The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council - 09/05/1995 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 6:15 PM, CITY CENTER Heritage Room 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Engineer Al Gray, and Council Recorder I. CALL TO ORDER IL DISCUSSION ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND PRACTICES HI. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT (7:15 PM) AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfmnson, Jr. and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS H. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1995 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUFSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1995 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. BOYCE HOUSE REMOVAL C. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TH 5 IMPROVEMENTS IN CHANHASSEN D. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ANDERSON'S IDLEVIEW (located at the Southwest Quadrant of Technology Drive and TH 169) City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 5, 1995 Page Two E. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LIME RESIDUALS REMOVAL, LC. 95-5389 F. PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the Community Commercial Zoning District on 9.46 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 9.46 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Preserve Village Center by Semper Development located at Anderson Lakes Parkway and C.S.A.H. 18. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Site Plan Review) G. FUDDRUCKERS, INC.& RIO BRAVO CANTINA 2nd Reading of a PUD District Review on 4.02 acre and Zoning District Change from Rural to C- Reg-Ser on 4.02 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Fuddruckers, Inc. & Rio Bravo Cantina by Fuddruckers, Inc. located at U.S. Highway #169 and Technology Drive. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site Plan Review) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1- 9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Resolution for Preliminary Plat and Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5) B. PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF $6,000,000 OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR ANAGRAM INTERNATIONAL PROJECT (Resolution) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution Adopting 1996 Proposed Tax Levv & Accepting 1996 Proposed Budget VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Stephen & Kimberly Niosi to aparove Variance 95-23 denied by Board of Adjustments and Anneals B. Request from The Trails Association City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 5, 1995 Page Three IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Human Rights & Diversity Commission - Diversity Training for Board/Commission Members X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. Award Contract for Atherton Townhomes Drainage and Olympic Hills Golf Course Drainage, I.C. Nos. 93-5332 and 95-5391 F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT Item tiff MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1995 6:00 p.m. CITY CENTER COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP Training Room, 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Ron Case, Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Patricia Pidcock, and Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Julie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, and Director of Assessing and MIS Steve Sinell I. CALL TO ORDER All members were present as the meeting began at 6:30 p.m. The Council and staff had had dinner in the Garden Room beginning at 5:30 p.m. H. CITY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Jullie presented an overview of how the City government is organized to operate its many businesses and services. A booklet distribute to councilmembers was designed to give information which can be used to compare Eden Prairie's structure and services with other cities. Council questions arose on diversity in the City's workforce and on joint powers organizations. The Council requested a brief discussion at a future meeting regarding the joint powers organizations to which City belongs. III. PROPERTY EVALUATION PROCESS Sinell reviewed the property evaluation process followed by the City. He spoke on four topics: 1) Roles and responsibilities of the State, County, and City 2) Eden Prairie assessing policies 3) Eden Prairie assessing practices 4) Property tax process (proposed levy, truth-in-taxation, final levy, tax payments) IV. OTHER BUSINESS None. III. ADJOURNMENT The workshop concluded at 7:25 p.m. Zf� E-8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1995 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCII.MEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson,Jr. and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation&Facilities Bob Lambert,Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS 7ullie added Item IV.L. AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND MEDIA PLAY EXTENDING THE CLOSING DATE, Item IV.M. AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR WESTERN AREA FIRE TRAINING ASSOCIATION (WAFTA) and Item XI.B.1. Discussion of August 30th Scheduled Budget Workshop. Tyra-Lukens added Item XI.A.1. Discussion of Community Needs and Resources Council. Pidcock added Item XI.A.2. Southwest Metro. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. H. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY.AUGUST 1. 1995 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve as published the Minutes of the City Council/Staff Workshop held Tuesday, August 1, 1995. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. AUGUST 1. 1995 Case said the last sentence of Paragraph 4 on Page 6 should be changed to read: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 2 He directed Staff to develop a list of criteria for demonstrating the need for roadways to be connected throughout the City." In addition he asked that the motion on page 7 be changed to reflect his actual motion, as follows: MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, that Staff work with Mr. Dietrich, Mr. Gjersvik and any other affected land owners, to develop a cul-de- sac configuration which brings Forest Hill Road down to the lot line, preserves the right of way to Candace Road, and constructs a bike trail connecting Forest Hill Road and Candace Road along the right of way. Motion carried unanimously." MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to approve as published and amended the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, August 1, 1995. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. FOREST HILLS 8TH ADDITION 2nd Reading of Ordinance 27-95 for Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 9.1 acres and Approval of Developer's Agreement for Forest Hills 8th Addition by Taurus Properties (located west of Baker Road and south of Theresa Place) (Ordinance 27-95 for Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5) C. GRANT OF ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT TO WALLACE HILGREN D. R.A.L.F. APPLICATION AUTHORIZATION FOR BEARPATH REMNANT (Resolution 95-150) E. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY AND PRESERVE BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. I.C. 94-5349 F. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR GOLDEN RIDGE DRIVE/CITY WEST PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS, LC. 94-5360 G. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR CITY WEST PARKWAY/GOLDEN RIDGE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS. I.C. 94-5368 H. RESOLUTION 95-151 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR WALNUT RIDGE (LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF HOMEWARD HILLS ROAD AND RIVERVIEW ROAD) I. APPROVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN SOFTWARE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 3 J. STORM SEWER EASEMENT FROM ATHERTON TOWNHOMES TO THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE K. RESOLUTION 95-152 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ATHERTON TOWNHOMES AND OLYMPIC HILLS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. I.C. 93-5332 AND I.C. 95-5391 L. AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND MEDIA PLAY EXTENDING THE CLOSING DATE M. AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR WESTERN AREA FIRE TRAINING ASSOCIATION (WAFTA) MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson to approve Items A-M on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. KINDERCARE by Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 2.75 acres. Location: Hwy. 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment) John Dietrich, representing RLK Associates and Kindercare, reviewed the project and the changes in the plans done in response to the Planning Commission and Staff suggestions. He noted that the current plans are contingent upon MNDoT allowing fill onto their right of way. Pidcock questioned the safety of children using the facility because of the power lines in the area. Dietrich said they have taken readings off similar types of power lines and are comfortable with this location. Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6-1 vote at their August 14th meeting. He noted that the project had been revised to meet all of the recommendations in the Staff Report of July 21, 1995, as well as recommendations made by the Planning Commission at their previous reviews of the project. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 4 Pidcock said she would like to add a recommendation that Kindercare make anyone using the facility aware of the power lines and the possibility of electro- magnetic emissions. City Attorney Pauly said there is nothing in the City Code that would address adding such a recommendation to the zoning process; therefore, it would depend on proponent agreeing to it. Dietrich said Kindercare would prefer not to have such a condition placed on the site plan approval. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. B. REFUNDING OF $7.300.000 BONDS FOR OLYMPIC RIDGE HOUSING PROTECT (Resolution 95-155) Jullie said Staff recommends approval of this refunding transaction. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution 95-155 authorizing the refunding of bonds for the Olympic Ridge Housing Project. Motion carried unanimously. C. VACATION 95-07:DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN PART OF HARTFORD PLACE 2ND ADDITION (OUTLOTS A & B) (Resolution 95- 153) Jullie said this is a housekeeping item. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution 95-153 vacating the drainage and utility easements. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pidcock, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST FROM STEPHEN AND KIMBERLY NIOSI TO REVIEW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS DENIAL OF VARIANCE#95- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 5 7ullie said Staff recommends that the appeal be considered at the September 5th Council meeting. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to schedule review of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decision for the September 5, 1995 City Council Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. PRESENTATION BY MnDOT REGARDING PROPOSED INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE I-494/TH 169 INTERCHANGE Ron Rauchle, MNDoT engineer and I-494 project manager, reviewed the plans for MNDoT's interim improvements to the I-494/TH 169 interchange. He said the interim improvements were designed to help accommodate the increased traffic flow expected when the new Minnesota River crossing and other improvements to County Road 18 are completed. Construction of the interim improvements is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1997. Harris questioned what will be developed as part of the project. Rauchle said they may begin construction next summer of the one temporary bridge that will be required in order to complete the rest of the construction in 1997. He noted that they have funding for the project and that they will maintain traffic in all directions during the construction. Case asked if they could use fly-over ramps in this structure. Rauchle said that, except for the bridge, all of the interim construction would have to be redone for the interchange proposed for the I-494 project. He said the frontage road connects to the ramps. Pidcock asked if they have talked with the businesses in the area and if they have determined whether the project will impact the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. Rauchle said it probably will not have an impact on the shopping center. He said they have made presentations to the City Staff of all of the cities involved; they have offered to make presentations to the public and to the City Councils; and there will be a public hearing for the project this fall or winter. Rauchle said the businesses will be impacted by the construction; however, the access will be maintained. Thorfinnson asked if they have information on current traffic counts and if they have estimated traffic counts once the bridge across the Minnesota River is completed. Rauchle said they expect the traffic to double to about 50,000 vehicles by the year 2015. Thorfinnson asked if they anticipate what will happen when the river bridge opens a year before this project is completed. Rauchle replied that not all traffic will be allowed across the bridge this fall and they are looking at speeding up this project as much as possible. Thorfinnson noted that the I-494 Corridor Commission could help communicate to the employers in the area. He said it is critical that the access points from the frontage roads be kept open. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 6 Pidcock asked if they have provided for a fast lane and if they have given consideration to dealing with the public transit system. Rauchle said they have not made the transit system aware; however, they are just beginning the public information process. He said the third lane on I-494 will be designated as a diamond lane. Tyra-Lukens asked if there will be diamond lanes in both directions. Rauchle said there will be; however, their research indicates that there will probably be a low usage of the diamond lane because many of the trips in this area are short ones. Pidcock asked if they have studied employment statistics in the area in view of the many businesses that are located near here. Rauchle said that has been taken into account as part of the larger I-494 project and the information will be incorporated into this project. Pidcock then asked the source of their statistics. Rauchle replied that the consultant they hired used figures from the Met Council and from the three cities involved. Pidcock recommended that MNDoT re-examine the projections and get information from Staff. Rauchle said they have used the City land use plans and the comprehensive plans and have updated those as part of this project. Harris thanked Rauchle for his presentation and asked him to keep the Council informed as the project progresses. C. REOUEST FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUTTON PLACE BY BUILTWELL CONSTRUCTION Jullie said the discussions with proponents for the Sutton Place development have not produced an agreement regarding their desire to have the City involved in the improvement project. Michael Posnick, representing Builtwell Construction, said they feel this is a matter of fairness and, to the extent that funding is available from outside sources, it should be made available. He said they have contacted the County and they cannot understand why they haven't been approached to share in the improvement costs. He said they do not believe that the storm sewer is needed since their property can be drained through surface drainage and percolation. They believe the storm sewer is being required because the City wants it. He said some of the items in the Staff Report are not accurate. Alan Gray reviewed a drawing showing the approved plans for the segment of street under discussion and the drawing showing the street segment as the proponent is requesting. He said proponent says they cannot build the construction access as presented in the original plan. The City would provide an easement for the storm sewer, and the storm sewer will be slightly oversized to help accommodate the properties downstream. He said the City believes that this is a fair proposal and there is no financial hardship for proponent. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 7 Case asked how the figure of approximately $9,000 per unit for the infrastructure costs compares to the average in other projects. Gray replied that it is average to below-average. Case asked about precedent. Gray said that the developer in several other developments in the area have constructed the storm sewer infrastructure with additional capacity. Posnick said the Council proposed the separate construction entrance, and the County is placing the location of that entrance where the County's road access will be. He said they cannot build the roadway so that it will fit into the County's road without reconstruction. He said the materials submitted to the Staff, Planning Commission and the Council stated that the City and County would pay for all utility costs for Sutton Drive and County Road 4. Gray said the record contains comments from Mike Franzen stating that the County would only construct the entrance and the developer would have to absorb the rest of the costs. Case asked, if the grade issue exists, can it be remedied. Gray said he would have to see some specific drawings and elevations to show that it is not feasible. Posnick said they are prepared to build the road and pay for it as long as they are the only users. He said they were asked to put the road in the northeast corner of the property to provide an entrance for the Senior Center and the park once the county road improvement is completed. He said Staff should get together with the County on the road and the storm sewer line is not needed. Dietz said the road is being placed where because they anticipated a need for access to this property and the property to the south during the development stage of the County Road 4 plans. The location was a negotiated one with Hennepin County to provide access to all properties on County Roads 4 and 1. It is not a road built to serve the Senior Center. Thorfinnson said he took exception to the comment that there will be more traffic from the Senior Center in light of the number of trips anticipated from this development. He said he has a problem with the petition because we approved a higher density in this project than he was comfortable with at the time of Council review. He questioned the ability of this property to drain itself because of the number of units being developed. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to deny the petitions for public improvements. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 8 IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES X. APPOINTMENTS A. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION- Appointment of Flying Cloud Business Representative to fill vacant term to 2/28/96 Pidcock nominated Alan Nitchman. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to appoint Alan Nitchman to serve on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission through February 1996. Motion carried unanimously. B. NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT-Request from Aileen Kulak to recommend her reappointment as a Manager to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to recommend to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners that Aileen Kulak be reappointed as Manager of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Motion carried unanimously. XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Discussion of Community Needs and Resources Council Tyra-Lukens said the CommunityNeeds and Resources Council has been Y working on the "Turn Off the Violence" campaign that will be held in October. She handed out packets to the Councilmembers, noting that this campaign started in Eden Prairie several years ago. They are trying to work the campaign into a City-wide event. She reviewed several of the ideas they have come up with for the campaign. They are also working on integrating conflict resolution training into City activities year round. Harris asked what kind of support she is seeking from the Council. Tyra- Lukens said they would like support of the conflict resolution skill building for Commissions and support for the October "Turn Off the Violence" campaign. 2. Southwest Metro Pidcock said Southwest Metro will be holding a joint meeting with Plymouth and Minnesota Valley to discuss suburban replacement transit. She said Bob Renner will serve as the facilitator, and the date of the meeting is August 24th at the City Center. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1995 Page 9 B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Jullie said Tyra-Lukens will not be able to attend the August 30th meeting. The consensus was to hold the meeting on Thursday, August 31 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS. RECREATION & FACILITIES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. Award Contract for City Center Site Lighting Improvements, I.C. 95- 5390, (Resolution 95-154) Dietz reviewed the bids received for relocating and supplementing the lights near the City Center entrance. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to adopt Resolution 95-154 Awarding the Contract for I.C. 95-5390. Motion carried unanimously. F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. DATE: Erz. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Ana SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR 9-5-95 DEPARTMENT: IT.EVI DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO_ Finance - Pat Solie CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST IV.A THESE LICENSES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEADS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LICENSED ACTIVITY. CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM. ) GAS FITTER Bissonett Construction Services Dinius Plumbing Company Bradley Building Corp. St. Marie Sheet Metal , Inc. Integrated Construction Services M.P. Johnson Construction Swedenborg-Shaw Construction, Inc. H€ATING & VENTILATING -Energy Solutions International , Inc. PLUMBING St. Marie Sheet Metal, Inc. 3-D Heating Company Bradley Plumbing Dinius Plumbing Company Southwest Plumbing REFUSE HAULER Independent pumpster Services Corp. • Action/Direction. • 9-5-95 page 1 - -� EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: Sept. 5/95 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. I V. B DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Boyce House Removal Recreation and Facilitics Robert A. Lambert IIJ�,�,�""� BACKGROUND: At the August 1, 1995 meeting, the City Council directed staff to pursue demolition of the Boyce house and abandonment of the facilities on the property. Staff was also directed to obtain quotes from individuals that purchase houses for moving and having the house removed from the property. Staff contacted three companies that purchase and move houses and requested them to look at the property and provide a quote to move the building or purchase the building and remove it from the site. The three house movers were Doepke Building Movers, Semple Building Movers and Otting House Movers. Two of the three did call after reviewing the site and indicated they were not interested in moving the house due to the configuration of the house. The house would have to be cut in three separate pieces for moving, and anytime time a house has to be cut for moving the cost increases dramatically. Staff also talked to three demolition companies regarding demolishing the house, swimming pool, sidewalk, deck, and the shed on the west corner of the lot. Two of the companies were interested in the project and submitted quotes. DKH Excavating, Inc. submitted a cost estimate of $23,800 and Herbst and Sons Demolition submitted a quote of $24,500. Both companies' quotes included filling in the sites with clean fill to the natural contour. Neither bid includes removal of hazardous materials, tires or batteries. Additional costs to the City will be closing the well and closing the septic system. Closing the septic system will cost approximately $250 and closing the well will cost approximately $300. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests authorization to contract with DKH Excavating, Inc. to remove the house, garage, swimming pool, sidewalk, deck and shed at 14350 Pioneer Trail for an amount not to exceed $23,800, and to proceed with other contractual services necessary to remove these facilities. Funding for this project can be provided through cash park fees that have been projected for upgrading this site. BL:mdd Remove/Bob 1 DATE: 09/05/95 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: i f/, (, SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Divisi TH 5 Improvements in Chanhassen Eugene A. Dietz Requested Action: Adopt resolution supporting the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition position of support for improvements on TH 5 from Powers Boulevard to TH 41 in Chanhassen. Background: The City of Eden Prairie has been a long standing member of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition. The coalition has supported the improvements of Th 212 and a variety of improvements to TH 5. Although there is no particular benefit to the City of Eden Prairie for improvements in Chanhassen, the group has been united in its approach to improving the overall transportation system in this sector of the metropolitan area. Staff therefore recommends the resolution be adopted. 449111111111 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING T.H. 5 IMPROVEMENTS IN CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is a member of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition, a group of private companies and public agencies advocating transportation improvements in the southwest metropolitan area; WHEREAS, safety improvements and increased traffic capacity projects are needed for T.H. 5 from Powers Boulevard to T.H. 41 in Chanhassen; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen, the City of Chaska, and Carver County have contributed financially to the completion by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) of studies to document the need and has completed or is in the process of completing engineering and design studies for the projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL supports MnDOT's application to the Metropolitan Council for inclusion of the project to improve TH5 in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the 1996-1998 State Transportation Program (TIP) ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 5, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk /v- C. Z Transportation Coalition Southwest Corridor/ "Working to improve Highways 5 and 212." August 14, 1995 John Frane City Clerk City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mithcell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear John, The Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition has been advocating improvements to the corridor's transportation system. The coalition which includes numerous cities, counties, and private companies located along Highways 5 and 212 has been successful in obtaining federal demonstration funds for projects and has assisted the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) in acquiring right of way for completing the Highway 212 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). We need your help. MNDOT will be submitting an application for Highway 5 improvements to the Metropolitan Council for inclusion in the region's Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed project will expand Highway 5 from Powers Boulevard to Highway 41. To assist MNDOT with the proposal, we have prepared the enclosed resolution for your consideration. If the council approves the resolution please send or FAX a copy to: Gene Ranieri Coalition Coordinator Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 2950 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 - 4100 FAX (612) 339-0854 Thanks for your cooperation. If possible the resolution should be considered before September 1, 1995, and if you have any questions or need additional information please contact Gene at (612) 339 - 8291. Sincerely, aztzeze Bob Lindall President and Chaska City Council Member ill- C. 3 DATE: 09/05/95 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: ///. D SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Anderson's Idleview Jeffrey Johnson Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Anderson's Idleview subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $853.00 • Receipt of deed for Outlot A • Receipt of conservation easement for the protection of trees • Execution of reciprocal easement agreement for access purposes and maintenance of private pond and storm sewer • Revision of plat deleting public easement over ponding area. Background: This property, located at the southwest corner of Technology Drive and Trunk Highway 169, is the site of the proposed Fuddruckers and Rio Bravo restaurants. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council August 1, 1995. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement is scheduled for the City Council meeting September 5, 1995. JJ:ssa cc: Land Form Engineering Company IY. D / a1 Itp f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ANDERSON'S IDLEVIEW WHEREAS, the plat of Anderson's Idleview 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 Anderson's Idleview is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated , 1995. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision 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 September 5, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk i v, D- 2 1 ANDERSON'S IDLEVIEW • • . 1 R.T. C i - — — ..:1 $ "- ''. ,;.;•.".. ' ' . 3r--- -• I _ - ?,•,, ... I; , , TECHNOLOGY 'e I 0 - . -.:.---- DRIVE , /-c 1 C .• . . ...„, ___, „ , 7, • >... C\J , , I ..: _ . ; . . ., . .1 ' $. ,..,• • .•, 4' -i' 1 CS) 74 . ; '' -=.--- . •-' "•-•--'•"--_ -2 i . , '';:',.-• , "',..-::•-•• . 3. L a ' - LAKE iDLEWILD ,,,.. 1 . ....: SCALE IN F=ET . - DATE: 09/05/95 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: l f/. SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Award of I.C. 95-5389: 1995 Lime Residuals Removal Mary Krause Recommended Action: Award of Contract for I.C. 95-5389 to Rehbein, Inc. in the amount of $195,200.00. Overview: One bid was received as follows: Rehbein, Inc. -- $195,200.00 Primary Issues: A review of 1994 unit bid prices showed a range from $9.95-$13.15 per cubic yard. The bid received from Rehbein of $12.20 per cubic yard is within that range. The bid received from Rehbein is considered to be reasonable. Financial Issues: This project is paid for out of the Utility Enterprise Fund as a necessary maintenance project. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 95-5389 - 1995 Lime Residuals Removal bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to REHBEIN, INC. as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with Rehbein, Inc., in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $195,200.00 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 5, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-5-95 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. Jr. f. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER Donald Uram Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the Community Commercial Zoning District on 9.46 acres; • Approve a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 9.46 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Zoning Ordinance 2. Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING 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 zoning of the land be amended within the Community Commercial Zoning District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning of the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the Community Commercial Zoning District, and the legal description of land in such District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and is amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be developed in accordance with plans dated July 13, 1995. SECTION 6. 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 18th day of July, 1995, 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 5th day of September, 1995. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on . PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING 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 at Anderson Lakes Parkway and C.S.A.H. 18 within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 9.46 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Legal Description Exhibit A Preserve Village Center Outlot E, Garrison Forest Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota; Subject to easements and restrictions of record, in any. PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER BY SEMPER DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Semper Development has applied for Site Plan approval of Preserve Village Center on 9.46 acres for construction of a one-story, 13,905 square foot free-standing Walgreen's and the renovation of the existing building facade and resurfacing the parking areas located at Anderson Lakes Parkway and C.S.A.H. 18 to be zoned within the C-Comm Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its June 26, 1995, 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 18, 1995, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Semper Development for the construction of a Walgreens, based on plans dated July 13, 1995, between Semper Development and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 5, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ir - PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of September , 1995, by Semper Development, Ltd., a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend Developer's Agreements between Ryan Construction of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie for Jerrys Super Value, dated August 7, 1979 and February 3, 1988, (hereinafter the "Developer's Agreement"). WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 9.46 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.46 acres and Preliminary plat of 9.46 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of a Walgreens drugstore and renovation to the existing Preserve Village Center, all on 9.46 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No._-_and Resolution No. q5-)?3, Preliminary Plat and Resolution No. , Site Plan Review, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 18, 1995, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. UTILITY PLANS: Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for repairing the existing storm sewer and flared end section in the southwest corner of the project site. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. LAND ALTERATION PERMIT: Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City, and obtain the City's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property. Developer agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the Citys Erosion Control Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit D. 5. SLOPE RESTORATION: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City and receive the City's approval of detailed plans for slope restoration on the west property line behind Jerrys NewMarket as depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said slope restoration. Developer shall implement the approved plans, as part of the site construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City and receive the City's approval of a final landscape plan for the property. Said landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City, and receive the City's approval of the exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property in the manner as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit, and water meters in addition to standard HVAC units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall - 7 take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed. 9. NURP POND FEE: Concurrent with building permit issuance, the developer has agreed to pay a proportionate cost of a NURP pond to the Storm Water Utility Fund to construct regional NURP ponds. The portion applicable to the Developer of the Preserve Village Center is $35,000. The payment of this fee is in lieu of any obligation to construct any storm water improvements other than those depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto. 10. PROOF OF PARKING: Developer and City acknowledge that 47 proof of parking spaces are proposed for the Property, depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and are designated for the use by Preserve Village Center and Walgreens. Said spaces are not required to be constructed at this time. However, said spaces may be required to be constructed in the future if it is determined by the City, in its sole discretion, that it is necessary. At such time as City, in its sole discretion, may determine that it is necessary for the required 47 proof of parking spaces to be constructed, the following shall occur: A. City shall notify the Developer in writing that it must construct the required 47 proof of parking spaces. B. Within six months of the receipt of written notice from the City subject to delays caused by weather, Developer agrees to have completed construction of the required 47 proof of parking spaces, as determined by the City, in the location as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 11. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign to be located on the property, Developer shall obtain a City sign permit. Said application shall include complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, 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, all in accordance with Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a. 12. PARKING LOT AND BUILDING LIGHTING: Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for parking lot and building lighting on the Property in the manner as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said lighting is to be a maximum of 25 feet in height and designed specifically to eliminate off-site glare. If, after completion of installation of said lighting, it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that the lighting does not meet the Code requirements for off-site glare, then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to eliminate any off-site glare in order to meet Code requirements. 13. Developer agrees to all and reaffirms all of the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of "Developer" under the Developer's Agreement, except as inconsistent with or amended by this Supplement. OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN SEMPER DEVELOPMENT,LTD. