Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/16/1999 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher- Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Barbara Anderson I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE HI. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS IV. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CHARLSON, BROWN, STANDAL AND GRACE CHURCH PROPERTIES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 16, 1999 Page 2 B. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CHARLSON, BROWN, STANDAL AND GRACE CHURCH PROPERTIES C. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THAT PARCELS #1 AND #2 BE COMBINED AND SOLD AT HENNEPIN COUNTY AUCTION AND THAT PARCEL #3 BE DEEDED TO THE CITY FOR PARKLAND PURPOSES VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. EDEN ORCHARD by Orrin Thompson Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 42.08 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 77.07 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 39.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, EAW Review and Preliminary Plat on 158.4 acres into 433 lots and 10 outlots. Location: Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution for Guide plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat). B. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION TO REAFFIRM ORIGINAL LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF DEFINITION OF MINOR AIRPORTS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. PERKINS SUBDIVISION by James Perkins. Request for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into three lots. Location 7012 Willow Creek Road. (Resolution for Preliminary Plat). B. FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER by Opus Northwest L.L.C. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural and Commercial Regional Service to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: North of Flagship Athletic Club, west side of Prairie Center Drive, south of Technology Drive. Location: Prairie Center Drive between Technology Drive and Singletree Lane. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution for PUD Concept, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat). CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 16, 1999 Page 3 C. 1999 COOPERATIVE TRAIL LINKAGE PROGRAM Approve the Trail Linkage Grant Application for matching funds to construct a trail from Valley View Road to Bryant Lake Regional Park. VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IX. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST FROM THE EDEN PRAIRIE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER A THIRD INDOOR ICE SKATING RINK X. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. SET MARCH 16, 1999, AS THE MEETING TO REVIEW BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS DECISION ON VARIANCE #99-01 XI. APPOINTMENTS XII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIII. OTHER BUSINESS A. INFORMATION ON COUNCIL FORUMS XIV. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP CELEBRATION 2000 TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 2, 1999 5:00- 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER Heritage Room II 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case,Ross Thorfinnson,Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger; Public Safety Services Director Jim Clark; Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert; Public Works Services Director,Eugene Dietz; Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram,Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert; and Council Recorder Barbara Anderson OTHER: Sr. Recreation Coordinator-Arts & Special Events Tria Mann and Communications Coordinator Steve Nelson CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Council Member Tyra-Lukens was excused. II. CHANGES TO CITY COUNCIL FORUM Enger recommended the Council adopt a new way to do the City Council Forum. Staff would schedule the Forum in the Heritage Room at 6:30 to 6:55 p.m. before every regular Council meeting for anyone signed up with staff to make a presentation. If no one wishes to address the Council, workshop discussion will continue until the Council meeting begins. Harris commented there was an informality to holding it in the Heritage Room which would be less intimidating to residents who wish to speak to the Council. She suggested this announcement be publicized by placing notices in the City Newspaper and on the web page. Case commented there were people who will take advantage of this opportunity when they find out that it is available,but if they find there is no one who wants to utilize this opportunity they may want to review this again. Discussion ensued regarding ways to facilitate communication between the City Council and the residents of Eden Prairie. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 2 III. OVERVIEW OF "1999,YEAR OF CELEBRATION"EVENTS Swaggert reviewed the framework for events in the 1999 schedule of events. The first event will be the Grand Opening of the City Water Plant and Environmental Learning Center scheduled for May 14 and 15. The second major event is the Southwest Metro Hub Grand Opening scheduled for May 10th at 1:00 p.m. U.S. Representative Jim Ramstad will attend this function. The third major event will be the July 4th celebration, which will be held at the Eden Prairie Center again this year,with activities throughout the City during the day. The City Facilities Open House and Fire Station Ribbon Cutting event is scheduled for October 10th, and will include an open house at the new Fire Station. The fifth major event will be the New Year's Day celebration on January 1, 2000. Nelson discussed the Water Plant Grand Opening which will begin with a late afternoon social time and plant tours. The larger community celebration will be held on Saturday and will be oriented towards the Environmental Center. Mann described the 4th of July events which are scheduled to occur throughout the City beginning with the Mini-Triathalon at Round Lake Park and culminating with the fireworks display at the Eden Prairie Center. Mann commented they are considering having the firework hunt again, both for kids and adults, which is similar to the medallion hunt in the Winter Carnival in St. Paul. Mann noted the Arts Festival will be held on March 14th at the Eden Prairie Center, and the City Council will be invited to the event. Enger asked about doing a Paragon Cable show to interview some of the people that are involved in the Arts Festival to get information out to the public. Swaggert noted the video could then be shown during a City Council meeting to get greater exposure. Discussion ensued regarding the City Facilities Open House on October 10th, scheduled from 1-4 p.m. Staff was considering having volunteer opportunity information available during this event. The Maintenance Facility will be open for people to tour. IV. DISCUSSION OF JANUARY 1,2000 CELEBRATION Swaggert commented the business community and the City will coordinate together for this event. Enger noted the Eden Prairie Center will not be available because of construction. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the celebration. Mann hoped business owners throughout the community would be a part of this celebration, and there was an opportunity for local businesses to use the fireworks as a promotional tool. Discussion ensued regarding the roles of food, entertainment and sponsors, and ways to center these around the fireworks. Butcher-Younghans commended businesses will have the opportunity to identify the downtown area, to bring it together, and this should be something that goes on all year not just for the Year 2000 celebration. New Year's Day could be the kick-off celebration. Case suggested it could be named "Eden Prairie Celebrates It's Business Community"and involve the Chamber of Commerce. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 3 Harris commented perhaps they could take the kinds of things that happen in St. Paul and include the businesses and get them involved in this celebration by providing a structural vehicle for this to happen. She noted these things need to be in place soon because there is less than a year to put it together. V. ROLE OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN SUPPORT OF EVENTS Harris noted that Hillary Clinton will be making some funding available for grants for Millennium Cities and she felt Eden Prairie should apply. She commented that the City needs to extend an invitation to our civic and community organizations to participate. Harris noted Staff had presented many excellent ideas. VI. OTHER TOPICS Swaggert show Councilmembers the strategic initiative mailing that was sent to Board and Commission members. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. 3 5 UNAPPROVED MINUTES J� EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Director Jim Clark,Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow, City Planner Mike Franzen, City Engineer Al Gray, and Council Recorder Barbara Anderson ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. COUNCIL FORUM A. MARY KEATING OF THE HOPE PROGRAM - STATUS REPORT Mary Keating, coordinator of the HOPE Program, explained how the program matches single-parent families with volunteer families to provide support and encouragement. She reviewed the statistics of the program and explained how it has been successful in helping the participants. She noted a special effort is being made to reach the increased number of families from Somalia and Russia. Keating introduced Wendy Lock, and her son Colton, who have been in the HOPE Program since 1996, and were matched with sponsors Linda and Tom Carlson. Harris commented this was a wonderful program of which she was extremely proud as it was a win-win situation for everyone involved. Harris noted the City Council was continuing to work on ways to encourage access for the residents to visit with the City Council members on an informal basis, and the Council Forum was one way of providing access to the Council for the City's residents. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 2 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Dietz requested Item VI.C. Awarding Contract for Construction of Watermain in Wallace Road and Technology Drive be moved from the Consent Agenda to Report of Public Works Services Director as Item XIII.E.1. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. V. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999 MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Minutes of the January 19, 1999 Workshop as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on January 19, 1999 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR BAKER ROAD RESERVOIR C. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATERMAIN IN WALLACE ROAD AND TECHNOLOGY DRIVE (Moved to Item XIII.E.1) D. RESOLUTION 99-19 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRONIC DATA FOR MAPPING PURPOSES E. RESOLUTION 99-20 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT TO ENABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ONE AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR TO POLICE DEPARTMENT F. SET THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE 1999 BOARD OF REVIEW MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve Items A-F, with the exception of Item C of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 3 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. EDEN ORCHARD By Orrin Thompson Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 42.08 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 77.07 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 39.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, EAW Review and Preliminary Plat on 158.4 acres into 433 lots and 10 outlots. Location: Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change, Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Lee Johnson, Orrin Thompson Homes, introduced Len Tauer from Pioneer Engineering. Johnson reviewed the project for the Orchard development, noting they are proposing a project with a diversity of housing types and a variety of styles. He showed illustrations of the types of homes they are proposing, noting there will be a base price of $120,000 for the townhomes. The single family homes will be built from 12 different models and will have different facades which will give homeowners about a hundred different choices for their homes. These will average about 1,200 square feet in area with a price range of $180,000 to $250,000 depending on the home. The twin homes are upscale, single-level type homes which range in size from 1,600 to 2,000 square feet and will be approximately$235,000 per unit. Their Royal Series homes will range from 2,200 to 4,200 square feet in size, and have an average price of about $300,000. Johnson reviewed the project summary, and discussed access to the development and the traffic circulation pattern. He described the buffering from roadways and adjacent uses. He discussed the southeastern portion of the site and explained the slope does not meet the criteria for a "bluff" and they have decided to put homes on the inside edge to protect the creek area. He discussed the tree loss on the site and described the areas where the different types of homes would be located. Johnson reviewed the drainage plan and the NURP ponds and described the buffering they propose to install between the homes on the southern portion of the site and the adjacent Big Woods park area. They feel the landscape materials which will be planted in this buffer zone should be 4-6-8 feet in height to help protect the parkland. Johnson discussed the wetland alterations and the mitigation which will be done on the site. They are requesting the Guide Plan changes because they are meeting the City's goals of mixing housing types and the addition of affordable housing units in the project. They are also dedicating 10 acres of land along the creek corridor to the City which does not offset any of the park dedication fees. They also will place a conservation easement over a 3.2 acre wooded parcel to preserve this area. A parking lot will be created to give residents access to the adjacent parkland. He 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 4 noted the project was only 32 units more than what could be built on the land without a Guide Plan change. He discussed the traffic flow on the site and noted that the residents and the Planning Commission felt there should be no connection between this development and the Cedarcrest neighborhood. City Engineer Al Gray noted there were steep grades to the north which might preclude any connection being made from that direction. Discussion ensued regarding how the roadways could be connected. Johnson discussed the tree loss which will be variable depending on the type of house that is built and they believe the figures projected by City staff are acceptable. He showed aerial photos which illustrated the woods have been there quite a long time, but noted these were not comparable to the Big Woods area. They were required to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this project which determined there were significant problems on the land without any changes being made to the site. He requested the City Council to approve the project. Uram reviewed the staff report and noted the Planning Commission had continued the project to address issues which were subsequently resolved at the January 25, 1999 meeting. The project was approved with a Planning Commission recommendation against making the roadway connection to the Cedarcrest neighborhood. Staff is recommending the connection be made to facilitate emergency vehicle access, a utility connection, and extension of trails and sidewalks. Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this project and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote subject to the stipulations in the Staff report. The Commission felt the trail connection should be made to the Cedarcrest neighborhood even if the roadway was not connected. The Commission expressed strong concern regarding encroachment into the City parkland by adjacent homeowners, which can cause serious problems when this happens to an old growth forest. However, this issue was never resolved. Dietz stated the roadway connections should be made as 95% of Eden Prairie residents would not use this connection even if it is made. It is important for emergency vehicles to have access as well as school bus drivers and it would provide access to residents without forcing them to go out onto Pioneer Trail. It will also create more service opportunities for people that need to have access. Tyra-Lukens asked about the 8' trail located along Dell Road and Johnson illustrated its location on the plans. Harris asked about the extension of utilities through the roadway and if it was possible to do it in another way. Gray responded by explaining that if they were to be brought in from the north it would be a long dead-end system which does not work well and a loop system would be much better. It would also connect to a lift station which will make it a better system. if CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 5 A trail connection corridor could also accommodate the utilities connection. Case asked about the plans for Dell Road to the south to Highway 212 and Gray responded they hope it would be two lanes with curb and gutter but it will be difficult to construct given the topography in the corridor. The City will have to consider whether they want to have a full connection to Highway 212, but it may be that the best solution is a right-in, right-out access. The roadway would not be a high volume corridor and would be to provide local access. Discussion ensued regarding whether they should have pedestrian access in the area, and stormwater control issues were discussed. Mayor Harris asked about the planting schedule and Johnson reviewed the species and types of vegetation they are proposing to install. Harris asked if they had given any thought to how they could protect the Big Woods area from the adjacent homes. Johnson responded they are making a bank which is too steep for people to cut or grow lawn on, which should provide protection for the park area. Case commented he had thought perhaps a chain link fence would clearly mark the rear boundaries of the lots and Johnson responded he would be willing to mark the corners of the lots with posts or else they could put a conservation easement over the rear portion, but he did not foresee it as a problem. He did not want to put up a fence. The Public Hearing was opened. A resident on Cedarcrest Drive, commented the location of his home was a huge selling point for him to buy a home in Eden Prairie. He did not want the street to be connected and did not understand why it was being recommended. Bud Baker, 9232 Cedar Forest Road, stated he did not agree with the roadway connection and they believe people from this new development will drive through their neighborhood. The utilities could be connected via the trail connection which would give those residents access. He did not feel the trail would preclude emergency vehicle access in the event of a fire and it could be constructed to facilitate that. He was opposed to connecting the roadway. Doug Dance, 14763 Boulder Point Road, stated he was opposed to granting any variances for this project. Thirty-two more units is more units than allowed for in the original zoning plan. He was concerned about the tree loss figures because they include the land donated to the City. He believed tree loss will be significantly higher than the 31% projections on the land which is developed. He was opposed to compromising the area and recommended that the City Council deny the request as there was no valid reason to change the zoning. Jeff Strate, 15021 Summit Hill Drive, stated there are many good things about the plan but it has not evolved far enough. He did not feel the NURP ponds were placed properly and they should be located along Dell Road. He was mainly concerned about the old woods area of which less than 1% remains in Hennepin 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 6 County. It is a valuable natural, cultural and regional asset and he recommended that the City Council consider as many options to protect it as possible. He believed we do not know enough about protecting an old growth forest area. It is a very fragile area and perhaps a broader buffer band could be implemented along the southern area to protect this area. He requested the City to use Cash Park Fees to purchase it or ask the State to help with this endeavor. John Wroblowski, 9360 Cedar Forest Road, commented people in the community care about this because they keep coming to these meetings. He agreed with the previous speakers that this project will have a significant impact on this area. He was opposed to making the roadway connection. Pauline Kacher, 9820 Sky Lane, asked about the lot lines on the southern edge lots. Johnson responded that there is a definition from the Department of Natural Resources which defines the top of a bluff area as the point where there is less than an 18% grade within 50 feet. Kacher was concerned about the grading and drainage plan and the landscape plan. She was concerned about the tree loss on Outlot B, which will have a parking lot on it and she believed this area will be trashed if it is not protected. She requested the City Council to look at this plan further before approving it. Ryan Kacher, 9820 Sky Lane, read a letter from his father in opposition to the project. The Guide Plan should not be changed, and he believed land should not be wasted with this development. He requested the City to keep its options open, and to develop in the best possible way. He believed the City should keep the creek valley and the woods in as natural a state as possible. Steve Knudtson, 9255 Cedar Forest Road, stated he was opposed to making the roadway connection and he did not understand how more homes would make for less traffic. Dustin Fossey, 8012 Island Road, reviewed why Eden Prairie was named and stated he lives on Mitchell Lake where the trees were not saved as the developer had promised. Encroachment does happen into City lands and he wanted to see it protected. He requested the City Council to reconsider the development. Brad Mlynar, 17140 Cedar Crest Road, was opposed to making the roadway connection and removing the cul-de-sac because there is no where to walk as it is. Sheila Krauselt, 17319 Rosalla Drive, was concerned about the rapid pace of development in Eden Prairie and was mourning the loss of the apple orchard. She asked the City to help people keep their old homes with some form of tax relief. Drew Holte, 7449 Paulsen Drive, stated his grandparents live on Cedarcrest Drive and he has enjoyed these woods since he was in kindergarten. He was opposed to having a bike trail through them. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 7 Vicky Koenig, 13543 Carmody Drive, a member of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, stated they had discussed the Riley Creek Woods at length at their meeting when they reviewed this project, and this was a conservation area which belongs to the people of Eden Prairie. She believed everything possible should be done to protect it, and if that means fencing a portion of it, then that should be done. Pam Olson, 9040 Dell Road, stated she owned a hobby farm adjacent to this project and because the roadway was going to be widened it would increase their taxes and eventually force them out of their home. She requested the City Council to save the woods and reduce the size of this project. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Butcher-Younghans commented she appreciated the concern from residents who were present but there are some aspects of this project which are very beneficial to the City. It provides a range of housing types for all income levels and meets the City's overall growth strategy. She asked Lambert to report on what the City's conservation easement holdings were and also what sources of funding they could tap into to purchase land. She would like to see some of the Eden Prairie aesthetic architecture applied to the townhouses to make them more distinctive. Lambert responded a natural resource inventory was done a couple of years ago and the City began to identify these areas. The City cannot afford to buy every nice piece of land in Eden Prairie. Staff identified seven major areas which were determined to be the best portions of land. He illustrated these areas the City has acquired thus far and the City's goal is to acquire the Riley Creek Valley to the greatest extent possible. Staff is endeavoring to protect a corridor but will not be able to protect the higher lands. Mr. Strate gave the City a letter which listed some funding sources which may be used to obtain money for purchasing land, one of which is a National and Scenic area grant. This land does not meet the criteria for this grant nor does it contain any rare or endangered species of plant materials, so it is doubtful if the City would be able to obtain any funding from this source. Lambert noted the City might be eligible for the Greenways Grant but it is only a total of $4 million and there is a great deal of competition for these funds. The City would have to match any funds that would be given, but an application could be submitted. He suggested that any funds obtained should perhaps be used to buy land on the opposite side of the creek valley to protect that area. Tyra-Lukens commented she sympathized with the people who spoke during the public hearing but economic feasibility prevents purchasing all the land we would like to protect. This development does not meet the development strategy which was developed for the southwestern portion of Eden Prairie. There were some things she liked such as the variety of housing types and some of the layout aspects. 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 8 She did not like the transition, layout of the homes and felt the density was too high. She felt the placement of the higher density units close to Dell Road and along the northern portion of the site would drive away other developers or make the density of adjacent projects too high for the existing zoning. She felt the high density should be located in the center of the project with the lower density creating a buffer zone for adjacent properties. She felt the project should be continued to allow the proponent to lower the density transitions and give them more information regarding preservation of the parkland. She believed this development should be done properly because it will set the tone for development of the rest of this area. Thorfinnson concurred about the protection of the city-owned property to the south and believed it should be protected. He did not believe the roadway needed to be connected but the trail should be constructed to allow for the utility access. He did not have any problem with the higher density units or the tree loss on the site. He commented that in many ways the City was much better now than it was twenty- three years ago, and he felt that $100,000 per acre was too expensive to preserve the woods if it was coming out of his tax dollars. Case read a letter from Amy Olson, a sixth grader at Oak Point, requesting the City Council to preserve the natural area. He noted that many comments focus on limiting development and the Guide Plan exists to give both residents and developers a guide for development of a site. If a plan meets all the codes and has no waivers it gives the City no grounds to deny a project. He proposed a scenario in which the developer met all the criteria but did not dedicate the ten acres of creek land. It would not provide for a variety of housing types and the housing market is changing and we need to be conscious of this because perhaps we are building the wrong type of house for those people who want to live in Eden Prairie. If the City does not plan for affordable housing many people will not be able to live here. He felt this project should be continued to have changes made such as studying the road connection for access issues. The right-of-way for utilities and the trail must be obtained, and he believed neighbor-hoods should be connected, at least for pedestrian access. He wanted to see a chain link fence to protect the parkland area along the south border and the boundary markers on the lots to indicate the property lines. He wanted a conservation easement protecting the trees within a 20 foot area which would be easy to see. He suggested the proponent make the rear lot lines more even to facilitate identification of where property lines were located. He agreed with Butcher-Younghans regarding the architectural style being more in keeping with the historical Eden Prairie and he showed photographs of things which could be incorporated into the design that illustrated what he had in mind. He supported continuing the project to allow the proponent to lower the density. Harris commented she liked the project because it does not increase traffic beyond projected levels and it has a lower tree loss. It also has a mix of housing types which is good for the City. She noted that people are more interested in the quality CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 9 of their lives and are looking for smaller homes. This project does not require waivers. The City is getting something that is invaluable in the land in addition to the Cash Park Fees at a time when this fund is getting low. She felt the Big Woods acreage needed to be protected. The roadway connection did not need to be made if the placement of utilities can be achieved by other means. The City of Eden Prairie was originally planned for 100,000 citizens, and because of the careful planning of the staff and City Council it now appears that population will top out at about 65,000 residents. We have preserved open space and protected wetlands and ecosystems which is commendable. She was not adverse to continuing the project but would be comfortable with tweaking which could be done with the proponent and staff working together. Discussion ensued regarding the reasons to continue the project, and the basic items which need resolution were identified as the architectural style of the townhomes, preservation of the Big Woods, placement of carsonite markers on lot lines to identify boundaries, straightening rear lot lines of the lots along the creek, and the transition issue in the northeast corner and possibly rearrangement of units within the development. Johnson noted they had decided to have the side yards fronting on Dell Road because it would have less visual impact from adjacent properties. If they had chosen to front them onto Old Dell Road they could have built more units. They also have language in their restrictive covenants which precludes any alteration being done on any slope which is greater than 2:1. It covers the entire lot, not just 20 feet. The styles of architecture have a porch-type farm house look and they have done a very expensive marketing program to make these choices available. Tyra-Lukens asked staff to develop some scenarios for how the adjacent land might develop, given the density of this development. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case to continue the request for Orrin Thompson Homes to the February 16, 1999 City Council agenda. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Payment of Claims. Motion carried on a roll-call vote with Butcher-Younghans, Case, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS X. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 Page 10 A. RECEIVE PETITION FROM CENTRON DPL CO., INC. EMPLOYEES REQUESTING SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT CSAH 61 (SHADY OAK ROAD) AND CITY WEST PARKWAY/BRYANT LAKE DRIVE MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to receive the petition from Centron DPL Co., Inc. and direct staff to implement the staff action plan. Motion carried 5-0. XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINT MEMBERS TO BOARD OF REVIEW MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to appoint Mike Best, Annette O'Connor, Phil Olson, Patricia Pidcock and Carol Standal to the 1999 Eden Prairie Board of Review. Motion carried 5-0. XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. RESOLUTION 99-21 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATERMAIN IN WALLACE ROAD AND TECHNOLOGY DRIVE Dietz stated staff had received the bids for the project and waited to award the bids until they obtained the easement. He requested the City Council to approve the easement agreement and then award the contract. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens to approve the easement agreement and award the contract for construction of watermain in Wallace Road and Technology Drive. Motion carried 5-0. F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR I 0 erCITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: alien SECTION: Consent Calendar February 16,1999 prairie SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development Clerk's License Application List V.A. & Financial Services - Gretchen Laven These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. RENEWAL LICENSES Contractors continued CONTRACTOR SPRIGGS PLUMBING&HEATING CO ARI MECH SERVICES INC VALLEY PLUMBING CO INC BENSON-ORTH ASSOCIATES INC VSI CONSTRUCTION INC BREDAHL PLUMBING WILLIAM MEINHARDT BUSHARD PLUMBING SERVICE DITTER INC PRIVATE KENNEL-DOGS DOUGLAS CORPORATION E A H SCHMIDT&ASSOC INC JEAN MUELLER ELANDER MECHANICAL INC FALLS&NYHUSMOEN CONSTRUCTION INC SOLID WASTE COLLECTOR HEIGHTS MECHANICAL CO INC HI-TECH INSTALLATIONS INC BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA JOEL SMITH HEATING&A/C JOYCE PLUMBING KCJ ENTERPRISES INC DBA: Mr Rooter Plumbing LARSON PLUMBING INC LEON DUDA PLUMBING SERVICES LINDSTROM CLEANING&CONSTRUCTION INC MASTER MECHANICAL INC MERIT HVAC INC METRO AIR MINNESOTA PLBG&HTG INC O'KEEFE MECHANICAL INC OAKWOOD BUILDERS INC OPUS NORTHWEST LLC PARAGON PLBG&HTG INC PLYMOUTH HEATING AND AIR PRAIRIE dba:Plymouth Plumbing Inc ELECTRIC CO INC RIM CONSTRUCTION CO ROYAL PLUMBING&HTG February 16, 1999 1 DATE: 02/16/99 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: , / I SECTION: Consent Calendar , t), SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 99-5484 Public Works Authorize Feasibility Study for Street, Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Street Engineering Division Improvements westerly of Flying Cloud Airport Alan D. Gray Recommended Action: Move to authorize a feasibility study for street, sanitary sewer, watermain and street improvements serving properties westerly of Flying Cloud Airport designated I.C. 99-5484. Overview: The Grace Church which owns a large land parcel in the southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Eden Prairie Road and Lynn Charlson, owner of several large land parcels westerly of Flying Cloud Airport have petitioned for street and utility improvements to support the development of their properties. The approximate scope of the improvements required to support development is outlined in the attached resolution ordering feasibility study. The identified street and utility improvements will benefit properties owned by the Grace Church, Lynn Charlson and other area properties. The Metropolitan Airport Commission is considering acquisition of properties for airport expansion which would otherwise benefit from the proposed improvements and through which the improvements must be constructed. It is desirable to proceed with the feasibility study development at this date to assist landowners involved in acquisition by the MAC to evaluate the impact of the acquisition on development of their properties. Financial Issues: Construction cost for infrastructure improvements outlined in the resolution will likely total several million dollars. It is anticipated that all costs will be assessed to currently undeveloped properties in this project area. It is desirable to proceed with feasibility studies at this time to identify cost and to develop assessment plans agreeable to area property owners. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, it is proposed to make the following improvements: I.C. 99-5484: Street, Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Street Improvements Westerly of Flying Cloud Airport as follows: 1. The realignment of Spring road in section 28 and Section 21 to intersect with Pioneer Trail at the current intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Pioneer Trail in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, together with sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer to serve area properties. 2. The improvement of Eden Prairie Road from Riley Creek north to its intersection with new Spring road, together with sanitary sewer, watermain and storm drainage to serve area properties. Sanitary sewer improvements include a pump station at Riley Creek. 3. A segment of sanitary sewer between Shetland road and Eden Prairie Road. 4. A new industrial road between Spring Road and TH 212 in accordance with preliminary plans for development of office/industrial land southwesterly of Flying Cloud Airport. 5. Sanitary sewer, watermain and storm drainage improvements along Spring road between TH 212 and the new industrial road west of Flying Cloud Airport and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study with the assistance of S.R.F., Inc., and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 16, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2/16/99 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: SUBJECT: Tax Forfeited Property Non-conservation List ITEM NO. Park&Recreation Services 1064-NC Stuart A. Fox G Requested Action: Move to adopt resolution authorizing that Parcels #1 and #2 be combined and sold at Hennepin County Auction and that Parcel#3 be deeded to the City for parkland purposes. Background: Attached is a list a list received from Hennepin County certified as non-conservation list 1064-NC. These properties have been pronounced tax forfeit to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of property taxes. As is provided in State Statute 282, Hennepin County has requested the City to make a recommendation as to the disposal of these three land parcels. The City can either approve the land for public auction, approve the parcels for sale to an adjacent property owner, withhold the properties from auction for one year, or request conveyance of the property to the City for public use. The three parcels of property are described as follows: Parcel PIN Description Pending Specials 1 25-116-22-32-0062 Moorhead Addition, Outlot A -0- 2 25-116-22-32-0063 Moorhead Addition, Outlot B -0- 3 35-116-22-12-0092 That part out Outlot A lying south and -0- Westerly of the north line of Outlot C, Village Woods and east of the westerly line of Outlot D, Bluffs West Village Knolls Staff has reviewed the three parcels and looked at the potential use of any of these parcels for public purposes. The evaluation is as follows: Parcel#1 and#2 - These two outlots in Moorhead Addition were created in 1989 when a plat was approved. At the time of platting, the recommendation was that the two outlot parcels would be combined with adjacent property at some future time. However, the property around these two outlots has also been platted and as a result that these two triangle shaped outlots are landlocked. 1 Staff has discussed these two parcels and based upon a recommendation of Hennepin County staff, staff would recommend that these two parcels be combined and the combined land be auctioned at the County Auction. By offering this land to adjacent property owners, it could be combined with any of the four lots which abut it. Parcel 3 - This parcel is a small triangular piece of land which is located adjacent to three plats. The parcel is approximately 12 feet wide by 28 feet long and is triangular in shape. Since this parcel abuts existing parkland, the staff is recommending that this parcel be conveyed to the City for parkland purposes. SAF:mdd Attachments: Resolution 1064 Conservation/Non-conservation List Maps TaxRes.memo/Stuart99 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSAL OF TAX FORFEITED LAND WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has received from the County of Hennepin Non- Conservation List 1064-NC, which list three (3) properties in said municipality which have become property of the State of Minnesota for non payment of real estates taxes, (list attached), and WHEREAS, provided in Minnesota Status 282, the City Council is asked to determine the disposal of these parcels of land, and WHEREAS, the City can approve the parcels for public auction, or approve sale of the parcels to adjacent landowners, or request conveyance to the City for public use without monetary consideration, or request that the parcel be withheld from public auction for one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie does request the Board of Hennepin County to approve the disposal of these parcels, in the following way: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie does request the Board of Hennepin County to approve the disposal of these parcels in the following way: • The 3 (three)properties be classified as non-conservation land. • The following parcel be conveyed to the City of Eden Prairie for parkland purposes: PIN 35-116-16-22-12-0092 with no pending specials • The following parcels combined into one parcel and offered at public auction by Hennepin County. PIN 25-116-22-32-0062 with no pending specials PIN 25-116-22-32-0063 with no pending specials ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of February 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Don Uram, City Clerk SEAL 1064 Conservation / Non-conservation List (61) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Property ID Number Previous Owner Special Property Address Target Date of JudgmentLand Value Market Assessments Legal Tenants Property Type C/NC Area Y/N Date of Forfeiture Building Value Value Before Forfeiture Description Vacant (AS OF 10/30/98) 25 116 22 32 0062 PHILLIP S CARLSON LAND $700 $700 $0 VACANT PRR.CE-L 61 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 04/17/95 BLDG $0 OUTLOT A MOORIIEAD 1 Non-Conservation 08/2098 ADDITION F�A►�C�L 25 116 22 32 0063 PHILLIP S CARLSON LAND $700 $700 $0 VACANT 61 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 04/17/95 BLDG $0 OUTLOT B MOORHEAD 2— Non Conservation 08/2098 ADDITION hi92cEL 35 116 22 12 0092 HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP LAND $100 $100 $0 VACANT 3 61 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 04/17/95 BLDG $0 TI IAT PART OF OUTLOT A LYING S Non-Conservation 08/20/98 OF WLY EXTS OF N LINE OF OUI LOT Land Locked Sliver C VILLAGE KNOLLS AND E OF WLY LINE OF OUTLOT D BLUFFS WEST WILL KNOLLS N \AA 7..6 -•\p a � ] I``\�,6C01�y�(,'\ I Y 27. IA-- 0���;., �1ti`�jDO r \.,.. G • e-- - ly al Fri ✓Oy'ci— z l RDAI CIR. T� tl3 �T._ j n\ 1,,,.R7c 1i r�ORC_ UPINE j C/iP i�~ (' C, i 3 41pK DR. ; _ ` o jri r. -_ f E� zl Ili! :: 294W !. iI N o ,t m r . CT. `I, 44 t}1=r, <, `ice/ ,4,G`L.,,30. /40 GtMAPLE 1 Ne �� . S 15.. ? 'i�yyTP- .�r`\Sl �\Y it - 4�� i .40 /a* .0' m}i DR. tcp'^ 1G i69! I SRO N LA 11-' SOCIt.-li l•. ��l 40 to <�;,I"� " Qp ti i-- oS y4.\ ow A ;:`. e, $` ✓C� • t� r�; ).., S `" 1I 1� pR• poi `S�D• . J Op /� �( 'yCIA ANDERSON��" � `2 1 Q�' NDERSON�COP�' o�}rf rO?' • �I -Jtom, /l ja..""'..4 ""K-_ 1 C •r ^-tt /:F i �� 1L_1• 'H I //82 v f6 i ,„ - _fl , �/ @� 1 . ,r Aorsk 1 1 =.� � a� 8$iio 4{ tee(? DARNEL z WATERFORD=RD i '�P K-�9 \"\ / '� • rj�' jl z PRESERVEt BLVD_. }j �1�� ,� �l2 u'o\\\1? �` •�V 1 0 �� r� �._! r CIR �n �, r ci) A PRINCETON= x� ..,3 9�."is • j AVE. 437 i)Q I G£ `, ;o�l i BISHOP CT. O r`\ ...�// 'I' CI. tir `t I: ri 0`� .: till T-, PICWY_ O COJam`\ IENN. . VO-TECH f 97� I �// RD._ 23 2a o'' z �(- ` i' �' T1tSN R22w i N�tBR0OK i� L_ A �. \ 2s125 , �fC4 cam`*/ t 22'23 SVNJ -- ev ! f y� i'� y�CLARK f TYtbN R2.1Y ]� G09 t 07 {( �:A- Np Ol�,.. ;I 1,i OIL r,• 27 -'� 69. b� .-""tea... ' `f 4e 0- m a 1 ''ti1� _ a {I r c 1 7 t. ..:�'`f•1. ` 3, ,___� D "`�:...i'f N f AMSD]<NG�4 ,`=�` j� f - `l, 1\, c l per' g ,_'-ril W \� s .;o ., s p tcr._._.J itR 1 "1 7 4 In\,14 ,r* 14 .� '. �kq/ w(S iatetio tJi��- 12 <I BRIG►.JT !. 1 G�;', Y ON / Y,,4_, y (6,\"% rm ,i -•T'_`�iy < /�� 1� -34C� SUM4C CJR. LA• 5.� i o o c _ x f11t� Fl / OLYMp 1� j p2% r , JJ t� t �� �: /� I ICJ I J! €t. • (� 0 R TR. �: �� 2 tppi n�- �,\ q/ w Cll�,�i__�',i-^•� �,,� �A O ;' �0N4- r --.) uR Y!+ l` 39•I g n 1 n 4' 2 z i ® 'lei_ c>,Veo Z LOR c, `/1 Ix 41,` (¢ o / ST. ` 1 r � ~� w S� �N4Ty1l/ ��ilP Sir--CT. l z z�I w VOIS� RD� 4� m( �'i�''.F r � l _ �J 3 �(� c (� y (J I ci G�{pQ' ✓ .- O / e ~--.\ #IAR DR:, M•1 r i1 I to t ,< ((v� 0 } I TR. 4 :I < 4 C ! p u• ?1� i� _� 4 S RD. z. �� C NIBLICK�� c �1 t 1 C�w z L, i t c .. - _ _ a. R� ROM ✓A .--t W 3 1 �\ BOW pR. ; / I Z_ • N` V �'�`<r--- .1 LJ l.+/`-L--_. -.7/r 3�J t = K a.. ���0 Zr ��.w {��„ �a. <9/ R i_%. `'' ,�j 0 f BU �`ro \ %R w \Go a RVN��ES p =If DR.�,�� SO .,D O, - ` z BAL , s c ' CnV •v�9 ( -\ f, Lill 31---- ` R 3 •` 1t f }s 36. .* ". t n ) QONii(POINT_'S' [R• r s JUAry/p r �.l c^`> ' / i G _ = kq� ^N ___i i � >i �� ER/ t 37. 0��� 1 CD GRIST L \�-' —1LBL_UES� m IJACKSON o DR. <�`=g 'rJy��r-uADOW RAL ll�!'! f1 9 p, `lif�I z\ _ `�C' ,., R.1 DR o CT.1� POND DR. r ��lw! f U --- \ t 13 1 GR- 1F 1 1 f �f�G tr %R �/ ) (� 7 `� to(� , LEE 1 /i--� = _Ii �z _ �� j m 3 ���r� 4�, f ` ON 7Oti D W.p�f \ 2 c !• t I S��J/j" �n El m 44�/�`.-- .- Q(jARRp D- . '., ' ( _ ��Y \ \ N G p5 ,-, OJRR — '-� n7:VS.?_`. 1 o ry �p r r10i r \p p. - -.�l1} Q LA. , 47. is�.� Y i < W �P SA-- �� i �,An E x� 52. 3 (!< i 1 Pp Cy _• o , '{ ye ',I\1.l� 49• 26125 3 0 RANLO rn O h 1 yi-0 ,,,ENGLLyPo t L I-v. ', rx 48 } 35136 Bpb-r 1 ik c, A INE L. { 42 ,,,�/ -) Ll i `"`-r.. � 'r '0 l 4 2t r --- 0? 0, NG /O 1 T116N R22w m ; RI RViEW v v, a p,`ty 5 0 R. MAN �� W�o �-: t - pyf�Fy's ER -t;" _\ R/� Y �//l1A a°i Cf g_j-L_. * \\., i• i U 0's-,�� J RD.Ls i E J �O,pz �J :1 fR \ �Y1 �0� ��Q�p Qp�y.N t. 1 /, ¢ /,! e. > 31y,� 0 9 Grp UR ` w� OKVI W f i \\ ESt4rF �' BOSS CIRCLE�. BRO_ ----„J / 35 W�. RD. \ CIR. i I / ‹.-:-.--.._:,-:- 0 ..iiii:c'\ s-- i/ Ii `\ � ,.. • ver 1 � --- ,--,...._ ---- -_-.---.---------___ ---._ „-u-- I / /,;,j Nook S AKOP E ` ;, \ T116 � i 3613 ::\,,,., I t 1 ( 4Z) Tr a ( 57) q) ( 75) 17....... j/131. 5412272145,01 ?20__94 /AAP O'er ReateeLS 5 _ 14 2. S ( 43) 1 . 1644. 28 1 1 1 14 11?-3- 1 '-�' o ; 6"� 1 11 ( 31 ) ( 25) C4 �, 439. 33 & 135. 79 W _ '- Di fie s$ ' , 1 • _ 4 Of 7 v - ( 40) �' ( 84 ) ( 37) 2 2 a z' 90 4 «� �: - 1 �ccol( 32) or �( 26)� a 133. 35 \O 3 - 14 2. 52 �� 129. $7 ��°` 138. 74 r7 = co • 3 Z' 3 _ r� 6 v ( ` 7-‘<11-=1..... — 6IP 0 3 g, z ( 27) _ ( 45) _ ,( 36) C 3) - v)• 144. 16 128. 13 1 1 • I I . o ' tS R10EL�- 165. 12 .4.1 ( 35) ( 34 ) • •54. 03 73. 0• 165. 11 v2 rn ..t` ? �. i 52 4 19 . 2 36. 99' . r ti' M`� L C6 , o yr. pj� co �'`� 2 vi ( 46) v * ( 82) -- U MOORHEA 1 �; ci.) — ( , . 6 3) 1 - ( 2 9 ) c) 12a. 86 33 48, ��" ( �0 �4 N z �- w 1 — ADDN - .5.6 f � w — a qag) 2 4 ••• -Ig 2 _a 59) co v 131. 5- 3 Q' + IC5� 0� tiO 150 164. 81 (( 54 ) IL C \QP "s ue a ( 62) 296. 95 ��, 3 O a . i�0 `� OUTLOT A �s 4 , a — ( 30) ram. ( 48) / ( 49 • ECTJ 150 S. , 01.2 . 158. 91 u.,89. 33 r_85 85 8' I_ �' _r Q s g 5 • 3 ti g \ scr , 1 a r8 7 t Notrri4 f•-- 135. 93 . - ( 65) ' ( 64 ) ( 63) � ( 6; &go scri..6 � ) 7; ( :• 11-) • ? Lc) 2 •30. 06 (lSTE o ( 36) 102_ 1 85 Q5 85 1 85 i 85' $5 . : _ , , T36. 4 4 .� . ., .�.. • MAP OF Ica.. 3 / 16 6 rj• ^ • 5 VELLACE 52 r 0) `'f, P - 3 OUTLOT B Ar-c 4 `�? N 35. ��`'�,', PART OF 9�' 69 ) .:m+?i OUTLOT 647. 06 ,,6• 66` it 2 ( 92) OUTLOT C 253. 4g 0+ • • l(7• L �_\ \I• j' _ p ' 126, 72 43°- ' ( 88) 6\.6A _ 0, A19 if; 12. 82 6 .9 /�o • 25 co `� \p/ ( 4) si - 18 9 20 %, 1 - \' ( 7) A ( 9) 21 22 w 23 ( 13) \.`)\. `-' ( 8) ♦ 4 ( lp ) N ( 11 ) Q, ( 12) ` `s' . ) 57. • 09 4 NC. 0 '� \09. 7 _ '6• o 72 6 120, 53 •%.6 Pk q�A ` 1; y co. 48. 50. 76 , rn Z. ' 6 7 �g46J �� � r � � ( 23) � ( 24 ) Al. "•: • , 30 A 29 4 r^ �'' S9 �' a 16 °', ( 15) 9 2. 68 87. 56 ( 2 5 , `.�_5.02 • 126. 2 54. 04 % '� ``'� `t.' ? 33 . 3 13\ 31 • 53 5 i/ 12 rs �� \a ( 17) 1 ti a 9 ( 29) `� 'o ,` ( 22) �rL y ,y u' $ •.� vl • . 62-Ss) T NoTtt A I: ,:-.. 96 ,,,, 09 .01 ,a 7 l Ste) 3' 14 , w • `'9 e..,.,2 : ( 27) ( 28) o EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2-16-99 SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS _ ITEM NO. VI.A. SERVICE AREAS: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development & Financial Services EDEN ORCHARD Donald Uram Michael Franzen and Park & Recreation Services Robert A. Lambert Requested Council Action: Move to: 1. Adopt resolution for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres; and 2. Adopt resolution for PUD Concept; and 3. Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District change from Rural to R1-9.5, R1- 13.5 and RM-6.5 on 158.4 acres subject to Staff and Commission recommendations 1-8 and plans dated February 11, 1999; and 4. Adopt resolution for Preliminary Plat; and 5. Direct Staff to prepare a Developers Agreement. Background: This is a continued item from the February 2, 1999 meeting. Subsequent to the February 2, 1999, Council meeting, the City staff met with Lee Johnson of US Homes to review the request of the City Council for changes to the Eden Orchard Development proposal. Mr. Johnson agreed to the following conditions: (Source: Bob Lambert) 1. Dedicate a 40-foot wide outlot to accommodate the City trail and utilities connection to Crestwood Drive. 2. Construct an eight foot wide asphalt trail within that 40 foot wide outlot prior to the construction of any homes on either side of the outlot. 3. Replat a conservation easement line along the back of the twin homes surrounding a 3.5 acre conservation area. 4. Straighten the rear lot lines on the back of the single-family homes adjacent to Riley Creek. 5. Place a 20-foot wide conservation easement on the back of the seven eastern most lots along the northern boundary of the Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area. 6. Construct a four-foot high, black vinyl clad chain link fence along the northern boundary of the Riley Creek Wood Conservation Area from the parking lot easterly to the cul-de-sac in the southeast corner of the development. The fence will be located on City property and 1 will be maintained by the City. 7. Relocate the sidewalks to the north or east side of all streets with the exception of Street K and Street E where the sidewalks will be on the west side of the street. 8. The sidewalk on Street M will be on the east side of Street M, then the south side as that street loops around to the west with a sidewalk connection to the park on the west side of the parking lot. Staff reviewed the location of the building pads on the southeast cu-d-sac and does not recommend a relocation of those pads. Growth Strategies for Southwest Eden Prairie The two scenarios created a range 2606-2906 total housing units. A total of 570 multiple family units would be clustered and dispersed. The area around new Dell Road with both scenarios would be 110 units. Scenario one would be 54 apartment units and 56 small lot single family or twinhomes. Scenario two would be 54 townhouses and 56 small lot single family or twinhomes. Eden Orchard is 174 multiple family units (58 twinhomes and 116 townhouses). The 64-unit increase above the strategy for this area is offsite by 268 fewer units elsewhere in the southwest area. Settlers Ridge was planned for 109 multiple family but the developer proposed 60 twinhomes. The Grace Church will displace 110 multiple units on the Charlson property. The future Hallet Addition will displace 29 multiple units since the current plan is all single family. The Charlson guide plan change to office next to the airport will displace 80 units. There is the potential for additional multiple family east of this site. However, the justification for multiple family on the Orchard site is based on a density of 2.7 units per acre overall, dedication of 10 acres of open space along Riley Creek, 27% housing affordability, 34% tree loss, and 13% senior townhomes. If the adjoining area can meet these same conditions, the City would be obligated to approve such a request. Transition To improve the visual relationship to Pioneer Trail and adjoining land uses the staff recommends additional trees according to the attachment. Architecture The developer is working on revised elevations to add detail to the townhouses and historic detail and materials to the single family and twinhomes. Revised elevations will be available at the meeting. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Guide plan Change, PUD Concept, and Preliminary Plat 2 EDEN ORCHARD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDEN ORCHARD FOR ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Eden Orchard dated January 29, 1999, consisting of 158.4 acres into 433 lots and 10 outlots, 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 February, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk 3 EDEN ORCHARD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 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 Eden Orchard by Orrin Thompson Homes for construction of 433 units requires the amendment of the 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: 39.26 acres from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential located at Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of February, 1999. • Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk EDEN ORCHARD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF EDEN ORCHARD FOR ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES 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 City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Eden Orchard PUD Concept Review by Orrin Thompson Homes and considered their request for approval for development(and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February 2, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Eden Orchard, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated January 29, 1999. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated January 11, 1999. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of February , 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk 3 Exhibit A Eden Orchard Legal Description: ! - �- /_ �f .�i'' AS' Illi •R`Ctr".flr���.hr.�l�(ymf Q �_ Op \' 1 i I\ / _--_-__:--- ____---- _--..0.„.„,,tiQACtireit ,,,,, 0 _ r .,.. lie i ONE' ,y ' 'lai _ � f �a `t �Ir 3' �es��� ,r• / / / \ it � s z te 1 [ - di I j �! r��� � ` '""."."...., ,- \\_.-\'‘\‘`-•\,44Vilklt ,- ---' ../.\---'fir '��T O •• �{[+�► iCI t_,, II!;5�„-.__..— ^�-_ =1,.. `�► .�11,11orma...74, MR ,,,,:„..„.- .....„1,,,,... ` �' /..{....,,,,....., 4,,,,. „ or,�awBCi. j_ r\„.ter �, r Cr - ��� 3-NP ` ,.....„..„.. ,t....„ .. .. 17.101 ..„...._ .„.„.„,.,..... ,,_, .,.... ......r.,0..., .... .,. ,,.. , --._ ._,, ...„ ,. . ... _....„,,..._ , ,. i , . ihiiii_.---kwootr.. 1111 ......,,,—.,, ,,, ... .,.N09.......t..1+ .*:::*er, + tik, ii,„e„..---.. or,...,. , -I ,,,,- kil .. "0..mh.givai.otsy ,s, 11111 NM air*, '14 ,4,41ZA,41,-, ilizA. v ,42 l* v.7.riztr•-•54-7,, ,- S'-- A / _ . , N‘....,::, NA *Ivo _ i ,0 "s -- ,, t.,1; 5, ..........,. 114111.- t4y-4, •••';10.... \/,, *40,, Mb. alm- '1 ''''''\ ' lid"---) ' 11 FAMINIr s^ az,-, '..""millErr___ 0 ,i' N. • ,w * I 4-ti'.V x ' -i ,Irii rimilmer. i.,,,wvow,„:s..aiitrai.„....____ .„...... ...7, Nal 4-4, -h,<-,.. ,.. _ . ,, ., , r,,,,-,., - 4-. 0 7 rrl PilithillE10• 11.11111finleiril■111-- Arai trill - ' ' 1%\ 4 Nkr1414 Lelib /'--/ i i. 4e- —\ 6' -,0 - .., :_..:-----,:-.,--- 4\v...7.... - _ r siomptiG-Auir......„..... .--zikmomplasitimir to— _,,,-, vo, ,,,9i, .,‘..citijiter '141..j-A gii ii MIlial • :-.,:;-.:.:;,-;.11--1 A;;;A::7"7"''''''''1111-11-111..-001"..441/- LSI ‘111111111111V2111111411. — 14 ''.#,''''N 1\:430'42:r ‘Atz' - \ — 1-- rijeCte"Ni ,...s. , illailiailli.t% Alp ,,,,,. I4L, ', 4,41i 44 1- l' ----vvaimZze,,...7.----4,011- ''''.. ''':...,, :,: wii oittr„ 4 .1..44:4,,1_, 4 Au, N .., #:\ � I�� y ■- , 1_, , 1T '? . p fig.. dr ►� �• l` _� itel" Ingligitat ' /l �'f \ ma >i,. - i� - •. ��;-r � �r iM1 i _f I= `j�� '., ` Li ar�. \ _ ,1 i',1il11 li ^1 ,i71VI„se11 3-S rP.,,I11'1.I.,.1.rL0000211l1.I1-/MI0..g.MNqO(NNi sE—nMoM.--fIE0Na 1 u -E ' •INwNWiO.M llME1oW ri,eli bmarri(rs*-''--'.-,•-.i.tse.e.- 4111.1„.11x„111 11.....-1 ,,7-s7, NSET. 1 , : x zire/L et (---2-----' „....,..--,-..;•-liwiot__) -: .,1,, 1 t_\ 'M. N ill'ICW.1 VI , 4 en -,.." . , 1\\AA\p, I , k .... ---r-----rnampo-war.,,fro ----0-.----4.4._-.0„,,,., ..t- As- • N ...s. ///'. / N1%14.0,0 Ill • i PIONEER . ..... se+sns+.ow sarong rsarMng -- ... `s+ LJ cxrpa P9O.ccr s«c.t 23 ' 29 ssnj • - _ --"-'>.,mm." '"^""""""` ,,,�,� •Z^m >* M PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES EDEN ORCHARD t 1 �} _7 `� Jam.' yn ys,:� .,a ` 1 .ems• - i b �'w. /4i l" ',lC'T , / I --I --�"7'�'t'-4 - �i ,fin .v/�-fi � li+--:i iSe�� `'* T ,... �a r'r 1y b E,✓ tee. =� rffi:.r-sf >'1 /' l �:-•fir - --, '� '1 , e `i_ ,-I(f..../. I �R1 22 i` �' l _ .......;_:_„....„,./..:„..-7.„,..-,;;,.;f,„-:, . „ ;. antlftL-5- ___-.-- ';----. _, 1 ' Nkii . , f ; -' r. .. . alig „., • _. 1 ---- lam'• 1� 5 a `- 4 /V i•.• , . J\ar^-- dr/lirLII E-1 5:'; j . ' �� --_ , • o'A.6". ' Off 16 - � ' ♦ I s4V% L � . ,.' 4 i / ii /I * -:,-._. ,. $" , 1 : . _ ...,, 40> , I©��- sir , C � ;.-r. CITY - . _ ;4 ; 1, /0, • , /Alt . 1 ; - — I! o,/ s: ! , . SUB: , , Illi .4;1 ..,/41,.,14 ----- 1.,,,,gire _.- .., • ,,,,----r•--.-- _______;_;1 01.:`..(- . '..- r • CITY. g�rcmc�feta//IVfl�i� 1k.�`,�� e4., •1,.� . ... / 4f if'�1 . � i J 1 r ��—� SCENARIO#2 2606 UNITS R I ) tl 1% DENSITY UNITS ACRES 3 I ". I Single fanily 0-3.0 2075 752 x 2 Single family 3.0-4.0 100 28 i ! 3 Townhouse 4.016.0 IGI 32 i i j , ii �'` .\ 4 Townhouse- 6.0-10.0 270 32 l i 1 1_ 1 /ta. 1 \ 1 Condominium 1 N. £— _J .1 1 5 Apartment 10.0+ 2606 834 . . - ' •..„,-•,.., ,.... ..,.----$.7 v;_t---,-;••-.",---...-. -:'••••-,.-• -..;, 1-: L-5,-----:,. , r, -> - .. 4---...:.---..--,'.t.- ...-"‘"...,:-..i- ...,,,:::,_.A..--- •,. ---, .., • n-,...-...7-. - • .. '.-.:., • ------,:s. i iti.4g... i, , -i..,H,_ , • 'il -.14,- -,i.•:...; -----1;7-7,1 ...=';'. 1 -741')::-N,I.:•---?:'-"•', , 1.--.;;.• :',..T.i....,.;, '',7.•q.A`,.t.,• :-,--( .-..-13.:5L. Rhi-6.5 ' =-1' . i ,..4,--.Q6,1.7.-- ,>`-'/' .,, 1 ..'':•---i--,,z< •• ' :It:- 1 W..L,t- ',"1"*1- 7: -.1.. 'it; •.•-- 1 1 :4:::-41- ''-'11•1.--7-1—t_.,,--,:,>,r_i-,-...! i>.:,-/, - ,..-,s...,•,;_,..„...,_.,k)-1 ,-)2N___ „.....- , „ eariwitaft hawrx;,.. ::_,..,.... --,-,,,,-„ . --,___:,„.•..z.L....,/ .„....L,,...,---..,,, / ‘,.r..,...1,.: J .,._ ',,_..,,,. ..-----,,_, . -i.,_-,--_-.„,.. puBj_r,, , ; , 1 , ire,: ,. , ---,,i,— --,-__._. , -7--- ___ •--- .,_,4 1.--6.5,!).,.,.,:),,F,,,, ,- ;:,•.„..„...ip.0- -s.4.-.-traarp..I.gi:..t---,":,,."•-;'" ' -AL., ---7.-- ----'---, ! i.„,..<2.... 1 .• A ,L.. .:::.:.::-,',.;,-.„cr.......-- .,--- ...'f''• ,,-•• c*'- e=:,., "<'. ..-'4'; - 11; 1 ;', .v.„•::*•ir"-I!"-'Fitgi , ..-,,ir--7, ‘-z11PV``,-'41-\--3=i PUB Lt.;, -0' 1-1.77/-r--. ..,,r-.T.'7-`;lik-'14:1 ',i,':Y.1;,,e,r:.r. ----:.''' k!' , - ..\. 4-44.ks'.,7`, .• .-, I,---,.-..-4.----i, , ,..4:-,-; , -.----,..., - .--RUEli . .. 7,----/•',.-''',' -.V.".i.....:.,f.--71)r._' i .'..--j'.:'.:1:12.'.?.:"44,:,,,''.',,:•: '7N- .. •\ - .- „,,f-•..,, \'..i...' ..'..:,- -..,, ..:. \ ; i ... 7;x• ..,>..... .,z.,----.I, 2i...c:'1.j--F-1: '''-''s , RFONII ma r--,..'- ,,..:_ '-i...L_Ligiti;..-'22/. 7. 4,"'' -},'.1'!”2•.-- .,.": •.-'':....i':`',..'.y".'rt---.',' "" ‘. '\ 1' ---- -..-,..,':•'; ';'''.:*.N,.:,, \ : 1.,"' ' ''--- _rF" i 7-1,..;... ,-.. 7'"-.' 1---'' 'Ill ' -• ' ..- ,..., , 4. _4,.. .... Ill iier.1 Ot..,1 AL ` : =--1C-'f,-.::-.1,...,4 I.... 0 -'-'7. '- \-\q',;„ .'..r.'-'4,. !ff‘.;.if9...'1.,:•'r,:,.' I; l'r.ir-S,.(::..... .-',.-.,:.,::',11:7".'":L,i.VH 1 ., . ...7,; , ...ig ,„1:„.....„:„ , _,-..-Aik ---.! ' - • ., . ) tip ,/.. .4 NI, :'......-1:2.•'; '.. ..,i,'•',C.._-' . -• •9 „ - , ., .... ... , , • ' ••/7"'' ' \. . . ._ , ;-,••-..-1''.:'-r.:v.E.:w:,,,,4.",,•.,i, :. -, -- ..,-:•••• . . , . \ - ;J --,-,-----:-.-.—t--.--' ' . . . •. . ... . ! -\• ..,. . .i ,..),--.',..,,c,/- i .___ , , : 7:t H-4— ..-.....' ' ..... ;'; '•.%1. "'L ,e''` : __----,--- 1,----_.-----iga 1'- . "....'t.- . • . 4.... '.: ,,.--" : > , "•''?/1., \ . ..--•. . • " " ;t . / ..) . __ i,,..4. (--, : ' .,-. . ---— .,....:',...'7,.."...4___,._\...,...:.____, ___ 1 ti. ,:_ . .., II ilk" : ; -..:-\,, ..... '. ill . -------i--..... ;;----,,,... ,:-:..---- - : i '1 •-—--- / i , 7 i c',-144.4 •. ,'4 I,C01, . 4„'.`• - " , $r 40 i 1 V . 1*** ' _,.._ i 1r4 *"17.)". ........ • . . PUB f;' • -!AN, - 7'>, 1 ' (1117A • ' •if./.0> '.: .................. ••••* of -\ 1-2 , ' ...,-?-' -•41,,,,* ' ; , • • .v ' • • if ; 44 ) . _. • „__._ i ----.' -\ ••••-•• • •- ir4 • - '•1\1.1%.4.,.. .,,,..1 h. 1111 -,---ra, • • . ,/0.• .. „.,. _ 41 , .. , ' ' I : ---,------ --- .,„-_-_, • il . , 1 1 ..-- , _ea" / , re 01 1 . •',-.*Naill...„ . .. ..,.., -4,2, ;--- . , ----,-----., —• * - N. -.....**---4.14F., •• •• (1 f 1 !__,;: 1 Al 1 ' /( 16, . . . ./ i ,• I ill' Aril I • • i If f , '----—44-- - k '\ • ff,Prfr 'TV ,i e r/ r/ _ .. /11.i.4109frelflffrilir 7, -,, 1,4earmtvg rfe,fee., r ---z1.11-„1„:;„*.sr \I , „CITY s. rigoil.,44#: ______L __________-,, .• , trs'40Atijr...-- '.-- 4' -,/.44g441 liee •------___:-.,--=----------,.- ..t.jr ... • , -4 .....-- '<---'w ..:5------ ..-------- • ' .. ,. ....:. ... , ; \-1----.. ----II •••fl..---C-r-iiI4L-Y...:?7"----7---------- -'' SCENARIO # 1 2906 UNITS 1 : -,fr;;-- - - : . :.•-• -. • ' '..,_ V - 1, , , 7--1---7,-- .: _---:--r , 2 ,..:. :::::/-1::-:.;.:- - •.,s.,-:;.'5.::':.:','-:',....'-'.:... 1 -- - `'(4..-''''-. 'I i / . z•. . .' i ‘ . -.:-.---./'-:.',-.:.:•:•,..6.:•41i...;L::".:.':::''.',- '..,.':-1...''..•!.-..'. •.,..- ', ....-i.•-::';'-..'S.'''".'• 1 .. ____„.,,,: • -- , ; ) . ',,,:.'.:•::,;:-:- DENSITY UNI'I'S ACRES .. . V, . - .-. . - .,,.,--•-, .... ..., .....•.. .. ....: , ...1 ,_:_/":";•, ,••,...,•., •,;•••-:A,: 1 '''-3 ... . , ......: .....- , .. , . :. .,„,.. .., •' ..,,,,......?: ..,-: ..,.,, ' ,..1:', .:::Ai'..g.;.,.,..;,,,.:::,4;irli,,',';',1'.;,.',.',.:,,,.'.; .1.-:::::.,•:.'',l,',.:';:',::::;',4-..W,n;7;-::''.?21,0 '‘'l FP - . .. . .:,..„..,.,,,,.-,:',!•- :: ,:. i . .. •".",''`.,„.-'''.."..,'„ .i. I Single family 0 2.5 1625 694 I I .4',...,:,';;.-•.,:',.-:;:',. .f-,7,-,:-...-..,.,!,-,-- ' : .' .. ' :, I ,:.:?..:•::.;,:-.1.',c,,,..::: ::"..i:•:;.,::,.: i \ - 35[. Single family 2.5 3.0 100.k;',4";. .4',',I.f-,•':: ;*:-',1,4----.7-'1-7.