Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/17/1995 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 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 Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENTATION OF "AWARD OF EXCELLENCE" TO THE PARKS, RECREATION &NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT'S ADAPTIVE RECREATION LEARNING EXCHANGE PROGRAM, "L FJSURE DISCOVERIES", FROM THE MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARKS ASSOCIATION I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3. 1995 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF LOOSEN ADDITION (located south of Highway 62 and west of Shady Oak Road) C. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.2 FOR WELL HOUSES 11 AND 12,I.C. 94-5356 Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 22, 1995 4. All retail buildings have been moved 10 feet to the east. 5. The majority of the trees in the center portion of the site are located on a slope which drains westerly to the back of the retail buildings. Grading and/or storm sewer would be necessary to drain water away from the buildings and will impact trees. Tree replacement is 317 caliper inches. The landscape meets this requirement. It is possible to save more large oak trees on the east side of the buildings by moving the buildings 10 feet to the west. This will reduce the width of the sidewalk and eliminate shade trees in planter boxes in front of the buildings. Five (24" average) oaks could be saved. Staff believes that existing large trees are more valuable than proposed 3" trees and recommends that the site plan be changed. This will reduce the amount of tree replacement. However, staff does not recommend the amount of total landscaping be reduced. Tree replacement currently helps satisfy screening and transition requirements of City code. If tree replacement is reduced, then screening and transition plantings would have to increase. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has several choices regarding the development of the property: I. Approve the revised development plans as submitted. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the Neighborhood Commercial use of the property, you could approve the request for PUD amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat based on revised plans dated September 22, 1995, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 25, 1995, August 11, 1995, September 8, 1995 and September 22, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall: A. Submit a revised site plan moving retail buildings 10 feet to the west. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3 Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 22, 1995 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the cash park fee. B. Submit final plans for review by the Fire Marshal. C. Submit samples of exterior materials and colors. D. Submit a final landscape plan and security. 4. Prior to grading on the property, the proponent shall stake the construction limits with fencing. The fencing shall be in place and approved by the City Forester a minimum of 48 hours prior to tree cutting on the property. 5. Planned Unit Development waivers are granted for lot size less than 2 acres for the Kindercare lot and a front yard setback to parking to 10 feet along Highway 5. 6. The interim road improvements to Dell Road must be completed concurrent with the construction of the project. 7. A right turn lane must be completed concurrent with the project. 8. Sidewalks must be completed concurrent with the project. 9. Lighting standards shall have a shielded light and a maximum height of 20 feet. 10. All trash areas shall be stored inside of the building, with the exception of the Kindercare site which may use an outside storage area constructed of face brick. 11. The Kindercare sign and the retail signs must be compatible. The Kindercare sign must be redesigned to be consistent with the brick monument and pylon signs proposed for the retail center. II. Revise commercial development plan and continue the project for two weeks. 1. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with a Neighborhood Commercial use of the property, but feel that the amount of tree loss is not acceptable, then one option would be to recommend that the plan be modified to more the retail buildings 10 feet to the west. 4 v, 6 . - 10 Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 22, 1995 III. Recommend denial of the project for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the approved PUD. 2. Traffic impacts on the adjoining road system are high. • 3. The site does not preserve the natural features of the property. 4. The project does not meet City code requirement for lot size and parking setbacks. 5. The project does not provide an adequate transition and buffering to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The staff recommends Alternative I. • V (� - I ! MEMORANDUM TO: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner FROM: Stuart A. Foxctnager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: September 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center - Revised Tree Loss Calculations BACKGROUND: This memo is to clarify the calculations of tree loss from the proposed Dell Road/Highway 5 Commercial Center due to site changes that have been proposed in the last few months. The original plan indicated a gas station, along with some commercial buildings and a daycare center. However, that plan has been revised and therefore, the tree calculations have changed accordingly. TREE LOSS CALCULATIONS: •Original Plans dated June 9. 1995 Total Diameter Inches Remaining Inches Removed Inches %Loss Significant Trees 2,048 690 1,358 34% Delete Elm & Boxelder 1,844 574 1,270 31% •Revised Plans dated September 10. 1995 (Field data used from site visit) Total Diameter Inches Remaining Inches Removed Inches %Loss Significant Trees 1,664 627 1,037 38% EXPLANATION FOR CHANGES IN CALCULATIONS: The staff received several comments from the Planning Commission audience, as well as phone calls to the City Forester, that questioned the tree survey. I then compared the data indicated on the proponent's plans with that of the 1989 site survey. It was determined, by comparing the two, that several tree species, namely ironwood, hickory and black cherry do not seem to V. a . - 1Z Revised Tree Loss Calculations September 22, 1995 page 2 appear on the latest survey and the totals seem to be different than the 1989 data indicated. Based on this, the staff visited the site and individually checked all of the trees on the site. I found that a number of recording errors had been made in the tree survey done by RLK. The data for the trees in their locations was fairly accurate; however, the size of the trees went both undersize and oversize when compared to the diameters indicated on the plan. With this discovery, the staff inventoried all trees on the site to get an accurate indication of what species were out there, and the total number of diameter inches of significant trees. This resulted in a net reduction of approximately 200 diameter inches of trees from the June 9, 1995 plans. The primary reason for this was that several trees were found to be less than 12" in diameter when they were indicated as being 12" or larger on the plans. In addition, the staff made changes to some other tree indications. Namely, two or three trees indicated as live trees were found to be totally dead and therefore, should not have been counted as a significant tree. The indication is that these trees probably died during the expansion of Highway 5 due to dirt stockpiling activities by the highway department contractor. The building locations and size indicated on the most recent plan have changed significantly from the June, 1995 plan. The buildings have increased in size which puts them closer to the central corridor of trees which are designated as being saved. In addition, the patio on the proposed restaurant building is enlarged. The staff has a concern as to how this patio would be built when there is six feet of vertical change over the area where the patio is proposed to be located. In addition, the other buildings to the south were increased in size and their orientation changed to place them closer to the central corridor of large oak trees. The recommendation would be to move these buildings further to the West; thereby, reducing the sidewalk plaza area in front of the buildings. I believe that this would be beneficial from the aspect of saving the most valuable resource on the site; however, it would reduce the likelihood that shade trees could be placed in planters in front of proposed buildings. Another positive by shifting the buildings further west would be that many of these large 20-30" oak trees, as indicated on the most recent plan, are only 15' from the edge of the building. I believe that in constructing the buildings, there could be conflicts between the large lateral side branches and the vertical walls of the buildings. Thereby, necessitating either removal of the branch or severe pruning in order to get the buildings located in their proposed locations. The final factor that needs to be figured into the tree loss is the drainage patterns that are going to change due the enlargement of these building pads. I believe a number of the root zones of these large trees will be adversely affected by grading necessary to provide proper drainage of this "backyard" area of the buildings. Great care will be necessary to ensure that the root zone does not receive compaction or fill in order to accomplish proper drainage of the area. Most of the oak trees in this area, due to their large size, will not tolerate a great amount of fill, compaction, or root loss due to grading activities. v. 6. - )3 C C Revised Tree Loss Calculations September 22, 1995 Page 3 I would recommend the use of exclusionary fencing throughout the entire project wherever significant trees or a tree mass are indicated to be saved. It will be important to limit grading activities from these trees in order to ensure their future health. SAF:smb Stu:TREECALC.REV STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation and Kindercare FEE OWNER: Tandem Corporation LOCATION: SE Quadrant of the Intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5 REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial. 2. Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots. 4. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on.4.47 acres. 5. Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. 1 V. 6, - ,s - 4 -.Mj 6 1- . - -4 mAir . \, 14.-. 0 0. e., ili.. „, lamp Ny_ .,,, ,:c.04,,,:if. 0E., 0 ........, , , .......i...,47: si mia is e!".004. Ili ' ct „. CT. illIfts 4. 0-4;:40- . _Ageolo. _ sm . a*IlkIP ,...) I 31 I 11 1171 I -: 1 2 J� i. ' (2-71-1'q21 ''."P - . ., - g1/4.1_ ' AVE. Ilk t i z Z x T.N.SST.i C Aliffigab ci: Ri..- . Vt" . . . 111 as 0 < 2 pat- , - � • • JAME � 01giniiii CoNn . . 1111111* g ,.. risolli •i::„.1..iellililillitil:iniil % ,$r ••::::miiiiil or CHANHASSENveocio 0. A • 4? il• ' 116 . Vi rs imigirt4 g 1111- 111pv.: - w , NI (\ iii.i.i.i..7,1,..:,i..,:ilciiii iti aft ,.. 4. tillri.II spoN it_ 4110A01 \ (7.-7( 4;z1 -: 2C4,2 * 42 liglibintiL1/44.4411 ilii . Apis %%RAe ST Trho 4$ II AI << •:•:•::::•::::•:-.. g5 :::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::•• ,,,„ To •• .::::,:,:::::::::,:::::::::,:::::::.. itigh6 k„::::::::::::::::::::::,::::::::::.. L.000 •::::•::::•:•::•:•:••:•:••••:•:••••:•:•:•::.. 11, •:•::::•::•::::•:•::•:•::.:•:•::.:•:•::.:•:•:•:: ::::::::::::.:::::,::::„:„:„:„. : ,„„„,„„s„,„„,. V. B. - 14D c C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 8, 1995 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the August 14, 1995 meeting for plan revisions that would reduce traffic, improve the transition along Cascade Drive, and provide for storm water treatment. REDUCE TRAFFIC By eliminating the convenience gas store, traffic is reduced. The chart below compares the traffic generation from the last proposal, the approved PUD, and revised PUD. Daily Traffic 3974 3334 2121 P.M. Traffic 376 308 242 A.M. Traffic 339 270 245 The reduced traffic numbers meet the requirement of the previous engineering memo. The first driveway entrance on Cascade Drive has been shifted approximately 30 feet closer to Dell Road. Cars stacking on Cascade Drive will block the entrance during the A.M. peak hour. Since the retail uses are not generally open during the A.M. peak hour, Staff believes that this will not be a problem. A right turn lane is still necessary on Cascade Drive. In order for the project to proceed, either the full Dell Road improvements should be completed,or the developer would be responsible for the cost of providing the interim improvement plan. TRANSITION Removing the convenience gas store provides a better relationship visually to the property to the south, by removing the building and the lighted gas canopy. The revised plan also shows that the retail buildings in the center of the project have been shifted approximately 35 feet closer to the street on Cascade Drive. This removes some significant trees, but also a substantial portion of other trees which provide a natural screening of the buildings. In addition, 2 small treatment ponds have been added adjacent to Cascade Drive which also remove natural vegetation, and does not leave enough room to plant the 8-10 foot high conifers as shown on the previous proposal. 2 va - 17 C C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 8, 1995 The Planning Commission felt that the transition in the previous plan was not acceptable. This plan must be revised to meet the original transition as a minimum and be improved upon. The Staff recommends that the site plan be revised to shift the buildings to the original minimum setback from Cascade Drive, and include the original twenty-seven 8-10 foot high conifers. To improve upon the transition,27 additional 8-10 foot high conifer trees should be planted along the length of Cascade Drive. TREATMENT PONDS It is possible to treat storm water on this site without removing trees or parking. The proof-of- parking area on the Kindercare site could be converted into a treatment pond. The 20 proof-of- parking spaces could be located elsewhere. Since a setback waiver from 17 1/2 feet to 10 feet is requested along Hwy. 5, there is room to provide additional proof-of-parking there. In addition, some of the planting islands on the Kindercare lot could also be used as proof-of- parking, even though it may remove a few significant trees. These trees would probably not survive and were not included as saved trees in Staff's original tree loss estimate. ARCHITECTURE A condition of approval of the original PUD was that building architecture would have a residential character so that it would blend in with the surrounding multiple family buildings. The original submittal reviewed by the Planning Commission had a higher roof line and looked more residential. In elevation view, the roofline occupied a greater proportion of the total height than the wall. The revised building elevations lower a good portion of the roof by 8 feet which makes the building look less residential and more like a commercial building with a mansard. The Staff believes that the building architecture must change to be more consistent with the previous proposal. The roof on the retail buildings do not come to a peak. It is a partial roof. If the roof went to a peak at a 1:1 slope as proposed on the wall section, the roof would be 35 feet tall. This would be disproportionate to the building and out of character with the surrounding residential architecture. Staff is comfortable with the partial roof approach provided the roof heights are consistent with the original total height of 28 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development staff present the Planning Commission with the following alternative courses of action: 3 V. B. - ►g C C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 8, 1995 If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the revised plans as proposed, then one option would be to recommend approval of the revised PUD, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Site Plan Review based upon the revised plan dated September 6, 1995. II. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the land uses proposed, but feel that additional site plan changes are necesssary,then one option would be to continue the item until the September 25th meeting with direction to publish the proposal for the October 3rd City Council meeting and subject to the following revisions: 1. Move the retail buildings to the north to meet the original setback from Cascade Drive. 2. Relocate the NURP ponds on the daycare property. 3. Relocate the displaced proof of parking area to the north property line along Highway 5, with the setback waiver, and to locate additional parking within the planting islands on the Kindercare site. 4. Provide 54 eight to ten foot high conifers along Cascade Drive. 5. Revise the exterior building elevations to increase the roof height to 28'. III. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed land uses, but feel the site plan revisions identified in the Staff Report are significant, then one option would be to continue the item until the September 25th meeting with the following revisions to be completed: 1. Move the retail buildings to the north to meet the original setback from Cascade Drive. 2. Relocate the NURP ponds to the east on the daycare property. 3. Relocate the displaced proof of parking area to the north property line along Highway 5, with the setback waiver, and to locate additional parking within the planting islands on the Kindercare site. 4. Provide 54 eight to ten foot high conifers along Cascade Drive. 4 v, 6 , - 1q C • C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 8, 1995 5. Revise the exterior building elevations to increase the roof height to 28'. IV. If the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with the land use plan and the site plan as proposed, then one option would be to recommend denial of the proposal as submitted. The staff would recommend Alternative II. M:\REPORTS/DELL.III 5 v. �3. - Zo c, STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: August 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation and Kindercare FEE OWNER: Tandem Corporation LOCATION: SE Quadrant of the Intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5 REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial. 2. Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots. 4. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.47 acres. 5. Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. 1 v. 6. - 2,1 C C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center August 11, 1995 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the July 26, 1995 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the project be continued, requested that a traffic study be prepared and recommended that plans be revised as follows: 1. Submit a revised landscaping plan with 93 additional caliper inches. 2. Submit a revised proof of parking plan which relocates proof of parking out of areas with tree cover. 3. Submit a trash enclosure plan. 4. Submit a mechanical equipment screening plan. 5. Submit exterior material samples and colors. 6. Submit a revised sign plan to remove the roof signs from the buildings. Redesign the Kindercare sign to be compatible with the signs proposed for the retail portion of the project. 7. Submit a lighting plan with lighting standards no greater than 20 feet in height. Submit a lighting plan for the canopy for the gas convenience store with lights recessed under the canopy and shielding for the lenses of individual lights. REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN The developer has revised the development plan meeting the requirements from the previous Staff Report. CONSISTENCY COMPARISON OF PROPOSAL TO APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1. The current proposal is 1700 square feet larger. 2. The current proposal has 5000 square feet less Office. 3. The current proposal has 5000 square feet more daycare. 2 Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center August 11, 1995 4. A restaurant was not specifically designated in the original PUD, however, general retail does permit restaurants. 5. Tree loss is calculated at 36%. The 1990 PUD was 40%. 6. A.M. Peak hour traffic is 22% higher than the approved plan. P.M. peak hour traffic is 26% higher than the approved plan. 7. Daily traffic is 19% higher than the approved plan. TRAFFIC A traffic study has been prepared. The traffic study can be summarized as follows: 1. Traffic will increase on Cascade Drive and Dell Road. The existing traffic volume on Cascade Drive is 1,450 trips. At full development, with this commercial project, traffic will increase to 4,220 daily trips. 2. The traffic projections for this project are 3974 daily trips, 339 a.m. peak hour trips, and 376 p.m. peak hour trips. 3. The approved PUD would generate 3334 daily trips, 270 a.m. peak trips, and 308 p.m. peak hour trips. 4. At full development, the Dell Road, Cascade Drive intersection will me et eet signal warrants. 5. A right-turn lane is recommended on the North side of Cascade Drive. 6. Modifications to the site plan, driveway and internal circulation will assure that delivery vehicles can conveniently enter and exit the development. 7. An out-only condition from the commercial site to Dell Road will reduce traffic on Cascade Drive by 24 peak hour trips or 6%. The State of Minnesota Highway Department has not commented on whether or not they will permit such an access. 8. The traffic study indicates an interim solution to make traffic flow better prior to the completion of the remainder of Dell Road in Chanhassen. 3 V. 8. - 23 C C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center August 11, 1995 The Engineering Division has reviewed the traffic study and recommends the following: 1. As a minimum reduce traffic to or less than traffic associated with the approved P.U.D. and reduce potential traffic volumes on Cascade drive to 3,000 vehicles per day. 2. Interim road improvements to Dell Road. 3. No access to Dell Road for safety reasons. 4. Construct a right run lane on Cascade Drive. CITY ATTORNEY OPINION The City Attorney believes that the existence of a Comprehensive Plan calling for a specific use of the property does not absolutely require that the property be zoned for that use. A PUD Concept approval does not constitute or require future designation of a PUD, Zoning or Subdivision of land which is the subject of a PUD Concept Review. This means that the guiding and PUD approval for neighborhood commercial on this site is not binding on the City when considering the rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial. There must also be evidence in the record to support a Council's finding in connection with the decision upon an application to rezone property. Failing of the record to reflect adequate evidence will result in rejection of a finding of a court review. CONCLUSION In 1990, the City approved a guide plan change to Neighborhood Commercial and granted PUD Concept approval for 28,300 sq. ft. of Neighborhood Commercial uses. The PUD indicated a general direction to proceed with the preparation of final plans. The review of the PUD in 1990, analyzed the general feasibility of the project. The final approval of the project at rezoning, would identify issues and prescribe approaches for dealing with them. The Planning Commission at the last meeting felt that traffic impacts were an issue and asked that a traffic study be prepared. This study indicates more traffic than the approved PUD and traffic turning conflicts between commercial and residential uses on Cascade Drive. Based on this new information, the staff believes that the PUD should be modified to reduce traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has several choices regarding the Development of the property. 4 C c Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center August 11, 1995 Approve the project as submitted. If you are comfortable with a neighborhood commercial use of the property, you could approve the request for PUD amendment, rezoning, and preliminary plat based on plans dated August 11, 1995, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 11, 1995 and July 25, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Submit final plans for review by the Fire Marshal. C. Submit samples of exterior materials and colors. D. Submit a final landscape plan and security. 3. Prior to grading on the property, the proponent shall stake the construction limits with fencing. The fencing shall be in place and approved by the City Forester a minimum of 48 hours prior to tree cutting on the property. 4. Planned Unit Development waivers are granted for lot size less than 2 acres and front yard setbacks to parking to 10 feet along Dell Road and Highway 5. 5. The interim road improvements to Dell Road must be completed concurrent with the construction of the project. II. Revise Commercial Development Plan If you are comfortable with a Neighborhood Commercial use of the property, but feel that traffic impacts and the visual impacts on the adjoining areas, are high and not 5 V. 6. - 2s C c Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center August 11, 1995 mitigated, then the plan should be modified to reduce traffic as recommended by the City Engineer and provided better transition along Cascade Drive. III. Recommend denial of the project for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the approved PUD. 2. The traffic impacts on the adjoining road systems are high. 3. The site does not preserve the natural features of the property. 4. The project does not meet City Code requirements for lot size and parking setbacks. 5. The project does not provide an adequate transition and buffering to the surrounding residential areas. M:\REPORTS/DELL.11 6 - v. 6. -26, C C - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mike Franzen, Sr. Planner THROUGH: Alan Gray, City Engineer FROM: Rodney Rue, Assistant City Engineer DATE: August 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Dell Road and TH 5 Neighborhood Center Traffic Study We have reviewed the Dell Road and Trunk Highway 5 Neighborhood Center Traffic Study and have the following comments and/or recommendations: • The proposed traffic generated from this development proposal, with full development in the area, will increase the traffic on Cascade Drive (just east of Dell Road) by 2,330 ADT for a projected total of 4,220 ADT. This forecast daily traffic generated by this development is 19% higher than the traffic anticipated with the approved PUD concept plan. In addition, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes are 26% and 22% higher, respectively. The projected traffic volume of 4,220 ADT is not an unmanageable number for a two-lane roadway. However, with the unusual circumstances of having residential and commercial driveways accessing across the street from each other (particularly with one unit having to back onto Cascade Drive),the turning movement conflicts associated with this situation could create some problems. Based on our experience, we believe that traffic volumes in excess of 3,000 ADT will likely begin to cause some inconveniences/problems for the residential units on Cascade Drive. Consequently, traffic volumes over 4,000 ADT will certainly cause significantly more problems. We would recommend that this development proposal be modified so that, at a minimum, the traffic volumes generated from this site would be at or less than the anticipated volumes associated with the approved PUD concept plan. Furthermore, efforts should be made to reduce the forecast traffic volumes for this site to a level that would assume a projected traffic volume on Cascade Drive closer to 3,000 ADT. • We concur that a right turn lane on Cascade Drive at Dell Road is a beneficial improvement to both the existing residential and proposed commercial traffic by reducing the stacking distance for vehicles on Cascade Drive. Therefore, we would recommend that this right turn lane be constructed as part of the development project. • The interim improvements on Dell Road (south of Cascade Drive) would help the current situation by providing better access (protected left turn lane) to Cascade Drive. However, once Dell Road is connected to the southerlysegment (through the Trunk Highway 212 area this portion of Dell Road g ( g g Y ), would likely become an immediate problem area. With the interim improvements in place, the problems would mostly be due to limited capacity for through traffic on Dell Road. Therefore, we would recommend that these interim improvements be built by the developer concurrently with this development. • The right turn only lane on Dell Road, which is discussed briefly in the report, is not recommended under any circumstances due to the projected traffic volumes on Dell Road and the associated safety problems with adding an access at that location. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE , ' n ^ Engineering Division, Department of Public Works V I u _ 7 LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUBURBAN PLACE BUILDING 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 370 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344 TELEPHONE: (612)829-7355 FAX: (612)829-0713 ROBERT I.LANG MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE ROGER A.PAULY DAVID H.GREGERSON' FIRST BANK PLACE RICHARD P.ROSOW 1600 IBM PARK BUILDING MARK J.JOHNSON 650 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH JOSEPH A.NILAN MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 SUSAN M.LACH" TELEPHONE:(612)338-0755 WILLIAM R.MILLER FAX(612)349-6718 TODD A.SATTLER JENNIFER M.INZ REPLY TO EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE GERAINT D.POWELL 'Also Admitted in Wisconsin "Also Admitted in Colorado August 1, 1995 Mr. Michael Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Rezoning Southeast Corner Dell Road and Highway 5 Dear Mike: This is a follow-up to your question concerning the effect of the City's comprehensive plan upon a request to re-zone the above-referenced property from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial. It is my understanding that the City's comprehensive plan provides for the property to be Neighborhood Commercial. My review of the reported cases indicates that existence of a comprehensive plan calling for a specific use of property does not absolutely require that the property be zoned for that use. In the case of R.A. Putnam & Assoc. v. City of Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d 264 (Ct. App. 1994), the court in its opinion wrote the following: Nor do we agree with the contention by Rottlund and Putnam that the zoning decision was arbitrary simply because it conflicted with the designated use for the property found in the city's comprehensive plan. A municipality should not adopt zoning that conflicts with its comprehensive plan. Minn. Stat. §473.865, subd. 2 (1990). Furthermore, if a conflict between a zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan arises because of an amendment to the plan, the ordinance should be amended. Minn. Stat. § 473.865, subd. 3 (1990). Nonetheless, a comprehensive plan's designation v. 6. - zg C C • LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. Michael Franzen August 1, 1995 Page 2 of land uses is advisory and does not unalterably bind a city. Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn. 1984); see also Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. 2 (1990) (zoning ordinance supersedes comprehensive plan if the two conflict). Nor does a discrepancy between a zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan affect the presumption that a municipal zoning decision is valid. State by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Minn. 1978). Rather, a refusal to zone in accordance with a comprehensive plan is merely evidence that the city's action was arbitrary. Amcon Corp., 348 N.W.2d at 75. In Putnam, the city amended its comprehensive plan for the property which was the subject of the dispute to HR-PUD, while the property remained zoned R-1. Later, the plaintiffs requested the city to rezone the property to HR-PUD. The council denied the request. Doing so, the council made the following findings, among others: 1. The proposed project does not preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the subject areas. 2. The proposed project does not limit development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land use. *** 4. The proposed project does not harmonize with existing and proposed developments in the areas surrounding the site. 5. The proposed project has the potential to depreciate surrounding property values. *** 9. While the City's Comprehensive Plan was changed in 1985 to designate this property to HR-PUD, a number of substantial changes have taken place in the southeast area of the City since that time which may render such designation inappropriate. The lower court found that the city's action was arbitrary and without factual basis and ordered the city to rezone the property HR-PUD. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and upheld the city's decision. In doing so, the court stated that a zoning decision should not be disturbed if the city gives legally-sufficient reasons and the reasons are grounded in fact. The court further stated that the city's decision should not be reversed if it has a "rational basis" or is "reasonably debatable". The Court of Appeals found that the city's reasons for denial of the rezoning request were legally sufficient. While the opinion of the court did not discuss in detail the evidence supporting the council's findings, it goes without saying that there must be evidence in the record to support a council's findings made in connection with a decision upon an application to rezone property. ( c LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. Michael Franzen August 1, 1995 Page 3 Failure of the record to reflect adequate evidence will result in rejection of a finding upon court review. It is my understanding that PUD concept approval of use of the land for a Neighborhood commercial purpose was previouslyCapproved by the council. City Code § 11.40, subd. 1, provides in part that PUD concept approval does not constitute or require future designation of a PUD, zoning or subdivision of the land which is the subject of the PUD concept review. For your further information, I am enclosing a copy of R.A. Putnam&Assoc. v. Mendota Heights. If you have any further question concerning this matter, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 1! ' R r A:�aui RAP/isp enc. v. 6, - 3© 264 Minn. 510 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES suggesting the list of Minnesota statutes is not exclusive. Further, the statute contains R.A. PUTNAM & ASSOCIATES, no language suggesting the statute could ap- INC.. et al., Respondents, ply if the persons license was suspended, v. revoked, canceled or denied as a result of an unnamed Minnesota statute, an ordinance The CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, from this state, or an out-of-state statute or DAKOTA COUNTY, Minnesota, ordinance. This court cannot supply lan- Appellant guage that the legislature may have omitted No. CZ-93-1702. or overlooked. See State v. Corbin, 343 Court of Appeals of Minnesota. N.W.2d 874, 876 (MinnApp.1984) (quoting Northland Country Club vu Commissioner of Jan. 11, 1994. Taxation, 308 Minn. 265, 271, 241 N.W.2d Review Denied March 15, 1994. 806,809(1976)). Moreover,criminal statutes must be strictly construed. State v. Larson Transfer and Storage. 310 Minn. 295, 304, Developer asked city to rezone property 2.46 N.W.2d 176, 182 (1976). from low-density residential to high-density residential planned unit development. City Other statutes in the same chapter bus- denied the request. Developer brought ac Irate that the legislature recognized a differ- tion to compel city to rezone the properti ence between Minnesota statutes and stet- The District Court, Dakota County, L- utes from other states. For example,a prior M. Metzen, J., concluded that city's action impaired driving conviction Is defined as a was arbitrary and without factual basis and prior conviction resulting from violation of ordered city to rezone property,grant wadi one of the listed Minnesota statutes "or an tional use permit, and approve sketch plan, ordinance from this state, or a statute or City appealed. The Court of Appeals. Schu ordinance from another state in conformity macher, J., held that (1) city properly re- with any of them," : Minn Slat;. § 169.121, corded basis for its zoning decision`so as toI subd. 3(b) (1990). Presumably,if the legiala- avoid presumption that its decision was arbi. ture wanted to include license revocations trary, and (2) dty offered legally sufficient that resulted from a violation of an out-of- reasons in support of denial of zoning ref state statute or ordinance in Minn.Stat. qua § 169.121,subd.la(1990),it would have used f sirmlar language. Further, the legislature Reversed. did not choose to use more inclusive language when it amended the statute in 1992. See 1• Zoning and Planning e=745,1 Minn_Stat. § 169.121, subd. 8(a)(2) (1992). Court of Appeals independently exam: Ines city's denial of rezoning request and DECISION does not accord any special deference to We reverse appellant's conviction because district court's review of city's action. the district court erred in considering Appel- 2. Zoning and Planning $ 676 lant's prior out-of-state license revocation to If city council fails to record basis foc support a gross misdemeanor conviction un- zoning determination at time it acts, zoning der Minn,Stat. § 169.121, sub& la (1990). action is presumed to be arbitrary. Reversed. 3. Zoning and Planning en675 ' Planning commission's preparing writ-Lei recommendation regarding rezoning of prop • O L[T mum tit! STNcouncil's videotaping of its hear�v, citypg. ings, and city taking minutes of planniai commission and city council hearings an( transcribing council meetings at which rea sons for denial of rezoning were an annona • • • V, C3. - 3 ► 4' 0 • • t • SERIES R. A. PUTNAM & ASSOC. v. MENDOTA HEIGHTS Minn. 265 . ' cis..510 N.W2d 264(MInn.App. 1994) ALM & ASSOCIATES, . •: = - were enough to preclude presumption that rounding land use and city council's concern al., Respondents, ;3'=„ city's decision was arbitrary due to failure to about increase in air traffic over property a!ake contemporaneous findings. which might affect development were legally v. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, '7`' A. Zoning and Planning �676 sufficient reasons for denial of rezoning re- quest, even though zoning decision may have .OUNTY, Minnesota, ..,.: ' Requirement that city make contempo- conflicted with designated use for property Appellant. ! ',: raneous record of basis for zoning decision if found in city's comprehensive plan. , .: ,� 93-1402. .-;,•. . it wishes to avoid presumption that decision 1'` ' was arbitrary prevents city from offering 11. Zoning and Planning'a605 1ppeals of Minnesota. • :;+ after the fact justifications unrelated to actu- an. 11. 1994, al_,;;} A court may not set aside judgment of reasons for initial decision. municipal officials as to a zoning decision allied March 15, 1994. ." 5. Zoning and Planning '676 merely because court might have reached i Municipality satisfies requirement that it another decision if it had been in city coun- `? + make contemporaneous record of basis for c7's place. sked city to rezone property, .1 caning decision so as to avoid presumption y residential to high-density !••:;; that decision was arbitrary when it prepares 12. Zoning and Planning e.30 ' led unit development. City ' 'ri. record within reasonable time of reaching Comprehensivezoning plan'sgn lest. Developer brought ac=' '''•): deal a- ci to rezone the re decision- tion of land uses is advisory and does not city P pY•'`'=� unalterably bind a city. xurt, Dakota County, Leslie' , `c 6, Zoning and Planning �676 concluded that city's action •.,..f Whether city has prepared record of 13. Zoning and Planning 0=0672 nd without factual basis and `. basis for zoning decision in reasonably timely rezone property,grant conch;..5:',} • fashion so as to void presumption that deci- Discrepancy between zoning ordinance tit, and(approve sketch plan: ' ; sign was arbitrary must be considered in and comprehensive plan does not affect pre-:• -r- ---•-- The'.Court of Appeals, Sam- 'F light of facts surrounding zoning decision, sumption that municipal zoning decision is .', ; d,`that. (1) city properly re-•, ..I . such as complexity of issues involved in valid; rather, refusal to zone in accordance -.:1.:,, rr its'zoning decision so as to reaching that decision. , merely; :• with comprehensive plan is m ely evidence• ' ' • ion`that its decision was arb6 ;' ` ' ' that city's action was arbitrary. city offered legally stufTient _) 7. Zoning and Planning e:"675 . port of denial of zoning re;;,' City's adoption of findings which were Syllabus by the Court basis for its denial of application to rezone • ;r.s•' propertyfrom low-densityresidential to .,r 1. A municipality satisfies the require!- ''=;;:: high-density residential-planned unit devel- merit that it.make a contemporaneous record "'' opment two weeks after hearing on applica- of the basis for a zoning decision so as-to Planning "745.1 tion was adoption within a reasonable time so avoid a presumption that the decision was Appeals independently exam-' Is as to avoid presumption that decision was arbitrary when it prepares the record within dal of rezoning request and•;c.. arbitrary a reasonable time of reaching the decision. rd any special deference to 1.4 S. Zoning and Planning �605 review of city's action. • 4:`;' 2. A municipal zoning decision should Zoning decision should not be disturbed not be disturbed if it has x rational basis. I Planning css676 4�'.: if citysufficient gives legally reasons, 'and men fails to record basis foi,.,; reasons are grounded in fact. illation at time it acts, ming 9- Zoning and Planning x605 John P. Hannigan, Jr., James J. Banton, used to be arbitrary. : i•a':,r Court should not interfere with munici- Hannigan &Kelly,PA,St.Paul,for respon- . � i.Planning 67ti :4�'`- Pal zoning decision that has a"rational basis" dents. 'orris fission's preparing written'!: 'r, or is "reasonably debatable." James G. Golembeck, Pierre N. Regnier, aril's regarding rezoning s prop-'.'' '- 10. Zoning and Planning 4P.167.1 Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, St. Paul, for an- ' videotaping of its heal;�' ;;'�s ' taking minutes of planning ;�� City councils concern that development Pant• nd city council hearings ana,gi:?. project which necessitated rezoning of prop- ouncil meetings at which rear•'^'4 Y from low-density residential to high- Considered and decided by AMUNDSON, al Of rezoning were discussed 4-r.t d tY residential-planned unit development P.J., and PARKER and SCHUMACHER, wii Hfl0 9114Mi'llatOilt NNthNtt tit ittOit* hf Sots Mit • . v. Q. - 32. 266 Munn. 510 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES •• OPINION hind made some changes in the project de I. - SCHUMACHER, 'lodge. sign inr response to the city's concerns, the coun ected;the request for:rezo_ning by a' '; The district court ordered appellant The 5„�k�+ote 'oni}ApriV21,11992e' .. ' • City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, F°ll°wing tke vote, th•e city attorney pr• y. Minnesota (city),to rezone property,grant a conditional use permit,and approve a sketch pared a resolution based on his notes, min.. utes of the planning commission and city plan for the site. The city's motion for an amended judgment or a new trial was denied. C01ne'1 hearings,and the documents that had ':- been filed with the city. The resolution, We reverse. which was drawn in large part from the k'ACTS,.. planning commission's written recommends_ Inaapproximately tion to the council, formalized the city coua- pp y ,1957 .the property in cil's findings of fact and denial of the rezon. question was.,zoned fry" ,ty;tresidentia] ing request. Specifically, the council found: ' ' (R-1). In 1985,•the city approved an��amend-. 1 ed p �._� , ', . �he"�`propos , roject�doesuot?pro- ment to its Comprehenslve'Tlan'7intended to _ ,� , predesignate the'property°High=Density Rest: serve the natural and scenic•`qualtties Orthe'subject'areas. • ' de.ntial-Planned T,Tnit"'Development (I . j `p'Tll))� The`Metropolitan'Council rejected Tsti fprepoaed4Pmject�.does:,not;himit- . 2 e developmenttto�a scale'appropriate'ito' the amendment because of concerns about r ; � - 4tbe exis to ' d anrrounding noise from aircraft using Minneapolis-St. r .";,pis -A4- r 4i Paul International Airport. 2 land use..:• ,9$7; liowev- , er,the Metropolitan Dined approveda simi- 3. The proposed project does not result . lar amendment that changed the property's in an effective and unified treatment of : Comprehensive'Planaadesignation `to HR- the development possibilities on,then-- - PUD Nevertheless;thelproperty remained project site. • zoned R-1 - - 4 The proposed''project doer?not-hull . I In 1987 and 1991, commercial development monizewvith{exlsting'and`proposed de- • was proposed for the property. The city .,...elo m eu►'the' aste rejected the proposals. In the meantime, a ithe.isite' 1989 study of airport operations indicated 5. Tl 1proposediproject has the potential significant changes in airport operations had ktd depreci►tet*surrounding' property increased both the number of flights,over the +' Valae.9 . ' site and the impact of aircraft noise on the 6. The proposed project uses private city's residents. streets of inappropriate widths; the In Jan t99w' respondent The Rottlund City's policies encourage, wherever 1 Companyna agreed purchaseproperty ossible, dedication of public streets agreed to thep from respondent R.A. Putnam & Associates, and roadways. Inc. Rottlund planned to build 68 town- 7. The proposed off street parking fails to homes on the property, each of which was comply with Section 12.5 Subd.2 of the expected to sell for$80,000-90,000. 'The fol- Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinances. lowing month,_Rdtlund kodithecity;;to 8. The Applicant does not now have a rezone 4the property'` HR-PLJD rgrant''�a final development plan for Outlot A of eonditional use permit, andlapprove a sketch the proposed project,which is intended plan for use as a day care center. On March 24, 1992, the city's planning 9. e ,tlief,City',aComprehensive'Plan commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the 'i`ahanged'inr1985`to'designate'this` city council deny Rottlund's requests. The !property,to:t HR.-PUD, a'number i of commission forwarded a written recommen- 'substantial'changes have-taken_place dation to the council, which conducted hear- in the southeast area:of the City sines . ings on April 7 and April 21, 1992. Minutes that time which may render such des- were kept of both meetings, Although Rott- ignation inappropriate. ; • V. B. -33 W. All i 2d SERIES R. A. PUTNAM & ASSOC. v. MENDOTA HEIGHTS Minn- 267 • Cita ai 510 N.Wsd 264(Mtnu.App. 1934) me changes in the project de:.'. The council adopted the resolution at its next of arbitrariness. See Swanson v. City of rise to the city's concerns, the :, scheduled meeting, on May 6, 1992. Bloomington, 421 N.W2d 307, 312 (Minn. xi the request for rezoning by a. put,a„ and Rottlund then brought an ac- 1988). tpril 21, 1992. tion to compel the city to rezone the proper- [4,53 Eve iftthisarecord hadnot+been' he vote, the city attorney per, ty, issue a conditional use permit, and ap- created,4 Wesidution'adopted.at the-May 5' rtion based on his notes, nmio. , prove the sketch plan. The district court council meetinewas antedequatel,eodtempo- nlaruning commission and cityi". ., , limited its review to the record that was ':raneouereaardT The requirement that con- s,and the documents that had':'' .' before the city council at the time of the temporaneous findings be recorded prevents th the city. The resolution,i' council's decision.' In June 1993, the court a city from offering "after-the-fact justifies awn in large part from the;'; concluded that the city's action was arbitrary lions * • • unrelated to the actual reasons aission's written recommends: And without factualTbasisdandTordered the for the initial decision." Uniprop Mai fac- inch, formalized the city cone. city tofrezone;the`property'HR PUD, grant tured lious. v. City of Lakeville. 474 N.W.2d f fact and denial of the rezon-. ;. ' a conditional use permit, and approve the 375,379(Min n.App.1991),pet,for rev.denied Specifically, the council found::i..• sketch plan. (Minn Oct. 11, 1991). This rationale is not • posed project does not pre.:'r, served by denying a city a reasonable • a natural and scenic qualities••.;: ISSUES amount of time to prepare a record or for- ' ibject areas. 1. Did the district court err by concluding malize its findings. ' e'concludathat'as long posed project does not limit,t ,t that the city failed to properly record the as.the-necessary,recordfis prepared'within a lent to a scale appropriate to basis for its zoning decision? reasonable"tinieaot'aezoningsdecision„asiau-., ing terrain and surrounding 2 Did the district court err by ordering nicipality;should'notibe4presumed':to*have the city to rezone the property, grant a con- acted"in an"arbitrary'`manner. See_$&y .'. - Investota V. City of base project does; not result:''.,. ditional use permit, and approve the sketch Maplewood, 467 N.W2d ctive and unified treatment of•'.'''' plan? 631,635(MinnApp.1991) (findings made con- lopment: possibilities on the tennporaneously where council in process of te. ANALYSIS" drafting and adopting them 26 days after;, , y Deed.-project does not hen-` hearing and vote),pet.for rev. denied(Minn- (1] This court independently examines a May 23, 1991). th existing and proposed de, city's denial of a rezoning request.' St. Croix ' b in the areas surrounding a'•., Deu, Inc. v. City of Apple Valley, 446 (6,7) Whether the record has been pre- ' N.W2d 392, 397 (MinnApp.1989), pet. for pared in a reasonably timely fashion is a ,sed project has the potential x': rev. denied(Minn.Dec. 1, 1989). We do not question that must be considered in light of • :late surrounding property :. accord any special deference to the district the facts surrounding the zoning decision, ''''::,.