Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/17/1999 EDEN PRAIRIE TRAINING ROOM,LOWER LEVEL CITY COUNCIL FORUM ADJACENT TO THE GARDEN ROOM TUESDAY,AUGUST 17, 1999 6:30-6:55 PM AGENDA A. ALAN HANSON ADDRESSING THE WILD GOOSE SITUATION EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,AUGUST 17, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Acting Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, and Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger,Parks &Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert,Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Roger Pauly and Council Recorder Carol Pelzel I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS A. PRESENTATION OF APPRECIATION PLAQUE TO THE BROWN FAMILY FOR LAND DONATION IV. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,AUGUST 3, 1999 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,AUGUST 3, 1999 V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. NORTH BLUFFS by Laukka-Jarvis. 2nd Reading of Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 60.69 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 60.69 acres with waivers, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 60.69 acres and Preliminary Plat of 60.69 acres into 108 lots. Location: West of Homeward Hills Road and north of Silverwood. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning) C. DELL ROAD/HIGHWAY 5 OFFICE by Tandem Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.72 acres of the Jamestown PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.72 acres, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 17, 1999 Page 2 Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 2.72 acres, and a Site Plan Review on 2.72 acres. Location: Dell Road and Cascade Drive. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site Plan) D. LAKE PLACE TOWNHOMES by S &H Realty Management Co., LLP. 2nd Reading of Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.26 acres to the overall Preserve PUD,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.26 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-2.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.26 acres and Site Plan Review on 2.26 acres. Location: Southwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Center Way. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site Plan) E. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR BRYANT LAKE HEIGHTS F. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING USE OF PARKLAND G. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING FIVE ADDITIONAL LIQUOR LICENSES H. APPROVE TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF PERSONAL LEAVE ACCRUAL MAXIMUM FOR THE CITY MANAGER I. ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING UNCLAIMED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT `ABANDONED PROPERTY' J. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING PARTNERSHIP WITH MNDOT VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. MATT'S AUTO SERVICE by Matt Strodel. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the I-General District on 0.96 acres, Site Plan Review on 0.96 acres in the I—General Zoning District with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Industrial Boulevard south of Highway 62. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment) B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST- COMMERCIAL by Hustad Land. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.5 acres,Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 7.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres and Preliminary Plat on 7.5 acres into two lots and one outlot. Location Pioneer Trail and Highway 169. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 17, 1999 Page 3 C. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST—COMMERCIAL by Hustad Land. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.9 acres, Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.9 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.9 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.9 acres into two lots. Location Pioneer Trail and Highway 169. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) D. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST—RESIDENTIAL by Hustad Land. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.97 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.97 acres,Rezoning from Rural to RM- 6.5 on 14.97 acres, Site Plan Review on 14.97 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17.97 acres into 21 lots and 3 outlots. Location Pioneer Trail and Highway 169. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) E. SHADY OAK ESTATES by Bruce Nelson. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 14.64 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 14.64 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 14.64 acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.64 acres into 9 lots and 2 outlots. Location: North of Old Shady Oak Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) VII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VIII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IX. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS X. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XI. APPOINTMENTS XII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Boards and Commissions Restructure B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Proposed Community Center and Round Lake Parking Permits 2. Renovation of Nesbitt Preserve Park CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 17, 1999 Page 4 D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Extension of Closing Date for Lincoln Parc Apartments E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Award Contract for Traffic Signals at CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) and Super Valu Entrance/Market Place Drive,I.C. 99-5480 (Resolution) 2. Award Contract for Lincoln Lane Street and Storm Sewer Improvements,I.C. 52-196(Resolution) 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 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TUESDAY AUGUST 3, 1999 5:00- 6:55 PM, CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case,Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger,Public Safety Services Director Jim Clark,Parks &Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert,Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER-MAYOR JEAN HARRIS Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Councilmember Tyra-Lukens was absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. UPDATE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RESTRUCTURE Mayor Harris introduced the subject by saying the City has seen the devolution of responsibilities from Federal and State down to the local government level. The City is concerned with unfunded mandates, how to efficiently maximize the funds available. In the past the City was primarily the provider of services and citizens were the consumers of those services. Now that has changed and the City's goal should be to tap into the resources available through citizen participation in governing the City. The broad health of the community is best achieved with such partnerships. Mayor Harris compared the traditional roles of the city with the healthy city. She has seen all of these roles during her 13 years on the Council. The internal structure of the City has been reorganized; now the final part of this activity is structuring its boards and commissions so they will be useful and efficient in helping the City to make good decisions. Butcher-Younghans reviewed the goals of realignment of the boards and commissions. Among these were to: define the role of Citizen Groups in supporting the City's strategic initiatives and strategic plan; align these groups to reflect service areas and support five critical focus areas; meet statutory requirements; clearly define roles and relationships between Citizen Groups, Staff liaisons and City Council; create a flexible structure that will adapt to changing needs; and create opportunities for involvement at multiple levels. The transition goal is to utilize and respect the importance of current Commissioners in implementing a new structure. COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 2 The definition of Citizen Group is: Boards, Commissions, Citizen Advisory Commissions, Task Forces, and Friends of Groups created at the direction of the City Council. To be successful, they should have the following design characteristics: comprehensive, sustainable, supportive, flexible, efficient,responsive and understandable. Swaggert reviewed the current Board and Commission organization chart. She explained that some inconsistencies had been found in the current chart. Thorfinnson described the proposed organization chart, as divided into three groups: Intergovernmental, Statutory and Program Support. He said they tried to divide it in accordance with the goals of realignment set forth above. The Intergovernmental group includes Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, Suburban Rate Authority, Sherpa/Familink, SW Metro Transit Commission,I-494 Corridor Commission, SW Corridor Commission and SW Cable. There is a Council person or Staff person represented on each commission under the Intergovernmental group,which is made up of representatives from many places and are not all appointed by the City. The proposed Statutory group includes Community Planning Board, Board of Appeals, Boards of Review and Heritage Preservation Commission. Thorfinnson said the first three report directly to the City Council. Some programming responsibilities of the Heritage Preservation Commission have been moved to the Arts/Culture and Parks and Recreation groups under the proposed realignment. The proposed Program Support group includes Leisure and Communication Board,Human Rights and Diversity Citizen Advisory Commission, Environmental Education Citizen Advisory Commission,Art/Culture Citizen Advisory Commission and Parks and Recreation Citizen Advisory Commission. Also included are "Friends of', which would include volunteer organizations like the Historical Society that supports the work of the City's Boards and Commissions. Thorfinnson said some of these mission statements have been changed and reformatted into educational program support, input with regard to programs, etc. that Staff may be working on. They removed some responsibilities in the areas of Environmental Education and Parks and Recreation, and have put those under the Community Planning Board. All development proposals will flow through the Community Planning Board and run parallel with the Community Development Committee at the Staff level. Thorfinnson said the plan is flexible. The people the City already has in the Citizen Group system should be included in the reorganization. A much stronger role for Task Forces has been created, which could involve private business people, Council people, etc. We want to limit the amount of time Staff would be asked to commit. Enger listed task characteristics of the City Council, Staff, Boards, Citizen Advisory Commissions, Task Forces and Friends of Groups. The Council leads, directs, sets policy, approves and champions. The Staff manages, executes, implements, develops, researches, analyzes, produces and communicates. Boards review, recommend, coordinate, z COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 3 communicate,report and educate. Citizen Advisory Commissions support,provide input, review, advise and promote. Task Forces study,research, analyze and recommend. Friends of Groups assist,help and work. Enger reviewed the purpose statements of the Boards and Commissions. Thorfinnson gave a summary of changes proposed for the Citizen Groups. This includes establishing a new Community Planning Board, which would combine the statutory responsibilities of the current Parks & Recreation and Planning commissions, and establishing a new Leisure and Communications Board to advise on and coordinate efforts of citizen advisory commissions. Modifications in purpose, roles and responsibilities are proposed for the following commissions: Human Rights &Diversity, Arts, Environmental and Waste Management, and Parks &Recreation commissions. Modified responsibilities and operating structure are recommended for the Heritage Preservation Commission. No changes are proposed for the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission, Board of Review or Board of Appeals. It is proposed that the HTSSB be discontinued, and that the Hope Program and human services funding decisions be transferred to City Staff. Other responsibilities would be transferred to the Community Planning Board, Leisure & Communications Board and Familink. Swaggert went through the Transition Timeline for the Project. August 10 Presentation to Commission Chairs August 18 Letters to all Commission members Sept. 8-30 Advertise/Recruit for Community Planning Board Commission members Sept. 30 Commission Appreciation Banquet October Candidate Interviews for Community Planning Board Oct.-Dec. Current Commissions finalize projects/wrap up Nov. 2 Appoint Community Planning Board members Nov.-Dec. Training and Orientation of Community Planning Board Dec. 20 Final Parks &Recreation Commission meeting Dec. 27 Final Planning Commission meeting January '00 Implement new Community Planning Board Swaggert said there might be some people who are current members of the Parks & Recreation Board who will serve on the Community Planning Board. Notices will be sent out at the end of February that this board would be beginning its work in April. Mayor Harris reviewed desirable characteristics of advisory group members: Commitment to doing a good job for the Council, a propensity to think in terms of systems and context (Big Picture), ability to deal with Council and community values, ability to participate in deliberation, willingness to allow others to participate in decisions, representative of the diversity in the community, and commitment to support group decisions. 3 COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 4 Harris said with this new structure there is the question as to whether the Council may desire to appoint chairs of the boards rather than having them appoint their own chairs. Another option is for the Council to appoint both the chair and the vice-chair,or appoint the vice chair in consultation with the chair. One consideration is that the Council needs people who have the skills to execute the Council's plans. After discussion, the consensus was to have the Council to appoint the chairs of the boards and then appoint the vice-chair in consultation with the chair. With regard to the chairs of commissions,the Staff recommended letting them appoint their own chairs. Council agreed to letting the Heritage Preservation Commission(HPC), and all of the citizen advisory commissions, appoint their own chairs. Case said he believed the HPC should be put under the Leisure and Communication Board because, for example, the HPC has three historic houses that require restoration and preservation but not enough funding to do what is needed. Case said he would suggest putting HPC with the Art/Culture Commission, making it Art/Historical/Culture Commission. Butcher-Younghans said the HPC has talked about having a"Friends of' society to work with them and she recommended giving them such a group. Thorfinnson said he and the others who worked on the reorganization had a lot of discussion about where to put HPC. They could clearly see the statutory side of their responsibilities. He said Council should be careful not to confuse statutory groups with program support groups. He wants it to be clear where HPC stands. Butcher-Younghans said HPC would get different kinds of commissioners who are interested in both sides of the work done by that group. Commissioners who understand the statutory requirements would be needed. Pauly pointed out the terms of some members of the Planning Commission would continue beyond the dates that commissions and boards will be terminated. He has been concerned about the Planning Commission,because people who are on that commission are responsible for reviewing proposals and making statutory recommendations to the Council. The statute that authorizes formation of a planning commission states it can be terminated on a two- thirds vote of the Council. He asked if the old Planning Commission is being terminated or just expanded, and if those people would continue serving out their terms. Thorfinnson said to go back to the goals,which are to utilize and respect the commissioners. There are nine commissioners whose terms expire in 2001. Two of them are on the Planning Commission and the other seven should be placed on other commissions. The two remaining commissioners are important to give continuity to the Planning Commission. Mayor Harris said this is a policy decision that should be made in a Council meeting. IV. OTHER BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 5 A. UPDATE ON CITY CENTER REMODELING Enger showed the plan for the remodeling of the City Center. He said the Consent Calendar for the Council meeting would ask for approval to award the bid package. The City budgeted$200,000 for the remodeling project to accomplish the following: consolidate functions to reflect the new service area; increase flow between Engineering and Community Development; enhance circulation,provide flexibility to meet changing needs;provide a main level Public Safety Service, and maximize the strengths of the existing City Center. All the walls on the main level will be taken out and the existing service counters will be moved toward the atrium. This way shared resources can be grouped together. The remodeling is expected to begin the week of August 9, and is scheduled for completion by October 1. V. COUNCIL FORUM A. WALLY ANDERSON,COMPLAINT AGAINST BEARPATH GOLF COURSE Wally Anderson lives at 9014 Lake Riley Road. He said he attended all the Council meetings when Bearpath was in the planning stage and raised his concerns at Council meetings. His complaint against the Bearpath Golf Course is that his property is inundated with golf balls aimed at the 16th hole. They have hit his house and cars numerous times. In the past an accommodation was worked out with Bearpath and they have paid for the damage. Now Bearpath has new management and have taken the position that he should use his homeowner's insurance to pay the damages, and they would pay the difference between his deductible and the cost. Anderson told them this is unacceptable and he would proceed with a lawsuit. He gave them a time limit, and they have requested another meeting on Friday, July 9. He currently has three damage complaints to be settled. Mr. Anderson said he was assured five years ago his property would not be harmed by the Bearpath project. He was told the City would work out any problems. Mr. Anderson offered possible solutions to the problem. Bearpath management could move the tee back, they can shorten the fairway by putting the tee half-way down from where it is now, or they can put up a mesh screen 75-feet high. Mayor Harris agreed that Mr. Anderson has a problem but doesn't know what the City's options are. She referred him to Chris Enger,who would give him the name of a contact on the Staff to assist him. Pauly said there might be some benefit for Staff to be in contact with Bearpath personnel. Bearpath management has an obligation to remedy the situation. 5 COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 6 VI. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. 6 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,AUGUST 3, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Roger Pauly and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Tyra-Lukens was absent. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Enger added an item under XII. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER, regarding a workshop on the 2000 Budget. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, Case seconded, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 4-0. IV. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JULY 20, 1999 Case made a correction to page 13, 6th paragraph, where it should read "2,000 acres", and Enger removed the first two sentences at the top of page 7. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 20, 1999, as published and amended. Motion carried 4-0. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 2 B. FLYING CLOUD CORPORATE CAMPUS PHASE II by Liberty Property Trust. 2nd Reading of Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 32.05 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 24.87 acres with waivers, Rezoning from Rural to Office on 24.87 acres and Site Plan Review on 24.87 acres. Location: Between Columbine Road and Hwy 212. (Ordinance No. 19- 99-PUD-14-99 for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution No. 99- 128 for Site Plan Review) C. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 99-129 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR RDA CENTER D. APPROVE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FOR PERKINS SUBDIVISION E. APPROVE AUTHORIZATION OF RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL, INC. TO PROVIDE MONTHLY DISCOUNT ON PRICE OF NATURAL GAS TO QUALIFIED BUILDINGS F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES FOR WELL NOS. 7, 8,9 & 10,I.C. 99-5493 G. AWARD REMODELING BID PACKAGE FOR CITY CENTER TO MCFARLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY H. AWARD BID FOR REPLACEMENT OF ROUND LAKE PLAYGROUND TO MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES RECREATION EQUIPMENT I. AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH KMC TELECOM FOR THE PROVISION OF LOCAL AND LONG DISTANCE SERVICES TO THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, approval of Items A-I on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. • VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. CROSSTOWN CIRCLE CENTRE—REMOTE PARKING by Brad Hoyt, Inc. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 12.42 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 25 acres, Rezoning from C-Hwy to Office on 2.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.5 acres and a Preliminary Plat of 2.5 acres into one lot. Location: Southwest corner of Crosstown Circle and Flying Cloud Drive. (Resolution No. 99-130 for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution No. 99-131 for Preliminary Plat) Enger reported official notice of this public hearing was published on July 22, 1999, in the Eden Prairie News and sent to 14 property owners. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 3 Scott Eastlund, an architect with Finn-Daniels, Inc., representing Continental Property Group, said the Crosstown Circle Centre was recently purchased by Best Buy Corporation. Because of the City's building and fire codes, Continental Property had to scale back the parking structure on the site. As part of the purchase agreement with Best Buy, the developer agreed to acquire additional property to make up for the loss of parking. The parking lot is about a block away from the original Crosstown Circle site and shuttle buses will bring employees from the parking facility to various office sites. The developer plans to replace as many trees as possible on the site, and to make a cash contribution to the City to plant trees in other areas to replace trees they cannot plant on the site. Uram said the Staff report was written prior to the new information from the developer that 63 of the 226 parking spaces were not additional spaces but displaced spaces from the Crosstown Circle office site. Staff recommends approval of the proposed 226-car parking lot. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this proposal at its July 19 meeting, when most of the discussion related to the proposal to take cash in lieu of 671 caliper inches of tree replacement that are unable to be planted on this site. The Parks Commission recommended approval, with the addendum that the City bond $100 per caliper inch to the developer, valid to 2001, one year after the trees are planted. Mayor Harris asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Council on this proposal. No one did. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the public hearing; and adopt Resolution 99-130 for PUD Concept Amendment on 12.42 acres; and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers on 2.5 acres and Rezoning from C-Hwy to Office on 2.5 acres; and adopt Resolution 99-131 for Preliminary Plat of 2.5 acres into one lot; and direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Discussion followed. Thorfinnson said he is concerned with minimizing traffic impacts. The developer needs to produce a TDM plan when applying for a Certificate of Occupancy. Personnel that comes in at 10 a.m. and leaves at 7 p.m. or 9 p.m. does have a significant impact on traffic in the Golden Triangle, however. He asked if there would be a sidewalk to go all the way up to the Crosstown Circle building. Englund replied there is one proposed but doesn't know whether the City or the developer would be responsible for building it. Thorfinnson said he would not want to approve the project without a sidewalk being included. Mayor Harris said these two Council conditions for a sidewalk, paid for by the developer, and a TDM plan, could be included in the motion. The amended motion reads: 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 4 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the public hearing; and adopt Resolution 99-130 for PUD Concept Amendment on 12.42 acres; and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers on 2.5 acres and Rezoning from C-Hwy to Office on 2.5 acres; and adopt Resolution 99-131 for Preliminary Plat of 2.5 acres into one lot; and direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and the Council conditions that a sidewalk be constructed to the Crosstown Circle Centre building,paid for by the developer, and that Best Buy Corporation produce a TDM plan when applying for a Certificate of Occupancy. Motion carried 4-0. B. PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES 2ND by Post Construction Company. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.08 acres and a Preliminary Plat of 3.08 acres into 7 lots. Location: Wilderness Cove and Sunnybrook Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Resolution 99-132 for Preliminary Plat) Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published on July 22, 1999, in the Eden Prairie News and sent to 28 property owners. He asked the proponent to make a presentation. Brian Post, representing Post Construction Company, said the company is requesting for approval to develop 3.08 acres into 7 lots for single-family houses. They will be building a road along the west side of the site. Case asked if there would be screening along the road west of the site. Post said that there likely would be trees planted but not actual screening. Case noted that the site has a road along the back edge as well as the front, and also wondered about the prospects for future development to the west if the road is not put in within a reasonable length of time. He asked Enger if the City puts time limits on proposals of this type. Enger responded there is a City ordinance that requires a proposal to move forward from preliminary plat to final plat within six months and it would be reasonable to put some time limit on this property for development. Enger asked Post when his company is planning to build the road along the west side of the site, at their cost. Post replied it would be possible to build the road this fall. Barry Post, Brian's brother and partner, added they intend to put the road in as soon as possible. If they have to have it in by a certain date they need to know that as well. They would like an early grading permit. Enger asked if they have an agreement with the property owner to the west with regard to building the road. Brian Post responded they haven't had direct communication with the property owner to the west, except at the Planning Commission meeting in July when this proposal was presented. Pauly said he could not recall putting any time limitation on road construction in the past. The road would need to be installed prior to the release of the bond. 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 5 Dietz said on final plats older than six months that come before the Council, the Council is not under obligation to approve those plats. After the final plat is approved there would be a bonding requirement to pay for that road, and if it is not done in a timely fashion the City could use proceeds of the bond to pave the road. Case said he understands that after approval this evening and after the second reading approval, the developers would have up to six months to build the road. He would like to see this done in cooperation with the landowners to the west. It appears developers are not in communication with their neighbor to the west. Enger said the west side of the site appears to fit into a future efficiency road network. He would not want to have the property owner to the west pinned into a road system the Posts are not ready to complete. This can be worked out with them between the first and second reading of the ordinance, which supports the preliminary plat. This would be one of those requests where the Staff would want to pay special attention to the project. Staff could facilitate meetings between Post and the property owners to the west. This needs to happen before the second reading. Mayor Harris said the property owners to the west also have a responsibility to meet with the Post brothers. Uram said the proposal meets the requirements of R1-13.5 zoning district. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the proposal, subject to the Staff Report dated June 25, 1999. Mayor Harris inquired if anyone wished to address the Council on this proposal. Duane Dietrich,representing Taurus Properties, said he is the current owner of the property to the west. He has submitted a proposal to the City. Regarding communication with Post Construction, he has sent a letter and made two phone calls, but has received no response. If the Post brothers go ahead with development ahead of Taurus, and if the Council thinks Taurus should be tied to the Post development, his company will be held hostage. His company knows how it is going to develop its property. However, with the Post development, the Taurus property ends up with double frontage. They don't oppose the Post plat or that it will be developed with a road on the west side. He only objects to their developments being tied together. Ed Requet, 9248 Hearthstead Lane, lives east of the Post property. He also brought his concerns to the attention of the Planning Commission. He stated his concern about the size of the lots being smaller than surrounding developments, even though they meet City codes. He is also concerned about homeowners who buy the lots removing trees. He drew attention to the Post development of lots on the south side of Sunnybrook Road, where houses are just now being built, and wondered how long it will be before houses are built on the proposed site. 5- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 6 Lee Smith, 12500 Sunnybrook Road, who lives west of the proposal, asked how far back this new road has to go and if there doesn't have to be some landscaping. She is also concerned there is no contact between neighboring property owners and the developer. Her house is under a purchase agreement, but sale is contingent on the project going ahead. She also inquired if there is a legal setback from the proposed road. Mayor Harris said there is a real probability of the land being developed and the purchase agreement going through. Enger said, with regard to setback, in this case none is required. The road can go right up to the property line. Normally both properties would share in provision of right of way for the road. Steve Wagner, 9325 Wilderness Cove, submitted a letter, to be included in the record, which he sent to the Planning Commission. He said he has no problem with the Post brothers' development. However, he would like to be assured that, in the development process, codes and ordinances of the City would be enforced, such as 7:00 a.m. start and 7:00 p.m. shut down, illegal burning and portable toilets on the property. He wants the Post brothers to be responsible to the community and properties adjacent to theirs, to provide proper site barriers, to not cut down trees, and to comply with City ordinances. Post replied he would be totally agreeable to meeting with the property owner to the west and looking at the option of putting the cul de sac in the middle of the two properties. City staff could also be involved. Laura Wicklander, 9264 Hearthstead Lane, said her back door would look out on the back of Post Construction's property. She believes with the lot sizes being so small, the houses will be very close together. This causes a decrease in the value of surrounding homes. She also expressed concern about the financial aspects of building the road, and wondered if the company has the money to build it. Jim Myers, 9216 Hearthstead Lane, said the northeast corner of the Post property adjoins his property. His biggest concern is that the northeast corner is a very wooded area, and when Sunnybrook Woods was developed they had them put in a "no cut" easement to preserve those trees, the views and the neighborhood. He said it looks as if the house pads would be very close to his property line so would not want to see trees cut down at the back of the properties. He would like to see the lot sizes more on a par with the rest of the neighborhood. MOTION: Case moved, Thorfinnson seconded, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Discussion followed. Butcher-Younghans said she has concerns about the Post Construction Company complying with City codes and OSHA requirements, and that what has happened in the past doesn't happen in this development. Enger said he believes the City can require proper toilet facilities at the site as part of the building permit review and inspections. City ordinances would apply to CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 7 this subdivision as it would to any other. If someone chooses to break these ordinances, the City would cite them with a violation. Pauly said a way to add to the ability to enforce code provisions would be to condition the approval upon provision in the development agreement that, in the event there are outstanding code violations with respect to this project, no further building permits would be issued until those violations are satisfactorily corrected. Case said there have been a lot of developments coming before the Council, but he doesn't remember having as many complaints by neighbors as this company has had. It has received a number of warrants because of construction noise, illegal burning, etc. By the number of calls received, he would support Mr. Pauly's suggestion that if there are violations, further building permits would not be issued until any violations have been corrected. Thorfinnson said he is concerned about the amount of tree loss, how trees will be preserved, and if that will come forward before final plat approval. Case said there are 14 significant trees, of which eight will be lost, but there are many other trees on the site that are not significant. There is a tree mass in the northeast corner. There may be a way in grading to fence off an area so an undisturbed mass of trees can be saved. Enger said Staff will really look at this issue between first and second reading. Eight significant trees will be lost. We would call for the protection of the remaining significant trees with construction fencing. However, construction grading shows grading over most of the northeast corner so whatever tree mass is there that is not counted as significant trees would be lost, according to the development plan. Staff will look again at that tree mass and see if grading boundaries can be tightened up to protect additional tree mass with construction fencing. Thorfinnson said he would like to make an attempt to be equitable and to follow what Council did on a piece of property to the east. Mayor Harris said that would be a second Council condition. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to adopt the 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.08 acres; and adopt Resolution 99-132 for Preliminary Plat of 3.08 acres into 7 lots; and direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions that, in the event there are outstanding code violations with respect to this project, no further building permits would be issued until those violations are satisfactorily corrected, and that Staff review the grading plan to see if the tree mass in the northeast corner of site can be preserved. Motion carried 4-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 8 Enger said, with regard to granting an early grading permit, Staff is going to review the grading plan between now and the second reading. The developer would obtain the permit at the time of the second reading. The City does not want it graded before then. C. MATT'S AUTO SERVICE by Matt Strode!. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the I-General District on 0.96 acres and a Site Plan Review on 0.96 acres with variances. Location: Industrial Boulevard south of Highway 62. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment) Enger stated the official notice of this public hearing was published on July 22, 1999, in the Eden Prairie News and sent to two property owners. Matt Strodel, owner of Matt's Auto Service, is requesting approval to build a 3,500 square foot industrial building at his lot on Industrial Boulevard that has outdoor storage for 150 impound vehicles. He has had this location for 37 years. Recently, his office site on Excelsior Boulevard in Minnetonka has been purchased by NSP for a substation. As a result, he wishes to build a new office building on his lot in Eden Prairie. He needs an office that is bullet-proof because of the safety issue. He has had considerable discussion with Staff on the variances that would be needed. Uram said the project requires 13 variances. The Staff and Planning Commission differed on their recommendations. The Staff recommendations would reduce the number of spaces for cars. The variances need to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals at their next meeting, on August 12, 1999. The Council could defer to the Board of Appeals and review the project after their review. Butcher-Younghans wondered what the impacts are to Nine-Mile Creek of any contaminants caused by having this business next to the creek. Strodel replied he was asked by the Planning Commission to do a soil study and he is waiting for the lab report on that. He has had five more borings done, and the results just came back, showing no contamination in the soil or creek. He has a storage problem, because many of the impounded cars are abandoned by their owners. The price for scrap metal is down so he only gets $50 for each car. Strodel is currently holding 20 cars that were seized by the City of Eden Prairie. He has three storage lots in the area and a fourth in Chaska. The City now has asked him to reduce 60 spaces on the lot. Butcher-Younghans said she understands Staff has not had time to review the lab results because Strodel just received them. Mayor Harris said she also had concerns about what measures have been taken to protect the creek and if this is sufficient, or if the City should be looking at additional measures. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 9 Enger said Staff recommends a bituminous lot rather than gravel,because you can put a curb along the edge of it to delineate the edge of the parking area and to protect the creek from runoff. With a gravel lot it is undetermined where you leave off parking cars. Enger said the catch basins could be designed with skimmers to take off any oil and antifreeze that are on top of the bituminous. Mayor Harris said, if this were approved, this is a non-conforming use for the property, and the Council does not often get a chance to review non-conforming property. Pauly said the Board of Appeals and, ultimately, the Council through review of the Board's action, could impose conditions on granting variances. Mayor Harris asked if it is possible to put a time limit on the non-conforming use of this property. Pauly said yes, through the Board of Appeals and Council's review of the Board's action, conditions could be imposed to limit the length of time for non- conforming use of the property. The property could continue to be used after that time, but it would have to conform to the code. Uram said, with regard to screening, the Planning Commission recommended fencing around the whole site. Strodel said he did agree to put a fence around the entire site. He is also agreeable to putting down bituminous on the lot. However, he has been in contact with the Watershed District and the DNR. The DNR representative said, because the lot has three gravel bases, this would be better than bituminous. There is a berm in front of the creek to protect it from runoff. The State requires that there be 35 feet from the center of the creek to the top of the berm. The tests of water quality show it is fine. His main concern is taking away space for 60 cars. Enger said the most critical thing about the property is that its use will not fit into the area interminably. Staff has talked to some developers about redevelopment of the area. It is probably the number one redevelopment area in the City. Thorfinnson said he is not very comfortable with all of the variances that would have to be granted and approving the proposal before it goes to the Board of Appeals. He would prefer that this citizen advisory board review it before the Council makes a decision. Mayor Harris said Council realizes there has to be some place to tow the cars. She asked for Staff input on appropriate mitigation methods for the creek; also the appropriate amount of time to allow non-conforming use of the property. They need to continue to review the necessity of this site and she would like to know how that would be done. She felt comfortable referring this to the Board of Appeals. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 10 Thorfinnson said Council needs to realize Matt's Auto Service could choose to do nothing on the site and the Council would then have no impact on what happens there. Council should work with the Board of Appeals to improve the situation and also give Matt's Auto Service a facility that works for them. Enger said the Board of Appeals will review this item on August 12, 1999. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to continue this item to the Council meeting on August 17, 1999. Motion carried 4-0. D. ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-133 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS THEREFOR Dietz said modifications to the project list require amendment to the TIF Plan. The amendment also reflects transportation needs and congestion issues. The Council is being asked to amend the costs of some of the projects and to allow ten new projects to be included on the list. Eden Prairie school districts and Hennepin County received notice of the public hearing for amendment to the plan. Ten new projects identified for inclusion on the list are: • Emergency Vehicle Preemption(EVP) ($125,000) • Five additional signals in the District($543,000) • Signal coordination project($250,000) • Reconfiguration of intersection at Mitchell Road/Anderson Lakes Parkway/Scenic Heights Road and installation of a traffic signal($550,000) • HOV bypass lane on northbound ramp from Valley View Road to I-494 ($100,000) • Valley View Road reconstruction from Flying Cloud Drive to Golden Triangle Drive ($750,000) Mayor Harris inquired if anyone wished to address the City Council. No one did. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to close the public hearing and approve Resolution 99-133 related to Tax Increment District. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Harris recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. until 8:55 p.m. VII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Butcher- Younghans, Case,Thorfinnson and Mayor Harris voting"aye." /D CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 11 VIII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IX. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. APPROVE REQUEST FROM TAURUS PROPERTIES FOR REMOVAL OF TRAIL REQUIREMENT FROM WYNSTONE DEVELOPMENT Lambert said, as part of negotiations between Jasper Homes and the City Council agreed to realigning a trail that made a connection between Forest Hills Road and Baker Road through the Jasper development, but when the trail was graded Staff realized the slope on the trail would exceed a 10 percent grade and cannot meet City standards for trail design. Due to the fact an existing sidewalk does provide access from the west to the sidewalk along Baker Road, Staff would support the request from Duane Dietrich, Vice President of Taurus Properties, Inc., to eliminate this eight-foot trail requirement by Jasper Homes. Case said the Council's philosophical precedent was to connect neighborhoods, and that is still intact. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Case, to approve the request from Taurus Properties, Inc. for removal of the requirement for trail development. Motion carried 4-0. X. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING ACQUISITION, STORAGE, AND DISPLAY OF HISTORIC ARTIFACTS AND USE OF HISTORIC SITES, BETWEEN EDEN PRAIRIE HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Tim Colliton, chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission, and Marie Wittenberg, representing the Eden Prairie Historical Society, are asking for approval of the Memorandum of Understanding. Pauly said a revision was made to Item 8 to the Memorandum of Understanding that permits either party to terminate the agreement with 90-days notice. Another revision is in Item 4; the original draft stated if the Historical Society should disband, the artifacts would be offered to the City. Pauly suggested the word "transferred"be substituted for"offered." Colliton said they worked hard to get this agreement together. It expands on a former Council resolution approved in 1975. Both organizations support it and ask for the Council's approval. Butcher-Younghans said, in creating a partnership between the City and the Historical Society, everyone wins. She thought it would be a good idea if the Historical Society gave the City, at the end of the year, an inventory of items the Society obtained throughout the year. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 12 Wittenberg replied that she has kept an inventory for every year of the Historical Society's existence. Butcher-Younghans also thought it would be prudent to include some kind of measures the City should take to protect this collection from water or other damage. Pauly said the question is, who has responsibility for preserving the collection. Primarily it would be the Society's responsibility, in terms of insurance coverage. The City does have to provide adequate facilities to protect it. But absent any fault on the part of the City, the Society would be responsible for any loss. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, approval of the Memorandum of Understanding. Motion carried 4-0. B. APPROVE PURCHASE OF FENCING FOR THE J.R. CUMMINS HOMESTEAD HISTORIC SITE Colliton said the Heritage Preservation Commission would like to purchase 100 feet of ornamental wire fencing, including posts, gates, etc., to further define and provide protection to the property. Funds would come out of the budget for the J.R. Cummins homestead. Installation will be provided by the Park Department's maintenance division. It is unpainted and will rust over a long period of time, which will give it a historic look. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve purchase of fencing for the J.R. Cummins Homestead Historic Site. Motion carried 4-0. C. APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO DISCONTINUE SALE OF J.R. CUMMINS ART WORK AT DISCOUNTED PRICE Colliton explained the arrangement made to allow Eric Swallender, owner of Minneapolis Fine Arts, to purchase up to 100 limited edition prints of the J.R. Cummins Homestead for $50.00 each, half the price charged to the general public, for resale at his store. This arrangement was approved by the City Council in December 1994. However, the approval of this request resulted in many requests from other dealers to buy the print at reduced cost. The HPC believes this precedent of reducing prices for art dealers is a problem and may even harm the value of the prints. Mr. Swallender has purchased fewer than twenty prints and so has not benefited the City to any extent in raising restoration funds for the J.R. Cummins Homestead. The HPC recommends the City discontinue selling the prints to art dealers at a discounted price. Case said in 1994 the prints were in process of being moved from one location to another. Also, they had not been selling, and the City received this offer from the art dealer to purchase some of them, so it seemed reasonable at the time to accept the offer. However, it now seems reasonable to discontinue doing so. /2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 13 Pauly said he was asked whether there was ever a contract with Mr. Swallender, but he was not able to discover one. During discussions with Staff he suggested perhaps an offer could be made to the art dealer to complete the purchase of the prescribed number of prints he hasn't purchased within a limited period of time, on the terms that were offered, and then terminate the deal at that time. Mayor Harris directed Staff to pursue this offer to Mr. Swalllender. Case recalled there was a limited edition of 1,000 prints signed by Les Kouba, under the condition that at some date 500 were to be destroyed. He asked Colliton where that stands at this time. Perhaps the remaining 500 cannot be sold. Colliton said he did not recall anything about destroying them. Enger offered to do get the answer to this question. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Case, to discontinue sales of Les Kouba prints of the J.R. Cummins Homestead to art dealers at a discounted price. Motion carried 4-0. XI. APPOINTMENTS XII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER Enger asked if Council would be willing to hold a City Council Workshop on the budget, either on August 24 or August 31, in place of the workshop on August 17 before the Council meeting. Council selected August 24 at 5:00 p.m. for a workshop on the budget. 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 3, 1999 Page 14 A. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Mayor Harris announced the 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. Mayor Harris stated 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: Butcher-Younghans moved, Thorfinnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. / I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Other Items of Business SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Parks and Recreation III. A. Bob Lambert Presentation of Plaque to Brown Family in Recognition of Land Donation REQUESTED ACTION: Acting Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens to present plaque to Bob and Jim Brown, representatives of the Brown family, for their generous donation of 43 acres of land along the Minnesota River to the City of Eden Prairie. Lettering on the plaque is as follows: In gratitude from citizens of Eden Prairie for the donation of the James A. Brown Family Conservation Area. BACKGROUND: Late in 1998, the James Brown family donated 43 acres of land to the City of Eden Prairie on the condition that the land be named the James A Brown Family Conservation Area. The actual acceptance of the entire parcel of property was delayed due to the length of time for the PCA to verify that were no contaminates on the property. The City received verification earlier this year, as well as a commitment from the Williams Pipeline that they are responsible for any spills in their pipeline on that property. This property will eventually be designated as part of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area. 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Bob Lambert, Director Parks and Recreation Services '? ' Date: August 17, 1999 Subject: Presentation of Plaque in Gratitude to Land Donation REQUESTED ACTION: Mayor to present plaque to Bob Brown and Jim Brown, representatives of the Brown family, for their generous donation of 43 acres of land along the Minnesota River to the City of Eden Prairie. Lettering on the plaque is as follows: In gratitude from citizens of Eden Prairie for the donation of the James A. Brown Family Conservation Area. BACKGROUND: Late in 1998, the James Brown family donated 43 acres of land to the City of Eden Prairie on the condition that the land be named the James A Brown Family Conservation Area. The actual acceptance of the entire parcel of property was delayed due to the length of time for the PCA to verify that were no contaminates on the property. The City received verification earlier this year, as well as a commitment from the Williams Pipeline that they are responsible for any spills in their pipeline on that property. This property will eventually be designated as part of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area. BL:mdd H:\Brown Donation\Lambert Wildlife a.ea represents pie.,e of history Long-time EP family offers KAK, �"�y+ gig; bi i,��•-,,` tp,' "` , to donate 43 acres to city F 'ARI r5'+' rf` " I b„ moo` ,,,,,,,,,.,1 ►,`. •t BnesoMta JohSun ubtcan '"+t?i , •r vk;s#r"•,11E1 4i9 k 4 ► Land along the Minnesota %s -'+` mo- ; 1111►) 1p ', ‘ ` River has been in the Brown tt` i� �1 v� rs4 Z +5 family for about 125 years,Bob [ - �,� f11\. %„' !e/, ` i"`' a. Brown,70,said.At one time,his — —i , • grandfather,James,owned 300 N 1y ,��i, t ,�+'y acres in Eden Prairie. ' �,"1 ";401{ 1 p1 G 11 Rising property taxes have "': Tf 5� `-4R, : r .'.}, r, led the family to sell off parcels L ,.„ c`%A` ^u 4 l of the property to developers,but ., e: rr ,r1 ,,--y }, �+ several of James'ancestors have ; <^' (. decided to donate 43 of the re i r, k.. maining acres to the city of Eden , - d'ira5ais _ _. ___ - 0avidE�Sun Pu Prairie.Bob, his brother, James, of Bob Brown,of Eden Prairie,and several of his relatives hope to donatei 43 Phoenix;his cousin,Richard,of acres of wooded land along the Minnesota nverto the city of Eden Prarie, Detroit;and two of James'great- naming the conservation area after their grandfather,James A.Brown. granddaughters, Pamela Lang, of Savannah, Ga., and Dee Andry,of New Orleans,want to The family wants the city to "It was his farm to start name the conservation area with,"Bob Brown said. "If we preserve the land. "It's a beautiful wildlife area after their grandfather— the put everyone's name on it, it and not suited for building,"Bob James A. Brown Conservation WILDLIFE:To Page 22A Brown said. Area. . Wildlife: Council to discuss donation From Page 1A After he stopped farming the property, Bob Brown said he let nature take it over. would be a pretty long list.He was the The woods are home to deer,coyote,rac- one that bought the land in the first coons,beaver and more,he said,adding place:" that he would like to see some of his fami- But even before James Brown bought ly's land look like it did when his grandfa- property in the area,his grandmother, ther first arrived in Eden Prairie—a city Elizabeth Anderson,was one of the first now nearing the peak of its development. pioneers of Eden Prairie,Bob Brown said. "It's a very large and generous dona- She sailed over from Ireland in 1866 tion from a long-time Eden Prairie fami- after hearing stories of how much land ly,"Bob Lambert,the director of the city's was available,eventually building a log Parks, Recreation and Natural Re- cabin in Eden Prairie.Her daughter,Ann sources Department,said. Brown,homesteaded a farm on the same Private citizens and families have do- land the City Center now sits on,Bob nated land to the city before,Lambert said, Brown said. but never such a large parcel all at once. In 1875,when James started buying If members of the City Council ap- up parcels of land along the Minnesota prove the donation,the city will manage River Valley,Shakopee was bigger than the land as a conservation area,Lambert Minneapolis, Bob Brown said, and a said. ' major trading center for farmers. Eden Prairie has about a dozen con- Besides fanning,James served on the servation areas,which officials are work- local school board,was city assessor for a ing to restore to their original habitat. number of years and the Indian agent for The lands remain undeveloped, except the Shakopee Indians,Bob Brown said. for public trails winding through them. His grandfather was active in the city's The 43 acres the Brown family wants new Presbyterian church. to donate to the city consists primarily of Bob Brown moved to Eden Prairie wetlands and woodlands,Lambert said. from Minneapolis with his family in Jan- Cottonwood trees grow along the flood uary 1935,11 years after his grandfather plain. died. In 15 to 20 years,the U.S.Fish and It was cold and the snow was over my Wildlife Service might take over the head,"he said."Of course,I wasn't very land's management,including it into the tall at the time." Minnesota River Valley Wildlife Refuge, In 1949,when his father died, Bob Lambert said. Brown continued working on the family Commissioners on the Parks,Recre- farm until 1967,after which he got a job ation and Natural Resources Commis- with Wilson Learning Corp., an Eden sion, along with members of the city's Prairie-based company that designs Heritage Preservation Commission, learning programs for larger corpora- unanimously supported accepting the tions.But he still lives on top of the bluffs Browns'donation and their request to overlooking his grandfather's property. name the area after their grandfather, Besides him,only one nephew remains Lambert said. Those recommendations in Eden Prairie.The rest of the Brown fam- are scheduled to go before the City Coun- ily is scattered throughout the country. cil on Tuesday,Dec.1. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: August 17, 1999 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Clerk's License Application List V.A. . &Financial Services/ Gretchen Laven These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. CONTRACTOR Greg's Hardware August 17, 1999 - 1 - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Consent Agenda SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development V. B. Donald Uram North Bluffs Michael Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning on 60.69 acres; and • Approve the Developers Agreement for North Bluffs Synopsis This is a 108 lot single family subdivision. The agreement contains provisions for landscape buffer, a conservation easement over the wetland, and airport and landfill disclosure. Attachments 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning 2. Developer's Agreement I NORTH BLUFFS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-99-PUD-13-99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural Zoning District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development R1-13.5 Zoning District 18-99-PUD-13-99(hereinafter "PUD-13-99-R1"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 3, 1999, entered into between Laukka-Jarvis and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter 'Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-13-99-R1, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-13-99-R1 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-13-99-R1 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-13-99-R1 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-13-99-R1 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural Zoning District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-13-99-R1 and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" arid Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of July, 1999, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of August, 1999. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 3 NORTH BLUFFS Exhibit A Legal Description: ??��'12EITARY FLAT DESCRIPTION That part of Outlot B, BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION. Hennepin County, Minnesota. embraced within the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 116, Range 22; and That part of the South Three—Fourths (5 3/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty—Six (26), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North. Range Twenty—Two (22) West. Hennepin County, Minnesota lying easterly of the following described Line A Line A: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of Section 26; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 43 seconds East. assumed bearing, along the south line of said Southwest Quarter of Section 26, a distance of 453.67 feet to the point of beginning of Line A to be described; thence North 17 degrees 25 minutes 25 second East a distance of 836.91 feet; thence North 5 degrees 13 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 183.03 feet; thence North 32 degrees 01 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 306.68 feet; thence North 36 degrees 20 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 906.35 feet to the west line of said Southwest Quarter of Section 26 and said Line A there terminating. Except that part embraced within BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION And except the following: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 116. Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the most Northerly corner of Outlot A. BLLY:b WEST SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 0 degrees. 23 minutes 57 seconds West, assumed 'bearing, along-the Northerly extension of the East line of said Outlot A, a distance of 28.80 feet to the South line of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 26; thence South 89 degrees 35 minutes 47 seconds West, along said South line of the North half of the`Northeast Quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 26. a distance of 1617.25 feet; thence South 36 degrees 57 minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 1056.29 feet; thence North 61 degrees 44 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 140.00 feet to the most Westerly corner of said Outlot A; thence North 48 degrees 29 minutes 13 seconds East along the Northwesterly line of said Outlot A. a distance of 1147.15 feet to_.the point of beginning, Hennepin County. Minnesota. NORTH BLUFFS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 18-99-PUD-13-99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, CHANGING THE ZONING OF LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows changing the zoning of land located west of Homeward Hills Road and north of Silverwood from Rural to R1-13.5. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) DEVELOPER AGREEMENT NORTH BLUFFS THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of August 17, 1999,by Laukka-Jarvis, a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for PUD concept Review on 60.69 acres, PUD District Review on 60.69 acres with waivers, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 60.69 acres and Preliminary Plat of 60.69 acres into 108 residential lots, all on 60.69 acres legally described on Exhibit A(the "Property"); NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 99-100 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and Resolution No. 99-101 for Preliminary Plat, Developer agrees to construct, develop and maintain the Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer agrees to develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated July 6, 1999, reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 6, 1999, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms, covenants, agreements,and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of plans for streets, public sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer. Storm sewer plans shall include provisions for rear yard drainage systems. Plans for public infrastructures shall be of a plan view and profile on 24 x 36 plan sheets consistent with City standards. A permit fee of five percent of construction value shall be paid to City by Developer. The design engineer shall provide daily inspection, certify completion in conformance to approved plans and specifications and provide record drawings. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Property, Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement for review and written approval by the Parks and Recreation Service Director, for the area delineated on Exhibit B. The conservation easement shall include the existing wetland and approved buffer strip Prior to the release of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit evidence to the Parks and Recreation Service Director,that the approved Conservation Easement has been filed in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles'Office. 5. GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer agrees that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual Prior to the release of a land alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and other items required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond conforms to the final grading plan. