HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/20/1999EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
TUESDAY,APRIL 20,1999
CITY COUNCIL:
CITY STAFF:
OTHER
5:00 -6:55 PM,CITY CENTER
HERITAGE ROOM II
Mayor Jean Harris,Councilmembers
Sherry Butcher-Younghans,Ronald Case,
Ross Thorfinnson,Jr.,and Nancy Tyra-
Lukens
City Manager Chris Enger,Public Works
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,City Attorney Roger Pauly and
Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen
I.CALL MEETING TO ORDER -MAYOR JEAN HARRIS
II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III.ENTERPRISE FUNDS.STATUS
A.LIQUOR OPERATIONS
B.UTILITY OPERATIONS
IV.OTHER BUSINESS
V.COUNCIL FORUM -6:30 -6:55 PM
VI.ADJOURNMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Chris Enger,City Manager
DATE:April 16,1999
SUBJECT:City Council Meeting for Tuesday,April 20,1999
CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP
TUESDAY,APRIL 20,1999 5:00 -6:55 PM,HERITAGE ROOM II
The City Council and Staffwill meet to discuss Enterprise,Liquor and Utility Funds.A copy of
the agenda is in your packet.
Time will be allotted from 6:30 PM to 6:55 PM for Council Forum.
Dinner will be available in the meeting room during the workshop.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY,APRIL 20,1999 7:00 PM,COUNCIL CHAMBER
PRESENTATION OF 1998 HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS AND YOUTH
SCHOLARSHIP AWARD
Mayor Jean Harris will present 1998 Human Rights Awards and 1998-1999 Youth
Scholarship Award.
Synopsis:
Accepting the Awards (plaques)will be the following:
Human Rights Award -Business category winner:MTS Systems Corporation
•Charles Cox,Employment Manager
Human Rights Award -Non-profit category winner:ABC Foundation
•Gardner Gay,Executive Director
Human Rights Award -Individual category winner:Bob &Clare Kooiman
•Bob Kooiman
Youth Scholarship Award winner-Diane V.Nguyen,Eden Prairie High School
I.ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Letter of Transmittal
April 16,1999
Page 2
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III.APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
IV.MINUTES
Motion:Move approval of the following set of City Council minutes:
A.CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,APRIL 6,1999
V.A-E.CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION:Move approval of items A-E on the Consent Calendar.
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGSIMEETINGS
A.CHESTNUT APARTMENTS
The official notice ofthis public hearing was published on April 8,1999,in the
Eden Prairie News and mailed to 248 property owners.
Synopsis:The plan is a 36-unit apartment building,the conversion of office
for 3 additional units and additional garages.The plan meets City
Code requirements.
Background:The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of
the project with direction to revise the site plan to eliminate
congestion near the entrance to the underground garage.The plan
has been revised to relocate garages and parking spaces to other
areas of the site.
Move to:
1.Close the Public Hearing;and
2.Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment on 9.16 acres;and
3.Approve 1st Reading ofthe Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review on 9.16 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the RM-2.5 District
on 9.16 acres;and
4.Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by BBY
Chestnut Limited Partnership.
B.BEARPATH 10TH ADDITION
The official notice of this public hearing was published on April 8,1999,in the
Eden Prairie News and mailed to 46 property owners.
K:\ADMINISTRATIONIAGENDA\AA99LOTILOTAPRIL20.DOC
Letter of Transmittal
April 16,1999
Page 3
Synopsis:
The approved plan is ten twinhome units.The proposed plan is eight single-family
homes on villa lots.There are waivers for setbacks,driveways,and lot width and lot
size which are consistent with the PUD.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the plans at the
March 22,1999,meeting.
The Parks and Recreation Commission did not review this project.
Move to:
1.Close the Public Hearing;and
2.Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment on 3.3 acres;and
3.Approve 1st Reading ofthe Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review on 3.3 acres and Rezoning from RM-6.5 to Rl-13.5 District on 3.3
acres;and
4.Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of3.3 acres into 8 lots;and
5.Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by Bearpath
Limited Partnership.
C.IMMANUAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
The official notice of this public hearing was published on April 8,1999,in the
Eden Prairie News and mailed to 46 property owners.
Synopsis:
The project consists of a 14,500 square foot expansion of the church,including the
worship area,additional meeting rooms,and additional parking.There is a height
waiver from 30 to 35 feet.The waiver is for an architectural feature that makes the
building look better.Building height waivers of this type have been granted for other
churches.
~ackground:
The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its
March 22,1999,meeting.
The Parks and Recreation Commission did not review this project.
K:\ADMlNISTRATIONlAGENDA\AA99LOTlLOTAPRIL20.DOC
Letter of Transmittal
April 16,1999
Page 4
Move to:
1.Close the Public Hearing;and
2.Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 6.7 acres;and
3.Approve 1st Reading ofthe Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review on 6.7 acres with waivers and Zoning District Amendment within the
Public Zoning District on 6.7 acres;and
4.Direct Staffto prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by Immanuel
Lutheran Church.
D.INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,PHASE 3,CLASSROOMS
The official notice ofthis public hearing was published on April 8,1999,in the
Eden Prairie News and mailed to 15 property owners.
Synopsis:
The approved 1987 master plan showed three classroom buildings in this location on
the site.The school wants to build two of the classroom buildings at this time.The
plans meet City Code requirements.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the
City Council at the March 22,1999,meeting.
The Parks and Recreation Commission did not review this project.
Move to:
1.Close the Public Hearing;and
2.Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District
Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 56 acres;and
3.Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by
International School of Minnesota;and
4.Direct Staff to issue a land alteration permit and footing and
foundation permit with the proponents'agreement to proceed at their
own risk.
VII.PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION:Move approval of the Payment of Claims as submitted (Roll Call
Vote).
VIII.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
KIADMINISTRATIONlAGENDAIAA99LOTILOTAPRIL20.DOC
Letter of Transmittal
Apri116,1999
Page 5
IX.PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
X.REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS &COMMISSIONS
A.REVIEW BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL,APPEAL NO.99-01
Synopsis:
Since the previous Council meeting,City Staffhas reviewed the revised information
submitted at the March 16,1999,Council meeting and find that the variance appeal
request contrary to the City Code intent:
a.The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship ifthe variances were not
granted.
b.The property circumstances were self created.
c.The applicants have not demonstrated that denial ofthe variances will deprive them
of all reasonable uses ofthe property.
d.Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the City's Rural
District purpose and intent.
e.The driveway movements created will be hazardous to owner and the publics'health,
welfare and safety,particularly during winter conditions.
Requested Action
Move to:Uphold the Board's denial of Variance #99-01;and direct staff to
prepare findings and return them to the Council.
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
K:IADMlNISTRATIONlAGENDAIAA99LOTILOTAPRIL20.DOC
Letter of Transmittal
April 16,1999
Page 6
H.REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XIII.OTHER BUSINESS
A.COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
Hereafter,Council Forum will be held the first and third Tuesdays of the month
from 6:30 -6:55 p.m.in Heritage Room II.This will be scheduled time
following City Council Workshops and immediately preceding regular City
Council Meetings.It is important if you wish to visit with the City Council and
Service Area Directors at this time that you notify the City Manager's office by
noon of the meeting date with your request.
XIV.ADJOURNMENT
CME:dlr
Attachments
K:IADMINISTRATIONlAGENDAIAA99LOT\LOTAPRIL20.DOC
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,APRIL 20,1999
CITY COUNCIL:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:00 PM,CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
Mayor Jean Harris,Sherry Butcher-
Y ounghans,Ronald Case,Ross
Thorfinnson,Jr.,and Nancy Tyra-Lukens
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 Roger
Pauly and Council Recorder Peggy
Rasmussen
PRESENTATION OF 1998 HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS AND YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
AWARD
I.ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III.APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
IV.MINUTES
A.CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,APRIL 6,1999
V.CONSENT CALENDAR
A.CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B.ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL EQUIPMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR SIGNALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TH 212 STAGE III
PROJECT,I.C.93-5303
C.ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TH 212-STAGE III
IMPROVEMENTS,I.C.93-5303
City Council Agenda
April 20,1999
Page 2
D.APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 2 RELATING TO CITY DEPARTMENTS AND
ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
SUMMARY OF THE NEW ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 2
E.APPROVE CITY CENTER TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADES &
ADDITIONS
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGSIMEETINGS
A.CHESTNUT APARTMENTS by BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership.Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 9.16 acres,Planned Unit
Development District Review on 9.16 acres and Zoning District Amendment in
the RM -2.5 District on 9.16 acres and Site Plan Review on 9.16 acres.Location:
Chestnut Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway (Resolution for PUD Concept
Amendment,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District
Amendment)
B.BEARPATH 10TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership.Request for
PUD Concept Amendment on 3.3 acres to the overall 420 acre Bearpath PUD,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.3 acres,Rezoning from RM-6.5
to RI-13.5 on 3.3 acres and Preliminary Plat of3.3 acres into 8 lots.Location:
Bearpath Trail.(Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment,Ordinance for
PUD District Review and Rezoning,and Resolution for Preliminary Plat)
C.IMMANUAL LUTHERAN CHURCH by Immanual Lutheran Church.Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.7 acres,Planned Unit
Development District Review on 6.7 acres with waivers,Zoning District
Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 6.7 acres,and Site Plan review
on 6.7 acres.Location:16515 Luther Way.(Resolution for PUD Concept
Review,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District
Amendment)
D.INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,PHASE 3,CLASSROOMS by International
School of Minnesota.Request for Site Plan Review and Zoning District
Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 56 acres.Location:Crosstown and
Beach Road.(Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment)
VII.PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VIII.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
IX.PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
X.REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS &COMMISSIONS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 20,1999
Page 3
A.REVIEW BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL.APPEAL NO.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.COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
XIV.ADJOURNMENT
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE:04-20-99
SECTION:AWARD PRESENTATIONS
ITEM NO.:
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION:ITEM DESCRIPTION:Award presentations for
Management Services/Human 1998 Human Rights Awards (3 category recipients)Council Meeting
Resources--Michael Barone &1998-99 Youth Scholarship Award recipient Opening
Requested Action
Move to:To announce the recipients of the 1998 Human Rights Awards for the
Business,Non-profit,and Individual categories;and the announce the
recipient of the 1998-99 Human Rights Youth Scholarship Award,as
selected by the Human Rights and Diversity Commission,and present
them with their plaques.
Synopsis
Accepting the Awards (plaques)will be the following:
Human Rights Award -Business category winner:MTS Systems Corporation
•Charles Cox,Employment Manager
Human Rights Award -Non-profit category winner:ABC Foundation
•Gardner Gay,Executive Director
Human Rights Award -Individual category winner:Bob &Clare Kooiman
•Bob Kooiman
Youth Scholarship Award winner-Diane V.Nguyen,Eden Prairie High School
Background Information
See attachments for background information.
Attachments
Awards Information (3 pages)
1
Human Rights Awards -Individual
The City of Eden Prairie Human Rights &Diversity Commission and City Council are pleased to
announce the recipients of the 1998 Human Rights Award -Individual category are two individuals,
Robert and Clare Kooiman,10410 Whitetail Crossing in Eden Prairie.
The Kooiman's have been involved in numerous church and community activities.They are both
charter members of Immanuel Lutheran church and have both assumed leadership roles over the years in
their church.Clare has been a charter member ofP.R.O.P.(People Reaching Out to other People)and is
on the Board of Directors,and has donated countless hours of her time.She has focused on spending
time with non-English speaking PROP clients to help them fully understand the kinds of help they
maybe able to receive.Since 1980,Clare has served as the food shelf coordinator and the December
Holiday Food Basket coordinator,and has provided weekly office staff support.She has donated time
quilting as part ofImmanuel Lutheran's World Relief (LWR)program,as well.
Bob,in addition to his time working at Immanuel Lutheran church,has volunteered time as founding
member and past President (1997)of the Eden Prairie Common Ground organization,and has spent time
working with Habitat for Humanity before that in the metro area.His commitment has involved
financial assistance and assistance in the construction of housing for both organizations.Prior to his
retirement from Rosemount,Inc.,Bob spend many years with the K -12 committee of the Minnesota
High Technology Council promoting improved education in Minnesota.Bob has also spent time
working with the Boy Scouts and the blood bank drive for the Troop based at Immanuel Lutheran.
For these reasons,Clare and Bob Kooiman are being recognized as the City of Eden Prairie's Human
Rights Award -Individual category winner for 1998.
Human Rights Awards -Non-Profit
The City of Eden Prairie Human Rights &Diversity Commission and City Council are pleased to
announce the recipients of the 1998 Human Rights Award -Non-Profit category is the 'A Better
Chance'(ABC)Foundation and its Executive Director,Gardner Gay,8761 Preserve Blvd.,in Eden
Prairie.
The Eden Prairie ABC effort began in 1996,and is one local chapter of a total of 25 local chapters
nationwide,with the national headquarters based in Boston,MA.ABC brings highly successful and
motivated minority students from all over the United States,trapped in inner-city schools who were
failing them as students,to ABC chapters like Eden Prairie's for their freshman through senior years of
high school.The ABC organization provides an opportunity for those who may not otherwise reach
their potential,giving them 'a better chance'to succeed.The Eden Prairie ABC will house,feed,and
transport the students and provide a caring support system as they grow and prosper during their fours
years,costing approximately $190,000 annually to operate.Eden Prairie ABC is financially dependent
upon ,donations of time and money from individuals,churches,service organizations,businesses and
corporations,and neither seeks nor receives taxpayer money to operate.
ABC connects a variety of churches and businesses,schools and City government as it helps the
individual students and promotes the respect for diversity as a community standard.Since ABC was
established nationwide in 1963,over 10,000 students have benefitted,achieving success in many
professions and making significant contributions in every walk of life.The Eden Prairie ABC,now in
its second year with students,hopes to have at total of 12 students enrolled in the 1999-2000 school
year.
For these reasons,the 'A Better Chance'(ABC)Foundation and its Executive Director,Gardner Gay are
being recognized as the City of Eden Prairie's Human Rights Award -Nonprofit category winner for
1998.
Human Rights Awards -Business
The City of Eden Prairie Human Rights &Diversity Commission and City Council are pleased to
announce the recipients of the 1998 Human Rights Award -Business category,MTS Systems
Corporation,14000 Technology Drive in Eden Prairie.
MTS Systems is the largest private employer in Eden Prairie,and is a leading provider of material test
and simulator equipment worldwide.MTS Systems has over 2200 employees worldwide,with
representatives on every continent,including sales and service representatives in over 50 countries.
MTS Systems has a very multicultural workforce and customer base.On a daily basis at MTS Systems,
you might hear employees conversing in languages such as Chinese,Japanese,Ethiopian,Indian,
Spanish,French,Italian,and German,among others.The company focus is on family and community
for their employees,and is exemplified in many of their programs,practices,and policies.
They seek out small,minority and women-owned businesses as business partners because of their
enthusiasm,energy,creativity,and ability to adapt quickly to specific business needs ofMTS Systems.
They expanded a traditional Sexual Harassment policy to a 'Non-Discrimination'policy that gives equal
opportunity without regard to race,color,age,religion,gender,national origin,physical or mental
disability,or sexual orientation.New employees to MTS Systems undergo eight hours of 'Quality
training'(which includes the 'Non-Discrimination'training),with the direct supervisors participating in
this interactive training for the last four hours for each and every new person hired in their area.
MTS Systems has established a very flexible workweek by creating Personalized Work Arrangements
(PWA's).PWA's give employees the opportunity to work with their supervisor in developing a work
schedule that best fits both the needs of the employee and the company.Employees can work full-time
workweeks with flexibility in start/stop times as well as the number of days to be worked.80%ofMTS
Systems employees currently work a 4-day workweek in order to spend more time with their families.
PWA's allow MTS Systems to retain qualified,trained employees who are unable to work traditional
schedules and increase productivity by boosting employee morale and keeping employees at a higher
energy level.Time spent with family or donating time to community or charitable causes,even during
normal business hours,is greatly encouraged.
Another PWA program is Voluntary Reduced Work time,or V -time.V -time is a time/income trade-off
arrangement that allows full-time employees to reduce work hours for a specified period of time.Either
employees or supervisors may suggest a PWA,with the purpose to meet the needs of the employee and
the company.
MTS Systems has also focused on Community involvement.For the past five years,they have worked
in coordination with the YMCA's Star Program that focuses on mentoring 7th and 8th grade students,
many of them considered 'at-risk'students,who are in need of assistance.Nearly every Wednesday for
I 12 hours,these students are mentored in a variety of skills to help them in the future.This school year,
MTS Systems is hosting 19 students from Eden Prairie's Central Middle School.In addition,MTS
Systems employs students from Eden Prairie High School'Intern/Mentorship program.These student
are hired based on their responsibility,need,and grades,and are employed after school and full-time in
the summer.
For these reasons,MTS Systems Corporation is being recognized as the City of Eden Prairie's Human
Rights Award -Business category winner for 1998.
1998-99 Human Rights Youth Scholarship Award
The City of Eden Prairie Human Rights &Diversity Commission is pleased to announce the recipient of
the 1998-99 Human Rights Youth Scholarship Award winner.Eden Prairie High School senior Diane
V.Nguyen has been selected as the recipient of the $500 award.Applicants were asked to show a
demonstrated commitment to the ideals of Dr.Martin Luther King,Jr.,and others,through school,
volunteer activities,community service,and/or church activities.The award is for a high school senior
who resides in Eden Prairie and plans to pursue post-secondary education.
Diane's activities exemplify the attributes the Commission wishes to recognize with the Youth
Scholarship Award.Among her many activities,Diane is an excellent student,and she is currently
taking classes at EPHS and attends the University of Minnesota in a post-secondary program.Diane's
school activities include vice-president of Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD),a variety of
officer positions on the school newspaper,she was invited to serve on the District Strategic Plan
committee and subsequent Organizational Improvement Committee,helped new students transition to
EPHS through the Youth Public Relations Council,participated in Amnesty International and Circle of
F.I.R.E.,and also participates in track &field.But one Diane's biggest accomplishments has been to
"single-handedly lead Eden Prairie's High School's efforts to create a Diversity Fair to celebrate our
differences and raise levels of awareness and respect among students,"according to EPHS Principal,
Cynthia A.Hays.
For these reasons,Diane V.Nguyen is being recognized as the City of Eden Prairie's Human Rights and
Diversity Commission Youth Scholarship Award winner for 1998-99.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
T 1 e rr1 Ill.It.
TUESDAY,APRIL 6,1999
CITY COUNCIL:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:00 PM,CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
Mayor Jean Harris,Sherry Butcher-
Younghans,Ronald Case,Ross
Thorfinnson,Jr.,and Nancy Tyra-
Lukens
City Manager Chris Enger,Parks &
Recreation Services Director Bob
Lambert,Public Safety Director Jim
Clark,City Engineer AI Gray,Community
Development and Financial Services
Director Don Uram,Management Services
Director Natalie Swaggert,City Attorney
Roger Pauly and Council Recorder Peggy
Rasmussen
I.ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.Councilmember Tyra-Lukens
and Councilmember Case were absent.
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III.APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Enger added Item VIII A.ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-49 AMENDING
RESOLUTION 99-44.
MOTION:Thorfinnson moved,seconded by Butcher-Younghans,to approve the
agenda as published and amended.Motion carried 3-0.
IV.MINUTES
A.CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,
MARCH 16,1999
MOTION:Butcher-Younghans moved,seconded by Thorfinnson,to approve as
published the minutes of the City Council/Staff Workshop held Tuesday,March
16,1999.Motion carried 3-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 6,1999
Page 2
B.CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,MARCH 16,1999
MOTION:Thorfinnson moved,seconded by Butcher-Younghans,to approve
as published the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday,March 16,
1999.Motion carried 3-0.
V.CONSENT CALENDAR
A.CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B.ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-46 APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TH 212
(STATE III)PROJECT,I.C.93-5303
C.ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-47 APPROVING CONSTRUCTION
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT VALLEY VIEW ROAD AND MARKET PLACE /
SUPER VALU,I.C.99-5480
D.APPROVE PREPARATION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND FRIENDSHIP VENTURES
FOR WATERMAIN TO SERVE CAMP EDENWOOD
E.APPROVE PILLSBURY GRADING PERMIT
F.ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-48 FOR REVISION OF SOUTHWEST MUTUAL
AID ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT
G.APPROVE REAPPOINTMENT OF SPENCER CONRAD AS FIRE CIDEF
OF THE EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPARTMENT
H.APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF STUART A.FOX AS ASSISTANT WEED
INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FOR 1999
I.ADOPT PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 1,1999,AS ARBOR DAY
IN EDEN PRAIRIE
MOTION:Butcher-Younghans moved,seconded by Thorfmnson,to approve
Items A-I.on the Consent Calendar.Motion carried 3-0.
