HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/20/1990 N U C iV U
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7:30 PM
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas
Ten pas
CITY 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 Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 16, 1990 Page 338
III CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 339
B. Award Bid for Staring Lake Park Amphitheater Sound System Page 341
C. Receive Recommendation from Historical & Cultural Commission Page 342
regarding Graffiti Bridge
D. Final Plat Approval of Bell Oaks Third Addition located north of Page 344
Riverview Road and east of Homeward Hills Road (Res— olution No.
90-37)
E. Final Plat Approval of Wyndham Nob 3rd Addition located south Page 347
ofof owTITThe Road and east of Dell—Road Resolution No. 90-38)
F. Receive Feasibility Study for Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak Drive Page 349
Neighborhood Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Street Improvements
and Set Public Hearing, I.C. 52-166 (ReTution No. 90-39)
G. PUBLIC STORAGE by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Page 350
Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres and
from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09
acres and from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.10 acres,
Zoning District Amendment from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres, and
from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09 acres and from
Rural to I-2 on 3.10 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5.28 acres into 3 lots and
road right-of-way, Site Plan Review on 5.28 acres for construction
of 74,137 square feet of office, commercial, and industrial land
uses. Location: West of County Road 18, south of the Preserve
Village Mall. (Resolution No. 90-41 - Denial of Request)
Uity touncii Hgenoa - t - iuesuay, reoruary YU, ii9U
H. Riley Lake Park Acquisition
I. Approval of Amended Arbitrage Agreement for Preserve Place Page 373
Apartments
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FARBER ADDITION by Roger Farber. Request for Zoning District Page 376
Change from Rural to R1-22 on 3.7 acres with variances for road
frontage to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Preliminary
Plat of 7.6 acres into 3 single family lots, and one outlot.
Location: 6525 Rowland Road (Ordinance No. 2-9D - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 90-17 - Preliminary Plat) Continued from January
16, 1990
B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, PHASE II by International School of Page 311
Minnesota, Inc. Request for—Zoning District Amendment with the
Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres, Site Plan Review
on approximately 38 acres for construction of a 27,640 square foot
addition. Location: South of Crosstown #62, north of Bryant Lake,
west of Nine Mile Creek. (Ordinance No. 4-90 - Zoning District
Amendment) Continued from February 6, Council meeting
C. EDEN SERVICE CENTER by Rosewood Construction for Aspen Park Page 391
Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to Community Commercial on 1.5 acres; Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 37 acres for
consideration of a 3,30D square foot Auto Service Center.
Location: Northwest corner of Fuller Road (extended) and Highway
5
D. ALPINE CENTER by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned Unit Page 399
Development District Review with waivers on approximately 18 acres,
Zoning District Change from Office to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan
Review on 3.56 acres for construction of a 29,551 square foot
retail center. Location: Northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive
and Commonwealth Drive. (Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89 - PUD
District Review and Zoning)
E. CHI-CHI'S RESTAURANT by Consul Restaurant Corporation. Request Page 4D0
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 18 acres, Zoning
District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District and Site
Plan Review on 3.99 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.99 acres
into 2 lots for construction of a 7,390 square foot restaurant.
Location: Southwest corner of Middleset Road and Crystal View
Road. (Resolution No. 90-46 - PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance
No. 12-90-PUD-6-90 - PUD District and Zoning Amendment; Resolution
No. 90-47 - Preliminary Plat)
F. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. Request for Page 411
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential on 1.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District
Review on 186 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.6 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 12.15 acres into 25 multi-family lots, 3 outlots and
road right-of-way. Location: Northwest corner of County Road
18 and Bluff Road. (Resolution Nc. 90-42 - Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 90-43 - PUD Concept Amendment;
Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 - PUD District and Rezoning;
Resolution No. 90-44 - Preliminary Plat)
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tuesday, February 20, 1990
G. PHILLIPS 66 by Phillips 66 Company. Request for Zoning District Page 431
Amendment within the C-Hwy Zoning District on 1.22 acres with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review
and Preliminary Plat of 1.22 acres into 1 lot for construction of
a convenience gas station. Location: Northeast corner of Highway
#169 and West 78th Street. (Ordinance No. 11-90 - Zoning District
Amendment; Resolution No. 90-45 - Preliminary Plat)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 441
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. RAVEN WOOD 3RD ADDITION by The Cambridge Group. Preliminary Plat Page 442
of 2.7 acres inters. Locatipn: East of Edenvale Boulevard,
south of Hipp's Cedar Point 1st Addition. (Resolution No. 90-48 -
Preliminary Plat)
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of five members to the Landfill Advisor Committee
(Continued from February 6, 1W6Council meeting
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
B. Report of City Manager
1. Employee Vacation Accrual Page 447
2. Community Survey Page 449
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
F. Report of Director of Public Works
G. Report of Finance Director
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
€i€
fi
I
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and
Douglas Tenpas
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of
Planning Chris Enger, Director of
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Robert Lambert, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Councilmember Harris was absent.
PRESENTATION BY GAIL LEIPOLD. CHAIR OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES
COMMISSION REGARDING MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR. EVENT
Gail Leipold reviewed the scheduled events and expressed appreciation
for the City Council's support of the event. Leipold said that 100
tickets had been sold to date.
Mayor Peterson commended the Human Rights & Services Commission for
taking on the project.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS:
Add Item IX.A, Appoint of Landfill Advisory Committee. Add
Item X.A.1, Report on Southwest Transportation Coalition
Commission. Add Item X.A.2, City Office Paper Disposal. Add
Item X.A.3, Earth Week. Add Item X.B.2, Discussion on
Rescheduling March 6, 1990 City Council Meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesdays December 19.
1989
ii
City Council Minutes 2 January 16, 1990
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the regular
City Council meeting held Tuesday, December 19, 1989 as
published and amended.
CORRECTIONS:
Page 5, Item D, Paragraph 1, should read: for their
thorough responses.. . Page 10, Finance, Paragraph 2,
should read: specifications too restrictive, ... . Page
14, Item X.A.1, Paragraph 1, should read: January 3, 1990
Item XII., Motion, should read: Anderson moved, seconded
by Pidcock to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday. January 2. 1990
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the Minutes
of the Regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, January
2, 1990 as published and amended.
CORRECTIONS:
Item IX.A, Motion, should read: . . of the City Offices and
further that at 11:00 PM a vote shall be taken to
determine if the remaining items on the agenda are to be
continued and the meeting adjourned or the meeting
continued. A unanimous vote would be required to adjourn
the meeting.
Motion carried 3-0-1. Mayor Peterson abstained.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 1-90, Amending Chapter 11,
Zoning Regulations and Adoption of Resolution No. 90-18.
Authorizing Summary for Publication
C. Authorize appointment of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. for
assistance with preparation of plans and specifications
for the detached frontage road east of Dell Road and south
of TH 5. I.C. 52-177
D. Approve conveyance of Outlot H, Bluffs East 4th Addition
by Eden Prairie to Audrae Diestler
A
City Council Minutes 3 January 16, 1990
E. Approval of the Assignment of Credit Instruments on the
Tanager Creek Housing Revenue Bonds from Midwest Federal S
& A to Midwest Savings Association, F.A.
F. Community Center Surveys
G. Staring Lake Amphitheater Rental Policy
H. Agreement with Goodwill/Easter Seals for Recycling
Services
I. Amendments to Joint Powers Agreement for Southwest Metro
Transit (Resolution No. 90-11)
J. Authorization for Disposal of Tax Forfeited Lands
(Resolution No. 90-16)
K. Termination of Use Agreement between WAFTA and Minnesota
Gas Company
L. Receive Feasibility Study and Set Public Hearing for
Utility and Street Improvements to Mitchell Road from
Boulder Pointe Road to CSAH 1, Z.C. 52-156 (Resolution No.
90-14)
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Items A
through L on the Consent Calendar.
ITEM G
Lambert presented a revised draft of the rental policy for
the Staring Lake Amphitheater. Lambert emphasized the
point that the groups could use the facility until 9:30 PM
and must leave the park by 10:00 PM. The noise level
restriction would be set at 70 decibels. He noted that
Staff had discussed this item extensively with Minneapolis
and had conducted extended research.
Tenpas asked if this sound level would preclude any
particular type of music. Lambert replied no; however, it
would limit how loud the music was.
Motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried
unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT by Tandem Properties.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 5.59
acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 12.16 acres, Planned Unit Development
City Council Minutes 4 January 16, 1990
Concept Review on 60.79 acres, Planned Unit Development
District on 60.78 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and
Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on
12.16 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on
37.65 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60.79 acres into 17
townhouse lots, 60 single family lots, 2 outlots and road
right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on
60.79 acres. City initiated Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment for relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area (MUSA) line to include an additional 7 acres of
property for a mixed use development to be known as
Jamestown. Location: South of Highway #5, east of West
184th Avenue.
City Manager Jullie reported that Staff recommended that a
presentation be made by the proponent at this time due to
the number of Public Hearings to be reviewed by the City
Council at the next two meetings. Jullie noted that the
Council would not take action on this item this evening.
A handout was presented to the City Council regarding the
proposal and the revisions by Director of Planning Enger.
Jim Ostenson, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for the 60-acre site. Three types of projects would
be developed on this property; commercial, single-family,
and multiple-family. The plans had been revised to
include 108 condominium units, ranging from 4 to 8 units
per building. The number of driveways coming off the
public road had been reduced based on recommendations from
Staff and the Planning Commission. Ostenson believed that
an adequate buffer was being provided between this
proposal of multiple-family units and the Orrin Thompson
development. Ostenson noted that the State would be
constructing the public road to service the Orrin Thompson
project, which was the reason for approval of this road
location at this time. The commercial area consisted of
approximately 5 acres and had been redesigned to provide
better access to the site and to save additional trees.
The commercial area would consist of a convenience-gas
station, a daycare facility, and an office building. The
commercial area would not be developed for approximately 2
to 3 years and should be viewed as only a concept plan.
The proponent would return to the Planning Commission and
City Council with further detail for this area at a latter
date.
Ostenson noted that the main revisions in the plan
centered around the desire to save additional trees. The
Planning Commission had requested that the wooded area be
zoned R1-22 with the remainder of the single-family area
being zoned R1-13.5. Ostenson noted that this change had
resulted in the loss of one single-family lot. The
predicted tree loss at this time would be 22.5% with an
City Council Minutes 5 January 16, 1990
additional 12.5% being marked as questionable. Ostenson
noted that the proponent would retain a forester, would
establish scenic easements, and would work extensively
with the builders to save as many trees as possible.
Ostenson believed that given the site features, the
proponent had done everything possible to save the trees.
Ostenson concluded by addressing the restraints of the
Southwest Area Study. He noted that this area would be
limited to a total of 250 units. Ostenson stated that the
proponent wished to begin the development in the multiple-
family area; however, this would be extremely difficult
with the limitation of only 55 units. Ostenson added that
this issue had been discussed with Staff and he wished to
appraise the City Council that the proponent would
possibly request consideration of additional units in the
future.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its January 8, 1990 meeting. The Planning
Commission had requested at that time that further
attention be given to the wooded area in the southern
portion of the property to save more trees. Enger said
that Staff and the proponent had not anticipated having
the revisions completed by tonight's meeting and,
therefore, had requested the continuance. Enger noted
that residential units could be constructed next to
Highway #5 with adequate berming and noise mitigation.
Enger stated that Staff would not be comfortable at this
time to increase the development cap in the Southwest
Area; however, Staff would suggest the possibility of a
discussion at a later date. Staff recommended that a bond
be provided to secure the tree replacement.
Enger noted that the commercial area did require a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Enger stated that
comments had been received from the City of Chanhassen
regarding the commercial area and its possible affect on
the Chanhassen downtown area.
Enger noted that this item would need to be reviewed by
the Metropolitan Council and the City Council might wish
to hold the final approval of the Preliminary Plat until
further details were provided. An Environmental Impact
Study was necessary because the Metropolitan Council was
concerned about the impact on the lakes by urban
development. Enger added that the Watershed District was
not in agreement with the Metropolitan Council on this
theory. Enger concluded by saying that the proponent had
worked to develop a plan which was in conjunction with the
Southwest Area Study.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had recommended approval of the
J
City Council Minutes 6 January 16, 1990
( project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report. The majority of the discussion centered on tree
replacement and preservation. The Commission supported
the recommendation to require bonding.
Pidcock asked what the square footage would be for the
condominium units. Putnam replied from 1100 to 1300
square feet. Pidcock then asked if the garages would be
single or double. Putnam replied that garages would be
single.
Ostenson stated that a copy of the noise study had just
been received today. The study reported that there were
no noise problems related to Highway #5. The berming
along Highway #5 would be approximately 10 to 15 feet
high. The noise levels were considered to be within
reasonable limits. Ostenson noted that after further
review of the project, the City of Chanhassen had
reconsidered its position.
Anderson asked how much tree loss would be a direct result
of construction of Dell Road and Highway 5. Enger
estimated the loss to be approximately 600 caliper inches
for Dell Road and could not estimate a figure for Highway
5 at this time. Anderson noted that significant trees
would be lost due to the road construction and added that
all of the trees would be on the Eden Prairie side of the
roads. Anderson asked if the alignment could possibly be
adjusted in order to save some of the trees. Dietz
replied that a tree inventory would be completed. He
added that it could be possible to investigate reverse
curves and minor changes which might be able to save
trees. Anderson then asked if the alignment of Highway 5
could be adjusted. Dietz replied that MnDOT had agreed to
try to conform with the City's Tree Replacement Policy.
Peterson asked if the berming being proposed would
preclude the need for fencing along Highway 5. Ostenson
replied that fencing was not planned; the noise mitigation
would be accomplished only with berming.
Peterson asked if the tree replacement and bonding
requirements were in compliance with the City's current
calculations. Ostenson replied yes.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to continue this Public
Hearing to the February 6, 1990 City Council Meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
•
3
City Council Minutes 7 January 16, 1990
B. FARBER ADDITION by Roger Farber. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 3.7 acres with
variances for road frontage to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals. Preliminary Plat of 7.6 acres into 3 single
family lots, and one outlot. Location: 6525 Rowland
Road. (Ordinance No. 2-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No.9O-17
- Preliminary Plat)
Jullie recommended that February 20, 1990 be set to review
the Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision on this
development proposal.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented
the plans for 3 single-family lots. The plan was designed
to save trees, save the hill and preserve the pond area.
Cardarelle stated that the zoning would be R1-22 and
believed that the development would blend in well with the
existing neighborhood. Cardarelle noted that the
difficulty with the Board of Appeals & Adjustments was
regarding the flag lots.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at its December 11, 1989 meeting and recommended
approval with a 6-1 vote based on the recommendations
outlined in the Staff Report. Enger noted that the
Watershed District had not established a highwater mark
for this area and that some of the soils were considered
marginal for construction. Enger stated that the majority
of the discussion at the Planning Commission level had
centered around the future of Outlot A. The Board of
Appeals & Adjustments had difficulty in approving the use
of "flag" lots for this parcel. The positive aspects of
the flag lots would be a reduction in the amount of
grading and fill necessary which would result in saving
additional trees, lot sizes would be much less than that
required for R1-22 zoning, and lot sizes would exceed
those of the surrounding area. The negative aspects were
the 12% grade of the road, that 3 driveways would be
located within 150 feet on Rowland Road, and a plan would
be approved with poor soil conditions, steep grades, etc. .
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had reviewed this item at the
December 18, 1989 meeting where the discussion centered
around the acceptance of Outlot A. The Outlot would not
be in lieu of Cash Park Fees. The Commission recommended
approval of the project.
Anderson asked if the City would benefit more from a City
road or a private road. Enger replied that the solution
did not have to be either a public street or a private
drive. He added that the lots could be larger and the
plan changed to provide 1 driveway instead of 2. Anderson
City Council Minutes 8 January 16, 1990
asked if there were instances currently within the City
where joint driveways existed. Enger replied yes.
Pidcock asked how many soil borings would be done to
determine if the soil would support construction. Enger
replied that this had not been determined at this time.
Peterson commented that the Soil Engineer would determine
the number of soil tests to be done. Pidcock believed
that it was important to establish a required number of
soil borings. Enger replied that the wording in the
developers agreement could state that the building site
must be certified by a soil engineer.
Pauly noted that the Council could approve or deny the
proposal tonight; however, he recommended that the item be
continued until after the appeal hearing.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to continue the Public
Hearing until after the Board of Appeals hearing and to be
set for February 20, 1990 for the consideration of the
action taken by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY AT 13008 GERARD DRIVE
Jullie reported that notice of the consideration of this
item had been sent to approximately 40 property owners in
the vicinity and published in the January 10, 1990 issue
of the Eden Prairie News. He added that this was a
subdivision issue.
Larry Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, stated that he had lived
on the 4-acre site for approximately 20 years. He added
that after a survey of the adjoining Beckman property had
been done it was determined that a 33 foot discrepancy
existed, and that he actually owned an additional 33 feet
of land on which a driveway for the Beckman property
existed. Hanson stated that he would like to sell the 33
foot strip of land to the Beckman estate, which would
allow the driveway to be actually on the Beckman property.
He added that this would also allow the property line to
coincide with a metal fence located on the back half of
the property and a row of pines which had been planted on
what was thought to be the property line.
Dietz stated that this would normally have been handled
administratively; however, there was opposition from
adjacent property owners and Staff would like direction
from the City Council. Dietz added that the adjacent
property owners were concerned about the potential for
•
City Council Minutes 9 January 16, 1990
future development of the Beckman property. Dietz
believed that the 33 feet of property should be considered
as a stand alone parcel and recommended approval of the
subdivision.
Peterson asked if the driveway would be in conformance
with City Code. Dietz replied yes.
Floyd Siefferman, 6997 Edgebrook Place, stated that his
home was within 20 feet of the back lot line of the
Beckman property and that he had believed that it would be
physically impossible for a road to be constructed to
provide access to the lot behind his home. Siefferman
believed that the subdivision of this property would be
the first step to encourage development in this area. He
recommended that an easement be granted for the Beckman
property to use the driveway and that some type of annual
compensation be given to the Hansons. Siefferman
suggested that another alternative would be to have the
33-foot strip stop at the home.
Peterson asked Dietz if the potential for future
development of the Beckman property would be enhanced by
the acquisition of this additional 33 feet. Dietz replied
that a preliminary drawing showing possible development
had been made of the Beckman property. Enger added that
the 33 feet would increase the probability of development
if the preliminary plan were to proceed further.
Anderson asked if the property could be subdivided. Enger
replied that if a plan were presented to the City which
met City Code requirements, it would be difficult to deny
platting. Enger added that if a zoning change or
variances were requested, then the City could have reasons
to deny a subdivision.
Hanson stated that the intent was to allow a property line
to exist as it was originally located and to correct an
error in a survey which had been made several years ago.
He added that if a road were constructed it would come
within 9 feet of the Beckman house.
Peterson stated that the issue was not whether or not -1
further subdivision could take place.
Siefferman believed that this would be the only chance the
City had to prevent further development of this property.
He restated that he believed an easement would be a
reasonable alternative.
Dietz stated that this subdivision would not create a
separate lot.
•
City Council Minutes 10 January 16, 1990
Tenpas asked how large the Beckman parcel was currently.
Enger replied approximately 8 acres. Tenpas asked what
would preclude the owner from constructing a road on the
opposite side of the parcel. Siefferman replied that the
east side was extremely steep.
Pidcock asked Hanson if the easement alternative could be
a consideration. Hanson replied that he had mixed
feelings. Mrs. Hanson stated that it was their intent
only to return the property line to where it had always
been believed to be. She added that her main concern was
to remove them from liability issues.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Peterson to close the Public
Hearing and approve the proposed subdivision of property
at 13008 Gerard Drive.
Anderson stated that in the past this had been handled
administratively and believed that it was within the
rights of the property owner to request the subdivision.
Peterson concurred.
Tenpas asked if a public road would be required. Enger
replied that a public road would need to be extended in
some way.
Motion carried 3-1. Pidcock voted "NO".
D. VACATION NO. 90-01 OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN
LOT 1, BLOCK 1. CHASE POINT (Resolution No. 90-13)
Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing was
published in the December 27, 1989 issue of the Eden
Prairie News.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-13 to vacate the
Drainage and Utility Easements. Motion carried
unanimously.
)�
3T
City Council Minutes 11 January 16, 1990
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of
Claims No. 56830 through No. 57063. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Anderson, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voted "AYE".
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS. REOUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Prairie Lutheran Church - Request for extension of time
limit to conform with exterior material standards
Enger reported that the Prairie Lutheran Church project
was originally approved in 1987, a variance was granted to
require that 30% of the exterior would consist of brick
when Phase II was constructed. Enger stated that Staff
wanted direction from the Council as to whether this
proposed addition, which is smaller than the originally
proposed Phase II, should constitute Phase II and the 30%
brick requirement be enforced at this time.
Merrill Ronning, representing the Church, presented the
plans for the addition. He added that he believed that
this was only an addition and was not equivalent to Phase
II, which consisted of an expansion of the sanctuary and
would in essence double the size of the existing facility.
Ronning stated that the Church would like to have the
addition constructed by the Fall of 1990.
Peterson stated that the City requirement for brick,
glass, or better material was for maintenance purposes and
added that he could support an administrative approval if
guaranteed that when Phase II was proposed, there would
not be a request for anything other than the 30%
originally agreed to.
Anderson stated that originally a hardship was presented
as the reason for the request and believed that any
addition should be considered as Phase II. Anderson added
that he could go along with this proposal if a time limit
were established for the building to be in compliance with
the 30% requirement for brick.
Peterson asked if a 5-year time limit would create a
hardship for the Church. Ronning replied that he was not
H
hardship for the Church. Ronning replied that he was not
able to answer at this time. Peterson noted that the 30%
requirement represented a significant concession from the
normal City standards.
Ronning stated that he would agree that at the time of the
construction of the next unit the Church would be required
City Council Minutes 12 January 16, 1990
to be in compliance with the 30% brick for the exterior
material.
Peterson recommended that the wording be any addition in
excess of 10,000 square feet would require compliance with
the 30% brick exterior building material requirement.
City Attorney Pauly recommended that the wording in the
original agreement not be altered and it remain that
compliance would be required with the construction of
Phase II.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas that no Site Plan Review
for this addition was necessary, but required that any
subsequent additions be subject to a Site Plan Review.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Receive Petition for Extension of Beverly Drive in Section
29 and Order Feasibility Study. I.C. 52-186
Dietz believed that it would be premature to extend
Beverly Drive at this time. He added that a valid
petition had not been presented to the City and,
therefore, recommended denial of the request.
A realtor representing Mr. & Mrs. Douglas stated that the
extension of Beverly Drive would provide a better access
for the property. The property was approximately 12.9
acres and the Douglas's would like to subdivide the
parcel.
John Turnbull, 10001 Dell Road, stated that approximately
4 years ago he had given property to the City for the
protection of the scenic value of this area. He added
that he wanted the wildlife to stay in this area.
Turnbull believed that Douglas wanted the City to pay for
a road which would enhance the sale of his property.
Ron Hron, 17170 Beverly Drive, stated that he did not
favor a feasibility study.
Ken Kuntsmann, 9999 Dell Road, stated that he was opposed
to a feasibility study. He added that the ecology in this
area was already very fragile.
Fred Allis, 10005 Dell Road, stated that this proposal
would have a road going to nowhere. Allis also noted that
Indian burial grounds existed in this location and
believed these were to be protected.
There were no further comments from the audience.
fi
City Council Minutes 13 January 16, 1990
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Tenpas to deny the request for
a feasibility study for the extension of Beverly Drive.
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
1. Southwest Coalition Committee Report
Pidcock stated that the checking account balance for the
Southwest Area Coalition was $443.12 and the savings
account balance was $41,624.47. She added that donations
had been received from all of the government agencies with
the exception of Hennepin County, which was to be received
this month.
2. City Office Paper Recycling
Anderson stated that the City Offices throw away an
enormous amount of paper and recommended that the City
take the lead and recycle the paper at the Goodwill
location provided at Menards Center. Dawson replied that
the Goodwill location was not set up to handle business
volumes at this time. Anderson stated that the memo had
stated that office paper was accepted. Dawson replied
that he would look into this item further.
Peterson asked if there was a more efficient way to
dispose of the paper. Dawson replied that presently the
paper was taken to the Rueter facility.
Anderson asked Dawson if the City was sure that the paper
taken to Rueter was being recycled.
3. Earth Week
Anderson stated that after discussing Earth Week with the
Park, Recreation, & Natural Resources and Waste Management
Commissions, he believed that a committee should be
established to plan activities for Earth Week. Anderson
recommended that the committee consist of one person from
the school, one person from the Parks & Recreation
Department, one person from the City Council, one person
from the Waste Management Commission, one or two Staff
members, and p,Jssibly two members at-large. Anderson
believed that there was money available to work with.
Dawson added that approximately $18,000 was available.
fL
I
City Council Minutes 14 January 16, 1990
Anderson said that the week could begin with a Clean-Up
Day and have other activities planned during the week.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to appoint Councilmember
Anderson as the City Council representative. Motion
carried unanimously.
Peterson asked Anderson if he would be prepared by the
next meeting to make recommendations for members of the
committee. Anderson replied yes.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Reschedule date and time for interviewing candidates
for boards/commissions
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to set the date of
February 21, 1990 to conduct the interviews for
Board/Commission Candidates. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Landfill Advisory Committee Appointments
Jullie reported that a decision had been made to develop a
committee to review the issues regarding the landfill. It
was determined that a 7-member committee should be
considered. He added that Council may wish to formalize
the committee.
Pidcock stated that she and Councilmember Tenpas would be
willing to serve on the committee. She added that the
purpose would be to lobby State Agencies and to get the
message out to the public to acquire greater acceptance on
a state wide basis. Pidcock stated that she and
Councilmember Tenpas would make formal recommendations for
members at the next City Council meeting.
3. Reschedule March 6. 1990 City Council meeting.
Jullie reported that four Councilmembers would be
attending a conference and would not be available for the
March 6, 1990 City Council meeting and recommended the
meeting be rescheduled for March 13, 1990.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to reschedule the
March 6, 1990 City Council meeting to March 13, 1990. •
Motion carried unanimously.
6
C. Report of City Attorney
1
•
City Council Minutes 15 January 16, lr)90
( D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Director of Parks. Recreation & Natural Resources
F. Report of Director of Public Works
G. Report of Finance Director
XI. p1EW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
February 20, 1990
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING
Alert Electric, Inc. A-Aarons Plumbing
Alesch Bros. Construction Allied Mechanical Systems of Hutchinson
Association for Retarded Citizens Alta Mechanical, Inc.
