Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/04/1992• • • AGENDA EDEN PMmm CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992 7:30PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock cm COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance DirectOr John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of _ Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL PRFSENTATION BY RANDY JOHNSON, HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONER I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS~OF BUSINESS n. MINUTES A. Special City CouneD Meetina on Capital Projects Bud&et Review held Tuesday. January 21. 1992 . B. City CouneD meetig held Tuesday. Januaa 21. 1992 C. Notes of January 27. 1992 CouncWStaff Workshcm . m. CONSENT CALENDAR A. B. C. Clerk's License List Order. Feasibwt" Be. for Leona Road Street and Utility Improvements. I,e. 52-217 (Resolution No. 92-30) Cocmerative Construction Aareement with HenneJrin County for CSAD 62, between Baker Road and Eden Prairie Road (Resolution No. 92-31) Page 195 Page 197 . Page 212 Page 213 Page 215 Page 217 City Councll Agenda February 4, 1992 Page Two D. flPlI Plat MProvaI of Lorence 3td Addition Opted at the S.W. comer of HaQJes Way·and yaney view Road) Resolution No. 92-32 E. Preliminary and Dnal Plat Maroyal of Wyndham KnoB 2nd Addition Oocated at the S.E. Quadrant of DeB Boadand pleasant View Road) Resolution No. 92-33 . F. Request from Bud Bjerken. Section VI Boeke! Re: Use of Ice Bblk G. . Request from Foxlet Swim Club Re; Additional Pool Time H. Nine-MDe Creek watershed District Cooperatlve Amement Re: Study ot Bireh Island Lake. GleB Lake " Shady Oak Lake l&yeJs I. ReQuest to Purchase Skid Steer Loader J. Resolution No. 92-28 Almrovig the Bineo HaB license for WeJsh-Sierra T,JmHed PartnershiP K. Reapportion Funds tor SouthvstCorridor Transportat_ CoaUtion L. LORENCE 3BD ADDmON by Peter Knaeble. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 33-91, Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 0.07 acres; Approval of Develope~s Agreement for Lorence 3rd Addition; Adoption of Resolution 92-23, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 33-91, and Ordering Publication of said Summary. Location: Southeast comer of Valley View Road and Hames Way. (Ordinance 33-91 ., Rezoning; Resolution 92-23 -Authorizing Summary and PubUcation) M. DEVAAN PROPERTY by Herbert ~Vaan~ .2nd Reading of Ordinance 5-92 for Zoning District Chalge fQ)m RM-6.5 to Rl- 13.5 on 0.58 acres; Adoption of Resolution ,92-34, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 5-92 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary Location: Lot 7, Block 2, Lake Trail Estates.· (Ordinance 5-92 -Rezoning; Resolution 92-34 -Authorizina Summary and Publication) • Page 231 Page 233 Page 235 Page 237 Page 240 . Page 246 Page 24. Page 250 Page 251 Page 258 . • • • • City Council Agenda February 4, 1992 Page Three N. RESOLUTION NO. 92-35 -SETllNG THE $4.5 MU.LION PARK REFERENDUM FOR MARCH 17. 1992 O. RESCHEDULE JOINT MEETING WITH FLYING CWUD AJBPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM MARCH 17 TO MARCH lQ, 1992 AT 6:00 PM P. Award Contracts for Snow Plowin& Eguipment (Resolution No. 92-18) Continued from January 21, 1992 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGSIMEETINGS A. POTENTIAL CLOSING OF HERITAGE ROAD AT m 5 (Continued from December 3, 1991) B. BRAXTON POND by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for Zonitlg District Change from Rural to RI-13.5 on 3.6 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Braxton Pond. Location: South and . west of the terminus of existing Braxton Drive. Ordinance 2-92 - Zoning District Change; Resolution 92-19 -Preliminary Plat). Continued from January 21, 1992 C. PRAIRIE GREEN OUTDOOR STORAGE by Birchwood Labs. Request of Birchwood Labs for Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 District on 3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review on 3 acres for construction of an outdoor storage facility to be known as Prairie Green Outdoor Storage. Location: Southwest of Fuller Road, south of Birchwood Labs, east of Lincoln Drive. (Ordinance 6-92 - Zoning District Amendment in the 1-2 District) D. TACO BELL by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District and ZOning District Amendment·within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. Location: Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire. (Ordinance 7-92 -Zoning District Amendment in C-Reg-Ser District) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 262 Page 266 Page 267 Page 277 Page 282 Page 292 Page 310 City CouncH Agenda February 4, 1992 Page Four VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VB. PETITIONS. REOUFSTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. 1-494 BrieOnr from MnDOT VIll. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITIEES A. Student Membership on BoardsICommiWons IX. APPOINTMENTS x. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. Rtports of Councllmembm 1. City Charter Study Committee B. Report of City Manarer 1. Eqansion of Liguor Stores C. Report of Director of Parks. Recreation & Natural Resource 1. . 2. Presentation of Schematic Desim, for Ice Rink Addition at Community Center .. RecommeruJation On Acgyisition of Neirhborhood Park for SW Eden Prairie D. Report of Director 'of PhnmiDI 1. Recommendations for Bluffs Study Committee E. Report of Director of Public Works F. . R.e,port of City Attorney 1. Discussion on Moratorium for Bluff Plattiqa XI. ODIER BUSINESS XU. ADJOURNMENT • Page 318 Page 320 • Page 327 Page 328 Page 341 Page 344 Page 345 • TIME: LOCATION: COUNCILMEt-1BERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: ROLL CALL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET REVIEW UNAPPROVED MINUTES Tuesday, January 21, 1992, 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. tvlartin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick Present: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, Patricia Pidcock. Absent: Richard Anderson I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 6:20 PM. • II. DISCUSSION ITEMS • A. Uses of Tax Increment Receipts Jullie called Council attention to Richard Rosow's memo of January 15, 1992 on Tax Increment Financing which outlined general guidelines to follow when determining projects which eligible for TIF assistance. He stated that present TIF was available for use on a wide variety of potential projects. He said that restrictions only applied to new projects outside the present development district, or if the present development district were to be expanded. Dietz pointed out that there was $8.8 million available for projects and 10% of this would be for administrative costs. Administrative costs were approximately $200,000 a year which included engineering, consultanting, and City staff costs. Tenpas suggested that administrative costs should reflect actual time spent and that perhaps an accounting system could be devised to determine exactly what these costs were. Jullie said that part of the rationale was that the City provided services for the developments without any direct revenue for these services. Jessen agreed with Tenpas that he would like to determine the actual amount for administrative costs. Harris said she believed $200,00 in administrative costs was reasonable as it was less than 10% of the total amount. Eden Prairie City Council - 2 - Capital Project Budget Review Minutes January 21, 1992 Unapproved Harris asked what the time limits were for spending the funds. Dietz said there was no time limit on the present districts. The limit would be five years on any new districts. Jessen asked how much money in TIF had been spent and collected to date. Frane said that $58.9 million had been collected and $53.6 million had been spent. B. Tax Increment Pro ject Plans Dietz reviewed the status of the TIF program and reviewed the projects on pages 104 and 105 of the packet. Enger reviewed the list of projects on Page 105 of the packet, listed in his memo of - January 16, 1991, and Lambert reviewed suggested projects from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission in his memo of January 2, 1992, Pages 105B and 105C of the packet. Dietz requested direction from Council on priorities for the projects. Enger said that Area 1 indicated in his memo was considered to be highest priority because it contained Singletree Lane. Lambert recommended the four items already funded as priority items for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources department, and in addition the Commission had recommended two other projects: (1) Acquisition of 1-2 acres of land along Lake Idlewild for a public park; (2) Provide funds for streetscape and a greenway connection along Technology Drive from Prairie Center Drive to Mitchell Road as this could be an important connection between the City Government Center and the downtown area. Tenpas said that he would like to hold a public hearing on the TIF projects before any decision on priority was made in order to get public input. Council agreed that the end of February, 1992 would be an appropriate time for such a hearing. III. OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to adjourn the meeting at 7: 15 PM. Motion approved 4-0. /9& • • • • • • TIME: EDEN PRAJRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES Tuesday, January 21, 1992 LOCATION: City Hall Council Chambers 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Assistant City Attorney Barbara Ross, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick Present: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, H. Hartin Jessen, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the agenda. Pidcock requested the addition of one item under X.A. Reports of Councilmembers: (2) Discussion of the Martin Luther King Birthday Celebration. Jullie requested the addition of one item under X.B.2. Report of the City Manager: (2) Communication to City of Minnetonka Regarding Townline Road. Agenda approved as amended 5-0. II. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1992 MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting Held Tuesday, January 7, 1992. Harris requested that the first sentence in the second paragraph on Page 7 of the minutes read as follows: "As to City staff relationships, she pointed out that the Council was removed from the day-to-day operations of the City and therefore the Council's evaluation of this section was predicated by observations from a distance. " Eden Prairie City Council Minutes - 2 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved Motion to approve minutes as amended approved 4-0-1 with Jessen abstaining. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Tax Forfeited Lands (Resolution No. 92-12) C. Adoption of Proclamation "Eden Prairie Loves Its Kids" (Resolution No. 92-26) D. Approval of City's Pay Equity Implementation Report E. Approval of Joint Meeting Schedule with Boards/Commissions F. Request for 3-year extension to Council's 12/13/88 action on Variance 88-51, Touch of Class G. GOLF POINTE by Associated Investments, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 29-91 Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 2.24 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Golf Pointe; Adoption of Resolution 92-22, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 29-91 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: South of Valley View Road, east of the abandoned Chicago Northwestern Railway. (Ordinance #92-91 -Rezoning; Resolution 92-22 -Authorizing Summary and Publication) H. RICE MARSH LAKE PUD by The Pemtom Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 31-91-PUD-1l-91, PUD District Review, with waivers on 129.8 acres and Rezoning from Rural, R1-13.5, and RI-9.5 on 105.0 acres, and from Rural and R1-9.5 to R1-9.5 on 24.8 acres, all said 129.8 acres overlain by PUD 11-91-R1-13.5-R1-9.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Rice Marsh Lake PUD; Adoption of Resolution 92-24, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 31-91-PUD-1l-91 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city limits. (Ordinance 31-91-PUD-1l-91 -PUD District Review, with waivers and Rezoning; Resolution 92-24 -Authorizing Summary and Publication) I. Amendment to Agreement with Goodwill/Easter Seal for Recycling Center J. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR GOLF POINTE, located south of Valley View Road and east of Hennepin County R.R. right-of-way (Resolution No. 92-14) K. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR WINDFIELD 1ST ADDITION, located south of TH 5, east of Chanhassen City Limits (Resolution No. 92-15) • • • • • • Eden Prairie City Council Minutes - 3 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved L. MSA Variance to Allow Expenditure of MSA Funds Outside of the City Limits for Townline Road (Resolution No. 92-16) M. MSA Curve Radius Variance for Reconstruction of Rowland Road, I.C. 52-067 (Resolution No. 92-17) N. 1992 Budget Revision for Utility Vehicles O. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 1-92 Amendinl{ Section 5.40 of the City Code Relating to Lawful Gambling, and Adoption of Resolution No. 92- 25 Approving the Summary of the Ordinance for Publication MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion approved 5-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BRAXTON POND by We star Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl-13.5 on 3.6 acres; and Preliminary Platting of 3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Braxton Pond. Location: South and west of the terminus of existing Braxton Drive. (Ordinance 2-92 -Zoning District Change; Resolution 92-19 -Preliminary Plat). Continued from January 7, 1992. Jullie said that the proponent had not submitted plans for drainage and had requested a continuance until the proponent had prepared these plans. NOTION Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item until the proponent had provided drainage plans. Motion approved 5-0. B. RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS by Hustad Homes and Robert and James Brown. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept on 65 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, on 65 acres and Zoning District Change from Rl-22 to Rl-13.5 on 5.7 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the Rl-22 District on 5.0 acres and Zoning District Change from Rl-22 to Rl-44 on 15.7 acres; Preliminary Plat of 65 acres into 34 single-family lots, 3 outlots and road right-of- way to be known as Riverview Heights. Location: South of Riverview Road, east of Riverview Drive East. (Resolution 92-20 - Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance 3-92-PUD-1-92 and Rezoning; Resolution 92-21 -Preliminary Plat) Eden Prairie City Council Hinutes - 4 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved Jullie said notice of the public hearing had been properly published in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to property owners in the project area. Wally Hustad representing Hustad Homes, reviewed the project using maps and drawings. He reviewed the history of the land, saying that it 1953 it had been platted and zoned RI-22. Originally it had been platted for 15 lots and he was now requesting that it be replatted for 35 single-family lots. In 1967 sanitary sewer was brought in and a main interceptor line was located in the western part of the property. With the advent of sewer, RI-22 had been typically zoned for greater density and smaller lots. In 1977 The Bluffs PUD was approved with two lots per acre and seventy-five percent of the 400 acres had been developed. In 1976 the land to the north and 14 acres on top of the bluff was platted, with three of the lots zoned for RI-22 and 26 of the lots zoned for RI-13.5. When the land was platted in 1953, there was a road right-of-way on the east side of the property. The difficulty with that road alignment now was that City Ordinances did not allow a slope as steep as the one in this location. However, the Brown family had dedicated the land and it was a public right-of-way. He said that after consideration of various alternatives for use of the property, it was decided to build single-family houses on a total of 65 acres. He also said that after consultation with the property owners and City staff, it was decided to use a consistent pattern for the houses in the project as shown by the plans. He said he believed the project was comparable to what had been done in the City in the past. He also said the property owners would dedicate 60% of the land for open space. There were three areas in the plans: (1) Transition area of 11 lots zoned RI-44 on 15 acres. (2) Eight lots zoned Rl-22 on five acres. (3) Fourteen lots zoned RI-13.5 on the remaining land. A decision had been made not to move the roadway to the east but rather to make it an 8% slope which would result in the road being 200 feet longer than it presently was in the easterly right-of-way. He added that 25% of the trees would be lost to the road and another 25% would be lost in the construction of the houses. However, the trees lost by the construction of the houses would eventually be replaced. Hustad said that most of the grading would be in the roadway; however, some of the other land would be graded in order to create walk-out lots. There would also be a NURP pond for sediment collection which had been approved by the Corps of Engineers and DNR. He also said the plan called for the creation of trails through the open space area. • • • • • • Eden Prairie City Council Minutes - 5 - January 21, 1992 Unapproved Enger said the Planning Commission had reviewed the item at its December 9, 1991 meeting and recommended approval on a 4-0 vote, subject to the recommendations, considerations, and analysis of the December 6, 1991 staff report and subject to the following recommendations. Prior to review by the City Council the proponent shall: 1. Modify the preliminary plat to depict the NURP ponds. 2. Modify the grading plan to depict alternative grading and building pad locations which would minimize the amount of retaining walls imder worst-case circumstamces. 3. Submit a revised tree replacement plan which depicts the majority of replacement trees to the oak, and develop a reforestation plan for the large graded areas across Lots 12 and 13. 4. Submit an archeological survey to the State Historical Society and provide a letter of acceptance thereof prior to review of this project for Second Reading by City Council. 5. The following PUD waivers were granted: (a) Lot size waivers for Lots 15, 23, 24, 25, and 32. (b) Street frontage waivers for Lots 20, 32, and 22. (c) Private road waiver for three lots. 6. Prior to acceptance of land as gift to the City for Park purposes, proponent shall provide a Level 2 environmental audit to determine the extend of potential pollution on the site. 7. Existing Valley Oak Road right-of-way must be vacated as part of the final plat. 8. Prior to any grading on the property, proponent shall be required to stake the construction limits with snow fence. Proponent shall notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of any grading. Anderson asked Enger if at any time had grading been done on a steep bluff area or hill in the City, and if project conformed to the City's slope ordinance. Enger said that the amount of grading was not excessive as compared to other projects. On many projects, 100% of the area was graded. In this project the depth of the cut would change features in the area; for example, the character of the knolls on the east side of the project area would be changed and some of the slopes would be smoothed out. The ravine area would not be substantially changed but there would be a change in the bluffs area in order to place the houses. Once developed there would be 50% less trees and 33 houses. ~01 Eden Prairie City Council Minutes - 6 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved Enger said that the Steep Slope Ordinance was not a prohibition on grading, but rather provided for proper erosion control measures. It required that all property contaning a slope over 12% have erosion control measures in place. This project was being reviewed from a technical standpoint to determine whether it met the Code requirement on this issue. Anderson asked Enger if any area along the bluffs had been developed to the extent requested by this project. Enger said the area on the top had been developed. If the area on the slope were to be developed, it would be one of the largest developments in the area. He said this was the first area where it was possible to get into the toe of the bluff. Anderson said he had noted that 74% of the residents responding to the 1990 community survey believed that the bluffs areas to be one of the most precious and unique natural resources. He said he believed it was necessary for the City to be very careful when considering development in this area. • Lambert said the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the item at its December 16, 1992 meeting. There had been extensive discussion and review on bluffs protection. He said the commission decided that because of the existing R1-22 zoning and the sloping character of the bluff in the area, the City would not be able to • contain development to the top of the bluff only. The staff had recommended a 150-foot-wide outlot along the river adjacent to Outlot B to be consistent with the Timber Bluffs proposal. Staff had recommended park access either through the subdivision or through the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission property, if possible. The Commission recommended approval of the proposal on a 5-0 vote according to the Planning Staff report dated December 6, 1991 and under the following conditions: 1. To accept the donation of a 150-foot-wide outlot along the south side of Outlot B donated at the time of final plat. 2. Designate a trail access through the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission property to Outlot C. 3. Accept the 17-acre Outlot C as a donation after the completion of an environmental audit to determine the extent of the environmental damage and to make sure that it was acceptable. 4. To accept cash park fees. 5. To apply to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission as soon as possible to obtain the trail access and to delete the back-up trail access through the subdivision. The Commission did not believe the trail at the end of the cul-de-sac was a good access to the public property in the river bottoms. • • • • Eden Prairie City Council Minutes - 7 - January 21, 1992 Unapproved Anderson asked if the Commission had discussed what effect the plan would have on wildlife in the area, particularly the deer. Lambert said this had not been discussed but it would be an appropriate to issue to consider when developing heavily-wooded areas. Tenpas said he did not believe the development would have any impact on the deer in the area. Anderson said he believed the effect on the wildlife should be studied and taken into consideration. Pidcock asked Lambert if the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had recommended an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Lambert said it had recommended a Level 2 Environmental Audit of Outlot Conly. Pidcock asked Lambert if he had reservations about the grading on the property. Lambert said he did because it was the first plat where there would be grading to the bottom of the slope and because it had been the policy of the City to preserve the bluffs. On the other hand, he said the Commission recognized that it would be difficult legally to deny development on the bluffs in this particular area. Harris asked Lambert if fill would be required in the trail area. Lambert said the elevation next to the river was higher than it was in the bluffs area and he believed the area would be dry most of the time. However, it would be a soft-surface trail that would require maintenance after high floods. Lambert also said that the City was committed to acqUIrmg Outlot B at sometime in the future for use as a wildlife refuge and recreation area. It was part of a 160-acre area that the City had indicated to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it would attempt to acquire in the future. Lambert added that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission had allowed public access through its properties in the past; however, it would require a public hearing before it could be done. Edward Schlampp, 10901 Riverview Road, said he had been a timber farmer in the area for 30 years and his property bordered on the proposed Riverview Heights development project. He said he believed the bluffs were not safe for building houses because of the "running sand" soil which had no containment properties whatsoever. He submitted a three-part plan to the Council: (l) A petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project known as Riverview Heights. The petition included 75 names of area residents who were opposed to the development. (2) Request that Council vote for an immediate moratorium on any further Hinnesota River Bluff platting or zoning changes until a task force could be formed to study the effects of development in the area. (3) Request Council to form a task force comprised of Hinnesota River Bluff landowners and residents, members of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission, City Council, and the Parks, Eden Prairie City Council tvfinutes - 8 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and staff, to study sound environmental methods of construction and development on the bluffs. Laura Bluml, owner of property at 10540 West Riverview Drive, said she agreed with Mr. Schlampp's statement, but also had further concerns regarding Outlot C. Her concerns were in three areas: (1) Health and safety issues associated with the area; (2) The present physical appearance of the area; (3) Intended future use of the area. She said all the concerns were the result of the rupture of the sanitary sewer pipe in 1987. At that time there was raw sewage spread over the area of Outlot C as well as her property and the extent to which the raw sewage covered the flood plain was unknown. She said there was no tree wash-out on the flood plain from the flood, and that trees had been torn out by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission as it repaired the sewer line and reclaimed the soil that had washed down from the bluff. She said no testing of the soil had been done in the area after the bursting of the sewer pipe. She was concerned that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission had reconstructed the pipe at the same capacity it had in 1987 and it was possible another overflow of the same type could occur. She was also concerned that trees had not been replaced on Outlot C, and opposed turning this area into a public park because of potential problems with contamination and concern about having a park next to her property. Scott Wallace, 12465 Sunnybrook Road, called Council attention to a letter from the DNR regarding this project which stated that there were wetlands on the site that should be inspected by the Army Corps of Engineers. The letter further stated that the Army Corps of Engineers had recommended that the wetlands be inspected to determine the effect the project would have as it concerned the new Wetlands Conservation Act. He also said that the Shoreline Ordinance suggests setbacks of 20 feet and transition zone from the bluff of 30 feet. Tenpas asked Enger to clarify the issue concerning the wetlands. Enger said that both the DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers had stated that it was necessary to make an on-site inspection, and it appeared that there may be a wetland area which might go partially up the ravine at about the level of the floodplain. He said the proponent was aware that the inspection was required. With regard to the Shoreland Ordinance, he said the bluff was not within the shoreland area, so this ordinance would not apply to the project. Bob Brown, Riverview Road, spoke regarding the deer population in the City. He said the believed there were too many deer in the area and that the deer had become a nuisance. • • • • • • Eden Prairie City Council Minutes - 9 - January 21, 1992 Unapproved Helen Koshenina, 9400 Clubhouse Road, re-emphasized the issue of the running sand. She said that at the time she lived in the area, an addition to her house was constructed on a level part of the bluff. There had been great difficulty with digging the hole because of the sandy soil, and she believed there was potential for disaster if the bluff were to be disturbed. Peter Pope, 10541 E. Riverview Drive, said he was concerned about environmental issues associated with the development, particularly the wildlife and not only the deer but other animals as well. He spoke against the development because he believed it would destroy the beauty of the area and supported the proposal put forward by Mr. Schlampp. Larry Fransen, 9901 Riverview Road, was concerned about the tree loss caused by grading of the site. He said that he believed 50% loss was too high. He said that he was also opposed to increasing the density on the property. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION Pidcock moved, second by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion approved 5-0. MOTION Anderson moved that the City Council request an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the property. Seconded by Pidcock. Harris said she believed it was prudent for the City to order the EAW. Jessen said he believed the creation of a Bluffs Commission as suggested by Mr. Schlampp was appropriate in order to address the issues of the bluffs. Anderson said he agreed with Jessen on this point. Tenpas said that he agreed that there were several issues regarding the bluffs that needed to be addressed because of the difference in the slope in various areas. He said that he believed development could be done on some parts and not on others. Pidcock said she believed it was appropriate to obtain an EAW on the site. Motion approved 5-0. MOTION Jessen moved to request staff present a proposal for a Bluffs Commission or Task Force at the February 4, 1992 meeting. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 5-0. d.OS Eden Prairie City Council Minutes -10 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved Anderson asked Barbara Ross, Assistant City Attorney, about the possibility of the City placing a moratorium on bluff development. Ross pointed out that the City had broad authority in zoning issues but it was not allowed to act arbitrarily, and if there were other developments along the bluff that had been allowed to go forward, the City should very carefully consider imposing a moratorium on a particular development as it could possibly result in some punitive damages. Anderson requested that the City Attorney investigate the issue and present the information at the February 4, 1992 Council meeting. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve payment of claims. Motion for payment of claims approved with Jessen, Pidcock, Harris, Anderson and Tenpas voting "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Normark Project Jullie said that the issues on this project were working within the creek floodplain, partial removal of a hill, a trail placement, and the ability of the building to fit properly on the site. Because there may be some policy issues involved, Council had requested an update of the project. Dan Russ, representing Hoyt Properties, reviewed the project. He said the proposal was for a 47,979-square-foot facility, 38,000 square feet of which would be located on one floor of a two-story facility. Russ said that some of the issues involved were the proximity of the building to Nine-Mile Creek and the nature preserve area. He said that approximately two years ago, part of the property was given to the City for tax reasons, but now that a building had been designed for the property, the proponent was requesting that the City consider returning this part of the property. He said that variances would be needed for the set-back from the hill because of the steep slope. Also, because of the narrow site, the building would be about 100 feet from the creek instead of the 150 feet required, so a variance would be needed for this as well. • • • • • • Eden Prairie City Council Minutes -11 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved Tenpas asked where the trail would be located on the site. Lambert said that there was no recommendation for a trail between the creek and the building. Any building on the site would make constructing a trail extremely difficult and costly. Without a building on the site, a trail could be built easily. Anderson said he believed the proposed building was too large for the site. He said he believed Normark should consider another site because part of the hill and the trail would be lost with this construction. He also pointed out that the area zoned for office, not for office/warehouse. He said he would like Normark to locate in Eden Prairie, but at another site. Pidcock pointed out that Normark was also looking for TIF assistance for the project. Russ said the reason for requesting TIF was that the site created an economic hardship and would increase the cost 20-25%. Jessen said he could not support TIF money for this project and said he believed Normark could build a building without the City's assistance. Pidcock said she would not be in favor of a TIF district for the project, even though she would like to see Normark locate within the City. Harris said she did not believe the project met the test of the City for creating a TIF district and for that reason, she would not support the request for TIF. She added that she believed the site could be developed but that the Normark proposal was not the right project for it. Tenpas said he would be willing to assist Normark with the project and would be willing to investigate alternatives further. Russ said other issues and considerations were tree replacement a water and sewer connection on Outlot A, and also grading on City property. Tenpas said that it appeared that the TIF was an obstacle that could not be overcome but expressed willingness to work with the proponent on the trail and variances. He suggested that the proponent work with the developer to see if it could be financed without TIF. Bob Miller, representing Normark, said it was not possible to build on the site without TIF money. Russ urged the Council to consider the benefit that Normark could bring to the community in terms of more jobs and tax money, and reconsider the position on the TIF money. Jullie suggested that he and Russ meet to discuss the issues and perhaps discuss other possible sites and opportunities. Eden Prairie City Council Minutes -12 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved B. 1st and 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 4-92 Amending City Code Sections 4.01, Subd. 9, 402, Subd. 8, 407, 4.12. Subd. 1., Adding Section 4.29 and Renumbering Section 4.30 and Amending Sections 4.32, Subd. 4, 4.34, 4.51, Subd. 6, 4.54, 4.71, Subd. 6., and 4.73 and Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 which among other things, contain penalty provisions, and Adoption of Rer:;olution No. 92-27 Approving the Summary of the Ordinance for Publication Jullie said that Bringers had requested an amendment to the City Code to allow it to deliver beer with food orders. He called Council attention to an draft ordinance which would allow this sale to occur through licensing. There was a stipulation that delivery could be made only in vehicles owned by the licensee and state law regarding the age of the server/deliverer would apply. Tenpas said he was concerned about monitoring who bought the liquor. He said he did not believe it was feasible to enforce the ordinance. Pidcock said she did not support the ordinance. She believed it could make the City liable for any accidents as a result of liquor purchase and consumption by minors. There was some discussion of whether the legal age for serving liquor was 19 or 21 years of age. The City Attorney said state law indicated it was 21 years of age. Jessen suggested delaying the issue until it could be determined for certain that this was correct. MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to table this item until the various sections of state law concerning the legal serving age could be clarified, and requested staff to investigate which other liquor businesses offer delivery services in the City. Motion approved 5-0. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, & COMMITTEES IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Lower Minnesota River Watershed District -Recommendation of Eden Prairie Resident to fill an expired three-year term on the Lower Minnesota Watershed District beginning March 23, 1992 Jullie said there was not a candidate at the present time for this position. Council suggested Ed Schlampp, Sever Peterson, or Dean Edstrom and asked staff to encourage a candidate to present his/her name to the Hennepin County Board of Commissions to represent Eden Prairie on this Watershed District. • • • • • • Eden Prairie City Council Minutes -13 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved MOTION At 11:00 PM Pidcock moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 PM. Seconded by Harris. Motion approved 5-0. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. Reports of Councilmembers 1. Salary Adjustment for City Manager 2. Harris called Council attention to two options for increasing the salary of the City Manager: (A) Increase the base salary by 3.5% effective January 1, 1992, (B) Recognize the City Managers 1990 performance and consider providing a 1990 lump sum payment because there had been no salary increase since January, 1990. Pidcock said she favored Options A and B, and suggested consider giving the City Manager a two-year contract since the salary increase would cover two years. Anderson said he favored Option A increasing the base salary to 3.5%. Jessen said he favored Option A. Tenpas said he favored Option A and was not in favor of a lump sum payment. Harris said she favored Option A, the change in the base salary. MOTION Harris moved to increase the City Manager's base salary by 3.5% effective January 1, 1991, with a review in six months, at which time he may be eligible for further increase. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 5-0. Pidcock introduced discussion on offering 'the City Manager a two-year contract. Jessen said he did not believe it was a good idea. Anderson said he would like to find out if this contract was offered in other cities in the area and would like staff to report on this at the February 4, 1992 meeting. Tenpas said he did not support the idea of a contract and believed it would not be fair to the taxpayers. Comments on Martin Luther King Birthday Celebration Pidcock said that she believed that City staff and the Human Resources and Services Commission had done an outstanding job in the Martin Luther King birthday celebration and wished to commend all those involved. Eden Prairie City Council Minutes -14 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved MOTION At 11:15 PM Anderson moved to continue the meeting until 11:30 PH. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 5-0. B. Report of City Manager 1. Timing and Content for Park Bond Referendum Lambert reviewed with Council the results of the survey done regarding the Park Bond Referendum. He said that the survey showed that there was a hard-core opposition against the Bond Referendum with 22% strongly in opposition and 28% strongly-in favor. Lambert said that the outcome of the vote basically depended upon who came out to vote and if those who indicated moderate opposition could be convinced to vote in favor of the bond issue. He said that there were people who were willing to work on the project to convince voters to approve the referendum. After further discussion, it was decided that the best date to hold the Park Bond Referendum would be March 14, 1992 because holding the referendum any later would push the projects back one year. tvfOTION Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to prepare a resolution to set March 14, 1992 for the Park Bond Referendum for approximately $4.5 million, and set a meeting for Tuesday, January 28, 1992, 7:00 PM for the purposes of organizing for the campaign. Motion approved 5-0. 2. Communication with the City of Minnetonka Regarding Townline Road (Continued to January 28, 1992) C. Report of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resource D. Report of Director of Public Works E. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Award Contracts for snow plowing equipment (Resolution No. 92- 18) (continued to February 2, 1992) XI. OTHER BUSINESS 210 • • • • • • Eden Prairie City Council Minutes XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION -15 -January 21, 1992 Unapproved Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to adjourn at 11:45 PM. Motion approved 5-0 . ~I \ • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Meeting Notes city Council/staff Workshop January 27, 1992 The City Council and its staff met at The Meeting Point, University of st. Thomas, Chaska campus, for Part IV of the series of "Challenges of Governing and Managing a City" workshops. The session began at 6:00 p.m. with a dinner, and discussion started at 7:00 p.m. All Councilmembers and nearly all the management staff were present. John Drozdal of The Drozdal Company led the session. Discussion first focused on the distinction between "policy" and "procedure". Two statements captured working definition_s of policy: • A statement of principles that guides present and future actions. • A clear statement of community values and principles established by the City Council that guides present and future actions by staff and commissions. other attributes of policies included purposes and values, empowerment to promote action, a temporal nature because of changing conditions, and providing continuity for decisionmaking. While policies may be proposed by the Councilor the staff, the Council sets broad policy. Policy implementation -procedures -is performed by the staff. The Council needs to trust the staff to discern what should or should not be a policy question. The council identified a need to establish some process for the Council to (re)address policies. After a break, the Council and staff reviewed the policies and procedures in property valuation as a case study to understand policy/procedure distinctions. Policies driven by external sources, roles and responsibilities of the different actors in the system, and ramifications from changes in policies were identified and explored. The next workshops will development/planning areas. cover The workshop concluded at 10:30 p.m • 21'2- the finance/budget and • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST February 4, 1992 CONTRACTOR (r1UL TI-FAt-lILY & COt1~1.) Design One of Edina Ltd. Du-All Service, Inc. Eaton Corporation United Televis ion/IC1SP D. J. Kranz Co., Inc. [1etro Prairie Construction Co. ~10en Leuer Cons t ruct i on, Inc. Rem Con, Inc. Steiner Development PLUMBING Advanced Plumbing & Heating Andreasen Plumbing & Heating B & D Plumbing & Heating Arnold Bing Plumbing Blaylock Plumbing Co. Boedeker Plumbing & Heatinn, Ken Boutin Plumbing Loren Brown Plumbing Budget Plumbing CorD. Wayne Burville Plumbing Coppin Plumbing Crosstown Plumbing, Inc. Custom Plumbir.q, Inc. D C Mechanical Dependable Well Company Edina SW Plumbing Elander Pl umbing ~~. L. Gadtke Plumbing Galaxy ~echanical Groth Sewer & Water Raymond E. Haeg Plumbing Hillman Plumbing & Heating R. C. Hoffman Plumbing Hopkins Plumbing & Heating Joyce Plumbing, Inc. Larson Plumbing, Inc. M & D Plumbing & Heating Midwestern Mechanical Corp. Tom ~~otzko Plumbing & Heating Jim Murr Plumbing P & D Mechanical Contracting Plumbing Services Plymouth Plumbing, Inc. Royal Plumbing & Heating Scherer Plumbing Stant Plumbing & Heating Tim Quality Plumbing GAS FITTER Advanced Plumbing & Heating Blaylock Plumbing Co. 30edeker Plumbing & Heating Jud~et Plumbinq Corp. Carver Heating & Air Conditioning Countryside Heating & Cooling Services Cronstroms Heating & Air Conditioning Custom Plumbing, Inc. D.J.'s Heating & Air Conditioninq, Inc. Dri-Steem Humidifier - Elander Plumbing Galaxy Mechanical Raymond E. Haeg Plumbing, Inc. Hillman Plumbing & Heating Larson Plumbing, Inc. M & D Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Master Heating & Cool ing ~·1etro Ai r Tom ~otzko Plumbing & Heating Co. Plymouth Plumbing Inc. Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning Co. Fred Vogt and Company HEATING & VENTILATING American Heating & Air Conditioning B & D Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Boeqeker Plumbing & Heating Carver Heating & Air Conditioning Countryside Heating & Cooling Services Cronstroms Heating & Air Conditioning D. J. s Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. Dri-Steem Humidifier Company Fisher-Bjork Sheetmetal Company, Inc. Golden Valley Heating '.& Air Conditioning Hillman Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Master Heating & Cooling Metro Ai r Modern Heating & Air Conditioning Narkie Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. Northwest Sheet Metal Company Plymouth Plumbing, Inc. Royal Plumbing & Heating Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning Co. Fred Vogt and Company UTILITY I~STALLER ~1edwes tern Mechan i ca 1 Corporation CLERKIS LICENSE APPLICATION LIST page two SEPTIC SYSTEMS J. P. No re x, Inc. Plymouth Pl umbing, Inc. WATER SOFTENER Clear Soft Water Conditioning TYPE A FOOD Rainbow Foods TYPE B FOOD Garden Court Gifts I & II Preserve Rexall Drug ~~r. Movies Shinders Book Store W. Gordon Smith (Wallace Rd) W. Gordon Smith (Flying Cloud Dr.) Snyder Bros., Inc. Snyders Drug Store (Prairie Center Dr.)) Snyders Drug Store (W. 78th Street) Target Store TYPE C FOOD PDQ Food Store Total Petroleum CIGARETTE Garden Court Gifts I & II PDQ Food Store Preserve Rexall Drug Rainbow Foods Shinders Book Store W. Gordon Smith (Wallace Rd) W. Gordon Smith (Flying Cloud Dr.) Snyder Bros., Inc. Snyder Drug (Prairie Center Dr.) Snyder Drug (W. 78th Street) Target Store Terrific Lunch Co. Total Petroleum REFUSE HAULER Nitti Disposal, Inc. Westonka Sanitation THEATRE Eden Prairie ~~vies IV & V • MECHANICAL • Eden Prairie Movies IV & V Li on I s Tap Wayne Alexander Woodford (Chi-Chi IS) PEDDLER Gerald Albert Bensfield (Real Estate) Patrick E. Coty (Christmas Trees) These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. ~ OJJ~ Pat Solie Licensing • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-30 RESOLUTION ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, it is proposed to make the following improvements: I.C. 52-217 -Leona Road Street and Utility Improvements and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study with the assistance of RCM, and that a feasibility report 'shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 4, 1992. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Alan Gray, City Engineer DATE: January 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Leona Road Improvements It is recommended that Council consider a feasibility study to evaluate improvements to Leona Road between TH 169 and Den Road. This road segment is approximately 600 feet in length. The westerly end has a temporary bituminous surface. The easterly end is a narrow gravel surface serving two single family residences and connecting to the north end of Den Road recently constructed by Super Valu. The intersection of Leona Road and TH 169 has been selected for signalization. To install the permanent signal system it is desirable to upgrade the geometries of Leona Road at its intersection with TH 169. When the signal is operational it is expected to attract traffic from the new Cub Food store and from other retail businesses in the area of Den Road and West 78th Street. The narrow gravel surface of Leona Road will not be serviceable for the anticipated traffic volume. It is therefore desirable to upgrade this segment of Leona Road to commercial street standards with curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing . . In the absence of a petition from abutting property owners, it is required by statute to have a four-fifths majority of the Council authorizing the feasibility study. ADG:ssa Dtlk.CC.92-JO • • • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-31 COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT CSAH 62 BETWEEN BAKER ROAD AND NORTH EDEN DRIVE WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Public Works has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of CSAH 62 between Baker Road (CSAH 60) and North Eden Road along the common line between the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Minnetonka; WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has approved said plans and specifications for the improvement of CSAH 62; WHEREAS, a cooperative construction agreement has been prepared which identifies the maintenance and financial obligations for the construction of said improvements; and WHEREAS, the improvements contemplated in this project are important to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said cooperative construction agreement #PW 74-15-91 for County Project No. 6312 is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 4, 1992. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATIEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 County Project No. 6312 County state Aid Highway No. 62. City of Minnetonka City of Eden Prairie County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of ----------------19 __ , by and between the county of ,Hennepin, a body pol itic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Minnetonka, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Minnetonka" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota. hereinafter referred to as "Eden Prairie": the two Cities hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Cities". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County and the Cities have been negotiating to bring about the • improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 62 (Townline Road) between 220 feet west of Eden Drive and 200 feet east of County State Aid Highway No. 60 (Engineer's Stations 138+00 and 206+32) as shown on the County Engineer's plans for County Project No. 6312, which improvement contemplates and includes grading, drainage, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous base, bituminous surfacing, bituminous paths, wooden walls, traffic signals, bridges Nos. 27AOO, 27A01, 97106, 97316 and other related improvements; and WHEREAS, The above described project lies within the corporate limits of the Cit i es, and WHEREAS, The County Engineer has heretofore prepared an engineer's estimate of quantities and unit prices of material and labor for the above described project and an estimate of the total cost for contract work in the sum of Seven Million Eight Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four Dollars and Fifty Cents ($7,873,544.50). A copy of said estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and -1-• • Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 WHEREAS, The Cities have indicated their willingness to participate in the construction costs of said project in accordance with the cost distribution represented in said Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, To ensure continuity with the County's existing network of traffic signal systems the County will furnish the controller, control equipment and control cabinet to be lnstalled as a part of said project; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto . under the provisions of M.S. SEC. 162.17, SUbd. 1 and SEC. 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I That the County or its agents will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid project, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law in such case provided • for counties. The contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. II The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction .of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineers of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The Cities agree that the County may make changes in the plans or in the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the Cities that the County may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the County's contractor for the performance of any • additional construction or construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or -2- Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 desirable changes in plans. within the original scope of the project. Said changes ~ may result in an increase or decrease to each Cities cost participation estimated herein. The Cities shall have the right to review changes to the plans and specifications which affect the Cities' cost participation prior to incorporation into the project. IV The Cities agree to grant highway easements to the County over those lands owned by each City that are a part of the required right of way for said project. Said easements shall be granted at no cost to the County. Similarly, the County will extend hjghway easements over those lands presently owned by it that are part of the required right of way for said project at no cost to the Cities. The County or its agents will acquire all additional rights of way, permits and/or easements required for the construction of said project. The final cost of all additional rights of way, permits and/or easements ~ required for the construction of said project plus all costs incurred by the County in acquiring said rights of way, permits and/or easements, excluding County personnel costs, shall be apportioned 50 percent to the County, 25 percent to the City of Minnetonka and 25 percent to the City of Eden Prairie. The right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all acquisition costs including, but not limited to. any and all damages occurring to any person or persons, including private utilities, in relocating or removing or adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken and within the present right of way; or damage in procuring such right of way, whether such damage is caused by the County or the Cities in the performance of such contract with respect to the improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 62 as shown on the plans for County Project No. 6312. Damages, as used in this section, pertains to acquisition costs allowed by Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 and does not abrogate the meaning of the language set forth in Section XX of this Agreement. ~ -3- • • • Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 The County will periodically, as parcels are acquired, prepare and submit to each City itemized accounts showing right of way and acquisition costs incurred by the County. Each Cities' share of said costs shall become due and payable within thirty (30) days after submittal. The estimated right of way expenses described herein are indicated in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. v Minnetonka and Eden Prairie shall each reimburse the County for its respective share in the construction cost of the contract work for said project and the total final contract construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in the Division of Cost Summary in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Said respective share in the construction cost of the contract work for each City shall be fifty percent (50%) of the municipal share of the construction costs, with the exception of the CSAH 4 architectural treatment which shall be apportioned twenty percent (20%) County, twenty percent (20%) City of Eden Prairie and sixty percent (60%) City of Minnetonka. It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page 1 of this agreement is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work on said project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. VI In addition to payment of each City's proportionate share of the contract construction cost, each City also agrees to reimburse the County for its respective proportionate share of the preliminary engineering costs for the project. Said City's respective share of preliminary engineering costs shall be equal to eight percent (8%) of the amount computed as each City's respective share of said contract construction cost using the successful bidder's unit prices and the estimated quantities contained in the contract at the time of award. -4- Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 VII In addition to the aforesaid payments by each City for its proportionate share of contract construction and preliminary engineering costs, the City also agrees to reimburse the County for the City's proportionate share of the construction engineering costs for the project. Said City's share of construction engineering costs shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the final amount of the City's share of said contract construction cost. VIII • In addition to the payment by the Cities for their proportionate share of contract construction costs the Cities also agree to reimburse the County for their proportionate share of the costs of the County supplied traffic signal control cabinet and equipment. Said proportionate shares of the County supplied materials shall be equal to the proportionate share of contract signal work at the corresponding intersections. An estimate of the Cities' shares of County supplied materials is incorporated into said Exhibit "A". It is further agreed that said estimate of the costs of County supplied materials is an estimate and that the actual quantities of materials and labor as determined by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final apportionment of cost participation by the • Cities in the County supplied materials. The County intends to supply the traffic signal cabinet, controller and control equipment for the project in accordance with Mn/OOT State Aid requirements for Force Account work done by County Forces. IX Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, each City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety percent (90%) of its estimated share in the contract construction and one hundred percent (100%) of its share in the preliminary engineering costs for the project. Said estimated shares shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans. Upon the completion of the project and submittal to each City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing the respective final share in the contract construction and construction engineering costs for the project, each City. -5- • Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer the remainder of its respective share of the contract construction cost and one hundred percent (100%) of its share in the construction engineering costs. In the event the County Engineer or his staff determines the need to amend the contract with a supplemental agreement or change order which results in an increase in the contract amount, each City hereby agrees to remit within thirty (30) days of notification by the County of said change an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) of its estimated share as documented in the supplemental agreement or change order. The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the project and submittal to each City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing each Cities' final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the appropriate City; likewise any amount due the County by either City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the appropriate City as its • final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this project. • X The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to each City upon request. XI All records kept by the Cities and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. XII The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five (5) years after completion of the project for any service cuts in the roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in this project for any installation of underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities. -6- Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 XIII It is agreed that each City shall. at its own expense, remove and replace their respectively owned signs that are within the construction limits of this project. Removal and replacement operations shall be coordinated with the construction activities through the County's Project Engineer. all ~ XIV The Cities agree that any Municipal licenses required to perform electrical work within their respective corporate limits shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall not be more than those established by the state Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. XV Minnetonka shall install. or cause the installation of an adequate three wire. 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the traffic control signals and integral street lights included in the contract at the intersections of Glen Lake Boulevard with County State Aid Highway No. 4 and County state Aid Highway No. 62 at its sole cost and expense. Further, Minnetonka shall ~ provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said traffic control signals and integral street lights at its sale cost and expense. Eden Prairie shall install, or cause the installation of an adequate three wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the traffic control signals and integral street lights included in the contract at the intersection of County state Aid Highway No. 62 with the south frontage road (west junction) at its sole cost and expense. Further, Eden Prairie shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said traffic control signals and integral street lights at its sale cost and expense. XVI The Cities shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signals. however, nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signals may be directly involved in an emergency. ~ -7- n0 • Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 XVII Upon completion of the project. the Count~, at its expense. shall place the necessary signs and each City, at its expense. shall provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on-street parking on those portions of County State Aid Highway Nos. 4 and 62 constructed under this project recognizing the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Hennepin County. Any modification of the above parking restrictions shall not be made without first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Commissioners permitting said modification. XVIII Upon completion of this project. the County shall thereafter maintain and repair said traffic control signals all at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County, at its expense. shall maintain 110 volt power to the line side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles for the integral street lights. Minnetonka, at its expense. shall maintain the fuse, the 1uminaire and the wire to the load side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles at the intersections of • Glen Lake Boulevard with County State Aid Highway No. 4 and County State Aid Highway No. 62. Eden Prairie, at its expense, shall maintain the fuse, the luminaire and the wire to the load side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 62 with the south frontage road (west junction). • XIX It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, all concrete sidewalk, bituminous path, water distribution system and sanitary sewer system improvements included in said improvement shall become the property of the City within which they lie and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by the City of ownership at its own expense. It is further understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein identified as the street Boulder Way, that said street shall become the property of Minnetonka and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by Minnetonka at its own expense . -8- Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 It is also further understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein identified as the street Townline Court, that said street shall become the property of Eden Prairie and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by Eden Prairie at its own expense. • It is also further understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein that the County shall cause the placement of a bituminous overlay on that portion of existing County state Aid Highway No. 62 which is to become the south frontage road between approximately 250 feet west of Indian Chief Road and approximately 850 feet west of County state Aid Highway No. 60. Upon completion of said bituminous overlay, the County shall transfer jurisdiction of said south frontage road to the Cities and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be mutually agreed upon by both Cities and shall be performed at their own expense. • It is further understood that neither the County, its commissioners, officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or"official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to Minnetonka and Eden Prairie for any claim, demand, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the hereinbefore described frontage road, lighting, sidewalk, bituminous path, water distribution and sanitary sewer maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement by the Cities, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the Cities for the performance of said work; and the Cities each agree to defend, save and keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, actions or causes of action and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees, and disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) arising out of negligent performance by the Cities, their officers. agents or employees. XX It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, damages, demands, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, actions, or causes of actions of • -9- • • Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the negligent performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. XXI It is further agreed that any and all employees of the Cities and all other persons engaged by the Cities in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the Cities shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the Cities, and that any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the Cities. XXII The provisions of M. S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. XXIII In the event that implementation of County Project No. 7419 (located on County • State Aid Highway No. 62 between T.H. 101 and the westerly terminus of this project) -10- Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 is delayed such that a gap in time will exist between the completion of this projec~ and initiation of construction activities on Project No. 7419, it is agreed that ,.., Hennepin County will construct an interim connection as shown on Exhibit "8" attached (Exhibit "8" depicts Alternate 1A as agreed upon which tapers the four lanes down to two lanes east of CSAH 4) and maintain appropriate barricades and signage to properly control the flow of traffic between the improved roadway section and the existing Townline Road section. In the event that implementation of the proposed roadway improvement known as County Project No. 7419 is indefinitely delayed or abandoned, the County and the Cities agree to work cooperatively to develop road improvements between Woodland Road and the westerly terminus of County Project No. 6312 which would provide an appropriate long term transition between County Project No. 6312 and existing Town1ine Road. This cooperative effort will also address potential funding sources and the appropriate future roadway jurisdiction. • • -11- • • • Agreement No. PW 74-15-91 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOf, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. (Seal) CITY Of MINNETONKA By: --~----------------------------Mayor Date: ____________________________ __ And: --~----------~---------------Manager Date: ____________________________ __ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (Seal) By: --~----------------------------Mayor Date: ____________________________ __ And: ~~---------------------------Manager Date: ____________________________ __ COUNTY Of HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: --------------------------------Clerk of the County Board Date: ---------------------------- Upon proper execution, this agreement will be legally valid and binding. By:~~~~~~~~------------­Assistant County Attorney Date: __________________________ ___ Approved as to execution B¥:~~~~~~~~-----------­Assistant County Attorney Date: __________________________ __ By: -------------------------------- Chairman of its County Board Date: ------------------------------And: ----~--~~--~~~~~-------Associate County Administrator and County Engineer Date: ____________________________ __ RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: ~~----=---~--~~~~~~~--Director, Department of Public Works Date: ____________________________ __ N UJ C PRELIMINARY COST PARTICIPA710N RENN. CO. PROJECT 6312 -CSAH 62 I EST. I EST. UNIT EST. TOTAL ITEM I UNIT QUANTITY I COST COST I I I PARTICIPATING ITEMS I 4" CONCRETE WALK I SQ. IT. corlC. CURB , GUTTER, DES B624 7" corle. DIlIVLVlAY PAvEMErrr DITUMINOUS BIKE PATH CONC. CUHB , GUrTER, DES B612 SUBTOTAL ROAl)'iIAY ITEHS STORM SEWER TRUNK LINES CATCH BASINS AND LEADS SUBTOTAL SEWER TRAfFIC SIGNALS IUN. fT. ISQ. YD. ISQ. YD. LIN. fT. (1 ) @ CSAH 4 " GLEN LAKE BOULEVARD ISIG. SYS. @ CSAlI 62 " GLEN LAKE BOULEVARD ISIG. SYS. @ CSAlI 62 " SOUTH fRONTAGE RD (WEST JUNCTION) ISIG. SYS. SUBTOTAL TRAffIC SIGrlALS I I I BRIDGE ITEMS I PED. UNDERPASS BR. 97106 IUIMP SUM CSAlI 4 BR. ARCHITECTUAL TREATMENT I UIMP SUM SUDTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS BALANCE OF BRIDGE ITEMS BALANCE OF ROAIMAY ITEMS TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PWS 8\ DESIGN PWS 10% CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION COUNTY SUPPLIED CONTROlLER CABINET " EQUIP. @ CSAH 4 " GLEN LAKE BOULEVARD (I CSAH 62 " GLEN LAKE BOULEVARD @ CSAH 62 " SOlml fRorrrAGE RD (WEST JUNCTION) RIGHT Of WAY TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 1,232 28,220 201 6,450 3,331 I I I I 2.001 2,464.001 6.001 169,320.001 25.001 5,025.001 4.101 26,445.001 7.251 24,149.751 I I I 227,403.751 I I I I I 288,850.001 I 228,114.001 I I I 516,964.001 I I I I 11 68,500.001 68,500.001 11 55,200.001 55,200.001 11 66,900.001 66,900.001 I I I 190,600.001 I I I I 11 35,000.001 35,000.001 11 80,000.001 80,000.001 I 115,000.001 I 4,000,000.001 . I 2,823,576.751 I 7,873,544 .50 I I 38,169.681 H,712.101 I I 12,000.001 12,000.001 12,000.001 I 900,000.001 I 8,895,426.291 (1) BASED ON ESTIMATED 75\ MUNICIPAL fu:M, SUB.JECT TO VERIFICATION BY HNjOOT OFFICE OF sv.TE AID. (2) MUNICIPAL COSTS WILL BE SPLIT EQUALLY BETWEEN EDEN PRAIRIE AND MINNE'roNKA, EXCEPT mE CSAII 4 BRIDGE AROUTECTUAL TREATMElrr. HENNEPIN COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. PW 74-15-91 t-EXHIBlell: SHEET 1 OF 1 ~ • % I EDEN I PRAIRIE 1 I I 37.501 16.40 1 25.001 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 37.50 25.001 20.00 25.00 25.00. 