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan. The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design professional shall provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the grading in conformance the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan. Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or proposed sedimentation pond during construction. Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation by City. 7 6. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: The city hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the R1-13.5 District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD (list PUD number): A waiver from the 500 foot cul de sac length for Kiersten Drive as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. 7. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer sha 1 submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls identified on the grading plan in Exhibit B. These plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for the retaining walls. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto,prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 8. SIDEWALK AND TRAIL CONSTRUCTION: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Parks and Recreational Services and obtain the Director's written approval of detailed plans for sidewalks and trails to be constructed on the Property. Developer shall convey access easements for such sidewalks and trails in such locations as determined by the Parks and Recreation Service Director. Sidewalks and trails shall be constructed in the following locations: A. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk to be located as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved plans in accordance with the terms of Exhibit C prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 9. TREE LOSS- TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 1,511 diameter inches of significant trees on the Property. Tree loss related to development on the Property is calculated at 363 diameter inches. Tree replacement required are 120 caliper inches. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a tree replacement plan for 120 caliper inches. This approved plan shall include replacement trees of a 3-inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a 7-foot minimum height for conifer trees. The approved plan shall also provide that, should actual tree loss exceed that calculated herein, Developer shall provide tree replacement on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis for such excess loss. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved tree replacement plan prior to building permit issuance. 10. LANDSCAPE BUFFER: Prior to issuance of a land alteration permit, Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a landscape buffer plan for lots 13-23, Block 3. 11. TEMPORARY CUL DE SAC SIGN: Developer agrees to install temporary cul de sac signs on proposed street Kersten Place and Chesholm Lane. 12. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: Prior to the release of any final plat for the Property, Developer agrees to sign an assessment agreement with the City for improvements to the storm sewer system discharging from the Property through Homeward Hills Park and under Homeward Hills Road to Purgatory Creek. The assessment shall be based on the percentage of peak discharge generated from the Property compared to the total peak flow generated by the watershed area conveyed through the storm water system. The assessable costs is estimated to be 30%. The final assessable percentage shall be determined by the City Engineer. 13. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer agrees to release, defend and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, complaints, loss, costs (including attorneys' fees),damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures to act, errors, omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release, defend and indemnify because of any inspection,review or approval by City. 14. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION: No lot within the plat of the Property shall be sold or transferred to the first intended residential homeowner,nor an agreement entered into to construct a home on any lot within the plat of the Property unless the Developer or its successors and/or assigns personally delivers prior to execution of a purchase agreement or an agreement to construct a home on the lot (whichever comes first), a disclosure statement regarding the Flying Cloud Airport and the Flying Cloud Landfill in form and substance as attached as Exhibit F hereto. If the initial purchaser of a lot from the Developer is not the initial intended homeowner of a residence to be constructed on the lot, Developer shall require its initial purchaser to deliver the disclosure statement to the initial intended residential homeowner prior to execution by the intended homeowner of any agreement to construct a home or agreement to purchase a lot (whichever comes first). 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. DEVELOPER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Jean L. Harris, Mayor Christopher M. Enger, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , by Jean L. Harris and Christopher M. Enger,respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 19_, by , the , a Minnesota , on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public [ 0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Consent Agenda SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald Uram Dell Road/Highway 5 Office V. C. Michael Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers on 2.72 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 2.72 acres; and • Approve the Developers Agreement for Dell Road/Highway 5 Office Synopsis This is a 26,773 s.f. office building. NURP pond size is reduced by directing a portion of site drainage to storm sewer on the adjacent site. The final grading plan will focus on NURP pond design to mitigate tree loss. Attachments 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement DELL ROAD/HIGHWAY 5 OFFICE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 20-99-PUD-15-99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural Zoning District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development Office Zoning District 20-99-PUD-15-99 (hereinafter "PUD-15-99-Office"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 17, 1999, entered into between Tandem Properties and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-15-99-Office, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-15-99-Office is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-15-99-Office is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-15-99-Office are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-15-99-Office is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. a2 Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural Zoning District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-15-99-Office and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of July, 1999, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of August, 1999. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 3 Exhibit A Dell and Highway 5 Office Legal Description: Lot 1,Block 1, Jamestown of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition DELL ROAD/HIGHWAY 5 OFFICE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 20-99-PUD-15-99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located on Dell Road and Cascade Drive from Rural to Office Zoning District. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) DELL ROAD/HIGHWAY 5 OFFICE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99-134 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR DELL ROAD/HIGHWAY 5 OFFICE BY TANDEM PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has applied for Site Plan approval of the Dell Road/Highway 5 Office on 2.72 acres for construction of an office building, to be zoned Office Zoning District on 2.72 acres by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on August 17, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its June 14, 1999, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its July 20, 1999, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to the City of Eden Prairie for the construction of an office building at Dell Road/Highway 5, based on plans dated June 11, 1999 between Tandem Properties and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 17, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk DEVELOPER AGREEMENT DELL AND HIGHWAY 5 OFFICE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of August 17, 1999,by Tandem Corporation, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as "City": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Pl.nned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.72 acres to the overall Jamestown PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.72 acres, Rezoning from Rural to Office and Site Plan Review on 2.72 acres, legally described on Exhibit A(the "Property"); NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, Developer agrees to construct, develop and maintain the Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer agrees to develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated July 13, 1999, reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 20, 1999, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms,covenants, agreements,and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 3. CROSS PARKING AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to issuance of any building permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's written approval of a cross parking and maintenance agreement between the Property and Lot , Block , Addition to the east. The agreement shall address joint access, and maintenance of parking facilities and storm water facilities. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that the cross parking and maintenance agreement has been recorded in the Hennepin County Recorder's Office/Registrar of Titles' Office. 4. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to 7 the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved exterior materials and colors plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer agrees that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the release of a land alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and other items required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond conforms to the final grading plan. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan. The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design professional shall provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the grading in conformance the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan. Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or proposed sedimentation pond during construction. Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation by City. 6. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Developer agrees that the irrigation system shall be designed such that water is not directed on or over public sidewalks or trails. 8 Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved irrigation plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity,type, and size of plant materials shown on the landscape plan on Exhibit B. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City Code. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved landscape plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C. 8. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. For purposes of this paragraph, "mechanical equipment"includes gas meters, electrical conduit, water meters, and standard heating, ventilating, and air- conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening sha I be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, in accordance with City Code requirements. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. If, after completion of construction of the mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in his or her sole discretion,that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen mechanical equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then the City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to cure the deficiencies identified by the City Planner. Developer agrees that City will not release the security provided until Developer completes all such corrective measures. 9. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls identified on the grading plan in Exhibit B. These plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for the retaining walls. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto,prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 10. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each sign which requires a permit by Eden Prairie City Code, Section 11.70, Developer shall file with the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of an application for a sign permit. The application shall include a complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, the manner of construction, and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material construction, and location of any such sign, consistent with the sign plan shown on Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City Code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a. 11. TREE REPLACEMENT:. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a tree replacement plan for 139 caliper inches. This approved plan shall include replacement trees of a 3-inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a 7-foot minimum height for conifer trees. The approved plan shall also provide that, should actual tree loss exceed that calculated herein, Developer shall provide tree replacement on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis for such excess loss. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved tree replacement plan prior to building permit issuance. 12. SIDEWALK AND TRAIL CONSTRUCTION: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Parks and Recreational Services Director and obtain the Director's written approval of detailed plans for sidewalks and trails to be constructed on the Property. Developer shall convey access easements for such sidewalks and trails in such locations as determined by the Parks and Recreation Services Director. Sidewalks and trails shall be constructed in the following locations: A. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail to be located along the north side of Cascade Drive. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved plans in accordance with the terms of Exhibit C prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property 13. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer agrees to release, defend and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, complaints, loss, costs (including attorneys' fees),damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures to act, errors, omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release, defend and indemnify because of any inspection, review or approval by City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. DEVELOPER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor Christopher M. Enger, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Christopher M. Enger, respectively the Acting Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by ,the , a Minnesota , on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public ii Exhibit A Dell and Highway 5 Office Legal Description: Lot 1,Block 1, Jamestown of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Consent Agenda SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald Uram Lake Place Townhomes V. D. Scott A. Kipp Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2"a Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-2.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.26 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 2.26 acres; and • Approve the Developers Agreement for Lake Place Townhomes. Synopsis This is a 15-unit townhouse project located at the southwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Center Way. Background At the July 20, 1999 City Council meeting, the residents raised a concern about the loss of natural grasses and vegetation on site. They wanted the developer to try to preserve as much of this as possible. The Council approved the project with a condition that the developer reviews the landscaping plan with the Preserve Association and staff to address this issue prior to any construction on the property. The Developer's Agreement includes this requirement under the Landscaping Plan section. Attachments 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement LAKE PLACE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 21-99-PUD-16-99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural and RM-2.5 Zoning Districts and be placed in the Planned Unit Development RM-6.5 Zoning District 21-99-PUD-16-99 (hereinafter "PUD-16-99-RM-6.5"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 17, 1999, entered into S & H Realty Management Co., LLP and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter"Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-16-99-RM-6.5, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-16-99-RM-6.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-16-99-RM-6.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-16-99-RM-6.5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-16-99-RM-6.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. z Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural and RM-2.5 Zoning Districts and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-16-99-RM-6.5 and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of July, 1999, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of August, 1999. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 3 Exhibit A Lake Place Townhomes Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1,Baypoint Two 4 LAKE PLACE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 21-99-PUD-16-99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located on the southwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Center Way from the Rural and RM-2.5 Zoning Districts to RM-6.5 Zoning District. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) LAKE PLACE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR LAKE PLACE TOWNHOMES BY S &H REALTY MANAGEMENT CO., LLP WHEREAS, the S &H Realty Management Co., LLP has applied for Site Plan approval of the Lake Place Townhomes on 2.26 acres for construction of 15 multi-family units located at the southwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Center Way, to be zoned RM-6.5 on 2.26 acres by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on August 17, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its June 14, 1999, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its July 20, 1999,meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to the City of Eden Prairie for the construction of 15 multi-family housing units, based on plans dated July 13, 1999 between S &H Realty Management Co., LLP and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 17, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT LAKE PLACE TOWNHOMES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of August 17, 1999,by S &H Realty Management Company,LLP, a Minnesota Limited Liability Partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.26 acres to the overall Preserve PUD,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.26 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-2.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.26 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.26 acres, legally described on Exhibit A(the"Property"); NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 99-122 for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-2.5 to RM-6.5, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review,Developer agrees to construct,develop and maintain the Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer agrees to develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated July 13, 1999,reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 20, 1999, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EIHIIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms,covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 3. GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer agrees that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the release of a land alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and other items required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond conforms to the final grading plan. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan. 7 Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan. The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design professional shall provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the grading in conformance the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan. Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or proposed sedimentation pond during construction Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation by City. 4. PRETREATMENT PONDS: Prior to grading permit issuance for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's written approval of plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed on the Property. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved storm water quality facility plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the Property,Developer shall provide to the City Engineer proof that the pond size has not diminished from the original design volume because of sedimentation, erosion or other causes, and that the pond has been restored to its original volume if the pond size has diminished. 5. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance,the Developer shall meet with the Preserve Association to review a landcape plan which preserves as much of the existing native grasses and plant material, and incorporates additional native plant materials on the Property. The Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials shown on the landscape plan on Exhibit B. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City Code. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved landscape plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C. 6. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved irrigation plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. Developer agrees that the irrigation system shall be designed such that water is not directed on or over public sidewalks or trails. 7. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved exterior materials and colors plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. TRASH: Developer agrees that all trash,trash receptacles and recycling bins shall at all times be located inside of the buildings depicted on Exhibit B. 9. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: The city hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the RM-6.5 Zoning District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD A. Shoreland Area Impervious surface of 33%. City Code maximum is 30%. 10. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer agrees to release, defend and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, complaints, loss, costs (including attorneys' fees),damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures to act, errors, omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release, defend and indemnify because of any inspection, review or approval by City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. DEVELOPER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Jean L. Harris, Mayor Christopher M. Enger, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19^, by Jean L. Harris and Christopher M. Enger,respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by ,the , a Minnesota ,on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public I0 Exhibit A Lake Place Townhomes Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, BAYPOINT TWO DATE: August 17, 1999 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: SECTION: Consent Calendar V. E. SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Works Final Plat Approval of Bryant Lake Heights Engineering Randy Slick Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Bryant Lake Heights Synopsis This proposal, located at 7010 Willow Creek Road is a replat of Tracts A, B, and C of Registered Land Survey No. 1697. The plat consists of 3.02 acres to be divided into three single family lots. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 2, 1999. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on August 3, 1999. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$270.00 • Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of$95.58 • Execution of Special Assessment Agreement for trunk utility improvements • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement • Provide a list of areas (to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots, and road right-of- ways certified by surveyor • Revision of plat to include standard drainage and utility easements on the perimeter of each lot. • Prior to release of final plat, Developer shall submit proof to the City Engineer that the approved reciprocal, joint access, maintenance agreement for the shared private driveway has been filed against the property. • Prior to release of final plat, Developer shall submit proof to the City Engineer that the approved sanitary sewer easement, maintenance and use agreement for shared private sanitary sewer system has been filed against the property. Attachment Drawing of final plat RS:ssa l CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BRYANT LAKE HEIGHTS WHEREAS, the plat of Bryant Lake Heights has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Bryant Lake Heights is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated August 17, 1999. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 17, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A. Porta, Clerk e2 BRYANT LAKE HEIGHTS R. T. DOC. NO. KNOW ALL MEN 8Y THESE PRESENTS: That Jame.W.Perkins and Rayne F.Perkins.husband and wife, j;r'vr...-r_ _ in-^ few owners of the following described property situate In the County of Hennepin,State of Minnesota 1 l_ 1 L_r\L_U L,y1^v U it Tracts B and C.Registered Land Survey No.1697,Foes of Registrar of Titles.County of Hennepin, \ I Minnesota. �%V I\`V i_\I 1 �•7'24 N�' _ AND: That Pearl Freeburg,a wider,fee owner of the following described property situated in the .J..7/r^ County of Hennepin,State of Minnesota to wit: Tract A,Registered Land Survey No.1697,Files Of Register of Titles,County of mmneph, a Minnesota. 584'37'49'E Z '1' 473.85 Have caused the same to be surveyed end platted as BRYANT LAKE HEIGHTS. ♦ it In witness ehereof said James W.Perkins and Rayne.F.Perkins,husband and wile haw hereunto set e \ L,J their hands this- day of______,199__. bye L•r G \ * S't L J James W.Perkins y Roynell F.Perkins yv r7 �( In witness whereof Bald Pearl Freeburg.a widow have hereunto set her hands this__day of 5 56B'dD•12'E 185.00 in i 8 199� N 0 \ ^ .. 85.00 -- 100.00 Cr: by CPearl Freeburg 1 hop \ _ C3 STATE OF MINNESOTA r n1 J�Is COUNTY OF_ The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of 199_,by \ h y(� .• � James W.Perkins and RaynNl F.Perkins,husband and calla. • • 'SO "‘I -- Notary Public County, ___ wed „fry JIJ �vV i.1 r n- My Commission Expires: Je __ 2 g7i y I hI� 5w STATE OF MINNESOTA —_-_--- N�, `� L.nl V tJ COUNTY OF_ 4. ,u 'P .n p L,1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this___day of_ 199�by i [r r-r_``r.0 3q Pearl Freeburg a widow. _ 9 4 Gy y C y 7I✓1 ' W 71 8 3 8 ------ i \ 3 9wY Notary Public County. 2 \ c b�G n of My Lemmieslon Expires: ____ 44 • A. \ Z o / C o I herebycertify that I have surveyed and platted the propertyg scribed on this plat as BRYANT LAKE A 'py / I ' 68 N �) HEIGHTS;that this plat is a t representation of sold survey,that all distances are correctly shown ' / cm the plat in feel and hundredths of a foot; that all monuments have beencorrectly placed in the M 'j b (Y ground as shown;that the outside boundary Ones are eomectly designated on the plat. l you 2 L O Jook Rotke,Land Surveyor,Minnesota License No.20281 • 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF_ • J Mt The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before this day of_ _„199_by f "t920 I/ C Jack Bolke,Land Surveyor.Minnesota License No.20261. � ,SURVEY L INE v' -J 581'02 44'W 1.29 _. MytCpnmiss ion Ephea: County.__----_-- -_ .H EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA This plat of BRYANT LANE HEIGHTS was approved and accepted by the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota of 9 / 9T OJ n aaregular m.tIng thereof held this _day of IBS—If applicable.the mitten `il 2 ' Sq^`N, L.� Mla and recommendations of the Commissioner 1 Transportation and the County Nlehwoy Enineer Z'1 have received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments • 509 end recommendations,as provided by Minnesota Statutes.Books 505.03.Subd.2. vf7 CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA J) 1O k� ,arms wl'S NpµMNEcca by. mayor by —Nark 0• 6` s rwn'O'1r24b TAXPAYER SERVICES DIMSON •/d, St O.Yt.' Hennepin County.Minnesota �, I hereby certify that taxes payable In end prior years have been paid for land described on ,O this plot.Dated this day of - 199� 1‘)\I ' • O ♦� yin \vt Joa�4f.Ecok K Potrlck H.D'Dennor,HMnspin County Auditor by Deputy b e'•P^� y SURVEY SECTION vsd' F'd`v^ Hennepin County Minnesota.a o`Ise' ^C Pureuenl to MINN.STAT.Sec.JBJB.385(IRON).this plat has been approved Ibis -day of " ' 0 A p1 199� ih F` eG Carr F.Caswell,Hennspin County Surveyor by _ REGISTRAR OF TILES _— Ihereby Hennepin County at la I hereby certify that the within plat of BRYANT LAKE HEIGHTS was Me In this nInee Ills___day of BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED —199J 9t—o'clock__M. Mlchoet H.Conniff,Regletror of Titles by___ deputy 0 30 60 90 150 ° DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT JENesuismommiSET AND ARK BY LICENSE NO. 20281 SCALE IN FEET EGAN FIELD & NOWAK INC. • DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT SURVEYORS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposed Amendment ITEM NO: Parks and Recreation to the City Code Regarding Use of Parkland V. F. Robert A. Lambert Director Requested Action: Move to: Approve setting a public hearing for September 7, 1999 for the first reading of an amendment to the City Code under Section 9.04 entitled "Rules and Regulations Governing Parks"to add a paragraph making it illegal to dig or excavate soil. Background Recently, a City staff member observed an individual with a hand trowel and a metal detector walking around the lawn at the Cummins-Grill Historic Site. The staff member also observed that there were numerous small piles of dirt on the lawn area. When asked what he was doing, the individual said that he was looking for old coins or artifacts, and he thought he had the right to dig anywhere on the site because "it was public land." Upon review of the City Code, there is currently no provision that restricts this use. Not having the provision that restricts this use is simply an oversight. Not only can a person with a shovel or a hand trowel cause damage to turf areas,but there is also a possibility of hitting either and irrigation line or buried electrical lines that are present throughout the park system and are not marked. Attachment Copy of ordinance as proposed by the City Attorney. BL:mdd H:\Parkland Amendment/Lambert CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 99 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 SECTION 9.04,ENTITLED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC PARKS, SUBD 4 BY ADDING PARAGRAPH AK AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 9.04, Subd. 4 is amended by adding paragraph AK as follows: "AK. Dig or excavate soil." Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor"are hereby adopted in their entirety,by reference,as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1999, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1999. City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1999. EP\Parks\DigOrdinance CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: August 17, 1999 SECTION: Consent Calendar) SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management Services Resolution Approving Five Additional Liquor V. G. iKathleen Porta, City Clerk Licenses Requested Action Move to: Adopt resolution approving Laws 1999, Chapter 202, Section 9 authorizing five additional on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and directing the City Clerk to file a Certificate of Approval of Special Law with the Secretary of State. Synopsis The City is requesting the licenses at this time so they will be available upon request from users in the Eden Prairie Center and to serve the remainder of the community. The Minnesota Legislature in 1999 adopted Chapter 202, Section 9, which authorized five additional on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in the City of Eden Prairie. The special law is made effective upon approval by the majority vote of all members of the City Council. Background Information The City of Eden Prairie requested special legislation to increase the number of liquor licenses from 26 to 32 for economic development purposes. Currently,the City has 20 licenses outstanding, 2 in process and 4 remaining to serve any additional growth. Eden Prairie received special legislation in 1994 increasing the number of licenses from 18 to 26. At the time of the legislation, the City had one license left to issue. Based on State Statute and an ultimate population of 65,000 (current population is 55,000), 26 licenses would be the maximum allowed in Eden Prairie. This cap would severely limit the type and quality of restaurant choices. The City of Eden Prairie has been working with the owners of the Eden Prairie Center for the last 5 years on the critical redevelopment of the Center. This Center has never lived up to its potential as a major regional shopping center and the City and owner are committed to make it successful. The redevelopment of the shopping center is currently underway. Construction has started on the first phase including: an 80,000 square foot, 18 screen United Artists Theater; 25,000 square foot Border's Books and Music Store; and 40,000 square feet retail space. Plans have been submitted for a 160,000 square foot Von Maur department store. Future phases include additional retail and entertainment uses. As a part of the entertainment aspect, General Growth has requested 6 additional liquor licenses for users they expect to be located here. This phase is expected in late 1999. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING FIVE ADDITIONAL LIQUOR LICENSES BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie hereby approves Laws 1999, Chapter 202, Section 9 authorizing five additional on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in the City of Eden Prairie. BEt IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie is authorized and directed to file a Certificate of Approval of Special Law reflecting the Council's approval of Laws 1999, Chapter 202, Section 9,with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management Services Natalie Swaggert Approve Temporary Removal of Personal Leave V. H. Accrual Maximum for the City Manager Requested Action Move to: Approve the temporary removal of the personal leave accrual maximum for the City Manager. Background The City Council has directed the City Manager to lead the Staff effort in a number of major organization projects (Implementation of the Vision 2001 Strategic Plan, Y2K, City Center Remodeling)which precludes extended use of personal leave through December 2001. Temporary removal of the personal leave accrual cap retroactive to April 1, 1999,will prevent loss of personal leave. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Safety Services Gary J. Therkelsen Resolution declaring "Abandoned Property" v I I Requested Action Move to: Adopt resolution declaring computer equipment"abandoned property." Synopsis City Code requires adoption of a resolution by City Council to declare unclaimed property that has been in the possession of the city for over 90 days as "abandoned property." Background Information The Eden Prairie Police Department has recovered two stolen computer file servers. Diligent effort has been made to locate the owner/s of the property. The computer equipment has been in the possession of the city for over 90 days and remains unclaimed. The property will be retained for City use. City Code Section 2.86. Subd. 2. Disposal of Unclaimed Property. A. Definition. "Abandoned property" means tangible or intangible property, including cash and negotiable instruments, that has lawfully come into the possession of the City in the course of municipal operations, remains unclaimed by the owner,and has been in the possession of the City for at least ninety(90)days and has been declared such by a resolution of the Council. C. Retention of Property for City Use or Notice and Sale. Upon adoption of a resolution declaring certain property to be abandoned property, the City Manager shall publish a notice thereof describing the same,together with the names(if known)and addresses(if known)of prior owners and holders thereof, and including a brief description of such property. The text of such notice shall also state (1) that the property will be retained by the City for City use; or (2)that a sale of the property will take place and the time, place and manner of sale of all such property is designated in the notice; or(3) in the case of cash or negotiable instruments, that the cash will be paid into the General Fund of the City and negotiable instruments will be negotiated and the cash received therefore will be paid into the General Fund of the City. In the case of a sale of the property, such notice shall be published once at least three (3) weeks prior to sale. In all other cases, the notice shall be published once within three (3) weeks after the Council resolution declaring the property to be abandoned property. In the event of a sale of the property, sale shall be made to the highest bidder at public auction or sale conducted in the manner directed by the Council in its resolution declaring property abandoned. Attachments Memo from Detective Bill Wyffels to Sgt. Al Larson. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.99- DECLARATION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Police Department recovered two file servers as stolen property; and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Police Department made diligent effort to find the owner; and WHEREAS, the property has been in the possession of the City over 90 days and remains unclaimed. Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie declares the two file servers "abandoned property." ADOPTED by the City Council on August 17, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Acting Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk 42. ;POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Detective Sgt. Al Larson FROM: Detective Bill Wyffels DATE: July 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Two Computer Servers Available To Be Converted To City Use Below is a description of the two computer servers that Detective Bergstrom recovered in a search warrant on 04-09-99 (ref. Case 99000191). Although much of the other computer equipment recovered in this search warrant was returned to the owners, these two computer servers remain unclaimed. The serial number has been removed from Server 1 (Item 7) and an NCIC search turned up negative on the serial number recorded on Server 2 (Item 5). As both systems are new and the hard drives contain no data, I am unable to identify the owner through forensic hard drive analysis. Server 1 Server 2 • Dual Pentium II 400Mhz wfrvDvIX processors • Single Pentium II 400Mhz w/MMX mounted together on motherboard Processor mounted on motherboard. • 512Mb RAM . 384 Mb RAM • 250 W Power Supply with dual cooling fans • 250 W Power Supply with dual cooling fans • Quantum Viking II SCSI 9Gb hard drive • Quantum Viking II SCSI 9Gb hard drive • 32X CD ROM • 32X CD ROM • 100Mb internal Iomega Zip Drive • 100Mb internal Iomega Zip Drive • 3.5" Floppy Drive . 3.5" Floppy Drive • 3Com PCI 10/100 Base Network Card • 3Com PCI 10/100 Base Network Card • Ports include: 2 USB, 2 Corn Serial, 2 Parallel, • Ports include: 2 USB, 2 Com Serial, 2 VGA monitor, Keyboard, & Mouse. Parallel, VGA monitor, Keyboard, & Mouse • 3 open PCI slots, 1 open EISA slot • 3 open PCI slots, 1 open EISA slot It should be noted that upon opening up the cover of this computer, the processor was disconnected from the motherboard and was flopping around in the case. Upon replacement, I was able to power the computer up, however unable to verify if the processor was working. Cc: Det. Jim Bergstrom 3 DATE: August 17, 1999 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: SECTION: Consent Calendar y. • SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Works Approve Roadside Landscaping Partnership with MnDOT Engineering Jim Richardson Requested Action Move to: Approve resolution authorizing application to enter into an agreement with MnDOT and to designate Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, as the contact person. Synopsis The City of Eden Prairie has a contractor building a berm on MnDOT property to in effect be a noise and sight bather. Part of the construction will be the landscaping, which MnDOT has designed, whereas the City and neighborhood volunteers will do the installation. The City will purchase the planting materials from a wholesale nursery, which the State has estimated to cost $4,000.00. Background Information This will be a continuation of an existing earthen berm that was constructed when State Highway 169/212 was upgraded in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The site is located between Highway 212 and Bryant Lake Drive, north of the State Maintenance building. The State will reimburse the City for the cost of the planting materials once final acceptance is completed. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF CITY PARTICIPATION IN MnDOT COMMUNITY ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHEREAS, a portion of TH 212 right-of-way in Eden Prairie has been identified as a candidate for landscape improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the City of Eden Prairie act as sponsoring unit for the landscape improvement project identified as TH 212 Right-of-Way Adjacent Bryant Lake Drive to be conducted during the period of August, 1999 through June, 2000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, is authorized to apply to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 17, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk ©2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 08/17/99 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: Community Development ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Donald R. Uram VL A. Michael Franzen Matt's Auto Service Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Approve lst Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the I- General District on .96 acres; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations (and Council conditions). Synopsis This is a plan for a 3,500 square foot industrial building with outdoor storage for 150 impound vehicles. Background Information This site is guided industrial and zoned I — General. Matt's Auto Service predates the current zoning ordinance and is a legal non-conforming use. Matt's Auto Service is towing of vehicles and provides impound service to the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Minnetonka. In order to build the project as proposed 13 variances from the City code must be granted. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project with the requested 13 variances at the June 28, 1999 meeting. The Planning Commission did not agree with the staff recommendation for variances subject to plan modifications that would improve the visual condition of the property by screening the outdoor storage of impound vehicles The Board of Appeals reviewed this item on August 12, 1999 and voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the project for a 5 year time period and subject to the attached Final Order. The staff has reviewed the environmental report and determined that the property may potentially be impacting the soil and groundwater due to on-site vehicle storage. Additional soil and groundwater testing is recommended. This information should be forwarded to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for conclusions and recommendations. 1 Attachments 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 28, 1999 2. Staff Report dated June 25, 1999 3. Memo from Leslie Stovring dated August 13, 1999 4. Environmental Report dated July 29, 1999 5. Board of Appeals Final Order dated August 12, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie June 28, 1999 Page 6 D. MATT'S AUTO SERVICE by Matt Stroedel. Matt Stroedel,proponent, stated that he does towing and storage for the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Minnetonka. He currently has five storage facilities and continues to have problems finding sites to store vehicles. He stated impounded vehicles are held for 90 days. Many owners do not pick up their cars; and eventually even if the vehicle is junked, they are lucky to get $50 per vehicle. However, there is an ever-increasing need with less and less space for his business. Stroedel stated he has to relocate his main office since NSP has bought him out, currently located in Minnetonka. Due to the type of business he operates,his property requires many variances. He needs to have an office facility on site, which allows a close working proximity for the police and fire departments. Stroedel distributed a letter of support from the Eden Prairie police department, stating they would lace to see his facility remain in the city. Franzen reviewed the staff recommendations Robert Hinck, Hinck Architects, representing Matt Stroedel, commented regarding the setback requirements and variances. Habicht asked about the setback from the creek. Stroedel showed the Commission a new material that can be used under the grass to allow drainage while still being able to park vehicles on top. Franzen explained that the bigger issue is the City has a responsibility to either eliminate or upgrade the non-conforming uses when the City has an opportunity to do so. Commissioner Alexander stated she does not have a problem with cars being parked as close as they are to the creek and believe Mr. Stroedel has a unique situation grandfathered as a long time business in the city. She stated as long as there are no existing problems with drainage, etc. she supports it. She does not believe screening is need for a railroad. Commissioner Sandstad asked if soil-boring testing has been done on the site. Stroedel stated that some time ago Matt Barr Engineering did some surface testing, approximately 10-12 years ago. Sandstad stated that if there are no problems on the site, he has no problem leaving the property grandfathered. Sandstad asked Mr. Stroedel if he would be willing to have soil boring testing done for hazardous materials. Commissioner Habicht stated that he has a problem with promoting a non-conforming use and would like to see Stroedel and staff meet to see if further mitigation ideas could be determined. Stroedel indicated there is a safety issue with the office and he would be installing bulletproof glass to protect his employees. He expressed frustration with the inability to start up this type of business because nobody wants it. Stroedel indicated he needs to have the facility built by 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie June 28, 1999 Page 7 September so a delay would cause timing problems. Commissioner Lewis asked if environmental testing could be done during construction. Sandstad asked for testing for 3-4 contaminants. Franzen stated that the code would allow an 8,000 square foot building on the property and only one variance for shoreland structure setback. Stroedel stated he cannot afford to lose any parking spaces because of the required setbacks—in addition to this site,he is using two other locations just to store the City vehicles which consume 80 per cent of the entire number of vehicles. Commission Habicht stated he would withdraw his previous comments because he sees now that it's either this location or no location and would approve it. • MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Lewis to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Lewis to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Matt's Auto Service, for Zoning District Amendment in the I-General Zoning District on.96 acres, and Site Plan Review on.96 acres, based on plans dated June 11, 1999 and work with staff to agree to two shallow soil borings on the site to test for 3-4 materials such as battery acid, etc. prior to the issuance of the building permit. Motion carried 6-0. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen,City Planner DATE: June 25, 1999 SUBJECT: Matt's Auto Service APPLICANT: Matt Strodel FEE OWNERS: Matt Strodel LOCATION: Industrial Boulevard South of Highway 62 REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Amendment in the I-General District on .96 Acres. 2. Site Plan Review on 0.96 acres in the I-General Zoning District with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 5 w. t 1•r .. w7 tY.._.. 1, t CLCN " C ^-- K i 11143 '17 4 1• =('� la t ..... (31) `(X �8/ a : YL -.4J a' FFF"' I �, ,'' trf yr r. f` ..'.9 10_ S S O.* I I 4"1 40j. hi:......,.... . C'40 ,‘ -` a ` •(1 �' '..."7 4, T f/b 1 41:j Z. 44 VI a c ' ■ c 1 /4P- (2 9) (17) (30) (113; a 1 y��` J 3 ', •,,:wa--%, (25) s: s. �, a .� `mod , (33) 4`R (, NO 1 ;. ''t, ,4- • • ( e ti4 • ••• / -.. . , =n 1 ' ' /�(21) (' jet•` a I 'V•7 C3T) ',. • . `• A a(20) a ,` / a •- ��,� .4 n -T £ (I3) (_,C.,?1(22) .6.. focl.‘, 1 14 :f ' ' .‘" ) .2; r ., 4,...7 (u) . t ,- --/." ir, .... ,,4. ..>. A.,/?!.t. ...... :.: I be 23) s1•p (33) 4.' b - 6� 4 c a ( _ e • 4 - -- — / C t Y p0 y / � .. -1 7. V 7 Si ' O ;i. . t as .e 44iA 7% /4 z \ 1..1 �D tf yy.oe .•-•ae 2fi •04 9, ''‘. t"i - d:sjp., ` ,b ,,.Fan ,a � fr � 13y :a '�.y 1. 4, fS.q _ �`'. 1 8 to ' 1 � 5-J (25) g • •.. i . :s. - .7 (2) (29) 1 LC t 131•47•3r �.o mot ��-E. • 3 r: (25) I (2) .IV - \ - ',25.•S •.-. A,S� �.4` EQ`C (2n wRg •.aa . • `711 - �'('.... 1.Lu . .c. -~' 1.e r • $ •�• 1 a - . .• ,a r1.Y •']7 �... ', k /'� .0 (8) use u '.xije .0 5, R se 'J vS• (7) '7( c O� t f.2 1 ITS 71 •P* - .. 1y r . (<) - _� . .• ,5. 11 .i( M x Eaf R�+—cp-1 �1aA15)° s.2.1. .3) - IJ�YC�R INDUSTRIAL TARX (6) 4 9 I. 1- 7wa' �I a4T� (33) (� _ J(12)l (1.3;1 F. _ (s)' • .4 t - to 7S • Staff Report—Matt's Auto - June 25, 1999 BACKGROUND This site is guided industrial and zoned I — General. Matt's Auto Service predates the current zoning ordinance and is a legal non-conforming use. Matt's Auto Service is towing of vehicles and provides impound service to the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Minnetonka. SITE PLAN The site plan shows the construction of a one story, 3,500 sf. building on .96 acres at a .08 base area ratio and .08 floor area ratio. VARIANCES The following variances are requested: A. Expanding a non-conforming use. B. Lot size less than 5 acres. C. Building Front Yard Setback from 75' to 40'. D. Building Side Yard Setback from 30' to 10' E. T for meeting the landscaping requirements. F. Storage in required setback. G. Front yard parking setback from 75' to 0' (zero). H. Side yard parking setback from 15' to 0' (zero). I. Reduction in the number of parking stalls from 15 to 12. J. Shoreland lot size from 5 to .96 acres. K. Shoreland setback for structure from 150' to approximately 70' L. Shoreland parking setback from 50' to 40' M. Crushed rock in stead of a bituminous surface for the vehicle storage area. If the owner continues to use the property as it exists today, the City cannot require the site to comply with current rules and regulations because the use predates City ordinances. However, when an owner applies to alter the current use, the city can either require that the site be brought into compliance with City Code or consider variances if a hardship exists. Due to existing conditions, the surrounding zoning and service to the community, the staff can be supportive of variances provided the site is improved visually. The staff can support an expansion of a non conforming use based on the following variances and conditions. 1. Lot Size less than 5 acres. This is an existing condition. 2. Frontyard building from 75 feet to 50 feet. This is the same setback of the I-2 Industrial District. 7 2 Staff Report—Matt's Auto - June 25, 1999 3. Building side yard setback from 30 to 20 feet. This is the same setback as the I-2 Industrial District. 4. Landscaping to City code. The landscape code has been consistently applied to all projects with no credit given to existing trees. The tree ordinance requires the protection of existing trees. 5. No storage of vehicles within the required setback. The setback is needed to screen outdoor storage as required by City code. No vehicles should be allowed in the front, side or rear setbacks. 6. Front yard parking setback from 75 feet to 25 feet. This would be consistent with a corner lot setback in the I-2 Industrial District. 7. No parking of vehicles in the side yard setback. The setback is needed for landscaping and screening requirements. 8. No reduction of required parking spaces. 9. Shoreland lot size from 5 acres to .96 acres. This is an existing condition. 10. Shoreland setback from 150 to 70 feet. The shoreland setback would preclude any building on the property. The building is as far away as practical. 11. Shoreland parking setback from 50 to 40 feet. This would be consistent with DNR and Watershed District recommendations. 12. Parking areas to be paved. Storage areas may be crushed rock. Create a small berm with natural plantings between the tree line and the edge of the crushed rock or bituminous surface. The berm keeps water from draining directly into the creek. Natural plantings could be prickly ash, dogwood, viburnam, and other creek edge varieties. 13. Screening of outdoor storage. A solid cedar fence will be required around the entire site. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in all setbacks. ARCHITECTURE The building meets the requirements of the I—General Zoning District. DRAINAGE The City, Watershed District, and the DNR concur that because of the use of the property, a crushed rock surface and a berm to keep water from flowing towards the creek would be better than paving the property and constructing a NURP pond. ACCESS The driveway access shall be 25 feet wide as required by code. LANDSCAPING Outdoor storage is permitted in an I General District, provide it is screened. The plan as proposed does not screen the outdoor storage. A revised plan with trees and shrubs Q 3 Staff Report—Matt's Auto - June 25, 1999 along the creek and in all setbacks and a 6-foot high solid cedar fence around the entire site is needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One The first option would be to recommend approval of: • Zoning District Amendment in the I-General District • Site Plan Review. This would be based upon plans dated June 11, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report June 25, 1999, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to Building Permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 2. Apply for and receive approval of all variances from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission believes the plan should be revised, then a second option would be to recommend a 30-day continuance and direct the owner to revise the plans as follows: 1. Lot Size less than 5 acres. This is an existing condition. 2. Frontyard building from 75 feet to 50 feet. This is the same setback of the I-2 Industrial District. 3. Building side yard setback from 30 to 20 feet. This is the same setback as the I-2 Industrial District. 4. Landscaping to City code. The landscape code has been consistently applied to all projects with no credit given to existing trees. The tree ordinance requires the protection of existing trees. 5. No storage of vehicles within the required setback. The setback is needed to screen outdoor storage as required by City code. No vehicles should be allowed in the front, side or rear setbacks. 4 Staff Report—Matt's Auto - June 25, 1999 6. Front yard parking setback from 75 feet to 25 feet. This would be consistent with a corner lot setback in the I-2 Industrial District. 7. No parking of vehicles in the side yard setback. The setback is needed for landscaping and screening requirements. 8. No reduction of required parking spaces. 9. Shoreland lot size from 5 acres to .96 acres. This is an existing condition. 10. Shoreland setback from 150 to 70 feet. The Shoreland setback would preclude any building on the property. The building is as far away as practical. 11. Shoreland parking setback from 50 to 40 feet. This would be consistent with DNR and Watershed District recommendations. 12. Parking areas to be paved. Storage areas may be crushed rock. Create a small berm with natural plantings between the tree line and the edge of the crushed rock or bituminous surface. The berm keeps water from draining directly into the creek. Natural plantings could be prickly ash, dogwood, viburnam, and other creek edge varieties. 13. Screening of outdoor storage. A solid cedar fence will be required around the entire site.Trees and shrubs shall be planted in all setbacks. Alternative Three If the Planning Commission believes the use of the property should not expand unless it is done in compliance with City Code, a third option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons since the plan does not meet City Code requirements. Staff recommends Alternative Two. �O 5 MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Leslie Stovring,Environmental Coordinator Date: August 13, 1999 Re: Matt's Auto Lot-Environmental Issues Matt's Auto Lot was identified as an impound lot, which involves open storage of multiple vehicles. The potential exists for soil and groundwater contamination due to leakage of automotive fluids, such as petroleum products, anti-freeze, battery acid and transmission fluids, to the environment. The site was identified as being just outside of the Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) as modeled by Hennepin Conservation District in October 1995. However, the model was run prior to removal of Well #12 and construction of Well #13. We are currently in the process of revising our WHPA. In addition, with the installation of RealFlow, we will be able to utilize more accurate information for the WHPA model. While Matt's Auto Lot will likely remain outside of the WHPA, until the revised model is complete, the relation of this site to the WHPA is unknown. Report of Findings for Matt's Auto Lot dated July 2, 1999 (AE#9223) Three geoprobes were conducted on-site at a depth of one foot below the ground surface. No information was provided regarding where the borings were located in relation to long term storage areas for vehicles. Soil samples were collected at 6 inches below the surface and analyzed with a photoionization detector(PID)with a 10.2 eV lamp. The results did not indicate the presence of petroleum vapors. However, while PID meter results do provide a good indication of the presence of general petroleum vapors, they are limited as to what types of contaminants can be identified and are not conclusive without laboratory analysis for sites with multiple contaminant sources, such as an auto lot. Review of the report indicates that the report was incomplete and no definitive analysis can be completed at that time. The report stated that the laboratory analytical results for Diesel Range Organics (DRO), gasoline range organics (GRO) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BETX)were pending. Report of Findings for Matt's Auto dated July 29, 1999 (AE#9223 Benzene was identified in the 2 of the soil samples collected for the July 2 report. The benzene concentrations were below the MPCA Soil Action Levels. No PID readings were detected in the samples collected. The soil sampling results were reported to the MPCA. Due to the detection of benzene, four additional geoprobes were conducted on-site for a total of seven geoprobes. Two of the geoprobes were carried below one foot to the groundwater surface. Memorandum Dated August 13, 1999 Matt's Auto Lot 6282 Industrial Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55345 I The remaining geoprobes only went to one foot below the ground surface. PID readings were taken at 6 inches in the shallow borings and at 6 inches, 5 feet and at the groundwater surface in the deeper borings. Water samples were collected from 9 feet (GP-3) to 13 feet (GP-2) below the ground surface. The results of the water quality analysis were not provided with the report. Applied Engineering stated that the soil contamination appeared to be limited and recommended that a Limited Site Investigation Report be completed and submitted to the MPCA with a recommendation of site closure,pending the results of the groundwater analysis. The report also states that the City of Eden Prairie requested investigation of possible petroleum impacts. However, it is my understanding that the City did not state which specific analyses should be conducted. Addendum to Report of Findings Dated July 29, 1999 Laboratory results for 2 groundwater samples were submitted to the City on August 12, 1999. The samples were collected on July 26, 1999 and analyzed for BETX and GRO. No samples were analyzed for metals, such as lead, or for volatile organic compounds (VOC's). GRO was identified in both groundwater samples. Ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene were also detected in GP-2. The levels detected were below the Health Risk Limits (HRL's) established by the Minnesota Department of Health for groundwater contaminants. The HRL's are used by the MPCA to help determine whether further investigation, or cleanup, is required. Recommendations The results of thegroundwater analysis indicate that Matt's Auto Lot maypotentiallybe Y impacting the soil and groundwater due to on-site vehicle storage. However, the information supplied by Applied Engineering to date was not sufficient to provide definitive evidence of the extent of the contaminants. Additional soil testing would be required to delineate site conditions more accurately and determine the range and extent of contamination. Lead analysis should be added to thesoilt testing. Soil andgroundwater samples should also be collected from impacted ed p areas and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC's) rather than just BETX to determine the potential for a wider range of contaminants. In addition, no information was provided on the sampling diagram as to where long-term vehicle storage areas were in relation to the samples collected. Conclusions and recommendations from the MPCA should be submitted to the City for review when they are forthcoming. Memorandum Dated August 13, 1999 Matt's Auto Lot 6282 Industrial Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55345 ' � 8-12-1999 5:O7PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385802 P. 113 /l7A7r 5WJ3DCL 17 e ENGINEERINGC)1�7 g-12-qa1 WAYZAr� 1- 12430 gin 00040e6 ftme.en July 29, 1999 Matt Strodel Matt's Auto 14521 Excelsior Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55345 • Ref: Report of Findings; Matt' s Auto, Eden Prairie; AE49223 Dear Matt, Attached is a report describing the work performed at the referenced location on 7/1/99 and 7/26/99, and the associated lab results received to date, per your request for the Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting. In summary, a total of seven Geoprobe borings were installed. No petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil and water samples from either the first or second field investigation. Laboratory analyses detected benzene in two soil samples, thus prompting the second field investigation. Benzene concentrations are below MPCA Action Levels. The State was notified as required by Minnesota Law. The horizontal and vertical extent of the release appears to be defined, and no petroleum impact to groundwater is identified. Confirmatory water samples have been submitted for laboratory analysis. Results are not yet available. Upon receipt of the water sample laboratory analyses, we recommend that an MPCA Limited Site Investigation Report be prepared. We anticipate MPCA file closure . Please call me if you have any questions, (612) 939-9095 . 1249$40 jet°414--. Applied Engineering, Inc. Thomas A. Greene, P.E. Atch: Report I .3 8-12='1999 5:07PN1 FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P. _ r,r-rL JJ CM6:ri N�th1N4 1N1: 612 9Z9 Lail$ P. 02 APPLIED \/4>`ENGINEERING APPLIPX ellICONMINOONC. 