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGSIMEETINGS
VII.PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 6,1999
Page 3
MOTION:Butcher-Younghans moved,seconded by Thorfmnson,to approve the Payment
of Claims as submitted.Motion carried on a roll call vote,with Butcher-Younghans,
Thorfinnson and Harris voting ''aye.''
VIII.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A.ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-49 AMENDING RESOLUTION 99-44 BY
ALLOWING THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS
THAT MAY BE ISSUED UNDER THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION BE
INCREASED TO AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING $6,730,000.
Enger explained the original Resolution was adopted March 16,1999.The market
conditions are such that an additional principal amount of Bonds can be issued and
sold.The amount of the increase does not exceed the amount noticed in the Public
Hearing.The issuance and sale of such additional principal amount of Bonds will
be of significant benefit to the housing facilities refinanced with the Bonds,and to
the Company.
MOTION:Thorfinnson moved,seconded by Butcher-Younghans,to adopt
Resolution 99-49 amending Resolution 99-44 by allowing the maximum principal
amount of the bonds that may be issued under the original Resolution be increased
to an amount not exceeding $6,730,000.Motion carried 3-0.
IX.PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A.YEAR-END REVIEW OF SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT
Executive Director Len Simich reviewed 1998 activity by Southwest Metro
Transit.The following accomplishments were listed:
•Increased ridership about 10 percent,or 40,000 trips
•Reduced operating deficit by 10 percent
•Increased farebox revenue by 15 percent
•Moved into new bus garage
•Received funds for infrastructure improvements from MnDOT
•Added new services to carry passengers to downtown Minneapolis and to
bring workers from Minneapolis to jobs in the suburbs
•Began new initiatives,such as trips to Valley Fair,area beaches,etc.
•Implemented quality control program
•Made signage improvements
•Established a committee of riders to suggest improvements
•Introduced an incentive program for employees
Simich said they hope to develop and build upon these successful accomplishments.
Future plans include implementing a direct shuttle service to T.H.212 and
attracting commercial development to the Southwest Metro Transit site,which will
.3
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 6,1999
Page 4
bring additional services to riders.They are looking at the need to provide flexible
mobility services for elderly and young people.The use of a van pool to provide
a flexible transit service to St.Paul along the T.H.494 corridor is being
investigated.Southwest Metro is also working with Plymouth to provide major
transfer points where Plymouth's buses and Southwest Metro's buses would transfer
passengers traveling between the two communities.They are in the process of
securing funding to add vehicles to the fleet and are looking for qualified drivers.
Southwest Metro Transit's goals:
•Provide access to jobs
•Maintain efficient and effective service
•Secure funding from both state and federal sources
•Continue to be entrepreneurial
Mayor Harris extended congratulations to Len Simich on the part of the City
Council for Southwest Metro's remarkable list of achievements.
X.REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS &COMMISSIONS
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.COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
Hereafter,Council Forum will be held the first and third Tuesdays of the month
from 6:30-6:55 p.m.in Heritage Room II.This will be scheduled time following
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 6,1999
Page 5
City Council Workshops and immediately preceding regular City Council meetings.
If you wish to visit with the City Council and Service Area Directors at this time,
it is important that you notify the City Manager's office by noon of the meeting date
with your request.
XIV.ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:Thorfmnson moved,seconded by Butcher-Younghans,to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 3-0.Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.to a Closed
Session to discuss a potential settlement in the Solid Foundations case.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION:Consent Calendar
DATE:
April 20,1999
SERVICE AREA:
Community Development
&Financial Services -
Gretchen Laven
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Clerk's License Application List
ITEM NO.
V.A.
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
NEW &RENEWAL LICENSES
CONTRACTOR
CAS MECHANICAL INC
FLARE HTG &AlC
GAVIC &SONS PLBG &WATER SPEC INC
JACOBSON CONSTRUCTION INC
JON R EAGLE MECHANICAL SPECIALIST
K &K HEATING &PLUMBING INC
MASTER GAS FITTERS INC
NEU PLUMBING
NEWC.C.INC
SKARPHOL CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC
STONEFIELD
SUPERIOR HEATING &AlC &ELECTRIC
T.F.JAMES COMPANY
LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATORS
CHAPMAN CUSTOM LAWN CARE
FAIRWAY GREEN LAWNCARE INC
GREEN MASTERS INC
GUARANTEED SPRAY INC
HAWES LAWN SERVICE INC
LAWN RANGER
RAINBOW TREE CO
ROSE COMPANIES/THE
SUPREME COMPANIES
TALBERG LAWN &LANDSCAPE INC
TURF OPERATIONS INC
dba:Weed Man
April 20,1999 1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE:04/20/99
ITEM NO:
v.
SERVICE AREA:
Public Works
Engineering
Rodney W.Rue
ITEM DESCRIPTION:I.C.93-5303
Approve Reimbursement Agreement for Traffic Control Signal Equipment with
Hennepin County for Signals Associated with the TH 212 Stage III Project
Recommended Action
Move to:
Synopsis
Approve Reimbursement Agreement No.28-49-99 for Traffic Control Signal
system Equipment with Hennepin County for county-supplied equipment associated
with the TH 212 Stage III project.
This agreement is a supplement to MnDOT's Traffic Control Signal Agreement No.78499R which
was approved at the April 6,1999 City Council meeting.It allows MnDOT to use county supplied
signal equipment and provide for appropriate cost savings --the City share being $3,750.
Background Information
Each cooperative venture that we engage with either the County or MnDOT requires a separate
agreement to define rules,responsibilities and financial participation.Although this project is being
administered by MnDOT,State III includes two signals at the interchange with Eden Prairie Road
and a new signal at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and new Scenic Heights Road.Since the
signals will become the property of Hennepin County,the controllers are being supplied by the
county to ensure compatibility with their specifications.The City share in the equipment cost is
$3,750 and will be paid with State Aid Funds.
Staff recommends approval of Reimbursement Agreement No.PW28-49-99 for Traffic Control
Signal System Equipment with Hennepin County for the estimated amount of $3,750.00.
Attachment
(Copy ofthe agreement is in the Engineering Services office).
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVAL OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT
I.C.93-5303
WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)has prepared Traffic
Control Signal Agreement No.78499R for traffic signals associated with the TH 212 Stage ill
projects;
WHEREAS,said MnDOT Agreement indicates that Hennepin County will furnish the necessary
controllers and cabinets;
WHEREAS,Hennepin County has prepared Reimbursement Agreement No.PW28-49-99 for
Traffic Control Signal System Equipment;and
WHEREAS,this agreement provides for reimbursement to the County for the City's share of
this county-supplied equipment.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that
Reimbursement Agreement No.PW28-49-99 for Traffic Control Signal System Equipment is
hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 20,1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
SEAL
DATE:04/20/99
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION:Consent Calendar
ITEM NO:
V.:c...
SERVICE AREA:
Engineering Division
Rodney W.Rue
ITEM DESCRIPTION:I.C.93-5303
Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement for the Construction ofTH 212-
Stage III Improvements
Recommended Action
Move to:
Synopsis:
Approve resolution approving Cooperative Construction Agreement No.78344-R
for Construction of TH 212-Stage III Improvements from TH 5 near Wallace Road
to CSAH 4 (Eden Prairie Road).
The original Layout Plan for TH 212 through Eden Prairie was approved by Council in 1988.
MnDOT has prepared the detailed construction plans and specifications for this segment ofTH 212
improvements consistent with the original layout plan.Bids are scheduled to be received by
MnDOT on April 23,1999.The estimated City cost is $266,886.27.
Background Information:
This cooperative construction agreement defines the financial and maintenance responsibilities for
this project,as well as the construction items that the City is wholly or partially responsible for
based on MnDOT's Cost Participation Policy.These items include relocation of trunk watermain
along CSAH 4 (Eden Prairie Road),a new 20 inch trunk watermain along relocated Scenic Heights
Road and our share of the storm sewer,as well as some minor items such as bike paths,sidewalks,
curb and gutter,etc.
Financial Issues
The City's share for these construction items is estimated at $266,886.27 which includes 8%for
construction engineering.Most of the City's share is proposed to be financed by the Utility Fund
with the remainder being financed by State Aid funds.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve MnDOT's Cooperative Construction Agreement
No.78344-R for the estimated amount of $266,886.27.
Attachment
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
FOR THE TH 212-STAGE HI PROJECT
I.C.93-5303
WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Transportation has prepared fInal construction plans for
TH 212 improvements from TH 5 near Wallace Road to CSAH 4 (Eden Prairie Road);
WHEREAS,these construction plans are consistent with the approved layout plan;and
WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Transportation has prepared Cooperative Construction
Agreement No.78344-R to provide for payment by the City to the State for the City's share of
watermain,storm sewer and other associated construction to be performed under State Project No.
2762-12 (T.H.212=121)and Federal Project NH 012-2(071).
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that Cooperative
Construction Agreement No.78344-R is hereby approved,and the Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 20,1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
SEAL
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the
City of Eden Prairie at an authorized meeting held on the 20th day of April,1999,as shown by the
minutes of the meeting in my possession.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of ,1999,by Jean L.
Harris and Kathleen A.Porta,Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Eden Prairie.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this __day of __----',1999.
Notary Public
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR April 20,1999
ITEM DESCRIPTION:2nd Reading of an
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION:Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 2 ITEM NO.:
Office ofthe City Manager Relating to City Departments &Issuance of
V.\).Chris Enger Citations and Summary Resolution
Requested Action
Move to:Approve the 2nd reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 2 by
amending Section 2.30 in its entirety,relating to City Departments;amending
Section 2.32 in its entirety,relating to issuance of citations;providing for
conforming changes throughout the City Code and adopt the Resolution
approving the summary of Ordinance 3-99 amending City Code Chapter 2.
Synopsis
The City Council approved the first reading of this Ordinance at its March 16,1999 meeting.
The City Code is being amended to reflect the organizational changes made in the last half of
1998.Due to the length of Ordinance No.3-99,a summary ofthe Ordinance has been drafted for
publication.
Background Information
Five Service Areas were organized to reflect results of the Vision 2001 Strategic Plan.The
heads of these areas are Service Area Directors participating in a Management Team under the
City Manager.
The Building Code,Inspections and Zoning Administration functions have been transferred to
the Public Safety Service Area.
The position of City Clerk /Treasurer has been split.The responsibilities of Treasurer rest with
the Director of Community Development and Financial Services.The responsibilities of the City
Clerk (Elections,Record Management and Data Practices)have been transferred to the
Management Services Area.
This new structure and position titles will be reflected properly in the City Code upon the
adoption of this ordinance amendment.
Publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent
and effect of the Ordinance.
Attachments
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.3-99
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.30 IN ITS ENTIRETY,RELATING TO CITY
DEPARTMENTS;AMENDING SECTION 2.32 IN ITS ENTIRETY,RELATING TO ISSUANCE
OF CITATIONS;PROVIDING FOR CONFORMING CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE CITY
CODE AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1.The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending in its entirety Section
2.30 as follows:
SECTION 2.30.CITY SERVICE AREAS.
Subd.1.City Manager.The City Manager shall be appointed by the Council and shall serve at the Council's pleasure.
The Manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the City and all service areas of the City shall be under the
overall control of the City Manager.The City Manager shall have the following general duties and responsibilities:
A.Plan the organization of City staff and assign appropriate responsibility and authority for the efficient and
effective delivery of City services.
B.Prepare and administer the annual City budget;develop compensation plans and personnel policies for City
staff consistent with good management practices.
C.Prepare Council agendas and information for Council meetings with appropriate staff research and
recommendations.
D.Communicate effectively with council members,City stafI,news media,other govemmental agencies,and the
public.
E.The City Manager,with the consent ofthe Council,shall appoint a City Attorney,who shall serve at the
pleasure of the Council.The City Attorney shall perform such duties as are required by law or referred by the
Council.
Subd.2.Management Services Area.A Management Services Area is hereby established.The head of this service
area is the Director of Management Services.All matters relating to Human Resources,Risk Management,Records,
Elections,Facilities and Communications shall be the responsibility of this service area.
This service area shall include the office of the City Clerk.It shall be the duty and power of this position to carry out
the provisions of State Statute §412.151.
Subd.3.Community Development and Financial Services Area.A Community Development and Financial
Services Area is hereby established.The head of this service area is the Director of Community Development and
Financial Services.All matters relating to comprehensive planning,economic development,housing and
redevelopment,historical preservation,assessing,information services and fmance are the responsibility of this service
area.This service area directs and coordinates the City's development review process.
The Director of Community Development and Financial Services shall serve as the City Treasurer and carry out the
provisions of State Statute §412.141.
1
~
This service area shall include the Assessing Division.The manager of the Assessing Division is the City Assessor.
All matters of levies and assessments shall be the responsibility of this division.
Subd.4.Public Safety Services Area.A Public Safety Services Area is hereby established.The head of this service
area is the Director of Public Safety Services.All matters of law enforcement,civil defense,ftre protection,fire
inspection,building inspection and zoning code enforcement shall be the responsibility of this service area.The
Director of Public Safety Services shall serve as the Chief Law Enforcement Offtcer of the City.
This service area shall include the Building Inspections Division.The head of this division shall be the Manager of
Inspections referred to in the State Building Code as the "Building Offtcial."It shall be the duty and power of this
position to carry out the provisions of the State Building Code and the provisions of the City Code relating to
construction.
Subd.5.Public Works Services Area.A Public Works Services Area is hereby established.The head of this service
area is the Director of Public Works Services.All matters relating to engineering,streets,water and sewer are the
responsibility of this service area.
Subd.6.Parks and Recreation Services Area.A Parks and Recreation Services Area is hereby established.The
head of this service area is the Director of Parks and Recreation Services.All park and recreation facilities,recreation
programs and activities,natural resources management,and municipal cemetery shall be the responsibility of this service
area.
Section 2.The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending in its entirety Section
2.32 as follows:
"SECTION 2.32.ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS.The following employees of the City of Eden Prairie,while in the
course and scope of the performance of their duties as employees,may issue citations in lieu of arrest or continued
detention:
Office of City Mana2er
City Manager
Mana2ement Services
Director of Management Services
Manager of Facilities
Manager of Risk Services and Records
Community Development and Financial Services
Director of Community Development and Financial Services
Plan Reviewer
Community Planner
Public Safety Services
Director of Public Safety
Police Offtcers
Reserve Offtcers
Animal Control Offtcers
Manager of Inspections/Building Offtcial
Building Inspectors
Fire Chief
Fire Marshal
Fire Inspector
Zoning Administrator
Public Works Services
Director of Public Works Services
City Engineer
Assistant City Engineer
Design Engineer
Manager of Street Maintenance
2
:J
Manager of Utility Operations
Foreman/Supervisor
Engineering Technician
Environmental Coordinator
Parks and Recreation Services
Director of Parks and Recreation Services
Manager of Parks and Recreation Services
Park Planner
Tree Inspector
Park Ranger
Foreman/Supervisor
Community Center Managers and Coordinators"
Section 3.The City Clerk shall change each term under the column heading "EXISTING TERM"
or a respectively similar term wherever they appear in the Eden Prairie City Code to the term listed
under the column heading ''NEW TERM"or to a respectively similar term.
EXISTING TERM
Police Department
Fire Department
Public Works Department
Community Development
Department
Parks,Recreation and Natural
Resources Department
Inspections,Safety and Facilities
Department
Assessing Department
Finance Department
Human Resources and Community
Services Department
Chief of Police
Director of Public Work
Director of Community Development
NEW TERM
Public Safety Services Area
Public Safety Services Area
Public Works Services Area
Community Development and
Financial Services Area
Parks and Recreation Services
Area
Building Inspections Division
Assessing Division
Community Development and
Financial Services Area
Management Services Area
Director of Public Safety Services
Director of Public Works Services
Director of Community Development
And Financial Services
Finance Director
Director of Parks,Recreation and
Natural Resources
Director of Inspections,Safety and
Facilities
Director of Assessing and MIS
Director of Human Resources and
Community Services
Director of Community Development
And Financial Services
Director of Parks and Recreation
Services
Manager of Inspections
City Assessor
Director of Management Services
Section 4.The City Clerk shall change the term "City Clerk-Treasurer"or similar term wherever
it appears in City Code to either "City Clerk"or "City Treasurer"as applicable in the context in
which the combined term was previously used.
Section 5.City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the
Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation"and Section 2.99 entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor"are hereby adopted in their entirety,by reference,as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 6.This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting ofthe City Council ofthe City ofEden Prairie on the 16th
day of March,1999,and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the
City Council of said Council on the day of ,1999.
ATTEST:
Kathleen Porta,City Clerk Jean L.Harris,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __day of ,1999.
4
:3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.99-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE NO.3-99 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS,Ordinance No.3-99 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held on the 20th day of April,1999;
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE,THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS,DETERMINES,AND ORDERS
AS FOLLOWS:
A.Ordinance No.3-99 is lengthy and contains charts.
B.The text of the summary of Ordinance No.3-99,attached hereto as Exhibit A,
conforms to M.S.§331A.Ol,Subd.10,and is approved,and publication ofthe title
and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect
of the Ordinance.
C.The title and summary shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body
type no smaller that brevier or eight-point type.
D.A printed copy ofthe Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person,
during regular office hours,at the office of the City Clerk,and a copy of the entire
text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City offices.
E.Ordinance No.3-99 shall be recorded in the Ordinance Book,along with proof of
publication,within twenty (20)days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on April 20,1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
(Seal)
ATTEST:
Kathleen Porta,Clerk
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 3-99
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTIONS 5.30 AND 5.32 RELATING TO CITY
DEPARTMENTS AND THE ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS,RESPECTIVELY,AND
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 2.99 WHICH,
AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
The following is only a summary of Ordinance No.3-99.The full text is available for public
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk:
Section 2.30 -Organization of City Departments
The ordinance provides for an administrative reorganization of the City into Service Areas.
The City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer of the City and all Service Areas are under
the overall control of the City Manager.The Service Areas created by the ordinance are:
Management Services area;Community Development and Financial Services Area;Public Safety
Services Area;Public Works Services Area;and Parks and Recreation Services Area.
Under the Management Services Area are all matters relating to human services,risk
management,records,elections,facilities and communications.
Under the Community Development and Financial Services Area are all matters relating to
comprehensive planning,economic development,housing and redevelopment,historical
preservation,assessing,information services and finance.The Director of this Service Area serves
as the City Treasurer.
The Public Safety Services Area includes all matters of law enforcement,civil defense,fire
protection,fire inspection,building inspection and zoning code enforcement.The manager of
inspections is designated the "Building Official"as the same is set forth in the State Building Code.
The head of the Fire Protection Division is the Fire Chief.
The Director of Public Safety Services Area shall serve as the chieflaw enforcement officer
of the City.
The Public Works Service Area contains all matters relating to engineering,streets,water
and sewer.
The Parks and Recreation Services Area includes all park and recreation facilities,recreation
programs and activities,natural resources management and the municipal cemetery.
7
Section 2.32 -Issuance of Citations
This section sets forth the employees of the City who may issue citations in lieu of arrest for
detention and includes the City Manager,employees in the Management Services Area,Community
Development and Financial Services Area,Public Safety Services Area,Public Works Services Area
and the Parks and Recreation Services Area.The ordinance further directs the City Clerk to change
in the City Code existing titles and department names to the new designations set forth in the
ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE:
April 20,1999
SERVICE AREAlDIVISION:
Management Services
Natalie Swaggert
Requested Action
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Approve City Center Telephone System
Upgrades &Additions
ITEM NO.:
Move to:
Synopsis:
Approve contract for equipment and services with TIE Convergent
Communications for City Center telephone system upgrades and expansion in the
amount of$43,307.00.
This action will provide for required upgrades to the existing telephone system and
permit the expansion to encompass the telephone requirements for the Water Plant and
Fire Station 1.This will also add certain redundancies to the system that will improve
reliability and availability during routine system maintenance.