Bendzick Builders Andreasen Plumbing & Heating Co.
Construction Analysis & Mgmt. Atkins Mechanical, Inc.
EDM Construction,Inc. Blaylock Plumbing Company
C. F. Haglin & Sons Co. Bowler Co., Inc.
Holle Construction Company Bruce Plumbing Company
Homan Construction Mgmt. Budget Plumbing Corporation
Jim W. Miller Construction Wayne Burville Plumbing •
New Edition, Inc. Conner Plumbing
G. M. Northrup Construction Domestic Mechanical
Oakwood Builders Donahue Mechanical
Two S Properties, Inc. Holm Brothers Plumbing & Heating
W. Zintl, Inc. Janecky Plumbing
Leos Plumbing
New Mech Companies, Inc.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Nieman Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Northern Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
A Plus Construction, Inc. P J Plumbing & Heating
Associated Properties & Investments Piper Plumbing, Inc.
Larry Berscheit Construction Riven Plumbing
Builder One of Minnesota E.A.H. Schmidt & Associates, Inc.
Folkestone Homes Solar Mechanical
Geiger Construction, Inc. Southtown Plumbing, Inc.
Gestach Paulson Construction Steinkraus Plumbing, Inc.
Handmade Enterprises Vesey Plumbing Company
Homestyles Construction Wenzel Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Robert Hopf Construction Widmer, Incorporated
R. A. Kot Homes
Lecy Construction,Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING
Robert Mason, Inc.
New Spaces Home Craftsman Aldo, Inc.
Q & E Homes,Inc. Allan Mechanical, Inc.
Smuckler Corporation Al's Heating & Air Conditioning
Sunshine Construction Atkins Mechanical, Inc.
Theis Construction Company American Heating & Air Conditioning
C. J. Wallin Homebuilders, Inc. Associated Heating, Inc.
M. E. Zastera Construction Bloomington Heating & Air Conditioning
Bostrom Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
UTILITY INSTALLER Bowler Company, Inc.
Burkes Heating & Air Conditioning
Sullivan's Services,Inc. Care Air Conditioning & Heating
Widmer Incorporated Ditter, Inc.
Atkins Mechanical Domestic Mechanical
Wenzel Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Donahue Mechanical
S_E_P_T_I_C___S_Y_S_T_E_M_S_ Heating & Cooling Two, Inc.
Holm Brothers Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Sullivan's Services, Inc. Merit Heating & Ventilating, Inc.
3a9
J
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
page two
HEATING & VENTILATING (continued) WATER SOFTENER
Northern Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Robert B. Hill Company
P J Plumbing & Heating
RC Plumbing & Heating, Inc. TYPE A FOOD
Romark, Inc.
E.A.H. Schmidt & Associates, Inc. Jerry's New Market
Wenzel Heating & Air Conditioning
GAS FITTER TYPE B FOOD
Blue Bell Ice Cream
ARI Mechanical Garden Court Gifts
Alta Mechanical, Inc.
Atkins Mechanical, Inc. CIGARETTE
Blaylock Plumbing Co.
Bloomington Heating & Air Cond. Garden Court Gifts
• Budget Plumbing Corporation Jerry's New Market
Burkes Heating & Air Cond.
Care Air Conditioning & Heating 3.2 BEER ON SALE
Ditter,Inc.Domestic Mechanical Jerry's New Market
Economy Gas Installers, Inc.
Heating & Cooling Two, Inc. 3.2 BEER OFF SALE
Holm Brothers Plumbing & Heating
Janecky Plumbing Jerry's New Market
Leo's Plumbing
Merit Heating & Air Cond. MECHANICAL GAMES
Nieman Plumbing & Heating
RC Plumbing & Heating American Amusement Arcades
E.A.H. Schmidt & Associates
Steinkraus Plumbing, Inc. REFUSE HAULER
Wenzel Plumbing & Heating
R & W Sanitation, Inc.
SCAVENGER
PEDDLER
McKinley Sewer Service & Supply, Inc.
Sullivan's Services, Inc. David Patrick Burns (Health Products &
Beauty Aids)
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
Pat So-(4ie
Licensing
t
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, Cit Manager
FROM: Stuart A. Fox Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
DATE: February 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Staring Lake Park Amphitheater Sound System
c
In 1989 the Eden Prairie Historical and Cultural Commission made
an application to the Eden Prairie Foundation for funds to purchase
a sound system for the Staring Lake Park Amphitheater. That grant
application resulted in the City receiving $5,700 for a portable
sound system.
The City advertised for bids for the following system: portable
stereo mixer, outdoor loudspeakers, microphones and related support
accessories. These bids were received and opened on February 12th.
The following is a summary of that bid opening:
BIDDER BID SECURITY BID PRICE ALTERNATE PRICE
North Star Sound cashier's check $4,210 $4,243
for 5% of the
total bid price
Sound Acoustics cashier's check $4,335.69 $4,580
for 5% of the
total bid price
Staff would recommend that North Star Sound be awarded the bid for
the amphitheater sound system at a price of $4,210.
The Council should also note that the bids came in at $1,490 under
the estimated cost. The staff would propose utilizing the remain-
ing funds to buy additional support equipment as necessary to
enlarge the system, thereby, reducing the need for City funds for
this project.
SAF:mdd
bidaward/9
-11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sandra F. Werts, Recreation Supervise
DATE : February 13, 1990
SUBJECT: Historical and Cultural Commission Resolution Supporting
Retention of Graffiti Bridge
At the February 1st meeting of the Historical and Cultural Commis-
sion, the Commission discussed the importance of graffiti bridge
to the community. They adopted a resolution supporting its reten-
tion and are requesting the City Council to accept the resolution
and consider this request prior to making a final decision on the
removal of the graffiti bridge.
The Commission would also like the Engineering Department to con-
sider this request and make a recommendation prior to proceeding.
A copy of the resolution is attached.
SFW:mdd
•
i
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE EDEN PRAIRIE GRAFFITI BRIDGE
( BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Historical and Cultural Commission
was established by the City of Eden Prairie with a specific purpose
to advise the City Council on matters of historical nature, and
WHEREAS, the Graffiti Bridge is an acknowledged contemporary
monument and is seen by many people in the area as a place of
significant importance, and
WHEREAS, the Graffiti Bridge was built as a Works Progress
Administration (WPA) project during the 1930's depression years,
and
WHEREAS, the widening of Valley View Road threatens to destroy
this significant landmark in Eden Prairie's history, and
WHEREAS, the graffiti bridge is an outlet for self regulated
public expression, which might be destructive to other property,
and
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Historical and Cultural Commission
feels that this issue is very important to the community and must
be brought to the attention of the City Council for their review,
and consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Eden Prairie
Historical and Cultural Commission requests the Eden Prairie City
Council to review the plans for the widening of Valley View Road
to determine whether a portion of the Graffiti Bridge could be
saved in place, and to take appropriate actions to save at least
a portion of the structure to remain an ongoing landmark in the
history of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED, this 1st day of February , 1990 by the
Eden Prairie Historical and Cultural Commission.
i-)-- (4 \
Robert Alan McCluskey, Chair
Eden Prairie Historical and Cultural Co mi sion
1
p
p
1
I
u3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-37
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BELL OAKS THIRD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of BELL OAKS THIRD 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for BELL OAKS THIRD ADDITIDN is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on
this plat dated FEBRUARY 15, 1990.
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.
ADDPTED by the City Council on FEBRUARY 20, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
(RESOULTION NO. 90-37)
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
•
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician •
DATE: February 15, 1990
SUBJECT: BELL OAKS THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSAL: Bell Oaks Company, the developers, have requested City Council
approval of the final plat of Bell Oaks Third Addition, a single family
residential subdivision located north of Riverview Road, south of
Purgatory Creek and east of County Road 18 in the north hal f of Section
36. This proposal is a replat of Outlot D, Beil Oaks First Addition.
The plat contains 16.33 acres to be divided into nine single family
lots, two outiots, and right-of-way dedication for street purposes.
Outlots A and B contain 2.01 and 6.54 acres respectively, ownership of
which shall be retained by the developer for future development.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council January 19,
1988 per Resolution No. 88-16.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 8-88-PUD-1-88, changing zoning from
Rural to R1-13.5-PUD-1-88, was finally read and approved at the City
Council meeting held April 5, 1988.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
April 5, 1988.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Ail municipal utilities, roadways and walkways will
be installed throughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and
the requirements of the Developer's Agreement.
PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat the developer shall
provide the City with a written scenic easement over the Purgatory Creek
Conservation area shown on the plat as a drainage and utility easement
within Lots 8 and 9 and Outlot 8, Block 1. The remaining requirements
for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
•
FINAL PLAT OF BELL OAKS THIRD ADDITION
(RESOLUTION NO. 90-37)
BONDING: Bonding for municipal utilities and streets must be provided prior
to release of the final plat and conform to City Code and the
Developer's Agreement requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bell Oaks Third
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $715.00,
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $3,996.00,
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $360.00,
4. Receipt of written scenic easement over the Purgatory Creek
Conservation area, and
5. Satisfaction of bonding requirements
JJ:ssa
cc: Bell Oaks Company •
Drr-Schelen Mayeron & Assoc.
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-38
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
WYNDHAM NOB 3RD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of WYNDHAM NOB 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: .
A. Plat approval request for WYNDHAM NOB 3RD ADDITION is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on
this plat dated FEBRUARY 15, 1990.
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 City Council on FEBRUARY 20, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering C Technician\. ,
DATE: February 15, 19909
SUBJECT: Wyndham Nob 3rd Addition
PROPOSAL: The developers, New Concept Homes, have requested City Council
approval of the final plat of Hidden Glen 3rd Addition, a single family
residential subdivision located south of West 62nd Street and east of Dell
Road in the north half of Section 6. The proposal is to combine Outlots D
and E, Wyndham Nob 2nd Addition with Outlot C and D, of Hidden Glen 3rd
Addition to form two single family lots. Outlots D and E contain 0.14 acres
and 0.26 acres respectively and Outlots C and D contain D.23 acres and O.D7
acres respectively.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council as part of
Wyndham Nob 2nd Addition October 4, 1988 per Resolution No. 8B-225.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 46-88 was finally read and approved at the
City Council meeting on November 1, 1988.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
November 1, 1988 and is the Developer's Agreement pertaining to Wyndham Nob
2nd Addition.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways will be
installed throughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and the
requirements of the Developer's Agreement.
PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Wyndham Nob 3rd
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.00
JJ:ssa
cc: 8url Corporation
New Concept Homes, Inc.
James R. Hill, Inc.
}
4
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 90-39
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer, through HTPO, Inc., to
the City Council recommending the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-166 (Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak Drive Neighborhood: sanitary
sewer, watermain street and drainage improvements)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance
with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within
said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement
pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated total
cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on March
13, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive
Drive. The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice of
such hearing on the improvements as required by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 20, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
'3U°►
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-41
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.
FOR DEVELOPMENT WEST OF C.R. #18, SOUTH OF ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Public Storage, Inc., has requested a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, from Low
Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09 acres, and from Low
Density Residential to Industrial on 3.10 acres, Zoning District change from
Rural to Office on 1.09 acres, to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09 acres and
to Industrial on 3.10 acres, with variances, Preliminary Plat of 5.28 acres
into three lots and road right-of-way, and Site Plan Review of 5.28 acres for
construction of 74, 137 sq. ft. of office, commercial, and industrial uses
(hereinafter "the development request") to be located west of County Road
#18, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the developmen request
during a public hearing on September 25, 1989, and recommended denial; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the development request during a
public hearing on February 6, 1990;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, that the development request of Public Storage,
Inc., be denied based upon the following findings:
A. The development request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Guide Plan and Public Storage, Inc., has not provided any compelling reasons
to substantiate a Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
B. An effective transition has not been provided from the development
request to the adjoining single family uses in order to mitigate the impacts
of the proposed higher intensity uses.
C. The proposed site plan of the development request is inconsistent
with the guidelines of the City's Site Plan Review Ordinance.
D. The development request does not meet the landscape requirements
for screening of parking areas.
E. The development request does not meet City Code requirements
regarding exterior materials for the neighborhood commercial use proposed.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 20, 1990.
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
// 11
9Jv
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
' FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources.rL
DATE: February 13, 1990
SUBJECT: 1988 LAWCON Grant for Purchase of Elaine Jacques
Property/Riley Lake Park
In the fall of 1987 the City was notified that it had been approved
funding for a 1988 LAWCON Grant in the amount of $490,000 at a 50%
matching basis ($245,000 from State and $245,000 from City) . The
grant was for acquisition of 24 acres, presently owned by Elaine
Jacques, and development that included realigning a portion of
Riley Lake Road, moving the boat launch further to the north, ex-
panding the swimming beach, and expanding the parking facilities.
Since the fall of 1989 City staff have been negotiating with Mrs.
Jacques for the purchase of her property. During that time, the
staff have agreed to realign property lines and revise the park
{ plan. The City has also secured three appraisals and two updated
appraisals. At this point, it does not appear that we are any
closer to acquiring the property than we were in the fall of 1987,
other than our latest offer is for $18,625 an acre compared to the
original offer of approximately $11,500 per acre.
The original terms of the 1988 LAWCON Grant were to have the City
complete the acquisition and development of this project by July
1, 1989. The State has granted an extension of the grant for one
year, but have indicated a serious concern on the lack of progress
for acquisition of this parcel by the City of Eden Prairie.
According to Paul Anderson, Mrs. Jacques's attorney, Mrs. Jacques
has delayed a decision on the selling of her property due to the
high interest shown for her entire site by several developers over
the last few years and an ever increasing interest, especially over
the last few months.
On Monday, February 12th, I met briefly with Paul Anderson, Mrs.
Jacques's attorney. He informed me that he was authorized by Mrs.
Jacques to agree to sell the 24 acres for $512,000, which amounts
to $21,333 per acre, or $65,000 over the most recently approved
appraised value.
City staff would recommend submitting a counter offer of $20,500
per acre, which is the offer Mrs. Jacques received for her entire
farm from a developer last year. I believe it is also the amount
J J I i
A
that several developers have discussed with Mrs. Jacques and
adjacent property owners this year; however, all of these offers
are contingent upon obtaining rezoning and are subject to the
timing of extension of utilities to the property. Therefore, a
cash offer of $20,500 per acre is worth substantially more than the
offers she and neighboring property owners are receiving from
developers at this time and certainly compensates for the value of
the lakeshore property.
Staff would further recommend that if we are unable to come to an
agreement regarding the price and terms of this acquisition by the
end of March 1990 that the Council proceed with condemnation
proceedings to acquire this property. This is mentioned in the
report for two reasons, the first is to assure the State of
Minnesota that the City does not intend to drag this negotiation
out for an undetermined amount of time, and to notify the property
owner that the City does have a deadline that must be met in order
to retain the grant for this project.
BL:mdd
4
•
DAHLEN & DWYER, INC.
1260 NORWEST CENTER TOWER•ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 •(812)224-1381 •FAX(612)229.5735
DWIGHT W.DAHI-EN,MAI.SREA MARC E.KNOCHE
DANIEL E.DWYER
BEVERLY H.DWYER WX,LIAM E.PETERSEN
MICHAEL J.BETTENDORF,MAi JOHN B-KAOPP
JEFFREY R.LANGEVIN
February 7, 1990
Ms. Marcia Taubr
Project Officer
Community Development Division
900 American Center
150 East Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55101-1421
RE: Review Appraisal
Jacques Property
9021 Riley Lake Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
OR88-9
Dear Ms. Taubr:
In accordance with your request, I have made a review of
an appraisal on the above referenced property. Please find
enclosed my final report.
Appraiser: N. Craig Johnson, MAI
P.O. Box 1385
Minneapolis, MN 55440
336-4200
Project.: Jacques Property
9021 Riley Lake Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Property Owner: Elaine Jacques
•
Date of Report: October 31 , 1989
Supplemental Information: January 17, 1990
Date of Review: December 18, 1989
February 3, 1990
Scope of the Review Process: I have examined and reviewed the
respective appraisal , conversed
with the City Planner, and have
made a site inspection.
3353
(-
immediate area to be part of this major development. These sales
also have contingencies involved, and have not closed. The
appraiser, however, did not use these sales to develop an
estimate of the market value of the subject property.
The Taking
The taking consists of the most southerly 24 acres which
includes 650' of shoreline and an older set of farm buildings.
The taking is situated on Riley Lake Road.
The appraiser has included in the report exhibits which
define the total contiguous ownership and the taking.
Theory and Application
Mr. Johnson originally submitted an appraisal report dated
October 31 , 1989. My letter of December 28, 1989 identifies many
major deficiencies in that report. A subsequent appraisal dated
January 17, 1990, which provided supplemental information, was
submitted to this reviewer.
The appraiser has appropriately applied the "Before and
After" appraisal technique. Based upon his analysis, he
concluded that the remainder would not suffer any severance
damages as a result of the taking. I would concur with this
conclusion. Mr. Johnson developed appropriate valuation
conclusions by employing recent sales of similar types of
properties from the same competitive market area. However, it is
important to note that all sales used are now developed with
residential subdivisions and are served with municipal utilities.
He pointed out in his report that the property was somewhat
unique, and located in the path of explosive residential
development. He had concluded that the sales used are the best
available. After developing estimates of market value, he made a
discount to reflect the anticipated time period before the
property would be permitted to receive municipal utilities. In
my opinion, his methodology and conclusions are appropriate.
According to the City Planner, the City will petition to have the
MUSA line extended and would therefore, include the subject
property. Mr. Johnson's estimate of five years is reasonable.
Mr. Johnson supplied evidence indicating land values of
$ 0,000 per acre for properties serviced with municipal
utilities. His estimate of the value of the property is
approximately $18,625 per acre which reflects an appropriate
discount.
It is important to note that none of Mr. Johnson's
comparable sales have any lakeshore. I was dismayed to discover
C.
that Mr. Jonnson did not discuss the lakeshore in his valuation
assignment. I have to assume that Mr. Johnson appropriately
reflected the enhanced value of the property which would be
attributable to the lakeshore. I note in his adjustment analysis
that consideration was accorded the property because of its
substantial lakeshore frontage. No support, however, was
provided for his improvement calculation. He does indicate,
however, that the older improvements don't have any value.
Another important factor that was not thoroughly addressed
in the report is the present location of Riley Lake Road.
Presently, Riley Lake Road parallels the bluff and overlooks
Riley Lake. In order to develop the highest land value
potential, Riley Lake Road will have to be moved at a
considerable expense. Perhaps the appraiser did not recognize
substantial land value because of this factor.
Final Recommendation
The original appraisal report and supplemental report are
brief in character, however, they contain the minimum required
documentation. Although the comparable sales were similar in
comparison to the subject, the appraiser appropriately noted the
unique character of the property and concluded that the sales
which were subsequently used were the best available. He did
apply an appropriate discount to reflect the time period before
municipal utilities would be allowed to serve the subject site.
The appraisers estimate of market value was developed by
preparing a "Before and After" methodology. The indicated value
of just compensation reflects approximately $18,600 per acre
which is realistic in view of offers made on surrounding
properties, and an offer made to Mrs. Jacques by competing
developers. It is important to note the offer received by Mrs.
Jacques is approximately $20,000 an acre, however, the offer is
subject to certain contingencies, financing, and other
considerations, and is not a cash offer.
Although the report has inherent shortcomings, I believe
Mr. Johnson has rendered an opinion of value that is realistic
and reasonable. I, therefore, recommend that Mr. Johnson's
appraisal be accepted. His valuation conclusions are presented,
below.
{
3.
(-
Estimated Market Value Before the Acquisition
121 Acres at $18,625/Acre = $2,253,625 f
Estimated Market Value After the Acquisition
97 Acres at $18,625/Acre = $1 ,806,625
Net $ 447,000
I have been pleased to provide this review on Mr. Johnson's
report and welcome any questions you may have in regards to my
analysis.
Respectfully submitted,
DAHLEN & DWYER, INC.
Qom,, li - .C!
•
cdv Dwight W. Dahlen, MAI, SREA
35(0
Eberhardt N.CRAIG JOHNSON,NW
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE. REAL ESTATE APPRAISER•CONSULTANT
January 17, 1990
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677
Attention: Mr. Robert Lambert
Re: Partial Acquisition -
Jacques Property
9021 Riley Lake Road
Gentlemen:
As requested, I have prepared a supplemental Report relating to the
referenced property.
Site Description
The proposed acquisition consists of the southerly 24 acres
(approximate) of the 121 acre tract - the Larger Parcel - situated
on the northeast shore of Lake Riley. The lakeshore - consisting
of approximately 1,550' - is part of the entire property; the
shoreline is separated by Riley Lake Road. The latter is proposed
for realignment as indicated in the alternative plans (attached);
the final plan is dependent upon the extension route for Dell Road,
which is scheduled to connect south from the new Highway 212 to
County Road 1. Thus, the date and specific route for realignment
is unknown, certainly not in the near future.,
Exhibit I indicates the parcel and area of the proposed
acquisition; this exhibit also indicates one possible alternative
for the realignment of Riley Lake Road (connecting east to the new
Dell Road extending south from Highway 212).
The entire tract is gently rolling; the westerly segment is
bisected by a creek, and there are two low lying areas along the
easterly property line. The soils are assumed to be buildable, as
are most in this sector of the community. The ownership, as
indicated on Exhibit I, extends beyond Riley Lake Road to the
shoreline of Riley Lake.
Pa Box 1385 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55440 • 60336-4200• FAX 612/3394352
�51
•
MUSA Line
There is no firm documentation to support a firm date for expansion
of the present MUSA line. However, Eden Prairie is reaching the
point where undeveloped parcels within the serviced area are
becoming scarce; as such, the community's request for a MUSA
extension may be favorably acted upon. This potential is,
considering the current assemblage efforts involving the Subject's
Lager Parcel and surrounding tracts, supported by market
perceptions as well.
Consequently, considering the professional opinions of Eden
Prairie's City staff, the community's strong growth trend, and the
desirability of subdivision development proximate to Lake Riley I
consider the extension of the MUSA line during the mid 1990's to
be reasonably probable.
Valuation Considerations
The primary component of value - in both the Larger Parcel and the
proposed Taking - lies in the land; the improvements constitute
only a small segment of the total value, and only in the Remainder;
the improvements consist of a modern (1960's) ranch style
residence. The original farmstead, consisting on an old dwelling
and assorted outbuildings, is located.in the area of the proposed
Taking. These structures, while usable, contribute no value
assuming the property is developed to its Highest and Best Use.
The effect of the Taking: the proposed acquisition involves the
southerly 24 (+ or -) acres adjoining the existing Riley Lake Park;
the site is irregular in dimensions, and includes approximately
650' of lakeshore. The Remainder would retain approximately 900'
of lakeshore.
It is my opinion that the property's development potential is not
negatively impacted as a result of the Taking, i.e.: the Remainder
retains its potential for subdivision, thus there are no observed
damages arising from the Taking.
Estimate of Value (before the Acauisition)
Until public utilities are available, effected by an extension of
the MUSA Line, the Subject will remain in the Rural zoning
category; development limited to housing with a ten acre lot
minimum. At the point services become available, the land use is
guided for low-density residential use (subdivision), with the
probable zoning to be R1 13.5, a category providing for a density
of up to 2.5 lots per acre, with a minimum lot size of 13,500 SF.
3
Thus, the future subdivision of the property is considered the
Highest and Best Use, as development without services is not
considered economically feasible.
The site, in the Before situation, possesses a unique amenity -
lakeshore - which would, presumably, be incorporated into the
overall development plan; a proposed subdivision would create a
common area permitting residents access to the lake frontage.
Estimate of Value (after the Acquisition)
The proposed Acquisition, or Taking, involves the southerly 24
acres, which includes approximately 650' of lakeshore. The Taking
does not, in my opinion, diminish the value of the remainder. The
modern residence is located in the larger parcel; the original
farmstead, located in the part taken - is considered to have no
significant present value.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that there are no damages to the
remainder as a result of the proposed taking as the potential for
future development is undiminished.
Comparable Sales Data
The sales data (developable tracts) has been expanded; Table I is
revised and additional information, including a map reference, is
included.
With regard to sales of non-serviced tracts, the only recent
activity in the immediate area of the Subject involves - as stated
- the assemblage of the three properties surrounding the Subject.
This assemblage is based, also, upon the market's perception that
the MESA line will be extended well before 2000; the development
plan envisages a golf course and subdivision, and the initial phase
presumes subdivision development of the areas located within the
present MUSA Line.
However, because none of these (assemblage) sales have actually
closed I have not considered the data credible at this time.
Value Conclusion
The estimated Market Value before the acquisition:
121 acres @ $18,625 per acre, or: $2,253,625
Add: residential improvements: 100.000
Total: $2,353,625
icy
{
3
4
t.
The estimated Market Value after the acquisition:
121 acres @ $18,625 per acre, or: $1,806,625 f
Add: residential improvements: 100.000
Total: $1,906,625
The difference between the two value estimates is the value of the
proposed acquisition, or:
$447,000
This supplemental report, together with the appended photographs
and exhibits, incorporates by reference the initial Report dated
October 31, 1989.
Sincerely,
N J nson, MAI
dh
•
360
TABLE I:
SALES: DEVELOPABLE PARCELS
Sale Price
Map # Loctation Date Acres er Acre PI ,
1 West Side of 9/88 30 $28,159 20-116-22-14-0007
Co.Rd. 4 at
Summit Drive
2 NEC Co. Rd. 4. 10/88 38.3 $22,762 20-116-22-13-0002
& Pioneer Trail
3 SEC Rowland Rd. 9/87 18.6 $26,882 02-116-22-21-0004
& Highway 62
4 SWC 62nd St 12/88 9.3 $32,258 05-116-22-21-0053
& Chatham Way
5 SEC Highway 101 10/88 27.2 $25,500 06-116-22-21-0001
& 62nd Street
. ti
•
TABLE II:
ADJUSTMENTS TO SALES
Sale #/ Adjusted
Price Per Acre Time Location Lakes View Price Per Acre
1. $28,159 + 5% Less Remote None, + 30% $35,199
- 10%
2. $27,762 + 5% Same as Same as $28,453
above above
3. $26,882 +10% Same as Equal $29,570
above (Lake views)
4. $32,258 + 5% Same as above; None, +30% $37,097
smaller site;
- 10%
5. $25,500 + 5% Less remote, None, + 30% $31,875
- 10%
Conclusion: $30,000 per acres (if services available)considered most probable. The present
value, discounted for yime (5 years) at 15%produces a present value of$18,625
per acre.