4Dae OAK LEA TERRACE WAYMA VINNU TA4030t-2311 NMi016 PAX 1014011 REPORT OF FINDINGS for: Matt Strodel Site: 6282 Industrial Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 AZ #9223 July 29, 1999 14 8-12-1999 5:07PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P" • Report of /Finding= 6282 Induatrial Drive, Eden Prairie; AR #9223 7/29/99 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As requested by the City of Eden Prairie, borings were conducted on the subject property to investigate for possible petroleum impacts. No petroleum hydrocarbons were identified during the initial field investigation. However, benzene was detected in the confirmatory laboratory analyses of two samples at concentrations of approximately one-one hundredth of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA} Action Level . All other laboratory analyzed constituents were below detection limits. A second field investigation was conducted to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of the petroleum impact . No petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in the second field investigation. Confirmatory water samples have been submitted for laboratory analyses and are not yet available. No impact to the groundwater is identified. Pending receipt of laboratory analyses, no further investigation or remediation is recommended. 2 is 8-12-1999 5:08PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P. wrrL.Am.0 CN4niNt.tk.iNu Ito.; 612 9S9 017E P. 04 Report of rindioya 8282 znduarri,a1 Drive, !Men Prairie; A8 #9233 7/29/99 SITE TNFORMATXON Site Address: Matt' s Auto 6282 Industrial Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 Property owner: Matt Strodel Mailing Address: 14521 Excelsior 13oulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone: (612) 938-6356 Consultant: Applied Engineering, Inc 2905 Oak Lea Terrace Wayzata, MN 55391 Contact: Thomas Greene Phone: (612) 939-9095 PURPOSE As requested by Matt Strodel, the purpose of this report is to provide documentation of the Geoprobe soil borings conducted at 6282 Industrial Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, to the Eden Prairie Planning Commission for their meeting on Monday, August 3, 1999. The investigation was requested of Matt Strodel by the City of Eden Prairie. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work included installing seven Geoprobe soil borings, soil and groundwater sampling, and field and laboratory analyses . The field investigation was accomplished on July 1 and 26, 1999 . Geoprobe is the trade name for a hydraulic device that drives a one inch diameter steel rod through the soil to retrieve soil or water from a desired depth. 7BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY According to the owner, Matt Strodel, the subject property was used as a car impoundment lot, operated by Matt' s Auto. No tanks were known to exist at the site. A proposed property development prompted the Geoprobe subsurface investigation in order to meet city requirements. 3 8-12-1999 5:08PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P_ Report of riiulinge 6262 Industrial Drive, lcden prairie; AR 09223 7/29/99 On July 1, 1999, three borings were installed (GP-1, GP-2 and GP- 3) . Soil samples were collected from approximately six inches deep, and field analyzed with a photolonization detector (PID) . Confirmatory samples were also submitted for laboratory analysis. No petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the field analyses. Upon receipt of laboratory results on July 22, 1999, it was discovered that benzene was detected at relatively very low concentrations in the samples from Geoprobe borings GP-2 and GP- 3 . The detected concentrations are approximately one-one hundredth the MPCA Action Levels. Due to benzene being detected, a release was reported to the MPCA as required by Minnesota Law. A second, follow-up field investigation was conducted on July 26, 1999 . Four additional borings were installed (GP-AI to GP-A4) , and deeper soil and water samples were collected from GP-2 and GP-3 . The purpose of this investigation was to attempt to define the extent of the impact horizontally and vertically. No petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the second field investigation PIA analyses. Confirmatory water samples have been submitted for laboratory analyses . METHODS The following methods were used to conduct this investigation: Field Analysis using Photoionization Detector (PID) Field screening methods used to distinguish petroleum impacted from non-impacted water included visual identification and odor detection, as well as use of a Photoionization Detector (DID) manufactured by HNU Systems, Inc. (Model PI-101 with a 10.2 eV lamp, calibrated to a benzene standard) . Samples collected were placed into a clean, sealable plastic bag. The bag was sealed and agitated. Vapor headspace readings were obtained by inserting the PID probe through the seal and extracting a vapor sample . sample Handling methods Soil sample collection followed MPCA Fact Sheet 3 .22, Soil ,Sat 1e Collection andAnalysis Procedures, dated July 1996, and MPCA Fact Sheet 3 .23, Ground Water Stemple Collection, and Analys& Procedures, dated April 1996. Those samples selected for laboratory analyses were handled in accordance with Wisconsin modified EPA methods for gasoline range organic (GRO) and/or diesel range organic (DRO) methods. According to the laboratory, all analyses 4 8-12-1999 5:O9PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 • APPLIED ENGINEERING INC 612 939 0173 • Report of p uldinAa 4282 Inetztri&.1 Drive, scion Prairie: AU #9221 7/29/98 were performed using Wisconsin modified EPA methods or other EPA methods. Geoprobe (TM) Soil Borings Geoprobe (TM) Systems equipment was operated by Applied Engineering to obtain soil samples at this location. The equipment included an impact-hammer probe rod driver, hollow 1" diameter, "B" style, steel threaded probe rods, a 22" long by 1 .375" outside diameter soil core sampler, and a mill-slotted well, point. Groundwater samples were obtained by driving the screen point to the desired depth. The intent of the sampling was to obtain a groundwater sample from as close as possible to the surface of the groundwater, Therefore, the presence of groundwater " e was checkedperiodicallyinserting g by ana t�.ng a 1/4 I .D. polyethylene sample tubing full depth into the hollow rod. Once water was identified, a sample was pumped to the surface and immediately placed into sample jars for laboratory analyses. Between sampling points, the inside and outside barrel of the mill-slotted well point was scrubbed in a TSP solution and rinsed with water. Soil samples were obtained by driving the sealed core- sampler with a clean acetate liner to the desired depth. Hollow threaded probe rods in 3' segments are attached successively to the core sampler to reach the sampling depth. There, the piston stop-pin at the trailing end of the sampler is unscrewed and released using extension rods inserted down the inside diameter of the probe rods. This enables the piston to retract as it is displaced by soil being driven into the sampler. Upon removal from the bore hole, the liner containing the sample is retrieved from the core sampler. Laboratory Sample Analysis, Precision Environmental Mobile laboratory analyses were conducted on selected samples collected on 7/1/99. Samples were analyzed in accordance with MPCA guidelines for the constituents identified on the chain of custody. According to the laboratory, applicable analyses were performed in accordance with the protocol identified in EPA Methods 8010, 8015, 8020 and/or Minnesota Dept of Health method MDH 465E, 5 I 8-1271999 5:09PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P. Report oL Findings 6292 Industrial Drive, Eden Prairie; AE S9223 7/29/99 Laboratory Sample Analysis, Pace Laboratories Laboratory analyses were conducted on selected samples collected on 7/26/99. Samples were analyzed in accordance with MPCA guidelines at a state certified laboratory, for the constituents identified on the chain of custody. According to the laboratory, all analyses were performed using Wisconsin modified 8PA methods or other EPA methods . RESULTS A total of seven Geoprobe soil borings were installed at the locations identified on the attached sketch, Nine soil samples and two groundwater samples were collected and vapor head-space analyzed with a PID. No petroleum vapors were detected by the PID in any of the soil or water samples. No visual evidence of petroleum, and no petroleum odors were identified in any of the samples collected from the site . Three soil and two water samples were sent for confirmatory laboratory analysis. Vapor headspace readings are shown in the Table 1 below. Table 1 . Vapor Headspace PID Readings Boring # Depth Sample Type PID Reading (soil/water) (ppm) ; GP-I 6" soil ND GP--2 6" soil ND 5' soil ND ,13 ' water ND GP-3 6" soil ND 5' soil ND 9' water ND GP-Al 6" soil ND • GP-A2 6" soil ND GP-A3 6" soil ND GP--A4 6" -• ND 1 ND R NdiragnTEga ,oaboratory Analvses First-round soil samples collected from GP-1, 2, and 3 were sent for laboratory analyses. The results were all non-detectable 6 / 1 8-12-1999 5: 1OPM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385802 P- • Report of Findings 6202 Industrial Dxivs, ;den Prairie; AR 49223 7/29/99 except for benzene at. 0 . 11 and 0 .12 ppm in GP-2 and GP-3, at 6 inches deep. The soil sample results are summarized in Table 2 . Second-round groundwater samples from GP-2 and GP-3 were submitted for laboratory analyses. Results are not yet available. Table 2 . Soil Lab Analytical Results: " ample Depth GRo ORO Benzene ethyl Toluene Xylene Code benzene GP-1 6" 40,1 40.1 <0,01 40,92 40,01 40.05 GP-2 , 6" a0.1 00,1 0.11 10.02 <0.01 r 0.06 (iD 3 6" 40.1 <0.1 0.12 0.02 40,01 c0.0$ Concentrations shown in parts per million Laboratory reports are to be included in the MPCA Remedial Investigation Report, upon receipt from the laboratory. DISCUSSION The benzene concentrations identified in GP-2 and GP-3 at 6 inches deep are below the MPCA Soil Action Levels of 40 ppm PID and/or 1. ppm GRO/DRO for sandy soils where the water table is located within 2S feet . Deeper soil samples from 5 feet deep and groundwater samples collected from 9-13 feet deep in GP-2 and GP-3 had no detectable PID readings. No petroleum vapors were detected in the soil samples from the surrounding borings (GP-Al to GP-A4) . Based on field analyses, the release appears limited to the vicinity of borings GP-2 and GP-3 . The vertical extent appears limited to less than five feet deep. The groundwater does not appear to be impacted. CONCLUSIONS - There has been a surface petroleum release identified at this site near GP-2 and GP-3, with concentrations below MPCA Action Levels. - Pending Laboratory analysis, no evidence of a petroleum release was identified in the soil or water samples taken from the five Geoprobe borings . - The above results report only on the points sampled and do not necessarily represent the entire site . D 8-12-1999 5, 19PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385802 P. • RCgort Of Mang 62a2 industria:. oravc, Laden Nrairle; Al N922 7/29/03 RECOMMENDATIONS Pending favorable laboratory results for the two groundwater samples submitted, no additional investigation appears to be necessary. An MPCA Limited Site Investigation (LSI) Report should be prepared for MPCA review/file closure. IN CLOSING This report represents opinion based on accepted analytical, industry, and MPCA standards. However, beyond this, no warranty is expressed or implied. 4TaiiYeronm Envow ental Scientist athy Orner Project Engineer PP160 Thomas A. Greene, P.E. Project Manager Attachments: Site Plan showing Geoprobe Boring locations Boring Logs _ -- - - • 8 02 8-12-1999 5: 11PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385802 P. Site Plan Showing Geoprobe Boring Locations 1 1 ! 1 ' 1 1 -r-i---L-F-t H-t. t t t ; -ii- 1 i i-i 1--r-f. - r Railroad Chain-Link Fence _I ? ? North i i I I ? 10Feet /11 1 f • GP-1 I I I . ! I I I 1 l I 1 i E I 1 2, ( 1 8 Car Impoundment Lot I a I u ;I ? GP-A3 6i I 'ail 1 ? ? 1 I GP-A2 GP 3 GP-2 GP-A4 I • • • • I 1 i j I I t 1 I § •GP-Al d Matt's Auto I > _ _ J 6282(industrial Drive ? Eden Prairie,MN 55346 j I Building iL — — — — — — — -- .,_-_ ___. 'ed fngrneerng,Inc., - •1-Oak Lea Terrace Wayzata,MN 55391. AE Project119223 Revised 7t26199 This drawing is not a survey and not intended for purposes other than this environmental investigation Industrial Drive 8-12-1999 5: 11PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385802 P. I EUM LUG AE Proi# 9223 Site Name: Matt's Auto Boring Date: 7/1/99 t �Surfaoe Elevation(): -1100 Site Address: 8282 Industrial Drive Drilllne_Co.: Applied EngineerInui Inc. ---- tf Temperature F): 77 gden Prairie,MN Drill Rig Model; In-House Gee Sheet_ I of 1 Drilling Method: direct push Drill Crew Chief: Tai Yeow �--� Sample Strata Moisture HNU Range Depth Change Water Content Level Blows (1) (ft) Depth Level Description of Material Color ebyamd..wrme (PPM) Per Er - 0-1' 1 Sand-Silt Mixture(SM)w/gravels" Brown damp ND 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 i - 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s• _ - '(Use add'l sheet If necessary) Boring Abandonment Method: cBentonite End of Boring Depth: 1 feet 4 Surface Patch Type: None Observed Water Level Depth: None Reviewed by .,./r Q Printed Name; Tel Yeow Applied Eegieeering,Inc. �" 2905 Oak Lest Terrace Comments: Wayzata,Mhtn. 55391 (612)939-9095 ' Sample collected from 6 Inches deep for laboratory analysis wasaza:711A9 P. I 8-12-1999 5: 1 1 PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 Am toirmar- y 4Rf G Boring a -Ft AE Pro)# 9223 Site Nam*: Matta Auto Soling bate: 711198&7/28l99 Settee Elevetion ft): -100 Site Address: 8282 Industrial Drive Drilling Co.: Applied Engitlearing inc. Temperature(deg.P): 80 - Eden Prairie,MN 55348 Drill Rig Model: In•Houee Geoprobe Sheet 1 of 1 Drillin. Method: direct push Drill Crew Chief- Tai Yeow Sample Strata Moisture HNU Range Depth Change Water Content Level Blows (ft) - ft -. Level Description of Material . _ Color ra aerepa •d),kPPM) er8" 0-1' 1 Sand-Silt Mixture(SM)w1 gravels' Dark Brown r damp ND 2 3 4 5-6' 5 'Sand(SP) Brown damp ND 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13' Groundwater sample collected Dark Grey ND 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 '(Use add'I sheet If neceesar r) Boring Abandonment Method: Bentonite End of Being Depths 16 feet Surface Patch Type: None Observed Water Levet Depth: 13 feet Reviewed by: �r�,L .f n Printed Name: Tai Yeow Applied Etiglaeet fiig,Inc. /r Ytv _ ^• 2905 Oak Lea Terrace Comments: Wayzata,Minn. 55391 (612)939-9095 ' Sample coHeated from 8 Inches deep for laboratory analysis 7 8-12-1999 5. 12PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 938E602 P. I , BORi Bonn! # AE Prot# 9223~ Site Name: Marys Auto Boring Date: 7/1/99 8 7/26/99 _ Surface Elevation(ft): -a 100 Site Address: 6282 Industrial Drive Drilling Co.: Applied Engineering Inc. Temperature(deg.F): 80 Eden Prairie,MN 55348 Drill Model: In-House Geoprobe Sheet , 1 of 1 Dtiilin Method:� cctt push Drill Crew Chief: Tel Yeow Sample Strata _ Moisture HNU Range Depth Change Water Content Level Blows ii (ft2 (ft). Depth Level Description of Material color te+yrauyn.wr.t.a, (PPM) _ per 6" 0-1' 1 Sand-Silt Mixture(SM)WI gravels` Brown damp ND 2 3 4 5•t3' 5 Sand(SP) Brown damp ND 6 7 8 9- 9' Groundwater sample collected Dark Grey , ND 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Use add'1 sheet If necessary) Boring Abandonment Method; Bentonite End of Boring Depth: 12 feet _ Surface Patch Type: None _ ,Observed Water Level Depth; 9 feet Reviewed by: " .,.) Printed Name: Tsi Yeow .Applied Engineering,Inc. 2905 Oak Lea Terrace Comments: Wayzata,Minn. 55391 (612)939-9095 " Sample collected from B inches deep for tanaratory analysis uov.e¢za 7/21srae . _ - 8-12-1999 5. 12PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P- I , RING .-- L—. _ �—__ - Borg# GP=AI AE Proj# 9223 Site Name: Mattes Auto Boring Date: 7/28/99 ,3urfae,e Elevation(Mt -100 Site Address: 6282 Industrial Dave Drilling Co.: Applied Engineering Inc, /Temperature(deg.F): 80 Eden Prairie,MN 55346 Drill Rig Model: In-Mouse Geoprebe 1heet 1 of 1 Drilling Method: direct push Drill Crew Chief; Tal Yeow Sample Strata Moisture HNU Range Depth Change Water Content Level Blows (ft) (ft) Depth Level Descri•tion of Material _ color_ cwr mw P• •- it - - 0-1' 1 Sand-Silt Mixture(SM)w/gravels Dark Brown damp ND 2 3 4 5 B _ I, 7 8 t g to 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 [ I _ Use add'{sheet if necessary) ,Boring Abandonment Method: Bentonite End of Ewing De the 1 feet _ Surface Patch Type: None Observed Water Level Depth: None Reviewed by: 04A Printed Name: Tai Yeow ppifed Engineering,Inc. 2905 Oak Lea Terrace Comments: Wayzata,Minn. 55391 (612)939-9095 6 8-12-1999 5: 12PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P- I onnY - AE ptoj# 9223 Site Name: Matt's Auto Boling Date: 7/26/09 Surface Emotion(ft): -400 Site Address: 8282 Industrial Drive Drilling Co.: Applied Engineering Inc, temperature(deli. : 80 Eden Praise,MN 56348 TDrill Rig Model: In-House(3eoprobe Sheet— i of 1 Grillin�_g___Method; direct push Drill Crew Chid: Tel Yeow s�a�rrti�e Sample Strata Moisture HNU Range Depth Change Water Content Level Blows eft) a0epth Level Description of Material color (dryldamprsar•RaOad) (PPM) yer6' 0-1' 1 Sand-Silt Mixture(SM)wl gravels Brown damp ND 2 3 4 5 • 8 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25pee add'!sheet if necessary) Boring Abandonment Method; Bentonite End of Boring Depth: 1 feet Surface Patch Type: Nona® Observed Water Level Depth: None Reviewed by: ,/.n, > Printed Name: Tei Yeow Applied Engineering,Inc. (mil 2905 Oak Lea Terrace Comments: Wayzata,Minn. 55391 (612)939.9095 L00.0223;732619% awoR �' d 8-12-1999 5: 1 3PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 P. vim. B L orin• 3 ..- _ AE Pro)# 9223 Site Name: Mains Auto airing Date; 7/26199 Surface Elevation(ft)-1100 Site Address: 6282 industrial Drive Drifting Co.: Applied Engineering Inc. Temperature(des,.F): 80 Eden Prairie,MN 55348 Drill Ri1Model; In-Nouse Geoprobe -, Sheet 1 of 1 Drilling Method; direct pusn Drill Crow Chief: Tat Yeow tocsin ---. . Sample Strata T Moisture HNU Range Depth Change Water Content Level Blow; ) (ft) Depth Level Deser ptian of Material Color (dry/e.md.aurned) (PPM)} _per . 0-1' 1 Sand-Silt Mixture(SM)w/gravels Brawn damp ND 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 e 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 _ SUse adds sheet if necessary) Boring Abandonment Method: Bentonite End of Boring Depth; 1 feet Surface Patch Type: None Observed Water Level Depth: None Reviewed by: / i Printed Name: Tel Yeow Applied Engineering,Inc. 2905 Oak Lea Terrace Comments; Wayzata,Him. 55391 J� (612)939-9095 { — � =,. u-r �- --t ._ __ter ems. if P. I 8-12,-1999 5: 1 3PM FROM MATT' S AUTO 9385602 zroRL Borincf GP A4 AE Pro)# 9223 Site Name; Matt's Auto Boring Date: 7/26/90 — Surface Elevation(ft): —100 Site Address: 8282 industrial Drive Drilling Co.: Applied Engineering Inc- 1 Temperature(deg.F): 80 Eden Prairie,MN 56346 Drift Rig Model: In-House Geoprobe Sheet 1 of 1 Drilltng Method: direct push Drill Crew Chief: Tai Yeow -- Sample Strata Moisture FINU Range Depth Change Water Content Level Blows (ft) (ht Depth Level Descri•tion of Material color (anrrernph.wratee) (PPM) per6" 0-1' 1 Sand(SP)w/gravels Brown damp ND 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - jtise add'l sheet if necessary) Boring Abandonment Method: Bentonite End Of Boring Dpth: 1 feet Surface Patch Type; None Observed Water Level Depth: None Reviewed by: ,Lei ,� Printed Name; Tel Yeow Applied Eugiteeeriug,Inc. 'f✓_ 2905 Oak Lea Terrace Comments: Wayzata,Mina. 55391 (612)9394095 LOG1723;7dfele t9/ VARIANCE#99-14 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FINAL ORDER RE: Petition of Matthew Strodel ADDRESS: 6282 Industrial Drive OTHER DESCRIPTION: NA VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached The Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (Yes X No�. 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and Platting Code. 3. Variance Request#99-14 is herein Granted X ,Denied_ 4. Conditions to the granting X , denial_, of said variance are as follows: Based upon the June 25, 1999 site plan with the following modifications: a) Require additional plantings indigenous to the creek bank along the bank b) Require additional plantings within the green area between the front property line and front parking c) Require a solid wood screening fence along the street frontage d) Construct a wood screening fence along industrial Drive to screen autos stored upon the lot across from 6282 Industrial Drive as agreed upon by the applicant. e) Require soil testing every five years.Test results are to be submitted to the City Engineering Environmental staff and MPCA f) That variance approval for the outside storage of impounded vehicles be for a 5 year period unless it continues as a City related impound lot or until redevelopment of the area occurs. Items a—d are subject to Planning Staff approval prior to building permit issuance. 5. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 6. This order shall be effective 08/12/99: however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one(1)year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 7. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS N/A=Not Applicable � BY: /74 DAT : 08/12/9 K:\COMMDEV\BOA-BOAR\FINALORD\FORM WPD 3 0 REQUEST #99-14 by Matt Strodel for 6282 Industrial Drive for approval of the following variances: • Expanding on a non-conformance use • Lot size less than 5 acres (lot size is .96 acres) • Building Front Yard Setback from 75' to 40' • Building Side yard Setback from 30' to 10' • Not meeting the landscape requirements • Storage in required setback • Front Yard parking setback from 75' to 0' (zero) • Side Yard parking setback from 15' to 0' (zero) • Reduction in the number of parking stalls from 15 to 12 • Shoreland lot size from 5 to .96 acres • Shoreland setback for structure from 150' to approximately 70' • Shoreland parking setback from 50' to 40' • Crushed rock instead of bituminous surface for the vehicle storage area 3l CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R. Uram Bluff Country Village East- Commercial -ILMike Franzen 6, L I Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 7.5 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 7.5 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into two lots. Synopsis This project is part of a master plan which includes Bluff Commercial West and Bluff Residential West. The master plan is : • 49,926 sf commercial retail include a Walgreens and convenience gas. • 98 townhouses and 15 live-work houses at a density of 6.3 units per acre. • 148 car park and ride lot. Bluff Country Commercial East is 3,650 sq. ft. of general retail., a 148 space Park&Ride, and a 13,823 sq. ft. Walgreens drug store. The plans meet city code requirements for setbacks, parking, drainage, utilities, architecture and landscaping. Background Information The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the plan,as proposed, to the City Council at the July 12, 1999 meeting subject to incorporating the same canopy, color, and architectural style as proposed with the strip center east of Hennepin Town Line Road. The plans do not show this revision. The existing Walgreens on County Road 4 has a shingled mansard which shows a residential character. This would be appropriate on this site. Alternative Site Plan For Park and Ride Site Proposed By The Developer After the Planning Commission meeting, and as a response to neighborhood concerns about noise and site lines to the highway, the developer is proposing alternate plans for the park and ride site 1 1. A 3-story, 30 unit senior building with 3,650 sf of retail on the first floor, and a 125 car park and ride lot. The code requires 45 spaces for senior housing and 22 spaces for retail. Between underground and surface parking there are 192 spaces. This results in a 125 car park and ride lot. 2. A 3-story, 30,000 sf office building with 3,650 sf of retail on the first floor. The code requires 150 spaces for office and 22 spaces for retail. Between underground and surface parking there are 192 spaces. This results in a 30 car park and ride lot. Alternative Site Plans Recommended by City Staff The staff recommends either of the following alternative site and land use plans for this site. Senior Housing Plan • Less traffic than office. • Consistent with the guide plan. The overall residential density would increase to 7.54 units per acre. Medium density allows up to 10 units per acre. • Proximity to commercial services. • The site plan provides open space for seniors consistent with other approved senior projects. • The plan addresses neighborhood issues about noise and site lines. • It address a housing goal • A 75-car park and ride could lease space in the commercial lot across the street since peak parking demand for commercial and park and ride are at different times of the day. Office-Retail-Park and Ride Plan • The plan addresses neighborhood issues about noise and site lines. • Provides a 90 car park and ride lot. • Limited nighttime and weekend traffic. • The building would be a one story pitched roof building with 10,000 sf. office, 3,650 retail, and a park and ride shelter. • The plan requires a guide plan change to office and would require a new hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council. Walgreens-Convenience Gas Intersection and Access The development plans for Bluff Country Village Commercial East/Commercial West propose a new median opening in Hennepin Town Road approximately 300 feet north of Pioneer Trail (CSAH 1). City Engineering staff and the traffic consultant for the project were concerned that a standard full median opening at this location, serving the proposed Walgreen site and Gas Convenience site, would have a significant probability of developing safety problems in the future as traffic volumes grow on Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road for the following reasons: • Customers making left turns from the commercial sites at the proposed intersection location will experience northbound traffic entering their sight line from Pioneer Trail with only a few seconds of travel time from the proposed intersection. 2 • Traffic in the southbound left turn lane of Hennepin Town Road is expected to back up through this proposed intersection during rush hour based on future traffic volumes making left turns from the commercial sites difficult. The two design solutions to eliminate this potential future problem are no median opening, leaving only right-in/right-out access to the commercial sites at this location, or a channelized opening which would prevent the exiting left turns onto Hennepin Town Road at this location. The channelized median opening allows full ingress to the site but only allows the right turn exit at these locations. Left turns would be accomplished by using cross-access to the intersection located farther to the north on Hennepin Town Road.. Of these two design solutions to address safety issues, the developer prefers the channelized opening which allows full ingress to the commercial sites. The preference of the developer and the neighborhood is for a full access now and the channeled access would be constructed if a traffic problem develops in the future. If a full median opening without channelization to prohibit the exiting left turns is considered, staff would recommend that the accident history of this intersection be periodically reviewed and the channelization alternative be considered for future implementation if an accident history develops. Language regarding future modification to the intersection may be included in the development agreement. It is also recommended that an assessment agreement regarding future intersection modifications, if desirable, be developed as part of the development agreement and recorded against the commercial properties utilizing this new median opening. Staff Recommendation The staff would recommend approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. A revised staff recommended site plan for office or senior housing. 2. Modify the Walgreens architecture to show a shingled mansard and a canopy. 3. Construct the a channeled opening which would prevent the exiting left turns onto Hennepin Town Road concurrent with the construction of Walgreens and the convenience gas. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 26, 1999, May 24, 1999, and July 12, 1999. (One set for all three projects.) 4. Staff Reports dated April 23, 1999 and July 9, 1999. 5. Executive Summaries dated April 23, 1999, May 21, 1999, and July 9, 1999. (One set for all three projects.) 6. Correspondence (One set for all three projects.) 3 3 I / I I / I Ell MI Ell r- = ri , , . _ . . ... .... CA,4Jc,e I d jiIJ( 0. '.F II. ME .... MI MEI 50 S6V:0R �% �4 HOUSi:VO l �l A0UNITS �/ *0 \ \\\ \\:\ --_,..../ S. ---„,, Wei 040 di ? 6rAee __ _ ___,, N , .„....,, , ,...„ ......_, \ ,_„,-7 eARX & RIDE ---..___,// LAMPOCA111147 \ SHELTER O / N v • N X I N 1V rio 120 FT ` N 6TW f AE/Orni3�N ol Nv is're rall,KI I i 1 1 / ' ' l' ' / , , • / Ak. a_..Vk 1 - 2500 ap RETAI 30 SEN, z \'HOUSING 11 - UNITS ..1 ts, oe �` ` �� tits c. / O �SOC S.F. R�iri L -, N" \\\:\ /, xis / i \ \ _ , ____.... , \ \ RA K & RIDE SHELTER .� •' fir K� sai, \ \ / N . . 14,4 'Avon • 1 1 NN sok __ it, N. , . , .. , , , , ./ a, 1 / 6rAff RWrIt1 0 30 60 OlFate•REsrAtto - FAR . 1 4 -give PLAN 5- BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST-COMMERCIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST-COMMERCIAL FOR HUSTAD LAND 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 Bluff Country Village East - Commercial PUD Concept Review by Hustad Land 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 August 17, 1999. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Bluff Country Village East - Commercial, 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 August 3, 1999. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1999. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 6 Exhibit A Bluff Country Village Legal Description: The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116,Range 22, Hennepin County Minnesota, lying north of the former location of County Road No. 1, EXCEPT that part taken for highway purposes. Outlots A and C, Prairie East Third Addition 7 BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST-COMMERCIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST-COMMERCIAL FOR HUSTAD LAND BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Bluff Country Village East - Commercial, dated August 3, 1999, consisting of 7.5 acres into two lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 8 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: April 23, 1999 SUBJECT: Bluff Country Village Commercial- East APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 7.5 acres. 2. Planned Unit Concept Review on 7.5 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.5 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial on 7.5 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat on 7.5 acres into three lots and one outlot. Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial- East April 23, 1999 BACKGROUND Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. SITE PLAN The site plan shows the construction of three retail sites totaling 29,100 sq. ft. on 7.5 acres. • "Commercial East 1"is a 15,000 sq. ft. Walgreens drug store. • "Commercial East 2" is a 8,800 sq. ft. convenience gas store. • "Commercial East 3"is 5,500 sq. ft. of general retail with no proposed users. • Outlot A is a NURP pond. The building setbacks meet City Code. Each site meets the base area and floor area ratio requirements meet City Code. The 10 foot parking setback on the"Commercial East 3" site should be revised to meet the required 17% foot setback from the property line adjacent to Highway 169. There are a total of 175 parking stalls,which meets City Code. The drug store has 90 spaces,the gas convenience has 33 spaces, and"Commercial East 3"has 54 spaces. The driveway area proposed on the west side of the "Commercial East 3"between the building and Hennepin Townline Road should be removed. This will allow an additional area for more plantings. ARCHITECTURE There are only specific plans for the drug store. The drug store complies with 75%face brick and glass. REZONING FOR COMMERCIAL EAST "2" AND "3" No specific architecture plans were provided for "Commercial East 2" or "Commercial East 3" buildings. Staff recommends the City consider only a concept approval for these sites. When architecture plans are available, a public hearing for rezoning will be scheduled. TREE LOSS Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. 2 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial- East April 23, 1999 LANDSCAPE PLAN The landscaping plan provides 192.5 caliper inches for tree replacement and 88 caliper inches of landscaping as required by code. Staff recommends the following landscaping changes in order to screen parking according to City code. 1. "Commercial East 1"(Drug Store) -All proposed shade trees should be eliminated along Pioneer Trail. These trees need to be replaced with 35, six foot conifers located along the Pioneer Trail and Highway 169 property lines. 2. "Commercial East 2"(Gas Convenience)—Plant 12, six foot conifers along the Highway 169 property line. 3. "Commercial East 3" (General Commercial) — Plant 20, six foot conifers along the Highway 169 property line. Trees were replaced along Hennepin Townline Road due to the upgrading of Highway 169. These plantings will need to be maintained as part of the project and in addition to the required landscaping and tree replacement caliper inches. DRAINAGE A NURP pond will be located on Oulot A. LIGHTING Downcast, shoebox lighting will be used throughout the parking lot area at a maximum height of 20 feet. There will also be additional recessed lighting under the gas canopy. UTILITIES Utilities are available in Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road. SIGNAGE The Walgreens pylon sign does not meet City Code. The City Code is a maximum height of 20 feet and a 80 sq. ft. face size. Staff recommends the sign meet City code. Details need to be provided for all wall signs. No signs were submitted for the other commercial buildings. 3 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial- East April 23, 1999 The sculpture proposed to be located within Outlot must be relocated outside of the wetland area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One If the Planning Commission believes the developer has successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then the first option would be to recommend approval of: • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 7.5 acres; • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.5 acres; • Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial on 7.5 acres; • Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres. • Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 3 lots and one outlot. This would be based upon plans dated April 23, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report April 23, 1999, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the 4 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial- East April 23, 1999 City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission believes the developer has not successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then a second option would be to recommend that the project be continued to revise the plan as follows: The property should be developed consistent with the guide plan with neighborhood commercial less than 50,000 square feet, multiple family less than ten units per acre, with a common architectural theme, with a comprehensive sign plan, and the following plan revisions: • Move the gas station to the corner where the drug store is currently proposed. • Locate the drug store where the gas is proposed. • Change the general retail northeast of Hennepin Townline Road to an office building. • Revise the landscape plan for better screening of parking area. • Revise the Walgreens' signs to meet City code. • Move the sculpture out of the wetland. • Remove the west driveway from"Commercial East 3." • Revise the plan to eliminate the median opening on Hennepin Townline Road. • Revise the site plan to meet a 17.5 foot parking setback to Highway 169. • Provide details for the wall signs associated with Walgreens. Alternative Three If the Planning Commission believes the developer has not successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then a third option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons. • The plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan • The City has an adequate amount of community commercial. • The intensity of the project results in increased traffic, high tree loss, loss of natural buffers, an inadequate transition, waivers from the City code and access problems. Staff recommends Alternative Two. 5 1 . STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: July 9, 1999 SUBJECT: Bluff Country Village Commercial-East APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.5 acres. 3. Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 7.5 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat on 7.5 acres into two lots and one outlot. Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial-East July 9, 1999 BACKGROUND Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. SITE PLAN The site plan shows 2 lots and 1 outlot with the construction of two retail sites totaling 17,473 sq. ft. and a 148 space Park&Ride on 7.5 acres. • "Commercial East-1"includes 3,650 sq. ft. of general retail and a 148 space Park&Ride • "Commercial East-2"is proposed as a 13,823 sq. ft. Walgreens drug store • Outlot A is a NURP pond The building and parking setbacks meet City Code. Each site meets the base area and floor area ratio requirements meet City Code. The B.A.R. and F.A.R. are both 5%which meet City code. There are a total of 116 parking stalls (86 for the drug store and 30 for the general retail), which meets City Code. There are 148 additional spaces provided on the"Commercial East-1". ARCHITECTURE Both structures comply with 75%face brick,glass, and natural stone requirement. In aneffort to provide e architectural continuity to the overall PUD, staff recommends both retail structures (including Walgreens) incorporate the same canopy, color, and style as proposed with the strip center east of Hennepin Town Road. TREE LOSS Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. LANDSCAPE PLAN The landscaping plan provides 55 caliper inches of landscaping as required by code for building square footage. The landscaping plan meets the required amount of landscaping, and parking lot screening. Trees were replaced along Hennepin Townline Road due to the upgrading of Highway 169. These plantings will need to be maintained in addition to the required landscaping and tree replacement 2 � �s Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial-East July 9, 1999 caliper inches required by the project. DRAINAGE A NURP pond will be located on Oulot A. LIGHTING Downcast, shoebox lighting will be used throughout the development at a maximum height of 20 feet since the project is adjacent to residential land uses. UTILITIES Utilities are available in Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road. SIDEWALK A sidewalk connection is needed from Hennepin Town Road into the Park and Ride area. SIGNAGE The Walgreens pylon sign does not meet City Code. The City Code is a maximum height of 20 feet and an 80 sq. ft. total face size. Staff recommends the sign meet City code. Details need to be provided for all wall signs. No signs were submitted for the other commercial buildings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is comfortable with the proposed land uses, intensity of land uses, and location of land uses. Staff does not support the redesign of Hennepin Town Road as proposed and recommends that the project be continued until August 9, 1999,in order to resolve the identified traffic issues based on plans dated June 25, 1999,this Staff Report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall: A. Adjust the size of the proposed Walgreen's monument sign. B. Incorporate similar architectural canopy, color and style to both commercial buildings, as proposed on the strip center. C. Locate a sidewalk connection from Hennepin Town Road into the Park and Ride. 3 16 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial-East July 9, 1999 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. Prior to grading,the proponent shall notify the City Engineer,Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. 4 / 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 26, 1999 Page 2 A. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST—COMMERCIAL B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST—COMMERCIAL C. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST- RESIDENTIAL Wally Hustad, owner of the property, Hustad Land Company, explained the 28-acre project located at 169 and Pioneer Trail in the southeast quadrant of the community. He stated he has owned this property for 26 years. Hustad explained that although the three separate projects are located on one piece of property, they are designed and financed individually. He asked the Planning Commission to consider each of the three projects separately. He then introduced the presenters: Paul Tusse, Opiton, representing the east commercial project;Beth Simonsted, Trek, representing the townhouse project; and that he would present the west commercial project. Hustad requested separate consideration of the 90-unit townhouse project from a design standpoint should be considered as a separate entity. He noted one correction in the Staff Report that the gas station is the 5,500 s.f and the retail(Walgreen's) is the 8,800 s.f. parcel. Paul Tusse, Opiton Investment Company, developer for Hustad Land Company for the East Commercial property, stated they would be willing to work with staff on shifting of parking and the driveway area. He reviewed the Walgreen's structure consisting of brick and stucco, compatible with the proposed housing development. He stated the pylon sign would be brought into conformance as requested by staff; as well as bringing to staff a landscaping plan. He also stated the pole heights would conform to city requirements. Tusse then outlined the areas where they disagreed with staff recommendation: 1) Reversing the sites for Walgreen's and the gas station will not work. Walgreen's has requested the site as proposed and the site fits their needs. 2) Active negotiations are occurring with MTCO to put a"park and ride" facility on the site, which would be a viable option. 3) Access—right in, right out—with a median break 280 feet from the corner is necessary to give full access helping distribute vehicles, providing a safe entry and exit. He stated without this break, they area concerned about U-turns occurring to access the site. Tusse also indicated the traffic study showed the capacity of the road could handle double of what is currently there. Tusse stated that these plans are conceptual and that final building plans will come before the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Beth Simonsted, Trek Development, developer for the 90-unit townhomes on 12 acres of the site stated that this proposal is consistent with the current Guide Plan. The development is located in the northwest quadrant of 169 and County Road 1, on the north side of County Road 1. Adjacent to the site there is currently two stubbed streets that could be opened to the property. Simonsted stated Bruce Schmidt, the architect is coordinating the design with the mixed-use projects and l9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 26, 1999 Page 3 within this project there will be three individual building designs. She stated the units would be approximately 1,500 s.f and sell for'between$165,000 and $200,000. The exterior will be of brick and stucco. Simonsted discussed the purpose of the varied setbacks of the buildings; and that the buildings are actually turned on their sides to create a more interesting and meandering of the streets; showing less of the building sides. She stated concern with the City's requirement of adhering strictly to a set sideyard setback, which will result in loss of the creativity of the meandering buildings and driveway area. Wally Hustad, Hustad Land Company, described the commercial west project—located on ten acres and combines three separate identities to integrate the commercial with the residential, resulting in a denser project than the Guide Plan allows. He stated their concerns in designing this project were to meet the changing demographics of living and working. He stated this development would service their previous large-scale PUD developments in Eden Prairie. He described the 17 live/work units proposed over the commercial area. Hustad is willing to work with staff on their recommendations but explained that changes will affect other parts of the overall project. He stated the separate identities break up the monotony of all the uses looking the same. He asked the Planning Commission if Eden Prairie wants a creative site or one that adheres to the Guide Plan. He made the following three points: 1)the community needs the village services and have for a long time; 2) there is a need to concentrate density in Eden Prairie because of less available space for development; 3)the market is crying out for this need. Chair Foote asked whether the live/work units would be rented or sold. Hustad responded they would preferably be sold at a cost of$200,000 and up. Sandstad asked Hustad to describe the live/work units and what type of people would have such a need. Hustad responded there would be 700 s.f of office/work unit on the first floor along with a garage (all over the commercial) and the apartment/living unit on top. Habicht asked if there was a little bit less of everything, would the project still work. Hustad responded his concern about too small square footages and not generating what the users need. Hustad stated that trade offs may be necessary. He believes the"park and ride" facility would lower the commercial density. He stated the general purpose of the development is to make enough activity to make the area more viable. City Planner Franzen stated that the intent of the comprehensive plan is to create a mixed residential and commercial development with neighborhood commercial providing goods and services to residents living within 1 to 1.5 miles. While the plan provides a mixture of uses as envisioned in the guide plan and provides senior housing to meet a pressing demand, the City has an adequate amount of community commercial. The intensity of the project results in increased traffic, high tree loss, loss of natural buffers, an inadequate transition, waivers from the City Code, and access problems. The property should be developed consistent with the guide plan with neighborhood commercial less than 50,000 square feet, multiple family less than ten units per acre, with a common architectural theme, with a comprehensive sign plan, and the following plan revisions listed in the executive summary. / PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 26, 1999 Page 4 Chair Foote asked for members of the audience to come forward to speak. John Turner, 10019 Shadow Pond Drive, representing the Woodland Ponds area on the west side of the development, stated the residents had met with City Planner Franzen in February and agreed with the staff recommendations. They have the following issues: creating cul de sacs; inadequate buffer zones;no progression of density of uses; preserving as many trees as possible; preserving natural buffers; housing alone would acceptable; too high density proposal. The residents disagree that there is a need for this commercial because they already are served by the Preserve services. Mike Kallas, 10173 Juniper Lane, stated there is no need for more commercial of this intensity. He stated it does not seem logical that the property has to be a specific way and that less would be acceptable. He stated that the setbacks should still be a front yard setback even if the buildings are turned and that townhouses would be a deviation from their expectations when moving to their home. He commended Hustad for his innovative endeavor but it is too intense and should be re- worked. Maureen Degnas, 9946 Balmorel Lane, stated this project is too much. She stated concern about the gas station producing odors when the tanks are filled and believes it is not a good use for this site. Habicht asked Ms. Degnas if the southeast corner would be an acceptable site for the gas station and she responded it would. Terry Starks, 10008 Shadow Pond Drive, stated his street deadends where the development is proposed. He commended City Planner Franzen and staff for helping the residents through a difficult process, which they knew little about; and including their concerns in the staff recommendations. He stated concern about traffic since it already backs up at Pioneer Trail and 169. Sara Quie, 11850 Runnel Circle, stated she is in favor of this development as discussed because she would like to see a warm and friendly place to go and send her kids. She sees it as a village instead of all the other strip malls in Eden Prairie. Her property would back up to the townhouses and she stated there is plenty of trees to provide and an adequate buffer. She also likes the idea of providing a place for older people. Jack Larson, 11688 Tanglewood Drive, stated his normal commute takes him through this area and he would be in favor of the proposal. He likes the live/work units and stated they will fit well with the changing demographics putting Eden Prairie on leading edge. He would be proud to have this development in his community. Pam Snyder, 11701 Tanglewood Drive, stated she is in favor of this proposal since there is a need for something unique and different in this area. She stated it would build the community feeling PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 26, 1999 Page 5 and provide a place for entrepreneurs. Dean Luke, 10450 Whitetail Circle, stated that currently he has to go to Bloomington buy gas and liquor because there is nothing close to his home. He is in favor of the live/work units because it is current thinking. He stated the Creek Knolls and Normandy Crest developments can be thankful to this developer(Hustad) for the large amounts of donation of park and open space he has made to Eden Prairie over the years and keeping the neighborhoods to a scale they wanted to move into. Diane Luke, 10450 Whitetail Circle, stated they have lived here since 1972 and they have had to scramble many miles to shop. This development will now finally give them some place close to shop. She sees this type of development appropriate for this intersection. She believes the senior housing is needed and the gas station would mean they wouldn't have to go to Bloomington for their gas. Steve Orth, 10094 Juniper Lane, stated the density and magnitude of this proposal should be considered not the convenience of shopping as the main focus. He would not be opposed to a development that is reasonable. Dennis Bracken, 9913 Balmorel Lane, asked for his neighborhood to be protected from this intensity of development; and that they have already been impacted negatively by 169 improvements—noise and traffic. Patrick Hart, 9989 Applewood Circle, stated he is in favor of the project but that more buffering should be considered as well as exchanging sites for the drug store and gas station. He would also like the stoplight removed at Pioneer Trail and a bridge built. Jeff Atkinson, 10016 Shadow Pond Drive, stated they moved here because they liked the way it was. He would like the property developed according to the Guide Plan. Changes on Pioneer Trail and this development should be what fits. Steve Anders, representing the Pioneer Trail Neighborhood Organization, stated their group is trying to do something about the increase in traffic. He asked if children should be allowed to ride/walk along a roadway with a 50-mph speed limit and where would they cross. He stated the plan might have merit but not so intense commercial. Gary Johnson, 10006 Juniper Lane, wants the proposal held to the Guide Plan. He has invested in his home when the Guide Plan was in place and it is unfair to homeowners to change the Plan. He does not oppose development as long as it is within the Guide Plan. He asked the Commission to protect their investment. Steve Moen, 9812 Lea Drive, asked for more buffering. He pointed out that there would be two commercial areas with residential right in between them and it would cause too much traffic. He asked for development within the Guide Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 26, 1999 Page 6 Tony Cecini, stated he is interested in perhaps both living and running a restaurant in the proposed development. He stated the density would be a positive since people would not always have to drive to get somewhere. He agrees that the residential and commercial works well. He also sees a need for more restaurants in this area. Laurie Howsevich , 9600 Squire Lane, is interested in property and a business. She stated the proposal is too extravagant for this area because now she can take her kids for a walk or bfice ride along this area without concern about traffic. The proposal would create too much traffic. Minimal development would be acceptable. Chris Anderson, 9962 Rea Drive, stated concerns about the gas station, which will back up to their backyard; including lights, noise, and fumes. The Commission was invited to drive by and see the neighborhood. Tom Richardson, 10011 Shadow Pond Drive, stated when they moved here they envisioned more residential but that 90 units was staggering. Becky Lawrence, 10189 Juniper, stated concern about the proposed commercial in the future. She pointed out that many strip malls in the community now have vacant space and asked how this development would keep their space filled. Becky Johnson, 9840 Belmare Lane, stated that if this is to be a neighborhood, then it should be smaller and not attract others from all over creating too much traffic and people taking shortcuts through the neighborhoods. Terry Johnson, 9846 Balmoral Lane, stated concern about the traffic and invited the Planning Commission to walk through their neighborhood. Habicht likes the concept of mixed uses but has issues with the density building flow from east to west. The proposed amount of commercial use is excessive given the area but the original 50,000 s.f. of commercial would be acceptable. Habicht stated he would accept an upward deviation of 50,00 s.f. with some trade-offs, i.e., considerably less number and size of townhouse units and the bulk of the commercial on the east side of Hennepin Town Line. In summary, Habicht would like to see better utilization of the site. Clinton commended Hustad for innovative and creative development design. He stated there is just too much, and suggested the plan would be workable on a smaller scale while still achieving the valued project. Clinton explained that the nine criteria needed to change the Guide Plan were developed to assist the City in making recommendations on proposals. He stated there would be excessive traffic and does not support the 58 per cent tree loss. Clinton did not believe that having a gas station closer than a mile from home is an issue to him. He stated the development needs to be scaled down and meet the Guide Plan. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 26, 1999 Page 7 Lewis thanked the citizens for attending the tonight's meeting and sharing their opinion and to all those who wrote their opinion about this proposal. She mentioned that Hustad's letter referred to this proposal as a mini-Centennial Lakes. She likes the concept but stated it is too much for this corner. She would also like to see progression of density. Regarding traffic, she has faith in the Eden Prairie traffic studies being correct. She believes the issues of buffers and setbacks can be worked out. Sandstad gave a"hats off"to the citizens in attendance; stating both the developers' and homeowners' input was productive. He stated the commercial west has merit;but agrees with staff of putting the gas station on Pioneer Trail for the commercial east project. He sees a problem with lack of transition and buffering for homes to the north. He stated he will not approve the 58 per cent tree loss. He supports a continuance of the hearing for this proposal. Alexander likes the concept but stated it is quite dense. She likes the arrangement of townhomes to provide a buffer between the residential and the commercial. She does not see the gas station as a necessity. Andrews supports the senior housing. Overall, she stated the proposal needs to be less dense. Foote supports holding to the Guide Plan. He pointed out this proposal calls for twice or more the traffic;twice the tree loss allowed; and the transition is not adequate to the north. He supports the live/work concept, moving the gas station to the corner; and agrees that the 'park and ride' concept which would generate less traffic. Foote would like to see the commercial area cut in half and meeting the Guide Plan. Hustad told the Commissioners he accepts the continuance and will come back with a project that meets the Guide Plan. He stated the gas station will not fit on the corner. He also stated that the grade of the site will dictate what the new proposal will include; doubting the senior housing and live/work units will fit. Foote stated his disappointment that the senior housing would be removed. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the Bluff Country Village East— Commercial to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 24, 1999. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the Bluff Country Village West— Commercial to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 24, 1999. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the Bluff Country Village West— Residential to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 24, 1999. Motion carried 6-0. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 26, 1999 Page 8 Chair Foote informed the public there would be no new public hearing notices mailed regarding the continuance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 1999 Page 8 E. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST—COMMERCIAL F. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST—COMMERCIAL G. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST- RESIDENTIAL City Planner Franzen explained to the Commissioners and public that there are three proposed developments, (i.e., three items, but the Planning Commission will consider these items as one proposal.) Wally Hustad, owner of the property, Hustad Land Company, explained they were coming back having addressed most of the issues noted at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He requested a continuance to July 12, 1999, to proceed with revisions recommended by Staff that they were unable to complete due to timing. Franzen reviewed the staff recommendations. Maureen Degman, 9946 Balmore Lane, showed photographs of other types of similar density projects where the neighbors got large buffers, roads, walls, etc. She stated her concern that they were not getting similar buffering. She stated the development does not seem conducive to the senior living—it's not interesting and there's no transition. She stated the gas station is too large. She would like to see the existing trees that act as a buffer to not be removed. Concern was expressed for excessive traffic and noise; in addition to Hwy. 169 truck traffic. She stated concern with the work/live units and suggested all single-family homes. Terry Rutherford, 9886 Balmore Lane, stated concern with tree removal and the height of the . retirement building. Jeanette Gunderson, 9922 Balmore Lane, stated her property borders the proposal. She stated concerns in a letter sent to the Planning Commission and staff dated May 21, 1999, and would like the letter to be entered into the record. The issues are density, tree loss, and the amount of hard surface for the park and ride facility. She stated that this proposal impacts a significant number of people in three neighborhoods. Bruce Webster, 9953 Balmore Lane, reviewed the discussion at the last meeting and still feels the issues have not been addressed. He is concerned with the amount of traffic and noise generated by the Park and Ride. He would like to see a more suitable plan developed. Kim Lingquist, 9933 Balmore Lane, referred to the neighborhood letter dated May 21, 1999, and asked why the density limit is at the maximum instead of middle. She stated concern about extensive pavement/hard surfaces, and would like to see a development like the Linden townhomes with large landscaped areas. She believes putting in the Park and Ride is cheating. She stated the senior high rise is three stories too much. She asked if there is a way for the City to ensure that the senior housing will always remain senior housing. John Turner, 10019 Shadow Line Drive, stated concerns about lack of transition and tree loss; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 1999 Page 9 suggesting that existing vegetation could sustain itself and be maintained as a natural buffer. He suggested a cul de sac at the end of Shadow Pond Drive, a shorter senior high rise and smaller gas station. Kevin Benjamin, 9949 Lee Drive, on the south side of the development stated concern about the loss of a berm where the Walgreens will be located; a three-story building is too high and becomes an eye sore;the scope of the gas station is too large and will cause lighting and noise issues from the car wash. Steve Moen, 9812 Lee Drive, questioned the amount of commercial space and stated concern with too much blacktop area and not enough green area. Joan Martin, 9936 Balmore Lane, stated concern for the gas station with car wash as not being conducive to the neighborhood;the senior housing is too high; and the tree loss is too excessive. She asked that the townhome density be reduced stating concern with her property values being negatively affected. Alexander stated that she likes the project just the way it is. Lewis stated that she sees some improvement from the last plan,but something is not there yet; perhaps breaking up the perimeter of townhomes from appearing so "square"and/or angle the long commercial building. Lewis stated she is comfortable with the other general concepts of the plan. Habicht stated he is concerned that the overall project is just too dense and if the Park and Ride remains it needs to be counted against either the commercial or residential in some way. Chair Foote stated his concerns to be too much density with townhomes and the commercial areas, as well as tree loss. He would hie to see the project downsized. He supported the Park and Ride, but saw a need to factor it into the figures. Clinton expressed concern with density, tree loss, orientation of the buildings, too large of a gas station, inadequate green space and buffering, excessive height of senior building. Franzen explained that typically when a developer asks for a Guide Plan change, the City can bargain for some things in exchange for the amendment. The City cannot tell this developer how large the gas station can be because it complies with the current guiding. He asked the Commission to give the developer a consensus on the issues they would like to see addressed in the revised plan. The Commissioners agreed on the issues they would like addressed further to include: Reduced hard surface/blacktop area and more green space; reduced residential density without losing the senior housing or count the Park and Ride as part of the commercial square footage. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Lewis to continue this public hearing to the July 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Foote informed the residents that no new notices would be mailed regarding the continuance to July 12, 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie July 12, 1999 Page 2 A. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST- COMMERICAL By Hustad Land Company. B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST—COMMERCIAL By Hustad Land Company. C. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST- RESIDENTIAL By Hustad Land Company. Wally Hustad, Hustad Land Company introduced Brian Cluts, architect. Mr. Cluts of Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects, reviewed the changes to all three proposals, being considered as one project. Some highlights of the changes are: reduction in commercial density,reduction in total residential units, reduction in tree loss, increased buffer zone next to residential area, agreement to use 10-12 foot conifers as replacement trees, willingness to accomplish turn-around at Shadow Ponds Drive (will result in loss of a couple more trees); and other staff recommendations, all agreeable to Mr. Hustad. Jim Benshoof, traffic engineer, presented the changes to accommodate the traffic concerns at the intersection of Town Line Road and Pioneer Trail. The proposed change was developed at a meeting the afternoon of this meeting with City staff, proposing a 3/4 access. Handouts were distributed to the Planning Commission of the proposal. Franzen indicated staff is comfortable with the proposed changes of the plan. He also stated that a full size cul de sac is not needed according to the City's Fire Department, but adequate will be needed for snow storage. Franzen stated the proposed intersection change as a result of the meeting today is acceptable. He stated it is designed for safety and was reviewed by the City Engineer and approved because it will fork for future improvements of this area. Franzen stated staff recommends approval of all three projects with minor changes in the staff report as a result of the meeting this afternoon. Commissioner Sandstad asked about the importance of the ring road and the effect on tree loss. Franzen responded tree loss goes up to provide a safer intersection with the ring road. Mike Soen, 9812 Lee Drive, asked the Planning Commission to look at the gas station and determine if it could it be turned so the building will deflect the noise and lights of operation. He stated concern with drivers making a U-turn in the new proposed intersection to get to Walgreen's from the gas station. He also stated concern with the drainage ditch along 169 next to the proposed Park `n Ride because it appears the natural berm will be eliminated leaving no sound protection. Soen also expressed concern with the amount of commercial space, asking if the Park `n Ride adds to traffic and bus activity results in an additional 80,000 square feet of commercial space. He would like to see the Park `n Ride scaled back and an elevation plan be reviewed. Franzen stated that a determination should be made about who is responsible for sound problems should they evolve—MnDot, the City, etc. Bruce Webster, 9953 Balmoral Lane, stated concerns about increased noise levels with the loss of the berm. He asked if the sound wall could be extended, with more and larger trees to protect the neighborhood from the noise. He stated concern with the size of the gas station including the 97 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie July 12, 1999 Page 3 number of pumps and the car wash. He also pointed out that the new proposal appears to have increased the number of townhomes while eliminating the senior housing. Commissioner Clinton asked about the size of the gas station at 212 and-Shady Oak. Franzen responded that station is the same size as the one being proposed. Joan Martin, 9936 Balmoral Lane, stated continued concerns about the impact of increased noise especially from 169 due to increased traffic generated by this development. She stated the gas station is too large for this area. She stated the development lacks imagination. She asked what commercial uses would go into this development. She asked for more trees in the berming/asphalt area. She asked if market studies have been done to determine the need for a Walgreen's or car wash. Jeanette Gunderson, 9922 Balmoral Lane, stated she lives north of the property. She stated concern about the grading because it appears that it goes right up to their property line which would eliminate many, large, mature trees. She stated she spoke to MnDot regarding the noise wall and was told that the city or the development could put in a noise wall and assume the cost. Kim Lindquist, 9933 Balmoral Lane, stated concern about the gas station this size would not just service the immediate neighborhood. She stated concern with what the"ring road"would displace. She stated the development lacks creativity and is disappointing that the development is so fragmented. She stated concerns about the grading to the north, emphasizing the need for replacement trees along 169, and the need for the southwest access to taper. She would hie to see a continuance of this proposal because it doesn't meet the intent of the ordinance. Kevin Benjamin, 9949 Lee Drive, stated concern that this development still lacks creativity, the gas station is too large, and increased noise levels from traffic. He stated the noise issues are already impacting the property values. He would like to see more of the development moved across the road to the east. Sue Moen, 9812 Lee Drive, stated concerns about the noise levels because they are already at their maximum. She would like to see the noise studies be reviewed. Maureen Degnan, 9946 Balmoral Lane, stated concern future use of the pond area could be developed. She stated disappointment that the developer has not worked with the neighbors to ensure their property values are protected. Sherry Friend, 9974 Lee Drive, stated concern about the size of the development and that it should be built with consideration of the neighbors. Chair Foote asked the developer about the cost of the townhomes. Hustad responded that the cost of the townhomes has increased substantially since the beginning of the proposal because of all the significant changes required. Hustad also stated that they are attempting to preserve as many trees and the natural berm. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie July 12, 1999 Page 4 Chair Foote asked who dictates the size of the Park `n Ride. Hustad responded that SW Metro Transit make that determination. Sandstad asked if any thought had been given to turning the gas station and reducing the number of pumps. Hustad responded that the number of pumps is up to the company; and by turning it,they would lose the immediate access of the direct parking in front of the station for convenience store patrons only. Sandstad asked about the north grade and tree loss; asking if they had explored installing a retaining wall and leaving more trees. Hustad responded that they can work more with the neighbors as long as the result is in the best interest of both parties. Alexander asked why it would make a difference to shift the gas station. Hustad and Klutz both responded that because of the shape of the site, the configuration works best as shown. She also asked how the pond would become a pond again. Hustad responded that the pond will reseal itself and will again then return to a water-holding pond. Alexander asked why the natural berm will be removed. Hustad responded that not all the berm will be removed, since the Park `n Ride building will be built into the berm. Franzen stated that the City has convenience store with parking in front or off to the side, at the discretion of the developer. He also stated that in terms of the wetland drainage area, the city will require the pond to be maintained as a wetland. Chair Foote asked if the city has any control over the size of the gas station. Franzen responded only when a change to the Guide Plan is requested. Sandstad stated appreciation to the audience for their input and behavior. He also stated that this developer should not be held responsible for the noise problem of 169. Habicht stated he lives on Pioneer Trail. He stated his support of the proposal since it is consistent with the Guide Plan and it works. Alexander stated her support of the project since the developer is working under the Guide Plan. She believes the gas station is too large and would like to see the large trees on the north side preserved. She encouraged the developer to work with the neighbors. Clinton recommends rotation of the gas station. Foote strongly encouraged the developer to work with the neighbors to the north. Alexander stated concern whether the townhomes would be affordable. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Alexander to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie July 12, 1999 Page 5 MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Alexander to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Land for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.5 acres, Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 7.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres and Preliminary Plat on 7.5 acres into two lots and one outlot,based on plans dated June 25, 1999 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 9, 1999; and any agreements reached at the meeting on July 12, 1999 with the Developer and City Staff Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Land for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.9 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.9 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.9 acres into two lots, based on plans dated June 25, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 9, 1999; and any agreements reached at the meeting on July 12, 1999 with the Developer and City Staff. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Land for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.97 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.97 acres,Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.97 acres Site Plan Review on 14.97 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17.97 acres into 21 lots and 3 outlots, based on plans dated June 25, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 9, 1999; and any agreements reached at the meeting on July 12, 1999 with the Developer and City Staff Motion carried 5-0. 3O STAFF REPORT—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: Apri123, 1999 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR: Bluff Country Village Commercial East Bluff Country Village Commercial West Bluff Country Village Residential West Hustad Land Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 3I Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West,and Residential West April 23, 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bluff Country Village Commercial East Bluff Country Village Commercial West Bluff Country Village Residential West Although three separate staff reports were prepared since the proponent filed three separate applications, staff felt it was necessary to have an executive summary. The three projects should be considered as one planned development. The executive summary will describe three separate projects as one project, identify and discuss primary issues, and recommend a course of action. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proponent requests the following guide plan changes: • Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 7.5 acres east of Hennepin Townline Road. • Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial on 9.0 acres west of Hennepin Townline Road. • Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.73 acres in the northwest corner of the site. • Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on .39 acres in the northeast corner of the site. The proponent requests the following uses for the property on the EAST side of Hennepin Townline Road: • 29,100 sq. ft. of commercial, which includes a drug store, convenience gas, and general retail. The proponent requests the following uses for the property WEST of Hennepin Townline Road: • 86,300 sq. ft. of commercial retail • 17 live-work units • 90 townhouse units • 34 senior units 2 Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West,and Residential West April 23, 1999 ISSUE ONE—COMPELLING REASONS FOR CHANGING THE GUIDE PLAN The Planning Commission has used the following reasons for justifying changes to the guide plan. A. The change does not increase traffic above the guide plan. The property, as guided, would generate up to 3,359 trips per day and 276 peak hour trips. The proposed guide plan change will generate 8,030 daily trips and 649 peak hour trips. There is capacity in Hennepin Townline Road and Pioneer Trail to handle the proposed traffic. B. The change creates an adequate buffer zone between the existing and proposed land uses. The proposed townhouses are adjacent to land guided low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. Since the density of the townhouses at 9.5 housing units per acre gross is greater than the surrounding neighborhood, a transition is required by Section 11.03, Subd. 6., E., 5., of the City Code. The townhouse units do not meet the minimum 30 foot setback from the property line. Building setbacks vary between 30-50 feet. The townhouses are grouped tightly in a regular pattern that provides little open space and creates conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular movement. The plan provides little options for transition areas except for the planting of an evergreen screen. The staff recommends a minimum setback of 50 feet with a fence and plantings. The senior housing is located in an inappropriate area adjacent to a large-scale commercial use with no transition between the two uses. The staff recommends a 50 foot separation between the senior housing and the commercial area. The proposed convenience gas station creates a visual, traffic, lighting, and noise impacts on the single family homes to the north. A better location for this use would be on the south end where the drug store is proposed. The drug store is a quieter use that should be located on the convenience gas site. An office use on the proposed retail site east of Hennepin Townline Road would be a better land use next to the residential areas to the north. This use would also be quieter on evenings and weekends. C. The change preserves as many trees as possible. There is a total of 3,861 inches of significant trees on the site. A significant tree, as defined by City Code, is 12 inches in diameter for shade trees and 8 inches in diameter for conifer trees. The City Forester calculates the tree loss to be 58%, or 2,238 inches. This is higher than the average tree loss for residential and commercial development. The tree replacement required for the entire site is 1,726 caliper inches. In addition, 3 3 Staff Report-Executive Summary ep xecu ve S m ry Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West, and Residential West April 23, 1999 should the "proof of parking" area on the Commercial West project be constructed, another 148 caliper inches will be lost. This would increase the total tree loss to 62%. Specimen trees are located between Hennepin Townline Road and Highway 169. Due to the rolling topography it is not possible to save trees while at the same time developing the property for commercial use. It is important to retain part of the site's exisitng overstory tree character. The best location for doing this is along Pioneer Trail west of Hennepin Townline Road. D. The change results in minimal wetland impacts. There are two wetlands on site. The wetland in the northwest corner of the site will not be filled. The wetland east of Hennepin Townline Road is a moderate quality wetland. A small amount of fill is proposed. Mitigation is proposed on site. The minimum width buffer for this type of wetland is 25 feet. E. The change preserves natural buffers adjacent to residential areas. The natural buffers are located on the west side of the property adjacent to single family homes. These natural buffers will be removed with the proposed development. If the natural buffers of small elm and boxelder are allowed to remain in a non-maintained state, they may perpetuate themselves and maintain a natural screening. However, these species are short lived, which will eventually decrease the vegetative screen. If retained as a natural buffer, the transition area must be supplemented with hardier species to maintain the integrity of the screen over the long run. F. The change meets a City housing need that is currently not provided in the City. The Senior Issues Task Force Study identified a need for more senior housing including assisted care, affordable and market rate ownership and rental, housing with elevators, and single level housing. The proposed 34 unit senior building helps meet this need. G. The change results in a density compatible with the surrounding area. The density of the townhouses at 9.5 units per gross acre, without an adequate buffer zone, is incompatible with low density guided land to the north and west. H. The change does not require shoreland waivers. There is no shoreland area on the property. 4 Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West,and Residential West April 23, 1999 I. The change does not require waivers from the City Code. The project requires waivers from the City Code for base area, structure setback, parking setback, and number of parking spaces. ISSUE TWO -THE NEED FOR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SERVICES The City is sufficiently served by community and neighborhood commercial areas. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan indicated a need for three community commercial areas between 100,000— 200,000 sq. ft. and 10 neighborhood commercial with less than 50,000 sq. ft. The need for community and neighborhood commercial areas was based on a population of 80,000 to 100,000 people. At full development the population will be 65,000. The guide plan also indicates "the intersections of County Road 18 (now 169) and County Road One (Pioneer Trail), and County Road 18 (now Hwy. 169) and the east west collector (now Anderson Lakes Parkway) are both appropriate for neighborhood commercial or community commercial; however, if one becomes community commercial, the other should become neighborhood commercial or medium density residential." The Preserve Mall is community commercial. The current guide plan mix of neighborhood commercial and medium density residential on the proposed site should be maintained to be consistent with the land uses established in 1982. There are three existing community commercial centers including, Prairie Village Mall (80,000 sq. ft.), Preserve Mall(78,000 sq. ft.), and Prairie View Center(127,000 sq. ft.). There are 11 sites guided for neighborhood commercial including this site. The neighborhood commercial zoning district allows up to 50,000 square feet of commercial. Existing and approved neighborhood commercial sites adjacent to residential areas vary between 5,000 sq. ft. and 30,000 sq. ft. The average size of a neighborhood commercial site is 20,000 sq. ft. on approximately 3.5 acres. The 115,000 square feet of commercial does not conform to the definition of neighborhood commercial as set forth in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, but is more appropriately described as community commercial. A service area for neighborhood commercial is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles. There are no neighborhood commercial areas within 1 to 1.5 miles of this site. A service area for community commercial is approximately fives miles. The Preserve Mall (community commercial district) is within five miles of this site. Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West, and Residential West April 23, 1999 ISSUE THREE-ROAD CONNECTIONS TO BALMORAL LANE AND SHADOW POND DRIVE The policy of the City is to make road connections and to minimize unnecessary cul-de-sacs. This helps distribute traffic, provides better emergency vehicle access, connects sidewalks, and creates neighborhood continuity. There are no natural features that would be impacted by a road connection. The road connection would provide access for residents north and west of the site without having to use Pioneer Trail or Hennepin Townline Road. This benefit should be balanced against the potential negative impact of"cut through"traffic on local streets. The staff does not recommend the connections unless the densities of the adjoining areas are similar. The developer should vacate the existing potential connection along Balmoral Lane that does not provide driveway access to existing homes and restore the lots, and create a cul-de-sac on Shadow Pond Drive to provide emergency vehicle turn-around access. ISSSUE FOUR ARCHITECTURAL CONTINUITY Staff views the three projects as one related planned development. To reinforce the concept of a planned development, there should be a common architectural theme. The commercial architecture is a mixture of flat and pitched roofs. Since the existing guide plan designates a neighborhood commercial and medium density residential area, the commercial architecture should incorporate a residential character. ISSUE FIVE — DENSITY TRANSFER AND GUIDE PLAN CHANGE FOR EXSITING LAND GUIDED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The developer is asking for a guide plan change from low density residential to medium density residential on 3 acres with a full density transfer (10 units/acre). This creates a net density of 13.4 units per acre. The higher density results in a tight site plan that does not leave enough room to create an adequate transition to the low density areas to the west and north. Transferring density based on the existing guiding of 2.5 units per acre could allow up to 7.5 units per acre rather than the 30 units requested to be transferred. ISSUE SIX VEHICLE CIRCULATION The staff has identified the following circulation problems: • Access to the senior housing is through a commercial parking lot. • The totlots are located near the intersection of roadways. • The service entrance to the commercial area is immediately adjacent to the main residential road and intersection at Pioneer Trail. 6 �� Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East,Commercial West,and Residential West April 23, 1999 • The main entrance to the commercial area off Hennepin Townline Road is opposite the main access to convenience gas. Conflicts will arise as a result of the high volume convenience gas traffic. The staff recommends the following circulation changes: • Relocate the senior housing. • Separate the residential and commercial traffic. • Relocate the totlots to the open space area next to the existing wetlands in the northwest corner. • Relocate the gas station to the south. ISSUE SEVEN—ACCESS AND MEDIAN OPENINGS For traffic and safety reasons, the City Engineer does not support proposed median openings at Hennepin Townline Road opposite Walgreens, or at Pioneer Trail as an access for east bound traffic to the private residential roadway. ISSUE SEVEN—COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN Staff views the three projects as one related planned development. To reinforce the concept of a planned development there should be a comprehensive sign program. There should be common use of materials, colors, letter size, letter style, and sizes developed to meet City code requirements. 7 7 Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West, and Residential West April 23, 1999 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The intent of the comprehensive plan is to create a mixed residential and commercial development with neighborhood commercial providing goods and services to residents living within 1 to 1.5 miles. While the plan provides a mixture of uses as envisioned in the guide plan and provides senior housing to meet a pressing demand, the City has an adequate amount of community commercial. The intensity of the project results in increased traffic, high tree loss, loss of natural buffers, an inadequate transition, waivers from the City Code, and access problems. The property should be developed consistent with the guide plan with neighborhood commercial less than 50,000 square feet, multiple family less than ten units per acre, with a common architectural theme, with a comprehensive sign plan, and the following plan revisions: Bluff Country Commercial- East: • Move the gas station to the corner where the drug store is currently proposed. • Locate the drug store where the gas is proposed. • Change the general retail northeast of Hennepin Townline Road to an office building. • Revise the landscape plan for better screening of parking area. • Revise the Walgreens' signs to meet City code. • Move the sculpture out of the wetland. • Remove the west driveway from"Commercial East 3." • Revise the plan to eliminate the median opening on Hennepin Townline Road. • Revise the site plan to meet a 17.5 foot parking setback to Highway 169. • Provide details for the wall signs associated with Walgreens. Bluff Country Residential—West: • Remove the proposed totlots and relocate one play area in the northwest corner of the site. • Revise the site plan to meet a 25 foot front yard setback to townhouses from the private road. • Revise the site plan to a 35 foot front yard setback to the senior building from the private road. • Revise the site plan to show a 50 foot rear yard setback for the townhouses. • Revise the plan to eliminate the median opening on Pioneer Trail. • Revise the landscape plan to include more plantings and a fence in the rear yard setback. • Revise the landscape plan to meet the caliper inch requirement. Bluff Country Commercial—West: • Revise the landscape plan for better screening of parking. • Eliminate the commercial access to the loading area from the residential private road. • Revise the plan for better screening of loading from Pioneer trail. • Revise the plan to eliminate the median opening on Pioneer Trail. • Adjust the building square footage to meet the required 20%B.A.R. STAFF REPORT—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MAY 21, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: May 21, 1999 SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR: Bluff Country Village Commercial East Bluff Country Village Commercial West Bluff Country Village Residential West APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West,and Residential West May 21, 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the April 16, 1999 meeting. The Planning Commission directed the developer to revise the plans to be consistent with the guide plan with neighborhood commercial less than 50,000 square feet, multiple family less than ten units per acre, with a common architectural theme, with a comprehensive sign plan, and the recommendations of the Staff Report dated 4-23-99. COMPARISON OF 4-23-99 PLAN TO 5-21-99 PLAN 4-23-99 5-21-99 Commercial 115,000 sf 54,500sf. Townhouses 90 89 Live-Work 17 20 Senior 34 34 Waigreens yes yes Cony.- Gas yes yes Tree Loss 62% 46% Park-Ride no yes Res.Density 9.55 (13 acres) 9.86 (17.5 acres) STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is comfortable with the proposed plan in terms of type of land uses, intensity of land uses, and location of land uses. The current plan could be improved to provide a better transition to the surrounding neighborhood and reduce tree loss. 2 Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East,Commercial West,and Residential West May 21, 1999 1. The convenience gas site has more than the required parking. Credit is given to parking at the pumps. The canopy, store and car wash can be moved 20 feet to the east. This can save more significant trees to the west. 2. Remove the live-work unit from the east side of the retail building and reduce the size of the commercial by 5,000 sf. The building and parking can be shifted further east to save more trees. 3. Reduce the interior setbacks between the townhouses and the private road by 5 feet each. A total of 15 feet can be added to the rear yard setback between the townhouses and residential areas to the east and west. This will allow more room to plant additional large conifers and shade trees. The proponent is requesting that the project be continued until the July 12, 1999 meeting to work on plan revisions as recommended in this report. 3 4/.f STAFF REPORT—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY July 9, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: July 9, 1999 SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR: Bluff Country Village Commercial East Bluff Country Village Commercial West Bluff Country Village Residential West APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West,and Residential West July 9, 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the May 24, 1999 meeting. REVISED DEVELOPMENT REOUEST Since the size of the commercial area is consistent with the guide plan for neighborhood commercial, and the density of the residential area is less than what was originally proposed, the requests have been modified for each of the individual staff reports. COMPARISON OF 5-21-99 PLAN TO 7-9-99 PLAN 5-21-99 7-9-99 Commercial 54,500sf. 49,926sf. Townhouses 89 98 Live-Work 20 15 Senior 34 0 Walgreens yes yes Cony.- Gas yes yes Tree Loss 46% 35.9% Park-Ride yes yes Res. Density 9.86 (17.5 acres) 6.3(17.97 acres) Setback to 50 feet 70-80 feet Single family TRAFFIC, The July 8, 1999 Traffic Study indicates there are two traffic issues based on the proposed redesign of Hennepin Townline Road. 2 4-3 Staff Report-Executive Summary Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Commercial West, and Residential West July 9, 1999 • In 2015, the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road will operate at level of service E. This can be improved with a right in-right out access on Pioneer Trail as shown on the site plan. • In 2015 there will be an unsafe condition at the southern access drive intersection with Hennepin Townline Road. The southbound queue (stacking of cars) would extend past this intersection. A 'A access is proposed as a solution (left turn into Walgreens and the gas station only) and may solve the problem but the study does not show a design for how this alternative will work. Keeping the median closed as currently designed solves the stacking problem but would require changes in internal circulation on the commercial sites to provide safe and convenient access through the parking lots, a different land use mix, or different location for the commercial land uses. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN To reinforce the concept of a planned development there should be a comprehensive sign program. There should be common use of materials, colors, letter size, letter style, and sizes developed to meet City code requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is comfortable with the proposed land uses, intensity of land uses, and location of land uses. Staff does not support the redesign of Hennepin Town Road as proposed and recommends that the project be continued until August 9, 1999, in order to resolve the identified traffic issues. 3 f 9 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor Harris and Councilmembers FROM: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer DATE: August 11, 1999 SUBJECT: Bluff Country Village Commercial East/Commercial West The development plans for Bluff Country Village Commercial East/Commercial West propose new median opening in Hennepin Town Road approximately 300 feet north of Pioneer Trail (CSAH 1). City Engineering staff and the traffic consultant for the project were concerned that a standard full median opening at this location, serving the proposed Walgren site and Gas Convenient site, would have a significant probability of developing safety problems in the future as traffic volumes grow on Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road for the following reasons: • Customers making left turns from the commercial sites at the proposed intersection location will experience northbound traffic entering their sight line from Pioneer Trail with only a few seconds of travel time from the proposed intersection. • Traffic in the southbound left turn lane of Hennepin Town Road is expected to back up through this proposed intersection during rush hour based on future traffic volumes making left turns from the commercial sites difficult. The two design solutions to eliminate this potential future problem were no median opening, leaving only right-in/right-out access to the commercial sites at this location, or a channelized opening which would prevent the exiting left turns onto Hennepin Town Road at this location. The channelized median opening allows full ingress to the site but only allows the right turn exit at these locations. Left turns would be accomplished by using cross-access to the intersection located farther to the north on Hennepin Town Road. Of these two design solutions to address safety issues, the developer prefers the channelized opening which allows full ingress to the commercial sites. If a full median opening without channelization to prohibit the exiting left turns is considered, staff would recommend that the accident history of this intersection be periodically reviewed and the channelization alternative be considered for future implementation if a accident history develops. Language regarding future modifications to the intersection may be included in the development agreement. It is also recommended that an assessment agreement regarding future intersection modifications, if desirable, be developed as part of the development agreement and recorded against the commercial properties utilizing this new median opening. MEMORANDUM To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Through: Bob Lambert,Director Parks and Natural Resources From: Stuart A. Fox,Manager Parks and Natural Resources Date: July 29, 1999 Subject: Supplemental Staff Report to the Executive Summary by City Planner Dated July 9, 1999 for Bluff Country Village Commercial East, Bluff Country Commercial West, and Bluff Country Village Residential West • BACKGROUND: This proposed development is located north of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169. The project has three separate areas including two commercial subdivisions and one residential subdivision. The commercial areas are bisected by Hennepin Town Road and the residential area abuts the adjacent single-family residential to the west and north boundaries. NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES: Tree Loss/Landscaping This project has a total of 207 trees defined as significant by City Code. They total 3,861 diameter inches. A total of 1,387 diameter of inches of trees would be lost due to construction, which is the equivalent of a 35.9%loss of significant tress. Mitigation required for this loss is 709 caliper inches of landscape material. The majority of trees on this site are bur oak and white oak. There are also some cottonwoods, maple, and green ash trees. The total landscaping screening requirements for this project is based on the three development proposals whether they be the multi-family residential or the commercial sites. The developer has submitted a landscape plan that includes a total of 1,539 caliper inches of landscaping and tree replacement mitigation. A variety of landscape material, both deciduous and coniferous, is being proposed with a band of coniferous trees screening parking lots and adjacent property to the north and west. In addition, deciduous trees will be scattered throughout the site, including red oak, sugar maple, red maple, honeylocust, linden, hackberry, and regal elm. The submitted landscape plan indicates that a total of 507 trees will be planted on this project. `1r 4- Supplemental Staff Report to City Planner Staff Report for Bluff Country July 29, 1999 Page 2 NURP Pond The storm water drainage for the entire site is to utilize an existing NURP pond that was created on the east side of Hennepin Townline Road when County Road 18/169 was upgraded several years ago. All the drainage from the site will be piped to that pond and then discharged at an appropriate rate to adjacent ponding areas. City engineering staff and Watershed District approval is needed for utilization of this NURP pond. Sidewalks/Trails There is an existing eight-foot trail along the westerly side of Hennepin Town Road. Staff recommends that the appropriate curb cuts and restoration of the trail be done concurrent with construction. In addition, an internal sidewalk and trail system is being proposed to interconnect the proposed residential and commercial areas. Staff is recommending that a five-foot concrete sidewalk connection be made in the northwestern corner between two of the units so that pedestrian/bike traffic from the residential area has access to the existing five-foot sidewalk along the north side of Shadow Pond Drive. The plan shows 20 feet between the proposed building and the current standard for trail corridors is 40 feet. Staff would recommend that this area be expanded to 40 feet or have the developer show a plan how to adequately screen this trail from adjacent units using fencing and/or landscaping material. This sidewalk connection is important to enable people to access their neighborhood park, which is Prairie East Park. Without this connection residents would weave through the interior of the development ending up on Pioneer Trail and then going northward on Juniper Lane, doubling the distance they would have to travel in order - to use their neighborhood park. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail along the northerly side of Pioneer Trail would be completed with the upgrading of County Road 1 by the County in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 12, 1999 meeting. It was approved on a 5-0 vote as per the staff recommendations and the information included in the Executive Summary dated July 9, 1999. Staff would recommend that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission approve the project as per these staff reports and the recommendations contained in this supplemental staff report. SAF:mdd A:\Bluff Country Village\Stuart 1999 7 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission August 2, 1999 Page 2 MOTION: Corneille moved to make a correction to the minutes on page five, to the first motion on the page, under the subject "Water uality in Eden Prairie Parks", to add the phrase "... and have the results of their reviewal returned to the commission". Stolar seconded the motion. Approved 4-0 with Wilson abstaining. IV. PETITIONS,REQUESTS,AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. Reduction of Mowing at Round Lake Tom and Linda Peterson of 7431 Hames Way sent a letter to the Director of Parks expressing health concerns in regard to the cutback in mowing on the West Side of Round Lake Park. They are concerned about diseases that could be spread to humans from mice living in the tall grass. Lambert said staff met with some of the homeowners at Round Lake Park to discuss the mowing cutback on the west side of the park This area is like a neighborhood park for these residents, who use the area to play ball, etc. It was agreed among the residents and the staff to extend the area being mowed. Staff does not have an answer for Ms. Peterson's health concerns. The City has several thousand acres of unmowed land adjacent to residential homes. All of these homes have potential for field mice from adjacent property. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 1. Bluff Country Village The proposed development is located north of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169. The project includes three separate areas, including two commercial subdivisions and one residential subdivision. Paul Quarberg of Hustad Development was present to speak for the developer. He explained that there would be 113 townhomes on the perimeter of a 50,000 square foot commercial use area. There will be a park and ride lot with 3,600 square foot commercial space. There will be a sidewalk connection to Shadow Pond Drive. Stu Fox explained tree loss and a landscaping plan. There are now a total of 207 significant trees on the project site, with a total of 3,861 diameter inches. Tree loss would be 1,387 inches, which is a 35.9% loss of significant trees. Mitigation requires 709 inches of landscape material, 507 trees will be planted, with mostly coniferous trees on the north. Fox said storm water drainage would utilize an existing NURP pond on the East Side of Hennepin Town Line Road. There will be an eight-foot wide trail on the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road. The staff is recommending that the open space corridor for the internal sidewalk and trail system expand from 20 feet wide to 40 feet Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission August 2, 1999 Page 3 wide. There is a need to interconnect sidewalks and provide access to the neighborhood park. The sidewalk should connect with the five-foot wide trail that will be built when the county updates Pioneer Trail. Discussion: Brown asked why all senior housing was cut out in the revised summary plan. Quarberg said that the townhomes would be a combination of two-level and one-level, and while the one-levels can accommodate seniors, they are not classified as "senior housing". Quarberg said that in the initial plan, the senior housing would have been an apartment building, but that building was eliminated. Corneille asked about the sidewalks and trail and the reason for the 40-foot easement. Fox said that a water connection will be underneath the sidewalk, and the easement must be wide enough for a water main. He also said that 40 feet is the minimum distance needed to reduce privacy issue concerns with adjacent residents. Koenig asked if the 15 "live-work" units would be like a home office situation. Quarberg said the units would have an office environment, and could accommodate such businesses as insurance, accounting, or law offices. Brown asked Fox if there would be a problem with these types of businesses operating in a residential area. Fox said it should not raise any problems. MOTION: Corneille moved to accept the proposal of the July 29,1999 staff report with staff recommendations. Stolar seconded the motion. MOTION: Corneille moved to amend the motion to add language stating that the entire sidewalk and trial system, including the landing point, would be privately maintained; and that the entire system would be subject to a public use easement. Wilson seconded the amendment. The amended motion was approved 6-0. 1. Shady Oak Estates The proposed project is located on 14.64 acres of land west of Old Shady Oak Road and north of Cherokee Trail. The proposal would create nine single-family lots. Bruce Nelson is the owner and developer of the land. Nelson said the development is being planned with as little impact as possible on the environment. Lot sizes are large, and the street system will be private. The plans call for replacing 100 trees. There will be some loss of wetlands, as fill will be needed to build the streets. Monument markers will indicate where the protected wetlands lay. Fox said there are 387 trees on the site, of which only 128 meet the criteria of being "significant". 31% of these significant trees will be removed for a total of 41 trees. The tree mass being removed is large, but these trees are box elder, elm, aspen and willows. A landscape plan has not yet been submitted. iliF BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD,SUITE TWO/HOPKINS,MN 55343/(612)238-1667/FAX(612)238-1671 July 8, 1999 REFER TO FILE: 99 - 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Quarberg, Hustad Development Rod Rue, City of Eden PrairieNPSNek , / FROM: James A. Bensh6of, Michael P. Spack, and Bryant f� RE: Updated Traffic Review of Proposed Bluff Country Village Development PURPOSE This memorandum serves as an update to the following two previous memoranda that we produced on this project, dated May 18 and June 10, 1999. The purpose is to provide a complete update of the forecasts, analyses, and conclusions previously presented. The principal item addressed in this memorandum is the question of full access at the intersection of Hennepin Town Road and the southern access road serving developments to the east and west. The principal changes, from the June 10 document, examined in this memorandum are: • A new site plan for the proposed development with different land uses and the elimination of the right turn in/out access on Pioneer Trail. • A request by City staff for an analysis of future (2015) traffic conditions. • A question raised by City staff about the continuity of through lanes on Hennepin Town Road, especially the northbound lane across Pioneer Trail. • A question raised by City staff regarding the layout of the driveways along Hennepin Town Road, north of Pioneer Trail. NEW SITE CHARACTERISTICS The new site plan contains three major changes. First, the right turn in/out access on Pioneer Trail has been removed. This means all access to and from the proposed development would be via Hennepin Town Road. Second, the senior housing has been eliminated and combined into townhouses. This results in 113 townhouse dwelling units. Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 2 July 8, 1999 Lastly, the commercial development, characterized as a neighborhood shopping development, has been reduced from 31,824 square feet of floor area to 26, 953 square feet. Other proposed developments have the same characteristics as presented in the earlier memoranda and are stated below: • A park and ride lot with 156 parking spaces. • A donut shop with 3,650 square feet, located next to the park and ride lot. • A drug store with 13,823 square feet, located directly northeast of the Pioneer Trail/Hennepin Town Road intersection. • A gas station with 5,500 square feet and 16 vehicle fueling positions, located directly northwest of the Pioneer Trail/Hennepin Town Road intersection. The intersection in question, Hennepin Town Road and southern access road, also remains at its previous stated location, 225 feet north of the Pioneer Trail/Hennepin Town Road intersection (measured as the length of the island between Pioneer Trail and the southern access intersection). TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trip generation was developed using techniques similar to those used in the June 10 document. Using the new site plan characteristics for the proposed development, we examined the generation rates for each land use as provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The final trip end generation is presented below. Table 1 presents the weekday a.m. trip generation, and Table 2 presents the weekday p.m. trip generation. The gross trip end generation has been provided along with the multi-use, internal, pass-by, and new trip ends. Multi-use trip ends are trips that cross Hennepin Town Road while traveling from one land use to another. Internal trip ends are ones that do not cross Hennepin Town Road when traveling between land uses. An example is someone stopping at the gas station and shopping center. Pass-by trip ends are ones that are currently traveling on Pioneer Trail and will make a stop at one of the land uses in the future. The generated trips were then distributed throughout the roadways using the same method as used in the June 10 document. As stated in the earlier memorandum, use of all the access driveways is more balanced using this method. The post development weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turn movement volumes for the affected intersections are shown in Figure 1. To forecast volumes for 2015, a growth factor was established that accounts for non- specific growth in the general area. Using the latest (1998) Hennepin County flow map and projected volumes from the City's transportation plan, a growth factor of 2.6 was determined for the through volumes on Pioneer Trail. Traffic heading north on Hennepin Town Road was increased by a factor of 1.67, while traffic heading south was increased by a factor of 1.33. Figure 2 shows the 2015 weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turn movements for the affected intersections. Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 3 July 8, 1999 TABLE 1 WEEKDAY AM TRIP GENERATION GENERATION GROSS MULTI-USE INTERNAL PASS-BY NEW TRIP LAND USE RATE TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS ENDS Townhouses 0.44/DU 50 5 8 0 37 Gas Station 10.46 /VFP 167 8 24 84 51 Shopping Center 1.71 / 1,000sf 46 2 7 4 33 Drug Store 2.66 / 1,000sf 37 2 0 4 31 Park and Ride Lot 0.75 /PS 117 6 0 6 105 Donut Shop 9.27/ 1,000sf 34 2 17 2 13 _ TOTAL 451 25 56 100 270 TABLE 2 WEEKDAY PM TRIP GENERATION GENERATION GROSS MULTI-USE INTERNAL PASS-BY NEW TRIP LAND USE RATE TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS ENDS Townhouses 0.58 /DU 66 7 10 0 49 Gas Station 13.19/VFP 211 10 31 106 64 Shopping Center 6.20 / 1,000sf 167 8 25 17 117 Drug Store 10.40/ 1,000sf 144 8 0 14 122 Park and Ride Lot 0.63 /PS 98 5 0 5 88 Donut Shop 10.86 / 1,000sf 40 2 20 2 16 TOTAL 726 40 86 144 456 DU—Dwelling Unit VFP—Vehicle Fueling Position PS —Parking Space çz- e 1 Zli 1/1 �E1 ' 0/4 2/0 -3 E- 0/2 19/9 +- 1/9 `11' f ao 3 14/ z._ 8 s41 pia 41yi> 2r3 4--1/11 4/3 --> F 2/4 11/27-* +---12/85 *1 T a� POND 8/4 -. Li`_ 3!7 3/6� F- 3/8 80/123__ 14/88 41Tf ioa^m CSAH 1 (PIONEER TRAIL) A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME R P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME it- xa 89/124 � ��` 4--148/158 493/727 -3 F 501/487 N 55 8O-� ��20/30 t NOT TO SCALE . J FIGURE 1 BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR POST DEVELOPMENT BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ipvv, BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. VOLUMES TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANDPLANNERS REVISED 6/24/99 c3 i 1 h � ydi 1/1 - 0/4 2/0 E- 0/2 19/9 -� 1/9 �a@ OZ iU Z j ---...........„„ 44, /----*---- 4-Iy [i 2/3 -a` t-1/11 4/3 -> F 2/4 11/27 +-12/85 41 T (> `1Tta nN� POND F. 7.....---— --.....„N 6/4 J- �' 3/7 3/6 80/123� i- 14/88 41 T r> CO N CO CSAH 1 (PIONEER TRAIL) A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME co Z aII )it 92/129-� W 1->+-181/188 1 92/133 1279 N ��T r'� t CD - NOT TO SCALE m I FIGURE 2 BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR 2015 POST BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SipBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANDPLANNERS VOLUMES Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 6 July 8, 1999 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic volumes were analyzed for both the immediate post-development scenario and the 2015 scenario. The post-development scenario used the existing turn movement counts and added the traffic generated by the proposed development. The results for the post- development scenario are as follows: • All movements at the northern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to operate at a level of service B or better during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using post-development volumes and characteristics. • All movements at the middle access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are also expected to operate at a level of service B or better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using post-development volumes and characteristics. • All movements at the southern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are estimated to operate at a level of service B or better during the weekday a.m. peak hour, except the westbound left turn which is projected to have a level of service C. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the intersection is expected to operate at a level of service C or better for all movements except the westbound left turn which is expected to have a level of service D using post-development volumes and characteristics. • The intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road is projected to have a level of service C during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with post- development volumes and characteristics. The southbound left turn is projected to have a 95th percentile queue of 102 feet (about four vehicles) during the a.m. peak hour and 194 feet (about eight vehicles) during the p.m. peak hour. With 225 feet of space available, both these values are acceptable. Considering the above analysis, full access at the southern driveway is acceptable. The southbound left turn 95th percentile queue in the p.m. peak hour can be accommodated by the space available without becoming a safety hazard. The level of service at all the affected intersections is also acceptable for this scenario. Using the increased volumes on Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road,the 2015 analysis results are: • All movements at the northern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to continue to operate at a level of service B or better during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using 2015 projected volumes and current characteristics. • All movements at the middle access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are also expected to continue to operate at a level of service B or better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using 2015 expected volumes and existing characteristics. Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 7 July 8, 1999 • During the weekday a.m. peak hour, all movements at the southern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to operate at a level of service C or better using 2015 volumes and existing characteristics. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, this intersection is expected to operate at a level of service C or better for all movements, except the westbound left turn which is expected to have a level of service E using 2015 volumes and existing characteristics. • Using 2015 volumes and existing characteristics, the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road intersection is expected to continue to operate at a level of service C during the weekday a.m. peak hour. The 95th percentile queue for the southbound left turn at this intersection is 160 feet, about six or seven vehicles, during this time. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, this intersection is expected to operate at a level of service E with 2015 volumes and existing characteristics. The 95th percentile queue for the southbound left turn is estimated to be 390 feet, about 16 vehicles. This is more than the 225 feet of available space for the southbound left turn queue. Based on the preceding analysis for the projected year 2015 conditions, problems likely would arise at the first access intersection north of Pioneer Trail because the southbound left turn queue often would extend past this intersection during the p.m. peak period. Two potential measures are available to improve operations at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road and subsequently improve the conditions at the first access intersection north of Pioneer Trail. The first measure is a right turn in and out only access drive located further west on Pioneer Trail. This would provide an additional access point to the developments located west of Hennepin Town Road. The second measure is to construct a right turn lane for eastbound Pioneer Trail. These geometric improvements would improve the level of service for the intersection to the threshold between levels of service D and E and would slightly reduce the southbound left turn queue at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road. However, the southbound left turn queue would still significantly exceed the 225 feet of"stacking" space available. In order to effectively solve the queuing problem, a candidate solution is to provide 3/4 access at the first access intersection north of Pioneer Trail. As part of this solution, a private roadway would be constructed on the east side of the pond to connect the development site in the northeast corner of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road with the next full access location to the north on Hennepin Town Road. This 3/4 type of access allows right turns in, right turns out, and left turns into the developments. Motorists would be prevented from travelling across or making left turns onto Hennepin Town Road. Further work would be needed to determine the feasibility and practicality of a 3/4 access intersection at this location. Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 8 July 8, 1999 CONTINUITY OF NORTHBOUND THROUGH LANE ON HENNEPIN TOWN ROAD AT THE PIONEER TRAIL (CSAH 1) INTERSECTION We have reviewed the safety implications of modifying the median immediately north of the CSAH 1/Hennepin Town Road. The median modification, as shown in our May 18th memorandum, causes vehicles traveling in the northbound lane on Hennepin Town Road to angle their path across the intersection in order to end up in the through lane north of the intersection. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) recommends shifting traffic moving at 30 miles per hour (mph) with a 15:1 taper. We have revised our previous recommendation to include a tracking stripe across the intersection at a 15:1 taper. This tracking stripe should be in accordance with MMUTCD standards. This tracking stripe ends at the intersection (short of the full taper length), because traffic will be channelized properly by the median striping. City Engineering staff have expressed concern that the speeds of northbound traffic are greater than 30 mph. We have modified the median to allow a 45:1 taper, appropriate for 45 mph speeds, and added striping that will extend the 15:1 taper to create the exclusive left turn lane north of CSAH 1. This will properly channelize vehicles following the speed limit and will also give people exceeding the speed limit a safe margin to avoid colliding with the median. These changes are reflected on the overall access plan in Figure 3 and at a larger scale in Figure 4. Appropriate signing (Type R4-7 Keep Right and Type X4-4 Clearance Markers) should be included in the final design to ensure adequate visibility of the median. Reconstructing a portion of Hennepin Town Road immediately south of the CSAH 1 intersection to realign the northbound through lane so there is no offset is another consideration. This alternative is much more expensive than adding striping and is not necessary in this existing situation. LAYOUT FOR DRIVEWAYS ALONG HENNEPIN TOWN ROAD We have altered our recommendations for the townhouse and park& ride driveways, which form the second intersection north of CSAH 1. Our recommendations are shown in Figure 3. The following changes are due to changes in the site plan and requests from the site architects. Park & Ride Lot Driveway • The radius on the southeast quadrant of the intersection should be made smaller to lessen the degree of taper into the park and ride lot. This change will allow 14 parking stalls along the south edge of the parking lot. • A concrete median with a minimum width of four feet should be constructed to ensure proper channelization. Townhouse Driveway • The concrete median should be constructed, as shown, to provide proper channelization at the driveway. • A taper should be striped to create proper channelization for the outbound right turn lane. cl I . ., / f, , 1 1/ /1 .,\ \/,,/ / , /,. /'./ .,/ �- ,'/ ,- :-- --- -----7 E-1, ,. 7 ., ___ ..„ ,„..,/, .....,: . ,_,. ,o , . ,... _________ —1 1 ) ,r ! Li _., di [ ] s ) — -1. , L---- , 4"4*-4', ,,,, ,,- i , ,, _11 ( 1 . 1 ) 1 1 , 1 _, __ _ _- •- ' 4 `0150.„.. PARK 14)' t to" tio WHIZ IIIIIIIIIIIIIILJ I /...,: : . s oaf ' / I Ji ,, 44 ___J11111t-70 111111111 / / / III W i `v/' lit7 ... ...' I /7 kl---------- 1111111141111111114 % 8 II I/I „r A/ + t 7 TT c424K; //)//711: - ----------------- - .-1 Lilimmii[.......memminomm : ILLAGEFIGURE 3 TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR RECOMMENDED ACCESS 1RF ATES, INC. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE P�L�A��N/SON H-E^NNEPIN NNERS 1 OINN ROAD e/, \-IN" ce A --------_______ ----__ „,,!350 ,co.k , / . oi / / / i / / i i CURB /SIGN ' FOR 45 MP' /I•E''/ I/I/ I i 4/1-7.- TRA • MARKS a / 'ESIGNED •' 0 MPH TAPER -"- r / ... / r 0 / 7/7/. 0 25 30 FEET J BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE rillillFIGURE TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR NDED NORTHBOUND SFBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE N AT CSAH 1/ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TOWN ROAD TION Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 11 July 8, 1999 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis presented in this report, we have developed the following conclusions: • Upon completion of the proposed development, full access at Hennepin Town Road and the southern access driveways are expected to operate adequately. The weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour 95th percentile queues for the southbound left turn at the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road intersection would be accommodated within the 225 feet of available space, and the intersection would operate at a level of service C during both peak hours. • As presented in the City Transportation Plan, traffic on Pioneer Trail is expected to more than double in the proposed site area by the year 2015. The volumes on Hennepin Town Road are expected to increase about 1.5 times over the current traffic levels. • As the volumes increase in this area, the levels of service for the intersections of Hennepin Town Road with Pioneer Trail and with the southern access driveways are expected to decrease. • The southbound left turn queues at the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to increase in the future in accordance with volume growth. By the year 2015, the queue lengths for these southbound left turns often would exceed the 225 foot available distance during the p.m. peak period. Such queuing conditions would cause safety problems at the intersection of Hennepin Town Road with the southern access driveways. • Right turn only access into and out of the development on Pioneer Trail, west of the intersection with Hennepin Town Road, would help the level of service experienced at the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road intersection, as well as at the Hennepin Town Road and southern access road intersection. This right turn would not significantly reduce the queue lengths expected for the southbound left turn from Hennepin Town Road to the east on Pioneer Trail. • The addition of an eastbound right turn lane on Pioneer Trail at Hennepin Town Road would improve the level of service and slightly reduce the southbound left turn queue experienced at the Hennepin Town Road/Pioneer Trail intersection. However, this will not reduce the queue length enough to alleviate safety concerns with the access at the southern access road using 2015 conditions. • 3/4 access on Hennepin Town Road at the southern access road intersection is a candidate solution to resolve the southbound queuing problem at the Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail intersection. Further work will be needed to determine whether this solution is fully feasible. Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 12 July 8, 1999 On an overall basis, the analysis presented in this report indicates that the traffic plan shown in Figure 3 will effectively meet the traffic needs for both the immediate post- development and 2015 conditions, with two exceptions. One exception is that the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road would operate at level of service E during the p.m. peak hour. The second exception is that an unsafe condition likely would arise by 2015 at the intersection of Hennepin Town Road and the southern access drives because the southbound queue on the approach to Pioneer Trail would frequently extend past this driveway intersection. The two geometric changes of an additional right turn in/out access and an eastbound right turn lane on Pioneer Trail would help to improve the operations and increase the level of service, but would not solve the southbound queue problem. A 3/4 access concept merits further study as a means to effectively solve this problem. w BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ♦ 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD,SUITE TWO/HOPKINS,MN 55343/(612)238-1667/FAX(612)238-1671 June 28, 1999 REFER To FILE: 99 - 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Quarberg, Hustad Development Rod Rue, City of E n Prairie FROM: James A. Benshodf and Bryant 1. Ficek RE: Updated Traffic Review of Proposed Bluff Country Village Development PURPOSE This memorandum serves as an update to the following two previous memoranda that we produced on this project,dated May 18 and June 10, 1999. The purpose is to provide a complete update of the forecasts, analyses, and conclusions previously presented. The principal item addressed in this memorandum is the question of full access at the intersection of Hennepin Town Road and the southern access road serving developments to the east and west. The principal changes, from the June 10 document, examined in this memorandum are: • A new site plan for the proposed development with different land uses and the elimination of the right turn in/out access on Pioneer Trail. • A request by City staff for an analysis of future (2015) traffic conditions. • A question raised by City staff about the continuity of through lanes on Hennepin Town Road, especially the northbound lane across Pioneer Trail. • A question raised by City staff regarding the layout of the driveways along Hennepin Town Road, north of Pioneer Trail. NEW SITE CHARACTERISTICS The new site plan contains three major changes. First, the right turn in/out access on Pioneer Trail has been removed. This means all access to and from the proposed development would be via Hennepin Town Road. Second, the senior housing has been eliminated and combined into townhouses. This results in 113 townhouse dwelling units. Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 2 June 28, 1999 Lastly, the commercial development, characterized as a neighborhood shopping development, has been reduced from 31,824 square feet of floor area to 26, 953 square feet. Other proposed developments have the same characteristics as presented in the earlier memoranda and are stated below: • A park and ride lot with 156 parking spaces. • A donut shop with 3,650 square feet, located next to the park and ride lot. • A drug store with 13,823 square feet, located directly northeast of the Pioneer Trail/Hennepin Town Road intersection. • A gas station with 5,500 square feet and 16 vehicle fueling positions, located directly northwest of the Pioneer Trail/Hennepin Town Road intersection. The intersection in question, Hennepin Town Road and southern access road, also remains at its previous stated location, 225 feet north of the Pioneer Trail/Hennepin Town Road intersection (measured as the length of the island between Pioneer Trail and the southern access intersection). TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trip.generation was developed using techniques similar to those used in the June 10 document. Using the new site plan characteristics for the proposed development, we examined the generation rates for each land use as provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The final trip end generation is presented below. Table 1 presents the weekday a.m. trip generation, and Table 2 presents the weekday p.m. trip generation. The gross trip end generation has been provided along with the multi-use, internal, pass-by, and new trip ends. Multi-use trip ends are trips that cross Hennepin Town Road while traveling from one land use to another. Internal trip ends are ones that do not cross Hennepin Town Road when traveling between land uses. An example is someone stopping at the gas station and shopping center. Pass-by trip ends are ones that are currently traveling on Pioneer Trail and will make a stop at one of the land uses in the future. The generated trips were then distributed throughout the roadways using the same method as used in the June 10 document. As stated in the earlier memorandum, use of all the access driveways is more balanced using this method. The post development weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turn movement volumes for the affected intersections are shown in Figure 1. To forecast volumes for 2015, a growth factor was established that accounts for non- specific growth in the general area. Using the latest (1998) Hennepin County flow map and projected volumes from the City's transportation plan, a growth factor of 2.6 was determined for the through volumes on Pioneer Trail. Traffic heading north on Hennepin Town Road was increased by a factor of 1.67, while traffic heading south was increased by a factor of 1.33. Figure 2 shows the 2015 weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turn movements for the affected intersections. Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 3 June 28, 1999 TABLE 1 WEEKDAY AM TRIP GENERATION GENERATION GROSS MULTI-USE INTERNAL PASS-BY NEW TRIP LAND USE RATE TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS ENDS I 1 Townhouses 0.44 /DU 50 5 8 0 37 Gas Station 10.46 / VFP 167 8 24 84 51 Shopping Center 1.71 / 1,000sf 46 2 7 4 33 Drug Store 2.66 / 1,000sf 37 2 0 4 31 Park and Ride Lot 0.75 /PS 117 6 0 6 105 Donut Shop 9.27 / 1,000sf 34 2 17 2 13 TOTAL 451 25 56 100 270 TABLE 2 WEEKDAY PM TRIP GENERATION GENERATION GROSS MULTI-USE INTERNAL PASS-BY NEW TRIP LAND USE RATE TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS ENDS Townhouses 0.58 /DU 66 7 10 0 49 Gas Station 13.19 /VFP 211 10 31 106 64 Shopping Center 6.20 / 1,000sf 167 8 25 17 117 Drug Store 10.40 / 1,000sf 144 8 0 14 122 Park and Ride Lot 0.63 /PS 98 5 0 5 88 Donut Shop 10.86 / 1,000sf 40 s 2 20 2 16 TOTAL 726 40 86 144 456 DU—Dwelling Unit VFP — Vehicle Fueling Position PS —Parking Space iS i � y � 1/1 —r' d- 0/4 00/2 19/ --> 4- ire O Tr 1v 22 8 Z� 4-I y Ii 2/3 -a '-1/11 4/3 -> 4-2/4 11/27--+ +-12/65 <1Tf o POND %I.% 7..... -- 6/4-_ Li'L__ 3n 3/6-> 4- 3/6 80/123_, „fr14/88 T r> m CSAH 1 (PIONEER TRAIL) A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME xa--- P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME AEI 4d>A 89/124 148/158 493/727 4- 501/487 N 55/80--+El T ��20/30 t s,e NOT TO SCALE I L J e FIGURE 1 BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR POST DEVELOPMENT BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC iFBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. VOLUMES TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANDPLANNERS REVISED 6/24/99 1 1/1 �' 0/4 2/0 -> 4- 0/2 19/9 - 119 � 47 Q- + 41tfcr ,. m j ` r ,„ „,..„ 4, z_.,_I _ 44i. 2r3 ___+ 4_1/11 4/3 -* 4--2/4 11/27 f_12/65 4tr N�(O nR8 POND N 41 6/4-+ W �'�- 3/7 3/6-> 4- 3/8 80/123_-. 14/88 ITr> CO N q CSAH 1 (PIONEER TRAIL) A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME tii )(a 92/129 181/168 1325/1959 -> 4- 1349/1279 N 92/133- +-33/50 t <itr> sr mSm NOT TO SCALE V. I FIGURE 2 BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR 2015 POST BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT cpBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSANDPLANNERS VOLUMES a Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 6 June 28, 1999 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic volumes were analyzed for both the immediate post-development scenario and the 2015 scenario. The post-development scenario used the existing turn movement counts and added the traffic generated by the proposed development. The results for the post- development scenario are as follows: • All movements at the northern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to operate at a level of service B or better during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using post-development volumes and characteristics. • All movements at the middle access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are also expected to operate at a level of service B or better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using post-development volumes and characteristics. • All movements at the southern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are estimated to operate at a level of service B or better during the weekday a.m. peak hour, except the westbound left turn which is projected to have a level of service C. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the intersection is expected to operate at a level of service C or better for all movements except the westbound left turn which is expected to have a level of service D using post-development volumes and characteristics. • The intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road is projected to have a level of service C during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with post- development volumes and characteristics. The southbound left turn is projected to have a 95`h percentile queue of 102 feet (about four vehicles) during the a.m. peak hour and 194 feet (about eight vehicles) during the p.m. peak hour. With 225 feet of space available, both these values are acceptable. Considering the above analysis, full access at the southern driveway is acceptable. The southbound left turn 95th percentile queue in the p.m. peak hour can be accommodated by the space available without becoming a safety hazard. The level of service at all the affected intersections is also acceptable for this scenario. Using the increased volumes on Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road, the 2015 analysis results are: • All movements at the northern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to continue to operate at a level of service B or better during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using 2015 projected volumes and current characteristics. • All movements at the middle access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are also expected to continue to operate at a level of service B or better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using 2015 expected volumes and existing characteristics. tl/ � Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 7 June 28, 1999 • During the weekday a.m. peak hour, all movements at the southern access road and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to operate at a level of service C or better using 2015 volumes and existing characteristics. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, this intersection is expected to operate at a level of service C or better for all movements, except the westbound left turn which is expected to have a level of service E using 2015 volumes and existing characteristics. • Using 2015 volumes and existing characteristics, the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road intersection is expected to continue to operate at a level of service C during the weekday a.m. peak hour. The 95th percentile queue for the southbound left turn at this intersection is 160 feet, about six or seven vehicles, during this time. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, this intersection is expected to operate at a level of service E with 2015 volumes and existing characteristics. The 95th percentile queue for the southbound left turn is estimated to be 390 feet, about 16 vehicles. This is more than the 225 feet of available space for the southbound left turn queue. Based on the preceding analysis for the projected year 2015 conditions, problems likely would arise at the first access intersection north of Pioneer Trail because the southbound left turn queue often would extend past this intersection during the p.m. peak period. CONTINUITY OF NORTHBOUND THROUGH LANE ON HENNEPIN TOWN ROAD AT THE PIONEER TRAIL (CSAH 1) INTERSECTION We have reviewed the safety implications of modifying the median immediately north of the CSAH 1/Hennepin Town Road. The median modification, as shown in our May 18th memorandum, causes vehicles traveling in the northbound lane on Hennepin Town Road to angle their path across the intersection in order to end up in the through lane north of the intersection. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MNNTCD) recommends shifting traffic moving at 30 miles per hour with a 15:1 taper. It is appropriate to apply a 30 mph design speed for northbound Hennepin Town Road at this location because on the approach to Pioneer Trail, northbound traffic traverses a sharp curve that is posted with a 30 mph advisory speed. We have revised our previous recommendation (see Figure 3) to include a tracking stripe across the intersection at a 15:1 taper. This tracking stripe should be in accordance with MMUTCD standards. The recommended median layout, shown in Figure 3, fully meets the standard 15:1 taper. This revised median recommendation will still provide a safe turning bay for left turning traffic at the Hennepin Town Road/driveway intersection north of CSAH 1. Appropriate signing (Type R4-7 Keep Right and Type X4-4 Clearance Markers) should be installed on the south end of the median to ensure adequate visibility of the median and guidance for northbound motorists. Reconstructing a portion of Hennepin Town Road immediately south of the CSAH 1 intersection to realign the northbound through lane so there is no offset is not necessary Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 8 June 28, 1999 to meet relevant standards. This option should be preserved on a contingency basis for possible follow-through if unexpected needs arise. LAYOUT FOR DRIVEWAYS ALONG HENNEPIN TOWN ROAD We have altered our recommendations for the townhouse and park & ride driveways, which form the second intersection north of CSAH 1. Our recommendations are shown in Figure 3. The following changes are due to changes in the site plan and requests from the site architects. Park & Ride Lot Driveway • The radius on the southeast quadrant of the intersection should be made smaller to lessen the degree of taper into the park and ride lot. This change will allow 14 parking stalls along the south edge of the parking lot. • A concrete median with a minimum width of four feet should be constructed to ensure proper channelization. Townhouse Driveway • The concrete median should be constructed, as shown, to provide proper channelization at the driveway. • A taper should be striped to create proper channelization for the outbound right turn lane. ( 7 P L / IL II ` \ \/ / / ' 1 .4 .9`!'" y/ / -- L ` — — , `, .....o4.-„1..—o�� j L-� m ' b _t-4/ .A... PARK.4 t, i/ , / . 4so 1 1 / // , Alk I j H 1 `a.,,r / TO Ali //// .f, .171 4/7 ii • • ` 0 75 150 4 /iiiirp e MALE IN FEET fit/ N. 1 BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE FIGURE 3 TRAFFIC ACCESS FOR RECOMMENDED ACCESS BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE PLAN ON HENNEPIN F iRANSPCRTATIDN ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TOWN ROAD p Messrs. Quarberg and Rue 10 June 28, 1999 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis presented in this report, we have developed the following conclusions: • Upon completion of the proposed development, full access at Hennepin Town Road and the southern access driveways are expected to operate adequately. The weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour 95th percentile queues for the southbound left turn at the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road intersection would be accommodated within the 225 feet of available space, and the intersection would operate at a level of service C during both peak hours. • As presented in the City Transportation Plan, traffic on Pioneer Trail is expected to more than double in the proposed site area by the year 2015. The volumes on Hennepin Town Road are expected to increase about 1.5 times over the current traffic levels. • As the volumes increase in this area, the levels of service for the intersections of Hennepin Town Road with Pioneer Trail and with the southern access driveways are expected to decrease. • The southbound left turn queues at the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road intersection are expected to increase in the future in accordance with volume growth. By the year 2015, the queue lengths for these southbound left turns often would exceed the 225 foot available distance during the p.m. peak period. Such queuing conditions would cause safety problems at the intersection of Hennepin Town Road with the southern access driveways. On an overall basis, the analysis presented in this report indicates that the traffic plan shown in Figure 3 will effectively meet the traffic needs for both the immediate post- development and 2015 conditions, with two exceptions. One exception is that the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road would operate at level of service E during the p.m. peak hour. The second exception is that an unsafe condition likely would arise by 2015 at the intersection of Hennepin Town Road and the southern access drives because the southbound queue on the approach to Pioneer Trail would frequently extend past this driveway intersection. We would recommend that the Hustad Company and City monitor these two circumstances and be prepared to implement effective solutions, if and when such difficulties arise. 9812 Lee Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55347 August 10, 1999 Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 Dear Mike, Thanks for meeting with Kevin Benjamin&me to discuss our concerns regarding the Bluff Country Village. We met with our neighbors and talked with organizers in the neighborhoods to the North and West of the project and the neighborhoods have the following common concerns with the project: 1. Increased noise from Hwy 169 because the 16 ft high berms and trees that are now shielding us from the Highway will be leveled by this project. 2. Light pollution from the commercial structures. 3. Increased traffic. 4. Building density We realize this land will be developed and don't fundamentally oppose the plan,but we think there is room to make the project better for both the developer,the neighbors and Eden Prairie. We are encouraged that the developer has brought up some alternatives addressing our concerns and we would like the issues resolved as follows. 1.Noise: All three neighborhoods are already greatly impacted noise from Hwy 169. The Walgreen's and the with Park&Ride eliminate the berms and trees on the propertythat currentlyprovide our neighborhoods � significant noise protection. While the Park&Ride is good,a parking lot does nothing to block sound. Our understanding is that Southwest Metro does not need such a large Park&Ride in this location. We would like to see the size of the Park&Ride reduced so that a 12 ft high berm with 10-12 ft trees could be built between the Park&Ride and Hwy 169 to maintain the sound barrier for the three existing neighborhoods as well as townhouses in this project. Mr.Hustad's addresses our sound concerns in an alternate plan by adding a Senior Housing building in the Park&Ride area to provide a noise barrier. This structure would leave significant sound holes for the northern neighborhood and since it is parallel with Hennepin Town Road it does little to shield the neighborhood to the south of the project. If the senior center is added to the project we still need either the 12-ft high berm with trees or to have the developer fund extending the sound wall along Hwy 169 to the pond(exhibit 1). Our neighborhood supports the senior center provided that additional sound abatement measures are taken. With the Senior Housing alternative the project get 30 additional rental units and an additional 1,350 sq. ft of commercial space. A 500-ft sound wall is the more expensive option and may cost as much as$95,000. We realize that this is a significant sum of money. But sound abatement would add considerable value to the entire residential component of this project as well as benefit the surrounding neighborhoods. And in considering the value of the additional Senior Housing/Retail components and the scope of the entire project this is a relatively small cost for a very large improvement(less than.003%of the project's total value). 17 A separate item that will adversely impact sound is the proposed road behind the pond. This road eliminates a berm and 5-8 magnificent oaks,which provide sound protection as well as beauty. This road was put in as an effort to eliminate projected traffic problems at the intersection of the gas station/Walgreen's entry and Hennepin Town Road. But the solution creates another set of problems as the new intersection requires anyone heading south out of Walgreen's to wind around the pond and use the Park&Ride exit. Anyone heading north out of the gas station must go through the retail parking lot to get onto Hennepin town road(exhibit 2). In reality,drivers will make unsafe U-turns and find other creative shortcuts. We don't know that a standard intersection will create traffic problems. So before we cut down more valuable trees, lets wait to see if traffic levels create a problem and then use this alternative or another one at that point. 2. Light: In the plan the neighborhood to the south of the project looks directly at the gas stations pumps and canopy. The neighbors will look out onto the station's activities and the lights at night. We strongly favor developer's alternate plan of rotating the gas station to reduce its intrusiveness and request that a berm as high as possible be built behind the gas station/car was with trees that are 10-12 ft tall at installation. In addition,all the neighborhoods will be affected by the glow of the project at night. We would like any wallpack lighting prohibited form the project. 3.Project Density: While we think the project has too much in too small an area,we accept the level of density that is the plan and support a Senior Center if noise abatement measures are taken. But we are concerned that the outlot in the southwest corner of the property will be developed in the future. We would like measures to be taken so that the last bit of trees and green space on the property are not developed 20 years down the road. As a recap,we would like the following measures are taken: 1. A berm or sound wall is built between the Park&Ride area and Hwy 169. 2. The gas station is rotated and bermed so a shield is created for the southern neighborhood. 3. Delay the road behind the pond to save trees until traffic proves to be a problem. 4. No wallpack lighting is permitted. 5. Ensure that the southwest outlot will not be developed in the future. The concerns in this letter were formulated by talking with our neighborhood. I showed a rough draft of this letter to all but two of the households in our neighborhood and they unanimously support the above recommendations. With these changes we think the project can be good for the developer and the neighborhoods. Sincerely, A#0.e.ite1/4_ Steve Mohn cc:neighbors 7 / ,..,... ! . ri I I + SG K_ ww11 U� A I \� bet)," _, W z.v.t 1-rv4P5. 2500 S.F. RETAIL 4 30 SENIOR HOUSING ------J AUNITS =l 500 S.F. RETAIL •A•K & RIDE -----.-j SHELTER O N :A4 -----/ .......„/ It N , -----___:; ----- / N. --....„7 C7 -= = W \ i 0 30 60 120 FT , 7/ f '�, �r v„ v1k, %\ l \ +ti l l i -- /,vvrlox. + AERANO- \ rY•; NVIE \� 825.0 \\ ,rA7^\ \\`, • \\ [ E / i / - \ �:- T c A 4 1 v \\ _ - ` `� I R IV. . ' f i 1 "tea M, \ 4 y 1 / ' _-_ .11� 41°- I lull asi fah ilia ��r f, r_A T----- : • ,,c, ---__ ,___— st....- . E.1-_:.d,-' ''.;":"•7'. '. / .; A, -. -1 `:-II / _ 7 41.111,!..—`4. ) /—j n — . : — — /,, 4,0\,/,/ 1 J,+ ' Ill i : 11 . ! 1 I I :.'' i \ , , ‘ r--1 ii 11 � en.o \\ ND ZE/ 1 Fit- N. POND / f.' / ,, , _... ..., ., , s--:-'::,t.:.:'''''?:•,:'''••-:•,-;''-•-,.tSill ./i' : ' ,' SP': , , , , , _ - --.‘_:-_ if•-. -- ,./if'10,rt 4s,- _ /1 , 7:' - -\' I am•' '/m- ^-4I n I II +l L—.. - r-- -i 1 1 _ 1 \ + ♦ A 04/20/99 TUE 11:51 FAX 612 458 2881 COTTAGE GROVE COMM DEVLP 1 = April 19, 1999 Planning Commission Members City of Eden Prairie Dear Commission Members This letter is in regard to the proposed development project to be located in the northwest quadrant of Hwy. 169 and Pioneer Road.The developer and property owner, Mr. Hustad has proposed a combination of commercial and residential uses that are inconsistent with the existing guiding for the area. The current comprehensive guide plan has guided the property for neighborhood commercial, 50,000 square feet or under. The current proposal is significantly over this square footage threshold at approximately 120,000 (in total). The developer gives no explanation for the guide plan change and does not indicate what the benefits to the community and more specifically the surrounding neighborhoods would be with the guide plan change. The proposal also includes a residential component which was lacking when Mr. Hustad ventured out to the neighborhood to view his proposal in 1996.Although introduction of residential uses is consistent with the intent of the guide plan, the number of units is quite dense and appears greater than the density permissible under the comprehensive plan.The proposed density reduces the ability to adequately buffer the proposed land uses, both commercial and multi-family from the lower intensity, adjoining single family neighborhoods. From a site plan perspective, the proposal promotes too much hard surface without providing any relief to the adjoining neighborhoods as well as the future residents of the project. The developer appears to be most interested in maximizing his return with little regard for site amenities, existing topographic buffers to the highway, traffic ramifications and views to surrounding single family residential communities. The surrounding neighborhoods have been consistent in their support of the current guide plan designation for the site. Unfortunately, the developer continues to believe he is entitled to something much more than currently available under the City's comprehensive Plan. It is unclear why this would occur since the guide plan has been in effect for some time and any investment into the property should reflect that planned land use. Likewise, the surrounding residents have made their home purchases relying on the comprehensive plan designation.There have not been any previous indications that a more intense use should be considered for the site with the possible exception of the developers own interest. Typically, a City may reguide and rezone a property if it provides developmental trade-offs which further community goals. In the case of the current proposal, the applicant has not documented any"trade-offs"which compensate the community and the surrounding neighborhoods for the change in use and site intensity. Rather, the site plan degrades the property by requiring a significant amount of grading and tree removal, all due to overdevelopment of the site.The applicant attempts to provide senior housing and live/work units to introduce a residential mix more consistent with community goals of housing the aging population and reducing traffic congestion. However,these are only small project components which cannot mask the intensity of the residential development or the sprawl of the commercial buildings. 6 04/20/99 TUE 11:52 FAX 612 458 2881 COTTAGE GROVE COMM DEVLP •- 1 There are a variety of site plan issues which are raised by the current proposal; site grading, tree removal, neighborhood traffic impacts, site lighting, commercial and residential building architecture, buffering between land uses, site drainage and appropriate access. Discussion of these site issues could lead one to believe that the neighborhood concern is more the physical aspects of the plan. In reality the neighborhood is concerned about the inconsistency of the proposal with the community's and the neighborhood's vision for the site as embodied in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. I am requesting you deny the current proposal to give a clear message to the developer that the City is not interested in development which is so clearly out of character with the City's longstanding comprehensive plan designation. Sincerely 0/47d) Kim Lindquist 9933 Balmoral Lane Eden Prairie MN 55347 77 Wallace H. Hustad Austad Companies 10400 Viking Drive, Suite 510 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 April 22, 1999 Dear Neighbor; I want to take this oportunity to respond to the concerns that you and others expressed to the Eden Prairie planning department about our plans for development of the 28 acre parcel of land at the intersection of Co. Rd. 1 and State Highway 169. After reading all the letters I was impressed by the similarities between our design goals and combined sentiments of you as nearby residents. Our differences clearly seem to be more a matter of scale than of land use. What I hope to accomplish by sending this letter of response is to give you some background into the thought process that went into the design of the project. Although the commonality of concern was apparent between our development goals and your neighborhood expectations there were a couple of ideas that appeared in a few of the letters that I would like to comment on. Firstly, the idea that I have already been adequately compensated by the County for condemning nine acres of our land in August of 1994 is an unfairly misleading rumor. In their taking, the County argued that the land they were condemning was of only residential value because there was plenty of land remaining after the taking to construct a village size shopping center. To substantiate the fact we were paid residential prices for very valuable commercial land, I will provide you with two factual situations. Fact one: the State Highway Dept. in 1984 paid us for a commercial parcel of land adjacent to old 169 the same price per square foot that the County paid in 1997. Fact two: as of today the County is offering us a price per square foot for residential land along Co. Rd. I that exceeds the price they paid for the land at the corner of 1 & 169. Another misconception is that our present plan is a disguise for a 50,000 square foot grocery store. Our plan is for a combination specialty grocery/cooking school facility similar to the one in the community of Deephaven which is less than half the rumored size. On a more positive note, I think the concept that needs discussion and clarification is the formal designation of our property as "Village" or "Neighborhood" commercial and "Medium" density residential. The community has worked with this particular designation on this property since 1966 when the First guide plan was established. As a matter of human interest, my family bought land a few hundred feet north of the property in question in 1958 with the expressed intention of developing a"Community" size shopping center. At that time, my father was convinced that with 98th Street scheduled to be extended from Bloomington through Eden Prairie and County Road 18 to be improved to four lane status within five years, a shopping center should soon follow. The 98th Street extension was ! v A vital commercial corner needs a certain critical mass to stay healthy. What I want to avoid is developing a project that is outdated in a few years. To accomplish this we have emphasized small entrepreneurial service type businesses that can more easily adapt and adjust to changing buying patterns rather than the "big box" type of companies that can so easily be here today and gone tomorrow. Your concerns about traffic, tree preservation, property values, water quality and noise are equally important to us. I am a firm believer that your property, as well as mine, will be enhanced by increasing the opportunity for neighborhood services. With locally oriented business services, our traffic problems will be lessened by the simple fact that we no longer will need to travel through or into someone else's neighborhood for our basic services. The tree replacement policy that the city has implemented ensures that Eden Prairie will be more of a forested community tomorrow than it was yesterday and we intend to do our part. Environmental issues such as water quality, noise and light intensity are problems that can be adequately managed with proper design. The increase in mass that the mixed use development provides, will help protect the adjacent neighbors from the increased noise and light from the freeway as well as any increase from the development itself. I think the Bluff Country Village, as designed, with it's community scale density and neighborhood style tenants is a better design solution for southeast Eden Prairie than a design that strictly adheres to a 1960's concept. I am hopeful you will agree. See ely urs, ( .17 Wall stad CC: Eden Prairie Planning Commissioners Eden Prairie City Council Members 79 Bruce D. Webster 9953 Balmoral Lane Eden Prairie,MN 55347 April 14, 1999 Mr. Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen: I am writing to voice my displeasure and opposition to the most recent plans Mr. Hustad is proposing for the development of the property on the northwest corner of Hwy. 169 and County Road 1. For the last 2 years,the neighborhood has been voicing loud opposition to Mr. Hustad's continued efforts to revise the City of Eden Prairie's guide plan in order to build a large community commercial site. Although this is the first time Mr. Hustad has submitted a plan to the city,he has provided several plans to the neighborhood of how he would like to develop this property. All of the plans have the same emphasis on heavy commercial development. Mr. Hustad's latest proposal now adds a thin and densely populated residential area adjacent to our backyards and believes this is to serve as an adequate buffer zone. The transition between the existing single-family housing and the proposed density and proximity of the multi-family dwellings is clearly inappropriate. This recent plan is by no means a compromise and you shouldn't believe it is. Mr. Hustad is fully aware of the neighborhood's feelings concerning a community commercial site,which is why he did not present this latest plan to the neighborhood. I would like to take this opportunity to make you also aware of my thoughts. I do not want or need a large commercial site on this property. It is also my belief that the City of Eden Prairie does not need(or want)a large commercial site on this property either. There is no future housing development in southeast Eden Prairie that would warrant a need for this type of commercial development. In fact,the city as a whole is not lacking for commercial development. Are there compelling reasons to change the guide plan? I don't believe there are. In fact,there are several reasons not to including: 1. An increase in traffic along Hennepin Town Line Road and possibly through neighborhood streets; 2. A lack of an adequate buffer zone between existing neighborhood houses 3. The destruction of numerous old and large trees; 4. An inconsistency with the population density of the surrounding area g In addition to the above,I oppose Mr. Hustad's proposed development because of: 1. The increased noise levels. First,noise levels will increase due to additional traffic. A 24-hour gas station and possibly other 24-hour stores would insure that the additional noise levels would be never-ending. Second,a large parking lot for a large retail area would increase the noise that comes from Hwy. 169 and the noise to come from an expanded County Road 1. Please keep in mind that the DOT stopped the Hwy. 169 west-side sound barrier well short of the County Road 1 intersection. In addition,the traffic light at this intersection creates unbearable noise from the huge trucks continuously downshifting to stop at the light. This neighborhood has already been severely affected by noise. A large parking lot to support a large commercial development will only increase the noise levels and add to the frustration of existing homeowners. 2. Unwanted smells from the gas station,restaurants,and grocery store. Many people, including myself,purchased their property with the understanding that Eden Prairie would follow the guide plan as they have diligently done in the past. We did not expect to be located next to a major shopping area. In the past,Mr. Hustad and his representatives have repeatedly stated that the neighborhood wants a development like the current proposal. In reality,the neighborhood did not ask for this,does not want this, and does not need this. We already have a food store,gas station,bank,dry cleaners,video store, liquor store,restaurants, fast-food,pizza parlor,barber,hair salon and bike shop all within 1 mile. While it would be nice to keep"the field"as it currently is,I do not deny Mr. Hustad's right to develop this property in accordance with the City of Eden Prairie's guide plan. Therefore,I would support keeping the commercial development at the 50,000-sq. ft. maximum with all or the majority located on the west side of Hennepin Town Line Road. Development of the property on the east side of Hennepin Town Line Road should be kept at either single-or multi-family dwellings with appropriate densities. In keeping with the guide plan,traffic and noise problems would be minimized,many of the large and older trees would be saved,and an appropriate transition with the existing neighborhood properties would be provided. Whether to alter the guide plan and support Mr. Hustad's stubborn idea that a large community commercial development must to be built on this property is the question you will be faced with. The fact that the proposed development does not meet the established criteria for altering the guide plan,that the surrounding neighborhood strongly opposes this plan and that the City of Eden Prairie's lacks a need(or even a want)for this type of development makes this decision an easy one. Sincerely, Bruce D. Webster March 12, 1999 9953 Balmoral Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (Committee member's name), My son who is 9 years old asked me how Eden Prairie got its name. After he asked the question, I was silent for a moment. Prairies? It is awfully sad that"open" land in Eden Prairie seems to mean—land "waiting"to be built on. The open land on the northwest corner of Hwy. 169 and Pioneer Trail Road is across the street from our home and is some of"that" land. I realize it is owned by the Husteds and it will have development on it. I am asking that you speak up and voice a strong concern about the density of this current project. Many homes line this property and we all purchased our homes with the understanding that some day the property would be developed with family housing with a SMALL amount of neighborhood commercial. That is what we all read on the original planned unit development. Mr. Husted wants to change that plan. Please stop the massive density project he wants to cram in this small open space. I am open to building on the land, but I strongly disagree that the best use for the land is dense mufti-family and heavy commercial. The surrounding homes have already been through a lot. Old Hwy. 18 is gone and 169 is just beaten with semis and heavy traffic. With that comes a tremendous amount of noise. Why doesn't the sound barrier wall continue down towards the intersection of 169 and Pioneer Trail? You can not receive the benefits of the sound barrier wall because the commercial land needs to be seen from 169 we were told. We are not talking about a little noise,we are talking about noise that wakes you up with windows dosed! Noise so loud that those with porches or decks facing the land have a hard time enjoying their backyard anymore because it's so nerve-racking trying to talk over the traffic noise; very frustrating. The Pioneer Trail expansion will once again produce more traffic and more noise for us to add on top of this. Will you please convince the other planning commissioners and Mr. Husted that the goal of Eden Prairie is not to build as much as we can in little spaces but to benefit Eden Prairie as a whole and be concerned with what's best for it's residents;the original guide plan we all read when we purchased our homes should be the plan he is asked to follow. Please look at this massive land development and vote to reduce the density and eliminate the gas station that once again adds another high level of traffic and noise to our neighborhood where Mr. Husted is truly testing his limits. Vote to bring this down to a reasonable and appropriate size. Reasonable density housing, light commercial, and some green grass seem suitable to this land. I want to be able to tell my son that we have a system in place that looks at the community as a whole and builds to benefit each and everyone of us that lives here. Sincerely, 41,7,4 Deborah Webster g March 31, 1999 Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Proposed Development-Hustad land, Hwy 169&Pioneer Trail Dear Mr. Franzen, Our home is at 10008 Shadow Pond Drive, on the northwest corner of the planned development of the Hustad land. We attended the February 23 meeting,which you were kind enough to organize to discuss this project. We fully support all of the points raised by our neighbors during that meeting. We would also like to emphasize a few points: 1. The neighborhood surrounding the proposed development is made up primarily of homes in the$150,000 to$300,000 price range. It does not seem reasonable, nor in accordance with city policy,to change to such high density housing without a transition area, or a greater buffer zone. 2. The proposed plan puts, not only structures, but also hard surface driveways, closer to the pond north of Shadow Pond Drive than anywhere else surrounding the pond. This could create water quality problems. It would also destroy valuable wetland vegetation. 3. The proposed plan creates serious concerns about traffic levels in the surrounding neighborhood. At the very least, Shadow Pond Drive and Balmoral Drive should be left as dead ends or converted to cul de sacs. 4. The area proposed for development contains many mature trees, primarily oak. The development plan does not provide for the preservation of these. This should be addressed. 5. The commercial area proposed is substantially larger than that allowed in the guide plan. This is not compatible with the residential nature of the neighborhood. Mr.Franzen, as you know, for most people in this neighborhood their home is their largest investment. These homes were purchased under the assumption that the city would enforce the existing guide plan. We would hope that any changes would take into consideration the concerns of the neighborhood. Thankyou for your consideration. Sincerely, 6/4", Chi Terry Starks Linda Starks 1008 Shadow Pond Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55437 p ;1 ,g/,/99 2 ' V2a• Jzi. ,).2.7,) -eGazev t&te- /9 Fe::„yze,zcte_. nee AeZezZe Ju • J D K, Lyzetv- Vz6 12ee c .. to / eiZet4_er oce,e4 - 0-L,/,4-e.repie4a4 >o ise March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dom Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes, followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes (similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large(50,000 sq ft) grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station(SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dorn Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes, followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes(similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large(50,000 sq ft)grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station(SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen 7 March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dorn Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi-family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes, followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes (similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large(50,000 sq ft)grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station (SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dom Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi-family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes,followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes(similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large (50,000 sq ft)grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station (SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only, residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dom Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes, followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes (similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large (50,000 sq ft) grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station (SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen 9 March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dorn Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi-family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes, followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes(similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large(50,000 sq ft) grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station (SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 4Sincerely, �/ 444 e!"en Gam.-Z, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen ! l March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dom Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes, followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes (similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large(50,000 sq ft)grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station(SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen March 25, 1999 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Planning Commission— Beverly Alexnder, Kenneth Clinton, Laurence Dorn Jr., Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad We are writing regarding our opposition to the Hustad project proposed for the Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road intersection. As you know, this property is guided multi-dwelling west of Hennepin Townline Road and commercial east of Townline Road; and we feel Mr. Hustad should be held to these guidelines when developing this property for the following reasons: 1. We built our home in Woodland Ponds being told by the City the property that Mr. Hustad wants zoned commercial was guided multi family residential. We would not have built our home here, as this type of development will severely impact(lower)the value of our home. 2. Isn't it normal practice for cities to have a step-down plan in the type of development allowed next to single family homes; i.e., single-family, next twin-homes, then townhomes, followed by condos/apartments and then commercial? 3. It is very difficult to understand the need to destroy the Oak trees on this property. This property it is all treed with varying slopes, and would be ideal for twinhomes (similar to the type built on Old Wagon Trail). 4. Do we need another large(50,000 sq ft)grocery store 1-mile from Jerry's New Market? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use the empty Lund's Grocery Store site if they feel Eden Prairie needs this type of specialty grocery store? 5. Do we need additional retail space, considering there is empty retail available within 1 mile(again at the Preserve)? Not only is there retail available here, there is empty retail space throughout Eden Prairie, particularly within 3 miles of this proposed development. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand the need to rezone this property to commercial for another strip mall. 6. There is a gas station (SuperAmerica) 1 mile from the proposed gas station in the Hustad project. Again, what is the necessity for approving this type of commercial? We are requesting that you oppose this development, and require Mr. Hustad to develop this property as it was guided. Mr. Hustad was paid by government agencies for the road easement on this property, and we feel he can successfully develop this area with commercial on the east-side of Townline Road and only residential on the west-side. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Virgil and Cheryl Lund 10112 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 946-1371 cc: Mike Franzen 3 Craig and Carol Reno 9924 Balmoral Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 829-5622 February 26, 1999 Mr. Michael D. Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen: We are writing to you concerning a development proposal that is being brought before the planning commission. The development is to be located at Highway 169 and Pioneer Trail. We are concerned that the proposal does not meet the original guide plan for the property. The original Planned Unit Development(PUD) had neighborhood commercial in the east section of the property that borders Highway 169. In addition, the commercial section was small in relationship to the rest of the property. The proposal being brought before the planning commission has a much larger portion of the property being devoted to commercial use, which does not meet the guide plan. In addition, the multi-family housing that is being proposed is extremely dense. Again, we don't believe this follows the original guide plan for the property. We are also concerned that the new construction will be within 25 feet of our property, which is a modification to the original guide plan that required 50- 100 feet of buffer between the developments. While we are aware that this property will be developed, we urge you to follow the original Planned Unit Development(PUD)guide plan that has Multi-Family housing with appropriate density for the plan, as well as placing the small amount of neighborhood commercial on the east side of the property bordering Highway 169. This is a small neighborhood community with no additional need for large scale commercial-especially a grocery store. There is already a grocery store at Highway 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway which meets the needs of the community quite well. The additional traffic and environmental pollution that will accompany large scale commercial development will not enhance this community. Thank you for allowing us to express our opinions. We would be happy to further discuss my concerns if you need additional insight into this proposed development. We can be reached at the phone number at the top of this letter. Sincerely, g,eitA: /0.G Craig and Carol Reno Mike Williams 9838 Balmoral Lane • Eden Prairie Mn 55347 612-941-8907 Greetings: I am writing you in regards to the planned development on 169 and Pioneer. I fully realize that this property will be developed, but I ask each of you to keep the developer within the guidelines of how the city has guided this property to be developed. I understand this parcel of land is guided for 50,000 SQ of commercial and I ask you to keep them to this plan. In the ideal world,the property east of Hennipin Townline Rd should be the spot where commercial is located. This spot is farthest from existing housing and the road makes a great barrier. Listed below are some of my other concerns regarding this development: • With most of the land destined to be leveled, the residents will lose a natural sound barrier to ease the noise off 169. • Anymore commercial than the planned 50,000 sq. feet, will cause even more noise and lights in the area. With the upgrade roads, I believe the traffic flow will work. • The proposal has too much townhouse density, I would like to see it reduced. • I am concerned with loss of trees within this property and the effect on driving wildlife into residential. This must be addressed especially for the residents close to the property. • I am concerned with the location of the proposed gas station and effect on water quality and air quality in the neighborhood. Some of the positives I see for the development is the addition of senior housing in the area. This is one age group that is lacking from our area and would be a great asset to our neighborhood. I like the light commercial aspect as long as it is separate from the residential and adds some value to the neighborhood. I also would like this matter to end, we have talked with the developers and Mr. Hustad and I do not think they are listening. We need to bring closure to this issue and move on. In conclusion, I ask you to support the way the city views this property and do not let the developer deviate from the guide plan. Thank you for your time.. Sincerely, tAmke UteApti.kc Mike Williams )14.`'/' `ice`"l S 4&Q 11/W e% 5 dJ DJC 1rst *T 4cQQc( f 9812 Lee Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55347 March 3, 1998 Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 Dear Mike, Thanks for meeting with the neighbors to discuss the plans for the northwest corner of Pioneer Trail and Highway 169. We are directly affected by the project as we live in the neighborhood directly south of the proposed project. In fact,our deck and backyard looks over the property's woods and Hennepin Town Road. When we bought our house 1990 we checked with the city and knew that that the area would change dramatically. We knew County Road 18(now Hwy 169)was going to grow up and saw that the said property was planned for multifamily Residential with some neighborhood commercial. We thought these plans were good. Last year we were shocked when Mr.Husted met to tell us that it was best to deviate from the city's plans for the land and build a regional shopping center on his property. Like the rest of the neighbors we strongly disagreed with Mr.Husted and felt that the land should be developed according to the city's guide plan. We were glad when those plans faded. The new plans are only slightly improved and we strongly oppose this plan for the following reasons: -There is little to no green space. Regardless what is built on the property,there will be tree loss but leveling the woods to cram as many buildings and parking lots onto the property is an unacceptable tragedy. -There is still over twice as much commercial space as guided for neighborhood commercial(it was shocking to learn this proposal is even larger than the Jerry's Mall located just up the road). -The more retail,the more traffic. Increased traffic levels for Hennepin Town Road which borders neighborhoods that are heavily populated with children generates safety concerns. -The more traffic,the more noise in the adjacent neighborhoods that have already been adversely impacted by Hwy 169. -The neighborhood to the south of Pioneer Trail looks and listens to a 50,000 square foot store and it's parking lot. The plan makes no effort to add berms or trees to shield our neighborhood • from looking at the grocery store and hearing trucks beep as they back into the loading dock. It is disappointing that Mr.Husted doesn't talk to the neighborhoods. As we told him last year we aren't against this property being developed we would just like it build out according to(or close to)the guide plan which we based our choices upon. While we want minimal retail space. Town houses,senior housing,office/medical space,an apartment building,a church,or a neighborhood commercial area would be great uses for this land. Sincerely, Sincerely, Steve Mohn Sue Mohn Michael D. Franzen Eden Prairie City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen, Please, review carefully the Husted plan for the development of the property at the northwest corner of Hwy. 169 and Pioneer Trail. I believe that the developer tries for the second time to make the commercial space a large part of the total development. Such plan is against the original planned unit development. The original PUD called for the commercial section to be only small part of the total property and restricted to the southeast corner of the property. The Hennepin Town Line Road sets a natural boundary for the commercial development. One year ago, both the city and the neighborhood rejected the proposal for a similar large commercial development. Our family is looking forward to the multifamily housing to be finally erected in that site, especially if there will be not too many units condensed into the property. The Balmoral Lane and environs is one of the best family oriented neighborhoods in the Eden Prairie. We would welcome you to our annual Octoberfest (as celebrated since 1981)to meet all those wonderful people. Please, help us to keep our few blocks family friendly. Sincerely / C.,<-0(.-&& . . An dy eczalski 12e- 0 ....-- Ewa Peczalska Anna Peczals a Agat ecza s ca iam P" 1 � A am Peczals 9873 Balmoral Ln. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 qy Matthew J. and Kristin A. Anderson 9962 Lee Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55347 Feb. 16, 1999 Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I am writing to you in regards to a proposal to develop the land on the 169/Pioneer Trail area. There are four problems to the proposed plan of development. 1. The development does not fit the City of Eden Prairie's Guide Plan where the majority of property is guided as RM-Medium Density(2.5-10 Dwelling units per acre),and the smaller portion by the pond is guided as NC-Neighborhood Commercial (20,000-50,000 sq. ft.). Please stick to the City Guide Plan as it was established initially. When we all purchased our properties, it was done under the assumption that the city would follow their own plans. 2. The traffic levels will be greatly increased with the proposed volume of commercial customers. This is a much higher traffic level than was planned for in the guide plan. This is a huge safety issue.. 3. There is a concern about the commercial and the residential physical relationship. Would there be some type of buffer, landscaping,or work with the elevation? 4. Tree loss would be extensive with this much commercial developing. As a neighborhood customer I would encourage development of smaller retail shops such as a bagel store(Bruegger's or Einstein),a coffee shop(Caribou or Starbucks), perhaps a bread store(such as Great Harvest),professional portrait studio, chiropractic clinic. I would strongly oppose a commercial site with 24 hour service,a bar,and a gas station with potentially harmful fumes and many large oil trucks. Thank you for your time, I look forward to further discussions on this topic. Please keep in mind I am not opposed to the development,I just want to see it developed according to the original Guide Plan. Since Matthew J. Anderson cc: Dr.Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-Younghans,Ron Case, Ross L. Thorfinnson, Nancy Tyra-Lukens January 10, 1999 The City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission C/O Mr. Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Proposed grocery store and shopping center at Pioneer Trail and Hwy 169 Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission members, I am writing to state my opposition to the proposed property development at Pioneer Trail and Hwy 169. This property's zoning should remain "Neighborhood Commercial" as indicated in the City of Eden Prairie Guide Plan. This current development proposal would have a very negative impact on our neighborhood by increasing noise and traffic& decreasing our safety, security and property values. I am asking that your committee reject this most recent development proposal. This proposed development would clearly not benefit our neighborhood and is mainly targeted at commuters traveling south across the Minnesota River. Our neighborhood is already well served by Jerry's grocery store at the next intersection. Please reject this proposed development and do not allow this area to be rezoned as "Regional Commercial". I would recommend a bagel shop or a coffee shop or other type of retail that would fit into the current"Neighborhood Commercial" zoning. Thank you. Sincerely, Air gym'n Perszyk Y 10252 Normandy Crest Eden Prairie, MN 55347 612-944-2695 cc: Eden Prairie City Council Members February 16, 1999 Mr. Scott Kipp Senior Planner 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Kipp: I am writing in reference to the proposed development of the property that borders hwy 169 and Pioneer Trail. This property was originally guided to include townhouses, and a very small amount of neighborhood commercial, bordering hwy 169. The Hustad proposal calls for commercial development on the East Side of Hennepin Town Line Road, as well as a specialty grocery store, and two other retail developments on the West Side of the road. This plan far exceeds the amount of commercial property in the original planned unit development. Therefore, I am asking for your support in following the original PUD and limit the amount of commercial property to the East Side of Hennepin Town Line Road. I strongly oppose any commercial development to the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road for the following reasons. 1. The proposed development does not conform to the original PUD. The Hustads' are using the fact that the county used some of the property to build Hennepin Town Line Road to justify expanding the amount of commercial development. The facts are they have already been compensated for the loss of this property. The new frontage road is not a compelling enough reason for allowing the amount of commercial property to be expanded beyond what is in the original PUD. 2. The property is too small for the proposed commercial development. Commercial developments of this size need more space between the residents and the commercial development. The plan is cramming too much into the property of this size. 3. The close proximity of the commercial property on the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road to the residents will significantly increase the noise, traffic, and safety of the neighborhood. Cars and trucks will be coming and going at all hours of the day and night. There is not enough distance between the commercial development and the resident neighborhoods to buffer the noise pollution. 4. The Hustad's continue to stress the need for a grocery store and more retail. Why do we need a grocery store when the newly remodeled Jerry's' New Market, and strip mall is less than two miles away? 5. Commercial development on the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road is not in the best interest of the residents of Eden Prairie. The property is not big enough to support commercial development on the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road, nor do we need it. With the addition of Hennepin Town Line Road, the division of commercial development and residential living has been provided. What a better dividing line than the road itself. The format of the land is in sync with the original PUD providing commercial development on the East Side, and residential on the West Side. I am asking your support to follow the original PUD by restricting the commercial development to the East Side of Hennepin Town Line Road. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you would like to discuss this project with me I can be reached at home (612) 829-7871 or work (612) 897-8072. Sincerely, "Z"1"""--V--• John L. Turner 10019 Shadow Pond Drive / 1 Feb. 15, 1999 Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I am writing to you in regards to a proposal to develop the 169/Pioneer Trail area. We have received information about such items as a Specialty Grocery(Whole Foods), Walgreens, gas station,etc.to be developed in the area. I would like to first state that I am in no way opposed to the development of this area. In fact, I encourage it. However, there are four problems to the proposed plan of development. 1. The development does not fit the City of Eden Prairie's Guide Plan where the majority of property is guided as RM-Medium Density(2.5-10 Dwelling units per acre), and the smaller portion by the pond is guided as NC-Neighborhood Commercial (20,000-50,000 sq. ft.) The proposed Specialty Grocery exceeds the Guide Plan completely. When we were looking at buying our house(less than a year ago),we looked into what was going to be developed in our surrounding neighborhood, and what would be left undeveloped. We were told that Eden Prairie follows its City Guide Plan, and that the area in question would be developed as Neighborhood Commercial with certain guide limits in place. Please do not tell us that we were mislead in our understanding of Eden Prairie officials following their own Guide Plans. 2. The traffic levels in our family neighborhood will be greatly increased with the proposed volume of commercial customers. this is a much higher traffic level than was planned for in the guide plan. There is a huge safety issue because of all of the young children living in the area. The noise is also a concern. 3. There is a concern about the commercial and the residential physical relationship. Would there be some type of buffer,landscaping, or work with the elevation? 4. Tree loss. Please take a drive past the designated area to see all the beautiful old trees that fill the land. These would all be flattened with the current plan. We were told to give feedback into what we would lice to see developed in the area. My recommendations would include a bagel store(Bruegger's or Einstein),a coffee shop (Caribou or Starbucks), perhaps a bread store(such as Great Harvest),professional portrait studio, kids toy store(Creative Kids Stuff would do great around here). I would strongly oppose a commercial site with 24 hour service, a bar, and a gas station with potentially harmful fumes and many large oil trucks. Thank you for your time,I look forward to further discussions on this topic. Again,please keep in my I am not opposed to the development,I just want to see it developed according to the original Guide Plan. Sincerely, Vui6 Kris Anderson cc: Dr. Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-Yonng}hans, Ron Case,Ross L. Thorfinnson,Nancy Tyra-Lukens Mike Franzen rariZe..n_Letter from::::::a residen t ...........................................................................:...,,,:......,.:......................................................................................::::,.:Pae1:. ............................................................................ ....... ..................................................................................... • From: Barbara Rightler<barbarig@bethanyhouse.com> To: Planning Commission EP <DRowland@edenprairie.org> Date: 2/10/99 5:14PM Subject: Letter from a resident February 10, 1999 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Dear Commission, We live on Juniper Lane, just off Pioneer Trail, and we are very concerned about the Hustad development plan for the property on the corner of Highway 169 and County Road 1. Obviously, the owner/developer of the land ultimately can do what he wants with it under the general guidelines of the city council. But we would like to make the following points for your consideration when reviewing the plan: 1. The retail space on the west side of the service road duplicates similar space only a mile north at The Preserve-the attractively remodeled New Market and the addition of D'Amicos still leaves a lot of empty area in between the two. Why does Eden Prairie need more retail area to add to all the empty space at the mall, along with the Lunds building, etc.?We object to commercial development on property that is not zoned for it. 2. The townhouses on the west end of Juniper provide moderate-priced housing in our neighborhood. The current plans call for even higher-density housing in the new development, which will impact property values and tax rates as much or more than the expansion of Pioneer Trail. 