Background Information:
The City Center telephone system is at maximum capacity.No additional telephone services can
be provided without expansion.Further,the Water Plant and Fire Station 1 telephone service
requirements can be achieved with the highest degree of cost effectiveness and operational
service efficiency by being integrated into the City Center telephone system.
The required telephone services of the water plant cannot be met without the upgrading of the
City Center telephone system,therefore,the water utility will partially fund the $14,800 upgrade
at the City Center in addition to the $16,000 cost for equipment and services specific to the water
plant.The $10,047 cost for equipment and services for the new Fire Station 1 will be funded as
part of the major building project.
Note:Total amount ($43,307.00)includes required sales tax.
1
DATE:4-20-99
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO.VI.A.
SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
SERVICE AREA:
Community Development ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Donald R.Uram
Michael D.Franzen Chestnut Apartments
Requested Action:
Move to:
1.Close the Public Hearing;and
2.Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment on 9.16 acres;and
3.Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review on 9.16 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the RM-2.5 District on 9.16
acres;and
4.Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by BBY Chestnut
Limited Partnership.
Synopsis:
The plan is a 36-unit apartment building,the conversion of office for 3 additional units,and adding
garages.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project with direction to revise
the site plan to eliminate congestion near the entrance to the underground garage.The plan has been
revised to relocate garages and parking spaces to other areas of the site.
The Parks and Recreation Commission did not review the plans.
Supporting Reports:
1.Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment
2.Staff Report dated March 5,1999
3.Planning Commission Minutes dated March 22,1999
1
CHESTNUT APARTMENTS
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT AMENDMENT OF CHESTNUT APARTMENTS
FOR BBY CHESTNUT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD)Concept Amendment of certain areas located within the City;and,
WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Chestnut
Apartments PUD Concept Amendment by BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership and considered their
request for approval for development and recommended approval ofthe requests to the City Council;
and,
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on April 20,1999;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofEden Prairie,Minnesota,
as follows:
1.Chestnut Apartments,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 Amendment approval as outlined in
the plans dated April 13,1999.
3.That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission
dated March 22,1999.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 20th day of April,1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
Chestnut Apartments
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That port of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and of the North 1/2 of the Northeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15,Township 116,North Range 22,West of the 5th
Princlpal Meridian,described as'follows:
Commencing at the Southwest comer of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said
Section 15,thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 33 seconds East,assumed bearing,along the
South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 734.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning;thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds West a distance of 44.00
feet;thence North 44 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 234.93 feet;thence
North 00 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 84.45 feet;thence North 45
degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 311.00 feet;thence North 13 degrees 20
minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 233.79 feet;thence North 45 degrees East a distance
of 56.79 feet;thence South 45 degrees East a distance of 291 feet;thence along a tangential
curve concave to the Southwest and having a radius of 316.50 feet a dTstance of 102 feet;
thence North 4S degrees East,not tangent to last described curve a distance of 260 feet;
thence North a distance of 142.50 feet;thence East a distance of 270.76 feet to a point on a
curve having a radius of 666.20 feet,the center of circle of said curve bears South 69 degrees
14 minutes 33 seconds West from said point;thence Southerly along said curve a distance of
169.53 feet,more or less,to the South line of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of said SectIon 15;thence Westerly along the South line of said North 1/2 to
the Southwest comer of said North 1/2;thence Southerly along the East line of the Northwest
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 15 to the Southeast comer of said Northwest 1/4 of
the Southwest 1/4;thence Westerly along the South line of sold Northwest 1/4 of the
.Southwest 1/4 to the actual point of beginning.
Together with appurtenant Easement for sign,planter and sidewalk.filed of record as Document
No.6661737.
]
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNERS:
LOCATION:
Planning Commission
Michael D.Franzen,City planner
March 5,1999
Chestnut Apartments
BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership
BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership
Chestnut Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway
REQUEST:1.Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
9.16 acres.
2.Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.16 acres.
3.Zoning District Amendment in the RM-2.5 District on 9.16 acres.
4.Site Plan Review on 9.16 acres.
...
Z575.JJ lIES
I
.:
Staff Report
Chestnut Apartments
March 5,1999
BACKGROUND
The site is guided Medium Density Residential.The site is zoned RM-2.5.
This property is part of the 24-acre Cherrywood Apartment project approved in 1974 for 272
units.A portion of this plan was modified in 1997 for the 50-unit Mitchell Village Townhouses.
There will be a total of209 units on this 24 acre site.(120 existing,39 proposed,and 50 -
Mitchell Village)
SITE PLAN
The site plan shows the construction of 36 apartment unit apartment building and the conversion
of an office and recreation building to a 3-unit apartment building.The total number of apartments
existing and proposed is 159 units.
The density is 17.4 units per acre.The City code allows up to 17.4 units per acre.
The building and parking meet setback requirements.
The amount of proposed parking meets City Code.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Storm water will be treated to NURP standards.No wetlands will be impacted by the
development proposal.
LANDSCAPING
The amount of caliper inches based on building size is 189 inches.The required tree replacement
is 106 inches.The landscape plan meets both requirements.
ARCHITECTURE
The buildings meet the City Code for 75%face brick and glass.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff would recommend approval of the PUD Concept Review on 9.16 acres,PUD District
Review on 9.16 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the RM-2.5 District on 9.16 acres,and Site
Plan Review on 9.16 acres,based on plans dated March 5,1999 and the staff report dated March
5,1999,and the following:
Staff Report
Chestnut Apartments
March 5,1999
1.Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A.Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by
the City Engineer and Watershed District.
B.Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal.
C.Submit a landscaping bond in accordance with City Code.
D.Provide building material samples and colors for review by the City Planner.
7 J
EXHIBIT A
Ernst Associates
Ref:Chestnut Apartments Landscaping &Screening I narrative
The landscape plan for the proposed project includes deciduous shade and ornamental trees,mixed varieties of
conifers such a spruce and pine and supplemental shrub plantings such as burning bush,dogwood,A W.spirea,
evergreen shrubs for year around greenery,perennials and related landscape materials.The selected palette of plant
material meets city landscape requirements and addresses aesthetic,maintenance,functional and visual screening
considerations.
With the development and site alterations,a few existing trees will be removed from the site.We have done a tree
survey and tree inventory outlining the tree species,size and quantity of trees that will be removed.There will be
43 deciduous trees from 6"caliper up to 20"caliper and 6 spruce at 12"caliper that will be affected by the new
development and site alterations on the northeast comer of the project Out of the 49 trees,8 will be considered
significant trees as designated by the city's ordinance.Of the 43 trees,ranging in caliper from 12"up to 20"caliper,
two will remain on the site.
Using the city tree replacement formula a total of 106 caliper inches or 35 trees will need to be replaced.All trees
replaced will be 7'ht.conifers.
The site is presently heavily planted so it becomes difficult to fmd places to utilize the 35 replacement trees.We are
proposing to use the trees for screening between the new parking and strip commercial to the east,outside of the
property at the northwest corner on the Mitchell Townhouse site,and along perimeter of site at the southeast corner
of the project near Chestnut Drive.
In addition to the replacement trees and based on the the proposed building gross square feet,61 trees will need to be
installed on the project to meet minimum landscape requirements.Due to the restricted site and undisturbed wetland
area we are proposing to use 8 of the 6'ht.conifers to provide additional screening around the existing clubhouse
and pool area.
Twelve foot high conifers are proposed along the northwest property line to provide visual screening and division
between the Mitchell addition townhomes,cul-de-sac and this project The applicant has increased 6 of the conifers
above city requirements from 10'to 12'high.Seven foot high evergreen trees will be introduced between the
existing commercial strip mall,service and parking area to supplement the existing 15'to 20'high spruce.A
mixture of evergreen trees,shade trees,deciduous and evergreen shrubs will be introduced throughout the project for
continuity,to soften views and provide foundation planting for the structures.Existing trees and vegetation around
the north,east and south side of existing designated wetlands will be retained
The entire site except the undisturbed wetlands and area between existing sidewalk and wetlands will be sodded and
irrigated.All plant material installed will have a one year guarantee on all material up to 4"caliper for deciduous and
12'for conifers and two year guarantee for sizes larger.Material and installation will be in compliance with the
latest issue of the American Standard of Nursery Stock and American Association of Nurserymen.All plant
material either exceeds or meets minimum city standards throughout the project and will mature in the future to
provide a pleasing'setting for the residents and also general public viewing the project along Anderson Lakes
Parkway and surrounding neighborhoods.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.LAND PLANNING.122 W.SIXTH ST••CHASKA,MN 55318 •PH.612-448-4094 •FAX 612-448-6997
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
March 22,1999
Page 3
B..CHESTNUT APARTMENTS
Linda Fisher,1500 Norwest Financial Center,representing BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership,proponent,
introduced the owners ofthe project Ken Belgarde and Gene Ernst;and the project architect,James Cooperman.
Ernst reviewed the site plan and informed the Commission that a neighborhood meeting was held with
approximately five individuals in attendance.Ernst explained the new trees that would be planted on the site and
the perimeter.Ernst told the Commission that the exterior ofthe new addition would match the existing brick
and stucco.
Sandstad asked why there would be detached garages when there is already underground parking.Belgarde
indicated the additional units would require additional parking and they were attempting to provide 1:1 parking
ratio with the number ofunits.Belgarde continued with a description ofthe upgrades to the existing units,
passing around some before and after photos ofother projects they've completed.He indicated rents would
increase approximately $200 from the existing rents.Belgarde described the new building having three stories
with underground parking and a different roof pitch on each side ofthe building;and all balconies would be
covered
Dorn expressed concern about the location ofthe new garages being too close to the building and not allowing
enough backing up space.City Planner Franzen and the proponents indicated a willingness to work on a
relocation of some ofthe garages to allow more room.They did indicate that the plan as proposed was
developed in an effort to protect the wetland area on the site.Belgarde stated that the proposed plan has six more
parking stalls than required by the City.
Clinton stated concern with traffic flow since there is only one egress/ingress on the site;asking the City Planner
if a traffic study was done.Franzen stated that a traffic study was not done.Anderson Lakes Parkway/212 and
Mitchell and Anderson Lakes should have signals this summer which will help traffic flow on Anderson Lakes
Parkway.
Franzen recommended approval based on the conditions listed in the staff report.
No residents appeared.
MOTION:Sandstad moved,Clinton seconded to close the public hearing.Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION:Sandstad moved,Habicht seconded to recommend to the City Council approval ofthe request of
BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 9.16 acres,Planned
United Development District Review on 9.16 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the RM-2.5 District on 9.16
acres,and Site Plan Review on 9.16 acres,based on plans dated March 5,1999 and subject to the
recommendations ofthe Staff Report dated March 5,1999 and subject to the realignment ofparking stalls as
requested by the Planning Commission on 3/22/99.Motion carried 7-0.
q
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:4-20-99
SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.VI.B.
SERVICE AREA:ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Donald R.Uram Bearpath 10th Addition
Michael D.Franzen
Requested Action:
Move to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Synopsis:
Close the Public Hearing;and
Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment on 3.3 acres;and
Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review on 3.3 acres and Rezoning from RM-6.5 to Rl-13.5 District on 3.3 acres;
and
Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of3.3 acres into 8 lots;and
Direct Staffto prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by Bearpath Limited
Partnership.
The approved plan is ten twinhome units.The proposed plan is eight single-family homes on villa
lots.There are waivers for setbacks,driveways,and lot width and lot size which are consistent with
thePUD.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the plans at the March 22,1999,
meeting.
The Parks and Recreation Commission did not review the plans.
Attachments:
1.Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment
2.Resolution for Preliminary Plat
3.Staff Report dated March 5,1999
4.Planning Commission Minutes dated March 22,1999
1
BEARPATH 10TH ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT AMENDMENT OF BEARPATH 10TH ADDITION
FOR BEARPATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD)Concept Amendment of certain areas located within the City;and,
WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Bearpath 10th
Addition PUD Concept Amendment by Bearpath Limited Partnership and considered their request
for approval for development and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council;and,
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on April 20,1999;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofEden Prairie,Minnesota,
as follows:
1.Bearpath 10th Addition,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 Amendment approval as outlined in
the plans dated April 13,1999.
3.That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission
dated March 22,1999.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 20th day of April,1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
Bearpath 10th Addition
Exhibit A
Legal Description:Lots 1-5,Block 2,Bearpath Traill Addition
3
BEARPATH 10TH ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF BEARPATH 10TH ADDITION FOR BEARPATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat ofBearpath 10th Addition for Bearpath Limited Partnership dated April 13,
1999,consisting of 3.3 acres into 8 lots,a copy of which is on file at the City Hall,is found to be in
confonnance with the provisions ofthe Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances,and amendments
thereto,and is herein approved.
ADO PTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 20th day of April,1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
LOCATION:
Planning Commission
Michael n.Franzen,City Planner
February 24,1999
Bearpath 10th Addition
Bearpath Limited partnership
Bearpath Limited Partnership
West side of Bearpath Trail South,south of the Hennepin County Regional
Light Rail Authority Right-of-Way.
REQUEST:1.pun Concept Amendment on 3.2 acres to the overall 420 acre
Bearpath PUD.
2.PUD District Review on 3.2 acres
3.Rezoning from RM-6.5 to Rl-13.5 on 3.2 acres.
4.Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 8 single family lots.
1
en)
.
I '-:--....--..
I -""\'-
',$
'.~
'.~'.~~
:\,
.
.~"~~::~:.:,!,~.__J
:---
Ilt~4bb4Y
''/1
:,Itf'f r#M\.ff ,
!~fA11+l0T
I
I
!\---
\
1 .~~$
...-.,.....--..--.-......_-~~
\
\
.\
.---.__...-
til
Staff Report
Bearpath 10th Addition
March 5,1999
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this property as Medium Density Residential,allowing
densities between 2.5 and 10 units per acre.The site is part of a 45-acre area approved for
twinhomes in the original 1992 Bearpath PUD.The site is zoned RM-6.5 for 10 twinhomes on five
lots.Surrounding uses consist of single family residential units and the Bearpath Golf Course.One
townhome unit has been constructed directly to the south ofthe proposal.A similar conversion from
twin homes to single family was approved in November of 1996.This conversion is located across
Bearpath Trail South and consisted of 6 single family units.
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
The proposal is to rezone the property from RM-6.5 to Rl-13.5 and subdivide it into eight single
family lots.Site density is 2.5 units per acre which meets the Medium Density guiding for the
property,and matches the density of the existing approved PUD.Lot sizes range between 12,900
square feet and 28,985 square feet.Minimum lot size requires 13,500 square feet.The overall design
of the project is similar to the previous approval in many respects and the lot size and lot width is
consistent with the previous plan.However,because the property is to be rezoned to a single-family
zoning district,the following waivers will be necessary through the PUD:
1.Lot size -Minimum lot size in the RI-13.5 district requires 13,500 square feet.Lot 5 is
proposed at 12,900 square feet.The lot sizes are similar to the previous approval,but did not
require a waiver in the RM-6.5 district,where the minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet.In
addition,other single family lots within the Bearpath development were granted lot size
waivers to 11,000 square feet.
2.Lot width -Minimum lot width is 85 feet.Lots 4,5,6,7,and 8 vary in width from 72 feet
to 82 feet.The lot widths are similar to the previous plan which met the Code for the RM-6.5
district.
3.Lots without a public road frontage -All roads within the Bearpath development are private,
therefore no lots have a public road frontage.This is consistent with the previous plan.
4.Zero lot line setback for driveways -Lots 1,2,and 3 use a shared driveway system similar
to the previous twinhome plan,where the RM-6.5 district permits the use of a zero setback
for driveways.
7
Staff Report
Bearpath 10th Addition
March 5,1999
The waivers for this project may be reasonable since two fewer units are proposed.The waivers are
needed to accommodate a different lot configuration to serve the single family residential housing
style.The waivers for the lot size,lot width,and access to a private road are similar to other waivers
granted within the Bearpath PUD.Proposed tree loss has been reduced from the previously approved
plan.
A cross access,maintenance and use agreement is required for the drive serving lots I,2,and 3.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Grading will be limited to building pad and driveway locations.
The overall Bearpath PUD was approved with 32.4 percent tree loss.Under the old proposal,the
tree loss on this specific site was 74 percent.Tree loss for the proposed single-family development
is 45 percent.Tree replacement for the property was included in the overall tree replacement plan for
the entire Bearpath PUD.Part ofthat original PUD plan includes boulevard trees and conifers along
Bearpath Trail.
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water are available to the site from an existing water line,and proposed sanitary
sewer line withing the shared drive lane.
ARCHITECTURE
The single-family homes will be lookout and walkout designs constructed of brick and panel siding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval ofthe PUD Concept Amendment on 3.2 acres to the overall 420
acre Bearpath PUD,PUD District Review on 3.2 acres,Rezoning from RM-6.5 to Rl-13.5 on 3.2
acres,and Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 8 single family lots,based on plans dated November 20,
1998,this Staff Report,and the following:
1.Prior to release of the final plat,the proponent shall provide a cross access,maintenance and
use agreement for review for the shared private drive serving lots 1,2,and 3 to be recorded
with the final plat at Hennepin County.
2.Prior to grading permit,or building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A.Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility,and erosion control plans for review and
Staff Report
Bearpath 10th Addition
March 5,1999
approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
B.Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading.
C.Install erosion control on the property,as well as tree protection fencing at the drip
line of all trees to be preserved as part of the development.Said fencing shall be
field inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading.
3.Prior to each building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A.Submit detailed Certificates of Survey for each lot depicting existing and proposed
grades,location of all existing trees and trees to be removed,house and driveway
locations,and the location of tree protection fencing.
B.Pay the Cash Park Fee.
4.The following waivers have been granted through the PUD District Review for the Property
as follows:
A.Lot size ofless than 13,500 square feet for lot 5.
B.All lots do not have a public road frontage.
C.Lot width ofless than 85 feet for lots 4 (82 feet),5 (72 feet),6 (74 feet),7 (75 feet),
and 8 (79 feet).
D.Zero lot line setback for the driveway lane serving lots 1,2,and 3.Code requires a
minimum of 3 feet.
E.Five foot sideyard setback for the garage.Ten foot sideyard setback for the house.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
March 22,1999
Page 4
C.BEARPATH 10TH ADDITION
Franzen stated Bearpath Limited Partnership is proposing to build villas,similar to the
Bearpath 8th Addition that currently has one home under construction.
John Vogelbacher,proponent,reviewed the history ofthe project area.He stated that a
neighborhood meeting was held in the last week.Vogelbacher then reviewed the site plan
for the Commission pointing out that the tree loss was reduced from the original proposal
Franzen recommended approval based on the staff evaluation with the conditions listed in
the staff letter.
No residents appeared.
MOTION:Habicht moved,Alexander seconded to close the public hearing.Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION:Habicht moved,Alexander seconded to recommended to the City Council
approval ofthe request of Bearpath Limited Partnership for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 3.3 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.3 acres,
Zoning District Change District from RM 6.5 to Rl-13.5 on 3.3 acres,and Preliminary Plat
of3.3 acres into 8 lots,based on plans dated March 5,1999 and subject to the
recommendations ofthe Staff Report dated March 5,1999.Motion carried 7-0.
/0
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE:4-20-99
SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.VI.C.
SERVICE AREA:
Community Development
Donald R.Uram
Scott A.Kipp
Requested Action:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Immanuel Lutheran Church
Move to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Synopsis:
Close the Public Hearing;and
Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 6.7 acres;and
Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review on 6.7 acres with waivers and Zoning District Amendment within the Public
Zoning District on 6.7 acres;and
Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by Immanuel
Lutheran Church.
The project consists ofa 14,500 square foot expansion of the church,including the worship area,
additional meeting rooms,and additional parking.There is a height waiver from 30 to 35 feet.The
waiver is for an architectural feature that makes the building look better.Building height waivers
of this type have been granted for other churches.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its March 22,1999,
meeting.
The Parks and Recreation Commission did not review this project.
Attachments:
1.Resolution for PUD Concept Review
2.Staff Report dated March 5,1999
3.Planning Commission Minutes dated March 22,1999
1
~ANUELLUTHERANCHURCH
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT REVIEW OF IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
FOR IMMANUAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD)Concept Review of certain areas located within the City;and,
WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Immanuel
Lutheran Church PUD Concept Review by Immanuel Lutheran Church and considered their request
for approval for development and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council;and,
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on April 20,1999;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofEden Prairie,Minnesota,
as follows:
1.Immanuel Lutheran Church,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 Review approval as outlined in the
plans dated April 13,1999.