37.50 1 I I I I (2) COST I \ (2) COST \ EDEN IMINNETONKA MINNETONKA HENNEPIN PRAIRIE 1 COUNTY I I 924.001 21,768.481 1,256.25 1 6,611.251 6,037.441 I 42,597.42 1 I I 42,172.10 57,028.50 99,200.60 17,125.00 13,800.00 25,087.50 56,012.50 8,750.001 16,000.001 I 24,750.001 I I I I I 222,560.521 I 17,804.841 22,256.051 I I 3,000.001 3,000.001 4,500.001 I 225,000.00 I I 498,121.411 37.50 16.40 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.001 25.001 37.50 1 I I I I 25.001 60.00 25.001 25.001 37.501 I I I I 924.00 21,768.48 1,256.25 6,611.25 6,031.44 42,591.42 42,172.10 51,028.50 99,200.60 1 I I 17,125.001 13,800.001 25,087.50 1 I 56,012.50 1 I I 8,150.001 48,000.001 I 56,750.001 I I I I I 254,560.521 I 20,364.84 1 25,456.051 I I 3,000.001 3,000.001 4,500.001 I 225,000.001 I 535,881.411 25.00 67.20 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00. 25.001 I I I I 50.001 20.00 50.001 50.001 25.001 I I I I • 1/10/92 COST HENNEPIN COUNTY 616.00 113,783.04 2,512.50 13,222.50 12,014.88 142,208.91 204,505.80 114,057.00 318,562.80 34,250.00 27,600.00 16,725.00 18,515.00 17,500.00 16,000.00 33,500.00 4,000,000.00 2,823,576.75 7,396,423.47 6,000.00 6,000.00 3,000.00 450,000.00 7,861,423.41 • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-32 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF LORENCE 3RD ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Lorence 3rd 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 Lorence 3rd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated January 29, 1992. 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 February 4, 1992. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 2~' TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor Tenpas and City Council members Alan D. Gray, City Engineer Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technicia~ January 29, 1992 ~ Final Plat of Lorence 3rd Addition (Resolution No. 92-32) PROPOSAL: The estate of James Lorence is requesting City Council approval of the final plat of Lorence 3rd Addition. Located at the southwest quadrant of Hames Way and Valley View Road, the plat contains 0.87 acres to be divided into two single family lots and one outlot. This proposal consists of the subdivision of the Lorence homestead into two lots to create an additional lot and a property exchange of equal areas with the park property to the east to provide access for the newly created lot. mSTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council December 17, 1991 per Resolution No. 91-250. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 33-91, changing zoning from Rural to RI-13.5, is scheduled for final approval February 4, 1992. • The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution February • 4, 1992. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, walkways and streets necessary to serve this property are currently in place and available for use. Sanitary sewer and water service to Lot 2 are intended to be provided through a connection to the existing sewer and watermains located within Hames Way. As required by City Code Chapt. 3, a connection fee is charged when a newly created lot takes utility services off a mainline for which the lot did not originally participate in the cost of installing. The connection fee is $7,400. PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat the owner shall provide the City with a warranty deed for Outlot A, which is part of the equal area property exchange. BONDING: A bond will be required for the restoration of Hames Way during the utility connection for Lot 2. This bonding should be provided at the time of permit application for said connection. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Lorence 3rd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement, and the following: JJ:ssa 1. 2. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.00. Receipt of warranty deed for Outlot A. Receipt of connection fee. cc: James R. Spevacek Keith E. Simons Peter Knaeble, Krueger & Associates • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-33 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF WYNDHAM KNOLL 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Wyndham Knoll 2nd 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 Wyndham Knoll 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated January 29, 1992. 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 February 4, 1992. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Tenpas and City Council members THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: January 29, 1992 SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat of Wyndham Knoll 2nd Addition PROPOSAL: The owners, Joseph K. and Kaye Dolejsi, have requested City Council approval of the preliminary and final plat of Wyndham Knoll 2nd Addition. Located at the southeast quadrant of Dell Road and Pleasant View Road, the plat contains 1.7 acres to be divided into two lots. This proposal is a lot line rearrangement of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Wyndham Knoll 2nd Addition to preserve trees and to provide for additional buffering of the existing Dolejsi homestead. • HISTORY: This property was rezoned with the original Wyndham Knoll subdivision in • December of 1984. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, roadways and walkways are currently in place and available for use. It will be necessary to vacate underlying drainage and utility easements between Lots 1 and 2. The owners have made application for the vacation of easements and this process is underway. PARK DEDICATION: A cash park fee will be payable at the time a building permit is issued for proposed Lot 1. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat of Wyndham Knoll 2nd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250. 2. Completion of vacation of drainage and utility easements. JJ:ssa cc: Joseph K. and Kaye Dolejsi James R. Hill, Inc. 23~ • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Lambert, Resources Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural FROM: Dave Black, Community Center Operations Supervisor DATE: January 23, 1992 SUBJECT: Request to Play High School Hockey Tier II. Section VI Section Championship at Eden Prairie Community Center March 7, 1992 Background With the addition of Tier II High School Hockey Play Offs. Section VI is looking for a neutral site to hold the Sectional Championship (Eden Prairie is part of Section VI, but will play in the Tier I play offs this year). The likely teams to play in this game are from the southwest metropolitan area. The attached letter outlines the request. Their preferred game time is 7:30 pm. Ice Arena Schedule The normal schedule for the ice arena that evening includes the Hockey Association of Eden Prairie from 6:45-7:45 pm and public skating from 8 pm -11 pm. HAEP has a game set for 6:45 pm. 30-40 participants. Recommendation Public skating will have about The Community Center would be best off financially hosting this game at 8:30 pm, allowing HAEP to keep their 6:45 pm game. The Community Center would rent 3 hours ice time to Section VI and obtain $285.00 as ice rental, as opposed to public skating's $40 -$60 for that evening. We would also receive a 50% split of admissions receipts after game expenses. This could result in an extra $100 -$300 pending the attendance. Staff recommends accepting the request by Section VI to host the Tier II Championship Game with the stipulation that the game begin at 8:30 pm. cc: Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Bud Bjerken. Section VI Tournament Director EDINA ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT B. W. Bjerken, Athletic Director Mary Manderfeld, Ass't. Athl. Dir. 6754 Valley View Road Edina, MN 55439 612-944-211. 12/2/91 Mr. David Black Eden Prairie Community Center 16700 Valley View Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Dear Mr. Black, As the Section VI Hockey Tournament Manager, I would like to inquire into the possibility of using the Eden Prairie Community Hockey Arena for the 1992 Tier II Championship game. The date would be Saturday, March 7, 1992. The time would preferably be in the evening at 7:30 P.M. The approximately 1,000 spectator capacity would fit the needs for this game. The financial arrangements would be on a revenue sharing basis after the expenses are covered. • Please reply at your earliest convenience: Bud Bjerken, Section VI Hoc. Edina High School 6754 Valley View Rd Edina, MN 55439 AN EaUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2?;(P • • • • TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REQUEST: MEMORANDUM Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Elyce Kastigar, Recreation Supervisor for Aquatics & Fitness January 29, 1992 Request from the Foxjets Swim Club for Additional Pool Rental at the Community Center The Foxjets Swim Club has requested additional pool space during their current scheduled practice hours at the Community Center. (See attached letter from Tad Hauck, Foxjets Swim Club Head Coach). BACKGROUND: Due to the growth of the Foxjets Swim Club in recent years, the Foxjets would like to expand their team practices to adequately accommodate their increased members (approximately 170) . Refer to the attached Foxjets Request for Additional Pool Time diagram to review the current use and proposed use of the pool for the requested days and times. RECOMl\1ENDATION: Based on the current pool schedule, the aquatics program can accommodate the increased needs of the Foxjets Swim Club without imposing on other scheduled activities conducted simultaneously in the pool. This recommendation supports the Foxjets request for additional space during their scheduled practice time. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS: Staff is in the process of assessing the aquatics program and the utilization of pool space to best meet the needs and interests of the entire community. The aquatics program assessment will focus on the "prime use" hours -4:30-8:00 p.m. These hours are currently heavily utilized by the Foxjets Swim Club, resulting in decreased programming available to the general public during "prime use" hours. At the completion of the aquatics program assessment, staff will report to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission with recommendations for future pool utilization and any proposed scheduling changes . EK:mdd cc: Laurie Helling Tad Hauck FOXJETS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL POOL SPACE r-rn (/) (/) o :z: (/) CURRENT USE MON./WED. 6:00-7:30pm 5 LANES -25 YARDS rn (/) (/) 0 :z: II IV f.-- .-- -1- / '/ / / / 7 V V / 17 /' / / .f0 ~ ~ / / 7 7 v V / / V I / , MON./WED. 7: 30-8: OOpm 3 LANES -25 YARDS ~~ I 'n T. I ~G ~~ '.L t~' -I-~ ~ 1\0' .• , OPEN SWIM '\ " , " ~. ~ " r\: ~ I\: I\. 1\ TUE./THURS. 7:30-8:00pm 2 LANES -25 METERS r- rn (/) (/) o :z: (/) r-rn (/) (/) o :z: (/) PROPOSED USE MON./WED. 6:00-7:30pm 6 LANES -25 YARDS (1 ADDITIONAL LANE) 7 I 1I / I I / , / !7 7 JI l7 / / 1/ j"" / , L/ 11)1 ~~ .1 j I' / / V / / 1# V-1/' ,J / MON./WED. 7:30-8:00pm 4 LANES -25 YARDS (1 ADDITIONAL LANE) L n_T I G '. ( OP r-N s1 1M I--r / I / /-7 / .I J I V7 / /r:~'i 1Tc-V 17 / " l77 / / '7'-1,/ ~ bt II //7// " :/ / ~ ~ 1 :' / 17 / , L7 TUES./THURS. 7:30-8:00pm . 4 LANES -25 YARDS r- rn (/) (/) o :z: (/) (CHANGE FROM METERS TO YARDS 2 ~ D 2 ADDITIONAL LANES) • • • • • • Eden Prairie Foxjet Swim Club Tad Hauck, Head Coach 17928 Lorence Way. Eden Prairie. Mn. 55344 January 24. 1992 City Council Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden ¥~airie, MN 55344 To City Council: I am writing to request additional pool space during our current practice hours at the Community Center. Our team has grown to over 170 swimmers. For this reason we require more lanes. There are two separate time slots in which we are asking for more space. First, Mondays and Wednesdays we would like an additional lane from 6:00 -7:30 pm. Second, we would like a total of four lanes in the yard course between 7:30 and 8:00 pm Monday through Thursday • Groups using the pool during these times are swimming lessons on Monday and Wednesday and open swimming on Tuesday and Thursday. We feel that under this proposal there would be ample space for all programs. These changes would help alleviate our overcrowding and address safety concerns our parents have due to our large number of swimmers. /n;(:~L Tad Hauck Head Coach cc: Bob Lambert Elyse Kastigar • • • MEMORANDUM } TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources~ DATE: January 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District Cooperative Agreement Regarding Study of Birch Island Lake, Glen Lake and Shady Oak Lake Levels REQUEST: Attached for your review and approval is a copy of the Cooperative Agreement to Finance and Engineering Investigation of Birch Island, Glen Lake and Shady Oak Lake. In December of 1991, the City Council agreed in principle to join the City of Minnetonka and the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District to investigate the reason for the lower lake levels of Birch Island, Glen Lake and Shady Oak Lake. The total cost of this study will not exceed $40,000. The District will pay one-third of the cost ($13,333), and the cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie will pay two-thirds of the cost ($26,667) as follows: . Minnetonka -up to $17,778 . Eden Prairie -up to $8,889 FUNDING: The Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District also is requesting that the cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie advance the District's share of the study costs with the understanding that reimbursement of the cities will commence in December of 1992 and be completed in the summer of 1993. If funds are available at year-end, the District would reimburse the entire portion of the study cost during the month of January 1993. The City of Minnetonka has agreed informally that if Eden Prairie is unable to fund the advanced cost for the District, the City of Minnetonka would do so. RECOl\1MENDATION: City staff recommend approval of this project with the City committing up to $8,889 for the City's share of the project, and to pay a similar percentage of the advance on the District's share. Funding for this project will be from the contingency fund reserve. BAL:mdd ninemile/14 :1.LIO· POPHAM BAlK 2400 ONE TABOR CENTER SCHNOBRICH Be KAUFMAN. LTD. 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80202 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612·333·4800 TELEPHONE 303-893-1200 TELECOPIER 303-893-2194 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 4100 CENTRUST FINANCIAL CENTER 1300 I STREET. N W. 100 S. E. SECOND STREET SUITE 500 EAST MIAMI. FLORIDA33131 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 Raymond A. Haik. Esq. TELEPHONE 202-962-8700 TELECOPIER 305-530-0055 Direct Dial (612) 334-2609 TELECOPIER 202-962-8799 January 22, 1992 Mr. David N. Sonnenberg Director of Engineering City of Minnetonka Robert A. Lambert 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dir of Parks & Recreation City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 Re: Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Our File No. 1333-001 Dear David and Bob: I enclose a draft of cooperative agreement to finance the engineering investigation of Birch Island, Glen Lake and Shady Oak Lake. As each of you know, the District's fund are in short supply, so pay close attention to the method of payment and the possibi Ii ty that the Ci ties wi 11 have to advance the payment to Barr Engineering and be reimbursed at a later date. I have kept the agreement fairly short, but I assume that you will be reviewing it wi th your ci ty attorneys. If Desyl or Roger have any questions, please have them give me a call. I am forwarding the original of the proposed agreement to Minnetonka. If it is approved by the Minnetonka City Council, it can be forwarded to Eden Prairie for signature and returned to me for final signature by the Watershed District. I will return an executed copy of the agreement to each of you. If there are any changes desired, please let me know. RAH/clh cc: Barr Engineering (w/enclosure) Board of Managers (w/enclosure) 150RAH/63 yours, Haik • • • • NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, CITY OF MINNETONKA AND CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Cooperative Agreement to Finance an Engineering Investigation of Birch Island Lake, Glen Lake and Shady Oak Lake I. PARTIES The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ("District"), the City of Minnetonka ("Minnetonka"), and the City of Eden Prairie ("Eden Prairie"), acting by and through their respeceive governing bodies, enter into this cooperative agreement to investigate the reasons for the declining water levels of Birch Island, Glen and Shady Oak Lakes and to identify a water management project to protect and enhance the water quality and recreational values of the lakes which values are being impaired by the apparent permanent reduction in water levels. II. DISTRICT AUTHORITY The District's overall plan objectives are protection, maintenance and enhancement of the public waters of the District through basic water management projects. As part of its water management program, the District Engineer has recommended that an investigation be undertaken to identify the causes of the decline in lake water levels. The investigative study will seek to identify a project or series of projects to restore lake water levels and quality that qualify as basic water management projects of the District. Such projects can be initiated by petition of Minnetonka and Eden • Prairie and be paid for by a levy authorized by Minnesota Statutes § l03D.905, Subd. 3. 14~ III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Study will investigate possible sources of the water level problem as follows: 1) data collection; 2) field survey; 3) water balance calculation; 4) conclusions; and 4) meetings. The engineer shall, prior to undertaking the investigation, furnish a narrative statement of the work to be performed for each phase of the work. The parties shall approve the Investigation plan and the scope of the work prior to commencement of the study. IV. OBLIGATION OF DISTRICT The District agrees to undertake and complete the investigation and submit the Engineer's report and recommendations to Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. If the study results in a basic water management project initiated by the petition of the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, which is ordered and completed, then the money expended by each City for the initial study will be credited toward the amounts to be paid by the Cities for their respective share, if any, of the basic water management project costs. V. METHOD OF PAYMENT The parties agree to the following sharing of the investigation costs which in no event is to exceed $40,000: The District will pay 1/3 of the cost, but in no event an amount to exceed $13,333. The Cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie will pay 2/3 of the cost, but in no event to exceed $26,667 as follows: Minnetonka, up to $17,778; Eden Prairie, up to $8,889, provided that the District's first payment will be in the amount -2- 2~3 • • • of $3,333 in December, 1992 with the balance of its share to be ~ paid by the District in 1993 as tax revenues are received. The billings by the engineer shall be submitted to Minnetonka and Eden Prairie and the amounts then due shall be paid proportionate ~ ~ to each cities' percentage commitment. VI. FURTHER OBLIGATIONS AND UNDERTAKINGS The completion of the investigation shall in no way obligate the parties to this agreement to undertake further actions or ini tiate proceedings which might be requi red unless and until the parties agree in writing to such further undertaking, commitments and obligations. The parties agree that the District's financial commitment to pay 1/3 of the investigation costs is contingent upon Minnetonka's and Eden Prai rie' s agreeing to advance the District's share of the study costs with the understanding that reimbursement of the Cities will commence in December 1992 and be completed in the Summer of 1993. The District agrees that if cooperative project funds are available at year end to pay its entire portion of the study cost, that it will make such payments to Minnetonka and Eden Prairie during the month of January 1993. VII. EXECUTION This agreement shall be in force and effect upon execution by the parties in the manner set forth in the resolutions heretofore adopted by the respective governing bodies of each of the parties executing this Cooperative Agreement. -3- 24t/ r Dated: CITY OF MINNETONKA • 8y ________________________________ __ And ______________________________ __ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 8y ________________________________ _ And ______________________________ __ NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 8y ________________________________ __ And ______________________________ ___ • 156RAH/45 • -4- 2~) • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ~ DATE: January 24, 1992 SUBJECT: Request Authorization to Prepare Specification and Advertise Bids for Skid Steer Loader REQUEST: City staff request authorization to prepare specifications and advertise for bids for a skid steer loader for the park maintenance division. The estimated cost for this vehicle is $23,000. Funding would come from the general fund, as per recommendations in the attached memorandum dated January 22, 1992. BACKGROUND: The skid steer loader is used year-round by the park maintenance division for removal of snow from trails, parking lots and hockey rinks in the winter, as well as for grooming the sliding hill at Staring Lake Park. This machine is used as the primary piece of equipment to construct trails, as well as on a variety of small construction projects throughout the park system. The· City Council authorized $60,000 to fund development of the trail along the abandoned railroad right-of-way through Eden Prairie in 1992. This six mile trial will require extensive use of a skid steer loader and the maintenance staff strongly recommend replacement of the existing machine at this time. With the approval of the purchase of the skid steer loader, the replacement vehicle for the jeep will be withheld for this budget year. BL:mdd requestl14 MEMORANDUM TO: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources DATE: January 24, 1992. SUBJECT: Restructuring of the 1992 Budget to Accommodate Purchase of a Skid Steer Loader BACKGROUND: When the park maintenance division proposed its 1992 budget an item was included for the purchase of a skid steer loader. This request was made to replace 11 year old, now 12 year old, skid steer loader that is currently being used by the Park Department for a number of park related tasks. This particular machine is used year-round and was in need of an overhaul that at the time of budget writing, estimated at $3,000-$4,000. • When the 1992 budget was approved the skid steer loader was cut from the budget; however, • $4,000 was allocated for anticipated repairs to this machine. Late in the budget process, a new item was interjected; namely, a four wheel drive truck to replace the current jeep. This budget item was recommended by the vehicle maintenance division because of the high operating costs and repair costs that were being incurred on the jeep. As a result, the 1992 budget included $15,000 for replacement of the jeep vehicle. CURRENT STATUS OF SKID STEET LOADER: As mentioned earlier, the skid steer loader is used year-round by the park maintenance division. The heavy snowstorms of October and November resulted in usage of this machine for extended periods of time to remove snow from parking lots, hockey rinks, and sidewalks and trails throughout the park system and City wide. This put additional strain on the engine and drive components of the machine. At the present time, the vehicle maintenance division has received an estimate that an overhaul of this skid steer loader, to correct continuing breakdown problems, could run as high as $8,000 or $9,000. This estimate is nearly twice the amount that was budgeted for 1992. REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN BUDGET ALLOCATION: The staff would like to recommend that the money Originally set aside for repairs ($4,000), as well as that for purchase of a four wheel drive truck ($15,000), be combined to offset the cost of a new skid steer loader. The balance of the money needed to cover the nearly $23,000 cost • • • • would come from the anticipated trade-in value of the existing skid steer loader. There are several reasons why this option is being offered. • There are numerous trails that will be constructed during the summer of 1992 that require extensive use of a skid steer loader. . • It is not known what the condition of the hydrostatic motors are in the skid steer loader; however, if they were to fail at this time it could cost an additional $6,000 to have them repaired. • Purchase of a new skid steer loader would give flexibility to the entire maintenance fleet. Examples being, the sharing of the backhoe accessory, milling machine accessory, and the tracks that have just been purchased for the street department skid steer loader. The ability to interchange these accessories would enable each department to operate if one or the other skid steer loader was not functioning. Currently, the Street Department has a Bobcat skid steer loader, whereas the Park Maintenance Department has a Case skid steer loader. • No additional trailers would be necessary for transportation of either a new loader. CONCLUSION: If this proposal is acceptable, the park maintenance division would like to solicit bids for the purchase of a new skid steer loader that would be compatible with the accessories currently owned by the City. In conjunction with this purchase, the recommendation has been made by the vehicle maintenance division to sell the jeep at the spring county auction, and not replace it during 1992. RAL:mdd budget/stu • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-28 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BINGO HALL LICENSE FOR HELSH-SIERRA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the application for Helsh-Sierra Limited Partnership for a Bingo Hall license is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 4th day of February, 1992 . Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • • • . TO: THROUGH: FROK: DATE: KEHORANDUH Mayor and City Council Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Craig W. Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager ~ January 31, 1992 SUBJECT: Reapportion for southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition After the City Council adopted the 1992 Budget, the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition requested the City to fund the Coalition at a $10,000 level for 1992. Of this amount, $3,750 would go toward the Coalition's general business and $6,250 would be Eden Prairie's share of engineering design services for widening Highway 5 further west. This latter amount fulfills the City's commitment for design services under the joint powers agreement for the Coalition. These levels of funding are consistent with the Coalition's amended request for 1991 • Due to the lateness of the communication, the funding request in the proposed budget was not revised. The Legislative program budget currently authorizes $5,000 for the Coalition. To meet the Coalition's request, $5,000 would need to be transferred from the contingency account. Staff will make a special effort to ascertain the Coalition's 1993 request earlier in the budget process. This approach should produce more accurate budget figures. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the city council authorize the transfer of $5,000 from the contingency program to the Legislative program in order to forward $10,000 to the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition. CWO: jdp • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 33-91 Lorence 3rd Addition AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the RI-13.5 District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R 1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. • SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of February 4, 1992, entered into between Peter J. and Roberta A. Knaeble, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement") and that certain supplement to the Developer's Agreement, dated as of February 4,1992, entered into between Peter J. and Roberta A. Knaeble, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Supplement"). 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 17th day of December, 1991, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of February, 1992. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor .PUBUSHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __ day of _______ , 1992. Lorence 3rd Addition • DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1992, by PETER J. AND ROBERTA A. KNAEBLE, husband and wife, 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 Change from Rural to RI-13.5 on 0.07 acre and Preliminary Plat of 0.87 acre into two single family lots and one outlot, to be known as Lorence 3rd Addition, for construction of one additional single family unit, all said 0.87 acre 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 #33-91, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. 2. 3. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed It approved by the City Council on December 17, 1991, revised and dated November 22, 19 and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herel . EXHmIT 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. TRANSFER OF LAND BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND CITY: Concurrent with, and as part of the final plat for the Property, Developer and City agree as follows: A. Developer agrees to dedicate to the City Outlot A, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. B. City agrees to deed to Developer that portion of the City Park Property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 4. UTILITY AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND BONDING REQUIRED: Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the Property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of bonding as required for the sewer and water connections to Lot 2, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. The purpose of the bond shall be for restoration of Hames Way after such connections have been construct_ • • • 5. REVISED ACCESS FOR EXISTING HOUSE: Concurrent with development on the Property, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, a revised driveway access to Hames Way for the existing house on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 6. DEMOLmONIRELOCATION/REMOV AL OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ON ADJACENT LAND: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for building on the Property, Developer agrees to demolish, relocate, or remove, the existing structure on Lot 2, Block 1, Lorence 2nd Addition, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer agrees to submit to the Chief Building Official and to obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of, plans for demolition, removal, or relocation of such existing structure. In the event such structure is demolished, removed, or relocated, Developer agrees to do so in accordance with the approved plans and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. In the event such structure is relocated, Developer agrees to do so in compliance with City setback requirements. 7. HOOK UP TO PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR EXISTING HOUSE: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for construction on the Property, Developer agrees to connect the existing house on Lot 1, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, to public watermain . OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETER J. AND ROBERTA A. KNAEBLE AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • Lorence 3rd Addition THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1992, by and between THE ESTATE OF JAMES J. LORENCE, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAmIE, hereinafter referred to as "City": For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance #33-91, changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner from the Rural District to the RI-13.5 District and amending the zoning of a portion of the Property within the Rl-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1992, by and between Peter J. and Roberta A. Knaeble, husband and wife, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Peter J. and Roberta A. Knaeble fail to proceed in accordance with the Developet4a Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of ilifI' Property to the original Rural and Rl-13.S Districts. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. 3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. • • • • EXIDBIT A Legal Description Lot 1, Block 1, Lorence 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and, That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the south right-of- way line of Valley View Road and west of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence 73.73 feet along said south right-of-way line of Valley View Road; thence 79.58 feet to a point 96.28 feet along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the point of beginning. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-23 Lorence 3rd Addition A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUl\1MARY OF ORDINANCE 33-91 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUl\1MARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 33-91 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of February, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 33-91, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. C. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 331.07 . That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 33-91 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within twenty days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of February, 1992. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • • • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 33-91 Lorence 3rd Addition AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAmIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.9, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY . PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAffiIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located on the southeast corner of Valley View Road and Hames Way from the Rural District to the Rl-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the fuUlegal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication . ATTEST: lsI John D. Frane, City Clerk lsI Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __ day of 1992. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 35-91 DeVaan Property AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIYfIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the RM-6.5 District and be placed in the R 1-13.5 District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the RM-6.5 District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. 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 17th day of December, 1991, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of February, 1992. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __ day of _______ , 1992. EXHmIT A ( Legal Description Lot 7, Block 2, LAKE TRAIL ESTATES, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HE!1NEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 35-91 DeVaan Property AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPfION OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.9, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located at 7748-7750 Carnelian Lane from the RM-6.5 District to the RI-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon pUblication. ATTEST: /s/ John D. Frane, City Clerk /s/ Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __ day of 1992. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) .------------------------------ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-34 De Vaan Property A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 35-91 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 35-91 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of February, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 35-91, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 35-91 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within twenty days after said publication.· ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of February, 1992. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-35 RESOLUTION RELATING TO $4,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF THE ISSUANCE THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: 1. This Council has investigated the facts necessary to ascertain and does hereby find, determine and declare that it is necessary and expedient for the City to borrow money by the issuance of its general obligation bonds (the Obligations) in the amount of $4,500,000 to provide funds to develop land and facilities for its program of public recreation. 2. The question of issuing the Obligations in such art amount and for such purpose shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City at a special election to be held on March 17, 1992, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the polling places set forth. 3. The City Finance Director/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the election to be given as follows: (A) by immediately posting in his office for public inspection, and mailing, not less than 45 days prior to the date of the election, to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, a copy of the notice set forth in paragraph 4; (B) by publication of the notice in the official newspaper of the City, once each week for two successive weeks, the first publication to be not less than fourteen days before the election; and (C) by posting a sample ballot in his office for public inspection at least four days prior to the election and in each polling place on election day. 4. The Notice of Election to be published, mailed and posted as provided in paragraph 3 (A) and (B) above shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF ELECTION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special election will be held in and for the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on Tuesday, March 17, 1992, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., for the purpose of submitting to the voters the following question: Shall the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $4,500,000 to provide funds for development of land and facilities for its program of public recreation? The polling places for said election shall be as follows: Precinct Number lA IB 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7A 7B 8 9A 9B Polling Place King of Glory Lutheran Church Eden Prairie Community Center Eden Prairie Community Center Prairie Hill Evangelical Free Church St. Andrew Lutheran Church Immanuel Lutheran Church Immanuel Lutheran Church Eden Prairie Family/Senior Center New Testament Church Hennepin Technical College Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church Pax Christi Catholic Community Pax Christi Catholic Community Any qualified voter residing in the City may vote at said election, at the polling place for the precinct in which the voter resides. Dated: February 4, 1992 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL John D. Frane City Finance Director/Clerk • • • • • • 5. The sample ballot for the election shall be posted as provided in paragraph 3 (C) and shall be in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ELECTION MARCH 17, 1992 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: If you wish to vote in favor of the proposition below, make a cross (X) in the square preceding the word "YES." If you wish to vote against the proposition below, mark a cross (X) in the square preceding the word "NO" next to the proposition. PLEASE VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: D YES D NO Shall the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $4,500,000 to provide funds for development of land and facilities for its program of public recreation? BY VOTING "YES" ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. 6. The City Finance Director/Clerk is authorized and directed to cause official ballots to be printed for the use of the voters at the election, which shall be printed on blue-colored paper and shall be identical in form with the sample ballot in paragraph 5 above, and on the back, so as to be visible when the ballot is properly folded for deposit, shall be printed the words "OFFICIAL BALLOT," the date of the election and the lines for the initials of two judges. 7. The election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by law. On March 17, 1992, at 8:30 o'clock p.m., this Council shall meet as a canvassing board and declare the results appearing from the election returns, in accordance with law. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor Attest: ______________ _ John D. Frane, City Finance Director/Clerk • • • • • • TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: -MEMORANDUM- Mayor and City Council a Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works %fl- January 29, 1992 Contracts for Snow Plowing Equipment I am recommending that the one bid that was received for snow wings be rejected and we solicit new bids for underbody plows and snow wings. We received only one bid for snow wings and none for underbody plows at the bid opening on January 21. We later learned that one bidder "forgot" and the one bid that was received "assumed" that the snow wings would be attached to the same trucks that would be equipped with underbody plows, thereby greatly increasing the installation .. costs. The net result is that the cost would have exceeded the budget amount authorized for the equipment. In order to allow for proper timing, we have re-advertised the bid request and will be receiving new bids for the equipment on February 13, with an anticipated award date of February 18. In addition, we have added an alternate that would provide for City staff to do the installation of the snow wings in an attempt to insure that the bids will come within budget. EAG:ssa • • • Gene Deitz City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Mr. Deitz, ........ ~,J 1 . . \ ..... ' . Dave Lorence 7726 Carnelian Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 11-26-91 I am writing to express my opposi tion to the closing of the Heritage Road I Highway 5 intersection. I do not believe closing the intersection is in the best interests of the neighborhood as a whole. Granted, a few homes immediately adjacent the intersection would benefit from its closure, but, the vast majority of households in the area would suffer hardships in the form of increased traffic and restricted access for the benefit of a few. It is my understanding that an estimated SOO additional vehicle trip per day on the average would be generated past homes located on Carnelian Lane. Since Luther Way and Round Lake Boulevard are inlets/outletsto Carnelian, I assume residents on these streets would feel a similar impact. Therefore, approximately 65 households would be affected by this major traffic increase. The convenience and emergency access provided by the Heritage Road intersection for households in that area would also be lost. How can this be a benefit for the majority of the neighborhood? Closing off the Carnelian Lane I Highway 5 intersection would create a more quiet, more private neighborhood for those in close proximity to my home, too. But, is it fair to ask others in the neighborhood to bear the burden of my desires? I have two children aged 2 and 7 whose safety is of utmost concern when I witness countless vehicles exiting the highway, speeding past my home, and rounding the corner onto Round Lake Boulevard. The traffic on our street is already heavy enough. We handle our fair share. \ I appreciate the fact that your department is not in favor of making this change. I think this is yet another instance where decisions have been made on how Eden Prairie should be laid out, ~\ it has been communicated adequately, and it should left as planned. I hope I can count on your continued opposition. December 3, 1991 Alan Gray Eden Prairie City Han 7600 Exeoutlve Drive Eden PraIrie, MN 55344 FAX 937.7411 Ph 937-2262 Dear Alan, Ron Harvey 7335 Hames Way Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Thank you for the update today on the progress In the Hwy 5 upgrade. As you know a number of us are concerned about the traffic In the neIghborhoOd bounded by Valley View, Hwy 4, Hwy 5 and Den Road. Specifically those of us living along Evener and Hames Way are concerned that aocess to the neighborhood be balanced and not create excessive traffic along anyone route. The proposal 10 close Heritage Road would seam to limit the access to the neighborhood. I would like to ask the City Council to hold a public meetlng to hear from other neighbors before decidIng to close HerItage. Unfortunately, I can not be at tonIght's City Council meeting. I would apprecIate you sharing my concern with thetn and ask them to hold off from any decIsIons on closing Heritage until more of lis who mIght be affected can understand the Issues Involved. Thank you agaIn for the tIme you spent with me. SIncerely, ~ • • • • • • .-DEC m "31 ~NJ , . ~ To: Eden Prairie City Council From: Terese Waters-McCabe 18119 Evener Way Date: December 3, 1991 Re: Petition for Cosure of Heritage I came the last two City Council meetings to offer input on the petition for closure of Heritage Road. However, I am unable to attend the meeting tonight therefore I am sending you some brief comments. I have discussed the matter with Heritage Rd. residents and am very sympathetic to their concerns about noise. I am supportive of their request to do something about this problem up to the point of closing the road. As you are aware our neighborhood is already experiencing significant traffic problems. Reducing the number of outlets would only enhance this problem. I disagree with the neighborhood's assessment of the traffic impact as minimal. If only 30 households use that outlet and each of the households generate the normal number of trips each day, then closure would cause several hundred trips to be rerouted past other neighborhood homes. If closure is going to be seriously considered then those on the streets that will be taking the additional traffic need to be informed and given the opportunity to express their views . CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH 16900 Main Street (Hwy. 5) Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 Gregory P. Lenz, Pastor (612) 937-1233 \1a ~~~~.J~ ® January 10, 1992 Mr. Eugene Dietz, Director of Public City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 Dear Mr. Dietz: JAN 1 J J':2. err'f Or Work..: RA\R\E \:QEN P Thank you for your memorandum regarding the potential closing of Heritage Road at Highway 5. Unfortunately I will be out of town when the information meeting is held, January 23. • Therefore I would like to express my opinion by means of this letter. As a resident of the area and more importantly as pastor of the church at the inter- section of Carnelian Lane and Highway 5, I would not mind seeing Heritage Road closed at Highway 5, even though it might result in more traffic at the inter-• section of Carnelian Lane and Highway 5. But for that reason, I would strongly urge that this intersection (Carnelian Lane & Highway 5) be upgraded. At the very least, six lanes with two turn lanes for east/west access from Highway 5 to Carnelian Lane with street signs clearly marking Carnelian Lane in both direc- tions, and a flashing amber light to slow traffic on Highway 5 somewhat at this intersection, would make this situation safer and allow better car movement in and out of the subdivision and shopping mall (also, our church, of course). Even better, perhaps, would be traffic signal lights at the intersection so that cars trying to enter Highway 5 from Carnelian Lane would not have to wait so long or take chances as often happens now especially during rush hours. There already seem to be too many lights on Highway 5 and crossroads, but this one may be necessary especially if Heritage Road is closed at Highway 5. Thank you for considering these comments. And I wish you blessings on the difficult balancing act you must perform in these negotiations. Member of WELS-Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod ).10 • • • • J. R. Brassel 7640 Atherton Way Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1/19/92 Mr. Gene Dietz Director o£ Public Works 7600 Executive Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Mr. Dietz, Thank you £or your recent letter regarding the permanent closure o£ Heritage Road at the Hwy. 5 intersection. Un£ortunately, we are unable to attend the 1/23 meeting. We are expecting and will be at a Lamaze class that evening! I signed last years petition requesting that noise reduction measures be taken. Although this closure/berm won't provide reduced noise levels at our house it will greatly improve the quality o£ the neighborhood surrounding" this intersection. We also endorse this closure £or the improved sa£ety o£ small children in our neighborhood. As this highway becomes busier, the threat o£ accidental injury/death at this intersection increases. Once they are out on their bikes it's hard to know where they will be. Closing o££ access will provide some peace o£ mind £or area parents. Our only concern is adequate and ambulance £unctions. intersection provided it ability to "get in." Have access to the area £or £ire, police We support the closure o£ this does not signi£icantly impair their they been consulted? Thank you £or arranging the meetings. Perhaps we'll make it to the later one (i£ we aren't new parents by then!) -. :e.; .eN _1 • , ~ \ t •• ' J' • 112 • • • January 27, 1992 Douglas Tenpas, Mayor Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 Dear Mr. Tenpas, I have resided on Heritage Rd. for over 13 years. I understand that a proposal will be made February 4 to the council to open the intersection of Highway 5 and Heritage Rd. It would be helpful for you to actually drive through the neighborhood before that meeting so you can understand what all of our concerns are. I am very upset about this proposal and would like to share some of my concerns that I have . NOISE LEVEL In the past few years with all the added trucks and cars that use Highway 5, there has been a big increase in noise level. This will only increase with the proposed Highway 21 2 construction as Highway 5 will become a more heavily used truck route. Opening Highway 5 and Heritage Rd. would cause a big gap in the burm which would allow more noise to come through. If a stop light is at that intersection, which is going to be proposed, the noise level would definitly increase due to the stopping and starting of the trucks. INCREASED TRAFFIC IN NEIGHBORHOOD Heritage Rd. would become a main thoroughfare for many vehicles that want to get to Valley View Rd. (including the High School). We saw a big increase of traffic flow to the High School when Atherton was opened up around 10 years ago, so we know this will happen. Traffic will also increase due to the development of Kerber Farm where people tend to use Heritage Rd. rather than Valley View. ROAD CONDITIONS Heritage Rd. and Atherton do not have curb. The roads were not constructed for all this additional traffic. We are very concerned that we will be assessed for curbing and the upgrade of the roads. STOP LIGHT AT INTERSECTION This is my biggest concern. I can not think of any instance where there is a stop light intersection off a state Highway leading strictly into a residential area. Our residential area is not large enough to warrent one. We have a stop light less than a half a mile at Highway 5 and County 4. When Kerber Farm was proposed to be developed, we were told by the city that there would be a stop light at Dell road and they would never place one at Heritage. With two close intersections at commercial sites (County 4 and Dell Rd.), there should be no need for an additional stop light at residential Heritage Rd. Only making right turns off and on Heritage Rd. and also at Carnelian Ln. could help relieve some of the problem. A burm might be able to be built up enough to help some of the sound. It would help cut the traffic flow for Round Lake Rd. and Carnelian Ln. Hopefully it would discourage alot of vehicles using our neighborhood to get to Valley View and the High School. There is only one problem and that is this neighborhood has learned to mistrust the city. What guarantee is there that a stop light would never be installed on Highway 5? That we would not be assessed for having to upgrade our road for the additonal traffic? The proposal has not even been brought to you and already the state has put in the necessary underground work for a stop light because they were told the city and the neighborhood wanted it. When I moved in, there was cornfields all around us. I watched Round Lake Rd. and Carnelian be developed. I have watched Atherton become a through street. I have seen the entire development of the south side of Round Lake and Kerber Farm. This is development that not everyone likes in their neighborhood but is good development for Eden Prairie. A stop light at Heritage Rd. and Highway 5 is unnecessary and not good development. It would only do more harm than good. Please really think about this proposal and do what is right. Please SAY NO TO STOP LIGHTS off of Highway 5 to any residential street in Eden Prairie. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,- /-, ~S~ Cindy Aldrich 7711 Heritage Rd. Eden Prairie, Mn 55346 • • • -_'9 • • J ~ ~/'t7'.5' ~"70 11 )2""..,-."..,:r--L--- ha-n. ~~~ ~cr-,-;:z-~~ .... ,{... 1£ 7U o/~~ ~ .. Pk-,,-? ~~··7~rs. As 4 ~.;/~ ;e-~,-,,:J~TOI- &L~ <;"~.y p-v~h. 'S:77U>""tt- ~_~'TO /I >/;?A,/(j=o ,"~/.",.C"'-- A-r-~~'-~ -4 72'71-/;;-' ';.../:e-'7//T ~<--r-~p>4-YteA...-:::'. ~,....n.-? ~-L~;­ ~~.~~s I ~ C!i5~t..-60 S"C,-,lC ffi~ -/l~c./I?L~r ~~A-?"7c..·T'S 41-- ? <h< k. -/'7 4 ~_---' (i)c '7:3011.0 '1'- t:/ co-6':?C) /?/~ C~.,.-,;/ ~ , ~R-C /lC:;;~ /'b//:. ~,.;7'l P-.--E-s c.c-7-1';'--p~ck,~n-(.~r J :6~/£v.r ~;/l ;/o'/~-~;i.-<---~/f:-o i,A-~s~nc~ .u.o~ ~ .. h-;yo-/" #~ /-?~t:..;o C-Y7r~ ,.;.. -nk-e'C'.n"/A( ;{~ ~ . 4' ~... _ hr-,.", ~ ~/ A -:# t/ ~,,~ A"f I -r.;; L/ d~ ~~$5'L~ T/k --n-r-4<.. ? t?74< ~ 49~ ~ 5"?~-z:o~ ~o ,c-A....~n7"cS<­ q.PPr1pi:=" <:D.A.. ~cc/~e~o:"" /,~c~ C ~ 5"= ~ "'<''-''"'''><-5 /'i:r 4 ~L;'"Tf. 1~ <;;;CJ/'?/~ ..z-C?,4~ ~o,-· -'. ~-v~ ~~~-?-7Aj £7-/7/, ,,;; nF .c~// / (J &#1-U~( -=-/7k-~c.;&-r ~~ 6~ ~ m,-y/-h-<;. 4"1' a~7TV~S (JP!I/9.5./-co"57 . s::~~~-~ ~ I-fr-14 ~~A..-W7t'-" ~~7 b/~~ S-- • • 6-- Gene Deitz Director of Public Works January 26,1992 • 7600 Executive Dr. Eden Prairie, MN. ,","\ ,'; (i'; ~ ~ ~ sit i • • \ \ ~: \~, \ .0) Ot'P't . ~ ,i 1:.N(''' , ~i.. ~.-~. il ji>-\'\?>1~~h Mr. Deitz, c\\'( Or r,.o ~\R\€. f" ''''',r-N \" 1'1 We are writing you to express our opinion ~~regarding the possible closing of the Heritage Road access to Highway 5. We feel that it would be ill advised and detremental to a disproportinate number of neighborhood residents. ! Our family has lived in Eden Prairie since 1985. All of that time on Carnelian Lane. We have seen a lot of positive change to the roadways of our city. Rather than list them it is sufficient to say that we experienced the inconvience, along with our neighbors, safe in the knowledge that after each project, balance would be restored. All of the improvements have lived up to our expectations. They are indeed improvements, and we all benefited. And balance was restored. We understand that the idea of closing Heritage Road access grew out of a concern for noise levels. Readings were taken of decibel levels for the residences on Hertitage Road closest to Highway 5, and for a few houses on Carnelian Lane. Berm revisions would appear to be an answer that would correct this. Two weeks ago on a saturday afternoon we took a slow drive through the Heritage Road area. What we found was a nice quiet street with hardly any traffic. Children were even playing in the street. It was easy to see what a positive improvement closing the access would have. We could better understand the primary purpose of the proposal. ~mproved quality of life. Unfortunately we had to return to our own, now too busy, neighborhood. We drove back following Round Lake Road, Carnelian Lane, Luther Way. This stretch has been dubbed the"Eden Prairie Expressway". It now appears to carry most of the traffic [ non-stop ] for the neighborhood outlined on your project map, west of county Road 4, south of Round Lake Park, east of Eileen street, and north of Highway 5. The negative impact on quality of life and the increase in traffic, in our neighborhood, has been disproportinate to the benefit described in the Highway 5 improvement project. The balance is gone. The "Eden prairie Expressway" residents suffer for the benefit of those living near a temporary closing of the Heritage Road access . At the meeting held on thursday, January 23,1992 in Immanuel Lutheran Church, we were given statistics regarding the acknowledged increases in traffic to unacceptable, and unengineered, levels ov~r Round Lake Road, Carnelian Lane, • and Luther Way. We also heard how berm revisions should minimize the noise concern on Heritage Road. It appears that traffic equity, and balcnce, has been planned to be restored. By this letter, we are formally requesting that the Heritage Road access to Highway 5 be left open. This is consistant with the original project design, as un 1 erstood by the neighborhood, has been engineered, and woul seem to be the most cost effective. As the officials representing the residents 0 the City of Eden Prairie you have the difficult task of being objective, effective, intelligent managers. In the past you have never let us down. Do the right thing, restore' the balance, leave Heritage Road access to Highway 5 open. Sincerely yours The Jack R. Wheeler Family 7575 Carnelian Lane Eden Prairie, MN. ~ rj j L' i '/} rf " .... . O--'C?'~! \. L-f.r,//~~ ,,:// 11~AA. \ -. ":. • • • • • January 28, 1992 Mr. Gene Deitz Director of Public Works Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Deitz: ill ~~G~JE~~ ill JAN 31 -aS2. C\TY OF EDEN PRA\RlE On Februru::y 4th, the City Council will consider a petition for the closure of Heritage Road at Highway 5. The homeowners who originated that petition were concerned about the noise level at their properties generated by the highway traffic. The state highway deparbnent conducted a noise study of these properties which concluded that only one property on Heritage Road was outside acceptable noise levels with the access open. OUr family lives at 7596 carnelian Lane, which is on the corner of Illther Way and carnelian Lane. We strongly oppose the closing of the Heritage Road access to Highway 5 because of the extra traffic our streets will bear if Heritage Road is closed. A recent traffic study indicated that carnelian Lane traffic will increase up to 100% if Heritage Road is closed! In fact, since last summer, Heritage Road has been closed because of Highway 5 construction and we have had an unacceptable increase in traffic through our neighborhood. We do not feel that the residents on Illther Way, carnelian Lane, Round lake Road and also Evener Way should have to bear the brunt of the neighborhood traffic just because a few households on Heritage Road are concerned about noise. I don't disagree with them that they would have a much quieter street if Heritage Road were closed. They've gotten a taste of cul-de-sac living the last eight months and would like it to stay that way. Wouldn't we all! Unfortunately, the majority of the neighborhood homeowners would have to pay the price of more traffic on our already busy streets so that a few households can improve their quality of life. It just isn't fair! Therefore, as decision makers please restore the balance in our neighbo with your vote NO for the closing of Heritage Road at Highway The Geason Family 7596 carnelian Lane Eden Prairie, MN lli ~!:'~~l~ ® J~N ~ 1 #11~2. Mr. Eugene A. Dietz Director of Public Works CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 Re: Potential Closing of Heritage Road at Trunk Highway 5 Dear Mr. Dietz: Bob and Sue Michels 7781 Heritage Road Eden Prairie, MN 55436 January 29, 1992 Our home is the first house you would come to if you turned on the above mentioned Heritage Road from trunk Highway 5. We were unable to attend the meeting on January 23rd, and regretfully will be unable to attend on February 4th. We hope that this letter will serve as an addition to the data you have collected concerning the potential closing of Heritage Road at trunk Highway 5. In regard to the intrusion of noise into the residential area, one might expect that we would certainly be subject to the most noise being that we are the first house on this particular corner. This doesn't seem so. We experience SOME noise, of course, but not anywhere near a level of discomfort or distraction or causing sleepless nights, etc. We explain this because it might be possible that the noise is directed OVER the berm already in place and falls down on houses further down the block. If this is happening, it seems that closing off Heritage Road would not be a solution to the noise level that is intruding on some of our neighbors. We also believe that closing off Heritage Road would produce MORE cars driving by the houses down the road. People that would normally take Heritage outlet to Highway 5, including us, would be forced to drive by these other homes as the only other way out to Highway 5. Living where we do, we have seen the anger that the closing of this road would produce. People STILL (after temporarily closing off this road since April 1991) come down this street and, of course, our driveway is the turn around point when they realize they cannot get through. We have seen the anger on peoples faces. We have seen people try anyway they can to sneak by and try to get on Highway 5, we have heard and witnessed the squeal of tires as they turn around, frustrated that they cannot get out. This is all still happening, even after 10 months (and a sign clearly stating -ROAD CLOSED!) Another concern of ours is that a 911 call could take an extra 2-5 minutes while the responders maneuver themselfs through the maize of streets to reach the caller. A 911 call is an emergency -2-5 minutes could mean a life saved. We think we need to ask the question "Will closing this road really reduce the noise?" And if so, "by how much -just a little, alot, substantially?" We hope that the decision to close Heritage Road at Trunk Highway 5 will be "leave it open." Sincerely, --:p~\:> c~ r;:<¥CL .. ,J'j'1.Lf' __ l~~ Bob and Sue Michels • • • • fD) rn © rn e W \~ fiji un ENG. DEP'r. ~ JAN 31 i1S2 ClTY OF EDEN PRAIR\E January 29, 1992 17540 Evener Way Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Dear Eden Prairie Council Members and Mayor Tenpas:: You are to consider the closing of the Heritage Rd. access from Highway 5 on Tuesday, February 4th, 1992. We are concerned that this action will disproportionately re-distribute the travel activity to Evener Way. We understand that the Evener Way traffic will increase 60t. as the result of this closure. We feel this is an inappropriate and unfair burden for our part of the neighborhood. We propose to turn into and from the city that you will Highway 5. Sincerely, • you that the appropriate compromise is to allow for a right out of Heritage Rd. Upon your review of the recommendations staff and comments from other concerned citizens, we hope realize the merit in maintaining access to Heritage Rd. from O~L.y If fULL <;lbNf\L UbMIS (iH\)S ALLDWINb SAH ... A-(.G(S~ ~OM B01H-c..