3. The number of beautiful mature trees that will be removed is heartbreaking, and the buffer between the proposed townhouses and homeowners' property is inadequate, particularly when the two-story buildings will tower above the existing houses from a higher elevation. For the reasons stated above, we would like the development plan to restrict the retail area to the east of the service road, to reduce the number of town homes, and to include some single-family homes on this beautiful property of rolling hills, lovely views and large trees. Thank you for your consideration and for representing the interests of the Woodland Ponds neighborhood in your discussions. Sincerely, Carol Johnson 10106 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 fir) February 10, 1999 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission C/O Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mike: I am communicating with you again this year to voice our strong opposition to the proposal by Wally Hustad for the development for the property north of Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail (i.e. 169 and Pioneer Trail). We are property owners directly south of the pond at this intersection. Last year, you and I communicated frequently as the surrounding neighborhoods tried to work with Wally's developers(Oppidan Development) to create a reasonable proposal for the development of this site. However, Wally was unwilling to honor our requests that the property be developed according to the city's Guide Plan. Wally was, and appears again,to be head strong about bringing a community size complex to this site. While we do not oppose development of the site, we strongly oppose any development other than according to the Guide Plan for medium density residential and neighborhood commercial. The city's Guide Plan is the understanding under which many of us purchased our properties. We purchased our property because we enjoy the unique nature of Eden Prairie and its commitment to high quality and nature friendly environment. The scenic beauty of this area is special and should be preserved. However, recent changes in this southwest corner have impacted the quality of the area. • 169 generates far more noise than anticipated and particularly in our area due to low and inadequate sound walls. The sound can be heard as far in as 1/2-3/4 of a mile. • The planned expansion of Pioneer Trail,while expected, will contribute to significant increases in noise and traffic. Already, crossing Pioneer Trail at this intersection is a dicey undertaking at times. Our concern on a Community Shopping Complex, no matter how buffered by housing, is based on the following: • Traffic will increase significantly and during extended times throughout the day. This will create congestion, safety hazards, noise, etc. Higher noise, traffic and safety concerns will further degrade the quality of life in this area. 1� • Development of the property to this scale leaves virtually no room for trees, landscaping and other environmental needs to buffer and balance the property with the surrounding neighborhoods. The loss of nature will be felt for years and may never return to the same extent during our lifetimes. • Commercial parking lots will illuminate the surrounding areas significantly and is inconsistent with the quality of life needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. • It will pull traffic and business from the Eden Prairie Center area which is an area we all want to see developed further to provide better services and shopping in that centralized area. • We do not believe his guise of a 49,965 square foot organic grocery store is anything other than a ruse to build a structure capable of becoming a Rainbow or similar store. He has repeatedly voiced his personal goal of bringing this type of store into the area. We are beginning to think he has a personal vendetta against Jerry Paulsen and his store. Mike, I could go on and on but I think you understand the needs of our area well. From our conversations last year, I saw that you care for city's residents and where sensitive to our issues in the southwest corner. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please let us know if you need additional information on what neighbors will support for Wally's development of this property. Sincerely, Kevin A. Benjamin 9949 Lee Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55347 (H) 941-5879 (W) 651-665-4764 l January 10, 1999 Eden Prairie Planning Commission do Mr. Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Proposed rezoning of the intersection at Pioneer Trail & Hwy 169 Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I'm writing to ask that you reject a recent proposal to rezone a large portion of Eden Prairie property at Hwy 169 and Pioneer Trail for"Regional Commercial" status. I attended a neighborhood meeting this past weekend and was able to see blue prints of the new proposed development. This looks very much like the Oppidan proposal that your committee rejected in 1997 for a grocery store. It is obvious that this site was chosen to serve Savage and commuter traffic on Hwy 169. Our neighborhood and Eden Prairie would noi.benefit from this development. This intersection is already congested with noisy, bumper to bumper traffic. We already have a Jerry's NewMarket and commercial development at Anderson Lakes Parkway just a mile away that is far from full occupancy. There is very little land left to develop in Eden Prairie. Please consider the effect on residents and neighborhoods in this area. Safety, increased traffic noise, tree loss, no sound buffer and landscaping are just a few of the very grave concerns that I have for this proposal. Zoning for this land should remain "Neighborhood Commercial". I would recommend a coffee shop or bagel shop for the portion of land East of Hennepin Town Road and medium density residential for the land West of Hennepin Town Road. These would fit into the current City of Eden Prairie Guide Plan for development. Sincerely, cict J nifer Scott 10252 Normandy Crest Eden Prairie, MN 55347 612-944-2695 cc: Eden Prairie City Council Members � Lt City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission C/o Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 (612) 949-8300 Dear Mr. Franzen, We're writing in regards to the plans to develop the 169/Pioneer Trail site. We live at 9853 Lee Drive. The points we would like the Planning Commission to consider are these: • We're not opposed to development, however,we'd appreciate it being done according to the Eden Prairie guide plan. • We're concerned with excess traffic levels, noise and the relationship between residential and commercial property use. • Therefore, we'd appreciate no variances to the guide plan and that the property be developed as neighborhood commercial and medium density as planned. Thank you for your consideration. / /J Stephen and Geri Martin 9853 Lee Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55347 //3 Tuesday, February 9, 1999 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission c/o Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen: The plans to develop the area bounded by Pioneer Trail and Highway 169 are causing great concern for the residents of this area. Keeping in mind that most of us have built or bought homes in this part of Eden Prairie to escape the more unpleasant aspects of city living: primarily overcrowding, noise etc., I'm sure that you will understand our attitudes. I feel that Eden Prairie has provided an aesthetically desirable environment to this point and I want to do everything possible to continue on this course. The trees and the wildlife have inevitably suffered some losses due to the relocation of Highway 169 but we wish to stop this alarming trend even if we can't reverse it. My own chief concerns are safety, air and noise pollution, and the preservation of our environment. Realizing that some commercialization is inevitable we ask that you stick, as close as possible, to the City of Eden Prairie Guide Plan. I personally oppose any changes that threaten our unique ecology although much damage has been done already. The new shopping center could be a convenience, albeit one that we could all live without. Specifically, 24 hour businesses that contribute to traffic and noise would be the most objectionable. This category would include bars, bowling alleys, fast-food restaurants and all-night gas stations. Even the lighting necessary to such establishments would be detrimental to a quiet neighborhood. You may wonder just what kind of businesses would fit into our somewhat restrictive desires and it seems only fair that we offer some suggestions. Perhaps a drug store (much missed), a dentist's office, a smaller grocery store, a liquor store, a bagel store, a bakery, a book or record store, a dry cleaner, an ethnic restaurant, a coffee shop or deli, a hardware store (which we also miss) or a specialty clothing store would be welcome and non-threatening additions. Because we are already forced to fight a rear guard action, we must be non- relenting in our efforts to preserve the qualities which are conjured up in the very name of Eden Prairie. Thanks for your efforts on the behalf of our residents. Sincerely, -75/1.4-Zu3 David W. Eagle, h.D, 9937 Lee Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 is' (612) 941-2195 /19 Post-It"Fax Note 7671 Date I t 44s0' I- 7 To (� r From it 0. Co./ • ' Co. February 10, 1999 Phone ti Phone 41 flour Q i" -' tax# Fax# Eden Prairie Planning Commission Dear Commission, We live on Juniper Lane,just off Pioneer Trail,and we are very concerned about the Hustad development plan for the property on the corner of Highway 169 and County Road I. Obviously, the owner/developer of the land ultimately can do what he wants with it under the general guidelines of the city council, But we would like to make the following points for your consideration when reviewing the plan: 1. The retail space on the west side of the service road duplicates similar space only a mile north at The Preserve—the attractively remodeled New Market and the addition of D'Amicos still leaves a lot of empty area in between the two. Why does Eden Prairie need more retail arca to add to all the empty space at the mall, along with the Lunds building, etc.?We object to commercial development on property that is not zoned for it, 2. The townhouses on the west end of Juniper provide moderate-priced housing in our neighborhood. The current plans call for even higher-density housing in the new development,which will impact property values and tax rates as much or more than the expansion of Pioneer Trail. 3. The number of beautiful mature trees that will be removed is heartbreaking, and the buffer between the proposed townhouses and homeowners' property is inadequate,particularly when the two-story buildings will tower above the existing houses from a higher elevation. For the reasons stated above,we would like the development plan to restrict the retail area to the east of the service road,to reduce the number of town homes, and to include some single-family homes on this beautiful property of rolling hills, lovely views and large trees. Thank you for your consideration and for representing the interests of the Woodland Ponds neighborhood in your discussions. rely, arol Jo so 10106 Juniper Lane Eden Prairie,MN 55347 l2 7 February 1999 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 Attention: Mr.Michael Franzen City Planner Subject: Proposed Retail Development Junction US 169 and Pioneer Trail Dear Mr.Franzen: We strongly oppose the regional commercial development plan proposed by the Hustad property ownership concern. Alteration of the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan from residential and neighborhood commercial use is unacceptable to citizens in the immediate vicinity for the following reasons: 1) The rationale behind Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan for RM-Medium Density housing and NC-Neighborhood Commercial Development remains sound public policy. The need for housing alternatives in Eden Prairie is as strong today as when the guide plan was last revised. Hennepin County recognized that fact by compensating the Hustad property owners for loss of commercial property use created when the Hennepin Town frontage road was completed. Granting the property owner nearly$3.0 million was a dramatic action intended to satisfy future claims against lost development potential. Since the housing need is still evident and the commercial land use issues were resolved after frontage road completion,no credible reason exists to change current zoning provision. 2) Regional Commercial development has a direct,negative Quality of Life impact on eastern Eden Prairie. No other Eden Prairie neighborhood is as close to a Regional Commercial development as this current proposal. The danger to children caused by increased auto and truck traffic,excessive noise due to commercial traffic and the loss of barriers to US 169,the visual problems of light pollution and tree loss as well as the potential crime risk mean rezoning this parcel is bad for the taxpayers of eastern Eden Prairie. 3) Overwhelming neighborhood opposition to Regional Commercial rezoning. The latest plan with its 50,000 square foot grocery store and sizable parking is not significantly different than the Oppidan/KKE plan presented to neighborhood groups in July, 1997. During the presentation at Olympic Hills,local residents soundly rejected the arguments for creating a destination commercial development on this site. Instead,residents offered ideas which meet the current guide plan such as coffee shops and day care facilities. We encourage development of the property per the current guide plan. Development that takes advantage of the Hennepin Town frontage road,offers services and housing on a neighborhood scale and maintains the tree preservation and high visual standards evident throughout residential sections of Eden Prairie. We thank you for your past commitment to maintaining the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Please encourage commission members to do the same. Sincerely, /74:, (C2e-/---64--q161-47 Rich Pa a Feely 9878 Lee Drive cc: Mayor Jean Harris Eden Prairie City Council 11015 Bell Oaks Est. Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 January 30 , 1999 Mike Franzen, City Planner Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen: We are writing to express our objections to plans by the Hustad Land Company to build townhomes along the north side of Riverview Road adjacent to Bell Oaks. We fail to see how, as the developer explained, that this is a "Win/Win" situation for us. The traffic situation will certainly become more than the road can handle with the number of units they are planning to build. Riverview Road takes us through a truly unique and historic area and anyone coming into our neighborhood cannot believe one can find such a beautiful setting in an urban area. We built our home in Eden Prairie three years ago because we fell in love with the area. If they are allowed to build this development we are sure Phase II will quickly follow since the property south of Riverview is undeveloped. Please do not approve such a development. Sincerely, (t'ArterArfe-- lyn and Jim Dutcher June 3, 1999 Michael D. Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Bluff Country Village Dear Mr. Franzen: My home is at 10008 shadow Pond Drive, on the northwest corner of the proposed Bluff Country Village--Residential West development. We have traded calls a few times (Thanks for calling back), but have not hooked up. I thought you might prefer a letter outlining some of my concerns. My wife and I wrote you earlier concerning the original Hustad plan(copy attached). We were very pleased with the original staff recommendations provided at the April 23 Planning Commission meeting. The recommendations did a good job of addressing the neighborhood concerns. I have been provided a copy of the latest plan put forth by Hustad. This appears to be a major improvement from the previous proposal. However, it still has some flaws that could be corrected simply by following the original staff recommendations. The new plan does not include a cul de sac for Shadow Pond Drive. However in talking to our neighbor, John Turner, I was informed that you have already indicated to him that this will be corrected. The other issue I would like to raise concerns the plan's infringement on the pond and wetland area on the northwest portion of the site. I am attaching a copy of the plan on which I have attempted to draw in the high water line of the pond. It appears to me that when the pond at high water it will virtually be lapping at the edge of the building. Also, some of the plantings shown in the plan would actually be in the pond. Secondly, as I indicated in my voice mail,there is an outlet on the southwest corner of the pond,just north of my house. The Eden Prairie city Utility Department has had to work on this a couple of times. Access was gained from the northwest corner of the Hustad land, since there was not room to get between the existing homes. Hopefully,the improvements made by the Utility Department will allow the outflow to work properly for some time. However it seems only prudent to retain access to the outlet for heavy equipment. It appears to me that both of these problems could be corrected simply by following the original staff recommendation in which you suggested placing a play area in the northwest corner of the site (Alternative Two,page 4 of the 4-23-99 staff report on Bluff Country Village Residential --West). Thank you again for your consideration. I appreciate all of the work you have done on this. Sincerely, Terry Starks 10008 Shadow Pond Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55437 Daytime Phone: 612-591-2755 k I. A i,4'"' } /_ i "-cm, \ -i ri) 4-RM 5-CS I il, / . 6-BS Ov064' 4 LAN tirii- Aikl__Ir. I 4.40-4-4,.. 3_sm 20-AP A\► ��• `� In i;' I 2—RM 12—BS.1CS �t A 6—RL `etira,r_t R_ Ant ♦ e►- tl BS I Any ��. via 111;t4,1;,. A Ai it,Ai& , 2-SM `,tP.. 2' got! li Jain f 40(5 ...... Au 4,0m0 Al si Ibb, All bin VA:.- .... k li Illirviklili. SI i'''. Di Alai ...141. 1 diji-z, . , ligA' ,.. 4—AP I`►- 1,-' "t.- 1(i1ra_p 1Pb *TAP- k-„y---,--- i Ad sigoiira,A._.b pl/ii-_ifiiwi iim.m i4te01.i..1..1..1_4+ = .ô1 . ,,s.1..1.1i .. "' I ear, �� ttti elk V4111411-14 Airir " 411.11ffikail iripr Vi: 1140‘1111i. i V‘fA'v;. IIT ll Aim. triii .! Eiz! 17a41, i 1 0 1 SM *Nt . -,, . 40 , liV ��%�re?..1, D. 5-SM /--"-- 4 p-• tillATIM 3-AP r111111 ram. III-- 44r Al ply/ P- 2-R 0 lik,.,, _.. . 'L/_.!I ,� 4iiiii rail 1-RL .. �i� �„ .as 3-AP June 8, 1999 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission C/O Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 Dear Mike: This letter is to give you insight into our perspective of the issues surrounding the proposed Hustad development at Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail(i.e. 169 and Pioneer Trail). This input is based on the proposal we say at the May 24th Planning Council meeting. We are property owners directly south of the pond at the southwest corner of this intersection. Maior issues from our perspective 1. Noise • The proposed development will eliminate the earthen berms along 169 on the east plot. Since the Park&Ride lot lacks structures,there is nothing to block traffic noise off 169 from penetrating all the surrounding neighborhoods. • The gas station is large and will contribute to additional traffic noise at the intersection. The car wash may also fill the neighborhood with the howl of air dryers at the exit depending on the orientation of the structure. 2. Traffic congestion on Hennepin Town Road and the intersection with Pioneer Trail • Because the commercial space is split between the east and west plots,traffic will need to cross the street to complete their business resulting in more auto traffic movement, starting and stopping, etc. • The magnitude of the gas station if successful will create congestion on Hennepin Town Road as well as the intersection with Pioneer Trail. This is already a problem during peak hours for us trying to get into our neighborhood from 169 as the traffic backlog can make it difficult to get into the left turn lane on Pioneer Trail. • A Park&Ride facility will compound peak traffic by adding 150+additional cars. • The higher traffic will significantly increase the danger for pedestrians and the many children in the area. • City engineers feel the intersection can handle the additional traffic. However, this is a residential area and we must question whether it is wise to compound the congestion from this development(as proposed)with the planned expansion of Pioneer Trail and the current congestion on 169. 3. Unsightliness of Senior Housing unit • The proposed three story senior unit is significantly higher that any other proposed structures and will standout predominantly. It will be in direct view from our neighborhood straight up the road from the Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail intersection. 4. Lighting and Signage impact of commercial property • The city's building codes are helpful in minimizing the impact of light pollution,however, this situation requires more stringent requirements due to the proximity with single family homes. Signage and lighting should be designed in a manner that directs itself only towards 169 and visibility is minimized by the surrounding neighborhoods. Our other concerns such as tree loss have been reduced per the Planning Council recommendations that tree loss be further reduced along the northern and western edges of the west plot and specifically the large grove of mature trees along Pioneer Trail. What we recommend to improve the proposal? 1. Scale back the overall development, particularly the Park& Ride and as station, to reduce the loss of green space and the decrease traffic impact. It is guide planned for Neighborhood Commercial and thus the gas station and Park& Ride(as proposed) are designed to serve community needs rather than those of the neighborhoods. The scope of these two items are not consistent with other gas station and Park&Ride developments in Eden Prairie and will generate more negative consequences than benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. Shift more of the commercial component to the east plot to block noise and offset the loss of the earthen berms which protect us from 169 noise. If this is not done, it will compound the noise problems in our area in conjunction with the low sound walls at the southwest intersection of Pioneer Trail and 169 by the townhomes. 3. Orient the gas station canopy towards the commercial development to minimize the visibility to the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Scale down or spread out the senior housing unit so that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. Mike,I think you understand the needs of our area well. From our conversations, I see that you care for city's residents and where sensitive to our issues in the southwest corner. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please let us know if you need additional information on what neighbors will support for Wally's development of this property. Please call me at(w)651-665-4764 or(h)941-5879 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kevin and Angela Benjamin 9949 Lee Drive The City Of Eden Prairie Planning Commission C/O Mr. Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 June 5, 1999 Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I do not live in the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development of Pioneer Trail and Hwy 169, but I am very concerned about the commercial development. * I am concerned that Hwy 212 to 169 will become an "express way", but with the commercial development I am afraid that it may create clogging problems. Then, what's the use? In addition, the area in the proposed development is already a limited area, again, leading to clogging problems. * Eden Prairie Center has an abundant amount of vacant retail space and Jerry's, just a mile north, has empty retail space as well. Why is Eden Prairie even considering building more empty retail space? * I am concerned that this new development will take away much of the natural beauty Pioneer Trail holds. I love the tree scenery on the drive by. I do understand that this area is on it's way to be developed but I am asking you to strongly condiser the residents in the surrounding area. Eden Prairie residents will not benefit from developing this corner of Pioneer Trail and Hwy 169. This city needs to create more of a "community"feeling with our retail. I'd like to see some kind of a TowneCenter that will create this feeling. Thank you for you time. Sincerely, Unda Jensen 9540 Yorkshire Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 UI June 5, 1999 Eden Prairie Planning Commission do Mr. Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Proposed rezoning of the Intersection at Pioneer Trail & Hwy 169 Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I'm writing with some concerns regarding the recent proposal by Hustad for Hwy 169 and Pioneer Trail. Concerns and Recommendations that I have are as follows: #1 - Size and purpose of the development This area is guide planned for"Neighborhood Commercial". Please see that the size is scaled back. This commercial component of this proposal still exceeds the maximum allowed by the guide plan. The Park and Ride is a good service however it needs to count as larger commercial space than just the small building. The parking spots significantly reduce the green space and impact the area in much the same manner as a commercial development would. #2 - Noise -The berms on the land provide a sound barrier for all neighborhoods bordering the project. It appears that the significant berms are located where the Park&Ride and Pharmacy are proposed. What happens if the neighborhood's sound levels exceed state standards after the berms are bulldozed? #3 - Traffic congestion -This is a residential area. I question whether it is wise to compound the congestion generated by Pioneer Trail's expansion with this large development Hustad has proposed. Traffic congestion is already a problem during peak hours for us who live the neighborhood. #4 - Lighting/Sinage and gas station orientation -Sinage and lighting should be designed such that it directs only toward 169 and that visibility is minimized by the surrounding neighborhoods. This proposed gas station needs to be scaled back and/or oriented so that the canopy is toward the commercial development. This will minimize the visibility to the surrounding neighborhoods. This proposal has improved significantly from last year, but it still has too many shingles and too much asphalt crammed into a very small area. We currently have an inordinate amount of empty retail space in our city as a result of overzealous developers. Please consider the effect on residents and neighborhoods in this area. Thank youl Sincerely, Jennifer Scott 10252 Normandy Crest Eden Prairie, MN 55347 612-944-2695 cc: Eden Prairie City Council Members 9812 Lee Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55347 May 26, 1998 Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 Dear Mike, Monday's Planning commission meeting regarding the land on the northwest corner of Hwy. 169 and Pioneer trail left me with several questions. After the meeting Kevin Benjamin and I tried to clear up a couple questions with Mr.Hustad's group,but they were in no mood for any discussion about the project. Unfortunately,since last summer our only avenue to provide any input to the Hustads is through you and at the planning commission meetings. So I'm expressing my views and questions to you in hopes you will consider them and pass them onto Mr. Hustad. My first question is toward the positioning of the gas station. The pumps and canopy are situated east of the station's building. Living in the neighborhood directly across Pioneer Trail from the project we would look directly at the canopy and its lights. Could the station's layout be rotated so that the pumps are located to the north of the building shielding our neighborhood from the canopy lights(similar to the Super America at the southeastern corner of Hwy. 169 and Bloomington Ferry Road)? Secondly,the berms on the land provide a sound barrier for all three neighborhoods bordering the project. At the meeting it was stated that significant berming will remain because the land adjacent 169 is reserved for future entrance/exit ramps. In looking at the property I have a hard time seeing that. It appears to me that the significant berms are located where the Park&Ride and Walgreen's are proposed. What happens if the neighborhood's sound levels exceed state standards after the berms are bulldozed? Thirdly,I'm still concerned with the amount of commercial space. It seems to me that what separates commercial land from residential land is that commercial land has more traffic and proportionally more impervious surfaces than residential land. While the proposed project's defined commercial space only exceeds the maximum allowed by the guide plan by a few thousand square feet,the calculation does not adequately reflect the commercial intensity of the project. Specifically,the Park&Ride has a very small building for a large parking lot. It will increase commuter traffic to the area and have a large impervious surface. In reality it will be like a sizable office complex without the building. Park&Ride is a good thing,but it needs to count as commercial space based upon it's impact to the area. I run a one person business that would be appropriate for the live/work units. I have leased space in office suites for past seven years next to other business that would also be appropriate for these units. Businesses that locate in the Live/Work Units will generate traffic and require client parking. While the total square footage certainly shouldn't count toward commercial space,the units will be office space and need to count in some manner towards commercial square footage. Finally,a Planning Commission Member pointed out that much of the difficulty of this property stems from the fact that the holding pond is on the east side of the frontage road breaking up the area that naturally fits commercial development. You noted that it was a natural wetland,which I interpreted to mean that it can't be moved. In walking by the pond,you'll note that it may have been a nice wetland in the past. But since the county bulldozed it into a square pond during the construction of Hwy. 169,it appears as any drainage pond in the area and changes level according to the weather. It seems to me that from a practical standpoint moving the pond to the west of the frontage road would benefit the Hustads,the neighborhoods and the city while allowing the pond to be in a quieter area which would benefit wildlife and other nature. In conclusion,the plan has improved immensely from last year,but it still has too much is jammed into a small area--the plan is all shingles and asphalt. The project needs to be less dense and preserve more of the beautiful trees. Sincerely, Steve Mohn Home: (612)829-5306 Office: (612)886-0629 March 31, 1999 Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Proposed Development-Hustad land, Hwy 169&Pioneer Trail Dear Mr.Franzen, Our home is at 10008 Shadow Pond Drive, on the northwest corner of the planned development of the Hustad land. We attended the February 23 meeting,which you were kind enough to organize to discuss this project. We fully support all of the points raised by our neighbors during that meeting.We would also like to emphasize a few points: 1. The neighborhood surrounding the proposed development is made up primarily of homes in the$150,000 to $300,000 price range. It does not seem reasonable, nor in accordance with city policy,to change to such high density housing without a transition area, or a greater buffer zone. 2. The proposed plan puts,not only structures, but also hard surface driveways, closer to the pond north of Shadow Pond Drive than anywhere else surrounding the pond. This could create water quality problems. It would also destroy valuable wetland vegetation. 3. The proposed plan creates serious concerns about traffic levels in the surrounding neighborhood. At the very least, Shadow Pond Drive and Balmoral Drive should be left as dead ends or converted to cul de sacs. 4. The area proposed for development contains many mature trees,primarily oak. The development plan does not provide for the preservation of these. This should be addressed. 5. The commercial area proposed is substantially larger than that allowed in the guide plan. This is not compatible with the residential nature of the neighborhood. Mr. Franzen, as you know, for most people in this neighborhood their home is their largest investment. These homes were purchased under the assumption that the city would enforce the existing guide plan. We would hope that any changes would take into consideration the concerns of the neighborhood. Thankyou for your consideration. Sincerely, Terry Starks Linda Starks 1008 Shadow Pond Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55437 .ib.1999 1:01PM 612 223 5958 NO.138 P.2/4 Status Update for Proposed Hustad Development at Pioneer Trail and 169 Planning Council Meeting 5/24/99 At the meeting, Wally Hustad described a revised plan for the development more in line with (but still in excess of)the city's guide plan. He had also asked for a continuance to the July 12 meeting to further refine the proposal. The new plan contained some new features to make the development more attractive to the city. Major components of the plan included. East Plot • Walgreens store at the southern end. No change from before. • Park and Ride parking lot at the north end plus a small structure(approximately 2500 sq. ft.). This is across the wetlands area from the proposed Walgreens. These are the only other proposed developments on the east plot. West Plot ♦ A gas station in the southeast corner at the intersection. This gas station was shown to have 4 islands with two pumps each(making it larger than any gas station in the area) and a car wash. e Downsized L shaped commercial building(approx. 30,000 sq.ft.)just north of the gas station. • Three story senior housing project just north of the commercial building. • Mixture of townhome units ringing the north and west borders. From the input of neighbors in attendance,the Planning Council asked Wally Hustad to further reduce the scale of the plan,decrease the commercial space(factoring in the Park and Ride into the commercial square footage equation) and reduce tree Ioss particularly along the bordering neighborhoods and Pioneer Trail. Specifically,they felt there is still too much structure and hard surface area in the proposal. We do not have any drawings to show you and so I apologize for such a brief description. What appear to be the major issues 1. Noise • The proposed development will eliminate the earthen berms along 169 on the cast plot. Since the Park and Ride lot lacks structures, there is nothing to block traffic noise off 169 from penetrating all the surrounding neighborhoods. • The gas station is large and will contribute to additional traffic noise at the intersection. The car wash may fill the neighborhood with the howl of air dryers at the exit depending on the orientation of the structure. .a9.1999 1:81PM 612 223 5958 NO.138 P.3/4 2. Traffic congestion on Hennepin Town Road and the intersection with Pioneer Trail • Because the commercial space is split between the two plots,traffic will need to cross the street to complete their business resulting in more auto traffic movement,starting and stopping, etc. • The magnitude of the gas station if successful will create congestion on Hennepin Town Road as well as the intersection with Pioneer Trail. This is already a problem during peak hours for us trying to get into our neighborhood from 169 as the traffic backlog can make it difficult to get into the left turn lane. • A Park and Ride facility will compound peak traffic by adding an additional 150+cars into the mix, • The higher traffic could significantly increase the danger for pedestrians in the area. 3. Unsightliness of Senior Housing unit • The proposed three story senior unit is significantly higher that any other proposed structures and will standout predominantly, It will be in direct view from our neighborhood straight up the road from the Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail intersection. 4. Lighting and Signage impact of commercial property • The city's building codes are helpful in minimizing the impact of light pollution, however,this situation requires more stringent requirements due to the proximity with single family homes. We feel that signing and lighting should be designed in a manner that directs itself only towards 169 and visibility is minimized by the surrounding neighborhoods. Other concerns such as tree loss seem to have been reduced as the Planning Council has asked that tree loss be further reduced along the northern and western edges of the west plot and specifically the large grove of mature trees along Pioneer Trail. What options can we recommend to the city and Wally Hustad? I will not pretend to talk for you or your particular needs regarding this development,but it appears there are some logical suggestions that can be made. T. Scale back the overall development to reduce the loss of green space and decrease traffic impact on the neighborhood. It is guide planned for Neighborhood Commercial and thus the gas station and Park and Ride(as proposed) are designed to serve community needs rather than those of the neighborhoods. The scope of these two items are not consistent with other gas station and Park and Ride developments in Eden Prairie and will generate more negative consequences than benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods. .L8.1999 1:02PM 612 223 5958 NO.138 N.4/4 2. Shift more of the commercial component to the east plot to block noise and offset the loss of the earthen berms which protect us from 169 noise right now. If this is not done,it could compound the noise problems in our area in conjunction with the low sound walls at the southwest intersection of Pioneer Trail and 169 by the townhomes. 3. Scale back the gas station and/or orient the canopy towards the commercial development to minimize the visibility to the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Scale down or spread out the senior housing so that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. What can you do? Wally Hustad is getting closer to the guide plan requirements and so the Planning Council is nearing the point where they must give clear direction or let it go to the City Council. However, Mike Franzen,City Planner,has said that there is still a lot of improvement that can be made to the plan to meet our needs. Since the Planning Council showed neither emphatic support for the proposal nor clear direction on how best to revise it,we have a good opportunity to provide input to refine the proposal. To make an impact: I. Write a letter to Mike Franzen and the Planning Council members (see attached names and address) outlining your concerns and describing the changes you think should be incorporated. 2. Attend the July 12'"Planning Council meeting. This may be the last chance to get our input to them for consideration. A strong turnout will reinforce the importance of their decisions on our neighborhood. If you need more information or have any questions,please call Kevin Benjamin at 941-5879. June 13, 1999 Mr. Michael D. Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Dear Mr. Franzen. I am writing to ask for the following changes to the latest !Austad proposal. We have developed these changes in accordance with the guide plan, and comments from the planning commission members We would like to save the existing trees and vegetation along the entire block of Juniper Lane. The tree loss in the fast proposal was still high at 46%. Furthermore, the planning commission chairperson noted that there is very little green space on the West Side of the property. We would like to see the first 40- 50 feet of trees and vegetation kept as is, with a supplement of hardier species to maintain the integrity of the screen over the long run. Our suggestion of keeping the existing trees and vegetation will lower the percentage of tree loss, and increase the amount of green space acting as a natural buffer. Another area to increase the amount of green space is in the Northwest corner of the property, bordering the existing homes on Shadow Pond Drive. We would like to replace the long Townhouse unit next to the home at 10008 Shadow Pond Drive, with the tot lot concept the Hustad's proposed earlier If this were not possible, we would like to see a few single-family homes developed. With both suggestions, we continue to support the idea to create a cul-de-sac at the end of Shadow Pond Drive. I would like to get your response to these suggestions, and understand how to get these ideas implemented into the next Hustad plan prior to the meeting on July 12. Please give me a call at work, 897-8072, or home 829-7871 at your earliest convenience. John L. Turner 10019 Shadow Pond Drive Matt and Kris Anderson 9962 Lee Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 June 6, 1999 Dear Mike Franzen and Planning Council , We are writing in response to the last Planning Council meeting where the proposed Hustad development at Pioneer Trail and 169 was discussed. We are in no way opposed to the development of this area, but wish to tailor it to the needs of the community within the original guide plan. Here are our concerns: 1. Please scale back the overall development to reduce the loss of green space and decrease traffic impact on the neighborhood. 2. Shift more of the commercial component to the east plot to block noise and offset the loss of the earthen berms which protect us from the 169 noise. 3. Scale back the gas station and/or orient the canopy towards the commercial development to minimize the visibility to the surrounding neighborhoods. (We are especially concerned about this one since our backyard will overlook this station). We would ask that the lighting be low, the car wash moved to the north side because of noise from the blowers, and that it not be a 24 hour service. We do not mean to make your job more difficult, we only hope to express our concerns for the well being and safety of our selves and our kids. Sincerely,�� 'W6J ilkoteu4".% Kris Sprenger Anderson Matt Anderson cc: Dr. Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., Sherry Butcher-Younghans 2. June 8, 1999 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission CIO Laurence Dorn Jr. 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Dorn: This letter is to give you insight into our perspective of the issues surrounding the proposed Hustad development at Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail (i.e. 169 and Pioneer Trail). This input is based on the proposal we say at the May 24th Planning Council meeting. We are property owners directly south of the pond at the southwest corner of this intersection. Major issues from our perspective 1. Noise • The proposed development will eliminate the earthen berms along 169 on the east plot. Since the Park&Ride lot lacks structures, there is nothing to block traffic noise off 169 from penetrating all the surrounding neighborhoods. • The gas station is large and will contribute to additional traffic noise at the intersection. The car wash may also fill the neighborhood with the howl of air dryers at the exit depending on the orientation of the structure. 2. Traffic congestion on Hennepin Town Road and the intersection with Pioneer Trail • Because the commercial space is split between the east and west plots, traffic will need to cross the street to complete their business resulting in more auto traffic movement, starting and stopping, etc. ♦ The magnitude of the gas station if successful will create congestion on Hennepin Town Road as well as the intersection with Pioneer Trail. This is already a problem during peak hours for us trying to get into our neighborhood from 169 as the traffic backlog can make it difficult to get into the left turn lane on Pioneer Trail. ♦ A Park&Ride facility will compound peak traffic by adding 150+additional cars. • The higher traffic will significantly increase the danger for pedestrians and the many children in the area. • City engineers feel the intersection can handle the additional traffic. However, this is a residential area and we must question whether it is wise to compound the congestion from this development(as proposed)with the planned expansion of Pioneer Trail and the current congestion on 169. 3. Unsightliness of Senior Housing unit • The proposed three story senior unit is significantly higher that any other proposed structures and will standout predominantly. It will be in direct view from our neighborhood straight up the road from the Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail intersection. 4. Lighting and Signage impact of commercial property • The city's building codes are helpful in minimizing the impact of light pollution, however, this situation requires more stringent requirements due to the proximity with single family homes. Signage and lighting should be designed in a manner that directs itself only towards 169 and visibility is minimized by the surrounding neighborhoods. Our other concerns such as tree loss have been reduced per the Planning Council . 1 recommendations that tree loss be further reduced along the northern and western edges of the west plot and specifically the large grove of mature trees along Pioneer Trail. What we recommend to improve the Proposal? 1. Scale back the overall development, particularly the ?ark& Ride and as station, to reduce the loss of green space and the decrease traffic impact. It is guide planned for Neighborhood Commercial and thus the gas station and Park& Ride(as proposed) are designed to serve community needs rather than those of the neighborhoods. The scope of these two items are not consistent with other gas station and Park&Ride developments in Eden Prairie and will generate more negative consequences than benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. Shift more of the commercial component to the east plot to block noise and offset the loss of the earthen berms which protect us from 169 noise. If this is not done, it will compound the noise problems in our area in conjunction with the low sound walls at the southwest intersection of Pioneer Trail and 169 by the townhomes. 3. Orient the gas station canopy towards the commercial development to minimize the visibility to the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Scale down or spread out the senior housing unit so that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. From seeing the Planning Council in action, I see that you care for city's residents and are sensitive to our issues in the southwest corner. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please let us know if you need additional information on what neighbors will support for Wally's 1 development of this property. Please call me at (w)651-665-4764 or(h) 941-5879 if you have any questions. Sincerely,zAl . --.. Kevin and Angela Benjamin 9949 Lee Drive Mike Franzen City Planner 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mike, The neighbors of Balmoral Lane would like to thank you for your assistance and advice as we seek to find an equitable solution to the Bluff Country property development. We would like to propose the following suggestions to the developer for the use of this property. This is a beautiful track of land and we want the trees preserved as much as possible, not only because they provide a natural buffer to the adjacent properties but also because trees add to the character of the property. In addition, we want a minimum of a 100-foot buffer. The buffer would be an appropriate, attractive and natural screening, especially for homes that are at an elevated part of the neighborhood. Everything possible should be done to ensure that the existing homes would not be harmed in resale. As an alternative, we suggest putting single family homes around the perimeter of the property. As a community, we like the idea of senior housing; however, we are suggesting an alternative plan. We feel that one level living is more appropriate for seniors. Accessibility to seniors' garage and home are primary concerns for them. Multilevel buildings with elevators, while more economic for the builder to build, present additional expenses and inconvenience for the seniors who live there. Elevators add to association costs, they break down, and are inconvenient when carrying in groceries. Therefore, we would like to propose that single level town homes be built for seniors. These town homes would be adjacent to the single-family homes on Shadow Ponds Drive and Balmoral Lane. The layout of the land would allow for some interesting and creative positioning of these town homes in the way of cul-de-sacs, they would also make use of the existing trees. Right now in Edina, several innovative ideas for town homes are being developed. Services such as dry cleaning and housekeeping are currently being used in these developments. This sort of plan fits in well with the type of small businesses that Mr. Hustad is proposing. We would like to see him explore this type of housing. We do not want any direct access into the high-density neighborhoods from the single- family neighborhoods to the west and north. We would like those potential roadways to remain closed. Any commercial development should stay east of Hennepin Townline Road. Mr. Hustad complains that the positioning of Hennepin Townline Road has made it difficult to develop the commercial site on the west side of the road. However, he did gain space on the east side, which is more appropriate for commercial development. We suggest that the proposed gas station be replaced with another type of business or office facility. Putting a gas station next to a pond is unconscionable. The run off alone would contaminate the pond. However,the pond area would be a nice location for a coffee shop and the pond could be used for a skating rink in the winter. The proposed gas station 30 does not qualify as neighborhood commercial. Instead of a gas station on the corner, we would prefer a Walgreen's. We do not want a gas station in our neighborhood. We want the project to be viable, have a good resale value and be well maintained. We are also concerned that given the already high vacancy rate of business space in the Eden Prairie Mall and at Jerry's, developing more retail space in this project is not prudent. We don't want empty buildings behind us. Some of the concepts expressed by Mr. Hustad are interesting but we don't think they would be appealing on this property. We would like the design and architecture of any future buildings or houses to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Live to work is a good idea for heavily developed, urban neighborhoods like downtown Edina, but it is not appropriate here. People who live in our neighborhood did not choose to live in an older, densely populated area; we choose the more open spaces and a suburban life style. The live to work concept would not work here. The proposal for a new park and ride is also a concern. The service is already available at Jerry's less than a mile away. It is unnecessary for an additional location in this area. We also have a concern about the removal of the existing vegetation and elevation on the east side of Hennepin Townline Road. Our neighborhood needs the protection of appropriate building massing and elevation to continue to provide us with a sound barrier from the heavy traffic on 169. Having the additional traffic light on Pioneer Trail, has caused tremendous noise and irritation because trucks downshift when they stop at the light. We need protection from this noise. Finally, we are worried because Mr. Hustad has not offered a proposal regarding how his development will be managed or maintained. We hope that after the property is built that it is well managed. Sincerely, The Families on Balmoral Lane 3 I Beverly Alexander Eden Prairie Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie MN 55344-2230 Dear Mrs. Alexander, Please, review carefully the Husted plan for the development of the property at the northwest corner ofityasoltganipacesmicall. I believe that the developer tries for the second time to make the commercial space a large part of the total development. Such plan is against the original planned unit development. The original PUD called for the commercial section to be only small part of the total property and restricted to the southeast corner of the property. The Hennepin Town Line Road sets a natural boundary for the commercial development. One year ago, both the city and the neighborhood rejected the proposal for a similar large commercial development. Our family is looking forward to the multifamily housing to be finally erected in that site, especially if there will be not too many units condensed into the property. The Balmoral Lane. And environs are one of the best family oriented neighborhoods in the Eden Prairie. We would welcome you to our annual Octoberfest (as celebrated since 1981)to meet all those wonderful people. Please, help us to keep our few blocks family friendly. Sincerely �LLLL- LLLo'‘.Lt/Q--1 ndy'Peczalski ; Ewa Peczalska ),?Cit An/ a P z ka�' Ag ha Peczalska Adam Peczalski 9873 Balmoral Ln. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 13V Mike Williams 9838 Balmoral Lane Eden Prairie Mn 55347 612-941-8907 Greetings: I am writing you in regards to the planned development 911E169earl=Pit ieer:"ifully realize that this property will be developed,but I ask each of you to keep the developer within the guidelines of how the city has guided this property to be developed. I understand this parcel of land is guided for 50,000 SQ of commercial and I ask you to keep them to this plan. In the ideal world,the property east of Hennipin Townline Rd should be the spot where commercial is located. This spot is farthest from existing housing and the road makes a great barrier. Listed below are some of my other concerns regarding this development: • With most of the land destined to be leveled,the residents will lose a natural sound barrier to ease the noise off 169. • Anymore commercial than the planned 50,000 sq. feet, will cause even more noise and lights in the area. With the upgrade roads, I believe the traffic flow will work. • The proposal has too much townhouse density, I would like to see it reduced. • I am concerned with loss of trees within this property and the effect on driving wildlife into residential. This must be addressed especially for the residents close to the property. • I am concerned with the location of the proposed gas station and effect on water quality and air quality in the neighborhood. Some of the positives I see for the development is the addition of senior housing in the area. This is one age group that is lacking from our area and would be a great asset to our neighborhood. I like the light commercial aspect as long as it is separate from the residential and adds some value to the neighborhood. I also would like this matter to end, we have talked with the developers and Mr. Hustad and I do not think they are listening. We need to bring closure to this issue and move on. In conclusion, I ask you to support the way the city views this property and do not let the developer deviate from the guide plan. Thank you for your time.. SinU cerely, MikUteilovA e Williams S 3 3 Y C,e1 February 16, 1999 Ms. Beverly Alexander Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Ms. Alexander: I am writing in reference to the proposed development of the property that borders hw nd jgjeer Trail. This property was originally guided to include townhouses, and a very small amount of neighborhood commercial, bordering hwy 169. The Hustad proposal calls for commercial development on the East Side of Hennepin Town Line Road, as well as a specialty grocery store, and two other retail developments on the West Side of the road. This plan far exceeds the amount of commercial property in the original planned unit development. Therefore, I am asking for your support in following the original PUD and limit the amount of commercial property to the East Side of Hennepin Town Line Road. I strongly oppose any commercial development to the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road for the following reasons. 1. The proposed development does not conform to the original PUD. The Hustads' are using the fact that the county used some of the property to build Hennepin Town Line Road to justify expanding the amount of commercial development. The facts are they have already been compensated for the loss of this property. The new frontage road is not a compelling enough reason for allowing the amount of commercial property to be expanded beyond what is in the original PUD. 2. The property is too small for the proposed commercial development. Commercial developments of this size need more space between the residents and the commercial development. The plan is cramming too much into the property of this size. 3. The close proximity of the commercial property on the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road to the residents will significantly increase the noise, traffic, and safety of the neighborhood. Cars and trucks will be coming and going at all hours of the day and night. There is not enough distance between the commercial development and the resident neighborhoods to buffer the noise pollution. 4. The Hustad's continue to stress the need for a grocery store and more retail. Why do we need a grocery store when the newly remodeled Jerry's' New Market, and strip mall is less than two miles away? 5. Commercial development on the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road is not in the best interest of the residents of Eden Prairie. The property is not big enough to support commercial development on the West Side of Hennepin Town Line Road, nor do we need it. With the addition of Hennepin Town Line Road, the division of commercial development and residential living has been provided. What a better dividing line than the road itself. The format of the land is in sync with the original PUD providing commercial development on the East Side, and residential on the West Side. I am asking your support to follow the original PUD by restricting the commercial development to the East Side of Hennepin Town Line Road. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you would like to discuss this project with me I can be reached at home (612) 829-7871 or work (612) 897-8072. Sincerely, /P144.4" John L. Turner 10019 Shadow Pond Drive r3 Tong Philippi 10300 Riverview Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347 December 22, 1998 Mr. Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347 Dear Mike: I have reviewed the preliminary plans for the Hustad Development for Flint Ridge. Firstly, this plan calls for. the realignment of Riverview.Road, removing the magnificent vistas to the Purgatory Valley forever, from all of those who enjoy this wonderful journey that is unique to Eden Prairie. This Flint Ridge is an arrogant repudiation to the Riverview Road Advisory Committee and City staff, which worked so long and diligently to assist the staffs attempt to preserve Riverview Road's wonderful character, yet upgrade it. Secondly, the Flint Ridge development attempts to greedily hack and chop a parcel of land into absurdly small lots and a design totally conflicting with the ambience of the surrounding neighborhood, Eden Prairie's finest. Assuredly, incensed property owners will defend tenaciously this assault on their property values. In summary, as Eden Prairie has matured and nears total development, it is the mandate to select and approve only quality projects rather than schemes charged with avarice and unnecessary conflict. Sincerely, KATUN® T. Michael Clarke 10951 Bush Lake Road President, CEO Minneapolis,Minnesota 55438-2391 612-941-9505•Fax:612-941-9631 Telex 201679-KTUN December 7, 1998 • Mr. Michael D. Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie City Offices 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen: I recently received a copy of your letter, dated November 18, 1998, to Ms. Beth Simenstad regarding the proposed Flint Ridge development. Frankly, I was shocked to read your suggestion that the proposed project "should have a similar density to Chimney Pines", even with your requirement of a "dedication of developable bluff land". This would result in up to seven (as shown) small single-family homes immediately along my East property line. I am totally opposed to this and intend to take whatever actions are legally available to me to contest it. I am extremely disappointed that you would consider tentatively approving a project of such high single-family home densitywithout first informingme, as the P J 9 9 Y sole adjoining property owner, of the original development proposal. In the future, please send me, on a timely basis, all information and notices that I am legally entitled to receive from the city regarding this proposed project to my home address: 10701 Riverview Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55347. I fully realize that the Hustad's have every legal right to develop this parcel of land. However, the single-family home density of the project should be consistent with Bell Oaks to the North and Walnut Heights, Riverview Heights / 7 Mr. M.D. Franzen December 7, 1998 Page 2 of 2 and, most appropriately, Bell Oaks Estate immediately to the West of my property. The density of Chimney Pines is in no way consistent with any of these close proximity developments. Obviously, this is a very important and sensitive issue to me. I have owned my property since 1982, and have improved and maintained it in what I consider to be an exemplary manner over the years. I am proud of the appearance of my property, and equally protective of its historical value. ! am sure you are aware that my house and the original barn were recently designated as a heritage site by the city. In summary, I have every right to protect the financial value and esthetic beauty of my property, and I fully intend to do so as it relates to any Flint Ridge development. Sincerely, T. Michael Clarke President, CEO TMC/clb c: J. Harris - Mayor of Eden Prairie T. Phillippi Dear: Planning Commission Members It has come to my attention that the Hustad Company will be applying to the planning commission and the city council for the ability to move Riverview Road and to develop the portion of their property north of the Riverview Road. As part of their Town home project,the Development Company plans to pay for the road upgrade adjacent to the development and to assist with water retention issues. As a Belle Oaks landowner sharing approximately 200 feet of border with the proposed project,we would like to state our strong support for this project. We believe the project will benefit the community, and to be forthcoming,it would also be an asset to our personal property since a buffer of Town homes would replace the current road,which is adjacent to my property. My wife and I have been residents of Eden Prairie for 10 years and homeowners in Belle Oaks for 5 years. We have 3 children and are planning to continue to live and enjoy life in the city. We are strong supporters of many of the Eden Prairie's development and infrastructure projects as well as its general philosophy as articulated in the city's recent mission statement. We do not see city government as the enemy, and in general, believe that the city's actions tend to reflect the realities that benefit the general good. We believe the Hustad project fits comfortably into the city's mission for the following reasons. 1. Improved safety and usability of Riverview Road Riverview road is one of the more dangerous roads in the city of Eden Prairie. It is narrow,winding, crumbling apart and it has no pedestrian facility for local residents. We constantly worry about the safety of school children(ours included)that must travel this unsafe road particularly in winter road conditions. We believe it is socially irresponsible to not upgrade this road. As such,I participated on a Riverview Road citizen committee where I strongly advocated the improvement of this road. The Hustad project would begin to pay for a significant portion of the road project,which is badly needed. 2. Improved water retention of surrounding area As you may be aware,there is currently some major land erosion problems with Belle Oaks residents which live near the road, and in one noteworthy case, a house foundation has begun to slip into the Purgatory Creek ridge. In my discussion with city engineering and the Hustad people,they have indicated that the development plan will provide improve storm water collection,which will help the current landowners (including myself)with water drainage problems. 3. Lower cost and more efficiency Under the Hustad development proposal,they plan to pay the total costs of the project adjacent to their property. This will reduce the cost to citizens and to the city for a facility that needs to be constructed. In addition,this will allow the landowner to better use his property and create a better tax base for the city. I am hard press to see why this does not benefit everyone in terms of cost and efficiency. 