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE C / INC. �,(/ kV) THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of September ., 1995,by and between NNE RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,hereinafter referred to as "City": For,and in consideration of,and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No._ amending the zoning of a 9.46 acre parcel of property owned by Owner within the C-Comm District,as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of September , 1995, by and between Semper Development,Ltd.,a Minnesota Limited Partnership,and City,Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Semper Development, Ltd., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof,Owner shall not oppose City Council action to revoke the Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 9.46 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.46 acres and Preliminary plat of 9.46 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of a Walgreen's drugstore and renovation to the existing Preserve Village Center approval, thus restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner,its successors, and assigns of the Property only if owner or any such successor or assigns elects to develop the project identified in the plans submitted by Semper Development, Ltd. in connection with the Developer's Agreement. 3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. This Section 3 shall not apply in the case of a transfer of the Property to Semper Development, Ltd. 4. Owner is executing this supplement to the Developer's Agreement for the sole and express purposes of agreeing to the terms hereof and of consenting to the execution . of said Developer's Agreement; but by doing so Owner does not assume any obligations of the Developer under said Developer's Agreement unless Owner proceeds with the development of the property. 5. If the Property has not been transferred to Semper Development, Ltd. on or before November 30, 1995, City agrees to restore the status of the Property to the status which existed before this project was approved. JVF—1 v EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-5-95 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. g & DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger FUDDRUCKERS, INC. & RIO BRAVO CANTINA Don Uram Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 4.02 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.02 acres; • Approve a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Zoning Ordinance 2. Site Plan Resolution 3. Developer's Agreements �. G • _ I FUDDRUCKERS, INC. & RIO BRAVO CANTINA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 28-95-PUD-14-95 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 District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development C-Reg-Ser Zoning District 28-95-PUD-14-95 (hereinafter "PUD-14-95-C-Reg-Ser"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of September 5, 1995, entered into between Fuddruckers, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-14-95-C-Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-14-95-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-14-95-C-Reg-Ser 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-14-95-C-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-14-95-C-Reg-Ser 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 District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-14-95-C-Reg-Ser 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 1st day of August, 1995, 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 5th day of September, 1995. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on • 1.�L G• • - 3 FUDDRUCKERS, INC. & RIO BRAVO CANTINA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 28-95-PUD-14-95 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 at U.S. Highway #169 and Technology Drive from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.02 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the . (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) t '1. G. - Lk 07/26/1995 13:51 6124753159 LANDFORM ENGINEERING PAGE 02 J.Et;AL DESCRIPTION Exhibit A That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 14; thence on an assumed bearing of South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West along the West line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 135.23 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 294.90 feet; thence Easterly along a tangential curve to the right, having a radius of 641.20 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 244.19 feet; thence South 64 degrees 03 minutes 49 seconds East, along a line not tangent to said curve, to the South line of the North 193.50 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence Westerly along said South line to the West line of said Northeast Quarter, thence North 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds East along said West line to the point of beginning, included within the following described parcel of real estate: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southerly of Line "A" and its Westerly extension, Westerly of Line "B" and its Southerly extension, and Northerly of Line"C" and its Easterly extension. Lines "A", "B" and "C" are described as follows: Line "A": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 135.23 feet to point of beginning of Line "A" to be described; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 126.00 feet and there terminating. Line"B": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 135.23 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 126.00 feet to the point of beginning of Line "B" to be described; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, parallel with said West line,a distance of 145.00 feet and there terminating. Line"C": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 319.23 feet to the point of beginning of Line "C" to be described; thence North 69 degrees 18 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 106.55 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 27.00 feet and there terminating. 07/26/1995 13:51 6124753159 LANDFORM ENGINEERING PAGE 03 That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 14; thence on an assumed bearing of South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West along the West line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 135.23 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East a �-' distance of 294.90 feet; thence Easterly along a tangential curve to the right, having a radius of 641.20 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 49 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 244.19 feet; thence South 64 degrees 03 minutes 49 seconds East, along a line not tangent to said curve, to the South line of the North 193.50 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence Westerly along said South line to the West line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds East along said West line to the point of beginning, except that part of Parcel 1 included within the following described parcel of real estate: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southerly of Line"A" and its Westerly extension,Westerly of Line "B" and its Southerly extension, and Northerly of Line "C" and its Easterly extension. Lines "A", "B" and "C" are described as follows: Line "A": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 135.23 feet to point of beginning of Line "A" to be described; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 126.00 feet and there terminating. Line "B": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 135.23 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 126.00 feet to the point of beginning of Line "B" to be described; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, parallel with said West line, a distance of 145.00 feet and there terminating. Line "C": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 319.23 feet to the point of beginning of Line "C" to be described; thence North 69 degrees 18 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 106.55 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 27.00 feet and there terminating. 07/26/1995 13:51 6124753159 LANDFORM ENGINEERING PAGE 04 That part of the South 370 feet of the North 563.5 feet of that part of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, County of Hennepin, lying Westerly of the centerline of U.S. Highway No. 169(formerly State Highway No. 5), lying Westerly of Line "A" and its Southerly extension and Northerly of Line "B" and its Easterly extension; Lines "A" and "B" are described as follows: Line "A": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 135.23 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 126.00 feet to the point of beginning of Line"A" to be described; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West parallel with said West line, a distance of 145.00 feet and there terminating. Line "B": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West,bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 319.23 feet to the point of beginning of Line "B" to be described; thence North 69 degrees 18 minutes 01 second East a distance of 106.55 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 27.00 feet and there terminating. The South 370 feet of the North 563.5 feet of the part of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying Westerly of the centerline of U.S. Highway No.169(formerly State Highway No. 5) except that part thereof embraced within the plat of ANDERSON 1DLEWILD ADDITION and except that part thereof lying Westerly of Line "A" and its Southerly extension and Northerly of Line "B" and its Easterly extension; Lines "A" and "B" are described as follows: Line "A": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 135.23 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 126.00 feet to the point of beginning of Line "A" to be described; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West parallel with said West line a distance of 1 145.00 feet and there terminating. Line"B": Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 24 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 319.23 feet to the point of beginning of Line"B" to be described; thence North 69 degrees 18 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 106.55 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 27.00 feet and there terminating. That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 116, Range 22 lying East - of the Easterly line of Registered Land Survey No. 895, South of the Easterly extension of the North line of said Survey,West of the Westerly line of ANDERSON 1DLEWILD ADDITION and North of the Following described line: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Registered Land Survey No. 895; thence on an assumed bearing of South 05 degrees 09 minutes 26 seconds East along the East of said Survey a distance of 298.00 feet to the -- point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 69 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 126.49 feet to the Westerly line of ANDERSON IDLEWILD ADDITION and said line there terminating. I' G. -- 7 FUDDRUCKERS, INC. & RIO BRAVO CANTINA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR FUDDRUCKERS, INC. & RIO BRAVO CANTINA BY FUDDRUCKERS, INC. WHEREAS, Fuddruckers, Inc. has applied for Site Plan approval of Fuddruckers, Inc. & Rio Bravo Cantina on 4.02 acres for construction of a 4,900 sq. ft. Fuddruckers and a 7,000 sq. ft. Rio Bravo Cantina on approximately 4.02 acres located at U.S. Highway #169 and Technology Drive to be zoned C-Reg-Ser on Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its July 24, 1995, 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 August 1, 1995, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Fuddruckers, Inc. for the construction of two restaurants, based on plans dated July 27, 1995, between Fuddruckers, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 5, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk �' C3 . - g DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FUDDRUCKERS INC. I THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of August &9 �, 1995, by Fuddruckers, Inc., a Texas 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 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 4.02 acres,PUD Concept Review on 4.02 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 4.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 4.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and Preliminary plat of 8.53 acres into two lots, one outlot and road right-of-way for construction of a Fuddruckers restaurant,situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota,more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" _-/v-9S NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No.2g-9S-PIIQ Zoning District Change, PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review,Resolution No. 9S-/y4,Preliminary Plat and Resolution No. Site Plan Review, Developer upon acquisition of the Property, covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and. approved by the City Council on August 1, 1995, revised and dated July 27, 1995, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms,covenants,agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto',and made a part hereof. 3. UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of utilities for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Developer shall implement the approved plans,prior to building permit issuance,in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. CROSS ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to release of the final plat, the Developer shall enter into an executed cross access and maintenance agreement, approved by the City Engineer, which addresses vehicle access, maintenance of parking areas, driveways, private utilities and storm sewers. All of these facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer or owner. Developer shall record said cross-access and maintenance agreement in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar's Office and submit evidence of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner,and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. FINAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: FINAL GRADING PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property,Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading plan for the Property. The final grading plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading plan. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit and obtain City Engineers approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. 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. Developer shall implement the approved plans,prior to grading permit issuance,in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. PRETREATMENT PONDS: Prior to approval of final plat on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer,plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed; and receive City Engineer's approval of said plans. Upon completion of the building construction,theDeveloper shall verify the original design volume of the treatment pond to ensure that pond size has not diminished because of sedimentation/erosion and to restore original volume if sedimentation/erosion has occurred. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by 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 approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Tom- G. - 10 Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. • Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C,attached hereto. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C,attached hereto. 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's 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 as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. 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. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. - 9. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property in the manner as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit, and water meters in addition to standard heating,ventilating, and air conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. Implementation shall occur concurrent with building construction. If,after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening,it is determined by City, in its sole discretion,that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing,adjacent land uses,then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 10. 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,Recreation, and Natural Resources,and obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for sidewalks and trails to be constructed on the Property. Said sidewalks and trails shall be constructed in the following location: An eight-foot wide bituminous trail beginning at the south property line where the existing trail ends and continuing along the base of the retaining to the western property line then out to Technology Drive, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. � G. - I ( Developer shall implement the approved plans,concurrent with street construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto • 11. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY: Prior to the release of the final plat,Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement as depicted in Exhibit E for review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. The location for this easement is shown on the approved plans (Exhibit B). Upon approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources, Developer shall execute, deliver and record the Conservation Easement in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrars Office and shall provide evidence of the recording of Conservation Easement prior to the release of the first building permit. 12. DEDICATION OF PARK LAND: Developer agrees to dedicate Outlot A to the City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, mortgages for wetland preservation purposes. The dedication of the Outlot A to the City shall occur concurrent with the release of the final plat. 13. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD -/V-9S : Waiver from the frontyard parking setback requirement of 35 feet to allow for a frontyard parking setback of 10 feet along Technology Drive and U.S. #169. 14. FINAL ORDER NO. 95-25: Developer has obtained approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for variances from City Code requirements within the C-Reg Service District for lot sizes less than 10 acres,building setbacks less than 200 feet, parking setbacks less than 50 feet and impervious surfaces exceeding 30%on the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said approval has been granted through Final Order#95-25, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Developer agrees to comply with all requirements of said Final Order No. 95-25. Developer agrees to file Final Order No. 95-25 of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the Property at Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar's Office prior to the building permit issuance. Prior to the release of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to provide proof of filing to the City Planner. 15. TRASH:Developer agrees that all trash,trash receptacles and recycling bins shall be stored inside of the enclosures for each restaurant as depicted on Exhibit B. Fuddruckers Inc. OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN FUDDRUCKERS,INC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of June 20, 1995, by and betweerpaul Anderson , individual$hereinafter referred to as"Owner,"and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,hereinafter referred to as"City": PO-it/-9S For,and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No. gschanging the zoning of the Property owned by Owner in the Rural District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of June 20, 1995,by and between Fuddruckers, Inc., a Texas Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Fuddruckers, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof,Owner shall not oppose City Council action to revoke the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 4.02 acres, PUD Concept Review on 4.02 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 4.02 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 4.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and Preliminary plat of 8.53 acres into two lots, one outlot and road right-of-way approval, thus restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property only if owner or any such successor or assigns elects to develop the project identified in the plans submitted by Fuddruckers, Inc. in connection with the Developer's Agreement. 3. If Owner transfers such Property,Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. 4. Owner is executing this supplement to the Developer's Agreement for the sole and express purposes of agreeing to the terms hereof and of consenting to the execution of said Developer's Agreement; but by doing so Owner does not assume any obligations of the Developer under said Developer's Agreement unless Owner proceeds with the development of the property. TV— � - 13 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FUDDRUCKERS INC./RIO BRAVO CANTINA THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of August 29 , 1995,by Edgebrook,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 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 4.02 acres,PUD Concept Review on 4.02 acres,PUD District Review with waivers on 4.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 4.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and Preliminary plat of 8.53 acres into two lots,one outlot and road right-of-way for construction of a Fuddruckers restaurant,situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota,more fully described in Exhibit A,attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. /y-9.5 , Zoning District Change,PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review,Resolution No. 9S-/yfPreliminary Plat and Resolution No. Site Plan Review, Developer upon acquisition of the Property, covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and. approved by the City Council on August 1, 1995, revised and dated July 27, 1995, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms,covenants,agreements,and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto.and made a part hereof. 3. UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of utilities for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Developer shall implement the approved plans,prior to building permit issuance, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. CROSS ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to release of the final plat, the Developer shall enter into an executed cross access and maintenance agreement, approved by the City Engineer, which addresses vehicle access, maintenance of parking areas, driveways, private utilities and storm sewers. All of these facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer or owner. Developer shall record said cross-access and maintenance agreement in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar's Office and submit evidence of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner,and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. FINAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: FINAL GRADING PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property,Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading plan for the Property. The final grading plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading plan. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer-shall submit and obtain City Engineers approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. 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. Developer shall implement the approved plans,prior to grading permit issuance, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. PRETREATMENT PONDS: Prior to approval of final plat on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer,plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed; and receive City Engineer's approval of said plans. Upon completion of the building construction,the Developer shall verify the original design volume of the treatment pond to ensure that pond size has not diminished because of sedimentation/erosion and to restore original volume if sedimentation/erosion has occurred. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by 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 approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. G - IS Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's 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 as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. 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. Developer shall implement the approved plans, concurrent with building construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property in the manner as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit,and water meters in addition to standard heating,ventilating,and air conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property,per City Code requirements. Implementation shall occur concurrent with building construction. If,after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening,it is determined by City, in its sole discretion,that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing,adjacent land uses,then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 10. 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,Recreation, and Natural Resources,and obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for sidewalks and trails to be constructed on the Property. Said sidewalks and trails shall be constructed in the following locations: An eight-foot wide bituminous trail beginning at the south property line where the existing trail ends and continuing along the base of the retaining to the western property line then out to Technology Drive, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer shall implement the approved plans,concurrent with street construction on the Property, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto 11. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY: Prior to the release of the final plat,Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement as depicted in Exhibit E for review and approval by the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources. The location for this easement is shown on the approved plans (Exhibit B). Upon approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources, Developer shall deliver and record the Conservation Easement in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrars Office and shall provide evidence of the recording of Conservation Easement prior to the release of the first building permit. 12. DEDICATION OF PARK LAND: Developer agrees to dedicate Outlot A to the City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, mortgages for wetland preservation purposes. The dedication of the Outlot A to the City shall occur concurrent with the release of the final plat. 13. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD -IV-9S . Waiver from the frontyard parking setback requirement of 35 feet to allow for a frontyard parking setback of 10 feet along Technology Drive and U.S. #169. 14. FINAL ORDER NO. 95-25: Developer has obtained approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for variances from City Code requirements within the C-Reg Service District for lot sizes less than 10 acres,building setbacks less than 200 feet, parking setbacks less than 50 feet and impervious surfaces exceeding 30%on the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said approval has been granted through Final Order#95-25, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Developer agrees to comply with all requirements of said Final Order No. 95-25. Developer agrees to file Final Order No. 95-25 of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the Property at Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar's Office prior to the building permit issuance. Prior to the release of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to provide proof of filing to the City Planner. 15. TRASH:Developer agrees that all trash,trash receptacles and recycling bins shall be stored inside of the enclosures for each restaurant as depicted on Exhibit B. 16. RIO BRAVO CANTINA SITE PLAN REVIEW: Developer acknowledges that the Rio Bravo site plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual and that the site may develop with a different restaurant or with a different design. Any changes to the site plan, which in the sole discretion of the City Planner, is determined to be significant,will be required to go through the Site Plan review process in accordance with City code. IV G-, - 1-7 Fuddruckers Inc./Rio Bravo Cantina OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN FUDDRUCKERS,INCJRIO BRAVO CANTINA AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE fielev f1 kikivalv THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of June 20, 1995, by and betweenAPaul Anderson ,. individuaj$hereinafter referred to as"Owner,"and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,hereinafter referred to as"City": - NO-ry-9S For,and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No.zy__. changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner in the Rural District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of June 20, 1995,by and between Edgebrook,Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation,and City,Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Edgebrook, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose City Council action to revoke the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 4.02 acres, PUD Concept Review on 4.02 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 4.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 4.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and-Preliminary plat of 8.53 acres into two lots, one outlot and road right-of-way approval, thus restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property only if owner or any such successor or assigns elects to develop the project identified in the plans submitted by Fuddruckers, Inc. in connection with the Developer's Agreement. 3. If Owner transfers such Property,Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. 4. Owner is executing this supplement to the Developer's Agreement for the sole and express purposes of agreeing to the terms hereof and of consenting to the execution of said Developer's Agreement; but by doing so Owner does not assume any obligations of the Developer under said Developer's Agreement unless Owner proceeds with the development of the property. -6- . - Ig EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-5-95 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V A. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5; • Adopt a Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line; • Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 42.2 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat. BACKGROUND: This project was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 26, 1995. The Planning Commission continued the project until the August 14th meeting and directed the developer to prepare a traffic study and revise the plan to address issues on transitional plantings, architectural diversity, roads, drainage, sidewalks, tree replacement and Indian burial mounds. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project at the August 14, 1995 meeting. The project was approved based upon a plan for 48 units. At the July 26th meeting,Wally Hustad, area resident, questioned the statistics on page four of the July 21 st Staff Report regarding the Riverview Heights proposal. The statistics have been modified to correct the gross acreage, net density and number of units in the project. Mr. Hustad felt that the flood plain area should be included in the calculation of gross density for the Riverview Heights project. However, the flood plain was not included as part of the plat. The flood plain is proposed to be gifted to the City. For statistical comparisons, regardless of the status of the flood plain as dedication or gift, the gross acreage of the Riverview Heights project would be 65 acres and the gross density would be .48 units per acre. Mr. Hustad's point is that the Laukka Jarvis project on the gross and net density is greater than the other single family projects in the area. At the July 26th Planning Commission meeting, area residents expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic on Concord Drive. The traffic study indicates that 18 more cars will use Concord Drive in the morning and the evening. The traffic study also recommends stop signs at the intersection of Riverview Drive and Concord Drive. There are Indian burial mounds on the property. These mounds are part of Phase II and Phase III which will not be developed at this time. Field archeological work is necessary before the developer can proceed to a final plat. This is the same requirement as Riverview Heights and Walnut Ridge. Supporting Reports: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 11, 1995 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 24, 1995 3. Staff Report dated August 11, 1995 4. Staff Report dated July 21, 1995 5. Correspondence 6. Resolution for Guide Plan Change 7. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 8. Resolution for Preliminary Plat V, A,- 2. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT FOR LAUKKA-JARVIS, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Laukka- Jarvis Development PUD Concept by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. and considered their request for approval for development(and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on September 5, 1995; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Laukka-Jarvis Development being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated August 30, 1995. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated July 24, 1995. ADOPTEDby the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of September, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk V, A.- 3 LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT FOR LAUKKA-JARVIS, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Laukka-Jarvis Development for Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. dated August 30, 1995, consisting of 43.2 acres, 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 5th day of September, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk V. A . - �-I LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan("Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS,the proposal of Laukka-Jarvis Development by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. to amend the MUSA line; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: .5 acres to be added to the MUSA line located South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. ADOPTEDby the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of September, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk V, A . - S JwL Z.y, 199S V. PUBLIC HEARTh►�..i ie,„,,in Comw �isston rkpp foJecQ es A. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on15.2 acre, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 52 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. Peter Jarvis from Laukka-Jarvis Development reviewed the proposed plans for the site. He advised the Commission that it is their intent to dedicate 12 acres of open space and 17 acres of flood plain to the City. He went on to explain that approximately 15.2 acres is slated for development. The type of home to be offered is expected to appeal mainly to young professionals and empty nesters. Jarvis presented artist renditions of the development pointing out that the homes would offer three floor plans, nine elevations, and three variations of options. Construction would include vinyl siding, chimney caps, and accents of brick, stone, and ornamental metal. Each home would have a front fence and gate as well as a side yard privacy fence. Lots on the south end of the project would back up to the bluffs, while interior lots would open up to a common pond and wooded area. The price of the homes would run from approximately $225,000 up to $300,000. Jarvis stated that the winding pathway behind the development is no longer a part of the proposal because the neighbors did not like it. However, they do propose a trail along the east end of the property as well as a rustic path in the woods around the NURP pond. Franzen stated the staff recommends approval of the plan as proposed, according to Alternative I of the Staff Report, subject to changes in architecture, landscaping and road alignments. Or, as he pointed out, the Commission may choose Alternative II or III. Wissner asked how much additional bluff area would be open to development should someone propose a single family development. Jarvis explained that such a proposal could include approximately 13 additional acres, about 50% of which is wooded area. Richard Crosby. 10366 Concord Drives expressed concerns about additional traffic in the area. He feels traffic is already heavy on Concord, and this development would add much more. He is also concerned about tree loss and erosion. He stated that there are a number of large oak trees at the top of the property that would be removed for the project. Crosby also felt that the design does not fit into the neighborhood community. He would like to see a more traditional single family home development. 4 vA. - 6 Steve Ruiting. 10422 W. Riverview Drive,is not concerned about the proposed density. However, he does not like the one larger single family lot on the corner of the project. He would like to see a different transition to the neighborhood. Mark Wall. 10400 W. Riverview Drive,also does not like the one larger single family lot on the corner. He feels it does not fit. Tammy Schulman. 12076 Riverview Road,.dislikes the one larger single family lot. Additionally, she feels that the proposed project does not fit the neighborhood. She stated that it is currently a family neighborhood and would like to see more of the same. She expressed concern for the additional traffic. She also felt that the project would cause the area to deteriorate both naturally and culturally. Sharon Clements, 10299 Concord Drive,is concerned about the traffic that will be generated for Concord Drive. She pointed out that Concord is a very curvy street and drivers already drive to fast on it. Wally Hustad. 10470 Whitetail Crossing. had three major concerns; precedence, density, and transition. In regards to precedence, he stated that the area along the bluffs has historically been the estate area with large lots. He feels the density of the project is too dramatic a change in the area. He also feels that transition to the area is poor and is concerned about both utility and road access. He is against the proposed trail along the west side of the property. Laura Blumel, 10540 W. Riverview Drive, also feels the project is a poor transition to the neighborhood because of the small lot size. She is concerned about the bluff area that is being dedicated to the City that is really a bribe or carrot. She inquired as to who will be responsible for maintaining the area, controlling dumping, and be liable for injuries incurred by people who enter the bluffs. She fears the City will eventually turn the area into a park. She would like to see the open space retained as private property. She would also like to see the road to the northeast of the project completed to divert some of the traffic off of Concord Drive. Kelly Huhler. 