Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 09/20/1994
AGENDA JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE EDEN PRAIRIE ARTS COMMISSION AND THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 6:15 P. M. CITY CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS: Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor; Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, Patrica Pidcock STAFF: Carl Jullie, City Manager; Bob Lambert, Director of PRNR COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beth Beutell, Chairperson; Deb Campbell Potter, Joe Howard, Thomas McGrew, Barbara Nordby, Daniel Rieppel, Em Stark COMMISSION STAFF: Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services I. INTRODUCTIONS (5 minutes) II. FORMATION OF ARTS COMMISSION (5 minutes) Presented by Beth Beutell III. 1994 SUMMER THEATRE PRODUCTION "ANYTHING GOES" (10 minutes includes video presentation) Presented by Em Stark IV. 1994 STARING LAKE CONCERTS SERIES (10 minutes)Presented by Barbara Nordby V. YOUNG AUDIENCE PROGRAM (5 minutes) Presented by Beth Beutell VI. CITY CENTER ART15 minutesLPresented by Beth Beutell VII. CENTER FOR THE ARTS (10 minutes includes video presentation) Presented by Beth Beutell VIII. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (10 minutes) IX. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Director of Community Development Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENTATION OF LETTER OF RECOGNITION TO JEFFREY SCULLY FROM THE EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. AUGUST 30, 1994 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. 2ND READING OF NOISE ORDINANCE C. EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment; Adoption of a Resolution Approving Site Plan Review for Eden Prairie Metro Mini-Storage; Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Eden Prairie Metro Mini-Storage by Property Resources Corporation. Location: 6851 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning Y g District Amendment and Resolution for Site Plan Review) City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Page Two D. CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment; Adoption of a Resolution Approving Site Plan Review for Christ Lutheran Church Fellowship Hall; Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Christ Lutheran Church Fellowship Hall by Christ Lutheran Church. Location: 16900 Main Street. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Site Plan Review) E. AWARD BID FOR PLAY STRUCTURE AT MILLER PARK F. AWARD BID FOR PLAY STRUCTURE AT EDEN LAKE PARK G. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND SETTING HEARING DATE FOR OCTOBER 18, 1994 H. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR TOE AND ARLENE JULLIE ADDITION FOR OCTOBER 18. 1994 I. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1995-1999 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. LAKESIDE by K-P Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 11 acres, Preliminary Plat of 11 acres into 16 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 11.04 acres and Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 11.04 acres) Continued from August 16 and September 6, 1994 B. BUCA RESTAURANT by Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres for a 4,200 sq. ft. restaurant addition. Location: Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District) Continued from September 6, 1994 City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Page Three C. RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION by Hustad Homes and Robert and James Brown. Request for PUD Concept Review on 39.45 acres and PUD District Review with waivers on 12.85 acres in the R1-22 Zoning District and Preliminary Plat of 12.85 acres into 12 single family lots. Location: Riverview Road east. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) D. HARTFORD PLACE by Ryan Companies. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 35.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres, PUD Concept Review on 110 acres, PUD District Review on 88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 218 townhouse lots, 25 single family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to R1- 13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres, Rezoning from Office to Commercial Regional Service on 5 acres and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Resolution for Preliminary Plat, Ordinance for Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5, Office to RM-6.5 and Office to Commercial Regional Service) E. MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION by McDonalds. Request for PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for a playland addition. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) F. VACATION 94-07. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN OUTLOT B. GLENSHIRE (Resolution) G. VACATION 94-08, SCENIC EASEMENT OVER PART OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1. BLUFFS EAST FOURTH ADDITION (Resolution) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST TO REVIEW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS APPROVAL OF VARIANCES #94-17, TANEN. 6525 ROWLAND ROAD (Continued from September 6, 1994) City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Page Four B. REQUEST FROM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION RESIDENTS - TRAFFIC CONCERNS ON EVENER WAY & DELL ROAD IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS. RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 1. UPDATE ON LAND ACQUISITION STATUS AND FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1994 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Julie, Director of Community and Economic Development Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, Director of Assessing Steve Sinell, Finance Director John Frane, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Kevin Schmieg, Director of Inspections and Council Recorder Gina Larson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. 1995 BUDGET REVIEW Jullie stated that, by September 15, 1994, the Council must decide on the maximum property tax levy and arrive at a preliminary figure for spending by adopting a proposed budget for 1995. Staff was prepared to review revenue income and spending requests for the coming year. The proposed expenditure for 1995 was $22,027,100 with a revenue shortfall of $512,272. Jullie reviewed proposed budgets from the departments. He discussed the reasons for additional spending in 1995, including new debt obligations, City Center operations, new equipment, and new staff positions requesting including two police officers, and two new clerical staff members. He then reviewed total spending cuts. Councilmembers raised questions about the benefit package for employees, particularly health care benefits. Jullie pointed out that a lot of the health care benefits are already borne by employees. A ten-dollar per visit co-payment provision had been added to lower the City's premium increase. Jullie referred the Council to an eight-page handout (1995 Proposed Budget). He said there were many factors considered in preparation of the budget, including a 4.5 percent increase in personal income for Minnesota residents. In addition, Staff prepared examples of how various rates of increase in the tax rate would affect the average homestead in Eden Prairie, which had a 1994 value of $135,000. In 1995 the value of that home will go up to $141,800 or increase in value by 5 percent. This year, the City Council Minutes -2- August 30, 1994 City's tax for the average homestead was $509. In 1995, given the proposed budget, this will go up to $533. Jullie said that a 4.75 percent increase for next year seemed reasonable. Councilmembers raised questions about the proposed increase in taxes for 1995 by the Eden Prairie School District. Sinell said the preliminary estimate was that the Eden Prairie School District would raise taxes by eight (8) percent, or more. Jullie referred to the report from Staff and highlighted various portions, including: a summary of expenditures and the report for equipment and debt service. The expenditures for 1994 were $20,319,900 and the proposed 1995 expenditures would be $22,027,100. With respect to the difference of$512,272 between the proposed revenues and proposed expenditures, Jullie stated that the options included reduction in spending requests, use of a portion of the General Fund Balance (assuming favorable variances), and the potential for the sale of City-owned property to be sold next year. Councilmembers discussed the potential for adding more than two officers to the Police Department, with an intended focus on crime prevention. Clark said the police department was in the process of re-evaluating its procedures and priorities for attention. For example, there had been successes in neighborhood watch programs, which were quite positive. He said the addition of officers was not an easy task for the department in that training took a lot of time from experienced officers, as well as from the trainees. Therefore, it was the department's preference to train only one or two new officers at a time. Councilmembers commended the department for taking a planned look at its future and asked for Clark's input when the review was completed. Councilmembers suggested that the Staff review the budget requests again to find additional cuts to reduce or eliminate the shortfall. Concerns included health care and benefit packages for employees, and a more exact projection of revenues for the coming year. Councilmembers complimented Staff on the budget preparation to this point. They concurred that the budget appeared reasonable, in general, and that they would not be against using the revenues from the sale of City-owned property to help balance the budget for 1995. Jullie stated Staff would have a resolution for adoption of the 1995 proposed budget and setting the maximum levy available at the Council meeting on September 6th. III. OTHER BUSINESS None. IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Tenpas closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. I 7F6 MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber - 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Director of Community Development Chris Enger,Director of Parks,Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All members were present. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION FOR LITERACY AWARENESS MONTH, SEPTEMBER, 1994 Mayor Tenpas presented a Proclamation for Literacy Awareness Month to a representative of the Eden Prairie School District. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Jullie added item XI.D.2. STATUS OF CENTRUM PURCHASE AGREEMENT. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve the agenda as submitted and amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. OPEN PODIUM There were no presentations during this portion of the meeting. III. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. AUGUST 16, 1994 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the minutes of the August 16, 1994, meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE #30-94. AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 4 RELATING TO LIQUOR REGULATIONS City Council Minutes 2 September 6, 1994 C. SIGN CODE AMENDMENT. 2nd Reading of Ordinance#31-94, amending the Sign Code and providing for temporary off-site directional signs. D. RECOMMENDATION TO ACQUIRE LAKESHORE PROPERTY ON DUCK LAKE E. REQUEST TO ELIMINATE RECREATION PROGRAM TRANSFER FEES F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF COMMUNICATIONS WIRING TO POLICE RADIO TOWER G. RESOLUTION #94-131 AMENDING FEE RESOLUTION (ANIMAL ORDINANCE CHANGES) H. SET SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR OCTOBER 4. 1994 FOR PROJECT BY TOM THUMB STORE AT DELL ROAD & TOWNLINE ROAD (Resolution #94-132) I. RESOLUTION #94-133, APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR HAWTHORNE OF EDEN PRAIRIE 3RD ADDITION (located east of Dell Road and south of TH 5) J. RESOLUTION #94-134, APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR HAWTHORNE CARRIAGE HOMES (located east of Dell Road and south of TH 5) K. RESOLUTION #94-135, APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR FAIRIELD SOUTH 3RD ADDITION (located north of Pioneer Trail and West of Braxton Drive) L. RESOLUTION #94-136. AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WELL PUMPHOUSE NOS. 11 & 12, I.C. 94-5356 M. RESOLUTION #94-137. AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WATERMAIN AND WELL COLLECTOR LINES IN MITCHELL ROAD AND TECHNOLOGY DRIVE. I.C. 94-5357 N. RESOLUTION #94-138, REGARDING LIMITED USE PERMIT APPROVAL FROM MnDOT O. SET TUESDAY. OCTOBER 4, 1994, 6:30 PM, TO INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION, HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE. AND STUDENT/YOUTH LIAISONS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS P. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN BREMCO (EDEN PRAIRIE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP). LEISERV, INC.. AND CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Councilmembers questioned why we are interviewing candidates for Commissions and Boards at this time. Jullie said it is only for those Commissions that currently have vacancies and for the Student/Youth Liaison appointments. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve items A. - P. of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 3 September 6, 1994 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. LAKESIDE by K-P Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 11.04 acres, Preliminary Plat of 11.04 acres into 16 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 11.04 acres and Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 11.04 acres) Continued from August 16, 1994 Jullie said proponent has requested a continuance of the Public Hearing to September 20, 1994, noting that the item should be directed back to the Commissions prior to City Council review to obtain recommendations regarding Shoreland variances and clearing of brush on the property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to continue the public hearing to the September 20, 1994, meeting and to direct the item back to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission and the Planning Commission prior to Council review. Motion carried unanimously. B. BUCA RESTAURANT by Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres for a 4,200 sq. ft. restaurant addition. Location: Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District) The proponent has requested that this Public Hearing be continued to September 20, 1994. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue the public hearing to the September 20, 1994, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. EDEN PRAIRIE MALL EXPANSION - PHASE II by Homart Development Company. Request for PUD Concept Review on 80 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 80 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 80 acres, and Site Plan Review on 80 acres. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) Bill Moston, representing Homart Development Company, reviewed their request to begin the Phase II expansion of the Eden Prairie Mall. Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the expansion at their August 8th meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of August 5th. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution #94-139, approving PUD Concept Review; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment; and to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 4 September 6, 1994 D. EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE by Property Resources Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review in the I-2 Park District on 4.1386 acres. Location: 6851 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment) Greg Hallenkamp and Mike Seeland, representing Property Resources Corporation, reviewed the request to renovate the existing building on the property and to expand the site for additional mini-storage buildings. Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their August 22nd meeting and recommended approval, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of August 19th. Councilmembers expressed concern regarding drainage on this property and on the adjacent properties and the funding of any drainage improvements that may be required. Seeland said the problem appears to be that the adjacent property owner has no drainage to the south, and that owner is dealing with City Staff to make improvements to the drainage. Dietz said the drainage improvements could be a special assessment project; however, the property this project is located on is nearly all hard-surfaced, so it will not affect the drainage situation in the area. There were no comments from the audience. Hallenkamp said they would like to request an early grading permit. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to close the public hearing, to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment, and to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to grant a permit to proponent for early grading on the site prior to Second Reading at their own risk. Motion carried unanimously. E. NOISE ORDINANCE Enger said the City's Noise Ordinance is obsolete and needs to be updated in order to have enforceable standards. The proposed Noise Ordinance is modeled after those of Bloomington and St. Louis Park, which have been in existence for twenty years and have national recognition. He said the draft has been amended to drop music as a noise category. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised Noise Ordinance on a 4-1 vote. Councilmembers asked if there are areas of the City that exceed the noise levels allowed and what the consequences would be for noncompliance. Enger provided examples of several businesses that exceeded the levels allowed for a variety of reasons. He said they would look at a process for issuing tickets for noncompliance; however, they would try to work something out with owners before tickets were issued. Councilmembers discussed what effect the ordinance would have on private parties such as wedding celebrations. Pauly said there would have to be additional changes if private party situations were meant to be excluded. City Council Minutes 5 September 6, 1994 There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to close the public hearing, and to approve the 1st Reading of the proposed Noise Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Payment of Claims as presented. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Harris, Jessen, Pidcock, and Tenpas voting "aye". VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION #94-140, RELATING TO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES Jullie said a resolution has been prepared for the City Council to state its findings in approving the 5-lot subdivision of Purgatory Creek Estates at the August 16th meeting. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to adopt Resolution #94-140, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision regarding Preliminary Plat of Purgatory Creek Estates. Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION #94-141 - PROPOSED CITY BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR 1995 At the August 30, 1994 workshop session, the City Council discussed the proposed 1995 Budget and Tax Levy, with the proposed net property tax levy to be $13,900,000 and accepting a proposed budget of$22,027,100. This amount reflects the maximum tax levy that could not be exceeded when the Council finally sets the levies in December. Councilmembers discussed the potential for combining spending cuts with additional revenue, noting that this is the maximum tax levy and the maximum budget subject to further review and refinement. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock , to adopt Resolution#94-141, establishing the proposed property tax levy and accepting the proposed budget for 1995. Motion carried unanimously. C. STREET NAME CHANGE FOR A PORTION OF CONEFLOWER LANE TO CATTAIL COURT (Ordinance #32-94) Jullie said Staff is proposing a street name change for one segment of Coneflower Lane in order to reduce possible confusion because of the two intersections of Dell Road and Coneflower Lane. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance #32-94, changing a portion of Coneflower Lane to Cattail Court. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 6 September 6, 1994 MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to approve 2nd Reading of Ordinance #32-94, changing a portion of Coneflower Lane to Cattail Court. Motion carried unanimously. D. STREET NAME CHANGE FOR A PORTION OF BOULDER POINTE ROAD TO BLAKENEY ROAD (Ordinance #33-94) Jullie said Staff is proposing a street name change for one segment of Boulder Pointe Road in order to reduce possible confusion because of the two intersections of Boulder Pointe Road and Mitchell Road. Councilmembers expressed concern about possible financial impact on residents as a result of the change. Dietz said Staff planned the change so that there would be no impact on nearby residents. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance #33-94, changing the name of a portion of Boulder Pointe Road to Blakeney Road. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to adopt 2nd Reading of Ordinance #33-94, changing the name of a portion of Boulder Pointe Road to Blakeney Road. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST TO REVIEW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS APPROVAL OF VARIANCES #94-17 TANEN 6525 ROWLAND RD. (Continued from August 16, 1994) Jullie said the parties are continuing to try to resolve the issues. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to continue this item to September 20, 1994, to allow additional time to resolve issues regarding the joint driveway. Motion carried unanimously. B. REQUEST FROM SOUTHWEST TRAILS SYSTEM TO DESIGNATE A SNOWMOBILE TRAIL ON A PORTION OF THE HENNEPIN PARKS REGIONAL TRAIL WITHIN EDEN PRAIRIE Jullie said the Southwest Trails System has requested designation of a snowmobile trail on Riley Lake and on a portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority trail near Riley Lake. While Hennepin Parks has operational jurisdiction over the trail, its regulations relate only to summer use. Winter activities are left to the discretion of the City. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission reviewed the request in August and recommended denial on a unanimous vote. One of the major concerns was that the designated trail location goes across Riley Lake, and there is no alternative route for those times when the lake is not safe for snowmobiles. There was also concern about setting a precedent for use of snowmobiles in Riley Lake Park. City Council Minutes 7 September 6, 1994 Councilmembers expressed concern about the lack of opportunities for snowmobiling in Eden Prairie and questioned if other areas west of Riley Lake allow snowmobiling. Lambert said that, while the City supported snowmobiling as a recreational pursuit, the City has grown to the point where it is not a good idea to provide opportunities for it within the City limits The City of Chanhassen will also review proposals from the club. Councilmembers questioned the possibility of using the abandoned railway track. Lambert said the use of that track during the winter is up to the City, and that Staff will ask for a cross- country ski trail to be set up on the track. Charles Litkin, 7609 Loretto Drive, Chanhassen, said the Southwest Trails System club wants this trail because they lost the existing trail that goes down to Chaska and connects with the river trails because of road construction. He reviewed an alternative plan if their request to cross Riley Lake is denied. Councilmembers discussed alternatives to the trail crossing Riley Lake, the possible problems of mixing cross-country skiers with motorized vehicles, and possible complaints from residents about noise from the snowmobiles. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to recommend denial of the request of the Southwest Trails System for a snowmobile trail on Riley Lake and on a portion of the Hennepin CountyRegional Rail Authoritytrail near Rileyake, based on the findings of the Parks, g Recreation, and Natural Resource Commission, and to direct Staff to prepare a letter to the City of Chanhassen recommending that they approve the alternative route through their section of the trail in order to avoid the Riley Lake crossing. Motion carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES None. X. APPOINTMENTS None. XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. REVIEW 1993 AUDIT REPORT The auditors were not present. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to continue this item to the September 20th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 8 September 6, 1994 C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 1. REQUEST TO SEEK PROPOSALS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ART COUNCIL TO DIRECT AND OPERATE AN ARTS CENTER OUT OF A CITY-OWNED FACILITY Lambert reviewed the process that led the Center for the Arts Committee to seek a private non-profit Arts Board comprised of Eden Prairie residents to manage and operate an Arts Center facility in a City-owned building. Staff has developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to begin the process of implementing a community-based arts program. Councilmembers questioned how the RFP will be advertised, what the new program's relationship will be to the Arts Commission, and whether the City would relinquish responsibility for the program. Lambert said the RFP will be advertised in the Eden Prairie News, and the Arts Commission members did not want to give up their current offerings in order to concentrate on an Arts Center. He said Staff is recommending that we issue the RFP and retain an open mind as proposals are submitted. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to direct Staff to issue the Request for Proposal to seek a private non-profit Arts Board comprised of Eden Prairie residents to manage and operate an Arts Center facility in a City-owned building for the purpose of beginning a process of implementing a community-based arts program. Motion carried unanimously. D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. REVIEW OF MIDWEST ASPHALT LAND ALTERATION PERMIT Jullie said Midwest Asphalt submitted their application for a land alteration permit on September 1. He asked that this item be continued to October 4 to allow Staff adequate time to review the information. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to refer the application for staff review and to report back at the October 4th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. STATUS OF CENTRUM PURCHASE AGREEMENT Enger reported that Centrum has not been able to locate a tenant for the 2-1/2 acre retail site that is part of the two restaurant project, and they need to move forward. They would like to amend the purchase and developer's agreements to separate out the retail site so that the effective purchase price of the zoned three acres would be increased above the $8.41 per square foot. In order to meet their closing date of September 9th they have requested authorization to enter into an amended purchase agreement for the three acres. City Council Minutes 9 September 6, 1994 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to authorize Staff to enter into an amended purchase agreement for the Centrum site, and to revise the Developer's Agreement as may be necessary. Motion carried unanimously. (At this point the auditors joined the meeting.) MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to reconsider item XI.B.1. XI.B.1. REVIEW 1993 AUDIT REPORT Auditor Bill McCue reviewed the findings of the 1993 Audit Report with the Council. He recommended that, at some point, the City conduct a physical inventory of fixed assets. Councilmembers expressed concern that the physical inventory has been postponed time after time and that, by setting the asset value to a reasonable amount, it should not be too difficult to perform. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to accept the auditor's report, including items in the Management Letter, and to direct that the physical inventory of assets be established. Motion carried unanimously. XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Tenpas closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. City of Eden Prairie • Eden Police Department p ra i r o e Fax(612)949-6203 7900 Mitchell Rd. . Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2299 • Telephone(612)949-6200 'f'I E 'er D 9-_--4 FROM Randy Thompson SU8JECM Award At the September 2?)th City CounriI meetina, our department would like to present a letter of recognition to a citizen - Je-Pi=r-;_.,,. Scully. Jec- called 911 to r-eoor} a theft in progress on 7-16-94 at his aoar-tment complex in Eden Prairie. Due to his osil we arrested our persons who were attempting to steal vehicles. As per our conversation on this will be a short presentation at the ;sec!i n n i d o4 tne meeting. --AEZsig‘ l; Randy Thompson-- Awards Committee Chair ep ` CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: d�rr pram SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR 9-20-94 . . DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance - Pat Solie CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST IV.A THESE LICENSES HAVE BEEN APPROVED 3Y THE DEPARTMENT HEADS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LICENSED ACTIVITY. CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM. ) HEATING & VENTILATING Metro Intercon, Inc. Doody Mechanical , Inc. New Mech Companies, Inc. PLUMBING RAFFLE Doody Mechanical Inc. Jim Easter Plumbing Telephone Pioneers (1-16-95 at the Eden Prairie WATER SOFTENERPolice Dept) Surge Water Conditioning TEMPORARY LIQUOR GAS FITTER Eden Prairie Lions Club (9-19,10-3,10-17, at the Eden Doody Mechanical , Inc. Prairie City Hall ) Actien/Direction: 9-20-94 Page 1 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9/20/94 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. .r. 6 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger 2ND READING OF REVISED NOISE ORDINANCE Steve Durham Requested Council Action: The Staff requests that the Council take the following action: • 2nd Reading of an Ordinance revising the noise ordinance. Background - Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission recommended 4-1 the revised noise ordinance to the City Council at its August 8, 1994 meeting. The City Council reviewed the noise ordinance at its September 6, 1994 meeting and recommended the ordinance be placed on the consent calendar and receive 2nd reading at its September 20, 1994 meeting. Summary: This ordinance amends the section of the City Code which relates to the noise ordinance and includes: addition of definitions related to noise, revision of the way noise is measured at a property line from octave bands to decibels, addresses noise related to paging systems and intercom systems in the Commercial, Industrial and Office zoning districts, defines noise associated with emergency work, addresses noise related to domestic power equipment, and outlines administrative procedures. The noise ordinance is moved from Chapter 11 to Chapter 9. Supporting Information: 1. Copy of proposed noise ordinance. 2. Copy of Summary. m:\mrbkteva ee.a d CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" RELATING TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AND CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES RELATING TO NOISE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAFFER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subd. 4. Entitled "Performance Standards" shall be amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. Performance Standards. Uses which because of the nature of their operation are accompanied by an excess of noise, vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, odor, noxious gases, glare or wastes shall not be permitted. These standards shall be considered "excessive when they exceed or deviate from the limitations set forth in the following performance specifications: A. Vibration. No activity or operation shall at any time cause earth vibrations perceptible beyond the limits of the immediate site on which the operation is located. B. Dust and Dirt. Solid or liquid particles shall not be emitted at any point in concentrations exceeding 0.3 grains per cubic foot of the conveying gas or air. For measurement of the amount of particles in gases resulting from combustion, standard corrections shall be applied to a stack temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and 50% excess air. C. Smoke. Measurement shall be at the point of emission. The Ringelman Smoke Chart published by the United States Bureau of Mines shall be used for the measurement of smoke. Smoke not darker or more opaque than No. 1 of said chart may be emitted, provided that smoke not darker or more opaque than No. 2 of said chart may be emitted for periods not longer than four minutes in any 30-minute period. These provisions, applicable to visible grey smoke, shall also apply to visible smoke of a different color but with an equivalent apparent opacity. 1 -Dr. 5. - Z D. Odor. No activity or operation shall cause at any time the discharge of toxic, noxious, or odorous matter beyond the limited of the immediate site where it is located in such concentrations as to be detrimental to or endanger the public health, welfare, comfort or safety or cause injury to property or business. E. Glare. Glare, whether direct or reflected, such as from spotlights or high temperature processes, and as differentiated from general illumination, shall not be visible beyond the limits of the immediate site from which it originates. F. Wastes. All solid waste material, debris, refuse, or garbage shall be kept within a completely enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container designed for such purpose. All liquid wastes containing any organic or toxic matter shall be discharged with into a public sanitary sewer or treated in a manner prescribed by the City. The rate of liquid waste discharge into the City sanitary sewerage system shall not exceed 200 gallons per site acre per hour between the hours of 9:00 o'clock a.m. and noon. Use for the dumping or storage above ground or under the surface of chemical waste and other hazardous waste products will not be permitted because of the potential hazards that may be created to public health, safety, and welfare in all Districts. Section 2. City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.41 shall read as follows: SECTION 9.41. NOISE Subd. 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this section the following terms shall have the meanings stated: a. "Air Circulation Device" - A mechanism designed and used for the controlled flow of air used in ventilation , cooling, or conditioning, including, but not limited to, central and window air conditioning units. b. "L10" - means the sound level, expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded 10% of the time for a one-hour period, as measured by a sound level meter having characteristics as specified in the latest standards, S1.4 of the American National Standards Institute. and using test procedures approved by the City Manager or his/her designee. c. "L50" - means the sound level similarly expressed and measured as L10 which is exceeded 50 % of the time for a one hour period. d. "Noise" -Any erratic, intermittent, and/or statistically random oscillations 2 Ir. 6. which result in disturbing, harmful, or unwanted sound. e. "Person" - An individual, firm, partnership, corporation, trustee, association, the state and its agencies and subdivisions, or any body of persons whether incorporated or not and with respect to acts prohibited or required herein, person shall include employees and licensees. f. "Sound" - A temporal and spatial oscillation in pressure or other physical quantity in a medium with internal forces which causes compressions and rarefactions of that medium and which is propagable at finite speed to distant points. g. "Sound Level (Noise Level) - The A-weighted sound pressure level, expressed in dBA, obtained by the use of a sound-level meter having characteristics as specified in the American National Standards Institutes (ANSI) standard S1-4-1961. Subd. 2. Noise. No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety, or welfare of any persons or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their property's value. This general prohibition is not limited by the specific restrictions of the following subdivisions. a. Loading, unloading, unpacking. No person or equipment shall create loud and excessive noise in loading, unloading, or unpacking any vehicle. b. Paging systems and intercom systems. No person in the Commercial, Industrial or Office zoning district shall use or operate or permit use or operation of any paging system or intercom system in distinctly and loudly audible manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of any such equipment in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line of the structure or building in which it is located, or at a distance 50 feet beyond the property line if the source is located outside a structure or building shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. c. Loudspeakers, amplifiers for advertising, etc. No person in the Commercial, Industrial, or Office zoning district shall operate or permit the use or operation of any loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or other device for the production or reproduction of sound on a street or other public place for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any commercial establishment or vehicle. Subd. 3. Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations. 3 a. Domestic power equipment. No person shall operate in the Rural, R1 or RM zoning district a power lawn mower, power hedge clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, drill, or other similar domestic power maintenance equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Snow removal equipment is exempt. b. Construction activities. No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, or gas-powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activities may occur on Sundays or legal Holidays. The City Manager may, upon good cause being shown, vary these days and hours in writing. Subd. 4. Receiving Land Use Standards. Maximum noise levels by receiving land use districts. No person shall operate or cause or permit to be operated any source of noise in such a manner as to create a noise level exceeding the limit set in table I for the land use category specified when measured at or within the property line of the receiving land use. Table I. Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use Districts Day 7:00 am - Day 7:00 am - Night 10:00 Night 10:00 10:00 pm 10:00 pm pm - 7:00 am pm - 7:00 am Receiving L10 L50 L10 L50 Land Use Districts Residential 65 60 55 50 Commercial, 70 65 70 65 Office, Public Industrial 80 75 80 75 The limits of the most restrictive district shall apply at the boundaries between different land use categories. The determination of land use shall be by its zoned designation. Subd. 5. Air Circulation Devices. No person shall permanently install or place any air circulation device, except a window air condition unit, in any outdoor location such that the device in that location does not comply with the noise level standards prescribed in Subdivision 4. 4 -1V--. 6, - S Subd. 6. Exceptions. a. Emergency Work. Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare, or in the performance of emergency work necessary to restore a public service or eliminate a public hazard shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Any person responsible for such emergency work shall take all reasonable actions to minimize the amount of noise. b. Government sponsored activities. Certain activities related to public entertainment including but not limited to Fourth of July Fireworks, City sponsored Concerts in public parks, licensed carnivals, and parades shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 7. Administration. a. Administering officer. The noise control program established by this ordinance shall be administered by the City Manager or his\her designee. b. Testing Procedures. The City Manager or his\her designee may enlist the services of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the services of a private noise testing company when testing for noise levels is believed in excess of Subdivision 4 of this section. c. Studies, etc. The City Manager or his/her designee may conduct such research, monitoring, and other studies related to sound as are necessary or useful in enforcing this ordinance and reducing noise in the City. He/she shall make such investigations and inspections in accordance with law as required in applying ordinance requirements. d. Noise impact statements. The City Manager or his\her designee may require any person applying to the City for a change in zoning classification or a permit or license for any structure, operation, process, installation, or alteration, or product that may be considered a potential noise source to submit a noise impact statement on a form, supplied by the City of Eden Prairie. The City Manager or his\her designee shall evaluate each such statement and make appropriate recommendations to the Council or other agency or officer authorized to take the action or approve the license or permit applied for. e. Performance Standards - Test. 1. By Owner . In order to assure compliance with the performance 5 standards set forth above, the Council may require the owner or operator of any permitted use to have made such investigations and tests as may be required to show adherence to the performance standards. Such investigations and tests as are required to be made shall be carried out by an independent testing organization as may be selected by the Council after 30 days notice. The cost incurred in having such investigations an test conducted shall be shared equally by the owner or operator and the City, unless the investigation and test disclose noncompliance with the performance standards, in which event the entire investigation or testing cost shall be paid by the owner or operator. 2. By City. The procedure above stated shall not preclude the City from making any tests and investigations it finds appropriate to determine compliance with these performance standards. Subd. 8. Variances. a. Authority. The City Manager or his\her designee shall have the authority to grant variances from the requirements of any section of this ordinance. b. Application. Any person seeking a variance shall file an application with the City Manager or his/her designee on a form prescribed by the City. Information to be supplied in the application shall include but not be limited to the following information: 1.Statement of the dates and times during which the noise is proposed. 2. The location of the noise source. 3. The nature of the noise source. 4. Reasons why the variance is sought and identified hardship. 5. Steps taken to minimize the noise level. 