=' ccurt's review of the city's action. Id such as the complexity of the issues involved osed. project uses private in reaching that decision. Here,the city was . (Z,3] 1. Rottlund and Putnam contend inappropriate widths; the-; .„' presented with a.relatively complex rezoning ivies encourage, wherever* :• - that the city's failure to make contemporstne- request and extensive documentation. The sus findings treated a presumption that the ledication of public streets '; council adopted findings two weeks after the ';y city's actions were arbitrary. If a city. cotsn- ays' W tails to record the basis for a zoning hearing, at its next scheduled meeting. Un- til er t ad off street parking fails to•.:�,�4 determination at the time it acts, the zoning dthese facts,we hold that the city's formalfindings were prepared and adopted within a ii Section 12.5 Subd.2 of the.,."_l action is presumed to be arbitrary. Z lka v. (eights Zoning Ordinances.`:'' :. city of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192,, 198, 167 reasonable time. j,`. suit does not now have I. NW2d 45,50 (1969). In this tee,the plan- [8,9] 2. We must still determine wheth- patent plan for Outlot A of r;` S ring commission prepared a written recom- tar the city's findings and decision were arbi- d project,which is intended . tnendation, the council videotaped its hear- Crary, jA ling decision shaulenotFlia di'4`'"�_ a day.care center- ., . '. . toga. and the city took minutes of the plan- turbed it a city;'gives legallyy suffclenti'rea` amity's Comprehensive Plan i tang cotnntiasion and city council hearings sons;'.and the'�reasotis sretgroundedin fact" d in 1985 to designate this i and transcribed the council meetings at NBZ'Enters.,4Inc ry`City of Shakopee7489 HRH-PUD, a number Df,.,;_ Bch reasons for the denial were discussed. N.W.2d 631, 537 (MinnApp.1992), pet. for changes have taken place,...-_' This was enough to preclude a presumption rev. denied (Min. Sept. 30, 1992). In other uss east area of the City s ,' ':'.,1 1. While:the Case was pending, the Metropolitan subject property from HR-PUU to Middle-Dcnsi- hich may render such der;:-..;-;;`.:; Council approved a city council amendment to ty Residential-Planned Unit Development (MR- ppro riate. �:Y'''''.' the comprehensiveplan that redesignated the PUD)..... ; • I ! ,.-1 • �,' •. 'i, e ., 40 . 268 Minn. 510 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES ' words, a court should not interfere with a hensive plan affect the presumption that a t` L municipal zoning decision that Y I-r,,.'` municipal zoning decision is valid. State by '-vofir°' ""reasonably li8e,tabl Ti' c ia{' Rochester Aste'n of Neighborhoods v. City of f, oie,t42I N W.2d rat-"314;' 'form v. Ctty of Rochester, 268 N.W.ze 886,890 (Minn.1978), - tri, Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417 (1981). Rathe lOefusal to zonetin accordence w th t '�� a.comprehensive platristneraly"fevideneethat o. (10) The city council offered several le- thetocity'suction" vas*g$rbitraryr$'Amcm� i rally su+ r-tent reasons in support of its deiu.. q •• al of the zoning request For example, the CO'ti°' `N.W.7iiaata75. view of the . Z .of,and the factual support for,the co F nce a a,t�1Zottlund ojeit oprlatel : scaliva dTdse + . 6f eason ert#� are not persuaded that the y �• 4 denial of Rottlund's rezoning request was .tualsetipP rtli the+rece":itfaiugle� Te - an-•' irrational or arbitrary. 3. , s asietiori nurtediately.4itdjacent to-lilt i'* eendtin� 'eiort4bAlii eitRiiVi�sultin` k3 Anerelauggeilir 'that'!tl eeai4nhomaiTiver DECISION n' larger-thanaotherqinde of mediuraderis(ty' The city made a record of its findings fkheueing -m.vz Nam. ' "' within a reasonable time of reaching its ion- ing decision. The district court erred by : 4. *--111)--The council was also concerned ordering the city to rezone,issue a condition- :. about the increase in sir traffic over the al use permit, and approve Rottlund's sketch b property that had been identified by the 1989 plan. b study. While the district court may have Reversed. • 1 disagreed with the conclusions that.the coon- ra+ dl drew from the facts, the conclusions are not irrational. A court may not set'aside the a i , w , r# 1.1� O xe UMltafr'SI'LM f. ' judgment of municipal officials merely,be- T r �,j ; • a,; , cause the court might have reached another I(U,, lZ r` ', decision if it had been in the councils place. t,.t• ` ' '='1 White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City �'�.,'.t, ' ' ; 6 of White Bear Lake. 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 '' ' , (Minn.1982). STATE BANK OF COI{ATO, Respondent, : [12,131 Nor"do we agree with the conten • - tion'by Rottlund an&Putnam-that the'zoning. v. ; decision was arbitrary simply becausejitcon- James ZIEIIWEIN, Appellant. flirted with the designated use for the prop- No. C3-93-1160. 'arty found In the city's comprehensive plan. . . A municipality should not adopt zoning that Court of Appeals of Minnesota. • conflicts with its comprehensive plan_ Minn. Jan 18, 1994. Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (1990). Further- ' more, if a conflict between a zoning ordi- Review Denied March 16, 1994. s. i nance and a comprehensive plan arises be- • cause of an amendment to the plan, the Lender brought suitagainst borrower ordinance should be amended. Minn_Stat. $ `• i 473.865, subd. 3 (1990). ?Noonetheleaa,to seeking to recover attorney fees and costs comprehensive_,plan's'.designation `ofuland incurred in action against insurer of the col- • tuses�isaadvisoryeand 'doesknot?unalterably`' later ` he District Court,Wright County, bind;a:city " Amco'n Corp."v'City of Eagan, Dale E. Mosaey,J., awarded costs and attar- 348 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn.1984); see also ney fees,and borrower appealed. The Court :;:. - Minn.Stat. § 462.357;subd. 2 (1990) (zoningr of Appeals, Kiaphake, J., held that attorney fees incurred in action against insurer arose ' ordinance supersedes comprehensive)plans if �, out of borrower's default ,. the`two conflict). . Nor-does. discrepancy PII WQ011..ii f�0t it tinittn efIll #FM ft PROiRpti' ft'f!►ithrii! i • :j ';` ar V, E. - 3s- c C' STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1995 SUBJECT: Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation and Kindercare FEE OWNER: Tandem Corporation LOCATION: SE Quadrant of the Intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5 REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial. 2. Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots. 4. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.47 acres. 5. Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. 1 V. e . -- 36 =MOM\ lik 0 N. xlzty N 9->- - tot moor g v- 11 a.. IIPA.At. 00 0 Et-TA a - ° lind4 4.040 3.":4"st,ss*. irr-• tv: . •ii .-sio '11 to, - INNAIIII: - -.. — um ul. - Ill 2. 1,4%Ft . 44 CT .0 SS * / - i /111,....ItS4 ° 4 0 --i-1 ADD 0 T11111111111 — Er .0' -I 7.: g • '''. . -11. . •••• • IIIII II o . • .-- MI 111 ‘c w W 11116. IIC Z 4 X I it I. T.H.5 . .lelm 11; Ri..- ..glaggitto. . DELL i 141.0-16" .. .. • JAME -AVM , " iskle 31P. •:•:-:•:•:•••: ; • 0 0 • •• 4 ::::::::::-::::::.. CotirtEACIAL- . . "111\ L r.GE" 'It ..1 DAK• , - 0 liiir414. ie:f.:::.4::::i. CHANHASSEN 16 Gifu li • -•:•::::::::::::i: -.,,-.-.-.-.. 1... • 41Mir ••:-:•:-:•:-: ... .•:::. . A . n 40,. R. -liw3csa '''' t co VIP i 51v* To 111Vrks a61111.., ammo I . -44.4141111101111.P:: Ati_ ti* in f il •::-..-:-. . . ..•..•.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .. 0 c . 11 j- • .::: -:-:•:•:-:•:•:••• 4° Illi NA, 4t2/1011 •::::::i:i:::'-ii ii:: -...-.,.., -.-. .•: -„.• ., -:,:•.:•:•: •:.: :::::::::::;:;:::::::::::- w .... ,•.•. .-.:.:.. c.:, .. EDE?i ?fa.AiRtE i• •:•:•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::7•:•:•:•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1::::.:1:1:::::::::::::::-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:: . . . • . . . . . . . . ••••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-: :•:•:•••••:•:•:•:•. ••.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• •::•:•••::::::::::!:::::::::1;i:: "••••:•:::::::::::::::•• 0"...."*N.L.44......th......, V. 6. -3 Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 BACKGROUND This 4.47 acre site was granted Planned Unit Development Concept approval in 1990 for 28,300 sq. ft. of commercial. The attached approved plan shows 4 buildings including convenience, gas, general retail, office, and daycare. The PUD was approved at a base area ratio of .145. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT The 1995 Planned Unit Development amendment is 1700 sq. ft. larger. The office building has been removed from the project and converted into a larger daycare center and additional retail. A restaurant was not specifically designated in the original PUD, however, general retail does permit restaurants. The proposed general retail buildings can also be used for office. Tree loss approved with the 1990 PUD was calculated at 40%. The current tree loss calculation is 36%. Changes in the location of building and parking areas and the different internal driveway access is the reason more trees are saved under the current proposal. SITE PLAN The site plan shows the construction of 5 buildings totaling 30,000 sq. ft. The base area ratio is .154. The low base area ratio is needed to preserve trees. The Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District allows up to a .20 base area ratio. The property will be subdivided into two lots. Proposed Lot 1 is a .164 base area ratio and proposed Lot 2 is a .138 base area ratio. TRANSITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE EAST AND SOUTH The approved PUD plan showed 15,800 sq. ft. of building and a 30 car parking lot adjacent to the Rottlund townhouses to the east. The current proposal is a 10,500 sq. ft. building and outdoor play area for children. The PUD building setback was 40 feet from the east property line with parking as close as 25 feet. The current proposal is a 30 feet setback from the east property line. The nearest parking area is 130 feet away. Where the building is closest to the property line, a double row of 10 foot high blue spruce will be planted. The transition to the homes on the south side of Cascade Drive is better than the approved planned unit development. The buildings are set back at approximately the same distance, however, larger areas of tree cover are retained in front of retail building #2 and the proposed Holiday gas station. Less parking and lights from the gas pumps will be visible with the current proposal. 2 v.6 . - 32 - Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE The driveway entrance to the daycare site must be redesigned to be at right angles to Cascade Drive. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary is a subdivision into two lots. The minimum lot size in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District is 2 acres. A planned unit development waiver is needed for the daycare site, since it is 1.72 acres. Since the total commercial area is in excess of 4 acres, the waiver is reasonable. PARKING Parking required on Lot 1 is 106 parking spaces. A total of 95 parking spaces will be constructed and 11 parking spaces would be designated at proof of parking. Parking for Lot 2, is based upon the parking demand of the daycare center and the long-term use of the building as retail. Parking demand for Kindercare is 45 parking spaces and are shown on the site plan. If the daycare center is converted to retail, a total of 58 parking spaces are required. The site plan shows a total of 65 parking spaces, 20 of which are proof of parking. Parking setbacks are 35 feet on one street frontage and a 17.5 feet on the other street frontages. A parking setback waiver from 17.5 feet to 10 feet is requested along Dell Road and Highway 5. The project could be redesigned to meet the 17.5 feet setback, however, the retail buildings would be pushed further into the wooded area and the tree loss numbers would increase significantly. Since there is additional land between Highway 5 and the parking areas along the north property line, the request for waiver in this location is reasonable. The waiver to a 10 foot setback along Dell Road is reasonable if the City desires to minimize the amount of tree loss on the property. Additional screening is needed along Dell Road to meet code for screening of parking areas. GRADING AND TREE LOSS Tree loss is calculated at 36%. This is less than the 40% tree loss calculated with the 1990 Planned Unit Development. Tree Replacement is 350 inches. The tree replacement is approximately 50% conifers and 50% hardwoods. City code requires that the majority of the tree replacement be shade trees. 3 v,B , - 39 C C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 The proof of parking area north of the restaurant contains three large oak trees. The staff suggests revising the proof of parking plan to locate these parking spaces in an area not occupied by trees. LANDSCAPING The landscaping requirements are caliper inches based on building square frontage, screening of parking areas, and tree replacement. The caliper inch requirement is 94 inches. Due to the parking setback waivers requested, it will not be possible to completely screen the parking areas along Dell Road and Highway 5. The staff would suggest a double row of shrubs and substituting conifers for the crab apple and shade trees to help break up the views of parking area. The total caliper inch requirement for building square footage and tree replacement is 444 inches. The landscape plan shows 351 inches. The landscape plan needs an additional 93 inches. There are areas on site where additional trees or larger trees can be planted to meet this requirement. ARCHITECTURE The buildings are residential in character and consistent with this requirement of the original PUD. The buildings are approximately 50% face brick and glass. All buildings should be revised to meet the 75% face brick and glass requirement of City code. The architectural compatibility requirement of the site plan review ordinance means that all buildings should use similar materials and colors. An exterior materials board with color schemes should be submitted for review and approval prior to review by the City Council. A mechanical equipment screening plan has not been provided. Mechanical equipment may be located inside of the building or ground mounted. If mounted on the ground, the mechanical equipment must be screened by a brick wall. A mechanical equipment screening plan should be submitted for review and approval prior to City Council review. The maximum building height in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District is 40 feet. The building's average about 30 feet in height. The highest point on the building is 38 feet. 4 V qO C C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 TRAFFIC In 1988 the City prepared a sewer, water and road study for southwest Eden Prairie. This area is bounded by Chanhassen on the west, Highway 5 on the north, County Road 4 on the east, and Pioneer Trail on the south. Although no commercial sites were designated on the comprehensive plan, staff felt that there would be requests for neighborhood commercial uses and that the study should consider approximately 100,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial and to analyze what impacts it would have on major collector roads and highways. The study concluded that the major collectors and highways as proposed would have the capacity for 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial. Two sites are approved for commercial. One is the Delegard site for approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial. The other is the current site which has PUD approval for 28,300 sq. ft. of commercial. Since all of the southwest area is approved or developed as residential, there is no potential for additional commercial. From a traffic volume standpoint, the amount of commercial traffic expected to be generated will be about 50% of what had been forecasted. When Dell Road and Highway 5 intersection was upgraded by the State, the State purchased access rights to both roads. As a result, access to the commercial area is from Cascade Drive. The commercial driveways are far enough back from the intersection so that cars will not block . the entrances. Cascade Drive is a 32 foot wide minor collector. It is wider than a standard city street (28 feet wide) because the road serves a large residential area and the proposed commercial site. The entrances into the commercial project do not align opposite at any of the driveways on the south side of Cascade Drive. This allows the opportunity for existing berming trees and plantings on the south side of the road to screen headlights. P.M. peak hour traffic as calculated in the original PUD was 240 trips. Due to the 1,700 additional sq. ft. of retail, trip generation during the peak hour would be 250 trips. Peak hour traffic is between 6:30 to 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. Several residents have talked to City staff about the amount of traffic and why access is on Cascade Drive only. They asked staff to consider relocating the gas station closer to the intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5 and a median cut or an out-only access to Dell Road. Residents feel this would reduce the amount of traffic in front of their homes. The staff will talk to the State Highway Department about access on Dell Road. 5 VI B. - U c Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 SIGNS The Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District allows two free standing pylon signs for each lot. One sign may be 20 feet high and 80 square feet and the other sign may be 20 foot high and 36 square feet. The signs for Lot 1 (general retail) and the signs for Lot 2 (Kindercare) meet the City code requirements. The signs for the Kindercare and the general retail areas do not match. The staff recommends that the signs for the Kindercare building match the general retail signs. The general retail signs use exterior materials and construction details similar to building architecture. The Neighborhood Commercial District allows wall signs. These signs must be located on the walls of the building and not above the roof line. The Holiday, retail, and restaurant roof sign should be removed from the buildings and located on a sign band similar to the other signs shown on the building elevations. The proponent is asking for a waiver from the City code to allow roof signs. The City has not allowed roof signs in the Commercial Zoning Districts. A sign may be allowed on the Holiday station canopy. The striping and lettering will be included in the calculation of allowable sign area. The allowable sign area cannot exceed 15% . of the exterior face of the canopy. The background material of the canopy should be metal and of a color to match the colors on the proposed retail buildings. SIDEWALKS A sidewalk is shown on the proposed site plan along Cascade Drive with connections to the daycare and retail buildings. LIGHTING Since this site is adjacent to a residential area, lighting should be minimized. The maximum height of any fixture in the parking lot should be 20 feet. Lighting should be recessed under the canopy and individual lenses recessed within a screening fixture. The location and height of the Holiday station building helps shield lighting from the adjoining townhome areas to the south. Less lighting will be visible from the proposed plan than the approved PUD plan because of building height, building orientation, existing trees, and proposed landscaping. 6 C C. Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 UTILITIES Sewer and water service is available in Cascade Drive. The 60 acre Jamestown Planned Unit Development drainage plan included a series of connected ponds which drain towards Mitchell Lake. While these ponds were designed primarily for storage, some pretreatment of water occurs. Constructing another pond on the commercial site for pretreatment is possible, but would result in tree removal. Trees are needed to buffer the residential areas to the south. For these reasons, the Engineering Division is recommending a cash contribution to the stormwater utility fund. TRASH ENCLOSURES A brick trash enclosure is depicted on the Kindercare site. No trash enclosures are shown on site 1. Since the retail buildings on site 1 do not have a rear access for loading, it is likely that the trash areas would be located in the fronts of the buildings. The staff recommends that trash areas be inside each of the buildings. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development staff presents the following alternative courses of action for Commission consideration. I. If the Planning Commission believes that the PUD Amendment is consistent with the approved PUD and that the Site Plan as proposed with the following modifications is acceptable, then one option would be to approve the project based upon plans dated July 7, 1995, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall: A. Submit a revised landscaping plan with 93 additional caliper inches. B. Submit a revised proof of parking plan which relocates proof of parking out of areas with tree cover. C. Submit a trash enclosure plan. D. Submit a mechanical equipment screening plan. 7 c C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 E. Submit exterior material samples and colors. F. Submit a revised sign plan to remove the roof signs from the buildings. Redesign the Kindercare sign to be compatible with the signs proposed for the retail portion of the project. G. Submit a lighting plan with lighting standards no greater than 20 feet in height. Submit a lighting plan for the canopy for the gas convenience store with lights recessed under the canopy and shielding for the lenses of individual lights. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Submit final plans for review by the Fire Marshal. C. Submit samples of exterior materials and colors. D. Submit a final landscape plan and security. 4. Prior to grading on the property, the proponent shall stake the construction limits with fencing. The fencing shall be in place and approved by the City Forester a minimum of 48 hours prior to tree cutting on the property. 5. Planned Unit Development waivers are granted for lot size less than 2 acres and front yard setbacks to parking to 10 feet along Dell Road and Highway 5. 8 v. e . - y4 C Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center July 7, 1995 II. If the Planning Commission believes that the PUD amendment is generally consistent with the approved PUD, but would like to review plan revisions before final approval, then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued for plan revisions as follows: A. Submit a revised landscaping plan with 93 additional caliper inches. B. Submit a revised proof of parking plan which relocates proof of parking areas out of areas with tree cover. C. Submit a trash enclosure plan. D. Submit a mechanical equipment screening plan. E. Submit exterior material samples and colors. F. Submit a revised sign plan to remove the roof signs from the buildings. Redesign the Kindercare sign to be compatible with the signs proposed for the retail portion of the project. G. Submit a lighting plan with lighting standards no greater than 20 feet in height. Submit a lighting plan for the canopy for the gas convenience store with lights recessed under the canopy and shielding for the lenses of individual lights. III. If the Planning Commission does not believe that the PUD amendment is consistent with the approved PUD, then the appropriate action would be to recommend denial. The staff would recommend Alternative II. 9 v. B , - y5- UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1995 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Claire Hilgeman, Chair; Richard Brown, Bruce Bowman, Don Jacobson, Vicki Koenig, David Kracum, Joanne Kube- Harderwijk COMMISSION STAFF: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities; Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair, Claire Hilgeman. All members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Brown moved to approve the agenda as published. Koenig seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 MOTION: Hilgeman moved to approve the Minutes of September 18, 1995 as amended: page 11, second paragraph should read... Bowman commented that the way he looks at this is he looks at the dollars subsidized per individual rather than the total dollars as a way of evaluating value for the general taxpayer. Page 5, under the first motion, third sentence, change... this lot to... this/his lot. Bowman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. PETITIONS. REOUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. None. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center V 6- yea Unapproved Minutes Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Page - 2 October 2, 1995 Staff referred the Commission to memos dated September 27, 1995, and September 22, 1995, from Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; staff reports dated September 22, 1995, September 8, 1995, August 11, 1995 and July 7, 1995, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, reviewed his development proposal with the Parks Commission using visual aids. He noted that the proposed site is 4.5 acres Neighborhood Commercial originally approved in 1989. It is the last of about 60 acres of land including Summer Oaks, Jamestown Villas, and the Cascades Townhomes, to be developed. The site is broken into two separate pieces of the 4.5 acres. The eastern parcel is a little bit higher than the area along Highway 5.The eastern building is about 10,000 square feet for a proposed day care center by Kindercare. It houses roughly 180 children. The western portion of the site depicts about 17,500 square feet of commercial space, which is proposed as a restaurant and multiple tenant commercial. Regarding the trail connections, the site works well with the natural features. In this case, it's the major tree mass and the predominant oak trees and some ash on site. On this site, the major trails are along Dell Road which run north and south, and is in place today. Regarding the secondary trail and sidewalk system, there is a sidewalk on the outside of Cascade that's in place today. There is an eight foot bituminous bike trail on the north side of Cascade Drive. What's being proposed in this plan is the continuation of the eight foot trail up to the first entrance, and then winding it up through some of the wooded area. Using photographs, he showed where they are proposing a turn lane from the existing wall to provide a free turn to the right. To put the trail connection to it in the normal case, it would effect cutting into the slope and cutting back the trees. The solution proposed is to take the trail at the base of the wall and bring it up the hill and winding it through the trees. Grade wise it works better, and it also gives a little different feel than what's there. Within the site, the connections to the trail along Cascade and Dell Road are proposed with a connection from Dell Road throughout the parking V,�-y5b Unapproved Minutes Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Page - 3 October 2, 1995 lot, and into the neighborhood center. There is also a connection from the day care center through the woods that connects through the site. The plans are fairly well tied in with the bike and trail system. There is an L-shaped area on the site which will be left with the existing trees and the brush. The natural undergrowth will be left and will provide a buffer. The restaurant is 5000 square feet, and they are looking to reduce the overall size of the restaurant because of fears from the residents that it's a regional size restaurant. They would like to lower it to about 3500 square feet. In the process of doing that, it allows them a little flexibility of some of the things talked about in the report regarding some of the trees. By reducing the size of the restaurant, it allows them to work the outdoor deck dining on the back side of the restaurant a little easier. It will allow them to shorten it up and keep another fairly large oak tree and three additional trees. By reducing the amount of parking, it allows them to swing the road in a different way. They can also do this on the southern portion of the site as well. Fox reviewed the staff report with the Parks Commission. He noted that the original request was to change the zoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial. Regarding tree loss, there are a number of calculations that will work because of the amount of changes and configurations that the site went through. Because of that, the final calculation came out at 38%. The majority of the trees on the site are oaks. There is also a number of other significant trees which include a number of ironwood. Normally under the Tree Preservation, they don't show up because they are under 12 inches, but there are several on the site over 12 inches. Some are on the corner of Dell Road and Cascade, and by putting the sidewalk there, Staff is certain the ironwoods would be saved. Staff feels this proposal is certainly within the parameters of the initial Jamestown PUD which involved 60 acres in total. Staff estimated the tree loss at 40%. In terms of the wetland impact storm water treatment, the recommendation of the Staff was to incorporate this as part of a series of ponds that were constructed as natural wetland to the south. The recommendation of the engineering staff was to have a cash distribution to the storm utility fund VPS _y�G Unapproved Minutes Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Page - 4 October 2, 1995 which pays for maintenance of the NURP pond, and also the construction of a general NURP pond if needed in the future. The only sidewalk that would be City controlled would be the sidewalk along the north side of Cascade Drive. It would connect two existing trails on Dell Road from an existing trail on Cascade Drive. Brown expressed concern about the trees behind where the restaurant and stores will be serviced. Putnam showed a sketch of the building and noted that all the trash enclosures are interior to the building. The restaurant would be serviced from the front or the side. Koenig asked if the restaurant is going to be smaller, is that going to effect the drainage pattern mentioned in the report. Fox replied that it's critical where that building is placed because of the slope. There is about a six foot elevation change from the upper parking lot to the back of the building. It's going to be critical to get the drainage out of there. It's also critical where the building actually sits because there are some trees with rather large diameters, and horizontal branches of 15 to 20 feet off the ground. Bowman expressed concern about the line of sight where the trail crosses the access road. He was concerned about a stop sign in front of that trail. Putnam commented that he feels it's a safe view and showed photographs of the view. He noted that there will be a stop sign for the cars. Hilgeman commented that there's also a need for a stop sign where the bikers will be coming down the trail. Fox noted that it would be striped as a crosswalk so cars leaving the site would recognize it as a pedestrian crosswalk. It is going to have to be located on the site so they have to make sure they have adequate site lines. Staff's concern is about the "S" curve nature of it. Rollerbladers are going to have a hard time, so they have to make that a straight connection with adequate site distance. Brown noted that the bikers have the most problems on trails when they come in contact with the street. The intersections are where most of the bicycle accidents are. He agrees with Bowman that they must have clear visibility. Vt—y6d Unapproved Minutes Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Page - 5 October 2, 1995 Koenig was concerned about the missing ironwoods on the Tree Inventory. She was also concerned about the fencing around the site. Hilgeman asked if the treatment ponds are currently on the Kindercare site. Fox replied that the treatment pond is the large natural pond south of the Cascade Townhomes. There is a large wetland area and that's included in the calculations for this site. Hilgeman asked if the restaurant was kept at 900 square feet, would they save a significant number of trees. Fox replied maybe two or three trees would be saved, or possibly four or five. Hilgeman expressed concern about the tree replacement of conifers as opposed to deciduous trees. Fox replied that the screening landscaping ordinance requires certain types of buildings screen their parking area, and this is one of those situations where it must be screened all year round. The majority right now is proposed to be shade trees with the coniferous material at the highest areas. Kracum commended Mr. Putnam on his willingness to cooperate with Staff. He is the owner of this property and is developing it in the manner in which it was intended all along. He is impressed with his effort to preserve the trees and finds it very refreshing. This is commercial property and it borders Highway 5 and Dell Road, which are busy roads. MOTION: Kube-Harderwijk moved to approve the recommendation of the staff on September 27, 1995, and that the Commission would like to see all the natural areas fenced off before grading begins; and that this recommendation is based on careful consideration of line of sight between bikers and riders at the intersections, at the side entrance, and exits within the trail system. Koenig seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Fees Policy (con't from September 18, 1995) Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated September 26, 1995, from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Lambert, Helling and Frey continued their philosophical discussion with the Commission on fee policies. Sept. 25, I94S B. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem Development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. Franzen reviewed the history of the last three meetings involving this project, including the views of the Commissioners and the residents. Franzen commented that he tried to come up with a plan that would meet the expectations of the groups involved, but said it was not possible because there is such a diversity of expectations. The neighborhood varies from no development, to office and a daycare. The developer says he has an approved PUD and wants to develop accordingly. Planning Commission wants more office and less commercial. This project started in July with a review of the underlying assumptions that the Commission and the City Council made in 1990 when this site was approved for Neighborhood Commercial and PUD. The Commission and the Council looked at the general feasibility of the use in that location, and how big the development should be. The Commission and the Council decided about 30,000 square feet of Neighborhood Commercial, which included a daycare center and a gas station/convenience store, was an acceptable use. Project details such as lighting, traffic, and City code requirements were not reviewed because a rezoning was not requested at the time. At the first meeting, in July this year, it seemed like Neighborhood Commercial made sense. Neighborhood residents said that the traffic was too high,lights are too bright, not a big enough buffer zone, with concerns about the drainage, and safety. The Commission said that Neighborhood Commercial might work, but needed more information to make a decision. They asked the developer to prepare a traffic study. The developer came back in 30 days with a traffic study. The Commission looked at it and felt that the traffic was too high. They wanted a different land use mix and to improve the buffer zone, and they sent the project back to the developer. The Commission did not give any indication at the time if Neighborhood Commercial could still be a good use of the property. 2 V. 4� C C Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 • Another 30 days went by and the developer came back with a revised plan. They took out the gas station/convenience store because the direction from the Commission was the traffic was too high, but the plan still had a problem buffer zone along Cascade Drive. The Commission seemed more comfortable with a Neighborhood Commercial and voted 3 to 2 to continue the item for 2 weeks with the assumption that Neighborhood Commercial could be an acceptable use if the buffer zone was improved. The revised plans indicate that the building is 28 feet in height. The treatment pond along Cascade Drive is removed to save trees. The driveway is moved back to the original position. A turn-around is added for the first townhome unit in from the corner. A buffer zone of trees has been added on the north and south size of Cascade Drive. Regarding the accuracy of the tree inventory and the tree loss calculations, there are actually fewer trees than originally thought. However, the tree loss percentage has increased from 36% to 38%. To reduce tree loss the building should be moved 10 feet to the west. There are five large oak trees in the back Staff wants to preserve. Dick Putnam, Tandem Development, reviewed the revised plans with the Planning Commission. He showed photographs depicting the screening. He noted that the mechanical equipment is completely screened. Eric Johnson reviewed the revised site plan with the Planning Commission. Franzen reviewed the three alternatives outlined in the Staff Report. Staff recommends alternative #1 which is approving the development plans as revised. Foote was concerned about how many square feet a family restaurant is. Franzen replied that a family size restaurant is between 5000 to 6000 square feet. Buca and Dolittles are around 6000 square feet. The proposed restaurant is 5000 square feet. Rick Koehler, residing at 7846 Donegal Cove, commented that the neighbors are very concerned about the size of the restaurant. He feels the parking is inadequate for a restaurant of 5000 square feet. A restaurant of 3 v, g . - 47 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 this size is not Neighborhood Commercial. It is Regional Commercial, drawing trafficfrom Highway 5. There is going to be a high volume of traffic coming from outside the neighborhood. There are concerns about drinking and driving with small children around. A petition went around with over 100 signatures indicating that they want an office building like the Burnet Realty building instead of a restaurant. This type of use will eliminate traffic late at night. He was concerned about the deciduous trees loosing their leaves and not providing enough screening. Mary McKinsey, residing at 18320 Cascade Drive, commented that she would like to see an office building like the Bumet Realty building. She commented that there is another strip mall exactly 7/10 of a mile from the corner of Cascade Drive and Dell Road. She doesn't feel they need two strip malls within a mile of each other. She was very concerned about the access on Cascade Drive. She looked at all the strip malls in Eden Prairie and not one has an access on a residential street. She feels the concept has changed and the Planning Commission should not feel obligated to approve something that was approved five years ago. Things have changed drastically and many of the residents would not have bought their homes five years ago if they knew of these plans. Wade Dillon, residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane, noted that his property is in visual contact of where the daycare center is going to be. He asked if they ever considered putting an office on this site. Putnam replied that they didn't consider it because it wasn't part of the original PUD. He commented that he lives across the lake from Burnet Realty and it gets a tremendous amount of use on the weekends with lights on late at night. Dillon expressed concern about the high volume of traffic at night. He does not feel a 5000 square foot restaurant would be a neighborhood use. He urged the Commission to consider an office building at this site. He was also concerned about the safety issues until this development was completed. Ken Pedrocelli, residing at 17857 Cascade Drive, expressed anger that there was no disclosure given on this issue. This is a residential area and they are trying to make it a commercial area. It's not going to fit. He was concerned about the value of his home decreasing. 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Richard Smith, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive,was concerned that the only access to the mall is from a residential street. Jim Keppel, residing at 18288 View Lane, was concerned about the restaurant use because he will no longer be able to sit out on his deck because of the noise. He noted that he would never have purchased this home if he know of these issues. He was concerned about the additional noise as a result of the restaurant. Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that when Mr. Putnam described where the trees will be planted, the barrier will be an advantage to them at their front door. However, they will not be visible from the photograph Mr. Putnam showed because it's away from the driveway. She was concerned about the small blue spruce tree being moved. Shari Morris, residing at 18232 Cascade Drive, noted that she moved from White Bear Lake to Eden Prairie because of the location. It took her two years to move and the reason was the location and what she wanted. It was the wetland and the peace and quiet. She was very angry because a disclosure was never given about the future site. She was concerned about the value of her home decreasing. There is not one strip mall in Minneapolis and St. Paul with an entrance off a residential street. Kathy King, residing at , was concerned about the views people will have from their homes once this site is developed. She was also concerned about the safety of the children in the playground at the daycare center. She expressed concern about the curve on Cascade causing traffic problems as a result of people parked there. She suggested eliminating parking on that street. Johnson commented that they are .proposing a berm area behind the daycare center to help with the screening. On top of that will be 10 and 12 foot conifer trees along the property line. This will create 16 feet of screening. Regarding the playground, Kindercare is proposing a six foot tall vinyl fence along the property line. Jody Heyman, residing at 7859 Dover Cove, commented that she was behind Barbara Boyle and her husband the other night. When the Boyle's turned into their driveway, they almost rear-ended them. She said she was 5 C Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 concerned that there was only 10 feet for them to make the turn. She was also concerned about there being only one entrance into the strip mall from a residential street. She feels this is not reasonable. Bob Smith, residing at 1769 Ascot Court, commented that quality of life is what brought him to Eden Prairie. He expressed concern about the restaurant having a bar when there are 11 children in his cul-de-sac. He was concerned about the safety of the children. Mike Derickson, residing at 7954 Cimarron Lane, commented that he is still concerned about the traffic issue and the use of this land. He was concerned about the precedent that Kindercare is setting because it's a narrow road to enter. He was also concerned about the aroma coming out of the restaurant. He would like to see a berm maximized to dampen the noise. He asked if there were any filters of some kind to prevent the aroma. Franzen noted that there are certain health code requirements they have to meet. He doesn't know if there's a requirement regarding aroma. Schlampp indicated that a realty office is open until late hours and will also cause a disturbance. He doesn't believe that a group of people can dictate to the developer as to what can go in there, nor can they dictate to them what type of restaurant. He feels it's a good plan for development and he supports it the way it stands. Sandstad commented that he was part of the Commission in 1990 and felt that it was a reasonable use at the time. He understood that this phase could have been done in the reverse, but they chose to build the homes first. The only concern that he shares with the neighbors is parking on Cascade Drive, and that has to be eliminated from this roadway. He feels the project works as a commercial site. It's not a mistake. It's on a state highway with a four lane road that is heavily traveled. Ismail commented that he is not comfortable with the project itself. He is comfortable with the Kindercare but does not support a restaurant use. Foote noted that he doesn't have a problem with the Kindercare on this site. Most of the residents would like to see nothing on this site. That's impossible unless they want to buy the property. He doesn't have a 6 u. g . - so y c c Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 problem with commercial, but he has a big problem with a restaurant. A restaurant of this size can not fit into a residential area. If it was significantly smaller and if he had total control of what type of restaurant it would be, he could support it. He can not support the project as it is with a restaurant. He can support an office building in place of the restaurant. Wissner expressed concern about the safety issues at the intersection, the access to the residential, the curve in the road, and the traffic coming in and out of the Kindercare center. She does feel a lot of people will be using the daycare center and she sees it as a positive area. She can not support a 5000 square foot restaurant. This is not Neighborhood Commercial. She supports a professional office building. Clinton commented that one concern he has is that there has been a proposal from the residents that an office building be put in. He feels that a real estate office would not eliminate the problem of traffic. He feels that a 5000 square foot restaurant does not fit the definition of a residential or neighborhood restaurant. He supports the Kindercare, but is not in favor of the plan as it stands. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to recommend Alternative #3, deny the project, for the following reasons: the proposal is inconsistent with the approved PUD, traffic impact on the adjoining road system are high, the site does not preserve the natural features of the property, the project does not meet Clty requirements for lot size and setbacks, the project does not provide an adequate transition and buffering to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Ismail suggested discussing the possibility of denying only half the project. He asked if denying the whole project means that the daycare is also denied. Franzen replied that the development proposal was presented at the Planning Commission as a package deal. Both of these sites are linked together in terms of the common architecture, landscaping, buffering, sidewalks and trails. If you decide to split the project and just approve the daycare, what you're leaving in place is the approved PUD Concept for convenience gas, retail and restaurant use. If you want to make a motion 7 v. 6 . - 5I c c Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 on the project to approve the daycare center you should be more specific about what land use you want to see for the remainder of the property. Foote asked if that would eliminate the liquor permits. Franzen replied that he would have to check if any of the neighborhood type restaurants have a liquor license. Wissner commented that she does not want to approve the whole thing as it stands. She feels the office is appropriate use of the property. She would like to see something else explored on this property regarding an office, but likes the Kindercare. This could also mean Commercial with a smaller restaurant. She would like to see a little bit more information on a professional building and the traffic that it generates. Wissner then suggests an alternate motion. MOTION 3: Wissner moved to recommend approval of the Kindercare part of the property, and denial of the retail and retaurant PUD Amendment and rezoning. Ismail suggested they approve the daycare center, and the rest of the property be continued for future study. Sandstad commented that the developer has revised these plans for several meetings already, and they have a right to a response on the basis of their submittal. He is not certain that this group agrees on what should be done. Fram'en stated that there are three possible motions. Alternative #1, the Commission can deny the whole project. Alternative #2, the Commission can approve the project with the stipulation that the restaurant be reduced to the original PUD size of 2600 square feet, and the remaining 2400 square feet becomes general retail, and the Kindercare. The Commission discussion suggests the restaurant should be changed to a professional office building. The possibility of a third alternative would be for approval of the project which includes the Kindercare, the general retail, but the direction, to the City Council is the restaurant building should be office. The Commission should recommend an office zoning for that portion of the property. Wissner then suggested an alternate motion. MOTION 4: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to deny the project as submitted. 