3.That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission
dated March 22,1999.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 20th day of April,1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
Immanuel Lutheran Church
Exhibit A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
That part of the South...".est Quarter of the Souf.heast Quarter of Section D,
Township 116,Range 22,lying north of the easterl_v extension of the sou th
line of Block 2,KIRK MEADOWS,and lying east of the 1Vest line of the west
line of the west 663.55 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter.Also t.he east 70.03 feet of that part of of said west 663.55 feet
part of the north 4 rods of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
lying east of County Road No.4.Except Road.
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER:
LOCATION:
Planning Commission
Michael D.Franzen,City Planner
March 5,1999
Immanuel Lutheran Church Addition and Remodeling
Immanuel Lutheran Church
Luther Way and Eden Prairie Road
REQUEST:1.PUD Concept Review on 6.7 acres.
2.PUD District Review on 6.7 acres.
3.Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 6.7
acres.
4.Site Plan Review on 6.7 acres.
;1 ...tr ,.;;?~,.;;~
..r·............•....'"
2572.14 RfS··...••
•!!(33;
2706.19 RES
'"
(3)
CITt f$
EDEN PRAIRIE
...)
(I)
~(CONSTITUTION AVEJ----.
~I~1,;J !~I""
(I'll ~~,•7
(~)(rOJ '.91 IIr'*1 ",.t'O .,
-LUTHER
I';
......~~....\.., I ...~.~~.''.~.
'"l.:)I
~..(ii ...
I
-
Immanuel Lutheran Church Addition
Staff Report
March 5,1999
BACKGROUND
This site is currently guided for Church and zoned Public.Surrounding land uses consist of the
Prairie Village Mall to the south and southeast,and single family residential to the west,north and
northeast.Directly west of the Church is the Church Parsonage.The existing church is 20,200
square feet.
SITE PLAN
The request is to construct a 14,490 square foot addition to the existing church including a new
worship area,provisions for music rehearsal and equipment storage,and staff office expansion.
Existing building space will be made available for increased church classroom,weekday and
community event usage.Total building area will be 34,690 square feet with a floor area ratio of 12
percent.City code does not limit floor area ratio in the Public zoning district.It should be noted
that a FAR of 12 percent is low for any zoning district.
There are 121 new parking spaces provided on the west side of the site for a total of204 spaces.A
total of 184 spaces are required by code for the 550 seat worship area.
All building and parking setbacks meet City Code.
GRADINGIDRAINAGE
Some grading will be necessary for the expansion,new parking lot,and storm detention pond.The
storm detention pond will be located on the southeast corner of the site and has been designed to
accommodate run-off from the parking lot.
A berm should be constructed along the west and south sides of the new parking area as shown in
the attachment to maintain storm water on the site during intense storm events,rather than allowing
storm water to flow off-site.
No significant trees will be imp~cted by the development.
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water is available to this site with connection to existing lines along Luther Way.
ACCESS
A new access to Luther Way is proposed for the westerly parking area.This will help traffic leaving
the site.
Immanuel Lutheran Church Addition
Staff Report
March 5,1999
ARCHITECTURE
The addition will be a one-level design,including a high ceiling in the worship space, and will be
constructed with at least 75 percent face brick and glass,meeting City Code.The new addition will
be constructed using the same type and color of bricks to match the existing building facade.
Building height is permitted up to 30 feet in the Public zoning district,and is based on the mid-point
of the highest pitched roof The expansion includes a rooftop skylight,which is technically the
highest pitched roof,and increases the building height to 35 feet requiring a waiver through the
PUD.Ifthe roof pitch of the skylight were to intersect with the asphalt roof,with no other changes,
the building height would meet code.However a significant architectural feature would be lost.
Churches in the City have been allowed to exceed the district height limitation in regard to steeples
or spires.The code allows steeples to be 25 feet higher than the given district height limitation.
Although the skylight is not a steeple or spire,it can be considered the high point of the church,
giving an architectural statement to the Church as would a traditional steeple.Due to the fact that
the skylight adds an interesting architectural feature to the building,the waiver has merit.
Any rooftop mechanical equipment will be required to be physically screened in accordance with
the City Code.
New lighting is proposed for the parking areas.Since the site abuts residential properties,all
lighting should consist of a maximum of 20 foot downcast cutoff shoebox fixtures.
LANDSCAPING
With the new addition of 15,165 square feet,a total of 48 additional caliper inches of landscaping
is required. The plan meets this requirement.The proposal indicates a number of relocated trees
along the perimeter of the site and new trees to meet the landscaping requirement.
The partial berm proposed for the new parking area along Luther Way will not achieve the
necessary screening and should be eliminated and replaced with additional evergreen trees.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the PUD Concept Review,PUD District Review,Zoning
District Amendment in the Public Zoning District,and Site Plan Review,based on plans dated
February 19,1999,this report,and the following:
1.Prior to City Council review,the proponent shall:
A.Revise the grading plan to show a berm on the west and south sides of the new
parking area as shown in the attachment.
7
Immanuel Lutheran Church Addition
Staff Report
March 5,1999
B.Replace the berm along Luther Way with additional evergreen trees.
2.Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A.Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility,and erosion control plans for review
and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
B.Install erosion control on the property.
C.Notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading.
3.Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A.Provide(~H~dscape surety equivalent to 150 percent of the cost of the
landscaping Improvements and mechanical equipment screening.
B.Submit detailed building plans to the Inspections Department and Fire Marshal
for their review and approval.
C.Submit exterior building material samples for review.
4.The following waiver has been granted through the PUD District Review for the property
as follows:
A.A height waiver to 35 feet.City Code allows a maximum of30 feet in the Public
zoning district.
I"
I,".
!
I'
I "
,..,relo~s.:~r ~lt s (J)l
fi)rslocale \
I r'1>\SS(.!)\
\
. I
("\.reloC4lS II
-2'¢ltse (b)I
I \ \ /r
,
\,
\~'''''''P''o '---~
\,
\0 2 ·"""P1.'.\
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
March 22,1999
PageS
D.IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
Franzen asked the proponents to make a brief presentation.
Gary Johnson,architect from SNSQ,introduced John Urbanski,Chair ofthe church's Building Committee and
Pastor Paul Nelson of Immanuel Lutheran Church.
Johnson reviewed the proposal and site plan stating there is 20,000 existing square feet and this project would
add a substantial 14,450 square feet for the church.He stated the additional parking proposed exceeds the City
requirements.Johnson reviewed the additional trees to be planted and the elevation plan.The new addition
would match the existing stucco and reddish brick and the building would have a hip roof.
Franzen recommended approval ofthe proposal based on staff evaluation with the conditions listed in the staff
letter.
Wayne Thompson,7685 Meadow Lane,the neighbor just to the west ofthe church expressed three concerns
about the project:noise,lighting,and water drainage.He explained to the commission that the new elevations of
the project would allow water drainage onto his property.He asked about the berm which was replaced by a
swale and questioned the effectiveness.Thompson asked for assurance that he will not get water flowing into his
basement that is a walkout and that the light will be blocked from his property.
Johnson reviewed the location ofthe trees,new and old,that would deflect the light from Thompson's property.
He also stated there would be a one-foot allowance for water build-up before it would flood over the curb.
Franzen told the Commission that the elevation plans are always submitted to Engineering for their review before
the plans are presented to the Commission.Engineering did approve these plans.
No other public appeared.
Clinton continued discussion about the trees,including size and location.Johnson reviewed the location and
size.Johnson stated that there are also some existing trees on the Thompson property that will help deflect the
light.
Sandstad asked the height ofthe light poles.Johnson indicated the poles would be 20 feet high.
MOTION:Clinton moved,Habicht seconded to close the public hearing.Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION:Clinton moved,Dom seconded to recommend to the CityCouncil approval ofthe request of
Immanuel Lutheran Church for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.7 acres,Planned Unit
Development District Review on 6.7 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Public District on 6.7 acres,and
Site Plan Review on 6.7 acres,based on plans dated February 19,1999 and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated March 5,1999.Motion carried 7-0.
/0
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
DATE:4-20-99
ITEM NO.VI.D.
SERVICE AREA:
Community Development
Donald R.Uram
Michael D.Franzen
Requested Action:
Move to:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
International School Phase 3,Classrooms
1.Close the Public Hearing;and
2.Approve 1st Reading ofthe Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the Public
Zoning District on 56 acres;and
3.Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement to be executed by International
School of Minnesota;and
4.Direct Staff to issue a land alteration permit and footing and foundation permit with
the proponents'agreement to proceed at their own risk.
Synopsis:
The approved 1987 master plan showed three classroom buildings in this location on the site.The
school wants to build two of the classroom buildings at this time.The plans meet City Code
requirements.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at
the March 22,1999,Planning Commission meeting.
The Parks and Recreation Commission did not review this project.
Attachments:
1.Staff Report dated March 5,1999
2.Planning Commission Minutes dated March 22,1999
1
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
LOCATION:
Planning Commission
Michael D.Franzen,City Planner
March 5,1999
International School,Phase Three
Harris Architects
International School
Beech Road
REQUEST:1.Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 56
acres.
2.Site Plan Review on 56 acres.
GOY-
----
l7Ol.~lIES
.-.
,--'~I-,
~,
I
I
I,
I,
\,,,,
\
I
§f
~/
",.
f/.
I
--';--
~~J
-,
.....•1'0.l·.".f
/'05.I3.n _.
_ ..J:-'iG~~)QMOZl'r -_.~.--+-- -
'\,
,;
:v
~GO\'T LOT 4
@
(II
(1)
i
(,US);"""'1It'c
,=!.''
-......:::::::::::::
.-..--,.-,._.-.STORlI SElf)lScm..0 OISTilICT OOl.NJARY Ji'.IT
'I"TE.'lSH::ISTilICTEl:l\NlAAY !ll.I.I.TICtlIHQlfl.E."4~~~!~ICT OOUHJAAY ST"TEI-=~:"""::":RY~;S.~--=-----~--
Staff Report
International School
March 5,1999
BACKGROUND
This site is guided Elementary School!Secondary Elementary/Vocational School.The site is
zoned public.
SITE PLAN
The 1987 approved plan showed three classroom buildings in this location.Two buildings,
totaling 19,07lsf.,are proposed to be built at this time.
The building and parking meet setback requirements.
The plan provides the required parking.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
There are no significant trees in the area of phase three construction.
A NURP pond is shown on the plan.
ARCHITECTURE
The buildings meet the 75%face brick and glass requirement and are consistent with the
architecture of other buildings on the site.
LANDSCAPING
The amount of landscaping required is 60 inches.The landscape plan meets this requirement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning
District on 56 acres,and Site Plan Review on 56 acres,based on plans dated March 5,1999
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 5,1999,and the following:
1.Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A.Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility,and erosion control plans for review
and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
Staff Report
International School
March 5,1999
3.Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A.Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal.
B.Submit a landscaping bond in accordance with City Code.
C.Provide building material samples and colors for review by the City Planner.
D.Submit a detailed lighting plan for the property consisting of downcast cutoff
fixtures.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
March 22,1999
Page 6
F.INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL PHASE 3,CLASSROOMS
Franzen recommended approval based on the staff evaluation with the conditions stated in
the staff letter.
The Planning Commission asked the proponents for a brief review ofthe project.
Jason Harris,Harris Architects reviewed the site plan,drainage plan,access and parking
plan and indicated the addition would match the existing exterior.
No residents appeared.
MOTION:Lewis moved,Dom seconded to close the public hearing.Motion carried 7-
o.
MOTION:Lewis moved,Clinton seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of
the request ofInternal School for Zoning District Amendment in the Public District on 56
acres,and Site Plan Review on 56 acres,based on plans dated March 5,1999 and subject to
the recommendations ofthe Staff Report dated March 5,1999.Motion carried 7-0.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
eden
~ralrte SECTION:PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
DATE:
April 20,1999
SERVICE AREA:ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
and Financial Services Payment of Claims
Don Dram
Requested Action:
Move approval of the Payment of Claims as submitted (Roll Call Vote).
Checks 73889 to 74266
Wire Transfers 227 to 234
ITEM NO.
VII.
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY
DIVISION
N/A
LEGISLATIVE
GENERAL SERVICES
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
CITY MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMUNITY SERV
HUMAN SERV
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING
FACILITIES
CIVIL DEFENSE
POLICE
FIRE
ANIMAL CONTROL
STREETS/TRAFFIC
PARK MAINTENANCE
STREET LIGHTING
FLEET SERVICES
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
COMMUNITY DEV
COMMUNITY CENTER
YOUTH RECREATION
SPECIAL EVENTS
ADULT RECREATION
RECREATION ADMIN
ADAPTIVE REC
OAK POINT POOL
ARTS
PARK FACILITIES
PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ
EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
CITY CENTER
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE
PRAIRIEVIEW
CUB FOODS
WATER DEPT
SEWER DEPT
STORM DRAINAGE,
EQUIPMENT
ADA
TOTAL
$3.95
$75.00
$33,803.44
$5,679.38
$8,053.21
$447.01
$744.36
$52.86
$562.50
$68,628.26
$23.25
$11,495.28
$31.40
$34,754.51
$1,394.22
$71.95
$36,074.41
$5,186.34
$332.38
$10,071.53
$3,837.59
$55.00
$8,560.46
$1,895.63
$57.24
$3,462.87
$343.87
$92.88
$510.55
$268.58
$46.75
$493,914.86
$12,716.19
$4,553.68
$28.47
$46,649.28
$45,760.78
$69,300.73
$56,058.57
$196,236.98
$1,410.16
$20,755.00
$256.00
$1,154,257.36
12-APR-1999 (10:03)
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
12-APR-1999 (10
PROGRAM
73889
73890
73891
73892
73893
73894
73895
73896
73897
73898
73899
73900
73901
73902
73903
73904
73905
73906
73907
73908
73909
73910
73911
73913
73914
73915
73916
73917
73918
73919
73920
73921
73922
73923
73924
73926
73927
73928
73929
73930
73932
73933
73934
73935
73936
73938
73939
73940
73941
73942
73943
73944
73945
73946
73947
$82.90
$1,612.50
$8,342.90
$7,665.13
$82.80
$843.96
$206.90
$2,494.30
$125.00
$21.10
$53.62
$40.43
$34.24
$6,505.31
$5.27
$51.71
$4,709.95
$704.56
$11,507.77
$1,180.73
$5,508.96
$96.55
$5,217.60
$2,647.44
$5,362.45
$590.42
$240.00
$5,609.96
$28.47
$152.38
$9,555.92
$185,225.94
$80.00
$1,340.00
$141.00
$161.97
$49.98
$3,038.99
$73.87
$912.75
$1,078.75
$883.31
$3,433.20
$1,447.32
$2,496.18
$1,656.83
$270.85
$180.00
$696.23
$78.72
$758.67
$1,478.40
$3,437.85
$156.00
$192.00
AMERIPRIDE LINEN &APPAREL SER
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
NORTH STAR ICE
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
QUALITY WINE &SPIRTS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
ESBENSEN,GEORGE
KRESS,CARLA
MILES,BRADLEY
MROZLA,JAMES
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
UTING,BRENDA
AMERIPRIDE LINEN &APPAREL SER
DAY DISTRIBUTING
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
GRIGGS COOPER &CO
LAKE REGION VENDING
MARK VII
PEPSI COLA COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
QUALITY WINE &SPIRTS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
WINE COMPANY,THE
AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING
DURAND AND ASSOCIATES
FAULISE,HELEN
HELLING,LAURIE
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSU
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME
MUELLER,CYNTHIA
NILSSON,BETH
PETTY CASH
RICHFIELD,CITY OF
SCHMIDT,MIKE
US POSTMASTER -HOPKINS
AMERIPRIDE LINEN &APPAREL SER
BELLBOY CORPORATION
DAY DISTRIBUTING
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY
GRIGGS COOPER &CO
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
MARK VII
MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM
PAUSTIS &SONS COMPANY
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
QUALITY WINE &SPIRTS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
BILL'S AUTO BODY INC
CIRCUS PIZZA
CIRCUS PIZZA
3
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
BEER 6/12
BEER 6/12
WINE DOMESTIC
MISC TAXABLE
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
BEER 6/12
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
MILEAGE AND PARKING
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
ELECTRIC
MILEAGE AND PARKING
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
BEER 6/12
WINE IMPORTED
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
BEER 6/12
MISC TAXABLE
WINE DOMESTIC
WINE IMPORTED
BEER 6/12
WINE IMPORTED
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
MILEAGE AND PARKING
INSURANCE
WASTE DISPOSAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
HOSES &NOZZLES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
AUTOS
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
POSTAGE
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
WINE DOMESTIC
BEER 6/12
WINE IMPORTED
BEER 6/12
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
BEER 6/12
MISC TAXABLE
BEER 6/12
WINE DOMESTIC
WINE DOMESTIC
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
BEER 6/12
INSURANCE
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
FIRE
ADAPTIVE RECREATION
POLICE
FIRE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
REC SUPERVISOR
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
SENIOR AWARENESS N16
RECREATION ADMIN
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL
OAK POINT OPERATIONS
ICE ARENA
CONSTRUCTION SAMPLE
pis REVOLVING FD
STREET MAINTENANCE
COMMUNITY BROCHURE
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
GENERAL
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
12-APR-1999 (10
PROGRAM,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73948
73949
73951
73952
73953
73954
73955
73956
73957
73958
73959
73960
73961
73962
73963
73965
73966
73967
73968
73969
73970
73971
73974
73975
73976
73977
73978
73979
73980
73981
73982
73983
73984
73985
73986
73987
73988
73989
73990
73991
73992
73993
73994
73995
73996
73997
73998
73999
74000
74001
74002
74003
74004
74005
74006
$135.66
$20,746.00
$26.49
$26.04
$9,650.97
$88.17
$250.00
$800.00
$187.20
$212.99
$36.20
$25.40
$61.00
$38.39
$150.00
$4,935.80
$102.00
$150.00
$405.00
$13,905.19
$336.00
$14,561.62
$11.13
$25.00
$113.18
$80.00
$3,478.43
$128.50
$33.30
$2,885.68
$3,250.30
$982.23
$19.50
$1,195.10
$562.50
$121.40
$255.07
$330.00
$6,760.80
$211.25
$672.00
$6,372.01
$47.25
$1,891.55
$70.75
$5,322.08
$60.00
$718.44
$23.90
$98.00
$200.00
$40.00
$123.60
$75.23
$410.00
DISCOVERY ZONE
GMAC AND FALLS AUTOMOTIVE
KROC,REBECCA
LANENBERG,CYNTHIA
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS
MANN,TRIA
MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE CERTIFI
MINNESOTA WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
MINNESOTA ZOO
MORROW,JAMES
NELSON,SALLY
POKORNY COMPANY
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA
SIR KNIGHT CLEANERS
SUBWAY
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
WORKS,THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEA
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS
MICHAEL LYNNS TENNIS SHOP
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
PARAGON CABLE
USTA
WESTBURNE SUPPLY INC -PLYMOUT
PIZZA HUT
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM
NORTH STAR ICE
PAUSTIS &SONS COMPANY
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC
CENTRAIRE INC
JACQUES,MICHAEL
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS
MEALS ON WHEELS
MEYER,GARY
SURVIVAL INK CORP
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY
GETTMAN COMPANY
GRAPE BEGINNINGS
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
NORTH STAR ICE
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
QUALITY WINE &SPIRTS CO
BCA/TRAINING &DEVELOPMENT
CENTRAIRE INC
DUPONT,BRENT
FINA COSTUMES INC
JORGENSON,JOY
MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
MUELLER,CYNTHIA
SINELL,STEVE
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING-
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
AUTOS
MILEAGE AND PARKING
MILEAGE AND PARKING
INSURANCE
MILEAGE AND PARKING
DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
CANINE SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
TELEPHONE
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
CONFERENCE
LICENSES &TAXES
INSURANCE
REC EQUIP &SUPPLIES
ELECTRIC
CABLE TV
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
MISC TAXABLE
MISC TAXABLE
BEER 6/12
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
MILEAGE AND PARKING
INSURANCE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TRAINING SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
BEER 6/12
BEER 6/12
MISC TAXABLE
WINE DOMESTIC
WINE DOMESTIC
MISC TAXABLE
WINE DOMESTIC
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
SCHOOLS
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
LICENSES &TAXES
MILEAGE AND PARKING
WORKMANS COMP INS
ADVERTISING
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
P/R REVOLVING FD
ADAPTIVE RECREATION
FIRE
GENERAL