12300 Riverview Road. is concerned about the extra traffic the project will bring to the area. She cited vehicles speeding, juvenile parties, dumping, and fire setting, as problems that residents are already experiencing. She is afraid that introducing a new trail in the bluffs will increase these problems. Chris Anderson. 10346 Concord Drive. is also concerned about the amount of traffic on Concord Drive. Gail Diehl. 10530 W. Riverview Drive. objects to the density of the project. She would like to see the natural openness of the area preserved. Kevin Blum1. 10540 W. Riverview Drive,requested that an analysis be done on the traffic patterns, volumes, and the intersections for the area. 5 VA . - 7 Kirby Bayerle, 10488 W. Riverview Drive, dislikes the density of the development. Greg Huhler. 12300 Riverview Road, fears that the proposed density will generate too much traffic for the existing road structure to handle. Jeff King. 11817 Riverview Road,feels the increased traffic for the area will be too dangerous. He does not feel that this is an appropriate development for the area. Kardell asked about the lighting for the development. Jarvis indicated that the area would have normal street lighting. Additionally there would be a light on each garage that would go on automatically at dusk. Franzen talked about the proposed trail plan and how it is impacted by the Wild Life Refuge Plan. He also stated that the City will examine how Riverview Road might be developed to provide access to the 19 acres to the west of the project. They will also address concerns about the MUSA line, which Franzen pointed out will only require minor adjustments. Jarvis stated that the density factor is not significantly different in the number of homes it will allow. He explained that the proposed development is expected to generate less traffic than the traditional single family development. He pointed out that young professionals and empty nesters generally make fewer trips than young families with their many activities. Sandstad asked about the plans for the isolated single family lot that many of the residents have objected to. Jarvis indicated that they are prepared to loose that lot. Kardell summarized the concerns heard from the residents. They included traffic increase, distribution patterns and stop signs; density issue and loss of openness; tree loss on the top of the bluffs; community issues, different types of homes appealing to empty nesters rather than families; public safety issues due to trails and the traffic they might bring into the bluffs; visual transition, utilities, and access to other property; and the issue of precedence. Schlampp stated that he sees nothing wrong with the homes appealing to an alternate lifestyle, adding diversity to the area. However, he feels that the City will need to complete a further traffic study, and Concord Drive needs a sidewalk. Additionally, he feels that the developer needs to soften and improve the transition. Foote feels that the isolated single family lot needs to be eliminated. However, he does feel that the proposed project is the best way to develop the area. Wissner stated that she was excited about the proposal. She encouraged people to see the Parkers Lake project in Edina to get an idea of what the proposed development will look like. Wissner agrees that the isolated single family lot should be eliminated, a further traffic study should be done, and a sidewalk 6 vA. - g should be placed on Concord Drive. Sandstad pointed out that the Commission considers what is in the best interests of the entire community. This goes beyond the immediate neighbors and the developer. He agrees with the need for diversity. He also agrees that the isolated single family lot should be removed. He stated that he believes this project would generate less traffic than additional single family homes. Clinton stated that his main concerns for the area also include traffic, speed, and flow. He too, believes that the City must maintain a balance in the types of homes offered, and does not see density as an issue in this case. He also feels the single family lot should be removed. Kardell said she is excited about the project. She feels there needs to be a further traffic analysis to look at what alternative access roads may be possible, as well as the street radius issue. She also feels the City needs to address concerns of access to adjacent property. Wissner inquired why the developer wants to keep the home that is currently existing on a lot in the project area. Jarvis explained that they feel it is a nice home and can be worked into the development. It will undergo some changes so that it will blend in. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to continue the public hearing to the August 14, 1995 meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. vA. - 9 AC ,A.s+ I , I9`tS ..r.: Y‘C. A+.% S45r.. PProJtaC2._ E5 B. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. Franzen noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission asked for the developer to prepare a traffic study, and complete the detailed changes listed in the Staff Report regarding landscaping, architectural diversity, sidewalks, tree replacement and roads. These have been completed. Peter Jarvis from Laukka-Jarvis Development reviewed the revised changes for the site. The changes include that the 52 lots are now 48 lots, 25 foot setbacks are met everywhere and the free standing lot on the northeast corner has been eliminated. One additional change not reflected in the Staff Report is to have a sidewalk on only one side of the street, and an 8 foot bituminous trail. This was a requirement of the Parks Commission. Franzen indicated that the Parks Commission recommended that the majority of the trees to be replaced should be hardwoods, specifically oak, maple and ash, which are in the revised plans. The results of the traffic study are reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended Alternative 1 listed in the Staff Report. Sandstad asked if the stop sign at County Road 4 and Riverview will be a 4 way stop. Gray replied that it's a possibility and could be more than 2. The recommendation is eastbound westbound stop. Foote asked if there are any plans to extend Mooer Lane. Gray replied that at the current time there isn't a plan to construct a residential street on a right-of- way. It would depend on what benefits there might be from doing that and would likely be built when homes are built adjacent to it. 2 VA . - )0 Rick Crosby, residing at 10366 Concord Drive, noted that he is not comfortable with the density transfer. He feels a more fair and reasonable plan would be to put R1-13.5 on the bluff next to R1-22 and R1-44. Nick Gatto, residing at 10253 Concord Drive, expressed concern about the traffic pattern. He lives right on the corner of Concord and Homeward Hills. His driveway is on a steep slope and he's concerned about the increase in traffic by the blind corner. He's also concerned about the safety of his 3 small children as a result of the increase in traffic. He doesn't understand how the Engineering Department came up with half the traffic to go down Riverview and half to go up Concord. He was also concerned about people not staying within the 30 mile per hour speed limit. Gray noted that once the straightening out expansion of Riverview Road takes place, it's going to make a big difference in the traffic. Kardell suggested neighborhood newsletters or neighborhood watch programs to help with the speeding problem. Sharon Clements, residing at 10299 Concord Drive, noted that she lives at the other corner, and when she runs with her husband there have been many times when she has had to step back to avoid being hit by cars at that corner. She feels that 18 more cars in that area will increase the traffic very much. She is not in favor of removing trees to open up the blind spot at that corner. Laura Blumel. residing at 10540 W. Riverview Drives expressed concern about the density and the fact that it's 6 to 7 units per acre. She is concerned about there being only 10 feet between houses. This is an area where it's supposed to be sensitive to the bluff yet there will be runoff in the area where it will be susceptible to erosion. She questioned about anywhere else in the City this type of zoning is permitted. Franzen noted that the cluster homes that Centex built are on 5000 to 8000 square foot lots. There is also an older part of Eden Prairie off of Summer Hill Drive that have a 10 foot setback in between the buildings. Blumel was concerned that there is not a good transition. She noted that it's a poor move to put a much higher density of houses at the beginning of the traffic pattern because all this traffic then moves through the loop. She also expressed concern about the donated property. She resents the fact that they're making a change in her neighborhood to get some access to a natural resource. She would like that area protected. 3 Franzen noted that there City is no density transfer from the flood plain. If a full transer occurred, there would be 108 units in the upper flat portion of the property. There is partial density transfer off the bluff only. Colin . residing at 12173 Riverview Road, agrees with Laura Blumel. He is opposed to the increased density and it doesn't make sense in terms of the traffic. He commented that Concord is not a straight road, that it curves in and out and there are always parked cars there. Most of the cars travel down the middle of the road and it's more of a danger for the children. Robert Gertinger, residing at 10326 Concord Drive, was concerned about the traffic issue. He was also concerned about the amount of houses, and the houses being so close together. He noted that people are not going to use Riverview Road no matter how many lanes are put on. Jarvis indicated that it was not their intent to develop the low area below the bluff. Their idea was to consolidate development on top of the bluff and preserve the bluff and flood plain. The neighbors are talking about high density, but they are forgetting the fact that 44 units could be developed on this property including under the 13.5 combination of 13.5 and 22.5. Foote feels this is an extremely responsible way to develop adjacent to the bluff area. He noted that traffic is a problem everywhere, and that the people who live in the area are the ones who are speeding. He likes the idea of staying off the bluff, putting houses on top of the bluff, and saving the trees. He supports the project. Schlampp agreed. It's a good development, and the improvement on Riverview Road will alleviate a lot of problems. He supports the project. Sandstad stated that the project is very much improved from the first time around. It works on every basis that they compared it to, and he supports the project. Clinton noted that there isn't anything they can do to stop the speeders when the speeders are the people from the neighborhood. He supports the project. Kardell indicated that she supports the project. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Laukka-Jarvis Development for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. Motion carried 6-0-0. V, � . - ) 2_ STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: August 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Laukka-Jarvis PUD APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. LOCATION: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. 1 V. A . - 13 - •I' I*::.----5---j - 'vr---11 ,,,,,,`"''. tic*. 444irtiouta._ ....: r: . -. : Iltri P V 6 • „ •,,,,E, ,.k,e4. IlinviniNgliens:141414,* 04.1%, t- N/4 DMV R C TO y IF 1,. ,-,,rit, .. ge- 4k, ,. . ... Allilejg t; IVY, IlOr'littAk.1.4... ,,-; .:1';;:r;olcgi:43.7.1 0 4011 1.... • . PIONEER_. visa 0 00, .. i 77 4.6„ . , •2 or y ildi"lwrio r-g; Olitimpr/ -- .-- Irriliiiii 1 E.,K - ■ I L ,r _" ..,r w•niiii �'' � ♦ Lau : _ , '. .. .� , S� sflit -• mill it Lit obi .2 rprii / C: ' a" t-ir" 2 It A F:��' nt t • ��:� I Ems"-9111U .n.■ "' gli t4i1" 4% 41% • 4.4deD AE t.:-.0y,,, ...t. „,r hist, ' . .- r , 1 • -_, , AA: .1.0-4 ara wAkok ....1.1.= ., . .41p, -4,•. 1.4. at t �� 0.♦ . eissiNos ovele-41- i VoN, • ----. Le* I. or, -.Arirt4:1, , it 4. ‘ 4.00---Aew . A ,4 0 it s t 3j. 'Isis 6 II. riteivkiii.... 15,-, Q, _„. : _ , 1. 4114- .•b:13.?4,11 , ,4",.....,17. ,.., 1 6.__NagimareAsnia. NI II 11,1 • IIUlim�irigi. •. ►, .�� •M ;AP/ 1. / - ... tit • • °' 41 , 7 AiRPA .% i.• ' ' tra4V47.L '*: ,•40'*.t 4111 .4- V 4401 • OAKS' :. .;:i!:..iiY:::...':.:::.::. ' -.. 61TE .. r. *°*° 44 "14(\''Ar''' -.. 1 14'44iiiiir. I ESTA.5 L 1 M M 1 Staff Report Laukka-Jarvis Development August 11, 1995 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the July 26, 1995 meeting. The Planning Commission directed the developer to prepare a traffic study and revised the proposal as follows: 1. Submit a detailed landscaping plan which provides for significant plantings along the north, east and west edges of the property as a visual buffer to the lower density residential areas. The plan must show the type, size and quantity of proposed materials. The plan should include a mixture of 8 to 10 foot high conifers and 3 to 5 inch shade trees. The plan should also include 2, 3 inch shade trees or 2, 6 foot conifers per lot. 2. Prepare an architectural diversity plan with no two units alike, side-by-side, opposite or diagonally across from each other. 3. Prepare a revised site plan with a 150 foot road radius and both streets aligning at right angles to Riverview Road. 4. Revise the storm sewer plan to provide a rear yard storm drainage along the Bluff and extending storm sewer along a portion of the eastern lots. 5. Revise the site plan to show a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along both sides of Street A. 6. Prepare a tree replacement plan for 203 caliper inches, the majority of which must be hardwood varieties. 7. Prepare a revised preliminary plat depicting lots on the south side of the property as an outlot to cover the Indian burial mound area. REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS The revised development plans meet items 1-7 listed above. Item 5 was modified by the Parks Commission to a sidewalk on one side of street A and to build an 8 foot wide bituminous trail on the south side of Riverview Road. Item 7 is addressed as Phases 2 and 3 which will be platted into an outlot at final plat. Final lot approval cannot occur until additional archeological work is completed. TRAFFIC The traffic study prepared by Jim Benshoof and Associates calculates the total daily traffic from this project at 364 daily trips. The traffic distribution chart on Figure 1 shows that approximately 50% of the traffic would use Concord Drive and 50% of the traffic would use Riverview Road. If Mooer Lane is extended, 10% of the traffic from Concord Drive would use that road. 2 V. A , - !S Staff Report Laukka-Jarvis Development August 11, 1995 The peak hour traffic would be 36 vehicles leaving the site, with 18 traveling north on Concord Drive and 18 traveling east on Riverview Road. The peak hour and total daily traffic numbers are within the design capacity of the road. The traffic study also recommends that a stop sign be installed at Concord Drive and Riverview Road. This will help slow down traffic in the neighborhood. STREET LIGHTING Street lighting will be the standard city requirement of one light fixture every 200 feet on one side of the street. ACCESS TO UNDEVELOPED LAND WEST OF THIS SITE Riverview Road will be the access to land west of this project. HOW WILL UTILITES BE EXTENDED TO THE PROPERTIES WEST OF THIS SITE Utilities will be extended to the properties west of this project when Riverview Road is upgraded. INDIAN BURIAL MOUNDS The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed this project at the July 24, 1995 meeting. The HPC passed a motion recommending that the Laukka Jarvis development comply with State Statute 307 regarding treatment of burial sites on the proposed development property. The Commission further recommended that a 75 foot buffer be maintained around each burial site (mound) perimeter according to the buffer policy defined in Statute 307.08. Prior to implementation of the Phase II area, the project must be reviewed by the HPC. The development plans for this project show Phase I, Phase II and Phase III. The Planning Commission would be giving preliminary plat approval for lots on the south side of Riverview Road and a rezoning to R1-9.5. At the time of final plat, Phases II and III would be platted as an outlot. These lots cannot receive final plan approval for smaller lots until the project has returned to the HPC Commission for a review of additional archeological work. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development staff presents the Planning Commission with the following alternative design possibilities for the property. I. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the density transfer and the site plan as proposed, then one option would be to recommend approval of the Planned 3 V. k - ►b Staff Report Laukka-Jarvis Development August 11, 1995 Unit Development with waivers. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion controls for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Submit a final architectural diversity plan. B. Submit a final landscape plan and security. 4. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall stake the proposed construction limits with the tree fence. Said fencing shall be installed at a minimum of 48 hours prior to grading and receive approval by the City Forester. 5. Planned Unit Development waivers are granted for street frontage, lot size, and front, rear and side yard setbacks for all lots. 6. Dedication of 12 acres of river bluff and 17 acres of flood plain shall occur at final plat approval. H. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the concept of a density transfer, but believes that the site plan is tight and a transition to the surrounding areas is needed, then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued with direction to revise the plan. III. If the Planning Commission does not believe that density transfer is the appropriate land use, then one option would be to recommend that the property be developed for a single family development similar to the Timber Bluffs,Riverview Heights, and Walnut Ridge projects. Staff would recommend Alternative I. 4 V, A. - 7 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: July 21, 1995 SUBJECT: Laukka-Jarvis PUD APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. LOCATION: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 52 lots. 1 V. A. - � g Staff Report Laukka-Jarvis Development July 21, 1995 IS THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN? The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this site as Low Density Residential and Open Space. Open Space is the area below the 720 elevation or 100 year flood plain. The property, as guided Low Density Residential, permits up to 2.5 units per acre. Since densities are calculated on gross acreage basis, a total of 108 housing units are possible. The actual densities permitted are based upon performance standards of the City code. The project is 52 single family lots at a gross density of 1.20 units per acre. IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS PROPOSED WITH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS FOR LOT SIZE, STREET FRONTAGE, AND BUILDING SETBACKS,A BETTER USE OF THE PROPERTY THAN IF THE PLAN IS DEVELOPED CONSISTENT WITH OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS APPROVED ON THE MINNESOTA RIVER BLUFF? Historically, the City has used the Planned Unit Development Process to encourage a more creative and efficient development of property. By waiving City code requirements for densities, lot sizes, and setbacks, the City has benefitted from preservation of natural features, dedication of open space, housing variety, architectural diversity, sidewalks and trails, and landscaping beyond what could be required by complying with the strict intent of zoning and subdivision regulations. This PUD plan is similar to most Planned Unit Developments in that the City is asked to approve density, lot size and setback waivers which benefits the developer, in exchange for the developer dedicating 12 acres of Minnesota River Bluff and 17 acres of flood plain, providing housing variety and architectural diversity, sidewalks and trails, and heavy landscaping, which benefits the City. The review of a Planned Unit Development is more than a benefits analysis. It is also an evaluation of what the property would look like if it was developed in accordance with the strict application of the zoning and subdivision regulations, an analysis of the drawbacks of the Planned Unit Development, and impacts on surrounding uses. The City has approved three subdivisions on the Minnesota River Bluff. The City, by approving Timber Bluffs, Riverview Heights, and Walnut Ridge believes that low density, single family developments are an appropriate land use on the River Bluff. These projects were approved at an average net density, exclusive of the flood plain, at 1.16 units per acre, an 18% overall tree loss, and an average lot size of about 30,000 sq. ft. The Timber Bluffs project was approved with units at the top of the Bluff with the Bluff face preserved by conservancy easements. The Riverview Heights and Walnut Ridge project were approved with units terracing down the Bluff face from Riverview Road to the Minnesota River. A 75 foot wide space adjacent to the Minnesota River for each project was dedicated to the City as a trail corridor. Staff Report Laukka-Jarvis Development July 21, 1995 If the same development standards were applied to this site, staff believes that 36 single family homes could be built. This plan would have standard lots on the top and larger lots on the Bluff face. Access to the Bluff face lots would be by a cul-de-sac. Staff believes that units would be more visible on the Bluff as compared with the other three residential projects to the east, because there is a smaller percentage of total tree cover on this site. The density of the R1-9.5 area, not including the NSP easement, is about 4.5 units per acre. The highest single family, small lot density approved by the City is the Centex Ridgewood cluster lots off Cumberland Road at 3.5 units per acre. That project did not include any dedication of natural features to the City. That area was designated Medium Density Residential on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Lot size waivers were granted to 5,000 sq. ft. within average lot size of 8,000 sq. ft. Front, rear and side yard setback waivers were not granted. This project requires a 25 foot front yard setback, 5 foot sideyard setbacks, and a 10 foot rear yard setback to decks. The small lot sizes and reduced setbacks creates a visually tight project. This must be weighed against the benefit gained by the consolidation of 12 acres of open space on the Minnesota River Bluff to be dedicated to the City. Architectural diversity, unique architecture, and heavy landscaping may be mitigating reasons to consider the tighter site plan. Properties to the north and east are zoned R1-13.5. The property to the west is zoned Rural, but guided Low Density Residential. The properties on the north and west sides are impacted the most, since the properties on the east side are separated by the NSP power easement with setbacks between buildings of approximately 200 - 250 feet. Plantings are proposed along the eastern boundary line to help with the visual transition. The properties to the west and north do not have the benefit of a large horizontal distance between densities. Lots 1 6 on the west side of the property have rear yard setbacks of 20 feet to Riverview Road and 10 feet if decks are constructed. There is no transition in the current plan. The transition to the single family lots on the north side is mitigated somewhat by side views into the project and plant materials. If transition to the west is needed, an option would be fewer lots and more plantings. If a transition to the north is needed, an option would be larger lots and plantings abutting Riverview Road. INDIAN BURIAL MOUNDS There are six previously identified Native American burial mounds on the property. In compliance with Minnesota State Statute, 307,the State Archeologist must be notified to authenticate the burials. These mounds are generally located in the area of Lots 8 - 12, along the Minnesota River Bluff. A visual inspection of the property by Chandra Mockee, Archeologist, indicates that disturbance to the area suggest that the mounds have been destroyed, but recommends that an archeologist monitor the area around the mounds during construction activities. John Gertz,Historical Interpreter for the City, believes that the lack of a burial mound feature does 3 V, 2-0 not mean that the burial does not exist. Mounds may have been impacted or completely removed due to plowing, erosion, etc., yet the actual burial remains below grade. Field work is necessary in this area. This should be completed prior to any approval for development. One option would be to approve the project in two phases, leaving the area of burial mounds as an outlot and require the developer to return through the Planning Commission and City Council for a review of final plans after the field work is completed. The other option is to continue the project until the field work is completed. The Developer is making a presentation on the project and a discussion of the burial mounds will occur at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on Monday, July 24, 1995. IS THE PUD CONCEPT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROJECTS APPROVED ON THE MINNESOTA RIVER BLUFF? The chart below compares the densities and lot sizes with other projects along the Bluff. This project has a higher net and higher gross density than the other projects. Density transfers on the other projects were possible, but the amount of transfer would be limited due to steep slopes and tree cover. Walnut Ridge and Riverview Heights were continuous tree covered slopes from Riverview Road to the flood plain. Significant grading and higher tree loss would be needed to make smaller lots feasible. This proposal has approximately 15 acres of relatively flat, to gently rolling land, with fewer significant trees, making it a better candidate for greater density transfer and higher density. NTROPERTYM SENWALNITTMON NRIVERVIEWN MILAUKKAM FATS RIDGEIMBLUFFSMa NMHEIGHTSImJ`A�tVIS . Gross Acres 33.39 acres 41.2 acres 23.85 acres 43.2 Gross Density .66 du/acre .34 du/acre 1.30 du/acre 1.2 Net Acres 14.79 acres 22.4 acres 23.85 acres 26.2 Net Density 1.49 .62 1.30 1.7 Average Lot Size 25,600 63,000 32,457 6,670 Gross Tree Loss 20% 15% 17% 15.9 Net Tree Loss 39% 74% 50% 50% Flood Plain Acres 18.6 acres 18.8 acres 0 acres 17 Units 22 14 31 52 Bluff Dedication 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 12 acres Trail Dedication 75 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. part of flood plain Flood Plain 0 0 0 17 acres Dedication 4 Staff'Report Laukka-Jarvis Development July 21, 1995 IS THE TREE LOSS WITH THIS PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROJECTS APPROVED ON THE BLUFF? City code requires a tree inventory of all deciduous trees greater than 12 inches in diameter and conifer trees grater than 8 inches in diameter. The tree inventory shows 7091.5 inches of significant trees. There are groupings of smaller trees or large non-significant trees such as elm and boxelder that will be cut down where homes and roads are proposed. These trees do not meet the diameter and or species requirement and are not required to be inventoried or be subject to tree replacement. Timber Bluffs was approved with a 15% significant tree loss. Riverview Heights was approved at a 17%significant tree loss. Walnut Ridge was approved at a 20% significant tree loss. This project is a 15.9% significant tree loss, or 1127 inches. The average residential tree loss is 30%. There are 7,091.5 inches of significant trees on site. A total of 2,293.3 inches of significant trees are above the Bluff and a total of 4,798.2 inches on the Bluff and in the flood plain. Tree replacement is at 203 inches. TRAFFIC Riverview Road is a local residential street. The size of the road is based upon existing developments in the area and the development potential on developed property at a density of 2.5 units per acre. At 2.5 units per acre, 108 housing units would be possible, for a total of 1,080 daily trips. This project would generate 520 trips per day. Traffic will increase on Riverview Road and other local streets, but is less than what was projected. DOES THE PROJECT MEET SHORELAND REGULATIONS? The Shoreland Ordinance is defined as a 300 foot distance from the riverbank of the Minnesota River or the landward extent of the flood plain. The flood plain encroaches onto the lower portion of the property. No lot lines, fill, or tree removal occurs within the Shoreland area. Since no lots are proposed in the Shoreland area, provisions of the Shoreland ordinance do not apply. ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY AND STREETSCAPE APPEARANCE In the R1-9.5 Zoning District,the City policy is an architectural diversity plan, such that no two units are alike, side-by-side, opposite or diagonally across from each other. There are 9 individual house plans, some are front loaded garages, some of which are side loaded. While an architectural diversity plan has not been prepared, staff believes that after evaluating the type and variety of units, that it would be possible to meet the City policy. Since the units are placed closer together than what the ordinance allows, architectural diversity and unique architecture is needed, as a mitigating reason for PUD waivers. 5 V, A. - 21 UTILITIES Sewer and water service is available in Riverview Road. A pretreatment pond is shown on Outlot B. Since it is not physically possible to construct an emergency overflow, the Engineering Division is requiring that the pond design be based on a 200 year storm, as compared to the standard 100 year storm event. There is a storm sewer outlet from the pond. The preliminary plat must be revised to show a 20 foot wide drainage utility easements over all storm sewer lines. The rear lots along the Bluff must have a rear yard storm sewer system to prevent erosion on the Bluff. The storm sewer must be extended along the rear lot lines of Lots 13 - 14, Block 2, to pick up rear yard drainage. ROADS The Engineering Division recommends that street A be aligned at right angles to Riverview Road. The Engineering Division also recommends that the curve in the southeast portion of Street A be redesigned to meet a 150 foot radius. This will require the removal of Lot 6, Block 1, and result in longer driveways for the perimeter lots. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS Due to the density of the project, there should be a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on both sides of the street A. MUSA LINE AMENDMENT A MUSA line amendment is needed for portions of lots along the west side of Street A. The MUSA line amendment is approximately one-half acre. Since the Guide Plan allows 108 units based on 2.5 units per acre, and the development plan is 52 units, at 1.2 units per acre, the request for a MUSA line amendment is reasonable. The MUSA line amendment must be approved by the Metropolitan Council after City Council action. An alternative to a MUSA Line Amendment would be to shift the road and units to the east, so that no portion of any lot is outside of the MUSA line. LANDSCAPING Due to the difference in density next to existing neighborhoods, the staff recommends a revised landscape plan with a minimum of two 3" shade trees, or two 6'high conifers per lot, plus perimeter screening of 8 - 10 foot high conifers and 3 - 5 inch shade trees. 6 CONCLUSION Staff believes that the development plan as proposed, with Planned Unit Development waivers, is a better use of the property than if developed as a standard single family development. The Planned Unit Development has the following benefits: 1. Dedication of 12 acres of open space. 2. Dedication of 17 acres of flood plain. 3. Low tree loss at 15.9%. 4. Unique architecture. The drawbacks to the Planned Unit Development are: 1. Smaller lots and a tighter site plan with little open space between buildings on each lot. 2. Higher densities next to existing R1-13.5 neighborhoods. The staff believes that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of the project provided that an architectural diversity plan and revised landscape plan for interior and perimeter plantings is required. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The Community Development staff presents the Planning Commission with the following alternative design possibilities for the property. I. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the density transfer and the site plan as proposed, then one option would be to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development with waivers based on 12 acres of dedicated Riverbluff, 17 acres of dedicated flood plain, architectural variety and based on the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall: A. Submit a detailed landscaping plan which provides for significant plantings along the north, east and west edges of the property as a visual buffer to the lower density residential areas. The plan must show the type, size and quantity of proposed materials. The plan should include a mixture of 8 to 10 foot high conifers and 3 to 5 inch shade trees. The plan should also include 2, 3 inch shade trees or 2, 6 foot conifers per lot. 7 July 21, 1995 B. Prepare an architectural diversity plan with no two units alike, side-by-side, opposite or diagonally across from each other. C. Prepare a revised site plan with a 150 foot road radius and both streets aligning at right angles to Riverview Road. D. Revise the storm sewer plan to provide a rear yard storm drainage along the Bluff and extending storm sewer along a portion of the eastern lots. E. Revise the site plan to show a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along both sides of Street A. F. Prepare a tree replacement plan for 203 caliper inches, the majority of which must be hardwood varieties. G. Prepare a revised preliminary plat depicting Lots 8 - 12 on the south side of the property as an outlot. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion controls for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Submit a final architectural diversity plan. B. Submit a final landscape plan and security. 4. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall stake the proposed construction limits with the tree fence. Said fencing shall be installed at a minimum of 48 hours prior to grading and receive approval by the City Forester. 5. Planned Unit Development waivers are granted for street frontage, lot size, and front, rear and side yard setbacks for all lots. II. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the concept of a density transfer, but believes that the site plan is tight and a transition to the surrounding areas is needed, then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued with direction to revise the plan as follows: 8 A. - 2S Laukka-Jarvis Development July 21, 1995 A. Meet the front,rear and side yard setback requirements of the R1-9.5 Zoning District. B. Make Lots adjacent to Riverview Road larger and remove lots along the western border. C. Submit a detailed landscaping plan which provides for significant plantings along the north, east and west edges of the property as a visual buffer to the lower density residential areas. The plan must show the type, size and quantity of proposed materials. The plan should include a mixture of 8 to 10 foot high conifers and 3 to 5 inch shade trees. The plan should also include 2, 3 inch shade trees or 2, 6 foot conifers per lot. D. Prepare an architectural diversity plan with no two units alike, side-by-side, opposite or diagonally across from each other. E. Prepare a revised site plan with a 150 foot road radius and both streets aligning at right angles to Riverview Road. F. Revise the storm sewer plan to provide a rear yard storm drainage along the Bluff and extending storm sewer along a portion of the lots. G. Revise the site plan to show a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along both sides of Street A. H. Prepare a tree replacement plan for 203 caliper inches, the majority of which must be hardwood varieties. I. Prepare a revised preliminary plat depicting Lots 8 - 12 on the south side of the property as an outlot. III. If the Planning Commission does not believe that density transfer is the appropriate land use, then one option would be to recommend that the property be developed for a single family development similar to the Timber Bluffs, Riverview Heights, and Walnut Ridge projects. Staff would recommend Alternative I. 1 SFBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE,SUITE 500/EDINA, MN 55439/(612)832-9858/FAX(612)832-9564 August 7, 1995 REFER TO FILE: 95-45 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Franzen, City of Eden Prairie FROM: James A. Bensh'and Edward F. Terhaar RE: Results of Traffic Review for Proposed Residential Development Along River View Road PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND This memorandum is to present the results of our traffic review for the proposed residential development along River View Road. The development is proposed for the area south of River View Road and west of W. River Hills Drive. Our review determined the expected number of daily trips generated by the proposed 49 single family dwelling units and assigned them to the surrounding roadway system. Daily traffic volume projections were developed for Concord Dr. and River View Rd. with and without the extension of Mooer Lane to River View Dr. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trip Generation In order to determine the number of daily trips generated by this development, we conducted traffic counts at a similar development in Plymouth. These counts were conducted for a 48 hour period on two typical weekdays in accordance with standard procedures. The resultant average daily trip generation rate from these counts was 7.40 trips per dwelling unit. We have determined that this trip generation rate is appropriate to use in order to project the number of trips generated by the proposed development on River View Rd. The two reasons for this determination are: 1) the type of dwelling units in the proposed development are very similar to those in the Plymouth development, and 2) the rate of 7.40 trips per dwelling unit per day is consistent with data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Using this trip generation rate, Table 1 shows the resultant daily trip generation for the proposed development. It is important to note that the projected trip generation rate of 7.4 trips per dwelling unit per day is lower than that experienced by nearby residential developments due to differences in the types of housing units. Based on traffic counts that we conducted on West River View Dr. and East River View Dr. south of River View Rd., the daily trip generation rate for existing homes served by those streets is 13.5 trips per dwelling unit. V P . - z7 Mr. Michael Franzen -2- August 7, 1995 TABLE 1 DAILY TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Trip Daily Size Generation Rate Trips Use (d.u.) In Out In Out Single Family 49 3.70 3.70 182 182 Dwelling Units * Trips dwelling unit. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution percentages were developed for the area based on available routes and expected destinations and travel patterns of the residents. Without Mooer Lane extended, the two routes available for ingress and egress are Concord Dr. and River View Rd. Under this scenario, 50 percent of the trips are expected to use Concord Dr. to the north and 50 percent are expected to use River View Rd. to the east. With Mooer Lane extended to River View Rd., 10 percent of the trips are expected to use Mooer Lane, 40 percent Concord Dr. and 50 percent River View Rd. Traffic Volumes Existing daily traffic volumes were collected by Benshoof& Associates, Inc. on Concord Dr. and River View Rd. on July 26-28, 1995. During this time, River View Rd. was closed to traffic west of C.S.A.H. 1, thereby resulting in a lower than usual daily volume on River View Rd. and a higher than usual volume on Concord Dr. The daily volumes were adjusted to expected levels based on historic traffic count data provided by the City. Daily traffic volumes from the two scenarios were added to the existing daily volumes on Concord Dr. and River View Dr., resulting in the total post- development volumes shown in Figure 1. As indicated, the total post-development volumes would be 600-630 vehicles per day on Concord Dr. and 600 vehicles per day on River View Rd. The volumes are well within the 1000 vehicles per day threshold volume established by the Metropolitan Council for residential streets. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC CONTROL AT RIVER VIEW RD. AND CONCORD DR. Currently, only westbound River View Dr. is controlled by a stop sign. This intersection control is sufficient for the existing conditions, but it will need to be upgraded as additional traffic is added on the west leg. Specifically, a stop sign will needed for eastbound River View Rd. at Concord Dr. Mr. Michael Franzen -3- August 7, 1995 CONCLUSIONS Based on our traffic review and the items previously expressed, we have established the following conclusions: . The proposed residential development is expected to generate 364 daily trips. . Without Mooer Lane extended, about 50 percent of the trips would use Concord Dr. for ingress and egress and 50 percent would use River View Rd. With Mooer Lane extended, about 10 percent would use Mooer Lane for ingress and egress, 40 percent Concord Dr. and 50 percent River View Dr. . Concord Dr. and River View Rd. will carry daily traffic volumes well within the 1000 vehicles per day threshold volume established by the Metropolitan Council for residential streets. . Stop sign control should be added for eastbound River View Rd. at Concord Dr. to match the existing westbound River View Rd. stop control. The resultant two-way stop control is a standard type of control for T intersections and will help to ensure safe traffic operations through the intersection of River View Rd. and Concord Dr. V. A. - 2-9 r 1 TO C.S.A.H. 1 4 OP. cP9 n 115 It\ o oQ Ho"7 qR N`V�sao• 0 el cc 8 z a /600 50/630 PROPOSED 420/600/600 RIVER DEVELOPMENT 1°� q O TO C.S.A.H. 18 LEGEND EXISTING DAILY VOLUME DAILY VOLUME WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT MOORER LANE EXTENDED TO RIVER VIEW DR. XXX/XXX/XXX DAILY VOLUME WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH MOORER LANE EXTENDED TO RIVER VIEW DR. N NOT TO SCALE J CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TRAFFIC REVIEW FIGURE 1 FOR LAUKKA-JARVIS RESIDENTIAL EXISTING AND BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTED DAILY TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANDPLANNERB TRAFFIC VOLUMES V. A. • 30 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and,acilities FROM: John Gertz, Historical Preservation Specialis DATE: July 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Archaeology Report Review for the Laukka-Jarvis PUD Monday, July 24, 1995, the HPC met with Tom Bailey of BRW, Inc. to review the survey report and mapping done for the six burial mounds previously recorded within the Laukka-Jarvis development site. Based on previous survey information and visual inspection of the area, the BRW report indicated that no burial mound features were visible. This should not be construed as no burials exist there. Exact locations of the mounds remain unknown at this site. Mr. Bailey indicated that the State Archaeologist has recommended further investigation before construction activities can take place in the vicinity of the mounds. The HPC passed a motion recommending that the Laukka-Jarvis development comply with State Statute 307 regarding treatment of burial sites on proposed development property. The commission further recommends that a 75 foot buffer must be maintained around each burial site (mound) perimeter according to the buffer policy defined in Statute 307.08. Prior to implementation of the Phase II area (delineated on the plat map as the area south of a dashed line) the project proposal must be reviewed by the HPC. JG:mdd cc: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner Sherry Butcher-Younghans Dick Krier, James R. Hill, Inc. • LaukJar MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner FROM: John Gertz, Historical Interpreter DATE: June 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Burial Mounds Located within the Laukka-Jarvis Development • According to archaeological survey information in my files, six previously identified Native American burial mounds are in the proposed Laukka-Jarvis development site. In compliance with Minnesota State Statute 307, the State Archaeologist must be notified to authenticate the burials. Any disturbance or molestation to a know burial is a felony under State law. If burials are authenticated it will be necessary for the developer to prepare a Mound Management Plan with the State Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. The Mound Management Plan should be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission and City staff for recommendation prior to final plat approval. It should also be noted that the lack of a mound feature does not mean the burial does not exist. Many mounds have been impacted or completely removed due to plowing, erosion, etc., yet the actual burial remains below grade. JG:mdd cc: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Chairperson Heritage Preservation Commission Franzen/Gertz • h� .. 1 �• , — • :' , •des -_r.. . , i • •'-A. 7 . 1 1 - _ _ _.Q-^%.:,7 ` • ' MsoeN I ' ▪ _ • • ° s -J >� yJ I • i •1 f.(•f�—; .j. • •' ; _ 1 s , ��•• .\ 1� �� j=. ,Jv !' .%t77�—. , •..-+e.�•__ •'^-• '�• • �-' +- p I•,( �- i(••.. //.•-• • 1: ,\ /' 876 ' - • •• 1 •••,-.,:•.. �, W t • i 1 •s o �..�\-•ter--•^nr \•.,tii -�' • , ,PO, Call Course •• r ••�• - • g17 0gR • J. . ::�-:\ t_ •• ter. '\,'•r... ry+Eden Preiiie Cem r 4.j�'• ��"' J•"ti+' •I. .,^ i. -) _ :3.._ r—C: ,... : ------,____,.1.3--r---7 : 1 :.1 -....:- 'c'. 20RTII I ...•- �r '- - •25 •, - • • •-i•, • .:Att.c:▪;• f % \ '�Ori1e•in TTeater� is�i,�„y •`f1' (�,i \. t ::i r• • .�,._��,:., , ,r :._•�' 21 HE 19 (20 MOUNDS) ` : 't^� , ., 'i' ::::i'f.:0.4te,e4 I -... ./. . --):• .1 I.• - :Oi.▪ `f'/ \_.mil l C '.1` .�..� %d`• / �s i..•c-;-•1. •1a ^-_ ••-• O ,r7- -. -• ••.-s.~\\— • �/•• - fl99 I `••� ..- : •^ - •• •; �. <.::;::;:> • 21 HE 2 & 92 (17 MOUNDS) :G^ •.-- 1.0'� ':ry' .•.�„r*.'•ti .wars: ;'„. 'i 0.} 'iE''n`;:<.:.,4 •.f:3 ' :::—.: : .d Z-. ^L• - - .:�;r } `::*a..:{,{N:. - _ • ,� —:I _---�/.T _ ' „ r .` -1 `, -`"tee. _ i - 21• HE 23• (1 PLUS MOUNDS) !' - _ i -�" �`• • • ~i� .'• / ''sib 4Ry r��• ``;- �°•• :5$1,`. • 21 HE 22 (6 MOUNDS) ,_`,` •s• .� � .,,,�) 44�r, - \ , iI C t. ,. 21 HE 17 (96 MOUNDS) � \ _ I �� I VERJ� r• \ —' . Blue Lake \' - — _t _ — �� .' �.. — •�f�. iV,�Y•' \— 4iI \ :gyp 1� \._..mac rl ;2o f._--_ ..,,.,_. __.: '(1 - : _ _ \ :9 � 1 r. �• .......... • ,sa, •�. * . . _ y _ , eamt a 1 7r: c w ,4i,,,,,..... RAIRIE , HENNEPIN COUNTY • zee► rug n; 1�- u 1944 A. - 33 9 RCS/ • _ July 7, 1995 BRW INC. Mark J. Dudzik • - Office of the State Archaeologist • F• ort Snelling History Center - • Planning St. Paul,Minnesota 55111 - • - • Transportation . • • Y Engineering Urban Design • Re: Site 21HE22 in Eden Prairie . Thresher Square 700 Third Street So. - Minneapolis, Dear Mr. Dudzik: • MN 55415 612/370-0700 Enclosed please find a summary of the background research and visual inspection Fax 612/370-1378 completed by BRW, Inc. for the above referenced project. BRW, Inc. was { contracted by Laukka-Jarvis to investigate the presence or absence of mounds on Denver • their proposed development site in the SE 1/4,NW 1/4 and the NI/2,NE 1/4, Milwaukee * SW1/4 of Section 35 Township 116 North, Range 22 West, Eden Prairie, • Minneapolis Minnesota. Kate and Wes Laseski own the house on the property. Site 21.HE22 is Orlando a recorded mound site on Government Lot 2 of the same section. - Phoenix Portland • San Diego Research at the Minnesota Historical Society Research Center and the State Seattle Historic Preservation Office files was conducted on July 6, 1995. Aerial photos • - were also obtained. T.H. Lewis (1898:Notebook 2:33) first recorded the mound group on October.7, 1882 (Figure.1). Lewis located six mounds whose location. • are tied into a house that is not drawn on his sketch map. The mounds are arranged roughly along an east-west transect with a gap between mounds four and five. Winchell(1911:244) also mentions the mound group, stating that they. average about 25 feet in diameter and 1 1/2 feet high(Figure 2). A mound • confirmation study conducted in 1972 stated that the mounds were not found and the land was disturbed by homes and cultivation(Peterson). The earliest ' obtainable aerial photos, from 1937, do not show evidence of mounds when • observed stereoscopically or under magnification. A house appears on the property in the 1945 aerial photograph. A house that is in the approximate location to fit Lewis's notes (59 degrees west of north),appears in the 1937 aerial - • photograph. Page 1 of 3 V. A . - 3 F B ■\ " • .. _ BRW INC. • Planning Schweigert(1992:15)notes that all known burial mounds in Eden Prairie are Transportation located along bluff edges overlooking the Minnesota River Valley. Other known Engineering sites within the Section 35 include: Urban Design 21HE2 Eck Mounds (Brown's Mounds)- 17 mounds (Lewis 1898:Notebook 2:32; Winchell 1911:249-250) -destroyed by Riverview Road and homes; Thresher square • 700 Third street so. 21 HE 19 - 20 mounds in two series(Lewis 1898:Notebook 2:34;Winchell Minneapolis, 1911:252)-no mounds found in 1972; MN 55415 21HE92 Eck Burial Site (Wilford 1964) -still existed in 1972; and 612/370-0700 21 HE 13 6 Riverview Heights- Woodland habitation site (Johnson 1992). Fax 612/370-1378 s The proposed development site consists of 43.2 acres. About 15.2 acres above the Denver bluff will be developed and 28 acres below the bluff will be left as is. The site Milwaukee 21 HE22 area is currently a yard with a house and attached garage,a swimming , Minneapolis pool, and a pool house (Figure 3). A small shed is located to the north of the Orlando house. The area has been disturbed by landscaping,the pool excavation, and the Phoenix removal of oil tanks. The east side of the peninsula is disturbed by a Northern Portland San Diego States Power powerline easement. Kate Laseski informed the BRW team that they Seattle have lived in the house for 18 years. She said the previous owners lived in the house for about 20 years, and put on additions to the house, added the shed,pool, • pool house, and underground water lines. BRW, Inc. personnel Tom Bailey, Craig Johnson, and Chandra Maki visited the site on July 6, 1995. About 1 1/2 hours were spent visually inspecting the area and taking photographs(enclosed for Mr. Dudzik). The topographic maps, Lewis and Winchell notes,and visual inspection showed that the area south of the house and east to the peninsula is the correct location for the mounds. The current house is located just north of the gap between mounds four and five. Mounds one through four would have existed in what is now landscaped yard and the pool area. Mounds five and six would have been in what is now a landscaped yard slightly southwest of the house. The area around mounds five and six will not be disturbed • as part of the proposed development:.-Visual inspection showed no firm evidence of existing mounds. • Page2of3 - 3 S- . • BRW INC. • Planning _ . . Transportation • Engineering Visual inspection,the confirmation study of 1972,-and disturbance to the area Urban Design indicate that the mounds have most likely been destroyed. BRW,Inc.,however, recommends that a qualified archaeologist monitor the area around mounds one Thresher Square 700 Third street So. through four during construction activities. Minneapolis, MN 55415 . Sincerely, 612/370-0700 - BRW, Inc. Fax 612/370-1378 �. Denver adet Milwaukee Tom Bailey . Chandra Maki • Minneapolis Senior Associate " _ Archaeologist Orlando • Phoenix cc: Peter Jarvis,Laukka Jarvis(fax and mail) _ Portland Michael Franzen, City of Eden Prairie(hand deliver) . San Diego Seattle - Richard Krier,James R. Hill,Inc. (mail) attachments • • • • Page 3 of 3 VA . - 3b ! -:'"r t . ,,•••• ,... 1,_..'-'•-,t,:,=;.,-)`:. !. � •l -t t1D:�'Ji..i. k_•'• � � �'Si`'PO '•y'• ••r �'` .. ,4Fi7:''lS 1' �' •' f;!'.71: IMP 1 t• '9'rNYYY • : r'�Zr -It , • •t•:;1:-. i•1 >JiL•.0 =. .. t'Jl". J 1�KI• a r7 \�t,1. fit,•• : F �`:. . ,41:,:.• S -: ,I 4.}K:.: ; • • , :yt `1.4�r ;.�: �L� ►• w J yam. ".),".w ^.•xx i'Y' "1'-�•:L 1. i•�• '.-r• i'�Li i.•r •=Y::!.Z.:▪ 1 -•r_ •j:1T R i. c• ! ? . !r:... ,. • t •.Z!• u � '` ;4x; ✓�;: ;. t ...sic.it //ry 8 2'2 r_t`�:' .•:�.,'.4,.. A'�, it•�•r ti'';-.�••1 •& 11 L;C.V, y•$' J •x• ✓ ;i:•• • 7 ! . ,1.':: . r x••:+ r• r;i � . is .e. , ' i-l' •t ,,'i•i �J :LT '` - •I: : 'J r ''{{,�jj!! .��.s,st�.tti y - �':� '�Lt t .jy� ✓�.- 7 Z ,•l s'i rJ„'{:.'.! •y ' g2 ,/I '_ • y. �;y ^ _ ' w+'/�. .' ''•��. r:l.+x��, ,may • . ',`f ''' •`"F lY•n;,�e.'; .,� ^ i ``'�i .A a.. Cal .`•,'�' ''�•F � 4 i4'�- xltk'r x "ii:•'SR. • �.Ml;ti' ' ,� L�. •'- fp• Y .1Y17 S.'� T6'y�:•3 L• .h _,J1'�Y•••{`•:�4r ��i':'f• ,.r&, L by)••,y ~ �' .. l.••-_- - _.-. - - ..A' �J�N1„yY• �I•,=•fit.5„Y:7fit `• •!!k3` •4•.cq•Y!`,Je.9 "- / •• .. -. . • .~� : • • ,. • • . • y�y �q ,r x I/G� //%� LC //%1 3 •r'.tL/'N`�•' 3 ,,.�/�fl��I..••- J•,s ;; `M.�,J.,A� ✓�' • • nf^ - - yl� Yiry•'x k r�x r /�+�.l+P�,S/�� .f^� f: ••:•:}':c., i .. c y3+iy�Y�y»#,�.°.._/_i•t l�' ,:�,•Y GtK-~� .i7/.I J w i'•e_?Q ` ..., ...,,:: ,A •:�: ,/ :+• _ - •• .laity Q7(� .�•.7.Y VV}.'I - ! �%::+. "(J •. 7` • i.,•• t, (Z... et.1:: ••.' •• vC_ !l. am• • _- .•--r -.. .:. w x - • - • •i 11.--.4•77/TC-.f2"---' :.":•:' • ... : .: . . ". e • • . • 15 )...die, 1. . •• •0 --^• •'..f,,i-i ••.: 7.)*;-..-..-.:4;.•• ... : • . .. .. 1 • .-• • • ••:-:- '•i 4•••0::•:••,•!.•-i*---:-"•-••••••r " ;''' ''-' -.: -:•. •. .. ::: - : ; . . . . • 5, • . ,i ::,1•. ..•: ;.. , . '�l.r ,�_:i ' :t� :{ !d _ ::k;�. • r;=• .�: : r . • -�• '� i „+ • ' '1R •S'S �i7�•' •Y••:.6, ;�,:3:.yi•'%� •'•N '•.r: n :'(i'::?j : it-\•i. 'i••'" • .:•(.rC.S) '•{e.li\'v:.1;. A+ l .:•v.. .: . ` • +1)yV�{:'?4 !r l: �rA.,lJ_.•~n:mWin...yL�i:x3i..y.;;-;J`t!i�i •:• :3.e-lw/ .r7z'''' .;;{j:\r:n.... vv. 7;'w,ti-..r,=4^ 'ri•-._"_` t. ''"i7 •"7•• .. 757t 1 i T -"• )a' S • / 1ui.114ri•i41•4344 I:{r;i '01)4a 5e�. rt.,< S.. , w` . tri :'', `s1,S � ...' . 9 ;. • • 4•F r::, '.'��iYtlti t: .:•-:.}.t4l,1 t(}\i.4• y.. r y )t riir:�t.. '�4v ). .. .. . • • ▪ ,•., )' 1.a:.t:,' t .� .t �i, i:�'!.>.3.2i: ry p...•.:gle,r; e,i• ..},,.:"i'ii:!}a;_.•a••1I+.• a • ': a...3S•:i.i t.l _. .• b ;;n .fit•r f • •• .. - ,_ - -NORTHWESTERN :ARCHAEOLOGICAL,' SURVEY, ` • f FIELD` NOTEBOOKS:AND,'RELATED VOLUMES•, *pre-1880, 1880-1895 ' .'•� .. , MINNESOTA.':HISTORICAL •,SOCIETY. .ST. ' PAUL, MINNESOTA. • 55101 , • ii • 3 c • • 'T-1 .1 it •4 inr� 1• ' � tttyrt • x ` t • •V k. % 7 .. _ • ,� ..::. r• �• .t 11. . ..11-a_ + .•.• �L x tt; li• x. •t'• pp''jj.. •-. �,• ,a,'.. -i_ �•\•..• _ 2 i . - Fi lure . z . IA,);ncjiell Nate • . 244 THE ABORIGINES OF MI\\ESOTA. seem to be rather inferior extensions of the tumuli themselves. Nos. 1 and 13 are partially gone. The . ! largest mound, No. 1, removed front the rest, is S3 ft. wide and 11 ft. high. It may be noted here that • I the direction of the "approaches" is in near parallelism with the direction of the mound group, and with that of the face of the bluff. This is also true in several other places—so noticeably that it seems as if the principle which determined.the location and direction of the mound group also determined the direction of elongation of the elongated mounds, as well as that of the so-called approaches. Surveyed • ( Sept. 9, 1SS2. (Shown on preceding page.) . . • • Cunningham group, on \\',•tj_, S. \.. X, sec. 5, T. 115-21, on H. D. Cunningham's place. Here j are eleven conventional mounds of the tumulus kind, averaging about 24 ft. in diameter and 134 ft.in. ( • r Phight. It is noteworthy that here, as in /% A other places, the largest mound, No. 4, . __ %. stands isolated from the rest. Surveyed � • dp Sept.9, 1SS2. (Shown on.following page,) - ti • �_, ///�il/�� On S.E. i , \. E. %,sec. 34,T. 116-3?. . ��•• ��j Here is an isolated large circular mound' • :a•z /jr. • 60 ft.in diameter and 6 ft. high. Formerly O^ C'© _ others were near, but they have been v ►/ i, •J `� 1I ll'/7/llt� i 11 plowed down and hence they were doubt- ... .- �� \It /�•,/ '•� less considerably smaller. They extended �\� both nlann tb.p h1 i j%�j/�ll\\` ��n—lot 2, sec. 35, T. 116-22. Here•are 6 ordinary circular mounds, averaging about 25 ft. in hight and 1 , ft. high. if Lincoln mounds are on the S. W. j.(, N. \C, is• an the 3. \\. 3 , S. \C. 1/1,, sec. 6, T. 27- :3, and are five in number, all circular. The largest is 66 ft. in diameter and 4 ft. high, and the smallest 30 ft. in diameter and 1 ft. high. Yet the highest of the group is 434 ft. and 64 ft. in diameter. The Van Ness mounds are 24, situated S. E. i. . S. E. ; , sec. 1,T. 27-24, all circular. The largest is 70 ft. in diameter and 5 ft. high. • �ov,f The rest are low, about 134 ft. in t hight. The largest mound is some- O what isolated from the rest. Sur- veyed Sept. 7, 1SS2. (Shown on • following page.) W V Hogback group. These mounds k are on the E. 34, sec. 12, T. 27-24, and are 20 in number. They are on filf) 0 4. • I a ridge which separates Long lake i'. I from a marsh. The largest of the fti(E'i ,_.\MOUND group, isolated from the rest, is on • 1v REMOVED the extremity of the point, and has �." been partially washed away by the Q'-old lake. The old shore runs along \` � I )\11\\\\ • the foot of the ridge. This isolated � \\\/ 1 , mound is 60 ft. in diameter and 3% \.. 1l • , ft. high. This group embraces two / J elongated mounds, their direction running parallel with the ridge. They . . Aare 2 ft. and *:1 ft. high. The other ID .. .. circular mounds are low, about 1. .i s ' ft., average, in hight, and 2.2 ft. in diameter. Surveyed Sept. 6, 1SS2. \\\\\. (Shown on insert opposite.) 0i,n W. \��,,\ H Hanson „u, ,(,, N. . �.� E. N. . ,111V I� 34',see. 12, T. 27-24,are 9 in number, 1 i.cv: ,:yoki. ...z :.*.. f.: ---/------. -----)7\-- / . . 1 $/. f eat /t4ii-40k / .i,. ' a • h (151c • . . /Flute . . .yr • N ,iyI' / wl u;:.% : / • •• i ..:er,,,..-. ,,,,,,,,...........d,,. ...,,,.. / / (..• CC ‘.." \ ..,.. ..-.... 7___ ,. ..., ..1:.„.4 .e.. ,-/:•Vtire'''''..7",1$ CD I t / ii) i / ¢10 N r I . T • •lue''''.:.44'.'1.1.:.:.,:'!!...71T1r.:;_lri.-..,,z)...."-Hsk �' / ;1 1 ''' / V 51 cis ...z ...,. 0 ' .;-;C( / .- c.- lies'`,:c 11".-";...4. "9") -uN t J / :::.:1 Ch.r‘< y. • Ia / �� e.. {mow : �+ i3^.� y•t./ r t�: • ' :`..tram . . 1:�4 `„ : .. ... ... Yip .. "•1.�` i �kf✓41,it M F' .f / i .„.11 �. ‘.. VV^ I i 17 1 . I. i . a P.,i;,i 4 / / L " * .2 7. Alit:.:7V....: °'"':" lal) IP `�"�' Ya :4...:.::T.: ..I. 1. A.6 1:I:::.:4:17:.314 E.1:( / i I b ) i a / li \ ti4... ./I O I .y N ` S -cr:.r „�'".�.- !�'tea C . ,Isi 1 r e ON ~ N\ 1 ",t � tit • .`�Y i'H'f ,T ++ _ _ se*' e.i / e. • ce .)7 4 el i ,0le _73 . / O¢ ky{•_ L;::,:::41-..-z-0--i-50:-!.-k-ei S . : ,., ..,...4.....0..1,...a.—tti,, s...4,44 .• _ s.... ...r.v..t:....:....„.4.,:eggEr&a•-• ..ci..-,,,..N,• -z•-•:z„,•-'11, I 51 '"?.‘cc .. 1 / alli / .. f ¢ / I rr ,,`,r Fa aay ix • I Q II "fit..i• yet�� ems:._• . ; _.' 0 ( e•. ( ) i S3 0 g I / l'i cc cco\ . '\.'0 it\ .,•,.7.3.,-; :4'4• --•,..;1,-; '3'- ', .L ::v., ..- •ims • tv I I. .E. ,21 / a , ,Taof' oil\ , .: ‘VI): \\ -c..:..--;',.'t.- --',•••••;-....;;;:a., •st.- -.:..3 ::s.xy,_.,A Kjs° I P i \I :•2, -.0 i \ I a% 1.7, N r r..'..gi �„r �' . I * • ( a kVI CC el b C =!". 41'.r.,,,,,,,„xiii„....: V 1 )•,-..., ' O N O '� •,• yu , �In P •1 \ N /�/ WsN41 ( • %.. ... ›) a. cc - /.5:•ie ; v. :z f atc0 leb \ el a. I X a ..-;•-4......S.r.;;:I.'. ..;•-•,;• ..,,t;.....q...•• 1...srn- ,''.‘-''' , •°: LP.,\ V -....z••••`•'cP-%?-•••'•::,,dr I.::fr-';:':•:. --.K.::,-••••• ••••,-....1";' ;.,-'A"iZr .-ca \ V 1 t\•- 3.,9 c^ / f.c •;.• ':•::::.*:••,asv.''.C"..;-+•: . '.:*- ."' :•::•:•..'Y::E't.1-Ii:',g T',.:4"'"•• • V :..., :.•..,. 7..4.r•••. ...••••-••• • ." Clkio) \ . -----•-----• .....--•••••••°. !" .- ,.•• .•) ,,`•�, • .. \mil. 15 / Stephen W. & Michelle M. Ruffing 10422 West Riverview Drive,Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55347-4919 (612)942-8141 June 23, 1995 Laukka Jarvis, Inc. 3300 Edinborough Way Suite 201 Edina,Minnesota 55435 Dear Mr.Jarvis and Mr. Laukka: Thank you for allowing those of us who live adjacent to your proposed development to discuss the details of that proposal earlier this week. We got the sense that the meeting's objective was to encourage two- way discussion,and we appreciate your willingness to consider our comments as you move forward toward approval by the Eden Prairie Planning Commission. While we think that the development proposal was well thought-and laid-out,we would like to reiterate our objection to just one piece of it. Specifically,we have concerns about the northeast-most lot in the proposed development both from logical and psychological points of view. 1. Logically,the lot stands out as peculiar within the context of the overall development; it almost appears to be an afterthought--especially in size--relative to the other properties. We believe that extending the open area located south of that lot all the way to Riverview Road would allow the development to maintain its unique objectives(i.e.,nice homes on smaller lots for those who want to minimize exterior maintenance)and keep it separate from our development which has other objectives (i.e.,nice homes on larger lots for those who enjoy the exterior maintenance and large lot size). 2. Psychologically,building on that lot puts the development right in our backyard,so to speak. Having come to appreciate looking out over the openness of the Laseski's property as it currently exists, extending the open area all the way to Riverview Road(as suggested in#1 above)would go a long way toward easing our feelings of having a development created in"our backyard". Having said that, we also real;7P that it's not really our back yard and that building a home there increases the development's revenue potential to you and the Laseskis. Nonetheless,we felt you should know our feelings and how a home on that lot would impact us psychologically. Please keep our viewpoint in mind this as you seek city approval for your plans. We appreciate your consideration as you go forward. Sincerel • Stephen W. Ruf mg Mic e\k. u cc: Eden Prairie City Planning Commission Kate&Wes Laseski U. A. - yp Peterson 12076 Riverview Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 July 22, 1995 Eden Prairie Community Development 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Planning Commission: I am writing in reference to the Laukka-Jarvis development proposed for the Laseski property across from my home. Before you make a decision,I urge you to consider the following: 1. Road access is extremely limited,pushing another 150+ cars per day through Concord Drive and Riverview Road,both of which are virtually lined with small children. 2. Since 52 homes would be built on only around 15 acres, the density is too great and the average lot size too small. Zoning should permit no less than a 30,000 s.f. average lot size for this area. 3. The increased light and noise from this densely packed development will diminish the natural appeal of the area. 4. There should be a public easement for walkers to reach and enjoy the bluff. (There is not one in the proposed plan.) 5. Reduced habitat will force more deer and other wildlife into residential areas. 6. The disturbance of burial mounds or human remains is also a concern for our family. The Laukka-Jarvis development as it stands shows little regard for the families who will be affected most directly; those whose homes flank the Laseski property or line Concord Drive. This area is a truly fine neighborhood for raising children. I hope you will deny this or any proposal that would endanger that status. Thank you for your attention, Ken and Tammy Peterson and Family V. A.. 10400 W. Riverview Dr. Eden Prairie,MN 55347 June 21, 1995 Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. 3300 Edinborough Way Edina,MN 55435 Dear Mr. Laukka and Mr. Jarvis: We would like to thank you and Mr. and Mrs. Laseski for conducting the neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed development on the Laseski property. While we would prefer to have the land left in its natural and undeveloped form, we understand the reasons for the proposed changes. We support the decision not to build below the bluff line and appreciate your efforts at preserving and adding to the natural beauty of the bluff area. The type of development that you are proposing(many smaller homes on small lots, as opposed to fewer homes on bigger lots)is not what many in the neighborhood would choose,but still seems to be well thought-out and designed--with one glaring exception! The single lot at the northeast corner of the property, exiting on to Riverview Road, does not fit in with the rest of the development. It appears to be stuck there in the corner,just because there is room for it,without consideration to its relationship to the rest of the neighborhood. Throughout the rest of the proposed development there has been an effort to separate the new homes from the existing homes by way of space and landscaping. This corner lot provides neither space or landscape separation from our property at the corner of Riverview Road and West Riverview Drive. In keeping with the theme of preserving the integrity of the land,we would suggest that this space be converted to a wooded area, prairie grass, or flower garden. In summary,we would like to state our opposition to the building of a home on the northeast corner lot of the Laseski property. This opposition is based on two facts: 1. The lot does not "fit in" with the rest of the proposed development and would detract from rather than add to the beauty of the neighborhood; and 2. no separation from the existing adjacent property is being proposed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ma, k1 /4 Mark and Kay Wall cc: Mr. and Mrs. Laseski Eden Prairie Planning Commission V. 1%. - 1I 2- MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities i FROM: Stuart A. Fox,uManager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: July 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to the July 21, 1995 Community Development Staff Report for Laukka-Jarvis PUD BACKGROUND: This site is 42.2 acres in size and fronts onto Riverview Road in the southeastern part of the city. The proponent is requesting a Planned Unit Development on 15.2 acres of the property with the zoning changing from Rural to R1-9.5. The density for this particular site would be 1.2 units per acre for the gross density with the net density being 1.7 units per acre. ISSUES: Natural Resources/Tree Preservation This particular site has an upper and lower treed area, which combined, has a total of 7,091 diameter inches of significant trees. The construction on the upper fifteen acres of property would result in the loss of 1,081 inches of trees, which translates into a 15% tree loss over the entire site. When looking at this tree loss closer, there are a total of 153 significant trees on the upper portion of the property of which 72 would be lost (nearly half the significant trees on the upper portion). However, when you look at the trees at the crest of the bluff and downhill, there are over 380 significant trees which would not be impacted by this construction and would be preserved by a land transfer to the City of Eden Prairie. The predominant species on the site are bur oak, eastern red cedar, and red, white, and Austrian pines. Because the upper area was at one time pasture, there are a number of volunteer trees, such as boxelder, Siberian and American elm trees. By formula from the Tree Ordinance, the tree replacement for this project is 203 diameter inches of replacement. The proponent has a rather extensive landscape plan which includes common area landscaping, as well as individual lot landscape treatment. The landscape plan includes the use of green ash, hackberry, in addition to some upright arborvitae. The final landscape plan was not submitted and will need to be reviewed prior to the City Council reviewal of this project. In addition, the Community Development Staff Report does cite the need to reinforce the plan around the perimeter, due to the differences in neighborhood density. Wetland Impact and Storm Water Treatment The plan incorporates the use of a NURP pond into the center of the project that would be maintained as part of a homeowners association property. This particular outlot would remain in association control and, therefore, maintenance of the NURP pond would be at association expense. The outflow for the NURP pond takes water to the west tying into an existing storm drain in the abandoned portion of Riverview Road. The water flows from this point down to the Minnesota River. The developer is required to follow all Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District regulations and to submit a detailed plan to the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. In addition, this area of the city has highly erodible soils and it will be important to install and maintain erosion fencing in proper locations to make sure that soil erosion is not a problem during grading. Sidewalk/Trails The proponent is recommending that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the public street to allow pedestrians to access Riverview Road. In addition, the staff would recommend that a 8' bituminous trail be constructed in the road right-of-way along Riverview Road from the east to the west boundary to link with future trail connections. The staff is also researching the possibility of extending the existing sidewalk along Mover Lane. This particular street was constructed several years ago, however, the road bed and sidewalk were never constructed all the way to the Riverview Road intersection. Attached is a sidewalk and trail location map so that Commissioners can see the various links that this project would have in relationship to surrounding neighborhoods. Outlot Dedication The developer is proposing to deed approximately 28 acres of land to be preserved as public open space. This land is located generally at the bluff slope line all the way to the Minnesota River edge. This land would be dedicated to the City in lieu of cash park fees from the project. The City of Eden Prairie has discussed various opportunities with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in regards to expansion of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge Area. It is the City's intent at some point in the future to sell this piece of property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for incorporation in their National Wildlife Refuge. This would recover the money that would have been generated through cash park fees during the building of these homes. The additional advantage of utilizing this piece of property is that it will make it easier for trail connection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to adjacent parcels, as well as to the planned trail along the closed section of Riverview Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 24, 1995 meeting. It was continued until August 14 to work out a few details regarding changing a roadway curve, reduction of a couple of lots, as well as designating the area where suspected Indian burial mounds may exist into an outlot designation. The staff would recommend approval of the project for the areas of tree loss, storm water treatment, sidewalks and trails, and a lot dedication as per this staff report. In addition, the Commission may wish to review the staff recommendations made by the senior planner in the July 21, 1995 staff report. The recommendation of that particular report was the conditions listed as Alternative One. SAF:dss laukka/Stuart I Trail/ Sidewalk Location Jap roc; .... ( •e. I Of . iso, li . ii! .4 .7- 1Homew rd &..1.111Are, mi. Fr , PO"T Hill s Park -- V1 it.ff I ; #. :TS : s�04.sru 1 . ...AZ\ ..�/ -:ILL$ 4 1 4. . .. O Iff lir ‘711,0.1 1 w..-- 4... , „i ea ,, . . • Vb.Iv. ..T11- I la -4* No, \ 7.....'s _ :‘, . k - -, • 4in .............._, Vili. No, N. 1O�� R �xc �QOD I �£ . •6 LAN• y •� 0 : ASN .. _ *,\NM 116.4Mtit;p4r, itre* - i 1001, ''. *SA Ia , sun .. d 1111111111s1110. 'W IIIS .' t .i.L. 1111111111 .' ' - n i C Ft1VFR .�: _ o _lv ti `f,s 2 aft Di ti IIIW „7-4 I I aftarns , , . • • gramminunam...wir , .4.; • :: :::x:::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::: r 1) ,, ''weis • LLII.,' A ! • • • . a aikai ' 4Q,a, ,- 40 'I j:0::mon !Ian i Wrisi, .:.... --,4° .- ' t li .gyp �. __ IG • ♦� • . ....................... •••••••••••••" .....................••••••••• •••".. . 1..•.. ..•.. 6 0111 ..................•.....•....••••••••••• .••....................•..•.•.•.•...„. ,:„,:„,,,:::,:...:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . ,... . , ................„,._.•....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:::: „,„,„„,„„„,„:,:,:,,,,,,„:„::::,:::,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,„,:,,,„:„ al: :•:;: ;>: VALLt • • 1211111111.11011 bituminous trail . • � 12�■® proposed trail ** I isomimmimmow . : :`:1, I Iconcrete sidewalk • w • • • . • • . proposed sidewalk -was.iliasal a North (no scale) motion should read... Hilgeman commented that some believe that by eliminating 2 or 3 years of team practice and games for kids, they won't be competitive by the time they get a little older. Jacobson seconded the motion and it passed 4-0-1 with one abstention by Kracum. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Petition from Ruby Wolfe and Ardith Erickson for Bike Trail Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated August 2, 1995, from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Lambert noted that the Commission reviewed a similar petition last year from this neighborhood requesting that the City consider a bike trail from Oak Ridge Road north to County Road 62. They would like to have it on the west side of County Road 4 so it will eventually connect to the existing trail on County Road 4. Staff agrees that this stretch of road is dangerous for anyone walking or biking on the shoulder. This stretch of road has been a number one priority bicycle trail for several years. The Engineering Department indicated that it would cost about $35,000. The City Council has already indicated that there is no additional funding in the Parks' budget or any budget for 1996. Staff recommended that the Commission make the recommendation to the City Council to look at the general fund reserve to see if there is any possibility for funding that particular trail section for 1996. MOTION: Hilgeman moved that the Commission accept Staff's recommendation to suggest to the City Council to consider general fund revenues for a bike trail on County Road 4 from Oak Ridge Road north to County Road 62. Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated July 26, 1995, from Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, and a Staff Report dated July 21, 1995, from Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner. Richard Krier, of James R. Hill Incorporated, reviewed his development proposal with the Commission using visual aids. He noted that they are proposing 52 units on 43.2 acres, and 28 acres would be dedicated to the 2 City, and another 12.5 acres will be previewed for private open space. The density is 1.27 units per acre. They have been before the Planning Commission and have been rescheduled to the Planning Commission for August 14, 1995. Hilgeman asked why there was a rescheduling from the Planning Commission. Fox indicated that there were a couple of things that needed to be worked out. There was a change in the road which resulted in the reduction of some lots. There was also an incomplete landscaping plan. Krier emphasized that the architecture is the lead in terms of creating a very unique style which would be developed for the empty nesters, the single woman, and the young professional couple. There are 5 different floor plans and 9 different elevations. All of the homes have private open space. The streets are landscaped and there are proposed sidewalks on both sides of the street. At the request of the Planning Commission and the City Staff, they have reduced the density to 49 homes. The 28 acres are proposed to be dedicated to the City as a cash distribution. Hilgeman asked if there was any decision from the Historical Preservation regarding the burial on this property. Fox replied that the recommendation to the HCP was to have the proponent hire an architect to do more extensive digging at the site and to treat them in accordance with the statutes for burial mounds. They are proposing to do a phase 2 and phase 3 in the areas where there is suspected burial mounds. They are asking at this time for a PUD concept over the entire site, but to do further studies of those burial mounds. Then they will come back with the final proposal for that site. Krier noted that state law requires setback from possible burial mounds. They had an archeologist come out to the site and there are no visible mounds on the site. He reviewed the process of phase 2 and phase 3 with the Commission. Fox indicated that because they don't know the status of those burial mounds, Staff recommends setting aside those areas until the final report comes in. Brown expressed concern about what the park fees would be on this kind of development, and how that amount compares to having the other property dedicated and then sold to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lambert replied that the existing parks fees are about $940 per lot. The 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES PRNR COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 1995 City would be giving up about $50,000. The City would attempt to hold that land and sell it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. They are designating that as part of their entire land that they're going to control in the floodplain. The City is not necessarily looking to make money, but they want to be reimbursed. Koenig was concerned about how much of the property that they're deeding to the City is buildable. Lambert replied that the majority of it is buildable except for the floodplain. From an engineering point of view, you can build on anything. Hilgeman expressed concern about the 50% tree loss as indicated on the charts. Fox indicated that the tree loss is about 72 trees of 153 on that site. You get 50% because they are looking at the upper portion and the lower area. The recommendation is to make sure the NURP pond is in the center of the development`to handle the flood water for this particular site. The Engineering Department looked at the outlot and it's scheduled to be owned as part of the homeowners' association so the City would not have to maintain that NURP pond or that area. The recommendation was made by the Engineering Department because of the highly erodible soils in that area. The plan shows there would be sidewalks on both sides of the public streets, a public U shape street, and 5 foot sidewalks on both sides. In addition, Staff recommended an 8 foot bituminous trail along the northerly portion which is Riverview Road. The plan shows an extension of that trail along Riverview Road and it would take pedestrian traffic to the east from their site. Staff is pursuing the extension of a sidewalk along Mooer Lane. The developer is proposing to deed 28 acres to be reserved as public open space and it would be done with cash park fees. The project was looked at by the Planning Commission and was continued because of the burial mounds in terms of the density. Laura Blumel,residing at 10530 West River View Drive, noted that she represents the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development. She was concerned about what the plans are for the donated land, and what "open space" means. She doesn't understand why the City is taking over all this land when the acquisition by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not been approved yet. She was concerned about plans for acquiring the adjacent properties because her property is located there. She also 4 DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA September 5, 1995 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance--John Frane Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Anagram International V. B Requested Action: It is recommended that the Council adopt the Resolution giving preliminary authorization for the issuance of$6 million of industrial development revenue bonds for Anagram International. Background: Anagram International is a company which has a manufacturing facility in on Anagram Drive in Eden Prairie. As a manufacturer, Anagram is a corporation in Minnesota for which industrial development revenue bonds may be issued. IDRBs are a financing tool which the City may issue in order to reduce the borrowing costs for such corporations. Under the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986, each state has a cap on the amount of IDRBs which may be issued by all governments within the state. Minnesota's state cap has generally been around $150 million. Anagram International intends to use the proceeds of the bond sale to purchase manufacturing equipment. The bonds will be privately placed. IDRBs are not general obligations of the City, and will be repaid by Anagram. Council action authorizes the application process through the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development to proceed. Supporting Information: * Proposed Resolution Council Member moved the adoption of the resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") , as follows: SECTION 1 Recitals and Findings 1. 