~FI .4l-JD RI6t{T 1\JRN U'N~S) CANNO'! &'(.. P\Jl It-,} fLA(.'{ A'\ ,HIS 'tIM'i.. E?~J411 d-Z?t~ Elizabefh A. Evans ,~ ...... ~; '\ " i I .. / I. I j-. !~y r : • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 92-19 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BRAXTON POND FOR WESTAR PROPERTIES, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: Braxton Pond That the preliminary plat of Braxton Pond for Westar Properties, Inc. dated December 13, 1991, consisting of 6 single family lots and road right-of-way on 3.6 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 4th day of February, 1992. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ( ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEl\fBER 25, 1991 B. BRAXTON POND (91-29-Z-P) by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural toRI-13.5 on 3.6 acres; and Preliminary Platting of3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Braxton Pond. Location: South and west of the terminus of existing Braxton Drive. (A public hearing) Ron Bastyr, representing the proponent, stated that the proposal was for 6 single family lots. The proponent concurred with the Staff recommendations. Franzen reported that the proposed site had been guided low density for several years. Braxton Drive would become the access to the elementary school. The proposal was in compliance with the RI-13.5 zoning requirements. Franzen noted that the timing of the project had to be done in conjunction with the Braxton Drive construction and Westar Lane would be a temporary cul-de-sac. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the Staff recommendations. Sandstad asked if Braxton Drive existed currently north of the proposed site. Franzen replied that Braxton Drive would run from County Road 1 to Scenic Heights Road and added that Braxton drive did not exist north of the site at this time . . . Ruebling asked if Westar Lane aligned with School Drive. Franzen replied no. Bastyr added that Westar Lane was approximately 500 feet to the north of School Drive . Ruebling noted that 1 of the homes would have access directly onto Braxton Drive and asked if there would_ be other in the future. Franzen replied that Braxton Drive would be a local collector which can accommodate a limited number of driveways~ MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of We star Properties, Inc., for Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl-13.5 on 3.6 acres, to be known as Braxton Pond, based on plans dated November 15, 1991, -----subjeCf to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Westar Properties, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 3.6 acres into six (6) single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Braxton Pond, based on plans dated • • • November 15, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November • 22, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0. • • c ( STAFF REPORT .. ~.' .. ____ ... _ ... __ ._ ... __ .. _,. ._. C .. ",", :.~" -:~".~ THROUGH: : ~2!-, .. Chris Enger, Director of Planning FROM: Donald R. Uram, Planner .... '". ", . I ... _ •• __ ,_ •• . ..:.. ... ""~~ . .:... ... .. .... ~....... -'-" .. -. - DATE:· ... _ --::-= ~·: ... -November 22,.1991 " SUBJECT:.' "-:'-' · .. ·Braxton Pond, .. APPLICANT: : .-.. : Westar Properties, Inc._ ' FEE OWNER: Eden Prairie School District LOCATION: South and west of the terminus of existing Braxton Drive REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.6 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right-of-way. BACKGROUND .d R1-9.S* This site is designated for development as . '/fr-...... ::-. .':-.. -' ------"' Low Density Residential. Adjacent land is~' R 1-13. 5 * guided Low Density to the west and north, . and the Cedar Ridge Elementary School is \ --",,--.,..-~~'lt--T~:-"--F J..-jr .......... , :n~ed R~~~e west .. Thi~site. is currently I PR.OF~~? SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT I I I I The site plan depicts the subdivision of 3.6 acres into six single family lots at a density of 1.6 units per acre. The lots range in size from 13,900 square feet to 32,800 square feet with a 19,633 square foot average. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the Rl-13.5 Zoning District. ACCESS Access to this site will be provided by the extension of Braxton Drive and Westar 1 I ~. I i I ! . I . I ( ( Lane. ·Westar Lane will provide access to the adjacent property to the west. The developer is petitioning for the construction of Westar Lane. Braxton Drive will be constructed by the City • and assessed to the adjacent property owners. Braxton Drive will include an 8' bituminous trail on the east side and a 5' concrete sidewalk on . the west side of the road. GRADING J. •• _ Elevations on the site range from a high point of 884 along the west property line to a low point of 863 along the north property line within the pond area. Minimal grading is expected on the entire side to allow for road construction and building pads. Walkout lots are proposed along the pond. to the north to take advantage of exisiting slopes. There is an existing pond located to the west of Block 2 which has a IOO-year flood elevation of 879.9. The floor elevations of the homes in this area must be 2 feet above this elevation. The grading plan must be revised to reflect a minimum floor elevation of 881.9. The preliminary grading plan is subject to change based on the final road grades for Braxton Drive. UTILITIES Water and sanitary sewer service will be installed in Braxton Drive with the road construction . Services will be extended in Westar Lane to provide utility service to the properties to the west. - _. Storm water runoff is proposed to be collected within a catch basin system and discharged into the pond along the north property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS .. . Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-13.5 on 3.6 acr~s . and Preliminary Plat of 3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right-of-way based on revised plans dated November 15, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated November .22, 1991, and subject to the following conditions: ------_ .. _. 1. Prior to City Council approval, proponent shall revise the grading plan to reflect a . minimum floor elevation of 881.9 for homes within Block 2. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed utility, storm water runoff, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. • • '" • I .. , :", . • ' ...... 3;.::.-nPrior to building permit issuance, proponent shall pay the appropriate cash park fee . ~ .. , .. -... -... .. . .' ...... . 4. Submit a petition for the construction of Westar Lane. -. -, .. - . ., '-,:"",~ .-'~":"'=' " •. , •• '". '" . -' ".~. . 5;" "'Development of the project cannot proceed until Braxton Drive is under construction. ~' .... ,-.-,.-...... --..-.. -_ .... -... ~ ,.,. -..... ~. -.. '--' • • • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 13, .1992 PRAIRIE GREEN OUmOOR STORAGE by Birchwood Labs. Request of Birchwood Labs for Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 District on 3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review on 3.0 acres for construction of an outdoor storage facility to be known as Prairie Green Outdoor Storage. LOCATION: Southwest of Fuller Road, south of Birchwood Labs, east of Lincoln Drive. Franzen reported that the major question for consideration was if this type of development would make sense in this location. Brian Klutz, representing the proponent, stated that this property did not have street frontage; the only access was from the end of the cul-de-sac. Klutz said that the adjacent property owner believes that the current access is crossing his property. Klutz believed that the most sensitive area was between the property and the residential area. He noted that the residential homeowners had been contacted on 2 separate occasions and no response had been received. Hallett asked if correspondence was sent to all property owners. Klutz replied that there were only 5 to 6 homeowners who received the letters and plans. Klutz noted that the security lighting would be minimal. Klutz stated that he had looked at the possibility of increasing the setbacks as recommended by Staff; however, it would reduce the amount of useable area approximately 30% and would impact the viability of the project. Klutz 7 recommended an increase in the setbacks bordering the residential area to 75 feet and leavin. the setbacks along the commercial area as proposed. Sandstad asked how a lot was platted without street frontage. Franzen replied that there was no information available on the history of this parcel. Hawkins asked the possible height of the tallest vehicle which could be stored on the site. Klutz replied that the main use would be recreational vehicles. He added that sailboats could be stored but it would only be the mast that would be excessive in height. Hallett asked if it was true that there was not other facility in the area for this type of storage. Franzen replied yes. Hallett asked if the City was asking for problems because of the requirements made for Frank's Nursery. Franzen replied that it was a potential can of worms; however, the sections of City Code are different for retail areas and commercial areas. Franzen stated that the question of this type of use on this property if a first for this area. Staff believed that because the use was strictly for storage visibility was not an issue. Hallett believed that this was a unique site and that the use could very well be appropriate. Bauer believed that this type of land use would be needed more and more in the future because of the restrictions on the storage of recreational vehicles on private property. Bauer concurred that this was a unique parcel and the use could be appropriate. Bauer was inclined to favor the. project because of the lack of any objections from the neighbors. Norman asked Klutz to describe the fence proposed. Klutz replied that the fence would be a 6- foot high exterior fence. Sandstad believed that just because there had been no feedback from the neighbors that this could not be necessarily mean approval for the use. Sandstad further believed that if the project could be effectively screened from the residential area that it could be an acceptable use. Hawkins asked Klutz if he were in contact with Mr. Hay and if he had received any responses from the letters. Klutz replied that as of today Mr. Hay had not received any responses. Norman questioned security. Klutz replied that a caretaker lived on the Prairie Green facility. Sandstad asked if the Police Department had voiced any concerns. Franzen replied that he would contact the Public Safety Department for an opinion. Norman asked exactly what the Commission would be voting on. Franzen replied that the variances and the determination of a hardship case would be determined by the Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission should consider if the land use if appropriate and if the unique circumstances should allow for the use. Franzen noted that Prairie Green had approached 8 • • • • the Board of Appeals in the past and transition had been an issue . Sandstad stated that he would like to see screening focused to the west and south. He added that the setback to the east was not as an important an issue as the screening. Klutz noted that the area to the south was industrial. Hallett asked if the plan would be affected if the driveway had to be moved. Franzen replied that there were utility easements; however, the driveway could be shifted 20 feet to the north if necessary . Norman asked if fire access was available. Franzen replied yes. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Birchwood Labs for Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 District on 3.0 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of an outdoor storage facility to be known as Prairie Green Outdoor Storage, based on plans dated, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1992 and subject further to provisions for screening to the west and south; nominal screening to the north and east, and determination of the setbacks and road access. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Birchwood Labs for Site Plan Review on 3.0 acres for construction of an outdoor storage facility to be known as Prairie Green Outdoor Storage, based on plans dated, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1992, and subject further to provisions for screening to the west and south; nominal screening to the north and east, and determination of the setbacks and road access. Motion carried 6-0-0. Sandstad asked what type of control the City had over the operation of the facility. Franzen replied that operation would be dealt with under the Noise Ordinance. Bauer added that for insurance reasons storage only would be allowed. Franzen added that the City Ordinance did not allow for work on a vehicle outside of a building. Franzen stated that the screening recommended by Staff for the area to the west talked of a berm and fencing and asked Klutz if this was acceptable. Klutz asked if it would be acceptable to allow for growth of plant screening and not require 100% coverage from day one . 9 Bauer recommended 100% coverage immediately. Norman believed that 100% coverage was restrictive. e. Franzen believed that it would make a difference as to how close the vehicles were parked to the berm and the fence how much screening would be necessary. Sandstad believed that 100% coverage immediately for the area to the west was important. Franzen noted that the Board of Appeals and the City Council could have very different views on these issues. The Planning Commission concurred that solid screening was necessary to the west. D. TACO BELL by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. LOCATION: Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire. John Ruggieri, representing the proponent, complimented Franzen on the Staff Report and the amount of time Staff had spent on this proposal. He said that the request was for Site Plan Approval with 3 variances. Ruggieri noted that the site was very small. Two of the variances were required to allow for parking and the drive-thru. The third variance related to the trash enclosure. Ruggieri noted that additional landscaping was being provided and the proponent d~ not have a problem with addition of 7 conifers as noted on Attachment C. Ruggieri stated thJlllli' the request for 17 feet of landscaping on Page 3 of the Staff Report would not be possible. The proponent could provide 10 feet and if the sidewalk along Joiner Way were moved an additional 5 feet could be provided. Ruggieri said that if the entire 17 feet were required the drive-thru would not be possible. He added that the proponent did not want to get any closer to Highway 169. Franzen replied that the drive-thru could be constructed without setbacks or the facility could be moved closer to Highway 169. Franzen noted that Joiner Way was a private road and the sidewalk was on private property. Franzen noted that a lot of the Taco Bell's used to be Zantigo's and adequate parking was not available. Taco Bell wanted the drive-thru to go through the parking area and not on the street. Ruggieri stated that Taco Bell was comfortable with only 1 entrance and exit. He added that Taco Bell had questioned if the drive-thru should be on the right or the left of the building. Ruggieri stated that the plan as proposed allowed for the maximum amount of stacking for the drive-thru. Norman noted that the current plan would have cars coming from 2 separate areas to the drive- thru location. Ruggieri replied that directional signs would be posted. 10 e • • • STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: WCATION: APPLICANT: FEE OWNER: REQUEST: ( Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning January 10, 1992 Prairie Green Outdoor Storage ( Southwest of Fuller Road, south of Birchwood Labs, east of Lincoln Lane John Hay, Birchwood Labs John Hay, Birchwood Labs 1. Site Plan Review on approximately 3 acres. 2. Zoning District Amendment within existing 1-2 Zoning District. 3. Board of Adjustments and Appeals variance for outdoor storage of vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity . ! .......... r", .... , ,,-, ! U) frST I . .. ..., .. -.or, l' ticn North .. -... .-. -"'.-. i )~ ( I ( Staff Report Prairie Green Outdoor Storage January 10, 1992 BACKGROUND ( This site is currently guided for an industrial land use. It is currently zoned 1-2 Park. Surrounding land uses are guided industrial to the north, east and south of the site with low density residential to the west. The surrounding property is zoned 1-2 Park to the north, 1-2 Park to the east, I-General to the south, Rl-22 and 1-2 Park to the west. STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES The proponent, Birchwood Labs, is requesting approval of a site plan to store recreational vehicles, automobiles and trailers on a piece of property at the end of Fuller Road. In addition to site plan approval, a variance is required from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to store vehicles greater than 3/4 ton capacity outside. The storage of recreational vehicles in Eden Prairie is permitted by City Code in two zoning districts. In the residential zoning districts, recreational vehicles up to 12 feet in height may be stored within the front, side or rear yards of any property provided they meet setbacks requirements. In addition, the I-General Zoning District allows outdoor storage provided it can be screened from the adjoining land uses. CITY POLICY ON OUTDOOR STORAGE Through past actions by either the City Council and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, outdoor storage has been permitted in the 1-2 Park Zoning District. These include Deli-Express and Natural Green. Approval of a variance for outdoor storage was predicated upon the type of products stored and the degree to which the outdoor storage screened from adjacent roads and land uses. The level of screening required depended upon the size, type of products stored, and site lines into the storage area. Deli-Express for example, was required to create a berm with large conifers, and agree to park large semi trucks in a special location on the property. (Although theorhetically this could work, experience showed that Deli-Express did not park the semi's within the agreed upon area.) Natural Green was required to screen trucks by building and landscaping within the rear yard. The outdoor storage on both of these projects were incidental to the main use of the building. For Deli-Express, the building, its internal packaging, manufacturing and distribution was the main business, and the storage of trailers was an associated part of the business (3 % of total site). Natural Green had trucks and trailers as an associated part of the business on 5 % of the site. Both of the uses were granted variances based on screening and minimal impact on adjoining uses. 2 • • • • • • ( Staff Report Prairie Green Outdoor Storage January 10, 1992 ( .In April of 1988, Birchwood Labs requested the Board of Adjustments and Appeals grant a variance from City Code to allow outdoor storage of recreational vehicles north of the Prairie Green Mini-Storage along County Road 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended denial based on the grounds that no hardship was defined, was an inappropriate location, there was no unique circumstances, and it was not possible to physically screen the outdoor storage area. WHERE CAN AUTOMOBILES, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS IN EXCESS OF 12 FEET IN HEIGHT BE STORED IN EDEN PRAIRIE Currently, recreational vehicles up to 12 feet in height may be stored within a residential district. This is to allow people to keep there own vehicle on site. This accommodates most of the recreational vehicles, with the exception of the large motor coaches, motor vans, large sailboats, and cabin cruisers etc ... Outdoor storage of recreational vehicles is permitted in the I-General Zoning District. The special purpose of the I-General District is to provide locations where industries that desire larger sites and outdoor storage can operate with minimum restriction and without adverse effect on other uses. The I-General District is established for large sites with deep setback requirements. These requirements provide ample space for intensive industrial use generally associated with this district. These setbacks provide adequate green space for proper screening of both parking and outdoor storage. The I-General Zoning District has a 5 acre minimum lot size, a 75 foot front yard setback, 30 feet for side yards, and a 50 foot rear yard setback. This property currently zoned 1-2 Park has a minimum lot size of 2 acres, a front yard setback of 50 feet, a side yard setback of 20 feet, and a rear yard setback of 25 feet. This site would not be appropriate to be rezoned to I-General, because it could not meet the minimum requirements for lot size. An outdoor storage area for recreational vehicles may be at cross purposes with the intent of the Industrial Park District. The purpose of the Industrial Park Districts which include 1-2 (2 acre minimum) and 1-5 (5 acre minimum) is to establish and maintain high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design that will create an environment attractive to the most discriminating industries and research and development establishments seeking sites in the Metropolitan area. Permitted uses within this district would be manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, distribution, processing, packaging, assembly, compounding and accessory uses, conducted within a building . 3 ( Staff Report Prairie Green Outdoor Storage January 10, 1992 ( CAN THE STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AS A PRINCIPLE USE BE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN AN 1-2 PARK ZONING DISTRICT? 1-2 lots are small by comparison to I-General. The setbacks are also less. A way in which outdoor storage could be accommodated as a principle use within an 1-2 Park District would be to require that the setback requirements for the outdoor storage area be the same as the I-General Zoning District. For this proposal, this would increase the front yard setback by 25 feet, and ~i~teyardsJ~y_}<lfeet._Jh~ site pICl.fl._asproj>Os¢_ 'Yould meet the 50 foot rear yard minimum setQac~_requireI1}~I1t._Jithese setbacks \Vere used, the amount of outdoor storage and display would be reduced from 55 % to 44 % • Another issue regarding outdoor storage in an 1-2 Park Zoning District is the relationship to other uses within the surrounding zoning 1-2 Park and adjoining land uses. Since the site sits at a lower elevation that the adjoining single family parcels to the west, the only way that the outdoor storage can be 100% screened from these uses is to create a fence, berm or combination, of 22 feet in height on the property. The proposed 5 foot high berm along the extension of Fuller Road is also not be high enough to screen the outdoor storage from future industrial users to the west and south of the property. STORM WATER RUN-OFF The amount of storm water run-off generated by this property is approximately 8.1 cu. ft. per second. The nearest storm water inlet is at the intersection of Fuller Road and Highway 5. As a condition of the development of this site, the proponent should either be required to pond this water on property, or petition to the City to initiate a storm water improvement project for Fuller Road. When Highway 5 was constructed, the storm sewer pipes along Highway 5 were sized large enough to accommodate any future water run-off from land along Fuller Road. CONCLUSION In the review of the request for site plan and zoning amendment to permit outdoor storage, the first and most important question is if outdoor storage within an 1-2 Park Zoning District is consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code. If the answer to this question is a qualified yes, then the Commission must decide what types of mitigating measures will be necessary to accomplish complete screening from the differing land uses. If this project is to be approved, the Commission must clearly identify the unique circumstances to this property which could support outdoor storage rather than on other 1-2 site within the community. In other words, would this site provide an exceptional area for outdoor storage, screening views from adjacent differing land uses. 4 • • • • • • ( ( Staff Report Prairie Green Outdoor Storage January 10, 1992 The~lanningJ:~9mmission Jllay choose to consider one of the following options: 1. 2. 3. --.- Approve the site plan and zoning district amendment as presented by the proponent. Approve the request for site plan and zoning district amendment in the existing 1-2 Zoning District, identifying unique circumstances in which the site is appropriate to handle outdoor storage and prescribe the following mitgative measures to screen the outdoor storage area including: . a. Increase the setbacks to 75 feet for the front yard, 30 feet for the sideyargs, and 75 feet for the rear yard. In addition, construction of a berm and fence equivalent to 22 feet in height along the west property line to screen the views from the adjoining residential houses. (See Attachment A) b. Revise the site plan to provide space for storm water storage or petition to the City for a storm sewer improvement project from Highway 5 to the site. Deny the request for site plan and zoning district amendment based on no unique circumstance in support of outdoor storage, outdoor storage is at cross purpose with intent and purpose of the 1-2 Park Zoning District, and screening that is proposed is not adequate to block views from differing land uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff would recommend Alternative #2. PGRNSTRG.MDF:bs 5 ( ----.-------1 --.... _-- 8 ::: OUTDOOR STORAGWY: 10'-0· X 25' " .... " 1 11' -4· X 25' .... " 1 10' -0· X 30' " .... " 9 10 . -6· X 30' ...... L 10' -0· X 15' -9· ... . TOTAL ...... " ... 12L )' G s )LAN Attachment A 0 10 50 " 100 FT NORTH • • • • PLANNING COMMISSION -JANUARY 13, 1992 D. TACO BELL by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. LOCATION: Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire. John Ruggieri, representing the proponent, complimented Franzen on the Staff Report and the amount of time Staff had spent on this proposal. He said that the request was for Site Plan Approval with 3 variances. Ruggieri noted that the site was very small. Two of the variances were required to allow for parking and the drive-thru. The third variance related to the trash enclosure. Ruggieri noted that additional landscaping was being provided and the proponent did not have a problem with addition of 7 conifers as noted on Attachment C. Ruggieri stated that the request for 17 feet of landscaping on Page 3 of the Staff Report would not be possible. The proponent could provide 10 feet and if the sidewalk along Joiner Way were moved an additional 5 feet could be provided. Ruggieri said that if the entire 17 feet were required the drive-thru would not be possible. He added that the proponent did not want to get any closer to Highway 169. Franzen replied that the drive-thru could be constructed without setbacks or the facility could be moved closer to Highway 169. Franzen noted that Joiner Way was a private road and the sidewalk was on private property. Franzen noted that a lot of the Taco Bell's used to be Zantigo's and adequate parking was not available. Taco Bell wanted the drive-thru to go through the parking area and not on the street. Ruggieri stated that Taco Bell was comfortable with only 1 entrance and exit. He added that Taco Bell had questioned if the drive-thru should be on the right or the left of the building. Ruggieri stated that the plan as proposed allowed for the maximum amount of stacking for the drive-thru. Norman noted that the current plan would have cars coming from 2 separate areas to the drive- thru location. Ruggieri replied that directional signs would be posted . 10 Franzen believed that it was human nature for customers to not pay as much attention con:i .. out of a drive-thm. Franzen stated that 35 parking spaces were being provided. Franzen as~ Ruggieri how Taco Bell would deal with only 1 in and lout. Rorgery replied that the entrance would be to the north and the exit would provide only an 18-foot area. He added that 2 parking spaces would be lost. Ruggieri stated that Taco Bell would prefer to keep a 24-foot entrance. Ruggieri noted that if 4 parking spaces were removed the single entrance and exit could work; however, Taco Bell would prefer not to lose the parking spaces. Ruggieri stated that the exterior building material would be 75 % brick. The color of the brick would match that of the Goodyear or Wendy's facility or would fall somewhere inbetween to provide consistency. The mechanical units would be located on top of the building. Ruggieri stated that this area was with the NSP easement which would require that 1.5 feet needed to be cut from the roof deck of the building. The parapet would be 5 feet high. Ruggieri stated that Staff was requesting a large trash enclosure based on past experiences from other facilities within the City. He noted that the requirement would be approximately 30% larger than any other Taco Bell site within the Twin City area. Bauer noted that fast food restaurants were getting away from using styrofoam and, therefore, generated less trash than before. Ruggieri stated that the pylon sign could be moved back to meet City Code requirements. Ruggieri noted that the logo was part of directional signs and if necessary Taco Bell would h;a the signs custom made to have the logo removed. He added that a sign plan would submitted to the City. Ruggieri noted that the lighting would match that of the neighbori facilities. He stated that the civil engineer had concurred that there would be no interruption in the utilities. Franzen reported that this was a unique parcel with several limitations due to the irregular shape and utility lines. Franzen noted that the Board of Appeals has granted similar variances for the drive-thru window. The trash enclosure location would be more inconvenient for Taco Bell but would save parking spaces. Franzen noted that the proponent concurred with the Staff recommendations with the exception of the trash enclosure. Franzen noted that the size required would be the same as Applebees and Staff would be comfortable with a reduction in the size. He added that Staff would need to review operational material before a final decision could be made on this item. Hawkins recommended that when reviewing operational information the comparison be made with facilities with the same amount of parking. Ruggieri replied that he did not have this type of information at this time but it could be obtained. Ruggieri added that Taco Bell was resistant to having a cover over the trash enclosure area. Franzen replied that when the trash enclosure area was behind a facility it was not policed as well as when in the front. Sandstad stated that he would comfortable with flexibility in the size. 11 -. • • • Hallett was concerned about reducing the size. He added that what was approved was what the City had to live with. Bauer recommended a continuance of the item to see more finalized plans. He recommended a short presentation on changes only. Hallett noted that this would be located on a very highly traveled road. Norman stated that she could not approve the plan without dual entrances. She believed the design would create traffic problems within the parking lot. Franzen noted that Arby's only had 1 entrance. He added that it was critical to be able to move within the parking area. Franzen reported that the Taco Bell traffic varied from site to site. Franzen believed that the drive-thru needed to be reviewed further. Ruggieri stated that this plan had been worked to death. He added that extra time had been taken to make the plan the best it could be before bringing it to the Planning Commission. Ruggieri requested a determination tonight; he didn't know what else could be done. Ruggieri believed that 50% of the traffic would be drive-thru on this site. Ruggieri believed that no matter what site we would find there would be a backup problem at the drive-thru. Bauer recommended a continuance to allow for a conclusion on the size of the trash enclosure and the location of the drive-thru. Franzen believed that this was the best plan. He added that the only item which would change would be whether 1 or 2 driveway entrances would be needed. Bauer recommended a continuance for 2 weeks with publication for the City Council as scheduled. Bauer stated that he was comfortable with the landscaping and parking but would like to know a definite size of the trash enclosure. Norman was uncomfortable with the congestion in the parking lot. Kardell believed that the majority of fast food facilities had congestion in their parking lots. Franzen stated that a minimum of 23 unobstructed parking spaces needed to be provided to meet City Code. Sandstad asked if a traffic engineer could be consulted. Franzen replied that he did know how much more information a traffic engineer could provide. He added that he did not have a problem going to a consultant. Bauer believed that due to the small size of the lot the request for a traffic consultant was too much . 