SPECIAL EVENTS ADMINISTRATIVE
FIRE
POLICE
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
POLICE
POLICE
FIRE STATION #5
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
SPECIAL INITIATIVES
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
GENERAL
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
IN SERVICE TRAINING
POOL MAINTENANCE
GENERAL
YOUTH TENNIS
STORMWATER LIFTSTATION
GENERAL
YOUTH TENNIS
EPCC MAINTENANCE
SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
GENERAL
HOUSING,TRANS,&SOC SVC
FIRE
POLICE
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
POLICE
WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
POLICE
ICE SHOW
ICE SHOW
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
OAK POINT OPERATIONS
IN SERVICE TRAINING
COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
12-APR-1999 (10
PROGRAM
74007
74008
74010
74011
74012
74014
74015
74016
74017
74018
74019
74020
74021
74022
74023
74024
74025
74026
74027
74028
74029
74030
74031
74032
74033
74034
74035
74036
74037
74038
74039
74040
74041
74042
74043
74044
74045
74046
74047
74048
74049
74050
74051
74052
74053
74054
74055
74056
74057
74058
74059
74060
74061
74062
74063
$12.00
$1,674.17
$1,347.80
$3,852.68
$9,070.97
$1,284.48
$2,901.30
$50.85
$1,682.22
$196.50
$4,208.60
$220.46
$255.00
$490.00
$1,196.00
$75.00
$8.00
$50.00
$4,633.01
$243.10
$72.09
$1,547.30
$2,029.20
$637.90
$1,783.07
$937.75
$1,126.20
$118.35
$878.30
$1,760.07
$888.28
$1,448.55
$509.82
$1,191.32
$227.60
$25.50
$32.00
$36.00
$210.00
$5.00
$5.00
$39.00
$154.00
$15.00
$25.50
$75.00
$105.44
$3.64
$5.00
$51.00
$29.00
$12.00
$5.00
$51.00
$195.00
TREIBER,TOM
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
DAY DISTRIBUTING
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
GRIGGS COOPER &CO
LAKE REGION VENDING
MARK VII
PEPSI COLA COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
QUALITY WINE &SPIRTS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE
BOMA MINNEAPOLIS
CO-SOURCE
FACILITY SYSTEMS INC
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEA
GREIG,JANET
PRESERVATION ALLIANCE OF MN
PRUDENTIAL HEALTH CARE GROUP
SCHMITZ,TOM
AMERIPRIDE LINEN &APPAREL SER
BELLBOY CORPORATION
DAY DISTRIBUTING
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY
GRIGGS COOPER &CO
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
MARK VII
MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM
PAUSTIS &SONS COMPANY
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC
QUALITY WINE &SPIRTS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS INC
ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY
BLAKE,PAM
BROWN,ROBIN
CHRISTIANSEN,ERIC
CLARK,SUSAN
DAHLQUIST,MARJORIE
DIXON,TERRY
EMERSON,KARIN
FICK,DOUGLAS &JENNIFER
FULLER,LESLIE
GALE,NANCY
GARTNER,ROBERT
GREATER MINNEAPOLIS AREA CHAPT
HUNNINGHAKE,LISA
JOHNSON,ALICE
KIST,ELISE
KLAPPERICH,SUZY
LARSON,MARY
LARSON,OLIVE
LUNDQUIST,SUSAN
MILE
5
OTHER REVENUE
TELEPHONE
BEER 6/12
WINE DOMESTIC
WINE IMPORTED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
BEER 6/12
MISC TAXABLE
WINE DOMESTIC
WINE IMPORTED
BEER 6/12
FURNITURE &FIXTURES
CONFERENCE
EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
FURNITURE &FIXTURES
CONFERENCE
INSTRUCTOR SERVICE
DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS
LIFE EMPLOYERS SHARE
SCHOOLS
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
BEER 6/12
BEER 6/12
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
WINE DOMESTIC
BEER 6/12
MISC TAXABLE
WINE IMPORTED
WINE DOMESTIC
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
BEER 6/12
WINE IMPORTED
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
LESSONS/CLASSES
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
LESSONS/CLASSES
FAMILY RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
LESSONS/CLASSES
FAMILY RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP
REC EQUIP &SUPPLIES
LESSONS/CLASSES
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
LESSONS/CLASSES
LESSONS/CLASSES
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
LESSONS/CLASSES
CONFERENCE
FD 10 ORG
GENERAL
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
IN SERVICE TRAINING
BENEFITS
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
COUNCIL
SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
IN SERVICE TRAINING
BENEFITS
FIRE
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
EPCC MAINTENANCE
RECREATION ADMIN
OAK POINT LESSONS
SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
POOL LESSONS
COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
ADULT PROGRAM
SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
SKI TRIPS/WINTER CAMP
OAK POINT LESSONS
COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
POOL LESSONS
POOL LESSONS
ADULT PROGRAM
OAK POINT LESSONS
OAK POINT LESSONS
SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
ADULT PROGRAM
OAK POINT LESSONS
IN SERVICE TRAINING
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 12-APR-1999 (10
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
FD 10 ORG
STORMWATER LIFTSTATION
SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
ADULT PROGRAM
COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
AQUATICS &FITNESS SUPERV
SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
POOL LESSONS
ADULT PROGRAM
SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
BENEFITS
WATER ACCOUNTING
FD 10 ORG
OAK POINT LESSONS
WINTER SKILL DEVELOP
PRESCHOOL EVENTS
POOL LESSONS
ADULT PROGRAM
HUMAN RESOURCES
POOL LESSONS
OAK POINT LESSONS
IN SERVICE TRAINING
ICE ARENA
FITNESS CLASSES
SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
OAK POINT LESSONS
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
STREET MAINTENANCE
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
EPCC MAINTENANCE
WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FD 10 ORG
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
ICE ARENA
VOLLEYBALL
PARK MAINTENANCE
POLICE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
POLICE
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
VOLLEYBALL
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
INFORMATION SYSTEM
EATON BLDG
POLICE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EATON BLDG
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
GARNISHMENT WITHHELD
ELECTRIC
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
ADULT NON-RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
ELECTRIC
LESSONS/CLASSES
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
LIFE EMPLOYERS SHARE
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
DISABILITY IN EMPLOYERS
LESSONS/CLASSES
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG
LESSONS/CLASSES
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
ADVERTISING
LESSONS/CLASSES
LESSONS/CLASSES
CONFERENCE
LESSONS/CLASSES
LESSONS/CLASSES
SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES
LESSONS/CLASSES
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
SEAL COATING CONTRACTED
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
TRAINING SUPPLIES
REFUNDS
COMMUNICATIONS
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
CASH OVER/SHORT
TIRES
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
WASTE DISPOSAL
TRAINING SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
COMPUTERS
BUILDING
BUILDING
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
BUILDING
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
COMPUTERS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
BLDG REPAIR &MAINT
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
BUILDING
(;
MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR
MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP
MONTGOMERY,JENNIFER
MORE,EARL
MOSHER,DAWN
MRPA
MUDGETT,HELEN
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
PALKERT,BARB
PANNEK,ADELINE
PANVRE,LYNN
PRUDENTIAL HEALTH CARE GROUP
REBS MARKETING
CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
RENIER,JOAN
SALERNO,DEB
SEXTON,TERESA
SHAH,BK
SIMENSON,GLADYS
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING-
STANLEY,KRISTIN
TAPPER,TERRY
TWIN CITIES ARMA
WATERS,BRENDA
WEAVER,ANGELA
WILLIAMS,SUE
ZUCKER,CAROLYN
AIM ELECTRONICS
ALLIED BLACKTOP CO
ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE
AMERICAN STEEL
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI
APLIN,JANICE
ARCH PAGING
AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS
AZTEC CONSTRUCTION
BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC
BESSER,PATRICIA
BIFFS INC
BILL'S GUN SHOP
BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE*
BLOOMINGTON,CITY OF
BOARMAN KROOS PFISTER VOGEL &
BROTHERS FIRE PROTECTION
BUCK,NATHAN
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS
CARCIOFINI CAULKING CO
CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
CENTRAIRE INC
CERULEAN TECHNOLOGY
CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER
COLOR CENTER,THE
COM TECH INC
COMMERCIAL ROOFING INC
$1,286.42
$506.91
$11.00
$5.00
$132.48
$10.00
$3.00
$1,403.84
$29.00
$5.00
$42.00
$4,591.64
$264.73
$2,472.44
$29.00
$32.00
$60.00
$12.00
$5.00
$945.52
$51.00
$58.00
$140.00
$17.00
$34.00
$8.00
$29.00
$712.97
$21,036.12
$584.13
$115.94
$192.75
$100.00
$3,484.20
$20.00
$28.73
$36.29
$439.26
$599.00
$679.56
$365.00
$217.69
$1,443.75
$2,350.94
$11,104.31
$703.00
$452.98
$1,425.00
$495.00
$5,296.68
$27,014.00
$166.11
$145.51
$217.95
$56,791.76
74064
74065
74066
74067
74068
74069
74070
74071
74072
74073
74074
74075
74076
74077
74078
74079
74080
74081
74082
74083
74084
74085
74086
74087
74088
74089
74090
74091
74092
74093
74094
74095
74096
74097
74098
74099
74100
74101
74102
74103
74104
74105
74106
74107
74108
74109
74110
74111
74112
74113
74114
74115
74117
74118
74119
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
12-APR-1999 {10
PROGRAM
74120
74121
74122
74123
74124
74125
74126
74127
74128
74129
74130
74131
74132
74133
74134
74135
74137
74138
74139
74140
74141
74142
74143
74144
74145
74146
74147
74148
74149
74150
74151
74156
74157
74158
74159
74160
74161
74162
74163
74164
74165
74166
74167
74168
74169
74170
74171
74172
74173
74174
74175
74176
74177
74178
74179
$3,333.45
$198.14
$93.72
$845.87
$602.42
$70,775.00
$22.24
$89.79
$4,913.86
$377.37
$57.51
$447.01
$43.26
$65.95
$2,667.00
$459.78
$3,713.14
$3,820.00
$160.00
$13.97
$287.84
$56,620.00
$702.90
$624.00
$662.30
$137.03
$398.99
$21.67
$146.02
$568.52
$3,344.46
$36,442.00
$6,457.18
$4,169.05
$435.46
$280.00
$55.00
$412.50
$832.50
$287.51
$240.50
$1,512.81
$814.84
$8,857.82
$75.00
$276.32
$1,680.30
$90.00
$503.73
$29,966.71
$211.00
$10.00
$102.12
$79.41
$31.45
CONCRETE CUTTING &CORING INC
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC
CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CROSSTOWN MASONRY
CROWN MARKING INC
CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE
CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY
CY'S UNIFORMS
DALE GREEN COMPANY,THE
DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC
DELEGARD TOOL CO
DEPENDABLE INDOOR AIR
DPC INDUSTRIES INC
DRISKILLS NEW MARKET
EARL F ANDERSEN INC
EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N
EKLUNDS TREE AND BRUSH DISPOSA
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC
EMI
EMPIREHOUSE INC
ESS BROTHERS &SONS INC*
FACILITY SYSTEMS INC
FADDEN PUMP CO
FERRELLGAS
FIBRCOM
FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL
G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE
G &K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY
GEPHART ELECTRIC
GLEWWE DOORS INC
H M CRAGG CO
HARMON AUTOGLASS
HENDERSON,JOSH
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -AC
HIGLEY,STEVE
HOFFERS OF MINNEAPOLIS
HOLMES,TOM
ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS
INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC
INFRATECH
INT'L CONFERENCE OF POLICE CHA
J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY
JANEX INC
KOTTKE,MARY
KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC
KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO
LAKE COUNTRY DOOR
LAKE REGION MUTUAL AID ASSOCIA
LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES
LAMETTRYS COLLISION
LAND'S END CORPORATE SALES
7
OTHER EQUIPMENT
CLEANING SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR
OFFICE SUPPLIES
BUILDING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISCELLANEOUS
CHEMICALS
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
LANDSCAPE MTLS &AG SUPPL
RENTALS
SMALL TOOLS
MECHANICAL PERMIT
CHEMICALS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONFERENCE
WASTE DISPOSAL
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
BUILDING
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
EQUIPMENT PARTS
MOTOR FUELS
COMMUNICATIONS
CANINE SUPPLIES
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
BUILDING
BUILDING
OTHER EQUIPMENT
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
BLDG REPAIR &MAINT
BLDG REPAIR &MAINT
OTHER EQUIPMENT
LICENSES &TAXES
REPAIR &MAl NT SUPPLIES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
BLDG REPAIR &MAINT
BUILDING
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
INSURANCE
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
STREET MAINTENANCE
WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
STREET MAINTENANCE
SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
POLICE
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL
POLICE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
POLICE
STREET MAINTENANCE
CITY MANAGER
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FD 10 ORG
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
FIRE
STREET MAINTENANCE
IN SERVICE TRAINING
TREE REMOVAL
SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
ICE ARENA
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
STORM DRAINAGE
GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
ICE ARENA
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
POLICE
STREET MAINTENANCE
STREET MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
BASKETBALL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
POLICE
SOFTBALL
EPCC MAINTENANCE
VOLLEYBALL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
POLICE
EATON BLDG
EATON BLDG
BASKETBALL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
FIRE STATION #2
FIRE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
GENERAL
POLICE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
12-APR-1999 {10
PROGRAM
74180
74181
74182
74183
74184
74185
74186
74187
74188
74189
74190
74191
74195
74197
74198
74199
74200
74201
74202
74203
74204
74205
74206
74207
74208
74209
74210
74211
74212
74213
74214
74215
74216
74217
74218
74219
74220
74221
74222
74223
74224
74225
74226
74227
74228
74229
74230
74231
74232
74233
74234
74235
74236
74237
74238
$100.00
$24.00
$740.00
$159.75
$63.98
$945.00
$36.00
$1,429.70
$771.06
$287.54
$184.00
$1,745.71
$193.01
$52.72
$256.47
$147.60
$900.99
$6,128.51
$1,468.45
$25.00
$23.30
$144.00
$2,051.02
$111.56
$4,133.45
$120.78
$4,181.73
$196.39
$115.71
$53,269.35
$82.88
$419.28
$204.35
$10.00
$400.00
$2,924.33
$10.04
$76.88
$26,391.00
$794.27
$21.40
$118.77
$25.56
$102.25
$30.22
$11,750.86
$54.50
$100.00
$175.00
$184.38
$60.05
$30.20
$288.61
$21.25
$365.20
LEIH,LAURIN
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
LYNCH,JOHN
MIA ASSOCIATES
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
MAPLE GROVE,CITY OF
MARKS CERTICARE AMOCO
MASYS CORPORATION
MAXI-PRINT INC
MCGLYNN BAKERIES
MEDTOX
MENARDS
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
METRO SALES INCORPORATED*
METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL
MG INDUSTRIES
MICROAGE
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION
MINNESOTA CHAPTER IAAI
MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS
MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL
MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE
MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
MULCAHY INC
MUNICILITE
NADEAU UTILITY
NORTHERN
NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS
NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTO
OHLIN SALES
OLSEN CHAIN &CABLE CO INC
P &H WAREHOUSE SALES INC
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS
PORT-A-WELDING INC
PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY
PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
PREMIER CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS I
QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
RADIO SHACK
RESPOND SYSTEMS
RIGHT WAY ROOFING
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED
RMR SERVICES INC
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC
ROCK,JOYCE
RODGERS &HAMMERSTEIN THEATRE
SANCO CLEANING SUPPLIES
SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO
SNAP-ON TOOLS
SNELL MECHANICAL INC
SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS*
SOUTH ST PAUL STEEL SUPPLY
REFUNDS
LUBRICANTS &ADDITIVES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT PARTS
RENTALS
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
CONTRACTED COMM MAINT
PRINTING
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
CHEMICALS
COMPUTERS
GRAVEL
SCHOOLS
PRINTING
SAFETY SUPPLIES
MISCELLANEOUS
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
BUILDING
EQUIPMENT PARTS
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
SMALL TOOLS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
BUILDING
EQUIPMENT PARTS
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
BUILDING
WASTE DISPOSAL
POSTAGE
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
TRAINING SUPPLIES
BUILDING PERMIT
EQUIPMENT PARTS
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
REFUNDS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CLEANING SUPPLIES
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
SMALL TOOLS
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
tt?UILDING MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
BASKETBALL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
POLICE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
INFORMATION SYSTEM
POLICE
CONCESSIONS
HUMAN RESOURCES
WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
EPCC MAINTENANCE
•PARK MAINTENANCE
POLICE
EATON BLDG
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
INFORMATION SYSTEM
STREET MAINTENANCE
POLICE
POLICE
HUMAN RESOURCES
GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
PARK MAINTENANCE
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
TRAILS
GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
GENERAL
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SEWER LIFTSTATION
PARK MAINTENANCE
HUMAN RESOURCES
WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
FIRE STATION #1
GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
FIRE STATION #2
GENERAL
POLICE
HUMAN RESOURCES
FD 10 ORG
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
WATER METER REPAIR
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
SUMMER THEATRE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
PARK MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
ICE ARENA
ENGINEERING DEPT
PARK MAINTENANCE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
12-APR-1999 (10
PROGRAM
74239
74240
74241
74242
74243
74244
74245
74246
74247
74248
74249
74250
74251
74252
74253
74254
74255
74256
74257
74258
74259
74260
74261
74264
74265
74266
$25.71 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY
$67.50 SPECIALTY DOOR SYSTEMS
$320.00 STRASBURG,JOAN
$245.64 STREICHERS
$297.39 SUBURBAN TIRE &AUTO SERVICE I
$242.42 SWEENEY BROTHERS
$36,139.43 TCM CONSTRUCTION INC
$502.68 TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES INC
$256.00 THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC
$628.21 TIERNEY BROS INC
$60,123.04 E F JOHNSON CO
$11,970.00 TWIN CITY ACOUSTICS INC
$4,739.58 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
$471.16 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC
$447.62 US FILTER/WATERPRO
$76.03 US OFFICE PRODUCTS
$187.62 W GORDON SMITH COMPANY,THE
$386.13 W W GRAINGER INC
$897.06 WATSON CO INC,THE
$9,500.00 WESTERN STEEL ERECTION INC
$6,732.00 WHEELER HARDWARE CO
$505.86 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC
$361.04 PROEX PHOTO SYSTEMS
$711.10 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
$1,134.69 ZIEGLER INC
$50,567.00 GHT Construction Inc
$1,154,257.36
SMALL TOOLS
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
TIRES
CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR
BUILDING
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
NEW CAR EQUIPMENT
RADIOS
BUILDING
CLOTHING &UNIFORMS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
BUILDING
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
GRAVEL
PHOTO SUPPLIES
SAFETY SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR &MAINT
Improvement Contracts
STREET MAINTENANCE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
BASKETBALL
POLICE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
STORM DRAINAGE
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ADA PROGRAMS
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
POLICE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
WATER METER REPAIR
WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL
CONCESSIONS
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
STREET MAINTENANCE
FIRE
POOL OPERATIONS
WATER WELL #6
Water Well #13
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY
DIVISION
GENERAL SERVICES
HUMAN RESOURCES
ENGINEERING
INSPECTIONS
FACILITIES
POLICE
FIRE
STREETS/TRAFFIC
PARK MAINTENANCE
FLEET SERVICES
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
COMMUNITY CENTER
YOUTH RECREATION
SPECIAL EVENTS
ADULT RECREATION
OAK POINT POOL
PARK FACILITIES
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
CITY CENTER
PRAIRIE VILLAGE
PRAIRIEVIEW
CUB FOODS
WATER DEPT
STORM DRAINAGE
TOTAL
$19.82
$264.17
$342.35
$51.05
$29.18
$35.75
$1.30
$68.14
$9.46
$408.71
$7.99
$1,504.61
$43.21
$44.58
$53.50
$192.04
$56.17
$771,952.50
$246,728.52
$3.97
$8,774.31
$8,558.96
$20,157.69
$474.12
-$13.00
$1,059,769.10*
/0
12-APR-1999 (10:08)
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
12-APR-1999 (10
PROGRAM
227 $97,654.52 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A FEDERAL TAXES W!H FD 10 ORG
228 $53,971.51 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYEES SS &MEDICARE FD 10 ORG
229 $53,971.51 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYERS SS &MEDICARE FD 10 ORG
230 $41,130.66 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAXES WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
231 $344.40 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
232 $40,744.00 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENU SALES TAX PAYABLE FD 10 ORG
233 $153,473.75 FIRST TRUST NATL ASSOC PRINCIPAL B &I PAYMENTS
234 $618,478.75 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY PRINCIPAL 1997A G.O.REFUNDING BONDS
$1,059,769.10*
I(
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION:REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
DATE:
April 20,1999
SERVICE AREAJDIVISION:
Community Development and
Financial Services
Jean Johnson
Requested Action:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
REVIEW BOA APPEAL #99-01
ITEM NO.:
XIt
Move to uphold the Board's denial of Variance #99-01;and direct staff to prepare
findings and return them to the Council.