8 C c Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Schlampp was concerned that this project would come back to the Commission for review of an office building. Franzen replied that the motion could say that the architecture, site plan, and parking would not change, only the use of the building changes. The developer doesn't have to redraw anything. The Commission seems satisfied with the architecture and the site plan. The Commission only needs to indicate that the use of the building should be office. Wissner withdrew her motion. Wissner expressed concern about office as a three story building not fitting into the surrounding area architecturally. Wissner asked if it was feasible to take 5000 square feet and make it an office complex. Putnam replied no. Franzen commented that if you zone a small portion of this property for office, you might have parking on another parcel, but you require a cross parking agreement. If you want to zone the whole property for office, you have a different set of requirements than you do for retail. With the amount of parking shown at 134 spaces, about 26,000 square feet of office is possible. Clinton stated that they have 4.47 acres being divided into two lots. The restaurant and retail is Lot A, and the other one is Lot B. Lot A would be redefined for the concept of an office building as part of the recommendation for the motion, and Lot B would be the approval of the Kindercare as the second part of the recommendation. MOTION 5: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to recommend that Lot A be a professional office building, and Lot B would be approval of the Kindercare. Sandstad commented that this will eliminate any retail. Jim Ostenson, commented that they are operating under a PUD approved five years ago saying they want commercial there. Nothing has really changed since 1990 except the new houses are there. The property has been developed exactly the way it was approved in 1990. They are simply coming in now with Phase 4 of a four phase project. They did not request any changes from what was approved before. He understands there to have to be reasons for denial, and these aren't really good reasons. They would like the Commission to take action so they can go to the City 9 v. 8 , - s3 C C Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Council. Franzen stated that the Commission can recommend whatever land use they feel is appropriate for this property. They are not necessarily bound by any past actions the Planning Commission or the City Council on the land use or the PUD of the property. They have an obligation to the City Council, the developers, and the residents to make an advisory recommendation on what they think the correct land use for the property is. Schlampp commented that some of the members would like to see the proposal as it is. Others would like to deny it. If the ayes outweigh the nays, and the proposal is denied. After this particular vote, then the Commission can attach specific recommendations to the City Council. MOTION 6: Schlampp moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the development as submitted. Motion failed 2-4-0 with opposition by Clinton, Foote, Ismail and Wissner. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Commissioner Sandstad asked for an official response from the City regarding what steps will be taken by the City to provide a safe pedestrian route across Highway 169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA REVISED ENTRY PLAN Bob Lambert, Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed the concept plans with the Commission using sketches. They are trying to create a place in Eden Prairie's downtown that would attract people to come to the trail system. The major purpose of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area is three fold. One is to preserve the marsh and to improve the marsh for wildlife. The second is to improve the water quality that comes from 10 V, 6 - s- - C ("- APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1995 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Elinda Bahley, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Katherine Kardell. Clinton was absent; all other members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of August 28, 1995 as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem Development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 ares into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. Franzen noted that this project was reviewed at the last Planning Commission meeting. The primary issues are a reduction in traffic, transition on Cascade Drive and storm water treatment. He introduced Dick Putnam, representing the project. Dick Putnam, of Tandem Development, presented the plan previously reviewed by the Planning Commission, and the current proposal, using visual aids. The revised plan omits the convenience store/gas station. The restaurant is v. 6. - 55 larger, but will not be a 24 hour operation. The multi tenant space would be your normal dry cleaners, video store, and sporting goods store, which really are not open late hours. The Kindercare site plan is the same in the eastern portion of the site. The driveway is 30 feet closer towards Dell Road, but is 150 feet away from the intersection. The drainage ponds would work to pick up the water first from the parking lot and building development, and discharge into the storm sewer pipes. They are also able to keep some of the trees in the large island. The parking went from 107 spaces to 134, which puts them in excess of any other parking requirements for the use that they have. It's more parking than required by the City. Franzen noted that the commercial plan does not have excess parking. It meets City code for restaurant and retail use. They have lowered the height of the buildings and brought up different roof angles over the entrances so that it has variety to it. All signage was pulled off the roof and put on the face of the buildings as required by City Code. Building materials, in terms of brick, will remain the same. The heavy weight asphalt shingle, gray and black combination, will remain the same, just a different design on the building. The Staff Report talks about relocating the ponding up in the proof-of-parking area on the Kindercare site. That's about the highest portion of the site on that corner, and it doesn't work particularly well. The other problem would be having to put significant fencing around it. Erik Johnson, of RLK Associates, noted that there are a few options for the pond. This plan shows a two pond system. One pond is located near the Kindercare site, and one pond is located more near the Tandem portion of the site. This drawing is set up with a 6 foot difference in elevation between the Kindercare pond and the Tandem pond. The way this is designed is the Kindercare site utilizes the storm water system throughout the parking lot and drains down to a portion of the lot which would then drain into the pond. This pond is large enough to act as a sedimentation basin to collect any runoff from the parking lot. Using the drawings, he illustrated the two options of how the ponds could work. Schlampp referred to the two pond plan, and asked if the west pond will pick up the drain water from the west parking area. Johnson replied that the west pond would pick up from the Tandem area, and the east pond picks up from the east. Schlampp was concerned about this being set up for a 10 year event, that if v. B. - 56 they kept both ponds, it would allow them to go to a 100 year event. Foote asked if they had any tenants lined up for this yet. Putnam replied that they did have one, but that no longer is there. Foote asked if their intention is to build prior to having tenants lined up. Putnam indicated that getting the tenants is not the problem. The problem is selecting the tenants. They have two or three prospective tenants for each type of store. Kardell was concerned about the total square footage of the revised plan versus the old plan. Putnam replied that they are a couple of hundred square feet under what was originally approved. The original proposal in August was 30,000 square feet, and this proposal is for 28,200 square feet. Franzen noted the approved PUD was 28,300 sq. ft. Wissner suggested an office building as a better land use like the Burnet Reality building on Highway 5 because it has a residential look and would generate considerably less traffic. Putnam replied that it would be possible. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission highlighting the five changes under Alternative II. Staff wants to make sure there is enough horizontal distance back from Cascade Drive, and make sure they can preserve the larger trees because it provides a natural screen. If the Planning Commission agrees with the two pond system and the buildings as shown in this plan, it will take out a lot of natural vegetation that provides a buffer. Staff would prefer that the developer find another location on the site to put the pond system. At the first meeting, the Planning Commission wasn't comfortable with that transition, Staff felt it was important to add additional conifers beyond the 27 initial proposed. Staff recommends increasing the roof height back to 28 feet because the lower roof line makes it look more like a commercial mansard used for screening mechanical equipment, than a roof intended to create a residential character. Rick Koehler, residing at 7846 Donegal Cove, noted that the residents had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Putnam and Mr. Ostenson, and he thanked them for taking the time to do that. Most of the neighbors have recognized that there is going to have to be something on this site as much as they want it to remain in its natural state. The neighbors are concerned about Commercial use not being the best for this site. There were concerns expressed about the volume of traffic. • C C They would like restrictions put on the restaurant to limit their hours. He suggested trying to do something different with this site, something unique instead of just a strip mall. He likes the idea of an office building like the Burnet Realty building. He agrees with raising the roof back up to 28 feet. He suggested reducing the parking to save some of the trees. He feels that 28,000 square feet of building is very tight on this site, and suggested making the building smaller rather than fitting it in. He would like to see a lot of buffering along Dell Road. People from the Jamestown development to the east expressed concern about whether or not there will be enough vegetation buffer along the eastern side of Kindercare. Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that the plan for the turn-around on her driveway is not acceptable. She described where she feels the turn-around should be located. She was concerned about the snow build up to read the meters on the north side of her building, and the dangers of the snow plows in the winter. She is opposed to the existing trees being removed because they provide a barrier. She requested that the turn-around be completed prior to any construction on this site. Mary McKinsey, residing at 18320 Cascade Drive, was concerned that this site is going to be another strip mall instead of creating something unique. This strip mall is neither needed or wanted by the residents. The suggestion of an office building or professional building is very acceptable to her. She likes the concept of the Burnet Reality building. Since this site is at the entrance of Eden Prairie from the west, she would like to see something much more creative rather than another strip mall. She was also concerned about the restaurant being a bar and grill type restaurant which will rely on Highway 5 traffic. She does not want a bar in the area with children riding down the sidewalk. She asked the Planning Commission to carefully consider these comments of what the people really want, rather than going ahead with something that is neither wanted or needed. Wade Dillon, residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane, expressed concern about having ponds because it will take away the vegetation and screening for Cascade Drive. He was concerned about the traffic at Dell Road and Highway 5. He feels that if there were an accident, emergency vehicles would not be able to get in at that juncture while the road isn't completed. He thinks that a video store will generate a lot of traffic, and is concerned about a restaurant with a liquor license. If the restaurant is successful, the parking will be inadequate. He urged the developer to work on this plan more and maybe come back with a professional building on this site. Mary Mckinsey commented that the revised plan moves the entrance to the commercial area much closer to Dell Road. This is almost exactly opposite her driveway which she shares with a neighbor, and is not acceptable to her. C c ' Dick Smith, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, was confused about whether they are talking about a one pond plan or a two pond plan. Kardell replied that this is only a discussion for a concept plan for 2 ponds. Dick Smith was concerned about Cascade Drive being widened and there being no stop light coming off Dell Road. He was concerned about loosing the big oak trees instead of leaving them as buffers. Franzen noted that the tree inventory is done by the developer and will be verified by the City Forester, Stu Fox. Jody Heyman, residing at 7859 Dover Cove, noted that she took around the petition, and the petition states that they are opposed to any Commercial development. 80% of the people in the area signed it. She was concerned that it is still a Commercial development even with the petition. She is in favor of Office development. Paul Johnson, residing at 8060 Crescent Court, commented that whatever is put on this site will remain for a very long time. He would not be opposed to some type of Office, and Commercial complimentary to the Office. Putnam indicated that they have an approved plan that the City told them to do. The City had them put in storm water sewers and build ponds. They are only trying to do what they have been told, and if they want to see Office it can be done. They would like to get the construction moving on the Kindercare, and would like the okay to do that at this point. • Mike Derickson, residing at 7954 Cimarron Lane, expressed concern about the traffic and the increased square footage and parking. They still have that concern within the current proposal because of the curve and the width of that road. He feels that Office use does have an appeal in a broad sense. He was concerned about the strong aroma coming from the restaurant at that intersection. He was also concerned about the noise from the restaurant, and asked if there were any numbers on the traffic flow of that sort of development. Jim Ostenson, Tandem Development, commented that back in 1990 they were challenged to put together a plan that empty nesters and young couples could buy rather than rent. That was approved by the Planning Commission and it included a Commercial component. It seemed that Commercial services would be appropriate at the time. They went and developed the property according to that. The Jamestown area was done exactly the way it was approved five years ago, and the plan they came in with is almost identical with the same use. They are working on another plan in Eden Prairie where it was Neighborhood Commercial in the early planning stages. They wanted to put in an office building and were told absolutely not because it has already been approved v. r3. - 59 C Neighborhood Commercial. He urged the Planning Commission to make a recommendation that they be able to move on through the planning process to find out where this eventually ends up. Jeri Pedrocelli, residing at 17857 Cascade Drive, commented that in 1989 this was approved for a Commercial Residential area, yet no one made an attempt to design Cascade to accommodate Commercial traffic. She was concerned about the safety issues on Cascade as a result of heavy traffic. She feels the right thing to do is what the community wants and the safety of the community. Dick Smith commented that no signs were put up on that property back at the time that these decisions were being made. This way the people who bought those homes and townhomes would be aware of the plans. He noted that he never would have bought his home if he knew what was going on across the street. Wade Dillon commented that when there is a kink in a plan you fix it. The Commission needs to look at this plan and see that something is not right. Maybe the idea was right at the time, but now it's not right anymore. Franzen noted that the traffic analysis of the amount of traffic that the daycare generates is about the same amount of traffic as the restaurant and the retail. It's about 50% of the traffic. It makes sense to look at improvements for a turn lane on Cascade Drive, and the interim improvement on Dell Road. Sandstad commented that there are some reasons for developing the property as commercial and thought the plan was generally consistent with the PUD. Schlampp commented that the developer has done what he was supposed to, and he feels it is his obligation as a Commissioner to commend him on that. He has made all the changes that were asked of him. He supports going ahead with the Kindercare. Foote agreed with Schlampp. However, he doesn't like the restaurant. He would like to see Office in place of the restaurant. He supports Kindercare moving along at this point. He has no problem with the rest of the Commercial use. He would like to see the whole building moved to the north. He understands Barbara Boyle's situation and supports putting that turn-around on the west side. He supports Alternative III, but does not feel the developer can be ready in time. Ismail noted that he was not here for the meeting of August 14th and will abstain from giving an opinion. v. �. - �o_ c c Wissner commented that the Kindercare could proceed now that they know the road situation will improve. She has a concern about a restaurant such as Dixies, which would be open late hours, and knows there would be a parking problem. She would like to see another type of restaurant. She is not in favor of a strip mall. She supports Alternative III. Kardell commented that she is comfortable with some type of Commercial use • for this site because it is at the intersection of two major roads. She is not comfortable with moving this ahead with Alternative II. She is comfortable with going towards something consistent with the original PUD, which did include an Office component, and reduce the scale of the retail. She is not opposed to a restaurant. She was concerned about the Kindercare and the traffic on Dell Road. She supports Alternative III, and wants some retail use mixed with some Office use, and that is consistent with a Neighborhood use. Wissner asked if there could be a limit on the size of the restaurant. Franzen replied that the Planning Commission can control the size of the restaurant as a condition of the PUD amendment and rezoning. Foote noted that he favors one pond in place of two because it preserves more trees, and the building moved to the north, and all the conditions in Alternative III. Sandstad commented that he would like to limit the hours of operation for the site. Franzen replied that would go into the developer's agreement and deed restrictions of the property. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Schlampp to continue the public hearing until September 25 with the 5 conditions outlined in alternative III, and an additional one: 1) moving the retail buildings to the north; 2) revise the NURP pond situation to increase the screening and transition on the south side Commercial, not necessarily to create two ponds but take another look at that and give a better buffer on the south side; 3) the proof-of-parking on the north side; 4) provide 54 eight to ten foot high conifers along Cascade Drive; 5) revise the exterior building elevations to increase the roof height to 28 feet; 6) the right turn on Cascade Drive and leave the land use as proposed. Motion carried 3-2-1 with opposition by Foote and Wissner, and one abstention by Ismail. V. . MEMBERS' REPORTS Sandstad noted that he is going to make a recommendation that the City and MnDOT get together and review plans for pedestrian trails and/or sidewalks along Highway 169. Almost everyday he sees elderly people trying to cross Highway 169 at 5:45 in the afternoon. He was concerned about the safety of pedestrians because it is an unsafe condition. He indicated that he would like a v. B. - 6IJ 4.1 Aft)rotiecQ �'e S P `01-104;55IO'L tqu5&s t I`4, 1995 C. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. Franzen noted that the Planning Commission looked at this project 3 weeks ago. The Commission continued the item so that a traffic study could be prepared and to resolve those issues regarding architecture, landscaping, and lighting details. The developer has a written narrative of what they will commit to regarding proof of parking, trash and mechanical screening and detailed plans have been changed. A traffic study has been completed. Dick Putnam of Tandem Development, reviewed the revisions of his project with the Planning Commission. The project is composed of 2 parts, one is the Kindercare development on the west end, and the second portion of the project is a commercial neighborhood area comprised of 3 buildings. One is a proposed Holiday store with a small gas operation located in the southwest corner of the site with it's back to Cascade Drive. The middle of the building is intended for a video store and a multiple type commercial tenant such as a sporting goods store and dry cleaners. The third building is a proposed family type restaurant, and at this point they have no tenant. Putnam noted that the buildings have pitched roofs with brick and stucco, glass exterior, and an asphalt shingle roof. All of the mechanical equipment is behind the roof so it's not seen from any angle. The trash enclosures are all interior to the building. They have provided a loop driveway system so you can enter at either location. This also saves the trees on the median down the center of the roadway, and this is why they have 2 sites. They have revised the landscaping plan to reflect the addition of trees for screening. They have also adhered to the 25 foot lighting standard. Dennis Hanson of RLK Associates, reviewed the traffic study. He noted that the purpose of the study was to determine the trip generation that the project would produce, and determine the impact on the roadway system of the traffic projects, and investigate improvements that might be necessary to these traffic impacts on the road systems surrounding the site. 5 " \ c Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. He noted that the traffic study says that the traffic is higher than the approved RID and that there is some traffic turning conflicts between the commercial and residential uses and Cascade Drive. Based on that information, there is a need to revise the concept plan to reduce traffic. Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that she and Rick Kohler are the 2 designated spokespeople for the neighborhood coalition. She lives in the very first unit on Dell Road, the west unit in the first twinhome directly across south from the location of the proposed Holiday 24 hour gas station and convenience store. The focus of their opposition is on the issue of increased traffic and noise, decreased public safety and potential effects on the environment. They have been lead to believe that the developer intended to meet with each of the first 4 units just off of Dell Road because of the impact they will feel when this commercial center is built. After meeting with Mr. Putnam, she noticed inconsistencies. She was told that they will not notice that a commercial center is there. According to Mr. Putnam, he did not meet each of the 4 individuals in the first 4 units like he said he would. She feels that as perspective buyers, they should have been aware of the full extent of this proposed commercial center through sales materials in area homes. She was also concerned about the difficulty she would have backing out of her driveway once this commercial site is built. She noted that she was taken off guard when Mr. Putnam demonstrated how she would have to back out of her driveway on to the City sidewalk as the solution. Rick Kohler. residing at 7846 Donnelly Cove, noted that he represents the people that were present in the room. He talked about what the City's duties are with respect to zoning like this. He said that Minnesota law is to represent interests of public health, safety and welfare of citizens. The people present tonight are part of the public and they do not want this project there, and there have been over 200 households who signed a petition stating this. This represents 80% of the neighbors that are directly effected by this. He expressed concern about the potential gas leakage on the east side of Mitchell Lake. The area is residential and the commercial development doesn't fit in the overall scheme of this area. There are currently 16 gas stations operating in Eden Prairie, and there are 7 gas stations within a mile and a half of this corner. The City Council also approved a gas convenience store about a mile to the south where there's been discussion about when Dell Road is going through. This will make 8 gas stations within a mile and a half of this corner. There is a convenience store down the road where Super 6 y C America is, a Blockbuster and a dry cleaners. None of the things proposed to go in this commercial center are needed. He expressed concern about a gas spill on the wetland near this project, about the tree loss, about the noise issue, about the lighting from the service station itself, and about the headlights from cars in the wintertime. He noted that the present proposal is inconsistent with the original approved PUD. The developer and Holiday have been made aware that the neighborhood doesn't want this project. This tells him that this project is not for the neighborhood, but for the traffic on Highway 5. Wade Dillon. residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane. expressed concern about the traffic study conducted, and asked what the criteria is for A, B, C to be determined. Hansen commented that A is very good service, very little delay in traffic passing through the intersection. It then goes down on a scale. B is the next level which represents a little bit of delay in traffic that might go through the intersection. C is where you might encounter up to 30 seconds in delay to get into the intersection. Thirty seconds is normally considered tolerable. Mike Derickson, 7954 Cimarron Lane, directed his comments to the traffic issues. He's a marketing manager who has experience with the operation of convenience stores. He commented that of all the 16 retail outlet stores in Eden Prairie, they are all connected to a brand name. He does not feel Cascade fits in with this. He looked at how far the ingress and egress is from the nearest residents, and the closest was Tom Thumb on Dell Road to be about 70 feet. He expressed great concern about the curve in the road being a big issue. He also was concerned about the health hazards of the gases from cars idling there. There will be an average of 375 customers coming a day and purchasing gas, but that doesn't include the customers using the convenience store or the fast food. Mark Nelson, a representative from Holiday Stores, noted that the numbers they have used is an estimate based on all the customers for the day, including the gas and the convenience store together. The transaction number is the total number. They do not expect to have fast food in the store. A resident asked what the gross sales per gas are versus what the gross sales of the convenience store are. Nelson replied that is privileged information. 7 V, e . - 4 c Nick Olson,residing at 18258 Cascade Drive. expressed concern about property values decreasing. He asked what time do they expect gas deliveries to be at that location. Nelson replied they are usually during off peak hours, usually mid to late afternoon. Sandstad expressed concern about how the gas tankers will be able to enter the site and make deliveries because it seems very tight. Nelson replied that they have designed it in a way that it will be in and out of the westerly driveway. Jodi Heyman, residing at 7859 Dover Cove, was concerned about the dangers of the curve on Cascade Drive. She commented that right now people are allowed to park on Cascade Drive that have townhomes. Richard Smith. residing at 18322 Cascade Drive. was concerned about the tree loss if the street is widened. Ed Requet, residing at 18292 Cascade Drive, noted that his house sits right across the street from the west entrance to the proposed site. He expressed concern about how often the trash will get picked up and where the trash receptacles will be. He was concerned about the wildlife in the area and what will control those animals from getting into the rubbish and the debris left outside the facility. Putnam indicated that that's the reason why all the trash is kept inside the building. Wissner asked how often the trash is picked up. Nelson replied that it would probably be 2 or 3 times a week. Wissner commented that it's not acceptable as a street to be handling this kind of traffic. She was concerned about the turnaround for the person on the end because there is no way this person can back out into a street. She commented that the widening of the road would take out more trees and the buffer at that site. She was concerned about a convenience store at that location, and would like the developer to pursue different uses with less traffic. Clinton stated that he can not support the project because it was inconsistent with the PUD. He was concerned about the traffic impact. He noted that it does not meet the City code parking requirements. He recommended that the developer find something that would be beneficial to the neighborhood and the developer. Sandstad commented that the transition is not that good to the south especially P Y if a turning lane is added. He likes the Kindercare use and the restaurant use. 8 Foote agreed with Sandstad. He likes the Kindercare use, but is not comfortable with the restaurant or convenience gas use because that tends to be open 24 hours with high traffic generation. He encouraged the developer to come up with something unique on this property, but was concerned that in doing so, they are going to create more tree loss. Schlampp agreed with Foote. He thinks commercial development is appropriate, but not an all night convenience store and gas station. He was concerned about the amount of traffic that would be coming in and out. He feels a commercial development in that area done in a residential way is something to be considered. Kardell noted that she is comfortable with the commercial use at that site, but was concerned about the traffic impact and visual impact on adjoining homes. She supports recommendation #2 in the Staff Report asking the developer to go back and find another use for this property. Putnam commented that he believes that whatever use they come up with for this site, the neighborhood will be against it. He feels that they want it to remain undeveloped. John Milloy, residing at 17727 , commented that the property is not zoned commercial so it doesn't cost $250,000 an acre. He suggested that the homeowners investigate buying the 4.5 acres. The Commissioners agreed that was a very good suggestion. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the public hearing to September 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0. • CPta-nr% l-0MMiSSior%... Jw� t, t 9 9 S" V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem Development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial and Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. Franzen discussed some of the history of the Jamestown PUD and why the City approved a change in the Guide Plan from residential to commercial in 1990. Dick Puttnam of Tandem Development pointed out that the reason why the residential portion of the project was completed first was due to the fact that the roads had not yet been completed and the residential base was needed to support the commercial. He also spoke of the meetings that they had with the residents of the area and the Jamestown Homeowners Association and Tandem's efforts to address their concerns. The 4.47 acre location is to be broken into two lots. Kindercare will own the east 1.7 acres. The remainder of the commercial area will be owned by Ostensen and Puttnam. There will be easements for joint parking for the two sites. Welsch Companies is doing the leasing work for Tandem. The management of the center will also probably be handled by Welsch as well.. Eric Johnson, a landscape architect from RLK Associates spoke on plans for the project. A major concern were the large number of existing oak trees on the site. The design allows for the buildings to be tucked up tight against the trees with no service drive behind the buildings, thus allowing a larger number of trees to be saved. 3 c CT • The parking has been aligned in such a way that the drive entrances that come into Cascade Drive will be screened from the homes with large conifers. Kathy Anderson from KKE Architects showed building plans for the center. She pointed out that the roof tops will be designed with a steep grade to screen the mechanical units. The center will be made up of small shops with a short span and will keep the height of the buildings down. She suggested a combination of stucco and brick for materials. Also she presented an option of having the signs built into the dormers rather than using a sign band. There is intent is to maximize the glass areas and include possible outside eating areas. In addition, there will be back lighting at the Kindercare tower and dormer areas. Puttnam also commented on the options of the dormer signs and use of stucco. He mentioned that they are currently constructing a building in Spring Park next to Water Patrol that is very similar to the ones proposed for this center. This building is scheduled for completion about August 1, 1995 and all are invited to visit it. Clinton asked how the center will handle deliveries. Puttnam pointed out that the businesses are front door delivery types. Trash receptacles will be internal to the building with the ability to roll them out when necessary. Clinton expressed safety concerns for the children that may attend the Kindercare due to the location on Highway 5. Puttnam stated that the large ditch and berm alongside of the day care minimizes some of the safety issues. Ismail asked if it is necessary to approve the entire project if he is comfortable with one part of the package but not the other. He noted that a number of residents do not seem pleased with the commercial end of the project. Puttnam explained that the City had asked him to present a total package and it was his understanding that it would be approved or disapproved as a whole. Franzen addressed the question of why the City considered the commercial project in the first place with the following reasons: One, this site is allowed by ordinance to be developed up to a .20 base area ratio. If they were allowed to do that it would mean about 10,000 more square feet of building on the property. However, they are only using about three quarters of what the code would allow as the maximum in order to save more trees. 4 V. 6. - hq Two, the original proposal was approved with a 40% tree loss. The new proposal is at 36% tree loss. Three, a study of the road capacity was done for the area and it was determined that there would be adequate capacity to handle the number of trees from existing and future residential and commercial land uses. Four, the residential character of the buildings was another positive aspect of the center. Five, the fact that the center was pre-planned in advance of any homes to the area. Franzen noted that other things considered were buffering, lighting, and restricting the uses to neighborhood commercial. There were stipulations to prevent a large pumper gas station and fast food use. Franzen added that normally lighting would be on a 30 foot pole for a commercial area. However, it will be reduced to a 20 foot pole in this area to keep more of the lighting on the ground. Also the gas station will have the lighting recessed under the canopy to minimize the lighting impact on the townhouses in the area. Franzen added that while the project is approximately 1700 square feet larger than the original PUD, there are several advantages to the current proposal. First of all the building set back from Cascade Drive is greater. Taking out some of the cross drives allowed for greater tree preservation. Franzen noted the following plan changes are needed including additional landscaping, proof of parking plan, adequate trash areas inside of the building, the mechanical equipment screening plan, the exterior materials and colors, the sign plan, and the revised lighting plan to minimize glare. Franzen summarized that the staff report provides options to the commission. First is to say that they are comfortable with the project but would like the developer to return so they can see the final plan before it is passed on to the council. Second option allows for the event that the Commission has reservations about the project, they may want the developer to make some changes. The third option is to deny. Kardell asked whether cupolas constitute signs. Franzen said that if the cupola is generic to the project and not a symbol that conveys a particular business they are acceptable and do not constitute a sign. 5 U. B , - 69 C C- Wissner asked if there is an ordinance regarding businesses being open 24 hours a day in residential area. Franzen stated there are no ordinances that restrict hours of operation. Construction activity or grading is restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. six days a week. Ted Almann, 18262 Cascade Drives the Homeowner's Association President, expressed concerns regarding the increased traffic flow and resulting increased noise levels. He stated that the possibility of an exit on to Dell Road might help somewhat. He also said he would like to see the hours of operation for the businesses to be limited to daylight hours. Wade Dale, 7932 Cimarron Lane, was also concerned about the traffic on Cascade which already services townhomes on both sides of the street. He commented that if anyone should happen to park on Cascade at the area of the curve it would severely narrow the drive. Additionally, he felt it would be hazardous to have gas pumps 500 feet from wet lands. Barbara Boyle. 18322 Cascade Drives & Arlene Erickson, 18296 Cascade Drives live directly across the street from the commercial site. Boyle stated that she was concerned about the glare of headlights from vehicles. She also has objections to the gas station being a 24 hour business and that its trash receptacle would be directly across from her home. Steve Hidy, 7976 Cimarron Lanes inquired as to why it was being proposed to rezone the area from residential to commercial when this is not the neighbor's wishes. He also can see no need for another gas station since there already is one less than a mile in one direction and less than two miles the other direction. Dennis Pedrocelli, 17857 Cascade, has concerns about the environmental and economic condition of the area. He stated that with the gas station there would be airborne contamination, seepage, and fuel spills. Also, he felt the value of his home would decline because of the project. Nick Olsen, 18258 Cascade Drives was concerned about the possibility of cars parking on Cascade Drive and making passage on that road difficult. He also inquired about the number of trees to be lost due to the project. Johnson of RLK Associates went over some of the specifics of the tree loss, again pointing out that only 36% of the trees would be lost. Franzen advised that Box Elder and Elm trees are not protected by the tree ordinance. Ash, Maple, and Oak are. 6 Bill Berg, 18256 Cascade Drives stated that the sleeping quarters of the townhomes face the proposed development and the increased noise levels would be a problem. Jeff Payne. 7838 Donovan Cove. said that Cascade Drive was never designed for this type of entrance. He wondered why the City felt a need for another source of income from this area given the tax revenue already generated. Tim Strauss. 18240 Cornflower Lane. appreciates the effort that has been made to save the trees, but stated that there would still be a lot of habitat lost due to the project. Bill Heyman. 7959 Dover Covet stated that he is concerned that the project will decrease property values and desirability on Cascade and around Mitchell Lake. He is concerned about safety due to increased traffic. There are a large number of children in the area. He expressed concern about the bike path that lets out into the development and that children would be riding their bikes into this area. Additionally, he spoke about the fact that the center requires access from a residential street. He too, is concerned about the tree loss. Mindy Rehler, 18272 Cornflower Drive,, is the director of a child care center. She is concerned about the children at the Kindercare, as well as the children in the area, breathing the fumes from the gas station. Rick Kuehler, 7846 Donegal Coves inquired why the developer wants to change the zoning in this area from rural to commercial. Kardell explained that everything in Eden Prairie is zoned rural until such time as a development plan is approved. Kuehler went on to say that he felt the project was unnecessary due to the fact that so many of the same services are close to the area. He too is concerned about the loss of wetlands and the increased traffic. Karol Knudtson, 18086 Settlers Way, spoke of her concerns regarding traffic, property values and the environment. She does not want a 24 hour gas station so close to her home. Richard Smiths 18322 Cascade Drive,reiterated the concerns for the loss of the wetlands. He stated that he bought his home as his retirement home and did not foresee a gas station so close. 7 v. B. — '7 ! C C Becky Gauerke, 18148 Settlers Way, stated that she appreciated all of the work that has gone into the project. However, her concern was also for the loss of the trees and greenery in the area. Cliff Potter, 18264 Cascade Drive, had planned this home for his retirement. He felt the project would have a negative impact on property values, safety, traffic, and the environment in the area. He stated that he already has trouble getting out of his driveway due to traffic. Carrie Amirayan, 18118 Settlers Way, just bought her townhome. She does not understand why another video store is needed. She feels it is dangerous to have this project in a residential neighborhood. Bruce Perkins, 7835 Donegal Cove,asked where the semi delivering gas would turn around. He feels that this project is unnecessary. He feels there should be more thought put into what people in the area need. Puttnam pointed out how the semi would turn around within the parking lot. He stated that deliveries would be made during off hours. Jerry Petrucelli, 17857 Cascade Drive., asked what would be considered an "off" hour. She also stated that it appeared to her from the proposal that 3/4 of the trees are gone. Geoff Staursky. 7822 Donegal Cove, felt that at the top of the list should be the concern for the safety of the families in the area. Secondly, should be listed the question of the need for the development. Puttnam stated that an off hour would be the middle of the day. Gas deliveries would be made at times other than peak traffic hours which are in the morning and evenings. Kardell summarized the concerns expressed about traffic and safety issues, trees and habitat loss, wetland degradation questions due to the gas station, screening issues, headlights, hours of operations, and property values. Wissner would like to see additional analysis regarding traffic. Franzen stated that additional analysis would be done. Wissner asked if the project was looking at having neighborhood type businesses in the center, such as a place to and have coffee and/or ice cream. 8 V. . - C. C Puttnam explained that is exactly the type of businesses they had in mind. He addressed the concerns people had regarding the all night business hours. He stated that they anticipated little business and traffic during night hours. Those hours are only a convenience factor for customers, not high volume sales for the gas station. Clinton assured the citizens that the Commissioners, prior to meetings, do visit the sites that will be addressed. They also revisit sites after they have been developed. Clinton questioned the need for another gas 'station in the area. However, he does like the idea of the residential type businesses such as the bagel shop. He stated that he also has concerns regarding the Kindercare near a major intersection. He would like to see further study regarding the need of the gas station. He feels additional analysis is needed regarding traffic and the possibility of another exit from the center, other than Cascade Drive. He does like the designs for the project and the screening. Foote also questioned the need for another gas station. Mark Nelson from Holiday Gas commented that this store is not intended to be a high volume gas station. It is primarily intended to be a convenience store for the neighborhood. There would only be four gas pumps. Ismail asked who would be the primary customers for the center. Nelson anticipates that the center would mostly service the residents in the area. Ismail pointed out that the residents in the area appear to not be in favor of the center. Puttnam stated that for as many as may be opposed, there are many who would feel this center would be very convenient. Perkins said that he fears that the Holiday name will bring traffic in off of Highway 5 in droves, and this will cause a traffic jam. Maureen Herzberg, 18009 Dakota Circle, asked if a petition would help to convince the Planning Commission that the people in the area do not want the center. Kardell stated that the Planning Commission is only an advisory board to the City Council and that the final decision rested with the City Council. She stated that petitions are fine, however, the residents will basically need to debate the issue 9 V. i . - 73 C C with the City Council just as they have with the Planning Commission. Herzberg also pointed out that Cascade is a drop off for school buses. This occurs during what would be the busiest time for the center. Foote asked if the possibility to have a right turn exit from the center to Dell Road could also serve as a right turn entrance into the center. Kardell's major concerns are also traffic related. She does feel that a commercial center is appropriate at that intersection and adjacent to residential. Foote stated he was very pleased with the project from the stand point of tree preservation. Wissner felt that the placement of the Kindercare and its playground looks good. However, she shares the concerns regarding traffic. Kardell asked the proponent to work with Nelson regarding information on the use of the facilities at this location, and the different configurations of the pumps. Also to include a look at what the expected business might be during the night hours. Clinton would like to see more meetings with the homeowners to help resolve their issues. He added that the City cannot legally prevent a developer from developing his land with out constituting a "taking." Foote inquired if the 75% brick requirement is absolute. • Kardell stated the code is absolute. She feels that the structures should be consistent with code. The back side of the building is mostly screened by trees, and there is little cost difference between the brick and stucco. Rhonda Dungan, 7854 Dove ove, asked if the area had to be zoned commercial, or could it be finished out with residentir a -She stated that she had been unaware of the proposal. Perkins feels that the right turn entrance/exit onto Dell Road would be dangerous because drivers would mistake the turn signals for Cascade to be signals for the center. He fears this could cause many accidents. Dale stated the traffic analysis has to take into consideration the future growth of the area. 10 \ C Discussion was had regarding the amount of time necessary for continuance to have all issues adequately addressed. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Foote, to continue the hearing on the project until the first meeting in August at which time the traffic analysis can be presented, as well as the questions regarding the gas station. Motion carried 6- 0-0. i / V. 6. - 7s August 3, 1995 TO: The Members of the Eden Prairie City Council and the Eden Prairie City Planning Commission RE: Hwy 5/Dell Rd Convenience Center To the aforementioned Members: We attended an Open Forum with the City Planning Commission on July 10th. We were extremely upset to see that in the city of Eden Prairie residents have No Voice. We were heard but nobody listened. We do not want Hwy 5/Dell Rd turned into a convenience center. Nothing is acceptable there but the beautiful trees that nature put there. We left Minneapolis with our two young children to live in "suburbia" (quiet, peaceful, SAFE) . I grew up in a neighborhood where it was unthinkable to destroy the environment (Edina) and to ruin the aesthetics/ambience of that city. Doesn't Eden Prairie care about it' s image? We would like to request that the Planning Commission and City Council Members visit the site not just during the day but at 10PM and see how peaceful it is to turn onto Cascade Drive. We were so happy and relieved when we left Minneapolis (we were 1 block east of Lake Nokomis ' small beach) to move into a neighborhood that was going to be safe for our children (we had some vandalism problems, car theft, etc. ) . Now to find we will soon be dealing with safety issues again is extremely disappointing. Especially since we were never made aware of the proposed plans for this particular site during the building of our home. What neighborhood wants or needs this? Don't we have a voice? We thought Eden Prairie was an upscale city. Do we really want to look like a Fridley - gas stations, PDQ' s, etc. on every corner? Or, do we want the city of Eden Prairie to be compared to say, Pebble Beach, California, with it' s natural settings and regards for wildlife? This type of convenience center would be laughed at in any upscale city that considers ambience and aesthetics as their #1 priority. That city would also take into consideration the feelings of its area residents rather than a corporation with $ signs in their eyes . With service stations on Hwy 5 less than 5 minutes away and another convenience center with gas station being built just blocks away on Dell Rd - is this really a necessity? Please consider this not just from our point of view but yours also as you drive along Hwy 5. Page 2 With regards to the Open Forum we attended - we are citizens of Eden Prairie who are extremely angry and concerned about this situation. At the Forum we felt like we were being treated as unruly schoolchildren with the threat of being sent to the principal ' s office instead of the worried adults we were and still are. Who has a voice in Eden Prairie - the residents (taxpayers) or Tandem Corporation? We would like to request at the next Forum, August 14th, that there be a. new chairperson - one who is more impartial. The developer considered Cascade Drive a Frontage Road - WRONG: It is a quiet residential street. How will this road accomodate all the extra traffic? As it is, the turn lanes are just waiting for an accident to happen (from Hwy 5 going west to Dell and Dell to Cascade) . We live in Orrin Thompson' s Lake Forest Division and that is only 50% or less developed. Traffic will only continue to increase on Cascade Drive. We just don' t understand how land zoned rural can go to this extreme. It is definitely not neighborhood friendly. We considered the convenience center to be hard core commercial. Our neighborhood is being threatened. The chairperson at the Forum said she herself lived near a convenience center and that ' s just the way it is in Eden Prairie. Well, did she know of it' s existence before becoming a homeowner? We did not. Are the businesses near her operating 24 hours? This was the first town meeting we had ever attended and the attitude of the chairperson really turned us off. We left the meeting totally disillusioned about our high expectations of Eden Prairie. Even in Minneapolis the residents had a voice. We were thinking of selling a city lot attached to our property at one time and had to attend a meeting with the neighbors to get their approval . They were able to discuss their concerns and were the deciding vote. With so many residents opposed to the convenience center will we have a voice also? When my 7 year old son found out, he was also extremely upset since we have encountered deer on a few occasions coming out of the woods on that corner. He asked me what will happen to the deer? Can you answer that question for him? Sincerely, 9,- 40111!!! jrip Chris and Corey Op 7846 Dover Cove Eden Prairie, MN 55347 C C 7843 Donegal Cove Eden Prairie, MN 55347 July 20, 1995 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Proposed Commercial Development at Highway 5 and Dell Road Ladies and Gentlemen: At the July 10 Planning Commission Hearing on the above-referenced matter, you heard numerous objections from people who live in the neighborhood to which Cascade Drive is the access point. Those objections included concerns about the increased traffic and noise, safety of the residents, environmental impact, and decreased property values. o Rather than repeat those objections, we wish to make the following points: 1. We do not need a neighborhood convenience center. Chanhassen(1.4 miles from the site) has all of the conveniences and most everything else we need along a six-block"main street." Prairie Village Mall (1.3 miles from the site) also provides many essentials. There are 5 other gas stations a~.� within less than 1.5 miles of the site. The 30-pump Super America is 1.3 miles east;the Sinclair is .7 miles to the west; there are three more stations (including another Holiday) 1.1 miles west; and another 1.4 miles west. 2. We do not want a neighborhood convenience center or any other form of commercial development at that site. Who would consider putting their children in a day care facility next to a gas station with its fumes and transient traffic? The Holiday station appears to be too discreetly located to be profitable; if we were Holiday and Perkins we would want to attract traffic from Highway 5 to our businesses. So much for the neighborhood convenience promotion. 3. We will not patronize any businesses that become part of a commercial development at that site and will discourage others from doing so as well. The neighbors to whom we have spoken have also made this commitment. We were unaware of these plans when we purchased our property in 1993. If this development is supposed to benefit the neighborhood primarily, why was it never promoted to us as prospective home buyers? Indeed, we were unaware of the proposal until July 7, 1995. V, 6 . - 78 Thank you for your attention to the concerns of those who live in the neighborhood. Sinc- , °1)41.6 David A. Bishop El' beth M. Bishop cc: Dr. Jean Harris, Mayor Mr. Ronald Case, City Council Ms. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, City Council Ms. Patricia Pidcock, City Council Mr. Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., City Council Mr. Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Mr. Don Uram, Economic Development Manager Mr. Dave Hoeschen, Holiday Stores Mr. Mark Nelson, Holiday Stores Ms. Trudy Anderson,Kindercare Ms. Linda Jones, Perkins Restaurants Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation Mr. Jim Ostenson, Tandem Corporation V. - 79 July 10, 1995 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Planning Commission Members, ((,,�� As homeowners at / l"�9 � dy ve are very concerned about the proposed commercial development for the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Dell Road. We believe the rezoning and building of two high traffic volume activities such as a convenience store/gas station and day care facility at this site sets an unfair precedent. Our specific concerns include the following: I. Traffic increase -Introduction into existing residential neighborhood of two high volume traffic activities that add greatly to peak rush hour congestion. • Convenience store/gas station •Day care center -Access to commercial site only from residential road -Increase in peak rush hour traffic volume. Acceleration-deceleration lanes already congested during these times • 6:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. • 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. •Increase traffic during prime school bus hours II. Noise-increase -Increase traffic will bring increase in noise from this intersection •removal of trees will increase noise • no berm or buffer for Highway 5 in plan -Increase volume of large delivery trucks daily on residential street. III. Public Safety- decrease safety -Traffic increase during peak/rush hour as commuters •rush to beat lights •rush to pick up and drop off at day care center •rush to buy gas,pick up convenience store items -Convenience stores are sites for robbery and introduce this element to our residential neighborhood. -Conveniece stores also encourages an influx of strangers in an area where children will be waiting for school buses. -These same children enjoy the security and safety in playing and living in a strictly residential neighborhood. �. �. - So C C IV.Environment-adverse impact -Removal of mature oaks and maple trees -Underground storage of over 30,000 gallons of gasoline adjacent to protected wetland V.Property Values-decline -No buffer between residential and proposed commercial areas -Chain link fences visible from Cascade Drive -Two 20 foot pole signs -Large commercial canopy-this is a billboard -Access to proposed commercial only from residential area. -24-hour operation -Inconsistent with strict zoning(protective covenants)in residential Summer Oaks development. • Paint houses certain colors • No fences • No sheds •No development near wetland,we keep 30-40 feet wild and natural VI.Planning-Apparent lack of planning -Rezoning of parcel of land only after residential has built up on adjacent property. -Notice only one week before review. -Not all effected area residents were informed of these plans or this meeting. -Where in Eden Prairie is commercial accessed from residential? We are confident the planning commission will see the many problems this proposal brings to our neighborhood and will deny the conveniences store/gas station and day care center. Thank you for your consideration in the important issue. Sincerely, ��� C C • V � July 10, 1995 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Planning Commission Members, As homeowners at 7g5-9 �� '�- ,we are very concerned about the proposed commercial development for the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Dell Road. We believe the rezoning and building of two high traffic volume activities such as a convenience store/gas station and day care facility at this site sets an unfair precedent. Our specific concerns include the following: I. Traffic increase -Introduction into existing residential neighborhood of two high volume traffic activities that add greatly to peak rush hour congestion. • Convenience store/gas station •Day care center -Access to commercial site only from residential road -Increase in peak rush hour traffic volume. Acceleration-deceleration lanes already congested during these times • 6:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. • 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. •Increase traffic during prime school bus hours II. Noise- increase -Increase traffic will bring increase in noise from this intersection •removal of trees will increase noise • no berm or buffer for Highway 5 in plan -Increase volume of large delivery trucks daily on residential street. III. Public Safety- decrease safety -Traffic increase during peak/rush hour as commuters •rush to beat lights •rush to pick up and drop off at day care center •rush to buy gas,pick up convenience store items -Convenience stores are sites for robbery and introduce this element to our residential neighborhood. -Conveniece stores also encourages an influx of strangers in an area where children will be waiting for school buses. -These same children enjoy the security and safety in playing and living in a strictly residential neighborhood. s C C N 6 IV.Environment- adverse impact -Removal of mature oaks and maple trees -Underground storage of over 30,000 gallons of gasoline adjacent to protected wetland V.Property Values-decline -No buffer between residential and proposed commercial areas -Chain link fences visible from Cascade Drive -Two 20 foot pole signs -Large commercial canopy-this is a billboard -Access to proposed commercial only from residential area. -24-hour operation -Inconsistent with strict zoning(protective covenants)in residential Summer Oaks development. • Paint houses certain colors • No fences • No sheds • No development near wetland,we keep 30-40 feet wild and natural VI.Planning-Apparent lack of planning -Rezoning of parcel of land only after residential has built up on adjacent property. -Notice only one week before review. -Not all effected area residents were informed of these plans or this meeting. -Where in Eden Prairie is commercial accessed from residential? We are confident the planning commission will see the many problems this proposal brings to our neighborhood and will deny the conveniences store/gas station and day care center. Thank you for your consideration in the important issue. Sincerely, 9/14/L-' C P.S. I AM T(( .LY AGAINST ANY COMMERCIAL BEING Bb1LT ON DELL & CASCADE. THANKS YOU. July 10, 1995 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Planning Commission Members As homeowners at /.D ,we are very concerned about the proposed commercial develo m nt for the southeast Corner of Highway 5 and Dell Road. e believe the rezoning and building of two high traffic volume activities such as a convenience store/gas station and day care facility at this site sets an unfair precedent. Our specific concerns include the following: I. Traffic increase -Introduction into existing residential neighborhood of two high volume traffic activities that add greatly to peak rush hour congestion. • Convenience store/gas station •Day care center -Access to commercial site only from residential road -Increase in peak rush hour traffic volume. Acceleration-deceleration lanes already congested during these times • 6:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. • 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. •Increase traffic during prime school bus hours II. Noise- increase -Increase traffic will bring increase in noise from this intersection •removal of trees will increase noise • no berm or buffer for Highway 5 in plan -Increase volume of large delivery trucks daily on residential street. III. Public Safety-decrease safety -Traffic increase during peak/rush hour as commuters •rush to beat lights •rush to pick up and drop off at day care center •rush to buy gas,pick up convenience store items Convenience stores are sites for robbery and introduce this element to our residential neighborhood. -Conveniece stores also encourages an influx of strangers in an area where children will be waiting for school buses. -These same children enjoy the security and safety in playing and living in a strictly residential neighborhood. v. e. - g � • ( • IV.Environment- adverse impact -Removal of mature oaks and maple trees -Underground storage of over 30,000 gallons of gasoline adjacent to protected wetland V.Property Values-decline -No buffer between residential and proposed commercial areas -Chain link fences visible from Cascade Drive -Two 20 foot pole signs -Large commercial canopy-this is a billboard -Access to proposed commercial only from residential area. -24-hour operation -Inconsistent with strict zoning(protective covenants)in residential Summer Oaks development. • Paint houses certain colors • No fences • No sheds •No development near wetland,we keep 30-40 feet wild and natural VI•Planning-Apparent lack of planning -Rezoning of parcel of land only after residential has built up on adjacent property. -Notice only one week before review. -Not all effected area residents were informed of these plans or this meeting. -Where in Eden Prairie is commercial accessed from residential? We are confident the planning commission will see the many problems this proposal brings to our neighborhood and will deny the conveniences store/gas station and day care center. Thank you for your consideration in the important issue. Sincerely, V. - g� y C July 10, 1995 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Planning Commission Members, As homeowners at I& 6T CIISCAba bJV VE ,we are very concerned about the proposed commercial development for the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Dell Road. We believe the rezoning and building of two high traffic volume activities such as a convenience store/gas station and day care facility at this site sets an unfair precedent. Our specific concerns include the following: I. Traffic increase -Introduction into existing residential neighborhood of two high volume traffic activities that add greatly to peak rush hour congestion. • Convenience store/gas station •Day care center -Access to commercial site only from residential road -Increase in peak rush hour traffic volume. Acceleration-deceleration lanes already congested during these times • 6:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. • 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. •Increase traffic during prime school bus hours II. Noise- increase -Increase traffic will bring increase in noise from this intersection •removal of trees will increase noise • no berm or buffer for Highway 5 in plan -Increase volume of large delivery trucks daily on residential street. III. Public Safety- decrease safety -Traffic increase during peak/rush hour as commuters •rush to beat lights •rush to pick up and drop off at day care center •rush to buy gas,pick up convenience store items -Convenience stores are sites for robbery and introduce this element to our residential neighborhood. -Conveniece stores also encourages an influx of strangers in an area where children will be waiting for school buses. -These same children enjoy the security and safety in playing and living in a strictly residential neighborhood. v o . - 26 vl A IV. Environment- adverse impact -Removal of mature oaks and maple trees -Underground storage of over 30,000 gallons of gasoline adjacent to protected wetland V.Property Values-decline -No buffer between residential and proposed commercial areas -Chain link fences visible from Cascade Drive -Two 20 foot pole signs -Large commercial canopy-this is a billboard -Access to proposed commercial only from residential area. -24-hour operation -Inconsistent with strict zoning(protective covenants)in residential Summer Oaks development. • Paint houses certain colors • No fences • No sheds • No development near wetland,we keep 30-40 feet wild and natural VI. Planning-Apparent lack of planning -Rezoning of parcel of land only after residential has built up on adjacent property. -Notice only one week before review. -Not all effected area residents were informed of these plans or this meeting. -Where in Eden Prairie is commercial accessed from residential? We are confident the planning commission will see the many problems this proposal brings to our neighborhood and will deny the conveniences store/gas station and day care center. Thank you for your consideration in the important issue. Sincerely, v F'-2 SIC v. 6. - S C C July 10, 1995 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Planning Commission Members, As homeowners at 18009 Dakota Circle,we are very concerned about the proposed commercial development for the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Dell Road, We believe the rezoning and building of two high traffic volume activities such as a convenience store/gas station and day care facility at this site sets an unfair precedent. Our specific concerns include the following: I, Traffic increase -Introduction into existing residential neighborhood of two high volume traffic activities that add greatly to peak rush hour congestion. • Convenience store/gas station •Day care center -Access to commercial site only from residential road -Increase in peak rush hour traffic volume. Acceleration-deceleration lanes already congested during these times • 6:30 a.tn.-9:30 a.m. • 4:00 p.m.-7:00 pan. •Increase traffic during prime school bus hours II. Noise-increase -Increase traffic will bring increase in noise from this intersection •removal of trees will increase noise •no berm or buffer for Highway 5 in plan -Increase volume of large delivery trucks daily on residential street. III. Public Safety- decrease safety -Traffic increase during peak/rush hour as commuters •rush to beat lights •rush to pick up and drop off at day care center • rush to buy gas, pick up convenience store items -Convenience stores are sites for robbery and introduce this element to our residential neighborhood. -Conveniece stores also encourages an influx of strangers in an area where children will be waiting for school buses. -These same children enjoy the security and safety in playing and living in a strictly residential neighborhood. v. t� . - � g e/z'd 3SNOdSal aO1O3 Wd80:60 S6, 0T mnr C c IV. Environment-adverse impact -Removal of mature oaks and maple trees -Underground storage of over 30,000 gallons of gasoline adjacent to protected wetland V.Property Values-decline -No buffer between residential and proposed commercial areas -Chain link fences visible from Cascade Drive -Two 20 foot pole signs -Large commercial canopy-this is a billboard -Access to proposed commercial only from residential area. -24-hour operation -Inconsistent with strict zoning(protective covenants)in residential Summer Oaks development. • Paint houses certain colors • No fences • No sheds •No development near wetland,we keep 30-40 feet wild and natural VI. Planning-Apparent lack of planning -Rezoning of parcel of land only after residential has built up on adjacent property. -Notice only one week before review. -Not all effected area residents were informed of these plans or this meeting. -Where in Eden Prairie is commercial accessed from residential? We are confident the planning commission will see the many problems this proposal brings to our neighborhood and will deny the conveniences store/gas station and day care center. Thank you for your consideration in the important issue. Sincerely, 4,tzLea moute.6.7A) Lowell and Maureen Herzberg 18009 Dakota Cirlce Eden Prairie,MN 55347 v. ep. - %9 E/E'd 3SNOdS3N e101OO Wd80:60 S6, eI nnf ( c July 10, 1995 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Planning Commission Members, As homeowners at 7954 Cimarron Lane,we are very concerned about the proposed commercial development for the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Dell Road. We believe the rezoning and building of two high traffic volume activities such as a convenience store/gas station and day care facility at this site sets an unfair precedent. Our specific concerns include the following: L Traffic increase -Introduction into existing residential neighborhood of two high volume traffic activities that add greatly to peak rush hour congestion. • Convenience store/gas station •Day care center -Access to commercial site only from residential road -Increase in peak rush hour traffic volume. Acceleration-deceleration lanes already congested during these times • 6:30 a.m:9:30 a.m. • 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. •Increase traffic during prime school bus hours lL Noise-increase -Increase traffic will bring increase in noise from this intersection •removal of trees will increase noise • no berm or buffer for Highway 5 in plan -Increase volume of large delivery trucks daily on residential street. III. Public Safety-decrease safety -Traffic increase during peak/rush hour as commuters •rush to beat lights •rush to pick up and drop off at day care center •rush to buy gas,pick up convenience store items -Convenience stores are sites for robbery and introduce this element to our residential neighborhood. -Conveniece stores also encourages an influx of strangers in an area where children will be waiting for school buses. -These same children enjoy the security and safety in playing and living in a strictly residential neighborhood. Q , - 9O S/2'd 3SHOdS36 d0100 WdZS:20 S6. 0t lac IV.Environment-adverse impact -Removal of mature oaks and maple trees -Underground storage of over 30,000 gallons of gasoline adjacent to protected wetland V.Property Values-decline -No buffer between residential and proposed commercial areas -Chain link fences visible from Cascade Drive -Two 20 foot pole signs -Large commercial canopy-this is a billboard -Access to proposed commercial only from residential area. -24-hour operation -Inconsistent with strict zoning(protective covenants)in residential Summer Oaks development. •Paint houses certain colors • No fences • No sheds • No development near wetland,we keep 30-40 feet wild and natural VI. Planning-Apparent lack of planning -Rezoning of parcel of land only after residential has built up on adjacent property. -Notice only one week before review. -Not all effected area residents were informed of these plans or this meeting. -Where in Eden Prairie is commercial accessed from residential? We are confident the planning commission will see the many problems this proposal brings to our neighborhood and will deny the conveniences store/gas station and day care center. Thank you for your consideration in the important issue. Sincerely, L.CLU„‘ iid/p0"0 Mike and Lori Derickson 7954 Cimarron Lane Eden Prairie,MN 55347 V. B . - 9/ 6/6•d 3SNOdS3Zl d0300 Wd2S:z0 S6, 0 i lnr MEMORANDUM TO: City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission FROM: Kathie Carr Luann Markgraf Dorothy & Dick Toepel Susan Winn DATE: July 10, 1995 RE: Proposed Development of SE Quadrant of Hwy. 5/Dell Rd. Intersection While progress is inevitable, please know that we strongly object to the inclusion of the Holiday Station/Convenience Store at the proposed development site in the southeast quadrant of the Hwy. 5 and Dell Road intersection. Our reasons for objecting to the inclusion of the Holiday station/store are as follows: • Increased traffic congestion in a residential area with small children, excluding the number of children attending the KinderCare Daycare Center. • Increased noise issues extending from a 24-hour convenience store atmosphere. • Potential for increased crime in our neighborhood; there won't be anything or anyone to stop the potential flow of criminal activities into the adjacent residential areas. • Potential environmental concerns (i.e. groundwater contamination from leaks in underground storage tanks). • Present saturation of area with gas station/convenience stores (i.e. The same type of station/stores are already located 1.4 miles east of the proposed site [SuperAmerica]; 1 gas station [Sinclair] located .7 miles west from this proposed site; and 3 gas stations/convenience stores located 1.1 miles west from this site [Holiday, Amoco, Total Mart]. • Lighting issues - although they are designed not to shine into the adjacent residential areas, they will be seen from several different angles and are unsightly. • Potential for depressed market value of homes in adjacent residential areas. V. - 9? While we support the KinderCare Daycare facility and tentatively support the retail and restaurant areas, we would appreciate more information on the types of retail stores and restaurant proposed for this development. We feel KinderCare Daycare Center will be very beneficial to the adjacent neighborhoods due to the number of small children in the area. Our reservations regarding the restaurant and retail stores in general are as follows: • Any kind of restaurant should not be allowed to obtain a liquor license (if this is proposed) and should have reasonable hours. (We've heard mention of a Brugger's Bagel Shop as a possibility for the restaurant and this would be acceptable to us - something like a Perkins restaurant would not be acceptable because of increased traffic and noise). • Again, we've heard mention of a video store and a dry cleaners as options for retail shops, We would like to reserve judgment on these until we have more information (i.e. an on-site dry cleaning store may have potential groundwater contamination problems, but an off-site dry cleaning store would be acceptable). • Has it been suggested that a small office building be constructed in place of the Holiday Station Store with regular business hours so as not to interfere with the adjacent neighborhoods? v. a. -93 To: Eden Prairie Planning Commission From: Mary E. McKinsey (resident of Cascade Drive) Re: Commercial development at Highway 5 and Dell Road This may be an exercise in futility; however, since I cannot attend the public hearing on this matter, I am writing to protest the commercial development proposed for the corner of Highway 5 and Dell Road. When I was considering moving to Eden Prairie, I was told it was a community that "put the interests of its residents first," a carefully planned community in which commercial development did not infringe on residential areas, a community that indeed valued every tree and would not allow trees to be destroyed. (In fact, the city of Eden Prairie even required the builder of my townhouse to move the front door to the side of the building to avoid having to cut down a few half-dead trees in the front of the building! ) I liked what I heard about Eden Prairie and, accordingly, bought property here. Unfortunately, these attractions apparently no longer exist in Eden Prairie. Many times I have heard the comment that Eden Prairie has become "a community of service stations and strip malls." And yet another of these eyesores is being planned for the lovely, natural area at Dell Road and Highway 5. This will require the destruction of 40% of the trees in this area--trees that Eden Prairie values so highly. As a further insult to residents, the access to this development is planned on Cascade Drive--a residen- tial street! To gain access to this proposed service station and strip mall, drivers on Highway 5 would have to turn off the highway on Dell Road, drive a long block to Cascade, turn left and then turn left again into the commercial area. It would seem highly improbable that many people would frequent the service station or other businesses in the development with such a difficult and awkward access. In addition, with four large, easily accessible service stations (Super America, Amoco, Sinclair and Mobil) within the radius of one mile, a service station in this location is not likely to be a successful business venture. In fact, it is impossible to imagine just what businesses would be successful in this location, since the two strip malls at County Road 4 and Highway 5 include all the convenience retail stores anyone would ever need. Chanhassen businesses and the Byerly mall are also easily accessible. It is doubtful, too, that the proposed restaurant in this development would be successful, since three fast-food restaurants, the Minnesota Steakhouse, Byerly' s restaurant and Chanhassen restaurants are all within 12 miles of this corner. m. Commercial develop{ it - 2 Another most important consideration regarding access to this development from Cascade is the traffic on this street. With the many Rottlund townhouses, the proliferation of single-family homes and the constant construction traffic in this area, Cascade is already a heavily traveled street, with many speeding drivers. Even a minimum amount of patronage of this proposed development would create more of as traffic hazard--with people having to turn left into the development whether they come from north or south on Dell Road. In fact, in the winter of ' 94- ' 95, a serious accident occurred at the corner of Cascade and Dell Road when a driver attempted a left turn onto Cascade from Dell. Considering all the obvious negative factors involving this proposed development and the resulting impact on residents in this area, it is inconceivable that this project--and certainly not an access on Cascade--should be approved. C1.-/p-L</ dii,,)9/,,e4L1/73/. <2.Ed.e.-/e9,0")7asic..)7- ce4007 cf2)-&-Ge "?.e. /4;2' -zt:-.4"- rzfi 7.93_V "(4 i(:1,41- t"?2 i- 7"-h ,4i4c#0417- ��' sr .2"c5rAtev2, e..:4&ECT /:5' - d�/ft!4 /eZ"rAiZ —cis .LT7 u o/) ,c ' � -4/ 71.ez.. Ar.€ I o0,40.ram Gs -r-/eAty CSC.-ESI 6,c 74 C1/7 /p ' - /);/* .M.a / /)70' z1612 /'-/Gcr i,o,a/l /W1- �.vr -- xiT C-2 Ci9�'7.t 'C '2U/, 1/ .,2 7 T ,1Cla� �r�l / g /��.C./7i oG p a T.<14. l/ /�o.Q-� .a-1 514 Ze. P-Ar-42e5r-4,0-1-6/APAR•sts75.95 Aelb /-o - eci/./tr / �T.B,�iC�/4-TIC /T' �iVl/C/3/rC'F� c GE'/'/ 2,() T/f/id L lJ T 7;144-G(1 O/J /n-t_./ /0-P.d i At"-, T .1326 4/./:e> — '- ' - d/7 -- -417 2 /Ze•STit s ii//.w,</ern o c/ o.t 6 '4(41. T • .at�", V' ,fP'Y,; r It ] Y.(?..�' y� : 1a, � July 10, 1995 L r 'E J, a,. � A 1 � " Eden Prairie Planning Commission i. y ;' a.� � T " �a-4,�,'. Eden Prairie City Hall r , j f ,_' � 8080 Mitchell Road �,.,,.. �.. ,h>` , • , • - ,. �� ' � Eden Prairie,MN 55344 "' 3¢qrt y*-`,Ite,"'y :Sx , ' :. . q ' Dear Planning Commission Membe ,kii -t �rf ' � 0 As homeowners at e(..' (J/` Li/I' I,we are very concerned about ;-"'c�1 . PI ,r 3,;,;h,.yu1 the proposed commercial development for the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Dell y rd , � i .x)x k Road. We believe the rezoning and building of two high traffic volume activities such as a , :'', " "'` r;Y h ,convenience store/gas station and daycare facilityat this site sets an unfair, cedent Our , , �, ,, ,��_ g pre o f a�k 4 �: �� r specific concerns include the following. ' , a .: Y";Y , ("'" ,I'sp ;# i r en , I Py,,3 u+ 1 2 ^ >5-+'ram i a r " , ;', '3' Traffic increase �' ►' r r,� }' �' �',, f, i ; . '. #` Introduction into existing residential neighborhood of two high volumet. d:' ., r ' ' ''` " traffic activities that add greatly to peak rush hour congestion. M,� y • Convenience store/gas station ,F 4� , k •Day care center � rhry},�. -Access to commercial site only from residential road kz':}' -Increase in peak rush hour traffic volume. Acceleration-deceleration lanes ,` „ ,;";,<; z,, already congested during these times �' ' `_ • 6:30 a.m:9:30 a.m. o` : °444 Y • 4.00 pm.-7:00 p.m. ,ate �' I�'` �' t ' } , ,f ; ti •Increase traffic during prime school bus hours 1 , ,, . ' . . r9 ,,,'...„..,,,,,-.tut,`,. ',�" • .tr ii `� .' t� �y - a, RJ; II. Noise-increase ru ,,`' -Increase traffic will bring increase in noise from this intersection .-/ •removal of trees will increase noise ��;�7 , • no berm or buffer for Highway 5 in plan s y -Increase volume of large delivery trucks daily on residential street. ,,; `,' r ' `'' 'III. Public Safety-decrease safety " -Traffic increase during peak/rush hour as commuters tiTy :, •rush to beat lights ,! :` ; t � . ;r' � •rush to pick up and drop off at day care center •rush to buy gas,pick up convenience store items " `A -Convenience stores are sites for robbery and introduce this element to our .'. residential neighborhood. -Conveniece stores also encourages an influx of strangers in an area where children will be waiting for school buses. °a ., ,x -These same children enjoy the security and safety in playing and living in a , strictly residential neighborhood. A .44 4{ t � ,` l S 4 �y i h}l 3 , i 085;:- # {{*}jr''' R Kid Pi¢ ? ?., • � y wR Y r TT .' ,7t . y,yy IV.Environment-adverse impact N� ti fi E i▪ � �rkary 1l' �: ;,` � r FR � 1�4': 11s"4.t,.. S ��S� �„ ti� t:� ,Y t' -Removal of mature oaks and maple trees r "; -• �'' ��,,, " ,�v., , � ;�-' -Underground storage of over 30,000 gallons of gasoline adjacent to �� " > ' ��' ��``;; " ;� ;t; ��,' protected wetland ;, a, • t, r '4 ha "�,' t• Ct § k• � n7 93 far „rJ Y Si �� b ` V.Property Values-decline " F=i Y, y ; '1 �Yr,; , -No buffer between residential andproposed commercial areas ,,;;.,. „;` ,, r '�/; ?;" `,f; }>r P; , -Chain link fences visible from Cascade Drive t��l ' ° " ' ' " ' -Two 20 foot pole signs :t a' ? 5 # v� �71E� t :�`t �' y !� �i{ »�I,) -Large commercial canopy-this is a billboard < t� y }, ,, q.,3S,, 1.ty- 1`i', • �rN l g H t a4 ..Tyy ! �a S 1 4' �,.r,, r " -Access to proposed commercial only from residential area. . .. t , r �,''i r �: 4 14_ '� .„ -24-hour operation t � r , '' r Inconsistent with strict zoning(protective covenants)in residential Summer { ' rrnl~<�fi t�`P" ".i a" rr � zoning(protective � y �ic'� � ^ ';;Y � � � " Oaks development. ; � " ; s tE • n; >;z,k9 = _. - -,.1--,;?4, < i Paint houses certain colors > • No fences • No sheds 4 • t • No development near wetland,we keep 30-40 feet wild and natural Rat 1 f .4 k.fl ` VI.Planning-Apparent lack of planning A" s ' -Rezoning of parcel of land only after residential has built up on adjacent :-`° - r property. -Notice only one week before review. ry , =.ly„4, ,,_,,, ,` ' . a{ -Not all effected area residents were informed of these laps or this meetin I ; ' i. ' r,;:,,a,1, . Yr`.'-Where in Eden Prairie is commercial accessed from residential? , ', " We are confident the planning commission will see the many problems this proposal brings to our neighborhood and will deny the conveniences store/gas station and day care center. Thank you for your consideration in the important issue. • ki i `; Sincerely, }, R x.f ... r( r J g � "+y'IBC 9 "� C ._._iY_ .'✓ 55°*"� HT NOW COME TOGETHER RIG OVER: PROPOSED DELL ROAD & HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER ._ T.• K s Planning Commission Meeting_ •• A meeting was held June 10, 1995. The agenda • J,,,k : c included proposals by Tandem Corporation i to rezone the Southeast corner of Hwy 5 and Dell • �II road to a commercial development. Plans include a 24-hour Holiday gas station, Kindercare, and var- 3:1 > ious shops (possibly a deli, coffee shop, video store, athelic supply store, etc.) The Planning Commission is an advisory board that pass no' recommendations on to the City Council. No de- � cisions were made. The commission requested I more statistics concerning the proposal---especially p R• _rit000 1041PW concerning the gas station. The next meeting is schedule for August 14th. As a community and a if . ^ • neighborhood we need to organize our support .. = to keep this area residental not commerical. 41eNi - - ( ci-41\ Neighborhood Meeting At Proposed 1II"% 1 Development Site Sunday, July 16th 4:00 p.m. Ls iln Where do we go from here? What can we do? What should happen next? l` Please help determine the future of YOUR neighborhood. t'4A.. Planning to attend this important meeting! Crilit I' • Questions99999 Important Facts: Call: Mike & Lori Derickson 934-0231 -Access from residential road 7954 Cimarron Lane -Increase traffic during rush hours -Safety of children in the area Lowell & Maureen Herzberg 934-8676 -30,000 gallons of gasoline stored 18009 Dakota Circle -Protected wetland nearby -Property values -Noise increase -36%loss of trees - .........c......‹ ........ , The Dell Newsletter Issue No.2 July 18,1995 • Neighborhood Unites 1 City Council An organizational meeting Commission and the City Members m was held at the proposed devel- Council. Please contact your city opment site at Cascade Drive and Volunteers will contact the council members with your con- Dell Road on Sunday, July 16th State of Minne- cerns. The next at 4 p.m. sota concerning ATTENTION!!! Planning Commis- Approximately 50 concerned access. The Min- Neighborhood sion Meeting is residents voiced opposition to nesota Eviron- Meeting August 14th at 7 the commerical development plan mental Quality Saturday p.m. at the Eden that includes a 24-hour Holiday Board will be no- July 22nd Prairie City Center gas station, 24-hour Perkins and tified that 30,000 10:00 a.m at 8080 Mitchell a Kindercare. gallons of gaso- on Road in the Coun- Theplanned accesses to this line will be buried cil Chambers. Cascade Drive high traffic commerical proposal within 500 feet of Please attend. are only on Cascade Drive, a a protected wet- strictly residential street. land area. Eden Dr.Jean Harris,Mayor Some major concerns of Prairie Police Department will be 10860 Forestview Circle these residents were increased asked to provide statics of all ac- Eden Prairie,MN 55347 traffic, safety of families and chil- cidents that have occurred at the 829-0285 dren with the operation of intersection of Cascade and Dell. 24-hour businesses, environ- Newsletters will be distrib- Ronald Case mental impact near a protected uted periodically to keep resi- 9237 LaRivia Ct. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 wetland, decreased property val- dents updated. 949-0915 . J�•opo1( •LWC P. y : ' ia5.,w Nancy Tyra-Lukens Sim I �� EDEN PRAIRIE 14695 Queens Trail ., _ . , . .14. NEWS Eden Prairie,MN 5547 --• .I r I ! Ai\ 937-1898 i iM •0 ���� Determine the future of your • ►����� 1 ' • tills �� neighborhood. Letyour voice be Patricia PidcockkRowatiad 8379 Red Rock Road If. a/ .� c , , • heard! Write a Letter to The Eden Prairie,MN 55347 �'`�,;i�11�! Editor at the Eden Prairie News 937-1959 �� IIIll''� office. Letters must be submitted 01 ,, •.u" ,. Ross Thorfinnson,Jr. ues, increased noise pollution. by Monday mornings at 10 a.m. 11852 Waterford Road The fax number is: 829-0917. Eden Prairie,MN 55347 Plan of Action Be sure to include your tele- 944-1589 Residents have volunteered phone number in case of to circulate petitions to be sub- questions. mitted to the City Planning U, O. - ID© The Dell Newsletter : Issue No.3 July 28,1995 City Planning Residents Rally Against Rezoning Commission . Members Southwest Eden Prairie 24-hour restaurant--.all with Members may only be residents who have agreed to access from Cascade Drive only. contacted through City Hall oppose rezoning Residents located at The City Center at of the Southeast . reported on 8080 Mitchell Road.The phone corner of Dell ATTENTION!!! environmental number is 849-8300. Road and Neighborhood issues. The Sierra Meeting These members are: Cascade Drive Club was Kenneth Clinton from rural to Wednesday contacted and will Aug. 2nd Randy Foote neighborhood help with the Ismail Ismail commercial met 7:00 p.m. distribution of Katherine Kardell at the proposed on information.The Edward Schlampp cite on July 22nd Cascade Drive Environmental Mary Jane Wissner to develop a Quality Board said positive plan of another evaluation Planning Commission action. of the area could be done. The meeting August 14th 7:00 p.m. Barbara Boyle was chosen as State Highway Commission was in the Council Chambers at facilitator for the group by more contacted concerning the access. The City Center. than 50 area residents in Wynfield residents are attendance. Barbara will concerned and have volunteered YOUR SUPPORT IS VITAL represent the neighborhood to circulate the newsletters and PLEASE ATTEND! group at City Planning other necessary information. Commission meetings, City An agenda for the 11 Council meetings and facilitate at neighborhood meeting on u::' f` ' . the proposed cite meetings. Rick Wednesday, Aug. 2nd at 7 p.m. b ti ► , w includes: �, ;' �0' : in theKoehler area,an hasattorney offeredho hisresides -Residents' information • ?'�' expertise when presenting the updates. ' `.. • development concerns before the -Strategy input 4 :. `...o:,;l�+ "",T"` !"�" ` -Emphasize that people need �� is�.��,.�"ei��i` ��';"'r�l�� city government. P P P :r�•,t � 1°!: ifiVjet. Two large signs were placed to attend the City Planning "' '`"" '44i , . • on Cascade across from the Commission meeting on proposed development. Bright August 14th. NOTE: Mary McKinsey's red arrows attract the attention -Plan strategies for August Letter to the Editor was printed of residents who may be unaware 14th meeting. in the Eden Prairie News on July this land is ear marked for a -Reports from contacts with 27. 24-hour gas station and a City Council members. Way to Go Mary!!! C C cc: Mr. George Townsend Mr, David Hoeschen Senior Vice President Holiday Station-Stores Holiday Station-Store Division P.O. Box 1224 4567 West 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55440 Minneapolis, MN 55437 Editor Michael Franzen Eden Prairie News City Planner - City of Eden Prairie 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 150 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairire, MN 55344 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Richard Putnam Tandem Properties 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 v. 6. - 1 o z.� DATE: ej5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA OCTOBER 17, 1995 Eden prairies SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. FINANCE DEPT. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI CHECKS NUMBER 35337 THRU 35712 Action/Direction: OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35337 CARVER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ACCT PAYROLL 9-15-95. 90.00 35338 CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY SOCIAL PAYROLL 9-15-95. 276.93 35339 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PAYROLL 9-15-95. 49.37 35340 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 9-15-95. 227.42 35341 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 9-15-95. 400.00 35342 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY PAYROLL 9-15-95. 9136.50 35343 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND COLLE PAYROLL 9-15-95. 240.46 35344 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND COLLE PAYROLL 9-15-95. 275.08 35345 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 9-15-95. 3659.26 35346 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE PAYROLL 9-15-95. 1251 .50 35347 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 9-15-95. 247.00 35348 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 9-15-95. 25.00 35349 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 9-15-95. 225.00 35350 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 9-15-95. 110.00 35351 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 9-15-95. 41694.49 35352 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 9-15-95. 157.75 35353 HEALTHPARTNERS PAYROLL DATE 9-29-95. 27183.55 35354 MEDICA CHOICE PAYROLL 9-15-95. 50463.05 35355 DOUGLAS ERNST UNIFORMS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 116.45 35356 KARI HESS SERVICE-GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTOR-FEES PAID. 175.00 35357 MILE TRAINING-POLICE DEPT. 195.00 35358 MINNESOTA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE REGISTRATION 8.50 RENEWAL-POLICE DEPT. 35359 THOMAS MONSON REFUND-STARING LAKE GROUP SITE. 80.00 35360 NORWOOD YOUNG AMERICA ENTERTAINMENT-OKTOBERFEST. 200.00 35361 REAL JUSTICE TRAINING-POLICE DEPT. 1175.00 35362 MARC THIELMAN TELEPHONE CHARGE REIMBURSEMENT. 26.01 35363 KLEHRS SUGAR BUSH ENTERTAINMENT-OKTOBERFEST. 300.00 35364 ARDEN AANESTAD SERVICE-INSTRUCTOR OUTDOOR CENTER. 40.00 35365 BELLBOY CORPORATION SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE I. 148.46 35366 TONY BRANDON REFUND-SOFTBALL CONDUCT FORFEIT FEE. 100.00 35367 CARD SERVICES CONFERENCE EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 2230.00 35368 HOLIDAY INN DOWNTOWN RESERVATIONS FOR OCTOBER 19-21 STATE FIRE 688.50 CHIEFS CONFERENCE THREE FIREFIGHTERS FOR THREE NIGHTS. 35369 NANCY KELLY REFUND-SOFTBALL CONDUCT FORFEIT FEE. 100.00 35370 RODERICK MACRAE SUPPLIES-ACTIVITY CAMP. 196.57 35371 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER S JULY 95 SAC CHARGES/AUGUST 95 SAC CHARGES. 184981 .50 35372 LORI MOSS SERVICE-INSTRUCTOR OUTDOOR CENTER. 50.00 35373 JASON-NORTHCO L P #1 OCTOBER 95 RENT-LIQUOR STORE I. 5197.00 35374 EMILY PARR SERVICE-DRAMA CAMP COUNSLOR. 225.00 35375 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC OCTOBER 95 RENT-LIQUOR STORE II. 5218.22 35376 E JOHN TROMBLEY SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 736.50 35377 MATTHEW BLAIR REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.00 35378 PATTY BOOSALIS REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING. 80.00 35379 MARY BETH CARLSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 35380 KATHERINE CASE REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING. 80.00 35381 JAN CRAINE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.00 35382 BARBARA KESSLER REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 26.98 35383 MICHELE KUBLER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.00 33813805 OCTOBER 17, 1995 1 . OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35384 NANCY LENZ REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.00 35385 SUZANNE MARSHALL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.00 35386 ANNE NYGUARD REFUND-LIFEGUARD/STANDARD FIRST AID/ ' 157.00 COMMUNITY CPR. 35387 CRYSTAL ROEMMICH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 35388 DEBBIR SINCLAIR REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 35389 LINDA SKINNER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.00 35390 ELAINE SMITH REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING. 80.00 35391 K TAKAHASHI REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 35392 AARON ZAVADSKY REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING. 80.00 35393 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A FEDERAL-SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE 98311 .57 WITHHOLDING PAYMENT PAYROLL 9-29-95. 35394 BELLBOY CORPORATION WINE. 185.75 35395 EAGLE WINE CO LIQUOR/WINE. 3143.88 35396 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR. 14461 .02 35397 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR. 16289.98 35398 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE. 1654.70 35399 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS LIQUOR/WINE. 11871 .88 35400 PRIOR WINE CO WINE. 3717.03 35401 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIQUOR/WINE/LIQUOR/WINE/LIQUOR. 4776.33 35402 VINTAGE ONE WINES WINE. 216.00 35403 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE. 214.50 35404 ARMA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE-CITY HALL. 20.00 35405 THOMAS BUCHNER SERVICE-QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE. 2000.00 35406 CARCO AUTO PARTS HEAD RECONSTRUCTION/SEAT INSTALL/PISTON 125.61 PINS/VALVE SEAT/VALVE SHIM-FLEET SERVICES. 35407 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 35408 UNITED PROPERTIES OCTOBER 95 RENT-LIQUOR STORE III. 6554.25 35409 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 6043.39 35410 WEST SUBURBAN COLUMBUS CREDIT UNI PAYROLL 9-29-95. 900.00 35411 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 35412 KAREN BOGENSCHUTZ REFUND-WATER SAFETY INSTRUCTOR AIDE CLASS. 35.00 35413 REBACCA AND JENNIFER CAMP REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 84.00 35414 CYNTHIA CHRISTENSON REFUND-SWIMMMING LESSONS. 3.00 35415 ROBERT EICKHOLT REFUND-ADULT GOLF LESSONS. 8.00 35416 CHANSAY EM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 42.00 35417 MARIKO FARAHANI REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 6.00 35418 CLAUDIA FASCHING REFUND-WATER SAFETY INSTRUCTOR AIDE CLASS. 35.00 35419 GAIL FITZPATRICK REFUND-DANCE CLASS. 2.50 35420 ALICE FRANK REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 9.00 35421 COURTNEY FREIMUTH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 38.25 35422 JIM HANSEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 35423 CINDY HORGAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.00 35424 BRYAN HARSTAD REFUND-CANOE TRIP. 20.00 35425 SCOTT HEYER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.00 35426 DAN HODORFF REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 34.50 35427 DEAN HYSTAD REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35428 VALERIE HYSTAD REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35429 DORIS JOHNSON REFUND-REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS. 2.00 35430 DAVID LEGAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 6.00 17136814 OCTOBER 17, 1995 2. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35431 RUTH MACKEY REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35432 BEN PARENT REFUND ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35433 DAVID PUELSON REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35434 NANCY SAWYER REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35435 GRACIA SUTERMEISTER REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35436 MARSHALL WALKER REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35437 DORIS AND ALVA WARNER REFUND-REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS. 4.00 35438 JOHN WHALEN REFUND-ROCK CLIMBING TRIP. 42.00 35439 MARLYS AND JAMES WILSON REFUND-TONY AND TINA'S WEDDING. 78.00 35440 FRANKLIN QUEST CONFERENCES-CITY HALL. 400.00 35441 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 35442 ALAN D GRAY MEETING EXPENSES/DUES-CITY HALL. 271 . 