30,
\ i ---nr•
ItI .le,lift- (;:I;�� • 1
lt1
l b obi Mdf.,/ + _' .. T 5ti_ (1
ie4 h %c•411f'1111ya1!]e, (LI.+ • to , s t11,
,1/4 • elv
...41i...., .. •.si : +, 'r. to •l•�. 1
•^•1 KI,. we '.-X
+ i ' ''-1,4,
( '1,',,,_.„,', ',.."4...
,+ % �. atalbe uu�wi!'eesi . (
16)
�Ai Al �': , ^•V,1 "V '' tI. s •' ,RED P.00K,e, ,,
�r:!• .i a �p «t nl:
• Vi ;r. U. LAKEUS �ADDS
e,lm
•-rt tll;
C-lr.,: t
1.• (lle
Orn
10, ' 3 um,,,:. �. ria 1 .
'1u>— (n�{q+ lrel aj ('I, (i1 )(n, 'nP "'
' . ,1 ...n"- ,. „' reel t 4
n . E.
SALE # 1
•
LOCATION: West side of Co. Rd. 4 at Summit Drive
ZONING: R1 - 13.5
SHAPE, SOIL CONDITIONS: Irregular, rolling, sound
UTILITIES AVAILABLE: All
BUYER: Centex, Inc.
( SELLER: Putnam & Associates
INTENDED USE: SFR Subdivision - Fairfield
t
•
•
0,141,. ir, 141 to , . 141 rl Si Y.Y -:,: _ rrl.x.r•4.xx'.
'! -r .. "s K.xo -t
i Z
N i
.x ii
r ,:c=
i 1 C- s ., —n sy .j. c • Sq -^r.
t JL Air (�.
,t Crrr, '
b' 1. •. .4 .:, .,.., N.i .,.1 1
t<•. ii y : 4.
v•�. ice/+ _ ` :ay-,i nt lox ;- r_ �Y=
SALE # 2
LOCATION: NWC Co. Rd. 4 & Pioneer Trail
ZONING: R1 - 13.5
SHAPE, SOIL CONDITIONS: Irregular, rolling, sound
UTILITIES AVAILABLE: All
BUYER: JAB, et al
SELLER: Westar Properties
INTENDED USE: SFR Subdivision - Cedar Ridge Estates
le'' A%.: Co 90 no 92 fpaY 1
Eli 6 .. = I Ii7)El
R�" .N•sw 4., Iul
p ., 1)9) (19) - f691�
j ': tk V.')"'Ji '',- "5) :1.1. 2 et
' 'r lµo •:(i9), ` le/)
/b ; 9 V n a A& „P
i.,p (771n
. ' „ . A +
It91 ra 1- . 17) ,,,:. 1.57
y.t WI
lbl .(9 ',Y
»� N y
t .• fib, Yr .P•t
�7 Q�1x ! fa,
j,:\\2,- / ;- (IS)./.. 1,:
S\CVV e
a.� nan ,
17,1 .►,
n 1B
0.
4
\a s
k da • +
9
n-(
•
I)1
3
SALE # 3
LOCATION: SEC Co. Rd. 62 & Rowland Road
ZONING: R1 - 13.5
SHAPE, SOIL CONDITIONS: Rectangular, good soils
UTILITIES AVAILABLE: All •
BUYER: Jyland, Inc.
SELLER: Waleswood Corp.
INTENDED USE: SFR Subdivision - Bryant Pointe
tj 9 5 1,1 C O C7.) � :l a,
s , _ M
a u a
' +n•
v a o
C t • , �!s rn6Ai»r
'
..
a 1 (II) 139) (w).0
())d
r r '
- ors
6 ' � 4 1l ul' y �
1 r lS) In i lkl R-
ti:::: Si „
i' /��j f
(NI I n/SI (u)s
III
ur - 1
S un l 1nit ss,
/, ,:::
P'n• MO
IA>
41a on 1 try Site ID) 0£r a ..0 hi:,1'4)
♦ f
is i
C n •� r•m•.•• (75) '.:S 177i 1162* •
./s PlD �,s n'l �.Zara 1r tan r- C (191 0.023
Re Y'.
r`� L .1� y� ':. ,,•1�.'Y"ISI) t #- ,•y -'(761 ,ji% A ` ni I
rrrrr —!n —cCy l•6>1' 1i91 ',17gh� „�M1 rS7I • lri) tin C (79) 4 l4l I6) '
L ..()r) 4 ,nr1 ,, ♦ A �.7- ,. SDM 6y ) .6 ,1
q
�•11� .t s, :)q G i•f 91101• r 'Ill,.• • Ill) S0 777 a..,...... •.. a w '
:r s I 'los' n(9)f^(;), .r}rC 1601 Y 1;. !c ) 'In S r I . I
SALE # 4
LOCATION: S of Townline Road (62nd St.), east of Duck Lake Road
ZONING: R1 - 13.5
SHAPE, SOIL CONDITIONS: Rectangular, rolling, sound
UTILITIES AVAILABLE: All
BUYER: Coffman Development
SELLER: K. Strenghjem
INTENDED USE: SFR Subdivision - Country Glen
564
Teti, z-4 .. , .e ., 1 *��—
D iP T ..: } (CO' RD.,,NO G2:4
�,(.--,,.. C"l°;` 5 u , psi=� -r - ate.an-.t
't1.-' • 41 • >t
1 • Q R I'0)
(23) • � _ ; 1SE
Ian
•
èL'
`R
\ .`11.9z't
•
\�1 t(]5)! Set.'n_▪ .. )
S ��• a lyl a _I Aytaw i37 ten: .i. • 6d. ,£ I„il a, vei11„ n.•
+$ - i it q .,ty; eCF a
i11 let- w y)i +„p� _1nl�n_y 1)il -y 1▪ la�(i51�
�• 1�67 .� N..i n J a� .Q .
'TY ',•.. e v1 a (li) • ,.
M ((31 �Lj1 '�S1 .7 ..q�
4t.
a �En
1 i37 's)
' 137 .f613 '' '11, .
Yeti < ��aa• '• i.°'h ,f". '"(6)� (.) '
wPP.n h .l y1a :y.i'�n D• (3). C.' •(3)
•
PI
a / n • , ne)
SALE # 5
LOCATION: 62nd Street& Chennault Way
ZONING: R1 - 13.5
SHAPE, SOIL CONDITIONS: Irregular, rolling, sound
UTILITIES AVAILABLE: All
BUYER: New Concept Homes
SELLER: Schroeder, et al
INTENDED USE: SFR Subdivision - Wyndham Nob
t
,
4
�L I!l . � Comparable Land Sales
\, - - (� ,I 4 .4.t _ '�iP1�jd r� .1-411
iibt:,31..,;.1. .
/�
4- •,11! 4 f....si
f \ Jf S sy
� \ 1 ,j i r•-t ag, q -•' (i 3L. .r
M ' )I • �l� 1, •y.,1 f/ _ .... rr'-' %Ali.. fp,�tn e
m.ii S SI . 1 0,410) �, G 1,ry +A' ?�11 nl ill i't is �Q .
i/ (t i '2Id
/ 1 , 1u 3� 1 �T�, 1Ls' �4,s
.a j °"' �M a 7/•r ,�' •
�1� / i�1 .iy 'my - a,a>_if '.-, L ._.
>� .0. tr�.,F w�,/ Ili ell
/ .. it z '1..� C �.tT� "` " ', rt. . ''`��� _ _,
<t...+/!S--C ,t�� v ,: p l,7, ,. (-,:ii I* \� / l' # `�'�`+ t /I
1°' �l)1y, l \� '' '4't F)✓-'-C-,J/' • d' .� !\. t'.' J I . i.„.,:ill
* �N'i� !r\
�" "_ 1L ,plc �� fi Nt\ �t1 '++ ��V •'�i h ' �`'� ��r. ,krt''LC e R Aki':'-, h
�l'1d-, #1�� ��.r7 .y+Itfor3' .[ 'l li , '1 _ ( �L �F �) \, r _.
m( \ J>iI\ a + x F \ �(`/ �I" i, .� II� P'-�r(� \qq b u:l��
bi9 , e !ri1 1 1 ll[ ... �I s d iii '.... ,�' .
yy��l 'd r :,j'Y / v, �1� i:,r .� '' V I.
A �1 iiql1( qA �y h
. y I(li ���7? :' a Al fj(�^ '' i'; t' ' "tea ll
i
l\ Sri �, �,1.5:i 1��'; l'''''
K, \,;) li,' `ICi & t
� ,-1 N 1C� ` ,,
,,1 xv.:,,-- c-,6 „ '' ,.4 ,t ) , , 1-, .- . , ,ri. 1 ,fr
, ( S li/ fq-,--K,;i1--,•,:\," i.,\,i% .4 i)A,/,-.D• 4.. 1--'..'-I 1 i '',-;' .i...,,, 1..
•�m " ).' ' i ;II
l -I;? FF
ff, S .. � i ,f -S ) (���i' 't �ft I ` � /
If' a55 � \ �'t�' � I� � � Vi . � j I I� e 1 R i.F
.. , • 7� t .e
:.
r7ta ,r,n .A i A ,1 - i .; �ly s p \� , .
'',"'•ei,.\,%'• "!'• , ..-: •'.. 0, \\ I
,Ni.
' A'' .3 �1 fD,• ".•1*t .i,;,,„)( ����_;) i I I. ��`' ( ,e.14 J C'
•1 . C 'It j
j„,..,
ttr (v i+ , L/ �+) i /,- till, \
9��d if �^ t 91 E • �� _�I?`� (412____,,,
i - g1+N1 k. ,(Irp G ( �.��� � i �A !v,7t r,9`. Cf tC�C1 � �I i� v Jrai. . � :�.��.;�.. .,
..-i
..6)
) , S ----,---- - — -------- 1.1 .
,---- .. .
r. )
........,.... -,- A \ . .•!,' , :1
_ .. •••••••
--'-- = - -
— __;" At
,/ r \ N.,... ,-
. J \ ,.
I / A A 1.‘k ,\A A ,
,''' /k
r...,\
1 I A • / N` - \ A At i \
."
I A \ / \ / k
N., A „.."' ,..,... 4,''''. .111.•l'•il A '--,,e/ ,.....,, ."... ,
•\ A. a. a.) ss
"...
".. t
' At It
"... • iir 1
, •., \
At\
\ \ \ A A
) ----A OA) ij,
A,
a * \"' •-• .' _4.-/
1 AV ,..' , ..
•
I
Ad \a. \
., •,,t.,J ... ,
------------,..1_,,t) , 4 •
<,..‘ /
„V,.
-'
/ -- -410140,44\.... c=-1.--". -.- -\s</-a ../ • \
.
• %%.TN .41";..4:.: W4.!!,7\'‘'("::P 1
\
\,....
...ICA .,1,.‘„,..,. •
,'‘; 1•1'.4. .`‘ ••
1: ! ':•.:4•ittjOKV:•\. ::: (I /
4 Ve %.::: '''..... '..'st';''..•;',:' ik,/ A
\!...4.,t 74tros.,,1
. Or'iig'....;N:11,114• ::
, ,...
1 /.:%.,;'-e•i,r.:',..
'.i7irk, .•:::::lh: ';,,,, \
\ 1 a i i A )
(
A li r-
1.1 \
\ 1 1 I
\ V 1 .*-:- \-...---:: ..."-,.••
/ EXHIBIT I
''k• , / (Shaded area indicates
the proposed Acquisition)
0 L:-....j- .....---_________--- ••
IA CM III" / / ........,..../
,•'''... -
...
‘.,
EXHIBIT II
Half Section Map;
Acquisition area
. indicated by dots
o w u Ai
I ,I
I I\ MW • ,
•
tom.
..do I el
I
I 1
` 'Wl.. __IM R__—s__J _ __ .—__ _
V fp
34.
Y
I=) rya'
P)
— —r— ----—1'---' -'— I - 'T — 4'
Iv.
f=. ". ...." f
••••••d•••••••• 1 !„ A
•••••••• ••••••••� 4P
\'�•••••••• N••••••
P"
''a ••••••• • •••••• IP
•••••• •••••••• •
'. •••••• ••.•••••••••1••••••••••••••11
•••••�•••••••• {
y ••••• •••••••
••••I••••••••• I
----111._' •••••••
E � n, :••••••• Q? 4.
•* _ ••••••• R4
E Y lit 0)i . pea i
a
l
I 0
;'rj 6� !A
'0. l' 01 0J
' 1
•
r x Terl
. •,, . , .1',..II-1
•
l� -•1 1 It 1_I t 1 W'It 1
YI.)- f i.
1 • f li 'Il }
✓ IrIli 0 r
f fail{ ,,
y: •
! i t h`
; 5 1 -1,i d �� ' T'' �rr�,-
y ♦ - 1 i 1 t n{ R {'?i 1 e; oS ,-
�..„ Ltk {V41: '. ICy fbi
f r f 7 it{ ^, if i `IIu4I`i .fYi ,r< (h�� E �4J. .
/ * Tj.
s t-f f
s ;
Q
,.�a•,L+npay� -'s'Z{. .-.,, y'; Yl`- �1 l xii'S4 ' ti.j i r,
i aM1;7..-••'1'�`" '',may i.h,.....1c ,i
s rTE, v i I':W NOR'I91EAS'P
-, r, , rK \ ,,,•4Jr,,
llt
a :F Mir vat 011' w
rd "ttoL
��S* ii fir-
6.i.... ." ,.,.., , ''...—‘dr[y.,--'-.:::''...j':,,,17---.-..:::.-:::::";:::::
3 LYl 6 . 1 .4. l .-+.i.-.'! r �11
y -'''x Il.1 l; .`il I.''+„W't+-. —J' y°,y/lf; 1
1"gt2EITiV4:';'i:I',4,,,TAAIZIOprOPI,j1V,' ,,,, .1`, -7‘• .,,,,,:v.1:t,,.::.'•1';
A.
CIk1'sA`r f'° I 1 i µp "t� l `.�1< 4;7J'l..4.'fr t iTk4 N i :, ft'�1'
.1 f Ef . i r l l i d i i 7 a k r 0 4 Y� }1;• ..c�'S f,, Jy k1�i; �r x rfl �, sr a �r "r .:'.� far
r.� Mr•t ;k #./k.�a'" � �ix.�'-,,rti,,y'� °r:�Ai�y „�f li 1 7A �kratr'i i
4 i i� "u E ITS1'I y,T�• �';5"1T'P.y„
l.'�.,,� i f f'xrple!. r�, rt - .fii x 6}'{r51 tr-i243 s;'_''t i�;,t,„ 2..•,�i,.—
'•:'f4*r', '.;I,,, ." 4'0.'": Y w" sN 'ilr}.'r1�{4�rrV� .rx 1N.11id" I.�,; . 4 n:. *' ,
• r'.L. _. . -1 h i.'1 p ipGb rd�i ' ;
• o4.}_ ° 'q`a .. ir.i ,riyw, k.„y Y�1. ".,,,)'1r. ,.1 ,f h la{1F >
RILEY LAKE PARK,
Al),JACE.NT 'CO SOUTH
„.1}Y!, I i ^ --1 7 J^1 }^rr ht p.T,
17� td( ! f{H t t r ` k s ro{ ' I,s l i }� i
✓,IZ �k.tt...1.t, 1}r 1 1 114f MH i LHH 'I K ti'A , •r 'Vitt
}JA .14i L.'N LI W A l ( 1 i t .l �' I f +{4� { ,: F � '
%1 ��.�GJI It Sral �; A/11l i i�l��.t11 /y 5 H}i��!�} i:��.'j• ! 1-
Ii �`! i'J 11 .t t • R 3 i fP�1 !..1 s99 0 r PFI !l l h'klk Hn'�1 L H1
)k�3? ', a. . t H I d HA� 1i 1 b ty i3 ; i t” l '.a { sty.
1~it j' + e rt�'a ad" rH t +y', a ( [�'•,{k 5 ,;
tf?! '' t t t,W[}ar JH H �.ay ...5\t�7n.'„. ,,F4 47 YI T"; f" ;[,1
cQ ,. .- jip.� u d.' 4 x Pa t''7d' " $ '4.r s 04FF II
, 1.1
'A 1 �v° \ a t ,ry ^±/ y� Ar S A rn '�R °r i!�r � �p'�1�4 1{"iy I E-'tl S'�:
[.Ay a r 1 t - i4' •(:4 lY r:r•t t .).•' ^'Of (� r 1• _
t t 1- f I,Ta• ev - rYtp:1
! I +- •H 't " t • .tom:• i , �, • 4 j'tl�,,;
N,,,,r•1 41. W r.i.�it+.a....No, t _, r 1` K...4, L 9-.`. � i 1.
_., yam.. -,,�
.'4W :QCµ•
1•{
_
•
SITE, VIEW NOR'I'IIWES'I'
' Sa+ . S tatj�i tarty t" }A ' . �.. fl'
t
pp
Z.t tt qq itu IH ilf.1 ri � tl , t r }r4t i fi tj r
L
4.
11
tt G tlr;t H! ' t '� ) z v"fr{ H t .t� , I 11 la i k i ` ' i . A , itl 4 i+ r S t 1 , 7 {; IA , � t� tU7 1L 1 11 r r ) [Ly, a� N� lr/ i r�<t 41 1 I S f i I fl ,aF1 fdp}41tJi tte � } j1 t'{a i {Y� 0; 4f i1- ,, ,kti:1, 1 aC , I '{ jAthd ' Ae ' S 'A, < •n,14Y =r, ft IPF �.'1; Tgit +{71 ,,, + i �!a Ml 1V v ,':* ) e � _ 1 ,l -� �� e .l� 7 irz t i� n fyl At lu . n r Yri} .r at ain � ai4 i-Mtt „t. j; " i �`ai .';:j44t i - .i., r ' ''*n"� ratS4 ..�,
i.
•... . ..i !, •y..1^ if 1'�•-� ( . � . .._ 1 . 4 1 B Sr ra E
r�1ip,:' •, zy - i*, d r ' ir• , La•i, .rt• °M'.r.,;,-Y , F-'^; Ji,wi7 1 I r t 1 , qry,
Tts`r= k r C».��, H 1 -- - - w FsrJl lli4r 4 li'1 g1 t ''' ' ,jrF ' LIi :';. yI .. 1 '' 4,:1" i A YY • iJ '. ,...: {.Oi',40T1M R- �.� . ' w
•
�(,
... �7 _ •r3 j ; N c-. 4;,, .q:,. tb '' ;.71.1 r•_ 0, y I Idti 44 ; ' };41 ,r , " eM' ^G 1' A i " '} ,' • .? ^yw.r ,,.L .tiS :• eT °6a •I- M ."" ! fw�' _ y�7 . .
SITE, VIEW NORTH
LANG,PAULY&GREGERSON,LTD.
ATTORNEYS Al LAW
4400 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE(612)338-0755
FAX:(612)349.6718
ROBERT I LANG
ROGER A.PAULY EUEN PRAIRIE OFFICE
DAVID H.GREGERSON• SUITE 170
WHAM)F.ROSOW I30 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
MARK I JOHNSON EUEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55344
JOSEPH A.NILAN 1612)5241133
JOHN W.LANG.CPA
REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE
LEA M.De SOUTA
IEFFREY C APPELVUISI•
JUDITH K DUTCHER
WILUAA M.ROSSR February 9, 1990
YAW Awe/wed w
Irriun,r In Wyroun
Mr. John Frane
Eden Prairie City Offices
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: Preserve Place Apartments Project,
Amendment to Arbitrage Rebate Agreement
Dear John:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I received from Alan
Bernick requesting the City approve an amendment to the
Arbitrage Rebate Agreement for the refunding bonds for Preserve
Place, along with a copy of the amendment. I have reviewed the
amendment, and recommend approval by the City Council. Please
put it on the agenda for the next meeting. I have enclosed the
signature pages that should be executed by the Mayor and City
Manager after the City Council has approved the Amended
Agreement.
Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly has acted as bond counsel in
connection with the refunding, and they advised me they would be
willing to have an attorney at the Council meeting if you feel
it is necessary. Please let me know if you feel bond counsel
should attend the meeting. Please call me if you have any com-
ments or questions.
Sincerely,
LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
BMR/krj Barbara M. Ross
Enclosures
cc Alan Bernick
Polly Nemec
Deborah J. Metcalfe
jf2-8
J 'J
OIT NH1:(MLR\VOLfF fs DONNEUY
First Bank Building Brus,els
Suite 1700 Cluugo
SI.Paul,MN 55101 London
(612)223 2500 Minneapolis
Telex 701879 New York
FAX:1612)223-25% Paris ..
St.Paul
January 26, 1990 Washmgton,DC
Ms. Polly Nemec
First Trust National Association
First Trust Center, 3rd Floor
180 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Richard F. Rosow, Esq.
Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd.
4400 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Ms. Deborah J. Metcalfe
Penner Properties Western Ltd.
620 - 330 St. Mary Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R3C 3Z5
$3,850,000
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Multifamily Housing Development
Revenue Refunding Bonds
(Preserve Place Apartments Project)
Dear Polly, Rick and Debbie:
Enclosed with this letter please find drafts of a First Amendment
to Arbitrage Rebate Agreement and an opinion of Oppenheimer Wolff
& Donnelly which address the changes in Treasury Regulations
applicable to the above-described bonds. Specifically, as the
First Amendment and opinion describe, the currently effective
Treasury Regulations only require calculation of the arbitrage
rebate once every five years, in contrast to the Treasury
Regulations effective at the time the Arbitrage Rebate Agreement
was executed, which required yearly arbitrage rebate calculations.
It is our belief that the Arbitrage Rebate Agreement contemplates
de facto amendments to conform to changes in applicable Treasury
Regulations, which renders the First Amendment essentially
unnecessary. Nevertheless, in order to fully document the intent
of the parties, we have prepared the enclosed documents.
OPPENHEIMIER WOLFF&DONNELLY
Ms. Polly Nemec
Richard F. Rosow, Esq. ;{
Ms. Deborah J. Metcalfe
January 26, 1990
Page 2
We have taken the liberty of enclosing five counterpart signature 1
pages to the First Amendment. If the documents meet with your
approval, we would appreciate it if you would execute the enclosed
signature pages and return them to us. We will then assemble and
circulate the fully-executed amendment and our opinion to each of
you. If, however, you have comments, questions or suggestions with
respect to the enclosed materials, please contact us at your
earliest convenience to review your concerns.
As always, thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Very r ly yours,
Al E. Bernick
AEB/gaj
Enclosures
cc: Craig A. Currie, Esq. (w/enclosures)
cc: Mr. John D. Frane (w/enclosures)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: February 16, 1990
SUBJECT: Farber Addition
At the January 16, 1990, City Council meeting, the Farber Addition
was to have had its 1st Reading, based on receiving variances from
the Board of Appeals for lot frontage and driveway setback.
However, at the January 11, 1990 Board of Appeals meeting, the
motion to approve the variances failed on a 3-3 vote. The
proponent requested that the City Council grant the variances in
lieu of the Board of Appeals decision and give 1st Reading to the
project. The City Council set February 20, 1990, as the meeting
to review this request.
The decision by the Board of Appeals was based on both pro and con
' reasons as follows:
Pro:
- The private drives will reduce grading and filling of the
property and also save trees.
- The lot size and density is well within Code limits and
the lots are larger than lots in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Con:
- Three driveways would exist within 150 feet; two with
grades of 12%, is a safety concern.
- Twenty-five foot frontage for the flag lots is a large
deviation from the 90 foot requirement in the R1-22
District.
- The City should not have to provide approvals on land
with poor soils and steep grades, etc.
An alternative raised by the Board of Appeals would be to limit the
development to a maximum of 2 lots.
Enclosed with this memo are the minutes of the January 11, 1990
Board of Appeals meeting, together with the Staff Reports for the
project and letters from area residents.
FARBERMO.SAK:bs
i
APPROVED MATTES
/ BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, January 11, 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr.,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS.: Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamy,
Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John
Freemyer, Neil Akemann
STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson-Planning,Sharon Swenson-See'r
BOARD MISERS ABSENT: Michael Bozonie
1. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Longman called the meeting to order at 7:32. All present recited the
Pledge of Allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above.
II. MINUTES OF THE DECEIBER 14 MEEETING
Freem}ernoted that his name had been misspelled throughout the minutes.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of the December 14,
1989 meeting as submitted,with the corrections to Freenyer's name to
be included. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
III. VARIANCES
Request /90-01, submitted' by Roger Farber for property located at 6525
Rowland Road, Eden Prairie. The requestfor a varianceom Zip
Code, Chapter 11 ec ion 1.0TSubdivision"2/17 T1 er o pmimproposed
7EFarber Addition;wiwith 25' frontage on a pub is road—City Code
requires 90', oo permifroposed Lo73Farber Addition wffh -77
frontage on a public roaac.—City Code requires 90' (3) Subdivision2
A mid a rivewaye' from a side lot line e�tween Lots 2 and
tity Code requires a 3'sid-e yard se aacc.— -
Frank Cat darelle, representing Mr. Roger Farber, came forward to present the
variance. He explained that Mr. Farber is trying to sell the property. For the
Board's information, he displayed a layout of the property. It is a three lot
subdivision with an outlot. There are some topographical problems, and putting
in a public road would cause additional problems, including eliminating a lot
of trees and necessitating a lot of fill. The residents would like to have
private drives, and not a lot of traffic.
Akemann, Arockiasamy and Freemyer had no questions at this time.
Harvey asked Johnson if she had.an aerial photo.
Johnson answered that she did and outlined the property in question on the aerial
photo. She said the property to the north did not have a development plan.
9V) A-
2
er
Discussion took place on the surrounding property, potential development, and
access.
Harvey noted that School Road is 11%grade. This would be steeper yet. If each
party were to put in their own driveway, what would happen? He questioned the safety
of 12% drives onto Rowland Road. -.
Cardarelle said a public street could be done, but many small pines, underbrush, coverage
and even the character of the area would be lost.
Harvey said the neighbors would need to cooperate with joint maintenance. The
property owners may prefer their own driveways.
Harvey noted that Lot 1 on Rowland Road could to to a City Street for access to Rowland
Road. A City Street would be one 8%grade intersection with Rowland versus three
driveways which are 12% grades.
Cardarelle said that would not necessarily be the case--only if it was in the
proposal. It would probably be one wide access instead of three to Roland Road
if there were single driveways.
Sandra Landucci, who is building a home at 6529 Roland Road,said that if Lots 2 & 3
had separate driveways, many trees planted by Mr. Farber would be lost.
Anderson noted the recommendations: He asked Johnson if the Planning Commission •
had approved them.
Johnson answered that the Planning Commission had approved them, but they had not
been before the City Council yet.
Anderson asked if Rowland Road had to be upgraded.
Johnson answered that it did need upgrading.
Anderson asked Johnson if all recommendations on the Staff report would need to
be adhered to prior to final plat.
