. GUARANTY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By____________________________ Its____________________________ EXHIBIT B PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES (a) the lien of real estate taxes and pending special assessments not yet due and payable subject to the proration and allocation provisions hereof; (b) federal, state and municipal laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (c) all easements, covenants, restrictions, conditions, and declarations of record. P:\Home\EP\Community Dev\Presbyterian Homes\PURCHASE AGREEMENT - 2006 11 15 - clean.doc CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Report of Parks and Recreation Director DATE: January 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Robert A. Lambert, Director Parks and Recreation ITEM DESCRIPTION: Renaming of Purgatory Creek Recreation Area ITEM NO.: XIV.D.1. Requested Action Move to: Name the body of water within the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area as “Prairie Lake” Move to: Rename the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to “Prairie Lake Park” Synopsis At the November 6 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended that the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area’s body of water be named Prairie Lake. The motion carried 8 to 1 with Gerst voting nay. Gerst said he was not in favor of the name since there was so many things in the City already named prairie. The Commission approved recommending renaming the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to Prairie Lake Park on a 9 to 0 vote. Background At the August 7 meeting of the City Council, representatives of the Veteran’s Memorial Committee recommended the City change the name of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to Memorial Park. At the September 11 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission approved the recommended name change. At the September 19 meeting, the City Council deferred consideration of a name change and requested both the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to give further deliberation to the recommendation on a name change. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommended the name Purgatory Creek be retained in any future renaming of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area; however, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission referenced the Lower Purgatory Creek Conservation Area and did not want the name to be redundant. Attached to this memorandum is a 1995 memorandum to the City Council regarding naming newly acquired conservation areas. Also attached to this memorandum is an April 14, 1998, memorandum to the City Council regarding the process for naming parks, as well as the September 11, 2006, memorandum to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission regarding the proposed name change for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area and the October 2 memorandum to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission regarding name change. Renaming of Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Page 2 Considerations The Purgatory Creek Recreation Area is only “recreation area” designated in the park system. The “recreation area” designation was given by the winner of the park design competition in 1981; however, the “recreation area” designation was never adopted by the City’s Park and Space System Plan as a defined portion of the park system. The original design truly planned for a “recreation area” as it included a recreation boat basin, a par 3 golf course, extensive trail system, fountains, plazas and other attractions in Eden Prairie “downtown”. As a result of the wetland protection laws in the early 1990’s, the “recreation area” plan evolved into a conservation area as it became clear that it was necessary to preserve nearly all of the wetlands in this complex and retain over 200-acre feet of storage of stream from Staring Lake. The current Purgatory Creek Recreation Area contains approximately 7½ acres of “park land” at the entry point, with the remaining 160 acres as mostly a wetland, marsh or creek valley, with a sufficient amount of upland around the perimeter of the wetland to accommodate a trail system. This site is more adequately described as a conservation area by the City’s Park and Open Space System Plan, which defines conservation areas as a minimum of 80% conservation land with no more than 20% of the site being developed for passive recreational use. Based on this fact alone, City staff would recommend changing the name from a recreation area to conservation area. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends retaining Purgatory Creek within the name as they believe Purgatory Creek is the major feature of this site. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission have recommended naming the wetland complex Prairie Lake as the 160 acre water body is more of a lake or marsh than it is a creek at this point. The Commission believe that if the Council made a decision on the name of the lake or marsh, that the name of the conservation area should reference the name of that water body. The process for naming a body of water includes a petition to the County Board. Chapter 83A of the Minnesota Statues describes the process for naming a body of water in the State of Minnesota. The cost relating to this decision will be whatever cost is required to change the name on the sign board signs at the intersection of Technology Drive and Prairie Center Drive. Attachments • Memos to Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission regarding Proposed Name Change for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area • September 11, 2006, memo • October 2, 2006, memo • November 6, 2006, memo • April 14, 1998, memo to City Council regarding the Process for Naming Parks • March 21, 1995, memo to City Council regarding Recommendation to Name Newly Acquired Conservation Areas • MN State Statue 83A To: From: Date: Subject: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Robert Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation 7,4eL., November 6, 2006 Renaming of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area EDEN PRAIRIE LIVE.WORK•011EAM Synopsis At the August 7 meeting, representatives of the Veterans Memorial Committee recommended the City Council consider changing the name of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to Memorial Park. At the September 11 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission approved the recommended name change. At the October 3 meeting, the City Council deferred consideration of a name change and requested both the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to give further deliberation to the recommendation on a name change. Background Attached to this memorandum is a 1995 memorandum to the City Council regarding naming newly acquired conservation areas. Also attached to this memorandum is a April 14, 1998 memorandum to the City Council regarding the process for naming the parks, as well as the September 11, 2006 memorandum to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission regarding the proposed name change for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area and the October 2 memorandum to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the name change. Also enclosed is an October 17 email from John Gertz, Heritage Preservation Commission liaison staff representative summarizing the discussion the HPC regarding this proposed name change. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommended that the name "Purgatory Creek" be retained in any future renaming of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. Considerations The Purgatory Creek Recreation Area is the only "recreation area" designated in the park system. The "recreation area" designation was given by the winner of a park design competition in 1981. That original design truly planned for a "recreation area" as it included a recreation boat basin, a par 3 golf course, extensive trail systems, fountains, plazas and other attractions in Eden Prairie's "downtown", As a result of the wetland protection laws in the early 1990's, the "recreation area" plan evolved into a conservation area as it became clear that it was necessary to preserve nearly all of the Renaming of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area November 6, 2006 Page 2 wetlands in this complex and retain over 200 acre feet of storage upstream from Staring Lake. The current Purgatory Creek Recreation Area contains approximately 71/2 acres of "park land" at the entry point with the remaining 160 acres as mostly a wetland/marsh or a creek valley, with a sufficient amount of upland around the perimeter of the wetland to accommodate a trail system. This site is more adequately described as a conservation area by the City's Park and Open System Plan which defines conservation areas as a minimum of 80% conservation land with no more than 20% of the site being developed for passive recreational use. Based on this fact alone, City staff would recommend changing the name from a "recreation area" to a "conservation area". The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends retaining Purgatory Creek Valley within the name as that is the major feature of this site. There have been numerous recommendations for the City to consider naming the wetland complex west of Prairie Center Drive and south of Technology Drive something other than a "wide spot" in Purgatory Creek. If the Council chooses to give a name to this wetland complex, it might be appropriate to rename the entire conservation area after the newly named wetland complex. Other examples of naming wide wetland areas in the Purgatory Creek Valley are the Edenbrook Conservation Area and the Edenvale Conservation Area, both named after the adjacent developments. Options to Consider 1. Rename the wetland complex "Purgatory Creek Marsh" and rename the site the "Purgatory Creek Conservation Area", or "Purgatory Marsh Conservation Area". 2. Rename the wetland complex something other than a name related to Purgatory Creek. The conservation area would then probably best be named after the renamed wetland complex. Other recommendations that have been suggested are to name the marsh or the site Prairie Lake Park, Prairie Marsh Conservation Area, Central Park, Memorial Park, Prairie Preserve Park. City staff would remind the Commission that the City already has the following parks with the words "Eden, Prairie, Preserve, Purgatory." • Eden Valley Park • Prairie East Park • Edenvale Conservation Area • Nesbitt-Preserve Park • Edenvale Park • Eden Lake Park • Prairie Bluff Conservation Area • Lower Purgatory Creek Conservation Area Renaming of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area November 6, 2006 Page 3 The Council may wish to name this important conservation area something without one of those repetitive references. City staff does not have any recommended names at this time and would recommend not rushing a decision on this name change, but continuing this item for further input or until the Commission has a consensus recommendation on a name change for this site. Attachments October 17, 2006 email from John Gertz October 2, 2006 memorandum to PRNR Commission and HPC Commission September 11, 2006 memorandum to PRNR Commission April 