4. Housing diversification and lifecycle planning There are some residents who are opposed to the Town home concept. They believe it will not benefit their property values. We strongly disagree. We think the greatest investment risk to higher valued single family homes is their overproduction and likely reduced demand due to demographic shifts (i.e. Baby boomer retirements). Town homes appeal to a different buyer and are likely to be particularly popular with empty nesters, which will increase in numbers as time passes. The city's mission indicates a desire to create a diverse population and this requires diverse housing. It is sound planning and in the best long run interests of the entire community. Furthermore,the specific plan is for a higher quality Town home development very consistent with the character of the area, and as you know,this type of housing is also being used in other premier neighborhoods such as Bearpath, Creek Knolls,Boulder Ridge and others. Belle Oaks would not be an experiment but rather ordinary in this regard. I would like to make one fmal point with regard to the Riverview road citizen committee and its plan for the road. As I mentioned earlier,I participated over the last 3 year in that committee and I know that there is an argument to keep the road closer to the current alignment to prevent development of the north side. Note: the Hustad people were not invited to participate on that committee even though they had a major vested interest. One of the most active and vocal opponents of developing the north side of the Hustad property ironically was the developer of the Belle Oaks and Belle Oaks Estates properties. I am curious as to why development of Creek and Bluff property is fine for that landowner but inappropriate for the neighboring landowner. In addition, most of Belle Oaks landowners are committed to an assessment agreement since the developer did not, as is usual, improve the adjoining road. Hence,Belle Oaks residents must pay for an improvement not made by the Belle Oaks developers. Given L/C) this reality, we do not consider the privacy of a large landowner that has developed similar types of property to be as important as the concerns mentioned earlier. In closing, it is my hope that the planning committee and the city council will accept the proposal since we believe it reflects most of the important goals of the city. If you have any question or need us as a testimonial,please feel free to call either of us at 671-3701 or 829-7505. Sincerely, ,�" .im and Irene yder • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development VI. C. Donald R. Uram Bluff Country Village West- Commercial Mike Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 3.9 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.9 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 3.9 acres into two lots. Synopsis This project is part of a master plan which includes Bluff Commercial East and Bluff Residential West. The master plan is : • 49,926 sf. commercial retail include a Wlagreens and convenience gas. • 98 townhouses and 15 live-work houses at a density of 6.3 units per acre. • 148 car park and ride lot. Bluff Country Commercial East is 26,953 sq. ft. of general retail, and a 5,500 sf. convenience gas store. The plans meet city code requirements for setbacks,parking, drainage, utilities, architecture and landscaping. To provide a greater buffer and safe more trees between the existing and proposed residences to the west, the Developer requests a code waiver for parking along Hennepin Town Road from 35' to 171/2' western project boundary. Staff supports this waiver. The B.A.R. and F.A.R for"Commercial West— 1" is 23%while "Commercial West - 2" is 10%. A waiver is needed to increase the B.A.R. from 20%to 23%. Staff supports this waiver since the average of both proposed parcels is 16.5% and the positioning of the structures are done to preserve existing trees. Background Information The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the plan, as proposed, to the City Council at the July 12, 1999 meeting. 1 1 After the Planning Commission meeting, and as a response to neighborhood concerns about canopy lights on the convenience gas site, the developer is also proposing an alternate plan which uses the building to block views from the residences to the south. No wall pack lights will be allowed on the building. The plan will remove 64 inches of additional trees. Staff is supports the alternate plan. Staff Recommendation The staff would recommend approval of the project with the alternate convenience gas site plan with no wall pack lights on the building facing the residential area. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 26, 1999, May 24, 1999, and July 12, 1999. (One set for all three projects.) 4. Staff Reports dated April 23, 1999 and July 9, 1999. 5. Executive Summaries dated April 23, 1999,May 21, 1999 and July 9, 1999. (One set for all three projects.) 6. Correspondence(One set for all three projects.) 2 A. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-COMMERCIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-COMMERCIAL FOR HUSTAD LAND 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 Bluff Country Village West- Commercial PUD Concept Review by Hustad Land 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 August 17, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Bluff Country Village West - Commercial, 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 August 3, 1999. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1999. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 3 Exhibit A Bluff Country Village Legal Description: The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116,Range 22, Hennepin County Minnesota, lying north of the former location of County Road No. 1, EXCEPT that part taken for highway purposes. Outlots A and C, Prairie East Third Addition BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-COMMERCIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-COMMERCIAL FOR HUSTAD LAND BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Bluff Country Village West - Commercial, dated August 3, 1999, consisting of 3.9 acres into two lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 5- STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: April23, 1999 SUBJECT: Bluff Country Village Commercial- West APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial on 9.0 acres. 2. Planned Unit Concept Review on 9.0 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.0 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial on 9.0 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 9.0 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat on 9.0 acres into 3 lots. 6 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial- West April 23, 1999 BACKGROUND Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. SITE PLAN Three commercial buildings totaling 86,300 sq. ft. and 17 Live/work housing units are proposed for this site. • "Commercial West 1" is 22,900 sq. ft. • "Commercial West 2"is 21,600 sq. ft. • "Commercial West 3"is 41,800 sq. ft. • 17 "Live/Work"units total 34,000 sq. ft. The buildings and parking meet setbacks from Pioneer Trail and the Hennepin Townline Road. The 530 parking stalls meet the City Code. Of this total, 491 are surface parking, 14 are underground parking, and 25 are shown as a"proof of parking", if needed. The B.A.R. is 22%. This exceeds the City Code maximum of 20%. The staff recommends a reduction in the square footage of either the residential units or the commercial buildings to meet a 20%B.A.R. The 40% F.A.R. is meets City Code. LIVE/WORK UNITS There are 17 "Live/Work"units. The City Code allows residential uses in a commercial zoning district within a planned unit development. The parking for these units meets the City Code. TREE LOSS An additional 226 caliper inches of existing trees are located within the"proof of parking" area. If these parking stalls are constructed, the existing trees would be removed. These caliper inches are figured into the total tree loss percentage discussed in the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. LANDSCAPE PLAN The landscaping plan provides 241.3 caliper inches for tree replacement and 299 caliper inches of additional landscaping as required by code based upon 101,810 sq. ft. The plan should be revised to depict landscaping based upon the 120,810 sq. ft. (total sq. ft. for the commercial and residential land 2 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial- West April 23, 1999 uses) shown on the site for a total of 376 caliper inches (an addition of 77 caliper inches from the proposed figure). Additional screening of the loading dock area on "Commercial West 1" and the parking lot along Pioneer Trail is needed. The staff recommends 15 additional conifers to screen this dock area and parking lot. Trees were replaced along Hennepin'Townline Road due to the upgrading of Highway 169. These plantings will need to be maintained as part of the project and in addition to the required landscaping and tree replacement caliper inches. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS A sidewalk is proposed along Hennepin Townline Road and ties into the sidewalk in the northeast corner of the site. Sidewalk areas connect all three retail buildings. A connection to the interior walkway is located between the two accesses off Pioneer Trail and the second access off Hennepin Townline Road. A trail will be constructed along the north side of Pioneer Trail when the County road is upgraded. ACCESS Due to area traffic and safety issues, The City Engineer cannot support a median opening on Pioneer Trail near the proposed private road, or a median opening at the first proposed intersection off Hennepin Townline Road across from the drug store entrance. The plans should be revised to eliminate the median openings. The access to the commercial area loading dock from the residential private road should be eliminated. The elimination of the access will also save approximately 100 caliper inches of existing trees. This tree preservation is not reflected in the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. DRAINAGE The project drains into the NURP provided east of Hennepin Townline Road. ARCHITECTURE The exterior materials consist of 85% face brick or glass, which meets code. 3 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial-West April 23, 1999 LIGHTING Downcast, shoebox lighting will be used throughout the parking lot area. This development will be required to meet the standard 20 foot height of lighting located adjacent to residential land uses. SIGNAGE The overall signage is addressed in the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. No specific sign package has been submitted for this part of the project. UTILITIES Utilities are available in Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One If the Planning Commission believes the developer has successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then the first option would be to recommend approval of • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial on 9.0 acres; • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.0 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.0 acres; • Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial on 9.0 acres; • Site Plan Review on 9.5 acres • Preliminary Plat of 9.0 acres into 3 lots. This will be based on plans dated April 23, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report April 23, 1999, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 4 9 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial-West April 23, 1999 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. C. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission believes the developer has not successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to chapge the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then a second option would be to recommend that the project be continued to revise the plan as follows: The property should be developed consistent with the guide plan with neighborhood commercial less than 50,000 square feet, multiple family less than ten units per acre, with a common architectural theme, with a comprehensive sign plan, and the following plan revisions: • Revise the landscape plan for better screening of parking. • Eliminate the commercial access to the loading area from the residential private road. • Revise the plan by incorporating better screening of loading from Pioneer trail. • Revise the plan to eliminate.the median opening on Pioneer Trail. • Adjust the building square footage to maintain 20%B.A.R. according to code. • Revise the landscape plan to depict the correct building square footage and caliper inch requirement. Alternative Three If the Planning Commission believes the developer has not successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then a third option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons. • The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan • The City has an adequate amount of community commercial. • The intensity of the project results in increased traffic, high tree loss, loss of natural buffers, an inadequate transition, waivers from the City code and access problems. Staff recommends Alternative Two. 5 IC STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: July 9, 1999 SUBJECT: Bluff Country Village Commercial-West APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.9 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.9 acres. 3. Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.9 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 3.9 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat on 3.9 acres into 2 lots. 1/ • Staff Report-Bluff Country Village Commercial West July 9, 1999 BACKGROUND Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. SITE PLAN Two commercial buildings totaling 32,453 sq. ft. are proposed for this site. • "Commercial West- 1"is 26,953 sq. ft. • "Commercial West-2"is 5,500 sq. ft. The buildings meet setbacks from Pioneer Trail and the Hennepin Town Road. The Developer requests a code waiver for parking along Hennepin Town Road from 35'to 17W in an effort to provide a greater buffer between the existing and proposed residences along the western project boundary. Staff supports this waiver. All other parking setbacks comply with City code. The 195 parking stalls meet City Code. The B.A.R. and F.A.R for"Commercial West—1"is 23%while"Commercial West-2"is 10%.A waiver is needed to increase the B.A.R. from 20% to 23%. Staff supports this waiver since the average of both proposed parcels is 16.5%and the positioning of the structures are done to preserve some existing trees. TREE LOSS Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. LANDSCAPE PLAN The landscaping plan meets City code by providing 668 caliper inches of landscaping based upon 32,453 sq. ft. Staff recommends a double row of conifers be planted along Pioneer Trail near the gas station site to screen lighting. Trees were replaced along Hennepin Townline Road due to the upgrading of Highway 169. These plantings will need to be maintained as part of the project in addition to the required landscaping and tree replacement caliper inches. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS A sidewalk is proposed along Hennepin Town Road and ties into the sidewalk in the northeast corner 3 / .Z. Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial West July 9, 1999 of the site. Sidewalks connect the retail strip center to Hennepin Town Road in two locations. ACCESS Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. DRAINAGE The project drains into the NURP provided east of Hennepin Town Road. ARCHITECTURE The exterior materials consist of 85%face brick or glass,which meets code. To maintain an overall continuity in architecture, staff recommends the elevations and exterior materials for the gas station be adjusted to be more similar to the proposed strip mall color, canopy, and style. LIGHTING Downcast, shoebox lighting will be used throughout the parking lot area. This development will be required to meet the standard 20 foot height of lighting located adjacent to residential land uses. Recessed lighting will be used with the gas canopy. UTILITIES Utilities are available in Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is comfortable with the proposed land uses, intensity of land uses, and location of land uses. Staff does not support the redesign of Hennepin Town Road as proposed and recommends that the project be continued until August 9, 1999, in order to resolve the identified traffic issues based on plans dated June 25, 1999,this Staff Report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council,the proponent shall: A. Incorporate similar colors, canopy and style as the proposed strip center to the gas station. B. Incorporate a double row of conifers along Pioneer Trail near the gas station site. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: 4 f3 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Commercial West July 9, 1999 A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 4. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. 5. Waivers are recommended for Lot 22 as proposed: A. A front yard parking setback from 35' to 17%' B. A B.A.R. from 20%to 23% 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development VI. D. Donald R. Uram Bluff Country Village West-Residential Mike Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 17.97 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.97 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 17.97 acres into 21 lots. Synopsis This project is part of a master plan which includes Bluff Commercial West and Bluff Residential West. The master plan is : • 49,926 sf. commercial retail include a Walgreens and convenience gas. • 98 townhouses and 15 live-work houses at a density of 6.3 units per acre. • 148 car park and ride lot. Bluff Country residential west is 98 townhouse and 15 live-work units at a density of 6.3 units per acre. The guide plan permits up to 10 units per acre. The plans meet city code requirements for setbacks,parking, drainage, utilities, architecture and landscaping. Background Information The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the plan, as proposed, to the City Council at the July 12, 1999 meeting subject to 10' and 12' conifers along the northern property line for buffer purposes and a sidewalk connections to Shadow Pond Drive and from the townhomes along the east-west sidewalk. These changes are included in the plans. The neighbors to the north want additional plant materials instead of a fence as shown on the plans. The fence was a staff recommendation. The staff is comfortable with additional landscaping. 1 A conservation easement is recommended over Outlot A and 30 feet along the western border of the property in order to preserve significant trees and the natural buffer to the single family areas to the west. Staff Recommendation The staff would recommend approval of the project based on the following conditions: 1. A conservation easement over Outlot A and 30 feet along the western border of the property. 2. Eliminate the fence along the north property line and substitute plant material. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 26, 1999, May 24, 1999, and July 12, 1999. (One set for all three projects.) 4. Staff Report dated April 23, 1999 and July 9, 1999. 5. Executive Summaries dated April 23, 1999,May 21, 1999 and July 9, 1999. (One set for all three projects.) 6. Correspondence(One set for all three projects.) 2 BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-RESIDENTIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-RESIDENTIAL FOR HUSTAD LAND 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 Bluff Country Village West -Residential PUD Concept Review by Hustad Land 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 August 17, 1999. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Bluff Country Village West - Residential, 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 August 3, 1999. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1999. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 3 Exhibit A Bluff Country Village Legal Description: The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County Minnesota, lying north of the former location of County Road No. 1, EXCEPT that part taken for highway purposes. Outlots A and C, Prairie East Third Addition BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-RESIDENTIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE WEST-RESIDENTIAL FOR HUSTAD LAND BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Bluff Country Village West - Residential, dated August 3, 1999, consisting of 17.97 acres into 21 lots and 3 outlots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: Apri123, 1999 SUBJECT: Bluff Country Village Residential-West APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 3 acres. 2. Planned Unit Concept Review on 13 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 13 acres. 3. Rezoning from Rural to RM—2.5 on 13 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 13 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat on 13 acres into 14 lots 2 outlots. Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Residential-West April 23, 1999 BACKGROUND Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. SITE PLAN The current site plan shows a total of 90 units in 12 townhome structures and 34 senior housing units in one structure. This generates a gross density of 9.5 units per acre based on 13 acres of land. In order to achieve this density, the City must approve a guide plan change for 3 acres of low density residential to medium density residential and transfer 30 units of density. If the guide plan change is not approved and no density is transferred,the net density will be 13.4 units per acre based on 10 net acres. The townhouses do not meet the required 30 foot rear yard setback. Staff recommends a rear yard setback of at least 50 feet in order to provide a transition to existing single family homes. The setbacks to the private street should be 25 feet for the townhouses and 35 feet for the senior building. These setbacks are consistent with similar projects on private roads in Eden Prairie. There should be 50 feet between townhome structures. A parking waiver is required for the senior housing from 2 spaces per unit with one enclosed to 1.41 spaces per unit with 1.24 spaces per unit enclosed. The City has granted similar parking waivers for senior housing. The townhomes provide the required parking. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan provides 1,131 caliper inches for tree replacement and 371 caliper inches of additional landscaping as required by code ACCESS/CIRCULATION Access to the property is from Pioneer Trail and the existing Hennepin Town Road. The interior street providing access to the residential development will be private. This road shall be 28 feet wide and built to City standards. 2 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Residential-West April 23, 1999 SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, PLAYGROUNDS A sidewalk will be placed along the private, interior street connection from Pioneer Trail on the southwest side of the project to the Hennepin Townline Road on the northeast corner of the development. A trail connection will be constructed on the northwest corner of the site running north to Prairie East Park. Two totlots are incorporated into the plan. One area will be located at each end of the residential development. Staff recommends one totlot in the northwest corner of the site near the wetland and Prairie East Park area. The current placement of the totlots presents safety concerns since they are located by road intersections. DRAINAGE The project drains into the NURP provided east of Hennepin Townline Road. WETLAND IMPACTS There is one wetland area located in the northwest corner of the project. This wetland will not be altered or affected by the proposed development. ARCHITECTURE The architecture meets the 75%brick and glass requirement. UTILITIES Utilities are available in Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Townline Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One If the Planning Commission believes the developer has successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then the first option would be to recommend approval of • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 3 acres; • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 13 acres; • Planned Unit Development District Review on 13 acres; 3 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Residential-West April 23, 1999 • Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial on 13 acres; • Site Plan Review on 13 acres. • Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 14 lots and 2 lots. This is based on plans dated April 23, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report April 23, 1999, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission believes the developer has not successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then a second option would be to recommend that the project be continued to revise the plan as follows: The property should be developed consistent with the guide plan with neighborhood commercial less than 50,000 square feet, with multiple family less than ten units per acre,with a common architectural theme, with a comprehensive sign, and the following plan revisions: • Remove the proposed totlots and relocate one play area in the northwest corner of the site. • Revise the site plan for a 25 foot front yard setback to townhouses from the private road. • Revise the site plan to meet a 35 foot front yard setback to the senior building from the private road. 4 9 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Residential-West April 23, 1999 • Revise the site plan for a 50 foot rear yard setback to townhouses. • Revise the plan to eliminate the median opening on Pioneer Trail. • Revise the landscape plan for additional plantings and a fence in the 50 foot rear yard setback. Alternative Three If the Planning Commission believes the developer has not successfully demonstrated compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan,then a third option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons. • The plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan • The City has an adequate amount of community commercial. • The intensity of the project results in increased traffic, high tree loss, loss of natural buffers, an inadequate transition, waivers from the City code and access problems. Staff recommends Alternative Two. 5 /0 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: July 9, 1999 SUBJECT: Bluff Country Village Residential-West APPLICANT: Hustad Land OWNER: Hustad Land LOCATION: North of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 169 REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.97 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.97 acres. 3. Rezoning from Rural to RM—6.5 on 14.97 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 14.97 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat on 17.97 acres into 21 lots 3 outlots. // Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Residential- West July 9, 1999 BACKGROUND Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. SITE PLAN The current site plan shows a total of 98 units in 19 townhome structures and 15 "live/work"units attached to rear of the commercial strip center. This generates a gross density of 6.3 units per acre. All setbacks meet City code. The setback between existing residential neighborhoods and proposed townhomes is between 70' and 80'. Parking meets City code requirements. TREE LOSS/GRADING Refer to the Bluff Country Village Executive Summary. Staff recommends conservation easements throughout the buffer areas along the western property line and throughout the proposed Outlot A. The only exceptions will be with the proposed trail and roadway connections. Prior to any roadway grading permit issuance,the area needs to be precisely staked and reviewed by staff to ensure the preservation of existing trees, as proposed. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan provides 668 caliper inches for landscaping as required by code. Staff recommends the use of 10' and 12' conifers along the northern property line since no vegetation currently exists. ACCESS/CIRCULATION Access to the townhomes is from Hennepin Town Road. A future access is proposed for the new Outlot A area which will connect to Pioneer Trail. No road connection will be made from Shadow Pond Drive. A turnaround will be placed at the end of the road for emergency and maintenance vehicle purposes. No road connection will be made from Balmoral Lane. The right-of-way will be vacated. 2 �oZ Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Residential-West July 9, 1999 SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, PLAYGROUNDS A sidewalk will connect Pioneer Trail to an interior sidewalk running through the townhomes complexes proceeding north to a play area in the existing Outlot A. This sidewalk will connect to another sidewalk running east and west just north of the "live/work" units. Staff recommends connections to be located from the parking lot turnarounds associated with the townhomes north of the sidewalk to the proposed sidewalk connecting to Hennepin Town Road. A sidewalk connection is also needed from Shadow Pond Drive to the proposed sidewalk in that area. One play area is located in the northwest corner of the site in the existing Outlot A. Due to the steep slopes associated with this proposed location,the Park and Recreation staff would like to see more details as to the final grade of the play area and the type of equipment proposed. DRAINAGE The project drains into the NURP provided east of Hennepin Town Road. WETLAND IMPACTS There is one wetland area located in the northwest corner of the project. This wetland will not be altered or affected by the proposed development. UTILITIES Utilities are available in Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is comfortable with the proposed land uses, intensity of land uses, and location of land uses. Staff does not support the redesign of Hennepin Town Road as proposed and recommends that the project be continued until August 9, 1999,in order to resolve the identified traffic issues based on plans dated June 25, 1999,this Staff Report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council,the proponent shall: A. Submit details regarding slope and type of equipment associated with the proposed play area to the Park and Recreation Service Area for review. B. Incorporate 10' and 12' conifers along the northern property line for buffer purposes. C. Incorporate sidewalk connections to Shadow Pond Drive and from the townhomes along 3 13 Staff Report- Bluff Country Village Residential-West July 9, 1999 the east-west sidewalk. 2. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. C. Indicate conservation easements throughout the buffer areas along the western property line and throughout the proposed Outlot A. 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 4. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. 5. Prior to grading in Outlot A for future road construction,the proponent shall stake the area to be graded and review the grading plans with the City Staff. 4 l'/ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development VI. E. Donald R. Uram Shady Oak Estates Mike Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 14.64 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 14.64 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 14.64 acres into 9 lots. Synopsis The plat shows the subdivision of 14.65 acres into 9 lots at a density of.61 units per gross acre. The net density, minus 6.52 acres of wetland is 1.1 units per acre. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district. Background Information The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at the July 12, 1999 meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 12, 1999 4. Staff Report dated July 9, 1999. 5. Correspondence 1 ) • SHADY OAK ESTATES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF SHADY OAK ESTATES FOR BRUCE NELSON 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 Shady Oak Estates PUD Concept Review by Bruce Nelson and considered his 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 August 17, 1999. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, as follows: 1. Shady Oak Estates, 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 July 9, 1999. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1999. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk c Exhibit A Shady Oak Estates Legal Description: Outlot B, Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. Outlot A, Farber Addition, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. The South 50 feet of that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 116, Range 22 lying East of the West 456.08 feet thereof and West of County Road No. 61 also known as Shady Oak Road. That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 116, Range 22, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 distant 834.05 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North parallel with the East line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4, 403.5 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North parallel with the East line of -aid SE 1/4 of NE 1/4, 899.01 feet, more or less, to the North line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence West along the North line 506.08 feet. more or less, to the Northwest corner of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence South along the West line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of 896.1 feet, more or less, to a point on said line, 403.5 feet North of the Southwest corner of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence East 520.58 feet, more or less, to the point of beginr ng. EXCEPTING therefrom the two following described parcels: Parcel 1: That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2-116-22 described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence Easterly along the Southerly line thereof 530.54 feet, more or less, to the West line of the East 25 acres of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence Northerly along the West line of said East 25 acres, 403.00 feet; thence Westerly 4-41 feet, along a line that intersects the West line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4, 403.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence Northwesterly to a point on the West line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 distant 635.35 feet North of the Southwest corner of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence Southerly along said West line to a point 403.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2-116-22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of a line drawn parallel with the East line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 from a point on the South line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 distant 834.05 feet Westerly from the Southeast corner of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 described as follows: Commencing 't the point of intersection of said parallel line with the South line of said SE 1/4 of NE 1/4; thence on an assumed bearing of North 03 degrees 07 minutes 40 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 482.95 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 3 degrees 07 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 290.00 feet; thence South 41 degrees 15 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 72.00 feet; thence South 11 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 128.95 feet; thence South 18 degrees 39 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 115.29 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. 3 • SHADY OAK ESTATES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHADY OAK ESTATES FOR BRUCE NELSON BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Shady Oak Estates, dated July 9, 1999, consisting of 14.64 acres into 9 lots and 2 outlots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall,is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 17th day of August, 1999. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie July 12, 1999 Page 6 D. SHADY OAK ESTATES By Bruce Nelson. Bruce Nelson, property owner, stated he has had his residence on this property for the past six and a half years. He explained the property is unique and challenging to develop because of the topography. The land preserves several natural habitats with two large wetland areas. It is his intent to build and stay living on the property. Ken Adolf; Schoell&Madson, Inc., consulting engineers for Mr. Nelson, reviewed the proposal. He stated the average lot size would be approximately 39,000 square feet. Franzen stated staff recommends approval according to the staff report. Pete Rue, 11546 Raspberry Hill, stated this is an attractive project, and shows good preservation of wetlands. He questioned how the tree loss figures were arrived at and whether the actual development could be built any different from what is proposed and approved. Franzen stated the proposal tonight, if recommended to be approved will then go on to the City Council. And, once approved by the City Council will have to be built as proposed unless the developer comes back to the City and goes through the entire process again to obtain changes. Scott Conlin, an Eden Prairie resident, handed out written comments to the Planning Commission. He stated he his pleased with the development but concerned about losing the back area of his property(outlot) to wetlands and concerns about the tree loss. He also asked if there is a height restriction on the homes to be built. Franzen stated the height restriction if 40 feet maximum. Alexander asked if all issues have not been finalized, should the Commission take action. Franzen stated the only unresolved issue is whether the city would consider raising the water level. The City has indicated they would only consider looking at this request, if a water study was done. The action tonight does not include raising the water level. MOTION: Alexander moved, Clinton seconded to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bruce Nelson for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 14.64 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 14.64 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 14.64 acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.64 acres into 9 lots and 2 outlots, based on plans dated May 7, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 9, 1999. Motion carried 5-0. 5 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: July 9, 1999 SUBJECT: Shady Oak Estates APPLICANT: Bruce Nelson FEE OWNER: Bruce Nelson LOCATION: North of Cherokee Trail and West of Old shay Oak Road REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept Review on 14.64 acres 2. PUD District Review on 14.64 acres 3. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 14.64 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 14.64 acres into 9 single family lots. tist ii,t OZ • k.'s_ F.f - ... - C :-. ,..) •% "•� I 6 7 Y�y •V' ' t MLLMA' Qom•": Cr) F•- a w a < , w .ef . •+••a s __ •.i •rn _ r •.13 p -' X0. �' F `i wt - • 8 yam. iS- ..F4-5 .gip, w.: ." • wfy• Za�i ) /,4+tom • j i i�l` >! • [l V 1j -• �i= �'J6 e( sal' e� V I 4 y r z •�;.4 41 • a^T'c�, /, Tp I r s % - IR -y N • • 111 14. Tryl.lT OES' • ^D•Y•, , NJ .R AND .. r.•'. It RU p r C f r boa _ = S $ ` `'tom• • 1 �.'� ��`' n tgy a, ;" •:X Y. '. I ..'r {f i er ,,... . . . ._ ..f,4,......,...,...'4 - Al- - _ z.. .in. _ .,..., ..t.F.' --... `f.• 3: ' ' ' ' t' 41/4/1/11 k - /.k y� paw,- - Mt _ .. i� O G .` S yy v- f, _ • bM E n..c .ge `.K. _ �' to Zq a�EL, ..• -. .a 1 ~ •ram 1 .any -.r �. +• a r ' .0-1_. . . 1 • •.. .4 n •`.u�.. sK"� A of {Y . -I H 5 d- �,{OI C7 lY L`� �• - am"`;«• - ..�'♦ _ �.. 442,46, far y .. rn �` y.. r- _ rya • »-_ s` _ aR '' =E t �I4. .. k y :u•.� -` i15--M�„ Z*l.- ^ • •_, ..» : rYa. •r 0 -Rift,,{e:••r. r v - •. SwR:'1 i t •,,• '(. = 1 '{� $•-,1 4'a7 "'•'. [r- • . . 2 rn'-l" . --. • r" F'+`' 6� boy„ ��l v«•+r..�`e _ _ r • - 4 Y!- m 1• Yl� „•p jt.A ,•Ml a apse Z o O \ • .. } D yL7 p�[.11 pCI s e ". T 4,•• •M' A.. S'NQDY O K o////JJ/(nsINEs�' _ Lf< - ' a if _ a---------,-_ s s 202.<�17... - .... Staff Report—Shady Oak Estates July 9, 1999 BACKGROUND This site is guided low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. The site is zoned rural. There are existing single family homes to the north, west, and south. There is office to the east. PRELIMINARY PLAT The plat shows the subdivision of 14.65 acres into 9 lots at a density of.61 units per gross acre. The net density, minus 6.52 acres of wetland is 1.1 units per acre. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district. GRADING AND TREES There is a total of 3,804 inches of significant trees on site. A total of 1,601 inches or 42 % would be lost due to construction. The required tree replacement is 894 inches. UTILITIES Sewer and water is available to the site. A NURP pond is shown on the plan. WETLANDS There is a total of 6.52 acres of wetland on site. A total of.27 acres or 4%will be impacted in order to build the private drive. Wetland mitigation on site is .46 acres. COMPARISON TO OTHER PROJECTS IN THE AREA Project Acres Units Density Lot size Tree loss Shady Oak 18.2 26 1.43 26,000 50% Garden 10.36 23 2.2 17,000 22% Farber 3.37 3 1.23 53,500 0% Carmel 43.3 87 2.01 18,300 no inventory Shady Oak 14.65 9 .61 58,700 42% Estates 2 g Staff Report—Shady Oak Estates July 9, 1999 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVER A waiver for a private road and lots without street frontage are requested. The waivers are consistent with other projects with private roads previously approved by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the PUD Concept Review on 14.64 acres, PUD District Review on 14.64 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 14.64 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 14.64 acres into 9 single family lots, based on plans dated July 9, 1999, and the Staff Report, dated July 9, 1999 and the following: 1. Prior to City Council review,the proponent shall: A. Submit a tree replacement plan for 894 inches. 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 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. The following waiver are recommended through the PUD District Review for the Property as follows: A. Use of a private road B. Lots without public road frontage. 3 MEMORANDUM To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Through: Bob Lambert,Director Parks and Natural Resources From: Stuart A. Foxx,Manager Parks and Natural Resources Date: July 29, 1999 Subject: Supplemental Staff Report to the July 9, 1999 City Planner Report for Shady Oak Estates BACKGROUND: The proposed project is located on 14.64 acres of land west of Old Shady Oak Road and north of Cherokee Trail. The developer's requesting rezoning from Rural to R-1.13.5. The preliminary plat for this proposed development is to create nine single-family lots. NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES: Tree Loss/Landscaping The tree loss calculations for this project have changed from the staff report written by the City Planner dated July 9, 1999. In that staff report the City Planner used the information supplied by the consulting engineers and upon further review, the staff has determined that those calculations were in error. In the information supplied with the development proposal, there are a total of 387 trees that were inventoried on the site. However, only 128 of those trees meet the criteria of significant trees defined by City Code. These trees total 2,163 diameter inches. Grading, house pads, and utilities will remove a total of 41 significant trees. The total diameter inches removed are removed are 673 inches. This represents a 31% loss of significant trees. Mitigation required for this tree loss total 276 caliper inches of landscape material. A landscape plan has not been submitted and needs to be reviewed prior to first reading at the City Council. The site is heavily wooded with a number of deciduous and coniferous trees. The predominant tree specie on the site is box elder, elm, willow, and maple. In addition, there are aspen trees, elms, cottonwoods, black cherry, and birch. The conifer trees on the site include pines, spruce, and juniper. In reviewing the calculations, as earlier stated, many of the trees under 12 inches in Supplemental Staff Report—Shady Oak Estates July 29, 1999 Page 2 diameter deciduous and eight in diameter coniferous, were included in the tree inventory calculations that were submitted by the consulting engineer. These numbers were used in preparation of the July 9th staff report. That is the reason why the above tree loss numbers have been adjusted significantly from the calculations shown in that report. Staff would also like to point out that although there are only 41 significant trees being removed with this project there will be a large number of non significant trees that will be removed for construction of roads and house pads. Removal of this tree mass will give adjacent property owners the impression that more than 41 trees are being removed on the site; however, because of the City Code requirements, the elm, box elder, aspen, and willows are not counted in the inventory or in the tree loss/mitigation calculations. NURP Pond A NURP pond is proposed to be constructed along the easterly side of the private street for this proposed development. This pond will receive storm water from the roadway system and provide for sedimentation prior to discharge into the adjacent wetland area. The City engineering staff and Watershed District need to approved this NURP pond prior to construction. Wetlands Development of this project does require filling of.27 acres of wetlands. There are a total of 6.5 acres of wetlands on the site. Due to the filling, wetland mitigation of.46 acres is required. The developer is proposing to mitigate the wetlands on the project. There are three areas on the site where the wetland mitigation is proposed. Two of them are along the private street that comes into the subdivision and the third mitigation area is west of the existing home. Staff would recommend that with the large amount of wetland frontage within this subdivision, as well as the importance of retaining the natural vegetation that wetland monument signs be placed at a maximum spacing of 200 feet along the wetland edge. These permanent monument signs will be placed 25 feet upland from the delineated edge of the wetland. The post would contain a sign that would indicate that this was the beginning of a wetland buffer area. The exact wording of these signs would be done at the time of final platting. RECOMMENDATIONS: This project was reviewed by at the July 12, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting and was approved on a 5-0 vote. Staff would recommend approval of the project based on the information contained in the July 9, 1999 staff report and the recommendations included within this supplemental staff report. SAF:mdd 11 : Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission August 2, 1999 Page 3 wide. There is a need to interconnect sidewalks and provide access to the neighborhood park. The sidewalk should connect with the five-foot wide trail that will be built when the county updates Pioneer Trail. Discussion: Brown asked why all senior housing was cut out in the revised summary plan. Quarberg said that the townhomes would be a combination of two-level and one-level, and while the one-levels can accommodate seniors, they are not classified as "senior housing". Quarberg said that in the initial plan, the senior housing would have been an apartment building,but that building was eliminated. Corneille asked about the sidewalks and trail and the reason for the 40-foot easement. Fox said that a water connection will be underneath the sidewalk, and the easement must be wide enough for a water main. He also said that 40 feet is the minimum distance needed to reduce privacy issue concerns with adjacent residents. Koenig asked if the 15 "live-work" units would be like a home office situation. Quarberg said the units would have an office environment, and could accommodate such businesses as insurance, accounting, or law offices. Brown asked Fox if there would be a problem with these types of businesses operating in a residential area. Fox said it should not raise any problems. MOTION: Corneille moved to accept the proposal of the July 29,1999 staff report with staff recommendations. Stolar seconded the motion. MOTION: Corneille moved to amend the motion to add language stating that the entire sidewalk and trial system, including the landing point, would be privately maintained; and that the entire system would be subject to a public use easement. Wilson seconded the amendment. The amended motion was approved 6-0. 1. Shady Oak Estates The proposed project is located on 14.64 acres of land west of Old Shady Oak Road and north of Cherokee Trail. The proposal would create nine single-family lots. Bruce Nelson is the owner and developer of the land. Nelson said the development is being planned with as little impact as possible on the environment. Lot sizes are large, and the street system will be private. The plans call for replacing 100 trees. There will be some loss of wetlands, as fill will be needed to build the streets. Monument markers will indicate where the protected wetlands lay. Fox said there are 387 trees on the site, of which only 128 meet the criteria of being "significant". 31% of these significant trees will be removed for a total of 41 trees. The tree mass being removed is large, but these trees are box elder, elm, aspen and willows. A landscape plan has not yet been submitted. l /2-" Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission August 2, 1999 Page 4 Fill will be needed in the wetland area in order to widen out the street entering the development. 2.7 acres will be filled. A NURP pond will be constructed on the eastern side of the private street. To protect the shoreline, monuments will mark the wetlands. Signage will be placed 200 feet apart and 25 feet upland from the edges of the wetlands. Discussion: Koenig asked what type of trees would be planted. Nelson said they would be mostly hardwoods. Brown wanted to know if there would be penalties for homeowners who fill in, or infringe on the wetland area. Fox said that the wetlands would be a part of the homeowners' backyards, and no penalties have been set for dumping trash, grass, etc. into the wetlands. Stolar asked if there will be a homeowner's association, and if covenants will be put into the association's documents addressing the issue of infringement into the wetlands. Nelson said there would be an association to cover maintenance of the streets. Brown asked why the staff report does not mention cash park fees being charged the developer. Lambert said this is an oversight, and that the city code does require cash park fees for this development. Corneille was concerned about the number of trees being removed. Koenig asked if some of the willows and the native species would be saved. Fox said most of the trees are being removed to build the streets, but not all willows or native species will be removed Brown asked when the landscape plan would be approved. Koenig wanted to know if the commission would have input into the landscape plan. Fox said the staff will review the landscape plan and the council will approve it. Koenig asked how the native species are expected to do after the soil content has changed. Fox said the new trees in the landscape plan would be site appropriate. MOTION: Corneille moved to approve the Shady Oak Estates development proposal as recommended in the staff report of July 9, 1999. Stolar seconded the motion. MOTION: Koenig moved to amend the motion to recommend that as many native trees and deciduous trees as possible be saved. Hilgeman seconded the amendment. MOTION: Stolar moved to amend the motion recommending that it be communicated in the homeowner's association documents that the wetlands are to be protected from fill or dumping by the homeowner. Koenig seconded the motion. The 13 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission August 2, 1999 Page 5 motion with the Koenig and Stolar amendments was approved 5-0. Hilgeman abstained. Brown would like the commission to have input on the kind of trees that will be planted. Koenig requested that the staff share the landscape plan with the commission before it is approved by City Council. Stolar also would like to review of the landscape plan. Fox said the plan goes to council on August 17. VI. OLD BUSINESS 1. Proposed Community Center and Round Lake Parking Permits Lyndell Frey explained the staff proposal that parking permits be required for daytime parking in the Community Center and Round Lake parking lots. These daytime permits would be in effect form 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday from the first day of school until the final day of school. The suggested parking permit fee would be $100 for the school year. The rationale for this proposal is a safety issue. High school students leaving these lots at end of the school day and rush to get out of the lot and on to Valley View Road. There have been complaints from users of the Community Center about speeding and careless driving in these lots before and after school. There have been a number of incidents, with over 400 tickets being issued in this area last year. Additional patrolling is needed to keep the lot safe, especially from 2:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., when school lets out. Frey explained that right now students have to pay $40 to $80 for a parking permit at the high school, while the community center lot is free, resulting in many high school students using the community center lot. The $100 parking fee would encourage more students to purchase permits for the high school lots. Revenue from these parking fees would be used for additional patrolling in the community center lot. Wilson said he believes many students will opt to pay the $100 fee for the convenience of parking in the Community Center lot. Corneille questioned the fairness of charging the $100 fee to only a certain segment of the population,that is, high school students. Lambert said that the Community Center and Round Lake parking lots have a ninety- minute parking limit for anyone. The permits would only apply only to individuals parking in the lot for the entire school day. He said there is a safety issue with students leaving after school and driving too fast to get out of the lot. There is also an issue with students using all available parking space for the Community Center unless controlled. fc't CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Payment of Claims August 17 , 1999 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development and Payment of Claims Financial Services/Don Uram Requested Action Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted(roll call vote) Synopsis Checks 77933 to 78456 Background Information Attachments COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 11-AUG-1999 (08:44) DIVISION TOTAL N/A $26,392.10 LEGISLATIVE $1,970.04 LEGAL COUNSEL $13,614.74 CUSTOMER SERVICE & SHARED SERV $18,080.60 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $4,515.77 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $8,341.89 CITY MANAGER $521.62 HUMAN RESOURCES $1,748.75 COMMUNITY SERV $20.57 CITY CLERK $105.71 HUMAN SERV $562.50 RISK MANAGEMENT $947.88 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION $20.38 ENGINEERING $4,197.10 INSPECTIONS $122.40 FACILITIES $12,785.07 ASSESSING $137.97 POLICE $25,001.35 FIRE $2,255.00 ANIMAL CONTROL $1,739.24 PARK ADMIN $72.59 STREETS/TRAFFIC $240,256.15 PARK MAINTENANCE $8,647.72 STREET LIGHTING $410.56 FLEET SERVICES $17,912.18 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $5,180.00 COMMUNITY DEV $368.75 COMMUNITY CENTER $20,910.09 BEACHES $2,075.80 YOUTH RECREATION $8,071.47 SPECIAL EVENTS $202.25 ADULT RECREATION $510.06 RECREATION ADMIN $121.58 ADAPTIVE REC $3,221.34 OAK POINT POOL $1,144.64 ARTS $1,958.01 PARK FACILITIES $2,188.94 PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $266,820.36 EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $94,019.64 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM $5,080.88 CITY CENTER $2,617.57 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $325.00 PRAIRIE VILLAGE $67,356.11 PRAIRIEVIEW $67,367.75 CUB FOODS $124,422.33 TRUST FUNDS $55,650.00 WATER DEPT $57,414.65 SEWER DEPT $171,216.86 STORM DRAINAGE $5,312.81 AGENCY FUNDS $11,849.02 EQUIPMENT $8,770.29 GRANTS $1,740.00 $1,376,296.08* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 77933 $5,414.40 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 77934 $3,294.85 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77935 $6,076.05 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77936 $6,918.07 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77937 $449.60 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77938 $884.84 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77939 $1,435.72 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 77940 $6,901.46 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77942 $393.30 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77943 $470.00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77944 $8,302.82 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77945 $5.00 ATKINS, SANDRA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77946 $60.00 BERENTSON, JANA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 77947 $4.00 DILLER, ALLAN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77948 $5.00 HAFNER, MARLENE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77949 $85.00 HANLON, STEVE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE 77950 $10.00 HOLDAHL, MARY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77951 $5.00 JOHNSON, KRIS ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77952 $105.00 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE FIRE 77953 $5.00 MAYER, JANIS ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77954 $425.00 MERRY BOB MUSIC INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 77955 $400.00 MONROE, MICHAEL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 77956 $10.65 MUELLER, CYNTHIA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POOL SPECIAL EVENTS 77957 $5.00 NOREEN, GLENN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77958 $9,610.75 NORTHWEST ASPHALT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STREET MAINTENANCE 77959 $225.00 OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING P CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 77960 $44.00 SHERBROOKE, CHERYL ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 77961 $850.00 SWING-O-PHILES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 77962 $40.00 TELEPHONE ANSWERING CENTER INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 77963 $5.00 TURNER, MARCIA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 77964 $46.00 WEBER, JEFF LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 77965 $71.49 WERTS, SANDY MILEAGE AND PARKING REC SUPERVISOR 77966 $45.00 WEXLER, AVIVA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 77967 $5.00 WILDFANG, GENE SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 77968 $80.00 WOLF, SHERI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPORTS/SPECIAL CAMPS 77969 $30.00 ZIELKE, DIANE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 77970 $717.85 CENTRAIRE INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 77971 $1,081.35 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77972 $8,865.73 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 77973 $8,175.45 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77975 $620.00 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BEVERAGE A DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77976 $64.35 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77977 $465.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77978 $134.53 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77979 $346.98 PROTECTION ONE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 77980 $110.90 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 77981 $6,449.37 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77983 $16.00 AGNER, ANNETTE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 77984 $597.00 CALIBRE PRESS INC SCHOOLS POLICE 77985 $70.00 DONALDSON, LORINDA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROD SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 77986 $8,043.06 ENVIROBATE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SINGLETREE LN/ EDEN RD TO 169 77987 $161.67 FREY, LYNDELL MILEAGE AND PARKING COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 77988 $16.00 HANSON, KAREN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 77989 $65.00 KEENAN, GINA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 77990 $65.00 KENNELLY, KATIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 3 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 77991 $590.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE COUNCIL 77992 $6,979.86 LOGIS LOGIS SERVICE INFORMATION SYSTEM 77993 $3,138.95 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 77994 $2,825.94 MAVOSYSTEMS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SINGLETREE LN/ EDEN RD TO 169 77995 $61.00 MCCARTY, HELEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ARTS CAMP 77996 $55,093.50 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DUE TO OTHER GOVNT UNITS SAC AGENCY FUND 77997 $195.00 MINNESOTA CLE SCHOOLS POLICE 77998 $66.00 NEUBAUER, ANNE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG YOUTH TENNIS 77999 $15.00 OSTLUND, KATHRYN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 78000 $58.60 PRIES, BARBARA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 78001 $26.00 ROBERTSON, LAURIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG YOUTH TENNIS 78002 $200.00 S.O.T.A. SCHOOLS POLICE 78003 $16.00 SHOCKMAN, LIZ ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78004 $4.00 STENDER, JULIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 78005 $28.00 THOMPSON, ELLEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78006 $4,000.00 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE GENERAL 78007 $16.00 WAGNER, STEVE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78008 $65.00 WASHTOCK, TIMOTHY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 78009 $35.00 WIESE, CRAIG ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78010 $49.44 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78011 $3,031.94 BELLBOY CORPORATION MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78013 $6,851.00 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78014 $3,298.44 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78015 $3,288.20 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78016 $144.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78017 $17,244.73 GRIGGS COOPER & CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78019 $1,725.52 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78020 $1,671.66 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78021 $12,924.65 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78022 $398.00 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78023 $513.24 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78024 $192.15 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78025 $3,910.94 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78026 $779.89 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78027 $1,710.57 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78029 $1,254.85 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78030 $21,279.95 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78032 $608.72 WINE COMPANY, THE WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78033 $1,743.40 WINE MERCHANTS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78034 $526.99 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78035 $500.00 BENGTSON, LYNNE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 78036 $660.00 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF KENNEL SERVICE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 78037 $20.00 CODE ADMINISTRATION & INSPECTI LICENSES & TAXES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78038 $15.00 COMPUTER CHEQUE OF MINNESOTA I OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78039 $159.50 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE GENERAL 78040 $72.84 CORPORATE AUTO RENTALS INC TRANSPORTATION AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 78041 $186.00 DEMANN, JIM TRAVEL AUTO THEFT PREVENTION GRANT 78042 $990.00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CONTRACTED COMM MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 78043 $5,464.81 DURAND AND ASSOCIATES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78044 $51.82 GINA MARIAS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 78045 $100.