Johnson answered that they would need to be complied with.
Harvey said that the variance would be good for only one year.
Cardarelle answered that the City will be upgrading Rowland Road.
Johnson affirmed that it could happen this year.
Cardarelle saia that the owner would like to see the house (dome) with a couple
of acres. It needs to be platted. It is a very large, expensive home, but will
be difficult to sell. He would like to lower the price of the home and sell it.
Harvey asked if there would be two curb cuts.
Cardarelle said that there will be one additional entrance on the the blacktop
no matter how it is done. There is one there now and one will be added.
27,E •
•
Harvey felt it was difficult to see a hardship in this case. The owner wanted
rr to retain the land before, now he wants to sell. We are being asked to make
three lots with 25' widths, and it should be 90'. He said he did not agree with
this variance request because it is a large deviation from code.
Longman said it will never be developed without variances.
Anderson said the Board will be seeing more and more of this as Eden Prairie
matures.
Akemann asked where the hardship was? Was it an ecomonic hardship?
Harvey said this could be made into two lots.
•
Arockiasamy asked if there was a possibility of putting in a public street.
Johnson said it would be costly for the property owners to bear and would involve
high maintenance costs for the city. Cul-de-sacs take much more time to plow than
streets do.
Cardarelle said the owner is anxious to sell. At this time he is living in Pennsylvannia.
The neighbors do not want a public street, although there is room for one. A public
street would need a lot of fill.
Anderson said he would like to hear the Council's reaction. He felt this was
almost a mini PUD.
Longman asked Cardarelle if he would like a vote now or wait for the Council meeting.
Cardarelle said he felt that would be up to the Board members.
Longman felt the Council would not favor a public road in that area because
of cost and maintenance.
Cardarelle said a large portion of the property would remain open for drainage if
the request were to be granted.
Harvey asked about access to the Bodin property.
Cardarelle said a public street would be built.
Arockiasamy asked if conditions could stipulate that the property owners do not
go to two driveways.
Johnson said that even if such a condition was implemented, they could apply to change it
Arockiasamy asked if it could be made a part of the motion.
Johnson answered that it could be made a part of the motion.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-01
to include the findings on page 2 of the Staff report:
Finding: The configuration of the property requires variances
in or er to develop according to the low density single family
guide plan designation. The majority of the acrage is not
served by public access. A public road is inappropriate doe to
steep topography, high maintenance, and wishes of the neighbors.
•
•
Condition: Lots 2 and 3 must have an address signs at the
,' street entrance.
In addition, Lots 2 & 3 agree to maintain a single driveway as
a condition for granting this variance.
Anderson added that this should be added to the deed.
Cardarelle said that would be acceptable. .
Anderson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows:
Aye: Arickiasamy, Longman, Anderson Tie Vote*
Nay: Harvey, Freemyer, Akemann
Freemyer said this could be divided into two lots and the degree of variance reduced.
Arockiasamy said possibly bad judgement had been used here, hut the situation is
there and now the owner is trying to sell the property.
Harvey said the owner created the condition himself and according to the requirements
for granting a variance the condition should not be created by his own actions.
Freemyer said a public street is not the issue before the Board tonight.
Longman asked if the variance were to be denied, could it be overturned at the
Council meeting on the 16th?
Johnson answered that they could take that action at that meeting or another meeting.
•
Anderson and Arockiasamy stated their reason for the yes vote was:
1. A public road would not be appropriate.
It would be costly and maintenance would be high.
Longman added the following:
1. The owner should be able to do what he wants with his own property.
Many tines there is too much government control. It is overdone in Eden
Prairie.
Harvey said that two private driveways would take 36' as opposed to a public street
which would take 50'. This would mean two lots with a combined frontage of 50'
on Rolland Road and it should be 180'. The only hardship here is that the owner wants
to dispose of the property.There would be potential for three curb cuts within 206'
on Rowland Road.
Longnan said he agreed to a point, but even if Farber could sell the property as
it is, he would. The next owner will surely subdivide.
Cardarelle said Bodin's property and the property to the north will be developed.
Harvey said that every square inch of Eden Prairie did not need to be developed.
The Board is responsible to review for hardships. The City should not have to provide
development approvals on land with poor soils and steep grades.
* Longman said that the Variance Request 90-01 failed by a 3-3 tie vote.
C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: December 8, 1989
SUBJECT: Farber Addition
LOCATION: 6525 Rowland Road
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Roger Farber
REQUEST: Zoning District change from Rural to R1-22 on 3.7
acres with variances for road frontage to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat
of 7.6 acres into 3 single family lots, and on
out lot.
This project was continued from the November 13, 1989 Planning
Commission meeting to respond to neighbor concerns regarding
rezoning classification and future access to Outlot A. Since that
meeting, the proponent has requested a change in the Single Family
rezoning classification from R1-13.5 down to R1-22. This should
help limit further subdividing. Dutlot A will remain in the Rural
Zoning District. The City has republished the project to reflect •
the new rezoning request and has notified the surrounding property
owners.
Dutlot A is proposed for future development. The proponent
understands that access to the Outlot may not be available when the
Bodin property to the east develops in the future. The previous
Farber Addition plans called for a cross-access easement from Lot
3 to Dutlot A to maintain access if not available from the east.
The neighbors of this proposed development were very concerned with
the provisions for cross-access to Outlot A along the wetland area,
and strongly opposed the easement, feeling that a future driveway
would be disruptive.
To respond to the neighborhood concerns, the current proposal is
to remove the cross-access easement and propose to donate Outlot
A to the City for Park and Open Space purposes should public road
access not be available from the east. The Director of Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources indicated his approval with this
arrangement.
If the Planning Commission feels that the rezoning of the property
to R1-22 and the arrangements for possible donation of Outlot A to
the City should development not be possible, Staff would recommend
approval based on Plans dated November 8, 1989, the Staff Report
dated November 9, 1989, this memo and the following:
�f�
1. Prior to Final Plat, the proponent shall :
(a) Receive variances from the Board of Appeals for lot
frontage down to 25 feet for Lots 2 and 3, in addition
to a variance for a driveway with less than a 3 foot
setback from a lot line.
(b) Await the completion of the Rowland Road feasibility
study and not proceed until such time as the letting of
the improvements takes place.
(c) Submit detailed grading, drainage, utility, and erosion
control plans for review by the City Engineer and
Watershed District.
(d) Enter into an agreement with the City for the donation
of Outlot A should access not be provided from the east.
2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall :
(a) Demonstrate that the basement floor elevation of the
proposed house on Lot 3 be constructed at or above the
existing basement floor elevation of B94.5 for the home
on Lot 2. In addition, submit a soil survey for the
location of the house on Lot 3 for determination of a
safe building pad.
(b) Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours
in advance of grading.
(c) Pay the Cash Park fee.
(d) Provide a cross-access easement for a shared driveway for
Lots 2 and 3.
3. Access to Lot 1 will only be provided from Rowland Road.
4. The proponent shall acknowledge that as part of house
construction within this property, connection to City sewer
and water is required.
5. The proponent shall acknowledge that if future development
plans are submitted for Dutlot A, a tree inventory will be
required.
If the Planning Commission feels that the timing of this proposal
is premature due to the need for Rowland Road upgrading, and the
extension of sanitary sewer to the property, then Staff would
recommend denial without prejudice.
FARBERI.SAK:mmr
37 I
It .4
STAFF REPORT
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 9, 1989
SUBJECT: Farber Addition
LOCATION: 6525 Rowland Road
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Roger Farber
REOUEST: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.7
acres with variances for road frontage to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat
of 7.6 acres into three single family lots, and one
outlot.
Background
The Comprehensive Guide = s
Plan depicts this 1 . . • "T
property as a Low Density - ,j jC HWX �_
Residential land use for 11'
up to 2.5 units per acre. 1
The site is currently
zoned Rural, with i ` ; ,1) 'sl
surrounding properties �tf 3i:5'' . `___ \ ( i
zoned R1-13.5 to the 1' -%; 1,.! `OF
southeast, west and .',.- ' PROPOSED SITE Z
northwest, Rural to the ,/ ' µ .
east and north, with ' M ��'�`�IG + — V •
Bryant Lake Regional Park •••••4� 1 Z '
to the south. An `',�_ p•�•••A••4 i,
VO •
existing home occupies ♦•♦ i
this site which currently i•'�•:,el Y.. —•-
utilizes an on-site T ;
septic system and well. ' f P1.'1
The site can be '---\ - ..r.__. , - 41
characterized as a basin
varying in grade from an •• �. \ �• «t
elevation of 940 in the ! i ' H
southwest corner of the '1 /j �-
property to the low area •. - \,_-� \ 1 a
of 885 located at the \ �. i -' `
center of the site, with ,. ,, z
the grade rising again in `�� '� ---_
the north to 920. Slopes ` �� ! Pt
AREA LOCATION MAP -
7a
C
average 35% along the west and north portions of the site and 30%
along the southeast portion. The property is heavily wooded with
scattered oak, boxelder and birch, with the majority of the
significant trees located on the north knoll. The center portion
of the site consists of marsh type soils and an existing pond.
Preliminary Plat
The proposal is to subdivide the 7.6 acres into three single family
lots which will access Rowland Road and one outlot located to the
north for access at a future date. The proposed access to Lots 2
and 3 is by way of a driveway currently in place for the existing
home on Lot 2. This driveway averages in slope of 12%. Both of
these flag lots will require a variance from City Code for lot
frontage down to 25 feet. City Code requires 85 feet of frontage
in the R1-13.5 district. In addition, a variance for a shared
driveway will be necessary since Code requires driveways to be
setback three feet from a lotline. Site density for the project
excluding Outlot A is .75 units per acre. The three lots vary in
size from .5 acre minimum up to 1.7 acres. A drainage and utility
easement is proposed for that portion of the property where
development cannot occur due to poor soils and drainage.
The proponent has placed the northern half of this property into
an outlot, stating that access will take place from the east when
the Bodin property develops. Staff has talked to Mr. Bodin, who
indicates no development plans at this time. The proponent has
supplied a concept plan for the Bodin property which indicates
access to the northern parcel of Outlot A and to the southern
portion of Outlot A by way of two cul-de-sacs. Since Mr. Bodin has
not proposed any development plans for his property, it is
difficult to say with certainty that access will be provided to
these areas of Outlot A since much of the Bodin property is also
within an area of poor soils.
The Farber property currently has public road frontage along
Rowland Road. Since this is the case, no guarantees can be made
by the City that future road access will be made available to
Outlot A for its development. With this in mind, Staff would
recommend that Outlot A be combined at this time with Lot 3 so that
access to all the property is maintained. In the future, should
the Bodin property provide access to the northern half of this
property, then a replat of Lot 3 into additional lots could take
place. A cross access easement should be incorporated into that
portion of Lot 3 in the event that access will not be provicted from
the east.
f.
y
I
C
( City Staff has conceptually evaluated the construction of a public
roadway within the Farber property, and has concluded that due to
extensive grade changes, large amounts of fill would be necessary
together with extensive tree loss in order to maintain maximum
allowable road grades. The existing driveway, at a slope of
approximately 12%, will make ingress and egress rather difficult
in winter conditions. As a comparison, standard City road
construction limits maximum road grade to 8%. School Road, near
Scenic Heights, constructed years ago, is at a grade of 11%.
Gradina and Drainage
The proponent has supplied a topographic map which indicates
existing grades, proposed house pad locations, and a tree inventory
for those trees within the house pad area. In addition, the
proponent has submitted calculations of an area wide tree inventory
based on acreage per City direction. This inventory was conducted
for the area south of Outlot A. Based on the areawide survey, a
calculated total of 816 caliper inches occupy the site. The
location of the house pads indicate that all significant trees will
remain as the site develops. Even if a few significant trees were
to be removed, say 50 inches, tree replacement would be less than
three total inches. Because the northern half of the Farber
property is proposed for future development, a detailed tree
inventory was not conducted. When a development request is
submitted for the northern half of the site, an additional tree
inventory will be required.
The wetland portion of this property is part of an overall drainage
basin which extends easterly to Shady Oak Road. The proponent has
indicated the walkout elevation of the house on Lot 3 to be 895
minimum. The existing Farber home sits at an elevation of 895.4
and has not experienced any flooding. The Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District has not established a 100 year floodplain
elevation for this pond. Because of the size of the wetland area
and the continuing development around the wetland, Staff would
recommend that the proponent, and neighboring developments, work
with the City and Watershed District to establish the 100 year
floodplain elevation. Then the proposed house location can be
verified to be two feet above this designated 100 year flood
elevation.
Since the building pad area for proposed Lot 3 is near an area of
poor soils, Staff recommends that prior to issuance of a building
permit for Lot 3, a soil survey be prepared to demonstrate safe
placement of the house pad location.
3
.J� I
C C
Utilities
Utilities are available to this property with connection to City
water and sewer along Rowland Road. City sewer terminates
approximately 100' to the east of this property. Extension of the
sewer to the west lot line of this property will be required. Due
to the extensive grade change on the property, ejector pumps will
be required for Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 will utilize a gravity system.
City sewer and water also currently exist on the north side of this
property, should the northern portion of the site be developed into
single family lots in the future.
Access
Access to the three single family lots will occur off of Rowland
Road. The proponent has indicated that the site vision distance
requirements for this access exceed the 30 mph design speed
criteria. Staff has field checked the sight distance and concurs,
however, because traffic tends to exceed the 30 mph limit, the
threshold for a safe sight vision distance decreases dramatically.
A feasibility study is currently underway for the upgrading of
Rowland Road. This upgrading shall include extension of sanitary
sewer, curb and gutter and the improvement of site vision distance
throughout its extent. Timing of the improvements has not yet been
established. The proponent has indicated that he would not be
extending sanitary sewer to this property before the upgrading of
Rowland Road. Since the R1-13.5 Zoning District requires
connection to City sewer and water, no final platting shall be
approved until that time when sanitary sewer will be available to
the property with the upgrading of Rowland Road.
As stated earlier, the proponent has indicated future access to the
northern part of his property by way of the Bodin property to the
east. Since the Farber property currently has public road access,
the City cannot guarantee future road access at a later date should
the proponent request platting that would "landlock" this area.
Again, Staff would recommend that Outlot A be combined with Lot 3
until such time when it is known if access will be provided. The
proponent should include a cross access easement to the northern
half of Lot 3 in the event access is not provided by way of the
Bodin property.
A cross access agreement will be necessary for the shared driveway
to Lots 2 and 3 to ensure maintenance and snow removal
responsibilities, etc.
4
gS
7
C
Recommendations
If the Planning Commission feels that the timing of this proposal
is not premature to the upgrading of Rowland Road, and the
extension of sanitary sewer to the property, then Staff would
recommend approval based on revised plans dated November 8, 1989,
this Staff Report, and the following:
1. Prior to City Council, the proponent shall:
(A) Combine Outlot A into Lot 3 in addition to a cross access
easement for future access, until it is known if access
will be provided from the east.
2. Prior to Final Plat, the proponent shall:
(A) Receive variances from the Board of Appeals for lot
frontage down to 25' for Lots 2 and 3, in addition to a
variance for a driveway with less than a three foot
setback from a lot line.
(B) Await the completion of the Rowland Road Feasibility
Study and not proceed until such time as the letting of
the improvements takes place.
(C) Submit detailed grading, drainage, utility, and erosion
control plans for review by the City Engineer and
Watershed District.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall:
(A) Demonstrate that all building elevations are a minimum
of 2 feet above the determined 100 year flood plain
elevation. In addition, submit a soil survey for the
location of the house on Lot 3 for determination of a
safe building pad.
(B) Provide evidence of recording of the cross access
easements and maintenance agreements for Lots 2 and 3.
(C) Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours
in advance of grading.
4. The proponent shall acknowledge that as part of house
construction within this property, connection to City sewer
and water is required.
5
C
5. The proponent shall acknowledge that if future development
plans are submitted for the northern half of this property,
a tree inventory will be required.
If the Planning Commission feels that the timing of this proposal
is premature due to the need for Rowland Road upgrading, and the
extension of sanitary sewer to the property, then Staff would
recommend denial without prejudice.
FARBER.SAK:mmr
•
•
6
`''1
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources
FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect b�
DATE: December 14, 1989
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to November 9 and December 8,
1989 Planning Staff Report Concerning the Farber Addition
In the Planning Staff memorandum, Scott Kipp mentions donating
Outlot A to the City. The parks, recreation and natural resources
staff see validity in owning steep wooded slopes and wetlands
located within the outlot. The following conditions must be met
in order for the City to accept dedication:
1. Cash park fees must be paid in addition to land dedication.
2. Access to the site is available.
BL:mdd
57
t
SANDRA A.LANDUCCI
8347 WINDSONG DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344
TO: Board of Appeals November 13, 1989
City Of Eden Prairie
Subject: Farber Development
Appeal for joint driveway and 25' lot frontage
on Rowland Road For lots 2 6 3.
My husband, Steve Guyette and I request that this appeal be
denied for the following reasons:
We have started construction on the adjacent lot (SE corner)
at 6529 Rowland Road.
1. This would create a dangerous driveway.
a. The driveway is extremely steep (a 12' drop)
and curves making it impossible to see up
or down coming traffic.
b. With our house development and development
of Farber lot #1, children can be playing on
or near this driveway whioh would be difficult
at best to see by drivers.
2. Adversely affect our lot at 6529 Rowland Road.
a. With two families of cars, the increased
traffic would create noise end privacy
invasion of our property.
3. Existing city codes.
a. We purchased our lot in April 1988 based on
the fact that this property could not be
developed. We checked extensively with the
City of Eden Prairie and was told that current
codes would not allow development.
4. Eden Prairie residents.
a. My husband and I have been Eden Prairie
residents for the last six years. I am
a volunteer fire fighter in the city since
March 1985.
b. Mr. Farber no longer lives on the property,
nor in the city, nor in the state and has
nothing to gain but profits by this development.
5. The Planning Commissions report:
a. If you read this report thoroughly you will
see there are many other problems to this
development. Grading issues, soil problems,
Rowland Road itself. It just seems like Farber
is trying to make something work hare when it
really is not in the best interest of the city
long term.
I have attached pictures for your review. Thank you for your
consideration. 4. , 9
C C
SANDRA A. LANDUCCI
ff 8347 WINDSONG DRIVE 9.
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
September 11, 1989
Mr. Mike Franzen
Planning Manager
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Franzen,
I am writing to you in regards to the Farber Development at 6525 Rowland
Road.
My husband, Steve Guyette, and I own the lot next to this property at 6529
Rowland Road. Our plans are to start construction of our home in November
of this year.
Before we purchased our lot (back in April 1987), we were told by the City
Planning Department that the 7.7 acres (6525 Rowland) would not be able to
be split up and developed under existing codes and restrictions in Eden
Prairie.
Our main concern is a potential driveway running parallel to our property.
If this driveway were to serve more than one household the traffic noise
would create a problem for our home we are planning to live in by early 1990.
Our home was designed and will be built to enjoy the quietness of the rear
of the lot. This would be negated should more than one household be allowed
to use the potential driveway on the west side of our lot.
Since our home is the biggest investment we will ever make in our lives,
we are unnerved and extremely concerned about this development.
We hope you will take this into consideration in deciding the future of
this project.
Respectfully,
Sandra A. Landucci
( (
STAFF REPORT
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 5, 1990
SUBJECT: Eden Service Center
LOCATION: Northwest corner of West 78th Street and Fuller Road
APPLXCAN`r: Rosewood Corporation
FEE OWNER: Mr. Dennis Gonyea •
•
REOUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to •
Community Commercial on 1.5 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
37 acres.
Background J#,a1 I--1 'L':11�._ T-v-- -__a I -
The Comprehensive Guide Plan i COM 1 *' ' T,e _ p_ ^ -kt.'
depicts this site for office' �1 5�' .j Q -6 S}'''
use, and is part of the 37 acre .1I.1f_. • ; : 31l1g
Gonyea PUD. Surrounding ��_ --+*-�� ..- -N"t --"-1,F_, -
properties consist of the Eden an,2''-' ^- •11
Prairie Lawn and Garden '?-T'-. 4 , + • °
dealership to the east, DNR +T.. -''77 , y ' - e:- , iRs
wetland #27-984W to the north ' + e .
and west, and Highway #5 and 11,41 n, 'tr ° \
PUB 17-17 ��1.. r - , %
Deli Express to the south. As 1 �•`=,4�,.-„ i.. y
part of the Highway #5 ' NCO k r `,',f.. j
upgrading, an addition to ( COM 2y, ,
Fuller Road was constructed I C Is':` PROPOSED SITE r
between this site and the Eden I``�'� j�-C•
`COM
Prairie Lawn and Garden site. -00 1 .1
The property has been graded C' ®� r
level and contains no existing IV
5 � .
vegetation. C-HWY
' 172 % 1-GEN• r Pti_� '
r
RM2.5 j. !• •
R1$22 v.../ - 1--2
{,0 t e- _
1 `' ,/ .. PUB _--
R1-
AREA LOCATION MAP% •
.... .. ..:-V,,.,,,n I..
(
PUD Concept Amendment
I
k The original Gonyea PUD was approved in 1979 for mixed residential,
office, elderly housing and restaurant uses. The Concept
identified this site for a 14,000 square foot office building. In
1986 revisions to the Concept were made for the Minnetonka State
Bank and Prairie Courts Shopping Center along Wagner Way. This 4
required a Guide Plan Change from Office to Neighborhood Commercial
for the shopping center site. The current request is to amend the
Concept Plan from an office use on this 1.5 acre site to a
community commercial use for construction of a future 3,300 square
foot Rapid Oil Change and Harmon Glass Auto Service Center.
Guide Plan Amendment
The existing Guide Plan designation for this site is for office use
based on the 1979 Gonyea PUD. The proposal is to amend the Guide
Plan from an office to a community commercial land use.
Many auto service centers are currently located in Eden Prairie
within the Major Center Area (MCA) where more intense commercial
auto related businesses are located.
Since this site abuts a scenic wetland area, a use that would take
advantage of this scenic view would be more appropriate, such as
a small office use as approved in the 1979 PUD. An auto related
service development may not be the best use adjacent to a scenic
wetland area and for views from the sl..gle family residential and
elderly housing complex to the n^itheast, across the wetland.
Construction of an oil changing service aid glass repair service
lends itself more to a site surrounded by other commercial uses and
should be located in the MCA area.
Any development that takes place on this site should incorporate
materials such as face-brick, glass, and architectural elements
that meet the Gonyea design framework manual and fit in with the
nearby residential land uses. The Redbern office building located
next to Burger King is an example of the type of structure that
incorporates residential elements and would take advantage of views
to the wetland area. If the Planning Commission feels that a
commercial use may be appropriate, architectural changes could be
made to bring this use in conformance with the PUD and design
framework manual. Such conformance will ensure that the design and
construction of individual structures is compatible with adjacent
sites and consistent with the overall PUD image.
` 1
rya
( (
Concept Plan
( Because this is a Comprehensive Guide Plan and Concept request, no
specific site plan is submitted at this time. However, a Concept
Plan has been provided.
Approximately one half of this 1.5 acre site is undevelopable due
to the DNR protected wetland area. The 3,300 square foot building
is proposed at a Floor Area Ratio of 5%, and meets all setback
requirements. A total of 23 parking spaces are provided on-site,
which include the six service bays, meeting City Code requirements.
The design for the building shows six service bays facing Highway
#5 and two facing the scenic wetland and residential area. As
with previous auto service center proposals, the design of overhead
service doors flush with the wall of the structure requires
complete reliance on landscaping to screen the views into the
service bays. A design element that has had success with these
proposals is to provide recessed doors and use architectural •
canopies to down-play the visual focus on the overhead doors. The
use of canopies and recessed doors should be required in addition
to berming and heavy landscaping to screen the views from Highway
#5 and the residential areas. Face-brick should also be required.
The Site Plan shows no outside storage of vehicles, equipment and
supplies. However, because of the nature of auto service centers,
many times used tires, oil drums, car parts, etc. are stored
outside of the buildings. Adequate internal storage areas should
be incorporated into the building design to eliminate the
possibility of outside storage. The outside storage of materials
is not allowed in any Commercial Zoning District.
According to the DNR, the ordinary high water level has not been
established, but the pond outlet is at 857.75 feet and the 100 year
flood elevation is 860.8 feet, therefore, the site plan will need
to be designed with a two-foot freeboard clearance or 862.8 feet
to be in conformance with code.
Traffic
The original Gonyea PUD forecasted a total of 172 daily trips with
33 P.M. peak hour trips for this site based on a 14,000 square foot
office building. The current proposal would create 115 daily trips
with a P.M. peak of 9 trips. Traffic counts would not exceed the
approved PUD unless this land use were to exceed a 5,000 square
foot building.
The upgrading of Highway #5 does not provide for signalization of
the Fuller Road/Highway #5 intersection.
3
1
C C
Utilities
City water is available with connection to the water main along the
north side of Highway #5. City sewer is available to the property
but will require tunnelling under Highway #5 to connect on the
south side, or will require an easterly extension to Ontario Blvd.
Summary
The decision to amend the PUD concept and change the Guide Plan
from Office to a Community Commercial land use for construction of
an auto service center needs to be based on this being the best use
for the site. The Gonyea PUD is more of a neighborhood oriented
development, while the MCA provides the necessary sites for a use
typically intended for a regional use. Any development that is
approved for this site will need to be compatible with the scenic
wetland area, views from the residential area, and in conformance
with the Gonyea design framework manual which includes the use of
face-brick, and architectural elements to blend in with the PUD.
Architectural changes can be required to bring this use into
conformance with the PUD and provide the necessary screening of the
overhead doors from Highway #5 and the residential areas,
consistent with other auto service centers. Under no circumstances
shall outside storage be allowed on this site.
Traffic impacts are nominal on this site based on the Gonyea PUD
and will not exceed the PUD traffic study as long as the proposed
use is limited to 5,000 square feet or less. Because different
commercial uses such as fast food restaurants, or gas stations may
generate more traffic, a return to the Planning Commission and City
Council will be required should any use be proposed that is
different from this auto service center.
Because the nature of this type of commercial use may not be
appropriate for this site, and the fact that this is difficult to
determine without detailed plans, the Planning Commission may want
to evaluate the proposal based on a complete submittal of plans
before making a recommendation to the City Council. If the
Planning Commission feels that this use is appropriate, a return
to the Planning Commission and City Council will be required prior
to final approval of the Concept Amendment and Guide Plan Change
for a complete review of development plans for rezoning and
platting requirements.