14, 1998 memorandum to Mayor and City Council March 21, 1995 City Council agenda item To: From: Date: Subject: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Heritage Preservation Commission Robert Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation October 2, 2006 Proposed Name Change for Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Requested Action City staff request the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission to consider possible name changes for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area including a possible name for the large wetland complex located within this conservation area. Synopsis Attached to this memorandum is a September 19 memorandum to the Mayor and City Council describing the recommendation from the Veteran's Memorial Committee and subsequently from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommending the Council consider renaming the Purgatory Creek Recreation to Memorial Park. Also attached to this memorandum is a September 19 letter from Jeff Strate recommending the City slow down the process to rename this conservation area and to consider all of the functions of this "magnificent, nature oriented heart-of-Eden Prairie". At the September 19 meeting, the City Council referred this item back to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for further discussion also recommended the Heritage Preservation Commission review this site from a historical perspective and consider possible names for this large, wetland complex as well as this conservation area. The conservation area may or may not be named the same as the wetland complex. Attachments September 19, 2006 Memorandum to the City Council September 19, 2006 email from Jeff Strate To: From: Date: Subject: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Robert Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation September 11, 2006 Proposed Name Change for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Requested Action Move to: Recommend the City Council change the name of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to Memorial Park. Synopsis At the August 7 meeting, representatives of the Veterans Memorial Committee recommended the City Council consider changing the name of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to Memorial Park. Their rationale was that the park already contains the Jean Harris Memorial Bridge and would be the location for the Veterans Memorial whenever funds are raised for that project. Background The name "Purgatory Creek Recreation Area" was first developed in 1981 when the City initiated a design competition for developing approximately 200 acres of property south of what is now Technology Drive and west of Prairie Center Drive. At that time, much of the Purgatory Creek Conservation Area was being farmed because of the drainage system that included two major irrigation ditches and the fact that the majority of the land was tiled to those ditches. The design competition, which was ultimately won by Saunders--Thalden Associates, Inc. and Theodore Wirth Associates, Inc. (a joint venture) described the property as the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area and included developing an 18-hole par-three golf course on the west side of the wetland complex and trail system throughout the middle of the wetland complex as well as around the perimeter of the complex, and a entry plaza with a water sculpture, fountain, amphitheater, concert stage and boat rental in a boat basin. Clearly the original concept for this site was more of a "recreation area" than the final plan that was ultimately approve by the adjacent property owners, the Watershed District, the DNR, the Corps of Engineers, and the City of Eden Prairie. As the new wetland protection laws were enacted in the early 1990's, it became clear that the majority of this wetland complex was not "developable" according to the master plan, and a series of revisions were made to the master plan to ultimately obtain the necessary approvals. The final plan called for a hard surface trail around the perimeter of the complex with one or two boardwalks leading to nature blinds within the complex, and an entry plaza with a water fountain within the water quality treatment pond north of the dike. Proposed Name Change for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area September 11, 2006 Page 2 City staff do not have any rationale for keeping the name "Purgatory Creek Recreation Area" and believe that changing the name to "Memorial Park" does have some rationale considering the latest approval of the Veterans Memorial site plan; and the fact that it is often confused with Purgatory Park in Minnetonka. There will be some costs associated with changing the name. The most expensive part of that change will be changing the lettering on the two sign boards at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Technology Drive. Staff would anticipate that the cost for changing that lettering could be several thousand dollars. Staff have delayed the printing of the new park sign for that park pending the decision of the Commission and Council on the name change. Memorandum To: Through: From: Date: Subject: Mayor and City Council Carl Riffle, City Manager Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources TA-- April 14, 1998 Process for Naming Parks BACKGROUND: As stated in the attached memorandum dated November 3, 1988 "In the past, the City has had an informal policy of naming parks that will identify, to any resident, the location of the park, i.e., Round Lake Park surrounds Round Lake, Franlo Park is on Frani° Road, Edenvale Park is in the Edenvale PUD and located on Edenvale Boulevard." There