---7- • ' - .. '''''L''''.fil'4':,-V- , ''.;,..'; '?!:.1,-';:la,,'"-;'',";;,;',';;!'..7.1". .1-'',: ....;::- ',.,--''' ;-'.-;;;-•i-•,:- •'.-:-•- ..-----;•• 1 ;Et:: ::::;.-i' 1 ) ' ''' -• -. ''''''':-.',,,. .1.,?.'.','..•;Li:'4;1:',..:..::::,:.i.. .Ifi,4.'_,'C ',,5,-;.'„'...,.....,1,-,...,.. 3 Townhouse 3.0-5.0 160 38 .. ';':';','-',7 ,L:J:;'-::i:i. --."-. I -, •- : /, i.;'.5 ''',..' -', 1 . '. . ,;. '''-•:-;;,':,. .;...:,.;.:1.3J''' • ' - 1 ; - ' /. .-.7.';' 4 Townhouse- 5.0- 10.0 270 33 ..- . 1 I • , ' . ' '. '''''.. - ; ;'' • - -- -' Y ::'...::: '''''.. ii - i --Th----\-------/-'''. - - . Condominium ' -, - - .- 1 -1 ' . / ::•;' •.,i, ,„..,. 1 .....•i..'.::A , , , - : ,..,' ... 7:: • . ....-.1 1 1 . , .0 t 1 '''C.:\,\ i ..,,.!..i. ,...,-/''.7.7 -\::i-.''-' .' .\\":1\ 11 ' 10.0+ 750 32 5 Apartment 7 ...-: '. " •-: ' - :; , ; 1 i _______J /,':" 2906 834 . , • -I • , . . - j:' - 1 ''' 'i\L • , .,!. '• I- „.j1:7.----,__ -.,/- , , - • EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2-16-99 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. VII.A. SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development & Financial Services PERKINS SUBDIVISION Donald Uram Michael Franzen Requested Council Action: Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; or • Continue for more information or modification; or • Adopt resolution for Preliminary Plat. Background: On June 20, 1989, the City Council approved a subdivision of the property into three lots. On July 13, 1989, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied nine variances. On August 1, 1989, the City Council reversed the decision and approved the variances. The proposed plan is still a three lot subdivision, but with different lot sizes, setbacks from the lake, and tree loss. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission first reviewed a plan for 3 lots the November 9, 1998 meeting. The Planning Commission directed the developer to reduce the number of variances, reduce tree loss, and meet with the PCA about the use of a shared drainfield system and voted to continue discussion until the December 14, 1998 meeting. James Perkins requested continuances to January 11th and January 25, 1999. At the January 25, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commision voted 7-0 to approved a revised plan with the following changes. 1. Lot one meets the 100 foot shoreland setback. The previous plan was 80 feet. 2. Lot two has a 75 foot shoreland setback. The previous plan was 40 feet. 3. On lot one the building and retaining wall have been moved to the south to save more vegetation adjacent to the Nolan property. 4. Reduced tree loss from 34-33%, with tree replacement proposed on the lake.. 1 • 5. The information from the Pollution Control Agency indicates that a shared drainfield system with holding tanks, as proposed by the developer, is permitted by state law. Supporting Reports: 1. Staff Reports dated November 6, 1998, and January 22, 1999. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 9, 1998, and January 25, 1999. 3. Letter from DNR 4. Letters from residents against the proposal. 5. Letters from residents in support of the proposal. 6. Staff reports and minutes from 1989 for the Perkins subdivision. 2 PERKINS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PERKINS SUBDIVISION FOR JAMES PERKINS BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of James Perkins dated February January 19, 1999, consisting of 3 acres into 3 lots, 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 16nd day of February, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk 3 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,NOVEMBER 9, 1998 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander,Kenneth E. Clinton, Laurence Dorn,Jr.,Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis,Douglas Sandstad STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Kyle Halvorson STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Habicht arrived at 7:20 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Clinton, to approve the Minutes of the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PERKINS SUBDIVISION by James Perkins. Request for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. James Perkins, 7010 Willow Creek Road, requested approval of the subdivision plan. He reviewed the changes to the approved 1989 plan. Sandstad asked why the approved plat was not recorded and Perkins responded that they did not feel that was the appropriate time to do it and when they decided to build on it they decided to revise the plat. City Attorney Rick Rosow noted there was not a time limit regarding filing a final plat with Hennepin County but there were time limits regarding how long it could be between preliminary and final plat approval by the City. Perkins showed photographs of his current home and described how the proposed plat would impact the existing trees and vegetation on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 1998 Page 2 Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that Attachment A was the plan which was approved in 1989. If the proponent wants to adhere to the approved plan there is no further action required by the Planning Commission. The proponent is requesting modifications to the approved plan and staff is recommending approval of Alternate A. Franzen described the impacts which would occur with each of the alternative plans. The Public Hearing was opened. Mark Wisser, Attorney representing Stuart Nolan, reviewed the reasons why his client was opposed to granting variances to the shoreland ordinance for lot area requirements, which were presently set at 5 acre lots. They believed it would be precedent-setting, and out of character with the existing neighborhood. The .62 acre lot will be very detrimental to the neighborhood and the City. He discussed the differences between the 1989 approved plan and the present proposed plan. The 1989 plan was reviewed as being a family compound development and that may no longer be true. He noted that variances should not be granted based on hardships created by the developer's own making. The septic system is not adequate for three lots and does not meet ordinance requirements. Given the soils in the area, the proposed drainage field is inadequate to support the number of bedrooms proposed for these three lots. They requested further study of this issue, and noted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was opposed to this project and the septic system was one of the reasons cited for their opposition. Septic system failure would be devastating to the other residents in the area because of the use of well water and the proposed lots being located on the lake. There was not adequate room to move the footprints of the houses and still meet the setback requirements. He discussed the time limit for filing a final plat and they have pointed out that the filing of the final plat should be required within a timely manner so that everyone knows what plats are approved. Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, stated his property was immediately adjacent to the subject property. He noted that the City records go back to 1973 and he discussed the history of the project up to 1989. He was opposed to the project in 1989 when the Freebergs and Perkins said the plat was for a family compound and not a public development. He submitted a petition signed by 20 residents in opposition to the proposed plat. The road leading into the present neighborhood was not up to the current standards and if this plan was approved there would not be any reason to preclude further lot subdivisions for other homeowners in the neighborhood who wanted to make some money. He did not feel the 1989 plan was legal and the family compound premise does not exist today. There were many reasons to deny the plan and he requested the Planning Commission to deny the request for preliminary plat approval. Foote noted the proponent had an approved plan from 1989 and the Planning Commission could not reverse that decision. Foote asked if the drain field met the requirements, and Franzen responded that staff had 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 1998 Page 3 requested the proponent to submit information showing how the drain fields would be adequate. Swedlund, who is the contractor that installs these drain fields, says that the plan will work and staff has not received confirmation of whether that is the case or not. Perkins commented that Swedlund has looked at the proposed septic system and has designed a system which will work for these two houses. He described how this process will work, and noted that this septic system has a backup which is something that none of the other houses on Bryant Lake have. He discussed the capacity of the septic system and explained why the smaller system will work because of delayed pumping from one holding tank to the smaller tanks to the drain field. They feel the septic systems will work. He noted that the 1989 plat was intended as a family compound, their children have now grown up and moved away. Tom Klingen, 7042 Willow Creek Road, stated he has just moved into his home,but they believe the neighborhood will be negatively impacted by this proposed plat. Tom Hanson, 7030 Willow Creek Road, stated he had researched the area before purchasing his home and because the plat was not recorded at Hennepin County, it did not show up on the plat maps, and so he did not know about this development. He requested that the Planning Commission deny the application, and noted he had signed the petition in opposition to the project. Sandstad asked if he had looked at the plat maps at City Hall and Hanson responded negatively,noting he had ordered a plat through his title company, believing that to be accurate. Joseph Doctor, 7032 Willow Creek Road, stated he had recently purchased his home and did not know about the plans for this development. He had not gone to City Hall and their realtor had told them there were no plans for further development. He would like to keep the neighborhood like it is now. Ron Clark, Ryan Clark Construction, stated he was the builder who would most likely build these homes which are being planned for these lots. They would like to refine the plat to make this the best development possible. The revised plan moves the homes farther away from the neighboring houses. He met with Swedlund regarding the drain fields and septic system and he was convinced the proposed system is the best possible system that could be installed with three separate tanks. Dorn asked about the large tank which will be very deep and where would the bottom be in relation to the OHWM of the lake. Clark responded that Swedlund has the elevations and it has to meet the requirements established by State law. Dorn stated he was concerned about a rupture in the large tank and what would happen. Clark responded it was unlikely that would happen,because it was the same as the smaller tanks, only larger. Foote asked if this was a legal plat. Rosow responded it was a legal plat and the proponent has the right to building permits for those three lots. Nolan asked if the City required the application to be signed by all the property owners and Rosow responded that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 1998 Page 4 he had been shown a Contract for Deed just preceding the meeting which indicated that the back taxes were paid and the document was in order. The bank will co-sign the application prior to City Council review as the lendor for the property but that is not sufficient reason to deny the request this evening. Sandstad commented this was confusing because the proponent had an approved plat, and yet was making a new request. Perkins stated they left the signed mylar at City Hall for five years and did not pick it up or take it down to Hennepin County to be filed. Sandstad commented he was uncertain about the workability of the proposed septic system. He felt the project should be continued until these issues were satisfied. Habicht concurred with Sandstad, and while some changes may be beneficial there was a smaller lot size requested that could be precedent-setting. Lewis agreed, noting it does not feel right and there were too many unresolved issues. She encouraged the proponent to revisit these issues and work it out with his neighbors. Dorn commented he did not support the plan as he was concerned about the lake. He felt anything built closer to the lake than allowed by the ordinance should be denied. He noted that the DNR did not support the proposed plat, and neither did he. Alexander concurred, but stated she was comfortable with the proposed septic system. Clinton commented that if they approved the plan and sent it to the City Council he was not sure what they would be approving. He felt they needed more information and a better understanding of what it was they were forwarding. Foote did not like the 1989 plan, and he was in favor of Attachment B which would eliminate some waivers but would increase tree loss. He would prefer to see some refinements to it, but he did not support the plat as proposed. Habicht commented he would support either a continuance or denial of the request. Discussion ensued regarding what direction to give the proponent. Sandstad commented City staff needed to develop an ordinance which would limit the amount of time a developer had before being required to file a final plat with Hennepin County before the plat was void. Perkins commented he wanted to work with the neighbors to get this project done in a way they can all live with. Foote commented his two main concerns were the amount of tree loss, and the shoreland setback should be maintained. Sandstad commented the septic system should be detailed on the plans and staff should review them. Dorn was concerned as to whether the proposed septic system fit in with City requirements for septic systems. Franzen commented that the PCA was the group that put the ordinance together, and it was not up to the City to determine if it met the law. He asked the Planning Commission to be specific in their direction if they continued the project. He noted it was not possible to eliminate all the variances or reduce the tree loss significantly. Rosow suggested that something in writing from the PCA stating this system met the requirements would be appropriate for the proponent to submit to the City. Regarding the issue of easements, the law does not allow private easements to be shown on a plat but the private easements could be required to be recorded prior to filing of the final plat in the 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 1998 Page 5 Developer's Agreement. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Alexander, to continue the request of James Perkins for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals until the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to allow the PCA to draft a letter regarding the septic system and allow the developer to revise plans to reduce tree loss, adjust the housing footprints to minimize variances. Motion carried 7-0. Foote commented he would like the proponent to keep as close to the 100 foot setback as possible. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS Sandstad requested staff to work on drafting an ordinance to set a time limit for standard zoning procedures. Rosow commented that two years is usually the limit for a rezoning or other changes to be valid and after that it is subject to the requirements that were originally on that property. The City may choose to void a plat after a certain time frame it has not been filed with Hennepin County but staff will look at this to see what is the best way to resolve this issue. Discussion ensued regarding the tax issues which could be incurred if plats were not filed. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Habicht to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JANUARY 25, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton,Laurence Dorn,Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis,Douglas Sandstad STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Kyle Halvorson STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp, Senior Planner,Al Gray, City Engineer, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Alexander,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dorn commented he wished to commend Recording Secretary Barbara Anderson for the excellent job on the Minutes of the last meeting, which he felt were very complex and difficult to make coherent. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Sandstad,to approve the Minutes of the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-2. Commissioners Habicht and Clinton abstained. IV. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS by ADC Telecommunications. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 91.03 acres, Planned Unit Development district Review with waivers on 91.03 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-5 Industrial on 91.03 acres, Preliminary Plat on 91.03 acres, Site Plan Review on 91.03 acres, and AUAR Review on 91.03 acres. Location: South of Technology Drive and west of Mitchell Road. Franzen noted that ADC Telecommunications would make a presentation on their plan, and then residents would be able to comment on the plan. Then the Planning Commission should identify issues to enable the proponents to refine their plan before coming back 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 2 before the Commission with a request for approval. Wayne Stewart, Vice President of Operations for ADC Telecommunications and an Eden Prairie resident, described the company which has been in business for fifty years. They build communication equipment, and form strong ties to each community in which they locate, and have a high commitment to quality and safety. They have grown environmentally and it is now time for them to review their overall strategy to consolidate their facilities and construct a corporate headquarters on land they have owned in Eden Prairie for the past fifteen years. They envision a college-type campus, and the first phase will consist of two buildings and a parking facility. The employees which will be located in the facility will be technical and professional people who will be part of this community. They are very interested in the comments and suggestions that are made this evening, and he thanked the City Staff for their help and cooperation in consolidating their plans. Manos Guiness, Architect for the project, described the site and its amenities. The project was designed from the inside out, and the project will contain about 1 million square feet. Phase One consists of 430,000 square feet of office space and laboratories. He described the way they envision the project to grow to completion. He discussed the natural features on the site and how they designed the project to fit around the wetlands and the topography on the site. He discussed the traffic patterns on the site for the various phases of the project. All buildings will be connected by skyways or underground links. The buildings will be three stories in height. He discussed the ponds and wetlands on the site and showed renderings of the architectural style they propose to use. They intend to incorporate the existing wetlands and vegetation to preserve the look of the site as it presently exists. He showed photographs of the site and pointed out where the buildings would be located. The buildings will be approximately 50 feet in height because they are extensively using natural light and the best way to do this is to raise the floors. Dorn asked which buildings comprised the first phase and Guiness responded 90% of the area in the first phase will be office use and 10-15% will be laboratory environment. Foote asked where the four acres of wetlands that will be altered were located and Darrin Luzan, Civil Engineer for the project, illustrated their location on the site plan. He reviewed the wetland alteration plan and those areas which are proposed to be filled. Clinton asked about the wetland mitigation plan and Luzan briefly described the areas which will be mitigated and stated there will be off-site mitigation which has not yet been identified. Sandstad asked if they would include names on the plans when they were formally submitted, such as the architectects, engineers, etc. Habicht commented he was concerned about the south end of the project and the proximity of the parking structures to the adjacent residential properties. He asked about what would be done to provide screening for those residents and Guiness responded they plan to use berms and trees to provide screening to control the visual aspects of the parking decks. They will provide additional /D PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 3 information on this when they formally submit their plans. They will have plantings on top of the berms to screen the parking decks from the adjacent neighborhoods. Sandstad asked to see the landscape plan and those were discussed. Foote asked for cross-sections and sight views of the parking structures from the south. Luzan commented that only about 1.5 stories of the parking decks would be visible above the berm, and those will be screened with plantings. Franzen reviewed the guiding on the site which is industrial and what could be built in this area. This development is office and manufacturing and staff felt it was a better use of this land given its location in the City. He discussed the wetlands and what should be preserved and what could be altered. The proponent has 4 acres they are planning to alter and will be mitigated both on and off the site. He discussed the traffic in this area and the roadway improvements which will be made. Alexander commented that filling wetlands will create fewer places for the runoff to go. She was upset by the destruction of the wetland. Gray explained that the City and the Watershed District have installed an outlet control structure which has been operating at the level which has been established as the higher level and is designed to restore this area to it's natural water level. There will be changes in the type of wildlife habitat which will be more conducive to waterfowl. The Stormwater Management Plan has less hardsurface area than would be created if this site were developed as an Industrial park. This plan has preserved a great deal of open space and natural wetland areas. Staff does not have concerns about managing runoff with this plan. The proponent has endeavored to minimize the impacts of this project on the wetlands. Alexander was concerned about the parking under the buildings which could have problems with the water levels in the areas adjacent to the wetlands. Foote invited public comments. Tim Hertle, 13988 Erwin Court, stated he lives adjacent to the area where the parking structures were going to be located. He moved to Eden Prairie because of the wildlife and he was concerned about what impact this development would have on his view which he paid a premium to live there. He did not want to see the water level changed. They are concerned about the trees, the height of the buildings, and want to see the plans to see exactly what is being proposed. He asked if the Planning Commission would meet with the homeowners to get questions answered. They are concerned about how long the area would be torn up by construction, and he asked if an EIS had been done. Habicht commented this site is approved as an industrial area and the proponents are proposing a project which is better than what could be built on this site. The developer should have a meeting with the residents to answer their questions and address their concerns. Discussion ensued regarding the wetland alteration impacts. Dorn commented that most of the pond would be the same as it is located within the common area of the townhouse development so very little would change. Franzen commented the trees adjacent II r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 4 to the townhome development will remain and the drainage patterns will remain the same as part of the approvals by the agencies which are requirements of the Wetland Alteration Permit process. Staff has identified the visual impacts of the parking decks and recommended that they be moved further to the east to mitigate those impacts by sliding them into the berm. Staff will meet with residents to show them the plans and review the screening areas. Foote asked if ADC was planning to hold a neighborhood meeting and Bob Rizloff responded they would certainly be willing to do that. There will be about 1,200 employees in the Phase I portion of the project, Phase II will bring in about 400 more employees and there would be another 500 employees coming in with Phase III at some time in the future. Discussion ensued regarding the parking structures and how they will be placed on the site and how the wetlands will be impacted. Traffic issues were discussed. Hazardous materials were discussed and Stewart responded there were no hazardous materials or chemicals that will be on the site. They are planning to accommodate their growth through the year 2003. Sandstad asked if there would be willing to move the parking ramp and Stewart responded they have not discussed that at this time. Hadrian Moore, 13969 Erwin Court, was concerned about the notification area being 500 feet. He was also concerned about the construction on Highway 5/Highway 212 and what impact that would have on this project and his townhome development. He wanted to see full-size drawings of the plans. He noted the purchase premium was charged because this area was presented as a wetland. Sherry Minar, 13969 Erwin Court, was concerned regarding the laboratories, possible air pollution, and hazardous materials. Franzen commented the City has a policy of notification of development proposals within 500 feet of the site, and the State requires notification areas which are less than 350 feet. This notification area can be expanded at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The development proposals are also published in the City newspaper. Drew Franzen, 13990 Erwin Court, reiterated concerns regarding the laboratories and manufacturing. He was also concerned about the visual impacts of the parking structures and the 30 foot building height requirement. Franzen responded the parking can be 40 feet in height and the proponent is proposing buildings that are 50 feet in height, which is about the same height as the townhomes. Lori Helmer, 1395 Erwin Court, asked about the timing of the project construction. Rizloff responded that if they are approved they would begin construction this spring and propose to be moved in after about 18 months. The rest depends on their growth but Phase II could be done about two years after that. fa PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 5 Don Fournier, 9779 Yucca Lane North, Maple Grove, Manager of MTS Systems, offered MTS as a place to hold their neighborhood meeting. Their building is 40 feet high, which would give the residents some frame of reference as to how high the proposed buildings would be. He requested that Technology Drive be widened to four lanes with Phase I as it is too congested now. He was worried about that much traffic on Technology Drive as there is a day care center located at St. Andrews Lutheran Church which has a great deal of traffic associated with it. He supported the project and felt it was a good addition to this area. Gray commented that the interchange of Highway 5 and Prairie Center Drive will be done at this time next year. Staff has not looked at upgrading Technology Drive at this time, but it could possibly be done. Pastor Rod Anderson, 13600 Technology Drive, stated they were concerned about the traffic management plan. They are planning to add onto the church and timing of these projects is important. He was concerned about the traffic because of the day care, pre- school and early childhood programs, and the amount of traffic these programs generate on Technology Drive. Sandstad asked if the proponents had given any thought to having an on-site day care center and Rizloff responded they did not plan to do that at this time. They will have a fitness center for their employees, as they tend to spend long hours at work. Kate Garwood, Southwest Metro Transit, 13500 Technology Drive, stated she had spoken to ADC's Human Resources Department and they plan to work together to get the transportation plan in place. There are ways to design the transit to come into sites which would provide for wider boulevards and shelters for those that use transit systems. They will be able to do many things to facilitate such things as ride-share matching. She asked the Planning Commission to encourage the developer to talk to Southwest Metro regarding these opportunities that are available. Clinton noted that this was a preliminary development plan and they have a good idea of what will be built on this site. He liked the overall plan and while there are some issues that needed to be resolved,these can be worked out with the residents adjacent to the site. There is a lot of development in this area at the moment and he requested staff to put together some sort of map with timing of projects on it to use as a planning tool. Sandstad felt this was a good project, and he wanted to see section views with clear views of the parking ramps and the Mitchell Road Townhomes. Foote commented that office use versus industrial use was always a bonus, and he would also like to see the sight lines between the parking structure and the townhomes. He believed Technology Drive should be widened with Phase I, and he encouraged residents to meet with ADC to set up the neighborhood meeting. Franzen summarized the concerns expressed and the direction for the proponent and staff, including working with the proponent and the residents to resolve issues concerning the I3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 6 edge of the project next to the residential area, an explanation of how this project would fit in with the other projects in the area regarding traffic management. The Planning Commission expressed a preference toward developing the site more as an office campus rather than an industrial park. Sandstad commented he had no problem with the building height. Rizloff thanked the Commission and the residents for their input and participation, and stated theywould hold a neighborhood meeting when their final plans were prepared. g V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OFFICE RIDGE CIRCLE EAST by Cluts, O'Brien, Strother. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 1.05 acres to the overall Bryant Lake Center/Lakeride Office Park PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.05 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 1.05 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into 2 lots. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Office Ridge Circle. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Sandstad, to close the Public Hearing and return the plans to the proponent without prejudice. Motion carried 7-0. B. PERKINS SUBDIVISION (a continued public hearing). Request for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. James Perkins reviewed the revised plans and the changes that have been made. The septic system that is proposed is legal and definitely workable. They moved the lot lines to meet the shoreland setbacks and the DNR was no longer opposed to this project. Mr. Swedlund has assured him that since 1979 they have been casting these septic tanks with rebar and stress concrete and they put them in themselves and do the backfilling to prevent them from being damaged and leaking. This is a better plan than the one approved in 1989, and he requested the Planning Commission to approve the plan. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted staff recommended approval of the revised plat. The Public Hearing was opened. Mark Wieser, Attorney representing several neighbors including the Nolans, Klingens, and Hansons, stated they are opposed to this project. The lot sizes do not meet the lot area requirements and this was sufficient reason to deny the project. The DNR letter does not support the plan as represented by Mr. Perkins. He cited legal arguments which state that lots must meet certain area requirements. There are also questions raised regarding the septic system and its compliance with requirements for one drain field per lot. There is currently a lawsuit to determine whether a plat can be revoked if the proponent does not file it within a reasonable time frame. This plat does not satisfy requirements in the DNR letter and the issues regarding the safety of the septic system have not been addressed. y PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 7 Sandstad asked if staff had come up with something to limit the time frame that a plat could be valid without being filed, and Franzen responded the Planning Commission should take action on the land issues as the lawsuits are a private matter. Wieser stated the Bank of Maple Plain is the fee owner of this property and they have not signed the application so this project may not be a legal submission for approval. Perkins responded that sometimes taxes are the reason why there is no time limit on filing plats and Hennepin County is not going to place a time limit on this and the City should not do so either. He discussed the federal and state regulations for septic systems and the regulations referred to by Mr. Wieser pertain to septic systems serving more than 20 homes. Rule 7080 states that you can use an advanced system. The dosing system puts the affluent into the drain field. Mr. Swedlund is a licensed contractor by the State of Minnesota and is also an inspector of septic systems, and if he did not comply with regulations he would lose his license. The DNR has criteria which needs to be met as does the City of Eden Prairie. The character of the neighborhood is not changing that much by this subdivision, and he illustrated how the lot lines were similar to those on adjacent lots. Stuart Nolan,the adjoining property owner, stated he was opposed to the plat, and cited statistics regarding the lot size, of which the average is 1.5 acres, and discussed the character of the neighborhood. This is a unique neighborhood located on a lake, without municipal utilities. He believed two lots would be better, and would save more trees. He requested the Planning Commission to deny the plan. Mrs. Perkins commented that there have been many changes in the neighborhood where she has lived for the past thirty years, and they have survived those changes. There have been six more houses added onto their road, and people have moved away and died, and they have found that change is not necessarily a bad thing. Alexander liked the new plan and she did not feel it would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and she supported it. Dorn noted the Planning Commissioners had five letters which have been included in their packets in support of this subdivision. Foote commented he does not like to see variances on any project but this was a better plan than the 1979 plan or the last plan they reviewed. The Planning Commission has to take action on the plat as it's submitted, and he supported the project. Habicht commented the 1979 plat was not a good one and this new plat was much better. There are other shoreland variances in the neighborhood so these are not an issue. This plat is a better one and he supported it because there are enough other variances in the area to justify it. Lewis commented she supported it as it was a better plan. There was less shoreline in other lots and she did not want to see the approved plat filed. She was comfortable with the proposed septic system and supported the plat. Dom commented he looked at this plat as a new plan and he supported it. Js PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 25, 1999 Page 8 MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of James Perkins for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots based on plans dated January 22, 1999 subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated January 22, 1999. Motion carried 7-0. C. FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural and C-Reg-Ser to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: North of Flagship Athletic Club, west side of Prairie Center Drive, south of Technology Drive. Dan Queenan, Opus Corporate Manager of Real Estate, stated they are in agreement with the recommendations of the staff report but have some comments to make. He reviewed the site plan for the Corporate Center which is 150,000 square feet of Class A office building with no basement. They have eliminated an access point to create a better traffic flow pattern on the site. Wetland Alteration Permits will need to be done. He discussed the traffic and access points, the landscape plan,trails, and building plans. Sandstad asked if it was critical that the City wait to construct the trail across the vacant land to the transit station and Kipp responded this will be discussed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission when they review this proposal. Alexander asked why the temporary road was not incorporated into the permanent plan and Queenan responded that it was one way to reduce traffic and to get people over to Technology Drive to facilitate traffic movement on Prairie Center Drive. Dorn commented he did not like the temporary easement or filling the wetlands. Gray commented the wetland the proponent is proposing to fill is essentially the bottom of a ditch but is classified as a wetland because of the vegetation types that grew there. They are not going out into the wetland area. It will have to be filled in anyway to develop the City-owned site. The temporary road is needed to get good cross-access and is a way to avoid having to put more traffic signals on Prairie Center Drive. It will be mutually beneficial to the City and the proponents, and eventually there will be connecting parking lots. Discussion ensued regarding ways the City owned property could be used,possibly for a restaurant. Alexander asked about the wetland boundary and the hundred year floodplain elevation and Kipp responded that the wetland elevation was not correct on the plans. They will need to have an additional permit for floodplain encroachment which will be reviewed by the Watershed District. Habicht commented he supported the access to the north as he felt it was needed. l (0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 25, 1999 Page 9 Queenan reviewed the architectural features of the building and showed building renderings. They are proposing to construct a 150,300 square foot, four-story office building. They will have a total of 597 parking spaces, 19 of which will be enclosed. Clinton asked what the total front area of the building was and Queenan responded the building was 307 feet long by 60 feet in height. Clinton was concerned about the building mass. Kipp commented the building would be taller than Flagship Athletic Club but it wouldn't tower over it. Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted the project meets City Codes except for parking stalls and building height. Staff supported the waivers required for the parking and building height. Staff recommended approval of the project. Staff was amenable to those areas of discussion requested by the proponent. Discussion ensued regarding the floodplain location and the area requested to be dedicated as an outlot. The Public Hearing was opened. Ryan Klutz,representing Bachmans, requested their right to have a cut in the median opposite this project when this property is developed. Gray responded they will be able to do this at their own expense by creating a left-turn lane and making the median cut. Sandstad commented he liked the plan but he did not agree with item C regarding the screen wall which he would like to see raised. Lewis concurred with Sandstad. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Sandstad,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Sandstad, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Opus Northwest, LLC for PUD Concept Review on 9.2 acres, PUD District Review on 9.2 acres, Zoning District change from Rural and C-Reg-Ser to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated January 22, 1999 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 22, 1999. Motion carried 6-1. Alexander voted no. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to direct staff to evaluate the pros and cons of a legal adoption of an ordinance that should set an expiration time of 12 or 18 months on new plats and subdivisions. Motion carried 7-0. Sandstad commented he would appreciate a survey of several dozen other suburbs regarding their 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 25, 1999 Page 10 policies and a response from staff within 60 days. Clinton asked about the Outback Steakhouse status and Kipp responded they have signed their Developers Agreement so it appears they are proceeding with their plans to build. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Foote asked about the premium price required by some developers for a view and whether there was anything that could be done to encourage developers to let people know about the guiding on land adjacent to their projects. Franzen responded that some developers require property owners to sign off on the area around their developments to tell their buyers what will occur on adjacent properties. It is not something the City can require,but it is encouraged. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Habicht, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m. 1 % • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen DATE: November 6, 1998 SUBJECT: Perkins Subdivision APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: James Perkins LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into 3 lots. 1 • • Staff Report Perkins November 6, 1998 BACKGROUND On June 20, 1989, the City Council approved a subdivision of the property into three lots. (See attachment A.) On July 13, 1989,the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied nine variances. On August 1, 1989,the City Council reversed the decision and approved the variances. PRELIMINARY PLAT The plat shows the subdivision of the property into three lots for the construction of three houses. VARIANCES The project will require variances from the City Code requirements in the R1-22 Zoning District and variances from the shoreland requirements for a Recreational Development Water. Code requirement Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 1. 5 acre without sewer and water 1.2 acres 1.18 acres 62 acres 2. 300-foot lot width at building line 220 feet 170 feet 120 feet 3. 150-foot lot width at OHW meets req. meets req. 145 feet 4. 100-foot setback from OHW 80 feet 40 feet meets req. 5. 90 foot street frontage 25 feet 0 feet 45 feet 6. frontage on public street meets req. 0 feet meets req. 7. Alteration or structure within 50 foot shore grading 40 feet grading impact zone TREE IMPACTS There are 1,489 inches of significant trees on the property. A significant tree is a minimum of 12 inches in diameter for a shade tree (excluding elms and box elders) and 8 inches in diameter for a conifer tree, measured 4.5 above the ground. The tree loss as shown on the proposed plan is 442 inches or 29.6 %. Staff believes that significant tree loss will be higher. The construction limits for the retaining walls 2 ab • • Staff Report Perkins November 6, 1998 along the driveway for proposed lot two will impact three additional oak trees or 58 inches (14, 20, and 24 inch oak). This will increase significant tree loss to 500 inches or 34%. The required tree replacement is 223 inches. There is a 15 foot high retaining wall on proposed lot one immediately north of the proposed house. Non-significant vegetation less than 12 inches in diameter above the wall will be removed since the construction limits extend to the property line. Changing the shape of the house pad and moving it to the south would allow more vegetation to be saved along the north property line but would remove a 36-inch oak tree south of the house. The retaining wall and construction limits in front of the garage on lot one removes two box elder trees, which are not significant. PRIVATE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS The building code requires a primary and back up drain field. The location and size of the proposed drain fields, which includes a primary and back up, limit lots one and two to four bedrooms, and lot three to three bedrooms. A 100-foot setback is required between the drain field and the OHW(ordinary high water mark of the lake). All drain field sites meet this requirement. Wells must be 75 feet away from a drain field. All proposed wells meet this requirement. CITY SEWER AND WATER City sewer and water are not available in the area but could be extended if petitioned by the neighborhood, or, for public health and safety reasons, be required by the City Council. If this project is approved,it should be conditioned on the property owner signing an assessment agreement to pay for a proportionate share of costs for extending City sewer and water. 3 al • • Staff Report Perkins November 6, 1998 COMPARISON OF VARIANCES FOR THE 1998 PLAN AND 1989 PLAN CODE REQUIREMENT Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 (Tract A) (Tract B) (Tract C) 1. 5 acre without sewer and water 1998 1.2 acres 1.18 acres .62 acres (1989) (1.06 acres) (.83 acres) (1.19 acres) 2. 300-foot lot width at building line 1998 220 feet 170 feet 120 feet (1989) (268 ft.) (270ft.) (195 feet) 3. 150-foot lot width at OHW 1998 meets req. meets req. 145 feet (1989) (meets req.) (80 feet) (meets req.) 4. 100-foot setback from OHW 1998 80 feet 40 feet meets req. (1989) (meets req.) (meets req.) (40 feet) 5. 90 foot street frontage 1998 25 feet 0 feet 45 feet (1989) (0 feet) (45 feet) (0 feet) 6. Frontage on public street 1998 meets req. 0 feet meets req. (1989) (0 feet) (meets req.) (0 feet) 7. Alteration or structure in 1998 grading 40 feet grading 50 ft. shore impact zone (1989) (none) (tennis) (none) 8. 100-ft. setback to drain fields 1998 meets req. meets req. meets req. (1989) (80 feet) (meets req.) (60 feet) 9. 100-ft. setback to tennis 1998 no tennis no tennis no tennis court from OHW (1989) no tennis 40 feet no tennis 10. 100-ft. accessory structure 1998 none 20 feet none setback to OHW (1989) (none) (20 feet) (none) 4 r i Staff Report Perkins November 6, 1998 Comparison OF TREE LOSS BETWEEN 1998 AND 1989 PLAN 1998 Plan 1989 Plan Caliper inches 1,489 inches 1,489 inches Tree loss 500 inches 486 inches Tree replacement 223 inches 212 inches FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS Due to the location and size of houses, access to the lots,and lack of city water for fire firefighting, these houses need to be provided with a sprinkler system. RECOMMENDATIONS A building permit for the proposed house on Tract B of the approved 1989 plan can be issued subject to a tree replacement plan, meeting building code requirements and state requirements for drain fields. No further review is needed by the Planning Commission,Board of Appeals and Adjustments, or the City Council. Although the 1989 plan showed the existing houses remaining, the owners are not precluded from applying for variances to modify or replace the existing homes or build new ones. Attachment C shows one way that new houses could be built. There are 665 inches of tree loss. The Planning Commission should review the proposed plan based on the impacts on the lake and the site natural features. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments is responsible for reviewing and taking action on the requested variances. Alternative One The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 3 acres into three lots based on plans dated October 23, 1998, subject to variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the following reasons: 1. Tree loss consistent with the approved plan. 2. The houses which replace two existing homes are at the same setback as the approved a3 • • • Staff Report Perkins November 6, 1998 plan. 3. The new drain fields are farther way from the lake than the approved plan. Alternative Two The Planning Commission could recommend approval of a revised plan(see attachment B)with all structures meeting the 100-foot setback from the high water mark and the house pad on proposed lot one moved to the south, for the following reasons. 1. This will lessen the visual impact on the lake. 2. Significant tree loss will increase to 635 inches or 43%. Tree replacement increases to 360 inches. 3. The plan will reduce the number of variances - shoreland setback, and shore impact zone impact. 4. The new drain fields are farther way from the lake than the approved plan. 5. Additional vegetation could be saved along the north property line. Alternative Three The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the plan for the following reasons. 1. The proposed homes on lot one and two do not meet the shoreland setback. 2. The proposed home on lot two does not meet the shore impact zone setback. Staff recommends Alternative One ay 11110 • REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA j BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON AN ASSUMED DATUM EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, IN °DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SURVEYORS SCALE IN FEET: III — ,,,Q 0 50 100 150 200 250 1-- • - N.E.• corner z ,, of Gov't Lot w ' S, See. 11/ 2 • T. 116, R.2 2 —�_ iP11111.11111111.11111111.111 ci' Im,"- r1 LttoO , 2 y • 4 ..• —BENCH MARK: w Z `,� '•• Top o(' iron monument o 2 j the east line of Tract w ���,: Registered Land Survey 1•/1/• 63A 1 ••• / No. 1371, elevation v ?�°SsO- ��\•° - 100..• + N.I°203307,E ---- - 53.04..... I N.G.V.D. (1929). 4 1 [ f!) / / I I ii Ilu•Vc 0 O I I ....II %\ I M N ? a) toiD . 11 -N.1°04'00"E• '\:t`i Ia) IV • 'Cr c y -36.0*• ....1w 7.0 O m . 1)b F • • A st aC./ ,") �\f 0 \ ca.' (4,o° • : \*.: : \ o1 ``/1ti•o \� ti2 6 / . 1 a �6 / _)(... P / 66 9. o'er - ' /` Water elevation as of August 5, / „�1, j is 851.33 feet N.C.V.D. (1929). P''` qL j / ..�ti1 3� �� Highest known waterelevation is 854.00 feet as per Minnesota 1 / -•� �� Department of Natural Resoures. I ' I .N•IZ°15'25„ �� IN,G•V.0,1929) • / 10� .r ° 0 t---- —__-.- 8 ,..._____:_______:,.. ....._ dt Arrirstmep ipt„,44.1 iii ., A, AffA A 11 EN a5 - -- EXISTNG TREES ON STE 1,489 CALIPER INCHES OF EXISTING TREES 1989 APPROVED PLAN AIM CALIPER►IO(ES OF TREE LOSS 1989 PLAN SNOMING REPLACEMENT OF()Iv. HOMES 665 CAUPER INCHES OF TREE LOSS. k 1998 PLAN 442 CALIPER INCHES OF TREE LOSS . • vh1� v yN 1 `, \\�l ,1, \a\ —,-(0.141,44.\\ .A\s \ \\\\', **311, )1/1° \ :\A\ailk. \ ...7:717,,R;—__:\•s..._,_., 6,j4, \- , • - ,'..J.. 0:,12 llama. • ..4141k.....:111allajallicallell .41594,' I ,,•1e��f-'s;zs'o1a+c i�- _ �H� ��15.4 ! / "1 n <t v \ , `1` \\ � �y .71�.��: \ j.";Z.4,17. 9BN WI Li G+�� / 11. I111 \ \.2 \w I. 37, \\ :" 1":''' 1 9R'/'�^7... 137'DKT I. ., ��t • / .Z ° , FDX1 . 4.14 \ \\\ • ' °O °g?\ ' I\,\\ \\ \ _tt2 ' •,,,..,, . \w.4\ ,,z'--7,', y'-f t�'ot . ° �+ •• 'E'b< /\ / ._ az4.\\\ \ \�; :. i Q• • `1�,``{ `►. zo'. / ( J� i_ �t� .\\\ \\\\\ : OWEL,44` t . ��` •/' ��/,I_r ..- Pi VV�� N — N•O\ \ ` \\�t s,`... • 1`� �` 1�` P / l •J �' I '/ ��IN1.i: • � B so ; • '' �\ \\ �eS'�'° '... ...1„... 7 ' --Ce �: / ✓1 ,L.•I�E-Sf�yl. ,4 ._ 2 -135.° 0\ 13OeK ! \ \� °O\\ \ ?• I.`7� ! yr WEl COUAT `—O51 _ d W TENN9 M ._ ..,:"'"4Atillir 2{DAK4110 \1 IB••T �� - -:. 1� Ek/ST. •1 , ; j • • r �• 9� \`..., i'� Nov W Ell_ NOOSE igi 1' .// I V EJ+O310 BE "",_„`Q�� '40 OL X •12"OAK BRYANT \ A LAKE O• \ 1 ♦ 22 S0.T y�� E i�r APPROI1.4 OF g "OZg4 _0A AlitiqTION I ~ �`J� . r. NFIE D 8�L• 130AK ORDINARY RION WATERMARK • /ys ♦-IMAf'LE\\ II�PfNE . �.-- '\Jv) aE BAsswOOo / ...or _ \ _ r3 A g69 22�9 �� i` _ ..r,„\\\ — } 3Prowe i / V \ \\ , 1-foAK IO„RNE /// �j MARSH 6. 110 BYRE / i STz STEEL OR l.t OAS ��j .. ♦ 6/-n'V'.�� /42 / 1/ ON t•IIAi.CENTERS 2 / C' {� - A li • , ♦9 1 } I TREE TO REMAN s KOCATIOI or-1-' , ,.," uoTEATILe SKT rta.0 GRr NRORR \ 6•PnvE y.0/ eGTi NN OR EItIAU OPERATIONS "°wrNeoer 7»Au �{"4RaA i \ \ i/ BRYANT LAKE \ at PttrOAa6.' ICE \\, ,� _ 1 TREE 70 BE REMOVED CKK5E rRDls rtNCI //" \♦ /( �'Q•S WATER ELEVATION 850.96 12/2/92�. aT ��/ \ \� �i / VARIANCES REQUESTED • ePii�° \ `� �° CODE LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3' _ LOT SIZE 5 ACRES i.20 1.18 .62 LOT WIDTH 300 FT. 220 170 120 LOT WIDTH AT OHW 150 — — 145 WAIN..TRENCH SET BACK 100FT 80 AO — I hereby certify that this sue RONTAGE 90FT 25 0 45 by mer or under INy supervbk sC sN1eci�kaiis.surveyor i w iistkGEOTEYT3LF Ri T r=k11,C 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT & GRADING PLAN TREE LOSS CALCULATIONS BASED ON EXISTING APPROVED PLAN 1989 PLAN SHOWING REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HOMES 1 • R L S c., ,,.1 ‘,k\,\\N.' ‘\‘'\\\ \\-s, ---' .__ i 'N-I''--F. \ \\\\PP\\.,. ,.w,\\ �\\\ z \_ . ,� 1� �'_-L___O7; I ` / eo � r, \ �w ('iA\44\�\ \� :ra' _ ��a. = -1 r ,�o_�-. "6` c4.\. / IP `e •\. V ` 6.', , \• \ 1 "� x T.111) 'A (I NILiGW f1wNFHe• \ • \\\ \ Zr�-- S- _ z?a,/\ \� .'� +_ , • y � / 1 PEARL FREEBURG �`! \ ti ••� \ \.fo /.• 0[,a JA►IES AND RAYNELL PERKINS • 0 ^ \\\\( ..k\ ( �`` J f f j,� ..1 _ CLAYTON AND TILLA FREEBURG \\ .,,....„ ,„, . _. ___„ ,„ 1,0 \\\\\\\. .Ic '� •� . / /��'z kURYEYO a �__ ( \\ \\\\\\ .0 r %, �: i g�i/ • - ", .i _.NANSEN�NOR�PEfLNENCOLSON INC,, w �F\ \\\\\e'., 4„.Ito \, '-QS../ - , /,i Sri Tj \a, / .11,.„0.. •.. . \,\-,--.,-.•- „_,„.. . ...,,- ..,-,,,.,as' - i / ii . illi, t..0.2101„,0„, BRYANT ' 'ftLt,. _ s -—▪- /._ rE i•oa. LAKE _ 11- J C \ (jam9.2238 s . • /�0-M1a x[c TO x[... sw. M 1..1 9 %I e' 0 ]0 90 \. . Sy 0 earANT TARE \�( / J 60,. Jz.z..z 0 ..[c.ro x F<..wm 90 / (11% 1' \ . -HI' Hansen Thorp JWAt,PAY —� Pellinen Olson Inc. ,�aroa I t 1 «•.w,,rw<.0 e.a.a wwlw. oi•iu.1 7S66 CIIk..Wdp.C9[h w1Y-s4 Ed.Prad,N. N 660/49644 _ j612)9290700 FAX 1612)1129.7906 C.B4.2 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen DATE: January 22,1999 SUBJECT: Perkins Subdivision APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: James Perkins LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into 3 lots. 1 Staff Report Perkins January 22, 1999 BACKGROUND This item was first reviewed at the November 9, 1998 meeting. The Planning Commission directed the developer to reduce the number of variances,reduce tree loss, and meet with the PCA about the use of a shared drainfield system. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Lot one meets the 100 foot shoreland setback. The previous plan was 80 feet. 2. Lot two has a 75 foot shoreland setback. The previous plan was 40 feet. 3. On lot one the building and retaining wall have been moved to the south to save more vegetation adjacent to the Nolan property. 4. The tree inventory locates a 12 inch locust and a 26 inch oak tree along the north property line which can be saved. TREE LOSS The staff estimate for tree loss with the previous plan was 34%. This was a 500 inch loss of 1,489 total inches. The staff estimate for tree loss with the current plan is 33%. This is a 502 inch loss of 1,527 inches. The required tree replacement is 220 inches. Tree replacement should be hardwood trees located in the graded areas between the houses as referenced as "tree replacement" on the preliminary plat. PRIVATE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS The attached information from the Pollution Control Agency indicates that a shared drainfield system with holding tanks, as proposed by the developer, is permitted by state law. RECOMMENDATIONS Alternative One The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 3 acres into three lots based on plans dated January 22, 1999, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the following reasons: 2 Staff Report Perkins January 22, 1999 1. Tree loss is consistent with the approved plan. 2. The plan has greater building setbacks to the lake. 3. The new drain fields are farther way from the lake than the approved plan. Alternative Two The Planning Commission could recommend approval of a revised plan with all structures meeting the 100-foot setback from the high water mark. 1. This will lessen the visual impact on the lake. 2. Significant tree loss will increase to 635 inches or 43%. Tree replacement increases to 360 inches. 3. The plan will reduce the number of variances - shoreland setback, and shore impact zone impact. 4. The new drain fields are farther away from the lake than the approved plan. Alternative Three The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the plan for the following reasons. 1. The proposed home on lot two does not meet the shoreland setback. 2. The proposed home on lot two does not meet the shore impact zone setback. Staff recommends Alternative One 3 a Minnesota Pollution • Control Agency v- 520 Lafayette Road St.Paul,MN 55155-4194 (612)296-6300(Voice),282-5332(TTY), Toll Free -800-657-3864(VITTY) Dear kN r. S We are pleased to send you the enclosed material. This informal way of responding to your request saves us the time Minnesota Rules.Table of Chapters and expense of preparing a formal letter. Thank you for your interest,and please contact us if we can help you further. Table of contents for Chapter 7080 7080.0910 ALTERNATIVE AND EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS. Subpart 1. General. The intent of this part is to provide standards for the location, design, installation, use, and maintenance Of alternative and experimental sewage treatment systems. Alternative systems must meet the requirements of subpart 3 and experimental systems must meet the requirements of subpart 3a. They may be employed provided: A. reasonable assurance of performance of the system is presented to the permitting authority; B. the engineering design of the system is first approved by the permitting authority; C. there is no discharge to the ground surface or to surface waters. Systems designed with a ground surface or surface water discharge are not covered under this chapter and must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit or state disposal system permit from the agency; D. a three-foot minimum separation is provided between the bottom of the distribution medium and the saturated soil or bedrock. Proposed experimental systems which do not provide this minimum separation must follow the variance procedure in part 7080.0305, subpart 3; E. treatment and disposal of wastes is completed in a manner that protects the public health and general welfare; F. the system complies with all local codes and ordinances and is subject to periodic inspections by the permitting authority to assure adherence to specifications; and G. provide a mitigative plan to the permitting • authority, indicating what will be done if the system fails to provide treatment and disposal. Subp. 2. Adoption and use. Where parts 7080.0010 to 7080.0200 are administered by a municipality, those municipalities may adopt this part, in whole or in part, as part of a local code or ordinance. Nothing in parts 7080.0010 to 7080.0200 or this part, however, shall require the adoption of 3 � any part of this part as local ordinance or code. Further, nothing in parts 7080.0010 to 7080.0200 or this part shall require municipalities to allow the installation of any system in this part. • 7ilie Minnesota Pollution •r- Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St.Paul,MN 55155.4194 (612)296-6300(Voice),282.5332(TTY). Tull Free -800-657-3864(WTTY) Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyC'iciL rapw- Dear - - ,�„� rt 520 Lafayette Rood.St.Paul. '' 55155 19=: AA/E.IAN C We are pldd to send you the enclosed material. This 'V0' MICHAEL MARTINDALE informal way of responding to your request saves us the time SOLI Scientist and expense of preparing a formal letter. Thank you for your interest.and please contact us if we can help you further. Water Quality Division Toll Free 1-800-657-3864 (612) 296-5856 ISIS Info Line (612) 282-6246 FAX (612) 282-6247 INTERNET: michael.martindale a pca.state.mn.us Rimed on recycled("NM Cooi.1 nrnq 10%Iitmh horn cape.reYyt'+,C Sy e •+s:rne-s .crAft (A9(4.1L CL jtAd.) . a/ MaAA ikki\4441 eie - grALL% (1 Al . litkik [4.4.41.4%L.J ett Minnesota Rules. Table of Chapters (_ Table of contents for Chapter 7080 GM (Zq CP " S 6(, Sf( t!I 7080.0160 DOSING OF EFFLUENT. Subpart 1. Dosing chamber. A dosing device is not necessary in all situations but, where used, shall comply with the following requirements: A. The dosing chamber shall be watertight and constructed of sound and durable materials not subject to ' excessive corrosion or decay, vented, and must be designed and constructed to withstand lateral pressures when the tank is empty. B. There shall be one or more maintenance holes, at least 20 inches least dimension and located directly above the dosing device. The maintenance hole shall extend through the • dosing chamber cover to final grade and shall be so constructed as to prevent unauthorized entry. C. The dosing chamber shall either include an alternating two-pump system or have a minimum total capacity of 500 gallons or 100 percent of the average design flow, whichever is greater. D. A dosing device must employ an alarm device to a warn of failure. part 7080.0130, subpart .3, item ti, ana snail meet.. all appil.C.aulc requirements under part 7080.0130. • (c) The sewer for systems with common sewage tanks shall be so constructed to give mean velocities, when flowing full, of not less than two feet per second. The sewer for systems with individual sewage tanks shall be so constructed and designed to hydraulically conduct the flow for which they were designed. In no case shall a gravity sewer be less than four inches in diameter. The diameter and grade line should be based on a flow equal to 50 percent of the average design flow occurring in a one-hour period. (d) Infiltration or exfiltration shall not exceed 200 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day. (e) Cleanouts, brought flush with or above finished grade, shall be provided wherever a common sewer joins an individual building sewer or piping from an individual sewer tank, or every 100 feet, whichever is less, unless maintenance hole access is provided. (f) There shall be no physical connection between sewers and water supply systems. Sewers shall be set back from water supply systems and piping as required for building sewers. Where it is not possible to obtain proper separation distances, the sewer connections shall be watertight and pressure tested. (g) Pipes, and pipe joints shall be watertight. (h) Dosing chambers shall meet all requirements in part 7080.0160, subpart 1. (i) Pumps and dosing chambers shall be sized to handle 50 percent of the average design flow in a one-hour period. Common pump tanks shall have a pumpout capacity of ten percent of average design flow and two alternating pumps. (j) A separate alarm system for each pump shall be provided for all pumping stations to warn of pump failure, overflow, or other malfunction. (k) For systems with individual septic tanks, a stilling tank of at least 1,500 gallons liquid capacity or ten percent of the average design flow, whichever is greater, should be provided before the soil treatment system. (3) Maintenance. All persons using a common individual sewage system shall assure, by contract with maintenance personnel or other equivalent means, that the system will be maintained throughout its useful life. The system so maintained includes common soil treatment systems, common sewage tanks, common pumps, common pump stations, common sewers, and all individual tanks connected to the common system. 