4
1
I
A
Recommendations
If the Planning Commission feels that an auto service center use
is appropriate for this site, and that a community commercial land
use does not adversely impact the intent of the Gonyea PUD, then
Staff would recommend approval based on plans dated December 8,
1989, this Staff Report, and the following:
1. Prior to Final Concept approval and Guide Plan Change, the
proponent shall:
(a) Return to the Planning Commission with detailed
development plans for rezoning and platting of the
property to include site plans, preliminary plat,
grading, drainage and utility plans, architectural plans,
landscape plans. Said architectural plans shall be in
conformance with the Gonyea design framework manual, and
include the use of recessed overhead doors and permanent
canopies to down-play overhead doors.
(b) Submit plans that provide adequate landscape screening
from Highway #5 and the residential land uses with the
use of mass plantings and berming.
(c) Provide a detailed 100 year flood plain elevation design
for review by the DNR.
2. The proponent acknowledges that the Concept Amendment and
Guide Plan Change is based on this concept plan. Further,
that any change from the concept plan will require a return
to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval.
If the Planning Commission feels that an auto service center use
is not appropriate for this site, and that review of the project
cannot be made without a complete submittal of plans, then Staff
would recommend denial without prejudice.
EDENSERV.SAK
5
jt
Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 8, 1990
MOTION 3:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Esberg Corporation for
Site Plan Review on 2.17 acres for construction of a car
wash to be known as Mermaid Car Wash, based on plans dated
December 21, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated January 5, 1990 with the addition of
Item 1.E, The exterior material and color should match
that of the Rainbow Center.
Hallett believed that it was important that this building
not stand out, but blend in with the other buildings.
Ruebling believed that the color should be close to the
Rainbow Center colors.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
F. EDEN SERVICE CENTER, by Rosewood Construction for Aspen
Park Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Office to Community Commercial on 1.5
acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
approximately 37 acres for consideration of a 3,300 square
foot Auto Service Center. Location: Northwest corner of
Fuller Road (extended) and Highway 5.
Kipp noted that the request should be changed from Office
to Community Commercial instead of Neighborhood Commercial
as noted in the packet.
Peter Hilger, representing the proponent, stated that the
request at this time was an approval of the concept for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change and not details of a
specific plan. The proposed tenants for the center would
be a small auto service center and a glass company.
Hilger noted that MnDOT would be taking a large portion of
the property and another large portion of the land was
wetlands, leaving only a small amount of buildable land.
Hilger showed a map which illustrated the location of
other auto service centers in the area. Hilger noted that
a neighborhood commercial district had been established in
this area. Hilger stated that this was only a concept
proposal and the proponent would return with further
details at a later date. Utilities would need to be
brought into the site and the quality of soils marginal.
Hilger believed that the overhead doors could be
adequately screened.
Bauer asked Hilger if his rationale for the Comprehensive
Guide Plan change was that this type of service was
supported by demographics. Hilger replied yes and that
this use would be consistent with the original plat.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 8, 1990
Kipp reported that this parcel was part of the original
Gonyea plat. The request by the proponent was for a
change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan for Community
Commercial use. Kipp stated that a use of this nature
lends itself more to an area of Regional character where
other commercial uses would be nearby. In addition this
use would not be compatible with the view from the
residential areas across the wetland. Kipp stated that
any use on this site would require architecture which
blend in with the PUD. Kipp noted that this was a concept
plan only. He believed that there could be ways to
downplay the overhead doors; however, there would be a
potential for storage problems and screening would be
critical. Kipp stated that traffic generation would be
nominal.
Hilger noted that the original PUD provided for the
construction of a 14,000 square foot office building;
however, because of the space available this type of
building would not be possible. Kipp concurred that a
large portion of property had been taken by MnDOT for
right-of-way.
Hilger stated that regarding the concern for outside
storage, there was no outside storage area being
requested.
Hallett stated that the proponent had presented excellent
background information; however, it was unfortunate that
anything would be developed on this site. Hallett
believed that the use proposed was not appropriate for
this site, but rather the Major Center Area.
Hilger stated that the area to the west of the Major
Center Area was considered as a viable commercial area.
He added that the visual impact would be minimal and
believed that the proposal could be developed very
attractively. Hilger further believed that the objectives
of the original PUD could be accomplished with this
development.
Franzen presented a brief history of the original PUD. He
added that because the commercial growth of the community
was still young that there were other location where this
type of development could occur without a need for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change.
Hilger disagreed that this type of development should
be in the Major Center Area.
Ruebling believed that an office use would serve the area
better and did not find a compelling reason for a change
in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 8, 1990
Bauer noted that because of his representation of an
adjacent property owner he would abstain from voting on
this issue.
Sandstad stated that he appreciated the complexity of the
site;.however, he was not confident that a Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change was appropriate. He added that he did
not have the detail to support such a request.
Hilger asked if further detail were provided if this would
alter the decision. Hallett replied that the proposed use
did not fit in this location and further detail would not
change his outlook.
MOTION 1:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
MOTION 2:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the
City Council denial of the request of Rosewood
Construction for Aspen Park Properties for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Community Commercial
on 1.5 acres and Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment to the overall Gonyea Planned Unit Development
of 37 acres for construction of a 3,300 square foot auto
service center based on the following findings:
1. The proposed land use does not represent the
highest and best use of the property.
Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
G. EDEN PLACE CENTER, by Prairie Entertainment Associates.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
15.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
15.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within
the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 6.42 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 6.42 acres into two lots, and Site Plan Review on
6.42 acres for construction of a 25,742 square foot
building addition to the commercial site. Location: West
of Glen Lane, south and east of Eden Road.
Franzen noted that the concern presented at the previous
presentation by the proponent was if outdoor sales and
display was appropriate for this area.
John Winston, attorney for the proponent, stated that he
had found the Frank's Nursery staff to be knowledgeable
and cooperative. Winston noted that a meeting had been
held with John Teman and George Bentley to address their
concerns. Winston believed that the meeting had resulted
in an acceptable compromise. Winston believed that
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
DATE: February 16, 1990
SUBJECT: Alpine Center Parking Requirements
At the February 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting, Alpine Center
was recommended for approval by a vote of 5-2. The dissenting
votes were in response to a parking shortage for the building
caused by the number of proposed seats in the restaurant patio.
City Code requires 6 spaces/1,000 square feet for retail and 1
space/3 seats in the restaurant. Based upon a retail square
footage of 23,831 and 150 permanent seats within the restaurant,
192 parking stalls are required. The plans depict 192 parking
stalls on-site.
At the Planning Commission meeting, new plans detailing the
restaurant patio were presented. The patio contains approximately
1,350 square feet and has room for 80 additional restaurant seats.
Using the Code requirement for restaurant parking, 28 additional
parking stalls are required. In total, 220 parking stalls would
be required for the shopping center. Because the parking provided
is 28 spaces less than what is required, the Planning Commission
recognized that there would be a parking problem if 80 patio seats
were allowed. As a compromise, the Planning Commission recommended
that the patio have an initial seating capacity of 26 with the
provision that this could be increased to 52 if the 18 additional
parking stalls required by City Code could be provided. To allow
for 26 seats immediately, the Planning Commission recommended that
a waiver through the P.U.D. be granted for 9 parking stalls.
The developer agreed to this limitation and indicated that he would
continue negotiations with the adjacent office building to secure
additional parking. Another alternative would be to provide the
required parking directly across Commonwealth Drive on land the
proponent owns adjacent to the proposed Chi-Chi's. When this
property develops, the land uses proposed must compliment the
restaurant in order that shared parking may occur.
Although the restaurant has met City Code for parking based on 150
permanent seats, information provided by Chi-Chi's and experience
with Ciatti's has indicated that 1 space/3 seats is not adequate
for popular restaurants. Chi-Chi's has indicated that 1 space/2.25
seats is needed to accommodate the peak hour parking demand and
actual traffic counts at Ciatti's have indicated a peak parking
demand of 1 space/1.75 seats.
,i(f
If the ratio of 1 space/1.75 seats or 1 space/2.25 seats were used
for calculating the parking requirements for the Original Pancake
House, a range of 67 to 86 spaces would be required for the
restaurant without the patio and from 90 to 115 with the patio (52
seats). Using these figures, total parking needed for the shopping
center ranges from a minimum of 210 spaces up to a maximum of 258
spaces. This is 18 to 66 spaces less than what is provided.
Based on the analysis of Chi-Chi's and Ciatti's, it is anticipated
that there may not be enough parking for the restaurant. Because
of this, staff recommends that no patio seats be allowed until
additional parking has been provided. This could be accomplished
by either negotiating a cross parking agreement with the adjacent
office building or constructing additional parking on the vacant
land owned by the proponent across Commonwealth Drive adjacent to
the proposed Chi-Chi's. Chi-Chi's has already indicated that they
will be constructing 25 temporary spaces on this land in order to
meet peak parking demand.
ALCTRMO.DRU:bs
STAFF REPORT
f
T.g.: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: February 9, 1990
SUBJECT: Alpine Center
LOCATION: East of Prairie Center Drive, northwest of
Commonwealth Drive
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: The Lariat Companies
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development District Review on
approximately 18 acres with waivers.
2. Zoning District Change from Office to C-
Regional-Sex-vice on 3.58 acres.
3. Site Plan Review on 3.58 acres. __ __
BACKGROUND .._
This item was reviewed and - - -..-
. ., ‘... :
,
.
recommended for approval at the • ...._ .I November 27, 1989 Planning . tftEG-SE:i r,
- 1 ,Commission meeting. At the •
I 5
I • `SF
1 ! -
December 19, 1989 City Council
meeting, this item was tabled
,
for revisions which were k•- 1 ! . I --. •,
considered significant and C-REG-SE
would require additional N.
Planning Commission review.
•REG---..1.- - - - C-REG ' ,•
PLAN REVISIONS
SITE PLAN •REGIni
i .y-PROPOSED SITE
The site plan depicts a 29,551 %......••••;11nr. ,•-'1?•`‘
square foot retail building on ', `;•,;•74 '.' -,'s C
a 3.58 acre site. The tenant RM- fr. 'r.
., .. m mix includes a 5,720 square ,, nui
t,7 . '
foot restaurant and 23,831 ;
square feet of retail space. ' . BM-2.5 . , , Nu)
. ,
Changes to the site plan 4‘ ,'
PUB..-....._
1 .
C-R .4' 0,ftga
, . C-REGS- F
AREA LOCATION MAP
include the elimination of the driveway around the building due to
the required grading, the addition of an outdoor patio area
adjacent to the restaurant, and a redesigned parking lot.
GRADING
The previous proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission was
designed based upon the ability of the developer to acquire an
agreement to grade off-site. This agreement has not been reached
with the adjacent property owner. In order to build this project
with a finished floor elevation of 850, a 300 foot long retaining
wall ranging from 0 to 18 feet in height is required. Because of
the size of the retaining wall, the wall must be designed and
certified by an engineer, with specific details submitted to the
Building Department before permitting. Due to extensive retaining
wall failure as a result of past rain storms, concern has been
raised regarding the use of retaining walls. A major cause of
retaining wall failure is poor drainage in which the water flows
over the top of the retaining wall. The proposed grading plan
indicates runoff over the top of the retaining wall. Prior to City
Council review, the grading plan must be revised to reflect
drainage around the retaining wall.
Access to the rear of the building will be provided by an 8 foot
walk between the building and the retaining wall for exiting
purposes. In addition, access is provided at the ends of the
building for trash containers.
PARKING
Based upon a restaurant and patio area with a maximum seating
capacity of 150, and a retail building size of 23,831 square feet,
a total of 193 parking stalls are required. A total of 195 parking
stalls are provided on-site. Staff recommends that 4 parking
stalls adjacent to the building be eliminated and end islands be
constructed for drive lane definition (see Attachment A).
There is no indication of the number of outdoor seats possible.
However, because the parking lot will contain only 191 parking
stalls, a 150 seat maximum for both the restaurant and patio area
is required to meet City Code. Prior to Council review, a detailed
outdoor eating area plan shall be submitted.
LANDSCAPING
Based upon a building size of 29,551 square feet, a total of 92
caliper inches of plant material is required. In addition,
significant tree loss on the site is 100% or 92 caliper inches.
City Code requires a total of 184 caliper inches of overstory
trees. The landscape plan depicts a total of 168 caliper inches.
Due to the location of the outdoor patio area adjacent to Prairie
Center Drive, Staff recommends that additional landscaping be
2
3i)9
planted between the right-of-way and patio area.
BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
The only change to the building architecture is the addition of an
outdoor patio area adjacent to Prairie Center Drive. The location
of the patio is within the frontyard setback and would require a
waiver through the PUD for setbacks. Staff is comfortable with
this providing, however, that the proponent agrees not to enclose
this as part of the building or design it with an overhead awning
or canopy in the future.
For commercial projects, rooftop mechanical equipment is typically
screened by a continuous parapet wall. The building elevations
indicate a parapet wall along a portion of the front of the
building but leaves the ends of the building open. Because of
this, it is anticipated that all mechanical equipment will be
visible from Prairie Center Drive. The extension of a continuous
parapet wall around the building would provide a permanent solution
to mechanical equipment screening.
SIGNAGE
An overall signage plan depicting size, color, letter type, and
location on the building has not been submitted. Signage is an
important aspect of the project and requires review by Staff. A
signage plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on approximately 18 acres,
Zoning District Change from Office to C-Regional-Service on 3.58
acres, and Site Plan Review on 3.58 acres based on revised plans
dated February 7, 1990, Staff Report dated February 9, 1990, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall:
(a) Revise the landscape plan to provide an additional 16
caliper inches of plant material to meet City Code. An
irrigation system shall be installed to maintain the
plant material. Additional landscape material shall be
planted around the patio area to provide a buffer between
Prairie Center Drive.
(b) An overall signage plan shall be submitted depicting
size, color, letter type, and location on the building.
The building elevations shall be revised to reflect the
designated sign band.
3
(c) Color and samples of exterior building materials shall
be provided.
(d) Revise the building elevations to depict a continuous
parapet wall to screen mechanical equipment.
(e) Revise the grading plan to reflect drainage around the
retaining wall.
2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
(a) Submit detailed 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.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall:
(a) Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours
in advance of grading and stake the construction limits
with a snow fence.
(b) Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshall.
(c) Submit detailed engineering drawings for the retaining
wall construction.
4. Proponent shall agree to limit the maximum number of seats at
any one time within the restaurant and patio area to 150.
ALPINE1.DRU:mmr
4
3a9E
1
_i .VL,UU.IU N j
ZC 99C I ,\ d. i" 8"
1r-1 .,� J �I 7 a oa
mpg
e IT
F
C� 1
a �� " gg eon SL
,6 s;630Yd9 SI x y 3 V
n by
m .
I- m
ISy`1
.6 dMOUSn "' j-
.6-N 93abdS Pt '
L al \ - '�
_`sg
1i`S
!S a 1` \
L' .6 NS30YdS rl .. �'a3
V
'� n F •
'-! o
'''‘,.,_;.;8e,:t \ec..\-; ...\ii ix:
a j
O 6 d S30YdS 9%:. . Oa .�
0 ,' 4, \\I
2 Ci:' : I.15 tl S30,085 Ot '
6 S3DYdB Ls ;�
\ ...
IA;2'
r j
s
B S3bd4 51 �. v $
T
U.'
-- -mod \ S �, �5�9., $
b
w0
\ 5
6 \ \ ♦ BIN0p.��
96 p
9 P /a \ `\ `ti 5" _0 9;- //
P \ 81y 26�92 \ 1\� /
8T��g _ , — R/�y � � /
\
O.a .mil / „- , 11
S
l
- "............, - _ -1,.. - ATTACHMENT A
/ Jd
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION $ 90-46
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHI-CHI•S RESTAURANT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL CHI-CHI'S RESTAURANT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code
provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas
located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Chi-Chi's Restaurant development is considered
a proper amendment to the overall Preserve.Area G Planned Unit
Development Concept; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public
hearing on the request of Consul Restaurant Corporation for PUD
Concept Amendment approval to the overall Preserve Area G Planned
Unit Development Concept for the Chi-Chi's Restaurant development
and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February
20, 1990;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Chi-Chi's Restaurant development PUD Concept
Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and
legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment
approval to the overall Preserve Area G Planned Unit
Development Concept as outlined in the application
materials for Chi-Chi's Restaurant.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations
of the Planning Commission dated January 22, 1990.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of
February, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-47
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CHI-CHI'S RESTAURANT
FOR CONSUL RESTAURANT CORPORATION
HE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Chi-Chi's Restaurant for Consul
Restaurant Corporation, dated January 5, 1990, consisting of 18
acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be
in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein
approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 20th day of
February, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
LJvJ
Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 22, 1990
January 19, 1990 and further that with respect to
recommendation 1.E, the Planning Commission did not view this
as a necessary requirement because the column without the
stone appeared to be a better architectural integration.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
Bye requested that the traffic be monitored closely.
D. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on approximately 18 acres, Zoning
District CHange from Office to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review
on 3.56 acres for construction of a 29,700 sq. ft. retail
center. Location: Northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive
and Commonwealth Drive. A continued public hearing.
Uram reported that the proponent had requested a continuance.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to continue to the February
12, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0.
E. CHI-CHITS RESTAURANT,by Consul Restaurant Corporation.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 18
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers,
Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning
District, and Site Plan Review on 3.99 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 3.99 acres into three lots for construction of a 7,390
sq. ft. restaurant. Location: Southwest corner of Middleset
Road and Crystal View Road. A public hearing.
Bill Etter, representing the proponent, gave a brief
presentation regarding the history of the company. He added
that Chi-Chi's would employee approximately 100 to 150 people
and that the company worked to become good corporate citizens
of the community.
Lee Madden, architect for the proponent, stated that the NSP
easement had presented had obstacle for the development
resulting in a change in location of the building on the site.
A convenient drop-off area was provided at the front door.
A common street access would provide access to the other lots.
Madden noted that NSP also had restrictions regarding the
landscaping on the easement which would be adhered to.
Decorative lamps would be placed along Commonwealth Drive.
The facility would be a 7400 square foot, one story building.
The exterior of the building would incorporate brick with a
stucco accent. The brick would be a brown color with a cream
colored stucco. Three exterior signs were presented.
Uram reported that the exterior building material must be
consistent with Alpine Center. He added that Staff would make
Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 22, 1990
a final decision when the sample were provided. The
Engineering Department was recommending that the 6 inch
watermain be extended through the site.
Hallett asked Uram if Staff wanted to see the actual brick
sample and then make a recommendation regarding color. Uram
replied that Staff was concerned about the color.
Ruebling asked if the Alpine Center plans were far enough
along to be able to accomplish a color match. Julie Skarda,
representing the Lariat Company, replied that they were
comfortable that a color match could be made.
Bauer asked Madden if the proponent was in agreement with
Staff regarding the elimination of the off-site sign. Madden
replied that the proponent concurred and further considered
this to be a positive improvement.
MOTION 1:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Consul Restaurant
Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to
the overall Preserve Commercial Park North (Area G) Planned
Unit Development on 18 acres for construction of a 7,390 sq.
ft. Chi Chi's Restaurant, based on plans dated January 5,
1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
January 19, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Consul Restaurant
Corporation for Planned Unit Development District Review, with
waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser
Zoning District on 3.99 acres for construction of a 7,390 sq.
ft. Chi Chi's Restaurant, based on plans dated January 5,
1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
January 19, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Consul Restaurant
Corporation for Site Plan Review on 3.99 acres for
construction of a 7,390 sq. ft. Chi Chi's Restaurant, based
on plans dated January 5, 1990, subject to the recommendations
`t U
Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 22, 1990
of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990. Motion carried
4-0-0.
MOTION 5: j
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Consul Restaurant
Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 3.99 acres into one lot
for construction of a 7,390 sq. ft. Chi Chi's Restaurant,
based on plans dated January 5, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to adjourn the meeting at 9:45
PM. Motion carried 4-0-0.
< <
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Planning Director
DATE: January 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Chi-Chi's Restaurant
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Middleset Road and Crystal View
Road
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Lariat Companies, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
18 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 18 acres.
3. Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg
-Service Zoning District and Site Plan Review
on 3.99 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat 3.99 acres into 2 lots.
Background I p
C-REG-SER� U C-HWY-
This site is part of the
Preserve Commercial Park North •• C-HWY
(Area G) which was reviewed and r C-REQ-SFR-� k
approved in 1973. The subject , .
is Lot 1, Block 1, 1
property aFc_i }-' C-REG,
Preserve Commercial Park North
end Addition which was approved ;6. ' , 3E2:, PROPOSED SITE
in 1984. The overall PUD for .
this area depicted restaurants, N
office, and retail shops on ' 9M-2.5 ) )
this particular site. Adjacent
land uses include vacant PUB
property to the north, office 1 it! I� •
to the west, Prairie View Drive C- rE' C REG DER
RF�g
to the south, and Crystal View f C-REG-S
Road to the east. This site is �(`.`+ _ _,-_
guided Regional Commercial and y;•\`,1 i,._-.. RM-2.5 =en
zoned C-Reg-Service. The ��•,,\ ;""'I 1 :Rn
proponent is requesting a .� '--1- -- -�-"`
Zoning District amendment ' --- t
within the C-Reg-Service Zoning
.4♦ ... IN
'r
` AREA LOCATION MAP
1 < <
District in order to develop a 7,390 square foot Chi-Chi's
restaurant.
Overall Concept Plan
The overall concept plan for the entire 3.99 acre site depicts
three lots with potential land uses including a bank and a
retail/commercial building. These land uses are consistent with
the approved PUD. The concept plan is not subject to any current
approvals.
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
The site plan depicts a 7,390 square foot Chi-Chi's restaurant on
a 1.82 acre lot. Based upon a site size of 1.82 acres, a Base Area
Ratio (B.A.R.) of 9.3% has been calculated. A 20% B.A.R. is
allowed within this zoning district. The remaining lot contains
2.2 acres. It is anticipated that this lot will be further
subdivided with future development as indicated on the concept
plan.
In the C-Reg-Service Zoning District, the minimum setbacks include
a 35 foot front yard setback, 20 foot side yard setbacks, and a 10
foot rear yard setback. The building and parking areas meet the
minimum setback requirements except for the trash enclosure
located along the west property line and parking along the south
lot line. These waivers are created by the desire to provide joint
access into the project site.
Based upon a restaurant containing 300 seats, a total of 100
parking stalls are required. The plans depict 124 spaces. In
order to improve on-site circulation, Staff is recommending that
five parking stalls along the south property line and two parking
stalls along the Commonwealth Drive access be eliminated (see
Attachment A) . Because the site is surrounded on three sides by
streets, parking is allowed to come within one-half of the front
yard setback, or 17.5 feet on two frontages. The plans depict that
the 17.5 foot setback would be maintained on Middleset Road and
Crystal View Road.
Access into the project would be provided by Commonwealth Drive and
Crystal View Road. A joint access easement will be required on
Crystal View Road to allow access to the property to the south.
Traffic
The approved Preserve Commercial Park North PUD indicated a p.m.
peak hour trip generation total of 740 trips. This development
would generate approximately 77 peak hour trips. With
approximately 2.17 acres of vacant land remaining developed as
commercial at a 20% B.A.R., approximately 49 p.m. peak hour trips
may be generated. Overall the PUD would generate approximately
588 p.m. peak hour trips, or a 22% reduction from the approved PUD.
c?.)6
I C C
Grading
This site has been previously graded and is level except for a 2:1
slope located along Middleset Road and Crystal View Road. This
slope extends for approximately 15 feet and ranges from the 846
contour to the 854 contour elevation. Minimum grading is required
to construct the building and parking areas. A retaining wall is
required adjacent Middleset Road and Crystal View Road in order to
maintain a 3:1 slope. The retaining wall ranges to a maximum of
height of 4 feet.
Because Middleset Road and Crystal View Road are higher than the
parking areas, no berming is possible for screening purposes. The
screening of this area must be accomplished through the use of
landscape material. At the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and
Middleset Road, Staff recommends that a berm be constructed to help
screen parking areas.
Utilities
Water and sanitary sewer service is available by connections made
in Commonwealth Drive and Crystal View Road. The 6 inch water line
must be extended through the subject property with this development
in order to provide a looped water system.
Storm water runoff is proposed to be collected within a catch basin
system in the parking lot and discharged into an existing 48 inch
storm sewer pipe which extends through the center of the lot.
Storm water runoff calculations are subject to review by the City
and Watershed District.
Landscaping
Based upon a building size of 7,390 square feet, a total of 23
caliper inches of plant material is required. Due to the 165 foot
NSP power easement which extends through the center of the project,
all plant material must be less than 15 feet in height at maturity.
Because of this, the majority of the plant material proposed
includes ornamental trees, evergreen shrubs, and ground cover. The
landscape plan is designed to compliment the landscape proposal for
the Alpine Center, which is located directly across the street.
Architecture
The proposed Chi-Chi's restaurant measures approximately 110 feet
by 70 feet and is 20 feet in height which is allowed within the C-
Reg-Service Zoning District. The primary building material
includes cream colored face-brick with four false chimneys
constructed out of cream colored stucco. The Site Plan Review
Ordinance requires that materials, colors, textures, and
construction details be compatible with other structures in the
Uu )
C
vicinity. To provide compatibility within the area, a brick color
complementing those buildings adjacent to U.S. #169 and Alpine
Center should be selected.
In order to screen mechanical equipment, a four foot high parapet
wall around the entire building is proposed. An overhead garage
door exists along the south building elevation for loading purposes
which will be screened by a 6-10 foot high brick screening wall.
Pedestrian Systems
The plans depict a 5 foot concrete sidewalk located on all street
frontages.
Signage/Licihtinq
Beyond the standard Chi-Chi's building signage, two monument signs
are being proposed. A 54 square foot sign is located at the
entrance point from Commonwealth Drive into the property which
meets City Code requirements. An off-site Chi-Chi's sign is
proposed at the intersection of Crystal View Road and Prairie
Center Drive. City Code does not allow off-site signs. In order
to allow this sign, a waiver would be required through the PUD.
Typically, waivers or variances have not been granted for off-site
signs because of the concern about setting a precedent.
All lighting would be the same as the decorative standard used in
the Alpine Center project.
Staff Recommendations
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of a Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 18 acres, a Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 18 acres, Zoning
District Amendment within the C-Reg-Service Zoning District and
Site Plan Review on 3.99 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 3.99 acres
into 2 lots, based upon revised plans dated January 5 and January
16, 1990, the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990, and subject to
the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall:
(a) Revise the Site Plan to reflect the elimination of the
off-site sign located at the intersection of Prairie
Center Drive and Crystal View Road.
(b) Submit colors and samples of the exterior building
materials. Colors should be compatible with other
buildings in the area including the proposed Alpine
Center.
(c) Submit an irrigation system plan to help maintain the
landscaping on the project site.