10 35443 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SECOND HALF 1995 PROPERTY TAX. 106322.63 35444 JEFFREY JOHNSON EMPLOYEE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT. 117. 15 35445 METROPOLITIAN AREA MGMT ASSOC MEMBERSHIP DUES-CITY COUNCIL. 25.00 35446 MRPA CONFERENCES-CITY HALL. 1195.00 35447 METRO TEAM TRAINING-FIRE DEPT. 40.00 35448 BETH NILSSON SERVICE-FALL SKATING LESSONS INSTRUCTOR- 8182. 13 FEES PAID. 35449 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE. 54295.99 35450 OLYMPIC ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT REPAIR. 181 .85 35451 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT. 46.64 35452 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND PLATES- 26.00 POLICE DEPT. 35453 STEVEN R SINELL CONFERENCE EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 1038.06 35454 SISINNI FOOD SERVICE MEETING EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 628.90 35455 CRAIG MULLEN REFUND CONDUCT FORFEIT FEE. 100.00 35456 BELLBOY CORPORATION BEER. 57.00 35457 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 9527.45 35458 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER. 18048.80 35459 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER/BOTTLES. 12137.90 35460 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX. 561 .75 35461 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY MIX. 231 .00 35462 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 21098. 10 35463 MIDWEST EXPO 95 CONFERENCE-LIQUOR STORES. 486.00 35464 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE/4322520. 1656.32 35465 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 35466 MARK HORNUNG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 63.00 35467 CAROL ROSENAUER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 15.00 35468 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING SENIOR PROGRAM-MATURE DRIVING CLASS. 256.00 35469 DEANS TANK OIL REMOVE AND DISPOSE COOLING TWR-EATON BLDG. 1675.00 35470 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY FILTERS/FITTINGS/HOSES/SOCKETS/LIGHTS/ 1897.31 PULLEYS/OIL FILTERS/BRACKETS/AIR FILTERS/ CLAMPS/FUSEHOLDS/SWITCHES/V BELT/TAILPIPE/ LENS/FLOORMAT/SEALER/CONSOLE/GAUGE/ MUFFLERS/TAIL LIGHT/U BOLT/MIRROR/AEROSOL/ BATTERY-FLEET SERVICES FILTER-PARK MAINTENANCE. 35471 ITS A KEEPER EMPLOYEE AWARDS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 314. 16 35472 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 69.85 24134109 OCTOBER 17, 1995 3. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35473 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE INSECT REPELLANT/TAPE/NIPPLES/STAPLES/ 216.56 FASTENERS/WIRE/SOCKET/STAIN/PAINTBRUSH/ CABLES/ROLLER/PLIER/CAULKGUN/CAULK/DRILL BIT/HOSES/GREASE/GREASE GUN-COMMUNITY CENTER-PARK MAINTENANCE. 35474 MUSIC THEATRE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLIES-SENIOR CENTER. 7.50 35475 NSP UNDERGROUND SERVICE-STORM WATER UTILITY 2504.00 FUND. 35476 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-DELL ROAD AND WEST 82ND ST 44590.25 IMPROVEMENT. 35477 BROWN AND CRIS INC SERVICE-MITCHELL ROAD/TECH DRIVE. 29093.03 35478 COLLISYS TRAFFIC SIGNALS-PRAIRIE CENTER DR AT 4299.90 TECHNOLOGY DR AND PLAZA DR. 35479 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP SERVICE-GOLDEN RIDGE DRIVE PROJECT/CITY 9251 .81 WEST PKWY EXT. 35480 ACCOUNTEMPS SERVICE-FINANCE DEPT. 1164.80 35481 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS SECURITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE 556. 18 STATION 5. 35482 AFFIRMED MEDICAL SERVICES INC FIRST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 134.06 35483 AIRLIFT DOORS INC REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 57.24 35484 ALL ABOUT BEER SUBCRIPTION-LIQUOR STORE III. 28.95 35485 ABF INC OFFICE EQUIPMENT-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 366.00 35486 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO SERVICE-LIQUOR STORES. 172.61 35487 AMERICAN PAGING OF MINNESOTA PAGING SERVICE-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT. 35.04 35488 AMERICAN RED CROSS SUPPLIES-POOL LESSONS. 785.00 35489 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET SIGNS/MINUTE MAN BRACKET/TUNNEL 4882.63 SLIDE/BOLT/RING/SWING CHAIN/TIRE/TEE NUT/ WOOD FIBRE/SCREWS/BRACKETTS. 35490 ANDERSONS GARDEN SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 47.60 35491 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING SERVICE-DISPOSAL OF WILDLIFE-ANIMAL 190.60 CONTROL DEPT. 35492 AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSOCIATION SUBCRIPTION-FINANCE DEPT. 87.75 35493 AQUA ENGINEERING INC SPRAYS/PIPES-STREET MAINTENANCE. 8.48 35494 ARMOR SECURITY INC ALARM MONITORING-PARK SHELTERS OUTDOOR 217.97 CENTER / KEYS SERVICE CALL COMMUNITY CENTER. 35495 ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY BEARING COVER/SPINNER/MOTOR/SNOWBLADE 7550.00 ASSY/BLADE/HARNESS-FLEET SERVICES. 35496 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 10.65 35497 DON ATKINS BALES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 62.50 35498 AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 198.23 35499 BARR ENGINEERING SERVICES-SUNNYBROOK RD WETLAND 299.50 DELINEATION. 35500 BAUER BUILT INC TIRES/STOCK-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 635.82 35501 BATCH BAKERS LLC REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT. 50.00 35502 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE 7579.99 FOR EDEN PRAIRIE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. 35503 BIFFS INC SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 200.26 35504 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN. 64804.40 35505 BOBS LAWN & LANDSCAPE MOWING SERVICE-STREET MAINTENANCE. 280.00 18036931 OCTOBER 17, 1995 4. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35506 LEE M BRANT SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 140.00 35507 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PKWY/PRESERVE BLVD/ 1483.38 DELL RD. 35508 MAXINE BRUECK MEETING EXPENSES/MILEAGE-FINANCE DEPT. 86.28 35509 BRW INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD CONSTRUCTION. 696.68 35510 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-STORM DRAINAGE DEPT. 113.64 35511 BSCAI SUBSCRIPTION-FACILITIES. 60.00 35512 STEVE BUETTNER SERVICE-SPEAKER OUTDOOR CENTER. 300.00 35513 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE SUBCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT. 137.28 35514 BETH MORLEY BURNETT SERVICE REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER. 107.25 35515 CALENDARS SUPPLIES-STREET MAINTENANCE. 10.70 35516 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CABLES-FLEET SERVICE / REPAIR-POLICE DEPT. 673. 11 35517 CASH REGISTER SERVICE AND SALES EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 458.00 35518 CBI NA-CON INC SERVICE-CITY PROJECT ELEVATED TANK. 29489.92 35519 CEDAR COMPUTER CENTER INC COMPUTER EQUIPMENT-FINANCE. 616.50 35520 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS CHAIN SAW-PARK MAINTENANCE. 31.95 35521 JIM CRISTY SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 70.00 35522 CENTRAIRE INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-UTILITIES/ 1770.80 FAMILY CENTER/EDEN PRAIRIE LIQUOR I/FIRE STATION I/FIRE SUNNYBROOK RD/FIRE STATION III/FIRE TECHNOLOGY DR/OUTDOOR CENTER. 35523 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORATION CONSTRUCTION TESTING-DELL ROAD. 188.47 35524 CLMI SUPPLIES SAFETY DEPT. 197.00 35525 CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING MICROFILMING SERVICE-CITY HALL. 935.24 35526 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC SOD STAPLES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 26.09 35527 CONVEYERS INC PLOW BELTING. 437.03 35528 COPIER CONSULTANTS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-UTILITIES. 312.00 35529 CORPORATE AUTO RENTALS TRANSPORATION-ADAPTIVE REC. 52.93 35530 COPY EQUIPMENT INC SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING. 57.51 35531 COTY CONSTRUCTION REHAB WORK-REROOFING. 2478.50 35532 CRYSTEEL DIST INC LITE BAR/TACH II-FLEET SERVICES. 10545.32 35533 DALCO HODE/DRAIN/GASKET/VALVE-CITY HALL. 59.64 35534 DANNYS MARKET SUPPLIES-OKTOBERFEST. 147.50 35535 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GLOVES/HELMETS/BOOTS/SUPPORT STRAP/ 2190.72 CHINSTRAPS/WRENCH/CHAIN AND CABLE BELT LOOPS-FIRE DEPT. 35536 DEM CON LANDFILL INC SEPT 95 WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE. 58.50 35537 DAN DESAULNIERS SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 267.00 35538 DORADUS CORPORATION SIREN MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT. 1122.00 35539 WES DUNSMORE MEETING EXPENSE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 15.00 35540 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIV SEPTEMBER PEST CONTROL-COMMUNITY CENTER. 90.53 35541 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEPTEMBER CHAMBER LUNCHEON. 47.00 35542 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 TRANSPORATION-RECREATION DEPT. 1392.20 35543 SANDRA M EHRICH MILEAGE-ADAPTIVE REC. 17.64 35544 EKLUNDS TREE & BRUSH DISPOSAL AUG 95 BRUSH DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT. 1785.00 35545 EUGEN R ELLEFSON SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 140.00 35546 ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS INC HAPPENINGS BOOKS-EMPLOYEES BOUGHT. 1140.00 35547 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES SERVICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. 5933.00 35548 CLARK ERICKSON SERVICE-INSTRUCTOR OUTDOOR CENTER. 75.00 35549 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION POSTAGE-POLICE DEPT/CITY HALL. 43.50 6599981 OCTOBER 17, 1995 5. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35550 FERRELLGAS PROPANE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 110.49 35551 FIBROCOM REDUNDANT PATH-POLICE DEPT. 398.99 35552 FISHER ENTERPRISES TOPSOIL-MILLER PARKAND RILEY PARK 468.61 IMPROVEMENTS. 35553 FLOYD SECURITY SECURITY AGREEMENT-LIQUOR STORE I AND III. 170.88 35554 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT/CANINE MAINTENANCE. 32.96 35555 FRANKLIN QUEST CO SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT. 87.60 35556 FUN LUNAR EMPIRE INC GAME RENTAL-OKTOBERFEST. 79.88 35557 GE CAPITAL MODULAR SPACE RENTAL-PRAIRIE VIEW BLDG. 614.54 35558 GENERAL MACHINING INC THREADED STUD-RECREATION DEPT. 42.07 35559 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 174.40 35560 GENERAL MUSIC INC YAMAHA KEYBOARD-COMMUNITY CENTER. 856.00 35561 GIRARDS BUSINESS MACHINES INC SUPPLIES-FINANCE DEPT. 198.00 35562 GLEN LAKE BAKERY SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 58.85 35563 GLENROSE FLORAL EMPLOYEE GIFT-HUMAN RESOURCES. 72.26 35564 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 35565 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE II. 7. 19 35566 GOLD COUNTRY INC UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT. 321 .69 35567 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-FLEET SERVICES. 3558.79 35568 W W GRAINGER INC STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE. 180.91 35569 GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES/4340. 48. 10 35570 HANCE COMPANIES FLASHER/SOLENOID/STOCK-FLEET SERVICES. 132.07 35571 HARMON GLASS COMPANY EQUIPMENT REPAIR-FLEET SERVICES/PARK 164.86 MAINTENANCE. 35572 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC SERVICE-COLUMBINE MEDCOM EXTENSIONS. 1245.41 35573 PETER J HARMS SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 119.00 35574 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 49.00 35575 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS TORRENS RECORDING-ENGINEERING DEPT. 80.00 35576 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE FOR SEPTEMBER 1995. 102.55 35577 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER AUGUST 95 ROOM AND BOARD - POLICE DEPT. 1380.75 35578 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF AUGUST 1995 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT. 399.83 35579 HOFFERS INC OIL-PARK MAINTENANCE. 32.30 35580 HOLOGRAPHIC LABEL CONVERTING INC SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 400.00 35581 HORIZON GRAPHICS INC COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER PRINTING-CITY CENTER. 5449. 96 35582 ICMA SUBCRIPTION-HUMAN RESOURCES. 100.00 35583 IFCI DUES-INSPECTION DEPT. 50.00 35584 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL INC SERVICE REPAIR FIRE DEPT GENERATORS-FLEET 1414.21 SERVICES. 35585 CRAIG JERVE SERVICE-ATTENDANT/HOST-FEES PAID. 125.00 35586 JET BLACK SEALCOATING OVERLAY PROJECT-STREET MAINTENANCE. 119.00 35587 REBECCA JOHNSON MILEAGE-FINANCE DEPT. 14.84 35588 TERRY KUCERA MILEAGE/SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY SERVICE. 29.29 35589 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR REPAIR DOORS-PUBLIC WORKS/FIRE DEPT. 571 .45 35590 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 35591 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 1989.64 35592 AAA LAMBERTS SUPPLIES-STREET MAINTENANCE. 21 .30 35593 LAMETTRYS COLLISION REPAIRS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 1009.99 35594 CYNTHIA LANDENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT. 62. 16 35595 LANO EQUIPMENT INC STARTER-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 260.93 35596 FRANK LAVALLE SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 210.00 2301575 OCTOBER 17, 1995 6. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35597 L MCI T 2ND QUARTERLY INSTALLMENT ON PREMIUM. 54203.50 35598 L MCI T INSURANCE CLAIM. 1328.29 35599 BILL LEMPESIS MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE II. 152.60 35600 DAVID LINDAHL MILEAGE-CITY HALL. 7.28 35601 JIM LINDGREN TRAINING EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT. 51 .57 35602 TAMMY LOFRANO TRAINING-COMMUNITY CENTER. 45.00 35603 JOHN LUNN MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE II. 65.52 35604 TRIA MANN MILEAGE-ADAPTIVE REC. 19.46 35605 MASYS CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-POLICE 1429.70 DEPT. 35606 MAXI-PRINT INC SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 178. 17 35607 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC MEETING EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT/RECREATION DEPT/ 148.48 PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE DEPT. 35608 MCNEILUS STEEL INC SUPPLIES-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 654.43 35609 METRO RESOURCES UNLIMITED SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 88.00 35610 METRO SALES INC SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 285.48 35611 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER S WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR NOVEMBER 1995. 163987.00 35612 MID-AMERICA POWER DRIVES STEEL FLOW CONTROL-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 81. 15 35613 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP ASPHALT/CONCRETE-STREET MAINTENANCE- 3091 .21 UTILITIES. 35614 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT. 865. 11 35615 MIDWEST RINO LININGS BOX LINER-FLEET SERVICES. 511 .93 35616 HERMAN.MILLER INC FURNITURE-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 29.40 35617 MINNCOMM PAGING 0 PAGING SERVICE-UTILITIES. 58.04 35618 MINNEAPOLIS CRISIS NURSERY SERVICES FOR 7-1-95 THRU 9-30-95. 750.00 35619 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT. 733.75 35620 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 271 .48 35621 MN DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASTE PESTICIDE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE. 184.00 35622 MINNESOTA INSTITUTE LEGAL EDUCATI CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT. 195.00 35623 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT. 145.00 35624 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER AUGUST 95 BUILDING SURCHARGES. 6261 .36 35625 MINNESOTA SUPPLY CO EQUIPMENT REPAIR-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 257.76 35626 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 308.80 35627 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERA SERVICE. - 486.79 35628 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO MUFFLER/WHEEL RIM/HOSE-FLEET SERVICES. 381 .76 35629 MENARDS TREATED PLYWOOD/COUPLINGS/POLYESTER/PAINT/ 156.85 SHELF SUPPORTS/UTILITY HOLDER/TWINE/ WASHERS/BELTS/CARBOLT-PARK MAINTENANCE/ UTILITIES/COMMUNITY CENTER/FACILITIES/ STREET MAINTENANCE. 35630 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIAT TRAINING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEFT. 278.25 35631 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB CONCESSION SUPPLIES-MERCH FOR RESALE- 242.09 COMMUNITY CENTER. 35632 G NEIL SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 50.78 35633 WILLIAM T NEWELL SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 665.00 35634 NORTH COAST MEDICAL SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT. 187.85 35635 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 146.08 35636 NORTH STAR ICE SUPPLIES LIQUOR STORES. 912.90 35637 TODD OLNESS SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 589.00 35638 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC REPAIRS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 131 .30 24061712 OCTOBER 17, 1995 7. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35639 RON OTTERNESS INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES-OUTDOOR CENTER. 40.00 35640 PAPER WAREHOUSE INC SUPPLIES-ACTIVITY CAMP. 9.80 35641 PARAGON CABLE MPLS CABLE SERVICE-CITY HALL. 65.41 35642 PARK AND GROUND MANAGEMENT SUBCRIPTION-PARK MAINTENANCE. 34.00 35643 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER TESTING-FIRE DEPT. 4879.00 35644 CONNIE PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 28.84 35645 PHONES PLUS HEADSETS SUPPLIES-FINANCE DEPT. 288.62 35646 PAPCO SUPPLIES-FIRE STATION 1 . 3.48 35647 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 490.65 35648 KATHLEEN PORTA MILEAGE-CITY HALL. 33.04 35649 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC SERVICE-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER. 1030.68 35650 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN FUEL PIPE/SPOOL/REBUILD KIT/SHOP SUPPLIES/ 100.02 SCREWS/NUTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 35651 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC SERVICE-POLICE DEPT. 75.00 35652 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE FOR OCTOBER. 475.81 35653 RADIO SHACK SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 5.51 35654 LEE RAY SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 1093.75 35655 RESPOND SYSTEMS SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT. 50.48 35656 THE RETAIL MARKETING GROUP ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 50.00 35657 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC SERVICE-WATER TWR PROJECT/CITY WEST 12922.27 PARKWAY/GOLDEN RIDGE RD CONSTRUCTION/ SUNNYBROOK RD DESIGN. 35658 RIGID HITCH INCORP TOUGH STEP/CAB ORGANIZER/TOOL BOX/RUNNING 1389.46 BOARDS-FLEET SERVICES. 35659 RITZ CAMERA FILM AND FILM PROCESSING-CITY HALL/ 126.03 FORESTRY DEPT. 35660 ROGERS SERVICE REPAIRS-FLEET SERVICES. 200. 13 35661 ST CLOUD RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 69.66 35662 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO SUPPLIES-SENIOR CENTER/ADAPTIVE REC. 68. 13 35663 ST JOSEPHS EQUIPMENT COMPANY BELT/KNIFE EXT/CARBERATOR-FLEET SERVICES/ 502.54 PARK MAINTENANCE. 35664 SANCO INC BATHROOM TISSUE/BRUTE/HAND PADS/POLY BAGS/ 781 . 18 CONCRETE CLEANER/UTILITY CART/TRUCK WASH BRUSH/FLOOR CLEANER/TILE CLEANER/DINFCNT/ CITY HALL-COMMUNITY CENTER. 35665 TOM SCHMIETZ CONFERENCE EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 140.61 35666 DON SCHWARTZ SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 520.50 35667 STEVEN R SINELL MEETING EXPENSE-ASSESSING DEPT. 32.00 35668 SISINNI FOOD SERVICE MEETING EXPENSE-CITY HALL/SAFETY DEPT. 1289. 13 35669 ERIC SIT SERVICE-TAE KWON DO INSTRUCTOR. 571 .20 35670 W GORDON SMITH CO SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 46.00 35671 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION BALL BEARING/SLIDE/BLADES/WRENCH-FLEET 87.65 SERVICES. 35672 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS ADS-CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN-STORM WATER 133.75 UTILITY/RETROFIT SPRINKLER. 35673 SOUTHDALE YMCA 3RD QRT 1995 SERVICE-SOUTHDALE YMCA 6250.00 DETACHED WORK PROGRAM. 35674 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSI FORTH QRT OPERATING BUDGET-CITY COUNCIL. 6306.66 35675 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL ADVERTISING-CITY HALL. 852.88 35676 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 117.30 4116117 OCTOBER 17, 1995 8. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35677 THE SPECTACLE SHOPPE INC SAFETY GLASSES-FIRE DEPT. 283.60 35678 STANDARD REGISTER OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE DEPT. 66. 11 35679 STAR TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER FOR RESALE-LIQUOR STORE III. 32. 12 35680 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ BALLISTIC VESTS-POLICE DEPT. 1550.42 35681 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 223. 10 35682 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC SERVICE-SCENIC HEIGHTS RD/DELL RD SOUTH/ 8968.80 DELL RD/SERVICE-SCENIC HEIGHTS RD/DELL RD SOUTH/DELL RD. 35683 SUPERIOR ENGRAVING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE III. 81 .38 35684 SUNSET PRINTING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 899.42 35685 NATALIE SWAGGERT MEETING EXPENSES/SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES. 40.42 35686 THIRTY THREE MINUTE PHOTO FILM/FILM DEVELOPING-FIRE DEPT/ASSESSING 308.55 DEPT/PARKS DEPT/POLICE DEPT. 35687 THOMPSON PUBLISHING PUBLICATION-CITY HALL. 301 . 50 35688 TIE SYSTEMS INC OF MN SERVICE-POLICE DEPT. 152.00 35689 KEVIN TIMM SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 455.00 35690 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY HELIUM AND BALLOON FILLER RENTAL- 93.95 RECREATION DEPT. 35691 TOTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL-SENIOR CENTER. 248.38 35692 TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN-MTKA LAWN MAINTENANCE-SENIOR CENTER/FIRE 472.33 STATIONS. 35693 TURF SUPPLY COMPANY GRASS SEED-PARK MAINTENANCE. 3719.72 35694 TURNQUIST PAPER COMPANY SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 786.93 35695 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC NUTS/WASHERS/HINGES-PARK MAINTENANCE/ 161. 89 STREET MAINTENANCE. 35696 US CAVALRY UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT. 26.00 35697 VIDEO SERVICE OF AMERICA SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 250. 13 35698 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 50. 10 35699 WACONIA MARINIA AND YACHT CLUB IN EQUIPMENT RENTAL-PARK MAINTENANCE. 191 .70 35700 WAHLS ENTERPRISES AERAVATOR TINES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 463.28 35701 WARD DIESEL FILTER SYSTEMS DIESEL FILTRATION SYSTEM. 9663.00 35702 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE OCTOBER WASTE DISPOSAL-LIQUOR STORE I. 91 .96 35703 WATERPRO SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE/UTILITIES. 1693.00 35704 WATER SPECIALITYS CHLORINE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 161 . 13 35705 TODD G WEISE SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 577.50 35706 JOEL P WESTERBERG SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 105.00 35707 WORDPERFECT DISK OF THE MONTH SUBCRIPTION-FINANCE DEPT. 79.95 35708 THE WORK CONNECTION SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 1595.52 35709 X IMAGE PHOTO IMAGING SYSTEM-POLICE DEPT. 9161 .60 35710 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE/ 310.72 COMMUNITY CENTER. 35711 ZIEGLER INC CORES/COMPRESSOR/DRYER/BINARY SWITCH/HOSE/ 228.83 COUPLING-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 35712 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 33236 VOID OUT CHECK 25.00- 34426 VOID OUT CHECK 100.00- 34463 VOID OUT CHECK 1000.00- 34554 VOID OUT CHECK 30.00- 34638 VOID OUT CHECK 52.00- 34778 VOID OUT CHECK 181 .85- 4210619 OCTOBER 17, 1995 9. OCTOBER 17, 1995 VI 35028 VOID OUT CHECK 21 .00- 35093 VOID OUT CHECK 339.00- 35107 VOID OUT CHECK 1764.93- 35177 VOID OUT CHECK 3649.72- 35187 VOID OUT CHECK 106322.64- 35204 VOID OUT CHECK 167.25- 35232 VOID OUT CHECK 225.48- 35240 VOID OUT CHECK 6519.78- 35258 VOID OUT CHECK 691 .45- 35275 VOID OUT CHECK 613.22- 34514 VOID OUT CHECK 100.00- 35441 VOID OUT CHECK 42. 10- -12041447 $1223702. 16 OCTOBER 17, 1995 10. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Petitions, Request and Communications 10-17-95 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development Steve Durham, through Variance Request #95-28 A Mike Franzen RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Deny the request to place an accessory structure at the lot line and over a utility easement. BRIEF HISTORY: On August 7, 1995 the Community Development Office received a concern related to a shed being built too close to a side lot line at 18554 Tristram Way. City Hall action included sending a letter to Mr. Hall notifying him of the required 10' side and rear yard setback for accessory structures. On August 8, 1995 Mr. Hall called City Center and spoke with Steve Durham. Mr. Hall stated he talked to "someone" at City Hall and they told him of the 10' "easement" or setback for accessory structures. He recalls they also indicated to him that he could build closer to the lot line at his own risk. Mr. Hall also stated Engineering informed him there were no utilities in the easement. Mr. Hall indicated a poor neighbor relationship with the Metzgers who he believed voiced the complaint. Prior to the variance process, Southwest Mediation Service was suggested to Mr. Hall and Mrs. Metzger. This process was not pursued. Prior to the meeting staff identified that an 8" sanitary sewer line exists within the 10' drainage and utility easement. The Engineering Department recommended no building or placement of a shed in this easement. The Board reviewed the variance request on September 14, 1995. The request was denied with a 5-1 vote. VTIT A . - Petitions, Request and Communications Variance Request #95-28 Page 2 SUPPORTING INFORMATION: • Petition requesting Council review from applicant dated September 28, 1995. • Board of Adjustment and Appeals Staff Report of September 14, 1995. • Unapproved minute of the September 14, 1995 Board of Appeals and Adjustments • Letter in opposition to the variance request dated September 13, 1995. • Original letter from the applicant to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals dated September 1, 1995. barb\steve\hall.cr2 2 2 September 28, 1995 TO: Eden Prairie City Council Dear City Council: I respectfully request that you review the Final Order issued by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated September 14, 1995, Variance Request #95-28. I am of the understanding that the Board has the authority to grant the requested variance. At the Board meeting itself, it became apparent to me that the Board does not, in fact, believe that it has the authority to grant the variance. The Board told me that "economics" cannot form the basis of granting a variance. That being the case, I cannot imagine a circumstance where the Board would grant a variance for an accessory structure. No matter what the terrain of the yard, or the number of trees, or other obstacles, with enough money, an "appropriate" place for the accessory structure could be constructed outside of the setback. I am hoping that the City Council will review the "Final Order" and bring some common sense to this situation. In this respect, please consider the following: 1) The logical and desirable place for a utility shed/accessory structure is in the back of a yard, or in the back corner of the yard; 2) The reason for the setback is to allow access to utilities; yet I am of the understanding that I could build a 6' high retaining wall with concrete blocks within the setback, and not be in violation of the ordinance, since "fences" are allowed within the setback; 3) The Board expressed concern over "setting a precedent", yet there are dozens of accessory structures throughout Eden Prairie that are built within the setback; 4) The City of Eden Prairie only enforces the ordinance for accessory structure setback only when a complaint is received. The City itself does not take any active enforcement of the ordinance; it only reacts to the complaints it receives. If there is no complaint, the City looks the other way; 5) Before I began this project, I checked with the City to see Vffr,, A - 3 September 28, 1994 page 2 whether or not a building permit was required. I was told that no building permit was required, if the accessory structure was less than 120 square feet. I was also told that I could build the shed in the easement (the word "setback" was not used at that time) , as long as I understood that I must not disturb the natural drainage of the yard and that I must move the shed, if the City needed access to utilities. Since I was agreeable to both of these conditions, and since I could see many other sheds similarly situated throughout Eden Prairie, I proceeded with the construction of my shed; 6) Three weeks after I began the project, and after I had spent many hours leveling the land and providing for the natural drainage to remain undisturbed, I received a letter from Steve Durham, telling me that I could not build my shed there because a neighbor had complained. When I talked to Steve on the phone, he confirmed for me that the City did not actively pursue the enforcement of the ordinance, but rather, only responded to complaints. I then discussed the situation with Carl Julie, and was directed to the Board for approval of the variance. Frankly, I think it somewhat ridiculous that this matter should occupy the attention of the City Council. I also think it somewhat ridiculous that the City becomes the instrument whereby one neighbor can give another a hard time. I am mindful that there are proper procedures to be followed, and that I have followed them, and the Board has issued its decision. With regard to the dozens of other sheds that are within the setback throughout Eden Prairie, I am told that is just one of those things, and that uneven enforcement is really not an issue. PLEASE: all I want to do is build an 8' X 12' shed in the corner of my yard. I do not think the world is going to end if I am allowed to build it where I want. If the City thinks that the ordinance must be enforced against me, then I have no choice but to formally complain about each and every other shed that I believe violates the setback ordinance. I will be submitting a preliminary list to Steve Durham for enforcement within the week. I would much rather just build my shed in the corner of my lot. But in this case, and under all these. circumstances, I am not going to allow myself to be singled out for uneven enforcement. I invite the City Council to review my submission to the Board, along with the enclosed pictures. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. VTR' i\ - - VARIANCE #95-28 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS FINAL ORDER RE: Petition of Mark C. Hall and Debora M. Garvey ADDRESS: 18554 Tristram Way OTHER DESCRIPTION: VARIANCE REQUEST: To permit an 8' x 12' accessory structure 0' from the northeast lot line and 0' from the northwest lot line (rear). City Code requires a 10' setback. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (Yes X No ) . 2 . There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and Platting Code. 3 . Variance Request #95-28 is herein Granted N/A , Denied X 4 . Conditions to the granting N/A , denial N/A , of said variance are as follows : 5 . A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 6 . This order shall be effective September 14, 1995; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one ( 1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 7 . All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS N/A = Not Applicable BY: u Ltd DATED: September 14, 1995 BARBVEAN\BOAV 09528 Y A - 5- ,44 t. • . ilif {* i.. r I. _: -"1..4 1 -f„ - R` // I . 9 ,s e.,.,,. ! q 1 r t . . .. 0, a �* . . ti ' ` •ti r I A • I �r l .c o. ' ^�. '1 '^ '.way r-. ...r,— - t . ,,,,,f,:•-'-ir,'':,,,,,,, ,„._,...„„_,: .:, r` .4,..,„,... , „, 6,. . t t' . , .,..f,... 4,•-•,4 ,,,- 0 • .,• . ., .. . , -,., 14 - ,1- rpA /F� 4:, . • ` _ Gnu 7 v of Y� flll! h ..,-fir I ° mClIt•, • _ . of -• i w f • r r . 1- �� i ..) ',.r.....'''''-'V'i r" .'""" - -,•' .t.''' ',.:. 1 44.-." .' .' ..-:-.Y 2, ". ...- "P7- ' . ' en'.. ''''' _ . . . ,,,,,:-..4 44/&• ., ° L„ • ..• --.4-- -- ' **. ' it,' .-,-;f- 4 .4; 1"1.'-41.'-- 4 •-- airdevorb - w,,,I 'I''.:,-.'-.--- '''' ' '''' ",,..' mi-t: '',.ihr...ts •,•'-.47.- , , , ..‘ ' ''. . 1:- •','. li :=-...."-- '.1.!'',..c'' R I . , - - ' ,f;".. ' -..,, . ....„„..,t,!....., :',1 • . . . .....,,— • 2..'.:"4v,'W ' i • t. , ''.-- ..,,,r_ 1 .. ,- ,,A*.il P...-',;''' , I,f . . I C 4S1L.. I • ---- ' _. - '"- -.• i.' . , • , - ---r—''fr' ''- ''`'''4-•''''• , . . . -... '..r.t ;1'"',..4"'''.. ''''-' . . ,• • - • ....„-A-.4.,..--..% . , _.. — _ „_..... ... .. .... ... • , . . — • -. . . . .. . .. ,.. .. _ .., , . ... . -. , . . .• , . • . • ... . . , . . . • - . , .. ..,. . SW ' Irff • . : • 1111. - i -._ 1111 • ..... ....24 --,-,..,.' •'''-;:-.--'-..-. -;... ,'; ' ‘'; ‘;„, : .r..v7:.'"' ',-7- -,•:, u. v.. - ......,..ili... .... • ,•, '--ill. . -, : .--....-7,' ....' ' •'14 . .. --.r- •.. -4,4::-.., ....011,10,t-t.4.. .. , . ,,,, , ..... ;,,y.„ ...„,.....,...„.- ...,..,,,.. :.k,...„...... , ,. If* I / alik, i 14 -,.445,",hs ;' *.%&-AsAtm, .••••::.. ' --4---0=- i v-cllock-7. .,, ...... z.,..... ‘ #' 4'."''''.'''''t.'' "V" ..:t. ' sr le 1111V4`."'. '- ...".. ..o. / 'l 'Xr-A.,• ...oi 44.:: •j'A t'., '1 . 4-,r.4 14e/i.,4W k'.V.11V;'1,, ',C:- •4;',.;4.*"!..c:.4/,':::14A.*".. , ,r.frfor, 7.,:- . ..vil• • ',- ' . ‘ ,% ,„,..........—,-- „. •,„, vs,.,„ • 7. , ' l i,.,' . ..'47('IV ??.-4.,-,,I• „Ai-, f -' .'4, ,,.. ,.-..4q1/4q '' 14'74 fl Tri'q \1M14. PC Ci I L .,... _ { F ' , jcP- ! .r I,-1,�, w.z- J yy .l_..t i.4r= t' s.. ^'� ' ,,4r'j i<4 j .� c J•r y. � f ice•,' w ti/ 'jF-�/ .I, . 1.. '' t;- "t'qs :. ash- - 1 _ - 1 te ' A �.. , t 3.�..- .. . ar Y >a fr �� � t _ sti•"z �,t i y ,.� �F s't +4 r - Y ' f ire , •J 3 .1 i c'y- • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 949-8485 STAFF REPORT VARIANCE #:95-28 MEETING DATE:September 14. 1995 APPLICANT:Mark Hall and Debora Garvey LOCATION:18554 Tristram Way REQUEST: To permit an 8' x 12' accessory structure 0' from the northeast lot line (side) and 0' from the northwest lot line frear). City Code requires a 10' setback. ZONING DISTRICT: R1-13.5 AREA CHARACTER: The property under variance consideration was platted and zoned R1-13.5 in 1984. The surrounding neighborhood is zoned R1-13.5. The accessory structure setback in this district is 10' from any side or rear lot line. This setback is consistent with the minimum side yard setback for a home within in the R1- 13.5 district. LOT CHARACTERISTICS: The lot is bounded on the northeast lot line by a 10' drainage and utility easement. This is the location of an 8" sanitary sewer line. Six foot drainage and utility easements are located on the rear lot line and southwest lot line. The lot slopes from the northwest (905' elevation) to the southeast (892' elevation.) APPLICANT'S STATED HARDSHIP: The applicant's identified hardship is two fold. The first hardship the applicant has identified is the contour of lot not being conducive to placement of the shed 10' from the side lot or rear lot line. The second hardship the applicant has identified is the location of existing landscaping which he has planted. Location of the shed in locations other than proposed site would require movement of existing plant material/landscaped area. ENGINEERING REPORT: The Engineering Department has reviewed the request and recommends a 10' side yard setback outside of the drainage and utility easement. Should the Board grant a variance the applicant should be aware that the City would not be responsible for removal or replacement of the utility shed should work need to be completed in the drainage and utility easement. Van R - 10 MAINTENANCE OF SHED: A zero lot line setback would require entering neighboring properties for maintenance of the shed. This issue of maintenance should be questioned at the meeting. OPTIONS: 1. Placement of the structure at a distance greater than 0' from the side and rear lot line but less than 10'. 2. Placement of the shed 10' from the lot line with location in an area of least disturbance to landscaped area. ACTION: The Board may wish to choose from one of the following actions: 1. Approve Variance Request #95-28 as submitted identifying a hardship and list of conditions. 2. Approve Variance Request #95-28 with an amendment to the request. Identification of the hardship and conditions. 3. Deny Variance Request #95-28 identifying no hardship has been ll substantiated. 9ANHUEi N Uitel3RlJWS28ad 77-M' UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: ARTHUR WEEKS, (CHAIR) ; CLIFF DUNHAM, DELAVAN DYE, MATTHEW HANSEN, CORRINE LYNCH, KATHY NELSON, MARY VASALY STAFF PRESENT: STEVE DURHAM, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; ELINDA BAHLEY, RECORDING SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: DELAVAN DYE CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Dye was absent; all other members present. Lynch arrived at 7 :40 P.M. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II. MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 1995 MEETING MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of August 10, 1995 as published. Hansen seconded the motion and it passed 4-0-1 with one abstention by Vasaly. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Reauest #95-28 by Mark C. Hall and Debora M. Garvey for 18554 Tristram Way to permit an 8' x 12' accessory structure 0' from the northeast lot line and 0' from the northwest lot line. Mark Hall, residing at 18554 Tristram Way, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that the 1 ►2- Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14 , 1995 letter he submitted included incomplete information indicating that there are no utilities along the side lot line where the accessory structure is proposed. It is his understanding that there is a sewer line that runs along the common lot line. He noted that he and his wife moved to Eden Prairie in 1989 and have added a great deal of landscaping to their property. They do things that have curb appeal and are pleasing to their neighbors. He talked with the City and he understood that you don' t need a building permit if the accessory structure is less than 120 square feet. He also talked with Community Development and was told he can build on an easement with the understanding that you do it at your own risk. If the City needs access to it, you have to move i t. He spoke to a landscape architect, a carpenter and a master plumber for advice. He bought a prefabricated kit for an 8' x 12' shed. The paint is going to match the colors of his house, and will be durable and aesthetically pleasing. They decided that the shed will be put down on concrete pads and put down on cinder blocks for durability. The idea was to bring the shed up off the yard so the pre-treated lumber would not be on wet soil. They designed a PVC system underneath for the natural flow and contours of the water. He worked on this for three weekends and then the complaint from his neighbor came. On one corner there is a green ash tree and a couple of pine trees . The land falls away at that corner. There is a level pad in the corner. The yard falls away in either direction. If the variance is not granted, the hardship of that would be that there would be a great deal of leveling the land, and it would require a double or triple row of cinder blocks . In addition to that, he would have to pull up the concrete pads and move it over. If the variance isn' t granted, the green ash tree would have to be moved because a shed would not be able to be put back in that location. The contours of the yard are such that it's the natural spot for the shed to be put. If there is no variance granted, the shed is going to be closer to his house and more noticeable from his house. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 Durham noted that he discussed this with the Engineering Department. They recommend the shed not be in the 10' utility easement, but the Board does have the authority to grant the variance including placement of the shed in the utility easement. Staff received one letter from Harold and Patricia Metzger who object to the variance for reasons indicated in the letter dated September 13, 1995. Durham reviewed the contents of the staff report dated September 14, 1995 including the recommendation of the Engineering report and maintenance of the shed. Weeks was concerned about whether you can landscape on the utilities easement. Durham replied staff suggests that plant material be placed outside utility easements . Dunham expressed concern about the exact location of the sewer lines and how deep it is. Durham replied that it runs down the center of the lot line between lots 25 and 24 . Matthew Hanson indicated the line is 8+ feet below the surface based on the cross section. Lynch asked if any consideration was given to putting the shed right at the back of the garage. Hall replied that they have a patio area with a permanent gas grill, and a room addition back there. Nelson asked if the garage is extra small that they need additional storage. Hall replied that it' s a standard two car garage. Their first choice would have been to add a garage stall, but because of the setback and the width of their yard, that made it impossible. Dunham was concerned about other possible locations on the property for the shed. Hall indicated that he looked around the entire yard, and he saw this as the most practical spot. It is physically possible to build this shed a little further down, a little further in, but the yard falls away more rapidly as you go down closer to the house. This is where they want to store the lawn mower and the snow blower. These are items they want tucked away out of sight. Dunham said he noticed extensive landscaping and retaining walls out front on the side. He asked if something like that could be incorporated into the 3 A) R - k A Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14 , 1995 landscape plan to accommodate this shed. Hall replied that he does not think there' s a spot further on down where the retaining walls are that would accommodate this particular 8' x 12' shed. Retaining walls are very expensive, and this would entail moving dirt around and getting a bobcat. The shed costs $600 and this would then add another $1000 . The cost of it is not worth doing. Dunham stated that he feels the Metzger' s concerns are very valid and he agrees with them. He agrees with them in terms of location and he was concerned about the shed blocking some of the light and grass on the neighbor' s side. Vasaly said that it is unfortunate that the work has already been started, but does not feel it' s a good precedent to grant the variance based on a mistake. She feels there are other locations in the yard. She hates to see a tree lost, but neighbors rely on those easements. The problems with neighbors gives more weight than for the loss of a tree. Hall indicated that he personally counted 47 such accessory sheds on the back or side lot line for other houses in Eden Prairie. He is sure that only a small percentage of them went through the variance presentation like he is. He noted that the only reason he is here is because of the Metzger' s complaint. Nelson stated that lawn mowers and snow blowers are typically kept inside a garage, and that' s what makes this request so unaccommodating. Hall noted that they have a couple of cars and a portable icehouse which folds up. They put this in the garage and each time they open the car door, it' s bumping into that. Because of the way he maintains his property, he also has a large number of lawn tools, rakes, shovels and fertilizer. It' s a matter of convenience that lead them to clearing up the clutter in the garage. To rent off- site storage would cost about $90 a month. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 Nelson suggested putting the shed on a flatter spot with a little more view to his house but within city code. Hall replied that there is a flat spot at the bottom of the hill, but it would be within 10 feet of the windows of his house blocking his own view. This would also require the removal of three trees . Nelson commented that they are young trees and can still be in the moving stage. Hall replied that digging up those trees in the second year is a risk. Hansen asked what the shed will look like. Hall replied that it' s a wooden shed with plywood sides . It' s 8' x 12' rectangle, and the roof has a two inch overhang. Weeks suggested placing the shed to the side of the room addition within the flat area because there would only have to be one tree removed. Hall replied that there is already an existing patio there and each time they entertain on their patio, they would be looking at the shed. weeks commented that there are some other solutions that have not been explored. He has a problem with this request because everything he is hearing is based on economic reasons in terms of the hardship. Except for very unusual circumstances, as a Board, they can not justify a variance based only on an economic hardship. Zero setback could be a precedent. Hall noted that there is an aesthetic aspect here. By putting the shed on the flat spot in the middle of the yard right near the windows is contradicting everything they have done in their yard to make it a beautiful place to live. Weeks indicated that they can put it in the northeast corner if they relocate the ash tree that' s located there. They can still meet the ordinance and provide a 10 foot setback. Hall noted that they have not just moved in the house and not done anything to it, like their neighbor who added only one tree in five years . They have added a great deal of beauty and a great deal of landscaping to the back and front yard. It' s not only pleasing to them, but 5 V IT - I� Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 it' s also pleasing to the neighborhood as a whole. There is an equity factor that goes into this, especially in light of the fact that the part of the hardship that exists is taking out what already has been done because somebody waited three weeks to make the complaint when they were fully aware of what was going on. Vasaly said that she respects his coming in to do it the right way. She said that it sounds as if it weren' t for the complaint he also would not have come in, and would have ignored the ordinance. This does not appeal to her very much. Hall said Community Development told him to go ahead and build along the easement as long as he knew it was a risk because of the easement. If the City were to come in and need access, the shed would have to be removed. This is why he talked with a carpenter and landscaper about putting it on cinder blocks . A lot of thought went into this process. Weeks opened the public hearing. Theresa Nistler, residing at 6513 Leander Circle, noted that her backyard is directly adjacent to the Hall property. The Halls came to them and made sure they had no problem with this. She has no problem with this shed. The relationship may have deteriorated a bit between the Halls and the Metzgers, but no one else has a problem with it or the neighborhood as a whole. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks asked if the proponent would be willing to come back to the Board with a continuation to show other potential locations before they take action on this matter. It would help them to see what the shed would look like. They would also like to see either a sketch or drawing of some other alternatives that are acceptable to Mr. Hall, and also to see how other alternatives don' t work. Hall commented that it' s ridiculous to spend $2000 for a bobcat to level out the area for a $500 shed. He is not inclined to take out the trees that are there. He feels this is unfair and unreasonable. 6 V iT1 I - 17 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 Vasaly commented that it's not a question of granting a variance from the ordinance based on the economic hardship. It' s not their realm as to what is appropriate or not, but it' s part of the law. They can' t do it for that reason. They need to have something more. Weeks commented that he has to demonstrate to the Board that he has exhausted every other possibility, that there is no way he can do this without a variance. Nelson stated that it' s a zero lot line on two different lots . That has potential problems. She generally always objects to any kind of garage placed within three or four feet of a lot line. Hall noted that he would like the Board to take action on this tonight. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board deny variance request 95-28 because there appears to be other areas on the site that will accommodate the shed, and that is appropriate to the plantings and landscaping of the house, it should not be placed on the easement line of the sewer. Lynch seconded the motion. Vasaly said it is unfortunate if he received the wrong information. Presently, the project is in the infancy stage. Hansen stated that he walked through the yard and he agrees with Mr. Hall that this is the spot for the shed. There may be other flat spots, but none of them make sense because you want a shed in the corner of the yard. He feels bad if the City gave him confusing information. Hansen said that there is room for compromise here. He would not support zero lot line variance. After walking around the property, if you pulled the shed five feet south and five feet east, he thinks that would be a fine spot to put a shed. Since a resident has come here and spoke, he has no reason to disagree with her that the neighborhood is fine with the shed. He would have liked to see the neighbor in objection here this evening. He asked Mr. Dunham to appeal his motion, and Mr. Dunham 7 -E Pic — i8' Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 refused. Hall commented that he disagrees that his construction is in the infancy stage. He has put a lot of time and hard labor into this. He is distressed that the Board sits here and says that economics isn' t a good enough hardship. He said that he would be happy with moving the shed four feet off the two side lines . vasaly asked if he was aware that there are setback requirements. Hall replied not until he received the letters from Steve. He said that he thought that he is allowed to enter it, but not allowed to build there. Durham noted for the record, information that goes out from the Community Development Department in terms of setbacks for an accessory structure would be 10 feet from the rear and side lot line. To give out information to a resident stating they can build at their own risk would be inappropriate and misleading. Issues such as this one would be more common if residents were told they can build at their own risk closer to a lot line. He could not guarantee a communication problem did not occur between Mr. Hall and a City Hall Employee. Historically, there are no variance requests granted like this in the 13 .5 zoning district. MOTION: The motion carried 5-0-1 with one opposition by Hansen. �� PN - 19 September 13 , 1995 City of Eden Prairie Planning Department 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie , MN 55344 Planning Department : We object to the variance (#95-28) requested by Mark Chapin Hall and Debora Garvey for construction of the utility shed . We request the City follow City Code with a minimum setback of 10 feet for the following reasons : 1) . There are workable alternate locations which follow City Code . 2) . Construction and maintenance are impossible without trespassing onto neighboring property . 3) . Could potentially cause problems between neighbors in the future . Thank you . Sincerely , xia idittO Harold and Patricia Dylitzger STAFF NOTE******** Neighbor-metzger is located at the side lot line, NE corner. ITTT c - zo September 1, 1995 City of Eden Prairie Board of Adjustment and Appeals 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 RE: Variance Request #95-28 Dear Board: Enclosed with this letter, and for your review and consideration at the September 14, 1995 meeting are the following: 1) Survey showing proposed location of 8' X 12' storage shed; 2) Photographs showing my yard and proposed location of shed. When my wife and I first moved to 18554 Tristram Way, there were only two trees in the yard--the flowering crab in front, and a diseased River Birch, which has since been replaced by the Black Hills Spruce in front. There was a minimal amount of landscaping in front, and none in the back. Since 1989, we have added the following landscaping to our home: TREES 2 flowering crab 2 Amur Bird Cherry 3 Ash: 2 Green; Summitt 2 Locust: Skyline Honey; Imperial 5 Maple: Sugar; Silver; Red; Rubrum; Emerald Lustre 16 Spruce: 8 Black Hills; 6 Colorado Blue; 2 White Tri-level retaining wall Rock, poly, and edging in front, back, and both sides of house Numerous bushes, shrubs, and perennials We have plans to add additional shrubs, bushes, and perennials. We have always striven to landscape our yard in a way that would not only be pleasing to us, but would also beautify the neighborhood as a whole. We have received numerous compliments from our neighbors for what we have added to our neighborhood. 7ix - 21 September 1, 1995 page 2 The contour of our yard is such that there is no viable alternative to the placement of the proposed 8' X 12' storage shed. When I went to the City of Eden Prairie offices last summer, I reviewed the plats and survey of my yard. It is my understanding that there are no utilities at the proposed shed site. I understand that the City of Eden Prairie has the right to place and access utilities along the easement. I understand that my shed may have to be moved, just as I understand that both fences may have to be moved, to allow such placement and access of utilities. I also understand that the likelihood of such an occurrence to be extremely rare. I have reviewed the drainage easement and the natural contour of my yard with my landscape architect and a master plumber. The design of my shed allows the natural drainage flow to remain unimpeded, by the use of PVC piping that runs under the shed. If my lot was wide enough, I would have added a third stall to my garage. If my lot was flat, there might be a viable alternative to the placement of the shed. The proposed shed is made of high quality materials, and will be well maintained. Its placement in the back corner of my lot is necessary due to the contours of the yard and the numerous trees. It will be aesthetically pleasing and useful. It will allow me to maximize the use and enjoyment of my property, without in any way detracting from the neighborhood. The shed is 6 feet tall, so that a neighbor could either build a fence or plant a tree to soften or completely block the view. The City of Eden Prairie should have no objection to the placement of my storage shed in the back corner of my lot. There are no drainage or utility problems or issues that arise from its proposed placement. I respectfully ask that the Board grant my request for variance. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, CANap Chapin Hall 18554 Tristram Way Eden Prairie, MN 55346 vi1t N - 22 • _ '• M •�'•' i ttl:.+;.7 'ice tI1•r- f,ir', � )I•�u, . 1 �' ' q,.. _: . .BENCK MARKS: l ���►� 2 '� t;i� ••• .1. TOR NUT OF HYDRANT _C) .I .-) A III ' ..s AT CORNER OF I' F' 23 °f TRISTAN WAY & DELL ROAD. ±0 ' • fi 2. TRIPLE SPIKE IN..-WEST SIDE N x X I-- •OF .A 22i' TWIN WHITE OAK r o r, �.� 200`t NORTH OF STATION ra. ° \.i . 10+00 ON. TRISTAN WAY. V�° has,°) ' o :60 00 S71°571471'E I Q _ ��t.&) �,� 14 to... • 90 3,V x ZC t2 SSL 61.E gq�z�c. 26.00 • ..°° 31.00 -1X 'a 1811,5 10 < _ . P g90 t I 24.0 4711,M W ^ ti '• ^I \0 �" t . '6 di `- ' at LOT .NOTICE 7 l M• o M N M m d.add.,r shah 1j,,,J v r' elovatiod �h t &z`•', Q0 Z r 1 _ "' �'�i.•:,iisn of tower any water servicet t t w r1 Z prior to �i,JJiny f:cti,gs• 8uildat: t \ Z -�1 assumes all responsibility for prob�idZ 3 2.0 •Lc^ ,:•,; r; T 1.i. resultingin failure to do so \e? n rP� ,';tr z �''� O a v .•• ;,-:xi.•,ram•. 0 c Cr) K) ..c.— DRAINAGE d i'J77LrTr' tu\ " • a bR(YEw-f cc 0 07 6 rasE!ENT PER PLAT T \t ff ii.$? •ram C1;3 a Lr r 1) 8%.?.,p` 27.0 ,go �.'��>r a to i-- • co ' 897.0 7 yi ~.�o7 aY 897.5x"�- 26.00 - 31.00_ -�y81502 -84i,9 `�1 (9QL•°) M4M1EIVE n160.00 • $7l°36`l3"E .. ' (6% 0) I 11 1 l 6Cw. f�i T. r L. cu"t tot17 P't. TO t\. Toy oP Now, • rk1'1 2 8 1981 1=oo"t,wcet . �__ c.rtJ '.�.. .; i,:fo: to Jo (.i TV OF G41<:.!"i. ire;C _ • --� E� PRAIRIE L_l! ! C��� Ftt: S,4 •ol•ss )a'!.v; zo a e OK By: DENOTES PROPOSED SURFACE DRAINAGE . O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR = 81'8,3 FEET X000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION - PROPOSED LOWEST FLOOR on 890,4, FEET (000.0) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP. OF BLOCK = 97617 FEET. I HEREBY CERTIFY TO NEW CONCEPT HOMES CO. THAT THIS 15 A TRUE AND CORRECT 'I' '' ,REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF; ,'y, t Lot 24, Block 1, WYNDHAM .KNOLL, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, •Minnesota. • AND OF THE LOCATION OF A PROPOSED BUILDING. IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, THEREON. _AS SURVEYED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, THIS 1414 DAY OF JA.rNurNa.1 , 1987. . :GRADES PROPOSED WERE TAKEN FROM , SIGNED: JA : ILL, INC. THE. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL'PL _ � • AN FOR WESTW000 N KNOLL,DHAm PLANNING BY & 1NGI'NEESdING 1•11'•, f n� ,.r7i •7�.; ' zoo IN - 2 3 em 6 October 8, 1995 Dear City Council member;Ms. Jean L. Harris, I am writing to you, to give you information so that the city council can make an informed decision at the next council meeting about the proposed 4 way stop for Jackson Drive and Meade Lane in the Bluestem Hills area. I have become aware of some opposition to the placement of the stop signs and would like to give you the history and let you know of the support for the stop signs in the neighborhood. In the past 9 years that I have lived in the neighborhood 2 different parties have tried to get a stop sign at this intersection. It has been counted and looked at in the past. The signs were not granted as the area was not fully developed. A group of residents wanted to bring to the attention of the city engineers the intersection of Meade and Jackson again, as currently the existance of some dangerous considerations that had not been looked at in the past were concerning to many of the home owners. I was selected to talk to Mr. Rue, the assistant city engineer, to inform him of our concerns and ask for the citys assistance in this matter. We felt we had the support of the residents of Jackson Drive. I called him this summer in June. After much discussion and information, Mr. Rue came out and assessed the situation and agreed to a meeting with the residents. On July 12, 8 residents met with him to discuss the intersection. Some of the concerns involved: 1 . The amount of traffic increase that has occurred with the new development of Creek Knolls and the development of the rest of the Bluestem Hills neighborhood. The residents use Jackson and Meade as access to many of the homes in these area. 2. The intersection sits up on a hill and the traffic coming through the intersection can not see to the bottom of the hill that is west of the intersection. This puts many children at risk. 3. The road is curved coming west of the intersection of Meade and Jackson. This curve is not shown on the Eden Prairie Map. The landscaping along with the curve does not allow the cars coming over the hill to see children in 2 of the driveways or the cars backing out. 4. The increase of children playing on Jackson drive is also a concern. Many of the children are now elementary age and on bicycles and rollerblades. Many of the families have 2-3 children. 5. When going south on Franco off Hwy 1 a car can go on Sherman drive west, to Jackson Drive, then west to Bennett with out a stop sign. Cars are going at a fast clip and use this as a main way to avoid Hwy 1. 6. We are concerned about speed on Jackson Drive. Mr. Rue has informed us that a stop sign is for intersection control and not speed. I have at least daily observed cars going in front of my house, about 6 houses west of the intersection, going 50 miles per hour, after going over the hill from the intersection. We feel a stop sign would at least cause cause cars to stop and assess the road and situation before proceeding down the hill and the curve. My Children can not play outside in the front yard unless I guard the driveway from the street. 7. We felt the neighbors on Jackson Drive supported the placement of Stop sign at the intersection and any assistance that can be given to control speed on this street. Mr. Rue felt that there was enough cause to assess the intersection and he would take it to the City engineer and let us know of their decision. On September 14th a Stop sign was ordered for the intersection. The engineers had decided that the placement of the stop signs was warranted. When the stakes and placement was near, there became opposition to the placement of the signs. I had called to see why the signs were not being placed in and was informed of the opposition. I spoke to Mr. Dietz about or continued concerns about the intersection. I then called the residents of Jackson Drive to let them know about the situation. I know of 20 families that support the placement of the signs after talking to them via the phone. You may be getting letters, phone calls and information about this issue. We are concerned about the safety of the residents and the children of this area. This issue is up to the city planners and the city council to decide. When all the information is taken into consideration the decision that is made should be in the best interest of the area. Thank you so much for all the work you do for the city of Eden Prairie. Please feel free to call me for any further questions or information. I plan to be at the Oct 17th council meeting as I have been informed it will be on the agenda. Sin rely, 01"rNj Bonnie Moren 11103 Jackson Drive Eden Prairie, Mn 55347 944-8822 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10/12/95 SECTION: Petitions, Requests, and Communications ITEM NO. 322.11C • DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Summary of Livable Communities Legislation. Chris Enger City Proposal for Participation in Livable Communities Requested Council Action: • Review information on the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act. • Review a draft letter from City staff to the Metro Council that evaluates the feasibility of meeting housing benchmarks created by the Metro Council, and suggests alternative goals for the City to achieve over the next fifteen years. • Hear presentation about Livable Communities from Hal Freshly of the Metropolitan Council. Background: The Livable Communities Act was enacted this year by the Legislature to entice communities throughout the region into agreeing voluntarily to meet certain affordable housing goals by offering limited financial resources. The Act is considered a compromise by the Legislature between critics of developing suburbs who feel cities should be mandated to provide affordable housing, and others who feel more incentives and resources should be available to help communities address housing problems. Supporting Reports: See the attached "Livable Communities Questions and Answers" publication provided by the Metropolitan Council for more information on the Act. Also attached is a letter prepared by City Staff to the Metropolitan Council proposing for how Eden Prairie could participate in Livable Communities. As the letter states, the housing goals participating communities are expected to reach by 2010 are apparently negotiable. However, the Metro Council has set housing goals for cities to achieve over the next fifteen years. Staff has determined that because of local market conditions the benchmarks set for Eden Prairie will be impossible to achieve. Staff has instead suggested an approach to measuring performance in addressing housing issues based less on reaching numerical targets, and more on the City's overall efforts in providing more affordable housing. Vlll C — 1 I..Z3° ..• IID its IItJ! ■ ■ •.• LIVABLE COMMUNITIES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. What is the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act? The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act("Act") was enacted in June 1995 and is the Legislature's attempt to address various issues facing the seven-county metropolitan area. The Act establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which consists of three accounts: the Tax Base Revitalization Account; the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and the Local Housing Incentives Account. Metropolitan municipalities are not required to participate in the programs under the Act, but the Act provides incentives and funding to those municipalities that do participate. 2. What is the incentive to participate? The benefits are clear. Cities, towns and, in some cases, counties have access to resources that will improve their communities and neighborhoods. In addition, the legislation puts local units of govern- 1 ment in the driver's seat. Communities can not only choose whether to participate; they also have flexibility in determining how they're going to use the resources available. 3. What is the incentive to provide lower-cost housing in our community? Affordable housing is an investment in communities and their residents. It fulfills a commitment to young families, single people and older residents that they can find a home they can afford in the com- munity of their choice. 4. What are "affordable"housing and"life-cycle"housing? Housing is "affordable" if it costs no more than 30 percent of a family's income. For ownership hous- ing this income amount is 80 percent of median, an amount that in 1994 could afford a home costing I) L' . - L approximately $115,000. For rental housing this income is 50 percent of median. In 1990 this was approximately $500 per month. "Life-cycle" housing refers to housing available for people at all stages of their lives, offering a choice and variety of housing types and cost to accommodate people's changing needs and preferences as their incomes and circumstances change. 5. What are the affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities amount? The Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount("ALHOA amount") is an amount, established by formula in the Act, that a participating municipality must spend to create affordable and life-cycle housing or to maintain existing affordable and life- cycle housing. A participating municipality's ALHOA amount is established each year. 6. Does the ALHOA amount have to be a property tax levy? No. The ALHOA amount can be derived from a levy, or it can be derived from fundsfrom another source. Regardless of the source of funds for the municipality's ALHOA amount, a participating munici- pality that did not meet its negotiated affordable and life- cycle housing goals, and did not spend 85 percent of its ALHOA amount to create affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities in the previous year, must distribute the entire ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority to create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities in the municipality, or to the Metropolitan Council for distribution through the Local Housing Incentives Program. 7. If my municipality elects by November 15, 1995,to participate in the Local Housing Incen- tives Account Program,must the municipality spend an ALHOA amount in calendar year 1996? No. Because of various timing provisions in the Act, the ALHOA amount requirement does not apply until your municipality's election to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program made by November 15, 1996,for calendar year 1997. 8. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995,but is unable to agree on housing goals with the Metropolitan Council, must the municipality participate in the program? rC - 3 No. A municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program unless two conditions have been met: a. The municipality has elected to participate in the program; and b. The Metropolitan Council and the municipality have negotiated and agreed on affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. If the municipality and the Metropolitan Council do not successfully negotiate housing goals, your municipality may not participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 9. Must my municipality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? No. Participation in the program is voluntary, but a municipality that does not participate may at some later time elect to participate in the program. However, a municipality which later elects to participate must establish that it has spent or agrees to spend on affordable and life-cycle housing an amount equivalent to what it would have spent on affordable and life-cycle housing had goals been established for the period in which the municipality was not participating. 10. If my municipality has met its housing goals in the previous calendar year, may my munici- pality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? Yes. However, your municipality will not be eligible to receive grants from the Local Housing Incentives Account Program if it met its affordable and life-cycle housing goals. Your municipality still will be eligible for grants and loans under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account programs. • 11. What if my municipality chooses not to participate in the Local Housing incentives Ac- count Program? Municipalities that elect not to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program are not eligible to participate in the Tax Base Revitalization Account and Livable Communities Demonstration Account programs under the Act. The Metropolitan Council is required by the Act to take into account your municipality's participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program when making discretionary funding decisions. In addition, your municipality will not be eligible to apply for funds under the Department of Trade and Economic Development's polluted sites clean-up program if your V�i '. C - municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 12. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program, but does not have the capacity to create additional affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities, can my municipality give its ALHOA amounts to other municipalities to meet negotiated housing goals? Yes. A municipality that has negotiated housing goals,but might not have adequate resources to create or maintain affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities still could be considered a participating mu- nicipality. However,the municipality would be required to distribute its ALHOA amount to the Metro- politan Council for distribution to other participating municipalities or distribute its ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority for creating affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities within the municipality.The Act permits municipalities to enter into agreements with adjacent municipali- ties to cooperatively provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The Metropolitan Council will work with municipalities to help municipalities create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities and avail themselves of the incentives and funding available under the Act and from other sources. 13. If my municipality is using local resources to make payments on a mortgage for an afford- able or life-cycle housing opportunity created prior to the Act,can these resources count toward expenditures of the municipality's ALHOA amount? Yes. As long as the use of the funds is directly related to your municipality's efforts to meet its afford- able and life-cycle housing goals, these local resources can be considered an expenditure of ALHOA amounts. 14. Are the goals for affordable and life-cycle housing, as proposed by the Metropolitan Coun- cil,achievable? The goals proposed by the Metropolitan Council are intended to be "long-term" goals. Your munici- pality will establish an action plan that identifies the steps your municipality intends to take to move toward its long-range goals. Beginning in 1998, your municipality's annual progress in meeting its negotiated affordable and life-cyclehousing goals will be measured against the annual goals your municipality sets forth its action plan. Progress toward the goals will depend on private marketplace efforts, the availability of affordable and life-cycle housing resources and the use of local controls to create an environment to meet goals. VITT C - s 15. Do the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set housing goals annually? No. The Act envisions negotiated housing goals as a one-time process. That is why the goals are long term in nature. The Metropolitan Council will propose affordable and life-cycle housing goals that encourage your municipality to address key housing benchmarks. 16. After the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set affordable and life- cycle housing goals for the municipality,what happens next? The municipality must prepare an action plan that describes how it intends to meet its negotiated goals. The municipality has until June 30, 1996, to submit the action plan to the Metropolitan Council. 17. Does the Metropolitan Council have to approve the action plan? The Act does not require the Metropolitan Council to approve a municipality's action plan. However, the Metropolitan Council will comment on the plan's content in relation to the negotiated goals that have been established, and it will attempt to identify potential resources available to the municipality to help the municipality meet its negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals. 18. What should the action plan look like? The suggested format will be modeled after the one used for the housing element of your comprehensive plan. October 12, 1995 oRq Mr. Chuck Ballentine r Director of Office of Local Assistance 230 East Fifth Street Metropolitan Council St. Paul, MN. 55101 Dear Chuck: This letter is a proposal outlining how the City of Eden Prairie could participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The City has been presented with a draft housing agreement prepared by Metropolitan Council staff that contains specific housing goals and benchmarks for the City to achieve over the next fifteen years. The Metro Council has adopted a process by which the housing agreements are developed through negotiations with local communities. These negotiations are based in part on the understanding that the ability of the City to achieve certain housing goals depends on local market conditions, and the availability of financial resources. Our analysis of the draft housing goals was done in this context. We have suggested an option to measuring community performance in Livable Communities based less on meeting specific numerical goals, and more on the level of effort demonstrated by communities in meeting regional goals through participation and involvement in various housing programs and activities. Cities choosing to participate in the 1996 Livable Communities Act must agree to do so by submitting a signed resolution to the Metro Council by November 15, 1995. Our goal is to meet this deadline and participate in the program in 1996. However, if a prerequisite to participation involves reaching agreement with the Metro Council on housing goals before this deadline, than we must be certain the goals are reasonable, realistic, and obtainable. Housing Principles: Eden Prairie supports all six principles listed in the draft housing goals agreement. These principles are consistent with goals and policies found in the City's Comprehensive Plan which include: • Encourage a Variety of Housing Types and Costs for Different Living and Working Environments Through Innovative Architecture and Land Use Mixes. • Attempt to Provide lower Cost, Non-Subsidized Housing Through Construction of Multiple Family Units and Manufactured Housing. • Utilize PUD Approach to Evaluate Specific Projects. 721ac Day Chuck Ballentine q p October 12, 1995 T Page 2 • Encourage Low Income Family and Elderly Housing Developments Throughout Eden Prairie and Provide Quality Services Required by Residents. • Use the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Support Development of Low Income and Elderly Housing Projects. • Prepare Annual Housing Unit Estimates and Forecasts to Determine Level of Infrastructure Needed to Accommodate Future Growth, and To Monitor Housing Development Compared with Stated Goals in Comprehensive Plan. • Use Housing Revenue Bonds to Assist in Developing Low Income and Elderly Housing Projects. • Investigate the Possibility of Mobile Home Parks and Manufactured Housing. • Apply for and Participate in Housing Demonstration Projects. • Consider the use of Innovative Housing Techniques to Facilitate Affordable Housing Developments. Draft Housing Goals: The Council has created benchmark indicators for cities to use in developing housing goals to be achieved over the next fifteen years. The benchmarks cover areas of housing affordability for both ownership and rental housing, life-cycle housing, and housing density. Listed next to the benchmarks are indicators of where cities are today in terms of meeting the various housing benchmarks. These numbers are listed below and followed by analysis and comment as to the feasibility of the City achieving the benchmarks. Affordability Current Metro Housing Type Threshold Index Benchmark Ownership Housing $115,000 42% 64-69% The benchmarks for Eden Prairie, which are based on averages of similar suburbs, do not consider market conditions unique to this area and the limitations of resources available at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. For example, values of homes now affordable under $115,000 are likely to rise above expected increases in the affordability threshold. This situation is exacerbated in Eden Prairie by a strong and healthy housing market that has experienced 5% annual increases in home values over the last ten years. This has occurred in spite of a reduction in the lot size minimum 14 years ago from 13,500 to 9,500 square feet, a 25% increase in allowable density. The Market has driven price. This has been affected by the supply of land that has been dramatically effected in the last five years by MUSA constraints and wetland legislation. Also, with land costs among the highest in the metro area, local developers and builders continue to maintain that single family detached housing, whatever the lot size, cannot be built for less than $115,000 without considerable public investment. Financing tools and public resources for ownership housing are limited. Most public resources are targeted toward low cost rental Chuck Ballentine October 12, 1995 Page 3 housing developments, which suggests a greater level of need for affordable rental vs. ownership housing throughout the region. Forecasting the percentage of affordable ownership housing expected in the City by 2010 based on anticipated market conditions will help decide if the Metro Council benchmarks are achievable. It also will help establish housing goals that are reasonable and attainable by 2010. Table 1 below shows the expected percentage of ownership units in Eden Prairie from the years 1995 to 2010 based on the following assumptions: • The affordability threshold starts at $115,000 in 1995 and increases $1,000 per year to $130,000 by 2010. This assumption is based on the median household income for the metro area increases 1% per year over fifteen years. Council staff indicated that local HUD officials expect small increases in household income over the next fifteen-years as "Baby Boomers" retire to fixed incomes, and with fewer dual-income households based on a growing trend of married woman leaving the work force to stay home with family. If this is true, the 1% annual increase in median income assumption may be optimistic. • All units with values less that $115,000 in 1995 will have values increase 1.5% per year to 2010. • Seventy-five (75%) percent of the total housing units forecasted between 1995 and 2010 (7,000) are expected to be ownership units (5,250), creating 350 new ownership units annually. • Thirty percent (30%) of all new ownership units will have values less than the affordability threshold (105 units/year). Single family "attached" units are the only new housing products being developed with values below $115,000. Table 1 Total Units Percent Percent Owned Affordability w/Values of Units w/Values of Year Units Threshold <Threshold Total >Threshold Total 1995 13,500 $115,000 4,440 33% 9,060 67% 1996 13,850 $116,000 4,430 32% 6,421 68% 1997 14,200 $117,000 4,343 31% 9,858 69% 1998 14,550 $118,000 4,253 29% 10,298 71% 1999 14,900 $119,000 4,162 28% 10,739 72% e- - 9 Chuck Ballentine October 12, 1995 Page 4 Total Units Percent Percent Owned Affordability w/Values of Units w/Values of Year Units Threshold <Threshold Total >Threshold Total 2000 15,250 $120,000 4,060 27% 11,191 73% 2001 15,600 $121,000 3,964 25% 11,637 75% 2002 15,950 $122,000 3,877 24% 12,074 76% 2003 16,300 $123,000 3,790 23% 12,511 77% 2004 16,650 $124,000 3,719 22% 12,932 78% 2005 17,000 $125,000 3,640 21% 13,361 79% 2006 17,350 $126,000 3,563 21% 13,788 79% 2007 17,700 $127,000 3,478 20% 14,223 80% 2008 18,050 $128,000 3,386 19% 14,665 81% 2009 18,400 $129,000 3,329 18% 15,072 82% 2010 18,750 $130,000 3,258 17% 15,493 83% The forecasts in Table 1 show that by 2010 only 17% of Eden Prairie's ownership units will be affordable under an assumed threshold of$130,000. This indicates that because of market forces achieving a goal of 64% affordable ownership housing by 2010, as suggested in the draft agreement, is impossible. In fact, this analysis shows that even if 30% of all the new ownership housing developed between now and 2010 is affordable, the total percentage of affordable ownership housing will drop from 33% to 17%. The City will continue to promote the development of single family attached housing that is affordable under the proposed thresholds. The City will also entertain any subdivision design or lot configurations that facilitate affordable single family detached housing. But, with land costs in 1995 starting at $50,000 per acre and reaching as high as $80,000 for residential development, it is unlikely the suggested benchmarks could ever be met. Most resources available for housing are aimed at rental housing projects. We suggest that most, if not all, of the Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities funds (ALHOA), and the Local Housing Incentives Account funds (LHIA) available through Livable Communities be targeted toward rental housing in Eden Prairie. The City's estimated ALOHA contribution for for 1997 is $127,958. The need for affordable rental housing is evident by long waiting lists at Section 8 sites, and by the number of households spending more than 30% of their gross income 1iilI C'_ - JO Chuck Ballentine October 12, 1995 Page 5 toward rent. It is reasonable to expect the private market, with encouragement from the City, to continue to generate about 30% of all new ownership housing starts as affordable units. Goals for Ownership Housing: Goals for affordable ownership housing would be for the City to continue to participate in supportive programs such as the MHFA first time buyer program, be flexible in allowing higher densities or creative subdivision designs if it helps facilitate affordability, and continue to encourage the development of affordable single family attached housing product (townhouses, condos, and twin homes). Without additional resources available to help offset a continued decrease in the percentage of affordable ownership units in Eden Prairie, we cannot agree to a goal above what can be realistically obtained. If the Council requires a numerical goal, we would agree to try to maintain 20% of the total ownership units as affordable in the year 2010. This is based on the analysis shown in Table 1. We are open to using other assumptions in the analysis. For example, if we assume median household incomes increase by more than 1% per year, the percentage of affordable housing by 2010 would increase. Housing Type Affordability Index Benchmark Rental $638/month 11% 32-35% The rental housing situation in Eden Prairie is very similar to that of ownership housing, where strong market conditions combined with newer housing projects have created above average rents. The suggested benchmark for affordable rental units is not realistic for Eden Prairie. This number is based on averages of other communities in the metro area with very different market conditions and older housing. Table 2 below forecasts the percentage of affordable rental units expected to develop in the City by the year 2010 under the following assumptions: • Rental housing will account for 25% of all new housing built between 1995 and 2010 (1,750 units/year). • Twenty percent of all new rental units will be affordable (23 units/year). This represents a policy aimed at avoiding concentrating too many low-income units at one site. It also matches the resources available through Livable Communities to help subsidize these units. • Rents increase by 2% each year. V it C - I 1 Chuck Ballentine October 12, 1995 Page 6 Table 2 Total Unit Percent Percent Rental Affordability w/Values of Units w/Values of Year Units Threshold <Threshold Total >Threshold Total 1995 5,220 $765 574 11% 4,646 67% 1996 5,337 $780 597 11% 4,740 68% 1997 5,454 $796 620 11% 4,834 69% 1998 5,571 $812 643 12% 4,928 71% 1999 5,688 $828 666 12% 5,022 72% 2000 5,805 $845 689 12% 5,116 73% 2001 5,922 $862 712 12% 5,210 75% 2002 6,039 $879 735 12% 5,304 76% 2003 6,156 $896 758 12% 5,398 77% 2004 6,273 $914 781 12% 5,492 78% 2005 6,390 $933 804 13% 5,586 79% 2006 6,507 $951 827 13% 5,680 79% 2007 6,624 $970 850 13% 5,774 80% 1 2008 6,741 $990 873 13% 5,868 81% 2009 6,858 $1,009 896 13% 5,962 82% 2010 6,975 $1,030 919 13% 6,056 83% Table 2 show affordable units representing 20% of all new rental units, which is consistent with local policies aimed at limiting the number of low-income units per site. Twenty percent of all new rental units represent twenty-three units per year, or 345 units over fifteen years. Even under these assumptions, only 13% of the City's rental housing will be affordable to persons with incomes below 50% of the metro median by 2010. The cost of providing twenty-three units per year is estimated to be $287,500, based on a per unit subsidy of$12,500. An annual subsidy of$287,500 is about what the City intends to invest VT c - 1z Chuck Ballentine October 12, 1995 Page 7 in this effort based on an estimated Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities fund (ALHOA) contribution of $127,000, and a match from the Metro Council through the Local Housing Incentive Account (LHIA). This is not including $400,000 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds the City may invest in a thirty-two-unit low-income project scheduled for completion in 1996. We understand that this $400,000 can be credited toward meeting our future ALOHA contributions. We estimate that it would cost the City $24,223,200, or$1,614,880 annually to meet the Metro Council benchmark of 32% affordable rental units by 2010. To meet this benchmark, 1,938 affordable units would have to be built over the next fifteen years. Section 8 Vouchers could be used in existing projects and would account for some future affordable units. However, there is no indication that Eden Prairie will ever receive more than fifteen Section 8 Vouchers through the Metro HRA, and if they are issued, it will be through a special preference policy. The City is supportive of tenant-based Section 8 housing, but high rents and low vacancies create market barriers that limit the usability of Section 8 Vouchers in Eden Prairie. Rental Housing Goals: As suggested previously for ownership housing, rental housing goals should be based on the level of effort the City shows in promoting affordable rental housing, not numerical targets. The City intends on dedicating most of its resources toward rental housing initiatives aimed at helping very-low income families achieve self-sufficiency, and at providing housing affordable to persons with lower paying jobs in Eden Prairie. If a numerical goal is required by the Council, findings from the analysis in Table 2 suggest that the City could only expect 13% of its total rental stock to be affordable by 2010. Life-Cycle Housing Index Benchmark Goal Non-SF Detached 42% 35-38% 42% Owner/renter mix 71/29% 70-75/25-30% 71/29% The City expects to maintain the current proportions of life-cycle housing, which is above regional averages and well within benchmarks for owner/renter mix. It is estimated in Table 2 that 25% of all future housing will be rental housing. Table 1 estimates that 20% of all new ownership housing is non single-family detached. As you can see from the current mix, a variety of housing has developed in Eden Prairie over the last thirty years, including rental, single family detached, and single family attached housing. The City has planned for housing diversity through its Comprehensive Plan, PUD developments, and flexible and creative zoning. Housing Density Index Benchmark Goal SF Detached 1.9/acre 1.9-2.3/acre 2/acre Multiple Family 9/acre 10-11/acre 10/acre V ITT c - 13 Chuck Ballentine October 12, 1995 Page 8 Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code allow housing densities as high as fifty units per acre. The apartment market in Eden Prairie has provided three story wood-frame developments with gross densities in the 10-15 units/acre range. The City has encouraged developers to consider building mid to high-rise apartment or condominium developments, ie, Point of France in Edina, on sites within our Downtown area. Because of the high cost of constructing mid and high-rise buildings, the lack of market, and lender discomfort with these products in the suburbs, we have yet to see a proposal. The density benchmarks for single family should include detached, and attached, single family housing in the calculations. This would increase the densities for both single family and multiple family designations in Eden Prairie above the benchmarks. Single family "attached" housing represents about 20% of the total housing stock in Eden Prairie, with average densities in excess of 5 units/acre. High density rental housing (>10 units/acre) represents another 25% of our housing stock. It is not clear how the Metro Council calculated density, whether its gross or net density. Not including wetlands in density calculations creates an average density for single family detached developments above 3 units/acre in Eden Prairie. One Housing Agreement: As discussed at a meeting held at the City offices on September 21 between City and Metro Council staff, participation in Livable Communities eliminates the need for two separate housing agreements as was originally considered. The City is prepared to do what it can to make progress toward meeting agreed upon goals through this initiative. We expect the same standards and expectations applied to all other participating communities will be applied to Eden Prairie. Conclusion: It is imperative to the success of Livable Communities that the Metro Council appreciate the extreme variations in market conditions effecting communities throughout the metropolitan region. Factors such as location, physical amenities, desirability, land availability, land costs, and general perception and appeal of a community, all effect housing costs. The high cost of housing in Eden Prairie is not controlled by the City, and is not a result of City imposed zoning barriers. It is instead a result of the desire of people from all over the region, state, and country, to reside here. The City cannot control demand from upper-income people for large expensive homes. We also cannot control rising land prices, which are attributable mainly to a dwindling land supply resulting from Metro Council imposed MUSA restrictions. What we can do, however, is demonstrate responsibility toward meeting regional housing initiatives by recognizing local market realities, and develop accordingly housing goals and strategies that are realistic and obtainable. We are concerned about agreeing to unattainable housing goals that can later be used by anti �111 C - iy Chuck Ballentine October 12, 1995 Page 9 suburban opportunists to provoke the legislature into considering legislation that places most of the burden for curing the region's housing problems on the backs of a few developing suburbs. Which further perpetuates the "us against them" rift that now seems to be developing between the northern and southern suburbs. The market analysis outlined in this letter illustrate market conditions in Eden Prairie, and the goals presented are reasonable and realistic. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with a response to this letter. Meeting the November 15 deadline will be challenging, but if we can get reasonably close to agreement within the next three weeks, it may be possible. Sincerely, Chris Enger Community and Economic Development Director cc Carl Jullie, City Manager Jean Harris, Mayor BLL C - IS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Appointments October 17, 1995 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Human Resources, Community Information & Appointment of Student/Youth Members X. A. Services,Natalie Swaggert to Commissions Requested Action It is recommended that the Council review the proposed candidate slate for Student/Youth Members to Commissions,and take the following actions: Reappoint: Angela Wutz to the Arts Commission; Shelia Sahu to the Environmental and Waste Management Commission;Joseph Moarefi to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission; Mark Bremer to the Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for one additional term each, and Appoint: Dean(Chip)Edstrom,Jr., Lindsey Ellison, John Katzung,Cory Knudtson, Emily Hanka to the commissions indicated. All appointments to be effective the first commission meeting in November. Background In 1992 the City Council initiated a program to provide student residents in Eden Prairie with the opportunity to serve on City Commissions. Students make application in September, are appointed in October, and serve terms beginning in November through the school year. An option to continue through the summer is given to each student in May. Student/Youth members are non-voting. a:\admin.disc\miscinfo\a101785.wpd PROPOSED CANDIDATES STUDENT/YOUTH MEMBERS Arts Commission • Angela Wutz* - Eden Prairie High School • Dean(Chip)Edstrom, Jr. - International School Environmental and Waste Management Commission • Shelia Sahu* - Eden Prairie High School • Lindsey Ellison - Eden Prairie High School Heritage Preservation • John Katzung - Eden Prairie High School Human Rights and Diversity Commission • Joseph Moarefi* - Hopkins High School • Cory Knudtson - Eden Prairie High School Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • Mark Bremer* - Hopkins High School • Emily Hanka - Eden Prairie High School *Seeking Reappointment a\admin.disc\miscinfo\a101785.wpd City Council Agenda Tuesday, October 17, 1995 Page Two D. ABRA AUTO BODY 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from I-2 to Community Commercial on 1.1 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Abra Auto Body located northeast corner of Hwy. 169 and Aztec Drive. (Ordinance for Rezoning from 1-2 to Community Commercial and Resolution for Site Plan Review) E. AMOCO CAR WASH 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the C-Hwy Zoning District on 0.9 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Amoco Car Wash located at 8100 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Site Plan Review) F. APPROVAL OF BIDS FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY CENTER V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. 1995 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING (Resolution) B. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem Development and Kindercare Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.47 acres, and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial and Planned Unit Development District Review, Resolution for Preliminary Plat and Resolution for PUD Concept Review) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIH. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST FROM MR. CHAPIN HALL, 18554 TRISTRAM WAY, TO APPROVE VARIANCE 95-28 DENIED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS. The variance is to allow a "0" setback from a side & rear lot line for an accessory building. B. NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FOUR-WAY STOP AT JACKSON DRIVE AND MEADE LANE C. REPORT ON LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT-Hal Freshly,Metropolitan Council City Council Agenda Tuesday, October 17, 1995 Page Three IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMIVIISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENT OF STUDENT/YOUTH MEMBERS TO COMMISSIONS 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 F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT L-fem "a6 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: 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. PRESENTATION OF "AWARD OF EXCELLENCE" TO THE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT'S ADAPTIVE RECREATION LEARNING EXCHANGE PROGRAM, "LEISURE DISCOVERIES", FROM THE MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARKS ASSOCIATION (To be rescheduled.) PROCLAMATION,PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AS "TURN OFF THE VIOLENCE" MONTH Mayor Harris read the Proclamation dedicating the month of October as a time to focus on turning off violence in our communities. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS City Manager Jullie amended the Consent Calendar (item IV.), as follows: delete item B.; add item G.RESOLUTION 95-179 RELEASING DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN HARTFORD REAL ESTATE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE; add item H. APPROVE EARLY GRADING PERMIT REQUEST BY LAUKKA-JARVIS; add item I. RESOLUTION NO. 95-180 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SUTTON PARK (located at the southwest quadrant of Eden Prairie Road and Pioneer Trail). Harris questioned item G releasing the developer's agreement for Hartford Real Estate Company. Jullie said we need to acknowledge completion of the developer's agreement so they can finalize the financing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 2 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. IL OPEN PODIUM Kathy Wagle, 10928 Jackson Drive, expressed concern about the four-way stop sign that will be put on her property at the corner of Jackson Drive and Meade Lane. She asked if it could be placed on hold until the traffic there could be studied more closely. Harris asked Staff to take this matter under consideration and to return with more information to the next meeting. M. MINUTES A. COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 19. 1995 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve as published the Minutes of the Council/Staff Workshop held Tuesday, September 19, 1995. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19. 1995 Case said page 4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence of item V.B. should state, "He requested staff to explain how parking stall space is determined for gas station sites." Harris said item VIII.A., page 6, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence should read, "Harris inquired if ... and how soon the City will need that land." and the 3rd sentence should read, "Harris commented that it would be possible to do mitigation outside the City of Eden Prairie but that process would provide open space for those communities instead of Eden Prairie, ..." Tyra-Lukens said the spelling of the name in the last paragraph of page 6, item VIII.A. should be "Ryan Rablin", and the name in the first paragraph of page 7, item VIII.A. should be "Jeff Strate." MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve as published and amended the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 19, 1995. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. ANDERSON LAKES COMMERCIAL CENTER 3RD ADDITION Acceptance of formal withdrawal of Anderson Lakes Commercial Center 3rd Addition by 169 Anderson Lakes Corporation. C. RESOLUTION 95-178 RECEIVING PETITION FOR RILEY LAKE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN RILEY CREEK AND CHANHASSEN. I.C. 95-5394 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 3 D. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR WATERMAIN AND WELL COLLECTOR LINE ON MITCHELL ROAD AND TECHNOLOGY DRIVE. I.C. 94-5357 E. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL POLICY F. SET HEARING DATE FOR OCTOBER 17. 1995 TO REVIEW DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST NO. 95-28 (CHAPIN HALL) G. RESOLUTION 95-179 RELEASING DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN HARTFORD REAL ESTATE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE H. APPROVE EARLY GRADING PERMIT REQUEST BY LAUKKA JARVIS I. RESOLUTION 95-180 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SUTTON PARK (located at the southwest quadrant of Eden Prairie Road and Pioneer Trail) Case questioned item I because he recalled that there was something of a controversy over this project. Jullie said the primary issues involved the assessments and who was going to be paying for the road and the storm water pipe. The developer has agreed to all of the recommendations. Concerning item A, the Clerk's License Application List, Thorfinnson asked if all of the violations involved with Eden Inn have been corrected. Jullie said he did not believe that everything has been corrected; however, they are in the process of dealing with a lot of issues. Thorfinnson asked if it is standard procedure to issue a license despite issues involved. Jullie said we may need to put a hold on this item and come back with a better update. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, remove the Eden Inn license from item A of the Consent Calendar. Jullie suggested that the Eden Inn license not be removed if they are in the process of doing the work required to correct the violations. Thorfinnson withdrew the motion with the consent of Pidcock. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to approve item A and items C - I of the Consent Calendar, deleting item B. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.000 FOR CHALLENGE PRINTING. INC. PROJECT (Resolution 95-181) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 4 Jullie said Challenge Printing desires to expand its manufacturing facilities here in Eden Prairie, and is requesting the City to issue $3,000,000 of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to construct and equip an approximately 48,000 square foot addition to the company's existing commercial printing facility located at 7500 Golden Triangle Drive in Eden Prairie. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the details of this proposal and finds the documentation in order. Jim Bayliss, controller of Challenge Printing, and Joe Glen, representing Norwest Bank, were present to answer questions. Pidcock asked if there was any exposure to the City for this proposal. Glen said there was none. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution 95-181 for approval of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in the amount of $3,000,000 for the Challenge Printing, Inc. project. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Regarding Check No. 35156, Case asked if the School District and the City have gotten together to discuss helping to meet each other's needs in some of these areas. Lambert said they have not in the last 15 years; however, the Parks Commission is discussing recommendations for changes in program fees and use of facilities, and this issue will be discussed as part of those recommendations. Case said he hoped there could be some cooperation in order to benefit the public. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pidcock, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye". VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION 95-182 APPROVING SUBURBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Jullie said the Southwest Metro Transit Commission is requesting that Eden Prairie join in the formation of a new group to be called the Suburban Transit Association. Pidcock said she had asked Kate Garwood to give an overview of the request and to provide an update on the MCTO strike possibilities. Kate Garwood, representing Southwest Metro, reviewed the organization and purpose of the new group. She said it will be organized through a formal Joint CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 5 Powers Agreement. The City's initial cost for membership will be $8,000. Garwood said the new group will help provide a coordinated legislative agenda. She said we would also need to appoint a Councilmember and alternate to the new transit association. Harris asked for a clarification of the "unfeathering" for Chaska and Chanhassen. Garwood replied that the result is that those two cities will be assessed at a higher rate, but not yet at the maximum amount. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by_Thorfinnson,to adopt Resolution 95-182 relating to a Joint and Cooperative Agreement creating the Suburban Transit Association, and authorizing the City of Eden Prairie's membership in the Association. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris appointed Patricia Pidcock as the representative to the Suburban Transit Association. Pidcock recommended Nancy Tyra-Lukens as the alternate representative. Mayor Harris appointed Tyra-Lukens as the alternate representative. Garwood then reviewed the contingency plans prepared for the possible MCTO driver strike. She said they have prepared a temporary schedule that will provide as much service as possible. She noted that, while they cannot deny service to anyone who is there, they will try to serve our residents first. VIII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST FROM THE TRAILS ASSOCIATION Lambert noted that the Trails Association appeared before the Council in early September to make a request that the City allow them to remove a section of trail or to assume ownership (and liabilities) of the trail. At that meeting the Council asked Staff to determine the costs involved. He said the repair and improvement costs would be about$5,000 if it is done in-house, or $9,000 if done on contract. This trail section is extremely important to the City's overall system and Staff recommends that the City acquire the trail through an easement to be granted by the Trails Association. If the request is approved, he said the project would be scheduled for next year. Robert Kern, representing the Trails Association, said their By-laws do not cover selling property to the City, and they would need to have a proposal from the City before presenting it. Harris asked Pauly if the By-law issue would be a problem. City Attorney Pauly said the City would want to be assured that it is obtaining a proper easement and that it is legally conveyed to the City. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 6 Lambert suggested that the Council authorize the City Attorney to review the Association By-laws to determine what action they would have to take. MOTION: Pidcock moved that we ask the City Attorney to review the Trails Association By-laws. Motion died for lack of a second. Tyra-Lukens asked what the likelihood is of being able to do the project in-house. Lambert said we have commitments for many projects for next summer and that it would be best to count on the $9,000 cost. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to direct Staff to prepare a legal description for the location of the trail and a document to transfer a trail easement from The Trails Association to the City of Eden Prairie; to commit to upgrading the trail as outlined in the Staff memorandum of October 3, 1995, including the installation of the necessary signage; and to ask the legal staff to review the entire proposal and the By-laws of The Trails Association and bring back their recommendations. Pidcock asked if the review of the By-laws would have to occur first. Harris said she thought it could probably be done concurrently. Tyra-Lukens said she was reassured to learn that the original plan included dedicating the trail to the City. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. City Manager Evaluation (Continued from September 19, 1995) MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to move this item to the end of the Agenda since it will be discussed in a closed session. Motion carried unanimously. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. RESCHEDULE OCTOBER 1995 COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP SESSIONS Jullie said the Tuesday, October 10, 1995, workshop needs to be rescheduled sometime in January 1996 and be combined with the report CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 7 on the recent community survey. Case said he would like to keep the workshop in the schedule and discuss Council protocol or have an open agenda. Thorfinnson said he had already scheduled another meeting for October 10. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to cancel the Workshop scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, on Strategic Planning, and to cancel the Workshop scheduled for 6 PM on Tuesday, October 17, on TQM, and to reschedule both sessions for future workshops. Motion carried unanimously. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES 1. PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA ENTRY Lambert said, on direction of the Council, Brauer & Associates have developed three concept plans for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area entry. George Watson, representing Brauer & Associates, reviewed the three concept plans. He noted that they hope to cooperate with the property to the south in combining access from Prairie Center Drive. Harris asked if westbound traffic on Technology Drive would be able to gain access. Watson said they would have to go south on Prairie Center Drive to the four-way intersection. Pidcock said she has a problem with not having access from both the east and west and asked if there would be a divider there. Watson said the problem is that the entrance point is too close to Prairie Center Drive and that is why they want to develop some joint access point on the Naegele site if possible. He said the turn-around area would allow an opportunity for U-turns and will provide an interim solution until additional access is gained. Case asked if the ponds enhance the natural wetlands. Watson said they probably provide a higher value wetlands. Lambert reviewed the status of the wetlands and ponds in the recreation area, noting that the pond in this project area is for visual effect, not water quality. Case asked how many acres will have to be mitigated. Lambert said they are going through the permit process now, and that will determine what will be considered improvement and what will need mitigation. At the request of Councilmember Case, Lambert reviewed the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area project for the new Council members. Harris asked for clarification of the area that we are considering selling. Lambert said we would maintain ownership of the trail and a portion of the site, depending on what concept we end up with. Harris then asked what kind of control we would have over the development on the portion that we sell and if we would need to control the pedestrian crossing on CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 8 Technology Drive. Lambert said we can maintain ownership of this until it is completed and then sell it ourselves, or we can market it. He said it is important to have a plan and determine what we want to use the land for. Case asked about the potential art center site in this location. Thorfinnson said one possibility is in the transit hub itself. Pidcock asked if this had been reviewed with Southwest Metro. Lambert said it was reviewed with Staff and consultants. Thorfinnson asked if the no-left turn in is because of the parking on the northeast part and if traffic could be routed in by the wetlands. Lambert said there will be very little land left after the mitigation and frontage road. Lambert said that the Parks Commission reviewed the three concepts on September 18th. They liked the configuration and features of Concept C, the sculpture and trails of Concept B, and recommended that a four-season pavilion and a 10-15 car parking lot be constructed on the portion of the project that the City retains. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on September 25, and decided that it is a prime location for a restaurant and possibly small shops. Lambert said he would like to get Council direction as to the configuration of the pond and the type of other features to include in a final plan for Commission and Council review in November and Watershed District review in December. Councilmembers discussed the three concept plans. The general consensus was that Plan C provided the best concept. Case said he liked the larger ponding idea, the art or sculpture, and the formal walkway. He suggested a mix of commercial and restaurant. Tyra-Lukens said she liked the idea of visual focal points through the use of landscaping and gardens; however, she was concerned about a retail use. She suggested that we have two restaurants, one fine dining and one family type, and that we get local garden clubs involved in the landscaping and garden maintenance. Thorfinnson said he thought we should look at this to maximize revenue to the City when we sell off some of it. He said he also questions the viability of retail on this location. Pidcock said she liked the restaurant idea and could envision something like the Arboretum; however, she would like to see boulevard trees. She CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 9 asked about the square footage of the restaurant. Lambert said the concept plan depicts two restaurants at 5-6,000 square feet; however, this site would not accommodate two restaurants of that size and we are not at that level of detail. Harris said she also has a concern about retail being a viable use for the property. She liked the idea of fine dining because of the location and suggested that there may be groups that would be willing to provide art or sculpture for the project. She did not want to see it become overcrowded because it could become a very active area. Lambert said he would take the recommendations from the Council and come back with something that covers most of the points discussed, probably at the November 7 meeting. 2. MILLER PARK SKATING FACILITY Referring to the Staff memorandum of October 3, 1995, Lambert said the Hockey Association spent time with an architect to develop a unique plan to provide additional hockey facilities in the City. He reviewed the plan proposed by the Hockey Association and Staff. He said Staff is requesting Council approval to get soil boring information and contract for design services, plans and specifications for this project to be completed in 1996. The estimated cost is $130,000, which could be paid from cash park fees. Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed this project at their September 18, 1995 meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote. Tyra-Lukens asked if the cost includes the roller blade use. Lambert said it does not; however, it would probably add an additional $15,000 to $20,000 and would be presented as an alternate bid item. Case asked what is being pushed down in the priority list. Lambert said the CIP lists many activities and provides a ranking of needs for different areas of the City as they are being developed. He said this project would provide skating facilities for the southwest quadrant. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock, to authorize Staff to begin soil testing and soliciting bids for the skating facility at Miller Park. Motion carried unanimously. D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 10 F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to enter closed session for the purpose of discussing the evaluation of City Manager Carl Jullie. Motion carried unanimously. XI. A. 1. City Manager Evaluation (Continued from September 19, 1995) The following is a summary of the Council's discussion and action on this item. The Council proceeded in closed session with City Manager Carl Jullie to discuss the results of the recent performance review process. Committee members Tyra-Lukens and Thorfinnson distributed summaries of responses to both the Staff and Councilmember questionnaires. Also presented was a salary survey covering eight similar suburban communities, plus the current salaries of Eden Prairie School District administrative personnel. The questionnaire responses included a numerical performance rating from 1-4, plus specific performance comments for each key result area. The performance scores ranged from 2.8 to 4.0, indicating dependable to very commendable performance. The specific comments were positive and highly complimentary of the Manager's performance in his key result areas. One area for improvement was the need to supply the Council with more information on proposed legislation and its possible impacts on Eden Prairie. Council then discussed the proposed salary adjustment for the Manager. Noting that Mr. Jullie has twenty three years of service with the City, including fourteen as City Manager, the Council reviewed the compensation package of several other managers of similar cities. The average annual salary for this group is $88,065 for 1995. It was further noted that Mr. Jullie's current salary of$85,000 was in the lower fourth of his S-8 grade level, and that it would be appropriate for the Council to make a reasonable effort to move his salary more toward the range midpoint as per the salary increase guide used for all other City employees. After further discussion, the Council unanimously approved a salary adjustment for the City Manager in the amount of $3,400 (plus 4%) retroactive to March 1, 1995. Subsequent annual performance reviews will commence in January and be completed in March of each year. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 3, 1995 Page 11 XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. DATE: 0111111..i. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA mcicrr r rlL SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR 10-17-95 11 DEPARTMENT: ITEEI=I DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance - Pat Solie CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST IV.A a � THESE LICENSES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEADS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LICENSED ACTIVITY. CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) HEATING & VENTILATING 1 Grussing Roofing, Inc. Diversified Mechanical Services + Rosemount, Inc. United Heating & Air Conditioning { PLUMBING GAS FITTER D C Mechanical , Inc. Midway Mechanical - United Heating & Air Conditioning Janecky Plumbing Company UTILITY INSTALLER Parrott Contracting, Inc. • 1 ctioW Dfrec ion • • • 10-17-95 . page 1 -,� . DATE: 10/17/95 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: //' i9 SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Loosen Addition Jeffrey Johnson Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Loosen Addition subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.00 • Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $125.00 • Receipt of conservation easement over steep wooded slope of westerly lot lines • Receipt of joint access and maintenance easement for private driveway • The requirements of the Developer's Agreement Background: This plat is the subdivision of the Michael and Patricia Loosen property located at the southwest corner of County Road 62 and Shady Oak Road. The plat consists of 7.73 acres to be subdivided into four single family lots and one outlot. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed April 18, 1995. JJ:ssa cc: Michael and Patricia Loosen Ron Krueger & Associates /ry. I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF LOOSEN ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Loosen Addition 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 Loosen Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated October 12, 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 October 17, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk �v, i3, 2 -2 ADDITIOI • LOOSKI wee.OF.4 I..p a''• 31.44'.4 POP..se 6f RCTO.2.lie Ile,NA 22 C.R.DOC.NO s eT•sr ten w• KNOWN ALL.EN Br THESE PRESENTS:Won.J.Loon.end Pole..M.too...,,Neteed ore wire,too owner.. ' 4`38S and ELM L9II.e1d•e CityBert.a.Slot.lW Cdp«olien ddlpa9.e of'Po Iobwie dew Lae dep«ly f-- 3803 9s�y� 443.31 44 W �• ' situated;n the County Cl I.P.....Stet.of 1.i.esen to wit: de,`hre That a of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/A.S.D.2.Township 116 Norte,Ron.22 wool t•7? , ofthe 5N Principal Nene,L dowelled as follows: B.pwJoo 969.60 north of the Soot t t .e 1.,, r.�� i•f(1 of the NeetMoat /1 el the NerlM°al 1/4 of S.M.2.Township 116.Ron04 22;then.Co. S/ I 599.60 feet toII,west is of Ow.Pole!2nd Adition tMMe north atone said...I Am of.e1 Chew.Pant 2nn dntpn to the nee.Eno of Section 2;thence West le the Keenest comer of end CC Ndtheosl / eT;he Ndlh.aet /a;then!.South le he place el Open., r.,f._y� 435 H/^ L, 6. EKCEPT the West 06.50 foot...wee. m4q b. e the • '42,�t. f'E'H N�• 6 H��/ __. ' 1 Sa°M.s1 scone or said.ALSO The north 312 1.1 of I.eoa he .1 efd the Montseibed Meeldl/4 of Section 2�ownelnp It6.Roe.22: Au Z thence South 969.60 feet.to the Southwest owner of the Northeast / I the Nerth.ol 1/4;then. (l_ !9} •t sent 9 the south One 1 the see ineoo Po..Point 2nd*old Nethooet 1/,of the depart thecaasnorth 4 9.2,60 foot to 96960 ob..;odd. 4 See 6 -.^S f33J • in r Chase of 2M Addition;thence west to the pace o •N9f•••i•9. • W I EXCEPT the W.t 06.50 1a a(thereof•emcee to the w✓......united states Gn1 Sunny thereof and • .healed in mennec.Canty....sew s •^• .' cove the w.�yad she pb1.e as LOOSEN A[OT.ON oM do Mold donate awe 0.6eWlo la �mjj.. a 1 `• Ow nelc 1w pa icc we for.e.l Pew. utNty Gowen.s e.Mann on sea pot. • 'b x •" . 0'I el...h.root..ad Nave..J.Leo-Pen ed Patric.N..Leanin.Need and Wile,hew herionto sot . = IM'r nor.tens-day of 19_O.In.R0...hereof so.rO.t lAn eler0a City Ran, • �: .J. has canal these pos..Ia N.Mgod by It.prep,e0Ne.r.this_hey o 19_ I • C ✓ I `i atip.ed, .:,..o¢fist SRAnoto.e City Rea f • Y •• .stl.asl J Loose.. JI. • • "' -) a91'�'•/: I i f a.:ca U.Loosen •t I g o ' T a / I STATE 01 hOf.ES01A COUNTY OF NE.eEPN • I ,. 1 C N 6.32. oTM Id as vhenl.as noon-a.9.d asld..e -007 of 9_by ie aN J. S M 6 ' /1,�03.,, z^ /.,,,,,...-...-- ,,..5.,,,,,,,--,, , I _ Laes.n o,e�al.ipa M.Lae,e..w.Weq ewe.R.. • 3 • g . r ' �- TA w 1d�rN«...o:.County.w:.,..ato ▪ I ''-'� - r •p% . °' L i I STAT a 4WeE5010 8 COUNTY Or IE1WCPN =1 m T i 4 g The Idea a hel•vas d.as a ee o-N09•0 hefde he tN._eey W 9_0y C..; ;t. dtl it. of Pis!.F++eld4a City Bea.o.. .°1° Yi •s t a' Wed • = I. -1 ��[ Capdellen,On he.....the pdal:ati _ <f \�A1 Z u 1 _ S ps•5y 00__• __ m___ he No1dy Pew,...en Canty.tinesota QL. i--- 09 My eeaen..an..thine �. Y O L_: I.ERE0Y CERTIFY the.I hove%Jr.eled and patted IN.dop..t2 down..«an tee pat as LOOSEN•OOrtON the this pe w t.•pn...nt°Ian of said n..y;Chet d distances correctly Mro.n an the °t 550 ti net awe .aM° o foot;1Mt a is Ilene boon 1•et(y. b. a 1M Oard oe Y '- 8� 3cones.,ha...«. paced we rea:r.d e owl�t ace yaw«ehenld newt 1hel the awl,d.ea..eo.Y R... ....-N.sp__... t•' o 11 .dp1000 N40.ned ony.I Pat; de.i9^ol.d en 11i.wPlOt. w defined In NMeo,ola stetWs 505.02 0 - F-- • wh,:..worn O.; s . `_ S 64.5y W•-, .__ r, Renee L Kzer.,Lend S✓r•ybe Ke.selo Lien..New ]). • LA .d__ __ ________ _ STATE Of r or KEv.EPNA COUNT • j_ ^ Y <_. NORTH It..ea.9e:09...ye,. «111c0 .o.«Nn0.Ne9.e e.b.no IN. eon f 19_by U 0 n $ 2 't 8 6 0 60 120 160 240 Ronald L.Krue9«.Led Surveyor. le 0 • X . i - Pena any V - l i SCALE IN FEET \, Notary Public.eHennepin Canty,kn e.ela Weian ENO.. ws 66•Sr oe'• x2000 0 DENOTES R0.1 IIO.AAENT SET W --•-_ --'a R rah PR•NE..e.EsorA --- -' lam. 's plat f LOOSEN AIIOTION no.!approved W occeol.e by the City Council Cl Edon Prob.,W.ewla I O '-------------- [ 6656 a BEARNC MIEN 6 w ASAKO DATA at o rn on e.,the..o..hetu s day o 19_le app.ad.•the..ntlle ,0 O . ,1. . ar.n«dalar(I .the Ce.nnasa.w el TreNWatelen and 1M Caney Nid..ol E to.. • been.«;dyad by the City ev the ,0000led 30 day"WI hoe.Nosed without receipt of such c t.od U_f ....nee..as provided ey ennes°to Steles Sala.50503.swe.2. 6 /• DRAPIACE Alp U LITY EASEMENTS AIE SHOWN THUS: COY OF EDE.PRA.6E.L42aE50TA '1: Fs 1 J ' <Y 5..- By r By_ -I.Nee9er . m• , S .... , 1AKP•YER 5ERv10E5 DN15.GIL Ne,v.ep.Caney.L9aeeco I her.,certify Dot to .. • Y L_S and as years here ash one a tad dearbae on NW sat.Dale.a.a taxes of 19_ ( , P0N45 N.a Canoe..wen n.50.Canty•weld BY 0.wy Iper.s.:.4.n WPC 5 FEET N WIDTH AN)•A1oNNG LOT LEES 4 now J H UNLESS OTHERWISE 9OICATED 5nov0Y SECTION Wen..County.Mine,oto Pursue.to....seta Slotue'S0..363B 565(1969).11.s pot no.Tn.Ppod..e th doll OF2)435 E'-_.. I 9- • • 4e4.45 °I Carr I Cassel mew..Car Sun..,lySun..,c. 6 urn.S6'E fLEI °,2 BY' e: sent..,tO I,ME'0 V4 v,K II 1, /. n �.____-..-..--- -_- COUNTY ECOROER,Nemeon Canty.Uw.e»to - this __ care,trot elhin pe LOOSEN 4001TON was reed Tor ode in.N.Witte.. __ _. _._ - -. ear of 19_a pep.,_. `•. .• f n[••• 2 v .X.] R.De rCoN..Canty Raeder ' Ry' Dopey RON KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS A DATE: 10/17/95 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: ///, (� SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 94-5356 Engineering Division Approval of Change Order No. 2 for Well Houses No. 11 & No. 12 Rod Rue Recommended Action: Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 for Well House No. 11 and No. 12 construction with a net decrease of $3,181.00 to Sheehy Construction Company. Overview: This change order "cleans up" some of the minor changes to the construction contract. Some of these items include; installation of structural plates, extra footing excavation, installation of a tracker wire for the message board conduit, extra mechanical work, raising a hydrant, as well as deducts for seeding, sign installation and transformer pad. In addition to these construction items, $5,000 in liquidated damages are assessed to the contractor for not having the well houses substantially complete and operable in a timely manner. Financial Issues: This change order results in a net decrease to the construction contract of$3,181.00. We hereby recommend approval of Change Order No. 2 in the amount of a $3,181.00 reduction to Improvement Contract No. 94-5356 to Sheehy Construction Company. CHANGE ORDER TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED Engineers-Architects-Planners Saint Paul, MN October 6 19 95 Comm. No. 10532 Change Order No. 2 To Sheehy Construction Company for Well Pumphouse No. 11 Well Pumphouse No. 12 Improvement Contract No. 94-5356 for City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota You are hereby directed to make the following change to your contract dated September 6 , 19 95 . The change and the work affected thereby is subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. This Change Order will (increase) (decrease) (not change) the contract sum by Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty-one and 00/100----Dollars ($ 3,181.00 ) . (See attached Description Cost Breakdown) NET CHANGE = Deduct $3,181.00 Amount of Original Contract $ 527,000.00 Additions approved to date (Nos. 1 ) $ 7,342.00 Deductions approved to date (Nos. ) $ 0.00 Contract amount to date $ 534,342.00 Amount of this Change Order (Add) (Deduct) (N —6hangert) $ 3,181.00 Revised Contract Amount $ 531,161.00 TOLT , KI , DUVALL, ANDERSON Approved CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MN AND ASSOCIA ES, C Owner By By Date David L. Moore, P.E. Approved SHEEHY CONSTRUCTION CO. White - Owner* Contractor Pink - Contractor* By Date /Y. Z CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WELL PUMPHOUSE NO. 11 AND WELL PUMPHOUSE NO. 12 IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT 94-5356 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA Description and Cost Breakdown 1. Section 7/8 shows a structural steel beam which supports the brick wall above the recess on each of the four sides of Well Pumphouse No. 4. The steel beams are supported on masonry piers. Steel plates were embedded into the masonry piers to attach the steel beams to the piers. The eight embedded plates were not shown or specified and therefore had to be added. Also, a steel plate was added over the double door and louver to close up an air space. Item No. 1 Cost: Add - $879.00 2. When the ground was excavated for footing installation an area of loose soil was encountered. The loose soil was excavated and then replaced with compacted fill. Item No. 2 Cost: Add - $646.00 3. The fiber optic cable operating the message board is installed in a PVC conduit from City Center to Pumphouse No. 12. To permit locating the conduit, a tracker wire was added to the conduit. Item No. 3 Cost: Add- $329.00 4. Delete Seeding of Well Pumphouse sites. Item No. 4 Cost: Deduct - $1,300.00 5. Delete sign installation at Well Pumphouse No. 12. Item No. 5 Cost: Deduct -$106.00 6. The drawings showed a reinforced concrete transformer pad for Well Pumphouse No. 11. A precast was provided by NSP. Item No. 6 Cost: Deduct- $494.00 / U. C. 3 7. Extra mechanical work was required during start-up: a. At Pumphouse No. 12 add check valve to hydropneumatic water system used for prelube of the well pump to make it work properly. b. Clean backflow preventors of sand accumulated during first pumping of wells. Install ball valves on outside faucet piping at Pumphouse No. 12 to keep from depleting stored prelube water when pump is not operating. c. Install well water sample taps on well discharge piping. Total Item No. 7 Cost: Add - $1,050.00 8. Raise existing hydrant at Well Pumphouse No. 11 site to match grade. Item No. 7 Cost: Add - $805.00 9. The project was specified to be substantially complete and operable on April 15, 1995. The project was substantially complete and operable on June 16, 1995. Liquidated damages in the amount of$250/day for each well pumphouse are a part of the contract. The contractor requested a three-week extension which was not formerly acted on. Clearing and obtaining passing bacteriological tests on the wells also took more time than expected and was beyond the control of the contractor. It is mutually agreed that the contractor took 10 days longer than necessary during the critical water month of June to complete the work and therefore liquidated damages of$5,000.00 is being assessed(10 days @ $500/Day). Item No. 9 Cost: Deduct- $5,000.00 Total Change Order No. 2 Cost: Deduct - $3,181.00 -2- r EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-17-95 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. lam• DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger ABRA AUTO BODY Scott Kipp Recommended Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from I-2 to Community Commercial on 1.1 acre; • Approve a Site Plan Review on 1.1 acre, • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Rezoning 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement ABRA AUTO BODY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 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 1-2 District and be placed in the Community Commercial District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the I-2 District and shall be included hereafter in the Community Commercial District, 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 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 subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of October 17, 1995, entered into between Barclay,Ltd Development and Construction, Inc. and the City of Eden Prairie, and which Agreement are hereby made a part hereof. 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 19th day of September, 1995, finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of October, 1995. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on . .o - a. ABRA AUTO BODY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 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 Northeast corner of Hwy. 169 and Aztec Drive from I-2 to Community Commercial on 1.1 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a description of this ro e Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legalproperty. rty• agreement.developer's 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.) IrD. -3 Abra Auto Body Exhibit A Legal Description Prelimin ary ary Plat: That part of the North 200 feet of the West 585 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, T116 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minneota, lying easeterly of the easterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 169 as now located and established. Guide Plan Change, Zoning District Change, Site Plan Review That part of the North 200 feet of the west 585 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, Hennepin County,Minnesota,lying easterly of the easterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No.169 as now located and established and lying westerly,if the westerly right of way of Aztec Drive as now located and established. Tip. - y ABRA AUTO BODY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ABRA AUTO BODY BY BARCLAY, LTD DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. WHEREAS,Barclay,Ltd Development and Construction,Inc.has applied for Site Plan approval of Abra Auto Body on 1.1 acre for construction of an 8,896 sq. ft. building located Northeast corner of Hwy. 169 and Aztec Drive to be rezoned from I-2 to Community Commercial; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 28, 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 September 19, 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 Abra Auto Body for the construction of an 8,896 sq. ft. building, based on plans dated October 13, 1995, between Barclay, Ltd Development and Construction, Inc. and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on October 17, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk -131- D, 'S DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT ABRA AUTO BODY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 19_, by Barclay, Ltd Development and Construction, 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 Industrial to Community Commercial on 1.1 acres, Zoning District Change from I-2 to C-Corn on 1.1 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.1 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.36 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way for construction of 8,896 sq. ft. building, all on 1.1 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. for Rezoning from I-2 to Community Commercial, Resolution No. , for Site Plan Review, Resolution No. 95-176 for Preliminary Plat, and Resolution No. 95-175 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Community Commercial. 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, revised and dated September 13, 1995, reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 19, 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. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved utility plans concurrent with building construction. IV_ O . - 6 4. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: Prior to approval by the City of any final plat for the property, the Developer agrees to provide the City Engineer with a bond or letter of credit as security for the construction of all watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and streets within the property intended to be dedicated to the City for public ownership and maintenance, per Chapter 12 of City Code. 5. FINAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. 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. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City, obtain City Engineer's approval of, and implement 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. 6. STORM WATER QUALITY: In lieu of constructing a NURP facility for the treatment of storm water on the site, the Developer shall pay the City the cash equivalent of treatment facility construction prior to grading permit issuance. The payment amount shall be the equivalent of 2% of the land value plus $1000.00 for each acre of impervious surface on the site. The City shall deposit the payment in its storm water utility fund. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer has submitted to the City Planner and has received the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan concurrent with construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. LANDSCAPING 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. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. TY - 7 9. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to City Planner, and obtained City Planner'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. Developer shall implement the approved plan 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. 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. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to construct, or implement, said exterior materials concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 11. SITE LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit a detailed plan for site lighting to the City Planner for his approval. All pole lighting shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures not to exceed 25 feet in height. Developer shall implement the approved lighting plan concurrent with building construction. 12. TRASH ENCLOSURE: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and obtained City Planner's approval of a plan for the design of the outside trash enclosure for the property. Said trash enclosure shall be constructed with facebrick to match the building, include a roof, and heavy duty steel gates that completely screen the interior of the enclosure. Developer shall implement the trash enclosure plan concurrent with building construction. 13. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign to be located on the property, Developer, shall file an application with the City Planner for a 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. 14. ACCESS PERMIT: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall obtain from MnDOT, a permit for access to Aztec Drive, and provide a copy of said permit to the City Engineer. jar Q• - g 15. OUTSIDE STORAGE: Developer acknowledges that City code does not permit outside storage of inoperable automobiles, automobile parts, or other equipment in a Commercial zoning district. Developer agrees that he will abide by this City code requirement. 16. FINAL ORDER NO. : Developer has obtained approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for variances from City Code requirements within the C-Corn and I-2 Zoning Districts for lot size and dimension for the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said approval has been granted through Final Order# , attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Developer agrees to comply with all requirements of said Final Order No. Developer agrees to file Final Order # of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the Property at Hennepin County 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. 17. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT: Developer acknowledges that the City has approved development plans only for proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Aztec Drive Addition, as depicted in Exhibit B. Prior to any development or construction on proposed Lot 1, Block 2, Aztec Drive Addition, as depicted in Exhibit B, Developer shall be required to submit detailed development plans in accordance with the submittal requirements of the City, and obtain approval of those plans by the Planning Commission and City Council. TE0. - 9 ABRA AUTO BODY OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN BARCLAY, LTD DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 19 , by and between Prince R. Nelson, an Individual, 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 Resolution # for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Community Commercial on 1.1 acres, Ordinance # Zoning District Change from I-2 to C-Com on 1.1 acres, Resolution # Site Plan Review on 1.1 acres and Resolution # for Preliminary Plat of 2.36 acres as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 19 , by and between Barclay, Ltd. Development and Construction, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Barclay, Ltd. Development and Construction, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration and rescission of the rezoning, Site Plan Review, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, and Preliminary Platting, identified above, 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. 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. LUG. 1� EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-17-95 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. lir E • DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger AMOCO CAR WASH Scott Kipp Recommended Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the C-Hwy Zoning District on 0.9 acres, • Approve a Site Plan Review on 0.9 acres, • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement AMOCO CAR WASH 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 C-Hwy Zoning District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning of the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the C-Hwy. 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 October 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 19th day of September, 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 17th day of October, 1995. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on . 1..�_ . Z AMOCO CAR WASH 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 amends the zoning of land located at 8100 Flying Cloud Drive within the C-Hwy Zoning District on 0.9 acre; 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.) Z1Z E -3 Amoco Car Wash Addition Exhibit A Legal Description Zoning District Amendment, Site Plan Review RLS No. 1473 irE . - 7 AMOCO CAR WASH CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AMOCO CAR WASH BY AMOCO OIL COMPANY WHEREAS, Amoco Oil Company has applied for Site Plan approval of Amoco Car Wash on 0.9 acre for construction of an 1,114 sq. ft. car wash addition located at 8100 Flying Cloud Drive within the C-Hwy Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 28, 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 September 19, 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 Amoco Car Wash for the construction of a car wash addition, based on plans dated October 13, 1995, between Amoco Oil Company and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on October 17, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk E . -- DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AMOCO CAR WASH ADDITION THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of , 19 ,by Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland 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 Zoning District Amendment within the C-Hwy Zoning District on 0.9 acres and Site Plan Review on 0.9 acres for construction of 1,114 sq. ft. car wash addition, all on 0.9 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. for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution No. for 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, revised and dated September 12, 1995, reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 19, 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. 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. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to construct, or implement, said exterior materials concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property, including mechanical equipment located on the existing building 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 z _. 0 - the Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall implement the approved plan 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. 5. PROOF OF PARKING SPACES: Developer and City acknowledge that the ten proof of parking spaces proposed for the Property, depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto 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 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 all, or a portion of, said ten proof of parking spaces to be constructed in order to accommodate the use, the following shall occur: A. City shall notify Developer in writing of the need to construct all, or a portion, of said ten proof of parking spaces. B. Within six months of receipt of written notice from City, Developer agrees to have completed construction of all, or a portion of, said ten, as determined by City, in the location as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 6. TRASH ENCLOSURE: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and obtained City Planner's approval of a plan for the design of the outside trash enclosure for the property. Said trash enclosure shall be constructed with facebrick to match the building, including a roof, and heavy duty steel gates that completely screen the interior of the enclosure. Developer shall implement the trash enclosure plan concurrent with building construction. 7. OUTSIDE STORAGE: Developer acknowledges that City code does not permit outside storage of inoperable automobiles, automobile parts, or other equipment in a Commercial zoning district. Developer agrees that he will abide by this City code requirement. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10/17/95 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. 1T.F DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Recommendation to approve bids for Senior Recreation and Facilities- Center Retro-fit Sprinkler System. Barbara Pennin Cross RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends awarding the contract to Midwest Fire Protection, Inc. in the amount of$31,386 to furnish and install the Eden Prairie Senior Center with a retro-fit sprinkler system. BACKGROUND: State building and fire codes require a sprinkler system for fire protection in all public buildings that are improved. The Senior Center was remodeled in 1994 and now by State code needs a sprinkler system. Staff prepared specifications, advertised, and bids were opened on October 9, 1995. This City received four bids with the following results: Midwest Fire Protection, Inc. $31,386.00 Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. $33,600.00 New Mech Companies, Inc. $33,700.00 Grinnell Fire Protection $35,579.00 The plan submitted by the Midwest Fire Protection Inc. have been reviewed and approved by the Eden Prairie Fire Marshall. Plans meet the specifications and the company can complete the work within the eight weeks allotted. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Twenty-three thousand dollars was budgeted for 1995. Sufficient funds in the contingency budget are available to cover the additional $8,400. BC:pb/ccsrbid DATE: 10/17/95 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: y. A SECTION: Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Special Assessment Hearing for the Approval of the 1995 Special Jim Richardson Assessments (Published 09/27/95) Recommended Action: Approval of all Special Assessments presented in the Fall of 1995. Y. /9. / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections in the proposed assessments for the following improvements to wit: (See Exhibit A attached) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie: 1. Such proposed assessments are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands in the final assessment rolls, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of years as shown on Exhibit A. Installments shall bear interest at the rates shown on Exhibit A, commencing January 1, 1996. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid on or before November 30, 1995. 3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes beginning in 1996. 4. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearings as provided for the assessments being made, upon any properties abutting on the improvements but not herein assessed for the improvement when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment feasible. 