3.3 J. Holding tanks. All devices shall, vented. • All electric, gas, and water connections shall conform to all local ordinances and codes. Operation and maintenance shall follow the manufacturer's recommendations. H. Existing dwellings on small lots. If a system meeting the size requirements of part 7090.0170, subpart 2, item C, cannot be constructed to serve an existing dwelling or other establishment, a downsized soil treatment system may be constructed provided that adequate capacity to hold excess sewage is constructed. Adequate holding capacity for gravity systems shall consist of a holding tank. Adequate holding capacity for pressure systems shall be provided by timed dosing of the effluent. The timing of the dosing must not exceed the average design flow. All applicable portions of item J and parts 7080.0110 to 7080.0170 shall be employed. I. Collector systems. (1) In general. Where site or soil conditions do not allow for final treatment and disposal on an individual lot, a system where a soil treatment system is located on another lot or lots may be employed, where approved by the municipality. Plans and specifications shall comply with local ordinances on such issues as zoning, joint ownership of land, joint maintenance responsibilities, easements, and other considerations and shall ba approved by tha muniapality, f � 3@sign. (a) Sewer systems shall be designed on the sum of all flows for dwellings and other establishments as indicated in part 7080.0125. Flows shall be increased to allow for 200 gallons of infiltration per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day. (b) The system shall be designed with each dwelling or other establishment having a sewage tank or with a common sewage tank. In the case of a common tank, the capacity of the tank shall be the sum of the tanks sized according to part 7080.0130, subpart 3, item A, and shall meet all applicable requirements under part 7080.0130. (c) The sewer for systems with common sewage tanks shall be so constructed to give mean velocities, when flowing full, of not less than two feet per second. The sewer for systems with individual sewage tanks shall be so constructed and designed to hydraulically conduct the flow for which they were designed. In no case shall a gravity sewer be less than four inches in diameter. The diameter and grade line should be based on a flow equal to 50 percent of the average design flow occurring in a one-hour period. 3 LI Minnesota Rules. Table of ChSrs 411 Table of contents for Chapter 7080 7080.0220 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SURETY BOND FORM. QW447d M)ef. MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM (ISTS) PROFESSIONAL SURETY BOND KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT (Name of Licensee) doing business as at , Minnesota, as Principal, and (Address) , a corporation authorized (Name of Surety) to do surety business in the State of Minnesota, as Surety, are hereby held and firmly bound to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-State of Minnesota and any persons aggrieved by reason of the Principal's failure to faithfully perform the duties, and in all things comply with all laws, ordinances, and rules, pertaining to the Principal's license or any permit applied for and all contracts entered into, in the sum of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) . For the payment of this sum, Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns, jointly and firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION of the above obligation is such, that WHEREAS the said Principal is making application with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to be licensed as, or has been licensed as, an ISTS Professional: (specific licenses) . NOW THEREFORE, if said Principal shall faithfully and lawfully perform the duties, and in all things comply with the laws and ordinances, including all Amendments thereto, appertaining to the license or permit applied for, then this obligation ohall be voids otherwioe to remain in full force and effect. The aggregate liability of the Surety, regardless of the �r a clams mad aggainst tie,bond or thie numbeer f years e bon remains in or e, sha in no even excee the mount set forth above. Any revision of the bond amount shall not be cumulative. This bond may be canceled by the Surety as to future liability by giving written notice to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, stating thet e of cancellation, . /9f(r - z-de_yt *ei.e.44,10 4".4p, r =7>1-(--e- • 1 k z SWQ.)..›4.).(k.) 3 (0 SENT BY: DNR METRO; •12- 7-98 8:32AM; 6127727573 => 0 612 949 8392; #2 3 rMiMinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources w DNR Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 5 5106-6 79 3 o Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977.P. iiiiii AU/ w� OF NATURP'9‘ December 7, 1998 Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie - Community Development Department 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: PERKINS SUBDIVISION,PLAN OPTIONS, BRYANT 1.A.KE.(27-67P),CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HEN N FPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Franzen: After visiting the site on 12/1/98 and reviewing more of the alternative layouts that have been considered, I have additional comments on the proposed subdivision and variance requests, It appears that it is feasible to meet the main concerns of DNR Waters with adjustments to the plan that would be acceptable to the applicant. DNR would not object to the city approving a layout that addresses the following criteria: 1. Each lot must have a minimum area of 40,000 square feet and a minimum lot width at the ordinary high water(OHW)elevation of 150 feet, i.e., the minimum requirements in the state shoreland management guidelines for riparian unsewered lots on Recreational Development Lakes. It appears quite practical to alter the lot lines and meet these minimums. 2. The structures must meet the 100 foot lakeshore setback. The alternative plan on attachment B of the 1 1/6/98 staff report shows a possible layout that would meet the setbacks. 3. The tennis court area shall be removed and planted with native vegetation according to a plan that is approved by the city (and/or by DNR, if you'd like our input). More specifically, the area within the shore impact zone (i.e_, the area within 50 feet of the OHW) needs to be planted to restore a natural butler that does not include a manicured lawn, while the area farther back could include an active lawn area and some of the trees that are lost on other parts of the site. 4, It is recommended that permanent monuments(i.e., signs at the lot lines)delineating the edge of the shore impact zone be placed to help ensure that the clear-cutting, intensive vegetative removal and grading restrictions within the shore impact zone are understood and met. 5. The sewage treatment systems must meet the required setback from the 011W and must receive any required approvals from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health. 1 I)NW fl tt ln', hi.7 296.h157. I.. ()t)-?hll-O{)nll • .Ii'Y (if.? .7%){, :-, 4. 1.soo-f,:i7 ;(y.)ty An ffyu.:i opi,,,,;n.,Gin;I',mhL,..,•; i,,,il,:,.1 ,,L I''c,I,I,:J fats:, CIti,LAlnint`., l\'i•.,,i:,lur.I+i\Cr.it;. SENT BY: DNR METRO; 12- 7-98 8:32AM; 6127727573 =? 612 949 8392; t#33 410 • Mr. Mike Franzen Perkins Subdivision December 7, 1998 Page 2 6. We would not object to the screen house remaining on proposed lot 2 if only minor repairs are proposed(improvements less than 50-percent ofthe existing structure's value). However, if the structure is proposed to be reconstructed, it must meet the city's setback requirements. I would be willing to review any revised plans or meet with staff if there are any questions about whether future revised plans will meet the criteria listed above. Please contact me at(651) 772-7910 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Coil Strauss Area Hydrologist S c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Bob Obcrmeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Bryant Lake (27-67P) file James Perkins 3 � i JAMES CHARLES DUNCAN DECEMBER 30, 1998 MR. MICHAEL D. FRANZEN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 DEAR MR. FRANZEN AND COMMISSIONERS: IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON BRYANT LAKE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING THE SIGNATURES OF SEVERAL WILLOW CREEK RESIDENTS ON A PETITION TO CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR WILLOW CREEK ROAD. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS ACTION IS STRICTLY AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT JIM AND RAYNELL PERKINS FROM GOING FORWARD WITH THEIR PLAN TO HAVE THREE BUILDABLE HOMESITES, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1989. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT A GREAT DEAL OF MISINFORMATION AND SCARE TACTICS HAVE BEEN USED TO OBTAIN THESE SIGNATURES. IF THE PETITIONERS WERE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE ALL THE. FACTS, I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD REMOVE THEIR NAMES FROM THIS PETITION. r-r FOR THE. SAKE OF TIME AND UNNECESSARY LITIGATION, I RESPECT- FULLY REQUEST THAT YOU OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD TO EACH PETITIONER COPIES OF THE RECORDED DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. IN CONCLUSION, I MUST ASK; HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ANY RESIDENT OF EDEN PRAIRIE TO MAKE FUTURE LONG-RANGE RESIDENTIAL PLANS, IF THOSE PLANS CAN BE CHANGED BY THE EFFORTS OF ONE SELF- SERVING INDIVIDUAL? RESPECTFULLY, 77 JAMES & KAREN DUNCAN 11228 WILLOWOOD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 941-3776 3 • Jan. 7, 1999 Mr. Michael Franzen and Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN. 55344-2230 Re: Perkins lot division—Willow Creek Road Dear Mr. Franson and Commissioners: We are a lot owners on Willow Creek Rd and previous residents of Willow Creek Rd and remain as residents of the Bryant Lake community(Beach Rd). We are aware of the dispute with regards to the division of the Perkins property and are strongly in favor of allowing the Perkins to proceed with this division. This division was previously approved by neighbors in 1989 and continues to be a favorable outcome for this property. We see this as a means to reasonably remove existing deteriorating older structures and allow building of three new residences which will be an enhancement to the neighborhood(and our property values!). Jim and Raynelle Perkins are long time Willow Creek and Eden Prairie residents who have been an asset to are community. I might add they have also shown grace and flexibility in accepting neighborhood change for the"greater good". Four Willow Creek neighbors have dock access abutting the Perkins' property in no small part because the Perkins' graciously allowed this to proceed. In sum, this is a reasonable proposal, which if approved will be a neighborhood enhancement and allow the neighborhood to heal a present division. Thank you. Sincerely Kent and Julie Molde Li • �J 612 941-2f96 telplione )O/fl ✓. goa 612 94 f-8134di, l, 10991 &I Oabts &tate leoael Glen Prairie, Minnesota 55437 December 24, 1998 Mr. Michael D. Franzen& Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Dispute over division of Perkins Property on Willow Creek Road Dear Mr. Franzen and Commissioners: This letter concerns a dispute over the division of Jim and Raynelle Perkin's property on Willow Creek Road and Bryant Lake in Eden Prairie. We are current residents of Eden Prairie and resided in the Willow Creek neighborhood from 1978 until 1995. When the subdivision was originally discussed and approved by the neighbors back in 1989, we participated in that decision to approve it at that time. Since then, the reasons to approve the action have become even more compelling in our mind. Let us share with you those reasons why we approved it back then and why you should ratify that decision again now. 1. The two homes, detached garage, and no longer used tennis court that currently are on the property were built quite a while ago; one house in particular is deteriorating rapidly. The plan to replace all of the existing structures with three new homes and beautify the whole area by a quality builder would dramatically enhance the specific site as well as the overall neighborhood in general. 2. The proposed builder, Ron Clark, is known for his quality of construction and his strict adherence to working with cities and following all codes and regulations. Plans to build two million dollar plus homes and a smaller"empty nester"home for the Perkins can do nothing but enhance this whole area. 3. Respect for the lakeshore and environment was and should be a compelling reason to approve the proposed plan. Again, because of the age of the existing homes,the installation of modern septic and water systems would considerably upgrade that which is there now better protecting the environment. Strict adherence to lakeshore improvements will only act to protect the lake for everyone's enjoyment and preserve this natural amenity for all of Eden Prairie. 4. On a personal but important note,back then as is true now as we hear,there are those that would prefer a lesser or different use of the property. But the fundamental question is whether the Perkins who have been longtime residents in this area have the"right"to do with their property as they wish--assuming,of course,they do so following all the rules and governance's of Eden Prairie. That matter was thoroughly explored back in 1989 and despite some neighbors not agreeing with the conclusion, the city and the vast majority of the neighbors approved their right to do so. The tevised plan seems even better and deals with 7 � December 24, 1998 Mr. Michael D. Franzen Page 2 all the issues that were of concern. We'd encourage you to consider all the facts but then act promptly. To drag out this decision through legal delays or maneuvers serves only to create unrest and divide a neighborhood. We would be remiss if we didn't add that the Perkins have been and continue to be"treasures" of this community. Oh, they are not without their peculiarities like the rest of us. But both of them have been active in the community to its benefit for decades. To slight these "ambassadors" of goodwill and dignity would be a grave injustice. Please act with wutgassionn,faii ly, and-swiftly. Respectfully submitted, j1„04, Linda and John Golle ya • • Kit & Tyrone Thayer 11204 Willowood Eden Prairie, MN 55344 941-5133 December 23, 1998 Mr. Michael D. Franzen and Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen et al: As long-time residences of Eden Prairie, living on Bryant Lake, we wish to respond to the Perkins Subdivision question and upcoming litigation against the Perkins. The land division question was answered in 1989 and was approved for three properties after much considered research. Since it was determined then in the Perkins favor it would seem to be a settled matter. Many of the neighbors are new and possibly don't understand that we've always known this "point" of land would someday have three homes on it . We old-timers have already been through this . The fact that they now want to slightly change the configuration should not in our opinion change the fact that there are now and will be three buildable properties on the point. The Perkins are known to be sensitive to the land and lake, and a good developer will only improve the aesthetics with new single-family homes that will enhance the whole neighborhood. Since they will remain residents in one of the new homes, they will be particularly mindful of the property. Shouldn't any of us expect to be allowed to go forward with plans that were already approved? It's unsettling to watch good neighbors being forced to obtain legal counsel because scare words have influenced some neighbors perception of-this project. We feel the Planning Commission should decide this development on its own merits and not be influenced by one persons personal vendetta. Respectfully, Kit & rone Thayer cc: Willow Creek Residents (13 • 41111 Key, K. $aka 70% UVlow Oita R4usi E4 1)44:4u, 1444444 . SS344 141-9691 December 27,1998 Mr.Michael D.Franzen Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr.Franzen and Members of the Planning Commission: A recent petition was circulated throughout the Willow Creek neighborhood on the East Shore of Bryant Lake in opposition to the development of the Perkins properties in that neighborhood. I am aware that this petition,along with a lengthy lawyer's interpretation of the document,was presented to the planning commission as a means of conveying the wishes and best interests of the residents of Willow Creek. Implicit in this interpretation(a copy of which o have read)is that this,indeed,represents the wishes all of residents of Willow Creek. I was not present in the neighborhood when this petition was circulated,nor would I have signed it had I been present.I find it also necessary to point out that there are other resident's signatures noticeably absent from that document. While perhaps a silent minority,it is interesting to note that among those eight to ten homeowners are persons who have resided in the neighborhood for the longest times. These are residents who have seen many changes in the neighborhood over the last twenty years-not all of them enthusiastically welcomed,but most assuredly changes that are accepted as part of the growth of an exceptional neighborhood. The petition addresses two concerns:The"threat to the Character of the neighborhood",and"the creeping disregard of the ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie"in this development. It would seem obvious that the City of Eden Prairie's guidelines for development are clearly defined and that the Planning Commission's job to interpret those could be done without special interest's legal advice.. I share the concern over the Character of the neighborhood. Unfortunately,I feel that the Character comes,not in lot size,set-backs, elitism,age or income, rumor or litigation. The Willow Creek neighborhood has a Character well worth protecting. It has been an area that has taken an active interest(often vocal and outspoken)in affairs that affect its residents. It has not always been an area that has welcomed some changes (opposition to Corporate Super Value,Bryant Lake Park,Wooddale Church among the most recent issues). It has,however,cared for and about it's residents. It has celebrated diversity and respected the rights of others. Good neighborliness has always prevailed. This Character is,indeed,now threatened. As members of the Planning Commission make decisions regarding the Perkins property,I am hopeful that such decisions can be made on the pertinent facts without the undue influence of inciteful rhetoric and threatening litigation. Respectfully, L' / -(1Co Kay Botko cc: Willow Creek Neighbors Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St.Paul,MN 55155-4194 (612)296-6300(Voice),282-5332(TTY), Toll Free -800-657-3864(V/TTY) Dear I -We are to send you the enclosed d material. This informal way of responding to your request saves us the time Minnesota Rules.Table of Chapters and expense of preparing a formal letter. Thank you for your interest,and please contact us if we can help you further. Table of contents for Chanter 7080 7080.0010 PURPOSE AND INTENT. The improper location, design, installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare by discharge of inadequately treated sewage to the ground surface, surface waters, and ground waters. In accordance with the authority granted in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 103F, 103G, 115, and 116, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, hereinafter referred to as the agency, does hereby provide the minimum standards and criteria for individual sewage treatment systems, and thus protects the surface and ground waters of the state, and promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare. This chapter does not address systems treating industrial or animal waste or wastewater that may contain hazardous materials. Industrial wastewater treatment systems receiving nonhazardous wastes are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as Class V injection wells under Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 144. These federal regulations along with this chapter also cover individual sewage treatment systems serving more than 20 persons. It is the intent of this chapter to provide clear, reliable, and cost-effective technical standards and criteria; to provide a framework for permitting and inspection programs to be administered at the local level; and to describe the responsibilities, licensing, and enforcement requirements for individual sewage treatment system professionals. The technical portions of this chapter are based on current research and practical field applications to achieve adequate sewage treatment. In conjunction with these minimum standards, the agency encourages the use of advanced treatment methods to further reduce the discharge of contaminants. Trt triri+t+rltt Yrl z+rtxh++rhtttzt mtrttmtntr -tlti+i- - rt�rtri�rri>;! this chapter establishes minimum administrative requirements for l Ut,;d1 U111Lb Ul yOVeiluue11L L1101. cluupt, JUl:dl Q1U111d114.. b LU regulate individual sewage treatment systems, establishes • requirements for those areas without such ordinances, and establishes programs for licensing businesses and training and registering I5T5 professionals. STAT AUTH: MS s 115.03; 115. 55; 115.56 HIST: 13 SR 2752; 20 SR 19956 Current as of 11/03/98 - 'Li-o/1)/ & C~)/(arick, Zaea, ,v SOIrZ — /.f t/Z &o - _ 2 ai: v- t eet« iSun. // / 99 movcoe_4401.1 d7ozz, a).ZefiA3 /hZ_ a`4_. AwAe etcy,_ did, , --- -a11 cif a_ gekeum X app Rio/r9cce.Q /2Gc -' r,) e_01664,) /-2a.) ad4 ,,; 4,0idife.,7a1.:71(f „;}__) /ta-o i Uc cgat /moo <3 .l 0-1e! k _ _ q X2� o Gdi* 7 (16-- ,14 chi /6 > a_ Crncec n Az Ce7ay i2 ,fin al OM m,,7 t6 . Aft • ,c;, - - — —-- _ tv. tom_ 4p6ez ,' , earet , 44T a- Cd 1 ch otct Got Spa Sie._ nut. ioz i rrt.--, Meg4C4 .S4 et ea)-4;1 di-4-CA CSpa,te-AZ Gellype u 4/4f,_ chlt_ 712& Azeven:zc., ea-YeeA/1.1 1._0Y-41A4-; A L4:(4 A t aee!`J- Iv. h /i) • p-ViAfu Me. biA/te,<X _ __ _.___ a►' m . at S 14- Gee /iRat. M ' rl71 r✓h& /uc 1oa► tort _ ,4-6-; a ®u dMw ,C i;) Mc. /2 -p1,4",»?._P - &J JizecrA.Me____YAdet---- loa2 az _ IAGA- pue-64/2 Ala cc� a�-Owns o ce.A6e. a ,e€i ) awy,. 647a.z.4 at ictraw, t,,2rtZ Ms /ho t /tic z .41) rn 4- 4., ?c_ Mat We, P� Ylte m UA1 c1.��!YeaOnc•z L./ /W A vV 3 • N‘a leA4t- 64•LE-e7 514— _ t , _ Cfr4ce.4%, aelot J/VA ace _41,14_,,L,6_ 4 oh Mc. tell/Gia..Q'y Sai-cliveeet ce ioTa) 9O6 _ — - • • OF MINIyFsor 5 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources rri W DNR Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 � Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 �4/1'°FNaruck . December 7, 1998 Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie - Community Development Department 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: PERKINS SUBDIVISION,PLAN OPTIONS,BRYANT LAKE(27-67P),CITY OF EDEN PRABtIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Franzen: After visiting the site on 12/1/98 and reviewing more of the alternative layouts that have been considered, I have additional comments on the proposed subdivision and variance requests. It appears that it is feasible to meet the main concerns of DNR Waters with adjustments to the plan that would be acceptable to the applicant. DNR would not object to the city approving a layout that addresses the following criteria: 1. Each lot must have a minimum area of 40,000 square feet and a minimum lot width at the ordinary high water(OHW)elevation of 150 feet,i.e.,the minimum requirements in the state shoreland management guidelines for riparian unsewered lots on Recreational Development Lakes. It appears quite practical to alter the lot lines and meet these minimums. 2. The structures must meet the 100 foot lakeshore setback. The alternative plan on attachment B of the 11/6/98 staff report shows a possible layout that would meet the setbacks. 3. The tennis court area shall be removed and planted with native vegetation according to a plan that is approved by the city(and/or by DNR, if you'd like our input). More specifically, the area within the shore impact zone (i.e., the area within 50 feet of the OHW) needs to be planted to restore a natural buffer that does not include a manicured lawn, while the area farther back could include an active lawn area and some of the trees that are lost on other parts of the site. 4. It is recommended that permanent monuments(i.e.,signs at the lot lines)delineating the edge of the shore impact zone be placed to help ensure that the clear-cutting, intensive vegetative removal and grading restrictions within the shore impact zone are understood and met. 5. The sewage treatment systems must meet the required setback from the OHW and must receive any required approvals from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health. DNR Information:612-296-6157, 1-800--]]]]766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer 10 I " Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity tilt Minimum of 10%Post-Consumer Waste • • Mr. Mike Franzen Perkins Subdivision December 7, 1998 Page 2 6. We would not object to the screen house remaining on proposed lot 2 if only minor repairs are proposed(improvements less than 50-percent ofthe existing structure's value). However, if the structure is proposed to be reconstructed,it must meet the city's setback requirements. I would be willing to review any revised plans or meet with staff if there are any questions about whether future revised plans will meet the criteria listed above. Please contact me at(651)772-7910 if you have any questions. Sincerely, C � Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Bryant Lake (27-67P)file James Perkins 50 • i OP City of Eden-Prairie City Offices Eden 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 prairie Phone (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax(612) 949-8390 January 7, 1999 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Perkins Subdivision continued to Monday, January 25, 1998 Dear Resident: James Perkins is requesting that the public hearing for the Perkins subdivision be continued to the January 25, 1999 meeting. At the January 11, 1999 meeting the Planning Commission will pass a motion to continue the project. There will be no presentation or discussion of the project at this meeting. Sincerely, IfiejtedeigA, Michael D. Franzen City Planner L/ IP -I Recycled Paper • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 11, 1999 A. PERKINS SUBDIVISION (a continued public hearing). Request for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into 3.lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. Franzen noted staff had received a letter from the proponent requesting this item be continued to the January 25, 1999 agenda as he had been unable to complete the revisions requested by the Planning Commission. Staff notified residents of this change. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Lewis, to continue the Perkins Subdivision until the January 25, 1999 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. i 4 James W. Perkins January 6, 1999 To: Michael D. Franzen Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie I respectfully request our scheduled meeting with the planning commission on January 11, 1999 be continued to the January 25, 1999. meeting due to extenuating circumstances. C To the City of Eden Prairie: /I) OF WE, THE UNDERSIGNED owners of property on Willow Creek Road, oppose the application of James and Raynell Perkins and Pearl Freeburg for replatting of property on Willow Creek Road. Among other flaws, the proposed Perkins-Freeburg plan is inconsistent with the requirements for Shoreland property and City Ordinances and inconsistent with the character of our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS fij - 7011 Willow Creek Road / /( -6'' / 7020 Willow Creek Road J L; 7030 Willow Creek Road • 7032 Willow Creek Road 7034 Willow Creek Road - 7037 Willow Creek Road L, G /Lcvly��ff 9T ui, 7039 Willow Creek Road 7041 Willow Creek Road r � 7042 Willow Creek Road 7064 Willow Creek Road with__ 7060 Willow Creek Road t( l 7120 Willow Creek Road 7121 Willow Creek Road IlLit(A&-- 7130 Willow Creek Road 7140 Willow Creek Road 7160 Willow Creek Road 7221 Willow Creek Road N\ A\,\\2\ 31251 Willow Creek Road v` 7260 Willow Creek Road 7261 Willow Creek Road c,� s • • LOT SIZE COMPARISON OF ALL LOTS NORTH OF THE CREEK ON WILLOW CREEK ROAD CURRENT LOT SIZES !PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOT SIZES! LOTS ACRES LOTS ACRES 1 & 16 - 1.945 1 - 1.20 2 - 1.480 2 - 1.18 3 - 1.200 3 - .62 4 - 1.240 5 - 1.170 3.000 /3 = 1.000 6 - 1.460 R.L.S. 1371 A - 1.000 R.L.S. 1371 B - 2.000 R.L.S. 875 - 1.900 R.L.S. 1421 A - 2.290 R.L.S. 1421 B - 1.200 R.L.S. 1421 C - 1.340 R.L.S. 1421 D - 1.570 R.L.S. 1421 E - 1.380 R.L.S. 875 - 2.700 7 - 0.950 8 - 0.900 R.L.S. 1448 A - 1.760 R.L.S. 1448 B - 1.630 R.L.S. 1448 C - 1.400 10 - 1.000 11 - 2.560 12 - 2.350 13 - 1.360 14 - 1.160 15 - 1.500 40.445 /26= 1.556 Acres Average CONCLUSIONS: 1. Proposed average lot size is only 64% of the current average lot sizes 2. Proposed Lot 3 is only 40% of the current average lot size. 3. Qp_tylwo lots (Lots 7 and 8) are currently less than 1 acre (.95 and .90) and they are not on the • ROBINS, KAPLAN , MILLER 8 CIRESI L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW AT L A N TA 2800 LASALLE PLAZA BOSTON 800 LASALLE AVENUE CHICAGO MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-2015 TELEPHONE(612)349-8500 Los ANGELES FACSIMILE(612) 339-4181 MINNEAPOLIS ORANGE COUNTY SAINT PAUL SAN FRANCISCO MARKD.WISSER (612)349-8724 W A S H I N G T O N, D. C. November 6, 1998 BY MESSENGER Mr. Michael D. Franzen And Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Perkins Subdivision Our File No. 021539-0086 Dear Mr. Franzen and Commission Members: We represent Stuart Nolan, whose property abuts the Perkins/Freeburg property at 7010-7012 Willow Creek Road. I am writing to express our opposition to the Perkins/Freeburg preliminary plat scheduled for consideration by the Commission on November 9. The replatting requested by James Perkins is contrary to Eden Prairie ordinances and state law. The proposal also is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and threatens to undermine the value of adjoining properties. Even more importantly, Mr. Perkins' latest proposal represents just another installment in a 24-year effort to wear down the city's enforcement of its zoning ordinances through incremental, piecemeal modifications submitted every few years. This creeping disregard of the city's ordinances represents a systematic effort to erode those ordinances. After requesting and receiving city approval in 1989 to convert the two lots on this property into a three-lot"family compound," Mr. Perkins now claims to have a"better" plan for re- drawing the lot lines. In reality,Mr. Perkins is seeking to develop the subject property for resale, so this is just the beginning of requests for departure from ordinance standards. The real applicants for city approvals and variances will be the ultimate buyers, who years from now may have even"better" ideas than Mr. Perkins regarding how the lots should be slightly adjusted. Inevitably, the result will be a substantial departure from the letter and spirit of city ordinances. It may not seem that way when the changes come in small increments,but for nearby property owners the changes will be a dramatic departure from the neighborhood they know and love. For that reason, the Planning Commission will 5 • • Mr. Michael D. Franzen And Members of the Planning Commission November 6, 1998 Page 2 be receiving a petition in opposition to this project, signed by the vast majority of interested property owners who wish to preserve the aesthetic character of their neighborhood. For all of these reasons and more, the Perkins proposal should be flatly rejected. The specific deficiencies of the proposal will be discussed individually. 1. This Proposal Is about Making Money Through Development. The Perkins application is not about a community member trying to make the highest and best use of his land. On the contrary, the proposal is a clear attempt to maximize development profit by creating three undersized lots with lake frontage. Contrary to documents submitted to the city by Perkins, it does not even appear that Perkins owns the subject property. Hennepin County tax and land registration records identify the Bank of Maple Plain as the owner of the purported Perkins parcel, pursuant to a mortgage foreclosure that occurred on November 18, 1997. Thus, it appears that the city has not even received the pending application from the actual owner of the property. Instead,the city has been asked to become an unwitting partner in a scheme to squeeze the maximum amount of money out of three lakeshore lots by increasing the land's value for development. As a result, unlike most land-use applications, this petition is not about hardship or the best use of the subject property. It is about money, pure and simple. The developers are trying to reap a windfall at the expense of longtime residents of the neighborhood. Moreover, the owner of record has not seen fit to attach its name to the pending application. That alone should be grounds for denial. 2. The Proposal Violates City Requirements for Setback from Bryant Lake The subject property is located within the Bryant Lake Shoreland. Bryant Lake is classified as a recreational lake. Ordinance Section 11.50, subd. 7(A)(2). Accordingly, single family homes without public sewer, such as those proposed, must be set back at least 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level. Ordinance Section 11.50, subd. 8(B)(1)(a)(4). Lots 1 and 2 in the Perkins proposal fall far short of that requirement. The building pad on Perkins' proposed Lot 2 is only 40 feet from the high-water mark--less than half of the ordinance requirement. Lot 1 is only slightly better, with a proposed pad site 80 feet from the high-water mark. By contrast, the average setback for homes in the area is 182 feet. (Staff report of June 10, 1988, cited in Staff report of May 19, 1989). It is true that the City approved variances for setbacks of 40 and 84 feet in 1989, but those variances were granted for existing buildings. The current Perkins plan calls for constructing large new homes, with at least four bedrooms each, on building pads located 40 and 80 feet from the high-water mark of the lake. It is one thing to acknowledge and authorize pre-existing structures. It is quite another to grant a license to build a large four-bedroom home 40 feet from the lake. Allowing new construction 40 feet from the lake clearly has a negative impact on lake aesthetics and raises the 57 . • Mr. Michael D. Franzen And Members of the Planning Commission November 6, 1998 Page 3 specter of runoff problems. Even more importantly, however, it sets a low standard for future development. If the City allows new construction this close to the lake now, it will be hard-pressed to deny similar treatment to others who wish to use their lakeshore property for development. 3. The Proposed Lots Threaten the Character of the Neighborhood After platting this property as two lots in 1974, Perkins obtained city approval in 1989 for replatting the property as a three-lot "family compound." The purported reason for the 1989 change was to facilitate family use of the property. That is apparent from the way the land was divided. Rather than include a large home overlooking the lake, Lot B included a small proposed building behind an existing dwelling in the center of the property. Lot B also had only roundabout lake access on the 1989 plan, but direct access was not needed because it was available across the lots of blood relatives. It also is notable that the 1989 plan did not include any large building site. While the 1989 plan was purportedly intended to facilitate family needs, the current proposal obviously is intended to facilitate making money. Essentially, the owners have combined two lakeshore lots to support an argument for creating three lake lots. Thus, if the current proposal is approved, the message will be clear: Anyone who owns property on Bryant Lake can join with a neighbor to make money by jointly slicing off adjoining pieces of land to create a small third lot for resale and development. If the current proposal is approved, there would be no basis to deny such requests in the future. Property owners on Bryant Lake would have carte blanch to carve up their lots and sell off small lakeshore lots for big money. The growth and increased density resulting from such a scenario would destroy the current character of the neighborhood. Some neighboring communities have dealt with the same issue by deciding in favor of preserving, protecting and promoting unique neighborhoods. See, for example, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307(Minn. 1988)(copy attached). Eden Prairie would be well served by taking the same approach. The current proposal calls for lots of 1.2, 1.18 and 0.62 acres. The minimum allowable lot size in the Shoreland is 5 acres. Ordinance Section 11.50, subd. 8(B)(1)(a)(1). The average lot size in the neighborhood is 1.38 acres (June 10, 1988 staff report). At 0.62 acres, Lot 3 in Perkins' proposal is less than half of the neighborhood average. Moreover, it is more than 10% smaller than the smallest lot(0.74 acres) approved in Perkins' 1989 submission. The currently proposed Lot 3 may, in fact, even be smaller than 0.62 acres because the subject property inexplicably has grown from 2.84 acres in 1989 to 3.0 acres in 1998. (Despite a request from city staff, Perkins has failed to document any basis for this expansion of the land.) Given the sizes of existing nearby lots, the 5-acre minimum has not been enforced in some time. On the other hand, a 0.62-acre lot is entirely out of character with the neighborhood. If such tiny lot sizes are to be allowed, then owners of 1.25-acre sites would be entirely justified in asking the city to divide their land into two lots of 0.62 acres each. Again, this is out of character with the neighborhood and this practice should be stopped before it gets started. 5 (6 • Mr. Michael D. Franzen And Members of the Planning Commission November 6, 1998 Page 4 The division of Perkins' property into three lots in 1989 was justifiable, if at all, because the"family compound" concept represents a relatively minor deviation from the character of the neighborhood. Perkins would have the city believe that the current proposal is just a matter of redrawing a few lines to adjust something that the city already has approved. That contention, however, is not true. The current proposal is far different from the 1989 "family compound" plan. The current proposal is for three separate and unrelated homes on lots that are smaller than those nearby. The result is contrary to ordinance and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. In 1989, Perkins asked for and received city approval of the present configuration, even though a number of variances were required to facilitate the "family compound." There is no valid justification for departing even further from ordinance and neighborhood standards. 4. Perkins' Proposed Shared Septic System Is Illegal. The current proposal shows a septic system to be shared by Lots 1 and 2. Such a system is contrary to applicable law and should be rejected. All private sewage systems must meet or exceed the standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Board, as set forth in Minn. R. 7080. Ordinance Section 11.50, subd. 15(B)(2)(b). See also, Ordinance Section 10.02, adopting Pollution Control Board rules by reference. Under those administrative rules, all lots created after January 23, 1996, shall have a minimum of one additional soil treatment area which can support a standard soil treatment system. Minn. R. 7080.0305, subp. 4(D). If Perkins' request is approved, the subject lots will have been"created" after January 23, 1996, and therefore are subject to this state requirement. On their face, the plans submitted to the City do not meet Pollution Control Board standards. The cited rule clearly requires an operating and backup septic field for each lot. By contrast,the pending proposal calls for a system to be shared between two lots. Under the plain language of the state rule, that is not allowed. The proposal also falls short of state requirements for other reasons. Perkins has failed to submit a completed percolation test to the city, but based on the soil sampling report that was submitted, the proposed shared 3,200-square-foot septic field for Lots 1 and 2 is far too small. State standards for septic fields, as set forth in Rule 7080, are based on soil type, percolation, and the number of bedrooms to be served by the system. In this case, the soil is gravel and fine sand, and the number of bedrooms is eight(four per house on Lots 1 and 2). Percolation is unknown because Perkins failed to submit a proper test. Indeed,the percolation report that was submitted is 80 percent blank. Based on eight bedrooms and the soil type, however, our septic system consultant has estimated that the required operating septic field plus backup would be at least double what has been proposed. This is borne out by Perkins' own submission. The septic field for proposed Lot 3 is 2,300 square feet,to accommodate a three-bedroom home. That is 766.66 square feet per bedroom. The field to be shared for eight bedrooms on Lots 1 and 2 is 3,200 square feet, or 400 square feet per bedroom. 5 • • Mr. Michael D. Franzen And Members of the Planning Commission November 6, 1998 Page 5 Based on the soil sampling reports submitted by Perkins, the soil conditions are similar, if not identical, among Lots 1, 2 and 3. Thus, the septic fields should be in proportion with each other, but they clearly are not. Even if the sharing of septic systems were legal, which it is not, the disparity in the submitted data requires, at the very least, independent investigation to determine whether the submitted plan does or can comply with state requirements. In some respects, it is not surprising that the developer might attempt to undersize the septic system. The proposed building pad on Lot 2 already is only 40 feet from the lake. If the proposed shared septic field is expanded to its proper minimum size,there would not be adequate room for the four-bedroom house on Lot 2 unless it was even closer to the lake. With the proposed lake setback already 60 percent below code, such movement is not likely. The septic field issue is particularly important because of the location of the property. All of the neighboring properties use well water. As a result, people's health depends on having a septic system, with backup, that works. Moreover, the subject property is adjacent to a recreational lake, which obviously would be threatened by any septic system failure. Thus, even a possibility that the proposed septic system falls short of state requirements deserves the Commission's and staff's strict attention. Despite the importance of this issue, Perkins has failed to submit adequate data regarding the proposed septic systems. On that basis alone, the project should be rejected outright or at least subjected to independent evaluation by the City. 5. The Proposed Plan Fails to Disclose the Full Impact on Trees. The plan under consideration fails to fully and fairly disclose the impact the project would have on trees,both on the subject property and on the property line shared with Mr. Nolan. As discussed in an accompanying report from Ernst Associates, the submitted plan does not show at least two significant trees -- a 26-inch white oak and a 12-inch locust. In addition, there are three oaks and a box elder, totaling 70 caliper inches, that are likely to be impacted by construction of a proposed retaining wall. There are at least another nine trees that are along or on the north property line that could be affected by the project but that are not shown on the preliminary plat submitted to the City. Because of the environmental, aesthetic and screening benefits provided by trees, it is essential that the impact on all trees be accurately and fully identified. To date, that has not been done. 6. The 1989 Subdivision into Three Lots Is Not Valid. Ordinance Section 12.20, subd. 4 provides that plats approved by the City Council shall be recorded as provided by law. The 1989 plat approved by the city was not recorded "as provided by law." First, Perkins waited nine years to file it. Although there is no express time limit for filing in the ordinances or statutes, the law requires that people exercise their legal rights in a reasonable time. Failure to do so can result in a finding of waiver or laches, which we believe happened in this case. That waiver is especially clear here because over the nine years that the plat was withheld from filing 6 • • Mr. Michael D. Franzen And Members of the Planning Commission November 6, 1998 Page 6 several people moved into the neighborhood. Those people reasonably relied on the non-existence of a subdivision plan for the subject property because Perkins knowingly and voluntarily declined to record the plat. Because of Perkins' inaction, newcomers to the neighborhood bought homes without actual or constructive notice of Perkins' subdivision plans. Under such circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that Perkins waived his rights. The Perkins plat further is defective because it never was signed and acknowledged by the owners of the property. Minn. Stat. § 507.24 provides that to be recordable any conveyance, power of attorney or other instrument affecting real estate shall be executed, acknowledged by the parties and the acknowledgment certified. Although Minn. Stat. § 507.24 specifically pertains to the platting of unregistered land, all laws with reference to the subdivision and platting of unregistered land shall apply with like force and effect to registered land excepting only that the surveyor's plat thereof shall be filed with the registrar. Minn. Stat. § 508.46. In our view, this language applies the signature requirement to the plat/registered land survey submitted by Perkins. Accordingly,Perkins failed to comply with recording laws and therefore is in violation of Ordinance Section 12.20, making the 1989 subdivision invalid. Accordingly, the property should revert to its pre-1989 status as two lots, further undermining any justification for the current three-lot proposal. Conclusion The pending proposal should be rejected on both procedural and substantive grounds. First, the proposal has not been submitted by the owner of record, Bank of Maple Plain. Second, the percolation tests submitted in connection with the proposed septic system are 80 percent incomplete. More importantly, the proposed shared septic system is illegal under current Minnesota regulations and the proposal includes an undersized septic field, also contrary to Minnesota law. These deficiencies, in combination with insufficient setbacks from Bryant Lake, pose a threat to drinking water in the area and the ecological health of the lake. Perhaps even more importantly, the pending proposal threatens to change the essential character of a unique Eden Prairie neighborhood. Whatever the city decides in this case will send a message to owners of lakeshore property. If this proposal is approved, other neighboring property owners will seek to combine their land and subdivide two lots into three, creating a windfall in the resale of lakefront property. In the short term, that may be profitable for the property owners carving up the land, but in the long term it will be extremely harmful to the City and to the character of the Lake Bryant neighborhood. And once that damage is done, it cannot be undone. • Mr. Michael D. Franzen And Members of the Planning Commission November 5, 1998 Page 7 Accordingly, we respectfully request that the pending proposal be rejected. Very truly yours, ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER& CIRESI L.L.P. f Mark D. Wisser MDW/mjt Mr. Stuart Nolan (6). • 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 1 *307 421 N.W.2d 307 414 ---- 414X Judicial Review or Relief John F. SWANSON,et al.,Respondents, 414X(C) Scope of Review v. 414X(C)1 In General CITY OF BLOOMINGTON,Petitioner,Appellant. 414k601 In general. Minn. 1988. No. C3-86-782. District court should establish scope and conduct of Supreme Court of Minnesota. its review of municipality's zoning decision by March 25, 1988. considering nature, fairness and adequacy of proceeding at local level and adequacy of factual and Applicants who were denied permission by city decisional record of local proceeding; where council to subdivide lot brought declaratory judgment municipal proceeding was fair and record clear and action challenging that denial. The District Court, complete, review should be on the record; where Hennepin County, Charles A. Porter, J., entered municipal body has proposed formal findings judgment for city, and applicants appealed. The contemporaneously with its decision and there is Court of Appeals, 395 N.W.2d 719, reversed and accurate verbatim transcript of proceeding, record is remanded. On review, the Supreme Court, Wahl, J., likely to be clear and complete. M.S.A. Sec. 462.351 held that: (1) District Court, in declaratory action challenging denial of subdivision application, may grant summary judgment based on its review of 3. ZONING AND PLANNING G° 610 record consisting of municipal body's findings, 414 ---- memoranda submitted by parties, and verbatim 414X Judicial Review or Relief transcripts of all hearings, and (2) city council's 414X(C) Scope of Review decision to deny application was reasonable. 414X(C)1 In General 414k608 Arbitrary, Capricious, or Reversed; judgment reinstated. Unreasonable Action 414k610 Decisions of boards or officers. Popovich, J., filed specially concurring opinion in which Yetka,J.,joined. [See headnote text below] 1. JUDGMENT € 185.3(1) 3. ZONING AND PLANNING C7P641 228 ---- 414 ---- 228V On Motion or Summary Proceeding 414X Judicial Review or Relief 228k182 Motion or Other Application 414X(C) Scope of Review 228k185.3 Evidence and Affidavits in Particular 414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo Cases 414k641 Additional proofs. 228k185.3(1) In general. Minn. 1988. Minn. 1988. When review of municipality's zoning decision is District court, in declaratory action challenging conducted on the record, district court should receive denial of subdivision application, may grant summary additional evidence only on substantive issues raised judgment based on its review of record consisting of and considered by municipal body and then only on municipal body's findings, memoranda submitted by determining that additional evidence is material and parties, and verbatim transcripts of all hearings. that there were good reasons for failure to present it at M.S.A. Sec. 462.351. municipal proceedings; standard of review is whether municipal body's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary 2. ZONING AND PLANNING C=7574 or capricious, with review focused on legal 414 ---- sufficiency of and factual basis for reasons given. 414X Judicial Review or Relief M.S.A. Sec. 462.351. 414X(A) In General 414k574 Record. 4. ZONING AND PLANNING <° 641 414 ---- [See headnote text below] 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(C) Scope of Review 2. ZONING AND PLANNING C'601 414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works ( 3 • s • 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 2 414k641 Additional proofs. subdivision of large lots and protected wooded, natural environment was reasonable; city's director [See headnote text below] of planning, city forester and wildlife biologist all described likely environmental effects of subdividing 4. ZONING AND PLANNING642 lot, including loss of trees and other vegetation both 414 ---- on lot and on adjacent properties, wind damage and 414X Judicial Review or Relief loss of windbreak effect. M.S.A. Sec. 462.351. 414X(C) Scope of Review 414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo *308 Syllabus by the Court 414k642 Trial de novo in general. Minn. 1988. 1. The district court properly reviewed the Where municipal zoning proceeding has not been municipal zoning decision on the record where the fair or the record of that proceeding is not clear and municipal proceeding was fair and the record is clear complete, parties are entitled to trial or opportunity to and complete. augment record in district court. M.S.A. Sec. 462.351. 2. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the city. 5. ZONING AND PLANNING C=642 414 ---- David R. Ornstein, Bloomington City Atty., Eric R. 414X Judicial Review or Relief Berg, Associate City Atty., Henry E. Wieland, Asst. 414X(C) Scope of Review City Atty., Bloomington, for appellant. 414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo 414k642 Trial de novo in general. *309 Matthew L. Fling, John J. Waters, Minn. 1988. Bloomington, Vance B. Grannis, Jr., South St. Paul, Trial court properly reviewed city council's denial for respondents. of application to subdivide residential lot on the record and was not required to conduct trial de novo, where Stanley G. Peskar, St. Paul, amicus curiae. record consisted of verbatim transcripts of public hearings on matter, including statements by experts on Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. both sides, written reports by city director of planning and city forester, and contemporaneous written OPINION findings by city council on which council based its decision. M.S.A. Sec. 462.351. WAHL, Justice. 6. ZONING AND PLANNING GP 12 John Swanson and Danald Cadmus brought a 414 ---- declaratory judgment action in Hennepin County 414I In General District Court challenging the Bloomington city 414k12 Factors considered. council's denial of an application to subdivide a Minn. 1988. residential lot in the Timberglade 2nd Addition into While neighborhood feeling may not constitute sole two residential lots. Swanson and Cadmus sought to basis for zoning decision, it may still be taken into establish that the city's action was arbitrary, account. capricious and unreasonable and they requested an order that would compel subdivision or, in the 7. ZONING AND PLANNING °. 385 alternative, would find that there was a taking. The 414 ---- district court, after a review of the record, granted 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals summary judgment to the city. The court of appeals 414VIII(A) In General reversed and remanded, 395 N.W.2d 719 (1986), 414k384 Nature of Particular Structures or holding that respondents were entitled to pursue Uses discovery and to present additional relevant evidence 414k385 Architectural and structural designs. to the district court. We reverse and reinstate the Minn. 1988. judgment of the trial court. City council's decision to deny application to subdivide residential lot in subdivision which had been The Timberglade subdivision of the city of governed by restrictive covenant which prohibited Bloomington is unique in its densely wooded, Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works / lD `97 • ! 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 3 secluded character and serves as wildlife as well as development plans. human habitat. Its single family homes are typically located on sites exceeding one acre. For thirty years, (3) That the physical characteristics of the site, from the inception of the Timberglade subdivision including but not limited to topography, until two or three years before the present suit was vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, instituted, landowners there were governed by a susceptibility to flooding, water storage, and restrictive covenant which prohibited subdivision of retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the large lots and protected its wooded, natural the type of development or use contemplated. environment. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the Danald Cadmus is the fee owner of the real property proposed density of development. at 15 Timberglade Road in the Timberglade subdivision. John Swanson is the contract purchaser *310 (5) That the design of the subdivision or the of the property and has resided there since October proposed improvements are likely to cause 1984. The property consists of a residential lot of substantial environmental damage. approximately 46,000 square feet with a single-family house. Cadmus applied for approval of a preliminary (6) That the design of the subdivision or the type and final plat subdividing the lot into two residential of improvements will be detrimental to the health, single-family lots. The city council (hereinafter safety, or general welfare of the public. council) held public hearings and received written reports from the city's Director of Planning and the (7) That the design of the subdivision or the type City Forester. The Director of Planning described the of improvements will conflict with easements of likely results of the creation of a new homesite-- record or to easements established by judgment of jeopardy to the vegetation on the lot, stress on the a court. vegetation of the surrounding properties, increased possibility of tree disease and wind damage--and Specifically, the council made findings under recommended that the subdivision request be denied. paragraphs (3), (5), and (6) of section 16.05.01(e), The City Forester concurred. A wildlife biologist, concluding that the proposed subdivision would result testifying on behalf of the neighbors, similarly in substantial destruction of vegetation on the subject described the disruptive effect of clearings in the site, creating a large opening which would not only be woodland area, loss of windbreak benefits and loss of detrimental to the property in question but would also wildlife habitat. A number of neighbors spoke jeopardize existing vegetation on adjacent properties. opposing the subdivision. Speaking in favor of the The council adopted the findings and memoranda of subdivision were Cadmus, Swanson, and a landscape the Director of Planning and the City Forester and, on architect presented by Cadmus and Swanson's the basis of the significant destruction of vegetation attorney. made the finding in Sec. 16.05.01(e)(3), that the site was not suitable for the type of development or use The city council based its decision to deny approval contemplated. The council made the finding in Sec. of the preliminary and final plat on section 16.05.01(e)(5) on the basis of the environmental 16.05.01(e) of the Bloomington City Code, which disruption to the site and to the entire Timberglade provides: subdivision that would be created by approving the plat. Finally, the council noted that neighboring (e) In the case of all plattings, the Planning property owners were unanimous in their opposition Commission or the Administrative Subdivision to the proposed plat, and determined that the planned Review Committee, whichever is applicable, shall removal of trees and vegetation from the subject recommend denial of, and the City Council shall property would disrupt the overall integrity of the deny, approval of a preliminary or final plat if it woodland and thereby have a negative effect on the makes any of the following findings: general welfare of the persons residing in the Timberglade subdivision. On this basis the council (1) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict made the finding in Sec. 16.05.01(e)(6). with applicable general and specific plans. Swanson and Cadmus brought this action in district (2) That the design or improvement of the court challenging the denial of the subdivision proposed subdivision is in conflict with applicable application. The city moved for summary judgment Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works • • 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 4 on the record before the council, including transcripts White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 175 (Minn.1982), of the hearings and other evidence submitted. The we considered the role of the judiciary in plaintiffs moved for an order compelling discovery countermanding zoning decisions reached by and asked to submit additional evidence which they municipal officials and concluded that "[t]he court's hoped to acquire through discovery. The district authority to interfere in the management of municipal court determined that because an accurate verbatim affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly record of the complete hearing before the city council invoked." We reiterated the rule we had set out in was available, it was proper to decide the case based Honn v. City of Coon Rapids governing standard of on a review of the record rather than by conducting review in zoning matters: "The standard of review is the trial required of the city in Honn v. City of Coon the same for all zoning matters, namely, whether the Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 416 (Minn.1981). To zoning authority's action was reasonable * * * Is there require a trial de novo in this case, in the district a 'reasonable basis' for the decision? or is the court's view, would infringe on the decision-making decision 'unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious'? or is process of the city and weigh against the policy of the decision 'reasonably debatable'?" 