6. Other information as required by the City Manager. Subd. 9. Enforcement. a. Notice of certain violation. When the City Manager or his/her designee determines that a noise exceeds the maximum sound level permitted under Receiving Land Use Standards in this section, he or she shall give written notice of the violation to the owner or occupant of the premises where the noise originates and order such person to correct or remove each specified violation within such reasonable time as is prescribed in the notice. The failure to remove or correct any such violation within the time so prescribed constitutes a violation of this ordinance. b. Civil remedies. In addition to enforcement pursuant to Section 9.99 of 6 T.T. B, - 7 Chapter 9 this Ordinance may be enforced by injunction, action for abatement, or other appropriate civil remedy. c. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application of any provision to a particular situation is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the ordinance and the application of the ordinance to any other situation shall not be invalidated. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the _ day of , 1990 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _ day of , 1994. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of , 1994. M:\BARB\STEVE\NOISE.SD 7 Tr. 8, - 8 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)", AND CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance amends the section of the City Code which relates to the noise ordinance and includes: addition of definitions related to noise, revision of the way noise is measured at a property line from octave bands to decibels, addresses noise related to paging systems and intercom systems in the Commercial, Industrial and Office zoning districts, defines noise associated with emergency work, addresses noise related to domestic power equipment, and outlines administrative procedures. The noise ordinance is moved from Chapter 11 to Chapter 9. Effective date:This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council on September , 1994. /s/John D. Frane, City Clerk /s/Douglas B. Tempas, Mayor (A copy of the full text of the Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) M:\BARB\STE VEW OISESUM.SD EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. I . DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE Don Uram Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park Zoning District on 4.14 acres • Resolution for Site Plan • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Zoning Ordinance 2. Resolution for Site Plan 3. Developer's Agreement Lr. C . - 1 EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE 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 I-2 Park District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning of the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the I-2 Park 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 August 22, 1994. 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 6th day of September, 1994, 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 20th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN ONE DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFRERENCE 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 amendment of the zoning on land located at 6851 Flying Cloud Drive within the I-2 Park District. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Douglas B. Tenpas 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.) IV , Cr — 3 Legal Description Eden Prairie Metro Mini-Storage Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS (AS CONTAINED IN CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT NO. C 2443746). THAT PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MCKINLEY FIRST ADDITION, LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 130 FEET NORTHERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM A SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND THE SAME EXTENDED, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF REGISTER _ OF DEEDS, IN AND FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. . C . EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE FOR PROPERTY RESOURCES CORPORATION WHEREAS, Property Resources Corporation has applied for Site Plan approval of the Eden Prairie Metro Mini-Storage on 4.14 acres for construction of two storage buildings located at 6851 Flying Cloud Drive, to be amended within the I-2 Park District by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on September 6, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 22, 1994, 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 6, 1994, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Property Resources Corporation for construction of two storage buildings, based on plans dated August 22, 1994, between Property Resources Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 20, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk I1/ , c. — 5 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of September 20, 1994, by Property Resources Corporation,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 Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park District on 4.14 acres and Site Plan Review in the I-2 Park District on 4.14 acres for construction of 2 buildings with a combined 32,126 sq. ft. of storage space, all on 4.14 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._-_, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 6, 1994,and dated August 22, 1994,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. STREET,UTILITY,EROSION CONTROL,PLANS: Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. LAND ALTERATION PERMIT: Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property. Lv_ , C. - (o 5. VARIANCES: Developer has applied for and received variances for the following: (a) To allow an existing building 19 feet from the side lot line. Code requires 20 feet, (b) To allow for the use of an existing loading dock along the front of the building. Code requires that no loading facilities be located within the front yard. (c) To allow a front yard parking lot setback of 41 feet. Code requires 50 feet. (d) To allow for the construction of an 8 foot high security fence. Code limit is 6 feet. l C. — 7 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. Ir. L�. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH FELLOWSHIP Don Uram HALL Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 2.78 acres • Resolution for Site Plan • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Zoning Ordinance 2. Resolution for Site Plan 3. Developer's Agreement IT. D. - CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL 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 Public Zoning District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning of the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the Public 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 August 9, 1994. 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 16th day of August, 1994, 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 20th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on J�C: D. - 2. CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN ONE DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFRERENCE 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 amendment of the zoning on land located at 16900 Main Street within the Public District. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Douglas B. Tenpas 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.) nr. D. - 3 Legal Description Christ Lutheran Church Fellowship Hall Exhibit A Outlot A, Lake Trail Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL FOR CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH WHEREAS, Christ Lutheran Church has applied for Site Plan approval of the Christ Lutheran Church Fellowship Hall on 2.78 acres for construction a fellowship hall located at 16900 Main Street, to be amended within the Public Zoning District by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on August 16, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its July 25, 1994, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 16, 1994, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Christ Lutheran Church for construction of a fellowship hall, based on plans dated August 9, 1994, between Christ Lutheran Church, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 20, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT Christ Lutheran Church THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of September 20, 1994, by Christ Lutheran Church Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, a non-profit 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 Site Plan Review on 2.78 acres and Zoning District Amendment on 2.78 acres for the expansion of the Christ Lutheran Church of approximately 6,700 square feet to the existing 4,500 square foot structure, all on 2.78 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._-_, 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 August 9, 1994, reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 20, 1994, 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. PARKING: Developer acknowledges and agrees that if a parking shortage is observed, the Developer will construct the additional parking spaces and secondary access as shown on plans dated August 9, 1994. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9/20 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission ITEM NO. IV. E. SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: P ITEM DESCRIPTION: Award Bids for Phase II Playground Equipment Barbara Penning Cross at Miller Park RECOMMENDATION: The park, recreation and natural resources staff recommends awarding the contract for Phase II play equipment for Miller Park to Earl F. Anderson, Inc. for $45,057. OVERVIEW: The concept design for the playground at Miller Park was based upon a transportation theme and will be the first handicapped accessible playground in the city. Specifications were designed to allow many different manufacturer's the opportunity to bid. The budget amount of $48,000 was given and the manufacturer's representatives designed the equipment to fit the site incorporating as many play elements as they could. The equipment was rated using an evaluation sheet that was enclosed with bidding materials. The evaluation criteria rated such things as quality, craftsmanship, aesthetic appeal, handicap access, warranty and safety. Specifications were written to include the equipment, delivery cost and installation. Bids were advertised and opened September 13, 1994. Four bids were received with the following results: COMPANY 5-8 year olds 2-5 year old add alternate playstructure playstructure arch roofs TOTAL Earl F. Anderson $34,254 $9,554 $1,249 $45,057 (Landscape Structures) St. Croix Recreation $37,500 $10,500 no bid $48,000 (Big Toys) Flanagan Sales $38,790 $9,210 no bid $48,000 (Iron Mountain Forge Value Recreation $26,969 $18,031 no bid $48,000 (Play World Systems) The Earl F. Anderson bid rated highest in the evaluation, included the add alternate arch roof and totalled $45,057. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Bond referendum funds budgeted for playground equipment will be used to pay for the playstructure. Installation will take place yet this fall weather permitting. BPC:mdd -1- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9/20/94 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission ITEM NO. IV. F. SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Award Bids for Phase III Playground Equipment PRNR at Eden Lake School Park Barbara Penning Cross RECOMMENDATION: The park, recreation and natural resource staff recommends awarding the bid for play equipment at Eden Lake School Park to Earl F. Anderson for $40,747. OVERVIEW: City staff and school representatives worked jointly to provide additional playground equipment at the existing site, as well as provide a accommodations for handicap accessibility. Many different alternatives were reviewed balancing play equipment needs, existing equipment and • handicap access. The design that was specified worked well for both the School District and the City. Safety surface was added in this playground not only for accessibility concerns, but for maintenance reasons. Bids were advertised and opened September 13, 1994. Only one bid was received. The bid was from Earl F. Anderson, Inc., representing Landscape Structures, in the amount of$40,747. The existing equipment on site is manufactured by Landscape Structures. The proposed plan was to relocate part of an existing structure and modify an existing structure to provide handicap access. Other bidders felt liability would be a concern if they attached other manufacturers' equipment. Staff has compared the catalog published by Landscape Structures and prices received in the bid are below the published catalog rates. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Eden Lake School has $30,000 to pay for new equipment to accommodate expanding the Eden Lake population. The City's ADA fund will contribute $15,000 to make the site accessible since it sits on City property and is heavily used. Installation will begin this fall, weather permitting. BPC:mdd -1- DATE: 09/20/94 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO:1(C• SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: _. Engineering Division Declaring Costs and Ordering Preparation of Assessment Rolls for the 1994 Jim Richardson Special Assessment Hearing Recommended Action: Declare costs Prepare assessment rolls Set Hearing date of October 18, 1994 Item No. 0. / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF 1994 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND SETTING HEARING DATE WHEREAS, contracts have been let for the following listed improvements and the total project cost, including expenses incurred, or to be incurred and the City's share, exclusive of that assignable to City Property, are established as shown on the attached Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. The cost of such improvements to be specially assessed are hereby declared to be those as set forth in Exhibit A. 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be assessed for each improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the office of the Deputy Clerk for public inspection. 3. A hearing shall be held on the 18th day of October, 1994 in the Eden Prairie City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road, at 7:30 p.m., to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessments. 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessments to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of the record of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 20, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk Item No. . Q EXHIBIT A 1994 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROJECTS Total Cost City Funds Amt to be Assessed 1 - IC 93-5320 Street&Utility Improvements in Riverview Heights Addition _ 339,346.85 -0- 339,346.85 2 - SUPPLEMENTALS Trunk Sewer and Water 1,484,332.30 IC 52-088 Trunk Sewer and Water Exclusions 4,993.00 IC 52-132 Trunk Sewer and Water Exclusions 2,080.00 IC 52-147 Trunk Sewer and Water Exclusions 5,100.00 IC 52-166 Trunk Sewer and Water Exclusions 520.00 IC 52-203 Trunk Sewer and Water Exclusions 520.00 IC 52-132 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 17,068.37 IC 52-144 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 4,234.00 IC 52-147 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 39,517.36 IC 52-166 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 8,043.76 IC 52-194 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 2,395.58 IC 52-203 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 13.923.42 IC 52-205 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 36,525.38 IC 52-212 Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusion 7.073.41 IC 52-205 Lateral Sewer and Water Deferred 18,462.65 lrJ Connections Fees 28,360.00 Tax Forfeiture 19,000.00 1 DATE: 09/20/94 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO H SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: __.- Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Joe and Arlene Jullie Addition Jeffrey Johnson Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Joe and Arlene Jullie Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$250 Overview: The owners are requesting City Council approval of a replat of Lots 26 and 27, Block 1 of Prairie Shores, reconfiguring two existing lots into three lots. Existing houses are situated on Lots 1 and 3 with a future homesite within Lot 2. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council August 16, 1994 per Resolution No. 94- 126. Zoning is consistent with the original Prairie Shores which was zoned in 1958. JJ:ssa cc: Joe and Arlene Jullie Ron Krueger & Associates • Item No. �, t9 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. __ A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF JOE AND ARLENE JULLIE ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Joe and Arlene Jullie 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 Joe and Arlene Jullie Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated September 15, 1994. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 20, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk Item No. /i� - ' 2 • rz.r. ooc. No.-. J0 {; AND ARLENE JULLI _,C ADDITION - -_ SNOW ALL MEN ST THESE PRESENTS:'SARI J...pn W AM and Anaw AS.nand we We. wows and pepaa.Nod . MS Mandwa Ca.w.Iww.a aaw..a1.CNpanbn.Awff•p.e.al M bwww wears.m0000..nwwd Nat/Cto.,w.I...-are . No.el fl.wWA a w' Lon N.OWN t.New Sows And M Amapa W.Juno Nd Aden AM./wawa and W..No saw.a M baaww,wW.ba paw*....we a Wow Coon',a. I ' Hendon n.Slaw el aannewa.In w • I - Lon ET.Ebel I.haw Nw.s. i. Wore awed o wafteded W s se wafted as YOE AND ARLENE mid' 0 and d as meta*awn and...no a M Neat NNYnaw and WIN wa..ww w dwew w moo plat In...au WNW IS.Jew*W.MN and Maw JUN.NNW.S..A.M.aw.alt W N.tads Ns do N __ M—.and sad FOE MMUS.Caw:ame n S.'awed Mae/wo w at IN NW*N w pap.once Na-__ 1 •� / day el w— / 5 add .pond spwd rN 1�' �p FRS wa.O$.CNw.wpn tat.W Aeon Mena NW Seid N.; ,-�a� ; . ,e.S3 SCALE N Eat ----- ---- ----- -- I • a .d • 1 STALE OF 1 I '\ 1 COUNTY OF 1 .k•f i p r-__— s V I q F; `• \\ TM Hwang vl.naw N aduw.Ydptlbb.ma M_day W_ 5 1�• I \ % U al FSS laro.da Cppenann,w NOW al M aapwwdn it I � \ i Ex 1 .. I • 0 1 \ NOW.,NNW. . Cwt. Wnwsota `\ 1 \ ? My Cawwwon Epos :1 1 • • \I iW .1 1 3 \ -' 8 p x 1 1 \ STATE OF r 1 COLMTY OF 8 \ r 1' 1 1I \\ TIw•NNla9w. a l ,wna- M+w 0w. oap.da,a.a.M_day te If_.a low.W Jw. r p , ♦ and AMna AM.naa0Nd and-aa g p 1' 1} \ / Ow, W^•vsp. i L Notes,NNW. Cw, t t") , \ 1 - lay Cammsw E,p.w z a 1 I 1 1le * 1 HERESY CERTIFY S.1 Mon wawa"and OWN Na Npay ds.mbra w Na plat as JOE AND ARLENE JULIAE ADOPTION.Non H N .P S ' • 1 400.a�w.aM..d it•tamp.e mwtadely p0.0..away:NW0eisadN am aam*Own.In Ow and lwnd.aa0 Ma WA far Ns r I .<' 1 4s aulfdadaddtFNw waw0$r .Wdbd OW NW w M ground NI Wow.In N adl M an an no wed wf.p.&KwN Sown SSOSO/ I . f` &OdI rad.dplf.ldwfaldFM V . . •r 4 1 ;� -i '• }^� C '+ / RNMM L.Susdv.Lard Sawyer . I 'SZ J i M..eaw LUNN*Ha.ION ......i.t.'\ . T / . \,sts a , • f '[;~ STARKS MEIESERA V. OOUJIYOFNBfEPfI r, . ! TM bpabd strower a Caao.w-N adkpwwd0W bap.ma PIN MT al It_M Ronald I. • 1 fl / / Wuaas•.Land Swnpp. • k / Vd' IF; // .Nap eob.w....N'Cuddy.Wawa. GM,Can.nwden Ew:N a DENOTES NON HOMAENI . S(ARfICS SHOWN ARE 0$AR ASS1A[D SANSTA OPAYER SEAVILEA DIMSIOWL••.'nt .C•uny.saw..OY ' I*web, •.•s MI Wet payapwb aOpw•Fawn lwo bon paid IsO N NW d.. Nad an s ON Oawd NS day I( il / NW, .ISM • . P.M N.0 Cana.HNawNn CNaq A.UN. Op. ONNNI ORANACE MID DMA EAYUEN'S ARE Na1NI THIS SURVEY SECTION.Henewp.n COOSp.MY.w.wa M.I.N.%Mi0aMa SNNA.Son.YOSb0S IINf1.ITN Nal M Noon ip.4.d MI d.,M IS_, • Gap F CN.M..la. al Own. NNW. SI I . f RSOMTRM OF HILES.Wows.C 0M.Msaw• - -.. .�... -_._Jv-� ..-_ 1 NN W,Oil/NM NI WM pill N JOE AND ARLENE RALII M01110N MI FM b NOM M NS MON Non dos IN_- E;Iq S Fiji N WO1N INES!ON(RNSE%WALED 11 .R Spa N • , ; AND ADANNO LOI LIES MO •10 rut St NO'N - _ „o.DJD..WD Ro.T-OF-NA' `�!AS*MN R�DL A N DT SURVEYORS KNIT EI�TU E E R S • RON KRUIL:GER & ASSOCIATES, INC. "`""' . • • tat 1 3'; DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA September 20, 1994 SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Resolution Authorizing Submission of 1995- Administration/C. Dawson 1999 Municipal Recycling Grant Application for Hennepin County's Residential Recycling Program Requested Action: It is recommended that the Council adopt the Resolution authorizing submission of the City's grant application for the Hennepin County residential recycling program. The effect of the Council's action would result in grants from Hennepin County consistent with its program for 1995-1999. The grant award for 1995 is anticipated to be $130,560. Overview: Earlier this summer, Hennepin County changed its five-year funding policy for municipal recycling activities. These changes would begin in calendar year 1995. The Hennepin County Board eliminated funds for cities' recycling activities following a court decision in a Minnesota case that flow control/waste designation ordinances were unconstitutional on grounds of interfering with interstate commerce. Disposal fees in the Hennepin County system, which had been designed to fund local recycling efforts, had to be reduced in order for the county system to be competitive with landfills. The Hennepin County Board decided to remove the charges in the disposal fee which funded local recycling programs. It will now pass-through State funds available from a program which came out of recommendations from the SCORE (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment) Report during the Perpich administration. Recycling grants will be reduced from $21/year per eligible household (those which did not use common collection containers [e.g.,dumpsters]) to $9.60/year. Based on previous City Council direction, all of these funds (less the City's direct costs for publicity and administration) are rebated to residents on their utility bills. The City's rebate approach would remain unchanged. The 1995 application for $130,560 reflects the addition of 300 residences eligible for the program due to new construction. An annual amendment to the grant application will be required to reflect the number of new eligible residences in Eden Prairie. Hennepin County requires that a City Council Resolution be adopted and included in the grant application. Supporting Documents: Proposed Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE 1994 HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL SOURCE-SEPARATED RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.551, each county must develop and implement or require political subdivisions within the county to develop and implement programs, practices, or methods designed to meet its recycling goal; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each city to implement a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, the County has adopted a Hennepin County Funding Assistance Policy for Source- Separated Recyclables to distribute funds to cities for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs from 1995 through 1999; and WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, cities must meet the conditions set forth in the "funding policy"; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 1995 - 1999 Municipal Recycling Grant Application for the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin County Funding Assistance Policy the City agrees to implement recycling programs as committed to by its submission of the 1995 - 1999 Hennepin County Municipal Residential Recycling Program Grant Application. ADOPTED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL this 20th day of September 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor A'T1'hST: John D. Frane, City Clerk EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. SL', A DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger LAKESIDE Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The City Council is requested to take action on the following: • Move to recommend continuance of the Lakeside project until the October 4, 1994 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND At the last City Council meeting, City Staff indicated that the developer was requesting a 75 foot structure setback from the lake which had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission or the Park, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. The Council directed staff to refer this item back to these Commissions before returning to the City Council. The Lakeside project is scheduled for a reopening of the Public Hearing on September 26th at the Planning Commission and a review by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission on October 3rd. Notices of the Public Hearing have been sent out to the surrounding property owners for both the Planning Commission and the October 4th City Council meeting. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. f3 . DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger BUCA RESTAURANT Don Uram Requested Council Action: This item was continued from the September 6, 1994 meeting. The City Council is requested to take action on the following: • Approve 1st reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the C-Com Zoning District on 1.2523 acres. • Adopt a Resolution for Site Plan Review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing voted unanimously to approve the project at the August 22, 1994 meeting. The effect of the City Council action would allow the construction of a 4,200 square foot addition to the existing building. The BUCA Restaurant will remodel the former Mexican Village restaurant. PRIMARY ISSUE: The proposed construction of Highway 212 will eliminate approximately one-third of BUCA's parking spaces. BUCA is still negotiating with MNDOT to acquire land for the parking spaces, but would like to proceed with approval of the plans. Access to this site will be from Mitchell Road by the private driveway currently serving the site. The proposed construction of Highway 212 will alter access. The driveway from Mitchell Road will be closed and traffic to the restaurant will enter from the site's northern driveway. Traffic from the restaurant will exit to the right onto a road on the east property line. This road will be constructed by MNDOT and will intersect with Mitchell Road directly across from Martin Drive. Supporting Reports: 1. Staff Report dated August 19, 1994 2. Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 1994 Y: B. - ► STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric Schneider, Intern THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: August 19, 1994 SUBJECT: BUCA Restaurant APPLICANT: Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. FEE OWNER: 7711 Mitchell Road Partnership LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 1.25 acres. 2. Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres. . p N Q 411',Pati 'V E IF ? • -= iv Biot 1...y.s1.,.. rr-i......4 i• c , :-. " ----Aci ,f. a l' 411.‘„,4i e Ct. EDEf:�A:. `� III c DRIvE ANAGRA ACD :N;; $$ W. 78 TH T. 40111 fT,,y. JJ Za,- z BACKGROUND The property is guided for Community Commercial land uses and currently zoned Community Commercial. Adjacent parcels to the east, west and the south are also guided Community Commercial and developed with Community Commercial land uses such as McDonald's and Amoco. Parasole Restaurant Holdings,Inc is requesting a zoning district amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District to allow for the construction of a 4,200 square foot addition to the existing Mexican Village restaurant. The new restaurant will be known as BUCA. SITE PLAN Parasole Restaurants is proposing a 8,570 square foot restaurant on a 1.25 acre site, at a Base Area Ratio(B.A.R.)of.136 and an Floor Area Ratio(F.A.R.)of.157. The City Code allows .20 B.A.R. and .40 F.A.R. BUCA will be a dinner-only restaurant and seat 218 people in the dining area and 14 people in the bar. The concrete patio will be eliminated,and there will be no outdoor seating.The amount of parking required is 77 spaces (1 space per 3 seats). The site plan indicates 79 parking spaces. The building and parking areas meet the minimum setback requirements for the C-Commercial Zoning District. Access to this site will be from Mitchell Road by the private driveway currently serving the site. The proposed construction of Highway 212 will alter access to this site. The driveway from Mitchell Road will be closed and traffic to the restaurant will enter from the site's northern driveway (See Diagram A). The proponent's plans take this realignment into consideration. GRADING/UTILITIES Minimal grading will occur to construct the additional parking stalls and the building. Water and sanitary sewer services are already provided to the site There will be no additional storm water runoff from this development. ARCHITECTURE The BUCA proposal is a complete remodel of Mexican Village plus the addition of 4,206 square feet of building. The new building measures approximately 95 feet by 85 feet. There will be a second story addition that contains 1,166 square feet. Primary building materials include cream-colored glazed face brick, and stucco. Mechanical equipment and the enclosed dumpsters will be screened by a stucco wall. The building features 75% face brick, which meets the exterior materials requirements of the zoning district. 2 V. B. -,3 LANDSCAPING Based on the additional building square footage of 4,206, a total of 13 caliper inches of plant material is required. The amount of existing trees on the site covers the landscape requirements of the new building addition. The spruce and ash trees on the southwestern corner of the site will be replanted, due to the proposed grading of the parking lot. Irrigation is required to help ensure that the plant materials survive. SIGNING/LIGHTING BUCA is requesting an approximately an 80 square foot free-standing sign at the front entrance The neon lit sign will simulate a bottle pouring wine into a glass, but the neon will not blink or appear to move. The height and square footage of the proposed sign meet the City's Sign Code. The north and east elevations will have painted signs on the cream-colored glazed brick walls. The south and west elevations will have a narrow metal trim band with neon lettering and a neon tube bordering the metal band. The square footage of these wall signs meets the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The proponent will need to submit details of the type and materials of signs to be used at the entrance and on the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 1.25 acres and Site Plan review on 1.25 acre based on plans dated July 22, 1994, the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: Prior to building permit approval,proponent shall: a. Submit a comprehensive sign package(for both free-standing and wall signs) detailing size,materials, colors and letter styles. b. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Watershed District. c. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. 3 tea.- Phann:nq e.. -1�/ alr��y s-22 .9V F. BUCA RESTAURANT by Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the C-Corn Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres for a 4,200 square foot restaurant addition. Location: Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. Dale Wenkus, Wold Architects, stated that their proposal was a complete remodelling of Mexican Village plus the addition of approximately 4,000 square feet. He reviewed the plan with the Planning Commission using visual aids. They were adding enough parking spaces to meet the Code and, therefore, were not requesting any variances. He said everything falls in the ordinance for the exterior material. He handed out samples of the dark color brick that was to be used. The primary building materials include cream- colored glazed face brick and stucco. He said the mechanical equipment and the enclosed dumpsters would be screened by a stucco wall. He stated that there would be an 80 square foot free-standing sign at the front entrance. The neon lit sign will simulate a bottle pouring wine into a glass, but the neon will not blink or appear to move. Bauer asked when they estimated opening up the restaurant. Wenkus replied that they were hoping to open in the middle of the Spring next year in March. He said they wanted to get in the ground before the frost. Wenkus stated they were keeping the shell of the Mexican Village and were stripping away all the bad material on the outside. Wissner asked if there was going to be an outside eating area. Wenkus stated there would not be. Bauer asked if McDonalds was going to go up on that corner. Schneider replied yes. Schneider stated this was a remodel of the now vacant Mexican Village. They were adding 4200 square feet from the building, back a distance from the Mexican Village. He said this would require additional caliper inches of trees on the site per Code. He stated there was enough vegetation on the site so they were not adding additional trees for the screening. The project met Code and no variances were requested. Staff recommended approval. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. for Site Plan Review based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to move to recommend to the CIty Council approval of the request of Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. for Site Plan Review based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried 5-0-0. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. 1r• C• DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Move to recommend that the project be continued until the October 4, 1994, City Council Meeting. BACKGROUND The Riverview Heights proposal was published in the official newspaper as a Public Hearing for tonight's meeting. The attached letter from the developer is requesting a continuance to the October 4, 1994 meeting. City Staff is mailing out letters to the surrounding residents indicating a continuance to the October 4, 1994 meeting. Supporting Reports: Memo from Rivers Landing Limited Partnership �. C. - 1 09 '94 03:23PM P.2/2 Memo To: Mayor Tenpas and City Council Members From: Rivers Landing Limited Partnership Beth H. Simenstad, President Bob Brown, 11480 Riverview Rd., Eden PraiY"` Representing The Brown Family Date: September 9, 1994 Re: Kevin and Laura Bluml's request for the postponement of Riverview Heights 11 public hearing. In response to the Bluml's letter dated August 30, 1994 to Carl Julie, I am requesting a two week postponement to assure that the Bluml's will be in town to attend the public hearing for Riverview Heights II Addition. We, along with the developer, hope to meet with both the city staff and the neighbors during this additional time in an attempt to leave no issues unresolved. �' •C_. - Z EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. --1r. D DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger HARTFORD PLACE Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 88 acres and Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres, Rezoning from Office to Commercial Regional Service on 5 acres; • Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 35.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres. • Resolution for PUD Concept Review • Resolution for Preliminary Plat Background Hartford Place is a revision to the Planned Unit Development Concept for the Prairie Lakes Office Park approved in 1979 for 1.2 million sq. ft. of Office and 200,000 sq. ft. of Commercial. This site is also currently zoned Office and Commercial Regional Service. Ryan Companies wishes to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan, Zoning and PUD for this area into 186,000 sq. ft. of Commercial, 58 twinhomes, 25 single family homes, and 160 townhouses. The attached Staff Reports provide background information and recommendations on each of the different development areas within the project. Attachment A shows seven different development sites. The following is a brief discussion of each area, plus the Planning Commission recommendation from the September 12, 1994 meeting. 2r. D. 1 ...........—.—___— ,4,- -- ,.. 'Fl"S5'>p4.•y.�r ..f,...:.. :,eL:M+t•8tvex9r'Rew':c�yti_�:Yftr. .. _. • 11.• F!/__J( ,•i • '1 u r n.--�:4�r .:.,-V' - - -" _I( 1 ' /101 ''' A I ( t(I , 1 I 1i l AREA 1 / RYAN SITE - NORTH // • 5.3 ACRES ' -' , 21.600 S.F. OFFICE/RESTAURANT I - / r • 41::::‘ • I ,G I /„ I I�� 11 \ AVpt'RSON REGIONAL. COMMERCIAL I l� 1 \ Mfl MARKAOF EXCELLENCE HOMES SHOPPING CENTER _/ , tC.r11( ;_ �� 14.5 ACRES I ( • I �� l• 1 • 58 DUPLEX UNITS i,„..... O i n l 11 4.0 UNITS/ACRE _) V."'" Csi, 2 • AREA 2 %. \o 0 it ' 1 RYAN SITE — SOUTH 'i\\,, , ... , . ..„.....„ .,-, 17.0 ACRES , / wQ1/ �F �F 'i CE) IQ115.550 S.F RETAIL �\ '=.-'., ' .yO '' Cr 7� Aii 9 4F O I.AKFS a� `� l vvvv op 4 • i 4 -. �`✓11.% �g _ AREA 4 AREA 7 • „ 4 A ,��� �O Si; ( 0 NEDECMRD CONSTRUCTION CO. COMMERCIALLY ZONED � .�� � II`'ts^,� �i; ^ ,�, Fh\v 13,8 ACRES TO 8E LEFT COMMERCIAL `�� :� _ 1 ��•/ �`j� `,. itJ.,f? '� ;r - 18 •i 2. SINGLE FAMILY LOTS .3• .. S .J�//. (�{•••''• • \ i • \ 1.8 UNITS/ACRE 1 s,• \••$•En Y• it/ 1 , fie. \ .1`‘` 1. • 1 ,".,1 t‘riiie, Ja.1..."41: ....- WI, Alm r I iL P." \ '• ' \ ' ',' ., ‘` 10 ._ ...... , ,, A.,,..,:-,_ ( , , 400, • _ i .8 UNIS/ G, E.. / i 614E*. , ,,®, ® . /.- . -AREA 6- - •' ♦ �--, ,b� 40 y-P X UNIT C f I 32 b S ACRE �1 , 1 I i ppc�11LT Me - Eli t t- / i ` � ti• / ®• / i • I 15.I ACRES \ — qK ,s ti i ' ..- -/. / .�• \• ® ® 7' /. 1`. I 120 8-PLEX U ITS r J �. ---•g ,l1 1 I 9 L NIT /AC • J. _FT Ulf .. _, JI , 1/� , I II1511NC PRESERvI SINCI f Y - 1 1 1 ? ? / Y. i 1 I l,i ; 44 , -\ i , i , r ,, —ter • � ;, -; �® 0 „,„,...., - ...,,,,-, , , _,,t-, ip..._-5,--;:,==-'. __....— --_ -. •__--='_ -- \ ;,.1.;:p. ..: _ ..:_i 1,77.7; :: .1.\-\ -4---%\mili.: 14 : ,,; 84, - 4 •47 /f / ,.0111- 4 - , -;-:', L:=-----:--: riviiNiff,,!), 7Z-. 7;-..."=-00- Ii-- J1 /://, .:.\\.\77,,,i7)',///. . . . .\ \ c4. iiirf.;f . 0.-- 7*,'" ".., AW • r - . ''.. - - - -----,,- ---, ,_•:_: -=-------- --..-,i,4\.... If'-; - OP" 4,4 >�� ��►.�/�$ ,,Olk,�O , o i Lot 14 ; l �.\t` 1 y \\.t _ ' , _ i�, � � ,��' ���`a !� • ' II'\� _ l�,/N ilk � i''- --r 1� - 4( ,4 I\ ti I ! 1 /4-41-0,140-) . ...\,.,----,----: ---. lv,„;‘,, , il ,___, to,O „...doopi\ ,\ • ..-...,„:„ . -:. •-•,_,, 1,4, it,4404 .4,_ ,.,) 4411,,,,,s; ' ot;:-_,--, 1i , 5' \,�/. , �'� ( _ .tee #474 -rivei*<4....%4-0 ,,,.‘1,,e„,,,,-),A_____ ---,,--- ,,):,\, IL-) Atere.S4‘ .1":4",#14 /*#.4 '- ,, ''' '', 0%0L-4 ,---freft .ii‘ 01 • ,,,,....e. 4 4 - ,4' .`41%Vi I .Av \ 04r ,',/ % 4 r I oki .... 4„// )*44) % \\;,?,A.,„ i 00Alleasoditts a",,,,,osA g., ,, ,s orilige ,',./iik At Ot / /, ,S, • 1 ,: %. ''-`,.-.' ,..7_,.,..,_:, /ltra - ;',,,,..40"..x..-"St\ \ ,\.\:\. ..... ./. „,,:, -.N. --yd, ,L,.,,,, rS)CVA.; Cillr*1,...."---s.„„,H1! \ 8, ' '\ \'- ' .4.44,1,77 ...... ,..., 0 .„,,,,,_ ,. , 7/'4%.---- ..- .7 ' N-,-,74o., . ...--- 41:&----- -..**.."7*- ----so/ 7c., . ',,, . \,,Iiii v.-z___-__-gm t r lk . . „illia 7,p s Ill 0)P' \\__,Irmr-_-_ (. ...'"'",Lk '' lel ' 1 -- 4/dt),,l,\: -IRO ---- \.\ \‘ / , ..... 1 _. 0 ',. , r \` /• � �'°' \' ii . 7, ` ,� .14 - am•T� \\� Lot 13 - / J ��= 0. © /: .°"'c\ 1, - :_i_ J,i, \,,, ,,,,-.: ,- ,fr, /... ,. mrooviii -,4\-0W.1,, „,0/ rti,:..." i_Artior , & rap% . , ._-__::-_,--1„,:zadwirm 4p,„„ ‘40. i :'\,,,s .\ Amminpoqi i 11 •ki , , 1:11 r(0) .,. • ,) . , ..,,,t,, ,•___,- , _,::: .:__: ,„,,,a--00z ......„.„44;,,•,:,, ,,,___=-:,. .4,i1 p, (0 � �, — 1� 'fd_ a � - , � -/ 4471;476-..'--1 ---- in Proposed Development Concept Plan \\ ® AJ,�; ' `�,��9/I �� --Site Section Reference - ������ �� 0 200 400 . F_- \ _,.- , 411 North // 1` - _ ) � , �I _,. 111.1 Li 11111 �Avi, d � ssit d �' _\ Figure 17 25 Z.,0, - 3 Ff19 AI'??OUEP FLkJ irof f'miKit bAa0,6 &ff1E FAM Area #1 - Commercial This site is guided Regional Commercial and zoned Commercial Regional Service. The site plan shows 3 buildings, 2 restaurants, and 1 office building; totally 21,000 sq. ft. of building area. This site plan meets all applicable City requirements. There were no neighborhood issues identified at any of the Planning Commission Meetings. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to support the development plan of Commercial for Area 1. Area #2 - Commercial The western two-third of this site is guided Regional Commercial and zoned Commercial Regional Service. The eastern one-third of this site is guided and zoned Office. The site plan depicts four buildings, totalling 162,384 sq. ft. This area meets City code requirements with building design to be architecturally compatible and consistent with the high standards required for buildings such as Wal- Mart, Bachman's and the Brunswick Family Fun World. This site incorporates the City's downtown light fixture and the City's downtown framework for sidewalks, trails and specialized landscaping. Two issues with this project are a base area ratio above .20 for one of the lots and loading within the front yard area along Rolling Hills Road. Since the base area ratio for both Area 1 and 2 is less than .19 and all other City requirements are met, the waiver request is reasonable. Loading within the front yard along Rolling Hills Road waiver is mitigated by berming, extensive conifer plantings, and the loading area is 12 feet below grade of Rolling Hills Road. This will screen the view of the loading area and block the views of the townhouses to the south of the project. There were no neighborhood issues identified with this site. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Commercial in this area. Area #3 - Mark of Excellence Twinhomes This site is currently guided and zoned Office. The site is approved for a 160,000 sq. ft., 75 foot tall office building. The site plan depicts 58 twinhome units on 14.5 acres at a density of 4.0 units per acre. The site plan for this project meets the requirements of the RM-6.5 Zoning District. A PUD waiver is need for lot size and a private road. These are typical in multi-family areas and the City has approved them in the past. The Planning Staff Reports support a residential use for Area 3 because of land use compatibility, land use continuity, and an effective land use transition. Letters from Gelco and Allied Mutual Insurance Company have expressed an opposition to the rezoning of the property on the basis that it would create a zoning island, (residential between two office buildings), that the proposal does not provide for a smooth transition from commercial to residential, and potential safety and legal liability issues when commercial and residential areas are not adequately spaced from one another. The Planning Commission did not support a change in land use to residential on this site because they felt that there was land use incompatibility, that it was a zoning island, and that the impacts of office buildings, including lighting and noise would be incompatible with the residential. The Planning Commission recommended maintaining the existing guiding and zoning of the property for office. 