5. The assessment data of Resolution No. 95-174 is herein revised in accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto. APPROVED on October 17, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk v �o. z 1. I.C. 52-067 Street&Utility Improvements on Old Shady Oak Road Project Cost: $ 1,910,227.83 Previously Assessed: $ 474,069.54 City Share: $ 999,898.84 County Share: $ 391,080.65 Net Assessment: $ 45,178.80 Streets $ 68.00/Fr.Ft. 20 Years at 8.0 Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 02-116-22-11-0002 Helen Pavelka Unplatted 18,430.04 02-116-22-14-0003 Interstate Diesel Unplatted 8,160.00 02-116-22-14-0005 Interstate Diesel Unplatted 18,588.76 • r•A, 3 2. I.C. 93-5312 Street and Utility Improvements to Dell Road from Project Cost: $ 1,290,057.22 Pioneer Trail north to North line of Bearpath Addition City Share: $ 654,010.69 Bearpath 218 Lot Units $ 1,682.74 Lot Units Net Assessment: $ 636,046.53 Dellwood Estates 190 Lot Units $ 1,239.47 Lot Units Big Woods 23 Lot Units $ 757.00 Lot Units 5 Years at 7.5 Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 19-116-22-43-0004 Bearpath Addition L1,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0007 Bearpath Addition L2,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0008 Bearpath Addition L3,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0009 Bearpath Addition L4,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0010 Bearpath Addition L5,B 1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0011 Bearpath Addition L6,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0012 Bearpath Addition L7,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0013 Bearpath Addition L8,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0014 Bearpath Addition L9,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0015 Bearpath Addition L10,B1 _ 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0016 Bearpath Addition L11,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0017 Bearpath Addition L12,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0018 Bearpath Addition L13,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0019 Bearpath Addition L1,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0020 Bearpath Addition L2,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0021 Bearpath Addition L3,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0022 Bearpath Addition L4,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0023 Bearpath Addition L5,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0024 Bearpath Addition L6,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0025 Bearpath Addition L7,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0026 Bearpath Addition L8,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0002 Bearpath Addition L9,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0003 Bearpath Addition L10,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0004 Bearpath Addition L11,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0005 Bearpath Addition L12,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0006 Bearpath Addition L13,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0007 Bearpath Addition L14,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0008 Bearpath Addition L15,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0009 Bearpath Addition L16,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0010 Bearpath Addition L17,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0011 Bearpath Addition L18,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0012 Bearpath Addition Ll,B3 1,682.74 v. Ai, 4/ Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 19-116-22-41-0013 Bearpath Addition L2,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0014 Bearpath Addition L3,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0015 Bearpath Addition L4,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0016 Bearpath Addition L5,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0017 Bearpath Addition L6,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0018 Bearpath Addition L7,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0019 Bearpath Addition L8,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0020 Bearpath Addition L9,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0021 Bearpath Addition L10,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0022 Bearpath Addition L11,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0023 Bearpath Addition L12,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0026 Bearpath Addition L1,B6 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0027 Bearpath Addition L2,B6 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0028 Bearpath Addition L3,B6 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0029 Bearpath Addition L4,B6 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-44-0028 Bearpath Addition L5,B6 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-44-0031 Bearpath Addition Twin Unit 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0032 Bearpath Addition Twin Unit 1,682.74 19-116-22-44-0029 Bearpath Addition L6,B6 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0030 Bearpath Addition L1,B7 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-14-0004 Bearpath Addition L1,B9 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-14-0005 Bearpath Addition L2,B9 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-14-0006 Bearpath Addition L3,B9 Twin Unit 3,365.48 19-116-22-11-0003 Bearpath Addition L1,B10 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0004 Bearpath Addition L2,B10 1,682.74 19-116-22-14-0007 Beat-path Addition L3,B10 1,682.74 19-116-22-14-0008 Bearpath Addition L4,B10 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0005 Bearpath Addition L1,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0006 Bearpath Addition L2,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0007 Bearpath Addition L3,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0008 Bearpath Addition L4,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0009 Bearpath Addition L5,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0010 Bearpath Addition L6,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0011 Bearpath Addition L7,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0012 Bearpath Addition L8,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0013 Bearpath Addition L9,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0014 Bearpath Addition L10,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0015 Bearpath Addition L11,B11 1,682.74 V,A. s' Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 19-116-22-11-0016 Bearpath Addition L12,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0017 Bearpath Addition L13,B11 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0018 Bearpath Addition LI,B12 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0019 Bearpath Addition L2,B12 1,682.74 19-116-22-11-0020 Bearpath Addition L3,B12 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0002 Bearpath Addition L1,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0003 Bearpath Addition L2,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0004 Bearpath Addition L3,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0005 Bearpath Addition L4,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0006 Bearpath Addition L5,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0007 Bearpath Addition L6,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0008 Bearpath Addition L7,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0009 Bearpath Addition L8,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0010 Bearpath Addition L9,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0011 Bearpath Addition L10,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0012 Bearpath Addition L11,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0013 Bearpath Addition L12,B13 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0014 Bearpath Addition LI,B14 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0015 Bearpath Addition L2,B14 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0016 Bearpath Addition L3,B14 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0017 Bearpath Addition L4,B14 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0021 Bearpath Second Add. L1,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0022 Bearpath Second Add. L2,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0023 Bearpath Second Add. L3,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0024 Bearpath Second Add. L4,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0025 Bearpath Second Add. L5,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0026 Bearpath Second Add. L6,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0027 Bearpath Second Add. L7,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0028 Bearpath Second Add. L8,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0029 Bearpath Second Add. L9,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0030 Bearpath Second Add. L10,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0031 Bearpath Second Add. L11,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0032 Bearpath Second Add. L12,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0033 Bearpath Second Add. L13,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0003 Bearpath Second Add. L1,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0004 Bearpath Second Add. L2,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0005 Bearpath Second Add. L3,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0006 Bearpath Second Add. L4,B2 1,682.74 Vi.i4. 4 Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 19-116-22-21-0007 Bearpath Second Add. L5,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0008 Bearpath Second Add. L6,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0009 Bearpath Second Add. L7,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0005 Bearpath Second Add. L8,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0006 Bearpath Second Add. L9 B2 1 682.74 rp , 19-116-22-24-0007 Bearpath Second Add. L10,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0008 Bearpath Second Add. L11,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0009 Bearpath Second Add. L12,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0010 Bearpath Second Add. L13,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0011 Bearpath Second Add. L14,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0012 Bearpath Second Add. L1,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0013 Bearpath Second Add. L2,B3 1,682.74 19-116-22-31-0008 Bearpath Second Add. L1,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-31-0009 Bearpath Second Add. L2,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-31-0010 Bearpath Second Add. L3,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-31-0011 Bearpath Second Add. L4,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-31-0012 Bearpath Second Add. L5,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-31-0013 Bearpath Second Add. L6,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-31-0014 Bearpath Second Add. L7,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0001 Bearpath Second Add. L8,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0002 Bearpath Second Add. L9,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0003 Bearpath Second Add. L10,B4 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0015 Bearpath Second Add. L1,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0016 Bearpath Second Add. L2,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0017 Bearpath Second Add. L3,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0004 Bearpath Second Add. L4,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0005 Bearpath Second Add. L5,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0006 Bearpath Second Add. L6,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0007 Bearpath Second Add. L7,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0008 Bearpath Second Add. L8,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0009 Bearpath Second Add. L9,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0010 Bearpath Second Add. L10,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0011 Bearpath Second Add. L11,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0012 Bearpath Second Add. L12,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0013 Bearpath Second Add. L13,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0014 Bearpath Second Add. L14,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0015 Bearpath Second Add. L15,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0016 Bearpath Second Add. L16,B5 1,682.74 1/A, 7 Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 19-116-22-13-0017 Bearpath Second Add. L17,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0018 Bearpath Second Add. L18,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0019 Bearpath Second Add. L19,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0020 Bearpath Second Add. L20,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0021 Bearpath Second Add. L21,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-13-0022 Bearpath Second Add. L22,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-42-0005 Bearpath Second Add. L23,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-42-0006 Bearpath Second Add. L24,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-42-0007 Bearpath Second Add. L25,B5 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0018 Bearpath Second Add. L1,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0019 Bearpath Second Add. L2,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0020 Bearpath Second Add. L3,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0021 Bearpath Second Add. L4,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0022 Bearpath Second Add. L5,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0023 Bearpath Second Add. L6,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0024 Bearpath Second Add. L7,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-24-0025 Bearpath Second Add. L8,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0010 Bearpath Second Add. L9,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0011 Bearpath Second Add. L10,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0012 Bearpath Second Add. L11,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0013 Bearpath Second Add. L12,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0034 Bearpath Second Add. L13,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0035 Bearpath Second Add. L14,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0036 Bearpath Second Add. L15,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0037 Bearpath Second Add. L16,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0038 Bearpath Second Add. L17,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0039 Bearpath Second Add. L18,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-12-0040 Bearpath Second Add. L19,B6 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0015 Bearpath Third Add. LI,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0016 Bearpath Third Add. L2,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0017 Bearpath Third Add. L3,B1 1,682.74 _ 19-116-22-21-0018 Bearpath Third Add. L4,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0019 Bearpath Third Add. L5,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0020 Bearpath Third Add. L6,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0021 Bearpath Third Add. L7,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0022 Bearpath Third Add. L8,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0023 Bearpath Third Add. L1,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0024 Bearpath Third Add. L2,13/ 1,682.74 '//I v ,X/ 1 Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 19-116-22-21-0025 Bearpath Third Add. L3,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0026 Bearpath Third Add. L4,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0027 Bearpath Third Add. L5,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0028 Bearpath Third Add. L6,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0029 Bearpath Third Add. L7,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0030 Bearpath Third Add. L8,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-21-0031 Bearpath Third Add. L9,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-43-0012 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot A 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0013 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot B 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0014 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot C 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0015 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot D 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0016 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot E 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0017 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot F 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0018 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot G 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0019 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot H 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0020 Bearpath Townhomes Outlot I 1,700.00 19-116-22-43-0010 Bearpath Townhomes L1,B1 500.00 19-116-22-43-0011 Bearpath Townhomes L2,B 1 500.00 19-116-22-14-0017 Bearpath Trail Add. L1,B1 1,682/74 19-116-22-14-0018 Bearpath Trail Add. L2,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-14-0019 Bearpath Trail Add. L1,B2 3,365.48 19-116-22-14-0020 Bearpath Trail Add. L2,B2 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0038 Bearpath Trail Add. L3,B2 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0039 Bearpath Trail Add. L4,B2 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0040 Bearpath Trail Add. L5,B2 3,365.48 19-116-22-41-0047 Bearpath Trail Add. L6,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0046 Bearpath Trail Add. L6,B2 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0043 Breckenridge Second L1,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0044 Breckenridge Second L2,B1 1,682.74 19-116-22-41-0045 Breckenridge Second L3,B 1 1,682.16 20-116-22-23-0003 Dellwood Estates Add L1,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0004 Dellwood Estates Add L2,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0005 Dellwood Estates Add L3,B 1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0006 Dellwood Estates Add L4,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0007 Dellwood Estates Add L5,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0008 Dellwood Estates Add L6,B 1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0009 Dellwood Estates Add L7,B 1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0010 Dellwood Estates Add L8,B1 1,239.47 Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 20-116-22-23-0011 Dellwood Estates Add L9,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0012 Dellwood Estates Add L10,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-24-0063 Dellwood Estates Add L11,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-24-0064 Dellwood Estates Add L12,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0014 Dellwood Estates Add L14,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0015 Dellwood Estates Add L15,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0016 Dellwood Estates Add L16,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0017 Dellwood Estates Add L17,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0019 Dellwood Estates Add L1,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0020 Dellwood Estates Add L2,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0021 Dellwood Estates Add L3,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0022 Dellwood Estates Add L4,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0023 Dellwood Estates Add L5,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0006 Dellwood Estates Add L1,B3 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0026 Dellwood Estates Add L6,B3 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0010 Dellwood Estates Add LI,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0011 Dellwood Estates Add L2,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0012 Dellwood Estates Add L3,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0013 Dellwood Estates Add L4,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0014 Dellwood Estates Add L5,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0016 Dellwood Estates Add L1,B5 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0017 Dellwood Estates Add L2,B5 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0018 Dellwood Estates Add L3,B5 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0019 Dellwood Estates Add L4,B5 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0021 Dellwood Estates Add L1,B6 1,239.47 1 20-116-22-32-0022 Dellwood Estates Add L2,B6 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0024 Dellwood Estates Add L1,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0025 Dellwood Estates Add L2,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0026 Dellwood Estates Add L3,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0027 Dellwood Estates Add L4,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0028 Dellwood Estates Add L5,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0029 Dellwood Estates Add L6,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0030 Dellwood Estates Add L7,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0031 Dellwood Estates Add L8,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0032 Dellwood Estates Add L9,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0033 Dellwood Estates Add L10,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0034 Dellwood Estates Add L11,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0008 Dellwood Estates Add L12,B7 1,239.47 i/•A- /o Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 20-116-22-33-0009 Dellwood Estates Add L13,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0010 Dellwood Estates Add L14,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0011 Dellwood Estates Add L15,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0012 Dellwood Estates Add L16,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0013 Dellwood Estates Add L17,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0014 Dellwood Estates Add L18,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0015 Dellwood Estates Add L19,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0016 Dellwood Estates Add L20,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0017 Dellwood Estates Add L21,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0018 Dellwood Estates Add L22,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0019 Dellwood Estates Add L23,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0020 Dellwood Estates Add L24,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0021 Dellwood Estates Add L25,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-33-0022 Dellwood Estates Add L26,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0036 Dellwood Estates Add L28,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0037 Dellwood Estates Add L29,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0038 Dellwood Estates Add L30,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0039 Dellwood Estates Add L31,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0040 Dellwood Estates Add L32,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0041 Dellwood Estates Add L33,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0042 Dellwood Estates Add L34,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0043 Dellwood Estates Add L35,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0044 Dellwood Estates Add L36,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0045 Dellwood Estates Add L37,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0047 Dellwood Estates Add L39,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0048 Dellwood Estates Add L40,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0027 Dellwood Estates Add L41,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0028 Dellwood Estates Add L42,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0029 Dellwood Estates Add L43,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0030 Dellwood Estates Add L44,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0031 Dellwood Estates Add L45,B7 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0034 Dellwood Estates 2nd L1,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0035 Dellwood Estates 2nd L2,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0036 Dellwood Estates 2nd L3,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0037 Dellwood Estates 2nd L4,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0038 Dellwood Estates 2nd L5,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0039 Dellwood Estates 2nd L6,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0040 Dellwood Estates 2nd L7,B1 1,239.47 v. A // Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 20-116-22-23-0041 Dellwood Estates 2nd L8,B1 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0042 Dellwood Estates 2nd L1,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0043 Dellwood Estates 2nd L2,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0044 Dellwood Estates 2nd L3,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0045 Dellwood Estates 2nd L4,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0046 Dellwood Estates 2nd L5,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0047 Dellwood Estates 2nd L6,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0048 Dellwood Estates 2nd L7,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0049 Dellwood Estates 2nd L8,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0050 Dellwood Estates 2nd L9,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0051 Dellwood Estates 2nd L10,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0052 Dellwood Estates 2nd LI1,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0053 Dellwood Estates 2nd L12,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0054 Dellwood Estates 2nd L13,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0055 Dellwood Estates 2nd L14,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0056 Dellwood Estates 2nd L15,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0057 Dellwood Estates 2nd L16,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0058 Dellwood Estates 2nd L17,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0059 Dellwood Estates 2nd L18,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0060 Dellwood Estates 2nd L19,B2 1,239.47 , 20-116-22-23-0061 Dellwood Estates 2nd L20,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0062 Dellwood Estates 2nd L21,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0063 Dellwood Estates 2nd L22,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0064 Dellwood Estates 2nd L23,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0065 Dellwood Estates 2nd L24,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0066 Dellwood Estates 2nd L25,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0067 Dellwood Estates 2nd L26,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0068 Dellwood Estates 2nd L27,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0069 Dellwood Estates 2nd L28,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0070 Dellwood Estates 2nd L29,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0071 Dellwood Estates 2nd L30,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0072 Dellwood Estates 2nd L31,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0073 Dellwood Estates 2nd L32,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0074 Dellwood Estates 2nd L33,B2 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0075 Dellwood Estates 2nd L1,B3 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0076 Dellwood Estates 2nd L2,B3 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0077 Dellwood Estates 2nd L3,B3 1,239.47 - 20-116-22-23-0078 Dellwood Estates 2nd LI,B4 1,239.47 V A, r Z Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 20-116-22-23-0079 . Dellwood Estates 2nd L2,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0080 Dellwood Estates 2nd L3,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0081 Dellwood Estates 2nd L4,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-23-0082 Dellwood Estates 2nd L5,B4 1,239.47 20-116-22-32-0052 Dellwood Estates 2nd Outlot A 79,326.57 20-116-22-22-0033 The Big Woods L1,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0034 The Big Woods L2,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0035 The Big Woods L3,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0036 The Big Woods L4,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0037 The Big Woods L5,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0038 The Big Woods L6,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0039 The Big Woods L7,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0040 The Big Woods L8,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0041 The Big Woods L9,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0042 The Big Woods L10,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0043 The Big Woods L11,B1 757.00 20-116-22-22-0044 The Big Woods Ll,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0045 The Big Woods L2,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0046 The Big Woods L3,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0047 The Big Woods L4,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0048 The Big Woods L5,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0049 The Big Woods L6,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0050 The Big Woods L7,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0051 The Big Woods L8,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0052 The Big Woods L9,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0053 The Big Woods L10,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0054 The Big Woods L11,B2 757.00 20-116-22-22-0055 The Big Woods L12,B2 757.00 3. I.C. 93-5341 Utility and Street Improvements to 82nd Street West Project Cost: $ 263,915.87 City Share: $ 55,561.22 Lateral Sewer $ 2,639.16/Lot Net Assessment: $ 208,354.65 Lateral Water $ 2,083.55/Lot Street &Drainage $ 9,167.60/Lot 20 Years at 8.0 % Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 18-116-22-13-0002 Les Kopesky (H) Unplatted 4,722.71 9,167.60 18-116-22-13-0003 Robert Eckert (H) Unplatted 4,722.71 9,167.60 18-116-22-13-0004 Gary Eckert (H) Unplatted 4,722.71 9,167.60 18-116-22-13-0005 Les Kopesky Unplatted 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0005 Centex L1,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0006 Centex L2,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0007 Centex L3,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0011 Centex L7,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0012 Centex L8,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0013 Centex L9,BI Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0014 Centex LIO,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 1 18-116-22-42-0025 Centex L21,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0026 Centex L22,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0028 Centex L24,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 18-116-22-42-0045 Centex Outlot A Hawthorne 2nd 13,890.31 (H) Homesteaded 4. I.C. 94-5345 Street and Utility Improvements in Dell Road from 82nd Project Cost: $ 714,150.82 Street West to Linwood Court Hawthorne 2nd $ 15,743.30/Lot Unit City Share: $ 413,840.95 Hawthorne Carriage Homes $ 15,294.24/Lot Unit Hawthorne 3rd $ 2,440.51/Lot Unit Net Assessment: $ 300,309.87 Outlot G $ 8,047.20/Lump Sum Outlot H $ 8,701.86/Lump Sum 5 Years at 8.0 % Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 18-116-22-42-0005 Centex L1,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 15,743.30 18-116-22-42-0006 Centex L2,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 15,743.30 18-116-22-42-0007 Centex L3,B 1 Hawthorne 2nd 15,743.30 18-116-22-42-0008 Centex L4,B 1 Hawthorne 2nd 15,743.30 18-116-22-42-0009 Centex L5,B1 Hawthorne 2nd 15,743.30 18-116-22-42-0049 Centex L2,B4 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0050 Centex L3,B4 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0051 Centex L4,B4 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0052 Centex L5,B4 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0053 Centex L6,B4 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0054 Centex LI,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0055 Centex L2,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0056 Centex L3,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0057 Centex L4,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0058 Centex L5,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 1 18-116-22-42-0059 Centex L6,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0060 Centex L7,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0061 Centex L8,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0062 Centex L9,B5 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-42-0063 Centex L1,B4 Hawthorne 3rd 2,440.51 18-116-22-41-0006 Centex L1,BI Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0007 Centex L2,B1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0008 Centex L3,B 1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0009 Centex L4,BI Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0010 Centex L5,B1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0011 Centex L6,B1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0012 Centex L7,B1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0013 Centex L8,B 1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0014 Centex L9,B1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0015 Centex L10,B1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-41-0016 Centex LI1,B1 Carriage Homes 15,294.24 18-116-22-44-0003 Centex Outlot G 8,047.2 18-116-22-44-0004 Centex Outlot H 8,701.86 i, A, `<s' 5. I.C. 94-5360 Street and Utility Improvements in Golden Ridge Drive Project Cost: $ 284,652.00 City Share: $ 162,422.00 Net Assessment: $ 122,230.00 Lot Unit $ 13,423.00 20 Years at 8.0 Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 01-116-22-32-0006 Dwight Benson (H) L1B1 Golden Rdg Hills 0 5,773.00 7,650.00 01-116-22-32-0008 Gordon Gubrud (H) L3B1 Golden Rdg Hills 0 5,773.00 7,650.00 01-116-22-32-0009 Roger Windfeldt (H) L4B1 Golden Rdg Hills 0 3,088.00 7,650.00* 01-116-22-32-0011 Joan McKee (H) L2B2 Golden Rdg Hills 0 5,773.00 7,650.00 01-116-22-32-0012 Clarence Schafer (H) Part of L2L3,B2 0 5,773.00 7,650.00 01-116-22-32-0018 Diane Fancher (H) L2,B1 Golden Rdg Hills 0 5,773.00 7,650.00 02-116-22-41-0004 Lada Hak (H) Unplatted 0 5,773.00 7,650.00 02-116-22-41-0005 Mark Zierden (H) L3,B2 Golden Rdg Hills 0 3,088.00 7,650.00* 02-116-22-41-0006 Brady Willette (H) L4,B2 Golden Rdg Hills 0 3,088.00 7,650.00* 02-116-22-41-0007 Betty Dean (H) L5,B2 Golden Rdg Hills 0 3,088.00 7,650.00* (H) Homesteaded * Recommending a credit of$2,685.00(cost of sanitary sewer) 6. I.C. 94-5368 Street and Utility Improvements on Old Shady Oak Road Project Cost: $ 209,809.24 City Share: $ 61,425.36 Net Assessment: $ 148,383.88 Lump Sum $ 148,383.88 5 Years at 8.0 % Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 02-116-22-11-0017 Interstate Diesel Unplatted 148,383.88 Y L17 7. I.C. 94-5388 Demolition of Structures at 8560 Franlo Road Project Cost: $ 6,200.00 City Share: $ 0 Net Assessment: $ 6,200.00 Lump Sum $ 6,200.00 5 Years at 8.0 % Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description Deferred 2000 1995 $Amount $Amount $Amount 14-116-22-34-0004 Charles Pufahl Tract B R.L.S. #168 6,200.00 8. SUPPLEMENTALS I.C.# Years Interest 1995 Amount Trunk Sewer & Water 02-116-22-11-0001 Loosen Addition 5 8% 4,530.00 02-116-22-21-0003 Bryant Pointe 2nd 5 8% 2,462.60 12-116-22-44-0001 Golden Triangle Business Ctr 5 8% 41,745.00 14-116-22-34-0006 Lake Edenview Townhomes 5 8% 3,055.50 17-116-22-33-0016 The Big Woods 5 8% 66,489.33 20-116-22-22-0033 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0034 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0035 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0036 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0037 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0038 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0039 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0040 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0041 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0042 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0043 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0044 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0045 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0046 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0047 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0048 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0049 Jeff Homer 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0050 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0051 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0052 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0053 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0054 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 20-116-22-22-0055 The Big Woods 5 8% 2,557.29 19-116-22-12-0018 Bearpath 4th 5 8% 15,970.50 19-116-22-24-0029 Bearpath 5th 5 8% 115,797.00 21-116-22-11-0020 Boulder Ridge 5 8% 55,275.00 21-116-22-31-0079 Broich 5 8% 7,560.00 21-116-22-41-00353 Joyland 5 8% 4,946.00 21-116-22-41-00354 Joyland 5 8% 1,000.00 21-116-22-41-00355 Joyland 5 8% 1,000.00 25-116-22-32-0024 Amer. Lutheran Church 2nd 5 8% 3,432.00 35-116-22-14-0005 Riverview Heights 2nd 5 8% 42,405.00 - Y. A. /9 8. SUPPLENIENTALS I.C.# Years Interest 1995 Amount 35-116-22-24-0001,02,11 Laukka/Jarvis PUD 5 8% 47,941.00 35-116-22-41-0001 Walnut Ridge 5 8% 48,964.00 Trunk Sewer & Water I.C. 94-5360 01-116-22-32-0006 Dwight Benson 20 8% 520.00 01-116-22-32-0008 Gordon Gubrud 20 8% 520.00 01-116-22-32-0009 Roger Windfeldt 20 8% 520.00 01-116-22-32-0011 Joan McKee 20 8% 520.00 01-116-22-32-0012 Clarence Schafer 20 8% 520.00 01-116-22-32-0018 Diane Fancher 20 8% 520.00 02-116-22-41-0004 Lada Hak 20 8% 520.00 02-116-22-41-0005 Mark Zierden 20 8% 520.00 02-116-22-41-0006 Brady Willette 20 8% 520.00 02-116-22-41-0007 Betty Dean 20 8% 520.00 Trunk Sewer & Water Exclusions IC 52-051 21-116-22-14-0001 John Sword 15 8% 520.00 Trunk Sewer & Water Exclusions IC 52-166 20-116-22-11-0003 Robert Brown 16 8% 300.00 21-116-22-22-0020 Mark Davey 16 8% 520.00 21-116-22-22-0028 Marvin Johnson 16 8% 520.00 - Trunk Sewer & Water Exclusions IC 52-203 21-116-22-42-0018 Robert Ostman 16 8% 520.00 21-116-22-42-0021 Roger Bloom 16 8% 520.00 __..62U11642. ..::. ..,,, ....,.«. La enctA°Sand ::. I715. m .< 8%. <>:.> << <<:<:>�:<;: .;>:`:>>< 12f) > 21-116-22-42-0030 Steven Pederson 16 8% 520.00 21-116-22-43-0014 Gordon Nix 16 8% 520.00 21-116-22-43-0020 Catherine Nelson 16 8% 300.00 Trunk Sewer & Water Exclusions IC 52-205 21-116-22-31-0080 Bob Mjolness 16 8% 1,528.00 Trunk Sewer & Water Exclusions IC 52-212 - 21-116-22-23-0003 Larry Lemon 16 8% 300.00 v. A- 20 8. SUPPLEMENTALS I.C.# Years Interest 1995 Amount titaiiik243kio05'iiiiiiiMgig::i 41itiffiag:S6h65160::.;iN:MV::::]•:.i•:::•iaiN.:.: .:46Mni.i•i.:•i•::;-i::Mi;.:.:.:;.:•ii;: :;aWi;i;:mi•ii•ii:::iii;E:Mi;.:i;;•:iiiiiiiiigiiiiiii:Miii520.0Viii: Lateral Sewer & Water Exclusions - IC 52-051 21-116-22-14-0001 John Sword 15 8.5% 4,928.00 21-116-22-14-0002 Craig Merriman 15 8.5% 4,941.40 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...........•••........---.............—.................................. Il21-11g 431$601111111111111MtalaiiiiiiilinE11111112111.61111111111111110411:11111111111.11111001011 21i;440•1.:74.4000:1iPiiRiPii:iii:iiiNiTigstoii:iRitlgo;• :::,•,,i:44:PiM]:;iiii::iiliii];i0iiiiiii;iiiim•iiNi i;i':8:.4700:maimmimiiiiiiiiii§::§Iii:4::a.2442:i 21-116-22-41-0055 Joyland 15 8.5% 4,905.00 22-116-22-23-0003 Bernard Hamilton 15 8.5% 3,078.46 Lateral Sewer & Water Exclusions - IC 52-144 . . 36-116-22-14-0001 Audrae Diestler 15 8.5% 5,635.97 36-116-22-14-0002 Jeffrey Norgren 15 8.5% 4,234.00 36-116-22-14-0005 Earl Houghton 15 8.5% 4,234.00 36-116-22-14-0006 Scott Gensmer 15 8.5% 5,557.09 Lateral Sewer & Water Exclusions - IC 52-166 20-116-22-11-0003 Robert Brown 16 8% 2,754.31 20-116-22-11-0011 Gregory Anderson 16 8% 2,754.31 21-116-22-22-0020 Mark Davey 16 8% 5,289.45 21-116-22-22-0028 Marvin Johnson • 16 8% 5,289.45 Lateral Sewer & Water Exclusions -IC 52-194 36-116-22-13-0017 Gary Gilbertson 18 7.5% 6,606.14 Lateral Sewer & Water Exclusions - IC 52-203 21-116-22-42-0018 Ronald Ostman 16 8% 4,641.14 21-116-22-42-0021 Roger Bloom 16 8% 4,641.14 214i'..164224240022iMiMM; Lawrence Link al6.;:.iiimimii.siamE ga%Nimimmmi mgmg.:;ii:40.414:4i, 21-116-22-42-0030 Steven Pederson 16 8% 4,641.14 21-116-22-43-0014 Gordon Nix 16 8% 4,641.14 21-116-22-43-0017 David Fisher 16 8% 3,434.40 21-116-22-43-0020 Catherine Nelson 16 8% 3,434.40 .._ U. A, 2-1 8. SUPPLEN1ENTALS • I.C.# Years Interest 1995 Amount Lateral Sewer & Water Exclusions - IC 52-205 21-116-22-31-0017 Edward Korbel 16 8% 5,298.84 21-116-22-31-0019 Broich 16 8% 5,298.84 Lateral Sewer & Water Exclusions -IC 52-212 21-116-22-23-0003 Larry Lemon 16 8% 4,566.48 21-116-22-23-0025 Thomas Schroer 16 8% 7,073.41 Connection Fees 08-116-22-34-0002 Len Granzow 20 8% 4,440.00 • 21-116-22-31-0072 Shirley Larson 20 8% 7,400.00 21-116-22-41-0054 Joyland 20 8% 7,400.00 25-116-22-44-0001 Gerald Haas 20 8% 2,960.00 Tax Forfeiture 06-116-22-21-0027 Honeywood Builders, Inc. 20 8% 7,094.00 Weed Cutting 25-116-22-31-0075 Baton Corporation 1 8% 40.00 25-116-22-31-0078 Baton Corporation 1 8% 40.00 Special Assessment Agreement 10-116-22-14-0039 - Carl Manson 5 8% 2,500.00 Deferred Laterals IC 52-051 ••:;;2.,:lasli6.!;2:24;14X)2(1.ffignE:::a Deferred Storm Sewer IC 52-069 35-116-22-24-0001,02,11 Laukka/Jarvis 12 8% 118,575.31 4, 2 7- 8. SUPPLEMENTALS I.C.# Years Interest 1995 Amount Deferred Laterals IC 52-101 35-116-22-24-0001,02,11 Laukka/Jarvis 12 8% 30,848.71 Deferred Laterals IC 52-205 21-116-22-31-0019 Broich 16 8% 5,544.30 y-4,- Zs EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-17-95 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V. 8 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL Michael Franzen CENTER Recommended Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 4.47 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.47 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots; • Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 4.47 acres; Background: This project was reviewed at four different Planning Commission meetings. At the September 25, 1995 meeting the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to deny the proposal as submitted. Reasons for denial included; traffic, preservation of natural features, buffer zone, inconsistency with PUD, PUD waivers, and land use mix. The Commission also felt that the 5,000 square foot restaurant was a regional use and would be more comfortable with a professional office building or a smaller "neighborhood" restaurant. Primary Issues: Traffic At the first Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission asked for a traffic study to determine the amount of traffic to be generated from the project, and the impacts on adjoining roads and intersections. The traffic study was prepared and results presented at the 2nd meeting. City staff review of the study concluded that traffic should be reduced and recommended a different land use mix and/or less building square footage. Residents felt that the convenience gas generated the most traffic and asked that it be removed from the project. The Planning Commission directed the developer to revise the plans to reduce traffic. At a subsequent meeting, the developer returned with revised development plan without the convenience/gas store which reduced traffic approximately in half. Residents in the surrounding neighborhood still believed traffic was too high and a change in land use to Office would reduce traffic further. v. 8 . - ► Need for a Neighborhood Commercial Area This site was guided Neighborhood Commercial and PUD approval was granted for 28,000 sq. ft. of retail, office, restaurant, and daycare in 1990. The Planning Commission believed that some Neighborhood Commercial is still appropriate in this location to serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood, on the other hand, feels that this area is adequately served by Neighborhood Commercial uses. Buffer Zone The buffer zone in this proposal is better than the approved 1990 PUD. The buffer zone has been amended several times by increasing the setbacks to buildings, designation of conservancy areas to preserve significant and non-significant vegetation, and adding of 50 eight to twelve foot high conifers on the north and south side of Cascade Drive. The Planning Commission is comfortable with the level of buffering provided. Neighborhood residents feel that the buffering needs additional improvement. Safety Concerns The reduction in traffic based upon the current plan helps relieve congestion on Cascade Drive. In the future, the intersection of Cascade Drive and Dell Road will meet signal warrants. A right-turn lane will be constructed on the north side of Cascade Drive to help with turning movements. Residents believe that due to an inadequate amount of parking area provided by the townhouses on the south side of Cascade Road, that people park in the streets. Neighbors believe that the street is too narrow, and combined with on-street parking, will not be able to handle the amount of traffic to be generated by this project. Tree Preservation The approved Planned Unit Development tree loss is 36%. The development plan as proposed is a 38% tree loss. Moving the buildings 10 feet to the west as suggested in the latest Staff Report would reduce tree loss to 31%. Revised Development Plan In response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the regional restaurant, the developer has submitted a revised development plan which reduces the size of the restaurant to 3,500 sq. ft. and adds the remaining 1,500 sq. ft. to general retail uses. The staff is comfortable with the revised plan since it addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission and makes the center more neighborhood oriented. A deed restriction must be filed on the property restricting restaurant use. The buildings have been moved to the west and reduces tree loss to 31%. There are two sets of building elevations. One is 28 feet high. The other is 20 to 28 feet high. Staff recommends the 28 foot high elevation because it looks more residential than commercial. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for PUD Concept 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Staff Reports dated September 22, 1995, September 8, 1995, August 11, 1995, July 7, 1995 4. Planning Commission Approved Minutes of September 25, 1995, September 11, 1995, August 14, 1995, July 10, 1995 5. Correspondence DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR TANDEM DEVELOPMENT AND KINDERCARE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center for Tandem Development and Kindercare dated October 12, 1995, consisting of 4.47 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 17th day of October, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk v, 8, -3 DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR TANDEM DEVELOPMENT AND KINDERCARE 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 Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center PUD Concept by Tandem Development and Kindercare 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 October 17, 1995; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated October 12, 1995. 3. That the PUD Concept did not meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated September 25, 1995. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of October, 1995. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Exhibit A Legal Description Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center Outlot A, Jamestown of Eden Prairie, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. V. B. - S C C STAFF REPORT ITO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: September 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center t APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation and Kindercare FEE OWNER: Tandem Corporation 4 LOCATION: SE Quadrant of the Intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5 REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial. 2. Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots. 4. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.47 acres. 5. Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. 1 V. a, - .,IIL Am :"/ ' "lf 0 .;_eir: ,__ti, mg i I Ferfr . Ni<t:27;4 lalk \ %%16 At • XlerWs ' STA , 1.111 \ .667,:*::rk*.: IP _C't A 15,,:5‘ 4441 4. e$0 40 _ . mit , 41i0 LI 1111: OS0 MIMI ._ imill111! _ Tjj Isik 2 4 • A I. ST. T.H.S . 10"41. •. . . paL I Rumr( c !1i _ m •111111.•\ owl." 1- .x C1.irtE .Ct1bc WM 1 1.'41 1•-G- Iltivegg...- ::::!::-.......-!..-:-:.:.:: . . . . . . . .. . . . ::.,. . . . . ...... . . . . , ......., ,,,-:.:.:::::::,:,:::::::::::::: . 11 ., r5,.."pir. . ,,,::„,„,.„:::„,„:.,:„„,., ....,::::•:•:::•:•:•:•:•.. . , „ cAK• \ iii We •::iii.:: r.:.::F.::::? CHANHASSEN 000 IA pa V. ,41APP IN °Or 44 co It :o •a0 C . • VA !IF IIII61: .ovig :itf- rz Irial ul , ....741 .::. :::.-..0:,:i:.....-.:::..:••:::. ...• . • ... ...••• ifi 31.05 . 4 or 111.„. sip.r., . .,.. A.., •.1::.::1:i:: ::. 1 .4, . i • Ariptato -v. 411- 47 1.- mg' I N-- -. :: j -.: auhdriv401101111.- w.nild ST. '7114:1 Ichabe ' 44gt. •••••••• • ....... . 41" TPV/Iiittila •:i:-:i:-::.:::::.: E:i:i: <N4ii •:•::::•. ::.:. ,, ri lcill'illillIlli'lliPltii•:.sr,.•i.:.,sp:s. .00 'ii.::.*::;..::::.::.1::iki:1::::::i*:::-::::::-.1iN:.--: 004000 titthi El.r?i ?RA!R.r 04 ice.._ V. B. _ Staff Report Dell Road and Highway 5 Commercial Center September 22, 1995 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the September 11, 1995 meeting for plan revisions on setbacks, NURP ponds, parking, trees for transition, and exterior building elevations. REVISED SITE PLAN 1. The retail buildings have been moved to the north. 2. The NURP ponds have been eliminated and the developer will make a cash contribution to the stormwater utility fund. This plan change allows existing large trees and understory vegetation to remain and screen the buildings from homes on the south side of Cascade Drive. 3. Parking has been relocated. 4. Fifty-four 8 to 10 foot high conifers are shown on the plan on both sides of Cascade Drive. 5. The roof height has increased from 20 to 28 feet. TREE LOSS On Wednesday, September 19th, the City Forester visited the site to reanalyze the tree inventory and tree loss calculations. There are a total of 1664 caliper inches of significant trees on site. There are a total of 627 caliper inches or 38% of the significant trees that would be lost due to construction or construction practices. The approved PUD tree loss was 40%. The first plan reviewed by the Planning Commission had a 36% tree loss. The reasons for higher tree loss are: 1. 3500 sq. ft. of convenience retail (which was located in the open area of the site) was converted into other retail moved closer to the trees. 2. The restaurant deck has increased in size from 900 sq. ft. to 1300 sq. ft. 3. Parking stalls too close to the drip line of trees, and grading within the dripline of the trees. 2 v. 6. -