324 N.W.2d at judicial economy. The district court reviewed the 176, quoting Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 417. record of the council, and, finding evidentiary support for the council's findings and a rational basis for the We said that, except in those rare cases in which the council's decision, granted summary judgment for the city's decision has no rational basis, "it is the duty of city. The court of appeals reversed that judgment on the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord the single ground that Honn v. City of Coon Rapids appropriate deference to civil authorities in the required a trial de novo to give respondents an performance of their duties." Id. White Bear opportunity to present relevant additional evidence Docking involved a special use permit which had been when the parties had neither agreed to nor acquiesced denied by the city of White Bear Lake. Plaintiffs in submission of the case by review of the record, and obtained a writ of mandamus from the district court held that the granting of summary judgment was directing the council to issue the permit. We reversed inappropriate. Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 395 the order of the district court and quashed the writ, N.W.2d 719, 723 (Minn.App.1986). fmding that the grounds for denial of the permit assigned by the council constituted a rational basis for We granted review to examine the matter in the the decision and were well within the criteria set forth context of our decisions in Honn v. City of Coon in the city's zoning code. 324 N.W.2d at 177. Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, and Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn.1982), II. to harmonize our cases, and to modify, if necessary, the procedure for review of zoning decisions set out in [1] The first issue is whether a district court, in a Honn. Our review is focused on two issues: first, declaratory action challenging the denial of a whether a district court, in a declaratory judgment subdivision application, may grant summary judgment action challenging the denial of a subdivision based on its review of a record consisting of a application, may grant summary judgment based on its municipal body's findings, memoranda submitted by review of a record consisting, in this case, of a the parties, and verbatim transcripts of all hearings. municipal body's findings and accompanying memoranda, verbatim transcripts of hearings before We determined in Northwestern College v. City of the municipal body, as well as memorandum Arden Hills that the scope of review to be used for submitted by the applicant; and second, whether the zoning matters would be the same as that used for district court properly granted summary judgment to state administrative agency decisions. 281 N.W.2d the city. 865, 868 (Minn.1979). We indicated that the review would be of the record made before the local zoning I. body. That is, the review by the district court would be made on the municipal record and the supreme Before we determine whether the district court in court would make its review on the same record. We this case properly granted summary *311 judgment said, quoting Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 on the record made by the city council, or whether N.W.2d 808, 824, (Minn.1977), "[I]t is our function Honn requires a trial in every such case, it is useful to to make an independent examination of an reflect on our traditional approach to zoning matters. administrative agency's record and decision and arrive In White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of at our own conclusions as to the propriety of that Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works • 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 5 determination without according any special deference request is denied can demand that the case be retried to the same review conducted by the trial court." Id. in a district court. Such a procedure, if rigidly followed in every case, could lead to the result that a Then in Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, we were property owner, knowing the composition of a presented with a case, appealed by the city from an particular city council, might withhold part of the adverse decision below, where the record before the relevant evidence, knowing it could be put in when trial court was completely inadequate. In that case we the matter came before the district court on review. held that review on the record was not appropriate. Thus, a city, making every effort to afford a property 313 N.W.2d at 418. owner a full and fair hearing and to produce a complete record of the basis of its council's decision, Horan involved a declaratory judgment action in could be thwarted in exercising the power granted it which the court required the parties to agree upon a by statute to determine and plan the use of land within record of what had occurred before the city council its boundaries. Minn.Stat. Sec. 462.351 (1982). and present this "agreed-upon" record for review. Based on this after-the-fact record, the district court The court of appeals, in reversing the decision of the found the city's action in refusing to rezone the district court in the case before us, relied on Hubbard plaintiff's land from single family residential to Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 multiple unit residential and commercial to be (Minn.1982). We held in Hubbard the district court arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. On appeal, properly conducted the review of certain permit we found the "agreed upon" record required by the denials on the record because the record in that case district court to be inadequate for judicial review and was very clear and complete. Id. at 761. We noted remanded the case for trial. Honn, 313 N.W.2d at "[w]here 'city councils and zoning boards do not* * * 419. Concerned that city councils and zoning boards make records of their proceedings as complete and did not ordinarily make records of their proceedings formal as those of a state administrative agency or as complete and as formal as those of a state agency, commission,' the proper procedure for review before we set out a procedure for review of zoning matters the district court provides that '[n]ew or additional which permitted use of a declaratory judgment action evidence may be received at trial.' Honn v. City of in which the parties are entitled to a trial. Id. at 416. Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415-16 (emphasis added)." Id. at n. 3. It was important to the Horan did not directly overrule Northwestern Hubbard court, in determining the fullness and College and, under its own facts, *312 was a proper fairness of the hearing before the city council on the decision but its broad language, mandating a trial in permit denial issue, that the plaintiffs had the every case may go beyond what is necessary in every opportunity, by order of the district court, to augment case. It is not unreasonable, nor unfair, where a city the record by stipulation or motion, an opportunity of has failed to make a complete and adequate record of which they did not avail themselves. The holding was its proceedings in zoning matters to require that city grounded, however, on the clearness and to prove the basis of its decision before a district completeness of the record on which the city council court. based its decision. Our conclusion that both parties acquiesed in the district court's determining both the We are persuaded by amicus curiae League of permit denial and the constitutional issue on the Minnesota Cities that Honn has had a salutary effect. record went particularly to the constitutional issue. (FN1) Amicus advises this court that, in reliance on Even had Hubbard not acquiesced, the city had Honn,many cities have borne the expense of verbatim already suggested a trial on the constitutional issue in transcripts of their proceedings. These cities have its memorandum in support of its motion for partial carefully made findings supported by transcribed summary judgment on the permit denial issue. (FN2) evidence so that their zoning decisions, if challenged, 323 N.W.2d at 761-762. would not be decided by a district court on the basis of evidence never considered by them. According to [2] Hubbard, then, does not stand for the proposition amicus, one city hired a state hearing examiner to take that a permit denial may never be reviewed on the evidence in a zoning matter which resulted in a 15-day record absent acquiescence of the parties. Nor do we hearing and 3,487 pages of hearing transcript. believe that Honn requires a trial or augmentation of the record in every case, especially in light of the It becomes clear that this effort and expense would response of Minnesota cities to our concerns in that be wasted if every property owner whose zoning case. Rather, we have concluded that a district court Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works � 7 • • 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 6 should establish the scope and conduct of its review of certain photos and graphics were not allowed at the a municipality's zoning decision by considering the hearing and, therefore, should have been made nature, fairness *313 and adequacy of the available to the district court. A review of the proceeding at the local level and the adequacy of the transcript reveals, however, that plaintiff's own expert factual and decisional record of the local proceeding. voluntarily withheld the photos. Hasek stated: Where the municipal proceeding was fair and the "Perhaps in lieu [sic] of the late hour, I'll go through record clear and complete, review should be on the the graphics for you and if there's any further record. Where the municipal body has proposed explanation needed, we'll pull the slides out." formal findings contemporaneously with its decision Further, both Hasek and Mayor Lindau commented and there is an accurate verbatim transcript of the on the limited usefulness of the graphics which proceedings, the record is likely to be clear and apparently became distorted on projection. complete. Consequently, Hasek described their content in great detail; and this verbal description, contained in the [3] When the review is conducted on the record, the transcript, was available for review by the district district court should receive additional evidence only court. on substantive issues raised and considered by the municipal body and then only on determining that the Swanson and Cadmus argue that,under Honn, in all additional evidence is material and that there were cases challenging municipal decisions in zoning good reasons for failure to present it at the municipal matters, parties should be allowed to augment the proceedings. The standard of review is whether the record with additional relevant evidence. They claim municipal body's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary that they were denied this opportunity. Although they or capricious, with review focused on the legal do not challenge the accuracy of the council's sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given. verbatim transcript, they argue that the record does not show the extent to which the council's decision [4] Where the municipal proceeding has not been was a response to neighborhood opposition, nor does fair or the record of that proceeding is not clear and it disclose data on similar prior applications for complete, Honn applies and the parties are entitled to subdivision. a trial or an opportunity to augment the record in district court. The meaningful review to which parties [6] As to the first argument, the transcript contains are entitled requires no less. all of the testimony given by the neighbors. Beyond that, we do not believe that evidence on the extent to [5] In Swanson's case, the trial court properly based which neighborhood opposition played a role is its review of the city council's zoning decision on the relevant. While neighborhood feeling may not record. The record consisted of verbatim transcripts constitute the sole basis for a zoning decision, it may of the public hearings on the matter, including still be taken into account. Northwestern College v. statements by experts on both sides; written reports City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d at 869. Here, the by the city director of planning and city forester; and city council's resolution described the reasons for its contemporaneous written findings by the city council decision and made clear that environmental concern, on which the council based its decision. From this not neighborhood opposition, *314 was the major extensive record, a satisfactory review can be made. reason for the denial of the subdivision application. The record also demonstrates that the proceedings were fair. The matter was considered at four As to data on similar prior applications for meetings of the city council: May 20, June 3, June subdivision, no claim of unequal treatment is set out, 10, June 17, 1985. Swanson, Cadmus, Waters and on these facts, there would seem to be none. (Cadmus' attorney) and Ed Hasek, respondent's Swanson is not to be compared with any person ever landscape architect, were all allowed to testify without requesting and receiving or being denied an any apparent time limits. Hasek's testimony alone application for subdivision in Bloomington. He is to covered four transcript pages in small print. be compared with other property owners in the Swanson's witnesses were allowed to answer Timberglade 2nd Addition of Bloomington, the unique questions and react to the testimony of other environment of which is here at issue. For 30 years, participants. Finally, they were given every from its inception until two to three years before opportunity to present relevant material. Swanson's request, that environment has been protected by a restrictive covenant which prohibited At oral argument, plaintiffs' attorney implied that subdivision of large lots. Furthermore, the Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works • • 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 7 moratorium on the new zoning ordinance was lifted the law when the court of appeals considered this while the council debated this subdivision application. matter. Thus, this court now modifies Honn to the Thus, it is unlikely that similar prior applications for extent that a full trial de novo is not required in subdivision have been granted. certain cases and the court of appeals could not have known when it decided this matter that Honn was to We hold that the district court properly reviewed the be modified, as we now do. It correctly applied the municipal zoning decision on the record where the law as it then existed, in my opinion. New law and municipal proceeding was fair and the record is clear new interpretations are properly the function of this and complete. court. III. 2. I have no quarrel with this court's desire to reduce trials de novo in district court and to avoid [7] The second issue is whether the district court courts' infringing on the decision-making process of properly granted summary judgment to the city. municipalities. That is part of this court's function--to Since review is on the record, the question is whether outline, circumscribe and guide the judicial system as the city council's decision was reasonable or whether part of its supervisory and law development powers. it was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Honn v. Honn had an inadequate record for judicial review, so City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d at 417. The city this court remanded and set out a procedure for council is required by the Bloomington City Code, reviewing zoning matters. That procedure is still section 16.05.01(e)(5) to deny approval of a good law and still remains applicable in future cases, preliminary or final plat if it finds "that the design of but this court now circumscribes a full trial when the the subdivision or the proposed improvements are record is fair and complete. likely to cause substantial environmental damage." The city's Director of Planning, the City Forester and *315. 3. Thus, in future cases trial courts, before a wildlife biologist all described the likely denying a full trial, must determine whether the environmental effects, including loss of trees and record before the municipality meets this new other vegetation both on the lot and on adjacent criterion. A record before a municipality might be properties, wind damage and loss of windbreak effect. fully transcribed, but were the proceedings adequate, The city council's fmding of a likelihood of substantial fair and complete? This involves determining: were environmental damage is thus supported by the hearing examiners utilized in appropriate proceedings? evidence and provides a rational basis for the were witnesses subject to questioning by other municipal decision. Such a finding is sufficient parties? was there foundation for opinions reason, under the ordinance, for denying the plat expressed? were offers of proof permitted? were application. We hold that the district court properly matters outside the record relied on? were granted summary judgment to the city. We reverse appropriate continuances permitted? was relevant the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the evidence received? were complete contemporaneous judgment of the trial court. findings made to support the municipalities' decision? and other such considerations. In other words, the Reversed; judgment of district court reinstated. trial court must determine whether the hearing itself was fair and adequate and if the parties had a full POPOVICH,Justice(concurring specially). opportunity to present their views, or whether the proceedings reflected the will of the decision-makers While I agree with the result in this matter based on and not their judgment(majority opinion at 313). the facts here, I am concerned that by implication Honn v. City of Coon Rapids may be considered 4. In the June 17, 1985, resolution adopted by the overruled completely. In my opinion, that would be city council here, among other factors was a statement an inappropriate conclusion. to the effect the council also relied upon its experience and knowledge of the area, without greater specificity. 1. I agree with the court of appeals' analysis of I don't know what that was. In the future, such Honn to provide for a trial to review a zoning matter. general statements should be augmented by proper This court now circumscribes a full trial as required findings, joined in by a majority of the governing by Honn when the record of a municipal proceeding body. Parties should know exactly what the decision- was fair, clear and complete; finding under the facts makers relied on. The test isn't just verbatim of this case that occurred. That, of course, was not transcripts and neighborhood opposition alone. Here, Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works 1' 421 N.W.2d 307, Swanson v. City of Bloomington, (Minn. 1988) Page 8 the rest of the record justifies the result expressed in organization of 782 member Minnesota cities. this case. FN2. No constitutional issue was raised on appeal in YETKA,Justice. Swanson's case, only the issue of whether on review of a city council's zoning decision parties are I join in the special concurrence of Mr. Justice entitled to a trial or to augment the record made Popovich. before the city council with additional relevant FN1. The League of Minnesota Cities is a cooperative evidence. Copyright(c)West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works 70 • • Ernst Associates • 2 November 1998 Mr. Stu Nolan Stuart Shelard Mgmnt. Corp. 1050 W. 80th Bloomington, MN 55420-1000 Ref: Perkins Subdivision / Eden Prairie Legal Description: Tracts A&B Registered Land Survey #1371 Dear Stuart: As per your request on October 30, I reviewed the Perkins subdivision Fapplication that was on file at the City of Eden Prairie as submitted by Mr. James Perkins under the title of Preliminary Plat & Grading Plan, dated revision 10/23/98 as prepared by HTPO - Job #92-146. The plan was drawn at 1"= 30' scale. In reviewing the data available I interpreted the following: Existing Trees - At the present time there is 1,489 caliper inches of tree on the site. 1989 approved plan indicated a loss of 486 caliper inches of tree. The 1989 plan showing replacement of existing homes 665 caliper inches of tree loss. The 1998 plan shows 442 caliper inches of tree loss. I calculated from the plan a total of 445 caliper inches of tree loss. This does not reflect the additional trees as noted below. In reviewing the site on 2 November 1998, I'm curious to know why at least 2 more significant trees are not shown on the applicant's plan?, These 2 trees were a 26" white oak and a 12" locust. As you know, there were many more trees along your north property line and within the site that aren't shown but probably are not because they are slightly under the 12" cal. Retaining Walls - 1998 plan shows the face of the new proposed wall at 14-15' south of the north property line. The 1989 plan showed the retaining wall at 45' south of the north property line. Wall Elevations - 1998 plan shows the top of wall at the west end at 886±. It also shows the wall dying into glade at the west end. 85' east to where the wall curves the bottom of the wall is at 883± and top of wall is at 898± (a 15' high retaining wall). As the wall continues to the east on the curve it starts dropping from a 15' high wall to a 14, 13 and on down to a lower wall as it continues to the east. I would request that the plans submitted need to reflect the proposed construction limits and the impact on the site caused by building the proposed walls. To build the 15' high wall it will probably require excavating a minimum of 15-20' behind the wall. That is assuming that you could hold the slope at approximately a 1:1 slope during the construction of the footings. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LAND PLANNING • 122 W.SIXTH ST. ■ CHASKA.MN 55318 ■ PH.612-448-4094 ■ FAX 612-448-6997 7/ Ernst Associates Mr. Stu Nolan 2 November 1998 Page 2 I would also request that the applicant stake the complete alignment of the proposed retaining wall that is being proposed south of your property line. At least I feel that they should stake the 85'± east/west wall within 15' of your property line. I would think this information would also be valuable for all city decision making individuals to review. • The north south driveway to the east also shows retaining walls proposed to be constructed to retain the existing trees. It should be noted that those walls are ranging from 4' to 9' in height. Again, these walls are within 8-13' of large existing oak trees. Existing Trees - The 1989 plan shows keeping the 18" elm, 22" oak and a 20" oak in the NW portion of the site. The 1998 plan shows all 3 of those trees being removed for the construction of a future structure, retaining wall and drainage swales. Building Pads - 1989 plan shows proposed building pad being 63' south of the north property line. The 1998 plan shows proposed building at 34' south of the north property line. Septic Tanks - In reviewing the proposed septic tank locations it was noted that the 2 westerly lots are sharing a septic field. It was also noted that there was only.one location shown for both the primary and secondary septic systems. In the city files it should bb noted that the city has requested additional information in reference to the septic field. I have not investigated this farther. It appears that the report as prepared by Swedlund Inc. indicates that there are only 2 locations on the property that septic systems could be installed due to soil conditions. Existing Trees to be Removed - 22" oak 20" oak 18" elm 22" oak 12" pine 10" pine 24" oak 20" oak 17"oak 26" oak • 26" oak 13" oak 18" oak 15" oak 18" oak 10" oak 14" oak 12" oak 18" oak 12" oak 15" oak 12" oak 13" oak 12" oak 14" oak 17" oak 15" oak 445 cal. inches 7 • • Ernst Associates Mr. Stu Nolan 2 November 1998 Page 2 Additional Trees that will be impacted by the construction• of retaining walls: 12" box elder 14" oak 24" oak 20" oak 70 caliper inches Additional Trees that are within the site and along the north property line not shown on the plan: 26" white oak 12" locust 10" ash 24" oak 10" ash 10" ash 11" ash 10" ash 12" ash { Proposed Wells - It was noted that the plan shows the location of the 3 new wells adjacent to the new proposed building pads. Location of the new wells will need to be located correctly for health reasons in proximity to the existing and the proposed septic fields. In summary, comparing the 1989 plan to the 1998 plan I feel that the new plan will have a greater negative impact on the site than the 1989 proposal. The character of the site is going to be altered more with this new plan as it relates to topography and the removal of large existing trees than the 1989 plan. If this plan is approved the physical and visual character of this site will change as viewed from adjoining property within the neighborhood. If the westerly 85' of the proposed retaining wall were shifted a minimum of 15-20' south of its presently proposed location, there may be some chance of saving more trees or at least reducing the impact on trees to remain along your south property line. It would also allow for existing underbrush and smaller trees to remain as a visual buffer between the 2 properties. Any grading and construction of walls as proposed is going to have short and long term effects on any of the existing trees to remain. If there are any questions or further discussion in reference to this memo or the project please do not hesitate to give me a call. Best Regards, SSOCIATES 0.• Gene F. Ernst GFE:cb `73 40Vwq37 . ew ,_ ��/�1/// w� y• Si., :�fy; _ r KEITH IC WATERS , 8;ASSOCIATES1GRS ,INCRS s' DGSN $t C I . ty11 * i RESIDENCE ! ; A .� S '1 y 4 fit# $ k '4% —?_;1 � ' 4; ar `fir x rc/ 74, 4,'lT X i+Y' y F < t t NORTH +I ;, LEGEND 1—EXISTING HIGH WATER LINE .d 2—PROPOSED HIGH WATER LINE • °".Y '" 3—EXISTING 100' SETBACK ' �":, '•'I 4—PROPOSED 100' SETBACK " „ I", �''''';4 '� 5—EXISTING CENTER OF SWALE $—PROPOSED CENTER OF SWALE ;, ','s .. ; <EXISTING VEGETATION '' It- NEW VEGETATION 11j- • SITE PLAN SCALE 1 so' } r ts ` .,,,;,-..... —'�.. ♦ !, [a7.:, . B.R. ,�:.. 40. E f --�-— * / Q}f0 / �/ l fif ,/,,,,,,/ ,.......0 ' ' '- C" k / ' ' r,t z! . ` j ''' • / 7' \ N• W U E - , 4 , ,,.... \\\\jc(. \ T , ° 4 1, _ � •_ • .,q ' i �c( '"`0---__ • , k , . ‘',i,,,...<-,,• \,,',/ . -;It' -A' -..4.------o ., .‘.It1* - _-•• ) •- \ ‘_( tom. tr fi , . 1-,\.,i..t ... ,•,, . .- . !- 1 , a AP / t tE f _ l ' Q \* ; i i .. t. • N;z4 a \ \ , /�ktt . � �+ , \ \ \ *_./ ,. , . . , . , _ . \t. \ \ , \ .... . .... ... .„.. .._.. . . . , \\ .,, ,,- ,..,.......,„... ..r......4.„..,..., : , _ ,--_, \ . ,,,„ . , . ,. , . '\ -...-..\. , \ .. _..,..,........, .,.,....„.„,...„,........ ., „.. .. , ..\\ .,,, ,.. ,`.„, . , .„ A., • - ..., .., .,.,„ . ,'„,, ... ' 1\''. 11' ' '''°:v.':Q...-.'''' .. i _ 40. �Y c�� l t � fST. DRtYE, `J t t \ ..„ Rom' vl 75 1 ; y ; \ ~ `, xi ON I ....). • C. Request #93-47 by Dale and Ruth Bachman for 6761 Beach Road for approval to construct a part of a new home 89 feet from Bryant Lakes High Water Level. The Code contains a minimum setback of 100 feet. Background The home built in the 1960s on this lot was recently removed. The lot abuts Bryant Lake which is a Recreational Development Waters and a 100 foot setback is required by the Shoreland Code. The homes along this side of the lake have setbacks from the lake ranging from 70 to 100+ feet. (See attached aerial) On this lot there still remains a storage shed and bridge approximately 50 feet from the lakes High Water Level. Request The owners desire to place a new home on approximately the same location as the previous structure. This proposed home location is approximately 180 feet from the open water of Bryant Lake. During a lot survey, it was discovered that the lake's Ordinary High Water Level, 852.6, protrudes into the lot and creates a hardship for the setback. The majority of the proposed home meets the 100 foot setback. The portion of the home 11 feet into the setback is a deck and room, approximately 10% of the structure's area. The proposed house location sets into the existing topography thus minimizing grading and tree loss. Because the proposed house location is 180 feet from the lake's edge, is not uncharacteristic of the other houses, and is impacted by the Ordinary High Water Level protruding into the lot, the intent of the Shoreland Code appears to be met. If the Board chooses to approve the variance, Staff recommends the non-conforming shed and bridge be removed during the home construction. The Board may wish to choose one of the following: 1) Approve as requested with the condition listed above. 2) Continue the request for additional information. 3 Deny Variance Request #93-47. 9347.JJ 7( STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 19, 1989 PROJECT: Freeburg/Perkins Addition LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road APPLICANT: Clayton Freeburg FEE OWNERS: Raymond Freeburg, Raynell Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg REQUEST: Registered Land Survey of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts , with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background/History \ I I Icr' ";. Please first refer to the Staff a, ,+ : �.! Report to the Planning Commission #i, . .-- P , dated June 10, 1988, for information ` ,", ` x , ,.'' regarding the background and history , r , , ,, 4,. of the proposed project. { } • .,? 4. - 1 a h r .* . t'c , ' , I Site Plan/R.L.S. rt 1 ''i s �� ` t }.` ��r •t'k5 ut,. YC.SYIP --►cif • i..;• Changes to the plan in response to , :I: ` — _ additional utility information ,. �", ''�y;z - �• 1. PROPOSED SITE �/ provided by the proponent, included ` • • ' � " " /it �' X t: an increase in 1 of size for Tract C . ` �< A� 7 *.:' from 32,000 to 36,000 square feet, 4 ;,__ a •e"...4 ,,, __. { :+! due to the relocation of the eastern 'me•'.. �i2'' �.�.� �! I lot line. This change was made so iN. I. • ' that the existing septic system ) r--+ •1., a r -,i r !tt,y •r4; , g r would be included on the parcel . No r r ,� xs i ,,` �:Ya "� 00 e�' other changes have been made to the }�' lr+ � 1� f ) iA proposed subdivision. All of the rt >r " /:=3:%; r'•. '. lots meet the minimum requirements I i',, ,�t, '' , �� of the R1-22 zoning district with 1:r6•?t, a �k. � / :! the exception of frontage on a r; c� i publicly dedicated street. A 20- ,r,� _ 11 foot easement has been submitted _ . 0 u ...., „ ,,, -�� r-, I- whi ch would provide access to Tracts ! C EG-SER i -//`' 1 A and C. Tract B woul d access I__ ,_ , x I �r Willow Creek Road. ntn4/,-mP , 1. AREA LOCATION MAP 7 Freeburg/Perkins Addition 2 May 19, 1989 Resolution #868 adopted by City Council on July 9, 1974, cited the following reasons for denying the request to subdivide the property into 3 building sites: 1. Ordinance #93, Chapter 12, as amended , requires each property to abut a public road to better serve the occupants therein. Since the June 10, 1988, Staff Report, two subdivisions have been approved with private roads with characteristics such as the Freeburg/Perkins Addition. The Red Rock Shores subdivision abutting Mitchell Lake has a private road providing access to 6 single family lots. The reasons behind the granting of the private road is that it provided a better site plan, saved additional trees and natural site features, and allowed for larger lots than what could be accomplished with a public road. The Creekview Addition also has a private road providing access to two single family lots. This road was approved because of its ability to save additional natural site features such as slopes and trees. A public road could be extended to service the 3 lots within the Freeburg/Perkins Addition; however, it would result in mass grading and tree loss and would not serve the public benefit. The two homes which are benefiting from the road easement are already existing. Tract B, the proposed location of the new home would have access to Willow Creek Road. 2. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sites and is more in conformace with the neighboring plat and the restrictions thereon. The proponent has submitted a prototype building pad designed to work with the contours of the existing property. The two homes currently existing will not result in any additional grading or land alteration. The proposed building plan indicates a tuck-under design home with no attached garage, thus requiring grading for only that portion of the building pad placed on the hillside. Although the plans depict a 50-foot building pad which was recommended for purpose of analysis in the previous Staff Report, the proponent will be required to submit a more detailed grading plan showing all grading which may be expected with the construction of a single family home. This plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review. Any deviation from the proposed grading plan at time of building permit issuance will require both Planning Commission and City Council review. A tree inventory has been submitted by the proponent for Tract C. There are a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site with a calculated tree loss of 355 caliper inches, or 41.6%. Based upon this figure, a tree replacement plan depicting 196 caliper inches is required. The proponent shall submit a detailed tree inventory for the entire property which is expected to reduce the percentage of tree replacement required. In response to the question: "Is there a restriction applicable to the Freeburg/Perkins property that the lot size be a least one acre in size pursuant to covenant or furtherance of a general plan?" 7 Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 May 19, 1989 The Court judgement dated May 13, 1977 stated that: "The Freeburg/Perkins property is not subject to any restriction requiring lot size to be not less than one acre." The City Councils decision reflected in Resolution #868 was made prior to and without the benefit of the court judgement of May 13, 1977. 3. Failure to subdivide said tract into 3 parcels would not cause an exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant of substantial property right. According to the history of the proposed project, deeds were given to Raynell Perkins and Clayton Freeburg in 1973 for Tracts B and C. If the subdivision had been approved at the time of the earlier request, it could have been accomplished without variances except for road frontage. Since that time, the City has adopted the Shoreland Ordinance, which creates 8 of the 11 variances being requested. The denial of the proposed subdivision deprives the applicant of the use of his 52,000 square foot lot, apparently owned since 1973, for a single family home. Shoreland Ordinance The minimum requirements for single family homes on abutting lots , without public sewer include the following: 1. Minimum lot size - 5 Acres . 2. Minimum width at building line - 300feet. 3. Minimum width at 0.H.W. - 150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from 0.H.W. - 100 feet. The following chart indicates how the revised Tracts A, B, and C respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. Required Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. 1.06 ac.* 1.19 ac.* 0.83 ac.* 2. 300 feet 268 feet* 270 feet* 195 feet* 3. 150 feet 350 feet 80 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 110 feet 200 feet 75 feet* * - Items which will require a variance . As indicated, a total of 8 variances will be required from the Shoreland Ordinance. If the project had been approved when originally submitted, the Shoreland Ordinance would not have been in effect and the variances would not be required. 7 [ Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 May 19, 1989 Conclusions In the report dated June 10, 1988, Staff concluded the following: 1. "The proponent, in order to subdivide the property as proposed, and according to current City Code requirements will be requesting a total of 12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a publicly dedicated street." The current plan indicates 8 shoreland variances. In order to meet the lot size requirement, a parcel would have to be 15 acres in size. The lot size of the parcel prior to subdividing is approximately 3 acres. None of the lots abutting Bryant Lake along the east side of Willow Creek Road meet the lot size requirement. Additional variances are caused by the width of the lots at the building line. Again, no adjacent lots meet the existing requirements for lot width. The proposed lot widths of this project are as large or larger than those existing along Willow Creek Road. The width at the Ordinary High Water Mark for Tract B is the only lot which does not meet the 150-foot width requirement. This variance could be eliminated by the elimination of lot frontage along Bryant Lake. However, lot frontage along Bryant Lake adds value to the property and does not create any significant deviation to the shoreland esthetics . Finally, Tracts A and C are the lots which do not meet the setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The original house was not subject to these requirements and the home on Tract C was built and approved by the City in 1975 and met the requirements at that time. Mr. Freeburg' s home on Tract B meets the requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance in regards to setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark with a setback of approximately 200 feet. 2. "The lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning districts; however, the size of the lots , and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size in the area of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. The City Council in Resolution #868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lot subdivision with the existing neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-lot subdivision." The average lot size of the proposed R.L.S. is 44,733 square feet, or 1.03 acres. Existing lots within the area average approximately 60,144 square feet, or 1.38 acres . The difference between the averages is approximately 15,411 square feet. In this particular case, 2 of the lots proposed exceed the size of the smallest lot abutting Bryant Lake along the east side. Thus , the lots proposed would not be the smallest in this particular area. In regards to building setbacks from Bryant Lake , 2 of the setbacks are based upon homes which are currently existing and met the requirements of the zoning district when built. Based upon the proposed plan, the house setback for Tract B is a minimum of 200 feet which exceeds the average setback of homes in the area. As this information 10 indicates , the lots which are being proposed are not significantly out of character with the existing neighborhood. Freeburg/Perkins Addition 5 May 19, 1989 3. "In order to review this project, Staff must have complete and accurate information to evaluate all aspects of the project. As stated in the letter of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additional information from the proponent. The proponent has not submitted the requested information." In the minutes dated June 13, 1988, Staff and Planning Commission stated that the minimum information which must be submitted for review purposes included: 1) an overall grading plan depicting a 50- foot building pad, 2) a tree inventory, 3) utility locations . This information has been submitted for Staff review. A typical grading plan has been submitted which indicates a 50-foot house ad with a P tuck-under design. The proposed plan indicates minimal grading designed primarily to show drainage around the house. Staff would recommend that the grading plan be further detailed. The plan does not currently indicate an attached garage. According to the proponent, the existing garage at the base of the hill is proposed to be utilized. Once a specific home is designed, Staff recommends additional review to determine conformance with the approved plan. If any deviation exists between the proposed grading plan and the approved grading plan causing more impact, the proponent must return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. A tree inventory has been submitted which indicates a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site. A tree loss of 355 caliper inches has been calculated. Staff recommends that the proponent provide a detailed tree inventory for the entire site to reduce the amount of tree replacement required. A tree replacement plan must be submitted prior to Council review. The utility locations shown on the plan indicate that the minimum State requirements are being met for Tract B. In a memo , dated January 14, 1974, from Marty Jessen , former Director of Parks and Community Services , stated that information provided by the Department of Natural Resources indicated that the proposed Shoreland Management Regulations may require an approximate lot size of 20,000 to 40,000 square feet without sewer, building setbacks of 75 to 100 feet, and a sanitary sewer setback of 50 feet. Based upon the assumed regulations in 1974, all three lots would meet the minimum requirements of the shoreland management regulations . A permit for the septic system for Tract C was inspected and approved September 9, 1975. There is no permit information existing for the septic system on Tract A. Because the septic systems for Tract A and C are both setback approximately 70 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, they would have to be relocated according to the current minimum State standards if they were to fail . 4. "Finally, an alternative exists for the development of the property which would reduce the number of variances required and make the lot sizes more consistent with the existing neighborhood. By eliminating the lake frontage of Tract B, the number of variances could be reduced from 12 to 9 and Tracts A and C could be increased in size . An easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B." Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 May 19, 1989 By eliminating the lake frontage for Tract B, 3 of the proposed 8 variances could be eliminated. As indicated in the previous Staff Report, an easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B. The Planning Commission and proponent may wish to consider this alternative. Summary Based upon the current analysis, it appears that the proposed subdivision would not be significantly out of character with what is existing in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff has indicated that if the proper procedures had been followed in the early 1970's , this project could have been approved without variances except for lot frontage. Currently, the majority of the variances being requested are Shoreland Ordinance which would be required of any lot located along Willow Creek Drive. Information which has been submitted including the grading plan and tree inventory has indicated that the proposal would not seriously alter the natural characteristics of the site or shoreland area other than that expected with the construction of a single family home. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the proposed R.L.S. has merit, appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the proposed R.L.S. of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts , with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, subject to plans dated April 25, 1989, and May 8, 1989, the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Prior to Council review, proponent shall : A. Submit a revised grading plan detailing all grading expected. B. Submit an overall tree inventory for the entire project site. Tree replacement will be based upon the revised tree inventory. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall : A. Submit detailed building plans for review. B. Notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 3. Apply for, and receive, variances from the Board of Appeals for shoreland variances and lot frontages on a publicly dedicated street. If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances are excessive , and that the proposed development is incompatible with the existing neighborhood , then the appropriate action would be for denial . y.. • Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 22, 1939 v, N - 00 CO r C_ C.. -. . sad t • • cr� u e; F 1 ° .k . ..0 Z:FREEBURGIPERKINS,ADDITION b� Clayton Freebur r Re• zest ; �` 4t. :for a- Re istered - 'and -Surve rs„�,���-�� q: y •of �2,• 39 acres{�into. ��3ats ; $ i with`-'va-4 .t 0-eke,lbe reviewed by the Board of Appeal �` r � ,01 - ,.; withinN-the It..7 2on1ng )].strict -Locati©n'l°mP701G Willowy s ' a „� � Creek;Ro` Cj. .aA' ,1.ho1'ic-3leaziag ', � ,, -- r- 3 `.; .}?G,rK�e�+.5.3"'Y.Y' "5 _io 1���`�Y-S Y.�}� J '45.�y'}�Y w -tx� � ti .�crf�j r��'"�'+x,�i,,3"' � <^, �r 1'W-�—sx`��i..' ., d Ei;.. Y" a:,. d 1.i 3 F's -...LS 1�a 4h tg .� . �;••Zr4 ;Uram repot` d ;h laytoil Freeburg lvaz, �-� � y � i I I=�a nd�ph r k, . 'request.;x tom iz- �eebur $he-:would make the it "' ..i ""' 9 presentation . ; om :'for•::the proponent . £ the Commission approved _ a7 :'. The.:,commIzslon was.;concerned. :tl-c at:_ t:; ident ; hall r>been" in _.. ,. • attendance ,n:thex past=and :were ,not-.bete tr_,n5 ght ,;:ir,�m - replied that the proper. notices had been ma:i1edj' at was --_ 6. -, pub ll:hcd 3n the°'tpaper 7 :and added -that' Sti:if'had rer-etved ...... - r— -inquities regaz.d nglithQ;_roposaI,J•f .kfist,^,ttz NolundArclated - �. \ tv the h-6uset ocat=ion Band Don S0renson r42.lated rzezesebas74:- m 3. .cosl3d- „V ,..._.,......_. 'C. '!..� ar75'• 72�'Yy1,K r,Z R-. YTY ' t, ?„m-1 . _. ,:.ems. _ '63 I5U8 . Planning Co:11mis: o.n May 2? 9 = 1_89- Mrs. Freeburg stated that this was a let that the family- ha(-1 = wanted to develop for 15 years . " Ut.:ini reported that the proponent had provided staff with: the additional information requested? _eyardi;:y grading, =_ tree inventory, and the location of the present utilities. Uram noted that one of the earlier objections Baas that each of the lots must abut a public road; however, since ' the original request two other subdivisions had been approved in Eden Prairie; Boulder Pointe and Bell Oaks, which had a private road which served inure than one lot. He added that a public road would destroy the site due to the topography of the land and the S0-Foot right-of-way requited . A private road easement would be filed with the- property to service the two existing }comes and the Freeburg home would have access to Willow Creek Road _ .. , Uram :.i,dded that due to the grade of: the site the yarage:= - c. c Z-nd would to located: adjacent to Willow Creek Road . Uram stated that a second -objection to the origimal ,M r i.-r `.L t "-4 Y"ra�.t;#` a .•_C111G:,,. �•�:: related to the "topog:.apl.y of �he.'lunc� -anc. tae z recommendation that a two lot subdivision would be 1nere 3n; _ conformance wit h the existing hore A court case -Ini191714It ruled that the lots' were not.`subject to the one-acre > ` minimum lot size private 'covenant of the adjacent properties . Uram noted that the Council did not have the >E: hene;f it of the court case. information. • Uram stated that two-of '.the homes were existing structures . The' Freeburg-:home being a tuck-in unit iwoi: •. not significantly alter- the< site based on the grading pi' - submitted . o The ' ro ert had been deeded to the pro r e P A Y.: P P in 1973 and he had .been =.uzable 'to use the land. :. Ifs the: proposal had been approved originally, the proponent w u :': have had the .benefit7ofliuttlizing this lakeshore propert for 15 years . The new plan would require 8 shoreland variances due to`,lot .sizes and sanitary sewer regulations; f • Uram stated that'in�orde to:meet the Shoreland OrdinanC the property would•.need 'to ,contain 1.5 acres due to'_t,he';A5' acre minimum lot size requirement; however, he :voted that - none of the lots along Bryant Lake would meet the -` Shoreland Ordinance today. He added that the proposal- bei11<; i'resented wad.' not .out of character with the existing_:'. neighborhood, with the - lots being approximately the game = = size and width. The proposed.' shoreland setback of 200 t` feet would exceed • the==exi;zting -average shoreland "setback x of feet -.. Y_Y` .. _l: .... " q'•i i 4 xtr c •,..ry-� _..n - - - - . .- -rs' -4* �' *J am :reported:01AVIt e �Oposed `t eeburg To :vcul -7 ;°� •-! k ..s,, the_'state r septic--:system, _however`, _ hem- existing homes' did `cot - Uram `stated that when ':her existing septic systems failed the new zystems would -need _ 150Li Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 22, 1989 to be relocated to meet state re-quirei ento . Staff recommended the tree inventory include the entire three acre site . Uram said the proponent was proposing 80 feet of lakeshore frontage on 3ryant bake . An alternative existed tc eliminate the lakeshore frontage through an easement for lake access. Uram stated that the lakeshore frontage would add value to the Freeburg property, would riot take away from the view of the lake, and would not be inconsistent with the oxi::,ting properties . Anderson asked how many of the variances applied--to the existing homes . Uram replied 3 of the variances were for the existing homes . Sandstad asked how the City would know if the septic systems had failed Uram replied difficult �• V1 Ll 111 L i�L)L ��� I t would be ("( l unless they applied for a permit for a new system or. if a neighbor complained . Sandstad asked if it would be expensive to relocate the .-:1`iteun:i . Uram replied yes. Hallett asked when City water and sewer would be available in this area . Uram replied the neighborhood would need to o w. ,petition n for or tor nd sewer . Bye asked if there was currently any monitoring of the , c lake by the Parks and Recreation Department . Uram replied he was not aware of onli monitoring. Hallett suggested recommending monitoring to the Parks and -Recreation Department . Dodge asked what the requitement was for private _:ewers . Uram replied 100 feet from the high water mark . Dodge then asked about the minimum lot size outside the MUSA Line of 10 acres to allow for the private septic systems. t Uram replied that private septic systems; could be used on f; R1-22 lots -within the City and added that these proposed lots exceeded the average R1-22 lot s- ze Sandstad asked Mrs . Freeburg is they had given consideration to the easement alternative. Freeburg replied that they would like to keep the lakeshore frontage andbelieved that the property value would be = lessened without the lakeshore frontage property. MOTION 1 : • andstad moved, seconded by Dodge to Clore the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 . • MOTION 2 ... _ - 'a -141.: aR1 4` .ai'^Ke , „ ., 1w h N. 46t4e.,r . A f 5itt ii ,.. ,; .gyp { s ,f7 w „ _ SandstadEmoved _secondPd by=nodgeto recommend: to L':ie'City : ' f: Council approval (.:f the request of Clay!_off Freebur:� for approval of 72egisl• tc'd Land Serve y of `.1:e� Freeburg/Perkins J y 0 15Y5 • Planning Cc=rmi:_: i_;f Minutes 7 May 'May "1989 ._, addition on 2 . 84 .ic;es for three lctc;, based on 'pi.ar.s u��t�d May II, 1989, subject to i:;:c recc,m;; crdZticr.:; of:` the Staff Report dated May 19, 19", with the addition to the Staff Report that the road eaemerzt a• r (!ment must be filed with the RLS. Motion carried 5 -p • _ s � i '' ti. ram^ f.,. t S $ 'a —f' -..., .!- 6.r, i'i _ -_._� J1 3 ,. r . 9 g_rem . � s.._..• Y S.` S. x Y a .▪ .;�. �.e' +�%'v S .n evsnv 4 ye ,y...,;.� a,a.. � � , ms ry .e •t^ ▪ r' - v1-'"f YV :4e� - F ae . -r _ �?t� r i "f4j-�'ra 4-. F t �::Y .�jT _ _ _T -�±r• . .-r • E . FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITION by Clayton Freeburg . Request for a Registered Land Survey of 2 . 34 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals within the R1-22 Zoning District . Location : 7010 Willow Creek Road . (Resolution No . 09-141 -- Registered Land Survey) Clayton Freeburg, 5603 Sherwood Avenue, Edina, stated that this was a family project . Freeburg had tried to subdivide the property into 3 one acre parcels . A tree inventory had been provided . Two homes existed currently on the property. A portion of the variances requested were for the existing homes . Freeburg stated that the site would not interfere with the lakeshore . The existing road would be acceptable and entrance to the site would be from the cul-de-sac . Freeburg said that he had tried to follow the ordinances and conform with the City 's regulations . Franzen reported that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the project with a 5-0 vote . The project was not out of character with the existing homes . Franzen noted that none of the lots along Bryant: Lake would comply with the current Shoreland Ordinance . The Planning Commission believed that the proposed home would be hidden as it was being built: into the hillside . Franzen stated that if the tree loss were calculated on only one lot it could be considered excessive; however, the tree loss should take into consideration all three lots . The access would be from an existing private drive . Franzen noted that private drives had been allowed in the past as an acceptable access when tree loss would be mitigated . The grading on the site would be limited to the house area . The garage would be located near the east end of the property. Anderson stated that this project had been denied by a previous Council . Anderson asked if water and sewer were available on Beach Road . Dietz replied that only sewer was available . Anderson then asked if this area should have sewer . He added that there had been indications of problems in the area with water clarity on Bryant Lake . Anderson noted that septic tanks would not meet City requirements in other areas of the City. Anderson believed that if water and sewer were available all around Bryant Lake it would not be a problem to approve the project. Anderson was concerned about water contamination and the requirement for 12 variances . Peterson noted that a portion of the 12 variances were for �J `b 7 City Council Minutes 14 June 20, 1989 the existing homes . Jullie stated that if septic systems were properly maintained they did not create serious problems; however , there was always that potential . Anderson noted that the slope in this area was toward the lake . Anderson believed that city sewer should be available in this area . Freeburg stated that the drain field would drain toward a swamp. Harris asked where the existing homes were located . Freeburg replied that one home was facing toward the lake and the second home faced the cul-de-sac. Harris asked if there was sufficient land to relocate a new septic systems if the existing system did fail . Dietz replied that an alternative would be a mound system; however, this type of system was more expensive than a drain field system. Tenpas asked what was proposed for the original homesite . Freeburg replied that the original homestead would be rebuilt . Tenpas then asked Nolan if he would be able to see the new home . Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, stated that he had purchased his home approximately 2 years ago and had depended on the existing ordinances . Nolan said that this was a wonderful neighborhood, he did not wish to cause problems, but he believed that he needed to protect his property. Nolan stated that the main concern was the addition of the third home on the site . He added that the private road only had a 20-foot right-of-way and he was concerned about how emergency vehicles would provide service to these homes . Nolan stated that he had talked with Don Uram of the Planning Staff and believed that the average lot size was 1 . 5 acres and not 1 . 3 acres . This lot of . 83 acres would be the smallest lot on the lake . Nolan added that the total of the 3 lots was only 1 . 3 acres . Nolan was concern that if this subdivision were approved, how would the Council be able to deny other similar proposals . Nolan also believed that the septic system would drain onto his property. Tenpas asked what the right-of-way was for a private road . Dietz replied that a specific right-of-way had not been determined . Dietz added that the 50-foot right--of-way did not come into play for private roads . Tenpas asked where the water could come from in the event of a fire at the original homesite . Dietz replied that the Fire Department would have to use a water tank truck to carry the water to the site . City Council Minutes , June 20, 1989 Freeburg steted that all of the larger lots in the neighborhood were parties to covenants . Jim Perkins, 7010 Willow Creek , stated that the Perkins/Freeburg Families did not want. to cause problems . Perkins believed that if the septic system was done properly it should not cause a problem . Perkins noted that the soil in the area was porous and . Perkins believed that this home should have been allowed to be built 12 years ago . The families realized that fire protection would be difficult for the original homesite . Perkins did not believed that the subdivision of this property would affect the property value of surrounding lots . Dr . Wesley Burnham, 7130 Willow Creek Road, stated that he held no animosity for the Perkins or the Freeburgs . He said that he had bought: his property in 1952 and gave a historical perspective of the surrounding neighborhood and the changes which had occurred over the years . Burnham stated that traffic had increased and he did not believe that the road was designed to serve this many homes . Burnham added that he liked the roadway as it was . Pearl Freeburg, ,stated that the family had tried to be good neighbors . She added that she was unable to see the Nolan home from the proposed site . Tenpas asked if Staff believed that the variances would be approved . Franzen replied that there were covenants which existed in the Willow Creek area; however, these covenants were outside of the City Code . All of the lots in the area were on septic systems . Franzen added that all of the lots in the Willow Creek area would require variances today based on the present ordinances . Peterson believed 'that if a developer had come to the Council it: would be denied . He added that this was a family property and believed that this should count for something . Peterson did not believe that there would be any negative impact on the neighborhood . Peterson asked if the road access was sufficient to provide police and fire department access . Dietz replied that the driveway would have to serve for emergency vehicles as it existed . Anderson stated that this decision was a difficult one . He added that originally it was believed that this area would have sewer and water by this time, but things had changed over the years . Tenpas stated that he had received several calls . He believed that this subdivision was unique because of the City Council Minutes 16 June 20, 1939 topography. Tenpas believed that this property would be better served with only 2 lots. Harris stated that her main concern was the use of the septic system . Harris added that she was sympathetic to the fact that the family had• not been able to use the property. Harris was concerned about what would happen in the future for sewer, water, and streets in the area . Dietz replied that the only way that sewer and water could be brought into this area would be through a very expensive special pressure system . Dietz added that the • street could not be brought up to City standards without significant damage to existing vegetation . Anderson stated that 16 years ago it was the sewer and water issues which were discussed and the Council had been `:old then that sewer and water would be avai l<_:shle in this area . Anderson asked Dietz if sewer would be available within the next 10 years . Dietz replied that this type of system would be expensive . Dietz added that it would take a long time for drainage from the proposed septic system to affect the lake . Tenpas stated that he was not convinced that the proposed house would be consistent with the others in the neighborhood . Peterson stated that there were many varieties of homes in the area . Perkins believed that this project should not be judged on something that might happen in the future . Anderson believed that 16 years was long enough for the Freeburgs to wait to utilize their family property. There were no further comments from the audience . MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No . 89-141 approving the Registered Land Survey. Motion carried 3-1 . (Tenpas voted "NO" ) . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-141 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the Registered Land Survey for Freeburg/Perkins Addition, dated June 16, 1989, consisting of 2.84 acres into 3 lots with variances , 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 20th day of June, 1989. Gary D. eterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. , Fr , City Clerk VARIANCE #89-31 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS FINAL ORDER RE: Petition of Clayton Freeburg ADDRESS: 7010 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Exhibit A VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached Exhibit B The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES X NO ) 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and Platting Code. 3. Variance Request #89-31 is herein Granted , Denied X 4. Conditions to the granting NA , denial NA , of said variance are as follows: 5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 7. This order shall be effective July 13, 1989; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS BY: Q -/LI Lim/N.) Gj�1 DATED: July 13, 1989 All that nurt or Government Lot 5, Sect ion 11 in 'Township 116 North, I+ange 22 west, descrihed as I'ol lows to-wit: I!ceitfnini' at a point which hears 'tooth =1•56' Wert 634.5 feet from a point in the, North line of said Government Lot 5 dir:lant 655.9 feel West or the Northeast rorner of said Lot 5, thence North 84' 14" hest. 491.35 feet , more or Tess, to the shore of Bryant's Long Luke; thence so•lthot•Iv and ,asterly along; the shore or said Inky to its intersection with a line which hears South 1.04' West from the point of beginning: thence north I'04' East '.'N:I.f 5 feet , more or less, In 11w point or beginning. lAI I hearings in the foregoing description are based upon the north line a'r said Government led 5. 