(:'u
C C
(d) Revise the grading plan to reflect a berm at the
intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Middleset Road.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proponent shall:
(a) Submit detailed 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.
3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall:
(a) Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours
in advance of grading.
(b) Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshall.
C ,Ib
' i
r c.o r
1_ . 1
o L c~ r 00 .,� '1
r- ; Pw? Z r
_. • _ __ __ _ i =
EC ? rJ _ M
I' 25' F—�i .'. .'.'.•./Or'.:.:.'.'.' $6 2
'.i.. . ..,,... 1
r Av
r g
_.
:,u g tilt Kam ... \ _. . .
T ♦ro �c
C o „ C-•. t rt \
` & CZ Z" L rL Lg m 'R
W it: Z• c'c mo 7' $T 1 /
fa ii-, %1114t I.:. 28' lt ,3_ iS) 1)
r (''. y
\ ;1. '' # 361 tfii ,\ ,,,
\ Oy
.. W�yCe \V / ,/7 W-M_oi •. .. •. f ..,
N)N NS' i. .`t:.4%,6„ '‘....,, \ 7,‘1,1. ..,, /-..-.
/
PpE
Z. \• - ,/
`! ¶
ATTACHMENT A
� i i c $f x d v �L, E 1 - o 1'1 2: Y T Z f
Rp pp
k « g o $? c�5 E 5« v? RI S ri I^F,rl
c
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-42
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
•
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal of Hustad Development for development
of Bluffs East 7th for 25 multi-family units requires the amendment
of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as
follows: 1.7 acres located on the northwest corner of County Road
18 and Bluff Road from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of
February, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
{
IiI
1111
A
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
t HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 190-43
A RESOLUTION APPROVING TEE BLUFFS EAST 7TH
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL BLUFFS EAST 7TH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code
provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas
located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Bluffs East 7th development is considered a
proper amendment to the overall Bluff Country Planned Unit
Development Concept; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public
• hearing on the request of Hustad Development for PUD Concept
Amendment approval to the overall Bluff Country Planned Unit
Development Concept for the Bluffs East 7th development and
recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February
20, 1990;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Bluffs East 7th development PUD Concept Amendment,
being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally
described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment
approval to the overall Bluff Country Planned Unit
Development Concept as outlined in the application
materials for Bluffs East 7th.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations
of the Planning Commission dated January 22, 1990.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of
February, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION $90-44 1
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS EAST 7TH
FOR HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluffs East 7th for Hustad
Development, dated December 22, 1989, consisting of 1.7 acres, a
copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in
conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein
approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 20th day of
February, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
1
41y
J
Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 22, 1990
•
divided into two lots.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Cambridge Group for
Preliminary Plat of 2.7 acres into two lots for Raven Wood 3rd
Addition, based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19,
1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.7 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Site Plan Review on
7.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 12.15 acres into 25 multi-
family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location:
Northwest corner of County Road 18 and Bluff Road.
Franzen reported that this proposal was reviewed in October,
1989 and was denied because of lack of transition between this
development and the single family units. The plan has been
revised to provide internalized access, with all the homes
facing the cul-de-sac. The number of units had been reduced
from 26 to 25 units.
Wallace Hustad, the proponent, said that double units had been
very successful in another section of the Bluffs project and
he would like to expand the double units to this area. The
plans had been revised based on Staff recommendations to
reduce the number of units from 26 to 25, change the access
to remove the 4 driveways previously proposed along Bluff
Road, change the unit design for the buildings around the pond
to consist of 3 units instead of 2 units, the number of units
along Bluff Road were reduced from 5 to 4, and additional
berming and landscaping would be provided along Bluff Road.
Hustad believed that the multiple-units would enhance the
overall development in this area in the same manor as the
units had been an asset for the Creek Knolls development.
Hustad stated that he would make a firm commitment to leave
the single family zoning of the area to the west as it
currently exists.
Ljjq
Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 22, 1990
Ruebling asked for clarification on the character of the
berming to the south of the project. Mary McCawly,
representing the proponent, replied that the berm to the south
would be 4-to-5 feet in some areas and as high as 8 feet in
other locations. She added that conifer trees, small shrubs,
and ornamental trees would be used for additional screening.
Ruebling asked what the setbacks would be from the new right-
of-ways. Hustad replied approximately 70 to 75 feet from the
blacktop.
Franzen reported that the Planning Commission had been
concerned about the lack of transition in the previous
proposal. He added that with the revisions presented the
transition has been improved. The berming would vary in
height from 4 to 8 feet, a greater setback was provided due
to the positioning of the units, which would allow for larger
screening material to be planted. Franzen noted that the
proponent has indicated that the zoning for the property to
the west would remain single-family and an adequate transition
would be provided. Franzen requested that the proponent
provide a plan with the actual screening material depicted
prior to City Council review of this proposal.
Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stat''d that he was still
opposed to the proposal. He stated that the original plat was
to be for 20 units, which has now been increased to 25.
Gensmer was concerned about the transition before and still
believed that the transition was not adequate. Gensmer stated
that at the meeting in October the Planning Commission had
said that a compelling reason for a Comprehensive Guide Plan
change had not been shown. He believed that a compelling
reason had yet to be presented by the proponent. Gensmer
stated that he wanted to preserve the integrity of the area.
He believed that double units on Bluff Road were not
appropriate and the zoning should be left single-family.
Bauer asked Gensmer what he would suggest for an adequate
transition. Gensmer replied that he would prefer the zoning
remain single-family. Gensmer added that he was concerned
that a bargain was being made that if the property to the west
remained zoned single-family, it would be acceptable to change
the zoning on this portion of the development.
Diane Luke, 10450 Whitetail, stated that she would like to
see the townhouses developed in this area. Luke believed that
it would help the transition between the expensive homes and
the single-family homes. She added that the units which had
already been constructed were attractive and would enhance
the area.
Dean Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, stated that the existing
twinhomes were attractive. He added that the developer needed
'Ii1
4
Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 22, 1990
to be able to develop according to the market demand. Luke
believed that smaller single-family homes would increase the
traffic more than the twinhome units.
Hallett believed that it was very significant that the area
to west remain zoned single-family.
Bauer asked Hustad to clarify the rationale for the
Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Hustad replied that
transition was the main issue. A transition would be provided
for the pond area to the north as well as the area to the
south. Hustad said that because of the land taken away for
right-of-ways the potential construction area had been
reduced. He added that the traffic in the area had changed
over the years. Hustad assured the Planning Commission that
extensive thought had been given to the request for the zoning
change. He said that he did not want to construct a product
which would be detrimental to the remainder of the project.
Ruebling believed that the proponent had addressed the issues
raised previously by the Planning Commission. The revisions
would make this area consistent with the area to the west of
the pond. Ruebling noted that it would be important that an
adequate transition be made for the single-family units to the
west and requested that Staff monitor this carefully.
Bauer believed that the transition had been improved from the
previous plan and was presently adequate. He added that the
proponent had provided additional information at this meeting
to substantiate a Comprehensive Guide Plan change which had
not been available at the meeting in October. Bauer believed
that the twinhomes would be better than single-family units
in this location.
Bye concurred that the screening and berming for the area to
the west was of vital importance. Bye supported the proposal.
Hallett stated that the commitment of the proponent to provide
adequate screening and transition for the area to the west and
the agreement that the zoning for the parcel to the west would
not be changed was an influencing factor.
MOTION 1:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.7 acres for
uli>
•
Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 22, 1990
Bluffs East 7th Addition, based on plans dated December 22,
1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
January 19, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
NOTION 3:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall
Bluff Country Planned Unit Development of 186 acres for Bluffs •
East 7th Addition, for construction of 25 multi-family units,
based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for
Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, and
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.6 acres for
the Bluffs East 7th Addition, based on plans dated December
22, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated January 19, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 5:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for
Preliminary Plat of 12.15 acres into 25 multi-family lots,
three outlots, and road right-of-way for Bluffs East 7th
Addition, based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19,
1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 6:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Site
Plan Review for Bluffs East 7th Addition for 25 multi-family
units, based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
C. PHILLIPS 66, by Phillips 66 Company. Request for Zoning
District Amendment withih the C-Hwy District on 1.22 acres,
with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site
Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 1.22 acres into one lot
for construction of a convenience gas station. Location:
Northeast corner of Highway #169 and West 78th Street. A
public hearing.
411
(�
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Bluffs East 7th Addition
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Bluff Road
and County Road #18.
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
REOUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 1.7 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
186 acres.
3. Planned Unit Development „RA,f6 II1 " ,-,\s c I
District Review with '; , • 1
waivers on 186 acres. I "1 <3'
•
4. Zoning District Change i RM;64 \ '
from Rural to RM-6.5 on , i.-
7.2 acres. rr fy e,- 1 �`+:
\4 ` 6 o
5. Preliminary Plat of 7.2 \..a!5 ` iI i
acres into 25 twin home `,' —�\-1
lots. —-- u.n^w:RM
6. Site Plan Review on 7.2 il I ' I
acres for 25 twin home ' I
units. 02s,13- la11.5 < .
-,rytlF' -..4 Y""rr. •FC
Background TS( .411,-13.5,3�J tip- -
I -
This project was first reviewed PROPOSED SITE i
by the Planning Commission in \ kl
October of 1989. The Planning �� "t?� 1 ( l
Commission recommended denial ,.�.�.��` I
\ �e
of the request for -: /���������r
Comprehensive Guide Plan change N kk1. o t•�444,:�4��; '
because an adequate transition \ ", ` ' -t,-:- _�_`�_4_-'_'i
between the proposed twin home ,,.,. _ o�
AREA LOCATION MAP
units and the single family homes to the south of Bluff Road was
not possible and that the impacts of the higher densities and
larger buildings on lower density areas had not been fully
mitigated.
Revised Site Plan
A revised site plan has been prepared which reduces the number of
units from 26 to 25, with all units internalized off of a public
road. No units will have direct access to Bluff Road. This
provides a larger green area within which large conifers and a berm
can be placed to help provide transition. The overall density of
the project within this area is 3.47 units per acre. This
compares with the approved density of the PUD of 2.78 units per
acre. Although there is an increase in the number of units, unit
orientation and an 8 foot high berm reduces the visibility of the
twin homes to the single family homes across the street.
All the lots meet the minimum square footage, dimensional and
setback requirements of the RM-6.5 Zoning District.
PUD Waivers
Waivers are required for street frontage less than 55 feet for Lots
5, 6, 18, and 19, and for less than 90 feet of street frontage on
Lots 13, 14 and 15. The project could be developed without waivers
by repositioning lot lines, however, this would result in a less
efficient lotting pattern and unusual lot configurations. A PUD
• waiver is also required for a 680 foot long cul-de-sac. The code
currently limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 500 feet. The
initial plan complied with the ordinance but 4 lots had direct
driveway access to Bluff Road. By lengthening the cul-de-sac, all
lots have internal access, eliminating all driveway access to Bluff
Road.
Grading
The entire site must be graded to accommodate the building pads as
proposed. The change in the site plan; shifting building units
around on the property, and the use of walkout units helps reduce
tree loss from the previous plan.
Tree Loss
Tree loss within this proposed subdivision is calculated at 87
caliper inches or 33%. Tree replacement would be 38 caliper
inches.
2
ttf��
Landscaping
The amount of landscaping required for this project would be based
upon the square footage of the buildings, transition, and tree
replacement. The plan depicts 198 inches. Additional large
conifer and shade trees are necessary along Bluff Road and along
the western property lines on the duplexes to provide a buffer zone
to the existing planned single family areas to the west of the
site. Staff would recommend an additional 100 caliper inches of
shade and coniferous trees.
Utilities
All utilities are available on Bluff Road.
Future Development to the West
Since some of the units have a backyard facing future single family •
homes to the west, this provides an opportunity for transition.
Construction of a berm and mass plantings within this area would
provide transition. If the land area to the west were to be
developed for twin homes in the future it would be predicated upon
comparable densities and lot sizes of the Bluffs East 7th Addition
plus the transition to single family areas south of Bluff Road.
Staff Recommendations
Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, PUD Concept
Amendment, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Site Plan Review based
on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990, and predicated upon the
following conditions:
1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall:
(a) Modify the landscaping and grading plan to provide a berm
and mass plantings along the western border of the
project and provide additional plantings along Bluff
Road.
2. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the proponent shall:
(a) Provide plans for review by the Watershed District.
(b) Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion
control plans for review by the City Engineer.
3
ci
3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall:
(a) Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
(b) Notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of grading.
1
(c) Stake the proposed construction limits with a snow fence.
(d) Submit three alternative building elevations for review.
BLUFFE7.MDF:mmr
4
L/
•
HEDLUND
Planning Engineering Surveying -
/ \ i
is
Date. 2,- i 410 TRANSMITTAL
put14.. kyt._46 •
From: -. C.,C t t _ 1
Re: ei 1._ 141...
_ 1
llem(s). No. Description
Purpose:
as you requested _ review and return
tor your information • reply to sender
_ ._ for your approval _ other(see remarks) •
\!
Remarks w &A)
()lax\ g a-uacv 1,-Na,3-e.3 ZA4. s• =.5 NA-. reS-4 cde...,c13 4-L,
cor\•\ce_.4-cu...€ rn agre-t-i 4 , auy, . .
I
9201 East Bloomrngton Freeway,Bloorungton.Monesotu 55490,Telephone(612)888-0289
4':2N
o00000 000IJ��IJ
nt:Il 40!UUUU g
Wel
,, 0
, cg
D
z � � it-._ , [13
im' mni 1^1 00g ViOgi A z,- 11 oz-•
D itt
L.
a ndnnchn t011$rina �,
Wimi i i
W P Qd
Ors /JL,
zi .k4 1
.-. iq2 et 6 'C 4
u 0 I Nthi oh;i1 z
" W " _
Nni fl 11 I
E el 1-< I li g 0 .
liiia
.§ k IMP H2I g
2 '
I— tu
)- - 11 J
<1 ' tl/7 "2
tLi li-..., aL .
ti: E g 1 ! HU J
n Hi 11 11 gli 2.' ' '' 4. ,, ..,
I— g_dd \
= Ill ' , 4, pp 5 ,
E
W
..,.'-"`
\ \ T • .
\ \ \ •\ 00
\ 0 ' I
\ ,
-s- i ri I - - , • - II ligoir,,,, .
,,fs.......,,,,,,-..iiir ,!,.•
• ,f4 ___....„,....,,....„. :,-
ah,e,*,-, is 0,11 ,..,___.,,,,. ....:•,„,,.•---..„,,
_ t .•;,, ,, ,,. .,,,c.„... , . ,.
t_s ... ,,,..,• . , it,,,,,,,..0„,:, i.:;41:,k• ,,,," : It.p.11111.41 li ';'?„,...,
....
lit
.3.:61 T . .
7 wiro
3 .14,,
-------i:--;c.- itzi, - - , 4 ii:.-...11
1,,,, a ..... . .-:-., :,,,,,w
..41"..•
' '1
'IPIN-r '•' • ' - rid1111 b'
kieold . . ,
Vir '
r .i
.. Sr lipik '1:1.
..., 6- 1.-),
,,,....,...,..i.
.,
.....,...
,...,:,..,....„,,,,,,„..4.44,..,........„.... ., . rielzakirVi•.54,., ak', ,,----,•;,,4,,--- , -,A Y 7
...
,..,.- —..:.-r,- ,...4.,;. ,,:•^ ,..is •, ..44r4,1 ., ' .1, A',
" ..k.. ,,,.: ,,, ' 1,4 li V Apt '''-' ' - ' ' •. A
. 1 •
._ .;:---7t'• •-• ' , 2 . •,-: T.4" :' 'Ji,,•", ',,,,,~:":-',
! 0:
TTT—;— .:1, ,,,c,. .1.,,,, At.,a`
1 --. , • t-) N 0 'ES MD ca-7-70t.i.AL. -rp-aE.5
..
•
•
City Council Minutes 6
:Jovemoer 21, 1989
Anderson stated that he would like to see a restriction
which prohibited any cutting of the trees in this area
without the permission of the City. Smith replied that a
notice could be given to the buyer at the time of closing;
however, he cautioned the Cityto be car
eful
1 and not
restrict good engineering practice regarding the storm
water drainage systems to save a few trees.
Tenpas stated that he agreed with the spirit of the Tree
Preservation Policy; however, at times he believed that it
was taken too far.
Anderson asked the Council if it concurred with the
recommendation to terminate Corral Lane. Peterson and
Harris replied that they reluctantly agreed. Anderson
stated that he was concerned that this area was be cut off
for the future and added that the ease of transportation
would be gone. Dietz replied that future access for the
Sandy Pointe Development would be restricted; however,
another access from the property to the south could be
available when this property develops. Anderson then
asked what would be best for the City in relation to the
closing or connection of Corral Lane. Dietz replied that
the connection of Corral Lane would be best for the City.
Motion carried 4-1. (Anderson voted "NO").
B. ALPINE..CENTTR by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 18
acres, Zoning District Change from Office to C-Reg-Ser and
Site Plan Review on 3.56 acres for construction of a 29,
700 square foot retail center. Location: Northeast •
corner of Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive
Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a
continuance of this Public Hearing to the December 19,
1989 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to
the December 19, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. Request
for Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 1.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development
District Review on 186 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.6 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 12.15 acres into 26 multi-family lots,
one outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: West of
County Road 18 and north of Bluff Road.
City Council Minutes
7 November 21, 1989
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to accept the request
for withdrawal of this proposal. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. MINNESOTA VIKINGS INDOOR PRACTICE FACILITY by Kraus
Anderson Construction Company. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 15 acres with waivers, Site
Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment within the I-2
Zoning District on 9 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15 acres
into 1 lot for construction of an indoor football practice
and training complex. Location: 9520 Viking Drive.
Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a
continuance to the February 6, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to
the February 6, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
E. CJURCH_OF JIIB3LEE by Church of the Jubilee. Request for
Site Plan Review on 9.35 acres with variance to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a
3,150 square-foot addition.
Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing was
sent to owners of 13 surrounding properties and published
in the November 8, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Mike Bitner, representing the proponent, presented the
plans fo- an addition to the present structure to consist
of classrooms and an area for teen activities. The
addition would be located on the west end of the existing
building, the existing entrance would be maintained, and
two additional entrances provided. The exterior of the
existing facility consisted of stucco and split-face
concrete block. The proponent had appeared before the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments for a variance for the
exterior building material. The proponent would like the
exterior material to match that of the existing structure;
however, it was willing to compromise and redesign the
exterior to meet City Code if necessary. The proponent
believed that the use of brick would appear foreign along
side the original structure. The 2 mechanical units to be
installed would be adequately screened.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its September 25, 1989 meeting and
had recommended approval on a 6-0-0 vote. The Board of
Appeals and Adjustments had continued this item to its
December 19, 1989 meeting regarding the exterior material.
( ( (
STAFF REPORT
TD: The Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: Dctober 20, 1989
PRDJECT: Bluffs East 7th Addition
APPLICANT/ '
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
LOCATION: West of County Road 18, north of Bluff Road
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.7 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 186 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.6 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 12.15 acres in 26 multi-family lots, one
outlot and road right-of-way.
•-� __,�L— -1.-. `'-‘ 7i,1:=T-•-
5. Site Plan Review. •e'.it:a. a�� •� • . .$.\- i---
Background (j �' 1. Pail- `~ - �`?��.z-"��
• d- y
This site is part of the approved vcril4 is '
1986 Bluff Country PUD which / ^ i --- f b ir.`
depicted 385 total units on 186 ) o��Ff
acres at an overall density of 2.D7 ' ' ~rr r_...� as T
cc. ONrt jaa_ 1
units per acre. The PUD was a 11
y;8
mixture of small lot R1-9.5 units, � ;_
R1-13.5 units, and some Medium ____ _ "�M'; ;a,,,,,, L
Density Residential on an outlot
adjacent to County Road 18. I I
The Bluffs East 7th Addition is `�4.° 1�''``�� `—
currentl guided Medium Density (R1- L .tuAL -rawer 0FC =;
9.5) and Low Density Residential ;s( -,-ft]T13-5� 1 y- -
(R1-13.5) along the north side of - `_ •,a ` ,
Bluff Road. --... PROPOSED SITE
...„... — 'Pe' ''', .-gq..) 1
.as, „ _gun ���A�a�. j :yi
T
C F
Li ,) AREA LOCATION MAP
Bluffs East 7th Addition 2 October 20, 1989
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
The proponent is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the area
previously designated on the PUD for R1-13.5 lots. The R1-13.5 lots were included
as part of the PUD as a transition to the areas guided Low Density Residential on
the south side of Bluff Road. The change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan is
dependent upon how well the site plan mitigates the impacts of increased density and
larger units on the surrounding area.
Planned Unit Development Concept Revision
The revised PUD amends an R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 area from 20 single family lots to 26
twin home units. This increases the total number of units within the overall PUD to
396 and the density would increase from 2.07 to 2.1 units per acre. Density on the
Bluffs East 7th Addition site would increase from 2.6 to 3.6 units per acre.
Land Use Transition
The R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 area was designated in this location to provide a transition
between the higher densities proposed for the multiple family outlot along Highway
18 to the north of this site and the existing guided Low Density area to the south
side of Bluff Road. Since the density is greater and the unit types are larger than
the original PUD, the transition is not as gradual as originally contemplated.
Transitions should occur across rear lot lines as is the case between the Bluffs
East 6th Addition and the future single family homes north of this site. Alternative
site plans which could provide a better transition include:
A. Internalize the site plan with lots 21 thru 26 having access off an
extension of Wood Duck Circle;
B. Less lots along Bluff Road frontage;
C. Side load lots 23 thru 26 such that the ends of the units face Bluff Road.
Lots 21 and 22 would have access off Duck Lake Circle;
D. The lots facing Bluff Road could be for single family homes so that the
transition would be completely within the developer's project.
Since twin homes abut the north and east sides of Outlot A, it can be anticipated
that the future use of this area could also be for twin homes. The transition is an
issue for this portion of the outlot which faces the Low Density guided areas on the
south side of Bluff Road. An overall development plan should be submitted for this
outlot so that the transition issue can be resolved at this time.
Preliminary Plat
The Preliminary Plat depicts the subdivision of 7.65 acres into 26 twin home lots at
a density of 3.6 units per acre. The RM-6.5 Zoning District would allow up to 6.7
units per acre. All lots meet the minimum square footage, dimensional, and street
frontage requirements for the RM-6.5 Zoning District.
Outlot B along Bluff Road and County Road 18 would be for road right-of-way. •
y^t
C C C C
Bluffs East 7th Addition 3 October 20, 1989
Grading and Tree Loss
The entire site will be graded in order to accommodate the development plan as
proposed. The tree inventory indicates a total of 246 inches of significant trees.
Tree loss would be 81 caliper inches or 26% of the tree inventory. Since the tree
inventory depicts trees offsite on the adjacent outlot scheduled for future
development, these trees cannot be reused as a credit against tree loss on the
proposed multiple family outlot to the north.
Landscaping
The amount of landscaping required for this project is based upon a caliper inch
requirement according to building square footage. The Landscape Plan should be
revised to meet the caliper inch requirement and provide for 28 caliper inches of
tree replacement.
Architectural Oiversity Plan
An Architectural Oiversity Plan with three different building elevations, with no
two units alike side by side, opposite or diagonally across from each other, should
be submitted for review.
Utilities
All utilities are available in Bluff Road adjacent to this site. Storm water runoff
is proposed to drain into the ponding area on the outint to the north. A study is
currently underway which analyzes the ability of this pond to hold storm water
runoff and alternative ways of providing an outlet from this pond.
Pedestrian Systems
As part of the overall Bluff Country PUD Pedestrian System, there will be a five
foot wide concrete sidewalk and an eight foot trail along Bluff Road.
Conclusions
Although the increase in density across the entire 186 acre PUD is not appreciable,
the increase in density on the 7.65 acre property is significant because of the
relationship to the existing Low Oensity guided areas on the south side of Bluff
Road. The following are alternatives for the area on the north side of Bluff Road
which could provide a better land use transition to the south which would still
allow them to be developed for single family homes.
1. Reduce the twin home density to the approved PUO density of 2.6 units per
acre.
2. Oevelop the property in accordance with the approved PUD for a combination
of R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 lots.
3. Revise the site plan for any of the following: internalized access for lots
21 thru 26 off an extension of Wood Ouck Circle; side loading lots 21 thru
26 such that the ends of the units face Bluff Road; less lots along Bluff
Road frontage; and the lots facing Bluff Road could be for single family
homes.
c;,'
( ( < <
Bluffs East 7th Addition 4 October 20, 1989
Staff Recommendations
The following are alternative courses of action for Commission consideration:
I. If the Planning Commission feels that compelling reasons have been provided
for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, that the PUD amendment is
acceptable, and that appropriate transition has been provided, one option
would be to recommend approval of the plans dated October 18, 1989 subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 20, 1989 and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
(a) Submit a revised Landscape Plan which includes tree
replacement which meets City Code.
(b) Submit three alternative building elevations in
accordance with an Architectural Diversity Plan of
no two units alike side by side, opposite or
directly across from each other.
2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall:
(a) Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion
control plans for review by the Water Shed District.
(b) Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and
erosion control plans for review by the City
Engineer.
3. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
(a) Notify the City and WaterShed District at least 48
hours in advance of grading. Stake all grading
limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost outside of
the limits shall be replaced on an area inch per
area inch basis.
(b) Stake the construction limits with erosion control
fencing.
4. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
(a) Pay the appropriate cash park fee
(b) Submit building material samples and colors for
review
II. If the Planning Commission feels that compelling reasons have not been made
for a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, that the PUD amendment is not
consistent with the overall intent of the approved PUD, and that the
transition is not effective to the area south of Bluff Road, then one option
would be to return the development plans to the proponent for revisions.
MDF:mmr:BLUFFS7 4 3(�
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-45
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PHILLIPS 66
FOR PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Phillips 66 for Phillips 66 Company,
dated January 8, 1990, consisting of 1.22 acres into 1 lot for
construction of a convenience gas station, a copy of which is on
file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the
provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and
amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 20th day of
February, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 22, 1990
Bluffs East 7th Addition, based on plans dated December 22,
1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
January 19, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall
Bluff Country Planned Unit Development of 186 acres for Bluffs
East 7th Addition, for construction of 25 mult i-family units,
based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for
Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, and
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.6 acres for
the Bluffs East 7th Addition, based on plans dated December
22, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated January 19, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 5:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for
Preliminary Plat of 12.15 acres into 25 multi-family lots,
three outlots, and road right-of-way for Bluffs East 7th
Addition, based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19,
1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 6:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Site
Plan Review for Bluffs East 7th Addition for 25 multi-family
units, based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
C. PHILLIPS 66, by Phillips 66 Company. Request for Zoning
District Amendment within the C-Hwy District on 1.22 acres,
with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site
Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 1.22 acres into one lot
for construction of a convenience gas station. Location:
Northeast corner of Highway #169 and West 78th Street. A
public hearing.
y��
Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 22, 1990
John Bacus, representing the proponent, presented the plans
for a state-of-the-art service station/convenience store and
carwash. Natural stone would be the primary exterior
material. Bacus presented pictures of existing facilities.