1. This Council has received a proposal that the City finance a portion or all of the cost of a proposed project under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469. 152 through 469. 165 (the "Act") , on behalf of Anagram International, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation (the "Borrower") , consisting generally of financing the equipment to be used in a manufacturing facility for the Borrower, at 7700 Anagram Drive in the City (the "Project") . 1.2 . For the purpose of providing revenue-producing enterprises, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469. 152 through 469. 165, as amended (the "Act") , to enter into loan agreements with corporations providing for the City to loan the proceeds derived from the issuance of revenue bonds to the corporation to be used to pay the costs of a project a defined in the Act and providing for the repayment of the loan by the Corporation. 1. 3 . At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on September 5, 1995, in accordance with the Act and Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project, all parties who appeared at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the Project. Interested persons were also given the opportunity to submit written comments to the Mayor before the time of the hearing. Based on the public hearing, such written comments (if any) and such other facts and circumstances as this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: (a) The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires the provision of necessary manufacturing facilities to the end that adequate revenue producing enterprises be made available to residents of the State of Minnesota at reasonable cost, and the State of Minnesota has encouraged local government units to act to provide such facilities. (b) The undertaking of the Project would further the general purposes contemplated and described in Section 469. 152 of the Act. (c) This Council has been advised by representatives of the Borrower that conventional, commercial financing to pay the cost of the Project is available only at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of the Project would be reduced. (d) This Council has also been advised by representatives of the Borrower that on the basis of their discussions with potential buyers of tax-exempt bonds, revenue bonds of the City (which may be in the form of a revenue note or notes) could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project. (e) The City is authorized by the Act to issue its revenue bonds to finance and refinance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise engaged in providing manufacturing facilities, such as that of the Borrower, and the issuance of the bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Borrower to undertake the Project. SECTION 2 Determination To Proceed with the Project and the Financing 2 . 1. On the basis of the information given the City to date, it appears that it would be desirable for the City to issue its revenue bonds in one or more series under the provisions of the Act to finance the Project in an amount not to exceed $6, 000,000. 2 .2 . It is hereby determined to proceed with the Project and the financing and this Council hereby declares its present intent to have the City issue its revenue bonds under the Act to finance the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal obligation on the part of the City or its Council to issue or to cause the issuance of such revenue bonds. All details of such revenue bond issue and the provisions for payment thereof shall be subject to final approval of the Project by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (the "Department") and may be subject to such further conditions as the City may specify. The revenue bonds, if issued, shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the revenues specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and each bond, when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues and property specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation. 2. 3 . The Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (the "Application") , with attachments, is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said documents on behalf of the City. 2 .4 . In accordance with Section 469. 154, Subdivision 3 of the Act, the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to cause the Application to be submitted to the Department for approval of the Project. The Mayor, City Manager, City Counsel and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide the Department with any preliminary information needed for this purpose. The City Counsel is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if approved by the Department. SECTION 3 General 3. 1. If the Bonds are issued and sold, the City will enter into a loan agreement or similar agreement satisfying the requirements of the Act (the "Revenue Agreement") with the Borrower. The loan payments or other amounts payable by the Borrower to the City under the Revenue Agreement shall be sufficient to pay the principal of, and interest and redemption premium, if any, on, the bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable. 3.2 . The Borrower has agreed and its hereby determined that any and all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project, whether or not the Project is carried to completion, and whether or not approved by the Department, and whether or not the City by resolution authorizes the issuance of the bonds, will be paid by the Borrower upon request. 3 .3 . The Mayor and City Manager are directed if the bonds are issued and sold, thereafter to comply with the provisions of Section 469. 154, Subdivisions 5 and 7 of the Act. 3 .4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. Council Member seconded the above resolution and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor: and the following voted against the same: and the following were absent and not voting: Adopted by the City Council of Eden Prairie, this 5th day of September, 1995. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * * I, John Frane, City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby certify that the above is a true and exact copy of the resolution dated September 5, 1995, original of which is on file and of record in my office. Witness my hand and the official seal of the said City this 5th day of September, 1995. City Clerk (SEAL) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: GdCCt SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 pram SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. FINANCE DEPT. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI CHECKS NUMBER 33805 THRU 34270 Action/Direction: 4 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 33805 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 33806 CRIIGHTON UNIVERSITY EDEN PRAIRIE HUMAN RIGHTS SCHOLARSHIP 500.00 AWARD RECIPENT JOSEPH FLEURY. 33807 AERO PAINTING SERVICE-CLEANING/REPAIRING & PAINTING 32639.22 HYDROPILLAR-HIDDEN PONDS RESEROIR. 33808 U S POSTMASTER FILL POSTAGE METER-CITY HALL. 8000.00 33809 GRETCHEN DORR REFUND-SPORTS CAMP FOR NATHAN. 65.00 33810 KIMBERLY PEARSON REFUND-DAY CAMP FOR MICHAEL. 71 .00 33811 TANA TROW REFUND-DAY CAMP FOR CHELSEA & MIKE. 148.00 33812 MARY JANE HEINEN REFUND-JR GOLF LESSONS FOR CHRISTINA. 32.00 33813 MARK PRINCE REFUND-BOUNDARY WATERS TRIP. 125.00 33814 CAROLYN BIEKER REFUND-YOUTH TENNIS LESSONS FOR ANDREA. 13.00 33815 JOANNE EGNOR REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP FOR KYLE & COURTNEY. 136.00 33816 JERRY HULSTEIN REFUND-BOUNDARY WATERS TRIP. 125.00 33817 HELEN BROOKE REFUND-SWIM LESSONS FOR BRIAN. 24.00 33818 LISA HAHNFELDT REFUND-SKATING LESSONS FOR RYAN. 50.00 33819 SHAWNA CHENEY REFUND-SWIM LESSONS FOR CARA. 18.00 33820 DARIN BUCK REFUND-BACKPACKING TRIP. 75.00 33821 DAVID HEER REFUND-BACKPACKING TRIP FOR DAVID. 75.00 33822 TANA DIETZLER REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP FOR DINGMAN & 84.00 DIETZLER. 33823 PAMELA NELSON REFUND-EMERGENCY WATER SAFETY-LAURA & 46.00 CHARLIE. 33824 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 33825 LISA MILLER REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP. 172.00 33826 KATHY ENDRES REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP FOR SARAH. 74.00 33827 . JOAN STOLE REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP FOR MARK & LINNAE. 130.00 33828 TERESA STADEM REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUNDFOR PAUL. 15.00 33829 KRIS EIDEM REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP BEFORE AND AFTER 12.00 CARE. 33830 EDUCATIONAL SPORTS PROGRAMS INC SERVICE-INSTRUCTORS FOR YOUTH SOCCER 5346.00 PROGRAM/FEES PAID. 33831 JOLENE OLSON REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND FOR DAVID. 36.00 33832 LAVERNE ANDERSON REFUND-OLD LOG-BEAU JEST TRIP. 26.00 33833 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 198.99 33834 JIM STUKEL SERVICE-BWCA TRIP OUTFITTING & GUIDING. 805.00 33835 GREG RUSH ENTERTAINMENT-DRAMA CAMP PROGRAM. 200.00 33836 DIANA SCHEID REFUND-SWIM LESSONS FOR WILLIAM. 21 .00 33837 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 33838 ELIZABETH LEIGHTON REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP FOR MATTHEW. 74.00 33839 CHARLENE GOEMAN REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP FOR ROBERT. 65.00 33840 MARY ROSE REFUND-WATERCOLOR CAMP FOR AMANDA. 33.00 33841 MARGARET WAGNER REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP FOR JENNIFER. 74.00 33842 KATHLEEN SATHER REFUND-SWIM LESSONS FOR MATTHEW. 21 .00 33843 ANGELICA ELMOR REFUND-SWIM LESSONS FOR AARON. 9.00 33844 CYNTHIA ERICSON REFUND-SKATING LESSONS FOR ANDREW. 52.00 33845 RONALD HARVEY REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP. 148.00 33846 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK SAVINGS BONDS-PAYROLL 8-4-95. 350.00 33847 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY PAYROLL 8-4-95. 8811 .50 33848 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 8-4-95. 3669.26 62568.97 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 1 . SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 33849 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS AUGUST 95 UNION DUES. 1335.00 33850 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE PAYROLL 8-4-95. 1251 .50 33851 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 8-4-95. 247.00 33852 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 8-4-95. 25.00 33853 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 8-4-95. 87.50 33854 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA SEPTEMBER 95 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM. 225.00 33855 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 8-4-95. 157.75 33856 KATHY ERIKSON REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP. 74.00 33857 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE. 1297. 16 33858 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE. 54296.57 33859 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 2800.86 33860 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 8-4-95. 42725.39 33861 MINNEGASCO SERVICE. 8.80 33862 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING. 1114.20 33863 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 08-04-95. 240.46 33864 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 08-04-95. 275.08 33865 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 08-04-95. 227.42 33866 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PAYROLL 08-04-95. 49.37 33867 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PAYROLL 08-04-95. 276.93 33868 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PAYROLL 08-04-95. 90.00 33869 DENISE WAKEFIELD ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LK CONCERT SERIES- 350.00 ARTS COMMISSION. 33870 MATT KELLY ENTERTAINMENT-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION- 25.00 SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM. 33871 MINNESOTA SPORTS FEDERATION TOUCH FOOTBALL TEAM REGISTRATION 84.00 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS PROGRAM. 33872 . ST PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS CO CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT. 125.00 33873 L MCI T LIABILITY INSURANCE. 448.78 33874 SHERI L MEULEBROECK REIMBURSEMENT-ROUND LAKE CONCESSION 136.88 SUPPLIES. 33875 EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT. 77.44 33876 MILE CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 195.00 33877 KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CENTER CONFERENCE-FACILITIES DEPT. 145.00 33878 MINNESOTA SECTION AWWA CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT. 170.00 33879 AMERICAN RED CROSS CONFERENCE-POOL LESSONS. 60.00 33880 MILTS POSSE INC ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LK CONCERT SERIES- 125.00 ARTS COMMISSION. 33881 MINNEAPOLIS GOSPEL SOUND ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LK CONCERT SERIES- 800.00 ARTS COMMISSION. 33882 JIM RICHARDSON SERVICE-MATTED & FRAMED GRAFFITI BRIDGE 75.00 PRINT-CITY HALL. 33883 COMPUTER RENAISSANCE COMPUTER MEMORY SOFTWARE-FACILITIES DEPT. 148.06 33884 RENEE BREPHORST REFUND-STARING LK SHELTER RENTAL. 70.00 33885 SUZANNE DOHERTY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 33886 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REFUND-STARING LAKE PARK SHELTER RENTAL. 70.00 33887 EVELYN KEDLEC REFUND-STATE FAIR TRIP-SENIOR PROGRAMS. 7.50 33888 LORI KISTNER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21.00 33889 REBECCA MOBARRY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.00 33890 MARIA NUNES REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 33891 JOAN ROBERTS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 48.00 11002865 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 2. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 33892 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-UTILITIES DIVISION/FIRE 472.91 DEPT. 33893 E F JOHNSON CO RELOCATION OF 911 COMMUNITY CENTER PSAP 20128.85 CONSOLE EQUIPMENT-CITY CENTER/POWER SUPPLY FOR DESKTOP CONTROL STATION-POLICE DEPT. 33894 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION MILLING OF STREETS FOR OVERLAYS-STREET 13901.25 MAINTENANCE/EDGE MILL RENTAL-STREET MAINTENANCE. 33895 KEVIN MOREHOUSE SERVICE-OUTDOOR CENTER ATTENDANT/SENIOR 462.50 CENTER & STARING LK SHELTER ATTENDANT/ FEES PAID. 33896 USPCA REGION ELEVEN K-9 NATIONAL FIELD TRIALS & SEMINAR- 150.00 POLICE DEPT. 33897 MAPLE LEAF TRAVEL SERVICE INC K-9 TRIALS AIRFARE-POLICE DEPT. 233.00 33898 FIFTH SEASON HOTEL & K-9 NATIONAL FIELD TRIALS & SEMINAR 750.00 LODGING-POLICE DEPT. 33899 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE. 321 .39 33900 BELLBOY CORPORATION BEER. 184.00 33901 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 14799.65 33902 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER. 20696.90 33903 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 7924.03 ' 33904 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX. 1210.30 33905 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY MIX. 178.20 33906 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS BEER. 19.98 33907 THE WINE COMPANY BEER. 54.35 33908 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 20626.35 33909 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33910 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33911 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33912 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33913 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33914 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33915 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33916 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33917 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33918 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33919 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33920 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33921 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33922 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33923 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33924 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33925 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33926 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33927 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33928 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTER MALFUNCTION. 0.00 33929 THANE HAWKINS CHEVROLET CHEVROLET 1 TON 4X4 CHASSIS-CAB-FLEET 19344.00 SERVICES. 33930 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SEPTEMBER 95 SENIOR CENTER 195.92 NEWSLETTER. 12165358 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 3. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 33931 COURTNEY FREIMUTH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 33932 CHRIS KROUTH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21.00 33933 HAGAN SYSTEMS REFUND-ROUND LAKE PARK SHELTER. 70.00 33934 MRS KARTKOPF REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 69.00 33935 KIM LARISH REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP. 86.00 33936 KATHY LEBOW REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 35.00 33937 CHERYL PETERSON REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 74.00 33938 LYNNETTE STUDWELL REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 130.00 33939 LORETTA SWANSON REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 77.00 33940 MARTHA WADDELL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.00 33941 SANDRA WALTERS REFUND-SPORTS CAMP. 65.00 33942 MARY WILCOX REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 2.00 33943 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A PAYROLL 08-18-95. 99596.38 33944 WEST SUBURBAN COLUMBUS CREDIT UNI PAYROLL 08-18-95. 700.00 33945 MENARDS ROPE/BROOM/TARP HOOKS/LAGS/TAPE/WEEDER 839.86 GRASS WHIP/PLYWOOD/ANT & ROACH KILLER/ HAMMER/HAMMER HANDLES/SPIKE NAILS/HINGES/ BATTERY/FLUORESCENT BULBS/TREATED TIMBERS- UTILITIES DIVISION/POLICE DEPT/BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT/TASTE OF PRAIRIE PROGRAM/ENGINEERING DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE/STREET DEPT/FLEET SERVICES. 33946 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 33947 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-WATER DEPT/HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/ 63.14 ENGINEERING DEPT/SAFETY DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE/SENIOR CENTER/ADAPTIVE RECREATION DEPT. 33948 KRIS BLANSHAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.00 33949 SCOTT BRUFLODT REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS. 22.00 33950REFUND-GOLF MARY FAFINSKI65.00 CAMP. 33951 CINDY FLETCHER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.00 33952 CHARLENE GOEMAN REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 9.00 33953 HELEN GUNTHER REFUND-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP. 37.80 33954 JILL JOSEPH REFUND-YOUTH TENNIS TOURNEY. 6.00 33955 GAY LEWIS REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 40.80 33956 NANCY MCSWIGGEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.00 33957 MARILU NAREM REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 50.00 33958 GEORGE 0 NEILL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 42.00 33959 ANITA PROSSER REFUND-SPORTS CAMP. 68.00 33960 LAURA ROBINSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21.00 33961 CAROL ROSENAUER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 15.00 33962 CORY SORBY REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 18.00 33963 ROBERT VON OSTEN REFUND-DEFENSIVE DRIVING CLASS. 15.00 33964 VALERIE WALSH REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 9.00 33965 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM BROCHURE. 158.86 33966 GW INTERNATIONAL 2 FUJI CAMERAS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 57.04 PROGRAM. 33967 IAPE TRAINING SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT. 530.00 33968 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION TACTICAL TRAINING CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT. 1400.00 33969 CITY OF SHOREVIEW PARK & RECREATI SCHOOL-FITNESS PROGRAM. 76.00 104540.88 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 4. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 33970 BELLBOY CORPORATION LIQUOR. 1368.84 33971 EAGLE WINE CO LIQUOR & WINE. 2730.24 33972 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR. 35426.99 33973 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR & WINE. 37978.61 33974 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE. 982.20 33975 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS LIQUOR & WINE. 30091 .00 33976 PRIOR WINE CO LIQUOR & WINE. 5581.87 33977 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIQUOR & WINE. 15932.82 33978 RAFIKI & ASSOC WINE. 163.00 33979 THE WINE COMPANY WINE. 494.86 33980 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE. 248.91 33981 LYNDELL FREY GAS-BOUNDRY WATERS CANOE TRIP-SPECIAL 64.00 TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM. 33982 CHILDS PLAY THEATRE COMPANY SERVICE-INSTRUCTOR-TRAINING CAMP. 840.00 33983 ANDERSON CLEANERS SERVICE-CLEANING BANNERS-4TH OF JULY 46.53 CELEBRATION. 33984 SPENCER L CONRAD CONFERENCE EXPENSES/MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT. 179.98 33985 TELLUS CONSULANTS INC SERVICE-HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK- 5099.24 HERITAGE PRESERVATION PROGRAM. 33986 BETH CLYSDALE SUPPLIES-BRYANT LAKE DAY CAMP. 138.73 33987 MINNESOTA STATE FAIR TICKETS-SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS. 17.00 33988 MINNEGASCO SERVICE. 3009.47 33989 SISINNI FOOD SERVICE MEETING EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT. 691 . 19 33990 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE. 49112.03 33991 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 122.82 33992 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 5434.42 33993 . CARD SERVICES MEETING EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT. 26.62 33994 UNITED PROPERTIES SEPTEMBER 95 RENT - LIQUOR STORE III. 6554.25 33995 JASON-NORTHCO L P #1 SEPTEMBER 95 RENT-LIQUOR STORE I. 5197.00 33996 DISPOSAL PLANS INDUSTRIAL WASTE D PERMIT FEE FOR HAZAROUS WASTE DISPOSAL OF 100.00 SANDBLASTING MATERIAL/HIDDEN PONDS RESERVOIR. 33997 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC PUBLICATIONS-FINANCE DEPT. 71.00 33998 THERESE DELIE REFUND-TEAM TENNIS TRAINING. 63.00 33999 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY POP-SOCIAL PROGRAMS/CONCESSION STAND 601 . 10 SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE CONCESSIONS. 34000 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERA SERVICE. 505.22 34001 SM HENTGES & SONS INC SERVICE-RILEY LAKE PARK INPROVEMENTS. 6855.65 34002 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC FLEET SERVICES. 199.23 34003 ACCOUNTEMPS SERVICE-FINANCE DEPT. 1120.00 34004 ACTION THREADED PRODUCTS WASHERS/NUTS & BOLTS-UTILITIES DIVISION. 302.27 34005 AIM ELECTRONICS INC HOCKEY SCOREBOARD REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER. 420.56 34006 MARK ALEWINE SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICAL/FEES PAID. 315.00 34007 ALLCOM SYSTEMS INC FIRE ALARM SYSTEM INSPECTION FEE- 937.20 COMMUNITY CENTER. 34008 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 87.02 34009 AMERICAN RED CROSS LIFEGUARD TRAINING-POOL LESSONS. 70.00 34010 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC ANNUAL DUES-WATER DEPT/ANNUAL DUES-WATER 2401 .00 DEPT. 34011 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY COMPUTER PAPER-CITY HALL/COMPUTER PAPER- 124.87 CITY HALL. 22170574 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 5. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34012 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY PRINTING-CITYS SHARE FALL PROGRAM 272.64 BROCHURE/ADAPTIVE AQUATICS CERTIFICATES- ADAPTIVE RECREATIONPROGRAM/FLYERS-TASTE OF THE PRAIRIE PROGRAM. 34013 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC INC SIGNS-MILLER PARK INPROVEMENTS/TIRE SWING 665.61 TIRE-EDEN LAKE PARK/SIGNS-MILLER PARK INPROVEMENTS/TIRE SWING TIRE-EDEN LAKE PARK/SIGNS-MILLER PARK INPROVEMENTS/TIRE SWING TIRE-EDEN LAKE PARK. 34014 DON ANDERSON SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 712.50 34015 ANDERSONS GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPARTMENT. 23.03 34016 AQUA CITY PLUMBING &HEATING WELL EQUIPMENT TESTING- WATER DEPARTMENT. 281.60 34017 AQUA ENGINEERING INC COUPLINGS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 15.76 34018 ASSOCIATED BAG COMPANY PLASTIC ZIPPER BAGS- BLDG INSPECTIONS 256. 12 DEPT. 34019 AT&T CASH REGISTER PRINTER PAPER- COMMUNITY 67.23 CENTER. 34020 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES AUGUST 95 PAPER SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 10.65 34021 AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC VEHICAL RUST REMOVAL/PAINTING-FLEET 152.54 SERVICES. 34022 AVR INC CEMENT-STORM DRAINAGE DEPT. 243.51 34023 B & S TOOLS HAMMER/VISE GRIP/DRILL CHUCK &KEY/SQUARE 90.48 DRILL HAMMER- WATER DEPT/HAMMER/VISE GRIP/ DRILL CHUCK &KEY/SQUARE DRILL HAMMER- WATER DEPT. 34024 BACONS ELECTRIC CO STARTER/MOTOR REPAIR/ REPLACED BURNT 1931.60 SERVICE WIRES/COOLING FANS REPAIRED-WATER DEPT/STARTER/MOTOR REPAIR/ REPLACED BURNT SERVICE WIRES/COOLING FANS REPAIRED- WATER DEPT. 34025 BALDWIN COOKE COMPANY CALANDERS-UTILITIES DIVISION. 274.36 34026 BALLOON MAN INC IMPRINTED BALLOONS-COMMUNITY SERVICES 1276.89 DEPT. 34027 BAUER BUILT INC FLEET SERVICES/FLEET SERVICES. 460.71 34028 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC MILLER PARK IMPROVEMENTS/COMMUNITY CENTER/ 12618.80 COMMUNITY CENTER. 34029 GARY BEITO POLICE DEPT. 25.00 34030 BELLBOY CORPORATION SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE. 751 .44 34031 MATTHUE BENDER PUBLICATIONS. 215. 14 34032 BENIEK LAWN SERVICE LAWM MOWING SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 628.35 34033 BIFFS INC AUGUST 95 WASTE DISPOSAL-ADA PROGRAM/PARK 7036.51 MAINTENANCE. 34034 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION. 1543.00 34035 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON JULY 95 KENNEL COSTS-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT. 309.00 34036 BLUE LINE LAW ENFORCEMENT GEAR WAVE BAG/CORNERMAN STAND/VINYL BAG GLOVES- 427.57 POLICE DEPT. 34037 BMS INTERGRATED OFFICE TECHNOLOGI PRINTER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT. 105.44 34038 LEE M BRANT SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICAL/FEES PAID. 157.50 34039 PAUL BROWN SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICAL/FEES PAID. 850.00 34040 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-STORM DRAINAGE DEPT. 113.64 3151662 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 6. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34041 NATHAN BUCK SERVICE-SOFTBALL&VOLLEYBALL OFFICAL/FEE 513.00 PAID. 34042 BUMPER TO BUMPER FLEET SERVICES. 77.07 34043 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES DIVISION/POLICE DEPT. 2300.79 34044 CARLSONS TREE SERVICE SERVICE-TREE REMOVAL-FORESTY DEPT. 1065.00 34045 CARSONITE ROADMARKER DRIVER-PARK MAINTENANCE. 82.59 34046 STEPHANIE CHADWICK SUPPLIES-SPORT CAMP PROGRAM/CONCESSION 63.37 STAND SUPPLIES-ROUNDLAKE CONCESSION. 34047 CITY BUSINESS SUBSCRIPTION-ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. 52.00 34048 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIPMENT LITEBOX-FIRE DEPT. 284.91 34049 CLEAN SWEEP INC SWEEPING FOR SEAL COATING-STORM DRAINAGE 897.00 DEPT. 34050 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SVC INC COMPRESSOR/HYDRAULIC CYLINDER/SLACK SEAL 377.70 DRUM. 34051 CO2 SERVICES CARBON DIOXIDE TANK RENTAL-COMMUNITY 35.00 CENTER. 34052 CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING CABINET-ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. 344.03 34053 COMPUTERWARE DATA PRODUCTS INC COMPUTER PAPER-COMMUNITY CENTER. 146.47 34054 JOHN CONLEY PUBLICATION-POLICE DEPT. 17.50 34055 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS UTILITIES DIVISION/BENZALKONIUM SPRAY- 870.60 WATER DEPT/BAR TAPE MARKING ARROWS-SAFETY DEPT/WIPERS TAPE MINERAL ICE FLASHLIGHT- WATER DEPT. 34056 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC FABRIC-EDEN LAKE PLAYSTRUCTURE. 945.72 34057 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-RILEY LAKE PARK. 34.40 34058 CLIFF CRACAUER MILEAGE/VEHICLE LITTER BASKETS-FLEET 109.23 SERVICES. 34059 CREATIVE CRAFTS INTERNATIONAL BASKET/GROUT POWDER-ACTIVITY CENTER. 36.85 34060 CRESCENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY FUSES/FUSEHOLDERS/OFFICE SUPPLIES-TRAFFIC 90.70 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE/STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE. 34061 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT PLANT/LAB 547.74 SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 34062 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLINE- WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 14973.79 34063 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT. 306.90 34064 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO FIRE LINE TAPE/BUNKER BOOTS-FIRE DEPT. 316.95 34065 DAN DESAULNIERS SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 367.50 34066 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY GLOVES-WATER DEPT/MIXING BLADE-UTILITIES 385.84 DIVISION. 34067 DONS SOD SERVICE RILEY LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS/SOD-PARK 2095.32 MINTENANCE. 34068 DYNA SYSTEMS BOLTS/HOOKS/SOCKETS/HOLSTER- WATER DEPT. 428.66 34069 E-Z GO TEXTRON CAR RENTALS-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION. 180.00 34070 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL. 375.73 34071 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIV AUGUST 95 PEST CONTROL SERVICE-FACILITIES 186.40 DEPT. 34072 EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE WATER TEMPERATURE SWITCH REPLACED-WATER 82.41 DEPT. 34073 EDEN PRAIRIE FLORIST EXPENSES-CITY HALL. 39.08 34074 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 BUS SERVICE-ACTIVITY CAMP/ACCESSIBILITY 232. 17 PROGRAM. 2886242 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 7. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34075 CITY OF EDINA SERVICE-SWIMMING LESSONS AIDE-INTERGRATED 84.00 PROGRAM. 34076 EKLUNDS TREE & BRUSH DISPOSAL JULY 95 BRUSH DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT. 1380.00 34077 ELECTRIC MECHANICAL SVCS MOTOR-WATER DEPT. 131 .98 34078 EUGEN R. ELLEFSON SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 262.50 34079 THE EXECUTIVE PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS-FINANCE DEPT/PUBLICATIONS- 107.62 FORESTRY DEPT/PUBLICATIONS PARK MAINTENANCE. 34080 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-CITY HALL. 46.23 34081 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 8837.40 34082 FIBROCOM SERVICE-911 CONNECTION BETWEEN CITY HALL 398.99 & TRANSMITTER SITE-POLICE DEPT. 34083 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES HINGES/FORK SET/TENSION BARS/PAINT-PARK 526.50 MAINTENANCE/BATTERS EYE SCREENS/TIES/ROPE- MILLER PARK IMPROVEMENTS. 34084 FISHER ENTERPRISE BLACK DIRT-RILEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS. 351 .45 34085 FORRESTRY SUPPLIERS INC WATCH/FIRST AID BOOK/INSECT REPELLANT/ 634.27 GAUGE/MAGNIFIER/TAPE/COMPASS/FLAGS- FORESTRY DEPT. 34086 LYNDELL FREY EXPENSES-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND PROGRAM. 20.00 34087 ESPING FORENSIC ENGINEERING INC ELEVATED WATER TANK INSPECTION-HIDDEN 1125.00 PONDS RESEVOIR. 34088 RON ESS SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 225.00 34089 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC PUMPER DRUM REFRIGERANT LEAK REPAIR/ 5252.38 PRESSURE GAUGE/FREON/FLOAT SWITCH/ SOLENOID OIL VALVE & COIL REPLACED- COMMUNITY CENTER. 34090 GE CAPITAL SEPTEMBER 95 COPIER LEASE AGREEMENT- 134.75 SENIOR CENTER. 34091 GE CAPITAL MODULAR SPACE PARK BLDG RENTAL-PRAIRIE VIEW PARK. 410.02 34092 GENERAL MACHINING INC ROLLER FOR MOWER-FLEET SERVICES. 420.68 34093 GENERAL MUSIC INC POWER AMP/CHANNEL SNAKE/MICROPHONES & 2634.34 STANDS/CORDS/MOUNTS-ARTS COMMISSION. 34094 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-UTILITIES DIVISION. 530.20 34095 GETTMAN COMPANY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE I. 183.40 34096 JENNIFER GLAZA MILEAGE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 35.00 34097 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-FLEET SERVICES/TIRE REPAIR/SERVICE 6436.82 CALL/STOCK. 34098 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC SERVICE-UTILITIES. 49.00 34099 W W GRAINGER INC PRESSURE GAUGE-WATER DEPT. 26.07 34100 EMILY GRIFFITH SERVICE-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND INSTRUCTOR/ 48.75 FEES PAID. 34101 GUNNER ELECTRIC CO INC HOOKUP TEMP TRAILOR/REPAIR WIRE PARKING 540.54 LOTS. 34102 GUSTAFSON REFUND-OVERPAYMENT FALL SOFTBALL 50.00 REGISTRATION FEE. 34103 HACH COMPANY LAB SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 90.60 34104 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC SERVICE-STARING LAKE PARK/EDEN PRAIRIE 2800.00 MARKET CENTER. 34105 HANUS BUS SERVICE BUS SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 578.00 3435149 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 8. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34106 HARMON GLASS COMPANY WINDSHIELD-FLEET SERVICES. 195.70 34107 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION. 54.88 34108 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATION- 128.88 ELECTIONS DEPT. 34109 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PROPERTY OWNER MAILING LABELS-COMMUNITY 35.00 DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 34110 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FOR PAYMENT OF RECOVERED HOUSING 6928.59 REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS. 34111 D C HEY COMPANY INC COPIER REPAIR-WATER DEPT/COPIER 187.15 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/TONER-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT. 34112 CAROLINE HILK ENTERTAINMENT FOT THE 4TH OF JULY KIDDIE 25.00 PARADE-SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM. 34113 HONEYWELL INC AUGUST 95 INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE 1998.00 AGREEMENT/PRESSURE CONTROL-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 34114 HUBER FUNERAL HOME BRONZE MARKER-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY. 150.00 34115 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERICA AWARD CERIFICATES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 120.68 34116 INTERNATIONAL PERSONNEL MGMT ASSO DUES-HUMAN RESOURCES. 5.00 34117 BRENDA JERDE SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 306.00 34118 CRAIG JERDE SERVICE-OUTDOORCENTER ATTENDANT/SOFTBALL 150.00 OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 34119 CRAIG JERDE SERVICE-OUTDOOR CENTER ATTENDANT/SOFTBALL 175.00 OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 34120 CHRIS JESSEN SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 140.00 34121 BRUCE H JOHNSON MILEAGE-FLEET SERVICES. 42.00 34122 E F JOHNSON CO RADIOS/BATTERIES/CHARGERS/POWERSUPPLIES/ 2593.41 SPEAKERS/SWIVELS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 34123 WILLIAM & CATHERINE JOHNSON REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT FEE. 122.00 34124 KANDIYOHI BOTTLED WATER CO WATER COOLER RENTAL-LIQUOR STORE III. 13.58 34125 J J KELLER & ASSOC INC SAFETY REGULATIONS POCKETBOOK-SAFETY DEPT. 51 .93 34126 JJ KELLER & ASSOCIATES INC PUBLICATION-UTILITIES DEPT. 339.55 34127 KINKOS PRINTS-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT/POSTERS- 262.00 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT. 34128 KNOX LUMBER TREATED TIMBERS/TIMBER SPIKES-EDEN LAKE 1562.57 PARK. 34129 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR TRUCK WASH EXIT DOOR REPAIR-FACILITIES 95.75 DEPT. 34130 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 1720.50 34131 LAKELAND ENGINEERING CO VALVE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 146.56 34132 PIZZA HUT MEETING EXPENSES-ROUND LAKE BEACH. 58.55 34133 CHECK ASSY/RESVR ASY/PUMP ASY/MUD FLAPS/ 994.08 FUEL SHUT OFF/SOLENOID/TUBE ASSY-FLEET SERVICES. 34134 ROBERT LAMBERT MEETING EXPENSES/DUES-PARK & RECREATION 140.00 DEPT. 34135 AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS I STREET MAINTENANCE. 12.72 34136 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD JULY 95 LEGAL SERVICE-$1657-FLYING CLOUD 27415.76 AIRPORT EXPANSION/$639 CENTRUM INC-TEMAN LAND COMSTOCK & DAVIS/$275 TEMAN LAND MUSICLAND GROUP/$9956 PROSUCATION SERVICE- POLICE DEPT/JULY LEGAL FEES. 4617084 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 9. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34137 JH LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY FLORESENT LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT. 198.09 34138 JERRY LASEY EXPENSES-VAN TRIP LUNCH-SENIOR CENTER 15. 11 PROGRAMS. 34139 L MCI T LIABILITY INSURANCE BRS CLAIM NO:11010096/ 266.83 CLAIMANT:JEFF ALDRICH/DATE OF LOSS- OCCURENCE: 7-14-95. 34140 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC JULY 95 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL. 3091.32 34141 BILL LEMPESIS CHAIR-LIQUOR STORE II. 212.99 34142 JEAN LEUTHNER EXPENSES-ART CAMP PROGRAM. . 12.50 34143 LIONS TAP EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT. 165. 11 34144 LOGIS JULY 95 SERVICE. 11134.25 34145 STUART FOX MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT. 114.52 34146 LYONS SAFETY WIPES/OIL/COATING-WATER DEPT. 306.25 34147 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC SPROCKET/BEARING/FLANGE/BELT/SPRING/ 438.96 CLUTCH-FLEET SERVICES. 34148 RODERICK MACRAE OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAMS. 145.98 34149 J MARCEL ENTEKPRISES SHORTS-POLICE DEPT. 244.08 34150 MARKETEAM CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 193.00 CENTER. 34151 MATRX MEDICAL INC FIRST AID RESCUE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 348.61 34152 SUE MCCARVILLE MILEAGE-RECREATION DEPT. 14.00 34153 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION DEPT/ 104.82 SENIOR CENTER/POOL LESSONS. 34154 MCGUIRE MECH REFUND-OVERPAYMENT BUILDING PERMIT#49976 6.00 RECEIPT 61294 1800 THRU 10814 LEXINGTON DR. 34155 . MEDICINE LAKE TOURS TOUR CHARGES-APOSTLE ISLAND-ADULT 320.00 PROGRAMS/FEE PAID. 34156 MENARDS SAW BLADE/CARRBOLT/STAPLES/STAPLEGUN/ 227. 11 PRIMER/WOODCHOP/HEXBOLT/WASHER/REROD/RAID/ ADHESIVE/GREEN TREAT/CONCRETE/PARK MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT-CITY CENTER-STORM DRAINAGE DEPT-STREET MAINTENANCE. 34157 METALS JOINING LAB CO ALUMINUM TUBES-SEWER DEPT. 415.35 34158 METRO RESOURCES UNLIMITED MOWING SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 160.00 34159 METRO LEGAL SERVICES INC TRACT SEARCHES-HOUSING REHABILITATION 75.00 PROGRAM. 34160 METRO SALES INC COPIER INK-CITY HALL. 156.66 34161 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER S SEPTEMBER 95 SEWER SERVICE. 163987.00 34162 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP PATCHING ASPHALT-STREET MAINTENANCE. 2601 .23 34163 MIDWEST COCA COLA BLDG CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 91.00 CENTER. 34164 MINNCOMM PAGING AUGUST 95 PAGER SERVICE-BLDG INSPECTIONS/ 73.44 UTILITIES DIVISION. 34165 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT TOWING SERVICE-POLICE DEPT. 65.00 34166 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY FIRE EXTINGUISHER RECHARGING-FIRE DEPT. 140.24 34167 MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL LIMING MATERIAL SAMPLE-WATER 80.00 TREATMENT PLANT. 34168 MINNESOTA PRIMA DUES-SAFETY DEPT. 75.00 34169 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 222.70 18570215 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 10. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34170 MINNESOTA TROPHIES PLAQUES-POLICE DEPT. 192.23 34171 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING FORMS-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. 76.41 34172 STAN MORGAN & ASSOCIATES INC SHELVING/BASKETS/DIVIDERS-LIQUOR STORE 3069.63 III. 34173 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO SEAL KIT/MOUNT/NUT/KEY SWITCH/SPACER/ 919.18 LATCH ASM/AIR CLEANER/BAND ASM/FUEL GAUGE/ BRAKE CABLE-FLEET SERVICES. 34174 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT. 2693.43 34175 WE NEAL SLATE CO CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT. 57.51 34176 NERCO EVANS DISTRIB CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 3263.68 CENTER/ROUND LAKE CONCESSIONS. 34177 NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES INC MAY 95 SAFEKEEPING MAINTENANCE FEE- 17.00 FINANCE DEPT. 34178 NORTHWESTERN POWER EQUIPMENT CO SHAFT/IMPELLER- WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 1703.25 34179 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC ROPE/CLIPS/CHAIN HOOK/CHAINS/SAW-WATER 285.35 DEPT-FLEET SERVICES. 34180 OLYMPIC ELECTRIC CO SOFFIT & BALLASTS REPAIR-CITY CENTER. 290.49 34181 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER REPAIRS-FINANCE DEPT. 200.00 34182 PARAGON CABLE INSTALLATION OF 2 OUTLETS-CITY HALL. 220.50 34183 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER SERVICE-HEPATITIS B VACCINE-HUMAN 270.00 RESOURCE DEPT. 34184 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC EMERGENCY REPAIR RESTORATION. 616.00 34185 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC EMERGENCY REPAIR-WATER DEPT. 3022.19 34186 J C PENNEY UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT. 38.41 34187 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE. 535. 15 34188 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO WHEEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 55.94 34189 . PITNEY BOWES INC POSTAGE MACHINE RENTAL-CITY HALL. 484.00 34190 POWERTEX SPORTSWEAR INC T-SHIRTS/TANK TOPS/SWEATSHIRTS/JACKETS- 6388.74 YOUTH ATHLETICS PROGRAM/ORGANIZED ATHLETICS PROGRAM/ROUND LAKE BEACH/ ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM. 34191 PRAIRIE CYCLE & SKI ALLAN TOOL/LIGHT/WASHER/WHEEL/SADDLES- 138.46 POLICE DEPT. 34192 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN ECHOMATIC HEAD/LINE/STRAINER/SPARKPLUG/ 501.35 SHOP SUPPLIES/CAP FUEL TANK/GASKET/FUEL FILTER/BELT/OIL/FUEL LINE/HEAD ASSEMBLY/ SPOOL-PARK MAINTENANCE. 34193 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING-SUMMER 95 EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER- 836.40 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/DIVERSITY & HUMAN RIGHTS BROCHURE-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. 34194 PRINTERS SERVICE INC ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED-COMMUNITY CENTER. 72.50 34195 PRO SOURCE FITNESS CHAINGUARD/PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 131 .12 STAIRMASTER CYBEX BIKES SKIERS UNIVERSAL- POLICE DEPT. 34196 PROCOLOR PRINTS-COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPT. 303. 10 34197 PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT FIRST AID SUPPLIES. 76.95 34198 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC BEARING/SHOP SUPPLIES/0 RING/MILEAGE/ 8584.50 EQUIPMENT PACK-SEWER DEPT. 34199 R & R SPECIALTIES INC ALTERNATOR BRACKET/CLOTH/HARNESS/SQUEEGEE/ 191.74 HOSE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 3523521 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 11. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34200 RADIO SHACK INDOOR THERM-SAFETY DEPT. 26.61 34201 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM. 112.89 34202 LEE RAY SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 971 .25 34203 THE RETAIL MARKETING GROUP ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 50.00 34204 RICHARDS ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING ASPHALT-STREET MAINTENANCE. 263.91 34205 RICOH CORPORATION SEPTEMBER 95 COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 626.86 CITY HALL. 34206 RITZ CAMERA FILM/FILM PROCESSING-FORESTRY DEPT/HUMAN 234.42 RESOURCES DEPT/STREET MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT/ FORESTRY DEPT. 34207 RUFF CUT SERVICE-WEED CUTTING-FORESTRY DEPT. 80.00 34208 S B MFG CO INC ZAMBONI CYLINDER HEAD REPLACED/HEAD 362.37 GASKET SET-COMMUNITY CENTER. 34209 S&S ARTS & CRAFTS TARP-ACTIVITY CAMP. 82.35 34210 SA-AG INC GRAVEL-EDEN LAKE PARK. 1927. 18 34211 SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION CARBURETOR CLEANER-FLEET SERVICES/PARK 308.32 MAINTENANCE. 34212 ST JOSEPHS EQUIPMENT INC CASTER/WASHER/RUBBER/BEARING-FLEET 397.40 SERVICES. 34213 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT. 79.94 34214 SCHMITT MUSIC CENTER AMPLIFIER INTERNAL POWER CONNECTOR 24.00 REPAIRED-ART & MUSIC PROGRAM. 34215 WILBUR W SCHULTZ SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 892.50 34216 SEARS VAC FILTERS-FIRE DEPT. 53.22 34217 SHAKOPEE VALLEY PRINTING PRINTING-FALL PROGRAM BROCHURE-COMMUNITY 7337.55 BROCHURE DEPT. 3421-8 JULIE SHANNON SERVICE-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND SUPERVISOR/ 78.75 FEES PAID. 34219 SIGNUM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC DECAL VINYL-SIGNS-STREET DEPT. 70.29 34220 PETER SMITH SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICAL/FEES PAID. 323.00 34221 W GORDON SMITH CO FUEL/SEMIFLUID/GREASE-FLEET SERVICES- 702. 10 STORM DRAINAGE DEPT-PARK MAINTENANCE. 34222 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION WRENCH/PLIERS/RACHET-FLEET SERVICES-WATER 247.62 DEPT. 34223 SNELL MECHANICAL INC AIR CONDITIONING CONDENSER FAN MOTER 892.50 REPLACED-COMMUNITY CENTER. 34224 SO HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNING 2ND QRT 95 FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE 4336.25 PROGRAM-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. 34225 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BUS SERVICE-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND PROGRAM. 15.00 34226 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING EMPLOYMENT ADS-FINANCE DEPT/POOL LESSONS. 146.30 34227 KELLY SPANN SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 111 .00 34228 TRACY SPRANGRUD SERVICE-DANCE INSTRUCTOR-SUMMER SKILL 326.20 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 34229 STAR TRIBUNE EARLY SUNDAY PAPERS FOR RESALE-LIQUIR 16.06 STORE III. 34230 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ FLASHLIGHT HOLDER/MAGAZINE CLAMP/ 693.34 REFLECTOR ASSEMBLY/PORTABLE BEACON/ DASHLIGHT/DECKBLASTER-POLICE DEPT-FLEET SERVICES. 2178918 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 12. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34231 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL. 58.83 34232 SULLIVANS UTILITY SVC REFUND-OVERPAYMENT PLUMBING PERMIT FEE. 14.00 34233 SYSTEMS CONTROL SERVICES INC BAKER RD RESERVOIR PROBLEM/DATA FAIL 4552.04 ALARM WELL 2/HIDDEN PONDS RESERVOIR ANTENNA-WATER DEPT. 34234 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICE PUMPED HOLDING TANK 7-10-95/7-31-95/PARK 190.00 MAINTENANCE. 34235 TARGET STORES COOLERS/FREEZER PACKS-SPORTS & SPECIAL 150.05 CAMPS-SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM. 34236 MARC THEILAMN PHONE REINBURSEMENT-FACILITIES DEPT. 28.98 34237 THIRTY-THREE MINUTE PHOTO INC FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT/ 492.22 ASSESSING DEPT/FIRE DEPT/BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT/ SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM/ SENIOR CENTER/ARTS COMMISSION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM/WATER DEPT. 34238 TIE SYSTEMS INC-MN MITEL TELEPHONE-ADAPTIVE RECREATION DEPT. 251.08 34239 KEVIN E TIMM SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 892.50 34240 TKDA & ASSOC INC SERVICE-4JATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. 5384.00 34241 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY HELUIM-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND PROGRAM. 34.35 34242 JIM TORNOE SUPPLIES-SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 224.30 34243 TOTAL REGISTER SYS LABELS-LIQUOR STORE III. 45.60 34244 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS DIESEL FUEL-FLEET SERVICES. 4402.39 34245 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS INC CRAFT SUPPLIES-ARTS CAMP PROGRAM. 184.03 34246 THE TROPHY HOUSE PLATES/PLAQUES-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. 47.78 34247 TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN-MTKA LAWN CARE-FACILITIES DEPT. 472.33 34248 TURF SUPPLY COMPANY HERBICIDE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 140.47 34249 . TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN/ACETYLENE/NITROGEN-FLEET SERVICES. 179.76 34250 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT. 359.95 34251 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC NUTS & BOLTS/DRILL BITS/WASHERS-PARK 256.67 MAINTENANCE. 34252 VOSS LIGHTING LIGHT BULBS-COMMUNITY CENTER/LIQUOR STORE 191.06 III. 34253 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP CO SUBCAB/GROMMET/O RING-SEWER DEPT. 208.55 34254 WARNING LITES OF MN REFLECTIVE CONES-STREET DEPT. 505.88 34255 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE AUGUST 95 WASTE DISPOSAL-LIQUOR STORE I. 91.96 34256 WATERPRO NOZZLES/FLANGE KIT/CURB VALVE BOX RISERS/ 2466.48 COUPLINGS/METER GASKETS/TOUCHPAD UPGRADES/ BELT ASSEMBLY/GUN BELT CLIPS/ADJUSTING VALVE EXTENSIONS/RODSEALS/SPLIT CONNECTORS/PVC PIPE/SADDLES/PCV SEWER CAP GASKETS/-UTILITIES DIVISION. 34257 WATER SPECIALTY OF MN-INC LIQUID CHLORINE/TEST TABLETS/CHLORINE 863.85 NEUTRALIZER/HANDLE/FILTER BAG CLIP- COMMUNITY CENTER. 34258 WEATHER WATCH INC AUGUST 95 WEATHER SERVICE-STREET DEPT. 195.00 34259 PAUL WELIN SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 175.00 34260 SANDRA WERTS MILEAGE-SENIOR CENTER. 118.80 34261 JOEL WESTACOTT SOUND & VIDEO SERVICE-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 194.50 PROGRAM/CITY COUNCIL. 34262 WESTBURNE SUPPLY INC-MPLS PRESSURE REGULATOR COOLER-COMMUNITY 547.41 CENTER. 2391982 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 13. SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VI 34263 LOIS N WILDER SERVICE-MEMOIR WRITING INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR 112.50 CENTER PROGRAMS. 34264 WORDPERFECT SUBCRIPTION-PARK & RECREATION DEPT. 36.00 34265 THE WORK CONNECTION SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 4803.18 34266 X-ERGON CONCRETE STICK-WATER DEPT. 332.98 34267 YALE INC FREON. 204.69 34268 JIM ZAIC IAPMO & HENN CTY INSPECTORS MEETINGS. 28.71 34269 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT. 144.89 34270 ZIEGLER INC POWER GENERATOR RENTAL-4TH OF JULY 1551 .73 CELEBRATION. 11000 AMERICAN BANK BOND PAYMENT. 174342.50 11000 NORWEST BANK BOND PAYMENT. 865105.05 22000 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 07-21-95. 19507.31 22000 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 08-04-95. 19607. 13 22000 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 08-18-95. 19822.70 44000 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE JUNE 95 SALES TAX. 12885.00 44000 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE JULY 95 SALES TAX. 43009.00 55000 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE JULY SPECIAL FUEL TAX. 297.20 33146 VOID OUT CHECK 372.75- 32379 VOID OUT CHECK 474.50- 33355 VOID OUT CHECK 130.50- 33356 VOID OUT CHECK 25.00- 33390 VOID OUT CHECK 62.00- 33627 VOID OUT CHECK 280.92- 33656 VOID OUT CHECK 19478.85- 33684 VOID OUT CHECK 856.49- 33691 VOID OUT CHECK 23501.25- 33705 VOID OUT (WECK 400.0n- 1116208.31 $2144253.86 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 14. DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA September 5, 1995 SECTION: Ordinances & Resolutions DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Administration--C. Jullie, Resolution certifying proposed 1996 property C. Dawson tax levy, accepting proposed 1996 budget, and VII. A setting date(s) for Truth-in-Taxation hearing(s) Requested Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution which: 1) Certifies the proposed 1996 net property tax levy to be $14,922,910; 2) Sets the "Truth-in-Taxation" public hearing for Wednesday, December 6, 1995 and, if necessary, to reconvene the public hearing on Wednesday, December 13, 1995; and 3) Accepts the proposed 1996 budget of $22,516,200 as reviewed by the Council on August 31, 1995. Background: Minnesota law and administrative rules prescribe a detailed process for public notification and participation in setting taxes and budgets of local governments. Cities must adopt a proposed net property tax levy by September 15 and certify it to the county auditor. The final tax levy may not exceed the proposed amount. Failure to meet this deadline results in no net tax levy increase from 1995 to 1996. (Eden Prairie's 1994 net property tax levy was $13,900,000.) At the same time, the City Council must accept a proposed budget for the coming year. The City must also set a date for the "Truth-in-Taxation" hearing and a date to reconvene it (if necessary). These dates may not conflict with the initial and reconvened hearing dates set by Hennepin County, school districts, or the metropolitan taxing districts. As all of them get to set their dates before we do, there are a very limited number of dates available. The dates of December 6 and December 13 are the most workable ones for us to be within the scheduled established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The Council must adopt the tax levy and budget by December 20. Attached Documents: Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY'S PROPOSED 1996 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES, SETTING THE DATE(S) FOR THE "TRUTH-IN-TAXATION" HEARINGS, AND ACCEPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR GENERAL OPERATIONS AND TAX-SUPPORTED OBLIGATIONS FOR 1996 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie has reviewed the City Manager's recommended 1996 budget and tax levies; and WHEREAS, the City Council has decided to accept these recommendations at this time, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council: 1) Established the following proposed taxes on real and personal property within the City of Eden Prairie for the 1995 Budget: Net Levy on Tax Capacity $14, 487, 610 Levy on Market Value 435, 300 Total NET LEVY $14, 922 , 910 (The NET LEVY excludes $588,226 in Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid [HACA] , and $675,876 in distribution from the Metropolitan Tax-Base Sharing Pool [Fiscal Disparities] ) The proposed total net levy may not be exceeded when the City Council sets the final tax levy for 1996. 2) Sets the following dates for the "Truth-in-Taxation" public hearings on the proposed 1996 tax levy and budget: Public Hearing: Wednesday, December 6, 1995 7:30 PM, Council Chamber Eden Prairie City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Reconvened Public Hearing: Wednesday, December 13 , 1995 Same time and location If the public hearing is completed and closed on December 6, the Council will consider action on the 1996 final tax levy and budget at its regularly-scheduled meeting on December 19, 1995. 3) Accepts the 1996 proposed net levy of $14,922,910 and proposed budget totalling $22, 516,200 at this time. Adopted by the City Council September 5, 1995 Attest: Jean L. Harris, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9/5/95 SECTION: PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS ITEM NO. sir. A. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request from Niosi to Review Community Development the Board of Adjustments & Appeals Denial of Variance Chris Enger #95-23. Jean Johnson Request to Council: Approve Variance #95-23 so applicant may build a single family structure on a 1.2 acre Rural property. Background: The Board heard the variance on July 13, 1995. Issues discussed were: steepness of Eden Prairie Road, safety of the road, proposed driveway and degree of lot size variance. Residents attending the July 13, 1995 Board meeting raised the same issues stated above, plus voiced their concern about the number of traffic accidents that occur near the proposed driveway location. Supporting Reports: 1. Staff Report dated 7-13-95 (Updated 8-30-95) 2. Applicant's information dated 6-8-95 and revised 8-29-95 3. BOA Minutes of 7-13-95 4. Letter dated 7/13/95 from resident 5. Engineering reports dated 6-29-95 & 8-30-95 6. Information attached _viRL - A - 1 CITY COUNCIL City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 949-8490 STAFF REPORT VARIANCE#95-23 BOA MEETING DATE: July 13, 1995 Revised: August 30, 1995 APPLICANT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi LOCATION: Northeast corner of U.S. 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road REQUEST: Approval to construct a single family house on 1.2 acres having a side setback of 40 feet one side and 140 feet total for both sides. (Code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side setbacks are 50 feet one side no less than 150 feet total for both sides.) This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denying applicant's request for variances from the minimum area and setback requirements for land in the Rural Zoning District. Applicants land is located at the northeast corner of US 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road, and is further described as that part of the East 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, lying North of the right-of-way of U.S Highway 169/212 and South and East of the center line of Eden Heights Road, except the East 171 feet thereof(the "land"). The land consists of 1.23 acres. City Code permits single family dwellings on parcels in the Rural District of not less than 10 acres or five acres or more as of July 6, 1982. The Code requires side yard setbacks from the property lines of 50 feet on one side and 150 feet for both sides. Applicant desires to build a single-family dwelling on the land with side yard setbacks from the property lines of 40 feet and 140 feet. ZONING DISTRICT: Rural AREA CHARACTER: Rural parcels ranging in size from one acre to 20+ acres; some lots have dwellings, some are vacant. The area is outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), but utilities may be available in 5±years. The purpose of lot size minimums in the Rural District is to prevent premature urban development of land outside the sewer/water service area, allow agricultural pursuits, and provide adequate space for each dwelling and facilities for housing animals. See attached Background on land ownership and divisions. S1� Pr - a MISCELLANEOUS: This property was previously before the Board in 1983. Background information on Variance#83-34 is attached. This property is north of U.S. 169/212 on the river bluffs facing the Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. If the variance is approved, the development will be scheduled for sloped ground review before the Parks, Planning Commission and City Council as required by City Code. Maps available to the City do not depict recorded burial mounds on this site. Staff will do further research to access the site's historical significance. Eden Prairie Road and U.S. 169/212 abut the property. Access to U.S. 169/212 would be difficult because of the steep slopes. Access to Eden Prairie Road is dangerous due to steepness and curves in the road which limits visibility. The driveway location proposed was reviewed by the City Engineering Department and their memo is attached. The drainfield locations were reviewed by the City Building Department. OPTIONS: 1. Rezone the parcel to a R1 District after sewer and water are available and build according to the Residential District standards. Until that time the property has Rural uses. 2. Acquire additional land to minimize the degree of variance or achieve the 10 acre minimum. (This can be done only by purchasing land to the east which is controlled by 2 landowners.) 3. Construct a smaller dwelling so the side setback variances are eliminated. BARMAN\REPORTS\9523B.CC yin Pk - 3 Background Prior to June 11, 1964 the land was part of real property located in Section 29 owned by Mildred K. Graves, including the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, except the East 42 rods of the South 2 rods thereof, and also a strip one rod wide along the north line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, consisting of approximately L{D acres; the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,l1�� except the north one rod thereof, consisting of approximately /4 Q acres; the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, consisting of approximately 20 acres; and the West three-fourths of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter, except that part described as follows : Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 except the East 42 rods of the South 2 rods thereof in Section 29 of Town 116, Range 22, and also a strip 1 rod wide along the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section. The Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 except the North 1 rod thereof, the East half of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, the West 3/4ths of the South half of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29-116-22 . Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 29, running thence North 17 1/2 rods on the West line of L. PP - y said quarter section to a point of intersection in the center of a public road known as the Reichard Road, thence in an Easterly and Southeasterly direction along the center line of said road as now located, a distance of 120 rods to a point where the center line of said road intersects with the South line of said quarter section, thence West along the South line of said quarter section to point of beginning consisting of approximately 50 acres (the "real property" ) . All parcels of the real property were connected. Commencing on June 11, 1964 Ms . Graves began dividing the real property by conveying several parcels . On that date she conveyed pursuant to an earlier Contract For Deed, dated January 31, 1963 and amended November 7, 1963, the East 171 feet of that part of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22 , lying North of right-of-way of U. S. Highway No. 169/212 and South and East of the center line of Eden Heights Road as now travelled, consisting of 1. 3 acres . On October 25, 1967 Ms . Graves entered into a Contract For Deed to convey the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, except that part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying north of the right-of-way of U.S . Highway No. 169/212 and South and East of the MIA -s center line of. Eden Heights Road. On that date she also conveyed by Warranty Deed to the contract vendee a portion of the parcel which was the subject of the Contract For Deed described as follows : That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22 , described as follows : Beginning at a point in the West line of the East Half of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 486 - feet South of the Northwest corner thereof, thence Southerly along the West line of said East Half a distance of 162 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 200 . 04 feet; thence Southeasterly deflecting to the left 68 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds, to the center line of Eden Heights Road; thence Easterly and Northerly along said center line to an intersection with a line drawn Easterly from the point of beginning and parallel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence West along last said parallel line to the point of beginning. �L P - � On March 31, 1969 Ms . Graves conveyed the land by Warranty Deed. On and prior to June 11, 1964 and until November 6, 1969 the land was situated in a zoning district then known as public open development and conservation and reclamation district ( "P-O-CH ) pursuant to Ordinance No. 8 . Ordinance No. 8 permitted non-farm dwellings to be built on parcels of two acres . Ordinance No. 8 was first adopted by the town of Eden Prairie effective June 12 , 1958 and continued in effect when the town became a village and later a statutory city until November 6, 1969 when Ordinance No. 135 became effective. Ordinance 135 placed the land in the Rural District and required a minimum area of five acres for a single family dwelling. The real property of which the land was a part prior to and after the conveyance on June 11, 1964 was of a sufficient size to permit the building of a dwelling pursuant to Ordinance No. 8 . The voluntary division of the land by its conveyance and other conveyances and/or contracts prior to November 6, 1969 resulted in the land not meeting the minimum area size under the Ordinance as it was then in effect. The later adoption of Ordinance No. 135 and subsequently the current City Code provision were not the cause or causes of the land becoming substandard in size, that having occurred on March 31, 1969 or earlier as a result of the previous sale by Ms . Graves of other parcels contiguous to the land. C:\wp51\rap\ep\letters\johnson\r__cs: -Vrr Pr - 7 (1 /I (....\\T_ \ \ A.E4 :S, A i H HI- 0 O rn *-------- ()If .11r 3x7iT�XI I� - tom:g ,.,:, rEN. ,• ��_ a 1-3 Pt S w . /1100..... 6 .f... r' $ 3 S I H CO. NO. I 4 i A $ - z s o 0 r xi 1 . .r• 0 c 0 A a / I :,:.•`?:4ii?f r----- TWP 116N- .22W •• X!:4 6.6.4B:::::::::::::::44:eXe. le:9:448:4.::::::Afffict..a...................%. ■.•.ra.•.r.• ■.•■. .•ra\•• •.•••• •r•r•t.�........ ..:a':7::::.!.......:::::::ff;;‘• .:K. SECTION.: 0,20,2i ,30,31, •• r•.r•..r•rr�• r\••.•■••• •\■...•••\.rv...•••;:::':.•::: • 'a •••aaa aa•raaar■•• • ••PaS t•\••!✓' •;?'• • / a• .. :MAP` EC. 4 `. ......... .,. i... e::::11.9.11......11.a:0::0.....e:..:•....ef..0:...71.:'II..::Se.75.:•••••••••.6:11.:971.:.•....11......D.ie.:.9..6.:..,:t:i...:....................::::::::::.................:::....::::::::::::::::...................•...•......................•......:..................•........••:::.................................................................:••:::•.:::::::••::::::1:••::••••:::::::::::::: \•:rlit*.•:::::.:• • r 614:••a ■ •aar•\•• ••• ?°fW4:gggPll;iiikall .: • 't • • RM 1:aa587•Fil....... °a y . t. N\,,,, ° 1.1.4.4.6...0 ::::•.•.:.;-:-••••••••-ve• ••••••.:::•::.•:•:•:•:•::•:•:•:•:!::::•:•:•:•4 ,.•:.!.-••••••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•*AL 11' ••••:1•••••••••••••••••••••:•:•:•:•:•:•:1 47-7-= ••■ ■ ••••••••••a■1•••1••• ' • ,r••'• II•\"' ••••\••••r• • •• •♦\••aaa••r••••• /•••: .... ,. • I': •/■■•.•■aaa••■•••••• ■ • �•W e / •\••■■••••\■• ••••■•• • i • ...a•....r a r..\r• r•r. •a� . , ,.. .. F'7'• ••■a•i•:■••••••SU• •\e:l• .. . ( • ............. , . .SOONG.••...••t r • •7. • • •a.■..tar.rr\r• ••• •• �I • \•••■a•/\•••••••• O. e.o.m.,. • ••••■•\••••••.•■• •\•■■1 PART OF THE ZONING 0R '""r"` " "° - - DINANCE — EDEN PRAIRIE ;:;;:; ;: . T0WNSHI'P, M I N 1•...•■ •a■ r.\.. :a::::::::::::ram: ,. • ENACTED ON MARCH 7, 1958 •;;.,;;;;;;e. ;•;›a N o° ig , ' �•i:':::•Pee:::•:•r , . •b ♦ 4, . • EFFECTIVE DATE - JUNE 12, 1958 ■•••••• -. .... . ,1 . . ' rc�2 •�...1CHAIRMAN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS•..••.••L/ . ••• +0 '` 0 ti� `� r .. ! ? ATTEST: . & Ct-.-rrd ,TOWN CLERK ;;;;;.. ::..5'� 3 'J� p ate? •moo •.aar•• . . •. ✓ a ' l'i ...7, 4„. .1,,.. .... • ,, ., .. , . .., . , . _,,r,3_,_••,, FOR ZONING DISTRICTS, FUTURE C'> ,• �,.i • t +( !• se*. 1;�7 '•.•, .,•.3 y��y •+J STREET LINES a MAP SECTIONS •C' `�' '/ > �' ? '4' 1.P•O•C PUBLIC,OPEN DEVELOPMENT AND f,' `c. Asp y+^ ' 3..N '\\•••. :4• D CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION DISTRICTS .,, +4`3 ' , . •;' r+ I�. N•J,' ," 3 ` 2. R•A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS Sr'. n{'" .77Y...'71---r-...,...,.... .i, tg. `1 .° , 4,,i•'.4. V.• '''14, 3. R•1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 8�w .,g. . it 1- .,f• J.•0 '%'..�y "r r E3 g•y J.. )3 ... ti • .... f r.3 r � • - R. R•2 LIMITED MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL/OR % �'• `i .> i, J E:J . �Y •4ZL1a a- 4 "ram MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICTS. j//i MI -1 y .1 ''`y r'.r .. ..� F ('•, f` '� "'- • -S. , , • S. R•C GENERAL MULTIPLE DWELLING• 1 1 • �.� J i ,. C ,.• •� t, } J ^� . • *•t �.r LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS t �� :,.. J ) ++ + ' r r' 1 4+ r.;-t •^.x' 6. C•1 LOCAL COMMERCIAL OR ''• �' !''%• '.' Ir. -. • �T �' SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICTS �- 1 t: e ' "'d ! 1::7 ' t r - ,„ - � - �f', •s• 'J •i ,_.") 1 F:.4 • c:, 7• C•2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL OR ��—�� • ,, t.-! • 1 �f 1.,, ? '',� .... ;• CENTER DISTRICTS Ir; J e'� 1 -, 1, Y. -IC fo, 4• :? rt 4 SHOPPING -' -f T .. • 8. M-1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL AND M-I DISTRICT IS AN . '1 .. Nisi t • . , 3^ ,.- , -15) c• .'+ ..en �. r` �..... • MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS OUTER STRIP OF THE, .•i .- 1•, h ' „�� M-2 DISTRICT.300 FT. ' "t :•i n • C ^ ' ..4. !!i','`' ( /„ IN WIDTH. C:'.. + +'. r /.., .:, q.t r•t, 9. M•2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AND ',•� `5 ' .��1 f•‘ •• � F•• !r ,•• • `••• .� B MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS y•- :' :' • i) •� •` r n FUTURE STREET LINES AND WIDTHS = 1-1'- + el ^•• • .A e., e.- ``• ,c, r. FUTURE STREET LINES AS,SHOWN ON THIS DISTRICT • "'+ .f • �,-�• ,!•.: 1=•• .�,f " _ • MAP ARE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO.8. THE �� 4.+ eq = C' P'.•',••• , •:'t • ti INDICATED WIDTHS ARE CENTERED ON CENTER LINES A ..:•` 2 • 1 •� OF EXISTINS STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. •.~„ •t ' •f .I 1 •! ) •• . • INDICATION OF DISTRICT MAP SECTION N0. • MAP SEC. I t THE DISTRICT MAP AND THE FOUR SECTIONS AS SHOWN • / •' ' ON THE MAP ARE ESTABLISHED BY ORIN NANcr Hf1 w \ , •'� / % 1 ,•+F•' ` •+ Section 8.4. LOT AREAS REQUIRIE D. 1 '' A A lot of at least the following area in each designated district is re- 1= —- area , such area being exclusive of water swampyarea or or any • area subject to flood; 1. P-O-C DISTRICTS. 20 acres for general farm dwellings and ac- cessory buildings, 2 acres for dwellings on small berry and fruit • farms and truck gardens, and for non-farm dwellings. musk SECTION 3. Rur-Rural District Subd.3.1 Purposes In addition to the objectives prescribed in Article I (Objectives) the Rur rural district is included in the zoning ordinance to i achieve the following purposes: .. ,. 1 a) To prevent premature urban devel - I PUB I ment of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses, until the installation of drainage works, j-w /� �/ streets, utilities and community facilities and the ability to objectively determine ! ' 1' 2 and project appropriate land use patterns makes order) development possible. ._ T b) To permit conduct of certain agricul- tural pursuits on land in the Village. el To ensure adequate light, air, and pri- i • r,4 vacy for each dwelling unit, and to provide adequate separation between I dwellings and facilities for housing i animals- ', Subd.3.2 Permitted Uses a► Agriculture, accessory and related uses. ,` b► Public and quasi public facilities and services required by the resident or working population. c \.r PUB c► Single family detached dwellings and C - j, accessory structures without platting on ^``-- � parcels of not less than S acres. ! �� Minimums Lot Yards Site Size One Area per F L . ti o Area Both Dwelling Sq.Ft. Both Unit 4 R P !i R i or Width Depth Front Sides Rear Sq. Ft. Districts Acres Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. or Acres RURAL S AC 300 300 50 50.150 50 5 AC ,....)) i Y.7:-;= /' 4 J L - 9 6 : ,� - ` yLND r- i stoup— /%, . DR � _ RU. Rural (all undesignated areas) R1-22 Single Family Residential (22,000s.f. min.) R1- 13.5 Single Family Residential ( 13,000 s.f. min.) RM-6.5 Multi - Family Residential ( 6,500 s.f.min.) inaLR -I® RM-2.5 Multi - Family Residential ( 2,500 s.f.min.) -- CORRAL I \ FTIF: PUB. .. ,� PLN441 . u u < la tir , - N SECTION 11.10. R -RURAL DISTRICT. , .0 .• �Subd. 1. Purposes. The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: (1) Prevent premature urban development of ,I�,� vwill be appropriate for urban uses, until the installation of drainage works streets, ill certain lands which eventually itypAar#4440p/4! � utilities, and community facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use patterns 1'`C makes orderly development possible; (2)Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the City; (3) �� Ensure adequate light,air,and privacy for each dwelling unit,and to provide adequate separation between dwellings 11 and facilities for housing animals. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Agriculture, accessory and related uses. B. Public facilities and services. Source: City Code F I. r I N G C Effective Date: 9-17-82 28-1 • PUB. —C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of not less than 10 acres. A D. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of five or more acres, as of July 6, 1982. 9 W L .... ,„ 4 1 sco- • . , ` 1 9 8 2 ,- CI 11 ___,.....,,,,,,,..... Al ‘.. ....4,'''" A , _......risa ®�i � CLOUD'^_8- RIVER VIEW RD. -� y DRIVE • k G U R RAL(includes areas not otherwise labelled 1-44 Single Family Residential (44,000s.f.min.) o. 1-22 Single Family Residential 22,000s.f.min. s: - Residential (13 500s.f.min.� 1 13.5 Single Family ( , i. ' - 1-9.5 Sin• e Famil Residential (9,500s.f.min.) y EDEN PRAIRIE: PROPERTY DATA SYSTEM TAXPAYER INQUIRY _CURB 319 _ PROPERTY ID _NEXT _ _- 29-116-22-43-0006 _ Pt.Con: Mt.Adr: _ HOUSE# FRACTION STREET NAME UNIT ZIP+4 Front: Back: _ 1/ 55347+ Right: Left: _ _- Ownerl: NIOSI STEPHEN Owner3 : _ Owner2 : Owner4: _ Zoning: R Prim/sec: Yr.blt: 0000 Area: Acres: 1.23 _ Sch.Dst: 272 Wshd: 04 Gr/Os/Ex: Subrecs: 01 Width: Depth: _ Mkt-Land Mkt-Bldg Mkt-Mach Mkt-Tot Tx Capacity Hd PT %Own _- 1995: 5900 5900 LR 0 _ _ 1994: 5400 5400 LR 0 _ _ 1993: 5200 5200 LR 0 _ _ Legal Description: === NO LOT AND BLOCK GIVEN =__ _ UNPLATTED 29 116 22 _ THAT PART OF E 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF SE _ 1/4 LYING S OF EDEN HGTS ROAD AND W _ _ OF THE E 171 FT THOF EX HWY _ Type PID or ADDRESS: press ENTER; or F1, F2, F8 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION: Tax $ 1995 169. 22 1994 158. 84 1993 180. 