has never been a formal "policy" adopted by the City Council for naming of parks. In the late 1970's, there was a lengthy discussion by the City Council in a workshop regarding naming of parks. The feeling of that particular Council was that parks should be named based on prominent features such as a lake or on the subdivisions that perhaps donated the property or on the major road fronting the park. When people hear the park name, they should have an idea where it is located. The Council at that time was reluctant to name parks after people who happened to live here years ago, unless they made a major contribution to the community or donated parkland or a significant amount of money or land toward the park. In 1989, the subject of naming parks again was discussed by the City Council and the neighborhood park originally named Red Rock Lake Park was renamed Pheasant Woods Park. During that discussion, Mayor Tenpas suggested that parks be named after prominent members of the community. Councilmember Pidcock concurred with that suggestion. The majority of the Councihnembers were more comfortable naming streets after historical figures than parks. The majority of the Council seemed to be comfortable with the unwritten policy regarding naming parks and decided to not make any changes at that time. EXISTING PROCESS: The process for naming parks has been for the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources to offer several options for naming the park to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. That Commission then forwards a recommendation to the City Council. T h e C i t y Council formally adopts a name for each park. At the April 7, 1998 meeting, the Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission reported t h a t t h e Heritage Preservation Commission had recommended changing the name of Franlo Park to S a m u e l Anderson Park based on a recommendation from one of Mr. Anderson's descendants. The C i t y Council decided to leave the name of the park as Franlo Park, but did request more informati o n o n any process or policies that the City currently uses regarding naming parks. RECOMMENDATION: Unless the City Council wishes to change the process or adopt a formal policy regarding nam i n g o f parks, staff will continue to use the existing process. Staff will forward this information to th e H P C and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Staff would recommend that any suggestions for name changes to parks be forwarded to the P a r k s , Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for discussion and then forwarded to the City C o u n c i l for a final decision. BL:mdd NannePark/Bob98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3/21/95 SECTION: Reports of Advisory Boards ITEM NO. IX. A DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Recommendation to Name Newly Acquired Recreation and Facilities Conservation Areas Robert A. 'Lambert BACKGROUND: The City has recently acquired 55 acres on the Minnesota River bluffs from Lynn Charlson, approximately 68 acres from the Klein family and Darill Peterson along the Minnesota River bluffs in the southwest corner of Eden Prairie and approximately 16 acres of Big Woods property along Riley Creek from Kathy Trost, with an additional 20 acres that will be acquired from Peter George in the same vicinity within the next two months. All three sites have been acquired to conserve the natural resources of those sites and should be designated conservation areas within the Park and Open Space System Plan. Two of those sites, the woods along Riley Creek and the native prairie and oak savannah on the Minnesota River bluffs are such high quality sites that the Department of Natural Resources has indicated they would be accepted as DNR Scientific and Natural Areas, if the City wishes to negotiate with the DNR for that status. Staff believes it is important to officially name these parcels of property as soon as possible for references on maps that are being developed and to clarify for the public that these are conservation areas, rather than "parks," The conservation designation by the City's Park and Open Space System Plan includes the following definition: "Primary function/user -groups: uses are limited to passive hiking or other trail modes consistent with resource preservation, conservation for specific management requirements necessary to maintain the area's natural characteristic. Locational characteristics: Conservation designations should be used in areas of special environmental sensitivity, including creek valleys, wetlands, bogs, lake front views, unusual vegetation or unique bluff areas. Typical facilities: Developed facilities should be limited to elements compatible with resource preservation or management and may include passive trails, interpretive signing, controlled vehicle or trail access or signing." RECOMMENDATION: The policy the City has used in the past regarding naming parks has been to generally name parks after a major land feature associated with the park that would clearly indicate the location of the park, for example, Riley Lake Park, Staring Lake Park, etc. If a dominant natural feature was not associated with the park, the park could also be named after the major neighborhood or area of the City that it 1 served. Many parks are named based on the name of the development that donated the land, for example, Hidden Ponds Park, Wyndham Knoll Park, etc. The Council also indicated that if a road or street indicated the location of a park that too was an acceptable reason for naming a park, for example, Homeward Hills Park, Frani° Park, etc. Miller Park was named after the Miller family; mainly, because the Miller's