Extensive landscaping and an adequate buffer was provided
between this facility and the church, and a four-foot berm
would be placed along Highway 169. The traffic for the car
wash would enter from the north and exit onto 78th Street.
Bacus noted that all of the Staff recommendations had been
incorporated into the plan with the exception of 1.E regarding
the stone for the canopy columns. Bacus believed that the
design as shown on the plans presently was well integrated and
did not detract from the overall appearance of the facility.
He believed that it would be difficult to place the stone
around such a small area. Bacus believed that the issue for
Staff was a concern regarding setting a precedent and not
necessarily the appearance of the present design. Bacus
concluded by requesting that consideration be given to the
removal of recommendation 1.E.
Bauer asked why the car wash was being added. Bacus replied
that a car wash attracted business.
Bye asked if there would be an area available for oil changes,
etc. Bacus replied no.
Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the proposal.
Uram concurred that the stone shown in the pictures was
unattractive and that the metal columns were acceptable. He
added however, that the City had in the past approved several
service stations and had requested that the columns be built
out of the same building materials.
Bauer asked how much stacking distance would be available at
the gas pumps. Bacus replied the stacking distance would be
for 3 to 4 cars. Bauer then asked where the employees would
park. Bacus replied that one handicap space and 4 additional
parking spaces would be provided along the north end of the
facility.
Jack Grier, 9848 Crestwood Terrace, was concerned about the
traffic flow and the potential for a significant increase in
traffic in an area which was already susceptible to accidents.
He added that he was also concerned about an adequate stacking
distance for the car wash.
Mark Namtvedt, 10885 Hyland Terrace, stated that he too was
concerned with traffic in this area. He noted that at this
curve, the traffic seemed to accelerate its speed. Namtvedt
said that he owned a station with a car wash and had been told
by the City that he was responsible for sanding and salting
the road by the exit of the car wash. He added that it
Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 22, 1990
appeared that this station would also have the potential to
cause an icy condition on the street. Namtvedt concurred that
the stacking distance for the car wash should be increased.
Namtvedt said that this would be a nice facility and he
welcomed the competition; however, he was concerned about the
traffic.
Bacus stated that a traffic study had been conducted by a firm
chosen by the City and the report stated that there were no
traffic problems. He added that the car wash was equipped
with a dryer and a trench was planned to handle any potential
icing problem.
Uram stated that he understood the residents concerns
regarding traffic and this was why the City had requested that
a traffic study be conducted. He added that it was the
conclusion of the study that the traffic pattern as proposed
would work well for this location.
Hallett asked if the speed of the traffic at the curve and the
sight distances at this location had been checked. Uram
replied that these items had been specifically requested.
Bye asked what the traffic threshold was for this area. Uram
replied that the intersection at 78th Street currently
operated at a level "Fn.
Grier asked if the traffic pattern could be changed to exit
onto Leona Road. Bacus replied that studies indicated that
this facility would not generate additional traffic above what
presently existed.
Hallett asked if the speed limit could be reduced in this
area. Uram replied that the speed limit was determined by the
State.
Ruebling was also concerned about the safety issue and asked
if the berming would hinder the sight distance. Uram replied
that the berming was setback far enough to not affect the
sight distance.
Hallett asked how the firm was chosen to perform the traffic
study. Uram replied that the City requests bids and had
selected BRW because of its knowledge of the major center
area.
Bye stated that she shared the residents concerns regarding
the traffic; however, the experts had reported that the design
would work.
Ruebling stated that precedent was important; however, the
architectural integrity of the facility was also important.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 22, 1990
Ruebling believed that the stone covering would make the
columns stand out, where the design presented by the proponent
would mask their appearance. He added that he would not
object to the removal of the recommendation requesting the
stone covered columns. Bauer concurred. Uram replied that
Staff had not been provided with information on how it would
look with the flat stone. Bacus stated that it was difficult
to provide information on how the stone would look because it
had not been done before.
Ruebling asked if the driveway design would be changed from
what currently existed. Uram replied no.
NOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Phillips 66 Company for
Zoning District Amendment within the C-Hwy District on 1.22
acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
for construction of a convenience gas station, based on plans
dated January 8, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated January 19, 1990 and further that with
respect to recommendation 1.E, the Planning Commission did not
view this as a necessary requirement because the column
without the stone appeared to be a better architectural
integration. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Phillips 66 Company for
Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres within the C-Hwy District, for
construction of a convenience gas station, based on plans
dated January 8, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated January 19, 1990 and further that with
respect to recommendation 1.E, the Planning Commission did not
view this as a necessary requirement because the column
without the stone appeared to be a better architectural
integration. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Phillips 66 Company for
Preliminary Plat of 1.22 acres into one lot for construction
of a convenience gas station, based on plans dated January 8,
1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 22, 1990
January 19, 1990 and further that with respect to
recommendation 1.E, the Planning Commission did not view this
as a necessary requirement because the column without the
stone appeared to be a better architectural integration.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
Bye requested that tl:c traffic be monitored closely.
D. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on approximately 18 acres, Zoning
District CHange from Office to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review
on 3.56 acres for construction of a 29,700 sq. ft. retail
center. Location: Northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive
and Commonwealth Drive. A continued public hearing.
Uram reported that the proponent had requested a continuance.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to continue to the February
12, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0.
E. CHI-CHI•S RESTAURANT,by Consul Restaurant Corporation.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 18
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers,
Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning
District, and Site Plan Review on 3.99 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 3.99 acres into three lots for construction of a 7,390
sq. ft. restaurant. Location: Southwest corner of Middleset
Road and Crystal View Road. A public hearing. •
Bill Etter, representing the proponent, gave a brief
presentation regarding the history of the company. He added
that Chi-Chi's would employee approximately 100 to 150 people
and that the company worked to become good corporate citizens
of the community.
Lee Madden, architect for the proponent, stated that the NSP
easement had presented had obstacle for the development
resulting in a change in location of the building on the site.
A convenient drop-off area was provided at the front door.
A common street access would provide access to the other lots.
Madden noted that NSP also had restrictions regarding the
landscaping a., the easement which would be adhered to.
Decorative lamps would be placed along Commonwealth Drive.
The facility would be a 7400 square foot, one story building.
The exterior of the building would incorporate brick with a
stucco accent. The brick would be a brown color with a cream
colored stucco. Three exterior signs were presented.
Uram reported that the exterior building material must be
consistent with Alpine Center. He added that Staff would make
trt0
( (
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner •
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Phillips 66 Service Station
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway #169 and West 78th
Street
APPLICANT: Phillips 66 Company
FEE OWNER: Richard Simmit
REOUEST: 1. Zoning District Amendment within the C-Hwy
Zoning District on 1.22 acres with variances.
2. Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres.
3. Preliminary Plat of 1.22 acres into 1 lot.
BackgroundN,::_\ cr.7 - /
The Comprehensive Guide Plan (5 (�B L\
depicts this site for a i.
Regional Commercial land use W- "
and is currently zoned C-Hwy. u _- _ �j \ .,
The existing buildings are r 0
currently being used as \„ 0FC C REG-SER!_ OFC N
•automobile repair shops.
Specific land uses in the area C-REG-SER U_, �I, .:,
include the Super 8 Motel to ,F�JC it
the east, the Eden Prairie �r� -1:(7- 1OFC `'---
Presbyterian Church to the PUB i HI! i : C-REG_
and $I
north,We t 78th Street to U.S.
6 9 to h west, -the R-
= � �F-PROPOSED SITE
south. _.- _ - ..
OFC
The current proposal is to ER C-HW Y_,
construct an 844 square foot )F C-HWY -
gas station/convenience store +^/ •
and a 1,158 square foot car V' •
wash.
-'
C-REG
cc
'. .
1
AREA LOCATION MAP
L(r
C C
Site Plan
The site plan depicts the construction of a gas station/convenience
store and a car wash totalling 2,002 square feet on a lot
containing 1.22 acres at a 3.75% Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.) . The C-
Hwy Zoning District allows a 20% B.A.R. . A total of six parking
stalls are required for a building of this size which are provided
on-site.
The car wash building is located along the east property. This
location provides a stacking distance of approximately 240 feet or
space for 12 cars. In comparison, Mark's Amoco provides a stacking
distance of 110 feet or space for 6 cars. Besides providing twice
the stacking distance as Mark's Amoco, the queueing for the car
wash on this site does not interfere with the gas pump operation.
Access into the project site would be by two existing curb cuts
located on West 78th Street and U.S. #169. Because of the existing
driveway locations, variances are required for the driveway setback
to the lot lines and width for the driveway on U.S. #169.
Traffic
The traffic study concluded that the on-site circulation system and
other aspects of the project work well except for the existing
painted median on West 78th Street. The study recommends that this
median be eliminated to allow access for vehicles approaching the
site from the north on U.S. #169 and for vehicles leaving the site
to the east on West 78th Street. The restriping of the median is
consistent with engineering standards and would be the
responsibility of Phillips 66 (see Attached).
Grading
This site is relatively level. Minimal grading is required for
building pads. A 2-4 foot berm is provided along U.S. #169 and
West 78th Street for screening purposes. To increase the amount
of screening, the berm should be constructed at a maximum of 3:1
slope.
Architecture
The proposed one story convenience store and car wash will be
constructed out of natural stone and glass. The overhead garage
doors for the car wash are proposed to be aluminum panels. To be
consistent with other recently constructed service stations, the
steel canopy columns shall be encased in the same building material
as the building. Building material colors and samples shall be
submitted prior to Council review.
2
ya,�
C C
Landscaping
The landscaping requirements are based upon a caliper inch
requirement for the building size and screening of the parking
areas and gas pumps from the adjoining roadways. The parking and
gas pump areas are proposed to be screened by using hedge type
plant material such as dwarf honeysuckle and mugho pines. An
irrigation system shall be installed to help ensure the survival
of the plant material. The landscape and grading plan should be
coordinated to depict consistent contour elevations for the berm.
Liahtinq
A lighting plan has been submitted which depicts 16 foot high pole
lighting around the site perimeter. No lighting plan has been
provided for the canopy. To minimize off-site glare, canopy lights
shall be recessed.
Utilities
Water and sanitary sewer is available from existing utilities
within West 78th Street.
Storm water run-off will be collected in a catch basin system and
discharged to an existing storm sewer within U.S. #169. Storm
water run-off calculations must be submitted for review by the City
and Watershed District.
Signaae
One free standing pylon sign is proposed in the northwest corner
of the site. The sign size currently is 91 square feet. City Code
allows a maximum of 80 square feet per sign. In addition, there
are two canopy signs proposed at 14 square feet per sign. The
plans also indicate a red stripe on the canopies which is
considered signage and subject to a size limitation of 15% of the
wall area. Staff recommends that the canopy signs and red stripe
be reduced in size to be no more than 15% of the canopy area.
Pedestrian System
There is an existing 8 foot bituminous trail along the north side
of West 78th Street. The plans shall be revised to depict the
continuation of the trail to the site's north property line.
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Amendment within
the C-Hwy Zoning District on 1.22 acres with variances, Site Plan
Review on 1.22 acres, Preliminary Plat of 1.22 acres into 1 lot,
based on plans dated January 8, 1990, subject to the
3
a
C C
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19, 1990, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall:
(a) Modify the grading plan to depict maximum 3:1 berming
along the street frontages.
(b) Submit a canopy lighting plan depicting recessed lighting
for review.
(c) Submit building material colors and samples for review.
(d) Reduce the size of the pylon sign from 91 square feet to
meet the City Code maximum of 80 square feet. Reduce the
size of the canopy sign and red stripe to meet the City
Code maximum of 15%.
(e) Revise the architectural elevations to depict stone on
the canopy columns.
(f) Revise the plans to depict the extension of the 8 foot
bituminous trail to the site's north property line.
2. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the proponent shall:
(a) Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control
plans and utility plans for review by the City Engineer.
(b) Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control
plans for review by the Watershed District.
3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, the proponent shall:
(a) Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
(b) Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in
advance of grading.
(c) Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshall.
4. An irrigation system shall be installed to help ensure the
survival of the plant material.
PHILIPS.DRU:BS
4
FEBRUARY 20.1990
- 57490 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 1/26/90 10760.72
7491 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 1/26/90 55250.96
57492 NATIONAL REGISTRY EMT CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 45.00
57493 AT&T SERVICE 171.72
57494 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 10321.33
57495 MiNNEGASCO SERVICE 22571.67
57496 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL EXCHANGE INC CONFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL 230.85
57497 JEAN HARRIS -CONFERENCE-REIMBURSEMENT FOR AIRLINE 216.60
TICKET
57498 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 14660.61
57499 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 12104.02
57500 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 128.37
57501 ED PHILLiPS & SONS CO LI0UOR 9450.88
57502 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 2484.17
57503 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 4185.69
57504 8 & S TOOLS -AIR HAMMER SOCKET/MAGNETS/WRENCHES/TORCH 4141.20
-HEAD/SANDPAPER-WATER DEPT/2 ROLLER
CABINETS-E3820.00-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
57505 J N FAUVER COMPANY 4 HYDRAULIC MOTORS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 450.00
57506 MCGRAW-HILL BOOK CLUB BOOK-PARK PLANNING DEPT 72.34
57507 ROBINSON PLUMBING SUPPLY CO CAP/ADAPTER/FITTINGS-WATER DEPT 9.60
57508 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CIR 149.24
57509 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 33.15 :
57510 AT&T SERVICE 540.91
57511 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 749.27
57512 TRAVEL. PROFESSIONALS INC -CONFERENCE-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 223.00
RESOURCES DEPT
,7513 STATE BICYLE CONFERENCE 1990 -CONFERENCE-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 98.00
RESOURCES DEPT
57514 ASLA CONFERENCE-PARK PLANNING DEPT 195.00
57515 INTL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE DUES-FORESTRY DEPT 70.00
57516 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT 90.00
57517 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE CONFERENCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 150.00
57518 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JANUARY .90 FUEL TAX 118.20 '.
57519 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTER INC FEBRUARY '90 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4785.B5
57520 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 39088.74
57521 MORGAN ANDERSON REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 27.01
57522 RICHARD CHILDS REFUND-OIL PAINTING LESSONS 15.00
57523 BRITA ENFIELD REFUND-FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 94.19
5.7524 DENNIS GRAFF REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 25.00
57525 PAT HERMAN REFUND-SKI TRIP 13.00
57526 MAR.! HJORTHOLT REFUND-OIL PAINTING LESSONS 15.00
57527 JUNE HOFFMAN REFUND-OIL PAINTING LESSONS 7,50
57528 NANCY MAYNARD REFUND-OIL PAINTING LESSONS 15.00
57529 KATHY MC CANN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00
57530 BETSY MUFLLER REFUND-SKI TRIP 14.00
57531 LISA WAGNER REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 26.50
57532 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN -CONFERENCE-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL. 330.00
RESOURCES DEPT
5/533 WESIBURNE SUPPLY INC PLUMBING & HEATING PARTS-COMMUNITY CENTER 41.89
57534 MINNESOTA ASPHALT PAVEMENT ASSN CONFERENCE-ENGINEERING DEPT 120.00
57535 FINS COSTUMES INC ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY CENTER 137.55
7535 SIMUN LADDER TOWERS INC -FINAL PAYMENT-AERIAL LADDER TRUCK-FIRE 204.00 •
DEPT
57537 AIL AMFFIt4N BOTTLING CORP MIX 209.81
!948555A '::f:
FEBRUARY 20.1990
57538 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 3479.85
57539 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 530.70
( 7540 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 7103.53
5754I EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER I5782.37
57542 HOME JUICE PRODUCTS MIX 48.24
57543 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 230.10
57544 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 16446.55
57545 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 414.39
57546 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 26017.40
57547 AT&T PHONE CORD-POLICE DEPT 18.00 '.
57548 TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS INC CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 338.00
57549 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/WATER DEPT/ 1266.69
POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER
57550 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS -1990 SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 984.32
AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER
57551 AIRLIFT DOORS INC -DOOR REPAIRS-FIRE STATION/PUBLIC WORKS 209.75
BUILDING
57552 AIRSIGNAL IL7 JANUARY '90 PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT I25.20 '
57553 RAY ALLEN MFJ CO INC CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEFY 38.7E ;
57554 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO CABINET-SENIOR CENTER 96.00
57555 AMERI-STAR LIGHTING LIGHT BULBS-PARK MAINTENANCE 32.00
57556 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -UNIFORMS-STREET DEPT/SEWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT I212.45
-MAINTENANCE/BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/
-FACILITIES DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER/MATS-
LICRJOR STORE
57557 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN DUES-ENGINEERING DEPT 275.00
57558 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC -WEDGE PULLER/SIGNS/BRACKETS/NUTS & BOLTS/ 3493.48
INSTALLATION OF SIGNS/POSTS-STREET DEPT
7559 DON ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 129.00
57560 ANDERSON'S GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 25.00
57561 ANDRUE AGENCY INC SERVICE-CITY HALL SITE SELECTION STUDY 3247.50
57562 ARMOR SECURITY INC -LATCHGUARDS/LOCK REPAIR-FIRE STATION/PARK 146.00
DEPT
57563 ASTLEFOPD INTL INC STEERING GEAR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 8I0.06
57564 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY BRAKE PADS-PARK MAINTENANCE 109.58
57565 B 6 R SUPPLY CO ARCHERY MAT-DAY CAMP 53.20
57566 B R S TOOLS -WRENCHES/IGNITION TESTER/THERMOMETER/SAW 687.45
-BLADES/AIR DRILL/AIR WRENCH-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
57567 BACHI1AN'S EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 38.75
57569 BAN-KOE SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 15.00
57569 PAT BARKER MILEAGE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT I0.00
57570 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL 707.00 .:
57571 PATTY 8E5SFR VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 405.00
5757Z RIFFS INC FEBRUARY '90 WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINT 316.00 I'
57573 BIG A AUTO PARTS - CHANHASSEN -OIL/OIL SEAL/HEATERS/AIR FILTERS/BRAKE 171.24
-SHOES/BELTS/HOSES/MIRRORS/POWER STEERING
-FLUID/MUFFLERS/OIL PAN/EXHAUST PIPE/OIL
-FILTERS/WINDSHIELD WASHER PUMP/CALIPERS-
SEWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
57574 BLACKS PHUTONRAPHY FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 65.53
57575 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 101.99
57576 MY OF B100MINUTON DECEMBER B9 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE 784.00 -!
7577 LOIS DDEIInHER MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 46.88
57`.7H RPW INC SLRVICF-TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR MAJOR CENTER 1296.20
AREA
B7;091H
Ut(l'i
5757? BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC MARCH '90 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75
57580 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC -DECEMBER '89 & JANUARY '90 EMPLOYEE
ASSISTANCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
57581 CEDAP COMPUTER CENTER -TONER/COMPUTER MONITOR-CITY HALL/PLANNING 336.37
DEPT
57582 CENTRAIRE INC -REPLACED DAMPER SWITCH & MOTOR & BLOWER 2624.73
-WHEEL/1ST QUARTER '90 HVAC MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT-FACILITIES DEPT
57583 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS
-CHAIN OIL/LUBRICANT/CHAIN/INSTALL RECOIL 135.75
HOUSING-PARK MAINTENANCE
57584 CLARF:YS SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC
NOZZLES-FIRE DEPT 3752.50
57585 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -CLUTCH/FORK/GASKET & SEAL-FITTINGS//HYDRAULIC HOSES/BEARINGS- 382.57
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ,47 !
ip3
57586 SPENCER L CONRAD EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 10 .47
57587 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1
57588 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC REPAIR
CALIBRITEDDUNIT-SEWER DEPT 40.00T
97.71
57589 BARBARA COOK 365.96
57590 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-ASSESSING DEPT/
ENGINEERING DEPT 31.80
57591 CROWN MARKING INC DESK SIGNS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT
57592 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -CLAMPS/KEY BLANKS/CONNECTORS-EQUIPMENT 218.30
MAINTENANCE 517.38
57593 CUSTOM AUTOBODY -REPAIR & REFINISH POLICE VEHICLE- 517.38
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 29.00
57594 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC PRINT ING-ADAPTIVE RECREATION
57595 DALCO
-CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 733.51
COMMUNITY CENTER 524.55
57596 DAN & DAN'S MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING FORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT29 55
7597 DECORATIVE DESIGNS FEBRIJARY '90 SERVICE-CITY HALL
' ,7598 DELEGARD TOOT. CO -PILOT PULLER/SPARK PLUG TOOL-EQUIPMENT 43.14
MAINTENANCE
57599 DEI•I CON LANDFILL INC JANUARY '90 WASTE DISPOSAL-STREET MAINT 70.00
57600 DEPARTMENT Of LABOR & INDUSTRY CE AIR TANK LICENSES-FIRE STATIONS
20.00
57601 EUGENE DIETZ JANUARY '90 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00
T EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 170.02
57602 DRISKILLS SUPER /ALU
57603 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 359.23
i71.7:1
57604 DRISK ILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-CITY HALL 71.70
57605 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 29.80
57606 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE COMPANY I D CHECKING GUIDE-LIQUOR STORES 60.00
57607 RICHARD DUIN BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
5760B E P PHOTO
FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 81.21
57609 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIVISION JANUARY '90 SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 1'121.50
57610 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1990 DUES (for Municipal legislative Comm.) 500.00
57611 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT
5761? EMPRO CORPORATION -LUBRICANT-FACILITIES DEPT/SPRAY GUN- 246.88
$208.06-FIRE DEPT
57613 RON ESS
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 140.00
57614 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-PLANNING DEPT 8.90 '
57615 FE:IST BLANCHARD CO -BRAKE SHOES/CONTROL BOX/COIL/SNOW BLADES/ 684.70
ENGINE WARMERS/TIRE VALVES/LIGHT BULBS/
-PELTS/BEARINGS/RADIATOR HOSE/OIL SEALS-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ; .
57616 THE FITNESS STORE -PULLEY WHEELS/PULL GRIPS/ANKLE STRAPS- 61.00
FITNESS CENTER i
59.'i9n
57617 FIVE STAR CONS TRIJCTION INC -PARTIAL PAYMENT FOR REMODELING OF POLICE 7600.00
BUILDING FOR COMMUNITY CENTER
-7618 FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYME COMPANY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 391.00
3, '619 FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY -MARCH '90 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- 300.00
POLICE DEPT
57620 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 645.33
57621 JOHN FRANE JANUARY '90 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00
57622 LYNDELL FREY MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 137.00
57623 G & K SERVICES TOWELS-PARK MAINTENANCE/LIQUOR STORE 36.77
57624 JOSEPH GLEASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 80.50
57625 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC JANUARY '90 SERVICE-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1923.00
57626 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE SERVICE-STRATEGIC PLANNING/POLICE DEPT 700.OB
57627 V010 OUT CHECK 0.00
57628 W W GRAINGER INC -BATTERIES-SAFETY CABINET/DRILL BIT-FIRE 539.70
DEPT/STREET MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE
57629 LEROY GUBA HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 175.00
57630 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -RECEPTACLES/PLUGS/CORDS/CONNECTORS/FUSES- 131.20
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
57631 FLOYD W & JACQUELINE W HAGEN EASEMENT-RED ROCK LAKE STORM SEWER 3320.80
57632 HALE COMPANY INC -IDENTIFICATION CARDS FOR FUEL PUMPS- 375.00
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
57633 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-PIONEER TRAIL & COUNTY ROAD 18 15210.76
-DRAINAGE STUDIES/HAMILTON RD/BLUFF RD/
-COUNTY ROAD 4 & PIONEER TRAIL WATER MAIN/
-CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/RIVERVIEW RD/RED
ROCK SHORES/STARING LAKE PARK
57634 HANDS BUS CO INC -BUS SERVICE-AFTON ALPS SKI TRIP-SPORTS & 200.00
OUTDOOR
7635 HAPMON GLASS PLEXIGLASS-SEWER DEPT 17.60
_7636 HARMON GLASS & GLAZING INC TInNTED WINDOW/PULLS-FACILITIES DEPT IB8.37
57637 ROGER HAWK INSON BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 135.00
57638 HENINEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -DECEMBER '99 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE '572.41
DEPT
57639 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNTNG DEPT 244.00
57640 HIRN CTY SHERIFFS DEPT DECEMBER 89 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 613.07
57641 HF.NNJ CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT -RENTAL & REPAIR OF MOBILE RADIOS-POLICE 504.00
DEPT
57642 D C HEY COMPANY INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT 30.00
57643 HOPKINS PARTS CO FLYWHEEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 21.00
57644 tIUSTAD DEVELOPMENT REFUND-HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT 272.54
57645 IBM CORPORATION MARCH '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 424.32
57646 THE IDEA BANK PLAYGROUND SAFETY VIDEO-SAFETY DEPT 89.25
57647 1HE IMAGE DEVELOPERS DECALS-POLICE DEPT 45.00
57648 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST R272 ROOM RENTAL-ADULT PROGRAMS 75.00
57649 INTEREX EXIT SIGNS-FACILITIES DEPT 52.50
57650 MICHAEL w JACQUES MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 10.00
57651 JERRY'S NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 246.72
57652 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 21.10
57653 .JOHNSON CONTRIJLS -1ST QUARTER '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/AIR 1143.00
GUARDS-COMMUNITY CENTER
57654 CARE. JIJI.LTE E 'PENSES-ADMINISTRATION 119.12
57655 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -PLYWOOD/EDGING/HINGES/CATCHES/SANDPAPER/ 574.17
-SCREWS/MASONITE PEGBOARDS/FORMICA
-ADHESIVE SUPPORTS/TREATED LUMBER-
t •
-POL ICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/STREET DEPT •
7.8164 •
',
•
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE
57656 DAN N KANTAR HACKSAW FRAME-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 22.50
57657 SCOTT A KIPP MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 6.70
57658 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC -SCRIMAGE VESTS/BALL CARRIERS/LETTERING- 291.87