2 Area #4 Area 4 is guided and zoned Office. The 1979 development plan depicted a 200,000 sq. ft., 75 foot tall office building. The current proposal is for 25 single family lots on 13.8 acres at a density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre. This site plan meets the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District except for front yard setback waivers to 25 feet. The setback waivers are necessary to allow a greater rear-yard setback adjacent to the single family areas to the south and to allow the creation of a 60 foot wide conservation easement, 8 foot berm, and room for 12 foot high conifers and 3" shade trees. Residents along Fieldcrest Drive and Northmark Court are concerned about the view of the single family homes sitting at a higher elevation. The issue is not so much the use of the property for single family, but the view of the structures. From the resident's perspective, the view of the single family structure would be no different than viewing small office buildings grouped together higher up on the property. The neighbors like the benefits of the approved plan for Office with a berm that screens the parking lot. If the office building was built according to the approved plan, residents on Northmark Circle would view the top two stories of the building while most of the residents along Fieldcrest Lane would not view the building because of the berm. Gelco which borders the northern portion of the single family home site does not oppose the single family home construction provided that substantial buffering be required on the common property line. The Planning Commission supported the zoning change to single family because the density of the proposed area is less than the density along Fieldcrest Drive and Northmark Circle, the lot sizes are on an average, 6,000 sq. ft. larger, and a substantial buffer zone is provided which will completely block the views of the lowest level and will provide a softening of the views of the upper levels of the single family structures. Area #5 and Area #6 Area 5 and Area 6 are approved for two 170,000 sq. ft. office buildings 75 feet tall. The current proposal is for 160 townhouse units at a density of 5.8 units per acre. The project contains 48 one-level townhouses along the common residential property line to the south and 112 units of two-story townhouses adjacent to Rolling Hills Road. This site is being developed meeting the minimum requirements of the RM-6.5 Zoning District. A waiver is needed for lot sizes less than 6,500 sq. ft. per unit and the use of a private drive. These waivers are typical in townhouse projects and the City has previously supported all of them. When the project first appeared before the Planning Commission in June, neighbors were uncomfortable with the site plan for two story buildings along the south property line, and which also removed the existing Hartford berm and significant natural vegetation along the south property line. The plan was changed to maintain most of the existing berming, adds plant materials, and one-story buildings along the south property line. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan for 160 townhouses in Area 5 and Area 6. 3 . - 5- Area #7 Area 7 is currently zoned and guided Commercial. No development is proposed on this site at this time. Prior to any development on the property, the developers must return through the Planning Commission and City Council for review of the building plans for the property. City staff analyzed the potential impacts of future commercial on Areas 5 and 6 and the Carriage Court townhouses to the south. The Carriage Court townhouse to the south are protected by a conservancy easement over the existing and mitigated wetland area, plus maintaining existing significant conifer trees along the south property line and a planting buffer on the north side of the wetland. The future townhouse sites, Area 5 and 6, would be protected by a 9 foot high berm and plantings. The Planning Commission supported the changes in the plan to create the transition. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change Part of the request for the City Council is to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Office to Commercial for approximately 5 acres in Area 2, a Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density for Area 3, a Guide Plan Change from Office to Low Density Residential in Area 4, and a Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential for Areas 5 and 6. The following are reasons to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change: 1. The Guide Plan will not have significant impact on the balance of land uses in the City. 2. Traffic generation is 30% less than the improved Hartford Development plan. 3. Traffic generation will not have significant impact on roads and intersections in the area. A traffic signal will be needed at the intersection of Prairie Lakes Drive and Prairie Center Drive. 4. The Planned Unit Development provides a transition to the residential areas to the south through berming, plantings, buffer zones, and one-story townhome units. 5. The plan does not have a significant impact on natural features. Tree loss is 29% and a 5 foot high chain link fence is proposed along Area 3 and 4 to protect the wildlife habitat on Anderson Lakes. 6. The proposal meets all applicable shoreland requirements. The following are reasons for not supporting the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential on site 3 based on the Planning Commission recommendations: 1. The multiple family land use is not compatible between two office sites. 2. The multiple family site does not provide an appropriate transition to the existing office uses. 4 3. The lighting and noise from both Office buildings would negatively impact the proposed multiple family area. Other Information 1. Sidewalks are proposed along both sides of all roads within the project, a sidewalk along Prairie Center Drive, sidewalk connections from all roads to commercial buildings within the project, and a 5 foot wide sidewalk along one side of the loop road in Area 4, Single Family. There is trail connection to Center Way. 2. The project meets the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. 3. All water is being pretreated to NURP standards prior to discharge to Anderson Lakes or wetlands. 4. Tree loss is 29%. 5. No new EAW is required. 6. The September 9, 1994 Staff Report lists the conditions of approval for this project as determined by the Planning Commission. 5 HARTFORD PLACE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposal of Hartford Place by Ryan Companies requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: 5 acres from Office to Regional Commercial, 35.20 acres from Office to Medium Density Residential and 13.69 acres from Office to Low Density Residential all located at Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 20th day of September, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk : D. - 8 HARTFORD PLACE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF HARTFORD PLACE FOR RYAN COMPANIES 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 Hartford Place by Ryan Companies and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on September 20, 1994; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Hartford Place, 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 September 15, 1994. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated September 12, 1994. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 20th day of September, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk o. 9 Legal Description Hartford Place Exhibit A Lots 1 - 10, Block 1, and Lots 1 - 3, Block 2, Prairie Lakes Business Park. -rO. - 1O HARTFORD PLACE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HARTFORD PLACE FOR RYAN COMPANIES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Hartford Place for Ryan Companies dated September 15, 1994, consisting of 110 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 20th day of September, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk TC. b, - Il PC. . App ovec4 M;n<.de&. S- 2Z- 99 B. HARTFORD PLACE by Ryan Companies. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 43.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres, PUD Concept Review on 110 acres, PUD District Review on 88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 250 townhouse lots, 24 single family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres, Rezoning from Office to C-Regional Service on 5 acres, and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive. Franzen stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners went over each of the seven sites and gave direction on sites #3, #4, #5 and #6 for plan revisions. Bill McHale, representing Ryan Companies, stated there are three changes resulting from the feedback from the neighbors, Staff and the Commission from the last meeting. He said on site #3, the property between Gelco and NCS, they respect the Commission's direction that it should remain office, and asked that the Planning Commission send that recommendation to the City Council. He stated on site #4, a berm was extended along the east side of the property. They have increased the scenic easement from 50 feet to 60 feet. With a front yard setback waiver on several lots, they have increased the setback from 80 feet to 100 feet. He stated that on sites #5 and #6, at the request of the neighbors, they have placed single story townhouses along the common property line. They have also extended the berm along the eastern end of the pond adjacent to Carriage Court. Franzen stated that Staff was supportive of the plan changes for areas #4, #5, and #6. Staff's recommendation would be to recommend that the Commission continue discussion on this item until the September 12th meeting so they can follow up with the remaining details on the project such as architecture, grading, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, trails and traffic. Foote expressed concern for a road stub connected to Fieldcrest. He asked whether it was going to be left as is or if it was going to be fixed. Franzen replied that it was planned as an extension of Center Way to Rolling Hills Road. He stated that since this road will not be extended, the City would consider vacating that road. The land could revert back to the adjoining property owners. He added that the City must retain a draining utility easement for the existing watermain and proposed sidewalk. �: o. - ►Z Lisa Helt, 10600 Northmark Drive, stated that she was not satisfied with the sight line changes made with regards to the Nedegaard site. Kardell stated that the proponent has requested this be published for Council on September 20th. In the event the Commissioners all not in a position to make a recommendation on the meeting of the 12th, that the proponent would be responsible for new notices of a public hearing at City Council on a later date. MOTION 1: Schlampp moved, seconded by Wissner to move to continue the Public Hearing for Hartford Place to September 12, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting and direct Staff to publish this item for the September 20th City Council meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. i.p. - 13 PfoweQ It'd+n 4..de N11 kr% ems ` .S• qy IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HARTFORD PLACE by Ryan Companies. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 43.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres, PUD Concept Review on 110 acres, PUD District Review on 88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 250 townhouse lots, 24 single family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres, and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive. Franzen stated that the plan in the packet was an overall development plan divided up into seven different areas representing different requests of the developer for rezoning to commercial, single family and multi-family. The purpose was to separate the issues such that the decisions made would provide framework for the developer to proceed with the preparation of final plans. Bill McHale, representing Ryan Companies, reviewed their project with the Commissioners using visual aids. He stated that they have made a lot of changes since the last time they met with the Planning Commission as a result of neighborhood meetings. He distributed hand-outs to the Commissioners which reflected the number of neighborhood meetings and attendances. He stated they are in total agreement with the Staff Report. He and all the members of the team including several other consultants were present to answer any questions for the Commission. He highlighted all the current changes that have been made noting that they rearranged single family homes to create 50 foot conservancy easements. He said they have also changed setbacks by realigning the road to increase the backyard separations from 30 feet to 80 feet. He stated they created a landscape buffer area and preserved all the significant trees in the area. They created two eight foot berms, one between Gelco and one between the Fieldcrest homes area and Nedegaard. He said they have lowered cul-de-sacs by approximately six feet to reduce elevation impact. They added a four foot chain link vinyl fences. Regarding the Mark Smith site, he stated they reduced the units from 70 to 58. The setback from Office was increased to 150 feet. He said they added a fence to preserve the lake side and kept out the animals. Regarding the Pulte site, they maintained existing berms and the planting between the wetlands and the Carriage Court homes. They maintained the views of the residential and the berms will not change. They reviewed the north section of the site to take care of building setbacks that wouldn't be visible. He stated that they maintained the existing berm between Fieldcrest all 2 • gyp, - �y the way to the wetlands. They have increased the eight foot berms as proposed to 12 feet. Regarding the commercial area, he stated they added screening. Richard Koppy, RLK, representing the developer, referred to questions one through five that all development proposals have to answer with regards to comprehensive plan changes. He explained why their plans meet the requirements that the City has. He feels their guide plan change has a minimal impact on the balance of land use in the City. Using a proposal diagram, he showed why he believes the transition is compatible with the existing land uses. He stated that land value was a big concern from Gelco and the residents. He talked with the City Assessor and their rule of thumb is residential use or even a multi-family use next to a similar residential use is going to preserve the land values much more than an office next to a residential land use. He said traffic will be reduced by their plan compared to the old Hartford plan by 50 percent. There will be less impervious surface areas that will help the water quality. He stated that the structures covered in the original Hartford plan was 1.5 million square feet of office space. All of the structures in their plan will have a reduction of approximately 35 percent. The storm sewer and draining system will be improved significantly. He said the residents that move into the homes will have easy access to retail stores and other services very close by Eden Prairie Center. In summary, he believes that their proposed zoning changes and land use changes are justified and would like the Commissioners to evaluate it accordingly. Referring to the overall site plan on the screen, he referred to the three ponds on the site. He said one point is the pre-sedimentation basin that will take much of the Pulte side drainage into it and allow some of the sedimentation and oils to dissipate and settle out. The pretreated water will go into the wetlands. From there the water will go out on to Prairie Center Drive and into the existing storm sewer system already in place. The other point, on the easterly side of the Pulte development, it will take again the easterly half of the Pulte development into the presedimentation pond. From there it will go into the wetland, and from there it will go into the large NURP pond. In essence, water will be treated twice. On the Nedegaard site, their drainage goes directly to the NURP pond before it goes into Anderson Lake. On the Mark Smith site, their drainage goes into that same pond. On the Ryan retail site, their drainage goes into that pond. That pond is already existing and they are going to use the NURP applications which the site requires and make sure that pond fulfills the standard that the City expects. He stated they are trying to take a series of small wetlands and combine them into two large wetlands locations. This permit for wetlands mitigation was approved in the Fall of 1993. Hartford secured the permit and is contracting to complete the work. It goes forward regardless of their project. They are 3 -sr. b. - iS taking that plan and making sure their plan coordinates with that. One stipulation of the permit has 200 trees being planted around those ponds for additional erosion control. They are taking those 200 trees and integrating them into their plans. Janine Krone briefly explained what they did with the berming on the proposed plan. She stated that after meeting with the neighborhood a number of times, they realized what was very important was that they keep the existing berming as much as possible. The area that borders Fieldcrest and Highland terrace homes, and then the area by Carriage Court, those berms were left exactly as they are today. The only place on the plan along the south border that berms were changed is at the end of Center Way where the berm is sitting out in the middle of the site. They propose to move it back and make one continuous berm with the minimum of 12 feet high. They plan to add a berm between the Carriage Court homes and the new townhomes, and then between the proposed commercial outlot and the townhomes. All the berms to the south and between the commercial plan will have triple rows of conifers. Other berms on the site are between Gelco and the Mark Smith site, and NCS on the Mark Smith site. Between Nedegaard and Gelco, those are the other significant berms that are at least six feet tall ranging from four to six on the Mark Smith site, eight feet on the Nedegaard site, and six feet at Prairie Lake Drive. She noted that the berming on the Mark Smith site was to create a good buffer. Final berming would be placed on the site according to the site street master plan. It will be three to four foot berms with plantings along the roadways and parking for the commercial areas. Janine Krone showed slides reflecting examples of different properties built by the developers. Dave Newman, representing Nedegaard Construction, reviewed his project with the Planning Commission. He stated they have 14 acres for 25 single family lots. He said the homes will range in value from $300,000 to over half a million dollars. The density is 1.8 units per acre. The average lot size is 18,000 square feet in size. He said they have made a lot of changes as a result of three meetings with the neighbors. They are proposing to retain existing vegetation adjacent to Northmark Circle. This will provide screening new homes for some of the residents. Where natural vegetation does not exist, they are proposing an eight foot high berm, double and triple rows of coniferous plantings that will be 8 to 12 feet high, and three inch shade trees. Where no berm is possible, the quantity and size of plant material are increased to a 12 foot minimum height for conifers. They are proposing a 50 foot conservancy easement along the property line. They have included buffers for those residents that will see the tops of homes. 4 -sz b.- 10 Foote questioned why the berm stops. Newman replied it's where the vegetation starts and that's where they are going to start supplemental conifers. Clinton asked what the five homes behind the berm will see. Newman replied that once this is constructed they will see a berm in their backyard. Some of the homes will see the berm and the vegetation they will be planting. Casey Hill, Director of Operations for Pulte Homes, reviewed their project with the Planning Commission. He stated that their site is divided up into two sections. One section will be 120 townhomes. They will range from 1100 to 1200 square feet. The units themselves are maintenance free with vinyl siding. The townhomes are affordable and high quality for the first time home buyer. They will be professionally managed with Homeowners Association. They will be fully landscaped as outlined on the plans, as well as a sprinkler system. He said that 65% of the buyers are 20 to 35 years of age. 80% of them are unmarried with 20% having small children at home under the age of five. He said the buyers may be educated college graduates that understand the importance of benefiting owning their own home, and will exhibit a great deal of pride for their community. They will actually participate in the Homeowners Association and would like to serve on the board. The covenant laws on the site will protect them from investors coming in and pushing for rentals. It will not be allowed. He reviewed the proposal for the second section. He said it will have the same maintenance free exterior, Pulte landscaping, and sprinklers through out the area. There will also be a personal managing association separate from the previous one. 80% of the buyers will be over 50 years of age, retirees. There will be one and two level townhomes. He highlighted some of the changes made as a result of neighborhood meetings. He said they have added some brick on the exterior of the garages, and a number of gables have been added on the roofs and on the end of the buildings. There are 25 foot minimum setbacks required by the City and they have 60 - 100 foot setbacks. They have increased the berm height to an average of 12 feet, four feet higher than their previous submission. Mark Smith reviewed his project with the Planning Commission. He stated that his typical buyers will be empty nesters age 50 and above. They are looking for the convenience of having shopping, work and home close to them. He said this location is ideal for them wanting to be close to Eden Prairie Center. They have reduced their units down to 58 units with the closest unit 150 feet from the Gelco Company. Bill McHale stated that the plan before the Planning Commission will have less traffic impact on the site than the one already approved. The transition to the 5 �, - ) 7 south is acceptable to Staff. The overall landscaping is twice the City Code. The pervious acres have been doubled to protect the lake. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. With regards to area #1 commercial, he stated that the developer's plan is to meet City code requirements, create architectural compatibility, a design comparable to Bachman's, Wal-Mart, and Brunswick Family Fun World. The developer has agreed to use the City's decorative lighting, and landscape scheme along Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive. The developer has also agreed to develop a standard design for pylon signs on this site and area #2 commercial as well. The signs will be comparable to the sign details of the Eden Prairie Market Center plan. Staff is supportive of this change in the commercial plan. Franzen stated that Staff's main concern with area #2 commercial are meeting code requirements. They are also concerned that the type of products used to build are consistent with what they have in the Market Center. He highlighted Staff's list of conditions that are in the Staff Report. The Staff is supportive of the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Office to Commercial and the zoning change, based upon the Staff assessment. Sandstad asked if the project moves forward, does the developer plan on putting in the cart corrals that are standard for these commercial areas or not. Franzen replied that this will be incorporated into the final plans. Bauer showed concern for reserving short term parking. Bill O'Reilly, 11145 Lanewood Circle, asked where is the access to the parking; is it off Center Prairie Drive, off Rolling Hills Road, or off Prairie Lakes Drive. Sandstad replied there will be access from all three. O'Reilly asked if people will be able to get on Prairie Center Drive from the parking lot. Sandstad replied it will be only for northbound right in and right out. George Bentley, 14292 Golf View Drive, showed concern for the pathway or bicycle path along Prairie Center Drive, and pedestrian access on this site. He also showed concern for the designs of the buildings to be consistent with other buildings within the area. He expressed concern for the architectural features such as the circles as the City has required on other buildings. Franzen stated that the plan is not at the point yet where they have a detailed location of where sidewalks and trails are going to be. He said the Parks Department looked at this issue and their recommendation is that along Prairie Center Drive there will be a trail and sidewalks on both sides of the loop road in the project. It will also have connections from the commercial site and the 6 O. I residential site from within the project to tie into those trail systems and project. He stated that Southwest Metro has written Staff a letter which talks about having sidewalks throughout the area and also provisions for a transit stop either within the parking lot or along Prairie Lake Drive or Rolling Hills Road. He said that the developers and himself took a three hour tour of Eden Prairie and they were shown different projects which reflect what Staff expects of them with regard to architectural compatibility. Chris Graff. 11574 Carriage Court.. expressed concern for the failure of businesses in the commercial area. Roslyn Nasco, Island Park Townhomes, expressed concern about the increase of traffic on Prairie Center Drive with all the additional homes going into the area. She suggested a mini cul-de-sac to be considered if a bus stop was to be considered in which a bus can come in and make a stop versus them stopping on Prairie Center Drive. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #3 with the Planning Commission. He stated that the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to a residential use is more of a question of land use compatibility, land use continuity, and land use transition. Staff does agree that an office building on site would provide the most compatible and continuous land use. It would also have less potential impact on wildlife habit. This site is closer to the Lake and doesn't have the grade change, distance or existing tree mass providing a visual and physical separation as the single family site. Staff is receptive to residential on this site because the density is lower than the ordinance maximums, buffer zone is being provided, and a fence to protect the wildlife habitat. The buffer uses a six foot high berm and double and triple rows of 12 foot high conifers planted along the common edge. The City has approved other mixed use projects with residential between office buildings such as the Park at City West apartment buildings. Staff supports the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change and zoning to multiple family on this site based upon the plan as proposed. Sandstad stated that this is the toughest part of this project for him to decide. He said it is very difficult to visualize this in completion, but he will keep an open mind to the issues. Craig Peterson. representing Gelco Corporation, expressed concern that this project could have a negative impact on Gelco's depreciation and long term value of the building. He does not feel it is a smooth transition. He is concerned with their clients driving through a residential area as opposed to giving them a corporate setting. It does not create a corporate image that they hoped for when they purchased their building. He is also concerned with issues 7 from a liability standpoint as a result of their parking lot turning into a playground. He is also concerned about their high volume of truck and semi delivery traffic on Prairie Lake Drive which would not be ideal if there would be residential property on both side of the street. He expressed concern for the new residents that will hear their ground mounted air conditioning units being run 365 days a year, 24 hours a day for their computer rooms. Clinton stated that there are many examples around the Twin City area of residential, commercial and office all being in the same area. Sandstad asked if the City has looked into a noise barrier that could be designed to eliminate the noise problem. Franzen replied the City has not, but it is a good suggestion that they will check into. Schlampp expressed concern for the lights that will run all night long in Gelco's parking lot being a negative impact for future homeowners. Kathy Bolter. 11128 Hyland Terrace, expressed concern about the preservation of Anderson Lake and access to it for the community to continue to appreciate the beauty of this lake. Sandstad stated that he knows the Anderson Lake area very well. He said that he enjoys watching the bald eagles down there and he hopes considerations are made to preserve the wildlife habitats. George Bentley. 14292 Golf View Drive, expressed concern that a housing project directly adjacent to the lake will negatively impact the environmentally protected areas around the lake. Charlie Gravelle, 8650 Black Maple Drive. expressed concern about the impact on what would happen with the rest of the City in a whole if this zone change to residential takes place. He is also concerned about the land use of this parcel today and also 30 to 40 years in the future. Dave Newman stated that they want the area behind Gelco protected. He said they are aware of the air conditioning issue and landscaping the berm was created to offset that noise. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #4 with the Planning Commission. He stated this is a situation of single family next to single family. He said the developer's response to the neighborhood concerns for the view lines has a composite plan for buffering. That plan retains existing vegetation off the proposed cul-de-sac. He stated where they don't have any trees, it will go to large trees, 12 foot conifers and five inch shade trees. He 8 said where a berm can be put in they have smaller trees ranging from eight to 12 feet in height. He said it will look similar to the area along County Road 4. It will provide immediate privacy and screening of site lines will take longer. Staff is supportive of this change in the plan based upon the plans that they have. Schlampp asked how big are the conifers. Franzen replied they will be 12 feet at the time of planting. He said where there isn't a berm the trees will be 12 feet tall, and where there is an eight foot berm the smallest conifer will be eight feet and the smallest tree would be three inches per shade tree. Lee Mayer, 8947 Preserve Boulevard, asked what the red lines are that come off the corner of the cul-de-sac. Krone replied they are ornamental conifers. Lisa Helt. 10600 Northmark Drive, expressed concern for the same site lines and setback as included in the existing plan. She said this was their expectation when they purchased their homes and ask that the Commission consider this when making their decision. She stated she would like to see the site remain commercial. She said that if the proposal goes through she would request the same buffer zone which was 100 feet to any impervious surface since that's what they saw when they purchased their home. She is also concerned about the screening of these homes. Sandstad asked her if she considered the thought that these homes in the $300,000 to $500,000 range will increase the value of her home as opposed to the site becoming office. Helt replied she has given that thought but her and her husband did not buy their home with the intent to sell it. They very much like where they are and have no plans on moving, so it is not much of a consideration for them. Cheryl Bond. 10665 Northmark Drive, expressed concern about the existing Northmark Circle area. She is concerned about the water drainage in her backyard. Bob Tschantz, 10630 Northmark Drive. invited the Commissioners to come out and talk with the neighbors to get a better understanding of why they prefer the office versus residential. Barry Pearson, 10754 Fieldcrest Road. expressed concern for the zoning and the lower elevation of the project. He said they purchased their home because zoning was very appealing to them. He said if they put up two story homes next to them, they're going to be in a hole looking up at these houses even with a berm. He suggested restricting that property to one story homes. 9 -Ir. r�.- z� Charlie Gravelle, 8650 Black Maple Drive. expressed concern about the setbacks and site lines on this site. Schlampp asked if the parking lot lights being on all night long would have an impact on their favoring commercial rather than residential. Gravelle replied that the parking lot would be the same distance away as the lighting in someone's home. He said the only difference is that everyone is going to be in their homes at the time same time looking into each other's home. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #5 with the Planning Commission. He stated that since the approved plan with the existing berm would have allowed the view of the top two stories of the office building, a view of the top portion of the roof of the townhouses may be acceptable. If the additional caliper inch requirement for City code does not provide the effective screen, then additional landscaping may be required under the provision of the site plan review ordinance which requires a transition where there is a difference in densities. He said that Staffs recommendation for area #5 should be amended to meet the caliper inch requirement and additional plant materials as required by Staff. Staff would recommend a triple row of plants along the entire south line of area #5 with plant sizes ranging from 8 to 12 feet high for conifers and 3-6 inches for shade trees. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #6 with the Planning Commission. He stated that since the transition is significant between the east portion of Pulte West to the homes along Fieldcrest and Hyland Drive, the size of the plant materials in this location should be a range of 10 to 12 foot high conifers and 3 to 6 inch shade trees planted in triple rows. The area adjacent to the Hyland Terrace townhouses is a smaller transition and plants should be three rows deep, however, the size of the plant materials can vary from 6 to 8 foot high conifers and 2 1/2 - 4 inch shade trees. The transition to the single family homes on Laneburough Drive is significant and there should be a 3 layer deep of plant materials with a minimum size of 12 feet for the conifers and 3-6 inch shade trees. For the area adjacent to the quad homes on Carriage Court, there should be a triple layer of plant materials with plant materials ranging from 6 to 8 foot high for conifers and 2 1/2 - 4 inch diameter for shade trees. Sixty percent of all trees may be at the smaller size, with 10 percent allocated to each size up to the maximum recommended. He stated that Staff supports the plan. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #7 with the Planning Commission. He stated that the 50 foot buffer zone, 9 foot high berm and mass plant materials in a triple row with 6-8 high conifers and 2 1/2 to 4 inch shade trees is needed since the homes are close to future commercial. This berm and plantings should be completed concurrent with the Pulte Home site, 10 � � , - 22_ so that the plant materials would have a chance to mature before the commercial site is zoned. The proposed planting plan along the north side of the wetland area is weak and would benefit from additional plant materials. The Staff would recommend a triple row of plant materials varying between 6 - 8 feet in height for conifers and 2 1/2 to 4 inches in diameter for shade trees. Distance and plantings will create the transition. The plants should be installed current with construction of the townhomes. George Bentley, 14292 Golf View Drive expressed concern about what type of interior pedestrian circle has been proposed for within the project, and for one on the north side of the road by the lake. He is also concerned about access to the park system and trail connections. Ron Hart expressed concern for a park facility for children. He stated that as a homeowner the quality of life can be better maintained by houses and investments would be better. Sandstad asked if the Parks Commission has considered this issue. Franzen replied that this has not been reviewed by the Parks Commission. The Parks Commission reviews projects after the Planning Commission recommendation. He stated that the Parks Commission Staff has recommended a trail connection from this site. Roger Jacobson. 10890 Fieldcrest Road. expressed concern for the zoning to remain the same as when he purchased his home, and for the line of site blocking the view of any commercial building. He also asked for clarification about the berm situation behind that area. Janine Krone replied that the only place where there is a new berm is along Center Way and it will just be graded enough to connect with the existing berm, therefore, existing and adjacent to his property would stay unless it was being made higher other than the large one that sits back. Katie Baltzer. expressed concern for the value in her home depreciating. She is also concerned about the project bringing in more traffic and congestion. She feels her community is getting more of the lower end housing that generates crime. Roslyn Nasco, 11080 Northland Terrace, expressed concern about the views she will see from her home. She suggested that the berm be left the way it is to be created as a conservancy easement such that it will be left natural. Patrick Francisco. 10900 Fieldcrest Road, asked whether or not a decision will be made without final plans, and when will there be final plans. 11 sr . �. - 23 Bauer replied that when the Planning Commission has a very large project like this, major issues are reviewed and resolved at a conceptual project level first. Then plans are referred back to the developers for revisions. Final plans are required before the Commission will vote on rezoning. Mark Orchard, 10160 Fieldcrest Road, expressed concern about the increase of traffic while going to work in the morning. He is also concerned about the project's impact on the wildlife. Nancy Francis, 11536 Carriage Court, expressed concern for the accuracy of the property site line. Franzen replied that everyone is welcome to come in and Staff can help determine where they're correct property line is located. Bob Dunbar. 11270 Lanewood Circle, wants to know why there is a berm behind the unit near the cul-de-sac. Janine Krone replied that it is not a berm, that it is his existing tree cover. She said the reason they did not propose a new berm is because you have to have very large trees that are already screening the property 100%. The plans are only on one side of the berm. There is no berm on the other side. Harry Baltzer, 10128. Hyland Terrace, suggested that the homes on the south border of the project should be in the same price range as the homes that they will back up to. Janelle Edwards, 11250 Lanewood Circle. expressed concern about the berm behind her only being 6 1/2 feet tall and from her deck she'll be seeing two story townhomes. She is also concerned that the property value of her home will decrease with the distance of townhomes from her home. She stated that where there is lower housing there is a lot of crime, but with offices there isn't. Dorothy Latterel, 11084 Hyland Terrace, expressed concern for the large trees that are being left, whether there is any choice for the people that buy those homes to leave the trees or to cut them down as they wish. Franzen replied that the City would prohibit the Association from cutting trees down or trimming trees unless they are diseased. He said the trees are to remain as they are. Charlie Gravelle, 8560 Black Maple Drive, expressed concern about parcel #7 needing to be developed in order to make this plan pliable, yet he sees no plan 12 for that parcel. Bill O'Reilly. 11145 Lanewood Circle expressed concern of whether or not this project is the appropriate use of this land. Naomi Manke. 11072 Hyland Terrace. stated that she would prefer that the site remain for office buildings as it was told to her when she purchased her home. She expressed concern about the berm being removed and for the wildlife in that area. She is concerned that the lower priced townhomes will decrease her property value. Clinton expressed concern about the residents believing that $80,000 townhomes are for low income families and that this will increase crime. He said he prefers to call it affordable housing. He stated that an $80,000 home is a lot of house for a single person and they have to be making over $35,000 a year. He said they are trying to look at establishing a neighborhood where people can live in Eden Prairie. He said by pricing homes at $120,000 would bring a loss of people out of Eden Prairie so when they deliberate on projects they have to consider that loss. Foote stated that he does not see the plans for site #3 working out because landscaping alone is not an appropriate buffer, so it would have to remain office. He said he agrees with Staff regarding site #4. He is recommending that the developers lower the height of the homes. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic for the additional 160 unit proposal on site #5 and #6. Wissner stated that she does not support site #3 as residential. She said she agrees with Foote about lowering the height of homes, density on site #4 and making them one level homes. She said she is supportive of affordable housing on site #5 and #6. She feels it is important for people to remain in the community after having grown up in Eden Prairie and not have to move away because of unaffordable housing. She said she supports the idea of having shopping and the working place accessible to your home. Clinton said he supports what all the Commissioners said about site #3. He said when the developer comes back he would like him to address the issue of accessibility to the lake. Schlampp said he supports all the comments made by the Commissioners but he feels there are a lot changes that need to take place. Bauer said he supports what the Commissioners said about site #3. He agrees with the recommendation of some of the lots being designated as one level and is in favor of residential on site #4. He said he would like to see some 13 �. p. - 2c changes on site #5 and #6. He expressed concern about another 2 1/2 hour session on this in two weeks that it would be very frustrating. Franzen asked the Planning Commission to clarify their recommendations for the Staff and developer. The Commission stated the following: 1. Area #3 should be Office. 2. Area #4 should be single family but site lines should be re-evaluated to either look at one-story homes or a 100 ft. structure setback with increased buffer. 3. Area #5, #6, #7 could be multiple, but homes along the south property should be one story. 4. Area #1 and #2 are acceptable for commercial based on the Staff Report. Franzen noted that a 100 feet setback or one-story homes will likely require PUD waivers for reduced front yard setback. He added that if the City expects the developer to do changes not typically required next to existing single family homes, the City should be prepared to show flexibility in code waivers to help them accomplish the desired result. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the public hearing to August 22nd. Motion carried 6-0-0. Sr: b. 26 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: September 9, 1994 SUBJECT: HARTFORD PLACE APPLICANT: Ryan Companies FEE OWNER: Hartford Insurance Company LOCATION: East of Prairie Center Drive on Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 35.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 110 acres. 3. PUD District Review on 88 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 218 townhouse lots, 25 single family lots and 3 outlots. 5. Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres. 6. Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres. 7. Rezoning from Office to Commercial Regional Service on 5 acres. 8. Site Plan Review on 88 acres. 1 2-7 q E r� LpBN A' C iCLEC CTr� o?T T 1�""'II'I1 •, • 4t)=! G ry aI" STRIP EAST l£ONA AOd iT •:�• coo = l T ••:S _ +_ .,.. vT EN v_214AR\E'i AOp it tarn MOOT� I Pk_E:v / ■O , i?.. 2 ;a WEST lip 111111 7 ,- 4 ,4001 ( \70#44;*' ST • IwGATGfAE k✓ / _P • PRAIRIE ::s. p `` • • (::ENTER • I 4tR PRA IRIE -- L AKES 1 _S • I r :I rpv • d 41711:26:r TH • _�t AOC. CENTER • v CENTER I 5 E S ofr •o L A • K E • 3 •• • R.L.S. � 414Tifert • 1 •• `• .::'.::::::• �• • •• • • • : :.:...:'....:. 1394 :�p �� .. m \\\\�idl�:������� ��/eiliit �y • - a _ - • : . :�E 1�+� +iei it ' %1?;;t: L IIIIgll 9 .. 10 Jam` '1 f?: :::: '': .'': :::' riiliiiiliii 1411111/1114INIttlo a :_ :tic:: 0,40.0:101.: 1111141 . 1#. .- el. it tt �: EDEN LAIC-,ELEM. ��♦ ti:• -* \-75-4.21 '.( ii 111. <4.- ';:**1. - ''( ` :::... �y _i:i:: . ia ker - %eta . • . r! •tft _. bewail/1BR - Ai+ ....., •, .... 1p, `i01,4=\.44k* :iiiiiir:Nil:iiiini;!!!i!.:igi:X7. A. . P ' IMING41 ...::::::.ili:'ii::::•:::: .4„ #-IN-'47w--- ti% -::7..:::::: ::i:ir!.:. . ob ,...7 ,0.4-.4° f . rt . .4-.5 niNT Ah, ,......."14,444/6„ k't ;Piiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiinitlii* •• a ■ I 11 aw . no 4, A .:Nit::iii ;mimi::i,,,.:i::i:!,;:•- ,...41070. . „itiiiits -', z. rr p. i... ::Ataill.,411111" Nur ..:-:::............. ........ P: •• •••• • ••• • • ••••• /! , 'Lill a •..• ,•••••• •• „ ••• .:::,7147:ibiTlm5:::.:. its; ;.. Illi&e feir 0 .. dkv.,„..,,,, 2., a.., mak VP. ors .42-pi ill 0 4* ..... um ,.."ii. r'o b.** 1.11$141111881 .....:..:::. �`_ air ''ER '•k,. . '+ - Zi4 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change Following are the individual Guide Plan Changes by site area: Area #1 - No Comprehensive Guide Plan Change (currently guided and zoned commercial) Area #2 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Change for the eastern 1/2 of the property from Office to Commercial Area #3 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential Area #4 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Low Density Residential Area #5,6 - Comprehensive Guide Plane Change from Office to Medium Density Residential Area #7 - No Comprehensive Guide Plan Change (Currently guided and zoned commercial) The following are reasons to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan changes: 1. The Guide Plan Change will not have a significant impact on the balance of land uses in the City - The Comprehensive Guide Plan currently depicts a total of 322 acres of vacant office land. The Comprehensive Guide Plan Change represents a net loss of 56 acres of land currently guided office. There is currently 2.7 million square feet of office building in Eden Prairie which has been built over the last 18 years. Developing the remaining 266 acres according to City Code, would allow between 3.5 to 5.8 million square feet of additional office. If development trends over the next 18 years are similar to the previous 18 years, remaining office land should be more than adequate. The change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan would add 14 acres to the guide plan balance of 8,481 acres of Low Density Residential, and 35 acres to the 1,071 acres of land guided Medium Density Residential. This represents a net increase of less than one-half percent for low density land use and 4% for Medium Density 2 -sr. Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Residential. 2. Traffic generation is less than the approved Hartford development plan by 30% - the 1979, approved Hartford plan would generate 17,548 daily trips and 2,067 peak hour trips. The current proposal would generate 11,371 daily trips and 1,068 p.m. trips. 3. Traffic generation will not have a significant impact on roads and intersections - The current roads through and around the project are adequate to carry the projected traffic. No modifications to these roads are necessary. A traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive. This traffic signal should be constructed concurrent with the project. A traffic signal is also needed at the off-ramp from westbound I-494 to Prairie Center Drive, but this warranted based upon the existing projected traffic regardless of this project. The intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169 currently operates at level of service F and will be at level of service F until County Road 18 is upgraded and Highway 212 is constructed. The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system will not change the level of service at Franlo Road, Rolling Hills Road, or West 78th Street. 4. The PUD provides a transition to the residential areas to the south - Attachment A is a graphic which shows the zoning and density of the land areas to the south as compared to the zoning densities in this project. For the most part, the densities are comparable. Where there is a change in densities, berming, landscaping, and one-story buildings along the property line in the multiple family area are used for a transition. This would be in Areas 5 and 6. In Area 4, the transition is created by a 100 foot structure setback, 8 foot berm, and plant materials. 4. The plan does not have a significant impact on natural features - Tree loss is 29%. A 5 foot chain link fence is proposed along Area 3 and Area 4 to protect the wildlife habitat along Anderson Lakes. Wetlands have been filled on site and are being mitigated in accordance with State Wetland Preservation Act. 5. The proposal meets all applicable Shoreland Ordinance requirements. The following are reasons for not supporting the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential on Site 3: 3 � �. - 30 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 1. The multiple family land use is not compatible between two office sites. 2. The multiple family_site does not provide an appropriate transition to the existing office uses. 3. Lighting and noise, from both office buildings would negatively impact the proposed multiple family area. Planned Unit Development Concept PUD Concept Plan The PUD concept is for 186,000 square feet of commercial, 58 twin homes, 25 single family homes, and 160 townhomes. Traffic The July 1994, traffic study analyzes the impact on roads and intersections in the area. The results of this study is as follows: 1. Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169 intersection is currently over capacity. This intersection will become more congested even without this development. Mitigation for congestion at this intersection will be provided by the construction of Highway 212 and County Road 18. This will reduce total traffic on Highway 169 by approximately 10,000 daily trips. 2. The intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Preserve Boulevard currently operates of level of service C. With or without the development, the level of service D is forecasted. This is an acceptable operating condition. 3. The intersection at Prairie Center Drive and Rolling Hills Road will experience an increase in traffic volumes, but not at a level which would warrant traffic signal installation. 4. The Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive intersection will require that a 4 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 traffic signal be installed concurrent with the project. 5. The Prairie Center Drive and east mall entrance intersection will experience some additional traffic, not enough to warrant the installation of a signal upon completion of the Kohl's project. 6. The Prairie Center Drive and West 78th Street intersection currently operates at a level of service C. In 1996, with the development, the level of service increases to D. This is an acceptable operating condition for an intersection. 7. The Prairie Center Drive and eastbound I-494 ramp intersection will operate effectively without traffic signalization after the completion of the proposed project. 8. The Prairie Center Drive and westbound I-494 off-ramp requires a traffic signal. 9. The development site internal roadways (Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road) are constructed to adequate standards within geometric standards to accommodate the traffic volumes. 10. Two access driveways on Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road closest to Prairie Center Drive will provide good access to the development and are located at a distance of 250 feet back from the intersection. This will provide for adequate stacking distance back from the intersection which will not reach the driveways. Site vision distance at the intersections is adequate based upon the design speed of the roads at 30 mph. Sidewalks and Trails The following are the proposed sidewalks and trails within the PUD: 1. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk along Prairie Center Drive. 2. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk along both sides of Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road. 3. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk connection from Rolling Hills Road to Center Way. 4. Sidewalk connections are required from sidewalks within a road right-of-way to 5 -Kr. b. - 3a Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 each of the commercial and office building sites. 5. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of the loop road in Area 4, single family. Shoreland Ordinance Anderson Lakes is a recreational development water. The Shoreland Ordinance regulations do not apply to this site, since the property is not abutting or within 150 feet of the high water mark of the lake. Within 1000 feet of the high water mark of Anderson Lakes, there an impervious surface maximum requirement of 30%. The project as proposed is 21% impervious surface. Storm Drainage All water from this site is being pre-treated to NURP standards prior to discharge into either Anderson Lakes or wetlands. Natural Resource Impacts There is a total of 992 caliper inches of trees on site. Twenty-nine percent or 290 inches will be removed due to construction. Tree replacement is 112 inches and is figured into the landscape plan for Area 2. A 5 foot high chain link fence will be constructed along site area 3 and 4 to protect the nesting habitats. There are existing wetlands on this site which are in the process of being filled and mitigated in accordance with City, Watershed District, and State standards into the Wetlands Preservation Act. Any storm water routed into these wetland areas will go through pre-treatment ponds. EAW Attachment B represents a comparison of the approved EAW and the proposed project based on density divided by the EAW threshold categories. This chart indicates that the approved EAW had a ratio of 7.25 and current proposal has a threshold ratio of 1.13. Since the current threshold ratio is less than the approved threshold, no new EAW is required. Transition The following are the transitions within the PUD: Area #1 - Not applicable 6 �Z.p, - 33 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Area #2 - Not applicable Area #3 - The Planning Commission previously determined that a multiple family use on site 3 was not appropriate. Effective transitions can not be provided to the existing office uses on either side of the site. Area #4 - Transition to the existing single family neighborhood to the south is created by the following: a. A lower site density 1.8 units per acre compared to the existing 2.6 units per acre on the property to the south. b. This area and the homes to the south would be zoned R1-13.5. c. The average lot size proposed is 18,000 square feet compared with the abutting area at 12,000 square feet. d. A 100 foot structure setback. e. A 60 foot wide conservation area within which an 8 foot high berm and 12 foot high conifers and 3 inch shade trees are proposed. Area #5 and Area #6 - Transition is created within this area by the following: a. One-story townhouses are proposed along the common property line. This is a better visual relationship than the original plan with two-story townhouses. b. Where densities are greater next to single family, large berming and heavy tree plantings are proposed. c. Where densities are comparable between the proposed and the area to the south, a shorter berm and some additional plant materials are proposed. d. Where the densities are comparable but proposed berming is shorter, larger plant materials are proposed. Area #7-Area#7 is currently zoned commercial. Transition is created by the following: 7 - 3c-) Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 a. A conservation easement will cover the existing and mitigated wetland and pre-treatment pond within which no structure is possible. Some berming is proposed along the south property line along with existing conifers. Plant materials are required on the north side of the pond which will provide for screening of the proposed commercial area in the future. c. A nine foot high berm and plant materials is proposed along the common property line with Area 5. Southwest Metro In order to ensure that transit service is convenient, safe, and attractive to users in the area, Southwest Metro recommends the following: 1. An internal sidewalk system within the project with connections to Prairie Center Drive and safe access to the SMTC Park and Ride lot at Eden Prairie Center. Sidewalks are shown on the plan and a traffic signal at Prairie Lakes Drive meets this requirement. 2. Locate 1 to 3 centralized bus stops/turnarounds be located in the project. Bus shelters and signs would be provided by SMTC. One stop can be provided on Area 2. Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road are 40 foot wide and can accommodate bus stops. 3. Provide bus pullout lanes on major streets. Existing streets are wide enough for this to occur. 4. Provide lights and signals for public safety. This is shown on the plan. The developer shall meet with SMTC prior to second reading to receive approval on bus stops and pullout locations. AREA #1 - COMMERCIAL Development Request This site is currently guided regional commercial and zoned Commercial-Regional-Service. The 8 _r.b. - 3� Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 request is to subdivide 4.43 acres into three commercial lots. The development proposal includes two 5,800 square foot restaurants and one 10,000 square foot office building. Density, Base Area Ratio, Floor Area Ratio The site plan meets City Code. Setbacks The site plan meets code requirements for setbacks to building and parking. Parking The amount of parking provided between the three sites is 160 spaces. Fifty parking spaces are required for the office building leaving 110 parking spaces available for restaurants. Since the parking ratio for restaurants is based upon the seating capacity which is not known at this time, 110 parking spaces would translate into a total of 165 seats possible for each of the restaurants. Lot Sizes The minimum lot size in the Commercial-Regional-Service Zoning District is 10,000 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet this requirement. Shoreland Ordinance Not applicable PUD Waivers None required. Architecture The three buildings meet the City's exterior requirement for 75% face brick and glass. All buildings are using common colors and exterior materials. Mechanical equipment is screened by a parapet wall. 9 Staff Report • Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Landscaping The amount of landscaping required for this site is based upon the caliper inch requirement and screening of parking areas. The caliper inch requirement is 70 caliper inches. The plan meets this requirement. Berming and caliper inches beyond the minimum requirements are proposed to satisfy the screening requirement. The Staff would suggest that additional double rows of shrub plantings along Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive to better screen the parking areas. In addition, all trash areas will be inside of the buildings. Signs An overall sign plan has been provided showing pylon and monument signs for the whole PUD. For this site, three monument signs are proposed which meet City Code requirements for height and square footage (see Attachments C and D). The exterior material of the sign is similar to the exterior materials of the proposed building. The monument signs must meet a 20 foot setback from road right-of-way. Sidewalks A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive. Internal sidewalk connections from the exterior sidewalks to each building on the property are shown on the plan. Utilities Sewer and water service is available to the property. Storm Drainage Storm water run-off from the site will be pre-treated to NURP standards. Lighting The site plan depicts use of decorative lighting consistent with the downtown area plan. 10 - 37 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 AREA #2 - COMMERCIAL Development Request This site is currently guided Regional-Commercial and Office. The eastern 5 acres of this site is proposed for a land use change to commercial. Rezoning will also be needed for this 5 acre site from Office to Regional-Commercial-Service. A preliminary plat of 17.90 acres into three lots is requested. A total of 165,000 square feet of commercial is proposed on 3 sites. Density, Base Area Ratio, Floor Area Ratio The Base Area Ratio for Area #2 is .21 overall. Lot 1 of this area is a .23 Base Area Ratio. Both of these exceed the City Code requirement of .20. This is a Planned Unit Development waiver. Reasons for considering the density waiver is as follows: 1. The overall Base Area Ratio for both Area #1 and Area #2 is .19. 2. This plan meets the required setbacks and parking requirements. 3. Parking and loading areas are screened according to City Code. 4. The architectural design is consistent with the downtown area. The site plan incorporates decorative lighting consistent with the downtown area. Setbacks Area#2 meets all required setbacks to parking and building. Lot Sizes All proposed lots exceed the minimum 10,000 square foot lot size requirement. Parking The parking requirement for Area #2 is 910 parking spaces. Nine hundred and ten is shown on the site plan. Short term parking is shown on the plan. Zero lot line setback waivers to parking are required between Lot 1 and Lot 3. The City has granted PUD waivers for zero lot line 11 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 setbacks to parking in shopping centers involving multiple lots. Shoreland Ordinance The Shoreland Ordinance does not apply to this site. Architecture All buildings meet City Code requirement for 75% face brick and glass. All buildings are architecturally compatible with the use of common exterior materials and colors. Building architecture is consistent with the same standards required in the downtown area. Mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened by parapet wall on all buildings. Landscaping The landscaping requirement is based upon a caliper inch requirement tree replacement, screening of parking areas, screening of loading areas, and screening of trash areas. The caliper inch requirement is 657 inches. The site plan depicts 832 caliper inches. The parking areas are screened through berming, shrub plantings, and conifer trees. The loading area is screened by a berm, retaining wall, and grade change approximately 12 feet below Rolling Hills Road. This screening solution is required since loading areas are not permitted in the front yard. It serves as mitigation for the PUD waiver. Conifer trees are required along the Rolling Hills frontage to provide a visual screen from the second story windows of the townhouses immediately to the south. All trash areas will be located inside the of buildings. Staff is concerned about the use of skyline honey locust within the parking lot areas because of their susceptibility to damage from winter winds and would suggest another alternative plant materials. Cart corrals are shown on the plan next to planting islands. The standard design is Attachment E. Signs Monument signs are proposed for retail buildings 1 and 2 (see Attachments C and D). The pylon sign is proposed along Prairie Center Drive which would provide identification to four main tenants. This pylon sign is 20 feet tall and 80 square feet in surface area which meets the City Code requirements. The design of this sign is consistent with the monument signs. 12 "YD. - 39 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Building signs are proposed on the building which meet City Code requirements. Sidewalks A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along Prairie Center Drive and both sides of Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. Five foot wide concrete sidewalk connections are shown to individual buildings. Utilities Sewer and water service is available to the property. Storm Drainage All storm water from this site will be pre-treated to NURP standards before leaving the property. Lighting Decorative lighting consistent with the downtown lighting scheme is proposed throughout the parking lot, in the plaza area in front of the building, and along Prairie Center Drive, and to the first driveway entrances along Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. Any lighting proposed within the loading area whether affixed to the building or within the pavement area must be limited to a 20 foot height and downcast (shoebox design). AREA #3 - TWINHOMES Development Request This site is guided and zoned office. The development request is a re-zoning from office to RM- 6.5 and Guide Plan Change to Medium Density Residential. Preliminary plat of 14.5 acres into 58 lots is also requested. Densities, Base Area Ratio, Floor Area Ratio. This 14.51 acre site is being developed at a density of 4 units per acre. The RM-6.5 zoning 13 �`.D. - y0 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 district would allow up to 6.7 units per acre. Setbacks The project meets the required setbacks in the RM-6.5 zoning district. Parking The site plan meets parking requirements of one enclosed garage space and one open space per unit. Lot Sizes The RM-6.5 zoning district has a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet per unit. None of the proposed lots meet this requirement and a PUD waiver is requested. PUD waivers for lot sizes less than the ordinance requirements are typically granted for twinhome and townhome projects when the density is less than the maximum allowed. Shoreline Ordinance Provisions of the shoreline ordinance do not apply to this site because the project boundaries are greater than 100 feet away from the high water mark of Anderson Lakes. Architecture The RM-6.5 zoning district does not have an architectural requirement. Landscaping The landscaping requirement is based upon a caliper inch requirement and transition to the office areas on either side of the project. The caliper inch requirement is 435 inches. Berming and plantings are proposed as a visual transition. The landscape plan does not meet this requirement since quaking aspen are not considered as qualifying for shade trees. Signs No signs have been depicted with this current request. A 32 square foot area identification sign is allowed by City Code. 14 s .D . - y 1 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Sidewalks A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along Prairie Lakes Drive. Utilities Sewer and water service is available to this site. Storm Drainage All storm water runoff will be pre-treated to NURP standards before discharge into Anderson Lake. Lighting The City standard residential light fixture will be required at normal spacings within the project area. Private Road A PUD waiver is necessary for the use of a private road within the project area. The private road is 28 feet wide. Private drives are typically approved for twinhome and townhome projects. AREA #4 - SINGLE FAMILY Development Request This site is currently guided and zoned office. A guide plan change to low density residential, re-zoning to R1-13.5, and a preliminary plat of 11.29 acres into 25 single family lots is requested. Densities, Base Area Ratio, Floor Area Ratio. The Guide Plan would allow up to 2.5 units per acre. This site is proposed at 1.8 units per acre. Setbacks 15 �.V�. - y2. Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 All lots meet the required front yard and side yard setbacks with the exception of lots 14 through 20, and lots 23, 24 and 25 which require a 5 foot front yard setback waiver. The PUD waiver request is reasonable because it allows a 100 foot structure rear yard setback, a larger conservation easement, a larger berm, and more plant materials. Parking The project meets the requirement for one enclosed garage space and one open space per unit. Shoreline Ordinance The shoreline ordinance is not applicable to this site because the property is greater than 100 feet from the high water mark of the lake. Architecture Architectural requirements for building materials is not applicable in this zoning district. Landscaping Landscaping is not required by City Code for properties zoned single family. Landscaping in this case is required to provide a buffer zone between this proposed project and the existing homes to the south. Signs No sign is proposed with this submittal. A 32 square foot entrance monument sign is allowed by City Code. The monument.sign must be located on private property and not within road right-of-way. Sidewalks A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk should be required along the loop road within the project to allow pedestrians to walk from this site down to the commercial areas. Utilities Sewer and water service is available to the property. 16 r. c . - y3 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Storm Drainage All storm water run off will be pre-treated to NURP standards before leaving this site. Lighting Residential street lighting consistent with city standards will be required at the recommended spacings within the project area. Planting Islands The planting islands proposed within city right-of-way should be removed. AREA #5, AREA #6 - TOWNHOUSES Site area 5 and 6 have been consolidated for the purposes of this project since the site plan has been changed from two distinct areas for clubhome and townhouses to a plan with all one-story club homes along the common south boundary line and two story buildings facing Rolling Hills Road. Development Request The site is currently guided office and zoned office. A guide plan change to medium density residential, re-zoning from office to RM-6.5, and a preliminary plat of 36 acres into 160 lots is requested. The development proposal is for 48 units of one story clubhomes and 112 units of 2 story townhomes. Densities, Base Area Ratio, Floor Area Ratio. The RM-6.5 zoning district has a maximum density allowed of 6.7 units per acre. This project is proposed at 5.8 units per acre. Setbacks The project meets the required setbacks in the RM-6.5 zoning district. 17 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Parking Parking required is one open space and one garage space per unit. This project meets this requirement and provides for 70 guest parking spaces. Lot Sizes The minimum lot size in the RM-6.5 zoning district is 6,500 square feet of land area per unit. None of the lots meet this requirement and a PUD waiver is necessary. PUD waivers for lots sizes less than 6,500 square feet have been typically granted in townhome projects provide the density does not exceed the maximum allowed in the zoning district. Shoreline Ordinance Provisions of the shoreline ordinance are not applicable to this site. Architecture Exterior material requirements are not required in the RM-6.5 zoning district. Landscaping The landscaping requirement is based upon caliper inches and required plantings to provide a visual transition to the property areas to the south. The caliper inch requirement is 960 caliper inches. The site plan depicts 1,100 caliper inches. One-story homes, berming, and plant materials provide a transition. There is currently 586 inches of existing conifers shade trees on the existing berm (60 conifers and 15 shade trees). Forty-nine trees will be disturbed by grading. If they cannot be successfully transplanted they must be replaced on an inch per inch basis. Signs No entrance monument signs have been proposed with this submittal. A 32 square foot entrance monument is allowed by code. Sidewalks A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along Rolling Hills Road with a connection to Center Way. 18 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 Utilities Sewer and water service is available to the property. Storm Drainage All storm water will be pre-treated to NURP standards before discharge from the site. Lighting The City's standard residential lighting will be installed at the required spacing according to the City's standards. AREA #7 - COMMERCIAL Development Request This site is guided and zoned office. No specific site plan approval is requested at this time. Prior to any building on this site the proponent must return through a public hearing process with both the Planning Commission and City Council for review of the site plan. Although no site plan is proposed, transitional issues are likely to occur when the development project is being reviewed in detail. At this time the transitional issues have been examined. A 9 foot high berm and plant materials is shown along the east property line of the site. Existing trees on the south property line and plant materials are on the north side of the ponding basin are shown on the plan. The berm and plant materials should be installed concurrent with the townhome project so that plant materials would have an opportunity to grow before a commercial development is built. Staff Recommendations The Community Development staff would recommend approval of the project based on the Staff Report dated September 9, 1994 and based on plans dated September 9, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 19 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 1) Irrigations systems are necessary to maintain the landscaping required for screening purposes in Areas 1 through 6. 2) Prior to any grading on the property, snow fencing must be placed at the construction limits and verified by City staff. Protection is necessary to preserve the existing trees proposed to remain as part of the development proposal. Grading limits must also be established along portions of the existing berm which is not proposed to be graded. Areas 1,2, and 4 will be graded this fall. Areas 5,6, and 7 will be graded next spring. 3) Any of the existing trees which are proposed to be removed from the existing berm, must be replaced on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. 4) PUD concept approval is granted for commercial on Area 1, commercial on Area 2, single family on Area 4, and multiple family on Area 5 and 6. The PUD concept plan should be changed to reflect office as the appropriate land use for site Area 3. 5) Area 7 must return to the Planning Commission and City Council for a site plan review of the proposed development prior to building construction. 6) A 5 foot high chain link fence must be constructed along Area 3 and Area 4 adjacent to Anderson Lakes. 7) All sidewalks and trails must be constructed concurrent with the development of each individual site. 8) A traffic signal must be installed at the Prairie Lakes Drive/Prairie Center Drive intersection concurrent with the development of Area 1 and Area 2. 9) To guaranty to construction of all berming and plantings on all sites, the City will require a 150% security to cover these costs as required by City Code. 10) In the commercial areas all trash areas must be located inside of the building. 11) Prior to final plat approval the proponent must meet with the fire marshall to go over watermain and fire hydrant locations. 12) The planting islands must be removed from road right-of-way in Area 4. 20 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 13) To preserve existing significant trees to be retained on the project, a conservation easement will be required in Area 5 and 6 to protect the oak and linden trees and in Area 4 to protect new plantings. 14) The proposed conservation easement in Area 4 will allow individual homeowners to maintain grass, plant additional trees, shrubs or flowers, but would expressly prohibit the removal of the proposed plantings or alternation of the proposed berm. 15) Center Way should be vacated and sodded but an easement retained for sidewalk and watermain. 16) Retaining walls over 4 foot in height will require a building permit. The color of the block should match the buildings. 17) The private road in Areas 3,5 and 6 must be 28 feet wide. 18) All commercial buildings and 8 unit buildings must be sprinkled. 19) All existing road damage must be repaired by the developers concurrent with site development. 20) A drainage utility easement is required over the land area north of site one. 21) Four (4) brick circles are required for each retail building on Lot one, Area two. This is consistent with Walmart, Bachmans and Brunswick. 22) Prior to final plat approval detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 23) Watershed District approval is required before grading permit issuance. 24) PUD waivers are granted for: a. Base Area Ratio above .20 b. Zero lot line setback to parking c. Loading area in a front yard d. Private roads in Areas 3,5 and 6 e. Lot size in Areas 3,5 and 6 f. Front yard setback in Area 4 21 Staff Report Hartford Place September 9, 1994 25) In Area 1, provide a revised landscape plan to include more shrubs to better screen parking. 26) Revise the landscape plan for Area 3, substituting other shade trees for aspen. • 22 71% . - y9 , \...,. . • • )1 s„._ ' , - 1 UT L. . • . . - . ilii ,;. '-, ;..•,. .• . E-,.., . ..„ ... „) - 3* ......„., AL \ ....._._ , . -'.- • g4- Lip rit I -n,4,14%,..' ..,.... ./.. 4,-..-ic---.. . . 1 - . ., . ..- , , , 4' ;/'...;:.. i . .----- ----- -SER i .11-111"..."'... _ ------- ..N.c.,78TH , ) ) ST. 21 1-5 •i ,---... ,.. - ,, :a• N_, • ,••• I,'i‘,..i 44.'1. .s.--- . ' - /\.,./ lir', ••. ,..., ‘ ;. J.: ,.• 4 .) . . OFc.,•••• / F :p / , i / .•••,.. ., t„ . , ,tv ,411$1.1. ( . , ..._,_ le / . . . ., / 7. . . . . . . . . . . . -:: 4.. •,. .... ,.• 4 -H, NV F.i: EN _. , . -- \ 4ti'i : r':: .‹..„...,. .•.H:: :': ..': .: i:. .:. .-:H::: : -. :.: ..::•:.‘7S1:::i:.•.';: ::' \N NIIRE:G G- R -----. . •:.P•I, X \:::44::::k:i. -:.ii::.:3-:-:0•:(Sf*::: :':.:i..:1.::.:::.: ::::•1.:i •, .\.<,, .). s.•'::::::-:•. ....:*:::: : • : :::: ••: :':'''\::,::. . . . . C-R - , 4., . \\\ _----'. ,-- - . . . . . : : , . . . ....... . ......... • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . ..... . .\:,•••:•: •. • : :• .: .•: . . ::p •:::•:••-..-.•..: .-- ‘,. • ....... . ....... , •::FisiTFR ,. 14;)).'" . \ „.,..-"" \ . ::i* :::::::. . • :i::.::.: : •' i:839*.•:.....i:i:i::,:. : '..‘`• . 0 •. '3 i NESS ...._ C-REG- R , II 4.4 x• /*/ • • " • • ••. . . . . . . .. • .• • • • \ .•::::: :::.::: ::: :: :::::.:.:::•.: •.:: • :::•: . . . PUB .- 4p- - ••,,.; ,:LLs \c . . . ... ... . .... ...-, -, \ • - - • "• • • • - • • • - • • • • • • • • •• •••••••: ••• •:•: :•:•-.:•:•:•: ., .,.. ._, • . , ,.,c,,,..> • c*--- . -%.--REGS'a-..••pu.,. - \ -- , , ., ... . •s... --, ,,,,, i -' ..„..,.._.. ..„ _ ., . ..i.v,;. \,•dari...,. ...,„,RTT17,-7;,•.---.- ,, ,,..,,,,. _Li ; • )_., ER 1 ARRPAGE 1-1.-::, ,.a. . . 1/.'' mir,:. 'sZ ' - ... ,t1: 1151 ' _. ':'•iii,! : - . - - „ li,.. .: 1:-. .j t , 1 RM-2 5 -.- Stsa'in'441-‘'- ,i-,,11123 P--1 L'i•-• NI'-ed.,.. ../ ... 0 _ i• ' , , ,,,r, :',1k.:#0 )f ! , i .•::::- ' --:rd A.'.-,,•• ., ( ---\ •••••. _.-., .•.- :I rli It HmPi`fil , trAl4FM,ea. .:,',..1. \k : 1 ...4 ‘1 i i : •.:.::::..:::::.:H...:TA..•: P U FA.. ...\.....,. : _a, • :. :s,.. .,• ,....:.:.i . .: l7., , 4.... . ri• 2-- •.....6...ly.s.:: itp-' --,'" '' . 1sagvilogwy"° ' ... .-; ( : ‘c) ,,-. ---7-A 171777-3.--.., ,::;.; .....---• - : 1:•::.:f.:,:-:-',7-71:,....„„.?;• .:.: ...:•.• •--- ,....._,-,• ;•.• .4 ,-• — , :- • / \Ir \.,, '. .....:-0.....1-.4...Q. ' 8 - ::•: 7.: ;!'.•: ...-.:: '-.:.••,;•::::1.-•::::!:: -*,' -.Z1 '-1-.1,),,'t ----'•,, : )-:' .::-• •,.. •'? - ) ::': ::7::::::77'. .::•::::::•:.:''.::::: NJ , •:•:• :".' ".•:•: ...: : ::!•::.: I.. •:*!•...... - ' g... r ' NE- ir. - •-_....',. . i',...:' ' ''\,(9,sx• t , ;,..!....-:::- ........- ....--- ,./ i I ---- - •• .. •:....,. •.,. ....::..........:......::::. .ki:. x ! • 0.151 -. ,;,...„)-4., __, ; ..,,._<6.• , ...,:...:..f. .r.-A\---- -.4 ' ilf,:/. .(, .t...),.'(.64••••`;.f.SV9,0 • ;!. -,-4.7- .‘--" A 4"' ''' N -C.' - '':' • ---"' l '. 177.7"--:''"""!;,-- ':. •:::,:::,;.::I'i:::.....;::: 3'::7:•. :.:.....%.•,i: 2 ,<' ' . 2•11 .•: %. . :-,"::• *: ii :'.:• • '.: : .:::::-":::::::•:. :%:. ' .• ri;s\' c;j" fc,"•••4;,o,-• : i-i t ,:; .,.. . / ' 11 i t , • • 7,... •••::::.i. :::. ::::.::::•:::-::::.-•::::iii.. ., 411 r'' •• '-::: : :::•::::::.::::.::.:::::::;.i: ?7; V ix- , N RM .6 t. ...... ,. .„......c.,..,:::::::.. -‘.- ..0° ...,-ctziw— °.--. :\ .." ::•:::::':::::;:::: ....... ::.: . 'BO'-1 1 . . . . . .. . . . .t : :.•'..• iljf- .• •-.. •:.....•••• -• • - • • • • . •••••••••• • • . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ., . . . 1 : \\\' ''41.\.... °..-"----- .s. u-, . s 4' '... • M-2.5 , ..,,,000 -`" F$ 28 filf01-- :. . ;,. ...., ,z -:-.: .• .:-.. :.:. ::.;.1.::.41 . . 111;iy.- .4. • . ecil,...:%, 1.1 •.,, ... . mope 41."' ,I.:: ..:....:•:.: : i: •.-.7&10.;:.i:.A4. 1. ' + 41'• /4 0. 1 IIII° I: ::::::•..... . • •:', *:::....::iii -''. .•:•P.:• ••••:•:.• • .ZF: t•-•.•••:•• . 11110P44111 411 .e.. ..„ , .A > :•:•;,::' :Hii::: ::::::.•:•. • '•';i:'::. : czt g g• ; ,..._.,,,,, ofti" ,, .,....::::,1.,-,,,,,....„, p39:::„-::::. .. •44 v,4•• ..g si iA.;.1 . g * , • -„44 iii - - ":::1::i ::::H.::::-,. ..-......•..... :.. -":.::. : ? -. -'''''.11,11/1- 2 5 : 4., g, .' ::: .: .:.:'.1.:.:*.:*:.*: 1": ./..;.:.•:" ''' -•:k-•••• :: :1::.• -. H:.:: :: -:: :..:-::: 1•:•:•::::•:-..-, • AM • ,,,•••• • CP;''.\\ .:::::. :• ...: : :.::::.::.: ::: :•:.:-.".. :..,-;:::*::::::•/.', t X i . . . r • ' .1 t.t i '..-..' -. ... '' . -- _JEMOZ(:\CI. = ...8 i-•'-. . • i . Existing Zoning Ir.b.-coAttachment A • •N•` .S- i tom..-�.��` 7 tel:t.V `+.:.... -.:*. J v y ` , \ t1-".--.'„.;r."-..u;..::'v..•-.,,....-..'.r'-•':-'...-..,7.,0.a,71:.1_ 1 `;. } • j . \. "' --.. •-. i. .>. .„.....N'.,.ViPd 0-.'1,r „. ,_,._•,I. "2ST:•. 1 C=REG ' /. ,. = ■ 1-5 .' x . . ., ____ _ 1 N ' t-4L N .., tpiv OFC a � , / _ H?VV :v . . . 44i• ..�. iii • .•: :•:.•::: .• .•:•:::•:•. .• :::•:.: ..:. :•: •:•!„....::: .•:•:•::::::::,,i t-77- REG :•. :•:"•:•::!.,...•: :• .•:••••:•:•: : :•.:•:•:•:•:• •.•.•:•:•:•:•. .::::•-•:••••:• • , LAt(ES :::::::::::'H::::.::: ,. :.::.j:::::, :ii::: ::.-...:::.::.:::i: -C.REG_ R * to 49,E 'ta � Q C-REG'-S \ :: .:: :: . • : : C-REG- R ...., _ . =„���ss •. • �AKFS egg P• •. • • • PUB .. • . OFG ;) FK ilkt 6%M ( . US"'P •• .• ?1�,,'� I `4r , ^r„/ . ER ARR/ GE "?. 2 }—. i; ti� a •;.„ - • ,:,... . .- A., ii It .04 / . 1 ...,e„, , . ., ... ..• . ••... , ', RM-2 ' aiNmsrt.-- „I....et ir.% 1 .... j jc ;dry Ti _ SFr ;. , �P�-F }k I1,-,•A..•IAm r i(:.••:.::.:::•:::.':i•:'1.:::::.*::•'i:ti.::2i!:::•.:::--•.:••.:i:::•::,.:••*,.,.:•,i::•::.::,-.:::::•::..: , y•4° ` e'er ;t= ‹ , ZT, O/ J `ti (--; ,K,A+1,L4ael 1.,,,,;-,5,i, •• ..::';', : .:, ' .•:::::•::-..,:-. . :::-:::: *•' - !..p.G;-i -#1. .3.. . DR/VE &-: . 1:::::/: .::. ::::.: i:. .:.:.:2:::::P -::::i:•.:.: -t -, a , 4 4P�� • w F.:, ...-1. 2.5* ! 0 'c .: . • Vt424,\. .::::11:::.: :17:.1;::::1:::::k17::&:.V ►� = N.J. ;:a ` _J.2i�J 1-57 !tea ..‘ 1.�'. Proposed Zoning and Densities -sr. b, -SI Attachment A 17'-4' 4' 4' 16'-0' 4' 4' /// r r BRICK r 3'-6' r 9'-0' r 3'-6' TENANT S I GNAGE I 4' 'v icy ARE ao. SIGNAGE TO BE ROCKFACE C.M.U. LOCATED WITHIN BACKLIT TENANT S IGNAGE NOTE: ALL MATERIALS TO MATCH BUILDING. Monument Sign Attachment C Ryan Companies �„E, a. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL d$mdlaBdnag Lae$dnag 1�8elagdoesalladre ;UGUST 1994 HARTFORD PLACE B.2 goo Lac« om censer 900 Second Avenue sow — DARYL MONUMENT S IGNAGE Minneapolis, MN. 55102 (6123 336'1200 1 PROPOSED 36 S.F. gy p. - 5Z 7'-4' r i 4' 4' 6 0 ,•rr BRICK 4' 4' v j BACKLIT TENANT -?T E N A N T �9 SIGNAGE co TENANT N � PREFINISHED METAL TENANT SIGNAGE FACE TENANT METAL REVEAL -I 00\ ROCKFACE C.M.U. • ' • " • . ° ° • D• a e o n a i • ° ° o �o d 0 ° 0 NOTE: 6'"8' ALL MATERIALS TO ` MATCH BUILDING. Pylon Sign Attachment D SCeLE. Ryan Companies EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL BaaUaU6ag Loafing Relegionnallaapca UGUST 1994 HARTFORD PLACE B 1 700 International Center 900 Se000d Arenue sow CO DARYL PYLON S IGNAGE M MN. 55402 (612) 336-1200 PROPOSED 72 S.F. 7•, b. - 53 \ \' 4 / d l • ,. .\ ,..• , _ ,.....- • • ‘f T li- 1..4.0--hri ...=••POD 'A2/YN — ,4 e..-0 :.04*rJ c2.4. 41'0 Pl...c.N Carts. P r...z.. (12" p,,.Ar.ri N(/Sol L 1#'1,g4.3/54-m uL-.l-I " A_. • • . I / Air Gores. Gv1 ,..aNG• GvR13 a SOT-1G� `' ".1 `t;; PC4/IN6, s .'�^�, 1 I4 '.iI,i 11 i` . I---,1I 1i iill l .. 0 I-0 I u 11.0 Cm-4c. co eJ' _0 le PI R-+otWNe" / -J i_...) \ �� =J t 1.0"it i .rrr• G_�l OPE TO Xla.+r+ o 4 '�1 • . 0 Cart Corral Detail o. - 5LI-a h merit E Attac MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect— DATE: September 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to August 4, 19 and September 9 Planning Staff Report for Hartford Place RECOMMENDATION: The park, recreation and natural resources staff recommend approval of the Hartford Place development project based on this supplementary staff report and Planning Staff Reports. OVERVIEW: • The tree loss for this project is calculated at 29%. • All Shoreland Ordinance requirements are met. • Wetlands have been filled on site and are being mitigated in accordance with the State Wetland Preservation Act. • This project will be built to NURP standards. ISSUES: Scenic Easement A scenic easement was defined in 1978 as part of the Preserve PUD. The intent of the scenic easement was to protect the natural environment of Anderson Lakes and preserve the habitat of plants and animals. A five foot fence was proposed in this residential area to prevent the encroachment of people and domestic animals. The park, recreation and natural resources staff recommend the continuation of a five foot chain link fence in the residential areas. The terminus `of the fence should be incorporated into the proposed berms and must be approved by the park, recreation and natural resources staff to prevent easy access through the office areas. Pedestrian Systems: A five foot concrete sidewalk or an eight foot bituminous trail is recommended as follows: - sidewalk along the south and east sides of Prairie Center Drive - sidewalk along both sides of Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road - trail connection from Prairie Lakes Drive to Center Way in order for residents to access Preserve Park. Trail location must be approved by staff before construction. BPC:mdd �c .b. - SDI -b STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: August 19, 1994 SUBJECT: HARTFORD PLACE APPLICANT: Ryan Companies FEE OWNER: Hartford Insurance Company LOCATION: East of Prairie Center Drive on Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 43.