agreed to sell it to the City for significantly less money than they were being offered developers at the time, and their family was the original owner of the property. There have been some discussions over the years regarding the pros and cons of naming a park after individuals who have contributed significantly to the park system. The consensus of past Councils was that many people have contributed to the development of the park system and they were uncomfortable starting a policy of naming parks after people. When Dick Anderson passed away last year, several members on the Council suggested that the City consider naming a park or conservation area after Dick, who had devoted the last 24 years of his life to the City of Eden Prairie's park and open space system. As a staff person who worked closely with Dick for the last 18 years, I can honestly say that no other individual had the impact Dick has had on how this community has preserved it most precious natural resources. One could easily name a half dozen people that have provided significant contributions to the park and open space system over this last 24-25 year critical period of Eden Prairie's growth; however, none were involved that entire length of time, as Dick was, nor were they so consistently supportive and involved on every issue that has come before Eden Prairie relating to parks and recreation. Dick developed a reputation with developers and residents as a tenacious defender of Eden Prairie's natural resources. Everyone knew that he would "go to battle" to preserve hills, trees, lakes, creeks, etc., and that he would usually prevail. Dick's presence on the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and later the City Council, made the work of staff much easier because of his consistent and strong voice regarding the value of protecting our natural resources. The 68 acre site acquired from the Klein family and Darril Peterson, may eventually be as large as 100 acres of land on the Minnesota River bluffs. This property contains approximately 20 acres of a Big Woods remnant, approximately 15 acres of native prairie, a variety of hardwoods scattered throughout the main valley and up some slopes, an artisan fed creek that runs year around, and magnificent bluffs overlooking the Minnesota River valley. All of these features were extremely precious to Dick Anderson, and the Minnesota River Valley Refuge and Recreation Areas was a project that he strongly indorsed from its inception. I can think of no other site in Eden Prairie that represents the variety of land forms and natural resources that Dick fought so strongly to preserve. While staff recognizes the concerns of some individuals in establishing a precedent naming parks after people, staff believes that Dick Anderson established such a continuous and consistent effort to protect Eden Prairie's resources that naming a conservation area in his honor would be a very good precedent. His effort and record of support are one that few, if any, individuals are likely to match in the future. For this reason, staff would recommend the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the City Council consider naming the site acquired from the Klein family and Darril Peterson the 2 Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area Staff believe that past City policies of naming parks after their natural features as an identifying location for the park should be followed in naming the other two conservation areas. Staff would recommend naming the land acquired from Kathy Trost and hopefully will be acquired from Peter George in the near future the Riley Creek Woods, and naming the 55-acre native prairie and oak savannah site acquired from Lynn Char'son the Prairie Bluff Conservation Area. 3 Legislature Home LinIcs to the World I Help I Advanced Search Minnesota Office of the R sor of Statutes :louse I senate I Joint Departments and Conti sions Bill t3oarch and Status I Statutes, Laws, and Rules Minnesota Statutes Table of Chapters Chapter 83A Table of Contents 83A.06, Minnesota Statutes 2006 Copyright 0 2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 83A.06 HEARING ON PETITION. Subdivision 1. Time and location. After receiving the petition to name a body of water, the auditor must present the petition to the county board, The county board must, by order, set the time and location for a hearing on the petition to be held more than 30 days after the order is made. The hearing may be held at any convenient place within the county as determined by the county board. Subd. 2. Water body in more than one county. (a) If the petition describes a body of water located within more than one county, the county boards of the several affected counties must act jointly and as one body and the majority of the joint body must determine the name of the water body under sections 83A.05 to 83A,07 in the same manner as prescribed for the county board. (b) For a water body located within more than one county, the county auditor with whom the petition is filed must forward by mail a certified copy of the petition to the auditor of each affected county who shall present the petition to the respective county boards, and the notice of hearing the petition determined by the joint body shall be published in each county as provided in subdivision 4. (e) The auditor of the county where the petition was filed must make and file certified copies of the adopted resolution in the office of the county recorder of each affected county at the expense of the petitioners. Subd. 3. Petitioners' bond. Before the notice of the hearing is given, the petitioners must give a bond to be approved by the county attorney of the county where the petition has been