1 ( j1 m x z Cr J. c..t. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 6. TIT To permit proposed Tract A at 1.06 acres; permit proposed Tract B at 1.19 acres; permit proposed Tract C at 0.83 acres. City Code requires a 5 acre minimum lot size. (2 To permit proposed Tract A with a width at the building line of 268' ; permit proposed Tract B with a width at the building line of 27 1 . permit Tract C with a width at the buildin• line of 195' . City Code required a minimum width at the building line of 300' . Q To permit proposed Tract B with as minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark at 80' . City Code requires 150' . (4) To permit proposed Lot C with a building setback 75' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. City Code requires 100' . (5) To permit existing septic systems on proposed tracts A and C within 100' of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Code requires a 100' setback. (6) To permit an existing tennis court on proposed tract B within 150' of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code re uires 150' . (7) To permit an existing accessory structure on proposed Tract C within 50' of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code requires 150' . (8) To permit ro osed Tract B with lot frontage on a public street of 70' . City Code requires 90' . 9 City Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.30, Subdivision 12, to permit proposed tract A and C without frontage on a public street. City Code requires properites to have frontage on a public street. EXHIBIT B P/1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Staff Representative to Board of Adjustments & Appeals DATE: July 17, 1989 RE: FREEBURG APPEAL OF BOARD'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE #89-31, RLS The variances requested are: Variance request #89-31, submitted by Clayton Freeburg for property located at 7010 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota legally described as: See reverse side. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 6. 1 To permit proposed Tract A at 1.06 acres; permit proposed Tract B at 1.19 acres; Rtgrlipermit proposed Tract C at 0.83 acres. City Code requires a 5 acre minimum lot size. (2Y To permit proposed Tract A with a width at the building line of 268' ; permit proposed Tract B with a width at the building line of 270' ; permit Tract C with a width at the buildin line of 195' . City Code required a minimum width at the building line of 300' . 3 To permit proposed Tract B with as minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark at 80' . City Code requires 150' . (4) To permit proposed Lot C with a building setback 75' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. City Code requirest00'. (5) To permit existing septic systems on proposed tracts A and C within 100' of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Code requires a 100' setback. (6) To permit an existing tennis court on pro osed tract B within 150' of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code requires 150' (7. To permit an existing accessory structure on proposed Tract C within 150' of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code requires 150' . (8) To permit proposed Tract B with lot frontage on a public street of 70' . City Code requires 90' . (9) City Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.30, Subdivision 12, to permit proposed tract A and C without frontage on a public street. City Code requires properites to have frontage on a public street. At the Board's July 13, 1989 meeting, City Staff outlined to the Board that past errors in reviewing and approving division requests, and complicated court rulings, prevented timely City action on the plat. Staff does not believe other properties would have the same unique history and therefore the same hardship for similar variance requests. Board members had the following concerns: The number of variances being requested. Complicated history on the property. Granting this number of Shoreland variances may set a precedent for the Board. The Board voted 4:1 (Harvey) to deny Variance #89-31 because a hardship was not clearly identified, a precedent could be set, and due to the property's history, the Council should rule on the variances being requested. Board Members Present: Akemann, Bozonie, Harvey, Freemyer and Anderson Staff Present: Ric Rosow, Jean Johnson r41 = City Council Minutes 16 August 1, 1989 Captain Clark stated that hunters were calla.:_ regarding a Metro Goose Hunt which was proposed and recommended that a decision be reached in a timely manner. fp, MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct the Committee to be prepared to report to the Council by the first ! - meeting in Slptember. Motion carried unanimously. i Bob Bjorkland, 5705 Duncan Lane, Edina, stated that he i would be willing to serve on this committee or help in any way possible. Darril Peterson, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive, asked if it s 4. would be possible to have a landowner permit for goose i hunting. Mayor Peterson recommended that this issue be i addressed at the committee level first. 0 ` C. Ordinance No. 28-89, Changing Mayoral Term from Two to Four Years Mayor Peterson left the room during this discussion. j Jullie reported that an Ordinance had been drafted to ". i change the Mayoral term from 2 to 4 years. CThere were no comments from the audience. �< MOTION: i Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 28-89, changing the Mayoral term from 2 to 4 ,_' years, beginning in 1990. Motion carried 3-0-1. Mayor `-` Peterson absent. {' VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS j A. FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITION by Clayton Freeburg. Appeal I from the Decision of the Board of Appeals for a Registered i Land Survey of 2.84 acres into 3 lots with variances ; within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. 4 4 Jullie reported that the Board of Appeals & Adjustments had denied the request for the variances. The Board of ,' Appeals & Adjustments considered its role to be a technical one and believed that the issues related to these variances were subjective in nature and would best be handled by the City Council. • Peterson stated that although this was not an official i public hearing, he would accept brief comments from the ? neighbors. i • < 6 ' t „x ,z.1-r„1 ,I Y . . u:sr 4, .'-.4` e., .. ..• fir.* ..f .,.,e,4 s* -r,, j City Council Minutes 17 August 1, 1989 • Stu Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, stated that he believed that this was not a good plan and that this proposal adversely affected his property. Knowland asked that the Council postpone a decision if the Councilmembers had not actually seen the site. Peterson stated that he had visited the site and understood the proposal. Peterson added that he had voted in favor of the proposal originally and would support the issuance of the variances, as' requested. Pidcock stated that she also had visited the site and would support the issuance of the variances. Tenpas stated that he did not believe this to be the best • proposal for the property and would not support the variances. MOTION: • Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the decision by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and grant the variances as requested. Motion carried 3-1. Tenpas voted "NO" • ( B. Parade Permit Application for Proiect Concern - Walk for Mankind • Jullie reported that Staff was concerned about the City's ability to ensure a well-run event due to lack of personnel and other resources available at this time. • • Peterson asked if the problem was the lack of off-duty police officers available for hire to adequately cover this event. Chief Wall replied that the applicant expected the City to provide the officers. Wall added that Staff usually preplanned for the major events of this kind and adequate Staff was not available. Seventeen points would require that police officers be present. Wall added that the last event was not well organized and that this specific points needed to be staffed by qualified personnel. Wall noted that this was not considered an emergency situation and he could not require • the officers to work over-time. • Tenpas asked if the group itself could provide volunteers to man the majority of the points. Captain Clark replied that in the past there had been no consistency shown in planning this walk. Clark added that Staff had attempted to use volunteers the first year and the majority of them did not show up. Clark was concerned about the City's liability. • • • • • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 10, 1988 PROJECT: Freeburg/Perkins Addition LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road APPLICANT: Clayton Freeburg FEE OWNER: Raymond Freeberg, Raynelle Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg REQUEST: Registered Land Survey of 2.84 acres into three lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background 1 ! ' . This site i s currently designated on rtF, +,. ›\.', I the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide ,N; • :.- P Plan for Low Density Residential . , : A.• . r. land uses. Surrounding designations r x,," ', __ to the north, south, and east are t},: -, gin;--}44 , 2 also for Low Density Residential . ''•`' ''' . '° �` 1.r' �z �- �;I Bryant Lake, classified as a t `� `a; l` 7 • 7 Recreational Development Water is }=,1 I -4 ,ckt— _ �� located to the south and west of the 1 ` `'.� ..v�r� �~"••'�' PROPOSED SITE i subject property. Specific land ra„j, ( }1 f/ ' uses in this area include the Willow �;¢* � € £� , 1 , � ' Creek Addition, zoned R1-22 to the •-a ,�t.' *-Ipil�: s',: I. east and south, and R.L.S. #875 and 'o��.�®• -•� - !; ; R.L.S. #1421, zoned R1-22 to the �_' � ' y '� `r `a re, i; if north. The proponent is requesting ;� ,. an R.L.S. to divide the property _(— kf,t ' .: .1,1 ,, 1 4 into three single family lots to y ,' ^ ig-{ ... ;I ,., t allow for the construction of one y1 single family home. F ,; ,: �'!;: 'I ; ` a History �# r..,,. '`� �,�, �qyV , >°:,3„, i.ary i lit 1- • The following is a brief history of r' ice„ , ` 'i ' _ thei Freeburg/Perkinsrthe i nol ement wi thptheerty City aof C;EG SEy 1 i v.�,r Eden Prairie and Hennepin County ` :'4a ,' ! leading to the court judgement of , * C1'�.'t!"°7,b *� ``.. May 13, 1977: - AREA LOCATION MAP 7 l Freeburg/Perkins Addition 2 June 10, 1988 1) July 25, 1973 - City Assessor with written administrative approval divide the Freeburg/Perkins land into 3 lots designated parcels A, B, and C. No Notice of Application for the division or of a hearing on the application was ever published or served upon anyone having an interest in the lots in Willow Creek subdivision or other nearby properties. Nor was any hearing held. The division was not approved by the City Council . 2) Deeds dated August 14, 1973, indicate conveyance of Parcel B to Raynelle Perkins and Parcel C to Clayton Freeburg. Deeds denied by Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. 3) Building permit issued April 23, 1974, for Parcel B. 4) April 30, 1974, Council adopted a resolution dividing the Freeburg/Perkins land into two lots without making findings supporting the granting of a variance. No published or mailed Notice of Hearing had previously been given. 5) On an unknown date following April 30, 1974, City executed R.L.S. 1371. Two tracts, A and B, were created. 6) June 25, 1974, - City Council rescinded its resolution of April 30, 1974, dividing the Freeburg/Perkins property into two lots and adopted the following motion: That a new resolution be formed denying the request for division into 3 lots and approving the division into 2 lots, both fronting on the public road. 7) July 9, 1974 - City Council adopted a resolution denying subdivision of the Freeburg/Perkins property into 3 lots but approving a 2-lot subdivision. 8) July 12, 1974 - Stop on building permit. 9) May 27, 1975 - City Council approved a division of Freeburg/Perkins property into two lots . No notices were mailed or variances given. The court, on May 13, 1977, found that action taken on May 27, 1975, was not in accordance with City Ordinances and invalid. The following are the court' s Conclusions Of Law: 1) Freeburg property is not subject to any private restriction requiring lot size to be not less than 1 acre. 2) The Freeburg/Perkins property has not been subdivided by valid municipal action. In summary, the court judgement dated May 13, 1977, declared that the Freeburg/Perkins property was not subdivided by valid municipal action. Because of this, the proponent is proceeding to the Planning Commission with a request for an R.L.S. to subdivide the property into three single family parcels. In the attached letters dated August 23, 1985, and August 7, 1987, from Richard F. Rosow, City Attorney, to Clayton Freeburg, proponent, the court judgement was explained and the proper procedures for proceeding with the subdivision of the property was discussed. Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 June 10, 1988 Site Plan/R.L.S. This property is currently zoned R1-22 which was zoned by Ordinance #11-6, in November of 1969. The minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning district include: 1. Minimum lot size - 22,000 square feet. 2. Lot width - 90 feet. 3. Lot depth - 125 feet. 4. Front yard setback - 30 feet. 5. Side yard setbacks - 15 feet. 6. Rear yard setback - 25 feet. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning district with the exception of frontage on a publicly dedicated street or street that has received legal status as such. Tracts A and C of the proposed R.L.S. are the locations of two existing homes while Tract B would be the location of a new home. Access to this subdivision is provided by Willow Creek Road which is a 2,800-foot long cul-de-sac in addition to a 20-foot wide private road easement to provide access to Tracts A and C. If the subdivision is approved, this easement shall be filed with Hennepin County. Based upon the submitted R.L.S. , Tract B is the only lot having frontage on Willow Creek Road. In the R1-22 zoning district, 90 feet of frontage on a publicly dedicated street is required. A variance for street frontage will be required for all three lots. In addition, because the proposed subdivision is by registered land survey and does not indicate easements as on a plat, the proponent will be required to file separate drainage and utility easements as required by the Engineering Department. Lots sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 32,000 square feet for Tract C to a maximum of 56,000 square feet for Tract B. The average lot size is 41,333 square feet. Overall density of the proposed R.L.S. is approximately 1.05 units per acre. Adjacent lots, located to the north and south of this proposal average approximately 60,144 square feet or 1.3 acres. The minimum lot size within the adjacent area is 38,115 square feet and the maximum lot size is 82,764 square feet. Resolution 868 (see Attachment A) , adopted by the City Council on July 9, 1974, cites the following reasons for denying the request to subdivide the property into three building sites: 1 . Ordinance No. 93 (Chapter 12) as amended, requires each property to abut a public road to better serve the occupants therein. 2. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sites, and is more in conformance with the neighboring plat, and the restrictions thereon. 3. Failure to subdivide said Tract into 3 parcels would not cause an exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant of substantial property right. Based upon these reasons, the City Council approved the division of the property into two building sites both fronting on a public road. /6 0 Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 June 10, 1988 Shorel and Ordinance The Shoreland Ordinance, No. 82-18 and effective 9-17-82, is designed to "provide standards and criteria for the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of protected waters in order to preserve and enhance the quality of service waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands and provide for a wise utilization of water and related land resources and thereby promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare." Bryant Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Water on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan. The requirements for single family homes on abutting lots, without public sewer include the following: 1. Minimum lot size - 5 acres. 2. Minimum width at building line - 300 feet. 3. Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Mark - 150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet. 5. Minimum setback to septic tanks and soil absorption systems - 100 feet. The following chart indicates how Tracts A, B, and C, respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance: Required Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. 0.83 ac.* 1.29 ac.* 0.74 ac.* 2. 300 feet 268 feet* 246 feet* 140 feet* 3. 150 feet 350 feet 133 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 84 feet* 160 feet 40 feet* 5. 100 feet No data No data No data * - Items which will require a variance. The proponent will be required to apply for, and receive, 9 shoreland variances from the Board of Appeals to allow for the subdivision and subsequent construction of a single family home on Tract B. No data has been provided regarding the minimum setbacks of the septic tanks to the O.H.W. so it cannot be determined by Staff as to whether or not there is enough room on the project site to accomodate an additional septic system or whether the existing systems meet Code requirements. Grading/Utilities There are two existing homes located on Tracts A and C which would not require any additional grading or utility work. However, because of the slopes on Tract B, it appears that a significant amount of grading work would be required to allow for the development of the home and the proposed septic and well system. No information has been submitted by the proponent regarding the grading of the home site or utility placement. Staff has inspected the site with the proponent and observed a number of large oak trees on Tract B which would be subject to tree replacement if removed. The proponent has not provided information regarding any significant vegetation on this site. / d j Freeburg/Perkins Addition 5 June 10, 1988 The following is a partial list of the information which has not been submitted by the proponent as requested in the May 18, 1988, (see Attachment B) letter: 1. General description of the request or proposal . 2. Variances requested. 3. Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable) . 4. Existing vegetation (identify significant trees to be removed) . 5. Wetlands , creeks , and ponds (type of wetland, determination of public or private waters , shoreland classifications, depict Ordinary High Water Mark and 100-year flood elevation) . 6. Easement locations and type. 7. Locations of existing and proposed utilities. In regards to septic systems , the State of Minnesota requires that there be a 100- foot minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark, a 20-foot minimum setback from the building and a 10-foot minimum setback from the property line. A well must be setback a minimum of three feet from a building, five feet from a property line, 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, and 50 feet from the septic tank. In order to evaluate the proposal , the plans must show the existing and proposed utility locations. In addition , the proponent has indicated a 30-foot building pad with no proposed grading. A 50-foot building pad is the recommended standard for reviewing building pad grading. At a minimum, additional information which must be submitted in order to evaluate this development proposal includes an overall grading plan, utility locations, and the locations and sizes of any significant vegetation. Conclusions Staff has evaluated the proposal as submitted and has concluded the following: 1. The proponent, in order to subdivide the property as proposed, and according to current City Code requirements will be requesting a total of 12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a publicly dedicated street. The proponent has not provided any substantiation for the variances which he would be requesting. 2. The lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning districts , however, the size of the lots , and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. The City Council in Resolution 868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lot subdivision with the existing neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-lot subdivision. 3. In order to review this project, Staff must have complete and accurate information to evaluate all aspects of the project. As stated in the letter of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additional information from the proponent. The proponent has not submitted the requested information. 4. Finally, an alternative exists for the development of the property which would reduce the number of variances required and make the lot sizes more to consistent with the existing neighborhood. By eliminating the lake frontage I of Tract B, the number of variances could be reduced from 12 to 9 and Tracts A and C could be increased in size . An easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B. Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 June 10, 1988 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that an alternative may have merit, Staff would recommend that the plans be returned to the proponent for revisions based upon Staff recommendations and Commission concerns . If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances is excessive, that adequate information has not been provided to support the development proposal , and that the proposed R.L.S. is incompatable with the existing neighborhood, then the appropriate action would be for denial . / 03 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 13,1988 Page 2 Anderson inquired about the decreased acreage to the cemetery dedication. Proponent replied that it was only a couple of tenths of an acre that would be affected,and the cemetery people were contacted and they are in agreement. Bye inquired as to the status of the noise assessment with regard to the railroad. Proponent replied it would be done at the end of the week. Franzen stated that the noise assessment would determine the house setback, terming, and planting. In Cardinal Creek area, a 12'noise berm was constructed. Staff did receive the tree survey data on Tuesday,and with the site plan and size of houses they could now calculate tree loss. Most of the changes made were n response to the Staff report. Regarding traffic, he felt that it may be higher than they anticipated on the east- west collector, and if so,they would require more cul-de-sac's instead of direct driveway •access for safety reasons. Fell inquired if light rail transit was being discussed in this area. Staff responded it was north of this project. Bye asked what portions of the development could be developed now. Franzen replied that Phase I could be developed, once information from the Southwest Area Study was available on sewer,water, roads and storm sewer which would give Staff the technical information for ordinance review on preliminary plat. Concept approval with stipulations on lot sizes, land use and general road layout could be approved, however a phasing plan must wait until the entire study is done. MOTION Anderson moved and Fell seconded to continue the public hearing on Fairfield to the July 16, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of additional information from the proponent. Motion carried 4-0-0. B. FREEBURG ADDITION, by Clayton Freeburg. Request for Preliminary Plat of 2.84 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 7010 Willow Circle Road. A public hearing. Clayton Freeburg reported on the ten year history of attempting to subdivide the property owned by his parents and sister to create a third lot. He spoke of the court hearing whereby they were instructed to go through the City's process for subdividing. He felt because he was not asking for a building permit he should not be required to submit utility,grading,and house specifications at this time. His attorney advised him to get written instructions from the Planning Staff, as well as detailed description of ordinance requirements. Freeburg spoke of their intention that the family all live together in the area. They were not subdividing to build homes to sell. Uram reported that this proposal has been held up due to lack of 1) general description of the proposed request,2) 12 variance requests, 3) data on shoreland ordinance and floodplain restrictions, 4)tree loss survey, 5)wetland, creek and pond data, 6) easement locations and what type they are,and 7) specifications of existing and proposed utilities. Uram stated Staff needed this information to make a determination if the proposal was within City Code requirements. He stated that the City was willing to assist Mr. Freeburg in explaining the process as written in the Development Procedures and Requirements. -Uramstated that the part of the confusion in the past was that the County subdivided this land into two tracts. Tract A was the parents home, and Tract B the sister's home. The Court ruled that this was invalid and the City only recognizes one lot. The lots as loaf Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 13,1988 Page 3 proposed meet the minimum requirements of R1-22 Zoning District except for frontage requirements on a public street. Freeburg has not provided substantiation for the shoreland variances he would be requesting. Freeburg commented that the other homes in the area were not required to meet these same specifications. Uram responded that the present shoreland ordinance and requirements were not in effect at that time. The ordinances which are now in effect have to be complied with or variances granted. Uram continued that the Staff was concerned with compatibility with other lots in the area. The average lot size of the existing lots was 60,000 square feet.,while the proposed lots, if subdivided, would average approximately 41,000 sq.ft. Freeburg asked the Planning Commission to determine if this was an appropriate proposal for granting a subdivision. Stu Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, stated he lived adjacent to the property and felt this would impact him, and he was concerned about the drainage, the sewage and where the house would be located. He wanted to have a better understand of what the result would be. Ruebling inquired how many met the requirements of the shoreland ordinance in the area. Uram responded by explaining that this land was platted in 1949 and the shoreline ordinance was adopted in 1982, so none of the lots platted were in conformance. Raynelie Perkins, Willow Creek, asked about the sizes of the other lots and spoke of the families intent to keep the area aesthetically pleasing. They had no intention of clearing the trees, etc. Estelle Knutson, 7120 Willow Creek, stated that the people in the area would all like to subdivide their lots and have their family with them to enjoy the beauty and share the shoreline. Several years ago 40 feet of shoreline were leased to a neighbor in the rear who did not have shoreline privileges, and there was great controversy. She felt to protect the area and keep the cove area safety,the additions must be limited. Uram stated that the minimum additional information that Staff must require would be the 1)50 foot building pad, 2) overall grading plan, 3) utility location and the location, and 4) sizes and locations of significant vegetation. Jim Perkins,Willow Creek, stated the family was interested in maintaining Bryant Lake. He has lived there for 25 years and their shoreline is still wild. They recognize their responsibility to protect the resources of the area. Freeburg concluded that he would like a continuance. He was not aware his variance requests were to be made in writing. He thought he could get preliminary approval before he went to Board of Appeals. Uram stated that the Staff needs the variance identification and substantiation in writing. He would go to Board of Appeals after 1st Reading of City Council approval. Bye instructed Staff to provide Freeburg's attorney with another copy of Procedures and Requirements. Uram asked Commission for direction on Freeburg's behalf. Fell stated that complete information was vital,and to comply with Item 4 in Conclusions on Page 5 of Staff Report regarding lot size and reducing the-number-of variances would be his recommendation. f0 Eden Prairie Plarxung Commission Meeting June 13, 1988 Page 4 Anderson stated he understood the purpose of this request, however there was good reasons for the new laws. Ruebling asked if all the lots in the area followed the same guideline. Uram responded that when new proposals are reviewed,they follow ordinance requirements. Bye felt the least number of variances proponent comes in with,the stronger the proposal. MOTION 1 Anderson moved and seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 2 Anderson moved and seconded by Ruebling to return the item to the proponent, directing Mr. Freeburg to provide the necessary information for complete review of the proposed subdivision by the City. Motion carried 4-0-0 C. BARTH ADDITION,by Bill Barth. Request for Preliminary Platting of 1.55 acres into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 16481 Hilltop Road. A public hearing. Bill Barth, proponent, presented his proposal to subdivide his lot. He was not intending to build on the lot, but rather sell once subdivided. He stated he did not submit the storm water run-off and erosion control plans because he did not feel it was his responsibility to inform the-City,who has an-Engineering Department, where the water comes from. Uram stated that the plans are subject to the conditions that a storm water pipe does exist, as erosion may occur in the future. The outlet must be rip rapped and a 20 ft. natural area be left along the west property line; and revision of the grading plan to route any drainage from flowing over the top of the proposed retaining walls. Bye inquired to Staff if Mr. Barth could get the storm water run-off information from the City,and Staff responded that if the City has the information, it would be available to the proponent. Shirley Rivkin, 16555 Hilltop Road, stated there was pipe between the properties and the water comes from Cty.Road 1 every time it rains. She was concerned that the amount of water was a danger. A child could drown it was so deep. She inquired as to why this open pipe was never upgraded as promised. Uram reported that the City Engineer did inspect the area and upgrading was not necessary with this development. For an overall storm water run-off plan, the neighborhood would have to request a study and then they would be assessed for the cost of the study and any improvements. Fell inquired if a different house is built than anticipated,will a new soil test be required. Uram stated that this proposal will not be graded at this time. MOTION 1 Ruebling moved and Anderson seconded to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning j DATE: February 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl Addition APPLICANT: Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl FEE OWNERS: Pearl Freeburg, Clayton Freeburg and Jim and Raynell Perkins LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of approximately 3 acres into 3 single family lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 'slit ~'Ste a?' --...\\ tr Y C y t1i?-rJ�iT ' �.� 1/11111 j::,.. -3, .1: PROPOSED SITE .. .• :i`,,''., 'w- :' ., , �• l 22 '' ..- ��2 St:*.., o. 4*• �•4 _ I ;� ) • _-_; t i • t I -�� zY.r`;*d $'` . 'F....* • r7:4' le 't - c ;"'" /) tom - -.4' .�.. 1.< t:K` � 1. i '- ` iS r 4 %.:A--#,---,,',... • :... ::',1,-ir4P-4,4,,,A,-1-431 I I y \.- - . : II-E � ., ,..::.••• a_:f: t4T. : r'�•.4••. ,eti 1 Q"7 LOCATION MAP Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl Addition February 19, 1993 BACKGROUND/HISTORY Please refer to the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated June 10, 1988 and May 19, 1989 for information regarding the background and history of the proposed project. CURRENT STATUS The proponents are requesting the resubdivision of the approved RLS into 3 single family lots. The purpose of their request is to allow for the reconfiguration of the lot lines from the previously approved proposal to meet their current site planning needs. Resolution No. 89-41, dated June 16, 1989, approved the registered land survey for the Freeburg/Perkins Addition. The Developer's Agreement dated May 1, 1990 outlined the specific Developer responsibilities for the implementation of the approved RLS. As part of the 1989 review process, the Board of Appeals denied the requested variances at the July 17th meeting. The proponent appealed the Board's decision and the City Council approved the appeal at the August 1, 1989 meeting. Based on these City's actions, the approved RLS for three lots is currently in effect. Although the proponent did not file the RLS with Hennepin County, the proponent has the legal right to file the RLS. All variances that were approved related specifically to the approved RLS. City code requires that all variances be used within a one year time period or they become null and void. With the City approval of the RLS, these variances have been used within the one year time limitation. If the proponent were to file the previously approved RLS and requested a building permit in accordance with the previous approval and the Developer's Agreement, the City would be obligated to issue. In summary, there is an approved RLS which subdivides RLS 1371 into three buildable lots. Tract B of the previous approval is a buildable lot and a building permit could be requested. The proponent has not decided to proceed with the filing of the RLS because they feel that the current request is an improvement. CURRENT PROPOSAL The current proposal includes the resubdivision of the approved RLS into three new lots. These lots range in size from a minimum of 31,600 sq. ft to a maximum of 54,200 sq. ft. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 Zoning District with the exception of frontage 2 Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Felt1 Addition February 19, 1993 on a public street. The reconfigured lot lines are oriented in a north-south direction to better utilize the visual aspects of the Bryant Lake and the existing slopes on the property. With this development, the proponents are proposing to remodel both existing homes. As part of the project, the driveway to access Lot 1 which currently runs in front of the existing home on Lot 2 will be relocated along the north property line. The relocation of this driveway provides direct access to Lot 1 and to Lot 2 when Lot 3 develops. The proponent must submit cross access easements and covenants regarding the maintenance of the proposed driveway. GRADING Grading on the project site will be done in two phases. The first phase will include the relocation of the driveway along the north property line and the remodeling of the existing homes on lots 1 and 2. Minimum grading around the existing house pads will be necessary to allow for the proposed additions. More significant grading is required for the new driveway along the north property line. Based on the driveway design and the topography, the driveway has a grade differential from a low point of 870 to a high point of 888 (18 feet). To do this grading without removing all of the trees, a series of retaining walls are required. As designed, there is a maximum of 4-foot retaining wall on the southside of the driveway and a 14-foot wall on the north side. Staff recommends that a modular concrete type retaining wall be constructed. A wall over 4-feet in height requires a building permit. To ensure the completion of the driveway, the driveway must be constructed as part of the first phase of the project. A performance bond will be required by the City to ensure that a hard surfaced driveway is constructed. A tree inventory was done that depicted 1,676 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The current proposal indicates a tree loss of 346 caliper inches. Based on this number, a tree replacement of 95 caliper inches is required. The plan indicates 55 caliper inches of evergreen trees. A revised plan must be submitted depicting 95 caliper inches of plant material. UTILITIES The Willow Creek area developed without sanitary sewer and water service. All of the homes in this area are developed with private wells and septic systems. The approximate locations of the existing septic systems for Lots 1 and 2 are within 40-60 feet of the ordinary high water mark. City code requires a 100 foot setback for septic systems from the ordinary high water mark. To comply with City code, the proponents are required to 3 /0 Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Felt1 Addition February 19, 1993 relocate the existing septic system to the future drain field sites as shown on the plan. The proposed septic system on Lot 3 meets the City code requirement for setbacks. VARIANCES Due to the location of the property adjacent to Bryant Lake which is a Recreational Development water, a number of shoreland variances are required. The shoreland ordinance requires that: 1. Minimum lot size 5 acres. 2. Minimum width at the building line - 300 feet. 3. Minimum width at the ordinary high water mark - 150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water - 100 feet. The current plan indicates 10 shoreland variances. In order to meet the lot size requirement, a parcel would have to be 15 acres in size to subdivide. The lot size of the parcel prior to subdividing is approximately 3 acres. None of the lots abutting Bryant Lake along the east side of Willow Creek Road meet the lot size requirement. Additional variances are caused by the width of the lots at the building line. Again, no adjacent lots meet the existing requirements for lot width. The proposed lot widths of this project are as large or larger than those existing along Willow Creek Road. The width at the Ordinary High Water Mark for Lot 3 is the only lot which does not meet the 150-foot width requirement. This variance could be eliminated by the elimination of lot frontage along Bryant Lake. However, lot frontage along Bryant Lake adds value to the property and does not create any significant deviation to the shoreland esthetics. Finally, Lots 1 and 2 are the lots which do not meet the setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The original house was not subject to these requirements and the home on Lot 2 was built and approved by the City in 1975 and met the requirements at that time. The proposed home on Lot 3 meets the 100 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Variances similar to these were granted with the approval of the previous proposal. 4 IIU Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Feld Addition February 19, 1993 Code Lot I Lot 2 Lot 3 1 Lot Size 5 acres 1.04 1.24 .72 2 Lot Width 300 ft 220 170 120 3 Lot Width at OHW 150 ft 145 4 Setback 100 ft 80 ft 40 ft 5 Frontage 90 ft 0 0 70 A variance is also required for the accessory structure next to the Lake. In addition, the R1-22 Zoning District requires frontage on a public street. Lots 1 and 2 do not have any frontage on a public street, while Lot 3 only has 70 feet. A minimum of 90 feet is required. PLAN COMPARISON Lot sizes compared to the approved RLS are similar. The old RLS had lot sizes of 36,000, 46,200 and 52,000 sq. ft. while the new plat has lot sizes of 31,600, 45,500, and 54,200 sq. ft. The new lots are oriented north-south which keeps the building pad off of the top of the hill. Other advantages to the new proposal include the elimination and abandonment of the septic systems adjacent to the lake. The new proposal requires that the septic systems be relocated to their future drain field site location. Also, the current proposal will demolish the existing garage adjacent to Willow Creek Road and the existing shed next to the lake on lot 3. It will also entail the remodeling of the existing house on lot 1 and the cleanup of the yard area. Based on the advantages of the new approval with no distinct disadvantages as compared to tea. old plan, Staff is recommending approval of the new proposal. 5 Il � Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl Addition February 19, 1993 RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the current proposal will have less of an impact on the overall project site, on Bryant Lake, and on the adjacent neighbors, then the appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of approximately 3 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals subject to revised plans dated February 17, 1993, Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review proponent shall submit a revised tree replacement plan which depicts a total of 95 caliper inches of tree replacement. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed building plans for review and approval for the additions on lot 2 and the remodeling of the structure on lot 1. B. Notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance: A. Submit details for the hard surfaced driveway and the retaining walls. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fence and snowfencing to protect the trees in the area. 4. Apply for and receive variances from the Board of Appeals for shoreland variances and lot frontages on a publicly dedicated street. If the Planning Commission does not feel that the current proposal is better than the approved plan, the alternative would be to deny the request with the understanding that the proponent can file the previously approved RLS. 6 Z-ZZ-?3 Pc.. /vlee:t;K� C. FREEBURG/PEiiINS/FELTL ADDITION by Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl. '4 Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Willow Creek Road. Urarn reported that the Planning Commission was to review the proposal presented this evening based on its merits versus the project approved in 1989. The Commission or Staff were not here to discuss the legalities of the project. Mary Jo Feltl read into the record a history of the project. ( A copy included as part of the record.) Felti submitted written approval of the project from neighbors which could not be present. Feltl stated that the existing home would be remodeled along with the Perkins home. Feld stated that only 4 out of 15 lots would have larger frontage. Feltl stated that Paul Thorp had been hired to develop an acceptable plan. She added that a great deal of time and expense had gone into the development of the proposal and she believed that it was a better proposal than the original one. Uram reported that this was a very complex project and that a lot of historical details could be presented. Staff believes that the new plan is better than the plan presented in 1989. The benefits to the City would be; the septic systems along Bryant Lake would be removed and • abandoned; the Freeburg home would be partly demolished and remodeled; the garage and shed would be removed, which would help clean up the site; the existing tennis courts would be removed and not redone as with the original plan; the construction of the driveway to the north would be a better plan; and the tree loss on the project will remain the same as before. Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the plan. Uram stated that Staff had met with Stu Nolan several times. Trees would be planted between the Nolan and Perkins home. Uram said that the City was concerned about the condition of the Freeburg home and needed to be sure what was proposed to be built. The Feltl's would escrow money to insure the construction of a hard surfaced driveway and the retaining walls. The variance requirements for the project are the same as those proposed in 1989. Uram noted that the Board of Appeals denied the requests for variances in 1989 and the City Council overturned that decision. Peter Larsen, 6300 Wilryan Avenue, Edina, stated that in was speaking in behalf of his grandfather's estate. Larsen was disturbed about the history of the project being ignored. Larsen stated that he had a copy of a survey which listed the proposed site at 2.7 acres. He added that he had seen other figures which went from 2.5 acres to 3 acres. Larsen questioned the accurate figure. Thorp replied that he measured the property to the lakeshore and the site measure 3 acres. Thorp added that he would stand by those figures. T nrsen stated that some of the lakeshore had been lost to erosion. Larsen said that he had a degree in landscape architecture and could not believe that a driveway was being proposed over the top of the hill. Larsen believed that the septic systems and the garbage around the home should be cleaned up regardless of approval for the proposed subdivision. Sandstad replied that he did not know if the City could order a drainfield to be moved. Larsen stated that he believed that each citizen had a responsibility to stop pollution. Norman asked Staff to comment on the driveway on the top of the hill. Uram replied that this was a tough site. Uram added that the road design would take the home off the top of the hill and the tree loss would remain the same as with the 1989 plan. Feld asked about an outlot where docks were located. Uram replied that he was not sure of an outlot. Larsen replied that for the record that area was all Larsen property. f3 7 Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, stated that he owned the entire adjacent property to the north of the proposed site. He added that the Nolan's and the Larsen's were the only two adjacent property owners. Nolan believed that it was being presented that there were 3 lots in existence currently and he said that 3 lots do not exist. Nolan believed that variances lasted only 1 year. He stated that it had been over 2 years since the plan was presented to the City. Nolan believed that the plat did not exist and added that if someone moves on the old plat it would be challenged legally. All of the lots north of Will Creek averaged 1.5 acres. Nolan was concerned about Lot 3 because it would only be .75 acres. Nolan noted that this area was not serviced by municipal water and sewer. Nolan believed that this proposal would set a precedent. Nolan believed that Lot 3 was too low to be buildable and that Lot 3 would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. Nolan stated that he had been involved when this was proposed 3 years ago. It was passed by the City Council 3 to 1 so the Perkins and Freeburgs could have a family complex and to allow the Freeburg's son to build on the property. Nolan stated that this is a new deal. Nolan stated the Uram had been helpful and very responsive. Nolan understood that the road would be moved and trees would be saved; but, he was still not in favor of the plan. Nolan was concerned that the drainfield proposed would be 30 feet from his home and 25 feet higher than the proposed home. Nolan believed that the drainfield should be moved. The lot was full of debris and garbage and believed that a specific dated should be established for this to be cleaned up. Nolan requested that the garage be taken down, the drainfield moved, a comprehensive tree inventory be taken, and financial responsibility be established. Nolan did not understand the need for the third lot. Hethat he 1 lik e added would l e to have the Feltl s as neighbors but, believed that the project should be done right. Nolan stated that he had not been given an acceptable reason for the need for the third lot. Jim Perkins, 7012 Willow Creek Road, believed that they were good neighbors. Perkins said that the trees were there because they had been able to protect them for over 30 years. Perkins understood the neighbors concerns; however, he believed that they should consider the financial side. Perkins concurred with Nolan's statement that it would not be the family compound as originally had been planned. Perkins believed that 3 lots could be developed. Perkins assured the Planning Commission that the property would be cleaned up. Perkins noted that the Felti's had gone to great expense already to plan this proposal. Clish asked if Staff had checked with the legal department regarding the 1 year allowance for variances. Uram replied that the approved proposal from 1989 is valid and it could be filed at this time. The variances do need to be used within 1 year or they are null and void. Uram stated that the variance request for the tennis court is null and void. Kardell asked if there was a signed developers agreement. Uram replied that there was a signed Developer's Agreement. Larsen questioned why there was a Shoreland Ordinance if variances were given if the plan didn't fit. Norman replied that no one along the lakeshore would be in compliance with the existing Shoreland Ordinance. Larsen stated that he did not have a problem with 2 lots. Larsen believed that the whole issue was profit. Norman asked Larsen how much lakeshore property he had. Larsen replied 158 feet, approximately 1.49 acres. Norman replied that the third lot was proposed at 150 feet which was only 8 feet smaller than the Larsen lot. Larsen stated that there were laws which were to control the size of the lots. Norman asked Larsen how close his home was to the lot line. Larsen IlY 8 replied 100 feet from the lot line, but he would be looking at the home. Feltl replied that 50 feet of the property had boat docks and buildings down by the lake. Nolan noted that the Staff Report stated that Lot 3 was 120 feet. Norman replied that she was asking about lakeshore frontage. Nolan replied that he did not believe that the lakeshore frontage was the dominate factor. Kardell asked Feltl is they planned to build a new home. Feltl replied that the existing home would be remodeled. Clinton asked what was planned for Lot 3. Feltl replied that nothing was planned at this time. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. Bauer stated that he had hoped to see the minutes from the 1989 meeting. He added that he did not recall the project. Bauer believed that legally this plat could be filed. Bauer believed that the plan was better than what was proposed in 1989 and further than when there was an opportunity to improve on something it should be done. Kardell stated that the Planning Commission operated on the advice from Staff. Kardell believed that this was clearly a better plan. Kardell understood that Nolan could challenge the RLS filing in court but she was operating under the belief that it could be filed. The septic systems will be brought within code, the garbage will be cleaned up, and the tree loss will remain the same. Kardell believed that the Felti's had gone the extra mile by obtaining a surveyor and the willingness to provide escrow funds. Clish asked if the driveway would still be needed if nothing was built on Lot 3. Uram replied that the driveway proposal was at the request of the proponent. He added that the existing driveway could be used. Clish asked how many variances were granted with the original proposal. Uram replied 10 variances. Clish believed that this proposal was a nightmare for all parties involved and would vote against the proposal. Wissner stated that she was not comfortable with the proposal at first. Wissner stated that she had visited the site and could not see any of the homes. Wissner stated that she was not comfortable with the proposed plan; however, she preferred this plan to the original one. Wissner stated that she was not comfortable with Lot 3 and stated that she would vote against the project. Norman stated that she would vote in favor of the project. Norman believed that there was a lot of space between the 2 properties affected by the proposal. Clinton stated that he was not present when the original plan was presented. Clinton questioned why this was being discussed if there was a question if it was possible to build on Lot 3. Clinton noted that none of the properties could be brought into compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance no matter what would be done. Sandstad stated that he supported the project. Sandstad liked Nolan's recommendation that a specific date be set that the lot be cleaned up. II ) 2 Uram stated that rcommendations needed to be added to require the removal of litter and debris and that the home be located at least 50 feet from the lot line. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the following additions: Item 2.D; Establish a firm date for the debris on the site to be cleaned up. Item 2.E; Relocate the septic system on Lot 1 further away from the Nolan property. Item 2.F; The home is to be located 50 feet from the Nolan property line. Motion carried 5-2-0. Clish and Wissner voted NO. Approved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, March 1, 1993 C. Freeberq/Perkins/Feitl Addition Cross explained the project and introduced Mrs. Freeberg. Mrs. Freeberg then explained that the project was approved several years ago, but was never filed. The City recently asked them to make some changes to the plans. The current plan has a couple of things different from first plan; the septic tank will be moved away from the lake, an old building near the lake will be torn down, and the house that will someday be built on the third lot can be built farther away from the lake. Cross explained that in the current plan, the lot lines will be going in a more north/south direction and the building will be taken off the top of the property making it less visible. Cross also explained the process the original plan had gone through of being denied by the Board of Appeals and that the City Council later waived the variances. Cross indicated the project could get a permit now, but the current plan is better than the existing plan. Cross indicated that there would be a 20% tree loss, and that the trees would be replaced. Hilgeman asked for clarification of the amount of tree loss, stating that the May 19, 1989, memo indicated a 41 % tree loss. Cross explained that this is the first time the trees have been counted and that the 20% figure is accurate. Hilgeman commented that the current plan isn't a great plan, but that it is a better plan that the original plan, which they could go ahead with if they wanted to. Cross stated that the Staff agrees the second plan is the better plan. Brown commented that this situation is a great example of the inability to understand the rhyme or reason of variance allowances, and indicated that he also would like to have variances discussed in the future. Mrs. Freeberg stated that she felt the City has a great staff looking out for them because the City Staff encouraged them to make the changes. Lynch indicated that the Park Commission's role is to ask some of the tough questions the City Staff can't ask and Richard explained the problem the Commission has been having with variances to ordinances. 5 � � 7 • Approved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, March 1 , 1993 MOTION: Hilgeman moved to recommend approval of the current Freeberg/Perkins/Felt!Addition plan as.per Staff recommendations of February 19, 1993. Lynch seconded and motion passed 7-0. As a postscript, Hilgeman stated that the Commission notes that this project has more than 10 shoreline variances. r City Council Minutes 3 March 16, 1993 B. FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDITION by Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl. Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Location: Willow Creek Road (Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Maryjo Felt,presented revised plans for this previously approved development. Uram reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan at its February 22nd meeting. The Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission recommended approval at its March 1st meeting. Councilmembers raised concerns regarding sanitary sewer for the lots and the general area, water quality of Bryant Lake, and the status of previous approvals for the property. Regarding sanitary sewer,Dietz explained that all the lots were on private sewer systems and that the Staff was not aware of any leaking tanks at this time. He added that the topography of the area was prohibitive with respect to installation of a traditional sewer system. With respect to water quality in Bryant Lake, Gray said that data did not yet exist regarding recent changes made to the shoreland uses on the lake, including the removal of a stable. He said that proposal for three lots would have no impact on water quality. Lambert added that it would be five years, at Ieast, before a study being conducted by the Watershed District would yield any findings about the water quality. Pauly discussed the history of this property, including the City's previous decisions on the parcel. He also spoke to variances, noting that court decisions tended to support the landowner instead of the municipality in such issues. Gary Gandrud, Faegre and Benson, representing the Estate of Hayner Larson, questioned legalities of previous approval as to whether it was still valid. Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road,Estelle Knutson,7120 Willow Creek Road,Brian Duoos,7160 Willow Creek Road,Dan Duoos,7160 Willow Creek Road, Peter Larson, Bart Knutson, son of Knutsons at 7120 Willow Creek Road, grandson of Hayner Larson, and Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road, supported a two-lot configuration for the parcel, instead of a three-lot configuration, and expressed concern that the third lot was being requested for profit reasons, only. Neighbors were also concerned that the number of variance, requested was excessive and that others in the area would begin to split their lots, if this subdivision was allowed. Jim Perkins, 7012 Willow Creek Road, spoke in favor of Felt!proposal. Maryjo Feltl responded to residents' concerns, stating that there was no profit motive involved and pointing out that others in the neighborhood had obtained variances for their properties. She said the reason for three lots was to allow for one for themselves and one each for their two children in the future. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmembers continued discussion about several issues including the "easement" providing access to the lake for parcels without lake frontage; maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood,and status of the previous approvals on the property, including variance approvals. Council directed Staff to research and clarify the lake access issue. Pauly suggested that one way the City could maintain the existing lot sizes in the neighborhood would be to rezone all the lots to an R1-44 category so that no lot would be allowed to be smaller than one acre in size. Regarding the previous approvals, Pauly stated that it was his opinion that the previous three-lot approval did stand. With respect to the variances, he stated that he felt it was likely that they, too, were valid. Councilmembers believed that a postponement was in order and asked the proponent and the residents to review the concerns raised. Feltls were asked to consider whether three lots in the previously approved configuration would be acceptable and the other residents were asked to consider whether they would be interested in a rezoning of their lots as suggested by the City Attorney. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to reopen the public hearing on this item and continue such hearing to the April 6th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ill City Council Minutes 2 May 4, 1993 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDITION by Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl. Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Location: Willow Creek Road (Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Continued from April 20, 1993 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to continue this item to the June 1, 1993, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. I a C) City Council Minutes 2 October 5, 1993 A. FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDITION by Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl. Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Willow Creek Road (Continued from August 3,1993) MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to close the public hearing and acknowledge the withdrawal of the application by the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. Rl EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2-16-99 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. VIII.B. SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development & Financial Services FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER Donald Uram Scott A. Kipp Requested Council Action: Move to: 1. Close the Public Hearing; and 2. Adopt resolution for PUD Concept on 9.2 acres; and Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District change from Rural and Commercial Regional Service to Office on 9.2 acres subject to Staff and Commission recommendations and plans dated January 19, 1998; and 3. Adopt resolution for Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots. Background: This is a 150,300 square foot office building. The plans have been revised based on the recommendations of the staff report dated January 22, 1999 except for the following: • Placing the 100 year floodplain in an outlot for dedication to the City. • Relocating the landscaping out of the right of way of Prairie Center Drive. These items will need to be addressed in the plans prior to 2nd Reading for the project. The proponent is developing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan to be coordinated with the I- 494 Corridor Commission and Southwest Metro. A discussion of the elements of the plan can take place at the Council meeting. The completed plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the Council concurrent with 2nd Reading for the project. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 6-1-0 to recommend approval of the project at its January 25, 1999 meeting. (Commissioner Alexander voting no) 1 Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Recommendation: The Parks Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its February 1, 1999 meeting based on the staff report. Supporting Reports: 1. Staff Report dated January 22, 1999. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 25, 1999. 