Synopsis:
Since the previous Council meeting,City Staff has reviewed the revised information
submitted at the March 16,1999,Council meeting and find that the variance appeal
request is contrary to the City Code intent.
Background Information:
On January 14,1999,the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied NiosilRyan's request
to build on a 1.2 acre Rural parcel.
A similar variance was before the Board in 1995 under the ownership of Niosi.The
Board denied the variance due to safety and precedent reasons.The Council affirmed the
decision ofthe Board in 1995.
The 1999 variance request was submitted by Niosi's.At the Board's January 14,1999
meeting,Mr.Perry Ryan introduced himself as the new owner.
The Board identified five reasons to deny the variance. The findings are here listed
below and the final order is attached:
a.The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the variances were
not granted.
b.The property circumstances were self created.
c.The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive
them of all reasonable uses ofthe property.
d.Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the City's Rural
District purpose and intent.
e.The driveway movements created will be hazardous to owner and the publics'
health,welfare and safety,particularly during winter conditions.
April 20,1999 City Council Agenda
BOA APPEAL #99-01
Page 2
The same concerns exist with the 1999 variance as it did in 1995:the degree of variance
is large,a hardship has not been demonstrated,the situation was self created,the
driveway will create hazards to the users and to the public,and granting of the variance
will set a precedent contrary to the City's Rural District purpose and intent.
The proponent and his legal counsel submitted new information at the March 16,1999,
Council meeting.City Staff has reviewed the information,and compiled a supplemental
report/memo on the appeal request.
Attachments
4-14-99
4-14-99
3-30-99
3-12-99
1-25-99
1-14-99
1-14-99
1-11-99
&12-10-98
12-30-98
1995
Supplemental Staff Report
Engineering Department memo with attached applicants'letter
Letter from Mr.Edstrom
Material from Larkin Hoffman submitted for 3-16-99 Council Meeting
Applicant's Appeal Letter
Staff Report and Board of Appeals Minutes
Letter from neighborhood
Application material "Minnesota Riverview"
Engineering memo
Background on previous Variance #95-23
2
SUPPLEMENTAL
STAFF REPORT:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
To January 14,1999 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Staff
Report
Mayor and City Council
Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator
April 14,1999
Ryan Variance 99-01 Appeal
Perry and Michelle Ryan
1.23 Acres Northeast Comer of Eden Prairie Road and Highway
212,PIN 29-116-22-43-0006
VARIANCE REQUEST AND APPEAL:
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).
BACKGROUND:
A request for Variance 99-01 was made by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi to approve construction
of a single-family dwelling having a side setback of 20 feet on one side and 140 feet total for
both sides on an existing 1.2 acre parcel (the "Niosi parcel")in the Rural District
notwithstanding the requirements of City Code,Chapter 11,Section 11.10 requiring parcels to be
a minimum size of ten (10)acres or five (5)acres as to those existing as of July 6,1982 and
Section 11.03 requiring minimum side setbacks of 50 feet for one side and no less than 150 feet
total for both sides.
The request was scheduled for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting of January 14,
1999.At that meeting,Mr.Perry Ryan appeared and identified himself and his wife as the new
owners of the property.Mr.Perry Ryan presented the request to the Board.
The Board identified five reasons to deny the variance.The findings are here listed below and
the final order is attached:
a.The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the variances were not
granted.
b.The property circumstances were self created.
c.The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive them of all
reasonable uses of the property.
d.Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the City's Rural District
purpose and intent.
e.The driveway movements created will be hazardous to owner and the publics'health,
welfare and safety,particularly during winter conditions.
Ryan Variance 99-01 Appeal
Apri14,1999
Page 2
The Board's denial was appealed to the City Council and scheduled for March 16,1999.At said
meeting,Mr.Ryan and his legal counsel,William C.Griffith,Jr.,presented a revised grading
plan and written material (written material dated 3/12/99 on file at City).
City staff was directed to review the revised material and the appeal was continued to April 20,
1999.
The staff has developed the following findings and conclusions upon review of the appeal and
revised material:
1.The Ryan parcel is located at the northeast comer of U.S.Highway 169/212 and Eden
Prairie Road (formerly Eden Heights Road).The Ryan parcel is irregular in shape,contains
1.23 acres and is described as follows:
That part of the East 12 of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 29,Township 116 North,Range 22 West,lying
North ofthe right-of-way ofD.S.Highway 169/212 and South and
East of the center line of Eden Heights Road,except the East 171
feet thereof.
2.City sewer and water is not available to the site at the present time and 90%of the parcel is
outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area ("MUSA line").Elevations vary from a
maximum of approximately 820 feet on the northeasterly part of the Niosi parcel to 766 feet
at the southerly part of the parcel.The variations in elevation occur over a distance of
approximately 18 percent.Some portions of the parcel have grades over 25 percent.The
Ryan parcel is part of and situated on the Minnesota River bluff area,which is of aesthetic
and scenic value.The soil consists of a light sugar-type sand material which,if disturbed,
easily erodes.
3.The proposed development of the Ryan parcel,including the installation of a private septic
and drain-field system,would require between 2/3 and 3/4 of the total area of the parcel to
be graded or the soil to be disturbed.The grading would also result in lowering the current
topography by as much as eleven feet (11 ').Even though preventive erosion measures are
proposed by the applicant,the extensive grading,cutting and disturbance of the light erodible
soil on slopes as steep as those existing on the Ryan parcel,the development of the parcel is
highly likely to cause erosion,and the flow and deposition of silt and soil onto public
roadways and other lands.
4.Minnesota Status 462.351 contains a finding by the legislature that municipalities are faced
with problems in insuring safe,pleasant,and economical environments and in preserving
agricultural and open lands,and,in general,promoting the public health,safety,and general
welfare,and that such problems can be mitigated by proper municipal planning to assist in
development.
Ryan Variance 99-01 Appeal
April 4,1999
Page 3
5.To ameliorate those problems,the City adopted a Zoning Code,(Chapter 11 of the City
Code).The purposes and objectives of the Zoning Code include among others:to foster
harmonious land uses,to promote stability of existing land uses,to prevent excessive
population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures,to promote safe traffic
systems,to protect and enhance the appearance of the City's natural amenities,such as hills
and woods.The specific purposes of the Rural District in which the parcel is located include
the prevention of premature urban development until the installation of drainage works,
streets and utilities.
6.The Ryan parcel is situated in the Rural District in which the City,beginning November 6,
1969,required a minimum of five (5)acres for the building of a single-family dwelling.In
1982,the City adopted the current City Code provision which requires not less than ten (10)
acres,or not less than five (5)acres as to parcels existing prior to July 6,1982 for single-
family dwellings.
7.Prior to June 11,1964 the Ryan parcel was part of real property (all of which was
contiguous)located in Section 29,Township 116 North,Range 22 West,owned by Mildred
K.Graves,which included the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter,except the East
42 rods of the South 2 rods thereof,and also a strip one rod wide along the north line of the
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,consisting of approximately 40 acres;the
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,except the north one rod thereof,consisting of
approximately 40acres;the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,
consisting of approximately 20 acres;and the West three-fourths of the South Half of the
Southwest Quarter,except that part described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest comer of the Southwest Quarter of
said Section 29,running thence North 17 ~rods on the West line
of said quarter section to a point of intersection in the center of a
public road known as the Reichard Road,thence in an Easterly and
Southeasterly direction along the center line of said road as now
located,a distance of 120 rods to a point where the center line of
said road intersects with the South line of said quarter section,
thence West along the South line of said quarter section to a point
of beginning,consisting of approximately 50 acres.
8.Commencing on June 11,1964 Ms.Graves began dividing the real property by conveying
several parcels.On that date she conveyed pursuant to an earlier Contract for Deed,dated
January 31,1963 and amended November 7,1963,the East 171 feet of that part of the East ~
of the Southwest lf4 of the Southeast lf4 of Section 29,Township 116,Range 22,lying North
of right-of-way ofU.S.Highway No.169/212 and South and East of the center line of Eden
Heights Road as now traveled,consisting of 1.3 acres.
9.On October 25,1967 Ms.Graves entered into a Contract for Deed to convey the East Half of
the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,except that part of the East Half of the
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying north of the right-of-way ofU.S.Highway
Ryan Variance 99-01 Appeal
April 4,1999
Page 4
No.169/212 and South and East of the center line of Eden Heights Road.On that date,she
also conveyed by Warranty Deed to the contract vendee a portion of the parcel which was the
subject ofthe Contract for Deed described as follows:
That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 29,Township 116,Range 22,
described as follows:Beginning at a point in the West line of the
East Half of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
distant 486 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof,thence
Southerly along the West line of said East Half a distance of 162
feet;thence East parallel with the North line of said Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 200.04 feet;thence
Southeasterly deflecting to the left 68 degrees 10 minutes 00
seconds,to the center line of Eden Heights Road;thence Easterly
and Northerly along said center line to an intersection with a line
drawn Easterly from the point beginning and parallel with the
North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;
thence West along last said parallel line to the point of beginning.
10.On March 31,1969 Ms.Graves conveyed the Ryan parcel by Warranty Deed.The Niosis
acquired the parcel in 1984.The Ryan's acquired the parcel on or about January,1999.
11.On and prior to June 11,1964 and until November 6,1969 the parcel was situated in a zoning
district then known as Public Open Development and Conservation and Reclamation District
("P-O-C")pursuant to Ordinance No.8.Ordinance No.8 permitted non-farm dwellings to
be built on parcels of two acres.Ordinance No.8 was first adopted by the town of Eden
Prairie effective June 12,1958 and continued in effect when the town became a village and
later a statutory city until November 6,1969 when Ordinance No.135 became effective.
Ordinance No.135 placed the parcel in the Rural District and required a minimum area of
five acres for a single-family dwelling.
12.The real property of which the Ryan parcel was a part prior to the conveyance on June 11,
1964 was a sufficient size to permit the building of a dwelling pursuant to Ordinance No.8.
The voluntary division of the parcel by its conveyance and other conveyances and/or
contracts prior to November 6,1969 resulted in the parcel not meeting the minimum area size
under Ordinance No.8 as it was then in effect.The later adoption of Ordinance No.135,and
subsequently,current City Code,Chapter 11 relating to zoning were not the cause or causes
ofthe Ryan parcel becoming substandard in size,that having occurred on March 31,1969 by
conveyance of the parcel as a separate tract or earlier as a result of the previous sale by Ms.
Graves of other land contiguous to this parcel.
13.The 1998 estimated market value of the Niosi parcel is $7,200 with taxes of $177.20 payable
in 1999.
Ryan Variance 99-01 Appeal
April 4,1999
Page 5
14.The owners of the parcel have not shown that denial to them of a right to build a single-
family dwelling on the parcel would deprive them of all reasonable use of their property.
Pursuant to Section 11.10 of the City Code the parcel could be used for agriculture,accessory
and related uses.Such uses may include truck and personal gardens,keeping of bees,horses
and other agricultural uses.Small rural plots in the city are being used for vineyards,
vegetable/flower growing,bee keeping,tree farms,etc.
15.The variances requested the minimum size standard of ten (10)acres (five acres for parcels
existing on July 6,1982)to 1.23 acres,is too great and is unreasonable.Granting the
variance would not be within the spirit and intent of the City Code,Chapter 11.
16.Strict enforcement of City Code Section 11,.10 requiring parcels of not less than ten (10)
acres or five or more acres as of July 6,1982 for a single-family detached dwelling does not
cause undue hardship because the plight of the Ryans is due to circumstances created by their
predecessor in title and will.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
*
Abstract of Title ofNiosi parcel.
Contract for Deed,Mildred K.Graves to Suburban Equipment Co.dated Nov.7,1963,
filed May 15,1964,Documnent No.3475166.
Contract for Deed,Mildred K.Graves to Benjamin A.Gingold,Jr.,dated October 25,
1967.
Warranty Deed,Mildred K.Graves to Benjamin A.Gingold,Jr.,dated October 25,1967,
file Document No.3684837.
Ordinance #8.
Final Order,Board of Adjustments and Appeals,dated January 14,1999.
Supporting documents will be available at the April 20,1999,Council meeting.
'9-1
....
-MEMORANDUM -
TO:Mayor Harris and City Councilmembers
THROUGH:Eugene A.Dietz,Director of Public Works
FROM:Rodney W.Rue,Assistant City EngineelKLV1
DATE:April 14,1999
SUBJECT:Ryan Variance Request
This is a supplemental memorandum to provide an update regarding the Ryan variance request.Based
on my recent meeting with the proponent and his revised plan dated April 9,1999,the following
comments are related to traffic issues:
•The proponent represents that the 300-foot sight lines are obtained in each direction from the
proposed driveway.(The 300-foot sight line requirement is our standard by which we judge
driveway or street access sight distances for a 30 mph roadway).While it is true that the curve
in the road reduces speeds below 30 mph,the steep grade (14%)and narrow roadway make this
a prudent standard.With this latest plan,the proponent has moved the proposed retaining wall
approximately two feet farther south to improve the sight lines.However,the sight lines need
to originate from a point ten feet back from the edge of the roadway (this represents the
approximate location of the driver's eye).This latest plan shows each sight line originating from
a point about six to seven feet from the edge of the roadway.If the origination point is adjusted
to 10 feet back from the edge of the roadway,there is not 300 feet of sight distance in either
direction without further plan revisions.If an additional retaining wall and grading (to obtain two
feet of sight line clearance for vegetation and snow)revisions are provided,the sight line to the
left is probably obtainable.Similarly,if the proposed retaining wall to the right of the driveway
is moved further back and substantial clearing of trees is accomplished,it may be possible to
approach the required sight distance.
•One caveat to the proponent's claim that sight lines are met in each direction is the need to clear
all the trees that would restrict the sight lines.This would require substantial clearing of the
trees/shrubs within the right-of-way,particularly to the east.We believe we have 66 feet of
right-of-way on this road,but it could be subject to litigation.In addition,clearing these
trees/shrubs on a regular basis would require extraordinary maintenance practices.Without
extraordinary maintenance,we believe that the sight distance to the right is approximately 140
feet.
•We recently received the 1998 traffic accident information which indicated that there were two
accidents along the first 1,000 feet of Eden Prairie Road (north of Trunk:Highway 212),similar
to 1996 and 1997.However,in the past,there have been years with much higher accident totals,
such as 1995 when there were seven reported accidents along the first 1,000 feet of Eden Prairie
Road.Our opinion remains that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curves and narrow
roadways contributes to many of these accidents.
Ryan Variance Request
April 14,1999
Page 2 of 2
•The proposed driveway location still introduces a conflict for anyone trying to access this
property,as well as for the travelh1g public in a historically high accident area.In particular,
if a vehicle is trying to turn left into this property,it would be difficult for a southbound vehicle
to react to that turning vehicle and possibly have to stop.I did review the affect that the steep
grade (14 %)would have on the braking distance for a southbound vehicle traveling at 30 mph
and determined that under wet conditions,the braking distance would be approximately 260 feet
(an increase of 60 feet from a level grade).Therefore,without extraordinary maintenance,
stopping sight distance would also be below standard.
If this variance request is approved,this site would require a grading permit and potential additional
signage.
Dsk:1-RR.Niosi/Ryan
,.....-
.":...:,':~..
Mr.Rod Rue,P.E.,
Assistant City Engineer
City ofEderi Prairie -City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
..Eden Prairie,!vfN 55344-2230
• •A •••
,'
"
....-.::.........
<.-:..:.~~..-.~'~::',~.:~:-~~~.~'>::j:,~~-~.:..:.::.~~.;.'
April 9,1999
Re:PID #29-116-22-43-006
Property at the NE comer of
Eden Prairie Rd.&Hwy 169
Eden Prairie,MN
Dear Mr.Rue:
Thank you for your time at our meeting on April 6,1999 and your review of our current
plans.The following represents your comments and request for additional infonnation.
We are enclosing two plans which show the modifications we have completed based upon
your input:
Item No.1:
You requested that we review the Sight Vision Distance (SVD)incrementally to
insure that the vehicle can be seen from the 300'point until it reaches the waiting
vehicle in the driveway (north SVD).-Upon review ofthis item,it was found that we
had to move the proposed retaining wall approximately 2'southerly at the radius point.
We have shown onthe additional plan 3A of 3 that we are now accomplishing what you
requested and have also modified the grading plan and the retaining wall location.
Item No.2:
You questioned whether the City had legal right of way or not along this area to
"perform clearing operations within the right of way which weare proposing.- I
suggested that within our Abstract of the Property,the legal document is shown granting
the City this 66'right of way..Although it was questioned in the past if the City had
procuried this right of way,it is obvious that tliis has been legally recorded.We have
.~.shown this right of way on the two plans which we are sending you today and a copy of
our Abstract which shows this legal description.With this,the.City does have the legal
rights to the 66'right of way and to clear within.
..:.-'
,'.;..':-.....';.\
April 9,1999
Page 2
Mr.Rod Rue,P.E.
Item No.3:
You asked us to verify if we needed any increased sight distance to the north based
upon the grade of the roadway -Although we are still gathering the AASHTO guideline
data,I did speak with a MnDot Highway Engineer and explained the situation to him.He
said generally,the sight distance on a 30 MPH roadway would be 220'and he thought we
were being more than "generous"in providing 300'SVD given the grade of the roadway.
As I suggested at our meeting,the traveled distance is actually 320'so we feel this is a
sufficient design.
Again,we appreciate your time recently and especially your comments which brought us
to the conclusion ofthe minor revision to the retaining wall.It is certainly our goal as well
to create a safe environment fur vehicular traffic.
Upon your final review ofthese documents,we would appreciate an opportunity to visit
with you prior to your final report to the City Council to see ifyou are in agreement with
our findings.
Iiyou have any questions or further infonnation is required,please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENGINEERlNG,INC.
\\
1 100 ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA
1 20.SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402-1 801
(812)573-3861 FAX (612)330-0858
March 30,1999
Richard F.Rosow,Esq.
Lang,Pauly,Gregerson &Rosow,Ltd.
First Bank Place
1600 IBM Park Building
650 Third A venue South
Minneapolis,MN 55402
Re:City of Eden Prairie -Ryan Appeal
Dear Rick:
As we discussed by telephone,I am writing to set forth my thoughts with respect to
Mvron v.Citv of Plymouth,562 N.W.2d 21,581 N.W.2d 815 (1998).
First,I do not know what the impact is of the affirmation without opinion by an evenly
divided Supreme Court of a decision of the Court of Appeals which purported to overturn an
earlier decision of the Court of Appeals in Hedlund ':L.Citv of Maplewood,366 N.W.2d 624
(1985).There may be a rule on it with which I am not familiar,but the answer to this question
could have some impact on the weight to be given to the Mvron case.As I understand it,when
decisions are affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in such a manner,the decision is not
considered to be binding precedent on the federal courts generally and a final determination to
'\.·,·I-.,.1~h rho ""-v'u'rts r".u.u~t·.O'~ve ~c~-'-",........-,,'......"\P""~t on '''t'''r d"'c';C'''o"H,~...h ~';''111 op''''';'''''''''T'\-rf"\'H';r1~,"1T th'"~......_a................w .....'...~&~""I:J""''"''''.L~.1U..,)'"a .;u.......u...1"'"""'"".1.",1.1,.1 ...'".1"''''.1 4.4 J.u.J.~J..1.u..v....a t'.&.V l'.I."-Io.I.,U,O ....."'"
reasons for the result and guidance for the courts.