12 Sandstad questioned if too much was being placed in too small an area. Hallett believed that it would be a restaurant use of some kind on this site. • Hawkins asked if the rectangular design of the building was set in stone. Ruggieri replied yes. Ruggieri added that he would be comfortable with a 2 week continuance if the timing was kept on track for the City Council. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to continue the public hearing for 2 weeks and publish for the City Council. Motion carried 5-1-0. Sandstad voted "NO". V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNERS'REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at 11 :00 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0. • 13 • • o .• STAFF REPORT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT! FEE OWNER: REQUEST: ( Planning Commission Chris Enger, Director of Planning Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner January 24, 1992 Taco Bell Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire Taco Bell Youngstedt Service Center c 1. Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District with the variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 2. Zoning District Amendment in the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District. I 1 (m ":;' ~ :. -0 " · " ° : 1 • I • • • ~" ... ~: ~. ., ~~.J) :p» t .'S;:~.~~~_"":.".!';~~ ..• -. -.-: :'-5-rt.-£';:~.l..;~-il-."-_.------ I r ~,. I I I (7) I .. ,. I 1 I , I ; ? I I";'~' " t -I :. : :5 ! ::; . 01 . ." .... ;rI • ; 51 ( ( l Staff Report Taco Bell January 24, 1992 BACKGROUND ( ( This is a continued item from the January 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission voted to continue discussion on this item pending a resolution for the following issues: Internal circulation and access, landscaping, trash enclosure, mechanical equipment, and signs. INTERNAL CmCULATION AND ACCESS As directed by the Planning Commission, Staff retained the services of a traffic engineer to evaluate internal circulation and access to the site. The attached letter recommends no changes to the current site plan. Parking is adequate, there is enough room for drive-thru stacking, and it is important to provide a direct access for drive-thru customers to leave the site. A second alternative, is a driveway access on the northeast side of the property, but creates congestions for drive-thru customers leaving the site, and there would be traffic congestion with parking stalls backing into the driveway entrance. A third alternative for two driveways was considered but creates traffic conflicts at north entrance and would eliminate three parking spaces. Ifafter construction and site investigation, it was determined that adequate parking is provided on-site, the City could consider a second two-way entrance at the north property line. Based on Staff's experience with fast food restaurants in Eden Prairie, and other Taco Bell sites in other communities, it is more important to place emphasis on providing enough parking on the property. LANDSCAPING The proponent was directed to revise the landscape plan to provide additional conifers along 169 and Joiner Way. These changes are shown on the revised plans. TRASH ENCLOSURE It was originally recommended that the site plan be modified to provide an enlarged trash enclosure totaling of 288 square feet. The trash enclosure has been enlarged to 288 square feet. This provides more room for recycling. Since Taco Bell is a small restaurant, 2,000 square feet, as compared with a McDonalds (4,500 square feet), or an Applebees (5,500 square feet), 220 square feet of enclosure area should be adequate. Staff is still recommending a roof over 2 • • • • • Staff Report Taco Bell January 24, 1992 ( ( . the enclosure. This was based upon input from waste management firms as part of the original study. Staff is in the process of contacting waste management firms again to confirm their original position for a roof. MECHAmCALEOUWMENT The. building elevations have been revised to depict a 4 foot high parapet wall to screen mechanical equipment. WALL SIGNS The building elevations depict a wall sign of approximately 8 square feet on each of the exterior building elevations. This is in compliance with the City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the site plan review and zoning district amendment for the Taco Bell restaurant based on plans dated January 24, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January· 10, 1992 and January 24, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Submit detailed plans for review by the Fire Marshal. C. ~ Submit detailed storm water run-off and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. D. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 2. Apply for and receive Board of Adjustments and Appeals variances for 0' lot line setback for parking, side yard setback to 17 112 feet, and trash enclosure side yard setback to 0' . TCBELL.MDF:bs 3 . . ( ( l ( ( SRF STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL. PARKING. LAND SURVEYORS January 21, 1992 Mr. Michael Franzen Senior Planner CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: PROPOSED TACO BELL ON JOINER WAY SITE PLAN REVIEW Dear Mr. Franzen: SRF No. 0911633 We have completed a brief review of access and circulation for the proposed Taco Bell located on Joiner Way. As requested our review has been limited to the general circulation patterns of the drive- through and parking area. We did not evaluate drive-through queueing or parking demand. The site plan dated December 10, 1991 shows a two-way driveway in the southwest corner of the property, two-way drive aisles through the site and a one-way driveway for drive- through service around the back of the building. The drive-through provides about 70 feet of storage (about 3.5 car lengths) between the order board and the pick-up window, and about 60 feet of storage (about 3 car lengths) between the order board and the first parking stall. This is a fairly typical amount of storage for this type of service; however, vehicles are likely to back up into the parking area during peak periods. If this happens, the four spaces along the side of the building will be blocked and virtually unusable during these periods. The connecting driveway between Taco Bell and Goodyear Tire will also be blocked during these times. Based on our discussions, the city ordinance would require 23 parking spaces for the development. Since the developers indicate a need for 30 spaces and the site plan provides 35 spaces, the limited use of the four spaces at the side of the building may be acceptable. A significant advantage of the site plan as proposed is the separation of pedestrian traffic from drive-through operations. This is particularly important around building corners where visibility can be a problem and at the drive-through exit where drivers are often preoccupied with the recent transaction and may not be conscious of pedestrian movements. Also, any drive-through back up that occurs under this plan would be accommodated within the site Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 612/475-0010 ~AX 612/475-2429 ?-G)LI) . • • • • ( ( Mr. Michael Franzen -2-January 21, 1992 itself, without impact on Joiner Way. The site driveway will not be impeded by parking maneuvers since there are no adjacent parking stalls. A disadvantage of the proposed site plan is that drivers will have to find their way through the parking lot to enter the drive-through. Careful signing will be necessary so that drivers can locate the drive-through easily and to avoid attempts to enter the drive-through in the wrong direction. since the traffic volume on Joiner Way is relatively low, the single driveway should be adequate to accommodate exiting vehicles. Other alternative driveway locations were also considered. A relocation of the single, two-way driveway to the northeast corner of the property would facilitate the movement to the drive-through and reduce the need for signing. It WOUld, however, create conflicts between vehicles entering the site and those backing up from adjacent parking stalls. This will, during brief periods, cause vehicles to back up onto Joiner Way. The elimination of some of the aj acent parking spaces would help to reduce this problem. The use of two, two-way driveways was also considered. This alternative would still create a conflict .between entering vehicles and parking vehicles along the northeast driveway; however, it would also provide direct connections to and from the drive-through. This alternative would result in the fewest vehicle/pedestrian conflicts of the alternatives considered. It would also result in a 10ss of parking spaces to accommodate the additional driveway. The proposed plan is an acceptable solution to the problems inherent in a tight site-plan. Use of the parking spaces at the side of the building may be a problem when drive-through use is high. If circulation problems appear wi thin the parking lot and parking is adequate, ~be site could be modified to add a driveway in the northeast corner of ·the site. This wO'.lld reduce ~ome uf the need to travel through the parking lot itself although it would also reduce the available parking. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. ~~~~~;:- Senior Transportation Engineer NLH/mdg ~oO If we can ( STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: FEE OWNER: REQUEST: c ( Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning Ianuary 10, 1992 Taco Bell Ioiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire Taco Bell Youngstedt Service Center 1. A site plan review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 2. Zoning District Amendment in the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District. ,~ .;!') . ~ ..... ..., .... \ y' .. . :, ' .. . ' · . : I • I • I • ,: ~! . , .. . ' .. I ZO)) • • (J) I 1 ~""'~-=+..,,...:-.~!n:----:-t I lI,ar ::II • (5) ~Ol ;, . c. • Staff Report Taco Bell January 10, 1992 BACKGROUND ( ( This site is owned by Goodyear Tire. When Goodyear Tire was rezoned and platted in 1984, this site was envisioned for a retail use with a cross access drive (See Attachment A). In 1989, this property was granted site plan approval for a retail building (See Attachment B), which was subject also to cross access. Because of the tightness of the site, internal lot line setback variances were granted for the property to allow for shared parking. SITE PLAN The site plan request is for a Taco Bell restaurant. The building is 1,989 square feet on .56 acres at a .08 Base Area Ratio. The City Code would allow up to a .20 Base Area Ratio. The building meets the front and rear yard setbacks to the lot lines, however a side yard setback variance from 20' to 17.5' is necessary to allow for the drive-thru window. Parking meets front and rear yard setbacks, however a zero lot line setback to parking for side lot line is necessary because of the shared common drive and shared parking with Goodyear Tire. PARKING Parking required for this restaurant is at a ratio of 1:3 seats, or a total of 23 parking spaces. Experience in Eden Prairie shows that fast food restaurants typically park at a ratio of 1:1.69, or a total of 38 parking spaces if applied to the site. The site plan depicts a total of 35 parking spaces, 8 are shared with Goodyear Tire. Six of these parking spaces would be obstructed by drive-thru in the peak hour which would leave 21 parking spaces exclusively for Taco Bell. Staff feels that parking provided on site meets City Code. ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION .-" The -majority of the parking is in the front of the building off Joiner Way which would not be obstructed by drive-thru traffic. For fast food restaurants, Staff has typically required a stacking distance for 7 cars or 140 feet. This is shown on the site plan. Should stacking exceed this length, there is room within the parking lot to stack an additional 7 vehicles without backing out to Joiner Way. LANDSCAPING This site is small and several variances are needed. As a result the site plan is tight which leaves minimal room to meet City requirements for landscaping and screening. The drive-thru 2 L c ( l. Staff Report Taco Bell January 10, 1992 ( ( eliminates the existing berm along Highway 169. This was initially required to screen the parking areas, however the Taco Bell building screens most of the views. However, additional plantings will be necessary along Highway 169 for screening (See Attachment C). The setback to parking on Joiner Way is 10 feet, half of which is used by an existing sidewalk. Although Joiner Way is a private road, other sites within the Preserve pun were required to . have a 17 112 foot setback to accomplish screening. There are two alternatives to provide better screening of parking. These include: a. Shift the site plan 7 112 feet toward Highway 169. b. Move the sidewalk to the east, and construct a 4 foot high fence with plantings. Since the site plan is tight, shifting the plan to the west will result in other problems with setbacks and parking, so Alternative B is to be the better solution. This is shown on the revised landscape plan. ARCHITECTURE The building is proposed to be constructed in conformance with City Code for a minimum of 75% face brick and glass. The building will also have up to 25% stucco. The brick color must match the Wendy's and Goodyear Tire as this was required as part of the original 1984 approval and the 1990 amendment. The proponent needs to provide an exterior materials color board for review. Mechanical equipment is proposed screened by a parapet wall. However, the parapet wall is only 2 114 feet high which will not screen views of mechanical equipment. Staff would recommend increasing the height of the parapet wall to 4 feet. TRASH ENCLOSURE The trash enclosure is constructed out of facebrick to match the building. The City Code requires a 20 foot setback to the side lot line for this type of structure, however, a zero lot line setback is requested. The trash enclosure study previously reviewed by the Planning Commission recommended guide lines for the amount of area needed for trash and recycling. For restaurants, the study recommended a 144 square feet for trash and 144 square feet for recycling, and that the building should have a roof. The plan as proposed provides 120 feet for trash storage and 50 feet for 3 • • • Staff Report Taco Bell January 10, 1992 . .... -- ( ( recycling. It is possible to meet the guidelines of the trash enclosure study by expanding the trash enclosure 8 feet toward Highway 169. This would provide an additional 120 square feet for trash recycling or a total of 290 square feet. The site plan should be revised to meet these recommendations. SIGNS The proposed location of the pylon sign on Highway 169 is 12 feet from the right-of-way. The ·City Code requires a 20 foot minimum setback. The site plan should be revised to meet ~e 20 foot setback. The pylon sign meets City Code at 20 feet high and 80 square feet. The directional signs meet City Code for height and size. The Code would not allow the bell-shaped logo. In addition, a wall sign plan must be submitted for review. LIGHTING A lighting plan has been submitted which shows the location of the proposed lighting within the parking lot. The lighting should be a 30 foot high downcast cut off luminar which matches the lighting standard of the Wendy's and Goodyear Tire parking lot. The light fixture should also match the adjoining sites whether it be metal halide light or high pressure sodium. UTILITIES Sewer, water and storm sewer are located in Joiner Way. Due to the location of the building, a 12 inch sanitary sewer line must be relocated. The Engineering Department requires that this sanitary sewer line remain active during relocation and that a bond be submitted for the reconstruction costs. VARIANCES Following are variances requiring to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals: 1. 2. 3. Zero lot line setback to parking, City Code requires 10 feet. Side yard setback to 17.5 feet, City Code requires 20 feet to structure. Trash enclosures setback side yard requirement to 0 feet, City Code requires a 20 foot setback. 4 ( ( ( ( Staff Report Taco Bell January 10, 1992 Since the site is small and an unusual shape, it is not possible to revise the site plan to meet City Code requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The following are alternative courses of action for Planning Commission consideration: 1. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend approval of the site plan review .. for the Taco Bell restaurant based on plans dated January 10, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall: ." 1. Revise the landscape plan according to Attachment C to screen parking from Highway 169 and Joiner Way. 2. 3. Modify the site plan to provide an enlarged trash enclosure area totaling a minimum of 288 square feet. Increase the height of the parapet wall to 4 feet in order to screen mechanical equipment. 4. Provide an exterior material sample board for review. 5. Provide details for wall signs. (This is important in order to determine if the signs proposed meet City Code.) Revise the pylon sign setback to 20 feet. b. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: 1. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 2. Submit detailed plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 3. Submit detailed storm water run-off utility plans for review by the City Engineer. 4. Submit detailed storm water run-off erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 5 • • • • • Staff Report Taco Bell January 10, 1992 ( ( 2. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend that the project be continued in -order to allow the proponent to complete the site plan changes regarding screening of parking areas, providing a larger trash enclosure area, and details regarding mechanical equipment, signs, and exterior materials. TACOBELL.MDF:bs .<" 6 , \. ( ·J /' " .'1 _______ . ......-....."'·..-.~-...-.....-----.• -... L·~-.............. -.-----.----...... -... "'-......-..-... --.~ ___ •• ,0 __ ••• _ ..... ~ .......... _ •• _ ... _____ ..... _-....._ .. _, ____ _ • rnr.z r' '$ if t: t· gEn l \qB4 Aff~out:..O fLAr0 _ATfAt:r\MEtJ\ h hr! Tn nm ?Jol , i ~, ,'.i .' '. ~ .. '",. ~tl ", t : ,: .. '1 .: ~ ~ / , " - '. !, .. I ~ ·t':i' aI: :: . ~. , iI',' I,· . ~r , \ ... '-. ,.- ," ... ,( .' -rr,~1#;~I"~i~" t ,-:.~ , , ,. J .. :, --------_. _ .. __ .. _---_._-- 19 ~O A ff'~v£PflA-tJ A-rrAtrtJ1e:~ " r? , I I I l I I I , 1 I I I 1 I • LANDSCAPT-SCHEDULE iFy IoTY BoTANICAl N .... ~ C"" ... ON N .... ' • 1 F'RAXINUS PEP>fNSYLYVANICA LANCEOlATA MARSHAU.:S ASH B e ACtR PI.). TANOIOES NORWAy ... .t.PLE C 2 ACER SACC"HRU~. SUGAR UAPL! 0 , MALUS X SNOWORIFi SNOYlt)RIF'T CRABAPPL.£ E 1 ACER ClNNAU. CluMP AMUR IotAP'L,[ F 3 PINUS NIGRA AUSTRIAN PINE G 7 .A)NIPERUS CHINENSIS ANOORRA ANDORRA .A)NIPER H OELETEO I 7 .A)NIPE"uS PF11ZERIANA 'COlD COAST" COLD COAST JUNIPER J 32 CORNUS SERICEA BAlLE'II1 BAILEYS REO T'MG OOGWOOO K 13 EUONY1.IOUS .... lVS COUPATA OWARF' BURNING BUSH L e VlBURNUI,4 DENTA ruM ARROWWOOO VlBURNUW W 21 SPIRE.A FROEBE.W I FROEBEL SPIREA I N 21 HOST. ROYAl. ROYAL HOSTA P 47 HOSTA AIJIOWARGINATA VARIEGA1ID HOSTA MO't. ..... 00 au. NOSU, ems w, S" ~ 'IoWIDWIOCCIo 1ilU\.0f tMJt ""V 1lIQJ)'~ v • " 'to ~" 0/ ~v ~~ ~"'Q~ 0' vV' !/}~ ~$' -'-4 (y') CO~lr~" lCI.5'I'IN 3 1/2' 8&S 2 1/2' 8&S 2 1/2' 8&S 2 1/2' 80B 2 1/2' BOB 6' B&S I 3 STEW 'GAl I LANDSCAPE PLAN 5 C ... :... 3D' POTTEO 24" POTTEO 24" POTTED 24" POntO 4 1/2" POT 4 1/2" POT v • '3 (lD' )C()IJlf!~~ ~ DOVOUS JOHNSON ~,~!-(q9!~~! ~ "J'll ,..----..... , .. ,." .... !il i :!.. ' I,l! f,'. m~ ~ I il1ji. " ~lSj! ~ j"" ;II .dH : :::; I z « z -' W:::> 0.. ....J~v..: W ~~~ ~ CD<c£ U oo::~ i~ )U~~ i Z <6c,« ~u.. i~ ~_.~? 4Wr; ~)::. ; .... ,' ,. '; ~ SCAL;';'FEET I ~ ~ ':;'~H' ~~~ ~ \:-: I 6.1.91 :J ~'~L-~ J FEBRUARY 4.1992 21635 AUTO SOUND ENTRONIX RADIO PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 65.34 21636 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER LICENSE APPLICATION-WATER DEPT 20.00 .37 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LICENSE-LIQUOR STORES 12.00 638 THE OLD LOG THEATRE ADDITIONAL TICKET-ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 15.50 21639 ALEXIS BAILLY VINEYARD INC WINE 209.00 21640 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE 3991.26 21641 GRIGGS COPPER & CO INC LIQUOR 12871.44 21642 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 15608.44 21643 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR 45593.94 21644 MN CROWN DISTRIBUTING INC WINE 66.77 21645 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 606.95 21646 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 3703.15 21647 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 28845.09 21648 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIQUOR 17791.53 21649 THE WINE COMPANY WINE 138.00 21650 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 1/10/92 54850.20 21651 COOKIES BY DEB EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 11.18 21652 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 21653 DECISION RESOURC~S LTD SERVICE-PARK BOND RESIDENTIAL SURVEY 3000.00 21654 KURT KLINGEUIUTZ -2ND HALF PAYMENT FOR WINTER STORAGE OF 400.00 STREET "& PARK EQUIPMENT 21655 BRINGERS EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 105.14 21656 BARB DANIELSON OFFICE SUPPLIES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 37.49 21657 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 114.95 21658 STUART A FOX CONFERENCE ADVANCE-PARK & RECREATION DEPT 516.50 21659 ANDREW ROHDE SCHOOL ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT 100.00 21660 SHAR SIYAKA -ENTERTAINMENT-MARTIN LUTHER KING JR 100.00 .61 CELEBRATION NUAGE DANCERS -ENTERTAINMENT-MARTIN LUTHER KING JR 200.00 CELEBRATION 21662 VOID CUT CHECK 0.00 21663 BEAR RUNNERS -ENTERTAINMENT-MARTIN LUTHER KING JR 150.00 CELEBRATION 21664 ASSN FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF HMONG -ENTERTAINMENT-MARTIN LUTHER KING JR 150.00 CELEBRATION 21665 IPMA-MINNESOTA CHAPTER CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 12.00 21666 AUTO SOUND ENTRONIX RADIO PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 62.14 21667 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS -PRINTING-VENDOR CHECKS-FINANCE DEPT/ 1095.74 BUSINESS CARDS-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER 21668 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MN CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 35.00 21669 N SUBURBAN REGIONAL MUTUAL AID AS SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 560.00 21670 FRANCES OFFERMAN REFUND-OLD LOG THEATER TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS 18.00 21671 K E SCHUMACHER -PARTIAL PAYMENT FOR STORM SEWER EASEMENT-7500.00 CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 21672 TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBER/ADMINISTRATION 616.00 21673 VICOM INC WIRE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CTR 7.00 21674 JULIA MCFADDEN TRAINING SERVICE-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR 810.95 21675 REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD CONFERENCE-ADMINISTRATION 10.00 21676 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITTES CONFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATION 790.00 21677 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 21678 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN VOLLEYBALL STATE BERTHS FEES 630.00 21679 MILE SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 495.00 .680 LISA TOLLEFSON REFUND-ADAPTIVE SWIMMING LESSONS 26.00 681 JACK BARKLEY -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 20196870 ~jD 21682 PAMELA BECKER REFUND-ICE SKATING SHOW REGISTRATION 37.00 21683 DONNIELLE BIGLEY REFUND-BATON LESSONS 18.00 21684 CYNTHIA BLOMGREN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 21685 BETTY BRUMM -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS I: PROGRAM 21686 JOANN CANAVAN -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM 21687 LANA DUBE -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21688 MARSHA ENGSTROM -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21689 JANE GOKE -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 51.00 PROGRAM 21690 CHRI S GOODMAN SON -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21691 ELAINE HOKE -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21692 MARY JOHANDER -REFUND-SKI TRIPS-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21693 LINDA KELM -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21694 MAVIS KISNER REFUND-BATON LESSONS 18.00 21695 LINDA KREBSBACH -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 9.00 PROGRAM 21696 ROGER LEONE REFUND-CREATIVE DRAWING CLASS 20.00 21697 KATHY MCCANN REFUND-EXERCISE & NUTRITION CLASS 24.00 21698 DOUG NEITZEL -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21699 DONNA NESS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 21700 TERRY NIMTZ -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS ,~ PROGRAM 21701 LORI OLSON -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM 21702 BRUCE PETERSON -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21703 LAURIE PETTYJOHN -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21704 OOROTHY REUSS REFUND-50/50 OUTING CLUB DINNER MEETING 6.50 21705 SANDRA RICK -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21706 CYNTHIA SCHERER REFUND-BATON LESSONS 18.00 21707 SUSAN SEPTER -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21708 ELLEN SHIPLETT -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21709 KONNIE SMITH -REFUND-SKI TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 27.00 PROGRAM 21710 MARY WATTS REFUND-50/50 OUTING CLUB DINNER MEETING 6.50 21711 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING DEFENSIVE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 176.00 21712 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 756.58 21713 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 20622.21 21714 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 23013.21 21715 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION SERVICE 93.67 21716 COOKIES BY DEB EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 11.18 4537585 • FEBRUARY 4.1992 21717 SOWAH MENSAH -ENTERTAINMENT-MARTIN LUTHER KING JR 200.00 CELEBRATION .718 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS 1660.50 1719 MINNESOTA COMMERCE DEPT NOTARY COMMISSION FEE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 10.00 21720 NCITE CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 30.00 21721 MN PIE CONFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 40.00 21722 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 70.00 21723 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT 420.00 21724 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-ENGINEERING DEPT 16.00 21725 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 55.25 21726 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 13.52 21727 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 161.50 21728 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 1771.39 21729 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION CONFERENCE-ADMINISTRATION/PLANNING DEPT 40.00 21730 COOKIES BY DEB EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 14.91 .21731 ADVANCED GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES-POLICE DEPT 179.80 21732 AITON ALPS SKI AREA -LIIT TICKETS-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 320.00 PROGRAM 21733 AM ASSN FOR STATE & LOCAL HISTORY -PUBLICATIONS-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 114.49 PROGRAM 21734 AMERICAN HEAT TRAINING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 698.00 21735 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS-FACILITIES DEPTIMATS-LIQUOR STORE 77.72 21736 AMERICAN RED CROSS TEXTBOOKS-POOL LESSONS 157.50 21737 ASCAP LICENSE FEE-COMMUNITY CENTER 412.50 21738 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY COPY PAPER-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 1058.01 21739 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET DEPT 93.72 21740 DON ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 80.00 .741 ANIMAL INN PET FOOD OUTLET CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 53.90 742 ARMOR SECURITY INC -LOCK REPAIR/KEYS/REKEYED CYLINDERS-PARK 199.00 MAINTENANCE/FACILITIES DEPT 21743 ASSN OF TRAINING OFFICERS OF MN CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 65.00 21744 BAKER POOLS ROPE ANCHORS-POOL MAINTENANCE 180.00 21745 TOM BANCE -FOOTBALL INSTRUCTOR-AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM/ 204.00 FEES PAID 21746 BAN-KOE SYSTEMS INC -TIME RECORDER & DISPATCH RIBBONS-POLICE 56.38 DEPT 21747 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC ACRYLIC SHEET-COMWJNITY CENTER 146.00 21748 BELL ATLANTIC TRlCON LEASING CORP -FEBRUARY 92 COPIER LEASE AGREEMENT-POLICE 358.68 DEPT 21749 BG PROMOTIONS SWEATSHIRTS-COMMUNITY CENTER 317.20 21750 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-CO~JNITY CENTER 474.00 21751 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON -DECEMBER 91 ANIMAL IMPOUND FEES-ANIMAL 446.00 CONTROL DEPT 21752 LOIS BOETTCHER -MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION/ 74.70 PARK RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM 21753 BOYD OIL DISTRIBUTING ANTI-FREEZE/ANALYSIS KITS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 201.80 21754 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC -DUCT HOSE/BRUSH ASSEMBLY/VACUUM CLEANER 53.25 REPAIR-FACILITIES DEPT 21755 BROADWAY AWARDS TROPHIES/PLAQUES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS DEPT 61.50 21756 BRO-TEX INC TOWELS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 294.30 21757 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC DECEMBER 91 WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE 1417.62 21758 BUSINESS FORMS OF AMERICA PERMIT FORMS-COMMUNITY CENTER 95.00 21759 CARLSON SYSTEMS -LAMINATE TRIM DRILL BIT/PLATE JOINER KIT-159.50 .760 UTILITIES DIVISION CANNON SPORTS INC BASKET-DAY CAMP PROGRAM 54.01 1260665 'jl2 FEBRUARY 4.1992 21761 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS REPROGRAMMED RADIO FREQUENCY-POLICE DEPT 25.00 21762 JOHN CARLON CONFERENCE-SEWER DEPT 70.00 21763 CARLSON REFRIGERATION CO INC -BEER COOLER COMPRESSOR REPAIRIVALVE/ »,21 DRYER/SILICONE-LIQUOR STORE 21764 CENTRAIRIE INC -INSTALLED GAS FURNACE-HOUSING 1 ,.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 21765 CITY OF CHANHASSEN -1991 CITYS SHARE OF SOUTHWEST COALITION 2306.40 DUES 21766 JAMES CLARK JANUARY 92 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 21767 CLUTS OBRIEN STROTHER ARCHITECTS -SERVICE-WAL-MART BUILDING & SITE DESIGN 200.00 STUDY 21768 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC WOOD LEVELITAPE/GRooVERS-STREET MAINT 121.45 21769 CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE -4TH QTR 91 SERVICE FOR BATTERED WOMEN-1500.