filed that is conditioned on the full payment of the reasonable expenses incurred by the county for the proceeding. The commissioner of natural resources is not required to give bond. Subd. 4. Notice. Notice of the hearing must be: (1) published fbr at least three weeks in the newspaper designated by the county board as the official newspaper for the county; (2) served on the commissioner of natural resources; and (3) served personally on the chair of the town board of a town, on the president of a statutory city board of trustees, and on the mayor of a city that has a body of water in the petition within or adjoining the boundary of the political subdivision. Subd. 5. Statements at hearing. At the hearing, legal voters of the county and municipalities may appear, by attorney or in person, and file an answer to the petition, stating in plain, concise language why the petition should not be granted in whole or in part, and in the answer may ask the county board to give to the body of water a different name than the name requested in the original petition. Subd. 6. Determination. At the hearing on the petition, the county board shall hear all parties desiring to be heard on the petition and make an order, by resolution, determining the name of the body of water described in the petition, The name determined by the board at the hearing is the legal name of the body of water. History: 1990 c 391 art 8 s 8 Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation Minnesota Office of the Re Legislature Home I Links to the World Help I Advanced Search or of Statutes Se,lato ,Joint Departments and Commissions I 13ill Search and Status I Statutes, Laws, and Rules Minnesota Statutes Table of Chapters Chapter 83A Table of Contents 83A.07, Minnesota Statutes 2006 Copyright © 2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 83A.07 NAMES NOT TO BE DUPLICATED. Subdivision 1. Duplicate discouraged. In determining the name of a body of water, the county board may not, if possible, duplicate names of existing bodies of water. The county board shall select and approve a name as it determines is in the permanent, best interests of the affected county. Subd. 2. Director to check name duplication. The auditor of the county where a petition is filed must mail a copy of the petition with a copy of the notice of hearing on the petition to the director of the Division of Waters of the Department of Natural Resources. The director must compare the names suggested in the petition with the names of other bodies of water within the state and report findings and recommendations back to the auditor before the date of the hearing. History: 1990 c 391 art 8 s 9 Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General_guestions or comments. Enter Keywords search Displaying all 8 records. Search again ecreation compass CL 0_ Contact the DNR I What's New'? I Newsroom j Events & Seasons > MN DNR Home> Lake Finder > Search Results How to use these results: Click on the gc - in the table below to retrieve specific information for a particular lake. Click on the column headers for general information about that type of data. Goose Prairie Marsh - 14008600 Clay Green Prairie Fish - 49003500 Morrison Little Prairie - 01001600 Aitkin Lower Prairie - 31038500 Itasca Prairie - 31038400 Itasca Prairie -56091500 Otter Tail Prairie - 69084800 St. Louis Prairie Hill - 71003100 Sherburne go g go g g go go go g o go go g go g go g g o g go go go go g g g go g o g o go go g g g go go go go g g go go go Displaying all 8 records. Search again Volunteer to measure lake levels or lake water quality on lakes throughout Minnesota. Back to top 0 2007 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copyright Notice. Web site policies: Accessibility, Linking, Privacy Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes Legislature Home I Links to the World I Help I Advanced Search House I Senate I Joint Departments and Cotnmissions I Bill Search and I1;i:atutos, Laws, and Rules Minnesota Statutes Table of Chapters Chapter 83A Table of Contents 83A.05, Minnesota Statutes 2006 Copyright ©2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 83A.05 CHANGING AND GIVING NAMES TO WATER BODIES. Subdivision 1. Applicability. A name of a lake, river, stream, or other body of water may be given or changed under sections 83A.05 to 83A.07 except that a name which has existed for 40 years may not be changed under the provisions of sections 83A.05 to 83A.07. Subd. 2. Petition for name. (a) Fifteen or more legal voters residing in a county where all or a part of a body of water is located may petition the county board of the county where the petitioners reside or the body of water is located to change the name of or give a name to a previously unnamed lake, river, stream, or other body of water located within the state. (b) The petition may include any number of lakes, rivers, streams, or other bodies of water to have names changed, or if unnamed to be given a name by the county board. (e) The petition must describe: (1) the location of the body of water; (2) the name, if any, that the body of water has been referred to or known by, or if there is not a name, it must be stated that a known name does not exist; (3) the name that the petitioners desire to be given to the body of water; and (4) the reason for the change of name or for giving the designated name to a previously unnamed body of water. (d) The petitioners must sign their names and state their place of residence. (e) The petition must be filed with the auditor of the county where the petitioners . reside or the body of water is located. History: 1990 c 391 art 8 s 7 Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. Ob .-Y .'. 1402-- 7