Second,even if the Myron case is to be considered good precedent,it appears to me that
the decision merely holds that self created hardship is not in and of itself a legally sufficient
ground for denying a variance application.The court's opinion makes it clear that elimination of
self created hardship as a sole ground for denying a variance does not mean a city council is
obligated to issue a variance where other facts are present which justify denial.Where there are
other reasons for denying the application,such as considerations relating to the environment,
transportation,availability of sewer and water,orderly development of the rural zone and other
matters pertinent under applicable ordinances and policies,the finding of self created hardship
lends weight to the overall decision.In the Ryan appeal,it seems to me that the Council clearly
articulated a number of grounds to deny,and the self created hardship doctrine lends substantial
additional weight to the decision to deny.(It is hard to imagine a case where the self created
Richard F.Rosow,Esq.
March 30,1999
.Page 2
hardship was more flagrant;purchase of the property by Mr.Ryan during the pendency of a
zoning appeal after he had personally participated in prior proceedings which had considered
other factual and legal issues on which a denial could be based.).
From the standpoint of the City,and as you correctly pointed out to the Council,the
unconstitutional taking issue is another very strong reason to reference self created hardship as
one of the reasons for denial.
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing or wish to discuss anything else related
to the Ryan appeal,I would appreciate it if you would call me.
ViZ
Dean R.Edstrom
cc:Mayor Jean Harris
Dr.and Mrs.Ralph R.Nielson
Mr.and lYIrs.Jack Provo
Mrs.Donna Knight
Mr.and Mrs.James Van Winkle
Mr.and Mrs.Hibbert Hill,Jr.
\3
10133 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
March 16,1999
Mayor Jean Harris
City Council Members Sherry Butcher-Younghans,
Ron Case,Ross Thorfinnson,Jr.and Nancy Tyra-Lukens
City of Eden Prairie
City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing with reference to a pending appeal of a denial of a request for a variance
originally submitted by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi,which was assumed by new owners Perry
and Michelle Ryan,with respect to a 1.2 acre parcel located at the intersection of Eden Prairie
Road and Highway 212 in Eden Prairie.The original request was denied by the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments on January 14,1999.The appeal is scheduled to come before the City
Council on Tuesday,March 16,1999.
My wife and 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,I understand
that you have a copy of my letter to the City dated July 13,1995 which deals with some of the
issues relevant to the request which the Board and City Council considered in 1995.
Thank you for your consideration of our position on this request.
Very truly yours,
~£.u:L_
Dean 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.
Dear Mayor and City Council:
IS-
JANE Eo BREMER
JOH'lJ.~
MICHAB.J.SMmt
NIDflFNF.PeAAW
FRECERtCKW•...-
\MUlAM Go lHORNTON
JOAN Co PETERSON
/>HIlL MEYER
REI'EE l.JOCI<SON
CHRIS'IQf'HER K.LfRIJS
MNlCY R.FROSTCOUClLASIL_
STEPHENJ.K1lMlNSIO
'IHOIIAS F.ALEXNClER
lWlIEL T.IWlLEC
SHI\R........W»LGREN
JCHl F.KLOII
C.ERlKHAVIES
Co IlAENT ROIlIlINS
JCHl Eo YON<ER
JAMESlLllllMO
NIDflFND.RYN/-
EWIIELJ.MJ,INIlNE
USA So ROllINSON
ERJCASHFF~
SONYAR.~G
JOSEPH J.FlTTAHTE.JR.
MARK D.CHRtSTOP!'ERSON
lAURAK.GEW'
1L_1MWlSON
NE.OL J.IIlNlCHm'
T_W.O'IEJU.
OF COI.NlEI.
JOC<F._V
D.K&lNETH LJN:lClR!N
AUN/Eo IIUUJClN/
JOSEPHllITlS
Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens
14695 Queens Trail
Eden Prairie,MN 55437
Councilmember Ron Case
9237 LaRivier Court
Eden Prairie,MN 55437
1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (612)835-3800
FAX (612)896-3333
1
LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY &LINDGREN,LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Re:Request of Perry and Michelle Ryan for Variances to Allow Construction ofa Single Family
Home on 1.23 Acres of Property in the City of Eden Prairie;
Property Identification No.:29-116-22-43-0006
City Variance No.:99-01;Our File No.:24,535-00
1.Denial ofthe variances will result in no reasonable use of the Property because the Rural District
uses are limited to agricultural,public facilities and services,single family detached dwellings and
This letter is written on behalf of the above applicants to request that the City Council grant two variances
to allow construction of a single family home on approximately 1.23 acres of land as identified in the
above caption (the "Property").The variances are as follows:(1)variance for 1.23 acre lot in Rural
Zoning District which requires a minimum lot size of five acres;(2)reduction in minimum side yard from
50 feet to 20 feet.We have reviewed the record in this matter,Chapter 11 of the City Code (the "Zoning
Ordinance"),and Minnesota cases and statutes regarding municipal review of variances.Based upon this
review,we are of the opinion that approval of the variances is compelled for the following reasons:
Councilmember Sherry Butcher-Younghans
9885 Purgatory Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
Councilmember Ross Thonfinson,Jr.
11852 Waterford Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55437
Dr.Jean Harris,Mayor
10860 Forestview Circle
Eden Prairie,MN 55437
March 12,1999
LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY &LINDGREN,L TO.
Mayor and City Councilmembers
.City of Eden Prairie
March 12,1999
Page 2
accessory structures,commercial stables, and golf courses.Based upon the location and
configuration of the parcels,the only reasonable use of the land is for a single family detached
dwelling.
2.Approval of the variances will not alter the essential character of the surrounding areas because the
immediately adjacent parcels average 1.52 acres in size.Of these parcels,all but one parcel
contains a single family home.Also,none of the parcels meets the five acre minimum
requirement for the Rural District.
The basis for our opinion is set forth below.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
-;:~or to the division of the Property,the Town of Eden Prairie adopted Ordinance No.6 on June 11,1957
,7{which set a minimum lot size of22,000 square feet.The 1.23 acre parcel (approximately 53,570 square
<".£feet)was created by a land division which occurred by warranty deed,dated June 11,1964 (filed of record
as Document No.3481047 on June 17,1964).Therefore,at the time of the land division,the Property
:-conformed to the minimum lot size requirements of the applicable Town ordinances .
.Thereafter,the City of Eden Prairie established a five acre minimum standard by adoption of Ordinance
:No.135 in November of 1969.(See Notes of City Attorney in Variance Application 95-23.)Stephen and
Kimberly Nisoi made application for a variance in 1995 to construct a single family home.Review of the
~cord indicates the primary concern of City staff and officials was the driveway configuration and site
·.e distances on Eden Prairie Road.As discussed more fully in this letter,Ryan Engineering,Inc.has
''Vised the building and grading plans to improve site distances and comply with required slopes for
~ction ofthe driveway.(See Exhibit A.)
,...·eBoard of Adjustments and Appeals adopted a motion denying Variance Request No.99-01 with the
Howing findings and conclusions:
':The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the variances were not granted.
~!'~The property circumstances were self-created.
.The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive them of all reasonable
uses of the property.
The driveway movements will be hazardous to owner and the public's health,welfare and safety,
particularly during winter conditions.
Jb
LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY &LINDGREN,LTD.
Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the City's Rural District purpose and
.tent.
RESPONSE TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS FINDINGS
The applicants have clearly demonstrated undue hardship in this case.
£ity's Zoning Ordinance requires a finding of ''undue hardship"consistent with authority granted by
"esota Statute §462.357,subd.6.(See Zoning Ordinance §11.76,subd.1.)The Zoning 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 ...and the variance if granted
will not alter the essential character of the locality.
;~,~pplicants have demonstrated that denial of the variance results in undue hardship.The Rural District
'Vides an extremely limited list of permitted uses (cited above).Of these,only a single family home
be constructed on the Property.Agricultural use is not a reasonable use of the Property given its size
.its location adjacent to single family homes on similarly sized parcels.Commercial stables are not a
nable use of the Property;nor can the City consider a golf course a reasonable use of the Property.
dship in this case is real and substantial.
The Property circumstances were not the making of the applicant.
perty has been divided as a 1.23 acre parcel since 1964,prior to the City's adoption of the five
~,,1DjDjmum standard.It was a conforming parcel when it was divided.An adjoining landowner has
',::,~"Ste4.Jl:1-.a~the City deny the variances stating that the landowner knew or should have known that the
,'.l<fjd not meet the five acre minimum lot size.It is not unreasonable for a lot purchaser to expect that
",Quld grant a variance for a lot created 35 years ago and prior to the current five acre standard.
.~~ta courts have recently held that "actual or constructive knowledge of a zoning ordinance before a
ofland is not a bar to granting a variance."Myron v.City of Plymouth,562 N.W.2d 21,23
,,,,,,,,;App,1997)(review granted aff'd 581 N.W.2d 815 (1998)).The adjoining landowners have
.•~offers of the applicants to acquire an adjoining vacant parcel so as to increase the size of the
The applicants have demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive them of all
reasonable uses of the Property.
),onable use of the Property must be considered in light of the use of property in the surrounding area.
stated,Ryan Engineering,Inc.has submitted documentation indicating that the average parcel size for
','doining properties is approximately 1.52 acres.(See Exhibit B.)Most of the parcels listed in Exhibit B
ntain single family homes.None of the parcels meets the five acre minimum requirement.The
1"1
LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY &LINDGREN,LTD.
Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12,1999
Page 4
variance is compelled when the property owner demonstrates that he is unable to put his land to any
beneficial use without the variance.Sun Oil Co.v.Village of New Hope,220 N.W.2d 256 (Minn.1974);
Zylka v.City of Crystal,167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn.1969);Westling v.City of St.Louis Park,170 N.W.2d
218 (Minn.1969).
In a previous application for the Property,Variance No.95-23,the staff report noted,"The area is outside
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA),but utilities may be available in five plus or minus years."
(City Staff Report,dated July 13,1995.)Four years have elapsed and the Property is no closer to being
served by public utilities.Further,the applicants have demonstrated that the Property can be adequately
served by private sewer and water in compliance with all applicable state and local standards.To require
the applicants to continue to wait for an indefinite period for the extension of City services when others in
the same locality have been allowed to develop single family homes on private sewer and water,is to
deny the applicants reasonable use of the Property.As stated,none of the other pennitted uses is suited to
the Property.
4.Granting the variances provides a public benefit in that development grading will
improve site lines on Eden Prairie Road.
Both in the 1995 application and in the current application,staff has stated concerns regarding site
distances on Eden Prairie Road.The report of Rodney Rue,Assistant City Engineer,dated December 30,
1998 states,"A site distance of300 feet is considered minimum for adequate access to or from a street or
driveway based upon vehicles turning at about 30 miles per hour."The grading plan and driveway
location have been revised to provide the minimum site distance of300 feet in each direction.This
revision not only provides for an appropriate driveway location,but it provides a public benefit by
improving site distances on this curvilinear portion of Eden Prairie Road.This statement is supported by
an earlier report of the Assistant City Engineer,dated August 30,1995,in which Mr.Rue states,"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."
5.Granting the requested variances will not set a precedent contrary to the City's Rural
District purpose and intent.
The purposes of the 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 detennine and project
appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development possible;
(2)Pennit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the City;and
(3)Ensure adequate light,air,and privacy for each dwelling unit and to provide
adequate separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals.
LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY &LINDGREN,LTD.
Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12,1999
Page 5
Underlying the purpose statement of the Rural District is the assumption that lands which are not ready
for urban development are available for agricultural pursuits.As stated,that is simply not the case with
regard to this Property.If the intent is to "hold"lands for urban development,the die has been cast in this
neighborhood.Similarly sized parcels have been developed for single family uses on private sewer and
water.Finally,there should be little concern about the provision oflight,air and privacy,as well as
adequate separation,on parcels that are at least 1.2 acres in size.The City has allowed much closer
development at much higher densities in other single family neighborhoods within the City.
Further,city attorneys routinely advise boards,commissions and councils that variances,by their nature,
do not establish precedent.The reason for this rule is variances,by their nature,are based on specific
facts and circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.Therefore,each case is
unique,and does not create precedent for the other.(See Minn.Stat.§462.357,subd.6.)
CONCLUSION
The applicants have met all of the technical standards applicable to development of a home site on the
Property.The home site will be developed in areas with slopes of less than 6 to 1 foot in grade.No
construction will be proposed in areas where slope meets or exceeds a 3 to 1 foot ratio.Erosion control
measures will be employed in the construction process for the home site.A fiber blanket will be used to
stabilize areas containing slopes.These measures are the same erosion control techniques used by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation along Highway 169 on slopes which exceed a 3 to 1 foot ratio.
Site distances of at least 300 feet will be maintained in each direction from the proposed driveway.The
driveway will not exceed the grade requirements contained within the City Code.In fact,the proposed
design meets the design standard proposed in two separate reports of Mr.Rue,the Assistant City
Engineer.When looking at the actual "traveled"distance,the separation to the driveway,within line of
sight,is approximately 320 feet,exceeding the City standard.This distance provides a public safety
improvement for the general public traveling in both directions along Eden Prairie Road.
Private sewer and water facilities will meet or exceed applicable codes.Data supporting this finding has
been submitted with the application.The 1.23 acre parcel is similar in size to surrounding single family
home sites developed with private sewer and water.Denial of the variance will result in no reasonable use
of Property because it is not suitable for agricultural or golf course uses.
We believe the applicants have submitted substantial evidence supporting the variances requested and
have addressed the concerns of both City staff and adjoining landowners.The applicants are simply
asking to put the parcel to the same use as their neighbors for development of a single family home.We
strongly urge the City Council to approve the variances requested by the applicants.
171~
We will plan to make a presentation to the City Council at its meeting of Tuesday,~er 16,1999.
We request the City Clerk incorporate this letter and its attachments in the official record of decision in
this matter.
LARKIN,HOFFMAN,DALY &LINDGREN,LTD.
Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12,1999
Page 6
Thank you for your careful consideration of our position.
..
~;d'.Griffith,Jr.,for
,HOFFMAN,DAL Y &LIND ,Ltd.
Attachments
cc:John Frane,City Clerk
Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator
Perry Ryan,Ryan Engineering
0474103.01
Page 5
LN AB98103593
i
I
I
I
I
1.0 fl
:------t---I Amoco 2044
>-------1 Amoco 2044
~-----I Amoco 2044
~-----I Amoco 2044
~-----I Amoco 2044
'-------1 Amoco 2044
5.4 fl
PMR Properties
PMR Properties
Perry M.Ryan,P.E.
1111/99
1.0 fl
4.0 degrees II
T'
Prepared by:
Date:
Time:
Data file:
AnchotWalf (ver 2.5 May 1998)
Panel 1 of1
Project Name:Minnesota Riverview
Data Sheet
Owner:
Client:
AnchorWall (var 2.5 May 1998)Page 4
LNAB981C135!13
Bmub qtEfICirq sr,yry Aattym me Ponoi 1 of 1
Lsyer Heigtrt ~FOS FOS FOS FOS FOS
No..-Type 0 .....-Shear Shear Connection Connecti>n
Toe tumng (peak)(displacement)(peale)(disp)
(Il)>1.5 >1.5 >1.0 >1.5 >1.0
14 lI.S7 none >tlI >tlI >tlI
13 8.0 none 48.72 42.03 42.03
12 7.33 none 15.55 11.8 11.8
11 lI.S7 none 7.78 12.49 12.48
10 8.0 1 4.88 ,.0 toO 5.05 3.81,5.33 1 3.43 40.28 40.28 12.t8 ,.33
8 4.87 1 2.71 36.37 38.37 12.25 8.84
7 4.0 1 2.4 32.t8 32.t8 11.72 8.4ll
6 3.33 1 2.13 30.42 30.42 11.32 Il.21
5 .2.67 1 1.13 28A 28A 11.0 7.t,
4 2.0 1 1.77 28.78 28.78 10.74 7.81
3 1.33 1 1.84 25A5 25A5 10.53 7.87
2 0.87 1 1.54 24.34 24.34 10.35 7.86
1 0.0 1 1.44·NtA NtA 20.77 15.17
Note:·__NOT MEET design =-.
RuuIs d!rJttcr?ll Stablity AnsJya§fpc PMsl1 of 1
Layer G«lsyn HeiI/hI LangtfJ -FOS FOS FOS FOS Layer
No.Type .-fI!I LangtfJ Owr·PuIout PuIout SIrfng specng
Toe (If)....(peek)(dip)(peek)fI!I
(If)>1.0 >1.0 >1.5 >1.0 >1.5 <3.0
10 &.0 6.53 1.0 0.82'1.S8 1.S8 13.71 OK
8 U3 1.1 1.0 1..4 4.18 4.18 10.81 OK
8 4S7 5.87 1.0 1.18 4.88 4.18 8.58 OK
7 4.0 SA 1.16 1.G3 I5.A2 I5.A2 ut OK
6 3.33 SA 1.511 0.81.7.43 7.43 5.87 OK
5 2.1I7 SA 2.02 0.81.8M 8M 5.04 OK
4 2.0 SA 2M 0.74"11.44 11.44 4.4 OK
3 1.33 SA 2.88 o.lI7"13.45 13.45 3.8 OK
2 o.lI7 SA 3.3 0.82'15M 15M 3.5 OK
1 1 0.0 SA 3.73 1.17 38.5lI 38.5lI 1.18 OK
Ncle:5 _do NOT MEET design..-(")
LN AB98103S13
Page 3
Design Criteria
1.50 OK
1.50 OK
2.00 OK
5.40 OK
N1A
N1A
0.60 OK
14
Yes
-1.0
9.67
40.5
8.67
0+00.00
0+40.50
1.0
1.0
9.0
9.0
0.0
0.0oo
External stability Results for Panel 1 of 1
Calculated
FOS Base Sliding 1.99
FOS Overturning 5.05
FOS Bearing capacity 6.71
Base Reinforcement length (l)(ft)5.40
Base Eccentricity (e)(ft)0.34
Eccentricty Ratio (ell)0.06
Base Reinforcement Ratio (UH)0.60
Note:Calculated values MEET ALL design aiteria
Summary:
Number of Standard Unit Rows
Cap Layer
Base Elevation (ft)
Panel Height (ft)
Panel Length (ft)
Crest Elevation (ft)
left Station (ft)
Right Station (ft).
Minimum Toe Embedment Depth (ft)
Maximum Toe Embedment Depth (ft)
Minimum Height of Reinforced Soil (ft)
Maximum Heig!lt of Reinforced Soil (ft)
Maximum Toe Slope (degrees)
Maximum Back Slope (degrees)
Maximum Live Load (psf)
Maximum Dead Load (psf)
Pane/1of1
AnchorVYall (ver 2.5 May 1998)
I,
AnchorWall (ver 2.5 May 1998)
Anloco 2044 polypropylene
Geosvnthetic Reinforcement:
Type Name Polymer Type
10 No.
Page 2
Allowable
(Ibm)
106.74800.0
NCMAMethod
NCMAMethod
Index
Tensile Strength
(Ibm)
Vertlc:a Pro (8 Inch)
StandarcJ Units Cap Units
8.0 4.0
20.0 10.0
18.0 14.63
0.562 N1A
212 42
127.2 124.0
10.0 '5.0
Anloco2044
5.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
Anchor Wall Unit Name:
Properties
Unit Height (in)
Unit Width (in)
Unit Length (in)
Setback (in)
Weight Onfilled)(Ib)
Unit Weight (infilled)(pet)
Center of Gravity On)
LN AB98103S3
Factor
Reduction Factors:
Creep
Durabilily
Installation
Overall
""~~~;~};!/~3:::~
'':F,:~[~~~~[i~=~ft;;~~1t=~~~~~~q::~~~~~,
0l'1
Ucense Number:·AB98103593
AnchorWall (var 2.5 May 1998)
Page 1
NCMA
23.3
Reinforced structure
1
40.6
Vertica Pro (8 Inch)
Yes
Amoco Fabrics +Fibers Co.