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 110 acres. 3. PUD District Review on 88 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 218 townhouse lots, 25 single family lots and 3 outlots. 5. Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres. 6. Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres. 7. Rezoning from Office to Commercial Regional Service on 5 acres. 8. Site Plan Review on 88 acres. 1 Staff Report Hartford Place August 19, 1994 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the August 8th meeting. The Planning Commission made the following recommendations: 1. Site Area #3 should be Office. 2. Site Area #4 may be single family provided either a 100 foot setback to structure, or single story homes adjacent to existing single family homes. 3. Site Area #5 and #6 are appropriate for multiple family housing provided all homes adjacent to the south property line would be one story. PLAN REVISIONS The development plans still depict Site#3 as multiple family. Mark of Excellence Homes would like to have the opportunity to present plans for housing to the City Council. Site Area #4 has been modified to a 100 foot minimum setback for all structures abutting the existing single family homes. This will require that the City grant front yard setback variances to 25 feet. In addition, the berm has been extended farther along the south property line and the conservation easement widened to 60 feet. This will allow room for additional plant materials and help improve site lines. Site Area #5 and #6 have been modified to depict all one story club homes along the south property line. The total number of multiple family units remain the same at 160. The berm heights will remain the same along the south property line. The quantity and size of plant material is less than the previous proposal because of the reduced building height. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission continue discussion on this item until the September 12th meeting. The developer is requesting that the Planning Commission give consideration to publishing early for the City Council on September 20th. The developer believes that all of the remaining details will be resolved by the September 13th meeting. 2 D. - 5G STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: August 4, 1994 SUBJECT: HARTFORD PLACE APPLICANT: Ryan Companies FEE OWNER: Hartford Insurance Company LOCATION: East of Prairie Center Drive on Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 43.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 110 acres. 3. PUD District Review on 88 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 218 townhouse lots, 25 single family lots and 3 outlots. 5. Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres. 6. Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres. 7. Rezoning from Office to Commercial Regional Service on 5 acres. 8. Site Plan Review on 88 acres. 1 �z-.D. - S rl Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 BACKGROUND After the first review of the Hartford Place project at a Public Hearing in June, residents, developers, City Staff and the Planning Commission were all hopeful that the development issues affecting the surrounding neighborhoods would be resolved by the August 8th meeting. Over the last month and a half, there have been several plan revisions, and individual, small group, and one formal neighborhood meeting to discuss alternative plans. It has been a difficult review process for all of the players involved. From the adjoining resident's perspective, they are frustrated by constant changes in the plans, and the lack of commitment by the developer to a final plan. It has been difficult for the developer as well, trying to balance expectations of five major neighborhood groups, each with a different collective opinion. Within each neighborhood group, there are sub-group opinions and individual opinions. Both groups should be complemented for their patience and tolerance as the difficult transitional issues are worked through. The plan in your packet represents an overall development plan divided up into seven different project areas. This was done to separate the issues and give the Planning Commission seven different decisions to make on the project which will provide an overall framework for the developer to proceed with the preparation of the remaining detailed plans required by City Staff and City code. The Staff Report will describe the land use proposed in each development area, followed by a general comparison with City code, a general discussion of neighborhood issues, the developer's plan response to neighborhood concerns, a staff assessment of the situation, and a staff recommendation. Area #1 - Commercial Land Use This site is guided Regional Commercial and zoned Commercial Regional Service. The site plan shows three buildings, two restaurants and one office building, totaling 21,600 sq. ft. of building area. City Code Assessment This area meets City requirements for setbacks, parking, and base area ratio. No PUD waivers are requested. 2 Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 Neighborhood Issues No neighborhood issues have been identified. Developer's Plan The Developer has agreed to create architectural compatibility according to City code. The developer has agreed to design the exteriors of the two largest buildings to include canopies and building jogs and varying building heights to provide architectural interest much in the same manner as Wal-Mart, Bachman's, and Brunswick Family Fun World. City staff and the project architect visited examples of good architecture in Eden Prairie and in other communities which staff felt would meet Planning Commission and City Council expectations. The developer has agreed to implementing downtown landscape scheme along Prairie Center Drive, Prairie Jakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road. The developer has also agreed to the use of decorative lighting. Staff Assessment The loading area in the front yard along Rolling Hills Road is a visual concern for the City according to City code. It also should be a concern for the future residents across Rolling Hills Road who will have a view of the back portion of this facility. Along this frontage, berms, a depressed loading area, and heavy landscaping is proposed to screen the loading areas. There are a couple of areas along the street frontage which are narrow which will require additional plant material to screen the loading area. Also, the back side of the building should be designed to include front side architectural elements, lighting, and signs so that the back side of the building appears more like the front and less like a loading area. The base area ratio above .2 is created by the subdivision of Area 2 into three parcels such that the two largest buildings are on a lot which is above .2. The total base area ratio for Area 1 and Area 2 is less than .2. Averaging of the base area ratio may be acceptable under the following conditions: 1. Deed restrictions must be filed on the small retail and restaurant lots stating that the base area ratio maximum is what is shown on the approved plan. This will eliminate future concerns of developers coming back and asking for additional building square footage on the property and variance requests. 2. Compliance with the City's landscape scheme. 4 Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 3. Provision of planting islands throughout the parking lot to break up the expensive hard surface area. This is shown on the master plan. 4. The screening solution for the loading area along Rolling Hills Road must be improved with additional conifer trees and berm height in the areas where the setback is tight and/or there are views from the second story windows from the future townhouses across the street. The architecture for the back side of the building should reflect front side architectural design elements, materials and signs so it looks more like the front side of the building. 5. Create architectural compatibility according to City code, create a plaza area in front of the building, and redesign the building fronts with canopies, and other architectural features such as variations in building height and horizontal jogs to break up the view of large building mass similar to what the City has required on other projects. 6. Use decorative street lighting within the parking lot and plaza area along the front of the main buildings consistent with the City standard. 7. Design a common theme in terms of height, size, materials, colors, and lettering styles for the pylon signs for both Area 1 and Area 2. 8. Screening of parking areas according to City code. This is shown on the plan. Staff Recommendation The Staff would support the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Office to Commercial and the zoning change, based upon the staff assessment in the previous section. Area #3 - Mark of Excellence Homes Land Use This site is currently guided and zoned Office. The site is approved for 160,000 sq. ft., 75 foot tall building. The site plan depicts 58 twinhome units on 14.5 acres at a density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. 5 It.b. -6o Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 City Code Assessment The proposed twinhome project meets the requirements of the RM-6.5 Zoning District. The RM-6.5 Zoning District has a maximum density of 6.7 units per acre. This project is less dense than what the code would allow. The site plan for the Mark of Excellence Homes meets the Shoreland Ordinance requirements. PUD waivers are requested for lot sizes less than 6,500 sq. ft. The City has consistently approved variances for the lot sizes less than the code minimums for all twin home and townhome projects. Neighborhood Issues Attached in your packet are letters from Gelco and Allied Mutual Insurance Company. These letters express an opposition to the rezoning of this property on the basis that it would create a zoning island, that the proposal does not provide for a smooth transition from commercial to residential, and potential safety and legal liability issues when commercial and residential areas are not adequately spaced from one another. Developer's Plan Twelve housing units have been removed from this project since the initial one reviewed at the Planning Commission in June. This allows the units to be spaced closer together and reduce the number of units in close proximity to the existing office building. The development plan also proposes a double and triple row of large conifers and a six foot high berm to help create a visual transition. The closest twin home building to the Gelco building is approximately 150 feet away. Staff Assessment The Comprehensive Guide Plan currently depicts a total of 322 acres of vacant Office land. The change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan not only on this site but on the remainder of the sites on the project represents a loss of approximately 56 acres of Office from the current Guide Plan balance. There is currently 2.7 million sq. ft. of Office building in Eden Prairie which has been built over the last 18 years. Developing the remaining 266 acres according to City code, at either a .3 base area ratio for one-story building or a .5 base area ratio for multi-story building, would allow between 3.5 to 5.8 million sq. ft. of additional office. If development trends over the next 18 years were similar to the previous 18, the remaining office land should be more than adequate. 6 Staff Report Hartford Place • August 4, 1994 The change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to a residential use is more of a question of land use compatibility, land use continuity, and land use transition. Staff does agree that a office building on site would provide the most compatible and continuous land use. It would also to have less potential impact on wildlife habit. This site is closer to the Lake and doesn't have the grade change, distance or existing tree mass providing a visual and physical separation as the single family site. Staff is receptive to residential on this site because the density is lower than the ordinance maximums, buffer zone is being provided, and a fence to protect the wildlife habitat. The buffer uses a six foot high berm and double and triple rows of 12 foot high conifers planted along the common edge. The City has approved other mixed use projects with residential between office buildings such as the Park at City West apartment buildings. Staff Recommendation Staff supports the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change and zoning to multiple family on this site based upon the plan as proposed. Area #4 - Nedegaard Single Family Housing Land Use This site is guided and zoned Office. The 1979 Planned Unit Development depicted a 200,000 sq. ft. 75 foot tall office building. The current proposal is for 25 single family lots on 13.8 acres at a density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre. City Code Assessment This site meets the requirements for street frontage and lot size for the R1-13.5 zoning district. This site meets the requirements for the Shoreland Ordinance. Neighborhood Issues Residents along Fieldcrest Drive and Northmark Court are concerned about the view of the single family homes sitting at a higher elevation. The issue is not so much the use of the property for single family, but the view of structures. From the resident's perspective, the view of a single family structure would be no different than viewing small office buildings grouped together higher up on the property. The neighbors liked the benefits of the approved plan for Lot 5, with a berm that screens the parking lot. If the office building was built according to the approved 7 T. D. -c2 Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 plan, residents on Northmark Circle would view the top two stories of the building while many of the residents along Fieldcrest Lane would not view the building because of the berm. Gelco does not oppose the single family homes by Nedegaard. Gelco is requesting that substantial buffering be required on the southeast side of the property that would back up to the proposed single family homes. Developer's Plan The developer's plan is a single family subdivision meeting City code requirements including the Shoreland Ordinance. The developer is sensitive to the view concerns of the neighborhood and is proposing to retain existing vegetation adjacent to Northmark Circle. This will provide screening new homes for some of the residents. Where natural vegetation does not exist, the developer is proposing an eight foot high berm, double and triple row of coniferous plantings (8 to 12 feet high) and 3 inch shade trees. Where no berm is possible, the quantity and size of plant material are increased to a 12 foot minimum height for conifers. The developer is proposing a mass planting plan of 2 and 3 row depth of 12 foot high conifers along the southeastern common property line with Gelco. Staff Assessment For the developer to completely block the site lines of the single family homes would require the removal of at least the first tier of units along Fieldcrest Lane and Northmark Circle. This would reduce the density to 1.2 units per acre. The City Council has required when new single family projects abut existing single family neighborhoods, that the lot sizes and densities be comparable. In this case, the proposed density at 1.8 units per acre is less than the 2.6 dwelling units per acre for homes along Fieldcrest Drive, Hyland Terrace, Northmark Drive and Northmark Circle. The average lot size at approximately 18,000 sq. ft. is greater than the average lot size for the abutting area at approximately 12,000 sq. ft. Buffering between single family homes has not been required by the City. Leaving the existing natural vegetation will provide a buffer to some of the homes along Northmark Circle. The proposed berm and plantings and in other areas large conifer plantings will provide privacy for the back yards along Fieldcrest Lane, but will not completely screen the view of the structures. A fence is proposed to protect the wildlife habit. Grade change, distance from the lake, and vegetation in the scenic easement helps mitigate the visual impact of homes along the lake. 8 -1E.D. 63.3 Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 Access to the lake is more difficult because of wetlands and steep slopes than the twinhome site. Staff Recommendation Since the densities and lot sizes are greater than the adjoining areas and since the proposed buffering and screening plan provides for privacy and some blockage of site lines, staff is comfortable with the proposed land use. Area #5 - Pulte Homes East Land Use This site is currently guided and zoned Office. The 1979 approved plan depicted a 170,000 sq. ft. 75 foot tall office building. The development proposal is for 40 units on 12.5 acres at a density of 3.2 units per acre. City Code Assessment The Pulte East site is developed at a density of 3.2 units per acre as compared to the maximum RM-6.5 allowed zoning of 6.7 units per acre. This is a gross density using density transfer off of the wetland area. The net density would be approximately 6 units per acre. The project meets the minimum setback requirements. PUD waivers are required for lot sizes less than 6500 sq. ft. per unit, however, the City has approved waivers for townhouse projects provided the density does not exceed code requirements. Neighborhood Issues Surrounding residents have expressed the concern that the density is too high, the transition is not adequate, the buildings are too close to the property line, and buildings will be visible from their single family homes. Developer's Plan The developer's plan to create a transition in this area is a combination of a 60 foot minimum rear yard setback (which is greater than the 25 foot minimum allowed by City code), a berm height of 12 feet, and heavy landscaping. 9 b . " `o `i Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 Staff Assessment The overall density of the multiple family site including Pulte Area East and Pulte Area West is 5.8 units per acre. This is less than the maximum density permitted in the RM-6.5 zoning district of 6.7 units per acre. The density is transferred away from the wetland mitigation area which creates a net density of approximately 6 units per acre which is higher than the adjoining 2.6 units per acre density for the single family homes along Fieldcrest Drive. The proposed berm will block some of the view of the townhomes, but will have to rely on additional landscaping to provide the most effective screen. The landscaping caliper inch requirement based on building square footage including the Pulte East and Pulte West site is 960 caliper inches. The landscape plan proposed by Pulte Homes is only 560 inches of allowable caliper inch credit per City code. The City code minimum requirement is a 6 foot high conifer and a 2 1/2 inch minimum shade tree. Ornamental trees are not considered as part of the caliper inch requirement. The additional caliper inches required spread along the entire common boundary of area 5 and area 4 may provide the level of transition necessary. Since the approved plan with the existing berm would have allowed the view of the top two stories of the office building, a view of the top portion of the roof of the townhouses may be acceptable. If the additional caliper inch requirement for City code does not provide the effective screen, then additional landscaping may be required under the provision of the site plan review ordinance which requires a transition were there is a difference in densities. Staff Recommendation Area 5 should be amended to meet the caliper inch requirement and additional plant materials as required by Staff. Staff would recommend a triple row of plants along the entire south line of area 5 with plant sizes ranging from 8 to 12 feet high for conifers and 3 - 6 inches for shade trees. Area #6 - Pulte East Land Use This site is currently guided and zoned Office. The 1979 approved plan showed a 75 foot tall 170,000 sq. ft. office building. The site plan depicts 120 multiple family units on 15.2 acres at a density of 7.9 dwelling units per acres. 10 �".D. - 6S Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 City Code Assessment The Pulte West site has a net density of 7.9 units per acre, but a gross density of 5.8 units per acre which meets City code. PUD waivers are needed for lot sizes, but the City has approved such waivers on other townhouse sites. Neighborhood Issues The adjoining neighbors are uncomfortable with the higher density, views of adjoining buildings, and lack of transition. Developer's Plan The developer is proposing a berm height of 6 and 10 feet along the Carriage Court townhouses, a berm height of 12 to 16 feet along the Hyland Terrace townhouses and a berm height of 12 to 16 feet along Center Way opposite the Fieldcrest and Hyland Terrace neighborhood. The landscape plan proposes a mixture of plant materials including conifers, shade trees, and ornamental trees. Staff Assessment The overall density of the Pulte East and Pulte West area is less than the maximum allowed under the RM-6.5 zoning district of 6.7 units per acre. The density transfer to preserve the wetland on the eastern portion of the site creates a net density of 7.9 units per acre. The Hyland Terrace townhouses to the south are developed at 6.2 units per acre. The Northmark single family home area is developed at approximately 2.6 units per acre. The Carriage Court quad buildings are developed at a density of 5.6 units per acre. The transition required along the south property line should vary according to the difference in densities. For the area along Center Way opposite homes on Fieldcrest Drive and Hyland Terrace the existing berm helps provide a screen, but is not adequate enough to create a successful transition. The landscape plan in this area is weak and the quantity and size of the plant materials must be increased. If the 400 additional caliper inches required by City code will provide an effective transition, then no additional plant material is required. If not, as determined by Staff, then additional plant material is required. The density difference next to Hyland Terraces townhouses is small and therefore the level of transition required may be less. Keeping the berm height as proposed, but with additional caliper inches of trees, should provide a better transition. The goal is to block the majority of the view of the buildings, but allow for some view of the upper peaks or roofs of the structures. The transition of the single family homes on Lanewood Circle is significant and warrants a greater transition. Saving the existing trees along the common property line is 11 Cod (01 Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 helpful, however, for the open areas the berm alone will not be adequate enough to provide a transition. The amount of landscaping shown on the plan is weak and would benefit from the additional caliper inches required by City code. If this is not adequate, then additional plant materials will be required. The transition between the Carriage Court townhouses at 5.6 units per acre and the 7.9 units per acre in the Pulte site is not as significant as the single family area. The proposed berm along the property line is small and the area would benefit from a mass planting of conifer and shade trees beyond the proposed plan to create the effective transition. Staff Recommendation Since the transition is significant between the east portion of Pulte West to the homes along Fieldcrest and Hyland Drive, the size of the plant materials in this location should be a range of 10 to 12 foot high conifers and 3 to 6 inch shade trees planted in triple rows. The area adjacent to the Hyland Terrace townhouses is a smaller transition and plants should be three rows deep, however, the size of the plant materials can vary from 6 to 8 foot high conifers and 2 1/2 - 4 inch shade trees. The transition to the single family homes on Laneburough Drive is significant and there should be a 3 layer deep of plant materials with a minimum size of 12 feet for the conifers and 3 - 6 inch shade trees. For the area adjacent to the quad homes on Carriage Court, there should be a triple layer of plant materials with plant materials ranging from 6 to 8 foot high for conifers and 2 1/2 - 4 inch diameter for shade trees. Sixty percent of all trees may be at the smaller size, with 10 percent allocated to each size up to the maximum recommended. Area #7 Currently zoned Commercial - Proposed future • Commercial Land Use This site is currently zoned Commercial and guided Commercial. No development is proposed on this site at this time. City Code Assessment Area #7 is approximately 9 acres. The southern half of the property is about 4 1/2 acres of wetland leaving a net developable area of approximately 4 1/2 acres. Applying the base area ratio maximum of .2 should allow the development of approximately 39,000 sq. ft. of building and required parking. 12 Staff Report Hartford Place August 4, 1994 Neighborhood Issues Neighbors are concerned about maintaining the existing vegetation along the south property line and screening of the future Commercial buildings. Development Plan There is no specific development plan for the property, however, the developer is proposing a planting plan along the northern edge of the wetland. In addition, a 9 foot high berm and plant materials are proposed along the eastern side to screen the proposed Pulte Homes site. Staff Assessment Staff is concerned about the transition to the multiple families to the south and the east. Staff Recommendation The 50 foot buffer zone, 9 foot high berm and mass plant materials in a triple row with 6 - 8 high conifers and 2 1/2 to 4 inch shade trees is needed since the homes are close to future commercial. This berm and plantings should be completed concurrent with the Pulte Home site, so that the plant materials would have a chance to mature before the commercial site is zoned. The proposed planting plan along the north side of the wetland area is weak and would benefit from additional plant materials. The Staff would recommend a triple row of plant materials varying between 6 - 8 feet in height for conifers and 2 1/2 to 4 inches in diameter for shade trees. Distance and plantings will create the transition. The plants should be installed current with the construction of the townhomes. CONCLUSION The Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission give general direction on whether or not the overall PUD is an acceptable plan. The Planning Commission should indicate specific areas of the plan that they are not comfortable with. The Commission should make a recommendation for each of the seven sites. The Planning Commission's recommendation will become the basis from which the developer would proceed with the preparation of the remaining required detailed plans and information required by City code. Depending upon the Commission's preference,and the level of changes required, the developer would like to return to the Planning Commission on the August 22nd meeting. 13 922 Mainstreet RiaK " Hopkins, Mn. 55343 933- 972 ASSOCIATES LTD. fax:(612)933-0153 September 15, 1994 • ` Mayor and City Council Members City of Eden Prairie -_ • The developers of the Hartford Place development are requesting the opportunity to perform early grading activities on the site. It is proposed to commence grading operations following the City Council 1st reading approval of the project on September 20 and the Watershed District approval at the September 21 meeting - of the Nine Mile Creek Board of Commissioners. An"early grading permit"is requested for the following ; sites: Area 1 --5.3 acre site Area 2--17.0 acre site Area 3 -- 14.5 acre site Area 4-- 13.8 acre site • Thank you for your consideration of this important scheduling item for the Hartford Place development project. We are excited with the possibility of commencing construction activities on this project within the next few weeks. Sincerely, ee,/ Richard L. Koppy,PE RLK Associates,Project Manager cc: Bill McHale,Ryan Construction Mark Smith,Mark of Excellence Homes Dave Newman,Nedegaard Construction .Civil Engineering .Transportation •Infrastructure Redevelopment .Landscape Architecture •Construction Management September 15, 1994 City of Eden Prairie Council Members RE: Hartford Place Project Dear Sir or Madam, On September 20, 1994 you will be considering the Hartford Place Proposal. We have attended all the various meetings concerning this project and listened to the arguments for and against it. We are concerned about Section 3, the Mark of Excellence Townhomes area. We have personally visited examples of all three of the proposed townhomes in Woodbury, Burnsville & Anoka. We found the Mark of Excellence Homes of Anoka to be the best of the three proposed. Their quality and price range seem to fit in well between the large, expensive single family homes by Nedagaard and the less expensive higher density townhomes by Pulte. We would like to strongly recommend including this area in the total package. It's the best part! Sincerely, �` V Barbara E. Petitclair George A. Petitclair 11112 Hyland Terrace Eden Prairie, MN 55344 829-0748 �', Q, - 70 . _ .JD (AL azreA4)6tn( d. ),(417,t_ g_t_.f8 mittv.Lso(nc „aka : . . A6 A Y (evathabvikuVKaL e_ini(rvtuAx.�3� cJ !uiL to (iLk. le_ du_Le b UC,LC impa5Lea ckVelaprike44-t ,yLe,e/k_k . . qo i,Ls„, d /LetAk 6e_w_actS., . . /K __utt)It-t-dk- 5kddi-k 61 ._ p e.41)c_-sc.�2 a--1 ) cg, �-us, dLb a�ra°;�-. q' E , cue w�,aY.e.e� c um LF�.s a t.c.a _ e a,eleQ Jilke.kseide a dt.L6s av a.ssoeciLkax. . . 0-6 1U--cd iLa,A1.e/;4 oak 6.e.-) _ auill otz- . .cittiagpvKcAL*_ , .t4,ue wifAtcs or a . ottA.L. l/us oe..EAL, (5,i .4,Q_saz_ wf.as-uoL *tid;yt. - ) ice* //Ka( ictici. ank_Lk;\,Lbd4 c-/ to , (AL.ab D d21324, .6pa-0_,L , ' Ik_L6/1. t,(,,(al geipeil, bo , �O �L bc,L asCLl-QA.�� I 04-d� Y�. l�u.�-� 4 &Uc � 0.6- sy,t_,.,t-ems . Pi.zp &d& ckucs kuik_ b&24 cf. Lpilw, 4 lab aA-� vim. c� �o-f � a�Q a CdLe.. o�-�'; , 6 Gu,k Pl(akku_ 6_,.e, _,, (tc_,Lc`iz -Thco..1- r Pk-e-SeAtIt ci., 0/14. (7 tuA) ,6K!`( �k U�. ax.ea_s . , GZt (�� ca. ���x�a C�. - Clu) as a7-1,_ Art u tivetPyvve/v±�4 ae 4-t G o th) c)9 as `moo 0.-paitiPia. ayu.tpGt)(c C1k2a`5 'Yl,c,m,'F GkC� a2SS ✓lGL Pkts,a\re_ 16-e„ vct. . . . to.N-k I. (Plu_' Pk.cakie," 6 knal be_ im Yi, ' cks ?stks€L-HAAk, , aL_ td. -2E_o_4-,0 Gi1..etL(� (nDnoti6.._ a_ . Ae b;(1&41,o.J.„01W—dC t �,l,trYLI,C� �dl'I+�WL-�C,LG L, Qv..Q_G( (8hht• it CJlua.l�-- is ao- Akpit,vvt - � v.�-(nay .o..c.,(L.a( LAut- 2 - . . gcoci )1.4,1,3 cktithip 6e, kt _ _ _.� agCl-t.�l� �o PciLs23,k_Q. .SnOr-salt bk. -- Ia nti*;(41, ViNk_ u4_ (1-10.t_ci4L ,65 LILL UnoL-de Inc�c� &7vt, ()es kc.a:e dicky- a/IL_02p�, �, n „- b. oc� u 06.41_ tp._ 60)\ ( .NA August 18, 1994 Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen, In preparation for the Planning Commission meeting on August 22nd and based on the input I heard at the August 8th meeting, I would like to summarize four issues for your consideration as you move into the final planning phase: o The accurate determination of property lines on the border line between Northmark I and the proposed development. o The value to everyone involved of building a perimeter of one—story, more expensive homes on the borderline between Northmark I, Northmark II, and the proposed development. This suggestion is based on the premise that the residential buildings would begin at the same point as in previously submitted plans. o Noise consideration during the construction period. This issue affects implementing the landscaping as soon as possible. o The impact on overall traffic flow of a residential development and the noise caused by such a traffic flow. Just in the last year, the noise on Preserve Boulevard and Prairie Center Drive both during the day and night time hours has increased significantly. For example, does a proposed residential development require the possible anticipation of truck traffic restrictions? (especially during the night time hours) Thank you for your continuing attempt to hear the concerns of all of the people involved. In our next meeting, I would like to hear how each constituency — the planning commission members, the Eden Prairie planning staff, the different developers, and the current residents affected — state the value to the whole of the community involved for their individual perspectives. Sincerely, Sharon M. Ahl 11594 Carriage Court ".D. -73 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: August 17, 1994 SUBJECT: Hartford The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Staff have the following recommendations for the Hartford project: SCENIC EASEMENT ALONG ANDERSON LAKES: The scenic easement was defined in 1978 as part of the Preserve PUD. The intent of the scenic easement was to protect the natural environment of Anderson Lakes and to preserve the habitat of plants and animals. A five foot fence was proposed in residential areas to prevent the encroachment of people and domestic animals. The Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Staff recommend the continuation of a five foot chain link fence in the residential areas. The terminus of the fence must be approved by Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources staff to prevent easy access through the office areas. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS: A five foot concrete sidewalk or an eight foot bituminous trail is recommended as follows: • sidewalk along the south and east side of Prairie Center Drive • sidewalk along both sides Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road • trail connection from Prairie Lakes Drive to Center Way in order for residents to access their neighborhood park (Preserve Park) The exact alignment of trails and sidewalks will be reviewed in more detail pending the final plan. BPC:mdd Hartford/Barb60 August 16, 1994 Eden Prairie City Offices 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Attention: Planning Commission Subject: Proposed Development encompassed by Rolling Hills Road, Prairie Center Drive and Carriage Court Dear Sirs, I am very skeptical about the proposed multiple family units for the property adjacent to Carriage Court. For the following reasons, I feel that these high density units are inappropriate for this neighborhood: 1) they will decrease the value and marketability of our townhomes, whereas single family units wouldn't compete with our units as they would be in a different price range. 2) they would significantly increase traffic in the area, which is already a serious problem. In the 10 years I've lived in the neighborhood, the traffic has dramatically increased as well as the accident rate. Single units wouldn't increase traffic to the extent of the proposed units. 3) We also fear that the multiple units would increase foot traffic through our yards, challenging the relative peace and quiet we currently cherish. The developers estimate that this project would/could bring in approximately 40+ children which would certainly affect us. Considering the traffic in the area and the surrounding shopping malls, this wouldn't be a safe area for children anyway. Again, the single units would minimize this problem. I can appreciate the need to balance housing in Eden Prairie, but it seems we already have more than our fair share of affordable housing in this area. We are already dealing with a somewhat elevated crime rate and a questionable reputation compared to other areas in Eden Prairie. We would welcome single family homes in hopes they would preserve the integrity of our neighborhood. When I bought my townhome, the developer assured me that only an office bulding could go up on the property adjoining mine. I think that the proposed high density development would be unfair to inflict on us. An office building or single units would be more welcome. My last concern is that the trees on thejroperty line, which I've planted over the years, be preserved. RLK said they would help me transplant thesetrees when the landscaping begins but they seem to waiver on this issue. I would like a written agreement that they will move these trees to the Northmark side of the berm in the event the proposal is ok'd. In conclusion, the above are the concerns shared by many Northmark townhome owners. We hope you will give serious consideration to our plight and agree to only single family units for this site. Our futures depend on your upcoming decision. Sincerely, Gretchen Ebert 11516 Carriage Court Eden Prairie, MN 55344 AUGUST 15, 1994 LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE RESIDENTS OF LANEWOOD CIRCLE IN THE PRESERVE OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND OTHER CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE NORTHMARK 1 AREA STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PATH CONNECTION BEING PROPOSED BY THE HARTFORD PLACE II DEVELOPMENT. THE PATH. SPECIFICALLY THE PATH IN BACK OF SUCH RESIDENCES AS 11230 LANEWOOD CIRCLE, COULD HAVE SEVERAL SAFETY PROBLEMS. THESE PROBLEMS INCLUDE: NO LIGHTING, THICK GROWTH OF TREES AND BUSHES, AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DECKS OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES. ALSO. THE PATH IS PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION OF THE PRESERVE. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ARE THE PRESERVE BLVD. PATH WHICH ALREADY EXISTS AND THE CENTER WAY PATH WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED. BOTH OF THESE AREAS HAVE AVAILABLE ADEQUATE LIGHTING, VERY LITTLE GROWTH OF TREES, ARE CLOSE TO WELL USED STREETS. AND ARE NOT PRIVATELY OWNED. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY AND UNNECESSARY EXPENSE, THE PROPOSED CONNECTION OF THE PATH, SPECIFICALLY THE PATH IN BACK OF SUCH RESIDENCES AS 11230 LANEWOOD CIRCLE, SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE PLANS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH . RESPECTFULLY, ao,,,A41% jot), fk, f- 41-rz(isfrc' /e0A-Z--) ita.441-' CU/ . Liwi 1Y-47 ,iti • - 7 August 14, 1994 Eden Prairie City Offices 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Attention: Planning Commission Commissioners: I would like to bring three points to the attentions of the planning commission. POINT ONE My concerns regarding a discrepancy of the property line were confirmed by Scott A. Kipp with the City of Eden Prairie. RLK indicated our property line ended where a grove of trees started, which is approximately 30'. On the certificate of survey I received from Scott, he stated his opinion to be that the property is 40 + (approximately 42') from the NE corner of my home to the property line. I also confirmed this footage with Dan Obermiller at E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc., land surveyors,that did the surveying for Hans Hagen. Dan felt the footage to be approximately 45'. This is an additional 15'from what RLK had indicated. I want to express my concerns that the group of trees on this additional 15' of property are on the Northmark property and these trees ARE NOT to be removed or harmed in anyway. Also, that the 90'berm that RLK said would be added for privacy between our property line and the new addition will start after this point and not any point before the property line. RLK also told us the trees would start at 12'high. Does this still stand true? POINT TWO As a concerned homeowner in a neighborhood that consists of mainly single and retired individuals, what will it do to the quality of life for the existing homeowners to place the 120 multiple family units with an estimated 43 children next to a sedate almost childless neighborhood. Why doesn't Pulte place the 40 units that is expected to have fewer children along the quiet marsh and tree clad southern border rather than the high traffic road across from a strip mall? We have already invested our life savings in our homes and our choice of neighbors and environment is in your hands. POINT THREE Pertaining to the large number of units being constructed on the Pulte site,I respectfully request that a traffic survey be completed on the high accident intersections of Preserve Boulevard and Prairie Center Drive; 78th and Prairie Center Drive; and 169 and Prairie Center Drive, as these are the three intersections that will be immediately affected by this high density development. What will the additional 160 units, plus a strip mall and 25 single family do to the already dangerous congested area? I implore you,please keep in mind that our lives and our futures are at stake. Once everything has been approved there is no reversal of decisions. Your consideration of above concerns would be greatly appreciated. Nancy Francis 11536 Carriage Court Eden Prairie, MN 55344 D. - 77 AUGUST 12 , 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER KATHERINE KARDALL RE: HARTFORD PLACE DEVELOPMENT I URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THE REZONING OF HARTFORD PLACE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL . I FEEL THE FOLLOWING REASONS REALLY MAKE SENSE AND SHOULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR FINAL DECISION : THE NEW DOWNTOWN EDEN PRAIRIE HAS REALLY BEEN DEVELOPING LATELY. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER WILL BE EXPANDING EVEN MORE , AS AN EDEN PRAIRIE RESIDENT MY WISH FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE IS TO SEE THE CITY FLOURISH IN ALL AREAS . THERE IS ALOT OF RETAIL IN OUR DOWNTWON AREA AND ALOT BEING BUILT . I DO NOT THINK THAT EDEN PRAIRIE RESIDENTS ALONE CAN SUPPORT ALL OF THESE BUSINESS' AND REALLY MAKE THEM AS PROFITABLE AS THEY COULD BE. I HAVE BEEN IN THE WORKING FORCE FOR 26 YEARS . THE OFFICE I WORK IN RIGHT NOW IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO A SHOPPING MALL IN A DIFFERENT SUBURB THAN FROM WHERE I LIVE . WITH SHOPPING AND RESTAURANTS SO CLOSE TO MY WORK, JUST ABOUT EVERYONE IN THIS BIG COMPLEX GOES EITHER OUT SHOPPING OR OUT TO EAT DURING LUNCH HOURS AND AFTER WORK. VERY SELDOM DO I SHOP AT THE EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER NOW , BECAUSE OF MY OFFICE LOCATION LETS ME ACCOMPLISH SHOPPING DURING WORK DAYS. IT IS SO VERY CONVENIENT . ALOT OF REVENUE IS BEING MADE IN THIS SUBURB BECAUSE OF THE OFFICE BUILDINGS LOCATED SO CLOSE AND CONVENIENT . TWO YEARS AGO MY OFFICE WAS LOCATED 13 MINUTES FROM A SHOPPING MALL OR RESTAURANTS . I CAN TELL YOU THAT MAYBE ONCE A MONTH SOMEONE LEFT THE BUILDING DURING LUNCH TO DO SHOPPING OR EAT OUT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONVENIENT TO DO SO. THAT CITY PROSPERS BECAUSE OF THE REVENUE FROM THESE WORKING PEOPLE AND ALSO FROM THE TAXES PAID TO THE CITY FROM THESE LARGE OFFICE COMPLEXES . THE HARTFORD PLACE LAND IS THE VERY BEST PLACE TO PUT OFFICES . OF COURSE WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING TOO, BUT THAT CAN GO ANYWHERE IN THE CITY . THE OFFICES NEED TO BE CLOSE TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER AND THE NEW DOWNTOWN AREA SO THESE OFFICE EMPLOYEES WILL UTILIZE OUR STORES AND SERVICES AND SPEND THEIR MONEY HERE ! LETS SAY IN 5 YEARS THE OFFICES HAVE BEEN BUILT. AND 75% OCCUPIED . IF TOTAL OCCUPANY WOULD MEAN 4 .000 PEOPLE, THEN AT 75% THAT WOULD MEAN 3 , 000 PEOPLE . JUST THINK - 3, 000 PEOPLE WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS OF OUR NEW DOWNTOWN AREA AND THE EDEN PRAIRIE SHOPPING CENTER . USING A REAL LOW PERCENT - IF 4 PEOPLE OUT OF TEN WENT OUT DURING LUNCH TO DO SHOPPING HOUSING . THESE -STARTING FAMILY" NEED A HOUSE WITH A YARD . THAT THEY CAN ENJOY WITH THEIR YOUNG ONES , WHERE THEY CAN EVEN PUT A SWING SET . IT SEEMS THE ONLY HOUSES EDEN PRAIRE BUILDS THESE DAYS ARE THE BIG EXPENSIVE ONE . SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS UNDER $100 ,000 . IS WHAT THE CITY NEEDS NOW . THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME . � D . - 79 46) GE Capital GE Capita!Fleet Services August 8 1994 A unit of General Electric Capital Corporation r Three Capital Drive, Eden Prairie, ,MN 55344 512 329-1000 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Honorable Mayor, City Council and Members of the Planning Commission: We have reviewed the proposed development of the Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive areas and would like to offer our conclusions. As you know GE Capital Fleet Services has been a part of Eden Prairie for a long time and is interested in how the City develops. Area 1, Retail Use: Appears to be compatible with the current retail already established in the area. Area 2, Townhomes: The townhomes will create a high density area of presumably young families. We would assume this development will include appropriate open areas with playground facilities so the children will not congregate at nearby retail and commercial areas. Fencing along the street would be appropriate. Area 3, Townhomes: This area appears to be in the middle of an established commercial area. This would create an area that would reflect a lack of continuity in planned land usage along this Anderson Lake shore. Area 4, Single Family Homes: This area is also adjacent to the esisting Anderson Lakes "commercial" area. While it does have an adjacency with existing residential, it appears that much of the access will be through the commercial area. Certainly, residential and commercial can be next to each other, however, if the entire area was approved it would be alternating commercial - residential - commercial - residential. We would expect this would create problems at some time with all "residents" and it would look, as we said earlier, like an area with poorly planned land usage. We hope you will consider our comments as you conduct your review of this development. Sincerely, dit A. Brinkhaus Manager Real Estate & Administrative Services cc: C. DeVine -2t 20 August 4 , 1994 Commissioners: As homeowners adjacent to the proposed Hartford Place II Development, we would like to express our concerns regarding this plan, specifically the Nedegaard site for single family homes. As you will note, 100% of the residents directly adjacent to the proposed Nedegaard site have signed this letter. Although not large in numbers, we are the most affected by this portion of the plan. Before purchasing our homes, each of us studied the Hartford Development Plan approved by the city. Because of the generous berming and the location of the office building pad, we felt this plan gave us privacy and would have minimal impact on our lots. The building pad, as shown in Exhibit A, is located next to Anderson Lakes, over 500 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property. The site lines from the 1979 plan are included as Exhibit B. Note that site lines 6 and 7 relate to the Nedegaard portion of the plan. Site line 7 from Black Maple Drive indicates that the top one and one half stories of (a worst case scenario) six story building would be seen, while no building can be seen from site line 6 on Fieldcrest Road. The proposed plan currently submitted before the Planning Commission is a hodge-podge of commercial, office, and residential with no real flow from one area to the other. To maintain consistency, the entire lakeside should be office instead of the proposed site plan of office-residential-office- residential. Keeping the office zoning for the entire lakeside is not only beneficial to us, but will also ensure that property values of existing office buildings are not jeopardized. If, however, this proposed plan of single family homes is approved, we expect buffers and site lines equivalent to that of the existing plan. The existing plan calls for a setback of 100 feet to any impervious surface. The current proposed plan includes only a 50 foot easement between our lots and the new housing. Due to the proximity of the proposed housing development and the natural elevation of the land, the homes will be looming over us. (See Exhibit C) . In one area the elevation differs as much as 24 feet from our homes to the proposed building pad. No landscaping could give us the same site line with such elevation discrepancies! This is of even greater concern when considering a two story house with a walkout will be built there. We do not feel it is asking too much to require the same setback and site lines as included in the existing plan. This was our expectation when we purchased our homes and we ask that the Commission consider this when making their decision. Sincerely, -Sr. -SI ic YJc2.6176, A e / A-16/0- A-1/sra)d) Chte- / 600 Nio)--4\i-x(ky-k 3 /663a 4. 1620A-toott 4-eiv--tA4-nAr / 0 21/64.4emovv16 40,1} g/t, 5. do‘'po ,✓pe72r�� L . 4,i)t, ,14.c.a�Lrrt,dt�gxeL /0730 - x-�'ed,eika-atree 7- Dt/-4Q / o2yo ntc 9. Jei-tA:, / cu,tatr t R� \A) g. ,AQ,,coc\ C( . '?-k,Ify tr)- 7) izot . dfootkoL- eZraAA-Af P.2cvtA-cn"----- 10 . jA9144//b "I: b. -sz 1) cy,Ld_ A7c) .AC \ 7 ( ' &atfrt 414' (S7. ‘o geet-e-it 1 y(Ai-- /„ g s / /4 6 k f ') / Ore 1+. gto S Q(� cke fE �& /37 / z-c) ,.2 matiati &QA, k..'-) 1LCJW 7 , AAAL ). .-(4; pe._J mar,e_ . r 6c:et) �' Voss '-O- t>6-( I 4-a/rw,, cit y 2D ' 641/1 -040.44-6 /1(14-x/ *iffile Y. D. - F3 Ext‘si-in8 Ap—oved Plan Exh; 13.- Pc , N i , . : V • \74C N.. ..1- ' 4* .• \ 41a. . 1 \ N -\........_-\\, i 4. ti k ..._' .. .z.. ,-.N.:. .- ... ' i A .7A .......t. -, ._.:__-, • .. - 1 18-,- .-- --' ,,: _--,-.. .--_=_------ --7-'--_- .-\ . Nib \ \‘;` )7 . kx.,it # . . \. ........., , . 10/V :„4\ r\ ." : II . \\:-\ ... . 1 \ ( .- \. • 0A011;:\..4 -7--t7lru--=• 1111 • woo. it._ I // , > . V\•:;:k il..-L: --. .. . 7.. .7.) / ii di/ , i 9. • ty ___.,...r , ,. O. I \ ! - - --.....1 11 ----,-1.11 /1: __.. , I 4., --:• -".." .„,-•.".q1P d ' -"...-7:_=— --* ..- --...„../.- ....r...— .„,„....de".. "-- ---:-.-7------ ...„ .„,aiiiimit 'AllibibtPA .i ,-4 • 4 , ,,,,• ...... -:: ,- . .:,._:..--- --------r •,, . , 77:. i - __ r ....... • 1- ' .... 1 .. I- 7 / : : i r• \I _...., . i.-.4 ., •: - /..1.4) . I A ( , .41. .• - -.0 - ... i,T / !. - • nigv.----V,V /. I i't , " • .? \ 4CI:-. ....M. ...am. L04- S' — 13.95 acNre.s I ci S nes 0' Site Sections 0 100 200 Figure 19 27 � IU August 4, 1994 Planning Commission Member: We write again to share our concerns regarding the proposed zoning change from office to residential on the Hartford development site. The density level on the Pulte site is still too high. Site lines, building heights, setbacks, berms and buffer plantings continue to be concerns throughout various areas of the development. We feel the residential development will create a significant negative impact on Anderson Lake. In closing, we feel the proposed development plan is a significant downgrade for that site, and urge you to recommend a no vote to the zoning change request. Sincerely, n /1j( • AL-4-4 j (bLdi Mike and Barb Neelund 10800 Fieldcrest Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 943-1458 : : JJ. - gb AUG 4'94 12:42 FR ALLIED CORP COUNSEL 515 280 4953 TO 916129498392 P.02 AxiiED GUEONUP Insurance ALLIED Group VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL 707 5 Ave. Des Moines G;50391-2000 August 4, 1994 Mike Frazen Senior Planner 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Proposed Development of the Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive Areas Dear Mr. Frazen: My interest in sending you this letter on behalf of ALLIED Mutual Insurance Company (ALLIED) is based on ALLIED's continuing legal interest in 10700 Prairie Lakes Drive, Eden Prairie. In 1981 ALLIED was known as AID Insurance Company (Mutual) . ALLIED purchased the real estate in question form Hartford Real Estate Company pursuant to a Purchase Agreement dated October 7, 1991. ALLIED built the present structure in 1982. At all times the property was zoned commercial. On June 18, 1993 ALLIED sold the real estate to GELCO Payment Systems, Inc. (GELCO) pursuant to a Contract for Deed. Until April 1, 2001, when the balloon payment under the contract is paid, ALLIED has a continuing legal interest in the property. As a result of this continuing legal interest, ALLIED joins GELCO in requesting•that the present zoning be left in tact and letting commercial development proceed as originally planned. Retention of the current zoning -makes sense to: (1) avoid creation of a zoning island of commercial property surrounded by residential property; (2) decrease in the assessed value of the real estate due to a decrease in the short term and long term value of the real estate; (3) keep a smooth transition of commercial property to residential property; and, +� (4) avoid safety issues and potential legal liability that arise when commercial and residential areas are not adequately spaced from one another. ALLIED would not have built the building that it did if a change in zoning had been anticipated. The expectation that the property would remain zoned commercial should be considered in making any decisions to change the zoning. ALLIED respectfully Y. 8 7 requests that the City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission deny the request for rezoning. Please call me at 515-280-4602 if you need any additional information from ALLIED. Sincerely, Katherine E. Schmidt Assistant Corporate Counsel RES/bak August 2 , 1994 • Planning Commission Members ; I live at 11072 Hyland Terrace. My property joins the Hartford property and in particular the section that is planned for townhouses . My feelings on this matter are: • 1 . I still want it to remain for office buildings , as it was told to me when I purchased my home 9 years ago. 2 . I DO NOT want the berm touched. I was told by the city at time of purchase that the berm was written in plans and would NEVER be removed. 3 . I would like a fewer number of townhomes , that what it now shows on plan. 4 . I think the townhomes should start at a selling price of $100, 000 . 00 and up, so that our home values stay up. I bought in what I thought was a safe neighborhood as far as home values _and now this is thrown at us. I would much rather prefer office buildings . Also, there is a 200 foot "Blacklock Line" around the lake and this should be preserved. This is a wildlife area and should be preserved. Please, take a good look at what we are faced with. There are many homeowners , but only 2 - 3 developers . Naomi Manke 11072 Hyland Terrace Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • -z" D g 9 11. .ft ople,Pridh m _&Progress... • • August 2, 1994 • City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission We would like to formally clarify the position of Gelco Payment Systems, Inc. as it relates to the proposed development of the Rolling Hills Road & Prairie Lakes • Drive areas. Our primary position would be to leave the present zoning in tact and let • commercial development proceed as originally planned. Our secondary position would be to not oppose any of the rezoning with the exception of Area 3 which is located between our building and what is now the NCS headquarters. In addition to this, substantial buffering would be required on the southeast side of our property that would back up to the proposed single family home sites. Our position emanates primarily from the following points: • allowing the rezoning to proceed as proposed would create a zoning island with Gelco Payment Systems being the only property within it. We • believe this would inhibit normal property appreciation, if not decrease its • short and long-term value. • this rezoning does not provide for any smooth transition from commercial to residential. In other mixed use developments we have looked at, the relationship between commercial and residential was preplanned and was incorporated into the building plans from the start. In our case, for example, our clients would have to drive through a retail area, a commercial office area, a high density area townhome area, and then come upon our office complex with single family homes next to our main entrance. This is clearly not the corporate image we had hoped to achieve when we purchased this building. • we currently have a problem with our parking lot being used by the local children as a playground that would only increase if additional residential came into the area. Our potential legal liability would unfortunately increase. 13700. URAlf1E LAf1Ls DRrvE, EDEN Fxr.IAIE, MINNLSC:TA 55344-3836 TEL 612 947 1500 FAX 612 541 1 y25 n Darn,•....v e�aa�e,a ......... �..,a..r, w . • • -2- 3: D• 90 u5- uLLLU t'A1NETWURK LEItills) _ • • in the current plan, the townhomes being developed between our facility and NCS would be less than 150 feet from our actual building. We believe that this is not beneficial to either party and will create disharmony almost immediately. The same case will also be true with the single family homes to our southeast as they will be less than 100 feet from our parking area and our lighting that is on 24 hours a day. Further, if the city is concerned about gaining additional "affordable housing," these townhouses are over $200,000 in value each and the single family homes will be over$300,000. • we have a high volume of truck and semi delivery traffic that would continue on what is now Prairie Lakes Drive that would certainly not be ideal if there would be residential property on both sides of the street. Again, the potential problem of liability is of concern. We have met with the developers and tried to address these issues; however, we still feel it would be in the best interest of the City of Eden Prairie and of Gelco Payment Systems to not let the planned rezoning be completed as proposed. Sincerely, • Craig J. Peterson Vice President, Administration J. Danie orrissey President & CEO • • July 27, 1994 Michael Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen, After reviewing the latest plans for the development of land behind Northmark I for residential and commercial purposes and discussing these plans with Jeannene Krone, we would like to clarify the following as important issues for us. We request that these issues be considered as conditions for approval at your August 8th Planning Commission meeting: Condition #1 Noise, over an extended period of time, is of great concern to us. According to specifications on the latest plans, all landscaping is to be done at the end of the construction period. We request that landscaping be done as soon as possible. Jeannene Krone said that landscaping could be done after the development of the berm to separate the properties. We also request that the respective developers adhere to the Eden Prairie Noise Ordinance and not begin work before 7:00 a.m. The current engineering firm, working on the mitigation of the wetlands, have violated this on more than one occasion. To understand how we are affected, consider the following conditions that we are trying to live under: o Construction work is going on during the nighttime hours on the new Kohl's store. If we live on this side of the wetlands, we hear this all night. o The engineering firm, working on the mitigation of the wetlands, is working all day. They have begun as early as 5:58 a.m. This noise continues in our backyard all day long, and we are talking about long days...as late as 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. o When development work begins on the townhomes, this is expected to last for two years. It seems that if the city had been sensitive to our living in the midst of all of this going on at one time, that the mitigation of the wetlands could have been scheduled more congruently with the initial development stage of the townhomes. As a result, we ask you to be sensitive to our having to live under extremely noisy conditions for a long period of time. We ask you to not only look at the long—term construction goals but the living conditions of people during the accomplishment of these goals. This certainly has future implications for the plot of land, designated as commercial, to be built within one to two years. Please consider the necessity of good sound barriers with landscaping that 1 complements the wooded feel of this area and our need for privacy. Condition #2 Based on discussions between Jeannene Krone and homeowners adjoining the dividing line between the properties, we agreed to certain landscaping guidelines: o Certain trees and garden areas would be preserved. In particular, the garden area and trees behind the first unit would be saved. Jeannene has noted this on her latest plans. It was also requested that some of the better trees behind the fifth townhome unit be preserved. o Evergreen trees are planned for the boulevard area facing Preserve Boulevard. In addition, the box elder trees on the hill behind the two wetland areas will be removed and evergreens will be planted on the hill. We also discussed the planting of evergreens between the existing wetlands and the area of landscaping to be preserved. o Evergreens to be planted will be 12 feet in height. It also needs to be noted that the line of scotch pines on the property line seems to be in the process of all dying, from the top down. In previous discussions, homeowners have expressed the desire to retain these evergreens, not realizing that what was happening seems to be a general demise of this variety of evergreens throughout the area. We are clarifying this information, because upon advice from Jeannene Krone, we are asking that the city keep in their plans the possible need to replace these trees later in time. Jeannene has recommended that we wait to see what actually happens to this line of trees and replace as needed, later. Because this is a condition that would be implemented at some future point in time, we wanted to make sure that this issue would not be lost — that the trees would die over the next 2 —3 years and there would be no plan in place for subsequent replacement. Condition #3 We need more information about the storm pond to be built: o What is the exact size of this pond? o What materials will be used, especially on the bottom of the pond? o What precautions are being made regarding further mosquitoes, stagnation, algae, etc? 2 �. 0. -93 Please note that this letter with our condition requests was prepared prior to the neighborhood meeting on July 27, 1994. We have now heard that the plans we thought were final and upon which this letter was based have now changed again. We just become comfortable with a set of plans and review them with the goal of working together with the developers and the city for a mutually-satisfying agreement, and the plans change again. We get the feeling that our area is at the mercy of residents in other areas with more people and a}jluence...and that we may be pawns caught in the middle. Our goal was to try to work with the developers and the city. That requires a stable set of plans and equal concern for all. Submitted By, Residents of Northmark I (particularly those adjoining the boundary line) .4(44<ok_ )44 ( I( et11411( tiuk-V d9z,n,(4' C//s 2 V - � .. (/f c7V C4,°Rr'6 E, C--r) 53 (v 91+- hfve - o__( 9 3 41 . (7/-7) I I Z - ', �l��-��- �✓ ! / o / C a 1.1 474, (e;01- 6LA‘'(' D'e (7‘4.( t l 5 9`i C4'05 q2 CcoA":a(-- Ph 2 „i. r4vai/s 7b 6<./44,-.eci. 3 Sr,b. - 9q The reserve Association 11221 Anderson Lakes Parkway • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • (612) 941.8400 July 28 , 1994 Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie MN 55344 HARTFORD PLACE DEVELOPMENT The Preserve Association Board of Directors discussed the proposed Hartford Place development at their monthly Board Meeting on July 19 , 1994 . A motion was made and passed to advise the Eden Prairie Planning Commission of the Board Members ' position on several matters relating to the proposed development ; this is not to be construed as representative of the position of any individual or group of the 1600+ members of the Association. The Preserve developers design concept was "The only justification for development of an area like The Preserve is that it improves the position of more people to enjoy special facilities and exposure to beautiful natural surroundings . There can be no improvement on nature. " . Two other goals are: 1 . Compatibility with existing natural site characteristics . 2 . Minimum disturbance of existing natural systems . In keeping with those concepts and goals , we believe that serious disturbance to existing site characteristics and loss of esthetic values for the members residing on Fieldcrest Road and in the Northmark and Carriage Court areas will result from any lowering of the berms north of these properties . If alterations to this berm are made, the developer should be required to maintain the existing height to the greatest extent possible. If some berm removal is necessary on the development side, one alternative is to cut into the north side of the berm to create a steeper slope, which will have no effect on the residents on the south side of the berm. If any re-contouring is performed on the south side of the berm, a second environmental consideration presents itself . There are a total of 68 evergreens on the south side of the berm, almost all 4"-6" trunk diameter. At least 2/3 of these are beautiful white pines with the remainder being red pine, balsam or spruce. Rather than destroying these trees with earth moving and replacement with much smaller, immature trees , consideration should be given to digging with large tree-transplanters , putting them in a temporary nursery and then re-planting if such a thing is possible. Tree replacement cost must be measured in relation to the effect on property values and esthetics in the neighborhood. -1- The k17!) reserve Association 11221 Anderson Lakes Parkway • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • (612) 941-8400 Subsequent to the passage of that resolution by the Preserve Board, I had an opportunity to attend the Neighborhood Meeting on July 27 , 1994 at which time revised Hartford Development plans were presented. The developers stated the following: 1 . No changes are contemplated for the south side of the existing berms . 2 . Room for building development on the north side of the berms will be created by cutting back and creating a steeper slope. 3 . New berms will be built to interconnect existing berms , except for one place toward the southeast corner of the development . 4 . The tops of the cut-back berms will be approximately ten feet wide . 5 . If any evergreens would be disturbed, they will attempt to temporarily transplant them. 6 . Extensive landscaping will be done on the south side of the berm using 10 ' -12 ' conifers and 3"-4" ( ? ) caliper deciduous trees . 7 . The new berm area should provide a very adequate wildlife corridor. One member of the audience suggested that a conservation easement be created for the south side of the berm. We ask that consideration be given to that suggestion, which among other things , would preclude encroaching uses of that area. If our understanding of the seven items. above is correct , that should answer all of the concerns of the Preserve Association Board of Directors . We ask that the City of Eden Prairie secure commitments from the developers for these elements of the overall plan. Lee, Mayer , Pr�nt The Preserve .Association • -2- June 9, 1994 Mr. Michael Franzen Senior Planner Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen: We were pleased to see you in attendance at the neighborhood meeting of June 8th concerning the proposed Hartford Place development. As voiced at that meeting, any change in the present zoning will be at the expense of the surrounding home owners and perhaps the city of Eden Prairie as well. We believe the Planning Commission dedicated a great deal of time and much thought before deciding on the proper zoning for this area. We purchased our homes based on this decision. Mr. Franzen, we hope that you and the other members of the Planning Commission will look favorably upon our position in this matter. Sincerely, �- Bob & Dodi Tschantz cc: Community Development Department /d 3 d l\( o•c-1-h m a( ID - 'MD. - 9 7 William E. O'Reilly 11145 Lanewood Cir. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 June 9, 1994 Mr. Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen I have attended several meetings recently discussing the Hartford project. The meetings have helped me to understand the proposed project and the concerns of the residents who ,are very close to the boundaries. The comments of George Bentley last evening provided an excellent historical perspective . His memory of the reasoning that allowed the zoning exception for 75 ft. building height was especially interesting. I hope you, the planning commission and the council keep that reasoning in mind as this proposal and any future proposals are reviewed. My primary concern and that of several close neighbors is Center Way. Everything I have heard and seen shows no change in Center Way. That is, Center Way continuing to dead end at the berm just north of Fieldcrest Rd. This is GOOD! I will object strongly to any proposal to make Center Way a through street. Today at the morning drive time there are numerous cars turning north from Anderson Lakes Parkway to Westwind bypassing the stop sign at Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Blvd. Making Center Way a through street will make it a speedway from Anderson Lakes Parkway to Prairie Center Dr. Any development of the Hartford property will only intensify and amplify the traffic on Center Way if it should be made a through street. r:0. - 9g William E. 02teiily I understand the concerns of those close to the boundraries about changes in the berms and the overall height of the berms . I also understand the developers wanting the maximum density they can achieve. The land was zoned office in the 70s with berming and building height to hide the building(s) from the residential neighbors. The existing berms were added many years ago. It appears to me that Hartford and any developers must recognize the agreements, both written and inferred of the late 70s . That is, the existing residential areas should be shielded visually and aurally with little or no change in the existing landscape. There also is a need to guide foot traffic to the park or other common areas without intruding on the yards of the residents. Are side walks on Center Way connecting to sidewalk on the edge of the park appropriate? Sincerely ZT/6A5/ William E. O'Reilly 941-6480 7.D. - 99 i ` f_gc2AVAI J./ug co-714 Hi,4-A-)69 /olio-Hp/ 14-ty 9-6--b:d971)/qe--A-7-iji) ji oc - (L) cx,.‘f (:)(W A 3.41-4 ni k)9 • 14, ,Le •fiV cuuty. -, = i o e pSa.cLL / 4D ci fG 5 .ad a►��t�-lam�0 e J ci-d"b.)..)acga_06) , /7E ,(4 (51-,EL hcLO__Cc-) OA) e 2.0 Aimir €�. ()A 0\) :: . ,cv-w/ /..A) +(AV. coi0A-u-u2) 1-170J- b‘mA. PF ipp Y)(01-1/ 1 CO- 0-0)-7 -1---0-(viu0 ;2-r as '0 We)Op-a2 ✓ CL-Ai dr Lo-1 774 A-1r- SE-RA A_.1.4Imo/ V < ✓ V (W2i)d ) v v ! /Lut)AH ef) 0 Nj MX. ) Jo po 0-e-d- dO Xiroi uma,U b-e)i . h LL) /-4,0-(2,e f-AJ } u f �� thpi rJ 1-4 Po w S �, (yieei +o �/E r (U ( Uarsvu-J---v 1):Li hai)-( J7)fJ )104.12av s,J .emu>� 40\)I- 01 ,7 We 2-1 C4L-E: pcfv9 uu-icJ 2 /1'" ( a,i)jtj -41 . 0 :5-\ 31- 120-(}-e, f ;.,J-LL fr_i4 )1-4 ptoiLEC-bi -g'.b. -roo 1:i' S ,,,a 3 D '4 q 1_21\i'cli ).') --L±LL-,_A/0/,, -,A,L? i-ii,, -,4_- _j_ h F�iL� ) � b-e)-1 �-l_S z,1�c'�7 E. b-Q,J 1 � �U CA awo,i i U�'Jli-j- l,�t}+D� hj Gz.):�r}-�j 0 h,,u.Mj. E-1, . i''(v LAeN (2-) ,AL-a-1.L- i?as/v "I`Aa. d01.)10/),_ CIALi b-ej 41_,te_QA) '+-k,O, be±,) /. 1 , p_jis 61 --Y,W1 , ' Cs)-t A 3)0 h 0 ?,--(E_5 Ls al- ck.t( e. -6 ZQ__, ou qc N c i (LkX., i;d" ± h0 , V eJ 1 N J4(1_ fOG _A of Diu- LL,k- } --,/c) uti( - DA),, ti v piA02, c)ieAva__--- 162.izpi + h o , . i A/Q i..S _ -____JkApp )- Loy)fi-4 . _7- Lo d / 4.- rci, ticrli -Li9i hai}Q_ oU--r c Lucy Jd"N ile}y. LDA0ei:1 /(12,0" de_A171)-0._0 02-t_o_aJA -A-Lopi .� v-*),(1J- _r 4_i_0_, 0,0 tuLP0%)/--/ A -. 1--cf l �Ft) '› — +h-o-' F &'� beei JAfrie,aw1 (-r ou-LL al- ‘,20.- ,1 a nj C-IQ t‘ 1_,Y-__P '1—,1;)(LeK/ *+ ck)- mq -4- i?f)Ae VCI_O -0_ij 0}.-,- co/-7 fr(c *-jrp CC A) )-,( / LL2- j- , t,Ujr):3/J- ,42J2 Ob6 1-112_90(j)Vd.€4 hq elLzJ.-e__ 4 ci4e__ ors I +ID 1)-) -"j-f",-)- vc . CI'F" H, \A (k2flz11( lue w-4) oJ(a)vd ,i _) r2c, +& _,(- i j 0 e,_ Ncd" A-2-074("s fwl`i) J � cam �c.� -- ��f Cy iu> �c�� gi-r fir-) O h ff_ n AAA b jki lc j\-) c, uj-j• J a}f 'UdJ 13 "Tik)oLA.) k_ 0,--LIJ Arrc F,_ I gl d TLt-z) June 5, 1994 Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mike, As you know from our two telephone conversations, I am a Northmark resident and the property on the back side of Northmark abuts the proposed development of housing units. My purpose for writing is three—fold: [1] First, I would like to add my voice as well as the voice of my neighbors concerning the berm area that separates Northmark from the proposed units. To achieve a mutually—satisfying arrangement, it is very important to Northmark residents that the current berm, if altered, be landscaped effectively to ensure privacy and a natural barrier promoting the aesthetics of both developments and a definite separation between the two. Northmark residents facing this proposed development were told at the point of sale by the builder of Northmark that the berm would always be preserved as a barrier against any further developments. Evidently, Hans Hagen did not have the authority to give this commitment to buyers of Northmark property. However, residents bought with this understanding. [2] Second, I would also like to bring to your attention that the exact line separating Northmark and the current, undeveloped area seems to be in question in some areas. In particular, when I asked the surveyors, trying to assess the property line over a year ago, for the exact boundaries, they replied that it was not clear. They were having a difficult time determining the boundaries. [3] My third purpose for writing involves the current wetlands and landscaping that I have done on this side of the wetlands to enhance the natural beauty of this area. I have planted over fifteen evergreens (some now approaching 5-6 feet in height), six hard maples, numerous sumac and other shrubbery. In addition, there is an extensive perennial garden. I am concerned that the developers might consider using the hill as fill without realizing what is on the other side of the hill. I request that you consider the following: "ED. - 103 Preserve the natural and extensive landscaping on this side of the hill. It could be effectively blended with any landscaping to be done on the berm area. If the hill is used for fill, use that side of the hill not affected by current plantings and landscaping. Please note: As you know from the proposed drawings, the area proposed for development begins on the other side of the current pond/swamp. As a result, I am only concerned about the possible use of the hill as fill. Again, I wish to express my personal appreciation for your sincerity and overall manner in answering my questions and those of my neighbors. It has given me hope that this kind of intent can result in a design and eventual development that feels good to everyone affected. Sincerely, /044a-Aea• Sharon Ahl Cat-rt ag Coca-F Uz,346..3 C tts34a Ca1ri Nancy Fr is `co„, � � C t15-3SCarrti'w C4.5 Mary Jacobsen /a,/ anh•QYt ( 4h7 June 1 , 1994 Naomi Manke 11072 Hyland Terrace Eden Prairie, MN 55344 944-2953 Planning Commission Members : I live at 11072 Hyland Terrace, right behind Lot 7 of the pre- sent zoning of the Hartford Property. When I went to the City of Eden Prairie before I purchased my townhome, back in 1985 , I was assured by the gentlemen (wish I had written his name down) that it would not change and that the berm behind me would be forever , and that it had been written in that that berm would never be taken down. Now here I am, 9 years later facing this possibility. I do not want that berm changed in any way. I am also concerned about the wildlife corridor . I see many Deer on that berm, what about the large trees on the property, and the wetlands around Anderson Lake , with also concerns of drainage. Seems the homeowner always gets stuck with the short end of the deal . I think if it is changed, only 10 - 15 total townhomes should be built and only 10 single family homes . Also there is no proposed park and playground planned for that area. My grandson, who lives in Eden Prairie now has to go to Bloomington (98th & Lyndale) for Little League, so that area should have a park. Other concerns are setbacks Please - No change in berm and zoning preferred. Thank you, y.0. r io5" May 31, 1994 RE: Hartford Place Development Planning Commission Member— 111111111111.1111111, As homeowners living near the proposed Hartford Place Development project, we feel a need to voice our concerns over the requested zoning change from office to residen- tial. The buffer berm has been a part of the neighborhood the last 15 years, and must not be moved and lowered. It is one of the main reasons many of us purchased our homes. Fieldcrest drainage from Center Way east runs thru the back of our yards and near the berm, any movement of the berm offers potential water damage to neighborhood yards and basements. Infringement on the Black lock line, which if we understand, was established as a protected zone for wildlife nesting. The potential employee base, if the zoning stays as is by Hartford, 1979 projections approx- imates to 4000 jobs, that is a significant consumer base to support and keep the new down- town growing and prospering. Current zoning offers the highest value and best use of the land, re-zoning to multi residen- tial would be an unprecedented downgrade of such valuable property! In closing, progress and growth in a community are to be expected, but not at the expense of the neighborhoods quality of life. We urge you to recommend: C NO,. to the zoning change request. ,S Sincerely, resell A-e-- c-1,V D. xl-t-,L7_,7 Barb & Mike Neelund / 4( cieJ �°� `� cal 10800 Fieldcrest Road frt-4 S y:1-v Eden Prairie, MN 55344 is 943-1458 L 1( J . i�=� ,fe:, 4 �;p.— 106 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. E • DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Planning Commission and Staff recommended denial of the project. Appropriate action for the Council is as follows: FOR DENIAL: • Direct preparation of a Resolution stating findings for denial of the project. FOR APPROVAL: • Approve 1st reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres and PUD District Review; • Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment BACKGROUND McDonalds first appeared before the Planning Commission on July 11, 1994. The Planning Commission recommended that the developer look at alternative ways of making the playland addition more architecturally compatible with the existing McDonald's building. The Commission felt that a rectangular glass enclosure was not compatible with McDonalds and recommended an alternative plan which extended the McDonald's roof line. This would be similar to Burger King on Eden Prairie Road and Highway 5. The developer returned to the Planning Commission on August 22nd and indicated that McDonalds did not want to pursue a different type of design for the playland structure. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial because of the architectural incompatibility with McDonalds as required by City code. Attached is a photograph of a McDonald's store in Red Wing, Minnesota. This photograph is provided by Tim Bauer of the Planning Commission. This photograph is representative of a way in which the project could be designed to meet the Planning Commission's requirement for architectural compatibility. Supporting Reports: 1. Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 and July 8, 1994 2. Planning Commission Minutes from 8-22-94 and 7-11-94 3. Correspondence 4. Plans 5. Resolution for PUD Concept � E , - 1 MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION FOR MCDONALDS 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 McDonalds Playland Addition by McDonalds and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended denial of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on September 20, 1994; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. McDonalds, 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 September 15, 1994. 3. That the PUD Concept does not meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated August 22, 1994. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 20th day of September, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 6 , - Z Legal Description McDonalds Playland Addition Exhibit A Lot 1, Block 1, Eden Prairie Center 7th Addition E - 3 PlanniArA Lpr."1 via ior% Kitva eS S• 224 G. MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION by McDonalds. Request for PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for a playland addition. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. Franzen stated that Jerry Roper, of McDonalds, recently contacted staff and indicated that McDonalds wanted to proceed with the original square glass enclosure of the play structure. Bauer stated that beauty was in the eye of the beholder, but the City should be consistent with Burger King on 4 and 5. He felt they should move it on and let Council decide. He recommended denial of this project. Foote stated that he agreed with Bauer to move to recommend denial of this project. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner, to move to deny the request of McDonalds Restaurant for PUD Concept Amendment, PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for McDonalds Playland Addition located at Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. Motion carried 5-0-0. Approve& t;names Pia.,..:.. C 11-%MISSi 0 vN, 7-II- 94- E. MCDONALD'S PLAYLAND ADDITION by McDonald's Restaurant. Request for PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for a playland addition. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. He stated that after looking at the photograph provided by McDonald's, the choices are very clear. Either recommend denial because of architectural incompatibility with McDonald's and other buildings in the area, or recommend a continuance and direct McDonald's to redesign the structure to be architecturally compatible, using an approach similar to the Burger King Restaurant on County Road 4 and Highway 5. Jerry Roper, architect with McDonald's Corporation, stated they would like to add a 40 foot by 40 foot indoor playland addition to the McDonald's Restaurant at 598 Eden Prairie Drive. He said they are proposing to construct the playland on the front of the building on the grass area and deleting two parking stalls. There will not be much change to the site except for the playland itself. Using an enlarged photograph of an existing McDonald's, he said the building would be similar to what they see on the screen. He said it consists of steel tube columns and beams. He stated there is a glass curtain wall system and a metal deck roof with a built up roof on top of that. He said there were two types of structures to pick from, either the one in the photograph or the structure in Cottage Grove. He said he preferred the one in the photograph. Bauer questioned what Mr. Roper's reaction was to the Staff's recommendations. Roper stated his reaction is that he doesn't understand why the building is not compatible, he doesn't know what the City would like to see. He said he would appreciate any suggestions that the Commission has. Clinton asked how the structure will connect with the existing building. Roper replied they are connecting it with a ten foot walkway that comes out five feet from the building. He said it will be like a hallway, that they are not really attaching it. Bauer stated he does not care for the structure in the photograph or the one in • Cottage Grove. Franzen asked if Roper was familiar with a new McDonald's Playland in Red Wing that had a pitched roof and was compatible with the Restaurant. Roper said his territory is the Twin Cities area only. Foote was concerned about the structure staying warm in the winter with it being all glass enclosed. He thought it would be very drafty. Roper replied that you may think it would be cold but once you get the kids playing in there 8 IT. E . - S it actually gets very warm. Schlampp was concerned that there would not be adequate parking since they were eliminating two parking spaces. Roper replied that these play units do not thrive on lunch hour business. He said they thrive on off hours like from 2 to 5 pm. He stated he wasn't aware there was any parking problem over there and the restaurant never complained about needing more parking. Bauer asked whether there were parking easements in the back with the adjoining businesses. Franzen replied there is shared parking. He said when McDonald's was approved by the City it was approved with more parking than the code required. Bauer suggested they continue this for 30 days. He added that since he was going to Winona, he would stop and take a picture of the McDonald's in Red Wing which he believed would offer better design alternatives. Kardell said when she looked at the play structure, the first thing that struck her was the proportion and scale compared to the restaurant. She asked Staff if the sign on the Cottage Grove restaurant is allowed in Eden Prairie by code. Franzen responded no. Clinton stated that Cottage Grove could be adapted but he has a problem with the whole area and theme of putting a curtain wall glass building kind of structure. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to continue this in 30 days to the August 8th meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: August 22, 1994 SUBJECT: McDonald's Playland Addition APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: McDonald's Restaurant LOCATION: Highway 169 and Prairie Center Drive REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres. 2. Site Plan Review on 1.5 acres. 3. Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres. ..,, :-.._„,„„,ar443 '7 •Y I I ici'"" -.1 z A,:-.. and ;tab SI 4 4 At . , le,n„ c41111,11111p( um MONTGCME iti op Ax. 111r/ F...? E D E'N • - aka.et i .... ::ENTER -: , 4111 ; ...' . i% . • iilia.kt ....11.1 . ?' 4. s.4.e41. SA" 111 PONAli Pi' LAKES osf---•-:. , 4. , 4)4 yn 41, • ....,:vs .. ,,,. E F."- ADO. CENTER ,.:G'••• Iv. CENTER E * ik d) *Si N ESS •in 1 ••.- 0 -- - i IiiPrAPt.* * IIIIIL •,,,G 5 .- 4,‘IV :I a. cal .. . .4:' -' • • • - • RK (lc a •min : LUNDS . - -- .4 R.LS. •4, I 1394 - •T• vo pi • in Ex CENTER ADO r .. rite; ipilif / rn n, rn rt1 Es cm ce. -ders5-,4- , .. , it." A T—• E . — 7 1 akeinteA • ett ilig I i I I I gli"1'.... 4 \...• ci) 61 ki :g \°. -4 d ADC4 en" low. •41,1*29-I's -... ez rn !firm, ,,,, ••._ • Staff Report McDonald's Playland Addition August 22, 1994 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the July 11th and August 8th Planning Commission Meetings. The Planning Commission recommended that the developer consider a different architectural design for the building which was compatible with nearby buildings in the area. The commission suggested using the same brick and roof line as the existing McDonald's structure. PLAN REVISIONS McDonalds has indicated to City staff that they have considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission and have decided to proceed with the original concept plan for the rectangular glass enclosure of the play structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning Commission deny the request for PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District for the following reasons: 1. The building as proposed is not architecturally compatible with other buildings within the area according to City code. 2. McDonalds shall be held to the same architectural standards as the Burger King playland addition on Highway 4 and Highway 5. 