3. Resolution for PUD Concept Review. 4. Resolution for Preliminary Plat. 5. Letter from Dale Bachman dated January 21, 1999 2 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: January 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Flagship Corporate Center APPLICANT: Opus Northwest, LLC FEE OWNER: Bill Naegle, and Starmark Northwest Realty, LLC LOCATION: North of Flagship Athletic Club, west of Prairie Center Drive. REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.2 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.2 acres. 3. Zoning District Change from Rural and Commercial Regional Service to Office on 9.2 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots. „...____. , . .. e , .... .... tr...... tr... L_-/ 06.3l43 — ''1 ) .p 27-¢'t 1 • 1 t 3A 1%° 4 1 "terra -•"' 7..»•N r. O DATA 1 1DATASEAY I I ,1 ..,.......„ 4- j - . (4) 1 s. .13 I CUSIMESS .�s ' J '-`./ 'a •. • 11 CEMTEr, i I (3) (ll • elj • o A� • m y w,.• ` sC:.,. . -... , 1 a..! . • , , 1 : \' Z .'.• I T 11 F� zl• I •• ” • • 211P 4.011\ • V, I . * % • ;4 • • :p. s, 1a �� , r argot 1 ® �" p// i nil • I OA NI, 1 t 11 \ ta \ .: ; T11 Mszxn (;) Staff Report Flagship Corporate Center January 22, 1999 BACKGROUND This 9.2 acre site is guided Regional Commercial, and zoned Rural and C-Reg-Ser. Office zoning is permitted within this land use. Surrounding land uses are Regional Commercial to the north, south and east. The Purgatory Creek floodplain is to the west. The Flagship Athletic Club is to the south,zoned C-Reg-Ser,Bachman's and Fairview Clinic are to the east, zoned C-Reg-Ser and Office respectively. City owned property is to the north, zoned Rural. SITE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT The site plan shows development of a 148,600 square foot, four-story office building. The Base Area Ratio is 0.09 and Floor Area Ratio is 0.37. City Code permits a BAR of 0.30 and a FAR of 0.50 in the Office zoning district. The building and parking meet all setbacks for the Office zoning district, except for a small portion of parking in the northeast corner where it abuts existing MnDOT right of way. A waiver is necessary through the PUD from the required front yard setback of 35 feet down to 0 feet. This waiver may have merit since the TH 212 construction involving Prairie Center Drive is nearing completion and the excess right of way will not be used for road purposes. In addition, the parking wir be the same distance from Prairie Center Drive as the remainder of the site which meets code. A total of 587 parking spaces are required in the Office zoning district for this building. A total of 592 are provided, including 21 enclosed meeting code. The preliminary plat is for 11.2 acres into 2 lots. A portion of the Flagship Athletic Club property is being combined with this site. Staff recommends that the proponent place the floodplain portion of the property within a separate outlot to be dedicated to the City consistent with other developments throughout the City. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site was previously filled under a separate permit process. Some additional floodplain encroachment is proposed which is consistent with the Watershed District's criteria. A separate permit will be necessary from the Watershed District for this proposed flood plain encroachment. There are no significant trees on the property. Storm water will be treated to NURP standards in a regional treatment pond to be constructed by the City and Watershed District as part of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area development. This 2 Staff Report Flagship Corporate Center January 22, 1999 option is in lieu of constructing a separate pond on site, and is acceptable to the City with the proponent's financial participation to cover their capacity requirements. ACCESS The proposed access plan shows a full median cut at Prairie Center Drive. A future median cut at Prairie Center Drive is shown across from the Bachman's access, should it be necessary for the Bachman's site. Additional access includes a temporary drive lane across the City property leading to Technology Drive, and cross access through the Flagship Athletic Club. Staff supports the additional access opportunities. Reciprocal cross access and maintenance agreements will be necessary. Staff does not support the proposed access to Prairie Center Drive in the southeast corner of the site across from Bachman's. With the other cross access opportunities proposed, ample access will be provided. UTIL FriLS City sewer and water is available from Prairie Center Drive. ARCHI'i'ECTURE The four-story building is 60 feet tall. City Code permits building height to 30 feet in the Office zoning district. A waiver through the PUD will be required, and may have merit since it is located in the Major Center Area which envisioned larger office buildings. This request is consistent with the Southwest Crossings, GE Capital, and Hartford PUD's. The building meets City Code for 75% face brick and glass. The brick meets the Eden Prairie Marketcenter Design Framework, and blends well with the brick used with the Flagship Athletic Club, Bachman's, and the Southwest Metro Transit Station. An extension wall is proposed at the southwest corner of the building to help screen the proposed truck docks. This is consistent with other developments, however the height of the wall will need to increase to screen the full height of the dock doors. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by metal panel enclosures. 3 Staff Report Flagship Corporate Center January 22, 1999 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS AND LIGHTING The proposal incorporates the Eden Prairie Marketcenter Design Framework for street and pedestrian lighting, trails and landscaping. This includes the use of the same lighting standards along Prairie Center Drive that are established along Singletree Lane and Technology Drive. In addition, landscaping planters and a specialized design concrete sidewalk are proposed along Prairie Center Drive. Parking lot lighting consists of standard downcast cutoff fixtures. Staff recommends that the Marketcenter pedestrian lighting fixtures be incorporated along the main entrance drive leading to the building. A trail is proposed along the rear of the property as recommended by the Parks Department. The trail will need to be located above the 100 year floodplain at least 25 feet from the wetland edge and incorporate a public use trail easement. LANDSCAPING A total of 439 caliper inches of landscaping is required based on the building size. The landscaping plan meets this requirement, and includes a wetland seeding mix along the rear of the site to blend with the existing wetland. Berming is proposed along Prairie Center Drive to screen the parking. Trees are shown in the Prairie Center Drive right of way. These trees will need to be moved out of the right of way. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural and C-Reg-Ser to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated January 22, 1999, this Staff Report, and the following: 1. Prior to City Council review,the proponent shall: A. Revise the plans to show the flood plain in a separate outlot to be dedicated to the City. B. Eliminate the access to Prairie Center Drive located in the southeast corner of the site, across from Bachman's. 7 4 Staff'Report Flagship Corporate Center January 22, 1999 C. Revise the building elevations,raising the screen wall to a height to completely screen the dock doors. D. Incorporate the Marketcenter pedestrian lighting fixtures along the main entrance drive leading to the building. E. Relocate the trail on the rear side of the building so it is above the 100 year floodplain at least 25 feet from the wetland edge and incorporates a public use trail easement. F. Relocate the landscaping from the Prairie Center Drive right of way. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Provide detailed plans to the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources for the construction of the public trail along the rear side of the property. B. Participate in the construction costs of the regional pond. Costs will be based on the equivalent of on-site construction, including land value. 4. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Provide details for lighting, sidewalk, and landscaping to meet the Eden Prairie Marketcenter Design Framework. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. E. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 5 Staff Report Flagship Corporate Center January 22, 1999 5. The following waivers from the City Code are granted as part of the Planned Unit Development District Review in the Office zoning district: A. Front yard setback to parking in the northwest corner of the site from 35 feet to 0 feet. B. Building height from 30 to 60 feet. MOIOLDIMIVILCIPOZPOIZSWUOSEITCA 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 25, 1999 Page 8 • MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of James Perkins for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots based on plans dated January 22, 1999 subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated January 22, 1999. Motion carried 7-0. C. FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural and C-Reg-Ser to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: North of Flagship Athletic Club, west side of Prairie Center Drive, south of Technology Drive. Dan Queenan, Opus Corporate Manager of Real Estate, stated they are in agreement with the recommendations of the staff report but have some comments to make. He reviewed the site plan for the Corporate Center which is 150,000 square feet of Class A office building with no basement. They have eliminated an access point to create a better traffic flow pattern on the site. Wetland Alteration Permits will need to be done. He discussed the traffic and access points, the landscape plan, trails, and building plans. Sandstad asked if it was critical that the City wait to construct the trail across the vacant land to the transit station and Kipp responded this will be discussed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission when they review this proposal. Alexander asked why the temporary road was not incorporated into the permanent plan and Queenan responded that it was one way to reduce traffic and to get people over to Technology Drive to facilitate traffic movement on Prairie Center Drive. Dorn commented he did not like the temporary easement or filling the wetlands. Gray commented the wetland the proponent is proposing to fill is essentially the bottom of a ditch but is classified as a wetland because of the vegetation types that grew there. They are not going out into the wetland area. It will have to be filled in anyway to develop the City-owned site. The temporary road is needed to get good cross-access and is a way to avoid having to put • more traffic signals on Prairie Center Drive. It will be mutually beneficial to the City and the proponents, and eventually there will be connecting parking lots. Discussion ensued regarding ways the City owned property could be used, possibly for a restaurant. Alexander asked about the wetland boundary and the hundred year floodplain elevation and Kipp responded that the wetland elevation was not correct on the plans. They will need to have an additional permit for floodplain encroachment which will be reviewed by the Watershed District. Habicht commented he supported the access to the north as he felt it was needed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 25, 1999 Page 9 Queenan reviewed the architectural features of the building and showed building renderings. They are proposing to construct a 150,300 square foot, four-story office building. They will have a total of 597 parking spaces, 19 of which will be enclosed. Clinton asked what the total front area of the building was and Queenan responded the building was 307 feet long by 60 feet in height. Clinton was concerned about the building mass. Kipp commented the building would be taller than Flagship Athletic Club but it wouldn't tower over it. Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted the project meets City Codes except for parking stalls and building height. Staff supported the waivers required for the parking and building height. Staff recommended approval of the project. Staff was amenable to those areas of discussion requested by the proponent. Discussion ensued regarding the floodplain location and the area requested to be dedicated as an outlot. The Public Hearing was opened. Ryan Klutz,representing Bachmans, requested their right to have a cut in the median opposite this project when this property is developed. Gray responded they will be able to do this at their own expense by creating a left-turn lane and making the median cut. Sandstad commented he liked the plan but he did not agree with item C regarding the screen wall which he would like to see raised. Lewis concurred with Sandstad. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Sandstad, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Lewis moved,seconded by Sandstad, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Opus Northwest, LLC for PUD Concept Review on 9.2 acres, PUD District Review on 9.2 acres, Zoning District change from Rural and C-Reg-Ser to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated January 22, 1999 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 22, 1999. Motion carried 6-1. Alexander voted no. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton,to direct staff to evaluate the pros and cons of a legal adoption of an ordinance that should set an expiration time of 12 or 18 months on new plats and subdivisions. Motion carried 7-0. Sandstad commented he would appreciate a survey of several dozen other suburbs regarding their FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER FOR OPUS NORTHWEST, LLC 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 City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Flagship Corporate Center PUD Concept by Opus Northwest, LLC and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February 16, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Flagship Corporate Center, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated February 5, 1999. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated January 25, 1999. ADOPTEDby the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of February, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk c Exhibit A Flagship Corporate Center Legal Description: (Property description per Certificate of Title No. 854100.) Outlot A, Flagship Addition, except that part thereof which lies Northwesterly of a line described as beginning at a point on the North line of said Outlot A distant 190. 16 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Outlot A; thence in a Southwesterly direction to a point on the West line of said Outlot A distant 267.84 feet South from said Northwest corner of Outlot A and said line there terminating. And (Property description per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 5512135.) That part of the West half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right—of—way line of Prairie Center Drive and Southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said West half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 87 degrees 59 minutes 07 second East, along the South line of said West half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 407.67 feet to the Southwesterly right—of—way line of Prairie Center Drive; thence North 55 degrees 52 minutes 37 seconds West, along said right—of—way line, a distance of 175.71 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 34 degrees 07 minutes 23 seconds West, a distance of 128.31 feet, more or less, to the South line of said West half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and said line there terminating. Also that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of Section 15; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 51 minutes 48 seconds East. along the Fast line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 267.84 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; continuing South 0 degrees 51 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 170.83 feet: thence North 55 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 97.95 feet; thence North 34 degrees 07 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 140. 11 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. AND That part of Lot 2, Block 1,FLAGSHIP ADDITION, according to the plat thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies northwesterly of a line described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 87 degrees 59 minutes 07 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 2, a distance of 96.70 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 33 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 476.68 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot 2 and said line there terminating. 13 FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER FOR OPUS NORTHWEST, LLC BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of the Flagship Corporate Center for Opus Northwest, LLC dated February 5, 1999, consisting of 11.2 acres into one lot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of February, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk January 21, 1999 Mr. Chris Enger City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Chris: We received notice of the upcoming public hearing for consideration of Flagship Corporate Center going before the Planning Commission on Monday, January 25, 1999. I spoke with Scott Kipp and Al Grey today by phone, and they shared what they could about the proposed Flagship Corporate Center median cut along Prairie Center Drive (north of Bachman's existing driveway). We would be in favor of the proposed median cut for the Flagship Corporate Center, provided it does not preclude the potential development of the Prairie Center Drive full median cut, as designed and specified in Bachman's Developer's Agreement and Purchase Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie (approximately 670 feet north of the center line of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Lane). Sincerely, Dale L. Bachman President DLB:cad cc: Scott Kipp - City Planner, City of Eden Prairie c 3 0 _ Tr :INNEA ^� � It .H 5 Ti_---__ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2/16/99 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA: '� � SUBJECT: 1999 Cooperative Trail Linkage ITEM NO. Park&Recreation Services Program Robert A. Lambert, Director Requested Action: Move to approve the Trail Linkage Grant Application for matching funds to construct a trail from Valley View Road to Bryant Lake Regional Park. Background: Staff are recommending construction of approximately 8,500 feet of eight foot wide asphalt trail along the west side of Bryant Lake Drive; then westerly along the south side of Shady Oak Road to the trail adjacent to Rowland Road, which connects to the park entrance at Bryant Lake Regional Park. Staff would also recommend a trail connection along the trail easement through the Wooddale Church parking lot to Bryant Lake Regional Park. Staff have met with representatives from Hennepin Park District to confirm the trail connection at the Wooddale Church parking lot. Hennepin Parks does have that trail connection in their park improvement plan and will make that connection as soon as possible after the City extends the trail to that point. The maximum grant award is 50% of the cost of the project, up to a maximum amount of$50,000. Staff estimates the cost of this project at $175,000. If the City is awarded this grant, this project would be initiated in the year 2000. BL:mdd 1 1999 Cooperative Trail Linkage Program Application All applications must be received no later than February 28, 1999 Please deliver 8 copies of the.application to: Department of Natural Resources Recreation Services Section Trails and Waterways Unit 500 Lafayette Road SLPauI,Minnesota 55155-4052 General Information Date: 9 February 1999 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Applicant(Unit of Government required): Trail Organization Project Partner(if there is one): Trail Organization Project Partner Contact Person & Phone Number Bryant Lake Regional Park Trail.Connection Project Title: Applicant Mailing Address: 8080 Mitchell Road City: Eden Prairie State: MN Zip Code: 55344 Applicant Contact Person: Robert A. Lambert Title: Director of Parks & Recreation Daytime Phone: ( 612 ) 949-8440 Project Information: Total Project Amount Local Match Source of Matching Funds Cost Requested $ 175,000. $ 50,000. $ 125,000. City General Fund Will other non-local funds be If yes, give Source of Secured Non-Local used for this project? amount Funds Yes No x Checklist: Project Description Proposals must specifically and Project Location Map(s) directly address each requirement Readable when reproduced Site and evaluation criterion to qualify Map and receive points. Responses to each Requirement Pages in each proposal should be Responses to Each Evaluation numbered with this page as number CSigned Proposals are limited to eight pages Signed Certification by TraiVPark � 9 p g administrator excluding maps, drawings, and/or Signed Certification(s) by all photos. All pages must be 81/z by 11 inches Administrating Authorities of Public Lands and not be dependant on color or be Certification byGrant otherwise unreproducible because Signed your proposal is likely to be Applicant photocopied. Est.date of completion I:\TAW\USERDATA\ALLUSERS\ALL_GRNT\COOPGPNT\Co (no later than 6/30/2002) op'99\APPLICAT.99 1999 Cooperative Trail Linkage Program - State of MN Required Certifications For trail and park administrators "I substantially agree that the proposed trail linkage will be mutually beneficial to the local community, as well as to the goals and purposes for which this recreation unit was established. I will cooperate in its provision if the project proposal should be funded." Signed: Name Position Dir. of Parks & Rec. Services Date For all administrators of public lands crossed/utilized in the proposed trail "I preliminarily agree with plans to develop the proposed trail on land administered by my agency, and I will cooperate in seeking more formal authorization in the event the project proposal is authorized for reimbursement." Signed: Name* Position Dir. of Parks & Rec. SPrvirca Date *For highway rights-of-way administered by MnDOT throughout Minnesota contact either the Preliminary Design Engineer or the Regional Transportation Planning Coordinator within the MnDOT District impacted by the proposal. (Add additional certification blocks as necessary for this project.) For grant applicants "In the event that this proposal is accepted for reimbursement, I recognize that all work must be completed by June 30, 2002. In the event the project has been selected as an Enhancement Project by MnDOT, construction must commence by June 30, 2002." Signed: Name Position Mayor, City of Eden Prairie Date 3 r t Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources } 1:NNETON(A �i► / �� _y �� ,may \ i � -_ - +e ,,,,..,„,:: , _ PARK a H / + 1 • ea.vorrr CHASE ., -/ I 1 H / Tu6N ( `ir .a. -- • • s '": • � R22M R21MF. :yam —— R►�r0f� a1 44441 yr' s a''r s • '. / ITS i BRhBP? 5- Yxi. ¢ • U ,..i..._, \ IL c„,it - �.e ',N--�,� -'.�� Y CAKE J �. tt1111 PARK I ,......, -...—_ -___ 0 ....:. / ' , ,,.4. ,t.:f(:‘:::.17.;,,,.:i:j,,,:,":,E v,. , ,,,71.., w s T.. it' ,L f :,„ „..,?...':-,„;.'"--,... ., 444 <110, ';''' -::::- ,. ... „2....2„.:.. , �`. G� ¢ -. ROADèTOPVIEW; '• ¢'s+`A > _ ILLO 3 c , • , ' •ARK c a a s ;cuTIE DR. - - p.. --Ai'� ` 1 RE p_ ,,,,.,„„ „,,,,.,,,_:, , 1)::.-,„ : ..74m, ! ,. ..,,,..:: 7 „ ,,,.,...' ,,„, ''''''',..1-..'., „,',,,,,,.' ,.;'" 4 'Z',/4110.111110. - ,... •,.-''t- . �' SAFETY' - LEONA ROAO 141N•T: DRIVE` v rn.�. •.ceSJ` . q - a r ? roc .of s't,, ,,k -Y -4 - ",'§ � OF , ," '�`. ,� P � / '' a .e.; �. �. CENTER :, / '.EOEN ' ~` ANDERSO 3 "LAf<E. i • t COMMON1lEALTH car g: - �, _ x DRIVE V J PRAIRIE .i - FT - _ . ♦.- '' _ ,�il�e '-,,ENT ER : �A .. ` * "::: YlOoOroESET I��.. cRrsrn�vlEw Ro. a o� � �...._ r.-';' 2Z;:.,':--,.;:,4,i '`� "� _ MOOR• °4, 4� ' . IEXIN N Y�•`;;F •Q __ 5 . D �-.. J `r7,74 �� _1 - r em- p'^t� m °°; • .4 Ir..e7;:il: 14111r ,• • - 'fir- '.[ t i, �� ,14 �.) i"'� �R ••1� r gar �'` ,�,qOpp1 �� l off `. �-.! ,, _ INTERMEDIAT y - `` �4• °i' ' L/IIQ - Q�;: SCHOOL _ �,c • .y • jthOER50N £ K( •O. ``. ' - Fa.R1TH ''As� "`.,. --st a ...; „,,, L E_,..._ '., P. '... EMIR r a ,� an nAYTIROUT. - -,a'_. '.;� ram. 4 »^e k�A _4 Q i�, Cooperative Trail Linkage Grant City of Eden Prairie Bryant Lake Regional Trail Connection Qualifying Requirements: 1. Project Description: Construction of 8,500 feet of 8' wide asphalt trail. Project trail begins adjacent to Valley View Road then north along the west side of Bryant Lake drive and west along the south side of Shady Oak Road to the trail adjacent to Rowland Road (which connects to the main park entrance), with a spur connection to the southeast side of Bryant Lake Regional Park (which will connect with a segment of the internal park trail). 2. Clearly defined goals for the project: Construction for the main trail segment should begin during the spring of 2000 and should be completed by fall 2000. Construction on the spur segment should begin during late summer 2000 and be completed by late fall 2000. The trails will complete the missing link for pedestrian/bicycle access to Bryant Lake Regional Park from the west and south, (where 90% of the residents in Eden Prairie live). This trail linkage to the Rowland Road trail also provides access to the Park for the Eden Prairie residents living north and east of Bryant Lake Park. 3. Cost estimates associated with the project. material/service purchases: See attached preliminary cost estimate proposal form. 4. Evidence of local/area support (e.g. council resolution, minutes of meetings, etc...). The application for the grant will be reviewed during a scheduled public hearing at the 16 February 1999 City Council meeting. Council approval to move forward with the application is expected. 5. Availability/access to 50% "hard match". City cash park fees will provide the balance of funding for the portion of the estimated cost of this project not covered by the grant award. Grant award - $50,000.00 General fund - $125.000.00 Total cost $175,000.00 6. Identification of the sponsoring unit of government. City of Eden Prairie, Parks Department will be responsible for completion of the project and general maintenance in the future. 7. Acknowledgment that neither this funding source nor the "hard match" can be used for in-house labor services and/or to meet existing payroll. Allocated City general fund money and grant awarded funds for this project will be used specifically for this project. .S Evaluation Criteria: A. Site and project quality: Currently the pedestrian access to Bryant Lake Regional Park is limited to a small area of residences just northeast of the park. An 8' asphalt bike/pedestrian trail along Rowland Road provides access to the main park entrance by people living in the area but is not connected to the rest of the Eden Prairie trail system. Most people desiring to use the park are limited to automobile access. These two proposed trail connections will provide access to the park by bicyclists and pedestrians from the overall Eden Prairie trail system. B. Public need for and benefit of project: The majority of the new trail will fall within city road right-of-way. An easement has been acquired for the spur trail which will run along the southern portion of private property to connect with a part of the internal trail system at Bryant Lake Park. This project should significantly increase the annual number of visitors to Bryant Lake Regional Park. C. Applicant capability: Eden Prairie currently has roughly 70 miles of asphalt surfaced trails. Year round daily maintenance is provided by the City Parks Department. Major trail maintenance and repair is done by the City Public Works Department. Trails are scheduled for sealcoating on a 7 year cycle. Trail maintenance is funded by the City General Fund. D. Community commitment to trail use: Eden Prairie has followed a policy to provide safe bicycle/pedestrian trails by keeping the trails off of the normal automobile traffic lanes and above and to the side of the street curbs. This proposed trail will continue to follow this policy to provide maximum safety to the users. Signage/crosswalk striping is needed where the trail crosses: Willow Wood, Willow Creek Rd., Crowne Oak Rd. and Mel's Way. E. Impact on adjoining landowners in the vicinity of the project: This project will impact the adjacent property owners in a positive manner by providing bicycle and pedestrian access to Bryant Lake Regional Park. A 10' wide trail easement has been acquired from Wooddale Church to link the spur trail with a portion of the internal trail in the southeast corner of the park. F. Project readiness: All trail easements required to construct the trail are currently in place. Construction of the trail will follow the standardized method used by the City for all bicycle/pedestrian trails: 8' wide asphalt trail. G. Provides year round trail use: Once this trail is constructed it will be maintained by the City Parks Maintenance Department for year round use, to include plowing during winter months as needed. Resurfacing maintenance will be provided by the City Public Works Department. ,,&; 2_ PROPOSAL FORM ,4AQt /� og- g i.�c��-c s T12�-t �' /t• ( s ) �y The undersigned declares that he has fully examined the Specifications and all other Contract Documents as prepared by the Engineering Division under Improvement Contract 98-5465 on file in the office of the City Engineer, all of which are fully understood and hereby agreed to. The undersigned further agrees that if this Proposal is accepted, he is to furnish and provide all necessary labor, materials, machinery, tools, apparatus and all other means of construction to perform the work. All work must be completed in strict accordance with the above mentioned Specifications and Contract Documents of Improvement- Contract 98-5461 involving the following approximate quantities: - - i Item Description Est. Unit Price Amount Quantity 1. .SKBG Oe Fc r4FrioN 3,Ivo0 �3 �3 . 50 /a/ !oa,.00 -It Ng 2• 5 �� re ,4Ze — GL . S 1,6,0o Tons g - So aa /00 . , . 3,/¢-s 70,41E - co 1 2 5go.o o 4. a. ar 4,,1w,0 050 764Z: 426 - 56 A7/ ga5.001 5. E,easroa /.SrGt A:4ce_ Soo G� ' _0?.00 3,000 -oa d SorL- 4✓A PCsD 700 Z 6. T - I• oa aa, S•oo oc• P �j ?j c Gn�T,2oC.r l L-5 T 31 can .o e ,II 8. • 9: le, 9a5.«� lo. *'/5/CQ�'lfin eria_/ /1C ygo,cO 11. j `o-ie AbOve /i i n c[ C 1 e ei V ct I 12. ro i (alf;ove F becnd Aug rode e �OVQ. r��` 1�. r r f /�i !� �s nc 2 C o per, fe 14. 0-10Vi . 15. Pe r, ) �r $m JAI I1 O1 (a-ter c1 l� ric+ c yr /I be--irieee2509_ TOTAL BID AMOUNT I = Firm Address Authorized Sinature Title Telephone • Cooperative Trail Linkage Program Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1999 Application Instructions Introduction The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources is recommending to the 1999 Legislature that the Department of Natural Resources be provided $500,000 to accelerate development of trail linkages. Assuming that the Legislature does make the appropriation, the DNR in consultation with the MN Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Metropolitan Council will assist communities and other local units of government to more fully benefit from significant pudic recreation facilities through this program. Program purpose: This program accelerates local trail connections to.planned and existing state trails and other significant public recreation facilities by awarding matching (50/50) grants to local units of government. Grants will be awarded for the acquisition and development of connecting trails and for removal of barriers that impede full access to these facilities. The emphasis of this program is promote access between people and desirable destinations, not to develop significant new recreation facilities. Its primary purpose is to complete trail connections between where people live (e.g., residential areas within cities, and communities) and significant public recreation facilities (e.g., parks and other trails). Priority will be given to residential connections to state and regionally significant facilities. A secondary purpose is to link existing trail segments. Minimum Requirements: Project must result in a trail linkage that is immediately available for use by the general public. Recipients must maintain the trail for a period of twenty years. Any land purchased with these funds must have a perpetual easement for trail purposes attached to the deed. Local match: 50% "hard match" for eligible elements of the project proposal. Neither this funding source nor the "hard match" can be used for labor services and/or to meet existing payroll (i.e., only contract services, materials and supplies are reimbursable). Match must not be state funds or Metropolitan Council Grants. These funds can also be used to provide one-half of the local match for ISTEA/TEA-21 Enhancement Grants awarded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The maximum permissible reimbursement grant per project application is $50,000. The minimum permissible reimbursement grant is $5,000. Grant awards: Reimbursement grant awards will be announced in July, 1999. 1 of 4 pages However, applicants should be aware that it will take some time before a mutually agreeable contract is signed and processed. Do not initiate any work that you expect to be reimbursed for prior to signing a contract with the state. Project period: Funding for these projects is only available through June 30, 2002. In general, all components of the project must be completed by this date. The only exception to this rule is that for projects utilizing ISTEA/TEA-21 Enhancement funding, construction only needs to be initiated prior to June 30, 2002. Process to be Followed: No less than 40% of all funds will be made available to either the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, or greater "outstateu Minnesota. Permissible Uses -For construction of trails on public lands that link communities with state trails, state parks, regional parks and trails and other significant recreation facilities. -For removal of barriers that limit community access to these facilities. -For acquisition of trail right-of-way necessary to link communities with state trails, state parks, regional parks and trails and other significant recreation facilities. However, acquisition of trail right-of-way will only be a reimbursable expense when it is proposed in conjunction with trail development (ie., this program will not reimburse projects that do not result in a useable trail connection). Land appraisals are not reimbursable expenses for this program. Non-permissible Uses Legal fees Land appraisals Ordinary sidewalk construction Trail maintenance Trail rehabilitation Parking lots Trail side rest areas and parks Condemnation of any kind of interest in property. Highway shoulders or other on-street routing Qualifying Requirements In addition to including a comprehensive description of the proposed project, all applications must address each of the following qualifying requirements. Address them in the order that they are presented below. Failure to provide information on each of the requirements will result in the disqualification of the application: 1. A project description sufficient enough to understand the project. Indicate that the project will result in a trail linkage to a significant public recreation facility that is immediately available for use by the general public. 2. Clearly defined goals for the project (with a delineation of which user groups would benefit from the project). 3. Costs associated with the project (with estimates of the following components: material/service purchases including hardware, paint, lumber, sand/gravel, concrete, landscape materials,signs, design/engineering services, and contractor services). 4. Evidence of local/area support (e.g. council resolutions, minutes of meetings, 7 2of4pages letters of support, etc.) 5. Availability/access to 50% "hard match" for eligible elements of the project proposal. State funds and Metropolitan Council grants must not be used to realize the match. 6. Identification of the sponsoring unit of government. This unit of government will be legally responsible for the project and for maintaining the trail for twenty years. 7. Acknowledgment that neither this funding source nor the "hard match" can be used for in-house labor services and/or to meet existing payroll (only contract services, materials and supplies are reimbursable). With regards to bicycle trails, applicants will be required to conform with . recommendations contained within the 1991 "Guide for the Development Of Bicycle Facilities" developed by the American Assoc. of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); for other uses they must conform with "DNR Trail Development Guidelines" or their equivalent. Evaluation Criteria All applications must address each of the following evaluation criteria that are listed in a descending order of priority. Address them in the order that they are presented below. Failure to provide information on each of the criterion will result in the disqualification of the application: A. Site and project quality:demonstrated ability of the project to link residential areas to intended recreation facilities; consideration of the needs of the intended trail user group(s); aesthetic quality of the trail location; appropriateness of the trail for the intended or existing uses; clarity, detail, and quality of project plan/design; quality of existing development (if any) on site or in corridor; attention to safety, accessibility and health considerations. B. Public need for and benefit of project safety concerns, urgency of action, potential to lose the opportunity, number of people within one mile of the project proposal, number of people who would benefit from the project when compared to the total cost of the project. Why should this project be funded? How many people could be expected to use the trail over the course of a year as a result of funding the project? C. Applicant capability: demonstrated ability to complete the project and subsequently operate,and maintain it. Specifically provide evidence of successful and timely completion of other such projects. A 5 year operations and maintenance cost estimate, and the projected source of these funds is also required. D. Community commitment to trail use:identified steps that your community has taken to improve the conditions for bicyclists, walkers, and other uses accommodated by this proposed trail development (e.g., safety education and enforcement, signing,comprehensive barrier identification/removal, and trail vehicle parking opportunities). E. Impact on adjoining landowners in the vicinity of the project demonstrated compatibility of the proposed project with existing adjoining land uses (include a generalized site map that shows adjoining land uses), identify adverse impacts that might be realized as a result of completing the project, and how the project design attempts to mitigate adverse impacts. How might the project improve conditions for adjacent landowners? Identify mitigation steps that will be taken to successfully i6 3of3pages overcome possible/probable objections to this project. F. Project readiness: delineate the current project status and detail major activities that must still be accomplished. At a minimum, please reference land acquisition requirements, status of detail design, and relevant permits and approvals that have been obtained for the project. G. Provides year round trail use. Deadline All applications must be received no later than February 28, 1999. Please deliver eight copies of the application to: Department of Natural Resources Recreation Services Section Trails and Waterways Unit 500 Lafayette Road Saint Paul,Minnesota 55155-4052 h:\a11_grnt\coopgrnt\coopgrnt. '98\coopguid.98 1 4 of 3 pages a5 27ere; z', S—ie3C3 -� EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 1st day of May, 1989, between Wooddale Church, formerly known as the Wooddale Baptist Church, a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Grantor") and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Grantee") . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the fee owner of Lot 1, Block 1, Wooddale Church Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota ("Lot 1") ; and WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee have entered into a Development Agreement dated December 15, 1981 supplemented by a Supplement to Developer's Agreement dated August 16, 1988 (collectively "Developer's Agreement") which obligates Grantor to provide a ten foot wide trail easement over a portion of Lot 1; and NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged: 1. Establishment of Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a perpetual nonexclusive easement for trail purposes over, under and across Lot 1, said trail easement being 10 feet in width and lying southerly and southwesterly of and adjacent to the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence northerly, along the east line of said Lot 1, a distance of 26. 50 feet, to the point of beginning of a line to be described; thence westerly, parallel with the south line of said Lot 1, a distance of 226 feet; thence westerly and northwesterly 180. 04Ifeet along a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 264 .50 feet and a central aytgle of 39 degrees; thence northwesterly 105. 83✓feet along a reverse curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 577.50 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 30 minutes; thence northwesterly along a line, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 165 feet;-' thence westerly 180.95 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 159 .50 feet and a central angle of 65 degrees; thence westerly and northwesterly 87.96 feet along a reverse curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 52 . 50 feet and a central angle of 96 degrees; thence northwesterly and westerly 106. 03 feet along a reverse curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 75 feet and a central angle of 81 degrees; thence westerly and northwesterlAAN 120.45 feet along a reverse curve, concave to the Oc T,i) v.:,Pilki northeast, having a radius of 67 feet and a central �ti 73e MINN Ps' Elz-P Gr angle of 103 degrees; thence northwesterly, westerly and southwesterly 84.08 feet along a reverse curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 44 feet and a central angle of 109 degrees 30 minutes and said line there terminating. 2. Purpose. The easement granted herein shall be restricted to use for recreational pedestrian and bicycle traffic and shall include the right to install, repair, replace and maintain concrete, gravel or any other hard surface appropriate for a recreational walking or biking trail. Signage along the trail other than city signage shall be prohibited. All city signage shall be subject to the prior approval of Grantor, which approval should not be unreasonably withheld. Under no circumstances shall city signage advertise or name the park. In no event, shall the free travel across the easement granted herein to or from Grantor's property lying northerly or southerly of said easement be impeded or burdened by any improvements which may be constructed or maintained by Grantee. 3 . Construction of Trail. Grantor shall be responsible for grading the trail to its base elevation and Grantee shall then be responsible for constructing the trail. In the event Grantor elects to relocate the easement as provided in paragraph 6 after it has been constructed by Grantee, Grantor shall be responsible for the cost of grading and constructing the trail. (In the event said relocation occurs before any construction of the trail, then Grantee shall be responsible for the same. ) All grading and construction shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications of the City of Eden Prairie. 4. Maintenance of Easement. Any improvements within the easement granted herein shall be kept as safe as possible for public pedestrian and bicyclist travel and shall be maintained in a good and workmanlike manner.. Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for maintenance and repair of the improved trail surface constructed within the easement area. Grantee agrees to replace and restore any sodding or grass which may be destroyed or damaged through the installation, construction, maintenance, repair or use of the improved trail surface. -?a` 5. Liability. In no event shall Grantor be liable for any expense or cost in connection with any liability, damage or personal injury in connection with the construction (except as provided herein with regard to relocation construction expense) , maintenance or use of the easement granted herein. Furthermore, the parties hereto acknowledge that the trail will provide public access to a regional park. In no event shall Grantor be �fU responsible for the monitoring or policing of trail users to 1 ensure compliance with park rules or for the behavior of trail users. Under no circumstances will Grantor provide parking for park users. Grantee hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Grantor -2- 13 harmless for any claim, loss, injury or damage, including reasonable attorneys' fees, suffered by Grantor or its assigns in connection with the construction, maintenance or use of the easement. 6. Relocation. Lot 1 may be further improved from time to time and Grantor shall have the right with city review and approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld to relocate the easement and trail thereon. In the event of such relocation the parties hereto, or their assigns, shall execute in recordable form documents to reflect said relocation. Responsibility for any costs resulting from such relocation shall be as provided in paragraph 3. 7. Duration. The easement and the benefits and burdens herein contained shall attach to, bind and run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and bind the owners and transferees of Lot 1 and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. 8. Grantee's Agreement. By accepting and filing this Easement Deed of record, Grantee agrees to be bound by the conditions set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Easement Agreement as of the date first above stated. WOODDALE CHURCH By: - '� I, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Bye 5 Its: AY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ��j �t,, ) s s: { COUNTY OF e t..) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before mea notary public within and for said county and state by 1 CL' / the of Wooddale Church, a M n ' sotzY non profit corporation, on behalf of said non-profit corporation.t J NET A.VOGEL Notary Public :`NOTARY PUBLIC•MI?EOTA SCOTT COUNTY My Commission Expires Nov.26,1990 avvvommorvwvvvvvvviownwiwysi -3- I i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) / ) ss: COUNTY OF HEh,NEl'/fit, ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged beprey°e a notary public i in and for said county and state by Aiello- �ti the 0,9 of the City of Eden Prairie'/, a Minnesota municipal c6rporation on behalf of said municipal corporation. 7/4,t_ >14-C-c-FrS K�!PU (IC-MI OD NE Notary Public NOTARY PUFLIC-MINNESOTA NENNEPIN COUNTY ' " Niy commission expires 020195 NT TO EASEMENT Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, a national banking association, Mortgagee on Lot 1, Block 1, Wooddale Church Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby acknowledges and consents to the easement created by the foregoing Easement Agreement. NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association By:�5.-7 q_77„-- . Its: l/fcL PA.L.elct.t,� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF l(zfl/gip//? ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me a otary public ,wit &in and for said county and state by Ve rL j ftirj,fl the pi) pre 5 e((p/?f of Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, a national banking association, on behalf of said association. je Luo , Y. A6iteLL, Notary i Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: ,,IcNDV L 1 IT Maun, Green, Hayes, Simon, ^ ` �`:a Johanneson & Brehl (NBH) °'`'' 3500 West 80th Street ` '`' �` 1rF, Suite 520 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 /5 -4- OrmmcE OF C-01,NTY REV,ORDER # ::r�; [��►3 OUNTY,MiNNESOTA OR ror• ' REC.Qii}.LU i(,"# 89 JUN -9 PH 2: 55 A DOCUMENT 543O82 ti '' CO.RECO Duplicate Filing Certificate 50 Cents OP CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2d°r1 SECTION: Consent Calendar 02/16/99 prairie DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance Payment of Claims VIII Checks 71945 to 72413 Action/Direction: Approve Payment of Claims COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) DIVISION TOTAL N/A $10,729.85 LEGISLATIVE $968.15 LEGAL COUNSEL $10,780.24 GENERAL SERVICES $21,262.91 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $20,305.91 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $5,650.00 CITY MANAGER $26.30 FINANCE $1,099.42 HUMAN RESOURCES $7,230.82 COMMUNITY SERV $3,573.65 HUMAN SERV $8,956.00 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION $398.99 ENGINEERING $16,013.47 INSPECTIONS $673.39 FACILITIES $22,384.03 ASSESSING $1,841.04 CIVIL DEFENSE $601.04 POLICE $23,507.61 FIRE $11,662.96 ANIMAL CONTROL $23.35 STREETS/TRAFFIC $22,480.44 PARK MAINTENANCE $5,549.56 STREET LIGHTING $20.54 FLEET SERVICES $16,970.04 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $4,308.10 COMMUNITY DEV $1,116.79 COMMUNITY CENTER $27,122.35 YOUTH RECREATION $1,836.60 SPECIAL EVENTS $1,321.90 ADULT RECREATION $2,187.66 ADAPTIVE REC $395.55 OAK POINT POOL $126.58 ARTS $95.00 PARK FACILITIES $35.00 PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $626,723.99 EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $14,243.78 CITY CENTER $10,435.84 PRAIRIE VILLAGE $72,141.71 PRAIRIEVIEW $73,603.28 CUB FOODS $127,357.07 TRUST FUNDS $115,731.00 WATER DEPT $116,568.93 SEWER DEPT $173,479.25 STORM DRAINAGE $5,362.38 AGENCY FUNDS $33,142.88 $1,620,045.35* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 71945 $779.87 BELLBOY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71946 $581.40 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71947 $768.65 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71948 $1,620.38 EAGLE WINE COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71950 $7,893.60 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71951 $9,023.80 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71952 $22,715.59 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71956 $1,056.51 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71957 $2,787.25 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71958 $113.85 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71959 $6,122.48 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC WINE IMPORTED PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71962 $2,288.83 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71963 $5,899.73 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71965 $10,314.45 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71966 $328.66 WINE MERCHANTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71967 $250.00 ARROWHEAD EMS CONFERENCE CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 71968 $53.50 HENNING, LAURIE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS CIVIL DEFENSE 71969 $61.00 HYLAND HILLS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 71970 $115.80 MUSOLF, TIFFANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71971 $180.87 PETTY CASH TRAVEL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 71972 $59.98 SCHEDIN, JAMES CLOTHING & UNIFORMS CIVIL DEFENSE 71973 $108.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE PARK MAINTENANCE 71974 $202.20 ALBINSON INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 71975 $16.31 MUELLER, CYNTHIA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POOL OPERATIONS 71976 $50.00 PETTY CASH SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71977 $11.50 SALON, KEVIN LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 71978 $55.67 DONALDSON, LORINDA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71979 $59.98 DUCHSCHERE, ELIZABETH CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 71980 $100.34 EHRICH, CAMILLE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71981 $300.00 FAHEY, LARRY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WINTER WONDERLAND 71982 $30.00 FEATHERSTONE, LYNN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71983 $22.50 FRISCHMON, NANCY LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 71984 $44.25 GRIFF, MARI LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 71985 $1,260.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PRINTING POLICE 71986 $50.17 HILGEMAN, JEFF LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71987 $250.00 HOLIDAY INN - DULUTH TRAVEL IN SERVICE TRAINING 71988 $50.17 HUTCHENS, CHRISTIE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71989 $550.00 INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SCHOOLS POLICE 71990 $90.00 JOHNSON, MARYANNE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71991 $50.71 LOOBEEK, INA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71992 $1,286.42 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 71993 $369.98 MINNESOTA'S BOOKSTORE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL INSPECTION-ADMIN I 71994 $18.33 MONTGOMERY, JENNIFER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71995 $51.00 OBERMAN, SHERI LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71996 $100.35 OFFICE DEPOT RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE 71997 $30.00 PARTINGTON, MARSHA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71998 $60.00 ROEMMICH, CRYSTAL ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71999 $15.21 SCHAEPE, BARB LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 72000 $69.17 SOKOUNOVA, IRINA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72001 $150.00 THE SILLY SISTERS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WINTER WONDERLAND 72002 $50.00 TRI-COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFF DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE 72003 $20.70 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL STORM DRAINAGE 72004 $54.69 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 72005 $1,517.60 FRANZEN, JAMES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 72006 $420.33 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 3 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 72007 $52.92 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72008 $95.00 J W PEPPER OF MINNEAPOLIS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ART & MUSIC 72009 $248.34 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72010 $1,835.92 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72011 $71.20 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72012 $1,011.70 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72013 $1,480.78 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72014 $5,448.96 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72015 $780.10 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72016 $13,625.33 NETS BUILDING EATON BLDG 72017 $236.00 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72018 $1,667.69 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72019 $5,333.55 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72021 $661.11 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72022 $46.60 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72023 $180.00 PROTECTION ONE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72024 $110.90 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72025 $185.41 TRANS ALARM INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72026 $2.00 BARLOW SERVICE CENTER EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72027 $16.50 DONNA, PAULA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE SHOW 72028 $5,151.79 DURAND AND ASSOCIATES JANITOR SERVICE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72029 $6.42 LAVEN, GRETCHEN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FINANCE DEPT 72030 $9,109.28 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSU REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72031 $282,969.27 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME DUE TO OTHER GOVNT UNITS SAC AGENCY FUND 72032 $10,729.35 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER BLDG SURCHARGES BUILDING SURCHARGE 72033 $10.00 MINNESOTA STATE UNIV. MANKATO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 72035 $4,860.76 PRUDENTIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYERS FD 10 ORG 72036 $2,418.60 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY DISABILITY IN EMPLOYERS FD 10 ORG 72037 $5,000.00 TRANSPORTATION, COMMISSIONER 0 BLDG RENTAL FIRE STATION 72038 $1,120.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72039 $8,000.00 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE GENERAL 72040 $68.05 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE FIRE 72041 $394.10 CONLEY, JOHN SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 72042 $1,000.00 EIDE HELMEKE PLLP AUDIT & FINANCIAL FINANCE DEPT 72043 $31,317.91 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72044 $1,458.00 TLC CAFE' EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72045 $22.50 ANDERSON, CINDY LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 72046 $58.00 ANDREEN, JENNIFER LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72047 $99.00 ARMA CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72048 $166.66 ARMANFAR, NOUSHIN FAMILY RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 72049 $10.00 CHURCHILL, MARK ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 72050 $50.17 DAVID, TERESA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72051 $58.00 FRIEDMAN, OLGA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72052 $10.00 GALYAN, SHEYNA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 72053 $3.00 GRAVES, MARIAN SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 72054 $23.00 GREGSON, SUSAN LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 72055 $50.17 HALLORAN, LAURA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72056 $3.50 HANKEY, MARY LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 72057 $5.00 HANSON, CINDY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 72058 $74.10 LANENBERG, CYNTHIA MILEAGE AND PARKING FIRE 72059 $10.93 LOOBEEK, INA LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 72060 $5.00 LUCHT, DALE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 72061 $12.00 LUSE, DAVID LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72062 $40.50 MANICOR, AMY LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72063 $177.00 MARLIN CANDLE COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SPECIAL INITIATIVES y COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 72064 $40.00 METRO LEGAL SERVICES INC LEGAL SERVICE TEMAN PROPERTY 72065 $82.00 MORENO, V MARIA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72066 $15.21 PUDAS, LIZ LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 72067 $82.00 RECALDE, JOHNNY LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72068 $110.00 SCHERKENBACH, ROCHELLE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 72069 $5.00 SWANK, PENNY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 72070 $25.50 WAGNER, MARGARET LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 72071 $15.21 WILEY, ROBERT LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 72072 $8.00 WILLIAMS, ELAINE SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 72073 $22.50 WITHEROW, KATHY LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 72074 $18.12 ZILLMER, BRIDGET LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 72075 $948.15 CARD SERVICES-BUSINESS CARD TRAVEL COUNCIL 72076 $670.10 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE OTHER EQUIPMENT ASSESSING-ADMIN 72077 $3,077.70 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72078 $2,950.81 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72079 $210.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72080 $15,338.69 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72082 $2,293.90 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72083 $13,205.92 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72085 $104.50 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72086 $1,045.00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72087 $2,632.45 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72088 $120.00 ANOKA TECHNICAL COLLEGE SCHOOLS FIRE 72089 $48.00 BCA CJIS ID UNIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FINANCE DEPT 72090 $170.40 ENFIELD, PATRICIA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 72091 $704.47 GE CAPITAL RENTALS GENERAL 72092 $210.00 HCMC-EMS EDUCATION TRAINING SUPPLIES FIRE 72093 $82.14 HUTCHINS, BRUCE MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN 72094 $112.58 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS* CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL 72095 $111.48 KRESS, CARLA MILEAGE AND PARKING ADAPTIVE RECREATION 72096 $45.00 MAMA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 72097 $35.00 MFAPC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 72098 $213.00 MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC OF REAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADMIN 72099 $40.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72100 $75.