90 Vilt A. - 17,, STEPHEN & KIMBERLY NIOSI LOT Eden Prairie, Minnesota PID #29-116-22-43-0006 Proposed by: STEPHEN & KIMBERLY NIOSI June 8, 1995 (Revised August 29, 1995) REQUEST Stephen&Kimberly Niosi are requesting approval from the Board of Adjustments& Appeals to develop their 1.23 Acre Lot for a single family home. ADJACENT PROPERTIES The property is bordered on the west and north by Eden Prairie Road and on the south by Highway No. 212 & 169. The eastern border is a 1.25 acre vacant lot. SITE CONDITIONS Topography is gently sloping with the north and east side of the property at a high elevation of 820.0 and the south side of the property at the right of way of Highway No. 212& 169 at an approximate elevation of 772.0. Soils are considered suitable for the type of development proposed and for the drainfield proposed. The site is currently vacant land. There are several Oak trees on the site. The proposed driveway layout and site grading is designed to maximize the sight line safety for ingress , and egress and minimize the loss of these trees. The tees shown as removed on the Tree Inventory and Replacement plan were necessary due to the revised driveway location for the sight line safety and also decreasing the driveway slope to 7.5% onto Eden Prairie Road. RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. NIOSI LOT Page 1 of 2 Eden Prairie,MN Pit - 13 PROPOSAL The Owner is proposing to develop 1 single family residential lot on the 1.23 acre parcel. The area is currently zoned for minimum 5 acre parcel. The proposed home location is designed to minimize grading on the parcel and also work in conjunction with the proposed driveway location. The driveway has been designed to maintain a maximum centerline slope of 7.5% (Eden Prairie max= 12%) and meet perpendicular with Eden Prairie Road. Sight Distances The speed limit of Eden Prairie Road at this access point is 30 MPH officially with 15 MPH warning signs on either side of the site. We have revised the site plan and driveway location from the previous proposal and moved the driveway northerly. Through several meetings with Mr. Rod Rue, Assistant City Engineer,we were instructed to maintain a sight distance of 300' south, and 250' north. The reason for these differences is the different speeds traveled on the roadway in either direction. Engineering Department staff did complete a traffic study in the area and found that speeds traveling southerly decreased at the curve east of the site therefore this sight distance is less to the north. Sight lines are shown on the Grading&Erosion Control Plan which illustrate that the sight distance requirements are being met. Also note the sight line profiles illustrating this. Landscaping is proposed on both sides of the proposed driveway, around the proposed home, and near the well location. The proposed landscaping meets all requirements of tree replacement. The parcel currently lies outside the MUSA boundary within the City of Eden Prairie. It is proposed that the property will be served by sewer and water through a private well and septic system. We have shown two drainfield locations on the plan. It is proposed to gain approval of the development of this site contingent on acceptable percolation tests at these sites. The Owner is requesting a variance in lot size requirement to develop this property. OWNER/DEVELOPER Mr. Stephen&Kimberly Niosi 15609 Calmut Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 ENGINEER/PLANNER Ryan Engineering, Inc. 7648 South.Shore Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 975-0864 RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. NIOSI LOT Page 2 of 2 Eden Prairie,MN vrry A - 14 STEPHEN & KIMBERLY NIOSI LOT Eden Prairie, Minnesota PID #29-116-22-43-0006 Proposed by: STEPHEN & KIMBERLY NIOSI June 8, 1995 • REQUEST Stephen& Kimberly Niosi are requesting approval from the Board of Adjustments & Appeals to develop their 1.23 Acre Lot for a single family home. ADJACENT PROPERTIES The property is bordered on the west and north by Eden Prairie Road and on the south by Highway No. 212& 169. The eastern border is a 1.25 acre vacant lot. SITE CONDITIONS Topography is gently sloping with the north and east side of the property at a high elevation of 820.0 and the south side of the property at the right of way of Highway No. 212 & 169 at an approximate elevation of 772.0. Soils are considered suitable for the type of development proposed and for the drainfield proposed. The site is currently vacant land. There are several Oak trees on the site. The proposed driveway layout and site grading is designed to minimize the loss of these trees. The double 12"Oak tree shown as removed on the Tree Inventory and Replacement plan was necessary due to maintaining a 12% slope on the driveway and maintaining site distances onto Eden Prairie Road. RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. NIOSI LOT PAGE 1 OF 2 Eden Prairie,MN PROPOSAL The Owner is proposing to develop 1 single family residential lot on the 1.23 acre parcel. The area is currently zoned for minimum 10 acre parcels, or a minimum of 5 acre parcel based upon the pre-existing condition. The proposed home location is designed to minimize grading on the parcel and also work in conjunction with the proposed driveway location. The driveway has been designed to maintain a maximum centerline slope of 12% and meet perpendicular with Eden Prairie Road. The speed limit of Eden Prairie Road at this access point is 15 MPH and is on a gentle curve in the road. Sight lines are shown on the Grading&Erosion Control Plan which illustrate that the sight distance requirements are being met. Landscaping is proposed on both sides of the proposed driveway, around the proposed home, and near the well location. The proposed landscaping meets all requirements of tree replacement. The parcel currently lies outside the MUSA boundary within the City of Eden Prairie. It is proposed that the property will be served by sewer and water through a private well and septic system. We have shown two drainfield locations on the plan. It is proposed to gain approval of the development of this site contingent on acceptable percolation tests at these sites. The Owner is requesting a variance in lot size requirement to develop this property. OWNER/DEVELOPER Mr. Stephen&Kimberly Niosi 15609 Calmut Avenue Prior Lake,MN 55372 ENGINEER/PLANNER Ryan Engineering, Inc. 7648 South Shore Drive Chanhassen,MN 55317 975-0864 RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. NIOSI LOT PAGE 2 OF 2 Eden Prairie.MN VT \ - 16 RYAN ENGINEERING 7648 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE August 29, 1995 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612)975-0864 City Council Members City of Eden Prairie - City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: PID # 29-116-22-43-006 Property at the NE corner of Eden Prairie Rd. &Hwy 169 Eden Prairie, MN Project No. 95200 Dear Members of the Council: Enclosed in you document packets for the Niosi parcel request you will find along with this letter, a narrative on the parcel, and a plan sheet showing the proposed Grading& Erosion Control, driveway location, proposed Tree Inventory and Landscaping, and.Sight Line profiles. We have arrived at this revised plan through meetings with Mr. Rod Rue, Assistant City Engineer. Following, I will try give a brief history of this project. Drawings were submitted to Mr. Michael Franzen on March 30, 1995 on behalf of the Niosi's showing information as requested by Mr. Franzen in a letter dated February 21, 1995. I spoke with Mr. Franzen about the project and asked his opinion of the project. At that time, he said that"it would be fine with one minor variance"that being at that time a variance on the slope of the driveway. We applied and submitted to be on the agenda for the Board of Appeals meeting on June 8, 1995 but since the agenda was already full, we were re-scheduled for the July 13, 1995 meeting. At this meeting, we ultimately were denied the variance for lot size requirements with no official reasoning given. The items which were discussed at this meeting mainly dealt with safety and sight vision distance at the access point. The plan presented at that meeting showed sight lines with distances of 150' which was utilizing the 15 MPH design speed. Upon further study, the road was found to be"officially"30 MPH, with only "warning" signs for the 15 MPH. There was one more item on the agenda after ours at the BOA meeting and it was applying for approval of a lot also less than 5 acres. This was approved. VIII — 17 Page 2 August 29, 1995 City Council Members City of Eden Prairie - City Center We applied for an appeal of the BOA actions on July 18, 1995 with a letter to Ms. Jean Johnson in the Planning Department. This was within the time allotted for appeal action. The letter was submitted by Ryan Engineering, Inc. on behalf of the Niosi's. Ms. Johnson later requested a letter signed by the Niosi's requesting this appeal which was sent to her office dated July 25, 1995. Apparently because of this time lapse from getting a letter signed by the Niosi's, we were not able to get on the City Council agenda until their August 15, 1995 meeting. At this August 15, 1995 meeting, as you are aware, the Council acted only that they would hear the appeal at the next meeting. Neither the Niosi's nor myself were told that we would not be able to present the project at this meeting. This brings us to this meeting of September 5, 1995. In the past weeks, we have revised the plan drastically. Through meetings with Mr. Rod Rue, Assistant City Engineer, we have revised the location of ingress and egress to the property allowing sufficient sight distances. The Engineering Department performed traffic studies at the sight to determine actual speeds traveled. Based upon this; we were instructed to maintain sight vision distances of 300' and 250' to the south and north respectively. Through the cooperation of the.Engineering Department, we have accomplished this with the revised plan. With this being accomplished, all design issues have been answered and the design is within allowable engineering standards. The only variance we are requesting is the lot size. The Niosi's have a hardship in developing this property because they are not able to purchase additional property to comply with the 5 acre minimum. The Niosi's did have a conversation with Ms. Jean Johnson in May of 1984 when they were purchasing this property. At the time, Ms. Johnson had explained to them that the lot would require a lot size variance to be developed without sewer and water. However, Ms. Johnson also assured them that they would have sewer and water serving this lot within 10 years and then it could be developed without this lot size variance. We are now told that this water and sewer service to their property has not happened and we are told that it may be another 3-5 years. This will not be acceptable with the Niosi's current needs to build on the property. -p-rri- l\ - fig Page 3 August 29, 1995 City Council Members City of Eden Prairie - City Center At this time see no need to force the Niosi's into further hardship by not allowing them access to their own property. We have met all criteria set forth by the City and should be allowed to develop the property. The grading we are proposing not only meets these criteria but will make the road safer for all who travel in both directions by increasing the overall sight vision distance. Further, the tax capacity on the property will increase by about 600%. The Niosi's feel very strongly that they are being unduly punished and until recently through the Engineering Department, have not been accommodated by the City(as illustrated by the above timeline). They are therefore looking forward to your approval of their request. If you have any questions or further information is required, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, RYAN ENGINEERING Perry . Ryan, .E. President cc: Mr. Steve Niosi Minutes , Approved Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 makes up their mind, and that could be 10 years from now. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve variance request #95-22, the hardship being their unusual high need for parking and inadequate parking for the outdoor seats of the facility. The conditions are: employee parking should occur on the leased lot, a soft sidewalk with lights be built on the side of the BUCA building from the back of their building to the Westwood parking lot, and signage be put on the private driveway noting no parking. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed 3-1-0 with opposition by Dunham. F. Request#95-23 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for Northeast corner of U.S. 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for approval to construct a single family house on 1.2 acres having a side setback of 40 feet one side and 140 feet total for both sides. (Code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side setbacks are 50 feet one side no less than 150 feet total for both sides.) Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering, reviewed the variance request with the Board. The request is to develop a single family home on 1.2 acres with the variance granted. He discussed the issues noted in the Staff Report. There are a few 1 plus acre parcels in the surrounding area, and one with a home. To go to the 5 acre minimum would require purchasing the single one acre parcel to the east. Regarding the site distance from the driveway, with the proposed grading and proposed driveway, he believes the site distance is 150 feet in each direction. The road is a 15 mile an hour road, and 150 feet is the standard for that. They have accommodated the grading issues and have resolved those grading issues with the latest plans. The driveway access at one time was at about 17%, and it's now at 12% which is the maximum by the City ordinance. It would be a great economic hardship for one family to have to purchase an additional parcel in order to build their home. Johnson noted that if the Board does recommend the variance, it would then be forwarded on to the Planning Commission and City Council because it does need a steep slope review. Staff believes the driveway proposed is dangerous, referring to the City Engineering memo of June 29, 1995. 12 -VILE - ZO r Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 Weeks expressed concern about the dangers of the steep slope off of Eden Prairie Road on to Highway 169. Johnson noted that it's an over 20% slope. Dye was concerned about the variance being denied in 1983. Ryan indicated that the reason it was actually pulled from going through the variance process at that time is that they did not have complete plans. Johnson noted that the variance was withdrawn, not denied. Johnson commented that they have had residents come in and look at the plans, but have not received any letters todate. Lynch expressed concern about the safety issue with the road. She is having a hard time approving this unless someone from the City was convinced that there weren't any safety issues. Weeks also was concerned about the safety issues. He feels that there is a blind corner there. There is a setback issue, a safety issue, and an acreage issue that he is uncomfortable with. Weeks opened the public hearing. Karen Edstrom, residing at 10133 Eden Prairie Road, noted that she and her husband live in the house referred to as just to the northeast of this parcel, plus they own the parcel that goes down to Highway 169 just to the east of the parcel that's in question. They are opposed to granting any kind of variance or changes in the City Code to allow this building on this parcel because it's totally unsuitable to the kind of building that's proposed. She handed out a letter to the Board stating their opposition to the variance, and she summarized her objections, as stated in the letter, to the Board. She also showed photographs taken depicting the bluffs and the steepness of the grade. She expressed concern about the safety regarding the steep slope. Hibbert Hill. residing at 10131 Eden Prairie Road, noted that they live back further on the bluffs, northeast of the proposed site. They expressed concern about the safety issues regarding the steep slope and driveway, and about constantly pulling cars in and out of the ditch every time it rains or snows because of accidents. He does not let his children go out and wait for the bus alone because of the traffic that goes up and down the hill so quickly. He was 13 II= 1 -2_ I Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 concerned about having a referendum to buy the land, and then a 1/4 mile down the road they are going to have a high density development. He does not think that is the intent of the City. He expressed concern about people parking in his driveway to look at the property in question. He was also concerned about the safety of children when the construction phase is taking place, because there is no place for trucks to park on the road or lot. He feels that the whole concept of this building is ridiculous. Loren Wuttkei noted that he owns the property directly to the west of the subject property. He is in favor of granting the variance with the provision that this house be connected as soon as the City obtains sewer and water for the area. Hill commented that all of the lots with homes in that area are grandfathered in. They were all built before the law went into effect. Weeks noted that he has a problem granting this request. The site appears too small for the house, and the driveway is unsafe. If the site were larger, a house and driveway could be sited better. Ryan was in disagreement with the photos shown by the resident. From his best judgement, this is a buildable site. He believes they have met all of the City ordinances with respect to the driveway grade. They are not looking for a variance on the side setback, they could withdraw that part. They are only looking for a variance because of the lot size. This is a remnant parcel. Weeks asked what the proposed value of the house on this property is. Ryan replied that the proposed value of the structure will be $200,000 to $300,000. There are a couple of builders in mind and the price has not been determined yet. He also apologized to the resident for people parking in his driveway. MOTION: Dye moved that based on information submitted, the Board deny variance request #95-23 because it does not meet the requirements of 5 acres. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 14 .� . 10133 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 July 13, 1995 City of Eden Prairie City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Mayor and City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments City Manager City Attorney Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing with reference to a pending request for a variance as submitted by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi with respect to a 1.2 acre parcel located at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 169/212 in Eden Prairie. The application is scheduled to come before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on Thursday, July 13, 1995. I oppose the variance requested and will oppose any petition for rezoning that the applicant may submit. Since I am likely to be unable to attend the hearing, I am writing this letter to set forth my position in the matter. First, as many of you know, I have strenuously opposed the granting of variances and rezonings with respect to parcels of less than 5 acres in the rural zone of the City. Similarly, I have been concerned about the necessity to maintain the effectiveness and enforceability of the City's ordinances and provisions of the City Code relating to zoning by avoiding actions which would call into question the standards set forth in the City's ordinances or Code or the City's application of those standards. There is no question that the zoning provisions of the Eden Prairie City Code apply to the property in question and that under the Code the parcel is zoned as a "rural" property. The purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code are stated as follows (emphasis added): SECTION 11.01. OBJECTIVES. This Chapter is adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, and specifically to achieve the following objectives: City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 2 (1) to assist in the implementation of the City Comprehensive Guide Plan as amended; (2) to foster a harmonious, convenient workable relationship among land uses; (3) to promote the stability of existing land uses that conform with the Guide Plan and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions; • (4) to insure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole; (5) to prevent excessive population densities and over-crowding of the land with structures; (6) to promote a safe, effective traffic circulation system; (7) to foster the provision of adequate off-street parking and off-street truck- loading facilities; (8) to facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and institutions; (9) to provide human and physical resources of sufficient quantity and quality to sustain needed public services and facilities; (10) to protect and enhance real property values; and, (11) to safeguard and enhance the appearance of the City, including natural amenities of hills, woods, lakes, and ponds. With respect to parcels in the rural zone, the Code establishes particular purposes and uses as follows (emphasis added): SEC. 11.10. R - RURAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purposes. The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: (1) Prevent premature urban development of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses, until the installation of drainage works, streets, utilities, and community facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development possible; City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 3 (2) Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the City; (3) Ensure adequate light, air, and privacy for each dwelling unit, and to provide adequate separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Agriculture, accessory and related uses. B. Public facilities and services. C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of not less than 10 acres. D. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of five or more acres, as of July 6, 1982. E. Commercial stables. F. Golf courses. It is also pertinent to note the general purposes for which municipal planning. including zoning ordinances, are authorized. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351 provides as follows (emphasis added): 462.351. Municipal planning and development; statement of policy. The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, to preserve agricultural and other open lands, and to promote the public health, safety. and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by such preparations bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures. Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's plans. Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly, and will achieve a more secure tax base. It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary powers and a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning. v-rm c - zs City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 4 The grant of a variance or rezoning with respect to the parcel in question would contravene the basic provisions and purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code in several respects. The principal objections are set forth below. I. INAPPLICABILITY OF THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE The parcel in question is 1.2 acres in size. The applicant requests a variance which would permit the construction of a residential dwelling on the parcel. Under the City Code a variance is not a proper procedure to permit the construction of a dwelling on a parcel of such size in the rural zone. This is because the size limitation, whether 5 acres or 10 acres, as the case may be, is contained in the permitted use description in the provisions of Section 11.10 of the Code, which use is not subject to change by the variance procedure. The definition of "variance" in Section 11.02(52) of the Code is as follows (emphasis added): 52. "Variance" - A modification or variation of the provisions of this Chapter as applied to a specific piece of property, except that modification in the allowable uses within a district shall not be considered a variance. Moreover, Section 11.76 of the Code relating to the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments states as follows (emphasis added): SEC. 11.76. VARIANCES. Subd. 1. Purposes and Authorization. Variance from the literal provisions of this Chapter may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement of those provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and such variances may be granted only when it is determined that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined by statute when in harmony with this Chapter. The Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a ITELf - zb City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 5 one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The Council may impose conditions in the granting of variances to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Section 2.11 of the City Code relating to the organization and duties of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals contains yet a third statement of this limitation on the power of the Board. The general statutory authority for a Board of Appeals and Adjustments to make determinations with respect to variances is provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.354, Subd. 2, and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, as follows (emphasis added): Subd. 2. Board of adjustments and appeals. The governing body of any municipality adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance or an official map shall provide by ordinance for a board of appeals and adjustments. The board shall have the powers set forth in section 462.357, subdivision 6 and section 462.359, subdivision 4. Except as otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may provide alternatively that there be a separate board of appeals and adjustments or that the governing body or the planning commission or a committee of the planning commission serve as the board of appeals and adjustments, and it may provide an appropriate name for the board. The board may be given such other duties as the governing body may direct. In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board, the governing body may, except as otherwise provided by charter, provide that the decisions of the board on matters within its jurisdiction are final subject to judicial review or are final subject to appeal to the council and the right of later judicial review or are advisory to the council .... In any municipality in which the planning agency does not act as the board of adjustments and appeals, the board shall make no decision on an appeal or petition until the planning agency, if there is one, or a representative authorized by it has had reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the board of adjustments and appeals upon the appeal or petition. * * * Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 6 (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance .... The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body, as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located .... The board or governing body, as the case may be, may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Thus, our initial objection to this proceeding is based upon the fact that the requested variance would constitute a variance in the use regulations for the rural district. The foregoing provisions clearly state that the power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations, and it is quite clear that the power of the Board does not extend to permit a variance with respect to the request made in this instance. The appropriate procedure which the applicant would be required to pursue in order to construct a dwelling on the parcel in question is an application for rezoning rather than the variance procedure. As I have stated earlier, I would oppose a petition for rezoning of the parcel to any residential zoning classification as well. There are several reasons why no change, either by way of variance or zoning, should be permitted. These reasons are set forth in the remaining sections of this letter. II. APPLICANT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO A VARIANCE OR REZONING The owners of the property have no grandfather or other rights which would override the zoning provisions of the City Code. The present owners acquired the parcel sometime in 1984 or later. Ordinance No. 135 which sets forth the 5 acre minimum requirement for parcels in the rural zone was adopted in November, 1969. It is settled law that a purchaser is deemed to vile . - 2g City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 7 have knowledge of applicable zoning ordinances in effect at the time that he acquires the property. The fact that a purchaser may not have known of the ordinance, or misunderstood its applicability, or was misled with respect thereto, has no bearing on the applicability of the ordinance or the rights of the municipality or the adjacent owners to enforce the ordinance. State v. Modern Box Makers, Inc., 217 Minn. 41, 13 N.W.2d 731 (1944); State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W.2d 404 (1955). The history of the parcel in question also demonstrates the lack of any equitable or grandfather rights in the purchaser. The parcel was originally attached to the 1.3 acre parcel immediately to the east and was beneficially owned by one individual. Prior to the division of the property and transfer of the easterly parcel in 1964, the overall property was large enough on which to construct a single family residence in a rural district under the zoning ordinance then in effect which required a minimum of 2.5 acres for residential construction in the rural zone. The parcel in question has been sold at least three times since the division of the property and at least twice since the 5 acre minimum was adopted by the City. (The easterly parcel, of which my wife and I are the present owners, remains vacant land.) Neither the division of the parcels in 1964 nor the subsequent separate sales of the parcel in question could create any special rights in the purchaser under the zoning ordinances in effect at the times in question. Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 288 Minn. 25, 178 N.W.2d 719 (1970). Rather, the fact that a parcel was in common ownership with abutting property at the time of the adoption of a restrictive zoning ordinance affirmatively defeats any claim of right or hardship with respect to such parcel. Dedering v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 327, 239 N.W.2d 913 (1976). See also Vetter v. Zoning Board of Appeal of Attleboro, 116 N.E.2d 277 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. 1953); Raia v. Board of Appeals of North Reading, 347 N.E.2d 694 (App. Ct. Mass. 1976). Even if the purchaser misunderstood or was misled with respect to the applicability of Ordinance No. 135 or the City Code or the availability of a building permit, no estoppel or equitable arguments will overcome the fundamental rights of the City and adjacent owners to enforce the provisions and purposes of the Ordinance and City Code. Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N.W.2d 363 (1953); Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W.2d 846 (1964); Jasaka Company v. City of St. Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40 (1981). Furthermore, even if the owner had expended significant funds on the property, or paid more than the property was worth in view of the zoning provisions in effect on the date of purchase, no relief for the owner is warranted under the law. State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, supra; Newcomb v. Teske, 225, 30 N.W.2d 354 (1948); McCavic v. DeLuca, 233 Minn. 372, 46 N.W.2d 873 (1951). See also Kiges v. City of St. Paul, supra; Raia v. Board of Appeals of North Reading, supra. —UECE z9 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 8 III. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The City must also, of course, consider the impact on it and its residents of permitting growth contrary to the City Code in rural areas. Such growth would (1) be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, (2) contravene the policies of the Metropolitan Council which discourage development in areas not served by water and sewer facilities, and (3) make more likely pollution problems as a consequence of the proximity of private septic facilities to wells in the porous soil that is typical of the area. These are some of the relevant considerations of health, safety, order, convenience and general welfare which form the basis of the purposes of the Rural District designation in the City Code and which form the basis for the enforcement thereof and the denial of non-conforming uses on property covered thereby. The application must be judged in terms of the specific criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and City Code in order for any variance to be proper. It is our position that under these criteria, the grant of the variance would be grossly improper. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, which sets forth the powers of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, specifically provides that variances may be granted only where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance "would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual nrot erty under consideration" and "only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance." It is appropriate here to refer you again to the purposes of the zoning provisions of our City Code, contained in Section 11.01 of the Code, to the particular purposes and uses permitted for parcels in the rural zone, contained in Section 11.10 of the Code, and to the general purposes for which principal planning is authorized, contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351. Each of these provisions are set forth on pages 1-3 of this letter. Your attention is particularly directed to the underlined portions of those provisions. In effect, there are three principal criteria required to be met under the Code and state statute in order to grant a variance. The burden is on the applicant to establish the satisfaction of each of these conditions. We do not believe the applicant can sustain his position with respect to any of these criteria. The criteria, and pertinent considerations related to each of them, are - as follows: 1. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in an undue hardship, and the cost of compliance cannot be the sole reason to grant a variance. This test needs to be measured in terms of the intent of the ordinance. Here, refusing the variance would effectuate the very purposes of the ordinance as set forth in Sections 11.01 and 11.10 of the City Code. Any hardship created to the applicant would be consistent with, \III - 30 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 9 rather than inconsistent with, the intents and purposes of the Code and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Whatever hardship the applicant may incur is self-created. The 5 acre minimum size requirement of the ordinance was in effect at the time the applicant purchased the property. It is well settled that ignorance of an ordinance or its provisions does not create any special right to relief from those provisions. In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would very likely create a windfall through the significant appreciation of the value of the property. To allow a variance in such a case would completely reverse and debase the variance standards of the Code. 2. There are circumstances unique to the individual property which create a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. There are no unique circumstances which apply to the property in question. The property is not of an unusual configuration as in many variance requests, and the nature of the terrain is not the circumstance which motivates the request. The fact that the parcel falls far short of the basic minimum requirements of the Code is neither the type of unique circumstance contem- plated by the ordinance nor is it unique to this property. The hardship, if any, in this case is a legal impediment under the Code, not a practical difficulty or physical hardship. There are several other parcels even in the immediate area which would no doubt apply for similar variances if this one is granted. There is nothing different about this parcel which distinguishes it from all other surrounding undeveloped land, all of which is being held subject to the same restrictions in the Code that apply to this parcel. Enforcement of the Code would not deprive the applicants of the use of their land in any arbitrary manner. Other developed parcels in the area, at the time they were developed, complied with the 5 acre standard of Ordinance No. 135 or with the standards imposed by the ordinances in effect at the time those properties were developed. In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would constitute a special privilege because all other owners had to comply with the minimum size requirements under Ordinance No. 135 or prior ordinances. In many cases, this necessitated the acquisition of sufficient acreage to enable the construction of a home., It would also constitute a special privilege vis-a-vis holders of large tracts of undeveloped land in the area who could reasonably argue that based upon the grant of a variance to the applicant, they should be entitled to divide their properties into parcels of less than 5 acres as well. \ II1 . N - 31 City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 10 3. Any variance granted must be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the provisions of the Code and consistent with the objectives of the zoning chapter in the Code. In this case, the spirit and intent of the zoning provisions of the City Code are set forth in the objectives of the zoning provisions in Section 11.01 and Section 11.10 of the City Code quoted above. The proposed variance would do violence to those purposes in the following manner: a. It, and similar requests for variances which have been made in the past and would certainly arise again in the future, would disrupt the orderly development of the City by increasing growth in an area not suited for present development under the Comprehensive Guide Plan. b. It would be inconsistent with and destabilize existing land uses in the area. c. It would be premature in view of the lack of water, sewer and improved road services. d. The location of a private driveway access on the steep curve of Eden Prairie Road would make even more dangerous that already very accident-prone roadway. This would be particularly true in the winter when the hill where the driveway would be located is rendered exceedingly dangerous by the presence of compacted snow and ice. No sight line distance is enough in such conditions. The driveway configured on the applicants' site plan, with a grade that appears to exceed greatly the stated 12% average grade where it meets Eden Prairie Road, would create a major hazard to both users of the driveway and traffic on the road. e. It would have a negative impact on existing real property values by an adverse impact on residences in the vicinity. First, septic facilities established by the applicants and by potential similar applicants could have a harmful effect on the well water currently used by all of the residents of the area. Secondly, development of this and similar acreage could have a generally adverse effect on groundwater, wells and springs in the porous soil of the area. f. It would represent an intrusion into a naturally rural, wooded and grassland bluff area. The parcel is part of sensitive bluff lands which the City has identified to be of natural and environmental significance. The slope of the site and nature of the soils on the parcel make it unsuitable for any form of construction. The positioning of a residence on the site and the provision of driveway access would require major alteration to the terrain, further exacerbating the fragility of the slope and soils, particularly in areas downslope from structures LLL A - 3 Z, City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 11 and impervious surfaces. Existing residences in the area are, for the most part, set back from the actual bluff slope and constructed on far more stable soils. g. It would generate premature urban development prior to the installation of adequate water, sewer, drainage, streets, utilities and other facilities and be inconsistent with the orderly development of the community. h. This type of development would make necessary on a much more immediate time schedule water and sewer facilities and improved roads, the availability of which is not presently assured. i. It, and similar requests, would hasten the demise of agricultural pursuits in the southwestern area of Eden Prairie. It is also pertinent in this connection to consider the impact of the policies of the Metropolitan Council on this matter. The tract in question is outside the metropolitan urban service area. It remains uncertain whether urban sewage facilities will be extended to this parcel. The Metropolitan