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
57659 KOSS PAINT & WALLPAPER INC PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 15.49
57660 KUSTOM ELECTONICS INC ANTENNA REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 138.94
57661 LANDLINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES I MONITOR SENSOR-SEWER DEPT 195.00
57662 SUE LANE r1ILEAGE/EXPENSES-FINANCE DEFT 13.05
57663 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 50.75
57664 LAS SANA ARGUS LTD CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 11.91
57665 LATITUDES STREET MAPS-FIRE DEPT 100.10 '.
57666 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 4TH QUARTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 60349.50
57667 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC -JANUARY '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 23177.77
LANDFILL
57668 LOGIS DECEMBER •89 SERVICE 10554.06
57669 LUND'S INC EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 175.44
57670 LYMAN LUMBER CO -PLYWOOD/TREATED TIMBERS/SCREWS/LUMBER- 443.60
SEWER DEPT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT
57671 CL.ARE NACNEILLY I1ILEAGE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 13.30
57672 JIM MANUEL. -TAXIDERMY INSTRUCTOR-OUTDOOR CENTER 59.00
PROGRAMS/FEES PAID
57673 PAUL MARAVELAS MILEAGE-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 33.25
57674 GEORGE mARSHALL SERVICE-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY 500.00
57675 MARSHALL & SWIFT SUBSCRIPTION-ASSESSING DEPT 104.95
57676 G EDh1ARD AND BETTY B MARTIN EASEMENT-RED ROCK LAKE STORM SEWER 2628.00
57677 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/SENIOR CTR 282.99
57678 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT/CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 308.80
57679 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS PR:NTTNGG-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 15.00
,7680 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 65.10
i768t MERLINS HARDWARE HANK -SCREWS/SANDPAPER/HOOKS/PLEXIGLASS/PLASTIC 423.15
-WOOD/ROUTER BITS & CUTTER/BRACKETS/NAILS/
-ELECTRIC PLUGS/WEATHERSTRIPPING/VARNISH/
-HANDLES/HINGES/BOLTS/SNAPS/SWITCH/DOOR
-PULIJLOCKS/SAWS/BRUSH/WASHERS/LIGHT BULBS/
-POWER STRIPS-STREET DEPT/PARK MAINT/
COMMUNITY CENTER
57682 METRO PRINTING INC -PRINTING FORMS/BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT/ 244.00
ASSESSING DEPT/ADMINISTRATION DEPT
57683 METROPOLITAN AREA MGMT ASSN DUES-ADMINISTRATION 15.00
57684 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL REFUND-OVERPAYMENT OF MECHANICAL PERMIT 24.50
57685 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS JANUARY "90 SAC CHARGES • 16632.00
57686 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO SHEAR/BRAKE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 121.08
57687 MINNCOMM PAGING -FEBRUARY '90 PAGER SERVICE-SEWER DEPT/ 289.00
POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT
57688 MINNESOTA ANIMAL CONTROL ASSN DUES/TRAINING MANUALS-POLICE DEPT 42.95
57689 MIDAS BRAKE & HUFFIER MUFFLER PIPES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 35.00
57690 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -UNIFORMS/PRY BARS/10 AIR CYLINDERS- 6068.25
-$3740.00/12 CARRYING CASES-S600.00/5 AIR
-MASKS-51085.00/FLASHLIGHTS/EXTINGUISHERS/
0-RINGS/SUPPORT STRAPS-FIRE DEPT
57691 MINNESOTA MEDICAL FOUNDATION SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LAND FILL 625.00
57692 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN RULEBOOKS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 24.00
57693 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 378.00
12447900
•
FEBRUARY 20.1990
57694 MODERN TIRE CO TIRE TUBES-SKATING RINKS 98.00
`7695 MUNICILITE CO SPOTLIGHT HANDLES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 39.43
'696 NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL VIDEO FILM-POLICE DEPT 185.25
57697 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN TRAINING MANUALS-FIRE DEPT 14.90
57698 NEW LOOK PAINTING -REPAIRS-SHOWER/FAUCETS/CHIMNEY/REPAIR & 2399.00
-PAINT CEILING/INSTALL INSULATION-OAK
RIDGE RD-HOUSING REHABILATION PROGRAM
57699 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 2249.46
57700 NOBLE & ASSOCIATES INC -JANUARY '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 2668.01
LANDFILL
57701 DOUG NORD VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 444.00
57702 NORTH KILBRIDE OPTICIANS SAFETY GLASSES-FIRE DEPT 60.00
57703 NORTHERN STATES SUPPLY INC HITCHPIN-SEWER DEPT 6.60
57704 NORTHERN WHOLESALE SUPPLY INC CANOPY/RAIL-POLICE DEPT 349.37
57705 NORTHLAND MECHANICAL REFUND-HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT 245.99
57706 NORTHLAND SCHOOL BUS PARTS INC 12 VEHICLE LIGHT LENSES-FIRE DEPT 108.71
57707 NYSTROM INC LOCKERS-FIRE DEPT 575.00
57708 A J O'CONNOR SALES COMPANY SIGN-SAFETY DEPT '3.25
57709 DAN OGDAHL FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 32.50
57710 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC -TYPEWRITER REPAIR/CALCULATOR REPAIR- 176.00
FINANCE DEPT/LIQUOR STORE
57711 CHAD OISTAD BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 105.00
57712 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY SEAT REPAIRS-TYWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT 265.00
57713 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER PHYSICAL EXAMS-WIRE DEPT 104.00
57714 PEPSI COLA COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 87.00
57715 PERFORMANCE COMPUTER FORMS COMPUTER PAPER-CITY HALL 29.10
57716 SANDRA PERREAULT EXPENSES/MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT 11.30
'717 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INC -COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY-HUMAN RESOURCES 60.00
DEPT
57718 PHYSICIANS' DESK REF BOOK-POLICE DEPT 39.95
57719 THE PINK COMPANIES 4 CHAIRS-SENIOR CENTER 892.00
57720 POKORNY COMPANY COMPRESSOR VALVES/FITTINGS-FACILITIES DEPT 16.18
57721 POMMFR COMPANY INC TROPHY-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 22.00
57722 POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO STROBE LIGHT/LENS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 146.04
57773 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -ICE RINK COMPRESSOR CIRCUIT REPAIR- 81.20
COMMUNITY CENTER
57724 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -CEMENT/WEATHERSTRIPPING/BOLTS/SCREWS/ 55.44
DRILL BIT/DOOR HANDLE/LOCKS-FIRE DEPT
57725 PRAIRIE. HARDWARE -SPRAY PAINT/BATTERIES/INSULATION/DRILL 111.78
-BITS/EXTENSION CORDS/HOOKS/ANCHORS/SCREWS/
-BROOM/SUCKTION CUP-ENGINEERING DEPT/
FACILITIES DEPT/SENIOR CENTER
57726 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -BEACH BALLS/PAINT/KEYS/PAINT ROLLER/ 80.89
-SANDPAPER/MASKING TAPE/FLASHLIGHT/
-ELECTRIC TAPE/FITTINGS/PVC PIPE/STAPLES/
BATTERIES/PLIERS-COMMUNITY CENTER
57727 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -SAWBLADES/CONNECTIONS/ELECTRIC TAPE/WIRE/ 125.27
-PIPE INSULATION/WEATHERSTRIPPING/HOOKS:
-PIPE JOINTS/ROLLER COVERS/PAINT/ROLLERS/
KNIVES-PARK MAINTENANCE
57728 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -EXTENSION CORDS/NUMBERS/GOGGLES/KEY/TAPE/ 75.43
PLUGS-POLICE DEPT
ti7729 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -BULBS/MAUL/WEDGE/PAINT/NUTS & BOLTS/ 36.74
WASHERS/LUBRICANT-SEWER DEPT
77730 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -HOOKS/DRILL BITS/PAPER TOWELS & PLATES/ 232.4a
.-RODS/ELECTRIC BOY/COVER PLATES/PAINT/
1225228
�u1 � a
-HRIJSHES/CAS TERS/WHEELS/OUTLETS/VALVES/
FITTINGS-STREET DEPT
57731 PRINT GALLEY INC PRINTING-LETTERHEAD-POLICE DEPT 200.00
-9732 PUMP & METERS SERVICE INC PISTON LEAK DETECTOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 257.00
1. 733 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -IMPELLER/ZAMBONI REPAIR/REPLACED 417.80
ALTERNATOR-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER
57734 RICHARDSON NATURE CENTER DAY CAMP/FEES PAID 188.00
57735 RIEKE-CARROLL-HULLER ASSOC INC. -SERVICE-ROWLAND RD/OLD SHADY OAK RD 6924.62
-FEASIBILITY STUDY/MITCHELL RD PAVING &
-UTILITIES FEASIBILITY STUDY/COUNTRY GLEN/
-GOLDEN TRIANGLE DR EXTENSION/MITCHELL RD
FEASIBILITY STUDY/WASTEWATER FLOW STUDY
57736 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 8528.51
57737 SAFETY KLEEN CORD -TOWELS/CARBURETOR CLEANER-EQUIPMENT 131.50
MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE
57739 ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 1320.00
57739 ST PAUL BOOK 4 STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-SEWER DEPT/WAFER DEPT/ 331.68
CITY HALL/EQUIPMENT MAINT/COMMUNITY CENTER
57740 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 193.69
57741 SAYLORS SOFYWAREFIRST COMPUTER SOFTWARE-PLANNING DEPT 64.00
57742 SCAL PUBLISHINGG ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 250.00
57743 DALE SCHMIDT ZAMBONI PARTS-COMMUNITY CENTER 46.70
57744 SCHULTIES PLUMBING INC REFUND-OVERPAYMENT FOR PLUMBING PERMIT 21.00
57745 SEARS SANDER-PARK MAINTENANCE 52.26
57746 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -LEVER ASSEMBLY/CYLINDER SEAL-EQUIPMENT 82.27
MAINTENANCE 0.00
57747 VOID OUT CHECK
57748 W GORDON SMITH CO -GAS/BATTERIES/HAND CLEANER/BELTS-PARK 122.17
-MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY CENTER/PLEASANT
HILLS CEMETERY
,7749 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -RATCHET WRENCH SETS/SOCKETS-EQUIPMENT 334.45
MAINTENANCE
57750 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC CASSETTE TAPES-POLICE DEPT 13.98
57751 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -EMPLOYMENT ADS-SKATING RINKS/POLICE DEPT/ 101.40
PLANNING DEPT
57752 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC. ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 491.40
57753 SPORTS WORLD USA SWEATSHIRTS-ICE RINKS 203.00
57754 6P5 COMPANIES VALVE-SEWER DEPT 43.86
57755 STATE TREASURER JANUARY '90 BUILDING SURCHARGES 3846.87
57756 STORAGE EQUIPMENT INC SHELVING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 701.88
57757 STREICHEPS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -LIGHTBAR-SEWER DEPT/DOME LIGHT FILTERS/ 963.15
BALLISTIC VEST-POLICE DEPT
57758 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC SERVICE-DELL RD/SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD STUDY 10495.56
57759 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES/LIGHT BULBS/1ST AID 18.87
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE
57760 NATALIE SWAGGERT JANUARY '90 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 206.75
57761 ;HALIM TRUAX VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 279.00
57762 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO ACETYLENE/OXYGEN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 142.07
57761 IJNIVEPSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE CITY EMPLOYEES 2754.00
57764 UNIFI?PMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 5386.65
57765 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 536.75
,7966 UNt III]TED 5UPPLICS INC PIPE FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 409.74
553 TOJAY ADVEPTISING-LIQUOR STORES 334.00
57768 VACUUMS OR DUST VACUUM CLEANER-LIQUOR STORE 199.00
4619358
y If
•
FEBRUARY 20.1990
j
7769 VAN 0 LITE INC LAMPS/LIGHT BULBS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 216.33 ;,fi:
770 VF INDUSTRIAL FINISHING -SAND BLAST & PAINT TRUCK BOX-EQUIPMENT 550.00 .'
MAINTENANCE j
57771 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-POOL OPERATIONS-COMMUNITY CENTER 336.60 J
57772 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT/PARK MAINT 167.70
57773 KEITH WALL EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 43.66
57774 NORMAN IJARTNICK BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 120.00
57775 WATERITE INC SEAL-POOL OPERATIONS-COMMUNITY CENTER 19.67
57776 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC -JANUARY '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 1137.50
LANDFILL
57777 TRACEY ZACHMAN MILEAGE-FINANCE DEPT 12.50
57778 ZACK'S INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 196.30
57779 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE -1ST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/PARK MAINT/ 195.45
COMMUNITY CENTER
57780 EARL ZENT MILEAGE/EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 15.00 I
57781 ZIEGLER INC 24 SNOWPLOW BLADES/KEYS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 4881.90
56701 VOID OUT CHECK 60.00-
57150 VOID OUT CHECK 60.00-
57210 VOID OUT CHECK 4141.30-
57277 VOID OUT CHECK 421.60-
57353 VOID OUT CHECK 137.24-
57420 VOID OUT CHECK 10.19-
57423 VOID OUT CHECK 152.60-
290968
$532186.49
1
14G
I
DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS
10 GENERAL 318950.05
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 17632.87
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 68363.49
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 52970.60
20 CEMETERY OPERATIONS 543.00
31 PARK ACQUIST !y DEVELOP 296.97
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 1286.03
39 86 FIRE STATION CONST 200.00
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 35264.41
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 2254.28
73 WATER FUND 12343.09
77 SEWER FUND 18587.17
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 1006.84
87 CDBG FUND 2487.69
$532186.49
uu►
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-48
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RAVEN WOOD 3RD
ADDITION FOR THE CAMBRIDGE GROUP
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Raven Wood 3rd Addition for The
Cambridge Group, dated December 22, 1989, consisting of 2.7 acres,
a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in
conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein
approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 20th day of
February, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling,
Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning;
Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary.
ROLL CALL: Anderson, Dodge, and Sandstad absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as
published.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the minutes of the
January 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion
carried 3-1. Bye abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RAVEN WOOD 3RD ADDITION, by the Cambridge Group. Preliminary
Plat of 2.7 acres into two lots. Location: East of Edenvale
Boulevard, south of Hipp's Cedar Point 1st Addition. A public
hearing.
Chuck Benson, the proponent, was available for questions.
Uram reported that due to poor soil conditions, the remaining
lots were not buildable and, therefore, the property would be
Li4
Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 22, 1990
divided into two lots.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Cambridge Group for
Preliminary Plat of 2.7 acres into two lots for Raven Wood 3rd
Addition, based on plans dated December 22, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 19,
1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.7 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Site Plan Review on
7.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 12.15 acres into 25 multi-
family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location:
Northwest corner of County Road 18 and Bluff Road.
Franzen reported that this proposal was reviewed in October,
1989 and was denied because of lack of transition between this
development and the single family units. The plan has been
revised to provide internalized access, with all the homes
facing the cul-de-sac. The number of units had been reduced
from 26 to 25 units.
Wallace Hustad, the proponent, said that double units had been
very successful in another section of the Bluffs project and
he would like to expand the double units to this area. The
plans had been revised based on Staff recommendations to
reduce the number of units from 26 to 25, change the access
to remove the 4 driveways previously proposed along Bluff
Road, change the unit design for the buildings around the pond
to consist of 3 units instead of 2 units, the number of units
along Bluff Road were reduced from 5 to 4, and additional
berming and landscaping would be provided along Bluff Road.
Hustad believed that the multiple-units would enhance the
overall development in this area in the same manor as the
units had been an asset for the Creek Knolls development.
Hustad stated that he would make a firm commitment to leave
the single family zoning of the area to the west as it
currently exists.
qi1
c C
STAFF REPORT
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Planning Director
DATE: January 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Raven Wood 3rd Addition
LOCATION: East of Edenvale Blvd., southwest of Raven Court
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: The Cambridge Group
REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 2.7 acres into 2 outlots
Background
This site is part of the - ._ 1\\..,i'; \:_ol . 1original Raven Ridge rr
Subdivision reviewed in 1978 {-':,t i_, "" ' %% , ,,
for 24 townhouse units. In : `r x.�.; y' '' y ' .
1987, revisions were made on • `-
the remaining 16 unbuilt . ,/ `4 AA :5,
units. The revisions resulted -. -� =
in changes to the unit. +' ,R�,95
placement and architecture. Of , .., ; ? + +^ .
those remaining units, six have ! " R1-13S. Y ,,�:
been constructed to date. T.- ( I I ;.r-,).. r+-+. �,:
Preliminary Plat N I I`
_i 1 1 ,:PROPOSED SITE
When the previous plat was M �\ \
approved for this project, FP ,-,\, ��i" 4. ' ,
information on soils was not �' ..... - , 4„ , '1
adequate to determine whether --.1'
1-1 fi ... +;
all sites were buildable. It \ J i;
has now been determined that ' L u . �• , CJ.
soil conditions for the most ;_„j. '- �. RN�•6. i.
southerly and westerly proposed — , _ _,"``
buildings are not suitable for r
construction. f}
M�r _PUB_ � ,\ �'
FP r
Er AREA LOCATION MAP
L/LI
C
The current request is to preliminary plat the unbuildable unit
area into outlots that will be deeded to the Homeowners Association
as open space. Some site alteration has taken place within these
proposed building areas in anticipation of construction. Prior to
the release of the Final Plat, the proponent will be required to
final grade and fully restore all disturbed areas with seed and
mulch. Prior to recording the deed, the Homeowner's Association
should incorporate appropriate language in their by-laws for
maintenance of this additional property.
Staff would recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of 2.7 acres
into 2 outlots subject to plans dated December 22, 1989, this Staff
Report, and the following:
1. Prior to release of the Final Plat, the proponent shall:
(a) Final grade and restore all disturbed areas with seed and
mulch.
(b) Revise Homeowners Association documents to include
maintenance responsibilities for the additional property.
RAVENWD3.SAK:mmr
yLi,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
l FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie,
SUBJECT: Employee Vacation Accrual
DATE: February 2, 1990
Presently there are 21 long-term City employees who have vacation time accruals
in excess of the two-year limit imposed by the current Personnal Policy
Resolution. As per the attached listing, most of these employees (15) are
police officers. Over the past year there has been progress toward reducing
these outstanding balances and the trend is continuing.
The primary reason for these vacation leave build-ups goes back to prior years
(1970s and early 1980s) when the workload was very heavy and the staff count
lagged behind. City Managers and department heads did not encourage or insist
upon complete utilization of all vacation time because of the workload placed
upon other employees and the resulting need for overtime.
Our staffing levels at the present time are adequate to now encourage and insist
upon full utilization of vacation time by all employees. We should also take
steps to further reduce the existing accrual overages, and thus the City's
liability for future severance payments and/or very extended vacation leaves.
Accordingly, Ms. Swaggert and I have discussed the following proposed action
which is herein submitted for your review and approval:
Those employees currently having a vacation balance in excess of their accrual
limit will be required to submit a plan of how their 1990 vacation accrual will
be used. Also they will need to designate what is to be done with their current
excess vacation balance. Their options include:
A. Those employees having an excess vacation balance can choose
to have their excess frozen at their 1990 wage rate. This amount
will then be paid to the employee on the termination of their
employment with the City; or
B. They can choose to convert their excess vacation balance into
a deferred compensation program of their choice. Such deferrals,
up to $7,500 per year or 25% of their annual income whichever is
less, is receivable only upon retirement. This has the potential
of completely eliminating the excess accrual right now for all
but three of the employees affected. The three remaining
(John Frane, Allen Larson, and myself) would be able to convert
the remaining amount into a deferred compensation program in
subsequent years until all balances are reduced to zero.
In addition, all City employees will be notified now, that at the end of each
calendar year any vacation accrual in excess of the two-year limit will be lost.
A mechanism will be set in place to remind employees of this requirement on a
periodic basis.
We believe this to be a fair and reasonable way to resolve this issue for many
long-term employees who were willing to forego vacation hours during very busy
times at the City.
- 2 -
Funding for conversion to the deferred compensation account is available from
the City's severance and disability funds. The present balance in the City's
severance fund is S62,000. In addition, there is a balance of S89,000 available
in the City's disability benefit fund which is no longer needed because of a
change in our benefit plan approved by the Council in 1987. Disability
insurance is now provided through our insurance carrier. Previously we were
self-insured for this liability. The total funding available in the severance
and disability funds is $151,000. These two funds should now be combined.
If the Council concurs, it would be appropriate to receive this memo and direct
staff to proceed with the recommendations therein.
CJJ:j dp
Attachment
-.I Of 0 ID C.1 1,3.0 0 tO CO-.I 0 10 A C4 P. O
N V<•A 33-0-0"a tD r-,I 3.3 0 0 03 02 07(13 07 07 03 M
(. C2. 4.1Foiga' 2ERgRf.-..Fcg `4g.72ag' ,1641',
Pitg,7,25 .-i-=-s?gpg?-8g .. °4 ? .• 3
v_
.Pc .
.
Cc 7 7
0. 0 tc? fIT• --ic. 2: 07e IF 0
3 c'T P g k.o•c_3 C=,- =p = . ,„
.4 :°,..' g ;,, <:<,1, z
so 3
3
. .
0
C.,A 40 43 A 0,A a,A A-.0-•A A-.A 40 A 40 40 A. 43 CO •
0 0-.I C11 0 V C11,0 Co C.I1 0 0
ID
-C
0
(.0-•"Co-.. DI"C.,43 C.1 0.1 DI I,3 00 4.,03"
0
cn cn cn cn cy,iv na no tv o ro o tv a,ro a.ro cn cn no.s.en 2
co<
g
▪ 9.> 0
c.a,—CA"IV ts.1 to o in-..4 0-.4 en no o co no oi pa 2 a•
coocooin 0 0 r0 0004 mow-..4-..A.C11 0 CD
10
n.1 I,3 ID A.1 43 03 -.-......... 0
A.01-•n1-.0 03 A tO-.(3 0,-•01 C11 0-•CO -.ID 10 n1
• 2
...1 A 03 C.,0 0 0 0 40 DI 40.Ca 41 CI,0 03 C.,C11 0
I
•
1,3 41-.1,3-•ID 10 IV-. IV-.ID-0 gl 2
03 0.cn co to kl 0 43 0 0 A ro to-v in...co co 0 0 0 0 -. m—_
et in in iv io iv io rn b.) io i:o in in:D.b:D.b a.O 'C
OO
4A
CO 07 -• <M
... 0 0. 0 CO A -.. -. -•in ro to tv ro . x
".s. • -
iv-.Co—-..to iv en 7r.-.4 A-• nl 0 0"in.c,"io la in iv E 2 ,..,
ry co en to CO...1 0 0103 CO.-,1,3 0 in co o .3 ts)0.1.. . a .•
-0
-• cn.4 fs)43 IV 0 CO 0 4,o o n.).O.CO C•43 0 CO P.A co-0
O 6 in io 0 O O-..at O in.4-...in.4 a,CO; en iv io io
ii 0)a. 0 0 Co A cn,-.30-.A0002 CD"03 n1 CD C31,-. -.
.....
7.00..,
,,..,„..,\•
\-- 't
a.\
7'
...Xi,,,
7\
•
,(
•
t 14 U K H itl U U i4
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson(`
SUBJECT: Community Survey
DATE: February 16, 1990
Several suburban communities have conducted professional surveys of their
residents in order to assess the services provided and requested by their
residents. These surveys can be valuable tools for City Councils to understand
better the characteristics and preferences of their residents. With this
information, services can be planned, designed, and be placed in perspective
when establishing budgets. Surveys can also point out the many things a city is
doing well.
Funds were authorized for such a survey in the 1989 budget. About the time that
staff was ready to request proposals, the issue of the proposed settlement with
the landfill expansion litigation beanie a focus of community attention. Because
this issue was highly controversial, staff believed it could color the responses
to the survey. Consequently, the survey was not conducted.
Recently, the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce suggested that the City and the
Chamber do a community survey jointly. The City would benefit from the survey
data as described above. Responses to the business portion of the survey would
provide the City with information from an important, sizable non-voting
constituency. Some questions of the residents would be of interest to the
Chamber, and some questions of the business community would be of interest to
the City. Given the complementary interest, it would be efficient to do these
surveys at the same time.
Decision Resources, Ltd. has submitted a proposal to perform the surveys. It
has conducted these types of surveys for most other suburban cities.
Discussions with staff members in several cities have indicated high levels of
satisfaction with the work done and fees charged by Decision Resources. The
fees proposed for Eden Prairie are comparable to those charged to other cities.
The Chamber of Commerce has indicated it is satisfied with the proposal; it is
willing to fund its portion of the survey (estimated to be $4,000).
Decision Resources would bring not only proven performance and professionalism
to the study, but it would use data from other community surveys for comparison.
This dimension would give more than a "snapshot" view of Eden Prairie.
Should the Council approve the survey work, City and Chamber teams would work
with Decision Resources staff to refine the questions and topics to be covered.
It is expected that the random telpehone surveys would be conducted in April.
Costs for the City/Chamber study should fall into the $12,000-$15,000 range
according to the Decision Resources proposal. Funds for this study are
available from the General Fund surplus.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council retain the services of
Decisions Resources, Ltd. to conduct a survey of residents and businesses at a
cost not to exceed $15,000. The Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce would commit
$4,n00 to this study.
CWD:CJJ:jdp
° .e. + P1
O`. r
O Ob. ( ,
o.
1
,ao(I
<4P.
A,', 1 r
o
n .
b0op
'i\ , .. i
,o ..
� I
.. 0, ,
i , ..
• , . ,,
q oo �
•
0 4Qo, i o,
O ,o
k1kIt
d0p )
cSt
o
19
A' 9
00 0 , 0
0 00 4)4,,,...4
'3 0,'
Upoi;
fpJ0 { H
(,
0°o�
0 o_,p
0
o 0
jioalt.
0,. J ,
O'
Q
O� o/
efs>
oOo'' a 0• ; l_
� o
e•
too • 0. ' ' •
(r,
OSL 0 ot. r •
O �i � Q p
/�vp
O'J[p,D9��' 4 t
° 1 o'0 I v
ClOt+
' •
Q°o 1 I
o ez i • i[ if
O
42
9 i5
d et . 1
poop, . / o
eb
0 qa a e
os
w
O°opp .
Op
oQo4 ..
1
CAMERA OPERATOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the microphotographs appearing on this roll of film are true,
accurate,and complete copies of the original records described below.
Reproductions intended to serve as permanent records comply with standards
established by the Minnesota 1listorical Society.
1
AGENCY OF ORIGIN: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ,
RECORD SERIES: COUNCIL PACKETS
INCLUSIVE DATES/NOS: JANUARY 1977 - DECEMBER 1991
HAUL 17
BEGINS WITH: JULY 1989
•
ENDS WITH: FEBRUARY 1990
2/10/94 (,: /Fl ✓CIF C. Gf✓G7/ __
DATE CAMERA OPERATOR IGNA'I URE s
CM/
CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING MINNE7ONKA. MIN
PRODUCING LABORATORY CITY/STATE
-