Excelsior,MN 56331
612-474-7600
Ryan Engineering
430 LafaYette Av
Friction
Cohesion Angle Unit Weight
Soil Data:Soil Description (pst)(degrees)(pcf)
Reinforced Soil:sand N1A 30.0 120.0
Retained Soil:sand N1A 30.0 120.0
Leveling Pad Soil:gravel N1A 40.0 126.0
Foundation Soil:sand 0.0 30.0 120.0
Design Summary;,
Design Methodology:
Hinge Height (tt):
StnJctll19 Summary:
Wall Type:
Number of Panels:
Length of Wall (ft):
Anchor Wall Unit Type:
Cap Unit
Reinforcement Manufacturer:
Owner:PMR Properties
Client PMR Properties
Prepared by:Perry M.Ryan,P.E.
Date:1/11/99
Time:
Proiect Identification:
PrOject Name:Minnesota Riverview
Data Sheet
LN AB98103593
Ucensedto:
January 25,1999
Ms.Jean Johnson
Community Development Department
City ofEden Prairie·City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230
Re:prD #29·116-22-43·006
Property at the NE CQrner of
Eden Prairie Rd.&Hwy 169
Eden Prairie,MN
Dear Ms.Johnson:
Please accept this as our formal appeal to the City Council,review ofthe 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 ifpossible.
Ifyou have any questions or further information is required,please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENG~ERING,INC.
~Perry~E.
President
V ARlANCE:#99-01 MEETING DATE:January 14,1999
APPLICANT:St~en &Kimberly Niosi
LOCATION:Northeast comer ofEden 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 of20 feet (city code requires Rural lots existing as ofJuly 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 Rl
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 HARDSlllP:See applicants material dated December 10,1998.
OPTIONS:
-Delay building until after utilities are available and the property is rezoned to a Rl
District.This would negate the need for lot size and setback variances.
-Acquire additional land to lessen the degree ofvariance 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 ofEden Prairie Road.
~l
ACTION:The Board may wish to choose from one ofthe 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 ifadditional information is needed.
4.Deny Variance Request #99-01
(see paragraph below)
Ifthe 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 Counell 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 ofthe property.
4.Necessary road right-of-way along Eden Prairie Road be dedicated to the city.
Ifthe Board chooses to deny the variance,the following findings and conclusions may apply:
1.The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship ifthe 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 ofthe 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.
APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS &APPEALS
THURSDAY,JANUARY 14,1999
BOARD:
STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER
7:30 PM,CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
Kathy Nelson,William Ford,ClifT
Dunham,Louis Giglio,Mary Vasaly,.
Michael O'Leary.
Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator
James Merrill,Recorder
Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
ROLLCALL
The following members were present:William Ford,Cliff Dunham,Kathy Nelson,Louis
Giglio,Mary Vasaly.Michael O'Leary arrived at 7:35 p.m.;Ismail Ismail was absent.
I.APPROVAL OF AGENDA '
MOTION/SECOND:GiglioNasaly,approval of the Agenda.Motion carried 5-0.
II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.Minutes of December 10,1998
MOTION/SECOND:GiglioNasaly,approval ofthe minutes.Motion carried 5-0.
ill:VARIANCES
A.Request 99-01 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for the northeast comer of US
169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for 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)
Perry Ryan (Ryan Engineering)home address is 430 Lafayette Avenue,
Excelsior,presenting as the engineer and new owner of the lot.
Mr.Ryan expressed the points that he believes are important about this property.
This property was before the board in the summer of 1995.Mr.Ryan pointed out
some of the changes since then.The land is currently vacant.There are some oak
trees,and pine trees on the site.
A portion of the property is within the MUSA.Percolation tests indicate the area
is suitable for a drain field.
Mr.Ryan requested the Board to approve the variance as is so the property could
develop in a similar fashion as the surrounding properties.He further noted no
additional land was for sale.
To minimize the variance,Mr.Ryan stated one thing to be done was to take the
home and move it 20 feet northerly,and that puts it at 10 percent grade on the
driveway,which is still less than the city maximum allowable,which is 12
percent.If everything shifts 20 feet to the north,we can take a 20-foot
conservation easement which basically goes right at the top of the slope and put a
20-foot conservation easement over the southern 20 feet of the lot.
Erosion control along the city street and HWY 212 would be a combination of silt
and wood fiber blanket where appropriate.Mr.Ryan proposed the hard surface
runoff will be directed north,proposing to catch the runoff from the house via
gutters and direct that to the north,so it does not go down these slopes towards
212.
Mary Vasaly inquired about the properties that were built prior to the time the
five acre minimum land took effect.Mr.Ryan pointed out properties within one-
eighth mile,they were all built before the five acre minimum.Referring to
variance 95-24,Vasaly asked what was the hardship stated at that time,the details
of granting that variance.Mr.Ryan responded there was a structure on that
property,maybe an old structure.Vasaly asked Mr.Ryan to clarify his hardship.
Mr.Ryan stated there are two variances,one is lot size and one is setback.The
adjacent landowner will not sell additional land,which is the hardship.
Jean Johnson gave her report to the Board.The two variances are the lot size 1.2
acres,code minimum of five and the setback,20 versus the 50 in the code.The
issues are the driveway still remains a dangerous situation on this portion of the
road which has a high number of accidents.The turning movements could cause
difficulties for people entering the property and for those traveling on the road.
Mr.Ryan has reviewed some of the options that were in the report.The first
option was to consider development on this property when there is a rezoning and
when there is city sewer and water available to the property.The second issue
was to attempt to acquire additional land,and then to look at the design features
that would be more conducive to the site which is very steep.The property is
characterized by loose,non-cohesive soil,so all steps that can be taken will have
to be taken when the site is developed because there is a high concern for
erosion.Additional material for this request related to the 1995 request is in the
Board's packet.If the Board chooses to approve the variance or deny the
variance request,there are recommended conditions in the staff report.
Kathy Nelson requested more information on the reference to the Spring Road
vanance.
Johnson responded the variance site already contained a structure.The applicant
requested to remove the old house and build a new house.No additional
dwellings in the rural area on a substandard lot was approved.
William Ford asks the status of the MUSA zone.
Jean Johnson stated the MUSA has been extended into southwestern Eden Prairie
and the sewer and water lines are about a mile away.
Mr.Dunham made mention of the property line to the center of the road.Johnson
responded additional background work will need to be done.
Kathy Nelson opened the public hearing.
Dean Edstrom,10132 Eden Prairie Road,also own the lot that is adjacent to the
variance site.Mr.Edstrom objects to the proposed variance.This request is
similar to the variance request three years ago.That request was denied.It was
appealed to City Council,and the Board's decision was upheld.
Mr.Edstrom believed the variance procedure is inappropriate for what is being
requested here.That five acre minimum was in place before the acquisition of the
property and owners are deemed to take such ordinances that are in place at the
time they do the acquisition.Any hardship that is involved is self-inflicted.It is
inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance to grant a variance of this
nature,on this type of property.
Mr.Edstrom noted the road is a steep and icy in the winter,and has numerous
accidents.He also noted Eden Prairie Road may be a cul-de-sac in the future.
Edstrom stated the MUSA line barely touches this property.In effect,the small
touching of the MUSA line of this property does not justify putting a house on the
steep slope.
Scooter Hill,10131 Eden Prairie Road.Mr.Hill stated he lives to the east and is
against the variance.Mr.Hill states any development down there is going to
encourage sewer and water ,and states there is a perfectly fine well system down ,
there,and does not want sewer and water.Mr.Hill stated others are prepared to
come forward,depending on if the variance is granted.
Darril Peterson,18700 Flying Cloud Drive,Eden Prairie.Mr.Peterson states he
has lived in Eden Prairie his entire life,and is a property owner.Mr.Peterson
believes in property rights and that the City should give Mr.Ryan direct use of his
property as he sees fit.
Being no further comments,the Chair closed the public hearing on this.
Mary Vasaly stated she believes the City'S Zoning Ordinance is reasonable.The
Road situation is dangerous,and the large deviation from the code is contrary to
the City Code intent and purpose.
Mr.Giglio stated this is an extreme variance,and it is self-inflicted plight.Mr.
Ryan purchased this land and has been involved in this process for three years and
certainly couldn't have gone into it without knowledge.
Mr.Dunham stated he sat on the Board in 1995 when the issue came up before.
The major issue on this whole thing is the safety issue.Development may be
more appropriate when and ifEden Prairie Road is cul-de-sacd.
Mr.Ford stated he is against granting the degree of variance.There are
surrounding lots with similar acreage but those met code at the time.
Kathy Nelson stated she was on this road a couple years ago in the middle of
winter when it was icy,she,like may drivers,was unaware of the steepness and
degree of curves.This is a dangerous situation to add a driveway.Ms.Nelson
indicated the owner knew the property's limitations.A hardship is something
usually specific to the property,not simply because you bought something
undersized.Ms.Nelson stated she is not in favor of granting this variance.
Michael O'Leary stated he concurs with the previous statements.
MOTION:
Vasaly moved the board deny the variance request No.99-01 with the following
findings and conclusions:(Seconded by Giglio)
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.
The motion carrried 6:0.
ADJOURNMENT
Dunham moved,Ford seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:35PM.Motion carried.
barb~eanlboalrninutes\99\1-14.99b
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.
cc:Dr.and Mrs.Ralph R.Nielson
Mr.and Mrs.Jack Provo
Mrs.Donna Knight ;1';
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:
II
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 haonful 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 trock-
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;
·.
City of Eden Prairie
July 13,1995
Page 3
(2)Pennit 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.Pennined 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 dweJJings 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 fmds 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 hannony 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 unifonn
procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning.
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 fonh below.
I.INAPPUCABIUTY 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 'onstitute 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 dermed 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
57
City of Eden Prairie
July 13,1995
Page S
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 chaner,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 comminee 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
maners within its jurisdiction are fmal subject to judicial review or are fmal 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 repon 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:"'.
City of FAen 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
propeny 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.
ll.APPUCANT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT
TO A VARlANCE 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.13S which sets forth the S acre minimum requirement for parcels in
the rural zone was adopted in November,1969.It is settled law that a purchaser is deemed to
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 reI.
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 cocmon ownership with abutting property at the time of the adoption of a restrictive
zoning ordinance affumatively 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.ZoninK
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 pennit,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,
24::Minn.522.62 N.W.2d 363 (1953);Arcadia Development Com.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).
Furthennore.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 reI.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.
r;.c".
•
City of Eden Prairie
July 13,1995
Page 8
ill.POUCY 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 unigue 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.II
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 panicularly
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,
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 senled 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 propeny 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 panicularly 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 propeny 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 pan 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,panicularly 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 pan·,
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 pan
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 pennit 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 reI.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 laner may have taken some action
thereunder with the incunnent 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 or 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 (l)there is no language in the zoning provisions of the City Code which entitle the
applicant to secure a variance or building pennit 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 pennit 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 finn view of the law
'.
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 pan 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 thro'Jgh a mandamus action commenced by themselves.Seventh,perhaps most imponam.
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 II 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,
/7(2az~~~strom
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
REOUEST
Stephen &Kimberly Niosi are requesting approval from the Board ofAdjustments &
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 CONDmONS
Topography is gently sloping with the north and east side ofthe property at a high
elevation of 820.0 and the south side ofthe property at the right ofway ofHighway 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 ofthe 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 ofthese 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.
P<:;;~1 (;f3 0,·"MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Edc:D Prairie,MN
PROPOSAL
The Owner is proposing to develop 1 single fiunily 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 8.90,4 (Eden Prairie max =12%)and meet perpendicular with Eden
Prairie Road.
SIGHT DISTWCES
The speed limit ofEden 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 of300'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 ofthe 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 ofthe adjacent properties north ofthis 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 ofE.P.Rei.has less than SO'south and less than 100'north svd,
and at 10065 E.P.Rei 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 ofthe 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 ofEden 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 Rei.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.
Pagc20f3
"MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Eden Prairie,MN
PRECEDENCE SET
We feel that on the two critical issues,precedence bas been set within the City.
LOT SIZE
As stated above,the property contains 1.23 acres more or less.The property is
grandfilthered into the 5 acre minimum lot size requirement for rural lots.On this issue,
\-::believe that the City ofEden Prairie has already approved lots in th:.s category.In
~>'':.iar,a lot at 9900 Sring Road.This lot gained approval through var.ance #95-24.
The.~l 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
~.ld 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 ofAppeals in 1995.
We c:I 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
.everal surrounding properties that are on 1-2 acre parcels.
:~ANr -\RY SE""ER
.)0 the issue ofsanitary 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 bas been recently installed.
VARIANCE REOUEST
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 ofthe City's Zoning
and Platting Code.Further,the Owner has a real hardship in that they are not able to
obtain additional property.
[f'.:E OW?\TJ:R
}..:.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.
Page 3 on "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Eden Prairie,MN
/
/
_./----------<..:................
_/--
S
"\..\~E.-
\-AU '"'-------_.........
-780---_
790--_
--08'--_
806--
804-
.--t-Bg~O-_-
~~;::;t:=2798-qJ 796
169&?lO.212
LEGEND
DENOTES SILT FENCE
CONTRACTrJR SHALL CALL:
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
'"HRS,PRIOR TO ::oNSTRUCT1ON
TIIN CT1ES 4$4-(J()(J2
(.".,..I-lIf»-ZSl-"..)
-980-
-980_
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
NORT
_111
TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDI!D FROM HYPO BOUNDARY •
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED &122182
o'30'60'90'
Civil Engineering +Land Planning
Environmental +Surveying
January 11,1999
.Ms.Jean Johnson
Community Development Department
City ofEden Prairie -City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230
Re:Pill #29-116-22-43-006
Property at the NE comer of
Eden Prairie Rd.&Hwy 169
Eden Prairie,MN
Project No.98105
Dear Ms.Johnson:
We are in receipt ofyour 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 exlu"bits.
Please include these comments with the packet sent to the Board members.We look
forward to the meeting on 1/14/99.
Ifyou have any questions or further information is required,please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC.
~4~
Perry M Ryan,P.E.
President
Enclosures
Corporate Offices:430 Lafayette Avenue.Excelsior.MN 55331 (612)474-7600 Office 474-1956 Fax
c:",.,.",.nrr;rr'''''l.1nr)PrinC'/"lnn A,\'f'S0 SllilrA..S:lV3!!e.'iN ~537R (1'il:2'RC)O-f,)10 Office 890-60~9 F3X
"MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Eden Prairie,Minnesota
PID #29-116-22-43-0006
Proposed by:
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC.
January 11,1999 .
ADDmONAL INFORMATION -Response to Ms.Jean Johnson letter 12/14/99
Item #1 -We have enclosed "EXIDBIT A"SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
This is a color copy ofthe 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 1I8 th mile of property:
Property ill #
29-116-22-43-006
29-116-22-43-004
29-116-22-43-014
29-116-22-43-005
29-116-22-43-012
29-116-22-43-016
29-116-22-43-013
29-116-22-44-003
AVERAGE SIZE
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
AVERAGE EAST OF
EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD
RY AN ENGINEERING,INC.
Page 1 of3
Property Size (Acres +1-)
1.23 acres (Subject Property)
0.9 acres
1.3 acres
0.7 acres
0.5 acres
1.0 acres
2.3 acres
4.3 acres
1.52 acres
1.23 acres (discarding high and low)
1.13 acres
"MINNESOTA RIVER\1EW"
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 bas 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 ofadditional property.
The adjacent property Owner has been approached in the past and was unwilling to sell a
portion oftheir 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
ofthe proposed home.The minimum side yard setback,according to code for rural lots,
is ~O',we are proposing 20'.Due to the width limitations,we feh 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 ofthe area,
this seems to be in concert with the adjacent parcels.Further,it appeared to be obtrusive
to Eden Prairie Road ifthe 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 ofthe exact location ofthe adjoining property's wells.Based upon
existing data,however,the minimum horizontal distance would be near SOD'.
•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 ofsih 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 runoffwill 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,iftraffic 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.
Page 2 00
"MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
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 ofAdjustments and Appeals meeting on
January 14,1999.
Ifyou have any questions or further information is required,please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC.
President
RY AN ENGINEERING,INC.
Plrge 3 of3
"MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Eden Prairie,MN
:=..1 1 ......I
/4 '--,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
-MEMORANDUM -
Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator
Rodney W.Rue,Assistant City Engineer1?Ii)1
December 30,1998
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 propeny,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 propeny,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 ponion 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 3OQ-foot range.A
sight distance of 300 feet is considered minimum for adequate access to or from a street or criveway
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 descn1>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 S 10
Engineering Services.Department of Public Works
1995
INFORMATION
ON
VARIANCE 95-23
NIOSI
-MEMORANDUM -
TO:Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH:Jean Johnson,Community &Economic Development Department
FROM:.Rodney W.R\l~SSjstant City Engineer
DATE:A1lgust 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 :urrently has abe1it 1,900 vehi.c1es per day (based on a recent count)
traveling on it,with some large trucks observed d~visits.We also completed a brief speed
study near this property on Eden Prairie Road and determined that the average speed for northbound
(uphill)'rafflc 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
c.orridorcont!iJ'~t~tq man'-y of these accidents.
.•In addition to the current roadway geometries,the lack of sight distance also contributes to the unsafe
conditions of this area.The existing sight distance 1h this area is very poor due to a steep slope adjacent
to the road,which also contains some thick vegeta!ion.The site plan does propose some grading on the
property to improve the sight lines.Howe~the sight distance for a vehicle accessing Eden Prairie
CrrY OF £DEN PRAIRIE
Engineering Division,Department of Public Works
,.--------------------------------------------------------------------------_.._----
Sieven and Kimberly Niosi
Variance Requ_
August 30,1995
Page 2 of2
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 (")ffiCws)Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and
the criteria used to analyze the sitllati6n,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 pOV1"
geometries and a high number of accidents for a city street.By adding a driveway in this area only introducer
another conflict to an already dangerous roadway.However,if dramatic improvements in the sight distance are
accoiIlplished 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
ClTY OF EDEN PR..AIRIE
Engineering Division,Department of Public Works
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.Reguest #95-23 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for Northeast comer of
U.S.169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for approval to constroct 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'>
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 Adjustmen~&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
Lol
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
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September S,1995
Page 7
VI.
MOTION:Thorfinnson moved,seconded by Pidcock,to approve the Payment of
Claims as submitted.Motion carried on a roll caD vote,with Case,Pidcock,
1borfbmson.Tyra-Lukens and Harris votine "aye.-
VB.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A.Resolution Adoptine 1926 Proposed Tax I&Yy &Acceptinel996 Pro,posed
Budm
Jullie said th?t,pursuant to the Council's budget meeting on August 31,a
Resolution has been prepared which certifies ~"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 eanied
unanimously.
vm.PETITIONS.REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A.Reguest from Stephen &Kimberly Niosi to approve Variance 95-23 denied
by Board Or Adjustments and AQpeals
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 h~d time to completely review the revisions to the grading
plans;however,it does appear technically possible to get the sifl:t 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 grant an easement to the City.
\0-3
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 OIt 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 th~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 varimce 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 similz.r 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.Y.aren 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.Reguest 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 permis~ion to eliminate the trail.He said their development sta:ted out as
250 units and the City was intended to get a certain portion of the trail through
the development.
......."..
..........
..
....:.:::'-:·BOARD OF ADJU:STMENTS &APPEALS'...:.....
::.-....City'of Eden Prairie
..8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Pr8irie MN 55344..,..
'.:':':949-8490'..'";
VARIANCE #95-23
APPUCANT:Stwhen and Kimberly Niosi
MEEIlNG DATE:July 13,1995
LOCATION:Northeast corner of U,S,169/212 and Eden Prairie Road
REQUEST:Ap,proval 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
reguires 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.
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 Rl 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 De.partment 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.
·4
/I..-'
-MEMORANDUM -
TO:Mayor and City Council members
THROUGH:Jean Johnson,Community &Economic Development Department
FROM:Rodney W.Rue,Assistant City Enginee1LV f..
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 geometries,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
Engineering Division.Department of Public Works lo 7
_...;
...
Steven and Kimberly Niosi
Variance Request
August 30,1995
Page 2 of2
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 ponion 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 \.0 ~
En~ineerin!'Division.Department of Puhlic 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.
n:ssa
Dsk:JJ .Niosi
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ,_Q
Engineering Division,Department of Public Works \D (