Council has made clear that it expects municipalities to cooperate in discouraging unwarranted development of areas outside the urban service area. The acts of the legislature establishing and empowering the Metropolitan Council should be taken into account by the City in any determination which would have a negative impact on the policies of the Metropolitan Council. The City must also be aware that in the event a petition for variance or rezoning is allowed in this instance, doubt could be cast upon the City's willingness to enforce the zoning provisions of the Code with respect to other parcels in the rural zone which do not comply with the City Code. I understand that there may be as many as 10 to 15 such parcels in the City, including several in the immediate neighborhood of the parcel in question and in the sensitive bluff area of the southerly portion of the City. While it is our position that no failure on the part of the City to enforce the provisions of the Code should have any impact on the enforceability of the Code in other instances, it would certainly not be wise policy to invite attack by failing to give effect to the Code. IV. REMEDIES FOR ADJACENT LANDOWNERS The grant of a variance and issuance of a building permit by the City under these circumstances would be void and could be contested by adjacent landowners. As stated in Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 42 N.W.2d 553 (1950): A building permit issued in violation of a zoning ordinance by an official lacking power to alter or vary the ordinance is void, and a zoning regulation may be enforced notwithstanding the fact that the permittee may have commenced w_ A - 3 ' City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 12 building operations .... The reason given for the rule by the authorities is that both the granting of a permit and the varying of a zoning restriction involves the exercise of governmental power, which cannot be exercised by an officer upon whom it has not been conferred or set at naught by the action of a property owner proceeding in defiance thereof .... A private property owner injured by the violation, as here, is entitled to injunctive relief. As stated in State ex rel. Howard, supra.: The principles governing the situation are well established. Generally, it is held that, where a permit has been issued by an authorized officer under a mistake of fact and contrary to zoning ordinances, it confers no privilege on the person to whom it is issued and even though the latter may have taken some action thereunder with the incurment of expenses, it may, nevertheless, be revoked." V. POSITION OF THE CITY In view of the foregoing discussion, we believe that the position the City of Eden Prairie should take in this matter is one which upholds the validity of the City Code and does not place a burden of enforcement of the City Code on residents of the City. The burden to contest the position of the City should be placed on the person who disputes the validity of the City Code, not on those who seek to enforce it. The position which the City of Eden Prairie should adopt in this matter is based on the facts that (1) there is no language in the zoning provisions of the City Code which entitle the applicant to secure a variance or building permit since the parcel does not comply with the minimum required by the Code, and (2) nothing in the Code provides for or suggests the existence of any grandfather rights which would apply to purchasers of a parcel of less than 5 acres in size subsequent to the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 135. As stated above, there are no grandfather or other equitable rights recognized in the law which would apply in these circumstances. Moreover, it is our position that no prior action or statement by the City staff which may have been inconsistent with the Ordinance overrides the applicability of the Code or the right of the City or its residents to enforce it. If the City, through some fear of litigation or otherwise, fails to enforce the Code, the consequences would be both unfortunate and incongruous. First, it would require residents opposing a variance or building permit to sue the City to enforce their rights. Second, as you may be aware, an injunction action normally requires the posting of a bond which could be both sizable and expensive, a burden which should not be placed on residents seeking to enforce the City Code. Finally, it would leave the position of the City in the action ambiguous at best. What would the City do? Remain passive in the action because it had no firm view of the law Ii A - 3'{ City of Eden Prairie July 13, 1995 Page 13 on the matter? It would seem incongruous for the City to take action and then not defend that action in court. But, it would be equally incongruous for the City to take an active role in seeking to defeat the applicability of its own Code when the requirements of the Code are clear. These incredible results would be due to a failure on the part of the City to determine its course of action solely on the basis of well supported legal considerations. Allow me to summarize our views in this matter. First, the variance procedure is inappropriate under the law for the request being made. A request for rezoning is the only applicable procedure under the City Code and state law. Second, it is our position that the zoning provisions of the City Code ought to be enforced by the City in terms of the plain words and policies contained therein. Third, the grant of a variance or rezoning in this case would do violence to the policies of health, safety and welfare underlying the zoning provisions of the City Code and would be improper under the provisions of Minnesota law relating to variances. Fourth, the practical effects on the City and on nearby residents of a grant of a variance or rezoning would be harmful. Fifth, as set forth above, under the law no prior inconsistent activity on the part of the staff of the City can have any bearing on the applicability of the Code. Sixth, if the applicants for the permit intend to assert some constitutional or other equitable right which they allege should make the Code inapplicable, they should be required to establish that right through a mandamus action commenced by themselves. Seventh, perhaps most important, the City should not put Eden Prairie residents in the position of having to enforce the provisions of the City Code. Enforcement of the City Code is the business of the City administration, and it should not abdicate that responsibility or burden to its residents. Finally, we believe it is the • responsibility of the City to make a conclusion with respect to this matter on the basis of the law applicable, not based on determinations of what its past practices may have been, not in terms of assertions by the applicant not supported in the law, not due to "trade-offs" with the applicant, and not in terms of tactical or expense considerations with respect to any litigation which may ensue. If you have any questions regarding this letter or our position in the matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. Very truly yours, can R. Edstrom cc: Dr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Nielson Mr. and Mrs. Jack Provo Mr. and Mrs. Richard Knight Mr. James Van Winkle Mr. and Mrs. Hibbert Hill, Jr. v I l V P - SS- DRE:88812:h1 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community Development FROM: Jeff Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician DATE: June 29, 1995 SUBJECT: Steven and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request This memo is written to apprise the Board of Appeals of engineering concerns regarding a potential driveway at the northeast corner of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 169. Upon site visits and preliminary survey information, it was determined that sight distances at the proposed driveway location on Eden Prairie Road are very poor, less than 100 feet in each direction. Contributing factors to this poor sight distance are the steep grades on Eden Prairie Road averaging 14%, a sharp horizontal curve within this driveway area, and a steep hillside with heavy vegetation adjacent to the roadway. It is staff's opinion that any driveway opening on this property would be a serious safety consideration both for the future residents of the property and the motorists. JJ:ssa Dsk:JJ.Niosi CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE OIL L I v Engineering Division, Department of Public Works - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community & Economic Development Department FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City Engineergw DATE: August 30, 1995 1,, SUBJECT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the Niosi variance request for their property along Eden Prairie Road near Trunk Highway 169. We have completed some further review regarding their proposed driveway location and have the following information/comments: • This portion of Eden Prairie Road currently has about 1,900 vehicles per day (based on a recent count) traveling on it, with some large trucks observed during our field visits. We also completed a brief speed study near this property on Eden Prairie Road and determined that the average speed for northbound (uphill)traffic was about 26 mph, while the southbound(downhill)traffic was traveling at about 27 mph. • The current alignment of Eden Prairie Road in this area contains a moderately sharp curve with a very steep (14%) grade down to Trunk Highway 169. In addition, the original driveway location was proposed to be located near the middle of the curve with a steep (12%) driveway grade intersecting the 14% street grade. This would create a very difficult/dangerous situation for this property owner to access or leave the property,particularly during inclement conditions. It also introduces a driveway conflict for the traveling public in an area that has historically been a high accident area. The proponent has subsequently looked at relocating the driveway access further to the north, which would improve the driveway grade for this proposed house. • We have reviewed the 1993 and 1994 annual accident reports that we receive from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. During this two-year period, there have been a total of 13 accidents at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Trunk Highway 169. In addition,there were 11 more accidents that occurred during that same two-year period within the first 600 feet of Eden Prairie Road from its intersection with Trunk Highway 169. In 1993 alone, there were eight accidents that occurred along this portion of Eden Prairie Road with seven of those accidents being either side-swipes or vehicles that ran off the road. Our opinion is that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curve and narrow road corridor contributes to many of these accidents. • In addition to the current roadway geometrics, the lack of sight distance also contributes to the unsafe conditions of this area. The existing sight distance in this area is very poor due to a steep slope adjacent to the road, which also contains some thick vegetation. The site plan does propose some grading on the property to improve the sight lines. However, the sight distance for a vehicle accessing Eden Prairie CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE .V f-� 1 n - 37 Engineering Division, Department of Public Works Steven and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request August 30, 1995 Page 2 of 2 Road from the proposed driveway (based on the original plan) with the grading improvements is about 140 feet, at best. The proponent recently submitted a new site plan with a different driveway location, which does improve the sight distance to about 250 feet. Based on the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and the criteria used to analyze the situation,the sight distance required for this driveway should be about 300 feet in each direction. In conclusion, this portion of Eden Prairie Road carries a high volume of traffic on a daily basis with poor geometries and a high number of accidents for a city street. By adding a driveway in this area only introduces another conflict to an already dangerous roadway. However, if dramatic improvements in the sight distance are accomplished for the proposed driveway, there would likely be some benefits to the traffic on Eden Prairie Road as well. Therefore, if a house is approved for this site, we would recommend that the driveway be located as per the revised site plan and the site would be graded to achieve sight distance for the proposed driveway access as close to 300 feet in each direction as possible. Furthermore, the site plan would need to be reviewed and approved for issues such as drainage, grading, erosion control, landscaping, etc. RWR:ssa Dsk:RR.Niosi CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE / 3 g Engineering Division, Department of Public Works �L�-�-- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: Sept. 5/95 SECTION: Petitions and Requests ITEM NO.V///. 6, DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: The Trails Association Request Recreation and Faciliti Robert A. Lambert REQUEST: Representatives of the Trails Association have asked for a brief amount of time at the September 5, 1995 Council meeting to discuss the path that runs across their property. It should be noted that representatives from the Trails Association have discussed their concerns regarding this trail with City staff in the past. Those discussions included requests from the Trails Association to determine if the City would be interested in taking over ownership of the trail through their association, or if they could eliminate that trail. The trail has not been maintained. The trail is four feet wide, compared to the eight-foot City trails, and members of their association are concerned with not only the cost to maintain the trail but also the liability for the trail. BACKGROUND: The Trails was going to be developed in phases; however, only the first phase was ever completed. The area that was to be the second phase ended up as part of the Preserve High Point 4th Addition. The four-foot wide path within the Trails subdivision, that was to be "dedicated to the village," was constructed by the developer but never dedicated to the City. The remaining part of the trail was dedicated as an outlot in the Preserve's High Point 4th Addition, and the City constructed an eight-foot wide trail within the outlot. That eight-foot trail now abuts the four-foot trail in the Trails Subdivision. City staff suggested that if an option for their association would be to request the City to take over ownership of the trail, the Council would probably request the Trails Homeowner's Association to assume the cost to bring the trail up to City standards prior to the City accepting a trail easement and future maintenance of the trail (this has been the City request of the Hidden Ponds Homeowner's Association and has been the basis for some discussion with representatives from the Preserve Homeowner's Association). The development of the Trails townhouse complex included the trail connection to the underpass as a condition of the approval. City staff cannot find any written condition or requirement that this trail be maintained indefinitely by the townhouse complex. The eight-foot City asphalt trail that runs directly into the four-foot trail owned by the Trails Association, is the only connection to the underpass from the City trail; therefore, this section of trail, owned by the Trails Association, is fairly critical to the trail system serving that part of the community. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Council give staff an opportunity to review their request, and bring a recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to the Council at a future meeting. BL:mdd - Trails/Bob 1 Vega W:11 August 22, 1995 To the City of Eden Prairie Council SUBJECT: The September 5 Meeting Representatives of The Trails Association asks for five to ten minutes of time at the Council meeting September 5, 1995. TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION The Trails Association, the governing body of The Trails townhouse complex of 46 units in The Preserve area of Eden Prairie, has serious concern about the public path that runs across our property and across the road that runs down the middle of our two rows of homes. We have discussed our concerns with a number of City personnel. We now wish to make two proposals to you that relate to safety and liability. Sincerely, t'41- —Y f e t earn resid t, The Trails Association „e„..........(„4..."4.----__ Armi Nelson, Direttor 9148 Neill Lake Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347-2056 941-6819 August 22, 1995 To the City of Eden Prairie Council SUBJECT: The September 5 Meeting Representatives.of The Trails Association asks for five to ten minutes of time at the Council meeting September 5, 1995. TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION The Trails Association, the governing body of The Trails townhouse complex of 46 units in The Preserve area of Eden Prairie, has serious concern about the public path that runs across our property and across the road that runs down the middle of our two rows of homes. We have discussed our concerns with a number of City personnel. We now wish to make two proposals to you_that relate to safety and liability. Sincerely, obert Learn, resid t, The Trails Association Armi Nelson.,Dire or 9148 Neill Lake Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347-2056 941-6819 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 19, 1972 • ( Page Two A roll call vote was taken. Brown, Mikelson, Boerger, Sorensen, Fosnocht • voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. B. Development Corp. 80 townhouses, patio homes located in ,The Preserve. • Mr. Wally Case from Mr. Rippel's office described the changes to the plan as presented, which involved primarily the crossing of the pathway with two roads and the realigning of units near the crossings. The Planner said the Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the public pathway crossings and believed them to be a good solution. Bill Garens of the Park & Recreation Commission was not in favor and stated he believed a tunnel would be a better solution. The extensive "plaza" design combined with a 4' hard-surfaced pathway through the project on the public right-of-way .k will be installed by Mr. Hirsch in phases as the project is built. i Action taken: 1 Boerger moved and Brown seconded to recommend approval of the Hirsch 1 Development Corporation, 25 acre townhouse/patio home project in The :, C • Preserve for rezoning to RM 2.5 and preliminary plat for the 2.5 acre model area and 4.5 acre phase one area. Approval is based upon the revised plan of October 19, 1972 , and the recommendations in the Staff Report dated October 12 , 1972. i Amended to read in recommendation. that . . .the "plaza' area at the i street/pathway crossing be built in the first phase and the foot hard-surfaced path be constructed by the developer in phases. A roll call vote was taken: Brown, Boerger, Mikelson, Fosnocht, and Sorensen voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. C.. Warren Shultz, single family plat near Kurtz Lane. The Commission asked to reexamine this plat because of potential conflicts . with access and adjacent landowners. Mr. Gray from R.C.M. , representing_ Warren Shultz, explained that a meeting with the neighborhood was scheduled for Monday, October 23 . He also stated that the County Highway Department has approved an entry to Co. Rd. 4 as proposed. The land is currently zoned R1-22 and is platted in three lots. Mr. Fosnocht asked if all possible options had been explored, such as: selling to adjacent neighbors, working out a plan with vacant land to the ( east, and building only three homes rather than five as proposed. Mr. Gray said these had been investigated, but that after the Monday evening meeting with the neighborhood, a better definition of the possible solutions should be available. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 3 , 1972 Page Five The use of ballards and plantings to slow the traffic, particularly bicycle traffic on the public pathway, so that it would not conflict with the automobile would seem to be one. solution. The question of one or two driveways across this will be brought to the Park & Recreation Commission for their input and likewise , the input of the Planning Commission. The developer, Mr. Hirsch, is willing to develop either proposal. This plaza development would be at Mr. Hirsch's expense and would benefit his project and would also include as the project develops, the building in phases of a 4 ft. asphalt pathway throughout the entire project on the Village right of way that would be dedicated to the public. Action Taken: Fosnocht moved and Schee seconded to refer to Staff for a report and to set a public hearing date for October 24, 1972 . Motion carried. D. Preferred Developers_.Corporatiorki Meadow Wood's 180 unit rental apartment project located in The Preserve west of the proposed Community Center. Mr. Bill Bonner from The Preserve pointed out the location of the project on a high, triangular knoll overlooking the Community Center. Mr. Bonner summarized the building as being a double-loaded corridor, three story with underground parking, rental apartment building with apartments renting from $185 to $225 for a 2 bedroom unit. An interior pool and court area with recreation room, sauna, etc. would be provided with deck space overlooking the lake. Also a developed interior court of the building would be a plus feature of this project. Open field recreationsspace would be provided in the meadow just south of the East/West Parkway and also in the areas around Neill Lake. The Planner asked why, since the density on this project is close to 18 units per acre and is the same type building and structure as , for instance, the Shadow Green project which has a density of approximately 15 units per acre, the extra density in this case should be provided in that building type. Perhaps the inclusion of extra interior parking spaces to free up more of the site might be a reason for the increased density or extra added amenities. He asked that the developers address themselves to this question of a bonus • arrangement as the densities increase in apartment projects. Action Taken: Brown moved and Schee seconded to refer to Staff for a report and recommenda- tion and to set public hearing for October 24, 1972. Motion carried. E. Warren Shultz, single family plat located on Co. Rd. 4 between Kurtz Lane and Park Terrace Drive. Mr. David Husby of Rieke, Carroll, Muller and Associates presented the proposed plat by Warren Shultz in this area. The plat includes a publicly pñase oneudetails ®model units wrti 0 buy lk' oA Z., ac rev ok ha't oL4t lutkd ■ I3 VwktI( oLt,2t&, 4,44 IZ �tct-ho kowtz dwzlli� uPti•! wail bc, - loca-lid r va { w1kh Acct9e, INt 0 ctv�14 ` mad ak 4hz 00u_iirtta,i contsrivic .Htt OK 4.5 etcr€ ()Kt, tetc.reettliotA vvktc1 t� vhaP artel 1NG�u AFGG1 II4 ' c kt, villo a path l -f-wa 9 y locat-tet Wt�Nrtiv� ka� ovtt ‘N/t II bf. dzdica4 tvilla er ®ploy place -For ka*t ate Ye e A.1.40 wilt b6 calk+ a, coko�vin ON d ' -4Sf rla • ®future phosiny• .vill occur J : �� in acrta tui ih OT N0� I'�- •K s, ill tee Itck hOucIK Kt 4.5 at� a a� 4l/ld•t° otNT tvvt• J 1Mtivr`��1'. it st:` s,4,-'4 Rr �•g'ii T z "4, k t a'1,.•S 4' kt : A' zi :', -L.„i?..cr'."-.:t:,.; , ''',;;..10.- 0.,V-0.0i,' V 74-ar,714.4. °Nei i , -,,,,,,*„....•'..%.:),4 1.So'%,7, tr...„‘',`'egf.,4:t.. 44, '''_.„,,*.Y.,11:4,,,,,__;7"01:0 ''', ' -"CV& ,, s `6i�.�.'r ,.;,,A.,...i •F° ,;:,- •':.Y +,A.,,...1,::::71,:tt*„..:4.1fAfitiititItt -to ; . :4;:tirl:,:v4Plita,te471b;#;i: i n alirill 4 ' ''.',• ..v.-"'".A; 3. 47 � 4 _ I��tt` _; . fit ;*N.e,,,I.A:VP-4147:-.k'.' q.-0.- ....,v,,,, . ..4.111* _7';'-'4't"tioriVatiligik �� is i �--I" nq- xk . , v2mik,t.,,....1..r _ — '''.4 s-ick . S .�,t, ~ .x, fi ` +•* , tom. E ' -----.4.-- 0--1 -,. kistitim - . ..../ 7 4.1,;4164:••:=,,,•!;44--44..0%4 kt 4.4kNits - — . ;•-°44:1,-.7„. .,4-1'-.-r-v:MVO l + 33,-- t`q•.:. i-. Po *ra ,rYa�e 0 L s\ J \ d Est 4:4 , 1._`:'': 0 SY b t, . , ..,-..,,,,,.„ 4.1 F. M. 4- `�r�yl.{••# _, 1, \iv A I #.• re 4 ‘‘4 '-t#:ti, 1 V-'4.-1 !" - 4ito :li , \ = 1.4 . wt., . -Ali*1.'"' '4..'•."' R 1 II ge.. ,••••••„,._ • I r • � � �' : b -� h� ` � `am. v • g mow XI' t,bk!& -'F-� a' q 1 r� i• 't8,'a .y0. y. `" S•v •'s. ° ; f�' t s �' 4� fa /i� 1 T� +.` ' '..1,'r +ki ,'YA,X*• 7 ..' r� rtl"'t 04 „. . _, 'sb`. Sf �C.",,:�'•r` i 1 ''9v �-y` � ` ,.+'� 4 •v �',l +9rwllY)x� J v • •�, a., + `4,1 4 .,.i;.^•y, ir H r X1" 4. . I:', 4�r "i 'of.,, ''+ i t�,�t 'r1 ," g x r t.F 4c 1 :1 r xf" �C' .:.� ` `x, ,. •f .,�,w k'/.- `',y,+G:;i."1"„,),„ ,.,, ".-0"" s+ '� . , , d*'p. if t -.„., ., •i •��. . ,:i.::'. �y, i{ •nA \ �i/�BR �F x� a� a� V t �� {•xy'6�• �^ t�, `' �i .�,fd.t:r.� � _a R >'r • y «�LYi ry 7�. ipS ',., •, 4.. '��i,�, Z•-am. x►'7k frIt 1r'*;►'- - • ' <'�, ~ `.e ). . ,' ," i,) ; "��, `, ft f- "s " Hennepin Parks i �'; , A�4.v \e �, 4r. - ,, *° <°, �. p 8 blacktop trail �'�� e� � � �. x ` 1 i J ;�¢ • 'S �V`;•`�, `, k �T�h. 1•,., f,+<..s„1.. ��,.�.ti�y -.:'Z�' j'� w�.glr.. 'y `.;.'. ist Y, Q.•�Hr 1 + ; • r µ V �2Y S' �:, r x�'yi t �[i5 '617 • ' r is p •, ti .. �O '; \ w ._p !i V, ,7�•�, J yS '_. 'rg 1,'X M*�� $c ....,- !'....: • - ,. ...,,-, T.,..\(..*:: ,',,,•' ; -0 is . ,:•,-.1.- 4444 k _!r • h' 'f. .i`, =.6 " `, a /�N. EN...Lr ., ',,,K`�'� 7 ,i, • • 1F1' , fir. rK �15� t �.7 eLlx. . .• �Qi ,0 `.... 1� s jie '�"a.:--its --•' ,, S ry is .. f:-.�. 9 + r..,jW�.: ,�..: . .„- ,r ..,.. . .1. V ' r, 1 'h�'fi` '. " .. ,+y"N,pti' '!7 4" ';j)•' x t`-.i 1 ` '� ,. y f `x fr• `A••• • " :d - 4v '�'.c..::7�t' ��.�•:; �^r �Y ". g's, � . .t , , ,.. :.•vlxxS3.++., .+x.,. ;w+G • • Sin '-'•i*,..• .t,•y t' f 4,1 a:+f��•4 � ''^� -.r yl1 d71.'.'�'' CC..'tiyi.�'t• ';t 't. •� '. .- 'a `�, n rt ..W ",•• .4� r-• `%•fir'�- • 4:4 - „7, ,.r� ,b •. ,b•t 2t If 4 4'•,::.k"4 , • �4/ Y+� " •1+ �,•►• � .. ;K w a - • -z �^Y•1 t 1 B>d r',�,ii'faAt�, •0 - ..� 5..•4',- - •f: ,�gR�.CS �,. r.• -4: Y4 \Z ',44, d ,4_- `. # ..,J w1 ,4,,..i. ......,L:4.� yb*"!:,- _ ,�..--. Taw " ��y ' ., •rr • A3 'c.. N Y ...�' e''4 , • .r_ 4.(x ••.4. 9 �'� a.;a 6l y _x 4 1'1• f�-#'. �s• a :,ail ='�. 7 qtt,tr.P a. `"' ` , I �. - ,'4" .7' . t,,�., ,w off ! ,k r 7:�. The Trails -F3� '•. #' • � y _u • jJ `' a r ,. .. 5' blacktop trai•l R= 6 ` f.4' .n • ,r' �+(t jyy 1�.0*.•"Rt t 5 .. x, } ;1' .... .; f„ .•ti a s 4 F,- • 'tilt 4 �Y f t- � .• t,• \�p,*'t4fa"��y'"f .,� a� Y4` sk�P�, i�' .v s`•`1n a t � ' y �4.04, `� • •.4 k., L ,•,; ,,,, ;� R`, ,,, 3,a• 'Y ;y 4, r-Wr...e. . ,. ,? . 171��" <i ` ..s. `�'J a+ c �r t .i~l C . art, ! �}� Y^ wT* .Y` 471,i:x� -..i,', .e , ' I - -bt f•'' ♦1 '+ ! '(r 1_� .n. z f. '!+ T. " t..r • uxl"r A,'' -•',--. ,. 44 .al :� !i`_ fir• , d, ,. V i- ', .-j6 901 L °ritl- 4 £ . +5 '" 4 ?i - '"40 29 53•E b » L' ' 1I %xyi+ 0.-.;._i/1,..A./0t0l,Q,,.,:i 4 5-'*r r 'i i Za ,} « , t . , NI. "', F i. r};, 1'*; 1 r : t• �ytt7i 2 ix -,( 'i T a City G b w 8' blacktoptrail ,' k x "$' t 0, x01" F ` r 1 ti ri 41r4c- L..` +''r',r. # ti *'..r .+ . a. ,jK t •e- 'ire+ °� ��1 '•- '.� Q M�,4•" *i ++. . 4 , �, d- - v'E �do ,.-�r• _ 1 �r 4 • 'j ,: r .. ,Sr:� � 4, ;_'<�f _ ,,rY r •M 4'r` z. ••"ok ,Z.. .- ' �i�;fi !.• L ` K"%•E tit . ,� Cc' �,tf,ti- _ '�' �� ! ~ �'l rd.. r•e�orT3 � ' r;•-•`kc t� :.�n ..r�.' 7 ' 4 r, ••' y.re S `,` r.) 1 • r J ,4 Q -4'.:;1.114 : . ' ' '"I'Viri,',''`''i-r;','.-.Y'-7r.# '''*,,'`,.,',.f..---,,Tixt, . ,, ....„:. - ..: 4rr.„,,,riv.,..i221 n. • �.r i a ,1 ,4��+... 4O t'� 11= 200' 'e " •..�r"txr� "' t`"f" r"g � F r,sx S_ fi $ ... . 1 '7` •?•�'i •'bfr,;�r, t ,d;;.�.rW 1 �•3Yk, .f_.ie. .,t.....r �. ,] +'�..•• CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Reports of Advisory Boards and Commissions September 5, 1995 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Human Resources, Community Information Human Rights & Diversity Commission IX. A. and Services - Diversity Training for Natalie J. Swaggert Board/Commission Members Requested Action: It is recommended that the Council provide all current members of boards and commissions with the opportunity to attend a Diversity Training Workshop and that in the future the orientation of newly appointed Commissioners include Diversity Training. Background: The Human Rights and Diversity Commission included a goal in their 1994-95 workplan to develop a plan to provide Commission members and City Advisory groups with Diversity Training. The purpose of diversity training is to foster an environment in which people are respectful and appreciative of diversity, where differences in backgrounds, viewpoints and perspectives are valued and incorporated into the decision making process. It is the Human Rights and Diversity Commission's belief that community leaders, elected and appointed officials, must take a leadership role in modeling behavior that supports inclusiveness and promotes the principles of the Manifesto. The City has provided diversity training to all full time staff members. The Commission is recommending that the training be done for current officials and members of boards and commissions this fall, thereafter the training would be provided annually following the appointment process. All new elected officials and Commission members would be expected to attend as a part of the overall orientation to their new responsibilities. The training would be provided through professional diversity trainers. We have worked with the School District and the new diversity coordinator, Ann Mabbott, to develop training materials that meet the needs of our environment. Provided the City Council accepts this recommendation to provide Diversity Training, we would be prepared to implement training for current members of the City Council, Boards and Commissions this fall. The evenings of October 30th and November 8th are being reserved for the two-part training. Form agen830.wpd Rev 8/31 /95 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-5-95 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger HARTFORD PLACE - 1995 AMENDMENT Michael Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 4.43 acres; • Approve a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 4.43 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement BACKGROUND The City Council and Planning Commission approved a plan for a 30,000 square foot Office Depot on the Hartford property. Ryan Companies recently informed City Staff that Office Depot is no longer a possibility, however, Pet Smart, is interested in purchasing the property. The attached revised site plan shows a Pet Smart building which is approximately 4,000 square feet smaller than Office Depot. The site plan, landscaping, building materials and architecture are similar to the Office Depot plan. The Staff would recommend that the City Council approve the Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Zoning Ordinance 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement • M SITE DATA , LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 BLOCK 1, PRAIRIE LAKES BUSINESS PARK • ' :), i 11 ,11 11 } SERF ARPU , 11 11 1 11 PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 1 1 1 1 .I I 1 I I i I LOT 1: 4.43 ACRES+/- 1 I 1 1 I 1 -0 _ �- I 11 \I\ : :: I111i1 26,040 SF. I1 \-`` t R ) ' I 1' I REQUIRED: 143 CARS l 11 1 _ - - SHOWN: 173 CARS EXISTING MANTO I I 1 _ _ -- ___ CURB tllri(n'PT) j---i- _1 1 I _9CREIW w• -I PROOF OF PARKING: 0 CARS (1 1 i ---�= — __ _ I _ - _ TOTAL PROVIDED 173 CARS I 1 1 1! LO#EDNG _ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE/�� 1 I I I SIGN STREET I _•2 .-L DOCK . -- I • _ \ NOTES. STREET LIGHTS(TYP) — I I I _..- I ' ` 1 I , - > �� OTHERWISE_ SHOWN ARE TO BACK OF CURB UNLESS NOTED Ii - I I I �.._--PANG Ai-SETBACK ® HANDICAPPED STALLS CALCULATED AT ONE STALL PER F1FIY I I I I / STALLS. THE FIRST HANDICAPPED STALL IS TO BE VAN �! I1 ; ! I _ RETAIL I ACCESSIBLE AT A 12'WIDTH. THE RUNNING HANDICAPPED NSTN"L 5'CONCRETE SIDEWALK(API) lam' I' I I I - STALLS TO BE 8''WIDE WITH A 5'ACCESS LANE. I 26,040 S.F. 1 I 1 ! I■ --Iss• T I /ii // / m BLOCK PARCEL HAS SIRIEFADYB BEEN PL 0E-0 AS LOT 2, 3'-4'LANDSCAPE BERM(TYP.) - I 1 _ / ' I I I PROPOSED PLANTER/ ! ! 35 e -- LIGHT.MONUMENT/SIGNY WITH j I l j j �� ', 1�,\ --- • \� INGRISS/EGRESS EASDENT FOR N.C.S.CORP. / l I` ) 1 • I I- 11 11 __ , : / F., „ , -_ _ i I,1 11 - _PARKING STALL DETAIL IIIIIIII •— w_Tf ` _ — I !1 Tv 1 III / .r0 6 n,.�,`, BUILDING SETMACK‘I • ‘I-- � / EXISTING I 1 I •/ /! /r _ TNBC �` UMENT/ /.' DEVELOPMENT •�f . !I T �1 / / / / CURB 8 GUTTER �'Y:'•� e I , /, �/ / REMOVE EXISTING MEDAAN '� iC �I -- -i5.01- / / / LANDSCAPE5' BERM l ` `\ ` _-_ 620 26.0 / / / INSTALL 5'CONCRETE SIDEWALK(TYP.) - • / / )1,• / t \\� e. '`.) 7 i i[7 /� f' '\` s 1 e`oc i / ' / / / A '\\� �\ i !/ ; / / / \� �' I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION P i r.mmilmmi"7 0' 50' 100' 150' e • DRAWING FILE:C:\DWG\95106\ARCHNE\AREA-IC.DWC REVISIONS: 92z Ma�nrt�eM I^m4'a)Am Fa Pw we H km,w Wc11m aMI1 rawa rt pbJ�-e Mf f RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF 9/5/95 Hopkins, n1'"`"nof.51""`"� MINNESOTA, INC. HARNFDORDRTH SPLACE ITE SITE PLAN > 900 2ND AVENUE SOUTH EDEN PRAIRIE, MN ASSOCIATES LTD. 19:21 933-09J2 a.:(aID y33-11s3 uu „c.,u MINNEAPOUS,MINNESOTA 55402 lt, •.,---4..•';t, : ' . ••••',.:.•:•,,.. •••;•,•••..'`.-,;,.-e...,..•`'.. - . _..:,.••;,•.*:-.1e.'t'• .": I 1 ';' •••••••••,................ .• '.,,...,...r.:4, ••••• •,,,..4,:it,: . t.• .,.n„, •••,• , • . !^1 0 r '''"'...!!""."*"... "..... . -'.7::•147;. -4.;;;;,,.. . ••••;•?4,•A,„4,.... ' ,..:..31‘......• . . - --'kt.4.-1 • , i• 30' . .---..."-----.....,,.. sk:.44i/R---.-•••• •••A.,-,,l,s;••=';' ,-4,...!, • w... •.-•-,q,':::..... • ---,'";... I \ . --............... • I 1 (\lin „ • .........___ .. ---...............„ ....._____;____. ___ • —7 71-.7 I , 4- iini . _ i .• . _ , • . 0., , . MIN. vp • I I ----, ip . •• , 1 NI • .i.:::. -14 ,-----i ,/ all PARI(ING L I III Ili / IIII . . . . , .• .dmilimmiiiiiw, , „ -- " " • ' I 6'... • . k ..., RETIKING V E- R TA I L , ....,• ...ow 1111 , ,.,,. ,,....,, 30,000- $ F . 1 . g ' • ..qi . , :---.-,-.„. ',:•........-.•.,-..,4y....?...' ! al111 / / / . I , • i . . . . .. 1111r. 4 / .,. ...... ........ , 1 1 35, ,„.. .... ,.,„:.:,.. II 4 I i . I • AMA'. le , ' memen. ,unneennenseniii .. ., ...t.i.;,-.-..v.-,--t-e .c -• , ..1*Ast..1 fe,x. t..:..t.,c,..‘ , i I • I I . , :, ' go- iin......1; .....:, .,. .,,,,o , . • _MI #,94 , 30' UGHT i .2, ;. . . Ewa aim intwansems::::*.w." ':61-:'' ' 41111 F ' SHOE BOX I i g , -:',:2 ,;‘,71110 ', ; .•: -' • , •0 L, 8%1 . ••■•■44,1:,ti. • ,„..,....., I I ••• a '. .;,..-c-,',. .rz:..:. 4 0 L- . • .- -: .,70 ,_,..:2,21111, 1/ • 1 Co • .'• .1.:':.•;;,;;•7,7„.; mir $1 • \ -- I. 1 • ,.. • •,; 1 III •••:-C.;•, '•,':- visaile:- -, - cv . . • •:;,..:;-?•?:-.....,,, ..:. ' .........-— :, . .'• •,•.'.::., :::•,.- ••-: tt1/i0 • - 41111111111ft_ hIni.:17 -.':•••,•,v,. 'N'.',-•- '7-',.I-•.6- ,' .- • • ‘7.110 • . ... . . . 44s.`..,r.,,0,„114,_,,-,:,',„.;1.--;:.4-:;,-,,„.,'.,'..,.'',„.T.',.:•,:,-:'•,.,... G:*•:•...,R......i....'....E-„'.„....S--.4.4,.„.S',L•,''/.• E I .'.. \ O\i\k"1,40,44:iszotro.,,,col yz,,,..4.. 4111111%1 . - \ \ . ,......_____ • r.N. \ Q..:}. \ • Ili,. •••.. ........... I • 4,--. iii..."44,14. --'--.'.---'.----.--..--,.7 ... :.' 30: R (licp I Faa;r4 111:11:•I'LE::,N..G' . ---. „''''';`•' .- .--':-.4.-z-.__ . / ,...,,. ' . 1.1'' '' \/ , /I ,.....\ --.. .."`-... li-....... • _ itiiii::- 0 , _..... ...... ...... ... . Yr / ..- . 41I s • . _ ----,-•1.!....,. cc,z; - - . / a,, ...-- --..•... . . : -------- • -.... — .#,,,,... j I/ smioGNNu MEN- ,••• -.... -.. ...., --. - X- ....._, ...... -- --.--. ----'.."--• . --..., ---......I__ 11 1 --..... --. -... -.. .... ri ..02:) -,-- ...- --...„......„ -.-....---_ _..-'-- A?ril‘t)k)e P ° F°1141 HARTFORD PLACE - 1995 AMENDMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 26-95-PUD-13-95 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, WITHIN THE C-REG-SER ZONING DISTRICT,AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN THE 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 within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District 26-95-PUD-13-95 (hereinafter "PUD-13-95-C-Reg-Ser"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of September 5, 1995, entered into between Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-13-95-C-Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-13-95-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-13-95-C-Reg-Ser 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-13-95-C-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-13-95-C-Reg-Ser 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 is within the C-Reg-Ser District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 13-95-C-Reg-Ser, 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 18th day of July, 1995, 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 5th day of September, 1995. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on Exhibit A Legal Description Hartford Place - 1995 Amendment • Lot 2, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park HARTFORD PLACE - 1995 AMENDMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 26-95-PUD-13-95 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, WITHIN THE C-REG-SER ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN THE 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 PUD District Review located on Lot 2, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) HARTFORD PLACE - 1995 AMENDMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR HARTFORD PLACE - 1995 AMENDMENT BY RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC. WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. has applied for Site Plan approval of Hartford Place - 1995 Amendment on 4.43 acres for construction of a 26,000 sq. ft. retail building located at Lot 2, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park to be zoned within the C-Reg Ser Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its June 26, 1995, 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 18, 1995, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. for the construction of a retail building, based on plans dated July 13, 1995, between Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 5, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk HARTFORD PLACE - 1995 AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of September 5, 1995 by RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA,INC. a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Developer's Agreement between RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC. and the City of Eden Prairie for Ryan Construction Company Hartford Place, dated November 1, 1994, (The "Developer's Agreement") for that portion of the Property legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof (The "Property"). NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 26-95-PUD-13- 95, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of the Property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated October 4, 1994, reviewed and approved by the City Council on October 4, 1994 and in conformance with the materials revised and dated August 15, 1995, reviewed and approved by the City Council on August 15, 1995, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. Developer agrees to and reaffirms all of the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of"Developer" under the Developer's Agreement, except as inconsistent with or amended by this Supplement. bk.- -