3. McDonalds has built other types of playland buildings within the metropolitan area that are architecturally compatible with the main building by extending roof lines and exterior materials. 2 3E . - g STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: July 8, 1994 SUBJECT: McDonald's Playland Addition APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: McDonald's Restaurant LOCATION: Highway 169 and Prairie Center Drive REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 4 :3..471.51acres.e Site Plan Review on 4 acres. Zoning District Amendment on 4 acres. ArtARKE CENTER F.2 MARKET T^!TE�2 d �3T A-y I+- WEST ,d A3a I��..� 1. T ,- a, a. MI 14/ry „....4111111111( „cNTC-t:ME:�j�j mom Acia !:i=N ,akv • ...,.� _ 4 rib. , - LAKES „ft.. .tip c'SS..4.-%.. -• . Api - .-nityyD • .. . 4 ...4. • tV� ER ADC. ` CENTER IN 'ZJ CENTER :Si t<ESS LAKE a* P' c3 El c . - Lu►CDs ti R.L.S4•yii CENTER jRK II 139 :. V� ADD �Sl..����� .���. cc -- .:!AGE �' ,, .frl.' -' IX \ ,� .44 ' ? �'E' 9 W r fig` a mouir .. . • ic ETCH PINE .. , ..:.•. « / \ ._ f Staff Report McDonald's Playland Addition July 8, 1994 BACKGROUND McDonald's Restaurant is part of the Tower Square PUD which was approved by the City in 1988. McDonald's was approved in 1990. The 1990 plans did not indicate an expansion area or a playland addition. For these reasons, an amendment to the PUD and Site Plan review is required by the City. SITE PLAN The site plan depicts the construction of a 1,600 square foot building which contains play structures for children. The base area ratio for this building and the existing structure is .10. The code would allow up to a .20 base area ratio. Parking required is based upon the number of seats in the restaurant. Parking meets City code. The playland building meets required setbacks. ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY The site plan and architectural design review ordinance requires compatibility of materials, textures, colors, and other construction details with other structures and uses in the vicinity. The 1988 PUD approval was also based upon architectural compatibility. The playland building is proposed to be constructed with primarily glass and some metal. While these are approved materials in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District, the colors, materials, and shape of the structure are not architecturally compatible with McDonald's or the remainder of the buildings within the PUD. When McDonald's approached the City Staff regarding the playland building, Staff indicated that the recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council would be either of the following alternatives: 1. Recommend denial because of architectural incompatibility, or; 2. Recommend that the playland building be redesigned to be architecturally compatible with nearby buildings. Staff suggested using the same brick and roof line as the McDonald's Restaurant. Staff also suggested that the project should use an approach similar to the Burger King on County Road 4 and Highway 5. 2 � E . - 10 Staff Report McDonald's Playland Addition July 8, 1994 Architectural compatibility plays a strong role in the visual appearance of the City. There are good examples of commercial architectural compatibility in the vicinity such as; Lund's Center; Bachman's, restaurants and the bowling alley on the City site; and Wal-Mart and Jiffy Lube. Although Jiffy Lube is on a separate parcel from Wal-Mart, Jiffy Lube is using the same color brick and lighting standards as Wal-Mart. The Staff is not philosophically opposed to having a playland within a structure on the McDonald's site. The playland structure does not create parking problems nor are variances needed from the City. It is a question of the commitment to the original PUD, City code requirements, and aesthetics. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff presents two choices to the Planning Commission. I. Recommend denial of the project as proposed due to architectural incompatibility in terms of materials, colors, and construction details with other buildings in the vicinity. II. Recommend that the project be continued for 30 days and direct the proponent to revise the playland building to be architecturally compatible by extending the roof line of the existing McDonald's structure with similar brick detailing, glass, and color. 3 "Y. E , - if • City of Eden Prairie City Offices eden 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 prairie Phone (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax (612) 949-8390 June 20, 1994 Jerry Roper McDonald's Corporation 1650 West 82nd Street Suite 900 Bloomington, MN 55431 SUBJECT: McDonald's Playland Addition, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Mr. Roper: Eden Prairie's Development Review Committee met on Thursday, June 16 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the McDonald's Playland. The primary issue for the committee was the architectural compatibility of the proposed addition with the existing McDonald's building and the remainder of Tower Square. As you are aware, the City's site plan review ordinance requires architectural compatibility in terms of materials, colors, and details with other buildings within the area. The committee's consensus was that although the project met the exterior material requirement for approved building materials in the Commercial Zoning District, the building is not architecturally compatible with other buildings in the area. The Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council based on plans that we have reviewed at this point is to either: 1. Recommend denial of the proposal because of the lack of architectural compatibility, or 2. Revise the exterior of the play space to have a similar roofline as the McDonald's, and to add brick and other detailing found on McDonald's and other buildings in the area. I expect that the Planning Commission will give you an opportunity to revise the exterior building elevations, but would continue the discussion on this item for at least two weeks. 3r. E, - 12. Recycled Paper Jerry Roper June 20, 1994 Page 2 I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss other architectural opportunities for the redesign of the play space. Please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely Yours, Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner BARB\MIKE\LETTERS\ROPER E , - 13 DATE: 09/20/94 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: V, F SECTION: Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: __. Engineering Division Vacation 94-07 - Vacation of Easements in Glenshire David Olson Published September 1, 1994 Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: Adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements within Outlot B, Glenshire. Overview: The City Council approved the final plat of Glenshire 2nd Addition, a replat of Outlot B, Glenshire, on June 15, 1993. At the time of approval, existing utilities were in-place and operational within the underlying easements. These utilities have now been relocated and are within the replacement easements and right-of-way platted with Glenshire 2nd Addition. Supporting Information: Vacation drawings Item No. 1 , / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE VAC94-07 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. - VACATION OF EASEMENTS IN GLENSHIRE ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements described therein as follows: The drainage and utility easements within Outlot B as platted and dedicated in Glenshire recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 20, 1994 after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 20, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk , ,-..r"0-11.1ti . t • • .; .474k. of 4sopti, r711*93Zf♦ J •••• •• ars . ,, _ilk ili*AS II v.? tor : '0 40 or, _ _ ,. iiii :.LEM SH: 11 sile 7 SrTL- dor �- , eft se ), At STARLIG \ �/ › 1LANE �� . ,- ' I o�° >C0:11hil \i' LI-L- > Qom' .. f . . ÷ it _ 4 ir 4 • Pihr .,._ ... io, . .. Ikir / Ili wAs irlp....4.& Ail qr / 41p.:. . ii , �s . �Es ip-- -",- . • ‘&0 V / 11916141111ftlyaft L ; ou IlliO, / tT Y i mil. -°- • - 41111111111111116. _ �`.. tom <�:.Yt!++ . I DRIVE _, . , x ..a na r _ 1.-oc, Al_to kl MA p T. H_ ( 4 ,1 I .5/ l — VA . 14 -01 GLENSMIRE e • r.,g,rr 1GR. DOC. NO. J 93 90.0:7 ... ‘ i IL 1. --...., i �/ 15 i' 0u TL07 �j — �Ac MENrs �o 1e VA CAI L D 1 / ;N Op /// � �� ..,q�, .�`����,rms + ....... _,�- 1 f \ V�• 9 •i00 -f. sr �i �. le- 1 i,, ""-.•'''t S v.. b�•1( 17 y 0 18 1. $ - h' a'i0 •n 0 1 <.oy:Q•.S-O 1 L O '� G. \\� � ,• L �IJ o.,<.`.�s�/w-� b L lh 19 N, ` - po.�J \ •a9 7 <!�^/ oc4 C •G \t^7'•n., I� �i �d�• . . - o \c•.y6 I I• N I I gZ\ 0 II 20 /,b ^ 4 ''r' C,� •"'`rr-rt9� <, 1-iif 0 k. NL h ... `• `' �.) rt-rzi: i, I I_.. �J o 1 IV l sv.. 'es�i%7 7 \ 4. M p • •'r'.rY `:r L t O - 0 0 •,. -J `aC._ \ 14 b �. 0•'%q�•r10° a'�•ty't/• 'est,y% C:C`• 9"r'i9 tU:7I„ //'r :•ems \ \ flaga I `pl•0 wo • t'R.ta O 7• .<.rsr• * 9� q s,> spa irk Yp7^ ` 'gab• A qI /,� 15 �/` -r �r,•'I� g7oo d•Gt rGTi..��� b t' Os i ` J • �Y h ��s�°•o• 0/�5'jE P•f�q - --�' c.rsF $ 4'.o a_ , \` 0 ■/1\]/ °1r / /¢ N.. .� L' L'49" OD Nti .( r,<r- •�.�I'J Q ` �0 �A ~`�7. (/ 1�'y. ° .r =� ,)Ie0 O.Ji td J 1 �F y Iu . ''`-•/ , 16 .. \ dI, ,,, / h 91.A44.`. I I_ .p• / i- 8 I�;e}?a _ r: 1— ^�o°;tU P, / V n job L'6 r ' ?9 9 s sB �h,.\ I' J°7 „` Irv\ +► yc. � tY 1.„ �I; , 0 5 , � / tyryT� ! a h c 4e h c, N ' \ ..- guano,..,.d Y.....7....eK.......show..thus. ;r • -W1.• �� U T L ' . IY m at°O�i Q 4 t I �37r7 I a z 4 OJ z•re'sv=iv 1•,i c•.iyr 0 1= .4- :3•e*-- i \ to '� WL� \ ��pP� eV °, :t•1'a7ay r,gQQ I f Q.>•�_ ^ / J Q 1_i CvV. s et 0 :$ 0 H hl :,•,io3..1 \q: `� -t 1,�1 �'".,..,__ ___,.,•,,,.. r` • I r, 7�VU 0 1.'` I_ -. 8/asay",.,...,� 1'/ /,4•/f ,,, oI f �� . r..,,l 1 „�I .Y 9 4 !i.i5� ♦ I U I 5 M �, Jo 0o'�3^c ��\ O li � 1 � __ — -- l -- ) 19 IR going!fool In width,onto"otherwise InJ.cated. n 1, OP `'--___/L 7.r7E__,-J h v ' , 1 // C0 I ...d adjoining lot lines,end Is feat In.Idle and /f1. ¢ b J 2I r vI� o - 4 . 0 adjoining eeeeee line.....°...n on the plat. ?�so vo r �o'oori3`C a W I`� -� I iO '' o P^I i t -r i h I .V 4. A; �\'11 A L' `ti 1 \I _••r I a I yy� . d•. Ell b �/,I V', I i I / no o �_ J?- 1 ' Y g yla; M1 1 I. l- I J �z; ` g 204 A \V - 1. _ k a, r ` ...1 I 4. 83 �I n V d•/e-36b7. \_ •1, Io L, e?l it .6'SG•05'J6" . v.G�p..,rc ° ' �'�` i �!j04. 15B3, C.dCy.•,ve 3b'/5"E- �'C4 Gs.O7 v,r'• I `ems W ; I (Vc • go 4' may ,•,/ I r- `..,I ;' c :�.s,, a n 0 S ,'.� ,' ;`,v ••• Y � [/V.! 0 to ,,e . - - \ ` /!H se,-cer s7tsats • d...e...Lon..,.n..d �,)e �' /:;,- ........' '.t,. ' uy - n.L..1.el L.rL.g. 47 1 ( r_" / C7`�, Y.• • •b �iC��;v II • 01 I Is auuwed rc I- ,,•I Ir ,:; I _ _ \ �./7 /.�Kb. ` .,1_ 41 1 '_ -, sHl ei /11 `C i�.., I ;r•!r,i \\ �!7 j'� �:i fC.�• )7 sr9 14 9 4 // o>lx��7�y'�.,I lh I Jansen Thorp \\\ n0 r�"Zyo,,��-9/'B• , / wrrlr —�w tuna., 1 ) PellInen Olson Inc. we*, o� •I l _ \ ` �57;lEclen.s>y Jrld AddiI7M • i towaeo!nannies 1.•.Su.eN. ourtor •r ........ .. . GLENSHIRE 2ND ADDITION „..R. DOC. NO. N . 1 I 70 I 1-- 4.....1.1 pi,.s t r•11.....1 in tio...a.g al 11......1.1.it...,oil 111......1.....111 .01..1 A.....I. 5.77111 bs 1446 I • ! 1..c.,• ,_ •••••• 30 7 4.1'.41+1 I ...' Wee•......111.•••••1..1.......1••••,1 au.,plalie4 4e..11.011.INV Intoll tom 4..1................1.1.1.1*.Ow 44444• I. pobll. "VC 1......r 61*Ian.4..1 tiv 4.+1.........I.1111y ra•corog•a•..lanwn au.1.ples• e--.1.. ..i .-.MIN11.!!!rr..1 S 119.50 43"E 232.11 • , ,... t"e • . '- hi 8 !,.11 • la..........al .411.....la.1•••••••••-yie, he..I 5Ilee,•41•Cot...Sall* iee eenel.1.41......4 Ow.....on. I I .be 0 50 100 150 / /61106- . eJ iit - i/ am ii .:S..., ct,,,Isif "'it!? •-••• •00..1 by..,/op.••116. OA. . 30 1 y/ ,- $ ic•• .j • I / •. vb. /:).1.1?V i •-.....I.AI I ( I ;-.! 4 .:,1 1 41 I 1 .1.t, ' 65.1 / ...• A........I 1..141.1, It.... •1.• h I ,' 1 7 f,,, , 4...4,4- . .,, .t /5 2 isl/# 3 t,//4. • • • ti io by 11....S.1........, III ii...1.1ent •i.../ ,,_. ' / l't % - - :.-. s,. A./ /..7. s lit. • . * ., . - 4 4 i , 4 e t - • . ' l'e'e e ;/4 o'P 's _ . i,--- ?pi f , . IN1 04;. / '.1' 05 • 1453 --. i i 64 I d i .j.• 44..,:f 00.11.111. , , 7166 .0 I I 4,11.01 45. // 5,,,I,.. ••.,,,, ,i• 4" '"•••,,,,,,4,u. ------- • ...., , / -: % ". ••4.2 Ile, .. •. A me21114. *91 70.00 t , ,..,,9•"4 69 A mir2r.12 tAm4011 42 13219 4-r,. */.. • - 1. 1.1‘. •••• • .9°. V 4000 -• / i, A•, m 1°00 1 3 w..e...,....,,et. ••.•e.e...,•.,A......1.1.4 1........•I.,•11..e...1......1.,we..11 al.1.1 c.f..lae• .../ • 1 1 Al?I lett I- , • 1_.At\JI S „ • • •". **r 39'10. •/=-::-..,...., s„ 4,p, Ps, Rata.Pnblir, • C.o..MI towes... . •.1r ,... , 4 „, .0.!..• 41 4.„ :13 . .1.446.12 ,r5.. 44,,. :AP - • el" 0 m10•69' • 1 i 4' . - '•kr.,,,,. Hy•........1..r......_....__,_.........,„ / V.' so/1 •• -;l'AFV4iir3- *31 i 0.p..7. 9000 4.011. fr& 4 4 , 4.-ciA ,,i4,-.-..!,,,./L _°/ . . ,,,,,, .hetet.,.4.....14.41 I 144+4•....,4.1 4.41$.......1 tbe 1.4 J......4 on..plat 431..te.....t(YU 4.1.111olia OM+b.pl.l• 4 a..1...el',Se...014114x 00 0•4.4,4 en.owy:Mat sll 4. 4,4 ro... 4414 pl.In le.and bomb.....w1• loot;....•Il non...... 1.....11.caly Alace.1.tbr row..shown.4.1.1 plat or will be pl...........by 1. - 7 Vo i[1.. ".- • :4 4 /O 2 -, • 1..81(•.re......1....11:..1 11to....We 1.....1...II.•et•.......,.ly...en...4 4.61.pl.",••41•141.lb..,ams an we... / .„ ad •42 / 1 2 k' '? g;,-, 81 lq ..i A ...7. -''•- ...II..ra.MS 5.15.41•„SALA.1.1.1 be..1.........1 au.4.pl.. is" ig 1 1.4 i p"2 ke, . ,` , / e 4' / . •••)' 34 "89"°_,-?''•. .111,1! 4/ 4 .?. '-' ' 1 "' 1 5;7 • 4- ------ • - ?!.' . . -.........:1"4. 1..., . k .., , •--. . 4 "N .. V / 4,4,!.,.. .,., . / Pa.•. lb....i!WI • tli ems...•I......111.11 / • i•• -, 44, 8,,,f\,,4),,;-,. ‘... ,.- \,,i.z.11'13(.2).in-,,I1..'41.•4;.'4(,(I.....,,,' .' 4;.'• 1. ..ti it"4.,1441'41°.1'..j44::':::- ... / t I ft >14..4 to m.o. ...A+.41 11.11.1.1 • ' 4 '•1- 4 .6 -1-• • 4,.":' , -,..-• / 11 4 II.. ,IVY ,by Pa.4. I...44...1 / .1;`k 7 / 4 • , "44;4,- ,, • • -., •:., 8 I t' 't%• i , , \\/ii ,`"•% 1 :. / 3 fX.1-4.. 3 4 / • ..4, ----•• 43, g etV:.... 1 1 0 -. _ 1_, / / . k., 3. 31 ' . 4• 9 11 \..ON,;A ole IC 29• /eS .' '4t .,d,1 1•4,./ *i. •v.. ;q"),...f.71 efri i''.- ,...- . / e.... .1%.1:......P.....6.1.1:... twenty. 10 OS ,• jk 7 -1 %,..\\•gs/0•34 ‘1.1‘..ki 1 .61\ 4.C4 ,r4j4. / ••1! ;-:'-dim‘57?:9'65' 4.' . . I. Ot.1 k() 1 ... m , , 1/- /.... , •• 1 ...• .M1/41.01A , 1\AO -., ,15" • • ''\\ 4 i/ - /-. / i ‘.1 11111 1 . •-• (1/ 0.I.pi.,../14+0.11.on,Mali I IVY liay 1.44.•...or.4..0...re.....by....LI.tan...81 al...........e.01.......t•.•are.. •••••4. ,ig_1.01•1*,..1_121: ,r. . •4.14.5r 111. " $11•°°.1°- . 3'94 ;0.46.,440.\\ -' ...1.on...to1.1 OA.. .1..1 .IVA . It 4.11.111e.1.........tn.... le 13333 • ; 'C /' --- --.• 1.1900 73°9. ••••• ,A >4 • . -. \\ 0'14 .....1, N t. /. t - r• ;3 I' .4, '-- /, . / ..............,•...•..1 Ole............1 ..........1....1 tn.Gana,11141....tat.... A...Mee..•.....by 11.11.us .1.• ,........-1 PP.1.tv,I...1 b.el.......4.1..... ..1.al..............t.an.1...or..son,as p...14. '•... Se....5.14.....1..1. I. ilt... > •..11.'di A I I,,... ,j • V/;IP i. ,...., 2. •.-.-...a.•-- 7 •- • 1 1 ., • ,.- 06,i ,.-- ... / , . , , AI"1......I.iil tit.1•1141411.•14111•11,114• ,••/ • J., .+ ‘.4.1•I. 1,-114 A i ..-. . 1 . 4 5 i. / , : 11e1 : • . 2 1. s...' . _..."4 .b ''. , , V t 1' •r is \'iv 4 I. r:\ 't„ 1 2,, sr s ..-0, d ,...,,, ,,..., :7, , i, -- , --/ '.:1-- :I? / 1 ,... by Mayor t•-•;Vg 41 )..).4..4 9 ,,/,.. ._. ii7.1„„.. ...., ii\ 11, LI I j 114...y, I I I/I ' -.2••. • /.. e' 4 nye-,---•I " '44. 7 .......• ti .• ' 1,33i406 2°. '4. I\4 i '• _--. ..._. _, -.- .0.1111"A A1110 IVA........14.11111.1.11.1.1•1$.....bli 111411.111A 1111... 4 / 8 T, ,`41 \\ --- 1,......,,........ .....payable In IV ,, 4..)wag .....1....bre.p41.1 1.4.... la. • . .tbi•plat. Oat. •••• • . VC •ip C0110111ME or so 100/ it 114. \ 039.9-•••• ' / 1, • , • c y I '1. -., 144 PO *- •--.... `,„.1'.„.i.°' SANID111V 1•5.1011 POP 481•17 '-' q- / •., , / DOC MO 1)29629 1\4,_ _11 o• / IL••1 / ..,(./ r.4:::.:.11,.,.:,t..............,..1,...........p.. .•...,1 .s. ' by ... 3 r, ,• ,.. .. ..I . , •40.04"VI . -- -!,;;;.. __-- ,.......,., ....II.. $144. Ne.11.0 I.e.,.IIIYVI.Ihl•plat 1.4.ovra ad,....0.1. day al S 77 •- • • • „• •' i • ,41 loo •-•';-...-'"1\'‘-'- I 1-...,..,....• • . . Ily. 0 2/ a .... . Z s.,I 1‘.". .. '' -...=-.1 -- .allil - "-lif 1,000104 MID 1111110 10.10115 LIMINII m.o..,.11.11.111111...111.11.111.1.111,411A • _ IA 11.100502 •.1.17'1/' z...• :::•;', on.010011 111115 1 1....1.1.0 .1 11.1 Ilm..111.1.1 Ill.1 01+14.0.1.t 'II,W.I.wad.....In lb..11.•tble., _4.al • • 0 • • • • • • •%//t I I I Y till 1111• . ... ... 2 V IL- ow lei i i 1 I 1 2 • . .. . ... ' -..II -- r.is') C.04 _ ____. __ ___. --- --- --7 3 3 le \ . - i I I 0 awns WON 1101011.1.11 • / ...---...--.1 I 1I-1 Hansen Thorp '' Pellinen Olson Inc. WIN • G 51111111 Met0055 01101.51 IMUICARD. . III 10 MOMS 511001 OM PI 0 01 0 1(50.D MO,n WW1.101 0111.5.•110 10((IIN nom 1003 1 I 09110.5r11op.46.1...01111.16 ontaeust 000010 ADD AD.161116 lima. op Sot I • 111115,AS 6111.0. II* MAI ..-.. • DATE: 09/20/94 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO Q SECTION: Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division VAC 94-08 - Vacation of a scenic easement over part of Lot 1, Block 1, David Olson Bluffs East Fourth Addition Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: Adopt the resolution vacating the Scenic Easement over part of Lot 1, Blcok 1, Bluffs East Fourth Addition. Overview: The City Council approved the final plat of Bluffs East Fourth Addition, which replatted part of Outlot A, Creek Knolls, on February 3, 1987. An underlying scenic easement, which will conflict with the construction of a new home, was not vacated at the time the plat was approved. Supporting Information: Vacation Drawings Item No.Jf. 4), / VAC 94-08 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA VACATION OF A SCENIC EASEMENT OVER PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BLUFFS EAST FOURTH ADDITION RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain scenic easement described therein as follows: The Scenic Easement as described in document number 3986492 embraced within Lot 1, Block _ 1, Bluffs East Fourth Addition as platted and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS,a public hearing was held on September 20, 1994 after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said scenic easement is not necessary and has no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said scenic easement as above described is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851 ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 20, 1994. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk Item No. �� . �� �"j4� Q v HIV'1 I.M. � 'vs .'s �F 111111. --1 .4. LEE DRIVE •e& I 1 /0 44,..•wo , rr o�•,, o. o 1111111111 A 4 .fj&UUNUC, o 44 .-ARK..w D- m to _ � :IP*Prilip.. 1 N. • .� � tit �t CO. MI 25 4foligise F7040#4ti 11 z Q L in .40 'r0 • ►. FRANLO I DRIVE o 1 nth , BE= �li' �.�� ROAD,, LIFT Q > t• Ai''i t �� .�Q t a W a 1 1,3t: Now F. �.� &LUF t •' 7 s ' A' . . {.. r i;: rt t I/..!.: 8:.11Ft '. ' Yi -.-z-' / :th Z. q if' ta O •'z- MAN c.. z ill* • L loth 4 44. W �b `--Iv. �. x S * r Q- / -,"" C, qltk IP 0 21 rAC I. fri Pu-D . Y ck' ' • ilk -43 it , i---, .:3,- i,-. . .0 • - t =It: IIIIP RD. •':•. PURDEY a: ROAD J , - -) )7 G\ . 1 RI ' and - --- - /-OCAT2OW AlAP VAc 94 - 08 WO sew NI -6 1 IA `1.1 ��. v.-7twi/ 1 •.' of NE'/4 of Sec. 56.7116,K2Z p� on 1- I _ If 1 ,e, • a PN�^42o•0 ., , , ,� North /ine of 5%2 of NW/a - IV I I .,o°5p' , ,T5 ,� `, R` - ';,- y, of A/E%4 of Sec. 96 T//6,R?2 d���/ II /06�B' 1 , .4.... AG......, " /�'S�ao '.• �;, r-17°00'.�b�4% 64.4 c-- -- - ___ _ _� .� ea - _i ,__--'O00 NV, y._-: , ,p• O4b^ 6,� ,2/ I7982 1 103.18 -1r 107.04 '� /- - --- s% RN, • !, u�% 1 ♦''a :,. Y ILII a 1 w1 1 104.( 'MC) 1 S T Y l� 5 / IN o o1 I `hc�� '• R=SLo.00 2e5' ���,'�sJ o �, T �Is� \� 4s I o$ 1- 2 0l i� 3 • m 4 i ' ��h • • ___- r 9 50 , b . , ,1P Oj ��,, ♦2/e• �I ° r o N NI IN 0 -1 f 102•�'3• i,, D:9• , % 000 % `C9 Ob i i , /�� 9$ ZI I Q:( � NI I_ 0 / 'b, 107..51 . I 1 p.10•'50 r 'i ',Z f N`,1��(,\°���r., 'f9���1� P•2r0`2 36�' I �199 ZI I Zi i.. /ow n.a•Oo , , • 1 4 --N, . it, �') oo _94. moo 104.1 j •9 / M 1 01 1U1 ‘ %- NI r 0.0% �.0 6: , / \ a� ' Ott L v in1 , • 2 0% '0° 3 p� 4.4. , 1N tit/, a.. \ 'QD 0• SB6°oo'00"E ,_• , , N,3 1w 'f , ,� ;�;�,�� %322 0 °, FRANLO •>-:. 66 64�'hi 14 �°,,%Q , ', r :/ /0. t OS,�/`` ' S 68.00'00'E �0 / o?.�i3� '�� 5 N65°E Cz- 2.29 ` 98-S. _� '�•1Q// /' 'fit` - • //4,e�22 • __ _ •Iu • 5 /,/ Y°r. 3 Z•3-- ,,` 2/O 77.85_,: 9 -- .2 ''i4; 66,•� A//p� 8 Q$$ i i .1 7QOG� r--- ;85.00 ---a,• c p I--- ISS.00 �/� Qbi,' 93.3 , "1 r I1�5� l r jl_31 g6•., -!2�4cbjl,`"% .0 I 1 �2w 1 1p 41 " ry t 20 0, i�'N�3° 9 I i�_77.65 1 , ° OE i i 4e r `8, / a`� 8 col i'� ?�4w 1 1o .Z_?. a� 'bolt,' ___ N as 0 / 11 1 o I Q fai.0---11 a1p, P, /,(� 1VI , 11 , , , �� ./ ?�2141 q 1n 10 a� 4���3o 'Qscio• ; ° 19 $l io iIZo ,n •� - iAi-�'� /ies� -;= /i of i� 9 �°°1 I N8B oo >v � >a v63• Op61 ,//2 _1 1y1 �,, 1m • O ' ' 16OI In I B 41) ,-. O� , I� Nccl -- - ---- J Z 3 -N8B_OO_YV 1 00, • •I -1 l,ri 18 S, ►0 17vil- o in rot ui b, I A.,-.„-.._ `�' L 2 1 Iln 1BI.5 -1 '� r . c' / 4: 2l r 4 I , IV�i o1 l� /• �!2� ; Io o 158.03 �• ° J c., /q•00• I 1 tnl 41 PO. ZI 1 21 I Ii/15 ° ,0 00rW1 �� 9/ 1 ,_ ill / Q I I Qi ���06 I d•IS°21'36" I I a*7°00' 1 G'10'30' al I: =jl1V Tir 4/I l Hj o�`'1�1 ,t0 11 �,n/ 04 110� N, / i "?' J �- 127.34 ; . ' 7025 L_ 105_37 '• 4•Ip. i/ 1� V cl /_ l QOr- ` J p 10 Ioi /N OO • p\ • --- �_-- -' l: 109•94%9wl 1 14•� �/ II + W;"i lam`^'60. ;°.ai �6 O ,o.� 3 ,v,�d. /` /2, R•575. ��� n•z '«�,l lap �S/. V / 0 L , I.• 475.00 00 1 14•S• •O ni "1 3• V `0 �^1/ 10'� �/ ' /o R.S �1, I �' LSS.64:0 4 6 //1 p.4 13 �,'1 l o /So2;.b' \/ so0• /.`N71°40'w ;` q °�/// 4.//-'3�-� Vt. R 5ZS.Op • 1 '•� r 7 O4 I "- ` / ° e 3 . / I- -0- ___ _ _ a,sy � • I l p p,� _/ r v ���h M� /4 8> �4 i /,� 0 , , log 37-I , 1 r-- 126.26 ' r--� �"y6a Q.9�, �'�; 55./p'°N I 12 �'�� �° , N_ .. 27 /•• / / '//°3or I 1 •109 96, , 1 p:14.00' I /3$...�� r t.- p. . -`�,w/ 4,20. R,/ '4'• 4'�'�; 2xeo ,- d _ // / l , I a•12°00 1 1 1 1 4:I4.. .: f•••_ 5 Jyg", • Ls./9 b 40 p 2 r / I46. 5 I I d Nor/h L in� oc , ' o.`' 34 . >` ) 5 / // I I 110 or CREEK I I 0 ''^..I V, e, .52 A . , 0+->••'. qa • �� / V N. ,/'ti le / j l 4 1 1 01 Iv KNOLLS it .6 cf. • his • int-�1••4, 3^+✓N,,! `v/ ` // �;%!R/ \`'ir/GI W /` 1 I 3 O IN 2 }=1 1� h I W 1 137.49 1 °' M , .,�a:•� s0. \ / / • 1 1 N �" by. `�W , '° N89°182 'w (,1 -1�•%i�,99°r�0' ��1-__pj to Z I Z1 IN '�I' NTZDl q•�1/ r �O�'� ' ti'/ , .//N d M I 1 `�� :4 0 3 ��`°o�5 ' 'l• °49•-4a-+ :o� •4b/0OA/ / VI 1 I ` � ONI R1� , 4,2.6>• D - �;�2 '••�� a w �''�% 0,00 N. / ?j h+ I 1 h a I-. .4 •_ 2 /38 .e (( '�' ')' Q. '••. \/o'�&. �/ \~'vi \-1 1// •II I ki .'i �; = \ ?.e6.8 Z See Detai/•A' Q`9o?o .9 ' .`ems. / '•a �•_u ! /L----1S2.60__J L__ -� -- 120.16__ 72. 2 ; ` 1 p jy-q ) �2 4 -• ,; 2 ��, 182.71 �. 1 C N IIyy Line of BIoGk1 .\ ----- N 0• o,,, LRCEK KNOLLS _ Q,, I J? •� .• > 550.o0 % (/ Zo-'- "- !P. y 36.91 +- 1306.46--- N 8A°35' 19"W -- -, 1•. -:, '20iw 44), ;1!•e/ • - N54•54'3E'E L.o T 1 B o c I I �i l- lc F s L A s `) \south/inene cd'IY1YXi aie'Ocf c�FF R•167.37 6"/,{ •�� C.$C kNoLL. / / I N �` NE%4of�c 1� T//6.R22 4/ R 4 O Y'/tV�= „ \LINEA Feu1eTN • AQDIT 011 NI cFF�<< �� , ,v- `t •;: e� 5/5•SgMt=N j To � = VAT1 - D __VAc 14 -O5 EP DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA a�o� SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 prairie SECTION: - DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. 1 FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI CHECKS NUMBER 24506 THRU 24915 Action/Direction: SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24506 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A PAYROLL 09-02-94. 86691.81 24507 MN DEPT OF REVENUE AUGUST 94 FUEL TAX. 490.80 24508 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUNCIL CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT. 10.00 24509 NAHRW CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 59.00 24510 BILL WYFFELS SCHOOL ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT. 300.00 24511 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC SEPTEMBER 94 RENT-LIQUOR STORE II. 4993.32 24512 WELSH COMPANIES NC SEPTEMBER 94 RENT-LIQUOR STORE III. -6411.85 24513 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL/SENIOR CENTER/ADAPTIVE 62.61 RECREATION DEPT/WATER DEPT. 24514 L MCI T LIABILITY INSURANCE. 82096.00 24515 INTL ASSN OF CHIEFS OF POLICE SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT. 340.00 24516 MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN CONFERENCE-STREET MAINTENANCE. 16.00 24517 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER AUGUST 94 SELF-HAULER SOLID WASTE 161.90 MANAGMENT FEE. 24518 LAAW INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT. 370.00 24519 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE. 25.59 24520 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BICYCLE REGISTRATION FEES. 216.00 24521 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE. 40006.36 24522 ANIMAL INN BOARDING KENNEL CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 112.66 24523 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC GLUE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 65.92 24524 CENTRAIRE INC FURNACE & WATER HEATER REPAIR-POLICE BLDG/ 396.25 REPLACED FILTERS & BELT-PUBLIC WORKS BLDG/ COMPRESSOR REPAIR-FACILITIES DEPT. 24525 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 2820.63 24526 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/ 2874.42 OUTDOOR CENTER/COMMUNITY CENTER. 24527 RESURRECTION LIFE CHURCH REFUND-USUSED PORTION OF DEVELOPERS 492. 12 AGREEMENT DEPOSIT. 24528 ST CROIX RECREATION CO INC CARGO NET-PARK MAINTENANCE/INSTALLATION 13631 . 19 OF EQUIPMENT/SHREDDED WOOD MULCH-MILLER PARK IMPROVEMENTS. 24529 JOHN BRADLEY ZIOLA SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 629.00 24530 MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATER APPROPRIATION PERMIT FEE-WATER DEPT. 4304.67 24531 JOHN FRANE AUGUST 94 CAR ALLOWANCE-FINANCE DEPT. 200.00 24532 CARL JULLIE DUES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT. 147.50 24533 ARCA MINNESOTA INC PICK-UP OF DAMAGED DRYER-FIRE DEPT. 20.00 24534 RADISSON SUITE HOTEL SCHOOL LODGING-POLICE DEPT. 645.20 24535 ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH REFUND-STARING LK AMPHITHEATRE RENTAL/ 300.00 STARING LK PK SHELTER RENTAL. 24536 MARY CARLSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 24537 PAM COPELAND REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 47.00 24538 ELLEN FRAYNE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 36.00 24539 DENISE GIBSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 15.00 24540 EVONNE GROVES REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 24541 DONNA HAMMER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 24542 CAMILLE HUTCHENS REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 47.00 24543 CHERYL JACOBS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 24544 JEFF LARSEN REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 19.00 24545 SUSAN PAYNE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 24546 BERYL SCHEWE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.00 24917780 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 1 . SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24547 STEVE SCHEWE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 12.00 24548 MICHAEL SEIFERT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 36.00 24549 MARK SHIMOTA REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 24550 ROBERT STARR REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. -- 100.00 24551 MARK STEINKE REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 47.00 24552 JIM SWEZEY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 15.00 24553 GAIL TEYNOR REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 94.00 24554 GEORGE THOMA REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 36.00 24555 NICOLE TROVATO REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS. 18.00 24556 CHRISTINE VERDON REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 47.00 24557 JANA WALLACE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 24558 ROBERTA WEHRS REFUND-GYMNASTICS LESSONS. 48.00 24559 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS SEPTEMBER 94 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/ 92453.21 RELOCATION OF THE 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER & FUNCTIONS-POLICE DEPT. 24560 MN ASSN OF ASSESSING OFFICERS CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT. 500.00 24561 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 13954.73 24562 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER. 11804.95 24563 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER. 122. 15 24564 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 12688.90 24565 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX. 659.73 24566 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX. 204.70 24567 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER & MIX. 28799.35 24568 PLASTI VIEW WALL UNIT POCKETS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT. 217.46 24569 MENARDS SMOKE ALARMS-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT/CARPET 765.78 TAPE/UTILITY BLADES/SHELF SUPPORTS-POLICE DEPT/FITTINGS/CONNECTIONS/PLUMBERS GREASE- FIRE DEPT/HAMMER/LINE LEVEL/VINYL CEMENT PATCH/STUDS/PICK HANDLES/CONCRETE-STREET DEPT/SILT FENCE-MILLER PARK/HAMMER HANDLE/ OUTLET PLATES/KEYS/VENT//BIT EXPANSION/ BRUSHES/TOOLBOX STRUCTURE/PIPE WRENCH/ SAWS/PLIERS/TRIMMER-PARK MAINTENANCE/ PAINT TRAY LINERS/PAINT/STAIN/NAIL SPIKES/ TREATED TIMBERS-FACILITIES DEPT. 24570 THIRTY-THREE MINUTE PHOTO INC FILM/FILM PROCESSING-BLDG INSPECTIONS 952.56 DEPT/FIRE DEPT/SAFETYDEPT/ASSESSING DEPT/ POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT/ TEEN WORK PROGRAM/JULY 4TH CELEBRATION/ SENIOR CENTER/ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM/ FORESTY DEPT/WATER DEPT. 24571 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 2462.72 24572 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PAYROLL 09-02-94. 49.37 24573 CITIBANK-SOUTH DAKOTA-N A PAYROLL 09-02-94. 200.00 24574 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 09-02-94 SAVINGS BONDS. 450.00 24575 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY PAYROLL 09-02-94. 7939.00 24576 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 09-02-94. 298.00 24577 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 09-02-94. 240.46 24578 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 09-02-94. 4188.53 24579 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 09-02-94. 32.00 17947260 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 2. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24580 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS SEPTEMBER 94 UNION DUES. 1270.00 24581 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 09-02-94. 200.00 24582 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 09-02-94. 62.00 24583 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 09-02-94. 25.00 24584 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLLS 08-17-94 & 09-02-94. 1300.00 24585 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 09-02-94. 38910.57 24586 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 09-02-94. - 215.55 24587 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-PROGRAM BROCHURE-OUTDOOR CENTER. 185. 15 24588 MINNESOTA STATE FAIR COUPONS/TICKETS REIMBURSED BY CITY 372.00 EMPLOYEES. 24589 ICMA PUBLICATION-ADMINISTRATION DEPT. 59.50 24590 SUBURBAN UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT. 80.00 24591 JIM MATSON REIMBURSEMENT FOR CAR RENTAL FOR TRAINING 28.44 SEMINAR-POLICE DEPT. 24592 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT. 71 .54 24593 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY FILTERS/FLOOR MATS/PLUGS/SWITCHES/V-BELTS/ 2782.60 ROD ENDS/LAMPS/MUFFLERS/U-BOLTS/GLOVES/ BATTERIES/GASSHOCKS/FUEL & WATER PUMPS/ COOLANT/ALTERNATOR/CHAIN/EXHAUST PIPES/ FLASHERS/BEARINGS/SPARK PLUGS/HOSES/ HEADLAMPS-EQUIPMENT MAINT/UTILITIES DIVISION. 24594 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER MARKERS/TIMER/-FIRE DEPT/SPRAYER- 734.39 EQUIPMENT MAINT/ROPE/PAILS-OUTDOOR CENTER/ LIGHT BULBS/SCREWS/HOOKS/TROUBLE LIGHT/ PLUMBING/TAPE/TRIM GUARD/ROPE-FACILITIES DEPT/CAULKING/SEALANT/LINER/V-BELTS/ PRUNERS/BOW SAW/FITTINGS/RODS/TUBING- UTILITIES DIVISION/LIGHT BULBS/FUSES/ SCREWS/HOOKS/TROUBLE LIGHT. 24595 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE INSECT REPELLANT/ELBOW/WINDOW REPAIR-PARK 165.40 MAINT/KEYS/RUST REMOVER/ANCHORS/SCREWS/ NYLON TIES/WRENCHES/SOCKETS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 24596 API FUND FOR PAYROLL EDUCATION PAYROLL TAX LAWS & REGULATIONS-FINANCE 128.95 DEPT. 24597 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY MULTIMETER/CLEANING SUPPLIES/CABLE TIES/ 210.82 HOOKS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24598 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERA SERVICE. 63. 10 24599 JOEL WESTACOTT SOUND TECHNICAN-SUNBONNET DAY. 75.00 24600 JACK PEARSON ENTERTAINMENT-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 156.00 CULTURAL COMMISSION. 24601 LEROY LARSON ENTERTAINMENT-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 180.00 CULTURAL COMMISSION. 24602 METAL & CABLE CORPORATION MAGNETIC MOUNT-POLICE FORFEITURE DRUGS. 74.20 24603 LYNN CORRIVEAU REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 30.00 24604 BOB ENGH REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 43.00 24605 0 ERICKSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 36.00 24606 SUSAN GETAS REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP. 62.00 24607 MAGNUS PALM REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 43.00 4756421 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 3. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24608 SANTOSH PATEL REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 43.00 24609 SCOTT & BERNADETTE PAULSON REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 86.00 24610 NICOLE REITZ REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS. 16.00 24611 MADDY ST JAMES REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 43.00 24612 ED SIGGELKO REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 30.00 24613 CELESTE SCOLARO REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 60.00 24614 JILL VON BANK REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. - 30.00 24615 SISINNI FOOD SERVICE MEETING EXPENSES/CITY EMPLOYEE PICNIC- 2022.82 CITY HALL/HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/POLICE - DEPT/WATER DEPT. 24616 BFMA-MINNESOTA CHAPTER CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT. 175.00 24617 KELLY BAKER SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 22.55 24618 DOUG BEACH SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 167.20 24619 ALISHA BEYER SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 72.60 24620 BRENDT BLY SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 23.40 24621 MATT BORUCKI SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 29.70 24622 KELSEY BUELL SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 74.40 24623 MIKE CANAVAN SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 152. 13 24624 SAM CAREW-JONES SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 41.25 24625 JILL DINNEEN SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 36.30 24626 JOE FARMER SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 48.00 24627 BRITT FRANDLE SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 18.70 24628 TRAVIS FRISTED SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 51 .15 24629 JOSH GARRETT SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 167.20 24630 NATE GARRETT SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 84.70 24631 DUSTIN GAYNOR SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 35.20 24632 KRISTIN HELLGREN SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 114.05 24633 AMY HOBLIT SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 92.50 24634 KRISTIN KOLANDER SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 24.20 24635 ANDY KRUSE SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 43.86 24636 DAREN LINDAHL SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 39.60 24637 BJORN MCGILLAN SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 27.23 24638 TARA MOONEY SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 41 .53 24639 JOEY MUELLER SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 41.80 24640 JENNIE NEIS SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 15.40 24641 JUSTIN NETZER SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 20.90 24642 SARAH RING SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 13.20 24643 MICHAEL SEVERSON SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 35.20 24644 JOHN TAGGATZ SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 107.80 24645 JASON WONG SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 75.63 24646 COREY YEAROUS SERVICE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 158.50 24647 AAA STRIPING SERVICE CO SERVICE-1994 CITY STREET STRIPING. 10697.02 24648 ABHE & SVOBODA INC SERVICE-1994 FIRE HYDRANT PAINTING. 1423.48 24649 ASPHALT SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES CORP SERVICE-1994 BITUMINOUS SEALCOAT-STREET 36962.23 MAINTENANCE. 24650 BROWN & CRIS INC SERVICE-BRAXTON DRIVE. 5868.46 24651 S M HENTGES & SONS INC SERVICE-RILEY LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS. 81873.61 24652 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-BRAXTON DR STREET & UTILITY 105671 .61 IMPROVEMENTS/MILLER PARK IMPROVEMENTS/ UTILITIES & APPURTENANCES. 24687811 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 4. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24653 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-DELL ROAD & WEST 82ND ST. 204356.20 24654 RYAN CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-SINGLETREE LN TRUNK WATERMAIN 3981.76 IMPROVEMENTS. 24655 STAHL CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-CITY CENTER REMODELING. 50293.00 24656 A U S COMMUNICATIONS INC CABLES/CONDUCTOR MODULAR INSERTS/ 590.86 CONNECTORS/INSTALLATION-CITY HALL. 24657 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER SIDEWALL/CANOPY RENTAL-ORGANIZED - 114.90 ATHLETICS DEPT/TABLE ROLL RENTAL- COMMUNITY CENTER. 24658 ABRA AUTOBODY & GLASS REPAIR & PAINT VEHICLE-WATER DEPT. 1559.16 24659 ACTION RENTAL CENTER CANOPY RENTAL-POLICE DEPT. 65.00 24660 ADVANCED GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 100.00 24661 AFFIRMED MEDICAL SERVICES INC 1ST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 92.67 24662 AIRSIGNAL INC SEPTEMBER 94 PAGER SERVICE-ASSESSING DEPT. 26.30-- 24663 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO TRIPOD & HEAD/CAMCORDER/BATTERY-CITY HALL. 2282.81 24664 AMERICAN FINANCIAL PRINTING INC SERVICE-MN GENL OBLIGATION OPEN SPACE 632.61 BONDS. 24665 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MATS & TOWELS-LIQUOR STORES. 196.60 24666 AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSN DUES/SUBSCRIPTIONS-FINANCE DEPT. 526. 10 24667 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC PUBLICATIONS-WATER DEPT. 300.00 24668 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN SUBSCRIPTION-WATER DEPT. 2860.00 24669 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY PRINTING-OCTOBERFEST FLYERS-SPECIAL 204.48 EVENTS PROGRAM. 24670 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC TUBULAR POSTS/BATTERIES/PAVEMENT LINE 1314.88 TAPE/-STREET MAINT/PLAYSTRUCTURE & SWING SET PARTS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 24671 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING SERVICE-DISPOSAL OF WILDLIFE-ANIMAL 111 .84 CONTROL DEPT. 24672 APRES INC DANCE FLOOR RENTAL-HISTORIAL & CULTURAL 206.05 COMMISSION. 24673 AQUA ENGINEERING INC CABLE WIRE/CONNECTORS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 51 .76 24674 ARTEKA NATURAL GREEN SERVICE-LANDSCAPING-MILLER PARK 12018.50 IMPROVEMENTS. 24675 ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY BANDS/CONNECTING RODS/CONTROLS/CABLES- 355.21 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24676 AVR INC CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE. 372.94 24677 B & S TOOLS WIRE STRIPPER/WIRE CUTTER/HAMMER HANDLE/ 469.77 BLADES/REEL & CORD/CORDLESS SCREWDRIVER/ HACKSAW/EXTENSION CORD/VISE/CORD REEL/ PIPE CUTTER-WATER DEPT. 24678 BACHMANS EXPENSES-CITY HALL. 164.75 24679 BALDWIN COOKE COMPANY MONITORS-UTILITIES DIVISION. 155.94 24680 BARBER ASPHALT CONTRACTING DRIVEWAY REPAIR-WATER DEPT. 700.00 24681 BAUER BUILT INC BRAKE PADS/BATTERIES/MUFFLER CLAMPS/TIRE 895. 18 TUBES/BRAKE ROTORS/VALVE CORES/BATTERY ACID-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24682 BELLBOY CORPORATION SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 605.67 24683 MATTHEW BENDER & CO INC SUBSCRIPTION-FINANCE DEPT. 205.76 24684 BILLS SOD & LANDSCAPING SOD & GRADING-RED ROCK PARK. 1332.50 24685 BLACK g VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION. 12404.21 29954741 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 5. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24686 DAVID BLACK MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER ADMINISTRATION. 12.60 24687 BOB & SONS ROOF REMOVED & REPLACED-HOUSING 4235.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM. 24688 BOYD HOUSER CANDY & TOBACCO CO TOOTSIE POPS-POOL LESSONS. -- 161.57 24689 BROADWAY AWARDS TROPHIES/NAME PLATES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 48.42 PROGRAM. 24690 MAXINE BRUECK MILEAGE/EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT. - 170.29 24691 MIKE BRUSKI WAINSCOT INSTALLATION-CUMMINS GRILL HOUSE. 250.00 24692 CALC TYPE OFFICE EQUIP CO TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS-FIRE 315.00 DEPT. 24693 CBI NA-CON INC SERVICE-WATER TOWER CONSTRUCTION. 64182.00 24694 CEDAR COMPUTER CENTER INC COMPUTER MEMORY SOFTWARE-ASSESSING DEPT. 601.73 24695 CENTRAIRE INC DRAIN LINE REPAIR/AIR FILTERS REPLACED- 111 .00 FACILITIES DEPT. 24696 CITY SIGNS DECALS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 165.50 24697 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SVC INC SLACK ADJUSTER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 140.47 24698 CLEAN SWEEP INC SIDESWEEP WIRE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 150. 19 24699 COASTAL VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS CORP TRAINING VIDEO-UTILITIES DIVISION. 426.35 24700 COLE PUBLICATIONS CROSS REFERENCE/REVERSE DIRECTORY- 221.00 ADMINISTRATION DEPT. 24701 COLLINS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS INC SIGNAL LIGHT REPAIR/CUT IN WIRE/INSTALLED 1720.00 LOOPS/CONNECTED & TESTED-STREET DEPT. 24702 COMPUTER RENAISSANCE INK CARTRIDGES-STREET DEPT. 31 .90 24703 JOHN CONLEY POLAROID CAMERA-POLICE DEPT. 35. 