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFI OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADMIN 78046 $372.03 HENNEPIN COUNTY I/T DEPT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES INFORMATION SYSTEM 78047 $79.93 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 78048 $9,489.52 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPOSITS ESCROW 78049 $628.78 HENNEPIN COUNTY WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 24 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78050 $150.00 HINDING, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 78051 $1,368.00 HYATT REGENCY DEARBORN TRAVEL AUTO THEFT PREVENTION GRANT 78052 $7.94 ISENSEE, DANA REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES ARTS CAMP 78053 $104.50 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 78054 $2,902.50 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS INSURANCE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78055 $57.19 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK/REC ADMIN 78056 $9,109.28 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSU INSURANCE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78057 $170,929.66 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME WASTE DISPOSAL SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 78058 $688.90 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 78059 $24,292.85 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC EPCC MAINTENANCE 78060 $328.84 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 78061 $186.00 OLSON, ROBERT TRAVEL AUTO THEFT PREVENTION GRANT 78062 $13.37 PARAGON CABLE CABLE TV COMMUNITY SERVICES 78063 $39.48 PETTY CASH-NICOLE WEEDMAN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 78064 $75.88 PETTY CASH OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 78065 $20.65 PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 78066 $7.93 PLIHAL, ANGIE REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 78067 $300.00 PRAIRIE CYCLE & SKI OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 78068 $33.03 PROEX PHOTO SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 78069 $40.00 STARK, EMMETT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 78070 $31.40 STRAND, KAREN REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 78071 $49.00 SUTER ELECTRONICS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 78072 $160.89 SWENSON, DON OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 78073 $133.38 US OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 78074 $64.47 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE FIRE 78075 $691.25 YERIGAN CONSTRUCTION CO BUILDING PERMIT FD 10 ORG 78076 $13,614.74 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE LEGAL COUSEL ' 78078 $100.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS PAYROLL 07-02-99 FD 10 ORG 78079 $5,177.79 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 07-02-99 FD 10 ORG 78080 $1,533.65 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI JULY UNION DUES FD 10 ORG 78081 $1,236.88 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR PAYROLL 07-02-99 FD 10 ORG 78082 $40.00 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI PAYROLL 07-02-99 FD 10 ORG 78083 $249.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AUG PERA LIFE INS FD 10 ORG 78084 $12,797.04 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY PAYROLL 07-02-99 FD 10 ORG 78085 $4,577.68 PRUDENTIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP JULY LIFE INS BENEFITS 78086 $64,396.10 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PAYROLL07-02-99 FD 10 ORG 78087 $50.78 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS PAYROLL 07-02-99 FD 10 ORG 78088 $2,525.92 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY JULY DISABILITY INS FD 10 ORG 78089 $115.65 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78090 $264.00 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 78091 $2,082.26 CARD SERVICES-BUSINESS CARD TRAVEL COUNCIL 78092 $731.72 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE GENERAL 78093 $42.47 ELWELL, JEFF MILEAGE AND PARKING EPCC MAINTENANCE 78094 $90.00 GARDEN & ASSOC INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 78095 $29.70 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STORM DRAINAGE 78096 $36.58 HELLING, LAURIE MILEAGE AND PARKING RECREATION ADMIN 78097 $60.00 HOLTE, JESSICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 78098 $1,376.04 KISSOON CLUGG LINDER & DITTBER OTHER REVENUE FD 10 ORG 78099 $12.40 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER METER REPAIR 78100 $2,248.91 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC RENTALS GENERAL 78101 $23.99 MANN, TRIA MILEAGE AND PARKING SPECIAL EVENTS ADMINISTRATIVE 78102 $40.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78103 $9,703.02 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER BLDG SURCHARGES BUILDING SURCHARGE 78104 $105.71 PORTA, KITTY MILEAGE AND PARKING ELECTION 78105 $48.45 ROHDE, ANDREW CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 1 5 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78106 $37.50 SWENSON, DON OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE 78107 $553.50 UTING, RODNEY INSURANCE SAFETY 78108 $95.00 WASHTOCK, TIMOTHY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 78109 $84.56 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78110 $158.00 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78111 $7,698.28 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78113 $200.70 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78114 $5,188.30 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78116 $5,711.85 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78117 $82.84 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VETERINAR CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE 78118 $30.65 B DALTON BOOKSTORE TRAINING SUPPLIES IN SERVICE TRAINING 78119 $7.00 BALLARD, CHERYL ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG YOUTH TENNIS 78120 $72.00 BEARDSLEY, MARY LOUISE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 78121 $26.00 SLAKE, SHERRY LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78122 $432.00 BROWN, PAUL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 78123 $120.00 DANIEL, DANIELLE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ARTS CAMP 78124 $64.00 DIEBOLD, ELIZABETH ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 78125 $60.00 ERDMANN, NICOLE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ARTS CAMP 78126 $30.00 FIELD OF DREAMS RECYCLING CENT WASTE DISPOSAL WESTGATE PARK 78127 $17.19 FREY, LYNDELL PHOTO SUPPLIES COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 78126 $86.46 GLENROSE FLORAL AND GIFT SHOPS EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 78129 $45.00 GRIFFIN, SANDY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78130 $85.00 HANLON, SCOTT PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE 78131 $125.00 HENNEPIN PARKS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES DAY CAMP 78132 $80.00 HERNANDEZ, MARTHA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78133 $23.00 HO, MARTHA LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78134 $99.00 IAAO CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 78135 $43.00 JAMAR, LAURA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 78136 $20.00 JESKA, JO ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78137 $35.00 MARTIN, JOE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78138 $800.00 MARTIN-MCALLISTER PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM IN SERVICE TRAINING 78139 $80.00 MRPA MISCELLANEOUS IN SERVICE TRAINING 78140 $40.00 MTGF MISCELLANEOUS IN SERVICE TRAINING 78141 $85.00 NRPA PUBLICATIONS CENTER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RECREATION ADMIN 78142 $48.00 OLEJNIK, LAURA LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78143 $9.14 OLSON, ADAM REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES SPORTS/SPECIAL CAMPS 78144 $75.47 OLSON, COURTNEY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL DAY CAMP 78145 $37.00 OLSON, SUSAN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 78146 $2.32 PENK, EMILY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL AFTERNOON ADVENTURE 78147 $45.00 PETERSON, ROXANNE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78148 $19.40 PROOSOW, STACEY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78149 $45.00 SAMSON-OTT, KATHERINE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78150 $2,359.50 SCHLOTSKY'S DELI DEPOSITS ESCROW 78151 $77.00 SHOCKMAN, LIZ ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP 78152 $28.00 SIERZPUTOWSKI, MONIQUE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78153 $70.00 SOKOUNOVA, IRINA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78154 $100.00 STAHN, BETTY ANN LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78155 $350.00 SWEET ADLINES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADAPTIVE INTEGRATED 78156 $1,630.50 TWIN CITY TILE & MARBLE COMPAN BUILDING FIRE STATION #2 78157 $1,118.14 WARNERS' STELLIAN OTHER EQUIPMENT FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 78158 $18.00 WEINBERGER, NANCY LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78159 $98.50 WILEY, KERI OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ARTS CAMP 78160 $150.00 YAEGER, CHRISTOPHER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ARTS CAMP 78161 $77.00 ZETTEL, BARBARA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78162 $48.90 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78163 $1,730.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78165 $1,543.90 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78166 $5,125.95 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78167 $1,202.81 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78168 $13,847.23 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78169 $7,375.99 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78170 $3,955.68 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78171 $1,469.02 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78172 $5,274.16 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78173 $401.50 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78174 $289.80 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78175 $156.60 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78176 $1,850.07 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78178 $267.50 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78179 $1,960.14 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78180 $2,376.74 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78181 $4,611.84 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78182 $146.70 WINE COMPANY, THE WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78183 $126.00 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE 78184 $200,000.00 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS 494 AT VALLEY VIEW ROAD 78185 $325.00 DIETHELM, GARY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CEMETERY OPERATION 78186 $425.00 IAAO CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 78187 $17,185.52 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC WATER WELL #7 78189 $7.20 PARAGON CABLE CABLE TV COMMUNITY SERVICES 78190 $675.00 PAUL, CYRIL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT 78191 $290.00 RATEIKE, MARILYN JANE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ART & MUSIC 78192 $208.26 ROCKLER, CHARLIE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ART & MUSIC 78193 $41.02 SHOLD, KARA TELEPHONE GENERAL 78194 $730.00 STARK, EMMETT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ART & MUSIC 78195 $5,102.25 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 78196 $90.00 FRANKENSTEIN, LINDA EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 78197 $250.00 WALBRIDGE, DAVID EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 78198 $6,527.12 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER BLDG SURCHARGES BUILDING SURCHARGE 78199 $1,400.00 AQUATIC HARVESTERS INC ROUND LK WEED HARVESTING ROUND LAKE 78200 $9,607.17 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER BLDG SURCHARGES BUILDING SURCHARGE 78201 $931.00 MINNESOTA SUPER CENTER INC GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTOR SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78202 $2,928.75 ALL AMERICAN AQUATICS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ROUND LAKE MARINA 78203 $5.95 AT&T TELEPHONE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78204 $375.00 DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG SCHOOLS FIRE 78205 $52.19 DUBOIS,JANET OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78206 $59.48 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 78207 $200.00 HARRIS, JEAN TRAVEL COUNCIL 78208 $303.49 HUTTER, MICHAEL MILEAGE AND PARKING OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78209 $175.77 KRESS, CARLA MILEAGE AND PARKING ADAPTIVE RECREATION 78210 $285.38 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS INSURANCE SAFETY 78211 $3,430.60 MILLER, TERESA RIGHT OF WAY & EASEMENTS PIONEER TRAIL SANITARY SEWER 78212 $649.77 MONTGOMERY, THOMAS TRAVEL STREET MAINTENANCE 78213 $297.00 MULHAUSER, WENDY INSTRUCTOR SERVICE PRESCHOOL EVENTS 78214 $345.00 NFPA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 78215 $1,383.36 NILSSON, BETH HOSES & NOZZLES ICE ARENA 78216 $100.00 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 78217 $1,409.40 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL FIRE STATION #1 78218 $49.59 QUIET SPORTS OUTFITTERS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78219 $37.97 SAMS, JOHN MILEAGE AND PARKING ASSESSING-ADMIN 78220 $47.43 SCHEPERS, JACK MILEAGE AND PARKING LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 7 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78221 $2,068.59 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING GENERAL 78222 $2,536.16 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE GENERAL 78223 $304.00 VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS BENEFIT DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 78224 $64.02 WEEDMAN, NICOLE MILEAGE AND PARKING PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 78225 $694.40 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78226 $517.40 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 78227 $2,679.94 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78228 $234.50 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78229 $73.80 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78230 $2,916.02 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78231 $7,063.99 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 78233 $61.00 ABERNATHY, GRACE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ARTS CAMP 78234 $32.00 AMUNDSEN, JOAN LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78235 $77.00 BANDY, PAM ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78236 $77.00 BARRETO, KAREN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78237 $52.50 BENSON, MICHELLE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78238 $100.00 CHANHASSEN DINNER THEATRE SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADULT PROGRAM 78239 $39.50 COLEHOUR, WARREN SR CITIZENS/ADULT FROG FEES ADULT PROGRAM 78240 $135.00 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 78241 $140.00 COOPER, RACHELLE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY 78242 $64.00 COPPLE, DAVE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP 78243 $42.00 DERANEY, CARLA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78244 $3.00 DILLING, LORRAINE SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES ADULT PROGRAM 78245 $19.00 DOIG, LARRY LICENSES & TAXES STREET MAINTENANCE 78246 $200.00 DRISTEEM STARING LAKE BUILDING RENTAL PARK FACILITIES 78247 $39.00 DUNKLEY, STEVEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78248 $13.00 DURBIN, MARINA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78249 $140.00 ESTEP, SHARI OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY 78250 $80.00 FENNELL, RAMONA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPORTS/SPECIAL CAMPS 78251 $84.00 GOODNO, PAULETTE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78252 $80.00 GUIDINGER, MARK ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78253 $154.00 HAGBERG, BETH ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78254 $164.00 HAYEN, LINDA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78255 $115.00 HAZELTON, STEVE FACILITIES RENTAL ICE ARENA 78256 $30.00 HEINEN, ANN LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 78257 $42.00 HENDERSON, MAUREEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78258 $240.00 HERNANDEZ, MARTHA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78259 $14.50 HILGENKAMP, SUE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78260 $49.00 HULSTEIN, LORI LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78261 $246.42 HUTCHINS, BRUCE SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 78262 $23.56 JACQUES, MICHAEL MILEAGE AND PARKING PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 78263 $47.00 JOBE, PAM ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG YOUTH ATHLETICS 78264 $42.00 JOHNSON, KAREN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78265 $15.00 KAEHN, CHRISTI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78266 $6.00 KAUL, BELA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 78267 $13.80 KOLLER, TERRI LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 78268 $47.00 KOSCH, THERESE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG YOUTH ATHLETICS 78269 $5.00 LANIEWSKI, GLENN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78270 $26.00 LAWRENCE, KATHY LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78271 $200.00 M.I.A.M.A CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 78272 $141.00 MORROW, LYNN CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 78273 $705.00 SCOTT, DEBORAH SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 78274 $15.00 PEARSON, KIM ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78275 $53.80 PITNEY BOWES INC MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL 78276 $27.00 PUDAS, LIZ ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 6 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78277 $261.00 RICHARDSON, JIM TRAVEL IN SERVICE TRAINING 78278 $29.00 RIESTER, KERRI LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 78279 $30.00 SALO, JUDY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 78280 $200.00 SBS ROUND LAKE PAVILION PARK FACILITIES 78281 $5.00 SEXTON, TERESA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78282 $10.00 SPINNER, CINDY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78283 $2.75 SPLITTGERBER, MICHAEL LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 78284 $26.00 STEEN, DEBRA LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 78285 $200.00 STRATASYS STARING LAKE BUILDING RENTAL PARK FACILITIES 78286 $35.00 TERRANCE, JILL ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78287 $35.00 THOMPSON, ELLEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78288 $80.00 TRAYNOR, MARSHA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP 78289 $200.00 TWEDT, KAREN STARING LAKE BUILDING RENTAL PARK FACILITIES 78290 $200.00 UNITED HEALTHCARE CORP STARING LAKE BUILDING RENTAL PARK FACILITIES 78291 $48.00 WATERMAN, KATHY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ARTS CAMP 78292 $80.00 WEXLER, AVIVA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROD SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78293 $80.00 WOLFE, SUSAN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ACTIVITY CAMP 78294 $197.03 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER RENTALS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 78295 $255.60 AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 78296 $101.34 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78297 $2,047.45 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE FURNITURE & FIXTURES FURNITURE ACCOUNT 78298 $269.29 AMERICAN PRESSURE INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78299 $333.76 AQUA ENGINEERING INC GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FIRE STATION #2 78300 $1,456.92 ASPEN CARPET CLEANING CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT EATON BLDG 78301 $8,770.29 ASPEN REACH EQUIPMENT COMPANY MACHINERY EQUIPMENT P/W REVOLVING FUND 78302 $20.00 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78303 $596.40 BENIEK LAWN SERVICE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FIRE STATION #2 78304 $12.60 BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE* OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ROUND LAKE 78305 $970.00 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF KENNEL SERVICE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 78306 $288.47 BOARMAN KROOS PFISTER VOGEL & PHOTO SUPPLIES FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 78307 $194.36 BRO-TEX INC SAFETY SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78308 $54.75 BROADWAY AWARDS AWARDS ART & MUSIC 78309 $350.00 BROWN, PAUL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARK FACILITIES 78310 $100.00 BUETTNER, MARC REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 78311 $561.22 C&H DISTRIBUTORS INC CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78312 $17,347.93 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION 78313 $57.29 CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78314 $46.96 CATCO CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78315 $2,711.78 CEMSTONE ASPHALT OVERLAY STREET MAINTENANCE 78316 $100.00 CHRISTENSON, GRETCHEN REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 78317 $127.33 COLOR CENTER, THE BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78318 $581.20 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78319 $180.16 CONSOLIDATED PLASTICS COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78320 $185.60 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING CEDAR FOREST UTILITY CONSTRUCT 78321 $94.37 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 78322 $75.34 CORPORATE AUTO RENTALS INC SPECIAL EVENTS FEES YOUTH TENNIS 78323 $7.00 CRONSTROMS HTG AND AC CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG 78324 $64.41 CROWN PLASTICS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ROUND LAKE 78325 $5,008.24 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78326 $380.62 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES FIRE STATION #3 78327 $324.89 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS 78328 $836.00 DAVIS, JORDAN W OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78329 $447.01 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC RENTALS EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 78330 $247.00 DESAULNIERS, DAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78331 $6.28 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WINTER SKILL DEVELOP Cl COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78332 $2,667.00 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78333 $427.04 DYNA SYSTEMS SMALL TOOLS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78334 $147.29 ECOLAB INC GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FIRE STATION #2 78335 $292.93 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N TRANSPORTATION TEEN WORK PROGRAM 78336 $883.95 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STORM DRAINAGE 78337 $163.98 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC PROTECTIVE CLOTHING WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 78338 $10,826.79 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC* REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 78339 $4,100.00 F.M. FRATTALONE EXCAVATING & G OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES MILLER SPRING K40 78340 $192.02 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC OFFICE EQUIPMENT EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 78341 $150.00 FASTSIGNS TRAINING SUPPLIES POOL OPERATIONS 78342 $20.50 FIREPLACE CENTER, THE MECHANICAL PERMIT FD 10 ORG i 78343 $327.11 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 78344 $5.32 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE 78345 $41.42 G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS PARK MAINTENANCE 78346 $375.55 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL PARK MAINTENANCE 78347 $103.00 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN BUILDING CC CAPITAL OUTLAY 78348 $15,902.05 GEPHART ELECTRIC PHOTO SUPPLIES FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 78349 $400.00 GLACIAL RIDGE DRILLING & TESTI OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES RILEY LAKE PARK SHELTER (GRANT 78350 $391.40 GLEWWE DOORS INC PHOTO SUPPLIES FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 78351 $77.11 GOPHER SPORT REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 78352 $505.39 GREATER MINNEAPOLIS AREA CHAPT SAFETY SUPPLIES RILEY LAKE-BEACH 78353 $410.56 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT STREET LIGHTING 78354 $264.00 HAMILTON, MICHAEL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78355 $15.40 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARK/REC ADMIN 78356 $954.47 HARMON AUTOGLASS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78357 $7,819.08 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78358 $2,124.99 HAYDEN-MURPHY EQUIPMENT COMPAN CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78359 $368.75 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 78360 $1,753.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER - AC BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE 78361 $722.00 HIGLEY, STEVE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78362 $76.00 HOLMES, TOM OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78363 $80.78 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 78364 $104.58 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78365 $910.50 JAMES BISSONETT & ASSOC INC PRINTING BENEFITS 78366 $2,823.23 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES FIRE STATION #1 78367 $3,076.25 JULIAN M JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION PHOTO SUPPLIES FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 78368 $100.00 KAMPS, CHERYL REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 78369 $100.00 KITCHEN, STEVE REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 78370 $149.18 KNOX BUILDING MATERIALS BUILDING MATERIALS OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 78371 $18,203.19 KRAUS ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 78372 $174.19 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78373 $100.00 LADEN, MICHAEL REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 78374 $591.91 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78375 $1,550.00 LANDCARE USA GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FIRE STATION #2 78376 $94.39 LAW ENFORCMENT TARGETS INC TRAINING SUPPLIES POLICE 78377 $4,739.75 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78378 $36.21 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78379 $1,745.00 MARINE RESCUE PRODUCTS INC SAFETY SUPPLIES RILEY LAKE-BEACH 78380 $382.21 MAROTTA, VIC INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 78381 $2,011.79 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE 78382 $437.00 MCGREGOR, RANDY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78383 $100.00 MCKEE, MIKE REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 78384 $562.50 MEALS ON WHEELS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 78385 $619.50 METRO CONCRETE RAISING INC MUDJACKING CURBS DRAINAGE 78386 $72.39 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 4 ' COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78387 $5,080.88 MICHAEL WILKUS JEFFREY RAPP AR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FACILITIES-CITY CENTER REMODEL 78388 $1,092.50 MICHELAN, JOHN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78389 $261.25 .MID CITY MECHANICAL BLDG SURCHARGES PLUMBING SURCHARGE 78390 $3,701.48 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION WASTE DISPOSAL STORM DRAINAGE 78391 $96.60 MINN BLUE DIGITAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 78392 $115.02 MINNESOTA CONWAY SAFETY SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78393 $3,125.46 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE TRAVEL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 78394 $100.00 MUELLER, SUSAN REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 78395 $393.19 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 78396 $3,930.00 NEWMECH CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78397 $1,779.29 NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL PARK MAINTENANCE 78398 $422.24 NORTHERN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 78399 $7,057.55 NORTHLAND CONCRETE & MASONRY C PHOTO SUPPLIES FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 78400 $621.00 OHLIN SALES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL GENERAL 78401 $712.37 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC BUILDING MATERIALS WESTGATE PARK 78402 $103.46 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 78403 $56.13 PAPER WAREHOUSE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 78404 $109.00 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SAFETY 78405 $1,395.24 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT STORM DRAINAGE 78406 $177,304.94 PEARSON BROTHERS INC SEAL COATING CONTRACTED STREET MAINTENANCE 78407 $159.00 PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WETLAND DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 78408 $395.00 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS SENIOR CENTER 78409 $117.91 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 78410 $521.66 PROMOTION GROUP, THE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS FIRE 78411 $122.40 PROSTAFF OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES INSPECTION-ADMIN 78412 $175.67 RAINBOW FOODS - CHARGES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 78413 $473.00 RAY, LEE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 78414 $296.67 REBS MARKETING OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER ACCOUNTING 78415 $186.00 RESPOND SYSTEMS SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78416 $25.94 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78417 $90.90 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78418 $1,650.00 SCHROEDER, PETE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 78419 $40.00 SCRANTON GILLETTE COMMUNICATIO DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 78420 $38.74 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 78421 $284.73 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78422 $308.85 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS STORM DRAINAGE 78423 $52.50 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 78424 $205.00 SPECTRUM LABS INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ROUND LAKE 78425 $178.54 SQUARE CUT CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS POLICE-CITY CENTER 78426 $49.60 ST CROIX RECREATION CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 78427 $1,000.00 ST PAUL, CITY OF SCHOOLS POLICE 78428 $274.43 STREICHERS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 78429 $77.36 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78430 $496.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 78431 $209.48 SURVIVALINK CORP OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE 78432 $125.00 SWEDLUNDS WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 78433 $96.65 THERMOGAS COMPANY MOTOR FUELS ICE ARENA 78434 $423.78 TIERNEY BROS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES FIRE STATION #1 78435 $96.09 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 78436 $415.24 TWIN CITY SEED CO LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL STORM DRAINAGE 78437 $74.38 TWIN CITY TIRE CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78438 $481.50 UAP MIDWEST CHEMICALS PARK MAINTENANCE 78439 $165.77 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 78440 $187.04 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78441 $86.01 US CAVALRY CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE t1 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-AUG-1999 (08: CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 78442 $4,161.56 US FILTER/WATERPRO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE WATER METER READING 78443 $47,905.05 VALLEY PAVING INC ASPHALT OVERLAY STREET MAINTENANCE 78444 $388.51 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78445 $178.26 VAUGHN DISPLAY & FLAG OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 78446 $171.00 VICTORIA REPAIR & MFG REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78447 $239.66 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 78448 $64.33 W W GRAINGER INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 78449 $43.57 WALMART STORES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE 78450 $289.92 WARNING LIGHTS OF MINNESOTA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNS 78451 $40.23 WEST WELD LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 78452 $20.00 WESTAIR CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG 78453 $4,100.50 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING DEPT 78454 $2,156.24 WORK CONNECTION, THE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE 78455 $44.55 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SAFETY SUPPLIES ROUND LAKE MARINA 78456 $600.50 ZOELLNER, MARK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL $1,376,296.08* 1 ;2. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: August 17, 1999 SECTION: Reports of Director Parks and Recreation Services SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposed Community ITEM NO: Parks and Recreation 1.- Center and Round Lake Parking Permits Robert A. Lambert Director XEr. Requested Action Move to: Approve the request for parking permits for daytime use of the Community Center and Round Lake parking lots effective from 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday from the first day of school until the final day of school for a parking permit fee of$80.00 per permit for the entire school year. Synopsis The park and recreation staff have worked with the Police Department and High School Administration to address the growing problem in the parking lots at the Community City and Round Lake Park. City staff have had to spend an increasing amount of time monitoring the parking lot at the Community Center to ensure space available for Community Center users. City staff have had numerous complaints from Community Center users, especially those parents with preschool age children attempting to walk safely from the parking lot to the Community Center, or vise versa, as well as elderly people who are unable to move as quickly as students anticipate. In requiring the parking permit and charging for that permit, the police would have additional funding to help patrol and monitor the parking lot on a regular basis. Also, by requiring permits, the police would be able to control and monitor any parking lot violations by taking parking permits away from those who abused the privilege of parking in the permit lots. Background The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the proposal at their August 2, 1999 meeting and recommended a fee of$80.00 to park at either the Community Center or Round Lake Park lots. Attachments July 29, 1999 memorandum from Lyndell Frey to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources along with several attachments providing additional detailed information for this request. H:\Lambert\Parking Permit Memo Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission August 2, 1999 Page 5 motion with the Koenig and Stolar amendments was approved 5-0. Hilgeman abstained. Brown would like the commission to have input on the kind of trees that will be planted. Koenig requested that the staff share the landscape plan with the commission before it is approved by City Council. Stolar also would like to review of the landscape plan. Fox said the plan goes to council on August 17. VI. OLD BUSINESS 1. Proposed Community Center and Round Lake Parking Permits Lyndell.Frey explained the staff proposal that parking permits be required for daytime parking in the Community Center and Round Lake parking lots. These daytime permits would be in effect form 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday from the first day of school until the final day of school. The suggested parking permit fee would be $100 for the school year. The rationale for this proposal is a safety issue. High school students leaving these lots at end of the school day and rush to get out of the lot and on to Valley View Road. There have been complaints from users of the Community Center about speeding and careless driving in these lots before and after school. There have been a number of incidents, with over 400 tickets being issued in this area last year. Additional patrolling is needed to keep the lot safe, especially from 2:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., when school lets out. Frey explained that right now students have to pay $40 to $80 for a parking permit at the high school, while the community center lot is free, resulting in many high school students using the community center lot. The $100 parking fee would encourage more students to purchase permits for the high school lots. Revenue from these parking fees would be used for additional patrolling in the community center lot. Wilson said he believes many students will opt to pay the $100 fee for the convenience of parking in the Community Center lot. Corneille questioned the fairness of charging the $100 fee to only a certain segment of the population,that is, high school students. Lambert said that the Community Center and Round Lake parking lots have a ninety- minute parking limit for anyone. The permits would only apply only to individuals parking in the lot for the entire school day. He said there is a safety issue with students leaving after school and driving too fast to get out of the lot. There is also an issue with students using all available parking space for the Community Center unless controlled. 2 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission August 2, 1999 Page 6 Stolar asked if the all-day permits for Metro bus parking would be separate from the student permits. Lambert said Lot D close to the fire station is free parking for Southwest Metro users, but safety officers have not been necessary for this lot. Corneille questioned there not being a traffic light at the entrance of the parking lot onto Valley View Road. Koenig questioned what number of students is really causing the problem. Hilgeman said that the high school views this as a city problem, not a school problem. Lambert said that this proposal is viewed as a partnership between the city and the school. The school has parking lots that are planned for the students' use, the Community Center and Round Lake Park parking lots are part of the high school"campus" and the available parking should be utilized by students but not at the cost of eliminating access to the Community Center or park by the general public. Stolar asked what the cost is to hire a safety officer to police this lot, and suggested that the city not charge more than the actual cost to patrol the lot. Lambert said if every parking spot were sold, $35,000 would be brought in. Brown said that at a $100 per permit, the cost of a police officer would not be covered. Corneille does not believe it should cost more to park in the Community Center lot than in the high school lot. There was a consensus among members Hilgeman, Koenig, Corneille and Stolar that the permit fee should not exceed$80,the highest high school lot fee. MOTION: Stolar moved to recommend the staff proposal of July 29. 1999, that the city issue 350 parking permits for Round Lake and the Community Center parking lots for the 1999-2000 school year, with the following changes: that the city charge no higher than the highest rate charged for the high school lot, and that after the first year the city set the parking fee equivalent to the cost of patrolling, but no less than what the high school charges. Hilgeman seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. 2. Bid Summary for Round Lake Park Playstructure Stu Fox explained the bids that came in for the Round Lake playground equipment. The budget for replacement is $100,000, with $80,000 for the playstructure, and $20,000 for removing the old equipment and preparing the site for new equipment. There are three components to the structure, the ship, the lighthouse, and the swing set. The large play component is a lighthouse structure with a tower, the second play area is a ship structure, and third is a swingset area. Main issues are safety, accessibility,reliability, and maintenance. There were five bidders on the project: Earl F. Anderson, Flanagan Sales, Midwest Playscapes, Minnesota-Wisconsin, and Miracle. After reviewing all bids, Fox said that Midwest Playscapes best meets the desired criteria, along with uniqueness of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Bob Lambert,Director of Parks &Recreation FROM: Lyndell Frey, Community Center Manager DATE: July 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Proposed Community Center and Round Lake Parking Permits Request Ftaff request parking permits be required for daytime use of the Community Center and Round Lake parking lots. These daytime permits would be in effect from 7:00 a.m."—4:00 p.m., Monday - Friday from the first day of school until the final day of school. Staff suggests charging a parking permit fee of $100 per permit for the entire school year. Rationale This proposal is based on safety concerns for Community Center patrons as well as the High School students. When students leave the parking lot at the end of the school day, there is a "mad rush" for the exits. Without proper supervision, this rush for the exits causes a dangerous situation for pedestrians in the Community Center parking lot. City staff have had numerous complaints from Community Center users, especially those parents with preschool age children attempting to walk safely from the parking lot to the Community Center, or vice versa,as well as elderly people who are not able to move as quickly as some of the students anticipate. In requiring a parking permit and charging for that permit, the Police would have additional funding to help patrol and monitor the parking lot on a regular basis. Also, by requiring permits the police would be able to control and monitor any parking lot violations by taking parking permits away from those who abuse the privilege of parking in the permitted lots. Currently students at the High School don't all use the High School parking lots available to them. Their rationale is why pay $40 to $80 for a parking permit at the High School when you can park at the Community Center for free. According to school officials, as of July 26, 1999, only 200 of 450 High School parking permits have been sold for the 1999-2000 school year. High School,officials have encouraged City staff to charge a higher fee than the High School to encourage students to use the High School lots first as intended. Staff request is supported by the Eden Prairie Police and the Eden Prairie Schools Administration. Staff have also met with Southwest Metro to secure ample parking for their patrons. City staff will follow the School District guidelines(see Attachment 3) on violation consequences. The Community Center staff will monitor the selling of all Community Center and Round Lake parking permits. Revenue generated from the sale of these parking permits will be used to cover the cost of implementing and enforcing the program. All revenue will be given to the Eden Prairie Police to help cover the cost of additional patrolling and monitoring of those two lots, which will provide a safer parking area for Community Center and park users,as well as Eden Prairie High School students. Background See Attachment 1 —Memorandum to Chris Enger, City Manager, from Bob Lambert, Director Parks & Recreation Services dated June 1, 1999. See Attachment 2—School Administration letter to Bob Lambert dated July 19, 1999 See Attachment 3—Example of letter sent out by High School Administration with explanation of High School Park Permit Program and its cost for the 1999-2000 school year. See Attachment 4 — Layout of Community Center and Round Lake parking lots with explanation of proposed use of those two lots. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends issuing 350 parking permits for Round Lake and the Community Center parking lots for the 1999-2000 school year. If approved by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the City Council, staff would implement this program immediately with direct notice to all parents of High School students entering their sophomore through senior year. Staff would also like to thank the Eden Prairie Police for their willingness to work with Community Center staff in the implementation and most importantly, their agreement to enforce the day-to-day monitoring of these two lots. Staff will issue a full report of this proposed program after its first year of operation. cc: Chris Enger, City Manager Jim Clark,Director of Public Services Dan Carlson,Lieutenant,Eden Prairie Police Randy Thompson, Sergeant, Eden Prairie Police Dennis Paulson,Sergeant,Eden Prairie Police Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services Stu Fox, Manager Parks and Natural Resources Dr.Bill Gaslin, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Cyndie Hays, Principal, Eden Prairie High School Dr. Jerry Figg,Associate Principal,Eden Prairie High School Patricia Magnuson,Director Business Services Woody Franklin,Director of Facilities and Safety Len Simich,Director of Southwest Metro Attachments: Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3A Attachment 3B Parking Permit Application Parking Diagram Lfrey/Memos/Parking Permit Proposal 5 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM To: Chris Enger, City Manager From: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation Services i Date: June 1, 1999 Subject: High School Student Parking Options PROBLEM: The high school has not provided a sufficient amount of parking on their property to accommodate the number of students wishing to drive to their location. Students use the parking lots at the Community Center and Round Lake Park, rather than available high school parking north of the Community Center, as the Community Center and Round Lake Park are free. The problems with students using these parking lots include the following: 1. There is not sufficient parking for Community Center users during the day without assigning parking lot spaces for a 90 minute time limit. 2. When students leave the parking lot at the end of the day, there is a "mad rush" for the exits. This rush for the exits causes a dangerous situation for pedestrians in the Community Center parking lot. City staff have had numerous complaints from Community Center users, especially those parents with preschool age children attempting to walk safely from the parking lot to the Community Center or vice versa, as well as elderly people who are not able to move as quickly as some of the students anticipate. During the spring of the year, we have averaged nearly an accident a week in the parking lot or at Valley View Road near the exits. We have a similar problem with having available parking space for park users in the spring of the year in Round Lake Park, especially in late May and early June when there are more students with driver's licenses and during the time of the year when people want to use the park. These problems will only increase as the number of students at the high school increases. SOLUTIONS/OPTIONS: City staff have met with representatives from the Public Safety Department to discuss options or solutions to the problem. They have recommended considering the following: 1. Lease the parking lots to the School District for their use during school hours on school days. Conditions of the lease should be: 6 ATTACHMENT 2 Eden Prairie Schools, Administrative Services Center 8100 School Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2292 Phone 612-975-7000, Fax 612-975-7020, www.edenpr.k12.mn.us, TDD 612-975-7004 July 19, 1999 Robert A. Lambert City of Eden Prairie Director Parks and Recreation Services 8080 Mitchell road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Subject: High School Student Parking Options Dear Bob: Thank you for your help in reviewing the options regarding High School student parking at the Community Center. The school district administration has reviewed the options as stated. At this time,given staff workload and priorities, the.School District is not interested in entering into a lease agreement with the City for the parking spaces. Therefore, we would choose the second option presented, in which the City would require parking by permit during school hours on school days. To assist you in establishing the cost of permits, below are the prices charged for parking permits on High School property. The School District would be in support of charging slightly higher rates for the spaces at the Community Center to encourage students to choose spaces at the High School. Lot A or B (Close to the High School) $80 per year Lot C (off of Eagle Way near Cty. Rd. 4) $40 per year Bob, let me know how we can be of assistance in publicizing these new parking rules. If you have any further questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, feCrititain. Patricia Magnuson Executive Director of Business Services cc: Cyndie Hayes, High School Principal Jerry Figg, High School Associate Principal William Gaslin, Superintendent of Schools Woody Franklin, Director of Facilities & Safety ATTACHMENT 3A ‘9"-)5 Eden Prairie Schools, Eden Prairie High School National School of Excellence May 14, 1999 Dear Junior, The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the parking permit process for your senior year. Included with this letter is a parking permit form. If you desire a parking permit for next year, you must do the following: • Complete the Parking Permit Application attached to this letter • Attach a check for either$80 for lot A or B, or$40 for lot C • Return the form and check to the receptionist in the 10-12 Student Service Center prior to 4:00 p.m., June 1st • Note: Lot A is north of the high school toward the bubble Lot B is adjacent to the stadium Lot C is east of the high school near the soccer fields and highway 4 Process On June 2 a committee of Junior Student council representatives,Dr. Figg, and Robert Becker will randomly draw permit applications to be assigned to parking Lot A. Once his drawing has filled all available parking spaces in Lot A, remaining applications will be assigned to parking Lot B. Notification of drawing Results of the drawing will be posted outside the 10-12 Student Service Center and at each of the three main entrances to the building on June 3. Distribution of Parking Permits Parking permits will be distributed at the east entrance to the high school on June 7, 8, and 9 from 7:30—3:30. Students must present 1)their student I.D. and 2) drivers license. Permits will be expected on each vehicle the first day of class, September 1. Lot "C" Permits Students who have applied for a parking permit for Lot C will pick up their permit at the east entrance to the high school on June 7, 8, and 9 from 7:30—3:30. Students must present their student I.D. and drivers license to receive the permit. Any remaining permits for Lot C will be held until September for sale to next year's seniors followed by juniors. G:Office/EPHS/Parking/Parking Permit Letter for 2000 ret robe*. 17185 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 5 5 346-42 5 3 Tjt b Phone 612-975-8000, Fax 612-975-8020, www.edenpr.k12.mn.us, TDD 975-8047 A� 3m' �9AL1996 ATTACHMENT 3B PARKING REGULATIONS FOR 1999-00 SCHOOL YEAR Students who choose to drive to school will operate their vehicle in conformance with all rules and regulations of the State of Minnesota, the city of Eden Prairie, and School District 272 Board of Education Policy governing the reserved parking lot. Motor vehicles must be licensed and covered by insurance. The school is not responsible for the motor vehicle or its contents. Because bus transportation is provided to each student in the district, it is important to remember that driving to school is considered a privilege and, with so many students wanting to drive, rules will be strictly enforced. Consequences for violations are as follows: VIOLA.T'ION,CONSIJQ TEATCE `: First Voliton Witten Warning Second Vi©latoi fine weep parlong suspension Third Violation t evoc on of earl ng permit w/o rend Shared Permit Only one car per shared permit can campus at a time Violation of_ thrs policy results in mmediate revocation ofthe p vuitho t refund Display of Perrnit Persons that fail to display a permit at all tines on school ground onti uousl will face ark ... sus ensio and/or r-evocation Y P � P without refund..... Cost of Permits: $80.00/Year-Auto/Truck $40.00/Year- Far east lot, County Road 4 $35.00/Year- Motorbikes/cycles USE/DISPLAY OF PARKING PERMITS Permit owners cannot lend, sell, tamper, alter or trade their permits. Students involved in this will forfeit their permit without a refund. Refunds are available to students wanting to return their permit. You must return the permit to the Security Office. Students who ride-share and share a permit must have all vehicles registered, and only one vehicle can be on campus at a time. NO EXCEPTIONS. Permits are color-coded: seniors will be located in the north main lot and the stadium lot. If there are parking permits available for juniors, they will park in the far east lot located by County Road 4. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS. Violations will result in permit revocation. Parking permits must be displayed at all times. Permits must suspend from the rear view mirror with the printed side facing forward. Students who forget to display their permit will face permit suspensions and/or revocation without refund. See above box for information on violation consequences. 9 ATTACHMENT 3C PERMIT# PAID DATE SHARED PARKING PERMIT APPLICATION Please Print • NAME: GRADE Last First Middle Initial DRIVER'S LICENSE# PHONE ADDRESS ZIP MAKE OF VEHICLE YEAR COLOR LICENSE# MAKE OF VEHICLE YEAR COLOR LICENSE # NAME: Last First Middle knual GRADE DRIVER'S LICENSE# PHONE ADDRESS ZIP MAKE OF VEHICLE YEAR COLOR LICENSE# MAKE OF VEHICLE YEAR COLOR LICENSE# I have read and agree to obey the school parking permit regulations and policies as stated on the reverse regarding the operation of my motor vehicle. I understand that any two violations will result in the revocation of my permit without refund. Date: Signature: Signature: 98-99 / 0 (90 mi Ball field 4 North Community Center �--- Patrons 90 minute parking Staff Parking 29 spaces Permit Required 8 spaces High School Parking Permit Required tz :::.. ...-....].::.:...,:.::::...ii...*:,..,:::::-.-:-.:-..-. Lot B (90 minute) Lot C(all clay) + 131 spaces Lot D (all day) ,„:",:,:„::::::,,,,,.......„......,,,,,,.....„.„......„,...„..,,....„,,,„„„..,,,„,„::„„::,..:,„„.„,„,.„,,,,,,.„.„,„„.„,„„,„,„„,„„„„„„,.,:„„,.„„,„,40, IIIIIIIIIIII G7 :-,.:,, a 0 .iill''.11.11.1111'.:•1:::111.1111-'11111,1113:111111111 H �i;i;[;i�i;i:i=i `?:?L'#i ?:i:i: 't: i ?:?:`i ':::i%if i:i-ii:i2i:'i iii: i ii :2i G i::::r>;%::::. 1 ;; :i N > •• a .>� ...::....... w II ( IIIIIIIII •CI -----........—• '-::::i.::::' '''Ii'''''YII:.:2!4!:::::: :.1i.:4'..1:kgg '''gliaki41J5,BWWiIl4iiWig61.igiOgggff.Mmm • II Valley View Road Southwest Metro Parking Community Center Patrons Permit Required 90 minute parking 42 spaces 85 spaces Lot A: 24 spaces+5 handicapped ' handicapped Z Lot B: 83 spaces +2 handicapped Lot C: 131 spaces + 8 staff ' employee Lot D: 42 spaces V El parking permit required North 18H3igshpaSccehsool Lot E. 83 spaces + 2 Lot F: spaces + 1 handicapped Lo tt G: 6682 s aces + 2 handicapped P Pp Lot H: 40 s aces p handicapped 'n to a rkin r 0mt u Park Pat ons 9 P g 40 aces s P Fa rin only li for ub c is ed a W' r th lot us mte e ^ P Basketball skating rink C High School parking permit required Court Softball field 1 �� iu' S2 spaces 1 High School parking permit required 0 85 spaces \` ` \\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ a i\ i Lot Ice Arena ii:Vi1 ] I L C� co igr....Igkii.1:‘.;:iiti.ci:11.1.11:11:.::-:.::::1:::::::1:::::;L:.:;:iti:::::i t. Par kP atr ons>:::>::::.:::::::::>:>:>: >::> ::::::::s 90 min .............. , ute ar ;<: :<»>::; :; ;::::::;:::.: . ............:::. . �:: ::: ..;:::..:.� .� O :>:;::>:: << ;+`i;':i::a»:;:>::>':>:>:.<;: :>� r :.:;y.;>; :; ::.; >::. � P 1 6s at P c es w Round Lake Ice Arena L.) E-+ E-( Softball field 2 — AN"' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: August 17, 1999 SECTION: Director Parks and Recreation Services SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Renovation of Nesbitt ITEM NO: Parks and Recreation S� Preserve Park Stuart A. Fox, Manager Parks 02.and Natural Resources Requested Action Move to: Award the Nesbitt Preserve Renovation Contract to Ingram Excavating in the amount of$364,908. This is accepting their base bid amount of $421,908 and exercising Alternative No. 8, which reduces the bid amount by$57,000. In addition, all the bids for construction of the Round Lake boat house should be rejected. Synopsis The staff, using a consulting architect and engineering firm, prepared bids and specifications for the renovation of the Nesbitt Preserve Park. These bids were advertised in July and the bid opening was held on August 5, 1999. The staff received a total of six bids for the renovation project, as well as reconstruction of the boathouse at Round Lake Park. Attached is a bid tabulation sheet for those submitted bids. The two low bidders on the two projects were CM Construction and Ingram Excavating. The bid by CM Construction did not meet the completion date of December 15, 1999 as listed in the specifications. Due to that, staff is recommending rejecting the bid by CM Construction. The second bidder, Ingram Excavating, is able to meet the completion date of December 15, 1999 and by exercising alternative No. 8,the projected cost is within the proposed budget. In addition, all of the bidders included a bid price for a new Round Lake boathouse building. The staff is not recommending awarding the contract for this building at the current time due to the need to assess the situation with the Round Lake beach and the Canada goose population. Staff expects to evaluate the status Round Lake beach within the next few months. Until a recommendation for the future of Round Lake beach is made, staff feels it would be best not to proceed with this project. City Council Agenda 8/17/99 Renovation of Nesbitt Preserve Park Page 2 Background Information Over the past 20 years there have been several problems with winter operation at Nesbitt Preserve Park. One of the major drawbacks is the two level warming house facility. Staff recommended renovation of this park and a consulting engineer and architect were used to prepare at final plans for renovation. The projected budget for this renovation is $450,000. The City is responsible for several aspects of the project, including demolition of the existing building, hockey rink boards, and playstructure.and replacing the hockey rink and playstructure. In addition, restoration of the area and landscaping would be done by City staff. The bid specifications that were prepared and advertised included minor regrading of the park to allow for enlargement of the upper parking lot area. The new park shelter would be built north of this parking area and would have water and sewer connections. This project will begin as soon as the City Council approves the award of the contract. The expectation is to have the majority of the work done in time for the winter skating season and the final restoration of the area to be done in the spring of 2000. SAF:mdd A:\Preserve Park Renovation Award\Stuart 1999 z BID TABULATION — Bids Due Thursday, August 5th, 10:00 AM CDT 1999 DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS A. NESBITT PARK PRESERVE RINK SHELTER — Eden Prairie, MN Commission No, 9910 B. ROUND LAKE BOATHOUSE — Eden Prairie, MN General Construction Base Bid Alt I Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Alt 8, Alt 9 Bidder Upgd Upgd Bid Bond Time A Only 8 Only , A and B Omit toilet Omit SKT Omit bnch Omit PNT Shingle Road pave ParkingaveOmit Pave Omit Sewer LS Block Const Dio00 1 1000 bi rvo Il�ao(x0o i o O 3.,bx lrioo �1(16x f21b0(9121 0 lb,bv ✓ ikal covering—Johnson ` 'J M 7/'W 'Oh CW 108o go ' �1K QIIt1 G��1(D tf i3.0G- �m �� I 1 /q McForlond Const >to %IP 11 P f"IWv biter, 'IIGv �f`'vt(/`�li�C7'� !) IDDMax157iq Hunnerberg Const . 901PO0 000 �✓10,0 �,6G�059 16JOCb (oll, p 09 2)i6 l4 oo`Lri6,0 'iotz� dui '77ity2, CM Const v %)•I-0ob'. 'r ,1*-bo 4111100o Iliitp (A'00 not) 400 SiWe> 161002 V.,Sof> N5jav 11I-' /81*Q, GC Ingram Exc v 1110e gbispq, 'I 1 (oo .1UI5. /� SOD ✓�000 2 -'Z1� gliQ4o��6 1 4W i 1 W CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: August 17, SECTION: Report of Comm. Development and Financial Services Director 1999 SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development& Extend Closing date Lincoln Parc Financial Services: Apartments Don Uram -YUD. l David Lindahl Requested Action: Move to: Approve the attached first amendment to the purchase agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and Hartford Financial Services for the sale of Lot 4, Block 1 Eden Prairie Marketcenter Addition. Synopsis: Per the terms of a purchase agreement dated January 19, 1999, the City is in the process of selling Lot 4, Block 1 Eden Prairie Marketcenter Addition to Hartford Financial Services, the developer of the recently approved Lincoln Parc project. The developer is requesting to have the closing date for the sale of this parcel extended from July 22, 1999 to September 22, 1999. The purpose of the extension is to allow the developer more time to obtain approvals for the use of Housing Revenue Bonds to help finance the project. The consideration for extending the closing date will be an additional $15,000 reduction in the earnest money deposit. Attachments: Amendment CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Report of Public Works Services Director SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Engineering Gene Dietz Lincoln Lane Street and Storm Sewer XII. E. 2. Improvements Requested Action Move to: Award Contract for Lincoln Lane Street and Storm Sewer Improvements Staff members are still waiting for information and will distribute it with recommendations on Tuesday evening. FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of August _, 1999 between City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation ("Seller") and Hartford Financial Services, LLC ("Buyer). RECITALS WHEREAS Seller and Buyer have entered into that certain agreement entitled Purchase Agreement, made as of the day of , 1999 (hereinafter Purchase Agreement) for the real property identified as the Northerly 4.83 +/- acres of Lot 4, Block 1, Eden Prairie Market Center, subject to an exact legal description as set forth in the survey referred to therein. (collectively, the Property or "Real Property"). WHEREAS Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Purchase Agreement pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Closing Date referred to Paragraph 6.B. is extended as follows: In consideration of the sum referred to below, the Closing Date for the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement (the "Closing") shall occur on September 22, 1999. The Closing shall take place at 10:00 a.m. local time at the office of the Title Company or at such other place as may be agreed to. Seller agrees to deliver possession of the Real Property to Buyer on the Closing Date. The consideration for extending the Closing Date as set forth in this First Amendment shall be an additional $15,000.00 reduction in the Earnest Money held by Title. By execution hereof Buyer authorizes payment to the Seller from the Earnest Money and Seller shall receive the same immediately upon presenting a copy of this First Amendment to Title. The consideration paid to Seller for this extension of the Closing Date is not refundable to the Buyer under any circumstances except for a default by Seller under this Agreement and shall not be credited to the purchase price. 2. Except as amended hereby the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN AGREEMENT, Seller and Buyer have executed this First Amendment to Purchase Agreement as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC By By Its Mayor Its By Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of 1999, by Jean Harris the Mayor and Christopher Enger, the City Manager, respectively, of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of 19_, by the and , the , respectively, of Hartford Financial Services, LLC, on behalf of the company. Notary Public 3 it CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 8/17/99 SECTION: Report of Public Works Services Director SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Engineering Traffic Signals at CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) Gene Dietz XII. E. 1. and Super Valu Entrance/Market Place Drive Requested Action Move to: Award Contract for Traffic Signals at CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) and Super Valu Entrance/Market Place Drive Staff members are still waiting for information and will distribute it with recommendations on Tuesday evening. OUTLINE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD 1. 3 story-30 unit senior housing located on NE corner of site with park and ride lease at retail strip mall. 2. Maintain south intersection as full access with potential for channelized access in future if traffic safety issue well documented. 3. Gas station reduced in size from 8 to 6 pumps. V4. Limit car wash hours from 6am to 10pm. 5. Use"proof-of—parking" concept at Walgreens to only install what is necessary for operation. 6. Revise grading and landscaping plans to remove fence, add additional landscaping and result in preservation of existing vegetation along the north property line. .2 7 Reduce the number of townhouses by 4, deleting the two lone units on the middle eastern portions of the project and 2 units off the 6 unit section . 8. Install replacement trees for the trees planted on the site for hwy 169 that will be lost in the project. 1