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE LICENSES & TAXES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72101 $5,000.00 NOECKER & ASSOCIATES DEPOSITS ESCROW 72102 $26.30 POLITICS IN MINNESOTA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CITY MANAGER 72103 $214.00 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EDEN CROSSING ROADS 72104 $2,256.53 CORPORATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 72105 $1,625.00 FORT COLLINS PROTECTION DOGS CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE 72106 $10,405.24 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE LEGAL COUSEL 72107 $1,417.30 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC STORMWATER LIFTSTATION 72108 $456.16 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT CIVIL DEFENSE 72109 $100.00 SIT, ERIC INSTRUCTOR SERVICE ADULT PROGRAM 72110 $134.61 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72111 $781.70 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72112 $5,370.55 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72113 $7,466.90 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72115 $13,091.55 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72116 $160.90 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72117 $17,652.63 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72120 $2,627.66 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72122 $1,478.13 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72123 $6,481.80 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72124 $426.17 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 72125 $232.75 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72126 $9,408.55 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72128 $659.45 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72129 $1,835.34 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72130 $6,743.38 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72132 $11,985.90 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72133 $99.00 ARMA CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72134 $35.00 MILES, BRADLEY CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 72135 $185.00 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 72136 $22.50 OLD LOG THEATER SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADULT PROGRAM 72137 $500.00 ST OLAF COLEGE-STUDENT FIN. SE DEPOSITS ESCROW 72138 $5,471.20 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 72139 $1,250.00 FAMILY HOPE SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 72140 $136.00 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 72141 $129.60 AMERICAN SPORT EDUC. PROG REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES SOFTBALL 72142 $750.00 BOMA MINNEAPOLIS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 72143 $525.00 BUCKS UNPAINTED FURNITURE OFFICE EQUIPMENT SENIOR CENTER 72144 $23.20 BURKHARDT, JAMES RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE 72145 $150.00 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72146 $262.00 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER MISCELLANEOUS HUMAN RESOURCES 72147 $1,287.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV TRAVEL IN SERVICE TRAINING 72148 $1,139.96 HENNEPIN TECHICAL COLLEGE SCHOOLS FIRE 72149 $130.00 IAAO DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 72150 $28.75 KRESS, CARLA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 72151 $270.00 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72152 $450.00 MAAO DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 72153 $600.00 MINNESOTA ASPHALT PAVEMENT ASS CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72154 $20.00 MINNESOTA MAYORS ASSOC C/O FIN DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS COUNCIL I 72155 $60.00 MPWA CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72156 $5,650.00 NORSEMAN OIL COMPANY CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG 72157 $559.50 NORTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOL DEPOSITS ESCROW 72158 $60.00 NORTHWEST CHAPTER FBINAA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE 72159 $164.50 PAPER DIRECT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 72160 $77.97 POGATCHNIK, MARCI CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 72161 $691.40 SHOWCORE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES 72162 $153.13 SIMPLICITY SYSTEMS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 72163 $50.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72164 $595.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72165 $234.68 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72166 $100.00 BENIEK LAWN SERVICE EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72167 $268.56 BLECHTA, CRAIG EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72168 $384.80 CROSS, BARBARA MILEAGE AND PARKING GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 72169 $270.62 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC BUILDING EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 72170 $43.63 GLENROSE FLORAL AND GIFT SHOPS EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72171 $65.17 GRAY, ALAN EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72172 $50.00 HEBERT, JANENE SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 72173 $375.00 IT'S SHOWTIME EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 72174 $78.75 KUCERA, TERRY WAGES NO BENEFITS COMMUNITY SERVICES 72175 $375.00 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE LEGAL COUSEL 72,176 $150.00 MARTIN-MCALLISTER PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM HUMAN RESOURCES 72177 $3,146.81 MINNESOTA UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT COMP BENEFITS 72178 $18,793.08 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC STORMWATER LIFTSTATION 72181 $47.13 PAPER WAREHOUSE MISCELLANEOUS HUMAN RESOURCES 72182 $73.87 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72183 $1,560.44 BELLBOY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 6 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 72184 $292.00 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72185 $2,512.30 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72186 $4,403.45 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72187 $149.50 GRAND PERE WINES INC WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72188 $4,288.50 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 72189 $4,085.75 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72190 $3,093.38 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72191 $651.65 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72192 $8,205.04 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72194 $1,226.40 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 72195 $10,403.20 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 72196 $1,313.10 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 72197 $50.00 APPLIANCE CENTER WASTE DISPOSAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72198 $49.24 DONNA, PAULA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE SHOW 72199 $182.40 MOSIMAN, LARRY ACCTS REC-CUSTOMER WATER DEPT 72200 $1,515.75 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC SEWER LIFTSTATION 72201 $100.52 ALBINSON INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 72202 $210.75 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 72203 $1,334.70 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY PRINTING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 72204 $3,030.50 ARCH SPEC INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72205 $1,898.20 ART RESOURCES GALLERY FURNITURE & FIXTURES SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 72206 $226.00 ASPEN CARPET CLEANING CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72207 $67.95 AUTO-SOUND ENTRONIX EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72208 $1,013.84 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72209 $80.00 BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS POLICE 72210 $44,862.80 BERGH'S FABRICATING INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72211 $1,794.92 BERGIN AUTO BODY INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72212 $888.60 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 72213 $576.74 BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE* OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 72214 $4,526.87 BOARMAN KROOS PFISTER VOGEL & BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72215 $1,241.75 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PIONEER TRAIL SANITARY SEWER 72216 $130.82 BRO-TEX INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72217 $4,180.00 BROTHERS FIRE PROTECTION BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72218 $4,763.70 BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC MISC FIRE EQUIPMENT FIRE 72219 $4,047.75 BRW INC DESIGN & CONST DELL ROAD 72220 $27,083.38 BRW INC DEPOSITS ESCROW 72221 $79.00 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 72222 $850.00 CADCAM ENGINEERING SYSTEMS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPT 72223 $2,373.89 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 72224 $78.88 CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72225 $2,812.50 CHAD NESTOR ILLUSTRATION & DES PRINTING COMMUNITY SERVICES 72226 $847.74 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72228 $74.00 CITY BUSINESS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72229 $1,910.00 CO-SOURCE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72230 $33,725.00 COMMERCIAL ROOFING INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72231 $706.56 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72232 $5,625.00 CORNERSTONE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 72233 $1,427.14 CORPORATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 72234 $2,656.65 CORPORATE GRAPHICS COMMERCIAL PRINTING POLICE 72235 $181.20 CPR SERVICES INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72236 $283,304.25 CROSSTOWN MASONRY BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72237 $4.85 CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 72238 $349.07 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72239 $292.15 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 72240 $8,194.50 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 7 r COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 72241 $137.96 CY'S UNIFORMS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 72242 $400.00 DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG SCHOOLS POLICE 72243 $52.94 DALCO CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72244 $191.17 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72245 $18,897.00 DELOUGHERY PAINTING COMPANY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT UTILITY BOND FUND 72246 $299.90 DIRECT SAFETY CO SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72247 $5,266.90 DLT SOLUTIONS INC. SOFTWARE ENGINEERING DEPT 72248 $323.06 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET TRAVEL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 72250 $6,500.00 DS GRIFFEN & ASSOC CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72251 $748.88 DYNA SYSTEMS SMALL TOOLS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72252 $629.84 EARL F ANDERSEN INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS 72253 $637.09 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72254 $415.00 EDINA, CITY OF CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING WATER SYSTEM SAMPLE 72255 $11,559.50 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT TRAFFIC SIGNS 72256 $2,457.89 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS EQUIPMENT PARTS STORM DRAINAGE 72257 $537.24 EMED COMPANY INC SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72258 $389.50 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE 72259 $193.07 EQUISERV CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72260 $483.03 EZ BUSINESS FURNITURE FURNITURE & FIXTURES ENGINEERING DEPT 72261 $2,081.00 FAMILY & CHILDRENS SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 72262 $207.65 FERRELLGAS MOTOR FUELS ICE ARENA 72263 $398.99 FIBRCOM COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION 72264 $102.49 FIDELITY PRODUCTS CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 72265 $549.13 FORCE AMERICA EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72266 $429.11 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC. OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TREE DISEASE 72267 $6,349.29 FUNK - HANECY DISTRIBUTORS INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS SENIOR CENTER 72268 $650.37 G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 72269 $661.15 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLOTHING & UNIFORMS STREET MAINTENANCE 72270 $75.00 GATES, KATHY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 72271 $1,696.18 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72276 $18,743.50 GEPHART ELECTRIC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72277 $341.13 GINA MARIAS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 72278 $26.25 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 72279 $7,063.67 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPT 72280 $112.25 HARMON AUTOGLASS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72281 $149.38 HAWK LABELING SYSTEMS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 72282 $240.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72283 $16.50 HEAVENLY HAM OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 72284 $542.50 HELICOPTER FLIGHT INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES DEER CONSULTANT 72285 $370.00 HENDERSON, JOSH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADULT OPEN GYM 72286 $206.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS RECORDING DOCUMENT FEE ENGINEERING DEPT 72287 $677.09 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S ACCT BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE 72288 $4,432.19 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER - AC BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE 72289 $351.50 HIGLEY, STEVE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 72290 $333.00 HOLMES, JOHN CARTER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 72291 $481.00 HOLMES, TOM OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 72292 $8,170.00 HONEYWELL INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72293 $2,161.99 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72294 $115.62 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS* CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL 72295 $5,650.00 IMAGEWARE SOFTWARE INC CONTRACTED COMM MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 72296 $4,822.50 IMC SALT SALT SNOW & ICE CONTROL 72297 $469.46 INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION ENGINEER OFFICE EQUIPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72298 $14,144.65 INGRAM EXCAVATING INC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS EDEN CROSSING ROADS 72299 $2,205.00 INVER HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 72300 $196.49 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 72301 $701.23 JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES INC SOFTWARE ENGINEERING DEPT 72302 $1,255.95 JANEX INC OTHER EQUIPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72303 $158.50 JOHNSON CONTROLS CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72304 $308.50 JONI'S BOX SERVICE CLEANING SUPPLIES FIRE STATION #1 72305 $1,303.59 KEY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE INC OFFICE EQUIPMENT SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72306 $8.00 KLEVE HTG & AC CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG 72307 $9.08 KNOX BUILDING MATERIALS BUILDING MATERIALS STREET MAINTENANCE 72308 $460.00 KOTTKE, MARY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BASKETBALL 72309 $837.49 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 72311 $36,625.14 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72312 $463.45 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72313 $1,003.61 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72314 $2,374.50 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS INSURANCE GENERAL 72315 $7.00 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 72316 $20.50 LONGMAN, STEPHEN BLDG SURCHARGES MECH SURCHARGE 72317 $213.95 MARSHALL & SWIFT OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADMIN 72318 $63.90 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE 72319 $98.37 MCGLYNN BAKERIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 72320 $92.00 MEDTOX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 72321 $1,440.38 MENARDS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 72324 $213.43 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 72325 $125.93 METROPOLITAN FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72326 $890.28 MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO IN CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE 72327 $44.00 MIKE'S SHOE REPAIR INC PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE 72328 $1,435.45 MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS FULLER ROAD STORM SEWER IMPROV 72329 $250.00 MINNESOTA COUNTIES INS TRUST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 72330 $562.40 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 72331 $1,827.80 MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPE INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72332 $859.20 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 72334 $823.10 MITY-LITE INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 72335 $58.24 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72336 $16,435.00 MULCAHY INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72337 $10.00 MUNICI-PALS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 72338 $2,384.35 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 72339 $10,576.06 NILSSON, BETH HOSES & NOZZLES ICE ARENA 72340 $7,134.47 NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP CLOTHING & UNIFORMS SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 72341 $40,736.00 NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTO BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72342 $34.11 O'CONNER, KATHLEEN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 72343 $101.25 OHLIN SALES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 72344 $54.70 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72345 $3,021.09 PARAMETERS FURNITURE & FIXTURES SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 72346 $521.50 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM HUMAN RESOURCES 72347 $4,075.27 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72348 $957.50 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 72349 $395.69 PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WETLAND DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 72350 $13.31 POKORNY COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72351 $596.40 PRAIRIE EQUIPMENT COMPANY BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72352 $9.83 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 72353 $103.64 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 72354 $168.16 PROEX PHOTO SYSTEMS PHOTO SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72355 $1,812.64 PROSTAFF OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ASSESSING-ADMIN 72356 $1,588.04 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL FIRE STATION #1 72357 $10.70 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE GENERAL 72358 $70.25 RADIO SHACK OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 72359 $130.70 RESPOND SYSTEMS SAFETY SUPPLIES GENERAL 7 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-FEB-1999 (12:42) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 72360 $44,291.29 RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Birch Island Watermain Design 72361 $15.33 RITZ CAMERA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TREE DISEASE 72362 $27,023.76 RMR SERVICES INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 72363 $79.80 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72364 $5,417.86 SANCO CLEANING SUPPLIES OTHER EQUIPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72365 $2,183.00 SCHULTZ, WILBUR OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 72366 $550.00 SE-ME INC PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE 72367 $200.00 SERCO LABORATORIES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72368 $550.35 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72369 $1,671.09 SJF OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNS 72370 $329.50 SNELL MECHANICAL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 72371 $927.10 SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS* OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 72372 $125.00 SOUTHWEST FIRE LEAGUE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 72373 $1,042.96 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING GENERAL 72374 $24.00 SPORTS WORLD USA INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE ARENA 72375 $9,446.09 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Scenic Heights Road 72376 $2,590.00 ST THOMAS, UNIVERSITY OF SCHOOLS FIRE 72377 $1,171.50 STANDARD SPRING NEW CAR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72378 $664.50 STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO, THE CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72379 $882.92 STREICHERS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 72380 $4,984.00 STS CONSULTANTS LTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JAMES BROWN CONSERVATION AREA 72381 $2,676.83 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72382 $1,332.44 SUBURBAN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE I TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72383 $229.40 SUN NEWSPAPERS EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 72384 $24.89 TAB PRODUCTS CO PRINTING ASSESSING-ADMIN 72385 $1,036.50 THOMPSON PLBG CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER METER REPAIR 72386 $24,884.70 TKDA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDEN CROSSING ROADS 72387 $27.88 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72388 $6.95 TRANS UNION CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 72389 $1,248.00 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STREET MAINTENANCE 72390 $14.16 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER STORAGE-BAKER RD 72391 $5,545.16 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 72393 $517.43 UNITED LABORATORIES CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72394 $292.57 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72395 $291.60 US FILTER/WATERPRO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72396 $1,613.52 US OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 72398 $1,706.35 US PREMISE NETWORKING SERVICES FURNITURE & FIXTURES POLICE-CITY CENTER 72399 $9,621.04 VALLEY RICH CO INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72400 $1,300.00 VAUGHN DISPLAY & FLAG CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72401 $290.00 VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 72402 $40.47 VOSS LIGHTING BLDG REPAIR & MAINT MILLER PARK 72403 $207.56 W W GRAINGER INC SMALL TOOLS FIRE STATION #3 72404 $37.50 WALT, DANIEL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ICE ARENA 72405 $915.16 WATSON CO INC, THE MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 72406 $150.00 WEATHER WATCH INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SNOW & ICE CONTROL 72407 $442.29 WEST WELD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72408 $10,346.45 WESTERN STEEL ERECTION INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 72409 $78.00 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72410 $779.60 YALE INCORPORATED CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 72411 $70.28 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SAFETY SUPPLIES POOL OPERATIONS 72412 $273.39 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 72413 $519.79 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE $1,620,045.35* 10 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2/16/99 SECTION: Petitions, Requests and Communications SERVICE AREA: SUBJECT: Subject: Request from the Eden ITEM NO. Park&Recreation Services Prairie Hockey Association for the City to Consider IX.A. Robert A. Lambert, Director a Third Indoor Ice Skating Rink Requested Action: Move to authorize staff to: 1. Contact General Growth to determine how firm an indoor ice rink is part of the planned improvements for the Eden Prairie Center. 2. Contact the School District to share this request with the appropriate personnel and determine if they would support the request for an additional practice ice rink on the north end of the building, or if they would prefer a larger configuration, and if so, are they able to fund the difference. 3. Submit the preliminary application for any grant money that might be available to assist with this project. 4. Submit all of this information to the City Council with requests for other proposed improvements as per the capital improvement plan review on March 16th. Background The Eden Prairie Hockey Association has submitted a very thorough request for the City to consider adding another indoor ice rink at the Community Center. The data indicates that the Hockey Association and the Figure Skating Club are continuing to grow even while the Hockey Association and the Figure Skating Club are not encouraging that growth due to the limited ice time available. In comparison to the amount of ice time per player, Eden Prairie is relatively low compared to surrounding communities. City staff believes that the City will require three indoor ice rinks to accommodate the skating needs of this community. Staff are reluctant to recommend proceeding with construction of another public rink if General Growth is continuing to plan to construct a privately owned rink that would be selling ice time to the public in the near future;however, if an indoor ice rink is merely a concept that may or any not be provided, the Council will have to decide how long the City should wait to determine whether or not a private rink will be a fact. The Hockey Association has indicated there is some 1 urgency to this decision if the City is to take advantage of applying for a Mighty Ducks Grant. It is likely that this is the last year of Mighty Ducks Grants for new arenas. The new arena grants are limited to $250,000 per grant. There is also the possibility of an additional $50,000-$100,000 available in grant money if the facility were to include locker rooms for girls. An additional reason for urgency on this decision,beyond the fact that hockey and figure skaters are getting less time per participant as the organizations grow,is the fact that the association has a two- year lease agreement for their dry floor practice space and would like to include that space in any expansion of the Community Center that would allow the Hockey Association to contribute close to $250,000 toward the construction of this facility as well. SIZE OF THE FACILITY: If the City Council decided to construct a third indoor ice rink at the Community Center, staff would recommend an Olympic size rink, practice facility only, with no seating available. The facility would also include four team rooms plus the dry floor practice area. There has been some discussion in the past about the need for a skating rink that would accommodate seating on both sides of the rink similar to the seating at Braemar Arena. City staff would estimate that the practice rink referred to might cost approximately 2.5 million dollars compared to a skating rink with seating for perhaps 1,000 visitors on both sides of the rink that would cost close to 4.5 million dollars. Based on the exercise the City went through to obtain revenue bonds for the second rink, it might be feasible to use revenue bonds to construct a 2.5 million-dollar facility, however, anything beyond that would more than likely not be able to be financed solely through revenue bonds. If the City Council eventually determines that it wants to further investigate the feasibility of a third rink, the Council would have to contract for preparation of a pro forma and proposal for review by our bond counsel to determine how much funding could be generated for such a facility based on projected income. The City would have to get a preliminary cost estimate from an architect to determine the project cost. Staff would recommend taking the four steps listed at the beginning of this memo prior to contracting for architectural services or proceeding with a pro forma and proposal. RAL:mdd Attachments: PRNRC Minutes Dated February 1, 1999 Proposal from Hockey Association 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMISSION MEMBERS: Richard Brown, Chair,Frantz Corneille, Claire Hilgeman, Don Jacobson, Vicki Koenig, Glenn Stolar, John Wilson STUDENT MEMBER: Ben Christian COMMISSION STAFF: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources, Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, Lyndell Frey, Community Center Manager, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. ROLL CALL Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Koenig moved, seconded by Corneille, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -December 21. 1998 MOTION: Wilson moved, seconded by Jacobson, to approve the December 21, 1998 Minutes of the Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission as published. Motion carried 5-0-2. Commissioners Koenig and Stolar abstained. IV. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Eden Prairie Hockey Association to Consider the Use of Revenue Bonds for a Third Indoor Skating Rink Lambert reviewed the staff report and recommended the Commission authorize staff to take the actions outlined in the report items 1, 2, 3 and 4. They propose to add a practice rink only with no seating capacity. The School District should be given the opportunity to determine if it will need something beyond what is being proposed. 3 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES February 1, 1999 Page 2 Stolar asked if staff should include some sort of revenue figures that could be projected at this time and Lambert responded staff will do this if the City Council wants to pursue it. Discussion ensued regarding the revenue bonds and how they are valued and the interest rates at which they are sold. These bonds are paid off from the revenues generated by the rink with extra revenues used for operating costs. Lambert discussed how sports are subsidized in Eden Prairie and noted that it was not something that could be compared because skaters paid more of the costs of their sport than any other sport in Eden Prairie. Jacobson asked how many privately owned skating rinks there were in the metro area and Lambert responded probably less than five in the entire state. Jacobson noted that private enterprise evidently did not see this as a profitable business so the public sector has to step in and provide the rinks. When Eden Prairie kids go outside of Eden Prairie, it results in lost revenues for the City. MOTION: Corneille moved, seconded by Stolar, to authorize staff to take the actions specified in the staff report dated January 25, 1999. Motion carried 7-0. B. Letter to Commission Regarding Fitness Center Lambert noted this was an informational item for the Commission. C. Letter from Minnesota Mako Swim Team Lambert stated that evidently Eden Prairie now has two swim teams that meet the criteria to be recognized as official Eden Prairie Swim Teams which will need pool time;however,the team that serves the most Eden Prairie kids will have priority use for reservation purposes. Peg Sorenson, coach for the Minnesota Mako Swim Team, reviewed how the team evolved into the satellite team from Apple Valley which turned into a chartered Eden Prairie team. They use mostly Wayzata pool time so they have about half Eden Prairie kids and half Wayzata kids. The Foxjets are a Prior Lake chartered team which is something not commonly known. The Minnesota Mako are asking for any leftover pool time to be offered to them in a timely manner to allow them to make use of it so they don't have to go out of town all the time. Jacobson asked what the pool schedules were and Frey responded that the pools were scheduled for about three months at a time. He discussed the time frames allocated to the Foxjets and the high school and most of the pool time is used. Discussion CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2-16-99 SECTION: REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development and Financial Services X.A. Michael Franzen Agenda Item: REVIEW BOA APPEAL Jean Johnson #9901 Requested Action: Move to set March 16, 1999 as the meeting to review the Board of Adjustments & Appeals decision on Variance #99-01 by Perry Ryan. Background Information: On January 14, 1999, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied Niosi/Ryan=s request to build on a 1.2 acre Rural parcel which requires a minimum of 5 acres. Supporting Reports: 1-25-99 Applicants Appeal Letter 1-14-99 Staff Report 1-14-99 Letter from neighborhood 1-11-99 & Application material "Minnesota Riverview" 12-10-98 12-30-98 Engineering memo 1995 Background on previous Variance 95-23 1-14-99 Letter from neighborhood 1-11-99 & Application material "Minnesota Riverview" 12-10-98 12-30-98 Engineering memo 1995 Background on previous Variance 95-23 K:\forms\revboapp 1 RYAN ENGINEERING January 25, 1999 Civil Engineering Ms. Jean Johnson Community Development Department City of Eden Prairie - City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Land Planning Re: PID #29-116-22-43-006 Property at the NE corner of F„y;,nnmental Eden Prairie Rd. &Hwy 169 Eden Prairie, MN Dear Ms. Johnson: Surveying Please accept this as our formal appeal to the City Council, review of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decision to deny approval for construction of a single family home at the above referenced property at their January 14, 1999 meeting. Please let me know the earliest meeting we will be put on the City Council Agenda. We would like to be on the agenda on their first meeting in February if possible. If you have any questions or further information is required, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. Corporate Office I0400 Viking Drive Suite. 140 Palen Prairie 44/0*_., — Minnesota 55344 Perry M. Ry , P.E. President (612)947-9100 (612)947-0117 Fax IYebsite ryancnginccring.nct p�j BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie;MN 55344 949-8485 STAFF REPORT _ _ e VARIANCE: #99-01 MEETING DATE: January 14, 1999 APPLICANT: Stephen&Kimberly Niosi LOCATION: Northeast corner of Eden Prairie Road &Highway 212.PIN 29-116-22-43- 0006 REQUEST: Approval to construct a single family home on 1.2 acres having a side yard setback of 20 feet (city code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side yard setback is 50 feet) ZONING DISTRICT: Rural AREA CHARACTER: Rural parcels ranging in size from 1 to 20 acres. The purpose of lot size minimums in the Rural District is to prevent premature urban development of land outside the sewer/water service area, allow agricultural pursuits, and provide adequate space for each dwelling and facilities for housing animals. The closest R1 District and sewer and water lines are approximately one mile away. The lot is characterized by steep grades along Eden Prairie Road and US 169/212. The lot is mainly Salida soils. The soil is characterized as non-cohesive, easily erodible and difficult to stabilize. BACKGROUND: • Attached is 1995 information on Variance 95-23 by Niosi's. • A new Engineering Department memo is also included. APPLICANT'S STATED HARDSHIP: See applicants material dated December 10, 1998. OPTIONS: -Delay building until after utilities are available and the property is rezoned to a R1 District. This would negate the need for lot size and setback variances. -Acquire additional land to lessen the degree of variance and improve safety issues related to the driveway. -Design a structure, driveway and drain field having less impact on the erodible soils/slopes and safe use of Eden Prairie Road. 3 ACTION: The Board may wish to choose from one of the following actions: 1. Approve Variance Request#99-01 as submitted 2. Approve Variance Request#99-01 with conditions. (See paragraph below) 3. Continue Variance Request#99-01 if additional information is needed. 4. Deny Variance Request#99-01 (see paragraph below) If the Board chooses to approve the variance, staff recommends the following conditions be met prior to building permit issuance: 1. Slope ground review and approval via City Commissions and Council be received. 2. Required land alterations and tree replacement permit and bonds be submitted. 3. A scenic easement document acceptable to city to be filed upon the steep slopes of the property. 4. Necessary road right-of-way along Eden Prairie Road be dedicated to the city. If the Board chooses to deny the variance, the following findings and conclusions may apply: 1. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the variances were not granted. 2. The property circumstances were self created. 3. The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive them of all reasonable uses of the property. 4. The driveway movements created will be hazardous to owner and the publics' health, welfare and safety, particularly during winter conditions. 5. Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the city's Rural District purpose and intent. aarbvean\boa\9901 sr 10133 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 January 14, 1999 City of Eden Prairie City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Board of Appeals and Adjustments Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing with reference to a pending request for a variance as submitted by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi with respect to a 1.2 acre parcel located at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 212 in Eden Prairie. The application is scheduled to come before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on Thursday, January 14, 1999. I oppose the variance requested and will oppose any petition for rezoning that the applicant may submit. The request in question is substantially identical to a request made and heard by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on July 13, 1995. The Board denied the request at that time. The proponent appealed the decision of the Board to the City Council and the City Council denied the request on September 5, 1995. In addition to considerations which I will address orally at your meeting this evening, I am enclosing for your reference a copy of my letter to the City dated July 13, 1995 which deals with some of the major legal and policy issues relevant to the request and which the Board and City Council considered in 1995. Thank you for your consideration of our position on this request. Very truly yours, can R. Edstrom cc: Dr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Nielson Mr. and Mrs. Jack Provo Mrs. Donna Knight Mr. and Mrs. James Van Winkle Mr. and Mrs. Hibbert Hill, Jr. 10133 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 July 13, 1995 City of Eden Prairie City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Mayor and City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments City Manager City Attorney Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing with reference to a pending request for a variance as submitted by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi with respect to a 1.2 acre parcel located at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 169/212 in Eden Prairie. The application is scheduled to come before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on Thursday, July 13, 1995. I oppose the variance requested and will oppose any petition for rezoning that the applicant may submit. Since I am likely to be unable to attend the hearing, I am writing this letter to set forth my position in the matter. First, as many of you know, I have strenuously opposed the granting of variances and rezonings with respect to parcels of less than 5 acres in the rural zone of the City. Similarly, I have been concerned about the necessity to maintain the effectiveness and enforceability of the City's ordinances and provisions of the City Code relating to zoning by avoiding actions which would call into question the standards set forth in the City's ordinances or Code or the City's application of those standards. There is no question that the zoning provisions of the Eden Prairie City Code apply to the property in question and that under the Code the parcel is zoned as a "rural" property. The purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code are stated as follows (emphasis added): SECTION 11.01. OBJECTIVES. This Chapter is adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, and specifically to achieve the following objectives: City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 2 (1) to assist in the implementation of the City Comprehensive Guide Plan as amended; (2) to foster a harmonious, convenient workable relationship among land uses; (3) to promote the stability of existing land uses that conform with the Guide Plan and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions; (4) to insure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole; (5) to prevent excessive population densities and over-crowding of the land with structures; (6) to promote a safe, effective traffic circulation system; (7) to foster the provision of adequate off-street parking and off-street truck- loading facilities; (8) to facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and institutions; (9) to provide human and physical resources of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain needed public services and facilities; (10) to protect and enhance real property values; and, (11) to safeguard and enhance the appearance of the City, including natural amenities of hills, woods, lakes, and ponds. With respect to parcels in the rural zone, the Code establishes particular purposes and uses as follows (emphasis added): SEC. 11.10. R - RURAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purposes. The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: (1) Prevent premature urban development of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses, until the installation of drainage works, streets. utilities, and community facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development possible; 7 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 3 (2) Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the City; (3) Ensure adequate light, air, and privacy for each dwelling unit, and to provide adequate separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Agriculture, accessory and related uses. B. Public facilities and services. C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of not less than 10 acres. D. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of five or more acres, as of July 6, 1982. E. Commercial stables. F. Golf courses. It is also pertinent to note the general purposes for which municipal planning. including zoning ordinances, are authorized. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351 provides as follows (emphasis added): 462.351. Municipal planning and development; statement of policy. The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, to preserve agricultural and other open lands, and to promote the public health, safety. and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by such preparations bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures. Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's plans. Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly, and will achieve a more secure tax base. It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary powers and a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning. 8 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 4 The grant of a variance or rezoning with respect to the parcel in question would contravene the basic provisions and purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code in several respects. The principal objections are set forth below. I. INAPPLICABILITY OF THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE The parcel in question is 1.2 acres in size. The applicant requests a variance which would permit the construction of a residential dwelling on the parcel. Under the City Code a variance is not a proper procedure to permit the construction of a dwelling on a parcel of such size in the rural zone. This is because the size limitation, whether 5 acres or 10 acres, as the case may be, is contained in the permitted use description in the provisions of Section 11.10 of the Code, which use is not subject to change by the variance procedure. The definition of "variance" in Section 11.02(52) of the Code is as follows (emphasis added): 52. "Variance" - A modification or variation of the provisions of this Chapter as applied to a specific piece of property, except that modification in the allowable uses within a district shall not be considered a variance. Moreover, Section 11.76 of the Code relating to the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments states as follows (emphasis added): SEC. 11.76. VARIANCES. Subd. 1. Purposes and Authorization. Variance from the literal provisions of this Chapter may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement of those provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and such variances may be granted only when it is determined that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined by statute when in harmony with this Chapter. The Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a 9 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 5 one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The Council may impose conditions in the granting of variances to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Section 2.11 of the City Code relating to the organization and duties of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals contains yet a third statement of this limitation on the power of the Board. The general statutory authority for a Board of Appeals and Adjustments to make determinations with respect to variances is provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.354, Subd. 2, and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, as follows (emphasis added): Subd. 2. Board of adjustments and appeals. The governing body of any municipality adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance or an official map shall provide by ordinance for a board of appeals and adjustments. The board shall have the powers set forth in section 462.357, subdivision 6 and section 462.359, subdivision 4. Except as otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may provide alternatively that there be a separate board of appeals and adjustments or that the governing body or the planning commission or a committee of the planning commission serve as the board of appeals and adjustments, and it may provide an appropriate name for the board. The board may be given such other duties as the governing body may direct. In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board, the governing body may, except as otherwise provided by charter, provide that the decisions of the board on matters within its jurisdiction are final subject to judicial review or are final subject to appeal to the council and the right of later judicial review or are advisory to the council .... In any municipality in which the planning agency does not act as the board of adjustments and appeals, the board shall make no decision on an appeal or petition until the planning agency, if there is one, or a representative authorized by it has had reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the board of adjustments and appeals upon the appeal or petition. * * * Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: 60 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 6 (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body, as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located .... The board or governing body, as the case may be, may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Thus, our initial objection to this proceeding is based upon the fact that the requested variance would constitute a variance in the use regulations for the rural district. The foregoing provisions clearly state that the power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations, and it is quite clear that the power of the Board does not extend to permit a variance with respect to the request made in this instance. The appropriate procedure which the applicant would be required to pursue in order to construct a dwelling on the parcel in question is an application for rezoning rather than the variance procedure. As I have stated earlier, I would oppose a petition for rezoning of the parcel to any residential zoning classification as well. There are several reasons why no change, either by way of variance or zoning, should be permitted. These reasons are set forth in the remaining sections of this letter. II. APPLICANT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO A VARIANCE OR REZONING The owners of the property have no grandfather or other rights which would override the zoning provisions of the City Code. The present owners acquired the parcel sometime in 1984 or later. Ordinance No. 135 which sets forth the 5 acre minimum requirement for parcels in the rural zone was adopted in November, 1969. It is settled law that a purchaser is deemed to Il City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 7 have knowledge of applicable zoning ordinances in effect at the time that he acquires the property. The fact that a purchaser may not have known of the ordinance, or misunderstood its applicability, or was misled with respect thereto, has no bearing on the applicability of the ordinance or the rights of the municipality or the adjacent owners to enforce the ordinance. State v. Modern Box Makers, Inc., 217 Minn. 41, 13 N.W.2d 731 (1944); State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W.2d 404 (1955). The history of the parcel in question also demonstrates the lack of any equitable or grandfather rights in the purchaser. The parcel was originally attached to the 1.3 acre parcel immediately to the east and was beneficially owned by one individual. Prior to the division of the property and transfer of the easterly parcel in 1964, the overall property was large enough on which to construct a single family residence in a rural district under the zoning ordinance then in effect which required a minimum of 2.5 acres for residential construction in the rural zone. The parcel in question has been sold at least three times since the division of the property and at least twice since the 5 acre minimum was adopted by the City. (The easterly parcel, of which my wife and I are the present owners, remains vacant land.) Neither the division of the parcels in 1964 nor the subsequent separate sales of the parcel in question could create any special rights in the purchaser under the zoning ordinances in effect at the times in question. Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 288 Minn. 25, 178 N.W.2d 719 (1970). Rather, the fact that a parcel was in common ownership with abutting property at the time of the adoption of a restrictive zoning ordinance affirmatively defeats any claim of right or hardship with respect to such parcel. Dedering v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 327, 239 N.W.2d 913 (1976). See also Vetter v. Zoning Board of Appeal of Attleboro, 116 N.E.2d 277 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. 1953); Raia v. Board of Appeals of North Reading,347 N.E.2d 694 (App. Ct. Mass. 1976). Even if the purchaser misunderstood or was misled with respect to the applicability of Ordinance No. 135 or the City Code or the availability of a building permit, no estoppel or equitable arguments will overcome the fundamental rights of the City and adjacent owners to enforce the provisions and purposes of the Ordinance and City Code. Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N.W.2d 363 (1953); Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W.2d 846 (1964); Jasaka Company v. City of St. Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40 (1981). Furthermore, even if the owner had expended significant funds on the property, or paid more than the property was worth in view of the zoning provisions in effect on the date of purchase, no relief for the owner is warranted under the law. State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, supra; Newcomb v. Teske, 225, 30 N.W.2d 354 (1948); McCavic v. DeLuca, 233 Minn. 372, 46 N.W.2d 873 (1951). See also Kiges v. City of St. Paul, supra; Raia v. Board of Appeals of North Reading, supra. City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 8 III. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The City must also, of course, consider the impact on it and its residents of permitting growth contrary to the City Code in rural areas. Such growth would (1) be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, (2) contravene the policies of the Metropolitan Council which discourage development in areas not served by water and sewer facilities, and (3) make more likely pollution problems as a consequence of the proximity of private septic facilities to wells in the porous soil that is typical of the area. These are some of the relevant considerations of health, safety, order, convenience and general welfare which form the basis of the purposes of the Rural District designation in the City Code and which form the basis for the enforcement thereof and the denial of non-conforming uses on property covered thereby. The application must be judged in terms of the specific criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and City Code in order for any variance to be proper. It is our position that under these criteria, the grant of the variance would be grossly improper. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, which sets forth the powers of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, specifically provides that variances may be granted only where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance "would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration" and "only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance." It is appropriate here to refer you again to the purposes of the zoning provisions of our City Code, contained in Section 11.01 of the Code, to the particular purposes and uses permitted for parcels in the rural zone, contained in Section 11.10 of the Code, and to the general purposes for which principal planning is authorized, contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351. Each of these provisions are set forth on pages 1-3 of this letter. Your attention is particularly directed to the underlined portions of those provisions. In effect, there are three principal criteria required to be met under the Code and state statute in order to grant a variance. The burden is on the applicant to establish the satisfaction of each of these conditions. We do not believe the applicant can sustain his position with respect to any of these criteria. The criteria, and pertinent considerations related to each of them, are as follows: 1. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in an undue hardship, and the cost of compliance cannot be the sole reason to grant a variance. This test needs to be measured in terms of the intent of the ordinance. Here, refusing the variance would effectuate the very purposes of the ordinance as set forth in Sections 11.01 and 11.10 of the City Code. Any hardship created to the applicant would be consistent with, /3 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 9 rather than inconsistent with, the intents and purposes of the Code and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Whatever hardship the applicant may incur is self-created. The 5 acre minimum size requirement of the ordinance was in effect at the time the applicant purchased the property. It is well settled that ignorance of an ordinance or its provisions does not create any special right to relief from those provisions. In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would very likely create a windfall through the significant appreciation of the value of the property. To allow a variance in such a case would completely reverse and debase the variance standards of the Code. 2. There are circumstances unique to the individual property which create a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. There are no unique circumstances which apply to the property in question. The property is not of an unusual configuration as in many variance requests, and the nature of the terrain is not the circumstance which motivates the request. The fact that the parcel falls far short of the basic minimum requirements of the Code is neither the type of unique circumstance contem- plated by the ordinance nor is it unique to this property. The hardship, if any, in this case is a legal impediment under the Code, not a practical difficulty or physical hardship. There are several other parcels even in the immediate area which would no doubt apply for similar variances if this one is granted. There is nothing different about this parcel which distinguishes it from all other surrounding undeveloped land, all of which is being held subject to the same restrictions in the Code that apply to this parcel. Enforcement of the Code would not deprive the applicants of the use of their land in any arbitrary manner. Other developed parcels in the area, at the time they were developed, complied with the 5 acre standard of Ordinance No. 135 or with the standards imposed by the ordinances in effect at the time those properties were developed. In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would constitute a special privilege because all other owners had to comply with the minimum size requirements under Ordinance No. 135 or prior ordinances. In many cases, this necessitated the acquisition of sufficient acreage to enable the construction of a home.. It would also constitute a special privilege vis-a-vis holders of large tracts of undeveloped land in the area who could reasonably argue that based upon the grant of a variance to the applicant, they should be entitled to divide their properties into parcels of less than 5 acres as well. City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 10 3. Any variance granted must be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the provisions of the Code and consistent with the objectives of the zoning chapter in the Code. In this case, the spirit and intent of the zoning provisions of the City Code are set forth in the objectives of the zoning provisions in Section 11.01 and Section 11.10 of the City Code quoted above. The proposed variance would do violence to those purposes in the following manner: a. It, and similar requests for variances which have been made in the past and would certainly arise again in the future, would disrupt the orderly development of the City by increasing growth in an area not suited for present development under the Comprehensive Guide Plan. b. It would be inconsistent with and destabilize existing land uses in the area. c. It would be premature in view of the lack of water, sewer and improved road services. d. The location of a private driveway access on the steep curve of Eden Prairie Road would make even more dangerous that already very accident-prone roadway. This would be particularly true in the winter when the hill where the driveway would be located is rendered exceedingly dangerous by the presence of compacted snow and ice. No sight line distance is enough in such conditions. The driveway configured on the applicants' site plan, with a grade that appears to exceed greatly the stated 12% average grade where it meets Eden Prairie Road, would create a major hazard to both users of the driveway and traffic on the road. e. It would have a negative impact on existing real property values by an adverse impact on residences in the vicinity. First, septic facilities established by the applicants and by potential similar applicants could have a harmful effect on the well water currently used by all of the residents of the area. Secondly, development of this and similar acreage could have a generally adverse effect on groundwater, wells and springs in the porous soil of the area. f. It would represent an intrusion into a naturally rural, wooded and grassland bluff area. The parcel is part of sensitive bluff lands which the City has identified to be of natural and environmental significance. The slope of the site and nature of the soils on the parcel make it unsuitable for any form of construction. The positioning of a residence on the site and the provision of driveway access would require major alteration to the terrain, further exacerbating the fragility of the slope and soils, particularly in areas downslope from structures City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 11 and impervious surfaces. Existing residences in the area are, for the most part. set back from the actual bluff slope and constructed on far more stable soils. g. It would generate premature urban development prior to the installation of adequate water, sewer, drainage, streets, utilities and other facilities and be inconsistent with the orderly development of the community. h. This type of development would make necessary on a much more immediate time schedule water and sewer facilities and improved roads, the availability of which is not presently assured. i. It, and similar requests, would hasten the demise of agricultural pursuits in the southwestern area of Eden Prairie. It is also pertinent in this connection to consider the impact of the policies of the Metropolitan Council on this matter. The tract in question is outside the metropolitan urban service area. It remains uncertain whether urban sewage facilities will be extended to this parcel. The Metropolitan Council has made clear that it expects municipalities to cooperate in discouraging unwarranted development of areas outside the urban service area. The acts of the legislature establishing and empowering the Metropolitan Council should be taken into account by the City in any determination which would have a negative impact on the policies of the Metropolitan Council. The City must also be aware that in the event a petition for variance or rezoning is allowed in this instance, doubt could be cast upon the City's willingness to enforce the zoning provisions of the Code with respect to other parcels in the rural zone which do not comply with the City Code. I understand that there may be as many as 10 to 15 such parcels in the City, including several in the immediate neighborhood of the parcel in question and in the sensitive bluff area of the southerly portion of the City. While it is our position that no failure on the part of the City to enforce the provisions of the Code should have any impact on the enforceability of the Code in other instances, it would certainly not be wise policy to invite attack by failing to give effect to the Code. IV. REMEDIES FOR ADJACENT LANDOWNERS The grant of a variance and issuance of a building permit by the City under these circumstances would be void and could be contested by adjacent landowners. As stated in Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 42 N.W.2d 553 (1950): A building permit issued in violation of a zoning ordinance by an official lacking power to alter or vary the ordinance is void, and a zoning regulation may be enforced notwithstanding the fact that the permittee may have commenced City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 12 building operations .... The reason given for the rule by the authorities is that both the granting of a permit and the varying of a zoning restriction involves the exercise of governmental power, which cannot be exercised by an officer upon whom it has not been conferred or set at naught by the action of a property owner proceeding in defiance thereof .... A private property owner injured by the violation, as here, is entitled to injunctive relief. As stated in State ex rel. Howard, supra.: The principles governing the situation are well established. Generally, it is held that, where a permit has been issued by an authorized officer under a mistake of fact and contrary to zoning ordinances, it confers no privilege on the person to whom it is issued and even though the latter may have taken some action thereunder with the incurment of expenses, it may, nevertheless, be revoked." V. POSITION OF THE CITY In view of the foregoing discussion, we believe that the position the City of Eden Prairie should take in this matter is one which upholds the validity of the City Code and does not place a burden of enforcement of the City Code on residents of the City. The burden to contest the position of the City should be placed on the person who disputes the validity of the City Code, not on those who seek to enforce it. The position which the City of Eden Prairie should adopt in this matter is based on the facts that (1) there is no language in the zoning provisions of the City Code which entitle the applicant to secure a variance or building permit since the parcel does not comply with the minimum required by the Code, and (2) nothing in the Code provides for or suggests the existence of any grandfather rights which would apply to purchasers of a parcel of less than 5 acres in size subsequent to the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 135. As stated above, there are no grandfather or other equitable rights recognized in the law which would apply in these circumstances. Moreover, it is our position that no prior action or statement by the City staff which may have been inconsistent with the Ordinance overrides the applicability of the Code or the right of the City or its residents to enforce it. If the City, through some fear of litigation or otherwise, fails to enforce the Code, the consequences would be both unfortunate and incongruous. First, it would require residents opposing a variance or building permit to sue the City to enforce their rights. Second, as you may be aware, an injunction action normally requires the posting of a bond which could be both sizable and expensive, a burden which should not be placed on residents seeking to enforce the City Code. Finally, it would leave the position of the City in the action ambiguous at best. What would the City do? Remain passive in the action because it had no firm view of the law 17 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 13 on the matter? It would seem incongruous for the City to take action and then not defend that action in court. But, it would be equally incongruous for the City to take an active role in seeking to defeat the applicability of its own Code when the requirements of the Code are clear. These incredible results would be due to a failure on the part of the City to determine its course of action solely on the basis of well supported legal considerations. Allow me to summarize our views in this matter. First, the variance procedure is inappropriate under the law for the request being made. A request for rezoning is the only applicable procedure under the City Code and state law. Second, it is our position that the zoning provisions of the City Code ought to be enforced by the City in terms of the plain words and policies contained therein. Third, the grant of a variance or rezoning in this case would do violence to the policies of health, safety and welfare underlying the zoning provisions of the City Code and would be improper under the provisions of Minnesota law relating to variances. Fourth, the practical effects on the City and on nearby residents of a grant of a variance or rezoning would be harmful. Fifth, as set forth above, under the law no prior inconsistent activity on the part of the staff of the City can have any bearing on the applicability of the Code. Sixth, if the applicants for the permit intend to assert some constitutional or other equitable right which they allege should make the Code inapplicable,they should be required to establish that right through a mandamus action commenced by themselves. Seventh, perhaps most important, the City should not put Eden Prairie residents in the position of having to enforce the provisions of the City Code. Enforcement of the City Code is the business of the City administration, and it should not abdicate that responsibility or burden to its residents. Finally, we believe it is the responsibility of the City to make a conclusion with respect to this matter on the basis of the law applicable, not based on determinations of what its past practices may have been, not in terms of assertions by the applicant not supported in the law, not due to "trade-offs" with the applicant, and not in terms of tactical or expense considerations with respect to any litigation which may ensue. If you have any questions regarding this letter or our position in the matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. Very truly yours, • can R. Edstrom cc: Dr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Nielson Mr. and Mrs. Jack Provo Mr. and Mrs. Richard Knight Mr. James Van Winkle Mr. and Mrs. Hibbert Hill, Jr. DRE:88812:hl "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Eden Prairie, Minnesota PID# 29-116-22-43-0006 Proposed by: RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. December 10, 1998 REQUEST Stephen&Kimberly Niosi are requesting approval from the Board of Adjustments& Appeals to develop their 1.23 Acre Lot for a single family home. ADJACENT PROPERTIES The property is bordered on the west and north by Eden Prairie Road and on the south by Highway No. 212 & 169. The eastern border is a 1.25 acre vacant lot owned by Mr. Dean Edstrom. SITE CONDITIONS Topography is gently sloping with the north and east side of the property at a high elevation of 820.0 and the south side of the property at the right of way of Highway No. 212 & 169 at an approximate elevation of 774.0. Soils are considered suitable for the type of development proposed and for the drainfield proposed. Included as part of the submittal package is the PERC TEST AND SEPTIC DESIGN performed by Mr. Gary Staber. Per Mr. Staber's design, the soils are suitable to construct a 1,500 gallon septic tank and a 1,002 square foot drainfield. This design serves a 4 bedroom home as proposed. The site is currently vacant land. There are several Oak trees on the site. The proposed driveway layout and site grading is designed to maximize the sight line safety for ingress and egress and minimize the loss of these trees. The trees shown as removed on the Tree Inventory and Replacement plan were necessary due to the revised driveway location for the sight line safety and also decreasing the driveway slope to 8.9% onto Eden Prairie Road. RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Page 1 of 3 / Eden Prairie,MN PROPOSAL The Owner is proposing to develop 1 single family residential lot on the 1.23 acre parcel. The area is currently zoned for minimum 5 acre parcel. The proposed home location is designed to minimize grading on the parcel and also work in conjunction with the proposed driveway location. The driveway has been designed to maintain a maximum centerline slope of 8.9% (Eden Prairie max= 12%) and meet perpendicular with Eden Prairie Road. SIGHT DISTANCES The speed limit of Eden Prairie Road at this access point is 30 MPH officially with 15 MPH warning signs on either side of the site. We have revised the site plan and driveway location from the previous proposal and moved the driveway northerly. Through several meetings with Mr. Rod Rue (during 1995 proposal), Assistant City Engineer, we were instructed to maintain a sight distance of 300' south, and 250' north. The reason for these differences is the different speeds traveled on the roadway in either direction. Engineering Department staff did complete a traffic study in the area and found that speeds traveling southerly decreased at the curve east of the site therefore this sight distance is less to the north. Sight lines are shown on the Grading &Erosion Control Plan which illustrate that the sight distance requirements are being met. Also note the sight line profiles illustrating this. Upon study of the adjacent properties north of this property, we found the following to be true. At 10129 and 10131 E.P. Rd. the sight vision distance(svd) is about 100' to the north and 150' south. The next property north has less than 100' svd both ways, 10100 E.P. Rd on the west side of E.P. Rd. has less than 50' south and less than 100' north svd, and at 10065 E.P. Rd which is outside the 15 MPH speed limit zone, there is approximately 150' svd both ways. Based upon these observations and what we are proposing to construct in accordance with the help from the City's Engineering Department, we feel that this area will be not only safe for the homeowner, but also much safer for the general traffic through this area. LANDSCAPING Landscaping is proposed on both sides of the proposed driveway, around the proposed home, and near the well location. The proposed landscaping meets all requirements of tree replacement. MUSA BOUNDARY The parcel is now within the MUSA boundary within the City of Eden Prairie. Although it is proposed that the property will be served by sewer and water through a private well and septic system, it is anticipated that the property would hook up to pubLic sanitary sewer which is proposed to be extended down Eden Prairie Rd. in the future. This connection would take place at the time of sanitary sewer construction at the discretion of the homeowner. We have shown two drainfield locations on the plan. RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Page 2 of 3 4) 0 Eden Prairie,MN PRECEDENCE SET We feel that on the two critical issues, precedence has been set within the City. LOT SIZE As stated above,the property contains 1.23 acres more or less. The property is grandfathered into the 5 acre minimum lot size requirement for rural lots. On this issue, we believe that the City of Eden Prairie has already approved lots in this category. In particular, a lot at 9900 Sring Road. This lot gained approval through variance#95-24. The,parcel was originally.75 acres (non-conforming) and it was increased to 1.45 acres and granted approval for development. Also,this property now falls within the MUSA boundary as set forth by the Met Council .id City of Eden Prairie. Based upon this MUSA expansion,the property could technically be developed as low density residential with density up to 2.5 units per acre. This equates to 3 units on this parcel. This was actually suggested at one point during our meetings with the Board of Appeals in 1995. We c feel that the property is more suited for 1 residential unit to be built upon, given the surrounding properties. Please note the aerial within the submittal package that shows several surrounding properties that are on 1-2 acre parcels. SANITARY SEWER On the issue of sanitary sewer connection, again we feel that the City has set precedence. The City has allowed other properties to be developed with the use of a septic system prior to sanitary sewer being available. A particular instance is the Springer-Klooster Addition on Terrey Pine Drive. These homes are on septic systems (near Mitchell Lake) and they have still not connected to the sanitary sewer that has been recently installed. VARIANCE REQUEST As stated, a variance is being requested for lot size. We believe that not only is the variance warranted but that it does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and Platting Code. Further,the Owner has a real hardship in that they are not able to obtain additional property. FEE OWNER Mr. Stephen&Kimberly Niosi 5331 Breezy Point Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 (612) 440-2518 ENGINEER Ryan Engineering, Inc. 430 Lafayette Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 474-7600 RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Page 3 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN 0199E RYAN ICNOINHERINO, INC. / CON7RACTOR SHALL CAW GOPHER STATE ONE CALL - 48 HRS PRIOR TD CUNS7RUC17ON — MN a17ES 454-0002 ——I (out,o 7— -2 2—,166) \ ....� 1 ��,...'-t1 IlLes..3. _ s. t ......, �� e _ •,. ------=.- siv !/ .'7 )i : " 22 . cef{: I ,,L0 ";' 404 01104���� {y, L CATION Ir • )'ET III G � • 780/ 400 A Alra i $ 1.. WO \'1/4v ) ari r , 1 �/kr ,' f SA �tNE, . • My , r .:14" • - , A AILSAI_ IiiiP0 11 ,s, i - erpow...F... LI to 70" lokk . if lir : al i D:i•AI IEID Atirtimittir 0 //,, ON 'Or .% ti79G • Vi---iww,‘,..\--.8R0_ 14/if --- 8.,„, ...., .„1,4,,,,,,te ---—-790-——__ NI -6- -""li"Ilu"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIImimmmmmm- :s' S6 -770_--_ HIW --�- 2 °°- - - �TT T. 21 75 - LEGEND & 169 °'`- IIAHHIMIRRINIERR DENOTES SILT FENCE ----980 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS NORTH --980 - DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS ........ X 809 0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED FROM HHTPO BOUNDARY & t l7' 0' 30' 60' 90' TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED 6/22/92 Civil Engineering ❖ Land Planning Environmental ❖ Surveying RYAN ENGINEERING January 11, 1999 Ms. Jean Johnson ►E tV�E ^F Community Development Department / _ City of Eden Prairie - City Center k i2-9 , 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: PID #29-116-22-43-006 Property at the NE corner of Eden Prairie Rd. &Hwy 169 Eden Prairie, MN Project No. 98105 Dear Ms.Johnson: We are in receipt of your letter dated 12/14/98 and appreciate your response to our submittal dated 12/10/98. Enclosed is our response to your comments along with appropriate exhibits. Please include these comments with the packet sent to the Board members. We look forward to the meeting on 1/14/99. If you have any questions or further information is required, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. Perry M. Ryan, P.E. President Enclosures Corporate Offices:Offices: 430 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 474-7600 Office 474-1956 Fax Savage Office: 12400 Princeton Ave. So., Suite A, Savage, MN 55378 (612) 890-6110 Office 890-6029 Fax "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Eden Prairie,Minnesota PID#29-116-22-43-0006 Proposed by: RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. January 11, 1999 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION—Response to Ms. Jean Johnson letter 12/14/99 Item #1 —We have enclosed"EXHIBIT A" SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. This is a color copy of the aeriel photo with the half section property lines overlayed upon it. We feel that this illustrates the location respective of adjoining properties very well. It also shows very well that this proposed development is in keeping with the adjacent properties in lot size and setbacks. Tabulation of Property Sizes within 1/8th mile of property: Property ID # Property Size (Acres+/-) 29-116-22-43-006 1.23 acres (Subject Property) 29-116-22-43-004 0.9 acres 29-116-22-43-014 1.3 acres 29-116-22-43-005 0.7 acres 29-116-22-43-012 0.5 acres 29-116-22-43-016 1.0 acres 29-116-22-43-013 2.3 acres 29-116-22-44-003 4.3 acres AVERAGE SIZE 1.52 acres WEIGHTED AVERAGE 1.23 acres(discarding high and low) AVERAGE EAST OF EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD 1.13 acres RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Page 1 of 3 7 Eden Prairie,MN Item#3—Undue Hardships: As noted in the narrative submitted in the 12/10/98 request, the hardship involved is that adjacent property is not available to purchase to conform to the 5 acre minimum lot size. It is our understanding that the Board has authority to grant approvals through this process to allow an Owner to utilize their property in the same manner as adjacent property Owners. In keeping with this spirit,this variance should be approved. Item#6—Alternatives to Lessen Variance: Lot Size Variance—This cannot be lessened without the purchase of additional property. The adjacent property Owner has been approached in the past and was unwilling to sell a portion of their property. This does not appear to be an alternative to increase the lot size. Setback Variance—We are requesting a variance for a sideyard setback on the east side of the proposed home. The minimum side yard setback, according to code for rural lots, is 50', we are proposing 20'. Due to the width limitations, we felt it would be more appropriate to increase the setback from Eden Prairie Road(proposed at 68')than to move the proposed home closer to the roadway. In reviewing the aerial photo of the area, this seems to be in concert with the adjacent parcels. Further, it appeared to be obtrusive to Eden Prairie Road if the home was moved westerly. We would be open to any suggestions the Board may have to lessen this variance. Other information requested: • We are unsure of the exact location of the adjoining property's wells. Based upon existing data, however, the minimum horizontal distance would be near 500'. • The proposed retaining wall would be approximately 8' high at the highest point. Enclosed is the proposed design for the retaining wall. • Erosion Control along the City Street and US 212 will be a combination of silt fence and wood fiber blanket where appropriate. As with all developments which we have been involved with in the City of Eden Prairie, we will design in accordance with the MPCA's Best Management Practices(BMP's) and also in accordance with the City of Eden Prairie's Engineering Department. • It is proposed that all hardsurface runoff will be directed northerly as shown on the grading plan. Further, we would propose that the home construction include full gutters to direct runoff northerly to minimize runoff over the slopes to the south. • Based upon the proposed Grading Plan, staging should work qutie well to protect the traveling public's welfare and safety. As with any project, if traffic control seems appropriate, this would be provided during any grading procedures. Again, as stated in the narrative, the final grades proposed will greatly increase the traveling public's safety upon completion with increased sight vision distances. RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Page 2 of 3 ( Eden Prairie,MN • A Scenic Easement has been suggested in the past and would be an available consideration. We are submitting this for the upcoming Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting on January 14, 1999. If you have any questions or further information is required, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. Perry M.6Ryan, P. . President RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. ) l., "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW" Page 3 of 3 ` Eden Prairie,MN *44.--,..••-•., _. =.=,„.„--*T-i.= :',------"Kf- 4,,-,-.:TA., --,„,•..--- ,7‘. E.,,-,,,,. .:::,•-'!„ , --;-,:...• ,•-,:x. -,:,-,,44- .,-4,4 --x-.4.== ,-, ---..,,,,,,- •-••.-„...,.•:••-..,',*, r„.',„•-f;-•-•: `,-4-*,,,,,,',$_,7447L•,'„,t'-7•L,"*-----, ':LL',•-,•,--,.-i"..:-4-'.,''...-... - - 4,-- .3.- 1-44_,..„.. ,,,,-**..--,„- ",,,-, ,I.,,,,7 , ,-,,,,,-•4.'i'...'"---,'‘'.1 ,--'0.-„:'''',",;--..‘.":". 4,'", . *.jea."A'',„:, `;',../. '3,„-,:tr:'''''''',-t-,-'..:,,... ..,•-,_'';.:I"."-..-.---.. 4'1,',L`'.a'' — ' a„ ' - ,'-."--,,.',r-- li.7.-4 • -,:',.,--„.:'-,-.,,..k,-'-''.--.,-,N,k,kot.„...,,..-......,4-*E,-",-isi--i:•,;;2,v,,2-_'.'7 !"'",'":--",ig--v,..i.4::-;_t.--:-,4---iitt:-t•-,-.-_,„,„y ..4;4?-----.-,•,*,44,-11?- :-.-..,.2.., ,--,--,---7.-,-;,?-, .;-..,-..;-,‘::,...k4,,r, - -.- '':' .,, . . - - ---,.. ..1.,: _„-„P.„,;_k;•,:`r„-7,•,„ :-.-1- :„„'••'---,A;',',.„.,•i--.-_-:-:- ---",-;„;--- --,0,L--'-'':-.''.k.'•';','„•''''.74iCiti.;',-7;;•,i14',:4:*.t.-0-',4`44,',:-,;14';•-k-AM '-::•-•:':-•--"--:?-1: `-';'---f-:'-':- --:-- - .--tr;-......"--=:'- -- • -',"-' ':-L'-'"•:- ''' ,--:','.7.-4,--;:,:.7,:_',,t:.!P'-',"--::-Civi7. .- ,''''-' , ''.-":-.,'--.,.f.',.;. -,:',12."f!"..4.'4- ':'-'-' 7.7.'4.-PC.::..::-.1-,'I'lt- ''''',-,:iV-2:-:t.14-4;ti-.7,-,',.-,1 ..:.Y;40-4-_--.1:+7-;‘-'2.-,P.- ----, -'"'-'''.'•; ;.":-. :z-i" -.'. '''', :-','...:,,--:.,.••[..'",',-::,•:;-'4,_- .-•-:-- -,!--, .:;,- :::)----,, -4-;"-,-, ',. -.',..,::•-•;.--;-.-- -.H.-:'-i-,..:4"---:-4"':':•.',::::1""--,", ',:',":-:.'.--:::;-' i t.4"-',1i,"t:s.'--'" - -... -,,ti•-..:-'-.-,-*•:,',..q...,.--trragilz-i-V., .'isik.0-.-:-.,.'-'74:-.--,,';f.:'-i'V''',-.1'i : .':-'.1:14!-"''' :'.':;';:::''..'.i.:ii.,-;',-;_:.-,......-,....., 4,-:.1';4'.--- : •--:•-• ' :: *:::ii:', .L.,,,,,,,,....--,-.- _-..„L„,.4., -.....- ..,.-2,4,1-.,--v.-:- -•• --,'-`,..-.,•„---,',-i-ez;;;r: •,;•---1•••---,,b_-, 4-, '-..;&A...:-.-_----4,- -.__•-.4.'''-ri.4- .----"‘:7:1',--'',,-''','"24..,":".,,z ...""'11-t.,'''-:.:f..--, .."'":',-''. ''-4;-.' '----:, .a..,:-.''.., :_,,,:.''.,'"-l'' - --!", - - -.:-,' • r,,--,,,,,,,,,,,.-,, -,,Xii"-:',.ti-ik,.-',;_li,-:-;:-..,::,--rs,,--e,--.r-':',-:.,-.‘-._::.,_.,t.,::. .._.‘ , '-:-..:..,01-,K,Ii.„,7.-.53-,4,,,-.,,,,,r,......,-,,,.:',.;,..i-_-;.!ipty:i.c.,;,.--....,.,..f._;-..;,71-;---7,1-ve.:-.1,.---::-;;:l.„,:e.7,-,.,''''',,,,;,,-.,',-.',4 ..,;_f_-_-----":. ---,':•=7:',-:, 1 -'1 ',..'"---h&-"-;'H,,:--:--:.-'-':';:: 7-..7,-.. ,-..t-...t-'--- -,..:t4s4,- -..,•,,-...-4,---- --44,-.-4-4-4v-- -.-, ---- •.,- _ . ,-p.,----- •:::,;:-r,...--__----•.=-4-„,,Aa'A-4,,-,..•4 '--._''-,. .•=",;',-,40'-'•--,,-, -,-,•'4:-.."..t.„- _, ., ., • . . , •_,,,. _ . ,,,_ ,. .. . _ ,„.„. , .„.„ • . . . . „ --rz-",'--- -`,.....•.",1::", •,.*',---,--•'w:.' ' - :- - -- • -:.•-q-- ---•-;&:-4:-,;,-"--;::- z't,F.-i:-•,-.1"-,,ti- -:---s•---.-=' :--,'..-__''',..,:-.4.-..- Vc,71 , ''.--",., , ; ....-- -•-•-t,f,;-1.-•4::-'•. ! ..,..;.--,.'4•:::=:. 1,=--4- ' --..'.-", '- ''. -''2.' : --''' -- - --.."'"-':'''-; - S'a s-'''''' i-4-‘-ti'.:-'-' 14tt',.- t'-'5.1X. A41--1.r-::33: _,, - .- ---,,y.k--:z-.-4.e.:-• ----,"--_2---tr-_- .------,-- .-- -,J.-.- ,...-....,1,,,---,-.,--.- •-----:" ,'-'-:-.' , . ---k.Wf..-4,_'-'7:-,:;.--:::•-•; ;;-,-,4-'f'---If--.--.1:13'Vr.,,t -----"-4,0-r,,?.-4'4154ii----.4.-Str"..-t:3.-----;.-,gg."-*..--- -!,-,'1-- *,-,-;:;.*:-7.. .*---*-_,,r, .:--",,-;;;,,,•,,4-..-Ati,, -:,-z._---- ..-: -...,-,s,,,,--,--,, -:,•,.-.,,-,-. .,., ,-,;:,.4•-•1- --4 •. ,. . ',",:-'' ' '---•-• '-- "" 4"; ----s,"---?-`4'"-,,,--.--,`!-:--•,-"7s4--4-i%.-':-."T.:_t::."1:-..--,e-t-:•,,&•14-4"4,,....;:-."-,"i.'-'-. - '-,,1-7,''-•r*."",•'. -."-: -:-N,--_*'•V‘7.-44::1-k '--- '''-'4 -'-•:.,..'1--gg. -,-.i,:".,,-,„,,::- t:',-- -:- -. . ..., . - • - - ."•:-.'-,' '':' ,, :::;,-,_-!:;i:'''''?,:-.Y...„1,-.1.,-,- ,:41,;''',4-4,.!.-,l',.2.-,''' -"'„',"C.r..?';'-:i.i,;' -f,T-"T:',4..?",*!;"r'*,,,1 c---'..'"-4'4,- - ,-.„-•;••:..j, .::,,--,72;',Z.',1'--. . -- ''''-k--'-' --.:'',i.,-,; •:--_-,..--'-'-•• '- L'.':'.:'-I,'i ::-..:,..1••••••: ;,-; *"------3 ;;;.,,,, ,1 ...'.; '',.---I'f,i4k,-4;.;•..-..„:.-.,-„,*,,,-,,-;.,•:-.-„..,-.•:;',,,-.j],"„;-_,4.!;--- , --;••••;„„,...F4,--..-;:-.;•„*RL.-..:-,,,,-,,,,.„,t•-,•,,f•.1ft•-•,7,-",*-1-,*1.43:--••:.P:' . ..;,.' .-..... ._...--"' ;. .-- --:--', .• ' ' ...---, . .- - - .]:"•'-'l''''' ',-r.• . ' ' •''''' : ', : ---:- -'' '•:".4i.,1:r5;-<•:*,-',,:fr-::''-:-.7i"?-7''.74,--:,,:-5.;-?Pic,z'*.•.'' !S'1-11'., •-• r.c.il- -P:. ---.'. '', -',,4ii-;:;..,-- -,';' •: :, .';' ,---Y' .: -',?;„ :..''':- .-:'. --%1 ..„ :- ' ' --• ' „_.,-, 4.44.04,-----gi-i'---',-„.`.-,•-.-tr"'" ' - -- "r? ".'„.4.1. ---q".:---- -,i--- '.: i ,.: -,-- - .-',..".-?:;"7.f.'`f •-",--;,,' a.,..:-.--s-, .,-.: 47--,.''''''' ---t-tgf' '-:-,-:; '''''...,- - .•' - -'.;' '•--'-'".-' ':: . -' ' ,-.-----' . ''-,'..' -'- ' :- -..' ---. ''---'.'''--Vf-'-'.'- 'a--'--;.-J':;.. ,--;.,',40-,a•-:.''''4-4V",,-,a%- kt,"51-.1,'--,--5in*'-',12- ''''.."1----.-, .i-,a-l-ia"V 3:. -!--:-,4*--e.1.4,..,,.. - ..•- .. ' i'''4.- -: zji',-..„ .... , ''',----. -.--,-:'..- :',--.. -.. :- ;-. . ''.-- --...--:-"'., ''' -,: '- -- - . -, '1.--''."'"''',.*11'.ii*,!...-ia',,--4--.-*"-- '4-V t;,...'-'';,'.0.".-:4 r;-5''''-';-- - •--,1-:4-.:',..4,‘ -- ---''..., :.g.:- -- - -;-'." '='-'.',--.. ',..-- - - .' „: •.'-' -. '• -' ' . -,',..,3:-.4f.-..',.',. .:-..i.V.--1.f,-...if.V.1.-0•V;i*:'•!,,-,0,-,f't-'4.--., ,j..t.i...-.---. - ". 41-11:' ' '.-',:.:: ---g.'-.-- ' '' "."'''' ''' -"," . :*--: -:,,-,' ' _ : ,''. ' --: '' "*1 ----.- ,,- r-WitiO,-,-*If,1,.'4-!`.'1-tC'' ; . . ;.-'N,''..,''''-:-.''---.-.,-.--„,..,;.::-__ ••:„.„,...,._ „,-.4:_•4:- ._::• -_:. ..,_• -.„, •..:. .4_,..,.„. .....„-.r._ .:::-.. . ,.,„ . , .....„ .. n. . _ ,_-,4„,,n.„,,t•_„-„fi._14--„.:1,,i,•; - -_ , - .-• .. •-•:,. • ._: .._.,-.:„:„1„:„.,.....n _....-,..„, . -. , .,_ ,_.,...,.,.. ,,n,..__. __ . _. ,._ , , . .1_,,v,..„Lit_,,,,,,,_„,, _, ,t, ,.n.,..,_: ;-..- , '1 -44,-tig' g---.--. -!....,1---.".„..'- --., ,- g. __ a--: ,._ _ , •,:k.43,,,-, , , ,,.-;_ ,. .,..., ' - •,..!,;!,...;_ ....4•:•,'-‘,.*--;*-,-s.-.4---1-.:.A..-7,---, - , :-:,,- jr--._ -. „.,-, • • --,. !".,,'•••• --..:-•:.' '----:!..••' .!-,,,A-5:,4--.1-;.••••'- ;t.,7- . -,, •_.-2•4••-,•,• .. ,,. '-:-.."-:' '. ,, . -:,- ',:,',';,„-‘.',-,'.." -.:-,J,4:•-•: -••- -' - .: ::.',..•'.' ,'ii--:i.-4.44,,, .,..;,-..'-'',,I:, -- '..',.r:-... :-..,2:.. ...,••••• . :- ,.. ,. - . - •:-,- • : . f:f"., i. , ..,•-'-3.;-„- --_,'":.',':---. ' •,-;''','' '..-Jz",•.',,',' ...:;.:••.',, -.. 1:4..'.'...' •-'-:•.. '..:,' ,,,..,-.V.1:';1. -t.,47.---..7,...,...i f- - ' - .,.,,,-,,. .!-4,,,,,,',;:•••,-',.„-..--- 1: : v ,•-, -„, ; . . , .. ... - „..•. „, , ... . . ., - ,,,-; .-:., •z, • -- . - ,. . ,--, , ?....z...•-,,--Tii..- -•4 -.-F : . ,., • . . - - '''''. '' ''''''' '• :: “ '' .'-'1-'3 - '.'' •._ .-- _- --, -.. -:-..'. ' _ .-' . -_ ;- .--s--.--=- . • :-: • „....-. -.,— -:-, . . . . .- .- -. .• ,-:,---_.-=- :-.:-......;;;;L:.:, ',- •- --f.f....:- ' •.:1-.T.ZE.44-'-*A- .751-•-•- e,,-',1 '.: :'---'3.-•:•:'•' - ---::- - - ': - '---:--: - .- -'- - ' • - '" - - ':-' :'-' ? • '..,:. - ;- ', -:-' -2.: •.-'''' ---'• ,?,-:-: :--. • "----lf.-aff -;':',:-..-.0,.6 ': ' ' .iki,k, ••' • -.f•.... :,:,---,f.""..- :'':,'• •. ., -.--vi,.. '-''''.• _ : -1-,,,_.,. ,.- - -.• • . : • ''::_,4, -: : .- - •:',;',:'- -"' :1::-.,- -.;-.".' -- . '''."'-''''''. -;:-,- -,f,'..--;::_ ' 4,1`..;,' : . = - -'• :;.,-'',•••"' :•''....:,- '1---- l• _--X-:-,... •:-- - •,.-•-•'"-=' - ' :- -. '' . .'- ' -----FY'Vf*;:%-.":‘!".- - -'.r"-' -:::". • ' - - - - -. ."- ':'•:4-:::•;"; "---,..":-.;-4...' ' - -.4."-V-,-I , '-,..."4::- -I -- ---- -..-- - < ' • ';..1-'..-. -1... .. . ''''- . -..;,-V• _ . ...';•• •.,, . . :•:_ . . . . :• • ''.-`,.- ' ,--•-':-.,i,-.:-. • - -,,,-- -' •_-------• ,:•:•--,':•.•-- ,:-. 4f ,.-,..--'g". ';' „,..... ,..,-..-. . ,., .•-, - :;''' ' . . ..-.,-:-. - ::-.,•' —-;--'4-7tAftg5„.'-'-7‘,,,.. - '-1'..:-C;_ -,-','.- " ge- -'':-.' ! ' - --,,---- - - - -- - - ,-•,e.-# -.......*.. -...c...., .,:?...,--. ., ,-,.; ,,-„.... .,:4-_, - •-_-.:,, ..,-,--: ,,,,..:.-: .._•••„ . - -.---,--,4_,A..q't-'--'t-'4=.::" '-' -' : i"-'i'- -• -•„ •-•;::.-- ' -- . . - - , .-. -•,, '. •-_,,, ---..---.. .%_,,,t ,- - •,-„f„,•„4... --r .t "4,6‘. -, . „. • e...,-- -..;.;.• . , .,..,.. _„ ,.4,,,,,..,_ :,-'...„....ik .„. - -;4:::,•.•"-1-t' z. ----: -- 1,7• - ,-.t,-,-,:-•'-,i,.4,'•--'• . ,, --.'A, ' :•.•,--' •'.•'-''--..-• . : •..:'• - -',.. - '-‘-''' : r"I':1-'::. ',,-. ,-,41-7 ,,, ''_•2'':3" , '••••,•!Y ' - '• 7.--; •.':-.,..i -;'i,,L, ,,'.'.'',-. -•'•; ,:--....,4,.,',..--4:44.Z4.-, , -,,, tj,'.;-,-' f: -- , -, . • - 7 ''' r - .., --,1,"'; ,, --''''T'S. ' ' - '1',- ',' ' -'7'„ -„ ,,:'-'- - -,!,•••;•:-- •:_,---„. ...- .,-)-*fi.'-.';,. ' _. ... '-.•-- , .•:',- ''-', •'..•:-4- ;••:.-..,- ::„ ...:.i--:t4:?'.- '''. - -•,,..*-1 0 :.-- '---' .:1 ' ---'.;':-:'•'':'• :,244;':' ' -- 4"4,1%;- , ;..'- -.--1-.._ 1-W,77,,;'',. '-'''''''''''' '' — ;',:''''. '::'''''' :":":,: ' ' ''' .' --;:,-'''ri'-T,'-iTi:Lf . ,,- ' '4: -',,.. --- ' ,_.' ' --- _.,, „: :'-!•-;-4•1-..'..T.•„:„ -...--ik%.;:k..,%.„Vn 1-*.1",,-,-,:".:,•':- - . . .;-•..k-' r',':'k,r.:-- ':',- ':-,..:_i_"].,..--:-. , '/2-'r- ,,‘.---4):;'•; •:,F.,--'''' '‘,.••• !',..,::. '•:--„-',:..' k-„4„;„„_ ....„-„„- _ ' -. - , . ,--,,„--:-:-•. - .- ' 1--",--.',":::. •...•..-4.4b-_-..1"-kA, --1?• •.-...•.r..-." ,...'• ; •------.,-7-1 :4.- '.''. -,- "7.-"/ ....':-.4A,',4;-.V,,-;i-3. 4,-;:t-E'r-- ._::,','„!;":„;";;;-:,:-.'-',,,-Ti%'.,g.-, - -",--:- '"...-.:-:4t.:.!'.:-.-,:,:.7'''.'"-- - -.;',..," :4;,---- -'-','--4.r:ft. fit.'.-4--:, --.-.• .-' ....',4i',--4;59,..',',.74!:.T•t;*--V=S-A:;=•15--"'.:,: _ :=••,,.,-.; 4,_ ..,-- .„, ,:,---,-• ;4,4:: - ..,:p4,444•:-•,44.i.i.,„:-,..„4-",„:.„..w.-,--:,*-,,-;-,,**„,:.-„,,,,z,,,-**,,ki,,,-,4-...,-*,... .. ----;,4 ---,-.4`4.--- ;34,--,..1..:--,,,- .ig_-„,..„-„:::„,„1-4,,,,,,4* --:--t*„.2*7 --._,... - ' --." -",,,',=,'-',.:.;--- .„=„1,-.,-4,,,i,,*--4.&,-,..1,,,,-„A„.4.1.:,_,,.. **,,,,,* -4-.....,,,,--..„,-;,...-*„..: *-,.-....k4:•. •.,..44:g7•',„,:7z-•:,•-''.'4‘,4-.--_. -- Wt.-' ,,-",.....?,?„,•,•-• •?-1,-;.-,t4•:-.„,-;„'----..`• -7..,.; ',.-.W.41.t:T:.Velk„,:_.."„.: -- ' -'; ••,-„,„-„A:t. g.••,--•-•A'-74.V.f.•:-MC-:,'' *---.4cp*.g.,,e-v-t-;-. . --,--,.*....,-.-1,v, ;....; '-- ,,'.,..*.-*L-A.,--1, , --- -,,,, ,„.„„,.,::--. **..-4s-.:.,..-z,f-„,.,--7,,. - •-;1**---. .-",g- ;",,R.4.1...*.&g, *,,,,7-",,,,,,,,'-',.?„'-,-.„4 -,i,-4-.Fgle-,e, ,-,t',,,--=-0 --;-- ;:,... - ,._.„ -."',..-g--,g,-;•:,:::,-..---,-,",,,,,;-0-.ft,; .5,,.•::-"---Lf-,r.1-''.,:tr:•-•,::,':'•- -.'•-•.:''''Z'Z'A'..,2-All':' - --:•-k-!"-: ' .-. ',...1-k „.A.17-<I'. '. :'- '•: *'-. ..„- -•;,-•-':;•;-,;:t:-.-.-----.'•-.:4J'",,X.R7;•.7''' .:,....--4--„,:„k9„- i.:"...-„,--3-.1,----•- •::.-.-". ..••=.:•- '."-•.4-,,-• - -,-7-,:s0•-• • ..1=--,04.‘,,---!,--•.•'---z:.,• ..;.7.-,,t.• ,.4 ',-",'-' - '71. -- -•-••,---1. --,,,,, ',...•-•,,,, ,,,5'..-.L.,,,...,,,,,:;7;t-40,-;4.,'-..-,- ' .-,, •'.' •',.• -,..,'•';':.• .' --r;. Iiiti,,,:-.:?.,..,..,-,,,.._-'1.4-K - --.2•7,;-_-i-,,,i.C.-.!;-.4.4.-i...g.-t, ,, ::..i - --:-.?-;„a„,,,,.:,.L.-,.. -.41,„ :'-- ',„.:. )• ., tZ4,..44,.,...Q-tt7::,"i:-10';'-z":- :•*st.-. '..!: 05141.i..,' tz.''-' - -...,-A-, •-•---;-07::!...,,..-'2,;:,--iLT`--2ti,. .'- T,-.-, „• :;-,-. ,..1:-., .- -,-„:".,-._. t ..-12..-4 4.i.,,1.,t ,:.:4_•,*1 '.4?e,:e.! ,",,,,N4.--,-•::-,,‘'-'-...1---„,".-- :..:.--:, , .-„,i- ..0" ,:-J,-44-: ii:4,-,-1.02.--.7:..7 tw--x-z-1-,, ..., ,, - ,:•---..- ,'.--:_. -,.-.--._-,_:- 4.--4-, -,--.-,„:. . ..,...;.-•„,-----,.z.z..4.-,.- ---, ..- - .,;,:i.-i--,-......-4,--.-•,-----,. _.--:. _ -,..i3.4.-,-..„,g-, -,-, -,. ..-:are-:.. ...:,-,J. -...Z-wiu,-; 7.....,.-v.Lri-714.07. - -.Vr-i-Eit,' ,..4,1,--:,,-, - -,,,,,,,-._-1.--- _...4-,-,- 4.--A•74,- .A„.-4, •--„,..---.,-.1--.-,,...,7-r-•- ,-..-,-,-A.-,-, , ;.<4..- ,,,,,, - " - ''''.,'- -'''," '',.•:::-.14'..:1----"ZS'''''-."..,--.4.." ..-t'W''. '''- ":'''- -" 0 ..g.-7,1,1,,, . --., .", ..•:.,.::•:4.--- :,,...-‘•;,,k.l.V.--:!.1-,..•,--.4t4,......„.„-„k..k.,.k-,-,„,„-k-.. --•„:-__...„,,,,,,,;.,,:-.• ..--A-00.••,,i .. _ ,, ...._ ,i, --,,„,,,,,,'• „-.:?•,,-,.. -&-,::, -,, L ...,,,.,,. •',..--„,_ --,..,..-f„...,...„•,-,5,:tr 7 ',.:••;';.`•,i1:'••i',„ -—• • -.4.-;:t-:'-g':, -...--,: -%.,.; „------:L -•k.- -: --,, ---. -.,---,::,:1_.....,.., .;t4... :4---,=,:ti-'„..,:;',•--- 44„•=-:•-•. ,.,is•T'.-4•.,,r,,,-41kX„'--V--,-.::z-., ,--- -,,,,,,. • •.:'-..-,,.... •,;,-------,..-"," ,-•!.:1.'t :' ' -.,..-4",-.---., 1:.P-••-•. ;;4",.. "- ".' ...',= 4 -,1..: ,.., 1--- 4--litik-'i,-.- •,, •,.-Pg.i7.,..-' :-:*----., -,--.,"-z-,..-,;,•:-.,..' .zi,''', '.."-e.,,,--:.. -..."---",-- ,--,,;_a--, .---;: --",-----, -..-- _- - --.:-. 1=--N,..',•-',-:=.!-,- -,. - -g---.'',4-elk . , ;_ii-fie:ti -;;W.-"-, f - .- •--• --,----'---'---- ..,'-':-..;.--:!"'' '''''''''''''•'''-'-'-t,`-'-'44tgNig-t-4----;44, ..-_-_',,------_=--"'-'-'':',- -r"--,';'''',-,‘..-'-'f "1,... '"-:_.,"--,-,1;',-',..-I--V."*-,,*-1. -1;:-.„,„,,-,'„?„,-- ,'„-.5-,,,K. :--,_%4.---:***-.* - .-.' '•-•.4-,,`s•E 'it:-17 „: --:" -',', -,-...-44:-', -4- ‘ .., . _ ,„ „ ,, _„•_i..„.,..:.,. ,...,-,...,., :---,.F.,,,,,,,,i,,....,,,,,..4, ....,..-,-__ ,,:,- .., ,..-..,;;;„,.. .--,,- -,:"--, --...-5.,,,,,,- -.."--„.,_-„ „.:....t.'- ,:'-.:,:k....,..,,,,,,,,,..:4..„.--;,_..w..ft_.,:.--, 1;--4-,....,=-::-Tz„, 4,,,--. .,.,. ..---..,:y....,,,,,,,,,-:::„, . „ „. ,„_ .... . -.4-•,. "„ ,,,,,---:isti, ,* ,-,-,,,44-‘,;..i.,„-.•;,,,,,--.7r,,--1!,i-,7---4.7P,X.,.. „ ,,,„- ..;:,,,:, ,,,,,..-,;„„„ -,,,,,,, , -----",•...r. f•••-:_,V.,0:,...-t .„:„...„-i.'3,.-„- ......;,-.:Z:.3._,„:''',,,";;•:,..:-.--",;',„,,,,,,,,,,--„,„;..-g„,-,". ,...-;',„A.,-44....dZ:,-;. .41, ' , '_. •--„.„ ,-..- ...' .. "-..„. *„,.- -4.„.,-.3,...,:.,... ,z7:3,:ittt-Mk.k._,...„,,,,e-_,-,....„ ,,„;,..-,,,,,..,:‘,•ril...-.tk•.„-_ ..„z.,--,. -_,,,.....„..:1„.„• -:-.,-...-51.-.- -•,..tik,::,:;_,,gr'et, ,,,,,,,,,,..„ --1,,--t, ' *i-,. T'-:=-' ----:=.=- t',... ,. .= ='-,f-=.1- --t -,!,,t,42,',41C-2:',e,i."''•-„,..4.'.tz,,Ze.t'-V-;7",'V"-',' -• -.„...-,--' -7•,•'''' ,,,,,--P,,,."2ii.*;,,i4.:',4'•%L•z":71tfl"ct-'4W--;-‘,•:*:--,,,,4,,,,•,',;,.'---.`". .4.,•-•%-7,-,,,-;- L.-='-'-'''. •"P'",:,,NO.,,,"Vf**4. 1 -' - -., - :`.r.7-",-,---41',--.7._.,,,,, . „,:-,- -:-'•• --4-i*,Zae-4•LL•1 ii•••Lf1r77.':-.,, i, . a.,-'ZiCi-j1/7 -.,,,- " :,,,,'!•I'''' -%*`--,,V.44, ,;,;%,,.,Zg!.,'-'-iL 711.»,,.*' -_, -_- ,•,, ..1:•-•.,..•;!. "''''"•4-' 4i-4:'1,,_-'-': . „.'i• ,k41,-'02.,44.v.4.:.;,%.,-,„f.. _ ,f,,',- -_-:f-.,•,--,:-:,:, -..-,-,. ...v ,4[J,:•.-- - ,:;---;,,--- -- . ,...„...„.„-: 4Nat,-..,: -' --,i-p,:,,,,-„-;:t:tzt..-A-...,..4.--;_,%1,;-4,..,4--,,,,,V.,••4,-,„,_ _,_ ,,...,, „-:4: .-,4,-,,f,,,-.4',„,:,,„:„. i:, ..:-„.•;•„-.f• 4?-.4...• t `„...- A -. -..a- ,-_-_-„ ..2 ::•-, a,-,:,, 4ge:n..**':#444-r''. '-'---. 14-tl''''''' -Z*1.1-75::"'''-,'",,----,;',,-4".',7.-;',- ,.7.--.---:-',- ..-,.-.. - -. -.-,;?-:,..,' -..,...--;„,:i;- "'-`g".,.'.'.-.- -"---••7---'••• , •''' ,.,-"I,'.:i -,--.T4-s-,..-----.,11*A,"'-:''''L.7.,,,..Llt".•,,-. 41,4;vg•Szeg!„."7,7„,-„,;,8%7Wa..!,,,,,, - — --,•,,-g, L-, 4.-,:,:;:z.-A-kelitYt,i ,14.7,-."••---,'7.,.r7"f• ' ,--..i4,,, ,---, -,- ••" '7,'77 ---• ,,,-- ' -', •",.." • , 7.-'• .--i,.7.,,..,„,,,_4:41,Call..,:„.;„:, ,--A,-„,..- . ,,, ,,,:- ,,,q,,,,,,,,:„,-- •-•.,•:?, • ' ,-=.---',. .- 7`.-t,,,ti.1,,,, ifte.,,-,7-7' -. .-- .„ -.,- ,,-,..;„"-_,, >!,-,;:.. r--,--;„_: „:--- -,,;`z,"-'• ,04.4,41,„,-47.1,,,-••_:' - - -LL- -,,--;:„.i,,,.,,,,:,._ .,,,,,,, „., -,.... „0„,,L,,,,,,- - 7. ---,,,,..- --,,-, _-,,,,,,••-. ,-,,-,"14' -, t.,,--",„,:X:7..,,. ,"',:•,Z.*:„.-*-1,---1,,;_.4-, --- ' 1,- l',....1..,.,* ----....--:, .'-'2,--'--Xr-g': '-g-5:4.-r.:4,g* *.if l'el-WAr4i,'::-,','.••:: .,,_, „ ,' .---s "."-.,,,:i-..+`-'-r...."-, -, '-'-:':-.'-:"Ff- '.---'''.'"'' '• - L,...,-- 7-Itit.:--,i:.,-,iziz-z...--,„: ,. ,:=,,,• _.,-,s:: '7.-:-:` : 1...-,.-?..-' - .1-,,cy'r' .--,..3'.;-2 .. ._ ...*: -_..-. -- '', - '-'''' -. -, „ '-- ' .,:.,,,„- "--''''..4. -,,.-",5-."' . • , - ' .- - --. . _, -,_.:;-;21-.1..-,,;-,,,;',-,','•',--';'-:-'- '-' ,,, . .•-t.-1,---g-,,g--N.,,-**-,1;,--'. . -',,,, --'-. , '- '' --- - ' - '- . . - . . . ...,... ._ ., * . . '.-' --,- -- ;---i-#2,,,- .t?.4... .',Pia-V.' •<-'-''' '‘ Z . . , ----• • i - ) ''-,--._. .,.---- .;-im ,..-i--: -- \- ! ' ,-=' -.... .. g i t -,- , , „ 4— t'''' CP t:ie—A 1 L'(... ! L — / A DJ-A(0,j 'c) .7 MEMORANDUM - TO: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City Engineer GJ-g DATE: December 30, 1998 SUBJECT: Niosi Variance Request The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update to the Niosi variance request memorandum dated August 30, 1995. All of the issues outlined in the previous memorandum are still valid. However, based on the latest proposal, we are providing the following comments: • The traffic volume counted on this portion of Eden Prairie Road in 1997 has not changed significantly from the 1995 traffic volume. • The driveway location still creates a dangerous situation for anyone trying to access this property, as well as introduces a driveway conflict for the traveling public in a historically high accident area. In particular, if a vehicle is trying to turn left into or out of this property, it would be very difficult for a southbound vehicle to react to that turning vehicle and possible have to stop (due to the sight lines, steep grades, narrow roadway and the sharp curve). • Based on recent accident information, this portion of Eden Prairie Road continues to have a high number of accidents. In 1995,there were seven reported accidents along the first 1,000 feet of Eden Prairie Road (north of Trunk Highway 212) with the number of accidents dropping to two in 1996 and 1997. Our opinion remains that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curves and narrow roadway contributes to many of these accidents. • This proposal is similar to the 1995 proposal with proposed sight lines in the 250 to 300-foot range. A sight distance of 300 feet is considered minimum for adequate access to or from a street or driveway based on vehicles traveling at about 30 miles per hour. Every attempt should be made to improve the sight line to the east to minimize conflicts (as previous describ_ ed) for vehicles traveling southerly along Eden Prairie Road. If this variance request is approved, we would request the opportunity to review and approve the site plan for issues such as drainage, grading, erosion control, landscaping, etc. RR:ssa CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Engineering Services, Department of Public Works MEW - MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community &Economic Development Department FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City Engineer DATE: .August 30, 1995 SUBJECT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the Niosi variance request for their property along Eden Prairie Road near Trunk Highway 169. We have completed some further review regarding their proposed driveway location and have the following information/comments: • This portion of Eden Prairie Road currently has abinit 1,900 vehicles per day (based on a recent count) traveling on it, with some large trucks observed dui visits. We also completed a brief speed study near this property on Eden Prairie Road and determined that the average speed for northbound (uphill) raffic was about 26 mph, while the southbound(downhill)traffic was traveling at about 27 mph. • The current alignment of Eden Prairie Road in this area contains a moderately sharp curve with a very steep (14%) grade down to Trunk Highway 169. In addition, the original driveway location was proposed to be located near the middle of the curve with a steep (12%) driveway grade intersecting the 14% street grade. This would create a very difficult/dangerous situation for this property owner to access or leave the property,particularly during inclement conditions. It also introduces a driveway conflict for the traveling public in an area that has historically been a high accident area. The proponent has subsequently looked at relocating the driveway access further to the north, which would improve the driveway grade for this proposed house. • We have reviewed the 1993 and 1994 annual accident reports that we receive from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. During this two-year period, there have been a total of 13 accidents at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Trunk Highway 169. In addition,there were 11 more accidents that occurred during that same two-year period within the first 600 feet of Eden Prairie Road from its intersection with Trunk Highway 169. In 1993 alone, there were eight accidents that occurred along this portion of Eden Prairie Road with seven of those accidents being either side-swipes or vehicles that ran off the road. Our opinion is that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curve and narrow road c9rridor c ftributes to many of these accidents. • In addition to the current roadway geometrics, the,lack of sight distance also contributes to the unsafe conditions of this area. The existing sight distance in this area is very poor due to a steep slope adjacent to the road, which also contains some thick vegetation. The site plan does propose some grading on the property to improve the sight lines. Howev_ar; the sight distance for a vehicle accessing Eden Prairie CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Engineering Division, Department of Public Works Steven and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request August 30, 1995 Page 2 of 2 Road from the proposed driveway (based on the original plan) with the grading improvements is about 140 feet, at best. The proponent recently submitted a new site plan with a different driveway location, which does improve the sight distance to about-250 feet. Based on the AASHTO(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and the criteria used to analyze the situation, the sight distance required for this driveway should be about 300 feet in each direction. In conclusion, this portion of Eden Prairie Road carries a high volume of traffic on a daily basis with poor geometrics and a high number of accidents for a city street. By adding a driveway in this area only introduces another conflict to an already dangerous roadway. However, if dramatic improvements in the sight distance are accomplished for the proposed driveway, there would likely be some benefits to the traffic on Eden Prairie Road as well. Therefore, if a house is approved for this site, we would recommend that the driveway be located as per the revised site plan and the site would be graded to achieve sight distance for the proposed driveway access as close to 300 feet in each direction as possible. Furthermore, the site plan would need to be reviewed and approved for issues such as drainage, grading, erosion control, landscaping, etc. RWR:ssa Dsk:RR.Niosi CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE , Engineering Division, Department of Public Works 1995 INFORMATION ON VARIANCE 95-23 NIOSI 3/ Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 makes up their mind, and that could be 10 years from now. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve variance request #95-22, the hardship being their unusual high need for parking and inadequate parking for the outdoor seats of the facility. The conditions are: employee parking should occur on the leased lot, a soft sidewalk with lights be built on the side of the BUCA building from the back of their building to the Westwood parking lot, and signage be put on the private driveway noting no parking. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed 3-1-0 with opposition by Dunham. F. Request #95-23 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for Northeast corner of U.S. 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for approval to construct a single family house on 1.2 acres having a side setback of 40 feet one side and 140 feet total for both sides. (Code reauires Rural lots existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side setbacks are 50 feet one side no less than 150 feet total for both sides.) Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering, reviewed the variance request with the Board. The request is to develop a single family home on 1.2 acres with the variance granted. He discussed the issues noted in the Staff Report. There are a few 1 plus acre parcels in the surrounding area, and one with a home. To go to the 5 acre minimum would require purchasing the single one acre parcel to the east. Regarding the site distance from the driveway, with the proposed grading and proposed driveway, he believes the site distance is 150 feet in each direction. The road is a 15 mile an hour road, and 150 feet is the standard for that. They have accommodated the grading issues and have resolved those grading issues with the latest plans. The driveway access at one time was at about 17%, and it's now at 12% which is the maximum by the City ordinance. It would be a great economic hardship for one family to have to purchase an additional parcel in order to build their home. Johnson noted that if the Board does recommend the variance, it would then be forwarded on to the Planning Commission and City Council because it does need a steep slope review. Staff believes the driveway proposed is dangerous, referring to the City Engineering memo of June 29, 1995. 12 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 Weeks expressed concern about the dangers of the steep slope off of Eden Prairie Road on to Highway 169. Johnson noted that it's an over 20% slope. Dye was concerned about the variance being denied in 1983. Ryan indicated that the reason it was actually pulled from going through the variance process at that time is that they did not have complete plans. Johnson noted that the variance was withdrawn, not denied. Johnson commented that they have had residents come in and look at the plans, but have not received any letters todate. Lynch expressed concern about the safety issue with the road. She is having a hard time approving this unless someone from the City was convinced that there weren't any safety issues. Weeks also was concerned about the safety issues. He feels that there is a blind corner there. There is a setback issue, a safety issue, and an acreage issue that he is uncomfortable with. Weeks opened the public hearing. Karen Edstrom, residing at 10133 Eden Prairie Road, noted that she and her husband live in the house referred to as just to the northeast of this parcel, plus they own the parcel that goes down to Highway 169 just to the east of the parcel that's in question. They are opposed to granting any kind of variance or changes in the City Code to allow this building on this parcel because it's totally unsuitable to the kind of building that's proposed. She handed out a letter to the Board stating their opposition to the variance, and she summarized her objections, as stated in the letter, to the Board. She also showed photographs taken depicting the bluffs and the steepness of the grade. She expressed concern about the safety regarding the steep slope. Hibbert Hill. residing at 10131 Eden Prairie Road, noted that they live back further on the bluffs, northeast of the proposed site. They expressed concern about the safety issues regarding the steep slope and driveway, and about constantly pulling cars in and out of the ditch every time it rains or snows because of accidents. He does not let his children go out and wait for the bus alone because of the traffic that goes up and down the hill so quickly. He was 13 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 concerned about having a referendum to buy the land, and then a 1/4 mile down the road they are going to have a high density development. He does not think that is the intent of the City. He expressed concern about people parking in his driveway to look at the property in question. He was also concerned about the safety of children when the construction phase is taking place, because there is no place for trucks to park on the road or lot. He feels that the whole concept of this building is ridiculous. Loren Wuttke, noted that he owns the property directly to the west of the subject property. He is in favor of granting the variance with the provision that this house be connected as soon as the City obtains sewer and water for the area. Hill commented that all of the lots with homes in that area are grandfathered in. They were all built before the law went into effect. Weeks noted that he has a problem granting this request. The site appears too small for the house, and the driveway is unsafe. If the site were larger, a house and driveway could be sited better. Ryan was in disagreement with the photos shown by the resident. From his best judgement, this is a buildable site. He believes they have met all of the City ordinances with respect to the driveway grade. They are not looking for a variance on the side setback, they could withdraw that part. They are only looking for a variance because of the lot size. This is a remnant parcel. Weeks asked what the proposed value of the house on this property is. Ryan replied that the proposed value of the structure will be $200,000 to $300,000. There are a couple of builders in mind and the price has not been determined yet. He also apologized to the resident for people parking in his driveway. MOTION: Dye moved that based on information submitted, the Board deny variance request #95-23 because it does not meet the requirements of 5 acres. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 14 3 6( CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 5, 1995 Page 7 VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pidcock, Thorfinnson. Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution Adopting 1996 Proposed Tax Levy & Accepting 1996 Proposed Budgitt Jullie said that, pursuant to the Council's budget meeting on August 31, a Resolution has been prepared which certifies to proposed 1996 net property tax levy, sets the dates for the Truth In Taxation public hearings, and accepts the proposed 1996 Budget. The Council must adopt a Resolution establishing the maximum 1996 property tax levy by September 15, 1995. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to adopt Resolution 95-166 certifying the proposed 1996 property tax levy, setting the dates for Truth In Taxation hearings, and accepting the proposed 1996 Budget. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Stems & Kimberly Niosi to approve Variance 95-23 denied by Board of Adjustments and Appeals Jullie said the Niosi's have requested that the Council review the decision by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals to deny variances which would be needed to construct a house on their property at Eden Prairie Road and Flying Cloud Drive. He said the Niosi's have prepared a revised plan for the driveway since the project was reviewed the Board of Appeals; however, the lot is 1.23 acres and a five-acre minimum is required for single-family dwellings in this area. Perry Ryan, representing the Niosi's, reviewed the process they went through with the Board of Appeals and described the revisions they have made to the position and grading of the driveway since their appeal. Dietz said Staff has not had time to completely review the revisions to the grading plans; however, it does appear technically possible to get the sight distances desired. He said they would want space for a turnaround since they would not want cars backing out onto the road. Stephen Niosi said they have owned the property for eleven years and were told by the City that it would be a buildable property. He said they are willing to dedicate a portion of property or��t an easement to the City. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 5, 1995 Page 8 Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, said he owns the lot to the east. Referring to his letter of July 13th to the City, he reviewed his opposition to granting the variance on the Niosi property. The zoning on the property is rural and the minimum for building on such property is five acres. He was concerned about setting precedence if the variance is granted, about the bluffs and the composition of the soil in the area that poses problems for grading and excavation for the he use, and the fact that Eden Prairie Road is a dangerous road no matter what the sight lines are for the driveway. Tyra-Lukens asked when the City Code went to the five-acre minimum. Pauly replied that it was November of 1969. Tyra-Lukens noted that means the code was in place when the property was purchased by the Niosi's. Case said he was concerned about the issue of precedence if a variance this extreme is granted. He asked when we anticipate the MUSA line to be extended to this point. Enger said we do anticipate that it will be extended to this point; however, it could be another five to ten years. He said Staff tried to find similar situations in the City and could find none that were even remotely similar to this one. Pidcock said that, while she sympathizes with the Niosi's situation, she had a problem dealing with the fact that the property was purchased as 1.2 acres when the zoning required a five-acre parcel to build on. Karen Niosi said they were told by the City that that is why we have variances. Harris said it is a difficult situation and she is concerned about the sight lines, the turnaround and the absence of sufficient space for parking. Thorfinnson said he was concerned that the MUSA line might never get down to this area. Tyra-Lukens said she is concerned about precedence and she didn't want the message to get out that people can buy substandard parcels and then come to the Council for a variance. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to affirm the decision by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals and to direct Staff to prepare findings and return them to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. B. ' Request from The Trails Association Robert Kern, representing the Trails Association, reviewed their request that the City take over ownership of the trail through their association or that they be given permission to eliminate the trail. He said their development started out as 250 units and the City was intended to get a certain portion of the trail through the development. 3/ 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 949-8490 STAFF REPORT VARIANCE #95-23 MEI✓PING DATE: July 13, 1995 APPLICANT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi LOCATION: Northeast corner of U.S. 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road REQUEST: Approval to construct a single family house on 1.2 acres having a side setback of 40 feet one side and 140 feet total for both sides. (Code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side setbacks are 50 feet one side no less than 150 feet total for both sides.) ZONING DISTRICT: Rural AREA CHARACTER: Rural parcels ranging in size from one acre to 20+ acres; some lots have dwellings, some are vacant. The area is outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), but utilities may be available in 5± years. The purpose of lot size minimums in the Rural District is to prevent premature urban development of land outside the sewer/water service area, allow agricultural pursuits, and provide adequate space for each dwelling and facilities for housing animals. 37 MISCELLANEOUS: This property was previously before the Board in 1983. Background information on Variance #83-34 is attached. This property is north of U.S. 169/212 on the river bluffs facing the Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. If the variance is approved, the development will be scheduled for sloped ground review before the Parks, Planning Commission and City Council as required by City Code. Maps available to the City do not depict recorded burial mounds on this site. Staff will do further research to access the site's historical significance. Eden Prairie Road and U.S. 169/212 abut the property. Access to U.S. 169/212 would be difficult because of the steep slopes. Access to Eden Prairie Road is dangerous due to steepness and curves in the road which limits visibility. The driveway location proposed was reviewed by the City Engineering Department and their memo is attached. The drainfield locations were reviewed by the City Building Department. OPTIONS: 1. Rezone the parcel to a R1 District after sewer and water are available and build according to the Residential District standards. Until that time the property has Rural uses. 2. Acquire additional land to minimize the degree of variance or achieve the 10 acre minimum. (This can be done only by purchasing land to the east which is controlled by 2 landowners.) 3. Construct a smaller dwelling so the side setback variances are eliminated. ACTION: The Board may wish to choose from one of the following actions: 1. Approve Variance Request #95-23. Conditional upon sloped ground review and approval, proper perk tests prior to a permit issuance, and Engineering Department approval on the driveway construction. 2. Approve Variance Request #95-23 with modifications. 3. Continue Variance Request #95-23 if additional information is needed. 4. Deny Variance Request #95-23. 4ARHUhANIR,Ptic1 SWS23 3� - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community & Economic Development Department FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City EngineelW DATE: August 30, 1995 SUBJECT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the Niosi variance request for their property along Eden Prairie Road near Trunk Highway 169. We have completed some further review regarding their proposed driveway location and have the following information/comments: • This portion of Eden Prairie Road currently has about 1,900 vehicles per day (based on a recent count) traveling on it, with some large trucks observed during our field visits. We also completed a brief speed study near this property on Eden Prairie Road and determined that the average speed for northbound (uphill)traffic was about 26 mph, while the southbound(downhill)traffic was traveling at about 27 mph. • The current alignment of Eden Prairie Road in this area contains a moderately sharp curve with a very steep (14%) grade down to Trunk Highway 169. In addition, the original driveway location was proposed to be located near the middle of the curve with a steep (12%) driveway grade intersecting the 14% street grade. This would create a very difficult/dangerous situation for this property owner to access or leave the property,particularly during inclement conditions. It also introduces a driveway conflict for the traveling public in an area that has historically been a high accident area. The proponent has subsequently looked at relocating the driveway access further to the north, which would improve the driveway grade for this proposed house. • We have reviewed the 1993 and 1994 annual accident reports that we receive from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. During this two-year period, there have been a total of 13 accidents at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Trunk Highway 169. In addition,there were 11 more accidents that occurred during that same two-year period within the first 600 feet of Eden Prairie Road from its intersection with Trunk Highway 169. In 1993 alone,there were eight accidents that occurred along this portion of Eden Prairie Road with seven of those accidents being either side-swipes or vehicles that ran off the road. Our opinion is that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curve and narrow road corridor contributes to many of these accidents. • In addition to the current roadway geometrics, the lack of sight distance also contributes to the unsafe conditions of this area. The existing sight distance in this area is very poor due to a steep slope adjacent to the road, which also contains some thick vegetation. The site plan does propose some grading on the property to improve the sight lines. However, the sight distance for a vehicle accessing Eden Prairie CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 37 Engineering Division, Department of Public Works Steven and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request August 30, 1995 Page 2 of 2 Road from the proposed driveway (based on the original plan) with the grading improvements is about 140 feet, at best. The proponent recently submitted a new site plan with a different driveway location, which does improve the sight distance to about 250 feet. Based on the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and the criteria used to analyze the situation, the sight distance required for this driveway should be about 300 feet in each direction. In conclusion, this portion of Eden Prairie Road carries a high volume of traffic on a daily basis with poor geometrics and a high number of accidents for a city street. By adding a driveway in this area only introduces another conflict to an already dangerous roadway. However, if dramatic improvements in the sight distance are accomplished for the proposed driveway, there would likely be some benefits to the traffic on Eden Prairie Road as well. Therefore, if a house is approved for this site, we would recommend that the driveway be located as per the revised site plan and the site would be graded to achieve sight distance for the proposed driveway access as close to 300 feet in each direction as possible. Furthermore, the site plan would need to be reviewed and approved for issues such as drainage, grading, erosion control, landscaping, etc. RWR:ssa Dsk:RR.Niosi CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Engineering Division, Department of Public Works - MEMORANDUM - TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community Development FROM: Jeff Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician DATE: June 29, 1995 SUBJECT: Steven and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request This memo is written to apprise the Board of Appeals of engineering concerns regarding a potential driveway at the northeast corner of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 169. Upon site visits and preliminary survey information, it was determined that sight distances at the proposed driveway location on Eden Prairie Road are very poor, less than 100 feet in each direction. Contributing factors to this poor sight distance are the steep grades on Eden Prairie Road averaging 14%, a sharp horizontal curve within this driveway area, and a steep hillside with heavy vegetation adjacent to the roadway. It is staff's opinion that any driveway opening on this property would be a serious safety consideration both for the future residents of the property and the motorists. JJ:ssa Dsk:JJ.Niosi CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Engineering Division, Department of Public Works