13 24704 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS PAINT-WATER DEPT. 86.22 24705 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC EROSION CONTROL MAT-MILLER PARK. 217.26 24706 TODD CRAVEN BATH FAN/SWITCHES/FLOORING-HOUSING 270.75 REHABILITATION PROGRAM. 24707 CSC CREDIT SERVICE INC INVESTIGATION SERVICE-POLICE DEPT. 20.00 24708 CUB FOODS EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT. 225.36 24709 CUB FOODS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT. 128. 17 24710 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT. 156.50 24711 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC DRILL BITS/SCREWS/WASHERS/NUTS & BOLTS/ 379.90 SEALANT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24712 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC EARMOLD-POLICE DEPT. 40.22 24713 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT. 5126.08 24714 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT. 93.73 24715 DATAFILE FOLDERS/LABELS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT. 316.54 24716 CRAIG W DAWSON EXPENSES/MILEAGE-ADMINISTRATION DEPT. 39.70 24717 DE SIGN ER STREET SIGN GRAPHICS-STREET DEPT. 131 .00 24718 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SVCS INC CORROSION PREVENTIVE/RUSTPROOFING- 106.50 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24719 DIESEL SERVICE COMPANY REPLACED SEALS & GASKETS/BLADES/METERING 294.73 VALVE REBUILT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24720 EUGENE DIETZ AUGUST 94 CAR ALLOWANCE-ENGINEERING DEPT. 200.00 24721 BEV DRAVES MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION. 20.86 24722 E M PRODUCTS INC SHAKER LINKAGE-WATER DEPT. 281 .60 24723 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL. 660.80 24724 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD LAMP ASSEMBLY/BULB/EXHAUST TUBE/CLAMPS- 120.51 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 8189458 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 6. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24725 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 TRAINING SEMINARS-CITY HALL/BUS SERVICE- 2386.65 TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 24726 EDENBLOOM FLORAL EXPENSES-LIQUOR STORE III. 47.60 24727 CITY OF EDINA AUGUST 94 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT/PARK 425.00 MAINTENANCE. 24728 SANDRA EHRICH MILEAGE-ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM. 7. 14 24729 ELECTRIC MECHANICAL SVCS MOTOR-WATER DEPT. 121.69 24730 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC EAR PLUGS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 61.77 24731 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNC INC SUCTION RELIEF VALVE REPAIR-FIRE DEPT. 294.70 24732 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/COMMUNITY 40.21 DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 24733 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE/FLUORIDE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 2705.40 24734 FISHER ENTERPRISE TOPSOIL-MILLER PARK. 1557.03 24735 FLEET MECHANICAL SERVICES CLUTCH ASSEMBLY REPLACED/OIL-EQUIPMENT 801.89 MAINTENANCE. 24736 FLOYD SECURITY SECURITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS-CUMMINS 436.65 GRILL HOUSE/LIQUOR STORE I. 24737 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 368.59 24738 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC BINOCULAR-FORESTRY DEPT. 153.28 24739 GE CAPITAL COPIER RENTAL AGREEMENT-SENIOR CENTER. 134.75 24740 G & K SERVICES UNIFORMS/TOWELS-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/ 828.67 EQUIPMENT MAINT/UTILITIES DIVISION. 24741 G L CONTRACTING INC BOG REMOVAL-RED ROCK LAKE. 1319.00 24742 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC OIL SEPARATOR LINE REPAIR-COMMUNITY 1475.64 CENTER. 24743 KATE GARWOOD SCHOOL-ADMINISTRATION DEPT. 253.00 24744 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP U-JOINTS-FIRE DEPT. 17.69 24745 GEORGIA CARPET OUTLETS CARPET-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS. 416.21 24746 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY GARBAGE CONTAINERS-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 434.07 24747 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES/TIRE REPAIR. 3003.63 24748 W W GRAINGER INC SHELVING UNITS-STREET DEPT. 241 .68 24749 ALAN GRAY MAY/JUNE/JULY & AUGUST 94 CAR ALLOWANCE- 800.00 ENGINEERING DEPT. 24750 THE DALE GREEN CO BLACK DIRT-STREET MAINTENANCE. 59.64 24751 GROTH MUSIC MUSIC FOLDERS-ART & MUSIC PROGRAM. 97.50 24752 DEE GUSTIN MILEAGE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 39.96 24753 HARMON GLASS COMPANY WINDSHIELD & INSTALLATION-EQUIPMENT 283. 18 MAINTENANCE/RUBBER GASKET-PARK MAINTENANCE. 24754 HEAVENLY HAM EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT. 49.50 24755 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF JULY 94 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT. 1246.74 24756 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER JULY 94 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT. 3397.80 24757 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PROPERTY OWNERS MAILING LABEL LIST- 1033.75 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 24758 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT. 418.00 24759 D C HEY COMPANY INC COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-BLDG 299. 13 INSPECTIONS DEPT/COPIER REPAIR-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 24760 HODGES BADGE COMPANY INC AWARD RIBBONS-POOL SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM. 17.00 24761 HONEYWELL INC SEPTEMBER 94 INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE 1998.00 AGREEMENT-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 2727214 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 7. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24762 HONEYWELL INC INFLUENT VALVE SELECTOR VALVES FOR 319.50 FILTERS-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 24763 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES SECURITY SYSTEM MONITORING-SENIOR CENTER. 46.82 24764 THE HOWE COMPANY FERTILIZER/WOOD PALLET-PARK MAINTENANCE. 247.61 24765 RICHARD INGRAM REFUND-UNUSED PORTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST 50.00 DEPOSIT. 24766 INLAND TRUCK PARTS CO INNER NUT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. - 2.32 24767 ISIA OF AMERICA DUES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 225.00 24768 JERRYS NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT. 56. 14 . 24769 JASPER ENGR & EQUIPMENT CO HAND CONTROL VALVE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 619.97 24770 CRAIG JERDE SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 263.50 24771 CHRIS JESSEN SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 136.00 24772 JOEL ENTERPRISES HOSE/COUPLERS/PLUGS-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 337.07 24773 JUSTUS LUMBER CO CEILING BEAD/ADHESIVE-CUMMINS GRILL HOUSE- 585.70_ HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION PROGRAM. 24774 KAEDING & ASSOCIATES INC LIGHTING RETROFIT-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 1147.70 24775 KENNAMETAL INC SNOW PLOW BLADES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 3751 .95 24776 ELYCE KASTIGAR MILEAGE-ROUND LAKE MARINA. 108.08 24777 KOSS PAINT & WALLPAPER INC OIL/THINNER-PARK MAINTENANCE. 52.53 24778 JEAN KREUTTER SERVICE-SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER-CDBG 400.00 PROGRAM. 24779 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 2577.48 24780 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES INC PLUGS/CLEVIS ASSEMBLIES/OIL SEALS/KNOB 387.43 ASSEMBLY/VOLT METER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24781 LAME nRYS COLLISION PAINT & REPAIR VEHICLE-EQUIPMENT 203.00 MAINTENANCE. 24782 CYNTHIA LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT. 68.46 24783 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD MAY & JUNE 94 SERVICE-LITIGATION VS 1353.20 SOUTHWEST CROSSING JOINT VENTURE. 24784 LANO EQUIPMENT INC WEARBARS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 128.67 24785 LEAANNS SEWING/CUSTOM DECORAT BUNKERS & TURN OUT GEAR REPAIR-FIRE DEPT. 34.47 24786 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES DUES-CITY COUNCIL. 14462.00 24787 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES SUBSCRIPTION-WATER DEPT. 30.00 24788 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC AUGUST 94 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL. 2871 .00 24789 DAVID LINDAHL SCHOOL-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 155.00 24790 MELISSA LITZER SERVICE-SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER-CDBG 400.00 PROGRAM. 24791 LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT LOCK/HANDLE/HOSE/SELECTOR ASSEMBLIES/ 229.87 SEALS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24792 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC WATER TANK GAUGE/CABLE CONNECTION- 112.24 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24793 KEITH MAREK SERVICE-ACTIVITY CAMP/SAFETY CAMP/YOUTH 640.50 ATHLETICS PROGRAM/FEES PAID. 24794 MASTER CRAFT LABELS INC FIRE FIGHTER LABELS-FIRE PREVENTION 371 .00 PROGRAM-FIRE DEPT. 24795 MASYS CORPORATION COMPUTER HARDWARE & SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 1429.70 AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT. 24796 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE-POLICE DEPT. 28.00 24797 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING BUSINESS CARD HOLDERS-POLICE 38.09 DEPT. 3387000 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 8. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24798 METRO FIRE INC TARPS-FIRE DEPT. 319.50 24799 METRO PRINTING INC PRINTING-TREE REMOVAL FORMS-FORESTRY DEPT. 314.1.7 24800 METRO SALES INC TONER/COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE 390.88 DEPT. 24801 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS OCTOBER 94 SEWER SERVICE 106237.00 24802 SHERI MEULEBROECK MILEAGE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM 26.32 24803 MID-AMERICA POWER DRIVES CLAMPS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. - 61 . 14 24804 MID CON SYSTEMS INC MARK RESISTOR-PARK MAINTENANCE. 44.15 24805 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP ASPHALT/CRACKFILL/PATCHING MIX-STREET 4237.37 MAINT/PARK MAINT/MILLER PARK. 24806 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/ 853.00 COMMUNITY CENTER. 24807 MIDWEST TELETRON INC DANASWITCH FOR TRAINING ON SWITCHBOARD- 34.20 CITY HALL. -- 24808 MINNCOMM PAGING AUGUST 94 PAGER SERVICE-BLDG INSPECTIONS 73.44 DEPT. 24809 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING VIDEOS/MANUALS & 35.00 WORKBOOKS-ELECTIONS DEPT. 24810 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS LETTERHEAD-CITY HALL. 112.75 24811 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN FORMS-POLICE DEPT. 17.51 24812 MN SUN PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADS-PARK MAINT/HEALTH & 232.75 FITNESS CENTER. 24813 MN TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSN CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT. 520.00 24814 MINNESOTA WANNER CO BALL VALVE/BRASS REDUCER/FITTINGS-PARK 19.50 MAINTENANCE. 24815 MINT CONDITION DETAILING VEHICLE CLEANING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 250.00 24816 MOORE MEDICAL CORP FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT. 118.20 24817 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO BRAKE CABLE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 112.42 24818 MTS NORTHWEST SOUND INC VCR REPAIR-POLICE DEPT. 50.00 24819 WM MUELLER & SONS INC GRAVEL-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT. 827.90 24820 NATL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN SPARKY STICKERS-FIRE PREVENTION PROGRAM- 191 .65 FIRE DEPT. 24821 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-PARKS DEPT. 357.85 24822 NEWARK ELECTRONICS BATTERIES FOR SIGNAL LIGHTS-STREET DEPT. 39.99 24823 NORSTAN COMMUNICATIONS INC PHONE REPAIR/CHIME BELL-EQUIPMENT 241 .55 MAINTENANCE. 24824 NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT. 158.00 24825 NORTH STAR ICE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 1690.62 24826 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS INC RUBBER STRAPS-WATER DEPT. 4.25 24827 NOTT COMPANY REDUCER-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 307.85 24828 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC IRRIGATION REMOTE CONTROL PACKAGE-PARK 1810.50 MAINTENANCE. 24829 PAPER WAREHOUSE FORKS/TABLECOVER/NAPKINS/BEVERAGE GLASSES/ 43. 13 CANDY-POLICE DEPT. 24830 PAPERDIRECT INC SOFTWARE TEMPLATES/LABELS-HUMAN RESOURCES 83.85 DEPT. 24831 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY SEAT REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 153.00 24832 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER SERVICE-HEPATITIS B VACCINE-HUMAN 2428.52 RESOURCES DEPT. 24833 PARK MARKING INC STENCILS PAINTED-POLICE DEPT. 75.00 12247296 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 9. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24834 PARKSIDE PRINTING INC PRINTING-JUMBO ROLODEX CARDS-SENIOR 312.82 CENTER. 24835 J C PENNEY UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT. 28.95 24836 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE BY PHONE METER RENTAL-POLICE DEPT. 154.87 24837 PLASTIVIEW DISPLAY WALL UNITS-POLICE DEPT. 173.84 24838 PLUMBING& HEATING REPAIR COPPER COUPLING & PIPES-WATER DEPT. 62.65 24839 POWERTEX SPORTSWEAR INC T-SHIRTS-POLICE DEPT/ORGANIZED ATHLETICS - 377.62 PROGRAM. 24840 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING DIRECTORY COVERS-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. 33.97 24841 PRO-CUT AUGUST 94 MOWING SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 586.82 24842 PUMP & METERS SERVICE INC ANNUAL EQUIPMENT INSPECTION & REPAIR- 1246.30 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24843 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC AUGUST 94 WASTE DISPOSAL-LIQUOR STORE II. 20.00 24844 RADIO SHACK CABLE-FINANCE DEPT. 21 .29__ 24845 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/OUTDOOR 242.81 CENTER/TEEN WORK PROGRAM. 24846 RES WELL SEALED-HOUSING REHABILITATION 495.00 PROGRAM. 24847 RESTORATION FLOORS PARTIAL PAYMENT-REFINISHING FLOORS- 1058.50 CUMMINS GRILL HOUSE. 24848 THE RETAIL MARKETING GROUP ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 50.00 24849 RICHARDS ASPHALT COMPANY SEALCOATING/PATCHING MIX-STREET 117.15 MAINTENANCE. 24850 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC SERVICE-WATER TOWER/RECONSTRUCTION OF OLD 10082.08 CITY WEST PKWY/GOLDEN RIDGE RD DESIGN/ SINGLETREE WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION. 24851 RITZ CAMERA FILM/FILM PROCESSING-FORESTRY DEPT/ 67.84 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 24852 AMY ROE MILEAGE-AQUATIC & FITNESS PROGRAM. 80.08 24853 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-ASSESSING DEPT/POLICE 444.48 DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/FORESTRY DEPT/ RECREATION DEPT. 24854 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC ROBIN HOOD HATS FOR OCTOBERFEST-SPECIAL 233.82 EVENTS PROGRAM. 24855 SANCO INC PLATFORM TRUCKS-CITY HALL/CLEANING 1225.94 SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT. 24856 COLIN D SCHMIDT REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR ACCREDITED MN 25.00 ASSESSOR LICENSE APPLICATION. 24857 KEVIN SCHMIEG EXPENSES/AUGUST 94 CAR ALLOWANCE-BLDG 227. 10 INSPECTIONS DEPT. 24858 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 79.81 24859 SEELYE PLASTIC INC PVC PIPE/CONNECTIONS-WATER TREATMENT 49.82 PLANT. 24860 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION MEETING EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT. 30.00 24861 SHAKOPEE VALLEY PRINTING PRINTING-FALL 94 COMMUNITY PROGRAM 5666.63 BROCHURE. 24862 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC UNIFORM SWEATERS-POLICE DEPT. 279.35 24863 STEVEN R SINELL MEETING EXPENSES/MINI CALCULATOR/AUGUST 216.51 94 CAR ALLOWANCE-ASSESSING DEPT. 24864 SMITH & WESSON EJECTOR & MAG DEPRESSOR/RECOIL SPRING- 5.89 POLICE DEPT. 2369694 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 10. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24865 SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS CABLE ADAPTER/BATTERY RECHARGER/MARKERS/ 351.88 LUMBER CRAYONS-ENGINEERING DEPT. 24866 SO HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNING 2ND QTR 94 SERVICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES 3625.00 DEPT. 24867 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS LEGAL PUBLICATIONS-LIME SLUDGE REMOVAL/ 655.50 PUMPHOUSE #11 & #12/WATERMAIN & WELL IMPROVEMENTS. 24868 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY PRECAUTION PAINT-WATER DEPT. 198.72 24869 SOUTHWEST LAWN MAINTENANCE INC SERVICE-LANDSCAPING-WATER DEPT. 119.81 24870 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSI 4TH QTR 94 OPERATING BUDGET. 6083.06 24871 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL PUBLICATIONS-CITY HALL. 1294.47 24872 SPRINGSTED SERVICE-GENE OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT 19363. 14 CERTIFICATES/GENL OBILIGATION OPEN SPACE BONDS. - 24873 SPS OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT. 242.81 24874 STANDARD SPRING CO REMOVED & REPLACED REAR SPRINGS & 599. 17 ADJUSTED AXLE/U-BOLTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24875 STEEL STRUCTURES PAINTING COUNCIL STEEL PAINTING SPECIFICATIONS-WATER DEPT. 148.50 24876 JIM & NANCY STOKES REFUND-UNUSED PORTION OF REQUEST FOR 50.00 VARIANCE DEPOSIT. 24877 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD & SCENIC HEIGHTS/SHORES 68858.00 OF MITCHELL LAKE/DELL ROAD SOUTH/DELL RD T H 212 TO 82ND ST/WEST 2ND ST. 24878 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC TONER/COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS-CITY 318.04 HALL. 24879 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET MIRROR ASSEMBLY/FRONT SUSPENSION 235.63 ALIGNMENT/MOUNT ASSEMBLY/CONTROL/GASKETS/ INJECTOR KITS/CARBURETOR CLEANER- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24880 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 2ND HALF 94 DUES-CITY COUNCIL. 1500.00 24881 SUNSET PRINTING & ADV SPEC CO FIRE FIGHTER PENCILS-FIRE PREVENTION 195. 16 PROGRAM-FIRE DEPT. 24882 SYSTECH SERVICES PC REPAIR/INSTALLED UPGRADES/RELOADED 657.80 SYSTEM-POLICE DEPT. 24883 TANK RE-NU OF MN GAS TANK REBUILT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 132.00 24884 TECHNOLOGY PUBLISHING CO JOURNALS OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS- 95.81 WATER DEPT. 24885 JEANE THORNE INC SERVICE-WATER DEPT. 2727.33 24886 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC LABELING TAPE-POLICE DEPT. 76.23 24887 TKDA & ASSOC INC SERVICE-RECONSTRUCTION OF MUNICIPAL 25421 .62 FACILITIES ADJACENT TO MITCHELL RD/WELL/ WELL HOUSE & BUS SHELTER. 24888 TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE WHEEL COVER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 33.02 24889 TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN-MTKA LAWN CARE SERVICE-FACILITIES DEPT. 550.08 24890 TURF SUPPLY COMPANY GRASS SEED-MILLER PARK. 10773.97 24891 TWENTIETH CENTURY PLASTIC ZIPPER BAGS W/GROMMET-BLDG INSPECTIONS 670.80 DEPT. 24892 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO NITROGEN/OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT. 139.24 24893 TWIN CITY VACUUM VACUUM CLEANER BAGS-FACILITIES DEPT. 42.60 14515939 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 11 . SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 VI 24894 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT. 75. 17 24895 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS/NAME TAGS/GEAR BAGS/WHISTLES/ 204.42 HOOKS-POLICE DEPT/CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT. 24896 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC CONNECTORS/RING TERMINALS/BOLTS-EQUIPMENT 365.63 MAINTENANCE. 24897 BRENDA UTING SCHOOL-SENIOR CENTER. 227.40 24898 ROSETTI VAASSEN REIMBURSEMENT FOR FITNESS TRAINING & - 92.30 MUSIC TAPES. 24899 VALUE RECREATION INC SEATS FOR PICNIC TABLES-ROUND LAKE PARK. 294.88 24900 TRIA D VIKESLAND MILEAGE-ADAPTIVE RECREATION DEPT. 96.88 24901 VESSCO INC SCREW BELT TENSION/WEIGHBELT/COVER-WATER 67.04 DEPT. 24902 VISION ENERGY PROPANE CYLINDER RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER. 161 .66 24903 UWR SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT PLANT. 317.00-- 24904 WATERPRO 2 IN 1000 GAL METERS/FLANGE KITS/1 IN 5074.22 1000 GAL METERS/CONNECTORS/5/8X3/4 1000 GAL METERS/CONDUIT WIRE/TOUCHPAD UPGRADES/ CORRUGATED STEEL APRON/HYDRANT/RUBBER GASKET/NUTS & BOLTS/REGISTER/PRESSURE CHAMBER/FITTINGS/CURB BOX RISERS-WATER DEPT. 24905 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE SEPTEMBER 94 WASTE DISPOSAL-LIQUOR STORE 96.56 I. 24906 TODD G WEISE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID. 408.00 24907 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE-SENIOR CENTER. 35.17 24908 WEST WELD HAND BRUSH/WELDING GLOVES/DEBURRING TOOL/ 100.07 SHADE LENSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 24909 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS MACHINE BOLT-STREET DEPT. 14.74 24910 YALE INC REMOVED & CLEANED AIR COMPRESSOR 358.90 DRAINVIEW AIR TRAP. 24911 YOUNGSTEDT INC WHEEL ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 34.95 24912 ZACKS INC NON-SERRATED LUTE BARS-EQUIPMENT 26.84 MAINTENANCE. 24913 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-RECREATION DEPT/ 363.80 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/WATER DEPT. 24914 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 402.70 24915 JOSEPH ZIMMERMAN SERVICE-ACTIVITY CAMP INSTRUCTOR/FEES 316.75 PAID. 24203 VOID OUT CHECK 83.77- 24233 VOID OUT CHECK 298.24- 24267 VOID OUT CHECK 1016.50- 24416 VOID OUT CHECK 1000.00- 24495 VOID OUT CHECK 629.00- 610757 $1463113.71 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 12. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-94 SECTION: Petitions and Requests DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development Chris Enger TANEN DRIVEWAY Jean Johnson VARIANCE #94-17 AL ILL , 1 . APPEAL REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Table the item. No action necessary since variance approval withdrawn BACKGROUND Tanen's have determined the previous driveway design is too costly. They wish to withdraw Variance #94-17. If a different driveway design is formulated, Tanen's will meet with City Staff and determine the necessary review process (es). A, - /-:4ft 11E8 - 1 - THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO ADDRESS SEVERAL ISSUES REGARDING THE RECENTLY COMPLETED DELL ROAD EXTENSION AND THE INTERSECTION OF DEEL ROAD AND EVENER WAY, AND THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC FLOWING THROUGH THESE AREAS. WE REPRESENT A GROUP OF FAMALIES LIVING IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. WE HAVE HELD SEVERAL MEETINGS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE DECIDED TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL. MANY OF OUR GROUP HAVE ALREADY HAD INDIVIDUAL CONTACT WITH VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND PEOPLE WITHIN CITY GOVERNMENT TO INCLUDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING. WHILE PEOPLE WITHIN THESE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN SYMPATHETIC AND INTERESTED IN OUR CONCERNS, WE, AS A GROUP FEEL THAT OUR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS HAVE NOT RECEIVED ADEQUATE ANSWERS OR REPLIES. THUS OUR VISIT HERE TONIGHT AS A GROUP. ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" YOU WILL FIND A MAP OF THE AREA OF CONCERN. WE RAISE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES REGARDING THIS AREA: I. SPEED LIMIT ON DELL ROAD THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON DELL ROAD IS 30 MPH. IT IS THE OPINION OF ALL OUR GROUP WITHOUT EXCEPTION THAT VERY FEW VEHICLES USING DELL ROAD OBEY THIS POSTED SPEED LIMIT. AS VEHICLES EXIT HIWAY 5 TRAVELLING NORTHBOUND THE FIRST THING THEY ENCOUNTER IS DOWNHILL GRADE AND BY THE TIME THEY REACH THE INTERSECTION OF EVENER WAY WHERE COINCIDENTLY DELL ROAD NARROWS, THEY HAVE MOST TIMES CERTAINLY REACHED AN EXCESSIVE SPEED. A SIMILAR SITUATION EXISTS WITH SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC. THERE IS A STOP SIGN JSUT NORTH OF THE RAILWAY UNDERPASS AT THE INTERSECTION OF DELL ROAD AND TWILIGHT TRAIL. AS VEHICLES EXCELERATE FROM THIS STOP SIGN, THEY SEEM TO - 2 - ASSUME THAT THERE IS A RACE TO GET TO HIWAY 5 AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND IN SO DOING ATTAIN EXCESSIVE SPEEDS. MANY INDIVIDUALS IN OUR GROUP HAVE CALLED THE POLICE FREQUENTLY. AT TIMES THIS SEEMS TO HELP FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME AS PATROLS ARRIVE ON THE SCENE, BUT MOST OFTEN WE ARE TOLD THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO PATROL DELL ROAD ON A CONCENTRATED BASIS. FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CANNOT HELP TO CONTROL SPEEDERS. II. EVENER WAY SPEED AND THROUGH TRAFFIC EVENER WAY IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET. WE NOTICE THAT OFTENTIMES VEHICLES ARE USING EVENER WAY AS A THROUGH STREET OR "SHORT CUT" FROM DELL ROAD TO VALLEY VIEW ROAD. (SEE MAP - EXHIBIT "A") WE ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW AND EXCESSIVE SPEED NOW THAT SCHOOL HAS REOPENED FOR THE YEAR. THERE ARE ALMOST 70 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN "THE RIDGE" EDITION ALONE AND MOST OF THESE FAMILIES HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN. FURTHERMORE, AS DEVELOPMENT INCREASES SOUTH OF HIWAY 5 AND AT THE ROTTLUND DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER OF HIWAY 5 AND DELL ROAD, WE WORRY THAT EVEN MORE TRAFFIC WILL USE EVENER WAY AS A DESIGNATED "SHORT CUT". III. TRUCK TRAFFIC ON DELL ROAD THE RESIDENTS LIVING ALONG DELL ROAD ARE CONCERNED AND WORRIED ABOUT THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF LARGE INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES USING DELL ROAD ON A REGULAR BASIS. MANY, IF NOT MOST, OF THESE LARGE TRUCKS ARE ALSO EXCEEDING THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT. IN ADDITION TO THE DANGERS POSED BY THESE LARGE, HEAVY VEHICLES TRAVELLING AT HIGH SPEEDS, WE WONDER ABOUT - 3 - THE POTENTIAL LONG TERM DAMAGE TO THE ROADWAY AND THE POTENTIAL FINANCIAL COST TO THE CITY TO ULTIMATELY REPAIR AND MAINTAIN DELL ROAD. IS DELL ROAD DESIGNED AND PLANNED TO FACILITATE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC? IV. NOISE POLLUTION THE COMBINATION OF SPEEDING CARS AND INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS ON DELL ROAD IS CAUSING SIGNIFICANT "NOISE POLLUTION." ONE NEEDS ONLY STAND ALONG DELL ROAD TO RECOGNIZE THIS PROBLEM. HOWEVER, ONE CONCERNED RESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY PERFORMED TESTS ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AND DISCOVERED THAT FROM HIS DECK, THE TRAFFIC NOISE IS EXCEEDING GOVERNMENT STANDARDS. ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "B" IS HIS LETTER AND STUDY AS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEERS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT A CERTAIN NOISE LEVEL IS INEVITABLE FROM NORMAL TRAFFIC, BUT IN THE CASE OF DELL ROAD, THIS NOISE IS EXCESSIVE. THE ABOVE 4 POINTS CONTAIN OUR MAIN CONCERNS. YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE MAP OF THE AREA (EXHIBIT "A") THAT DELL ROAD HAS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS ON BOTH EAST AND WEST SIDES. EVENER WAY HAS A SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE. WE HAVE SEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN RECREATIONAL TRAFFIC ON THESE PATHWAYS i H6 NZ SINCE THERE COMPLETION. (I.E. JOGGERS, WALKERS, BICYCLERS, ROLLERBLADERS, ETC.) AS RESIDENTS WE ENJOY AND PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF USE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, BUT WE WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF HEAVY VEHICLE TRAFFIC UPON PEDESTRIAN USE OF THESE AREAS AND THE RELATED POTENTIAL SAFETY PROBLEMS. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT NOT TO CRITICIZE OUR CITY BUT TO ASK FOR HELP IN SOLVING THESE PROBLEMS. IN OUR GROUP DISCUSSIONS WE ALL HAD OPINIONS ABOUT SOLUTIONS. HOWEVER, WE ALSO AGREED THAT RATHER THAN MAKE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, WE SIMPLY APPEAR HERE BEFORE YOU AND ASK TO HAVE THE CITY PROPOSE SOLUTIONS WITHIN - 4 - THE REALM AND SCOPE OF THE CITY PLANS AND REGULATIONS. IT OUR HOPE AND WISH THAT THE CITY ENGINEERS CAN DEVISE WAYS TO IMPROVE VEHICLE COMPLIANCE WITH SPEED LAWS THROUGH IMPROVED SIGNAGE, STREET PAINTING, OR OTHER METHODS. FURTHERMORE, WE HOPE AND WISH THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN ATTEMPT TO BETTER ENFORCE THE EXISTING SPEED LAWS, PERHAPS WITH A WEEK LONG CONCENTRATED PATROL EFFORT WHICH WILL EDUCATE USERS OF DELL ROAD AND EVENER THAT THE SPEED LAWS WILL BE ENFORCED. IN CONCLUSION, WE ASK THE CITY COUNCIL, ALONG WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO WORK ON SOME SPECIFIC PLANS FOR DELL ROAD AND EVENER WAY TO ADDRESS THE FOREMENTIONED ISSUES. OUR INTENT WILL BE TO RETURN IN ONE MONTH TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC PROPOSALS OFFERED BY THE CITY. OUR INTENT WOULD THEN BE TO WORK WITH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WITHIN CITY GOVERNMENT AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING PROBLEMS REGARDING DELL ROAD AND EVENER WAY IN A SAFE AND COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. WE THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL WITH OUR CONCERNS. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, _, >tr bYno JI. _,. . r... ii --�1 . .. , . . . . 7 •: O _ c T• I •, ` 1 G 100. \ u G A n ,� •c. Ilk 7' tiQ EDEN Df;./ 9.•oo r n o ' R ( ) CCHEN- 49 SLIGAN HILL CIR C 1. t/S C•U H .•K ; 94 �N 50,CHAR15 COURT i 3 45. a0 (� ripprZ� Q ‘215 F n , p~ �•��. 44.DANIEL LA./. • ••' ai u �• i 16 .:2 W 45 CRAIG DR. • -- 'V "' 7W. ' v IOU wESSEL CT. •U MANOR 9 - ,,,y F:11.. 101. JACQUES CT. �,y• 58 TH S j ,• G i '• 102.SCHROEOER PL. a 4_� 1 �QN . . ;1...) 31 AMHERsf LAN ..•.a w �� DRIVRE :• PNN‘Q4••., • Y �J, 32wAxEf1£LC DR. rn•:.... . 33 CLAIRE COURTw �b � (M Q� •• -� Qp• 3a.PLEASNVTVIEW RD z • 2 35 JOSEPH CURVE. IRCI E BARBERRY L A4 • 22. •36 BRACKETT RO .CIRC E D•IV V '� V • pUC1( . .G °I Q :c 2 6 1 U i 3p/ 'T" 4 22KI . tSIEY l A. �. Z 7 DDNS ter®•• •� g • �9( 224y..OO�RjI�AIx�v C� � a 4. r .. I \ t� Z 6 MI E AN►� a •I �.. -� - °G B A' nA N TE L, .� .". ab �,1 4 Tp ;^ 111TUS VIB PE •:•••c • H -..•• c':J 0A • 1T— ��iot...c.. , so• PR9'R . % •.EL 66. • •IL► 1-1- 0 •. 7 = g I � Q� 88.MALLARO CT. r ;• it •? V 130.ROSAE DRIVE L � cc �J n VVV W QV Y6 EDEN PRAIRIE CT. PliatiE ' /� HIGH SCHOOL C� l "1111 \�8�' el.POND CIRCLE •?R. r...HOME. E AO • It \, v ,��� a T4.MAN T08A RD. Va 7�B9 QUE�EC CIR. CIRCLE 4, "" VA LEY .•II 1' s1', Is.VAN VER R0. PHEASANTC H hP1 � ^ • CIRCLES •� . -/ •: (� _ BRIDLEM! ti I": 7 7 93EIDE E Art .P' ��• / —IC_I{ L, F0,i. WESTGATE LA. lJ (� • II : 'ft ZP L.A / 138.ST.E92J<I S CT. ,Jt • 4et D "-1• \..3 - WI /� 28.EAGLE RIt GE 92KILMER AVE. --8----\ �-,1' MAIN J/ K 28.BEACON CIR.29.IRv1NE CIR. 30.LOOKOUT CT.. 5 0DSNEGA LOCCOVE f --• ' — �� — 115?:11 C 0 '-'.------ ._CHANHASSEN 10 r 6 1C9 . 4 ,. I c` fie' 0A�fi1 ;i1 .....HEMLOCK CIRCLE .._....-- -- �_ C4 ,. .• ca�. 7-p . . �. .. July 25, 1994 Mr. Al Gray City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Subject: Dell Road Traffic Noise Dear Mr. Gray: Acoustical measurements have been conducted for the purpose of determining the noise developed by traffic on the recently opened segment of Dell Road between Twilight Trail and the TC&W overpass. An LDL Model 700 Dosimeter and Sound Level Meter was stationed on my property, which borders this section of Dell Road on the west. All data was acquired and analyzed in accordance with procedures promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The data clearly show that the noise levels generated by Dell Road at this location exceed the values allowed by MPCA, by both the L10 and L50 criteria. L10 was measured to be 59dB; L50 to be 51dB. We do not believe that the City of Eden Prairie intended to violate MPCA regulations by opening such a road. Furthermore, now that you are aware of the situation, we are certain that you will wish to examine possible alternatives to be implemented to bring Dell Road into compliance. Since such a study may take some time, we would recommend that as an interim measure, all truck traffic be immediately prohibited from residential portions of Dell Road. Mr. Al Gray City of Eden Prairie July 25, 1994 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, we request that you advise the police department of the need to vigorously enforce the traffic laws, especially the 30 MPH speed limit, in this area. Thank you for .ur prompt attention to this situation. Please do not hesitate all (home 934-3415, work 831-8086) if we can answer any qu- ions, or to apprise us of your progress. lours ery tr iy, �y / .1111`,A William T. Sutherland 18564 Kristie Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 9/20/94 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission ITEM NO. a se. 11 SECTION: Director of PRNR DEPARTMENT: PRNR ITEM DESCRIPTION: Update on Land Acquisiton Status & Five Year Robert A. Lambert Capital Improvement Program LYNN CHARLSON PROPERTY: City staff recommend the Council authorize exercising the option agreement on the Charlson property at this time. Initially, the City staff were hopeful that the Department of Natural Resources would be able to acquire the Charlson property using the Reinvest in Minnesota Funding. After extensive discussions with the representative of the Charlson property and representatives from the Department of Natural Resources, it became clear that it was not in the best interests of the Charlson property managers to utilize that funding source. The net income from the sale of the entire bluff would be reduced from $1,145,000 to $717,000, a loss of revenue they were unwilling to accept. The existing option on 55.9 acres for $1,145,000 runs out on December 31 of this year. KATHRYN TROST PROPERTY: Staff recommend exercising the option with Kathryn Trost on her 15.9 acres for $280,000 at this time. STEPHEN WHITEHILL PROPERTY: City staff recommend the Council authorize the acquisition of approximately 2.7 acres of the Stephen Whitehill property for approximately $47,000. In order to accomplish this acquisition, the City must complete a survey of the property marking the proposed boundary lines and he location of the existing buildings and septic tank. Upon receiving that information, the City will determine from the Building Department the ability to locate a second septic system on the site, as well as the maximum boundaries for either expansion of the existing home or the maximum footprint for a new home site on this property. Mr. Whitehill must be satisfied that the remaining site will have the same possibilities for expansion of a single family residence that the existing site presently has prior to subdividing and selling a portion of this site. PETER GEORGE PROPERTY: Staff will continue to negotiate with Mr. George and expect to bring his final price to the City Council within the next 60 days. KLEIN/PETERSON PROPERTY: City staff have been in negotiations with the Kleins and Mr. Peterson for several months on the possible acquisition of approximately 105 acres of their bluff property. City staff have continued to explain to the Kleins and Mr. Peterson that there is strong possibility the City may not be able to afford to acquire their property and that the negotiation is simply to provide the City Council with information on what terms would be acceptable to the Kleins and Mr. Peterson, if the City is interested in acquiring that 1 property. Acquisition of this property will put a severe strain on the cash park fee budget; however, staff will be recommending a referendum in 1996 with or without the acquisition of the Peterson property. During the last referendum on natural resource sites staff indicated at a number of public meetings that "the existing Park and Open Space Plan did not anticipate any additional referendums for parkland acquisition." This site was the third ranked preservation site and 85% of the voters supported acquiring the first two sites; therefore, it might make sense to put this issue on a referendum as a separate question in a 1996 referendum. If that is the direction the City Council would choose to go, staff would recommend trying to negotiate an option that would extend through 1996 at this time. If the city Council chooses to acquire this property without a referendum. staff would recommend considering the acquisition under the following conditions: 1. Acquire the western 65 acres at $18,000 per acre ($1,170,000) on a five year contract for deed initiated in January 1995. The contract for deed terms would include a$500,000 down payment made in January 1995 with the $670,000 balance paid at 1.25% below prime interest over five years. The payments would be as follows (assuming a 6.25% interest rate over the five year period): 1996 $175,875 1997 $167,500 1998 $159,125 1999 $150,750 2000 $142,375 2. The City should obtain an option in January 1995 on the remaining approximate 40 acres to be acquired anytime until the year 2000. Staff would recommend that the price per acre increase at $1,000 per year; therefore, the price per acre would be $19,000 per year in 1996, $20,000 per year in 1997, etc. The interest rate would be at 1.5% below prime variable rate for the entire contract for deed. The City is presently applying for a 1995 State Grant for the eastern most 20 acres. The City has applied for $200,000 match for an estimated $400,000 worth of property. If the City is fortunate enough to obtain a grant, it is very likely that the grant would be limited to $100,000. If the City acquires that property in 1995 with the assistance of the grant, the City would have approximately 20 acres remaining to acquire. The City would not be able to apply for another grant on this property until 1997, if we are successful in the 1995 grant application. Under these terms, if the initial 65 acres were acquired at $18,000 per acre plus interest for a total of $1,295,625 and the final 40 acres were acquired at $22,000 per acre plus interest in 1999 for a total of approximately $1,051,600, the total acquisition cost including interest would be approximately $2,346,225. If the City were able to negotiate an option that would acquire the property in a lump sum in 1996 at $19,000 per acre for 105 acres through a referendum, the total cost would be $1,995,000. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE & EXPENDITURE PROJECTION: The City has approximately $3,910,625 projected for acquisition needs over the next five years and $7,515,000 projected in development needs over the next five years. This totals $11,425,625. 2 City staff project approximately $6,500,000 in revenue over the next five years, ($2,750,000 in park fees, $1,800,000 in TIF, and $1,950,000 in 1994 referendum). The City would need to pass a referendum for approximately $4,925,625 to complete the acquisition and development projects for the next five years. The following is a summary of the major acquisition and development projects, their estimated cost and the projected funding source. MAJOR PROJECT ESTIMATED COST FUNDING SOURCE Charlson Property $1,145,000 1994 Referendum Passed Riley Creek Woods 40 Acres Trost Property $280,000 1994 Referendum Passed Whitehill Property 50,000 1994 Referendum Passed George Property 500,000 1994 Referendum Passed Peterson Property - 65 Acres or(105 acres) $1,295,625 Park Fees ($1,995,000) (1996 Referendum) Purgatory Creek Recreation Area $100,000 Tax Increment Financing Staring Lake Park- Boyce Property $154,000 Park Fees (final payment) Crestwood Park $36,000 Park Fees (final payment) Cedar Forest Park $250,000 Park Fees Smetana Lake Park $100,000 Park Fees Community Center Expansion Entry&Locker Room Expansion $800,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Wading Pool/Water Park $300,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Teen Game Room $1,000,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Gymnasium $500,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Miller Park Phase 2 Picnic Shelter $175,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Skating Rink and Shelter $100,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Softball Complex Building $175,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Soccer Complex Building $175,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Baseball Bleachers/Building $175,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Riley Lake Park Picnic Shelter $200,000 1996 Referendum Proposed 3 MAJOR PROJECT ESTIMATED COST FUNDING SOURCE - i Replace Warming Houses at: Preserve Park $100,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Edenvale Park $100,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Forest Hills Park $100,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Prairie View Park $100,000 1996 Referendum Proposed Smetana Lake Improvement Project $150,000 Park Fees Round Lake Park(playstructure&bleachers) $65,000 Park Fees Staring Lake Park(Center for the Arts& $300,000 1996 Referendum playstructure) Riley Lake Park(playstructure) $50,000 Park Fees Purgatory Creek Recreation Area $1,700,000 Tax Increment Financing Homeward Hills Park(irrigation) $20,000 Park Fees Prairie East Park(sun shelter&parking lot) $35,000 Park Fees Hidden Ponds Park/Outlots (trail construction) $45,000 Park Fees Edenbrook Conservation Area(parking lot&trail $80,000 Park Fees construction) Charlson Prairie(trail construction access control) $30,000 Park Fees Rice Marsh Lake Park Development $200,000 Park Fees Crestwood Park Development $150,000 Park Fees Westgate Park Development $30,000 Park Fees Flying Cloud Fields(paving park road and parking $30,000 Park Fees lot) Bike Trail Improvements(Staring Lake& Round $630,000 1996 Referendum Lake, County Road 4, Bryant Lake Drive, County Road 1) TOTAL $11,425,625 This projection requires a$4,930,000 referendum in 1996 for improvements to the Community Center; the second phase of Miller Park; widening the bike trails at Round Lake and Staring Lake Parks; completing bike trails on County Road 4, County Road 1 and Bryant Lake Drive, replacing park shelters at four neighborhood parks and renovating the playstructure at Staring Lake Park and the Boyce house to accommodate an Arts Center. This should have support of the Community Center users, the Athletic Associations, and four major neighborhoods. It is the only way to fund these improvements and purchase the Peterson property as well, unless the Peterson property is added to the referendum as a separate question 4 If the City commits the Peterson property to a 1996 referendum the City should obtain an option thru 1996 and the following items could be removed from the referendum: Miller Park Phase II Picnic Shelter $175,000 Skating Rink & Shelter 100,000 Softball Complex Building 175,000 Soccer Complex Building 175,000 Baseball Complex Building 175,000 Riley Lake Park Shelter 200,000 Staring Lake Park Playstructure & Arts Center 300,000 $1,300,000 The referendum would then have one question for park and recreation development totalling $3.630.000 for the Community Center improvements, neighborhood park shelter improvements and bike trail improvements, plus a second question for open space acquisition for $1,995.000. update/Bob60 5