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 21770 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC JANUARY 92 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 610.00 21771 CULLIGAN -METRO SERVICE-OUTDOOR CENTER 31.50 21772 DALOO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 731.50 COMMUNITY CENTER 21773 HILLARY DE PARDE SERVICE-SKI TRIP CHAPERONE 25.00 21774 DORADUS CORPORATION -1ST Q,TR 92 CIVIL DEFENSE SIRENS 720.00 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 21775 EDINA S W PLUMBING -COPPER PIPEIREPAIRED COPPER PIPE FOR 94.00 COOLING TOWER-POLICE BUILDING 21776 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION 125.00 21777 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT -REIMBURSEMENT FOR FIREMANS XMAS PARTY 2963.12 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 21778 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER/CITY MGMT STAFF 77.00 21779 EDEN PRAIRIE PUBLIC SCHOOL -TAX INCREMENT FOR PRAIRIE VILLAGE APTS 6480.97 PROJECT .8 21780 EDEN PRAIRIE SNOWDRIFTERS -REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED FROM STATE FOR SNOWMOBILE TRAILS 21781 ELVIN SAFETY ·SUPPLY INC -CARBON MONOXIDE DIFFUSION TUBES/EAR PLUGS-63.00 SAFETY DEPT 21782 CHRIS ENGER JANUARY 92 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 220.00 21783 EPR INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 37.35 21784 DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER ADDITION 13277.18 21785 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 110.50 21786 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY 1991 AUDIT SERVICE 2000.00 21787 GARDNER HARDWARE CO -REKEYED CYLINDER/SWIVEL SCRUB/KEYS-114.51 COMMUNITY CENTER 21788 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD WATER CUPS-FITNESS CENTER-COMMUNITY CENTER 10.68 21789 W W GRAINGER INC DRUM CRADLE-FACILITIES DEPT 109.25 21790 ALAN GRAY JANUARY 92 EXPENSES/DUES-ENGINEERING DEPT 429.00 21791 GRAYBOW-DANIELS CO -STAINLESS STEEL PANEL FOR COOLER-34.34 COMMUNITY CENTER 21792 GREENTREE GRAPHICS PRODUCTS SIGNS-FIRE DEPT 69.03 21793 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC CIRCUIT BREAKERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 23.30 21794 MICHAEL W HAMILTON BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 187.00 21795 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 47.2E 21796 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER TRAFFIC TICKET FORMS-POLICE DEPT 1062.5C 21797 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 76.2E 21798 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS 31.6C 21799 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE -SERVICE-SENIOR CITIZENS CHRISTMAS LUNCH-3479.0C $689-FEES PAID/SCHooL-$2790-FIRE DEPT 21800 D C HEY COMPANY INC -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPTITONER-e 4E STREET DEPT 3992612 ?, lCA J j v' 21801 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -GAS LINE REPAIRIPlLOT LIGHTS/WRENCH/KNOB/ 501.50 REPLACED TIMERIVALVE/PIPE-COMMUNITY CENTER 21802 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -4TH QTR 91 HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMM 4057.29 -GRANT-$2500IEXPENSES-ELECTIONS DEPTIROOM '-803 -RENTAL-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS DEPT & ADULT PROGRAMS/SENIOR CENTER WASTE DISPOSAL INSTITUTE FOR MGMT EDUCATION SUBSCRIPTIONS-FINANCE DEPT 270.00 21804 GARY ISAACS -BASKETBALL OFFICIAL & OFFICIALS 372.00 COORDINATOR/FEES PAID 21805 J & R RADIATOR CORP HEATER CORE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 53.97 21806 JERRYS NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 198.16 21807 E F JOHNSON CO -2 MOBILE RADIOS & DESK MICROPHONE-$3184-5746.20 -POLICE DEPT/28 MOBILE RADIO CHARGERS- $2562-FIRE DEPT 21808 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR -AIRLIFT DOOR REBUILD KITIVALVES/DOOR 298.09 REPAIR-FIRE STATION 21809 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 277.76 21810 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES INC SWITCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 45.25 21811 ROBERT LAMBERT JANUARY 92 EXPENSES-PARK & RECREATION DEPT 200.00 21812 SUZANNE K LANE MILEAGE/EXPENSES-ELECTIONS DEPT 22.03 21813 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD -OCTOBER 91 LEGAL SERVICE-$12124INOVEMBER 33244.44 & DECEMBER 91 PROSECUTION SERVICE-$21120 21814 LANO EQUIPMENT INC WELDING-PARK PARK MAINTENANCE 75.00 21815 LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN LT -DECEMBER 91 LEGAL SERVICE-WETLAND PERMIT 4476.30 ISSUES 21816 LAW ENFORCEMENT TV NETWORK TV NETWORK SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 388.00 21817 LOFTNESS -BEARINGS/SPROCKETS/PLUGS/GASKETS/yOKES-503.55 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 21818 LOGIS DECEMBER 91 SERVICE 7928.84 21819 RICHARD LUGEANBEAL DIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 184.00 .820 LUNDS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 404.;68 821 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 116.90 21822 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC -EXPENSES/CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-102.90 COMMUNITY CENTER 21823 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC -EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/SENIOR 214.04 PROGRAMSIHISTORICAL INTERPRETATION PROGRAM 21824 METRO PRINTING INC LETTERHEAD/ENVELOPES-POLICE DEPT 391.00 21825 METRO SALES INC -DEVELOPER/COPIER PARTS & REPAIR/ 2637.99 -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT/ COMMUNITY CENTER 21826 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM DECEMBER 91 SAC CHARGES 24453.00 21827 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM FEBRUARY 91 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 169118.00 21828 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP -TRUCK WITH PLOW & SANDER RENTAL-SNOW & 360.00 ICE CONTROL DEPT 21829 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALLIRECREATION 1009.21 SUPERVISOR/ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM 21830 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -BARRIER TAPEIBELT LOOPS WITH SNAP/UNIFORM 210.00 ALTERATION-FIRE DEPT 21831 MINNESOTA GFOA DUES-FINANCE DEPT 45.00 21832 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER DECEMBER 91 BUILDING SURCHARGES 2760.22 21833 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO PARTS MANUAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 4.21 21834 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE POLAROID FILM-POLICE DEPT 490.50 21835 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS -FACSIMILE PAPER-CITY HALL/FACSIMILE 3319.98 -MACHINE-$3150-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS .6448001 21836 PAPER WAREHOUSE -PLASTIC GLOVESITRAYSIDOILIES-24.25 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR CELEBRATION 21837 PARAGON CABLE SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER 2.10 21838 PEPSI COLA COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 173.25 21839 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -FURNISH & INSTALL TIMECLOCK FOR EXTERIOR 9.5 -BLDG LIGHTS/INSTALLED CEILING MOTION -SENSORIREPAIRED COMPRESSOR RACK/EMERGENCY -LIGHT ARMSIREPLACED MOTOR-FACILITIES DEPT/ COMMUNITY CENTER 21840 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING -PRINTING-VALENTINES PARTY FLYER-SENIOR 19.65 PROGRAMS 21841 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -WASH WATER FIELD COILIBOARD BRUSH-109.95 COMMUNITY CENTER 21842 RADIO SHACK WEATHER RADIO-STREET MAINTENANCE 24.95 21843 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 58.14 21844 MGE REFFSGAARD -STATE PLUMBERS LICENSE FEE-BUILDING 45.00 INSPECTIONS DEPT 21845 RORY RISK SERVICE-RINK ATTENDANT 95.40 21846 RONS MUSIC & GAMES SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 438.27 21847 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO HEADLIGHT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 154.54 21848 PAUL RYAN BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 68.00 21849 SAINT CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 544.00 21850 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER 133.64 21851 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CTR 169.60 21852 SEARS -MAILBOXES-SAFETY DEPT/SPRING-PARK MAINT/ 366.37 MICROWAVE-SENIOR CENTER 21853 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES -4TH QTR 91 SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES-1107.25 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 21854 KERRY SETTEN-HOFFSTROM EXPENSES-AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM 27.88 21855 STEVEN R SINELL JANUARY 92 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT Wg 21856 SMITH DIVING -SCUBA DIVING INSTRUCTOR & EQUIPMENT/FEES PAID 21857 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC SHOE POLISH/FIRST AID SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 19.03 21858 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COU 3RD & 4TH QTR 91 SERVICE 1580.00 21859 SOUTHDALE YMCA -4TH QTR 91 YOUTH OUTREACH PROGRAM-2770.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. 21860 SPS/JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 191.31 21861 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS 15.80 21862 STERLING GROUP INC SERVICE-CPT PRE-ACQUISITION PHASE FEE 7000.00 21863 SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION ENGINE ANALYZER REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT 229.60 21864 SUPER VALUE HEADQUARTERS COMPUTER TAPE DRIVE UPDATE-FIRE DEPT 1423.91 21865 NATALIE SWAGGERT JANUARY 92 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 200.00 21866 SYNDISTAR INC SAFETY VIDEO TAPES-FIRE DEPT 376.00 21867 TARGET STORES -POLAROID FILM-POLICE DEPT/OFFICE SUPPLIES-944.43 -RINK ATTENDANTSlBooMBOX-SENIOR CENTER/ -FILE CABINETIRADIO-PROGRAM SUPERVISOR/ CANDY CANES-SOCIAL PROGRAM 21868 KATHY TEKElLA -CANDLEMAKING SUPPLIES-OUTDOOR CENTER 21.91 PROGRAM 21869 RONALD TOSKEY BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 136.00 21870 TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE TENSIONER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 27.20 21871 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO -OXYGEN/CARBON DIOXIDEIWIRE LINER-PARK 94.0C MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/COMMUNITY CENTER 21872 TWIN CITY PRICING & LABEL INC -MARKING PAPER FOR PRICING GUNS-LIQUOR 728.0C STORE 2095808 • 21873 VALLEY PLUMBING 21874 TRIA VIKESLAND 21875 VIKING LABORATORIES INC tl876 VISION ENERGY 877 VOSS LIGHTING 1878 THOMAS E WEKO 21879 WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER 21880 ROBERTA WICK 21881 MATT WIEBKE 21882 WILLIAM WIEBKE 21883 MARIE WITTENBERG 21884 ZACKS INC 21885 JIM ZAIC 21886 FRED ZIEBOL 21887 PAUL & NICOLE ZIVALICH 11000 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK 11000 NORWEST BANK MN NA 21400 VOID OUT CHECK 21530 VOID OUT CHECK 21620 VOID OUT CHECK 21621 VOID OUT CHECK 376614155: • • REFUND-SEWER & WATER FEE -OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM CHEMICALSITEST TABS-COMMUNITY CENTER PROPANE CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT/COMMUNITY CTR MILEAGE-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR 4TH QTR 91 SERVICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID ) -POPCORN/CRANBERRIES FOR CUMMINS GRILL -CHRISTMAS EVENT-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION PROGRAM -CROSS CHAINS/HOOKS/DEGREASER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE -STATE PLUMBERS LICENSE FEE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT MILEAGE-ENGINEERING DEPT -BUILDING MATERIALS-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM BOND PAYMENT BOND PAYMENTS 20.00 25.95 233.30 228.76 332.96 111.75 375.00 150.00 93.00 93.00 7.73 589.00 80.00 133.78 221.59 318787.50 3453058.04 75.00- 810.81- 7500.00- 14.00- $4351456.96 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FD 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 18 GENERAL 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARB 58 IMPROVEMENT DEBT $9.8 73 WATER FUND 77 SEWER FUND 80 POLICE CONFISCATED FDS 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 87 CDBG FUND 92 TIF PV APARTMENTS $4351456.96 210442.98 2562.00 216262.49 76947.95 54719.69 346.00 3150.00 13277.18 175.00 812783.72 2310.00 1579786.59 1162837.74 11686.50 194622.01 47.40 1410.15 1608.59 6480.97 • • • • • • TO: THROUGH: BY: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Carl J. Jullie, City Manager craig W. Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager~ staff Liaisons to Boards and Commissions January 30, 1992 student Membership on Boards and Commissions Background: Last fall, the City council asked its advisory boards and commissions to consider whether having students as members was appropriate and, if so, under what conditions. Several benefits for the commissions and students were identified. Several proposals to structure student membership were also suggested, and the common points among them are outlined below. Benefits: Student membership is a "win-win" situation. For the City, it provides a perspective of a major part of the community which is not readily represented. Students also provide a channel of communications which is not now in place to this segment of the population. For students, membership provides a local forum in which they can put forth their ideas and concerns. They can learn about the operations of local government and gain an understanding about how a community operates. This experience may help them to become more effective citizens as adults. The benefits of this relationship can be ensured with an effective structure for student participation. The elements of this structure follow as recommendations. RECOHHENDATION STRUCTURE: 1) pilot project: The 1992-1993 school year should be a test year to determine the effectiveness and workability of student membership. At the end of the year, an evaluation would be made about the appropriateness of student participation based on comments from commission members and students. Student members should be appointed initially to the following commissions: '* '* '* '* '* Historical and Cultural Commission Human Rights and Services Commission Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission Planning Commission Waste Management Commission 'I \<":6 Q) i , v I ' Mayor and City council Memorandum 1/30/92 Page Two 2) Appointment and Term: The city Council should make appointments in September for terms that would run from october through May. One or two students should be appointed per commission. Having two students would allow greater participation, while having one student would have less disruption in the work of the commission. 3) Age and Attendance: Students selected should be high school juniors or seniors. Interest should be solicited from all public school systems and private schools serving students from Eden Prairie. 4) Expectations for student attendance should be consistent with others serving on commissions. Having more than three unexcused absences becomes a basis for dismissal. Non-voting status: students should be allowed to participate actively on their commissions but not allowed to vote. Reasons for having non-voting membership include the need to maintain an odd number of positions for voting purposes; the possible difficulty of assembling a quorum of voting members; and the need to have decisions from informed commissioners who have a longer perspective on their work and the community than from students who are learning about local government systems. councilmembers may wish to add further conditions or clarification for student membership. Student participation has many potential benefits, and a one-year pilot period will show whether they can be realized. CWD:bmm • • • • • • January 27, 1992 Marty Jessen Council Member City of Eden Prairie Dear Mr. Jessen, 6129346986 The MEPH League of Women Voters has reviewed the pros and cons of a ward system of city elections and recommends the City of Eden Prairie examine this possibility. In order to facilitate this change it may be appropriate to establish a city charter. Although our research indicates several Minnesota cities have ward systems in place without benefit of a city charter, we feel the time is right to review both issues . In the mid 1980's a thorough study was conducted in Eden Prairie of the charter issue. At that time the commission recommended the charter issue be reexamined every two years and that a charter would be advisable when Eden Prairie's population reached 30,000 to 35,000. Since more than two years have elapsed and our population growth puts us in the range recommended for establishing a charter, we suggest the city name a commission to update the charter commission study. The league would like to extend an offer of support for this effort. If there is a role we can play in facilitating public dialogue or research, please call on us. Attached is a list of related information and observations. e of Women Voters P.02 .. 6129346986 MEPH LeaguE of Women Voters -A Look at the Ward System for City Elections .. Eden Pralrlf;-• DeJittitlO'u of Ward Systems -Residence within Ward - 1 to 3 Council members per ward -Most cities our size have 4 wards -Several have wards plus some at large representatives In Support of Ward Systems -Personal knowledge of candidates -Closer touch with constituents -Constituents feel they have some forum, can be heard -Lower campaign costs -Shorter simpler ballots ~ Special interests can be represented In Opposition to Ward Systems -Wards rarely are homogeneous -Unequal representation may occur within the ward -Encourages a spirit of localism which may pit ward against ward -May be difficulties finding qualified candidates each ward -Difficulties finding polling places within each ward • -Limits choices by not allowing constituents to vote for candidates running in other wards. Compromise Arrangements -Elect all at large, but nominations come only from ward -Elect part by ward, and part at large (as do Minnetonka, Bloomington) -Proportional Minnetollka Experiences: Minnetonka's system of 4 wards with a mayor and 2 council people at large has the advantage of providing a balance between neighborhood issues and a city wide perspective. Minnetonka elections cost for ward representatives are less than many of Eden Prairie's city wide elections. This could be an incentive for a ward system as it may encourage more people to run for office. Charter form Of Government There seems to ,be some disagreement about the need for a charter to implement a ward system. The League of Minnesota Cities infonus uS a charter is not necessary. (We are awaiting word from the Attorney General's Office.) It may be wise to establish a charter if we decide to move to a ward system for other benefits of a charter. As an example, the charter could also provide the guidelines for establishing are re~establish.ing ward boundaries as popUlation changes. 321 • • • • 6129346986 2>: 61Z9330947 R&S 5RLES INC. TIle t11etoJ"Y or th~ Wt\rd SYi>!;.cln in Mionnel;.onk., '11IC,,~ 'Were bplJ'll:enl..1y three import-ant. el,ecl;.ion:s in CI ehor" BpwC~ of yo~rs in MinnetonKa Ilt'OUnd 1969~71, on the quc:cst.1(ma of who"h'l''' \.0 iQ v1 ~h « chan,ot' rO~ln of government for t-he cLt.y lUi.;) whall loa:m \'h(l~ cil:.y gover"~ mont ShOuld till1<e. ' A st.Udy group 1n the lat", '60'$ had recOl1lnen<Sed what. was ~nQwn a "f'l~n 13~ I 'Without. a cha.r\:'"r ant! ,,1 t1l a mayor and d ty ednl1.n1.s- l.rator form of government. "Plan D" was souncuy dl:!reClted which was In\,erpte- t.ed as a desire t"or a City Charter. In NovenlWr, 1969, "he c'hllL'''er eyel;em frtlrn<l Of government be a council-city ManageZ' type, 'With eeven COul'lcllporsona MeanWlllle, a roovement W~G growing in t.he City tu l..,.veo .. t/,u:d system presented to tone Charter gruup 1nd1cbol,.O('l strong .suppOrt. 1n \,ne QOn'mun!t-y for t.his CJOl;I;!pt. lllit,1ally, t.hi!il .... 1\8 not. recOlm\cnd~t! by t.he Chelri,.er Conm- 15s1oo on the ground!il that, II Ward System narrowa 'tho [CW:;U8 \,Q a smllll ClrQ;! elnd mlssos thQ larS,ler COIT'fJ\llnity interl!sts. HIlt..m ounEitndltlen .... 1;0 the Charter in l"ebruary, 1.9'10, called for t'our Ward perwlIl$ .=p"C'::Icn\,1t\Sj roughly equal popUlat.it)ll l:ll'CCl~, «m1 '-WI;! counC1lpersons at. I.argl! pl~:i I;.h.;: melyor. No one Beem~ to recall cl~~r~y What trlggarad tlle compromi5c ba~woen t\ "puro" Ward system and t-ha C'Olnpranise the Clty camu Ul-' 'til,,}) .;all:ing for a littl.e of both I four Ward persons tlnd I:.wo .,t. large l;eprll!~entativee.. Not.es t.Ul.'oea over to th~ C1ty, but a reoent search or arcilive:» {ollad \;.0 turn thoM "0, <:lnd we must aSsume they ~VEl been IfJ~t. In any CllS$', Mlnnet.onkll eince " . P.04 P.01 ,~ I 6129346986 R&B SALES INC. the ea~!y '70's has operelQd under tllis L~rumi8e 8yel~. It 1& inlQrp est1ng (and perhaps important.) to note t.hat uthouyh th15 sYfSl.em was choserr in 1970 it. did not be(;(,)(lW fully oparati'lre un~il four rObrs lat.er, giving the elec:torl1tQ a chance to adjust to the c:l!ange. (Also, the St.. l..oull5 park system 1s identical; di~ we borrow fran bhem??) t-SlIny arguments .... ere ralsec.1 both tor and agdlll't II ward SySt.enl, bol.h in those e<lt:'ly' days lillen the decisions yere being made. and even nOW aft.ot" P.05 P.02 • 1 t has be~n functioning £01' the City for almost 20 YQars. The eilrly argumants for and against are tha most interest.ing and perhaps the (Dls\; compelling. l'finnet;.on~a in t.he ellJ;'ly 1970'$ waR qro",ing rapidly: in 1960 tho -}:IQP- ulat.ion was 25,000 and by 1970. 3S,4aO. A populat.ion bet.ween 35.000 and 40,000 seems ~ ripe ttrne for; a \'lard system. In 50IIle waYIii fQ~ t-l:inr)atOnka Buch a systClm seemed a natural. M1nnet.Otlka had (has) no dOWnt.own tlrea as D central fOCUB alu2 lhe reoent construction of 1494 had just split t.he ~ity 11\\:.o tliO parts, floW' was such C1bturbih9 9l1ogr.::.phy to be handled7 111Q cl tl' rather natur~lly fell into fou~ clear quaarants with roughly eqUAl popUlation b!llance. Could the parochialism genauted by a W~rd System wn1ch gives Btrong neighbO.t:':hOQd "'(.'Pl"el'ientat.1on b9 l'xlolanced in some fashion by k~ap1n9 a cit.y-wide focus as we1l7 TlletE! Iofero st-rong argument.s against. such a $l'st~m. I ... pi,ts section against lIect1.0tl, leadS t.o speci<ll interest vol1ng, parochialism vs. Ula broader vIew, l\2igtlbOt'hOOd acrim:JllY. and in t.he Case of Mlnnl;!tonka dO\ffl to ~wen recent years/ to "hor8$-ttading"--Yu~ vote tor what: SOIIIoonQ in . my liard needs and I'll make sure you get .... hat yours neec!s. Even no\( thero ~re those you Con talk to wh~ would say that in the suburbs which usually contafn fairly homogeneous populat1on (1.1i!. no strong ethnic nor rachl nei'jJhoorhoods) that a liard system ~~es Uttle sens~,1 bet-ter t.hat (iVG or ------~-----~--------~~-------.-------------.-------~---------. ---... ""----------- • • • • • 6129346986 ._ ... _. _,.. _ .... _ f_·.~1? __ _ 2i: 6129331HHi" R&8 SRLES tHe • . , . . seven peoplE! Bho\lld J:epr~8cnt. you tMn just oml, eepecial1y ie t.hat ono doas not neCU:S1S111 ily i!llfL'e-e W1\-'1 rOll OL-1"e!lece your pQinb of! via". lJ!3Qg .... o. lteoU" was against tho ward Syst8111 fOr MilmeeoMa wlle" the queal;ion wt's nlese ",ere some of the histodc ar~nts raised about. ft WaJ:'~ 5yst.cm bac~ then. Betty Jolmson, who Wl'!$ active in c1 ty government. in the 1e.tc: the elystem as l:>ell1'::J L'On:CCt only ~o,(. or the time. BUt moe\;. of the ot.her years cbs""r .. ation of. 1 ts fWlct.1onlllg and also In light t>! ehe comprOlllie~ sys~em--w~rds plue at largo ~epreaentation. 1\ Ward representative can t"e~lze his c:onstitl.lellts eusilr and turn to them for input en issues, p!.?t5pco;-t.lves can be clax-:l.f1eK1 ana a better l\Om'lle put on tho entire proc::ess. (10 tho vote!; surroundin>! th!l Townl1ne ROIIQ hffue B~e Of t.his can be seen at. work.) "thoughtful end acbive former oppol\enl:. or tho Ward system has changed her mind after: 8e(l1119 h at w01'I\: !1~-~"handl it-'s imp:'rtant (or per60ns t.o be heard at the W!I,rd/neighbvf'hOQl2 l.eveli 1;.1 Ie;,' gEtt. a senso of a voice ~nd a vote, a plaHornl so to spetlk, rind """ny potenHal.ly d9Visive iCDUQS can be diffus~d early. Tile M1nnet.onka cOIIIprtlln1se Sf!eJnS to many \;.0 Cunct..Jon well and reCOllllJOnd ItsCl').tt there are not too ml.1ny ward:! <four seEnll'll a 900(1 n\lll\tlOr) and +Wile threo at largo l:>0rsons at-e not a m<ljox-1ty but are never~he1e:!l~ a good boil.",cl! bol;.woen p~rochial interests an(l those of the larqer cO(mIun1t.y. I'a~oc::hialhml ml.sses t-llq large".. city nee<lEl but:. t.hreQ people on the Council .... ill hopotully have a :broader vision. (This 1s not. to imply t.hat preset,\:' \fl:llrd l?'l:'rlllQns l;JOt eot1'ftIllnlt.y-wJ.de v!!don; thil:J is curnmtly nQI;. t.he CBSS.) 6129346986 --------------------------------------------------------------- R&B SALES 1 . " • i t'itl~t are t.he "Wsts Of l"unnln9 for oU1ce' ill Hilmet..onkft? Docs ~ Ward ~ystem decrease thoae costS? ca~ it le~d to more ccmpc~ltion Cor ofliee Wh~n the eoonomlc out1~y is less? .. , ~ecent £~11 eleet:1one heip pinpoint. t.htll illll\le. " war" per.son spent ':l,MO tn an intcnsl2 !"ace I an at larga cl2ndidllt.e ~'UOO 1n il Close race (t~ l~tt.r two l::ot"tl ran against. incumt>euts), the mayor in t;he araa or $6200. Depenct1ng on the intonslty oft-he raca and cont:.r.oversial facto~e tn- VOlVed, an at large candidate can apand bct..ween $G and 7,000 and a lI1ayodal cancl1dat.e as much as $10,000. At the ward level c:Q6t.f.I c/:\tl rW1 between U500 and t-3000 with matJ~n9$ being the single, roost expensive i~em. The consensus seems to be that aWard System can be ~ fQct~r 1n 1ncroQsing the numnors ot candidates tor officer bU~ noe of and by 1~selr. Who dO tne peopl$ 1n H1nnetonKa call when they have a problem? First. eont.ae\. 1$ usually mal«i with tno WiU"d ~r,"Url, but. iC Lhat indivtdual is not eympat.het;.ic or' <loes not return his/har calls, the co~Ulcllp0rson at large will lik(lly get t.he next. ptlone call, nlere is IJOIM! percept-lon alae) thllIt womon CQum::.I.l rnember~ mily ~ more ava1l1\t>le and. approachable. C'..o\lJ1dl mombers \ihohtlw « reputat.1on foX" "resldentft fr1endly" serve as resource peJ:"sons, teaching cdlera to ~o 1,.0 Cit..y Hell c1trectly end who to ~tD.ct. there. 'In conClusion, Mlnnetonlta'S e~dence with W~rd government Cdll hOpOfully be of somct help to othE!" cities contClllplating t.hfl 801m... l\ "li;IIjol"i ty oC ~hoaQ Snt.ervlewed who etrongly tavo~ea the Sy6t~ pointed out, however, that. Lhe City's compraniae system 1s probably equally ;t"o:!;lponslble tor i t.s t'fll;ihtvely smooth running, it shOl.ll.d certainly not tle discounted. Also, tllC h~;l(mOOUs eU"9umant . \January, 1992. Pr~parod ~B a r-mP1I/I.eague of Women Voters rcPQr1,.. P.IZt? • '. • , ,. , . • 6129346986 ,. 6129330647 RIl.B iALES INC. . ; . . ': 2 ~\:. LarQEl counc11parsone (one witll aCCo.ss t.o sQl\\9 wrtt.t.~n records--t;.ho "VillagQ Newslctt.9r" and a ~t-1eet MlnMeonk::." boOklet.l One Wa[~ coun~tlpcreon CH.y Attornoy (who recently part,icipated in a discussion for pl.ymouth vot-ers em the possi!)ility of chOOSing a Char\:.Qr form of government) MinnotonXa's firs!;. (male COllncil rnerol;)ar (Who served in late '60's end 70'8 and also on original G~udy group and first. Charter comnls6ion) Mlnnaton~a's (irst city Manager P.08 .. ----_ ... ----- P.05 i I i • ---_ ... ------_ .. ------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------.~---- • • • MEMORANDUM '1'0: Mayor and city Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: John Frane, Finance Director DATE: January 31, 1992 SUBJECT: Liquor store at the Prairieview Center (Rainbow Foods Area) Negotiations have been underway with the management firm for the Prairieview Center so that the city may open its third off-sale liquor store. At present there are 4284 square feet available in the middle of the eastern building. We have negotiated an understanding for a 5-year lease with a 5-year option starting at $11.50/square-foot with a $0.25/square-foot increase per year. I estimate the cost of setting up the store to be about $100,000. The target date for opening would be June 1. Recommendations: JDF:bmm It is recommended that the council approve delivery of a letter-of-intent so that a lease can be drafted for review and approval by the City. . • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ~ DATE: January 27, 1992 SUBJECT: Presentation of Schematic Design for Ice Rink Addition at Community Center BACKGROUND: At the February 3rd meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the February 4th meeting of the City Council, Del Erickson will be presenting the proposed schematic design for the ice rink addition at the Community Center, as developed by the Design Review Committee over the last two months. The Design Review Committee has reviewed nine concept proposals relating to the second ice rink, as well as to possible future expansion of the Community Center. An important part of the schematic design phase was to review all alternatives for expansion of a second ice rink, as well as possible future expansion of the Community Center to ensure that the expansion of a second ice rink will not prohibit possible future expansion and, in fact, must compliment that expansion. LOCKER ROOM EXPANSION: During the design review period, there was also a discussion regarding expansion of the existing locker rooms as a separate project that may be done in the near future. Mr. Erickson will provide information and cost estimates on that project as well. SITE MASTER PLAN: The final portion of the schematic design for review will be the site master plan, which will recommend a revised entry from Valley View Road, as well as an improved entry to the building and a reconfigured parking lot to accommodate additional parking and better pedestrian access through the parking lot to the building. FUTURE DESIGN STAGES: Upon review and approval of the schematic design the architect will proceed to the design development stage which includes more detailed drawings and cost estimates that will be completed prior to the construction document phase that is necessary prior to seeking bids for the project. . . Presentation of Schmatic Design • January 27, 1992 Page 2 The design development review is scheduled to take place before the City Council on March 3rd, while the construction document phase should be completed and the project ready for bid by May 5, 1992. If we are able to stay on this schedule bid opening would occur on May 26th, • the Council would award a contract on June 2nd and the facility should be open to the public on December 17, 1992. erickson/14 • • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources~ DATE: January 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Second Ice Rink Addition Attached to this memorandum is a preliminary cost estimate based on the schematic phase of the second ice rink addition provided by Del Erickson Architects. The preliminary cost estimate is in a range of $2,012,000 to $2,084,700. Deduct alternates recommended for consideration total $415,800. Add alternates for consideration total $159,000. DEDUCT ALTERNATE CONSIDERATIONS: NHL Rink -$142,000 All plans are based on an Olympic size sheet of ice (100' wide x 200' long). An NHL rink would reduce the size of the rink to 85" wide x 200' long, the same size as the existing rink. This would reduce the cost by $142,200. All of the committee members are strongly in favor of attempting to maintain an Olympic size ice rink as the second sheet of ice. All of the "experts" throughout the country that we talked to about the future of ice rink sizes strongly recommended constructing Olympic size rinks. Some of those experts we asked include the following: Dave Peterson, Head Coach of the 1988 and the 1992 US Olympic Hockey Team; Dean Blaiz, Former Head Coach Roseau High School (1990 State Champs), Assistant 1992 Olympic team Coach; Wayne Eklund, Eden Prairie High School Hockey Coach; Bart Larson, Edina Hockey Coach; Tom Saterdolen, Bloomington Jefferson High School Hockey Coach (the City of Bloomington is considering a third rink addition, which would be Olympic size); Shawn Walin, Head Coach of the University of Main; Brad Buetow, Head Coach Colorado College; Jeff Sauer, Head Coach University of Wisconsin; Bill Cleary, Athletic Director Harvard University; Tim Taylor, Head Coach Yale University and Bill Christian, Member of the 1960 US Hockey Team and resident of Warroad, Minnesota, where they will break ground for a new Olympic size ice rink in 1992. All of these individuals indicated that most new rinks in the United States will go to Olympic size due to the increase in international competition, and the fact that people enjoy watching hockey on a larger sheet of ice where the game is more focused on skating and passing, rather than hitting and holding. All of the figure skaters also strongly supported the larger sheet of ice due to the wider rinks, which simply provides more ice for free style programs . Preliminary Cost Estimate for Second Ice Rink Addition January 30, 1992 Page 2 The Hockey Association strongly supports the large sheet of ice, as it will allow smaller teams to practice two teams at a time cross ways on a rink, and will encourage better skating and passing skills. If a larger sheet of ice is constructed, City staff would recommend charging $5 per hour more for the Olympic size rink and beginning the fee at $105/hour in 1993. Fees would anticipate rising $2.50/hour throughout the 20 year payment of the rink bonds, as this has been a standard increase each year for the last ten years. Fire Sprinkler -$35,000 This is not an option. Roof Between Buildings -$41,000 City staff would strongly recommend attempting to find sufficient funds to construct a roof over the existing mechanical room and North Star space between the two high roof lines of the • existing and proposed ice arena. This roof would allow easy future development of that 6,000 • sq. ft. of space at a relatively low cost. This space could be developed for meeting rooms, storage rooms, etc. Gas Fired HV A C -$30,000 This type of heating system would provide the same comfort level with heat directed into the team locker rooms and the spectator area (not over the ice sheet) at a savings of $30,000 from the existing type of heating system within the building. Omit Future Footing and Pier -$4,000 The School District staff have indicated an interest in the ability to expand seating up to 1,000 seats in the new rink area. In order to accommodate this expansion, footings and piers that would accommodate a large header need to be put in at this time. The estimated cost is $4,000. The City would request that the School District consider funding this expenditure if they are interested in maintaining this possibility. Single Wythe CMU Exterior Wall-$90,800 City staff would not recommend a single wythe exterior wall on this building, but would recommend matching the existing construction with a double wythe wall; the outside wall to be brick matching the existing facility. • • • • Preliminary Cost Estimate for Second Ice Rink Addition January 30, 1992 Page 3 Lighter Quality Dasher -$9,000 City staff would not recommend this deduct unless it is absolutely necessary. The heavier quality dasher boards will pay for themselves over the 20 year bonding payment. Omit Heat Reclaim -$10,000 _ The estimated payback on the heat reclaim system is three to four years; therefore, City staff would recommend not deducting this alternate. Omit Bleachers -$33,800 Staff recommends considering omitting the bleachers, if necessary, as they can be added very easily at a future date. Staff would recommend bringing in bleachers from the ballfields in the fall of the year as temporary bleachers until the City is able to construct permanent bleachers in the facility. These bleachers would be removed in the spring of the year and brought back in each fall. This would eliminate any bleacher seating during the spring, summer and early fall months, which should be a consideration, as City staff would recommend the Olympic size ice rink be operated with ice on a year-round basis . The deduct alternates that should be bid as deduct alternates include: · Omitting the Bleachers for $33,800 · Omitting the Gas Fired HVAC for $30,000 · Omitting the Future Footing and Pier for $4,000 · Omitting the Lighter Quality Dasher Boards for S$9,000 These deduct alternates total $86,000. If the City obtains excellent bids, the City would have the opportunity to add anyone or all of these alternates back in prior to awarding a bid. ADD ALTERNATES: Concrete Floor -$130,000 Staff are recommending that one of our two ice rinks would be operated on a year-round basis with ice, while the other may provide dry floor activities during five to six months of the year. Although both ice rinks may be operated year-round with ice if the City obtains sufficient . number of requests for summer ice, it makes sense that the once ice rink committed for year- round use be the Olympic size ice rink as it will be the most desirable rink for all users. If we are sure that it will be used for ice on a year-round basis, it does not make sense to pay for the additional cost of a concrete floor. The sand floor also offers easy access to the refrigeration piping system if a leak ever does occur. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Second Ice Rink Addition January 30, 1992 Page 3 Glass Dasher Screen -$14,000 Although glass dasher boards would be desirable, especially on the west side of the rink where we may be using temporary seating, this does not appear to be an alternate the City would be able to afford considering the budget goals. Glazed Facing Tile Team Room -$15,000 Again, the glazed facing tile offers ease of maintenance and a high quality finish to team locker rooms; however, this again is an alternate that appears to be beyond our budget goals .. FUNDING CONSTRUCTION COSTS: • Attached to this memorandum is a printout that depicts ice rental at $105/hour beginning 1993, increasing to $152.50 in the year 2012. The printouts are based on selling only 1,666 hours per year, which averages 238 hours per month for seven months; therefore, these are relatively conservative revenue projections. Revenue projections set $1,975,000 as the total bonds to be sold. Staffhad originally anticipated approximately $1,875,000 as the cost to construct the arena with an additional $100,000 for improvements to the entry to the building. After further investigation to the site plan, the recommendation to improve the access includes installing a new • access to the parking lot from Valley View Road, reorienting the entire parking lot, as well as changing the front entry to the building. Additional costs also are not included in the original considerations are the costs to move the wall, reroute the existing 6" fire hydrant services, reset the southeast and northwest fire hydrants, reroute 6" fire and 3' cold water services to the building, and relocate existing gas service and meter to the north side of the building. These costs would bring the total project to approximately $2,100,000. City Council will note that under both the 6% and 7% interest projections, there would be some yearly contributions to operation costs. If the Council wishes to raise the bonds projected to be sold beyond a $1,975,000 to cover the costs for some of the alternates or exterior work, the yearly contributions to operations would decrease. The projections indicate that revenue would cover development of 2.1 million; however, yearly contributions to operating cost are reduced from $859,950 to $534,850 over the term of the bond payment at 6% interest. RAL:mdd precosts/14 • • • • dc~~.N~E .. ,."R./ICKSON ARCHITECTS , 1 I "," . <" .. ".'.: "',,"j "at ., 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD " MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 , 612 -544-8370 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE -SCHEMATIC PHASE Arena Addition to Eden Prairie Community Center Commission Number 9117 Owner -City of Eden Prairie January 30, 1992 The following cost estimate is based on a rough material and system take-off for proposed arena as outline on the attached outline spec. It does not include work for remodel offices, high school lockers, entry plaza, or relocation of utilities. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 13. 15. 16. General Conditions Site Work Concrete Masonry Steel Carpentry Weather Proofing Doors & Windows Finishes Specialties Rink Systems Mechanical Electrical $100,700.00 38,400.00 94,700.00 342,200.00 195,300.00 , 20,000.00 138,600.00 47,200.00 65,400.00 65,200.00 OH & P Subcontracts 511,000.00 201,500.00 -250,000.00 157,600.00 -178,500.00 34,200.00 -37,500.00 TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE $2,012,000.00 -2,084,700.00 COMMITTEE SELECTED ALTERNATES (67,800.00) NET TOTAL BUDGET PROPOSED $1.944,200.00 -2,016.900.00 OTHER DEDUCTIONS TO MATCH ORIGINAL BUDGET ($348,000.00) NET TOTAL COST ESTIMATE W/ALL DEDUCT ALTERNATES $1,596,200.00 -1,668,900.00 These estimates do not include any contingency fund which should also be budgeted at approximately 5% . ~,U . f 1 , V'v I COMMITTEE SELECfED ALTERNATES Omit Bleachers Gas Fired Forced Air HV AC in lieu of Boiler Omit Future Footing and Pier TOTAL COMMITTEE SELECTED ALTERNATES OTHER DEDUcrrONS TO MATCH ORIGINAL BUDGET ALTERNATES NHL Rink Omit Fire Sprinkler Omit Roof between Buildings Radiant Heater in lieu of Forced Air Single Wythe CMU Exterior Wall Lighter Quality Dasher System Omit Heat Reclaim TOTAL DEDUCT ALTERNATES ADD ALTERNATES Concrete Floor Glass Dasher Screen Str. Glazed Facing Tile in Team Rooms School Entry Canopy Allowance Stair & Railing to Mezzanine Plastic Face Back Side Dasher Boards TOTAL ADD ALTERNATES $33,800.00 30,000.00 4,000.00 $67,800.00 $142,200.00· 35,000.00 41,000.00 20,000.00 90,800.00 9,000.00 10,000.00 $348,000.00 $130,000.00 14,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 22,000.00 11,000.00 $202,000.00 • • • • • • de DEL.~;O E~ICKSON ARCHITECTS a~ 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD , MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 612 -544-8370 OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS Arena Addition to Eden Prairie Community Center Commission Number 9117 Owner -City of Eden Prairie January 27, 1992 The following specifications outline in general only the materials and methods to provide cost estimate of arena design. Systems must meet local codes and standards. 1. General Requirements 1. Site survey, soil testing, sac and wac, are NIC. 2. Insurance, temporary facilities, permit and performance bond. 3. Alternates a) 110' span in lieu of 125' including floor, roof and walls. b) Automatic fire sprinkler system. c) 85' wide rink in lieu of 100'. d) 30' roof span to existing building. e) Concrete rink floor in lieu of sand . f) Glass dasher screen in lieu of plastic. g) Bleacher seating. h) Site lighting. i) Arena radiant heating in lieu of air system. 2. Site j) Concrete footing and pier for future. k) 'Structural glazed tile units in lieu of CMU in locker/team rooms. 1) Alternate exterior wall to be single wythe rockface light weight insulated core concrete block with exterior sealer in lieu of cavity wall. 1. Allowance for preparation and grading of site and pond edge. 2. Excavate, backfill, subcut rink floor, sand cushion. 3. Asphalt paved walks, drive, and fire lane. 4. Concrete entrance sidewalk and stoop slabs. 5. Allowance for utility connections and relocation. 6. Regrade top soil only -landscaping and black dirt -by owner. 3. Concrete 1. Concrete footing and snow pit based on 1500 psf soil. 2. Concrete floor -4" w/mesh. 3. Rink floor alternate concrete -part of rink pacl~ge. 4. 8" precast concrete (grouted) roof/future mezzanine floor - 120 ps f. 1. 1. 5. Rebar and concrete fill for lintels and wall reinforcing. 6. Round concrete columns to steel frame. . 7. Concrete beam for long span support of masonry walls. . , Outline Specification (continued) January 27, 1992 Page 2 4. Masonry 1. Standard weight concrete block foundation, bearing walls, and interior partitions. 2. Light weight rockface concrete block walls for upper part (above 7'-4) of arena rink space. 3. Rockface exterior wall finish for lower (7'-4 ht) part of cavity wall construction. 4. 4" x 12" face brick to match existing for upper (above 7 '-4 ht) part of cavity wall construction. 5. Steel 1. Long span steel joist roof, metal deck and steel beam frame system. Unit price for insulated acoustic deck. _ 2. Misc steel angle, O.H. door frames, pit cover, railings, alternate stairs, brackets, and supports. 6. Carpentry 1. Labor, miSC wood blocking, framing, trim, etc. 7. Thermal and Moisture Protection 1. 1-1/2" stryrofoam perimeter insulation at exterior and rink edge areas. 2. 2" styrofoam cavity wall insulation in exterior walls. 3. 4"foam core fill insulation in masonry single wythe alternate. 4. Caulking at exterior doors, joints and seams. 5. R-30 roof insulation with 60 mil EPDM ballasted roof membrane. 6. ''Kalwall'' insulated fiberglass and aluminum skylight system. 8. Doors and Windows 1. Hollow metal doors and frames throughout, insulated exterior. 2. Steel O.H. doors, insulated at exterior, 3 hour rated coil door at Zamboni interior. 3. Glass borrowed lights in entrance doors and sidelights, insulated exterior. 4. Aluminum frame windows and main entrance doors. 5. Commercial grade hardware, brushed chrome. a) Panic devices at public exit doors with closers. b) Weatherstrip exterior openings. c) Push/pull and closers as allowable. 9. Finishes 1. Painting -HM doors, and miSC. metals. 2. Painting -CMU walls and concrete ceilings. • • 3. Painting -prefinished steel joists and deck. Field touch up and exposed steel beams. • "'. " . • • • Outline Specification (continued) January 27, 1992 Page 3 9. Finishes (cont.) 4. Acoustic board ceilings. Waterproof plaster in shower. 5. Ceramic tile floors/walls in toilets and showers. 6. Skate tile floors in skate traffic area and public toilet. 7. Carpet and base office areas. 10. Specialties 1. Metal toilet compartments (alternate plastic). 2. Stainless steel/chrome toilet accessories. 3. Fire extinguishers per code. 4. Aluminum coil concession window (alternate). S. Aluminum or plastic team room benches. 6. Chalk and tack boards. 11. Equipment 1. Alternate for bleachers (wood and steel). 2. Concession counter -plastic laminate. 13. Special Construction 1. 2. 3~ 4. S. 6. Direct freon rink system complete with sand floor and insulation. Schedule 40 welded steel floor and header system Complete plastic/steel dasher boards system with alternate price. for acrylic or glass screen. Alternate for dehumidifier. Alternate for heat reclalin for sub-floor heat, snow pit and building heating. . Alternate 65 ton refrigeration add-on to existing system. 15. Mechanical 1. Complete water/drainage system and service connection ill concealed areas, plumbing fixtures and fittings. 2. Hot water heating, gas fired, system. 3. Hot water coil air heating system and duct work for heated areas. Alternate for radiant system in arena. 4. Ventilation for arena and toilet/team rooms per code. S. Temperature control system as required. _ 6. Fire sprinkler system add to existing service. 16. Electrical 1. Relocate transformer and up-grade servlce, panel and connections to handle ultimate loads. 2. High bay metal halide light at rink 70 foot candles - 3 level switching. 3. Florescent light all other areas with room switch. 4. Convenience outlets. 5. Alternate for sound system and scoreboard. 6. Security system -add to existing . YF\ 1 1995 2 199f.~ 3 1'=t95 4 1996 5 1997 6 1998 7 1999 8 2000 9 2001 10 200:;::: 11 20cYS 12 2004 13 2005 14 2006 15 2007 16 20(n3 17 2009 211 S() REV .1.05.00 174':t::;O 107 . ~30 1 .. 7909~") 110.00 ltlT260 112.~~.O 18]42~) J.l~,.OO 1'i1.590 117.50 19575~. 120. 00 19~?9:20 122 , ~jO :?0408 ~S L2:''::', 00 :;2082~.50 12/ . ~~iO 2J::?41:=':, l~;C. 00 2.1.6~.80 13:'~" ~)() :22(}7Ll~5 1~.7 = ~I() ~~2'-.~()7·~1 14(; ,. ()() 2:~;~:':2L1r() 1:4·2 = ~I() ~~::~ 7~ 4 ()~.5 14::1 = (Ie) 2·'1·1 ~,'7() 18 19 2010 147.50 245755 2011 150.00 249900 2i) 2012 152.50 254065 BOBLICE YF: 1 3 6 "1 o w 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 c:. .... -' 16 17 19 20 of 1'=.':::'0 .1.. .' .' I 2()c)1 2004 2()()~, 2()(J:; 2012 1. 2~,,, ()() 127' = ~i() .13~=.; '" ()(j 13:~:: ~1() 137 = ~i() :?()82~,() 212'11;::, :,::::~;3240 :',~~ ~~: ~t 4 (j ~, :~':': .,:~ 1 :.;.~I '/ () F' BAL .1 Ct"l~5000 lC?40000 1900000 J8:':15000 1805000 1745000 1680000 1610000 1 !5~)(lOOO 1440000 1::::45000 1240000 1125000 JOOOOOO 870000 T3.:::,OOO 600000 4::,::.000 ~)10000 .1 ~5 :':' ()()() 1(=j70000 1::::10(",OU 1.67~:.c)OO l.~()()(:()() 1 ~52()()()() 143::,000 1150000 1045000 955000 820000 700000 1 ::'.0000 "7 _ 0((1, ... n·n·- 1:;::.:300 133000 129850 126.S50 122150 117600 112700 107.100 100800 941::,0 868()(} 787~':'O 70000 60~700 514 !:,() 42000 ~;18~:'() 217!)() 108!:'oO .1 HiSOO JUi3,':;.,OO l04?O(J 96000 S:'12()() 86.1.00 E:()"/(){) 7!S()()() 69000 62700 ::1.~.1 (~() .l.l-92()() 420UO 17"700 9000 Pf~IN :3:5000 40000 4~50(lO 50000 60000 65000 70000 80000 ':10000 c;':'iOOO 10~jOOO 11::·000 125000 1::::;0000 l:)~,ooo 1:::::::.000 l i +S()()() 14~jOOO ; 'c:. 0=.,.-, ,',{-.. • .!..~. '-"-'''-''-' 5c)<)() 8()()()() 9()<)()() C} ~5C)()() 100000 1 () ~I()()() .1..1.0000 l.1 !.:,C) ()() 12()(){)(; 1. :: ()(> ()<) l .. q·(;()()(: .1.~,OOOO 1975000 YEARLY CDNTRUBUTION BAL TO OF'EF~AT I Q,NS 1~·975 10235 17\":310 2~5 ' 50 31.,55 4~~:'?5 55 :.;,Sc) 66'::,10 8~; .· .. 2:5 1.00:555 119;':.iOO 140~S60 20"7075 3126(;() ~~;8148~i 6 l +:SC .1 ~::.:i () :~': ~i 161010 1(/772::', 23<7'::::;():::, 3:~:'~3~26() :::;; <) f.::. :-2 ~~: ~I 3295 8605 11385 11150 17430 18945 . 2116(} 2907::, 3734!) 5095::. 732()C: C"="-:-'1 =. '-' '-' .. :'. -"-"-" \/t:-F\r::·, ~J ! ",-,-,! -'.!..-: i -::',::::,.--:,,:::. . ....:... ._.1.. ..• ..;.,... '. '-"":"'""::C)'-:';-, ~._. / "':_",_1 ':::,'-;,.""7';! , ._ • ..:.:....:....l... ,_, 57975 C:'!""i-~'-'" '-.. -.~~-.. -. • :30BLICE -:r '-' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . 166.'J 19'7):::;' 19C?4 19<75 1.05.00 107.50 110.00 REV 1.749::-~:0 179095 H33260 F' BAL 2100000 207!'.'.iOOO 2045000 1996 112.50 187425 2010000 1997 115.00 191590 1970000 1998 117.50 195755 1920000 1999 120.00 199920 1865000 2000 122.50 204085 1805000 2001 125.00 208250 1735000 2002 127.50 212415 1655000 2003 130.00 216580 1565000 2004 132.50 220745 1465000 2005 135.00 224910 1355000 2006 137.50 229075 1235000 2007 140.00 233240 1105000 2008 142.50 237405 960000 2009 145.00 241570 800000 2010 147.50 245735 625000 2011 150.00 249900 435000 2012 152.50 254065 225000 R!AICC: _~ L- 1666 2.5() YR nEV P BI~~" .... 1 19<-73 105.00 107 . ~jO 110.00 112.50 11:: •• 00 117. ~;.O 120.00 17.c~O:i::~:0 2100000 179095 :~:06000(l 18~:'260 201~.OOO 18742~j 1965000 191 ~J'-::;O 1910000 1957~.5 H:150000 199920 178~jOOO 20408~::' .17.1 ::.000 2082~jO 1640000 2 1994 3 1995 4 1996 5 1997 6 1998 7 19'-'19 8 2000 9 2001 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 J8 19 20 • 2002 127.50 212415 1560000 2003 130.00 216580 1470000 2004 132.50 220745 1370000 2005 ~35.00 224910 1260000 2006 137.50 229075 1140000 2007 140.00 233240 1010000 2008 142.50 237405 870000 2009 145.00 241570 720000 2010 147.50 245735 560000 2011 150.00 249900 385000 2012 152.50 254065 200000 4 :?fl9'-'1'j(l 7 n 001.. INT 147000 14::.'.2::.',0 .14::~:150 1'1·0700 1:':::7900 1:':::41.1·00 130!:.50 126350 121450 11 ::'.iB ::.0 1. 09!5 ~.50 102550 948~50 86450 7T350 67200 ~-j6000 ::~:Oi.1-~:":.O 1. ~5 -7 ~I() 6 II ()()i~ . I !\rT" .1.26000 1.T:::600 120())(H) 117900 114{")OO 1:1.. JOOO 107100 102900 9B400 9:~::600 BEl200 B2~?OO 7!5600 6U.t.I·OO .SO(;;OO ~:\ :;;;: ~~: 0 0 .!1-~:; ~::~ () () ::::;:~;600 2:3100 12000 ::.000 PF:::IN 25000 30000 :::;:5000 40000 ::.0000 55000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000 145000 160000 175000 1')'0000 210000 22~!C)()C) 2100000 YEARLY CONTRUDUTION BAL TO OPERATIONS 677'5 1188~5 18610 22:3()() 286~~5 :::::S()25 525{j() 5 C) 125 66155 74350 84410 97035 10792::. 1181:~:0 1406B~:":. 1501:5~.5 16~:;4~SO 2930 3845 51.10 t.725 3690 9370 7735 6800 6565 7030 8195 10060 12625 10890 10205 10~570 11985 13315 5000 2100000 YEARLY CDNTRUBUTIDN pnIN SAL TO OPERATIONS 40000 8930 8930 45000 19425 10495 50000 31785 12360 55000 46310 14525 60000 63300 16990 65000 83055 19755 70000 105875 22820 75000 132060 261B5 80000 161910 29850 90000 100000 110000 l:-:;~OOOO 1:~:OOOO 1.40000 1 ~:.iOOOO 160000 .1.7~.OOO lU~5000 200000 :.21910~.5 ;;~476~.'.'.iO :~::07 h~::'~5 ::~:40?7~':. 41 ::~:E) 'j(> 1.1· !::. 0 C? 0 ~:, II f) :'~~ 7' ~:~ ~5 ~:5 :~; '1 t3 ~I () 2BB:L5 28::~:t30 :;:: 8 !:.i 4 ~:'l :3:0f.:,7~j ::~: ~:2 t.:~ J:l-() 41COO 4206~::. .L6':,5100 2100000 ~l :~; .. q, [:3 ~3 () -.. • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ~ DATE: January 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Acquisition of Crestwood Neighborhood Park BACKGROUND: Earlier this year City staff completed an inventory of parcels that could serve as future park sites for the Crestwood Terrace area, as well as the Cedar Forest area and the Rice Marsh Lake area. These three areas are our final three neighborhood park service areas that require park acquisition. The preferred site to serve the Crestwood Terrace neighborhood is an 11.6-acre parcel owned by Robert and Dellora Coleman, 18455 Pioneer Trail. This parcel is relatively flat and open, and borders on the west side of Dell Road, south of County Road 1. Earlier in 1991, the Col~mans had contacted City staff to indicate they were willing to sell their parcel to the City for park purposes. At a special meeting with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission on January 14, 1992, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate for the acquisition of neighborhood park parcels serving the Crestwood Terrace neighborhood, the Cedar Forest neighborhood, and the Rice Marsh Lake area. COMPARISONS: Prior to meeting with the Colemans to discuss price for their property, staff reviewed all sales of parcels, outside the MUSA line, of 5-acres or larger. In 1987 there was one sale of a parcel 8.08-acres at $10,519 per acre, in 1988 there was one sale of 12-acres at $9,583 per acre, in 1989 there were two sales; one of 7.29-acres for $11,316 and another of 20-acres at $12,000 per acre. In 1990 there was one sale of 3.3-acres at $13,691 per acre and in 1991 there was one sale of 5-acres at $12,000 per acre. Although most of these sites were on wooded parcels, the general trend has been a slight increase in value since 1987 for these types of parcels. The Coleman property does not contain woods, water or significant views; however, this level property, fronted by Dell Road and surrounded by existing homes of Crestwood Terrace on two sides, is ideally suited for a neighborhood park to serve the southwest comer of Eden Prairie. It has great access and would require very little grading to develop into the park as depicted on the attached plan. . . Acquisition of Crestwood Neighborhood Park January 22, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: On Tuesday, January 21, 1992, City staff met with the Colemans to discuss the acquisition of their parcel for park purposes. The Colemans are willing to sell their parcel at approximately $12,500 per acre or $145,000. The Colemans would agree to selling the parcel over a three or four year period with 25 % down and the remaining payments over the next three years. This would allow the City to acquire this park through the use of cash park fees. City staff recommend the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the City Council support the acquisition of the Coleman property for a neighborhood park serving the southwest part of Eden Prairie, and request authorization to draft a purchase agreement in the amount of $145,000 for this purpose. RAL:mdd coleman/bob • • • • • • °1 --------J-Ir=---.===~ • Southwest Area north t> #5 Neighborhood Park Study o 10U 200 400 3l{?> • • • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager DATE: January 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Recommendation for Bluff Committee Planning Staff recommends the following for the task and makeup of a Bluff committee: 1. The City Council could appoint a seven-member committee with the following makeup: One community member at-large. One Bluff owner with non-developable land. One Bluff owner with developable land . A representative of the current land owner proponent of Riverview Heights. A member of the Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. One member from the Planning Commission. One member from the City Council. Technical support from City Staff and other agency staff. 2. The committee could be appointed to: a. Review and comment on the draft EA W. b. Prepare recommendations on the final EAW to the Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. c. Review current information regarding the Minnesota River Bluffs including current Bluff policy and controls and recommend policy and tools for control of land development on the Minnesota River Bluffs . Memo Recommendation for Bluff Committee January 30, 1992 Page 2 Following are several issues considered in making the recommendation for setting up a Bluff committee: 1. What is the purpose of the Bluff committee? Should the Bluff committee be a single issue committee, a standing committee, advisory, a working and directing committee, policy forming, reviewing, technical or conceptual? 2. Should there be terms for the members appointed? When should the committee meet: per task, as needed, or on a regular schedule? 3. Should the committee be established by ordinance and should by-laws be drawn up for it? 4. What should the make-up of the committee be? How many members and what representations? At large citizens, Bluff owners, developers, staff, other agencies, City commissions, City Council members? • Considerable information exists on how to deal with the Minnesota River Bluffs, both from other • community and agency sources and from experience and information gathered by the City of Eden Prairie. Eden Prairie staff has prepared a Bluff inventory and study report which was distributed to the City Council members in April, 1991. In addition, Eden Prairie has ordinances dealing with lot size, steep slope, vegetation and flood plain, which if used according to recommendations of the Bluff Study, should prove effective in controlling development on the Minnesota River Bluffs. After reviewing the current development proposal EAW, helping with its formulation, and developing recommendations for over all Bluff development guidelines, the work of the committee would be finished and further review could be carried out through the normal City process using the work of the committee as recommendations and guidelines. MEMOBLFF.CE:bs --~-~ ---------- • • LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUBURBAN PLACE BUILDING 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 370 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 TELEPHONE: (612) 829-7355 FAX: (612) 829-0713 ROBERT I. LANG MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE 4400 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET MINNEAPOUS. MINNESOTA 55402 (612) 338-0755 ROGER A. PAULY DAVID H. GREGERSON' RICHARD F. ROSOW MARK J. JOHNSON JOSEPH A. NILAN FAX (612) 349-1i718 REPLY TO EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE: JOHN W. LANG. CPA JUDITH H. DUTCHER BARBARA M. ROSS WILLIAM R. MILLER BERNADINE S. HOWARD TODD A. SATTLER MEMORANDUM • Abo Authorized to Practice Law in Wisconsin • • TO: Mayor and Members of City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Roger A. Pauly Barbara M. Ross DATE: January 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Moratorium on Development Along Minnesota River Bluffs BACKGROUND The City is considering an application by Hustad Homes and Robert and James Brown for approval of a preliminary plat and zoning amendments for a 65 acre parcel of property located on the Minnesota River Bluffs. The property is located along Riverview Road and has been zoned R1-22 since 1954. The Comprehensive Guide Plan deSignates the area along the Bluffs as either public open space or low density residential. At the Council meeting on January 21, 1992 a public hearing was held regarding the application. .The Council postponed a decision on the application and ordered that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be done regarding the proposed development. Addi tionally, the Council requested a Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the legal issues involved in the imposition of a moratorium on development along the Bluffs for a limited time while the City studies the potential impact of development on the stabili ty of the Bluffs, the environment of the area, and on wildlife . -1- DISCUSSION I. WHAT IS THE CITY'S AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM? It is well established in Minnesota that a moratorium on development can be a valuable tool for a municipality that permits it to "keep its planning options open and to conduct a study of long-range development." Almquist v. Town of Marshan, 245 N.W.2d 819,826 (Minn. 1976); See TPW, Inc. v. City of New Hope, 388 N.W.2d 390, 394 (Minn. App. 1986) and Bolander and Sons, Inc. v. Minneapolis, 378 N.W.2d 826, 830 (Minn. App. 1985). The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the validity of moratoriums in Almquist v. Town of Marshan where the moratorium is enacted by the municipality in good faith and without discrimination, the moratorium is of limited duration, the study proceeds promptly, and the appropriate zoning ordinances are expeditiously adopted upon completion of the study. Id., 245 N.W.2d at 826. Subsequent to the Almquist decision the Minnesota legislature codified the rule regarding the use of moratoriums in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, Subd. 4, as follows: If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in Section 462.355, Subd. 15, or if new territory for which plans and controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipali ty may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. Therefore, cities have statutory authority to adopt a moratorium, not to exceed a total of 2 1/2 years. There is an exception to the statute where a city is required by ordinance to take action on an application within a specified period of time. For example, in Chase v. City of Minneapolis, 401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. App. 1987) the Minneapolis Zoning Code required the issuance of a building permit within 45 days of a public hearing. The court held that a moratorium on building permits adopted more than 45 days -2- • • • • • • after the public hearing on the plaintiff's building permit application had no effect on the application. Minnesota statutes Section 462.358, Subd. 3b provides that a preliminary plat must be approved or disapproved by the City Council within 120 days of delivery of the application to the City, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. If the application is not acted upon within 120 days, the preliminary plat is deemed approved. Pursuant to the Chase case, therefore, if the City imposes a moratorium on development along the Bluffs, it must do so prior to the expiration of the 120 day period, unless voluntarily extended by Hustad, in order for the moratorium to affect the preliminary plat submitted by Hustad. Although the City has the authority to impose a moratorium, the analysis does not end there. In light of recent developments in the law, the City must be cognizant of the fact that the adoption of a moratorium may be found to constitute a "taking" of some or all of the properties affected. II. DOES A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT CONSTITUTE A "TAKING" OF PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION? In 1987, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), which held that where the government has "taken" a property through land-use regulations, the landowner may recover damages for the time period between the effective date of the regulation and the court decision finding a "taking" of the landowner's property. Id., at 321. The Court made it clear that a landowner is entitled1:o damages for a temporary regulatory taking, so long as the facts prove that the landowner was deprived of all use of the property. Id. Prior to the First English case, the long standing procedure was that when a court held a land-use regulation constituted a "taking" of private property, the government then had the option of wi thdrawing the regulation without paying damages or exercising its power of eminent domain. See, Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). The First English Court stated that once a taking has been found the government retains a range of options -amending the regulation, or exercising eminent domain -but must pay damages for the "temporary taking." First English Evangelical Lutheran Church, 482 U. S. at 321. The First English case involved an interim ordinance prohibi ting construction or reconstruction of any building or structure in an interim flood protection area, which allegedly prohibited the First English Evangelical Church from all use of its property. The Court stated that the case was limited to its facts, and did not deal with "the different questions that would arise in the case of normal delays in obtaining building permits, changes in -3- zoning ordinances, variances, and the like ... " First English Evangelical Lutheran Church, 482 U.S. at 321. Although the Court is somewhat unclear as to what constitutes a "normal delay," it can be argued that a moratorium on development constitutes more than a "normal delay" in adopting zoning amendments. A moratorium on development along the Bluffs could expose the City to liability for damages for a temporary taking of property. However, an important limitation in First English is that the regulation must prohibit all use of the property. Id., at 321. The conclusion that the First English case may be applied to moratoriums in some circumstances is supported by a recent case involving the City of Woodbury. In Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, Tenth Judicial District, District of Minnesota! Court File No. CO-88-3249, a washington County judge cited First English in holding the City of Woodbury liable for damages for the "temporary taking" of the plaintiff's property. The City of Woodbury enacted a moratorium on development for a period of two years within a certain area that included the plaintiff's property. The moratorium provided for variances, but the plaintiff was twice denied a variance. The Woodbury case will most likely be appealed, and may ultimately be heard in Federal Court. • At this point it appears that First English is limited to • cases where the property owner has shown that it was denied all use of the property by the land-use regulation. The cases will therefore be decided on a case-by-case basis. In enacting a moratorium a City may be held liable to some property owners and not others, depending upon the provisions of the ordinance imposing the moratorium and how the ordinance affects each parcel of property. SUMMARY 1. There is statutory authority for the City to impose a moratorium upon development of lands within the City. 2. Application of a moratorium to specific property, the effect of which would be to deprive its owner of all economically viable use of the property, may constitute a temporary taking which would subject the City to liability for damages to the owner for the temporary taking. 3. It should be noted that in order to suspend the effect of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 3b, which provides for the automatic approval of a plat within 120 days of filing, if not sooner denied, a moratorium would need to be adopted prior to the expiration of the 120 day period. -4-•